1m. Minutes L^�
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL /17
'
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 13, 1989
III Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
' COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman, Councilwoman
Dimler, Councilman Johnson and Mayor Chmiel
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Steve Hanson, Todd
Gerhart, Lori Sietsema and Jim Chaffee
' APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the agenda with the following additions and changes: Councilman Boyt
wanted to discuss the building and mechanical inspection department and comment
on Gary Warren's appointment at the State level; Councilman Workman wanted to
discuss the City's Softball Leagues; Councilwoman Dimler wanted to make an
announcement for a meeting on the Eurasian Water Milfoil, a question about the
City's use of the Villager, having Roger draft a resolution for acceptance of
gifts for the City and that Council Presentations in the future be treated like
Visitor Presentations as far as following the same procedure for Council action,
' Mayor Chmiel wanted to discuss the Senior Community Services and serving on the
Board of Directors for Community Action for Surburban Hennepin County.
Councilman Johnson wanted to put the discussion on the Eurasian Water Milfoil
I after the Visitor's Presentation on the agenda rather than under Council
Presentations.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to add an
item (j) to the Consent Agenda to read as follows: Approval of the Alco-Sensor
donated by the BCA for use by the law enforcement agencies which protect the
' City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Johnson: A point of discussion. Our procedure requires us to have a
written recommendation on any item within the Consent Agenda.
Mayor Chmiel: This was previously on the last Consent Agenda so therefore it
can be carried through to this one.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the following
' Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
c. Resolution #89-11: Authorize Condemnation Proceedings for Eckankar
Stormwater Detention Pond, Project 87-2.
' d. Resolution #89-12: Set Public Hearing Date for West 78th Street North Side
Parking Lot Project, Project 87-17.
e. Resolution #89-13: Approve Change Order No. 2, City Hall and Fire Station
Expansion.
g. Resolution #89-14: Approval of Plans and Specifications for Audubon Road
and Authorize the taking of bids.
1
■
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
I
h. Approval of Accounts. '
i . City Council Minutes dated January 23, 1989
Planning Commission Minutes dated January 18, 1989
Planning Commission Minutes dated February 1, 1989
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated January 24, 1989
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated January 31, 1989
Public Safety Commission Minutes dated January 19, 1989 '
j. Resolution #89-15: Approval of the Alco-Sensor donated by the BCA for use
by the law enforcement agencies which protect the City of Chanhassen. 1
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
A. AUTHORIZE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CURBSIDE RECYCLING.
Councilman Johnson: This is on the Chanhassen recycling program. When I first
read this I was believing we were getting the cart before the horse in that
we're going out for bids for a recycling program before establishing our
recycling committee. Then I realized that it's only a short term, this would be
just a one year recycling program while we establish a committee. We've
discussed establishing a committee last summer. Last fall. I've discussed it
several times. We need to get that advertised. We tried to get it advertised
last fall. We got to get that advertised, get that committee on board so we can 1_11
start doing this work. The second thing is, they talk about we may not be
getting any money fran the County. To the best of my recollection, which I
didn't have time to check on today, every ton of garbage tipped over at the
landfill is taxes with some money going back to the Counties for recycling
purposes. I find it hard to believe that the second largest town in the County,
there's no money left over for us from this recycling tipping tax that's there.
That there's not going to be any this year. We need to look into that and get
our fair share. I'm sure we put some garbage in the landfill so we should get
some money back from it if the State is requiring that tax. So it's something
I'd like staff to look into on this particular issue.
Mayor Chmi.el: I might interject something. I had a call from Mike Lein which I
returned but he never got back to me and I was trying to find out some of those
same questions because I think there are some dollars appropriated within the
Metropolitan Council as with the Solid Waste Advisory Task Force as well as with
the other agencies which is just going under MPCA. I think there may be some
dollars there.
Councilman Johnson: Then also, in the specifics for the request for the bids
for curbside recycling, under Section D, Description, it says that we will have
about,3,398 households. I would rather say, it is anticipated to be 3,400 to
3,750. We don't know how many new households we' ll have next year and putting
3,398 is pretty darn specific. Everyday we have a new one in this town so II looking at we had 350 single family building permits last year, I threw in a
range of 350 going from 3,400 to 3,750. Something in that nature at that point.
Under 10, they talk about Certificates of Insurance. We'd also like the
vehicular insurance to insure that the trucks these people use have the property
vehicle liability insurance. Not just Workman's Comp insurance so if they
2
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
1
damage anything, they have the proper vehicular insurance there too.
I 17i Mayor Chmiel: I have something on that too that I was thinking about. Roger,
is there anyway that from them doing what they're doing, with designating them
to, should there be a hold harmless clause?
Roger Knutson: You can put them in but I don't know that it does very much for
you in this kind of situation. You can put it in if you like.
Councilman Johnson: I thought there was something in there. Generally we say
that anything done by the negligence of their personnel, etc. , will hold us
harmless and vice versa. If negligence of our personnel, we'll hold them
harmless.
Roger Knutson: That's the case whether you say it or not. That's common law.
Whether you have it there, it's there.
Councilman Johnson: It's interesting how many people argue a whole long time
' over something that's common law though. I've run into that indemnification
clause time and time again.
' Roger Knutson: When it really becomes sticky is like in construction contracts
where you have provisions that say, if you're 1% at fault and we're 99% at
fault, you hold us harmless for the whole thing. Those kind of people usually
find...
1 I Don Ashworth: I should note, if we can move the term up, we will do that. I
know a number of our people in the community had hoped that service would come
on in February when their garages are starting to get fairly filled.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to suggest a couple of other changes to this. In
looking at the responses that we got back from some of the potential suppliers
of this service, I would like to recommend that we look at other alternatives to
the posting of the bond equal to 3 months hauling fees which is item 8. At
least one of the people who responded to us said that would increase their cost
and therefore our cost. I'd like to be sure that we've pursued other ways to
guarantee this service maybe aside from requiring a bond which basically, if
it's not needed, is just a cost. If it is needed of course, it's handy to have.
' So I'd like to see us looking to see if there are other ways we can guarantee
pick-up. The other thing that they mentioned was that by requiring that the
whole city be picked up on the same day, we were eliminating some contractor's
ability to bid on this. Or if they did bid, they'd have to buy new equipment
and given the short term nature of this contract, their cost of that would
reflect that risk requiring new equipment. I think that the City has
demonstrated for any number of years, that we can adjust to having our garbage
picked up on a variety of days and I would suspect that we can adjust to having
our recycleables picked up on more than one day. So I'd like to see us change
the requirements and ask for them to submit a bid and allow them to pick up the
' recycleables on whatever number of days it required them to do it as long as
they could make 2 complete swings through the City in a month which I think is
what we're after.
' Councilman Johnson: In the original description, I thought we just said twice a
month. I thought there was something in there that allowed them to do it over a
i 3
I
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
longer period of time than one day. That's a good point though. I don't know
of any hauler that has enough vehicles to do the entire city.
Councilman Boyt: Point B may cover it under 3(b) where it says total number of
days required to provide service. They put that into their bid but I remember
reading in the responses to this, is where I picked it up. I think it was the
first response letter or the second one from Recycle America that said in almost
the last paragraph of their letter, we also recommend that Chanhassen not
require that the entire city receive service on a single day. So if that's not
in our requirements, fine but this person was apparently reading that it was.
Councilman Johnson: Steve, can you address that specific issue? 1
Steve Hanson: What we used was several other cities as examples. One of those
was St. Louis Park which has got a fairly successful program and their curbside
pick up is, the entire city is done in one day. The intent was to get the pick
up all done in one day just so that it would be more consistent throughout the
City. Everyone would know on Tuesdays when curbside pick up is and that's when
you have to put your stuff out. That's where that would come from. I have no
problems with putting out the bid to allow somebody to putting in alternatives
to doing it on that single day of the week.
Councilman Johnson: I found the area that indicates one day. It says the
entire area should be picked up in one day but a reasonable schedule will be
considered if this is not feasible for the bidder. So they have an out. 1
Councilman Boyt: Oh yea, I see that. The second paragraph under B. That's the
change that I propose so it'a alright.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to move acceptance of item 1(a) with the staff to
take consideration of the items discussed here.
Mayor Chmiel: I'll second that.
Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to authorize the request for 1
proposals for curbside recycling with staff taking into consideration the items
discussed by the Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
B.- APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR LAKE ANN PARK EXPANSION AND AUTHORIZE
TAKING BIDS. I
Councilman Workman: I just wanted to go over the map quick. I'm bringing up
later in Council Presentations discussion on the softball fields, etc. We're
obviously going to see a little bit of pressure on that. The current Field No.
3, it looks like it's been turned which would be this. It says softball in
lighter print and then Little League in darker print. I'm assuming that's going
to be used primarily for Little League. Why are we going to spend money to turn II
that field?
Lori. Si.etsema: That's the way Field 3 is.
4 1
I
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
17 I
Councilman Workman: Is it? Yes, that seemed a little odd to me. I never saw
II
it to be sitting that way. I guess then the only other note that I want to make
in regards to this is, we have stress on a lot of the different fields including
for Little League and it looks as though we're adding, since Field 3 is going to
' be used for Little League a lot, that we are in fact adding only 2 more softball
fields? We're building 3 new softball fields.
Lori Sietsema: The discussion at the Park and Rec level so far is that Field
1 would be used for baseball. Field 2 would be softball. Field 3 would be
Little League and the other 3 would be softball so we had 4 softball fields and
a baseball/softball field and a Little League.
Councilman Workman: So basically we're only adding one real softball field.
Lori Sietsema: Right. The other one would be used as softball and baseball so
it's 4 1/2 that would be softball.
Councilman Johnson: It gets difficult with that raised pitcher mound for the
' Babe Ruth teams we have here in town. We really don't have a good Babe Ruth
field or Little League.
' Councilman Workman: No, and I don't have anything against Babe Ruth. I went to
State two years in a row with Babe Ruth. The reason I'm bringing this up is
because there's an awful lot of softball players out there who think, how come
we're cutting back softball? We're adding 3 softball fields. Well, in fact
we're really only adding 1 1/2.
Lori Sietsema: If I could comment further on that. Right now we have every
single softball field in the city in every neighborhood park being used by the
youth. That will happen this year. The standard policy is to not use those
neighborhood parks for league play but to leave those for pick up games for
neighborhood use. Not bring that traffic into the neighborhood. With the
addition of a field at Lake Ann, that will take some of the pressure off of the
outside neighborhoods and that's another reason why the eligbibility rules have
' to be...
Councilman Workman: But they're not using those softball fields now? They're
not playing any league games there?
' Lori Sietsema: The adults aren't but the little kids do use them.
' Councilman Workman: What I'm saying is, there is some confusion. I'm a
taxpayer and this kind of talk. There's a misconception about what and where
and how these fields are being added and what they're going to be used for.
They're seeing an addition of fields and their tax dollars but they're seeing
' the league cut back and that maybe is kind of a foggy point.
Councilman Johnson: Of course the fields won't be ready until 1990.
Councilman Workman: I'm just bringing up a point.
Jim Mady: We're looking at Lake Ann with the baseball fields at Lake Ann
possibly as short term. Baseball fields rather in the south park. The Park
Commission is envisioning the south park to be the youth sports complex.
5
J II
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
i
Soccer, Little League baseball games hopefully will be there. Hopefully within
the next 5 years with Lake Ann becoming an adult field. Softball. That was one
of our intents.
Councilman Boyt: As long as this is off, I would make two recommendations to us
heading into this thing. One of them is, we need to do an excellent job of
informing the public that we're going to be watering that field when in all
likelihood they're going to have a watering ban. We need to prepare then for
the sight of water shooting out over this freshly seeded sod. Then the other
comment, I think, and you probably have already moved in this direction, that we
should prepare a sign that tells them this is where your referendum dollars are
going and we should put a reasonable completion date on it. Not this spring as
we saw downtown which then went onto summer into fall to whatever. And we
should also put on there that it will be open for public use at a particular
date so that again that helps us fight this problem with people wanting to use
it before the sod or the seed can handle the traffic. That's all I have,
thanks.
Mayor Chmi.el: Any further discussion? Hearing none, can I have a motion to II
approve the plans and specs for Lake Ann park expansion?
Resolution #89-16: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to '
approve the Plans and Specifications for Lake Ann Park Expansion and Authorize
Taking Bids. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
F. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT, FIRE RESPONSE TO GEDNEY PICKLE PLANT.
Councilwoman Dimler: I brought this up because I saw in Jim Chaffee's letter to 1
Don Ashworth, it says that the purpose of this arrangement is to help Gedney
Pickle Company regain it's Class 6 fire rating for insurance purposes and that
they're looking at it as a permanent contractual arrangement. Yet in your memo
you recommended that it be for 6 months to a year. I just wondered about that.
Don Ashworth: The memorandum you're referring to is one, I believe, about a
year ago we were, that's the timeframe that we are working with Chaska and is
dealt with the annexation issue. One of the things that we agreed to was that
we would come to a long term solution to help Gedney in resolving that
annexation issue. So that was part of it and this is kind of a follow up to it
so we not only as a part of the out of court settlement, agreed to allowing
Merle Volk's property to go into Chaska. We received 25 acres from Chaska and
they also agreed to long term fire service for Gedney. It was all part of one
package.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so this is a permanent arrangement? 1
Don Ashworth: As close as we could come to one.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Joint
Powers Agreement, Fire Response to Gedney Pickle Plant. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
6 1
1 .
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
VISITORS PRESENTATIONS:
' Councilwoman Dimler: I got a note from a Mary DeCateur from the Lotus Lakes
Homeowners Association informing me of a discussion on the Eurasian Water
Milfoil to the lakes of Chanhassen and a Mr. Tom Reese is going to be speaking.
It's going to be on February 16th at 7:30 p.m. at the Chaska High School
commons. I just wanted to make that public for anyone who wanted to attend.
It's our first effort to educate the public on this subject. So if that would
get into the paper, we'd be really pleased.
Councilman Johnson: What was the time on that again?
Councilwoman Dimler: It's February 16th at 7:30 p.m. at the Chaska High School
' Commons. This coming Thursday.
' PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG THE NORTH SIDE
• OF WEST 78TH STREET IN SCHNEIDER PARK EAST OF KERBER BLVD..
' Steve Hanson: This is part of the downtown redevelopment area and when that
work was being done, there was an error discovered in the recording of the
right-of-way for West 78th Street. The request for this vacation is to clarify
I and clear up that discrepancy on the north side of West 78th Street.
Consequently what we have before you is a request to vacate a portion of that
right-of-way. Roughly from Kerber Drive back to the east. It's a tapered
' section and it just brings that all into an alignment. I have a larger map that
I could show you. It's probably not much more than what's in your packet
although it's a little larger is about the only difference.
' Councilman Workman: The only two questions I have are why and how.
Gary-Warren: Actually this came about as a part of a surveying bust or whatever
' yogi want to call it. When the original section lines were run in, it didn't
accurately go down and traverse the section line. Those things happen
especially from the older surveys which this downtown area is an older section.
It's not._that uncommon. So this basically cleans up the right-of-way. It
actually was fostered through some of the earlier dealings when we were working
on'the downtown. We only needed the 80 foot right-of-way to be consistent with
the rest of the downtown street section. And with the Burdick property and
' James property it got quite complex. In fact, eventually there will be a
similiar request for the other side of the road to clear up the vacations and
acquisition of easements on that side.
Councilman Johnson: Basically two surveyors don't agree with each other.
' Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to close the public hearing. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
i 7
■
I
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1939
Resolution #89-17: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve the resolution to vacate street right-of-way along the north side of
West 78th Street in Schneider Park east of Kerber Blvd. as described in the
attached resolution. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICATION TO CHANGE THE STREET NAME OF BUTTERCUP ROAD TO
MCGLYNN DRIVE, LOCATED IN THE PLAT OF MCGLYNN PARK SOUTH OF TH 5 AND WEST OF
AUDUBON ROAD, MCGLYNN BAKERIES. '
Steve Hanson: The applicant's requested this name change. On the backside of
that memo was a copy of the map. The street that they're talking about
essentially is a circle drive that loops around and provides access to no other
parcels other than the parcels that they presently own. Consequently, the staff
is recommending approval of that name change in this particular case.
Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order.
Public: Is that costing the taxpayers money to change that?
Mayor Chmiel: For the name change only?
Public: Yes. The name change to change the documents... '
Gary Warren: The signs aren't up. The road's not built. It's a platting
change that they'll make on their platting documents. '
Public: It won't cost the taxpayers anything?
Mayor Chmiel: No, basically it shouldn't. 1
Resolution #89-18: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close 1
the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public
hearing was closed.
Councilman Johnson: Good thing they're doing it now. We've seen some of these '
come in 6 months after they built the street and then that did create the
problems you're talking about.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to adopt the resolution
authorizing the change in name of Buttercup Road as platted and located in
McGlynn Park to McGlynn Drive. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF EASEMENTS AS PLATTED IN PARK ONE THIRD ADDITION AS '
PART OF THE REPLAT OF PARK ONE THIRD ADDITION INTO ONE LOT TO BE KNOWN AS BOGEMA
ADDITION, LOCATED WEST OF 184TH AVENUE, NORTH OF WEST 77TH STREET AND SOUTHEAST
OF QUATTRO DRIVE, DEL BOGEMA.
Steve Hanson: Let me just by way of explanation, this particular item is
wrapped into a couple other items that you have on the agenda before you
tonight. The vacation of these easements within this particular subdivision.
8 1
I
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Further in the agenda you have a request for a replat for this particular area
II and then subsequently a site plan approval for the same area. In order for that
building to be located there, they need to vacate the existing easements on that
particular piece of property. It contains four lots which comprised an entire
' block. The way it's platted now, the easements run along those lot lines and
what this first action that you're doing is to vacate those easements as they
exist so they have full title to build the building where they want to. If
you'd like I can explain the other parts of it or just deal with those later.
' Mayor Chmi.el: Let's deal with the other portions when it comes back on the
agenda.
Mayor Chniel called the public hearing to order.
' Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
' Resolution #89-19: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to accept
the vacation of the easements as platted in Park One Third Addition as part of
the replat of Park One Third Addition into one lot. All voted in favor and the
' motion carried.
' AWARD OF BIDS: KRONICK STORM WATER DETENTION POND.
Gary Warren: We took bids for the construction of the outlet piping from the
storm water detention pond. As stated in the documents, the City purchased 1.6
' acres of the northerly part of this parcel from Mr. Kronick and as a part of his
closing, he's responsible for doing the rough grading on the pond and the City
needs to build this outlet structure. The engineer's estimate for the
' construction was $25,000.00 and we received some very favorable bids, a number
of bidders. Latour Construction is the low bidder at a bid of $23,799.50. This
will be funded out of the tax increment district No. 2 proceeds and we
therefore would recommend awarding the contract in that amount to Latour
' Construction.
' Resolution #89-20: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to accept
the bids as proposed by the City Engineer for the Kronick Storm Water Detention
Pond and to award the bid to Latour Construction in the amount of $23,799.50.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 1, BOGEMA ADDITION AND A
REPLAT OF LOTS 1-4, BLOCK 2, PARK ONE THIRD ADDITION LOCATED WEST OF 184TH
AVENUE, NORTH OF WEST 77TH STREET AND SOUTHEAST OF QUATTRO DRIVE, DEL BOGEMA.
' Steve Hanson: This is the request I was just mentioning before for preliminary
and final plat approval for the area to be platted into the Bogema Addition.
The staff has recommended approval as has the Planning Commission. Since
the Planning Commission review of this, we did notice one discrepancy that we'd
like to have added as a condition. I'll show you on this one map here. These
areas noted in yellow are where there are some inconsistencies in the boundary
9
■
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
1
that existed when the present owners purchased the property as far as their
sidewalks are located. They're asking that it be done on the plat as the
boundary be adjusted to take care of these discrepancies where the sidewalk
exists on some of their property and vice versa. There are some changes that
I'm not sure exactly how those conflicts came to be but we'd like to have those
corrected on the plat at this point in time. It's pretty minor, it's a minor
change that can be done with the plat. I did want you to have that placed on
there as a condition.
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion by Council? Hearing none, I'll entertain a
motion.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Preliminary
Plat and Final Plat for Bogema Addition, a replat of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block
2, Park One Third Addition with the following condition:
1. That the boundary be adjusted to take care of the discrepancies where the
sidewalk exists on the property.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 97,400 SQ. FT. OFFICE/MANUFACTURING/WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON '
PROPERTY ZONED IOP, LOCATED WEST OF 184TH AVENUE, NORTH OF WEST 77TH STREET AND
SOUTHEAST OF QUATTRO DRIVE, DEL BOGEMA/R. JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION.
Steve Hanson: This is a request for the Site Plan approval for this same tract. '
The areas noted on here in the light green are the areas on the particular
property that will be disturbed and relandscaped. The brownish color here is
the manufacturing portion of the facility that's being built. This redish area
was the office portion and that particular area is a two story office space for
headquarters. The exterior lighting as mentioned in the staff report, is all
located on the building on the outside. ..get the details on that to make sure
that that all go downwards in shining and not obtrusive to the surrounding
properties. Also, in the staff recommendation, you'll notice there's a
recommendation for additional landscaping at the end of the parking. '
Specifically at the end of this long row of parking here. The dark green areas
here and we're suggesting that be added another island in the middle to bring
that up and break that area up a little bit... Also, in this particular
location...stand of trees would remain and also these trees along this northern
part of the property. . . A predominance of those trees will remain. Some of the
grading will encroach on that particular tree area and at this time we're
still.. . Also, we'll be bringing in the DNR forester to take a look at the
trees... Also, the setback here in this.. .existing vegetation to speak of...
That concludes my remarks unless you have any questions.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I just have maybe one or two. Manufacturing, what will
this building basically, what will they manufacture?
Steve Hanson: I think it would be easier to let the owner tell you. He is here
as well as one of his consultants.
Mayor Chmiel: Could you do that please.
10 1
� .
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
I
Del Bogema: My name is Del Bogema. I will be the owner of the building and the
' President and Chief Executive Officer of the company, Ver-Sa-Til Associates
which will occupy the building. I have some literature here that would probably
explain better what we do that you can pass around. Basically we're a high
' precision machining facility supplying precision machine components and
assemblies to the computer and defense industries primarily. This is basically
what we're going to be doing in this facility. We've made arrangements to keep
up the appearance of the area. To keep all of our garbage, chip collections and
everything within the building so there will be no external accumulation of
anything that would be unsightly. We're trying, as I mentioned in the Planning
Commission meeting, trying to be a good citizen to this community. I think one
' of the Councilman I met at the Planning Commission meeting is probably as
familiar as anybody with what our business is all about and maybe as an unbiased _
bystander he might be able to explain a little better than I would. Are there
any questions?
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I have no further questions. I appreciate you just
telling us as to what this business is going to be.
Councilman Boyt: I assume that noise really isn't a factor in your business?
' Del Bogema: It's always a factor. It depends as what you classify as noise. I
would guess that we're probably not going to be as noisy as the forklifts that
are up at the Lyman Lumber Company which I understand has been a problem. No.
' From our standpoint, in the building we're currently in in St. Louis Park, you
can stand out in the parking lot and not hear what's going on inside the
building.
' Councilman Johnson: Everything you do is all self-contained within the
building?
Del Bogema: That's true and the air compressors which sometimes are a problem
in this type of a manufacturing facility, when you're utilizing the old piston
driven compressors, it's not going to be here because we're using the screw type
which are virtually noiseless by comparison.
' Councilman Boyt: What are your hours of operation?
' Del Bogema: Our hours of operation start at 6:30 in the morning. The shift
runs until 5:00 in the afternoon. The night shift comes in at 5:00 and runs til
3:30 in the morning.
' Councilman Boyt: Almost 24 hours a day?
Del Bogema: 20 hours a day, right.
' Councilman Boyt: How many employees do you anticipate having?
' Del Bogema: About 140 probably 80% of which will be on the day shift and the
night shift is a skeleton crew. We basically run our big expense items on the
night shift. All the numerical control machines and things of this nature.
High ticket items.
' 11
I
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
1
Councilman Boyt: You mentioned the forklifts and that is the direction that I
was heading in this thing. The unloading, do you have deliveries by tractor
trailer or rail or what?
Del Bogema: Tractor trailer, mostly intown type trucks but we do get semis. But
as you would see, if you had the opportunity to look at the plans, we have a 70
foot long internal loading facility where we can bring a full, over the road
semi inside, shut the door and you'll never know it's there.
Councilman Boyt: Sounds terrific. What I would like to recommend in this
situation and Mr. Bogema, you might want to respond to this, and this is along
the lines of what I think we did with Lyman Lumber and Rosemount here just
recently. Since we're dealing with potentially mature trees and our DNR
forester will tell us what we're going to lose there, I'd like to see the
Council establish as one of the conditions that any trees that are removed that
are 4 caliper inches or greater, will be replaced with trees of a minimum of 4
caliper inches.
Councilman Johnson: Can you add the word healthy in there? '
Councilman Boyt: We don't need to worry about an elm tree that's been sitting
there dead for a while but a healthy tree, and I know there's some different
definitions of the quality of a tree and that sort of thing but I'd like the
jist of what we're trying to do, to say when you remove a mature tree, you
replace with comparable caliper inch. That doesn't mean that if you remove a 10
inch tree, you replace it with a 10 inch tree. That would be impossible but you
might replace it with a couple of 4 inchers.
Del Bogema: I don't see a problem with that at all. The terrain will allow
that...
Councilman Boyt: I would certainly be open to you working with the DNR forester
and staff to work that out but my intent and if we can put an intent in a
condition, would be that we continue to require developers to replace mature
trees with something of fairly comparable, reasonable size and a 4 inch caliper
tree is a pretty substantial tree but yet it's still transplantable. ,
Councilman Johnson: It doesn't have to go back in the same spot either because
obviously if you've done grading there, there's a reason. There are certain
areas of this land that can use some forestation and I do believe he's done an
excellent job of avoiding and designing around, designing to the site versus
bringing in a building and it's designed and plopping it on the site like we've
seen elsewhere. They have really done excellent work here. ,
Del Bogema: I don't have any problem with the intent because that's our intent
too.. . '
Bob Veeter: My name is Bob Veeter. I'm with R. Johnson Construction and we are
doing as much as we can to avoid really having to remove any trees at all. I
assume, there's going to have to be a few trees that would go but not too many
and there are, for this site there are quite a few trees. We are doing a fair
91
amount of additional landscaping. I guess what I'm use to dealing with as far
as putting new trees in which is usually I think around more the several inch
diameter variety and that's quite a bit different than taking in even a 4 inch
12 '
I
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
tree is somewhat big. It's not real large but just with all the
9 just trees that
II Ir- we're saving on the site, it almost seems like it's kind of a little bit severe
even maybe to have to replace every one that's there. I'm sure we can work with
that but it just seemed to be almost a little bit much.
' Councilman Boyt: Mr. Veeter, what I'm trying to express here is what I hope
becomes a consistent policy with the Council that when you remove a substantial
tree, that you replace it with a transplantable tree that's still fairly large
and I think 4 inch kind of does that. As you said, it is a transplantable tree
but it's not the 1 inch sort of thing that we tend to get in a lot of people's
front yards when their house gets built. I agree with what the Council is
saying here and I don't think we're talking about very many trees given the
' efforts that you've made. It's just an attempt to remain consistent in a policy
that I think we've followed with a couple of developers here recently.
Bob Veeter: I don't know how that would relate to like, say a site that was
heavily wooded to begin with. I don't know what you'd do with that but I guess
that would be dealt with when it comes along. I guess I just wanted to bring
that up that it could be a little bit out of hand maybe from what would be
' reasonable considering all the trees that we're already are bringing in. We
just want to work with the City on it. There's kind of a balance in there that
we haven't exactly gone out and tagged the trees individually. We could have
done that but we haven't done that at this point but there will be a point when
we would do that once the building is laid out and then we can go out there and
just see exactly what we would be dealing with.
' Mayor Chmiel: As Steve mentioned, we are taking many considerations into the
fact there are remaining trees going to stand and such. The additional
landscaping, if I'm not mistaken, is a little bit over and above what the
' requirements really are by the City. I think that's something that can be
worked out between staff and yourselves to come up with those conclusions as to
what's going to be required.
' Councilman Boyt: So that would be condition 13. That the developer work with
staff and the DNR forester to replace mature trees that are removed along the
lines of the discussion that we've just held. That leaves it fairly open but I
' think it's...
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a motion on the floor?
' Councilman Boyt: I would move approval of the site plan review as stated in
item 6 of our agenda with the 13 conditions. The 12 previously stated and the
' 13th just added.
Mayor Chmiel: Does that also incorporate Bill the plans that were stamped
"Received December 27, 1988" and revised plans that were stamped "Received
' January 11, 1989"?
Councilman Boyt: Yes.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
• 13
1130
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
1
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve Site Plan Review 1
#88-18 as shown on the plans stamped "Received December 27, 1988" and revised
plans stamped "Received January 11, 1989" subject to the following conditions:
1. Additional landscaping be provided in the parking area. Specifically, this
should include converting 8 parking stalls to landscaped areas.
2. All rooftop mechanical equipment will need to be screened and detailed 1
plans provided.
3. Details on exterior lighting need to be submitted and approved by staff to
show that lighting is screened and will not be visible from adjacent
properties.
4. Conditions from referral agencies:
a. The building must be sprinklered.
b. A checklist of requirements is attached that must be met as a part of
the building permit process.
c. Fire hydrants need to have a spacing of 300 foot maximum.
d. Fire Department needs 25 foot minimum clear width on parking rows
for emergency vehicles.
e. Inside trash storage area shall be protected by an improved automatic
sprinkler system.
5. The applicant shall receive and comply with all conditions of the Watershed
District permit.
6. The applicant shall install all erosion controls prior to the commencement
of any construction. All erosion controls shall remain in place throughout
the duration of construction. The developer shall be responsible for
making periodic checks of all erosion controls and making any repairs
promptly.
7. The plans shall be revised to incorporate the City's standard driveway
apron for commercial development as depicted in Attachment #1 of City
Engineer's memo.
8. The plans shall be revised to include typical sections for both types of
driveway surfaces.
9. The applicant shall be responsible for all debris and clean up on and off 1
site resulting fran the construction of this site.
10. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with a full set of "As- 1
Built" mylar reproducable copies prior to receiving a certificate of
occupancy.
11. Conditioned upon replatting of the site by the applicant. II
12. Add an inflammable waste trap.
91
14 1
■
II , t-
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
I
13. That the developer work with staff and the DNR forester for replacing
mature trees that are removed.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
REQUEST FROM PLANNING COMMISSION FOR INPUT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL ON A SITE PLAN
' REVIEW FOR EXPANSION OF THE CHANHASSEN TACO SHOP, 195 WEST 78TH STREET, GUY
PETERSON.
Steve Hanson: This particular request, the applicants are presently before the
' Planning Commission if you will. They had come to one of the last meetings for
site plan review for an expansion of their business. Through that discussion as
well as the staff report, there was one item that was mentioned in there as far
as a potential for this site to be acquired as a part of the TH 101 and TH 5
improvements. The Planning Commission felt that rather than moving ahead with
the site plan at that particular time, and I believe tha applicant concurred
with that, was that it would be beneficial for this item to come before City
' Council in order to get some direction as to the potential for that area to
either be incorporated into those improvements of the property acquired, or if
that's not the case, that then they should go back to the Planning Commission
with their plans and go through the site plan review process as well as the
variance process that they will also be requesting. I think you'll find on the
memorandum that Planning Staff had prepared, that the City Manager added some
additional comments. Essentially suggesting that the City should probably move
ahead with acquisition of this particular parcel as a part of those
improvements.
' Councilman Boyt: Steve, would this be really an action, in terms of the
appraisal and condemnation, be better considered by the HRA than the City
Council? The reason I raise that is, if this is something that the HRA is going
to fund, which it is, it would seem to me that they would be the ones that would
need to direct that action to take place.
' Steve Hanson: You may be right. I'm not sure. I was looking for Todd.
Councilman Johnson: Bill, I believe there is actually two issues in here. That
and the expansion of the non-conforming use and how the Council would look at
' such an expansion. I guess the other item is whether we believe that this is a
good action for HRA to do. Not necessarily that we would be doing it. Like Don
mentions in his part of it, HRA would be the one making this acquisition.
' Councilman Boyt: Maybe we could recommend to them.
Councilman Johnson: We can recommend to them. Actually there's no actual, this
is a discussion item more than anything. I don't think we have any action
tonight to actually take. The owner would like to hear our opinions, I believe,
as to the probability of him expanding at this site and the probability of
' acquisition. That's how I understood this item coming before us.
Mayor CI-niel: It's clarification for the Planning Commission as to which way
the Council wishes to go with this.
' 15
"CIty Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
I
Councilman Boyt: Okay. That answers my question. How would you like to
proceed?
Mayor Chmiel: I think what we probably should wind up doing is if this is going
to fall under the realm of the HRA, I think it would behoove us to make that
recommendation that this be sent to the HRA with review of that specific
business and come up with a conclusion as to whether or not the property should
be purchased and reach a successful negotiation with the property owner. If
not, then go to the ultimate which is condemnation. '
Councilman Boyt: Well, I would make a motion that we refer this to the HRA with
our recommendation that they continue, or begin to pursue the acquisition of
this piece of property.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Before we move on, is Mr. Peterson here? Is
there any comment that you'd like to make?
Councilman Johnson: I'll second the motion and would like to have some
discussion.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded with some discussion.
Councilman Johnson: The discussion I want to go on is really now what the '
future of that is, is even taken without the future action of that being
acquired by HRA, if that does occur. If this were just a piece of property and
we were looking to expand this. This is a non-conditional use. I have been '
very consistent I believe over the last two years of recommending against
expanding of non-conditional uses or providing expansions to anyplace that don't
meet our ordinances. This would not probably meet the 5 conditions of a
variance. It would be very difficult. He's got a business there. The
expansion of it, I doubt if it would occur. If we were at a point of voting on
this, I'd be voting against allowing a variance for expansion in this facility.
Councilman Boyt: I'm impressed anytime a local business comes in and says, I'm '
ready to expand. That means you must be doing well. I'd like to think that you
would do well in another location. What the HRA offers, hopefully, is a
situation of which everyone wins. They get a piece of property that they seem
to think they want for the development of the City. You get a chance to build a
building located where you and the City would both like to see them. Hopefully
it will be close to where you are now because you apparently built a pretty good
clientele. From what I understand, you do quite a good business there.
Especially at lunchtime as I understand you basically feed a big part of the
City. I'm glad to see things going so well for you and I'm real hopeful that
this works out so that everyone wins.
Guy Peterson: ...non-conforming use.. .
Councilman Johnson: In that you don't meet the proper setbacks. I should say,
Y
maybe it's not a non-conforming. That might not be the right definition of it
but you have a zero setback to the highway right-of-way where you're required a
25 foot setback. You have a zero setback in another area where you're required
a 25 foot or 30 foot setback. Those non-conforming problems. Not necessarily,
Ell
the use is not non-conforming. The site is in a state of non-variance. You
don't have a variance but it requires variances but you're grandfathered in
16 ,
■
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
I
because the building was built before the zoning laws. It's comparable to the
Isituation we had with the little cottage hotel, whatever you call it down at the
junction of TH 169 and TH 141. There's a bunch of small cottages. They're all
on a septic system. They wanted to expand last year and we said, no, you can't
' expand because you require too many variances to expand. This would just take a
bad situation, as far as variances from our zoning ordinance and make it a
little worse. If the lovely cement plant happens to also get taken over here,
this would make a fairly decent retail spot if we could decent access to it but
' the road changes are an access problem. I think your business is going to
suffer with the road changes there too when you end up with only right-ins so
the only way to access your property is for people coming from the north going
' to TH 5 from the south. They won't be able to come off of TH 5 and get to you
anymore so that's going to be a problem with this property anyway.
' The audio system could not pick up Guy Peteson's questions and comments from the
audience.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, if they can get the railroad to agree to another, what
would that make, a fifth crossing in town? A fourth crossing in town.
Guy Peterson made a comment.
' Councilman Johnson: What about the other one that's further to the west?
I Gary Warren: The single access driveway.
r
Councilman Johnson: The single access driveway I think they're talking about is
running through Jerry Schlenk's property or something. Just have him build a
' bridge or something at that point.
Mayor Chmiel: I have a motion on the floor.
' Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, could I make a comment?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, go ahead.
Todd Gerhardt: From what Gary has informed me, you
back to the HRA for their review? y were going to pass this
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, that's correct.
Todd Gerhardt: This is under special legislation and this is an economic
development district. Those monies would be used for the acquisition of the
Taco Shop and Redi-mix plant and the road construction. The City Council is the
authority in charge of that economic development district. The HRA is in charge
of a redevelopment district and you operate and control the economic development
budget so you are the advisory board on that.
Councilman Boyt: I have a question then. Now that you've got my interest.
Todd, maybe you can briefly tell us where we get the money.
Todd Gerhardt: The money is, that district collapses this year. After that,
that district no longer exists. We have special legislation in that should be
heard within the next 90 days that we extend that district for a 4 year period
17
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
11
of time. With that extension, those monies would be used directly for the '
acquisition, road realignment and directly for that intersection.
Councilman Boyt: It's your impression Todd, excuse me but it's your opinion
that there are sufficient funds in that extended so that we're going to buy an ,
apartment building, build a major portion of a highway and these other two
acquisitions?
Todd Gerhardt: That's correct. The taxes generated from Redman 1
Products, Lyman Lumber, CPT, or DataSery now and the Press, those monies are
within that district and would be used to pay for those costs. I don't know
exactly what those numbers are but they are sufficient and from what our
engineers have told us the estimate cost of the apartment and the acquisitions
and the realignment of the road would be sufficient.
Councilwoman Dimler: Would there be a problem though. .. '
Councilman Workman: That's what he referenced. The special legislation that's
supposed to be renewed. --
Todd Gerhardt: We've been meeting with Hennepin County, the State, MnDot.. .
Councilwoman Dimler: What's the likelihood that they will give that up?
Todd Gerhardt: It looks better almost...
Gary Warren: Just to add, we did the trip origination study here and that was
missing information that was recently presented February 2nd and that's Don's
last letter in the packet here to Mr. Garris. Basically, our results show that
50% to 55% of the trips out there were Hennepin County oriented. Earlier
discussions with Commissioner Garris were that if we could show that say roughly
30% or 33% of those trips are benefitti.ng Hennepin County residents, that he
would have no problem supporting this legislation so we're optimistic I guess
and we'll see when the final vote goes out for those but it would be appropriate
I think to condition any action here on the fact that the City needs to have
those funds or the District extended in order to make this all happen. We
wouldn't be condemning this obviously if the project isn't going to go forward.
Councilwoman Dimler: What's the timeframe then that you think you'll have that '
answer?
Todd Gerhardt: Within the next 90 days. When the legislation, they have their
hearings and we'll probably have to go to the tax committee and make another
presentation as we did last year. To keep on our time schedule, if you would
reference Don's memo in advising Roger to go ahead and have appraisals prepared
so we can stay on that schedule.
Councilman Boyt: I would modify or amend my motion so that we direct the City
Attorney's office to obtain appropriate appraisals for the property and other II
documents necessary to begin condemnation with no action being taken to condemn
the property until the district is extended by the State.
Mayor Chmiel: Jay, would you accept that as an amendment to your second?
18 1
■
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
1
Councilman Johnson: Yes, as long as you're also including negotiation of the
II acquisition rather than just condemnation as in the last paragraph of page 2
there. The entire recommendation.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I have a motion on the floor and a second. Is there any
further discussion?
Resolution #89-21: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded a
resolution authorizing condemnation of property in connection with the TH 101
realignment. Further, to direct the City Attorney's office to obtain
' appropriate appraisals for the property which can be used to negotiate
acquisition and, therefore, potentially avoid condemnation. Also, that no
action be taken to condemn the property until the district is extended by the
State. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
LAKE LUCY ROAD TRUNK WATERMAIN:
A. ACCEPT SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT NO. 1 TO FEASIBILITY STUDY AND SET DATE FOR
PUBLIC HEARING.
B. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZE TAKING OF BIDS.
Gary Warren: As summarized in the staff report, the December 12th Council
i meeting, staff was authorized to have plans and specifications prepared for the
project and also in light of the importance of getting this trunk watermain
completed in anticipation of our peak water demands this July, we also were
directed to prepare a policy document that would reflect the cost associated
with connecting, the costs and the policies associated with connecting any
interested parties along the alignment of this trunk watermain on Lake Lucy
Road. The addendum report that's before you tonight under item a is the
document that was prepared to reflect the connection policies that we're
recannending and has the input of the City Attorney, myself and the City Manager
in bringing these items together. It's basis is primarily founded in the
existing City Ordinances. This we found to be the most sensible way to our
thinking of allowing a lot of flexibility for anybody who wanted to hook into
the system but also for not requiring people to hook into the system but if they
' did at some later date, that we have a vehicle for establishing a reasonable
cost for the residential benefit of having water available. If you'd like, I
can go down and itemize the specific elements of that policy or if everybody, if
' there's questions, depending on how you'd like to handle it.
Mayor Chmiel: Why don't you go through that for clarification.
Gary Warren: I'll put it up on the overhead. I brought some projections along.
These are right out of the Addendum Report so if you want to follow along. The
basic premise that was agreed to as part of the overall, that we looked at as
part of the overall policy. ..part of the plans of Lake Lucy Road..proceeds would
be utilized that are available from the 1986 general obligations funds that were
used for the trunk improvements. We talked with Mr. Andy Merry and he said that
those bonds were justified based on the trunk needs of the six water systems and
reservoir, Chanhassen Hills and Kerber Blvd. trunk watermain... So this would
allow us, we wouldn't have to take any funds out of our water expansion fund
19
- ---City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
1
which we don't have enough dollars for anyway. This allows us to cover the
project. The fees for each property owner are summarized here in matrix form.
Basically there would be a connection charge covered under the City Code. We
have basic calculations along the alignment of Lake Lucy Road to say, well
this...is on this side can potentially develop. How many users are we going to
have along Lake Lucy Road? It is a guesstimate but we believe that we've
applied good judgment as far as zoning for what is out there right now. Taking
into account existing preliminary plats that are in with the Ersi.bo property.
Also recognizing if the MUSA moves, that we maybe will see a whole different
development characteristic depending on how the Council is...at that time to
zone the property. This is the area along the abutting properties that is
generally the Urban Service Atea but all the rest of this is zoned rural
residential. A lot of the parcels up there are 5 1/2 acres...with I guess...I
would say it's $300,000.00 to $500,000.00 homes in some cases so even if the
urban service area line moves, I shouldn't say if, when it moves, those
properties may not ever subdivide. So we were faced with that kind of a
judgment. What we did is arrived at approximately 80 units that we think
realistically could develop and ultimately use the trunk watermain. So we've
done a calculation in the report that's in the appendix to say, if we were just
constructing an 8 inch watermain along Lake Lucy Road which would be typical.. .,
what were the costs associated with that and dividing that by the 80 and that's
how we arrived at the $3,035.00. The City Ordinance also provides for a hook-up
charge which is commonly referred to as a trunk charge. Basically every user in
the city. . .a building permit today, pays a $650.00 fee for that building permit
which goes into the City's water expansion fund. We use that for normal
expansions outside of the...bond issue. . .operati.ng system. As an example, we II
recently approved the preparation of plans and specifications for rehabbing the
downtown tower. That 1,000 gallon tank. The funds for repairing the tank came
out of our trunk fund which i.s funded by those. That is a number, the $650.00, 1
the current number. That's not to say that it would not be increased in the
future. It likely would depending on how. . . Fire safety availability charge,
$8.00 per quarter. That is a charge that basically would be applied to any
existing dwelling, residential dwelling, I'm talking along the line of Lake Lucy 1
Road, that could tap into that main and it would benefit by having the watermain
out there from a fire safety standpoint. We're proposing that they would charge
consistent with the rest of the City properties who are not on the watermain but
could be on. That they be charged an $8.00 per quarter charge to reflect the
fact that they do receive the water from a fire safety standpoint.
Councilman Johnson: This would be currently, anybody who does not connect. If 1
they connect...?
Gary Warren: If they connect, then they pay whatever the useage is. Put a
meter on it and that's how they would go. The minimum charge.. .that were in
place prior to the watermain going in and a particular project was developed
okay so they weren't required to hook in. Same policy. Payment options.
Connection charge, first of all, this only applies to a person who wants to
connect to the system. If you don't want to tie in, you don't pay. You're not
required to hook up. But if you do want to connect to the system.. .plus you
have your own cost of taking the water service from the road right-of-way line II
basically into your property and into your home.. . The next charge is the
hook-up charges. We're proposing that they do not pay at this time, that we'd
like the City to assess an additional cost...that they would be assessed against
the property. The City's policy is to take the rate of the bonds...in this
20 I/
r '
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
case, 7 1 2% round i
, / o, nd t up to the nearest percent and add a percentage so 7 1/2
I plus rounding it to 8 plus 1 is 9% and a 6 year term which basically reflects
the remaining term of the cost... If a person does not choose to connect at
this time, say 5 years down the road wants to hook into the Lake Lucy Road
watermain, they would be allowed to do that with this policy. The connection
' charge of $3,035.00 5 years from now to reflect the inflationary increases to
that charge and again, this is spelled out in the ordinance, we would apply an
interest of 4 1/2%. ..so there is an escalator built in here. Not to be an
' incentive to having you hook-up. It's just to reflect the fact that $3,035.00
today is not worth $3,035.00 5 years from now. Hook-up charge, also City
policy...also could be assessed for a period of 4 years at 8% so there's an
option... I guess that's the policy. The feasibility study also did update the
cost of the project and that is summarized in the staff report. Basically we,
including the booster station improvements, we're looking at a $472,500.00
project for all practical purposes here. That is consistent with the original
' feasibility study estimate with the exception that we do have, when we looked at
the policy for connections and in order to provide this option where the
residents can or don't have to connect, we were faced with the fact that the
watermains for the most part is on the north side of the roadway. What if a
resident on the south side wants to hook into that watermain? Is it fair to
make then pay the cost for going underneath, jacking underneath Lake Lucy Road
which roughly is a $5,000.00 to $7,000.00 added burden so we said that didn't
11 seem reasonable. So the construction plans that are in tonight's packet include
7 crossings of Lake Lucy Road where a 6 inch stub would be jacked underneath the
road. So it's available. We've kind of taken a hard look at the properties on
I the south side and said well, if
you come across in this location, how would the
least number of crossings, how can we allow anybody who wants one on the south
side to hook in? So we have added that to the project and that is why we have,
1_ it's a $40,000.00 cost that we did not have in the original feasibility study
I but we think that it's necessary to give us the flexibility and to not have any
disparity between the north side and the south side. The second part of the
issue, and they are separate issues I should make clear, was to try to address
' the bike trail option. Maybe you'd like me to hold off on that for now and just
deal with this?
Mayor Chmiel: I think we'll deal with this one first and then move on.
-- Councilman Johnson: I see we have some residents in the audience.
Mayor Chmiel: Does anyone wish to address this issue? Hearing none, bring it
back to the Council.
Larry Kerber: I've got a question. Larry Kerber. My property is at 6700
Powers. You had mentioned something about a $8.00 service charge for people who
do not hook up to water for fire protection.
Gary Warren: That's for dwellings.
Larry Kerber: Existing dwellings that that line passes in front of that do not
hook up. Why is that?
Gary Warren: That's to recognize the benefit from a fire service standpoint.
That water is available from a fire hydrant for fire protection.
21
-city Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Larry Kerber: Why does the guy who hooks ' '
Y Y g y s up then not have to pay that? He's
getting the same benefit.
Gary Warren: He's paying that through his, his water is metered and he's paying
for that system.
Larry Kerber: So that's built right into his? '
Gary Warren: Yes. '
Larry Kerber: Now that's only going to be the property not serviced by existing
water as you've got the parcels on the corner of CR 17 and Powers serviced by
water on Powers. My place and the 3 little places on the corner. They will not
be assessed that $8.00 charge?
Gary Warren: Those that have access and have service stubs from Powers Blvd.,
that's correct.
Larry Kerber: Okay, that's all I wanted to know. '
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Hearing none, we'll bring it back to Council under
Council discussion.
Councilman Johnson: I think Westwood has done a good job here along with Gary
and crew. I'm glad that we came in so well under budget on the water tower that
we can utilize those monies here without having to dip in the till anymore. I'd
like to hear more on the bike issue side of the thing. That seems to be a
hotter subject.
Councilwoman Dimler: I just wanted to thank Gary and Westwood for working with '
the residents so well. I was there when they came in and looked at their
individual properties and Gary told them what would happen. Especially that you
were willing to go from the north to the south when it was deemed reasonable.
Councilman Workman: With those '86 bonds in financing this whole thing, is that
a potential to open up a problem in the future when somebody is perhaps going to
be assessed? Is this a coincidence with this bond? This kind of funding?
I understand the importance of the project and that's why we kind of went with
that kind of funding but if we didn't have the bonds, what would we do?
Gary Warren: If we didn't have the bonds, I guess you could do nothing. You
could issue another bond or look at some combination of assessment program to
generate the revenues from the project perhaps in conjunction with using some of
our water expansion funds. The budget for '89, we had looked at $150,000.00
caning out of that fund to SC money for this project but that was when we
thought we maybe had a $300,000.00 project. We didn't know. Without the good
fortune months, having the reserve from the bond issue, we'd be looking at all
kinds of different scenarios and combinations of assessments. Or maybe more
likely, because of, I don't see that the policies would change that much. I
think the policy that we've established here is well founded in the fact that it II
is a trunk benefit and we happen to be going past a lot of abutting properties
and we want to be as congenial as possible to allow them to hook in without
making everybody hook in but the policy that it is a trunk sewer line would
probably come to the Council to be faced with do you want to cut another bond
22
I
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
issue to fund this. If that answers your question.
' Councilman Workman: What exactly will this do for our, in very simple terms,
what will it do for our water situation this summer, in the future? What are we
' connecting and what are we gaining? It's an expensive project. What exactly
is the City of Chanhassen getting by adding this?
Gary Warren: In simple terms, let me just quickly put this graphic back up.
This doesn't show our water lines but basically right outside of Prince's
property on Galpin we have Well #3 which right now is the only well that
services all the properties in the Minnewashta area, the northwest corner of the
' City basically. The water service is provided by Well #3 which pumps through a
booster at this intersection of Lake Lucy Road up to our 200,000 gallon elevated
tank on Murray Hill Road. We have 150 gallon well over at the high school up
here that is a very humble supplement to that system. Our Well #3 pumps at
about 1,000 gallons a minute. Right now if Well #3 goes out, we are very much
vulnerable to, we don't have another supplement if it goes out during our peak
demand in the summer here, we have trouble getting water.. . The 200,000 gallon
' tank maybe carries a days worth of reserve so if we have a major problem, we're
hurting. Likewise, in the downtown, a majority of our users or three-quarters
of them are in the rest of the urban area around Lotus Lake and such. This area
' is serviced by 6+ ll #4 which is down by Lake Susan where we're currently. . .and
by Well #2 which is over by South Lotus Lake Park. Both those wells pump into
the system but as we experienced last year, they are very strapped for keeping
' up under peak conditions. They run about 20 to 22 hours a day when we hit the
July season. Whereas Well #3 on the west side over here maybe ran 5 to 8 hours
a day under peak conditions so there's about 10 to 12 hours worth of reserve
capacity that this well could be running if we needed it but because it's
' oversized, not oversized but it's adequate for the northwest area, we can't tap
that reserve because we don't have any. .. Lake Lucy Road will allow us to pump
from Well #3 up into what we call the lower service area and vice versa. Well
#4 will not be able to come back to the western service area so we provide
ourselves some good redundancy in the system and allow us to tap into the
reserve capacity that's in Well #3 right now. Eventually and he was just here,
' I guess my desire was to get a feasibility study authorized by the Council for
Well #5. This will buy us some time because ultimately we will need to have
Well #5 on line.
Councilman Workman: What will it have to do with our reservoir up there?
Gary Warren: Murray Hill or this reservoir? They'll be able to cross feed.
' Basically Well #2 and #4 are pumping and if they can't keep up with the
consistent demand, the telementry will be established so Well #3 will kick into
the system, if it isn't already, and it will feed back into that reservoir. The
downtown reservoir and this reservoir are tied in with an altitude belt to stay
1 at the same elevation. They both go up and down together. So when they hit
certain staging levels, 1 well, 2 wells, 3 wells will kick in to meet the demand
to fill those tanks for the service area. So they will all basically work as
one unit to service that plus they will also be able to feed back into the
northwest part.. .and reserve that's generated.
Councilman Workman: Is this going to do anything to alleviate our sprinkling
ban?
23
■
; rte
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Gary Warren: We sure hope so. That's the idea is to tap e '
Y � ap th_. ..
Councilman Workman: This summer? i
Gary Warren: Well, we're intending, if we stay on our schedule and we are on
our schedule right now, to have this project awarded at the March 13th City
Council meeting. Providing favorable bids and all those other good things, the
construction schedule we're comfortable with, this line would be in service by
July of this year. Typically, and last year was not typical, but we typically
are...
Councilman Workman: So people that are out there right now and this is going to
be running down Lake Lucy Road, they're going to be charged basically $32.00 a
year and that's about all until they tap in?
Gary Warren: Right. If there's a dwelling on the parcel, a residential
dwelling, they will be charged $32.00.
Councilman Workman: But $32.00 a year is it and a little inconvenience?
Councilman Johnson: They should also check with their insurance companies. Now
that they have a fire hydrant closer, what effect that has on their household
insurance. I assume if you're under fire protection versus no fire protection.
That's a question my insurance company asked. How far it is to your nearest
fire hydrant. Right now it's a couple miles. Maybe, you're an insurance man,
you might know better. II Mayor Chmiel: I'd like someone to provide a motion to accept the Supplement
Report No. 1, the feasibility study and set a date for public hearing. What -
date for the public hearing have you indicated Gary? 1
Gary Warren: March 13th.
Resolution #89-22: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to accept
Supplemental Report No. 1 to the Feasibility Study and to set the public hearing
date for March 13, 1989. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Johnson: Can we discuss the bike trail option? ,
Mayor Chmiel: That's the next one.
Councilman Boyt: I think that we should point out though that this will not '
relieve the city from the prospects of a watering ban for an even/odd day or
some sort of combination if we have a summer like we had last summer.
Gary Warren: That's correct. We would be able to tolerate it a little bit
better but if you have that kind of a condition, every city just about had a
sprinkling bans and watering restrictions. It was •that dry. '
Councilman Boyt: I just don't want to set up false expectations. It might be a
little safer from the terms of fighting a fire standpoint but people's lawns are
still going to suffer.
24 ,
■
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
I
' Gary Warren: We haven't made up for very much moisture content in the soil yet.
Councilman Johnson: But we are in better shape having that new water reservoir
' on line this year than we were last year without the water reservoir. It's not
all gloomy.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's move to the trail issue portion.
Gary Warren: At the last Council meeting, the Council was presented with a
petition from the neighbors concerning the persistent issue that we've been
' trying to resolve concerning on-street trails and the lack of parking that's
available as a result of that. I guess my thinking is that we were looking at
the feasibility study is that well, we don't have a quick fix to that problem
' but to pose one alternative here, I had Westwood prepare a cost estimate for an
option that I thought might have some potential. That was, at the time of
construction of the watermain, we're going to have this 10 foot basically area
that we'll be clearing and restoring as a part of construction. What if we take
one of the trails off -the Lake Lucy Road and put it right over the watermain?
Obviously there are some costs involving that. . .and maybe we could turn one of
the lanes, in this case I had said the south bike path, turn that into a parking
' zone. We looked at that. The dollars are in the report. It was $47,000.00 to
$64,000.00, roughly, depending on whether we have to move our retaining wall on
Yosemite Avenue but just to touch on the highlights aside from the costs here
II i which I don't.. ., there are some hurdles with MnDot. Basically, this is looking
north, so this would be the north side of the road and this would be the south
side. The current road section is a 36 foot road section from face of curb to
face of curb. We would go up.. .to 6 foot bike path lanes, one in each
direction. As you will recall from the previous discussions on this, State
Statute requires that we can't have bike lanes going opposite directions on the
same side of the road. We pose a traffic, Statute problem... The road section
' under MnDot's criteria, being a State Aid Road, in order to have a sufficient
road section that would allow one lane of parking, MnDot likes to recommend a 34
foot road. If we look at the section from here over because we wouldn't be able
to ,include the bike path and if you take the bike path off on the south side of
Lake Lucy Road and put it off over the watermain, we have a 30 foot section.
We're 4 feet short which, not to say that it couldn't happen but MnDot would
have to look at that as a variance to the road section requirements in their
' State Aid Manual.. . We didn't have time to get into all of that or even discuss
it very much with MnDot. I just wanted to point that out that it's not a given.
If we decide for example that yes, let's do that. Let's bear the expense of
putting the trail over on this side for this for parking, MnDot would have to
waive on their road section requirements so we've got a 4 foot issue there that
needs to be dealt with. Construction wise, it can be done. Again, the toughest
part of it is going to be the Yosemite Avenue area where our retaining wall.
' Right now we have 5 feet in back of the curb.. .about the maple tree and there
are some important things that we'll have to be careful about. There are some
construction challenges to it... There's budget in the surplus funds here that
could be used for that where we haven't exceeded our $530,000.00. . . That's I
guess the alternate that we did include in the report here.
Councilman Workman: What do the neighbors think about the trail?
Mayor Chmi.el: I've had a couple calls.
' 25
I
1"a r7sa I
� ,C,a
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
I
Councilman Workman: It's not going to bother me but what's it going to do for Il
you folks?
Mayor Chmiel: Would anyone like to address the issue from the neighborhood? I
Brian Tichy: My name is Brian Tichy and I live at 1471 Lake Lucy Road. How do
we feel about the trail? I happen to like bike trails but I'd much prefer
parking. Right now with the state of the bicycle trails in the area, there
really aren't any trails to hook up to the Lake Lucy trail at the moment. I
feel the idea of a trail over the water trunk is a good one. The added cost is
a lot of money to spend and it's the City's money that, not just we would be
spending but the rest of the community would be spending and I don't know if
that's worthwhile. We contacted the State and a gentleman named Roy Hanson
handles the State Aid on roads. He mentioned that the State does not dictate
that that road has to have a bike path. It is up to the City to determine
whether or not there will be a bike path there. As far as the bike path, the
way it's used now, I don't know if it's necessary that there be a bike trail.
There are no other bike trails coming from the east or west side or coming from
the north or south. It really doesn't seem to be beneficial at this point.
Councilwoman Dimler: Brian, do you use the bike path? '
Brian Tichy: I use a bike quite often. Try to stay within the bike trail
but... '
Councilwoman Dimler: Would you miss it if it were gone?
Brian Tichy: No, I'd ride in the same spot. 1
Councilman Workman: So you're basically what? You're against, not real
interested in the trail? '
Brian Tichy: I'm not interested in the trail so much. I would rather not have
a trail there if it would mean that we could park in the road. '
Councilman Johnson: You're for parking?
Brian Tichy: I'm for parking, yes. '
Councilman Johnson: If the trail meant you can't have parking, you don't want
the trail? '
Brian Tichy: Right.
Councilman Johnson: If you can have both, would you like both? '
Brian Tichy: That would be fine. If there's a solution that would meet that,
I'd be all in favor of it. I
Councilman Johnson: Your objective is parking?
Brian Tichy: Right. And one side of the road is fine. We're looking for some
type of a compromise.
26 1
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
I
CGary Warren: As I pointed out in the staff report, the maximum I believe that
I e could get within the State criteria, even if both bike paths were pulled off
of that road, we only have enough road section to put in one side parking.
Councilman Boyt: Brian, I grant that you live at the bottom of a difficult
driveway. I'm glad I don't have that driveway.
Brian Tichy: I didn't when I built.
' Councilman Boyt: Well, you do now Brian and we have an ordinance about parking
on streets in the wintertime. Where you're hurt the most, as I understand it,
or at least looking at your driveway, is when conditions, driving conditions are
otherwise poor. If they start to be poor in your driveway, they're already
terrible. My concern is that even if there were no bike trail there, by
ordinance, you still couldn't park up there. So the bike trail really isn't the
' issue. The issue is a city ordinance in effect from November 1st through April
1st and it says one, you can't park there overnight basically. Two, you can't
park there anytime that there's snow to be removed which is the very time you
' most need to park there. So I don't think the trail is the issue here. I think
the issue is that we have a person who is inconvenienced by a city ordinance and
I don't know that there's a way to resolve that Brian. To me, the issue is the
' city ordinance and the issue isn't a $60,000.00 trail.
Brian Tichy: I'm not necessarily most concerned about emergency parking. As I
say, it's other residents along the road also. The concern is when people come
' over. There's not access to provide parking for those people, whether it's
spring, summer, fall, winter snow storms, it doesn't matter. Those cars are,
where do you put them? What do you do when you have more than a couple of
' people over? It's not just a problem with me, it's a problem with other
residents along the road also.
Councilman Boyt: Granted, but they have the same problem with the ordinance.
The problem with what to do with people when you're going to hold a gathering of
some sort and have more than the normal number of cars, is one that we face all
over the City. I think we know how to deal with that problem. If that's the
' only hold-up is where do I put people when I'm having a gathering at my house,
what most people do in the City Brian is they call the Sheriff's Department and
tell them, I've got an unusual situation and I believe, and I don't see Jim
I Chaffee here but it's my understanding that the Sheriff's Department has been
very cooperative in that area. In giving people temporary ability to park where
they might not otherwise be able to do that.
' Brian Tichy: That's an option. It becomes an inconvenience, not all events are
planned a week or two days ahead of time to be able to do that. The convenience
of having parking on the street, especially in an instance like this where the
' road is wide enough, we're not in a very restricted or confined area, to provide
no parking in an area like that is definitely a burden on the residents along
the road.
Councilman Boyt: I don't disagree with you about the burden at all and
II [-- I recognize that you are particularly burdened by it but Gary has already told
us that the road isn't wide enough to allow parking unless there's no trail on
it, legally.
27
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
I
Gary Warren: Without a variance from the State. ,
Councilman Boyt: Right, and maybe we can get a variance but my point is that, I
think to build this parking situation so that we can allow people to sort of
have adhoc gatherings that they can't put in their driveway, is to give up a '
situation that does benefit the city and will continue to do that more so in the
future because Lake Lucy is a main connector. It is going to have continuingly
large amounts of traffic on it. Brian, I think you've got a situation here that
from my perspective, the City can't afford to correct. It's just simply too
expensive to move that trail and that doesn't correct it because it's an
ordinance problem. That's my point of view.
Brian Tichy: If the expense is the problem, removing signs is a very
inexpensive solution.
Councilman Boyt: No, we're talking about building a trail so that we can
maintain that expense.
Brian Tichy: I realize that. If that is an expensive solution to the problem,
that may be the way to go. What I'm saying is the one thing you could do is
remove signs, no parking signs and then provide parking on the road. That
becomes a very minimal expense.
Gary Warren: The city snow emergency signs would be back up if the no parking
signs were taken down. II Mayor Chmiel: In talking to a few people that I've talked to within your
neighborhood, they've indicated too that as far as the bike trail is concerned, -
when the bike trail went in, no one was ever asked if they really wanted one. ,
I guess the position that I see presently is that bike trail really serves no
one other than Lake Lucy Road because it doesn' t go beyond that particular part.
It does not go onto CR 117 nor does it go on CR 17. I guess one of my concerns
is, maybe those bike paths should be eliminated and provide some off street
parking for than on one side of that particular road. I can understand some of
the concerns that they have and I think some of those concerns are basically is 11 they just don't have that accessibility.
Councilman Johnson: To argue the other point of view on this, we have an infant
trail system here where all the connections aren't made. We had an opportunity
to put a trail between two major roads on a major road in the city. We're
running trails up CR 17 now and there's a new trail that was constructed last
year running up to about Kerber Blvd.. That will be extending on and should be
connecting here within the next few years. We should be connecting. The trail
plans, our Comprehensive Plan calls for a trail in this area. I have seen quite
a few people on this trail in the summer. I would love to see this one off the
highway. I've seen kids on tricycles. Kids on bicycles with training wheels,
not exactly going straight, on the same roadway as we have people speeding.
This is one of the roads that is nice, very wide. You get the impression of
wideness with this road. You figure it's a 55 mph road. You go up over the
II
hill and here's a family with a couple people walking, a couple dogs and a horse
and two tricycles and you're doing 55 over the top of the hill. I think if we
Ell
can build an off street trail at this location along the north side of here for
future use, even though it doesn't connect today. If we don't build it today
28 ,
■
IICity Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Iutilizi.ng these monies that are non-trail monies, then in the future we' ll be
I building it. We'll be building it for more because here we already have
II construction material going in there. We're already going to be working. It's
the cheapest time, the best time to build this trail for the future. Once we
have a full trail system, we can dedicate our trail system money for making
connections to this trail. This is used. There are people out there during the
summer. Especially summer evenings when I've been out on this road, I've seen a
lot of people out there walking along and primarily on the north side in the
area of, just drew a blank on the name of the road where we have the problem
with the retaining wall. Yosemite. Where people cane down off of Yosemite onto
here, walk down a ways. I'm totally for this trail. I believe to get that
trail off the roads will be a benefit to the City overall as an interconnection.
1 It helps connect our city and connect us to Lake Minnewashta area which is an
area of town that feels isolated and this is one more method of saying, hey,
you're part of Chanhassen. I think it's well needed and this is the time to do
' it. It would be the least expensive time to do it. With a variance from the
State, will be able to help with the parking situation also. So I'm in favor of
this.
' Councilwoman Dimler: -I have a question of Gary. If we opted not to do the bike
trails on the north side, then would we have to get a variance from the State or
would we have the 34 that we are required to have?
Gary Warren: I didn't follow you.
I Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, if we opted not to do the bike trails on the north
side as shown.
Gary Warren: Both of them?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. And you said that the State required that you have
34 feet.
Gary Warren: 34 feet minimum.
' Councilwoman Dimler: If you didn't do the bike trails there, would you have
that 34 feet?
Gary Warren: Yes, the total section exclusive of bike paths is 36 feet from the
' front of each curb to the other curb so with both trails off, we would not
theoretically have any problem with MnDot.
' Councilwoman Dimler: So then you wouldn't need the variance from the State.
Gary Warren: Right. Then we would be able to put one parking lane on the road
without a variance.
' Councilwoman Dimler: And I have a few more comments. I guess I would stick
with the residents on this. I would like to hear from a few more of them a
' little bit later but as was stated earlier, they had never been consulted
whether they wanted the trails or not. They were just put in. ...so we changed
the situation out there without their consent. I have gone out there and I have
seen people on the road because they were unable, the bikes would be on the road
and people walking on the road because they couldn't use the trails because
' 29
{
C
II
ity Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
I
there was gravel on them and that is dangerous too. So if they're not going to
be well maintained and the people still end up using the road, then I don't
think we've accomplished anything.
Brian Tichy: With all the construction going on at the present time, that's the
case. The bike paths are not used.
Councilman Johnson: I would support having just a 6 foot trail off of the
entire road which still gives us the trail through the area. It becomes a
walking trail at that time because you could have put a two-way bike trail so
this could not become part of the Twin Cities bike path where they have these
trails going throughout the Twin Cities if you didn't put the two separate ones.
But as a compromise, I'd like to see maybe just the 6 foot wide off street trail
for the people who are walking and the kids with tricycles and that kind of
thing. There's a lot of people that walk there and the only place they have to
walk is in the bike path which is part of the street. Anytime we can get an off
street path and when we get it down to where we're talking just an off street
walking path, 5 foot's probably wide enough at that section with the retaining
wall. ,
Councilman Workman: It's supposed to be a two way deal. One path going one way
and the other path going the other way. Now you're talking about two two way
paths right?
Gary Warren: He's talking about a walking path.
P ,Mayor Chmiel: Just strictly one way.
Councilman Johnson: But if we break it down to a walking path to where we're
not looking at people at people doing 10 speed bikes at 30 mph.
Councilman Workman: What I'm saying is then what you've got is you've got a
bike path on the road that bikers are using to go both ways which defeats. ..
Councilman Johnson: We'd eliminate that bike path all together. Not put any
bike path on the road at all and only a walking trail along the edge of the road ,
versus, if they want to keep a bike path on the road and a bike path off the
road, what you're going to have on the off road bike path is people walking on
that and people trying to drive bikes. I'm not sure if that becomes compatible
use. When you get a 36 foot wide roadway, a bicyclist without having a
designated bike path, as long as there's not four lanes there, a bicyclist can
ride that road. Our kids ride a lot narrower road to grade school everyday here
in the downtown area. 28 foot roads with curved gutters that are nice and
dangerous for them. My basic position is that I'm supporting the off street
trail in this location because I think it will be a vital link in our trail
system and this is the time to build it because it's cheapest at this point. '
Mayor Chmiel: Are you talking about the expenditure of that $47,000.00 to
$63,000.00? I
Councilman Johnson: Yes. Anytime in the future it will be more expensive.
Mayor Chmiel: That's probably very true but I guess, let me just state my
position, as I see it. I think trails are necessary items within a city but I
30 '
II • ' City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
I
think, in fact I know I clarified that a couple meetings ago. I feel there are
certain areas within this city that really needs trails. I'm not one for
I t putting trails in for trails. I think the areas that are needed within this
city is TH 101, CR 17, CR 15 and then TH 101 extending from north and south of
TH 5. To me those are probably one of the better areas to have because there
1 you're going to bring people into the community and utilize that a little more.
I think putting trails into other areas right now aren't really needed. Streets
are there. People utilize those streets. People can walk on them. I think
II mentioned at one time, if somebody wanted to walk on my lawn, that's fine.
All well and good too. But I think that I can see expediting dollars as such is
just not my forte. I just don't feel comfortable in spending $47,000.00 as
IIopposed to almost $63,000.00, depending on which way it goes.
Councilwoman Dimler: I agree with Mr. Mayor and I think that we should add
Minnewashta Parkway to that list.
IMayor Chmi.el: And Minnewashta Parkway. That was the other one I was thinking
of.
ICouncilman Boyt: You have listed a series of major collectors. Lake Lucy Road
is a major collector. What was the percentage of funds that went into Lake Lucy
Road?
IIGary Warren: 80%.
I Councilman Boyt: This is basically a highway that was funded by the State that
the City used with it's discretionary ability to place those monies where we
think it will most benefit the city and the rest of the people in the area. We
II very heavily subsidized, if you will, that road. What we're saying is that, and
I take no issue with the neighbors who say they have a parking problem. I agree
with them. You have a parking problem. My difficulty Brian, and we talked
about this last fall, was I think that we're asking the City, and I guess to
I some extent we're saying to the State, we spent more of your money that we
should have because we built a wider road than we ever would have built without
those trails added onto it. Now we're going to take the ability to protect part
I of 'those roads as a trail and we're going to sacrifice that so a few people can
park when it's convenient for them to park. I think that you're right Mr. Mayor
in saying that the major collectors in this city need trails. Recognize that
I the trail referendum failed by 8 votes. That means roughly half of the people
in town felt that there should be quite an integrated network of trails. Now
half of then didn't. They clearly have a message to say but I think we both
agree that the majority of the people in the city would support trails on the
I major collectors. This is a major collector. It already has a trail on it. To
now pull that trail off, it's a loss for the city as a whole.
I Councilman Johnson: All the roads you listed were north/south. What do we do
east/west for trails? We need east/west trails also.
Mayor Chmi.el: I'd like to ask any of the other residents that live within the
1 area, their opinions.
ELLarry Kerber: I've got a problem with Mr. Boyt's comment. I know the road was
II built as a major collector. Is it a major collector? It is not. The traffic
count is, the State gave me a figure, 700 and something a day on it. It's
1 31
II
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
I
nothing close to CR 17 or TH 101 in traffic count. True, the road was built
that way. Nobody out there wanted that road or needed it. Maybe you will 10
years from now. I don't know. If more subdivisions empty out onto it but why
can't the bike trails be off? People can still ride their bikes down it.
You've got a 25 mph speed limit on half of it. Park cars on the south side and
let people ride their bikes on it. Before we had a road 20 feet wide, all
broken up. We could park off of it and you could ride your bikes on it if you
wanted. Now we've got a road 36 feet wide and we can either, you're saying we
can either park on it or ride our bikes. One or the other, we can't do both.
It just seems like the people of the area, we all got short changed. We paid a
lot of money for a road that now we can't do what we did before with our old
road. I think the parking issue is something that was never brought up at the
meeting. That we were going to lose our parking and move a bike trail. I'd
like to know who decided to put the bike trails on there and is every bike path
in this City two ways? Every time there's a bike trail it's goes two
directions? How many roads like this do we have with bike trails on both sides? '
Mayor Chmiel: I think you're the only one.
Larry Kerber: I guess that's the only comments I have.
Councilman Boyt: Kerber Blvd. has a bike trail on both sides. It was also
built on the road. It's just been recently that we built off road trails.
Mayor Chmiel: Is it a bike trail or a walking path?
Councilman Boyt: What's off the road is a walking path. What's on the road is
sucicide as far as I'm concerned but it was planned by the earlier Council as a
trail. I
Larry Kerber: But Kerber Blvd. has no driveways coming out to it. All streets.
You won't find one driveway coming on Kerber Blvd. so those people have their
parking problem taken care of because they all have off street parking. Where
Lake Lucy Road, all the houses were there and then we put the road in. We
didn't put the road in to meet the needs of the people there. We put the road
in that somebody else wanted and now we're trying to make it work for the
residents. I think what the residents need and want should be considered more
than just for the sake of just having the bike trails there. Let's take bike
trails out. People can still ride their bikes on that road. The speed limit is
low enough. There isn't that much traffic on it and I think the situation would
be solved by putting parking on the south and eliminate both bike trails. The
path, if somebody feels it necessary on the north side, fine.
Dick Lash: My name is Dick Lash and I don't even live on Lake Lucy Road but was
this bike trail part of the trail referendum that was voted down?
Councilman Boyt: No. '
Dick Lash: It was not on the drawing at all?
[11
Councilman Boyt: It might have been on the drawing Dick as part of the overall
Elltrail plan. This was designed to be there several years ago.
32 '
■
Ci.ty' Counci.l Meeting - February 13, 1989
Dick Lash: If it was on the drawing that was voted on, that's been voted on not
once, I know I voted on it twice. It appears to me that you're trying to put
I f portions of this bike trail in piece by piece and eliminate a vote again. I
don't know. I keep hearing bike trails and walking trails but it's been voted
down twice.
' Councilman Boyt: There is a comprehensive trail plan for the City. What we all
voted on was how we might fund that trail plan. We didn't vote on whether or
' not we would have a trail plan. It's how we would fund it and that's what got
turned down.
Dick Lash: It does appear, you see trails going in on Kerber. You see trails
going in on Lake Lucy Road. Pretty soon, like Jay says, they're going to
connect up. CR 17 will have a trail on it. It's coming down CR 17 now. We
won't have much... The trail system would be going in in small sections. You
' just add a little bit of pavement then they'll all be hooked up but twice this
has been voted down.
Councilman Johnson: The referendum was to accelerate the trail plan and make
the connections earlier. Now without the money from the referendum, it's going
to take many more years to have a comprehensive trail plan in this city.
' Dick Lash: And this is the way to do it, right? In little sections?
Councilman Johnson: This particular section is already there. We've got a
Ik trail. What we're looking at is should we change this trail.
Dick Lash: At the expense of these people's parking though.
' Councilman Johnson: Right. That was done three years ago. Prior to any member
of this Council being there. That was approved by the Council several years, 4
years ago or something. The question tonight is should we get rid of the
existing trails and allow parking? Should we save the existing trails? Should
we get rid of it as a bike trail? Put only a walking trail in, which is the
$47,000.00 to $60,000.00? On a walking trail if we can go down to 5 feet, we
' probably won't need the $60,000.00 but the $47,000.00. There's a number of
issues. What's best for the whole future of the City here and will this be a
collector in the future. I agree that right now there's not a lot of traffic on
' it. I sat with a radar gun there one way trying to, only two cars came by in
the half hour I was trying to see what the speeds were out there. But I think
in the future, as the west side develops and as the MUSA line changes, you'll
see a lot more traffic on there. I think the trail is something that we' ll want
' to see for those kids that are out there on their tricycles on the pavement
right now. I'd rather see them off the street. $60,000.00 is not a lot of
money, I don't think, for this many miles of trail system. It's a long trail.
' Councilman Boyt: I would like to recommend that we send this to the Park and
Rec Commission tomorrow night for further discussion.
Councilman Johnson: Or when it can be placed on their agenda rather than
necessarily tomorrow night?
Councilman Boyt: It needs to happen fairly fast. We don't want to hold up any
part of this project. Is two weeks from now holding up the project Gary? That
33
■
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
I
means it puts it back to us roughly a month from now. _
Gary Warren: We will proceed based on Council direction here tonight to II
advertise for bids. We're looking to open those bids on the 10th of March. If
there is an addendum, which is the way that this trail issue would be handled
from my perspective, we should be getting an addendum out within comfortably the
next week or two at the most.
Councilman Johnson: Could we bid this with an addendum for the trails and say
that that bid will or will not be awarded. In other words, give us a price.
Let's get actual numbers. Whether it's $47,000.00 or $63,000.00. Get them to
bid on the trails and at that point decide whether we're going to award that
bid.
Gary Warren: The construction documents could be modified to include the trail
and have it bid as an alternate, yes. '
Councilman Johnson: And then we approve the alternate after Park and Rec has
reviewed it and we get all the facts together. This way we don't delay the
project. We get more facts. I think that would be the best way to go. I/
Councilman Boyt: But Jay, you're proposing a 5 foot trail. I've heard 6 foot
trails. I know Park and Rec has occasionally looked at 8 foot trails out in the
rural parts of town. I don't know that we're in a position where we can even
ask for a reasonable bid. That's why I was suggesting that Park and Rec discuss
this tomorrow night. You certainly have the interested neighbors here so they I
would know that it's going to be discussed.
Gary Warren: I' ll agree with you to go, in fact I'll second you to go to the
Park and Rec. I'll second it.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'd like to discuss that. If you remember in the Council
Minutes that we just approved tonight, that was, originally what we proposed to
do to put it on the February 14th agenda for the Park and Rec and I spoke with
them today and they indicated that they didn't need to review it because of this
plan that Gary was proposing. They felt that Council could make the decision. '
Mayor Dimler: I see another person from the area who'd like to address.
Kathy Kerber: I'm Kathy Kerber and we have property on 6700 Powers Blvd.. I
guess one of the questions I want to ask is, where did these bike trails cane
from initially? They never were talked about to the residents in the beginning.
We never were allowed to say, yes, we wanted them. No, we didn't want them.
I'd like to know where they initially came from.
Councilman Johnson: If you actually look back to when they did hold the public
hearings on the Lake Lucy Road improvements, they were included at that time 4
years ago or 3 years ago. I do remember the plans at that time, even though I
wasn't on Council at that time but I believe they were discussed with the Lake
Lucy Road improvements prior to authorizing the bonds and all for this. I'm
just, this is back memory a long time ago. Lori might know better if she
recollects that.
Ell
34 '
■
' City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
I
Lori Sietsema: No, I don't know. I know they were included with the road
II t construction.
Gary Warren: The construction plans did include the trail. That was not added
as an afterthought but it predates most of here unfortunately. It did show in
' the feasibility study for the Lake Lucy Road project so that would have been a
public hearing document.
Councilman Johnson: They've never been a secret. They've always been as part
of that. I guess you're in charge now Tom.
' Kathy Kerber: I'm not insinuating that they were secret. I just wanted to know
initially where it came from. I guess one of the other problems I have is, at
the time when the road went in and everybody at that time, on the road believed
that we were going to have parking on the road. The road got stripped and all
of a sudden the signs went up saying bike trails only. When some people called
into the City Hall and asked the engineering department what happened here to
the parking, they told us that the State made this requirement. That they had
to have bike trails. That is not true because we have spoken to the State
Department and they told us they do not put any restrictions or tell the City
how the extra footage is to be used. In fact they told us we could take down
the bike trail signs and we can use it just as the road was before. I think as
' all the neighbors are here tonight, we want a road with the same options that
anyone of you live on. Not one of you have a no parking and it only says, only
bike trails. We're asking for the same option. That's all.
If Councilman Boyt: You will find that there are a few councilmembers that live on
a street that has no parking in front of their house.
Kathy Kerber: Well, most of the people who live here within this city does not
have that. Being that this road operated underneath those same functions
before, I don't see what the problem is now. I think it's just being blown
totally out of proportion. I think we should still have the same option that we
had before and after speaking with several neighbors this morning, they all feel
the same way. They would like to see our same options given to us that we had
' before. We're being deprived of not being able to park as we did before. Now
if we're going to receive a benefit from this road, we should receive all the
benefits we had before and it shouldn't change because we have a new road.
' That's all I have to say.
Councilman Johnson: The changes that seem to be occurring right now that would
warrant this going back for Park and Rec to discuss it tomorrow night, would be
' the total elimination of bike trails completely off both sides of the street and
going to a walking trail which was my idea. That would allow for the parking
without a variance. We may want to look at parking with a variance or parking
' without a variance. I'm not sure if we need a bike trail through here. I
firmly believe that this is vital east/west connection of our trail system. We
have a real east/west problem here in the city, especially on the north side
because of our the lakes we have to run around. We can't have a trail system
' that only runs north and south because we have the people on the west side of
town that don't feel they're part of the town and we need to give them that
connection and there's people using it. I'm just going over old ground again
here so I'm going to shut up.
' 35
11
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
I
Councilwoman Dimler: Jay, didn't we just establish that Park and Rec didn't
know where the bike trails originated? The idea did not originate with them. I
Councilman Johnson: I don't know that. If we established that. She said she
doesn't know.
Lori Sietsema: I don't recall that. I'd have to do some research to find out
where it originated.
Councilman Johnson: It's on our comprehensive trail plan and that originated
with the Park. and Rec.
Councilwoman Dimler: Again, it was proposed to go on their agenda and it didn't '
go on because of Gary's proposal and they felt that the Council could handle it.
Councilman Johnson: We've modified Gary's proposal a little bit. Gary's '
proposal includes two bike paths and one option we're coming up with, which Bill
would like to hear their opinion on, is eliminating both bike paths and putting
only a walking path. I would like to see us find out what the actual price is
as putting it as an addendum so that Gary can go ahead putting in his addendum
on a 6 foot. Have Park and Rec consider it and see if they want to look at
maybe two options. 6 foot-8 foot so have Park and Rec look at it again tomorrow
night. The Council go ahead and authorize the, I guess that's the next action
we have to take. Authorize plans and specs and include in there addendums for
the bidders to give us a price to put in a 6 foot trail or an 8 foot trail with
the option of narrowing it at the point that there's that retaining wall to
avoid that retaining wall. Then we'll all be working from a more solid basis.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but delaying the action then, would that delay their
right to park on the road or could they start parking there?
Councilman Johnson: They can't park there now.
Councilwoman Dimler: I know but I mean we can change that. That's why I'm
saying, we can change that tonight if we don't delay it.
Councilman Johnson: No, we can't. We can't change this no parking tonight.
We're going to change a city ordinance tonight that's not on the agenda?
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm talking about just letting them park there and they
would abide by the restrictive ordinance.
Councilman Johnson: So they can park there during the day but not at night? '
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes.
Gary Warren: The bike trail signs would have to come down. The designation '
would have to come off the road, in my opinion. Roger would like to address it
before we would be able to allow parking on it.
Councilman Johnson: I think this is a long term issue. I don't think we should II
jerk too quickly on this one and quickly drop everything until we've considered
all the facts. I think that we should move towards getting parking on this
Ell
street. It does make some sense for those people to have on street parking in
36
■
11 • City. Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
this area. How's the best way to do it. It also makes sense to me to have an
I off street trail running along side of this area.
Councilman Boyt: Can we hear from Jim Mady so he can sit down?
' Jim Mady: I just wanted to bring some additional information to you concerning
the trail on Lake Lucy Road. Currently there really isn't anyplace for those
residents to go along that trail. You're right in that there are no trail
connections. Curry Farms Park hopefully be developed within the next couple of
years. That's on the east side of that area. The Park Commission is
aggresively seeking parkland in the Pheasant Hills area. Hopefully we'll be
finding some within the next few months. Upon getting those two parks in place,
' we should be increasing the amount of east/west traffic along Lake Lucy Road for
trail use dramatically because we will be providing those residents with actual
places to go which is the reason we have a trail system. That's why we have it
' is to provide a method for our residents to safety get from their residence to
an area. Be it a school, a park, shopping area, what have you, without having
to actually drive or be on the street. That's what the reason is for a trail
' system. Just to make you aware, that's where we're heading right now on the
Park Commission. Although maybe right now the residents don't have a place to
go, within a couple years, there are going to be a couple places for them to go
and it should definitely increase the amount of pedestrian and bike traffic on
' that street.
Councilman Johnson: We're going to have a park on both ends of this trail.
ICouncilman Boyt: Well, we have a motion to refer this to the Park and Rec
Commission tomorrow night.
' Betsy Glaccum: I'm Betsy Glaccum. I live at 1510 Lake Lucy Road where the
retaining wall is. I'd just like to be on record that I'd hate to see that wall
come down. It's beautiful and quite an expense and people say, what about the
tree and of course, I'd hate to lose that because it's my shelter and it keeps
me cool and stuff. The parking is a problem for some of the neighbors. It
doesn't really include me. I'm doing okay with that. I would like to see the
' problem solved for people with bad driveways but I do not want to see a bike
path moved over and have it doubled and come down the road on our grass, our
front lawns and do a lot of damage so I'd just like to be on record that I'm
against that. Okay? For the parking, when the road was built and the
' feasibility study, I believe this is an urban road, minimum width was 44 feet,
two traffic lanes and parallel parking. This width can be reduced by the City
Council if it passes resolution banning parking on the roadway. The recommended
design is 36 feet and that's what we've got. I'd like to see the bike paths
stay there.
Councilman Johnson: What'd you say? You want to see them stay?
Betsy Glaccum: The bicycle paths stay where they are. I'd like to see that. I
don't want them to come over my front lawn and move it over further and then
damage the retaining wall, my neighbors front lawns and like that. I'd prefer
to leave the road as is.
Councilman Johnson: Which would eliminate parking then?
37
s 84ity Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
1
Betsy Glaccum: Yes, we don't have parking now so, I mean I'd like to see
something to solve Brian Tichy's problem especially. I think that's terrible
with their driveway so high and so dangerous but in the feasibility study it
said, 44 feet wide and we went to 36 feet wide, right? Two traffic lanes and
parallel parking. But there is a footnote to that that was in the feasibility
study. The footnote says, this width can be reduced if the City Council passes
resolution banning parking on the roadway. The whole thing was that they would
have to get 19 petitions, 19 of us neighbors to give them easements. 19 of us
to give you easements to make the road wider so the Council knew we were so
upset about this road as is, getting so wide, that's why I think it was left at
36 feet. Now Gary I don't know...
Gary Warren: The 44 foot section is what MnDot requires on a State Aid road to
have parallel parking on both sides of two travel lanes. And as a result of the
process, the road section could be shrunk, dollars and other concerns were a
factor and also the inclusion the bituminous curbing was another factor to
comply with MnDot's clear zone requirements, if you will, so this section was
shrunk and as a result of that, the no parking came from that also because it
was a 36 foot instead of a 44 foot wide road.
Betsy Glaccum: I think that's why the bike trails were put there.
Councilman Boyt: ...as would any of us faced with that kind of increase, I'm
sure their reaction was we don't think so in terms of approving it. We have
already agreed, the City has already agreed that in order to reduce that to 36
feet, there would be no parking. Is that right? i
Betsy Glaccum: It's in the feasibility study of February, correct. The thing
I'd like to see the neighbors problem solved with the parking situation but you
know, I can't go along with the thousands of dollars that would be spent and all
our lawns and trees damaged to bring another bicycle path in when the Council
already agreed to keep it less width and put in the bike paths so we wouldn't
have to walk in the road. 1
Councilman Boyt: It's clearly not my option to remove, or my preference to
remove your 100 year old maple tree. Gary, you seem to have some hesitation
about, and I thought earlier you said with 36 feet we can have parking on one
side of the road. If the feasibility says, if you agree to 36 feet, you agree to
no parking. Can you clarify this?
Gary Warren: I can't attest to the discussion on the feasibility but what I can
say is that the State Aid Manual which we've reviewed as a part of the
preparation of this report, shows that an urban section roadway width, in order
to have one lane of parking on an urban section roadway, you need a 34 foot wide
road section. We have 36. So whether the discussion at that time was that, I
guess I don't know how they interpretted that at that time. Today's standards
shows that if you have a 36 foot road section, you should be able to accomodate
one lane of parking.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to see us take the time to look at this issue in
more depth so as I speak in favor of the motion that's on the floor, to send
this to Park and Rec as part of it.
38 1
■
II
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Councilwoman Dhnler: I would favor that motion only if we can get it on the
Iagenda for tomorrow. Lori, is that a possibility?
Lori Sietsema: Yes.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Then the neighbors, would you notify the neighbors Betsy
to have them come out for this meeting tomorrow?
Betsy Glaccum: Okay. Where will that be? Right here?
Mayor Chmiel: 7:30 right in this room.
' Councilman Johnson: Gary, for putting this trail in, will anything be disturbed
that is not disturbed by the watermain construction already? We're going to be
digging a pretty good sized hole to put in an 8 inch watermain more than 4 foot
underground.
Councilman Boyt: It's across the road though Jay.
' Gary Warren: The only area that would be impacted by the trail is if you
decided to it the trail, a full 6 foot trail, in front of the Glaccum property
and get the total 10 feet of width basically from face of the curb then back.
Otherwise, the rest of the construction from the Lake Lucy Road watermain would
be integral with the trail construction.
I Councilman Johnson: The trail's right over the top of where we're digging the
watermain?
' Gary Warren: There wouldn't be any additional disruption as a result of that
except for where you got to the retaining wall area.
Councilman Johnson: If we're talking a walking trail, 5 foot's no problem.
Al Harvey: Al Harvey, 1430 Lake Lucy Road. I'll take objections to what Gary,
I've been trying to get him out to show him. We built in '65. Our sewer goes
' to•the front. We've limited for our drainfield system the way it is now. Coming
further closer to our house will definitely cause a problem. Either the City
will have to move our septic system somewhere, I don't know where. We've been
disturbed now through the road construction. I can not tolerate any more of it
coming north. We've accepted where your bike trail is now. If you come any
closer to our house, it's going to cause a real hardship to us. I've been
trying to get Gary out. Unfortunately we haven't made connections yet. Another
' thing that I would like to suggest is that, take down the bicycle signs. I have
horses. I have 11 acres up there. We're still rural up there. I've had to
rename my horses bicycle in order to ride on your road. I would prefer to see
' one side row of parking. The people that go by there on bicycles now, they're
riding 4 abreast anyway. They're not using the trail to the effect what it was
designed for. They're coming down the center of the road. They've got hard
hats on and they're buzzing. So are the cars. It's not a safe road anymore.
We used to have a nice rural road. We now have a speeder up there. There's
some consideration about any type of trail going on other than what you have
already. We've lived there a number of years and we've seen the increase in
speed since the new road. My suggestion would be, leave us where we're at.
Please don't come any further north and take down the bicycle signs. We'd like
11 39
I
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
I
to ride our horses there too.
Councilman Johnson: Gary, will this watermain be on any private property or is
111
this all public property that we have this on?
Gary Warren: Mr. Harvey and I have talked, he's been out of town and just got '
back in. When we last talked I said, let me know when you're back in town and
we'll go out and look at it so tomorrow or whenever it's convenient we'll do
that. His gray water tanks, or septic tanks may be in the city right-of-way
because the trail is proposed or if it would go in, would be totally within city
right-of-way but stranger things have happened.
Councilman Johnson: But the trail is not going to affect his gray water tanks ,
as much as putting a watermain through. We definitely don't want to put a
watermain through a septic system. If this septic system happens to be on city
property, then we're going to have to work on that.
Al Harvey: If you stay within your right-of-way, which is the telephone poles,
I'm on my own private property with the systems but the damage, the seepage and 1
such going into the construction. It was disturbed when the other thing...so
I just would like a solution of some kind developed if you're coming further
north. I'd prefer that you didn't but we're 90 feet from the road but
everything keeps coming on the north side of the road. I can not even agree
with your feasbility study. You look down and you see a whole row of telephone
poles. Nothing on the south side of the road. We need sewer up in our area
much more than we need the watermain on the north side of the road. You've got '
to have a distance between your sewer line and your water line. 10 feet? You
put the waterline on the north side and and the people on the north side who
need sewer. There's a lot of problems in that area. I'd like to see the City
develop a comprehensive plan that would do more than one thing at a time. We
petitioned against the city for the road. All we wanted was a blacktopped road.
We didn't want bike trails. We didn't want curb and gutter and all this other.
The City didn't at that time listen to us. We've kind of had our hardships up
through there. Now we'd like to see something resolved at the benefit to the
people who live there.
Gary Warren: The Harvey property is outside of the MUSA area which is the
reason why it doesn't have sewer.
Al Harvey: It's 200 feet...when you run down the hill. '
Gary Warren: There's no physical problem with connecting. It's just the fact
that Met Council won't allow it.
Councilman Boyt: Could we vote on the motion?
Mayor Chmiel: I was just going to suggest that if I could stop coughing. We
have a motion on the floor and there's a second to send this back to Park and
Rec for tomorrow and then come up with some conclusions on it and get back with
II
Council.
40 ,
r ��T
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
r
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to send the item of bike
I trails along Lake Lucy Road back to the Park and Recreation Commission for their
1 review. Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted in favor. Councilman
Workman, Councilwoman Dimler and Mayor Chmiel voted against the motion and the
motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3.
Councilman Johnson: If that failed, then something needs to be resolved doesn't
it?
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. What we do need is another motion on the floor as
' to what are we going to do.
Councilman Johnson: I'll make another motion. I'll try this one. We add an
addendum to 8(b) , which is caning up next, to add as options the construction
of, so we can get the cost, construction of off street trails over the disturbed
area of the watermain 6 foot and avoiding the trees and the retaining wall at
Yosemite. That we place that on the bids of plans and specifications to be
' added as an option to be approved or disapproved at a later time. We can hold
some meetings on that and Park and Rec look at that under a less strenuous
schedule than tomorrow night. We can collect more information to look at the
whole issue.
Councilman Workman: You're saying accept everything except the trail part?
II Councilman Johnson: No. We put out a bid that has the trail as an option. In
other words, we'll collect a cost to build a 6 foot trail over the top of where
they're going to dig up for the watermain and that will be an option on the
contract to get an exact bid price for them. Then we'll have Park and Rec take a
look at that over the future so this doesn't delay the plans and specs for
putting the watermain in because the watermain is very important to the City.
' The trail seems to be a side issue.
Councilwoman Dimler: We already voted on the watermain.
' Councilman Johnson: Not the plans and specs.
Councilwoman Dimler: I know. That's the next one.
' Councilman Johnson: Exactly.
Councilwoman Dimler: .. .their motion to not leave this hanging since the other
' motion didn't pass. We're not going to take it to Park and Rec so now we've got
to deal with it.
' Councilman Johnson: The trail?
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Councilman Johnson: I was dealing with it by getting exact costs and putting it
on as an option.
' Gary Warren: Do we remove the on street trails then as a part of it?
r 41
r
IIn v 3
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1939
Councilman Johnson: Yes, and then we'd remove the on street trails as part of
that to where all we'd have is an off street trail. Then we could have parking
on one side.
Councilman Workman: It seems to me Jay, the problem really isn' t the cost of
the trail for these people because they're not going to pay for it. It's their
property being abutted by a trail or the retaining wall problem or the oak tree
problem or septic problems or anything else. This again is one of the things
about the trail referendum. People concerned about a trail going over their
property. I haven't made too many comments on this issue yet and maybe I should
make a few quickly now. I've seen a lot of lost love for this Lake Lucy Road.
I haven't seen or heard anything good about this road. First there was the
construction of it. Now the watermai.n. Bike trails. No parking. Retaining
walls. I don't think the stripes and signs are followed very carefully and the
horse named bike is using them and everything else. I've seen little kids on
their wheely bikes going down that hill faster than me, and I speed but I'm for
speed traps too. I would like to see possibly that extra money used for Well #5
so we can water our lawns in the coming years. It's an awful lot of money for a
trail that again, the people in this area aren't real excited about. It seems
to me that, unless we can figure out an option with the existing trail system,
parking on one side, trail on the other somehow, it's a problem. The elaborate
off road trail, taking again the people on the north side of this road, is again
adding insult to injury. They've had to take a lot I think. Even though
they're not going to have to pay for the trail, although they will one way or
the other, we all will, it seems to me that they've pretty much been picked on a
little bit and they're not about to get excited about this. I don't know how we
can expect them to.
Councilman Johnson: They live on a country road and then it's turned into an
east/west connecting road as we suburbanize the city.
Councilman Workman: It is though a unique road in how it was built. The width.
From what it was to what it now is. It hasn't made them happy. It is a country
road. I had to throw a mud turtle or whatever it was about this size that was
sitting in the middle of that road one day. It's a beautiful area but I think
again we've got a lot of signs, stripes, wide. I think we've made it into a
super highway. I don't know that parking on it is going to slow anybody down
but it seems to me that we've got to give a little bit to this area on this road
issue because how much can we beat on these folks up in this area with this road
which has become the scurge of their lives.
Councilwoman Dimler: I would just like to see us move in the direction of
giving the residents what they want and that we focus not on the trail but on
the parking. That we do whatever is required, and Roger maybe you can help us
in this area, is do whatever is required to get the signs changed and whatever
to allow them to park there just as soon as possible. '
Roger Knutson: All it takes to undo that is, the bike trail is a decision of
the Council. If you made it a bike trail, you can take down the signs by your II
own direction with a motion.
Mayor Chmi.el: Let me just throw out something in addition. Would it help those
few who have problems with accessibility with their driveways, to have a pad put
in adjacent to that road for parking? Would that be of any benefit?
42 '
I
1
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
II I
Councilman Johnson: At a cost to all the taxpayers of the City?
Councilman Boyt: But wait. There is some logic to this idea of solving the
' problem where the problem is rather than eliminating what we have. If it
amounts to building 100 yards of pad, that's a heck of a lot less disruption
than putting in an off road trail over the whole length. We still keep our on
road trail. I think the Mayor may well have found a solution here that's quite
' a bit cheaper than a $40,000.00 trail. It gives you closer access parking than
you're going to have otherwise and keeps us from being the first Council that's
actually pulled trails off the map.
' Councilman Johnson: We certainly wouldn't want to be known as that.
' Councilman Boyt: So I would sure support your plan.
Councilman Johnson: That would be on the north side then where the construction
of the watermain is taken. We would put some expansions to the street. The
' south side, like in Brian's area, is kind of a cliff. It would be kind of hard
to expand there and there's no construction going on there so it would be at a
great additional cost. As long as we have construction already going off,
' grading, digging on the north side, I believe that's where it would be done.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
ICouncilman Boyt: It would avoid the wall. It would avoid the tree.
Councilman Johnson: That's right. It sounds like we may have come up with a
' good compromise.
Councilwoman Dimler: Would that be acceptable to the residents? Do you want to
' comment on it?
Mayor Chmiel: That's what I'm waiting for.
' Councilman Workman: I'm not sure I have the concept of this plan.
Councilman Johnson: I think engineering needs to do some drawings here.
' Mayor Chmiel: I think staff should come up with some kind of alternative to it
to see if that could resolve the problems that the people are having presently.
' Councilman Boyt: Maybe they could discuss it tomorrow night a bit.
Brian Tichy: The only concern I would have is where, first of all where the pad
' would be located. The south side of the road does fall off... Secondly, it
would have to be equitable for everybody... Your compromise here is worth
thinking about. ..all the residents.
Councilman Johnson: We may not be able to solve every problem in the world
every time. I would be against removing the trail, even though temporary while
we study an option.
Councilwoman Di.mler: Just removing the signs Jay.
' 43
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Councilman Johnson: You remove the signs, you remove the trail.
fii
Mayor Chmiel: The no parking signs.
Councilman Johnson: Right. That means you can park in the bike trail so if you
remove, from what I gather, if you remove the no parking signs, you've got to
remove the trails because you can't have parking in the middle of bike trails.
The two uses are not compatible. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, but they're not being used as such right now.
Councilman Johnson: Not during the winter. They're being used during the '
summer.
Don Ashworth: I think there's another problem. I thought that the initial
issue was one of being able to get up to the properties in the winter and
therefore some necessity for parking down below during the snows. Even taking
down the signs, you still have the parking ban during snowfalls. They still
would not be able to park on the streets.
Councilman Johnson: You take down the signs, they still have the problem. The
signs won't solve their problem. The winter's right now.
Councilwoman Dimler: I know but only when it snows and we haven't had a whole
lot of that. '
Councilman Johnson: You can't park overnight on any city street right now.
When it snows, you can't even park there during the day.
Gary Warren: We've got pavement markings that are painted on the roadway and I
don't know, Roger I guess I hate to put you on the spot here but don't we also
have to remove those pavement markings before legally the trail is gone? '
Roger Knutson: I haven't seen them. What do you have them marked in just a
yellow,line?
Gary Warren: We have a while line on each side of the road at the 6 foot mark
plus we've got bikeway sign painted on the road, diamonds and such.
Mayor Chmiel: I would like to recommend that staff come up with some
conclusions as to parking availability for those people that have problems.
Then have this come back to Council within 2 weeks.
Councilman Boyt: Would you be open to having Park and Rec discuss it in the
meantime? Because this really still affects them.
Mayor Chmiel: I think it will be getting to the position that I'm not sure
whether they should have it back to discuss it or even go along with it. I
think what we're trying to do is resolve a problem here. We're trying to '
resolve a problem that the people have and I think we can do it right here. At
least that's my opinion. I don't know if anyone has any others.
Ell
44
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Al Harvey: I think some of the parking problem is also for entertaining. If
I f you have friends there, whether it's summer or winter or whatever. You've got a
problem with parking when there are people there...so I think a pad located in
the right situation probably would help the situation. Some of us, although
we're closer, we have parking off the road but if you do have friends, 8 or 10
cars and...
Mayor Chmiel: I don't know if we need a motion on that, to proceed with it. Is
' there a requirement for a motion on that Roger? If we were to request staff to
come up with some solutions with pads and in conjunction with that, showing it
to the residents so they're aware as to what they're thinking.
' Roger Knutson: I don't think a full motion is necessary unless someone wants to
call for one.
' Councilman Johnson: It clarifies the issue if you have it in motion form. It
clarifies that it's got three-fifths staff approval if you make a motion that's
voted on and it passes.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, I'll make that motion. The motion is that staff should
review the areas of concern with parking and to design a pad that would be
' acceptable to the property owners.
Councilman Johnson: Actually what you're asking for is a mini-feasibility study
of placing pads that will alleviate the parking problem. I'll second a
' mini-feasibility study of such.
_ Councilwoman Dimler: I think that's a good idea but I would still like to see
'
them able to park in the meantime. We don't know how long this is going to
take.
Councilman Boyt: Let's vote on them one at a time maybe.
' Councilman Johnson: They've been without it for two years, a couple more weeks
is not going to disturb them.
' Councilwoman Dimler: We say 2 weeks but we don't know.
Councilman Johnson: Even a month.
Mayor Chmiel: At least we're trying to resolve the issue and trying to assist
as much as we possibly can without causing a real big concern.
Gary Warren: We'd like to see it resolved quickly so that if it needs to be
incorporated with the construction of the watermain project, that we can factor
' that into the plans so we will try to bring it back as soon as possible.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like it back within a 2 week period.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to direct staff to re
P Pa re a
mini-feasibility study for installing a parking pad to alleviate the parking
' problem on Lake Lucy Road to be brought back to the City Council in two weeks.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' 45
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Don Ashworth: Just for clarification. With limited staff, we would be going
111
outside to get this work down. I don't anticipate it being a lot of money but
we would be spending some on some outside help.
Councilman Johnson: I would recommend Westwood Professional Services who have
done this feasibility study and are familiar with all the details so there would
be no cost to bring them up to speed. I believe they're also sitting here
listening to all this.
Mayor Chmi.el: I'd like them to go out in the field and take a look at what's
there existing. Not just at the papers that we have. Alright, we'll move on to
item 8{b) . Approve plans and specs and authorize taking bids for Lake Lucy Road
trunk watermain project.
Councilman Boyt: Can we do this when we don't have all the information?
Mayor Chmiel: I think we can. '
Gary Warren: I think you should proceed on. We would be able to modify with an
addendum any further changes to the plan as far as a trail is concerned.
Councilman Johnson: Would we want to note that in our plans and specifications?
I don't think there's any need to either. I move we approve the Lake Lucy Road
trunk watermain plans as prepared by the firm of Westwood Professional Services 111:
and authorize the taking of bids.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second i.t.
Resolution #89-23: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the Lake Lucy Road trunk watermain plans as prepared by the firm of
Westwood Professional Services and authorize the taking of bids. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY UPDATE, '
E, CITY ENGINEER.
Gary Warren: I can mentioned a few comments from notes that I took about it. '
Basically Commissioner Savanich was present to seek the County's, Carver
County's commitment, if you will, to supporting acquisition of right-of-way and
supporting the light rail transit concept. I guess my interpretation was that
he received some support in that regard although not any commitment of funds at
this time. The discussion was that 1995 would be the start of construction of
the I-35 piece so that would be phased in after we got out first corridor
established out here which would go out as far as Hopkins. I guess the real
impact as far as I read it for Carver County was a continued solicitation of the
County's support and acquisition of right-of-way and properties that would
impact this area. He also, I thought, had an interesting slide presentation,
II
aerial slide presentation of the corridor from Chaska on through which I thought
was a pretty good way to visualize how this would run. And he talked about that
they had made a commitment to the high platform loading concept which seemed to
make sense too as far as the access for handicapped and those types of difficult
access. Also that allowed them to rapdily load and unload cars which added to
46 '
II ' ' City Council Meeting - February 13, 1
Y 1989
the efficiently of the project. Hennepin recognizes, at least they said, that
I they were just getting involved to get this project going and that they fully
anticipated that this would be a Metro Council chaperoned project ultimately but
at this time there didn't seem to be commitment or staff to really get this
' going and that at some point in time, that Met Council would really be the
coordinating agency for the whole 7 County program. Please feel free to add.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I think you covered it quite adequately. That's basically
' what it is is they're talking of having light rail coming in to Hopkins as you
mentioned. Of course, our area would be much farther down the line but
eventually they feel that the need is there with the growth of the area would
dictate those needs. I think he's probably right looking far down the line.
Light rail has always got the bad connotation because of, if you think about the
Chicago elevated which causes a lot of noies and a lot more problems. This kind
of light rail system is not as noisy. It's much quieter. It's a different kind
' of rail that they put in. Consequently, it does and probably will service the
needs of the people in the future. I think it's been covered quite well unless
you have something to add to it.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I just wanted to say that it will be effective
also to settle a portion of our land so therefore, when we consider zoning or
' rezoning or development of the souther portion of Chanhassen, that we should
keep that in mind.
II Gary Warren: Basically the existing Sioux Line corridor right now is the one.
s
Mayor Chmiel: Some of that's being utilized for a period of time but eventually
that's going to go.
1 Councilman Johnson: As I understand, about 90% of this line is in the city of
Chanhassen or something of that nature. Maybe it's 70°% but a majority of the
line is in the city of Chanhassen. The city of Chanhassen, other than it's
' County Commissioner who lives down on the lake, is not represented. Only Carver
County is represented on the Carver County Light Rail Transit Commission. I
would like to see the City petition the County Board to include a member from
' the city, a city representative on the light rail transit commission. This is
not a new effort on my part. I tried this last year also but it makes sense
that we have a say into what happens in going through our city versus only the
' County Board having a say about transportation within our city. I'd like to
make a motion that we petition Carver County to allow us to include a city
representative on the Carver County Light Rail Transit Commission.
' Councilman Boyt: Second.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to petition Carver County to
' allow Chanhassen to include a city representative on the Carver County Light
Rail Transit Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
100,000 GALLON ELEVATED TANK PAINTING/LOGO SCHEME, VERBAL REPORT BY CITY
ENGINEER.
' Gary Warren: There's no staff report per se but I thought I could verbalize
basically. We've approved the preparation of plans and specs for the 100,000
' 47
•
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
gallon elevated tank downtown here which does need some improvements here. When
111
the new reservoir was constructed, at that time the color scheme was selected.
Basically the cumulus color which you see it painted now was chosen with public
input from that area. The action of the Council at that time was to choose this
color and that we would then paint the rest of the elevated tanks that same
color for consistency once we dealt with the rehab of those tanks. Just to
confirm for the Council that we are proceeding with that direction and the
downtown tank, which presently is sort of an aqua green, will be painted the
cumulous color. We've had some good comments actually from the residents around
the reservoir how it blends in with the sky and such and that was the intent.
The other item I wanted to touch base with the Council on is the logo. The new
reservoir has a maple leaf, the City's logo. The downtown tank obviously has
the word Chanhassen on it which I think is, from a historic standpoint, strictly
my preference. We're suggesting that the tank would be painted with the
Chanhassen name. Not only on the south side as it is now but also on the north
side. I noticed driving in from the north, especially on Kerber Blvd., it's
really stands up and it's a very visible point. It'd be nice to have the name I
think on both sides of the tank. I'm just throwing that out. I guess we do
want to include that in the plans and specs that are presently being prepared so
we can get bids out. It really wouldn't impact the cost in any significant
fashion as far as adding another name.
Councilman Workman: What color is it going to be?
Gary Warren: Cumulus. '
Councilman Workman: That light blue?
Gary Warren: No, no. The color of the new reservoir which is basically a cream 1
white that blends in with the clouds. We have had some very good comments from
the residents up there. It does blend in pretty well.
Councilman Workman: Are you going to put the name Chanhassen and the maple leaf
on it?
Gary Warren: I don't think we have room for all of that. Just put Chanhassen '
on the north and the south side. We'll pursue it from that standpoint.
DISCUSSION OF CONTRACTORS YARDS, PLANNING DIRECTOR.
Steve Hanson: This item has been referred to you by the Planning Commission.
It had been referred to Council towards the end of the year last year. Going
back to Planning Commission, the Planning Commission at the last meeting had a
fair amount of deliberation regarding the contractors yard. They decided that
they really wanted to get a little more direction from the Council. . .with new
people on the Council, to get a little more clear direction as to what this body
is thinking regarding this. I won't go through the entire package. There's a
memo that you have from Mark Koegler that was prepared back in December but
II
essentially what it boils down to is the Planning Commission is asking for some
direction on three different options. One of those is to leave the ordinance as
it is. Presently it allows contractors yards in the A-2 district as a
conditional use. The second option is to amend the ordinance but still allow
contractors yards within the A-2 district but restrict the size of that. The
48
I
I/ .
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
intent being that it would be more of a ma and pop type operation rather than a
II large wholesale contractors yard. Then the third option is to delete
contractors yards entirely from the A-2 district and allow them in the
industrial areas only. I don't know if you had a chance to read through the
' Planning Commission Minutes contained in your packet.. .but basically the
Planning Commission is leaning towards the option number 3 which is eliminating
them from the A-2 district. What they would like is the sense of the City
Council or what your thinking might be and whether they should pursue that. ..
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to make a comment. As you're describing number 2,
what's written in our packet is to limit the contractors yards as an accessory
' use. I think that's important to point out to where we're talking about having
a person living on the site and he's also, like Buck in his excavating business,
he lives there. He's got an excavating business there. He has a contractors
yard that's an accessory to his home and his business. That keeps it a mom and
pop. I like that option. The gentleman on CR 117 has his home there and he
wants to put his business at his home and it's a fairly small business. He has
a few more, a lot more employee actually. He has 10 to 12 but our current
' ordinance will allow -anybody to go out and buy 40 acres of farmland and turn it
into, if they can meet the 1 mile radius criteria, and turn it into a
contractors yard where nobody lives. They just start bringing in semis. I
think they've probably hit every spot they can with the 1 mile radius right now.
It's close. There's a couple spots but I like number 2 because I think that as
an accessory use, if somebody such as the Buck Excavatings of the world and the
landscaping contractor, I forget his name out on CR 117, that seems to be a
II legitimate use for a property. Coming out and avoiding going into an industrial
park by being able to buy farmland at much less price and doing this, is not
really what we should be doing with the south side of Chanhassen or the north
' side. I mean somebody could buy some acreage along Lake Lucy and do this also.
There are some spots there that would probably be outside the 1 mile as long as
you get away from Larry Kerber's contractor yard, which is another example. The
' other thing I want to make sure is that this is only in the non-sewered areas
and that as the MUSA line changes, I'd like to see some way, we want to make
sure that it doesn't go with the property so that if Larry sells his home, the
person he sells to could not be able to continue to use that as a contractors
yard in that he is now in suburban Chanhassn, not rural Chanhassen. When he
opened his contractors yard, he was much more rural. That's another thing I
would like to look into is those contractors yards that are now in suburban side
' of the City with curbs, gutters, sewers and everything else. That gets limited.
But I like option 2 as long as we have some acreage requirements. I hate to see
a 2 acre contractors yard put on a 2 1/2 acre lot with a little house there in
' which case the accessory use turns out to be the house, not the contractors
yard.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question and maybe Steve you can answer it. If
' we go with option 3, which is to prohibit them altogether, then the ones that
are there are non-conforming. It says they will be allowed to remain there but
they will not be permitted to expand or intensify but when they sell, does that
non-conforming use pass to the next possesser?
Steve Hanson: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: It does. Okay.
49
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Is there anyway Roger that could make a conditional use
permit that when the zoning changes and it went from a conditional use to a non-
conforming use that we could, once they get in a non-conforming use, do they
still have a conditional use permit that goes with that property?
Roger Knutson: Yes. It's just non-conforming.
Councilman Boyt: You want to buy our Redi-mix plant? There you go.
Councilman Johnson: Yes. That's exactly the same thing. The Redi-mi.x plant.
Councilman Boyt: They're forever. I'm pretty sure that the Planning Commission '
really wanted to hear from the 3 new councilmanbers on this issue.
Councilman Workman: I think what we're kind of looking at is the south side
specifically isn't it?
Councilman Boyt: That's where the A-2 is.
Councilman Workman: I've read some of the information that Tim Erhart has
loaned to me. I've been driving through that area of town since I was a 2 year
old and Jim Klobuchar lives in my community. It's uglytown out there. There's
no doubt about it. What are we really saying about this area? Do we want it to
go back to nature as part of the bluffs and the river and the wildlife area down
there? Is that realistic? I don't think allowing it to go back to nature is
going to happen. Do we want it rezoned A-2, is that what we're looking at?
Agricultural?
Councilman Boyt: Residential. Agricultural residential. I
Councilman Workman: Because I don't see that as really being a viable
agricultural. Farming on bluffs, there's just nothing there anyway. Which
leads me to the question, so what do we do with the people that are down there?
Or people who had intentions such as Admiral Waste who had intentions to operate
their business there. What happens to the value of their property? What
happens to their whole game plan? They're stuck with a parcel perhaps that has
now changed intended use and what can they do with it?
Councilman Johnson: They're not in the A-2 by the way. Admiral.
Councilman Workman: They're in the BF?
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
Councilman Workman: So I understand from certainly the neighbors in that
vicinity to the north, that it is uglytown. But again, I don't see it as going
back to Mother Nature. Have we got a restriction on the junkyard down there?
As far as their expanding that. Are they allowed to expand that?
Councilman Johnson: Which junkyard?
Councilman Boyt: You mean the auto place?
Councilman Workman: Statewide.
50 1
I-
IIl l
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
I
Don Ashworth: I'm sure that's a non-conforming use.
Councilman Workman: They haven't been alloweed to expand?
' Councilman Johnson: That's BF also. That's not the A-2.
Councilman Boyt: You've got to think of south of TH 5 Tom. That's not just the
bluffs.
Councilman Johnson: All the way from TH 5 south. As soon as you get out of the
MUSA line, we're talking Lyman Blvd., Pioneer Trail, the Merle Volk property.
West of Lake Ann Park. All that area is A-2 also. The A-2 expands from here,
from south of Lake Minnewashta up to here, down along and then all the way down.
' Not just the bluffs.
Councilman Workman: Right, but I'm thinking specifically of the bluffs also
' because I think that's probably the rubbing the squeaky wheel right now in that
what are our intentions down there? I understand the safety aspects and the
aesthetic aspects of it but, isn't that what we're trying to do? We're trying
to send a signal to that area also?
' Councilman Johnson: That's a different issue of eliminating the BF and changing
that to A-2. I think that's a separate issue.
II Councilman Workman: But isn't Admiral Waste a contractors yard?
' Councilman Johnson: Yes, in the BF district right now.
Councilman Workman: But we're saying they can't do that either.
Councilman Johnson: No new contractors yards. They would be able to continue
with what their conditional use permit was when it was issued last year if they
do anything before their 1 year period ends.
Councilman Workman: No, they went to the Planning Commission for an extension
and didn't get it.
' Councilman Johnson: That comes to us yet so it hasn't been, the Planning
Commission recommends to us that they don't get their extension. That will be
coming before us probably our next meeting. The question here, more than just
the bluffs area and that area, is should we allow contractors yards in our A-2
zone and how should they be allowed? Admiral is considered a contractors yard,
yes. Larry Kerber's place, that's a contractors yard. Do you know where Larry
lives there? Then you have across the street from Pryzmus' little golf course,
a contractors yard without a permit. It's just been there forever. He's never
gotten the permit. Then just north of him is another contractors yard. Further
north of that is another contractors yard that's going in. We just gave
permission last year. Pryzmus is in the A-2. He's not a contractors yard
though. I think the question comes, do we want to continue encouraging
industrial uses in the A-2 district or only residential uses? Is this area
going to be industrial/commercial or residential in this City? I think that
really comes down to the question as to what do you want to see it in the
future. There's a lot of people who would love to make it industrial. I
51
11
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
personally think it should be residential and that some limited contractors yard
useage accessory to somebody's residential useage, I have it there as my house
but I also want to run my business out of my house. When I've got 10 acres or
40 acres, I have room to do that.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have a couple of comments. I was reading here in the
middle of the page it says, in the long term, contractors yards are compatible
only with industrial land uses. Did everybody find that? At the present time,
future industrial areas in the rural service area have not been identified. I'm
wondering if it isn't time to do so. That we could do that ahead of time in
zoning and then prevent problems in the future. Why can't we identify them now?
Councilman Boyt: It's the idea of zoning, we probably should.
Councilman Johnson: I recommended that last year as a part of 212 because as ,
the 212 corridor goes through, it makes sense that we might want to put some
commercial, some industrial around the 212 corridor. It doesn't make sense to
put it down along Pioneer Trail.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so now who do we take that to get that done?
Steve Hanson: . ..At this point in time, if someone were to ask, at this point
in time your position is that it's agricultural with some other conditional uses
it allows. For example in this case, allow really an industrial type use out in
that agricultural area. So I think from the standpoint of your question, what
you're really asking is what should the City be looking at for these areas? A
long term.. .
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, when it is a service area, what do you see? You can't I
rezone it right now for that? We could zone it right now for that and then that
would prevent contractors yards from coming in .i.f it's not compatible.
Steve Hanson: I don't know that you're in a position right now to know what 1
zoning you'd place on it.
Councilwoman Dimler: We could direct to where they would be allowed and in I
other areas they wouldn't. I'm just asking if we couldn't plan for the future a
little bit more than just going.. .
Steve Hanson: I think that's what we should be doing but at this point in time
we're not in that position.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can we get in that position? '
Steve Hanson: I certainly hope so.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, what would it take?
Steve Hanson: First of all it would take going and updating the
Comprehensive Plan.
Councilman Boyt: Which you're doing now.
Steve Hanson: We're in the process of doing.
52 11
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
1
Councilman Workman: It's going to save a lot of problems in the future for
II I
denying this kind of thing.
Steve Hanson: You can look at it two different ways. You can take it and say,
' take everything that's in the City and determine as best as you can what should
happen in those areas or you can take the tact that the City has in the past and
that's to take those areas outlying where you don't really have a good sense for
' what the market is going to be and what things really ought to happen out there.
I think in an agricultural district, to allow that to occur, and I think that's
where Planning Commission is coming from at this point in time. They're saying
' we don't know what those areas need to be. We don't want to make a rash
decision but the Planning Commission doesn't believe that a contractors yard of
the type right now is the right kind of use to stick out there, especially with
the conditional use, the way that it works. It's, in a lot of respects, putting
it there permanently. I think they're recognizing that that's not the best way
to deal with it. The best way to deal with it is to pull that use out of there
because it's not appropriate at this point in time and then take the time to
decide what should happen in the long term.
Mayor Chmiel: Why couldn't you put a restriction on the number of years on
something? Like 1995 or something of that nature.
Councilman Johnson: On a conditional use permit? We tried that. Putting it to
our attorneys, we couldn't make a temporary conditional use permit.
I1 Roger Knutson: I can point out that there is a bill that will be introduced in
the legislature this year. I'm on a committee that's recommending that that
' change take place to allow temporary uses. So if that's passed, you can do it.
Maynard Poppe: I'm Maynard Peppy and I own property just up above where this
contractors yard is supposed to be. It's detrimental to the property that I
own. In fact if they put a contractors yard down there, from what I understand
is to be for garbage trucks and that sort of thing. It will ruin the property
that I own. It's a residential area. What does it take to change it from
' agricultural residential to whatever it would have to be? Also, how long a term
would it be given if they were given a permit or whatever they're going to get?
Another thing, when the property that was Bushick's property was up for sale, I
don't know 7, 8, 10 years ago, I own the property next to that and looked into
the possibility, went to the Minnesota Highway Department asking if I could get
an access just up above the underpass that's down there on TH 101. They said
well, I would have to put in a written request but he didn't think that the
Highway Department would give me an access going in there even if I owned the
property unless it was just a limited access which meant, what he told me, that
if you come out of that property, you'd have to go up the hill. You couldn't
make a cross over or coming down. You couldn't make a left turn. Now I'm
wondering how come the roadway just below that underpass is more of a hazard,
highway hazard than the part north. I wonder how they give a permit for an
access where there would be trucks going in and out and give them an access.
They're sure not going to go uphill to get out of there with the trucks.
They're going to make a turn and go to the left. The same way coming down the
hill so I think that would be very much of a hazard if we had to fight those
' trucks coming down the hill. You come under that underpass. It's bad enough
the way it is now with the traffic that we have. The traffic that was 8-10
53
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
years ago is nothing compared to what the traffic going up and down there now
because they're going up the other way. So I would very much be against giving
a permit for anything like a garbage or contractors yard of that sort.
Mayor Chmiel: That will be coming before the Council next meeting. Within 2
weeks.
Maynard Poppe: That's why I was wondering. I called City Hall and they said
they were talking about that tonight. I
Mayor Chmiel: Just whether or not the availability of contractors yards should
be within the city or what determination we should come up with. i
Maynard Poppe: Okay, I thought that that was what was going on. I didn't get a
notice. That's one thing I would like. When there's something going on down
there, that we would, along that road, get a notice of something that's going
on.
Mayor Chmiel: If you leave Steve your name and address, he will be more than I
happy to send you a notice.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I kind of like what Jay had to say about the
accessory use but I do wonder sometimes how many ma and pa operations we still
have coming before us...major businesses. However, I think maybe it's a little
bit too restrictive when we go saying that they shall not work on Sunday and
holidays. It seems like we're going back to the past. I
Councilman Johnson: No, I don't think so.
Councilman Boyt: We're trying to give people some quiet.
Councilwoman Dimler: I understand that but you've got to remember they're on a 11 10 acres and your neighbors aren't that close.
Mayor Chmiel: It depends upon what they're doing.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, but I'm just saying that we can't be that restrictive
for everybody because people that are doing. ..cut their grass on Sunday.
Councilman Johnson: So what's the guidance coming from the Council to the
Planning Commission on this? I haven't seen any clear cut guidance as of yet.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I guess I'm looking for, as I see that there may still be a
need for some of these contractors yards. I like the idea of putting a
limitation on it, if that becomes law. I think that would be the thing to do is
to put a restriction for numbers of years. Because the growth goes with it, the
MUSA line moves, we've got a lot of different things that we have to think
about. I'm not sure whether we should delete yet at this time contractors yards
entirely from the A-2 district. I think there should be a restriction as to
II
numbers that can be there. There are restrictions as far as the hours that
they're operable. I think that we really have to, I like these ma and pa kind
911
of situations because I think it's good for us and it's good for than. I think
I would be pretty much in favor at this particular time, looking to amending the
ordinance to allow limited contractors yards as an accessory use in the A-2
54 1
City Council Meetin g - February 13, 1989
1
district.
II 17 Councilman Boyt: Sounds like what we have is Jay who is for, as you call it,
the mom and pop operation. Don, you seem to be leaning that direction. I'm not
sure how Tom and Ursula feel. I'll take two minutes and tell you that in the
last year I saw the previous Council approve a contractors yard that had 5
tractor trailers that was put in what was generally considered to be good
residential property just north of TH 212, rolling hill kind of country.
Councilwoman Dimler: How many acres?
' Councilman Boyt: Ursula I don't remember the number of acres but the cost of it
wasn't the issue for this gentleman. He needed an area to park his tractor
trailers and that was the best place to do it as far as he was concerned. If we
' don't change this ordinance, we currently don't, in my opinion, we don't have an
ordinance because the previous Council gave a variance to the within 1 mile down
to a couple hundred yards so I don't think we have a 1 mile limit, in my
opinion. We're dealing with, basically a situation in which, regardless of what
' we do, if we shut them off altogether, we still have more contractors yards than
any community around us right now. Eden Prairie doesn't allow them. I don't
believe Chaska allows them. That's my best guess because I don't remember
' exactly but I know for a fact that Eden Prairie doesn't allow them. They're not
felt to be compatible with developing communities although it's a needed service
but we have got quite a few contractors yards today and we're not going to be
able to do anything to eliminate those contractors yards unless you want to buy
I 4 them. So to go out, maybe the mom and pop thing is an option. I don't think
we're going to get any of those situations so maybe that's a possibility but the
contractors yards, as I understood from the previous council, that situation was
created so that people who currently were sort of a mom and pop, could continue
to do that. What I saw happening was it got, as far as I'm concerned,
completely out of hand. We granted them. The tractor trailer thing was an
' excellent example of where somebody was taking it to the extreme. My particular
position is to agree with the Planning Commission as they previously stated and
as they reaffirmed that when you build, as we are in south Chanhassen, very
expensive homes, you'd like to think that somebody just over the hill isn't
' running tractor trailers or doesn't have the ability to come in and do that
after you've bought your home. As it stands today, they do have that ability
and I think we should prevent that from happening.
' Councilman Workman: It really, to me, it is leaving us open, how do I phrase
this? It kind of leaves us open to a can of worms a little bit I guess. I did
follow that semi trailer issue. Is that the one just on the other side from the
SA down there?
Councilman Boyt: Yes.
Councilman Workman: I understand they can' t even get their tractor trailers in
there.
' Councilman Johnson: It's not across from the SA. It's by the Assumption
Seminary isn't it? You're talking the cold storage area. That's a cold storage
area.
r 55
1
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
I
Councilman Boyt: It's down by the Assumption Seminary but it's right in that
difficult triangle of traffic. 11
Councilman Johnson: It's west of the Assumption Seminary. It hasn't been
constructed yet?
Councilman Workman: They're doing a good job of hiding it.
Councilman Johnson: It's way off the road. '
Councilman Workman: I guess the point of, and I read through Tim's articles and
he's got a personal issue in that surrounding area, and even prior to taking a
seat on the Council, there's a lot of issues about contractors yards and tree
farms and that kind of thing going on. I don't want to limit people's ability
to use their property to earn a living but to me it's still so vague out there
about what a person could use that for. They could use it for tractors or he
could use it for a mom and pop but until we can say, we've got to keep this back
a little bit so that we don't have willy nilly all over everyplace, I don't feel
comfortable in saying yes, let's go ahead and let them do it. To me it just '
hasn't been proven to me that we have a certain amount of control here and that
in the future we're going to stumble over a lot of them.
Councilman Johnson: I hear what you're saying and to phrase it slightly '
differently, I think we need to define a contractors yard better because the
semi thing under our present ordinance is defined as a contractors yard and I
don't think it should have been but unfortunately it is. So I think there's two
issues to me. When we're talking a mom and pop accessory use, I'm not talking
that the guy's running a Consolidated Freight out of his backyard. That's
definitely an industrial use. It's more, and I continue using Buck Excavating
or Larry Kerber. Larry Kerber runs, has got a couple tractors and a couple pick
up trucks. That type of small, non-intense use, I think we should put
something on the number of employees allowed. The one on CR 117, I believe he
said his maximum employees were 12. That's getting a little high I think. I
would want to see anything more than that. In fact, I would rather see less
than 10 employees. The Merle Volk contractors yard where he's got 3 or 4
different contractors sitting in there. He rents out the houses, he doesn't
actually live there anymore. I don't consider that. I wouldn't consider that
as mom and pop constractors yards. It's an industrial park in the A-2 zone. I
agree with you Tom. There's a real problem there of allowing, what do we allow
in there? We can't just allow anything. We have to define it better also.
Councilwoman Dimler: I do have a comment and that is, I did ask for the acreage
on Bill's example because I think it does :make a difference if you've got 5
tractor trailers on 40 acres or if you've got them on 5 acres or 10 acres. I'm
asking, if A-2 is agricultural residential and how many actual agricultural
businesses do we still have in Chanhassen? We do still have some real bonafide
farmers and are we then restricting them, let's say if they have a grain
operation, are we restricting them from using and hauling trucks?
Mayor Chmi.el: No, that's agricultural. I wouldn't think it would fall under II
contractors yards.
Councilwoman Dimler: But it's in the A-2.
56 ,
I
1 Ni
City'Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
1
Councilman Johnson: But it's agricultural. That's what the A stands for.
I I Councilwoman Dimler: That's right but then if you're saying, the neighbor over
here who has 40 acres and because his business isn't agricultural per se, he
' can't have his trucks parked there but the next guy can. Do you see what I'm
saying?
Councilman Johnson: But then the guy that's got his agricultural knows that in
the future it's not going to be agricultural. He knows that 20 years down the
road or 40 years or whatever, that he's not going to be allowed to park his
trucks in there because...
' Councilwoman Dimler: He's not going to be able to farm there?
' Councilman Johnson: When the price is right, he won't be able to farm there
anymore.
Councilwoman Dimler: What if he wants to stay?
Councilman Boyt: He can farm there forever. He's tax exempt as long as he's
farming that land and if he wants to hold it Jay, it's his.
' Councilman Johnson: When I moved into my house I talked to the farmer behind
me. He says I'll leave this land feet first. Horizontally. He said, I can see
Shakopee from my upstairs window. I can see Lake Minnetonka from my upstairs
I window. I'll never leave here. You know I know have 30 hours behind me because
the price was right.
Councilwoman Dimler: He sold off part of it.
Councilman Johnson: He sold off all of it. He's not there. He's built a house
' over by St. Hubert's.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I still go with that number 2 but my position on that is,
if there is a limitation of years that they can be located there. That's my
' only condition with that.
Councilman Boyt: If there wasn't, would you go with 3?
' Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I more than definitely would.
Councilman Johnson: When you talk limitation of years, would you say review of
the contractors yard permit every so many years? I think right now, that was
another thing is I'd like to see anytime there's a conditional use permit of any
sort in any district, that we have a review of that conditional use permit on a
schedule.
Councilwoman Dimler: It's not legal though.
Councilman Boyt: It's legal to stay in touch with than following it but it's
not legal to pull it away from them simply because they've had it for 5 years.
I Councilman Johnson: No, no. I said a review to see if they're meeting their
conditions is what I should, I didn't complete that. We've got conditional use
57
-"I Ci.ty Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
permits '
pe out there that they haven't ever done what the conditions say to do but
we have not gone out and enforced it. I would like to see, this is something I
i
talked about last year, is an ordinance amendment that requires inspections of
Ij
conditional use permits and an inspection fee. If they want to make a profit
off of it and that's why they're getting a conditional use permit, then we
should inspect it. We can incorporate an inspection fee just as we do a fire
inspection fee, whatever, into the conditional use permit process. Have you got
what you need for the Planning Commission?
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel: Let's move on. Next, Council presentations. I'd just like to '
address the ones that I brought up rather quickly. The Senior Community
Services are requesting some money from the City to support the South Shore
Senior Center during the year beginning July 1, 1989 and ending June 30, 1990.
I'm not sure whether there's any CDBG's available on this for that support. Can
you tell us?
Councilman Boyt: We already gave them a substantial amount of money out of last '
year's budget.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, but they're looking for now July 1, 1989 and ending June 30, '
1990.
Steve Hanson: We do have $7,500.00.. . '
Councilman Boyt: I think they requested that. I think that study was the
result of their request that we helped fund.
Steve Hanson: They're in the process of doing their own special study.
Councilman Johnson: No, this was my study. ,
Steve Hanson: This was a study for. ..
•
Councilman Boyt: Oh, excuse me. I thought we helped them fund a study.
Councilman Johnson: I think we did too. We designated part of our Community
Block Grants that way and we designated part of the Community Block Grants for
us to do a study of the Chanhassen seniors and what are the needs of the
Chanhassen seniors here.
Mayor Chmiel: All they're really looking here, what they're saying is to help
support ongoing operations of the center as well as providing matching funds for
a new lift equipment van awarded to the South Shore Senior Center. '
Councilman Boyt: Weren't we involved in funding a van there just this last
year?
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: I'm sure we were.
58 1
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Councilman Johnson: That's all community block grants. Usually that comes up
' when that money comes around.
Todd Gerhardt made a comment that was not audible.
Mayor Chmiel: You're right. They say that. We very much appreciate
Chanhassen's strong support and that's part of it. You're correct.
Todd Gerhardt: This year's allocation of Block Grant monies have already been
distributed...and staff's in the process of a proposal together...comprehensive
sewer update as a part of the Comprehensive Plan. That work has been completed,
or a draft of it anyway. Those allocations have already been distributed.
' Don Ashworth: I would suggest that staff be allowed to research this. If I
remember correctly, the funds they're looking for really go into this next year
' so I would anticipate that we can bring back a favorable position but it would
be allocating some future dollars.
Councilman Johnson: Future Block Grant money?
Don Ashworth: Right.
' Councilman Johnson: If Block Grants survive.
Steve Hanson: There is another year of funding on that coming up. When
1 ji I talked to the County, we'll be getting the application for that sometime.. .
Councilman Johnson: They probably know that. That's why the letter is just in
front of us getting the application package.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll have staff review that and come up with some
conclusions. The other item that I have is from the Board of Hennepin County
'
Commissioners. It says that the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners is
inviting interested public officials from suburban Hennepin County
municipalities to serve on the Board of Directors for Community Action for
' Suburban Hennepin, CASH as they call it, the County Suburban Community Action
agency. Nominations, and I won't go through the whole thing, but nomination for
appointment should be submitted to me by March 31st and that to me is Kay
Mitchell. I want to encourage you to consider this opportunity to serve and
' inform other public officials in your jurisdiction of these vacancies. This is
addressed to former Mayor Tom Hamilton.
' Councilman Johnson: What exactly does this group do?
Mayor Chmiel: The County Suburban Community Action agency is basically what it
is and it doesn't go into details. By-laws for CASH require that one-third of
it's 27 members be elected. It doesn't really say anything. I think what we
should do is write back and get a little more information as to what it is and
what it consists of and then we can act on that. We have until March 31st
' anyway.
Councilman Johnson: Our piece of Hennepin County is not too residential.
59
.
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Mayor Chmiel: Bill, you had an item on building. '
Councilman Boyt: Right, I'd like to see this put on the agenda on one of the
two next meetings. I think sooner better than later. Sometime during the last
budget cycle and several times during the last year, I have brought up the
discussion of the number of building, plumbing and related inspectors that we
have. If you look in our packet towards the end of our administrative pack,
they talk about the number of dwelling units and that's only one part of their
inspection of course but the number has gone from 1985 of 265 up to 346
estimated for this year as of October 31. I am sure then that the last two
months we've probably pushed to towards 400.
Jim Chaffee: 389.
Councilman Boyt: 389. Okay, thank you Jim. We are taking inappropriate '
advantage of these people. We need to look, and the previous Council did
indicate an interest in looking at the beginning of this year, at increasing
their staff. I happen to think this is a crisis. If we don't do something
about it, we're going to- lose them. They bring in substantially more money than
we spend in that department and they have for years. It's just not fair. We
expect them to do, and we do expect them to do an excellent job of working with
developers. Not only conducting the inspections but making sure that the City
has a well built building for the future. We ought to be providing them the
resources to do that job so I'd like to see Scott Harr come in with a
presentation sometime in the next month and have us as a Council address their
needs.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, the next item, Park and Rec softball.
Councilman Johnson: Bill had two.
Mayor Chmiel: What was your other one Bill? '
Councilman Boyt: Gary Warren. Does that mean Mr. Mayor that this has your
approval to be on the agenda sometime in the next month? ,
Mayor Chmiel: I think we can listen to it, yes.
Councilman Boyt: The other point is in your administrative packet, I think we '
all noticed that there was, Gary Warren notified Don Ashworth of his appointment
to National Committee for the Public Works Association. Also, his role as the
State Chapter Director and State Treasurer. I think that the City Council '
should go on record as commending Gary for taking this kind of an active role at
the State and national level and I would so move.
Councilman Johnson: I'll second that.
Resolution #89-24: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded that the
II
City Council commend Gary Warren for his active role as State Chapter Director
and State Treasurer and his appointment to the National Committee for the Public
Works Association. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
60 1
I
City Council Meeting February g - y 13, 1989
II i
FCouncilman Johnson: Activities at this level provide much more information to
our City Engineer than just being a member of these organizations. They get
involved with things and the extra effort is really going to benefit the City.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Tom?
Councilman Workman: The softball issue. I'm not sure what I'd like other than
' to maybe make the Council more aware of the situation. It's a powderkeg. I
would again like to go on record as saying that I was on the City Champion
Merlin's Rental. Nonetheless, my wife would be just as delighted if I were to
' say that I wasn't going to play softball this year. The discussion is on the
stress of the fields. What's basically being proposed and from the Minutes that
I gather and from discussion from both sides with Todd and others, there is a
strong movement towards eliminating any kind of outside ballplayers in the adult
leagues from playing on softball teams. I think they left it at 4 per team. A
lot of the teams have a problem with that because they obviously have more than
4 players playing on these teams which creates a problem. Let me just say, I
understand that the City residents should have first option to use these fields.
If there's a problem there, you have teams from the outside coming in and
playing there, they ought to go. I think, and the Park and Rec Minutes do make
' mention that in fact a lot of Little League teams also have outside players on
them. Chaska, Excelsior, Minnetonka, Eden Prairie.
Councilman Johnson: The people who play against us.
Councilman Workman: Some of the other ones that are using the fields are some
of the outside fields.
Councilman Johnson: It's our home field. It's our kids playing on it.
Councilman Workman: But in softball leagues you don't have the option of
playing other towns. What I want to get at is, it's virtually going to
eliminate the women's league and it's going to be very strong damage to the
competition levels of the Men's Open League and the Over 35 League and these are
' the'people that are having a problem with it. I guess where the heart of the
problem is, they wish to possibility look at the grandfatheri.ng clause. I
talked to the Park and Rec Department down in Chaska today. They have 14
' softball fields and 156 teams or something so they're doing an awful lot and
obviously it's open to more people than just Chaska but they continue to have
the Chaska clause. If you played there, you're kind of grandfathered in. You
can continue to play there even if you've maybe moved out of there and aren't
still working there. I think Chanhassen is unique in that there's not a lot of
commercial. There's not a lot of retail where people are actually coming in and
working in the City so if you don't live here, you're kind of out of luck. I
' guess my bottom line is, you're going to either eliminate some leagues or the
competition level, meaning the number of teams in those leagues, is going to
reduce and it's not going to be much fun for the adults. I guess I would like
to continue to look at what we can do to maybe help that out. I haven't heard
the suggestion of possibly playing later in the evening. Scheduling games later
at night or something so those of us who are still in the City and still want to
have a viable league, our only other option would be to play in possibly Chaska
I - but they're not accepting anymore teams. For those that are left behind to play
softball here, to leave something of a competitive league for these people to
' 61
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
I
play in so that they at least have that option. If you live and work in
Chanhassen, you haven't got any other option to play softball anywhere else and
you're left with the kind of league that I suspect might be left, it's not going
to be much fun and fun is what it's all about perhaps.
Jim Mady: Tom, the Over 35 League, we anticipate 3 teams folding... Two from 1
Excelsior and one from Shakopee I believe. We also recognize the Over 35
League...like my team is just as bad as the rest. We had a tough time getting 9
guys much less 10. What we want to do is send a message to the coaches, let's
try to consolidate so we can at least have sane good games. Then we have a
problem with the Little League coaches that come up to the Park Commissioners
all the time saying, why can't we play in our own town? We can't. There's no
place for than to play.
Councilman Workman: Little Leaguers aren't in competition with softball fields
are they?
Jim Mady: They have no place. Our park and rec program is bias to our adults.
We don't provide much for kids. '
Councilman Workman: You're saying the Little Leaguers are playing on the
softball diamonds?
Jim Mady: If they could, they would.
Lori Sietsema: Yes, they have. '
Councilman Johnson: They did this last year.
Mayor Chmiel: How often and what days did the Little Leagues play on?
Jim Mady: We'd like to have on league, I talked with a coach last week. He
would like to have the baseball field at Lake Ann every night during the week so
they could play their games and practice and it's not available to them. Next
year hopefully with Lake Ann expanding, we'll have some room but this year,
we've got a problem so this is the way we'll address it. Or try to at least. ,
Councilman Workman: What if the Little Leagues were to go within an intown
league? In other words...
Councilman Johnson: We don't have enough players.
Councilman Workman: So what I'm saying is, then what you have left is not a '
very fun league. I'm not suggesting that we do that because if you get them out
in other towns and everything else, that's great but then you don't have much of
a league left so when you do that to the adults, it's the same thing. You don't
have much of a league.
Jim Mady: We can go the same route with the adults. The St. Boni and a number
II
of other towns went with a traveling Over 35 league because they couldn't get
more than 1 or 2 teams per city so there's about 4 towns now that have a
traveling adult league.
62 '
■
I . ..2.
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Our kids have to travel. The same with soccor to meet our
I I needs.
Jim Mady: Let's let the adults who are over 35 or at least of driving age, let
than do the driving. Let's let our kids play in town. The adults are the ones
who are mobile, kids aren't.
Councilman Workman: And that's not what I'm saying either. You just have said
' that you're not going to change the league. You're going to be going to towns.
Eden Prairie.. .or Tonka or Excelsior. You're going to have to go up there once
in a while. We can't always have our kids at our park in that situation.
' Again, I'm not being blind to the stress on the field. I'm just saying, I'm
hoping we can work something out so that we can maintain something of a
competitive league here for the adults that do want to play.
Councilman Boyt: Let me ask a question. I know that there are no such things
as equal situations in town. It's my understanding that Eden Prairie does not
allow anybody to play in their leagues that doesn't live or work there. No one.
' Councilman Workman: What is their population?
Councilman Boyt: Alright, it's 38,000 but...
Councilman Workman: It's four times as much and they have probably quite a bit
more...
IICouncilman Boyt: But I'm just saying, if we look at, there's one example of a
surrounding community Tom that doesn't allow 4 or 5 non-residents to play.
They don't allow any. You go into their swimming program, if you, as a
Chanhassen resident want to enter their swimming program, you wait until
everybody in Eden Prairie that wants to sign up, signs up. If they've got room,
' you can sign up. When there's limited resources, aren't we just doing what
surrounding communities do? What's the population of Chaska? 14 fields. How
many fields have we got?
' Councilman Workman: 4 1/2.
Councilman Boyt: Well, we don't have those yet. 3.
' Councilman Workman: What I'm saying is, they go by school district and have it
pretty wide open as far as who can play. The school district, you can live and
work.
Lori Sietsema: It was my understanding that Chaska was going to go to a limited
number or no outside too.
' Councilman Workman: But they'll keep the grandfather clause. They're keeping
the grandfatheri.ng. He called it the Chaska clause.
' Councilman Johnson: But there's 14 fields versus...
Mayor Chmiel: It's my understanding that tomorrow their meeting you're going to
11 have some of the concerned people who have concerns about the ball diamonds at
your meeting tomorrow to discuss at the Park and Rec.
63
. 1
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
Lori Sietsema: ;7e were. They requested that it be tabled until the following
meeting because they wanted to kind of organize everyone.
Mayor Chmiel: So there we can get that addressed maybe at that particular 11 meeting. I guess that was all you had to talk about Tom. Ursula? You had a
couple different ones. The Villager.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, let's start with the Villager. I just had a
question on the Villager. I noticed and I think it's really great that they are
printing the agenda. However, I believe that they used to print it in the past
and we weren't being charged for it. Don can you explain why we're being
charged regular advertising rates for the agenda? Did we used to get it for
free?
Don Ashworth: We received it for free at the time that we were using the '
Herald. Then we went to the South Shore and incorporated that into a
newsletter schedule. When it came back to the Villager, it was on the basis of
being charged. So we've paid for it for at least the last 4 to 5 years. I would
say the last time we were with the Herald was 6 years ago it was free.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can you tell me how much that is? How much that costs?
Don Ashworth: The City, I'm trying to remember the memorandum. I believe our
legal ads were about $9,000.00 and our paid subscription was about the same,
maybe a little bit less.
Ell
Councilwoman Dimler: A year? Right now? _
Don Ashworth: For each of the two types of accounts. You have this is a paid
advertisement in what I'll call the front part of the paper. You also have the
legal ads in the rear portion.
Councilwoman Dimler: Then I can see paying for it. I was just wondering when
we used to get it free with the Herald, why we can't get it with the Villager. ..
Don Ashworth: I think it's simply a change in their policy.
Councilwoman Dimler: It is a good service and I think the people appreciate
that. Then what was the second item?
Councilman Workman: . Acceptance of gifts.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I would like to go to the other one first on Council
Presentations. That's simply just a housekeeping item. It is my feeling that
when we have visitors presentations, if the presentation requires action, that
it's tabled until the next regular agenda to allow for publication and review of
items prior to final consideration. I'm just wondering if we could also add
that to our Council Presentations? i
Councilman Boyt: That is the approach we use with Council presentations.
Councilwoman Dimler: Not always and I would like to see it in print.
tli
64
City• Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
' like
- Councilman Johnson: I would think that when Council Presentations are, like
are tonight, they're all added as an amendment to the agenda, that would be
appropriate. You can also, at any time, if you get it prior to publication of
the agenda, have a Council presentation to Don and supportive documentation and
then it can be advertised in time for the meeting because there have been
' council presentations listed in the paper.
Councilwoman Dimler: I understand that but I'm saying that sometimes you don't
' have the time. I would just like to make sure that not only by intent but that
it's printed that way.
Mayor Chmiel: Sometimes you can just say that...
' Don Ashworth: So right after Visitors Presentations, you'd like to see some
form of note.
Councilwoman Dimler: No. No, just under Council Presentations, print the same
thing that's under here because several things have come up and it required
' action and we didn't have any information on it.
Councilman Johnson: The exception there again would be the Council
presentations that is properly published. It doesn' t have to published but
makes the newspaper and is published. Visitors Presentations generally don't do
that. Occasionally they do. Is Council Presentation listed there? It's not
listed there but it can be. In the past we have had, I've called up Don and
said I've got this information I want to share with the Council and I give him a
packet and it goes in with the packet and the rest of the Council had the
information. It was published in the newspaper.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's right but I'm saying, in the situations where it's
brought up at the last minute.
Councilman Boyt: Can you think of an example where it's been a problem?
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm just saying we should follow the same procedure.
' Councilman Boyt: There are times in which Council presentations have been made
that have needed action. Wye don't always get the luxury of having two weeks to
look at an item.
Councilman Johnson: And there's been visitor presentations that have needed
action at that time and we waived, without formally waiving it, we've taken
action in the past. Sometimes the action I don't think has been appropriate.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well, we can always waive it but I'd just like to see it
there for general use and then if we decide to waive it, we'll waive it.
Mayor Chmiel: It doesn't matter.
I Councilwoman Dimler: Then the last one that I had was, when we get to
acceptance of gifts for the City, I called Todd today and asked him if there was
anything in the City Code and did you indicate to me there really isn't? Okay.
I would like to see us take some action in that regard because I think all gifts
that are presented to the City that are valued, let's say about $50.00 or above,
65
A
1
City Council Meeting - February 13, 1989
that they should be voted on by the Council. I really don't know of any
organization that just accepts gifts randomly without having some policy for
accepting them. Also, I'd like to see in that that if the gift requires
operation costs, maintenance costs or replacement costs, then certainly that
must be voted on by the Council. I'd like to ask Roger to draft us a resolution
containing these conditions that we could consider at our next meeting.
Councilman Johnson: Would Roger need to do that or could staff do that? It
costs less to have staff do it.
Don Ashworth: I want to talk to Roger. I'm sure there may have been something
similar to this in the past. I personally thing it should go in as an
ordinance, if it were to go there, to insure that anyone in the future.. .but I'd
like to talk to Roger so we'll do one or the other.
Councilman Johnson: Could it also go under our Council Procedures that we vote '
on every January?
Don Ashworth: Yes, it could go almost in any document. That defines your role.
If I'm hearing Councilwoman Dimler, she'd like to have something so everyone in
the organization knows what.
Councilwoman Dimler: I would prefer to see an ordinance if that's the best 1
route to take. Thank you.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. [11
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 Opheim
I
I/
66
1
` n F.T;r
'' .03 r fq Vim' t
I CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 15, 1989
1
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 35 p.m. .
' MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad, Brian
Batzli , Jim Wildermuth and David Headla
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart
STAFF PRESENT: Steve Hanson, Planning Director
Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to move the Organizational Items on the
I agenda to after the Approval of Minutes . All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
I PUBLIC HEARING: -
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE FILLING IN AND SODDING OF A WETLAND ON
PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 100 AND 80 SANDY HOOK ROAD, BOB PFANKUCH
IAND STEVE FROST, APPLICANTS .
Public Present:
' Name Address
Mr. and Mrs. Bob Pfankuck 100 Sandy Hook Road
I Mr. and Mrs . Steve Frost 80 Sandy Hook Road
Cindy Gilman President, Lotus Lake Homeowners Assn .
Thomas Gilman 6613 Horseshoe Curve Lane
I Barbara Montgomery 7017 Dakota Avenue
Susan Conrad 6625 Horseshoe Curve Lane
Steve Hanson presented the staff report .
Conrad : Just one comment . Our wetland ordinance is more restrictive than
I the DNR' s and our wetland ordinance specifically talks about areas above
the ordinary high water mark. Basically what staff is recommending in
this report is saying that the areas that are sanctioned by other
I governmental bodies will get some feedback. I 'm curious what we' re
talking about in terms of the property that' s above the ordinary high
water mark which our ordinance governs.
I Hanson: The area above the ordinary high water mark is . . .Fish and
Wildlife talked about .
IConrad: So in the red?
Hanson : Yes .
IConrad : And then in the blue?
r
Planning Commission Meeting
February 15, 1989 - Page 2
Hanson: The blue is actually the edge of the shoreline. In the
alternative, we looked at establishing . . . In talking with Fish and
Wildlife, they thought that was probably going a little too far . '
Conrad: Okay, we will open it up for public comments. What I would like
to do is have the applicants for the permit speak to us first . Either of
the applicants in relation to the staff report or anything else, if you
would like.
Mrs. Pfankuch: First of all , I 'm a little unclear about the
recommendation. Is this . . .?
Hanson: No. That' s just representative. In his memo, I believe he
stated a size in the last paragraph that they should be 15 feet in length
and come back inland 30 feet.
Mrs. Pfankuch: And what is the blue line?
Hanson: That ' s just delineating where the edge of the water is now.
Mrs. Pfankuch: So they' re asking for a triangle between our property.
One between our property and the Monroe' s property and one between our
property and. . . '
Hanson: Right .
Mrs. Pfankuch: Well , all of the information is in the file but what we
were attempting to do is get rid of the loosestrife. We called a
contractor and he came down and started to do the excavating and the
Village came and looked at it and told us to proceed. We certainly want
to cooperate with the DNR and whoever . We don ' t want to cause a problem.
I guess we' re not totally convinced that loosestrife is less of a problem
than that sod . We didn' t have cattails. We had loosestrife totally. 7
feet tall . You couldn' t see anything but loosestrife. As far as
wildlife, now we' ve got geese living on the shore. In fact , they' re a
nuisance. Our dock is slippery from the geese so as far as wildlife, they
certainly like it better now. That isn ' t to say that we we don ' t want to
cooperate, we do but I guess we' re a little unclear about exactly what
we' ll accomplish by tearing up however much we' re talking about here.
Conrad: I think, and I don' t know if I can be a spokesperson for that
because I haven ' t seen the plan and I 'm not an expert in the area but we
do have a wetland ordinance and we've been pretty restrictive on a lot of
your neighbors . Having built boardwalks where they would like to put
docks. They had different opinions of what they'd like to do but we
enforce the ordinance because the runoff , especially through your area is
significant. With the wetland behind your house and Herb Bloomberg' s
wetland being destroyed , which is probably one of the best wetlands in
town, that whole area is real susceptible to, the water quality is really
going to take a major hit every time we destroy a little bit of wetland .
But I don' t know that that' s an issue. It just happens that that
particular problem is in your area . But also , there is a lot of water
that' s going into the lake and we, as a community, have been trying to
I
I
I Planning Commission Meeting
February 15 , 1989 - Page 3
prevent that kind of runoff . Whether it be wetlands that are under our
control or wetlands that are under DNR control or somebody elses . It' s
Ibeen a city policy to be real stringent on what we do.
Mrs. Pfankuch: And we don ' t disagree with your having a policy.
I Certainly we don' t want to cause a problem. The loosestrife , our
understanding when we started the project, was that the loosestrife was a
major problem. It certainly was a noxious thing on our shore. We had
these big clumps of yuk and the tires would float in and stick in it and
I it was a real mess . It ' s hard for me to be convinced that loosestrife is
better. You were talking about the wetlands , where? Behind our
property? You mean up where they' ve dug out the cattails and build the
Ihouses?
Conrad : Yes . And the only reason that happened is because they got the
I permit to do that many, many years ago. They had a subdivision that
superceded our ordinance. That ' s probably one of the best functioning
wetlands in the city. It' s beautiful but it ' s being buried right now.
It' s not your problem and it doesn ' t really, it may end up to be a little
' bit of your problem but that has nothing to do on this particular one.
Mrs . Pfankuch: We have the sewers also, and I 'm sure you ' re aware of
I that. We have two sewers on our property. One between ours and Frost ' s
property where the water runs down and then out a culvert. Now the
loosestrife had totally filled that culvert . That was not draining into
the lake. It was backing up and doing whatever because the loosestrife
I had clogged the opening of that outlet . That stuff, I don' t know what you
know about it but that stuff is like, like from outerspace . It just takes
over. But we' re certainly not in disagreement with talking to the DNR and
I see what it is that they' re proposing . We don ' t want to be disagreeable
here but we are concerned about the lake and certainly about ecology but
that loosestrife is awful .
IConrad: Thanks for your comments .
Cindy Gilman : I live on Horseshoe Curve. I am currently the President of
I Lotus Lake Association. I guess a couple of the things that I was
concerned about is that you said that the loosestrife is a problem and
that it needs to be handled . There are chemical treatments to handle the
I loosestrife so that the wetlands can become healthy again and help be
restored instead of clearcutting and filling in and then there would be no
chance of any type of a natural filter to help the lake along there. I
I also question, I guess the way it was done. The contractor that did it , I
assume most contractors know that there are laws that they have to follow.
I had someone come in to look at part of my lakeshore to help redo it
because it was falling apart and most contractors are aware that they need
Ito clear things through the DNR. That there are things that are properly
done and things that are not properly done on a lakeshore. Anyway, so
I question the contractor . The contractor that filled it in . I guess it
I bothers me that it was gone ahead and done and then after the fact, they
are looking to get the permit now instead of before . It seems that there
was an awareness there. There was an awareness of the purple loosestrife
and you knew that was a problem and why you didn' t seek help or talk to
II
Planning Commission Meeting 11 February 15, 1989 - Page 4
counsel or talk to people to find out what you could do about the
loosestrife and what was legal and what was not . I guess that ' s it .
Thank you.
Thomas Gilman: I 'm also from Horseshoe Curve and I guess my problem with
this is that this has been done previously where people have come in.
They' ve altered their land . I don ' t think these people just fell off a
cabbage truck and I think that they know that you need a permit for this
type of thing . I think that they decided to step ahead of the law. Have
the work done figuring it would be easier to come and get a permit
afterwards. I think they should be required to return it to it ' s natural
condition and then once that' s done, then come in and make this
presentation because this is an afterfact . I don ' t think that the lake
was taken into consideration. I think that the loosestrife is being used
as kind of a scapegoat .
Conrad : Two quick comments . What are the contractor ' s responsibilities '
Steve when they start excavating around a lake? What do they have to do?
Do they need a building permit?
Wildermuth : Do we require an excavating permit of dirt contractors?
Hanson: Yes . '
Wildermuth: So he didn' t come in and apply for one?
Hanson: I found an excavating permit in the file. I don' t know the '
history behind when it was done . It could have been done after they had
started but I 'm not sure if that ' s true or not.
Conrad : Would you make sure that City Council knows whether it was true
or not by the time this gets to them.
Wildermuth : It sounds like the contractor ought to be . . . '
Conrad: I think so. The applicant made some comment about staff giving
the permission to go ahead and maybe that was the permit but I 'm curious
about staff saying go ahead.
Mrs. Pfankuch: Do you have a copy of the permit? A copy was sent to you.
Hanson: I think it' s the last page in your packet .
Wildermuth: The question is, did that predate the work or postdate it?
The actual work.
Mrs . Pfankuch: It did not postdate. . .
Conrad: Steve, can I assume that when it says paid , 23918 that that means
we gave, the applicant gave money which basically says we gave
permission? Is that what it takes?
111
I
II • Planning Commission Meeting
February 15 , 1989 - Page 5
IHanson : Well , that ' s where I 'm a little confused because normally on a
permit there' s someone who has signed off on it. I 've only got his front
I sheet and I don' t know if there ' s something signed on the back sheet or
not.
I Conrad : I think by the time this goes to City Council , you should know a
little bit more and maybe Mr. Ashworth can fill us in a little bit on
that. Any other comments?
I Barbara Montgomery: My name is Barbara Montgomery and I live on Dakota
Avenue about a block above where this development is . I guess I would
just like to say, I 've lived there a very long time. My husband and
I I moved in in 1960 and I feel very protective of the area. Very
protective of the lake. I loved it dearly and I 've watched and watched
and watched as all of the growth has taken place. Somehow I just have the
I feeling that perhaps some of the people who are moving in are not enough
aware of the importance of keeping the lake clean and what' s going to
happen. Who wants to live around a dead lake full of dead fish? It does
happen . It ' s happening to lots of the lakes . I 'd just like to make a
I plea maybe for more public understanding. Maybe for more respect. Maybe
for tougher policing of the ordinance. I guess that ' s all I have to say
but I really feel very strongly about the area and I think maybe that all
of you do or you wouldn' t be out here.
Headla moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
Ifavor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed .
Headla: Mrs. Pfankuch, you indicated that the, I don ' t know what your
I exact words were. You got the go ahead from the Village . What exactly
were you referring to? You got the go ahead from the Village .
I Mrs. Pfankuch : It ' s in the permit . Have you seen the permit? May I show
you the permit?
Headla : I 'm not sure if I 'm looking at the same thing you are.
IMrs. Pfankuch: Our contractor, they stopped the work and they came down
and looked at it and they issued this permit. My understanding is that
Ithe permit.
Headla : Okay, it' s the same thing . So you interpretted that as the go
ahead?
I
Mrs . Pfankuch: Yes . They didn ' t say stop.
I Headla: You indicated here the reason you were doing it is to improve lot
to lake. I see no mention on loosestri.fe at all but yet that tends to be
the dominant reason now.
IMrs. Pfankuch: It ' s always been the reason.
Headla: I didn' t see it on the application .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 15, 1989 - Page 6
Mrs . Pfankuch : I didn' t do the application so I don ' t know but we had an
early letter, in fact I think it predates that application, discussing the
loosestrife . I don' t know about the chronology. I 've got some other
information here.
Headla : That ' s fine. I guess I look at this the same way I started out
the first of the year. I think we should not go for a lot of conditions
on a permit . I think we' re loading down the staff . I see no reason why
this even came before us until those 3 conditions that the staff '
recommended to approve, I see no reason at all why those conditions
shouldn' t be met before the Planning Commission even sees that. At the
best , I think we ought to table it until they do get approval . I don' t
know what the DNR is going to approve. Our conditions are a little more
restrictive and I 'd like to see that before I 'd even consider approving
this . That ' s all I have.
Wildermuth: I 'm trying to find what our ordinance is . It should be under
the boats and waterways section right?
Hanson : It' s under the wetlands section.
Wildermuth: I see it. How and in what manner are we more restrictive
than the DNR in terms of. . .structure?
Hanson : I guess I 'm not necessarily sure that we' re more restrictive . I
think we have a more detailed review and we require them to do a wetland
alteration permit and when you do that , that ' s when you have the
flexibility to allow what kind of alteration you do. Normally I think in
this situation , if they had come in, I doubt you would have looked at an
alteration other than allowing them to have a boardwalk out to the dock .
I think that would be your normal approach to this situation, if it was
undisturbed.
Wildermuth: If that ' s the case, if that were the approach that we would
have taken initially, where a wetland alteration permit would not really
have been an issue, or according to the ordinance structure would have '
recommended a boardwalk, I think that their shoreline should be restored
to it' s original state and if a boardwalk is desired by the property
owners, then I think that would be appropriate. I 'm surprised that Paul
Burke in his original letter where he used some fairly strong language
saying that the wetland alteration permit should definitely not be
granted , would come back and make what appears to be a relatively token
requirement of these 15 by 30 triangles. Right across from that property
was the Dolce property or adjacent to that and we. . .
Conrad : We didn' t let them do anything .
Wildermuth: The Planning Commission did not allow anything to be done
there. The City Council did not allow anything to be done there. I think
if we go along with Paul ' s latest recommendation, we send a message to
lakeshore owners that they can perform this work. They can alter the
wetland and come in for a permit after the fact and it ' s alright . I
I
1
I Planning Commission Meeting
February 15 , 1989 - Page 7
IIfurther think that it ought to be very difficult for this contractor to
get an excavating permit in the City of Chanhassen in the future. That ' s
Pall I have.
Batzli : I guess I 'd like to feel the way Jim does to some extent . I
Ilook at that permit that was issued, which we don' t really have all the
facts on it but if I was a landowner and my contractor went and brought me
back a permit like that, I 'd go ahead and do it. For us to say now, that
well you shouldn ' t have done it and we don' t know under what circumstances
I we issued a permit, I think is a little bit critical on our part so
I guess I 'm not in a position to say they should or shouldn ' t have been
able to do it and I 'm not going to cast stones at this point because I
I think to some extent they may have depended on that permit and I 'm not
going to, I think there' s been kind of some allegations that they acted in
bad faith and I 'm not willing to take that step right now.
I Wildermuth: But there-' s no indication the permit was granted. You pay
the fee when you file the permit . From this we can ' t tell anything .
I Batzli : I know and I can ' t tell anything and that' s why I 'm trying not to
cast stones one way or another . But what I guess I 'd like to see happen
is I would prefer at this point, without knowing additional facts , we' re
I making a judgment when we ' re in a position where we don ' t know all the
facts . I assume that we ' ve got these triangles here because there' s
culverts running between the property lines? Or no? Where are the
culverts located?
IBob Pfankuch : Not in all cases .
IMrs. Pfankuch : There' s one culvert between our property and the Frosts .
Batzli : Okay. I would assume that this report was generated on where the
main runoff occurs between the properties and I 'd like to think that Burke
I is the expert and I 'd be, at this point, without knowing other facts , say
go ahead and do it his way.
IConrad : Did the same contractor do the work on Colonial Grove?
Hanson: I assume so. I don' t know that for a fact .
IWildermuth : I don ' t think so . Al Smith was the contractor on the
Colonial Grove job.
IHanson : On the entire subdivision , is that what you ' re talking about?
Conrad: No. That ' s sort of before your time. I shouldn' t have addressed
Iit to you.
Wildermuth : This one looks like Harlan Johnson. Something Johnson .
IConrad: Didn' t we have some problems with Colonial Grove dumping, well ,
that ' s another story.
I
■ .
•
Planning Commission Meeting
February 15, 1989 - Page 8
Ellson : I don ' t have a whole lot new from what these gentlemen said . I 'm
pretty much in agreement. I 'm surprised that this compromise is what' s
being offered by Mr . Burke , to tell you the truth. I would want it to be,
go back to where it' s supposed to be. I think it does again send a bad
signal to people. If we put in laws to protect these things , the wildlife
and you want the nests to grow there and things like that and this can
happen as easily as this did, it really disturbs me. Barbara ' s letter is
dated on the 29th of June and there was a reply and yet the application
for this alteration permit isn' t done until January. I don ' t know about
that. I don' t know why it wasn' t filed. If Barbara went on this and
there was conversation, I think they' re almost forced to the point of
making this come to a head and they were trying to avoid it as much as
possible rather than facing it head on by letting them wait this long . I
would see going back and putting the 50 feet back to where it is . I don' t
even like the compromise of these little triangles . I don' t think that ' s
fair to the lake or fair to all the people that we have told you can not
do this in the past . -Except you guys because you already did it and
I realize that. I don' t think that ' s fair to anybody else and to what
we' re trying to preserve with these lakes .
Emmings: I would like to know from the Pfankuchs and the Frosts whether
or not they knew prior to doing any of this work that there may be DNR and
City or Fish and Wildlife regulations that would affect what you want to
do with your property? We haven ' t heard you say whether you knew. . .
Bob Pfankuch: Can I comment again? Can I say something in addition to
that? You' ve discussed a whole lot of things that some of the answers are
available to you that were not presented on open discussion prior to. I
think this needs to be a give and take session. It ' s not like we present
our case and you guys talk about a lot of things and sometimes in
ignorance because they haven ' t been discussed. It ' s how much do you
present them with in this case? Number one, the contractor, Harlan
Johnson. Harlan was recommended to me because he does work on Lake
Minnetonka. On the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka and works in the
communities in Lake Minnetonka taking care of weeds , racking the lakeshore
so I assume that he knows something about taking care of lakes . I am not
a lawyer. I am not an expert in the DNR or wetlands or on the city
ordinances. I am a property owner . I have a responsibility. I thought
I exercised that by hiring a contractor that does work on Lake Minnetonka
which is supposedly the great lake of Minnesota , or at least for the Twin
Cities . I hired Harlan Johnson. He came down and estimated the work. He
talked to my neighbor Steve. We agreed on a price. Said, do you know
what you' re doing? You work on Lake Minnetonka , you must? Yes, no
problem. I hate to say that ' s ignorance and I 'm still responsible and I
agree with that. I still am and he's only my agent but it ' s not like you
have to go to the legislature to do a little work on your lot is what I 'm
thinking. He' s the expert. I hired the expert , although still
responsible. Harlan proceeds with the work. Somebody comes down and
stops them. He goes down to the City Hall . Comes back that same day and
said it ' s okay. I was working without a permit or whatever . The permit ' s
been granted and I ' ve been allowed to proceed and complete the work. And
we can argue about how much was started and how much was left but it ' s a
very clear point in fact , according to Harlan Johnson and according to the
■
II
1 Planning Commission Meeting
February 15 , 1989 - Page 9
1 documents , that the City allowed the work to proceed . Now I had talked to
Barb Dacy shortly after I moved into this property. Granted, I 'm not a 20
I year old landowner who has seen this grow from an urban, wonderful green
reserve lake into an urban recreational lake. That' s another argument .
You may be a protectionists and you may think that we need to grow. I
hate to bring that in but it is a fact of life. Now there are several
I
other facts having to do with this . The sewer which runs , and it ' s a
sewer by the way, which runs down between my property and the Frosts ,
carries all of the garbage out of the city street directly into the lake .
I Tin cans, pop bottles, you name it. Several unmentionables flow into the
lake until they' re impeded by the weeds and they build up and eventually
shoves this whole nasty garbage out onto the lake. The fact that there' s
I 50 feet of almost impassable weeds makes it impossible to police and clean
this wonderful Lotus Lake lakeshore. Of the trash that' s left by the ice
fishermen, meaning the bottoms of fish houses frozen into the ice and
can' t be removed, which I personally removed this year after I had access
I to them. And the tin cans and the pop bottles and the tires and all the
garbage because I 'm on the bad side of the lake which is where the wind
blows so I get all the garbage. If I don ' t have access to that , I can
I hardly be expected to clean it although I was in up to my hips in the
muck, this wonderful wetland , estolic soil or whatever it ' s called by the
DNR. Carrying all of this garbage sitting on the lakeshore. I mean it' s
I really a beautiful site. You ought to come down and see it . In fact ,
what I recommend is that you table this whole discussion until next August
and I 'd invite you all down on a Saturday to look at the lakeshore , that
which has been improved by Frost and Pfankuch and that which has not been
I improved and you can decide what is the best thing for Lotus Lake . I 've
got to believe that you would be in our favor . I do an awful lot of work
on that lakeshore. As far as wetlands are concerned , right now in this
I drought condition which may exist for another 50 years , there is now 50
feet of wetland out beyond the end of my 35 foot dock which in 3 weeks
time takes loosestrife from seed to bloom and more seed. You just can' t
imagine what that ' s like. It ' s totally destroyed . There was an article
I published in the Chanhassen Villager which talked about loosestrife in
great detail , published last August and I brought copies along and
highlighted the issues. It totally destroys the area for wildlife. The
I issue about wildlife is bunk. If you have loosestrife , you don ' t have
wildlife. I have personally picked up one of those clumps . I swear to
god it weighed 150 pounds. This big nasty, mucky, floating mess on the
I shoreline and you just about can' t destroy it . I put so little sod in,
the City Planner said about a foot, if you look at the plot , I think that
the elevation is 6 inches. It' s a half a foot over what the ordinary high
water level is at the finish cobble wall , as it ' s called . The rock wall
I that I put in. I believe that if the lake comes back to it' s natural
level so it 'd be at the top of the wall which will prevent the loosestrife
from growing. The loosestrife grows right at the edge of the water and
I then it proceeds from there in both directions , is a totally unmatchable
plan. It has been declared a noxious weed . The property owners are
responsible for it ' s removal and the only removal is a totally
I nonselective chemical called Rodeo which has to be sprayed on the plants .
That means it kills all of the growing things. All . According to the
DNR, Hollandhorst , whoever he is , I believe it was from the DNR, once you
do that, the next year, the only thing that grows on this valuable wetland
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 15, 1989 - Page 10
is loosestrife . That ' s the only thing that comes back. Would you like to
pour Rodeo into Lotus Lake? Because the weed grows in the water, not in
the dirt . That' s the suggestion to take care of loosestrife . It is a
noxious weed and it is the responsibility of property owners to remove it .
In fact, the State has offered funds to help the property owners remove
it. We didn' t ask for that. We didn' t throw in 6 feet of fill like was
done in cattail swamp on TH 101. I put in 6 inches of dirt only to level
it. That was the only purpose of the fill was to level it so it could be
sodded so it could be managed . Yet , the pictures , the colored pictures
that were presented, shows that the loosestrife is continuing to grow up
through the sod . I mean I didn' t bury it to the point where I killed it .
I thought I did or I thought I would but at least I can mow it and keep it
down. This stuff grows to 7 feet . If anybody' s been out to the Old Log
Theater and looked around the grounds out there, you can see that that
property has literally been taken over and destroyed by purple
loosestrife. That is a very real hazard. It' s a hazard to Lotus Lake.
It doesn ' t do anything to the wildlife, the property owners , the lake
users and it prevents me from cleaning up the garbage that rolls down the
storm sewer from the street . Dead animals . I mean you name it, it ' s
there. If you think that it' s great for Lotus Lake, God help all of us .
End of discussion. Any other questions?
Conrad: Did that answer your question?
Emmings: No . My question was whether or not you were aware before you
hired this contractor to do work there that the work you were proposing to
do might be subject to DNR regulations , City regulations or regulation by
any other governmental entity?
Bob Pfankuch : Steve, I started out by saying that I 'm not an attorney.
I 'm not familiar with the DNR. I 'm not familiar with Chanhassen' s
regulations regarding wetlands. I hired a contractor who does work on the
lake. •Does work on Lake Minnetonka and on Lotus Lake a fair amount. He
probably never will again after this and with or without cause, that ' s for
you to decide. The point is, I hired a lakeshore contractor who does a
lot of work for governments around Lake Minnetonka . The natural
assumption is that this person knows what he' s doing. If you need a
permit, if you need a wetlands alteration permit, a building permit,
I mean when you hire a contractor you expect that person to be able to do
those things. That' s a normal expectation and I carry the responsibility.
I accept that but, isn' t that normal to expect that?
Emmings : I guess it just doesn ' t answer my question.
Bob Pfankuch: The question is no, I was not aware that anything was
required on Lotus Lake but I was aware that if it were required, it would
be recognized by a contractor who does work on a lake in Minnesota in the
Twin Cities area , Lake Minnetonka .
Emmings: Is that true for the Frosts as well . That you were not aware
that this would be regulated by any government at the time?
11
I
I ' .
I Planning Commission Meeting
February 15 , 1989 - Page 11
ISteve Frost : The contractor came down and he got a permit and I assumed
that everything was okay. He got the permit . That was our understanding .
IEmmings : So again , then you' re telling us too that prior to the time the
work was begun, and I 'm not talking about the time of the permit. Prior to
I the time the work was begun , you were not aware that there were any
governmental entity that might be regulating what it was you were going to
do to your shoreline there?
I Mrs . Pfankuch : We came and talked to Barbara before. I don' t know, a
year before and we said we' ve got this loosestrife all over the shore.
What can we do? And she said, well we' re not sure what to do about it.
I That' s what she said. She said, we' re not sure what to do with it. If
you can get rid of it , get rid of it. That ' s what she told us exactly.
We didn' t do anything until later when we decided to call Harlan because
we didn ' t know what to do . She certainly didn ' t say to us , you dasten
I touch the loosestri.fe because it has all these valuable properties and
I resent the implications that we ' re trying to do something underhanded .
We' re concerned about ecology also .
IBob Pfankuch : I ' ll do nothing to the lakeshore , and you come down in
August and look at it. You' re going to not be happy. It' s like a
I cesspool .
Mrs . Pfankuch : It was just full of junk.
IEmmings: Mr. Frost didn' t answer my question.
Steve Frost : I left it with the contractor to do what he knew he needed
I to do to get permits and anything that he had to do, that' s your job. I 'm
hiring you to do that .
Emmings : And did you say that to him before he started his work? That if
I there were any necessary permits , he' ll get them or did you just assume
he 'd take care of it? Was it discussed at all with him?
I Steve Frost: . . .he would do that . That was part of his job. When
I hired him, he' s supposed to do that .
IEmmings: Did you get an estimate from him?
Steve Frost : Yes .
IEmmings: Was it written?
Steve Frost : I think it was yes .
IEmmings: Were there any items on there for permits or anything like
that?
ISteve Frost : All he gave us was a total of the job I think.
II
. _
•
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 15, 1989 - Page 12
Emmings : The application for the excavating permit , I don' t know, do you
get an excavating permit when you fill something in as opposed to
removing? '
Hanson : Yes , you would . In both cases .
Emmings: The excavating permit is real vague. It' s hard to know what ,
they' re going to do but I think there was a screw-up in our , it looks to
me like there was a screw-up in whoever might have issued this excavating
permit because it clearly included a wetland . There should have been a
wetland alteration permit which can only come from the City Council .
Something got screwed up here. Who knows what but maybe you can find out
more about it between now and the City Council , like Ladd suggested. The
other thing , I wondered why we' ve got another property involved here.
This Colonial Grove property and their property is affected by this plan
of Fish and Wildlife to do some restoration here too but they' re not in
front of us for a perm-it. '
Hanson: I became aware of that officially when Paul and I went down and
looked at the property to see that that area had been altered too. I
assume that it was done at the same time but I don' t know that it was or
not.
Bob Pfankuch: It was . '
Emmings : It was all done at the same time by the same contractor?
Bob Pfankuch: Yes. And it was mentioned in one of the complaints from
the City in an earlier letter and then subsequently dropped for no stated
reason other than the fact that probably 150 people belong to that
Association.
Emmings: Just comment wise, first of all , I have no doubt that the
Pfankuchs and the Frosts did something that they thought was an
improvement to their property and they don' t have any desire to hurt the
lake. I 'm not even remotely suspicious of their motivation but the
problem we have with doing nothing here is that it makes it , like Jim
said, it becomes the smart thing to do to be dumb. To be unaware of
regulations that are there to protect the lake . If I go out and do the
work, I get my hand slapped and maybe I have to sit and listen to people
talk nasty about me but I wind up basically with what I wanted . Whereas
if I go and apply to the City for a permit to do the same work, I 'm going
to be denied . So that really puts a premium on being a cowboy and that
sure is not what we want to see. On the other hand, I don' t think it will
serve any purpose at all to punish these folks by making them return that
50 feet to what it was if the people who are supposed to understand this
thing from a technical point of view, like Burke , think that something can
be done to get some value to the wetland back there such as this plan.
Whether this is a reasonable plan or not, I have no way of knowing but I
would trust that he does so I guess I 'd be inclined to go along with the
staff recommendation as a way to get the matter resolved . And I guess I 'd
say to the Frosts and the Pfankuchs too, that we really see a lot more of
this than we want to . We' re constantly seeing people coming in here
■
II ' Planning Commission Meeting
February 15, 1989 - Page 13
asking for wetland alteration permits after they' ve altered the wetlands
and it' s real irritating to us . You ' re presumed to know what city
I ordinances are and Mr . Pfankuch is absolutely right when he say it ' s his
responsibility. It is. So I guess I 'd go along with the staff
recommendation but the only change that I 'd make is on number 3. If this
is approved, that the applicants provide a schedule and I 'd just insert
I the words , acceptable to the City Staff , for completing restoration. Just
so the schedule is a reasonable one. I guess I think that whatever DNR,
the hoops that DNR and Fish and Wildlife make them jump through I guess
I would be punishment, if that' s what it is , enough as far as I 'm concerned .
That ' s all I have.
I Wildermuth : Just for a point of clarification. Did we actually issue a
wetland, or I mean did we actually issue the excavating permit to this
contractor?
I Hanson : That ' s where I 'm unclear whether it was or not . The only
documentation I ' ve come across is what was in the packet .
I Wildermuth : Mr . Pfankuch said that the contractor came back and said that
everything' s alright. He applied , made the application.
Mrs . Pfankuch: They came down with the contractor and looked at the
Iproperty. The City did. They were down there walking around with Harlan
Johnson . Now we assumed that if they came down and they gave him this
permit, we had no reason to believe that . . .
IWildermuth : It sounds like we' ve got an internal problem.
IHeadla : We don' t know what the story is .
Wildermuth : I 'm surprised that this excavating contractor with his
experience and working in wetlands and Minnesota , wouldn' t know that he
I had to come in for a permit up front . But even after he did come in for
the permit, if he did get a permit, an approved permit, apparently the
City didn' t raise any objection.
IEmmings : He may be savy enough to know that it does pay to be a cowboy.
I Headla: There are very successful men in our company who' s motto was ,
you' re better off going ahead and do what you want to do and get it done,
beg forgiveness and get your hand slapped than get prior approval . Boy,
he got a lot of stuff done. I see the same thing here .
IEmmings: I ' ve given that as advice to clients because it does work. I
don ' t know what you do as a City to stop it but here we had the perfect
I opportunity to stop it. We discovered it was going on and stopped it and
then let it continue . That ' s our fault . That ' s the City' s fault, it
seems to me.
I Mrs. Pfankuch : We heard a lot of talk about wetlands after the fact also.
We didn ' t even know this was a wetland . We tried to mow it. We'd go down
there, it wasn' t a swamp. It was just clumps of loosestrife growing. Now
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 15 , 1989 - Page 14
we realize it ' s an exotic wetland but . . .
Conrad: I hate to be an educater and I don' t like doing that in this
situation but I think the things that you see being a litter in the lake
are minor compared to what a wetland does . Again, I 'm not going to bore
you with details here but a wetland is really taking the chemicals out of
the stuff running into the lake. The tires and some of the stuff that you II
see, that ' s fine and it ' s disgusting and we agree .
Bob Pfankuch: How about the Rodeo sprayed into the lake? '
Conrad : Rodeo would not be acceptable in my mind but purple loosestrife
is better than destroying all kinds of filtration. Grass is not a
filtration system. It doesn ' t do the job. Wetlands, the thing with
purple loosestrife is it chokes out the cattails and now the cattails
don ' t have a chance to grow. So if you showed me how you are restoring it
so the cattails could grow, I could understand it but you haven' t done it.
The grass is not a filtration.
Mrs. Pfankuch: I don't know if that can be.
Conrad : I don' t know that it can be done either but what you' re telling
me is not a solution to the problem.
Bob Pfankuch : You need to come down and look at it .
Conrad: I see it fairly frequently and I 'd be happy to. Again, I 'm not
trying to be an educater , well I am. I am.
Susan Conrad: I just want to make a comment about the education. I don' t
know how long you' ve lived on Lotus Lake but every year , at least once a
year, a newsletter goes to every homeowner on the lake educating about the
value of wetlands. Also , in the newspaper , the Lotus Lake Association has
published articles about wetland value and about the control purple
111
loosestrife and the value of loosestrife so we have not only, as an
Association, sent out letters but we have held meetings and talked and
educated and we have done that for at least 5 years . So not being aware
of wetlands and not having them identified, unless you just moved onto the
lake. Wetland identification has been available to all of us and sent to
all of us on Lotus Lake and all of the city but the Lotus Lake Homeowners
Association has gotten that information to their homeowners . And as far ,
I have just one more point, as far as the DNR recommending taking the
wetland back to it ' s original state . My experience, which most of you
know has been years with the DNR, has been that their jurisdiction ends at
the high water mark so they will not even venture to recommend anything
beyond that. I would ask the Planning Commission to invite the Corps of
Engineers in to tell you what the value is beyond that because they are
the only agency I ' ve run across that can give you a total picture and
doesn ' t get hung up in jurisdictions . They do have a jurisdiction ending
but they are a recommending body rather than permitting in many cases .
Fish and Wildlife does that even better so they can tell you the whole
picture and I 'm sure that' s why the DNR is saying to renovate a portion of
it . They can only talk to the portion that they' re responsible for .
I
1
I • Planning Commission Meeting
February 15, 1989 - Page 15
I
Conrad : I want to make a few comments without being redundant for other
I comments . One, it looks like there was an internal problem and I really
would like, I really do need staff to tell us what happened . The comments
from the applicants are valid. If we don' t catch it , if our staff doesn' t
look at the documents , these are charted wetlands . It ' s not that they' re
I not charted. They are so it looks like we screwed up and I need staff to
review that . And staff to review it to tell us how they' re going to
prevent that. I just doesn ' t make sense to me. Secondly, I 'm not sure
I whether the applicants knew what they were doing or not and I 'm real
concerned with the contractor and I guess we should, I 'd also like to have
staff tell us what they would recommend that we do to the contractor who
I was doing this . Anybody who is in the area knows that Chanhassen is a
tough ordinance, period . And we do that for a purpose because we have a
lot of lakes and we have a lot of runoff and a lot of building .
Contractors should know so I guess Steve, I 'd like to have staff review to
I us what we should do with a contractor' s that more than likely knows what
he ' s doing . Third , I agree. I don ' t think we need to restore the wetland
totally. We can probably do with what Mr. Burke is recommending here and
I get some value out of it and I would hope that we could agree. I think my
biggest concern is we really have been strict with your neighbors and your
neighbors care. They care a whole lot . I think we don ' t want to set an
example, for whatever reasons , we just don ' t want to set an example that
I
it can be done. We want to set an example that people still care about
this and I think you do. I guess I ' ll take Mr . Burke ' s recommendation as
being valid and acceptable. On the other hand, I 'm not convinced Steve
I that we' ve really looked at it from our ordinance standpoint . Again , it ' s
an easy way of looking at this thing and saying, well , this other agency
who controls everything above the high water mark says this but I want you
I to be real confident that our ordinance, that we haven ' t set an example
for another situation. If this is fine , this takes care of the problem,
I 'm okay with that. If what Mr. Burke says is going to filter the runoff
that ' s coming down between the houses and get the maximum value , that' s
I okay with me but I want staff to tall us and if you need help from the
Corps of Engineers or whoever , I think we' ll ask them that. The question
in my mind is whether we issue the permit. I 'm really hung up and the
I really philosophic thing is that a wetland alteration permit which has
been already, the wetland' s been filled in. We issue a permit to restore
it. I don ' t know. I don ' t know how to deal with that one . Those are my
Icomments . I 'd take a motion from somebody.
Emmings: I 'm going to move that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-13 subject to the conditions
Ithat are set forth in the staff report with the addition that I mentioned
in number 3 where the applicants provide a schedule acceptable to the City
Staff for completing restoration.
IBatzli : I ' ll second it. What do we do with Colonial Grove?
Conrad : That ' s another comment . I think they should be in here.
IEmmings: Well, we' ve got people here who' ve made an application. I think
that ' s not part of this . I time somehow we' ve got to tell them they' ve
I
111 .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 15, 1989 - Page 16
got to come in and apply for a wetland alteration permit too .
Thomas Gilman: And they can get their hand slapped too.
Emmings: Well , yes . I guess it ' s not my job to beat people up when they
screw up. Especially when the City seems to have screwed up at the same
time. I
Conrad : I think it is a separate issue but I think we do want to .
Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #88-13 subject to the following
conditions :
1. Prior to City Council consideration , the applicants agree to
mitigation plans and requirements of Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
2. Applicants receive permits from Minnesota DNR.
3. Applicants provide a schedule acceptable to the City Staff for
completing restoration.
Emmings , Wildermuth and Batzli voted in favor of the motion. Ellson,
Headla, and Conrad voted in opposition to the motion and the motion failed
with a tie vote of 3 to 3. '
Ellson : I move the Planning Commission recommend denial of the Wetland
Alteration Permit #88-13 .
Batzli : I ' ll second it for discussion purposes . What good is that going
to do? '
Wildermuth: That' s just the converse of what we just voted on.
Ellson: I want it to go forward to the City Council with something but I
want them to hash out the details. Like you said, it will be on record
that they got the okay to do it. I don' t want that to be there.
Conrad : But the main reason I voted against Steve' s motion is because he
talked about, we' re really reacting to what the DNR said and I don' t know
that we' re reacting to what our ordinance says . '
Wildermuth: Our ordinance, I wasn' t too proud of our ordinance when
I just read it.
Emmings : My comment there Ladd would be . Our ordinance tells us what to
do when somebody comes in and applies for the permit prior to doing the
work. We got a problem with our ordinance maybe when people come in and
say, I 've already done the work and now I 'm here to get the permit. Maybe
there should be a provision in there. I 'm not even clear why they applied
■
II
II Planning Commission Meeting
February 15 , 1989 - Page 17
Ifor a permit .
IConrad : Because the staff has been asking them to .
Emmings: But what if they just said, no, thank you?
1 Conrad : Then we 'd have to legally take care of that.
Emmings: That got them in front of us . Their application got them in
I front of us and then I guess , I don' t know. I don ' t think our ordinance
tells us , gives us much guidance in this case.
IConrad : It doesn ' t.
Headla : Does the ordinance give you any guidance if they don' t follow it?
I Or the best we could help for is that, I think Jim pointed out that you
judge it from how would you treat other people if they came in with the
permit? IF it' s a boardwalk, the worse scenario for these people would be
then that they'd have to go back to that and I don ' t believe in penalizing
them like that. But to me that would be one way that does it .
Emmings : I suppose the other thing you can do here too , if you want to
I send a real clear message, the City Council I guess could ask, what they
have done there may well be a criminal offense under the ordinance and
they could ask the City Attorney to review it for prosecution. That would
certainly get people' s attention . But again , that ' s not our function
1 here.
Conrad : We should be doing what is best , what the ordinance intends and
I that doesn' t set a precedent for future situations . That' s what I want to
accomplish .
I Emmings: I agree and it seems to me, if they come in and they' ve got a
wetland there and they say we want to modify it, then we look at our
ordinance and we say no , because we' ve done that before right next to
them. We say, no you can' t do that. You ' re going to just have to live
Iwith your loosestrife and put out a boardwalk and that ' s that.
Wildermuth: But the contractor came in and got a permit approved .
IElison : But it wasn ' t signed .
I Wildermuth : But if you read this letter from Barbara real carefully,
towards the back of your packet. Read this letter from Barbara real
carefully. Your contractor , Mr . Johnson , promptly complied with our
requests to submit plans and the needed information for issuance of a
I grading permit . It implies that the grading permit was granted because
she goes on to say, however, it has come to our attention that the area in
which you conducted the grading may have contained wetland vegetation . So
I apparently, when whoever it was from the City went down there with the
contractor to look at this thing , somebody from the City agreed to the
permit. The implication is that the permit was granted and Mr. Pfankuch
said that he had a permit . So you can ' t fault the property owner .
II
II
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 15 , 1989 - Page 18
Emmings : We' ve got a wetland , we want to alter it . We say no . I think
they' re coming in at a point where, what ' s there? They've got an altered
wetland . They' ve removed the wetland or destroyed it and we' ve got to
say, what are we going to do now? Given that as the baseline, it all
depends on what you want to pick as a baseline. They' re coming in and
saying, here' s what we've got now and we' ve got a plan here, again, I have
no way of judging it' s efficacy as restoring wherever the properties are,
the wetland you want to keep, but at least there' s somebody here who says
that this will do the job to get it back to at least some sort of
reasonable. . . '
Wildermuth: There' s no question in my mind how I 'd vote if somebody were
coming in for a permit and no work had been done. No question at all .
But I think there' s an event here that took place that it ' s not a black
and white issue.
Emmings : And I think we' ve got dirty hands. ,
Batzli : Well I 'm glad the two people that voted for the motion are in
agreement now. 1
Emmings : You voted for it too .
Batzli : Yes , but I already agreed with you two . '
Wildermuth: Yes , but I didn' t agree with you to begin with .
Conrad: Dave, your disagreement stems from what? How is somebody going
to swing your vote?
Headla : I don' t believe that it should be denied . I really believe it
should be tabled until we find out what in the world did we really tell
these people . I think staff can tell us . I want to see what the DNR has
to say. I have no idea what they' re going to say or the other appropriate
parties . Then I think the people ought to be able to look at that and
then whatever is recommended, then come in with a schedule. Then we can
act on it. We' ve got something documented . Until that, I don' t think we
ought to touch it.
Conrad : This is under discussion of a motion for denial right? Okay.
That' s not bad Dave. If we don' t know. We can vote on it, we can kill
it or she can withdraw it if she so chooses but I think you' re absolutely
right. We don' t know what staff did. Steve hasn' t done a good job of
researching the staff on this one and I think even whether , he can do it
for City Council or he can do it for us. We might as well hear what it
is . We' ve got the ordinance and we can help that ordinance. We can help
improve it if we understand how it doesn' t get enforced. It' s probably
good that he bring back a scenario of how this happened . But I also
think I 'd like, other comments that you said. I 'd like staff, things that
come in at the last second just bothers me. Staff hasn' t reviewed this
and reviewed it to see how our ordinance pertains , which is my problem.
My biggest problem. It' s coming in today and staff hasn ' t told me how our
ordinance gets impacted by the recommendation so I guess there' s some
I
II .
•
I Planning Commission Meeting
February 15 , 1989 - Page 19
validity for tabling it other than the fact that we have to bring it back
in. That ' s a real pain. I hate to do that to anybody but . . .
IBob Pfankuch : I asked for you to table it for 6 months .
I Conrad : Well , 6 months of water going in, if it' s bad water , is probably
not worth the risk but I think. . .
Bob Pfankuch: . . .water that goes into that lake?
IConrad : A whole bunch of bad water goes into the lake and we probably
spend more of our lives up here looking at the bad water than we care to
Ithink about .
Bob Pfankuch : May I ask that the City sewer from the street be removed?
INot be allowed to drain into it .
Wildermuth: I guess if it ' s any comfort, in a new subdivision that
wouldn' t happen because there would have to be some kind of a ponding area
I but I don ' t think you want a ponding area in your backyard before it goes
into the lake do you?
I Batzli : I think the City might want to look into a catch basin or a
screen or some sort of trap if that ' s in fact what ' s draining into the
lake at that point from a storm sewer .
I Conrad: Where is all the Colonial Grove, being that that wetland is being
used up by a contractor , where is that water going Steve? Is it coming
between?
IHanson : I have no idea .
U Conrad : Can you find that out because that just fascinates me. Most of
that' s coming in from Eden Prairie. Most of that water is coming from
under TH 101 going into the wetland . I 'm just real curious if it ' s going
to the subdivision to the north .
IWildermuth: It ' s going into all the basements around it.
IConrad : But anyway, Annette, you ' ve got a motion.
Ellson : I withdraw the motion.
IConrad: Do you want to or we can vote on it?
Ellson : No , I 'd rather withdraw it and Dave, why don ' t you do yours .
IConrad: Do you want to withdraw your second Brian?
IBatzli : Sure.
Headla : I would like to make a motion that we table this . I 'd like to
get better definition of what direction the Village really gave these
II
t
Planning Commission Meeting
February 15 , 1989 - Page 20
people . If we really gave them the wrong direction, I think we' ve got to
look at it a lot different and maybe the City has to suffer the
consequence . I ' d like to understand , see what the DNR is going to
recommend and then have our applicans look at it and submit some type of
schedule and I think at that time the Colonial Grove people should be part
of this.
Wildermuth : Second .
Headla moved , Wildermuth seconded to table action on Wetland Alteration
Permit #88-13 so staff can research what happened at the City level . To
find out what DNR is going to recommend and then that the applicants
submit a schedule, which the Colonial Grove people should be included
with . All voted in favor of the motion to table and the motion carried .
Conrad: Steve, when do you think this will come back? Any idea? A
couple of weeks?
Hanson: I doubt it. I don' t believe I ' ll have a response from DNR in
that period of time first of all . Secondly, I 'm not sure what type of
problems I 'm run into trying to research it because I think I 'm going to
have to do some of that by phone calls with previous staff because I don' t
believe there' s anything in the file.
REQUEST FOR 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 BUIDLING - PHASE I , ARVID ELNESS
ARCHITECTS , INC.
Steve Hanson presented the staff report.
Conrad: Brad, what do you think?
Brad Johnson: We' ve given them some modifications that are minor , from
our point of view. You ' ve got to remember , this is being designed by the
City for us . That' s why he does the presentation.
Conrad: You can be critical now. '
Brad Johnson: I think it will work fine. He' s gotten our comments . It
looks like most of them have been put in there. Like I said, it' s pretty
close to what we were requiring . In fact , the traffic guys have to look
at it. . . You should note that we have taken 15 feet off the back of the
south side of the apartment building and put it into the parking lot.
That has been done as part of your previous approval of the site plan for
the apartment building . That' s why this original sidewalk had wound
around here. It was getting too close to the rooms . You know, for a
public walk right next to somebody' s bedroom is not a good idea so it was
pulled over to the right. We' re really excited about this whole project
because it just has a real nice look to it . The way it all comes
11
■
II
I 'Planning Commission Meeting
February 15, 1989 - Page 21
Itogether , assuming we get it all done, it will be. . . This is 450 feet
long. Will really take care of that thing. Because it' s been pulled
I forward , it will not obstruct . We ' ve still got a lot of open space even
though something ' s . . . right in the path . . . It will work out real good .
We' re happy. Good acceptance by the tenants and the people like that . We
Ihope to sometime during March getting a permit .
Batzli : I guess I had one question. Why are we putting the one right-in/
right-out entrance right by that intersection? The clock tower
Iintersection. Does there need to be an entrance there?
Hanson: On one of the plans in your , it' s the second plan in, it shows
I the overall improvements . Right in that particular location there' s a
median that comes back. Right now if you drive out there, the curb cut is
up is about right in here and you can make the left hand turn around that
median and get in.
IBatzli : I guess my question is , why do we have any entrance there right
at that intersection?
IHanson : I know that that ' s been in there from day one on the plans .
I Brad Johnson: At one time it was thought that they would remove it but if
you look at , if you look hard enough at it , you really don ' t want to run
all of your traffic through this parking lot to go to the clinic so the
tenants required that there be an entrance here. So that their customers
I
can get in and go into the area. It will be probably more of a right in
then a right out but it really makes , if you look at it without this , this
is going to be a major roadway and it wasn' t designed to be that .
Batzli : Wouldn' t they go in in that underpass there in the middle of the
building?
Brad Johnson : The way the clinic is set up, this entrance here will
probably go, people come down, it will be serviced, if you' re coming this
way, the human element is never one to backtrack. The clinic is on this
I end of the building so people coming along and want to go into the clinic
and they' re going to occupy this end , possibly will go up in this . People
that are going to use this portion will come in here. People that are
Igoing in there will probably come in here.
Batzli : But your argument doesn' t buy anything with me because you' re
I assuming everybody is coming from the east and if you look at from the
west, you' re going to have the same problem with people using the parking
lot to get all the way to the other end of the building .
Brad Johnson: They can' t turn left here.
Batzli : I know that. They' re going to turn in at your full access and go
Iall the way down.
Brad Johnson : Here?
11
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 15, 1989 - Page 22
Batzli : Yes . ,
Brad Johnson : Yes .
Batzli : Then why bother in one case to let them zoom all the way down but
from the other direction suddenly it' s a big issue and you got to put in
another entrance? Just a question.
Brad Johnson: And the answer is , we looked at it the other way and we
felt that we were putting too much pressure right in there. It' s a right
turn, left turn here to get into here. This way it' s just a right turn
in.
Batzli : To me it defies logic but if there ' s a logical explanation for
it, fine.
Brad Johnson: And I think what we' ve done is , the danger has been the
left turn in. That 's where I see the problem is the left turn into that.
Batzli : I guess from what I see is we' re going to really encourage a lot
of U turns right in the downtown drag here, up and down our city. A lot
of U turns all over the place with a lot of the way we ' re designing this
personally. If human nature is to go up to where you want to turn in, I
can just picture people coming up here and snaking all over the place
making U turns and everything else. If that ' s really what human nature
says .
Conrad : Where' s the U turn being made?
Batzli : We' re right-in/right-out everywhere and I can just picture people I
coming up here to the full change intersection and taking a U turn back
around and everything else . I guess I don' t see this as being well
thought out at all . If their argument is that we need a right turn in at
the clock tower because you don' t want people racing all the way down
here, then what ' s the difference of people coming from the west? They' re
going to zoom all the way down here unless they come up and take some sort
of U turn up in this area .
1
Conrad : And Brad would say, yes , we haven ' t solved it for the west but we
solved it for the east. '
Batzli : That' s not a solution.
Brad Johnson : Our problem with traffic is this movement . Downtown. '
You've got a stop sign here. People are coming up here with a stop and
they have to go through this intersection and come around and come back.
Batzli : I gues I 'm just not convinced that you ' re not going to have a lot '
of traffic from the south and west and I don' t see the problem has been
solved in any way for those two directions . You' ve solved people coming
from the east on that one right-in turn but you haven ' t solved other
problems . I 'm not a traffic expert. I 'm just saying, I see one thing
solved and you' ve got 2 or 3 problems here that we' ve saying , well , we
I
II .
I ' Planning Commission Meeting
February 15 , 1989 - Page 23
Isolved one.
IConrad : But traffic goes through the arch doesn ' t it?
Batzli : From this direction you ' re going to be coming back. Their
I argument for having this is that you don ' t want people to come zooming
through this area . Their going to come zooming through this area to get
down to this then .
IConrad : But they could go through the arch too if they want?
Batzli : No, they can' t because. . .
IConrad : Oh, we' ve got the right-out . Okay.
I Batzli : And if they' re coming up from this direction, they' re going to
have to go all the way- around and zoom through or , I don' t see it being
solved at all. Maybe there' s not a solution. I 'm not trying to say that
I 'm the expert but I 'm raising the issue.
IWildermuth: Maybe a better answer is to take that whole median out of
there entirely.
Batzli : I think that ' s dangerous . I agree that that should be in there
if they' re going to have an entrance right there because I wouldn' t want
to see people cutting in front there.
IWildermuth: There' s just one thing that bothers me when I look at this
and that is , if we ever want to widened West 78th Street , which I think
I should happen at some point , maybe not in the next 6 months or maybe not
in the next 18 months but it probably ought to happen at some point , these
buildings that are very close to the street are really going to limit our
options .
Brad Johnson : We' ve added 11 feet to it. That was one of the
recommendations from the very beginning. What ' s happened is that we' ve
I had to move everything back and that ' s what they' re doing back here. The
building' s been shifted back. . .
IWildermuth : So that ' s been kind of taken into consideration?
Brad Johnson: We cut back our landscaping. If you look at the previous
plan, we had more landscaping back here and more space here but that ' s all
IIgone because we moved the building back.
Emmings: I ' ve got a couple of things. There are design standards having
I to do with the width of parking spaces and how much back up space you 've
got and all that , does this plan meet all of those kinds of standards?
IHanson: Yes .
Wildermuth : Including radius ' around these pylons at the end of the rows?
II
■
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 15, 1989 - Page 24
Hanson : I think before we said that there may be a problem because we
were concerned with that distance and this meets what the standards are.
Those spaces are 9 x 18 as far as the space of the parking spaces . '
Emmings: Those are standard parking spaces? They haven' t been trimmed
down to meet the site or anything like that?
Hanson: No.
Emmings: And the number of spaces meets our ordinance and terms for the
functioning?
Hanson: Yes . '
Emmings: I noticed down on the right hand corner , I 'm looking at sheet 2,
and it' s on some of the other ones , there' s a place here that I want to go
as soon as the meeting' s over . It looks like it ' s called a Reality
Office. I ' n curious what that might be. I think we could all use some.
Is that your office?
Brad Johnson: I don' t know what you' re referring to? Oh , that ' s ,
Klingelhutz' .
Wi_ldermuth : That ' s Klingelhutz' realty office.
Emmings: Well , it says reality.
Brad Johnson : Like I said, we didn' t do the plan .
Emmings: I wasn' t being critical . I 'm kind of interested . '
Conrad : Anything else? A motion.
Headla : I 'd like to make a motion that we approve it but I ' ve got so much
reservation on that sidewalk, I don' t know how to work that in.
Conrad : What do you think about Steve' s, Steve is talking about filling
in the balance of that little triangle there.
Headla : I 'm so scared , I think that sidewalk ' s going to have a lot of
traffic and I can just see kids on small bicycles and I can see
skateboards going through there.
Emmings: Won' t there be stop signs? I
Headla : That' s the kind of thing , either speed bumps or stop signs and
then I think that' s adequate control but isn' t this the time where we
should at least ask the engineers to look at that?
Conrad: That' s a good comment. The snow plow people will love that but
that ' s. . .
1
111
II
I Planning Commission Meeting
February 15 , 1989 - Page 25
Headla : That ' s why I hesitated on the speed bump. To me a stop sign is a
logical thing to do but how they talked about a right-in and then turning .
I You come in and then all of a sudden you' re stopping again . I 'm not a
traffic person. I don' t know what makes sense there.
I Emmings : I think people ought to be moving slow in that parking lot
anyway and I think stop signs are a big inconvenience and that ' s fine with
I me.
Headla : I ' ve seen so many accidents in parking lots and they' re needless
and it' s due to speeding. I 'm going to make a motion we approve this
concept plan but make a recommendation that the traffic engineers take
I another look on the safety of that sidewalk as it goes through the parking
lot .
Emmings: How about the other conditions?
IHeadla: Yes. And the other conditions submitted by the staff.
IEmmings: I ' ll second that .
I Headla moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of 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 stampted "Received February 8 , 1989"
Iand subject to the following conditions :
1. Platting the area .
I2. Submittal of final facia , signage and exterior building lighting for
Planning Commission approval prior to issuance of building permits .
•
I3 . That the traffic engineers take another look on the safety of the
sidewalk as it goes through the parking lot.
I All voted in favor except Batzli who opposed and the motion carried with a
vote of 5 to 1.
IBatzli : I think that they should look more at what they' re doind with the
traffic around that area. Not that I 'm against the plan in general .
IConrad : But you' re concerned with the traffic movement from the west.
Batzli : From the west and south . I don' t think that, if it ' s good enough
I to do in one direction , what are they doing with the other direction and I
don' t know that they' ve really thought about all that .
IEmmings : What do you mean by from the south?
Batzli : Coming up TH 101 here .
I
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 15, 1989 - Page 26
Emmings : But then won' t they have the right-in at the archway?
Batzli : Yes .
Emmings : Isn ' t that okay?
Batzli : I don' t know. They've got to get back out and it depends on
where they' re trying to go. If you guys are trying to slow down traffic
in the parking lot , I don ' t think you' re going to do it by putting in a
stop sign. If you' ve ever been at 7 Hi or Cub Foods on a busy shopping '
day, nobody stops at those. They glide right through almost running over
and creating havoc. If you ' re actually trying to get people where
they' re trying to go with entrances and exits , I don' t think this plan
does it. That' s why I 'm just saying, I 'm going to dissent from the motion
and say, I don' t think that was looked at .
Conrad: Do you see an alternative that' s readily. . . ,
Batzli : No. That ' s not my job as I think you' ve once said, or somebody
said it. I 'm not a traffic engineer but from the answers I got, I don' t
think it was looked at a whole lot .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Batzli moved , Ellson seconded to approve the Minutes ,
of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 1, 1989 as presented .
All voted in favor except Wildermuth who abstained and the motion carried .
ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS.
ELECT CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 1989 . '
Emmings: My idea and I mentioned it to some people already, but first of
all I 'd like to nominate Ladd for Chairman.
Wildermuth : And I ' ll second that .
Emmings : The primary reason I think Ladd ought to be chairman is that he
has more patience here and it kind of makes me kind of irritated sometimes
but I think it' s important as far as . . .
Ellson : Letting everybody speak out .
Emmings: He does such a good job of handling the public hearings and I
giving everybody I think a feeling that they have had an opportunity to be
heard and he explains the procedures all so well . There may be other
people who can do the same job but I don' t know. I know that Ladd can .
I 've chaired a few meetings and it' s a lot of strain. It' s a little extra
strain . It' s a lot easier to sit out here on the sidelines and take pot
shots. And for that reason, I think maybe as far as the vice chair goes ,
maybe Ladd wants to let the vice-chair chair some meetings just so that he
can get out on the sidelines. The one thing we miss by having Ladd in
chair is getting his comments earlier in the decision making process . A
I
II
I Planning Commission Meeting
February 15 , 1989 - Page 27
lot of times I 'd like Ladd to fill me in on the history of stuff before I
start asking my questions and forming my opinion. What I was going to
I suggest for the vice-chair is that maybe we rotate that and that
everybody, or anybody, unless somebody just plain doesn' t want to do it .
That maybe every 4th meeting or whatever Ladd whats to do or whatever
I anybody wants to do, we have a substitute chairman or something like so we
all get that experience too of chairing the meetings so there is some
experience with this as the membership changes also. That was my notion.
IConrad : Annette , would you like to chair meetings?
Ellson: An easy meeting I would handle but some of those hot and heavy
Iones, I would be. . .
Conrad : But you would consider chairing a meeting? Would you?
Ellson: Yes . -
Conrad : Brian , would you consider chairing a meeting?
IBatzli : I 'd consider it .
Conrad : Jim?
I
Wildermuth : I 'd consider it .
1 Conrad: Dave?
Headla : I have no interest at this time.
IEmmings: I think Tim would probably. He' s been here long enough .
Conrad : I have no great need to be chairman folks . I think on one hand I
I
think Steve would do a great job as being chairman. I think Steve has a
good comprehension and is able to steer things . I don ' t have a great need
to be the chairman. If you feel comfortable having me do that, I would do
I it. However , I really think it ' s important that new people, well , not new
people . You' re not new anymore but that others start chairing this far
more than what we have in the past . I just think that' s really important.
I So if that means somebody new comes in and becomes chairman , that' s fine
with me or if we rotate the chairmanship or the vice-chairmanship so let' s
say on a monthly basis or let ' s say 2 out of 4 times , half the times
I somebody else is chairing it besides me. I think that might be a way to
do it. Other than that , I think there are other people here that can
chair the meeting so I don' t feel uncomfortable nominating somebody else
for the chairmanship.
IHeadla : What would we do then? Have like Steve be the vice-chairman in
case you aren' t here and then he takes control of the meeting until we
Ihave appointed a chair?
Conrad : I haven ' t asked Steve to make sure we can do it but I think we
have to have official chairman and vice-chairman but I think in
I
III
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 15 , 1989 - Page 28
practicality what I 'd like to do is see if we can have different folks
chairing the meetings. If that is legal .
Hanson : I ' ll have to check on that. There are two things . I think first
of all , if you want to do that, I think we may need to make an amendment
to your By-laws because right now it just provides for a chairman and a
vice-chairman.
Batzli : But you can suspend any rules by unanimous vote at a meeting so
in theory you could have the chairman call the meeting to order and then
move to have somebody else chair the meeting if you really wanted to .
Headla: Could we just plan on going that way but have Steve look into it
to see if there' s a problem?
Hanson: Sure.
Conrad : What do you think? What should we do?
Headla: I like that idea . '
Batzli : I say yes , I 'd have an interest in chairing the meeting but that
doesn' t mean I want to do it . I think that you do a real good job of
chairing the meetings and when you' re not here, the meetings are real
short when Steve does it. I ' ve been very happy with the leadership you
two have provided in that regard and having been on the Planning
Commission only a year, it' s actually helpful to not be chairing a meeting
when you' re in my position because you don' t have the historical
background and some of the working knowledge that more experienced
commissioners have. So to be honest with you, in the next year I don ' t
envision myself being all gung ho to chair a meeting. Personally. Other
commissioners might feel differently.
Conrad: Jim, what do you think? What do you want to do? '
Wildermuth : I agree with Brian . I 'd do it once in a great, great while
but I have no burning desire to do it and I like the way the commission '
functions now with a chairman and a vice-chairman .
Conrad: I 'd sure like to get out of the every two week role. '
Headla : I can see where you'd want to get out of that role.
Batzli : But then I guess we should ask Steve, if Steve were re-elected as
vice-chairman, would he want to chair more meetings?
Emmings: That'd be fine. It doesn' t make any difference. It takes me
more time to prepare for a meeting if I 'm going to chair . That ' s my
only. . .
Bill Boyt : The Park and Rec Commission has gone to the plan that you' re
just talking about. I would encourage you to do the same because part
of, I think the learning opportunities that you' ve got is to take on both
■
11
I Planning Commission Meeting
February 15, 1989 - Page 29
roles . It also prepares a city because we have more trained people and
having a trained chair is a hard thing to find. From my standpoint, I 'd
1 like to encourage you to do it as I think a service to the city.
Emmings: To rotate?
IBill Boyt : To rotate . I thought your plan as you discussed it sounded
really good to me. You ' re not forcing anybody to take the chair but
you' re making a ready opportunity for them to do that and I think the
I learning experience would be good for the city to have one more trained
person.
I Conrad : Are you saying one more? Do you like to rotate to different
individuals?
Bill Boyt : What I mean by it is more trained .
IConrad : Annette, anything?
IEllson : Like I said , I wouldn' t mind doing it but . . .
Conrad: You could be the first female chairman that we' ve had for 100
Iyears . Chairperson .
Elison : I think you should give people the opportunity, if it ' s an easy
item with two things or something . I just don' t like, every fourth time
I it will be a guest chair . That will be the one where it ' s that beachlot
thing or something and we know how volatile those get. That would be
devastating .
IIEmmings: The thing there then might be to just look for opportunities .
For you to look for opportunities .
Conrad : That would be the only way that I would want to serve as chairman
again because like Bill said, I think it' s real important that other
people start taking this role. I think I know how to do it but I think
I it ' s really important that other folks know too. I would like some other
folks to, on occasion, take the role and Steve I think you can do that
pretty well and I think Annette, Brian, Jim, Dave, I think you can all
I fill in and do that . So anyway, if that' s your choice, if you feel like
we should do that. Does somebody want to nominate a chairman and a
vice-chairman?
I Emmings : We already nominated a chairman and that ' s been seconded . We' re
supposed to do this really by written ballot.
IBatzli : That ' s when we vote isn ' t it?
Hanson: Yes, that ' s when you vote.
1 Batzli : I nominate Steve.
Headla: I second it .
11
■
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 15 , 1989 - Page 30
Conrad : Any other nominations?
moved , Wi
Batzli 1 ed , ldermuth seconded to close the nominations . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. Nominations for Chairman and Vice-Chairman
were closed .
Conrad : How do you want us to vote? 1
Hanson: If you read the By-laws, it says you' re supposed to vote by
secret ballot . I don' t know that there' s a ballot. I can pass out sheets
if you 'd like to do that . '
Ladd Conrad was elected as Chairman and Steve Emmings as Vice-Chairman of
the Planning Commission for the year 1989 by unanimous vote.
REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS.
Conrad: Did anybody see any changes to the By-laws?
Batzli : Typos in Section 4. 1. Five lines down. "Fro" and "chosed" .
Conrad: Everybody comfortable with the 11: 00 p.m. curfew?
Ellson : How do we enforce it?
Conrad: You really can' t .
Ellson:, Right , so why do we have it?
Conrad : We ask for Steve to try to use that as a guideline in setting the
agenda. The other thing we can do is we can monitor during the course of
a meeting and be telling people that the meeting ' s lasting longer but I
think if they' re here for a public hearing, we' ve got to listen to them.
Ellson : I 'm just wondering if it' s all words and no go . Why do we have
it in there when truly we can' t do that?
Conrad : Only to help set the agenda . Only to be a guideline . I like the
attendance. I think we' re all pretty close to that except for Tim but I
he' s pretty close isn ' t he? What is he?
Bill Boyt: 70%. A little less than that . I
Conrad : Is there a motion to accept the By-laws .
Emmings moved, Ellson seconded to accept the By-laws as written with the
changes in Section 4. 1, the typos on the words "fro" and "chosed" to be
corrected. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
■
II
II Planning Commission Meeting
February 15, 1989 - Page 31
I
ELECT HRA LIAISON.
IConrad : Jim, you ' ve been the liaison. You' ve done a really fine job .
I Wildermuth: I 've gone to a lot of the meetings but I haven' t given any
reports because there' s a lot of stuff that goes on in closed door
sessions. All the good stuff gets decided behind closed doors .
IConrad : And you' re not there?
Wildermuth: You can' t be there .
1 Conrad : Would you consider continuing to serve?
Wildermuth: Sure .
IEllson : I ' ll nominate Jim.
IBatzli : I ' ll second that .
Conrad : It would be good , and we don ' t give you a chance to talk about it
I and that' s typically because we' ve been getting out at midnight but I
think, how do we, and Steve maybe you can help us on this . I think we
need reports to be agenda items .
IHanson : We can add that .
Emmings: Reports back on City Council action should be an agenda item.
I City Council action on items that we did as well as reports by Jim on the
HRA.
I Batzli : What happened to our idea on our agenda having out list of open
items and progress reports?
Emmings : Old Business . All this stuff you ' ve got on your list here.
IConrad: Right now it' s pretty clean. The goals and agenda items . During
the course of the year it gets added to so there could be 20 items out
I there. We need a way to track them. In the past I ' ve had a manual little
list myself but I think there should be more of an offical way so I 'm not
the only one keeping track and maybe you can make a recommendation how
you'd like to manage that rather than having you have a tickler file. We
I should see, and it could be on a monthly basis, a status report what the
progress is for you saying , hey, I don ' t have time. We' re not going to
get to it for 6 months so at least we know. On some frequency we have
Ithis report back that goes not only to us but to City Council .
Wildermuth: . . .wetland ordinance. If we' re really going to put some
I strength into the thing , we ought to say that any work done prior to
application to approve it automatically voids the permit and the wetland
has to be restored to it ' s prior condition period . That takes the monkey
off of everybody' s back and a lot of the discussion of it so we don' t get
11
•
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 15 , 1989 - Page 32
these cowboy efforts .
Conrad : Can you take the thing so you can bring it back to us Steve when
we have some time and decide how we deal with these after the fact
situations? We do have a nomination for the HRA liaison. Jim, a motion
has been made. I
Ellson moved , Batzli seconded to appoint Jim Wildermuth as the Planning
Commission' s HRA liaison. All voted in favor and the motion carried . '
1989 GOALS . I
Headla : I 'd like to bring up one. You've heard we talk before on our
coniferous leanings on the tree ordinance. I don' t think we really favor
enough of our native deciduous trees . In this last month now, the
Minnesota Volunteer came out and they showed recommendations on how you
take care of conifer trees . Particularly when they' re alone or if you
just have one string, you've got to put burlap up so the sun doesn' t scald
them. You' ve got to also protect them from the wind . I 'm not a
treeologist by any means but I really would like to see us revisit that. I
think there' s other ways to give adequate screening . I think the
Arboretum has developed some very good native bushes to give us screen and
I 'm thinking right now of McGlynn Bakery down here going around their
parking lot. Then another change I 'd like to see in our ordinance is that
when somebody goes through and butchers the land and blades it down, every
tree because it ' s under 4 inches, I think there' s an obligation there to
replace it with equivalent wood . Somebody can say, well box elder is a
trash tree, knock it down but it' s got a lot of the aesthetic value. It
may not have good commercial value and I 'd like to see us revisit that
tree ordinance from that point of view also. But I think there should be
several people involved with that .
Conrad: Does everybody agree that we should revisit our landscape
specifications? I don ' t know if that ' s what we call it. Dave' s first
comment whether we go deciduous more. Do we want to look at that?
Ellson: Is the ordinance saying it has to be? They have to be pine trees
or are they saying a permanent screen is what I was under the impression
it was under . If they come through and they could have a bush that will
get that permanent screen, I don' t believe our ordinance is saying it' s
got to be evergreen. I know Jo Ann is always saying , add more evergreens
but I think it might already be that way but I 'm not sure. '
Headla : One of the questions that I ' ve asked before , the answer has been ,
we have to have all that screening. The implication is the only way you
get it through those trees .
Wildermuth: Yes , because they don ' t lose their leaves .
Emmi.ngs: I think we ought to put it on the list. I think if anybody
things it ' s worth looking at we should look at it.
i
II
•
II ' Planning Commission Meeting
February 15, 1989 - Page 33
I
Conrad : Could I ask Dave that you kind of look at the ordinance, or the
Icurrent plan.
Ellson : Do it in a Tim report .
1 Conrad : Yes . Tim just does a nice job when he goes out and reviews it
for us. Rather than stymied or a lower priority, if you could look
through the ordinance and maybe bring it back and talk to Steve about it.
IHeadla: Okay.
' Conrad : Just flag areas where you think we should take a look at .
Headla: Okay, and the other one, Tim and I wanted to do is get involved
with a trails committee.
IEmmings: Have a subcommittee?
I Headla : I don ' t know but Tim and I want to get involved with the trails
committee. I think we compliment each other very well on that and I think
there ' s other input as well . I think that ' s a little different.
1 Ellson: You' re saying by the fact that it never came through to us when
they had those changes and things like that?
II Headla: That' s part of it. But that isn' t part of our goals . We want to
work that off line .
I Emmings : Now you' re running into the Park and Rec and I think maybe we' ve
had, that issue came up and showed us that there were some areas maybe
where our work overlaps their work and we' re not too clear on why that
I issue never came here because it seemed to be a planning issue. But maybe
what we need to do is get some better definition from the City Council as
to what we' re supposed to be doing and what they' re supposed to be doing
and maybe there' s some specific issues where there needs to be a joint
Ieffort .
Batzli : Perhaps we should look at a liaison for the Park and Rec
I Commission or vice versa. I think the point was also raised by, we were
talking about there was park deficiencies in some places and did the issue
come in front of us or not and it appeared to me that there was a total
I lack of communication between our two groups .
Conrad: But the park liaison, would that be on an on-going basis? Is
that what you were thinking Brian?
IBatzli : I don ' t know. Let ' s have it rotate . I 'm just talking off the
top of my head.
IIConrad : Do you have any interest in that area?
II
Planning Commission Meeting
February 15, 1989 - Page 34
Batzli : That was the problem. I knew if I said that . No , my interest in
it lies in deciding and at least trying to open up some line of
communication . Whether that ' s me attending their meetings or not but for
instance, I have no clue what areas of this city are park deficient and/or
why and/or how that fits in with our zoning map. I 'd like to at least
have a presentation by them to tell us what the heck they' re doing and
what their long range plans are to put parks in and in what areas and why.
I think that affects us .
Emmings: Isn ' t that in the Comprehensive Plan? '
Conrad: It' s in the Comprehensive Plan and that' s where our consultant
has gone out and got their input . We haven ' t seen it necessarily until it
comes back official .
Batzli : Did we look at that part of the Comprehensive Plan yet? I don' t
recall seeing that.
Emmings: I ' ve seen it but I don ' t know if it was formally. I don ' t think
in this go around it' s been. '
Conrad : It ' s taken us so long to do this which goes back to a major
issue. Last year, I 'm off the subject because I 'm on a pet peeve here.
Last year we talked about completing the update to the Comprehensive Plan
and we didn' t do it. And nobody really, and that' s my fault as much as
anybodys . We just slipped it. So what are the penalties . Nobody' s
yelling. Met Council ' s obviously not yelling. Who' s priority is that to
update the plan? Is it just a City? Was it a nice thing for our Planner
to do? Was it a requirement of Met Council, do you know Steve?
Hanson: From my perspective it should be a priority of the Planning
Commission. A number one priority because that' s telling you guys what
you ought to be doing . From my own perspective it ' s a high priority.
Conrad: Bill , as we updated these, did staff bring you the different
sections as we went through them?
Bill Boyt : Mark Koegler would come in occasionally and talk about status
reports but we never saw that you approved anything. If you were. Maybe
it' s waiting for one grand lump presentation. '
Conrad: That was the way it was going to be rather than on a piecemeal
basis . Again , boy we' ve beat this one for over a year now. I think we' ve
got to get our hands around this thing. We've got to give City Council a
deadline when it ' s going to be done and if it' s not urgent , then we can
put the deadline off a little bit but I think it' s almost to the point , in
my perspective, the revisions have been out there so long , we may need to
make revisions to the revisions . They' ve just been sitting there .
Hanson : I think you' re hitting it on the head. I ' ve met with Mark
Koegler about getting a revised schedule on something that he can live
with and I can live with to wrap it up. I 'm getting that proposal from
him either by the end of this week or the first of next week at the
■
II • Planning Commission Meeting
February 15 , 1989 - Page 35
Ilatest . I would suggest bringing that , when I ' ve got that , bringing that
back to you as far as setting a time line on that . That' s what I 'd like
I to do on all these items is set time lines on them. From my perspective,
it' s getting to the point where it ' s very critical that we get that done
because I think what you' re going to see , if my vision is right by the end
I of the year , you ' re going to start seeing requests to plan the areas
outside the MUSA boundary and you ' re going to start seeing requests to
extend that. There are some things that are starting to happen that are
starting to cause that as far as the sewer capacity. Met Council bringing
I that up and the plant' s going to be expanded by 1992 and that will all be
on-line. I think a lot of the development communities , looking at what' s
left in the City and saying, hey, spots , for the types of users we want to
I bring in aren ' t available out there. How do you want to deal with it?
I ' ve had them come in and say, essentially say, can we do the Comp Plan
for the City so I think there ' s going to be a lot of pressure from that
I aspect. It' s critical for us to wrap up this Comp Planning effort that ' s
being done and really -roll into Phase II if you will . I think we' re ,
right now we' re quite a ways behind that power curve and that makes me
nervous because I don' t like being in the position of having to be in a
reactionary mode.
Conrad : Even already I think you ' ve been around where we' ve got the
I updated Comp Plan but it really hasn ' t been approved yet so it doesn' t
apply. We' re based on the old plan .
Emmings : That ' s a perfect example of something that if it should become a
I priority item, it ought to appear on our agenda every time so that we, if
we don' t do anything else but just , it will keep us aware of it.
Otherwise we forget. We plow through these items and even if it ' s just to
I say, we haven' t made any progress or we' re still waiting for a report or
whatever but it will keep it right in front of us.
I Wildermuth : I think the Planning Commission has got to take a position on
how they view requests for extending the MUSA line. At some point I think
we' ve got to do that .
IConrad : That' s a big City issue that Don and Bill have to handle.
Emmings: That is on the goals sheet. A-3 and A-2.
IWildermuth : Okay.
I Conrad : Back to trails, and I didn ' t want to forget it . I made us go on
a tangent off of it. I don' t know Steve, if you stimulate something
within staf and City Council to define our role and the trails in the
community. We have to be involved somehow so I guess we' ll look right now
I for your guidance with Don and maybe a recommendation to City Council as
to how you think you should bring in the Planning Commission. That
doesn ' t mean we take over the responsibility but we do have to be involved
I not after the fact but for comments for planning considerations . Before
the final plan is cast , we have to be involved . We can be responsible if
somebody wants us to be but that ' s not as essential as our involvement.
So I think that has to be on this laundry list . What else? Anything
II
i
Planning Commission Meeting
February 15 , 1989 - Page 36
else? And David , forget about you being on , I think when we find out
about our role, that may stimulate how you get involved. If there is a
committee on trails , I think that can be , you and Tim can get on that
committee. What I wanted to do is make sure that we had a function for
the Planning Commission in the trail system but if you want to volunteer
for something with Tim, I think that 'd be outstanding. ,
Headla : Yes , and the two of us wanted to go in there together .
Conrad: In everybody's mind, are trails sidewalks? Are they the same or
different?
Bill Boyt : Quite different . '
Conrad : Is there an issue on sidewalks in town that we care about or does
anybody care about sidewalks?
Bill Boyt : There' s a big issue about sidewalks for somebody. . . They are
related issues but they' re quite different. A sidewalk is what somebody
puts in front of a residential development . A trail is what you put in
connecting major areas of the city, which may or may not have a house,
generally wouldn' t have a house around it in our city. I think of a trail
as what you see along TH 5 in Eden Prairie. '
Headla : Did you call that a trail down here, in Lake Susan Hills or
whatever? Remember when they went in through to the west and around the
houses there.
Bill Boyt : But that ' s not what ' s being built there. They' re going to
build 4 foot wide sidewalks . '
Headla : That ' s how that ended up?
Bill Boyt : They' re going down, what is it TH 101 there? That ' s a trail .
There along TH 101. The Park and Rec Commission has very specific
definitions that they worked out over the last couple of years a general
standard for what they' re trying to do. I think it would be very helpful
if you two groups were talking about this issue.
Batzli : Talking on any issue. '
Bill Boyt : I like your idea Brian . I think you'd find the Park and Rec
would probably swap off with you so that you could have somebody come to
their meeting once or twice a month and have somebody come here or
something.
Emmi.ngs : Do they meet twice a month? 1
Bill Boyt: Yes .
Batzli : It 'd be an interesting way to do it . 1
1
■
II
II Planning Commission Meeting
February 15, 1989 - Page 37
Conrad : Do we want to throw sidewalks on some kind of a list? Does that
interest anybody? It is an issue.
IEmmings : I just don' t know what it is . I don ' t know what the issues are.
' Don Chmiel : I think there' s a lot of pros and cons to that specific
issue. Sidewalks . Especially for a lot of the residents . There are
areas where they probably go to and from, specific schools or areas where
they' re going to be involved . Community center , things of that nature.
I When you start talking sidewalks in front of people' s homes, you get a lot
of dead indians who start beating tom toms because I 've already had some
people talk to me about that. They move out to this area specifically for
I the openness that we have. They move out here to put sidewalks like they
have in Minneapolis or St. Paul . They like the openness. They like the
green. It ' s a lot of good pros and cons to those issues .
I Conrad: Yes , I know there are. You look at Eden Prairie and they don' t
have sidewalks everyplace but they do have some and they' re sort of a
compromise between a trail and . . .
Wildermuth : Do you think that ought to correlate to lot size?
I Conrad: I have no idea . It' s one of those issues you want to say, does
anybody care about sidewalks in town and should we look at it before
something happens or before nothing happens or whatever. I don' t know and
there may not be any good solutions but I 'd feel a little bit embarrassed
I when Eden Prairie has some sidewalk systems for people, not in front of
everybody' s house but they can move people through Eden Prairie and we' re
developing and we can' t move people except on a road and that seems real
I naive. I don ' t know. I don ' t know where it goes . To be very honest ,
I don' t know what the defeat of the trail system, what that really means
which is almost a case of, I need . . . What does that mean? Does that mean
I that we' re not going to require the right-of-way for trails? Does it mean
we simply are putting them in? I guess I 'm just naive on that whole
subject and probably need a staff report coming back telling us what that
does mean and how it affects what we ask future developers to do for us .
I There aren' t any easy answers on some of these but we' ll raise the issues
for you Don . Other issues , growth of the industrial park. Do we have
enough industrial space in the community?
IHanson: It ' s a tough question to answer . There ' s a lot of ways to look
at it. Enough industrial for the amount of residential and the amount of
area that ' s in the MUSA line right now and so forth , yes probably. If you
I want to expand it, no there' s not . Another question is , how big do you
want, how much industrial do you want?
IWildermuth: Or do you want another area? Another place.
Conrad : To me it seems , because it ' s been a rather successful industrial
I park right now and it doesn' t look like we have a lot of room for growth,
it seems to me an issue that we should look at it because if we really
want to maintain that, bring in new residential growth doesn' t really help
taxes, if we care about taxes , and we don ' t as a Planning Commission.
II
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 15, 1989 - Page 38
That' s not our role.
Emmings: It doesn ' t? '
Conrad : New residential growth hurts , it costs money to bring new people
in.
Emmi.ngs : Up for a certain period of time.
Conrad: Almost on a per unit basis . 1
Hanson: If you do a cost benefit analysis , typically, and there' s
exceptions to everything but typically you ' ll find residential does not
pay it ' s way.
Emmi.ngs: Ever? Not even after 30 years?
Hanson: No.
Conrad : I think it would be a neat issue to raise right now in terms of
do we have enough industrial? Do we want more? Does it make sense to
plan for the next 20 years? Right now we have a chance to do it if we
want to make the zones . Now' s the time because the Comprehensive Plan is
still , well , it might be a good time to do it. So I would put that , and
there' s obviously some associated items to that. Residential growth but I
sure like the industrial . I 'd like us to look at the industrial park. The
only other subject that I have on this list, and a lot of this stuff, I
don ' t know if it' s our role or not but Light Rail Transit . I keep hearing
that thing pop up and I don' t know. I don' t know what route. It appears
it' s the southerly route but still , I ' ve got to believe it ' s going to
happen and I don't think we've really taken a good look.
Batzlit I don' t think it ' s in our Transportation Chapter . The impacts of
what that would do.
Conrad : We said, and I can recall this pretty clearly, we said we want to
know where our parking lots should be so that we can get there or park
there or something .
Ellson: We also said we want to show that we' re in support of it.
Conrad: But that's sort of tokenism type of stuff .
Hanson: And there' s a lot of ways to look at that . I think the typical I
way is if you have a light rail transit station, first the gut reaction is
to put parking lots there . If you look at what ' s being done in Washington
D.C. areas, they' re starting to extend that out. Some of those areas ,
they' re taking just the opposite . They' re saying , we' re not going to
provide any parking at that station because the land ' s too valuable. What
we' ll do is we' ll develop a bus system that goes out from that point
because you don' t want to tie up all that land with parking lots. What
you want to put at the station is you want to put in a lot of your retail
use. All those kind of support things so that you get the people coming
I
11
II Planning Commission Meeting
February 15 , 1989 - Page 39
Iout of the transit station and you capture them at that point in time on
the way home.
IEllson : Yes , pick up their dry cleaning on the way home from work.
I Hanson: Exactly. And if you look at some of those areas back there that
are just starting now, they' re doing some unbelieveable redevelopment .
Wildermuth: Who are they doing that for? Are they doing that for people
I or are they doing that for the developers and the retailers? I ' ll tell
you, after I got off the el in Chicago, the last damn thing that I wanted
to do was ride a bus .
IConrad : It ' s interesting but I think it ' s an issue that we should take a
little bit better look at. Again, Steve, I think we could keep you busy
for a long time. You' ve got great job security here. We can have you
I looking into a hundred- things and we' ve got to prioritize them. What
I hope we can do is take this list and maybe we' ve not finished with it
yet but to pass it up to Bill and the City Council so that they can get
I some input on those items and say no , they shouldn ' t deal with this ,
somebody else should or whatever but I would hope that would be our next
step is to take this , and then we also should prioritize and we also
I should time line this stuff too. What other issues? I cut it off but
anything else that people have?
Ellson : Is this sign ordinance thing , I remember way back when BRW was
I here talking about an overall sign theme for the city and all this stuff .
Is this part of this sign ordinance or are we looking at the size thing
and the height thing and that sort of thing? Do you guys remember when
Ithat happened last year?
Emmings : That was the central business district signage .
Ellson: Yes, that sort of thing and it sort of went away. I don' t think
anything was ever done on it . They had a nice presentation and talked
about someplace in California that had boots and these other things , you
I remember for the shoe store. It was just one of those things that I
wondered whatever happened to it . It was Carmel, that ' s where it was .
I Emmings : We told him to bring it back and show it to us and we never saw
him again.
Ellson : You' re right .
IIConrad : What are we talking about on the sign ordinance?
I Hanson: I put that on there because I ' ve seen in on one of the lists
somewhere. What was in here was review sign ordinance , partially
revolving around gas canopy signage.
IIBatzli : I thought we were going to also review. . .
Hanson: Illuminated versus non-illuminated signage.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
February 15 , 1989 - Page 40
Batzli : I thought we were going to review large industrial sites and the
size of the signs to direct them around large sites as well . ,
Conrad : The City Council , they granted the signage. We didn' t change the
ordinance.
Batzli : I thought Jim and I said that it was going to make a lot of sense
to kind of look at the size of the site because it doesn ' t make much sense
to have a 50 acre site and give them 2 signs. That was our proposal and I
don' t know that that was really something that we were going to look at or
not.
Emmings : Have you all taken in the sign down at the driving range? i
Ellson: I drive by it every morning .
Emmings: It' s just comical .
Batzli : Were we going to review the sign ordinance, as I recall , another
issue of signage came up on the temporary storage and whether they
could . . .
Ellson: Whatever happened with those guys? What 'd you say to them? I
Bill Boyt: They didn ' t get it .
Conrad : So there probably are a series of small changes to that ordinance
that we should be looking at .
Batzli : If we want to do anything about it.
Conrad: And we probably should. Signage, as you grow in downtown ,
signage becomes a real headache . More retailers , more signage and we ' ve
got to make sure that the signage ordinance is right and fair and the
right thing .
Emmings: That brings up another point too that we talk about and we talk
about it from time to time but a lot of times it' s real difficult to
anticipate. The issues that come up are never those that you thought of.
But then what we have to do is seize on that as an opportunity to revise
the ordinance. Everytime we have to think, what can we now go back and do
that will handle this for the future in a general ordinance.
Ellson: Right , storage sheds also became a hot ticket .
Batzli : Or we could go to the Napoleonic code method . ,
Bill Boyt : You mentioned storage sheds. Jo Ann a year ago did some great
work on mini-storage construction. It had all sorts of recommendations on
an ordinance and it never came back. That would be one where I think it
would be good to be out in front and she' s already done the work so maybe
it' s . . .
II
I 'Planning Commission Meeting
February 15, 1989 - Page 41
I
Ellson : I thought we closed it.
IWildermuth: That' s done .
IEmmings: We looked at that 2 or 3 times . We went over and over that.
Bill Boyt: Well maybe it' s ready but we never voted on an ordinance.
IEmmings: We had setbacks for the size of buildings and we had . . .
Ellson: Except on the lake you can do this. We thought of everything .
IBatzli : Was that our si.deyard setback? No , that was a different one .
Emmings: No, we had the rear and side yard setbacks and it depended on if
I it was one of these small tin buildings or under a certain number of
square feet.
IEllson : I was under the impression that we were done writing that .
Conrad: I think we are.
IEmmings : And it had for a garage. It had a maximum size on a garage .
Bill Boyt: That came to Council and there were some questions, as I
' recall , questions about size. David had raised some things about the size
versus the lot but that' s a separate issue from the mini -warehouse .
IEmmings: You' re talking about mini-storage like. . .
Bill Boyt: Like out on TH 5.
IEmmings: I don ' t know if we did that did we?
Conrad: No, we didn' t do anything on that. That' s a signage issue. Isn' t
Ithat a signage issue, the mini-warehouse . That ' s what I thought it was .
Bill Boyt: When the mini-storage thing came to the City Council most
I recently, they wanted a sign along the side of it and that was denied .
I 'm thinking more now about the work that Jo Ann got into as to how many
of these units you'd want in one place. Some places require the caretaker
to be on site all the time. That sort of thing. We don' t have that in
Iour ordinance anywhere.
Hanson: The sign was the pylon sign?
IBill Boyt : Yes , they wanted to put it on the hill .
I Hanson: They' ve come back and submitted their signage that meets the
Code. One on the side that faces the street coming in and then there ' s
another one that runs along the side facing TH 5.
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 15 , 1989 - Page 42
Headla : You mean the one they've got painted on the building?
Hanson: No. ,
Ellson: It was going to be up in the bushes .
Hanson: The letters are 18 inches high and they run for 47 feet .
Conrad : That ' s a real strange deal . They have so much visibility there.
Headla: Well, that sign they' ve got there now has visibility.
Conrad : They' re coming back.
Hanson: No , they've submitted pursuant to what the City Code allows .
Ellson: The one they have now is a temporary. '
Conrad : Yes , and that' s plenty.
Bill Boyt : You' re saying that the City Code allows a sign of that many
square foot? 47 feet long and 18 inches high?
Conrad : If you add up to 80 feet . '
Hanson: That adds up to 80 feet .
Conrad : That stinks . That ' s just terrible.
Hanson: And I think that points up what Steve was saying is that you
don' t know the problems until something happens . I guess I look at TH 5
and to me, that would be a logical place to have a signage requirement
that applies to TH 5 that accomplishes certain things and I think what
you'd suggest, you want to identify that industrial area so if you ' re a
business out there, that ' s how you identify somebody to get to you is
you' re going to that industrial park and then once you get inside of the
park, then you look for the signage to the business . '
Conrad: They' re really abusing .
Emmings: I 've got another item that somebody brought up and I think it '
was Tim that brought it up. That was zoning subdivisions in the A-2 to
RR. I think that was another thing we were going to take a look at that
we all felt might have some attractive features . You might add that to
the list .
Batzli : Taking the 10 acre kind of lots and make them RR? ,
Ellson: Because they' re turning towards that anyway.
Emmings: I don ' t remember that much about them but I think there were a
lot of the features of the RR zoning that there' s no sense in not having
them in any subdivision.
I
I Planning Commission Meeting
February 15 , 1989 - Page 43
I
Batzli : I thought we brought that up in our discussion about contractors
I yards. We talked about rezoning certain areas RR from A-2 and those were
the areas that we talked about doing it in .
I
Emmings: I don't know. Could be. It would be unusual but it probably
should .
Conrad : That should be on the list . Okay, Steve do you see things as you
I come from a different area? What things do you think we should be
covering?
I Hanson : I ' ve been trying to look at the list and decide which things are
the most important that can be accomplished this year. I guess there' s a
couple things . Especially after having been here for a while, the one
thing that I see, what I see as the most important thing first of all is
I getting a solid set of- procedures that have to be followed with a
developer ' s packet when they come in to resolve the problem that we have
every meeting and what David suggested on the one thing is like on the
I wetland thing, how come it ' s here when they haven' t met any of the
conditions? Well , the problem is , they don ' t know what the conditions are
until the Friday before this meeting because that' s when we' ve gotten
I referral comments back. If you look at some of the other areas , and I
wasn' t sure if it was unique to Colorado or not, in looking around at some
of the cities around here it ' s not unique but typically what a lot of the
cities will do is they' ll set up what they call a design review
I committee . So what happens if you as a developer are coming in and you
want to submit plans, you come in and the city staff has a regular meeting
date for technical review of applications and they come in and they submit
I their applications. Staff goes through them. Goes through a check list .
Determines if it' s complete first of all . If it' s not complete , you give
them everything back and you say, come on back when you' ve got your
I package together . Once they've got everything that ' s required and the key
to it is being able to tell them up front what they have to do. Right now
that ' s a little difficult to do with just the way some of this stuff is
written. So the one thing is to make sure that they know what has to be
I done and they go out and they do it . I ' ve had developers come in that
have asked for that package and they say, boy we'd like to see you do it
because we hate going into a city, even though it' s a quicker process , we
I hate going in and not knowing what the problems are until the staff has
written the report to the Planning Commission. The way the design review
committee works is you come in and you have a complete submittal , you
submit the stuff . The staff is under a deadline to review those plans .
I Sit down with that applicant in two weeks. Here' s all the things we' re
looking at . Here' s how you can apply and here ' s any problems we see. You
go out and make all those changes and when you ' ve got all the changes
I made, you submit the plans and we ' ll schedule you for a meeting . The idea
is, when it comes to the Planning Commission, they' ve essentially
satisfied all the regulatory requirements and the only time that they
I wouldn' t be is if they disagree with what' s being required or if there' s
something , for example like on a conditional use where some of those items
are negotiable. Then there may be a difference of opinion but at least
what happens if you boil it down to what are the real issues that we' re
1
■ .
•
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 15 , 1989 - Page 44
talking about . That takes a little time to get the bugs worked out on
that but that' s, from my standpoint, that' s a priority because we waste a
lot of time on the applications on dealing with that as well as trying to
deal with just citizen phone calls that want to be able to do something on II
their property and being able to research that and find that, staff spends
a lot of time. The one way I see it resolving that is if we had a lot of II the land use stuff put on a computer , if it was all computerized on a data
base management system but personally I think that that' s a lot lower
priority. That' s something that would save a lot of staff time and
provide a better service for the people that are out there so they don' t
have to wait 3 or 4 days for us to go down and pull files on a PUD that
was approved in 1973 to find out if a lot, what restrictions were placed
on that. I guess the second priority that I see is getting the Comp Plan
completed. Wrapping up what' s been done and getting that done. Then,
what I see as a third priority is dealing with a lot of these issues that
we' re talking about that affect changing the codes . That ' s why I grouped
all this stuff under zoning code amendments . The contractors yards and
updating the zoning. Updating the zoning map is a minimal type of thing
but it hasn ' t been updated for almost a year and a half. There has been
some rezoning. We have a lot of little things coming up as far as zoning
amendments . Contractors yards and just to bring you up to date, we did
take that to Council last Monday. Correct me if I 'm wrong Bill but the
consensus that I heard from City Council was really kind of two pronged .
There was a portion that said, let ' s eliminate them. There was support
for that . There was a portion that said , let ' s go the mom and pop way.
My sense was that the leaning was really towards eliminating them and the
swing vote on that was do the mom and pop thing if we can put a date when
it expires . What the legal advice is is that you can ' t do that under the
conditional use permit, although there is legislation being proposed that
would allow that type of provision to be placed on it but whether that
would go through the legislature or not in a session is anybody' s guess.
My indication was to proceed basically with what the majority of the
Planning Commission had talked about .
Conrad : Should we publicize the fact that we' re doing this? Figuring out
what we should be working on for 1989 and have a public hearing or have
the opportunity for citizens to come in and say why aren' t you working on
this? Nobody will show but would that be fun to do or should we just
forget about it? We' ve never done that . Here we are, we' re scheduling
work and the citizens always come in and complain, why aren' t you doing
this and that , we can publicize the fact that we' re curious about what
they think the City should be, what type of changes to zoning and
whatever .
Headla : Shouldn' t that be up to the Council if they want to? 11
Conrad : Well , it could be . '
Batzli : I thought we were going to send our final list to the Council to
help us prioritize it anyway? Why can' t we get the public input?
Conrad : Bill , what do you think?
■
I
I Planning Commission Meeting
February 15, 1989 - Page 45
IBill Boyt : Well what I was going to encourage you to do is , Park and Rec
a couple of years ago surveyed the community for park needs . Trails was
I one of those . I ' d really like to see, building on your point , that maybe
you all could stimulate a survey. Maybe it could go out with one of the
city bills that gets sent out or maybe just a separate mailing or maybe
there'd be another way to do it . I don' t think you ' re going to get, I
I think you' re right , if you put this in the paper is an awfully nice
gesture and I 'd like to see you do it but I think you ' re looking at your
audience.
IHeadla : Let me make a suggestion then. Maybe build on that. If you
maybe would have some of these meetings over at the, you know there' s a
I place west of here that we call western Chanhassen . Maybe Planning
Commission meeting once a quarter or once a half a year should be held
there and ask the people. Maybe we should be up at the north end .
Northeast end. Maybe we should be down in Tim' s area once a year. Maybe
I you want to pick for a particular agenda but I would like to see us get
out and get to some of these areas and maybe we could get somebody to
attend .
1 Hanson : I think if you want to do something like that , what I would
suggest is that you do it not necessarily to handle our normal day to day
I element type stuff but if you had it tied into the Comprehensive Planning
effort and amendments to the rezoning so that you go out into some of
these specific areas say having almost like a workshop on issues that
would really pertain to those geographic areas of the city.
IHeadla : I was thinking like having it over at the old West Jr . High when
we were talking about that Super Value. There' s a lot of local people I
I think would have come that far . Strictly an idea . You don ' t have to
decide on it but I 'd like to do it next time. It gets some of the people
out in western Chanhassen who have never been here.
I Emmings: Going back to temporary conditional use permits like for
contractors yards . Every time that comes up, I used to ask Barbara and Jo
Ann why couldn' t we use a license instead of a temporary conditional use
I permit and no one ever answered that. I know we can ' t have temporary
conditional uses but I don' t see why if it was a matter of licensing, that
we then couldn ' t add the same kind of controls that we have under a
I conditional use but also limit the length of time the license was good
for . I don' t know if that ' s another way to reach the same end but Roger
maybe could be consulted on it .
' Hanson : That ' s a good question .
Conrad : Did we talk about , is there a noise ordinance? Are we okay on
1 noise?
Batzli : There kind of is a noise ordinance isn ' t there? It ' s the
Inuisance ordinance but there' s not a specific noise ordinance right?
Headla : I was going to bring it up but you'd tell me there ' s no way to
measure it so I decided not to bring it up again.
I
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 15, 1989 - Page 46
I
Emmings: There' s probably State laws that apply.
Bill Boyt: We have an excellent noise ordinance that got defeated . The
Public Safety Commission and staff recommended it ' s approval by the last
Council . Maybe this Council will be more. . .
Emmings : What was it to do?
Bill Boyt : It was an ordinance that defines specific actions the City
could take to control noise.
Emmings : Are there State laws on noise?
Bill Boyt: Sure.
Emmings : Did it adopt those? I
Bill Boyt: Sure.
Conrad : Steve, what I 'd like to do, when this comes back after City
Council review, I want it on the agenda where we kind of finalize
priorities and work schedules but I 'd like to make sure we get some
publicity on it so make sure that you and I are talking in advance and I
can talk to the Villager . So we can make a story out of it more than
boring work and maybe that will be our opportunity to say folks , if you
want to come in and see what we' re going to work on, anybody interested I
with a good idea might possibly show up.
Batzli : I think we have seen some people coming in and I think given the
right article and the right incentive, they might come in. For instance,
on a tree overlay and such . I recall several developments where there
were people that told us they moved out here for the trees and wetlands
and everything else and maybe if we tell them we' re going to work on some
issues, they' ll come in and present their opinion.
Conrad : Anything else? Anything else under open discussion?
Hanson: I 've got a couple of things. I was going to suggest one thing on
the agenda just from the standpoint of organization. What I have used in
other areas is, towards the end, rather than an open discussion is items
from the Commission so that if somebody has something that they want to
bring up, somebody could bring it up at the meeting but if there' s
something specific , we could also put it on the agenda so the people know.
I think it helps you if you know that there are other items that some of
the other commission members would like to talk about so you have a better
idea how long a meeting might last. Also, similarly I would have a
section for director things. Items that I might want to bring up that
aren' t , more of just a discussion thing and again , just so we have some
idea how much is really on that agenda . A couple things that I did want
to cover with you though is just, as far as some of the things that have
happened that you may not be aware of . I mentioned the contractors yards.
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
IIFebruary 15, 1989 - Page 47
IOn the Taco Shop, that was also , it had been tabled by the Planning
Commission and forwarded to Council for some direction relative to whether
II there was any interest in pursuing acquisition and City Council on Monday
did essentially authorize the City Attorney to proceed with acquisition
for that particular property. On the Ver-Sa-Til site , the industrial
II building, you may recall it' s behind the Press and it ' s about 97, 000
square feet and we also had a replat on that area . That was approved .
That was all approved at Council on Monday night. Then the other item I
wanted to bring you up to speed on just briefly is on the recycling . Jo
I Ann has been doing a lot of that and in all honesty was put somewhat on a
back burner while she' s been gone but she did come in and write some stuff
up and we had RFP put together a draft that we had sent out to contractors
I and got some input back from them and then Monday night we had that on the
Council agenda for authorization to put out the formal RFP so the
recycling can get going . We' re roughly about a month behind what we had
informed everybody that we would doing so the request for proposals on
tthat will be going out- shortly.
Conrad: That' s really a curbside pick up?
IHanson : Yes . And it will be essentially a one year demonstration to see
how that works and then there will be a recycling committee that will get
I set up to look at how we ought to handle some of the other issues related
to that in the coming years . Then the other thing I wanted to do was let
you know some idea of what your work load is looking like in the next
couple meetings. At your next meeting you ' re going to have the Eckankar
I proposal for a conditional use permit and basically it ' s a request to
build a church facility on the entire parcel . The entire 174 acres . But
there will be that item. Also one that you ' re probably intimately more
I familiar with than I am is the Ches Mar subdivision. The two lot
subdivision. That ' s coming back. I can ' t tell you that anything has been
resolved after talking with the Attorneys on both sides but from my
understanding , the one attorney is requiring the other one to go ahead and
Ipursue something so they' re pursuing something and saying we don' t have an
answer for the access question that was apparently the hang-up previously
so that will be coming back. That ' s all that ' s scheduled on that meeting
Iand I would venture to say that it will take the evening .
Conrad: Eckankar , it just depends . Are you getting calls?
IHanson : Yes . I 'm expecting that we' ll have a fairly full house .
Conrad: That could be a two hour meeting real easily.
IEmmi.ngs: I take it that people don' t want to see them build here? Is
that what the calls are?
tHanson : Yes .
Emmings : And what are the reasons that they give , just out of curi.ousity.
They just don' t want it?
Conrad : You' ll hear it . That ' s a real volatile issue .
I
•
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 15, 1989 - Page 48
Hanson : Then the March 15th meeting , the application deadline is next
Monday, Tuesday. Right now I 'm expecting we' re going to have 4 to 6
applications coming in ranging from subdivision west of the Near Mountain
area that was shown as a condominium area and they want to come back and
change it from condominiums and go to single family. It ' s the high knoll
that sits up there. I suspect that that application will come in.
There ' s another subdivision application. I 'm drawing a blank on what it
was. I believe there' s an industrial building that will be coming in.
I know there' s 2 or 3 other things that I ' ve talked with people and
whether they can get their information together or not, those will be
coming in . The other thing Planning Commission ought to be aware of is ,
I 've taken the stand with the applicants and tried to be consistent on
this in the last , basically the last month, when the applications have
come i.n, I ' ve tried to go through and do a review of whether they' ve had
everything . If they haven' t had everything that ' s required in the
regulations as near as- I could tell, I 've taken their packets , sent them a
letter and said it ' s incomplete and I wished them along . That has
happened on the Eckankar proposal . Initially it would have been on
tonight . I ' ve tried to be fairly consistent with that and I ' ve tried to
be very conservative. Just so you ' re aware of that so if you' re getting
phone calls, you know why.
Conrad : As long as it' s reasonable. Obviously it makes sense to us . '
You' ve got to have the information. Likewise, we need the information too
from the referral agencies and what have you so we need that.
Hanson: I just wanted to bring that up because there has been probably 3
applications that I ' ve given back and one of them decided not to go ahead ,
which was at least for the time being. I think part of it was they
realized they just didn' t have everything and some other problems and it ' s
a conditional use. It' s a cold storage down on TH 212 and TH 169 coming
back for the second building . So that has backed off. The Admiral Waste
will be coming up to Council on the 27th for their extension request .
Conrad : On the Near Mountain , when we change the phases that we
pre-approved, I think you' ve got to give us some rationale for allowing a
change. We negotiated with them 6-7 years ago the whole subdivision, PUD
whatever it is. Was it a PUD? And part of that was negotiating the hill
into high density or clustered to save the hill . You' ve got to help us as
they come back wanting to go lower density, residential but yet destroying
more of the hill .
Hanson: That ' s what I asked them when they were in and they had the '
proposal . I basically told them the issue that I saw, reducing the
density is one thing and maybe that appeals to the neighbors but I don' t
know but I would venture to say that based on the plans that I saw before,
for what' s out there, you' re going to have a larger impact as far as
actual impact on the site itself because there' s going to be some heavy
duty grading on it.
Conrad : The neighbors will be hostile. Guaranteed because they worked
real hard to kind of preserve some of that area . It didn' t matter how
111
I
Planning I Commission Meeting
February 15 , 1989 - Page 49
Imany people were there as long as you preserve the area . That was rather
important so it will be interesting .
Batzli moved , Wildermuth seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in
Ifavor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10: 35 p.m. .
Submitted by Steve Hanson
IPlanning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION v
REGULAR MEETING
' FEBRUARY 14 , 1989
Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m. .
' MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Mady, Sue Boyt , Larry Schroers, Curt Robinson, Carol
Watson, and Ed Hasak
STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Todd Hoffman, Scott Harri. and Mark Koegler
' APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Robinson moved, Schroers seconded to approve the
Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated January 24 ,
1989 meeting as presented and the Minutes of the Park and Recreation
I , Commission Meeting dated January 31, 1989 with the correction on page 23
by Sue Boyt to change the word "numbers" to "members" . All voted in favor
- except Carol Watson who abstained from the January 31, 1989 meeting.
REVIEW POTENTIAL PARKLAND ALTERNATIVES IN THE PHEASANT HILLS/LAKE LUCY
HIGHLANDS AREA.
' Sietsema: As you may recall , we' ve been discussing the Carrico site as
potential parkland property in response to requests for parkland
'
acquisition in that area by the residents . It is a park deficient area .
Before moving ahead and going out and negotiating with the Carricos to
purchase their property, we thought that it would be a good idea to look
at the entire area and vacant pieces of property to see what ' s out there
and what would best serve our parkland needs. Mark Koegler is here to go
over what he has found .
Mark Koegler : I think most of you recall that the 1980 Comprehensive Plan
' that identified areas in the northern portion of Chanhassen that were
deficient in terms of neighborhood parks . The standard that ' s called for
in the Comprehensive Plan is essentially a half mile service radius which
is what these arcs portray. At the time the 1980 plan was put together ,
Herman Field was in existence as a city owned parcel as it is today and
the junior high was used for summer recreational facili ties . Since that
time, as you' re well aware, Curry Farms has been added as another park as
IF another park which like Herman Field is presently undeveloped. It has the
potential to service a portion of that northern area that presently had
been deficient. That area being between essentially CR 117 and CR 17 on
the east and along Lake Lucy Road. The charge then when the Carrico
project came in and there was public comment about the deficiency of the
neighborhood park facility, was to take a look at that area objectively =�
and determine if there were sites that may be suitable to provide that .
Looking at the area, looking at aerials and discussing it with staff ,
basically we formulated six alternative sites , A through F that are called
out in that exhibit. I ' ll just run through maybe some pluses and minuses
very quickly on each of those. Site A, which is south of Lake Lucy Road
and immediately east of CR 117 is about 12 acres of property. It is
'
relatively available from the best knowledge that we can find . It' s a
large enough piece, 12 acres so that it can accomodate normal neighborhood
park facilities . It will require some grading however . The site has a
drainage area that comes through it and the farmstead sits high on the
I
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 2
knoll . The negative side of that particular site is that g i.ven it ' s
distance from some of the existing residential units , it really serves
only about half the population that needs parkland within that half mile
radius. Another slight problem for that particular property is being on
the south side of Lake Lucy Road . Obviously the population is on the
north and does require a crossing somewhere of Lake Lucy Road which
ultimately in this city will be a fairly busy street . Site B that was
looked at is about 7 acres . Like site A is on the south side of Lake Lucy
Road . It was suitable in size at that 7 acre number . However , the area
contains quite a bit of lowland and really is not sufficient for
neighborhood park purposes. It also would serve only a portion of the
deficient area. I think we noted in the letter report that if the City
was ever looking for access on Lake Lucy, that may be a suitable site,
where it' s not suitable for a neighborhood park.
Resident : Are these sites labeled up here?
Mark Koegler : Yes, they are. Alright, I ' ll run through it. A is right
here. B. C is up in here. It ' s this cross hatched area here. D is
immediately east of there. E is this lined piece over here on Yosemite.
F is north of a portion of the Pheasant Hill development right now. Those
are the 6 that we reviewed. Site C on that exhibit which is the Carrico
piece, again is right at 12 acres , plus or minus . It is suitable in size
and topography and will require a minor amount, moderal amount of grading
to accommodate , particularly a ball diamond , a neighborhood type ball
diamond facility. It is very centrally located and does service the
neighborhood that is in need of parkland at the present time. It also,
given the street right-of-way that' s platted in there, provides a good
walking access to the park.
Resident: How much property is it?
Mark Koegler : About 12 acres . I think it' s 11. 8 if I remember exactly.
A portion of that is lowland. I 'm sure you' re aware along the extension
of Lake Lucy Road which is known as Lake Lucy Lane I believe, there is a
significant lowland down in that area that is basically wet. Site D is
east of that, that I highlighted on the map a moment ago. It ' s a much
smaller piece. It' s 3 1/2 acres. It does have suitable topography but
the size would be a constraint to developing the normal types of
facilities than having enough open space that typically the city has tried
to place in neighborhood parks . Site E is east of Yosemite. It ' s a
somehwat low area that' s surrounded by wooded hillsides . We have some
concerns just with soil and drainage in the area that it would be costly 11
to develop as a neighborhood park. It would potentially be feasibile.
The site is large enough. The final site that we reviewed was Site F.
Again, it' s about 5 acres and that' s the one that I referenced being
immediately north and a part of Pheasant Hills . It ' s suitably sized .
However, this one I think potentially has the most drainage problems of
any on the site . It ' s a very low area and it ' s one that accepts drainage
from literally all of the surrounding properties. Of the sites that we '
looked at , realistically, there are only two that should be considered for
serious possibilities as neighborhood parks and that' s Site A and C. A
again being the one south of Lake Lucy Road and C being the Carrico
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 3
property. In looking at location criteria , potentially developabi.lity, if
you will , of the two sites, we think C has the edge. It' s centrally
' located , as I indicated . We did a very rough grading schematic to see
what would fit on the site and could easily will accommodate a 250 foot or
so ball diamond and a couple of tennis courts , a small parking lot , if it
was desired off of Lake Lucy Lane, normal picnicing, trails , things of
that nature. So our recommendation will be that the Park Commission
endorse parcel C for potential acquisition as a neighborhood park.
Schroers : Since C and D abut up to each other , would it be suitable to
put those two together?
' Mark Koegler : A portion of D has an occupied single family residence on
it. That ' s not true of C. It is true of some of the other parcels. A I
think is the only other one that has a residence on it at the present
time. That 12 acres and with the amount of open space that' s there, I
think C in and of it ' s own is certainly adequate to provide neighborhood
park facilities that would service that area . So I don' t think that 3 1/2
acres would really be a benefit .
Robinson: I don' t understand . I ' ve got a question for Lori . In your
memo Lori , I don' t understand because it says, if the Commission agrees
with these findings . The City Attorney and staff should be directed to
negotiate with Carricos and, failing to do so, enter into condemnation
proceedings . What do you mean by condemnation proceedings?
' Sietsema: If we want the Carrico property and we can' t come to terms as
far as a price for that property, agree on a price, then we would go
through condemnation and the courts would decide the price of what we
would have to pay for that . The City has the ability to condemn property
for parkland .
' Robinson : Condemn at a determined price?
Sietsema: We still have to pay for it if we condemn it but the courts
then decide what that property is worth. Isn ' t that your understanding?
IMark Koegler: Yes . There are. . .done by both sides in that situation.
Ultimately it goes down to a panel of 3 and then it ' s determined out.
' Mady: Mark. . . , is that the Nye property?
IMark Koegler : Yes it is .
Mady: I ' ve had two different phone conversations with Tom Nye over the
past two weeks . He' s interested in having the city look at his property.
' He ' s also said, if we don' t want the Carrico property, decide we can ' t get
it together on the property, he would be interested in talking to us
about his property. He claims he has . . .acres but he will only give us
' 3 . 6.
Mark Koegler : In looking at that particular piece , we made some
generalized assumptions as to where the house sits now and what you might
I
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 4 II
be able to detach. If you found out , if he ' s got 8 acres , a parcel of 5 II
is not unreasonable.
IIRobinson: When we discussed this before , weren' t we talking in the 5 acre
range that we would need at the minimum?
Si.etsema: Minimum.
I
Robinson: Do you know of the site C, 11. 7 acres , how much is not
wetlands?
I
Mark Koegler : I 'm going to have to take an educated guess and I think
it' s in the neighborhood of 7 1/2 - 8 acres is clearly high and dry, if
II
you will . There' s probably a certain percentage of that that ' s
questionable and then a larger percentage of what' s left that ' s actually
wet . The one copy of the City' s wetland map that we have, does not II designate that property as a city wetland but I can assure you it' s very
wet.
Mady: That ' s the southwest corner of the property?
II
Mark Koegler: Yes. The drainage course kind of comes around that
exception property where the letter C is that is owned by a gentleman
I
named Mr. Hughes. There' s a drainageways that come around through there
and picks up drainage all the way up from the Nye property. From there ,
it comes down through there also.
IIBoyt : Since it' s not designated as a wetland , we could grade to fill in
some of that wet area with special permits?
Mark Koegler : Presumably so. Now it may subsequently have been I
designated on a newer version of a map. I think the potential is there
and what would enhance that wetland and possibly open up some water in II some of that lower area to where it is seasonally wet right now. Those
are the kinds of things that we ultimately look at if it was acquired and
we had been looking at plan options .
Mady: I 'd like to ask anyone that ' s in the audience to address any I
concerns or questions, comments, to please come the podium. State your
name and your address and let us know what you have to say.
I
Mary Cordell : My name is Mary Cordell and I live at 1730 Lake Lucy Lane.
I 've been coming to a lot of these meetings about the park plan and I 'm a
real supporter of getting some parkland in the area. I think the Carrico
property is an excellent choice. I 'm concerned about the other choices
that would be directly on Lake Lucy Road which is going to be a very busy,
and once it goes through to TH 41, if that does happen, it will become
II
increasingly busy so I think the access off of Lake Lucy Lane which is a
very low traffic area , would be good for the neighborhood . Also , there
would be access across land for Pheasant Hill too so I think the I
walkability to the park is a great asset . Also the size of it. I think
we should get as large of a parcel as we can for the area because these
large parcels are disappearing very quickly with all the development . I 'm
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 5
very strongly in favor of this . Particularly this parcel . . .
' Boyt: Mary, since you brought up Lake Lucy Road. I don ' t know if you
attended the Council meeting last night but they discussed taking the
trails off of 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 or if you agree with it . They' ll be discussing it
again in two weeks .
' Tom Steinkamp: Taking the trail off?
Boyt : Yes , and changing it to, a parking area.
' Steinkamp: Who would want to park along Lake Lucy Road?
' Boyt : The people who live on Lake Lucy Road .
Steinkamp: They all have half mile driveways.
' Mark Cordell : They' re talking about putting the bike trails up on top of
where they' re putting the water lines . Having a bike trail off the road
which I think would be an advantage because most people don' t ride on bike
' trails .
Boyt : I don ' t think that was the consensus of the Council that they would
take off the on road and put an off road. I think just take it off
I was it. I think it would be helpful to talk to them because any park
that goes into this area is going to be accessed by Lake Lucy Road and
it' s going to be pretty dangerous if there ' s no trail out there .
Sietsema: The Council ' s trying to be very receptive to what the residents
of the City want and there are people that have come that have expressed a
' need to park on the road and not necessarily a need for the trail . They
need to hear if there is a need for a trail . If you then you
should probably let them know.
' Hasek: I think it would also be helpful , our Minutes are verbatim too so
if you do have a comment on that, now wouldn' t be a bad time to get it
into the record .
' Resident: . . .parking along side the road?
' Boyt: No, they' re talking about taking it off both sides .
Mady: The problem, the way trail is , because it ' s on road , you can not
have a bike trail with bike traffic going the opposite direction of the
' car traffic . Bikes have to travel the same direction as traffic so you
can not just move the trail to just one side of the street legally. We
can ' t do that.
' Watson: Unless it' s off .
Mady: Unless it' s off road .
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 6
Schroers : I would like to officially comment on that. That is currently
my jogging route and I don' t want to jog in traffic. I definitely want a
trail on the side of Lake Lucy.
Sietsema: You' re right . There was talk about putting an off street trail
on top of the trunk watermain and that is an option and then they could
have had off street trail with an on street trail on the north side for
bikes and then parking on the south side. But the City Council has not
heard that there' s a need for a trail there at all . The people that have
lived, that have been coming to the meetings have expressed that there is
no need . The people aren' t using it and there isn ' t a need for a trail so
if your views are different than that, they need to hear that because they II
want to be responsive to the residents .
Tom Steinkamp: Someone should go out there on an evening in the summer
and look at all the poeple -walking up and down that road . I guess I 'd
better make some formal comments rather than sitting back there. First of
all , as far as the parkland is concerned .
Mady: Who are you? '
Tom Steinkamp: Tom Steinkamp. 1771 Pheasant Circle. First of all , as
far as the parkland is concerned, I guess I would most favor, or mostly C,
the Carrico property as well . I think A might be a good piece of property
for parkland but I think it ' s kind of out of the area where I 'm concerned
about and I think if you look at it , just look at the population of the
area, it looks like most of it quite a bit farther north and closer to C
so I would favor C. I know that you mentioned , just skimmed over it but I
think that there is a legitimate access from, is it Wood Duck that' s into
that Carrico property so as that gets developed more , so we wouldn ' t have
a problem with people cutting through people' s yard as those homes get
built in there. In talking about the trail along Lake Lucy Road , I guess II I would strongly object to removing the trail . I guess if we were looking
at an alternative for a trail along Lake Lucy Road , I 'd be interested in
hearing what that is but abolish a trail on Lake Lucy Road to me would be
foolish. That road was 15 feet wide 2 years ago and nobody could park on
it. Why all of a sudden do people need to park on it now? I don' t
understand . That it ' s a nice wide road . You go out there in the evening
in the summertime and you meet dozens of people along Lake Lucy Road. As
Curry Farms gets built up later this fall , we saw more and more people
walking on Lake Lucy Road. I know my wife walks to CR 17 every night on
Lake Lucy Road so I think that it ' s important to keep a trail of some sort .'
there on Lake Lucy Road. If it' s acceptable, if there' s the possibility
of putting it off the road , that 'd be fine with me but to abolish it or
get rid of it completely, I 'd be strongly against that.
Hasek : Is it safe to say that your neighbors would be strongly against
it?
Tom Steinkamp: Oh yes . They' ll hear about it . '
I
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 7
Hasek : If you can ' t make it to these meetings , you can contact Council by
letter too. Or the City or phone.
' Tom Steinkamp: Has there been ongoing talk about this?
' Mady: They discussed it at the meeting last night . There was a motion
made to have it come back to Park and Rec for review and Council voted
against having the Park and Rec Commission review it. They thought they
could handle it on their own at the Council meetings. I believe it' s a
very important issue that I think you need to . . .
Si.etsema: This is the second time it ' s been discussed at the Council
' level . Last night was. It was brought up and they discussed it so this
is the second discussion of it.
Mady: Actually, we' re not even supposed to be discussing it tonight .
That was the impression I got from the Council but it' s important
enough. . .
Hasek: We are the Commission and I don ' t think that unless Council shows
up here that they can really tell us what we can and can not talk about as
long as it' s related to Park and Recreation.
Tom Steinkamp: I would think that it should be you the ones talking about
it instead of them.
' Joe Schimml : I 'm Joe Schimml , 1751 Pheasant Circle and located right
here. I will heartily agree with, I chose C as the option for the park is
concerned . I think it ' s necessary, it has to be where the people are and
just in Pheasant Hill , right here, there are 87 lots . If you look at the
families out there, there are probably 2. 4 or 2. 8 kids per family.
' Boyt: Little kids too.
Joe Schimml : Little kids. Our youngest is 23 so I don ' t care if there ' s
a park there or not but I think it ' s important for the neighbors to have a
' park there. On the Lake Lucy Road , I can ' t imagine sound judgment going
into taking both of the paths off. If there' s an alternative to putting
them on the side of the road , I can see that but it is basically going to
get busier isn' t it so certainly I 'd like to go on record as saying we do
need , at the least , a trail along Lake Lucy Road .
' Tom Steinkamp: The traffic gets going pretty good now that you ' ve made
that nice road . The traffic gets going pretty quick on that road too. I
think it' s important to have something set aside for people for that
reason too because it would be quite dangerous without it.
Boyt: Well , and as the park at Curry Farms is developed too. . .park area .
t Mady: One of the things I tried to bring to the attention of the Council
last night in the discussion, the residents who were in attendance
indicated there was a lot of traffic there and I mentioned to the Council
that as we are developing Curry Farms park in the next couple years ,
■
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 8
I informed them that the Commission is aggresively seeking parkland in the
Pheasant Hills area. That we now have reasons for people going from one
end of Lake Lucy Road to the other end . Those things there, people start
to move and there isn' t anything there right now does not mean 5 years
from now it' s not going to be a great need . We need to keep the future in
mind when we do these things. We can' t just do what 's politically II expediate today and find out that we made a big mistake 2-3 years down the
road. Anything that we can do to help condemn it , just let us know.
Hasek : I think one other thing about the trail that is currently placed 1
along Lake Lucy Road is that it' s not only there for the people that abut
the property and use it from the park to wherever . It ' s part of a much
larger system that' s actually put in place and was thought about being in II place for once again, all the residents of the city as opposed to just the
people that abut the property and that' s a concern often time forgotten .
I think it' s important that it' s kept in mind . This body is here to
represent all of the people of the City, not just the abutting property
owners .
Tom Steinkamp: When I looked at your trail system that was voted on at
the last referendum, that' s one thing I looked at. How do I sit in on
this whole trail program? If the trails are all going to be on the other
side of the City, well I 'm not going to vote for it but it looked to me
like you people did a good job of getting trails throughout the city and
part of that trail is that trail on Lake Lucy and how does that connect me
now to Lake Ann? I looked and I specifically looked and I can ride a bike
on a trail from my house to Lake Ann once the trail system gets in and
that ' s one of the reasons I voted for the trail system. Not you ' re taking
away that link if they do indeed do that.
Boyt : And it is a link. It' s part of the whole system. It' s not just
one road.
•
Mary Cordell : I just want to add too . I didn ' t really comment on the I
trail system when it was up there but . . .
Mady: You are who again? '
Mary Cordell : Mary Cordell and I live on Lake Lucy Lane but our property
is also on Lake Lucy Road. To me personally the parking is not an issue
but I definitely would be in favor of an off street bike path because I
think it would be safer. The road is getting so busy that I probably
won' t let my kids bike on there until they' re 12. I don' t know. Which is .'
10 years from now. I would definitely favor putting in an off street
walking , biking trail , whatever , but I would not want to see the trail
abolished by any means . If it has to stay on street, I guess on street is
okay although I do notice that a lot of the bikers don' t really bike in
the trail because of the gravel runoff and that they bike in the road .
Sietsema: That should be slowing down once construction slows down in
that area too.
11
■
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 9
Mary Cordell : Yes , but if it was off street , that 'd be nice. We moved
here from Minneapolis and the bike trail system around the lakes and that
was wonderful and very safe.
Mady: I ' ll defend Don at this point because Don you' ll at least be able
to keep it for the next two weeks without Don ' s help it wouldn' t even have
been there.
Hasek : Keep it? What do you mean?
' Mady: Remove it last night.
Hasek: Somebody made that motion?
Mady: Ursula .
Hasek: You may want to write a letter or contact Ursula too .
Mady: It' s still there. Don' s got some ideas on how we can keep it there
so thank you both .
Tom Steinkamp: You mean without any notice to any of the concerned
' people, I can come in here and speak my piece and if I put on a good
enough speech, I can get something passed without somebody taking a look
at it?
Boyt : Not at this level . We just recommend . I don' t know about the
Council .
Tom Steinkamp: But that ' s what happened at City Council last night .
Boyt: Almost.
Mady: Any other comments on the Carrico property? Lori , have you gotten
any indications from Carrico' s what their estimate of the park is going to
be?
Sietsema: Their appraisal is not completed because their appraiser has
been ill . He had some preliminary numbers . I was supposed to meet with
him today and I was ill but what he said is he was willing to sell to the
City but not for a mere $55, 000. 00. He felt the property was worth
$225, 000. 00 and he has a purchase agreement to that affect and that ' s how
much he would be asking for the property so I have a hunch that ' s based
definitely on water and sewer being available to the property. He can not
get, the way I understand it , he can not get water and sewer without the
support of the City and if the City should decide that they want the
property, I don ' t see us supporting him pursuing water and sewer . Getting
approval from the Met Council . Therefore, the property would be worth as
a rural piece. I don' t know if he would ever agree to that. That' s where
the Attorney comes in and negotiations start and if we can' t come to
terms , then we'd have to go through the condemnation process .
Mady: Is there any other discussion?
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14, 1989 - Page 10
Robinson: Do we need the whole 11.7 acres?
Boyt : Yes . Because we don' t have chances in that area to get large
pieces . . .
Mady: It' s always nice to start as big as you can and get half the work
down if we have an option. But if you start at the minimal . . .
Sietsema: The bottom line is, if we were going to take a minimum of 5 '
acres, we' re not going to take the wetland part because we want active
parkland and if they can' t build on it , we can ' t build on it. Therefore,
he'd only have 2 acres left of buildable property and I don' t know how
they' d work around that .
Hasek: . . .positive response to area A.
Boyt : It' s rather removed from where most of the people live. Most of
the lots around it are large lots. You also would have to cross Lake Lucy
Road to get there. '
Watson: And there is a single family residence on it.
Boyt: It would have to take a lot of grading . 1
Schroers : I 'd like to move that we recommend to Council to pursue
acquisition of Site C as a neighborhood park in the Pheasant Hills area to
serve growing Chanhassen .
Hasek: Second . '
Boyt : Does it have to be recommended to Council or do we direct staff to
enter into negotiations?
Sietsema: I 'm not sure.
Boyt : In your recommendation here it says , we recommend that if the '
budget has to be amended.
Sietsema: I think it would be wise to take it to Council now because it ' s
going to ultimately have to go to them and why spend the money on legal
fees without their consent .
Hasek : We' ve gone through the hassle of having Mark take a look at this . + '
Do we have a reasonable alternative is C just turns out to be. . .
Boyt : A is our next alternative. I
Hasek: Do we want to stick that into a form of a recommendation?
Mady: I don' t believe so. If the Carrico property were to just i
disappear , it just wasn' t feasible in any way, shape or form, then I think
we would want to maybe redo it .
111
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 11
Hasek : That could be stated in the motion .
' Tom Steinkamp: I think we as residents would want to know if plans
change . I wouldn' t want you to put C first , A second and go on to A
' without us knowing about it.
Mady: From my standpoint , C is the clear choice . I don' t have a second
choice at this point. There' s not a second choice here.
Tom Steinkamp: Does anybody have a wild guess as to what kind of time
frame we' re looking at?
Sietsema: If we have to go through condemnation, it could be a while.
' Tom Steinkamp: 5 years?
Sietsema: No , I wouldn ' t think that long but it could be substantially a
year to 2.
Tom Steinkamp: I guess that brings me to the next comment. At the first
meeting we had there was some talk about putting a totlot or something
' maybe for the time being kind of thing . I think it ' s fairly important to
have parkland but is there any possibility for one of those outlots, I
think there ' s really only one that ' s got any possibility on it and you
' people have to actually take a look at that and see, to put a small totlot
on that lot . Playbox , swingset , something like that. There ' s dozens of
kids in here that are under the age of 5 and they' re all in the street
right now.
Mady: We looked specifically at the lot that Tom Klingelhutz had
mentioned and it' s got an awful steep back drop and it can' t be more than,
' I don' t know, if I remember right , maybe 8 feet wide.
Boyt: Doesn' t it back up to a wetland?
Mady: It ' s steep. It ' s a real steep drop and it ' s right on the street . . .
Tom Steinkamp: But that goes all the way around to that house that' s
' there and that ' s 150 feet deep at that point . It ' s . . . steep as it goes
towards that house. It backs up all the way against, right there. See,
on the south end of that , that south end . That south end has got to be
1 100 feet deep. It' s as deep as that lot is where that house is sitting
on.
Sietsema : The other thing to consider on that is that we do not have
ownership of those outlots . It was not a stipulation of the development
contract that they deed those outlots , although there was discussion that
they would do that. The owners, the developers did not do that. There
1 are taxes owed on it. We can not acquire it until the back taxes are
paid. They' re not paying, I don' t know if they' re going to pay the taxes
but one way that we can acquire them in the future is through tax
forfeiture because they haven' t been paid for the last two years .
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting 11 February 14 , 1989 - Page 12
11
Tom Steinkamp : Is there any recourse you could take on other property as
far as taxes are concerned? Taxes on the property that haven ' t been paid
for?
Sietsema: I don' t believe so . It' s really a County, I don' t think so .
Not that the City has that I 'm aware of but I think that it' s Outlot C
that will be going up for tax forfeiture next year if taxes are not paid
by that time so that would be available in 1990. Then the other two
would be available in 1992.
Hasek : What is our position on collecting lots like that? I know that
eventually they go up for bid but if a government body, we get it first? ,
Sietsema: We get it first .
Hasek : That might not be a dumb thing to do in the interim. Take a
little closer look at it and see if it is possible and if it makes some
sense .
Tom Steinkamp: They' re playing in my yard now and that ' s great, I don' t
have any problem with that because I ' ve got kids of my own. I like them
to pay in my yard but that lot' s bigger than my yard , the part that
they' re playing in, so I think that it' s feasible. Granted on the north
side of there it gets pretty steep and I think if it was just graded a
little differently, you could knock some of that out of there. In other
words , right now it goes from the back of the lot towards the street. If
you sloped it the other way, went from the street to the ponding area ,
you'd cut a lot of that hill out, number one, and number two, you 'd make
it deeper because there ' s quite a bit of room once you go drop off the
bank. There' s still quite a bit of room to where the barrier , the erosion
barrier was put in to protect the wetlands so I think there ' s some room
there even after the dropoff if it was regraded a little bit.
Boyt : One of the things we discussed , it was a while ago, that there are
a limited number of dollars to be spent in this area and would it be
better to put them into acquiring a decent piece of property or making do
with a small piece. I think what we'd do if we decided we wanted to look
for the best we can provide for your neighborhood.
Tom Steinkamp: And we appreciate that. My only concern is that, if you
go into condemnation with Carricos , you and I all know that it ' s more than
2 years . 4'
Boyt : Another alternative is for your neighborhood to get together and
acquire that piece of property as an Association piece of property and
develop it yourselves . I don ' t think we have the dollars to put into I
that.
Mady: That' s the problem we have is just the limited number of dollars we
have to spend because we don' t get any dollars from the property taxes . It
comes straight from development fees .
i
■
i
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 13
Tom Steinkamp: If you guys can get ownership of it , I can g et it
regraded. I ' ll grade it .
' Boyt : That ' s important to know.
' Tom Steinkamp: And we' re not looking for any major . . .
Boyt : But grading is normally a big expense.
Tom Steinkamp: Well , I ' ll do the grading for you .
Mady: Thank you very much for your help tonight . We really appreciate
it. It makes our job a lot easier when we get good assistance.
Mary Cordell : When will this be put before the City Council then? Is
that in two weeks or is that a longer process?
Sietsema: I ' ll try to schedule it for the next two weeks . I ' ll
definitely notify you before that meeting. If the next agenda is too
full , it will go to the following but it should be able to go within the
next two weeks. I ' ll let you know.
' Hasek: I have a quick question and I know there ' s been some discussion on
the trail on Lake Lucy Road tonight. What is the City' s policy regarding
that? I know that a developer has an obligation to let people within x
number of feet know that they are doing something. If the City has a
project going on such as installation or removal of this trail , are they
obligated to notify people within x number of feet of that project as well
or not?
' Sietsema: I don' t think legally we are. Do you know Mark?
' Mark Koegler : To the best of my knowledge, it' s not an item that State
Statutue requires any kind of public hearing process at all .
Hasek: Even though it impacts more than just the people that abut the
property? The people that are here voicing an opinion?
Mark Koegler : It' s really a regulatory function of changing signage and
'
striping . Yes , you take the trail off but really you ' re just changing the
parameters of the road. That ' s not subject to public hearing as far as I
know.
Hasek: How would it be if a park were being sold for development . . .
Mark Koegler: That action has to be approved by a judicial body in order
to platting park property. . .
Hasek: . . .platted trail separate from the road and outside of the
' right-of-way or within an easement, then there notification would be going
out but because it' s within the right-of-way, it doesn ' t have to be done?
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14, 1989 - Page 14
Mark Koegler : If it was platted , I would agree it would have to be. If
it 's an easement situation, I 'm not too sure what. If that sheds a
different light on it or not . When you have a platted piece of park
property, it can be reverted back to private purposes but it' s a legal
process .
Hasek : If you have an easement and you' re not using it for the purpose '
that the easement was acquired, do you give up the right of that easement
at that point?
Mark Koegler : I 'm not certain.
Hasek : It seems a little short sighted on the City' s part as far as I 'm
concerned to take an action like that without all of the affected property
owners or users knowing what' s going on and I think if the policy isn ' t in
place, then perhaps the Planning Commission or Council should get together
and put something down to do that . If the intent is to listen the
abutting property owners , then I think all of the people that show up or
are impacted by that ought to be notified that it ' s happening before hand
so that they can have equal input. It' s just a suggestion of course. ,
Schroers moved , Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission to
recommend to pursue acquisition of Site C, the Carrico property, as a
neighborhood park in the Pheasant Hills area to serve growing Chanhassen.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
FINAL REVIEW OF THE SIDEWALK PLANS ALONG CARVER BEACH ROAD.
Scott Harri : I don ' t know if you all remember, I was here December 13th 1
and we presented kind of I guess "final design" for the trail system.
After some very good interaction discussion with a fairly active group of
neighbors on Carver Beach Road , we kind of threw the ball back in their
court and I had roughly sketched out for them a trail system along the
north side of Carver Beach Road with a few notes on the plan which
illustrated the types of features and tree removal and mailbox
adjustments , etc . etc . so they could make some contact with their
neighbors. I guess following 6 to 8 weeks of throwing the ball in their
court , Lori was informed that they didn ' t meet with a lot of success in
selling that trail system on the north side of the road. So pursuant to
your recommendations at the December 13th meeting there have been one
modifications made then to the trail system on Carver Beach Road. That
would be to extend the trail from, if you recall , we were proposing a
crossing of Carver Beach Road . . .and we would be eliminating that crossing ,
extending the trail system all the way up to Nez Perce where there exists
now a four way controlled intersection creating a more formalized
crosswalk at that location. Remodeling the fencing at the park to allow
for a more attractive and inviting entrance to the park at that point and
doing some fence work way on the west end of the park to discourage the
people from crossing Carver Beach and going across private property. So
those were the modifications we had yet to I guess implement them in the
form of a drawing. We will do that if that is your pleasure before we
I
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 15
take these plans for the Council ' s authorizing bids and accept the plans
and things. In conjunction with this , I guess one of the items that has
' not been hit head on directly, we ' ve been throwing out some cost numbers
and I 'm sure with the overall trail system plan, you had some perception
of cost , numbers and other things . While I ran out a cost estimate for
this portion of the trail system which I guess included both the Laredo
Drive trail and Carver Beach trail as proposed plus the additional 375
feet. When I included contingency and engineer and surveying, testing ,
inspection , all those sort of factors , that the total estimated project
cost was just shy of $83, 000. 00. $82, 950. 00. I don' t think it would be
our recommendation, because it makes a lot of sense to carry the trail all
the way to Nez Perce but I think if we didn' t build that last 375 feet ,
that there would be perhaps a net savings of about $5 , 200. 00 if you didn' t
go ahead and build that last section there. It doesn' t seem like it' s
cost effective to delete that so if you have budget constraints and
' I guess we' re talking about budget .
Boyt : What was our budget for this?
' Sietsema : $25, 000. 00 for the two segments .
Mady: So tonight we need to put our heads together and find a way.
' Schroers : Your cost estimate represents also the new entrance to the park
and at Nez Perce?
Scott Harri : Yes . It includes the modification to the existing fencing
and perhaps a small type of sign there. Nothing more elaborate than that
perhaps . The extension of the trail or something . . .
' Schroers : I had a question on these signs . 9 each at $150. 00 each. What
kind of signs are they?
Scott Harri : Predominantly they are pedestrian warning signs and
pedestrian crosswalk signs. Because we have a four-way intersection, in
my recommendation that we sign both the intersection from all four ways
coming to it plus an advance warning sign that would alert traffic. So
that would be 2 signs from each leg of the intersection plus one speed
limit sign that I would recommend that we put up just west of the Nez
Perce intersection on Carver Beach Road so that would be the total of 9
signs.
' Schroers : And those signs cost $150 . 00 each?
Scott Harri : To get them made, installed and everything. Again, these
are budget numbers . We would be hopeful that the low bid contractor would
bid a little bit better on the price for these but these are in general
what it would cost .
' Mady: Also our option would be to have city staff install the signs .
Scott Harri. : Could have them installed. These signs could be included as
a part of a major sign purchase that the city would make to signing other
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 16
streets in new developments is another factor . So yes there is some scale
of economy that you can get on some of these things .
Mady: If I recall from our December meeting , some of the things that were
going into the sidewalk cost included repair and some sewers, street
sewer , drainage areas , curbing . I 'm wondering if maybe there' s any room 11 in the City' s street maintenance budget to pick up some of that. We' re
putting in a sidewalk on top of a city easement . I don' t know how much we
need to be picking up the cost of fixing of State streets too out of the
park building funds. This is something I 'd like to find out about . '
Sietsema: I can find out.
Mady: I don ' t want to delay this either by doing that. It ' s just
something that, hopefully when Council reviews it , there will be an
opportunity there to see if maybe the street maintenance budget has
. . . to provide some help where we' re actually improving street and the
water drainage system.
Sietsema: It' s a possibility. '
Boyt : How many linear feet of sidewalk will there be?
Scott Harri : There' s 3,815 feet. A little over 7/l0ths of a mile. 1
Boyt : In both?
Scott Harri : In both , yes . That ' s correct .
Schroers: I don' t want to put you on the spot Lori but I don' t know
anything about how staff feels about this figure.
Sietsema: To tell you the truth, I was kind of blown away because I was
anticipating it to be much less and in talking to Scott further , the
number that we' ve been quoted before does not include the rehabilitation
of disturbed areas . The fencing . The signs . Painting the streets .
Sidewalk crosswalk area. It doesn' t include a lot of those things so
those are little pickle and dime items that have just gotten this budget
way up higher than we anticipated it to be. There is money in the trail
dedication fund . I don ' t have a firm figure on what that it is today and
we have some money that maybe we can take a closer look at our capital
improvement program and adjust that in certain areas . That may be another
option or the other thing is that we may have to spread this over , wait .,
with one section of it another year and budget it for next year .
Schroers: I guess I 'd be in favor of looking into our other options and
having it All done at once if possible. '
Sietsema: Yes, I think that' s the most economic way to go.
Robinson: Is there a most reasonable, is asphalt cheaper than concrete or
is that even acceptable?
I
I
1
' Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 17
Scott Harri : Half price. Asphalt is half price .
' Robinson: Is that a reasonable alternative or not?
Hasek : Is 63 any better than 83?
' Sietsema: I think that you'd have to ask the residents that.
Mady: We'd have to invite them back in .
Sietsema: I would say from the useability standpoint , but from somebody
who ' s got to look at it everyday, they may have a stronger feeling about
that.
Watson : What is the longevity? The survival rate of asphalt as opposed
to concrete?
Scott Harri : It would be perhaps half. Concrete would maybe last 2
times, 2 1/2 times as long.
' Sietsema : So there are some long term savings.
' Scott Harri : But again your asphalt surface can be, it ' s useful . It can
be extended quite long if it ' s routinely maintained with sealers and other
things like we would put on there. . . So how much maintenance is
' attributed to the concrete is less sensitive to maintenance. You almost
can ignore it basically. Asphalt' s a bit more sensitive so even though it
has a lower initial cost , to get good service life out of it , you need to
stick some money into it every year. Weed control . Surfacing. This sort
of thing .
Schroers : I feel that since we' ve gotten to the point here where we' ve
' had public hearings . We ' ve had the neighborhood come in. We told them
that we could put the trail in for them. I almost feel that we' ve
obligated ourself to a certain extent to get underway with this project
and get it in.
Hasek: The trick is to find a way to pay for it while not jeopardizing
other things that we' ve also promised and intended we were going to do.
Boyt : There might be some things on our CIP.
' Watson: It ' s more than 3 times the cost that we projected .
Boyt : There ' s the Minnewashta Heights park shelter for $20, 000. 00 that
maybe could be cut from this year ' s budget .
' Hasek: Those residents , one resident we' ve heard from indicated that a
park shelter may not be what we want there. They may want a half
basketball court.
Mady: What we need to do is talk with those people . We don' t need to
spend $20, 000. 00 there.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 18
Boyt : There are other areas in our budget . Water and electric .
Mady: There are some other things to look at . '
Sietsema: I think the access road to Bluff Creek is a good one .
$10,000. 00 there that. . .
Boyt : That could be put off for a year.
Sietsema: It' s questionable whether we really want it. Access road to a
drainage ditch .
Robinson : Can we address this then' at the same time we address our CIP to
see if this fits in?
Sietsema: Yes . We need di-rection to proceed with this though or not to
proceed.
Schroers : I think we maybe have someone here from the neighborhood . '
Mady: Jeff' s here for another matter . I 'm sure he 'd be willing to give
his opinion on the Carver Beach trail .
Jeff Bros: Sure. I agree with Larry. You guys have pretty much told us
that we' re going to have it this year . You ' ll have a lot of mothers
really mad at you. What you' re saying about maybe cutting back a little
or doing it in sections . I don ' t know, Larry, you know the area real
well . To save a few bucks to get started with , do you think you could
just start it at Chaparral? There isn ' t anybody coming from CR 17 . From
CR 17 to Chaparral , I don' t know how much it would get used from that
point .
Schroers : I guess I 'd rather see a portion of it go in than none at all ,
but I think when you do things in portions like that , instead of dealing
with an issue once, you end up dealing with it 2 times or 3 times and it
gets to be less cost efficient that way for sure and more expensive in the
long run so if we could figure out a way to get it in, do it right the
first time, that would definitely be my preference and I would prefer to
work towards that end like we' ve been talking about look at the capital
improvement program and seeing if we can switch some funds around there to
cover the cost that we need here .
Sietsema: Something that we may want to consider is to call the residents +'
back in here and ask them if they'd be willing to be assessed for it, for
a portion of it. Share costs . Something like that . Would they be
willing to help pay for it? I
Mady: My personal opinion that Lori is that , if we had no other way of
getting this done at our disposal and Council couldn' t find a way, then we
would have to look at that but I don ' t even want to discuss that . Me
personally, I don' t even want to discuss that at this point in time.
■
I
' Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 19
Hasek : It seems to me that the trail system isn ' t in place simply for the
abutting property owners and I 'm going to get on my soap box once again .
' It' s in place for all of the people in the city and it should be shared by
all of the people in the City as should the expenses for parks and the
accessibility of parks and trails and so forth. We' re not talking about a
stream of people that live along Carver Beach Road. We' re talking about
an overall trail system and park system and a way of life out here.
Sietsema: It was an idea. I didn ' t say it was a good idea .
' Jeff Bros : Has there been any estimates on if the trail would be cheaper
on the north side of Carver Beach? As a neighborhood we came originally
and asked for it to cross at Redwing there and then go up the north side.
Would it be cheaper to do it on the north side than the south side or is
it a wash?
Mady: It ' s 6 of one, half a dozen of the others . There ' s some trade offs
between both sides .
' Jeff Bros : Our main reason for the neighborhood , keep it on the south
side because we've got zero response from the neighborhood and the Public
Safety Department as to a stop sign at Redwing and that was our , if we
could get the stop sign, then we wanted it on the north side but it
doesn ' t look like we' re going to get that so for safety reasons, it might
as well stay on the south side. If it would be cheaper to run it on the
north side , if we get some pressure applied from you people to the Public
Safety Department . . .
Sietsema : As I've indicated before it' s not the Public Safety Department . You
have to go to the Engineering Department to ask for that stop sign.
Jeff Bros: •We' ve asked the Public Safety Department to come out and do a
speed check.
Sietsema : They did and they' re included .
Hasek: I don' t know if you' ve seen these.
' Jeff Bros : No I haven' t .
Hasek: They' ve been out there on several occasions and the ones that I
have, they' ve got speed limits , they' ve got people speeding up to 39 to 40
mph but they didn ' t issue any tickets and I guess my question is why?
Boyt: Their philosophy has been, unless it ' s 10 mph over the speed limit ,
you don' t issue a citation. Right now there are poeple asking to have
that philosophy changed on the Public Safety Commission to try. . .
Robinson : I don ' t think is a Park and Rec issue and I don ' t know why
we' re discussing it. We told the residents when they were here they'd
have to go to Public Safety so I don' t know why we were issued this
detailed report. We don' t need to see the date, the average speed and why
I
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 20
they didn' t issue a ticket or anything .
Hasek: I think it was just a matter of discussion. '
Sietsema: It was requested and that ' s why it was brought back.
Boyt: There' s one piece of information in here that to me doesn' t make
any sense at all . The average speed of all the vehicles means nothing . If
10 of them are going over 30 mph and 4 are going under , we' re concerned
with those that are going above the speed limit . Every single one of
them.
Robinson: This is not a Park and Rec issue. Can we get on? ,
Boyt: Are we going to nominate Ed for Chair?
Hasek : No, we' re not . Next week. '
Schroers : Getting more back to the subject Lori , with this cost estimate ,
how much are we over what we had originally anticipated? How much money
do we have to make up?
Boyt: $58, 000. 00.
Sietsema: We had roughly $25, 000. 00 to $30, 000 . 00 that was put aside for
this project so over and above that is what we have to come up with. That
would be about $53 , 000. 00.
Schroers: We have a third almost?
Sietsema: Right .
Robinson : Can we look possibly at cutting that? Do we need to sod that
area? There' s maybe $500. 00 worth of sod in there.
Hasek : When I looked through this , I didn' t see any of the items that
could necessarily be eliminated. If there was something put on my front
yard , knowing what the weather has been and knowing the maintenance that
it takes to get seed to grow in this community, I certainly want them to
replace what I ' ve been maintaining so I think the sod is essential . If we II
go right down through it, the only thing, the timber retaining is
necessary to hold up the dirt in order to get that trail in place.
Pedestrian pipe railing is there to keep people on the trail and avoid a _,
difficult situation.
Schroers : what is the CB? Relocate CB?
Scott Harri : Catch basins . The storm sewer . '
Schroers : Then we have two different thicknesses of sidewalks . One 4
inch and one 6?
Scott Harri : Yes . The 6 inch would be in the driveway area .
I
II
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 21
IIMady: A comment on the sodding , I think the Commission should look at
this project as the first step of our trail plan. I think it' s very, very
I important that when we put in this very first segment , that we' re doing it
right. Where it' s going to look beautiful . Have the minimum impact. I
think that ' s very, very important for us to do it right the first time so
I if it costs a couple dollars more to do it right the first time, I think
for the future of our trail plan and the future our City getting these
things , be done correctly and look well . We need to do this first one
right . I believe it ' s not going to be found in our capital improvement
I program for this year but next year do the trail things that we can get
this job done.
1 Schroers : I agree with that too. I think that we have to go with
quality. We don' t want to do half the job. We want to get it done.
I Hasek : Is this an indication of what we may be having to pay for trails
in the future if we decide -to go concrete or is this one exorbinately high
because of some inplace structures and some things that have to be done?
I Scott Harri : Concrete will always be inherently more expensive than
bituminous or asphalt trails. In this , if I were to break out the Laredo
Drive portion from Carver Beach portion, again, the Laredo Drive portion
I would be on a pure foot basis cheaper to do because there ' s simply less
obstacles and less opportunities to solve this problems. But anytime you
have a built up area where people have existing driveways and trees and
I hedges and benches, etc . , these are the sort of remodeling things that
need to get done . Part of the cost of the $15 , 435. 00 is a contingency of
almost $4 , 000. 00 for unknowns . Things that may come up during the course
of construction that weren' t reasonably predicted at the onset here .
IMark Koegler : You always have the option to structuring the bid package,
if you would so desire, that Laredo might be an Alternate A and Carver
I Beach might be an Alternate B and then you'd have an Alternate A and B so
you essentially get 3 bids so if the budget was really a critical
consideration, hopefully you could do it all , if the bids came in
favorable . . .high, you could do one segment maybe this year and one segment
I next year . I know that ' s not your desire but it may be, in reality, a
good way to proceed.
I Hasek: How much overlap in cost do you think there would be? There must
be something in moving equipment to the site and taking it back again.
How high do you think the overall cost would go if we split it into two
I pieces? Another $10, 000. 00 to $15, 000. 00 maybe? Just a shot in the dark
is better than what we know right now.
Mark Koegler : But two pieces you mean two different years?
IHasek : Let ' s say two different projects . If it went in an A and a B as
opposed to all at once.
IMark Koegler : The experience we' ve had in other municipalities recently
where it had detached projects for the same contractor has been very
little penalty at all . If we got to subsequent years where we' ve totally
II
•
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 22
got remobilization and everything , then I think your number ' s pretty good .
But I don' t know if the penalty would be that high. I can' t envision a
scenario that you would do A and B as separate projects . They need to be
one project or they'd be separated in different years .
Hasek : So then the overall cost you' re suggesting might go $10, 000. 00 or
$15,000. 00 higher if we wanted another year or two?
Schroers : What I would like to do here is I 'd like to recommend that we
approve this final design and pursue whatever necessary funding for it . '
Mady: I ' ll second that .
Hasek: Do we want to suggest the possibility at this point of sending it '
out to bids in two sections or can we just simply direct staff to do that?
I think that ' s going to be a real viable or potential option here and I
don ' t think that we should -let this go without doing that and push it back
another 2 weeks just because we failed to think about something we should
have.
Boyt : Does that need a motion Lori?
Sietsema: Yes . I
Mady: Do you want to amend your motion Larry?
Schroers: Let me just make sure that I understand what we' re saying . 1
Hasek: What we' re simply doing is trying to get staff to, instead of
sending this out as one bid package for $82, 550. 00 for the whole piece,
we' re breaking it in two pieces . The Laredo section and the Carver Beach
section. A and B so when it goes out to bid, the bidder is going to give
us a cost for A. He' s going to give us a cost for B. He' s going to give
us a cost for the whole thing. Then we' ve got our option. He' s given us
options that we can look at. If we can only come up with $50, 000. 00,
maybe one of those sections approximately meets that and we' ll get on that
right now and get that done as opposed to letting the whole project wait.
Schroers: Okay. Let me redesign my motion.
Hasek: Why don ' t you just leave it the way that it is and just add an
addendum to it. Just amend it to say. . .
Schroers : Okay, amend it to include separate bids for A, Laredo Drive and 11
B, Carver Beach .
Sietsema: And C, both . '
Schroers: And C both .
Mady: I ' ll amend my second . i
I
■
' Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 23
Schroers moved , Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to approve the final design for sidewalks along Carver Beach
' Road and Laredo Road as presented and to pursue the necessary funding .
Also, to set up the bid package to include a bid for A, Laredo Drive;
B, Carver Beach Road ; and C, both A and B combined . All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
Mady: Then we' ll discuss the funding of this project when we go through
the Capital Improvement Program discussion.
' VISITOR PRESENTATION - JOHN SEAMANS REGARDING SOFTBALL ELIGIBILITY.
Mady: I had number 6 as a visitors presentation regarding softball
eligibility. Lori indicated to me that John Seamans asked that this be
pulled off of our agenda. There are some things that I 'd like to talk
about softball eligibility. I know Jeff Bros is here from CAA to give us
some comments concerning this .
Sietsema : Jeff will be here in two weeks with the rest of the people that
are against the eligibility rule and they basically wanted to organize the
' people that were against it and why so they came together with a more
organized format I think.
Robinson : Why was this put on the agenda in the first place?
' Sietsema: Because there are people out there that wanted to appeal to you
to modify it or to change it or to delete it . To air their greviances .
' Robinson: You said there would be hundreds of them probably.
' Boyt : They' re trying to get all of them together rather than coming in
themselves so they can all come in two weeks.
Hasek : I have a quick question for you. You said we sent it to Council
have we not?
Sietsema: It doesn ' t go to Council . This is our policy that we set .
Mady: Council discussed it last night .
Hasek : What was their comment?
Mady: Well , it was just mainly Tom Workman in Council Presentation just
wanted to make the Council aware that the policy was changed and that
there has been some negative feedback already to the city staff and
various members of the commissions and what have you and to just alert
them to a very potential issue . Volatile issue.
' Schroers: I ' ve been confronted by some people personally.
11
I
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 24
Mady: I ' ve talked to a number of people . . . the youth sports coaches who
are looking at this very favorably. This is a plus .
Robinson: I guess that ' s my concern. Should we round up the people that
are in favor of this and have them make a presentation? We made the
decision. We knew it would be tough.
Sietsema: But as in all other issues, we do provide people with the
opportunity to discuss how they feel about it and how it affects them. We
may not have reviewed all of the reasons, all of the ways it can affect 11
people . For instance, it may totally dIsban the women ' s organization.
The women' s softball. Councilman Workman' s concern was that it was going
to affect the level of play in the open league . The over 35 league is
concerned because there' s people that have played there forever that are
no longer going to be able to play. They want to make sure that you have
taken into, right now it ' s viewed as a cold and heartless thing that
you' ve done without taking their feelings into consideration and their
situation and consideration. This letter has just been sent out and they
are out without a voice. I think that they've all played here in the City
and they should be able to come in and talk to us about it. It may not be I
comfortable but we should allow them that opportunity.
Robinson: That ' s true. It' s like taking away the trail on Lake Lucy Road II
without . . .
Boyt : I think what Ed said was right . That we maybe contact the youth 11 sports people as well as the adult softball because it' s not only the
adult softball people who will be affected .
Sietsema: That may help them to understand why it came to be and why we
have to bite the bullet and do something like this . There may be a
compromise out there that can soften the blow.
Boyt : We' ve already looked at a couple of different options since then .
There are some privately owned fields in Chanhassen. Two at DataSery and
one at the Legion that maybe we can do something with those .
Hasek: If we pick up the insurance on them.
Boyt : If we do some work to the fields maybe or something but there are
other options out there that we can look at.
Hasek: This is coming up in two weeks? +'
Hasek: How difficult a job would it be to take a look at rosters for
all of the teams last year? Just assuming the same people are going to
return to see how this would have impacted last year ' s teams. To take a
look and see . Now I know that there ' s a lot of people , approving it is
one thing and I know there' s a lot of people on the over 35 rosters, I
shouldn' t say a lot , I do know of people on the over 35 rosters who did
not live or work in Chanhassen but miraculously had Chanhassen addresses
so that would be a little bit confusing but if we throw in say 10% or
something for that. How hard would it be to find out how many teams have
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 25
been adversely impacted? How many could not have fielded a team and how
many fields that would have opened up and how would it impact the overall
crowding of the fields?
Hoffman : A couple of days for all the leagues .
Hasek : Is that worth it? Would it help us? The thing that confuses me
is, we' ve done something and I feel that we' ve done the right thing . I
think that we made the right choice. The impact may not be there to the
' fullest extent this year but perhaps next year or the year after that is
when we' re really going to understand how important it was to make the
decision now. The question I 'm asking is , we' re not going to know that
' until we see after the beginning of this year what kind of response we get
and what kind of teams we actually fill . Now if we looked at last years ,
it might give us an idea of what kind of an impact this thing would have
' had had we made the decision the year before that on last year ' s team.
Schroers: I think that' s pretty much what I asked Todd at the meeting
when we made our change. If we only allow 3 players or 5 players or
whatever, how much good is this going to do? Is it really going to help
us achieve what we want to do? I think your response to that was , the
only way we' re going to know is to implement it and watch it and see where
' it goes .
Hoffman : It ' s definitely going to open up more field space but as far as
' the scheduling match, trying to make a match in heaven for one year , these
leagues have been used to playing on Tuesday nights so we implement this
rule this year and if a Tuesday evening opens up, that may not be the best
evening for the Babe Ruth or for the girls softball but over a period of
I years they' ll mold into those spots. I 'm not exactly sure what the
perfect match of times will be but it will definitely ease the problem
which is getting worse year after year .
' Hasek : I personally know of two teams in the over 35 league that will be
eliminated and two teams that were in the, what was that , the open league
we had our church teams in?
Sietsema: Open .
I Hasek: Both of our Mt . Calvary teams will disappear this year . We can
get around that. We' ve talked about ways of doing that but we' re thinking
about starting two leagues with people who live in Chanhassen playing on
' one team and people who live in for example maybe Shorewood playing on a :.
Shorewood team or playing on an Excelsior team, whatever that is .
Splitting it up that way. That' s a lot more hassle than simply getting a
group of people together from the church and splitting them down the
'
middle and trying to even out the talent and so forth but right there' s 4
teams which could potentially eliminate 1 evening of playing . Opening up
a field. I think the impact is there and it ' s just going to be a matter
I of how great it is. I guess I still ask that question. Is it worth it to
spend the time to take a look at what last year ' s rosters may have looked
like and what kind of teams we could have filled it with last year if we
had implemented the rule the year before. Then at least when these people
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 26
come, we can say, listen this is what it would have done and it will 9 ive
us some ammunition to discuss it with. We' re not going to sit up here
saying well , we don' t know. At least then we' ll have an indication maybe II of what 's going on and what the potential would have. I don' t want to sit
here and just listen to a bunch of people yell and scream without having
any response to them.
Schroers : I think that we certainly have justification for our actions . I
really don ' t feel insecure about defending our position on that. Everybody
knows that our system was definitely overtaxed and we had to do something
and if you take a look at the surrounding communities, the information
that Todd provided for us , we are far in a way still more liberal than
many of our neighbors so I think we' re being reasonable at the very least . 1
Hasek : I agree. I absolutely agree but you can hear the question already.
How is this going to impact it? How do you know?
Mady: As long as Todd has the time , if he can make the time available
between now and then, it ' s important information for us to have.
Hasek : Even if you can go through the important ones where there ' s the
greatest demand right now. Just start with those and say, this is what
would happen in this league alone. These teams would be eliminated which
would open up another night which we could have stuck in this particular
demand . Stick in this demand .
Boyt : I think you need numbers from youth sports too . Girls softball and II
how that' s grown and they' re starting a new softball program for younger
girls this year and how many kids are in T-ball , ragball , and pee wee
compared to a year ago. We need the numbers of the children and the
numbers of the adults .
Hasek: Because it' s not only, I know who ' s going to be here mostly. II I know it' s going to be the adults and it' s going to be mostly the over 35
people that are here . At least that ' s my gut feeling . The problem is,
they' re not the only league and I want to make sure that we have at
least . . . '
Sietsema : The only league that won' t be affected by this is the
industrial league.
Hoffman : I can give you a pretty clear understanding of how each league
will be affected. However, you can' t just base your total knowledge on
that because softball teams , like any entity are very moldable and they' ll '
change. I could say, well I think we' re going to get 10 teams back in our
over 35 league where we' re at 15 last year and we could well show up with
13 to 14 teams just because people are going to have to go there and find
some Chanhassen people that are eligible players to play. That is a very
real thing that can happen. I just think it ' s a real sound policy which
we' ve instated . I 've answered a lot of questions . Talked to a lot of II people. Everybody agrees that it is a good policy but they have a problem
with it because it affects them and are we going to change our mind? Are
we going to bend the rules for one league? Are we going to bend the rules
■
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 27
for another league? I think we' re in a real good position to go ahead and
9 A 9
start this policy this year.
Hasek: Most of the time, the people that will be here are probably the
ones that have a problem with the policies that we' ve tried to implement.
' They' re the ones that show up and they' re the ones that speak the loudest .
However , they don' t speak for everybody and often times the people that
are in favor of it don ' t show up simply because they agree with it. They
figure it' s going to happen that way. Is it possible that we, and maybe
that ' s our job . Maybe we should simply try to get a hold of those people
but maybe the people who are in charge of the leagues , are there any
people that are like in charge of Little League? I don' t know what ' s
going on out there. How those things are structured but maybe they should
be made aware of our policy.
Mady: Jeff is President of CAA.
Boyt : Chanhassen Athletic Association. That ' s K through 5.
' Hasek: It would be nice to have those people here too so that they
understand that the decision that ' s being made is intended to help the
leagues and not to discourage the leagues .
Mady: I had a call from Brad Johnson who I guess is attempting to get
Babe Ruth teams actually for Chanhassen, requesting that the baseball
' field at Lake Ann be set aside for baseball at least every night of the
week for the first hour at least. These are things we need to look at .
Maybe we can leave the lights on at Lake Ann an extra hour .
' Sietsema: That ' s another thing that' s been approached by some softball
players in the open league . They asked if they could not grandfather in
the existing out of town players and play 4 games on the lighted field .
Play longer •on the lighted field and free up field #3 for Little League or
whatever that would take. The problem with grandfathering in is that
doesn ' t, that means we' ve got the same number of teams and everything that
' we had last year. It doesn' t cut it down.
Hasek: Well , in effect we are grandfathering in, 3 or 4?
Hoffman: 4 .
Hasek: We decided on grandfathering in 4 people . If they wanted to do
that, they have the right to grandfather. We just said we simply can' t
afford to grandfather a whole team in or a majority of the team or a team
that consists mainly or to a large extent, with people who live outside of
Chanhassen . Because it' s going to change. It ' s got to . Other
' communities have already realized it and they' ve gone ahead and made that
decision already and they' ve gone through the same sqwak that we' re going
to get so we might as well just bite the bullet and do it.
Boyt : Since Jeff is here, did you want to say anything tonight or do you
want to wait?
I
I
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 28
Jeff Bros : We' re struggling too , as a community and as an athletic
association. Last year we had a real hard time putting together a Babe
Ruth team which are boys , late junior high, probably freshman in high
school . That age group. 13 to 15 I believe. As we' ve talked with Todd
before , one of our biggest problems is playing with Chaska and Minnetonka
teams. We don' t have a good baseball field in this town so that' s been
one drawback. It ' s been partially our problem too from the fact that
we' ve had a real hard time getting the population into the sport. This
year Brad Johnson ' s working on it. Last year we filled up 2 teams for
Babe Ruth alone and I think we had 2 or 3 Little League teams . '
Boyt : Four .
Jeff Bros : Was it 4 and they have minor and majors so they're playing
different levels there also so you can' t mix those. The same with the
Babe Ruth . They have two different levels there so you can' t mix those.
They have to have their own time on the fields. Six teams last year, I
guessing it ' s going to be probably 5 Little League teams this year . Our
population of baseball last grew 30% over 87 in all the leagues .
Boyt : It would be higher if it were in Chanhassen but a number of kids
drive out when the parents find out they have to go to Minnetonka to play.
They just drive them out . Normally it' s the parents that drive them out .
Jeff Bros: Being the ages that our kids are, having the lack of
organization that we' ve had for those age groups has been a problem. It ' s
going to grow and this year I think you' ll see a big jump in that. As far
as the K through 5 kids, we don' t have a problem because we' re at the
school or the Chan Estates or last year we used Carver Beach Park and I
those are find for the little kids . The smaller the better as far as I 'm
concerned but it gets to be the Little League and Babe Ruth where we need
to be able to supply these kids with some good quality fields which we' re
close. The ballfield over at Lake Ann isn' t too bad but we need to give
them the quality time on the fields also. That' s the big thing .
Boyt: We have had kids from Eden Prairie and Chaska participating in our
sports programs so that' s something that , if we' re going to put restraints
on the adults, are there going to be restraints on the children? And from
what you said, the Chaska sports program is kind of going downhill so
we' re apt to get more kids involved in our programs over the next year
from Chaska .
Mady: You also should recognize the fact that we have Chaska kids , Eden +�
Prairie kids, Minnetonka kids going to school in our area. And Chan
Elementary.
Watson : Jonathan down into Chaska, they go to school here. Their friends
are here.
Mady: And they play together . . . That ' s the rationale to have them here. '
One other thing I wanted to mention on the eligibility policy we stated
last meeting , we put in a $100 . 00 bond that each team has to submit each
11
I
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 29
year for their eligibility. I would like to see us , art of that policy
� Y
is if a team is shown to be ineligible and forfeits their bond, that they
also forfeit all their games for this year . They do not play any longer
in Chanhassen and next year they can not be in Chanhassen. I think we
have to make sure this gets , if this is what the policy is going to be ,
some teams $100. 00, they' ll spend the money, they' ll spend any amount of
money to get a place to play because the fields that are open that you can
play in, some cities have a lot of openings , there just aren ' t any fields
available so I want to make sure that we do this , that we have the proper
teeth in. . .
Hoffman : As it' s stated right now, the player and/or players involved and
the team involved would be suspended for the year .
Schroers : I think that ' s adequate . I think that ' s making a strong enough
statement. If they' re caught being ineligible and we disban the team for
the year , that' s going to get the point across .
Mady: I just wanted to make sure that was there. I wasn' t positive when
we brought that up for discussion . Is there any further discussion
because this is coming back next time?
' Schroers : Just very quickly, a couple of more controversial or vocal
people in regards to this issue have approached me and when you lay all
the cards out logically, it ' s just like, what would you do, there really
' aren' t a lot of options . You have to make sense. It ' s one of those
issues where there isn' t a totally right or a totally wrong answer and no
one is going to be happy. You just have to do the best we can do under
the circumstances and I feel that that ' s what we' ve done and it ' s going to
be pretty hard for anyone to legitimately argue against it.
Mady: Last night the Council , when I was giving just a brief synopsis of
' my feelings on it , I told them that I felt that the City' s recreational
programs with the softball and baseball league and a few things , the City
has historically been biased toward adults in field use and that we need
to start getting a little more biased towards our kids because that ' s
' where our future is . Those are the people who we need to make sure keep
out of trouble. They need to have their time organized .
A tape changed occured at this point and discussion changed to the next
item.
' PRIORITIZATION OF 1989 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
Mady: . . .money being spent for other projects , makes the most sense.
' Something that ' s been mentioned maybe coming out of the pot is the Bluff
Creek signage and access roads , $11, 000. 00.
' Sietsema : If I could just clarify something about that . The reason
I believe that the Bluff Creek Park access road was put in was an
anticipation of the trail plan going through and that would give us a
vehicular way to access the rural trails and the nature trails in the
I
r
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 30
southern part of Chanhassen . It would be a get on point . Because that
didn' t happen and the nature trails are not going to be something that ' s
going to be done in the near future, I looked at that as something that
could be put towards , the money could be put towards something more
immediately needed . Not that it' s not something that we' re not going to
want to do but that we don' t need to do it right at this point. I think
it' s important to remember or , I don' t know, maybe just reflect in the
Minutes or for the Council ' s benefit , that by reprioritizing these or
reallocating funds doesn ' t mean that any of these are not something that
we don' t want to do. It' s just that we feel that the Carver Beach and the
Laredo trail are immediately needed . I would just hate for it be
perceived that we' ve got a bunch of stuff in here that we don' t really
need to do and that we just put this to pad the budget . I would hate to
get that perception and then in the future we wouldn' t be getting the
money that we need to do things because these things all need to be done .
It' s just a matter of some things come up that are not anticipated .
Boyt : What are other sources of revenue for the trails besides our
budget? Besides our CIP? Is there any money in the general fund
available? I
Sietsema: No. The CIP is the only money we have for park and trail
development. There' s money in the trail dedication fee which is part of
this fund .
Mady: Lori , do you have any feeling on the new building permits that are
coming in this past year , what percentage of those were new ones that are
paying the trail fee and what percentage are parcels that weren ' t affected
by the trail fee or do all of them pay it now?
Sietsema: All of them pay it now with the exception of Lake Susan Hills
West and Curry Farms .
Mady: So in other words, any building permit that gets issued now, unless
that development, we waived them, that we are getting something?
Sietsema: Right . And that' s been inforce for a year now as of last ,
February.
Mady: Okay, so most of them, a good share of them anyway, are paying the
$133. 00?
Sietsema: Yes . Now some of that is allocated because Saddlebrook is ' 11
building it' s trails and paying for them and we' re paying them to put them
in. So they' re being charged the trail dedication fee so that money is
not available to put towards other trails . That' s the only case like that
though I believe. Chanhassen Hills is paying trails . Curry Farms is not
paying trails and Lake Susan Hills West is not paying trails. I believe
everybody else is .
Mady: Jim Chaffee indicated last night that the City issued 389 building ,
permits this past year . So would 200 be a reasonable estimate? That' s
$26, 000. 00. Somewhere in that neighborhood so there has been some money
■
•
I.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 31
put into that fund this past year . Looking at this thing , our Capital
p
Improvement Program, there are some items that you might be able to move
Ito the future . Why don ' t we kind of just go down the row.
Hasek: Go down the list?
Mady: Go down the Commission.
Robinson : Are we first talking about what we may push out?
IMady: Delay.
IRobinson : Then we will go and prioritize later .
Hasek : May I go first?
Mady: Whatever . -
Hasek : Lake Ann I think we need . North Lotus Park, we' re talking
I $500. 00. I think that that can stay. South Lotus Lake I think we can
stick with one tennis court for $15,000. 00 and pull $10, 000. 00 out. That
will give us $10, 000. 00 towards the trail . Carver Beach, I 'm not exactly
I sure what ' s going on there but it' s a minimal amount and I think it can
stay. Carver Beach along Lotus Trail , $3, 000. 00. I think that needs to
be there. Bandimere Heights Park. It ' s a very small park. I have a
I question on that. If we ' re still looking at land and if land adjacent to
that is a possibility, perhaps that figure can be delayed and included in
something bigger. Something to talk about. Minnewashta Heights Park. We
talked about maybe the lack of desire or whatever on the part of the
I neighbors for a shelter. They' re looking at basketball . Perhaps we could
put in a half court basketball and two nets there for $5, 000. 00 and pull
$15, 000. 00 out of that. That gives us $25 , 000. 00 so far. City Center
I Park, I think ought to stay alone unless we can cut something on the
totlot equipment and I think that' s badly needed so I think that should be
left alone . Bluff Creek, we can pull $5 , 000 . 00 out of. Chanhassen tree
I restocking, I think that program needs to be kept going especially with
the weather that we' ve been having . Miscellaneous . Grills, $5 , 000. 00, I
think that needs to stay there so I ' ve gone down through the list so far
and pulled out a total of $36, 000. 00.
IBoyt: Did you pull $10, 000. 00 out of Bluff Creek? You said $5, 000. 00.
We can pull $10, 000. 00 out .
IHasek: Bluff Creek' s $11, 000. 00.
Boyt : Bluff Creek' s access road .
IHasek: I pulled the whole 11 out of there . What I said was Minnewashta
Heights Park would be cut from $20, 000. 00 to $5, 000. 00. $5, 000. 00 would
Ipay for a half court basketball and two nets .
Schroers: You cut $10, 000. 00 out of South Lotus Lake Ed?
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting 11 February 14 , 1989 - Page 32
Hasek : Yes .
Schroers : Where was that? 1
Hasek : Putting in 1 tennis court instead of 2 and I counted 1 as about
$15, 000. 00 because you still need more surface for one than you would.
It' s more than half to put one court in as opposed to two so I think that
cost would probably be about $15,000. 00.
Boyt : What are the warming house improvements for City Center Park? I
Anything specific or just improvements?
Sietsema: No, it was just general . Depending on what goes on with the
community center , that may be coming out so that would not be spent
immediately either .
Boyt : That' s another $2, 500. 00. It ' s not a lot . '
Watson: What about the totlot equipment at the City Center Park and the
potential for splitting some of those costs with the school? '
Boyt: They were here and they have a minimal . . .
Watson : They don' t have much.
Schroers: They don' t have much .
Mady: We' re going to need about $50 , 000. 00 to do i.t .
Boyt: $10, 000. 00 doesn' t buy very much in playground equipment . '
Watson: Especially if we' re going to do a park plan for up there .
Schroers: But the problem with that is , we have $40,000. 00 allocated for
totlot equipment for City Center Park and we don ' t know what ' s happening
with City Center Park. It' s contingent on what happens with the community
center . '
Boyt : But it could change in March or April .
Mady: We should have a pretty good indication I hope by April . 1
Schroers : So your feeling is then that you would like to see that
$40,000. 00 left in there?
Mady: Yes . We may not be able to get the play equipment for the City
Center Park in June or July but I would sure hope that we could have it ,
there by September when the kids go back to school anyway.
Boyt: Is there anyway that we can get the water and electric put in on
the east side of the new baseball diamonds and put into the new Park
Development Fund?
I
' Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 33
Sietsema : The budget' s really tight on that .
Boyt: We had extra money from the machines here .
Sietsema : She misspoke . She said it was 185 . It was 285 out of the 300.
Schroers: She also said that you felt comfortable with the fact that we
were going to be able to do everything on that plan with. . .
Sietsema: We can' t get water out there except to dig a well .
Mady: That ' s $5 ,000. 00 right there.
Boyt: Can we dig a well in the new part?
' Sietsema: You think it' s $5 , 000. 00 to dig a well?
Mady: Yes .
' Schroers : I think that would be worth checking into .
Sietsema: We could probably do it as a bid alternate too .
Boyt : I think that was Jim Mady' s idea . We talked about this back and
forth.
Mady: If there ' s something there that we can look at .
Hasek: I guess the question is , is there anything that we can absolutely
take out besides what I ' ve mentioned? Does anybody have any problems with
what I ' ve mentioned?
' Mady: I 'm not sure on the South Park. Curt maybe will address that .
There' s a couple other ideas I had. In tonight ' s discussion, one of the
things we have been looking at is the play equipment , totlot equipment
that we' re purchasing for this year. We do have $5, 000. 00 worth of
equipment left over from last year . Now if we use that $5, 000. 00, added
$5, 000. 00 onto it , just bought another half a set and put that in
South Lotus Lake, that would pick us up $5, 000. 00.
Robinson: Where was it purchased for?
Mady: Greenwood Shores .
Robinson: That' s later on the agenda .
Mady: Correct but Council last year authorized that not be installed so
we do have that equipment still sitting here and we know South Lotus Lake
wants it .
Robinson : Just a comment . There are very few houses in that South Lotus
Lake park right now.
1
1
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 34
Mady: But i t will l
y: probably be full in two years .
Boyt: It serves those houses. . . '
Hasek: It serves the people next door .
Robinson: Where?
Hoffman : The apartments .
Mady: It' s not just the new South Lotus Lake.
Boyt : It serves everything within a half mile. ,
Sietsema: And up the east side of the lake a ways. Mostly the Meadows
and your neighborhood . '
Hasek: Okay, there 's another $5, 000. 00.
Mady: We also have left over from last year $2, 000. 00 that was in our
budget for Greenwood Shores parking which didn' t get spent that could get
broken in.
Hasek : Is that still available Lori?
Sietsema: If it wasn' t rebudgeted, it' s gone.
Mady: Okay, we didn' t rebudget it .
Robinson: What did Ed come up with? $36, 000. 00 and Jim had another
$5, 000. 00?
Hasek:_r _ yes , so that 'd be $41, 000 . 00.
Robinson: If we all agree with that .
Boyt : Ther-e' s the possibility of another $2, 000 from the City Center . '
Hasek: There' s the possibility of a few things happening on there and I
don' t know that we necessarily want to pull down the whole amount and not
implement__some programs simply because we' re over cautious here .
Boyt : Yes , we don' t know what the bids are going to come in at .
Hasek: So we' re within, what was that, a total of $41, 000. 00? We' re at
$66, 000. 00 right now so we' re at about plus or minus $20, 000. 00 short .
Mady: I would like to see us maybe amend our budget, of Capital
Improvement Program this year by $20, 000 . 00 on putting in the trail to get
the job done. '
Sietsema: There' s $21, 010. 00 that are unallocated .
1
I
' Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14, 1989 - Page 35
Hasek: In the trail fund?
Sietsema : In the 410 budget . The trail and park dedication. That ' s what
we have. If we spend $20, 000. 00, then we have $1, 000. 00 that ' s
unallocated .
Hasek: Has that been our policy to spend it all or do we keep some in
reserve for emergencies or is there any reason why we shouldn' t use it?
' Sietsema: Yes , generally we do have some reserve but maybe for cases like
this .
Mady: We also have, . . .the Chaska Lion' s lately?
Sietsema: Not lately.
Mady: That ' s always been $8 ,000 . 00.
Sietsema: Last year I think we got $18 , 000. 00.
' Mady: I ' ve gotten a little bit familiar with the pulltab business over
the last month. They have to account for their funds almost on a monthly
I basis so I would hope that they have some indication of what they can do
for us too as a possibility for our future.
Sietsema : They' re not obligated to give us anything though.
IMady: No, they don' t have to give us any but they know what they' ve got
and maybe a phone call would give us an indication of where they getting
I since they do give the City, since they pull them out of Chanhassen, they
do give it back to Chanhassen.
' Hasek : What happens if the Carrico property comes up for sale this year?
Sietsema: Then we look at our, we have under reserve, fund reserve.
That' s for matching grants for LAWCON and that type of thing . There ' s
$100,000. 00 in there that we could use that .
Boyt : Should we talk about priorities on the list then?
IHasek: Let ' s look at here? Is everybody comfortable with what we' ve
done to this thing now? The way we' ve hatcheted it. Do you want to go
Ithrough it real quick so we can see what ' s going on here?
Schroers: Why don' t you just go on the ones where you cut the money and
see if we all agree?
' Hasek : Okay, under South Lotus Lake Park, we' ve taken $5 , 000. 00 off the
totlot equipment. So just write that on the right hand column. Cross
I that out and put $5 , 000. 00 over here . The tennis courts , we' ve taken
$10, 000. 00 out of the tennis courts and we' ve reduced the tennis courts to
one instead of two. Down under Minnewashta Heights Park, we' ve suggested ,
and this will have to go through the community out there, the possibility
•
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 36
of a half court basketball and two nets . I 'm guessing that at about
$5,000. 00 based upon the half court price above here. So we 've taken
$15, 000. 00 out of there. That' s reduced from $20, 000 . 00 now to $5 , 000. 00. II
We've gone down to Bluff Creek and pulled everything, $11, 000. 00 there.
The total of that is $41 , 000 . 00 that we have pulled out of there which is
going to go back into the Carver Beach.
Sietsema: Also , warming house improvements .
Hasek: Okay, we ' re going to pull that? $2, 500. 00? '
Boyt : I think so . And there' s the possibility of water at Lake Ann.
Water and electrical . '
Hasek : But that ' s a possibility. We don' t want to take that off of here
until we know. . . so now we' re at $43, 500. 00.
Sietsema: Todd ' s just indicated that if the Community Center does not go
into the City Center Park site, that warming house does need work. It ' s
used a lot so would hesitate to take that out .
Mady: We fund our fiscal year , isn' t our fiscal year September 30th
though?
Sietsema: No . January.
Mady: We' re on January 1?
Hasek: Okay, then I 'm in favor of putting that $2, 500 . 00 back in then .
Schroers: I 'd agree with that too.
Hasek: Okay, now we' re still , we' ve taken $41 , 000. 00 out of this thing .
Schroers: We' re short $17,000. 00 so if we can' t come up with, have the
water and electrical added in with the new development at Lake Ann , we can
still resort to our surplus for the $17, 000. 00 and that would leave us
$4, 000. 00 in there then right?
Sietsema: Right .
Boyt : That ' s assuming that we won' t get a favorable bid too that might
come in a few thousand dollars under that too. +'
Schroers : Yes , this is assuming the full price.
Sietsema : So we can take the $41, 000. 00 out of this and then ask for a
budget adjust for anything else depending on what the bid comes .
Hasek: So everybody understands what the motion is then? I will move
that if it' s alright with you guys . Can we prioritize this thing?
Robinson: What would the budget adjustment consists of?
■
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 37
Hasek: Minus $41, 000. 00.
' Robinson: Yes , but that' s not enough?
' Boyt : There ' s some more in a surplus fund .
Robinson: Oh, that' s the $20,000. 00 or $21, 000. 00?
' Sietsema: Yes , there' s $21, 010. 00 that are unallocated . We ' ve got some
in reserve. We' ve got some in reserve for Lake Ann shelter. We ' ve got
some in reserve for Lake Susan Park.
' Mady: Is there a second?
' Boyt : Second .
Mady: Okay, we' ve had a second now we can discuss . I had a question for
Ed. A quick question on the bidding process . Have you seen any
indication how bids are coming in on your job? I ' ve heard something that
maybe construction was going to be slack enough so bids are getting a
little . . .
' Hasek: Yes , I think that ' s very true . My business , we have not had in
the last 8 years , the year that has been as light as this year and it' s a
' mystery why. I think that you' re going to see a lot of hungry people out
there. The reason they' re holding back, my feeling is because of the new
President . It happens every single time we get a new President . There ' s
a lot of apprehension about what ' s going to go on with the economy and how
things are going to settle up . Developers hold back and they' re going to
hold back until the water settles a little bit so there' s going to be some
hungry people out there this next year . I think we ought to get some real
' good bids out of this and if not , there might be some room to negotiate
some of the bids. If we don ' t like them the first time, we ' ll submit them
again.
' Watson : I hate to go in on this without any doing any denying . You
zapped the Greenwood Shores play equipment without even discussing it . I
don' t have little kids anymore but there are a lot of little kids in that
' neighborhood .
Schroers : Do you want to object to that?
Watson: I can' t vote yes on the changes in the capital improvement
program until we' ve had at least some discussion about whether there is . . .
' Schroers: Well I definitely have a point of view on that . In our quest
for parking at Greenwood Shores , it came up time and time again that the
residents of Greenwood Shores want Greenwood Shores Park left alone .
' They don ' t want almost everyone that was a representative from Greenwood
Shores said they don' t want volleyball . They don' t want totlot. They
don ' t want parking . They don ' t want anything at Greenwood Shores . They
want it left alone. I say, leave it alone.
I
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 38
Watson: I think that when you wrap the whole thing up in a parking
package, you were going to get negative to anything else that was going ,
on.
Boyt : I don' t think it was wrapped up in the parking package at that
time. I think they were saying, regardless of what happens, we like it
the way it is . I don' t know, Jan , did you want to talk about it tonight?
Jan Lash: My name is Jan Lash and I live in Greenwood Shores. I think
Larry pretty well hit it on the head . I can ' t speak for everybody. I
haven' t been in contact with very many people but my feelings from last
year was , really people are happy enough with it the way it is and they
really don' t care. . .
Watson : You really don' t care. If we lose i.t , it ' s gone and nobody' s
going to care?
Jan Lash : I really don' t know who ever wanted it in the first place. If
somebody calls . . .
Watson: I don ' t either . I just didn' t want to lose it as far as the
money to put it in goes, if there was some interest because my kids aren' t
little anymore so I don' t need a totlot there.
Jan Lash: Most people have swingsets for their kids .
Watson : We have big yards .
Mady: Also recognize that too, if something changes , there' s nothing to
say you can' t come back and say we want it .
Jan Lash : People there are starting to get older . We ' re one of the
younger families there and my youngest one is 6. He would probably use it
if it was there but we have a swingset in our yard so when we go dow
there, we go to swim and we don' t go to, it sounds like you guys have a
lot of better plans for it anyway. '
Boyt : There is another point that came up from the people who live in
Chaparral . I spoke to my neighbor, they use that park. They would like
to see totlot equipment there. Like I said before , this park supposedly
serves Chanhassen. Not just Greenwood Shores . That' s something that' s
come up over and over again . What ' s the best way to serve Chanhassen? We .'
need to think of the whole city and not just neighborhood or not just
people adjacent to the park.
Jan Lash : Is there totlot equipment in Chaparral already? They have a
big ballfield and I think there' s playground equipment there?
Boyt : They use the Greenwood Shores Park because it has swimming . '
Jan Lash: I know they use it. But they have totlot equipment . . .
I
■
I
I/ Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 39
Boyt : One of the things that constrained us last year was the arkin .
A g
We were not allowed by Council to develop the park if it was not
' accessible. If parking wasn ' t there and I think we need to find out how
Council is going to react this year. Are we allowed to put totlot
equipment in a park if it' s not accessible? Have the rules changed this
' year? I don' t think a message has come down to us yet on that topic .
Hasek: Part of the further confusion is the word accessible. If you look
in the parking industry, the word accessible has to do with getting
' everybody, handicapped and normal people. It doesn' t mean that you can
get there anyway possible. Rolling down the hill . Walking. Driving your
car . It means that everybody has the ability to use that park. If you
' put in a path, a path by accessible simply means that you can roll a
wheelchair down i.t . That park right now is not accessible by definition.
It isn' t. 500 feet is not close enough to park a car and get a
handicapped person down there with anything that you might want to take so
that' s not an accessible park as it stands right now. If you draw circles
around that park, half of Chaparral is taken in as is Greenwood Shores
with the ballfields. Those two parks actually serve that group of
' neighborhood down there. I 'm really torn about this issue because I know
we talked about the possibility and one of the neighborhoods said, we
don ' t like parking down there but maybe in our neighborhood isn ' t where it
' should be coming from. Yes , there is a traffic problem but it' s very
possible with the Eckankar development coming in now, that we' re going to
lose the possibility of putting parking anyplace else but out of that
neighborhood . I still intend on pushing for parking . The Comprehensive
Plan, if you look at the Comprehensive Plan, it talks about ultimately,
they say no parking . They don ' t want that . They know that there ' s some
problems, or whoever put that plan together realized that there were some
' problems with access through that particular neighborhood . But at the
same time, they suggested taking the beach out of that particular park.
That ' s in our Comprehensive Plan . One of the tools that' s supposed to be
I driving our .decisions here. It' s like, well , we' ll take out what we want
and we' ll throw away the rest . When a developer comes in we' ll use what
we want to get with him and we' ll throw away the rest. I think it ' s about
time that we start using the tools that are in place and if we don' t like
' them, then we implement change of them as opposed to just adhoc making
irrational decisions . My feeling is that I think that park should have
totlot equipment in it eventually. I don' t think that unless it' s
1 accessible to the users , that now is the time to put it in there . I think
that park needs to be upgraded and I don' t say that because it' s a hot
issue. I truly and honestly believe in the policy that parks are for the
I people. Yes, it' s there mainly because that neighborhood was there but it =4.
also belongs to everybody who pays taxes in this town and everybody should
be able to use it and until that happens, I just don' t see how we can feel
comfortable with upgrading it for that particular neighborhood and that
Ineighborhood alone.
Watson : And they don ' t really care .
Hasek: The neighborhood doesn' t care, right but the whole city.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 40
Boyt : . . .what' s going on, there were people from Greenwood Shores who
called and said, what I don' t go along with what everyone is saying .
There are some people with a different opinion. 1
Watson: I know that Sue. I remember the whole thing as though it
happened the day before yesterday and I don' t really see any point in
kicking it around again. Number 2, I was on the Planning Commission when
we wrote the Comprehensive Plan and I was the one who voted no and it ' s
probably one of the things that I appreciate the most in my tenure here .
Hasek: Did it pass?
Watson: Of course it passed . I was the only person who voted no .
Hasek: Then it' s the policy for the City.
Robinson: Lori , is there some reason for your recommendation or are you
saying staff feels that it would be. . . Did you get input from someone or
is that just . . .
Sietsema : I 've gotten input from people outside of the Greenwood Shores
neighborhood that use the park that would appreciate totlot equipment.
Watson: They' re all people from Chaparral that walk down there . i
Sietsema: And that' s what that ' s based on.
Jan Lash : I guess that whole thing is up to you. I guess where my
confusion comes in in the whole thing is that last year when we went
through the whole thing , and I ' ve got all the Minutes and I practically I
have them memorized, there was a statement from Lori to Clark Horn when he
asked , I thought that we had decided not to put in any improvements . Not
to put in totlot equipment unless we had parking. You said, yes, that' s
correct . And he said, then why is this in here when we don' t have the
money in the budget and you said, well , it' s not in the budget. We'd have
to put it in next year . Now you guys have just discussed how you already
purchased that equipment last year when from what Lori said in the
meeting , you didn' t have the money in the budget for it . I have Minutes
from a meeting of yours in August where you made the budget and it said
you were going to budget . . . '
(A tape change occured at this point. )
Mady: . . . spending the money to do it but then they took at a later date '
and said, you won' t even put it in. So it ' s there.
Jan Lash : It ' s just when you ' re reading this whole thing over , it starts
looking kind of fishy.
Sietsema: I 'd have to read those . That' s out of context so it' s hard for
me to respond to that but all I can tell you is that it was the perception
of the staff and the Commission that we were supposed to look into putting
parking there and at that time they said no totlot equipment without
I
1 .
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 41
Iparking so we budgeted for both . Having that been perceived that that was
our direction to pursue parking, we purchased the equipment thinking that
I the City Council was going to approve it. It didn ' t turn out that way so
now we have the equipment and no parking and that' s why I brought it up.
What do we want to do with this equipment?
IJan Lash : Is there a purpose for purchasing it before?
Sietsema : It takes a while to get it and it ' s cheaper to buy it all at
1 once.
Jan Lash : So basically what you did was you ended up with it and you
Idon' t have a place to use it?
Sietsema: We' ve got a lot of places to put it .
IJan Lash: But don' t you think that the proper way of doing that would be
to wait until you know that you have the authorization to purchase it?
ISietsema : We had the authorization .
Jan Lash : Based on the parking going in .
IMady: No, because it was included with the parking. The parking was all
approved . Everything was approved in our budget when we did it .
Hasek: It wasn' t not approved when the parking was not approved .
Jan Lash : So you were ordering it based on the assumption that the
Iparking would be approved?
Mady: Yes . They did approve it . They approved our budget .
ISietsema: They approved the funding for the parking so it was anticipated
that that would be approved .
IJan Lash : So you should have all of that money left though?
Mady: We didn' t roll over in our 1989 budget so it left .
ISietsema: It goes away. If you don ' t reallocate it, it goes away.
I Jan Lash: I guess with what Larry said, I guess that ' s obviously that ' s
the way I feel . I haven' t changed my mind in 6 months . When I look at
the motion from July, I can quote Hamilton but I 'm not going to do that .
I Sietsema : Excuse me, I missed the first part of your discussion . So
you ' re against or for it?
I Jan Lash : I guess I would be against it . I sort of feel like it ' s a
waste of money to put it in. There may be some people who really feel
that it ' s important to have. It ' s a difference of opinion. I see a lot
of teenagers down there that do vandalism and I think it ' s one more thing
•
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting I
February 14 , 1989 - Page 42
for them to try and trash and then somebody' s going to get hurt on it and I
then you ' ve got call the city and have them fix it. It just seems like
it' s a continuous circle of spending money unless there' s just really a ,
I
if you had a bunch of people like from Pheasant Hills in here saying we
want a totlot and we want equipment , hey, fine. If you can scrap the
money together . . .
I
Watson : But you don' t have to . . .
Jan Lash : That' s whay I 'm saying . I was out there scooping garbage out
II
of the lake I don' t know how many days last year .
Hasek : What isn ' t understood here is that the people that are here, that
II
take phone calls from those people that aren' t here, it ' s assumed that we
are here and . . . it' s not only the people that show up either for or against
an issue that have anything to say about that issue. I can' t believe that 1
the only people that should be believed are the ones that come in and sit
in these chairs . We' re appointed like the Mayor is appointed. Like the
Council people and the Planning Commission, to represent the entire City.
It' s not just the people that show up and fill these chairs that have to 1
be accounted to . One of these days , maybe . . .
Watson: There' s no question about that and that ' s why I said, let' s go I
to number 9 and look at it . If you think that the people in Chaparral who
are not here really want that thing, that ' s the consensus of opinion, then
put that totlot equipment in. It ' s there. 1
Hasek: Exactly.
Watson: That ' s why we' re discussing it before we put it South Lotus Lake
II
Park because that 's what this is .
Hasek: I guess what I 'm saying , and I 'm not disputing the discussion 1
about the equipment there. I guess the issue I 'm bringing up, and it ' s
like lobbying or anything else , the point of it being is certainly to
represent the people in the City, not just the people who show up here.
Janet spends a lot of time here and I certainly appreciate the time that
II
she spends here as everybody that shows up but it seems like the only time
people show up is when they' re against something and now when they' re for
something. The reason those people don' t show up when they' re for
II
something is because they trust us to give their opinion in their steed .
You know? I don' t know why that' s such a difficult concept to understand .
We' ll look at the one other thing too . Council when they gave the motion ,1
on Greenwood Shores Park said that we weren' t supposed to bring the issue
up. Well , they can say that all that they want to but if we want to bring
an issue up here or anybody in this community wants to bring up an issue,
they certainly have the right to do that . Council can not direct us not II to bring an issue up. That' s silly to see. I don't know if it got
written into the Motion but if it did , that ' s certainly silly there too .
Jan Lash: Yes , it is in the motion. But, I guess I can see some logic to II
that . If you want to has over the same topics every 6 months and send it
back to Council every 6 months , that' s up to you guys if you like to spend
II
■
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 43
a lot of time on the same things . From a taxpayer ' s point of view, those
are the kind of things that really get people mad. It' s like, there' s a
' few people that are in power and when they get an idea , by god they' re
going to keep bringing it up and bringing it up until they wear you down
so bad that you' re just going to say, oh fine, let them do whatever they
' want. And that makes people mad.
Boyt : Please , stop the discussion.
' Mady: Okay, we need to prioritize this unless you want to make a motion
on Greenwood Shores. Otherwise let' s prioritize the budget.
' Watson : I just wanted to discuss it before we voted .
Hasek: I think we' ve got a motion. . .and I apologize for getting off base.
Mady: Okay, we have a motion on the Capital Improvement Program with the
changes as noted and there was a second.
' Boyt : Do we need to include in there that someway of returning these
projects to the budget as funds become available this year? Whether it' s
through lower bids or some other way?
' Mady: Yes .
Watson: Do you want to prioritize how they'd return?
Mady: Upon bids coming in, we 'd had the option to re-review them if the
bids come in lower .
Watson : Okay, and then we' d prioritize how we want them?
' Hasek: Wait a minute. Why don' t we just go through and prioritize
everything as it stands right here and if it falls out because we need it
someplace else, then it just by-passes that issue? That would save us a
lot of hassle wouldn' t it? Doesn ' t that make sense? Prioritize
' everything that ' s here and if we do take out, if we need the money from
Bluff Creek Park, then that one falls out . If it ' s number 5, then we go
to number 6.
Sietsema: I need a motion on what you ' re going to take out of the budget
and change to a different thing though because it is a budget adjustment
' that has to go to Council .
Hasek: You didn' t get that?
' Sietsema: Yes , but are you going to include this other part or not?
Hasek: Let' s call for the question .
Sietsema: So you don ' t want to add anything to the motion?
I
1
r
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 44
Mady: One point of clarification first . Does that include amending the
budget to include another $17, 000. 00 too?
Sietsema: Budget adjust , yes .
Robinson : I still didn ' t understand what we decided on the $5 , 000. 00 from 1
Greenwood Shores.
Watson : It ' s going to go over to South Lotus Lake Park. That was the
motion and there didn' t seem to be reason to change it I guess.
Hasek moved , Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission adjust
their 1989 Capital Improvement Program budget to move the following items
from the 1989 budget to the trail development for Carver Beach Road and
Laredo Drive: $5, 000. 00 from totlot equipment and $10, 000. 00 from the
tennis courts for South Lotus Lake; $15, 000. 00 from Minnewashta Heights
Park and $11,000. 00 from Bluff Creek Park for a total of $41, 000. 00. All
voted in favor and the motion carried .
Mady: The next is to prioritize.
Boyt : I have a higher priority. South Lotus Lake Park for the ballfield
construction.
Robinson : Now, first of all , we' re prioritizing these things so Dale I
Gregory can get going?
Sietsema : Right . I
Robinson: So the things that Dale Gregory doesn ' t do, we don ' t need to
address? 1
Mady: He has pretty much an impact on a lot of these things .
Sietsema: Right. He works with. . . '
Robinson : Water and electrical to the shelter?
Sietsema: No. I
Watson: That would be subcontracted wouldn' t it. We'd have to bid that .�
out or something.
Mady: The amount of blacktopping the City does for basketball courts . . .
Sietsema: I can tell you what he has to do with. He has to do with the
totlot replacement, tennis wind screen , general improvements and ballfield
construction and totlot equipment at South Lotus, off street parking and
park identification signs at Carver Beach playground , general park
improvements at Carver Beach, both things under Bandimere. If it' s going
to be a basketball court or something different at Minnewashta , he 'd have
■
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 45
to do with that. Chanhassen Pond woodduck houses .
' Watson : That ' s a priority. I like those .
Sietsema : All of the things under City Center Park. The tree restocking
and the miscellaneous .
Hasek : The tennis courts was the only thing he didn' t have something to
do with .
' Mady: And the water and electrical .
' Sietsema: Water and electrical and tennis courts .
Boyt : And Bluff Creek.
Hasek: Bluff Creek is gone anyway.
Mady: One of the things we need to define, if we put up the wood duck
' houses up at Chanhassen Pond Park. For those to do any good this year ,
they need to be in before the nesting season.
Siestema : I think there' s an Eagle Scout that' s going to work on that .
Watson : That ' s what I was wondering . If that wasn ' t something that they
could do because they' re not very complicated .
Sietsema : It ' s got to be in conjunction with something else but there is
someone who' s talking about doing it .
Watson : Can you see Dale sitting there putting up wood duck houses . Ther
must be someone else.
' Sietsema: On a 30 below zero day, it ' s a good thing to do.
Boyt: He' s not going to stick to this exactly but. . .
' Sietsema: And he delegates a lot of it out so he just needs to know what
we want done first.
Boyt : I think South Lotus Lake Park and I don ' t know if I should say just
ballfi.elds or probably everything?
Hasek: The whole thing .
Boyt : I think we need the ballfield desparately probably and so that ' s my
high priority. Other than that, I don' t care when the rest of it gets
down.
' Hasek : The City Center Park, play surface, totlot equipment . That ' s
going to be on hold until the issue of the community center .
Sietsema: The same with the warming house .
I
•
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14, 1989 - Page 46
1
Hasek : We need to talk to the neighbors at Minnewashta Heights before we
make a decision to put anything in there. '
Watson : And the restocking , they' ll do that when it ' s opportune for them
to do that.
Boyt : The same with miscellaneous .
Hasek: So that leaves us really with Bandimere. Now, Bandimere, are we
still seriously considering a piece of property adjacent to Bandimere?
Sietsema: It' s still on the list .
Mady: I guess nothing is out.
Hasek : Nothing is out . When are we going to make a decision? Are we
talking . . .
Sietsema : I was going to have that come back this time but due to other
things, hopefully it will be back on the next agenda.
Hasek : Okay, so then maybe that' s down towards the bottom now of the
list. I 'd like to put Lake Ann down as number 2.
Sietsema: Lake Ann will have to probably wait until after the
construction is done out there. The ballfield construction .
Hasek : Are they going to go through the old area?
Sietsema: It would seem to me that, that way they wouldn' t have to work
around it .
Schroers : If it could be done in conjunction , hopefully we' re going to
get that included into it .
Hasek : Okay, then I 'd like to make a suggestion. Is it possible that we
could pull out the existing play structure that' s out there or really take
a serious look at making it a little bit safer than it is? It ' s in really
pathetic shape. It' s falling apart . I
Mady: That ' s what this is .
Sietsema: Is replacing it and trashing what ' s there.
Hasek: Yes, but if we' re not going to do this immediately, if we' re going
to wait until something else is done , I 'd like to get the old one out of
there before somebody gets hurt on it or at least get it. . .
Mady: Let ' s make it high priority.
Sietsema: Put it high priority and he can work around it .
I
■
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 47
Schroers : We can make the Lake Ann a two part thing . The water and
electrical one thing and the totlot something else. We can prioritize the
' totlot and then hopefully the water and electrical goes in with the
construction.
' Hasek : So we've got 1 and 2 figured out . How about , is there anything
else on here?
Mady: The wind screens would be nice to have in as soon as the tennis
courts are available.
Boyt : How long does that take him? I don ' t know if we need to put all
this stuff on our list or just the major things .
Watson : Because he needs the flexibility to kind of work around the
weather and everything else.
Hasek: How about Carver Beach?
' Boyt : I ' d like to see Carver Beach and Bandimere Heights , off street
parking because they service the children' s baseball . That' s where that
off street parking goes and that starts this spring .
' Schroers: Which is used more, Bandimere or Carver Beach?
' Boyt : Both. They' re both used the same. Bandimere is summer soccer all
summer and fall soccer so I think Carver Beach is used sooner with the
baseball .
Schroers : Okay, so we could put Carver Beach 3 and Bandimere 4?
Sietsema: He'd probably do them at the same time.
Hasek: He' s got that option. I guess he ' s looking for direction from us .
Is there anything else here worth prioritizing?
' Mady: No . Keep in mind at Carver Beach , general improvements , we told
the residents that we would be meeeting with them before we did anything
there so that' s also. . .
Sietsema: We were talking about playground weren ' t we? Off street
parking?
Mady: I 'm talking about the one next on Lotus Trail .
Sietsema: Yes, that' s on our next agenda .
Schroers : Let ' s just note that we want the wood duck houses at Chan Pond
open before wood duck breeding season .
Watson: Which isn' t very long from now actually.
111
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 48
DISCUSSION OF TOTLOT EQUIPMENT PURCHASES FOR LAKE ANN PARK, SOUTH LOTUS
LAKE PARK AND GREENWOOD SHORES PARK.
Mady: We need to discuss the types of totlot equipment .
Boyt: I 'd like to look at the catalog.
Mady: Don ' t you have one?
Boyt : No . I 'd like to work with Lori on this and maybe is anyone else '
wants to.
Mady: There are some really neat things in here. '
Schroers: I 'd help out with that.
Boyt : Maybe we could get together . '
Schroers : We should go take a look at the play structure at Hyland Lake
Park. '
Hasek: Is that Mexican Forge. That ' s the catalog that we ' ve got here. Is
that where we buy most of our stuff? ,
Sietsema : Yes .
Hasek : Do we know where there' s a big complex of that around so we could
take a look at it?
Sietsema: I can find out . '
Boyt: Let ' s take a Sunday afternoon or something .
Sietsema: I know there' s some in Edina and there ' s some off of Crosstown. '
Mady: Eden Prairie.
Sietsema : Eden Prairie, most of theirs is Mexican Forge.
Watson: The big one up there across from the airport.
Hoffman: Staring Lake.
Mady: Staring Lake is a beautiful example of a nice park. Nice play '
structure.
Boyt : Let ' s go look at some parks . Larry said he would like to do it . I
would like to be. Jim has the catalog.
Sietsema: When would you like to do this? A Sunday? A Saturday?
Schroers: When it's a little warmer out .
■
1 •
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 49
Mady: Later in March?
' Boyt : We need to order some of this stuff soon.
Sietsema: When do you want it up?
Boyt : This summer .
Mady: It 'd be nice, as soon as it' s dry.
Sietsema: That' s May.
Schroers : If you go look at totlot or playground equipment right now,
you' re not going to see a lot .
' Sietsema: It ' s all above the snow.
Watson : It sticks up out of the snow pretty high though don ' t you think
Larry?
Schroers : Yes . But some things are taken down like nets and other parts
of the apparatus are in storage.
' Sietsema : I think that Dale' s going to want to put it up in the early
part of the summer before the grass is all growing and he' s got his help
right away. I think it ' s like an 8 week delivery time. So if you want it
up June 1st, we have to know what we want by April 1.
Hasek: How about if we just make it real quick and we' ll go take a look
here.
Boyt : I can do it this Saturday morning .
' Schroers: Not this coming Saturday I couldn' t .
Hasek : How about if we just pick one , just find one for us to go take a
' look at we' ll go take a look at it on our own.
Schroers : How about if we go sometime more towards the end of the month
' anyway. End of February or beginning of March.
Hasek: I think what she ' s going to do is just try to find one for us and
maybe by the first meeting .
Sietsema : I ' ll get a map together , whatever , a bunch of addresses and you
can go on your own and look at different equipment or we can set up a
group . If you can ' t make the group time . . .
Mady: Would a week from Sunday work for anybody besides me?
Boyt : Not at night . From 5 : 00 on.
Mady: On a Sunday, I mean 1: 00 in the afternoon .
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 50
Sietsema: What ' s the date?
Mady: That'd be about the 26th. We really miss our calendars here by the II
way.
Hasek : You' re going to put together map? If you pick a date, that ' s fine
but there' s no obligation to go?
Mady: No. 1
PARK DEDICATION FEES . '
Sietsema: The last time we talked about the park dedication fees , you
asked if there could be three separate, one for the rural area, one for
the urban and one for the commercial/industrial . Based on the land values
given to me by the County Assessor , what I have in the staff report is
what would be, what they would work out to . The only one that is more
than the current on is the commercial/industrial and with the type of
development we' ve got going , I do not believe that achieves your goal to
increase the fees. Therefore, to either leave it the way it is at the
rate that it is , or else use the formula where we use the average or real
land cost, it' s really the only way that I can see. That I can come up
with because we have no source, we have no reliable source to tell us what
real land values are different than what the County Assessor. If we could
come up with something different , we could use that . '
Hasek: Get a copy of the guy who owns Carrico' s purchase agreement .
That ' s the real life . I don ' t know if I mentioned it last time but
Plymouth is taking down, I hope I get the number right, $3, 200. 00 an acre
for commercial .
Sietsema: Yes . $650. 00 for residential and it ' s $3 , 200. 00 for commercial '
industrial . Eden Prairie just raised theirs to $725. 00 for residential
and I believe it' s $3, 000. 00 and something an acre for industrial .
Boyt: Do you know what percent that is?
Sietsema: According to their assessor , they have a city assessor so
that' s 10%. They base theirs on 10% .
Mady: My feeling all along is that our County Assessor is kind of looking 1'
at this because he' s based out of Chaska and the rural area. I really
seriously believe that Chanhassen that' s in the MUSA line is a lot closer
to being Eden Prairie than it is to being Young America. But for whatever
reason , we can ' t seem to get what I would consider a reasonable opinion
out of the Assessor so we' re stuck with this .
Watson: He keeps coming back, let ' s give him credit . He ' s consistent .
Hasek: I don' t see in here what our original numbers are.
t
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 51
Sietsema : It ' s the attachment . It would be $425 . 00 p er unit or 11% or
the raw land value based on the developer' s purchase agreement. Whichever
' is greater .
Haesk : And each one would be looked at as they were brought in? So if we
said 11% to them, it was a lot higher than that, we'd get it?
Sietsema : Right , and the same would be true for the industrial where it
would be $1, 050. 00 per acre or 11% of the raw land value.
' Hasek: It says 10% here .
I Sietsema: 10%, excuse me. Again , that would raise more than 11% if the
density was higher. So it would be 9% for residential and it would be 13%
t0 20% on multi -family depending on the density. So it' s the third
' paragraph on the first page of the attachment that outlines that .
Hasek : So it' s the back of the first page?
' Sietsema: Right. Dated January 18th. State Statute allows the City to
require parkland dedication or fees in lieu of parkland through the
subdivision process. Staff is proposing a formula that would be based on
I the average raw land values or the real raw land values, whichever is
greater . In other words, park fees would be $425. 00 per unit until the
raw land value was determined to be higher than $10, 500. 00 per acre . At
' that point , the park charge would be 11% for urban single family
residential , 9% for rural residential and 13% to 20% on multi -family
residential per unit depending on the density. Commercial/industrial
would be done in a similar fashion . It would be a charge of $1, 050 . 00 per
acre or 10% of the raw land value. Again, whichever is greater .
Therefore , raw land values of more than $10, 500 . 00 per acre would create a
fee of more than $1, 050. 00 per acre.
' Hasek: I guess I don ' t see any problem with those. It begs one question
though. It say, we'd charging them $1, 050. 00 or 10% of the land value,
whichever is greater . If $:1 , 050. 00 were 12%, we would be doing something
Iabout . . . If the $ 1 , 050 .00 were a greater amount.
Sietsema: It would have to be proved that 12% is unreasonable.
111 Hasek: Okay. Then, if 12% is unreasonable, I say we go ahead with the
whole thing but let' s put in $500. 00 for residential and let ' s put in
' $1, 200. 00 for commercial and work the figures that way.
Watson : So the park fee would require. . .hi.gher than $10, 500 . 00 and then
at that point at 11% .
' Sietsema : $500. 00 a unit for residential?
' Hasek: Yes .
Sietsema: Do you want to have something different for commercial
industrial units?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 52
Hasek: Yes , whatever . The $1, 200. 00 instead of the $1, 050. 00.
Sietsema: I mean multi-family. Per unit. Right now it' s $425. 00 for
single family and it' s $300. 00 for multi-family unit and it' s $1, 050 . 00
per acre for commercial/industrial .
Hasek: Based upon the numbers that we' re looking at , what would you
suggest? $350. 00.
Sietsema: $350 . 00?
Mady: That' s pretty close to what you did .
Hasek: If there' s no other discussion, I ' ll make the motion.
Mady: I ' ll second it.
Robinson : We discussed last time I think about the administrative end of
this and getting appraisals and what not. I still think that' s a I
possibility that this could be an administrative nightmare. I also wonder
why nobody else has done this. Nobody else uses a percentage. They all
use flat fees .
Sietsema: It' s easier to administer a flat fee . That ' s the bottom line
but with the requirements of the subdivision, we could make it a
requirement to have to submit a purchase agreement so that we know what
they paid for the property. That would solve that part of it. The other
thing is that it ' s getting to be with everybody, there' s so many different
subdivisions out there that are now paying a percentage of their flat fee
because they made park or trail dedications land , that I have to look up
just about everyone anyway. I get every building permit across my desk to
sign off on .and I have to look up, in their subdivision to determine how I
much to charge them. It' s getting to the point where so many more are not
paying the flat fee because. . .
Recognizing that state statute allows for cities to require a dedication of parkland
and/or park dedication fees, Hasek moved to recommend that the city adopt a park dedica-
tion fee schedule as follows:
$ 500.00 Single Family Unit
350.00 Multi-Family Unit
1,200.00 Commercial/Industrial acre, 1
except in cases where the real land values are higher than $12,500/acre, in which case the
fee would be as follows:
9-11% of the cost per acre - Single Family, depending on density
13-20% of the cost per acre - Multi-Family, depending on density
10% of the cost per acre - Commmercial/Industrial 1
Additionally, it is recommended that a purchase agreement be submitted at the time of
application. Mady seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
■
1
' Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 53
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS :
' Mady: Under Commission Presentations , speaking of Curt , we were remiss in
not doing this first off. Congratulating Curt in being reappointed to the
Commission by the Council and Dawne Erhart was also appointed to fill
' Mike Lynch' s vacancy. Number two, one thing from Todd. On North Lotus
Lake basketball court request . Are we going to be reviewing that next
week or at our next meeting?
' Sietsema: That' s next meeting .
Mady: Number 3 on here, Thursday night this week at Chaska Sr . High
School commons , there' s going to be a meeting with the Lotus Lake
Homeowners Association and a number of other interested people concerning
Eurasian Water Milfoil and there having someone at least the DNR speaking
' there . I plan on going to the meeting . Anybody who is interested I urge
to go. I 've had at least two different calls concerning Water Milfoil and
what can we do at the boat access and how are we going to keep it out of
Chanhassen lakes? There are some very, very, very interested people on
' Water Milfoil and I 'm glad to see that . I 'm glad they' re taking an
initiative on it. I think there' s some council people that will be going
to that meeting . A lot of neighborhood people are going to it. Anybody
' on Thursday night at 7 : 30 because it does affect everyone of the bodies of
water in this city and actually the way it sounds, the entire State is
threatened with this . We need to get some good information and get some
discussion going on it . So that ' s Thursday night at 7 : 30 for anyone who ' s
' interested . That' s at Chaska High School commons . The last thing I ' ve
got is , two years ago we met with the City Council in a general work
session. Everything was on the table. It was informal . It was just put
the tables together and talk and see where we need to head and what our
thoughts are on various different things . I think it 'd be nice,
especially since we have a new Council , to do that again. Kind of get
t their thoughts . We all know where we' re kind of heading. They might not
know what we' re thinking and we try to know where they' re thinking and
it'd be nice to kind of get a consensus of what their thoughts are anyway.
We may not agree on everything but at least we know what their thoughts
' are.
Boyt : Maybe we can meet like a half hour before their Council meeting or
' something since they' re already there so we don ' t have to inconvenience
them.
' Hasek : A lot of the City Council ' s take a half an hour or hour either
before or after for general . . .
Mady: Let ' s go before . I guess I 'm going to make a motion to direct
' staff to put the request to Council and we' ll meet at a time convenient to
them.
Boyt : ASAP. Second .
■
•
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting I
February 14 , 1989 - Page 54
Mady moved , Boyt seconded to direct staff to request the City Council for II
a joint meeting between the Park and Recreation Commission and the City
Council at a time convenient to them. All voted in favor and the motion
II
carried.
Schroers : Just for your information, I have provided Scott Drummer with a II
set of plans for a bridge for an Eagle Scout project to compliment our
other bridge. I mailed the plans to him the other day so I don ' t know
exactly when he intends to actively start construction. I
Sietsema: Over the wet area on the other end of the pond . He was the one
that was going to maybe do the a bridge or walking thing and the wood duck I
houses because he didn' t think the wood duck houses would count for much .
Schroers: He didn' t talk to me at all about wood duck houses. He was II just asking for a design and a plan for a bridge. So that ' s been provided
for him. He has it.
Mady: Is that a floating bridge?
Schroers : No . It ' s a Polyenasi.an bridge. It ' s sunken down with pillars .
Sietsema: Does anybody have any comments on the administrative section? I
Hasek: I do have something here. We were talking about Eckankar church
and maybe this directed more to the mayor today. The City of Chanhassen
II
doesn ' t have a zone for churches and institutional .
Watson: It' s a conditional use. . .
II
Hasek: I understand that . The problem with that is that we lose the
possibility of controlling what happens to those pieces of property. That '
church, if they did desire, could legally subdivide their property without
us having anything to do with it. They could carve 40 acres off of it and
sell it to someone else and then at that point then we would have control
over it but they can subdivide the property through the County without us
II
ever seeing it, if they wanted to . If we implemented a zone or talked
about the possibility of putting a zone in place now that would cover
those, that anytime they wanted to do anything or even if you wanted to II build the church, it would be rezoning for the existing piece to that
particular zone . Whatever . If it comes out a residential or commercial ,
whatever, it'd be a rezoning. Because it ' s rezoning then, we could have „'
some control over what happens on it where as it stands right now,
Eckankar could conceivably legally can build that church and we' ve got not
a darn thing to say about it as long as they meet the zoning ordinances .
We' re losing a lot of opportunities on that particular property. The
second thing in regards to that , is that road that was on the western side
of that property, dedicated?
Sietsema: Yes . I
II
111
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
February 14 , 1989 - Page 55
Hasek: So we have the right to use it now? We can still put our access
in there?
' Sietsema: Yes . You' re talking about the right-of-way that ' s along the
side of Lake Ann Park, yes . That is dedicated right-of-way. It' s a paper
Iroad .
Hasek: So we still have the right to use that . If we want to put a
street in there for a second access or whatever out of the park, we can
' still do that? Good . It ' s just something you might want to think about .
Talk to the Attorney and see if there' s something we can do about it. It' s
not only for churches . It' s a lot of other things that could go
I through. . . We have a lot of plans for that. Mixed residential .
Commercial . Residential . If that doesn ' t happen , there ' s a lot of
taxes . . .
Hasek moved , Boyt 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