1o. Minutes CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 26, 1988
Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meetin g opened ned with the
Pledge to the Flag.
�
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving and
Councilman Johnson
•
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann Olsen, Larry
Brown, Todd Gerhardt and Jim Chaffee
II APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilor
,. g , an Horn seconded to
approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman c loran Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve
the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
' recommendations:
a. Final Plat Approval, McGlynn Bakery.
b. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to A-2, Agricultural Estate District, Final
Reading.
c. Resolution #88-98: Accept Utilities for Carver Beach Estates Project #84-9.
f. Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Sidewalks/Trails along
Laredo and Carver Beach Road.
h. Resolution #88-99: Accept Feasi.bi.lity Study/Authorize Plans and
Specifications for Audubon Road, Phase I.
j. Approval of Liquor License for City of Chanhassen.
k. Approval of Liquor License for Anh-Le Restaurant, 566 West 78th Street.
1. Approval of Accounts.
m. City Council Minutes dated September 12, 1988
Planning Commission—Minutes dated September 7, 1988
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated September 13, 1988
Public Safety Commission Minutes dated September 15, 1988
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
I
(E) AUTHORIZE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR GRADVIEW ROAD SEWER AND WATER PROJECT.
Councilman Boyt: I had a concern as I looked at item (e) which is the
feasibility study. It appeared to me that staff was saying we don't have
existing side yard easements. The terrains doesn't lend itself to this sewer
and water project and all...signs, it's going to be very expensive. I would
like to get some reaction from the public that are going to be assessed for this
1
194
II
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
1
as to their interest if it proves to be quite expensive before we invest in a
feasibility study. I think we can make a reasonable estimate of cost without a
feasibility study and see if they're still interested in putting this project
in. A feasibility study is going to cost us something around $2,000.00. I
think we should find out how serious this area is about the system before we put
it in. '
Mayor Hamilton: $2,000.00 for this feasibility study seems out of line. What
would you guess?
Larry Brown: That was the number that I had thrown out to Bill just off-the top
of my head before the meeting. I have no idea. Somewhere between $1,000.00 and
$2,000.00... One of the key issues with the topography is obviously going to be
locating trees by getting the tree removal...
Councilman Horn: What percentage of variation do you think we'd get? '
Larry Brown: I'm sorry, what?
Councilman Horn: If you were to use the estimated method that Bill suggested '
before we do the feasibility, what percentage would you give it for coming up to
a number?
Larry Brown: I'm not prepared to answer that. I don't know.
Councilman Horn: There's no way to answer that? i
Larry Brown: No.
Councilman Geving: Let me ask you this question. Have you had any other
requests for this other than Mrs. Bernier?
Larry Brown: Yes. Several. '
Councilman Geving: Who else?
Larry Brown: Mr. Harvey Will. Mr. Albert Sinnen and I'm not sure if Mrs.
Anderson.
Councilman Geving: So 3 of the 5 definitely have said they want it? '
Larry-Brown: Correct.
Councilman Boyt: They didn't say they wanted it at any cost. '
Larry Brown: That's correct.
Councilman Boyt: Larry, if you talked to some people, do you think you could
come within 25% of the actual cost on a rough estimate?
Larry Brown: Yes. If we did the mini-feasibility in-house, we could pull out a
rough estimate, yes.
Councilman Boyt: I don't have anything else. I'm ready to make a motion.
2
i
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: I have a couple comments. Mary Bernier is here I know., _she may
' want to make a comment. She's been before the Council before. I know that she
has talked to the staff previously about doing this and was hopeful that this
project could be moved ahead without doing a feasibility study. Now to get to
this point and now we're talking about making a rough estimate, coming within
25% without doing a feasibility study, I don't know why these things have to get
this far down the road before somebody on the staff figures out they can do
something without doing a full blown study. I know that the Berniers have a
serious water problem. Other people down there have problems with their septic
system. Here's an area within our MUSA line within the City which does not have
sewer and water and they should have it. They're going to, I would guess,
' they're going to have problems or they do have problems with their water and
sewer and now and they're going to have additional problems so if they don't do
this, almost at any cost, it's going to be a reasonable cost. As reasonable as
it can be done for. It's probably going to save them money in the long run
because they're going to have to have additional things done to their sewer and
water if we don't put in city sewer and water. It's a little frustrating for me
to get to this point now to find that staff could have done and come up with
' some figures that would have helped us at this point, but I think we ought to
move ahead with it as quickly as possible. Those people do not have water.
Councilman Horn: How long is a feasibility study good for?
Don Ashworth: One year.
Councilman Johnson: How long will it take to do it?
Larry Brown: Depending on the demand on the firm, I'm guessing probably about 2
' weeks time.
Mayor Hamilton: Bill, you wanted to make a motion.
' Councilman Boyt: I will make the motion that staff presents a close estimate
without the feasibility study and receive approval from the residents prior to
initiating a feasibility study. The intent would be, if the residents approve
' from the rough estimate, that the City would go ahead and fund a full blown
feasibility study that we have to have. That's my motion.
' Councilman Geving: I want to question in it. Are you asking that all five of
the neighbors agree before we proceed with the feasibility? Are you willing to
accept 4 out of 5 or 3 out of 5? This is very important because I agree with
' the Mayor that we have to do something in that area. They're only a few blocks
from an area that is not being serviced by sewer and water. I think we have to
be, you mentioned that the residents, I think we should have at least a majority
and to me 60% is a pretty good figure. If we have 3 out of the 5 that already
say they want it, they need it, to me that's a good percentage.
Councilman Boyt: I'll accept 3 out of the 5. I want people to go into this
I!__ realizing that this is an expensive project and as Tom said, if it's worth it,
fine but I would think we could very quickly give them that information and if
they say I won't spend $15,000.00 for the system, then we don't have to invest
$1,000.00 of the City's money.
' 3
1 '€
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 .,
Mayor Hamilton: Then how long do we need to wait when their septic systems fail
to tell them they have to put it in, which has happened in other areas of the
community? It's no different than other areas Bill where people had not put in
city sewer if they could. Their septic systems are failing as they are here.
They must put in city sewer.
Councilman Boyt: Tom, does that mean that we're going to say to these people, '
you're going to take city sewer whether you want it or not?
Mayor Hamilton: That is exactly what has been the case previously. When you
have failing septic systems, you don't have any choice. In this case they also
have failing wells.
Councilman Boyt: I would say, if a majority of the Council is in a position 1
where you're going to say, we're going to require you to have sewer and water,
then let's start the feasibility study. I would rather have them know what it's
going to cost before we do that and that's why I made a motion the way I did.
Mayor Hamilton: The only problem I have with your motion is that it simply
delays it longer. It's going to take two weeks for Larry to come back with the
figure, approximately what it might be. Then it's going to take 3 more weeks to
do a feasibility study. Now we're probably looking at spring before the project
could be started. '
Councilman Boyt: If Mrs. Bernier says that she's going to take this at any
cost, I'll withdraw my motion.
Mayor Hamilton: Mary, would you have any comment?
Mary Bernier: I don't want to talk for my neighbors...I don't know what it
costs.
Mayor Hamilton: What's exorbinate in your opinion?
Mary Bernier: I don't know. I have an idea that we do need it.
Mayor Hamilton: If you had to have a new well put in and a new septic system '
put in, what is that going to cost?
Mary Bernier: $4,000.00. 1
Mayor Hamilton: For both?
Mary Bernier: No, for the well. 1
Mayor Hamilton: Okay, then if you had a failing septic and you had to put in a
new septic field, that's probably another $4,000.00. '
Mary Bernier: Probably.
Mayor Hamilton: How soon can you have an estimated figure Larry? 1
Larry Brown: I'll have that for the next Council meeting.
4
' City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: Can you have it sooner than that?
rY
' Larry Brown: Sure.
Councilman Boyt: We can pass this so that all it requires is, as Dale said, 3
out of the 5 property owners and it never needs to come back to us.
Mayor Hamilton: That's true. I think if Larry comes up with a figure, a
reasonable estimate and comes to you folks and say this is what we feel, within
•
reason, it's going to cost and you agree to it, then I see no reason to bring it
back here. Larry can go ahead with a feasibility study and the project can
begin. Would that be acceptable to you Mary?
' Mary Bernier: Yes.
Don Ashworth: The feasibilty step stage is one required under State Statute so
' if you were to do that, you should authorize the feasibility study this evening
subject to the Engineer getting data.
' Councilman Boyt: I'll accept that.
Councilman Geving: I agree.
Councilman Horn: I have another question. How much extra time will this take
for Larry? We make the assumption that the staff time is something that we have
plenty of and I don't believe that's true. How much of your time is this going
take to do this?
Ito
Larry Brown: We're looking at about 15 hours worth of work to do this.
Y g
Councilman Johnson: ...half a week.
Mayor Hamilton: Is your motion then Bill to do. ..
Councilman Boyt: As Don proposed.
Councilman Geving: I'll second that motion.
Councilman Johnson: Could we right underneath, if our staff, if their time
crunch after they look at all their schedules and everything else we give them
the rest of the evening tonight, works out to where it'd be best that they go
off and have a mini-feasibility be done by OSM in the same timeframe, under the
same criteria, would that be...
' Councilman Horn: Only if the data can be used on the final. If it's going to
end up costing us more money, more time.
Councilman Johnson: But see if he does it, the data may not be useable for the
final feasibility study and it would be a duplication where if OSM does it, the
data may be useable where we may save money in the long run.
Mayor Hamilton: I think that's a decision that the City Manager and the staff
should make. It's not as if we've never assigned them work to do in the past
that's going to take hours.
5
198
•
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
Councilman Horn:ySo we're not limited to the staff doing a mini-feasibility
study?
Mayor Hamilton:.I-dorr.'.-t ,think-that was-part of the motion.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to authorize the feasibility •
study for Grandview Road sewer and water project subject to the Engineer getting
the data. All voted in favor except Councilman Horn who opposed and the motion
carried.
VISITORS PRESENTATION:
Albert Dorweiler: My name is Albert Dorweiler and I live along Bluff Creek
there. They raised the road 4 feet on the highway there. I come out of my
driveway when I go out. They raised it 4 feet and it's like that. ...paper for
me to get off in the wintertime and also, it's very dangerous to came over the
hill, there's a blind hill there. I feel it's very unsafe for me to drive out
of my driveway. ...I called Bill Engelhardt. He says, I'll take a look at it.
I've been fighting with him for a month and a half now about this. I also told
Bill Engelhardt about, I've got Vine Hill there and I'd like to have a sign put
up, blind driveway. You told me that I could see the road. There's nothing
that they can do. I also called the City of Chanhassen and Gary, he's the City
Engineer, he told me that it's a State road. There's nothing they can do. Is
I!!
that true? It's a State road?
Don Ashworth: It's a State Aid road meaning that the City has to comply with
State Aid requirements. Whether or not there's been a request to the State
asking if we would be able to put blind intersection. Normally that is
considered by the State. I'd like to have both of these issues researched and
brought back to the Council. '
Mayor Hamilton: We'll look into them for you Al.
Councilman Geving: Let us know if you don't get this resolved.
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF LONE CEDAR CIRCLE, RALPH KANT. '
Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Jo Ann Olsen: The property is located south of Lake Minnewashta. It has ,
...right-of-way just to the south of it and adjacent to TH 5. The applicant is
requesting to vacate a portion of the Lone Cedar right-of-way. The City does
not have any intention to improve that road to the south. The two lots and to
the east have direct access to TH 5. The lot further east is mostly wetland and
will not be developed. The current applicant has a driveway onto Lone Cedar
which does have direct access onto TH 5. The applicant has conferred with the
engineering department and also with MnDot and the applicant has spoken with the
6 1
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
T owner of Lot 3 and he has no objections to the partial vacation on of the
right-of,way':°°--`itts-aaplzcant-is going-to be providing Lot 3 with a driveway
' easement across the vacated right-of-way should he ever want to have access
to Lone Cedar rather than from TH 5.
Councilman Boyt: One question I had, and maybe Larry can answer this, is the
layout of the private drive. It looks to me, just looking at the transparency
here, that we have a considerable distance between where the private drive is
going to be and TH 5.
Larry Brown: For which lot? For the subdivision or the neighboring lot?
Councilman Boyt: No, for the proposed subdivision.
Larry Brown: Yes, there is approximately 250 feet I believe from the existing
driveway.
Councilman Boyt: What I mean about a distance from that private drive out to
TH 5, what looks like a little strip it's created along there. Do you know how
deep that strip is? It can't be 250 feet. 15 feet? It would seem to me as
though, it might make more sense to pull the drive over closer to TH 5 and
create more lawn in that lot rather than creating a 15 foot border on the other
1 side of it. I'd just like some reaction to that thought. Is that private drive
drawn in where you really want it to be?
Councilman Horn: There's a big berm in there.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. The other question that I seem to recall in reading
this was, there's a MnDot approval involved in this. Is that right?
Larry Brown: That's right. I put that condition on there solely because, as a
vehicle exits out of the subdivision driveway and tries to access TH 5, it could
have an impact to TH 5 which is how that operates. I'm recommending that MnDot
review that so it does not have any adverse impacts to TH 5.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to see us approve this with the understanding that
• it's approved based on on MnDot's approval for the access. I think the whole
thing hinges upon that. If MnDot doesn't give their approval, I don't think we
should be creating a situation that they're stuck with.
Mayor Hamilton: One of the conditions is that the applicant shall obtain
written approval from MnDot.
Councilman Boyt: I guess that's really most relevant to item 1(i) .
Mayor Hamilton: Did you have anything else on the vacation?
Councilman Boyt: No.
Councilman Horn: I'm just kind of curious what the impact would be on TH 5.
'fr They'll be exiting to Lone Cedar Point. What's the impact to TH 5?
4
Larry Brown: If there's not enough separate distance between the driveway and
TH 5, what tends to happen is the vehicle will turn off and it will be askewed
7
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
angle to the oncoming traffic. We all know that askewed problems can sometimes
create a visibility hazard as the cars pull out onto TH 5.
Councilman Horn: You're saying you can't get enough access onto Lone Cedar to
get a straight shot to TH 5?
Larry Brown: If it's too close to TH 5, the car will not be perpendicular to ,
TH 5.
Mayor Hamilton: If they're going to turn east. Well, either way I guess but
east is more difficult to make the turn than going west.
•
Councilman Johnson: Is there a problem with the present driveway? Where they
are at the present?
Larry Brown: The comment was intended to have the new driveway share in the
existing driveway versus the distance that I've originally listed. '
Councilman Horn: So if there isn't a problem now, it shouldn't be a problem in
the future? '
Larry Brown: Not if they share the same driveway.
Councilman Horn: I don't really see a problem with TH 5. With that berm and ,
that elevation difference, I don't know what problem that would be.
Councilman Geving: The question that I had had to do with the easement to Lot
1.!!
3, Block 1 and the applicant, in my view should place that in written form. I
think that that would be a reasonable request. That you would get a written
request from the applicant and that it becomes a part of the record. The other
comment that I have is also in regards to the proposed driveway for Lot 1, Block
1. Now is that going to be the new driveway Ralph? Could you answer that? Lot
1, Block 1.
Ralph Kant: It would be on the existing circle drive that already exists. Wb
would utilize that.
Councilman Geving: And you already have at least 100 feet there at the present
time, is that correct?
Ralph Kant: That's correct. '
Councilman Geving: The only comment that I would have made there, in cases like
this, we like to have the City Engineer review the road construction to make
sure that separation is 100 feet but I'm going to take your word for it. I
think it is. I've been out there several times so that's a condition I think
you already wrote in and there won't be any problem with that. I pass.
Councilman Johnson: I have nothing on the vacation.
Mayor Hamilton: I have nothing either. It looks fine to me. Is there a motion '
to approve item 2, the vacation of Lone Cedar Circle?
Councilman Horn: I would so move.
8
' City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: I'll second it. Do you want to put the conditions as suggested
II 17 by the four conditions?
Councilman Geving: I'd like to have the one item that I suggested included.
That the easement be in writing as a condition. There would be five conditions.
Resolution #88-100: Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve
the Vacation Request #88-5 to vacate a portion of Lone Cedar Lane as shown on
the site plan dated "Received August 15, 1988" and subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall suhnit plans for the construction of the driveway for
Lot 1, Block 1 to the City Engineer for approval prior to final plat review.
2. The applicant shall obtain written approval by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation for the construction of the driveway onto Lone Cedar Road
prior to final plat review.
' 3. The proposed driveway for Lot 1, Block 1 shall maintain a minimum separation
of 100 feet from State Highway 5.
4. A 15 foot utility and drainage easement shall be centered over the 12 inch
diameter watermain for the entire length of the right-of-way to be vacated.
5. The easement shall be in writing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: (I) PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR KANT SUBDIVISION.
Councilman Boyt: I don't have any problem with it. I just wanted to see us
resolve item 2 first before we went ahead and approved the plat. So I recommend
approval of item 1(i) .
Mayor Hamilton: I'll second your motion.
' Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Preliminary Plat
for the Kant Subdivision pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR CHANHASSEN HILLS TRUNK WATERMAIN SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ROLL.
Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order.
' Larry Brown: I'm speaking for Mr. Don Patton who came in this evening. On
Parcel No. 25-02317, it should be on the first page of the assessment roll, the
fourth one down, we have found a discrepancy in that particular parcel so we are
recommending that the Council approve the rest of the assessment roll as you see
i
202 ,1City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
If
fit and the Council make an exception of that parcel.
Mayor Hamilton: Ed Dunn? 231700?
Larry Brown: That's correct.
Mayor Hamilton: That's Ed Dunn according to my list.
•
Councilman Geving: Can I ask what the error is? ,
Larry Brown: Just in some of our methodology, there was some land that was
dedicated to the City, park open space which Mr. Patton should be created for.
I'm sorry, Mr. Dunn should be credited for.
Councilman Gving: The total of $79,000.00 is not correct?
Larry Brown: That's correct.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Hamilton: Do you have comments on this Don?
Don Patton: I think we explained that in our meeting with staff today. There
was a cross of the laterals on the watermains. A cross there. One other bit of
explanation. We've had some difficulty with the areas and also the name. Ed
I!!
Dunn is not the owner of the land. It's in the Lake Susan Hills Partnership
with two partners you see on there. We've been working very well with staff and
also with the County trying to file with the district. We didn't make it for
the deadline for the Council.
Councilman Geving: In your letter of July 25th, you ask for a certain
negotiation regarding the deferment of assessments. Did you meet with our staff
and did you get any satisfaction in your reply?
Don Patton: (Couldn't hear his answer on the tape.) ,
Don Ashworth: That's correct. We just talked before the meeting and Don has
asked me to check on the availability of the Green Acres designation for a
portion of their property. It's been my prior experience that that is handled
totally by the County and I'll check on it and get back to Don.
Mayor Hamilton: Is that acceptable Don? '
Don Patton: There's two part's to this. One is the taxes. Don is right, that
is a County issue. The things that my letter addressed was the County referred
me to the City and a lot of this assessment of this trunkmain is going on
agricultural land. The point of my letter and the point of my question to the
City Manager was asking for a deferment of Green Acres assessments of the
watermain. '
Don Ashworth: I'll check.
Mayor Hamilton: You will work with Don.
10 _.
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
Don A _ _ r' Rye a "';5y.. ...�t�xi Y, in fact you've heard the
question this evening, it makes it easier for me now. . .repeat it. If you would
II verify or research the question posed by Mr. Patton and respond back to him on
that.
_.t- .,,..... .�, s .. ... -
Roger Knutson: I can answer part of it right now. The City has nothing to do
with Green Acres. Green Acres is a lot. It's listed by the County. We can not
determine eligibility for it. For assessments...
Don Patton: You'd better work it out with the County because they're saying you
do.
Roger Knutson: They're wrong if they said that. Ask to check with the County
Attorney. There's no question on it.
' Mayor Hamilton: We'll try to clarify that for you Don.
Don Patton: I'd like for you to direct the City Attorney to work with the
' County Attorney and get back to me. I'm tired of going between two governmental
agencies...
Mayor Hamilton: I think when you're in development that's part of your job but
' we have already told you that we will work with the County. When we say we,
that includes all of the staff so that's already done. I will move approval of
the Chanhassen Hills trunk watermain supplemental assessment roll with the one
' exception which needs to be further clarified.
Councilman Horn: No. 25-00231700.
Don Ashworth: I think we're in a position ready to adopt even that parcel.
It's simply a matter to reduce from that particular parcel the acreage
associated that has been dedicated to public. We can put it into a future
' packet but it's strictly a matter of separating that assessment to show that
portion of it that is public versus that portion that's still private.
Larry Brown: We have met with, as Mr. Patton stated, we met with him this
afternoon and I believe, unless he felt differently this evening, we are in
agreement as to what should be assessed and what should not.
' Mayor Hamilton: I think we should see that back so we have an opportunity.
Councilman Johnson: So that assessment will get split between the City and
the...
Don Ashworth: That's correct.
' Councilman Johnson: So the amount of that assessment on there wouldn't change
except it would go against two different people?
I3 Don Ashworth: Right.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I understood Larry to say there would be a change in
the amount.
11
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
1
Don Ashworth: A change in the amount assessed back to Mr. Patton.
Mayor Hamilton: The total dollar figure does not change?
Don Ashworth: That's correct. Technically you don't assess yourself but the 11 benefit is still assigned back to the City.
Mayor Hamilton: Does the Council want to include that parcel or do you want to •
have it come back to us so you can see what the split is?
Councilman Geving: Well, we still have time to do this. I got the impression
from your letter Don that it's important that we adopt the assessment roll
tonight so it can be certified to the County.
Don Ashworth: Right. I'd like to get the clock rolling and be able to certify.
There's no question, I will put it in an upcoming adminstrative section, the
actual split but I was hoping to get the roll adopted this evening.
Mayor Hamilton: In that case, I will include the parcel designated as
25-0231700 on the assessment roll and staff will include that in our packet in
the future so we can see what the split is.
Councilman Horn: I'll second that also.
Resolution #88-101: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to adopt the '
Chanhassen Hills Trunk Watermain Supplemental Assessment Roll including Parcel
No. 25-0231700 and staff will include that parcel in a future packet so Council
can see what the split is. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ,
CERTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT UTILITY ACCOUNTS. '
Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order.
Richard Gay: I'm Richard Gay from Your Majesty's Valet Cleaners and the letter ,
that I had given to you folks explaining our situation regarding why we held the
money in escrow and now through a letter from Mr. Ashworth, I understand that we
are in dialogue and working towards a resolution of our problems so I'm prepared
to pay the water bill tonight. I do have a check with me here.
Mayor Hamilton: I just hope the Council understands that Mr. Gay had been
holding the dollars for his water in escrow because he wasn' t satisfied with the
way he felt he had been treated through the development process in the downtown
project. It was perhaps the only little piece of leverage he had to work with
the City and of course, it didn't work because we can certify that to the County
and it goes on the taxes so the landlord doesn't end up paying it but there have
been, and continue to be some difficulties working with Mr. Gay's business in
giving him the same business that he had prior to the downtown development. I've
worked quite a bit with Mr. Gay and the staff trying to resolve these issues and
hopefully we're close to doing that. I was not happy to see.. .placed down along
• side your building this evening. That did not make me happy at all but neverthe
less we try to press forward and try to resolve all of your issues. I
12 ,
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
appreciate your coming here and I appreciate your paying your water bill. You
can jt ty-brzrrg-4t ttp-#sere-;—Anyone-�rse=_fLout- the public who would like to make
I 1 comment about certification of utility bills? I would like to make a couple of
comments. I guess as I always do when I see this list because I think it's
wrong, terribly wrong that people do not pay their water and sewer bills. I
' know in some communities when a business, in particular is behind in their water
bill, they are shut-off until they pay their bill. I think we need to take a
tougher stance on that. There's no reason why, even though we charge rather
exorbinate interest rates on these water bills, there's no reason why the rest
' of the community should carry a few people who choose not to pay their water
bills but instead to have it certified to the County so they can deduct it off
of their income tax. There are some companies in town here who have not paid
their water bills. John Pryzmus and his companies. Lotus Realty Services. Kim
Bloomberg has a home on here that has a water bill and that home sold so I don't
know, Don how you resolve that? That should have been settled with the sale of
' the home. I'm surprised to see that. It's small but nevertheless, those are
things that you, I happen to know that that's the home that he built and he sold
it. That should have been cleared up at the closing. So those are things that
we should look into somehow but the business people are just rather upsetting.
' When you see John Pryzmus on here, it's $1,800.00 for water and sewer bills and
that's for his business. I don't think that's right. Anybody else have
comments? If not, I entertain a motion to certify sewer and water bills for the
County.
Councilman Johnson: So moved with the exception of Your Majesty's Valet and the
I 1 one that's marked off on the back.
s
Mayor Hamilton: Don Jones?
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
Mayor Hamilton: I second your motion.
' Councilman Horn: It appeared to me that the list was much shorter this year
than usual. Is that true or is my memory failing?
' Councilman Geving: It seems like the dollar figures though are bigger.
Don Ashworth: In response to some of the points that were raised by the Mayor.
It should be noted that some of the businesses are interconnected. In other
words, there's one service coming into the property. The Colonial Center has
basically one service into that area. The same way with John Pryzmus. Actually
the service for the 78th Street property goes through the Kallstad property.
There's a meter after the Kallstad's so you end up, to shut his off, you would
be shutting off the Kallstad's there as well. On payment from Your Majesty's
Valet, I'm not quite sure how I should handle this. The total there is in the
' amount of $2,911.00. However, the penalty portion has been put on in the amount
of $400.00 or $500.00.
ICouncilman Horn: $582.27.
Don Ashworth: And that is not in this.
L-..
' 13
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: Isn't that a service charge? Isn't that a penalty from this
point on?
Don Ashworth: I would have to verify it. To be delinquent, you have to be from
a previous quarter. So simply because you have not paid the bill associated
with this quarter is not technically delinquent so these bills have to be unpaid
as of basically July 1st, June 1st. Anytime prior to that date. Whether or not
this represents an accumulation of January and March, I don't know.
Mayor Hamilton: I think Mr. Gay has demonstrated his willingness to work with
the City and he's paid $2,911.00. I think if there's a minor penalty attached
to that, he's probably not going to complain. I guess my thought was, if the -
penalty that you're showing on here is a service charge was as of tonight when 11 you certify it and anything that was paid tonight or prior to tonight was the
amount that was due.
Don Ashworth: Any portion that deals with certifying it to the County, that '
portion would be deleted. So in other words, if you paid this prior to our
certification, I have a feeling though that a portion of this goes back 3 to 6
months. '
Resolution #88-102: Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to
approve the Certification of Sewer/Water bills to the County with the exception
of Your Majesty's Valey Cleaners and Donald P. Jones. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. -
Councilman Horn: I don't think I got an answer to my question. Is this higher
or not than what we usually see?
Don Ashworth: The total has been around $20,000.00. I didn't look to see the
total number of businesses. I would say that it's slightly higher. It seems to
be $30,000.00 to $40,000.00.
Councilman Horn: It looks higher to me.
Don Ashworth: ...maybe between $30,000.00 and $40,000.00 which is $10,000.00
more than the previous.
FINALIZE ASSESSMENT ROLL, DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
Mayor Hamilton: We had asked Gary to bring some information back to us on a
few. I guess I personally wasn't satisfied with the answers I saw. Anything
you want to present Gary or does your report stand on it's own?
Gary Ehret: I think the report is pretty self explanatory. '
Don Ashworth: A copy of the recommendation was hand delivered to Mr. Pauly,
Russ Pauly. Harry was out of town a week ago last Friday. I don't know, is '
Russ or Harry here? I felt that from conversations that I had had with Harry
before he left, that if we could bring the assessment roll in under the amount
1:
" basically shown as of literally a year ago, the original, that he would accept
14
City Council Meeting - September 26
1988
r- that. I believe that the recommendation being made by Gary Ehret does in fact
ldo exactly that. Again, Harry is not here. -
I Mayor Hamilton: One thing� that I was concerned about is the 3.4 feet of
property which we just kind of moved in on as part of the Heritage Park Plaza.
' I hope that that is followed up on. We obviously took part of his property and
he should be compensated for it. I hope that that is accomplished and I was
hoping to see a dollar figure here so we'd have some idea of what it is we're •
' spending for that. There must be some way of determining what the value is.
Gary Ehret: I can give you a rough idea. We're talking about roughly 3 feet by
' 80. About 240 square feet which is about half the size of this council
chambers. If we use figures that occured in that area, we'd be talking about
$250.00 to $750.00.
Don Ashworth: It should be noted that that case is still before the
Commissioners as far as reviewing the amounts. The property that was taken for
the realigned Great Plains Blvd. had been appraised by the City at one amount
and Mr. Pauly is looking to a different amount. I'm quite sure that we're not
going to be able to resolve this issue until we come down to a point where the
Court basically makes a decision as to which of the two numbers are more
reasonable. I doubt very much that Harry would sign off on this 3.5 feet
' without knowing what's going to happen with the remaining 20,000 square feet.
Mayor Hamilton: Do councilmembers have any questions? If not, I would move
I I approval of the finalization of the assessment rolls for the downtown
redevelopment project.
' Councilman Geving: And I will second that.
Councilman Horn: I think Tom again, the real issue was communication with the
business owner. I'm a little surprised, I don't recall exactly the resolution
' of the issue of how we started developing our property before people had signed
a release. Could you refresh my memory on that one Roger?
' . Roger Knutson: I did not personally work on it. People in our office did.
There are similar circumstances, one person signed a release, I don't know who
it was, to sign on the bottom something that nullified the release.
' Mayor Hamilton: That was Brown's Standard. He said they could go on the
property to survey but no heavy equipment and we just moved in and dug it up.
Roger Knutson: That was a mistake. Someone did not catch that comment on the
bottom of the release.
' Councilman Horn: Who's supposed to do that? The project manager, the City
Attorney or who?
Roger Knutson: Hopefully we should. They probably went ahead before they got
our, a lot of things could happen. Sometimes contractor's go ahead before they
get permission to go ahead. Perhaps someone in our office didn't catch that
note. I don't know the answer.
' 15
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
Councilman Horn: One general complaint I've '
P heard, that things were done
without our input. We didn't know things were going on.
Councilman Johnson: Some people never signed their release and we went ahead
and did it anyway. On this particular 3 1/2 feet, I don't think anybody ever
talked about. It was kind of an oversight. '
Roger Knutson: Maybe we didn't get the information that was needed. I don't
know.
•
Councilman Johnson: It's kind of a problem I think with a lot of developments
where city, municipalities, state or anything, is doing something. They forge
ahead sometimes and they slip up. ,
Councilman Horn: I think what we have to keep in mind is how they would view
this in a private development.
Mayor Hamilton: An even better way to do it is, how would
d you like to be
treated, if you were the business owner that's being affected by this and I
think we failed to look at it from that angle. In some cases it hurts people a
lot.
Resolution #88-103: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve
the finalized assessment roll for the downtown redevelopment project. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
TH 101 REALIGNMENT:
A. COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO IDENTIFY REALIGNMENT OF TH 101.
B. OFFICIAL MAP REQUEST TO DESIGNATE TH 101 REALIGNMENT.
Mayor Hamilton: We still have a public hearing that is open '
g pe and has not been
closed. If there are members here from the public who wish to make additional
comments prior to us speaking, they may do so.
Pat Hallisey: Excuse me Mr. Mayor, did I understand that we were to speak
before they gave a presentation or will we have an opportunity to speak after he
gives his presentation?
Mayor Hamilton: I would generally have you speak before but I think seeing how
there's been some changes, I think Fred should present the changes first so the
public understands where ■e're at. If you have additional comments to make and
some new information to present to the Council, I would entertain it at that
time. '
Fred Hoisington: We have four members, well three members of our team here this
evening that will be serving, two of which will be resource people. One will be
assisting in presentation. Don Ringrose of BRW is with us here again tonight.
Howard Preston who will be making part of the presentation as BRW's in-house
project manager for this project. Mitch Watson of Benshoof and Associates is
here to answer questions with regards to traffic aspects of the study. And of
16 1
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
course Gary~Warren- has- been-a- part of- the study throughout the course arad even
I I though he's on vacation, I have input to the site. The purpose of the meeting
this evening is to select an alternative. We've been kind of rushing towards
this for 6 weeks and the time has about arrived where from all the alternatives
' that we've evaluated, a selection will need to be made tonight. What we're
going to do is we'd. like to talk a little bit about traffic. A little about
costs and then I'd like to come back and do some evaluation of the alternatives
for you. Now, one note before we get into the presentation of traffic and •
' costs. If you'll note, we have eliminated alternative 1 because it was
essentially the existing system. The one from which we are departing. And one
where we expect significant problems by Year 2005. Alternative 5 which is the
north leg option, which is not agreeable to MnDot. Alternative 7 which is also
not agreeable to MnDot primarily because of the local road connection at the end
of TH 1O1's north leg. So we've eliminated three but we've added one.
' Alternative 2A which is sort of a combination of a 6 and a 2. That really came
from discussions with MnDot and discussions of our designer or planning team
thereafter so we're throwing one in and throwing three out for various reasons.
Now what we'd like to do is have Howard Preston present briefly, some of an
overview of the traffic situation and the process associated with each one of
those alternatives.
' Howard Preston: Just to briefly go through the alternatives, again, just to
document what we've done since the last time you were here. This is alternative
2 which is the Dakota Avenue option. The alternative that was added that Fred
II 3
talked about was an alterantive 2(a) which includes the north leg at Dakota so
we would have a full access intersection at Dakota but we could also then
include the south leg of TH 101 being in the Market Blvd. alignment instead of
on the existing alignment as was originally proposed. Just to briefly go over
' some of the items that we've done. Benshoof and Associates when through and
analyzed the traffic volumes and how the different alterantives would impact the
traffic volumes. Impact the travel routes and what we've got shown, for
' example, is some of the average daily traffic volumes Year 2005 and would result
with this particular option. I think the only significant features are that
because we have a common section with TH 5 and TH 101, the volumes on these two
segments are slightly higher than we would have if we would have, say
alternative 3 which kept TH 101 on Lake Drive. Those additional volumes were on
these common sections. The other item that would be of importance is that the
volumes on this site of Lake Drive are in the range of 2,400 to 6,000 vehicles
per day which are volumes typical of collector streets not of arterials so in
this option the function of Lake Drive as a collector is maintained. The
primary volumes are on your arterial TH 5. That was one of the key issues of
this particular option. The other items of importance, the letters indicate
' expected level of service in the peak hour in the design Year 2005. E,D,C, that
typically, we would be looking to do something else at this intersection to try
to prove that level of service E but D and C are acceptable levels of service on
' an arterial system like this. So the key points I think are that this
particular option maintains full access at Dakota. It has a full access
intersection at Great Plains. It could have a four legged intersection down
here at Market also. Intersections tend to work. Great Plains needs some
' improvement and the volumes on Lake Drive are typical of collector streets.
Those are the key points.
Councilman Johnson: Before you go on, on 2A, would that change Market to a D
and Great Plains to a D probably because Market becomes a big intersection?
t 17
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
I
Howard Preston:, . .I,s1on't.. think we tested that. It was something that cache up
after we had done the testing. The possibility of this option. Even if it
changed this to a D, that would still be an acceptable level of service. I
don't really know what would happen. We really didn't test that alternative. I
don't see this getting worse. If anything, there would be more traffic put over
here so I would expect the shift to be slightly worst here. Probably somewhat
better in this particular intersection.
Councilman Johnson: How close are we between D and E in that intersection?
Howard Preston: I don't recall what the numbers were.
Fred Hoisington: Slightly. 1
Councilman Johnson: So 2A may actually get to acceptable...
Howard Preston: It may bring this up, yes. The idea would be, with 2A, this
being designated the TH 101 route, this. is the route that would be signed. Not
this route and the new roadway were constructed, we would expect most if not all
of the through traffic to actually use this intersection so the turning volumes
would be taken away from this intersection and added down here so that would
definitely be the direction that the highway serves. It would improve this
slightly and possibly take this one down.
Councilman Geving: Before you move on, under this proposal, what would you
propose to do with the existing TH 101 south leg in front of the Legion?
Howard Preston: If the 2A were proposed?
Councilman Geving: Yes.
Howard Preston: On the rest of it, we propose that that could be removed and
redeveloped as part of whatever development goes in. '
Councilman Geving: Vacated or become the City's?
Howard Preston: Certainly. Vacate it. There'd be no reason to keep it in
there unless the property owner wanted it. I would expect that if a parcel that
large were to be redeveloped, the chances of that roadway being
. the developer wanted it would be n nu exactly where
pe pretty slim. It certainly could be vacated and
the developer put in a local street. That would be the function. There would
be no reason to have any kind of a collector or arterial function. It would
simply be a local street providing the land access. '
Councilman Geving: The second question I have is, south of your proposed 2A,
are you thinking ahead to the possibility of tying into TH 212 with that
alignment?
Howard Preston: Yes. This is set up, it can hash that along there. We just '
tied that into a point we thought would be a reasonable location to tie into.
. Councilman Boyt: Where you have the Hidden Valley addition, 6,000 trips a day,
what is it now?
18
ti
City Cou:.cil Meeting - September 26, 1988
Howard Preston: I can't answer that. I don't know.
ICouncilman Boyt: Is your feeling that this is quite a bit higher than what it
is now? The same as?
Howard Preston: Yes, it would be higher simply because if these being the Year
2005 volumes, this parcel is developed. This is at full development and fully
occupied. That's the kinds of things that would be added in. The trips •
' generated by additional commercial development in that area are included in that
6,000 number which it wouldn't be that today.
' Councilman Boyt: We have a commercial concern that feels that they located on
this because it was a high traffic area and if we go to 2A, what's the impact on
them?
' Howard Preston: The function today, in your transportation plan, Lake Drive is
considered a collector street. I don't know what the volumes are but without
any development here, the only real commercial development that's generated here
' is in this corner or traffic that's going between the neighborhood and some of
this commercial development up at Dakota. I would guess that the volumes of
Lake Drive today are probably less than that number just because there isn't any
' other commercial development there to generate that kind of traffic. Lake Drive
is functionally classified as a collector. It's built to collector street
standards as far as the street width and the curb and what it looks like. It's
those kinds of forecast volumes that's certainly in the range of what's typical
for a collector street so I think we've maintained the function of, this
1_ alterantive maintains the function of Lake Drive as a collector street. That's
what you planned for all along so that there'd be no change from what you had
planned.
Councilman Boyt: One last question and Don you may need to research this one in
the next few minutes here, I'd like to know what taxes we're receiving from the
two apartment buildings we're proposing to take out. I'd like to know how that
translates into, if we took that tax money and borrowed against it, how much
borrowing capacity we have because that's the true cost of taking them out of
• there, as I see it, and I think we need to know that figure.
Don Ashworth: I missed the question.
' Councilman Boyt: The question is, how much tax money are those two apartment
buildings generating? Two part question. Second part. How much could we
' borrow if we made those sorts of annual payments? Do you follow the logic?
Don Ashworth: No.
' Councilman Boyt: What I'm proposing is, let's suppose the tax payments on those
apartment buildings are $20,000.00 a year, and the City gets a certain portion
of that. The County gets 80% of it or between the County and the State but
that's lost income to the City. I'd like to anticipate what the lump sum burden
I of that lost income is and I think one way of estimating it is by determining
how much money could we borrow if we made those sorts of payments as sort of a
lump sum and we could hold if we look at it in that fashion. I think we need to
know what it's costing us to take the apartment buildings out. It's basically
11 19
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
lost taxes, not just the cost of the building.
Howard Preston: There's one other item I should point out to these
alternatives. It shows up on these overheads. We calculated some estimated
costs for the different alternatives. We included in those costs, costs for
roadway construction, roadway removal, some right-of-way costs and the way that
these two come out, Alternative 2 basically $2,800,000.00. Alternative 2A is
$3,400,000.00 and basically the difference is that cost of constructing TH 101
along the Market Blvd. alignment. Those are the two costs and at 2.8 million
and 3.4 million...
Councilman Geving: Have you got the land acquisition costs in there?
Howard Preston: Yes sir. There were estimates for land acquisition costs
included in those.
Councilman Geving: Have you got taking costs in there?
Howard Preston: Fred would probably explain but yes, there are some costs for
the land for the buildings. For relocation costs. There are estimates of
those. I guess I would like to caution you that these, we did the best job we
could but we did not have detailed plans so we couldn't really calculate lineal
feet of curb and gutter and square yards of pavement. These are using typical
costs per lineal foot for a four lane divided roadway or a two lane roadway
right-of-way. I think what's important is the relative difference between the
alternatives. Not necessarily the absolute value of any one of these. We talk
to MnDot about...and their reaction was generally favorable to alternative 2 and
2A. This is alternative 3. This is the alternative that was presented
originally to the Planning Commission and Council. It has TH 101 on a new
alignment down through the Redimix plant that brings it down onto the Lake Drive
alternative and then south. The key numbers that would probably be interested
in are volumes on TH 5 are generally 33,000 to 40,000. The previous
alternative, because of common section, we're up in the 43,000 to 46,000 range.
The other key item, as volumes on Lake Drive with the range of 15,000 to 16,500
vehicles a day. The key point there is, those volumes are really not typical
for a collector street. Lake Drive at this point would no longer be a collector
street. It could be an arterial. Those are arterial types of volumes and so
the function really of this particular piece of roadway, even though it would
remain the same as far as it looked, the function would really change. It would
be handling significantly higher traffic volumes. The levels of service at the
intersection B which are acceptable. I think those are the really two key items
associated with this particular alternative and then the estimated cost, 3.1
million dollars so it's slightly higher than the cost of alternative 2.
Slightly less than the cost of alternative 2A.
Councilman Geving: The big difference here then is what from your standpoint in
terms of taking of the cement plant versus the taking on the Chanhassen Meadows
Apartments? Do you have any kind of estimated dollars on that?
Howard Preston: I don't have them with me. Fred, do you? It's in there. I
There's obviously a cost. I didn't put the right-of-way cost.
..Councilman Geving: It's somewhere in that 3.1 million.
20 1
• City Council Meeting - September 26, 1983
Howard Preston: I believe the right-of-way costs were less in this particular
alternative than on the previous alternative but I don' t remember the exact
II t numbers. Alternative 4 was the alternative that kept the continuity of TH 101
but it aligned the roadway and the alignment of the road pretty much destroys
this commercial property. Goes through the Legion club and then gets back onto
' the alignment going south on Great Plains Blvd.. Volumes the same as before.
The level of service, this level of service is significantly better than before
because whereas it was a four legged intersection previously, it's only a
'
•
T intersection now. The volumes again are the same. The volumes on the
different leg of TH 101 approximately the same. Lake Drive would pretty much
remain the same as it's collector functions but volumes of 1,800 vehicles a day
at the east end and about 8,000 vehicles a day at the west end. I guess the key
difference here, if you check the estimated cost, this was about 4.5 million
dollars. This was the most costly of all the alternatives and it was basically
because it involved the most roadway construction. It also involved the most
' right-of-way acquisition. Both north and the south of TH 5. Questions?
Councilman Geving: I'm surprised you kept that-particular option in. It really
messes up two of the best pieces of commercial property in the community.
Howard Preston: There's no question that the right-of-way acquisition is very
large. Maybe a bit more than what the dollars indicate. Alternative 5, as Fred
' indicated, the north leg option, was dropped from the rest of the process
because MnDot found that unacceptable. Alternative 6 is what we call,
originally called the Market Blvd. alternative. The north leg of TH 101 at this
II location. The south leg going away at Market Blvd.. Again, because we have a
common section, we have volumes in the low 40's. Again, on Lake Drive, because
there's through traffic, the volumes are again in the range of 2,800 to 6,500
vehicles a day. Typical of a collector street and you have levels of service at
the intersection set up basically acceptable. The estimated cost for this
particular alternative is approximately 2 million dollars and I believe that was
the lowest estimated cost of any of the alternatives. Questions?
' Councilman Geving: Can it work? Can the short stacking distance between
Great Plains Blvd. and to the right, to the new intersection we're proposing to
' the east, right there, can that work?
Howard Preston: I think so because again, we will be routing the TH 101 traffic
through this direction and the left turn back in this direction. I guess we
' haven't gone through and done a cuing analysis yet. That's more or less
sanething that happens at the detail design level but with the distance that we
have here, the way it's shown now is the turn lanes at our north leg, the length
' of it and the turn lane here are equal. I guess for schematic purposes that's
fine but the detail design, we probably wouldn't do that. There's a cuing
analysis that we go through where you take into account the number of vehicles
and signal time and things like that. Because this kind of volume would
probably be 10 or 15 times greater than this left turning volumes, I'm sure we
would end up with a significantly longer turn lane in that direction. Right
now, I don't know for sure one way or the other but I'm reasonably certain we
1 could get something going to accomodate.. .
Mayor Hamilton: There should be plenty of time to change lanes from before they
' • enter onto TH 5 from TH 101 until they're going to turn off on Market. That's
quite a distance. That should be able to be accomplished without a great deal
1 21
214
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
of thought.
Howard Preston: MnDot felt significantly more comfortable with this kind of
intersection spacing between the north and south legs of TH 101 than they did
with a lot of other options. I guess generally speaking, they favored any
option that increased that separation. So that's why they reacted fairly
favorably to having the. intersection at Dakota. I guess there's one other item
that we've shown a right turn in, right turn out situation on the north side at
78th Street and the right turn in and out at Dakota on the south. MnDot's
indicated that they don't think that they would find this acceptable. This
particular design on the north side. They didn't have much of a problem with
the right-in and right-out on the south side from a design standpoint but they
thought that, because of the turning moves and the close separation between TH 5
and West 78th Street, that they would find that very difficult if not impossible
to support so that's really questionable at this point whether or not there
would be any access between the westbound lanes of TH 5 and West 78th Street. ,
Councilman Horn: Does this pull the light out at Great Plains and TH 5?
Howard Preston: No. The traffic signal would stay. ,
Councilman Horn: What MnDot has always told us in the past, the reason that you
can't move traffic sufficiently is that you have improper spacing between '
traffic lights. This puts the traffic light situation much close on TH 5.
Howard Preston: Right. There are computer software that we have that if you
run the volumes of intersection spacing through, we've shared the results of
that with MnDot and it indicates that there can be a degree of coordination in
all the traffic signals along there. Signals here, here and here do not
preclude the possibility of coordinating the signals. If, by putting additional
intersections in, the degree of coordination comes down slightly, but we can
still get some degree of coordination, it's not quite what it would be if there
were fewer intersections. It would certainly be better if there was an
intersection there but it doesn't eliminate the possibilities of coordination
with our signals.
.Councilman Horn: Does MnDot use your software sequencing...? ,
Howard Preston: They have it available. I don't think they use it very much.
Councilman Horn: In trying to reduce the levels from things are sequenced
today, I would say it's unacceptable.
Howard Preston: I don't think they have any sequencing out there today. The '
other thing is, during very, ,yery, high traffic periods, it gets more difficult
to maintain that coordination. It's easier to do it when the volumes are less
than at their peak. So TH 5 will be two lanes and basically the motorists
passing the number of intersections, it would be pretty difficult to maintain...
Councilman Horn: The key factor to me, and I'm really not comfortable that
we've adequately addressed the criteria that we keep the traffic flow moving on
TH 5. I know we hinted at it in one of our, item number 2 I believe it was, but
I'm not getting a warm feeling that that's really been taken into account on the
full plan.
22 1
1
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
I
Howard Preston: It has to a degree. We've taken the volumes that Benshoof and
I = Associates have generated for each of these alternatives and we have our
software program set up for each of these alternatives and run it through. We
look at the results. The results come out that indicate that it can be
' coordinated. There is a degree of coordination available and it varies slightly
from 19% to 25% or something of the cycle length for all of the alternatives so
there really wasn't any one that could answer with no, it couldn't be •
coordinated or any other one that was clearly better. So if there was a degree
of coordination available regardless of the alternatives.
Councilman Horn: But if that technique is not being used, it's faulty to assume
' that even though it can be done that it will happen.
Howard Preston: I go through that analysis. It doesn't mean that the hardware
' that's out there now is capable of being coordinated. The idea is, I think if
TH 5 is entirely upgraded, there will be a new signal system put in at each and
everyone of the intersections which is capable of coordination. I know MnDot
has made great efforts to coordinate traffic signals wherever possible because
of the efficiency. Fuel efficiency kinds of things and because it just moves
traffic better.
Councilman Horn: I don't know where.
Howard Preston: I've not done one for MnDot but I know they have coordinated
I systems. TH 10 through Moundsview is a coordinated system. Robert Street
in West St. Paul is a coordinated system. There are some places up on, I
believe it's 252 that has coordinated signal systems. Those are new hardware.
' I don't know if MnDot, the old hardware they've got out here is capable of
doing that but that's something that they do regularly now and I would fully
expect that with the construction of TH 5 you will get a coordinated signal
system with the improvements.
' Councilman Horn: I would make that a mandate.
' . Howard Preston: I can check for you if you like. I can call MnDot tomorrow and
talk about it if you'd like me to check about it.
Mayor Hamilton: I know you have a problem with MnDot. Now is probably not the
' right time to take them to task on this.
Councilman Horn: It's a real key for design criteria.
Mayor Hamilton: We've got to have a system that works. There's no question
about that. I would think that MnDot has confidence if it's going to work.
' They're supposedly the experts at this and I think we have to rely on somebody.
Howard Preston: All of their new signal eqiupment is capable of coordination. I
think that's the key point so I think they're looking at coordinated systems as
much as possible.
Councilman Johnson: On the intersection of TH 101 and 78th, you're saying that
MnDot does not like being able to cane off of TH 5 and making that left hand
movement and then crossing the tracks. So what we may end up with is only local
23
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
traffic going to the industrial area to the east of there and to the Taco Shop
and concrete plant?
Howard Preston: That is correct. MnDot, their unofficial comments. You have
to understand, I thought they were very responsive at our meeting when we had
asked them some questions. We asked for their reactions and it was kind of spur
of the moment kinds of-.things and they just indicated they thought their staff
would have a problem with this particular design. The reason is, it would
almost difficult to make this movement. It's very difficult to make that
movement, particularly with trucks. Almost impossible. '
Councilman Johnson: But we're doing it. _
Howard Preston: It's something I think that MnDot, since it's there, it.'s been
there for a long time, they live with it, it's not something they would want to
design.
Mayor Hamilton: Would they then eliminate the railroad crossing there?
Howard Preston: No, they didn't say they would have to eliminate that. There
would still be some use for.. .there. It's best that there would be no access
between the westbound lane of TH 5 and West 78th Street.
Councilman Johnson: My other problem is on the other side where 78th comes in '
does not meet TH 101 on a perpendicular fashion. So if you're turning there to
get and go south, then you're taking more than a 90 degree or less than a 90
degree, whatever, sharper turn. '
Howard Preston: That's a good comment. Again, I think we can take care of some
of that detail design if we had to by turning the roadway slightly. It's not
necessarily a great design but it was something that.. .
Councilman Johnson: One thing that really amazes me, as somebody who drives
this road everyday, is how many people turn off of Powers Blvd. way out here on
the west side, comes clear across town, cuts across the railroad tracks and gets
on TH 5 rather than using the Powers Blvd. intersection. That's to avoid the
lights, exactly. 1
Howard Preston: I think in the future what will end up happening is, I'm
relatively certainly they'll end up at a traffic signal at that particular
location.
Councilman Johnson: I think that intersection is right now one of the worse in
the City as far as hazards of trucks and the crossing traffic and everything
else. I'd love to see something done with that intersection. Even if it's
closed off. Not closed off completely but I personally don't like 78th Street
going that far. We've got four different places you get onto TH 5. The fifth
one that could support the people, almost everyone of those folks could have
just gone down to Powers and gone.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to move the process along a bit. I think that we
went through a very detailed analysis. I'd like to know how that turned out. I
don't want to see us discuss alternatives in depth that didn't get any support.
Why go through something that nobody likes to begin with? I'd like to see us
24
' City Council Meeting September 26, 1988
g �
narrow this down to the couple that seemed to do well in the criteria and see
II what they are.
Mayor Hamilton: We seem to have it narrowed down to those that MnDot would
support and I see no reason to discuss anything other than that.
Howard Preston: MnDot indicated support for alternative 6.
•
Mayor Hamilton: Right, we looked at several others and you've shown us that
they won't support so we have 2, 2A, and 6 basically is what they will support.
Howard Preston: That's correct.
Mayor Hamilton: So I see no reason to talk about anything else.
Councilman Boyt: My understanding was that MnDot supported all of them.
Howard Preston: They said they basically preferred 2 and 6, is what they came
down to because that maximized the spacing between the off-set legs.
Mayor Hamilton: 2A was thrown in at the very end and they said they could
support that also. Fred, do you have something additional you wanted to say?
Fred Hoisington: Yes, we're going to wrap it up with the analysis your honor.
You will recall that when we first formulated a list of criteria, we had 15 and
we began to divide those up into wants and musts. In the process of eliminating
musts and throughout the process, the first one to go was the MnDot's
acceptance. We felt that no matter the alternative, MnDot had to accept it. So
that was. .. Now as this process along the dynamic line, we've had a couple
that, one that you knew about and another one that occurred right at the very
end of the process, the elimination of the traffic safety and design standards.
We felt that was a must. Everyone of the alternatives would have to meet that.
That would be acceptable to the City. And also the ability to meet the
accelerated TH 5 schedule. In that case we scored all the alternatives the same
which meant there was no reason to have it scored at all so we are now down to a
total of 13 total criteria upon which the evaluation has been made. In addition
to that, we established scoring system. I just want to explain to you briefly
how it works and I'm going to use the residential, or impact on remaining
residents as the example because it's the one probably of most interest here.
' What we're essentially using is a 4 point system with 4 points being at least
the existing situation or better. Maintaining that situation, as far as impacts
on remaining residents are concerned. 2 points being where increases in traffic
volumes will be closer to remaining residents and that being sort of a worse
situation than the present, possibly acceptable situation and then a zero score
for anything that in fact••changes the collector street function of a street. In
' other words, with substantial volumes of traffic onto the street. The entire
scoring system is of this same nature so I won't run through all of them. Now,
what we did, after we had the scoring system and the criteria, was ask the
Council to weight the criteria. It was a bit of a struggle but we got it done.
What I got is a new chart. What we did was multiply the score times the
weighting, the average weighting given by the Council. We actually can come up
with a scoring or total points for each one of these for your review. Now I
thought I could do this for you. As you can see by the one we sent out last
week, I found out quickly I could not do it for you so what you have here
' 25
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
1
represents your own conclusions about how this whole thing works. Now let,me
just explain briefly that the criteria listed up and down, 13 of them, the
alternatives of course across horizontally. The Council's average weightings
under the weight and then the points, the score beneath one of them from zero to
4 in each of the columns preceeding the first column with the number above it
and then the multiplication of score times the weight equals the point in each
one of the second columns for each of the alternatives. Here's what the results
show. That alternative number 2 and 2A score the highest and they are very •
close to be exactly the same, within a point of one another. That 2 and 2A
score best on the accessibility criteria. They provide the best access for all
existing developments, residential and commercial and industrial. The 3-and 4
score best in matters of continuity, traffic separation. In other words, if you
look at the top cluster in each of the 3 and 4, the first three items, 3 and 4
get almost all their points right there and then beyond that of 3 and 4, lots of
zeros so not many points scored once you got beyond the first three which were
continuity, level of service and traffic separation. Now our recommendations to
you are these. Essentially you have three acceptable alternatives as far as the
team is concerned. Those alternatives are 2, 2A and 6. Now, I'm not going to
be so presumptious as to say I can tell the difference between 2 and 2A in this
case because the difference is very close. I think if were, and we tried this
with a computer, we did some manipulating of the score and it's almost
impossible not to end up with either the 2's or the 6 as the preferred
alternatives. Obviously you can shift costs or add a great deal more weight to
costs and end up with shifting all the way to 6 as your selection. Or you can
shift more towards business property, other business property accessibility and
you can in fact show a greater difference between the 2's and 6. This II
represents your weighting. We think it's a reasonable weighting of the criteria
and our recommendation would be for you to deal with this in sort of a priority
fashion. I guess I can't say that I would recommend wholeheartedly that you
start off on 2 and that be the only thing you pursue in the course of this
process. What you have to do is look at 2 as perhaps the one that would be the
preferred alternative and begin to work towards that end but we as consultants
prefer 2A to 2 for the simple reason that we think the system works better under
2A than it does under 2. If for any reason it can not be accomplished 2, 2A,
that 6 would be a second priority and one that would be continued to be pursued
should the 2's not be achieveable by the City. We think they certainly can be
and we recommend that would be the beginning point for the establishment of
priorities. So with that your honor, I would simply open to questions.
Mayor Hamilton: I think what I'd like to do is ask, since the public hearing is
still open, we need to receive comments from the public, if there are any
additional cocnnents so we can close the public hearing and then we can have
questions. Is there anybody from the public who would like to make additional
comments that we have not previously heard? Mark, do you have something we have
not previously heard? I don't want to hear anything that we've heard before.
We've already got it. We've read it. We've heard it.
Mark Eiden: 2 or 2A would be a primary target for Chanhassen residents. I' ll
make it as simple as that. We'd like you to approve that one. 1
Pat Hallisey: I'm Pat Hallisey. I'm a partner of Blue Circle Investment
1:
. .Company. The people who own the commercial development where the Q-Superette is
located. I've written you on two different occasions. This is an extreme
urgency and importance to this issue and I'd like to take a few minutes of your
26 1
'. City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
time to address some of the issues that I have written to you about. One of the
' reasons that I feel that it's imperative that I do that, I listen to Councilman
Boyt this evening ask a question relative to the commercial concern. What we
were addressing, or what I heard Councilman Boyt addressing in that question was
the 6,000 cars a day projected at the west side of our development where the
' current TH 101 is. To us the concern is not what the count is today or the
6,000 cars that is projected under that particular plan. As I pointed out, in
our planning process, we were led to believe that TH 101 would always be in it's
' current position. We had to go through certain processes in our planning in
order to accomodate the future TH 101, the TH 101 we're meeting then in the
future. In accordance with that thinking, the important number becomes the
20,000 cars a day that you see from Alternative 2. That is why we built there
and that is why we built there for the long term. That is the importance that
we're trying to address in our communication. As I pointed out to you in our
written communication, this was an issue of great importance at the time that we
' planned and made our investment. It was also the major issue to our major
tenant. As I addressed in one of our letters, that should you relocate TH 101
from it's present course, that tenant has the option to vacate his premise
leaving us with a mortgage and no income. That's not a real comfortable
position to be in. Particularly when we did make that decision to go ahead
based on all of the past city's planning recommendations that were made to us by
staff, Council and the Planning Commission at the point when we made our
' investment. With respect to some of the differences between 2 and 2A, I'm sure
it's obvious to you that I favor plan 2 because it's the only one of the three
that we see being considered that leaves TH 101 in it's present location. I
' guess you could call that selfish interest but at this point in time, it's a
matter of survival so if that's selfish, we're guilty. Some of the differences
that we see in 2 and 2A is number one, we do not feel that the current 2,500
cars a day on TH 101 south of TH 5 warrants a $600,000.00 expenditure to
improve. That is the approximate traffic count on TH 101 south of TH 5. We
feel that if you leave TH 101 where it is, you can defer that $600,000.00
expenditure out to the point where it becomes necessary. It's not an issue you
' have to deal with at the present time. We also feel that if you leave the TH
101 alignment where it is, at the point where it does become necessary to
upgrade that stretch of TH 101, you are not now faced with acquisition of a
' total new right-of-way. You have a right-of-way that simply needs to be
straighten and widened. Therefore, again reducing the cost. I guess I do have
some comments on the criteria that the consultants have given. I have not had
the opportunity to review the Council's criteria but what I see briefly, I think
' it falls far closer to our feelings as far as criteria. Some of the problems
that I have with your consultant's criteria was that there were two areas that
were completely unweighted. That was public acceptance. They gave absolutely
no weighting to how the public felt about the plans and the other was
residential access. If you look at those two items, you'll see that plan 6
scored the lowest in both of them, therefore if you had a weighting system
attached, plan 2 or plan 2A would come, according to the consultant's report, a
whole lot different story. We also felt that there was a skewing of a very
major item and that was the access to the downtown properties. That was
weighted at 8 when access to other business properties was weighted at 3. The
' real point here is that all three of the plans you're now considering have
identical weight, or identical downtown access. Therefore, if we had a lower
weighting for that because they're all identical and a higher weighting to
' access to other business properties where number 6 ranks very low in comparison
to 2 and 2A, you would again have a difference in your consultant's scoring.
' 27
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
11
Again, I don't know what specifics went into developing the scoring on
evaluating the development impacts. We felt that plan 6 was basically, or plan
2 and 2A would basically two apartment buildings, have considerably less impact
overall on the business community of the City of Chanhassen than if you put plan
6 in. That would have an impact on your cement plant, your taco shop, McDonalds
and Sinclair to say nothing of our shopping center. I had the opportunity
before the meeting started tonight in the parking lot to visit with Councilman
Geving for just a couple minutes and it was just an off the cuff conversation. I
did not have any idea, in fact I was asking the councilman if he had seen
anything like this so I might have a couple minutes to review it and he had not
seen it either but the councilman asked me how business was coming in our
development. I informed him that business is on the updeck. We knew that at
the time we built it that it was a growing process. I informed him that we are
just in the process of opening one new tenant in our development. This was a
tenant that agreed to a lease prior to this whole issue of TH 101 realignment
coming up but to try and underscore what we thought was important, what I think
was the important part of that conversation, we had another tenant that was
very, very interested in leasing space from us. He was weighing two possible
locations. One in the City of Chanhassen. One outside the City of Chanhassen.
As this issue arose, I had to be truthful with him and tell him that there was a
possibility that TH 101 would be relocated from the west side of our shopping
center. At that point in time he having to make an investment decision said I
can not afford to locate in your project if you don't have TH 101 at our door.
Those are the 20,000 cars that make a great difference to us. It's not just us,
it's the people who want to lease space from us. I guess that concludes my
comments and I thank you for listening.
I!!
Lloyd Grims: My name is Lloyd Grims and I represent the McDonalds franchise.. .
Given that the comments that we would have made have already been made, I won't
be redundant and go over those points. I think it's suffice to say that the
analysis presented...and we haven't had an opportunity to see before this
evening but certainly...suggested all along that the alternative 2 is a very
reasonable, cost efficient sensible from a traffic standpoint alternative. We
would support alternative 2 or 2A. Given that there is an impact. We have no
adverse impact from either of those two alternatives. Our concern is the
•accessbility that is provided by the Dakota Avenue interchange. That coupled
with the concerns for the local residents as well as some of the other
considerations. ...all those variables are weighted together, and even when
other businesses accessibility. ..it still comes that alternative 2 is a very
acceptable alternative. One that we think is...from an economic standpoint and
the City's economic standpoint and we support that and ask that the Council make
a recommendation for alternative 2 or 2A.
Jack Boardman: My name is Jack Boardman. I'm here with Frank Kramer
representing the Kerr property. One of the things that we had when we started,
the items that we just wanted to, not necessarily to speak in favor of one
option or another, but just add input to the dialogue. In alternative 6, if I
understand that correctly, that is 2 million dollars. In item 2 and 2A it was
2.7 and 3.4. A couple of questions regarding other options, mainly number 3
which had the most impact as the original location for TH 101. Alternate
alignment 3 in effect cuts through the western edge of the Kerr property. In
looking at and in going through the past few months worth of dialogue on that
issue, and working with staff over the last couple weeks after we kind of got a
feeling that there were going to be a number of different options discussed, we
28 ,
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
1
wanted to take a more positive tact as the planners and the owners of the Kerr
' parcel met with staff, reviewed the idea of what would happen to that parcel is
option 3, the original alignment of TH 101 were taken into effect. What we did
is, we looked at the idea on this plan, which in effect looks at combining our
parcel with the VFW parcel into a larger development and I think this councilman
mentioned earlier that these two parcels are prime for development. We
obviously agree. If TH 101 were to go through here with the major buffer along
the south side to allow it to be compatible with the residential areas, we could .
' see our parcel combining with the adjoining parcel in a development project that •
in this case, we're looking at approximately...
' Mayor Hamilton: Let me interrupt you for a moment. Option 3 is not any longer
an option so there's really no sense in discussing it.
Jack Boardman: Really. Okay, thank you.
' Uli Sacchet: My name is Uli Sacchet and I live _at 8071 Hidden Circle. I
represent residents of the Brookhill development. First of all I want to thank
' you for making it clear that option 3 is no longer an option. We still await
your final decision which really shows where you're at but so far I really have
to thank you in the name of the residents for having listened to our concerns.
' I'd like to just take a few minutes to try to make this brief and explain a
little bit how the position of the residents evolved.
Mayor Hamilton: Uli, I'd like to interrupt you. I think we know the residents
' position and I think it's really germane at this point that we know how your
position evolved. We have a decision to make tonight. You've seen the
information before us. We have a lot of discussion to do yet. Unless you have
' some additional new information, then present that. I don't want history.
Uli Sacchet: Okay, no history. No history tonight. I agree. Looking at what
is presented, Option 2, 2A and 6 as being the options is certainly in line with
' what the residents position is. However, I'd like to narrow it down a little
bit. The position of the residents, and we certainly feel for the concerns of
the Superette. However, the residents position is very clearly in favor of
' . the Market Blvd. option. They also asked for the Dakota intersection be further
investigated which now has been done and is combined in the option 2A. In terms
of talking for the residents, I have to say that the residents of the Brookhill
development would favor 2A. Plus, I'd like to point out to you that the
question was raised, what happens to these intersection levels, C, E and D on
that drawing. The question was asked, would it be a D, D and D? It seems to me
if you compared this to option 6, which is basically the answer to that
' question. It would be D, D and D more than likely. I'd like to point that out
because I believe it is of importance. However, as a second option to the
residents, I would believe that number 6 would be favored over number 2. With
' this I thank you.
Steve Peterson: I'm Steve Peterson and I live in Chanhassen Estates. Looking
at 2, 2A and 6, I just think that the children in Chanhassen Estates can get
downtown much easier and safer with 2 or 2A. That's important to me.
Len Arneson: I'm Len Arneson. I own the Sinclair. I just wanted to say that 2
' or 2A would keep me in business and make me able to pay the taxes in the future
days so thank you.
29
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
I
Brad Johnson: Brad Johnson with the downtown development group. I guess -as
I look at 2A or 2, and I'm just going to point this out for your conclusions, is
that it does discourage traffic from the downtown area. Currently as you know,
we do a lot of surveys and we're finding that 30% of our business currently in
the downtown area, that includes the MGM, 78th Street, 79th Street, comes from
the Eden Prairie sector. I think this is as subtle as our little turn where we
put that intersection in at 78th Street and Great Plains Blvd. instead of •
letting it go straight, we made the turn. You currently have a lot of people
who want to come down TH 101 and turn right onto 78th Street and shoot into the
downtown area. I think this, and this is subtle, discourage them and encourage
than to cross the street into the McDonalds area, which is fine with me, or go
left...as soon as you hit downtown. A lot of our service stations, and we've
done checks on credit and checks, it's just subtle. Now maybe it's just in the
design of that corner but it's important to the downtown area that the turn
there is an easy one for people to get into downtown. I just want to point that
out. Either in the design or whatever, that that turn remain intact. Thank
you.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Councilman Johnson: I was just looking over Fred's rating system. His method
of scoring this. The residential impact on 2 and 2A, he game them a 4 which
means no impact on residents. We're eliminating two apartment buildings... i
Fred Hoisington: ...the effect that the traffic would have on those. What we
did was crank that into the development impacts later in the process and that
number appeared to be number 12. We said that you would get lower scoring if
you lost residents there so we do have really two different things there. One
of it is impact on remaining. The other one is impact on residential and other
land uses. ,
Councilman Johnson: That's important to me too because we have a lack of
affordable housing we've been told by the Met Council. We need to get more
affordable housing in town and that's some of our affordable housing here in
town. I think the mitigation of that is going to be to put in some more
affordable housing someplace. I'm really torn between the options. I see
options 2 and 2A answering a lot of problems at an increased cost. I see the
choice between 2 and 2A as being almost a deferred choice. That you could do 2
and further study how TH 101 realignment south of the realignment occurs.
Whether we do 2 now and as that intersection fails, we could at a future date do ,
2A to relieve the Great Plains intersection problems. That would merely delay
that or restudy that. I think that we have to try to get that out of an E
situation. That needs to be looked at a little more. Whether we can get that
intersection up to a D as is but 2A does eliminate some TH 101 alignment
problems that we already have. Of 2 and 2A, I actually favor 2A right now
except for I don't like the total. I'd like to see what the alternative of
keeping TH 101 at Great Plains looks like in the future. How that affects the
businesses. It's almost premature there of seeing what the two sections that
are being affected by Th 101, how they plan on developing and how that will
affect... Whether they'd rather have TH 101 on the east or the west side of
their development. It's almost like we're putting too much into this current
30 '
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
stab at it. I think we can do 2 and decide on whether alternate 2A should be
done in the future. 6 is acceptable to me also except I would, if we're going
Ito do 6, I would like to redo the intersection of 78th Street and TH 101 to
basically eliminate the railroad crossing at that point. Having those two
railroad crossings right next to each other is going to be really tough for the
railroad. We just went through a tough negotiation with the railroad to get
Market Blvd.. That's all my comments.
Councilman Geving: When I first looked at the alternatives, I was quite pleased •
with what I saw in alternate number 6. Primarily the fact that it was the least
cost. Less than 2 million dollars and there were some other factors that I kind
of liked because it meant taking the cement plant, which I felt we could
' probably acquire easier. It would be more beneficial to the community in the
long run than to eliminte one of our Meadows apartment buildings. But the more
I looked at it and realized the closing of the access to Dakota Avenue really
' made my decision for me and as far as I'm concerned, I would like to recommend
to the Council that we close that option out and eliminate for further
consideration number 6. Going on, I kind of like the idea that our engineers
and our consultants have had several weeks now to really hone this problem down
and I think we've worked at it to the point where it's great to see it down from
a number of alternatives to less than 3. I like alternative 2A for the simple
reason that I think it's a long term solution. I question however, the
capability of being able to acquire the necessary right-of-way for $600,000.00.
I'm not so sure that that's really a feasible number. The fact that we do have
greater separation from the Market intersection all the way down to the proposed
I retaining of the intersection on Dakota Avenue is a big plus for me. I like 2A
and 2 almost equally except that there's $600,000.00 difference and I think I'd
prefer, I think we're talking $600,000.00? The gentleman did state and he was
absolutely correct, that the existing TH 101 would force us not to buy any
additional land. It may strengthen our ability to meet the accelerated TH 5
schedule because we're really not having to build another road for TH 101. It's
there. The only thing we really have to build is that new intersection down at
' Dakota Avenue and the crossing of the railroad tracks. I feel too that the
rating that was weighted by the Councilmen pretty much bore out different than I
had thought originally. The fact that 6 falls out now at 140 points. For the
$600,000.00 in difference in price, I kind of like, in my opinion, alternate
' number 2 for the reasons that I mentioned. Timing for building TH 101 and
meeting the TH 5 schedule. The highway is there. There's no acquisition costs.
We don't have to build anything. I think the key to this whole thing for me is
' the fact that it meets all the previous criteria that we established and that
was the separation from the residential area of Hidden Valley. It retains the
access to our downtown businesses. It retains the access to our existing
' businesses to the American Legion club. To the Q store and an access across
Great Plains to our downtown area. Another major factor is that it removes
traffic from TH 101 off of our main street, St. Hubert's church and school.
That's a real key and important safety consideration. Alternate 2 is historic.
' It's the movement pattern that we've been used to for many years and as far as
I'm concerned, there's really no change. I think that's the best alternative
and I'll leave it at that Mr. Mayor. I would vote for alternate number 2.
' Councilman Johnson: Before we move onto Clark, I missed a question I wanted to
ask the City Manager. I think all the councilmen would like to know about is on
' the financial impact of this and how the different alternatives, our ability to
pay for those alternatives and how they get complicated.
31
u)
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
Don Ashworth: It comes down into Mr. Mayor, whether or not you feel a decision
might be made this evening. The financial impact may be a part of even another
meeting where we look at all three alternatives. Now that we've narrowed it
down, maybe we need to narrow it down even more and to consider some of the cost
implications as a part of that renarrowing type of position.
Councilman Geving: I hate to bring this up but I think it's important. In our
decisions and deliberations on all of the alignments, the particular alignments
that I'm referring to have to do with the taking of an apartment building at the
Meadows. For some of you that were not here when this was proposed a number of
years ago, we didn't know what was going to happen to TH 101 in it's realignment
when this proposal came before the Council. Rather than turn down the
application to build this apartment building because we didn't know how many
years it would be before we got to this point tonight, we decided to go ahead
and build that Meadows Apartments and we knew then that some years down the road
this would be a possibility. This is something that was cranked into our
thinking on the Council the night we approved this- particular plan to build a
fourth Meadows Apartment building. That's all I have to say.
Councilman Horn: Well Dale, I wish you wouldn't say we decided to build that.
The developer decided to build that even though he knew that we didn't know
exactly where the alignment was. But I look at the whole process that we've had '
here and really trying to pick a choice is a very overwhelming choice. It's
been pointed out to me several times I'm the analytical type so I really like
the method that we used to pick this and to me it really cleared up the issue.
As far as I'm concerned, it really pointed out dramatically that 2 is the best
overall compromise and it also does give us the option of going to 2A at some
point in the future to give us more time to study it. So I think the process
has worked well and I have to compromise with number 2. '
Councilman Boyt: Clark, true to form you're a man of few words and I appreciate
that. I've got a couple questions. I think that was one of the things we were
supposed to do. Fred, I've got a question of you. Cn this alternative 2 in
front of us or more specifically 2A, is it possible that we could build this
• third intersection to the west without building the TH 101 attachment south of
it and reserving that right in the future? Can we get MnDot to give us that
third intersection if we don't immediately build the TH 101?
Fred Hoisington: Get this one if we don't build this one? '
Councilman Boyt: No, if we don't extend, alternative 2A. If all we do is ask
MnDot to put the intersection in there and maybe connect the north part to
Market Blvd., will MnDot build that so at some future date we have the option to
extend it south?
Fred Hoisington: I'm not sure to what degree they would build that in this ,
phase. Certainly they have to build it to connect to the north side in any
event. We had asked them that question specifically. I think what we're
comfortable with here is, if you chose to use this and of course again, we [!!
prefer 2A because we think the whole system functions better with 2A. Nonethe-
less, you could function with this and still continue to hold that in advance
until such time as the dollars were available or whatever and it could be built.
We can work on that Bill. See what they're willing to do with this with respect
32
5'
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
to building the entire thing at this point.
Councilman Boyt: One possibility is to look at future development along' that
II area that would be vacated if TH 101 was shut off where it i.s now. If that
became developed, it might come back to the earlier Market Blvd. intersection.
' I have another question, Don did you find out about the tax impact of removing
those two apartment-buildings?
Don Ashworth: No, I did not. Not in terms of the question that you posed.
' Councilman Boyt: So we have no idea is what you're telling me?
' Mayor Hamilton: Not right now.
Don Ashworth: That's correct. Coming into the meeting I would have been able
' to present that. What we did do was we showed the cost of taking those two
units.
Councilman Boyt: But we don't know the lost revenue?
' Don Ashworth: I firmly believe that it is minor when you consider the age and
the City's receiving of 20% of the tax amount.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, thank you. Fred, the question on the railroad crossing
in alternative 2, we have that X sitting right on top of the railroad. Is that
really feasible?
I ! Fred Hoisington: Yes.
4
Councilman Boyt: Amazing. The Q-Superette traffic, we've talked about that a
few times. You mentioned it, Mr. Hallisey I believe it was mentioned it's 2,500
trips per day currently under the estimate for alternative 2, if we go to 2A, it
' still retains 6,000 trips a day, if we use what you estimated for alternative 6,
which is a similiar sort of connection so we have 2 1/2 times the existing
traffic. Is it your feeling Mr. Hallisey that under 2A, that 2 1/2 times or 2.4
times the existing level of traffic would cause that person to void their lease?
' Pat Hallisey: There's absolutely no doubt in my mind. The 2,500 or 6,000, in
accordance with our planning, were not accepted. We knew that at some point in
' time the widening of TH 5 and the leaving of TH 101 where it was at, that we
would be approaching the 20,000 level of cars per day. That's what the
investment was...
' Councilman Boyt: Barbara, it seems to me we've talked about realigning TH 101
before. Have we not said. that that's a possibility?
Barbara Dacy: The option to realign TH 101 through the commeci.al site was
brought up during the broadened study area report which was completed in August
of 1986 I believe. I can't recall right now how that one sided with the
' planning.
Councilman Boyt: Then I think 2 and 2A are certainly where we're headed. I
think that we should be able to make a decision tonight since those options are
' awfully close to the same, to move in that direction. That would free up sane
' 33
9c(3
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
other people to make sane decisions they need to make. I feel that Brad's
comment about access to downtown is something that certainly should be added
into the considerations of 2 and 2A. We don't want to make it more difficult
for people who want to leave TH 101 and the way that X is laid out right now, it
certainly would so maybe we can reconform that a bit. I think the most
impressive thing about the process for me is that we went through a process. I
was very impressed by your work Fred in laying out the criteria and giving it
weights and that. I honestly believe that we got a better decision because the
neighborhood got involved than we would have had without it. I remember
thinking back when it was first presented to the Planning Commission that
putting this traffic on TH 5 was not going to work. I've been convinced
otherwise and I think that's because of Planning Commission, neighborhood, and
your work. So along with Clark, I'm impressed with the system you used and I
would support either of those two alternatives, 2 or 2A. I hate to see us lose
alternative 2A as a future possibility.
Mayor Hamilton: Fred, perhaps you could answer a question for me. What is the ,
time frame that MnDot needs to have a decision from us on what the exact
alignment is that we need to designate? And is their concern ,only the alignment
as it goes down TH 5 from the current intersection or, I don't know exactly what ,
their concern is. Do they care north and south of TH 5 where the alignment
goes?
Fred Hoisington: No. I'd have to say that that's not a big item for them. I I
think what they're mostly concerned about is, that we can put a bid package
together that dovetails with theirs for TH 5. According to BRW, that's
possible. We don't think that's an impossibility with any of the alternatives
that we're currently considering so what we're looking at is really trying to
have something that would be to them by let's say January or February when the
bid packets. If we can dovetail that, then we can be right on the accelerated
TH 5 schedule.
Mayor Hamilton: The reason I'm asking that is because I agree with the other
counciimembers that 2 and 2A are certainly the best options. I certainly favor
2A over 2 because of the long term effects of it but what I think we need to do
is to, what I'd like to see us do is approve alignment 2 and 2A because we need
'to continue talking with the County, with Hennepin County who we have already
begun dialogue with about participating in the financing of this project. I
think if we were to use existing TH 101 going south, they may have less interest
in helping us fund this than if we were to realign it to a new one going down
Market. I think we need, what I'd like to do is talk with them further and
identify some of the costs and see what their participation might be. If the
State is only concerned about the alignment on TH 5 and where that might fall,
then I think we can tell them where it's going to be and we can continue our
dialogue with other people who are involved in this project and to more clearly
define our finances and how we're going to pay for this. I think that will help
us filter out which one we select, whether it's 2 or 2A. It may end up being a
combination of both. Selecting 2 in the interim moving towards 2A as has been
suggested previously. If I could get the Council's backing on that, I would
appreciate that for identifying the alignment. Selecting both of them. I have
so moved.
Councilman Horn: I'll second it.
34 ,
tCity Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
' — Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Comprehensive Land
Use Plan Amendment to identify Alternative 2 moving towards Alternative 2A as
the realignment for TH 101. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' Mayor Hamilton: We also need to do the official map requesting to designate the
TH 101 realignment. You were going to say something.
Barbara Dacy: That was, the City initiated application for the original •
' alignment across the New American Homes property. By your motion, in effect the
items (a) and (b) , the original application by the City is.. .so no action is
needed on (b) .
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I would like to reiterate what Bill had said. Thank
the neighborhood for becoming involved and for giving us your input. It was
very helpful. We appreciate it.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 40,000 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER, NEW AMERICAN HOMES.
' Mayor Hamilton: I think we've seen their whole plan and we tabled this at our
last meeting pending on what was going to happen with the TH 101 realignment so
' do councilmembers have any questions of staff or do you need anything further
presented? Bill, anything additional you need?
Councilman Boyt: Well, the neighborhood wants it. They've told us they want
= it. At least some of them want it. Everything seems to be in order. We last
time talked about screening. Staff feels it's well screened. I have no
objections.
' Councilman Horn: I think we've covered all the issues last time.
Councilman Geving: I think we can move ahead with the site plan approval. I
will make the motion to approve the Site Plan Review for a 40,000 square foot
shopping center for New American Homes with the three conditions as shown here
on the attached staff engineer's report. Are there any other conditions?
Councilman Horn: I will second that.
' Councilman Johnson: He said the three conditions on the staff engineer's
report.
Councilman Geving: Of the 17th.
' Councilman Johnson: Right. There's also compliance with the recommendation of
the Fire Inspector's memo of July 19th on the front.
' Councilman Geving: I'll include those two conditions as we11.
ICouncilman Horn: I'll so second.
t
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Site Plan Request
�-- #88-6 for a 40,000 square foot shopping center gased on the plans stamped
' "Received September 9, 1988" and subject to the following conditions:
' 35
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
1. Compliance with the City Engineer's recommendations contained in the August
17, 1988 memorandum.
2. Compliance with the recommendations of the Fire Inspector as contained in
the memorandum dated June 9, 1988.
3. The applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for approval calculations
which verify that adequate pressue flow conditions will be available to the
site which would support the building sprinkler demand along with the demand
required by the fire department.
4. The site plan shall be revised to include an additional access from the '
southwest corner of the site onto Lake Drive East. This access shall be of
adequate width to support two-way traffic.
5. An erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval
prior to the commencement of any construction or grading.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. '
Mayor Hamilton: I will vote yes only because they meet all of the ordinance
requirements but I don't think it's a good project. I think it's going to
create vacancies in other areas of the City and I don't like that.
LOT AREA VARIANCE REQUEST, 6961 NEZ PERCE DRIVE, MARIE HILYER.
Councilman Geving: The lot area variance was approved by the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals. This is a separate lot of record since the 1930's and
there had originally been a house on this lot. So we approved it unanimously
and the motion passed for a 8,422 square foot lot.
Mayor Hamilton: The home burnt down a couple years ago and it's been sitting
vacant ever since.
Councilman Boyt: I think every time one of these comes up, I wish the City
would inventory all these lots. This one's a little different in that it had a
house on it but we need to know the undersized lots that are lots of record. I
think we need to make some sort of decision about some better way of handling
this than having an 8,000 square foot lot. I'd like to begin by asking that the
staff at some point in the next 6 months, inventory and give us a report back
with that inventory of the lots of record under 15,000 square feet that aren't
occupied.
Mayor Hamilton: Just at Carver Beach, I hope you mean? Carver Beach in
particular is difficult to do because you have all those 25 foot lots that are
owners all over the world basically. It's hard to figure out who owns them.
Councilman Boyt: I'm not after who owns them. I want to know where they are '
and I want us to look at, once we know how many, look at some way of working
through this other than one lot at a time.
36 '
ICity Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
II
Mayor Hamilton: The problem with that is, and I'm not trying argue ue with what
Y g
you're attempting to do because I think it's a good idea but the difficulty is
that you'll have one person will own three of those lots and then somebody else
will four of them and so forth and then one person like Louis Woitilla for a
long time was good at trying to get enough together so he could build a house
' on it and he had done that several times which was good because he managed to
combine enough to build some homes. Unless you have someone willing to do that,
you're going to have a lot of them in that area well under 15,000 because there
are multiple owners on all those parcels. They're totally unbuildable now but
' someday somebody may still come back and they've managed to put that together
and say now I have an 8,000 square foot lot and I'd like to build a house.
' Councilman Geving: I think that would be very hard to do Bill. It only becomes
an issue when it becomes an application before us for a variance. I don't think
it would be very easy for the City staff to arrive at what you're trying to do.
' I like what you're saying. I think it'd be very desirable but it'd be extremely
difficult to find out who the owners are of literally thousands of parcels.
There are lots of parcels. I'm talking about 20 fot lots.
' Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps staff could take a look at it in a cursory way and see
if it's going to be a major problem and report back. If it's going to be a
significant problem with many, many hours, then tell us that. Would that be
' adequate for you?
Councilman Boyt: Sure.
Councilman Johnson: Can I ask a quick question? If 5 or 6 lots are currently
under separate ownership, one person buys all those lots up, does that become a
lot of record then that could be a house placed on it with all they have to do
is get a variance because he's purchased from other people all these small lots
to put it together or does he have to purchase enough to get.. .
' Mayor Hamilton: No, it does not become a lot of record.
Barbara Dacy: They would have to get 15,000 square feet.
' Councilman Johnson: So if there is one 25 foot lot there, it's totally
unbuildable?
Councilman Geving: That's right.
Mayor Hamilton: That's what they are.
Councilman Geving: And that's why a lot of them go back on taxes because they
can't do anything with them.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LOCATE A CHURCH IN THE RURAL DISTRICT ON PROPERTY
ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HWY. 41
APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE NORTH OF TH 5, WESTSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we've looked at this several times previously. I guess
3-- I was under the impression that they had already been approved.
11 37
''
' City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
Jo Ann Olsen: What was approved was the zoning ordinance amendment to allow
churches outside the MUSA line. They're located on TH 41. The Planning
Commission reviewed it several times. They did recommend approval with the
conditions recommended in the staff report. The applicant is proposing a church
which will be serviced by a septic system on TH 41. It's meeting all the
requirements for setbacks. It does the two acceptable sites provided. There
are several conditions that apply to the conditional use permit. They are all
pretty minor details and staff is recommending approval of the conditional use
permit as stated in the report on page 7.
Mayor Hamilton: I'd more approval of the conditional use permit to locate a
church in the RR district with the 12 conditions as outlined by staff and as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
Councilman Horn: Second.
Councilman Boyt: Larry, it was my understanding that there was a question of '
MnDot.
Larry Brown: Yes. Late this morning MnDot came back and posed a statement back
to the City that they would not allow a public street to access at the same
point as a private driveway. In other words, if they granted this driveway
permit, we would be ousted, if you will, from that landing spot where Lake Lucy
Road had been planned to pass to TH 41. We've tried to contact MnDot today
without success to find out the exact logic but were unable to do so.
Councilman Horn: Would it be possible to reroute this driveway to Lake Lucy at
some future point?
Barbara Dacy: What we would have to do is reroute Lake Lucy right now or we'd
have to look at another alternative to reroute Lake Lucy.
Councilman Horn: We can't put the driveway where we would have had Lake Lucy
before? I
Councilman Geving: Let me say this, we have not put Lake Lucy Road on any map
.that I'm aware of. We haven't designated any alignment. We can put that in
later. We can go ahead and make this approval for the Baptist Church. At some
point they could hook up to that road when we put it through.
Mayor Hamilton: Staff was just calling it to our attention that the perceived
alignment as they would see it now, would conflict with this.
Barbara Dacy: As far as topography and we're voiding a lot of trees and so on,
this was a preliminary alignment that we had looked to. So this could force a
more expensive alternative. •
Councilman Boyt: As I understand this Larry, what MnDot is saying is if we '
allow a private drive here, that we can not put Lake Lucy on top of that private
drive at some point in the future?
Larry Brown: That's my understanding, yes.
Councilman Boyt: So it's not a matter of a private drive joins Lake Lucy at
38
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
some point in the future. That won't work. Is that right?
Larry Brown: That's correct.
Councilman Horn: Aren't you concerned with the number of accesses to the
' highway? If you eliminate one, you could have the other?
Larry Brown: That's correct.
Councilman Geving: Isn't it my understanding that there is an allowance for a
driveway access every 500 feet on TH 41? in I correct or very close to being
correct?
Larry Brown: I'm not aware of that.
' Councilman Geving: I think I'm reasonably accurate.
Councilman Boyt: This is an important issue. I-don't want to see us commit to
a private drive that then forces us to put Lake Lucy Road 500 feet from here at
a minimum. I think we're talking potentially a lot more money to make that
connection and that's a piece of information we've got to have. I think until
you can resolve this with MnDot, we should table this.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I can't see clearly on their plan there, why couldn't,
if Lake Lucy were to go through here someday which is certainly a number of
years away, why could their access be onto Lake Lucy and then onto TH 41?
' 3 Larry Brown: Again, I've tried to contact MnDot to find out their logic but
right now the statement is, if you do in fact pass this driveway permit onto TH
' 41, we will not be able to access TH 41 at the same place where Lake Lucy
accesses. I apologize for not knowing the logic but they were not available at
this time.
' Mayor Hamilton: I can understand that if they are one and same access but if
the parking area dumped onto Lake Lucy Road at a different point further up, I
don't understand their logic at all.
' Councilman Geving: Al, are you aware of the situation on TH 41 for this piece
of property? I think you're familiar with that roadway.
' Al Klingelhutz: I'm quite familiar with it. The present alignment, the
property that was sold is right here which came before the City Council to see
if they could build on that in that area. I believe MnDot had said the access
is somewhere over in here. They missed the access on that survey easement but
then there is another access right here. Right to the south of this property
here which would probably be the best access for the new Lake Lucy Road because
it wouldn't sever their property over here.
Councilman Boyt: What's the terrain like?
Al Klingelhutz: This is all high ground here. There are some trees in here but
you wouldn't be getting as close to the pond.
Councilman Boyt: Isn't it quite steep ground Al?
1 39
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
.1
Al Klingelhutz: It isn't that steep. The steeper area is right in here. From
this point this way and up here it starts to level off.
Councilman Geving: I asked that because I knew you were familiar with the
property. You had originally sold the other property. 1
Al Klingelhutz: Right. This could really make a nice Lake Lucy access sometime
in the future right here. It comes out just about across from the park access. •
Bryan Pike: MnDot has also informed us that our access, they were a little bit
hesitant. They've already issued us a driveway permit also. They said that
they were hesitant because of the vision coming over the hill right there on TH
41. They said, in discussing the road possibility, that probably the City would
have a hard time getting that access point as a 60 foot city street.
Mayor Hamilton: What is your time frame now? What is a critical time line for
you?
Bryan Pike: We need it built. 1
Mayor Hamilton: I realize that but Councilman Boyt is suggesting that this be
tabled. How does that affect where you want? 1
Bryan Pike: We're meeting in another church facility in Excelsior. It was a
temporary situation. We were hoping to build this fall. We've been delayed by
many things. I've got a few things I'd like to say but what MnDot told us is, I!!
there's no way and I had him call the City to tell them that since they've
issued- us a driveway permit, they will not allow a roadway permit on top of that
driveway permit. Also, the present easement that was given to the owners of
the property, that we gave the owners of the property, doesn't follow the access
place. That needs to be renegotiated anyway between us and them. That 60 foot
easement that was put in there, Lake Lucy was
y put in there and it doesn't
continue on any other map. On any other property. On his son's property. It's
not there. It was put in when they thought of subdividing this into several
lots and we came along and purchased the whole thing. We never anticipated a 50
foot setback on both sides and all of that. We were thinking, we didn't want to
landlock them. That's what we were discussing.
Al Klingelhutz: A 60 foot easement was put in there as to not lock the property
to the rear landlocked. It goes to the eastern edge of their property line.
From there on there is no easement.
Bryan Pike: There is another problem too. The DNR says that we already in the 1
150 feet from that pond and where that easement is on our side is 120 feet from
the pond so that easement has got several problems. That possible Lake Lucy
extension has got a lot of problems. 1
Councilman Boyt: I hear problems and see problems all over this when I look at
it. I think you could be helped if we could clear up same, we might be able to
deal with this easement situation a lot better if we had some resolution about
where we're going to put our entrance to Lake Lucy Road, or at least we knew
. what MnDot's feeling was. The easement creates a lot of problems for you and
the 50 foot setback. I would think it would be worth the couple of weeks to
40 1
11 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
I -
clear that up. If we don't need that kind of road width, maybe they don't need
the 50 feet.
II]
Bryan Pike: We'd really like more than anything to continue on, even if there
are conditions put on it along the way. We need to start the process with our
architects. If we don't, we will not be able to get that building down before
frost and we can not afford to build during the winter.
' Councilman Boyt: It seems to me, it looks like the building isn't the problem,
it's the parking lot.
Bryan Pike: No, the building. If they'd allow us, if you allow us to rid
ourselves of that easement, that building, we want to shift that building up on
the hill. That's where we originally wanted it. The 50 foot setbacks were
thrown at us so we had to go back. It's not a major move but it is a move. We
' do have another problem of hooking up to the Metro Waste line. That's a major
thing also.
' Councilman Boyt: I'm going to let other councilmenbers delve into this. I just
want to make a couple points. I understand the logic, somewhat, of not allowing
the connection. It's hard to understand for me but I can see that if we allow
one, we then open ourselves up to everyone that's at all close to that
interceptor to have a similar argument. Although it fits here, I think what we
should do is allow them to build on their secondary septic site or allow them
rather to use the secondary septic site. It's closer to the church. It saves
them a lot of money and it just looks like a better situation all around. I am
r concerned about the road as I mentioned. I think we are better served if we get
some of these issues cleared up and possibly, if we can get another chance to
' start, I'd be for that though I'd sure hate to eliminate our options when we've
got so much questions. That's all I have.
Councilman Horn: I wasn't too surprised to see Met Council's response. I guess
I don't see the logic in not allowing these people to hook up. Somewhere that
logic seems to be locked up in the Met Council someplace. I believe their logic
is allowing us to grow and they don't want that to happen and I don't agree with
' that but I'm not surprised that they wouldn't let you do that. I wish you could
do that. I think it would open the door for us. As you're probably aware, we
were lucky to get the line in in the first place. But now that they have it
there and not be able to use it makes it somewhat frustrating, but that will
' happen. Hopefully it will happen before your septic system fails. I don't have
any other problem with this. I think it's the same issue we get into... We
don't have our road structures planned before development occurs. We've seen
that over and over again. A lot of it happens because our major intrastructures
are put in place but some of it happens because we don't anticipate the growth.
In fact, we try to control some of it to the areas that we have planned. I
' think in this case what's going to happen on Lake Lucy Road will be far enough
out in the future that we'll be able to make some adjustments on that site. I
don't think we can hold them up.
Councilman Geving: I'd like to see us go ahead with this project. I've been in
contact with Pastor Pike a number of times and staff over a number of issues.
Primarily the septic system issue and the placement of those septic sites. I
believe that it's pretty definitive now that you're going to have to have your
own septic system and I think that actually will work out best for you. They
' 41
94'-'
Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
keep referring to an agreement that was made. Are you aware of an agreement,
either Barb or someone?
Barbara Dacy: That's the sewer facility agreement.
Councilman Geving: Okay, what does that basically say? That you can't hook up
to it for the next number of years? ,
Barbara Dacy: Right. You can't hook up into until all vacant, developable land
becomes developed and/or the Year 2000.
Councilman Geving: I was confused a little bit about an item that appeared in
the engineer's report asking for the concrete curbing on the parking area. That
was subsequently changed then to bituminous curbing. Was there any reason for
that Larry? Why did you make that recommendation or your staff make that
recommendation?
Larry Brown: Normally we request the concrete curb and wall to the bituminous,
or excuse me, along with the bituminous paving. However, the applicant has come
back and dealt with staff and said, look, that's just not reasonable. An
unreasonable cost so as a compromise we said okay, at least put up the
bituminous curb and direct the drainage where it should be.
Councilman Geving: Okay, and I would agree with you on that. I agree with the '
applicant. Bituminous in the rural area is certainly more than sufficient. I
have no problems with this Mr. Mayor. I'd like to see us approve it with the
conditions that we've got. I
Councilman Johnson: My comments are in tune with the other comments that have
been made this evening. I see Lake Lucy Road as being a problem here and
obtaining this easement through here, is this easement already on the property?
Councilman Boyt: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: It's an existing easement that goes nowhere. It isn't 11
connected in the future and it's causing them to move their church further back
than they want. It looks like much more grading to be done.. .to put a septic
system within the trees. I don't know what the alternatives are but if we
could, and I don't want to fix the architect's plans on the church. If we
eliminated our...Lake Lucy alignment which sounds like MnDot doesn't want it at
that point anyway. They'll allow a driveway but not a Lake Lucy because those
sight distances aren't far enough for a Lake Lucy type road. That would effect
where he wants to place his church. He reduces cost by placing his church
further forward. In the long run, it would be helpful for him to delay it if we
could in two weeks have a decision on Lake Lucy. I think it's partially up to
the church as to whether they'want to, whether staff could come down to anything
more definitive from MnDot and Lake Lucy in the next 2 week period. I think
it's 2 weeks before the next Council meeting. I actually had no problem with a
gravel driveway mostly because the church I went to had such within the urban
area for 7 of the years. We were a small church. We had 20 families at our
church. Within 10 years or, I forget how many years it was, we did upgrade that
to concrete or whatever.
Mayor Hamilton: You're comfortable with the bituminous?
42 ,
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
i
Councilman Johnson: If he's comfortable, I'm comfortable.
111 Mayor Hamilton: I wonder if we could just add a condition 13 then that says
staff would continue to solve the private road alignment and easement problem.
It seems if we just continue to work on that and resolve it to the satisfaction
of the church and the County and the State, I would think that that would
satisfy everbody's needs and they could move ahead with their construction. Any
objections to that?
Councilman Johnson: Would that include the realignment moving the church up and
their septic systems?
Mayor Hamilton: The easement is what's causing them to have to move their
church at this time so I think that easement issue needs to be resolved. If
that's resolved to their satisfaction and benefit, then they can put the church
back up on the hill where they wanted to if they're so inclined to do so. I
don't know what all is involved in the resolution of that easement but whoever
needs to get involved should. Whether it's our staff or the Attorney's or your
people want to be involved in that and Larry. You should move ahead with that
and try to resolve it. I don't know what the easement's for, but that should be
able to be resolved. Also working with the road to, I don't think we're going
to establish an alignment for Lake Lucy but staff may be able to take a look at
what Al suggested as to where Lake Lucy Road may be able to come through there,
south of their property and see if that could be worked out in the future.
That's my suggestion.
' Councilman Boyt: I'd like to add another condition. I don't have it indicated
specifically in my notes. As I recall, it made quite a difference where they
put their septic system. As I also recall, it seems to me that the forester
said it wouldn't make much of a difference in terms of removal of trees. Do you
recall that?
Mayor Hamilton: Right.
Councilman Boyt: I think that we should allow them to use the secondary septic
' site. It saves them $12,500.00.
Bryan Pike: We're hoping if we can move the church, to drop the septic site
right where the church is there instead of being up in the trees. That landing
in between the trees is quite... It doesn't sound like it is an inexpensive
adventure at all. We wanted to lay it inbetween the trees.
Councilman Boyt: I think you should have the option to do what you want on the
septic system on either site to be available.
' Mayor Hamilton: So you want to have a 14th is to be able to use the secondary
septic.
IL Councilman Boyt: I would modify the existing condition on septic systems to
include that note.
Barbara Dacy: Jo Ann and I were just talking. To clarify for the record, if
you move the building and you're going to locate another septic system site, new
43
�tCity Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
soil borings are going to have to be taken. That includes a review by Machmeier 11
and Anderson. So there are costs involved.
•
Mayor Hamilton: You're looking at some significant savings so I'm sure the
offset is insignificant.
Jo Ann Olsen: If they move the building and parking lot, we can just review 1
that in house? -
Mayor Hamilton: Right. ,
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit
#88-9 for a church to be located outside of the MUSA line with the following
conditions:
1. The applicant must receive preliminary plat approval for the subject site by
September of 1989 unless the property owners agree to have the parcel remain
as one undivided lot.
2. The two approved septic sites must be staked and preserved prior to 1
receiving a building permit and either septic site may be used as the
primary site.
3. Provide a landscaping plan which provides screening between the vehicular
access areas and abutting right-of-way as required in Section 20-1190 of the
Zoning Ordinance. '
4. The applicant shall receive an access permit from MnDot prior to
installation of the church driveway. 1
5. A fire lane must be installed for the entire\ length on either the east or
west side of the building. The fire lane, at least 20 feet in width, must
comply with the City of Chanhassen's requirement for all weather surface '
meeting urban standards. Whichever side is chosen, a clear access must be
maintained by designation of a "Fire Lane".
6. The main driveway shall have "No Parking Fire Lane" signs installed. ,
7. The applicant shall provide a revised grading plan with storm sewer
calculations which verify the preservation of the predeveloped runoff rate
and all storm sewer capacities as part of the final review process.
8. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed
District permit.
9. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all disturbed
slopes greater than 3:1.
10. The developer shall be responsible for daily on and off site clean up caused
by the construction of this site. '
11. All erosion controls shall be in place prior to the commencement of any
grading, and once in place shall remain in place throughout the duration of
44
_
1 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
II 4 construction. The developer shall be responsible for periodic checks of the
i erosion controls and shall make all repairs promptly. All erosion controls
III shall remain intact until an established vegetative cover has been Produced.
12. A revised plan which shows bituminous parking and curbing shall be submitted
Ias part of the final review process.
. Staff shall continue to work towards resolving the private road alignment
and easement problem.
IIAll voted in favor and the motion carried.
1 PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 10.75 ACRES INTO 27 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY
ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6720 GLENDALE DRIVE,
II APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE WEST OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, COUNTRY OAKS, DAVE JOHNSON.
Barbara Dacy: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed
subdivision. Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant attempted to
II address the first condition regarding the lot frontage issues in Block 3. This
represents the drawing that was submitted to the Planning Commission. Your blue
line drawings have been redrawn to show a bubble. After we met with the
II developer, he also submitted this option which creates a T intersection and a
cul-de-sac which meets all the lot frontage requirements and resolves some of
the concerns that the engineering department had about the bubble option on the
full size blue line drawings. Therefore, we're recommending, staff is
recommending that the plat be redrawn to reflect Alternate #2, this option. The
second thing, another thing that the Planning Commission gave is that the Park
and Recreation Commission review the subdivision and recommended that park
II dedication fees be paid instead of reserving land for parkland as originally
recommended. So the conditions on number 1 and 2 have been amended for Council
action. The remaining conditions have remained the same from Planning
Commission action.
IIMayor Hamilton: Barb, could you respond to the question that I had. This
afternoon I asked Don about the builder. You were trying to research Shorewood.
1 Barbara Dacy: Yes. I had called Brad Nielsen in Shorewood when the applicant
first applied and Jo Ann spoke to the Manager in Shorewood today. There have
Ibeen no problems with that developer in that community.
Mayor Hamilton: That's not what I had heard. That's why I had asked that we
have a look. I understand the builder has caused some problems there.
ICouncilman Boyt: I think we have an issue here that we've dealt with a few
times before, never very well unfortunately, and that is, this develop borders
I lots of 21,000 and 22,000 square feet. Those people are not going to be able to
resubdivide their lots. So clearly 21,000 and 22,000 square feet lots are now
going to abut lots that are I believe, at least as I looked at the earlier blue
line, considerably smaller. I think the developer should take that into
account. I think the lots should be closer to a matching size when there's an
existing lot of record. I'm not happy when lots make 25% change in size in a
new development. I don't know what I can do about that but I'm not happy with
IIit. The other thing, this builder made a very good point I thought during the
II 45
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
Planning Co mission Minutes_when_ he,said he,._was used to paying this park and rec
fees and trail fees up front when he developed a property rather than piece by
piece. I think that makes a lot of sense and I think the City should look at [ii
that possibility. Now, one of the critical points in this development is the
recreational beachlot. It's my opinion that this represents an expanded use for
that recreational beachlot and that should not be grandfathered in. Although it
doesn't represent a larger property use possibly than the grandfathered, it
certainly represents an increase in use by putting 27 more single family homes
in there. We talked about adding 75 people to a fairly small beachlot. I don't
think that's in keeping with our ordinance and I don't think it was in keeping
with the spirit of the grandfathering. I don't think we should grant it.
That's all I've got.
Councilman Horn: I have a problem with the beachlot issue also. It appears to
me that if we use this technique, in effect what we're doing is offering a blank
check to any area for subdivision that's not developed yet. We have no idea how
many lots are going to be in there and I don't think that's appropriate. I
think everybody's pretty clear that I don't really care for beachlots in the
first place and I think this really gives an opportunity to have it abused. I
was really distressed to see that they can go ahead and develop and use the
existing beachlot. I guess I'd like further clarification as to why we can't
call that a greater intensification of use. I know it isn't in the land area
but obviously the number of users increasing has to be an intensification of
use.
Barbara Dacy: I'll ask Roger to help me out on that one too but the way we
looked at it was, they couldn't increase the number of boats and docks and
structures that were on the property at the time we did the ordinance. We
looked at the original document creating the right for the Pleasant Acres
Homeowners to use the recreational beachlot and that was a recorded right along
with title of the ordinance.
Councilman Horn: I would say that this condition has changed since the land did '
not develop before we made major adjustments to our beachlot ordinance. I think
it should fall now under the pervue of our latest updated beachlot ordinance.
I'm not happy with that. I think the other area that I have a concern has been
addressed by eliminating the 1 acre lot. To me that was totally unrealistic for
parkland. I have no other problems with this.
Councilman Geving: I'm glad that you both have hit on that same issue because I I
think the only control we have on recreational beachlots is the fact that they
are generally a conditional use and to grandfather them in and forever have them
available for expansion once they're fully developed, takes us completely out of
the ballgame. We lose our control. I would like to have Roger be directed to
pursue this and really research the item. I just can't see us losing this
control. Regarding the 10th condition which was to me a language problem. I
think this is a very general, wishy-washy condition. Subject to City approval
of language, the applicant shall provide restrictions on the Block 3 lots in
order to maintain the ponding site. What does that mean?
Barbara Dacy: The Planning Commission added that condition to insure that the
homeowners buying the lots containing the stormwater pond would not alter them
in any way.
46 _��
1 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
Councilman Geving: Can you tighten that up? I like what you just said. If
— that was the intent, then that's what we should put into that condition.
Barbara Dacy: There will be a drainage and utility easement placed over the
' pond.
Councilman Boyt: That pretty much takes care of it, if it's enforced.
Councilman Geving: I just felt that this condition 10 was far too general. It
didn't mean anything to me.
' Roger Knutson: They give us ownership by easement or a
P Y deed on the pond site.
No one messes with it. That's all there is to it.
Barbara Dacy: The Council can choose to eliminate that one.
Councilman Geving: I don't know if I want to eliminate it but I would like the
intent that you stated, the reason for putting 10 in there.
Councilman Boyt: Why don't we just say that they'll maintain the ponding site
' contours?
Councilman Geving: That'd be fine. Is that acceptable to you Barb? Can you
' work that in? Let's reword that.
Barbara Dacy: Restate it and say that the contours shall not be altered by
owners of lots.
' Councilman Geving: You were at the Planning Commi.ssi.
g on meeting, I suspect, the
night this was voted on. Can you tell me why Dave Headla voted against it.
' Barbara Dacy: Dave had a number of issues with the subdivision. He felt
strongly that the developer wasn't addressing some of the homeowners' concerns.
The Minutes speak for themselves.
Councilman Geving: It just left a blank here for me anyway. I really didn't
get the feel. I know he lives in the area. I'm finished Mr. Mayor.
' Councilman Johnson: I would like to avoid the intensification of that beachlot.
This may have been planned as a further extension, outlots on Pleasant Acres and
that they would be extended and they would have use of this beachlot but that
was a long time ago. I can't see how they're going to add this many more
families to that beachlot without intensifying the use of that beachlot. Do we
know how many boats are allowed for that beachlot? How many docks are allowed
for that beachlot at this time? Are there any docks allowed? Just one?
Jo Ann Olsen: There's one dock there.
Councilman Johnson: How many slips on the dock?
Barbara Dacy: We have it upstairs in the file.
Councilman doesn't lman Johnson: It doesn t have slips as I've seen it and that's what we'd
want to keep there. I do think they do understand that if there are only three
47
I
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 ° 1
slips there now, they can't now put four slips in or five slips in. T h ere's
only going to-be •what they've got. T hope -the language that you were talking
about on that 10th condition would be that the homeowners are informed. A lot
of homeowners don't look real closely at those easements and everything that go
on there. They've got this little swale back there and they say, gee that's
kind of nice and they get out their tractor and they redo the swale to make it
look like what their backyard wants to look like. Not realizing what they're
doing. I'd like to see that condition 10 says that the developer inform those
homeowners that they can not alter that swale to their desires. Most times yes,
you've got a 30,000 square foot lot here. Well, you can do a lot with a 30,000
square foot lot, as the real estate agent will tell-you but they fail to mention
that half that lot is going to be a stormwater pond. I'd like to see that in
there that the homeowners are not only they can't do it but they're informed
that they can't do it. It's one thing to say you can't do something and it's
another thing for somebody to actually tell you. Beyond that they've done a
good job of matching most of our concerns. I like the cul-de-sac better than
the bubble or just the curve. I think it adds to the subdivision to have that
little cul-de-sac in there. I think those lots become more of a premium type
lot than they were previously. I like the cul-de-sac option. Those are my
concerns. ,
Mayor Hamilton: Where is that exit? Yes, where does it go to?
Barbara Dacy: The intersection here and then cul-de-sacing up in here now. ,
Mayor Hamilton: Those other streets are just stopping. Is that because there's
not a turn around or a cul-de-sac? Is that because we suspect that someday
there might be an additional development there?
Barbara Dacy: Yes, that's correct. This could be extended to the Hallgren
property to the southwest.
Mayor Hamilton: Shouldn't there be a temporary cul-de-sac there?
Barbara Dacy: That's an option that the Council may wish to do.
Mayor Hamilton: How are we going to plow that if we don't have someway to turn '
our trucks around?
Barbara Dacy: As a matter of fact, I think Larry was dying to speak about that. ,
Jo Ann Olsen: Public Safety said they didn't need one. We addressed that with
public safety and they said they didn't need a temporary cul-de-sac.
Larry Brown: Certainly snow storage in the wintertime could be a problem with
this alternative but if the Hallgren, Mrs. Hallgren is very sensitive to their
problem at this point wants to see no further development go through her ,
property at this time... I'd like to point out one other thing to the Council,
as stated in our report, one of the things that you will be forced to address at
a later date through the plans and specification and review process is, this
area will be required, at least from the information that the applicant has
provided me thus far, will be required to have a lift station to afford the
sanitary sewer service. I want to make sure that the Council is aware of that.
48 1
II ' City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
I -
Mayor Hamilton: ro How large is the beachlot? Do you know square footage
approximately what it is?
Barbara Dacy: It's got to be about 30,000.
Mayor Hamilton: Okay, and the adjoining one that we denied just to the south
was what, about 45,000 or something? 40,000 square feet. That had a lot of
I length. This is a smaller rectangular. The one that we denied had, if
I remember right, about 500 feet of lakeshore and this one has what? I
certainly have the same concerns that we're talking about allowing I don't know,
II how many more? How many people are on that one already and we're talking about
allowing 27 more yet the adjoining property, a larger beachlot, we're telling
than they can't use it at all. It doesn't make much sense to me. One of the
things that I would like to make the builder aware of and anybody who purchases
I a lot in there should be aware that the Hallgren's have for years raised horses
and I believe she still does show horses and has horses on her farm. You can
just bet your last dollar that when someone builds a house there, they're going
Ito come in here and bitch because they got the smell of horses next to their
house, next to the barn that's been there for the last 50 years. So you better
make anybody who's buying a lot aware that there are horses there and we're not
going to tell the Hallgren's that they can't have horses there. They've been
I there for a long time and they can stay. They run a nice operation. I guess I
still am a little concerned about the turn arounds. We should have room. I see
a snowplow going down that street and just dumping the snow onto the Hallgren
i property which I don't think is right. That's a low area and that's where her
horses graze. I don't see why she should have to accomodate another developer's
snow removal. So some type of a turn around or cul-de-sac would be a better
II proposal to somehow take care of the snow on their own property. Those are my
only comments.
Councilman Boyt: Tom, I'd like to react to the turn around. If we put a turn
I around in there, which I'm certainly not opposed to that if we'll sign it that
it's a thru street. If we'll put something on there that indicates that this is
going to go thru someday but I think we're sending a signal that will come back
Ito create problems for us if we make it look like that's a cul-de-sac.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't have a problem with that. Call it a temporary
II cul-de-sac. Put a T turn around which doesn't have the appearance of being
something more permanent. The truck still has someplace to push the snow and to
turn around.
II Councilman Horn: You said Public Safety said that there's no problem with not
having a cul-de-sac there?
II Jo Ann Olsen: When I asked them, they said they did not want a turn around at
that location.
Councilman Horn: Were they addressing it only from a safety standpoint in the
summer or were they looking at it from a maintenance view also?
Jo Ann Olsen: I think they were just looking at it from a fire standpoint.
IICouncilman Horn: So from a maintenance view, it's still an issue.
11 49
- --City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 ,
1
Mayor Hamilton: I would recommend adding a condition then that there be at
least a T turn around and that the applicant work with the engineer to come up
with a design that's acceptable for the engineer for use of maintenance
vehicles.
Councilman Horn: Or should we say, not even specify a T intersection but say I
some method of alleviating a maintenance problem?
Mayor Hamilton: Right, specifically snow removal. ,
Councilman Horn: If we're going to do that, I think that it's a given that the -
lot size is not going to drop below 15,000 square feet.
Councilman Geving: We're already averaging I think 17,000 so I think that's a
pretty good assumption. You can't go below 15,000.
Councilman Boyt: I'm interested in minimums.
Councilman Horn: The ones that are affected are 15,031 and 15,910.
11 Councilman Bo yt: The y were. It's hard to sa y now with the change.
Barbara Dacy: We could arrange for a temporary easement. ,
Councilman Boyt: Or permanent.
Barbara Dacy: The signage of the easement could be worded as such that it has '
to be reconstructed and the lot returned to it's original state. It's -
temporary.
Councilman Horn: Let's include that in the condition.
Mayor Hamilton: What are the sizes of the lots directly to the south of that '
new development?
Barbara Dacy: The lots on the north side are under an acre but the lot on the
south side is the Hallgren property.
Mayor Hamilton: I realize the Hallgren property but it also borders on the new
development there. Stratford Ridge. '
Jo Ann Olsen: Those are almost all 15,000.
Mayor Hamilton: Anybody else have anything they wish to add? Mr. Johnson, do
you have any comments you wish to make?
Dave Johnson: Yes. I'm not sure where to start. One of the things that I
concerned me was, but I don't think this is the place to address it, I am the
builder and the developer in Shorewood and all the comments that I have had from
city staff or Council and Planning Commission have been quite favorable. You
took me by surprise when you said that there had been some concerns about the
builder over there. That bothered me and I'd like to dig into that a little
'further later. I don't think this is the proper forum. As it relates to the
50 ,
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1983
--- alternate plan 2 that we're discussing with the cul-de-sac i.n, I guess I don't
agree that that's the best choice. I think the bubble or the half a cul-de-sac
I is a better choice. The one lot, if you were to turn the light back on there,
the one lot right there, that happens to have street on three sides of it which
is not real desirable. Now I know the reason that Larry explained it to us that
he did not like just having a bubble on the curve as your blueline copy shows,
is from a traffic engineering and safety standpoint. . ..totally delineated for
someone coming around the curve but I did, one of the projects that I had
developed in Burnsville had a similiar arrangement and it was never even
' discussed. This is a new plat in Burnsville. They put on right in on a curve
and there haven't been any concerns about the traffic issue. I'm willing to go,
I don't have a problem with doing either one. I still want to state my case
that I feel the blueline copy you have is the better, both aesthetically and
equally as good from a traffic standpoint. You've got curves rather than square
corner, 90 degree corners. I guess I think a case can be presented for that
particular one. We don't have a problem with putting a temporary T turn around
or whatever you're referring to that as down there. That's not a problem. The
public beach issue, which at the time I bought the land I wasn't expecting that
to cause that much controversy. I did have my attorney check into it prior to
purchasing it and he indicated that the fact that it had not been developed yet
did not change the fact that those rights were given to about 100 acres I think.
The fact that the people had gotten there first and effectively filled it up
doesn't necessarily mean that the people who coming there last have any less
right. Once again, I don't know how that issue could be handled at this level.
I think your recommendation to your Attorney to check it out is a good one and I
IIT don't have a problem with it either. Although I did when I purchased the
property, I was of course aware of the rights that I was getting and I had
intended to market it accordingly. Other than that, I don't know that there's a
whole lot more for me to say.
_ Councilman Johnson: You did mention that you're looking at the property to the
east to purchase. . ..outlot A to stay as your outlot and that you were going to
' be purchasing that. Are those parcels are not part of Pleasant Acres at this
time?
Dave Johnson: Not to my knowledge they're not, no.
' Councilman Johnson: So those would not be eligible whatsoever to utilize that
beachlot.
Dave Johnson: That is my understanding. If I were to purchase them, I have
made several attempts but the owner is not real interested in selling but when
he does, that strip that you refer to as an outlot, is of no practical use to
1 anyone other than the person who owns the land next door so if I can't buy it
his piece, perhaps when that's ready to be developed, they'll want to buy this
little outlot.
Mayor Hamilton: I think the blueline plan that we have Bill, doesn't that
address the lot size a little bit better. We haven't seen the lot sizes on that
thing up there but the 17,000 square feet and 16, 19 abutting the larger lots to
111 the north. What size are those lots that you have up there? Do you have any
idea what size those lots would come out to be?
' Barbara Dacy: On the north side? Those are approximately 15,000.
I 51
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: No, I mean the ones in that development right now.
Ray Brandt: These lots are fairly close, maybe a little bit smaller than what
we had. These lots are closer to 17,000 square feet and these are 15,000. This
one is over 15,000 and that's a little bit, very close to 15,000, a little bit
over. These three lots are not a lot smaller than what they are on the
blueline.
Councilman Horn: The same number of lots?
Ray Brandt: Yes.
Councilman Horn: This area would require more hard surface so I would sense
that you're going to have bigger lots in the first alternative.
Councilman Geving: Is this alternate 2 the developer's alternate or is it
staff's alternate?
Barbara Dacy: It's staff's recommended alternative. '
Mayor Hamilton: What's wrong with that half circle? I guess when I looked at
this plan I thought it looked nice and I've seen those half circles around
Minnetonka and they seem to work well. I don't know what the problem with it
is.
Larry Brown: It boils down to two things. One, when you approve that half ,
circle, essentially you're approving 40 or 50 foot wide driveway in a roadway,
if I can use that same analogy. Number 2, as stated in my report, as the driver
comes around that curve, they look for the delineation of the curving and the '
surrounding attributes as to how the lots are set up. Without that, I feel with
that degree of curvature, it's a poor situation at best.
Councilman Horn: Have we done this before?
Larry Brown: Right now we have one half circle that I'm aware of up on
Lake Lucy Road occurring at Curry Farms. However, things get complicated when
you take that and put it on a straight piece such as Lake Lucy Road and add it
to the point of curvature in the middle of that turn.
Mayor Hamilton: It's not going to be a high traffic area, probably ever.
Councilman Geving: We always have the difficulty here of the lot line being
reduced but they do meet the 90 foot setback where you build your house. We've
always used that as the guide as far as I'm concerned in describing that
cul-de-sac. We've got a lot of cul-de-sacs that don't meet 90 feet but they do
meet it at the build line.
Barbara Dacy: Are you talking about the blue line?
Councilman Geving: Yes, I'm talking about the blue line.
Barbara Dacy: With the bubble?
52 11
' City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
Councilman Geving: With the bubble. I have no problem with the bubble. To
III �J• p
me it looks like the traffic flows very well. From a maintenance standpoint, if
we were to send our maintenance vehicles into this area, I'd far prefer-them to
come through here and do their plowing with that bubble than to have to drive up
that cul-de-sac and plow that out. It seems to me that this flows a lot better
and you get away from that three sided lot that you created there. That's my
personal opinion because I do believe, the purpose for this entire effort was to
eliminate the variances. Is that correct Barbara?
' Barbara Dacy: Yes.
Councilman Geving: And we have done that with this blue line plan. And the
only difference is the bubble here and I do believe that the setbacks are
sufficient. Maybe not at the road. Maybe not when you drive in and see the,
you're talking about 40-45 feet but there's only one lot that would be short and
that's the middle one. Lot 3, Block 3 and I like the idea that these lots all
abut larger lots back up on Glendale with the bubble. Maybe they're the same
size there. I don't know.
' Barbara Dacy: If the Council ends up choosing the bubble option, on the plans
there is a proposed cul-de-sac option. I don't know if that's the way the
Council ends up going, whether or not you would, whether engineering would
recommend the island within the bubble or not.
Councilman Horn: Can we clear up a question first? Was alternative 2 suggested
to eliminate the variances of the bubble concept?
' Barbara Dacy: It was suggested to eliminate the variances on the originally
proposed plan that went to the Planning Commission.
' Councilman Horn: So there's no variance differences between alternate 2 and the
bubble?
Barbara Dacy: That's correct.
Councilman Boyt: Do you have a transparency of the bubble?
11 Barbara Dacy: No. The blue line copy is. ..
' Councilman Boyt: I'm going to propose a change to it. It would have been
easier with a transparency. If you will take the bubble and smooth out the bump
side of it, and then take the existing roadway and pull it into that new angle
' so we've got a parallel road that sweeps the backside of that bubble.
Councilman Geving: Use your pencil and draw that.
Councilman Boyt: I've got it right here.
Councilman Horn: It makes a sharper corner.
Councilman Boyt: Well, that's not all bad from a speed standpoint. It comes in
and swings around like this. Now we've created a bigger lot so we're using
green space here instead of asphalt. We've got everything within 30 feet of
' here big enough. These lots are big enough so they can afford to lose a little
i53
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
U
and still be 15,000 square feet.__You've_got it covered.
Councilman Geving: I don't have a problem with that. y'
Councilman Johnson: They're back to their variance though.
Councilman Boyt: No... - 11
Barbara Dacy: ...on the radius of the curve and so on. I
Councilman Boyt: If there's no variances here, there sure as heck can't be any
variances required.
Ray Brandt: Because it's not a cul-de-sac and your ordinance specifically says
cul-de-sac. y sa y
Councilman Boyt: That's not a cul-de-sac either.
Ray Brandt: Well, it's a cul-de-sac. '
Councilman Boyt: That's not what we had in mind.
Mayor Hamilton: We're not calling it a cul-de-sac. ,
Councilman Geving: Don't you think we could get a 90 foot frontage there on
each of those lots? '
Ray Brandt: At the setback, absolutely.
Mayor Hamilton: That's not going to change this any. '
Councilman Johnson: They're calling this a cul-de-sac. That's a bubble
cul-de-sac so you're allowed to take frontage at... '
Councilman Geving: At 90 feet.
Councilman Horn: But on a corner you couldn't.
Mayor Hamilton: This side stays the same. All Bill's doing is changing this
side to swing the road over. It's a change from where they were at but. ..
Councilman Geving: Maybe it's an improvement. Sometimes if it's an improvement,
we can handle a variance. We could pass that with the passage of the whole '
plat.
Dave Johnson: I think it would be an improvement myself but I didn't want
to. ..after the reception we got at the Planning Commission. 11
Councilman Geving: I understand and that's why we have to be a little bit more
reasonable.
Councilman Boyt: I think what we're saying here Dale is, if this parallel road
idea passes, that we're proposing that we change the setback ordinance.
54
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 ti
Ray Brandt: I think they talked about that at the Planning Commission too.
II Councilman Boyt: I think our ordinance has to be flexible but I think If we've
got a good point here, then it's up to us to write the ordinance so it takes
into account and we don't have to grant variances everytime.
Councilman Geving: - I like what you've done here. I think that will make that a
very nice transition into this neighborhood.
' Barbara Dacy: Mr. Mayor. What concerns me about your option is the curvature
of the road heading back south. If the Council just wants to add a condition
that would address I guess what I would call the Boyt option, that the
' applicants would prepare a drawing to show what you suggested but if that does
not meet what the ordinance says or other engineering standards, that the
Council indicate second preference.
Don Ashworth: Of the two alternatives, I can understand what Larry is saying,
but these are right-of-ways and the actual street sits within that area. If you
start thinking about the street as being something inside of there, those curves
become pretty dramatic. Of the two alternatives, I've got to believe that staff
would prefer simply approving the blue line over the proposal that Bill has
presented. I can understand the rationale of it but by the time you put the
I street itself inside of there, which again is one half of the area shown, boy
that really becomes a twisted section.
4 Councilman Boyt: I disagree with him because you can run the street right down
the middle of those parallel lines and how does that change the angle of
' anything?
Don Ashworth: But then why do we have all of that extra right-of-way?
Councilman Boyt: We have that anyway.
Don Ashworth: You're just going to run it right down and just turn it around,
why do you have that?
' Councilman Boyt: Well, that's a reasonable point. One of the reasons you would
swing it up is by creating a greater curve you get more frontage.
' Don Ashworth: The whole thing is avoid the ordinance requirement of the 90 feet
at the setback and if I can repeat what Mayor Hamilton said, a bubble like that
isn't that bad. It gives additional play area frontage in front of homes.
Mayor Hamilton: Every neighborhood. It always happens. You can build all the
parks you want, kids will .play in the street.
Councilman Geving: I kind of like the blue line with the bubble in i.t. We
don't have any variances. It's clean.
IP Larry Brown: Be advised that staff is trying to work with the applicant in
setting up this plat to conform to the study which was done, the overall
comprehensive study for this area. Although this street is not a through street
. at this time, it's staff's intention if the southern plat does come in, that
parcel does come in, we'd be looking at making this a thru connection.
55
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
Councilman y -- Ti,ur cue butte- advantages to putting an island out there. We
have one other subdivision here that has an island. Larry's shaking his head.
He's nixing that idea.
Mayor Hamilton: It makes it tough to plow. Is there a motion to deal with this '
item?
Councilman Horn: I would move approval of preliminary plat for Pleasant Acres
for the alternative that was suggested on the blue line with the conditions that
are outlined by staff and also I'd like to keep the condition that the outlot
not be improved until the Attorney has had a chance to study that item further.
To go ahead with the plat approval. '
Councilman Johnson: The beachlot, not outlot?
Councilman Horn: The beachlot, right. And the recommendations by staff and ,
item 10 language changed to what Dale had recommended.
Mayor Hamilton: 11 be the turn around? '
Councilman Horn: 11 being the staff having a method to deal with snow removal.
Mayor Hamilton: Then 12 would be the Attorney investigate the beachlot? I'll 1
second your motion.
Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Subdivision Request I!!
#88-21 as shown on the plat stamped "Received September 21, 1988" subject to the
following conditions: I
1. The preliminary plat dated "Received September 21, 1988" shall be revised to
incorporate Alternate #2 also dated "Received September 21, 1988". All lots
must be 15,000 square feet.
2. Park dedication fees shall be paid for each lot at time of building permit
application. ,
3. The applicant shall provide a soil borings report for each lot and along the
location of the street prior to final plat approval. I
4. The applicant shall provide an amended plan showing fire hydrants located
not further than 300 feet apart.
5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract and provide the City
with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation
of these improvements. I
6. The applicant shall service this area by gravity sanitary sewer unless their
engineers can demonstrate that this entire parcel cannot be serviced by
gravity sanitary sewer.
7. The applicant will provide the City with the necessary utility easements
across this parcel to service this parcel by gravity sanitary sewer ulness
56 1
, City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
otherwise demonstrated
that a lift station is necessary.
s
I 4 8. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed
District permit.
9. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with the necessary
documentation to verify that the 100 year storm event and emergency overflow
conditions for the proposed ponding site will not affect the adjacent
' properties. •
10. The ponding site contours shall not be altered in any way by the homeowners
and the developer will inform the homeowners of this condition.
11. The applicant shall work with the City Engineer to come up with an
acceptable turn around on the street to alleviate maintenance problems such
1 as snow plowing.
12. The beachlot shall not be approved until the City Attorney has done further
research on it.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-814 TO PERMIT DAY CARE CENTERS IN
A FREE STANDING BUILDING AS A CONDITIONAL USE ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL
'4 OFFICE PARK DISTRICT.
Mayor Hamilton: Does the Council need any additional y t onal znformation on this?
Councilman Johnson: No, it seems absolutely the correct thing to do.
Councilman Horn: Is that a motion?
rCouncilman Johnson: I move we approve.
' Councilman Geving: I second it.
Roger Knutson: So then we have the first reading.
' Councilman Boyt: I think we should add, or instruct staff to research a couple
of areas between now and the next reading. Either add them now or instruct the
staff. I think we need to have, in spite of the day care center in St. Louis
Park passing the carbon monoxide and lead standards, I'd like to have something
that indicates that the area which in these are located has to be within
whatever reasonable standards we can find. Then, I think we need to be careful
about noise and I think we should also be concerned about the percentage of
green space. That there should be some sort of non-paved play area. I think
the idea is excellent.
It Mayor Hamilton: If I can just build on your last item there because I'd like to
see a non-paved play area that's adjacent to the building so they don't have to
cross any streets to get to it. Or even a parking lot for that matter. It
should be adjacent to the building.
' 57
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
Councilman Boyt: Immediately adjacent to the building?
Mayor Hamilton: Right.
Barbara Dacy: The open space that you're talking about is beyond the required
play area that the day care has to have? Is that what you're saying? I
Councilman Boyt: I'm saying that, I know the State has requirements for an open
play area. I want some green space. '
Barbara Dacy: Around that play area?
Councilman Boyt: Involved in this thing. In the play area. Outside the play '
area. I don't care particularly. I want there to be green space around this
with trees and landscaping and that kind of stuff.
Councilman Johnson: Not just a fence? Sand on the ground up to a fence.
Councilman Boyt: That's right. We're talking about a free standing building
here. I think there has to be something, or we could use something about
traffic. We talked, the Planning Commission talked a little bit about this
particular location is apparently in an area where there's not a lot of traffic.
I'd like to see something in our ordinance that indicates that that's a
requirement. If you're going to make these free standing, that we want it to be
on a cul-de-sac or a dead end or something.
Mayor Hamilton: I think it's going to happen sooner or later so I'll bring it
I!!
up. I was thinking it and Clark was talking it and that's at some time we're
going to need to test these places and other places for radon gas. I don't know
what's involved in that but we're hearing so much about it, perhaps the staff is
going to have to recommend whether or not it should or should not be done but I
think where children are involved, it wouldn't be a bad idea to start somehow to
do that now. I don't know the first thing about it but I think it's something 1
that's certainly coming and it's something we're going to have to get involved
in so we might as well start someplace and now is probably a good place for it.
Councilman Johnson: Actually our building codes, I believe our heating and 1
venitlating codes require interchanges that would prevent any buildup of radon
gas within this area. Your radon gas generally occurs in areas that don't have
air exchanges. Basements and stuff like this where you have a lot of surface
area exposed to the ground. I would not envision them building a basement in
this area. Probably slab on grade which is normal.
Mayor Hamilton: Nevertheless, I think it's something that ought to be
considered.
Councilman Boyt: Let's add that to the lead, carbon monoxide and radon gas. We ,
establish a reasonable standard for those.
Councilman Horn: I think with radon it's a matter of, after the fact
monitoring. It's not something you can establish on the front end. It's
something that creeps in and you monitor after it's done.
58
11
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
Councilman Boyt: Let's add to this thing sort of an annual monitoring of those
r- air pollutants-and noi:se,_quality. There should be some sort of reasonable
I1 standard for permissible noise quality where children are involved. If.;we can
] lump that all into sort of one environmental condition. Add another one for the
percentage of green space. I don't have a good clue as to what it is. I just
know it needs to obviously have more than we would typically have in the office
park.
Barbara Dacy: What we were just talking about is looking at difference
1 impervious surface ratio for daycare centers. ..
Councilman Johnson: On the State noise standards, they do have standards.
However, an industrial site is considered one noise level. Right now you don't
consider children being a resident of an industrial site. You wouldn't want to
put these next to a big steel foundry or lots of other places that are quite
noisy. Our main noise producer besides the one with the compresser problems
that we have at Victory Envelope are the highways and traffic noise.
Councilman Horn: Usually it's the daycare that will probably be the most noise
generater.
Mayor Hamilton: We need to be aware of what's going next to these things.
Councilman Johnson: I don't know if annual carbon monoxide, lead and radon.
The radon monitoring is a bit on the expensive side right now.
ICouncilman Boyt: $22.50.
3
Councilman Horn: And that includes the test.
iMayor Hamilton: Part of what I might have some difficulty with is, if we're
going to allow daycare centers in the IOP, free standing, I would really have a
hard time if somebody came along with a legitimate industrial office park use,
that we said, well we can't allow you in there now because there's a day care
center there. I don't think that's right. That would create a lot of problems
for me and I don't think I could do that. Whatever is an allowed industrial
' office park use now has to be able to be put next door to a day care center. We
can not deny it. So I'm saying that we have to be sure that it's not too noisy
or not too polluting or not too anything. Whatever you allow, has to be allowed
in the future. Just because you're putting a daycare center in should not
change what else goes into that IOP.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe we can't have both of these things. Maybe we can't put
the radiator shop next to the daycare. We need a daycare. I think all of us
agree that it would certainly be a good thing to have one conveniently located
there but I think in putting one wherever we put it, we're also indicating
something about what we're willing to put next to it.
Councilman Geving: Don't you think the market kind of wittles that out though?
That selection process is made by the people who are marketing the daycare
' center or the business activity. They don't want to be located next to that
radiator shop either. So they'll look for a location in an industrial park that
doesn't have that, at least I hope they will. One of the things that I would
like to see, since we're going to move in this direction and I like the idea
59
S t
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
I
because it'sa-tching on and very popular. Even in my building we have about
200 kids now in daycare but one of the first things they put up was a fenced
area for kids to play in. It seems to me that was one of the first
considerations for safety because there were an awful lot of cars in an
industrial park area. Trucks, cars, vehicles coming and going and they're not
expecting to see little kids. I would like to see us consider fencing the play
area.
Councilman Boyt: That's a State requirement. I
Councilman Geving: Is that a State requirement? Fine. That's great. Also, in
an industrial park, or at least the areas that we have here, there really aren't
many sidewalks or places where teachers or whatever they're called, aides, can
take these kids for a nice little walk. A little hike. That's another thing
I'd like to see more of. Even in the industrial park here where, regardless of
the advent of the daycare, places where they could just take a group and walk 2
or 3 blocks from the daycare center so I think that's something we may want to
think about in the future but doesn't have anything to do with the zoning
ordinance amendment obviously. I
Mayor Hamilton: I want to go back to the point I was making. I want to be sure
that when a daycare center locates in the IOP, that we don't all of a sudden
have them coming in here saying, well the building next to me is giving off
fumes and it's bad for my kids and there's a couple of them that have asthma or
something. As long as whatever is there and is allowed in the industrial park,
meets the requirements as far as emissions and anything else, I don't think we I
can start getting ourselves into a tug of way. A daycare center is now there so
now everybody's got to start being more restrictive and cleaning up their act
even more than what they had to do previously when they were meeting ordinance
requirements. Just to call it to everyone's attention. I perceive some
potential problems down the road when they come in and say, gosh this guy is
doing that and they're doing this. We're really opening up a can of worms here.
Councilman Boyt: Let's approach it from the standpoint of a daycare center can
not be located where any of these things may exist in terms of loud noises,
polluted air. Once it's in there, I think it's reasonable for the City to say
that our part of the bargin is that we're not going to put a radiator shop in
next to you if it's not there now. You've got have more flexibility in the
office park. I'm not trying to point out a radiator shop as being particularly
polluting. I have no idea. I'm just saying, that we won't put someone in that
we know up front is going to create problems for the daycare. We wouldn't want
to do that, would we?
Don Ashworth: I don't think legally you can stop them.
Barbara Dacy: If it's a permitted use. I
Mayor Hamilton: That's what I'm saying. If it's a permitted use, they can go
there. If the guy buys the property and he says I want to put my company there
and I'm a permitted use in your IOP, I want to go there. How are you going to
stop him?
Councilman Boyt: I don't know. Back to the intent of this thing is, I don't
think the market does a very good job when convenience is at stake. I think
60
11
' City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
that a parent is going to, I don't want a parent having to weigh a noisy
environment for their kids against the convenience of picking them up next to
Ilt work. I think the City ought to be able to give them some assurance that they
won't have to. I don't think our industrial park is going to have any problems
with these things anyway.
Mayor Hamilton: It-may not. We have a good industrial park but that doesn't
mean that the situation may not arise that would cause a problem. That's the
only reason I'm bringing it up. Make everybody aware that there are some
•
potential problems there.
Councilman Horn: I'm wondering, when you look at the clean air acts and the
11 OSHA requirements, doesn't that cover what we're getting at?
Councilman Johnson: Pretty much. Especially when Minnesota passed a new law in
' this legislature that everybody is responsible for any objectionable odor. I
don't have the words exactly right but you have to mitigate, immediately take
action to mitigate objectionable emissions. It doesn't even have to exceed
given MPCA standards. It's really a fun one that MPCA is going to have to deal
with.
Councilman Boyt: May I suggest that we put three conditions in this approval?
' One of them being that staff research impervious surface. The other one being
that the daycare centers be located on a dead end or cul-de-sac street. The
third one would be that noise, radon, carbon monoxide and lead is monitored.
111 Mayor Hamilton: Is that acceptable to you?
Councilman Johnson: In addition to the recommended 3 so we now have 6?
Mayor Hamilton: Right.
Councilman Johnson: That's acceptable to me.
Councilman Geving: I'll second it.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve Zoning Ordinance
Amendment Request #88-15 to amend Section 20-814 as follows:
(13) State Licensed Day Care Centers.
Additionally, to add Section 20-292, State Licensed Day Care Centers:
' 1. The site shall have loading and drop-off points designed to avoid
interferring with traffic and pedestrian movements.
f2. Outdoor play areas shall be located and designed in a manner which mitigates
visual and noise impacts of adjoining residential areas.
111 3. Each center shall obtain applicable State, County and City licenses.
4. Staff shall research the impervious surface ratio.
I 61
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
5. Day care_centersshall be located on a dead end or cul-de-sac street.
6. Noise, radon gas, carbon monoxide and lead is monitored. '
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-814 TO PERMIT DAY CARE CENTERS AS
PART OF A MULTI-TENANT BUILDING AS A CONDITIONAL USE ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP,
INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT.
Councilman Johnson: Here you even have more of your potential of a noisy tenant
moving in next door but if you're sitting there selling stocks and bonds out of
your multi-tenant and somebody moves in next door and starts moving air hammers,
you're going to be complaining anyway. I'll move acceptance of this one with
the additional three requirements. '
Councilman Boyt: Take item 3 off Jay and the dead end/cul-de-sacs.
Councilman Johnson: Right. The three listed by staff and the two additional. 1
Councilman Horn: I'll second.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Zoning Ordinance
Amendment Request #88-14 to amend Section 20-814 as follows: II
(14) State licensed Day Care Centers as part of a multi-tenant building.
Additionally, to add to Section 20-292, State licensed Day Care Centers: ,
1. The site shall have loading and drop-off points designed to avoid
interferring with traffic and pedestrian movements. '
2. Outdoor play areas shall be located and designed in a manner which mitigates
. visual and noise impacts of adjoining residential areas.
3. Each center shall obtain applicable State, County and City licenses.
4. Staff shall research the impervious surface ratio. '
5. Noise, radon gas, carbon monoxide and lead is monitored.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. '
ROSEMOUNT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: i
A. CONSIDER TIF AGREEMENT WITH HRA.
B. LAND PURCHASE AGREEMENT. '
C. AUTHORIZE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR LAKE DRIVE EAST/MARKET BOULEVARD.
' Don Ashworth: I wanted to make sure that the Council was fully abreast of what
actions had been taken by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Insofar as
62 '
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
the Purchase Agreements, I wanted you to be aware of those. No action is
required on those. The TIF agreement is basically an agreement to insure that
the HRA will pay back over to the City money needed by the City to pay off
bonds. The final one is the authorization for the feasibility study for Lake
Drive East and Gary Warren presented that as a separate memorandum dated 13-C.
I would entertain questions on items 13-A or 13-B if the Council has any.
Councilman Geving: All you're looking for is a formality on (A)? On the
' agreement?
Don Ashworth: Yes and really, it's a projection. It's only an agreement that
the HRA is going to pay you the money necessary to insure that those bonds are
paid off.
Councilman Horn: I would move a resolution in acceptance.
' Councilman Geving: I'll second it.
' Councilman Boyt: I've got one comment. I think that staff should prepare for
us what the area's we're negotiating in. I understand that there is a few areas
in which there are going to be some variance requests and I'd like to know what
those are before we get a whole lot further into this.
Don Ashworth: It has been perfectly clear that the developer will have to go
through any requests for variances. That the purchase and sale agreements are
all solely subject to the applicant receiving the approvals necessary for the
Planning Commission and City Council. It's the same formal language that is
used by a private seller to another party where you would then have to come
' before the City in that process. We are absolutely in no way are we telling
them that they will receive approval for any of those variances.
Councilman Boyt: What I'm saying Don, not that we're promising them something
but I think we're in the process of discussing items with them and the Council
should be looking at what those are ahead of time.
Don Ashworth: I do have a listing and I thought I had sent it. It goes through
an outline of all of the tasks that need to be accomplished.
Councilman Boyt: I'm talking about a green space variance or impervious surface
variance.
Don Ashworth: Are you aware of anything?
Jo Ann Olsen: They don't have to receive that. ..under 30o impervious surface.
11 Todd Gerhardt: We did a swap with, there's a 4 acre of land for park dedication
that has been changed to 2 acre so...park dedication and trail fees.
Councilman Johnson: Is that the only variance that we know of at this time?
Todd Gerhardt: There may be some wetland alterations.
'� Mayor Hamilton: Dealing with those ponds and the road right?
' 63
ti
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
Councilman Johnson: Right.
Mayor Hamilton: We've already done that before so that shouldn't be a problem. '
Don Ashworth: It's exactly the same issue as was presented for Sunnybrook.
Jo Ann Olsen: They're_altering it a lot more this time.
Councilman Geving: But not from the road standpoint though on Lake Drive East
or West. '
Mayor Hamilton: Well, we need to take a look at it.
Councilman Boyt: That's all I'm suggesting is let's get the issues out on the '
table.
Todd Gerhardt: ...and we haven't even selected a contractor yet and that I
selection should be made by the end of the week.
Mayor Hamilton: Is there anything else? '
Don Ashworth: Not on 13 (a) or (b) . There is the item for 13(c) which is the
request to move ahead with the feasibility study for Lake Drive East.
Resolution #88-104: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to
authorize the feasibility study for Lake Drive East/Market Boulevard. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the TIF Agreement
with HRA as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
TREE PROTECTION POLICIES. '
Jo Ann Olsen: The DNR forester did an inventory. . .stands of trees and for us to
use that as our guide on whether or not we would like to start up a preservation
of forest in this area. He's offering his time to do that. Instead of using
staff time they've got mass inventory of existing stands of vegetation. ..and
present that to the Council on whether or not they want to pursue that to give
us a little bit more foresight on whether those trees. ..
Councilman Geving: I say let's do it.
Councilman Boyt: It's a great idea.
Councilman Johnson: Wetlands can be restored in a number of years, trees can't. 1
Councilman Geving: It doesn't cost us anything and Alan Olson has been pretty
straight with the City. He's willing to work with us.
Councilman Horn: Besides that, I think that we have some unique tree areas.
Jo Ann Olsen: A lot of them have been on developed sites.
64
11 City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
Councilman Horn: We have remnants of the great woods yet which ver f
II have. y ew people
Mayor Hamilton: You realize we spend more time and money worrying about the
' trees than we do about our children.
Councilman Horn: I think four years from now you'll see that.
' Mayor Hamilton: Four years from now I'm worried about what my kids will be
doing. Do we need a motion on that one?
Jo Ann Olsen: No, I just wanted to know if it was worth passing along.
' DESIGN FUNDING REQUEST, TH 212.
Councilman Horn: I was surprised to see this. We talked about this a couple of
weeks ago and we have a meeting coming up next Wednesday and I intend to bring
this issue up.
Don Ashworth: Would you like to have it tabled? I recall we talked about it
' but I didn't know that there was any formal conclusion.
Mayor Hamilton: Two weeks ago I brought this up.
Councilman Horn: That's right. Tom brought it u p two
weeks
we would pursue it at a coalition meeting. Thi.si.tem hnonot g and that
a coalition meeting yet.
Councilman Geving: I would move that we table this item.
' Mayor Hamilton: I would like to send a message to the coalition saying that we
are not in favor of it. I think that would be a stronger position.
' Councilman Geving: Alright.
Councilman Horn: What I intend to do as Chanhassen's representative to the
coalition is to suggest that we use a criteria similar to what was used on the
' TH 5 funding and that was the cities that receive the most benefit pay the most.
I think we should use a consistent criteria with TH 212.
Councilman Geving: And I'd agree with you if you included the counties the same
way. Carver and Hennepin.
Councilman Horn: I think the general criteria was that the people who benefited
the most, pay the most. That was the criteria used and I plan to suggest that
on Wednesday for the criteria for this. I don't agree that what's suggested
here does. This wasn't a recommendation of the coalition. This appears to be
Bob Lyndahl's recommendation.
Mayor Hamilton: There isn't even a significant benefit here. That's a lot of
money for no benefit.
' 65
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
Councilman Geving: For 16 months? It isn't worth it. 11
Mayor Hamilton: I think I'd like to see you tie that in somehow. Using the_
criteria for TH 5 is fine but TH 5 had significant benefits to getting the job
done. This doesn't guarantee anything.
Councilman Horn: That's a secondary issue too. I think an issue is, would this '
be fair if we got a good benefit from it? The other issue you're addressing now
is, for this what kind of benefit do you really get?
Councilman Geving: I say we get no guarantee.
Councilman Horn: That's always with the highway.
Councilman Geving: Where did Bob Lyndahl get involved in this P rocess?
Councilman Horn: He's Chaska's representative. '
Councilman Geving: But I see he's an Attorney working with this Holmes and
Graven. '
Councilman Horn: Holmes and Graven is not part of the task force. He works for
than and wrote it on their letterhead as Chaska's representative.
Councilman Geving: I got the impression he was working as an attorney, not as a
representative from Chaska.
Councilman Horn: No. That's not my impression anyway.
I!!
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to accept the City Manager's
recommendation and to send that with Councilman Horn to the next coalition
meeting stating that the Council is not in favor of contributing $100,000.00 in
additional benefits. The criteria should be established by the coalition. All
voted in favor except Councilman Horn who opposed and the motion carried. ,
Councilman Horn: I don't think we should send that message at this point. I
think it should be discussed by the coalition first.
Mayor Hamilton: Well, it gives you a stronger position. You already know where
we're at.
Councilman Horn: I know where we're at. II
•
NEW/EXISTING INCENTIVE PROGRAMS.
Todd Gerhardt: Staff is looking for some type of direction from Council on how 1
they would like to...outlying districts out of our tax increment district.
...that would be the CPT site, Beddor site or some of those sites.. .
Councilman Johnson: Do we have an economic development district for tax
increment?
66
' City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988 •
' Todd Gerhardt: We could create an economic development district in there.
Councilman Johnson: Aren't they currently in one?
Todd Gerhardt: No.
' Mayor Hamilton: Good idea. I think we should do anything possible to keep the
businesses that are in our community here and to encourage others to come.
Councilman Geving: Regardless of where they're located.
•
Councilman Horn: HRA addressed this. There's really two sides to the HRA. The
only thing that we've seen so far is the downtown redevelopment but housing and
' redevelopment is the name of the agency and one of the things we looked at
several years ago when we were in an economic housing slump in the City was
getting the HRA involved in this to try and give a little incentive to some of
' our local developers. At that time there was no interest in it but I think it's
good to address it again. Everybody's going to be interested in it now because
of the way housing is going. Especially if the interest rates should start
' creeping up.
Todd Gerhardt: Just to update Council a little bit, staff has received a 73
unit apartment, 8-plex complex for the James property. It should be in within
the next couple of months. They're going to be asking for special assessment
assistance but they are within the tax increment district. Staff will probably
be carrying incentive programs now for a business in Chanhassen and looking at
bringing more. ..facility within the next week. We will pass...
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
' voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m..
' Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
II '
' 67
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
a I si
1
I I I me r imer• 1
fl• flfl
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION ? ki
REGULAR MEETING
11 SEPTEMBER 27, 1988
Chairman Mady called the i
y e meet ng to order at 7 : 30 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Mady, Curt Robinson, Carol Watson, Sue Boyt, Larry
Schroers and Ed Hasek
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Lynch
STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman,
Recreation Supervisor
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Robinson moved , Watson seconded to approve the
Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated September 14,
1988 except for pages 7 and 8 which were missing from the packet. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC INPUT AND DISCUSSION OF CHANHASSEN POND PARK.
Public Present:
Name Address
John & Ann Olsen 690 Conestoga Drive
1 Craig & Brenda Jerde 7220 Sinnen Court
Mark & Deb Olufson 761 Sierra Trail
Duane Anseth 7470 Saratoga
Sandy Anderson 7472 Saratoga
I Bonnie Coffee 7474 Saratoga
Dennis Karstensen 7482 Saratoga
Patti Flakne 7261 Sierra Court
Sietsemsa: This item is on the agenda. As you may recall a while back
' the Chan Vista development was approved and part of that development
included the acquisition of additional parkland around Chanhassen Pond
Park. At that time we talked about ways that that park could be developed
and it was the general consensus of the commission that it should be
' developed as naturally as possible with the idea of bringing the people
out there to enjoy nature. Funds were allocated in the 1988 budget to put
together a master park plan which involves putting together topography and
boundary lines and water levels and that kind of thing. Mark has prepared
a preliminary park plan to start discussion with the Commission as well as
we've invited the residents in the area in to get their input as well as
IIto how they would like to see the park in their area developed .
1 Mady: First off, since there' s a lot of new residents here, this is Mark
Koegler . He' s a consultant with the firm of Van Doren, Hazard and
Stallings and he does a lot of consulting for the Park and Recreation
Commission.
1 Jz
* 1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 2 1
Mark Koegler : Mr . Chairman, I'd like to back up just one notch earlier to 1
some material that Lori mentioned. Back to kind of some of the origins of
this park and some of the thinking that' s gone to date, at least what's
happened to date. The park was originally acquired in pieces, as she
mentioned . Probably the earliest pieces happening in the early 1970 ' s as
part of the Western Hills development on the east side. In 1978 the City
began preparation of it' s Comprehensive Plan which addressed parks as one II
of the. . . It was adopted in 1980 and it has been in effect since that
time. At that time the park was known as Western Hills Park.
Consequently the name has been changed now to Chanhassen Pond Park but
there are recommendations that were in that plan that we'd like to bring
for review because that essentially has been the City' s thinking for the
past 8 years and it may be helpful in terms of putting it into
perspective. The first recommendation that was in the original plan was a II
limited parking area should be constructed and the location as close to
Laredo Drive as possible. Such an improvement should be adequately
screened and landscaped . Item 2 was develop a master plan and planting II plan for the area emphasizing native Minnesota plant materials. That's a
portion obviously of what we ' re finally doing now. Item 3 was provide
natural environment for a variety of species of wildlife. Number 4 was
develop a trail network which permits observation from high points as well II
as close to habitat areas . Such trails should contain grades suitable for
access by handicap and elderly individuals. Item 5, the seating area
should be provided for observation purposes. Item 6, the water quality of I
Western Hills Pond should be continuously monitored in order to continue
it's safe useage by wildlife. And item 7 was the City should acquire
title for easements on the land surrounding Western Hills Pond . Obviously
the past 8 years that item 7 has occurred as a result of the Chan Hills
development so the City now has land entirely bordering on the park and
even extending further south probably than was originally envisioned . Let
me stick an overhead up so everybody can see hopefully what we' re looking
at. As Lori mentioned, as we put together , and I 've got a larger scale
board that I ' ll put over there. . . The purpose for the park, the master
plan that ' s been put together , as Lori mentioned , is really a draft plan
at this point. It' s a draft plan with two purposes. To seek. . .and
receive public input which is the process we' re beginning this evening.
The purpose of the plan which is stated on this is to establish a passive
park area accomodating the observation of plants and wildlife in a natural
environment. The facilities that have been shown to date really represent
kind of a summary of some of the discussion comments that have occurred
with this group over the past several months. Again, they' re not. . . ,
they' re drafted for the purpose of beginning discussions . Accompanying
that is just some general landscaping recommendations at this point which
are intended to provide more of a natural attraction to some of the
wildlife species that again, we've been talking about. The plan itself
calls for a trail network which is in this dark line. Basically it goes
around the park. The purpose of orientation, Kerber Blvd. is over on this
side . The older Western Hills portion of the development down in this
portion and the new development up basically to the north side. The Park
Commission has looked over on this side and having an overlook area which
would be accessible from Kerber Blvd. was shown conceptually now as a one
way circulation pattern with a drive in with about 7 parking stalls . The
orientation being down the length of the pond and it' s a very beautiful
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
1 September 27, 1988 - Page 3
' vista from up there and it certainly is not blocked by any of the tree
cover or any of the grade that occurs in some of the other portions .
There' s an existing bituminous trail that is now in that runs along Kerber
' Blvd. . There potentially are tie ins to that that would allow on grade
access to get down to the park at this point with accesses then coming in
possibly. There' s a steep walk and a possible cul-de-sac here. There' s
' of course the entrance of Laredo now and there ' s the entrance that now has
been put in on the north side. The plan at the present time identifies a
couple of picnic areas on the upper portion, which again is " something the
Park Commission had talked about. Scattered around in some of the
locations that are denoted by the s' s there are some seating areas which
are just meant to be basically benches to allow observation of the pond
itself and the wildlife. The surfacing of trails has not been determined
at this point. It certainly needs some additional input from the Park
Commission. You talked in the past about several viable alternatives .
Being either bituminous surfacing or possibly a crushed compacted rock
' surfacing again, to maybe reinforce more of a natural type of approach.
The vegetation that ' s shown on that plan is essentially existing with the
planting selections being those that are king of a general category meant
to attract wildlife based on various . . .and cover type plantings that are
available. Mr . Chairman, that' s a brief summary of what' s been put
together to date. Again, the intent now is to seek further input from the
Commission and from the public for the desired components of the plan so
this should very much be considered a draft at this time.
Mady: What I 'd like to do is open it up for public comment on the plan.
We'd like to find out what you want to see in the park. It has been our
intention all along to put a nature trail through the park. We want to
find out what your comments are to make sure the park is going to be
useable for the citizens .
rDennis Karstensen : I 'm Dennis Karstensen . I live at 7482 Saratoga Drive.
I do border the pond and part of the Western Hills Addition. I live right
' adjacent to that.. In general I 'd like to speak in favor of what you' ve
proposed so far tonight which is probably unusual for most things that you
guys have people come to talk about . The reason I bought my home was
because of the natural plants for the wildlife area in the back and I 'd
like to see you keep it that way. One thing that should be kept in mind,
if it is going to be a nature preserve, I 'd like to see some signs put up
to that effect . There ' s been two problems I ' ve seen living by the pond .
' Some people have their dogs out there and having them chase the geese. Not
just dogs. . . tell them to go chase the geese in the pond and the water and
that so I see a problem. If people understand it' s a wildlife area and
' keep it in terms of that . There ' s also some children are building forts
down there which in itself isn ' t bad but there was a fire down there the
other night. Someone had a fire going under the trees behind my house and
that' s where I think it should stop so there are some problems in that
area as far as informing people what can be done down there. What the
developer has put in for the pond permits, the developer said he would
support wildlife. I guess I 'd like to, I 'm not really. . .but I have seen
' owls out there. I 've seen bats , hawks , geese, blue herons. Just about
any of the bigger birds have been out there . . .to support wildlife that' s
out there now and if we improve, will do a lot better job in that area .
r
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27 , 1988 - Page 4 '
As far as the trail surfacing , I think I ' d like to keep it somewhat of a
low speed trail. A path gravel where you can' t ride bicycles on it or not
necessarily ride them fast . I guess that ' s what I was kind of. . . A
nature trail to. . . One thing that could be looked at, it ' s supposed to be 1
a wildlife area, what happens in the winter time? There' s some
possiblities to use it as, skating in the wintertime possibly, doesn' t
affect the wildlife at all . Or sliding, I think is something you want to 1
look at for wintertime use. Summertime it ' s pretty well wildlife but in
the wintertime it turns into almost , it' s wild but people can use it on
top of that without destroying any of it. Keep that in mind. That' s all
I have. Thank you .
John Olsen: Mr . Chairman , members , I 'm John Olsen, 690 Conestoga Trail
which is just to the north of here and several of my neighbors are here I
tonight as well . This is the first time that we as a group have seen this
particular proposal and from our quick discussion back here, one
recommendation that we would make would be along this western edge, if you
will , of the pond area, if you could incorporate or consider incorporating
some type of apparatus for children . A great number of us are of the age
bracket where we' re just getting to the point we either have young kids or
will have very shortly. We all feel that it' s important that any part
element preserve the natural beauty of course but also incorporate in a
tasteful fashion if you will , some type of jungle gym, for lack of a
better term, that could be incorporated up here with the picnic tables so II
a family can go on a picnic to the pond and we' re not that far from our
houses. I would agree with the gentleman that the use of a crushed stone
or an aggregate on the trails would cut down speeding people. People I
speeding through there on their bicycles or whatever and we could still be
able to take walks with strollers and that sort of thing. It might be a
little bumpy but depending on what you use , I think it would be workable.
Mady: Are you aware that there are currently, we have two parks in your
neighborhood . One up at the City Center Park right up here and in our
budget this year we' ve asked, we' re looking to put up. . . Also, the I
Chaparral Park which is just down the other side of the pond , on the other
side of Kerber. 3 or 4 blocks. You ' re on that side of Kerber already so
there' s a trail going into there , there is playground facilities there
also.
John Olsen : I don' t think it needs to be a major development or anything
like that but 1 or 2 pieces I think would probably be sufficient .
Patti Flakne : I 'm Patti Flakne and I live at 7261 Sierra Court. My
question is one, will there be trash receptacles like at the entrance
there? At the trail head? There' s just so much garbage down there.
Mady: One of the things that' s been complained at our meetings
previously, there' s a lot of flying paper around. A lot of it they tell
us is due to the developer and the builders .
Patti Flakne: . . .the builders don' t throw those things. There are those I
candy, Nerds but it would be nice to have garbage receptacles at least at
the trail heads if possible .
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
1 September 27, 1988 - Page 5
1
t
Debra Olufson: I just
� wanted to get in , for sure that there is going to
be a walk parkway around the pond . I 'm even concerned about wildlife. We
live right on the pond and I 've seen blue herons and all kinds of wildlife
and it kind of scares me that there' s going to be a walk completely. Is
that for sure that there is going to be a walkway around the pond?
' Mady: It' s been our intention and something that we' ll be recommending
one way or another tonight .
Debra Olufson: It scares me because I 've seen 6 families of ducks and
geese this spring and muskrats. Owls. I 've seen owls and herons . 6 blue
herons and egrets . Then I see a lot of kids who are throwing rocks at the
' ducks, the baby ducks. Also, there was a near break-in at someone' s house
just down the street. Just down the pathway about , I think Labor Day
weekend. We ' re worried that that' s going to be a problem too.
Boyt : You' re worried about the traffic?
' Debra Olufson: Yes, I 'm worried about the traffic and then also the
wildlife . I just think that if we' re going to have, if we really want to
keep it a wildlife area, I think we' re going to lose it. It ' s going to go
if we' re going to have a walking path.
' Sandy Anderson: My name is Sandy Anderson and I live on Saratoga Drive
right on . . . and I guess I feel the same way that she does . I thi.nk. . . 10
' years and have just seen the wildlife decline and go away. It' s not like
it used to be. It' s kind of sad that we lost that nature.
Mady: Okay, if there' s no other comments, if you have a question while we
I : have Commission discussions , we' d invite your comments at that time too .
I 'm sure we' ll be addressing some of your concerns at our Commission
discussion. Start off with Larry.
' Schroers : Basically I like the plan. I 'm encouraged to hear that the
residents are also in favor and are concerned about keeping the area as
close to the natural environment as possible and yet have it acceptable
for public use. I think the crushed aggregate of one type of another
would be fine for a trail around the park. I 'm in favor of having a
picnic site or two provided that it' s a very rustic and it' s only kept
' within an acceptable standard for keeping the environment as natural as
possible. Treated timber. As far as the wildlife concerns, I work in an
area where there ' s a lot of wildlife and there' s also a lot of people. As
' long as the wildlife isn' t being harassed by the people, they adapt very
quickly. They' re real used to you being there even the large birds, the
herons, the egrets, ducks and geese. I think it' s the responsibility of
the parents to teach their children not to throw rocks at whatever
wildlife is there. I think if we use the park the way it ' s meant, I don' t
see a great threat to the wildlife. Other than that, I don ' t know, we ' re
probably in pretty good shape as far as skating rinks are concerned in the
wintertime but we had talked about a sliding hill earlier and I would be
in favor of taking a look at that. I guess that' s all I have right now.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 6 '
1
Robinson : Mark, have you done any preliminary costs? '
Mark Koegler: No, we have not. We' ll do that as the next step after
you' ve decided as kind of a core group of recommendations in what you want
to see.
Robinson: I couldn' t see anything in 1989 , did we have any costs with
this in 1989?
Sietsema: No . '
Robinson: . . .we talked about project status . The master plan. . .park and
development the summer of ' 89. Parking and development.
Sietsema: Right. That was something that we would roll over and I don' t II
believe that it was a significant amount of money. I think it was like
$1, 000. 00 so if we wanted to do more than $1, 000. 00, it came under park
development but actually what it was was like tables and benches.
Robinson: Okay, so as far as the landscaping and what not, it ' s safe to II say that you can tell the people that that probably wouldn' t happen until
1990?
Sietsema: Right , unless you wanted to include something tonight still
because we will be discussing that on a later item in the agenda .
Robinson: Just a couple of comments. I agree with almost everything that
the people said. The crushed rock or the rock trail I think would be
appropriate in that area . Signage. We talked about before I believe that
it is necessary down there.
Sietsema: That could have been included in that $1, 000. 00. All we' ve
ever budgeted for Chan Pond is for the master plan to be done and then
initial park benches , maybe some signs . $1,000. 00 is what I recall . '
Robinson: Definitely the paper receptacles. There' s nothing worse. I
walk down to South Lotus Lake all the time and pick up junk laying around .
I despise that. Some kind of receptacle in appropriate spots are
necessary. I guess I would like to see the walkway around the park with
the hopes that we can do something to preserve the wildlife. It ' s such a
nice area and I think we have to. . .something to preserve the wildlife down
there and keep the walkway would be my position. That' s all I have.
Watson : I would like to see it stay as natural as possible. If it' s II possible, improve the habitat around that lake. . . Making areas where the
birds can nest and they can try to get away. . . We don ' t have to settle
for . . . You should still be able to walk around it. . . .there' s only so
much we can do . The people will have to police themselves and each other
as far as the wildlife and the garbage on the ground. It' s everybody' s
responsibility. . .
Boyt: In the past we' ve talked about a sledding area and when they went
through and worked on Kerber Blvd . , the engineer . . .graded the side of the
i
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27 , 1988 - Page 7
hill , that' s the area that was used as a sledding hill . There has been a
portion kind of in your neighborhood that' s been used as a sledding hill
but that won' t be used anymore. It should have been done. They cut down
trees and bushes. I live adjacent to this area and I 've gone before and
followed dirt bikes home after they' ve come out of that park and talked to
them. I 've talked to kids who are down there working on the bridge.
Working under the bridge building dams . It ' s a fun place for kids to
play. They need some supervision down there. If you ' re walking down
there, say something to them. Don' t be afraid that they' re going to do
' anything. Tell them that what they' re doing is wrong. Get them out of
there. Ask them their names . You really scare them once you ask them
their names. I like the crushed rock trail. I lived on a pond in Florida
that was completely surrounded by homes and we had a lot of wildlife .
Some wildlife, the geese don ' t care if you live there. They' re going to
be there anyway. They like the fresh cut grass . The egrets are going to
be there. The muskrats will be there. We have muskrats living next to ur
house. A lot of that wildlife will stay if we provide food and coverage
for it. I don' t know if you 've seen the planting list up there but there
are lists and lists of plants that will sustain wildlife . Birds. Deer .
There won' t be deer there anymore but there were deer there a few years
ago.
Mady: I think we' re all pretty much in agreement of the park use . It ' s
' always been our desire, that the park is going to remain a low impact
park. I perceive that we will be putting a trail in the park. However , I
don' t see any of us wanting to do any grass cutting down there say. I
' don ' t see this becoming a. . .like around the lakes in Minneapolis where
they cut every piece of grass right up to the lake. This is supposed to
be a natural area . By keeping the grass long and leaving the trees and
bushes there, we' re providing the protective areas for the wildlife that
already exist . You are going to lose the deer . The remainder should
remain. The birds. As long as they have protected areas so they can get
away from people and be sheltered , they' ll stay. The deer however ,
' because they' re losing, development takes place the entire circle of the
park and the other side of Kerber Blvd . , they' re going to leave. You may
see a couple of occasions when you' re not going to have a family of deer
' necessarily in that area any longer . I 'd like to see us continue the idea
of just a few parking spaces . We' ve got what looks like maybe a half a
dozen on Kerber Blvd . on the overlook area and they' re all diagonal so we
have a one way drive and that' s very important for safety. Further to the
north of that area , the other curve in the trail . It might be nice to put
in a couple of stalls for a picnic area . I think it' s important that we
have a few picnic tables in the park, all around . . .on the outside edges of
' the park. That way we can keep our garbage containers on the outside
edge. We' re not inviting garbage into the middle of the park. I think it
would be more appropriate on the edge. The plantings that you' re
showing, I like . I guess I want to make sure that we don ' t do a lot of
plantings. What we do, I want to make sure is protective and provides the
natural feeding areas but I don ' t want to see us putting everything in
there either . It' s a pond, as it is right now, is a very nice natural
area. It needs a few plantings maybe but we don' t need to do the detail ,
let' s say that the downtown has done. It doesn ' t have to look pretty. It
just has to provide for natural wildlife . Concerning the trail down there
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27 , 1988 - Page 8 1
and maybe throughout the trail , especially if it' s a gravel trail where
you have loose rock, kids can throw them at the ducks . It' s an
enforcement problem and it' s also an educational problem. The City' s
trying to hire some CSO officers, safety officers who will go around and
do public awareness type of education. Come into the school and tell the
kids what is appropriate and what isn' t appropriate. And an officer to
patrol from time to time so they can make recommendations to the kids. II As long as they define to their kids what is appropriate and what isn' t, I
think we' ll take care of most of that.
John Olsen: How long does this rock last? This crushed rock. You would
have that coming from Laredo. How long does this last as opposed to
asphalt or whatever? We come from a little park in downtown Minneapolis
where. . .everything from eagles , herons and pheasants and everything else. II
What' s the. . .and how long does the rock last as opposed to asphalt?
Mady: There are two things that will happen to a rock trail . Heavy rain II
can wash it out so if we do the proper plantings on both sides of the
trail , that will prevent a lot of erosion. You will have weeds growing up
through it so we will have to take care of that and maybe do some chemical '
treatment from time to time as long as we' re careful with it. The
bituminous trail , although it would last longer, for instance the things
that I personally would like to see in the park, would allow for bike
traffic to past by pedestrian traffic. It also allows for skateboarding . II
Some of those things. It ' s my feeling that this should be a passive park
and that means hiking through the tall grass or following the trail if
that ' s easier for you, if that ' s what you want to do . The trail should go II
near the water from time to time but also stay away from the water so it
provides protection areas to the wildlife . We can still get the
opportunity to get close to them because the ducks , the geese, the
muskrats , they' ll cover quite . . . As long as we give them some protected
areas, they' ll be there. I 'm not real concerned because we've seen that
all over . Minneapolis has done, they' ve done too much actually. . .
They've got a real nice area. . . for wildlife so I think we can still do
that. The last thing I want to talk about is the play apparatus .
Sietsema: Excuse me, Jim? I was wondering if maybe Mark knew what the II life of the compact crushed rock might be since he probably has dealt with
it.
Mark Koegler : You touched on the biggest problem. We have to handle I
drainage adequately. If it 's handled adequately, if we've got a possible
culvert to let the water go through, there' s no reason that it won' t
contain itself almost as long bituminous surface. Typically bituminous
surface you have to sealcoat roughly every 5 to 7 years and the life of
. . . is 10 to 15 years. We' ve done quite a bit of work with the City of
Minneapolis and St. Anthony Main area , Nicollet Island . They use the
brine red rock that' s been packed and it ' s that kind of reddish brown
color . It ' s very serviceable and actually the more foot traffic you get
on it the better because it helps keep it compacted. It can be a very
durable surface and it' s not one that I would suggest you shy away from
for fears of having to replace it every 2 years or something. That
doesn ' t occur .
I
1 .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
' September 27, 1988 - Page 9
Mady: Something we have looked at in the past is woodchip trails. They
are were very popular a while back. We don' t see many of them anymore
' because the woodchips are deteriorating. They flow away in heavy rain.
They don' t last long so if there' s anything new on that, I guess I would
shy away from. . . The play apparatus . I believe it ' s my intent to keep
this park as passive as possible. If we were to put play apparatus in,
' the only place I think I could support it would be on the west side of the
park near Kerber Blvd . . I really don' t want to see anything structural
put into the park outside of maybe a few benches and maybe an observation
' tower where you can get people up about 4 feet. The rest of that, it' s . . .
and we do have play facilities adjacent to or very close to the park in
both the Chaparral Park and there are some now in City Center Park in the
school and hopefully there will be more this coming year . I guess at this
' point in time I don' t want to see anymore.
Hasek: I have some questions for Mark. When this thing was first
' acquired, and the process went. . .passive park?
Mark Koegler : Yes . I had summarized that , you weren' t here at the time I
' think. Out of the previous Comp Plan and basically they are all passive
uses including trail networks . It addresses much of the same thing that
you mentioned tonight in terms of plant materials , natural wildlife,
seating areas around and limited parking .
' Hasek: Did you look at all about the possibility of putting some parking ,
obviously I think that the reason. . .did you look at the possibility of
' putting parking out closer to where the picnic areas are? I guess just in
measuring off of the scale, we' re looking at another 500 foot walk like we
have down to Greenwood Shores . It' s hardly accessible. There is a trail
connecting them that is separate from the road but it' s still quite a walk
for a person to get to it .
Mark Koegler : I think that needs a little more discussion by this body
because the location on that plan where it is shown, more to the south, is
really the optimum place for that specific use . The picnic area , putting
the picnic area on top, the most optimum location for that is under and up
' by the trees . If that' s the intent , possibly a secondary small parking
lot, as you mentioned, is appropriate to keep those two uses separate.
That could be factored in . The other thing that is not shown on this but
we talked about is that the entrance over on Laredo, there was previously
' discussion about having public parking spaces over there . That area is
pretty tight. Perhaps if you look at a couple more, maybe 2 , 3 more,
whatever , on the west side by the picnic tables , that may offset the need
' for parking on the east side.
Mady: The idea on the parking on Laredo, on Laredo we have 16 feet of
road access on both sides of the road . We did get a trail plan approved,
' funding approved to put the sidewalk on the west side of Laredo but we do
still have 16 feet of road right-of-way on the east side. It' s possible
we could put in some parallel parking spaces , 2 or 3 spaces on that side.
'
Now it is a curving road there. I 'm not sure if that' s really adviseable.
That ' s something maybe Public Safety needs to look at but that ' s a
possibility if you want to have parking on that side is to put a couple of
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27 , 1988 - Page 10 '
parallel parking space bays on that side of the street . '
Boyt: I 'd rather see no parking on Laredo at all . Keep them to the
busier road . Laredo is where our kids are right now. I think keep the
parking out of there. I don't think it would look good .
Mady: We already have people parking on the streets . It' s just a way of I
getting the parking off the streets so it' s not in the way of traffic.
Schroers : I think if we make the parking too convenient and the place too I
nice, that it will be overused. That will take away from the passiveness
of the area . I tend to think along the same lines as Jim on the formal
type of play structure in that area. When I was growing up I spent an
awful lot of time just running around out in the woods and having a great I
time and I didn' t need things , an artificial play structure. When you
have an artificial play structure, that ' s where your attention is focused
and I think the kids would be missing a lot of what the environment has to II
offer . It would distract their attention from it so I would just as soon
not see a play structure. Let the kids use their creative imagination to
entertain themselves .
Robinson: I would agree with that. Especially since what you said Jim.
We' ve got totlots and play equipment relatively close at Chaparral and the
City Park. '
Boyt : One of the things that we haven' t mentioned is that , I think Lori
was in contact with the school a year ago on this . . .if the school would I
like to use this . They'd bring groups of kids down to the pond to observe
what the plants.
Sietsema: Along with that , Matt did say they currently do go down there
and use the park and observe and he would be in favor of and would
appreciate some interpretive signage in that area that would point out
what the different species of trees or where they might possibly see the I
different types of birds or wildlife. For the kids to stand in a spot and
say, if you look out that way there might be a blue heron there or
something or you' ll see a big maple tree or different kinds of bushes or
whatever. Then it tells them something about that plant or that animal .
Mady: I guess I have a concern a little bit there. I 'd like to see some
interpretive signage. However , I don' t think I want to see a sign every
time on the different types of trees . Right in front of us is a maple
tree and an oak tree and you' ve got a sign, this is white oak. I would
rather see a sign right at the start of the park that says , part of this I
is the City Center Park. Chan Pond Park contains various plant materials
including white oaks, red maples , cedars , whatever . That way, especially
for kids, with part of the science class and they identify those things in
their books , the school can teach them by bringing them down to the park •
and making it into a learning situation for them. They say, okay find
them instead of having it right in front of you. I don' t want to fill the
park with signs. We need a little bit of signs but I don' t want to have
too many signs .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27 , 1988 - Page 11
Hasek: I guess I feel , not having been here over the last 5 years or
whenever the acquisition of this park occurred , it seems to me like the
intent is being met by the design . I have a little concern about the
' location of the parking. I would like to see the parking closer to the
picnic area for carrying in. . . I don' t think we need more than 7 spaces
in this park anyplace. I think a passive park, what I think if you' re
' going to provide parking , we might as well park as close to the area and
the facilities as possible. . . I think that the path ought to be aggregate
lined because it ' s one of the intents of the City' s policy to provide
' accessibility to the residents and an aggregate path would make it
accessible to the handicap in the wheelchairs and the public which is
something that . . .missing from the intent of that particular were being
used . I guess generally I feel that development around the park should
not in the long run harm the general character of the park. If we take a
look at the wildlife that exists in the small pond that' s just off of
Shady Oak Road south of TH 7 in Hopkins , you ' ll soon realize that wildlife
' and humans can live together . . . I think that this park can serve that
function. I would hate to see any kind of signage at all in this park. 5
miles , 4 1/2 miles down the road you' ve got the Minnesota Arboretum that
is completely open to kids . A short bus ride out there and all of the
trees that you 'd ever want to identify. I think that to put signs in this
park identifying the trees is . . .so I 'd like to see the signs . . . I think
the point about the children throwing rocks at wildlife is one that has to
be policed by the adults. If my kid throws a rock at a duck . . .so I think
that ' s something the adults can take care of . Part of the reason more of
the wildlife has left is because of development . I think when this park
' is completed . . .and the wildlife is used to it , a portion of that will
begin to return. In fact at some point we' ll have to find a way to get
rid of some of it because the wildlife, the ducks and the geese are up on
the yards making a mess so I think that over time will take care of
itself. Probably what has happened is that. . .
Mady: I had a question Mark. The trail going between the two pond
' areas . There ' s the large north pond and the south pond , there' s a trail
between those two bodies and you can walk through there. The bottom this
year was fairly soft . Have we looked at a floating type of a trail?
Mark Koegler : What' s indicated right now on the plan, if you rad the fine
print , it was a little side condition . Obviously this is not a normal
year but the presumption would be that by springtime we will get a normal
rainfall , that probably will require some type of a floating apparatus or
some type of a wood structure to get across there. That is shown right
now as part of the plan .
Mady: Okay, is there any comment?
Resident: I just had a question . Are there set park hours for the park?
' Mady: Yes .
' Sietsema: 7: 00 to 10: 00.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 12 I
Mady: We do also have, someone had commented on dogs. Currently the City I
Ordinance on dogs is that there are no dogs allowed in city parks period .
Leashed or otherwise . We have recommended to the Council and I believe we
are in the process of amending the ordinance to allow for dogs on leash on
trails so whatever the current leash laws are.
Resident: We've lived there 10 years and we yell at lots of kids and I
getting lots of people down there. It' s real difficult for us to police
because it' s way down and nobody sees it. I haven' t heard anything yet
that sounded like it' s going to be any better than it has been but it's I
terrible there. Beer parties . There's lots of stuff going on.
Resident : We' ve had to call the police 2 or 3 times . . .
Boyt: Were the beer parties on the trail that leads up to where you are? I
Resident : Yes .
I
Resident : And the motorcycles going around . . .
Boyt: We talked at one time about putting some sort of bollards and chains 1
or just bollards to protect the entrance on Laredo so the dirt bikes can' t
get through.
Mady: The only problem is , a dirt bike is that narrow. We can do the II
best we can.
Boyt : It' s not real hard to find where those kids are coming from either . I
I live right there. I followed them home. You 've got to go to the
parents . Something that we have, ever since we' ve been up here, wherever
there' s a park, there are similar problems wherever there' s a park. '
Mady: It' s an unfortunate situation including kids education and police
and enforcement action. The only option other than that is to have no
I
parks and I guess that' s another option. . . .education and enforcement
take care of a lot of it. Try to maybe not make it not as inviting a
situation as possible and maybe through installing some street lights II maybe. I would hate to see that down there but if that would solve the
problems, than that would be done . We ' ll have to watch it. The City does
have a couple of CSO officers now and hopefully they' ll be providing a
little bit more park patrolling so we can enforce the parks we have.
I
Lori , if there' s no other comments, I don't think we need an action on
this do we outside of maybe drafting . . .
Sietsema: I need a motion of your direction on how you want us to proceed I
with this . Do you want us to add or delete anything?
Boyt: We need to talk about the parking .
I
Mady: Yes , that was about the only thing I heard that was . . .
Boyt: There' s an option though of moving the parking and, we have a II
seating overlook area . That' s what it ' s for . It ' s to be a park that
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27 , 1988 - Page 13
could provide seating for that and parking for the picnic area .
Watson: You could put the parking down here and then they could walk the
trail up here to the overlook.
Boyt: When I drive by, the natural place for parking looks to be to the
north.
Mady: You have to remember the sliding hill would be on the south side.
Schroers: Has the grading already been done for the parking?
Mark Koegler : No . The grading permit along Kerber has been done. It
will accomodate parking either in the location shown there or further to
the north .
Hasek: Where' s the sliding hill?
Robinson: South.
Schroers : Will that bituminous trail that is there right now be disturbed
when the parking goes in?
Mark Koegler : On this scheme, about 80 feet of it would be disturbed .
Schroers: Just taken out and. . .
Hasek: The other advantage I can think of off hand is you ' ve got a road
on a curve and it' s clearly visible. If you move it to the north, you
could potentially design to exit directly opposite of Saddlebrook. Make
it more of an interchange. To me it just seems if the parking is more. . .
Schroers : Is there enough base to accomodate that parking where the trail
curves toward the wood line there just opposite of Saddlebrook?
Mark Koegler : Part of this gets back to the issue of what' s planned and
buildable. . .
Mady: . . .but I 'd agree with Ed , I don ' t want to see 15 to 20 spaces in
the park either . Maybe we if we allow 3 spaces in the overlook area. Put
4 or 5 down towards the picnic area .
Hasek : What if it' s just a pull off parking area with 3 spaces . . . ? The
intent of the overlook is to have people driving by to stop and view for a
minute and leave. Maybe just an off street parallel parking bay can
accomodate that.
Mady: Wouldn ' t you rather put in parking at the overlook. . .
Watson: It is a lovely view but it isn ' t the Grand Canyon so I think if
you provide . . . I have a feeling that 99% of the traffic on Kerber Drive
is going from one place to another and not necessarily. . .
•
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27 , 1988 - Page 14 1
Schroers : It' s the same traffic that goes past there time after time and
they've seen it before.
Watson: Right . They' re going back and forth to work, to the store, or
they' re taking their kids somewhere. It' s still pretty and local in
nature and those people aren' t necessarily going to pull off and look at
it. They' re going to walk down there. They've already decided that
they' re going to park and go down there and walk.
Mady: When we were out there and met with Bill Engelhardt a couple of
months back, the possibility of a sliding hill in that location and not
all of us have our kids immediately adjacent to so we' re going to have to
drive there. I don' t believe we provide a sliding hill in the City right
now so I 'd like to see us leave some parking available to us for the. . . '
1
Hasek: I 'd like to make a motion to get this thing off dead center . I 'd
like to make a motion that we go ahead and develop the park as we
generally discussed with the exception of moving the parking bays that
were shown to the north and across Kerber Blvd. from Saddlebrook.
Hased moved , Watson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to develop the park as we generally discussed with the exception
of moving the parking bays that were shown to the north and across Kerber
Blvd. from Saddlebrook. Hasek voted in favor and the rest voted in
opposition and the motion failed .
Robinson : I ' d say the same motion, that the development generally as
described here with no exceptions to the parking. I like the parking as
it' s laid out with 7 spaces by the overlook area. You don' t like that one 11
either?
Watson: I ' ll second that just to see how it gets the vote .
Robinson: That' s what I had an exception to on Ed ' s motion was the
parking . '
Robinson moved , Watson seconded that the Park and Rec Commission recommend
to accept the plan as Mark Koegler presented for Chan Pond Park ' s master •
plan . Robinson and Boyt voted in favor and the rest of the Commission
voted in opposition and the motion failed.
Mady: This is getting ridiculous . I think we' re looking for split
parking and if that doesn' t have it, then we' re going to let it drop.
Hasek: Let ' s quite screwing around with this . It ' s ridiculous . Why
don ' t we give this to the City Engineer for just one session here and have
him take a look at it and get his comments . To see if there' s anything ,
based on design that we should be looking at that we' re missing. I
guess I honestly don ' t care if we ' ve got a few in one place or a few in
I
11 ,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
' September 27 , 1988 - Page 15
l
the othere place. Maybe the engineer will be able to tell us where the
best location is for that. Does that sound like something we can agree
on?
Mady: I don ' t have a problem with it unless there' s a public safety
problem. . .
1
Hasek moved , Watson seconded that the Park and Rec Commission direct the
City Engineer to address the parking issue and give a recommendation back
to the Park and Recreation Commission. All voted in favor and the motion
carried .
John Olsen : Mr . Chairman , this may be to th
y not germane the discussion and
obviously this is not the proper venue for it but I think I can speak for
a fair number of the residents in the area that that if you really want to
enhance the park' s beauty, either (a) , enforce the 40 mph speed limit on
Kerber Blvd . or in fact reduce it down to 30 mph .
Boyt: You know what, you need to go to the Public Safety Commission.
John Olsen : I 'm aware of that . I 'm just simply bringing that up as a
general discussion about pull-offs and parking and that sort of thing .
' REVIEW STANDARDS FOR EQUESTRIAN TRAILS .
Sietsema: As we move closer to the referendum, the trailway task force is
moving into public meetings . Presenting the trail plan to different
groups of people. One of the questions that we are anticipating to come
up is what kinds of uses are allowed on the different trail systems . We
feel we are pretty comfortable with what is and is not allowed on the
paved trails . The sidewalks and the bituminous trails but it ' s still
unclear what is intended to happen on the nature trails or allow to be
happen on the nature trails. Whether horses will be allowed . I think
' that we've all agreed that motorized vehicles should be prohibited but the
question still remains on the horse use of the trails and what kinds of
conflicts there are with pedestrians and equestrians. . . .since we do have
a lot of horse trails in Hennepin Parks and maybe Larry just wants to go
over some of the points that he' s found out.
Schroers : I did talk to a member of Hennepin Parks Mounted Ranger Patrol
and the information that I received in regards to the surface of the trail
to accomodate horses , they prefer and strongly recommend turf where
expected heavy use or a lot of use for horses would occur . They feel that
the crushed aggregate also works fairly well but it can give some problems
to the horses. Rocks got in their shoes and other things and it seems
like, for whatever reason that the excrement remains longer on an
aggregate type of surface than it does on natural turf. Also, a couple of
11 things that were brought to my attention was that in low areas , especially
under wet conditions , horses tend to sink into the turf and it' s not
particularly good for the horses and it pretty much ruins the trail for
I
.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 16
II
walking by pedestrians . At least it' s an area, if it' s wet and then I
dries , it gets pretty hard and rough and it' s an area where someone could
easily turn an ankle or trip. As far as the 20 foot is concerned , that' s '
the distance that we normally ask for in our easements, they feel that two
horses can ride side by side and meet or bypass pedestrians within the 20
foot span so 20 foot should accomodate them. Other than that, they didn' t
feel that there was any particular problems with horses and pedestrians
I
using the same areas .
Sietsema: It was staff ' s feeling that as long as a 20 foot easement would 1
be a good width, or plenty wide enough for both uses, that if we got to a
problem where if we mowed a strip that was maybe 5 to 8 feet wide and it
was getting torn up by the horses or soft and muddy or there was enough
pedestrian traffic that they weren ' t able to pass comfortably, we'd still I
have the room to mow another strip that would be exclusively for horses
and one exclusively for pedestrians within that 20 foot easement . I guess
it would be staff' s recommendation to allow for horse traffic on the I
nature trails . Again , this would be not the paved trails but the nature
trails .
Hasek: Is it possible that we could throw something in where we could put II
it on a trial basis? Approve it on a trial basis where it would have to
come up in another 12 months or until any problems occur .
Sietsema: We probably won' t have all of our trails in within the next 12 II
months .
Watson: If you don' t allow them there, where are you going to allow them? I
Sietsema: If we have conflicts , the City has the option to always change
the ordinance . I wouldn' t recommend that we have a trial because that is
really unclear , it gives an unclear message. I think from staff' s
standpoint , I would like to see us send a message out to the residents of
Chanhassen that this is where you are allowed to ride your horses and have I
that kind of activity and we want to preserve in that area . If it gets to
the point where, obviously our number one use on our trails is going to be
for pedestrian use, but if it can ' t be accomodated for both users to use II these nature trails within that 20 foot easement, we always have the
option of going back and changing our ordinance. We amend ordinances all
the time.
Boyt : How many miles of nature trails do we have? II
Sietsema: Miles , I don' t know. The whole thing is 29 but I 'm not sure.
I
Hasek: How many do we have in place right now?
Sietsema: The nature trails that are in place right now are all on Tim
I
Erhart ' s property and he doesn ' t, we haven ' t obtained an easement from him
and he doesn' t allow horse traffic on his so right now we don' t really. . .
Hasek: Is that going to continue do you think? II
II
1 _
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 17
' Sietsema : Until we get the actual easement , that ' s the way it will be.
Hasek: Do you think he would allow the easement without horse traffic? Is
he that opposed to it? Would that be a whole other system?
Sietsema: I 'm not really sure. I 'd like to work with Tim on some other
things and talk to him and see if I can find out what the reasoning is .
So far it just sounds like it' s a matter that the two don' t mix well and
I don' t know if these are just on a small area and we can ' t provide the
two different types of trails in that area or what. I 'm not really sure
where he ' s coming from.
Hasek: To answer your question Carol . I 'm taking kind of a hard stand on
it and this is not personal at all but just because a person owns a horse
doesn' t mean that we have to give them a place to ride on our properties .
As for example. . .or is somebody wanted to ride an elephant. I understand
horse owners . My problems with horses are strictly personal . I wouldn' t
want to have them on my own yard and I think that would be nice if we can
do that and certainly want to do it if we can but I don' t think that this
commission or the City' s obligation to provide a place.
Watson : We have no obligation to . . .to allow dogs on the trails or
anything. Obligation doesn' t have any real bearing. There are a lot of
' horses in the City and the rural characteristics of the City brought all
those people out here who are now standing around trying to figure out how
they ended up in the middle of downtown Bloomington practically. I think
that those people are also entitled . As entitled as someone who wants to
walk their dog on the trails or walk around Chan Pond Park. They' re here .
Hasek: If, for example , if the City didn ' t have, if we had a no pet
' ordinance and you moved out here with a pet , couldn ' t you come screaming
to the City saying I moved in here with a pet , you' ve got to allow it . I
don' t think so. Our job is to provide for the people in the community and
' as much beyond that as we absolutely possibly can. I would like to see
horse trails , no question about it but I don' t think that we are under any
pressure to provide places for horses to ride simply because people either
' moved out here 20 years ago and had horses or moved in yesterday on a 5
acre lot so they could put a horse in and now they want a place to ride.
Watson: I agree that we don' t have to but I think the opportunity exists .
Hasek : And that' s why I think it' s possible. . .
' Sietsema: It' s simply meeting our recreational need .
Boyt : It' s a nice amenity to have.
' Watson: Especially a community with the characteristic of this one,
hopefully will retain , at least for a while.
Mady: I ' ve got some comments to make. Coming from strictly an urban
background pretty much , entirely urban , I had to do a lot of thinking on
this because horses and people, to me they were, unless you have a lot of
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27 , 1988 - Page 18 1
space, although I think Chanhassen is going to remain somewhat rural for
the next 20 years. Although we are going to get to the rural area where
Eden Prairie is right now, I believe they' ve pretty much banned horses in
there I think. That' s what I heard. That' s all hearsay but I don' t think II
Eden Prairie provides for horses but I don' t think Chanhassen is going to
get to that point for at least another 20 years. I do have some concerns
with horses sharing trails. As long as you only have 2 or 3 horses on a II 20 foot trail, I don' t have a problem with it. My problem would come if a
riding club or anything like that and 20 horses are going down a trail at
one time. All of a sudden that trail is no longer a pedestrian trail .
There' s just no way a kid is going to , unless that kid is used to being
around horses, is going to be near that trail. I don' t know how we can
rectify that situation. Put recreational user . The people who live in
town. Will be near it. I have no problems at all because there are going II
to be 2 or 3 people going out on an afternoon, Saturday afternoon ride or
after work exercise, of course, I don' t have a problem with that. I think
we' re going to have to get to the point where we designate areas of the
City as suitable uses. How we ' re going to do, at least the non-sewered
area would make it easy. Maybe we have to look at each individual trail
and say yes, that is here and no, that isn' t there. I think that' s where
we have to get to . The nature of the trail , the park is going to have to 11 be looked at as to whether it' s going to allowed along that or not because
we do have a nature trail right here in Chan Pond Park. There' s no way
that I would recommend to allow horses in that area so I think that' s
where we have to look at each individual area. As long as there' s enough
space basically in the non-sewered area, it' s the southern area of
Chanhassen . The area on the other side of Lake Ann is where the bulk of
the horses are. There are a few I guess on the other side in your
neighborhood , towards Excelsior but they' re kind of getting moved out
because everybody is selling their property to develop it. When we have
pedestrians and horses sharing an area , I would like to see us segating
the trail easement. You can do that by putting in an aggregate trail of 5
to 6 feet for the pedestrians . That ' s the pedestrian area . That' s where
they' re supposed to be. The horses can have the rest of it. As long as
people know where they can be and where they can ' t be on both sides , we
shouldn' t have a problem. But if we just leave it all open, then the
horses are going to dictate .
Sietsema: Right . I guess my point was , I think that we can afford to be
reactive rather than proactive in this instance. I don' t think we need to
go out there and make two separate trails right off the bat because I
don' t think, number one think we' re going to have a lot of heavy
pedestrian traffic in that area . Once this becomes more well known and it
is more used , than look at it and determine how you want to separate but I
think we could get by with one at first and then look at it later .
Mady: I would just as soon not . Knowing my family, if I walk down a
nature trail and a horse came by, my daughter would go nuts . 1
Watson : That ' s because her father came from a totally urban environment .
Mady: But you' ve got to realize the City is now at 10, 000 people and the II
bulk of us I would guess came from a totally urban area and setting so I
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
' September 27, 1988 - Page 19
just want to make sure that people are aware of that concern. Maybe we do
need to put aggregate down right away.
' Watson : I don ' t think so . In the first place, I don ' t think, we provide ,
the few trails we have, we don' t even hardly have any nature trails at
this point do we except for Tim Erhart' s property who won' t let anybody
on. I don' t really think that we' re going to have riding clubs full of
people riding on the few miles of trails that we' re going to have in the
foreseeable future.
Mady: The point though is that we' re creating a policy here and people
read the policy and expect to have trails and then they want to see them.
They may in fact move out here with the intent that those trails will be
' constructed and having horses in the future. That' s why the policy is
important now. Otherwise we'd wait until we bought the land to create the
policy.
' Watson : The policy is fine but I don' t think we need to be out there
constructing separate trails and directing traffic.
Sietsema : We don ' t have to make that decision tonight either . All I need
to know is if this Commission is going to adopt a policy to allow horses
on nature trails in the rural part of Chanhassen . If that is so that a
' motion to that effect is all I really need because we' re going to talk
about trail construction for the next 20 years once this referendum goes
through. We' re going to be talking about trail construction a lot. Just
look forward to it . Even if the referendum does not pass , God forbid , but
what I need to know now is what I can tell the people that we' re going to
public meetings . When the horse people are coming in , where are we going
to be able to ride, I want to be able to say well we' ve got all the nature
' trails. Either you can or can' t. That ' s going to be their yea or nay
vote.
' Carol Dunsmore: Just a comment on what you said before . You' re so afraid
of organized trail riding with 10-20 people. These nature trails they' re
not accessible to any type of trailer or parking . These trails
' specifically south of TH 5 area, you ' re just going to be the backyard
riders riding to them. I do belong to a saddle club but we' re looking at
a humongous parking lot to get 10 trailers so we'd never worry about these
trails being used for an organized club. It ' s strictly the residents
going out their back yard.
Hasek: If you were to go as club, you would go to the Minnesota River
' Valley or someplace else where you could have . . .
Sietsema : Hennepin Parks .
Carol Dunsmore : I' ve riden in numerous State Parks , County Parks and
every trail that it horse accessible is . . . trail . There' s no separation
whatsoever from people. We' ve never encountered any problems with them.
' The horses give right-of-way to the people. They give right-of-way to
horses . They work wonderful together . I don' t see any problems .
. 1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27 , 1988 - Page 20 '
1
Mady: Do you realize I 'm uninformed . . . I 'm very naive when it comes to
horses so I 've just got all these fears like people who are naturally
afraid of snakes .
Schroers : I think I can help make you more comfortable on that Jim. We
have highly extensive horse trails in the Hennepin Parks and they are used
probably as much by people as by horses and I haven' t heard of a conflict II
where anyone has been run over , kicked or any problem like that.
Pedestrian and horse related incidents . Maybe a rider has fallen off
their horse but I think I 'd be ready to make a motion on this. I would
move that the Park and Rec Commission recommend to staff and Council to
adopt the policy that will allow equestrian use on certain non-paved
nature trails to be specified in the future.
Sietsema: Do you want to include prohibiting motorized vehicles .
Schroers : Right , also prohibiting motorized vehicles .
Watson: I ' ll second it .
Carol Dunsmore : Is there anyway you can south of TH 5? In the rural '
area? You' re still making it very leery to horse people.
Mady: I don' t want to omit the areas on the north side of TH 5. ,
Schroers : That' s kind of why I worded it the way I did.
Sietsema : Could you just say in the rural or unsewered area? '
Schroers: I don' t want to say unsewered. Maybe I would rather say in
the . . . '
Hasek: Are there going to be any nature trails in the sewered area?
Sietsema: Yes. Around Chanhassen Pond and along Lotus Trail .
Schroers : I guess I 'd just rather state it the way I did . On certain
trails.
Sietsema : How about if you allow them on nature trails with the exception
of the nature trails in the sewered area? in
Hasek: What' s the difference between that and the sewered area?
Mady: That' s kind of an ambiguous term but. . . t
Schroers : Then it would be excluding the use of horses inside the MUSA
line.
Mady: But the people who live right here have sewer . They also have
horses. Tim Erhart' s farm is right there. '
! _
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
' September 27 , 1988 - Page 21
' Sietsema: They don' t have sewer . All that is sewered is along Lake Riley
Blvd . .
' Mady: In any event , there are some people who do live down there who have
horses and they have sewer. I would rather see it say rural area. It' s
kind of ambiguous but . . .
' Schroers: Okay, should I restate this?
Sietsema: How about if I just recap, Larry moved to adopt a policy
statement to allow equestrian use on the nature trails in the rural area
and to prohibit any motorized vehicles on any trails .
Schroers: That would be okay but I think that we have to state in there,
in rural areas on specified trails because if Mr . Erhart ' s trail is
considered a nature trail but he' s not going to allow horses on that, what
do we have to allow for that?
t Watson: But when we buy the easement , he won ' t have a choice. Now it ' s
his choice because it' s private property.
Sietsema: It ' s not a true public trail right now.
' Mady: I think it ' s kind of moot point because we always have the ability,
even if he said at some point in time, at that point in time he can . . .
Sietsema: The bottom line though is that your policy will allow horses on
nature trails . That ' s the policy. You can put any stipulations on that
at any time but that is our general guideline. Our policy.
Mady: Okay, reread it and let ' s go .
Sietsema: Larry moved to adopt a policy statement to allow equestrian use
' on nature trails• in the rural area and to prohibit any motorized vehicles
on trails. Carol seconded .
Schroers moved , Watson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
adopt a policy statement to allow equestrian use on nature trails in the
rural area and to prohibit any motorized vehicles on trails . All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
' APPROVAL OF 1989 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
Sietsema : I made the revisions noted the last time we talked about the
1989 Capital Improvement Program. That is shown on the first attachment .
I also separated the projects that would be monies on reserve such as
Herman Field and also LAWCON grant projects where the money is matching
grant money. The total that I come up with is about $170, 000. 00 and that
' would be newly budgeted money. That does not include anything that ' s
rolled over . If you wanted to know what was rolled over , it would be
anything on the second attachment that says 1988 CIP project status that
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27 , 1988 - Page 22 ,
says that the project woulde be completed sometime in 1989 such as Laredo II
and the Carver Beach Road trails . There' s $25,000. 00 that would be rolled
over to complete that project . Chanhassen Pond Park, I believe that it
was $3,500. 00 that we had in the budget for Chan Pond Park.
Boyt : For park and development?
Sietsema: For park and development. '
•
Robinson : How much Lori?
Sietsema: $3, 500. 00. I looked it up. So that would be rolled over .
That would in addition to that $170,000. 00 total . The tree farm was not
restocked because we don' t have control over it yet . They' re still doing I
some final grading and leveling or whatever with the sewer project so we
won' t be restocking that unless we get, they turn it back over to us
within planting time that we could still do it. '
Mady: I guess I 'm a little opposed to it . Let' s wait until next year and
buy the stuff next spring. It' s getting real late now for stuff that we'd I
be hoping to transplant .
Sietsema: We typically do it in the fall though.
Hasek: The best time to do it is right now because you stand the best
chance of those plants surviving next spring .
Sietsema: That' s why they were hoping they'd still be able to do it this II
fall . We also do have available to us off in the MRPA, the Minnesota
Recreational Park Association has trees and bushes and different things
that you can get at a lower cost . We can go up and get a bunch of them
and stock the tree farm. I believe that project is going to be available
again this year so if we have the tree farm, get it back, we'd still be
able to do that. That' s the intent. The other thing that I wanted to
talk about that I didn' t in here was that, if you notice on the status
attachment, the boardwalk for North Lotus Lake Park, I have a question
mark there and I checked and I do not have that on order because I didn' t
get a clear indication from the Commission whether I should and I don' t
know how much boardwalk we want . How far out we want to go . The other
question is, I 'm still not sure that that' s what you want to do. Just
having a boardwalk go out and end in the middle of the lake or out to the II
open water and not having a fishing pier leading to anything so I ' ve held
off on ordering that and I will go ahead and order it upon your direction
tonight. ,
Hasek: Could a fishing pier be stuck into another program of some sort or
not? Similar to what we did on the DNR' s at Chan?
Sietsema : There' s a Corps program through the DNR and they give you a
grant and then install the pier . We could make application next year for
a fishing pier like that. '
Hasek: Does that make sense to do that?
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
' September 27 , 1988 - Page 23
Watson : Was that the intent when the boardwalk s
wa planned?
Hoffman: At North Lotus? The only problem we'd run into there would be
the stringent requirements of accessible parking with paved handicapped
trails nearby. It' s got to be within such a certain distance. At
' North Lotus we'd never be able to meet it .
Mady: That part of the lake is shallow so to get into really fishable
' waters , you' re going to have a heck of a long dock.
Hoffman: South Lotus, if more appropriate, would be the more appropriate
spot.
' Schroers : Is there a lot of resident demand for a boardwalk?
' Sietsema: No, it came up as an idea a few years back and it' s been
included in the budget and I ' ve never gotten clear direction to go ahead
and do it. The last time we talked about the boardwalk was when we were
talking about Chanhassen Estates and that ' s where we discussed the
11 problems with, if a kid fell off that dock into that marsh it would be a
very dangerous situation .
' Schroers : Another thing is that we have several boardwalks within
Hennepin Parks and they have proven to be a high maintenance, high cost. . .
' Sietsema: The boardwalk that I brought in, that piece of it , it was
plastic. It' s supposed to be a low maintenance thing that floats right on
the water but it will get a little bit wet on the top I guess but it
doesn' t get chewed up by the muskrats . It just kind of fit together and
I L there were some bolts or something that you put in there and you could
leave it in there. It was a real thick plastic stuff. You could leave it
out there through the winter . It does get chewed up a bit by snowmobi.lers
Itif they go over it but it still withstands that kind of a beating .
Mady: If you wanted neighborhood input on this , send a letter out to
Lotus Lake Homeowners Association. You'd fill this room with people who
do not want that trail .
Sietsema: What trail?
' Mady: I met with those people for the referendum. They do not want a
trail . Specifically, we have an easement along the lake from their area
Ito ours . They do not want it. They are completely against trails.
Schroers: I guess my idea on that is, if we are not getting a lot of
neighborhood requests for such a thing , I don' t think we should spend
$3,000. 00 and just go in and tear up the environment for the sake of
having a trail there. If someone wants a trail there, if there' s interest
and if it will serve a purpose and a function, then it' s worth looking at.
' Otherwise , let ' s go without it.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27 , 1988 - Page 24 '
Watson: Put out a fishing pier or something like that. If there was
going to be something to do when you got to the end of it.
Boyt : There are other needs of that park too. We put a totlot in and we
need one at least twice the size to serve the kids that are there. Some
picnic tables . There' s a beautiful view of the lake. I rather see the
money used instead of for a boardwalk for more totlot equipment . '
Mady moved , Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to staff that the boardwalk be taken out of the 1988 Capital
Improvement Program. All voted in favor and the motion carried .
Sietsema: $170, 000.00 is a lot of money for the Park Capital I
y p 1 Improvement
Program. Not to say that it wouldn' t be funded but it 'd be more than has
ever been funded before.
Boyt : We had the potential to bring in a lot of money this past year with
the amount of development going on. That' s not a lot of money. They
expect the same kind of growth next year .
Mady: I just want to caution members that they' re spending money for some
people who aren' t putting in money and we' ve got to. . .
Hasek: We also have people living in those areas that are in need of
parks who aren ' t going to have their land developed .
Mady: I ' ve got some other comments but let' s get through this thing .
Sietsema: Go ahead . Do you want to just start at the top of the list of I
the attachment with Lake Ann Park and revise as we go?
Robinson : Revise what? '
Mady: Make your comments on. . .
Sietsema: I just need to know if you want to change this or if you want
it to go to City Council as it is or whatever . So if you want to just
walk through this , and get comments on any possible changes .
Mady: Number one, the 1988 CIP status . . Laredo/Carver Beach trail was II
on the Consent last night and approved ast night by the Council . I
woulde like to direct staff to move as quickly as possible. If that means
hiring outside people , so be it , to get those bids out . Get the bidding
process started so the bids come back. If we can get that done, it takes
3 weeks to get the bids to come back. We still have an outside chance of ,
hitting the October 24th Council meeting for approval and we could still
maybe get that thing in the ground this year if we really pushed .
Hasek: Is the thing designed right now? '
Robinson : Why is it that important?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
' September 27, 1988 - Page 25
get To
Mady: those kids y g off of the street that have to walk to school .
To me that should have been done back in June. It' s unfortunate that we
waited until September but it' s September now. We've still got kids
walking on that street. We've got the money to spend. All we need to do
is get the work done .
Sietsema: I don' t believe that that ' s enough time to prepare plans and
specs. The Council has to approve plans and specs, authorize
' advertisement for bids. That is a certain , I think a 2 week period that
we have to advertise and we have to accept bids and then the Council has
to approve bids. So the soonest that we could go back to Council would be
November .
Mady: Well , early November . If the weather ' s right , we could still do
cement in November. I 'm saying if we drag our feet right now, it
' definitely is not going to get done until May of next year .
Sietsema: The trail in front of the Fire Station and the School will be
' done this year . I will push it as fast .
Hasek: We can certainly make a motion to push for it. It's unfortunate
that things are out there that far . Experience will tell me that there' s
just no way that they can get a bid approved before, I think November
would be really pushing it. You' ve got probably, I don' t know how long
the trail is but I can' t believe there ' s any contractor out there who
' could do the plans and specs within 30 days . That ' s just unrealistic.
It' s not going to happen.
Mady: Well it won ' t happen if we don' t ask for it .
' Sietsema: I can put your motion down or whatever. Gary' s the engineer .
This is an engineering project and he' s aware that we do want to go as
' fast as possible.
Mady: I 'm disappointed that we didn' t get to Council on this thing until
September. We talked about it back in June and nothing happened until
August. . . That ' s all I have to say on that . Going to the 1989 project.
Lake Ann grading plan is something that' s . . .
' Sietsema: The Lake Ann grading plan , yes , that ' s separate. That ' s
referendum money.
11 Mady: We get into Bluff Creek access road. We don' t even know where
Bluff Creek is right now.
Sietsema : I know where Bluff Creek is .
Mady: I don' t want to be the Park Commissioner who has to go to City
Council and ask for $10, 000. 00 for a park when we don' t even know where it
is .
Sietsema : The reason we can ' t find it is there' s no access road .
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27 , 1988 - Page 26 '
Mady: Next park down, Minnewashta Heights Park. $20,000. 00 for a park
shelter . When we discussed this item, it was talked about something I
similar to a bus shelter with clear plexiglass so it would be visible. I
called the Metropolitan Transit Commission personally and talked to a man
by the name of Gary Curtis . The MTC pays $6,000. 00 for their bus
shelters. He gave me a list of 30 people they buy them from. I said the II
list has to be updated again , they' re in the process of doing that. I
don' t know why we' re talking about Minnewashta Heights. It's a small park
but $20,000. 00, we' d be a hell of a lot better off spending $20,000.00 and '
buying 2 acres of land out there where we desperately need a playing
field . If we put in $6,000.00 to $10, 000. 00 for a park shelter , we'd
better know what we' re doing . $20, 000. 00, that' s a lot of money to spend
on a real small park with a very small service area. I have a tough time
doing that.
Watson: When it' s so small , there ' s not ability to put much activity in
there.
Mady: I ' ll give this to staff , from the MTC so they have that
information.
Sietsema: I talked to Nann who does our Minutes . She lives up in that
area, fairly close to the park and I asked her what she thought of a park I
shelter and she said that a warming house for the kids to get out of the
wind would be nice but what would probably be used more in that park would
be a half court basketball court . She said right now it ' s really geared II to small children with the totlot there but probably it would be used more
by adults and older kids if there was a half court basketball . She said
from her standpoint and the people she had talked to, that may serve more
people than a warming house or park shelter actually would . She also said II
that additional totlot equipment, expanding the totlot eqiupment that' s
there would be something that would be needed .
Mady: What we need to do is have a public hearing and invite all the ,
residents and find out what they actually want instead of us trying to put
up a $20,000. 00 park shelter . Who even knows if they want it or not .b
Schroers : I think that ' s what we had in mind was a combination warming
house and shelter type thing.
Hasek: That ' s what I thought we had talked about .
Schroers: I think that 's where that came from and that' s where that
$20,000. 00 figure and if you look at what we got in the concession stand
up at Lake Ann, you realize you don' t get much for $20, 000.00.
Watson : Didn ' t you think too it had to be constructed , because there ,
wasn' t going to be anybody there. We couldn' t afford to have anybody at
that warming house so it was going to have to be constructed so it
wouldn ' t be closed in so you could see and everything so it wouldn ' t be
more dangerous for the kids to use it than it would help.
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27 , 1988 - Page 27
Mady: The comments we had when we were first talking about this , Dale,
the indication was that there were many days that there aren' t any kids
who can skate across the ice up there. I think we need better ice for
them. I 've got a real problem putting a big park shelter , spending
$20, 000. 00 for a park shelter when we don' t even know if they want it .
$20, 000. 00 is a lot of money, even today. I have a problem with that. I
had a problem before and I still do . I don ' t see any plan. A couple
other things I wanted to bring up. We' ve had input from people on both
Minnewashta Parkway and from Pheasant Hills subdivision for -parks . We
' need to go out and find 5 acres of land for each of those people so we
have a park. Not a little 30, 000 square feet that we can ' t do anything
with but have a totlot. Yes, they want a totlot right now but 5 years
down the road they' re going to want something else . Let' s build them the
' right thing now and let' s start looking at that. I 'm not saying you
budget money for it this year but I think we need to start looking
actively for park in both those areas . I think in the Pheasant Hills
area, although that is in the sewered area , they are directly next to a
non-sewered area where we can buy land fairly reasonably. If we can pick
up 5 acres of land for $20, 000. 00 to $30, 000. 00, we'd better be looking
hard at funding that next year on our next ' s year budget. That means this
year we go out and locate the land that we want . We know how much it' s
going to cost so we can do that next year. Minnewashta Parkway, in
talking to the developer who was here last week, or two weeks ago , it
sounds like land goes for about $10, 000. 00 an acre there. That means
we' re going to need $50, 000. 00 to buy 5 acres of land but let' s start
planning for that. The longer we wait, the longer it' s going to take and
' the land ' s going to get a lot more expensive. If we have to delay a
totlot or a ballfield or tennis court, I 'm willing to make that choice so
we can get something that people are already asking for right now. If we
don' t do it now, we can' t wait until the developer gives it to us free
' because there just aren ' t big pieces of property up there that they' re
going to give us 5 acres of land. That' s a real problem there .
Schroers : I have to agree with you on that. If you ' re going to have
' parkland, if you want to offer parks to the residents , the first thing you
have to have is the property. If it doesn ' t look as though it ' s going to
become available through development fees, I agree that we should look at
purchasing the property that we need in the areas where we need it and get
on it real soon. That' s the key to having a park system is getting the
land .
Mady: The last comment I have concerns the new south park that we' re
investigating but also the two I just mentioned. We've had the
' opportunity to work with the Army Corps of Engineers Reserve to do some
grading in our park areas. We have to ask them like 2 years ahead of time
to get that done. Let' s keep that in mind when we' re looking at the south
ILpark because Chanhassen is blessed with rolling hills. There isn' t a part
of Chanhassen that ' s got 20 acres of flat land that I know of.
Watson: There' s a 1,000 developers who can get it flat.
Mady: But we' ve got to pay for that but since we know we have a very
limited budget, I want to make sure that we remember to use those. . .source
1
. '
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27 , 1988 - Page 28 '
because it' s a very cheap source for us . Keep that in the back of our
minds when we start looking at developing these newer parcels that we' re
looking at . That' s my comments .
Robinson: I disagree with Jim' s remarks on hiring outside help on Laredo
and the park trail . I think we should expedite that but not to the point
of hiring outside help. I'd like to thank Jim for not attacking the South II
Lotus Park tennis courts. I appreciate that. As far as the $169, 250. 00
that we spent some time on before, I would like to leave that total with
possibly the exception of Bluff Creek. Jim made a good point, we don' t I
know where it is. I 'm wishy washy on the $20,000. 00 for the park shelter
at Minnewashta Heights Park. We'd better go find out. I 'm not sure if
there' s dollars in there. We shouldn' t call it a park shelter and
therefore if we can' t define it, I 'm not sure if we should have any
dollars in there.
Boyt : I think it' s a good idea to get together with the neighbors out
there to find out what the concerns are there because it' s a small park.
Robinson : So maybe I guess what I 'm saying Lori , the $169,000. 00 less the
$31, 000. 00 to $138,250. 00 I feel . . .
Mady: We need a sign at Bluff Creek so at least we know where it is .
Sietsema: You can' t find it because there' s no access road to it. You
have to go across private property to get to it.
Watson: What would it cost to put a road to it?
Sietsema: I don ' t know, $8 , 000. 00 to $10,000. 00.
Robinson: I see you included Lori the income from park and trail fees
collected to date .
Sietsema: Through August . January through August .
Robinson: You can' t prorate that to. . . '
Sietsema: It' s going to continue. I get at least 3 or 4 permits across
my desk a day.
Robinson: Is there a relationship between the Capital Improvement
Program' s $169,000. 00? It looks like you could collect $169, 000. 00 so is
that. . . '
Sietsema : You don' t necessarily want to spend everything you take in.
Number one, you want to keep your reserve funds built up so you have
matching grant funds. So that you have emergency money to dip into in
case something comes up that you don' t want to pass up. Also, you want to
reserve some money for the areas that you don' t have the land now where we
may acquire the land, then we don't have any money to develop it.
Especially in the area like Pheasant Hills where the fees have already
been collected and they' re already in that budget and we' re spending them
1 .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27 , 1988 - Page 29
in other places so if we don' t keep some on reserve, we won' t be able to
acquire land much less develop it up there.
Hasek: Let' s ask a straight out question, how do you feel about it? You
mentioned that it' s a lot higher than it' s ever been but is it out of
line?
Sietsema : I didn' t get any bad vibes from Don. I think the Council will
start cutting and I think that it 's better for us to cut back to show
where we think the cuts should come because we have more hands on , we know
what our goals are. If we want to get it back to a number that I think
the Council will be more comfortable with, it' s somewhere in the
$100, 000. 00-$120, 000. 00 range. That' s just a guess on my part. I could
irbe, maybe they' ll breeze through it and they won' t give a hang if it ' s
$200, 000. 00.
Hasek: When is this going to be on the agenda for them?
Sietsema: They have a special meeting in early October . Again, my point
is, I think if it' s going to be pared back, I think that it woulde be
better for us to do it.
Hasek : I guess the question I 'm asking is , do we want to pare it back or
' should we suggest that it could be pared back?
Mady: I think what we want to do is demonstrate what the people want . If
we can demonstrate that the residents of the City want all these things ,
they' ll vote for it . The Council will approve it but if it' s going to be
another one of these Greenwood Shores deals where we' re trying to put
something in , we' re not going to get it through.
Hasek: Well , we can' t take the time to take each one of these through a
public hearing .
Mady: No , but we know that we want the boat access and the Little League
mound has been screamed for. South Lotus Lake has to go in. The Carver
Beach people have been here for it . The linear Carver Beach , we know
we've got to do something there. The people were at the City Council two
weeks ago on that. Basketball at Bandimere Heights , yes . All those
things are wanted. Some of them are a little less understood but
' $40, 000. 00 for the park mechanism up here at the City Center Park with the
APT people are willing to give us $10, 000. 00 toward that supposedly. That
shows some public input so we might , there' s no doubt about it . We' ve got
' people who want it, who have been asking for things and those things come
to well over $100, 000. 00. We might be at $140, 000. 00.
Hasek: Let' s go over a couple of quick items . Miscellaneous , tables and
' grills. . .my feeling is that this is the only time, this year and we have
to develop next year , this is the only time that it makes any sense to
pull trees . If we need them, we'd better buy them now or we' ll lose them.
' Herman Field, there' s nothing in regular CIP for that so we don' t have to
worry about that.
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 30
Sietsema : The $35,000. 00 that' s there is when the Herman Family dedicated I
that parkland to the City, they also gave us $35, 000. 00 to develop it so
that ' s been continued to be on reserve for the development of that park.
Hasek: Minnewashta Heights Park, have we in the past slated that money.
That was just put on this year wasn ' t it?
Sietsema: There was a park shelter , there' s money like $5, 000. 00 last
year that we asked the Council to amend to take that out because there
wasn' t much you could get for $5,000.00 in the way of a wood frame park
shelter . Gazebo type with the removal sides .
Hasek: The question I have is , if this so far is a matter of public
record and you did talk about a shelter of some sort , now we take it out , 1
are we shorting those people. Maybe it should be $20,000. 00 on something
else or maybe $10,000. 00 for something else.
Mady: We need to put up what they want . '
Hasek: That ' s true but do we push it out of this budget because we made
an error?
Mady: If I was sitting on the Council and you asked me for $20, 000. 00 and
said you don' t know what you' re going to spend it on, you just want it
lined up, I ' d say no .
Hasek: The question I 'm asking is , do we want to have a public hearing as I
quickly as possible to see if we can' t get it into this budget because we
talked about it? Should we have a public hearing next meeting? Is that
soon enough?
Sietsema : No , the budget has to be ready to go to Council on the 3rd .
Hasek: Then I think that item ought to be just simply waxed . . .we' ve got
to wax that one for sure . Bluff Creek, the access road obviously is
something that we should cut as a possibility but I certainly want to
see. . .get that park developed . Especially if we' re planning to put a II. . .that' s what the access road is giving us . Beyond that, I guess I don' t
see where. . .
Sietsema: The alternative to putting an access road into Bluff Creek is
to wait until we have all of our easements that connect up to the Bluff
Creek. As it is a linear park system and that' s where all the nature
trails, that' s a chunk of the nature trails is that Bluff Creek area. We II
own a lot more land around it than 20 feet so if we didn' t want to spend
the $10, 000 . 00 to go ahead and put in an access road in there now, we
could hook into it at a later time when we get the rest of the easements .
Hasek : When do you think that will happen?
Sietsema: It depends on referendum. 5 years .
Hasek: So that ' s a possible chop item. That ' s something we could chop.
I .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27 , 1988 - Page 31
Sietsema: I 'd feel comfortable chopping in that one.
' Boyt : I have a question about the revenue expenditures . Where ' s the
money that we approved in past years? Is that in the. . .account?
Sietsema: No.
Boyt : Is that put into the general funds?
Sietsema: No. It' s reflected in what' s on reserve.
Boyt : I 'd like to know what we have in these areas . Do we have enough
money in the north Minnewashta area to purchase land?
Sietsema: I couldn' t tell you how much we' ve collected in those areas .
Boyt: Can Don get that for us?
Sietsema: I don' t think so because what they do, well , it would be a lot
of research of going back over the last 10 years and finding out.
Mady: Review every building permit probably. If you could get a ballpark
estimate by looking at it. . .
Sietsema : There are a number of homes that were built up there before the
' dedication ordinance went through so you can' t just simply count houses .
Boyt : So where ' s the money now?
Sietsema: It is in the park fund and I don' t have a budget down here.
Boyt: Do you know approximately how much is in the park fund?
Sietsema: My guess would be $200, 000. 00.
' Mady: We also have a simple that we' re spending money outside of the area
anyway. We spend money where we feel we have to spend money. We don' t
worry about where it came from. You might want to tell people that your
$400. 00 is going to go to your area . The simple fact of the matter is , we
' haven't spent it that way and we will not be spending it that way in the
future. We will still continue to spend money at parks where there' s no
dedication has ever come in and that' s just a mere fact of life .
Boyt : Is this money, the $200, 000. 00 the money we use for matching funds?
Sietsema: Yes, that' s part of that. I really can' t tell you how much the
total is .
Boyt : It seems to me that if we want to acquire property in the
Minnewashta area, we ought to look to some of this money if it' s there.
If we don' t acquire any property pretty soon, it doesn ' t look like it will
get into our budget this year either , an extra $50,000.00.
11
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 32 1
Mady: No , we'd have a tough time doing it. The comments I got early on
from Council members when I first came here was the City has developed
their parks by getting matching grants wherever possible. I had a number II
of people tell me that and that' s the way we should be doing it. We've
gotten away from that because the matching program isn' t there anymore but
that's why people are still a little leery about spending money. This is II
a real aggressive program and hopefully we can get it through.
Sietsema: If we would come upon a parcel of property in the Minnewashta
area that was available and at a good price, we could go to the City
Council next year and ask them to amend the budget so we could expend that
money. Show them that it is there and we'd like to spend it and amend the
budget. II
Boyt: I think we need to address that we look at property. So we don' t
need to put it in the budget? '
Sietsema: Because we don' t know how much.
Boyt: If we wanted 5 acres, we know approximately. . . I
Sietsema: The thing is , if we spent $100,000. 00 on parkland in the
Minnewashta area, we spent our reserve money on that, and then the Lake
Susan project was approved by LAWCON, that' s a $220,000. 00 project.
Boyt: Is that all the money that' s in the reserve? $200, 000. 00.
Sietsema: I can come back with more clear figures . I hate to throw out
numbers when I 'm not real clear. All the money is shown in the budget .
Don' s in the process of budget so he would have a better figure of what
exactly we have on hand.
Boyt: How many years have we been collecting park fees? 1
Sietsema: I believe it' s been since 1978. I think it' s been 10 years now
but areas like Chan Estates, Greenwood Shores . They' re over 10 years old '
and they didn' t pay the park dedication fees .
Boyt: Chan Estates has a $20, 000. 00 difference .
Sietsema: That' s not directly related to Chan Estates . That' s a running II
total .
Mady: You know what that difference is . It might be what ' s come in over II
the first quarter .
Boyt : A running total from what?
Mady: It ' s a running total that might be for the quarter.
Boyt : For Chan Estates , $20,000. 00?
I
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
' September 27, 1988 - Page 33
Mady: Yes , because there' s a total on there of $84 ,762 . 00 in that column.
That might just be a total . The difference from what it was the first
quarter to the last quarter . It' s probably a difference in points of
time.
Sietsema : Keep in mind that these are areas so part of the business park
is in the Chanhassen Estates area. So we may have collected $20, 000. 00
' but that ' s probably out of the business park or out of Hidden Valley.
' Boyt: . . .if it' s in the area, am I really dumb? It says here $20, 000. 00
for Chan Estates .
Mady: I 'm saying, don' t get hung up on where the money' s coming from
because we don' t simply spend it in the area that it' s coming from and we
never have and never will . That ' s just the fact of life. We' re going to
spend it wherever we need to spend it .
Robinson : Kind of like tax dollars .
Mady: You just can' t worry about that too much . We need to get moving on
this.
Sietsema: The $20, 000. 00 would have come out of Hidden Valley. That
would have been park dedication fees paid from Hidden Valley.
Mady: We' ve identified a couple of things that could potentially be
' chopped. Is there anything else we' re willing to cut out of here or
indicate to the City?
Boyt: We could chop out the electrical to the shelter at Lake Ann Park.
Is it worth putting electrical into that shelter when we have plans . . .?
Mady: We' re going to have to put electrical into the park down further by
' the lake at some- point in time. I don' t know what we need electrical out
there for right now. It 'd be nice to have lights out there.
' Robinson: For refrigeration or anything?
Mady: No .
' Mady: I think a propane stove would take care of anything we need as far
as park activities and until we get. . .
Schroers : To have a facility out there and then not have services in it.
Sietsema: Right now concessioners are coming out there and using it .
They have to back a generater up to it to run their concessions . That ' s
what they' re doing .
Mady: I don' t have a problem with that.
ISchroers: I guess in the short term, that sounds like something that' s
acceptable and we could probably live with but I certainly hope that we
1
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27 , 1988 - Page 34 '
don' t gear ourself to that train of thought . i
Mady: We' re going to be putting a major shelters down by the lake where
we have to put. . .
Schroers : It took us 2 years to get this shelter here or 3 years to get
this shelter here and how many years is it going to take to get
electricity to it?
Mady: What do we need electricity to it for? 1
Hasek: The only reason would be to run a concession stand. That' s what
it is, is to run the concession stand .
Schroers : . . .wherever you want to plug in .
Hasek: But you can take care of that with propane stoves in the short
term.
Schroers : You can . There' s always a way around it . What I 'm saying is II that it kind of makes want to provide a facility like that and spend that
kind of money on it and not have service to it. That' s just my opinion.
Sietsema: The park shelter down at the lake, we' ve always based that I
contingent upon that we got a grant . If we don' t get the grant , we don' t
get the park shelter, then we wait another year for electrical into the
park. We also wait another year for water in the park and running
bathrooms. So it' s always ranked high but never been funded .
Mady: The problem with the bathrooms is it' s out of the sewered area?
Sietsema: We can run a drainfield.
Mady: Are there any other comments? We need a motion on this .
Robinson: I ' ll make a motion that the Capital Improvement Program budget
for 1989 be submitted to the Council as is with the exception of the Bluff II
Creek access road of 10, 000. 00 and the Minnewashta Heights park shelter of
$20, 000. 00 to take out a total of $30, 000. 00 which would leave a total CIP
next year for $139, 250. 00.
Hasek: Second .
Mady: The problem with the Bluff Creek access road , I think Ed made a
good point, that maybe we do need to look at it. I still don' t feel real II
comfortable with that . We' ll see what happens . We do have $10, 000. 00 in
the trail plan too. . .
Boyt : . . .we have Lake Susan out there with no access . But it' s
frustrating for us. We can' t get to the park because there' s no way for
us to get there . '
1 .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
' September 27 , 1988 - Page 35
Mady: I wish we had better . . . We don' t even have a plan as to where it' s
going to go. Off of what road. I don' t even know where it is .
' Sietsema: It' s in your Comp Plan and it' s also in your little blue book.
You have to go through Bluff Creek Golf Course to get to it. I need a
point of clarification. You want to take out the $1, 000. 00 for
interpretive signage at Bluff Creek too? So that would be $31, 000. 00.
Robinson : Right . $138 , 250. 00 •
Hasek: I have some discussion here. My question is , if this goes to
Council, and they want it, it' s too high for them, will they send it back
to us for recommended cuts or will they do it?
' Sietsema: What they would likely do is say that they will approve up to a
certain amount and then send it back to us as to how we want to spend it .
Mady: If you present this to them, you have to be willing to come here
and defend every item on it in front of them and you feel real foolish .
Boyt: I think the only thing is the park shelter for $6, 000. 00.
Schroers : That would be my opinion also .
' Mady: I don' t know if I want to put a bus shelter up there. We don' t
even know if people want it there .
' Schroers : I would recommend eliminating the $20, 000. 00 at Minnewashta
Heights Park pending further input.
Mady: Okay, Curt ' s motion is on the floor and there' s a second for
$139, 000. 00.
Robinson moved , Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
II ; recommend to approve the 1989 Capital Improvement Program as presented
with the exception of the Bluff Creek road access for $10, 000. 00 and the
' park shelter at Minnewashta Heights Park for $20,000. 00 for a total budget
of $139, 250. 00. Robinson voted in favor and the rest voted in opposition .
The motion failed.
' Hasek: I 'd like to approve the CIP as listed with the exception of the
park shelter for Minnewashta Heights. The reasoning being we'd like to
have a public hearing on that item before we decide what needs to be done
there. The amended amount woulde be $149, 250.00.
Schroers : I ' ll second that .
Hasek moved , Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation recommend to
approve the 1989 Capital Improvement Program as presented with the
exception of the park shelter for Minnewashta Heights Park for $20, 000. 00
' until a public hearing can be held for a total of $149, 250. 00. All voted
in favor and the motion carried .
•
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27 , 1988 - Page 36 1
REVIEW SITE PLAN FOR 330,000 SQUARE FEET INDUSTRIAL BUILDING, ROSEMOUNT, 1
INC.
Sietsema: What they' ve proposed is a 330, 000 square foot industrial 1
building on the north side of Lake Susan just east of Lake Susan Park.
The proposal is to be on 57 . 75 acres of land that is now zoned IOP. This
area here is the property. This is Lake Susan to the south of that and
this area is the existing park, Lake Susan Park. The park shelter lies
right here. We' re currently getting access to the park off ' of CR 117
along a field road that comes down along here and then into the park.
There' s park in there as well . I don' t know if everybody has been out
there or not . In preliminary discussions with Rosemount, what they've
agreed to and what we suggested, staff has suggested that they dedicate to
us 2 acres of parkland along our eastern boundary which will allow us to
put in our boat access. The only logical place that we really have to put
the boat access in without taking out the stand of trees that' s right
along the shore just down below the park shelter. We moved it out of the II
line of vision from where the people will be congregated at the park
shelter and 2 acres is really about all that we need. I don' t know if you
recall the discussion with Mark and Don when they came in and said that II HRA bought the additional 8 acres of property and showed how we could use
it and the extra 2 acres . That' s what was proposed at that time and we
felt that we had gotten general consensus from the Commission at the the
time that that' s what we wanted was an additional 2 acres . Originally we I
had talked about giving up 4 acres in that area with 100% credit on the
park dedication fee . We came back and said it' s really unuseable land .
They might as well keep it. We just need the 2 acres to put the access in I
and give them 50% credit on the park dedication fee. Not 50% but give
them credit for what the acreage is worth on those 2 acres . That means
the land cost in that area was 24, 000. 00 an acre which brings the amount
to $48,000. 00 leaving a park dedication balance of $12, 637 . 00 .
Hasek: That $24,000. 00 an acre is for what they' re getting as park
dedication? 1
Hoffman: It' s what they paid for that land .
Sietsema: What they paid per acre for the land. So we are giving them a 1
credit on their park dedication fees which the total of what would be due
on 57 . 75 acres would be $60, 637. 00. We' ll be giving them a credit of
$48,000. 00 and taking in the $12, 000. 00 . We' ll get the extra 2 acres of
land. The other thing is that trails , on the trail plan it calls for a
long whole distance of Lake Drive East . That ' s part of the street
improvement project. It would be an assessed thing. It wouldn' t be II something that they' re giving us so we would require them to pay the full
trail dedication fee which comes to $20, 212. 00. Staff feels that this is
a good deal for us . Lake Drive East is finally going to be built so we
can get to our park. We' ll have a place to put the boat access in the
logical place. We' ll still be getting some money in to do some other
developments to add to the park and it' s my recommendation to do so.
Hasek : How do we get into the park?
1
I .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
1 September 27, 1988 - Page 37
Sietsema: This is the new Lake Drive East alignment . This is the 8 acres
that we recently acquired from the HRA so we would be coming in, and I 've
' got a park plan here.
Watson : I think it' s interesting that we can collect our park dedication
fees and assessed. . .
Hasek: I did see one thing on here that kind of bothered me and I wanted
to mention it. It seems like they've got a site sign proposed within the
' 30 foot setback including the building setback. I certainly hope they
don' t plan on putting the site sign within the 20 foot trail easement.
It' s outside of the building .
' Sietsema: No, it' s going on the north.
Hasek: It is? It' s going to go on the church side?
iSietsema: Yes. It currently is on the north side, on the other side of
TH 101 so it would probably continue on that same side . Lake Drive East
' goes all the way down to McDonalds so if you drive from the McDonalds past
the Sinclair station and through the Hidden Valley subdivision, you' ll
notice that it' s on the north side of the street.
' Hasek: How about our new Market Blvd .? Which side is it going to be on
there? The trail proposed on that? It ' s just going to follow along Lake
Drive?
' Mady: You walk on the east side right now.
Sietsema: And that would continue when it goes all the way down.
Hasek: So then their signs are not within our 20 foot easement.
Sietsema: I wanted to show you real quick, this was the preliminary plan
' ; for Lake Susan . Staff had to just throw a plan together for the
development for what we applied for LAWCON grant money and that shows Lake
' Drive East here . This being Powers Blvd . and coming in right along the
eastern boundary pretty much where the existing access is . That existing
access comes out here and comes up that railroad tracks . What we'd coming
is the same place and right where you turn off to go into the existing
I parking area , you go straight down and curve over so as you can see, if
there' s a park shelter here, when you look out to the lake, if we didn' t
acquire the 2 acres of property, this would have to come this way unless
we wanted to take this mature stand of trees out which I personally
wouldn ' t be in favor of and it would be right in front so it would be
right where that fishing pier would be instead and I don' t think that' s
something that we want to be our focal point in our park. So the reason
the 2 acres would acquired here. We should be able to put the boat access
here . This shows you how it all fits together . Rosemount would be right
here.
Mady: I don ' t see anything about trail along the lake . Did you talk to
them about it at all?
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27 , 1988 - Page 38 '
1
Sietsema: We own all the lakeshore property so that ' s in this plan also .
Mady: Okay, so we do own that. That' s just a comment I had. If they
owned it all and we asked them to put the trail in along there. Obviously
their employees are going to want to use the park.
Schroers moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend the dedication of 2 acres of parkland on the eastern boundary of
Lake Susan Park, allowing a $48 ,000. 00 credit to park dedication from
Rosemount. Additionally, it is recommended that the City include the
sidewalk in the Lake Drive East street improvement project and that the
developer be required to pay 100% of the trail dedication fee
($20, 212. 00) . All voted in favor and the motion carried .
REVIEW PROPOSAL FOR 1989 PLAYGROUND PROGRAM. ,
Hoffman : I would ask that we take a few minutes on this . It is a
recreation item and we don' t deal on specific recreation items all that
too often and this is one that does have some bearing and something that
we have to put some thought in at this time if we are going to take this
program over . If you all haven' t read through that, basically we have two II
organizations which run our summer playground programs for our children in
Chanhassen right now. Two different school districts , Chaska and
Minnetonka. Chaska operates a program up here at the school at City
Center Park. Minnetonka operates the programs at the other parks stated
there, Lake Ann, Meadow Green and Carver Beach. During the development of
this brochure we did have extensive talks with the people down at Chaska
Community Education. Came up with some agreements as we went through this II
on what we should be handling and what they should be serving the public
with. What we should be serving the public with, etc. . I 've noted some f
the changes that were made there . One of those changes would have been II the summer playground. It' s a recreation program. Community Education is
currently handling it . Should that be one of the programs that Park and
Recreation takes over under that agreement? As noted there, the only II shortfall or the only drawback to that is , if we agree to that , the Chaska
School District Community Education, then we have to approach Minnetonka
on the other end of town to see if they would want to hand over the summer
playground program to the Park and Recreation Department and we handle it II
there. Just as an update to this , I have talked to Gayle Madsen who is
the recreation coordinater or the program coordinator for Chaska and she
said Chaska Park and Recreation has agreed to take over the playgrounds
that operate within the City of Chaska so that kind of puts a bind on
their program. If we were to come back to them and say no , we don' t want
to take this over next year, you have to do it, they'd be in a limited
spot there kind of. Now they' re half way inbetween and they' re not so
what I 'm looking for, I stated there is your review of the programs. If
you have any questions on the programs which are currently in place, I can
answer those and then I need some direction on which way you think we
should go .
I
1 .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27 , 1988 - Page 39
Robinson : Can I ask Todd , why is this brought up? Isn ' t it working the
way it is?
' Sietsema : It' s to more clearly define , we' re trying to clean up who ' s
responsible for what type of activity. We' ve got a lot of people out
there providing programs to the City of Chanhassen and we don ' t want to
' duplicate or compete with each other so by saying, alright community
education is more education geared , they' ll run the programs that are in
classrooms. Recreation is more recreation, they should do things in gyms ,
' outdoor activities , that kind of thing so we are taking over the women' s
aerobics and they are taking over the CPR classes . That' s one way that we
can clean up and make it more clear to the people , to the residents , who ' s
providing what types of programs . Because they' ve done the program, it is
I a major undertaking for us to take on . It ' s not just simple that we' ll
run the program like we run CPR. It' s a bigger budgeted function and we
do pay for it now. Chaska Community Education runs it and they bill us
and the City pays for it.
Boyt : Don' t we lose money on that?
Sietsema: Yes. It costs us something like $2,000.00 a year for
playground that we spend . More than that because we paid Minnetonka too .
Mady: I agree with the concept of what we' re doing. We' ve got to get
support. We ought to take our own programs. By making a division , make
it clear cut. Everybody knows what ' s going on. It' s logical . When I
' look through the thing , what it looks like right now, this is Chaska ' s
program. This is Chaska ' program and Chanhassen people are allowed to use
it . We' re kind of a secondary, oh yeah , we' ll let those people over there
on the other side of the County use it but this is Chaska . That' s what I
got out of it. What' s happened in the past and I just want to make sure,
when we do ours or take over this park, it' s ours . This City deserves to
have something in this town besides being second fiddle to Chaska . We' re
' still Chaska ' s school district and Chaska ' s county and Chaska everything.
We' re as big as they are almost now and we don' t get a whole lot of
recogi.nition. If we' ve got a recreation program to be ours , it should be
' ours .
Boyt : I watch for things in the Community Ed Bulletin , you have the ski ,
the dance. I 'm going to register for it if it ' s in Chanhassen. I 'm not
' going to drive to Chaska to register my kids for an activity. You said
you' re getting a lot of sign ups for the dance class . That' s because it' s
here in Chanhassen and not at Chaska Middle School . I ' ll sign up for
skiing out at Larry' s park because we get to sign up here and I don' t have
to drive to Hyland .
Sietsema : There are other programs that are contracted out by Community
Ed that we may want to look at long term. Those being the beach program
is run by Minnetonka Community Ed . Our tennis program in the summertime,
the tennis lessons are run through Minnetonka Community Ed. In the past,
that ' s worked very well . . .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 40 1
Boyt : I don' t think so because then you sign up through Minnetonka . I
have no idea that I should sign up for tennis lessons for my kids in
Chanhassen through Minnetonka .
Sietsema: It ' s worked well in the past when we didn' t have a department.
When there wasn' t an administrative Park and Recreation person or when
there was just one and we were trying to do everything and trying to build I
our program but it may be time that we did take ownership of our own
programs. I don' t think that we want to do that, jump into that all at
one time. It' s a big budgeted expense to hiring a beach director and 12
lifeguards , even though we' re paying for it , we have to look at the,
sharing a beach director with 5 other cities is obviously more economical
than hiring our own. There may be some merits to taking it over . That
would be something we'd want to look at in the future too. Right now the I
playground thing is really what' s on the bench right now as far as who' s
going to do this. If Chaska' s doing their own, that means Community Ed
has only got half the program to run and they may not be able to hire
someone full time to run those half programs where they were running them
all before .
Hoffman : Yes, they wouldn' t go ahead and do that . Their options now,
with Chaska taking over their program would just say to Minnetonka
Community Education , we would like to take over these programs in
Chanhassen or we would like you to take on just one additional , the Chan
Elementary and run it as is next year again.
Boyt: I 'd like to see more Chanhassen control .
Mady: Ditto .
Boyt: Do you have time for that? Does that fit into your job? 1
Hoffman: Sure. That 's something that I have time to take on. One thing
we have to look at is not only my time but then again , we' re not set up in II
the department to handle registrations real effectively at this time. We
run them through the receptionists up front . They have a lot of
questions. They call back to my office, etc. and try to work it that way.
As the addition goes here and we move up into the front office , it may
work better where people can actually walk in. We' ll be located in the
public safety office . They can walk into there and we can have a
registration type area. We still however, will not have a receptionist
type clerk person at that time so we have some limitations but we can take
it a piece at a time.
Schroers : How does staff feel? Do you want to take these over control '
gradually?
Sietsema : Gradually is better than taking it all over at once . I think
it 's important that Chanhassen has more control over the programs.
Especially the recreation type programs . It ' s not like staff isn ' t busy
now though. It' s not like we have time to do it. It' s something that II we'd have to make time to do and that may mean that something else has to
be given up or has to be squeezed more but next year it won' t be as hard
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27 , 1988 - Page 41
to run other programs because they' re already on their feet so there' s
some give and take there. I think that we could handle the playground. I
don' t think that we should go ahead and take over the swimming beach the
same year though. I think we should move slower into that one.
Schroers : You' re just looking for input right now?
' Sietsema: Yes , we want your direction on what you want us to do. Do you
want the City of Chanhassen to run our own and approach Minnetonka? We
' don' t want to step on their toes either. Any direction by the Commission.
Mady: I ' ll move that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to
staff that they take over the summer playground areas and investigate with
' the Minnetonka School District as to what is going on with the Chaska
School District and get their input. At a later date review and look at
setting up the same with Minnetonka when staff feels they can handle it.
' Does that make sense?
Boyt : Move on the playground and wait on the beach .
Hoffman: The playground, we would want to approach Minnetonka at this
time and take it . If we' re going to take over one, Chanhassen Elementary,
we' re going to want to do the whole program. I 'm not sure if that ' s what
' he said .
Boyt : That' s my point of view. If you' re going to take over from Chaska ,
' take over Minnetonka.
Mady: That' s what I was trying to get at.
' Sietsema: Do you want me to read your motion?
Mady: Yes , please .
Sietsema: Jim moved to direct staff to work with the Community Education
Departments to take over the playground programs and also to start looking
' ahead to taking on the beach program as well .
Mady moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission direct
staff to work with the Community Education Departments to take over the
' playground programs and also to start looking ahead to taking on the beach
program as well . All voted in favor and the motion carried .
UPDATE ON OKTOBERFEST.
Hoffman : All we need are volunteers . All we need is people to volunteer .
We' re not going to set out specific duties .
Mady: I ' ll be there at 6 : 30.
' Hoffman: We' ll be setting throughout the day. We' ll start actual cooking
and preparation of food about 4 : 00-4 : 15 for the 5: 00 start and then from
. 1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
September 27, 1988 - Page 42
1
l
5: 00 on, we don' t know what type of crowd to expect. If we' re going to
get an early crowd for all the family activities. If we' re going to get a
late crowd for the fireworks but the publicity has gone fairly well . I
think it' s been well received and we should see a big crowd out there.
Mady: Have you gotten any comments from people on the food . The concern
is that we didn' t really say that we' re going to be charging for
concessions but we didn' t say that and a lot of things did seem to say
concessions. People are used to coming to the 4th of July thing when we
give away the hot dogs and it didn' t say anything up here a year ago,
I hope we don' t get a lot of negative input. So just be prepared for
people making negative comments about gee , now I've got to pay for it .
I 've heard a little bit already in the neighborhood.
Hoffman: Saying now we' ve got to pay? People have actually called and
asked how much it' s going to be .
Mady: Just so we' re aware of it. '
Boyt : I heard somene say, I hope they' re not giving free food away again.
They said enough of that.
Sietsema: I do have another announcement that' s rather important if
you' re all ready. Mike Lynch is resigning from the Park and Recreation
Commission. He gave me his notice over the phone yesterday and he' ll be
sending a letter. Evidently, they had a 2 year plan to collect a lot of
money, like 2 to 3 million bucks and they thought that it would be over a
year before they started getting it. It looks like he'd going to get the
first million by the end of the year and he ' s got to start spending it so
he' s working to figure out what contractor ' s and developers and what not
to build roads and Boy Scout facilities in the different things that he ' s
involved with. He' s not going to have the time to devote to either the
trail task force or the Park and Recreation Commission and he' s resigning .
What I would like is, if there's anybody else who could take his spot on
the trail task force. We only have 5 people on that board already and
they' re all taking about 4 meetings a piece the way it is through the
month of October to take the trail plan to different community groups .
Maybe a couple of you could even split some of the, I know Sue' s the other
person on the task force. That means there' s only 3 people from the
public. Carol ' s one of them, that' s on the task force and we need more
people .
Hasek: I 'd love to do that . I need to know what the schedule is . I hate II
to commit to something and say I 'd love to do it, like to do it and then
have to back out .
Sietsema: What I will do is I will find out when the other people are
taking meetings and find out where we don' t have people and I ' ll start
calling you.
Boyt : It ' s nice to have a Park and Rec Commissioner there. These people II
have only been involved in this for 2 months .
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
' September 27, 1988 - Page 43
Mady: My only concern for me personally is I ' ve been so involved in th
1 p Y the
community center .
Sietsema: You' ll notice I didn' t even look at you when I was asking .
Hasek moved, Watson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned .
Submitted by Lori Sietsema
Park and Recreation Coordinator
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1