1k. Minutes K.1167
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
II NOVEMBER 14, 1988
Acting Mayor Geving called the meeting to order. - The meeting was opened with
the Pledge to the Flag. r r,
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Horn, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Johnson
and Acting Mayor Geving
' COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor Hamilton -
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Larry Brown, Jo Ann Olsen, Lori
Sietsema, Todd Gerhardt, Jim Chaffee and Roger Knutson
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
approve the agenda with the following additions: Councilman Horn wanted an
update on the form of government committee; Councilman Johnson wanted to discuss
campaign signs and retroactive fees; Councilman Boyt wanted to discuss the
' Public Safety statistics for August and September and the letter from Alan Olson
on the wetlands inventory. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve
the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
' a. Resolution #88-119: Reject Bids on Minnewashta Meadows Improvement Project
88-2.
' c. Resolution #88-120: Final Acceptance of Shadowmere Improvements.
d. Resolution #88-121: Final Acceptance of Carver Beach Estates Improvements.
e. Request to Phase Park and Trail Dedication Fees, Kronick's Retail Garden
Center.
' j. Approval of Assessment Contract for 1989/90, Carver County.
1. Approval of Joint Powers Agreement, Eastern Carver County Transportation
Planning Study.
m. Accounts Payable.
n. City Council Minutes dated October 24, 1988
Planning Commission Minutes dated October 19, 1988 and November 2, 1988
' Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated October 25, 1988
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
(F) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A 174,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING FOR AUTO
REPAIR AND BOAT MAINTENANCE, NORTHEAST CORNER OF TH 5 AND TH 101, CHANHASSEN
AUTO AND SPORTS CENTER, LOTUS REALTY SERVICES.
Councilman Johnson: Basically, I visited the site, or next to the site actually
1
City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988 ,
the other day as I was walking home from leaving my wife's car off to be
repaired and observed that we have an oil runoff problem from this site into the
highway right-of-way and then into our storm water system in the City. The soil
along TH 5 is fairly well saturated. I don't know if Brad's having that looked
at or not. I did mention to him on Thursday or Friday, I guess it was Thursday
that this was happening and he happens to have Braun Engineering on site doing
some environmental reviews of the site as is. But what I'd like to do, this is
going to be a continuing problem on this type of site. I'd like to add an item
6 to our 5 recommended conditions of approval and that would be oil skimming of
storm water runoff shall be designed and installed by June of 1989. That gives
than some time to design it and the City to approve the design. The skimming
system will be maintained throughout the life of this permit. As many years as
oil has been discharged to this site, it's going to be quite a few more years
that it's going to be running off of here.
Acting Mayor Geving: Are you .talking about the old Hanus site?
Coucilman Johnson: Right.
Acting Mayor Geving: Anyone else have any comments on that particular 1
condition? It's probably a good condition. I know it's been a concern. What
do you have to say about that Todd? I know you're familiar with the site. We
have had same other problems with the site to the south of it where the lighting
outfit was for a while. This is the new site?
Councilman Johnson: This is the new facility.
Acting Mayor Geving: Has there been a problem over there with oil as well? ,
Todd Gerhardt: The environmentalists from Carver County has been out there and
reviewed the site. I think he has made recommendations to Brad in cleaning it
up and I think that's why Braun is out there.
Acting Mayor Geving: Do you have any comments on that Brad? Do you have any 1
problem with the condition that's being placed on this?
Brad Johnson: Without knowing the economic consequences. '
Acting Mayor Geving: Yes, I'm not sure either. Especially if this runs for the
life of the conditional use. '
Brad Johnson: What we have done, is that we've recognized that there, first of
all, this conditional use that we're requesting has no oil at all... As part of
our purchase of the property, we needed an environmental assessment. We should
have a report on the site back to us on the tests that were being done.
Councilman Johnson: Did you have him look at the site I told you about on '
Thursday?
Brad Johnson: He had done all the tests and he's come back with four places
where he thinks there is a potential for the problem you're suggesting. We have
to do some more tests. I tend to agree with any kind of storm water runoff from
the site. We're trying to straighten it out.
2
r
City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988
Councilman Johnson: In this particular case you have a storm water system with
I pipes running under ground so it would be fairly simple at the inlet of the pipe
to add an oil catch.
' Brad Johnson: I just don't have any basic...
Acting Mayor Geving: The only problem I have with this. It seems like we're
kind of mixing an old conditional use permit that we gave to Mr. Hanus with I
' think 23 conditions several years ago with- a new request. I don't believe that
the request is on the line because this is something we probably should have
done before anyway. If you don't have any objections to that.
' Brad Johnson: It isn't a part of this particular use. I don't know how you do
that. It's not creating.
Councilman Johnson: But you can only have one conditional use permit so we
can't put it against a different conditional use permit because there's only
one. If you're reopening this conditional use permit to review, that's where I
think it goes.
Acting Mayor Geving: Roger, could you give us a comment or two on the legality
of amending the original conditional use permit for Mr. Hanus with this kind of
an amendment adding the oil skimming device when in fact this particular
application, the Marine Fiberglass Boat Repair and Maintenance facility, doesn't
really get involved in this oil deposits and skimming.
IRoger Knutson: The only conditional use permit you have in front of you is the
Marine Fiberglass one. You do not have the underlying old Hanus permit. You
' can't amend the old Hanus permit. You can add a condition to this one but not
the other one since it's not in front of you.
Councilman Johnson: But this is an amendment to the old Hanus permit. It's not
a new conditional use permit.
Roger Knutson: I thought it was.
Councilman Horn: It's an amendment to existing.
' Councilman Johnson: It's an amendment to an existing conditional use permit.
Does that reopen the whole conditional use permit?
Roger Knutson: It's my understanding that this is a separate permit at this
time.
Acting Mayor Geving: No. I don't believe that's correct.
' Roger Knutson: They're amending the old one?
LActing Mayor Geving: That's correct.
Roger Knutson: Then you have the whole thing in front of you, then you can
attach conditions to it.
1
3
I I0
City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988 , II
Acting Mayor Geving: Now the only problem that I have is we don't know the real
consequences of putting condition 6 onto this in terms of what it would cost. It '
might be unfair to do this. That's the only problem that I have is that we may
be asking Brad, or whoever is the owner of this facility, to place a very, very
high and expensive process here. Did you have any idea? .Is this a $10,000.00
device?
Councilman Johnson: Way under $10,000.00. We're talking, depending upon how
many different outlets it's got, I only found one outlet and that outlet was
rather black. About a 12 inch pipe. We're not talking a massive settling pond
or something like that. I think you can buy an oil trap to drop in place.
Acting Mayor Geving: You're in this business. What would you suspect?
$2,000.00?
Councilman Johnson: Yes. Probably in that range. It could maybe even be I
fabricated for less depending upon how you fabricated it. The City Engineer's
probably got more experience in that particular field than I do..
Gary Warren: I think we're talking similar to our normal oil traps that we '
would install. $2,000.00 is reasonable.
Councilman Horn: It seems to me like we approach these things on a piecemeal '
basis and I would like to see a general guideline set up for this type of uses.
When we include it and when we don't. Unless I read this thing wrong, it
appears to me that we're having more than just boat repair. Aren't we also
having Scott's Automotive as part of this?
Councilman Johnson: But they're already go that conditional use allowed. '
Acting Mayor Geving: That's a permitted use.
Councilman Horn: So they are repairing automobiles on this site. It seems to '
me it still has the potential...
Councilman Johnson: And Hanus can continue repairing trucks there. ,
Brad Johnson: I think the situation is that the floor drains have been opened
and that's probably what empties out into what you're talking about. Is that
possible?
Councilman Johnson: I hope not.
Acting Mayor Geving: I would hope that doesn't happen here.
Brad Johnson: The floor drains normally go into the.. .
Councilman Johnson: Sanitary sewer.
Councilman Horn: It just seems to me like we don't have a general plan as to 1
how we approach this type of thing. I'd like to see that.
Acting Mayor Geving: I don't understand what you're talking about.
4
City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988 171
II irCouncilman Horn: So we're consistent on a citywide basis. All of a sudden this
I comes up for this site. What about if we have other gas stations that may have
this problem? Shouldn't we require this unilaterally to everyone who has that
potential or why is it unique to just this site?
' Acting Mayor Geving: I suspect that if we would have thought about it in 1980
or so, in fact it was before that. It was about 1978, we probably would have
- put this condition on Hanus since we had 23 others. I don't think that what
' you're asking is unusual. Let's zero in on this oil skimming device.
Councilman Johnson: We just did the same thing with SuperAmerica. The skimming
device was with their runoff, there was a lot of concern about that two weeks
ago when we discussed SuperAmerica. We've done it at other facilities. I wish
we had it, there's a similar, not exactly the same but we had another
contractor's yard that's being reviewed by the County right now for the way they
dispose of their oil.
Councilman Horn: I'd just like to have some mechanism in place where if Jay is
sick some night and we have one of these, we know that we get a consistent...
Acting Mayor Geving: I think we're trying to do that.
Councilman Johnson: If my wife's car hadn't broken down, I wouldn't have
noticed this as I walked by on my way home the other day.
' Councilman Horn: That's what I mean. This is kind of a catch if catch can
situation. I don't like that. ,
' Larry Brown: The Plumbing Code states that anytime there is repair of
automobiles, an inflammable waste separater which traps these oils will be
installed on the floor drains within the building. Obviously that doesn't
address the outside runoff that may occur through vehicles sitting there and
dripping oil but as far as the internal building, those are addressed through
the UBC.
' Acting Mayor Geving: But have we been trying to address that with the new gas -
stations, the Brooks and others?
' Larry Brown: Yes.
Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, then possibly we've got it covered and I think for
future Council that should be a consideration whenever any of these kinds of
things come up for a conditional use.
Councilman Horn: He said it's covered in there for the inside use. Not what
' we're dealing with, if I understood it correctly.
Acting Mayor Geving: I believe that what we're talking about is appropriate for
the site and I like your condition.
Councilman Boyt: In the previous conditional use permit, item 2.04. I think we
should change that. I don't think there should be an inventory of vehicles
available for sale stored upon the subject property. I don't think we, maybe
' 5
L:f 2
C
II
ity Council Meeting - November 14, 1988
I
I'm wrong but I don't think the intention is to set this up as a retail sales '
area.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think we have to be careful in there because if this is
the original permit, we allowed Mr. Hanus to have that site overlooking TH 5 to
be fenced and in the one site that isn't fenced, he was allowed to put 10
vehicles there for viewing for retail sales. It was built into the conditional
use permit at the time. I suspect he's continuing to do that. I see trucks
there all the time now. I would not want to take something away from Mr. Hanus
or any other applicant that we've allowed him to have about 10 years. He was
allowed to store and market 10 vehicles on that site. That's been built in
there from the very beginning Bill. I would object personally to deleting that
item. That is taking economic value away from the owner of that property.
Councilman Boyt: As I understood the report, it talked about how that was '
probably a pretty short term use.
Acting Mayor Geving: It may be. It may be but until he leaves that facility, I '
would say that we're denying economic value to Mr. Hanus or anyone else who owns
that property currently if we were to deny him the use of that for 10 vehicles.
Now I know at times he doesn't have 10 vehicles. He's had 1 or 2 but they are
big trucks and that's his business. As I understand it, is this correct, he
will be leaving that site in 1989? That's what I read in my notes.
Brad Johnson: That is the current plan. '
Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, so Bill I would say, I won't be on the future
Council but at the same time, I would say this is a very good item to leave in
there and if this comes up in 1989 and the 23 conditions that Mr. Hanus has,
will be wiped from the books. We'll have an entirely new kind of business
there.
Councilman Boyt: Only if they come in and apply for another conditional use
permit.
Acting Mayor Geving: That's true but if Mr. Hanus leaves that site...
Councilman Boyt: This stays with the site.
Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, but remember when we built that, we built it for a
particular kind of business. Unless it's a continuation of that kind of
business, I suspect you might want to review this conditional use permit for
it's applicability. Don't deny him now by taking away that ability to put 10
vehicles out there. That's his only way of getting his product close to the
market. That's his window.
Councilman Boyt: So what you're saying is that for the long term use of the
City, you see that as being a used vehicle sales spot?
Acting Mayor Geving: Not forever but I am saying that based on the information '
I get from the applicant and others, that he will be there approximately a year.
01
And if he stays in business, he can continue to do what he's doing.
6 1
i 17.E
' City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988
'1 i__,
II Councilman Boyt: Even if he goes out of business, this stays with the piece of
I property. This is an opportunity to change it.
Brad Johnson: I don't know Bill if it's an opportunity to change it.
IIActing Mayor Geving: I would defer this to our Attorney for comment.
I Brad Johnson: I don't think we came here prepared to assist the City in the
relocation of the Marine Fiberglass and also give up basically the rights that
we have on there.
I Acting Mayor Geving: I wouldn't touch that Bill. Sorry. I hate to tell you
this but I would not touch it at this time. - -
I Councilman Boyt: Okay. Let's look at item 2.05 which talks about fencing and
2.10 also addresses fencing. I would like to think that we can put something in
here to indicate that we would like some sort of opaque wood fencing.
IIBrad Johnson: We've got it.
Councilman Boyt: The way it stands right now, if you should happen, for some
II reason to want to take that down, you could put up any kind of fencing that you
want to put up. I think the city has indicated in a few other outside storage
areas around town that we prefer to have opaque wood fencing.
Brad Johnson: I think that's what we've got.
I Councilman Boyt: So this is not an inconvenience to you. It's simply saying
let's put it down on paper as long as we've got this opening.
Acting Mayor Geving: I'm very hesitant Mr. Boyt to make any changes to an
II existing conditional use permit that's been in existence for over 10 years. This
is not an opportunity to change. Tonight we have before us an application for a
new facility to be placed in that Hanus building which is a conditional use
I permit for the Marine Fiberglass boat repair and maintenance facility. That's
all it is. Let's not go back and try to change 23 conditions just because this
is an opportunity. Let's deal with the condition that's in front of us and
that's the Marine Fiberglass.
IICouncilman Johnson: Condition 2.10 states that it's going to be screened in a
- -• manner set forth in Exhibit B. Exhibit B states that it be a wooden fence not
II less than 8 feet in height which shall be either solid or constructed fully
opaque with no gaps or spaces between the slats. So it's already there.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, thanks.
II
Acting Mayor Geving: We fought this battle a long time ago.
' Councilman Boyt: Well, I'm glad you resolved it that way Dale. Dealing with
fiberglass, you're dealing with some hazardous materials.
II Brad Johnson: I'm not sure we are.
II 7
17
IICity Council Meeting - November 14, 1988
Councilman Boyt: When I've dealt with fiberglass, you're dealing with things
that you sure don't want to breathe. My question is simply, have we indicated,
I know the person and the business is in existence in town now, are we providing
the fire people and the public safety people with a map of where those chemicals
are going to be stored?
Councilman Horn: Isn't that required under State Law?
Jo Ann Olsen: They have to get a Certificate of Occupancy. That's when the
Fire Inspector do...
Councilman Horn: Don't they have to train all of the employees in the '
substances that they'll be exposed to?
Jo Ann Olsen: The Right to Know Act.
Councilman Horn: The Right to Know Act.
Councilman Johnson: Does he have more than 10 employees? II
Brad Johnson: 1 or 2.
Councilman Boyt: What does that mean Jay?
Councilman Johnson: mall business is exempt from the Right to Know Act below '
10 employees.
Acting Mayor Geving: It sounds good.
Councilman Johnson: Almost all the Federal Acts are exempt for employers '
employees or less. of 1P!
Acting Mayor Geving: Does that satisfy you?
Councilman Boyt: Yes. I am happy to see that we found a place in town that
this business can go to.
Councilman Johnson: It's further away from the neighbors and everything. It's
a good industrial site.
Acting Mayor Geving: Any other comments regarding Jay's addition which is
condition 6 to amend the original. Brad, would you be satisfied with that? '
Brad Johnson: June 1, 1989?
Councilman Johnson: June 1st of 1989. I move we approve the amendment to the '
existing conditional use permit with the 5 conditions recommended by the
Planning Comnission and the addition of a 6th condition reading, oil skimming of
storm water runoff shall be designed and installed by June 1, 1989. The
skimming system shall be maintained throughout the life of this permit.
Acting Mayor Geving: I'll second the motion.
8 1
IICity Council Meeting - November 14, 1988 75
Councilman Johnson moved, Acting Mayor Geving seconded to approve the amendment
Ito the existing conditional use permit for a 174,000 square foot building for
auto repair and boat maintenance for Chanhassen Auto and Sports Center with the
5 conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and the addition of a 6th
condition reading, oil skimming of storm water runoff shall be designed and
' installed by June 1, 1989. The skimming system shall be maintained throughout
the life of this permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
(G) FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, PARK DAY CARE CENTER, ROMAN ROOS.
' Councilman Johnson: This again, we give preliminary plat approval. We give
four conditions. They meet 2 of the conditions and come back for final plat
approval. I move we deny it until all four conditions are met. We get in too
much trouble by not having all the conditions met on a plat and then the plat
gets gone. We've got the Ostrom, I forget what that subdivision is out there
with the problems with the trails. The trails never got on the documentation
and it got approved without it. Now we're really having a fight to get the
' trails.
Roman Roos: Jay, can I ask you what you're talking about.
Councilman Johnson: It's a line on your drawing. It took almost nothing. The
plat should be revised to show a 20 foot wide utility easement centered on the
existing 10 inch diameter watermain traversing Lot 2, Block 1.
' Acting Mayor Geving: Would you come before the Council Roman. Tell us exactly
which of the four conditions, and if you want you can use my staff report, which
' identifies in the lower part of the comment section from staff, those items
which have not been complied with.
Raman Roos: Item 2, at staff's recommendation we shifted the property line of
' the western edge of the mini-storage another 10 foot to include that total 20
foot easement on the mini-storage property line. That should be shown. It's
listed as a 20 foot easement on the western edge of that mini-storage project.
So number 2 has beem complied with.
Jo Ann Olsen: The easement doesn't show on the plat.
' Roman Roos: It's listed on the prelim plat and on the final plat as a 20 foot
easement.
' -Councilman Johnson: Could you show me?
- Acting Mayor Geving: Could you identify for the Council please rather than for
' Mr. Johnson.
Councilman Johnson: Where does it say 20 foot utility easement?
'1 Roman Roos: The property line is 229. Apparently they did not list it. It was
219. We were to include 10 foot for that easement all the way across. As I
said, this was...I was out of town and they were directed to increase it by 10
foot which they did, to include the full 20 foot on the western edge of the
9
i
n
City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988
mini-storage project. That indeed has been acknowledged but it somehow in the
final plat hardshell, if the staff and the City wants something listed on the
hardshell, so be it. I don't think it's listed on the hard shell. If it is, it
can be a descriptive addition but it has been complied with.
Acting Mayor Geving: I see that. Do you see that Jo Ann? '
Jo Ann Olsen: It also will have to be amended. We just pointed out that they
will have to show the easement.
Councilman Johnson: Generally they show the easement as a dotted line all the
way around the property. That's condition 3 also that you didn't show the front
or rear yard utility easements. '
Roman Roos: As you recall, the prelim plat which was exactly what the surveyor
worked off of, that whole easement would be on that property but he apparently
has done hard shells before and all I can tell you is that it was directed to be
put on there.
Councilman Johnson: But we don't have it in front of us. II
Roman Roos: All I'm trying to tell you is that the...has been given. It was
given with the intent behind staff's recommendation that it would be another 10
foot. If that's a problem, if it's a question of just having it comply with
staff recommendations which I've done from day one.
Acting Mayor Geving: So that's item 2 and 3. '
Councilman Johnson: Roman, this isn't anything straight. We see this all the
time. We ask somebody to add one simple little line to a drawing. A month
later nothing's been done and we ask them again. At preliminary plat we'll have
10 conditions. Final plat we'll have 8 conditions. Final plat we should have
no conditions because everybody knows the conditions.
Roman Roos: Jay, I understand exactly what you're saying and I have to plead
guilty. I was out of town. I did comply and will comply totally with staff.
How this particular surveyor left it off, I do not know but on the prelim plat
that was brought before you for approval, it did show the setbacks all the way
around the property. It showed a shortage of some square footage in the mini-
storage project. We accomplish that by shifting the property line to give the
staff recommendation of 70%. That included the complete easement within that
line. There's been no intent, is what I'm trying to tell you Jay.
Councilman Johnson: I agree. What I'm just saying is it's not before us.
Roman Roos: Again, I apologize for that but from the standpoint of the prelim
plat, if you check the two dimensions, they should have been on there. It will '
be on there.
Councilman Johnson: Do you have a time constraint?
1711171
Roman Roos: ...with the cold weather craning. The only reason I'm adamant about
it at this point in time, I think Jo Ann can concur that I did and will comply
with those two requests. It's a simple line on the drawing.
10 ,
City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988 1
Councilman Johnson: I think that historically the Council and even the last two
' years, while I've objected to it several times but historically we've gone ahead
and said okay, now Don will not sign these until those drawings are on there and
we're assured of that. So I'm going to go ahead and move we approve this with
' the assurances that those lines do show up here before Don and the Mayor will
sign this plat. Also, that I'm going to continue my campaign of why is
something simple not done.
' Acting Mayor Geving: Okay Jay. I think your motion is an appropriate one.
The condition is that if you comply with the two conditions that staff is asking
for and is there a second to the motion?
' Councilman Horn: Second.
Councilman Johnson: Actually there's three conditions.
Acting Mayor Geving: All three conditions will be applied. That will be the
condition on which the approval is based.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Final Plat for
Park Day Care Center pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
Don Ashworth: I'd like to state that I know of no plat that has come through in
I the last 5 years or more that has in any way slipped through the cracks where we
have not made sure that all conditions set by City Council have been met. The
_issue you refer to as far as the trail easements is an entirely separate issue
than the type of conditions that you have in this particular application.
(I) ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-421(11) OF THE WETLAND
ORDINANCE TO CLARIFY THAT THE CITY HAS CONTROL OVER DREDGING WETLANDS IN PUBLIC
WATERS LOCATED IN LAKES WHOLLY WITHIN THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN.
' ; Councilman Boyt: I've got a question for Jo Mn, since I was unable to reach
you today Jo Ann. Do you know if Rivkin dug his 200 foot canal?
Jo Ann Olsen: I don't know if he has.
' Councilman Boyt: Dale, you were absent the night that we had the vote
unfortunately.
' Acting Mayor Geving: This is on the wetland ordinance?
Councilman Boyt: Yes, but the issue came up around Eric Rivking and his desire
to make, gosh it was at least 200 foot long dredged out.. .
Acting Mayor Geving: I remember it.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, and you and I were opposed to it. Dale, it would turn
out that maybe we were working under some erroneous information the night the
Council passed that since I would gather reading this staff report that the City
11
78
City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988
probably had the right to deny that to control that wetland since it was 11
entirely controlled by the City. I would encourage you, if not this meeting,
possibly next meeting to think about reconsidering that item since you were here
that night.
Acting Mayor Geving: I would be happy to except there's a possibility now that
a number of months have passed since then and the fellow may have already
invested a considerable amount of money. I'd like to know where exactly that
project is.
Councilman Boyt: Well I agree. We do need to know that but maybe you want to
pursue that.
Acting Mayor Geving: I was very irritated by that, by the way Bill, that it '
passed but there were only 2 votes for it.
Councilman Boyt: Something that you might want to consider. I hope you do.
Then the other thing, Roger and we talked just right before the meeting but
maybe you can fill me in. It seems to me that if we're moving to make certain
we have control over the wetlands, that we should extend that to also the II
surface of the lake and I just want to confirm that we do control the surface of
the lake.
Roger Knutson: This particular ordinance that's being amended is a wetland 1
ordinance so it doesn't address anything else. We have a surface water useage
ordinance which is separate from that wetlands ordinance and we do regulate to
some extent what goes on in the surface waters of all lakes. We could look at
the ordinance to see what it says as far as what kind of regulations.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe this is an inappropriate time and Dale you tell me and
we can put it up for another meeting, but Roger, we had an issue this past
summer where same people where mooring their boats on a lake when they didn't
own property on the lake. The County was involved in that and the DNR was
involved in that. Everyone but the City was involved in it and are you
suggesting to me that the City in fact has the ultimate control over mooring of
docks and boats in the lake?
Roger Knutson: Yes. Assuming that lake lies entirely within the City of
Chanhassen and assuming that when you amend your ordinance you get DNR approval,
which you're required to do. '
Councilman Boyt: But we already have the ordinance. Are you saying we need to
amend it to gain control over the water surface in that type of surface useage?
Roger Knutson: For certain types of things, yes. Our Surface Water Useage
Ordinance regulates certain things such as docks but did not regulate other
things. If I remember right, that was sent to the Planning Commission for
study. I drafted an ordinance I can't remember, 2 months ago.
Councilman Boyt: Is that in the works Jo Ann?
Jo Ann Olsen: It came back to the City Council and it was given to the Park and
Rec Commission...
12
11
1 7i)
City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988
IF-
I/--
Councilman Boyt: Well, I remember that part of it but I don't remember
' directing anybody to look at was the City gaining the ability to control the
surface useage on the lakes completely. All the surface useage on the lakes.
' Councilman Horn: It was not put in the ordinance. It was a discussion item at
the time and the ordinance that our ordinance was modeled from had that
provision in. It came from White Bear Lake. There the provisions was put in
' for commercial dock users to control them. It was not meant as a means to
control the riparian property owners. However, it could be done. It wasn't
felt at that time there was a big enough problem to warren including that in the
ordinance and therefore it hasn't been put in.
' Councilman Boyt: Clark, I think I understand what you're saying to me. I'm
just saying that I anticipate that we're going to have to make a decision here
' one of these days about do we allow unattended mooring on lakes. I would like
the City to be moving so that decision is the City's and not the DNR's or the
County's.
' Councilman Johnson: We are working on that.
Councilman Horn: It is the City's. It's included in the ordinance and they
' will control it.
Councilman Boyt: It's not in our ordinance now.
IL Councilman Horn: It's not in our ordinance now but that would be, as Roger
stated, that would be the place to put it.
' Councilman Johnson: The ordinance has been drafted and it's gone through
Planning. It's now at Park and Rec.
' Councilman Boyt: Different ordinance.
Acting Mayor Geving: Let's stay with the discussion at hand gentlemen. Let's
stay with the discussion on the zoning ordinance amendment to add to the
' ; wetlands.
Councilman Boyt: I'm comfortable with the way that's being amended. Dale I
' would like you to look into the possibility of. ..
Acting Mayor Geving: I'd like to have staff do that before the next meeting.
Councilman Boyt: And I'll move approval of item 1(i) .
Councilman Johnson: Second.
I
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20-421(11) of the Wetland Ordinance to
clarify that the City has control over dredging wetlands in public waters
located in lakes wholly within the City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
' 13
City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988
Councilman Horn: It was my understanding that the reason '
�J eason we were not included
in that is because it was done below the ordinance high water mark.
Acting Mayor Geving: That's another discussion and we'll get into that if this
comes back as an agenda item. I certainly would want to reconsider that. I'm
glad you brought it up Bill. I
(K) 1988 AUDIT CONTRACT, VOTO, TAUTGES, REDPATH AND COMPANY.
Acting Mayor Geving: I pulled out item 1(k) . It is the 1988 audit co '
ntract
with Voto, Tautges, Redpath and Company. We've had this same audit firm for a
number of years now. Since about 1980. I've been more than pleased with them.
They've been a good firm. The only problem that I have is that there's no
bottan line to the amount of dollars that can be charged on the 1988 audit.
Even though the list of their fees of $74.00 for the partner, $55.00 for the
audit supervisors and so forth, I know you've got an item in your 1989 budget
that will cover the amount of cost but it always seems to me that we should have
somewhere in an audit contract such as this, a figure. Not that it's a target
figure but one that we can understand as a bottom line for the 1988 audit. Can II
you give us that just off the top of your head Don? What is the figure
approximately?
Don Ashworth: $16,000.00 to $18,000.00. I'm not quite sure in what range or
what the exact number that's in the 1989 budget. It should be generally in that
area. If you would like, I'm sure that they would include either that type of a
range. Some of our first contracts had an upset number.
Acting Mayor Geving: I always like to see a number like, not to exceed
$15,000.00. That gives me an idea that these people are not going, not that
they would. They're not going to take advantage of it but there's a possibility
in a contract that they could work half the summer and charge us $30,000.00 and
we'd have to pay it. I'm sure the Attorney would agree that unless something
was written into this kind of contract, we just pay by the hour until they're
finished. That's the only amendment that I'd like to see on this and future
contracts is that there is a not to exceed amount. If they exceed that, then
they come back to the Council and talk to us. If there's a particular thing
that they're doing that is unusual this year as opposed to previous years. Does
anybody else have any problem with that?
Councilman Boyt: No, I think it's a good idea.
Acting Mayor Geving: I have no further discussion on this. It's just that I do
feel that when we get into these kinds of by the hour contracts, there should be
a bottom line because if they submit a bill to us, we're obligated to pay it.
Period. Whatever that amount is and we have given them no guidelines as to what
that target figure is or our budget figure.
Don Ashworth: If you approve this item, why don't I have them amend the
contract to show, really there would be two upset amounts. The single audit
requirement is something that's new and it's only triggered if grants are
received in excess of $100,000.00 and that's an aggregate amount of all sources.
So there would be an upset figure for the regular audit type of work and an
14
City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988 181
IIupset figure if the single audit requirements are in greater.
II I Acting Mayor Geving: I'm not so sure that I want to prove this tonight. I'd
rather table this and have you come back with the corrected audit figures. Is
that agreeable with the rest of the Council? Then I move that we table this
item for this evening.
' Councilman Boyt: I have one more question as long as we're on that line before
we move on that. Don do we ever put this out to bid by other auditing firms?
Don Ashworth: Your audit work is a professional service and it is up to the
City Council as to whether or not you wish to entertain other proposals in a
similar fashion that you might look to Attorney services or an audit contract.
Part of the budgetary discussion was exactly that. We did have a proposal from
another firm. It was the consensus that we would not be looking to make the
change in 1988.
' Acting Mayor Geving: I think we decided that. With that in mind I'd like to
table item 1(k) .
Councilman Johnson: Second.
' Acting Mayor Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table approval of the
1988 Audit Contract for Voto, Tautges, Redpath and Company until the next
meeting when the City Manager could come back with an amended contract. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
' VISITORS PRESENTATION:
Al Klingelhutz: I would like to talk a little bit about the waste management
for our Blue Lake... As far as the Blue Lake Treatment plant is concerned,
' about a month ago there was a meeting at Minnetonka and at that time the Blue
Lake Plant was to go to full capacity of 32 million gallons daily. The current
rate flow is about 20 million gallons daily. They are looking to cut it back
now to 27 million gallons daily. The final increase of the size of the plant
would not be put in until the year 1997. There is a savings of about 5 million
dollars at the present time. We would lower the capacity rate down to the lower
figure but the overall savings on the continuation of the growth of that plant
to 1997 would be zilch because of the cost of not doing it all at one time would
actually cost about 5 million dollars more. So it's at a break even point if
they put in the full capacity at the present time. Metropolitan Waste Mangaent
' Board is still using the old population figures that they've been using all
these years. Our feeling at Carver County is that the increase in the size, the
down grading of the size won't be sufficient to handle the growth in Carver
' County until the final phase is put in. We had quite a discussion at Shakopee
this morning. There were about 5 Metro Council members there plus the Waste
Management Board people and I think we got to the Metro Council members well
enough that we might be able to get the Metro Waste Management Board idea thrown
1 1 out and go back to full capacity at this time again. I'd like to ask for the
assistance of the City of Chanhassen in calling a few of their Council members
and say, hey give us some support on this. This is one of the reasons I came up
tonight. Another thing I wanted to bring up, there is a Carver County Advisory
15
City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988 11
Colimittee meeting on TH 212 at 7:00 next Monday night. Dale, you belong to that.
Acting Mayor Geving: Yes, and I'll be there. And where's it going to be '
located?
Al Klingelhutz: It's going to be at the Carver County Courthouse. '
Acting Mayor Geving: Any other councilmembers interested in attending? How
about some of the new members to the City Council. Don, Tom, Ursula? Any of
you people.
Al Klingelhutz: And was there something on the agenda tonight too about the
Transportation Study of Eastern Carver County? I hope you approve that. I
think it's very important.
Gary Warren: It was on the Consent Agenda. '
Acting Mayor Geving: We've already covered it Al so we've in good shape.
Councilman Johnson: What's the timing on the Blue Lake? Is there time in two '
weeks from now for us to pass a resolution or anything to formally go in or are
we at the point of timing to where it's individual calls?
Al Klingelhutz: We're very close. Tomorrow morning the portion of the Met '
Council that sits on the Waste Management part of the Met Council is having a
meeting. On Thursday it's going before the full Met Council so there isn't
really much time. I
Councilman Johnson: What time is the meeting tomorrow morning?
Al Klingelhutz: Tomorrow mornings, I believe they're going to start at 11:00.
Councilman Johnson: So if we're going to make calls to the people that are on
the Waste Management Board of the Met Council, it has to be before 11:00
tomorrow morning?
Al Klingelhutz: Right. And the full Council will be Thursday at 1:00. '
Councilman Horn: Actually we've been doing this for the last 8 years ever since
we started the Comprehensive Plan. We've been fighting with Met Council over
that population projection.
Al Klingelhutz: I think the Met Council is pretty much agreed with the new
TH 212 study that they are really short on population. '
Councilman Johnson: The transportation people have. The sewer people haven't.
Al Klingelhutz: The sewer people haven't, no. I think we're making progress
with some of the Met Council people on that population problem that we've had
for the last 8 years which is the costing the City and the County hundreds of
dollars every year because of the small growth that they give us.
Councilman Johnson: I'm sure Marcy's on our side on this.
16 1
11 City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988 183
Al Klingelhutz: Yes. Marcy and Sully and DeVries. I talked with 4 people
' after the meeting.
Acting Mayor Geving: Give us a name or two would you Al that would be key
people to call if we were going to call because I'm not going to waste my time
' with calling Marcy. She's already on our side but give us a name or two if you
can.
Al Klingelhutz: Sully is on our side and DeVries is on our side too. There was
another lady there and I can't think of her name now and I haven't got the rest
of the Metro Council members on the tip of my tongue.
' Councilman Johnson: Maybe if we give Marcy a call, she could.
Al Klingelhutz: If you give Marcy a call, she could tell you who the people
' were.
Acting Mayor Geving: Thank you very much Al. We appreciate your comments.
Gary Warren: On that issue that Al brought up. I've had several conversations
with MWCC staff about this issue already and Bill Blaine with their engineering.
Al's concern and the response here I think of the City is appropriate..
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission is saying that, I asked specifically if
this was going to develop into any moratorium issues as far as the City was
concerned. That was one of our major interests and they had said, and I guess
I you have to take a note of that, that they are basing their projections of the
waste water monitoring that they see happening and the projections from the
actual waste water monitoring. They recognize the dispute on the populations
' that we have and Met Council have. They feel confident that what it will do is
add some costs as far as the planning standpoint if we initiate a study. They
were telling me that they did not see that this would mean any kind of
restriction or moratorium. They're in the business to service waste water of
the communities and that's their intent. Still, I think it's important for the
City to react.
' Councilman Horn: Did they bring up the I & I issue again? Usually when we
approach than on that, they hit us over the head with I & I.
Gary Warren: No. I talked pretty fast.
Acting Mayor Geving: Clark is right though. That seems to be their number one
point of defense.
Al Klingelhutz: ...the lift station was supposed to be improved in 1980. It's
finally getting completed in 1988 as part of the Lake Ann Interceptor. Waconia
at one time ran out of units. They couldn't build any more homes in Waconia and
they had to borrow some from Minnetrista. These things were all brought out
this morning.
APPROVE VACATION REQUEST FOR UTILITY EASEMENT ON ERIE AVENUE (SORENSON
PROPERTY) .
Larry Brown: As laid out in our report, the City has a sanitary sewer easement
17
1g4
City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988
over this entire parcel and since there are two homes that were built on this in
1985 and the first part of 1986, they'd obviously like to have a portion of that
sanitary sewer easement vacated. What staff is proposing, the City does have an
8 inch diameter sanitary sewer main which runs along the northerly property
boundary so we are reserving 25 feet along that line within this parcel for the
maintenance of that sanitary sewer line. In researching this issue, we did not
find an easement for Erie Avenue for the roadway or utilities. We discussed
this with the applicant and have agreed that we would essentially swap
easements. We would vacate that portion of it if they granted us the roadway,
drainage and utilities necessary for the recognized Erie Avenue right-of-way. II
With that, I'll open it up for questions.
Acting Mayor Geving: The question I have immediately is, where is the
applicant's request that this be considered?
Larry Brown: I did not include that in the packet.
Acting Mayor Geving: Is there a formal request? A written request?
Larry Brown: Yes there is. I have an application and a check for the amount of II
fees.
Acting Mayor Geving: I'd like to make sure that that piece of paper gets
included with this vacation request. It's a very important document and it goes
for a long, long time with the property. Regardless of the action tonight,
inlcude that request from Mr. Sorenson and a copy of the check. Clark, I'm
going to ask you to comment on this since you live near this area and are 1
familiar with the vacation requested.
Councilman Horn: I don't really see a problem. It looks to me like a fair
trade. I'm kind of concerned that there wasn't a street easement in the first
place. I don't know how that fell in a crack. Erie Avenue was a project about
10 years ago. It seems to me that it would have been taken care of in that
street improvement project.
Acting Mayor Geving: In fact there's a manhole just about where that arrow is
there on that schematic.
Councilman Horn: There are manholes all along this area.
Acting Mayor Geving: Any other comments? It's a straight forward request. Do
you happen to know what Mr. Sorenson's going to do with this? Is there a
purpose in asking for the request?
Councilman Horn: There's a house already there.
Acting Mayor Geving: There's one home there and Hagman's is to the south. '
Larry Brown: The actual purpose came about in selling off the smaller parcel
and they needed clear title to the home. That's the reason for this. What
111
prompted the vacation.
Acting Mayor Geving: I believe we need a four-fifths vote on this. I think we
can go right to the motion.
18 1
II
1_8 5
City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988
I
II I Councilman Johnson: This is a public hearing. You haven't called the public
hearing to order yet if you want to technically do this right.
Councilman Horn: It is called to order by recognizing the applicant. We
' haven't closed it.
Acting Mayor Geving: We haven't closed the public hearing. Is there any other
comments.
I
Councilman Horn moved, Acting Mayor Geving seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Resolution #88-122: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
' approve vacating that portion of the utility easement as shown in Attachment 2,
contingent upon receipt of a roadway, utility and drainage easement for the
remaining 33 feet within the recognized Erie Avenue right-of-way. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
1
REVIEW KURVERS POINT TRAIL ISSUE.
' Larry Brown: At the present time, the City has established the current trail
fee of $142.00 per lot. I referenced two subdivisions, Curry Farms and
Saddlebrook for examples where we have collected those fees at the time of the
' building permit issuance. Staff is recommending that the Kurvers Point
Subdivision be handled in a similar manner.
Acting Mayor Geving: Could you give us a little bit more meat than that please
in terms of your conversations with the Kurvers and their comments regarding the
easement along TH 101 and the amount that they've dedicated. I know that's a
' separate issue in fact but it does have some bearing on whether or not this
Council would put in or remove from their contract an item that says in fact
that the developer would pay for the sidewalks. Could you give us any comments
there in regard to why are we singlely out the Kurvers, if we are, as opposed to
' these other developments where we have not asked for this? Is that true?
- Larry Brown: Don Ashworth, the City Manager has included his comments on that
' stating that we often request additional trail easements with other subdivisions
if they were along TH 101 and we're treating the Kurver's subdivision the same
way.
' Acting Mayor Geving: How about on the internal trail? The sidewalk issue?
Larry Brown: We are treating that similar to the subdivisions which I
' referenced Saddlebrook and Curry Farms so we feel that they are being treated
the same way that we have current subdivisions.
Acting Mayor Geving: In those cases were the developers requested to put in the
sidewalks and the trails as opposed to building them as you go with a permit
basis as being requested by the Kurvers? Are those trails in Saddlebrook
excatly right now.
1
19
186
City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988 11
Gary Warren: The Saddlebrook trail has been rough graded in and where we have
existing homes, we have separately poured the sidewalk in those area so they I
could restore their properties. The Saddlebrook development contract does
provide reimbursement to the developer in the amount of $14,900.00 for
installation of trails. That his cost, his bid tab are higher than that by
approximately $5,000.00 but also in Saddlebrook we had the transfer of park
property, Kerber East as we call the park property. Some of that excess that
he's paying...part of this transaction. For the most part he's been reimbursed
for the trails. '
Acting Mayor Geving: From an engineering standpoint Gary, would you feel that
it would be more desirable to put in the trails after the subdivision is built?
When the homes are in and at that time go in and put in your sidewalks and
trails rather than to have the developer put than in at the time the development
is being built? Also, if these were a concrete sidewalk as the estimate that
has been supplied here, reasonably accurate in terms of $11,200.00?
Gary Warren: I think it's a conservatively high estimate. I don't think it's
out of line but I think it's on the high side. In reference to your first
question. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush I guess. That goes back
to the Pleasant Hills trail issue...to a certain extent. If we have enough
conditions where the Kurvers...putting in a purchase agreements...affected by
the City, they are reserving the right to put in a trail along the property.
That notice up front to perspective buyers I think is important and until we've
had some confidence that that is really addressed by the home buyer issue
...we're going to have some sidewalks that are going to be damaged by builders
that they're going to have to repair.
Acting Mayor Geving: Who repairs those? '
Gary Warren: It would be the builder's responsibility. There are measures that
they can take...to get in to protect the sidewalks. As long as they're aware
and they know that we're watching, that it's their responsibility...
Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, let's move on. I know Mel that you have discussed
this with us before. Would you like to make a similar comment tonight since
we're really going to address this tonight and hopefully resolve it once and for
all. Would you like to restate your comments that you wrote in your letter?
Mel Kurvers: I guess my only comment is that we still feel that the interior
trails are not necessary. People interested in lots really feel the same way.
I guess that's about what's stated in my letter.
Acting Mayor Geving: I'd like to hear one, before we open it up for Council
deliberation, I'd like to hear from Lori. From a Park and Rec standpoint, how
you feel about developing these trails at this time in light of the fact that if '
you were to collect $142.00 times the number of units in this development, you
would be approximately $5,000.00 short of the amount of money it would take to
build this sidewalk or trail. In this case I guess it's going to be a sidewalk.
Could you address that for us Lori? Where would this money come from that is
the difference between the $142.00 trail fee and the actual cost of building the
sidewalk?
20
■ 1871
City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988
' Lori Sietsema: It would come out of the trail development fund that we're
II i establishing with the collection of those fees. I would like to make a comment
that in light of the trail referendum failing, that we may want to send some of
these things back to Park and Rec to priority. They may want to reprioritize
different trail segments. Collect the fees for this developments but where they
' want the trail along TH 101 rather than concentrate on sidewalks. I'm not sure
if that's the case but we aren't going to have the referendum monies to fund the
whole trail system. There are certain some priorities out there that the Park
and Recreation Commission may want to pursue.
Acting Mayor Geving: That's a very good comment and I think it's germane to our
discussion. Let's open it up for Council.
Councilman Boyt: I think the issue that came in front of us was, could they do
this one lot at a time. I don't have any trouble with them doing one lot at a
' time.
Acting Mayor Geving: So as building permits came in, they would pay their
$142.00. It would go into a central fund and at some point the Park and Rec
Commission would make a decision through their commission that we're going to
put in Kurver's Point and put in a 5 foot or 6 foot sidewalk in there and take
the funds out of the pool. Is that how you see it then Bill? At some future
' time this would happen.
Councilman Boyt: I agree with Gary. If we don't put it in, I have a tendency
to believe that it will never go in there. That's sort of a separate issue and
' the Park and Rec Department should deal with that. The Kurver's asked to have
this charged out one lot at a time. That's what we're doing in other
developments and that's what we should do with them.
' Councilman Horn: I thought we agreed to that at least in principle the last
time we talked about this.
IActing Mayor Geving: We more or less did.
Councilman Horn: I firmly believe that people who are going to have a trail by
' their house need to be aware that it's there. I don't necessarily think you
have to put concrete in there to inform them of that. I think there are other
- methods that can be used such as marking the trail or including it in their
' development contracts for each of the lots. Also, the comment that the
perspective owners do not want interior trails was exactly the comment we heard
from Near Mountain. Now the Near Mountain people are coming back and saying
gee, we got ripped. We didn't get any sidewalks so I don't know that we can
' necessarily believe that. I think what we need is some, again I'll say this,
consistent method of what we're going to do in the City. It seems we approach
these things on a catch as catch can basis which I don't like. I think in terms
of dedicating these and picking priorities, I don't think that's the way we
should approach this at all. I think what we should be doing is have a plan in
place that if the decision is made that we're going to have sidewalks, this is
I where we're going to have them and this is how they be placed. We do all our
planning up front. Whether we have the money to put than in now to me is
irrelevant. We should still go ahead with the full blown trail plan and allow
space for that. If the money is available and the citizens decide yes, we do
want sidewalks, then fine. Let's put them in. But let's not try to surprise
21
--"6:€y Council Meeting - November 14, 1988
everybody and figure out where they're going to go 10 years from now when the
trail referendum passes, or whenever it is. I think that's something we have to
plan for up front. Not only for sidewalks but all types of trail uses should
[1
continue to be planned. That should be part of the overall plan. You can take
an idealistic approach on where all this stuff should be. That doesn't mean
we're always going to have the bucks to do them but at least a plan is in place
and we know how it's going to work. I heard the argument said, we've got to
wait to plan all this stuff until we find out if the referendum's approved. I
don't agree with that. I think you plan for it first and get all the plans in
place. Maybe if you've got the plans in place people get a better idea of what '
they're going to have and how they're going to have their money spent and you
have a better chance of passing the trail referendum. But I think we should go
ahead and reserve the space and whether it gets built or not, at least people
know where it is.
Acting Mayor Geving: May I ask you Mel, will there be space available on each
of these lots so that Clark's idea here is the way we go, at some future time
that sidewalk can be put in there in front of every one of those homes? There
is space provided now in the lots is that correct?
Mel Kurvers: It's in the... II
Acting Mayor Geving: It's in there and also you've indicated that in every
sales agreement that would be firmly stated that there's a potential for a
sidewalk in front of those homes.
Councilman Horn: I think we can have them drawn in on the plat too. ,
Acting Mayor Geving: I don't think there'd be anything wrong with that. .. It
does not?
Councilman Horn: Well, maybe we have something, we don't call it plat where ,
show it. p e we
Frank Kurvers: I agree with Clark when he says we've got to plan. We got to
get it resolved now and get some kind of a continuity for the trails but I guess
what you're all talking about is the overall plan. I think the language that's
in there... I don't like to see them get reassessed later on if it's there.
Now we were dealing with people in good faith. If they know that they're
possibly going to be there someday, that's all fine but we don't want a down the
road say we're going to put it in and assess you people for that sidewalk or
trail.
Acting Mayor Geving: That's a very good point Frank. I think the biggest lack
of faith in the City would come if a homeowner buyer buys your lot, pays the
$142.00 fee and 5 years from now the Park and Rec Commission decides to put that
in there and charges each of then another $200.00 to make up that $5,000.00
difference that I mentioned so we can pay for the sidewalk. I agree totally
with you. That if the sidewalk is put in, it has to come out of the pool of the
dedicated funds from the trail easements.
Councilman Horn: Some are referendum.
Acting Mayor Geving: Or whatever but not to go back against the homeowner.
22
I 189
City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988
ir-I
Councilman Johnson: When we approved this development we fought on the trail
II issue and we came to the conclusion that the best way all around was for the
developer to build the trails as part of it and that way, rather than the City
putting in a standard asphalt trail, the developer preferred to put in a
' concrete trail or something. Now we're back to the point the developer doesn't
want to put in a trail. He wants us to put in the trail. We're going to modify
- the development contract after we've approved it and now it's up to the City as
to what goes in there. The developer has now lost control of what type of trail
is put in there. We could put a woodchip trail in. He no longer has the
control. As long as he realizes by modifying his own development contract that
he's already agreed to, he's losing control then I have no problem with
' switching this in our current state. I think this gives the Park and Rec a
little more flexibility as what to do with the monies from these fees. I don't
see this particular development is going to fill up overnight. It might.
' I hope for the Kurvers it does but I have a feeling it's going to be a steadily
growing development with, not brisk sales but some good sales in there. I think
we'll see houses going in there all the time but I don't see it doing like a
than Vista did and get 30 houses in 2 or 3 months. It may be a few years before
we have all these fees come in. I have no problem with changing it if that's
what the developer wants.
' Acting Mayor Geving: If you feel that way, why don't you go ahead and make the
motion Jay if you would to delete item 16 and modify it. Delete the existing
development contract provision 16 and modify it with new words if you would. I
think 16 has got to come out of here in terms of trails and trail fees. Just
II . delete it entirely and then we'll rework it.
Councilman Horn: I don't know that we're going to do that.
' Acting Mayor Geving: Well, that's the point that I'm making. I think tonight
we need to identify exactly what we're going to do and as far as I'm concerned,
' based on what I've heard from the rest of the Council members, we're all willing
to go along and modify the existing development contract by deleting item 16.
Item 16 is the trail and trail fees which indicates currently that the developer
will pay. They'll submit the plans and the build the construction of this
' trail. My idea is to pull this out. To omit it entirely changing the words in
item 16 modifying the development contract to include a requirement that the
trail fees will be collected at the time that each building permit is issued.
' That the other provision that there would be no future assessment to the
homeowner. If a trail is built at any time in the future, funds would be
derived from the trail funds that have been previously collected and it would be
a decision of the Park and Rec Commission whether or not the trail would be
' proposed. And to carry it one step further, we've all talked about this. There
would be public hearings with those homeowners before the trail would actually
be installed.
' Councilman Boyt: I would speak against that. I know it's not a motion yet but
I don't think that this Council wants to tie the arms of any future Council in
I 111how they would approach this trail issue. We're in no position to guarantee
anybody in this town how sidewalks are going to be built in front of their
house.
23
ILO()
City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988
Acting Mayor Geving: Bill, what I'm trying to propose here is that we delete
the existing item 16 which says that the developer will submit the plans and
develop the sidewalks. Okay, we'll delete that let's start over then with
building a new item 16 which says in effect that we will collect the fees at the
time the building permits are issued. They will be put into the trail pool and
we don't need to really say anymore than that except I personally would like to
build into the wordage here for all time that no future assessment for the
construction of these trails in Kurvers Point Road would be placed against the
homeowners. Now that's the motion I would like to place before the Council.
Councilman Horn: I think that could always be changed by any future Council.
Legally we can't tie...
Acting Mayor Geving: I know but it's the intent.
Councilman Horn: You can say that's our intent.
Acting Mayor Geving: You have to always look at where we're at tonight. My
position is that the intent of this Council is to do just what we stated. To
remove the item that's in there now and put back another provision and that was II
the motion that I'm going to propose to the Council.
Councilman Johnson: I think what I'd like to see is our City Attorney or
somebody draw up a new item 16 for us to have the exact reading. This is a
contract we're talking here. It's not a simple condition or anything. It's a
legal binding document that we're modifying here. I think I would like to see
before we do exactly the final vote, I would like to see the exact wording of
what I'm approving.
Acting Mayor Geving: I have no problem with that Jay. I really have no problem '
with that.
Councilman Johnson: So what I'd like to see is that this come back to us with
whatever conditions. I think one of the conditions that would be part of number
16 is that all homeowners are notified that a trail is planned through the front
of their property as part of the overall city trail system. Not that it may or
it might but it is planned. This is a walk through, pass through neighborhood
connecting eventually to two different segments of the trail system.
Councilman Horn: I'd also like to include the option in there. I think this
can be somewhat of a general development contract that each builder has the
option of paying them on a permit by permit basis at the current fee at that
time or if they choose they can pay them all off at the existing rate. What
that does, if you do have a development that may take several years to develop
and everybody knows the trail fees keep going up, you can lock in at a fixed
rate.
Councilman Johnson: So the Kurvers could pay now.
Acting Mayor Geving: Bill, do you have any items you want to add? We're up to
four now.
Councilman Boyt: What I would suggest, I think this is fairly simple although
we keep attaching leaves to it. The developer provide the standard trail
24 1
1 191
City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988
Illr_
easement along Kurvers Point Road right-of-way to it's connection through TH 101
and so notify any and all property holders. That the developer pay the trail
I fees in effect at the time of the building permit or be able to pay the fees in
effect at the time of building permit with the provision that the fees may be
paid at any one time in a lump sum.
' Acting Mayor Geving: That's 2.
Councilman Boyt: I think that covers 3 and 4.
Acting Mayor Geving: Roger, do you have any questions about what our intent is?
Roger Knutson: No.
Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, you could build item 16 around that? Any other
1 comments? I think we're fairly clear.
Frank Kurvers: The wording should say builder instead of developer.
Acting Mayor Geving: I had a problem with that too Frank. That it should be
builder because once you develop this, you guys are going to be gone and a
builder will be in there applying for the building permits. I agree it should
' be builder and I'm sure Roger would have put that in but that's a good point.
Any other comments from the Council?
Councilman Johnson: Was Bill's a motion?
Councilman Boyt:: I'm alright r ght wzth having him write it up, that's fine.
' Acting Mayor Geving: If you want to make the motion to do that. Bill I think
your comments were okay.
Councilman Boyt: I would move with the change of the word builder and developer
as I previously stated.
' Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, and direct Roger to prepare the appropriate wordage
for consideration on the 28th.
Councilman Horn: I'll second that.
1
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to table action on the Kurvers
1 Point Trail issue until the next meeting and direct the City Attorney to delete
item 16 and reword a new item 16. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Stuart Warren: I'm one of the new owners who will live in that area. There are
several lots sold. I have one of them. I think I speak for all three so far
that we would just as soon pass on having the trails put in at all. If not,
I'd kind of like, I heard you say a public hearing with the homeowners.
Acting Mayor Geving: That would be done. I'm quite confident that the future
Council will give you that opportunity.
1 25
192
City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988
REVIEW LAKE DRIVE EAST/TH 101 FEASIBILITY CONCEPTS AND SET DATE FOR PUBLIC
HEARING. '
Gary Warren: I currently have a schedule in my staff report to put things in
order for the Council's understanding and also in order to keep with that
schedule we take this opportunity to bring the concepts forward because we are
talking about some interrelation between TH 101 and Lake Drive at the Market
Blvd. intersection. So with that, Gary Ehret from BRW to present some
preliminary concepts as they are right and get Council input. We'd be looking
to come back on November 28th meeting with the actual feasibility studies for
review and acceptance at that time. In order for us to meet the schedule that's
laid out and I guess I should point out that our overall schedule here is to get '
this project bid this winter so we can come out in the spring.
Acting Mayor Geving: Now what's going to be presented tonight are concepts that
can be changed? Can be inputted with ideas from the Council? I suspect there
may even be members of the public here that might challenge some of the
concepts. Have you had other meetings Gary with any other individuals in the
community? I
-Gary Ehret: The meetings that we've had to date, other than the meetings that
the Council has been fully aware, have been primarily with the immediate
property owners. Specifically on the south side of TH 5 with the Ward family
and their representatives. More their representatives than themselves and with
the Rosemount and Opus people. As was mentioned in the staff report and by
Gary, the TH 101 and Lake Drive team that has talked to the Council several
times is still intact. We're working towards the completion of the feasibility
for the November 28th Council meeting. What we wanted to do, there were some
things that have come up in the course of discussion with property owners in the
course of design that we want to bring back and give you a brief idea of what
those things are. What changes have occurred so that on November 28th we hope
to have a report that will essentially, you will be familiar with it and
hopefully comfortable with it. If not, obviously we'll review it at that time.
The Council has been familiar with an issue of relocation TH 101 in the area of
Dakota as it currently exists. We have pretty well reached the conclusion of
design that we can come down to one apartment building in that area which would
be... We can get the design that will meet all the MnDot criteria and just take
the one development. There will be, as you're aware, a railroad crossing in
that area. We are starting to dialogue with the railroad on that issue. They
are familiar with it and have expressed their approval of the concept as it's
currently laid out. That really is a summary of that particular location right
now. Everything you've seen to date really hasn't changed too much. I'll go
through each utility board real quickly after this board. We've shaded in the ,
TH 5 improvements for the railroad and for MnDot and exactly what, in there
we're studying each of the exhibit sections to make sure that those
intersections are designed and accomodated on a future design with MnDot.
Looking at a report that considers the improvement for the construction of Lake
Drive as you see it. The alignment that you see is consistent with what is
exactly proposed on the plat for Rosemount and I'm not sure if that's been final
approved. We are working with the Rosemount/Opus people. This was in a
previous presentation the Alternate 2A. The realignment for TH 101 with really
not many changes to that. We're looking at a divided section of four lanes, two
in each direction throughout the length of it. One change that I want to bring
26
11
City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988 1 93
llir_ the Council's attention to, Fred Hoisington has met several times with the Ward
representatives. Mr. Ward is here tonight so he may wish to speak to this, and
' part of looking at this entire concept, the previous proposal looked at a
continuous Lake Drive, particularly between what would be new Market Blvd.
and TH 101 and Great Plains Blvd.. In meeting with the representatives of the
Ward Family, they expressed a desire to have more contiguous land mass between
TH 5 and any new Lake Drive. We went back to Jim Benshoof who had done the
traffic analysis in this area, to have him take a look at that concept to make
sure that from a traffic standpoint he did not feel that there would be any
problems. His conclusion was that this kind of an alignment would work just
fine. In fact, he further went to give us future opportunity to introduce a
nice continuous in a line driveway into the Rosemount facility so there are a
lot of merits to this alternative that allows the Ward family, it represents
1 about 30 acres roughly up in here to look for future development.
Councilman Horn: Plus it also cuts off the possibility that somebody's going to
try to by-pass a traffic jam on TH 5 and cut through the frontage road because
it's not going to be quite as straight forward there anymore.
Gary Ehret: So I think that is the most important thing that we just wanted to
make you aware of is that this is how we are approaching and addressing the
project.
' Acting Mayor Geving: Does it add significantly to the cost of the project?
Gary Ehret: The cost in our mind is, the difference is negligent to even a
potential savings which you'll see...
111_ , Acting Ma y or Geving: The
reason I ask that is that when we chose 2A, it was
based on some other factors such as cost and now you're showing 2A as being 2AA.
You changed 2.
Gary Ehret: Well, we really haven't changed TH 101 at all. The only thing we
changed was the west section of Lake Drive.
Councilman Johnson: Gary, does that avoid those two wetlands then?
Gary Ehret: Yes. We are south of those two wetlands. Part of what I was going
to say a little earlier, when we start to look at the utility systems that
happen to serve this area, we think there may be a little bit of cost savings
I over this simply because of the nature of the utility system. Sanitary sewer is
...sanitary sewer throughout the area. The main end point or terminal for any
local lateral sewers are the City trunk and into the CC trunk that runs through
' the area so we have actually shorten up some of the runs of sanitary sewer that
will serve any future development. This board represents future service to the
lots that are being created as a part of this Opus plat on the north side of
Lake Drive. The Rosemount facility is proposed to tie in at this point which
would go down to the trunk sewer. At some point in the future we would look to
construction of sanitary sewer up to serve the northern property. Up in the
north lake area there is very little utility work that has to occur except for
storm sewer. Sanitary at this point we're just looking to a stub to a future
development of this site here. Otherwise, there's a line that runs through...
Watermain, this board represents watermain. Again, up in the north lake area,
there's very little that has to occur. The dash pattern represents all of the
27
1 9a
City Council Meeting - November 14; 1988
existing watermains. It's pretty well in place. This area as one might g uess
has little or no watermain. The closest location is an 18 inch line that
out of Well #4 I believe down in the park. We would then look to loop the
watermain on Lake Drive. We believe that ultimately the water system will go
down in a loop to Chan Hills south of Lake Susan. We ran a watermain loop
across Lake Drive to the east and we're currently looking at tying in by the
Amoco station on Great Plains. The water system from the entire downtown area
once stubbed out to the north side will depend on right-of-way for future
movement. That's really the basics of the water system we have coming in on
site to tie in. As you might guess, the storm sewer is probably one of the
biggest and difficult issues in the area. The TH 101, TH 5 intersection right
now, there's culverts going every which way and what we're looking at right now,
the Barr study did look at this area of town and suggested a ponding location on
the Kronick property. Right now the way we're addressing the report would be to
take any storm runoff from the new TH 101 realignment to that pond. That pond
would also serve some other functions... There may be a need to make some
future modifications for that depending on what MnDot wants to do. On the south 11
side of the road, again working with Rosemount and Opus, we will be outletting
their local on-site system to the west to a pond that's proposed over on Lake
Susan Park. With their ultimate park development plan. We'll have a line that _ II
comes up to catch a line that comes out of the Instant Webb...running through a
ditch system down into the park and through to Lake Susan. Ultimately you will
need ponding down in the southern area east of Lake Susan. We reviewed all of 11 this with the Watershed. We propose that ultimately we will end up creating a
couple of storage retention basins down in this area before discharging into
Riley Creek or Riley Lake Meadows. The one thing I'd like to point out, most of
I!!
this area in here and it appears even in this area, are all within the
jurisdiction, from what we've been able to figure out, the Corps of Engineers so
we've started dialogue with those folks to make them aware of the ultimate plan
and what is going on here. We feel pretty strongly that when TH 101 develops in '
a new location, in this location here, they will look strongly to some type of
mitigation but they will have to do something to cross that creek. That again
is why. ..proposed that ultimately they will have to build some sedimentation or
wetland type uses in that area to offset and mitigate what filling we might have
to do. So all of those issues we're looking at and putting in the appropriate
costs and information.
Councilman Horn: This Chain of Lakes Study, that's not being done by the Corps
of Engineers is it?
Gary Ehret: No. I believe Barr is handling that. At lesat I know Bob ,
Obermeyer who is with Barr and the Watershed...
Councilman Horn: You say you're reviewing this with them also in terms of '
compatibility...
Gary Ehret: Yes, we've met a couple of times with Bob. So that is very quick. '
That's briefly where we're at. We anticipate being back in two weeks to give
you a report in further depth.
Acting Mayor Geving: Okay Gary. Thank you very much. Any councilmembers have '
any questions? Anything that you'd like to steer Gary in a different direction?
28 1
I 195
City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988
I
Councilman Johnson: Blue Circle is going to not like the realignment there in
that it's going to cut down the amount of traffic from Lake Drive East and
traffic is what they want. But in general I see it as being a little better
personally for what the City wants.
Acting Mayor Geving: This is the time to make your comments known because
otherwise you'll see it in a feasibility study two weeks from now.
Councilman Boyt: I have one comment. I think our Council elect really needs to
get involved in this because you're going to be living with the results and the
downtown corner has some problems. Wait until we see what we're going to do
with that apartment building. You may want to make some comments on this at the
public hearing if not now.
Councilman Horn: What corner are you referring to? The ...corner on TH 101?
' Councilman Boyt: Right.
Councilman Horn: At Dakota or up where...
Councilman Boyt: No, north of Dakota there. I just think that intersection
has, you can see it better on the one down here on the floor. It has all sorts
of opportunity for future residential unhappiness.
Councilman Horn: It looks better to me than what's there today. The
unhappiness is today.
r
Acting Mayor Geving: The important thing is that there's a flow from east to
west there that we don't have now on that corner. If we just want to zero in on
that corner. So as you're going east on 78th Street, you can make a good turn
there and continue on to TH 101 or if you're coming the other direction from the
west, you could make a turn. Now it's a mess. I'm surprised we don't have a
lot more accidents there than we do.
Gary Ehret: This alignment will significantly improve the intersection but to
get there you're right. It will be a significant change.
Councilman Horn: But what residential area is affected other than the
apartments?
Councilman Johnson: That's a fairly substantial bunch of residents.
' Gary Ehret: Other than this, the couple of homeowners that border right on West
78th Street.
Acting Mayor Geving: You'll only go back to Erie approximately in the area.
Not even to Erie so there's only two homes there.
Councilman Johnson: In some of the earlier plans it took out 1 or 2 single
family homes. This plan doesn't. Definitely there's going to be some real
debate coming up on this.
Councilman Boyt: You're taking one of the busiest intersections in the city and
' you're going to tear it up and all I'm saying to you is, you better hold onto
1 29
196
City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988 i
1
your hat because along about a year and a half from now, there are going to be a
lot of unhappy people. I think that if we go into it thinking that the people
are going to be happy while that's intersection's being built and shortly after
it's built, I think you're going to, I'm going to be surprised if they are.
Acting Mayor Geving: Are you just speaking of the construction of the, the '
phase of construction or the finished product like we're surprised with main
street for example. 78th Street. Are you saying that if it's not built right?
Councilman Boyt: Dale, I remember the discussions on main street as you do and
I remember hearing how it was going to improve traffic flow. I'm just saying,
if I was sitting out there, I'd have something to say about this plan because I
you're going to live with the results just like I am.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think what Bill is saying, when you come back with your
feasibility study, you're going to blow that area up so that we can really get
an idea of what it's going to look like when it's built. Is that what you're
saying Bill? That we really want to analyze how the traffic will flow.
Councilman Boyt: Not a big point Dale.
Acting Mayor Geving: Well, listen gentlemen. We're not going to sit here all
night.
Councilman Johnson: Beyond what Gary's going on, on the agenda here public
hearing notice to the newspaper is on the 23rd which is the day before
Thanksgiving. At that point in time, it may be adviseable to pull back to
Monday the 21st if that's possible. I'm not sure why, we're just hitting
holiday times and I just see something getting messed up. If it gets messed up
then we just blew another week if it doesn't get out in the paper. The other
thing is mailing individual property owner notices of the hearing on the 1st.
Does that include the residents of the apartment building? I would think so.
Councilman Horn: I think it goes to the owners because they're the
record. We have no idea who lives there. y lots of
Acting Mayor Geving: I don't believe we ever really have a need legally to send
notices to an apartment.
Councilman Johnson: Legally, but I'm not talking legally. I'm talking morally.
If we're going to be doing something to this apartment, I think the people
living in the apartments should be notified somehow or another.
Acting Mayor Geving: Many times we don't even know who those individuals are.
Councilman Boyt: We can put them in the building. I
Acting Mayor Geving: We would be happy to do that and we should do that. We
will do that.
Councilman Johnson: Just put resident of Apartment 1.
Acting Mayor Geving: We will do that Jay but I do agree with what you said that
we should get the public hearing notice out earlier if at all possible. Now I
30 1
IICity Council Meeting - November 14, 1988 197
don't know if there's another newspaper that goes out unless Mary and the other
newspaper people here tonight can get it into this week's edition which would be
very helpful.
1 Councilman Johnson: It has to go out on the 1st and then again on the 8th of
December. It has to be noticed the 2 weeks before the meeting. The two issues
' before.
Acting Mayor Geving: I would like to encourage the newspaper people who are
here this evening to give us the widest coverage possible over the next several
weeks until the public hearing on the 12th. This is really important. We're
going to have a lot of public discussion on this and just like the Council
members have indicated, where we get rapped all the time is that they did not
hear about this or that they weren't notified. Let's get as much information as
we can. This has a long term bearing on how our community is going to look from
a transportation standpoint. Let's leave that up to Gary. I'm satisfied. Are
' there any other questions? Now I'd like to hear from Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward do you
have any comments before we leave this?
John Ward: We endorse that change. ...possibility of improving Lake Drive
' East...ingress and egress...
Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, thank you John. Any other comments from
councilmembers and then we'll leave this.
Al Klingelhutz: I'm going to put on another hat as a resident of southern
Chanhassen. As a member of Lake Susan Homeowners Association. I guess my
concern about any development...for Lake Susan is very real. I understand at
one time or another development was coming in at the same area. There was even
a skimmer proposed to take the oil, some of the fat and materials off of the
water before it could get into the lake. My real concern is now that the lake
is down considerably and we actually have a pennisula of mud coming into the
lake from the creek coming down from Lake Ann. It probably has built up more in
11 the last 5 or 6 years because development has been done to the park and some
other developments up in that area than all the other generations of farming
that was ever put in. I've lived on the lake all my life and I've never seen
that pennisula of mud before. It actually showed up before the lake was down
and if something isn't done to cure that, the dock the City put in last year
will soon be engulfed with mud. I don't think that's very good for a lake.
I really would appreciate it if you could have much concern about what you're
going to throw into that lake from the new development.
Acting Mayor Geving: And Gary, I'd like to have you address that. Not tonight.
Make sure that you've covered that in the feasibility study and for the public
1 because I'm sure Al will say the same things on the 12th.
Councilman Horn: In fact, not only address it but identify for us when and the
source of that delta runoff. I'd like to know some history behind that.
Resolution #88-123: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to set
the public hearing date for December 12, 1988 and that we move along the
schedule provided and we take every reasonable effort to notify the residents of
the apartments of the public hearing and the realignment of TH 101 issue. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
1
31
11
'I?. Council Meeting - November 14, 1988
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Horn: I just had a question on where we are on forming our form of I
government comittee and what the status of that is.
Don Ashworth: I received from Roger Knutson this past week but did not get for '
packet various documents dealing with this subject. Advantages, disadvantages,
home roll charter and principle problems of charter making. In addition,
I wrote right after our last council meeting to ICMA and to League of Cities
asking for additional documents. I hope to have those so that I can package
everything together in this package. It will all be into the packet for the
28th.
Acting Mayor Geving: Let me ask if you're satisfied with the status Clark.
Whether or not the next appropriate step would be to initiate a study group.
Advertise formally for a study group to begin looking at the form of government
change. I'm not opposed in any way or in favor in any way but I do believe that
we have agreed that we would look into this and I think the next step is to
solicit from the general public, people who might be interested. I've already
II
received two calls from individuals who said they would like to serve on such a
committee. If that were a direction, I would like to propose that we place an
advertisement in the paper that we are looking for members to serve on a study
committee to study the future form of government for the City of Chanhassen.
Would that be about the way we would state it Roger? Maybe there's a more
formal term than form of government but a charter study commission or group.
Roger Knutson: I guess either one would be fine. This would not be the charter
commission itself.
Acting Mayor Geving: No, just a study group to begin... '
Roger Knutson: If I were putting it in the newspaper, to use words like
charter, I don't know if that's...
Acting Mayor Geving: I'm sorry I used that term. I shouldn't have.
Roger Knutson: Just form of government.
Acting Mayor Geving: Form of government advisory committee.
Don Ashworth: Are you looking to really form a government? Isn't the primary
question the ward system?
Acting Mayor Geving: That's the issue. Let's highlight that.
Roger Knutson: But once you have a charter, remember the door is open. It's
like calling a Constitutional Convention, you can't limit it to...
Acting Mayor Geving: My feeling is this though Don. Even though the ward
system was the thing that we focused on, I always felt that the Mayor's position
should be a 4 year term for example. I would think that would be one of the
things that we'd also look at. Just one of the things along with the ward
system.
32
' City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988 199-
II IT-
Roger Knutson: You can do that without a charter.
Acting Mayor Geving: But those are the kinds of questions that I think we want
the study group to come up with. If there are no other discussions regarding
that, I would just like to direct Don to proceed with that kind of an
announcement for the paper. Clark, are you satisfied with that?
Councilman Horn: Yes, but along with that I'd like included in the package of
information a canvas of adjacent cities just to which ones do have the ward
system and which ones don't. I think this would give the group a good place to
start.
Don Ashworth: I do have a survey but I don't think that it gets into that
level. It goes through the form of government charter. ..but it does not have
that level.
tCouncilman Johnson: Equivalent cities to Chanhassen. Outer fringe suburbs in
the 10,000 to 15,000 range. What are their forms of government. Whether that's
Champlin or whoever.
Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, let's move on. Bill, you had a comment or two on
the Council Presentations. Number 1 was the public safety issue.
Councilman Boyt: In our administrative packet we got a report from Jim on
public safety statistics. There's a couple of these things that I'd like to
point out. I think that Don you should communicate with the school district
that we are almost 30 houses ahead of where we were last year in terms of
building permits issued. They still seem to think that they got information
from you that says that the City was slowing down in growth and they did publish
that publically by the way. Then the other point is, I'm pleased to see that in
August the Carver County people issued 25 moving citations. Hats off to Carver
11 County. In September they slipped back to 12. Thumbs down to that, in my
opinion.
' Councilman Horn: Maybe we had fewer speeders.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, that's in public safety. That's all I had was just to
make those two comments. That we brought in almost 300 and almost $50,000.00 in
' building inspection fees. I'll bet we didn't spend that on building inspection.
Councilman Johnson: Bill? Your comment about the schools. Did they publish it
1 again? I know several weeks or months ago they published something saying we
were stopping growth here.
Councilman Boyt: At the last facility study task force meeting they just
reconfirmed that that was the information the City had provided them.
Councilman Horn: Can I comment on it? I was glad that Bill brought this up
because I wanted to make a comment in here too. Obviously we're charting
different things now than we were last year which makes it difficult to do a
comparison but what I would like to see included in this, and it looks like this
is already in a computer format. Is it in Lotus?
33
i
2(gy Council Meeting - November 14; 1988
1
Don Ashworth: No, but it's similar.
Councilman Horn: What I would like to see on here is a trend of these per 1
population so we can get an idea on a per population basis what the expenses
are. I think that gives us a little better handle than just seeing raw numbers.
Don Ashworth: I think I know what you're saying but if there is a question, I 1
might have Jim give you a call direct.
Councilman Horn: I think these are really good data that you can get out of 1
this type of thing. You can find out and project whether things are getting out
of hand or not. If you do it on a per capita basis, you can really get a handle
on how effective your numbers are. 1
Councilman Johnson: Also, you have to look at it, as we get more coverage, the
CSO's are now both working their 6 hour shifts and everything. As we're getting
more coverage, you should see more. So we'll have an increase in the number of
citations written. That doesn't mean we're having an increase in the number of
dogs running around or anything. It's just we're now having more enforcement.
That's also hard to figure in at this point. As we're getting better in our
data management and also better in our enforcement in the first place. Keeping
better records and we'll be increasing next year our hours of service again so
we'll see an increase, hopefully if we get the special patrols on speed next
year, we'll see an increase in our moving violations again.
Councilman Horn: I think if we keep good records and consistent records of
where we're going, we can then make more objective decisions about what we need
rather than constantly getting involved in emotional subjects that this is
totally out of hand. Whatever that means.
Acting Mayor Geving: Let's take your second item then Bill. It's the Alan
Olson. 1
Councilman Boyt: A couple of related items here. We got early in the packet, I
think it's the second item where Jo Ann is talking about the wetlands map. 11 That, on the surface looks like good news. The drawback I see is that we can't
assume that because it didn't make their map that it's not a wetlands. There's
too many of these little things stuck around that we don't see until we get out
and walk the property. 1
Jo Ann Olsen: The maps that they have... They've got the aerial.
Councilman Boyt: The one I remember is sitting out by the cemetary out there
south of town. I don't think anybody would have found that without walking
through it. But it's a great idea. The reason I brought it up was because
later on in the packet you talk about, and I really support, the identification
of major stands of trees. I would like to see those two combined so that if we
can get, they don't necessarily have to be on one mylar set but that we're
moving to do both of those. Follow what I'm after? I would like to have the
City identify where our major stands of trees, just as we do where our wetlands
are.
34
1
2 V1
II
City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988
Jo Ann Olsen: That's what we're doing.
Councilman Boyt: And I see you're doing that.
Jo Ann Olsen: Did you want them on the same map did you say?
Councilman Boyt: No. Didn't mean to complicate this. All I meant to say was,
I want to encourage you to inventory the hardwoods just like we're inventorying
the wetlands and put them on the computer the same. That's all I've got.
Acting Mayor Geving: Thank you Bill. Jay, you had two comments here. One on
I signs.
Councilman Johnson: Right. As I drove around tonight, I saw Elect Bill Boyt.
Elect Dale Geving and a whole lot of Tom Hamilton's still out there.
Councilman Boyt: Where?
Acting Mayor Geving: Why don't you pick them up?
Councilman Johnson: I'm on Hwy 5. Your two that I saw, I only did TH 5 tonight
so the two I saw for you Bill, one's next to the concrete plant and one's right
behind SuperAmerica.
Acting Mayor Geving: You've got to remember too Jay. We have people that are
111_ , picking these signs up so if you know where they're at, tell me where they're
at.
- Councilman Johnson: SuperAmerica again. Of course Tom's people aren't here. He
was sitting there filling up with gas on Saturday morning looking at two of them
right next to the Standard station there. On either side of the Standard
station.
Acting Mayor Geving: Where did you see my signs?
' Councilman Johnson: Yours is right next to Bill's behind, did I say
SuperAmerica? Holiday.
Councilman Boyt: I'll grab them at the same time.
Acting Mayor Geving: If you see any, let's do it this way. If you see
anybody's signs, just pick them up and I'll pick yours up and I'll pick up
Chmiels and anybody elses. We've had people out there picking them up but you
don't know where they're all at.
Councilman Horn: You guys are all going to be here 2 years from now reminding
Jay about his signs.
Councilman Johnson: I kept a map. I knew where every sign was.
' Acting Mayor Geving: We did that too but we don't always get them all but if we
see them we'll pick them up. What's your next comment?
35
11
202
City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988
Councilman Johnson: On retroactive fees. I discussed this earlier. I've been
going through the City Codes and I'm wondering, almost everyplace where we
establish a fee, the fee in the City Code it says the Council by resolution
shall establish the fees annually and every January we establish what the
building permit fees and this fee and that fee are. In our January
establishment of fees, can we establish a fee for retroactive permits, i.e. the
person who built something, got caught and the building inspector said go get a
building permit? I believe we should have a different fee for that. The person
who built on a wetland, got caught.
Acting Mayor Geving: You're talking about a penalty of some sort?
Councilman Johnson: An adminstrative fee because it's taken our staff extra
work to go after this permit. It's more work for this thing. Like this wetland
we had down here where staff worked with the people to get a wetland alteration
permit. They did the work without the permit.
Acting Mayor Geving: Let's leave it this way. I think we all understood what
you're trying to get at. Why don't we have the staff discuss this either at
your meetings and see if you can't recoiunend to the future Council where we're I
going. Roger, is there a legal problem with that?
Roger Knutson: Just two comments. First, under the Uniform Building Code. If
you build and then get the permit, you double fee according to the UBC.
Acting Mayor Geving: So you double bill them? So if it's $100.00, you charge
them $200.00? I
•
Councilman Johnson: My permit for my basement was $18.00.
Acting Mayor Geving: If what Roger is saying, we already have a provision for
doing that.
Roger Knutson: Under the UBC. Other things we do not. We could look at that. I
Acting Mayor Geving: Let's have that as part of our January meetings then when
fees are established. Any other comments on retroactive fees? 1
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see that on variances and the whole bit. When
somebody does something and then comes back later, it's already done. Now I
want a variance to do it. You get the choice, say take it down. We're not
going to give the variance.
APPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR TH 5 FROM TH 41 TO HERITAGE ROAD, EDEN
PRAIRIE, CITY ENGINEER.
Acting Mayor Geving: Gary, this is an important one for us tonight because I
suspect our input could have a determination on what goes back to MnDot as
recommendations in how we see our segment of this being built in terms of
underpasses, trails, so forth. Do we still have, in your mind, a degree of
flexibility of building into those plans some of our desires or is it at the
point where it's fairly well fixed? What I read here in the Environmental
Worksheet, that this is the plan and this is the way it's going to be built. I
36 1
1 City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988
hope not. Could you give us a report please.
I Gary Warren: What you're looking at, the Environmental Assessment is really
dealing with the preferred alignment and general impacts which lead up to the
findings of no significant impact which is what comes out MnDot. It is heading
towards such that if normal environmental impact statements were not to be part
of the project. As far as inputs on the project specifics, trails, etc., we've
got two steps. One, you'll be seeing at the next council agenda is requesting
us, like we did on the first leg of TH 5 improvements, to give concept approval
to the staff layout of the project. We have recently received that. This is
the staff layout that MnDot presented to the public here two meetings earlier
this month. We will be providing input to the Council. We'll have the
opportunity to give specific direction on that concept plan. That will be on
the next agenda here. So as far as details on the case of the trails and any
design impacts at all, there will be an opportunity to review the overall
concepts of the proposal and the corridor impacts etc. which doesn't obviously
go into detail like the plans and specs would but it gives the general impacts.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think it's very important that the council elect, as
someone said earlier, be familiar with this because you're the people who are
going to have to really get involved in how TH 101 and TH 5 look as it's being
proposed here on the 28th. We'll see this on the 28th, is that what you're
11 saying Gary?
Gary Warren: Yes.
Acting Mayor Geving: So for tonight's purpose, all we're really looking at is
approval of the ETA. We'll start with Jay because I believe Jay, this is
probably more in line with your interests certainly. Do you see anything here
that would be a problem?
Councilman Johnson: Are they addressing the pedestrian issues that have been
brought out by the Chan Estates and the subidivisions there south of TH 5 as far
as pedestrians crossing TH 5 within downtown Chanhassen basically? I see them
talk about underpasses for pedestrians in Eden Prairie and the western side of
Chanhassen out at CR 117 but I don't see it right where we need it the most.
Gary Warren: The construction proposal, the document is for an 8 foot wide bike
path that basically will go, for the most part, along the north side of the
right-of-way all the way from I-494 out to TH 41 eventually. Eden Prairie has
reacted and requested that they have an underpass at several locations in
accordance with their trail system. MnDot has indicated from meetings that I've
been in, they were interested to see obviously how our referendum on trails was
going to come out so they knew how to react as far as the environmental impact
on some of that routing. So there is an opportunity here without an overall
matser plan however, we have to be able to give them some firm guidance if we
want an underpass for pedestrians, we've got to be able to tell them where
obviously so there is maybe an added challenge here not having the referendum
pass.
Councilman Horn: See, I don't understand that. What's that got to do with
this?
Gary Warren: Well, we need to have a plan I guess.
37
204
City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988
11
Councilman Horn: Yes, but the referendum didn't give us a plan. It just gave
us the money to initiate the plan. That's been my concern all along. You don't 1-11
have to wait for a referendum to get a plan in place.
Gary Warren: What I'm saying is, we need to give them some specific direction. 1
Councilman Horn: I agree with that.
Councilman Johnson: Right now our trail plan's an overall plan. What we need
is the detailed plan for this area. We've been talking about this since way in
June. One of the high priorities has been pedestrian traffic across TH 5. It's
I/
dangerous now. The kids scoot across there at Dakota Avenue with that
ridiculous intersection we've already got there with trains, buses, trucks and
concrete trucks. We've got to get something better with our improvements to
TH 5. t
Acting Mayor Geving: My analysis of this whole thing tonight was that we would
have input, specific input and give direction to you Gary that you could carry II
forward on this. For example, Jay is absolutely right. We've always had a
desire to get the traffic movement from Chan Estates and now in the Hidden
Valley, across TH 5. We're going to have hundreds of kids coming into our
downtown area. And it makes sense to me that we identify in this document
tonight a need for an overpass of some sort.
Councilman Johnson: Underpass. i
Acting Mayor Geving: I don't care whether it's an underpass, overpass but some
way of moving pedestrians, kids with bikes even into the downtown area. Then
secondly, we talk about a trail that runs all the way on the north side from TH
41 to Lake Ann Park. I'm more interested in what happens east of Lake Ann Park
to the downtown. I want to see kids to be able to safely move from Lake Ann
Park into the home areas of Western Hills and downtown, either with again, an
underpass under CR 17 or an overpass. That would be within the jurisdiction of
TH 5 because that's going to be built up certainly well to the north of that
intersection of TH 5 and CR 17. It makes sense to me there also to provide some
kind of a facility, either an underpass, overpass or someway of getting those
kids to Lake Ann Park. Those are the two things that I see in here. That I'd
like to have you address.
Councilman Horn: Has Park and Rec had a chance to review this at all? The
should be reviewing this in terms of their overall trail plan. y
Gary Warren: As I said earlier, the concept layout is really the detailed
document and is another opportunity for us to give specific recommendations on
the plan. That shows the land. It shows grading cuts. It shows proposed
trails at intersections and... That is something that we can sneak that in at 11
this time. The Environmental Assessment is another opportunity obviously. The
more attempts that we have here, the more chance we have of getting to the top I
guess. I will for sure pass on the Council's recommendations and comments in
that regard.
Councilman Horn: Just a comment Jay. You know this issue came up long before
June. It was a very hot issue when McDonalds moved in here. This very thing
38 1
1 City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988 205-
came up.
IF Councilman Johnson: It's really been hot this summer though with the TH 101
realignment. That has been in every meeting has been, how do our kids get
acrosss TH 5 safely and we've been sitting back assuring them that we're taking
that into account and then it didn't come out in the first document.
Acting Mayor Geving: I'm not willing to wait. I guess that's the point that
I'm trying to make. I'm not willing to wait until we see the detailed study. I
' think we ought to take this opportunity to advise them these are our interests
and we want to make sure that they're built into the plan.
Councilman Johnson: That's what we have to do with an EA.
Gary Warren: That's what I'm saying. I'm not saying, obviously we're going to
take a shot also at the next step.
Councilman Horn: I think what Gary's going to say, they're not going to settle
for general comments. They want specific details.
Acting Mayor Geving: Well, we'll show them.
Councilman Johnson: In an EA it is general comments though. Our general
comment is, the assessment has not taken into consideration the pedestrian
traffic crossing TH 5 within the downtown area and the crossing of the TH 5 and
CR 17 intersection. That's our negative comment on the EA.
Councilman Horn: Right and they're turn that back and say, well look Eden
Prairie gave us specifics of how they wanted it addressed. Where is yours?
Where is your input?
Acting Mayor Geving: They made another comment in here that was the potential
for an underpass at Bluff Drive. Not I didn't know where that was. I assumed
11 that it's somewhere near the Industrial Park there by CR 17 and TH 5. I didn't
understand that. I've never called it that in my own mind.
11 Councilman Johnson: CR 117. Is that Galpin?
Acting Mayor Geving: Yes, Galpin. An underpass for a proposed nature trail
along the most westerly part of Bluff Creek is under consideration. Well, I'd
like to tell them not to consider it, let's do it. If they- want definitive
comments, let's tell them do it and put it into the plan because exactly the
point was made here. Eden Prairie must have jumped on this some time ago and
' made their comments known and they've built them into the plan. They're in
here.
Gary Warren: They have, I believe have a master plan.. .
Councilman Johnson: We must have given them our trail plan and that's one place
where we did, we have a nature trail running the entire length of Bluff Creek
that Tim Erhart had walked and that's one place where the nature trail starts.
I thought we also had trails running up TH 101 and crossing there which just
don't seem to be taken into consideration. The exact how we're going to do it.
39
�ity Council Meeting - November 14, 1988
Acting Mayor Geving: We have some comments from the ublic here.
P Go ahead Al.
Al Klingelhutz: ...development in Chanhassen Hills and we've got a big
development in Lake Susan. The Industrial Park was laid out, I believe there
were trails in designated areas including the Industrial Park all the way down
to Lake Susan. Chanhassen Hills came in there with designated area along the 11 lake that goes up to Chanhassen Hills and Lake Susan Hills and if you take into
consideration all the development that's going to go in down there, you're
looking at, and all the land that will be developed to fill in the MUSA line,
you're probably looking at another 1,500 to 2,000 homes down there. I think it
would be a great idea to have an underpass somewhere both at Lake Ann Park so
those people could get up to Lake Ann Park without crossing TH 5.
Acting Mayor Geving: I agree and I'd like to direct Gary to do that. I agree
with you entirely. That that's going to be a hot area for a lot of growth in
the near future. You know what happened Al, when Dick Pearson was on the
Council in 1978 and we built CR 117 south, we spent $10,000.00 for Pearson's
tunnel. It's under the road. It's never been used. I understand dogs and once
and a while a deer goes underneath there. We were always planning on that being
a four lane road and that underpass would be for pedestrians. Dick had the _ II
right idea. He was just 10 years ahead of his time. But, I agree with you. We
should build to the north now and get that underpass. They seen to be more
interested in building underpasses. Is it cheaper? A lot more useable?
Gary Warren: Yes.
Acting Mayor Geving: But that's in the plan. Apparently they like that idea. '
Let's go with the underpass.
Councilman Johnson: That's good where the topography. When we run through from 1
Great Plains to Dakota, the topography is the opposite of what you want. It's
got hills on both sides. Kind of tough to put an underpass in there.
Councilman Horn: Into downtown will be real easy. 1
Acting Mayor Geving: Anymore comments? All we really are looking for tonight
is approval of the Environmental Assessment with the comments that are made here
tonight.
•
Councilman Johnson: We're just submitting comments. We don't actually approve
this. We're not the RGU on this.
Acting Mayor Geving: It says that it's recommended that the City Council
approve the Environmental Assessment. 11
Gary Warren: I guess you can phrase it if you will, we support the
envinronmental assessment with the following concerns.
Acting Mayor Geving: I would like to at least take that motion tonight. Any
councilmember wish to make that?
Councilman Boyt: I have a couple of concerns to add. On page 15 of the
abbreviated report that we received, it talks about noise. We're going to go
through, it says 2 or 3 construction seasons. I think we should direct than in
40 1
207
- City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988
' some way or other that we don't want them building this thing at 2:00 in the
morning. There needs to be some kind of a limit on when they're going to run
ir-
their heavy equipment out there because they're working in residential area. At
least when they're in a residential, or right within whatever the magic distance
is of a residential area, I don't think they should be working 24 hours a day on
11 this thing.
Councilman Horn: Possibly but if you look at minimizing the impact on traffic,
if you recall, when TH 5 was resurfaced here, they did that all at night so we
I didn't have bottlenecks. I don't think we can make a carte blanche statement
that that's a good idea.
II Acting Mayor Geving: It's something though that we should consider and it's
certainly a good comment. When a councilmember makes a comment, I think it's
worty of consideration.
ICouncilman Horn: Well, I think others have their chance to comment also.
Acting Mayor Ceving: Let's get Bill's comments here first.
IICouncilman Boyt: Clark, you're welcome to contradict any of this. Cn
vegetation, page 17. We've done this with some developers recently. I think we
11 should certainly do it with MnDot. that if they take out any trees over, I
would say over 4 inches in diameter, they should replace them with caliper inch
trees no smaller than 2 inches in diameter to equal similar caliper. I don't
envision they're going to take out a whole lot of trees as I recall but I just
think that's a good thing to have in there. Under the wetlands on the same
I page. I think we should point out to them that they need, all the required
Chanhassen permits before they can alter any wetlands.
IActing Mayor Geving: Would that be appropriate Gary for them to come before the
Council and get those permits?
1 Gary Warren: Yes.
Acting Mayor Geving: Okay, so we would have jurisdiction over anything that
II they would alter.
Councilman Boyt: That's all I've got.
IActing Mayor Geving: Okay, now Clark. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off
Clark.
II Councilman Horn: Well I agree with the last one. I think in terms of setting
for MnDot those rules, I'm just so damn glad we're finally getting the road, I
don't want to screw up our chances.
IIActing Mayor Geving: I think the point here is that we don't want to stop
anything or delay anything. Keep it moving and I guess that was the comment I
"fri___ made. Continue to make swift progress. That's right, we don't want to put a
lot of roadblocks in front of this thing. Let's keep it moving.
Gary Warren: At your discretion, point out that we're moving the project along
IIbut obviously we are sensitive to construction impacts and noise.
II41
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I208
City Council Meeting - November 14, 1988
I
Councilman Johnson: For the EA purpose, what Bill's comment is, in the EA we do
' not say you have to do this or have to do that. We don't give them conditions.
We say you have not addressed noise at night in the residential neighborhoods.
We would like to see that addressed because the City of Chanhassen is concerned
about disturbance of the neighbor and will construction be happening at night
that will disturb the nearby residential neighborhoods. So that would be the
comment that we'd be making there on noise. They say they will comply with
local noise laws.
Councilman Boyt: We don't have any.
11 Councilman Johnson: We don't have any but there are state laws.
Acting Mayor Geving: I would entertain a motion in support of the EA. .
Councilman Johnson: With conditions?
Acting Mayor Geving: With concerns.
' Resolution #88-124:
Councilman Horn moved, Acting Mayor Geving seconded to support the Environmental
Assessment Report for TH 5 from TH 41 to Heritage Road with the recommended
concerns discussed by the Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
I
I
t
1
1 42
• 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,i►
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 1, 1988
Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Curt Robinson, Jim Mady, Ed Hasek and Larry
Schroers
MEMBERS ABSENT: Carol Watson
STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman,
Recreation Supervisor
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Hasek moved , Robinson seconded to approve the
' Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated October 18 ,
1988 as presented . All voted in favor and the motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW, CARRICO ADDITION.
Lori Sietesma stated that there were a number of options available for
this site including; asking for nothing, asking for the 3.8 acres, or
asking for the whole thing. Carrico brought in a new plan with 4. 24 acres
of parkland. They said they would be willing to listen to an offer but
would prefer to develop.
Boyt: Did it say somewhere that you were planning on doing some wetland
alteration?
Tom Carrico : What we originally had planned for this , the road kind of
went something, an S from this point to this point and we had
approximately 20 lots planned throughout including over in here and four
in front of the wetland and then creating a wetland, more of a wetlands
behind these four lots here. We ' ve since revised that and come up with a
' different plan that called for 2 homes over here and you cut out two of
the homes here. We' re going to do some work and try to create possibly a
pond or something like that.
' Hasek: Does this generally follow within the zoning district for out
there?
' Tom Carrico : We are working with the City to transfer the zoning so that
we can do a single family development.
' Sietsema : This lies outside the MUSA line so. . .endorse an application to
the Council move this into the sewer .
Hasek: Does that look like it' s pretty good shot?
Tom Carrico: Everything we've got is favorable on it. We' re working , our
surveyor , Frank Harwell happens to be friends with the person at RCM who' s
handling the survey for the City and we've been working with them getting
topographies and so on on this property so that' s been going and the
application for the changes in the MUSA line.
vs
r 4 II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 1, 1988 - Page 2 1
I
Hasek: Have you had any preliminary feedback from city staff or Council?
Tom Carrico: They've been conflicting to be honest. Met Council, we met II
with staff at Met Council and they, of course went on. . . in favor of
changing of the MUSA line but when we talked to the city staff, and they
are very much in favor of it. I
Hasek: The only reason I ask the question is because I know we had gone
through a big hassel with moving that line and giving up the rights to a
II
develop for a while. . .
Tom Carrico : It' s my understanding that there' s 6 or 7 pieces that are
going to be petitioned to Met Council for a MUSA line change.
I
Carl Carrico: Just as a jury. . .when you stop and think about it. All of
you are familiar with it and we' re not, the water and sewer . . . I 've been
in Chanhassen probably longer than any of you. We did our original zoning
in the center property so I kind of like this town. I had owned this
property and grown up as farmers, I don ' t want to create anything here, I
actually we would like to develop this property. I think a park. . .but our
plan is we'd like to develop it. If you people believe you need that
whole piece, then I ' ll entertain a proposal on that but basically I 'm a
developer . I 've owned this property. . .
II
Robinson: How wet is that wetlands?
Carl Carrico : Not very wet at all . I ' ve owned this since 1972 and I ' ve II
never seen any water.
Robinson: No standing water? j
Carl Carrico : No . What has happened here is right through here,
Klingelhutz is starting to drain now and that's what happened. Then the
I
drain actually goes . . .across Lake Lucy Road.
Hasek: So this isn' t any kind of a designated wetland then is it? I
Sietsema : It is a Class B wetland.
Hasek: Can we alter that? I
Sietsema: As I understand , yes . I 'm not a wetland , you'd probably know
more because you' ve had to deal with Jo Ann on it.
II
Tom Carrico : What we' ve got, we've got a letter from the Corps of
Engineers that came out and took a look around and I can get you a copy of
that letter if you'd like.
Hasek: What did they basically say?
IITom Carrico : That it was no problem because the amount that we were going
to have to alter for our purposes was less than an acre.
II
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 1, 1988 - Page 3
Hasek: Okay. I 'm wondering if we can alter part of it.
Carl Carrico: What we had originally planned, we originally were going to
just dig this out a little bit, put this in and have walkouts . That ' s
what we originally were going to do. I 'm not here to rape the land or
' anything else but I 'd like a piece of land . In fact I 'm thinking about
taking one of the lots and building there myself.
Schroers: What you' re thinking about is probably the same thing that
comes to my mind is that in that particular area we need some active use
play area for the residents of the area. That' s the type of parkland we
need. We need a place for the kids in the neighborhood to go and play.
If it' s a wetland that we can ' t alter or if it' s too wet . . .
Carl Carrico: I 've been watching it since 1972 and I 've never seen it
really wet. I ' ve seen cattails in there .
Tom Carrico: We didn' t have any water out there this year but we did cut
it this year . There was no evidence. . . Because we've been back and forth
with the City on this also. Kept post of the wetlands classification.
Schroers : Lori , have you been out to this site and taken a look at it?
Sietsema: No, I .haven' t been out except to drive by it. I haven' t walked
it.
Robinson: Are there trees on it, tall any place?
Tom Carrico: You've got mature trees up in this area here.
Schroers : What' s the total acreage of your property?
Carl Carrico: 12 acres I think.
Tom Carrico : 11. 67.
Hasek: I think there' s enough pieces of property out there. Five is a
nice number but I don' t know that we necessarily need 5. We' ve got
virtually zero where we' re working at right now. I don' t like the idea of
a totlot next to a pond.
Boyt : That ' s what the neighbors asked us and I don ' t think. . .because of
the small children.
Hasek: There are a couple of things that could help this . If we could
buy 6 and 7 or get 6 and 7 incorporated in as part of this deal , work back
and forth.
Carl Carrico: What I 'm saying is, I really want to develop my land but I
' also look at it from the standpoint that maybe the thing to do is at this
point consider buying the whole thing because there is trees and it' s a
nice picnic area .
I
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 1, 1988 - Page 4 ,
I
Sietsema: Do you have any idea what you'd be asking for it? Do you have
any idea of the starting point? You'd have to have it appraised?
Carl Carrico: You know anything I 've ever done, I 've always gotten an
appraisal. The City' s gotten an appraisal and they choose another
appraisal and we work it out. I have a potential profit on it. I
Sietsema: Have you priced any of the land, other land in this area?
Carl Carrico : I know what Klingelhutz is asking for his lots . I
Boyt: His are MUSA lots though.
Mady: Yes , his are MUSA lots . He wants like 35 grand.
Sietsema: I was just wondering if you knew what other property in this
area outside the MUSA similar to this would be.
Carl Carrico: No, I basically, Charlie and I are developing property here
in Minnesota and also in Texas so we' re not into actively seeking other
property here right now. This has been kind of like a hair wound to me.
I bought it to. . . I think what we should do is probably, you guys figure
out what you want to do and my interest right now and my son who ' s my II partner is basically, we want to get the property developed. We like the
property. We think it' s a good area. We like it a lot better than what
Klingelhutz has got. I wouldn ' t tell Tom that to his face, but we are, as II
I said, right now as is shown we' re losing about 7 lots. If you want to
take 6 and 7 than we ' re losing 9 lots . Then it' s getting to a, it' s
really getting to a question of whether it' s worth us developing or not.
Boyt: I 'd like to look at acquiring the full piece. We don ' t have many
chances in this area to acquire property and being it' s outside the MUSA
line . I
Hasek: The nice thing about it, if it' s 11 acres , it' s actually almost
bigger and it ' s considered a little more, it ' s going to develop more
densely in this area in the future anyway. We might prevent a bunch of
screaming and hollering if we pick up a big enough piece. Instead of
making it whatever the radius for a 5 acre park, extend that a little bit II and say this is the park for the area because it should cover all the way
over . . .
Schroers: Not only serving the needs now but in the future. '
Carl Carrico: I was going to talk. The only reason. . .to buy a house. . .
I would certainly consider the whole piece. The thing that I like about,
as we show right here is this outlot is a great area for parking .
Tom Carrico : Yes , in fact that ' s why our surveyor designed this .
Carl Carrico: With that S curve we' re going to slow the drivers down
considerably. What we really wanted to do, this road has almost got to
I
r
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
' November 1, 1988 - Page 5
come in because the fire department is coming back up in here.
Boyt: We talked about if anyone were to help us out. . . in some parkland,
we would name the park after , Carrico Park.
Carl Carrico: That' s very nice but I don' t think. . . We'd have 13 lots
then. If we go any shorter , we really got some problems.
Robinson: You say if you go any shorter than this. Is this acceptable to
you?
Carl Carrico : The 13 is acceptable right now. . .so you make this whole
thing park here and that might work okay. The street is laid out in such
a way that I don' t know if I 'd . . .
Hasek: You could still have 10 lots if you get rid of this bottom piece
and just have a cul-de-sac off the left lane.
Tom Carrico : To be honest , we' ve looked at many possibilities . This is
ithe fifth time we've. . .
Carl Carrico : I think as far as . . .
' Tom Carrico : Our future concerns are that if this area gets all built up,
they'd have to go all the way around. That' s why we created this because
there is an outlot here. That ' s why we created that little street .
Carl Carrico: If you guys bought the whole thing, you could put a road in
anyway you wanted . I think maybe you can get away with it if it' s your
' park. You' re a lot better at developing what you want but I would think,
I love the piece of land to tell you the truth and I am anxious to
develop. We want to start getting somebody on it.
1 Hasek: Okay, you' re not looking for an answer from us tonight then
necessarily?
' Carl Carrico : No, I just came out to tell you I have an interest and a
possibility. . .
Schroers : That you' re willing to give us a shot at this .
Hasek: How long have you been looking at developing this piece now?
Carl Carrico : I 've owned the property since 1972 .
Haesk: But when did you do the first. . .
Tom Carrico : We really started to work really hard on getting this since
the 28th of June. That' s when we had the first plat to cart around in.
We' ve actually had plats done by several other architects . The first time
we came into the City was in June to talk about doing this .
I
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 1, 1988 - Page 6 '
Mady: Actually you have to get approval from the Met Council before you ,
can even go forward with this.
Tom Carrico : That' s our understanding . If we can get the zoning from the I
City contingent with what happens. . .
Hasek: I think we ought to look at this . '
Boyt: He seems real fair. Prepared to sell .
Sietsema: They can' t actually start developing until they get that 1
approval from Met Council and that could be. . .
Hasek: But they could get all of our approvals contingent on. '
Sietsema: Right but Met Council may be over a year process to get that
approved and I don' t know if they want to wait that long . To sit on it
that long. They may just as soon sell it for parkland.
Hasek: I think they might be just a tad optimistic about getting the
approval as easily as they are. They might be trying to right a way
through applications .
Sietsema: That' s right . That' s the only way the City was really able to I
back it is because there was a number of other things and when this came
up, they said let' s look at all the other possibilities and do it as one
big application. '
Hasek: Of course my understanding is that that last time, that last deal
that Met Council struck, they were pretty adamant about the fact that they
didn' t want you coming back for another year trying for more.
Boyt: When was that?
Hasek: A year ago. A year and a half ago. It wasn ' t that long ago.
It' s true that maybe this should have been included but I 'm positive he
was approached when this whole thing went through. I don ' t know if he was I
made aware of what was going on. It would be nice to have the whole
piece. It is a pretty little piece of property.
Sietsema: I think if we could get it for a reasonable price and I don' t I
even know what a reasonable price is. I don ' t think we' re going to get it
for $3 , 500. 00 like the unsewered area in southern Chanhassen but if we
could get it for a reasonable price. 1
Hasek: If we could get it for $5 , 000. 00 . That' s 12 acres in one chunk.
That' s close enough. The thing that we should be thinking about is the
possibility of other areas .
Mady: Thoughts ahead on that though is , right now we do have a park
that' s about three-quarters of a mile away roughly so we really can' t get II
more than half a mile away from this parcel no matter what without people
really being outside the MUSA area. Although it would serve Lake Lucy
1
IMOD
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 1, 1988 - Page 7
' Highlands real nicely.
Sietsema: It will serve Lake Lucy Highlands and Pheasant Hills and it
will serve that area between Curry Farms and Pheasant Hills as well .
Hasek: I have a request for you as long as I 'm looking at this map. Who
does this. . .
Sietsema: Our engineer tech .
Hasek: Is it possible that they could get that map updated? Lake Lucy
Road should be on there.
Sietsema: I sure will tell him. We' ve got more updated ones upstairs .
Robinson: So we need some soil samples on that wetland?
' Sietsema: If you just want to take that portion, like the 3 or the 4
acres, then we do need to look at that more closely as far as, Carterelle,
their engineer ' s opinion that the drainage is going to go through there
and right after a big rain it' s going to be wet for a couple hours but
then it would rain off and then it would be dry. I would just have to
have our engineers confirm that and I don ' t know if that ' s going to take
' soil tests or what .
Schroers : I don' t think that ' s a type of area that is seen for an active
use. Even if it' s going to hold water for a few hours .
Hasek: I think that ' s an excellent use for a soil that' s marginal land .
' If it' s a piece of ground that ever had water on it and excluded it from
development, there would be an awful lot of land in active park areas . If
they' re well constructed, you can even put, well look at the ballfields .
' Schroers : Are you talking about. . .
Hasek: I don' t know. He' s got to get off of those but still there' s
water. I don' t know that it' s necessary the fact that it' s a pond or a
temporary pond .
Schroers : Just the way it looks to me. If the whole area gets wet , it
' looks like most of our parkland would be wet and then unuseable for that
period of time.
Boyt: We' ve taken too many pieces of property and called them parkland .
They' re nice habitats for wildlife but they' re not useable spaces for
children or adults .
Hasek: I think it' s a matter of how it' s altered but the one
consideration or the one piece that I keep looking at is the ballfields
just outside of St. Boni . If you ' ve ever played there in a rain storm,
you know that you can build a ballfield in a wetland because those things
will get 6 inches of water on the ballfield and they' ll continue to play
ball . I think it' s a matter of how you handle the ground and what you
a 1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 1, 1988 - Page 8 ,
really need it for . If it' s going to be flooded for a half a day after a I
heavy rainstorm, I don' t think you really precluded it from being used as
an active area simply because everyplace else is wet too and nobody' s
going to be out there.
Boyt: Our wetlands ordinance is pretty conservative and I think we need
more information on what exactly could be done with a Class B. '
Hasek: I guess all I 'm saying is, the wetland , especially if it' s a flow
through , marginal quick wetland doesn' t scare me in the least. I don' t
know that I would necessarily be in favor of accepting it as park
dedication if it' s really a wetland.
Boyt : They won' t be building on it anyway. '
Robinson: We need a professional opinion I think don't we as to exactly
how wet this wetland is.
Schroers : How much rain we would need in a given period of time to make
the area unuseable and how long it would remain that way.
Robinson: Something like that. Something that we can understand . How
long would 1 inch of rain in an hour sit there?
Hasek: Maybe the easiest thing to do is to ask the City Engineer to take II
a look at it to see what it' s supposed to do. What the city' s storm water
plan has for it and what it really does . '
Sietsema: I guess what I would ask for direction is if you want me to
pursue getting appraisals on the whole parcel? Is that your number one
choice?
Hasek: I'd like to see the whole parcel purchased as long as it isn ' t
terribly outrageous. '
Robinson: Could we look at both alternatives though.
Mady: If the City could keep 10 lots paying taxes and we can get a
useable park of roughly 4 acres , that would work for us I think as long as
the wetlands isn' t too wet. . . .the first one that we got here before he
showed up, worked I think better for us because we could view everything . II
Gain access to the park off of Carrico Lane we have it situated. Maybe
put a totlot in that northeastern corner and just have a ballfield in the
western side provided the wetland isn' t real , real wet. That would work
for us .
Robinson: I would agree with Jim.
Mady: We don' t have to have 12 acres . If we get 4 acres, I 'm pleased and
I think the people in Pheasant Hills and Lake Lucy Highlands would be
perfectly grateful for it. I guess if we get the whole thing and get it
cheaply, that' s fine but if we' re going to be spending more thousand
dollars for a minor , small park, that ' s a tough one.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 1, 1988 - Page 9
Schroers : I also would ou d like us to take into consideration what future
development plans are in the area and if we can use this parcel to
accommodate that . I think we want to look ahead a little bit on this . I
think it may be an opportunity here with the entire parcel to cover this
area well into the future. Prices continue to escalate, why looking at
what we can do with the entire piece right now may be a good way to go.
Mady: That might make some sense . It may become extremely difficult to
get other developers to provide parkland that they really feasibly should
be providing .
Boyt : We've seen so many small developments .
Sietsema: That' s just it. What' s left up there and you can look at the
map that I put in there that shows the southern parcels.
Boyt: It's so unusual to have a developer come in and offer us a third of
his plat in parkland . That' s real unusual .
Schroers: That and giving up the option to take the whole thing. I think
he ' s being real reasonable.
Boyt : I would like to look to the future more. Try for the 11. 67 acres
if it' s reasonable.
Schroers : Or actually, look at all the options and let it play our hand
and see what ultimately, what would be the best avenue to pursue.
Mady: I guess the direction we need to give you Lori then is to get
additional information about the wetland. How much can be altered and
what type of wetland it is and all those types of information. Then find
out what the property really should be approximately for .
Sietsema: That would take an appraisal and I need a motion to have an
appraisal done because it will cost money.
Mady: This will sove a lot of problems. It ' s worth spending a few
hundred dollars if we can solve the problems .
Hasek moved , Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission direct
staff to get an appraisal done on the Carrico property. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
' REVIEW AERIALS FOR SOUTHERN PARK LAND.
Sietsema: Let me just summarize real quick. I wanted to find out the
areas that staff found could be potential parkland. I was going to bring
' you aerial photos down and I forgot. I can go up and get them. I found
these five. I made just some notes on what immediately jumped out at me
on the map that I outlined each piece. Some of them are not really up for
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
g
November 1, 1988 - Page 10
sale and might not be willing sellers . I was not able to contact any of II
the current owners to find out who those are. This is just pointing out
big pieces of land that have some characteristics that we were looking
for . Would you like me to go up and get the aerials? '
Boyt : I don' t like a park along the highway, TH 212.
(The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the aerial photographs of
southern Chanhassen for possible parkland sites .)
Sietsema: At least 80 acres in size was a must. Land costs up to
$3, 500. 00 an acre was a must . South of Lyman was a must. Centrally
located was a want. Near Bluff Creek Trail was a want. Includes nature
area was a want. Near major roads was a want . Buffer to TH 212 was a
want. Available within 2 years was a want. Accommodates horse trails was
a want. Land topography conducive for active facilities was a must. 100
acres in size was a want. Offer unique opportunity was a want. '
Mady: Should we maybe be starting to rate some of those wants or were we
going to do that on an individual basis? Some of those are wants but
they' re not very heavy priority wants .
Boyt: At least 80 acres a must?
Sietsema: At least 80 acres was a must .
Mady: Council made that a must. But if we have a 75 acre parcel that' s
great.
Boyt : Do we have the sizes of all these?
Sietsema: Yes. It' s on your ledger .
Mady: I remember at the Council meeting Bill argued that point . That you II
had to understand what the decision analysis was before we started making
musts and wants because an 80 acre must is actually an 80 acre want . It
should be maybe a 50 acre must. '
Sietsema: At any rate, I wanted to bring those options to your attention.
That does not mean that that' s the only options . It' s just the ones that
are most obvious to staff right at this time. I will be working to get in
touch with the current land owners to find out what their position is as
far as if they' re interested in selling or developing . I don' t need any
action on this . I just wanted to bring it up to your attention for
discussion and show you where it is . If you haven ' t gone out there to
look at those sites, you might want to go out there and see what we' re
actually dealing with.
Mady: Is there a road going into number 3?
Sietsema: Yes. You can drive all the way in there.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 1, 1988 - Page 11
II
I Robinson: Is that a field road or a regular road? Can we get back in
there?
II Sietsema : It' s like a field road that you can get in. We took the city
car in there.
Robinson: Off Pioneer Trail?
IISietsema: Yes .
I Schroers : We need permission to do that wouldn ' t we? We can' t just go
driving around?
Mady: You' re a city official . You can do whatever you want Larry.
ISietsema: You can get permission if you want. We didn' t.
I Schroers : I do that everyday with a truck that has a logo on the side and
people, the first thing they do at the entrance, what are they doing
here? Are they going to cut down the trees? Are they going to build a
I road to my house? You can draw a lot of attention to yourself in a truck
like that.
II Sietsema: Do you have any more discussion on those or do you have any
direction to give me or do you want me to just proceed with contacting
landowners?
II Schroers : I 'd like you to proceed . I think we need to know if there' s
any real possibility of the land being obtainable before we go off and
start tramping around on it.
I Robinson: I think we should go out, each of us, and take a look at it and
come back with some sort of opinion on it. More so than just looking at a
map.
ISietsema: Yes , I 'd like you to go out there and see what it looks like.
II Robinson: So you just scoped these out. You have no idea if they' re for
sale or anything?
Sietsema : No . I have no idea . Dawn was just saying that the people that
I abut her property, the people who own the property around here are likely
to be interested in selling . The guy to the north quoted them a price of
$5,000. 00 an acre but she said he may just be feeling them out as far as
II what they were willing to pay. It ' s likely, the Erharts aren ' t interested
in selling and I knew that when I put this in here. It was an open, big
piece of land so I just included it.
1 Hasek: Was the piece to the east of TH 101 for sale?
Sietsema : I believe it is and I think they' re asking $3 , 500. 00 an acre. I
' have to verify that with the landowner.
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 1, 1988 - Page 12
Hasek: Okay, so that would be at least an indication of the potential
cost of land in the neighborhood right?
Mady: That was the southern portion of that.
Sietsema: Right. Just that bottom 33 acres.
Hasek: Is there any possibility with topography to get another 21?
Connect a piece in case that' s all that' s available. Really that' s what
you' re talking about .
Sietsema: He' s way up in the air . If you drive down that stretch of TH
101, you look up a bank to see his house.
Mady: And it goes down to the Erhart property.
Sietsema: Then across the road is their wetland.
Hasek: Is TH 101 going to be improved?
Sietsema: Someday.
Hasek: Number 5 really excites me. I like that piece of property a lot .
If you could do that, I think that would be a nice piece to chase. Beyond
that , I think either 3 or 4 seems to be the most likely. I 'd like to have II
some access at least off of an existing roadway so it doesn ' t have to go
through a neighborhood . If we went with 2 or 1, we 'd have to go through
neighborhoods. We' re not going to get access to 212 through there anyway. II
You' d have to come off on Pioneer Trail all the way back over . . .
Sietsema: So is there any action?
Hasek: I don' t think we need any.
Robinson: I think the action' s on our part to go out. '
Sietsema: Right . That' s your assignment for the next time is to have
gone out and looked at those pieces of property and get an idea of what
they actually look like. My assignment will be then to contact the land
owners .
Mady: If we get arrested , can we call Jim Chaffee to come and get us out
of jail?
Sietsema: Sure.
Mady: That' s an active deer hunting area is it not? You can shoot a gun
down there?
Sietsema: So wear blaze orange.
1
Patk and Rec Commission Meeting
November 1, 1988 - Page 13
UPDATE ON LAKE RILEY CHAIN OF LAKES CLEAN UP PROJECT.
' Sietsema• The next item then is the update on the Lake Riley chain of
a es c can up projec o you have any questions on ha
Mady: You sent that memo out to the Lake Lucy residents?
' Sietsema: Today.
' Mady: Today, okay. Because I know they were concerned about it.
Sietsema: Since I 've written this memo, Jo Ann told me that they have set
a meeting date that I will be attending on what we have to do. They' re
saying that the Environmental Protection Agency wants to allocate the
funds to other projects because this one is inactive. The inactivity. We
haven' t been doing anything, Watershed who is the local agent has not been
doing anything because they haven' t got that substate grant signed yet.
They haven' t executed the contract and we haven' t gotten final grant
approval so they' re sitting there waiting . So there' s a communication
' problem somewhere. Somebody is supposed to be doing something that isn' t
happening . I ' ll let you know as I know more on that project .
Schroers: Is there anything that we can do about it?
Sietsema : No . I ' ll go to that meeting and maybe there will be after
that. But as of right now, there really isn' t.
1 Schroers : Do we have to meet the criteria like with public accesses or
anything like that before the grant is actually approved?
' Sietsema: We had to commit to putting access on Lake Susan and Lake Lucy
and we did send them the resolution from the City Council saying that they
are committed to doing that. We put a time line down of how we could
' apply for grant money to do that. I have never heard back from them that
that was not acceptable so I 'm assuming that that time line and that
resolution was what they needed to proceed. Maybe I ' ll find out that
that ' s what the problem was and they never communicated that to us . I
don't know but all the agencies that are involved with the project will be
meeting at this meeting and I ' ll be there and I ' ll let you know what
happens at that time.
UPDATE ON LAWCON GRANT PROJECTS .
Sietsema: We got 50o grant on a $222 , 000. 00 project for the Lake Susan
boat access and athletic field developments so that ' s $111, 000. 00 that
LAWCON will be giving us .
Schroers: Does that cover our archery range?
' Sietsema: That was not in the plan . They' ll send us back the things that
they didn' t like about plan and what we have to change about it. Then we
have to do a Historical Society comes out and makes sure there aren ' t any
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
November 1, 1988 - Page 14 '
r
artifacts that we'd be disturbing . We have to have the Army Corps of
Engineers sign off on the project. We have to do an Environmental
Intrusion Statement on the project site . There' s a number of forms. A
whole packet of things we have to submit as a final application. As long
as we aren' t deviating from what the scope of the initial plan was, I 've
never seen them not, I ' ve done 7 of them now.
Robinson: And we have $111, 000 . 00, that' s part of the $300, 000. 00 that
I heard mentioned?
Sietsema: The total project cost was $222, 000. 00. They' ll fund it 50% .
The other 50% is our local share but part of that can be done with the
Lake Drive East will be going in because Rosemount is going in so that' s a
good share of it right there. We may be able to get Rosemount to do some I
of our grading for us . That' s part of our share. We can probably get a
good part of the local share, at least the grading portion of it done by
the other development that' s going on so we have a real good opportunity
here to get a huge project done for cheap.
Robinson: And relatively soon too .
Sietsema : Yes . We could get final approval on this like by March and
start development right after that.
Mady: There ' s no way to use the tax increment district?
Sietsema: I don' t think so.
Mady: I had one other question. Can we get an update on the Lake Ann -
grading? Do we have any bids or anything on that?
Sietsema: I haven' t got the grading plan back yet. To tell you the
truth, I was kind of curious about that myself. I ' ll call .
Hasek : Did we ever see a final plan?
Sietsema: Yes . You saw a final site plan but you haven ' t seen a grading '
plan yet.
Mady: The Council approved that.
Sietsema: I ' ll call Laurie tomorrow and find out.
Mady: And get us an update .
Hasek: Can I ask you to send me a copy of that because I 'd like to see a
big plan of that.
Mady: We should also have available next time at the Community Center
Task Force meetings because that really does lay out what' s happening at
Lake Ann .
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
11 November 1, 1988 - Page 15
Boyt : The next time we have a light agenda , it would be a good idea to
talk about what we'd like to see for Park and Rec Commissioner
requirements .
' Sietsema : A while back Council directed staff to come up with a P rocess
by which commissioners should be selected and I think that Barb was going
' to work on that. I don' t know whatever happened to that so I haven' t even
been able to get in to talk to Don.
' Mady: Are there any of us coming up for renomination this year?
Sietsema: Yes, Curt. Mike' s term was up in December so those were the
two.
' Schroers : How many applications do we have?
Sietsema: I think I have 5.
Robinson moved , Hasek seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned .
Submitted by Lori Sietsema
Park and Rec Coordinator
Prepared by Nann Opheim
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
I
1
I