1p. Minutes i
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 27, 1989
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. . The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman and
Councilman Johnson
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilwoman Dimler
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Steve Hanson, Lori Sietsema, Todd
Gerhardt, Jim Chaffee and Dave Grannis, City Attorney
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve the agenda as amended with the following additions: Councilman Boyt
wanted to discuss front yard fencing and the Public Safety Department under
Council Presentations; and Councilman Workman wanted to discuss manholes under
Council Presentations. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA:
liG. SET SPECIAL MEETING DATES.
Councilman Boyt: On the special meeting dates, I have a problem with the March
20th date. I'm out of town. I think that's an important meeting. Don
mentioned wanting to have some materials out 4 or 5 days in advance. I'd like
to see us, if that meeting is to take quite a bit of time, move it into maybe
April 3rd or the 17th. Or March, we've got a meeting scheduled for the 13th but
anytime that week is fine with me. I know there's a lot of meetings scheduled.
Mayor Chmiel: How does it look for everybody else on April 3rd?
Councilman Johnson: I'd rather get it done sooner rather than later personally.
I'm, at this point, fairly free.
Mayor Chmiel: Out of the 3rd or the 17th, which of those two dates is
preferable for everyone being here? Let's shoot for the 3rd. Now is that
for.. .
Councilman Boyt: That's for G(1) .
Mayor Chmiel: G(1) for the goals and position classification plan. With that
amendment to April 3, 1989.
Councilman Boyt: Right. On the May 16th meeting, I'm glad to see us doing
this. I'm going to be out of town but I don't mind, I can submit my comments in
writing to the group if that's. . .
Mayor Chmiel: That's acceptable.
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
Councilman Boyt: So I would move approval of Item G with the amendment to item
G(1) , changing that date from March 20th to April 3rd.
Councilman Workman: I'll second that.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Item G, Set
Special Meeting Dates as follows: '
1. 1989 Goals and Position Classification Plan on April 3, 1989
2. Joint Meeting with Park and Recreation Commission March 13, 1989 at 6:30
3. Board of Review and Equalization on May 16, 1989
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the following
Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Resolution #89-25: Accept Feasibility Study for North Side Parking Lot.
b. Accept Proposal for Preliminary Alignment Study of TH 101 from TH 5 to
TH 212 (new TH 212) .
e. Resolution #89-26: Establish No Parking Zones on Park Road
(United Mailing) .
f. Resolution #89-27: Approve 1989 Park Dedication Fee Schedule. I
h. Resolution #89-28: Approval of Resolution Proclaiming "Volunteer
Recognition Week".
i. Approval to Purchase Hot Water, High Pressure Washer.
k. Revised Final Plat Approval, Trappers Pass at Near Mountain 3rd Addition,
Lundgren Brothers.
1. Accounts Payable
m. City Council Minutes dated February 13, 1989
Planning Commission Minutes dated February 15, 1989
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated February 14, 1989 '
n. Approval of Land Surveyor's Certificate of Correction, Kurvers Point.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITORS PRESENTATION: SOUTH SHORE SENIOR CENTER, BETTY BRAGG. I
Betty Bragg: I have something that I think you have in your package which is
the report for the past year. The South Shore Senior Center is comprised of
quite a few villages in this area and just as you have to pay attention
to Minnetonka and Chaska schools, we ask that you continue to give your support.
11
2 1
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
We've been very, very pleased. We want to thank you for your support in the
If- past and for the present and we hope for the future. That is the reason why I'm
i making this report available to you. I don't think I need to review it but we
did serve an awful lot of people from the Chanhassen area. I'm one of them.
Retirement should offer enough variety and fulfillment to keep life interesting
' and challenging I feel. This report I think gives you an idea of what we're
trying to do. Make life interesting and challenging and take care of some of
the health services, educational programs, volunteers. See that people who
don't have good nutrition in their homes have a center to come to. I could give
you lots of little insights into that but I think you're probably aware of some
of them. I just want to say, we thank you for your help in the past and we hope
for it in the future. Thank you. Someday you'll be retired too.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you very much. We appreciate it.
' Councilman Johnson: The South Shore Senior Center does serve a lot of
Chanhassen residents. I've been to several of their functions and I'm
constantly amazed at how many of the people there in Excelsior at the South
Shore Center are Chanhassen residents. When we get our grant money next year, I
hope we'll continue to provide some of that towards the South Shore.
Councilman Boyt: Do you remember how much we gave them this last year? Wasn't
' it around $12,000.00?
Don Ashworth: No I don't. The funding actually goes directly from Hennepin
II 9 County to the South Shore. I thought that it was around $10,000.00 and that did
II i not include the $7,800.00 that was set aside for a senior study and that's
' currently underway.
Betty Bragg: You might find that it's cheaper to go in with the other
communities than to try and to serve just one interest group here.
' Councilman Johnson: Our study is not to say that we need a senior center. It's
to find out what our seniors need. It may result in that, I don't know but we
have to define our needs.
Mayor Chmiel: I may be getting there quicker than most people realize but I
certainly appreciate the fact that you have come and made your presentation to
us. No action is going to be required at this particular time on item 2 so I'd
like to move ahead to the public hearings.
PUBLIC HEARING: -
ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION TO COMBINE A PORTION OF LOT 28, MURRAY HILL ADDITION
TO OUTLOT A, EIGHT ACRE WOODS ADDITION TO FORM LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, EIGHT ACRE
' WOODS SECOND ADDITION, 6270 MURRAY HILL ROAD, GRANT JOHNSON.
Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order.
Steve Hanson: This is a request for final plat approval and it's covered under
I subparagraph B of the Subdivision Ordinance whereby the City Council may approve
a meets and bounds subdivision of a platted lot into two lots when both those
' lots would meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance as well as had
access onto the public street. In your packet before you you have a copy of the
3
I
I/
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
subdivision plat, the actual survey showing that lot split of the lot and it
also includes an outlot. That's been reviewed by the staff and it does conform
with the zoning requirements so staff is recommending the Council approve the
final plat of Eight Acre Woods Second Addition.
Grant Johnson: My name is Grant Johnson, 6270 Murray Hill Road. I believe the
packet that you've got is relatively self explanatory. For those of you who
were on the Council a year or so ago when the Murray Hill Addition was approved,
it was somewhat obvious at the time or we had kind of implied that this was our
intent eventually and the time has just come now that we can put this together
so I'm just willing to answer any questions that anyone may have.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I myself don't have any questions on this. To me it
looks like it's self explanatory. I don't know if anyone else on the Council
has any questions. I
Councilman Workman: Steve, can you explain to me meets and bounds?
Steve Hanson: It's a legal description. In other words, it's described as far '
as the bearings and distances rather than being an actual plat where you refer
to it as Lot 1, Block 1. So it's surveyed in as opposed to the normal formal
plat that you would see. '
Councilman Workman: Why wouldn't this need a formal plat?
Steve Hanson: There's a provision in the Statute as well as in the City Code
that allows you to do it this way for a simple subdivision rather than going
through the expense of doing a full detailed plat. It's really cost savings for
them.
Councilman Workman: I guess then give me one reason why they have to have a
plat versus meets and bounds. What makes the difference? I
Steve Hanson: This is basically a lot under special circumstances when you're
splitting just one lot into two. If you're making it more than that, you'd go
through the full blown subdivision process.
Councilman Workman: So basically you're saying if one line is involved to split
it, then you can do it this way? Okay. '
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Final Plat
for Eight Acre Woods Second Addition (#89-1 Subdivision) as shown on the plat
stamped "Received February 6, 1989". All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VARIANCE TO THE FRONT, SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS, 9247 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, JAMES JESSUP.
Steve Hanson: This item was presented to the Board of Adjustments earlier
tonight and the item was tabled by the Board of Adjustment to allow additional
I
4
■
I
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
I
I input so I would suggest that you just continue this item and that you need to
take no action.
VARIANCE TO THE FRONT, SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DAYCARE
' FACILITY LOCATED ON THE LAKE DRIVE EAST, IMMEDIATELY WEST OF TOTAL MART
CONVENIENCE STORE, G.P. BAJR INC. .
Steve Hanson: I might explain this one also. This item was also up before the
Board of Adjustments earlier tonight. This particular request was denied by the
Board of Adjustments by unanimous vote. The applicants have requested that it
not be considered by Council at this meeting and pending their decision whether
they'd like to bring it to Council or not. They have a 10 day period to make
that decision.
' SET 1989/90 LIQUOR LICENSE FEES.
' Don Ashworth: The 1989 budget anticipated an increase in liquor license fees of
approximately 5%. Each of the license holders were given notice of this
meeting. Some of the licenses are established under State Statutue and I have
asterisked those that are again set by the State. Staff is recommending that
' the license fees be increased generally by 5%. We rounded in some cases as
shown in your report dated February 8th.
II 1 Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone who would like to address this that is in the
audience? Just for general public, for your information. Some of the fees that
we're adjusting is just two specific items. It's the off sale non-intoxicating
' license which is existing $30.00. We're raising that to $50.00. The on sale
non-intoxicating which the existing was $205.00 and that's being proposed at
$250.00. I feel they are fairly reasonable and to be in compliance with the
requirements as stated by Mr. Ashworth. I would like to ask for a motion.
Don Ashworth: May I make one quick point? The motion also includes the
intoxicating liquor schedule. The City's schedule there is based on both
restaurant and non-restaurant type of uses. The schedule again is shown as
about 5% higher than in 1988.
Councilman Boyt: Were you able to get those figures Don?
Don Ashworth: No. They may be in here. Councilman Boyt had asked for a
comparison of fees with some of our other communities. I was looking for that
information late this afternoon and I was not able to have that available.
Resolution #89-29: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
' approve the Liquor License Fee Schedule as presented by staff. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXTENSION FOR A CONTRACTOR'S YARD THAT WAS GRANTED ON
FEBRUARY 8, 1988 FOR ADMIRAL WASTE MANAGEMENT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TH
212 AND THE EAST SIDE OF TH 101, PATRICK BLOOD AND NANCY LEE.
II(--
Steve Hanson: This is a request to extend an existing conditional use permit.
The conditional use permit had a one year limitation to put in the improvements
� Y p P
1
5
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
and none of those improvements have been done on the property. Therefore, it
comes back to the Planning Commission and City Council for them, if they want to
request an extension and they have requested an extension. The Council has the
authority to extend the permit for an additional period of time after getting a
recommendation from the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed
this at their regular meeting and their determination at that point in time was
that based on testimony taken at that meeting as well as the review of the
permit and plans that the applicant has for future use of the property, that it I
was not appropriate to extend the conditional use permit for Admiral Waste at
this point in time. Part of that was pending some of the other things they're
looking at doing and adding to the property. Their feeling was rather than
extend an existing permit knowing that they're going to have to come back and
amend that, it would be better for than to just come in with a totally new
permit for a conditional use. Also, you should be aware that the Planning
Commission felt that the permit that was granted previously should possibly not
have been approved. They had recommended approval previously but their concern
was, in going back and looking at the Codes, as far as defining what a
contractor's yard is, they didn't feel that the proposed use fit within that
definition. The definition for the contractor's yard specifically really
mentions construction type activities rather than the waste handling facilities.
So the Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council not extend the
conditional use permit #87-18 and further, one other item that the Council needs
to deal with that does not come up before the Planning Commission. When the
conditional use permit was issued previously, it was also issued a wetland
alteration permit for the property as part of that conditional use. That also
has a year time limit on it similar to the conditional use permit and we would
add that that also not be extended. Really the two should go hand in hand.
That would conclude my remarks. [-II
Nancy Lee: I think one thing that we didn't make real clear with the Planning
Commission is we made it sound like there was going to be a lot of drastic
changes. One of the reasons we didn't go on with the project as planned was
because in the trash hauling industry there are some major changes coming about
in recycling and we felt it best to hold off until we found out what these
changes were which depend on what the City's decisions are. At this point not
all cities have made their own decisions as to what they're going to be doing
with the recycling. As far as our building and everything, it may go up exactly
as planned. We realize any major changes or anything would obviously have to
come back to Council. I guess that's what we were waiting for but we didn't
want to lose the permits so that if there were no changes, we could go ahead and
put the building up. That's all I had to say.
Councilman Boyt: You'll notice there are 28 conditions passed with this thing
making it a major undertaking but as I recall the discussion of a little over a
year ago, one of the critical issues was generating additional traffic in one of
the worse traffic areas in the city. The point was that these basically pick up
trucks, as I recall, kind of a heavy duty pick up truck would be leaving early
in the morning. Would basically stay out all day and would come back in at the
end of the day. That was the reason that I voted for it at the time was because
it wasn't generating much traffic. To look at it as a recycling center, it
could very well generate a good bit more traffic. As I read the discussion,
we're talking about having a potential drop off center for people to bring
recycleables in. I don't want that kind of traffic on that stretch of road.
I've been very relunctant to see us continue to encourage contractor's yards in
11
6
IICity Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
II i Chanhassen. I think that we need to find a home, it's sort of a, I think a
responsibility for a community to have someplace for people who haul trash to do
s their business. I don't know what the good place for that is or would be in
II Chanhassen. I think that's worth some good study. What I do know is that we
shouldn't be encouraging uses that generate very much traffic at all at this
particular location. As far as extending it, I guess I'm real interested in
I what other folks have to say up here. I agree with the Planning Commission's
position that this doesn't fit the description of a contractor's yard but I
don't know that that stopped the Council in the past from approving contractor's
yards or items as contractor's yards. It's sort of been a catch all in a way
II and my concern would be, why encourage than to conduct a use that I don't want
to see expanded? My inclination would be to say this is an opportunity to turn
this down and avoid an even more difficult decision down the road and when we've
I got a considerable investment meeting those 28 conditions and I personally
wouldn't want to see it expanded.
Councilman Johnson: I'm pretty well where Bill is on this one. I believe, if
IImy memory serves me right, I voted for it last time. In retrospect and looking
at the definition of the ordinance a little closer than I did last time, they're
right. This doesn't really meet the definition of a contractor's yard. Leaving
1 in the morning and coming back in the evening is different than doing any
recycling work there. Recycling business is probably going to create more
traffic, especially a drop off center. I think this fits more into an
IIindustrial site versus the site it's on. That's my only comments.
I Councilman Workman: What can we do as the City Council and City then if we're
i
going to deny this, perhaps help than to do business in our City? Is the
1 Planning Commission going to look at that?
Councilman Johnson: Can the HRA do anything? Is this something that is needed
II in our City and as part of our Housing and Redevelopment, should we be looking?
We've been promoting a grocery store. We've been promoting housing. Is there a
way we can promote a recycling center?
IMayor Chmiel: I think recycling is something that's going to become a
necessity. Every city is going to it. I agree too that in reviewing the
definition of a contractor's yard, it just doesn't fit in that specific, as it
I spells it out within the City Code. At the same time, Don, can you offer any
suggestions? Is there any areas within the City that could facilitate this type
of facility? What have we done in the past?
IDon Ashworth: Itit have attempted to bring businesses into the Business Park and
one of the things generally with contractor's yards is as they grow, they find
that they can do better business, really provide better services if they're able
Ito move again into a business park setting. I think Merit Heating was one that
was really looking to contractor's yard position and we were able to get than
III into the business park. Contractor's yards typically have been a growing area,
you might say, for some businesses and I really don't know in this particular
instance, if they would be to a point where they could consider a location in a
more typical setting.
III-- Councilman Johnson: I think something I probably would mention that probably
clouded our decision a year ago was at that time we had another similar business
in a contractor's yard that had been previously approved and in the interim
II
II
7
' 'City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
they've moved out so this was going to be our second contractor's yard that had
a garbage hauling business in it. R & W Sanitation down in Merle Volk's
property and they subsequently have moved out so this would be the only one.
Councilman Boyt: I would suggest Tom, to answer your question, that the best
thing to do with this is to refer it to the Planning Commission with the
directive to identify locations in the city that would be appropriate to this
type of business. I would think that would be of some priority.
Councilman Workman: I guess in looking through the packet, let me get maybe
some answers from Nancy. Would you possibly be coming back to the Council and
Planning Commission once you have figured out what exactly is going to be
happening with this piece of property in regards to recycling? Would you be
coming back possibly for another attempt?
Nancy Lee: You mean if there was not an extension granted? ,
Councilman Workman: Right.
Nancy Lee: Yes.
Councilman Workman: I guess in looking through this and I realize you guys did
pass it and it was a traffic problem, I have probably driven through that area
longer than anybody in the room being from this area pretty much all my life
down in Chaska and that is the way, so for at least 28 years, that is the way
that area has been down there and I referred to it last time as ugly town. It's
not pretty down there but I suspect that in another 28 years we'll still have an
SA. We'll still have cold storage. We'll still have a car lot and we'll still
have everything else down there and for us to think that perhaps this is going
to be made into agricultural and used for a wheat field or something, that
doesn't make sense. Again, I'm not ignoring the safety problems in the area or
the aesthetics of the neighbors to the north. I guess I'm not quite sure what
has changed in a year other than cities are now clamoring to do recycling. I
received some calls this week in regards to the fact that the fact they don't
think we're moving ahead fast enough on recycling. We have some business people
who would like to get, one man's trash in another man's gold mine I guess and so
they want to do business in that regard. They're moving ahead. They've waited
because the nature of the business is changing and now they're being told they
can't do business so what do we tell the folks that have property down there?
That they're going to have to plant clover on that or nothing. When I fully
expect that the businesses that are down there, I don't know if the Travel I is
going to open up again or not but those businesses are going to remain there
anyway.
Councilman Johnson: I don't disagree with where you're coming from. This is
still business fringe and contractor's yards are approved in business fringe.
The question comes here is two fold. I think we made a mistake a year ago by
calling this a contractor's yard. I think part of the reasoning, you always
give a reason for a mistake, you probably show you a mistake is a mistake, was
that we already had approved, or the previous Council had already approved a
contractor's yard at that point. It is a bad intersection right there below the
bridge.
Councilman Workman: Is that cold storage a contractor's yard?
8
I
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
II I
Councilman Johnson: No, but they're also permitted in a business fringe.
Business fringe allows quite a few different things. One of which is
contractor's yards. Cold storage is one. In fact we've got two cold storage
areas in there. I think we allow gasoline stations without car washes. The
hotel is a non-conforming use. I believe the restaurant is a non-conforming
use. I've got the rules right here.
' Councilman Boyt: I think one of the things that's changed in the year Tom is
that there was something about this situation that didn't make it feasible for a
year. One of the things is that in the conditions, the 28 conditions, there are
some like a holding tank will be installed which are going to represent a fair
amount of expense. From my particular standpoint, turning this down doesn't
hinge upon the definition of a contractor's yard because I hope we're in the
' process of redefining that. My particular one hinges upon, I know that I don't
want the increased traffic that I would project from making it a recyling
center. If I'm going to vote against that, why should I encourage people to put
' an investment in here to do something that's going to lead to that? So from my
standpoint, this was a tough decision a year ago. I disagreed with a couple
people on the Planning Commission because I thought the traffic would be light
and we needed this somewhere in town. I think the better way to deal with it is
find out where's the right location for this sort of thing. I kind of doubt
it's the business park but who knows. Let's find the right location. Let's
zone those sorts of locations so this can go in it and do it right. Why put it
in an area, I don't think anybody's going to go down there and turn that into
farmland. Obviously not but we're telling these people you've got to remove the
existing structures. You've got to build catch basins. You've got to put in
holding tanks. It's going to make it look better if they do this. That's one
' thing they have going for them. I just don' t think it's a place where we want
to encourage additional traffic.
' Mayor Chmiel: I feel basically you're right in what you're saying Bill. I
think that once the dollar investment is there, they're going to be there for a
long time. I still have the feeling that this basically still is not, this kind
' of business is not a contractor's yard business. I'd like to see us do a study
to see if there is somehow that we can accommodate something. Everyone produces
the solid waste that they put out in their cans. Once a week they pick it up,
not realizing where it goes or even care where it goes. I know that they're
' providing a kind of service to the community that's needed so I see where maybe
we should review this to see what the possibilities are for where this could be
accommodate within the city, if it can, and pursue it from that aspect. For
the existing site, as I see it, I feel that this site is not the best for the
traffic aspect as well as still not fitting into that contractor's yard
definition.
' Councilman Workman: Can we then reject this and then perhaps I can propose that
we, as the City perhaps work with Admiral Waste, perhaps other trash haulers to
look into the subject of where and how we can do this and then perhaps even
waiting for Admiral Waste to come back perhaps with another proposal on the same
piece of property which might be more appealing taking into account traffic,
etc. . I think they've kind of taken that in. I know it was discussed a year
ago. It didn't sound like there was going to be that much traffic. I think you
lit-- agreed Jay but perhaps leaving the door open for than to possibly use the
property for which they intended but to find the solutions within the city to do
1
9
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
that. Recycling and trash, these kinds of businesses aren't the most appealing
businesses in the world but we can't keep telling Eden Prairie or Savage or
whoever to keep taking them either. So if we could get a nice looking, well
cared for facility within the city for these people to do business, I think it
would be worth a lot to work with that.
Councilman Johnson: I don' t totally agree that they're an eye sore, you didn't
say eye sore but that they're not appealing. I've worked in several recycling
facilities and from the outside you'd think they're any other industry. Reuter
over in Eden Prairie, you look at it, it's a beautiful building there.
Everything's done inside and they process where here we're just talking
basically a truck shop for them. I think what we did was based on the low
traffic volumes, we approved it last time. I think what needs to be done is if
we decide that this area is a good area to have basically a trucking business,
which is what garbage hauling is is a trucking business. Their freight happens
to be coming from each of our households. If this is an appropriate place for a
trucking business, we should amend the BF district to allow trucking businesses
but we have to look at that. If I was going to place, I don't think I can call
them a contractor's yard. We came close to another trucking business going in
as a contractor's yard. Unfortunately, he does a lot of, the other person does
a lot of trucking but he is a contractor. He does build things. I think that
it does fit into our industrial park if you do it right. You probably don't
want to be, there may be a section of our park where you can generate truck
traffic that wouldn't be a problem. We're not talking about vehicles here
dripping garbage and running around because they don't do that. 20 years ago or '
40 years ago, yes but modern sanitation vehicles are such that they're really
not a problem but I still am going to move, and I'll make this a motion here
1: :
so.. .
Mayor Chmiel: Prior to making your motion Jay, I'd like to find out if there's '
anyone else in the audience that would like to address this particular issue.
John Foster: My name is John Foster, City of Golden Valley representing the
Joseph Kristoff property which is located on the northwest corner of TH 101 and
TH 169/212. I don't think that it should be approved in the standpoint, our
value of our property would decrease. Not only that but the traffic is at a
high level on our corner and the trucks would have to go down TH 101 to receive
that intersection. By doing that, it would cause more problems then Presently
are there. Through the notes and so forth, we have talked about the tractors,
the wintertime with the buses coming down the hills, etc. . The way that
I understand the plan is set forth is that the entrance would be put onto TH
101. By doing that, causing more problems along TH 101 and the hill area
relative to going onto TH 169/212 area but I would ask you to, at this time,
take a closer look at it. I'm not in opposition of them coming back at a later
time with a different proposal of how they would do the work to the City Council
here so that you can take a close look at it as long as Planning too.
Patrick Blood: I'm Patrick Blood. I guess the biggest problem of the whole
thing is the traffic and we respect everybody's say in the matter but I'd like I
to leave one thing in the back of your minds, being the City of Chanhassen. I
don't foresee the impact of traffic being that great. In your eyes you might.
That's fine but we remember other roads, highways that you do have in Chanhassen
that during certain hours are already backed up to the limit. We've got a short
access to TH 212/169. All our facilities, or most of them, are Reuter's,
I
10
I
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
-- Anchor, MX Tire which are directly across the river and down which puts us in
I _ Chanhassen only for pick up day at a minimum. We're out of this city
completely. The only problem we face, and we don't feel it's our problem, and
that's TH 101. That is a State Highway. That is a State problem. A stop sign
at that intersection would help greatly. If you look at the problems you have
on TH 5 during rush hour and compare it what you've got down there, I don't
foresee any problem. Thank you.
IMayor Chmiel: Anyone else wishing to address the issue?
Councilman Workman: I guess one other point then. I highly suspect that if
' these trucks, these garbage trucks are hanging around the shop, they ain't
making much money. They're out doing what they're supposed to be doing and
they're not hauling a whole lot of it back other than when the recycling perhaps
gets going.
Councilman Boyt: They're not talking about a garbage truck as we might envision
a big garbage truck. They're talking about a pick-up.
Patrick Blood: A majority of our trucks are like the 450 Ford wi.th.. .but we do
have two big garbage trucks and possibly three.
Councilman Workman: Would those big ones make it under that bridge?
II Patrick Blood: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: I think there was a condition in here that you had to go south
on TH 101 isn't there?
Nancy Lee: Somebody mentioned it but they said they couldn't force
us to do it
legally but normally that's the way we would be going. We would be going south.
' One other quick comment. As far as the recycling goes, if you're looking at a
lot of traffic coming in and out, we would like it optional. We would like to
make an open facility so the people of Chanhassen can come in and utilize it.
However, if the City doesn't want us to, we'll just simply use it ourselves for
recycling which is just our vehicles. We just felt that. . .
John Foster: Don't get me wrong. I'm also, I'm in favor of small businesses
and the way they grow. I'm just looking for the safety aspect of the community
itself. Just so long as everybody is aware.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe the thing to do here is if Mr. Blood and Ms. Lee want to
pursue a stop light there, we're not really talking about a stop sign, there's
already a stop sign there, but this is just a difficult corner. I don't know
that we've got a good answer to this corner and I guess I'm saying, I wasn't
' happy with my vote last year and I'm not happy with my vote this year but it's
going to be different.
111 Councilman Johnson: I think the main traffic problem is not at the stop sign
it's during negotiating of the curves as you come around to their driveway.
There is sight distance there. I don't know how, I just drove that several
lit-- times this weekend and took a close look at it again and I think it would be
manageable. We do have in the conditions 12 vehicles is the maximum amount of
vehicles they can have at that site. I don't remember if that was 12 of their
11
4 `Ci.ty Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
I
vehicles or if that was the employee's vehicles plus their vehicles. I'd have
to look back in the notes on that one. I thought it was 12 hauling trucks but
anyway, I'm still going to move to deny on the basis that it does not meet the
definition of a contractor's yard. I'll deny extension of either the permit and
also I'd like to add in there to have staff review what we would call this type ,
of business. As one, just a strick hauler where they're just doing the vehicles
and two, as a hauler plus a recycling center and see where it will fit within
the City of Chanhassen zoning districts or what areas within our zoning
districts we think this type of operation would be appropriate. '
Councilman Boyt: I'll second it.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to deny extension for
Conditional Use Permit #87-18 for a contractor's yard for Admiral Waste
Management, Inc. on the basis that it does not meet the definition of a
contractor's yard. Also, direct staff to review this type of business and where
it would fit within the City of Chanhassen's zoning districts. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. ,
SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR PARKING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS 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: This is, in some respects, continuation of an item that you've ,
reviewed previously in January for the Chanhassen Professional Building. In the
January meeting which you approved the site plan for the building itself. The
plans before you tonight are for the parking area around that. This particular
area was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their last meeting and they
recotniiended approval of the site plan for the parking area. At that time, they
approved that with 3 conditions. The first of those being that the area be
platted. Secondly, the submittal of the final facia, signage and exterior
building lighting for the Planning Commission approval prior to issuance of
building permits. Then a third condition which was added at the Planning
Coitauission meeting that the traffic engineering review the sidewalk location and
each portion of the parking lot for safety with the possibility of realigning
the sidewalk and adding stop signs or speed bumps. Bear with me for a minute
and I'll get that graph to show you the area that we're specifically talking
about. The sidewalk area that we're talking is this particular alignment right
here. Whether that line would stay in this location or preferably be looking
straight down in this direction which is the route that we talked about when
we.. .the site plan for this particular building. One of the reasons for the
flip flop on it was to allow for the traffic movement over into...feeling that
was more of a pedestrian generater than the professional office building. We're
still looking at that in all honestly as far as. . .and also how to signage that
area. One other item that was brought up at the Planning Commission was this
access here which is a limited access. It's a right-in, right-out only and that
was the one dissenting vote on the approval from the Planning Commission for the
site. Also, one last graphic that's up here is an outline of Phase I which are
the improvements to the parking area that would come during the first phase when
this actual building is constructed in this location. It's really the back part
of the parking area and then this would be the temporary access that's existing
I/
12
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
I
now that will allow the access into that area. With that I conclude my remarks
at this point in time.
II
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone wishing to address this specific item?' As you
may or may not know, there are some assessments that will be given to the
adjacent property owners. Consequently I had thought that there probably would
be someone to address those issues but if not, I will bring it back to the
Council then.
' Don Ashworth: Just a point of clarification. We will go through the hearing
process regarding that downtown project. The property owners likely to be
assessed, Riveria, Mason, etc., will be getting their notice of that hearing and
they may be in attendance at a future meeting.
Councilman Boyt: I've got a comment on this. If there's one thing that
I listened to a lot this fall it was the unhappiness people have with this
corner. I am surprised, as I passed onto Gary and Steve earlier today, that we
would seriously consider keeping an entrance and exit at a corner that's as
' difficult as the clock tower corner seems to be for people. We have talked, and
I'll bet somewhere on the initial plans that wasn't there because we have talked
for quite a while about when the 76 station left, that that was going to be
closed off. Now I think it's a mistake, although I can understand that it does
make it more attractive to get in and out of the parking lots but the reason I
think it's a mistake is because a lot more people go down 78th Street than do in
and out of those parking lots and everybody that's bothered by that is going to
II i think of it as a mistake that the City made. They're going to get there,
somebody's going to be turning out of that and they're going to say, dog gone
it, the City did this to me and I just don't think we need to take that kind of
continual harrasement so I'd like to see that changed.
Don Ashworth: Can I respond? You're correct, the plan from a year ago did not
have that in here. Both Gary Warren and Gary Ehret are here. They may wish to
address the issue as well. In really looking at the traffic pattern, the only
really dangerous movement that's occuring out there right now is the left hand
turn movement going into that driveway and if you notice on the sketch in front
of you, the nose of that curb has been pulled down far enough to basically
eliminate the ability to come in. Does that accurately reflect, Gary? We are
going to allow the one driveway to come in. The other one is going to be
' removed.
Gary Warren: Correct. The feasibility report actually shows it better.
Don Ashworth: That would be a right turn into the Cenex or for those customers
leaving Kenny's, they would be able to take and get a free right out. In
observations of actual turning movements, we have not found a problem with that
type of movement. There is a real problem with vehicles turning left, looking
to the right to see if there is anybody turning and at the same time to have a
vehicle stopped right in front of them. The potential for a rear end accident
I there is very, very high.
Councilman Workman: The way it is now right?
Don Ashworth: Right, the way it is now. The curbing has been pulled down to
insure that a person can not take and get into that driveway in that fashion.
13
I
,. y v
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
11
Gary Warren: Sheet 2 in the feasibility report actually shows that proper
configuration where the median actually prevents the left turn movement into the
parking area.
Don Ashworth: Did I miss any points there Gary?
Gary Warren: No, I think it's consistent with what I relayed to Bill earlier ,
today. If we had our druthers, yes, you wouldn't like it there but it is a
manageable situation. Especially as it relates to the interest of the Colonial
Center as far as access. I
(A tape change occurred at this point.)
Councilman Boyt: ...those of you who weren't on the Council a year and a half I
ago when we looked at this issue, I just want to tell you that the engineers
told us that corner would work. They'd probably tell you it's working today.
Councilman Workman: Does that entrance and exit from that parking lot help to
vent possibly some of the excess use out of the east end of that parking lot
onto Great Plains because I know on Sunday morning as you're coming out of St.
Hubert's, Great Plains is a bottleneck. When people are going in and out of
Kenny's to get the newspaper and the milk, and they've got to go out of that
exit.. .
Councilman Boyt: Not today they don't. They've got the exit over by the 76
station.
Councilman Workman: Right so if you're saying take that out and then we're
going to have further problems and bottlenecks. I usually end up going down
Chan View because sitting at West 78th and Great Plains trying to get out from
behind people that are trying to make a left is impossible.
Councilman Boyt: But your problem there is because 78th Street is TH 101. We
can't put any stop signs there so there's no way of controlling the traffic
that's going east and west on 73th Street. Therefore, the traffic backs up on
Great Plains Blvd..
Mayor Chmiel: But in time we'll be able to put that sign up once it changes. '
Councilman Boyt: Right and that will alleviate some of the problem coming out
of that intersection. Quite a bit of the problem. ,
Gary Warren: And you're talking about the most intense use with the church
existing. A period, the one time during the week, that is, there's no question,
the most congested period for that intersection. Basically we'll have 3 exits
or entrances, if you will, to that parking area with the north side parking lot
because the road along the north side of Kenny's also will be made as a
connection so there's two that connect to Great Plains plus the one as we noted
here by the Cenex.
Councilman Johnson: I think moving the existing Kenny's exit further to the
west, making it wider which is what it's appearing to be done on these plans to
where you can't make the left turn in. To where at the point where you're
I
14
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
I
entering into 78th Street or whatever they call that little part there, it's
11 actually two lanes wide versus one lane wide where you are. If you could cut
through the 76 station and go out their drive, it would be a better exit.
That's basically what they're doing here is cutting out the west side of where
the, the Auto Unlimited there. We're not using the same exits. We're moving a
little bit west which should improve it a little. As long as we're talking on
this intersection, Gary and I discussed this intersection this morning and we
definitely are going to have to do some serious looking at this intersection and
' the sign posts and the trees and everything in there. As a friend of mine at
work described it, he says the veterans in Viet Nam would have liked to have as
good of cover as the cars do as they come up this hill. So anyway, Pthink it's
going to be an improvement over what we have today. It's not going to be the
ideal but I don't think we can pull it back far enough east to make it useable.
Then it will get too close to Great Plains. I think this is the best compromise
the engineers can come up with. I agree with you, the engineers, this
intersection is not working the way they promised us. The way their computer
said it would. I think it's gotten a little better from the people getting more
aware of the intersection and using it a little better. When it first opened
' up, it was really bad.
Councilman Boyt: I have another point if I might on this and that's the
' sidewalk issue. I think that sidewalks, if they stay the way they are now,
indicate that people are not going to take the shortest direction to get where
they want to go. I doubt that. I think that when people come out of that
apartment building, they're going to cut straight for wherever across there and
likewise, if they want to go to Kenny's, I doubt that they're going to take the
great circle route to get there. They're just going to go straight across. I
don't think that by putting a sidewalk in there we're going to encourage all
that many people to use it. I would rather see us wait until we get these
buildings in place. See where people are actually going and then give than a
sidewalk. Why tell them where we want them to walk when I'm pretty sure
they're not going to walk there because it just doesn't happen to be the
shortest distance anywhere.
Councilman Johnson: Just concrete everything in. It's about what they did at
' the University of Texas to follow where the students were going.
Councilman Boyt: Let them cut the path in the grass and then put concrete in.
Anyway, I think it's nice to have a sidewalk so we can give it some kind of
protection but I'd like to see them laid out so they in fact go the shortest
distance between the places we think people are going to want to go.
Mayor Chmiel: Any further discussion? Hearing none, does someone want to make
a motion?
Councilman Boyt: Yes, I'll make a motion just to see how we do with it. I'll
move that we approve the site plan with the elimination of the exit from the
Cenex station. What was the Cenex station. The exit at the west end of Kenny's
parking area. And that engineering be directed to come up with another plan for
the sidewalk that provides a more direct route. That doesn't sound like it's
4 going to get a second so if somebody else wants to try one.
Councilman Workman: I'm still trying to figure out an option on this. Without
being able to vent traffic off of that corner of that parking lot, I'd like your
15
■
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
idea. Just extending that median so that they can't make a U turn or a left
there doesn't excite me either.
Councilman Johnson: They don't have to extend the median. It's already far
enough once you move to the new location. You just can't make a U turn and go
back in there.
Councilman Boyt: It's just not a good place to have traffic entering 78th ,
Street. We're never going to be able to control it there whereas at least at
Great Plains, if we need to, we can put a sign in.
Councilman Johnson: I don't like having basically one exit from an area. I
Councilman Boyt: Well, they can go down and enter and exit from the other side
of the professional building if they want to. I wouldn't encourage them to go
through all that parking lot.
Councilman Johnson: Then I'll move approval with the 3 conditions recommended ,
by staff. That the area be platted. Submission of final facia, signage,
exterior building lighting for Planning Commission approval prior to issuance of
building permit and the third one, traffic engineering should review sidewalk
location with, add review, change it slightly to discuss also that we want to
try to make the sidewalks as much on the shortest distance as possible.
Maximize accessibility of the sidewalks? How about that? That's my motion.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Johnson: Okay, next. What's our stumbling block?
Mayor Chmiel: I think the accessibility coming in and out of that specific
location of which Bill is basically objecting to.
Councilman Johnson: Bill's motion handled that, he eliminated it.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, that's right. ,
Councilman Boyt: I guess we haven' t worked out a good solution to it. I don' t
know that we can.
Mayor Chmiel: Can we make a recommendation of what staff has suggested with
further study for that accessibility?
Councilman Johnson: It'd work better if we took out the clock tower.
Mayor Chmiel: Some people might like that. I
Councilman Boyt: I voted against it the first time around, I'll stay consistent
with that.
Councilman Workman: Can we move the clock tower? II
Councilman Johnson: We can move it over to your yard?
Councilman Workman: Put it by Admiral Waste.
I
16
City y Cou i nc 1 M eeting - February 27, 1989
II 1
Councilman Boyt: Well Gary, do you have an alternate solution here?
Gary Warren: This was the alternate. Not to be coy about it but I guess from
where it started anyway, extending the median to eliminate the left turn
movement which as Don had presented, was our largest concern at that
intersection. All the hits that that intersection has taken, withstanding, I
guess I do not feel that, if we had a preference and we could put on the
' blinders to the other aspects of the parking area, fine. That's not a good
connection to make. But the additional access that that does provide or exit
from the Kenny's area parking ramp I think is justifiable. The added
complications that it might add to that intersection which I don't think are
that significant. As a vehicle leaves the parking area there, it's in a
transition area where basically there is only one lane that you can enter and
then it widens out to the two turning movements so I think from that standpoint,
it's a visible and that clearly understood movement for both traffic going
westbound on West 78th Street and traffic exiting the parking area. If traffic
backs up from the stop sign in there, you can't get out and you have to wait.
That's as simple as it is so I don't see it as, it's an inordinate complication
of that section.
Councilman Boyt: Gary, it really doesn't make available anything that isn't
already available without it. We're talking a right in. Well, to turn off 78th
Street onto Great Plains Blvd. is not difficult. We're talking a right out. To
come out of that parking lot at Great Plains Blvd. and take a right is not
II 1 difficult. It's taking a left that can be the challenge. So what are we
adding?
1 Gary Warren: I think the primary movement that you've getting out of it is the
right out. An easier right out especially as it relates to the internal
corridors that have been established with the parking lot.
Councilman Johnson: I will take the position of the businessman sitting in that
shopping center and take his point of view. I'm the guy driving along. I've
gone past Great Plains. I look over and see Kenny's and said, oh the wife told
' me to pick up milk. With that driveway there I can stop in Kenny's and pick up
milk. That's about when I usually remember it is when I'm going past. Without
it, I go to Brooke's.
Councilman Boyt: That's what I say. Just go down two more blocks, you've got
that covered. Wait until next fall and you can go another two blocks and you'll
hi.t_the third convenient store.
Councilman Johnson: Really. The people paying for this are Kenny's and 9 y nd these
folks too. We start taking away their access and then we're going to have a fun
' hearing on March 13th.
Councilman Workman: Gary, where were you going to have the stop sign and the
speed bumps? Number 3.
ICouncilman Johnson: It says consider.
Councilman Workman: Consider. Where would we add the stop signs or speed
bumps?
17
: 11
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
Councilman Boyt: In the parking lot.
Councilman Workman: I know but where? Anywhere?
Steve Hanson: Where the pedestrian crossings were.
Councilman Workman: Speed bumps at the pedestrian crossings just by Kenny's ,
there?
Steve Hanson: Speed bumps or signs. In both cases where the sidewalks go
through that parking area. The concern was to slow that traffic down.-
Gary Warren: Internal to the parking lot.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm looking for a motion.
Councilman Johnson: Let me change my motion slightly and try it again. I'll go
the same motion as last time, 1, 2, 3. Modifying 3 to maximize accessibility.
The sidewalk situation and add a fourth to further review the intersection that
we've been discussing and see if there is any other alternatives.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that's a good solution.
Gary Warren: One clarification maybe. The actual construction plans for the
north side parking lot, if authorized by the Council here, would be another
opportunity for the Council to review that connection and that would be the
final say, so to speak, as to whether we're actually going to construct that or
not. So that will be after the feasibility study clears the public hearing on
the March 13th meeting and if plans and specs are authorized, it will be brought
back for Council review at that time and that would allow us further time to
also bring back any justification, either for k oping it or eliminating that
connection.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to further stipulate on that item 4 that March
13th public hearing, we want the information on alternatives by the March 13th
public hearing because when we have a hearing on how we're going to assess the
people and we talk about assessment costs and everything to the people, we ,
better know what we're going to do with our access. So we want that item 4 back
by March 13th.
Mayor Chmiel: Is that a problem? ,
Gary Warren: We'll have our consultants work on that one.
Councilman Workman: Can you read your number 4 again? ,
Councilman Johnson: Have the consultants review the intersection to see if
there's any possible alternatives and if possible, have a modified alternative
by March 13th.
Councilman Workman: Could staff also take into account the rest of the
intersection including the clock?
I
18
/I
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
1
Councilman Johnson: They're free to look at anything. If the alternative is to
II move the clock tower, yes. I'd love to expand that to include the entire
visibility on that intersection. As you try and make that left turn and you're
looking down the road, you've got two, like 6 x 6 or 4 x 6 sign posts and a
light post and half a dozen trees between you and the cars but I think that
should be taken up under a different thing. I should have put that under
Council Presentations but yes, I think that they're open to look at anything.
I'm not tying their hands in anyway.
Councilman Boyt: Isn't part of this process to get bids?
Mayor Chmiel: That's right.
Councilman Boyt: You want the bids to reflect something specific, that's why
you drew this up right?
Gary Warren: The plans and specs will be the documents that would be bid on
which would be coming at the future meeting.
Councilman Boyt: That's going to be done before the 13th?
' Gary Warren: No. We're looking for authorization to prepare them at the 13th.
Councilman Boyt: So the 13th I get a chance to vote against this? Okay.
Councilman Johnson: Again. And then after that, on plans and specs you get
another chance to vote. You get two more chances.
Don Ashworth: And award of bids.
Councilman Johnson: And award of bids, you've got 3 more chances.
' Mayor Chmiel: Rather than just sitting and holding this, I'm going to second
your motion.
Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve Site Plans for the
parking area of the north side public parking lot as part of the site plan
review of the Chanhassen Professional Building #88-17 based on the plans stamped
- "Received February 8, 1989" and subject to the following conditions:
1. Platting the area.
2. Submittal of final facia, signage and exterior building lighting
for Planning Commission approval prior to issuance of building permits.
3. Traffic engineering should review sidewalk location on the east portion of
the parking lot for safety with the possibility of realigning that sidewalk,
adding stop signs or speed bumps and to maximize accessibility.
II , 4. Direct staff to have the consultants review the intersection to see if
there's any possible alternatives and if possible, have a modified
alternative by March 13th.
I All voted in favor and the motion carried.
19
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
I
REVIEW LAKE LUCY ROAD TRAIL/PARKING ISSUE.
Mayor Chmiel: The next item is the review of the Lake Lucy Road trail/parking I
issue. My suggestion at this time is that I'm going to propose in tabling the
issue at this time but we will take public comments on this. We will bring this
back to the Council on March 13th. So anyone wishing to address the issue.
Tom Steinkamp: May I ask why you want to table it?
Mayor Chmiel: Because there's one council member that's not here. Please state ,
your name and address please.
Tom Stei.nkamp: Tom Steinkamp, 1771 Pheasant Circle. First of all I think 1
there's a bunch of people here. Maybe everybody concerned with this matter
should stand up. Either for or against it. Now you want to table this?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Tom Stei.nkamp: I mean and make us come again. I guess my comments on the
thing, on the situation is I can understand maybe that some people would like to
park on Lake Lucy Road. I think the issue is maybe way bigger than that. It is
a trail. I've talked to some of you people. I think some of the other people
have talked to you people. Some of you people have the idea that the trail
doesn't get used. You drive it two times a day. I think Tom you drive it two
times a day probably at 7:30 in the morning and 5:30 in the evening to pick up
and deliver your kid from daycare. That's what you told me. 1
Councilman Workman: 5:30? I did not tell you that.
Tom Steinkamp: Okay, well you told me two times a day. In the morning and
evening. It's probably around 5:30.
Councilman Workman: It's more like 8:00-8:30 in the morning and about 3:30 in 1
the afternoon.
Tom Steinkamp: I think if you got out there and people are home in the evenings
on nice evenings you'll see that it gets used.
Councilman Workman: I don't disagree that it's not used. That's not my point. '
Tom Steinkamp: Okay. I think that the trail is a part of a broad comprehensive
trail program. Trail system that the city's got in place that I think has been
voted on and passed which someday may come to reality. Did any of you guys know
why Lake Lucy Road was realigned to the south on the west side of Lake Lucy
Road? Does anybody know? Wasn't it to line it up to extend it to County Road
41 at a future date?
Gary Warren: The City's State Aid program does provide for continuing Lake Lucy
out to TH 41. Because of the property owner at the time, Merrill Stellar was
platting Lake Lucy Highlands, that was at the fulcrum that got the road platted
and the right-of-way established as it is.
Torn Steinkamp: And that allows for Lake Lucy Road to continue?
20 1
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
I
II } Gary Warren: Because we couldn' t push it through the Melody Hills area because
{
those roads are already there.
Tom Steinkamp: Where would that come out on TH 41? About directly across the
street from the park?
Gary Warren: Near the church that's going to be constructed up there.
' Tom Steinkamp: About directly across the street from the park?
' Gary Warren: A little bit north of there.
Tom Steinkamp: I think that adds to part of the reason why there should be a
trail there. These people in Curry Farms. Us people in Pheasant Hills. I
think we'd be more apt to use your parks if we could get to them but if you're
constructing roads and you're not thinking about trails, this trail's already
there. I mean in the long range plan, there's going to be a need for it. Yes,
it doesn't go anywhere right now. It goes from Lake Lucy Road to Galpin Blvd.
but I think in the long term it's going to go someplace. I voted for the trail
system that failed. The reason I voted for it is I looked at how that trail
system was going to affect me. It was going to affect me because I could get on
' it. If you take away the trail on Lake Lucy Road, I'm not going to be able to
get on any other trails. I think it's necessary to keep it there. I think the
concern of one or two citizens or homeowners. I think there were 11 homeowners,
. 25 signatures, 11 properties, that signed the petition. I think there's a lot
more people that use the trails and want the trails there. I guess when I build
a house I have to consider the parking and I guess I can't see that I need to go
to the city to supply parking for me. I live on a cul-de-sac and there isn' t
much parking on the cul-de-sac. Does that mean that I can come to you and ask
for parking lot across the street from me or something? I think you're opening
yourself up to building parking lots in this city also. I think the people use
' it. I think it's going to get used more. I think it'd be foolish to take
something away. Yes, I'd like to have it a 6 foot trail off street but I think
that's going to cost some money and people aren't going to want it and it will
' further encroach their yards and I can certainly understand that but I can't see
taking away something that's there already. Thank you.
Joe Moran: My name is Joe Moran and I'm building a home right now on Lake Lucy
' Road. 1441 Lake Lucy Road and I expect to be moving in from Eden Prairie
sometime in April. What I have here is the petition that the previous
gentleman referred to and I'd like to present that to you. Also I'd like to
have Nancy Tichy provide you some more background and detailed information.
Would you like me to read this?
' Mayor Chmiel: Yes, if you would.
Joe Moran: Okay. The petition reads, te, the undersigned who live on or own-
property on Lake Lucy Road petition the City of Chanhassen to allow parking
on Lake Lucy Road. We feel that the best and least expensive way to accomplish
} this would be to remove the no parking bike lane signs and markings. We would
prefer parking made available on one side of Lake Lucy Road in accordance with
State Codes concerning roads of this width. We feel that this solution would
accommodate the residents and citizens of Chanhassen for both parking and bike
useage as it did before the new road was constructed in 1987. You'll note that
21
. !
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
1
there are 37 signatures on the petition. I also have two personal comments I'd
like to make. First of all, being new to this area, I think I'm fairly unbiased I
in terms of the issue. One of the things I was most impressed with was the
sensitivity and sincerity of the people that put this petition together in
addressing the needs and concerns of all of the residents in the area so it
makes me feel good about my choice of moving to this area. The second point i'd
like to make is that I think the work petition is kind of an advisarial kind of
a word and I don't think we're really petitioning against anything. What you'll
find Nancy talking about is really a proposal for something with some very minor
changes to the way things are and I'd like to think of that as more of a
constructive proposal, a compromise solution that meets the needs of all the
people in the area. So with your permission, I'd like to set up the overhead
and have Nancy present the proposal.
Nancy Tichy: My name is Nancy Tichy and I live at 1471 Lake Lucy Road. I would
like to just make a couple comments to what Mr. Steinkamp stated. The area
designated for bike route on Lake Lucy Road is not a trail. They are bike
lanes. I think there is a difference. Also, as far as an overall trail system
for this city, I believe the referendum came to a vote for the citizens this
past fall and was voted down. It had been brought to a vote previously and had
also been voted down at that time. I have several other personal comments that
I'd like to make before I present what the residents who have signed the
petition feel is a good proposal. First, the majority of residents on Lake Lucy
Road would like to be able to park and have the benefit to park on the road as
we were able to before Lake Lucy Road was reconstructed in 1987. The houses
that existed prior to the reconstruction depended on parking and many of us who
live on that road and lived there before the road was reconstructed, were never
told that we would not be able to park on that road. As a matter of fact, we
were told we would be able to park on the road. Secondy, State Aid funded 69%
or about 69% of the cost of improvements made to Lake Lucy Road and 31% or about
of the cost was assessed to the residents with property which abuts to the road.
Since we are funding part of the cost of the road, we feel we should have the
benefit to park on it. Third, the improvements made on Lake Lucy Road were
completed about in August, 1987. The no parking signs and the bike trail signs
were not installed until the following spring in 1988. Now during that time,
that was a 9 month period where the road accommodated the residents for parking.
We parked on the road and it was not often and it also accommodated bikers and
walkers. I bike. I walk and there was no problem. I think many of the people
opposed to leaving the bike lanes there as they are think there's going to be
bumper to bumper parking on that road and during that 9 month span, it was
rarely parked on and it was just for special occasions when we had guests over
or we wanted to hold meetings or something like that we would use the street for
parking or inclement weather. I guess I'd like to present what we think is a
good option for all the residents. We're trying to come up with something that
would please everyone or make it available for everyone. I use the road to bike
and walk and I would also like to park on it. What Joe is putting up on the
overhead is also on this handout. Lake Lucy Road is 36 feet wide and according
to the State Aid Engineering office, the traffic lanes must remain at 12 feet.
That is the minimum which would allow 24 feet of the road used for traffic. If II
parking would be allowed, I believe the State also requires that you allow 8
feet so that would add up to 32 feet. The other 4, feet could be used as a
multiple use route. The only markings, the State requires that you mark the
line for the parking and the center marking. The centerline marking but they do
not allow you, I believe to put the marking for a multiple use route. We feel
22 1
■
1 . .
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
II
I that the changes to the road would be minimum and at a minimum cost to the City.
It would be a matter of removing the no parking signs on the south side of the
street and move the center stripe 2 feet north. Now we don't really care which
side the parking is on. The parking could go on the south side or the north
II side, it doesn't matter. We feel that this proposal meets the MSA guidelines.
Is modeled after plans used by the cities of Hopkins and Minnetonka Park and Rec
Departments. They have had similar problems or many problems where they have
I roads where people would like to park on them and also use them for biking and
walking and they have come up with this solution. It's optional but you could
put up the sign bike route and that's what they have done in the past to handle
the parking. It provides needed parking on one side of the road and it provides
I a multiple use route for biking, horseback riding, walking or whatever. We feel
that it accommodates all the residents. Thank you.
I Councilman Johnson: Before our next person from the audience stands up and
talks, I'd like to make a statement. On the two referendums we held, we did not
vote as to whether we will have a plan or not have a plan. The referendum was
II how would we finance trails in this city. It was not, are we going to have
trails in the city. The trail plan was not defeated because it was never voted
on by the citizens. It's never been brought to that. It has passed the various
I Planning Commissions and City Councils and is part of our Comprehensive Plan
required through the Metropolitan Council, etc. . What has been defeated is that
the citizens of Chanhassen do not want to pay for the trail system. Narrowly
defeated twice. The existing system for financing the trail system is through
II new development and charges being directed to the new developers and the new
homes. They each pay a trail fee and industry pays a trail fee as they move in
and through this method we will eventually have a trail system throughout the
II city that our citizens can use. It's just going to take us a lot longer since
we weren't able to pass bonds or pass a referendum for it. So I wanted to
clarify that. I continue hearing from the public that we have voted down a
trail system and that's not true at all. We only voted down how we finance a
Itrail system.
Nancy Tichy: May I ask a question then? Why on some of the sheets it says
IIproposed? On the trail system that I got, it was proposed.
Councilman Johnson: All the trails are proposed because they haven't been built
If they were there then there'd be a trail.
Iyet.Nancy Tichy: I see a proposal as not have been passed yet or needed to be voted
- - on. I don't see it as it's already been voted on and passed. These systems,
1 ' from what I've seen, look like they're proposals. Not that they've been passed
'already.
II Councilman Johnson: Some of them we have to buy land and everything else and
until it's completed, yes.
Nancy Tichy: Then it's still a proposal. It's not a plan.
IIi Councilman Johnson: No it's a trail plan. It's part of our Comprehensive Plan
required by the State for each city to have a Comprehensive Plan.
Nancy Tichy: But it's still a proposal right?
I 23
II
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Sure, but it has never been, as a trail plan we have never
come to the citizens and say do you want trails except for the surveys and in
the surveys overwhelmingly, the citizens did say they want trails in this town.
We came and said do you want to pay for the trails and by an extremely narrow
margin, they lost. They said no, we don't want to pay for the trails. We have
to respect that. '
John Speiss: My name is John Speiss and I live at 6610 Arlington Court. . I'm
relatively new to Chanhassen as a resident. I don't know, a lot of people have
moved out of the city for one reason or another and if you've ever lived in a
city with parking on both sides of your street and in front of your house, you
find out how soon you can't stand it anymore. Everytime you look for a parking
place, somebody's in i.t. The children can't get out between the cars too
easily. A lot of them get hit and I guess one of the big issues about on street
parking is that we do have to have our children out there at some times. Usually
in the summer when everybody's trying to use the parks. It creates traffic. It
creates people driving to our parks and trying to get in there when they're no
parking at the parks. It seems most sensible that if the people want to use the
parks, they can use their bicycles to get there and we won't have a parking
problem. But if we start creating parking all along our trail system, we're
going to have a big problem getting rid of it when it's uncontrolled. I don't
see a problem in the winter. Nobody can park there anyway because of snow
removal. I don't see a problem for the children in the winter. They're not
going to be out there that much but usually when everybody wants to park is in
the summer and it's just going to be overloaded before we know it. Thank you.
Eric Rivkin: My name is Eric Rivkin. I live at 6095 Stellar Court. Stellar
Court is a side road that is a new road that comes off of, empties into
Lake Lucy Road. I won' t have a parking problem necessarily but I fear for my
child's life on Lake Lucy Road when he starts to grow up. Ride a bike. Walk
along the road and I think this problem of safety is a lot deeper than anybody
has mentioned so far. I've had a lot of chance to talk to neighbors here. I
know by name most everybody who's involved in this and is sitting here tonight.
I've also got a little bit of past history with this. During the past year
I built a house, I contracted it myself and I was there every single day driving
along Lake Lucy Road. Before it was paved, I happened to notice that there was
a lot of people using the road. It was appealing to walk on it. Horseback ride
on it. Jog on it. Even bike on it. There were bike races. Jogging races.
Things going along the road and everytime I would drive on it, which was all
times of the day, I'd see a constant stream of people. Especially on weekends.
Now that the road has been paved over, I don't see, I was here every single day
during this past summer and spring and fall and I'd have to say that the
population of strollers and joggers and what not has noticeably decreased and I
it's because of the design of road. I want to stress that safety is the biggest
issue here for me and I think, we had a neighborhood meeting here a couple of
Sundays ago and a lot of the residents voiced very loud opinions about the
feeling that the road was unsafe. That it was converted from basically a quiet
country road, albeit very dusty and something had to be done about that but from
a quiet country road to basically to one equivalent to Highway 101. The
pavement is wider than TH 101. TH 101's pavement is 30 feet. I know.
I measured it because I had a development there that I had to measure it. So
it's designed for motorists. It's not designed for people. It's not designed
for developing or encouraging a community who's getting an influx of a lot of
young families who want a coherent community. It's designed for people to pass
24 '
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
from one end of town to the other. If you're extending to TH 41, which I hope
II you never will, it's just going to aggravate the problem because people are
going to see this as a nice, smooth way to bypass the traffic on TH 5 between
y those Powers Blvd. and TH 41. I changed my opinion about parking. I empathize
with the residents who feel they need parking. I think it was a right that
should not have been taken away or a design feature that should not have been
taken away. But I want to propose a compromise solution that I think might
solve everybody's, maybe solve some problems. It also creates new ones but I
think with some creative legislation, perhaps some work on your parts, maybe
this thing could be considered. I'd like to use the overhead if I could. Right
now the road is 36 feet. You've got 6 feet on either side for what multiple use
' as Joe and Nancy have called it. I think it's a very dangerous situation.
Almost all of the people here tonight have young children who are going to be
growing up.. .and as more people are moving into the area, they're going to want
to visit their friends and the only place to walk is in a very dangerous zone.
' I think for purposes of safety we should consider maybe another proposal in
narrowing the road area down and with a curb in it and put in some sort of
sidewalk off to the side. Now without increasing easements, this has been done
on the Lake of the Isles where they were forced because there just wasn't any
room to go, to be able to create, take the same easement, narrow the road down,
decrease the speed limit, put in a sidewalk and narrow the tar with little bump
outs in the road where you could park for a stretch of a 100 feet or so. Just
park in certain sections so you don't have this problem of a stream of cars or
unsafe opening and closing of doors from parked cars. This gentleman over here
mentioned the problem of children not going between cars and that. Well, by
I 7 spacing the parking areas, you can easily get because there's a lot of open
space between them. I realize there's some problems maybe getting the State to
agree with something like this because we already paid the money but I think
maybe we ought to just go to them and admit that thing's a bad design and we
' want to improve it. The residents are in favor of it and find creative ways to
be able to finance it as cheaply as we possibly can. As long as the objectives
are met and it's making a safe passage, I think we'll all agree, or get some
agreement to what useage it actually is going to be or is. Since the road
project was proposed 2 years ago, there's a lot more residents there. I think
they should have more voice into the use of it. So we'd be able to get, design
it properly for what the residents feel is a good and proper design. I really
feel that this solves the safety problems and it also would solve the super
highway feeling that people get from looking at this road. We basically took a
dirt road and converted it into a beautiful highway. It is straight. It's
' smooth. It's got curves. It's better looking than Galpin Blvd. or Powers.
People are going to use it as a passage between the two roads and all the way to
TH 41 and I think that's a real mistake. I think we should encourage it as a
'
community street and make it look like one, work like one and be a safe one. I
don't think it should look like a passage street with this dividing a community
up. And an unsafe one at that so that's my opinion.
' Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I believe Eric's come up with an interesting
Alternate #26 or whatever on this. With his basic plan, I think some of his
numbers are a little mixed up on his drawing but with his basic plan, instead of
having to put a full 8 foot side bump out on parking, you'd only need about a 4
! foot bump out on parking and you'd have the 34 foot width of travel space at the
parking area. We would still have a 6 foot trail on the north side. I like
his idea of trying to separate the trail. The method of separating may not be
to build a full concrete or raised area. It may be just to run a beam of, a
' 25
I
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
1
little seam of asphalt like our little islands except for not as big as an
island to separate the traffic from the people. I think the cost consideration
here would be considerably less. We would solve the problems of the people on
the north side saying they don't want an off-street trail because that impinges
more into their yard. By providing a couple of the cut outs at the proper
locations, the cost of the cut outs are going to be half of what they used to be
because they're only half as big now. We could put more cut offs in there for
parking. By having a slight separation, by having a curb between the-walking
area and the driving area, it would be a safer walking area and there are kids '
walking on that street. Thank you Eric. I appreciate looking at this. I think
this is an alternative that needs to be looked into a little closer. When it
comes out, it's much less expensive than the $47,000.00 to $60,000.000. It may
be a little more expensive because I would like to put something to keep the
cars to where they don't come over into the walking area to where we have it a
little safer. That maintains the trail. It might work.
Joe Moran: I'd like to build on what you just said. I think the idea of the
bump in the highway along this multiple use route is a very good one indeed. I'm
also concerned for the safety of our children. I
Councilman Johnson: It'd be on the other side. It'd be on the parking side.
Joe Moran: This would be the multiple use route for traffic for the trail
system.
Councilman Johnson: In Eric's version, the bump outs would be on the south '
side.
Joe Moran: In Eric's version there were bump outs for parking but I'd like to
call your attention to the fact that at the top of the hill at Lake Lucy Road
after the construction, the road was raised about 6 or 8 feet. When I first
bought the property there, this was from the gravel road down to my property was
a nice little slope of about 3 or 4 feet and now it's a 9 foot cliff. There
would be no way you could put a bump out there or on the property on either side
of it. So the bump out idea probably isn't feasible in this area but I really
do like the idea of having some separation between the multiple use route and
the traffic.
Councilman Johnson: The bump out will be the where the parking will be. That's
what the bump out's for. At the point where you're going to have parking.
Joe Moran: I was referring to the raised hump that you talked about rather than
a raised sidewalk that would be put in for pedestrians. ,
Councilman Johnson: On your version of it, I'm not going to drop it down to 4
foot. 4 foot isn't even enough for a residential sidewalk. We have to keep
that 6 and then go for a variance from the State to allow for parking at 6 on
your version of it because we would be down to less than 34 feet.
Eric Rivkin: You could buy an easement, just 4 feet on the edges of the bump I
outs for the sidewalk. In other words, you don't have to extend it to 40 feet
all the way. Just in the areas where the bump outs are. That might be added so
you have enough passage for bikers on the road and correct me if I'm wrong but
is it illegal to have biking on a sidewalk?
26 1
I
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
.)1
Councilman Johnson: I'm not worried about the biking because this is a wide
J enough street for the bikers are compatible with the cars. I'm worried about
the walkers.
Eric Rivkin: 24 feet is enough for bikers and cars?
' Councilman Johnson: Yes.
Eric Rivkin: It is? Okay.
Joe Moran: I want to make one other point. When you think about the on street
parking, we're not imagining a whole stream of parked cars on the side of this
road. Most of us have plenty of parking already except in the rare instances
' where we'd have vistors for Christmas or Thanksgiving or things like that where
we'd overflow and then we'd need to have something for people on rare occasions.
' Councilman Johnson: Can we do parking by permit only?
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else wishing to address?
Mark Lewis: Mark Lewis at 1771 Ri.ngneck. I've been here since April. I read
an article about this street when it was paved over and the people complained
that lived there about the cost. The street's fine. Leave the street alone. I
use it. The cost of all this is not going to be paid by everyone that is not in
favor although we have no choice because we live here. The people that live on
the street are complaining of the cost of changing everything. There's joggers
on there. There's bikers. There's walkers. The street is not dangerous. The
' drivers are dangerous. There's no street that's dangerous. What's the speed
limit? It can't be a highway if it's 35.
Larry Kerber: 30 and 35. Half of it is 30 and the other half is 35.
Mark Lewis: I use the street in the morning at 5:30 on a nice day in the
morning when I jog and in the evening I'm out and there's no problem with the
traffic. The problem I see right now is all the construction in Curry Hills?
Curry Farms? That's where the problem is right now. I don't think that the
' cost of changing it is going, we're making all these proposals to change it is
worth taking apart'a street that's already fine. You can park on one side.
Maybe that's a compromise. Park on one side of it and leave one side open.
Thank you.
' Larry Kerber: My name is Larry Kerber. I have property at the corner of Lake
Lucy and Powers Blvd.. I agree, our street is wide enough now. It's a 36 foot
' road. It's wider than any road leading to It or from it. It's the widest road
there. It's wider than CR 17, CR 117. It's almost 50% wider than the roads in
Pheasant Hills and Curry Farms. Those roads accommodate parking on either side,
two way traffic, biking, jogging, whatever they want. This road is, like
II I said, almost 50% wider than that. I can' t believe we can' t work parking on
j one side alone and still accommodate bikers and joggers. It's just a wide
enough road. The speed limit is low enough. The visibility, everything was
I supposed to be increased when they redid it so the road just has to accommodate
this. I can't believe we can't come up with a solution for it with the road we
have. Another thing I'd like to point out. This parking issue is not just
27
I
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
something for the Tichy's. There are people all along that road need parking.
There's Palmers on the end. Babbits. All the way down to the other end where
my property is with the 3 little houses on the corner. They park on it
virtually every night one of the cars is out there. One of them does
babysitting. Another one has another occupation where they've got a car home
and just about every night I go by there I'll see a car in the street so it's
not just for Tichys. Everybody needs the parking occasionally. We're the
people who paid for the road. We're also the people who had the parking and I
think we should have it back.
Kathy Kerber: I'm Kathy Kerber and I guess what I'd like to remind the Council
is right now at this time Curry Farms has something like 6 acres, 7 acres park
in it right now? And the Pheasant Hills is looking at a possible parkland of
11 to 12 acres right in the northeast corner of that subdivision and I guess I
don't really see where the trails is something that should be in line because
the kids are going to be playing in the parks. And I, myself would much rather
see the money spent putting playground equipment in those parks so the kids play
in the park rather than riding alongside of a road without an adult or walking
in a street without their parent. They belong playing in a park and I guess one ,
thing that really upsets me is my daughters and I ride Lake Lucy Road. We have
for the past 10 years. We walk it. We ride bikes. We've never had a problem.
We've always been able to park alongside of our property and I guess I'm just
really irritated by the fact that some people represented their concerns at the
last Park and Rec meeting. My understanding at this last Council meeting, this
was tabled to this meeting and yet they discussed it anyway and the people there
concerning their problems were people that lived at least within a half a mile II off of Lake Lucy Road. I believe children belong playing in parks and not along
roads.
(There was a tape change at this point in the meeting.)
Jim Mady: . ..we haven't had a problem. Thank God. Knock on wood. A child
hasn't been killed in our city. We're trying to prevent that right now. If we
wait until that happens, we're all the poorer for it. If there is a way to do
this, and I understand tax dollars are very tight but we need to investigate
this plan. I ask the Council to allow the Park and Rec Commission to review
this item. Your last meeting you wouldn't let us review it because you needed
to go forward. Time was of the essence. Mr. Mayor, your motion tonight is to
table it again. I believe it's important enough that we need to get heads
together and get staff to review this item and let's get a good design that
everyone can live with, especially the children in our community.
Councilman Boyt: Excuse me Mr. Mayor but it would seem to me that it would be 1
appropriate to hear from people who haven't spoke at all before we hear from
people the second and third time.
Mayor Chmiel: We'll keep the meeting open for anyone who wishes to address
anything at all Bill.
Nancy Tichy: I would like to just comment on what Mr. Mady had said with I
reference to the Park and Rec Commission meeting that was held on February 14th.
I was informed via phone conversation and by letter from the Park and Rec
Commission that the bike trail issue would not be addressed and it would be
addressed by the engineering department. On February 13th at the City Council
28
I
City Council Meeting - Fe bruary 27, 1989 _
I
meeting, I believe the City Council voted to have Westwood Professional Services
' do a study on alternatives regarding bike and parking useage. The Council
decided that Park and Rec would not meet on this issue. On February 14th at the
Park and Rec Commission meeting, discussion was initiated by Park and Rec which
was against the vote of the Council and I believe this was unethical.
Tom Steinkamp: Were you at the Park and Rec meeting?
' Nancy Tichy: No, but I have the Minutes and I can read you.. .
Tom Steinkamp: Were the Minutes recorded Minutes?
' Nancy Tichy: Yes.
' Tom Steinkamp: Because there was some comment about the trail system in regards
to the Pheasant Hills request for parkland. I think I was the one that brought
it up.
' Nancy Tichy: Mary Cordell was. ..
Tom Steinkamp: But at any rate, I don't know that from what I took from the
Park and Rec Commission meeting was not so much that, yeah they were unhappy I
think that they weren't involved in it but their main thing was, hey you people
that want these trails, that use these trails, to stand up and speak your mind
or know about it. I guess I xead the Council meeting agenda and there was
II ; something to the effect of parking on Lake Lucy Road but by gosh if I would have
' known that the elimination of a trail was about to be voted on, I'd have shown
up so I think it's unfair to the Council not to inform the people about what's
going on or what's potentially going to be voted on. I guess I find it hard to
believe that without any input from any of the other side of the story that it
came that close to a vote to eliminate the trails completely. I don't have a
' problem with parking on this street but I don't want to give up, I don't see it,
to give up the trails in lieu of that. If we can come up with some sort of a
compromise where we can have parking and we can have a trail, I'm for that. I'm
not for, I can understand your position but I think parking and maybe you can
' correct me if I'm wrong, I think a bike trail on the street you have to have a
bike trail both directions then don't you? Okay, so if you eliminate it off of
one side of the street, don't you eliminate it off of both sides of the street
' unless you make it an off street bike trail? Is that correct? So really what
you're talking about is if you're going to have a bike trail, you're going to
have to have it off street or you're going to have it some way divided from the
street. Now if you're going to have parking on one side and a small median like
the gentleman suggested and then your bike trail, that's fine and I think off
street would be the best but that may be costly too.
Councilman Johnson: Can I ask you a question? Are you for only a bike trail
or. ..
Tom Steinkamp: I think it should be multipurpose. Bike or walking or what have
you.
Councilman Johnson: Because to me bike trail and walking aren't terribly
compatible if you get the helmeted 10 speeders or 12 speeders running down
through there. I think that the bikers, a trail that a kids on and a 2 wheeler
29
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
1
with training wheels is something different. What would you feel about having,
not a bike trail but just a multiple use trail on one side of the street and
[11
parking on the other?
Tom Steinkamp: Yes, I don't have any problem with that. I guess it was my
understanding that if you eliminate it on one side you eliminate both sides. '
Councilman Johnson: Only if it's a bike trail.
Tom Steinkamp: It's a bike trail now, is that right?
Councilman Johnson: Right.
Jim Mady: It's a bike lane.
Larry Kerber: Now does that allow walkers and joggers or is that specifically '
for bikes?
Councilman Johnson: I have no idea.
Larry Kerber: I know the bikers don't because they never use it.
Kathy Kerber: Jay, the State Engineers did tell me that if you put the parking
in, they can still serve bikers and walkers on that same side that the cars are
parked in. That is not a problem.
Tom Steinkamp: But I don't think that's the way to do i.t. '
Kathy Kerber: As any other road does. '
Tom Steinkamp: I think you're really then, you're just making a parking lane
that you can ride bikes on.
Councilman Johnson: In drivers ed one of the big things you always look at is
the ball coming out from behind the car. The car just hides the vision of the
kid that's there which if you have kids walking along, you don't want to give
them something to hide behind.
Tom Steinkamp: I think you do that, with putting in parking and not having some
means for a trail or a bike lane or walking or multiple use or whatever you want
to call it, I think you're just compounding the problem then. You're going to
have the people out there. Pheasant Hills, it's safe to say that Pheasant Hills
park, if it does go through, it isn' t going to happen for 5 years anyways and
we're going to want to use Curry Farms park. If Lake Lucy Road ever goes to TH
41, we're going to want to go to the park there and I think you people are too.
I think to make it more dangerous than it is is foolish. I'd like to see some
way that you can park on it but I don' t want it, not at the expense of giving up
a trail or a bike lane or whatever you want to call it.
Mary Cordell: Hi, my name is Mary Cordell and I live at 1730 Lake Lucy Lane and 1
our property does abut Lake Lucy Road. It goes down to Lake Lucy Road. I've
been listening to a lot of the different proposals tonight and a lot of the
different opinions on the bike lanes or the multiple use trails. I'm definitely
in favor of keeping some sort of a multiple use trail and I guess the proposal
30 '
I
City Council Meeting February- ary 27, 1989
that struck me as meeting my needs the best and possibly the needs of the
I community was Eric's. That would narrow the road which make it seem like not
such a highway going through a purely residential area and putting some type of
a barrier for multiple use. For biking. Whatever and then having the, I don't
' know what they're called, the little butt outs in the road for the parking.
That would seem to me, it would meet the needs of the people that would need
parking and it would also provide a safer road for our children to bike on or to
walk on and retain our trail system.
' Ed Hasek: My name is Ed Hasek. I'm a resident of Chanhassen. I live at 6570
Kirkwood Circle. I'm also a member of the Park Board. I guess there's been a
' lot of discussion tonight about design. I guess I'm really impressed at the
amount of engineers we have here in town. I also called MnDot today and talked
to a Mr. Chuck Weisenbaum who is the head of the State Aid Section Department at
' MnDot. I asked him I guess for a number of options that might be available to
us on this trail. As a member of the Park board it's important to me that we
keep a trail of some sort through this alignment to eventually connect to
MIS school and to the County park over on Lake Minnewashta. He informed me that
' if we were to put parking on one side of the road we'd have to completely
eliminate any sort of a trail on the road surface itself. It takes 36 feet to
get 2 lanes of traffic and parking into a State Aid design road so the option of
' putting some sort of a trail on with parking has been eliminated if we should so
choose to do that. I asked them about other designs that might fit into a 36
foot wide road surface and he said there is one alternative but they frown on
IIeven implementing it and the reason for that is because how far the center line
? has to be moved. If you're to put parking on one side and two lanes of traffic,
? the center line now is off center on the road. In instances where you have snow
on the road surface and an unfamiliar driver, they're driving down the road
l thinking that the middle of the road is the center line of the road when in fact
it's not. That's why they hesitate and really frown on even approving that and
they'll only approve it in the worse case scenario if there are no other
options. I guess related to design, I would like to suggest that perhaps the
City's engineering staff and any engineering consultants they have, sit down
with the State, as long as the State is funding this thing 61% and we'd like to
keep that funding, and see if they can' t come up with a design that would work
' for both of us. The thing that I liked about this particular project, the way
that it went in was the fact that we got the State to pay for a part of our
trail system. Something that is difficult, it going to be difficult for this
' City to do. Living on the other side of Lake Minnewashta, we have no parks and
we have -no trails. We have nothing over there. All we have are our
neighborhood streets to play on. We have no way of getting from Cathcart Park
down to our neighborhood on the side street on any sort of a trail system. We
have to cross TH 7 to get to that park. The next closest park is over in
Minnewashta Heights and that's just a small neighborhood park and we have to
travel down TH 7 to get to it. If we wanted to go down to the Arboretum, we
' would have to go about 2 miles down Minnewashta Parkway. Talk about a narrow
street with no trails marked on it whatsoever so as a member of the Park Board
and I would certainly hope that the Council would consider the possibility, if
I this trail were to come off of this alignment, they would consider the
possibility of working in my neighborhood before they would look at spending
more dollars putting a trail into this alignment when we've already got on in
this alignment. I've got a lot of irritated neighbors out there that forced me
onto this planning comni.ssi.on to keep harping on the issue of getting a trail
and a park in my neighborhood. We haven't been able as a park board to fund
31
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989 11
I
dollar one to even study the possibility out there yet and now we're talking
about maybe putting in another trail on this alignment and spending $45,000.00
to $65,000.00 in addition to what's already been spent out there. , If we were to
change the design, I was informed by Chuck Weisenbaum that we'd lose our State
Aid funding which to me would seem to indicate that the residents who paid for
the first 31% would then be burdened with an additional 69%. Either that or the
rest of the residents in town would have to pick that up and I'm sure that if
you brought the issue before the rest of the residents who are now going to be
paying for that particular road, that they would want to see that trail in place
before they had to pay for perhaps a road that they don't even use. I think
I have to agree. I think safety is a primary issue in this thing and that was
the concern that we had when we put the trail in in the first place. 6 feet is
a minimum design standard by the State for each side. You can't have it on only
one side because of bicycle traffic. If you take the bicycle traffic off of it,
then you don't have a multi-purpose trail at that point so I stronly urge the •
Council to consider leaving in place the trail before they look at any other
options. The one other thing I wanted to mention was the bump outs. I guess by
State Aid standards, I don't believe that the bump outs, and it's not a question
that I asked specifically Jay but I think it's one that needs to be asked, I
don't think that they would approve bump outs but I'm not sure of that. That's
something that I think the engineers should talk about a little bit. There was
a comment made about TH 101 being narrower than this. Yes, it's narrower than
this simply because it's a rural section road. It's not an urban section road
and it goes under completely different design standards and it also doesn't have
trails on other sides so there i.s no comparison between TH 101 and this
particular piece of road. The 'traffic counts on that road as of 1987 as counted
by the City were 587 ADT. That's average daily trips. That's simply a car
going on direction or another on that road. It's projected to carry 1,000 by
the time that it's through and it's projected to carry more than that if Lake
Lucy Road should be extended to TH 101 so it does qualify as a collector and
maybe even a high collector by the time the whole thing is built and collectors
are those areas that are looked at, and when Met Council considers alignment for
trail systems so we're not out of line thinking about this corridor for a trail.
I guess the only question is under which design and again I'd like to stress
that I'd like to see it stay there so we can spend the money that it might cost
to put that trail off of the road and service some other areas of the city where
residents like myself and my neighbors have no recreational facilities
whatsoever. Thank you.
Eric Rivkin: I agree. We need a trail system but we need a safe trail system. '
If you're going to have trails, when people think of trails they think well I
can walk from one park to the next or my kid can bicycle from one park to the
next with his friends and my son and daughter can go visit their friends in
other parts of the neighborhood and stuff and I like the idea of the trail
system. I appauld it. I think it's wonderful that someday there will be
something that will link all these beautiful parts of the city with one another
but we have to do it safely. Putting pedestrians, small children out onto the
road surface is foolish. We should not do it. We can not do it. If it's the
State's standards, then the State standard is bad. Okay? And we don't have to
follow that. We just do what's right and that's what I want to say. I
Ted Coey: I'm Ted Coey. I live on Lake Lucy Road and I really don't have an ax
to grind as far as the parking because I'm 800 feet off the road so I'm kind of
looking at this from both sides and we've wasted over an hour here talking back
32 11
■
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
I
and forth on an issue that should be settled in about 5 minutes. It's obvious
that what Council's got themselves into and this is the reason you guys are
sitting up here and not somebody else because the doedoes that voted for this
thing about 3 years ago and got this road in place which we didn't want have got
us in this mess. We're sitting with a road that the residents on the road did
not want and if we would have had the road we wanted, we would have probably
paid about the same assessments. We wouldn't have had the State involved and
' you wouldn't be messing around with all this stuff because you could have put
your trail off the road. Now I hope you learned something from this because we
were telling you this for 3 years. Don't get the State involved. We don't want
this road. It's too wide and people are coming back from all the neighborhoods
and saying the same thing. The thing's a freeway. The mess we're in is because
the Council didn't listen to what we were saying and now you've got a problem
with the highway out there. You've got people doing 50 mph, 60 mph on the road
' because it was designed that way. You've got a trail system that is on the
road. It shouldn't be. It should be off the road and you're sitting with a
situation where you've got all the residents going back and forth against each
other and it's stupid. So let's sit down and try to figure out something
without getting the god damn State involved. They're already into this too
much. That's why we've got all the problems. In the future, if you get in a
neighborhood situation like this, don't use the State money. If you get your
' hand out and they get into you and now you're stuck with all their rules.
That's my observation.
IIAl Harvey: Al Harvey, 1430 Lake Lucy Road. I agree with Ted. We petitioned
i against the road. We indicated we did not like our assessment. At that time
there wasn't anyone of these people from the development come and say oh, we'd
be glad to pick up our fair share. I would like to see the Council consider
Ire-evaluating our assessments. If this is such an important thing to all these
new developments, apparently they didn't devote enough land for the parks in
their areas, I would like to recommend the Council reconsider our assessments
' and realign them. It's definitely a benefit to this City. It's definitely a
benefit to the Park and Rec. I'm satisfied with what we got now only because
we've got it. We voted against it. We petitioned against it. It came to deaf
ears on the Council. They listened to us a little bit and come time to vote,
they didn't know us so that's why some of them aren't here and some of them that
are still here remember this going on. I even brought a piece of blacktop that
we did have a blacktop and I gave it to the Mayor showing that it was a blacktop
' road at one time. But the heavy construction tore it all apart. We would much
rather have a 24 foot wide road with parking on either side and then if you
wanted to put a trail on the side, you could have. Now like Ted said, we're
' stuck with what we've got but needless to say, the residents are not happy from
what we got stuck with and the Council did not listen to us and I would suggest
that maybe you go back and if the City wants to do what they want to do, pay for
' it. Don't stick us residents. We're sick with it and we've had enough of it so
that's where it's at.
Tom Crocker: Tom Crocker, 6441 white Dove and I also own some property off of
Lake Lucy Road on Stellar Court. I think it's been expressed that there's a lot
of unhappy people with the Lake Lucy Road decision but unfortunately that's what
we're stuck with. I think the recommendation that was made by a couple of people that the City really take a look at this and try and learn something from
' it. Try to listen to the citizens. Let's not compound one problem with
another. I think the gentleman from the Park and Planning Commission, have them
33
i--
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
1
take a look at that or maybe there's a city engineering staff. I'm not certain
which is the right group but I think the Council is in a little over their head
here. You need to get some facts. You need to get some figures. Obviously we
have very high taxes. One of the highest taxed communities in the State,
particularly in the metro area so money is an issue. One thing that wasn't
mentioned, I have children that are a little older than 4 or 5 or 6 and they do
ride their bikes on that trail and I ride a bike on the trail so I'm in favor of
the trail. It's unfortunate that people that live along the road lost their
parking rights and maybe there is someway to work out with the State some
restricted parking arrangement for certain times over holidays or at night or
something like that when most people aren't biking anyway. Later at night when
the safety conditions aren't there but I think the main issue is that the
Council needs to listen. Needs to study and doesn't need to react immediately
to this concern. The signs have been on the road for a while for no parking and
a little study to try to figure out a good method to this would be time well
spent in my opinion.
Mayor Chmiel: Anymore comments?
Councilman Boyt: Maybe we can comment and that might stir them to further
remarks.
Councilman Johnson: I think we've heard most of the remarks Bill. I think it 1
would be nice for each of us to have a comment but I think we've got more things
going on the agenda and move this along.
Mayor Chmiel: I made a comment previously that I think we should table this
until we have the remaining council person here so there would be 5 people to
come up with conclusions and I'd like to make that into a motion that we table
this to March 13th.
Councilman Boyt: Before we look at a second to that, I would like to make a
comment. First, we are under some time pressure. It may be a little hard to
see that now but when July comes along and we don't have this well connection in
place, we're all going to pay the price for this delay. I think that this trail
is a compromise at best. I assume that the previous Council and I wasn' t here
when they voted on it, but I assume that they placed this trail on the road as a
compromise. If you look at Kerber Blvd., they did exactly the same thing and we
now have off street trail there because it was not safe. It was something that
an adult could use but it was nothing that a parent would trust their child to
be on. So it's an attempt to reduce the impact of neighboring properties and to
minimize the cost for the construction and work out some kind of a balance.
I've heard the figure about 69% but I can tell you that the City Council gave
the residents the maximum allowable State credit for that road. It's my
understanding that that's 80%. I don't know what it is. I won't stand up and
tell you absolutely it is but when we conducted the assessment hearings, that
was the figure I was given and I do know one thing for certain, it was the
maximum amount allowed. It happens to be a collecter. If I was living on Lake
Lucy Road, I wouldn't have wanted it to go in either because a collecter means II traffic and there aren't many people that choose to live on a road that has high
traffic by choice. I wasn't here to vote on that so I couldn't tell you how I
would have voted. I can see the pressure on the City to have more east/west
connecters. As it would turn out, this is the one that got chosen. I don' t
know if that was the right choice but the trail was put on there as a means, as
34 1
I
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
II
Iwas mentioned. It was an economical way to do something that needed to be done
' and it was a compromise. It was not the safest choice. It was an attempt to
balance the need both to limit the intrusion on the property along there and to
try and give the people a safe means of walking or riding in the area. Now
I Mayor, you campaigned against the trail referendum on economic priorities as
I heard several times and not because you said you were against the trail and I
think we need to make it clear that this is not an economic issue. The trail is
' already in and it's already paid for so I don't think we can use economics to
say we should take it out of there so that means it's an issue of public safety
and general welfare and how do we balance those two together and that's why
everybody's here. e all have a slightly different opinion about how that
Ibalance should fall. The trail is part of the comprehensive trail plan. You
can call it a proposal. You can call it a plan. Regardless, it's been approved
by the City Council and it is in writing and I'm sure you've seen a copy of it.
I Now we need some way, I would maintain, to allow people to bike and walk to get
to the parks in the area. Eventually in this case, maybe out to Minnewashta and
the City park down in Lake Ann. There needs to be some way to do that. So how
II do we balance the need against the request for the neighbors to have parking?
The City has gone through this in other places. This is not a new issue. You
can see any number of places in which the City has posted no parking and those
people have lost the right to park in street in front of their house. Generally
1 those have been for safety reasons and I would maintain that that's what they're
doing now. They're saying that this is a safety issue and as it's currently
drawn up, doesn't allow parking. Now, if we put parking on there, and given the
II , current road without changes, I don't think anybody is going to say that that
improves the safety situation. It does improve the parking problem so let's
look at that for a minute. Not being able to park in front of your house is an
'
inconvenience. No one would argue with that. I've always preferred off road
I trails. One of the things I campaigned on 2 years ago was I thought the City
Council was very short sighted in putting trails on the road and I'll never vote
to put one on the road. It's money saved but it's risk assumed. Now if we look
I at the engineering report which was done by a third party, they say there's only
one family on all Lake Lucy Road that absolutely needs some additional parking.
Now we can argue they don't know what they're talking about, whatever and you
II can say that about any engineering report but that's what they said. As it
would happen, the Ti.chey's told me last night that they have two 4-wheel drive
cars and that getting up and down their parking area is not the problem. As
Brian told me last night, the problem is that when they want to have people
I _ over, guests over, _they need additional parking. The City has always worked
with the Sheriff's department to allow additional parking in those situations so
it's not a matter that parking is absolutely not available. It's a matter of
I inconvenience because clearly it's an inconvenience to have to call the
Sheriff's Department and tell them I'm going to be parking out there. I'm going
to have guests. Don't give them a ticket but it's possible to do it that way.
II So how do we balance the inconvenience and the need to make a phone call against
the trail which at best is not the safest trail? Do we come back and spend
$47,000.00, assuming we're not going to take out the wall and tree, we'll figure
some way around that, to put in an off road trail? Now Ed, it wouldn't come out
of Park and Rec money and it's not money that we could take and spend on a trail
117 someplace else. As it works out, it comes out of water money. Ironic that
water money would build a trail but in this case, because we're tearing up the
I ground anyway, that's a possibility. `I don't think we've ever asked this town
if they want a trail system and maybe that would be a legitimate thing to put on -
the vote sometime. Do you want a trail system? But there hasn't been a vote
11 35
II
-City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
II
other than by the Council and the Park and Rec I
imagine that a majority of the citizens in this town would say bthatnwel don' t
't
want trails on our collecters. Even the people that voted, many of the people
01
who voted against the last referendum told me they voted against it because they
didn't want in front of their house. I had one guy on Lake Minnewashta who said
to me, I don't want it on Minnewashta. I never had it and I don't think it's
II
dangerous but I'll bet he's not in the majority. I think if we can figure out a
way to put them on the collecters, the thing will pass because there's
definitely a safety need there but nobody has ever voted to remove the trails
once they've already been built. So I think we should leave the trail as it is 11
on the road. Now we've heard some options. From what I've gathered in talking
to staff, those options won't fly through the State and the system. That we run
II
into problems when we try to put a bike route on one side of the road. I don't
know about the problems when we put a ridge in there and I agree that that would
certainly make for study and worthwhile study but we've got a choice of spending
$2,600.00 in building the pad, and by the way I don't think the City should
spend that money, or we can spend $47,000.00 and build an off road trail. The II
parking pad really doesn't meet the Tichey's need for additional guest parking
because it only has enough room for 3 spots so that's not going to work. So how
do we strike the balance? For my part, we can't lose the trail. Give me one of II
the options that the engineering department and the State says they'll accept
and I can live with that but if it comes down to pulling the trails off the
road, I can tell you that I'll vote against it. I may not vote in the majority
II
but I'll never vote to pull a trail off that, we've already built, off a road in
Chanhassen.
Mayor Chmi.el: Bill, when you say built a trail. Basically there's not a trail. ,
It's just the markings that are on that street right?
Councilman Boyt: Designated and paid for and the road was built to that width
to accommodate it. What would you call that?
Mayor Chmiel: I still would call it just a marked street. Basically it's not a
II
trail.
Councilman Boyt: Well, we disagree.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other :oi�euent? Jay do II
please. Y you want to say sonethi.ng? Quickly
Councilman Johnson: Yes. I think Bill said it more eloquently than I will. II
I'm for the trail. I would like to move this to Park and Rec for them to review
it officially. Trails is under their jurisdiction. They should be having a say
so. They're our advisory board. I think we should ask them. I do not think
that this is going to delay, the only way this delays the contract on the
watermain is, I don't think it delays it anyway to tell you the truth because
this is, the $47,000.00 to $60,000.00 off street trail is an option that can be II
added at any time to the contract. We already authorized them to go out for bid
and that's of the utmost importance is to get that watermain connected. I'm in
agreement. I think there's several options we need to continue looking at. I'm
II
not sure if we need this designated as a bike trail. A bike route is a
different designation which allows you to ride a bike, it designates and warns
people that there are bicycles on the same street as there are cars. Hopkins
has bike routes throughout the City and the street is no different. It's just a
36 1
II
/I
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
1
bike route. I would like to see it looked at to whether the State would look to
Ia variance under certain areas of this. Certain small sections to allow parking
on a variance on one side. Take out the south side trail designation. Bike
trails. Take the bike trail designation off. Hopefully put a little chunk of
' asphalt down to kind of a free standing curb to separate the two areas that we
can have as almost an off street trail. It wouldn't be what I'd want. I'd want
the off street but like you said, this is a compromise that was made a long time
ago. I think there's room for more study on this. I don't think we need to
knee jerk on this tonight or even the last time. I think we came real close, it
was very scary last meeting and I think we need some more study and I think that
that study should not be done at the Council level. I think it can be done at
' Park and Rec level and we want to attend a Park and Rec meeting and give our
comment to Park and Rec and talk to the people. More, I think it needs to be
better advertised as a trail issue and not a parking issue only. But the safety
issue there is my main concern. If we can accommodate parking, I think that as
far as the cost of putting the bump outs, the City caused the problem by
extending the street further to the south. I think primarily if the Tichey's, I
think a lot of their property, the street went their way. In my recollection
' of driving the street a little bit, I didn't drive it a lot when it was gravel.
I don't remember very many people parking along it. It was pretty narrow. You'd
take your car into your own risk if you parked along it. You'd get side swiped.
' Rocks hitting it as the people drove by so I don't think that there was that
much parking before. If you wanted to park it, you might have parked- it there.
Especially at a party or something but I'm for moving this to Park and Rec like
we tried last time and letting them look this over in the next couple weeks and
I come back to us sometime in April because I don't think we're ready to decide on
this in March.
f
I
Councilman Workman: I don't think there's any doubt about what Park and Rec is
going to say about this trail. At all. They're the ones that, and I do have
the Minutes, they're the ones that brought it up. They intended to bring it up
' the whole time, you know, and they did. "Mary, since you brought up Lake Lucy
Road, I don't know if you attend the Council meeting last night but they
discussed taking the trails off Lake Lucy Road and I'd just like to say if any
of you live out there you might want to let the Council know if you don't agree
with what they're doing." We know what the Park and Rec's going to do.
Councilman Boyt: Would you prefer that they didn't inform them?
' Councilman Workman: No, absolutely not. Absolutely not.
Jim Mady: That's what you did to those people.. .
Mayor Chmiel: Just a minute. It's here at the Council. We're discussing it.
Thank you.
Councilman Workman: I think it'd be fine. I think it would be fine if they
would discuss it. I think the information that they're going to come back to us
l with is exactly what Bill has said so eloquently tonight. If they'd like to
discuss it and it's not going to tie things up, that's fine. They can discuss
it for an hour and a half too. That's fine. I don't see what it's going to
accomplish but if that's what they want. They want to get it on their docket
and talk about it for an hour and a half or two hours, that's fine but I think
we know exactly where. It's not a negative to like trails. The Ticheys have
37
I
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
said they use the trail. They like the trail. That's great. They ride their
bikes on it. They use it. People all along it. That's fine but nobody has
said, nobody here tonight that has said keep the trail has said this is my plan
for the parking so the Ticheys and everybody else can park. That's the problem.
It is a parking problem. That's the question. How can we get those people some
parking? If we decide to go with an off road trail, I can tell you that
Elizabeth Ann Glaccum will be here and going nuts. There's going to be a loser
here somehow no matter what. I have told people on the phone, I'm not excited
about removing a trail. If we can keep trails, let's keep trails. Let's work
something out. I think it was made to believe at the Council meeting that
night, we're going to yank them off. That's it. Too bad. And if you're
misguided and I don't think that was ever the point. I don't think it was scary
at all but there are people here with rights as far as their property. The
Ticheys also had to spend excessive amounts of dollars to redo their entire
driveway because of the level of the road as constructed was higher than they
were told. They spent more than even the assessed values. So it's a tough
position for them. I would hope and I'm still standing where I hope we can work
out a trail situation. I talked to Gary Warren today. He said that
realistically an off road trail on the north side could go between the road and
the retaining wall so it would be $47,000.00 instead of $63,000.00 or
$68,000.00. I'd prefer to see the money spent for Well #5 as I indicated that
night. This is a unique situation. This is a unique road. It is putting
unique stress on property owners who live on the road. ,
Councilman Johnson: What's your solution?
Councilman Workman: That's the point. That's the point. What's the solution
and that's what I'm still trying to, that's why I want it tabled so we can
figure out a solution. If we want to table it tonight and send it to Park and
Rec, that's fine too. Maybe they can come up with a solution.
Councilman Johnson: There's been some new ideas come up out of the audience.
Councilman Workman: I like the idea of Eric Rivkin. Making it more narrow.
It is incredibly difficult to go down that road at or near 30 mph. That is a
chore. I don't know, if there are people in this road who are allowing their
kids with training wheels to ride their bike on that road, that's scary. That
white stripe is protecting nobody on that road. It's a shoulder. They're
riding on the shoulder of the road. It's a cheap imitation for any kind of a
trail and somebody is going to get killed on that road with the white stripes
because that's not going to, like I said last time, kids going down that road
ahead of me in a car no where near the trail, right down the center of that east
side hill. It's a difficult situation but I don't think the trail as it is now
is anywhere near adequate. But again, getting back to, we need a solution so
that these people can park also. Again I' ll mention it, these people have had
to put up with thousands of dollars of assessments for this road. They're
putting up with the construction of Pheasant Hills and Curry Farms and the dirt
and everything else. Now the watermain and the possibility of an off street
trail on the north side, which is another situation. Again, I'm for tabling it.
I'll second Don's motion to table it tonight. I don't think we're going to do II
anything with it anyway. If you would like to bring up the motion to send it to
Park and Rec, after that I'd vote for it.
Councilman Boyt: Why don't we do it all in one motion?
38 '
I
I .
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
1
1 1 Councilman Workman: Okay. I make the motion that Council. ..
Councilman Boyt: Refer this to Park and Rec.
1 Councilman Workman: Don, you have the motion?
1 Mayor Chmiel: I'll withdraw my motion and you can make your motion Tom.
Councilman Workman: Did you want to throw your two cents i.n?
1 Mayor Chmiel: No. Go ahead. There's no sense in digressing any further.
Councilman Workman: Let me just add, I'm not against trails anymore than say
1 Don is other than for the economic reasons. I think we need them. I think
we're going to get them. I think that's fine but let's do it properly.
Councilman Johnson: It's a cost of suburbanizati.on and this town is becoming
1 suburban.
Mayor Chmiel: Isn't it time now?
1 Councilman Workman: The motion is that Council table this action this evening
to send it to Park and Rec tomorrow night. For two weeks? 15 days from now?
1 I Lori Sietsema: Our next meeting is the 14th of March.
Councilman Johnson: I think they would like to get some more information. Take
1 a couple weeks from some of the ideas that have been talked about here.
Councilman Workman: I'll start my motion over. My motion is to table Council
1 action this evening and send it to the Park and Rec Commission for further
review.
Mayor Chmiel: I'll second it.
1
Councilman Workman moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to table action on the Lake Lucy
1 - Road Trail/Parking issue and to send the issue onto the Park and Recreation
Commission for review. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1 APPROVE TH 101 DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS/STAGING (PAT HALLISEY LOTS 1 AND 2, HIDDEN
VALLEY 2ND ADDITION AND SINCLAIR STATION ACCESS) .
1 Gary Ehret: I believe the Council has in their packet Figure 2 from our report
and the staff cover memo. Essentially what it's dealing with is a staging as we
perceive it based on a number of issues. The need to provide access to
1 Rosemount. The need to work with MnDot for the TH 5 schedule, etc. but
basically to deal with the staging of Market Blvd. and how it would be
constructed. The staging as we are proposing at this time looks at a three
phase process. The first phase would build Market Blvd. from TH 5 down to what
we refer to as Lake Drive East. That would provide the primary access to the
Rosemount facility. The construction of Phase 1 would be in 1989. That would
1 39
I
"`-City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
be open December 1st of 1989. Phase 2 is a temporar connection I depending on where and what momentum for future construction coflTHb101
to the south might or might not occur. But Phase 2 essentially at this time is
Iii
a temporary connection to connect the permanent Phase 1 condition to old TH 101.
The primary staging of Phase 2 is based, if the Council will recall, on what I
call the north leg of TH 101. The Dakota Avenue intersection. The big issue,
II
one of the big issues there is the funding which is currently in process. The
second issue is the staging with TH 5. Basically TH 101 will remain routed
through the downtown until TH 101 can be routed on the north leg to TH 5 then
down to Market Blvd.. The staging that we've shown calls for Phase 2 to be II
constructed at the time the north leg proceeds and is built. What will then
occur is that the TH 101 designation will be removed from the downtown segment.
It will be routed on the north leg to TH 5. Down the TH 5 corridor to Market
II
Blvd. and down through the Phase 1/Phase 2 alignment. Phase 3 then is the
construction of future Lake Drive East. At this point the approach to Phase 3
has been one based on the desires of the property owner. The entire Phase 1,
Phase 2 and Phase 3 area is essentially an area owned by the M.J. Ward Estate. II
They have given us fairly definitive ideas on what they would like to see for
Phase 3 in terms of the route, location, etc. . What they've also said is they
have no desire to have that segment of roadway proceed at this time. We do not
II
see any significant ramifications delaying that segment of work so that is the
current proposal. One other thing I want to mention. During Phase 2
construction we recognize, in particular, the concerns of Mr. Hallisey relative
II
to the traffic and the business in particular for him that's generated from the
area south of Lake Susan. So what we've shown is a temporary connection that
will allow people from the Lake Susan area to continue up TH 101 and take the
old TH 101 route up to that area. So there is a provision for a temporary
ll
connection in the Phase 2 plan. That in essence is a simple walk through of the
staging as you see in your Council packet. In terms of dates, it's still a
little tough to predict. We had a meeting with MnDot last Friday and got the
latest update on their schedule for the TH 5 improvements and basically the
staging as we have shown it will stay consistent with and fall in line with
their current phasing for the TH 5. With that I guess I would conclude relative
II
to Mr. Hallisey and the staging.
Mayor Chmi.el: Would you like to make a comment Mr. Hallisey?
Pat Hallisey: Not that I need an introduction because I've been here before but II
formally I'll reintroduct myself. I am Pat Hallisey. The managing partner of
Blue Circle Investment Company. The people that own the Total Mart shopping
I
center. It seems as though when I've been here before all you think I can do is
complain. I want to go on record this evening as doing something other than
complaining and that is, let you know that we sincerely do appreciate the
communication between BRW, the City staff and ourselves. Although the timing II
was very short from the time we received the conununi.cation until we had to
respond to it, at least we were informed and we want you to know that we do
appreciate that very, very much. My letter to the City, to Mr. Warren on
II
February 17th, I understand you have that in your packet. I want to go on
record again tonight as saying that we are still violently opposed to the whole
rerouting of TH 101. I don't want to leave any impression in your mind II
whatsoever that we approve of that rerouting in any manner. As much as we don't
make City policy, I guess we have to capitulate to the fact that this Council
has decided that TH 101 is going to be moved at some point in time and now we're
forced with making the best or trying to work with you and make the best out of qui
40
II
II
City Council Meeting -
February 27, 1989
II
a bad situation. I understand the phasing of the first phase and that is to
II construct the new Market Blvd. . My plan called it the new TH 101. I hope you
don't call it the new TH 101, Phase 1 because if you do, you're going to build a
dead end State Highway. That's the continent in my letter because the plan that I
I received called it TH 101. New TH 101. We understand that will be Phase 1. We
do appreciate the consideration given to us in leaving some connection to the
people south of us until such point as Phase 3 is built. As we've stated, our
preference would be for Phase 3 to go at the same time as Phase 1. This would
II give us, what we feel, minimize the affects of the rerouting on our property to
the best situation available. You are now planning a major development at the
intersection of Market Blvd. and Lake Drive East and we'd like to have an
' opportunity for those people to get to us. Shy of that, we certainly would want
you and we would beg of you to not designate Market Blvd. as new TH 101 until
such time as Phase 3 has been implemented. What we're attempting to do, as
II some of the members of this Council are aware, I've sent them a letter and the
provisions within the lease with our major tenent in the past, at the point that
you redesignate TH 101, they have a kick out clause in their lease. They can
just say, hey guys, we're gone. We have a valueless piece of property. We are
I trying to do all that we can to make this development as attractive to them as
possible so that from a business standpoint they've got some way to justify
staying there. If in fact they can get to the people in the development, the
I industrial people, the 700 employees that are planned to the west prior to the
point that TH 101 is redesignated, I can't speak for them because they can't
answer that question now but it may have an affect on their decision making not
to leave us. We don't want to have an empty shopping center and be at odds with
I i the city of Chanhassen. That's why we're making this proposal is that they
can't leave us until such time as TH 101 is redesignated someplace else. At the
i point it is, they can't leave us. Keep in mind this was a 20 year lease
I commitment they made to us. The phasing of the development, although we don't
agree with it because it relocates TH 101 away from our door, we would like you
to change the phasing or at least the designation of TH 101 until such point as
I Lake Drive East is completed from the existing TH 101 to Market Blvd. or what
you consider to be the new TH 101. I guess in keeping with the spirit of open
communication, I'd also like to see that whatever you do tonight, if there's
some kind of a change to it, I'd like your commitment that you would inform us
IIprior to doing it so we have a chance to respond to it in the future.
Councilman Johnson: I believe the State's going to do the redesignation and
I what you are actually asking us to do is not to ask the State to do that.
Because it's a State Highway, we can't designate it either way. Then the Phase
3 is up to the Wards.
IPat Hallisey: I think it's you that are asking them to redesignate it so we are
asking you not to ask them to redesignate it until Phase 3 is done.
I Gary Warren: The State would have control on when the redesignation would
happen. We obviously would hold off, based on this discussion. We're not going
to force them to do it or request them to do it any earlier than it would have
Ito. That's, I guess, our comments with them but there is in likelihood, the
State will be interested once the north leg of TH 101 realignment is established
in getting the designation over so that the separation between the intersections
is maximized. That's kind of been their understanding as they reviewed the
I concepts for the realignment but we certainly would be trying to hold that off
as long as possible.
II 41
II
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
Pat Hallisey: M y solution to that would be, don't implement Phase '
2 until such
time as you implement Phase 3.
Mayor Chmi.el: Is that at all possible?
Gary Warren: The realignment or the Phase 2, the north leg and completing the ,
south leg has been a very important interest to the City here as far as the
traffic is concerned so I can't speak for the Council here but that has been a
high priority to try and make that happen as soon as we've had the financing in
place.
Councilman Johnson: Why does the current schedule say 90-95 on Phase 2? Is
there that much. ..
Gary Ehret: 1990 or later was the revision I made. Based on the input, I
wanted to add that based on our meeting with MnDot Friday, I believe the '
absolute earliest that that designation would possibly be changed would be June
of 1991. I think that's when they were showing basically enough completion of
TH 5 through this area that that designation would be changed.
Councilman Johnson: That's only is Phase 2 is complete by that time?
Gary Ehret: Correct. '
Gary Warren: The State Highway 5 project is also part of the driving force on
the schedule and right now they are telling us that February of 1990 is the
letting date for the TH 5 improvements from the Hennepin County line west to
Lake Ann Park.
Councilman Johnson: Which then drives Phase 1. What drives Phase 2? 1
Gary Warren: Phase 2, the State legislature right now among other things as far
as the extension of our economic development district for the funding. '
Councilman Johnson: That drives Phase 1 and Phase 2 doesn't it?
Gary Warren: It drives Phase 2. '
Councilman Johnson: Just Phase 2 but that also drives the north leg?
Gary Warren: Which is Phase 2. Part of what we would call Phase 2.
Councilman Johnson: And that we're hoping for any time. Is that the only thing
driving Phase 2 as far as timing?
Gary Warren: As far as I know. i
Gary Ehret: And the TH 5 improvements.
Councilman Johnson: Right. Those two items. '
Pat Hallisey: It was my understanding that MnDot was clearly willing to accept
the realignment for the leaving of TH 101 in it's present location. They stated
that they would prefer it to be moved to Market Place but they were willing to
42 '
I
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
' accept it in it's present location. Upgrade it and run it to the south. Now if
I'm incorrect on that, I'd like somebody to correct me but that was my clear
understanding. So the point I'm trying to make is that if in fact they were
willing to accept TH 101 in it's present location when that was going to happen
' for years and years and get to the point where we had 20,000 cars a day on it, I
think that the City of Chanhassen can leave TH 101 where it is right now by not
implementing Phase 2 when there's only 3,500 cars on it. There certainly is not
' a traffic driven need at this point in time to relocate to build Phase 2 and
relocate TH 101 to that alternate route.
Councilman Boyt: Gary, did you say the State required that? To be designated
' as TH 101 when the funding goes through?
Gary Warren: The State would be the driving force as far as if they wanted us
to move the designation.
Councilman Boyt: So the City wouldn't be petitioning the State to change it?
' The State would be coming to us and say we just changed it?
Gary Warren: It's a State Trunk Highway. It's their road basically. They've
bought into the alternate as far as the realignment with the north leg moving
' and Market Blvd. picking up as the southern leg. It basically is when they
would want to move the designation one way or the other.
I Councilman Boyt: And the way we got into this was by the designation of the
traffic handling capacity of these intersections. In order to make the
intersection of Great Plains work we had to move TH 101 further to the west.
' Gary Warren: We took a look at levels of service and did some transportation
analysis as a result of the, what was it, 6 or 8 alternates that we were looking
for at that time and that's how we arrived at convincing MnDot that the
' alternate, Market Blvd. alternate for example was acceptable for spacing. Mr.
Hallisey is correct. My recollection and Fred, maybe you can correct me if I'm
wrong but that when we were looking at using the existing TH 101 intersection,
that became more of an issue because that was even a tighter space between the
north leg realignment and this one. They also saw the level of service was not
significantly impacted at that location.
Councilman Boyt: So the City could choose to not petition the State to change
this and Mr. Hallisey could really work with the State? If he could convince
them not to change it, fine. What is it to us if it's changed?
' Gary Warren: I think that you build the north leg and spend funds to do that to
improve the traffic situation and the ultimate solution is to try to get rid of
as treacherous a road as the existing TH 101 alignment is and I think that's the
motivation that the State would have.
Councilman Boyt: But my point would be Gary, what you call the road is only
significant to Mr. Hallisey and his business client and people are going to
choose the route that makes the most sense to them regardless of what you call
it. So why is it the City's concerned whether it's called TH 101 or not?
IGary Warren: Phase 2 wouldn't be built I guess until the City chose that that
was what was going to be built.
43
I
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
Councilman Boyt: Let's suppose the City built it. People can use it. Does it
have to be called TH 101?
Gary Warren: I still think that it will come down to the State saying that as a
part of the feasibility and the review of the alternates, the City had indicated ,
that this is where the new TH 101 realignment would be.
Councilman Johnson: But we don't have any necessity to go to the State to say,
hey please redesignate this? We finished the construction and if the
bureaucrats in St. Paul get around to redesignating, it happens. They probably
will get it.
Gary Warren: For everybody's benefit, it would be great if the Ward property
would come in next week and say they want to do Phase 3 right, and then it all
goes away. But I think from the City's interest and traffic safety standpoint,
the sooner that we can get rid of the existing TH 101 alignment, the better off
we're going .to be. Now that isn't very sympathetic to Mr. Hallisey's concerns
there and I •don't mean to be that way but from a road safety standpoint, that is
a very bad piece of roadway.
Councilman Boyt: But the answer is, the City doesn't make that decision?
Gary Warren: Right.
Pat Hallisey: I'm not quite clear on exactly why it is that Phase 2 has to be
Ell
built before Phase 3. Once again, MnDot was willing to accept the current TH
101 if in fact the City Council had chosen that as the route so why do we have
to rush to judgment because there is no current need, traffic standpoint wise,
to build Phase 2. Why can we not have the city just not build Phase 2? That
way the State has no alternative about naming what's what. If Phase 2 is not
built until Phase 3 is, which is really when the start of the build up of the
traffic is going to occur, and Phase 2 is not built, they can't tell you that's
new TH 101. That is within the City's power to do. Not build Phase 2.
Mike Klingelhutz: I'm Mike Klingelhutz and I live further down TH 101 on what
they call Klingelhutz corner and I think that by doing Phase 2 before you
straighten out the rest of TH 101 is going to do the people that live along Lake
Susan where I live like on the corner that catches half the cars that run in the
ditch. They're goi.ng' to come speeding down, flying down the straight part and
then hit the corners and it's dangerous enough the way it is. The upper half
catches half of them now and we catch the other half. We're going to wind up
catching them all. I think that doing Phase 2 before you bring.. .perhaps even
to the TH 212 alignment isn't too smart.
Fred Hoisington: Let me just say that everything depends on timing. Really
that's all we're talking about tonight and we're speculating on when any one of
these projects will be built. I can tell you that if the legislature approves
of the funding or the extension of the tax increment district, then the City
will be confronted with building the north leg of TH 101. If it builds the
north leg of TH 101, then we no longer have the present TH 101 and there's going
to be a lot of pressure by MnDot and everyone to move the designation over to
Market Blvd.. If we're not funded by the extension of the tax increment
Ell
district, then we could be here 5 years from now talking about the same thing
44
I
■
IICity Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
II
and it's very possible that things are going to work exactly as Pat wants them
' to work. Very possibly that that's what's going to happen. That Phase 2 will
not be built before Phase 3 and that it will be the other way around. There's
no way that we can give you any answer to that tonight nor can we give Pat any
answer to that. It's a very dynamic process as we've indicated to them in the
I past and we simply can't answer that Pat. All we can do is give you every
assurance that we'll provide you with the connections we can here and we'll do
that and I think that's what the City is making a commitment to you to do.
1 Pat Hallisey: Fred, let me just explain to you. The construction of the north
leg does not reroute the portion of TH 101 that I am concerned with. It only
reroutes the portion of TH 101 north of TH 5. I don't care about that. I'm
Iconcerned about rerouting the portion of TH 101 south of TH 5. That wasn't the
way your statement came across because you said when the new north leg is done,
TH 101 is automatically rerouted.
IFred Hoisington: Let me just say that again. When the north leg is constructed
MnDot is going to want that redesignated over on Market Blvd.. No question
II about that. They will not want us to bring traffic down the north leg, over on
TH 5 and down the present alignment and we have an interest in now having that
traffic on old TH 101 because of the alignment problems associated with that.
But Pat, nonetheless, it's very possible that Phase 3 will be built, it's
I unfortunate it even says Phase 2 and 3 because Phase 3 may well be built before
Phase 2. I have no doubt it all depends on Ward's scheduling of their
construction.
IIPat Hallisey: That's the hypothetical ypotheti.cal that nobody sitting in this room has any
control over. There are some people in this room that have control over Phase 2
because the State Highway Department can not tell you to relocate, redesignate
ITH 101 if Phase 2 is not built. I can't do anything about building Phase 3 and
the City Council is unwilling to do it but there is something that can be done
to stop the redesignation of that road and that is not building Phase 2 until
1 Phase 3 is done.
Fred Hoisington: Another option is, if we get the dollars to build the north
II leg, the Council doesn't have to build it right now. It can hold off for a
period of time until such time as the Wards are a little further along in the
process and let the tax increments accumulate. I wouldn't recommend that but
you can do that if you want to be sure and try to get Phase 3 ahead of Phase 2,
I that's possible to do that so there are a number of options available that will
_. resolve that question.
I Pat Hallisey: That's an option that I did not hear in our meeting. I heard no
options when you and I met with Mr. Warren. That is news. I understand that
it's not probably the most desirous option as far as the City is concerned but
11 my that is the only way, jealously speaking, if that's the only way to alleviate
my problem, I'd recommend that you do it. I still think it's far simpler just
not to build Phase 2 than to delay the building of Phase 1, of the north leg. I
III think that's a far more practical and beneficial solution to the City.
Councilman Workman: Gary, how could building Phase 3 before Phase 2 jeopardize
Phase 2 later? At all?
1 . . .
I 45
II
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
Gary Warren: No, I don't see that being a problem at all. Phase 3 could go on
it's way on it's own timeline without any impact at all to Phase 2. In fact it '
would be better, as we're saying, to see that happen.
Councilman Workman: Phase 2 and Phase 3 are all right now still dependent on
negotiations with the Ward property?
Gary Warren: Phase 3 is and there are some easements on the southwest corner of
the Ward property that we need to acquire but basically Phase 3 is being driven
by the development of the Wards.
Councilman Workman: So Phase 2 is further along in this process than Phase 3
and that's maybe why it's called Phase 2 right now?
Gary Warren: Yes. Phase 2, as Fred mentioned, is the ultimate location for TH
101 and because the north leg of TH 101 and the intersection modifications
on Dakota that are a part of the TH 5 project, I guess that's why that is a
match and would come no doubt earlier than, I guess what we're guessing would be
the Ward's interest in developing. I really think, as we tried to point out
also in the staff report, is that we understand Mr. Hallisey's concerns. We're
sympathetic to them. I think that all we can say right now is that we're
building Phase 1 and we will continue to be sympathetic here and there will be
additional opportunities for the Council and Mr. Hallisey to communicate as sche
timing comes forward. When MnDot, the TH 5 project is a reality for letting and
when the legislature decides on, the economic development district life and these
other factors that come in that each of these are going to be a step to once [11 again review the phasing and how we're going to proceed.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to propose a motion. That the City Council approve
the site access configuration for the Sinclair station as documented in our
February 9th correspondence and that the City approve the phasing concept for TH
101 removing the dates of the second and third phase. '
Councilman Johnson: I'll second that. I'd like to have a slight bit of
discussion. I'd like to ask Fred a question somewhat related to this. Last
year when we came down to this decision that this is what we were going to do
and we posed it to the State, one thing we asked to have proposed to the State
was that we go ahead right now and redesignate the north side of TH 101 and get
it out from in front of St. Hubert's and get it moved over across the tracks at
Dakota Blvd. now. Has that been brought to the State?
Fred Hoisington: You mean the north leg, has that been brought to the State?
Councilman Johnson: Has anybody asked the State that okay, our final p lan is to
build a north leg, to move it out to Market Blvd. and send it down eventually
but what we'd like to do is today, 1989, change the signs. Instead of the
people turning right and going through downtown Chanhassen on TH 101, take a
left and go over to TH 5 right now which gives us back our Great Plains and 78th
Street intersection. I
Fred Hoisington: Have we ever made that request.. .?
Councilman Johnson: Yes. That's the question that that request was directed to
be made last year.
46 I
■
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
I
I Fred Hoisington: I remember that question being posed at that point and Carl
Hoffsted was at that meeting when it was posed, if you recall, he sat here in
the audience. As a matter of fact, somebody asked him to respond to that that
evening and he said he couldn't. I don't think we've ever officially, formally
made that request that they use the Dakota Avenue intersection as that. We
could do that Jay. I'd be a little concerned that they'd tell us no very
quickly but we can make the request and see what happens. Carl's response after
' that meeting was no but we never made it formal either so if you would wish us
to do that, we can make that formal.
' Councilman Johnson: With a little back-up of we're trying to remove the
State Highway from going between a church and a grade school and trying to make
your State Highway more efficient than it is today because of the realignment we
did in Chanhassen, we think that you will have a better State Highway to take it
to the left. Not just plain old say we want to do it because we want to do it.
That's kind of an aside, trying to get old business.
' Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded that the City Council approve
the site access configuration for the Sinclair station as documented in the
February 9, 1989 BRW correspondence to Ivan Johnson and that the City approve
the phasing concept for TH 101 removing the dates of the second and third phase.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
REVIEW MEDIAN CUT PROPOSAL FOR KLINGELHUTZ PROPERTY, 7811 GREAT PLAINS BLVD.
Councilman Workman: Maybe Gary would still like to address it but I guess
' Ursula, Councilwoman Dimler brought this up. As she is not present, I guess in
her interest, I thought maybe of tabling it. I think Al was here for the TH 101
also so it wouldn't be a loss cause unless he'd like to make some comments in
' regards to this also. We can get the comments, just like we saved time on that
trail issue.
1 Al Klingelhutz: If you're going to table it, I'd just assume wait and make my
comments at the next meeting.
' Councilman Workman: I guess Ursula was the one that was carrying the ball on
this and I guess out of courtesy to her, I would like to table it and I would
make a motion to do so.
Mayor Chmiel: I'll second that motion.
' Councilman Workman moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to table review of the median
cut proposal for Klingelhutz property, 7811 Great Plains Blvd.. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
AUTHORIZE NEGOTIATIONS TO ACQUIRE CARRICO PROPERTY FOR PARKLAND.
Lori. Sietsema: I don't know if you want a staff report?
47
I
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
Mayor Chmiel: I think we've probably gone through much of the staff report. At
least I have. ,
Lori. Sietsema: Mark is here. He prepared the study, the land study in the area
of Lake Lucy Highlands and he could answer any questions or go through the
study. Whatever you like.
Councilman Johnson: I see no public here. Can we move on this?
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I had just a couple questions. On the park itself and
the acquisition of it. How will this be basically funded Lori? How will this
be funded for total dollars for the Carrico property? ,
Lori Sietsema: It's anticipated that the funding would occur through the park
development fund. Park acquisition and development fund. In looking through
the 1989 budget, there are monies in a reserve fund and there is also the
projected amount of money taken in in 1988 through the park dedication fees was
higher than we had anticipated and there could be funds available through that
as well. 1
Councilman Workman: How much?
Lori Sietsema: Don, do you recall the numbers? ,
Don Ashworth: Actual 1988 revenue was $59,000.00 over what we had originally
anticipated. There is an undesignated fund balance of $21,000.00 and there is
an amount set aside for grants, purchases like this of $100,000.00. So between
those three sources, there's roughly $180,000.00. I think the Council would
definitely want to keep the $100,000.00 in reserve but I do see the $$0,000.00
as currently being undesignated and eventually available. Mid-year budget
adjustments are something that I do not really endorse but the acquisition of
parcels and the ability to guesstimate that a particular parcel will come up and
whatever is unusual as well.
Councilman Workman: We're just approving or authorizing negotiations?
Lori Si.etsema: That's correct.
Don Ashworth: I think there's an underlying assumption though that if staff is
able to negotiate something that would be favorable, we're looking to a sum of
about $60,000.00 that the Council would feel comfortable when we brought that
back. If we brought back a number twice that amount. ..
Councilman Workman: I guess I'd like to say that I don't think there's any
Y
doubt about which area, I think we're given A through F or something. I don't
think there's really any doubt about which is the one. C. But hadn't you guys
had some concern about lower parts of that being wet or not wet? It's not
designated a wetland is it?
Lori Si.etsema: It's not on the City's wetland map.
Councilman Boyt: I think it's got those kinds of grasses, there's going to be a
wetland.
48 i
■
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
Lori Sietsema: . . .it's questionable whether it can handle parking for park
' facilities on that. I don't know that we would want to.. .
Councilman Workman: Is that big enough to have fields? Balifields? A couple?
' Lori Sietsema: Yes. It would accommodate a ballfield, totlot equipment, like a
basketball court or tennis. What else were we looking at?
Mark Koegler: We did a hypothetical site plan and that had a ball diamond of
about 250 feet which is a large neighborhood scale. Two tennis courts. There's
potential for parking off of Lake Lucy Lane, whatever that is to the south, and
picnic areas and play areas so it would accomodate all the neighborhood
functions. The wetland area would not be included in the actual development of
any of those facilities so that would remain intact but potentially be
enhanced...
Mayor Chmiel: You say open water. What depths are you...?
1 Mark Koegler: That's totally, very preliminary statement. There were comments
made at the meeting and in walking some of the sites in the field with some of
the representatives from Fish and Wildlife, they had made comments. They have
an open water situation. ..bottom for purposes of wildlife. That could be 2
feet. It could be 4 feet. Whatever.
Mayor Chmiel: I have concerns with children within that area with that.
II T
Mark Koegler: I think to speculate on the depth on that right now is probably
premature.
Councilman Workman: Is this going to be a park that can be used for what?
' Lori Sietsema: It would be a neighborhood park used by the neighborhoods that
are in the area for pick-up games. It's not a type of park that would be used
for league games. Although when our facilities are as short as they are now, we
do spill into our neighborhood parks.
11 Councilman Workman: Can we do something to beef that up a little bit? I know
that creates a problem then for traffic for the neighborhood parks, etc. but. ..
' - Councilman Boyt: You've got a collector right beside it.
Councilman Workman: We are desparately in need of those fields. What do you
need for a softball field? 270? 250 sounds small.
Lori Sietsema: 270 is a little short. I'd say 280 to 300.
Councilman Workman: I guess I would make a suggestion to, since I don' t see in
the future how we're going to accumulate a whole bunch of fields to maybe take
care of some of the needs that we have, that we do make the fields a little bit
more versatile for more uses so that, since we're going in there and making a
field anyway. I have a problem with making a field strictly for a pick-up
- basis. I lived 2 blocks from one where I was growing up. We maybe played half
a dozen pick up games on there in my life. We just as soon use the lot that
wasn't even a city lot. I guess we have a really great need for those fields
' 49
I
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
for leagues. Little League or whatever and if there's anyway that we can
designate such to alleviate the problems that we have. Again, that's what they
do in Chaska. They've got them all over. Jonathan. ,
Lori Sietsema: We could certainly look to accoimomdate those types of uses. The
policy in the past is to try to discourage organized league play in the
neighborhood parks because it brings in more traffic than what the park is
designed for. It means that you have to have more parking available and it also
takes that neighborhood use away from the park. That availability. 1
Councilman Workman: I can see that if you have like the open men's league which
could possibly be more abrasive but if you could take Field 3 at Lake Ann and
make that a complete softball field and then take the Little League option out
of it and place that say in this park. I think Little League, played early,
children aren't as wild. That kind of thing. And I'm not suggesting moving
beer drinking softball players into neighborhoods but I'm saying there's other
options for the younger kids that is less of a threat to the neighborhood in the
earlier hours.
Lori Sietsema: I'll make a note of those concerns at the time that we'd make up ,
a master park plan for that area and keep that in mind for the planning.
Councilman Workman: Other than that, everybody up there just loves this plan? I
I mean Pheasant Hills?
Lori. Sietsema: The people that were at the meeting were very responsive and
were very pleased with this selection. They felt that the other choices, the
other alternatives did not meet their needs as well as this one would as far the
proxi.rnity of their neighborhoods. Mary Cordell is here representing the
Pheasant Hills, or actually both neighborhoods. She's talked to them. I don't
know if she wants to make any comment or not or if you have any questions of
her.
Councilman Boyt: Isn't the general consensus to approve this?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. As far as I'm concerned. Why don't we just proceed with
this.
Councilman Johnson: I have one question. I wanted to go at it first but once
you brought up league play and all. I'm with the CAA, as you know if one of my
other part time jobs. We don't seem to attract very many kids at all out of the
Minnetonka School District. Do you know where they offer their T-ball and
ragball and that type of, where the kids in Pheasant Hills go to get their?
Very few of them come down and play in our league.
Lori Sietsema: I'm not sure where the people in that area go. I know that
Minnetonka Community Services offers those programs through their department.
Councilman Johnson: Mary, do you know how far the kids have to travel to play
with Minnetonka Community Services? '
Mary Cordell: I'm really not sure. We moved to the area about 9 months ago.
My oldest is just turning 6 so I haven't gotten into that too much but I think
it is Minnetonka Community Services.
50 '
I
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
I
II 1 1 Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to authorize further
negotiations to acquire the Carrico Property for parkland. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
APPOINTMENTS TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded a motion that Willard Johnson
and Carol Watson be appointed to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Boyt: I would like to have the Planning Corrtnission and any
appropriate others directed to review the fence ordinance. Particularly, I
think there's several items. We had, last summer, there was quite an issue over
a 6 foot fence put up in a person's backyard by a neighbor that was quite
disturbing. There are a few fences, chainlinked fences in front yards that
just completely throw the view looking down the block. You see 10 houses with
' no fence and then one with a front yard fence down it. I think we need to look
at that issue. I don't know what the answer is but I think we've got a problem
here and I'd like to see those folks look at it.
Mayor Chmiel: Why do you feel that way? I think it's up to the individual
property owners. If they feel they want to, that's their property for a
specific reason, that they have that right to do that.
' Councilman Boyt: Well, they certainly have a right to fence their property.
Maple Grove, for instance, says they don't allow fencing in the front half of
your yard anywhere. Now I'm not saying that that's the right answer. All I'm
saying is that I think there are several areas in the fencing part of our Zoning
Ordinance that need to be looked at. I think one of the issues is, do we want
fencing in the front yard or not? Maybe we'll decide that we do.
' Councilman Workman: Where are these fences?
'
Councilman Boyt: Well, if you drive down Frontier Trail. As soon as you enter
into Chan Vista West or whatever it is, you'll see it. That's just an example.
Al Klingelhutz: I have a question, seeing that I sat here all night waiting for
a decision. Can I be put on a little earlier in the agenda?
Don Ashworth: You'll be unfinished business next time.
' Councilman Boyt: Well, that's the thought so what's the support? Do you want
to do it or don't you want to do it?
Councilman Johnson: I'll move it.
Councilman Workman: Are neighbors complaining?
Councilman Boyt: Well, about the 6 foot fence, yes.
51
■
- - City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
11
Councilman Workman: I mean about the front yard fences? I guess I'm not into
fixing things if people in the vicinity aren't real...
fli
Councilman Johnson: My point of view is, we're going from a sleepy little rural
village into suburbia very quickly. As such, we previously didn't really have a
lot of need for a lot of rules and regulations. Unfortunately, as our
population skyrockets, we've got to have some control. If a person can put up a
6 foot privacy fence all the way out to the street. .. '
Councilman Boyt: They can do that now.
Councilman Johnson: You're living with other people. Things you do affects
your next door neighbors on either side of you. That's why we have zoning
ordinances. That's why we have setbacks. Setback's also for public safety.
The firemen have to have access. There may be a public safety issue of having a
fence in the front yard as far as fighting a fire. Now the firemen have to
negotiate a fence. At least they can get at half your house without having to
go through a fence. Then there's some size restriction. If you're on 20
acres...
Councilman Workman: This doesn't need a motion to go to the Planning
Commission?
Councilman Boyt: No, just consensus. Do we want to see that happen or not?
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to have than look at it.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't have any. . .
Councilman Workman: I don't fear it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, your second point Bill.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, my second point gets back to the issue of the recent,
all the discussion about the Public Safety Department and what not. I guess I
could preface this in 15 seconds by saying it didn't go quite the way I would
have liked it to go but I would like to see the Council recognize that I
thought, and I think the Council would agree, that Jim Chaffee did a good job of
weaving his way through that thing. I saw a lot of comments in the paper from a
lot of people but I didn't see many from Jim and the thing got resolved and it
got resolved on kind of an upbeat note there and I think that's worth
accommodation from us. Even though it didn't get resolved the way I wanted it
to, I thought it was handled well.
Councilman Johnson: Politically a very hot issue and it was handled well. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Very well done.
Councilman Boyt: I think we should note that.
52 '
■
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
Mayor Chmiel: Tom, manholes.
II 1 Councilman Workman: Very quickly, Gary, how deep can a manhole sit before it's
out of conformance?
' Gary Warren: Are you talking about the lid itself in the roadway?
Councilman Workman: Yes, below the pavement surface. I've seen a lot of deep
' ones that I've got to really swerve or I'm going to be having alignment
problems. Now some of them are near my home and this is not specifically for
that. That's where I see them. I'm sure there's others. Is there a yard stick
on this?
' Gary Warren: Well new construction, first of all we want to have them below so
that when we're snowplowing snow we don't hit them. It gets to be quite a shock
'
if you're driving a snowplow and you hit one of those things so new construction
requirements are that the manhole lids have to be between 1/4 to 1/2 inch below
the paved surface. Manholes move differentially with the frost and heaving and
' stuff so we get some movement there but we do require with new construction that
they get 1/4 inch to no more than 1/2 inch below the paved surface.
Councilman Workman: How would you correct a problem like that?
' Gary Warren: You dig them up. Dig up the frames and readjust them. There's no
simple way to do it. You just have to saw up the pavement and lift them up.
I ' Councilman Johnson: It's amazing though how much they move on an annual basis.
I have one in front of my house that moves 6 inches.
Gary Warren: And we will do that if we have some that are pointed out to us
that are really bad.
' Councilman Workman: I'll make a list. Bill's doing fences. I'm doing
manholes.
' Gary Warren: I was going to say, because Boucher is on vacation and couldn't be
at this meeting, we'll have to defer that to the next meeting.
' ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION:
DISCUSSION OF BONGARD ACQUISITION AND COUNCIL/STAFF WORK SESSION, CITY MANAGER.
Don Ashworth: I think on 14(b) , I' ll be asking that that be tabled just because
of the time that we're in and that you and I have not had a chance to further
' discuss this item. 14(a) . I've included the correspondence received from Abbie
Bongard. This is a parcel that will be taken as a part of the realignment of Th
101. It's the piece that basically is just north of Dakota Avenue, that
spaghetti junction area. I don't really know what the solution is. I think
' that throughout the process we continue to try to number one, inform people.
But where you do have owners in that they are proposing to do something, the
City's plans can often come in their way. It disrupts them. They had other
' plans and now here's a proposal from the City. In every instance that I can
think of, we have in every case told the owner to move ahead with whatever their
' 53
I
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1909
plans are. That if the funding can come about, if we have to take a footing,
that's probably cheaper than not allowing, let's say the shopping center on the
Kerr property to proceed. That was an alternative that a year ago we felt was
going to be the best alternative. Now we're not really looking to that site at
all. I really think that funding should be in place, well, it has to be in
place by the end of the legislative session. Unfortunately, this year's
legislature is going to go longer than normal and I continue to believe that Bob
and Becky are trying to work in our best interest to get that through but they
want to be assured that Hennepin County is now fighting us in that process. The
short and the long of that is that if we do not get the 2 1/2 million dollars
that would be generated from that district, I don't know where we'd come up with
the money. Although I'm not happy with the thought that we may not be able to
do that north leg, that's where it may come back to. The bottom line on Bongard
is that they had chosen to wait. Now that's creating some problems for them.
You have an individual named Bill Diem. He's been involved. He would like to
portray that we've made certain commitments. We have not. We did do an
appraisal there to get an idea as to the price. Mr. Diem is looking to a
significant amount over that value. About 1 1/2 times what we had it appraised
at. In that process we've asked for certain documentation of why he feels the
value should be at that higher level. We have not received that. In the
meantime, we have a long term resident of our community who is being affected.
I guess what I would like to do with the Council's concurrence is to be able to
start negotiations, especially if we can work directly with Mrs. Bongard. I
think that point in time may be here because I believe Mr. Diem is basically not
acting as her agent any longer and I don't know if that's a fact of time or not.
Fred, were you able to obtain any additional information on that?
Fred Hoisington: No...did not get back to me. ..
Don Ashworth: Trying to come up with some type of a solution for the lesser
money. The acquisition probably will be into a $300,000.00 area. That's
probably reasonable final costs out of that but if in the meantime we could come
to some agreement where her builder would hold the property for whatever period
of time and that would cost x number of dollars, that we could enter into an
option agreement that would keep the thing open for 6 months and pay her some
reasonable amounts so that she could keep the thing viable. Some alternative
that's lower dollars for us but let's her move into that home or take advantage
of that. As we're talking, without knowing, is she represented by someone or
isn't she? Is that representation ending or isn't it ending? Is there
solutions? I can't be specific with you. '
Mayor Chmiel: . . .if you're going to approach him, does he have some kind of a
retainer... '
Don Ashworth: That's what we're trying to verify at this point in time. He's
not an Attorney. I believe though that he would be put into a category of
realtor for him and whether or not he has signed a realty agreement for a
specific period of time, I'm not quite sure. In talking with Ms. Bongard, it
sounded as though that she, if it would help resolve things, if she would like
to take and work directly with us, and she led us to believe that that may be an
II
option. I don't know that that's true. I don't know that to be true. I don't
know that she knows that it's true.
54
I
City Council Meeting - February 27, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Who is Mr. Diem versus Mr. Plowman who seems to be her real
estate agent?
Don Ashworth: Plowman is the one who is basically building the new home. I
think that's his only interest.
11 Fred Hoisington: He's also the broker for the sale of the property.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, that's what she indicated in her letter was that Mr.
Plowman was her realtor on this property. Diem was a potential buyer. Do we
know what she listed her property for? That should be public information just
about if it was listed in multiple listings and everything.
' Don Ashworth: That's the type of information that we've asked for and really
haven't gotten from Mr. Diem.
Councilman Johnson: I think we could get that elsewhere from any real estate
agent should be able to tell us. Multiple listings you can access with a
computer and everything.
' Mayor Chmiel: I think in lieu of what's all happened here, I think it would
probably be to our advantage to make that contact and come up with some kind of
Idetermination. Then once that determination is gotten, get back to Council.
Don Ashworth: The primary purpose of the item is to make the Council aware and
we will put it on the next agenda you'll have an update report.
II 4
i_ Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:35
p.m. .
' Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
' Prepared by Nann Ophei.m
lit—
I
I 55
I
.LUiJJi: jTi
IIPARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
IFEBRUARY 28 , 1989
Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p.m. .
IMEMBERS PRESENT: Ed Hasek, Jim Mady, Carol Watson, Curt Robinson, Sue
Boyt , Dawne Erhart , and Larry Schroers
1 STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema , Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman,
Recreation Supervisor
1 Mady: First item of business , first off , I ' d like to welcome Dawne Erhart
to the Park Commission. This is her first meeting. Congratulations on
your appointment . Good luck.
IAPPOINT ACTING CHAIR, ED HASEK.
Hasek moved , Boyt seconded to appoint Ed Hasek as Acting Chair to the Park
and Recreation Commission meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
Icarried .
IAPPROVAL OF MINUTES .
Robinson moved , Watson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and
I Recreation Commission meeting dated February 14 , 1989 as amended by Jim
Mady on page 8 to strike the word "condemn"i.n the first paragraph , last
sentence ; page 11 about two-thirds down the page, last line, should be "80
feet" instead of 8 feet ; and on page 54 , strike the word "polynesian" .
IIAll voted in favor of the Minutes as amended and the motion carried.
IPUBLIC DISCUSSION OF 1989 ADULT SOFTBALL ELIGIBILITY RULES .
Hasek: I know we' ve got a lot of people here tonight to talk that issue
over . Can I just see a show of hands please who ' s here to respond to that
I issue? I would ask that you please, if you have not done so, take the
time to sign in if you want to get any further information that comes out
of the meetings . That' s the vehicle in which you can get it . If your
I address is complete and full in there , you should receive information from
us . If it' s not on there or it ' s incomplete, chances are you probably
won ' t get it so please take the time to do that . The Minutes from our
I last meeting , discussion of which we adjusted the rules for the adult
softball league are available at City Hall . Have been available at City
Hall and I would hope that some of you have taken the time to read those
so you understand exactly where we as a commission are coming from. I
I think the way I would like to handle this meeting is kind of anywhere from
an open discussion with some very specific rules along the order of a
public hearing although this is really not a public hearing. Just to try
I and keep some control over it . I think what I 'd like to do , since our
position is fairly well known, is to take your discussion and your
comments and we ' ll take notes and respond to them after you ' ve completed
IIyour statements . I would ask please that you come to the podium. State
I
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 2
your name and address and place of employment if you ' re outside of the
City. If you' re from outside of the City so we' re aware of that so we get
sort of an idea of who ' s here and who ' s not . I would ask that you please
refrain from discussing things between yourself in the audience aloud so
that we do get a record of what ' s going on and also any back and forth
discussions between people. Please refrain from using foul language. I 'd 11 like to limit the discussion to about an hour and a half. We have a full
agenda tonight and we do have a public hearing on another issue so we' re
going to try and call the meeting about 9: 00 . If we get to that point and
the discussion is going on, then we' ll obviously try to field your
questions after that . We' ll just have to see how long this thing goes .
Hoffman: Ed, one correction I had on the memorandum that was sent out. It
was incorrectly stated on there that the meetings occurred on January
31st. That meeting was January 24th. The 31st meeting was the
interviewing of candidates .
Hasek : I think staff ' s comments are fairly well known. What I 'd like to
do I think is get some of their comments and that might kick up some
discussion on our behalf. Obviously if something has been said, it ' s on
the record and it need not be repeated again. Hearing it once, we' ll
probably do it . If you agree with the issue or disagree with the issue ,
simply you can restate it by saying you agree with what Bob said regarding
blah. . .rather than going with a long dissertation. All it ' s going to do
is take time. I please ask that again that you 'd come to the microphone.
I 'd like to hear from everybody once before we start hearing from people a
second and third time so let' s just get started. By the way, for your
information, we have a councilmember with us tonight . Jay and Mayor Don
Chmiel ' s in the back over here too.
John Seamans : My name is John Seamans and do you want the full address ,
street address or just short?
Hasek : Well , street address are not necessary.
John Seamans: Okay, I 'm from Shorewood, Minnesota and I 'm a member of the
Over 35 League . I have been since the second year of it' s foundation.
How I got into the league was ironic in a way because the league started
here with 4 teams. The following year Chanhassen came up to 5 teams so
Bruce Carmichael and a few other people, we were approached, could we find
a bunch of older guys to put into this league to get 6 teams so we could
have an even Steven number of teams. So we scrouged around and we got
some older guys and we got into the league with the understanding that it
would be fun to play some ball but we were never allowed to play in any
league playoffs for the first few years . That was one of the
restrictions . We said, alright. We really don' t care. We just want to
play ball with some of our older friends . So this went on for I don ' t '
know how many years. Now this was before you people were on board that
this thing had gotten started . Todd came along a year before we expanded .
Todd mentioned that there were going to be lights put on the field. If
anybody has any ideas about some other ball players wanting to play, let
us know. So I approached Todd and said geez, maybe next year I ' ll find
some older guys . Now in the meantime this league has gone from an over 30
I
II
L Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 3
league to an over 35 league . The average age on my team is 47 Y ears old .
We love playing ball . It' s one night a week. We sit around and talk
I about how good we used to be after every game. It ' s the highlight of our
summer . It is . That ' s what we talk about all winter at basketball .
We ' re going to go out and kill them next year . So I told Todd , I said
I we' ll pump, I ' ll get my brothers . I 've got 5 or 6 guys from Chanhassen.
I ' ve got some guys from Shorewood . There are 3 other guys that are in
Shorewood but can stand in their front yards and throw rocks into
Chanhassen , which they' d like to do right now. The problem that we have
I
is we were asked to do this. I put a team in with this list. We played
two years and we had a 500 record . I think there are some people that
thought, you Seamans was going to come in there with a bunch of big
I clubers and win the league and so on and it never happened . This league
has been set up from the start. It' s an over 35 league that 47 year olds
can play in and win half of their games , lose half of their games . It was
I set up intentionally this way. Our team, and probably anybody else in
this league and if you talk to anybody else in this league and see how
they did in the State tournaments , they probably all got clobbered. I
don ' t know the final results but I ' ll guarantee you they got clobbered .
Our league was not set up that way. It was set up to be a fun league.
Very low keyed and a very enjoyable league. Then all of a sudden , after
all these years, I get a letter saying point blank, was done right to my
I face, if you don ' t have all your players eligible, you can not have a team
in this league. So I immediately said, well I 've got to keep these guys
together somewhere and I 'm Shorewood and I 'm Chanhassen but I ' ve got 6 and
I you ' re allowed 4 players . That gives me 10 but I 've got to tell 7 guys
that I ' ve been playing ball with for years , they can ' t play. I went to
Minnetonka. I don' t know if you know Don Shorts. You ' re probably better
off if you don' t know him but he said John , he says , you ' re in Shorewood .
I If you' re Excelsior , if you ' re Greenwood , if you ' re Tonka Bay, you are not
tax paying members of Hopkins/Minnetonka Rec and we don ' t want you . Plain
and simple. So I got these over 47 guys with no place to go. I went to
I the City of Shorewood and I said you know you guys , maybe you ' ve been free
loading for a while here. Maybe it ' s time to start putting together some
kind of a program so that these guys have got someplace to go . We want to
play ball someplace. So they told me that they probably could have some
I
facilities ready in a year . So I came back to Todd and Lori. and I
suggested that geez, if we could just buy a years time with these guys ,
that maybe I could put together a team in Shorewood or a league in
I Shorewood. Put something together . Very cool , I was told, well , the
decision' s made and you ' re not going to be allowed to play. I ' ve heard
some grumblings about some fields being made available at DataSery or
I whatever the name of that company is and I 'd think that ' d be fine . We ' ll
play anywhere just to play ball but I think the teams that are 100%
Chanhassen , they' re not going to want to play there . At one time we did
talk about two divisions. I think there' s enough teams that are on the
I outside that would probably form a division that would play on DataSery
and the Chan teams , if they don' t want to play there, could play on those
fields . If we could just get another year out of you people, maybe I can
I put something together. We can play somewhere. I question sometimes the,
I 'm the at large member from Shorewood for the Minnetonka Community
Services and we' re represented here with a Shorewood Park Board member is
IIhere tonight also and also the Shorewood representative from Minnetonka
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 4
Community Services are here and they' re all kind of anxious to hear how
this is going to come out. Wouldn ' t you know the day that I get ready to
come to this meeting , I got a flyer from my son for Little League
baseball . South Tonka Little League baseball sign up. If I could read
this to you. South Tonka Little League boundaries include Shorewood ,
Tonka Bay, Excelsior and Chanhassen. Now why, if Chanhassen kids are
playing in Freeman field in my community, can a bunch of old geezers play
one night a week of softball over here? I 'm speaking just for my over 35
bunch. If you want to have the gals come up here, I 'm not familiar with
their set up here at all . The same thing with any of the other nights .
What I 'm talking about is my night . I just don' t think it' s really fair
that we have been kind of thrown out so to speak. And nobody really ever
said why or anything . The letter I thought was very cold . It just said
you' re done. You' re history. You' re out of here. There was no room for
any kind of maybe sitting down and talking about making some adjustments .
Maybe giving a little. Geez, I can play on the corner of the street if
there ' s enough traffic. There are some things that can be done but
everything was so final . I ' ll get out of here and let somebody else. I
know the girls, there' s a girls representative that want to talk for sure.
I don' t know what their nights are. Thank you. '
Hasek: We' re going to have to try to limit this I guess to about 5
minutes if everybody is going to want their piece.
Brigette Smith : I 'm Brigette Smith and I live in Shorewood . I don' t mean
to be repetitive on what John said but I am really angry. I attended a
Little League meeting the other night and there was the President of your
Little League out there encouraging the kids in Excelsior and Tonka Bay
and Shorewood to get into the program out here. They wanted our kids but
most of all he said they wanted the parents . They had no parent
involvement out here. They wanted us to come out here and take over the
Babe Ruth League. They needed our fathers and mothers to coach and
generally straighten out their league . I sat through that meeting getting
more angry and more angry at the fact that my son lives in Shorewood .
It' s not a problem for him to come over and play and yet I can ' t. It ' s
okay if I come over and coach the Chanhassen kids . It' s okay that the
Chanhassen kids play on our fields and are coached by our parents but it' s
a problem if I play here. I have a real problem with that. I 'm all for
the kids. I ' ve got two little boys . My husband and I are very involved
in Little League but I hear at this meeting that they've been promised all
this money to work on the field with the lights , to put a batting machine
in and fix the pitchers mound. I don' t have a problem with that. What I
have a problem with is that it does leave the parents the one night that
they want to get out, it leaves us in the cold and that annoys me a lot .
That ' s all I have to say.
Sue Winchell : My name is Sue Wi.nchell and I 'm with DataServ . One of the '
things that DataSery doesn' t understand is we have a facility here in the
Chanhassen area which we pay taxes but we also have a facility in Eden
Prairie and we would like to combine teams . The girls from Eden Prairie
and Chanhassen and yet we' re not able to do that and we would like to know
why we ' re not able to if we do pay taxes in Chanhassen and we' re willing
1
■
II ,
II Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 5
1 to let the fields, once it passes , are legal , for our fields to be used
too?
IJeff Tolle : My name is Jeff Tolle. I 'm a coach for the Minnetonka Garage
Door, it will soon be a different name but that doesn' t matter . We' ve been
I out here for 4 years . Our team has represented Chan two times in
Districts. We went to State last year and we ' ve even got girls that will
take a job in the City of Chanhassen to play in here. I hope it never
gets to that extent. I sure wouldn ' t but last year Todd pointed out to us
Ithat sooner or later down the road we would have to be booted when the
Chanhassen teams wanting to play. People living and working in
Chanhassen . We understood that and he ' s been a great league director . I
I just didn' t think that we 'd be bumped by T-ball or Babe Ruth or something
on that line . And boy, if my kid wants to play ball , I 'm all for it . I 'm
gung ho but where do we go? We have nowhere to go. Minnetonka won' t take
I us . Mound , who wants to play in Mound? Excelsior , they' ve got a good
program, they just don' t have the fields to back it up. Chanhassen is the
place to play. It is a very nice area but like I said, the directors is
great and your fields are excellent. We just don' t want to leave.
1 Period .
Hasek: Excuse me Jeff . Are you with the Minnetonka team?
IJeff Tolle: No, that' s the name of our, Minnetonka Garage Door . We could
call it Chanhassen Garage Door .
IHasek: Where do you live?
Jeff Tolle : I 'm from Tonka Bay.
' Colleen Klingelhutz : I 'm Colleen Klingelhutz and I live in Chanhassen and
I ' ve played in the women' s league for 2 years now. My one question is , my
I understanding of Chanhassen ordinances is that this is purely an advisory
board to the City Council and I 'm wondering if this has gone by the City
Council and if it hasn' t , why it hasn ' t. If that' s my understanding , I
don' t feel like we should have been given this cut and dry thing when it
I
hasn ' t gone by City Council yet so that ' s all I 'm asking .
Gordon Lindstrom: My name is Gordon Linstrom and I 'm a resident of
I Shorewood . I used to coach bantam hockey for the Shorewood team for
years. During that time, between 25% and 30o of those kids were from
Chanhassen . I 'm also a member of the Shorewood Park Board . I have been
I for the past 11 years and we realize we have strick policies . There' s
just not enough facilities and we have to provide more . Shorewood has
built 3 softball fields through the park . . . Those fields still need some
more work. They won' t be ready for another year . I ' ve also been playing
I in the men' s over 35 league out here and certainly enjoy it. It ' s a great
way to get together with people that don' t live just in your own
particular community. I 'd like to see Chanhassen to continue to allow
I other people than just Chanhassen residents to use the fields just the way
Excelsior does with their mens and womens softball league in Excelsior. We
allow Chanhassen residents to play there . Thank you.
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 6
Jeff Atkins : My name is Jeff Atkins . I live at 220 West 78th Street in
Chanhassen here and first of all I 'd like to say that softball is the
highlight of my summer and also my wife ' s . She plays in the womens league 11 and we'd like to know i.f they can' t get enough teams together with these
rules in effect for women' s softball , if that will effectively dismantle
the league for womens softball . My wife' s lived here for her entire life
and is that fair that she can' t play ball but that ' s the effect of this
rule. Thanks.
Bruce Carmichael : I 'm Bruce Carmichael and I 'm a resident of Shorewood .
For about 20 years I ran Excelsior Mens League and in those 20 years we
ran across kind of the same problem you' re having here. A lot of outside
players playing in our league and we also made our boundaries and our laws
but what we did do is we grandfathered in all of the players that were
playing in our league at that time because it was on teams that have been
playing together for 10 years . They went to school together . They played
together . Some of them played all the way through grade school and
everything together . Some of those people moved away from the area . We
felt that they should be able to come back to their home town and play
softball . Now this isn' t an over 35 . This is just an open league . Also,
we made a rule at the time we passed our boundaries that players that went
to school in Minnetonka , moved away from the area , if they wanted to come
back and play in our league because they knew all the players, went to
school with all the players , we let them play there just because they
lived there. Even though they didn' t work there anymore and they didn' t
live there anymore but they used to live there . That has worked out real
good for our league. Another thing, our team came to this league at the
same time that John did . Well , we were on the same team. They asked for
another team so we got a team together and then we split up. John went
his way and we picked up a few more players and kept our team. We got the
Legion from Chan here to sponsor us and they have been a very good
sponsor . We' ve taken them a couple trophies and our team has tried to put
something back into Chan. We ' ve helped a little bit in the league.
We' ve played in quite a few tournaments out here in Chan because we enjoy
playing out here. It was quite a shock when we found out that we no
longer would be able to play out here after playing out here for , well
it' s got to be 10 years. Now all of a sudden, bang, there' s no where else
to go like John said . There' s no other 35 and over league in this area .
I guess there' s one down in Chaska but that' s a long ways away and I guess
there' s one in St. Louis Park possibly but a lot of our players have been
playing together for 10 years and I don ' t think they will go that far away
from home. Most of our players live in Shorewood and I guess we have 5
players from Chanhassen. So I guess that ' s all . Thank you .
John VonWalter : John VonWalter . I live in Chanhassen and I guess it' s
going on about 14 years. It' s I think about 10 years that I ' ve played in
the over 35. Used to be an over 30 league and I think it ' s tough to get a
good league of over 35 players without going outside. Most of the leagues
that are in existence around the state are mixed community leagues because
generally in one community you can' t get that many over 35 players to put
together 8 , '10, 12, 14 team league. I think Chanhassen should allow all
the teams that are in there now to be grandfathered in with their rosters .
They should have that. My team is okay. We can put together a Chanhassen
■
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 7
' team that will be legal by your guidelines but I don' t think it will be as
fun or as good a league as we ' ve had before without bringing in some
I outside teams. The teams that we already have. I 'd like to see last
year ' s rosters be grandfathered in for all teams and in the future drop
teams by attrition and require that all new players on all teams live or
I work in Chanhassen from next year on. This year goes by last year ' s
roster . I think it will be perhaps the end of the over 35 league in
Chanhassen if you go forward with your new proposals. I question too
I that, I think we do have enough fields in Chanhassen if we used them
wisely or used them differently. You can come by almost any weekend where
there ' s not a tournament and there are softball fields open . Every day
during the day, one of the youth leagues could be playing . There are
I fields open and empty. Nobody using them. If it' s a problem with adult
coaching, there' s plenty of college kids . They could be hired to coach.
Even if it meant each team in the league had to pay a little bit towards
I those coaches or adult supervision. I don ' t know, I guess trying to get
together an over 35 league is something special that the adults , many of
whom aren ' t Chanhassen taxpayers are just as important as the kids. That
by us playing in an over 35 league , our kids can look up and say, hey, I 'd
I like to be doing that like my dad did when I 'm over 35. Chanhassen has
the special kind of league . We have a comeradery, not only amongst our
team members but amonst the players from other teams and I think your rule
I is going to split up the league and I think breaking up a team or breaking
up teams within a league is tantamount to breaking up a family. Thank
you .
ICarol Pike: My name is Carol Pike. I live in Chaska . I 'm from the
Sullivan ' s womens team and we' ve been here for 4 years since you started
the womens league and I think it' s a real disservice that you put these
I restrictions on because it ' s going to cancel out women ' s ball all
together . Probably you' ll never have it again . You know, we do
contribute and we bring in revenue. We go to your restaurants . . .and
I I know it' s repetitive but I ' ve heard , you know, Chanhassen kids use
Shorewood. They use Chaska. I know soccer ' s real big and you use Chaska
fields and I hate to see the end of the league because the womens , a lot
I of them work. A lot of them have kids . It ' s their only chance to go out
half the time and do somethirig just for theirselves and they have no where
else to go. Just like the men have said, I ' ve checked and there isn' t
anywhere else to go . We just want to have fun . Have a good time and I
I noticed that half of that has been mentioned and I realize that Chanhassen
residents pay taxes but so do Shorewood and so do Chaska and your kids are
using ours. I think we need to pull together here instead of trying to
Iseparate .
Any Tolle : My name is Amy Tolle . I live in Wayzata/Minnetonka . I play
on the Minnetonka Garage Door team. I ' ve played since the beginning of
I the first year of the womens league and we went to Districts and we
represented Chanhassen and a lot of our friends and family come out to
Lake Ann . I really think that grandfathering should be thought about .
I Grandfathering the teams in because I really don' t think it is fair to,
right now there is only two teams on the womens league that are mostly
Chanhassen residents and I think that it will do away with womens softball
altogether . I really don ' t think that ' s real fair . I think the . . .
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 8
restriction that you have is very restrictive. I mean 30 to 40 hours a
week must work in Chan. I 'm one of the ones that said to my husband, oh
I ' ll get a part time job in Chan . That ' s how much I want to play ball out
here. Even that ' s restrictive.
Ron Harvieux : I 'm Ron Harvieux . I live at 6605 Horseshore Curve in
Chanhassen. I play for the MGM team or I participate on the MGM team. I
guess I have a question on your objective of this very abrupt rule. I can
see two I guess. One would be that indeed demand has outstriken supply in
Chanhassen for those fields. I don ' t know where that comes from because
as was mentioned earlier , it appears that we' re building new fields and
that indeed what we' re talking about are fields in the evening when the
adults have no other choice but to play in the evening versus fields that
are open in the daytime for kids. I 'm not sure who ' s bringing the excess
demand if indeed that ' s what is causing this proposal to come forward .
The other kind of clause might be just kind of what I call a political
purist kind of motions and I hope that ' s not what ' s happening. I think it
sends awfully bad signals from Chanhassen to any other community. It kind
of says that only the taxpayers can use our stuff and I think that ' s
politically an interesting issue and it ' s kind of an issue of purism but I
think it' s kind of wrong. Are we big enough? Is that what we' re saying?
We' ve already arrived at something? Do we not even want people to come
to our park and pay the user fee at the park? People from outside of
Chanhassen . I don ' t believe that ' s the thing that we want to be showing
so I guess I can only believe that demand for these parks must have
really, must be outstriping the supply of parks and I 'd sure like to see a
clarification. As was mentioned earlier , there seemed to be an awful lot
of parks that are sitting unused at times of the day when certainly school
age children are not in school . If it were a matter of trying to find I
guess coaches or something , kids don ' t play ball on their own without
coaches so I guess if the issue is to try to find coaches that could let
those kids utilize those fields during the daytime, I know the people on
our team would be willing to chip in some more money to help fund that
kind of effort if that' s what ' s needed . My main objective , I ' ve asked
about yours , mine is to insure a strong over 35 league. I 've been over 35
for about 7 years and I ' ve been playing in this league for that time and I
don' t want the league to be, unselfishly as a 'taxpayer , I don' t want the
league to diminish in terms of quality. I think it ' s a good league right
now. I don' t want a 6 team league or 5 team league or whatever it could
end up having with these fairly restrictive covenants . I think the net
answer in my way of thinking , possibly with this grandfatheri.ng issue and
let attrition fix the league and let' s police it properly. With that
other restrictive covenants like ages in this league, that probably needed
to be policed better . Once we decide what we ' re going to do , let ' s make
sure we police it but I think attrition will fix it . Thank you .
Jim O' Brien : My name is Jim O' Brien and I 'm from New Hope . If it' s
starting to sound like an awful lot of us are from out of town, I wasn ' t
going to speak but as everyone was talking I remembered that when I first
moved out here to Chanhassen, I lived in Chanhassen. My kids went to the
Minnetonka schools and we had an Excelsior mailing address . We' ve been
kind of a treated back and forth community around here ever since I ' ve
lived out here and that was up until 2 years ago. We' ve gone through a
I
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 9
Ilot of changes . Minnetonka has given up some of the P ostal services and
so forth over our way, or Excelsior has and we recaptured our boundaries
I and as we grow as a community, I think there are a lot of changes that go
along with that growth. I agree that some of the changes that you ' re
proposing here are things that we need perhaps now but like Ron was
I talking about, I have some selfish things that are involved with wanting
to continue to play on the 35 and over team here in Chanhassen. I
remember as recently as 3 years ago when we grandfathered in 3 teams . Two
I from Excelsior and 1 from Shakopee because we didn' t have enough teams to
play in the league. I remember about 6 years ago when our MGM team was
not going to be able to field a team because we didn' t have any ball
players and I went door to door from TH 101 along Pleasant View Road and I
I recruited ball players from the Chanhassen area and we did have a team
that year. So my suggestion is that all of the things that have happened ,
that have come about that present the circumstance that we are
I experiencing today, wherein we don ' t have 75% or 85% or 95% of the players
still residents or employed within Chanhassen , that wasn ' t done by design.
I think that happened through a natural process. Some of us have moved
out. I mean I was divorced and sold my home and I don' t live in
I Chanhassen anymore and I don' t think I should be punished for that and not
be allowed to play in the City of Chanhassen. I have a lot of friends
that I ' ve played with over the years here and I 'd like to continue those
I associations . I don ' t hunt and fish . . .nor are they with me. We don ' t
have a lot of other things in common but softball has been a common
meeting ground for many of us and we ' ve enjoyed the arguing back and forth
I on the field and the competitiveness that are league has enjoyed . The
teams that have been playing . A couple of years ago the MGM team that I 'm
a member of, fielded 13 guys at the last moment to drive up to Ely and
represent the City of Chanhassen in the State Tournament . We got the . . .
I beat out of us just like everybody else that ' s part of the State
Tournament from our league but that shows the kind of spirit that we have.
We ' re willing to go up and represent the league . Drive all the way to Ely
I and stay overnight and everything that ' s involved with that sort of thing .
Members of my team have been instrumental in trying to help the firemen .
We' ve come out and had meetings and so forth to try and help them make the
I firemen' s tournament on the 4th of July a more successful endeavor . It
didn' t work out last year . We had aspirations of making it a 35 and over
tournament and we wound up with roughly no tournament . We have put as
much into the community as anyone who has lived here, whether I moved out
I or whatever has been the circumstance and to have what ' s happening now
said to me after everything that we have done for the community,
everything that we' ve done for sports and so forth , have it turn around
Iand said well we don ' t want you guys around , I think is real cold .
Dick Lash : My name is Dick Lash . I play for Greenwood Shores on
Wednesday nights. You guys don' t know what it ' s like to get beat. First
I of all I don ' t understand exactly why this is being done . It hasn ' t been
explained to me all that great but if we do have to cut back, this is not
a new rule the way I understand it. I started playing on this league
I under these rules. They just weren' t enforced. I don' t know about the
rest of the leagues but the over 35 league , I ' ve always understood that
you were supposed to live or work in Chanhassen. And in answer to some of
the comments that were made up here about people moving out of the area
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 10
and wanting to come back and play, if I moved out of Chanhassen , I don' t
think I 'd want my kids to come back and go to school here. I wouldn' t
want to use the bank here . I wouldn' t want to use anything here. That' s
part of moving is you move everything. I believe the league will be more
equal . My team, I don' t speak for my whole team by the way. My team is
not only live in Chanhassen, they live in one neighborhood . That ' s
probably why we lose a lot of games . Also the grandfathering here, it
hasn' t been mentioned yet but I believe, the letter I have, they are
grandfathering 4 players which I think is real fair . If there has to be a
cut back. If there doesn' t have to be a cut back, I don' t see the reason
for cutting back at all here but if there' s one Chanhassen resident that
was turned down to play softball on our fields, I would rather see 399
booted out before 1 turned down for Chanhassen. I
Kent Budford: I 'm Kent Budford. I own Merlin' s Hardware Inc. in
Chanhassen . I also own Merlin' s Rental Center in Chanhassen. I 'm
rostered on a team but I do not play or haven' t yet played on a team here
in Chanhassen . I 'm a sponsor and from that I 'm looking for or to develop
a team that plays well , has fun but can advertise my name. I ' ve got ways
of advertising locally. These guys and by girls team get out in the metro
area and help produce my name farther out that I can' t do through normal
advertising . Couldn' t pay for the advertising these guys can give me .
That ' s all I want to say.
Jeff Bros : I 'm Jeff Bros from Chanhassen .
Hasek: Just one quick question please Jeff . Is your team legal or
illegal? Can you give us a feel for that?
Kent Budford: Last year we were very legal . This new ordinance will ,
change. It will be difficult to comply with the team that we have now.
As of last year yes because of people moving out. Yes , we were legal last
year . With the new ordinance , we' ll have to recruit new people . ,
Jeff Bros: Jeff Bros from Chanhassen. I 'm also President of the
Chanhassen Athletic Association. I guess I 'd like to make one thing
perfectly clear to everybody here is that the CAA is not funded by the
City of Chanhassen . The Park and Rec Board has nothing to do with us . We
create our own funds from our fees from the sports . We buy our own
equipment . We do not hire coaches to teach the kids . We ' re an adult
supervised program. We can' t do it during the day because we have a hard
enough time getting parents to do it in the evening when they' re home.
There aren' t any parents home during the day. I don ' t think anybody wants
to pay $40. 00 or $50. 00 to have their kindergarten aged girl being coached
by a high school kid. That' s what we'd have to raise the fees to if we
were to hire coaches for these programs . Last year our Little League
program in conjunction with the South Tonka group had 4 Little League
teams out of Chanhassen kids . We also fit into two big group teams . I
don' t think we' re going to be kicking anybody off of any fields to take up
these 6 teams. This year we' re anticipating some growth but it ' s just not
going to, I don' t see where the kids are getting blamed for these problems
that you' re getting kicked off of these fields so I 'd appreciate it if
everybody would leave the kids out of it. We' re running our own programs .
I
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 11
Yes , we need the fields. We' ve got kids coming over from Shorewood 9 g od and
Excelsior and everything else because we do have fields . The Bennett Park
I people won' t let the South Shore people use Freeman Field this year .
They' ve been told they can' t . Where else are those kids supposed to go?
We ' ve been in conjunction with these people for several years . South
I Tonka. We' re going to continue this . We' re trying to build a bigger
program for our kids but again, it has to be done in the evenings and
times when parents are there because these are parent supervised programs .
I It just doesn ' t work for us to do it during the day. It just doesn ' t work
here. We don' t have the number of adults that are willing to get involved
during the day when the people that can get involved during the day to
supervise these activities for our kids . I just wanted to make those
Ipoints . Thank you.
Jim O'Brien : Can I ask you a question?
IJeff Bros: Yes .
Jim O' Brien : I 'm just wondering , are you kind of insinuating that the
1 Little Leaguers need to use Lake Ann Park?
Jeff Bros : No , I 'm not .
IIJim O'Brien : Okay, that' s all I wanted to know.
II Jeff Bros: There is, Field 1 out there is a baseball field so one field
out of the whole field that is a baseball field , we don' t think that ' s
asking too much.
IIJim O'Brien : I don ' t either .
Public : Can I ask a question though then? Who is kicking us off the
Ifields? What is kicking us off the fields? I was the first one to
mention something about why we ' re being restricted with our eligibility
and there' s been about 4 or 5 people that have said something but nobody' s
come back with anything . Why are we being booted off those fields? Can
IIsomebody answer my question?
Hasek : Yes , I think we can . What I 'd like to do is to finish taking
Icomments if you don' t mind.
Public : Okay, but I think that ' s what everybody is thinking about right
Inow. With this last gentlemen that came up here, it definitely. . .
Brad Johnson: I 'm Brad Johnson. I live at 7425 Frontier Trail and the
CAA, Babe Ruth and Little League program. One of the problems that we
I have, which probably it doesn' t hurt to have a lot of people get together
and talk about this is that we have about 400 kids coming along that would
like to be like you guys someday. What' s happening is that they reach 10,
I 11 and 12 years old and we don' t have any fields where they can play on so
they drop out of baseball . That' s basically what ' s happening . Last I
coached , I ' ve been particpating in Babe Ruth for 2 years and I ' d say each
Iyear it' s been close to disaster from the kids of the parent ' s point of
I
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 12
view. We have kids just get totally upset with baseball . We have no
fields to play on. We have no coaches and all this kind of stuff so this
year we said , we' ll try to get a little bit better organized recognizing
that you have control , or somebody had control over what we perceived to
be a baseball field over there. So we requested that the City provide
us, we have 2 to 3 Little League teams that play here. The kids don' t
want to play all the way over in Tonka Bay all the time. I might add one
other thing that I ' ve heard here that' s of interest in that the same
people, or a good share of the people that I hear are playing softball are
from Tonka Bay, Shorewood, Excelsior , Victoria. We' re in the process of
forming a Little League that' s called South Tonka/Chanhassen . Same
cities. We' re in the process of trying to organize a Babe Ruth program
which is going to be like Chanhassen/South Tonka . But the point being is
that there appears to be a need not only from the adult level but also
from the kids level for the same type of things . It turns out that in our
city, the only field that we can play Babe Ruth on and keep the kids there
that could possibly have a pitchers mound and keep Field 1 at Lake Ann. In
the past we have not been able to use it. We have at the most this year ,
3 Babe Ruth teams , 2 of which are from Shorewood , Excelsior and Tonka Bay
so your own kids because they have no field to play either .
Boyt : Brad , what night does Babe Ruth play on?
Brad Johnson: I think we could control that . Some of this stuff is
probably more discussion. The real life is , we' re in a league that likes
to play Monday and Thursday nights. I too wander around over at Babe Ruth
and Little League. I think when a field stays open on Saturday all day
long and possibly Sunday all day long and neither the adults or the
parents want to take the time off to play on that day, because we have a
real restricted period of time. I know over in the Minnetonka , the youth
play on Saturdays once in a while and maybe some of those things can get
worked out but we' re in a different, our league is the Southern League or
the Southern River Valley League and so I think the issue probably is that
we need to figure out from our end of it how we can provide 4 teams a
place to play Little League on a field that ' s set up for baseball and we
need to find this year . This is just this year ' s problem, a place to
field 3 Babe Ruth programs or we' ll go through one more year . We have now
60 kids potentially on a Babe Ruth program and 4 years ago we had 13 .
Public : Are they all Chanhassen kids? ,
Brad Johnson: No. They' re coming from Excelsior , I 'd say a third to a
half of them are coming here because there are no fields over there.
Public: It' s all the same issue though isn' t it?
Brad Johnson : I said , it' s the same kind of problem. Maybe one issue is
that we have some kind of coordination as to what fields are being
developed by all the communities . Certainly you guys are voters . The
kids aren' t and you can put pressure on your own communities and maybe out
of this whole discussion will come some kind of program. It turns out ,
Little League, I didn' t know this and I think you told me that, it takes
40, 000 people, a community of 40, 000 people to field a Little League
I
II
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 13
Iprogram.
IBoyt : Except Chaska has their own?
Brad Johnson: They don' t have Little League.
IBoyt: It ' s not sanctioned Little League.
I Brad Johnson: To get enough, like you guys are saying, to get enough
teams together so you can play a league, that ' s what you' re really saying .
It just takes a lot of people and it takes a little organization so next
year you don ' t find out you don' t have a field and that' s kind of what
I we' re going through. I would recommend that, I don' t know, I don' t think
we caused the rule change in total by our request and sometimes you ask
for something and you get something you don ' t really want. Like you play
I softball and that kind of stuff so I 'm just saying , that ' s our problem. I
don ' t know if we' re not speaking for what ' s happening relative to the
break up of the other leagues here. It ' s just that we' re looking for a
solution of our own and probably created a problem but that problem was
I going to come along anyway and I know we' ve got some other fields coming
along. I think the CAA, right Jeff, we' re willing to work through the
process and even try to structure our league games so we can maybe play
I some games on Saturdays. We do need some adults to help us out on
programs. Otherwise , nobody gets to play. We have the same problem with
girls softball with the programs coming out so the kids are coming along
I and we just have to figure out how to work it all out as I see it .
Scheduling can' t be that rigid either from your part or our part. There' s
got to be some way of working this whole thing out .
I John Denardo: My name is John Denardo. I live in Chanhassen. I 've lived
here about 6 years . I ' ve paid taxes for 6 years . . . The people that
signed me up from MGM lived here or has lived here part of their life. I
I also played for Merlin ' s Hardware and the same thing goes there. The
thing I 'm trying to figure out is why these people and one fellow said
that once you leave this area who wants to come back. Well , I lived in
Minneapolis half my life. I don ' t mind going back there. I 've lived down
I south. I like it down there and I like Chanhassen and I ' ll come back
here. Your kids will . My kids will . The Mayors kids will . Everyone will
and I think that ' s the way it should be. Thank you .
IDon Knight: My name is Don Knight and I 'm from Shorewood and I 'm probably
the reason that John Seaman ' s team is pretty old . I ' ve lived here all my
I life in Excelsior and Shorewood and I ' ve been on the Community Services
for 9 years out there . I ' ve been involved in problems like this with
baseball , soccer 2 years ago and it always come down to the same problem.
Everybody wants the same facilities but the thing we found out that works
I the best is that before you write letters , before you call all these
people together and take their fields away, you sit down and talk. We
have a coordinating committee over there that we identify the fields that
I are available and then you sit down and talk about when you want them. I
really can' t believe that it had to go to a Council . The Council had a
letter written telling somebody to get off the field . I just don ' t
Iunderstand that. It seems to me that if this Babe Ruth sounds like a real
I
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 14
problem. We had that problem in Excelsior not too long ago , Minnetonka
Babe Ruth was fighting for Bennett Field. High School was fighting with
Bennett Field and when it come down to talk, everybody said here' s what ,
our problem is , there was no problem. There really is not a problem.
There are fields. There are people available. There' s Saturdays that
we' re talking about is wide open. I think there' s still time to solve
this problem if there' s just a field problem. If you ' re talking about the
Excelsior, Tonka Bay and them coming over here to play, I can remember a
couple of years ago I was coaching on the girls softball team in
Excelsior. Bennett Field said we couldn' t play on their field. We went
over there and talked to them and within a couple months we were playing
over there. It just doesn' t make sense to me that we write a letter and
tell somebody they' re out . I would like to see the Council sit down and
say, here' s a committee. You figure it out and fight over it and find out
what you ' ve got and I ' ll bet you 10 to 1 that it will come back everybody
will still be where they are. You' ll all be happy. In fact, when the
soccer people came to me, 2 years ago I did a study, I found 4 fields
available for soccer that nobody knew was there. Yet we had a big fight.
I also found out there' s 2 soccer organizations that didn' t talk to each
other in the same area. I found out when I went to baseball studies ,
there are fields sitting empty. I found out when it came to hockey, there
are a couple of hockey fields not identified. We have in the community
services in Minnetonka, we have what they call a coordinator that
coordinates all of the fields, all the gyms, everything else for anybody
that wants to for 7 villages . I do agree you have the right of your
facility as to whether you want to use them or not but I do think this
town needs a coordinating committee to identify your facilities . Identify
the time they' re available and sit down and talk. I don' t even think you
need new fields . I really don' t . I don' t think you need money. I don' t
think that' s the problem. Being here all my life, I really don' t
understand why it had to come to the Council writing a letter telling
somebody to get out officially in one year . That ' s all I ' ve got to say
and thanks . I think it can be solved .
Stan Hacker: I 'm Stan Hacker and I presently live in Minneapolis but I
had been a resident of Chanhassen. I play in the over 35 league . I guess
I 've got a couple of questions to the Board. Maybe I ' ll get answers now
or maybe at 9: 00, that maybe I 'm either ignorant of what has happened or
maybe no one knows and one is a question already addressed. Why did this
come to be? Who came to you and said we have a problem here? The second
is, the solution for , if the problem is Little League doesn ' t have enough
fields , I don ' t know that your solution is going to solve that because I
heard a number of managers saying we' ll just go out and get more legal
ball players so we don' t have the same teams but you may have just as many
teams as you do now. You may not solve that space problem at all . On the
other hand , a lot of teams may leave and you may not have any teams so the
solution may not address what the problem is and I 'm not even sure what
the problem is. I ' ve been told it' s a political thing . Chanhassen people
don' t want people like me who don' t live here anymore playing here and
I 've heard it' s the Little League baseball team. I guess my other
question is, what is the process? The letter that I saw today that our
manager showed us from Todd , it really seemed to me like the decision is
already made and we' re kind of wasting our time here tonight. It looks
I
1 ,
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 15
Ilike we' ve already talked to people and we already know so I '
Y guess I m
curious what is the process? Have you already made the decision? Does it
I go to the City Council? What do the citizens of Chanhassen have that we
can make new at this point? I guess as for coming back, I really do enjoy
the league even though I live in Minneapolis and the employment thing is
I too, I work for . . .centers and I service families in Chanhassen but I also
service families in Edina and Eden Prairie so I don ' t know about the
employment thing either. Maybe I 'm legal that way. There ' s a lot of
questions . My other question i.s , how are you going to deal with, I mean
II hear players saying, we' re going to need illegal players and all that
kind of stuff that you' ve opened yourself up to . I don' t know, it seems
like a real mess and also that it happened so fast. All of a sudden here
1 it is February and now all of the teams can ' t come back so I guess I ' ve
got a lot of questions that I 'd like the Board to address before the
evening is over .
Don Chmiel : I 'm Don Chmiel , Mayor of Chanhassen . I 'd just like to make
one clarification to Don. The letters that you received were not sent
from the City Council . That ' s the point I wanted to make . Thank you.
IPublic: Why not?
IDon Chmiel : It didn' t come to the City Council .
Steve Workman: My name is Steve Workman and I live on Carver Beach Road
in Chanhassen . I spent 12 years out of state and so forth and came back
I
about 3 years ago . . . .because it seems like kind of panic situation. This
letter pops out here and 2 or 3 months before the teams are supposed to
take the fields and there isn' t any, no discussion or no what do you think
I we should do about this and really no problem defined or no cause for this
problem has been defined. Now for many years , and I 'm still wondering ,
who in the hell are they because that ' s what, well they said this .
I Through college. Through the service and everything else. I for one
would like to know who they is and what it is that caused this problem so
that we can go back and maybe say, well this could be fixed. Thanks .
I Tom Metz : My name' s Tom Metz. I live in Western Hills. I ' ve been in
Chanhassen now for 21 years , 20 years . I ' ve been in the league ever since
it started back when it was 4 teams . Played for Brown' s Standard . I
I think the change probably won' t affect our team to any great extent but I
think just a couple years ago that we were in here discussing a problem of
the Rec Committee bringing in 2 more teams to our league and kind of us
I old timers kind of resented it. We were assured that there were a lot of
facilities . They would put lights on the field . That there would be a
lot of more time, we could play 3 games in an evening and we aren ' t going
to have trouble with accommodating the extra teams . I think there were
I some discussions about grandfathering people in and I think we did ,
thought there was a rule passed at that time that none of the teams would
bring in any more outsiders and basically as attrition goes on , they
I either drop out or all become Chanhassen teams and those decisions were
made . I think that decision had some of the same flavor of this
discussion. It was kind of like a surprise to everybody. No discussion
II to the managers to any great extent . I think maybe there was a letter
I
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 16
sent or something and some expectations that they'd understand the
ramifications of that was. It ' s kind of near sighted vision to think that
that ' s going to happen . So we got over that crisis and now we' re in this
crisis and it appears also, as I understand, that we' re going to expand
Lake Ann . We ' re going to build some more softball fields out there 1 year
away or something. If we get rid of some teams and get rid of some
players this year , what are we going to do? Then go around looking for
players again a year from now, 2 years from now? I would challenge the
Board to have some foresight , some vision and meet the needs of these
growing teams and supply them with facilities instead of just unilaterally
increasing the size of the league and then making the decision which
decreases the size of the league just within months before the league play
starts . If we are going to make decisions like this and we have to make ,
at least give them a phase out plan. Say in 3 years this has got to
happen . That ' s what I ' ve got to say.
Jay Johnson: I 'm Jay Johnson. I don' t play softball . I 'm on the City '
Council . I ' ve been listening to all of this tonight and it sounds like
we' ve got some opportunities here. Finding some more fields, I think we
have to open our minds up and look outside of Chanhassen . We' ve got
Shorewood, Tonka Bay, all kinds of residents that want to play in a
league . A league doesn' t have to be a Lake Ann league . I 'm hearing that
there may be fields in Shorewood. Some of the league games may rotate to
Shorewood . Our Little Leaguers play at different fields every weekend or
every time they play they may go to a different field depending upon which
field their opponents are at . Babe Ruth travel all over the Minnesota
River Valley. We could possibly work with the neighboring cities and
solve the problem that way if there are fields available. It sounds like
Shorewood ' s going to have 2 more fields available in 1 year and we' ll have
a couple more in 2 years . So it seems , I think that you could have had a
better letter maybe and I think a lot of things have been accomplished
tonight . I think that something ' s going to change here. Thanks for the
opportunity.
Mark York: My name is Mark York. I work in Minnetonka but live in
Chanhassen. I ' ve lived in Chanhassen for 27 years . I have participated
on the Thursday night mens open league . Been actively a player , coach and
sponsor of a team. We' ve changed sponsors over the last 4 years a few
times but the team has remained intact . Basically my team is comprised of
people that I have been raised with and lived in Chanhassen over my entire
life but my beef with the program was the work rule. Most of my players
are carpenters and they work in Chanhassen maybe half to three-quarters of
the year building houses but they don ' t meet the requirement listed within
your guidelines. I think that' s a little too strict being these are the
people who are actually building Chanhassen and making it a better place
for everyone. I think they should be allowed to play in this league .
When you put a team together , it ' s not an easy thing as all the coaches
here will know. Trying to find the right blend of people and compatible
personalities is important . What I have basically is people who have been
raised together and now we have a borderline situation where we' re
borderline on the eligibility so how do we determine among 10 people , a
real tight group, who' s the one to go and who do we pull in? We don' t
want to bust up the team. If one guy goes , everybody goes and we don ' t
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 17
Iwant to do that . It' s just a very enlightening thing that really improves
our quality of life here in Chanhassen and we don' t meet eligibility
I requirements in Excelsior . We have 2 from Excelsior and 1 from Victoria
so we' re within a very short radius of the fields and we bring our
business into Chanhassen . We really like to play. We like to see the
I teams that have played here remain eligible under a grandfather clause.
Possibly relax the work restriction.
Hasek : Anyone else? Okay. I don ' t know where to begin this . Maybe give
Iit to staff first. Are you prepared to kind of address some of the
concerns? Let ' s start with the basics. Let ' s start with the demand . The
overriding question. Why we did what we did. Why we felt it was
I necessary. The fact that we' re running out of fields and the fields
aren ' t going to be on line in time to meet the demand. The growth
figures . . .
IHoffman: To answer the question on why this came about in the first
place. In my letter I stated that there' s an increase demand by youth
leagues . That is correct . That can be substantiated through increase in
I teams. I ' ve had requests for fields to be available for Little League ,
Babe Ruth, Girls softball . Fields that just aren ' t available with the
system that we presently have in place but again, that is not the only
I reason . This rule would be a good rule. A good guideline in order for us
to prepare for the growth which is occurring now and in the future growth
which is occurring in Chanhassen . Our Park and Recreation Department
I needs a guideline, an order in which to operate our adult softball
leagues . Presently we have a guideline which basically addresses
eliminating extra teams that we do not have positions for by a percentage
basis which is very cumbersome. Does not work out . Does not make the
I people who get cut very happy. Leads to people falsifying documents as
was stated that may occur if this rule goes into effect . So it will help
us in the fact that now if this rule is instated, the teams that are
I playing , that are fielded this year , will be able to come back next year
as a team which was legal the year before and they' ll have a spot
available . Under the guideline that we ran last year , that is not the
I case. Each year the number of teams who would wish to play in a certain
league, sign up. We go through the percentage process of trying to figure
out the team' s with the greatest number of people who live or work in
Chanhassen and then draw a line and cut the bottom teams out . An example
I of that is in our last year ' s open league. We had 21 teams interested in
playing and 14 positions . 18 of those teams turned in a league roster .
We had to cut out the bottom 4. That leaves no room for additional teams
I to come in as the city grows . The new fields at Lake Ann which will come
on line in 1991 will help that some but basically we will be adding 1
field that will be available for adult softball . The other two fields
will be used as a Babe Ruth and a Little League field . In our over 35
I league last year , we had 15 teams register . That ' s 1 team over the
maximum limit of 14. If we grandfather all teams in, that leaves no room
for anybody, any new players that would like to play or any new teams , new
I Chanhassen based teams that would like to play. It leaves a no option to
be involved . It does not give them an option . 15 teams, we ' re 1 over the
maximum limit as it is . The problem occurs that we then speak of our
Iwomens league in that it affects them to the greatest extent . However , in
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 18
dealing with all softball players , you have to try to remain as fair and
as equal as possible for the reasons being that if we make exceptions in
one league , all the other leagues would want that exception as well so
whether you instate the ruling for the first place, we feel it needs to be
fair and equal across the board .
Public : A question Todd . The growth in the youth league was mentioned . 1
Are those Chanhassen youth?
Hoffman: The Chanhassen Athletic Association does not discriminate on who
they invite in or who they accept for their leagues. That' s Eden Prairie .
A percentage of Eden Prairie youth . Excelsior . Minnetonka .
Public: Obviously that portion, we' re asking to purify one league to make
room for another , it doesn' t make sense . If they were all Chanhassen
youth, I think that maybe we'd feel differently. But we' re saying is ,
the pressure put on this over 35 league and the other leagues in here
because of a league that is impure doesn ' t make sense to us. The other
question I have is , I 'm not aware and perhaps you are, about more over 35
players. It sounds like there are people, someone mentioned if there' s
one player in Chanhassen who can ' t play, he should go over to the Streeter
team because they forfeited 3 games last year . There are slots right now
in our league for players . We could use players on our team. Where are
they? We can add a couple ourselves and I 'm sure everyone, I don' t know
who the people are because we can ' t find them and we have tried . So again
I come back to the question of demand. I just don ' t understand the
rationale I 'm hearing . Now if there ' s more , I ' ll stop and shut up. If
that ' s it, I 'm sorry, I just don' t buy it.
Hasek : Can you respond to him any further?
Hoffman: Certainly. I 'm just looking for where I jotted those things
down as I went through. There' s been a lot of mention about we have
fields available. They are empty at certain times . I went through the
field scheduling book that I go ahead and schedule fields with as people
call them in as we schedule leagues, play-offs , etc. . Lake Ann was used
last year from about April 20th to August 15th , Monday thru Friday from
6: 00 p.m. to 9: 00 p.m. . 85% of the time there was a game taking place
there. The 15% that is available is available on Friday nights . There ' s
been a lot of discussion that people would be willing to make exceptions ,
play on a Friday evening . Play on a weekend . However , I am hard pressed
to believe that any one of our adult leagues would vote to play on a
weekend or a Friday evening or a Saturday evening .
Public: My question to you is , when I heard they have a park at DataServ,
it sounds like their fields are available to us . Now if you take those
two fields, that' s 8 more teams per night and then the other thing i.s ,
you' ve got the Chan Legion. There' s a field back there . I don' t know if
that ' s baseball or softball but I agree with anybody in here who' s been
saying that you can work this out . if you ' ve got 2 more fields from
DataServ, you can probably accommodate everybody and there is no more
problem. If there still would be, I play on the mens open and I know
that' s your biggest problem but 10: 00 at the Legion, I ' ve never seen
I
I
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 19
1 anybody on that field .
I Hasek: We can get a ton of questions going here and we' re never going to
get an answer to a single one so if you take your questions to the
microphone please .
1 Sietsema : My problem is , my speaker ' s right here so unless you talk into
the microphone, this speaker is not going to pick you up and this is all
Iverbatim tapes so I have to have you come up to the podium.
Hasek: Todd, can this one be addressed? We have some question about
DataServ, a couple fields and the Legion fields and we had a little bit of
Idiscussion about that.
Hoffman : The DataSery fields are , the possible use of those are still
I `being investigated. I ' ve been in contact with them. They have not gotten
back to me. They' re still working it through to see if all the people in
their various departments will approve that. The DataSery fields, if they
were approved , may or may not lead to some relief of the field scheduling .
I If we put it back to the managers on if they would like to play a portion
of their games down there , the managers that are not here tonight , that do
not have a problem with the new eligibility rule, would probably not go
I for playing on DataSery fields which are located in an industrial park.
Are subgrade fields to the fields at Lake Ann. Those may or may not
provide some relief .
IHasek : Todd , how do those fields compare to Chaparral ' s fields?
Hoffman: Meadow Green?
IHasek: Or excuse me, Meadow Green .
I Hoffman : They compare more in the line to City Center and they' ve been
ignored up until this last year of any maintenance so they are in
basically really rough condition .
I Hasek : You' re talking about maintenance through the City and insurance
through the Ci.ty. . .being discussed at DataSery right?
I Hoffman : Correct . The field at the Legion is as well , in very
deteriorating condition. It was used as the home field for the Babe Ruth
team last year . They about got laughed off the field when they had
I visiting teams come up to that field for the Babe Ruth team to host them
there . The dugouts are a hazard area . You don ' t even want to send your
children in there for fear that they' ll fall over . We need to negotiate
the use of that field with the Legion . They have no problem with that but
I they schedule their legion ball there as well so that field is used . It ' s
not used during the day. People drive by all our fields during the day
and notice they' re not being used. Nobody wants to use those fields
I during the day. There' s just not the time when people want to use their
fields for recreation.
I
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 20
Public : I don' t know about anybody else in this room but I 'm not willing
to quit playing softball and if I personally have to get my team over to
DataSery to help fix the fields, I 'd make them go. It ' s 8 more teams and
you've got 14 and 8 is 22. That covers you right? And you maintain Lake
Ann good , I don ' t know anything about DataServ . I just recently have been
pointed out to where the fields are. I don' t know what kind of condition
they' re in or anything but I don' t know if they'd be willing to help
maintain them a little better or if it would take league participation but
whatever it takes, but the outcome of this meeting , I will say that nobody
in here wants to quit playing ball and that' s the end of it . 1
Public : I just wanted to say, last year the womens league decided to
leave the registration open to get more teams in and no one applied . '
Public : I ' ve played in Minneapolis leagues and we played on fields that
nobody would play on but we enjoyed playing on the fields and if it takes
going to Chaparral and playing and not having perfect fields, not chalked
and everything, there are fields available where we can play. I think
that ' s what everybody wants is to play in a league . It' s not , we don' t
want perfect fields. We just want a field to play on.
Public : I 'm still wainting for an answer from this man ' s question over
here about why I 'm paying taxes and have no children and I 'm going to get
tossed out of this league for some kid who lives in the next town down
that' s coming over here to play ball . I 'd like an answer for that.
Hasek: You said that you were paying taxes . Where are you paying taxes?
Public: Chanhassen.
Hasek: I think part of the problem that we have is , at least by my
perception of the reason why, at least in my mind, we did what we did, was
to try and get things in line to meet a demand that ' s going to be coming
on line next year . The question, perhaps we could squeak by this year .
Maybe that could be done . Next year it won ' t be able to be done . There' s
no question about that.
Public : The demand . . .
Hasek: The demand is from the two people who came up here with the
children that want to play on the fields that live in this city or that
play in reciprosity with other cities who won' t allow, at this time,
eligibility for our teams to play in their communities . We can ' t go to
Excelsior and play. We can ' t go to Eden Prairie and play. I 'm speaking
from an over 35 league player now. We can' t go to Eden Prairie and play.
We can' t go to Minnetonka and play. If we could do that . If we could
find fields to do that, that would sove our problem but we' re not eligible
there . We aren' t and they' re not going to allow us to because their
programs are full . That' s why their children are playing on our fields
over here is because their demand is full . We have now reached that same
position on the fields that we have within Chanhassen. The question is ,
now who do we allow to play on those fields? Do I say, I give up my right
as an adult so that the kids can play? Because I live here, I should be
■
U Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 21
1 able to play? Or is it the people who aren ' t paying taxes here , even
though they are playing on teams and we thank them for helping us along .
I They' ve helped over cities and every city around is growing . Minneapolis
I 'm sure, Eden Prairie at one time allowed everybody in. They no longer
do that . It ' s not an uncommon problem at all and we have reached the
Idemand for it from the City of Chanhassen.
Public : I understand again the issue . If Chanhassen has arrived and we
I really can insulate ourselves and should, then the least the Planning
Commission should do is plan on also restricting those youth leagues . And
I hate to say this . I hate to say this but I ' ve got 4 kids, boys , and
they' re all playing ball . They have been . A couple of them played a
I couple years in Chanhassen and the rest of the early years , and the other
2 kids have played in Bennett Park. I live in Chanhassen . My kids go to
Minnetonka schools and they play at Minnetonka . It ' s a strange world but
I to be fair , if you' re going to talk about purism here, then this demand ,
the gentleman came up and talked about the youth league, they better be
just Chanhassen kids because they can ' t be Shoreview kids mixed in with
Chanhassen kids . You' re not allowing the over 35 league and I guess this
Iother league to have a mixed community league.
Hasek : But I think you ' re jumping one of the important issues here and
I that is that the kids are allowed to cross those boundaries . They are
eligible in Shorewood . Cathcart Park is in Shorewood . It ' s in Chanhassen
but it ' s a Shorewood park so we do play, our kids do play in Shorewood .
I Our kids do play in Minnetonka . That ' s the system and that ' s the way it ' s
set up so the reciprosity is there. In this particular league, there is
no reciprosity. We haven ' t the right to play anyplace else . We don' t
have the eligibility.
IPublic : So we haven ' t the right , on youth baseball and I really hate to
talk about youth baseball . That ' s a tough deal . We' re talking about
I apple pie and mother here but on youth baseball , we have the right to say
that Chanhassen has found it' s own youth baseball league.
Hasek: We haven ' t the right to do that?
IPublic: Correct.
IHasek: Sure we can . We simply have the demand for it.
Public: Well we don ' t have the demand but we ' ll wait until we get it.
IThat' s the question that ' s the problem right now.
Hasek: So the issue would be the same. The issue would still be the
same. If we run it across everything , these people still wouldn ' t be able
to play.
Public : It appears that we can ' t play anyway. I 'm just saying , if we do
I it, let' s do it fairly. If we' re really going to try to insulate
ourselves and make the open league , the womens league , the over 35 and all
these leagues, be just Chanhassen residents and that' s what we' re going to
try to do, then let ' s make sure the other leagues that are competing for
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 22
those fields , either youth leagues or whatever they are , let ' s make sure
they' re just Chanhassen residents too and that might mean we have to sever
our relationships with the current baseball organization with those other
youth fields, but if that ' s what it means , I guess that seems fair . I
don ' t want to do that . I want to do what everybody else in this room
wants to do I think which is let' s open this thing up and try to find a
solution . I hear what you folks are saying . Here' s why we did what we
did but that' s scary. That sounds like a done deal . If it' s a done deal ,
I think it ' s a quite unfair done deal . If the question is , what are we
going to do, different issue. I think everyone here seems to think that
we can work this thing out . It just boggles me to , I think I 'm hearing . . .
Hasek: Todd, have you got any figures that you can throw back at
them? Fields? Teams?
Jay Johnson : I 'd just like to mention one thing on the youth . Last year
was the first year the Little League had a field here in Chanhassen.
We' ve been playing with South Tonka for 6 or 7 years , if I remember right .
South Tonka Little League can not survive without the City of Chanhassen
kids . About half of their Little League is our kids . If we pulled out
and created our own Little League, we started to do that last year and
South Tonka came and said , hey, you can ' t do that or you will destroy
Little League baseball in Shorewood, in Tonka Bay, in all these
communities so we as an Athletic Association, the Chanhassen Athletic
Association I 'm talking now as a member of the Chanhassen Athletic
Association not the City Council , we are separate from the City. We ' re a
parent run organization that has nothing to do with the City of
Chanhassen . They happen to loan us fields for our youths and we have
members from, we don' t restrict our eligibility. If some kid wants to
come and play from St . Paul , he can . We have soccer players coming from
Mound because Mound doesn' t have a soccer league. We have soccer players
coming from Hopkins because Hopkins doesn ' t have a soccer league. But
anyway, we' re growing . We had 353, I believe, new single family building
permits issued this year . In this town the average family is 3 people.
That' s 1 kid so we' re talking another 300 new kids came into town this
last year and that doesn' t even count the apartments .
Public: How many of those are over 35?
Jay Johnson : The same thing . We need them both . Shorewood ' s opening '
fields. We' re opening fields. We' re coming to a crunch this year and
next year it ' s going to be a real crunch.
Hasek: Next year it' s going to be a crunch and if those 2 fields don' t
come on line in 2 years , if we have another summer like we had this year ,
it will be another year before those fields are on line because they have
to sit in good weather for at least 2 years . '
Jay Johnson: You' ve got more agenda items tonight too .
Hasek: I 'm going to go, please if I may, please just pass you by and get
to Jeff because he' s got an issue that' s related . . .
I
■
I .
II Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 23
IJeff Bros : The Little Leagues and such are not , again ,
are not run by the
City. They are charters that are set up and they cover specific
I neighborhoods . South Tonka Little League covers Shorewood , Greenwood ,
Excelsior, Tonka Bay and Chanhassen. That ' s the Charter for that group .
It ' s got nothing to do with softball . It' s got nothing to do with the
ICity of Chanhassen.
Public : Jeff , you understand that the basic issue is fields in
Chanhassen. Chanhassen people trying to get a variety of fields .
IJeff Bros : Right . Again , I want you to forget the adult ,
lea ues all of
leagues ,them, and Little League because they' re two separate groups . The
I restrictions for softball have got nothing to do with Little League . Our
charters are set up and they cover those communities .
I ` Public : That ' s not the issue . It ' s the fields .
Hasek: The issue is the resident, the real issue is the residents of
Chanhassen and their ability to use their own fields to the max . That is
I the issue. For your own information, real quick, I don' t know how many of
you had a chance to take a look at this little chart that we put together
on adult softball leagues for 1988. Monday night industrial league , 12
I teams. 10 teams. . . Tuesday night , womens open league . There are 9
teams . 72% are non-residents . Don' t live or work in the city. Wednesday
night , mens over 35. 46% of 15 teams are non-residents . Thursday night ,
I mens open. 14 teams . 44% are non-residents . Friday night, co-rec. 6
teams . 40% are non-residents . Of the 56 teams , 555 people live or work
in Chanhassen. 399 are non-residents . That ' s 72% of the people in the
adult softball leagues are being supported by the people of Chanhassen and
Ithose people don' t live and work here. That ' s a pretty significant amount
of people.
IPublic : That ' s live in or work in?
Hasek: That ' s live or work in this city anymore . Now, the gentleman said
I that I live I Minneapolis and I go back there all the time. I do that
too . I ' ve lived in Mound . Let ' s start at the beginning . I started in
Hopkins. I played in Hopkins when I lived in Hopkins . When I moved to
Mound , I grew up there in Hopkins . . .
I (A tape change occurred at this point in the meeting . )
I Public : . . .and I think the rest of the guys are getting the shaft . I
think that you guys should be putting more energy into how you can take
these other parks , these other facilities , these city parkland , and get
those fields already up there a little bit better condition so that they
I can be used by the people in Chanhassen and not figure out how you can get
rid of some of the people from the leagues . It seems to me that we' re not
in a position right now where , in today' s world that we don' t have enough
I facilities. We' ve got facilities that aren' t being used because the park
has not invested the money to get these facilities into the shape that
they can be used for league play.
r
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 24
Public : Has this been finalized?
Hasek : It ' s been voted on. Obviously the letter ' s been sent out . A good
question, do we have to go through City Council?
Sietsema : Typically this is not the type of thing that would go to City
Council because it is a policy. The Commission is directed to provide
recreation opportunities for the City of Chanhassen . If the Council gives
us direction in doing that by giving us a budget and giving us the
Comprehensive Plan and this is typically the type of thing that the
Commission would make the decision on and we would not typically send that
onto Council .
Hoffman : This is not an ordinance. It ' s a Park and Recreation policy.
'Hasek: So it does not demand Planning Commission or City Council action?
Sietsema : If it required the expenditure of money other than what is in
the budget or something different, it would then go up to City Council .
The Park and Recreation Commission made a decision. They did vote on it.
You have the opportunity to change your mind , reconsider your motion, your
decision. You were aware when you made the decision that it was going to
be hard on the people that it affected. However , that doesn' t mean that
it' s written in stone if you would like to change anything or modify it
but that would be up to you. That would have to be a reconsideration.
We 'd have to look in the Minutes to see if the person making the motion
wanted to reconsider .
Public : My question then would be, before it is finalized , and that ' s got
to be up to you people to finalize this issue right? I
Hasek: As of right now it is finalized .
Public: It is finalized? i
Hasek: Yes , unless we reverse it.
Public: But you can reverse it?
Hasek: Absolutely. I
Public : I 'd like to make a suggestion then before we leave tonight .
Before we leave tonight I would like to see that this gentleman, one
member of the softball league , the 2 members of the athletic department
and the members of the womens league get together and work out a program
for the summer and then come back next year with a plan that ' s a lot
better . I think, from what I hear tonight, this thing could work out for
this year and use for the fields for one year before this thing . Then
during the next year you could come up with a very logical decision. This
thing tonight sounds like maybe it was put together too fast and there are
some good people here and I sure don' t want anybody to get hurt. I think
you can work with them. I really do. We ' ve got those two other fields.
The athletic department, I ' ve worked with many athletic departments, you
I
I .
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
IIFebruary 28 , 1989 - Page 25
can always work it out . I do think that one thing to consider is that
instead of starting the softball league at 6: 00 , maybe the baseball team
1 could have it from 6 : 00 to 7: 00 and things like that could be worked out .
The girls could play maybe the other game alternate nights so everybody
takes advantage of the same fields. It isn ' t that big a problem so I
IIwould suggest that you do that.
Hasek: Yes , we' re going to go through the Commission .
I Boyt: A couple of questions. Right now it runs 6 : 00 to 9: 00 in the
evening . Is there any flexibility in that? Can they play later or can
they start earlier?
IHoffman : Adult softball plays from about 6: 15 until approximately games
end at 10: 00 p.m. . I just took the example of the 6 : 00 to 9 : 00 p.m. for
I the study of when they' re used so they do play until 10: 00. The ordinance
states that the park is closed at 10: 00 and I hear expressions from many
team players and managers that it would not be their desire to play later
than 10: 00. They just don' t want to play any later . We have one field
I that ' s available . Field #1 that ' s lighted to go ahead and play later than
10: 00 but, that' s an option but it' s a small option.
IHasek: Is that field going to receive a mound this year?
Hoffman: If it' s used , the Babe Ruth team has requested use of that
II field , that would greatly restrict it ' s use for softball . It' s an issue
that needs to be decided . Instating this policy is one way in effectively
addressing that situation . Field #1 is used , the most heavily used field
for adult softball because it is lighted . If it was used two evenings ,
I Babe Ruth games and practices are approximately 2 hours long . That would
take out the availability of 6 softball teams playing on those particular
nights so the request by the Babe Ruth to use that field , which was
I originally developed as a baseball/softball field , really does have some
effect on how our leagues would be operated , adult softball leagues would
be operated .
IBoyt : What time does Babe Ruth play?
Brad Johnson: 6 : 00 to 8 : 00 roughly.
IBoyt : And how about Little League . What time do you play?
I Jeff Bros: Normally the game would start at 5 : 30 and we go until 8 : 00 or
7: 00. Little League is not using , or the South Tonka League is not going
to be using any Lake Ann facilities . I told Todd that we could get by
without using any Lake Ann facilities this year .
IHasek: How about next year?
I Jeff Bros : It really depends on the growth that we experience this year .
If we have growth this year si.mi liar to what we had last year , we will
need it .
1
I
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 26
Boyt : There is a group of parents who are trying to get Little League
started in Chanhassen, like this man said, Chanhassen kids in Chanhassen
so that' s something to look into . I think Jay had a legitimate suggestion
of does Shorewood have baseball diamonds right now? Softball diamonds?
Public : Shorewood does not have the softball fields available. There are
3 that were constructed last fall but they' re not going to be ready for
another year . These are Freeman Park. Shorewood has a Babe Ruth field
and 2 Little League fields that are used by the South Tonka Little League.
Boyt: So they' re not available for mens leagues?
Public: Not for mens softball .
Boyt : I thought it was a good suggestion that our mens leagues try and
work with some other communities when we have eligibility. . .
Public : Oh sure that' d be great.
Boyt: And I don' t know what that is besides Shorewood . I
Watson : What about Tonka Bay and Greenwood?
Public: There are 5 lake communities that are not accepted by the I
Hopkins-Minnetonka Rec . They' re Tonka Bay, Cottagewood , Shorewood ,
Excelsior and Greenwood.
Boyt : But Excelsior is exclusive. You have to live in Excelsior to play
on their fields?
Public : No . I
Watson : Of those communities , how many could provide you with facilities
to play softball?
Public : None . Not this next summer .
Watson: The thing in one more year we' re going to have 2 fields?
Public : Three .
Watson : And Tonka Bay doesn ' t provide any fields and Greenwood has
nothing and Cottagewood has nothing so basically if we were to form a
coalition of these communities , at this point , Chanhassen would be
providing the fields regardless .
Public : For this year . Tonka Bay has two new softball fields coming but
they won ' t be ready until next year also.
Watson : So that would include, then next year we'd have 5 more fields?
Public: Yes .
I
I
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 27
IPublic : I 'd like to point out , the Excelsior softball league , the mens
league, that allows players from Chanhassen to play. I think you are
I under the conception that it didn' t. It allows people from west of 494 ,
north of TH 5, south of TH 55 and it goes as far west as you want to go .
The problem is there are more teams applying than the league has space
I for .
Boyt : The only other thing I see is Friday nights and Saturday play and
I guess that ' s something that would have to be approached by the whole
Illeague , by all the leagues .
Sietsema : One thing to consider before we get into weekend play, and
I I don' t want to throw another damper on but we have typically left our
weekends open because people do reserve that park for the use of the
facilities in that park. People pay money on weekends , and during the
I week as well , to go to Lake Ann Park and use the facilities there . If we
start scheduling league play and organize that, we' ve already got all of
the neighborhood parks filled up in the evenings with youth . There isn ' t
much out there left for pick-up games for the person who ' s not involved in
I the organized league sports and that may be something you want to
consider .
I Public : That ' s a good point Lori because my family, even though we live
in Shorewood, we have the sticker and we come over on the weekends quite a
bit and I just as soon not have the softball players out there on the
I weekend . We like to go out and play with a couple of my kids and stuff .
That ' s a very good point . The Friday night , if it were to be an
intermingling of game. For instance, let ' s say once every 3 or 4 weeks ,
depending on the leagues , to be rotated in to play games on Friday night .
I I see no problem there. Friday nights are kind of fun to play. For
instance let ' s say on one field the first game you would have an over 35
game and the second game might be Thursday night open league and maybe the
I night game or the last game may be one of the gals playing the last game
on one field and rotate it around on Friday nights . You' re not doing it
all the time.
IIBoyt : Are there games available Tuesday evenings?
Hoffman: Tuesday evening, Field 1 and Field 2 is used by the womens
Ileague and Field 3 was Little League .
Schroers : I 'm getting the impression tonight that everyone here seems to
I think that we are against everyone playing softball in Chanhassen and I
want to go on record as saying that is not the fact at all . We don' t want
to see anyone not be able to play. I think what ' s happening here is that
we have been asked by staff and other residents of Chanhassen and come up
I with a workable solution because of our facilities are and it looks like
in the near future will be severely overtaxed . And the reason for this I
think is because there' s a pattern that develops from the urban sprawl
I out . What happens as development happens faster than we can obtain the
revenue from it to build facilities and keep up so we' ve been sort of
overwhelmed and we' re a little bit behind . In following , the trim, if you
IIlook from here towards the city, if you go to Eden Prairie, if you go to
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting 11 February 28 , 1989 - Page 28
Hopkins and further in, they have absolutely no one outside of the City
that lives or works can play in their facilities . In their leagues. So
we thought that by limiting it to 4, we were still trying to keep as many
people playing as we could and keep our facilities going as well as we
could until we have new facilities coming on line and hopefully then we' ll
be able to accommodate everyone. That is what we were hoping to
accomplish with the proposal that we made.
Public: Given the figures for all the leagues, how many people are
currently. . .while that sounds like a good compromise, I think it' s pretty
obvious that it' s going to really decimate some of the leagues .
Schroers : We realize that and we may lose. I played here in Chanhassen
for 15 years. I am on the over 35 adult league and our team, most of the
players are legal but we may stand to lose 1 or 2. We' re just like
brothers. Do I want to tell one of my team mates that they can' t play
here? Believe me, this is not something that we want to do. This is
something that we felt in fairness to all the residents of Chanhassen,
this was our solution. However , we don' t want to be closed minded and say
that this is this. I am more than willing to work on any equitable
solution that we can come up with to keep everyone playing here. We don' t
want to eliminate anyone, even the girls.
Public : We ' re gone . We' re history. '
Robinson : When we discussed this issue 2 or 3 weeks ago or a month ago ,
or whenever it was, I ' ve got to admit that I was one that was opposed to
non-residents playing on Chanhassen fields. I ' ve backed off from that
tonight. I think it can be worked. I really do. I think forming a
committee with Todd , the CAA, the over 35 league and the womens and I
don' t think it can be worked this year but I think in the future years,
with the new fields we' ve got coming up. The one thing I regret now, that
I overlooked, it happened so fast, you can' t possibly respond and find
another field this year or do anything so I think you really would be out
this year . I think it can be worked and I would propose I guess that we
grandfather the teams in this year and look for a solution for the future.
Watson: I want the same group to take the ferver you came here with and
go to Shorewood and Tonka Bay and Greenwood and tell those people that you
need softball fields. 1
Public: We' ll have 5 more next year .
Watson : I know but you know, it will be 5 more next year . We' ve had 1
fields for years now. You all talk about how long you ' ve been playing
here and they' re finally going to have 5 fields in another year or so . I
think that the only way that this is ever going to work is if the adults
play it like the kids do . We form a coalition of communities and we
rotate. You play in Chanhassen. You play in Shorewood. You play in
Greenwood . You play at all different parks . The only way that' s going to
work however , is for all the communities to begin to supply the services
necessary for you guys to play. Chanhassen is never going to be able to
virtually, by itself, provide fields for this entire group and certainly
■
II .
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 29
IInot with the growth that ' s occurring out here and Shorewood and Tonka Bay
and in Chanhassen and in Chaska. Chaska has quite a few facilities of
I their own but of the groups up here , all the communities are going to have
to begin to take a look at what they' re doing with their resources and
start providing so this group would do well to organize and start to talk
Ito the other communities about providing more facilities because
Chanhassen ' s not going to ever be able to keep up but I 'm with you. If we
could keep it together for one more year and give it a year to work it
Ithrough.
Boyt : Making room for the Babe Ruth. . .
I Watson: We've got to work it out so they can play too but we can ' t
eliminate the womens softball .
I Mady: A month ago when we reviewed this item we knew a lot of this was
coming. It ' s not unexpected. There were 3 of us who play in the over 35
league . I ' ve played for 5 years now, it will be 6 years this year .
I recognize all you guys. Softball is not a sport as much as a social
I gathering . My concern has been always . . .with these youth sports and I 've
been screamed at more than once by a youth sport coaches about why don' t
we have something to play on. They look at Lake Ann , Lake Ann has been an
I adult field really. My aim in this whole matter is to get something
available for the kids. In that , Little League , Babe Ruth set up. I 'm
kind of disappointed that a couple of the coaches that have been hitting
on me the hardest aren ' t here tonight . It seems like the Legion field
really isn ' t an alternative to them. At least that ' s what they keep
telling us . The DataSery fields , that Commission asked staff to look into
them. Nobody really knew they were there. Unless you look for the, you
' don ' t see them. I 'm not sure what they look like . I agree that we ' ll
play almost anyplace. If you ' ve played in Minneapolis , you do . . .
IPublic : Another possibility for a solution. I know. . .
Hasek: Please.
IMady: One thing to keep in mind , Chanhassen neighborhood parks , if we
were to open those up for league play, adult league play, we' ll fill this
chamber up with residents , neighbors who are going to be screaming at us .
I We ' ve already had them coming to complain about the practices taking place
there so there' s the other side of the issue . It ' s always been our goal
to leave the neighborhood parks open to kids and the residents who live
I right there . That ' s what they' re for . The community parks are open to
the community. I believe we ' ve heard a lot of good suggestions tonight .
I don ' t think this issue is finished by any way. I guess we got
everybody' s attention. Now we' re going to work on it . Work on a solution
I but Carol ' s right in that this isn ' t going to be Chanhassen ' s solution.
Almost every person who came up here tonight, I would guess 75% of the
people that came up here tonight are from Shorewood , Excelsior , Tonka Bay.
I That side. Why don ' t they provide something for them. We ' re trying .
We ' re a struggling little community trying to provide for our own
residents and in the past when our program wasn ' t developed very well , we
IIpulled other people in but now we ' re 10, 000 people strong and we' re
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 30
growing , it seems like 1, 000 people every year and we' ve got to find
solutions to our new parks . Yes , we' re going to have 2 or 3 more fields
at Lake Ann in about 2 years. Hopefully in the southern part of '
Chanhassen we' re going to have another community park but that' s probably
at least 5 years away before that ' s going to be developed. We don ' t have
the money to do it so we' re going to need to find a solution . I don' t
know if grandfathering you is a solution because we' re going to have to
work with the youth people too .
Public : I ' ve got one other suggestion that I never heard mentioned .
Hasek: I might suggest that you take your suggestions to the Park Board .
Now we ' ve got people here for another issue tonight and our normal closing
time is 10: 00. We' ve got a full agenda .
Boyt : Not the people wanting to take it to the Park Board . We are the
Park Board .
Mady: Staff .
Hasek : I think the place to take it and I think the issue, and if I may
just continue with Jim here, I think the issue, maybe there' s one, the
availability of the fields. The economics are killing us right now. We
haven' t got the funds available to build to the demand that ' s being
expressed to us . I guess the suggestion that I would have is that we try
and work together with the abutting communities to get some kind of
reciprosity so that we can all play on the fields. Even if it means that
we have to travel a little bit to do that. That would be fantastic. But ,
the problem is , if that isn ' t a solution this year , then I strongly want ,
the kids that are out there and the demand that' s been expressed, to be
able to play on the fields in our town. If there ' s an alternate solution
to that and a way to work that out , that would be fantastic but I don' t
know what that is right now. I don ' t know if it' s even possible . What
kind of a time line are we working on? Do we have time this year to even
do that? Sit down with other communities and try and figure out if we can
put together a program? How about scheduling games?
Hoffman : An enormous amount of staff time has already been devoted to
this issue. There are a lot of other items. A lot of other issues. A
lot of other programs . Program development . Program implementation that
has suffered because of this issue. Those things need to be taken care
of. They' ve been ignored a great deal .
Public: How do you know how many softball teams you' re going to have at
this point? You have no idea so how can you. . .
Hasek: That' s true. That ' s absolutely true. I
Public : The solution is . . .
Hasek : There might be more room after we get done with this than we ,
absolute need.
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 31
Public : You may not need any more room.
Hasek: Exactly but it' s a place for us to begin at least to clean it up
so we can pull back our horns and say okay listen , now this is the first
thing we 've done. What ' s next? What' s our next option after this one?
' This is a good first option for all of the residents of Chanhassen . A
very good first option to find out exactly where we stand and that ' s why,
basically why we chose the route that we did . We want to provide services
to the people that live here. For the people that pay taxes here.
' Public : And you live in Shorewood?
' Hasek : No , no , no , no . Because our children are playing there. There is
a reciprosity and I wish you would keep that issue separate.
Public : I wish you would keep that issue separate Ed . We' re talking
about fields in Chanhassen and Chanhassen people. That ' s what you' re
talking about . You guys raised the issue . Someone did . Chanhassen
people using the fields in Chanhassen. If you have to restruct your
Little League teams and get a new Charter so it ' s only Chanhassen , then
we' re on apples and apples .
Hasek : That might be a possibility.
Public : Well maybe that' s what you' ve got to do because right now what
you ' re talking about is you ' ve got reciprosity on the youth league and we
don ' t have it on the adult leagues . . .
Hasek : Is there anything else by the Commission?
' Boyt : I have just one quick thing to say. I 'm really disappointed that
Steve has volunteered the Little League to give up their night on the
' field . That ' s their one night in Chanhassen . Otherwise they' re all over
the place. I 'm disappointed. My 10 year old son doesn ' t want to play
because he has to go to Minnetonka to play. He ' d like to play in
Chanhassen but he can ' t. We don' t have our own Little League.
Mady: One thing we' ve heard tonight is the pride that you guys have in
going out of state defending your title for Chanhassen. Our kids in this
' town don' t have a home field . They really don' t. We play on make shift
fields at best for Little League.
Public : I don ' t hear anybody saying that we have to play on Lake Ann
fields and polished fields . I hear people saying . . .
Mady: We don ' t have anything . DataSery is not available right now to us .
That has to be worked out. We' re trying to work that out. We don' t know
if that ' s available . If it does become available , we don' t know if the
leagues are going to be willing to play there. It ' s an option we' re
trying to investigate right now.
Public : Why don ' t you ask the leagues instead of letting Todd make that
decision. I got real tired of Todd talking for the leagues tonight. I
I
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 32
don ' t know that he' s talked the managers because all the managers I talked
to are upset with what' s happening and Todd keeps talking about the
leagues and the managers . That ' s Todd talking . Not the leagues and the
managers. Talk to leagues and managers and see if they' ll play there or
Friday night .
Mady: The last point I want to make. I ' ve heard a lot of selfishness out
here. I really have. There' s been no one. No one is worried about the
kids in this town . It' s where am I going to play? Where am I going to
play? Where am I going to play? Well , by golly when you guys are 75
years old and not playing anymore , the kids who should be playing now
aren ' t going to have a place to play.
Public : I play in the afternoon with a bunch of kids and I think it ' s a
lot healthier than all the leagues . . .adults setting up league kids , it
stinks . It gets into the parents . Let the kids go out and play in the
afternoon. Don' t shame me about the issue.
Hasek : Any other comments from the Commission?
Schroers : I think there' s something else that hasn' t been brought up.
The industrial development that ' s going on in Chanhassen. We ' ve got a
corporation such as Rosemount moving in that has I don' t know how many
employees . Lots and lots of employees . Rosemount Corporation, right now
their Eden Prairie company sponsors I don' t know how many softball teams .
When they come in here and may be paying a million dollars a year for
taxes, they' re going to want to play some ball too. We have to take a
look at that . Not just right now.
Hasek: I 'd like to move onto the next item on the agenda . Final review
of Chan Park Master Plan. Let ' s take, how about Lake Lucy public access?
REVIEW POTENTIAL SITES FOR LAKE LUCY PUBLIC ACCESS . '
Sietsema: I don' t think I ' ll go through too much of the staff report
right now. As you may recall , the Watershed District , the cities of Eden
Prairie and the City of Chanhassen was approved for a Lake Riley Chain of
Lakes clean-up project . The grant funds for that were contingent upon
getting public access on each of the lakes involved in that project. It
goes Lake Lucy, Lake Ann , Lake Susan and Lake Riley. There is currently
access on Lake Riley and on Lake Ann. We are pursuing access and have
been funded for access on Lake Susan and Lake Lucy is still remaining . At
the last meeting that we held, we covered a number of points. Basically
it was an information gathering session and as the outcome of that
meeting, staff went out into the field to look at the different vacant
pieces of property to see what would support a public access . The second
issue that was discussed, there were questions as what this project . . .
(A tape change occurred during staff ' s presentation . )
Mark Koegler : . . . there really are two reasons why this is being brought
to the Commission now. First of all , back in 1980 when the City' s
I
' Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 33
Comprehensive Plan was adopted , the Council at that time a adopted policy
p 1 icy
to provide public access on each of the City' s lakes. Over the last 9
years , I think relatively systematically, this body and the Planning
Commission and the Council have been working towards and achieving that
goal . The thing that really is driving this at this time is the item that
' Lori mentioned . That through the EPA funding for the Chain of Lakes
clean-up project , there' s a proposal to do significant clean-up in the
area that ' s shown on the map there now Lake Riley watershed. Lake Riley
has been the subject of numerous studies over at least the last 10 plus
years. All of them really coming to the same conclusion that significant
changes need to be made in water quality. The thrust of this study is , in
order to do that, all of the lakes within the watershed need some clean-up
' effort and that extends literally, as you see , from Lake Riley all the way
up to Lake Lucy. The federal and state guidelines that Lori referenced ,
being the DNR and the EPA guidelines , do state that an access is a portion
' ' of the requirement for funding of the project and that' s why again, this
really is before you now. In looking at alternatives on that site , we
looked at a number of options and let me throw another exhibit up. One of
the first items that was really looked at was kind of a composition of the
' parcels that surround Lake Lucy and the lake, I 'm sure you' re all aware is
primarily privately owned . There are 24 different land owners according
to the most recent city records in and around the body of water. Of those
'
sites , two of those are public . One being Greenwood Shores neighborhood
park, which is item 1 on that map. The other is a small parcel , number
19 , which is owned by basically an off shoot , a sister relationship to the
DNR. The DNR has the fee title of that particular property. The
ownership pattern around the lake obviously creates some opportunities in
terms of acquisition but it also creates some constraints . I think
probably the biggest constraint is one that everybody is aware of. Again,
the property 24 that' s shown on that map is owned by one individual and
that individual being Prince . That represents only about one-third of the
lakeshore on Lake Lucy and the assumption, and I would underline that
' right now, the assumption of the study is that given his privacy and
security concerns, that that property is going to be virtually impossible
to obtain . Now there is still ongoing efforts to make sure that that
indeed is fact and that will be entered into as this process goes forward .
' Now that is an underlying assumption that is a part of this . There ' s also
the environmental problems around Lake Lucy in that there is significant
areas of wetlands, particularly on the northern portion of the lake . Many
' of those areas are designated under Chanhassen ' s wetland ordinances and
rightfully so are protected in many instances . What it boils down to is
we essentially in looking at owneship records and looking at aerial photos
' and walking many of the properties , came up with four potential sites that
are being looked at and discussed further this evening for consideration
by you . Let me stick those up for reference for everybody. The four
parcels, the ones that are identified on that map as items A through D.
' Now I ' ll run through each of those briefly and give you a few comments on
some of the pluses and minuses that were reviewed as a part of this . The
first site that was looked at, was one that I referenced before and that ' s
item A which is the Greenwood Shores neighborhood park presently under
ownership of the City as property being used as a neighborhood park. It ' s
about a 3 1/2 acre site. As such, the acreage is adequate. The
topography is adequate . You could design and you could get an access in
I
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 34
there if you so desired . The problem you immediately run into is that the
park is heavily used right now as a neighborhood park facility and from
our judgment, if you were to turn it into an access , you'd have to exclude
and remove all of the neighborhood functions. There just is not enough
land area there the way it' s configured to accommodate both uses . The
bottom line conclusion is that if you do that, some other traffic concerns
for the residential neighborhood, that that site should not be considered
seriously as a potential access site for Lake Lucy. The second parcel is
B on that map up on the north end . If you look at some plans and
information be it, plats, aerial photos or whatever , that parcel looks
great . Many of you are familiar with the field . It' s this very large
hump that rises seemingly out of nowhere that' s covered with a good stand
of tree cover . Complicating that site also is the access to it which
potentially is available. . .access road there which is a platted strip. A
great deal of the property we do have to go through to get to this parcel
`B is very heavily a wetland area. Property C has somewhat the same story
and that ' s the piece that I referenced as being presently owned by the
DNR. It ' s about an acre and a half. It 's virtually all wetland .
Virtually all Class A wetlands and again , getting to it is a major
obstacle and obviously these things have an impact first of all on the
wetland itself and then certainly on construction costs you may desire to
actually implement a plan on both of those sites. Parcel D, further onto
the west end , is about a 7 acre lot . That parcel does have potential . It
has kind of a southwestern side of it if you will . It' s higher in
elevation . The northeastern portion of the site is designated wetlands.
We' re not ignoring the fact that there are wetlands along the shoreline
there. I think the report indicates that those are a factor in Parcel D
but of the available parcels right now, it seems to me that is the one
that has the highest potential for development to serve as an access site .
There' s enough property there that if some fill had to be done to some of
wetland areas , that some new wetland areas potentially could be created to
mitigate some of that so there may be some trade-offs there. There ' s
still an underlying concern that the report notes in that we really do not
have at this point in time a good bottom contour information on Lake Lucy,
particularly in the north end . We do have a significant concern about how
much dredging would be required to put an access into that location. Not
only to get from the land , if you will , through the wetlands into the
water area but when we get into the water , how deep is it? Seemingly it' s
fairly shallow on that end and you would have to dredge out to an area
where you could get actually get more open water situation. There ' s one
other option that was looked at which was one of not looking at acquiring
necessarily large scale property and that is down of just west of Parcel A
where there ' s a natural creek connection between Lake Lucy and Lake Ann .
I think the concept surfaced a couple of years ago and that was put a
channel , essentially be constructed between those two bodies of water
allowing the Lake Ann access to serve as access for Lake Lucy.
Preliminarily and again I ' d underscore that term, that idea really has
been found not to have a great deal of merit for a couple of primary
reasons . The first is environmental in that the water quality of Lake Ann
is of a higher level than it is in Lake Lucy and unfortunately the water
elevation of the two , Lake Lucy is about a foot higher than Lake Ann which
would obviously impart some drainage down into Lake Ann. There is
operational and ordinance problems as well which seemingly those may be
I
I and Rec C
ar 28 , - Page
IIremedied but they' re difficu lt in that Lake Ann resentl has p y s an electric
motor only restriction and is it very realistic to allow boat launching on
I Lake Ann , do you paddle across or electric motor across to get into
Lake Lucy which has riparian owners and I doubt that any riparian owners
would want to give up their power boat rights so there are some
I operational concerns that come into play in that item also. The bottom
line out of all of this in looking at the sites , if the City is interested
in pursuing access for the sites that seem somewhat available at the
present time, Site D really is the only one that has realistic potential .
If indeed it is a requirement of the Chain of Lakes act, as it does , and
the State indicated it is , that that site should be looked at as further
investigation on whether or not it could supply the access to meet the
II requirements of the program. I 'd be happy to answer any questions that
you may have.
I �Schroers : When we addressed this earlier Mark, I was wondering if it
wouldn ' t be possible to have an overland portage as an access from Ann
to Lucy. If the City could obtain an easement or a right-of-way over that
narrow portion of land in the area that adjoins the two. Since Lake Ann
I is basically a quiet lake and for all practical , non-motorized light
craft, couldn ' t people access Lake Lucy just by a short overland portage?
Would that be acceptable?
IIMark Koegler : Lori could probably clarify that better than I can . My
understanding is that the access has to be the access that meets the DNR' s
I guidelines which you ' re familiar with . You ' ve been through it a number of
times and the City has argued with them from time to time on that there
has to have a normal boat access . . .draft level . It has to be 5 parking
spaces. In this case it has to have 20. I don' t know how that works in a
IIportage situation . That ' s something we would have to look at .
Sietsema: The biggest obstacle in that would be that we would then have
Ito make Lake Lucy a quiet lake as well .
Schroers : I would be in favor of that. I 'd seriously like to look at
that versus putting in a standard public access .
IIMark Koegler : That is a wrinkle that again, there are any number of
underlying assumptions one makes when you go into this kind of endeavor
I and the assumption has been that the property owners on Lake Lucy are not
probably willing to give up their ability to use power boats on that lake .
If the City determines that that was in the best interest of the lake or
I the property owners said that ' s fine with us , that changes the
circumstances potentially and that makes that concept more feasible. I
would question how realistic that assumption would be that anybody would
give up those rights .
ISchroers : I think we' ve discussed it earlier and found out that there
were 3 people that they currently use motorized or larger motorized
I watercraft on Lake Lucy. I sure would be interested in talking to them to
see if something could be worked out rather than take that nice pristine
area and put in a public access and open it wide open .
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 36
Mark Koegler : It ' s certainly an option. It certainly can be looked at.
Hasek: Did you ask about parking spaces if that option was looked at? '
Schroers : No , basically what we would be doing would be utilizing the
access that is now intact :at Lake Ann. That would be the access and if
you wanted to go to Lucy, Tou would just access Lucy by a short overland
portage.
Hasek: I guess the question I have is if you connect the two, are they i
now one water body and do we have to provide additional parking at Lake
Ann or can we get away with what ' s there?
Mark Koegler: Well seeminczly, there' s enough parking at Lake Ann that 1
could be identified , particularly with the expansion, that you could
stripe some additional spaces to handle more trailers in the lot by the
beach or in the lot down- blt. =the lake. The more I think that could be
accomodated, that ' s a ne.w:_wrinkle. Again, if there is the ability to
remove owners on the lake ctr if there' s some kind of grandfathering
provision that can be worked out or if some compromise can be worked out '
with the State , that wouldab.e viable .
Mady: Mark, one other pa:r:del , did you look at the parcel that' s directly
south of the parcel where the D appears? The one that Prince owns that
has access onto CR 117?
Mark Koegler : Reference if you would the ownership map. Is it the one
you' re talking about between 23 and 24? It ' s on page 5.
Mady: Yes . Between 23 and -24. It ' s directly south of that . We know
that 24 Prince owns .
Mark Koegler : Okay, so we'Lre talking about the parcel immediately north
of 24 that Prince owns .
Hasek: There are two 24 ' s .
Sietsema: There are three 24 ' s .
Mady: The northern most 24 . ,
Mark Koegler : We did look_lat that and we did not include that as a part
of this study because according to the plat records , it does not have any
shoreline on Lake Lucy. The property line comes down . . .
Hasek: No, the northern most 24 parcel .
Mark Koegler : Okay, that is again under the ownership of Prince and that
would fall in line with the statement I made earlier that the assumption
right now is that that' s virtually unapproachable. However , contacts are
being made to see if that is accurate.
i
' Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 37
Mady: Because it ' s a long ways from his house . It P uts the access over
on 17 instead of on Lake Lucy Road. Maybe it ' s an option and possibly. . .
Maybe concentrate closer to that area .
Schroers: There is also a very swampy, boggy shore along that end too .
Hasek : It ' s still another option.
Mady: It' s just another option that might develop. You know that B has
also got those same problems so that' s just another option. One might be
better than the other by a minor degree. Maybe Prince will donate it to
the City.
' Sietsema : I do have one more comment . I did talk to Steve Dirks who owns
the outlot, Parcel D, and they live in Olivia right now. They purchased
the property to build a home sometime in the future . He said that that
doesn ' t look like that ' s going to happen for about 10 years. 10 to 15
years now. I asked him if he would be willing to sell the property. He
said that he would not go so far as to say that he was a willing seller
'
but he said that he was open to negotiations . He would definitely be
willing to sit down and talk to us .
' Jay Johnson : Do you know what the EPA' s requirements for public access
is?
' Mark Koegler : My knowledge of this Jay comes from reviewing the City' s
records. As I ' ve seen all of the written documentation, I have not seen
definitively what they define access as . The real kicker on access comes
down to the DNR and what they require and the City' s had a lot of dialogue
' with them before . That ' s really the more critical criteria right now.
Jay Johnson: Supposed . . . the DNR, the DNR said at one point that we won' t
' kill any fish, or we ' ll kill the fish but we won ' t restock your lake if
you don' t have public access and still be allowed to participate in the
program so what does EPA say public access is?
' Sietsema: My conversations with EPA have stated that they would not be
willing to fund the project if all of the lakes were not included in the
project and have public access .
Jay Johnson : What do they define as public access?
Sietsema : Public access is equal to, they recently sent me a letter . I
should have brought it down here but it stated that they would consider
the access the same as what the DNR' s general standards are as well . I
don ' t have the letter down here with me but it ' s a trailerable access with
' 7 parking spaces that would be able to launch a boat equal to whatever is
on the lake.
Jay Johnson : So it makes no difference?
Sietsema: No. It ' s the same.
I
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 38
Hasek: Again , I guess we' d like to get the comment on the record because
this is important stuff to us and eventually. . . It ' s open to public
comment . '
Jeff Farmakes : My name is Jeff Farmakes . I live in the parcel that' s
number 2 next to , it would be on the east side of the lake. I think if
you review the Minutes from the past meeting you' ll find that the
residents in the area that live along the lake there, I think may have
surprised some of you by not objecting and in fact being in favor of this
proposal . Unlike the issue at the time, the Christmas Lake issue had just
been resolved and there was a lot of neighborhood opposition to the
access, we saw it as a significant way to improve the quality of that lake
which has deteriorated considerably over the last few years . Particularly
since the runoff from the large storm we had a few years ago. There ' s
been a great deal of additional aquatic growth. Fishing has been poor .
There has been significant fish kills since then. I know because
I shoveled out hundreds of pounds of fish off of my property. This lake,
as noted in that report, has a significant water quality difference
between that and Lake Ann . A couple of observations in reading that
report i.s, how will the items that are listed in there that will be done
with this money, affect Lake Lucy and the water quality issue of improving
that area? Now this doesn' t address the exact problem of how you access
it but I 'd like to bring up a few things while we' re talking about this
because I really think that you would get support on any of these
situations from the landowners if there would be some response as to how
you would approach improving the quality of that lake. I 'm willing to
back any of these issues and try and help this lake because it is going
downhill. It' s going downhill fast. Very significantly. You can just
see it in the last few years . If something isn' t done soon , you ' re
talking about it being pristine, it' s not pristine. If you put a boat and
actually boat in the lake, you will pull your boat out of there and find
sludge all over the side of your boat. You will have a great deal of
difficulty in accessing it because you have to walk through rotting muck.
It smells bad and I 'm not sure what the waterline intercept on the other
side is going to do to improve that but there is a significant difference
in the quality of that lake since we moved in. When I hear this entire
issue sort of started with the Lake Riley improvement . My question is , if
there' s a noticeable difference between Lake Ann water quality and Lake
Lucy water quality, if all the same things in these lakes , where will that
improvement occur? With that money that you ' re spending, will that money
be spent 80% in Lake Riley and 20% in the other lakes? Some lakes
obviously need more attention than others if you' re going to improve this
area . So my question again revolves on some of these issues that were
brought up there. When and where will we be informed of some of these
issues as to how that money will be spent so we can make an educated
report issue on how we would like to contact our representatives and so on
as to how this thing should be voted . Thank you. '
Si.etsema: I can ' t tell you how much money or percentage of money is going
to spent on each lake. I do understand that a good portion of it is going
to be done on Riley because it needs the most work and a lot of the
problems that are upstream are coming from Riley in that area but what
Mr. Obermeyer did indicate to me was the benefits that Lake Lucy will see
I
II .
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 39
will be an improved water quality once we remove the rough fish , a
stabilization of the lake bottom and a decrease in algae.
IIMady: Just to let you know some of the information I have on what they' re
planning on doing. With fish kills, the reason for fish kills is to get
II rid of the rough fish , simply the carp and bullheads that are bottom
churners . They keep on getting that bottom all churned up which allows
for everything else that takes place. By getting rid of the rough fish ,
I you stabilize the bottom. One of the other things they' re planning on is
runoff control which will help, hopefully, in some of the nutrients that
are coming into the lake which will cut out a lot of the, hope to cut off
the algae problem that we have. I have some knowledge on Lake Riley. A
I guy I used to work with lives on Lake Riley and I ' ve been down to
Lake Riley even 6 years ago, you wouldn' t go back. If you were there in
July, you wouldn' t go back to Lake Riley. I ' ve got the feeling Lake Lucy
I now is getting to that point so Lake Riley kind of drove this thing . Now
the watershed is telling us it has to go all the way back to the top
waters to really clean up Riley so we' re benefitting but I think all these
things are happening because Riley wants something done so Chanhassen' s
I going to benefit with it ' s lakes getting their water cleared up but you ' ve
got some legitimate questions and I believe the work plan is being
designed now and hopefully when that' s completed , we' ll have some of those
Ianswers .
Jeff Farmakes : One of the things you may note , the average depth of that
II lake now, except for the central area up here, a majority of all this and
from here and a shelf up in here, is less than a couple of feet . Between
5 and 2 feet deep. If you allow heavy duty power boating to go on here ,
an 80 horse power motor in that depth of water is certainly going to churn
1 up a lot more than a carp will .
Mady: You' re right . I guess one of the questions we ' re going to have to
I have answered by the residents is their view on boating restrictions. I
don ' t think it ' s any of our intention to restrict the lake .
Lake Lucy Resident: I have the property just north of Lot C and I have a
I
dock that came out into the lake there and I had 16 foot posts at that
point. I can push them down with my hand so there are some deep holes in
the lake but along that northwest shore, it gets pretty shallow as you
II say.
Jim Schluck: I 'm Jim Schluck. I live on Lot 13 on Lake Lucy. In reading
Ithrough this packet, I think there' s a mistake that probably should be
corrected just in case . That would be on page 11 where it states Lake Ann
has a normal water elevation approximatley 1 foot above Lake Lucy and I
think that is the reverse . Secondly, there are more than 3 boat owners on
IILake Lucy as also was previously stated. There are probably about 10.
Eric Rivkin : My name is Eric Rivkin . I have Lot 22 next to D and C and
Ialmost B. Right in the middle of it all and I 'd like to say, I 'm a very
well informed resident about wetlands. About what it takes to clean up
the lake. I ' ve been through 2 years of discussions with the DNR trying to
IIget a channel dug through my lot so my riparian rights to get access to
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 40
the lake to the open water . I do have a permit from the DNR as of now,
today, to dig a channel through but I ' ve held off because the lake water
is so low that I don ' t think that if it would fill with water in the '
channel so it would be detrimental to the wildlife and the fish or the
wetland . Especially the wetland to dig it so I 've asked for an extension
and they gave it to me. I have to get this through Council but hopefully
they will also grant me the extension but I believe that the issue tonight II
is trying to get, I am here to try and help progres made toward a solution
to the access problem because we need a show of progress . I want to see
that lake cleaned up and we need it cleaned up. I don' t want to go
through all the arguments why we need it cleaned up . I know we've all
been through it and I won' t take up our time with that because I don' t
think that ' s the issue here. The issue is trying to decide on a site for
the public access and I want to concentrate on that. I would be in favor
of either A or D. A, I like the portage idea . I know the DNR is
flexible. They' re not as stick in the mud as some people thing. They
are , if you explain to them that it would have equal access for everybody
and make both Lake Ann and Lake Lucy quiet lakes , that' s fine. If we have
a portaging type of thing , we have quiet boats like canoes and small boats
and small crafts like that, a portage idea would be quite feasible. . . .so II
it ' s not any strange thing . The problem with the traffic to A is a
concern to the residents there and I can empathize with them on that but I
think that would be alleviated by having , you ' ve already got access to
Lake Ann so a portage idea, I think you eliminate that problem. The
issue , would they have to have a boat launch to even have a quiet lake? I
don ' t know what the answer is to that. They may require that . If they
do , you can ' t do much I guess because of the traffic problem. D, last
July I stood up here and without talking to the Church first, I just threw
out that they will . . .and here I see that a local gentleman here with the
organization has pursued that idea and came up with the most feasible one.
It ' s just kind of luck and I 'm glad you finally looked into it . I border
the property. I might even consider , just from a personal point of view,
giving up the right to the channel if I could get access to the lake
through this public access from my own property. The DNR stipulated or
the City stipulated I had to do was , if I were to dig a channel , I would
have to border my neighbor 's property so that if they, and when they want
access , they don' t have to disturb minimal surface of the wetland . The
same with me. Minimal disturbance of the wetland. Just if you' re digging
up the lake and you want about a third of the lot closest to the lake is
wetland, you' ve got about 100 feet there of wetland and from there it ' s
very shallow. . .DNR requirements for prop access is like 4 feet deep. It ' s
only about a foot deep there and the muck keeps accumulating every year so
you' ve got to worry about that . Now I worry about the desicration from
litter and stuff. Gasoline. Pollution. I think the restrictions that
you have now on Lake Ann I think would apply more to Lake Lucy. I like
that idea. That ' s the kind of lake that demands it. I 'm sorry about the
power boaters . You can' t grandfather them in because you' ve got to have
an equal . . .but I think as a lake, it is going to be filling in. It ' s less
desirable to have a power boat on the lake . I ' ve been out there, last
summer I 've been out there every single day contracting to build my own
house . The power boaters , there' s 12 of them power boats but I don ' t see
them used very much. I was out there every day, every Saturday, every
Sunday. weekdays there is no traffic . No boat traffic . I have not seen ,
111
I .
II Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 41
Iprobably 1 or 2 . Small boats , fishermen , 1 or 2 but there again that' s
the small crafts, small boat type thing. If we have a public access that
1 allows trailers , trailer access to the lake , I really don' t see that it ' s
going to be a problem with over population of boaters on this lake. This
is not the kind of lake that , you ' re going to get muck on the bottom like
I this gentleman said, of your boat and not catch much fish and it ' s just
not a neat place to hang around . It ' s quiet. It ' s a wildlife lake but I
don' t think it' s going to be a draw like flies for people like Christmas
I Lake. Christmas Lake, which is right across the road . They'd have a
better time over there. Some people like to see it quiet no matter what
so if it' s. . . I worry about the boat wake and the prop wash on Lot D. If
you have props . . .to disturb the wetland . What I would require, if this is
I going to go through Council , that they install , if the lot that is chosen,
that they require that they install things to keep the shore from eroding .
As you mentioned , the stirring up of sediment . That will be detrimental
I to the fish stirring up the sediment but the aeration of the lake is very
important . It won' t help eliminate sediment in the first place . Fish
kill is one thing. I don' t think the biological chemicals were mentioned
here but there are biodegradeable type chemistry that can be used to start
1 the process of making the lake come alive again and reacts to it naturally
but you need to have support game fish . If you ' re going to restock game
fish, you' ve got to clean up the water first. I like D because it ' s on
I the trail . You' ve got a deer trail system going through Chanhassen and
I love that. I can' t wait for that thing to have a safe road . To change
Lake Lucy Road to be a safe trail . It ' s just , as I indicated at the last
I meeting at the Council , that it ' s really nothing more than a piece of the
road with a line dividing it . It' s not really a trail . If it were made a
trail , you could even make a neighborhood park out of D on the other side
of the lake . You' ve already got one in A. There ' s enough room to have
I access and parking in D. The people in the neighborhood I know. We had a
neighborhood meeting a couple weeks ago . I think it would be a very
positive thing to have neighborhood functions there. Picnic tables .
I Maybe a canoe rack with locks for the people who walk down. Not have to
drive. We force people to drive all the time. People in Lake Lucy
Highlands , Pheasant Hi.11s wanting to use the lake and a lot of people
there don' t have access to it so it 'd be a nice thing to do . . .minimize the
Itraffic going through. Thank you .
Mady: When you were looking into your channel , did the DNR say anything
I about sea walls to help prevent some of the fill in? I don ' t know if it ' s
an option .
I Eric Rivkin : Bob Obermeyer was going to require it but he pulled back on
that because it was 450 feet long and that ' s just totally unfeasible. But
on Lot 3 , the distance of the wetland is much shorter . Again , even if you
do put sea walls in, you ' re going to dig a long , it ' s going to be a long
I ways out because that ' s the most shallow part of the lake . You' ll probably
get out 200 feet before you get to put a boat in but I don' t know, the DNR
has done it in the past . I would say A is my favorite . D is my second
Ifavorite.
Boyt : Where does the funding for the boat access come from?
I
-I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 42
Sietsema : To build it?
Boyt: Yes . '
Sietsema : The development of that hopefully we would be granted a LAWCON
grant. I would recommend that we pursue a LAWCON grant through the
application process . That is what I ' ve indicated to EPA and DNR that we
would probably be doing. Then the matching funds of that would come out
of the park development and acquisition fund . That would be in a 1990 or
1991 timeframe. We would apply for a grant. If we were to find a spot
for the access this year by probably May is usually when the applications
have to be in, and we made application, we could be funded for the 1990
year . '
Boyt : This sounds pretty expensive.
Hasek: I was just going to say, have you got a projection on what the
overall cost of land acquisition and installation of facility might be?
Sietsema: No. I would recommend that you authorize staff to do some kind
of a feasibility to determine those things . What needs to be done and
what costs would be involved .
Hasek: Are we looking for some sort of direction to vote on one or more
of these sites tonight?
Sietsema : Yes . What I would like to see happen tonight is that there ' s '
been some good information that has come back and forth and if you would
want to direct staff to check with the DNR. To check on the portage idea .
See if that would be a workable solution and what would be involved and
what they would require with that as far as parking and what kind of
accomodations that would take. Also to pursue a purchase price for Outlot
D and to contact the homeowners on the lake to see if they are willing to
give up their boat rights , if it were to come down to that. Then also to
direct staff to do some kind of a rough feasibility of a cost and what
would need to be done to actually put in a boat access on Outlot D. If
that is what you want to pursue .
Hasek: So actually you' ve got to contact with the DNR on the
feasibility. . . '
Sietsema : The only thing that would really cost us money is to have some
kind of a preliminary feasibility study done . i
Boyt : On A and D?
Sietsema : On D. I ' ve written to Prince. I have not received an answer .
I ' ve asked him to either dedicate or be willing to sell .
Hasek: Is there any other discussion? '
Jeff Farmakes : I have a question, Larry' s idea of dealing with a carry
over to the lake that ' s made not motorized . The creek right now is
■
I ,
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 43
Itotally on Prince ' s property. Does the State have a setback or does the
State have an easement? Because that' s a creek, I assume it belongs to
I the state and they have easement rights to create such a thing within his
property?
I Hasek: I would doubt that . I think that there ' s probably a setback for
construction but he would own all the rights right up to the water ' s edge.
I Eric Rivkin : The water itself is public waterway.
Jeff Farmakes: But the high water mark may vary a great deal on that
creek, that' s why I asked .
IHasek: The high water mark would be probably just the line between the
high water mark and . . .
Jeff Farmakes : If it varies perhaps as much as 3 or 4 feet, depending on
fast it ' s been raining, that ' s why I asked .
I Hasek : What they do is they take into account what they call the ordinary
high water level . The OHWL and that ' s the number . There' s a flood stage
for it too . Normal Ordinary High and an Ordinary High. . . Are you looking
Ifor a recommendation from us?
Sietsema : Yes .
IHasek : I guess I have just a general question I 'd like to throw out .
I ' ve heard some comments about specific sites and we'd like to kind of
maybe keep this thing moving a little bit. Did you hear the
I recommendation that was made by the staff as to what direction they would
like? Did that make some sense to you? Did you understand what she was
saying? I guess I 'm addressing it to the neighborhood here because you
Iare the ones .
Resident : In regards to D?
I Hasek : In regards to D. In regards to the portage . In regards to
pursuing the possibility of acquisition of a piece of Prince' s property.
She had a couple of things that she talked about . The feasibility study
Ito see what it might cost .
Jim Schluck : I think that you will find that a lot of the people that
I live around the lake, whether it ' s . . .owners or whatever , if they had to
give up the boat or give up the lake, I 'm sure they would take giving up
their boat to save that lake . The lake, I think there' s a lot of
knowledge on this lake that is superficial . You have to boat on it and
I see it over a period of time, it ' s like anything else . I guess once you
go and look at it and form an opinion but when you see it over and over
and over and have to clean up the mess sometimes that it leaves or try to
I put your boat out onto it and so on, you get a pretty good feeling for
what ' s happening and there' s a si.gnifi cant difference in the lake in the
last few years and it ' s getting worse. It ' s dying .
I
. i
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 44
Eric Rivkin : Technical question. Who is responsible for maintaining the
access , the DNR or the City?
Hasek : The question was , who is responsible for maintaining the access ,
the DNR or the City.
Sietsema : My initial response would be the City. If it takes some kind
of dredging there may be some kind of agreement that we can come up with
but typically it would be the City' s responsibility to keep that
maintained and open. I
Hasek: And is a public access owned by the City?
Sietsema: That ' s correct and I don ' t know of any instance where they
would do a joint maintenance . That would be something I could check into .
If we go with something that ' s going to require 200 feet of dredging , they
may be , I just don' t know.
Schroers : I was just going to say that I think it' s worthy to note that
there is a lot of wildlife other than fish around Lake Lucy and in the ,
adjoining wetlands . There are deer . There are pheasants and any number
of other wildlife in that area and we need to keep that in mind and take
that into consideration.
Morris Phillips : I 'm Morris Philips . I live at 1570 Lake Lucy Road . I
think I ' ve lived there longer than anyone else here and I 've kind of
looked at that area and that wetland for 27 years I guess . If you' re
going to have to buy some property, I really think the city should look at
Parcel B. That is a beautiful piece of property that probably shouldn ' t
be developed. It would be ideal for parkland for the city to have. I
guess I wouldn' t like to see it kind of turned into a parking lot for a
boat launch but if something could be worked out with some kind of a land
access , a portage access across , hey, we' ve been carrying canoes across
there ever since my kids were small . It' s an easy portage as far as
portages is concerned . And DNR has approved that road going out to the
point . The only restriction was they had to provide a culvert under the
road connecting the little neck on the north with the west side of the
lake. If you have to build a road to do i.t , the hill would be an ideal
source of fill for constructing the road. There is a road going there
already but it' s been built, kind of logs and rip rapping and it would
have to be dredged out and really replaced with some good fill in the
bottom but if you' re thinking long range and you' re going to have to spend
some money for property, it seems that that would be a good long term
investment for the City. And there is a lot of wildlife there . There
aren' t many pheasants because we' ve got fox running around this year but
there are still a few. The deer run through there all the time and I
think it would be nice if we could keep it a quiet lake. If the people at
Greenwood Shores , I realize would have to agree to that . Also , the other
thing is, if you' re really thinking of trails , the ideal thing would be if
you could kind of come out of Greenwood Shores at Utica , put your trail
right around on the land, I 'd give you land across my property and I ' ll
bet if you talked to some others , they would too . A trail on that road is
kind of ridiculous. That road is curvy.
I
I
IPark and Rec Commission Meeting
IFebruary 28 , 1989 - Page 45
Mady: Which parcel were you talking about? B?
IMorris Phillips: I was talking about B as in baker . I think if you' re
going to buy, that would be a real fortunate acquisition . My
I understanding is that they haven ' t paid the taxes on it for quite a few
years . Maybe if you wrote to . . . she 'd give it to you. I don ' t know.
Schroers : It would be a shame to cut a road through B though wouldn ' t
I it?
Watson : There was a road back there .
IMorris Phillips: It isn' t driveable for a car but they ride motorcycles
back there .
IWatson : Right . When I was a kid , we rode our horses back there and there
used to be a Boy Scout camp out there on that island. Part of the time it
was a little tough to get back and forth but most of the time if we got
Ithe horse going fast enough, you made it across .
Morris Phillips : They did haul in a lot of fill on that road to build it
I up so that they could ride horses out there and they built kind of a
little bridge across out at the the edge so they could keep a channel
through there and so forth. It would be an ideal piece of property for
the city to have if they could work out some deal for it.
I
Hasek: Any other quick discussion? If not, I ' d like to make a motion
here .
IJoe Moran : Joe Moran . I live on that Parcel 15 I think it is where the
pond is. I don' t live there yet. I ' ll be moving in there in April .
I We' re building a home there now but I did see by far the best proposal
that I ' ve seen is the talking about a carry over from Lake Ann to
Lake Lucy and that would be the one that I would certainly vote for . I ' ve
carried by canoe over there in the past and it ' s not that difficult.
IHasek : If A wasn ' t a possibility, is D?
IJoe Moran: Not A. I think A should be kept as is .
Hasek : I 'm talking about the carry over . I refer to it as A only because
I it ' s next to there but I wouldn' t want it at A either if there was a
possiblity of a portage across there , that ' s your first choice?
Joe Moran: Yes. I have a 100 horse power boat and I 'd never put that
I boat on Lake Lucy. It ' s just not that kind of a lake . It ' s pristine, or
will be if we clean it up but it ' s a beautiful lake with wildlife. You go
there and enjoy the fishing and the birds .
1 Hasek: If alternate A isn' t possible , just can ' t be worked out, is
alternate D your second choice then?
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28, 1989 - Page 46
Joe Moran : I guess what I 'd propose to be that we try to get a carry over
and not necessarily through A but perhaps alongside the stream. Buy an
easement from Prince' s property and buy Parcel B and use that as a
parkland.
Hasek: I think that is on our plans but I guess what I 'm asking you is if
the possibility of a carry over just isn' t workable, we just can ' t do it.
We are then left with alternate B and D if we can ' t purchase land from
Prince. Do you have a second alternative?
Joe Moran : No .
Hasek : So if we came back and it was something else , you would probably
vote against anything else? It' s just a rhetorical question I know.
Joe Moran : Yes , I could say I like the carry over and then I 'm
indifferent to whether B or D is picked but it makes a lot of sense to buy
B because it' s a much more beautiful piece of property. Although the
access would be considered more difficult.
Hasek: Personally I think I like them all .
Joe Moran: My main point in coming up here is that I am a resident and
I do have a power boat and I would certainly want to give up my rights to
stir up the bottom of the lake if that ' s an issue for you .
Mady: Somebody indicated that on Parcel B that taxes hadn' t been paid . I
On Parcel B, Dodd ' s property, the taxes aren' t being paid. I guess I 'd
like to see staff investigate that because my understanding of back taxes ,
the way it happens , if they don' t go for a period of time, it just goes to
tax forfeiture and the City has first . . .
Resident: I don' t think it ' s in forfeiture yet.
Sietsema : It' s 3 years , I believe it ' s 3 years . If you' re delinquent 3
years , it goes up for tax forfeiture and the City does have the option to
acquire property at that time so I can check into it and see if that is
indeed what' s taking place.
Boyt : Contact Ms . Dodd if it ' s close or if it ' s not close and see if
she' s interested in donating it .
Nancy Tichy: I 'm Nancy Tichy and I live at 1471 Lake Lucy Road . We have
Lot 16 and I really like the Plan A if that could be worked out. I think
that ' s the best way to go as far as we ' re concerned . And again , carrying
a canoe over that portage area is real easy.
Sietsema : Just a point of clarification. You mean Site A as a portage.
Not Site A as a boat access with a regular boat access or did you mean
both?
Nancy Tichy: Site A as a portage access .
111
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 47
1 Lake Lucy Resident : Is the portage access , is that oig n to be referred
g
to as E because it' s confusing? Because it ' s confusing. A is an option
I as a replacement for the neighborhood park with a trailerable boat access
and the portage is not really listed on the options .
I Hasek: The question, just for the record was , how are we going to refer
to the portage? I 'm going to refer to it as the point adjacent to. . .
Lake Lucy Resident : I understand that the accompanying literature refers
Ito 4options and we now have 5. Or Al and A2.
Hasek: Or we could mark the official documents I guess too . That might
Ibe the easiest thing to do.
Watson : Make the portage E.
ISietsema: That can easily be done. I so will do.
Morris Phillip : If you were just going to do a portage at A, could you
I not talk to the people in Greenwood Shores and see if the portage could be
incorporated within the area A so you don' t have to deal with Prince
because I don' t think there are going to be that many people carrying
I canoes across there so that it would be a great imposition for the people
in Greenwood Shores. Now you call that a neighborhood park. You would
have to have a canoe rack wouldn ' t you?
I Hasek: There' s already a trail going back there. It' s just not very
conducive for picking up. . .
I Watson : And frankly, Prince wouldn ' t even know he gave it up because it ' s
maybe 10 feet from the city park? 10 to 15 feet right at the edge of the
city park at the end of property.
IHasek : I think the question of the portage, the location doesn ' t really
matter so it ' s a matter of whether we can or can' t do it. If we can ' t get
E, if we can ' t get it outside the park, then maybe we ' ll put it inside the
I park. I 'd like to make a motion so we can maybe get done with this
tonight. I don ' t know how much more we have to do . If there any other
public input?
IWatson : You need direction for staff to look into how the DNR feels about
a portage site from Lake Ann to Lake Lucy? And all the possibilities of
Icontacting . . .
Hasek : I might as well just make it a motion and then if there ' s any
quetsions .
ILake Lucy Resident : One note before you stop, on the portage issue that
you' re talking about, that is a dry stream bed except for in the spring so
Iyou sort of have a ready made path except for the spring .
Hasek: Yes. I guess I 'd like to make a motion and all of this I guess is
directed to staff . To contact DNR and check on the feasibility of a
ii
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 48
portage from Lake Ann into Lake Lucy and we called it Site E on the
graphic, Figure 3 in the literature. The second point would be, to
contact homeowners about relinquishing their boat rights in the Greenwood
Shores, I guess it would be everybody around the lake. Their motorized
boats . The third thing would be to recommend the induction of a cost
feasibility study for an access, I think particularly at D. That ' s going
to give us our highest cost option I think at this point out of the three
options . The last one would be to contact Ms. Dodd on the potential of
acquiring her parcel , Parcel B perhaps not as an access point on the lake .
Watson: I ' ll second that.
Hasek moved , Watson seconded to direct staff to contact the DNR regarding
the feasibility of the portage option from Lake Ann to Lake Lucy, Site E
on Figure 3. Secondly, to contact homeowners around Lake Lucy about
relinquishing their rights for motorized boats on Lake Lucy. Third , to
authorize a preliminary feasibility study to be done on the Site E and
Site D. Finally, to contact Ms. Dodd on the potential of acquiring Site
B. All voted in favor and the motion carried .
FINAL REVIEW OF CHANHASSEN POND PARK MASTER PLAN.
Sietsema : Last fall you may recall that we went over the Chanhassen Pond
Park and ideas with audience and the people who lived in the area as to
how we want to see that park developed. The only thing that was not
settled at that point in time was the issue on the parking along Kerber
Blvd . . There was discussion as to whether there should be two parking
pads or one and if one, which one would be better . The final outcome of
that was that staff should contact the engineering department and
determine which site would be the best for the parking. I went out there
with Al and he indicated that the area . . . if we absolutely needed parking
the picnic areas , he could see 1, 2, maybe 3 spots but he wouldn ' t
recommend it because the sight line' s toward the Chan Vista , north , are
not optimal so he would recommend that we keep the parking at the sliding
area . I
Schroers : That was Mark ' s recommendation?
Sietsema : That was the engineering department ' s recommendation . 1
Watson : So as far as getting on and off on Kerber Blvd . into the lane
would be safer?
Sietsema : Right . Because the hill comes up right at that point and
they' re real close to you as you would pull out if you didn' t see them.
Mark, did you have anything else to add? Otherwise , the park pretty much
stays intact. This would be the master park plan and the next step in
this process would then be to come up with a landscape plan .
I
■
II Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 49
IIMady moved , Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to approve the Master Park Plan for Chanhassen Pond Park with
Ithe parking as shown . All voted in favor and the motion carried .
Hasek: I kind of sort of apologize for sending you back with this one
I but I really thought that maybe there would be a good chance that it might
be better to the north and I think I 'm the one that pushed for that.
Sietsema : It ' s 6 months later and we' re now just finally dealing with it
Iand it ' s all your fault.
Mark Koegler : I think if you looked at the Minutes , you could pass the
Iblame around .
Jay Johnson : One thing I 'd like to note , I mentioned this to Lori late
I last night. When Chan Vista was developed, the little pond that' s a
settling pond before , was only half built because the other half of the
pond was on somebody elses property and the other half of the pond was
going to be' bui.lt when the other property got developed . You now own the
I other property so I think in planning this park we have to finish that
pond .
1 Boyt : We don ' t build it. Chan Vista builds it right? It ' s there
drainage?
I Jay Johnson : No . It ' s also drainage coming off of Kerber Blvd . and the
drainage is coming in from the west. If I remember right, Chan Vista
built enough to support themselves and the rest of the pond was going to
be when more development happened to the west of there. That development
I happened and we ended up owning the park. The other items, when they
built that pond , they didn ' t build it to the DNR specs . They didn' t put
your 1 : 4, 1 : 10 sides on there . They put those sides nice and steep. You
I go up there and there ' s not much chance. The whole pond really needs to
be looked at for redesign in that park as a nature pond and still provide
the settling so I think we need to talk to our engineering department .
The next step in this park development is to make sure that settling pond
I is working properly to protect the main problem. There' s a lot of silt
coming in on the west end of that main pond that ' s really been filling up
over the years and that little pond . . .
ISietsema : I definitely will check with engineering to make sure that that
was built the way it was supposed to and it ' s done. What ' s supposed to be
Idone gets done .
Jay Johnson : I don ' t know if the previous council required the DNR' s six
steps on that pond but it' s pretty much now we own the whole thing .
ISietsema : Yes , I ' ll check with engineering .
I Schroers : I think that because there are no longer going to be cattle in
there , that a lot of the erosion and sediment that has gotten in the past ,
won' t now because those are the areas that were exposed earth will more
IIthan likely grow up with grass and it will eliminate a lot of that runoff .
111
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 50
Jay Johnson : Another thing that has eliminated it , just an observation,
since the cattle have left, the grass has grown up. With the grass grown
up, the geese don' t like it . Everybody else who don' t like geese because
they get on their docks and everything else, well this area was an area
that geese came to and the people, they didn' t affect the people
because. . .
Boyt : What we need to do is have freshly mowed grass for them.
Watson: I ' ll mow it for them.
Hasek : Jay, I 'm going to say this tongue in check. I don' t come to your
meetings to make trouble. Why do you come to our meetings?
REVIEW REQUEST FOR BASKETBALL COURT AT NORTH LOTUS LAKE PARK. I
Hasek: I think it' s a great idea but I think we ought to think about
taking one of the nets out and putting the courts on one side or the '
other . The thing is , if somebody wants to get down there and play a game ,
they' re not going to be able to , a game from end to end , they' re not going
to be able to do it if we put it on one side of the nets. So if we take a
net out , we can put a post on either end . Eventually, if you want to put
the net back up and still leave the posts in there, the people can, it
just seems like a more logical way to do it to me than to throw them on
one side.
Watson : Because you ' re actually messing up both courts .
Mady: You still have the option of practing tennis on the other one .
Boyt : As long as we ' re going to do that , let ' s put up a rebound board .
Mady: Oh you mean a tennis rebound board?
Boyt : Yes , a tennis rebound board on that open court . 1
Hasek: Certainly. A back board for hitting balls against .
Hoffman : Put one on either end if you wanted . i
Hasek: I think it should go behind one of them.
Mady moved , Hasek seconded to design a basketball court on one court and
to have a rebound board installed for tennis . All voted in favor and the
motion carried .
11
I. .
II Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 51
IRECONSIDER MOTION TO REVISE THE 1989 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
I Sietsema : We have the funding availability for Carver Beach Road. I
would like on number 9 . That ' s the one that I really would like to
discuss real quickly. If you recall , at the last meeting we talked about
I the funding of the Laredo and the Carver Beach Road sidewalks and we
looked at deleting some of our Capital Improvement Program and shoving
things around to do that . The day after we did that . They were closing
out the 1988 budget or working on that and found that we took in
I $59,000. 00 more in 1988 than we thought that we were going to so we have
the $21, 000. 00 that' s unallocated. The $59 , 000. 00 in park dedication fees
that we did not except and we also have $40, 000. 00 in trail dedication
I fees that we did not expect. We would like to keep the $100, 000. 00 that
we have on reserve in that reserve fund . Use the $59 , 000. 00 for the
Carrico property and use the $40, 000. 00 and the $20, 000. 00 for the trails
I ` instead of cutting up our Capital Improvement Program.
Boyt: $21, 000. 00 was unallocated?
ISchroers : That ' s $61 , 000. 00 right?
Boyt: Yes , but we had $25, 000. 00 before .
1 Sietsema : And we had $25, 000 . 00 before so that pretty much covers it .
I Boyt: I have a question about that. What will be maybe the next step to
take . It ' s not in our budget for next year but we need to do a
feasibility study done for our next trail project. That ' s Minnewashta
Parkway or . . .
ISietsema : We will be doing the 1990 budget in April this year rather than
August and September because it has to be into the State. The rules
Ichanged this year so we have to have our budget done in April .
Boyt: We need to let those people know that we' re thinking about them,
especially when they see the trails going in around . We have a priority
I list and Minnewashta Parkway was on there . I don ' t know what number it
was .
IMady: In the top 3.
Boyt: Yes, that ' s what I thought .
ISietsema : So do you recall who made the motion?
Schroers: Yes, I did I think.
ISietsema : So do you want to reconsider your motion?
I Schroers: Yes, I ' ll reconsider my motion and amend it to staff' s
recommendation .
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 52
Sietsema : To do this properly you need to move to reconsider your motion
and we need a second and approve that and then to redo your motion.
Hasek : Okay, motion to reconsider?
Schroers: So moved. I
Boyt : Second .
Schroers moved , Boyt seconded to reconsider the motion on the 1989 Capital
Improvement Program. All voted in favor and the motion carried .
Schroers moved , Boyt seconded to accept staff ' s recommendation regarding
the 1989 Capital Improvement Program. All voted in favor and the motion
carried .
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS .
Mady: I have a question on the packet . Just on Don' s memo or Lori , your '
memo to Don on rotating chair . Can I have the background on it?
Sietsema : The Mayor is not pleased that we' re rotating the chair . He
feels that it' s inconsistent and that it ' s confusing to an audience if an
item is brought back and that we should stick with Robert ' s Rules of Order
and keep one chairperson. He addressed that to me and then Don talked to
me about it . I explained to Don Ashworth why the Commission chose using
the different personalities and giving a learning opportunity to everybody
and that we felt it was a positive thing . I wrote the memo to that
effect to Don and evidentally Mr . Ashworth didn ' t talk to Mr. Chmiel
because Mr . Chmiel was not happy that we were rotating tonight .
Mady: I guess my understanding of Robert ' s Rules of Order, we were '
allowed to set our procedure. Now the Council tells us we can ' t do it
that way, I guess they have that option.
Sietsema : The Ordinance also allows you to set the rules to do your
business .
Boyt : I think it' s beneficial , especially for evenings like tonight where
we had a crowd that could be emotional . If they see someone different ,
they might stop and think, oh, how is this person going to react rather
than, oh I know what Sue Boyt' s going to say. She' s going to say, this ,
this and this .
Schroers : What you' re saying is you like the rotation? '
Boyt: I like the rotation .
Mady: It works fine . I know Planning does it . They do it to the extent '
but. . .
■
II
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 53
Sietsema : Well , Planning was going to do it and the Mayor told them that
he did not think it was a good idea.
IMady: I remember last year Ladd was here and Steve ran one of the
meetings. It seemed really nice.
IHasek: I guess I would be in favor of us still rotating the chair . The
advantage that I see is that it gets all of us into the position of
improving ourselves sitting up here for one thing . Everybody comes up for
I judgment if you will every so often and the ability to be able to take a
meeting just makes them more qualified I guess to return. We have the
ability to set the rules and I think we' ve chosen to do that. I supposed
I if the Council feels that i.t ' s inappropriate , they should probably make a
I motion to change our rules I guess .
Mady: I don' t think they can .
Hasek: They would have to change the ordinance then .
I Schroers : I agree with what you ' re saying in regards to the rotating
chair . I think it' s good and healthy for the commission . On the other
hand , I hate to get in a little bickering or spats back and forth with the
ICouncil . I hope that this isn ' t something that will . . .
Sietsema : It probably will come up at the joint meeting . I think that ' s
I one way we can just resolve it right there. I put it in your packet so
you were aware that there was a problem. I don ' t know if Mr . Chmiel read
that part of the packet. He does get a packet but I don' t know if he
reads the adminstrative section so I don ' t know if he understands the
I reasons or if he does understand the reasons but still feels that it ' s
inappropriate . I just don ' t know. But he did express to me that he
didn ' t think that it was a good idea. He did express that to me again
Itonight .
Watson: Last night I was reappointed to the Board of Adjustment and
I Appeals . I 've been on that since 1980. It has been suggested that no one
resident be on two commissions so I will have to resign.
IJay Johnson: Has it been suggested or has it been passed as an ordinance?
Watson : It ' s been suggested that we give as many citizens opportunities
I to be commissions and for one person to be on two. I will resign from my
position on the Park and Recreation Commission . It has been suggested
that it would be best if no one resident were on more than one commission
and the Board of Adjustment and Appeals is something I ' ve been doing for
I many, many years and I feel very strongly about that position and wish to
continue there . So as of tonight , I am submitting my resignation .
I Sietsema : As a point of clarification, will that be until someone else
fills your position or are you not coming anymore?
IWatson: I can see this can get complicated .
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 54
i
Boyt : We need you here .
Watson : The process , the interview process has just occurred . I don ' t
know that it would be all that difficult to find a replacement for me.
Jay Johnson : Council has to accept the resignation so it goes to March 1
13th. It will be on our agenda to accept the resignation. I think she
should continue like Planning Commission has and everybody else has
continued until a replacement has been made. 1
Sietsema : Unless there' s circumstances , like Mike did . What I was going
to suggest, since we did just go through and you know what a lengthy
process it is , is perhaps consider recommending to the Council that they
just appoint the next person on the list rather than going through that
whole process .
Watson : That ' s why I thought that it might be easy at this
Y g g y point since
the process has just begun and you have recommended 3 people I believe.
Sietsema : Even if they went through that process , it would still take a
month before that person would be here so we would need you in the next
two meetings if you would choose to stay.
Watson: I will continue to come until a person has been appointed in my
place .
Hasek : I would like it if that process could happen but I don' t know
necessarily that it can. Maybe because it ' s been so short, I recall the
conversation you had after the appointment of the Planning Commission
members where the suggestion was made that perhaps the next several people
they felt were qualified should be informed that they might be next in
line and they should stay close and keep in contact and decided that that
was inappropriate to do. I would hate to have to go through the interview
process again but perhaps because it ' s been so close .
Watson: That' s what I 'm thinking . It' s a couple of weeks . This is 1
Dawne' s first time with us so it isn' t an old process at all .
Hasek: And they still have 2people that they could choose from out of
the top 4 that we had given them.
Sietsema : I don ' t know if you want to make a recommendation to that
effect.
Hasek: I guess I would like to make the recommendation to Council to
consider the other two people who had not been selected out of the top 1
four that were sent to them by the Park Board for consideration for the
opening position of Carol Watson.
Schroers : Second . 1
1
111
II
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 55
IJay Johnson: Actually we had a split vote on Dawne so I think there was a
number 2 candidate.
Hasek : Yes , a very qualified candidate .
Hasek moved, Schroers seconded to make the recommendation to Council to
consider the other two people who had not been selected out of the top
four that were sent to them by the Park Board for consideration for the
I opening position of Carol Watson. All voted in favor except Carol Watson
who abstained and the motion carried.
ISietsema : Could staff just make a couple of announcements quick before we
adjourn? I just wanted to bring you up to date on what the City Council
I ' did last night . They acted to approve the increase in the park dedication
fees as recommended, The City Council also acted to
authorize staff to proceed with negotiations on the Carrico property and
I they acted to table action on the trail and parking issue along Lake Lucy
Road pending the review of the Park and Recreation Commission. That will
be scheduled for the March 14th meeting and I will be meeting with
engineering before that time to bring back as many alternatives as we can
Ito come up with the best solution and hopefully a compromise.
Watson : Let ' s get some publicity out on that too so people who use those
trails and stuff who don ' t necessarily know that the process is going
ahead and have an opportunity to now step forward .
Hasek: The newspaper was there last night and I don' t know what kind of
Iarticle will come out of that .
Watson : . . .we found that there were a lot of people who didn' t even know
I that that was happening . That the trail was threatened and were very
surprised by it so just so that nobody' s surprised .
Sietsema: They also acted to approve the joint meeting date which is
I March 13th before the City Council meeting at 6 : 30 p.m. . It will be just
short of 1 hour long so come with your thoughts on what you want .
IMady: Do you have any thoughts on items that we don ' t have an agenda for?
Sietsema: Yes. To talk about the ideas as far as how the Chanhassen
I trail system should be pursued . Talk about park deficient areas and
discussion of philosphies and policies is really the general agenda that I
came up with in a quick hurry. Now if you want to think on your own on
how you want that to happen, I encourage you to do that and anything else
Ithat you might want to bring up.
Boyt: We' re interested in hearing more from them than us .
IMady: Most of us have been here for a couple years so we kind of know
what we are looking to do. We need to know what they want us to be doing .
We don ' t have to necessarily agree but we have to at least know.
I
i
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28, 1989 - Page 56
Schroers : There is one thing I would like to see added and that is, I
would like to see us try and work on improving the relations between the
Commission and the Council so that we work together instead of against
each other . We might get a little more accomplished that way.
Watson : I ' ll second that motion.
Sietsema: Other than that, I don' t have anything else .
Hoffman: Point of direction on softball eligibility discussion .
Mady: My thoughts are, we need to hear more from the youth side. '
Boyt : I can ' t believe Steve Berquist did that .
Mady: I was kind of disappointed in Jeff too. Neither one of them really
stood up and said we need fields. I expected somebody to come up here and
tell us, we need Number 1 at Lake Ann. I was surprised. Which is totally
in disagreement with what I ' ve been told by other coaches .
Jay Johnson: The Babe Ruth people said they wanted it. Okay. The Little
League people say they don' t necessarily need it . After all the problems
they had at Lake Ann, primarily that one night, they don' t want to mess
with that .
Boyt : My concern is , Steve at registration , he was telling parents your
kids will be, he named four parks and one of them was Lake Ann .
Hasek : Where were the other four parks that he named? '
Boyt: Cathcart and I don' t know the others . I had never heard of them.
Hasek : They aren ' t in the city? '
Jay Johnson: No.
Hasek: So is Cathcart the one that they use that ' s in Chanhassen?
Watson: Yes. Shorewood runs it .
Hasek : The only thing we do is own the land? That' s it . It ' s not our
park.
Sietsema : We don' t own the land .
Jay Johnson : We don' t own the land . The City of Shorewood owns the ,
land.
Hasek: That ' s something else , I think that park should be taken off of
our plan. We have nothing to do with it. I don' t know why it' s even on
there .
I
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28 , 1989 - Page 57
IISietsema : It does serve some people.
II Hasek: It might but there' s also other parks outside the City like the
one that ' s right across from Minnewashta there that serves people within
the city that' s not on the map.
IBoyt : Do you have down contacting DataSery and continuing with that
sounded like the most reasonable alternative. If that comes through, that
you could contact the leagues and discuss options .
IMady: I would like to see us move the leagues over there and let the kids
play on the baseball field .
IBoyt : And I don ' t want just the women to go over there. They volunteered
to take the crappy field .
IMady: The practical matter , the womens night is no problem. They use two
fields and the other field is open all night. Right now anyway.
IHasek: I don ' t know what the direction should be.
Schroers : I think all 3 of us that play in that over 35 league are aware
I enough to realize that these people sit here and say fine . We ' ll play in
a cow pasture but when it comes time to do it.
Mady: These aren ' t the teams that are doing most of the yelling and
Iscreaming either. The Chanhassen teams, from my understanding . . .
Sietsema : If you tell Lowell Vetter and Gary Brown and the guys that
I weren ' t here that they' ve got to play on a cow pasture , you ' re going to
hear some screaming .
I Schroers : That just supports exactly what I said . I think it would be
helpful Todd to know exactly where you ' re at with the schedule and how
much flexibility do we have? How much time do we have?
I Sietsema: How much time do you want Todd to spend on this? Todd has not
done one other thing for 2 weeks except he ' s made a couple of posters and
some flyers but I mean, this is taking a tremendous amount of time and he
Ihas got a lot to do .
Hasek: Can we do two things? Let ' s assume that things are the way that
I they are and they' re going to remain that way. Let ' s pursue two avenues .
One, let ' s talk with DataSery to see if we can work that out . That should
be pretty much a matter of a phone call .
I Hoffman : The phone calls have been made . We' re just waiting for their
response.
IHasek: Maybe we can push that a little bit .
Hoffman: I ' ve pushed it .
II
IF
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 28, 1989 - Page 58
Hasek : There' s going to be some insurance involved with that so there
might be some costs that have to be figured out too and that' s an issue of
whether we do want them to charge ourselves on other people ' s property. '
There are some things that go along with that. The second thing is , have
you contacted other communities to find out if the possibility of a
traveling type of league is possible? Chaska?
Hoffman : Again , the over 35 league is available but it ' s not an option .
These people here tonight said they are very open and willing to as many
options as possible. They' re doing that in the face of that they have no
choice but as I stated, when you' re dealing with nearly 1, 000 softball
players , whatever organizational structure we decide on, there' s always
going to be complainers. I try to speak for the league and again, the one II
gentleman said , I should not do that. I feel I should do that. I try to
represent the leagues and all those people as fairly as possible and if we
' go ahead and make some change and try to make some modifications for the
individuals that were here tonight, we' re going to hear problems again.
Jay Johnson : What ' s the effect of phasing in 6 players this year , 4
players next year? '
Hasek: We' re looking at 4 players this year and maybe no players next
year . That ' s what we talked about . In fact 4 was a compromise . We
compromised between 3 and 5 and we finally voted, we voted 3 times on
this . We finally came up with 4 . I figured roughly Jay, we looked at a
roster, the potential for a roster is what , 20 players? The average
roster must be around 16 so we' re allowing 25% of each of the teams , one
quarter of the team to be outside of the city. I think that' s completely
fair myself and we' ve moved from the numbers , from 75% down to 50% . If
they can qualify, if they can get a team together, the womens league I
think is the one that ' s in the dire jeopardy because most of their players
are from outside the area but I think if they really got their stuff
together . Well , we' re doing it in our church league . We had two teams
last year that were in the co-rec from Mt. Calvary in Excelsior . We had
about 50% of both of those teams was from Chanhassen so what we now
realize that we have to do, and we' ve talked about it already in the
church, is that we have to restructure and it ' s going to have to be,
rather than just having everybody show up and kind of choose sides, the
people in Chanhassen will have to put together a league. The people that
live in Orono will have to put together a league and the people who live
in Chanhassen , Chanhassen . The church will support it but the residents
have to come up with the players. We think we can get around it but
there ' s a possibility that Orono might not survive. '
Mady moved, Hasek seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and
the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned .
Submitted by Lori Sietsema
Park and Rec Coordinator
Prepared by Nann Opheim
■
1
1
rev"
1
March 13, 19 MAR C0RPt't? lt?t'�lE'S
1 rrri.
1
Mr. Gary Warren, City Engineer
1 City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P. 0. Box 147
1 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re; North Side Parking Lot
1 Public Improvement Project. No. 87-17
Dear Mr. Warren:
1 On Friday, March 10, I received a copy of your memorandum
regarding the North Side Parking Lot improvements. My under-
standing is that the City Council will hold a public hearing
' tonight (Monday, March 13) , to consider authorizing preparation
of plans and specifications.
1 As a representative of the Chanhassen Retail Limited Partnership,
p
owner of the Town Square Center, I support overall
the north side parking lot improvement project. I wouldoncept of
however, like to reserve the opportunity to comment on the
1 proposed assessment for Town Square which apparently has just
been included in the assessment role. A specific question is how
and why was Town Square assessed 23 units for parking? We were
1 under the impression that Town Square Center parking exceeded that
required by the City zoning code.
According to the City Manager 's comments attached to your
1 memorandum, the project costs are to be paid by assessments and
tax increment. Our partnership has entered into the Assessment
Reduction Program for this project. Can I assume that the
1 Ultimate assessments for the north side parking lot will fall
under the Assessment Reduction Program?
1 cont.
1
5mtc•pn
1 5t 1 )r,: 111,k, \'17i;?Icso!t7
012,i}i 2102
Gary Warren
March 13, 1983
Page Two
1 F
Unfortunately, I bannot attend the public hearing on March 13 .
' Please accept this letter as our initial comments,
the opportunity in the near future to meet with you tow discuss
ke
this beneficial project. Please let me know when you will be
' available.
Si erely,
t '
64-'
1es P. Winkels
' ecutive Vice President
•
JFW*gk
' cc: Rick Martens
Joe Weis
1
1
1
---------------------------------