1f. Minutes CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 9, 1989
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman,
Councilwoman Dimler, and Councilman Johnson
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Larry Brown, Steve
Hanson, Todd Gerhardt, Lori Sietsema and Jim Chaffee
OATHS OF OFFICE: Roger Knutson administered the oaths of office for Mayor
Chmiel, Councilman Tom Workman and Councilwoman Ursula Dimler.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the agenda with
the following additions and changes: Councilman Johnson asked to move the Oaths
of Office prior to approval of the agenda and Councilman Boyt wanted to discuss
the squad car, Moon Valley mineral extraction, and Park and Trail fees. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATION: PRESENTATION OF GIFT FROM THE MAYOR OF TAUFKIRCHEN,
BAVARIA FROM STEFFAN GRIESSER, FOREIGN EXCHANGE STUDENT.
Steffan Griesser: This is a mug showing the Coat of Arms of my town,
Taufkirchen which is a town in the heart of Bavaria of about 1,000 habitants.
Many farms. Nothing more. This is a letter. I don't know what's in there. I
haven't read it.
Mayor Chmiel: I think Steffan, you best read this.
Steffan Griesser: Dear Mr. Mayor. I want to send you greetings through the
student Steffan Griesser who lives in the community of Taufkirchen. Steffan
will present a mug in the name of our community, coat of arms of that community
to you. He's going to live in your town for one year with a family. The
community of Taufkirchen is a typical country community with only 1,200
inhabitants. It is located about 80 kilometers east of Munich and covers an
area of approximately 25 square kilometers. About 50% of our inhabitants are
farmers. The rest are workers, businessmen, craftsmen. The financial status of
our community is very good so that we can cover our expenses without
difficulties. At the moment we are constructing a community center, a City Hall
and Fire Brigade Hall with a cost of about 4 million German marks which is about
$2,225,000.00. Apart from this there are not any special occasions. For your
work but also for your family, I wish you all the best. Friendly greetings.
Mayor Chmiel: We too in exchange for the gift presented to us, we are going to
send to your Honorable Mayor of Taufkirchen in Bavaria and the letter will read
as such: The City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, USA was extremely honored to
receive a token from your community as a part of our City Council meeting on
January 9, 1989. Mr. Steffan Griesser is an outstanding young man and we've
heard many good things about you. One of whom your country, and ours, can be
1
44
City Council Meeting - January 9, 1989
proud of. It is with deepest of respect and desire to insure that our
friendship shall continue into the years ahead that I present the attached
tokens of our appreciation. The board that we have in this larger box here, was
cut from a maple tree. The tree for which our community was named.
Specifically it was the American Indian who first settled our area and gave the
city it's name Chanhassen in recognition of the numberous stands and beauty of
the sugar maple trees within our community. The maple syrup, which we also have
in the smaller box, is unique in this area and other parts of North America
where sugar maples are abundant. On behalf of the Chanhassen City Council, I
would again like to thank you for your hospitality. May 1989 be a good and
prosperous year for you and our cities.
ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS:
RULES OF PROCEDURE AND 1989 MEETING SCHEDULE.
Mayor Chmiel: • Getting back to the organizational items, item 2(a) , Rules of
Procedure for the 1989 Meeting Schedule. Are there any additions or changes?
Councilman Johnson: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I have a few. Starting at the front, I
think this is almost out of sequence here in that they also have a
recommendation for City Council meetings and the last two months they come on
the 1st and 3rd Mondays versus the 2nd and 4th. This was at my suggestion
because the fourth Monday of December happens to be Christmas. I didn't think
we really wanted to meet that day. In order to get our two meetings i.n, it
worked out, the 1st and 3rd worked out. If everybody has looked at the schedule
and liked that, I'd like to modify Section 1.01 by adding to the end of it a
statement that something to this effect. Due to the Thanksgiving, Christmas
holiday season, the November and December, 1989 regular meetings shall be on the
first and third Mondays at 7:30 p.m., so that we cover that slightly different
schedule than what is shown in our Rules of Procedures.
Councilman Hoyt: I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Are there any further discussions?
Hearing none, we'll vote...
Councilman Johnson: Vote on that one change?
Mayor Chmiel: Vote on that one change of item 1.01 of Regular Meetings
indicating those as to what you had indicated from the 2nd and 4th to the 1st
and 3rd Mondays.
Councilman Johnson: That's just for the months of November and December.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Are there any additional housekeeping?
Councilman Johnson: Yes, there's plenty. Are we going to vote on these one at
a time because I have several more?
Mayor Chmiel: I was thinking that as we continued on with the Rules of
Procedure, I think what we have to do is go one by one with this or any of those
that you feel should be changed, just address those automatically rather than
2
1 I 0
City Council Meeting - January 9, 1989
going one by one which would just take too much time.
Councilman Johnson: Because I've got about 3 or 4 areas I'd like to discuss.
Section 1.08, Curfew. I believe what I'd like to add, at the end of the second
sentence, no meeting shall continue past 12:00 midnight. Since we've found that
necessary several times, I hate to have rules that restrict you totally. I'd
like to put in a comma, unless approved by the Council. It becomes more of a
target because in order to do a lot of business, it will become necessary I
suspect.
Councilwoman Dimler: Could I amend that to say, approved by the Council by
four-fifths vote?
Mayor Chmiel: There's a motion with an amendment to that motion. Will you
accept that?
Councilman Johnson: Yes. I have no problem.
Roger Knutson: Maybe I can just point out it's already in there. That is
Section 12, Page 7 that you have right now.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, thank you Roger. So we don't need that amendment
whatsoever.
Councilwoman Dimler: Then I withdraw it.
Councilman Johnson: We don't need mine either because what Section 12 says is
that we can waive with a four-fifths vote any of the rules that we've got.
Mayor Chmiel: Any of the rules specifically so that can be struck.
Councilman Johnson: Then page 5 and 6, Section 10.02, Passage of Ordinance,
Resolutions and Motions. You talk about, let me just read the first sentence
here. Every ordinance, resolution be presented in writing, and read in full at .:
a Council meeting provided however that the reading of an ordinance or
resolution may be dispensed with by unanimous consent and I'd like to also put
in here, or when passed on the Consent Agenda. Several times our ordinances
will also be on the Consent Agenda in which case they won't be read. That's the
end of my changes that I recommend to this.
Mayor Chmiel: That specific one has been moved. Is there a second to make that
change?
Councilman Boyt: I'll second it if it clarifies things.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to amend Section 10.02,
Passage of Ordinance, Resolutions and Motions to include the phrase, or when
passed on the Consent Agenda at the end of sentence, Every ordinance, resolution
be presented in writing, and read in full at a Council meeting provided however
that the reading of an ordinance or resolution may be dispensed with by
unanimous consent. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
3
ra
41-0 Council Meeting - January 9, 1989
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to amend Section 1.01 to
include the following sentence: Due to the Thanksgiving, Christmas holiday
season, the November and December, 1989 regular meetings shall be on the first
and third Mondays at 7:30 p.m.. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have under Section 2, Agenda for Regular Meetings and
specifically addressing Section 2.02, the Maintenance of the Agenda to be found
on page 3. In the second paragraph it starts the Mayor and each councilmanber
shall be provided with an agenda and Minutes and so on and it goes on to say at
least 72 hours prior to the meeting. I would like to change that to read, 96
hours prior for the following reason. I believe that by receiving the packet on
Thursday rather than on Friday, it usually comes in the afternoon or evening,
close to evening, that this would give us one extra business day where we can
consult with the City staff. Otherwise you only have Monday which is the day of
the meeting and sometimes it is difficult to get information in that short a
period of time. So I would move that we change that from 72 hours to 96 hours.
Councilman Johnson: I'll second her move. You and I have discussed this too.
I'd even like to move it back another day to Wednesday so that we can have it
reviewed. There's a lot of times I spend a lot of today on the phone with staff
going over some of these items and they don't just have the time to review it in
that time. I think at least on Thursday. Probably in conjunction with that, I
think there may be someplace in here when it says all business coming to us has
to be in by the Monday before. We could roll that date at the same time as this
date rolls back would be another suggestion.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. With the moving of the 96 hour and it has been
seconded. All those in favor?
Councilman Boyt: I have a comment first. I think that as I suspect this is
going to pass but it's not going to without consequence. One consequence is
that over the past couple of years, if not longer, I think the Council has
wanted to do this. The responses that I've always received is that there's not
staff time to do it.- That staff is very frequently working until the end of the
day Friday to get information typed up, copied and out as it is now. It makes
sense to do this except that somewhere we're going to be telling people they
can't get on the agenda and I just want to be sure that as we vote for this, we
all recognize that there are going to be builders and developers, and others,
who are fighting timelines, that are not going to make the agenda with this
deadline.
Councilman Johnson: One of the big problems is people bringing in information
late. There is a restriction. Everything that's to be presented to the Council
has to be in by the Monday prior to it. We have people bringing things in at
the Council meetings. Bringing things in late Friday and whatever. If the
enforcement is earlier, it can work but I think that Monday has to be rolled
back to the previous Friday to give staff that extra, or we could roll it back
to the previous Thursday.
Don Ashworth: I think Bill's points are good. I have talked with Karen on this
item. I'm aware that it is a desired change. Accordingly staff will abide by
the Council's wishes and get the agendas out on Thursday. The only exceptions
may be where we have machine down time or in the instance of like a Monday
4
' City Council Meeting - January 9, 1989
holiday which gives us one less working day. Otherwise, we will do everything
within our power to accommodate and try to do this.
Mayor Chmi.el: As mentioned previously, be changed to the 96, at least 96 hours
prior to each regular council meeting.
Councilwoman Di.mler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to amend Section
2.02, Maintenance of Agenda to change 72 hours to 96 hours prior to each regular
Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Are there any additional items?
Councilman Boyt: I have one Mr. Mayor. On page 2, 1.07, Consent Agenda. It's
been our practice to any items that were removed from the Consent Agenda to
place those first on the regular agenda. Frequently we have people here who
just want to see if it's going to pass or not and usually if something is pulled
off the Consent Agenda it's for fairly simple, straight forward kind of change.
So rather than put than last on the agenda, I'd like to see than moved up to the
- first order of business.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see the enforcement of the last sentence on
this also. If the applicant's not here and it's going to be discussed, that we
table it. Something that we've never done before. I think that's fair to the
applicant. An administrative comment.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, the motion is to move the Consent Agenda to the first order
of business.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to amend Section 1.07 to read
that if an item is removed from the Consent Agenda, that the itan be discussed
as the first order of business. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: I would like to make a motion that we accept the Rules of
Procedure for Conduct of City Council business and a resolution number will have
to be added to this. Is there a number for that Don?
Don Ashworth: No, it has not yet been assigned.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, a number then will be assigned as a resolution number.
Councilman Johnson: I'll second that.
Resolution #89-01: Mayor Chmi.el moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve
the Rules of Procedure and the 1989 Meeting Schedule as amended. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
1
L
5
48
City Council Meeting - January 9, 1989
OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER.
Don Ashworth: The City has received a copy of a request from the Sailor as well I
as the Villager to act as the official newspaper for the City. The City
Attorney has researched the issue and really feels that only the Villager can be
considered under Minnesota Statute. Roger is prepared to discuss that item 11 further should the Council wish further elaboration. Otherwise, staff is
recommending appointment of the Villager.
Mayor Chmiel: With staff's recommendation, Roger do you have any comment? '
Roger Knutson: I can tell you how I got there if you want to know but otherwise
no. ,
Councilman Johnson: I'll move the adoption of the Villager as our official
newspaper.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second it.
Councilman Boyt: I think it's important that we ask Roger to indicate the 1
rationale behind his position so that people understand how we got to this.
Roger Knutson: To be appointed your official newspaper, there are two
criterias. First, they must be a qualified, legal newspaper. Both the Sailor
and the Villager are qualified legal newspapers. The Sailor is right in their
comments about that. Once you have more than one qualified newspaper, then the
Statutes go on to say, among the qualified newspapers, you have to go through a
ranking. If any of the qualified newspapers have a known office of issue in
your city, you must appoint that newspaper. As I understand it, the Villager is
the only newspaper that has a known office of issue within the City. The Sailor '
does not. Therefore, the Sailor is not qualified and the Villager is.
Mayor Chmiel: We have Mr. Chris Burns from the Sailor. Do you wish to make any
comment?
Chris Burns: I'm not versed in which aspect of the Statute where it goes on to
state that. I would only like the Council to know that there are two other
communities where we have the exact same situation, Wayzata and Eden Prairie and
both of those communities the Sailor has been determined to qualify as a legal
publication. In fact in Wayzata, I believe in the past we have been chosen as
the legal publication over the paper that is actually located there so I guess I
can't understand how you can find that interpretation and those other
communities haven't.
Roger Knutson: You are a qualified legal newspaper. That is not the issue but
the Statute is very explicit. It doesn't require any interpretation. It's just
a matter of reading it and the Statute says, if there's more than one qualified
legal newspaper, here's the rank in which you must select that newspaper from
among the qualified papers. If any of them have a known office of issue, that
paper shall be designated. That's what the Statute says. If someone else isn't
following the law, I guess I don't know their situation.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to select the Villager as
Chanhassen's Official Newspaper. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
6 �
s
City Council Meeting - January 9, 1989
OFFICIAL DEPOSITORY.
Mayor Chmiel: The next item of business is the official depository for the City
of Chanhassen. I have received a letter from the Bank of Chanhassen and it's
addressed to the Mayor and members of Council. It's written by the President of
I the Bank. Rather than reading the entirity of the letter, they are expressly
requesting that they do become the official depository and I would like to make
that motion that the Chanhassen Bank be the official depository for the City of
Chanhassen.
Councilwoman Dimler: I second that.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to appoint The Bank Chanhassen
as the Official Depository for the City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and
' the motion carried.
' CITY ATTORNEY, BOND CONSULTANT AND CITY AUDITORS.
Mayor Chmiel: The next item is the City Attorney. There are two items
actually, I'd like to take these together if I could. Items (d) and (j) . I've
' had some discussions with Mr. Ashworth regarding these two and I'd like you to
just sort of clarify those discussions that we had Don.
Don Ashworth: The City Council does have the authority to, both the auditing
function as well as the City Attorney's function is a fees for service type of a
position. As such, there is no requirement to officially bid. However, many
cities do interview their consultants and one of the suggestions was that during
the course of 1989 and potentially as early as possible in 1989, that the City
of Chanhassen use that process to have an opportunity to interview potential
persons for both auditing as well as City Attorney.
Mayor Chmiel: I think with those two specific items that we've mentioned. It's
not saying, at least in my opinion, that Roger is not doing a qualified job but
' I think it's the responsibility basically of the City to go out and request
these. I think you're doing fine work for us but I think it's time that we do
make a motion or a change of such to go out and request bids from these
respective two items. So with that, I would like to open it for discussion with
the Council.
Councilman Boyt: Well Don I would suggest that if you're going to do that, it
' would make sense to add (e) to the list.
Mayor Chmiel: Bond consultant?
Don Ashworth: That also is a fees for service type of service back to the
community and could very easily be reviewed as a part of other consultants.
Mayor Chmiel: I would so move that the bond consultant also be.
Councilman Boyt: Now my question would be, I happen to agree with Jay. I think
we're paying too much there. I think with both (d) and (e) , there is an
7
City Council Meeting - January 9, 1989
advantage to a long term relationship and I just wonder, if we're going to
actually considering interviewing people, that means we're going to have to
consider changing. I'm just raising the question, do we really want to stir
that up when we have the advantage of, especially with the City Attorney, of
having a relationship that in fact grows better with time because a person
develops a history of a particular city and has been successful in representing
the City.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. I fully agree.
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, I would encourage all the present positions
there to reapply and they would certainly be on our list to reconsider.
Councilman Johnson: I think one thing I'd like to make sure that we don't, if '
we do this, we don't have to do it strictly on a price basis but it's more on
what we believe we can get quality of service. I think that always gives an
advantage actually to the existing person because he has, like you said, more
history and stuff. I always think it's a good idea with consultants, to keep
them sharp and make them rebid against somebody else every now and then. It
never hurts. I have no problem with doing that. To do that, what do we 11 basically do? Table these (d) , (e) and (j)?
Don Ashworth: I would recommend that the existing people be continued until
such time as a change were made.
Mayor Chmiel: As a part of that, that doesn't require any action or shall we?
Don Ashworth: Maybe if I can ask the City Attorney. Is that the type of an ,
item that, I know in other areas you've taken a position that a person continues
in office until a subsequent change is made. Recognize this is first of year,
would you like to see the City Council adopt, in other words, to name those
persons who will be acting until interviews are conducted or can we just simply
go on?
Roger Knutson: It really doesn't matter the way you want to handle it. Frankly
in most cities we work, this item does not come up on the agenda. It always has
since I've been here. It's your practice which is fine. It wouldn't even have
to be an agenda item. We all serve at your pleasure and as long as you want us
here and you don't want us here.
Mayor Chmiel: Then I would expect a motion from Council. 1
Councilman Johnson: I move that we table item (d) , (e) and (j) and continue
with Granni.s, Grannis, Farrell and Knutson as the City Attorney until such time
as the City Council has had a chance to look over the bids. Andy Merry of
Meritor Financial Mericur as the bond consultant and Voto, Tautges, Redpath and
Company as the City Auditors for the interim. ,
Councilman Workman: I'll second that.
Councilman Boyt: I believe that we've already entered into contract with the '
auditors. Is that correct?
8 II
City Council Meeting - January 9, 1989
Don Ashworth: For the 1988 audit work. I'm assuming that Councilman Johnson's
motion is, should there be any service work that's required during the next 2 to
3 month period of time, that Voto would be the one that would be used.
' Councilman Boyt: I think what is really called for here is possibly a motion to
consider other applicants for these positions but we can go ahead and approve
' these tonight as they stand. As you've indicated, we already have our auditors
for this past year which means they'll be working this year to do that audit.
The bond consultant is really chosen anytime we have a bond issue, so that one's
11 can And as Roger indicated, the City Attorney works at. our pleasure and we
can change that at any time so I think there's no need to table this.
Councilman Workman: It's not part of the City rules is it?
' Don Ashworth: Most of these are first of year appointments under the Statute
with the exception of the City Attorney which as all other cities I've been in
' have had that one as a first of year appointment.
Roger Knutson: A lot of them do. A lot of them don't.
' Mayor Chmiel: I think we best retain what we had then. Put out the request for
proposals and then we'll move from there.
Councilman Johnson: I'll modify my motion. Instead of tabling, to retain what
we have. I mean it's the same difference.
' Mayor Chmiel: With that change and Tom seconded, if you agree with that change
Tom?
Councilman Workman: Sure.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to continue with Grannis, _
' Grannis, Farrell and Knutson as the City Attorney, Andy Merry of Mentor
Financial Mericur- as the bond consultant and Voto, Tautges, Redpath and Company
as the City Auditors in the interim until such time as the City Council has had
a chance to look over the bids. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ACTING MAYOR.
Mayor Chmiel: Rules of that particular procedure, Don would you like to go
through them?
Don Ashworth: The City Council yearly picks from among itself the Acting Mayor.
In the past I'm unaware of a specific policy in that area that has guided the
Council in terms of how that selection should be made. Staff does not feel that
we're in a position really to make a recommendation.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want nominations?
ILMayor Chmiel: Yes, I would open it for nomination.
9
£li.ty Council Meeting - January 9, 1989
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, I would nominate Tom Workman for Acting Mayor
in your absence.
Mayor Chmiel: Tom has been suggested as Acting Mayor. Is there any discussion? ,
Hearing none, is there a second? If there is not a second, I would like to
second that. It has been moved and seconded.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to appoint Councilman Workman
as Acting Mayor. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
WEED INSPECTOR.
Mayor Chmiel: Don, would you like to clarify the weed inspector?
Don Ashworth: The weed inspector under State Law is the Mayor. Past practice
has been for the City Council to name a staff person as the acting weed
inspector. I feel that Scott Harr is in the best position to do that. I know
we started with Gary Warren but I think really Scott is.. .
Mayor Chmiel: It has been suggested that Scott Harr be the Deputy Weed
Inspector. I would entertain a motion for that.
Councilwoman Dimler: I so move.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? 1
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to appoint Scott Harr as
the Deputy Weed Inspector. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
FIRE CHIEF.
Don Ashworth: State law requires the designation of Fire Chief as part of first i
of year appointments. However, our local ordinance establishes the Fire Chief
for a 2 year position. Dale Gregory is in the second year, will be starting the
second year. He has received the endorsement of the Fire Department and staff
would recommend designation of Dale Gregory as the Fire Chief.
Councilman Johnson: I'd be proud to move Dale Gregory as our Fire Chief to
continue for the next year.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to appoint Dale Gregory
as Fire Chief for the next year. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1
1
10
i
I
1 City Council Meeting - January 9, 1989
HEALTH OFFICER.
Don Ashworth: Dr. McCollum has served the City over the past many years. He
I receives the large salary of $1.00 per year and staff is recommending that Dr.
McCollum be again appointed for 1989. He has agreed to accept that if you would
offer it to him.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to appoint Dr. McCollum
' be retained as the Health Officer for the City of Chanhassen for 1989. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
COUNCIL APPOINTMENT TO PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION.
Don Ashworth: You have a vacancy in the Public Safety Commission. Recognizing
that the Ordinance requires that a member of the City Council serve on that
group. Again, as Mayor Hamilton is no longer Mayor or on the Council, there is
a vacancy and according to the ordinance, the Council should pick a member from
among itself to serve on that Commission.
' Mayor Chmiel: Being we have the Council appointment to be on the Public Safety
Commission, is there anyone on the Council who would be more than willing to
serve on the Public Safety.
Councilman Boyt: I'll take it.
Councilman Johnson: Then I'll nominate you.
Councilwoman Dimler: And I'll second that nomination.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to appoint Councilman
IBoyt to serve on the Public Safety Commission. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
' CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
Ia. Resolution #89-02: Approve Change Orders for City Hall and Fire Station
Projects.
b. Resolution #89-03: Accept Plans and Specifications and Authorize the
Advertising for Bids, Aerial Ladder Truck.
c. Final Plat Approval, Ersbo Addition.
f. Accept Streets in Pheasant Hills 4th Addition.
i. Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Cleaning, Painting and
Repairing 100,000 Gallon Elevated Water Storage Tank, West 76th Street.
11
City Council Meeting - January 9, 1989
j. Issue Certificate of Compliance for Chanhassen Vista 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th
Additions, Enterprise Properties, Inc.
k. Issue Certificate of Compliance for Lake Lucy Highlands, Merrill Stellar.
1. Approve Federal Aid Highway Agency Revised Agreement Regarding Utility
Accommodation Policy.
m. Resolution #89-04: Accept Plans and Specifications for West 78th Street
Stormwater Retention Pond, Kronick; Authorize Advertising for Bids. ,
n. Approval of Accounts.
o. City Council Minutes dated December 12, 1988 ,
City Council Minutes dated December 19, 1988
Public Safety Commission Minutes dated December 15, 1988
Park and Recreation Coninission Minutes dated December 13, 1988
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
(D) FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, '
MINNEWASHTA HIGHLANDS.
Councilman Boyt: Item (d) , I think speaks to a point that really might be 1
somewhat relevant to the ability of staff to get things completed in time for a
council meeting that we talked about earlier. It also relates to developers
understanding that they need to meet these criteria prior to the council
meeting. If you look on page 2, item 11, landscaping was a fairly important
part of this particular plat. We spent quite a bit of time the evening it was
initially passed discussing landscaping and we find that the developers have not
completed their landscaping plan. We don't have that in front of us. I find
that the landscaping plan that they have completed, doesn't meet the criteria
that I had when I suggested that they come up with a landscaping plan. Not
being able to go out and see the site as part of the council meeting, we left
this open to staff to work out with the developer a reasonable means of
screening this piece of property from the people between them and the lake
basically. I find that 1 pine tree for every 40 feet does not accomplish that.
I can understand and one of the reasons we wanted staff to look at this was that
if berming was talked about, berming doesn't fit the site according to staff but
1 tree in 40 feet doesn't fit the plan, that I had in mind anyway. I would like
to see instead of passing this along, which basically says it was alright to not
come in with a landscaping plan, I'd like to see this tabled until we have a
landscaping plan.
Councilman Workman: If I could add to that. I was approached by the people
who, the proposed property here, the property between it and the lake. Lake
Minnewashta. There's 3 property owners there who suggested that they're going
to have a drainage problem across their property. Now I don't know, item 7, a
15 inch diameter culvert will be required underneath the northerly proposed
driveway. I'm not sure what the northerly proposed driveway is. These 3
properties apparently were affected by what is known as the Maple Ridge
development just north of there. Apparently a pond was filled in and the City
is working to clear that. These people would like some more time. I'd like to
move that we table it to give this people more time to figure out where the I
12 ,
•
•
j
City Council Meeting - January 9, 1989
II ir drainage is going to go. Not only from Maple Ridge but also this new item. Do
we know that yet? What is considered the northerly proposed driveway?
Larry Brown: That condition inadvertently was included off of the original
submittal. That condition is no longer valid for this plat. To address your
concern, normally we would have them go through a plans and specifications
review. What you're suggesting maybe is that they come up with another grading
plan prior to this returning so that we can address those drainage issues.
' Councilman Boyt: Another question if I might Mr. Mayor. Larry, is there a
drainage problem here? Is that what you're saying? The current grading plan
shows that there will be a drainage problem?
' Larry Brown: The plans which they have submitted does not indicate any proposed
grading other than what would be anticipated through the house pad construction.
So with the exception of the building of the cul-de-sac, which we would
anticipate would direct more of the drainage which is running radially outward
from the center into the cul-de-sac and onto Lake Minnewashta Parkway and not
back to those homes so in all actuality, we would anticipate that they're
' improving it. However, without the actual document in front of us, we really
don't...
Councilman Boyt: You haven't seen a grading plan yet?
' Larry Brown: No.
Councilman Boyt: Isn't that normally part of a final plat approval?
Larry Brown: We would normally run them through a grading, drainage and erosion
control plan to be approved by Council as part of plans and specifications
review process.
Gary Warren: I might add if I could Mr. Mayor. The Watershed District, the
' size of this subdivision is less than 2 acres. Just barely but it is so it's
less than what the Watershed District considers as warranting an extensive
drainage study. The proposal as it came through the process called for the
' minimal grading of the site. We weren't talking about mass grading which would
normally generate a full drainage review also so the submittal as it came
through the preliminary platting process, which did subsequently change to a
' cul-de-sac scenario, really was a minor modification to the subdivision area.
The drainage issue as far as the City's pond that Councilman Workman referenced,
was filled and we have been working with a builder up there who had been filling
in this area to use that as a pond site. He is on notice and will be cleaning
it up as soon as the weather allows in the spring. My personal review of the
area up there, I don't think we have significant runoff and as Larry mentioned,
I think will even be improving the subdivision runoff because of the cul-de-sac
' and the transfer really of some of the drainage to the Lake Minnewashta Parkway
area. Larry is correct in that we should be looking at this on a lot by lot
basis as the submittals come in and we'll take a close look when plans and specs
are submitted as required for the roadway improvement.
ILCouncilwoman Dimler: Could I have a point of clarification Gary from you? It
is my understanding that this is going to be 5 homes on this 2.19 acres which
' seems like a lot of development but I guess they do meet the 15,000 square foot
13
City Council Meeting - January 9, 1989
minimum lot size. However, condition 7 stated that there's a 15 inch diameter
culvert to be underneath the northerly proposed driveway and I don't see that it
explains where this will drain. Could you explain to me where this will drain? i
Gary Warren: Larry was mentioning, I think that condition is not correct. Is
that right?
Larry Brown: That's correct. That was for the original submittal and
inadvertently got placed for the revised plat which shows a cul-de-sac. So if
the Council sees fit, we could eliminate condition 7. ,
Councilwoman Dimler: I would move then that we eliminate condition 7 from this
final plat approval for Minnewashta Highlands. '
Gary Warren: To answer your question a little further Councilwoman Dimler, the
drainage along Minnewashta Parkway that that condition addressed originally was
I believe for the drainage along the roadway isn't it Larry? 1
Larry Brown: That's correct.
Gary Warren: Which is not being diverted. I
Mayor Chmiel: Councilman Boyt made the motion that this specific item should be
tabled. I believe you also made that same motion. I
Councilwoman Dimler: Excuse Mr. Mayor, should we vote on the motion to omit
item number 7 before we table? [11
Mayor Chmiel: Yes we can. We can do that now but I was going to have them
include that in their motion. There's a motion made that item number 7 be
removed from that recommendation. With that being struck. Is there a second?
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilman Johnson: - I think what probably should be done on this is that we're 11
just going to table the thing anyway. At that point, direct staff to rewrite
the conditions. Obviously we've found a clerical error and to address Tom's 11 issue, I think that can be added into item 6. So I think the best motion would
be to have a tabling motion to table the item until a good landscape plan is
submitted as required for the final plat. At the same time, eliminate item 7
which is redundant and modify item 6 to add drainage review of the grading plans
at the same time. I think that will cover everything versus having multiple
motions.
Councilwoman Dimler: Alright then. I will withdraw my motion.
Councilman Johnson: I will make that motion now. I hadn't made the motion yet.
I just discussed making one. I didn't actually make it. I so move that motion.
Mayor Chmiel: Jay's motion is such as indicated with those changes contained
within item 6 and 7. Is there a second?
Councilman Workman: I'll second that.
14
11
City Council Meeting - January 9, 1989
Councilman Johnson: There's also a change.
11 I
Mayor Chmiel: With all proper changes as you indicated.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table Final Plat
Approval for Minnewashta Highlands so that staff can get additional information
and rewrite the conditions as proposed by Council. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Basically what's done is this has been tabled for staff to review
to make the acceptable changes to item 6 and 7. That 7 actually be eliminated
as it was redundant.
Councilman Johnson: And don't bring it back until we have the landscaping plan.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. The landscaping plan is a necessary requirement for this.
�
' Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that it might be appropriate for the Council
to at least think about directing staff to not present items that aren't fully
complete. We're going to take some heat if we happen to take that position but
I think it puts staff in a much better position to work with developers. The
developer can't run around the staff to come to the Council. They have to have
the complete application before they bring it in front of us.
I Councilman Johnson: And I think if we continuously back up staff on that, that
developers will get the message eventually.
(H) APPROVE SIGNAGE PACKAGE FOR PLEASANT VIEW ROAD.
' Councilman Boyt: Item (h) , as you'll notice, we've taken an opportunity to put.:;
up quite a few signs on Pleasant View. I think there's two things. One, I
would like to see us notify the people who live on Pleasant View, possibly send
them a map like this so that they'll realize there's some logic behind the
' sudden increase in signs. I think that this brings out what I really want to
speak to in this is a bigger issue. You'll see in the fourth line of the staff
report, it talks about site distance and speed control. I think that most of us
realize that signs do not provide speed control and that we have a major speed
control problem, as I see it, in Chanhassen. The signs may be nice but when you
get so many of them out there, people don't even look at them so I have a
concern that this is going to accomplish anything other than possibly clarifying
a few areas where we have a sign in one direction and we don't have it in the
other. But it certainly isn't going to provide speed control. I just wanted to
make that comment. I would move that we pass Consent Agenda item 3(h) .
Councilman Johnson: Second.
Councilwoman Dimler: I just have a question. I guess I'd like to know what the
grass roots movement was for this particular item? Did it come from the people
who live on Pleasant View or because the City felt we needed it for safety or
what?
I15
r-� .ty Council Meeting - January 9, 1989 1
Gary Warren: I guess my own perception of the roadway geometries which was kind
of brought to light by some of the work that we did with the signage issue up in
Near Mountain subdivision. The Pleasant View Road, there isn't much we can do
with the geometries anymore and Councilmember Boyt is correct and I fully I
support the fact that signs do not control speed. Enforcement is the key to
that issue. However, in this case, any of us who are familiar with driving
Pleasant View Road realize that with the trees and with the old road that it is
and the geometric, the rapid changes in alignment, that we just really did not
have good signage out there. I think from a liability standpoint, I was
concerned that we at least did what we could to improve that area.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I had a hard time reading these maps. Are they
mostly caution signs or watch for children or what kind of signs?
Gary Warren: They're mostly signs, speed limit signs and direction advisory
signs. There are a few no parking signs that are in zones that were already
established.
Councilman Johnson: Hidden driveway signs.
Gary Warren: And one hidden driveway sign. A new one. ,
Mayor Chmiel: We have moved and seconded the approved signage package for
Pleasant View with a condition in there that we notify the people on Pleasant 11 View. That a copy of the attached map showing locations would be provided to
those adjacent residents within the area and any discussion from those people to
come back to City staff.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Signage
Package for Pleasant View Road with the condition that the people along Pleasant
View Road be provided the map attached to the package showing the locations of
signs. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITORS PRESENTATION: Three friends from Chaska presented a gift to the
P g e new
Mayor, Mayor Chmiel.
COMMUNITY CENTER TASK FORCE, UPDATE REPORT.
Jim Mady: For those of you who aren't aware, my name is Jim Mady. I was the '
Chairman of the Chanhassen Community Center Task Force. We'd like to update you
as to what we've learned to date. The Community Center Task Force has met for
the past 7 months reviewing the possibilities of building a community center in
Chanhassen. I am excited at what we have found to date. Our efforts have found
two feasible alternatives that differ in location costs and timing. Our study
show that our City has a legal bonding limit that allows for the sale of up to 2
million dollars in bonds today over what has already been scheduled. This legal
debt limit increases by 1/2 million dollars each year due to growth in our city.
This 2 million dollars in bonds can be sold without increasing taxes. Any
higher bonding limit for the coming years will necessitate an increase in
property taxes. The City can work with the school district on a financing
arrangement that increases the amount of bonds the City can legally sell by up
16
City Council Meeting - January 9, 1989
to 1 1/2 million dollars. The Chaska School Board has shown interest in sharing
facilities and makes this financing arrangement feasible. This is the same
concept as being studied by the City of Chaska to build a community center at
the Chaska School Complex. The task force has developed two feasible
alternatives. The first site is located on land owned by Eckankar on TH 5 and
adjacent to the east side of Lake Ann Park. Due to higher costs associated with
' this site, because of land acquisition and development costs, the City may not
be able to construct a full community center on this site until our bonding
ability catches up to the cost. The preliminary cost estimate on this site is
4.8 million dollars and may not be fully constructed until possibly the year
11 1994. It would also require a substantial tax increase. The other alternative,
the City Center Park/Elementary School site is located west of the elementary
school and fire station and north of the City Hall. It carries a price tag of
3.3 million dollars. Based on preliminary discussions with the Chaska School
Board, this alternative may be financially feasible today. The facility on this
site includes specialty classrooms for the elementary school. Our discussions
I focused on the needs of additional learning spaces such as band and music rooms,
computer labs and other specialty rooms. These rooms would not be used to
increase the number of students at the elementary school. The building at
either site is envisioned to hold a pool, gymnasium, racquetball courts, ice
' arena, senior citizen center and meeting rooms. It should be able to handle a
population of 35,000 and operate financially self sufficient. We plan to start
public discussion very soon. The first step is to inform the city residents as
' to the alternatives. We will be going to each of the city commissions and
providing an update to them and getting their input just as we are doing here
tonight. We hope the local papers will publish articles on the alternatives and
financing options. Once we have received citizen input, we will report our
findings back to you for your action. Thank you for your time. I am excited by
what we have found to date and invite any questions you may have on the
concepts.
Councilman Johnson: I will continue to emphasize, and it wasn't in here. In
the packet we have. I want to be convinced that we can operate a facility of
this size with our small population and not have to support it's operating cost.
The cost we're talking about here is just to build it. When it gets
operational, I want that facility, if we build a facility, to be totally self
supporting. You state in your report that it will be. I once drove through
' Missouri so show me. I want to see the report. I know you work with numbers
yourself so I'd like to see it in an understandable report because there's a lot
of people who are going to ask the same question so I think that's one thing to
' get prepared for. I like what you've done here so far. I know that that's
been, I've attended several of those meetings and they have been very tough
meetings with a lot of people working very hard to make sure that all the is
are crossed and i's dotted and playing devil's advocate and everything else.
It's been quite a challenge to your group and I'd like to commend you also on
the long hours everybody has been putting in. Ursula I believe is on the
committee there and Bill. A lot of people here, Brad and a lot of our citizens
have done a lot of good work on this. I think we've got something that may be
feasible and help out our schools and everything. That's my only comment.
l Councilman Boyt: I think that one of the reasons that Jim came here tonight was
to find out if the new Council supports the process. I think it's very
important before he and the committee spend time bringing this to the community
to know if the concept of spending 3 or 4 million dollars on a community center
17
City Council Meeting - January 9, 1989 ,
has support of the Council. So that's one comment. Another one is, it clearly
has my support. I think that there was a third option presented that was sort
of late in the process and maybe hasn't been pursued very hard, but that was the ,
possibility of working even closer with the school district by buying the
property and encouraging the school district to build a middle school or high
school which would provide a good bit of the community center space and the city
would supplement that with additional space. When we started this process we
were really after increasing gym space and providing some recreational
opportunities that weren't available in our city. There's any number of ways to
get at that. You've got two of them Jim and I support your taking those to the
community and getting their feedback so we can continue to make progress.
Councilman Workman: What's the precise acreage up here by the school site?
Jim Mady: The entire park and school land?
Councilman Workman: Yes. The land that the school owns that would be used for
this?
Jim Mady: The school property itself, now keep in mind that this site is two '
parcels of land. There's the city owned parcel which is the site that goes from
the fire hall straight west all the way to Kerber Blvd. where the hockey rinks
are and the ice skating rink and one of the ballfields. That's all city owned
property. The school owns the remainder of the property from that site north.
I don't have with me. ..
Councilman Workman: Available space available behind the elementary school,
basically we're putting in how much property is that in acreage?
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, I know the answer to that if I could answer. I 11 stepped it off with my father-in-law who's a farmer and it is just slightly over
11 acres that would be there for building.
Councclman Workman: I was at the Chaska Chamber meeting today and Mayor Ruedke
down there gave hisstate of the town speech and they're getting more and more
excited about their own facility down there. How closely are we, we're tied
into Chaska quite closely and they're ready to throw 5 million into it
apparently with a hocky arena and everything else. Activists are working hard
to get their own hockey arena. In getting back to Jay's point, with the hockey
arena being a very large portion of this and many suggestions about sharing this
kind of a facility with Shakopee, Chaska, Chanhassen. How closely are we
looking at that angle?
Jim Mady: There are two points to consider on an ice arenda. First off is
construction. An ice arena will cost in the neighborhood of $8,000.00 to
$9,000.00. The second item to remember is what that thing, what the ice arena
will bring into the operating budget. Based on numbers given to us by both the
Eden Prairie Community Center and the Minnetonka Ice Arena, the ice arena would
generate excess operating revenues of at least $100,000.00 over it's operating
cost. Those dollars would then be thrown back into the operating budget to
cover programs that will not sustain themselves. ,
Councilman Workman: But even if the Chaska Hawks Hockey team is playing hockey
in Chaska not here? ,
18 '
City Council Meeting - January 9, 1989
i
Jim Mady: We're not banking totally on the Chaska Hawks. We have a commitment,
a verbal commitment from the Minnetonka Ice Association to rent 500 hours of ice
with this facility. There is a shortage of ice throughout the metropolitan
area. Currently the Chaska Hawks are playing in the Shakopee bubble. The
Shakopee bubble exists on a day to day basis. If it goes down, Shakopee has no
plans at this time to build an ice arena. My understanding is that if that were
to happen, it's a good chance that the Chanhassen hockey program would move as
far away as possibly LeSeur. There just isn't facilities around so maybe Chaska
might build their own. My understanding previously was that they are looking at
1 an ice arena and it would be in Phase 2 of their program. I don't know when
that is. I'm not fully aware of everything and the timelines of their program.
There was an article in I believe it is the January 5th issue of the South Shore
News that covered that. There's a couple of paragraphs in there. It looks like
they're moving somewhat slow right now trying to organize their financing.
They've got some things they're looking for. I think the number was $175,000.00
' a year from the school system so they're needing to get their ducks in order
just as we are.
Councilman Workman: They do things a little bit different down there. I
' believe they paid cash for their brand new city hall. They do things a little
bit differently and that's why looking at $84.00 per year raised taxes and stuff
and that sounds all fairly for adding a lot more. This is my concern is that
we're adding a lot more debt. I have two little girls and I'd like to go on
record as saying I'd love to have a community center. But again within reason
and that's what I'm trying to figure out. If it's all going to be able to flow
because there's so many things going around. I hear Waconia's thinking about
their own. If all that happens and everybody has their own community centers,
will our town support that?
Jim Mady: Preliminary estimates and numbers that we've been given and the
information that we've been given from the Eden Prairie Community Center
facility manager of the previous task force, at least the first task force
strongly felt we could do it. Be self sufficient without any problems. There'S
no guarantees in life but the numbers all show that it can work.
Councilman Workman: Otherwise the committee has basically, are not favorable to
property at Lake Ann which we already own?
Jim Mady: The Lake Ann site itself was looked at. It has two problems. Number
' one, the City has a standing agreement with the Metropolitan Waste Commission
that we will not enter into the built sewers in the non-sewered area of
Chanhassen. Lake Ann Park, as it sits now, is outside the MUSA line,
Metropolitan Urban Service Area, and we can not enter into that sewer line from
that parcel.
Councilman Workman: The Eckankar is outside of that line?
Jim Mady: Eckankar is within, the line's right there. Eckankar is within.
Lake Ann is without. The second item there is the voters have already asked us,
passed the referendum to construct badly needed ballfields and parking at Lake
Ann. Unless you want to tear down some very beautiful forests on Lake Ann,
there simply isn't the room to do all those things out there.
19
`city Council Meeting - January 9, 1989 1
Lori Sietsema: If I could add a third item. The land at Lake Ann Park was I
acquired with LAWCON funds which are federal funds and you have to go through a
conversion process to convert those into indoor recreational facilities. It
doesn't happen very easily. It's a big long process and you have to look at, if II
there's any other alternatives for the facility that you want to build, if there
is any other alternative, they'll deny you that. So we can't do anything but
outdoor activity at Lake Ann Park without that approval. That has to be federal
and state approval.
Mayor Chmiel: If a city is proposing to put in a community center within those
lines for strictly city use, I think they would move on those positions without
much problem, from what I understand too. From what you just said, it's hard to
have that move or actually approve this within a short period of time or they
may even deny it. ,
Lori Sietsema: The only way, I talked to LAWCON, the people in detail about
this and one of the things that we would have to do is replace the acreage that
we're building an indoor facility on if indeed there is no other alternative for
the the facility. But number one, there has to be no other alternative and
number two, you have to replace the property with lake property. As far as, it
impacts it so much that way, they're building TH 5, an additional easement to go '
to the south because the conversion process is so stringent. That's what I've
been told by that office.
Councilman Johnson: So MnDot avoided trying to do that conversion process? 1
Lori Sietsema: Yes. '
Councilman Johnson: They're not going to take on the feds.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'd like to commend Jim Mady for the work that he's done.
He's been through a difficult process. I guess the comments that I would like,
as Bill Boyt said, that it's up to the Council. I don't really feel it is. The
only thing we'll be doing is voting on whether we'll put it on the referendum to
the people. Therefore, at your public hearings, I would suggest that in order
to feel the people out, get a king of poll after each meeting. After you
present than with the different locations and I would suggest you do mention the 11 third option and maybe even ask them if they have a particular site that they'd
like to see it at so we can get a full picture of what the public is thinking.
Then at that time, poll them, attach sheets of paper and fold them to see which
site they prefer and if indeed they want a community center. Having those two
questions on there I think would give us a good idea of what we should then go
ahead and put on the referendum.
Mayor Chmiel: One other point I'd like to bring up, or question I should ask I
is, where and what areas are you going to contact within the City to make your
informational hearings at?
Jim Mady: That hasn't been decided yet. I would assume that we would hold
public meetings as we did in the past at Minnetonka Intermediate School.
Chanhassen Elementary School. Various meetings that are held throughout the
city from time to time. It would be the Legion people and the Hockey
Association, APT, St. Hubert's. Whatever groups have meetings and will allow us
on their agenda, we tend to try and go there and bring the information.
20
• City Council Meeting - January 9, 1989
Councilman Johnson:
I continue to support this. I believe that one thing I
don't want to see is a rise in taxes to do it. When you look at an $85.00 a
IIyear increase for $100,000.00 if we go to the Eckankar site, that scares me. I
can't see our voters approving that. From my feel of the voters here. Does the
grade school site, is that like, for lack of a better word, the Filly site, is
that balanced to a point where we're not raising taxes to build that one? That
we'll be retiring debt, enough retired debt to cover it and it will be a break
even?
1 Jim Mady: My understanding of the way this works is, right now we're given a
mil levy. The City has the ability to sell an additional 2 million dollars over
what already is on the books or is scheduled to be sold with the fire truck. We
1 have the ability right now to go for an additional 2 million dollars. Through
using the school, the sharing of the school and the City financing option which
gets into the excess levy on the tax increment district, the City can pick up an
additional 1 1/2 million dollars when we work with the school board.
Councilman Johnson: That's enough to build that one but my question is, if we
do that, what's the effect on local taxes?
Jim Mady: Right now we would be able to leave the mil levy as it is. If none
of the options are built, we would be able to, the Council would be able to
possibly reduce taxes up to I think it's about $45.00 on a $100,000.00 house or
they have the option of reducing debt quicker. Retiring it.
I Mayor Chmiel: Ji.m, with the other members too on the committee, what's the
consensus of feeling from them, the school site? Eckankar site?
Jim Mady: We really didn't take a vote. We're basically coming out to the
' people and saying, here are the numbers. Here's the cost. Here's the time
lines that we have been told. Give us your input. That's what we're really
doing right now. We want the citizens of Chanhassen to tell us what they want
Ito do. Let each individual make up their own mind based on the numbers as they
stand today.
Councilman Boyt: If I might follow up here. I think the one thing Jim that you
and the committee need to keep in mind is that, at least from my perspective,
the City can not spend all it's bonding capacity on a community center. To do
so would be to deny the potential for quite a long time of having a trail and
sidewalk program of any kind other than what we funded out of new construction.
I think a very significant part of the population wants that program. It's
failed twice by a handful of votes each time. I'm not prepared to see the City
sink all it's money into the community center even though I strongly support the
center. I think we need to be saving some money for the trail system or for
another option that the community says that they want.
Jim Mady: One thing to keep in mind is the City's legal bonding limit is
growing a 1/2 million dollars per year and that growth is estimated to continue
at least through the year 1995.
IL Brad Johnson: I'm on the task force and I was also involved in the first one
and spent a lot of time running around fighting the antis and I think we've
spent a lot of time on this particular situation trying to figure out, how can
21
City Council Meeting - January 9, 1989 ,
we get a consensus because we think it can carry if in fact everybody feels that
the site is the correct site. The time table is the correct site and the
financing is the correct site. Or at least the public is given the chance to do ,
that. I could even sense tonight, you asked the question, which is the better
site. I don't think most of us are going to say which is the better site. We
think we need a community center. We think if we don't go through the process
correctly, the community center will be defeated because people will be upset we
didn't go through the correct process. I think it's unfair then to ask which
one we feel is the best. I would say that if there's 15 members on a program, 5
are prejudice to Lake Ann for various reasons and 5 are prejudice towards the
school site for various reasons and some of us are prejudice for other reasons.
I think we can't, all of us haven't collected our thoughts as to what to do but
I do believe that we must, that it's going to take a combined effort of what
I'll call the group that voted against it or led the original fight against the
Filly site, to combine with the guys that are trying to still do it. We have a
committee that's made up of both parties. I'm still not sure we've come to a
consensus but maybe by listening to the public, we'll be able to figure that
out. Secondly, I think as far as the Chaska issue is concerned, we're a year
and a half ahead of Chaska. We've already had one defeat. I think they have to
go through that. They're not even thinking about a referendum until next summer '
and they're up to 5-10 million dollars. Chaska is a different community. It's
not our community. We're in Chanhassen. We have two school districts to
service. They only have one. We also service the Minnetonka school district.
Our community has nothing to bring the whole community together and I think this
is one effort that does do that. We can't change the school system around. We
have a good elementary that keeps our community together but I don't think the
rest is true. As far as hockey or ice arena useage is concerned, our other
half, the Minnetonka side of the school district would buy all the time.
There's just no doubt. And if not, Eden Prairie would so there's no problem.
And you could build one in Waconia and you could build one wherever and they'd
all be filled up in the metropolitan area. I don't think you have to be too
concerned, short term of what would happen in that particular case. But I think
the key element in here is that we want to go out. There's two issues. One is, 11 what site? Before_we can go to the referendum, we have to have a site. I think
we want the public to give us as much input as possible. I admit that it's hard
not to be prejudice and I think all of us have to work when we make a
presentation to follow the presentation that's not too prejudice. Once that's
accomplished and we have a site, we have to come back to you with the financial
feasibility of it all in a proposal and if you feel it's, I don't think you're
going to say go ahead and do a referendum until you feel it's financially
feasible. Then finally, like Jay was saying, and part of it's the tax question,
and then I think whether we do it or not, all of us have to work hard, who are
volunteers to try to sell the community on it. I think that's the process we're
asking to go through. The purpose of this night's meeting was to bring you up
to speed on where we are and all the work we've done. You've got two members on
the Council that are a part of the committee and Jay sits in periodically and we
welcome all of you but I think it's a real, you really got to think about it.
Why we do it and maybe we won't do it if the voters say no, but some of us like
a chance at it and I think that's the way it's goes.
PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF OUTLOT A LOCATED BETWEEN LOT 2, BLOCK 1 AND LOT
1,
BLOCK 2, CARVER BEACH ESTATES, NORTH SIDE OF LAKE LUCY ROAD, BOECK-KEVITT
PARTNERSHIP. ,
22
11
City Council Meeting - January 9, 1989
Steve Hanson: This is a request to vacate an outlot in Carver Beach Estates
located between Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 on the north side of Lake Lucy
II Road. The owners of this parcel requested that this be vacated so they could
split the parcel and return the pieces back to the adjoining lots. we've gone
through, in trying to do the review, we had scheduled this assuming that it was
a simple vacation and we've turned up some loose ends that we haven't been able
to tie up at this point in time. What I've suggested in the staff report is
that because we have advertised for a public hearing, that you open the public
hearing. Take any testimony from the public that's here so they have their
opportunity to voice their opinion at that hearing and then we'll do the
follow-up and bring this back to you when we're able to complete the research on
this particular item.
Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order. Councilman Johnson moved,
Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Councilwoman Dimler: I did talk to the Art Owens family today, who is affected
by this and they seem to have no problems with it at all.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table the vacation of
Outlot A located between Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 of Carver Beach
Estates for the Boeck-Kevitt Partnership until the January 23, 1989 meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
SIDEYARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A PARKING LOT, EARLY BEGINNI`GS DAYCARE
CENTER, 1450 PARK COURT, ROME CORPORATION.
Steve Hanson: The Board of Adjustments met prior to City Council Tonight to
consider the variance for this particular request. I passed out a sheet
1 earlier, before you sat down and opened the meeting, that covers the
justification for granting the variance. The Board of Adjustments made those
findings and approved the variance as requested and they approved :.. with two
conditions. The first of those being that the area to the north along the
parking area where it encroaches on the setback, that that be screened with
evergreens. Then the second condition was the request that's before you has
essentially where it's overlapping on that setback is a driveway servicing some
' parking stalls. They requested that the second condition be that that area not
be used for parking, meaning the driveway and that it be signed or striped
accordingly.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the =ideyard
setback variance request for a parking lot, Early Beginnings Daycare Center,
1450 Park Court, Rome Corporation with the following conditions:
1. The area to the north along the parking area where it encroaches on the
setback, be screened with evergreens.
2. The driveway where it's overlapping the serback, not be used fir parking and
be signed or striped accordingly.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
23
L'"Iity Council Meeting - January 9, 1989
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel: The Council presentations regarding the Redman donation of the
vehicle, regarding Minnesota Valley as you mentioned and park and trail fees.
Would you like to address those Bill?
Councilman Boyt: Yes, thank you. The last page of the Public Safety
Commission Minutes makes reference to a donation by Tom Redman Sr. of $15,000.00
for a police car to the City. When I read that paragraph I thought truly great
things were happening to Chanhassen. If there's one need that people in the
community seen to be united about, it's that we need to have improved speed
patrol. I would like to see that when this vehicle is given to the City, that
it be equipped to do radar patrol and that a schedule be set up so that Mr.
Chaffee and Mr. Harr are involved in doing radar patrol. They're certified to
do that and I would like to see the City do more of it.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that's a good idea. I really do. '
Councilman Boyt: I don't know that we need to vote on any of this. If other
councilmembers have comments, now might be a good time to get it but I'm really
glad to see we're getting this car.
Mayor Chmiel: I do also feel that we should probably draft a letter to Mr.
Redman thanking him for his donation and direct that letter to him.
Don Ashworth: It's been discussion. Have they made a final decision? I know
you brought it up to Public Safety Commission to make than aware of the fact '
that we have been talking with than in this area but have they in fact made that
decision?
Jim Chaffee: Yes, I have. Mr. Mayor, if I may, read a letter to you that I
received from Tom Redman's secretary. It says, Dear Jim. Thank you for your
letter of December 29, 1988 regarding the costs of a police car which we wish to
donate to the City of Chanhassen. To answer your question on billing, we would
like to be billed from the City of Chanhassen for the cost of the equipped car
which we have budgeted for to pay in March, a total of $16,205.00. You may go
ahead and order the vehicle so that the timing is such that we will pay for it
in March. I have sent him a letter thanking for his initial offer. We will
follow up with another letter on that.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to say that I'd like to see our Public Safety
Department emphasize speed in the coming year and make Chanhassen a no speeding
zone. Just as long as Bill brought up speeding, I was going to bring it up at
the next Council meeting. I'll just throw in my initial pitch here. I'd like
to go as far as advertising that we are setting up speed traps. Tell people
we're doing it and be very across the board. No covert operations. We'll just
plain old say we're doing it. I don't even mind if we advertise where we're ,
going to set some of than up. I think it would be kind of interesting. I think
that would be an article in the newspaper that everybody would read every week.
Where will they set up that speedtrap. If we said we were going to emphasize
Lake Lucy Road, I think it'd be interesting, I think it'd increase your
circulation.
24
City Council Meeting - January 9, 1989
IMayor Chmiel: I think I agree with you Jay. Over the years with my driving, my 171 driving habits just like everybody else, you're just unaware of the speed
sometimes you're going. But more specifically, probably many of you go into
Excelsior on CR 17. As soon as you hit that 30 mph, you're at 30. I do that
automatically. Only because of the amount of speed traps that are there. On a
given day or a given evening, if you drive through there between 8:00 and 9:00,
you'll see him pulling over, if you watch, 2 to 3 sometimes 4 motorists at a
time. So I think that's very true. I think the public is just automatically at
the point of really not paying attention to that speedometer as much as they
should and I think that should be directed to then as well as us.
Councilman Johnson: It would just serve as a constant reminder, once a week
you'd be reminded of the speed because you went and read the speed article to
see where Jim's going to set up.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have a couple questions of Jim. I guess I don't quite
' understand. You do have the ability to issue citations do you?
Jim Chaffee: Yes I do.
1 Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. And if you issued a citation, have you decided on
the amount that the ticket would cost?
Jim Chaffee: That's decided by the courts and the County.
Councilwoman Dimler: And what is it?
Jim Chaffee: I have no idea.
Councilwoman Dimler: And where does that money go? Will that go to our own
Public Safety Department or to the Carver County Sheriff's Department?
Jim Chaffee: Part of it goes to the County. Part of it comes back to our
general operating fund.
Councilman Workman: I know you guys are overloaded and I'm curious I guess. It
is a very generous gift but how is the public safety department going to find
somebody else? Are we going to add another employee there? You guys
I understand are very busy now. Are you each going to take 4 hours a day to do
this or what's going to happen? Are we just going to park it and put a dummy in
11 there?
Jim Chaffee: I'll be the dummy. We will be developing a schedule where Scott
and myself will be coming in periodically in uniform and working the road to
assist the deputies. Just a side comment, we have recently purchased a brand
new radar unit for the County squad and that was thanks to the efforts of Deputy
' Mike Douglas and the American Legion. You should be reading about that in the
papers in the very near future on that. It's a well advanced radar unit. We
will be putting the old radar unit in the new car that will be donated by Tom
Redman.
IL Councilman Workman: This will be a police car that looks like a police car?
Have what on the side door? And then it will have a full light bar and
' everything else.
25
i
City Council Meeting - January 9, 1989
Jim Chaffee: That is correct. It will be almost a duplicate of our CSO truck
only it will be a vehicle. A car. I
Councilman Johnson: Will the CSO's be able to utilize this for their crime
prevention duties and stuff also beyond. So when they go to do a crime
prevention, this will be a supplemental vehicle for them?
Jim Chaffee: Yes it will be. That will probably be it's main use, at least
initially, will be for the crime prevention and community relation task given to
the CSO's.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Jim.
Councilman Boyt: Alright, are we ready for Moon Valley? In one of the future
agenda item packets that we received here, the last page of it, I guess the next
to the last page of printed material, refers to Moon Valley and the mineral
extraction process. Rather than go through this as I imagine you all read it,
the City has been involved with them since last fall when it was called to our ,
attention that they were removing quite a bit of clay to take it over to the
Eden Prairie landfill. As I read the report from Jo Ann, it stated that we were
going to basically wait and not put a stop work order on this until they failed
to do anything in the spring even though we were convinced they were going to
not do anything in the spring. I would like to see the City move to put a stop
work order on this right now. They're not working on it but this would keep
them from starting up in the spring. I think that what they've done here is a
tragedy. It amazes me and if it hadn't been for one of our residents, we would
have had this big hole created in Chanhassen and not known it. Partially
because we've got city staff doing more than their fair share but we know about
it and I think it's ridiculous to not take action. I think that we should be
moving to stop work on the mineral extraction or the clay extraction from that
property.
Councilman Johnson: In here it states that staff's been in contact with Moon
Valley's attorney. Do we have written correspondence backing this up at this
time or has this been telephone calls? I
Roger Knutson: I had one brief meeting with their attorney. I can't remember
when it was. It was in the fall sometime. Not any correspondence in my file
from it.
Councilman Johnson: I would like to document this. I'd like to get a letter to
him. I don't know how you can give him a stop work order when they're not
working but a letter to them specifically saying, thou shall not, without a
permit, do anything. In the spring, the first time they move anything, that's
the point where we hit them with the stop work order but we need to get them
correspondence, in writing, certified mail, whatever we have to do, informing
them that they must get this permit. And you can paraphrase your meeting with
their attorney and everything else but.. .
Mayor Chmiel: Roger, I was just going to ask you. What would be the proper
procedure to do this?
26 1
City Council Meeting - January 9, 1989
1
I Roger Knutson: First let me give you their position and our position. Their
position on the subject is that they already had a conditional use permit back
in the 70's and this is a logical progression of that permit. We think it's at
a different site and that they should not proceed. They are also making a
claim, I believe, that it comes under the exemption in your ordinance for
grading for agricultural purposes.
Councilman Johnson: Grading for agricultural purposes?
Roger Knutson: I can't explain that to you. I don't understand the comment.
Councilman Johnson: They put seeds on it after they move it to Eden Prairie.
Councilman Boyt: Deep plowing.
Roger Knutson: Independent of what you have in your backup agenda for tonight,
Larry and I were meeting on this subject tomorrow. I was going to go over to
the site with Larry and see what they were actually doing but Larry tells me we
better bring our cross country skis and we can't see anything so we probably
won't be doing that. But as far as the procedure, I guess there are several and
' I could outline than for you. One would be to write than a stiff letter saying,
thou shall not do anything next spring without a conditional use permit and if
you do, we can prosecute you. I suppose the only other alternative to that is,
to seek a declaratory judgment or an injunction action against them in the
District Court at this time. That might be premature. I don't know what their
plans are for sure. I think the best procedure now would be to write than and
say, don't do it. Please respond. If they say, we're going to do it anyway, at
that time I would suggest the only alternative is either to ignore the problem
or to go after than in the district court.
Larry Brown: If I might add. Staff has been periodically checking this site.
As of today I confirmed that the site has been totally secured both from the
Pioneer Trail and the TH 212_roadways and they are not working at this time. It
looks like they've been shut down until springtime. And we'll continue to check
Iup on this site.
Mayor Chmiel: You're going to moniter this on a weekly basis right?
' Larry Brown: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: There's also an issue here of erosion control. There's an
issue of reseeding and restoration. We can't simply ignore this because they
choose not to dig the hole deeper. So that's why, I think at minimum we send
than a letter and in that letter, along with don't do anymore, we tell than that
they've got to restore the ground so that it's stable.
Mayor Chmiel: Good point.
11 Councilman Johnson: Larry, does our state laws on mining cover, this is
basically strip mining, restoration? Is this covered under state law on strip
mining?
Larry Brown: Our zoning ordinance does have the mineral extraction permit which
is obviously a conditional use permit so yes, I would say that we do have the
27
7;j
City Council Meeting - January 9, 1989 11
tools available to us to make them restore the site. Just as another point,
I know on the TH 212 side of this, Larry Samstead from the Watershed District
has been adamantly working with them and trying to get restoration involved on li
that site. One of our goals is also to get the Watershed involved on what we
call the expansion of it, on the Pioneer side, so that we can address Councilman
Boyt's concerns as well.
Mayor Chmiel: Then our suggestion is that we write a letter to then indicating
those concerns that have been mentioned and hopefully this will address the
issue. I
Councilman Johnson: The letter should be under Roger's, City Attorney's final
John Henry. '
Mayor Chmiel: Fine.
Roger Knutson: I'll draft that letter and send you copies. '
Councilman Boyt: Thank you for giving me the time here. The last item is park
and trail fees are going to be considered tomorrow evening by the Park and Rec
Commission. I think we've seen examples of where our park and trail fees are
simply not sufficient to do the job. I guess I'd like to get the Council's
thinking. I know it's sort of off the top of your head but I will share with
you that when it comes to buying park property in the sewered part of
Chanhassen, we have in the past used a standard of, I believe it's 1 acre for
every 75 homes? I
Lori Sietsema: 75 people.
Councilman Boyt: 75 people, 25 homes. And our park fee for those 25 homes will I
not buy an acre of property in the sewered area of Chanhassen. We had this
discussion a year ago and we asked to the point where, when they told me that
low and behold they could buy an acre of land for I think it was something like
$3,500.00, maybe $7,000.00, I have yet to see it happen in the sewered area of
Chanhassen. I think that we need to be moving so that our fees reflect the cost
of acquiring land. Because once people are in those houses, they want a park.
You can see that, when you walked through Pheasant Hills this fall, those folks
want a park. If we go out to buy one, it's going to be real expensive up there.
I guess I'd like to get your sense of whether you would support a review of
these fees with the quite reasonable possibility that they would go up.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Councilman Workman: What are the, I'm always trying to compare ourselves to
other communities. I guess I was caught doing that tonight. What are other
cities charging for this and what are we specifically charging and are we in
line with then?
Lori Sietsema: Other cities are charging anywhere from $350.00 to $700.00 per
single family unit. We are currently charging $425.00 per single family unit.
Commercial varies a lot more. We're charging them $1,050.00 per acre and others
charge by the square foot of the building and the number of employees. It
varies a lot in the commercial area. I can get a number. The report I did last I
28 ,
IICity Council Meeting - January 9, 1989
I - year on this item that did a survey on a number of communities. I can get that
to you if you'd like.
Councilman Workman: Yes, I'd appreciate that.
Councilman Johnson: I think they need to be reviewed. I agree. Without the
referendum on, that losing by the 8 votes, 6 votes, whatever handful it was.
The trails are something that's still needed and we still have to pay for them.
Some of those in order to get them, we're going to have to acquire some
property, or at least some easements through some properties. Right now I don't
believe the trail fees in Kurvers Point would pay for the trails that we are
putting into Kurvers Point. Wouldn't even come close. I think there is a need
to review these again. I don't want to see them double or anything like this.
If there's a moderate increase, I'd like to look at both the residential and the
commercial side of it and see how we land.
Councilman Boyt: If I might add a point on this funding. Lori told me today
that Lakeville, which we used as a comparison when we developed our trail fee,
and I think we charge about $148.00.
Lori Sietsema: $142.00.
Councilman Boyt: $142.00 per lot. Lakeville, I believe charges that amount
' plus they require the developer to put in sidewalks. So when we compared, we
didn't know exactly what we were comparing against and their $142.00 was
designed for their interconnecting trail system. We're using our $142.00 to
build sidewalks and build an interconnecting trail system. I don't think we're
quite that efficient. So when we start comparing, it's very difficult to draw
an exact comparison in our costs and we simply can't get the job done with what
we're charging now is my point.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess maybe I could just give some of my viewpoints on that
Bill. I think through the City there's specific areas probably that need trail
I systems more so than others presently. I think those are the areas that we
should be more concerned with because of the traffic conditions. The areas such
as CR 17, CR 15, TH 101. These are areas that, in my door knocking, have found
that people really need something. If anyone has had the opportunity to walk
along TH 101, you've got to be awful careful at all times because there just
isn't enough room or enough space. In those specific areas, I think those are
something that's really required and those are the areas that I feel should be
addressed first before we do much of anything else with having a fully inter-
connected system throughout the city. I think those areas are the areas that
should be looked at.
Councilman Johnson: I'd add Minnewashta Blvd. as a good example. A lot of
people walk that road. Winter and summer.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we have to be concerned with the public health and safety
of this community and those specific areas, I think that's something that is
needed. Any further discussion? I think it's something that we're going to
I have to look at to see. As far as the additional expenditures that might be
done for this. Maybe things should be reviewed but let's address it and let's
look at it and we can see what it is and then we can voice our opinions on it.
i
29
72
City Council Meeting - January 9, 1989 "
APPOINTMENT OF METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION DISTRICT 13/14
REPRESENTATIVE, CITY MANAGER.
Mayor Chmiel: The person who is applying is Gloria Vierling, whom I have had
some discussions with. Gloria, as you may or may not know has been in public
service for 12 years. She's in her second 4 year term as city council person
with the city of Shakopee. She is also on the AM Board of Directors. She has
been working with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for the User Rate
Task Force and she's also the technical advisory committee for the Metropolitan
Waste Control Commission as well as Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. I feel
that she has many qualifications to serve on this as an appointment. As
I understand it, the Metropolitan Council sometime this coming month will make
those prespective appointments. What she's asking for is a letter of support
from us to the Metropolitan Council so that she may serve on this particular
committee. I would entertain a motion, or make a motion that we should write a
letter to the Metropolitan Council indicating our endorsement of this position
and request any discussion from the Council. I
Councilwoman Dimler: I would second that motion Mr. Mayor.
Councilman Johnson: How soon does she, is this appointment up? This is '
Thursday night when I read this. This was the first I had heard, or actually it
was probably about Saturday by the time I got to this one. This is the first I
had heard of this appointment coming and is there anybody else under
consideration? Are we writing a letter to a choice of one? Who's the
competition? How long is this open?
Mayor Chmiel: Normally it's a two year appointment that they make it for.
Councilman Johnson: Right. But I mean, what's the process? I may be
interested in going after this myself. '
Mayor Chmiel: If that's part of your desire, your submittal should be done to
the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission.
Councilman Johnson: I thought you're saying we only had one candidate that's
given us a letter. Before we go and say that we're in support of this one
candidate, now there's only one candidate going for it and it closes off in a
week or something and it's all over with, there's no problem. What I'm saying
is, I don't think I'm really ready to support her until I find out who's running
against her. I
Mayor Chmiel: If anyone.
Councilman Johnson: If anyone, right. I just don't have that information at
this point in time.
Don Ashworth: I did receive a letter. It did not get into the packet. In ,
fact, it was written in such a fashion that it was difficult to pick out that it
was a letter asking for endorsement but it was from Jo Ellen Hurd who is our
current representative. She has been in that position for a number of years. I I
did talk this past week to Marcy Wari.tz and she had felt that if we were going
to be making a nomination, we should do that as soon as possible. Jo Ellen Hurd
was not of significant benefit to the City during that period of time that we I
30
City Council Meeting - January 9, 1989
II
1117 were trying to get the Lake Ann Interceptor sewer extended. I do not know
Gloria but I would have to assume that she'd do an excellent job.
Councilman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to say that I do know Gloria and I know
' that she understands the needs of Chanhassen and Shakopee.. .
Councilman Boyt: I think you raise a good point Don. We, in the next two
' years, are going to face some awfully important decisions by this group. If
time allows, it would sure be nice to know what her position is on the expansion
of that sewer system. We have, I would gather, kind of an exciting time here
' over the expansion of the Blue Lake and whether they were going to continue to
keep that schedule. This is critical to the development of our community.
I guess I would have liked to have had more information. I'd like to have this
I person feel that we are actively supporting her and that she in fact truly wants
to see Chanhassen develop. Is there someway we can get a, say a little bit
tighter agreement?
Mayor Chmiel: Let me do this. Let me change that motion of mine to have the
City Manager address those specific questions with Gloria and indicate our
concerns and see if she is in agreement with our position. Then I would suggest
' that we bring this back to the Council on the 23rd. To make that motion and
send it in.
Councilwoman Dimler: Could we also ask if she would be willing to appear before
us for an interview?
Mayor Chmiel: That could be incorporated.
II - Don Ashworth: I think Jay brought out a point. I'm not sure when the filings
on this close. I would like to follow the procedure that you've outlined.
However, if there is a closing date, I'd like to have the authority to go ahead
and put her name in so we make sure that we're endorsing someone.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I would agree with that.
1 Councilman Johnson: If it's critical prior to the 23rd, definitely we want to.'
Councilman Boyt: Let's vote on this last issue.
Mayor Chmiel: Which one?
' Councilman Boyt: 10(b) , to table.
Councilwoman Dimler: It wasn't to table was it?
Mayor Chmiel: No. Just a letter that's going to be directed by Don. That's
the only action.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe we don't need to vote on it. Is that the thought?
I Mayor Chmiel: That's my feeling.
Councilman Johnson: He's either going to bring it back to us the 23rd or he's
going to write a letter of support.
31
J
City Council Meeting - January 9, 1989
Councilman Boyt: That sounds like that needs some sort of motion and action if
he's going to actually take action on it. r
Councilman Johnson: Okay. I'll move that we get more information. If the time
for our letter of support is prior to January 23, 1989, that we provide our
support to Gloria Vierling. Otherwise, see if we can have Gloria stop in and
talk to us on the 23rd and find out the whole list of candidates and what all is
going on there.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second the motion.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded a motion to get more
information in regards to the appointment to the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission. If the time for a letter of support is prior to January 23, 1989,
the City Manager can send a letter in support of Gloria Vierling. If not, ask
that Gloria Vierling come to the City Council meeting on January 23, 1989 to
speak to the Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.. r
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
r
r
r
r
r
r
32
IV ril '.' '*�s .« 1
I CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 4, 1989
II Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 40 .m
9 7 p . .
II MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad,
Brian Batzli , Jim Wildermuth and David Headla
I STAFF PRESENT: Steve Hanson, City Planner; Larry Brown, Asst. City
Engineer and Mark Koegler , Planning Consultant
IPUBLIC HEARING:
CARL CARRICO - PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON LAKE
LUCY LANE, APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE WEST OF YOSEMITE:
1 A. SUBDIVISION OF 12 ACRES INTO 13 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS .
I B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL AND DREDGE A PORTION OF A CLASS B
WETLAND.
Public Present:
IName Address
II Frank Cardarelle Representative for Applicant
Carl Carrico Applicant
Tom Nye 1641 West 63rd Street
I Mr. and Mrs . Dave Hughes 1780 Lake Lucy Road
Carol Droegemueller 1740 Pheasant Circle
Pat Johnson 1730 Lake Lucy Lane
Jim and Doris Mielke 1645 Lake Lucy Road
I Mrs . Palmer 1690 Lake Lucy Road
Mark and Tracy Williams 1655 Lake Lucy Road
Warren and Arlene Phillips 1571 Lake Lucy Road
ISteve Hanson presented the staff report.
Conrad : Steve, just a comment. We' ve never , to my knowledge, this is
I almost like spot zoning. We' re spot MUSA lining and we' ve always got the
feedback through staff that if we need to expand the MUSA line, we should
be doing it not on a spot basis . We' ve got to do it and they've got to
I agree to it, at Met Council on a total redrawing of that line and they
have not been willing to do that. In fact we are contractually tied into
not doing that from my understanding . They had specifically said no .
I When they have done that, it has been land swaps . In other words, we' ll
put this into the MUSA but we ' ll put something out of the MUSA. The
recommendation right now is you' re telling us that we should do something
we ' ve never done in the past and that ' s to approve a site plan or
I subdivision given the fact that it ' s outside the MUSA and that' s not how
we ' ve done it in the past . Has Don Ashworth recommended that we do it
this way or has the legal advice changed or, try to help me understand why
II we ' re doing this?
Hanson : It ' s really so the applicant can get a reading on whether the
r
4 , II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 2 1
MUSA line can be amended . Obviously the one stand is to say, we' re not
going to support the application because we believe the MUSA line where it
exists now should remain that way and if we ' re going to do it , let ' s do a
major amendment. '
Conrad : Are we trying to test Metropolitan Council again? Is that what
we' re doing? I
Hanson : I guess that would be my reaction, yes , that we are .
Conrad: Okay. I 'm not sure how I want to handle this because this is a
little bit different . Is the applicant here? Would the applicant like to
make some comments on the staff report or things that we should know?
Frank Cardarelle: I 'm Frank Cardarelle, the surveyor representing Carl
Carrico who is here, who is the applicant. We are fully aware of the
staff report and we have nothing further to add . We have worked with the
staff and the engineering department and the whole reason is that this
happens to be just a little piece out of the MUSA line north of Lake Lucy
Road. Obviously in order to develop it, it almost has to be hooked into
the sewer . It ' s high. It will work. It fits into the sewer and water ,
the scheme of things. In order to do that, we were told that this is
about the only possible way that we can do it. Again, it ' s kind of a
catch 22 like the staff said. We were under the impression that there was
2 or 3 particularly pieces that had the same problems that this particular
piece has. Granted, if the Park Department decides they want to purchase
the whole thing and the applicant and the Park Department can get together
on price, then it ' s all moot. It won' t matter anyway but something on the
particular piece of property has to be done . It happens to be just this
little tiny piece cut out of the section. Why it was left out, we don ' t
know. It' s a hardship case as to what do you do with a little tiny piece
of land that sewer is all around it. Sewer and water . It' s very small
and it is kind of a hardship. That ' s where we ' re coming from. This was
the recommendation that we do follow in order to do something with the II property. If you have any other questions , I 'd be glad to answer them but
I don' t think there' s any need to go through a presentation when he' s
already done it.
Conrad : Steve, do you have a graphic that you can put up and show us
where the MUSA line is? Do you have an overhead?
Hanson : No , I don' t. '
Frank Cardarelle : The MUSA line runs just around this little piece . It' s
from Lake Lucy Road north, just on the north boundary of this and on the
easterly boundary and westerly boundary of this piece of property.
Conrad: Why was this property not included before? I
Brown: Maybe if I can add a comment here. Obviously Met Council , at
least from my estimate at this time, determined where that MUSA line was
established . Right now prior to Barb Dacy leaving , she made a submittal
to the Metropolitan Council . They were concerned about land swaps and
1
F
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 3
making amendments to the MUSA line . What areas could in fact be served by
sanitary sewer via gravity system. MWCC has had the philosophy that if it
can be serviced without a lift station, we will consider the amendment.
I Our Comp Plan is being revised to try and incorporate all possible areas
that in fact the topography information that we do have on file , to try
and analyze these areas and find out why they should in fact be included
in our Comp Plan , but unfortunately that study has not been fi.nali zed as
of yet. So right now this is kind of, as Steve pointed out, a catch 22
system. We know that it can be serviced by gravity system but whether Met
ICouncil wants to amend it, we don't know.
Conrad : Is it logical that this area be included? Is there a good case
to include this that Met Council would listen to? They' re obviously
I saying don ' t move the MUSA line. We' ve gone to them how many times and
it' s all land swaps. Contractually we' re tied to not putting it in so is
there a good case to go there? What' s the case?
IBrown: All I can tell you is that. . .
Conrad : The developer wants to develop it?
Brown: The developer wishes to develop it and it can be serviced by
gravity sanitary sewer .
IConrad : And it can be? And why wasn ' t it included before? Okay. We' ll
open it up for other public comments . What I 'd like you to do. You can
I stand where you are or you can come up and talk into the microphone if
it' s working. Whatever you ' re comfortable with. What I would like, if
you have comments , is to state your name and address for the public record
and then we'd sure like to hear your comments. Are there any?
Tom Nye: My name is Tom Nye. I live approximately slightly north of this
property. What separates this whole development from me is Klingelhutz'
I Pheasant Hills 4th Addition. We' ve had a lot of water build up on my
property on 63rd because much of Pheasant Hills and that area drains
through my property. It has recently been rectified so it ' s flowing into
some additional holding ponds and makes it way to Lake Lucy and so on. I 'm
concerned I guess , if this is all filled i.n , that the water will not be
able to flow, make it' s natural way to the swamps and so on which I think
the corner between Hughes , that Lot 1 is pretty wet . I 'm just concerned
I that it might get dammed up and won' t be allowed to exit my property.
Down the road . If he makes allowance for that , I guess I wish him all the
luck in the world but I 'm concerned that, you ' ve got to be concerned about
the people up river . The way the water flows , it could move back and get
dammed up. That ' s it.
Frank Cardarelle : Just to answer that . All the storm water will go to
the south and west and through this . In fact the dredging operation which
is not addressing , we met with the Department of Natural Resources and
Corps of Engineers. The only thing that we would be doing is taking the
I small area where the storm water would go as it traverses through this
particular project on to the storm drainage to the southwest. It' s on the
grading plan . The grading plan you have with the packet .
I
' II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 4 1
Dave Hughes : My name is Dave Hughes . 1780 Lake Lucy Road . My property
is there on the left. Concerning that drainage, I 'm the one that should
be concerned about it because I 'm the low end of this process and it' s
true that in our 4 ,000 year storm, we took some water down in that area
but normally that hasn' t been a problem. It seems to flow through
adequately. I 'd like to address two issues. One, this MUSA line in
general . I don' t understand the process. I 'm not a developer . Mr . Brown
has been most helpful in bringing me up to speed as to the processes
involved here but it seems logical to me that you have, of course Pheasant I
Hills development on the west end of Lake Lucy and you have, what is that
development called on the east end? Where the farm was developed? Curry
Farms? Curry Farms developed on the east end and both of them come down
to Lake Lucy Road . Lake Lucy Road is a south end boundary of the MUSA
line on both ends. Now it' s true that the . 9 miles which is distance
between those two developments , which is the length of Lake Lucy Road , the
old Lake Lucy Road. I 'm sure there' s specific spots along there that
gravity wise wouldn' t flow into the sanitary system but generally
speaking, all that land between those two big developments would flow
probably just fine. I 'm sure that Mr . Brown and Mr . Hanson' s department
are going to address that and probably are going to make a recommendation
that everything down to Lake Lucy Road or from Lake Lucy Road north be
included in any MUSA line movement. It would seem logical . I believe, is
it Mr. Conrad? You asked, you wonder why it wasn' t included , that
particular piece of property and I don' t understand the processes except
in talking with Klingelhutz I understand that nothing that a developer
hasn' t brought in and gone through all the processes and shown all the
plat plans and made all the applications , they just won' t put anything
else but that. It' s obvious that the folks down on the east end of Lake
Lucy, that Curry Farm development , a major development , a major contractor
with all the lots and all the planning and Klingelhutz on the west end did II
all the necessary things and they got it done . And all of us property
owners inbetween, we ' re all small . Mr. Carrico is probably a little
larger than some of us but relatively speaking to those two developments ,
we' re small property owners and we' re not in a position to undertake the
grand program to get a MUSA line in like those two developments did . So
we'd like the City, I would think, I certainly would and I know Mr .
Carrico would and I 'm sure most of the property owners inbetween those two
developments. Let 's just get that MUSA line right down at the same place
it is for the big developers on both ends . Lets just get it filled in
there so all of us smaller property owners can take advantage of that
development as the community' s developing . It' s obvious the community is
developing. The two big developers have brought that development to that
point and now we got caught in the middle. If it ' s one at a time, it
sounds like it' s a very difficult process with the Met Council but if
that ' s the way it has to be done because we can ' t move the line to Lake
Lucy Road and take care of it all at once, than it' s got to be one at a
time. I mean , it' s just a logical progression . 1
Conrad : Just a comment. I 'm not sure that that ' s how it happened, your
scenario . Big developers being involved and they do obviously. There was
some logic in where the MUSA line went. There were some people involved
many, many years ago that determined how it went but most of the time it
I
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 5
depended upon one . The Metropolitan Council telling us how much land we
could put in within the MUSA line, period. They said you can have so
much . Originally we wanted a little bit more. They moved it back. The
second criteria, we looked for logical boundaries. The logical boundaries
are roads or whatever, and also where you can get your sewer service .
Your gravity sewer service so there are logical reasons for some areas
' included and some areas not . There' s a logical reason, or there ' s
rationale why this wasn' t and that ' s why, I don ' t think they' re going to
listen to us unless we know why it wasn' t and then , is there new data
telling us that' s something different than what we saw before? But
anyway, I don ' t think it was the big guy versus the little guy in this
case.
Dave Hughes : You just defined my lack of understanding in that area . How
this process is going. I thank you for that. I sort of ask you folks .
Are you going to recommend that line to be moved south of Lake Lucy Road?
And if not, why not?
Conrad : That' s what we' ve got to decide.
' Dave Hughes: You folks should be coming to us rather than us coming to
you, the way I look at it. Now I understand it ' s a momentum thing and
priorities and you' ve got a lot of things and I understanding engineering
is doind that . Plans to do that . I would hope it would be a work
together. Do you know, is there anymore property in Chanhassen that Metro
Council says you can include or have they said, that' s the boundary?
' Conrad : We ' ve got a line right now and it' s good through the year 2000.
Dave Hughes : So they only consider it if you' ve got an overall
proposal . . .
Conrad : Contractually speaking , and we have signed a contract to my
t understanding, that says we will not move outside of that line until the
year 2000. My understanding .
Dave Hughes : They will reassess that I assume if the City makes an
overall recommendation? Not by parcel but by the overall city development
need I suppose .
' Conrad : That ' s the logic . That' s what bothers me about this particular
thing because it' s like spot zoning. You don' t do that. You go and say
we need property. We need more land in Chanhassen to develop based on the
needs that we ' re projecting and this is an isolated case and it doesn' t
really say, maybe we should be looking at other areas besides just this
one if we need more land. But again, contractually speaking , they' re not
going to change based on the feedback that I get . Just some comments .
' Dave Hughes: As a point of inquiry. The initiative to approach the Met
Council to expand the MUSA line to meet the needs of the City, who
' instigates that? Is that your group? Engineering? Is that Planning or
is it a . . .
1
Jt
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 6 1
Conrad : We may recommend it . We may recommend it and send it to City
Council. City Council says yes, that probably makes sense and then it' s a
matter of how much staff energy they want to spend versus the other items
on their agenda. All the other things that the City has to do, to see if II
they really want to go after changing the MUSA line. The MUSA line is a
tough one to change. Metropolitan Council is a really strong group and
basically we haven' t touched it unless there' s a land swap. That ' s what
we've done in the past. The other thing we' ve done in the past is we' ve
typically had the developer go over to Met Council and talk to them and
see what their openness for change is. That 's why this is a little bit
different scenario for me to listen to. Where we' re recommending , we ' re
looking at a subdivision before we can even manage the MUSA line. Saying
we need to expand the MUSA line. That ' s what we should be doing as a
Commission rather than reacting to one particular property and the City
council should be telling us , yes it' s worth our energy to really look at
that MUSA line and make a major recommendation to the Metropolitan
Council .
Dave Hughes : Where is that? Is that process started in our City or do we
pretty much say, all the lots, we have all the development property
available that' s needed at this time to sustain growth? 1
Conrad: Mark, what are we doing?
Mark Koegler : As part of the Comprehensive Plan update , there is work
being done on revising the Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan which
addresses the MUSA line issue. I think Larry eluded to that before.
That' s in the process and I don' t know what the completion date is. I
assume it' s pretty much in the next couple of months .
Brown: As I understand it, that' s correct. If I may add to that. The 11 Metropolitan Council , the contract that we signed to get the MWCC trunk
line through the City of Chanhassen basically states that we will not go
for an overall amendment to the MUSA boundary until such time as all areas
within the MUSA boundary at this time have been developed. That way
they' re saying , these are the areas that we've designated . We ' re putting
our priorities there and we will not go for an overall amendment until
that time.
Carl Carrico: Larry, do you remember the date of that contract?
Brown: No. ,
Dave Hughes : As I understand it from talking to Mr . Klingelhutz, and I
could stand to be corrected, but I understand that his property was
outside of that boundary under the contract . And he , through sheer
preserverance and applications and responding to all the necessary
requests , got an amendment and got his in so obviously there is a policy
by which this can be done. And I understand in talking to you too Larry
that Metro Council has said that they won' t even consider it unless the
Planning Commission inkles that they will consider this development if the II
line was moved . So they said , give us an inkle and then send the
developer over and we' ll consider it. Well , that ' s all they' re asking
II
Planning Commission Meeting
' January 4 , 1989 - Page 7
for . He might get stonewalled over there but that' s his problem.
Frank Cardarelle: I 'd just like to add one thing. We have met with
the Metropolitan Planning Council and that is essentially what they have
said. They feel that this is surrounded by development. It' s a piece
that is logically to be developed next, that they will consider it but it
' has to, like we said, the catch 22 is thus, we have to have you approve it
first and then we can go over there subject to their approval of moving
the MUSA line. If they don' t move it, obviously we can' t do it.
Dave Hughes : And it ' s apparently been done by Klingelhutz.
Brown: Just a point of clarification. As we' ve seen in the past, we have
made amendments to the MUSA boundary. We' ve been able to swap land before
with a trade for that. I wasn' t referring so much to a small parcel . I
was referring to the overall amendment which I know the Commissioners are
' complying with.
Dave Hughes : Was there any swap done on the Klingelhutz land?
' Brown: I don ' t know.
Dave Hughes : I don ' t know of any. That ' s something I spole with
' Mr. Hanson' s department about and with Mr. Brown. Someday when I retire
maybe that ' s what I ' ll do with my land . Try to develop it but
specifically why I brought it up is you notice my easement for my driveway
' is along the left hand boundary of Mr . Carrico ' s property now. It ' s a 32
foot easement and to develop the property I would say I have to have a 50
foot easement. The second is , I 've been advised by my engineers , . . .and
Novak, that the access to the property has to be a little bit easterly as
' the driveway is shown , redrawn , to make it developable in any reasonable
fashion. I only bring it up at this point in that Mr. Carrico has
graciously offered to work with me to move the driveway and negotiate that
' but if this development should go through and the City should wind up with
that frontland as parkland , I would just like to petition the Planning
Commission now to know that to make my piece a viable piece for future
' development , if this MUSA line ever gets done and all the other
considerations , that I would hope the park people would be sent a message,
hey Hughes likes to , needs his driveway over . I ' ll buy it from them or
buy an easement from them or whatever but I have to get it over
' approximately 100 feet east of where it is . The centerline to centerline.
I realize that the Planning Commission doesn ' t tell the Park Commission
what they have to do and so on but I 'm just trying to share these with
everybody and I wouldn' t have your guys job for anything .
Carol Droegemueller : My name is Carol Droegemueller and I live in
Pheasant Hills . The property that was developed by Tom Klingelhutz. I ' ve
' lived there for 4 years . I was one of the early residents there and just
in the most recent discussion, I just have a couple of comments before I
get to what I was here to say. Yes , this property is bordered by the MUSA
line on two sides and two sides it is not so it' s not surrounded by the
MUSA line in my understanding of it. If it' s bordered on the west and the
north, then it is not bordered on the east and south so it ' s just half the
' 1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 8 1
borders. The first comment or what I came here to say is that our area, ,
Pheasant Hills is planned to have as many as, I think it' s 80 homes. We
are completely park deficient in that development in terms of useable park
space. We have some outlots that have water on them but in terms of a dry
parkland , we have none . In my conversations with Lori Sietsema, the
possibility that this property will be developed into parkland was looking
fairly positive if the property values came close enough that negotiation II
was possible. Your recommendation to have this property approved on
certain conditions . I would like to speak to the second condition and
have that be almost be more of a priority that the park exists. That that 1
be considered for parkland almost as a priority. I guess that ' s what I
wanted to say. Then I just have a question. If this city approves this
to go to the Metropolitan Council to change the MUSA line and then the
MUSA line does not get changed because of that committee, than what legal 1
ramifications are there for the Carricos who want to develop that? Does
the City bear any legal responsibility for having first approved it and
then not having it approved by the . . . ?
Ellson: It' s approved with . . .
Carol Droegemueller : With those conditions? Okay. 1
Carl Carrico: My name is Carl Carrico and it' s very difficult for a loud
mouth to keep his mouth shut but basically there' s one point that I don ' t
think the Planning Commission has been made aware of and that basically
i.s , for lack of a better name, Carrico Lane , hooking back in with
Klingelhutz, we will be able to give the Fire Department a better circular 1
service . Not only for our development but for Klingelhutz' development .
In other words , there will be a loop route in there and I think that' s
very important . When we originally talked about developing this about 8
to 10 years ago, that was one of the significants points about this land.
They wanted to make sure that we hooked into Klingelhutz' property.
Pat Johnson: My name is Pat Johnson. I live at 1730 Lake Lucy Lane which
is across Lake Lucy Lane, immediately to the south of this project . I
agree with Carol here. We've been down here at different meetings . I
guess she has a lot of the people from Pheasant Hills have been down here II
talking about parkland. I 'm from Lake Lucy Highlands which is just across
the street and we' ve been talking about parkland. We' ve got hundreds of
kids in this area , many of whom, like my kids , are under 6. I see a
couple of problems with the plan , although I just saw it tonight . Haven' t II
had a chance to talk to the developer but the one problem I see is that it
seems to me that the entryway to the development from Lake Lucy Lane , I
believe it' s part of Lake Lucy Road there but it 's my understanding that
would be Lake Lucy Lane , is fairly close to the intersection of Lake Lucy
Lane and Lake Lucy Road which is a terrible intersection to begin with. A
lot of us in Lake Lucy Highlands are upset because we have a requirement
of at least 2 1/2 acre lots because we' re not part of the service and
Lake Lucy Road , although it has a speed limit of 30 mph , appears to be
more like a freeway going through that area. It' s a very wide road. A
lot of trucks . A lot of traffic. Because we have children, we' re quite —
concerned with that. It appears to me from the plan here that the
entryway to Carrico lane would be fairly close to that intersection which
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 9
is a blind intersection and a bad intersection. That would be my first
objection to it. The second thing is, Carol mentioned, as far as the
service line goes , we' re not a part of it. We' re directly to the south of
' the proposed development so as I can see it, the service area is moving to
the immediate north and west of this property. Finally we have again,
the parkland area is a big concern to us . This particular piece of
' property is a fine piece of property because it ' s one of the few remaining
that can be developed into parkland in our area of the size that
I understand the park commission wants to develop a park and it ' s
conveniently located. Therefore, I think that what' s been proposed in our
area anyway, would oppose the granting of the plans to go ahead with this
project at least without some sort of further information being provided
to the public , especially the adjoining landowner . Thanks .
Frank Cardarelle: I have some answers. The road, Carrico Lane is 150
feet, at least 150 feet west of Lake Lucy Road and the intersection of
' Lake Lucy Road and Lake Lucy Lane. That was the recommendation. We can
move it further . I think if you ' ll note on here , it' s colored so it' s a
little easier to see, it is 150 feet giving 10 cars, or approximately a 10
car back-up from there to the intersection. Also, we have held out the
4. 42 acres for park if they can get together at this time. If not, it
will be developed in the future. And again, like I say, it ' s a moot point
if they do get together and purchase it for park but on the other hand ,
' something has to be done. The developer wants to use the property and
again we have met with Metropolitan Planning Commission. We are trying to
follow the proper procedure to go ahead and do this and that ' s why we' re
here.
Pat Johnson: Let me say, we ' re not picking on you. You just happen to be
the last one that' s developable out of that area. The problem is a lot of
developers , and I understand the action of the City, the City' s problem
where a lot of developers had set aside this land and for various reasons
the City has decided we' ll let you do this and this instead of giving us a
' big hunk of land. As a result, we' ve got a lot of people, a lot of kids
with no park.
Conrad : Larry, normally there' s an engineering report attached to
' something like this. A subdivision. There' s nothing here. Have you
evaluated this?
' Brown: My report is . We did evaluate that intersection. We did a mini.-
analysis for Pheasant Hill and it does meet the required spacing so a car
can cue up to safely turn onto Lake Lucy Road without creating a problem.
Carol Droegemueller : I forgot to mention also that all of the property
owners in our area had contributed to a park fund , a city park fund, and
the general fund. Not necessarily that it comes right back to that
' neighborhood immediately but kind of gets spent as needs present
themselves. We have contributed to that fund and yet we have yet to even
have a totlot area or anything out there . There' s been a lot of park
' development in Chanhassen but we haven' t seen it yet and I guess I 'd like
to go for broke. I 'd like to see the whole piece of property used for
park rather than the 4. 4 that' s remaining in the wetland area or the
' I II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 10 1
larger area there simply because once it ' s gone, it' s gone and you can' t II
retreive it.
Pat Johnson : If I can add real quick. The problem is, a lot of these I
small acreages set aside, which I guess is private parkland, are wetland
and you can' t use it for a park for kids . What we want is something that
we can play ball in. . . I
Doris Mielke : I 'm Doris Mielke and we live at 1645 Lake Lucy Road right
across the street from that and I certainly want to go on record too.
We' ve lived there some 27 years and we really do need a park in that area II
now. There just are a lot of kids and if Chanhassen needs a park
anyplace, it' s in that area .
Jim Mielke: I 'm Jim Mielke, I live at the same address , 1645 Lake Lucy II
Road. Lived there for 25 years. Anyway, what I hear from between the
Klingelhutz property and the Curry Farm, there ' s 8 property owners II including Mr . Hughes and Mr . Carrico's property. What I hear tonight, if
you make allowances for this property, Mr . Hughes is the next one in .
Then the next one down the line is going to be coming in making the same
pitch to you and just like a bunch of dominoes falling in series , that
II
whole row is going to go down from what we have and what we' re faced with
on the south side of the road . A very nice , suburban area with large
lots. My acre is only 2 acres . Not near as large as some of the other
lots being developed but you' re going to change the whole character of II
that neighborhood on the north side of the road plus you' re going to end
up with high density all the way along there with still no playground for ,
these kids. The kids are going to be running their trikes up and down
this road where the traffic is now way beyond 30 mph . I think you as a
Planning Commission have a chance to hold the line here and live with the
Comprehensive Plan and put the parks in the place where you promised these II
people to put them. I think this is the best thing you could do for this
property. So thanks .
Frank Cardarelle : I have one comment I guess I 'd like to make. This one , II
my understanding Larry is that the MUSA line is on the westerly side of
our property and the Hughes ' property. Is that correct? It goes along
the north boundary of their property and our property, comes down '
approximately on our east so it does , just except this small piece out of
it. As I understand, all the rest of the property, all the way to the
Curry property is all within the MUSA line. It ' s just this little piece ,
north of the road. That ' s my understanding. Now if I 'm wrong, I 'd like
to have Larry correct it at this time so we know what piece we are talking
about is in the MUSA line .
II
Conrad : We don ' t have an overlay of the MUSA line right now. Something
new that we haven' t heard?
Dave Hughes : I listened to the dialogue about parks before when II
Klingelhutz, when they were making their proposal to you people and to the
City Council on that development. There has always been a concern for 11 that and there still is a concern for that. If there' s going to be
something done, I would like to solicit the Planning Commission to get
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 11
ahold of the undeveloped. There are several excellent pieces along the
north side of Lake Lucy Road. Phil Mathiowetz has a nice piece that' s
high and would lend itself for ball diamonds , tennis courts and other
' things. A big piece of property on the north side. I would solicit you
people to go and talk to him and make a proposal to him and try to buy it.
You' re talking about, you would have to buy the north side of that
property because the south side is mostly lowland . If the park takes it,
it will make a wonderful pond but it isn' t going to lend itself for
ballfields and tennis courts and other things because there just isn ' t any
' flat, high enough area to do it that isn' t flooded any season that happens
to be raining out. Last season it wasn ' t. So , I agree. Parks are needed
and that was recognized before. I don' t think there was adequate park
provisions in Klingelhutz ' development to begin with but that ' s a personal
opinion. I 'd like to see our commission, or whoever the people are in our
city, go to these property owners before they come along and want to
develop it and then hold them ransom for a park. Maybe we should get that
done before it gets to this stage. If that is possible in the process . I
don' t know the process but it would seem logical .
Carol Droegemueller : I 'm Carol Droegemueller of Pheasant Hills and in
' response to that question about whether this lowland is going to be
suitable for a park. In my conversations with Lori Sietsema , she said
this property, from what she knows of it and they looked at it for quite
some time, is that it really lends itself very well for parkland . It' s
the kind of wetland that it ' s dry most of the time and would require very
little changes to convert it to ball diamonds and tennis courts , a
basketball courts or whatever . Whatever they planned to do with it and
that it would be a good park and not a wetland .
Dave Hughes : We've lived there for 15 years and I 'd invite her to come on
' over any season of normal rainfall . You' ll be wading in water three-
quarters of that property. It stands in water. It' s a Class A wetland.
' Mrs . Palmer : I 've lived there for 40 years and it ' s always wet .
Conrad: I think that we hear the signal that there' s a need for a park.
' Carol Droegemueller : Is there somebody from the Park tonight?
Conrad: Not tonight. We have a report from them and I think we
' understand that there' s a need . I think the City' s responsibility is to
decide where that park goes and I think you made your point real clearly.
We' ve got to decide how much park. What kind of park and specifically
where it goes. Are there other different comments? Anything else that
hasn ' t been said?
Batzli moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted
in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed .
Headla : Larry, what' s the rationale for when we consider this when the
Baptist Church wasn' t considered at all for the Interceptor? I 've never a
better rationale than the Baptist Church being able to tap into that line.
Why should there be a difference between there and this?
1
r 11
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 12 ,
Brown: Right now we know that sanitary sewer exists within a very close
proximity and again, I hate to beat a dead horse but this property can be
served very easily and it' s within close proximity. As far as the church,
I don't have any information to tell you whether sanitary sewer service is
in fact within this distance. To say whether it would be amended.
Obviously we' re in a situation here where the Met Council has looked at
the property and said, okay we' re going to give a little and it ' s like
anything else, a lot of it may be first come, first serve.
Headla : We open this , I think we' re opening a bunch of other things. I
personally feel I don' t want to touch this thing. I 'd like to see, if
we' re going to do it, if it makes sense, I think there are other people
that probably should be involved. If our people, our staff looks at it
and after looking at that whole area you come back and say this particular
part is reasonable, then I 'd look at it but until I see that in writing
from our staff , I don' t think we should consider it .
Wildermuth: The argument for park area is very compelling but I think '
that ' s an issue that the Park and Rec Board and the City Council have to
take up. From a planning standpoint, I 'd like to see a MUSA line study of
the area and I ' d like to see what other areas should be included or could II
be included rather than just look at this one small 11 acre parcel . One
thing bothers me Larry. In reading your report , you say the proposed 50
foot right-of-way maintains a design speed of approximately 15 mph through I
the 90 degree bend adajacent to Lot 5, Block 1. The design criteria does
not meet the city standard for an urban roadway but yet we really haven' t
raised the issue there . That suggests to me that the plan could be I
improved and probably should be improved before anything is done with it .
Before we could even think about going forward with it. The other thing ,
the third point that I have is that the wetlands are impacted by that
road . Paul Burke from Fish and Wildlife seemed to be pretty concerned II about any fill that was going to be required. I guess when I look at all
of that and I put it all together , I don ' t think we ' re in a position to
make any kind of a recommendation on this proposal . ,
Batzli : I agree with everything Jim said except for the caveat that I
don' t know that it' s not part of our function to take a look at where
parks go and we' ve talked about that before. But I would like to add that II
I don' t think in this case we really looked, or an additional comment
really is , I don ' t think that we' ve looked at why we' re really trying to
rezone this. I don' t know really what the kind of lot densities are on
the other sides . Why we' re doing it . What is the rationale? The only
rationale I heard to look at rezoning this was that the applicant said
something like it' s the next logical development . There ' s a lot of areas
in the city that might be next logical developments but I haven' t seen any
kind of factual findings or looking at why we should amend the
comprehensive plan in this particular parcel to RSF from it' s RR and what
impact that may have on the adjacent landowners . So I 'm totally against
looking at this right now.
Ellson : I voice the same concerns . I think one of the reasons we have a
Comprehensive Plan is you sit down and you do a long range plan before
people all get up in arms and personal about it . I know that if I were
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 13
the Hughes ' I would thinking down the road a piece and if I were the
Mielkes and Johnsons and Millers, I 'd want a park in my neighborhood and
one of the reasons we write this plan out is so that we get a clear
picture before all the personal personalities and opinions get involved
and everything . I agree with Brian . They want it rezoned simply so that
they can get this many more on here. I think the zoning we picked for the
comprehensive plan should still be the zoning it should be. Again , our
comprehensive plan said that we' re poor in a park in this area and I feel
that that ' s what it should be. I don ' t necessarily want to see a
MUSA line study or anything else. I think we should go with what we
planned . I don ' t really see a good reason to rezone this based on one
person. We had that in place a long time and we made other people follow
it.
' Emmings : I guess I ' ve got a little different outlook on this than I ' ve
heard so far. I ' ve got some specific questions first. The road that, as
' it comes down toward Lake Lucy Lane , on the drawing that I have, it
actually goes over into that excepted area but I see on the new drawings
it' s been moved over to the west . But is this property owned by someone
else?
Hanson : Yes .
Emmings : Can they build their road right up to that? How can they build
their road right up to that boundary?
Hanson : They can go up to the property as long as they stay within their
own. The road right-of-way.
Emmings : They can have their road right up to the property line with no
setback requirement of any kind?
Hanson : Not for the placement of the right-of-way.
' Emmings: That seems to me to be something we better look at. If that' s
allowed . . .
' Conrad : The right-of-way can go up to the property line. Not the road ,
the right-of-way could. They couldn' t put the right-of-way on the
neighboring property.
' Emmings: But where are they going to build it within the right-of-way?
It sounds like essentially they can build right up to the property. If
our ordinance allows that now, I think we ought to take a look at that .
The road design, having that right angle in there, I guess , as Jim pointed
out , that ' s not too . . . My view of this is , we ' ve got residential
development to the north. This area is going to be developed. I thought
' this was a very peculiar request . I think I understand it somewhat better
now that it' s being explained during this catch 22 situation but it almost
seems like we' re being asked to give an advisory opinion. What would we
' do if and I don' t like to be faced with that. I also don' t like the fact
that the rezoning is separated from the site plan and everything else . It
ought to be looked at as a package but it seems like it can ' t be because
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 14 1
the Met Council has indicated that they won' t act until we do something '
first. I 'm not really opposed to approving this plan to let them see if
the Met Council will include it within the MUSA because I think that ' s
kind of an interesting test to be able to send up anyway. I think that' s 1
a place that we' re headed in the future and we' ve got a person here who
owns land and has a right to attempt to develop it if they want to. I 'm
concerned with, what if this comes back from Met Council and they say yes II
we' ll include it and we decide not to rezone the property? I don' t like
being in that situation because I 'm afraid we' ll hear from the developer ,
well , we relied on the fact that you approved the site plan and let us go
onto the Metropolitan Council and now we come back for the rezoning that
you knew was coming and now you say you won' t rezone us. I wouldn' t want
to hear that and I 'm sure that we might if it came to that so all and all
it' s a very unusual proposal . Certainly unlike anything we've ever seen II before . But like I said , I wouldn' t mind approving the site plan because
it does meet the criteria of the RSF zone which is what they' ll be asking
for . It does seem to be bordered by similar type of development to the
north and we all know that ' s heading south because the process has been
going on for some time. If it would be approved, and it doesn ' t sound
like it will be, I would say that condition 1 ought to have, it says that
approval is intended to indicate a willingness on the part of the City to
consider an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. I think there ought to
be a second sentence in there that says approval should not be construed
by the applicant as an agreement by the City to rezone or to amend the
Comprehensive Plan or anything else . I don' t think we want to be put in
that position. As far as , just the way these recommendations are written,
in number 3 it says that all concerns in the attached referral be resolved
prior to submittal of final plans . I think it' s fine to include the
referrals as conditions or the contents of the referrals as conditions but
if you' re going to do that , I think you ought to list them so everybody
knows precisely what was attached. For example, you say the staff II engineer ' s report dated December 29 , 1988 . Make a list of those right in
here so that when they come back and say what do we have to comply with ,
there ' s absolutely no question about what has to be complied with. Then
the other thing I 'm confused about is on our agenda it says something
about the wetland alteration permit but I don ' t see anything in our
materials about that. There' s a condition down here at the end that they
have to submit a plan. Would this require a wetland alteration permit?
Hanson: Yes it would .
Emmings : But where is that or is that something that would come up later 1
after they came back?
Hanson : Initially it was going to be part of the request tonight and
I did not put that on there , just keeping that out as a condition. Again
the subdivision is what the Metro Council wants to see.
Emmings: So actually the condition 4 down there should say, the obtaining
of a wetland alteration permit?
Hanson: Yes . 1
1
F
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 15
Emmings : Alright . I think the thing on the church too Dave. You brought
up the church. You know we all thought they ought to be able to tap into
the interceptor but they went over to Met Council and Met Council just say
flat no.
Headla : I don ' t see any consistency.
Emmings : But other than that, I don' t really seem to have the strong
reservations about this development that other people do. Parkland is
obviously a very important item to this neighborhood. It' s an issue that
' ought to be put , sounds like on a very high priority by the Park and Rec
and by the City Council but I don' t think we can impose it on this land
owner who ' s coming here with a plan for development for his land unless
you want to buy his land. That ' s it .
Erhart : Again , providing a little comfort on the Park and Rec issue .
Whether or not this body should be involved in that. I don' t know but we
aren ' t but I might add that 4 of the 5 councilman are here tonight and I 'm
sure all of the comments that were said about parks and recs were taken in
so I think the effort was well worth it . Regarding whether we ought to
' look at this. i think again, this demonstrates the error in attempting to
control the growth of the Metropolitan Waste system by drawing an
arbitrary line around the metropolitan area and jogging it around one
' person ' s land versus another . I think it underlines the unfairness , a
central planning approach to the waste water growth that it imparts on
landowners . Simply because one landowner happened to be in the right
place one day and the next guy wasn' t, one fellas land is worth 4 times
the adjacent land . Other communities have for years used market forces to
control the growth of their waste treatment system and I think it would be
a far better system in this area to also use those systems. Whereas a
' very valuable piece of land could tap into the waste system and simply
would have to pay the price and compete with the next land owner
instead of basically someone making arbitrary decisions . I think I ' ve
' stated my position on that before. I agree with Steve . I think if we
would have simply proceeded with this we would have had this thing through
the Planning Commission and back to staff and Mr . Carrico could have been
onto the Met Council yet tonight . I think we ought to proceed to discuss
' the merits of the plan . Maybe when we' re all done is that the City ought
to discuss with Mr . Carrico, perhaps ask him to wait. In the first place
I want to say I 'm glad to hear Larry that we are doing a study on whether
' looking to see what the possibility of incorporating a land switch could
be served by gravity flow into the existing sewer . I think it makes
totally good sense. The fact is that we ' re doing that and what we should
ask the developer here is to just wait until that ' s done and if we have an
opportunity to take a bigger picture, take a broader view and go to Met
Council and find out what the outcome of that is first . Obviously you' re
welcome to go over here. I would propose that you ' re welcome to go over
' there yourself but we might get more done if we work together on this
thing with Larry and Steve and the Council . There ' s another question. I
think Steve brings up a good point here too is that if we were to go ahead
' and evaluate the proposal tonight and submit a recommendation to the
Council , possibly a recommendation , I think there is an issue then if
we' re using this as a test balloon. Do we want to come back and spot zone
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 16
it? I 'm not too sure how we handle that . Steve and Ladd , you may want to II
give that a little thought. With those comments, I guess I 'd like to
proceed with some questions on the development . I 'm assuming that we' re
going to go ahead and to take a vote on it. I
Conrad : If you have more questions, go ahead .
Erhart: Yes , I have some questions specifically related to the ,
development . One is the elbow in the street design. I don' t understand
that. It just seems extremely dangerous in that how does, if someone is I
proceeding southeast on the upper portion of it and another car is coming
north, what happens at that circle? Are there two stop signs there or
whatever? I think there are bigger issues to discuss but I think that' s
something that has to be resolved and I don ' t think we should try to II resolve that right here . To me that' s not acceptable unless I just don' t
understand the traffic flow. The second thing is , what is our , maybe you
don' t know Steve but help me or answer it later , again we have a series of
lots on the northwest side where the frontages are 72, 73, 77 feet. Is
our policy on curves to put the lot width at the setback as opposed to the
street now?
Hanson: Yes , at the setback is the way it goes .
Erhart: So it ' s not just cul-de-sacs? It ' s on the outside curve of any
street?
Hanson : Yes .
Erhart : What is it, just quickly, not taking a lot of time, what is it
that we' re doing with the wetland? Is it simply putting in the road or is
there more to it than that? '
Hanson : There ' s some modification to the wetland . The way that it exists
now due to the road. It' s been mentioned the concerns that Paul Burke had
and he ' s had a concern about it but he ' s also said he doesn ' t have a major
problem with that alteration.
Erhart : Okay. We ' re going to see that wetland alteration? ,
Hanson: What I have suggested is that if you want to go ahead with the
subdivision and do the subdivision solely and give an okay on that and
hold the alteration plan until such time. . .
Erhart: Okay, that ' s specifically what I 'd like to do. That ' s the last
of my questions and I guess I 'd like to see us proceed with a positive
reaction on this . Either the City or the developer can go to Met Council .
Conrad: My quick comments . I have some problems with the design . '
Specifically the elbow and the street into the wetland and I think there
are some things that, this just doesn' t quite feel right in terms of the
design. In terms of the procedure , in terms of going to Met Council , it
seems kind of futile to me unless we had some good rationale in going
there . It' s like how many times do you want to go back unless you have a
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
' January 4, 1989 - Page 17
good case . And to let them go in with one case , unless we had some
rationale by saying here we had a mistake. It really is an area that
could be hooked up real easily and areas to the east and west are all okay
' and this is just a real unique situation. I don' t see the rationale right
now for going to Met Council . My preference is , and I don' t mind sending
up test balloons but I want to have a good case when we go there. Why
' waste staff time? Why waste the developer time when maybe we don' t have a
good case and I don' t think we do. We' ve played with the MUSA line enough
to know, unless staff is telling us they' re more receptive to changing
' their response. I guess I 'd prefer to see this item tabled and have staff
tell us what they believe should be done to look at the MUSA line in
general. Now Mark is working on the Comprehensive Plan with us. I think
we have some other studies being done. I guess I 'd just hate to take this
' out of context of a bigger picture and wasting a lot of energy. For sure
if this goes , well than we have some other things that other people would
want to include and it just really doesn' t seem like good planning to me
' at all . I 'm not even tempted to roll this one to City Council until
somebody tells us that it makes sense to do it this way. And I think I 'd
like to have staff or City Council tell us it makes sense to do it that
way. But right now I 'm not comfortable at all sending it forward. My
' preference is to table it until Mark has a Comprehensive Plan done that
says the MUSA line should be moved and here are the places where it should
be moved in. I just have no interest in going or allowing somebody to go
to Met Council with 10 acres or 11 acres of property. I 'd like to go with
a bigger picture than that. That ' s my feeling .
' Emmings : Can I ask you a question. It' s my understand that what could be
happening here is that the applicant will be going to the Met Council .
The only thing he'd be bearing from the City is the fact that we had given
approval to the preliminary plat . The City isn ' t going to say, we think
they should be included. We' re just saying that if. . .
Conrad : It ' s implied that we think it should be . If we let it develop in
' small lots, it is implied that the MUSA line should be changed. It' s
implied that the zoning should be changed and we totally agree with the
developer. That' s implied. In my mind it is . I don' t know. We haven' t
looked at zoning in this case . Again , we' re saying this is the right
' zone. We haven' t looked at the zoning yet .
Emmings : No we haven' t said that.
' Conrad: Well , if you allow 15, 000 square foot lot sizes , you have
insinuated to the developer what you want on this land .
1 Emmings: That's your view. I don' t think you have to look at it that
way.
Conrad : The developer will look at it that way. It ' s what signals you
want to send.
Emmings : If he gets our approval on the preliminary plat and if he' s
approved by Met Council , than he has to ask us to rezone and amend our
Comprehensive Plan , neither of which we might do.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 18 '
Conrad: I think that' s unfair to them.
Emmings : But that' s what he' s asking for and if he' s asking for that, why '
should you say it' s unfair to him?
Conrad : I don ' t want to send a signal that says I want to rezone and I
want this particular design right now. I also need a signal coming
from Park and Rec telling me what they thing where a park should be and if
this is parkland, I feel uncomfortable saying that we want a development
there when we have a feeling that there might be a need for a park.
There' s a lot of loose ends that I 'm not comfortable with right now and
therefore , and I really want staff coming back and saying , there is
rationale going on a piecemeal basis to go after the Met Council and see II if, use this as a test balloon . I don' t believe that staff will come back
and say it to us that way and I think with Mark' s input, we may do a
different approach. It ' s one of the biggest issues that our new mayor and '
city council are going to deal with is development of Chanhassen and how
much. How much do we want to deal with the Met Council and where does
that MUSA line go. But that' s my personal opinion. I just don' t want to
deal with it this way. There are other ways of dealing with it and
sending it over there. Those are ways of doing it. They' re not my ways
of doing it . Basically, we have a lot of alternatives . Approving it.
Approving it with some recommendations. Tabling it. Turning it down and
sending it along to City Council . Tabling it doesn ' t get it to City
Council . Turning it down or saying something positive about it,
recommending approval of it gets it to City Council for their comments .
Your choices in making a motion can consider those alternatives and I ' ll
accept a motion right now.
Headla : Let me make a motion on that but let me give some rationale on II it. I don' t object to the property being developed but I think we have to
have a plan . What' s going to be the impact with the MUSA line? The
parkland and the adjoining properties all along that line. I 'd recommend , '
I 'd make a motion that we table this . I 'd like to see the staff do a
study on the gravity flow. What' s the impact if we do go, bring that
within the MUSA line and what' s going to be the impact and requirements
for parkland? I think this one gentleman, and I don' t know who it was '
now, brought up a very good point . If we expand the MUSA line there ,
we' re going to put in a lot more properties. A lot more kids. A lot
more people. What ' s going to be the impact to that area? '
Wildermuth: I second the motion.
Conrad : Was that a motion? ,
Headla : I started with the rationale and then I made the motion. I ' ll
make a motion that we table this proposal for the time being and have the II
staff do a study on the impact if we increase the MUSA line and that based
on the study Larry mentioned , the gravity flow. What ' s going to be the
impact on requirements for parkland. There' s a third point. The gravity II
sewer and parkland .
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 19
' Ellson: And density were you saying?
Headla: Well then the density goes into that. I guess maybe those two
' points brought it together.
Erhart : If we table it, what is the time limit? Is there a time limit on
' tabling a proposal or what' s the procedure for that?
Conrad : Let ' s ask Steve. What type of time? We ' re basically saying ,
tell us more. We need some legal opinions. We need staff telling us what
' procedurally the right way to look at more areas. Specifically right next
to this. I think what we' re looking for is some staff advice. Not
necessarily on this parcel but in parcels in general in this area and a
program as to what we' re going to do. Some of that' s going to do in the
future for all of Chanhassen . This gets into City Council stuff so it ' s
kind of tough but what type of timeframe would you see that coming back to
us in?
' Hanson : Larry has a question but one thing I would see as , the way that
you talked about it, it opens up in a lot of respects Pandora' s Box. As
' far as how far you take that evaluation of what you want to include within
the MUSA line. Obviously if there' s no parameters on it, what' s not
within the MUSA line right now but I think my understanding of what you' re
talking about is those areas that would logically be called infield lines .
Jay was kind enough to go grab a copy of the overhead of the plan with the
MUSA line on it and the property that we' re talking about. The Carrico
property is sitting right here . It runs from there , this is the Hughes
' property right here. I would assume that you ' re talking about, for
example this whole area and whether you want to include other areas in
that, I don' t know.
Conrad : Okay, should we limit what we' re asking staff to do as
specifically to that area north?
' Ellson : If you' re doing a MUSA line study, is it fair to just do it for
their neighborhood because like he says , that Baptist Church would want
it? I think that we should send it onto the Council with one or the
other .
Conrad : A yea or nay versus a table?
' Ellson: Right .
Headla : However , when you look at it, they' ve already made the point it' s
easily accessible, that particular area and I think that' s got to be
criteria on expanding any MUSA line . Is it easily accessible? If you' re
going to run 1, 000 feet, I don' t think that' s necessarily easily
' accessible .
Conrad : Can you get back in 2 weeks to us a recommendation as to how to
handle this specific group of parcels north of Lake Lucy Road?
Brown: Obviously with the contracts that we' ve been mentioning and with
i
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 20
I
all the other constraints that go with it, obviously Met Council has in
II
the past said, if you give us this area, we need to swap another area .
That' s precisely what we' re looking at through that Comprehensive Plan.
Trying to take in all the constraints, and there are many of them that may II
not have been mentioned this evening . For us to take a look at this one
area, I think we' re putting the blinders on. We' re duplicating work that
this study is already in the works . I guess what I 'm trying to get across
is if you recommend tabling it until you can get some valid information on 11
the MUSA, I 'm afraid the only thing that ' s really going to give you a fair
answer is the Comprehensive Plan which isn' t due to be completed for a
couple months . I
Headla : That was my third point . Would we be going to the Met Council in
an organized manner? Look, this is our plan. This makes sense. This II doesn' t make sense and there may be just that little pitch in there that
makes sense but at least we gave it thought. It isn' t helter skelter .
Batzli : I guess from the standpoint of if we' re asking staff to do some
I
legwork, I 'd also like to see them look at that. If we' re going to extend
the MUSA line to that area or look at it , we should also be looking at
rezoning that entire area rather than this one parcel .
II
Conrad : Based on what Larry is saying, we' re not going to get to the
bottom line for a couple of months. Staff may not have a fair evaluation II
for a couple of months . In that light , we literally, we may want to vote
it yea or nay and get it to City Council so that they could add their two
cents to the issue .
Wildermuth: Maybe the way to address the MUSA line issue is to put it in II
the Comprehensive Plan.
Erhart : Ladd , can I ask the developer what he prefers to do? 1
Conrad: I don' t know.
IIErhart: He may be willing to wait until the study is done.
Conrad: You would like a reaction wouldn' t you? I guess , do you have a
II
timeframe? Would you like us to do some studying? It may take a couple
of months.
IICarl Carrico : I can understand your problem because I 've heard all of you
discuss it. But, basically I think you still have my under control if I
go to the Met Council and see if I can do it. If it' s necessary to wait
for the Comprehensive Plan, I guess it ' s certainly going to delay my plans II
for development but I 'm here to cooperate . I 'm not here to , I have 4
children of my own and I like parks too but they like to eat too. I don' t
think it' s your purpose and I 'm sure you' ve consider , delaying this II decision is going to hurt me but I 'm willing to take it on, withdraw my
request until the Comprehensive Plan is completed . I would prefer to be
able to go to the Metropolitan Council and see if I can get it done. I II don' t think it' s going to hurt anybody. When I come back, you still have
to approve my plan anyway. I understand that you don' t normally do it
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 21
this way but I 'm going to have to do it anyway. It ' s not the City who ' s
going to have to do it. Mr. Cardarelle and I are going to have to go
Metropolitan Council and see if we can get it done. If we can' t get it
done, then whether you approved it or not isn' t going to make any
difference.
Conrad : You'd like us to react to it tonight then? Basically you'd like
us to react to it tonight so you can take it up? We' ve got 5 or 6 more
items on the agenda tonight so we' ve got to get this going somehow. I 'm
just going to take your comments to say, react to it tonight. Don' t table
it. You don ' t want to withdraw it.
Carl Carrico : If you want to table it , I 'm not here to make. . . I 'm not
going to make the decision for you. I ' ve lived in Chanhassen. I 've
developed a lot of property in Chanhassen and I like Chanhassen. Probably
a long time before most of you were here so I really believe in this town
and I want the best thing for the town too . I 've owned the property since
1972 so it' s not a quick suede shoe operation.
Wildermuth : I could really get behind the idea of taking it to the Met
Council if the proposal was a good solid proposal . If the road issue was
taken care of and if the wetland issue was taken care of and if we took a
look at a little larger picture as far as the rezoning. The implied
rezoning is concerned . I guess that would be why I would want us to table
it for the moment. Have it come back. Rework the road. Let staff look
at the zoning issue for the general area up there . Than I could feel a
lot better about supporting the proposal . It ' s kind of like, I 'm going to
compromise my principle to support a philosophy or are you going to
compromise your philosophy to support a principle?
Conrad : Are you in favor of tabling it for a short period of time?
Emmings: No .
Conrad : Do you feel comfortable with the design as presented?
Emmings: No.
Conrad : You don' t?
Emmings : I have reservations about the road plan . I think that left hand
turn in there is a bad thing unless somebody can convince me otherwise
but I don ' t have problems with the rest of it . I also don ' t like the road
coming against that other piece of property. But I don' t think it ought
to be tabled . Usually we don ' t have this much dissention here . Usually
we find a consensus. That' s suggests to me that this is an important and
doubtful issue and I think the thing to do is to let the Council give us
some direction here by sending it up to them. If they reject it, we' re
going to know the next time one of these comes along , what the approach is
going to be. Otherwise, as long as it' s very, very clear that we may want
to look at some other things on the site plan and that by giving this
preliminary plat approval we are guaranteeing them absolutely nothing or
agreeing to absolutely nothing in terms of rezoning or amendments to the
•
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 22 IV
Comprehensive Plan , if they understand that , than I 'm willing to pass it
on so they can go see if the Met Council will buy their notion.
Headla : I bet I can find the Council ' s opinion without it going to
Council . I don' t see where they' re really going to add value and I think —
we' re just wasting more time.
Emmings : I 'm not going to guess what they' re going to do . I haven' t even
met them.
Conrad : Dave, in terms of what you'd like to do. Given the fact that we
may not want to keep this out there for months, would you be comfortable, —
when you table it , based on satisfying Jim' s concerns in terms of the
roadway, redesigning the site a little bit, the subdivision based on some
concerns . The wetland . The road . Maybe the staff making some
recommendations on the whole area back to us in terms of zoning and staff
making , let ' s see is there anything else? And park. Maybe we get Park
and Rec type of input in. Those four things. If those came back within a
limited period of time, is that what you' re looking for or are you looking
for something broader than just this area when we table it?
Headla : I think it' s primarily that area . I want to see it a little more
organized than what I see right now. We don' t even know the impact of if
we started letting small lots go in there.
Erhart: Are we voting on. . .
Conrad : We' re voting on tabling it . We' re voting on the motion to table .
Headla moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission table'
action on the Preliminary Plat for Carrico Addition #88-19 . Conrad ,
Wildermuth, Headla and Batzli voted in favor of the motion. Emmings,
Ellson and Erhart voted in opposition of the motion and the motion to —
table carried with a vote of 4 to 3.
Conrad : The item will be tabled . Steve , timing wise , what do you think?
Hanson: I think the one thing from what I feel I owe the Commission is to
come back to you in two weeks with nothing less than a detail on the
program on how to deal with the issue if you will. Also, an anlysis on. . .
may go on for several months . If that' s the case , I 'd want to be able to
advise you that that may be. If we' re looking at a long term situation
that may totally affect the way you want to deal with it.
Headla: Will you give us the status on it then like before the meetings
type of thing so it doesn ' t just slide and slide?
Hanson : Yes , what I 'm suggesting is that I would come back at your next
regular meeting and give you a staff report on what it would take to deal
with it.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 23
PUBLIC HEARING: NORTH WEST NURSERY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HWY 101,
JUST SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 18, MARK VAN HOEF, APPLICANT:
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF A CONTRACTOR' S YARD ON
PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE.
B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALTER A CLASS A AND B WETLAND.
Public Present:
Name Address
Mark Van Hoef Applicant
Rick Dorsey
Kevin and Valette Finger 9151 Great Plains Blvd.
Mark Koegler presented the staff report on this item.
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order .
Mark Van Hoef: I 'd just like to add one thing to the report and that is
in regard to the shade structure. The chronological timing which he' s got
in his report is all accurate and fine in correspondence to all the
written correspondence that went on between the nursery and staff . What
wasn' t in there was the fact that in June, the first week of June when we
realized there was obviously some damaging weather that would be
occurring, we at that time contacted verbally Jo Ann Olsen trying to find
out what procedure we had to pursue to get some type of shade structure up
to protect some of our shade tolerant plant material . At that time, and
this is again in early June , we were told that we had to have a blueprint .
We had to have photos . We had to go to the Building Inspector and that
process , when I came up to the City and started to go through that , I
impressed upon her the timeframe that we' re dealing with. We at that time
sat down and discussed it. She thought there would be no problem. I
still should submit the blueprints and a formal application but in
discussing that with Jo Ann, her comment to me was that we had to adhere
to a 50 foot setback. Now it wasn' t for 2 weeks that she followed up with
a written letter than said it' s 100 foot and unfortunately, what ' s not in
this report is that construction was before the first of July so when that
letter came to our nursery, the structure was already up. The only thing
that was not completed was the overall lathe and at that time when the
inspecter came out he put a work stopage. Now I share that with you just
so it doesn ' t look like we were told that we had to have 100 foot setback
and we just went out and randomly put it up wherever we wanted . If you ' ll
note , the report states that we are 68 feet back and so that would have
adhered to the verbal 50 foot setback that we were told that we could
pursue. The only other thing that I would state and as Mark' s got in his
report, you talk about any work that ' s going to be done on TH 101 and the
fact that that 100 foot setback would provide an easier condition to have
people come in and use a little more of the land . If you ' ll note on the
plan, the house that we now are using as an office is closer to the road
than the shade structure. So if we have to move the shade structure,
■
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 24 I
that ' s fine but keep in mind that the house is actually closer to the road
than the shade structure is presently as it stands. I think those are the
only comments I wanted to make.
Rick Dorsey: I 've got property on Lyman Blvd . . I just had a question as
far as expansion of the growing yard. How big and what kind of traffic
problems would be involved with trucks going in and out.
Mark Van Hoef: The only expansion that we ' re really going to do as noted
on the site plan , is less than a 2 acre canned expansion. The majority of
the listed areas that we were requested by staff, Jo Ann Olsen, was that
there was a lot of area on the original site plan that we submitted in —
1985 that we didn' t feel that we were going to need for several years .
Well we planted up to 15 acres . We' re out of room in terms of any —
plantings so to do anymore expanding, I thought all we had to do was get
the plow out and till up the land and start planting . She alerted me to
the fact that anytime I went beyond what was noted on the original site —
plan , I was no longer in compliance with our original site plan and
therefore no longer in compliance with the original conditional use —
permit . So what you see in front of you is the complete expansion that we _
would foresee us ever using. That was brought up by Mark that we also put
in a proposed secondary road access because in the spring when we are —
shipping and receiving plant material , it' s rather congested because we
are using semi-trailers to bring plant material in and ship out plant —
material. That secondary road would definitely not be something we want _
to see happen right away but again, we were encouraged to put all our
future considerations on the map. So in reference to the question at --
hand , the only physical expansion in terms of actual container area would
be less than 2 acres . All the rest of the expansion would be in field
operation.
Conrad : Traffic?
Mark Van Hoef : Taffic, if you go back to your 1985 notes on our receiving
our conditional use permit, there was some discussion as to traffic. At
that time we were talking about the possibility of doing any retail sales
on the site. The feeling of the Planning Committee at that time was that
due to additional traffic pressure that any retail sales would provide,
they didn' t want to see us doing any retail . So at that time we said we
won' t pursue any retail and the only traffic that we have is heavy traffic
in the early spring because that' s when all the harvesting and the
receiving of the product is done . You have to understand the nursery
industry is an industry such that we harvest only in the spring . So we' re
digging our tree . We' re shipping our tree . We' re dealing our trees in a
3 to 4 week period. From there on out, there is no semi traffic but
rather contractor traffic that comes in and picks up material . So in
reference to the traffic issue, I guess the majority of the traffic that _
we' re looking at is early April to end of April to early May and then
after that it' s all customer traffic, which according to our expressed use
permit, we have the right to bring our customers in and they' re picking up
their materials .
mm
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 25
Kevin Finger : My name is Kevin Finger . I live at 9151 Great Plains
Blvd . . I think I live across the street across from that nursery but from
what he just said, I don' t know if I do or not . I 'm sorry, the reason I 'm
coming up here is I came to the City Hall Thursday and Friday and this was
not available so this is the first time I 've been able to see it . I guess
the thing , he keeps talking about harvesting trees and the only thing we
ever see from across the road is semi truck loads full of trees coming in,
dumping them off starting at about 7: 00 in the morning and the Bobcats
running all day long moving trees around until about 9 : 00-9 : 30 at night .
Chanhassen is supposed to be a nice, quiet area. It' s not there. I look
back and what I saw when they received their conditional use permit , was
that they were going to be mostly a tree growing nursery. They have 15
acres of trees . That' s not a tree growing nursery. They broker trees .
They move trees in. They move them out. They' re all balled when they
come in. They' re all balled when they go out . Granted I know you do some
but I know a lot of people who work for you and that' s not the bulk of
your business . I have a real problem about giving them more yard space.
Right now they dump water onto our property on a steady rate. I 've talked
to them for the last 3 years to try to have them do something . Supposedly
they changed their watering system. I still get the same runoff that goes
underneath the culvert under TH 101. I ' ve talked to City Engineering .
Oh, they' ll work on it. They haven' t done a thing. Help. I need
somebody to help me, a little citizen who ' s lost six 4 to 6 foot evergreen
trees . Two 40 foot stretches of good raspberries . I know it ' s no big
deal but it is to me and there ' s an area probably 200 square feet that I
can' t mow in front of the house because it ' s too wet and I 've got about 12
to 14 inches of sand . Another thing , they' ve excavated the road and with
all the trucks going over it, it ' s really nice. Every time there' s a rain
storm, we get about another 3 or 4 inches of bark and sand on our
property. So before they' re given another opportunity to expand their
conditional use permit, I think the two things should be looked at that
was given on their first permit and that is , number one, the number one
thing that was mentioned by the Planning Commission was , would they hurt
any of their neighboring properties . And it was absolutely, they would
not. Well , I ' ve talked to them for 2, it ' s actually 2 1/2 years because 3
years would be right now. About 2 1/2 years and they haven' t done
anything . They haven' t talked to me and now they want to expand their
yard. Trust us all , we may never do it. We ' re going to give them 2 1/2
more acres of pots . Where do you think they get them? Do you think they
grow them? No, they bring them in by trucks every spring starting about
May 1st . So I am opposed to it . I hope you got my letter . I dropped it
off. I guess you' re to represent us , the small people, that don' t have
the big nursery that comes in with their big plan and all that stuff . The
small people can' t get it until you come to the Planning Commission
meeting . I don ' t understand why it wasn ' t available here but that
irritated me quite a bit. I wasn' t even aware of the first two things .
I came in and asked what it was about and I was told that it was about the
shade. I wasn' t told anything about the wetlands or about the increased
yard so I 'm very upset and I think something should be done to help me.
Thank you.
1 Mark Van Hoef : Can I respond?
ma
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 26 1
Conrad: Sure. 1
Mark Van Hoef : I guess what he' s saying , he' s got three problems . The
major one, and I read his letter , is with regards to the runoff. He' s
right, he has approached the nursery. However , what he hasn ' t told you is II
that the culvert which he wants us to divert is not our property. And
Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City Engineers come out and
inspected the property and we were in full agreement that they wanted to
divert any of the water that runs off of our property, they are more than
welcome to do that. All they have to do is dig a culvert under our
driveway, let it run down the roadway and fall into the ditch but that' s
not even our property. I really take exception to the fact that he is
upset with our future expansion on an issue that we have no control over .
If he wants us not to water our plant material , than we really can' t stay
in business . The other thing I take exception to is the fact that he' s
eluding to, we keep talking about a tree growing operation. When we
approached the City Council , that' s what we said the majority of our
business was going to be. However , if you look at our application and the
conditional use permit we received , it was as a commercial wholesale
nursery and we are operating as a commercial wholesale nursery. We are
operating by the explanation and definition that you have in your city
ordinance and if someone takes exception to that, than I guess you' re
going to have to change the verbage in the city charter because we are
operating under those guidelines . I guess the third issue is the problem
with the container area and it ' s really not consistent with the fact that
he doesn' t like our runoff because if you' ll note on the site plan, any
expansion is in the rear of the property so any of the runoff on that
expanded area would not reflect his property at all anyway.
Conrad : Okay, thanks .
-
Kevin Finger : I ' ve got one rebuttal . The culver that goes under and he 1
talks about it. Keep in mind that he' s . . .and that was all grass on that
hill so naturally the . . .would handle that without any problem. That' s not
the case. There' s about 8 garden hoses going on that hill into the
culvert. You guys , I can' t get any help from the City Hall .
Conrad: Other comments? ,
Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Conrad : Just a quick comment . Mark, there ' s no wetland alteration permit •
in our packet. Is there a reason for that? Is there a wetland
alteration? I went through mine again .
Batzli : The form itself?
Conrad : Yes . And typically on that form we ask for justification for the
applicant why. I
Emmings: Oh you mean the application permit?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 27
Conrad : Yes . The permit itself says what is it going to do. What ' s the
harm. What ' s the benefit. What ' s the rationale and that' s not here so
it' s tough for me to react . Normally we also get staff to react to that
permit. Just for those of you who are here, we do try to preserve
wetlands because they' re a vanishing part of our country and what we ask
the applicant to do when they want to build or build close, we ask them,
is this going to improve the situation? Typically they can make it so it
improves the wetland. We have structured that in Chanhassen so we don' t
necessarily get rid of the wetland but we allow developers to play with
them sometimes and actually improve the drainage and improve the habitat
for wildlife . In this I don ' t have very good feedback on anything , to
tell you the truth. Mr. Burke' s letter is real confusing and doesn' t
tell . It ' s in different terms than what I 'm used to . I just have a
personal problem with some of the data that' s here in terms of the wetland
alteration permit. It' s not here . It' s not in our packet and we do need
that. That was just a quick aside. Tim, we' ll start down at your end .
Erhart : I assume we want to talk about all three things?
Conrad: Everything , yes .
Erhart : Regarding the expansion of the conditional use permit . What ' s
the distance between the new driveway and the proposed driveway?
Brown: Approximately 350 feet .
Erhart : And what' s the ordinance require on an arterial? Isn ' t it 1, 200
feet?
Brown: Right . If my memory serves me correctly, we need a quarter of a
mile. Obviously TH 101 falls under the jurisdiction of MnDot and we would
basically look for their recommendation .
Erhart: Yes, except our ordinance has, a flat arterial , I think it' s
1, 200 feet. I think that ' s an issue . The argument , I might add , in
driving by there in the spring there is a lot of trucks going in and
occasionally some have backed in . If that can be at all avoided by
adding a second driveway, there' s a positive aspect to that although I
think on this plan , I think there appears to be enough room for the
turning around of all semis isn' t there Mark? In your current plan here?
So the backing in of trucks won ' t be required in the future? Okay.
Regarding , let me jump ahead to the wetland. I 'm a little confused about
_. exactly what alterations we' re making here with the wetland . Are we
moving the lines that were drawn on here by the Fish and Wildlife fella
Burke? These are the lines as they exist currently? They' re not the line
that differentiates a Class A wetland and Class B wetland? The edges are
not changing? Correct?
Mark Koegler : That is correct . They are , if you look at the area of the
Class B wetland, in the proposed shurb growing field. It says proposed
shurb growing will be right on above there and there' s a little notch
there. In the middle of that it says . . . Do you see where I 'm at?
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 28 ,
Erhart : Okay. 1
Mark Koegler : That area, the coordinates come back and said, that area
alone the applicant could deposit dredged material from the pond as long
as it was level . That' s the only area outside of the excavation of the
pond that would be modified as a part of the wetland alteration. The
Corps letter also references , and I haven ' t seen a copy but they did send
along some typical section type data to enhance the wildlife value of the
ponds that they' re proposed to create as a part of their berm.
Erhart: That' s the 10: 21 slope?
Mark Koegler : Yes . ,
Erhart : Going back to that again . Would you explain to us again that
filling, is that filling in an existing Class B wetland?
Mark Koegler : The area that we' re referencing is this portion right here.
Here is the exhibit that came back from the Corps which they have
indicated the hatched area A, which is referenced . They have a copy of
the letter you have, . 3 acre site that could be used to place fill
material from the pond . They' ve come back and found that to be
acceptable. The rest of the wetland, the Type A is totally undisturbed.
The rest of the Type B is only disturbed insofar as the two ponds and the
connecting ditch are constructed.
Conrad : Doesn ' t our ordinance say that ' s not acceptable though? ,
Depositing debris within 200 feet of a wetland.
Mark Koegler : The ordinance does reference upland areas which was part of
my original recommendation. And you can stick with that or you can agree
with the Corps . Presumably the material that comes out of here can as
easily be placed somewhere else on the site if that' s your desire. I
don' t think that would be a big hurdle to anybody. But the Corps has come
back and said, for the purposes of a nationwide permit, that' s an
acceptable place to deposit that material .
Erhart: The reason I ask, I think our ordinance on wetlands is stronger
than the Corps generally. I think in following our ordinance , I think the
material would have to be deposited somewhere on existing highland areas II just to follow in line with what we apply to other people in our following
ordinance. The drainage ditch, there' s a note here that says drainage
ditch that goes between the easterly pond and the westerly pond . Does
that mean that that ditch, the bottom of that ditch is lower than a Class
A wetland?
Mark Koegler : I would assume so , yes . There' s no contour information
shown there but the ditch obviously connotates a lower elevation.
Erhart : Is that a drainage ditch just between the two ponds or does that
go along someplace else?
I/
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 29
Mark Koegler : It only goes between the two ponds as proposed . Presumably
the applicant' s intent, and I think he can speak to that, is to pick up on
other things, some of the drainage that' s coming off these irrigated
fields and channel that to the ponds .
Erhart : Is that right Mark? Essentially the drainage ditch is to drain
the future tree growing field area into one or those two ponds?
Mark Van Hoef : That whole field that you' re looking at, at one time was
farm. It was an alfalfa, in fact it ' s in your packet. The aerial photo.
' Barb Dacy, when she first presented to the committee , showed that as being
farmed at one time. The only thing that we' re talking about doing is
stumps that were left on the outside perimeter of that field are still
' there. In removing them we ' re going to create some pockets anyway and we
wanted to connect the two ponds with the ditch along that border .
' Erhart: I just want to make sure that that ditch is not intended or will
inadvertently act to lower the water level in that Class A wetland .
Mark Koegler: The indication from the Corps was that that would not occur
and they specifically address that . . .
Erhart: I go back to my feeling of the growing of trees in the area.
' This is really an agricultural use and I have no problem with growing the
trees . I do it on my farm so I don' t have any problem with that .
Currently there is no open water existing on this whole wetland is there
' except for that half . . . so what we' re creating here is open water where no
open water exists on several , maybe 30 or 40 acres of Class A marsh . Is
that a correct summarization of what we' re doing?
Mark Koegler : My knowledge of open water is restricted to one visit:. .
Erhart: And that' s pretty much correct .
Mark Koegler : There' s no open water on the entire Class A or Class B
wetland in that whole area.
1 Erhart : I personally worked with the DNR. I believe in an area as large
as this where essentially it' s grown over cattails and so forth, that
opening up some areas for duck hatching is an improvement to the wetlands.
' I just think we should all concur that we don' t want to see any fill of
the deposits in the existing wetland . I would ask that we be assured that
the deposits were put on the highland someplace so I would favorably
respond to the creation of the ponds and so forth . One last , regarding
the variance . I can see perhaps where there may have been some confusion
about the 50 feet or 100 feet of TH 101. I think there' s been confusion
ever since I ' ve lived here and been on the Planning Commission on what in
fact the right-of-way is and what the plan is . I think a way to look at
this problem and to get out of it without creating a lot of hardship on
the owner is, I question the interpretation of the structure as permanent.
' I would question that . There ' s no walls . There ' s no roof and I suggest
in reviewing that, that point of it, if future right-of-way was needed , it
would be easy enough to move. I guess I ' d be in favor of allowing it to
' 1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 30
stay but with the requirements that no addition was made to that i
particular structure and nothing was done to make it more permanent.
That ' s my feeling on that. Lastly, I feel that there' s not enough
screening on the business, particularly as it grows further north. I
would like to see Mark has put some very nice evergreens , of course he
gets a good deal on them I think, over on the south side of the property
and along the south and along TH 101 on the south end of the property. I 'd I
like to see that same thing done on now the north end as they are building
some permanent/temporary structures and so forth. Back in the old
conditional use permit it says that the hill screens it. When I drive
south on TH 101, it doesn' t screen it for me and I don' t think it screens
it for others . It is a business. We require businesses in our industrial
park to screen and the ordinance relating to these two wholesale nurseries
is that we do require 100% opaque screening from the highway I do believe. II
And I 'd like to see additional screening between that proposed driveway up
to the house. Not necessarily screen them from the house. With all that,
I ' ll pass it to Steve. ,
Emmings : Starting with that storage issue , I guess under the conditional
use permit, it says that the applicant has to comply with Section 2257 and
2257 speaks to screening . It says that all outdoor storage areas , this is II
on wholesale nurseries, all outdoor storage areas much be completely
screened by 100% opaque fencing or berming . I don' t see this addressed in
the staff report as to whether they' re in compliance with that at this
time or not but I see it' s a condition. And as long as they' re aware of
that, that that condition is being included, I guess then after that it' s
just a matter of enforcement . Mr . Van Hoef said we should look up the
definition of a wholesale nursery so I did. I think he might be surprised II
to find out that maybe what he ' s doing isn ' t within the definition. It
says here that a wholesale nursery means an enterprise which conducts the
wholesale of plants grown on site . That ' s it . As well as accessory -items
directly related to the care and maintenance of plants. I 'm not sure that
all the trucking in of, you know I was surprised frankly to find that. I
thought that you would be right but that is what the definition is and I 'm II
not sure that what you' re doing there complies with that definition. I 'm
very concerned about the neighbors complaints. I guess I want to know
from Larry why, if he ' s looked into this drainage problem and what , if
anything can be done to resolve it so these people don' t have. Water ' s ,
bad enough but when you' re getting sand and a lot of bark and debris with
it, that' s awful. What' s the problem there?
Brown: I 've been waiting to comment on this issue . I ' ve been out and
visited with Mr. Arlen Finger three times that I can recall . All three
times , after visiting with him, seeing the problem, I went back over to
the nursery and gave them notice that hey, you' ve got a problem over here. II
You need to take care of it . All my attempts to do so failed . My next
route was to go to MnDot saying , hey you' ve got a problem with the culvert
out here . It ' s clogged . Please take care of it . MnDot did come out and
clean the culvert at one time but they have failed to do so since. As the
applicant did indicate , MnDot has jurisdiction over this . The other
attack is, how do we resolve the problem? When this application came in, II unfortunately the consultant was not aware of this problem nor did I place
a review in here on this problem. What our intention was, and I was going
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 31
to be adding this condition, or asking that this condition when the
discussion was through, is that as a condition of the conditional use
permit, that the applicant submit a revised grading and/or erosion control
' plan which solves this problem. I think through the creative use of
berming or putting up some other type of vegetation or even using the silt
fences that we have in place along some of the other developments , we may
be able to rectify this situation.
Emmings: Okay, so you think there is a solution out there?
' Brown : Yes I do .
Emmings : Have they been cooperative? Have you suggested to them that
' they do certain things to fix this problem?
Brown: We have asked them to take care of the damage that has occurred on
the other side. Now obviously our powers , we' re stretching our power
there but we have asked them, yes .
Emmings : But have you asked them to change his operation in any specific
ways to prevent the problem?
Brown: My last site visit out , I talked with the receptionist that was
out there and informed her that we would expect to see some sort of
immediate action to take care of the erosion problem, yes .
Emmings: Okay, so there hasn' t been any real specific things? Just a
general?
Brown: No , since this permit has been a long time in coming and we knew
that it was coming in, we' re going to attack it at that time.
Emmings : I guess for the property owner across the street too , he should
' know that the Section 2257 that he has to comply with also restricts hours
of operation from 7 : 00 a .m. to 6: 00 p.m. . So again, there are provisions
here that maybe will affect the operations of this and somewhat mitigate
the problem that you' ve raised but these things don' t enforce themselves .
You should be aware of what they are and you' ll have to try to get the
City to enforce the ordinance complying with that . Enforcement is always
a problem. With the added condition that Larry just mentioned, that the
' applicant submit a revised grading and erosion control plan to eliminate
the consequences of all this runoff on the neighbor , as long as there ' s
compliance with the rest of those conditions , I have no problem with the
' conditional use permit. As far as the wetland alteration permit goes ,
with the extra information that Mark gave them when Tim was making his
comments, I don' t really have any problem with the wetland alteration and
I think we can do what Tim wanted to do simply by destroying condition 3
to what it was before. Mark just amended it in his comments . It
previously read all excavated material shall be placed in an upland area .
Mark amended that to say, or areas approved by the Corps . I think what we
' should do is just have it read , all excavated materials shall be placed in
upland area in compliance with the Chanhassen ordinance. Otherwise, I
have no other comments on the wetland but on the variance. I guess it
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 32
would be my feeling that if Jo Ann recalls telling this gentleman that ,
there was a 50 foot setback, I think we ought to ask her. If she recalls
that she did that , I think it ought to stay there but with the conditions
that Tim put on it. He shouldn' t be made to move it. If on the other
hand , Jo Ann told him 100 feet from the beginning and it wasn' t built
there, than I don' t think a variance should be granted .
Ellson: I too was concerned about the Finger family problems and the 1
additional condition 4, revising grading and erosion control plan. I 'm
not quite sure , are we saying that we' re going to approve or if it' s going
to eliminate the problem? It' s going to reduce the problem? Or what' s ,
going to be considered acceptable? I think anybody who has a culvert in
their yard is bound to get more water than someone who doesn' t no matter
where you live. Granted he' s certainly got a lot more water across the II street than most people but like Steve said, I think the bark and the sand
have got to be the absolute worse part of it so even if it' s something
like that erosion. I 'd like a little more specifics. To who' s
satisfaction is this plan going to be? Our City Engineer ' s? Is that
basically it?
Brown: That would be my intention, yes . I
Ellson: Well , I ' ll trust you Larry. If it went for the Finger ' s
satisfaction or Mark' s or what have you, I 'm not sure that we' d ever come
up with a satisfactory solution. So we' ll go with a city employee. Than
I guess I could see that . I agree with these two. I never even thought
about the berming part of it , 2257 and they made a good point so I could
see adding that in a little more detail maybe in condition 1. Instead of
basically saying, we' ll comply with the Section, make a point about the
berming that we necessarily haven ' t seen in one . The other two , I don' t
know, I think Jo Ann is a lot like me. She has to have the actual facts
in front of her and I ' ve seen her do this with me when I ' ve called her on
things. Say one thing and then later come back and tell me another so I
don' t believe it' s not possible that she said 50 feet . I can believe it
because that' s the way I am too. I really hate granting variances but the
point he made about the house is even further up than this screening deal .
I would go along with Tim that we' re not going to add to it. We ' re not
going to . . .the possibility of taking it down but I can ' t see that this is
that big a deal . I would probably let it go.
Batzli : I like the submission of the erosion control plan . I think we I
may want to specify that one of the things it' s intended to correct is the
runoff to the gentleman' s property across TH 101. The wetland alteration
permit, I guess I would like to see a condition 7 stating that the II applicant shall insure that the elevation of the proposed drainage channel
will not adversely affect the Class A wetlands so that everybody' s clear
on what this thing is going to do. That we received his indication that
it' s not intended to adversely affect it but I guess I would prefer that
that be a condition. I had a question for Mark. He' s going to build a
pond right against the Class A wetlands, according to our map here
correct?
Mark Koegler : Yes .
II
Planning Commission Meeting
' January 4, 1989 - Page 33
Batzli : And you indicated that the typical 6 conditions that are normally
in there would apply to that pond? Did you say that earlier? About the
slope and all that other good stuff?
Mark Koegler : I referenced the wanting to avoid the storm water runoff
' provisions that were a part of the wetland alteration permis would apply.
Conrad : That ' s not it. Those are conditions from the DNR.
' Batzli : They are the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service conditions typically
are included in ponding areas of this type . Are those include in here?
Mark Koegler: I don' t know that I had it. The item that I added with
item 6 was a reference to the Corps ' permit requirements . The Fish and
Wildlife, essentially in this particular case, and Paul Burke specifically
has essentially not commented , if you will in any level of detail other
than to say that basically it' s under the Corps' jurisdiction and he
agrees with their findings and then offered to conduct the visual
inspection which might tie in to some degree to item 7 prior to the time
' that the actual disturbance occurs . Stake the location where the drainage
ditch in the field . . .
Batzli : I guess typically we look at whether a ponding area is going to
kind of be a deep, open water pond , if you will or an enhancement to the
wetlands in accordance with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service ' s
recommendations for a wetland type area. I guess what I 'm hearing is that
they apparently didn' t really look at it for that. He just concluded that
this was under the Corps' jurisdiction?
' Mark Koegler : Let me respond to that in a couple of ways . First of 'all a
little elaboration. Connecting with the Fisheries people and the Corps '
people and everybody else was very difficult with the holidays intervening
' inbetween so as a result unfortunately some of the material literally came
into the City yesterday. If it' s your desire , I would suggest as a part
of the grading and erosion control plan that they submit, that they submit
a section on the proposed pond construction in conformance to the Corps
' criteria that' s been submitted along with this letter of December 29th.
In that way, the City would have on file the intended construction packet
for the pond. There is no elevation or section right now of the pond
' submitted with this plan of materials to the City so we' re hoping to
request that so that again Paul Burke has something to review in the field
when he goes out there .
' Batzli : So you would actually put that in the conditional use permit , the
fourth condition? That the grading and erosion control plan be submitted
to the City Engineer?
' Mark Koegler : I suppose more appropriately would be a number 8 in the
wetland alteration permit that is part of that process that the applicant
submit upon their application by the City a section of proposed pond which
is consistent with the recommendations of the Corps which again relates to
this maximum 5 feet depth , gently sloping sides , and so forth to produce
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 34
the wildlife habitat that is desired. '
Erhart: That ' s a Fish and Wildlife recommendation.
Emmings: The ones that we ' re talking about up here right now are Fish and II
Wildlife.
Mark Koegler : They' re pretty well in sync . Again , both of these agencies II
and both of these gentlemen we' re involved in. . .
Erhart : There' s a regular handout, I 've got a copy of it . I could swear II
it was the Fish and Wildlife. It is the item that he just mentioned .
Mark Koegler : From my understanding , they are synonymous . Not the
agencies but the recommendation.
Batzli : I guess I 'd like to see that added as a condition. One other
thing, correct me if I 'm wrong, do we often times not link the conditional II
use permit with the . . .
Emmings: If we want to. 1
Batzli : Well , do we want to?
Emmings: Yes . i
Batzli : But we haven' t here?
Emmings: It 's number 5.
Batzli : Did I miss that?
Emmings: I wrote it down but I didn' t say it.
Batzli : Well , I would like to see that as a condition that we link the
wetland alteration permit with compliance of the conditional use permit
and basically vice versa . One other question for Mark and then I 'm pass
the torch here. My question is, how can they realistically build this
pond without dredging in the Class A wetlands?
Mark Koegler : The field conditions are pretty definitive when you' re out
there. There is a stand of willows that actually sits right on the edge
of the A and the B so physically there is a very definitive reference in
the field as to where they' re at so it should be totally possible to
construct totally within the Class B area and not disturb the Class A.
Again , that ' s part of the rationale behind having a final verification of
staking a pond outline. I see no reason why the applicant can' t do that .
Batzli : Are they going to kill all the willows when they' re digging the
pond? Or is that a silly question? I 'm sorry, I said I was just going to
ask one more question . That was all I had . On the variance, I kind of II like the idea of asking Jo Ann if she remembers telling him that before we
would say one way or another . I think it was an emergency type situation
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 35
and she did tell him where to build it and he did it , I think it ' s tough
for us to at this time to tell him to tear it down. I think that' s kind
of silly.
Wildermuth: I 'm wondering if this conditional use permit is for a nursery
or whether it' s for a contractor ' s yard. The operation doesn' t seem to
' fit our ordinance' s definition of a nursery very well as Steve wrote just
a little earlier . I think one of the conditions for looking at the
conditional use permit, there ' s got to be satisfaction of adjacent
property owners. I understand Mark that we don' t have all the information
' on the wetland alteration permit but reading Paul Burke' s description of
this thing, I get the impression that there was a lot of fill work done
even before the application was made which is strictly in violation of the
ordinance.
Mark Koegler : Again , it ' s my understanding and I apologize for probably
none of us having a consensus of information here. With Jo Ann gone,
we' re doing the best we can . It ' s my understanding there was some
material deposited on the edge of the, probably the tree edge in the Class
B wetland which is primarily potting material . That' s what I believe
triggered one of the initial responses from Jo Ann that a wetland permit
WPM
needed to be obtained and that the conditional use permit needed to be
modified. There has been no more filling that I 'm aware of nor have I
seen any evidence of any since that time so I think you may be right .
There was a minor amount of filling that did occur which triggered the
response from City Hall initially, or one of the triggers .
Wildermuth: I understand what the applicant is trying to do here but I
- really get the feeling that he' s doing pretty much what he wants to do and
the ordinances really don' t make an awful lot of difference. That seems
to be the theme that runs down through the conditional use permit , the
wetland alteration permit and then this variance issue. I am in
agreement , if Jo Ann remembers that she did say 50 feet , fine . Other than
that it just comes down to one individual ' s word against another . If it
comes down to one individual ' s word against another regarding the
variance, it doesn' t meet the test. It' s a self created hardship and it
doesn' t meet the test . That ' s all .
Headla : The Planning Commission magazines , the Planners or whatever .
They had an article this last time. I 'm not trying to impress you that I
read it all the time . I started to read this one article and in that
article it mentioned how decisions we make, how that can impact the time
on the staff . We can give them a tremendous load or really give them a
lot lighter load and let them do a good job on what they' re after .
They' ve got limited resources . You' ve only got so many people and
indirectly we can control how much they are going to do. I started
thinking about that and I ' ve been turning it over in my mind and I ' ve
decided that I 'm going to look at two things this year. I 'm going to go
at the reviews , two things. If somebody tells me there' s a sense of
urgency, I 'm not going to listen to them. We got some of them tonight
that they want things approved because there' s a sense of urgency, they
got it done and how many times I think all of us in business, one of the
best ways to get something passed , if you want to get it rolling , wait
' I
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 36 ,
until it' s about midnight and just ram it through. I see that type of
thing going and I think we' ve got to really look at that type of thing .
The other thing you want to look at is getting stuff that ' s incomplete.
We okay it and then we expect the staff to have everything ready for the
Council meeting . I don' t think we should do that. What we approve should II
go unadulterated right to the Council , period. If they can' t get it to us
in time, that' s not our problem. That' s their problem. An example of
this, and I want to save this page because I think Jim had some good
points here , the applicant shall submit a new site plan drawing that
accurately depicts the location of the shade tree structures and all other
buildings and features . Why didn' t we get a good , accurate drawing to
begin with? In no way am I , and I may be alone but no way am I going to
approve something going to the Council when it doesn' t accurately depict
it to us so what we look at is going to be different than what the Council II
gets . Give us the real story to begin with . I don' t like it where you
had a neighbor , you had a real problem with it , maybe you weren' t given
direct direction to get it corrected . You knew there was a problem and
even tonight you pretty well said, well he didn' t do this or he didn' t do
that. I don ' t see where you ever took corrective action and I just don' t
think that' s right. I think you created the initial problem, I didn' t see
where you did anything to correct it . The lift trucks going for a long
time. We really, and Lyman Lumber did a good job in trying to be
cooperative . When a neighbor complained abou the noise , Lyman Lumber
listened to it and they really tried to take corrective action. I hope
you' ll look at that in the same spirit. What can you do to reduce the
noise to your neighbors? I think there' s a lot of room in there to work
on . I think Steve did a good job tonight looking up the definitions of
what really a wholesaler is and that may help to solve part of the
problem. On the field investigater Paul Burke , at the bottom of the page.
The last paragraph, halfway through where he talks about the recent
shoreline enhancement project at this site , most if not all of the
recently sodded area was a wetland with characteristics so on and so
forth. Apparently he went and sodded the wetland . Now there ' s a common
theme here. You' re taking and you' re taking. I guess I 'm frustrated
because you keep nitpicking . You potato chip us and we can ' t ever go in
and stop one little thing but the theme is you keep taking and taking and
that ' s it.
Conrad : Okay, thank you Dave. Quick comments . For allowing the
expansion, this is really close to a contractor ' s yard in my opinion.
It' s not called that but it' s real close . To allow expansion I ' d really
have to concern myself with the neighbor ' s concerns. The runoff. The
noise plus things that we ' ve identified . Filling the wetlands and I
haven' t seen evidence that the applicant has worked with the neighbors .
Maybe he has and maybe he hasn ' t. It' s tough typically to judge on that
but the runoff, I think Larry' s got a solution to it. The noise appears
to be a problem. I wouldn' t want to live across from something that , if
it ' s true, that machines are running and that we' re actually bringing in
material . I wasn ' t aware that we allowed that here but I see a whole lot
of problems. I wouldn' t allow expansion until those problems are solved .
If we want to build it into approval tonight to make sure those problems
are solved. The wetland filling is kind of a concern to me and obviously
a concern for the neighbor in the area . We do have to help him out or at
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 37
least make sure staff and the applicant are getting together to resolve
these problems. In terms of the wetland alteration permit, a couple
things. I really do need to see , for me to look at it , I need to see an
' application form saying this is what we' re doing and why we' re doing it
and how we' re going to benefit the wetland and I haven' t seen that , which
I said to begin with. Number two, putting a ditch in a wetland is
' contrary to anything that I ' ve ever seen . A wetland is supposed to filter
and the B wetland filters for the A wetland. Well , running a ditch
through there doesn' t do anything . It totally destroys the purpose of the
' wetland that we've got there. I 'd really like to see Mr . Burke or
somebody review what the applicant is intending to do. I 'm not convinced
that this has really been done. That Mr. Burke knows what has been said
and then I 'd like to see staff recommend to us what , in terms of our
ordinance and what we say about a Class B, what the benefit of this is
based on our ordinance and I haven' t seen that done. So I have a real
problem with the wetland issue right now. I think the ponding, Tim I
agree with the ponding . That there' s some benefit down there. That we' re
conformning to the standards . I haven' t seen the benefit. Then again, a
lot of it goes back to there ' s no permit, there' s no request here and I
don' t know what the information is . It ' s incomplete. The variance.
Again , I would have a tough time approving a variance until I 'm convinced
that the other issues have been solved. The runoff . The noise and all
that kind of stuff . If Jo Ann said 50, that ' s again, geez, I don ' t know
that I can go along with that but anyway. I have some real concerns on
this and I think there are ways to solve this tonight to get it out of
here and to put the burden on staff to work with the applicant to make
sure but I think just having a nursery across the street from a
residential area and the fact that there' s water problems created by that
nursery, has to be solved . It just has to be solved . Period . Before
expansion is granted, period. In my mind. Anyway. I would sure
' entertain a motion .
Emmings : What do you thing ought to be done?
Conrad: I don' t know. I 'm not making the motion.
Emmings : No , but what is your opinion about it?
1 Conrad: This should not have been here tonight .
Emmings : Yes , it' s incomplete .
Conrad : It ' s real incomplete and it' s partial data and it ' s sort of, I
' hate to put people through this from the public but we' re kind of running
with new staff and a whole lot of other things and we haven ' t met for a
while so part of that is just the fact that we ' re getting things back
together again and I apologize for not having it all together but I really
would not have wanted to see this tonight until all the information was in
and the applications were correct and staff made some comments so I don' t
like it. I hate to say it but I 'd get it out of here tabling it or doing
something with it .
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 38
Emmings : How do you feel about the fact that a large portion of the I
business seems to be trucking in and trucking out?
Conrad : I don ' t like that . That ' s not the intent of what a nursery is in I
my mind. It' s a growing area but I don' t know. This gentleman across the
street said there' s noise at 5: 00 a .m. . I don' t know if that' s true or
not but if there was a registered complaint where we would have it on
record in City Hall , we should go back and search for those complaints .
If the gentleman called into City Hall , we would have it on record that
there was noise at 5: 00 a .m. . If not , it' s a problem. We can' t prove
anything but if that' s there, we would have it. I think the runoff is, a II
grading plan is great for the runoff but again , I would have liked to have
seen a grading plan before we sent it to City Council so it' s here. We' re
saying let' s get it out of here and let somebody else do it but basically
it's kind of an incomplete case that we' re looking at right now. So it' s
up to somebody, one of you who wants to make a motion and do something
with this .
Emmings : I think in light of the fact , does delay in passing this screw
up your plans in anyway Mark? Is this something that has to be started
right now or can get started a month from now? Does it makes any
difference?
Mark Van Hoef : The ponding has to be dug in the winter .
Emmings: So we' re talking about until when?
Mark Van Hoef : The first of March. I would like to add one thing . There
is an application for a wetland alteration. I don' t know where it is .
Conrad : It' s not here . Maybe you turned it in and we just don' t have it . II
It may not be your problem but there' s just a lot of little things .
Somebody said 50 foot and we don' t know if it ' s 50 or 100. There ' s not a
permit here and then there' s some filling of a Class A wetland a lot of
little things like that that I 'd like to get straighten out . Things that II
bother me.
Wildermuth : I recommend that we table this entire matter until staff has II
had an opportunity to look a conditional use permit in light of either a
nursery or a contractor ' s yard . Also , has an opportunity to get the
wetlands package together more completely and clarify questions regarding
who said what on the variance issue .
Hanson: And the grading plan?
Wildermuth : And the grading plan .
Emmings: All of the comments that we' ve made . I
Headla : I ' ll second that .
Emmings : I guess I think it' s appropriate . I 'm up to number 9 in ,
conditions on the wetland alteration permit and there' s an awful lot of
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 39
them that are , this has to be done before it goes to Council and that has
to be done before it goes to Council or that staff has to be satisfied. I
think since that one was so far out of whack, it seems to me maybe we
ought to just table the whole thing and come back and do it all over
again .
Wildermuth moved , Headla seconded to table action for North West Nursery
on a Conditional Use Permit and Wetland Alteration Permit for additional
information. All voted in favor and the motion carried .
Hanson: I guess the one thing I would ask is, in the motion you just made
it was part of the direction that the applicant address the conditions
that had been presented and discussed?
Conrad : I think it would be real wise?
Hanson : I guess the reason I 'm asking is , essentially you' re asking him
to provide some additional information so we have those items to bring
back? I guess the question is more directed at the applicant that he' ll
have those revised plans in.
Conrad : There ' s nothing that ' s really preventing us from reacting kind of
quickly? It' s not like our next 13 agendas are filled?
Hanson : No .
Conrad : We can react as soon as the information comes in and the
applicant gets back with a few of those things?
Hanson: Is it fair to say that we' re planning that that information has
to be in about a couple weeks before?
Conrad : It really should be.
Hanson : I just don' t want to be in the position of them coming in and
saying here it is the meeting day.
Emmings : That ' s always true . If they want us to act on something , than
they' ve got to get the information to you with enough lead time so that
you can get it to us in the packet so we' re not getting sheets at the last
minute.
Hanson : I assume part of this is a referral back to Paul Burke and some
of the other agencies?
Conrad : So Mark would you come in probably tomorrow and rehash this with
Steve so you kind of get a game plan of what we just said over the last
hour and a half which is not easy to summarize . I think that ' s a pretty
good starting point.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 40 1
PUBLIC HEARING:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CREATE A POND IN A CLASS B WETLAND ON
PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED AT 1551 LYMAN
BOULEVARD, GEORGE DORSEY. 1
Public Present :
George Dorsey, Applicant 1
Rick Dorsey
Steve Hanson presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the 1
public hearing to order .
Rick Dorsey: I just have one comment . The question being the shrubs on
the upland side. We will do that if necessary but introducing something
to the area that ' s not natural , we question the need for it.
Ellson: Is that under one of the six conditions?
Conrad : No , it ' s just under the analysis portion . Dr. Rockwell is
really quite a good expert that we have a lot of confidence in. Any other
public comments .
1
Headla moved , Emmings seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Headla : I went on that field trip with Dr . Rockwell and Jo Ann . She
spoke very highly of what they' re proposing and I don' t remember any _
discussion of shrubs at all . That' s all I have to say. I 'm highly in
favor of it.
Wildermuth : It ' s refreshing to see somebody creating a wetland rather ■
than trying to fill one in. Is that a topographical map Steve?
Hanson : Yes , it is .
Wildermuth : On the north side of the pond where we' re proposing that the MI
shrubline be put in.
Hanson : Let me clarify one thing on the shrub line . The reason I put
that in the memo is when you look at the six conditions of the Fish and
Game, there ' s a reference in there. The shrub plantings around it . I
have not been privy as to whether Dr . Rockwell may have suggested that as
a condition or not so either include it as just one of the standard
conditions that they normally have utlized for that improvement . _
Wildermuth: What I 'm wondering is what' s the difference in elevation
between the surface of the pond and where the proposed shrubline would be?
Hanson: The top surface of the pond is, I believe it' s 889 versus 890 up
here . Very shallow.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 41
Wildermuth : If we did persist in requiring that shrubline in there , it
would essentially block the view of the pond from the. . .
Rick Dorsey: They would also probably die .
' Wildermuth: What' s your feeling on that Steve?
Hanson : My feel on it is , I put it in there because it' s listed in our
standard conditions and that' s why in the recommendation I said pending
getting that written response from the Fish and Wildlife on what their
recommendation on how to those six standards would be applied to this
particular case . What the applicant is saying is what they recommend , I
' don' t have a problem with that. I 'm not asking for something more.
Wildermuth: I'm not either .
Batzli : I assume that , is this the plan that you received from the
applicant that we' re looking at here?
Hanson: Yes .
Batzli : I guess I 'd like to see , typically on a wetland alteration permit
we reference the plan with what they' re going to do and I 'd like to see
that included either in any proposal or recommendation that we want to put
that you' re recommending approval of the wetland permit based on plans
that we' ve got in front of us . I don' t have a good feel at all for
whether they need shrubs or not to be quite honest with you. I don' t
recall that being one of the six conditions . I know I see them there but
I never recall seeing that one before so it surprises me. I guess I would
leave it to the experts in this being the Fish and Wildlife Service saying
11 whether they think it ' s required in this. If the person visited the site
and never mentioned it, I say we can leave that one off but I would like
to see that what they' re going to do here is what we see in front of us
tonight .
R
Ellson : I 'm pretty much in agreement with all these guys . I ' ll go along
with what the experts say but it seems to be like some of the other
things . I wish we would have had it as of now. Maybe we should be giving
people dates as to when they get all their ducks in a row or what have you
but here we are again approving something without the other thing again ,
but I could do that. That' s about it.
Emmings : This is the first one of three that your application doesn ' t say
a damn thing .
Conrad : Steve, it' s not the right one . I wasn' t even going to bring that
up.
Emmings : I like the reasoning though. Required by the City. It looks to
me from the six conditions that if there' s going to be any shrubs at all ,
they' re actually supposed to be right down by the edge of the water is
what it sounds like. Not up the hill but again, I ' ll go along with
I/
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 42
everybody else in that . I think it' s a reasonable approach to run the
plan by Fish and Wildlife. If they' re satisfied that it meets their
conditions , that' s certainly fine with me. Otherwise, it looks like a
fine plan. '
Erhart : I think it' s a great plan . I also think that placing shrubs down
there is an expense that' s unneeded because in that area, what' s going to
grow is going to grow and what ' s going to die is going to die. There ' s so
much vegetation there that it would quickly reseed itself and that will
take care of itself and go back to it' s natural state .
Conrad: Yes, I like the plan and I don' t think we need the shrubs. Is
there a motion?
Batzli : I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland II
Alteration Permit #88-16 based on the plans stamped received, I 'd like
staff to fill in when they were received , subject to the following
conditions and then the 1 condition that' s set forth by the staff .
Emmings : Second .
I
Batzli moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #88-16 based on the plans stamped
"Received December 12, 1988" and subject to the following condition:
1. Written approval of the alteration plan from the Fish and Wildlife
Service that the proposal conforms to their six conditions for ponds .
All voted in favor and the motion carried .
PUBLIC HEARING:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO DREDGE SILT ACCUMULATION FROM AN EXISTING
CHANNEL IN A CLASS A WETLAND ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED GENERALLY SOUTH OF THE LOTS FRONTING ON WASHTA BAY
ROAD, MINNEWASHTA MANOR CHANNEL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
Public Present :
Name Address
Harry Niemela 2901 Washta Bay Road
Steve Hanson presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the
public hearing to order .
11
Conrad : Does it meet our ordinance?
Hanson: As far as the disposal area? '
I/
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 43
' Conrad : Yes . X number of feet away from wetland?
Hanson: In all honestly I have not gone through and verified all that.
Harry Niemela : My name is Harry Niemela . I live at 2901 Washta Bay Road
so I am one of the property owners along the dredging area or the
' shoreline. I might say Steve that we should probably be corrected on
this. The fact that we are not the Mi.nnewashta Homeowners Association
that made the application but I think that the application was put into
you correctly. It' s just that we stand to say that we' re not the
Association. We are just the shoreowners . We have submitted that
applications of course through the normal channels with the DNR and we've
had a positive indication from them that we' ll get approval for the permit
' from the DNR. We also made application with Watershed and all the other
agencies and so forth involving this process of getting a permit for it.
Everybody has been favorable to this point. I understand too with the
U. S . Fish and Wildlife and the City to this point . All the homeowners are
quite in favor of it as a matter of fact because from an environmental
impact at this point in time. This winter with the water level of the
lake really low, we are creating at least an environmental impact on the
' lake itself plus with the disposal site that we have found and what we
believe is an approved site, will be the closest with the least amount of
liability of trucks going out onto TH 7 which was the only other
alternative that we have. They are really basically running along the
shoreline of the lake. Not really out on the lake but close to the
shoreline which is really right on the shoreline you might say almost, to
' this disposal site and the disposal site , I believe Steve, I would
estimate it to be about 400 feet on the lake and then they' re going right
up to the site so it ' s not a long ways away from it. So it ' s a very
capable situation for us and it is very important for us to this this
winter . Otherwise, if the lake does go up, we' re talking another 2 1/2 to
3 feet of water that they' ll be operating off to get the job done and that
brings in a very escalating cost factor to the shoreowners along with the
environmental impact that it might have too . So we do need to have a
decision on it as we are of course hoping for an. . . We need to start the
work in February.
Herb: I have a comment . I 'm Herb . . .at 2050 Chan View. I 'm also a
property owner on the lake too. One of the side benefits of this ,
besides our own useable . . .about 10 years from now. Within the last 4 or 5
years, you know the water level has been what we would consider normal at
some periods . The fish spawning hasn ' t occurred because of the depth .
Hopefully this is going to correct that situation too and make .Minnewashta
a much better fishing lake .
Ellson moved , Batzli seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
Headla : I understand there' s some illegal activity going on up there . It
• seems like there' s tree removal going on at night. The beaver come up out
of the water and cut down the people' s trees . No , I don' t have a comment.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 44 I
Wildermuth: One thing that is kind of interesting though, no where do we
talk about how much material we' re going to move, either in cubic yards or
in depth.
Brown: On the grading plan it does state that 4130 cubic yards will be 11
removed.
Wildermuth: That' s fine . '
Batzli : Larry, you talk in your report about erosion control . Has that
been provided to you? Erosion control shall be revised to reflect the
City standard .
Brown: They have indicated the precise location of the erosion control .
The plan certainly has not been amended to show the Type II erosion
control . We realize that the applicant, with all the information that we
required, was working under a tight timeline and we were as well so I
would ask for that prior to commencing with any construction.
Batzli : Should that be a condition, compliance go with your memo?
Brown: Yes . '
Batzli : The only other thing that I had was I 'd like to see again ,
whoever makes the motion, that we' re basing this on a plan stamped
December 16th and December 29th, 1988 .
Ellson: I have no problem with it. I 'm just interested, how does this
thing work? I can ' t picture how they do this . Is there a quick way to
explain it to me. I just can' t picture how this thing works . Is there a
little Bobcat that goes in there? A water proof Bobcat? I 'm all for' it.
I certainly want better fish quality and things like that. I 'm sure if I
lived there that would drive me crazy so I 'd be more than happy to help
you clean up your part of the lake. I
Emmings : I 'm a little bit familiar with this but this is the means by
which you all gain access to your property I take it. Are you having
problems getting back there this year? ,
Resident: We can' t get our pontoon out there .
Emmings : I know. I have a pontoon on the same lake so I 'm very familiar 1
with what you' re talking about. Right now, when I look at this plan and I
see this finger of whatever , coming up here as Outlot A, that ' s all lily
pads and so forth isn' t it?
Resident : Cattails .
Emmings : Cattails? Then the area where this thing is proposed is all
open water?
Resident : It ' s supposed to be. i
11
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 45
Resident: At one time.
Resident : It will be when it' s done , yes .
Emmings: Okay, but what ' s growing in there now?
Resident : Muck.
Emmings : Is it just muck or is there cattails?
Harry Niemela: It' s open water at the normal water level . In a normal
year it ' s open water .
' Emmings : Okay, and this year it' s?
Resident : Mud .
Emmings : I agree with Brian' s changes . I think since these people are
proposing to dump on another person' s land and they' re asking us to
approve that, that we should have a letter from that person.
rResident: We' ve got it .
Emmings : I don' t care if you ' ve got it. I think the City ought to have
it as part of the application so get it to the City so we' ve got it. I 'd
add that as a condition . I have nothing more .
Resident: Mr. Boyer was here earlier but he couldn' t wait.
Erhart : I think it' s fine . I guess just as a condition, sometimes these
' plans tend to get reinterpretted once you get going. You may want to add
a condition that says that in doing this excavation that you can not
increase the size of this channel .
Hanson : Other than what' s shown on the plan?
Erhart: The temptation always comes in later . Gee, we can improve this a
' little bit by eating away here and sometimes the things aren ' t, those
kinds of rules are not exactly reflected on the plan. Since really the
plan defines what gets . . .
' Headla: What about page 2 Larry?
Brown: Page 2 does give the precise cross sections that are proposed so
if it came down to a question of whether they were doing additional work
than proposed , we'd be able to check on it .
Erhart: I 'm talking about changing the route of the 50 feet channel and
the cross sections don' t show that . That ' s it Ladd .
1 Conrad: My only comment is that I believe that this whole set should
conform to our ordinances too in terms of our wetland ordinance . Distance
away and whatever. Is there a motion?
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 46 1
Emmings moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-17 based on the plan stamped
December 16, 1988 and the grading plan stamped December 29 , 1988 and
subject to the following conditions :
1. One is approval of the disposal plan by the Fish and Wildlife Service . II
2. Identification of the access road .
3. A letter from the owner of the property on which the spoils would be
dumped.
4. Compliance with all of the provisions of the City Engineer ' s report. '
5. Subject to a check by staff of the City ordinances to be sure that all
of this is in compliance with those ordinances.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
HERITAGE SQUARE APARTMENTS , REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF CONDITIONS OF SITE PLAN II
APPROVAL TO BE MET PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT.
Steve Hanson presented the staff report . ,
Tom Zumwalde: I have one brief comment. My name is Tom Zumwalde, the
architect. We' re in the process right now of putting construction
drawings together on this project and should be completed by the end of
the month. At that point we' ll be submitting them for final approval .
The owners asked us to prepare and have alternate for this project for
face brick, if the budget allows it. What I would like to do, if
possible, if we get approval on this . . . if he' s able to add the brick to
the building , that we don ' t have to come back through this process . It ' s
unknown at this point whether or not there' s going to be room in the
budget for it but if there is, he would like to do it.
Conrad : I would see no reason to come back to us to add brick. Brick is
better . I would encourage that .
Tom Zumwalde: That' s all I had .
•
Erhart : Sidewalks . Post lighting material . Are we continuing the theme
of the downtown? Approving the sidewalk material in the design. We' re
designing the curbs. All the wooden posts stained gray I think it is . Is
that theme being carried through this? We' re asking how it will be tied
into the clock tower? The sidewalk. Are we carrying the downtown theme
into the landscaping and the sidewalks and so forth?
Tom Zumwalde : I 'm assuming the sidewalks will be just a standard concrete
block.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 47
' Erhart : Do we have any special standards on our downtown sidewalks Brad?
Brad Johnson: On this particular case, the actual site plan for this
whole area except for . . .will be done by the City as a public improvement
which we' ll cover better I think maybe in the next discussion.
Erhart : I was referring to this plan . We seem to have a theme in the
City regarding the sidewalks and the little posts and all the signs and
everything and I 'm just wondering if we can carry that theme into this
site. That' s all .
Brad Johnson : At somebody' s expense .
' Erhart : Well , we always have the ability to ask up here . To my surprise ,
most times they go along.
' Brad Johnson : That hasn ' t come up at a meeting of any.
Erhart: I 'm just suggesting , my reaction is that I 'd like to see us carry
the theme of the city into this site plan . Whatever standards we apply to
the sidewalks and lighting and posts and so forth. That' s the only
comment I have.
' Brad Johnson : What you' re saying is you'd like to see lighting along that
block?
Erhart : If that ' s what we ' re doing downtown , yes .
' Emmings: It says the walkway along the rear of the building will be lit
with a 4 foot high, some kind of lights I 've never seen the word before in
my life.
Erhart : Okay, if that' s the case , than I 'd like to see us use the same
ones, the same designs that we ' re using downtown.
Tom Zumwalde : Brad , I 'm not sure if any of those 4 foot bollards have
been used in the downtown area .
' Erhart : In the park?
Brad Johnson : In Heritage Park there ' s some.
Emmings: I don' t have any other comments on it .
Ellson : The only thing I had is the materials are similar but colors have
not been specified. I doubt the would give us a shocking pink or
something but do you want to mention color? It would be nice to do a
' color . That ' s probably minor but I can' t let it go by without saying
something .
Batzli : I don ' t know how I can top any of these comments so I don ' t have
anymore.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 48 1
Wildermuth: As I look under the recommendations , I don' t see anything I
about the height of the street lamps or the lamps in the parking lot so
I 've added a fifth item there. They should be 13 feet conforming with the
other light standards . 1
Headla : They hit them all .
Conrad : I have nothing unless we trade our sidewalk for brick in the II
front of the building. No comments .
Emmings : Can we explore what Jim asked about a little bit? When we' re
talking about the light standards outside, reducing them from 20, did that
include the parking lot?
Tom Zumwalde : That' s what I was specifically referring to was the parking I
lot. Right now on the plan there' s 3 of them within the parking area and
then there ' s another one up towards the entrance where you drive in.
II
Emmings : And those are the ones that you' re talking about?
Tom Zumwalde: Yes . I
Emmings: Okay.
Erhart : I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the II
detailed submittal facis , signage, lighting and so on with the four
conditions listed plus the fifth condition that the lighting height be
altered to 13 feet. That ' s the parking lighting height I believe. And
II
item 6 , that we continue the sidewalk design, sidewalk lighting signage
theme used in Heritage Park throughout the site.
Ellson : I ' ll second it. I
Erhart moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend 1
approval of the detailed submittal of facia, signage, lighting and sound
proofing standards for Heritage Park Apartments #87-1 PUD based on the
plans stamped "Received December 26, 1988" and subject to the following I
conditions :
1. Increase sign setback to be 10 feet from property line and 5 feet from II
the driveway.
2. Lighting for sign shall be permanently directed only on the sign.
II3. A lighted walkway added to align with the clock tower .
4 . Applicant shall work with staff to minimize sound transmission between
apartments .
5. The outdoor lighting height shall be altered to 13 feet .
II
6. Continue the sidewalk design, sidewalk lightingf"aasignage theme used in
II
I
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 49
' downtown throughout this site.
All voted in favor and the motion carried .
' SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 21, 600 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING, ON PROPERTY
ZONED CBD, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED JUST EAST OF 480 WEST
78TH STREET, CHANHASSEN PROFESSIONAL BUILDING-PHASE I , ARVID ELNESS
ARCHITECTS, INC.
Steve Hanson presented the staff report.
Brown: Point of clarification. There was a clerical error on the tail
end of my memorandum. What appears to be page 2 is an arbitrary page .
' I 'm not sure where it came from. My memorandum ends at page 1.
Conrad : Brad , do you have any reaction that you want to talk about here?
Brad Johnson: I think Tom' s prepared to answer anything on this site.
I 'd like to point out that we ' ve been having meetings with the City and
we' ve collected some comments that in general are pretty much being
' addressed and I think that has to be clarified . I want you to remember
too that this is a four phase project. One phase is very important to get
going and that ' s the first phase . The next three would deal with an
' extension and that overhang and the possible expansion east . . . We have a
concept here that we ' d like you to have you accept for all four phases .
Tom will be go through and bring you up to speed on what we' re asking for .
Tom Zumwalde : This is an original drawing that you would always see . It
is . . .speci.fi.c information. Part of the reason for that is because it
covers about 20 parcels of property here and we have very limited
' information in terms of who owned them. How big they were and a number of
other things . Also, part of the problem was that the City and the City' s
consultant was going to be doing a municipal parking lot so our biggest
' concern initially was to try and find what the extent of our work would be
in order to put this building together and how much would be done by the
City and by BRW. We had a meeting , I believe in December with Steve and
Jim Lasher of BRW. Before that meeting I prepared a site drawing on a
little larger scale so we could see what we' re talking about . I started
to focus in on the two buildings . This is 78th Street down here. Phase
1, the two story building . Phase II , a one story bui.lding . . .and then the
proposed Phase IV over here. This being the clock tower and this is
Heritage Park Apartments . On this drawing I had arbitrarily laid out
parking. Again taking it a step further than perhaps I should have but I
' wanted to feel reasonably comfortable myself that the building and
parking . . . and so forth. In our discussion that day, the way it ended up
was that basically what we are looking at is the building and the building
pad and that BRW would prepare all the documents for the parking lot, for
' the sidewalks surrounding the building , the landscape plan , the grading
plan and the utilities. They would also be getting the surveys and so
forth. Everything else that was required . Out of that meeting that day,
one of the things we talked about is, as Steve had mentioned, is pushing
the building back farther from 78th Street and also shifting it over to
the east a little bit so that if the Lawn and Garden Center stays longer
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 50 1
than , construction of Phase I could begin before the Lawn and Garden ,
Center is decided. . . What I did was again, taking a look at that site and
prepared an updated one which I unfortunately didn' t get done in time to
get out to everyone but I did give Steve a copy today. On there, again it 11
reflects our meeting and the comments from that meeting . I shifted the
building back from the property line such that the protrusions that you
saw. . . The extensions on the front of the building are 10 feet from the
front property line and I shifted the building to the east 10 feet such
that the Sports and Lawn Center , whatever . Hanson' s property, would be
left intact and there wouldn ' t be any problem crossing the property line
there in the construction of Phase I . I then just laid out the parking . . . II
I suggested on here some landscape . Again , wherever one of the extensions
of the building occurs , typically here, here, here and here, that
eliminates the parking spaces . A little better on here. It made no II mention of tree species or bushes or anything else. That' s something that
BRW will be preparing and we' ll be working with them on it . I had gotten
a report today with staff comments and I guess I would question a couple
of them. One is Phase IV. After the building suggests , you can see on
I/
here that I think the buildings as they' re laid out on here, start to move
away a little bit from the clock tower and leave the mini-park area there
that we had talked about I believe in December . One of the problems with II not including the Phase IV is that Dr . McCollum' s clinic is going to be on
the first floor of this building in this area. One of his requirements is
that initially he talked about a 6, 000 square foot expansion. He' s
looking at about a 3, 000 square foot expansion now. If we are hemmed in
here or can ' t do anything , it' s going to create a problem for him. The
other part of the building on this side would be the Waconia Hospital so
the entire floor , first floor would be those two tenants . When and if
Pauly' s is no longer there and that property is picked up, if there were
3, 000 square foot expansion from the Phase IV to the building , it could be
done in such a way that it would occur back in this area and I think 'still II
maintain that community park around the clock tower so that building
wouldn' t be encroaching. . . I know if we cut up the access, with direct
access to the clock tower in this direction but when you look at it,
visually it ' s nice. You' ll be able to see the clock tower from walking
down this path but realistically, you' re directing pedestrians to this
point. This is perhaps the worse area of town to try and cross the
street. So if you directed traffic to this point and then over this lot ,
the impact of crossing 78th Street. . . I guess what I 'm saying there is ,
we' re going to need a Phase IV, a provision for a potential Phase IV of
about 2, 000 square feet. The other thing that concerns me a little bit is II
the fire department comment on being able to get a truck through here . If
we look at 14 feet of clear in there, it throws it really out of scale I
think with the rest of the building . We' ll get into that a little more.
I put together some color elevations of the three phases . We' ll start
with Phase I . What we' re looking at picking up on the building is again a
combination of the wood lap siding, the cedar shakes and some brick. Part
of the problem with our firm doing several buildings on top of each other II is trying to keep each one individualized. It' s tough. It' s kind of like
a balancing act . I think we' ve achieved a little different look with
this . . . I mentioned a combination of materials . These are projections on
the building . They would be brick masonary and we pick up some grill work
in some of these areas. You' re looking at a small . . .type window to break
! ,
Planning Commission Meeting
1 January 4 , 1989 - Page 51
' up the large glass surfaces and the potential perhaps for signage on these
lighter colored bands. Now this building would have a limited number of
tenants so signage would be fairly minimal . On the Phase I building ,
we' re looking at a one story building very similar in character, the same
materials but perhaps a greater number of tenants . Some dentists .
Perhaps some attorneys. Doctor offices. Things like that with individual
' entrances so we give each one an opportunity to have his own signage above
the door . Third phase, the connecting lane, would be again the same
material . It ' s basically brick but relatively open on the inside and
perhaps. . .construction something like that. This is intended to be a
metal grillwork that will pick up the same character as the grillwork over
here. Also the grillwork over in this area and along the railings and so
forth . If we go to 14 feet in there , basically we would be eliminating
that and creating a very large and very awkward type of opening. Part of
the problem when it gets that large is that everyone can get through
there. You' ve got the potential for a semis and other things to try and
get through there. I think it would keep it down on a smaller scale. . .on
the overall proportions of the building . Secondly it will avoid the
problem of people trying to get through there that weren' t intended to go
through there . As far as the safety is concerned , the Fire Department is
' over here. I suppose somehow or another they probably could get through
there. I guess my feeling is that it' s probably okay in height . . . When
you put all three phases together , you end up with about a 448 feet of
building in Phase III here which is a one story. . .and two story over here
as Phase I. I guess what we' re asking for tonight is approval so that we
can proceed with construction drawings for Phase I . Dr . McCollum' s lease
runs out and there is some time pressures to kind of move it along .
Brad Johnson : I 'd like to just comment on a couple of things that are
important to us. One is the timing of the project. I 'm sorry you read
' that book before . If we don' t accomplish our timeline which we are
happily on, there will be no medical clinic in the community because his
lease is done in August and his building will be at that time leased to
somebody else. That' s just a problem we' re facing. We did not know that
until November of this last year . First of all we had to go through the
HRA and get them to approve this , which we did in November . Secondly, we
do need expansion space to the east to live up to what is required by the
clinic in their lease for some expansion space on the first floor that
they can grow with . I think again , some of these issues as far as the
parking and everything are either in the City' s area right now and/or
' would come back into our control through a redevelopment agreement . For
example, if the City doesn' t do the parking lot , than we have to have the
right to do that . That would come through a right that we would have with
the HRA right now. The HRA has a redevelopment agreement. They are
agreeing to deliver us a site to build on. Actually own the whole site
and when the parking lot comes, we' ll sell them that park. Should they
not fund the parking lot by the time the building is open , than we ' ll have
' to build the parking lot to those standards ourselves so it' s kind of
catch 22 . That ' s up to the City Council to make a decision whether or not
they want to have a parking lot or not . They have passed in the past , is
that not correct Larry?
Brown : That' s correct .
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 52
Brad Johnson : I think in the past it was approved but because they did
not build it within a year , will have to fund it and that' s kind of a
sticky with us because we have a really tremendous time pressure on this
particular project. Or at least on that one portion of the building. As
Tom said, we' re looking for concept approval of the building so we can
start construction drawings . That' s the most important thing. I don' t
think the final site plan is as important as the construction drawings and
the process that we have to go through. Thank you.
Erhart : In the first place , there' s a lot of stuff here that we normally I
see such as the landscaping. When are we going to see that?
Brown: If I can address that question. As you may have read in Gary
Ehret' s report from BRW, because we' ve overlapped the year deadline, we' re
going to have to go through the entire process once again . Public
hearing. Feasibility study in getting these plans approved so you will
have the comment period , if you will , to address the landscaping and
grading and everything . It' s a unique situation in that because this area
was designated to fall within the parameters that we established with the
downtown redevelopment district, the City at this time felt that the only II
way to control that was to do this as a public works improvement project .
Unfortunately, once again, we' re facing a big time crunch. I think the
developer has . . . trying to work with the site plan while we work out the
other details .
Erhart: So we will see it at some point in time? Like a month or so
we' ll see a landscaping plan? ,
Brown: You will see the plans as the biggest constraints were the
topography constraints basically and those that break out with the •
preliminary plans for the parking lot . I wouldn ' t expect that that would II
change much given the other constraints that are on it.
Erhart : Going onto the . . . I had number 1 here on the conditions . The 10
foot setback. How is that going to provide a right turn lane?
Hanson : The 10 foot setback is not going to provide the right turn lane . II
The right-of-way is where that right turn lane will exists . But without
the additional 10 feet . . .
Erhart : The right-of-way on what? The street itself? '
Hanson: The right-of-way line is right here. The area that' s highlighted
in yellow, to build the right turn lanes , that area is lost, if you will ,
for landscaping.
Erhart : Yes . Okay, so that ' s where it would go? 1
Hanson: It would go here and the 10 feet what that allows you is an
adequate distance to maintain landscape improvements to be installed along
here.
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 53
Erhart : Is the are drawn in yellow so that if we decide to pull those
out , the median and make it a 4 lane street, that' s what the yellow is?
' Hanson: I don ' t know.
Erhart : In a serious sense . Is there adequate space there? If the City
' 50 years down the road decided that it didn' t want a median anymore and
they wanted the new main street to be 4 lane , is there adequate spacing
for that with this building?
' Tom Zumwalde : We got the dimensions here that they got from BRW. Up in
the centerline of the right-of-way, the curb line now is 21 feet. This
curb line. It ' s a 16 foot right-of-way. So if you took the center island
out it would be. . .and if you were going to show a 12 or 14 foot drive
lane , that would be 26 feet .
Hanson : Move the curb north 5 feet , take out the center median and you 'd
have 4 lanes. Four lanes with no left turn lanes and no right turn lanes .
Erhart : I understand that and that' s within the area that' s yellow?
All I 'm suggesting is that we preserve that option. I 'm not suggesting
that they. . .but reserve that option so if some future city government,
we' ll be all long and gone, if they want to be able to use the space. . .
' Hanson : I would say you ' ve got adequate right-of-way to do that. What
the 10 feet does is allow that sidewalk to not be within the right-of-way.
' That ' s on private property. Also , the 10 foot was a requirement of HRA
when they reviewed the plans too.
Erhart : You' re comfortable that we ' re okay there? We are going to get
then to see the revised parking lot for the Riveria sometime? One of my
comments even before , Tom you may want to respond there , I don' t quite see
why, given what the requirements to have a 14 foot drive thru there would
do to the architectural design of the building , I don' t understand why we
need to do that. The Fire Department can come in from the east. They can
come in from the west . It looks like they can also may or may not be able
to come through the alley behind Town Square Center and maybe even through
' the apartments . It just seems to me there ' s plenty of access there. In
looking at the view of the building and changing that to a 14 foot
requirement , really will add some. . .what he building will look like when
' you' re standing on the street level . I guess I just don' t think . . . What
do you mean resolve possible separation problems with the Building
Department? I didn' t quite understand that.
Hanson : I 'm trying to remember what the separation problems were . One of
them I know is located around Pauly' s as far as separation here and the
gas station obviously there needs to be separation . . . My understanding
is that once we get final plat for the project, then that will be
resolved .
Erhart : Pauly' s, that ' s a gas station now?
Brown: It' s starting to click here. There' s requirements in the building
r
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 54
code that state , it had to do with the old store front situation that you I
saw. That if they were right up against the lot line, then you needed to
build a parapet wall such that if one structure caught on fire, there was
a barrier there. Now if we go through and replat the area and the lot
line is no longer there and it' s no longer a problem. Easy way to get
around that.
Erhart : Lastly, I generally agree that you ought to combine Phase II
with Phase III . There' s no reason not to do that. I also, somehow, I 'm
not sure if Phase IV fits . Why can' t the good doctor occupy with only
Phase II? Use that 6,000 square feet over in Phase II area? That' s
really not , that' s still up in the air?
Tom Zumwalde: The additional space, that would involve having, a lot of
that building . . .
Erhart : You would be opposed to splitting that up? Well , I won ' t say
anything more about Phase IV at this time.
Emmings : What ' s Waconia Hospital going to do there as a tenant?
Brad Johnson: They' re going to provide physical therapy, sports medicine I
and primarily occupational health for the local businesses . The emergency
clinic, if there is one, there will be an emergency clinic which we
perceive will be near the hospital . . . So they won' t have an emergency
clinic. It won' t be a 24 hour but 16 to 12 hours.
Emmings : You' ve just got to be careful when you have your emergency. '
Brad Johnson: I think you' ll hear mostly it' s kids here. That' s what
they' re doing . Through their support and with Dr . McCollum and ourselves , 1
this whole thing is happening. We will get into the signage issues ,
special . . .signs . Good identification so we' re going to come back on
signage. We want to conform to the downtown sign standards and it has
certain standards that already are here . It ' s a professional area .
You' ll see a transfer of your signage requirements of professional now are
starting to look like. . . We haven' t gotten to the signs yet so that ' s why
we haven' t addressed it but we are going to have to identify our tenants . 1
It' s a choice of being on the first floor of Phase II , as tenants , with a
sign on the main street and second floor of the current first building and
give them a bite out of the square foot if they don ' t choose the first
floor. They have a real big change now with how people perceive where a
professional should be. . . .have to deal with it every day. . . Signs are
important. Right doctor? And these things are all in our lease .
Emmings: This is another one of these plans that we' ve been bombarded
with tonight that are real half baked and that' s no cut. I 'm not being
disrespectful . It ' s an important addition to the city and I think it ' s
great to have that building right there downtown. I think it ' s a nice
looking building . I like everything about it. I just don' t know much
about it. It' s real hard to look at this but I think that I could very
easily be persuaded to table this until we know actually what it' s going
to be. On the other hand, I think it' s so important that, and I 'm taking
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
1 January 4 , 1989 - Page 55
my coaching from Dave too . Not to rush into these rush situations but
this does seem to be one. I think it ' s such an important addition to the
City that I could just as easily be persuaded to put it through if
' I thought , if I could be assured that we' re going to have a chance to look
at these other items that we normally see at this time, at least in the
near future . My other comments were pretty much like Tim' s. I do
' strongly agree that these three should be made to occur with Phase II . If
Phase IV is important , there must be a way to work it out . Even if it' s
offset to the north a little bit to give a little more room around the
' clock tower . It would seem to me there would be a way to do that but I
sure wouldn' t want, right now it ' s just a ghostly little thing down there
on paper and I wouldn' t be very eager to do anything that would indicate
that we' re approving that. Now the buildings are moved back a little bit ,
' is that going to, do you think that ' s going to screw up the parking plan
back there in any way?
' Hanson : That ' s part of the standards. Essentially the way it was laid
out. . . I believe it was about a 3 foot setback on the front side. On the
back side of the parking lot , we had enough room to do the parking . . .
What we ' re having to do through that parking area and through some of the
' sidewalk and landscape areas , is essentially pick up 7 feet .
Emmings : But then, do we have standards for these parking lots in our
' ordinance now or do they come from something else?
Hanson: The ordinance now, it refers to another standard. I think it' s
something out of a traffic manual .
Emmings : And are we going with that standard or have we gone out and
found a different standard because we need one there?
' Hanson: What we talked about was a need to reduce some of the,
essentially deal with the situation we have with the amount of space
' that ' s there. When Tom and Jim Lasher and myself met , Jim said , there
had been some recent standards and I have not seen the standards yet and
I 'm not sure who put them out? I don' t know if it came from landscape
architecture or if it came from transportation in here. So I haven' t
' been able to verify what those standards are but they felt they could pick
up space if they needed to to preserve that 10 foot setback on the front
side through the parking . I don' t know how short those spaces are . I
don' t know if he' s talking 18 foot depth , 24 or 22 foot drive or what that
standard is . He had mentioned that the overall width would go down to at
least 58 feet. In all honesty, I don' t know how you can get it down to 58
feet and make it work.
Emmings : I think that ' s a big item. We sure don ' t want to build any kind
of substandard parking lot if it' s going to, I feel like it allows it now
MIMS
and if it' s less than what I 'm parking in now, it' s going to be awful . As
far as the need for the fire department to get under Phase III , we' ve got
a Public Safety Commission right? i think those people ought to have some
input into this. It would seem to me to make sense that you could get in
from one end or the other but I think we ought to , somebody ought to ask
them what they think is necessary. I think they like to get everywhere
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 56 '
all the time but other than that , I don' t have anything . I
Ellson: I don' t want to look at it until I get a lot more. I think our
City is pretty good about working with people and pushing things through
II
but this is just way too much out. I think you' re asking us to do a lot
without anything here. One of the things I like is to look at all the
things. I like to see the landscaping thing over here and how to make a
II
decision tonight. If I know in November , I can certainly sympathize with
you but I would rather see you working 24 hours a day to give me more
information. I don' t care about that side of it but I don' t think it' s II fair to us or fair to the planner , fair to Steve to have to write up every
single exception that' s missing and try to cover his bases and ask for us
to approve it that way. I 'd want to see it tabled until we get a lot
more .
II
Brad Johnson : Can I answer that question? That is not our problem. It ' s
the City' s problem. We would have it all done but we have to live within
II
the City' s process and the process is you have to have a public hearing .
It' s about a 3 month thing. It' s going to come back to you. You' re going
to see everything . It' s going to be like what they did before which was
already approved and had gone through the City. This whole parking lot
II
was approved once before. There shouldn' t be no real major changes . It' s
just not within our control . That ' s what we realized about a month ago.
It' s not within our control to propose anything there . We' re building on II a pad which the City is going to provide. Now we can' t go out and design
something and then have it redesigned by the City. I would prefer to try
to figure out a solution to that problem because you have the controls . II First of all your own city staff is designing it and we' ll probably meet
all the standards that you've set. I think if that is a major issue,
we' ll just have to back off and not do the deal and you' re going to lose
this project. That' s it. We can not miss, I 'm not trying to force -
II
anything through but what we' re saying is , we' ve got two months . We need
to get our working drawings going. Okay. Site plan can wait a month or
two but we can not proceed and invest $60, 000 . 00 in the building . The
II
timeframe, a site plan can be done from an architect ' s point of view,
pretty quickly. It' s the process that we have to live with in the City.
We need, that ' s what I said in the beginning, an approval of the building II so that we can proceed with what is the longest part of this whole thing
and that' s the plans and specifications of the building . We can come
back, we' ll be back before the City is going to be coming back with the
site plan. I don' t know when. I ' ve got a meeting with them on Friday. I II
know they' ve been busily working on the whole thing to try and get it done
but that' s our problem. I hope you guys can address the problem because
we' ve got , I think quite a bit here . As much as we always have relative
to the building. And we are building on a pad. It' s not our parcel . II
Batzli : Being somewhat at a loss as to how to respond to that last
comment, I ' ll read the comments I had previous to it. Regarding Phase
II
III , I guess if the fire department actually needs it and it doesn ' t fit
in aesthetically, I 'd say get rid of the whole thing rather than having it
be an eyesore . I might myself have reservations about the rush nature of I
this, etc . . Notwithstanding what you just said, I would like to see us
provide, and we are going to get a chance to review the entire thing down
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 57
' the road , I would like to see us have a medical center . Medical clinic in
town so I guess with the provisions that we have and the conditions , I 'd
like to see us move on tonight .
' Wildermuth : Agree.
' Headla : I don' t go along with the time constraint . I bet they haven' t
even tried to negotiate a 90 day extension. This is a tremendous clout
that they' ve got with these threats . Oh , I figured out. If they would
line the fire truck up in the Dinner Theater parking lot, I bet they could
get it right through that pass . Go over that center piece. I think
that' s got to get resolved. What I was thinking on this is, I don' t want
to see it go to a motion that we approve anything but I think it ought to
' be considered as information only. We certainly can put in our comments
and let it get to the Council and let them comment on it. They' ve got to
get the job done. At least they would know which way the wind is blowing
' on it . From what I see , yes , I think it' s a good start. But if we
approve it, what would we approve? There' s 18 conditions here that they
want. Basic conditions so I 'd suggest we make the vote on it as
information only and we like what we see so far .
' Conrad : My thoughts . Under 1 (e) . That seems to be an interesting point.
Phase IV. Steve, what are we trying to do? Are we trying to create a
' park at that point? What are we trying to do?
Hanson: I guess what I would label it as a pocket park. It ' s not an
area , an active park. I think what you ' re trying to do is , you' ve got the
clock tower out there and you want to allow enough open space out there to
reinforce that element that you put there and not have it lost against the
front side of a building . I think you' ve taken the step of saying , this
' is an identity for the downtown area and what we ' re suggesting is we "need
to reinforce that element that you put up there and not have it get lost
in the other things. I think that can be accomplished in several
' different ways. What I 'm saying right now, I have no idea if it' s going
to become lost or not . What they submitted is , they want to do an
extension that way and as an extension of the existing building coming out
with the same kind of footprint , I don' t think it' s going to work if we
' really want to maintain that as an identity. It ' s not to say that some
extension couldn ' t work but I don' t think we have enough detail to say, to
put our blessing on it at this point in time. The other thing I mentioned
' is , what we' re looking at is an approval for just the first phase at this
point in time.
Conrad : In terms of the 14 foot clearance , I guess I don' t know how to
react to that one. We' re being told by the fire department that they want
it . Whether it' s essential or not .
' Brown: If I could comment on that . I guess everyone has seen comments
come through here from the fire department . They look at it and you say,
is this a valid comment or isn ' t it? Hopefully, all of them are valid and
withstand any sort of criteria that we can put up against them. I offer
this as a suggestion . Between the time, if you decide to have us go to
City Council , bring this back to the Fire Marshall and Fire Chief and take
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 58 II
a look at this and have them either reinforce it or deny it. I guess I
II
myself would be at a loss, looking at this . I don't fight fires and I
don ' t know, I don' t have any standard from my profession to base that on .
Conrad: I guess I need to know if it' s critical or not. Based on what I
Tim is saying , it looks like they can get to the whole building from
almost anyplace so to have a shortcut through, I don' t know that, I 'm not II
sure that the shortcut is necessary. Yet if they say it ' s critical , then
I think we have to pay attention.
Emmings : I just wondered , is the median , if the fire truck is going east , I
are they going to be able to turn in there anyway? They can' t turn in
there anyhow and that ' s where they' re going to be coming from.
Brown: The other reservation I have is, why go under a burning structure . II
Conrad : Okay, moving along . Those are my comments . Phase IV seems kind II
of nebulous . Brad, I 'm not sure, I know Dr . McCollum needs additional
space or may need it. I think it' s probably important for you and I don' t
know how contractually you 've tied into that but on the other hand, it
doesn ' t look like it' s been solved at this point in time. I
Brad Johnson: In your ordinance, on that particular project, we can build
right up to the line . According to the ordinance so we would build
II
anytime in the CBD area , there' s no setback so you ' ll have to buy that
property. The City doesn ' t own that nor do they own Pauly' s so you ' ve got
a budgetary thing that the HRA hasn' t spent. You' re talking $100, 000. 00
to $130, 000. 00 for a park. I 'm just saying , it' s an issue that first of
II
all the HRA has to agree to purchase the property.
Conrad : I don ' t have a problem reacting to the Phase I right now. I
Brad Johnson: We just looked at the ordinances and said well , we can
build right up to there . Don said don' t build over Pauly' s so we pulled II it back. Then we had a problem with space. We have a lot of requirements
from the clinic as to what we can do . . . so we felt it was within the
ordinance that we were living up to that. We had not thought about what
Steve mentioned . . .but that is Phase IV. It ' s an issue that, it may not
II
get done today.
Conrad : But it ' s there and Mr . McCollum needs to know that there' s
II
expansion, right?
Brad Johnson : Yes . Well , there ' s still this meeting that has to happen II with you guys and that' s the meeting with BRW to finalize some of these
questions they raised . All of these questions about the site plan . One
of them will be, how this is all worked out and I think that' s what we' re ,
we' re going to one side . We have to have 3 , 000 square feet . We' re II restricted in this particular project, it' s been delayed a year so far in
getting going . The problem simply is Bernie Hanson. Otherwise we
wouldn't have any of these kinds of problems . We wouldn' t have this II big . . .and all those kinds of things so we've reached the point now. Dave
can speak to that, we tried to extend his lease. He can' t. That' s the
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 59
' problem.
Conrad : And I wasn' t even addressing that . I 'm addressing Phase IV which
seems to be a little bit of a problem as I look at it right now.
Brad Johnson : yes , and we don ' t have a solution. It' s all part of that
site plan.
Conrad : But I think we have to come up with a solution real quickly for a
lot of different reasons . But anyway, those were my only two comments on
' the 14 foot height and I think we need further clarification from the fire
chief on that issue. Then just a comment on the Phase IV. I agree with
combining Phase II and III . I think that ' s probably something we should
' do and most of the other comments . I also think we should push this
through. I think we need a fine medical clinic and I think we need the
hospital coming into town. You' ve seen the Commission react to a lot of
' problems similar to this tonight so this is just right in line with the
other things that we' ve seen.
Brad Johnson : My question is, is there someway to do this that would
assure that we come back with the things. . .
Conrad : I think you are. I 'm pretty comfortable that you' re coming back.
' Brad Johnson: We have no choice. We will be back .
Ellson : And boy you better be ready if you do.
Emmings: And you want to too don ' t you?
' Conrad : Is there a motion?
Headla : Let me try my idea on for size if there ' s anybody who agrees?
I make the motion we approve this as information only and we viewed it
favorably.
Conrad : Is there a second? The motion dies for lack of second .
Erhart: I ' ll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Preliminary Site Plan for Phase I of the Chanhassen
' Professional Building #88-17 based on the plan stamped "Received
December 12, 1988" with the provisions 1, 2, 3 and 4 as listed in the
staff ' s recommendations . I 'd also like to change item 3 (d) . I would
like to leave, plans satisfy requirements of Fire Inspector and add ,
that staff would again review the requirements for bringing through
Phase II overhead entrance. And to emphasize that the Planning
Commission feels that it shouldn' t be done unless it was absolutely
required for safety purposes . Were there any other changes?
Batzli : Do you want to right-of-way to 1 (a) ? You' re talking about the
right-of-way.
Hanson : No , we' re talking about the setback in the existing right-of-way.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 60
II
Batzli : Correct. We want to add that we ' re talking about West 78th II
Street right-of-way.
Conrad : Is there a second?
Batzli : Second.
II
Erhart moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Preliminary Site Plan for Phase I of the Chanhassen
I
Professional Building #88-17 based on the plan stamped "Received December
12, 1988" with the following conditions :
1. Submittal of a revised site plan prior to City council consideration I
of this item which at a minimum contains the following changes :
a. A 10 foot setback from West 78th Street right-of-way. I
b. Dimensions to identify location of the building and parking areas .
Parking aisle near building needs 25 foot drive. I
c . Revision of main entrance to provide wider drive lanes or pull
off. I
d . Revised parking and access at the Riviera .
e. Adjust or eliminate Phase IV and provide park site extending north II
from the clock tower and across the parking lot to Heritage Park
Apartments.
f . Revised circulation between Phase IV and Colonial Shopping Center . II
2. Prior to issuance of any permits for construction, detailed plans need
to be approved by Planning Commission and City Council for the entire
area from Town Square to Great Plains Bouelvard in accordance with
Section 20-107 , Application Site Plan Review of the City Code.
3. Submittal of revised plans shall address the following specific II
conditions :
a . Revised parking and circulation for Riviera . I
b. Plan III should occur as part of Phase II .
II
c. Revise main access to accommodate traffic flow if area is to
function as a drop off . Minimum height clearance of 14 feet is to
be provided . I
d . Plans satisfy requirements of Fire Inspector and that staff will
again review the requirements for the Phase II overhead entrance. II The Planning Commission feels that it shouldn' t be raised to 14
feet unless it is absolutely required for safety purposes .
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 61
e. Overall circulation needs to be redesigned to flow properly
through all properties . If parking space sizes are to be reduced
' from normal standard , information needs to be submitted to justify
reduced standards and address possible impacts .
' f. Setback of 10 foot along West 78th Street for all strcutural
elements of buildings .
g . Phase IV plans , elevation and use or eliminate.
h. Resolve possible separation problems with Building Department .
' i . Detailed facia plans , signage and lighting and landscaping .
j . All mechanical to inside buildings and service boxes screened .
k. Submittal of revised plat for the entire area .
4. Compliance with comments of the attached referral letters .
All voted in favor except Headla who opposed and the motion carried with a
vote of 6 to 1.
Headla : Lack of adequate information.
WOODCREST NEIGHBORHOOD - DISCUSSION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS .
' Larry Brown presented the staff report on this item.
Bill Eggert: Thank you for everybody being here at 12: 30 tonight.
' Larry' s been very helpful on this project in bringing it to the attention
of the Planning Commission. I just want to state a couple of things
before I give you some of the details here . I know several of you viewed
the site personally before it even came to the Planning Commission. There
was an interest , Annette , you' re a resident in the area so you have a
personal interest in it. David you were out and looking primarily at the
wildlife and had concerns about the water control and that type of thing
' and you exhibited a genuine concern about our interests in the area and
the interest of the City of Chanhassen . Unfortunately, things didn' t go
according to plan. We felt it was necessary to bring it to your
' attention. Perhaps at this point in time anything to be done might be a
moot topic. There' s probably nothing that can be done to correct the
situation but perhaps in the future, if somebody can benefit from what
occurred in our area. So what I 'd like to do is just walk through, and
Larry' s already capsulated a couple of things. The agreement was 140 foot
covenant from the back line of my property. I ' ll just mention that I 'm
directly behind the property up on the screen and that was the agreement
with the developer at that time. If I can indulge in your patience for
just a few minutes . I ' ll quote from some of your Planning Commission
meeting notes . From May 4 , 1988, Roxanne Lund was assuring all of us that
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 62 '
in the Covenants that we have proposed , City ordinances , no building or
grading will be permitted except for terracing or erosion control within
the 140 feet of the back line . My question about the Covenants . Her
statement was, what we' re saying is that we' re approximately 140 feet from II
the vacated dot to the back line . What you have to do is basically some
clearing of the underbrush which makes it more environmentally sound and
I believe there was a forester out there that said some of the underbrush
needs to be removed to make the trees more healthy. I ' ll pass some
pictures around in a few minutes of the clearing of that underbrush .
Ladd, you made comments to the effect that there had been some cases
closer where trees had gone down and I think that caused a major concern '
and that' s why we' re enforcing a little bit of knowing what trees were
going down on property. That these things are assets to our community and
we' re fighting for those assets for our community. Barbara Dacy stated at
this same meeting that the staff condition is that they submit a tree
removal plan along with their building permit application. Staff would
also enforce that grading limit line as identified as part of a plan.
That we would not allow tree removal beyond the grading limit line that' s
indicated on the plan and the Restrictive Covenants can be a condition of
approval and will be recorded by the applicant against the property.
David , you asked specifically if this was an enforceable requirement and
Barbara' s response was, I think it' s some good tools that we' ve
implemented since some other subdivisions in the past , the tree removal
plans have really helped staff enforcing them. The private restrictions
are enforced by the homeowners in that 5 lot subdivision so you 've got a
couple of tools that . . . I think that the real intent here was to try and
protect everybody' s interest . In fact , Brian you made it a point in your
comments , as a general point I 'd like to see the Covenants included .
Annette, you mentioned that you were positive because you thought that now
we' ve got to think of the neighborhood and although they' re not
required . . . they didn' t have to put a covenant in there, but they are 'and
they don' t have to leave those trees, but they are. I have some
suspicion about what their intent was from the beginning . Okay. David ,
you expressed a concern later on in that hearing on what, to quote you, it
says , I like what' s written there but I want to cover it more for what
happens in 3 , 4 or 5 years . A tree removal plan as it' s stated here
doesn ' t cover that does it? And Larry' s response was , that' s correct . In
relying on the advice of the City Attorney, we have very little control of II
that with the exception of the Covenants . That is the control that we
have. That' s it as far as the Planning Commission meeting and my comments
on that. I also have, and I believe you have the statement from the
Department of Natural Resources . From Alan E. Olson dated 7/27/88
commenting that the existing tree cover consists mostly of sugar maple,
basswood and oak trees that are 6 to 8 inches in diameter . Also ,
extracted from his comments at that time, it says next, trees which will
require either soil added to or removed from their root zone will have to
have wells built around the trees in order to preserve the health and
vigor of the tree . Thirdly, the paths used by the heavy equipment
operators needs to be kept to an absolute minimum to minimize construction
damage. A little care exercised by the construction company will go a
long way in maintaining the good health of the trees in this area II currently enjoy. Then there' s a comment that the house located at the top
of the hill seems to have been built with minimal impact on the forest and
II
Planning Commission Meeting
' January 4 , 1989 - Page 63
' I would hope that this project would achieve a similar conclusion . What I
would like to show are you some rough pictures of a home that has been
constructed in the area and the results of the clearing in the area. If I
could just pass this along please. As you have an opportunity to review
the pictures , what you' ll see in sequence is , first of all the new home
that ' s being built in the area with notations where the structure is
' actually built in relation to the 140 foot covenanted area. As indicated
by Larry, it' s encroached in that area. It' s hard when we ' re looking at a
plat map or a proposed building site to envision what it has done to the
environment but I think a picture tells a thousand words in that respect
' and it' s fairly clear that it ' s encroached rather significantly into that
so called protected area. In addition, the design of the home wouldn' t
necessarily have to put that 12 foot extension into the protected
covenanted area. It' s also my impression from, in fact the owners of that
home are present here this evening . It' s my impression that they were not
aware specifically of what the covenant was until they closed a couple of
days ago and was informed that it' s now been changed from 140 to 100 foot
covenant. There seems to be some question in that too. Also, in the
pictures being circulated , you might note that Lot 1, which is the lot
directly adjacent to the new home, is still wooded. The pictures aren' t
' very good but it gives you an idea of what kind of woods were in the area
before the construction took place. Number 1 has not been cleared at all .
Number 2 had the least amount of damage and I think largely due to the
influence of the owners of the home who were having the home built. Lot 1
is already staked out with stakes 120 feet from the back lot line so I
would suspect that that will encroach at least by 20 feet on the 140 foot
' covenant. Also , in the group of pictures is the cutting , clearing and
grading efforts on Lots 3 , 4 and 5. As you can see, it ' s substantially
more than the clearing of underbrush to help cultivate the growth of the
trees . I guess our efforts here tonight, or at least my efforts here
' tonight are those first of all , to bring it to the attention of the
Planning Commission. There may be some people who felt that through the
Covenants and Restrictions we did have recourse if there was a violation .
' It appears that there is very little recourse at this point in time, is
the position of the City Attorney. There may be some recourse among the
property owners within the five lots of the development. However , it
appears that at least the one home in the development right now, the home
that' s been constructed, is not on the board determining the covenants and
restrictions and they have already altered it from 140 feet to 100 feet
without any of their input. So I have a concern that the developer is
' kind of running rush odd over everyone' s intentions here . The Minutes
that came from the City Council meeting, express the same concerns
essentially that were expressed here at the Planning Commission level . I
' would like, and I wanted to bring it to this commission first but I 'd also
like to bring this to the attention of the City Council after we' ve had an
opportunity to look at it here tonight too because I think that everyone
in this room and the people who sit on the City Council are trying to act
in a responsible, concerned manner for the residents in the area and I 'm
not so certain that the developer in this situation had the same intent .
One other issue that may help us , at least, the trees have not been
removed from Lot 1 and there is a provision in the approved development
plan that there would be a tree removal plan submitted with any building
plans . There' s the possibility then , if there ' s any deviation from the
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 64
grading plan or any trees that are being asked to be removed by the
builder , that the City could enforce approval on that before it' s done. I
guess that' s the sum total of my comments .
Conrad: I appreciate that. Just some comments on my part. We've got to II
figure out what we want to do other than noting your concerns . Is the
City doing anything right now Larry or Steve? '
Brown: We do not have the power.
Wildermuth: They can' t do anything through the building permit process?
Brown: The only thing that they have violated at this time is the
Covenants and Restrictions .
Conrad: And that' s theirs .
Brown: And that' s a binding contract between the developer . '
Conrad: What was the development contract that we entered into with them?
It had no stipulations in terms of these things? '
Brown: The development contract is essentially a contract between the
developer and the City. Now the developer , the specific condition was
that a snow fence be installed immediately south of the proposed grading
as indicated on dated plan. . . In fact the developer did do that and the
contractor reasonably complied with that barrier . Now all of a sudden the
contractor/developer has met that criteria and performed by it . Now all
of a sudden we change hands to a builder . When the builder buys the lot
or a homeowner buys the lot . . .
Conrad : So what was our mechanism because we wanted this 140 foot
setback. What was our mechanism to make sure it happened?
Brown: We don' t have that mechanism. ,
Conrad: But that was our intent but it didn' t get in because it was put
in the Covenants that apply strictly to the lot . I 'm sure that ' s what
staff was thinking so that the property owners would specifically know
that there are restrictions . I see the idea . It sounds right but what is
our assurance that it gets done? There was none right? So therefore, it
was sort of a folly. It was really naive thinking that we could go from
the City Council saying there should be 140 foot setback to the situation
where the Covenants and Restrictions don' t include that. There' s no way
to get those into the specific property restrictions . Absolutely no way
so basically the bottom line is , this is a stupid way to do it. Is that
right?
Brown: Yes it is .
Hanson : What happens a lot of times in the heat of the debate you might II say, when the issue is coming before you and you' re looking for some type
of a mechanism to put it in and quite often people view it as , from a
II
Planning Commission Meeting
1 January 4, 1989 - Page 65
developer ' s standpoint , it' s easy to say yes , we ' ll put it in our
Covenants and Restrictions . In fact, we' ll give you a copy of them. Then
when it gets down to having to make a sale, make a deal somewhere , if they
' haven' t sold it out and you have a lot of property owners that are aware
of that, it' s easy to make that change because we as the City are not a
party to it. I think a better way to deal with that is to put a plat
' restriction on the plat which you approved so it' s something facing the
plat, it ' s a legal document that the City is a party to. But the
Covenants , you really don' t, you' ve got nothing to stand on, come back to
and even though your intention at the time. . .
Conrad : And there' s no way to put it into the development contract? That
it could pass down from the developer to the builder. In this case had it
' been specifically in the development contract , would we have had recourse
to go after the builder? That just seemed like the logical, I remember
this quite well and it seemed like the logical thing to do but obviously I
didn' t catch it and maybe it' s not the right thing to do.
Brown: We impose plat conditions that are routinely incorporated into a
development contract and the development contract is then recorded against
' the property itself. Again each lot so I would say that platting
conditions run with the property. We do that routinely. I think as Steve
mentioned , maybe in this instance , this was a classic example of where the
' developer stands up in the heat of the moment and says, I ' ll put it in the
Covenants and Restrictions .
Conrad : You know what would be good , as this goes up to City Council ,
' when will this go?
Brown: It will not be this next one because the agenda has already been
' published so it would have to be the following.
Conrad : I think it' s really good that staff provide a recommendation in
' terms of, hey this is not the way to approach this one and this is how we
should do it in the future . Steve, I think that ' s really quite important.
Setting direction for the future I think is key and then come back and
explain it to us so we understand . The second thing is the recourse at
' the current time. I guess that will be up to you and I don' t know that we
have any mechanism right now to help you with the situation.
Unfortunately it happens a fair amount of time. Dave got surprised on a
' parcel close to him. Whether it was clearcutted or whatever , things
happen that way. You try to button it up. It appeared to me that we had
it buttoned up and it didn' t happen .
' Bill Eggert : It appeared to all of us that way I believe too. Maybe one
thing that happened from the official planning or at development, the
initial covenant called for 120 feet and the developer was anxious and
' eager to offer an additional 20 feet in the covenant and came back at that
planning session and said we ' ll go 140 feet . If nothing else , coming away
from this, my thoughts to you would be, if this particular developer came
' in front of me with another project, I 'd look at him with a jaundiced eye.
At least make every effort to help those people in the immediate area .
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 66
II
Conrad : And for sure that will happen but that ' s no help to you right
I
now. Obviously we' ve got to be concerned with a developer that breaks
their word .
Headla : Who should control that? When you issue the building permits?
Conrad: That' s kind of what I 'd like to have staff come back and make
I
some comments on. There was some good logic for putting it into the
Covenants and Restrictions. It seemed logical at the time.
Brown: I think the direction is very clear . The only vehicle that we
I
have is development contracts which will be recorded and runs with the
property. Therefore, I guess it' s just reinforcement . I know I felt as
much as anyone did. Any conditions or concerns that we have, have to be II incorporated into that development contract . It ' s good education the next
time a developer stands up and says Covenants and Restrictions. We can
say, forget it. It' s in our development contract .
I
Batzli : As I recall , we've had this issue arise since that time where
people have been concerned about water drainage and we have requested that
something be recorded against the property. That they can' t adjust
I
drainage swales or some kind of contours . I don' t know how we've done
that in the meantime but I 'd be curious to know how many times we ' ve
attempted to do something about it since this because I do recall II personally making a condition saying something like this was going to be
recorded against the plat or something.
Ellson: I remember somebody saying, against the plat? That ' s so much
I
work. I think you should just do it this way. I kind of remember that .
Batzli : It would be real interesting to know what we' ve done in the '
I
meantime because I know we didn' t do it in a covenant but we tried to do
it another way as well .
Emmings : Are we sure? From your comments and from the comments he read , I
are we sure that we didn' t make it, either a condition of approval or that
it wasn ' t recorded against the plat? Has staff looked to see that we
didn' t do it?
I
Brown: I reviewed that and every indication that I found at the time, it
didn' t come out as a specific condition because we had, we were so wound I
up in approving this grading plan that only called for grading within the
first 100, the front 100 feet. It really gets down to a sticky issue .
How much can you tell a landowner that they can or cannot do with their II land? We may have already or don' t have control to be quite honest. If
somebody wants to go out and cut down a tree , do we have an ordinance in
effect yet that protects us from that? I don' t think that we do but I
will review those conditions one more time and Minutes .
I
Emmings : And review the plat conditions too because it may be, there were
comments that he read out of the Minutes that sure made it sound like II people were trying to do that and Brian has a recollection of that. If we
did it, let ' s make sure that we find out in a hurry so we go out and make
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 67
' sure they' re doind Lot 1 correctly if it' s staked . Because once the
house is built, you' re not going to do anything. . . .put that house
there, nobody' s going to move it anywhere but if it' s just staked , you can
do something about it. I think that ' s something you should get on in a
hurry.
' Conrad : Thanks for coming in. We' ll see what happens . Stick with it .
We appreciate your comments and looking out for the future too .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 16 , 1988 as presented .
All voted in favor and the motion carried .
Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 12: 50 a.m. .
' Submitted by Steve Hanson
City Planner
Prepared by Nann Ophei.m
1
I
,‘
II
r
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
•
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 10, 1989
Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Ed Hasek, Jim Mady, Larry Schroers, and
Curt Robinson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Carol Watson
STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema , Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman,
' Recreation Supervisor
' ELECTION OF OFFICERS :
Hasek: I just would like to move that we leave it the way that it is . I
' don' t think. . . for anyone to get a real handle on it so I think it' s best
to leave Jim and Sue both in place. I 'd also like to make a comment on
the rotating chair. I think that' s an excellent chair and I think it' s
something we should schedule and get started on . So that ' s my motion .
' Schroers: Second.
Hasek moved , Schroers seconded to elect Jim Mady as Chairman and Sue Boyt
as Vice Chairman of the Park and Recreation Commission and that a rotating
chairman schedule be initiated . All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Boyt : I think it would be helpful if we had something like a cheat sheet
for whoever ' s going to be the chair of the evening on this is the process .
Mady: On the rotating chair thing , I think first off we should let Lori.
' know who wants to do it. Unless we all do it.
Boyt : We said if somebody really doesn ' t want to do it.
Mady: If you don' t want to, that' s fine.
Hasek : I think it' s a good experience if you like to or not . It ' s part
' of the job. At least if somebody can' t do it, absolutely can not do it,
there' s no way they' re going to be an officer . It helps us to make that
decision.
Mady: Aside from that , as an order of business for each meeting , what we
should probably do is have some kind of motion to elect, whoever ' s the
current chairman of the meeting .
Sietsema: Why don ' t you just appoint somebody for the next week so the
person has the time to think about it.
Mady: Definitely that but I was thinking , as an order of the meeting , it
should be done.
J i
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 2 1
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Robinson moved, Hasek seconded to approve the
Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated December 13,
1988 as presented . All voted in favor and the motion carried . '
SITE PLAN REVIEW, VER-SA-TIL. '
Sietsema : I have to apologize . I don' t have the large layout of this
down here. I can go get it if you want to take a minute or if you don' t
have any questions , I can just whip through it very quickly. It ' s a
proposal to develop 8. 29 acres into a 97 ,400 square foot office
manufacturing warehouse facility. It ' s located behind the Press on Quatro
Drive and West 77th Street. This is not considered a park deficient area
by the Comprehensive Plan as the property lies on the outer edge of the
service area for South Lotus Lake. There are sidewalks in place in that
area so staff recommendation is to accept the park and trail dedication
fees in lieu of parkland and trail construction.
Hasek: I don' t see anything wrong with it at all . What ' s connecting to
the west. That' s the only question I had. 1
Mady: Town Line Road isn' t it?
Sietsema: Right. 1
Hasek: That' s a residential area up there behind that swamp?
Boyt: On the other side of the tracks.
Sietsema : On the other side of the tracks? North of the tracks? I
Hasek: No, on the south side. There' s that big swamp in there behind
Kerber ' s . That' s Kerber ' s old farm right?
Mady: Yes .
Hoffman : I 'm not so sure that road connects there though. 1
Hasek: Is it going to? It must.
Sietsema: Yes . '
Hasek: Or is it going to dead end?
Sietsema : The ultimate plan was for that street to go in and somehow
cross the railroad tracks and hook into Dell Road.
Hasek: 184th was going to cross?
Sietsema : Right . But that ' s sometime, maybe longterm in the future or it
may not happen. I 'm not certain. It' s a residential area to the north of
the tracks . I know that and the south is the Press and Lyman Lumber .
I
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
IJanuary 10, 1989 - Page 3
IHasek: Is there sidewalks shown? Is that what I 'm seeing?
ISietsema : Yes .
Mady: That ' s all industrial park actually.
IIHasek: I 'd like to move to approve it.
Boyt : Second .
I
Hasek moved , Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
I recommend to accept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of parkland and
trail construction. All voted in favor and the motion carried .
IIREVIEW COMMISSION APPLICATIONS AND SET SPECIAL MEETING DATE FOR
INTERVIEWS.
I Hasek : I had only one comment in going through these things as I reviewed
them. I would like to see some of those people from some areas that
aren ' t represented . That should be a qualification that we should look at
Istrongly.
Sietsema : That ' s one of the criteria that ' s on the list . Let me give
some background real quickly here. In mid-88 the City Council directed
II the Commissions to come up with a list of criteria for selecting
commissioners. We haven' t had any vacancies until now so this has kind of
slid until this time. I feel that we' ve always had a list of criteria
I although we haven' t ever really written it. It hasn ' t been anything
written down. In looking back in the Minutes and the questions and the
things that we ' ve had in discussions before, I have a list in the back of
I the staff report of the four things that came to mind for me. And you may
have some additions or deletions that you want to make to this. One of
them was the membership should represent all areas of the city to the
extent possible. There had been times when we haven ' t had enough
I applicants . We' ve had to continue to advertise because nobody' s applied .
This time that ' s not the case. We have 13 applicants. The membership
should be representative of all areas in proportion to the total
I population so there may be more in the downtown area than there would be
in like the southern area or other areas of the city. Membership should
be composed of a variety of careers and interest groups throughout the
I community such as the business community, CAA, school representatives ,
lawyers, architects , maintenance workers , accountants and so on.
Whatever . Housewives . So that we try to get a variety of different
interest levels and perspectives as well . The last one was the membership
I should , to the extent possible, include a variety of age groups . As long
as I 've been here, we' ve never had anyone real young or real old. You
guys have all been pretty much the same age.
IBoyt: Are we going to discuss a list of questions ahead of time?
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 4 ,
Sietsema: Yes , this would be the time that you 'd want to do that . '
Robinson: Should I even partake in this?
Mady: Yes . ,
Hasek: That' s one other criteria that I think should be on here and maybe
it should be. I like pretty much the order that you've got them in even.
I think that they ought to be weighted to a certain extent . The
membership should represent all areas of the city to the extent possible.
I think that ' s a real important criteria . One that might be more
important is the evaluation of past members that are up for reappointment
and I think that should somehow fall in here too and should have some
weight to it. Simply because there' s some experience there and it' s a II retraining process that it doesn' t have to go through. It happens in any
elected official . We may as well as admit it that it happens here.
Chances of reelection are a lot better than taking a new position. . .
Sietsema: Okay, I can add that. What I 'd like you to do is to make your
changes and then make a motion as to the final list , if you could .
Hasek: Does anybody have an opinion for where that one should fit in? If II
it should be last or first or second? I like the way that these four are
set here right now. They' re in order I think but that doesn' t mean that
we can ' t insert one someplace.
Boyt: Consideration given to?
Hasek: Past members . It shows at least an obligation and a willingness
to continue.
Boyt : It makes a difference when there' s a lot going on in the city to
have someone who knows the history.
Mady: It ' s also a reward to that person for their efforts . We are '
volunteers. We put a lot of time in and we should at least give a little
bit of preferential treatment for the work you 've done. We do operate
under criteria based on the Council and other meetings we' re expected to
attend with the time we' re putting in so I think that is an important
criteria.
Boyt : I think it should be at the top of the list . I
Robinson: Just to throw something else out. Contrary to that I guess is
some new blood periodically. If you make that one of the primary
criteria, you could go on and on with the same people and never get new
blood .
Hasek : That' s true. That ' s why I wondered where it needs to go in here .
If it wants to be number one or number four or whatever .
Robinson: One and two here are really kind of the same. ,
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
IJanuary 10, 1989 - Page 5
ISietsema : The only reason I did two is because , we want someone from
every corner but we also want the population to be represented more if
that' s possible, is the way I read . So you wouldn ' t have four from the
Isouthern area where you have the least population.
Hasek: Or conversely, you wouldn' t necessarily have 3 from one particular
Ineighborhood.
Sietsema : Right .
I Mady: I think that we still can combine the two to just simply adding
after you say, to the extent possible. Just say, and representative of
all areas in proportion to the total population. Make it three criteria .
ISietsema: So did you want me to add something about current members or
not?
1 Mady: I think current members , I 'd like to see it come in as item number
2. Just to have ahead of, composed of a variety of careers and interest
groups because that really is an interest group.
IHasek: My first reaction to the list was to put it in third and move 3
and 4 down to 4 and 5 because the first two I think are tied together so
Iclosely that I think that they are important.
Sietsema: So if I combine 1 and 2 that would achieve the same thing .
IIHasek: Combining 1 and 2, yes. Just keep the list at four then?
Sietsema : And how did you want that worded then?
IMady: And should be representative of all areas proportion to the total
population .
ISietsema: I mean the new one.
Hasek : Membership should consider reappointment of standing commissioners
I who desire to continue. I don' t know that the first two necessarily have
to be combined either . I think they' re different enough. I guess the
point is, if you put them together , then you ' ll be thinking about both of
I them at the same time . In the first half of the sentence and then the
second half of the sentence.
111 Schroers : Lastly, on 1 you' re trying to identify an area of the City and
on 2 you' re trying to identify occupations and the ages so you ' re right .
That is two different things .
I Sietsema : No, he' s talking about 2 being representative of the proportion
of population.
I Hasek : I guess that' s the way I 'd like to see it done personally. Just
1, 2 and then inject 3 and then have number 3 be 4 and 4 be 5.
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 6 I
Mady: I ' ll move to accept the criteria discussed with the inclusion at
number 3 giving preferance to standing committee members.
Boyt : Outstanding . . .outstandi.ng commissioners . ,
Hasek: I think that' s a good way. Outstanding. I think that' s an
excellent way of putting it . I
Sietsema: Can you say that again? Consider current?
Hasek: Membership should consider reappointment of standing, outstanding I
commissioners who . . . Outstanding I guess gives us the chance of looking
at their . . .
Boyt: Attendance. '
Hasek : Attendance record . You can write it so i.t will fit good with 11 these others. So that' s part of it now. I ' ll second it.
Sietsema: Just for point of clarification. Can I amend your motion to
read that you recommend the criteria rather than accept? '
Mady: Yes .
Sietsema: This is criteria being recommended to the City Council . ,
Mady moved, Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission I
recommend the criteria as outlined by staff with the inclusion of an item
3 to read: Membership should consider standing, outstanding commissioners
wishing to be reappointed . All voted in favor and the motion carried. '
Sietsema : The next thing would be then to come up with a list of
questions that you want to ask in the interviews .
Mady: Do we also, I would guess recommend to Council , narrow down the
list of applicants based on applications? Unless you plan on interviewing
all 13. I know when my new job hires , I don ' t interview the person who
makes an application. It ' s only a criteria to narrow the list down.
Let' s get on with the questions first. 1
Schroers : One question that I would like to see on there is whether or
not people feel as though they have the time to devote to this. I was
surprised , personally, at how much time was required . I really didn ' t
think that I was going to be putting this much time into this as I am. I
think just as much as a question as a point of information that we could
really clue the applicant that it is rather time consuming and they do
need to make the commitment because if they can ' t be here, it ' s hard for
us .
Boyt : The time has doubled since many of us came on board . '
I
1 ,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 7
Mady: We also met two meetings a month. I think that might be important
at least to mention to each applicant that the effort involved is not
simply coming to a meeting at 7: 30 two Tuesdays a month until 10: 00 at
night but includes a couple hours , there' s a number of hours of
preparation time. Visiting sites on your own. Talking to residents .
Being available on the phone.
iSietsema: I think that ' s a good point. There were a number of months
when we met 3 and 4 time in a month rather than just the 2 and we really
increased the number of meetings in this last year .
Mady: As the workload increases , come spring, as development starts up
again, it' s going to get heavier .
Schroers : At that point in time, I think we should ask for a raise .
Boyt: I 'd like to ask them what expertise they will bring to the
commission. And I would like to ask them what they see is the future of
parks and trails in Chanhassen.
' Mady: One of the things I 'd like to ask them is , their personal opinion,
impression of Chanhassen' s total park and recreation system. How it' s
operating . What it' s strong points are. What it ' s weak points are and
what effort they can bring to making it a better system. Not that there' s
anything wrong with it but what areas can be improved .
Boyt: I 'd like to ask them what they see the role of the Park and Rec
Commission as .
Mady: I kind of like that question asked about giving any background as
' to what we do. That way they' re not conditioned. Responses being
conditioned . How their perception is of it .
Boyt: This can be an educational process for us too in that we can learn
from them.
Mady: We need to find out their thoughts as to where our efforts should
' be placed. Are we placing too much emphasize on park acquisition at this
time and not enough on programming or vice versa? Where they feel the
dollars come from with what we do. That gives each of us an impression
' what some of the residents think. Where the dollars come from that we
spend from. My impression is that I think all people feel it comes right
out of the property tax dollar .
Schroers : I would like to ask what their environmental and conservation
plan for the City of Chanhassen would be.
Robinson : Will how they answer these questions be a consideration on
their selection to the commission then? If so, it should be listed up on
the criteria . We ' re asking some pretty tough questions and if their
opinion of the park and rec is that it ' s really rotten, I just think those
are some very tough questions .
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 8 '
Boyt : That is one of our criteria I think. Is how they respond to our
II
questions.
Robinson : Then I think it should be listed up in the criteria . I
Mady: I fully expect that once all the questions are answered and I know
all this information will go to Council . We' ll obviously make a
II
recommendation as to candidates. I would think we 'd do something of a
ranking and also make some decision. Unless they' re going to interview
the candidates , those tough questions really have to be asked.
Boyt : But it' s not listed on our list of 5. We just need to add a number II
6 stating that one of the criteria is the results of the interview process
before the Park and Rec Commission.
II
Sietsema : Wait a minute . I didn' t get your last question and I don' t
know how you want me to work that criteria so if we could back up just a
I
half a second . What was your last question?
Schroers : Mine was that I would be interested in hearing their point of
view on conservation and the environment in regards to the City of I
Chanhassen.
Mady: Kind of in line with that is passive recreational areas .
II
Boyt: In our set of questions too, we' re not necessarily looking for
someone who mouths our point of view. We' ve seen that we all have II different views on issues and we need that.
Mady: One of the things we' ve had in the last year and a half or so is ,
I know the first year I was on the Commission, I don' t think in that whole I
year there was ever a vote that was not unanimous . In this past year and
a half or so, we've had commissioners who were willing to vote no on an
item and then state your case which is good because it gives the Council II another perspective which is kind of what we' re here for.
Sietsema: So your 6th criteria , do you want to say something that upon
interview with a list of questions , the candidate should be open minded
II
and have their own point of view?
Mady: I don ' t know that that needs to be in the criteria . What I was II thinking of was . . .
Sietsema: How do you want me to work the 6th criteria?
II
Robinson: What Sue said. What did you say? The results of the interview
process .
Mady: How you handle the answering of questions because as we found out , 11
as well all know, in dealing with the public hearing process , we' re
constantly being asked questions and some of them are a li_ttle. . . tough. II You can' t always please everybody so you have to be willing to make a
statement and abide by it . That ' s what you believe in. What we ' re
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 9
' looking for is what someone believes in.
Schroers : I would think almost the first question we would want to ask
is, why do you want to be a park and rec commissioner .
Robinson : That' s one of the questions on the form. Reasons for seeking
this position and special qualifications .
Mady: I think that ' s one of those questions though that you really get a
feel for a person when you ask them in person. Reading something on a
' paper , it' s real hard . A lot of us , especially me I think, don ' t put
things in words real well . Especially on paper .
Boyt : We can ask them if they want to elaborate on that. That ' s all I
have.
' Schroers : How about running that list by us one time.
Sietsema: Okay. I have 9 questions . The first one is , do you feel you
have the time to make this commitment , explaining the extent of the time
' and commitment involved. The second one is , what expertise do you feel
you can bring to the commission. The third , what do you feel is the
future of the parks and trails in Chanhassen. Fourth was , what is your
' personal opinion or impression of the Chanhassen Park and Recreation
system. The strong points, weak points and what can you add to it . The
fifth was , what do you see the role of the Park and Recreation Commission
' is within the City. The sixth was , what are your thoughts as to where our
efforts should be focused in the future . For example, programming ,
acquisition, development. Seven, where do you think our park funds come
from. Number eight was , what are your feelings regarding conservation and
' the environment in how it effects Chanhassen. Nine, can you elaborate on
why you want to serve on the Commission.
' Schroers : How about if we look at each question one more time and see if
there ' s a way to refine it or improve it or if we want to add to it?
Whatever. Just go through each question one time .
' Sietsema : Do you feel you have the time to make this commitment?
Boyt: Do you want to take a break and Ed should be back in a few minutes?
Mady: I would like Ed to be here for this .
' Sietsema: Okay, we can come back to this. Do you want to move off of
this altogether because we need to decide if you ' re going to interview all
or some of them and set an interview date.
Mady: I 'd like to table right now this item. I would almost ask, unless
anyone sees something on the agenda they would like to discuss with Ed
missing , to recess for no more than 10 minutes .
Schroers: Recess or maybe even just have an open discussion about the. . .
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 10 1
Robinson: Can we go to some of the update items? '
Mady: That' s fine too. Let ' s do 11 (a) .
PROGRAM UPDATE: FRIDAY FAMILY MOVIES AND NEW 1989 RECREATION PROGRAMS .
Hoffman: A couple of these items are just brought to your attention. ,
11 (a) is a past item that I just want to make you more aware of or let you
know some details of how some new programs did. 11 (b) are some new
programs coming up for this summer that our department will be taking
responsibility for. The Friday Family Movies was fairly successful . A
new family event . Something that drew some large crowds . As noted in the
report here, the best movies to show are for the younger kids. It was
like dads night out . The moms sent dad and the 3 kids out and they came
up to the movies and they really had quite a good time. Then I attached
just some of the methods in which we promoted the Friday Family Movies .
One being the new brochure and then flyers that were sent out to the
schools.
Mady: The flyers , I didn' t see them. ,
Boyt: Yes, they came home. I it appeals to the younger kids .
Mady: That' s good because those kids really have nothing to do. '
Robinson: Did you pick the November and December timeframe specifically
or did it just happen to fall then? Wouldn' t it be better to continue . . . ,
Hoffman: Better to go after the holiday season?
Robinson: That's what I thought.
Sietsema: You know what I think is that because it was the holiday
season, the mom sent the dads and the kids . Get them out of the house so
I can get it cleaned and get it decorated and get ready for the parties or
whatever. Go shopping or whatever. It seemed that that was the case. We
really did have a lot of dads and a lot of little kids. I
Hoffman: That would be something to look to in the future. We could
certainly do it after the holiday season when there' s less going on. The
final movie, the second week in December , I believe did correlate with
Christmas . It kind of had that type of, at least one of the films ,
Pluto' s Christmas Tree had something to do with Christmas so that kind of
added appeal as well . The other note , on matching revenues . It is a
self supporting program. We missed that by about $175. 00 which is no big
loss for a first year program. We ran 4 movies . The movies do cost quite
a bit and for $1. 00 per person, we really did quite well on the revenue 1
end of that . With one year experience, I think next year we should have
no problem making that up. Any other thoughts or questions on that
program? 1
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 11
' Robinson: I say continue, recommend that they continue again next year .
. . .at all in January?
' Hoffman: Coming up next winter again. The movies that we order , we can
order them anytime. I ran it as , we purchased the four movies and then we
get this one free which is coming up. The new program which is on the
board there so it would be next year. Either November or December of next
year . January, February, something like that.
Robinson: So you' re looking at just a couple months? Another 4 weeks?
Hoffman : Yes . I think we can' t tire them out on something like this and
just go into next year .
Mady: So you wouldn ' t want to continue showing four a month November
through February?
Hoffman : We certainly could .
Mady: My thought is that after December starts , there isn' t a whole lot
going on. It' s kind of a dead time. The kids don' t want to be out. It
gets dark so quick and the kids don' t have a whole lot to do. It gives
them an opportunity to get out of the house. I have a feeling that the
mothers really appreciated being able to send the dads and the kids out
and having some peace and quiet. At least I think my wife would .
Robinson : I think we should almost try it in January and February.
' Mady: These seem to be the dead times .
' Schroers : Where did this originate from?
Hoffman: We get a Walt Disney catalog and I thought it up.
Schroers : I think that ' s commendable. I think it ' s a good program and
obviously good work in planning went into it to make it so successful on
the first year . You can certainly have my support to do it again .
Hoffman: Thanks Larry.
' Mady: It ' s one of those things that would really be nice if the paper ,
local papers would give us a quarter page or one-eighth page ad or
something in the corner saying movie. . .
' Hoffman: One little side quirk on the advertisment for these movies .
Walt Disney has it in their contract that advertisements can not go in any
public medium. Newspapers. TV or radio.
' Sietsema : We can ' t compete with theaters .
' Hoffman: With regular theaters so we have to do totally this in-house
publication or flyers through the school . That type of thing . Even in a
news release for this skating party and the extra movie, we just can ' t
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 12 '
state a Walt Disney movie. We can just say a film is showing . '
Mady: Children' s film.
Hoffman: Yes , so that' s one of the odd quirks . 11 (b) , talking about new II
recreation programs for this coming summer . It discusses the playground
program. That item was brought before the Commission probably a month and
a half ago where we talked about taking over the summer playground program
from both Minnetonka Community Education and from District 112 Community
Education as well . Both Chaska and Minnetonka community services did the
playground program within Chanhassen . Final preparation has been made for
that. We' re still looking into developing some, taking the old and
changing it a little bit and develop it into new playground programs.
Adding one park site location up at North Lotus Park. Continuing with the II
agreement with the City of Victoria in continuing their program out there
as well . One updated note to this , at the bottom I stated that I ' ve
contacted Becky Lyngaas who was the playground director in the past years .
Her approximate salary to do that for a summer , to be playground director ,
is approximately $2 , 000. 00. She has stated that she is looking into
another job and if we want to make an offer to try to get her back, that
that should happen fairly soon. That' s one update on that. There' s also II
a possibility that we could get that as an internship student at quite a
reasonable cost to run that program throughout the summer and that ' s
another thing we' re looking into to possibly cut some costs on that
program.
Schroers : Would you be interested in making a recommendation to the II Commission then when you figure out which way you prefer to go with that?
Mady: Or are you leaning preferring most right now?
Hoffman: I guess we can discuss that one. However you want to look at
that. Becky has done it for the Chaska Community Education for
approximately 8 years. Her sister has also been involved in the program
for 4 years and stated an interest if Becky does not come back, that she
would possibly be available. We can also put it up for just advertise the
position as well and interview some people or we can go the route of
getting an internship student for the summer to help develop that program II
and run it throughout the season.
Schroers : Are you happy with the way that she has handled it in the past? II
Hoffman: From what I hear, being that we have not been in direct
operation of the program, I can explain a little bit how it works . They II have like 5 different locations and it' s a Monday through Friday schedule .
Monday the playground director and the 3 playground or program
coordinators are with that director and they go to one playground site.
They operate that day, Monday, you' re at Meadow Green . Tuesday you ' re up
at North Lotus . Wednesday you ' re down here at City Center . They operate
in that type of manner and it seems it' s worked out and she' s done a
pretty good job in the past .
Schroers : Is the $2, 000. 00 a problem?
1 ,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 13
Hoffman : We' ve paid that, we' ve had to pay that to community education.
They just send us a breakdown of what it costs so we' ve paid that in the
I past and we certainly can continue but she is reaching the upper bracket
of the salary range for that type of position.
I Mady: I know Chanhassen has used the internship program well in the past .
You both went through the internship program and this worked our real
well . When you' re new and right out of school , you always bring in a lot
of new fresh ideas. A lot of excitement and interest in what you ' re
doing . I think it' s a great idea to use the interns . I really do. They
ususally give 10 times the effort at a third of the cost. I 've always
liked that idea . If Becky has something else that she ' s going to be
' undertaking, I think we should take a strong look at the internship
program because it' s nice to have that excitement .
Hoffman: Yes, it' s something where an intern at this year, I would have
to put more input into it working with an intern but I would have to do
that anyway being that it ' s my first year to be involved in the program
even if Becky was back.
Schroers : That was my thought . I agree that new ideas and new energy are
often times beneficial but so is experience and I 'd like to see the two
work together . I think you bring an intern in to work with someone who
has the experience.
Hoffman : I foresee , if not the director , we ' ll have some of the
playground coordinators back that were with the community education system
last year so we should have some base to work off of . I don ' t think it ' s
a good idea to change the program totally. We've got to keep some
continuity through it as we make this transition.
Boyt: It' s been successful and I 'd like to stay with someone. . .and bring
the interns in to work with them.
Mady: I have a question on that . At Lake Ann Park, people who use the
program at Lake Ann Park obviously have to buy the park stickers?
Sietsema: They did last year .
Mady: That ' s just since we ' re going to be discussing that tonight .
Boyt: Community Ed is mentioned in here in District 112 is looking for
people from Chanhassen to serve on the board . If anyone' s interested , let
me know.
Hoffman : On their Advisory Board?
Boyt: Yes .
Sietsema : The Community Ed Advisory Board .
r
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 14
Hoffman: The second program which we adopted is the summer tennis program
and that was run by Minnetonka Community Services . It just occurred at
Chanhassen Elementary. Now that we have the two courts at Meadow Green
and the two courts at North Lotus , we may or may not be able to
incorporate those sites as well depending on the numbers that respond to
whatever program we come up with . I ' ve been in contact with the
Northwestern Tennis Association. They' re real helpful in starting up a
program. They have a lot of contacts as far as instructors and that type
of thing. They also have some real stringent guidelines for certain park
and rec tennis programs and stuff that you can either follow or you can
tend to amend to whatever would fit your need. Again, that' s just an
ongoing program that hopefully, now that we have some ownership of it,
people will feel a little more a part of their community. That they don' t
have to go to these two other locations . Either down to Chaska or
Excelsior to register for programs .
Boyt : I think that it will grow. . .
Mady: Do you need a motion?
Sietsema: I don ' t think so. Unless you want us to take a different
course than what he' s doing .
Hoffman: Input and that type of stuff .
Mady: I think you 've got our support on the decision to bring into
Chanhassen . I felt it was a good decision all along . It gives our
residents a base. If it' s our program and start people. We are a
community of 10, 000 people. We should be able to do things on our own.
We shouldn' t have to go to Chaska or Minnetonka to do things .
Robinson : And the cost will be the same? ,
Hoffman: Yes .
Boyt : Something I 'd like to see us look into is programming . I guess it
would probably have to be, for adolescent and teenagers . I don' t think we
offer much for that age group and I think a lot of them work or are busy II during the day so maybe we could provide something for them in Chanhassen .
Hoffman: Meaning middle school age? What grades? '
Boyt: Middle school and high school .
Mady: Aside from that . A while back, 6 to 8 months ago, the manager of
Filly' s came to us with his thoughts on a non-alcoholic dancing night.
Boyt : This isn ' t a good time . Not after that girl got killed . 1
Mady: That was a tragic accident but. . . I was just wondering, do you
know, is that program still underway? I heard at one time it was real
active. It was late last summer .
I
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 15
Robinson : My kid was up there last Sunday night .
Mady: I was wondering if they still . The kids I talked to, and it' s been
' a couple of months now, but they really enjoyed it. Really liked it so I
was hoping that that was still going on because it' s a program to show
them. . .
Boyt : It 'd be nice to get an activity outside of a bar though. To have
volleyball for teenagers. Basketball outside for teenagers . Something
that is out . . . Not that that wouldn ' t go on.
' Mady: That was something else. We need facilities .
Hasek: That was the one afterthought that I had on that program. That it
wasn ' t probably until a month later , somebody asked me about it. . .and I
started thinking about . We' re letting kids into a bar . Are we starting
to set a trend?
Sietsema: Basically I think what we did on that is we told them that we
didn ' t have a problem with it but we weren' t going to advertise or put our
name attached to it because there was a lot of people that were against
that type of an activity. Teaching kids how to behave in a nightclub and
they didn' t think that would be appropriate for the City to be offering
that.
Boyt: We can offer some alternatives . Some other activities for those
kids .
Mady: We need to develop those but we also need some facilities to do
them.
' Boyt: We can play tennis all over in the city. We have a few little
basketball courts. It doesn' t have to be an elaborate set-up.
Hoffman: I have had a lot of thoughts on that Sue . You get into the high
school aged kid, and they' re a little tougher to get into an organized
activity but that doesn ' t mean you can ' t attempt to create one and try to
get them into it. They have a lot busier schedules in high school . The
middle school , however are less mobile and a group that you can probably
really reach through using the middle school itself on some type of after
school programs or Friday nights or Saturday night programs . This summer
in fact, I was in contact with people at the middle school and community
education as well in trying to incorporate possibly a teen night or
something of that nature. Middle school kids are , most of them, they
don' t have their drivers licenses yet . They have to be dropped off and
picked up and they' re just a little more restricted so organized
activities like that work a little better . Where high school , they' ve got
so many opportunities for so many things already, it would take a little
more creative thinking to come up with something that they would accept .
Boyt: I was thinking middle school , at night just open the gym every
Wednesday night . Half of it was basketball and half was volleyball and
you could just stop in and sign up.
I
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 16
II
Robinson: I 'd really like to see something like that. Saturday 11
afternoon, it' s a shame that kids that want to just go shoot baskets and
they can ' t do it up here at the school . We' ve got two gyms. I
Boyt: When we' re through with the basketball we can do that .
Robinson : And that' s been true for years . In fact , a guy mentioned to me II
when I was director of the basketball program, and the games were done so
we kicked them out and they wanted to know where they could go shoot
baskets. We had just moved from St. Louis Park and the gym was open all
II
the time on Saturday afternoon. Is it that we can do that if we have an
adult to supervise it?
Hoffman: Yes . Basically the school and community education , who 1
schedules that time, on the weekend they say you need to have a person on
duty, a janitor on duty during that time. However , during the youth
basketball program where Bill Webber is the coordinator and has prior
II
approval to go ahead and use that space during that time. It just takes a
little more bending arm to get the use of the space on the weekends .
Especially up here at the elementary schools . It' s not that we can ' t do
II
it, we just have to. . .
Hasek : It has to be a janitor? It can' t be another . . .
I
Hoffman: Yes. They have replaced that in the youth program. They've
made amends there where they say, you can take responsibility. We' ll give
you a key. You open the building . You make sure everything ' s put back.
II
There ' s no problems and it' s closed up at the end of the day. Whenever we
run like the breakfast for Santa or anything on the weekend , we pay to
have a janitor in there at whatever , $13.00-$14 . 00 an hour . I
Mady: A lot of times , that' s just simply part of the janitor ' s union
contract. It ' s always fun when we talk about recreation programs . It
seems we spend about 95% of our time talking about park acquisition and
II
development and very seldom do we get the opportunity to talk about
recreation. Let' s move back to item 5. The review of the applications .
II
CONTINUE REVIEW COMMISSION APPLICATIONS AND SET SPECIAL MEETING DATE FOR
INTERVIEWS. I
Mady: We' ve come up with a set of 9 questions I believe it is . I think
we want to go over them again and get your thoughts and the rest of our II thoughts on how we can improve them a little bit .
Sietsema: The first one was , do you feel you have the time to make this
commitment? What expertise do you feel you can bring to the commission?
What do you feel is the future of parks and trails in Chanhassen? What is II
your personal opinion or impression of the Chan Park and Rec system and
what can you add? What do you see the role of the Park and Recreation II Commission is within the City? What are your thoughts as to where our
efforts should be focused in the future, i .e. programs , acquisition,
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 17
development. . .? Where do you think our park funds come from? What are
your feelings regarding conservation and the environment in the City of
Chanhassen? And can you elaborate on why you want to serve on the
Commission?
Hasek: Do you know what the role of a commissioner is in the
discussion . . .
Boyt : I think that ' s kind of included in the role of the commission.
Mady: None of these questions really are asking the same thing.
. . .they' re basical personal philosophy of parks and recreation activities .
Schroers: How are we, as a commission, going to decide? What criteria
are we going to use to make the recommendation to Council?
Hasek: This list of 6.
Schroers : But I mean, are we going to score each participant?
Mady: I think that' s up to each individual to rate, to keep track of them
as you go. I think it' s a gut feel type of thing .
Sietsema: I don' t think you all want to agree on what the answer should
be because that brings the diversity. You know, everybody has a different
philosophy but if you want to do a personal ranking of each question and
add up the points and make your selection at the end that way.
Hasek: That' s how it' s going to happen. We' re going to make
recommendations to fill those positions and those positions on the basis
of the applicants that we have. Is Council going to review these people
then too or not? Just us?
Sietsema : They may decide they want to interview them as well . I don' t
know at this time.
Hasek: Is that what happened the last time around? Is that what happened
' with me? I was interviewed by Tom.
Sietsema: It ' s been different . Now the policy has been set by the City
Code that the Commission should make the interviews .
Hasek : It wasn ' t set at that time?
1 Sietsema: But it wasn' t at that time . Last time the Mayor decided he
wanted to interview all of the candidates and make the nomination .
Mady: Any thoughts on specific questions? How they could be modified or
changed?
Hasek : I think the ones that I heard were fairly well structured . I
think the simpler and more direct the question, the easier it' s going to
be for the people to answer .
r
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 18
Schroers: I agree with that.
Hasek : If you embellish it too much, it' s too difficult to understand the II
question.
Boyt : When I went through the interview process with another group,
instead of one person asking all the questions , it went down the line and
each person asked one of the questions on the list.
Hasek: A lot of businesses interview that way too. I think the amusing '
thing about that is it puts a little bit of undue pressure on the person
that' s out there. If you don' t know where the next one' s coming from or
the tone of voice that it' s going to be asked in , it sometime is a little II
bit. . .
Sietsema: Like where do you think we get our money.
Boyt: We' ll see if they have a sense of humor .
Hasek: I think we should either choose one person, either the chairman or
perhaps Lori could ask the questions. I think if we' re going to review
these people, it should be as uncumbersome as possible. I don' t think
they should have to stand up in front of us . They should answer from
their seat .
Sietsema : Yes , this isn ' t a paid position .
Hasek: It should be as comfortable as we can possibly make it.
Robinson: In our office we ' ve attempted , we ' ve tried it both ways . We' ve
done with a group situation and really found it to be very intimidating .
Because all of a sudden it' s just one poor little soul out here and this
group of people who are going to make or break their day.
Boyt : I think when we do it , we can sit at a table down here.
Mady: That would be nice. ,
Hasek: Yes , if we could sit around a table with just us and them. It
would be a we situation. I like that too. Even if we sit in just a
circle .
Mady: Except a lot of times it ' s more comfortable sitting at a table .
You've got something to put your hands, at least under the table so you' re
not sitting there fidgeting .
Hasek : This is going to happen next week or next time? I
Sietsema : No. If there' s no additions to the questions , I ' ll have those
typed up for each of you to have a copy. The next thing we need to decide II
is , number one, are you going to interview all 13 candidates or select the
people that meet the criteria . Then the other thing is , to select a
1
I '
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
11 January 10, 1989 - Page 19
' meeting date.
Boyt : . . . it might be the rational thing to do. To say, that we should
cut it, looking at our criteria . . . I don' t know if it ' s worth it to spend
the time.
Hasek : Then it ' s going to take a whole night because I think all
questions asked , ought to be asked of each person and I don' t think it
should be a group interview.
' Sietesma: I think it' s going to take a whole night regardless if you
interview 5 or 15.
' Mady: If we do 13, it ' s going to be, you ' re going to be talking 6 hours .
Schroers : I don' t think that 13 is all that many and I think we could
condense our questions a little bit and make them a little simpler and
just go through it.
Hasek: Or maybe ask 5 questions out of the group as opposed to asking all
9 or 10 questions that we' ve got . Maybe choose 5 out of the group.
(There was a tape change at this point . )
Mady: I do have a concern on that . You ' re right Sue. We' ll take some
flack in the community. We' re going to take flack from the community
anyway.
Boyt : I think if we go through a process as fairly as possible .
' Mady: I 'm not worried about flack. I think we need to do this in a -
businesslike manner and if half of these candidates don' t meet 5 of the
criteria, there' s really no sense in wasting our time and their time .
Robinson : I don' t agree . I don' t agree because I think, if they' ve
applied and we' ve got to go through the interview process. I 'd hate to
say which one not to interview or to reject.
Hasek: The hard part about reading these things , at least with me is that
I don ' t know that I really got a good feel . You put three lines down for
a person, these are reasons for seeking a position and a lot of people
feel compelled to write only three lines . Maybe what they have to say is
a lot longer than that. I tend to agree. I don' t want to interview them
all but I think from the standpoint that their application , I certainly
if I was going to take the time to fill out of the thing, I 'd like at
least to have my day in court. I ' ve got some personal feelings for that.
Not necessarily wanting to go through all of these but at the same time, I
have to agree Jim. . . The one thing that did bother me about the one
gentleman, and I forget . . .
Sietsema : The one that can ' t be here for March and April , or February and
March? Richard Mingo?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 20
II
Hasek: Yes . That' s when we really start to get fired up . I think if it II
was around Christmas time it would be different. But maybe he' s willing
to change that or something . I don' t know. That' s going to be a long
meeting. We might as well let those people know that there' s a chance
that . II
Boyt: We can schedule a time of 15 or 20 minutes per person and ask them ,
to come 5 minutes before their time throughout the evening so they don' t
have to sit here all evening .
Hasek: Excellent idea .
I
Sietsema : It ' s got to be not more than 15 minutes if you want to get them
all in in one night. I
Hasek: Yes , you' re looking at 3 hours right there .
Mady: And we may want to discuss it after they' re through. I
Hasek : I think it ought to be just a quick, I think 10 minutes is plenty.
Plenty to talk and then we' ll reserve 5 minutes for . Well, see there' s no
point in talking person by person. We might as well . . .
Mady: We' ll run them through.
II
Hasek: So we' ll take that extra 5 minutes per person on that 15 which
will give us , about an hour at the end that we can talk about it and make
our decision. I
Boyt: We' re going to have to cut down our questions to 2 or 3.
Schroers: I think we should cut down our questions. But I think when you I
ask somebody, what do they see as the future direction of Chanhassen
parks. That would be an awful hard question to ask someone who hasn ' t II been involved with the park department in the city. How are they going to
know?
Mady: That question was asked of me when I was interviewed by the
II
Commission.
Hasek: Do you know how I answered that question? I told them, I said
I didn' t know enough about the parks and recreation department to II
effectively answer the question.
Boyt: That ' s a good question. I
Hasek: What do you do? You either lie or you tell them the truth .
Boyt: I think we ought to ask them to elaborate on why they want to be a II
commissioner . I think that ' s one of the important ones .
Hasek: How did you become interested in the parks and rec commission and II
why do you want to be a park and rec commissioner? Do you understand what
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 21
your role will be? I think those are two very key things to ask. A lot
of people think that they' re going to be able to come on here and make a
great big difference all by themselves and it just doesn' t happen. Also ,
' I think in reading through some of these, I think people have the
impression that it' s our job to come to these meetings and listen to the
people that are sitting here and only those people and that certainly is
not the truth . We' re representatives of the entire community even though
we' re from only one neighborhood. We' re supposed to represent the entire
community.
' Sietsema: Okay. So we ' re going to interview all 13 applicants and do we
have a date that we want to set aside because I ' ve got a full agenda
already, more than full for the next meeting so we have to pick another
date.
Hasek : Then let ' s pick the following . Can we do that?
Sietsema: How about next Tueciq:iy?
Hasek : Next week Tuesday? I won' t be here . I 've got a meeting in
' Burnsville on Tuesday.
Boyt : We could do it upstairs too .
Sietsema: Yes. That would probably be more comfortable. Our next
scheduled meeting is the 24th. I just hate to wait too much longer . Is
Wednesday the 18th good for anybody? Then I could put it on the agenda
' for City Council for the 23rd and that person could be picked and ready to
serve perhaps even the 24th.
Schroers : But will that give you enough time to get a schedule set up and
get the people notified?
' Sietsema : Next Wednesday? Yes .
Schroers : That' s not giving the applicants a lot of notice . It ' s not a
problem for me. I can' t make it .
' Sietsema : Would you like me to send them a list of questions?
Hasek: No. I don' t think that they should have to labor on it. I think
the spontaneity is going to be the better thing . When you go into a
interview of any kind , very seldom do you have the questions laid out that
you' re going to be asked .
11 Boyt: Should we start earlier than 7 : 30? 7 : 00?
Hasek : 7: 00 would be about the earliest that I can get here .
Sietsema: So the 18th is okay with everybody?
Schroers : Will you be sending a memo on that?
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 22
Sietsema: Yes .
Mady: Was it necessary for us to have the criteria approved by the
Council first? I
Sietsema: Oh that' s a good ?oi.nt . Yes it is . So let' s go the week
after . That' s right. If we wait until after the 23rd, there' s no point
in rushing . We can do it the 31st then. It can be on the City Council
agenda then on February 13th. We' ve got a couple of weeks to play with in
there. If we don' t get to everybody or if someone can ' t make it that
night, we can schedule it , maybe do two nights . '
Schroers : That would probably be more reasonable .
Mady: The practical matter , when you notify the candidates, if they have
a problem with that night , they could be part of one of our formal
meetings. Give them 10 minutes .
Robinson : Am I an interviewer or an interviewee?
Sietsema: Both. You' re a commissioner until you' re replaced or you quit .
So I will put it down for Tuesday, the 31st up in the conference room.
Does anybody have a problem with that? Are we done with that item then?
Mady: We need a motion . ,
Boyt : No , we were going to shorten the list of questions .
Sietsema: What would happen if I put the whole list and then we could go I
around the table and you can ask whatever question you want.
Boyt: I don' t know if that' s fair that one person gets asked . . .
Mady: I don ' t think you can pick and choose.
Hasek: I think we should probably have 3 or 4 questions and I think this
list can be reduced so it can be 3 or 4 questions .
Mady: We do have another meeting so I guess I 'd like to see you bring
back to us at our next meeting . I want to make a motion that we recommend
to Council the criteria , the six criteria we discussed tonight . I
Sietsema : You already did . You have to amend it to include the 6th one
but you already made the recommendation.
Hasek: Seconded . I just have one question. Are these 8 or 10 questions
going to go or are you just going to say we've got a list of questions .
Boyt : Why don' t you send the list of questions .
Hasek: The problem is , I don' t enjoy all of these questions and I think
we should shorten the list .
I .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 23
' Sietsema : I 'm going to type them up and bring them back to you on the
24th.
' Hasek : So we get to review it before it goes to Council still .
Sietsema : The Council doesn' t have to review the questions . That ' s your
criteria .
Hasek: That was my question. Can we send it with just point number 6?
Sietsema: Oh criteria. No. I don' t think Council needs to see the
questions . If they want to ask different questions , then they can ask the
people to attend the City Council meeting .
Schroers : I 'm wondering if we can ' t just decide on 3 or 4 questions right
now and get it over with.
Mady: I guess I 'd like to see them.
Boyt : Curt has them written down.
Mady moved , Hasek seconded to amend the motion for the criteria for
' candidate selection to include a 6th criteria which states , candidate
selection should be based on the interview conducted by the Park and
Recreation Commission . All voted in favor and the motion carried .
ESTABLISH 1989 LAKE ANN PARK PARKING FEE SCHEDULE.
' Hasek : A lot of comments on this from me I ' ll tell you . I think we have
to have it . I think we have to maintain a fee out there. Number one , if
we reduce it, if we eliminate the fee , it' s going to increase the usership
of the park and the increase use is going to create more maintenance
problems out there . I think it ' s going to give us more problems with
security and drinking and a lot of other things and I think just a little
bit of security at the entryway in the form of a fee is going to help us
' reduce some of that. Even though it ' s only a nominal fee. I would hate
to see that park get overused . It seems to me like the most intensely
used parks in this city all have the a fee. Those being the Hennepin
County park system. I enjoy them myself as a resident to be able to go in
there and know that the place is going to be at least halfway well kept
and maintained and my kids aren ' t going to be walking on all kinds of
busted beer bottles and stuff where they don' t belong and so forth so I
' don' t think that a minimal fee is out of line at all . I would like to see
the fees probably reduced a little bit. I don' t think they have to be
quite as high as they are. The suggestion of 6 , 3 and 1 for the 1990 , I
' think is probably as low as we should have to go. If there' s a problem
with paying for it at the entrance point that we' ve got , maybe that
entrance point can be moved. That' s will have to be looked at in the
context of the overall . . . for the park once it' s completed in the final
design. Another thing, I think if we have problems with special events
like swimming lessons or softball teams, some of those things , maybe we
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 24
should figure out a way where that price can be worked into the fees for II
those events and the participants get a sticker along with the event .
That way there shouldn ' t be any arguments about it . Maybe if you pay for
the swimming lessons, you get a sticker that goes along with the swimming
lessons . You end up paying for the sticker eventually. Or maybe you
don ' t pay for the sticker . Maybe it ' s just included with it but I think
if you have people that are out there manning the use of the park, I think
that ' s important to understand that there' s more than simply showing up
two days at the park involved. A little bit of fee for maintenance of
that park isn ' t all that much.
Mady: I think my position is pretty well known on this . I 'm totally
against having fees in parks. I feel parks are open space that all people
should have access to. I know that my position is probably a minority
position and Ed ' s thoughts on the people who are attending swimming
lessons , the softball teams , the play activities that take place at the
park, those were the people who were complaining last year . Some were
very vehement about it and caused some problems with the gate attendant . I
guess if we are going to approve park fees , recommend park fees for this
coming year , I would at least like to see us allow for the families who
have swimming lessons. If you ' re paying a fee, you should get into the
park. If you' re paying to use that park already, some type of activity,
be it swimming lessons , softball , soccer , whatever. If your activity,
your recreational programs already cost them a fee , I would hope that we
would at least be able to use the facility.
Boyt : What about teams that are coming from another city to play against
a Chanhassen baseball team? Little children.
Hasek: I think that if it can be included in a fee , and they get a
sticker for it, I don' t see any problem with that. Maybe that ' s reduced .
Maybe those are given, the cost for those is $2. 00 instead of $3 . 00 or
whatever you decide is the final . Or $4 . 00 instead of $6. 00 or something .
Maybe it' s only the $3 . 00. Maybe it' s for an event. I think it can be
looked at in a number of different ways but I really, I feel very strongly II
that if we eliminate the fee, that park will go to hell in a hand basket
so quickly it will just make your eyes water. You 've got no control over
useage out there whatsoever . While I agree with Jim that I think the
parks are for people and they should be free, I think in today' s society,
it' s just one of those givens . You need something under control . Even a
high school kid standing in a simple little box at the entryway is a form II
of deterrent .
Robinson : I think this is the wrong time to be talking about a $23 , 000. 00
item and whether or not we' re going to charge a fee in 1989 or not . We' ve
got this , I hope , in our budget someplace . Somebody does . The income off
this and the expense.
Sietsema : It' s a projected figure. We don' t expect to get the $23 , 000 . 00 II
again this year because we don' t expect the weather to be the same and it
varies from year to year . It is varied anywhere from $5 , 000 . 00 to the
$23, 000. 00 so it' s not . . .
II '
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 25
' Robinson : For the last 5 years it' s been , the most was $10, 000. 00. That'
was 1984 so we must have had considered in our budget the total of
.$17, 000. 00 to $23 , 000. 00 someplace in there and I don ' t think we should
' discontinue that now. At this time. I guess I also , my opinion Lori is
that I don ' t think it buys us anything to phase it out , as you' ve
proposed. It sounds like the City Council , in their discussion, it was
' either a fee or no fee . I think the $20, 000 . 00 income is really
important. It wouldn' t buy us anything, cutting the fee, in 1990. Either
we' ve got the money or we don' t . I don ' t think we going to cut out
anything. We' re not going to cut out lifeguards or any other services at
' Lake Ann if we don' t charge a fee . And one I hadn' t thought of is like Ed
says, I guess I agree with that. A fee does provide some sort of control .
I don ' t see anything wrong with charging a fee to a resident for a program
' like swimming lessons or whatever they have out there. I don' t know how
you handle out of town baseball players . Maybe you make an exception or
something .
Boyt : Well a dollar seems pretty reasonable or $2. 00.
Mady: One of the things you could do though with the Minnetonka teams
that come in is to provide the coach with a pass . A one time pass .
Sietsema: It' s a hassle though to get a pass of some kind to little
Eddy' s grandmother who ' s coming from out of town to see him play at Lake
Ann Park when they usually play up in Mound. What I would suggest is to
just tell the gate keeper that if they' re there to watch the Little League
game, let them in. We can run it that loosely don' t you think?
' Hoffman : Basically the reason we tightened it up this year is because
that' s an ordinance which is on our books and if it' s an ordinance, we
' shouldn' t really be making arbitrary decisions on who we ' re letting into
the park and not. It should be a clearly stated ordinance and that' s how
we should operate the park I believe.
Boyt: I guess the teams that are coming in should be notified when they
sign up to use our park facility that this is what our ordinance says and
let them notify their team members and families .
' Hasek: I guess it' s one thing to let the team and the team members in ,
the parents of the team but if there' s a spectator coming to the game,
' they' re going to the park to basically recreate just like anybody else .
My parents showed up for a couple of tournaments last year and I simply
game them the money to pay for the ticket to get them in the gate . Both
of them are senior citizens so they could have gotten in for free anyway
' but I didn ' t see any point of it so I just paid for it . I guess it ' s one
thing if somebody' s complaining about having to pay for their child to use
when they' ve already paid for softball or swimming lessons or tennis
lessons or anything else that might be going on there but if somebody' s
complaining about getting in to having to watch an event, here ' s a little
more definite thing. The teams will all have , if we orchestrate it that
we gave them passes with the application and registration fee . The teams
then would have all of the stickers . One other thing we wanted to talk
about here is the segment for reduced costs too . We considered that last
1
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 26 '
year . Did we ever do that? A car reduction? '
Mady: We talked about it last year and we said , there was really no way
of monitoring it. '
Hasek: Yes . I do recall that.
Robinson: Somebody said it ' s really a parking fee which makes sense to
me.
Schroers : That' s what it is and when you get into . . .cars and reduced
rates and all of that, you' re causing a lot of administrative work.
Sietsema: Our receptionists have enough fees to keep track of.
Schroers: Your spending more than you gain in that situation. Is it my
turn yet? I agree strongly with Ed on several of his points . I think it
would be a major mistake to eliminate the fees. It' s definitely a control
measure. People know that when they have to come and pay, it just gives
them a message that this is a place that ' s being taken care of and it' s a
place where you' re going to have to be responsible for your actions . If
it was free, the property would not be respected. I know that for sure
and I 'd really hate to see that . I think that the 1989 schedule looks
just fine. I like dropping the daily fee from $3. 00 to $2. 00. I think
that ' s good . I would just like to see us stay intact as it is . I do
think that we could make some sort of provisions for youth groups . I
don ' t think it' s fair to charge a Little League team a parking fee to come
in unless you set it up with their school district or something ahead of
time from where they' re coming . That' s the way that Hennepin Parks does
it. When we bus school groups in from various municipalities for nature
programs or whatever , there is like one parking fee per bus or something II that' s been set up ahead of time with that school district or municipality
or whatever it is so you' re not holding up a whole group while somebody' s
trying to verify paying for parking. I think that when you set up the
Little League schedule or whatever , that ' s just a part of the procedure.
Other than that, anybody, whatever it is , 16 years old or whatever , should
have to pay the parking fee except for senior citizens .
Boyt: If we have many of the people arguing with the gate attendant , we
can have a policy set up of we need you to pay your fee today but I ' ll
take down this information and send it to my supervisor. If they
determine that you should have a refund , you ' ll get it in the mail .
Someway of dealing with it .
Mady: Take it up with City Hall . 1
Boyt : Well , if they live in Minnetonka or maybe there' s a card that we
give them, here contact this person. You have a set way of dealing with
it .
Robinson : Take the hook off the antenna cable .
I
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 27
' Hoffman : Yes , we instruct them not to take any verbal abuse . Just to
handle the situation in the best possible manner. However , to yet be firm
but to get out of the situation without getting into an argument , verbal
argument with the person at the gate.
Schroers : A sign right at the gate that specifies park rules and parking
' fees and that sort of thing also beefs up his authority. I think that ' s
real helpful . It ' s right there in writing . People can ' t argue with him
about it.
' Hoffman: We put the sign out there this summer that said , welcome to Lake
Ann Park. Parking sticker required. Fees are etc. and that does give
them a little more credibility.
Boyt: Maybe t-shirts for our . . .
Hoffman : This year Sue . We' re already there .
Boyt: Uniforms for gate attendants . We see them sitting out there doing
their crocheting at South Lotus Lake or reading their comic books at Lake
' Ann. They don' t look professional . They' re going to get hassled. If
they have on a uniform, if they' re acting professional , they' ll be treated
more professionally.
Schroers : I think any organized park that you go to , you' re going to find
that there' s a fee. Whether it' s a state park or a federal park, there' s
some kind of fee and where there isn' t, for example maybe a Minneapolis
t city park, they are patrolled heavily. Park police with regular police
with scheduled patrol routes and that ' s the other option . If you don ' t
charge a fee, then you have police out there all the time and I don ' t
' think that that' s what you want .
Hasek: That was the last point and I couldn ' t find it and I found it
afterwards. What it' s going to do , I think if we take this fee away, it' s
going to tend to drive up costs in other areas . In maintenance and
patrolling. I think it ' s going to , rather than helping us to cover the
costs , it ' s going to end up costing us so it ' s going to be a double
indemnity.
Schroers : I agree with that , yes .
Robinson : When we took that survey, it was relative to the community
center but we gave them some choices and wasn' t the user fee the way that
most of them proposed to pay for it . So this is kind of like that .
' Schroers: Yes, that' s what it is , is a user fee. Jim' s theory is great.
A free park. Everybody can go in and if everyone would treat it with
' respect, that would be great but it won' t happen.
Boyt : Are the season passes available at the gate?
Sietsema: Yes .
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 28
Hasek: It sounds like we' re fairly much in agreement here . The only 1
question would be the fee structure. I guess just in relation to that ,
I 'd like to suggest that we set the fees , I think that the comment about
the budget is probably appropriate. I don't know if we reduce the fees to I
8 , 4 and 2 if that' s going to dramatically impact what we get out there. I
think we' re slated for another dry year this year. That' s what the
predictions are going to be so I 'm assuming that we can still collect a II substantial , at least I 'm going on the impression that we can collect a
substantial amount for that if we charge a daily of $2. 00 instead of the
daily of $3 . 00, at least that' s a step in the right direction for some of
those people. $2. 00 now a days doesn' t buy you, what' s a pack of
II
cigarettes cost?
Hoffman: The daily fee , reducing that from $3 . 00 to $2 . 00 would be the
II
most appropriate. If we' re going to keep that fee there, lowering them
from $10. 00 to $8 . 00 and $5. 00 to $4 . 00. Again , people aren' t arguing the
amount. They' re arguing whether they' re paying or not so $10. 00/$5. 00, II daily at $3 . 00, some people that want to come watch a game, might not
think of $2. 00 as intrusive.
Schroers : I agree with that . I think that' s a good fee structure. 10, 5 II
and 2.
Hasek: The $2. 00 daily I think is the only thing that I was shooting for II
there. We can' t charge more than twice for a non-residents right?
Sietsema : Right .
Schroers : How many non-residents , just out of curiosity, do we sell many II
non-residents?
Hoffman : It ' s a small percentage. 5% to 10% of the seasonal passes . II
Hasek: I 'd like to make a motion that we set the fees at $10. 00, $5. 00 II and $2. 00 for 1989 and can we push that down the road a little bit so we
don' t have to talk about it every year .
Sietsema : It' s in the ordinance we have to talk about it every year . I
Hasek: Okay, for the 1989 season.
Schroers : I ' ll second that .
II
Mady: Did you want to talk about phasing them out?
Hasek: I don ' t think that they should be phased out . I think that should II
be stated. I think that there are good and valid reasons for keeping them
in place . The security issue . The budget issue. The maintenance issue .
The double indemnity based upon cost. Users getting in there and tearing
it up and we' re going to have to pay to fix it . I think the costs there
need to be controlled so I think some of those issues that we talked about
should be included in there so they understand why it is that we want to
keep them. It' s not just a matter of raising money. There are a lot of
11
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 29
' things that are involved.
Mady: So your motion is that the fees be $10. 00, $5. 00 and $2. 00 and not
be phased out?
Hasek : Exactly.
Hasek moved , Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recomend to set the fees for Lake Ann Park at $10. 00 for the seasonal ,
' non-resident; $5. 00 for the seasonal , resident ; and $2. 00 for the daily
user fee and that the fees not be phased out over the next two years. All
voted in favor except Jim Mady who opposed and the motion carried .
Robinson: If we have to talk about this every year , could it be talked
about in the August timeframe?
Mady: I think the fees have to be set by the first of the year so . . .
lHasek: Does that mean you can' t talk about them earlier?
Robinson : Because I really think it is too late to be talking about
1989 . . .
Schroers : When we' re into ' 89 .
Mady: The only problem is , if the Council were to abolish the fee , then
Don' s budget has a hole.
Sietsema: But he took that into consideration when he made his
projections .
' Mady: I realize that . When he makes his budget out . . .
Sietsema: He anticipated that that was going to be lowered because he
knew what the Council ' s direction was .
Mady: The City' s budget does have some deviation.
ESTABLISH 1989 PARK AND TRAIL DEDICATION FEES .
Hasek: I don' t see any reason to change it , just a quick comment.
' Sietsema : I have a couple comments if you could bear with me. This item
was brought up at the Council meeting last night under Council
presentations and the Council indicated that they would , or some of the
Council members in any case, indicated that they would like the Commission
to consider looking into raising them because it doesn ' t appear that we
S can purchase property outside of a subdivision with the money that we' re
collecting . For instance, 1 acre per 75 people , let ' s say Pheasant Hills
was coming in right now for subdivision and we determined that the land
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 30
II
within Pheasant Hills was not adequate parkland . It wasn' t what we wanted I
for parkland. The amount of money that we would get from that property at
$425 . 00 an acre , would not buy us 1 acre per 75 people next to it. A flat
piece next to it because when we get land through subdivision, we get it II at raw land value . When we get it through, it' s a straight purchase . We
have to pay whatever the going rate is. So if it' s already a developed ,
platted piece of property, we have to pay what that lot is . But if it' s II through the subdivision, we pay what the developer paid for it.
Hasek: That is a question exactly that I asked when we talked about this
last time. I think the answer that I got was , that by law we couldn' t ask I
more than the raw land value of the property.
Sietsema: Right, but. . .
II
Hasek: So then we can' t base it. It' s changed?
Sietsema : No. You can change your criteria. You can change your
II
standard to 1 to 50. You can work it backwards . If you want to charge
$550. 00 per single family unit, then you make your standard work for that.
You change it to 1 to 50. 1
Hasek: Oh, I see.
Boyt : A similar argument is the trail fees . We can not put in a trail on II
a third acre for $142. 00. Our trail fees for single family unit does not
cover putting in a trail .
Mady: One of the comments made last night was that we' re basing our trail II
fee on the Lakeville Ordinance and when we set our trail fee we weren' t
aware that Lakeville' s trail fee really covers their community trails. Not
the trail that runs in front of the house because in Lakeville they
require sidewalks in addition to .
Boyt : So we could make the recommendation to Council that sidewalks be
II
required in all developments and maintain our $142. 00 trail dedication fee
on top of that .
Mady: Or increase it. II
Sietsema: The way the Lakeville Ordinance works , if you want , they have a
street plan. Because they don' t have all their streets already in place
so when they put in a new street , they include trails on both sides of
that street. They assess one-half of that cost with the street costs .
They collect a trail dedication fee to pay for the other half and they
II
require sidewalks in all subdivisions .
Hasek: I ' ll tell you, I 'm certainly not opposed because in the cities
II
that I have worked in, we have some of the lowest that I have ever seen
and the last thing that a developer , I mean when you come in with trail
and park fees, the developer that complains about those is the one that
I 'm afraid of putting a development in my community because I 'm wondering ,
if he can' t pay this , how' s he going to pay for everything else. It ' s a
II
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 31
' very small line item when you look at it overall . So I 'm certainly not
opposed to it. I think last year I was fighting to raise them as high as
we could and the issue that I got back from the Attorney was that we
' couldn ' t .
Sietsema : Not according to our standard but we could change our standard .
Hasek: Then I think that we ought to consider changing . . .
Sietsema: I worked out , if we changed it to 1 acre per 50 people, it
would be roughly $525. 00 or $550. 00 per single family.
Boyt : Would that then even out so that we could buy property?
Hasek : What' s that? It' s $550. 00? Is that what we' re looking at?
Sietsema: At 2. 8 per household , how many houses would it take to make 50
people?
Mady: 16 .
' Sietsema: 16 homes have to buy an acre of property.
Mady: In Minnewashta we' re looking at trying to find parkland and a
developer told us if he could find parkland at $15, 000. 00 an acre , he ' d
grab it .
Hasek: That will buy half an acre. $8 , 800 . 00. 16 households at $550. 00 .
Mady: But we ' re looking at the Carrico property with the appraisal in
here , if we can get that , that comes in at roughly $6 , 000. 00 an acre ;
Sietsema: It depends on who you talk to. If you talk to Carrico ' s , it ' s
' $13 , 000. 00 an acre .
Mady: I understand that but I think there' s a halfway point there
somewhere between $8 , 000. 00 and $10, 000. 00 an acre. It' s probably what
' the reasonable . . .
Boyt : Right now we ' re talking about land in Chanhassen going for over 16
isn' t it?
Hasek : 15 ' s the number that I heard .
' Boyt : That' s what the school district is looking at when they' re looking
at purchasing property to build a school . That ' s the number you deal
with. You can' t develop outside of the MUSA line . I think that ' s a
number that we need to deal with is $15, 000. 00 as a reasonable number .
And what does it take for us to get $15, 000. 00?
Hasek : Well , it would be $550. 00 for 25 households or they would have to
double the other end . We' ve got to double something .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 32
Schroers : I very much like the idea of having the development put in the II
sidewalks .
Hasek: That would cover it . I was just looking at that too. If you take II
a 90 foot residential lot, 90 foot wide residential lot at $7 . 00 a foot
for a trail , that' s $620. 00 for that one unit . We' re only collecting
$142. 00. We' re pretty short.
Sietsema: You' ve got a Lake Susan Hills West , you' ve got 90% of the homes
that don' t have it going in front of their house. You' ve got Kurver ' s
Point and every one of them has it . There are some imbalances that II hopfully it averages out. It' s not going to work out on a Kurver ' s Point
case but it' s going to work out .
Hasek: I think that what we ought to do with the trails, just my own
quick opinion here, is to establish exactly which, in the downtown area
here or in small residential developments , there' s no reason why we can' t
put the sidewalks in right in front of them with the development. The
stuff is out there . It' s real easy for the developer to do up front . If
he' s got to come in later to do it, it costs a little bit more. The trail
dedication fee can go to trying to purchase some trails where we need to
put them. The only problem is community trails . Our problem is , we
don' t have the money that we anticipated that we were going to have to do
the trail program and I can guarantee you that, well we've already seen it
happen . We' ve got one group in here now that wants a trail . There' s
going to be more. I 'm certainly going to keep continuing to push for one
down Minnewashta Parkway. I mean we have nothing out there . I 'm just
waiting for somebody to get killed out there. '
Sietsema: Then the suggestion from one of the councilmen last night was
then, that this commission needs to make a recommendation to City Council
and to the Planning Commission to make sidewalks a subdivision
requirement. Then we would continue to have our trail dedication fee
which would cover our community trails.
Schroers: I 'd be very interested in making that recommendation to that
effect.
Sietesma : And we could continue to leave that at one-third of the park
dedication costs .
Hasek: But then raise the park dedication costs to cover . . . 1
Mady: The fees .
Hasek : Well , we can' t do that . I can ' t see that we need , that we ' re
going to get away with 1 per 25.
Sietsema: No , but you' ve got to remember that in most cases we' re going
to be acquiring the parkland within the subdivision.
Boyt : Except in northern Chanhassen where there' s little parcels here and II
there.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 33
Sietsema: There are only two areas that are really park deficient and the
other bulk above TH 5, when the MUSA line changes , will have other parks
in that area so then that theory will work again . I think if you want to
raise it to balance it out, in most cases, when we get the parkland with
the subdivision , we' ll get the land and the money to develop the land .
' Because we give them 50o credit because we get the land at raw land value
and in other cases we' re going to have to pay more than that but I think
it' s going to average out. I don' t think that that' s an unreasonable
figure .
Hasek: Have you talked to Don about this at all? About the numbers?
' Sietsema: Yes .
Hasek: Was this his suggestion? Look at changing the . . .
' Sietsema : That' s really, yes, that' s really the only legal way we can do
it.
Robinson : Is that reasonable Lori? To go with 1 in 50?
Boyt: Yes it is .
Mady: Yes . We already know we aren ' t handling our parks . Tonight ' s
agenda, we' ve got the girls softball team who can' t find a place to play.
We just don ' t have enough parkland where we' re cutting back programs now.
I don' t have a problem with that at all .
Robinson : But will somebody hold us to that?
' Sietsema: I hope so .
' Mady: I think our existing condition demonstrates that 1 in 75 is
inadequate.
Hasek: Are we built up at 1 in 75?
' Sietsema : I haven ' t actually gone out and counted all of the homes and
taken the number of parkland acreage, but not recently. Well , we did that
last year .
Boyt : We were over the majority. We' re still short . We still have the
people who are coming in and asking for park spaces so that leads you to
believe that what we require is . . .
Hasek: So the situation still remains that if we do raise it to 1 in 50,
that' s not going to cover our . . . That' s only going to yeild half of what
we need to buy an acre of land .
' Sietsema : Outside of a subdivision but if you acquire the property
through the subdivision process , it ' s going to acquire land plus
development funds .
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 34
Hasek: Okay. Is half going to be enough to cover the other situations? 11
What happens if a subdivision like Pheasant Hills comes in and we need a
park adjacent to that and they' re in a sewered area? They' re going to be II
giving us roughly half of what we need to buy the land to provide a park
for them right?
Sietsema: Right. ,
Hasek: So that' s not going to cover it which means that we have to , I
assume that we have to have a budget someplace that' s going to allow us to ,
continue to buy parks . Where does that money come from? Does that come
out of industrial areas then? I guess I can see where we don' t need
development , half might be enough. I
Mady: I think it' s reasonable because we do require park now. Maybe
that's what we do look at a little bit also as a part of this is what we
charge for our industrial users . Industrial coming in. Right now we' re
at $1, 000. 00 something .
Sietsema: $1, 050. 00. ,
Mady: And that' s real , compared to . . .
Hasek : Now why is that at $1, 050. 00? '
Sietsema : Per acre.
Hasek: But why? Is that the same critieria? So then we can change that
as well?
Mady: I believe the last time I saw Eden Prairie' s, it was like $1, 750 or I
something like that.
Sietsema : We base the industrial requirement at 10% because that' s proven II
in the courts as a reasonable requirement so I will continue to do that .
Mady: But what we' re saying is, that ' s 10% of property value. Property
value we' re saying here is $15, 000. 00 so 10% should be $1, 500. 00.
Sietsema: We have to base , I got the figures from the County Assessor and
he says the average land values in Chanhassen are $10, 500. 00.
Mady: But we got that same number two years ago and we all know that land
prices have gone up.
Sietsema: We got that number last year .
Mady: They' re not going up much but he' s right, they may have gone up 1% 11
in the last year but he tells us every year we talk about this that they
haven' t changed.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 35
' Boyt: It ' s an average because so much of our property is outside the
MUSA line .
' Hasek: Can ' t we set it? Does it have to be a number? Can we set it at
10% of the land value?
Sietsema: No , it' s 10% of the development . Yes , the land value . Right .
Hasek: Is there a way that they can fudge that number? Can the sale
price be screwed around with or can we ask them to prove what they paid
' for the property and we' ll take 10% as the dedication fee?
Boyt : A lot of them don' t know that because the value of the land isn ' t
broken out in a contract. Sometimes you' re paying for other things .
Robinson : I think you' ve got to have a dollar amount.
' Sietsema : Adminstration wise, we need to have a standard because
otherwise it' s difficult to adminster . I get every building permit that
comes into this city and I have to sign off on it. Putting down the park
' and trail dedication fee . If I have to do something different for each
one, from an adminstration point of view, it makes it more difficult. So
we were working with averages and trying to set a standard.
Hasek: How about the multi-family then? Would that go up as well? The
percentage the same as this other?
' Sietsema : Yes . The multi-family would go to 1 in 50. 1 acre per 50
people.
' Hasek: Yes , but what would that number raise to?
Sietsema: I 'm not sure. I haven' t worked through all the different
' scenarios so what I would do, is ask you to table this and I ' ll bring back
a worksheet like I did last year which outlines all of the different
scenarios .
Mady: Actually what we ' re looking for is a 50% increase?
Sietsema: And to direct me.
Hasek: Except . . .
Mady: No , if you go 1 to 50, that ' s a 50% increase in useage which means
you can only go a 50% increase in your fee.
Schroers : Does identification fees go into the general park fund?
Mady: It goes to our Capital Improvement .
Schroers : It' s not in the same budget for maintenance costs?
Sietsema: No. Totally separate.
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10 , 1989 - Page 36 '
Hasek: I 'd like to move that we table this item until Lori can work up
some numbers .
Mady: Including our thoughts on adding trails. ,
Sietsema: Why don't you make a separate motion on that.
Hasek moved , Boyt seconded to table action on the 1989 park and trail
dedication fees until staff can bring back some numbers. All voted in
favor and the motion carried .
Mady: I ' ll move that we recommend that the City require that sidewalks be 1
placed along all roads and subdivision by the developer .
Hasek: Do we want them on all streets? Or do we only want to do that
inside the MUSA line? Are we going to make somebody that wants to come in
outside the MUSA line , put in sidewalks?
Mady: The MUSA line is going to be changing 10 years from now. It' s a
given the MUSA line is going to change 10 years from now.
Sietsema: And at that time, those 2 1/2 acres and 10 acre lots are going II
to resubdivide and that would be the time to put in the sidewalks .
Hasek: I have a quick question for you related to that. Does the City at II
this time require a further subdivision plan at all?
Sietsema : A ghost plat? No.
Hasek : Why?
Sietsema: I don' t know. '
Hasek: Mr . Mayor , there' s something for you. Something that should be
considered. A lot of cities are requiring it now. You come in with a 2 I
1/2 acre plat outside the MUSA line and they want to see how it can be
further subdivided for that time in which it becomes inside the MUSA line.
The whole reason is to maximize the development and tax base down the
line. If you' ve got somebody who puts their house dead square in the
middle of a 2 1/2 acre lot . The other thing it keeps you from doing is
having to have all kinds of variances down the line because, well I put my
house in the middle of the lot and I can' t subdivide it and the City wants
me to subdivide and I have to reduce the frontyard and sideyard setback.
Robinson : You should go to the Planning Commission . 1
Hasek: Yes, but that can come down from the top though too. It ' s
something to think about .
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 37
Schroers : Just think how nice this city would be if sidewalks had been
required in all the developments like Chaparral and even Greenwood Shores
might have been a lot nicer neighborhood .
tHasek: One other bug I 'm going to put in your ear on that item too and
then we' ll just move right along . I think the City should be considering
' a link-up of properties . If a guy divides 10 acres , he puts 3 cul-de-sacs
in it and there' s no connection to the next piece. What a headache for
the fire department. If you make one wrong turn and it costs you 5
minutes in travel time to a fire because you' ve got to go in and turn
' around and come back out again. There' s no reason why there shouldn' t be
a connection or a thought of developing the property next to it . Just
another bug.
Mady: Did you bring your soapbox today?
Sietsema: Did I hear a second to that motion?
Hasek: Second .
' Mady moved , Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that the City Council and Planning Commission amend the City
Code to require that sidewalks be placed along all roads in subdivisions
by the developer. All voted in favor and the motion carried .
' DISCUSSION OF 1989 JULY 4TH CELEBRATION.
Hoffman: This item was tabled on the last agenda so we do need to get
' through it on this one . We' ve already had people call to inquire about
contracts for this coming year and that type of thing. I hope everybody' s
gotten a chance to look through some of the stuff that was included with
' last weeks packet. What I would like from each commissioner is just their
viewpoints , ideas . Probably most of you attended some or all of the past
few 4th of July celebrations and just to get some input on what direction
we should be taking and those types of ideas .
Schroers : Buy balloons that are already blown up.
' Boyt : I think that the street dance went well . Real well where it was .
I would like it someplace where you can spread a blanket out on the grass
next to it rather than just a parking lot . We had it up here a couple
' years ago. People have asked if we could have it at Lake Ann .
Mady: Lake Ann really wouldn' t be feasible . . .
Boyt: No, because of parking but I would like it in more of a park
setting than the parking lot . I don ' t know if anyone else has any. . .
Mady: Up here is where it was before.
Boyt : We had trouble shooting off fireworks here but . . .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 38
Sietsema: We have trouble shooting off fireworks anywhere.
Mady: You can see the fireworks , you don' t necessarily have to have them II
straight over your head . From up here, you can see them from Lake Ann.
This park has to be probably one of the highest points in the city. If
you ever stood out there and watched your kid played soccer and almost get ,
blown off the field, you know it ' s not the low point.
Hasek: Why have we decided that Lake Ann just simply won' t accommodate
the parking? 1
Sietsema: I think that the staff is looking at Lake Ann again and
hopefully the development out there will be done to a point where there
will be additional parking . But you have to allow parking on the grass .
The traffic off and onto TH 5 is really a headache, especially if
everybody' s leaving at the same time.
Hoffman: Just look at what it is during a normal softball evening .
Mady: I remember what it was 3 years ago when I was out there with the
Jaycees and we had. . .
Hasek: I would like to see us try it out there again .
Sietsema: We' ve got more parking out there already than we did 3 years
ago . But one of the reasons that we did move it up into downtown was to
do it adjacent with the HRA' s celebration of the downtown development and II
that' s why we' ve had it in the downtown area for the last , what' s it been ,
3 years.
Mady: It' s also nice in that a lot of people can actually walk to it. I
You go to Lake Ann, everybody has to drive. Almost everybody.
Sietsema: We could do some shuttling. That might be an option. I
Mady: We simply have an exit/entrance problem with Lake Ann. When you
have that many people, if there' s an emergency out there, you can ' t get in '
and out of there. It just won' t happen. If you' ve got, a tornado came
in , that' s it . No one' s going to get out . Until we get that rear exit
out of Lake Ann, the park developing the street, Park Boulevard and the
park road moving in so the park entrance changes , I don' t see how we can
do it with that number of people.
Hoffman : Just looking at what the layout could possibly be this coming ,
year , the 4th falls on a Tuesday meaning that previous Saturday and Sunday
would be the daily activities out at Lake Ann. The street dance and the
fireworks normally went off on the 4th of July. With the downtown, we
just can ' t very feasibly do the fireworks in our downtown area . Whether
it be City Center Park or downtown or anywhere so we' re looking to move
the fireworks back to Lake Ann but then can we move the street dance to II Saturday night and not do it on the traditional 4th of July night and just
have fireworks on the 4th of July or do you want to have the street dance
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 39
going on at Lake Ann . Try to do that with the parking problems and then
have the fireworks as well and then see what kind of nightmare we fall
into? We could rearrange the structure of our normal traditional holiday
fesitval .
Mady: The problem with Lake Ann also is , when the people are leaving ,
after the fireworks , we have no lighting out there. We have a lot of ball
players , when we turn off the lights , you can' t see out there. You get
down by the lake and you can' t find your car .
Boyt : It sounds like the street dance on the weekend night might be an
alternative.
Robinson : I agree .
Boyt : To separate the two activities .
' Hoffman: In the downtown location?
Boyt : Yes .
Hasek: Now the whole point is that, I think what if the people from
Chanhassen here, drive to Lake Ann to watch the fireworks when they can
see them from their house?
Hoffman: A portion will but then. . .
Sietsema: . . .nearly as busy as the first year when we had people like
I ' ve never seen people at Lake Ann Park the first year because the 4th of
July was in the middle of the week so everybody had Wednesday off and
nobody was going to go out of town for the one day. The next year it was
on a Thursday and businesses gave people Thursday and Friday off so we
didn' t have nearly as many people for the family games and the softball
tournaments and stuff but people came out there for the fireworks so there
was still quite a bit of traffic and stuff .
Mady: Some of the thoughts I have on why our program diminished on the
' second time around was, people seemed to remember how bad it was . I think
that ' s one of the reasons why the participation was maybe down at the
Halloween party this year over last year . It was such a conglomeration of
people. You' ll do it once but you ' re not going to do it a second time
because you remember the next year . You remember , you ' re not going to put
up with that kind of a chaos if you don' t have to .
' Hoffman: Giving them some alternatives , the downtown location gives
people all sorts of alternatives . They can walk. They can park in so •
many different lots. It gives them much more freedom in getting in and
11 out of the situation.
Schroers : I thought that this past 4th of July went really well . It
' seemed like people were having fun. It seemed like people were
accommodated . That juggler guy, the people him. That was a great idea .
Get him back. The characters sketch people were great. They had a steady
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 40
line. Get them back. The whole program was good . It went well . The
II
only thing lacking was the fireworks . I would say just incorporate the
same program and try to get the fireworks in somehow. It worked well .
Mady: The Market Blvd. that we used for the Octoberfest is nice because I
by next year hopefully we' ll have a little parkland down around the pond .
That might give us the greenspace that we definitely are lacking at the
Dinner Theater . Market Blvd . you would think would be through by then .
Sietsema: It should be but again, I don' t think we can have fireworks
downtown. I
Hasek: How about Lake Susan Park?
Sietsema: That won' t be ready for this year . 1
Hasek: It doesn' t have to be ready. How about just having all the events II downtown and shooting the fireworks off from there?
Schroers : How about shooting the fireworks off from right back here?
Boyt: We can' t. II
Hoffman: It' s just getting too congested .
II
Sietsema: With the apartment buildings and Saddlebrook and Chan Vista
and Western Hills and the downtown, all the residential , we had problems
before Chan Vista was there with ashes landing on people' s roofs and the
II
fire department had to go and spray the roofs and make sure people' s
houses were safe. Now with Chan Vista, we' re shot them off at
Chanhassen Pond Park and now with all those homes around there , I just
don' t see that there' s anyway that we can do it. II
Hoffman: Those guys are professionals and they' re nervous . It doesn ' t II make you feel comfortable.
Hasek: Is there any reason why you couldn' t see them if they went off
down there? I
Hoffman : No , it' s just the effect .
Sietsema: If you got them right over your head . . . I
Hoffman: If it' s possible to get the people that want to be underneath 11 them, underneath them. . .
Hasek: You' re going to have the events where? In the parking lot or up
here? If you have the events up here but not the fireworks. Everybody
would be on the hill right? Is there any chance that you could shoot them
off someplace in this industrial land down here or Filly' s parking lot?
Sietsema: If the wind blows the other direction and you burn down the II
Dinner Theater . I really think that the downtown, the whole downtown area
II
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 41
is not an option for fireworks again .
Hoffman: We pushed the issue for the Octoberfest and we thought we had a
good location. We hoped for a favorable wind. A few cars got slightly
damaged and we don' t want to have to have that happen again. It doesn' t
make us look very. . .
Hasek : What you ' re asking us then is to separate the events?
' Hoffman: Yes .
Schroers : With all our ballfields, could we have it at Lake Ann and hire
traffic officers to direct people in and out?
Hoffman : They would certainly be there but still , it' s just a problem.
' Schroers : It' s a problem but where have you gone to a major celebration
that it isn ' t a problem?
Sietsema: Exactly. That ' s very true.
Mady: You have only one . We only have one there . I really think this is
something that' s got to be reviewed by the Public Safety Commission. This
is a serious public safety situation.
Schroers: . . .police out there directing traffic, that we could pull it
' off . I think it would be fine .
Hoffman : I guess the major question is , do we want to continue with the
street dance and the fireworks on the same evening or would it be more
' beneficial to move the street dance to a Saturday evening? Do people: cut
loose more on a Saturday evening rather than a Tuesday night?
1 Mady: You don' t bring your kids with then .
Robinson: Also , you' ve got to go to work on Wednesday morning. I would
agree with the street dance on. . .
Hoffman: The weekend before?
Hasek: Even Monday night . Most people are going to be off on Monday.
Right?
' Schroers : You'd probably have a better response to a street dance on
Saturday night.
Hoffman : And hold that in the City Center Park location .
Sietsema: You know an option in the future is going to Lake Susan because
you' re going to have the Rosemount parking and the Opus parking and all
kinds of parking available along Lake Drive East .
Hasek: Just for fireworks and the dance?
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 42
Sietsema: Yes . 1
Mady: Lake Ann actually would be, once Park Drive opens up. . . 1
Sietsema: We have electricity and probably have water at Lake Susan.
Anyway, that ' s another year .
Hoffman : Any ideas . Any brainstorming that the Commissioners have done
during the past years that they' ve seen in other community activities that
we could incorporate? 11
Robinson: I think you should be commended on what you've done here. Both
the 4th of July celebration and that Octoberfest. They were great. Well II
attended and all kinds of positive.
Schroers : If you could do anything at all , get the entertainment for the
entire evening like the jugglers and the character people. Have them
there longer because there were still lines , there were still people
waiting when they closed up shop.
Hoffman : Yes , it ' s just costing us money.
Mady: I have a comment on the 4th of July. On the fishing contest. The 1
10 cases of beer that were given out . I have a problem with that I guess .
On giving out beer . As a city event, sponsored event, I don' t think
that ' s a good deal . I have a problem with it .
Robinson: What was that?
Mady: On the fishing contest . You got a 6 pack of beer wasn' t it? - 1
Hoffman: 12 pack or pop. The only reason we did that was because. . .
Sietsema: It was free . I
Mady: I realize that but to me it just didn' t look good for us . To use
pop is fine but I didn' t like the idea of the City providing beer . I just II
didn ' t like the idea . On the fishing contest , I think we recommended
displaying them and that was a great idea. We did it this year but expand
it maybe . If there' s a way of having them all come back in by a specified
time and maybe what you should do is put the impetus on them. Tell them,
okay check in time is 11: 00. You' re here. If you' re not here, what you
got, don' t count.
Hoffman: Yes. For the adults?
Mady: Yes . 1
Robinson : Do you anything on that? A motion?
Siestema: No. We just wanted your input . 1
11
1 '
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 43
' Schroers : I say keep up the good job. Continue in the same direction.
Just more and more, bigger and better .
Hoffman: That ' s why we need your support because more and more, bigger
and better, it costs more money and we have to justify that in our budget.
1 UPDATE ON HIDDEN VALLEY TRAIL EASEMENT REALIGNMENT.
Sietsema: This alignment chaned very, very little and it just moved , if
you look on the little map, the original alignment , if you can see this
light line behind here. It was the bottom half of light line. It went
straight across . They wanted it to be moved , there were some people
' within this development who wanted it moved as much south as possible so
they moved it just to the high water mark. As close to the high water
mark as possible but there were a few lots here that were not in favor of
signing off on the new easement because they were not informed that that
' easement was back there when they purchased their lots so they' re going
back to Rottlund Homes to sue them and if they signed off on it , that
would mean that they wanted it there and they didn' t want to jeopardize
11 any suit that they may have in the future. So they wouldn' t sign off on
it. Meanwhile, these other people, where it really affects them the most ,
Lots 35 and 34 and 29 , they were still concerned so we have it moved on
those and staying the same, as much as possible, on the people that
wouldn' t sign off on it. If you could just make a motion that this is
okay, I will have it recorded.
1 Mady: So moved .
Hasek: Second .
Mady moved , Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to approve the realignment of the Hidden Valley Trail easement
as presented by staff . All voted in favor and the motion carried .
1 Hasek: Just a side comment. I have a friend of mine who' s had some
problems with Rottlund Homes . It' s kind of a disclosure thing . It ' s like
they don' t have all of the information for the people who buy their lots .
' Now I don' t know if that ' s necessarily a buyer beware deal or not but
maybe it' s something that we should start to publish. Is there some way
that, if we have easements like this , that we can . . .
Mady: I think if you' re buying a piece of property, you have a lawyer who
checks all this stuff out .
Sietsema: The only reason this came to light is the people that
instigated this happened to be Dave Huffman, the Viking. His wife is an
Attorney and she searched the title and happened to come across the
' easement or they wouldn' t have known about it either. Then she was the
one that asked them to instigate that it be moved as much southerly as
possible. That' s how it all came to be and I don' t know why Rottlund , if
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 44
it was , Rottlund claims that they didn' t know when they purchased the
property from United Mortgage and somewhere it all fell through the
cracks .
Mady: Obviously somebody' s attorney didn' t do their job . ,
UPDATE ON 1989 ICE RINKS. I
Hoffman: Additional ice rinks for 1989 . You can just take a look if you
have your map or if you looked at that from last week. Where the existing 11
ice rinks are. Where the new proposed ones were for this year . The two
new rinks which were proposed were one for Meadow Green and one for South
Lotus Lake . The one at Meadow Green Park did go in. They created not an
overly large rink. A small rink. It ' s been well received. The only
comments that have been received is make it larger next year . The rink
at South Lotus did not go in because of, again the things that we
discussed .
Boyt : South Lotus on the lake?
Sietsema: We can ' t go on the lake . Our insurance will no longer cover
our equipment or our men once we go out onto open water . It would be nice
because it would be nice to have a rink out at Lake Ann.
Robinson: Where were you thinking of at South Lotus Lake?
Hoffman: On the wellhouse site . Right there on the grassy area as you
drive in.
Schroers : Can we take a calculated and educated risk as far as the ,
insurance is concerned? We have the same situation but in certain areas
we just use our own judgment and say okay, the ice is a foot and a half
thick, we can take our little sweeper out there and clear off an area and
let them skate on it. We' re not going to. . .
Boyt : Gosh , Minneapolis does it all the time .
Sietsema: They' re self insured .
Mady: They' re self insured .
Sietsema : I don' t know that our maintenance crews would do that knowing
that they' re not insured. I wouldn' t.
Mady: You have a problem. There' s a real problem and the city could lose
everything it ' s got.
Hoffman : They' d certainly feel safe at times to do it but then again ,
then we' re setting the precedence and then we' re getting hoards of phone
calls when there' s 4 inches of ice out there to get out there and clear to
rink on their lake.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 45
Mady: In the spring , you still have people who want to skate.
Hoffman: A lot of people do that on their lake anyway at this point so
maybe it' s better to leave it up to the neighbors in the area to clear
their own rink.
ADMINSTRATIVE SECTION:
Mady: Was there anything need to be said on the Adminstrative Section? I
' guess I had a question on the Carver Beach Road safety situation. What' s
really going on? I kind of got confused there . It seems like Public
Safety is passing the buck between them and Gary Warren. I don' t really
know what ' s going on but I know those people were real upset the last time
they were in here and if the situation isn' t going to be properly
addressed , they' re going to be even more mad .
Sietsema: It is being addressed. Gary is in contact with MnDot as far as
what the requirements are and they' re doing some traffic studies . In the
meantime, Jim Chaffee, the Public Safety Director , has done some speed
counts . And he came in one day after doing one and he said that they sat
out there for a considerable amount of time and no one was going faster
than 28 mph down that hill and the speed limit is 30.
Mady: The problem is , the residents perceive there' s a problem there and
it gets back to the fact of trusting what the city officials are telling
you and they' re not going to believe us .
Boyt : 28 looks faster . . .
Schroers : Also , I wonder if that didn' t happen to be on a snowy day or an
icy day or something .
Sietsema : Right and they' re going to do more . They' re going to do more .
They' re going to do them during rush hour times and they' ll be doing more
speed studies as well .
11 Hoffman: Summer traffic is a lot faster than winter traffic .
Sietsema : So they' ll be monitoring that more .
1 Schroers : I haven ' t heard anything from the neighborhood group. They were
suppose to be contacting the homeowners on the north side of the street.
Well , I gave them my consent here at the meeting so they probably just
took that for granted but I haven' t heard that they have been actively
doing anything .
Sietsema : I talked to Jeff Bros last week and got him a number of sets of
plans so that he would have a plan to go and talk to those people.
Basically, what he indicated to me is that if the trail will not justify a
stop sign, then they want it on the south side. They don' t want to cross
there . But if that' s the only way that they can justify having a stop
sign, then they want it and I think that ' s an inappropriate use of our
I
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 46
trail system. Is to have it cross at an inappropriate spot just to r
justify a stop sign. Engineering is having a real problem supporting a
stop sign on a through street to control speed because then you have the
situation where people are rolling and going and gunning it to make up for II
the time that they had to slow down. And they' re not looking closely and
there' s more traffic hazards in that situation than there is if there
isn ' t a stop sign at all . So between engineering and public safety,
they' re looking at what speeds are out there. They may be able to come up
with something that would lower the speed limit and then with more
enforcement. I think the enforcement is really the key. You set somebody
out there that' s going to tag people that are going to too fast and they le
do that, let the people in the area know what. Some of them don' t know
what the speed limit is.
Hasek: The whole point is, the people out there are the ones that are
speeding. It' s a neighborhood. It ' s not a big shortcut to anywhere so
it' s the people who live out there that are actually causing the problem
which is the way that it goes everyplace. Our neighborhood is the same
way. Minnewashta Parkway. You tag people out there, you ' re going to be
tagging me too .
Schroers : The problem isn ' t inherent in Carver Beach because where the
traffic is coming from is the oldest neighborhood in the city and they
were used to screaming down that road when there was nothing there but
cornfields . So they' re doing it because they' ve always done it .
Sietsema: But again , enforcement and I just again talked to Jim last week •
and he' s highlighted that area as a spot for the squad to pay particular
attention to . We have 24 hour coverage now so there will , hopefully there
will be more ticketing in that area unless they' re not really speeding .
Again, coming down a hill when there ' s a little kid sitting there , 30
looks a lot faster than it actually is .
Mady: I want to make a recommendation, a motion asking the Public Safety
Commission to hold a public hearing with these residents to inform them of
what' s going on and what the criteria and the reasoning is behind this so
they have that because they' re going to be coming back.
Sietsema: Our item with the trail is going to be coming back the first
meeting in February and I ' ve asked Jim and Engineering to both be here at
that meeting . ,
Mady: I don ' t think that ' s the appropriate time though. Then they' re
here yelling and screaming at us and we' re not the people who do that .
Public Safety' s got to get involved in this situation. They have yet to
get involved in it. We' ve been talking about it and we need those people
to be there and informing them of what the thing is . I don' t want them
people coming in, well we want a stop sign. We can' t do anything about a
stop sign. We need Dick Wing and his people to talk to these people and
be talking to the residents .
Robinson : Then they've got to come out again . They' re going to be here
the first week in February.
11
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 47
Mady: But we can ' t do anything for them.
' Robinson: Can' t they talk at this meeting? Isn' t that what you' re
saying?
Mady: But the Public Safety Commission won' t be here.
Sietsema: Well Jim will be here and he would be able to answer their
questions .
Mady: Yes , but I want to see the Public Safety Commission get involved
with the public on this sitation because they' ve been here twice now
complaining about it.
Sietsema: Right, but they have said that they' ve done things that they
have not done. They said that they got a petition to Jim and they never ,
they said they were going to and it never appeared on his desk. He can ' t
take a petition that doesn' t exist to his Public Safety Commission. So
far they' ve said that they've contacted people and Public Safety has every
call that they ever get, they document it and they act on it and they
write three letters in triplicate . So Public Safety has not dropped the
ball . They' ve sent this on, whatever they' ve gotten. He says he' s gotten
11 two calls . One is to request a stop sign and he referred it to
engineering because it' s their department. And the other is, that they
were getting a petition about to put a stop sign up. He said, get me the
petition and I ' ll put it on the agenda. He' s never gotten it.
Hasek: The question is , they' re coming back to us because we had deferred
it?
Sietsema: Back to the residents to see if they could get the easements on
the north side of the street .
Mady: I 'd still like to see the Public Safety Commission at least
document it. We ' ve documented our meetings , the public safety situation.
I don ' t think it takes a petition to public safety. I think the Public
Safety Commission should be able to get a recommendation from us , seeing
our notes that says there' s a problem that they' ve got to deal with. We
shouldn' t have to deal with it a third time again. We have no ability to
deal with it .
Hasek: And I don ' t think that we should have to deal with it . I think
that we've got staff on board. If our staff is telling us that the design
is the best that it can be based on sight lines and everything else , I 'm
not an expert and I deal with this stuff everyday and I defer my knowledge
to someone else because I don' t understand all of it . How in the world
can a resident out there pretend to know more simply because it' s in their
front yard? They have an opinion but I think we have to rely on our
experts who tell us, just like we' re expected, the Council relies on some
of the things that we say.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 48
Sietsema: Exactly. That ' s what we pay Mark and Scott from Van Doren ,
Hazard, Stallings to do.
Hasek: My understanding was all that we did was ask them to take a look
at redesigning if it would work and I expected them to come back and tell II
us yes , it can work this way or this way or no , this is the only way.
This is the best way.
Sietsema: The only reason it' s coming back is because the neighborhood
wanted the opportunity to go to the Homeowners on the north side of the
road to see if they would give the easements so they could take it across II
the street at that point. The additional easements .
Mady: Okay, I made a motion to ask Public Safety. Was there a second on
it? If not, we' ll go on.
Sietsema: I will indicate to Jim your concerns and we' ll forward our
Minutes of that meeting to him as well . ,
Hasek: I think the same thing happened or is going to happen , someone
with a speeding problem maybe or at least there' s one addressed on Carver
Beach Road . Is that the one?
Mady: Carver Beach Road ' s got one . Minnewashta Parkway' s got one .
Laredo' s got one. Frontier Trail ' s got one. West 78th. Every main
street in town' s got a speeding problem.
Hasek: Not only that but there' s one outside of Greenwood Shores Park
there on that curve.
Sietsema: Utica Lane.
Hasek: Part of that should have gone through to engineering and public
safety too because those people were basically unaware of the issue and
there' s no reason. Why were we fielding questions on road design out
there. It' s not our job. I have a quick comment here. Back to this ice
skating . Were we going to grade that out?
Hoffman: This coming summer , yes . 1
Hasek: Okay. Can I suggest that that be graded at least 60 feet by 120
feet flat?
Hoffman : Yes .
Hasek: Lying to north and south? It ' s about the size of a tennis court. II
Sietsema : Well , we' re putting in a tennis court .
Robinson : Can you give me an update on this zamboni Todd?
i
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 49
Hoffman : Yes . The zamboni was overhauled this summer . They discovered
some maintenance updating that needed to be occuring on the machine. The
drive belt which picks up the snow and scoops it up into the top bin , was
wore down to a point that they needed to replace that. That was
approximately a $750. 00 expense I believe. So by the end of the summer
they dumped about another $1, 000. 00 into that machine getting it into
workable condition. Then again , right at the beginning of the season they
1 had some additional mechanical failures with the front end, the brakes
locking up so they worked on it another day right at the beginning of the
season. Since then it' s operated fine. The people down there that use
the rink, they love the ice. The word is getting around to other
communities that this little ice barn in Chanhassen has got some of the
best ice around for $30. 00 an hour and I get a call about every other day
to book another hour of ice.
Mady: I thought we raised the price on that?
' Hoffman: Yes , from $25. 00 to $30. 00 this year .
Robinson : My kids have gone down there at 7 : 00 and there were no lights
1 on the door. It wasn' t locked. They threw the deadbolt open and skated .
It wasn ' t locked . . .
11 (There was a tape change at this point . )
Sietsema : . . . I don' t know what their problem is. They' re proceeding with
having it subdivided or getting subdivisional approval . It was tabled at
1 the Planning Commission due to, the Planning Commission has some problems
with it being approved and having the MUSA line changed for this site . In
the meantime, staff has looked at the property more closely and are
questioning whether it ' s going to meet our park needs as far as the
topography and the soils and the wetland that ' s on there. Carrico ' s had
indicated to me that that was not a bonafide wetland and that a ballfield
1 could go on there and there would be no problem. That it would be mowed .
That ' s not the case . It' s a Class B wetland and there ' s cattails and
there' s wetland vegetation in there. It ' s not useable for a ballfield and
we'd have to stay 75 feet back from it and that means the rest of it , the
dry part of it is on a slope. So I 've got Mark looking at it to see if
there ' s any kind of grading or what we can do , what type of uses we could
have for it and if indeed that is a piece of property we want to continue
1 to pursue . Also , at the same time, Mark and I are looking at the
property, the rest of the property in the area and trying to identify
something that may be more suitable.
1 Boyt : There' s a nice looking piece across the street , a little further
east. The road is cutting it up.
1 Sietsema: To the east or the west?
Boyt: West .
1 Sietsema : That' s two lots of the highland .
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 50
II
Boyt: It' s real flat. I
Sietsema : And there' s some wetland up over to the one side. I think
we ' re going to be looking at that. That ' s actually two different lots of II
the Lake Lucy Highlands. It may not be something that we want to pursue
for parkland .
Mady: My concern was that I had seen the Planning Commission agenda in
II
the paper and they were on it. The last I had heard, we were looking at
the whole parcel . I was hoping the Planning Commission was aware that we
were looking at it. 1
Sietsema: And they are .
Mady: On the vending machine thing .
1
Hoffman : Which was not on the agenda . What it says , last year we had a
I
vending service that put two machines in there. They generated a lot of
income . About $800. 00 in gross sales . $700. 00 or $800 . 00. Something
like that. We've had a lot of requests for them. To bring them back this 1
year . I started early on this . They weren ' t interested in bringing them
back because of the short season. I contacted Mr. Ryan King and he just
did not , wasn ' t very prompt in getting a letter back so it' s ran this
late. We could purchase some of those machines for $1, 350. 00. Purchase II
the candy and a pop machine for that building to have that service there .
Practically anybody you talk to that is up there, has requested it. You
get hounded everytime you want in the door by parents and kids alike . Is 1
this something that we would like to provide at the warming house or is it
not? I would need a recommendation.
Mady: If we had it at a place that we used it in the summer , it would 1
probably work.
Hoffman : We could possibly open up the building during the summer for
II
the. . .
Boyt : T-ball and soccer . 1
Mady: Especially the pop machine being out there. A pop machine .
They've got them at every gas station in town. You can buy pop outside
I
when the stations are closed .
Robinson: I don' t think they'd take them there.
Hoffman : Parks for some reason are high vandal for vending machines . II
Schroers : The money doesn' t seem to be the problem. It pays for itself
II
in two years, but what about the maintenance on the machine and who' s
going to collect the money and all that sort of thing?
Hoffman: That' s something I did talk with Dale about and they'd take that II
over as general maintenance of the rink. They' d carry that stuff around .
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 51
Robinson : Aren ' t we then competing with Kenny' s and everybody else who
sells pop and candy?
Mady: But we' re so far away from them.
Hoffman: They all go to Brookes now.
' Robinson : I don' t think we should be in that . That' s not part of the
recreation in my opinion.
Hoffman : Concessions is a large part of recreation in a lot of park
facilities .
' Mady: The other comments , I guess before we adjounr , on the community
center proposal , I want to be put on the agenda next time. We updated the
Council last night and we wanted . . .
Sietsema : Right now I have about 19 items on the next agenda .
Boyt : Ours?
Sietsema : Yes . Big ones .
Mady: It ' s a 10 minute deal so maybe we can even do it when we do the
interview candidates .
Sietsema : I don ' t think you got what you wanted .
Robinson: No, we' ve got to get back to pop machines .
Sietsema : Do you want to buy them or not?
Hasek: What are the alternate ways of providing that service? Are there
• any?
Boyt : They can go to Brookes .
Hasek: How far is Brookes?
Boyt : Quarter of a mile .
Mady: About a block and a half. I guess for this year , I would move for
this year that we do nothing because it ' s just going to take too long to
get this all done . The season will be over . Let ' s review this at another
time when we can think it through and plan for it .
Hasek : Yes , towards the end of the summer maybe before the season starts .
Robinson: Look for another vendor . Gee, some of these people have got
those machines .
Hoffman : I ' ve talked with probably 6 or 7 vending companies . First of
all , it' s such a short season and most don ' t like to deal with park
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 52
situations because they are such high vandalism. They don' t end up making I
any money.
Mady: Why don ' t you check with other locales and see if they' ve got them. II
If somebody' s willing to do it. Let' s take a look at it in the future.
Hasek: I don' t mind shipping them in there but the vandalism issue scares
me a little bit. Personally, I myself used to beat the heck out of those
machines when I was a kid when they were unattended .
Sietsema : But for the winter programs we do have rink attendants and
warming house attendants in those facilities so I wouldn' t be worried
about it then. If you' re going to put them outside in the summer , is when
I 'd worry about it . '
Robinson: If it' s too short of a season for a regular vendor , it should
be too short of a season for us .
Hoffman: It' s a long term. They grossed $800 . 00, something like that
last year meaning you'd net revenue for $400. 00 in a couple years. It' s
just something , it' s a fairly low budget item. Practically everybody you
talk to requests them so can we give it to them or do you think it' s a
hassle?
Schroers : The only problem I would have with it is putting the '
responsibility on maintenance. The park maintenance staff is short and
overtaxed as it is and this is just one more thing that they have to deal
with. Granted, it may be not a lot of extra work but it always works out II
that when they' re the busiest and they' ve got something to do , then
there ' s somebody pulling it out of their. . . It ' s at the most
inconvenience time that these little problems tend to arise . If there' s
another way to deal with it rather than making it the responsibility of
maintenance, that' d be worth looking at .
Hasek: When you talk to these people, do they understand what the life of
the season is?
Hoffman : They don' t want to put their machines in and let them sit there II
when nobody even has access to the thing .
Sietsema : So you don' t want us to go ahead with anything this year . You II
want us to bring it up at budget time?
Mady: So moved .
Hasek: Second .
Mady moved , Hasek seconded not to anything on the vending machines at the I
city parks and to take it up at budget time next year . All voted in favor
and the motion carried .
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
January 10, 1989 - Page 53
I Robinson moved , Schroers seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned .
ISubmitted by Lori Sietsema
Park and Rec Coordinator
IPrepared by Nann Opheim
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I