1l. Minutes 257
1 '
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
' REGULAR MEETING
MAY 8, 1989
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler
and Councilman Johnson
' COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Boyt
' STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Jo Ann Olsen, Todd
Gerhardt, Karen Engelhardt and Jim Chaffee
' APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
' b. Final Plat Approval, Chanhassen Hills Third Addition.
e. Final Plat Approval, Heritage Park, Lotus Realty.
Ih. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Chapter 20 of the City Code Deleting
Contractor's Yards as Conditional Uses in the A-2 and BF Districts, First
' Reading.
i. Approval of Accounts
Ii. City Council Minutes dated April 24, 1989
Planning Commission Minutes dated April 19, 1989
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated April 11, 1989
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' C. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES,
FIRST READING.
' Councilman Johnson: This is a vast improvement over what we have now, which is
next to nothing, as far as restrictions on accessory buildings but I take to
heart what Steve recommended up in the front and kind of agree with him there.
' If you look at a residential single family areas and R-4 areas, our ordinances
will allow them to put a building 30% of the backyard and up to 1,000 square
feet. So in my lot, I could put an accessory building the same size as my house
in my backyard and according to this 10 feet from my back property line. That
would be terrible to my neighbor on my back property line to be able to put a
full sized house 10 feet away from his property line. What I'd like to do
here, I'm wondering if I just want to table this again and give some suggestions
' or pass it as is and look to see, talk to Don whether to go ahead and change it,
as soon as we can send it back to Planning Commission with some suggestions.
' 1
AM
441ti'ty' Council Meeting - May 8, 1989
There's a lot of different things. My first suggestion is that in the RSF, R-4
district that buildings should not exceed 800 of the size of the primary
structure. I don't know if 80o is a good number or not. That's still pretty
big, and not to exceed a total of 1,000 square feet. I would take (a) and drop
1:-
it back to 140 square feet or a minimum setback of 5 feet. Then I'd say for a
house between 140 square feet and 400 square feet, have a 10 foot setback and
anything bigger than 400 square feet which is 20 foot by 20 foot, go to the
regular 30 foot setback. So theoretically your house can be 30 feet from your
back property line so you've only got a 30 foot backyard and somebody can then
build a huge storage building just 40 foot away from you. Those are my
suggestions for that. Then we add that (c) there. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I agree. I think we should pull this at this particular
time. My reasoning is that I would like to have this as a regular agenda item
and open this for discussion because I'd like more input from the people in the
community if they have any.
Councilman Johnson: I don't think there was much input at the public hearing
that was held. I do remember being there.
Mayor Chmiel: Yep. I was there also. I just want people to be aware of the '
fact that this is there and I want to make sure.
Councilman Johnson: A neighbor of ours built a large barnlike structure in
their backyard. They've got the 12,000 square foot lot and they actually put it
right on the property line right next to the guy's garden so his garden became a
shaded area. They spent a long time getting that garden going and they built
this structure right next to it so that's what I'm trying to prevent. Stuff [11
like that. I move to table it then.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. I'll second that. '
Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to table the first reading of an
Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance regarding Accessory Structures. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
D. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 13.49 ACRES INTO 9 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS,
EAST SIDE OF POWERS BLVD. APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, LAKE SUSAN
HILLS WEST, ARGUS DEVELOPMENT. '
Councilman -Johnson: I actually didn't have a whole lot of problems with the
preliminary plat itself but I've got a problem with the pond that with the ice
melt they had a pond get destroyed, a sediment pond and it's been what, a month
now and it hasn't been repaired and now we've got sediment running into Lake
Susan because there has been no repair. I don't see why we should continue.
This should have been repaired immediately. Do you know what the status of that
is Gary?
Gary Warren: We followed up and had contact with the developer, Argus
Development and their engineer. They've changed engineers in the process of
going from the Second to Third Addition so I don't know if that slowed them up
but we've been in contact with them over 2 weeks ago to address it. You're
2
1
259
I , City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989
Ir- right, I was out yesterday looking and I made a note that it had not so. t been done
Councilman Johnson: Yes, there's nice light brown water flowing out of there
tonight.
eMayor Chmi.el: Have we received revised landscape plans on this as well as did
we also receive the Watershed and Carver County permit for this Gary?
Jo Ann Olsen: We did receive the revised landscaping plan. Carver_ County, no
they have not received for the temporary access? They have not received that.
We have been in contact with them and they feel there will be no problem with
' taking it. I don't even know if they've made the application yet.
Mayor Chmiel: But you've had discussions with the County regarding this and
they don't have any problems? The pond to be repaired, that should also be part
of that basic approval. Jay are you going to make a motion on this?
Councilman Johnson: Okay. I thought Ursula wanted to talk.
Councilwoman Dimler: I had something other than that. My point with it. I was
under the impression that we had a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. Is
that right Jo Ann?
' Jo Ann Olsen: Th i s is a PUD and so they were permitted smaller lot sizes.
a Councilwoman Dimler: Okay because I noticed there were quite a few of them that
were smaller. Also, do we have a minimum width at the setback that the
to be? lot has
' Jo Ann Olsen: It's 90 feet at the setback.
Councilwoman Dimler: It's 90 feet wide at the setback. Okay, do they all meet
' that requirement?
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, thank you. That's all I wanted to know.
' Councilman Johnson: I'll move approval of item 1(d) with the staff's 10
conditions. Adding a condition 11 that the sedimentation basin along CR 17 be
repaired as soon as it dries out enough to repair it. You can't get in there
and work on it now but in a timely fashion.
Councilman Workman: I'll second it.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the
Preliminary Plat to subdivide 13.49 acres into 9 single family lots on the east
side of Powers Blvd. approximately 1 mile south of Highway 5, Lake Susan Hills
West, Argue Development with the 10 conditions listed by staff in the staff
report and an additional condition 11 stating that the sedimentation basin along
County Road 17 be repaired in a timely fashion. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
3
4fr�� t Y
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989
Mayor_ Chmi.el: Ursula, on the Minutes.
I:-
Councilwoman Dimler: The only thing I wanted to know is, I wanted to ask Gary
Warren, I know at the last meeting I brought up the fact that the cul-de-sacs
should be large enough to allow school buses to turn around and Gary indicated
that he would check with the school board on that. Did you do that Gary? Do
you have an answer?
Gary Warren: We did do that and we couldn't find anybody there that said they
had a problem with it. This was the first that we heard. We checked our
turning radii width, the standard detail plates for buses and we are in
compliance with the minimum turning radius on our standard plates but other than
that, we did call the school district and did not find anybody that had any
specific complaints that they chose to give us anyway.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, then there must be a miscommunication because the '
party I'm referring to did call the school board and complain.
Gary Warren: This is an individual resident that complained about it? '
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes.
Gary Warren: We talked to the school board directly now. I'd be happy to
follow up if you've got a name you want to give me after the meeting and talk
about i.t. '
Councilman Johnson: I know there are some people in Chaska with the same basic
complaint. Some people on our swim team that my son's on. It's the same thing.
They want to take as straight of a shot as possible: In fact there's one place
where they could take a loop and loop through and go out on another street. If
they don't do it, you still have to walk a quarter mile up to do it.
Gary Warren: The comment we had back from the school district was that their
contract with the bus agency was that they were not required to go down
cul-de-sacs. Therefore, it's not necessarily a bad turning radius on the
cul-de-sac. It's just as Jay's eluding to somewhat, they have a direct shot so
even if we had cul-de-sac that had a 100 foot turning radius, they probably
still wouldn't go down them. That's their contract with the carrier.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll pass that onto the resident I'm concerned about then.
Thank you.
RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING. '
Dave Pederson from the Villager drew a name for the Recycling Prize.
[1!
1
4
OM
,;;,;3.1
ICity Council Meeting - May 8, 1989
II
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
ISTEVE DECATUR, EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL.
Steve DeCatur: I'm Steve DeCatur, 6645 Horseshoe Curve, Chanhassen. I'd like
' to make an overview presentation of the Eurasian Water Milfoil program that I've
outlined for all of you previously. I know you've all had a chance to review
that so my comments tonight will be brief. I mention as an introduction that I
' do have with me Howard Crush from the DNR. He's an aquatic biologist so if you
have any technical questions that I can't field, we have a resource available
for your questions. As I say, I recognize you've reviewed this. I think we can
' all agree based on the pictures on our wall that the lakes in Chanhassen are one
of our greatest recreational resources and that by way of an overvi_ew, _I believe
that-we can agree on several_ other points as well. First of all that the threat
to the Chanhassen lakes is imminent. The weed has spread rapidly through Lake
' Minnetonka in the past 2 years to the point where a three-quarter of a million
dollar harvesting program at this juncture is the most feasible method for
keeping the weed under control. It's not a method to eliminate the weed but
'
merely to keep it down to a tolerable level. Because of our proximity to
Minnetonka and the volume of i.nterlake traffic with Chanhassen lakes, you can
see fairly clearly that we're in extreme risk for spread of the weed. Secondly
' the problem is rather severe. The weed's effects on the recreational value to
the surrounding area as well as the property value as also outlined in my
presentation. They're anticipating a 7% to 8% decline in property values on
Minnetonka in the badly infested bays and there are also other problems related
just strictly to the unsightly and malodorous nature of the weed as it
decomposes in large mats on the surface of the water. Thirdly, the problem is
immediate. The we is already up in Lake Minnetonka. It's up to a level of 12
' to 15 inches. Will soon be up within prop depth .and will begin it's process of
fragmentation and spread so to the degree we can accelerate the process and act
quickly, we need to have a program in place as soon as possible. Are there any
questions at this point that you'd like to address to Howard? Otherwise, I'll
' go ahead and outline the program.
Mayor Chmi.el: _I think you can just continue unless someone does have any
' questions of Howard. If not, please proceed.
Steve DeCatur: Okay. The program I've outlined in the presentation I provided
you is based on the following facts. Once the weed is well established in a
lake, the only effective treatment method becomes harvesting. It's not an.
eradication process. It's simply a control process. At this point affected
biological and chemical treatments of extremely infested lakes do not exist. A
' couple closure or limitation of access hours or launch fee are not available
options based on my conversations with the DNR and other governmental bodies.
Furthermore, the DNR has a very limited budget at this point to coordinate any
' kind of a program in the 1989. Thirdly, Chanhassen's budgetary constraints as
I've learned working with Scott Harr and others at City offices, will preclude
expanding the access monitoring schedule to a full 16 hour per day monitoring
system. Therefore, the program I've outlined is one which concentrates an early
identification and very rapid treatment if the weed, when and if it its found in
the Chanhassen lakes. The program does depend on
community and the city. The 3 part program outlined tconsists oftanthe
educational phase with distribution of brochures, erection of warning signs and
' 5
mo
y Council Meeting - May 8, 1989
also education of lakeshore homeowners and access monitors and the placement of
trash receptacles for deposit of the weed. Secondly, the control phase involves
a patrol by voluntary citizen teams who have been trained to identify the weed.
Thirdly, through a prompt reporting process back to City Hall with your
designated contact, to establish a procedure to confirm the existence of the
weed. Contact a commercial contractor to coordinate with the DNR and the permit
process and the prompt treatment chemically of the weed. Again, our only option
being early identification. Catch it while it is a small level of infestation.
Deal with it. Eradicate it and stave off a major infestation until some better
biological control methods can be perfected. As my cover memo describes, the
community will provide basically voluntary participation in the distribution of
brochures and ongoing patrol of the lakes except Ann where no private citizens
have lakeshore property and patrol teams are being organized at this time on
Minnewashta, Christmas, Lucy, Lotus and Riley. The City involvement as I've
asked in my cover memo, for you to designate a responsive proactive individual
to coordinate sign installation ASAP and to be the contact to interface with the
treatment contractor, the individual who will also be the interface with Ron
Johnson who's the Carver County weed inspector and will be involved in the
coordination of the training of the weed patrols and the lake access monitor
personnel. Second, the city will need to commit funds for the printing, signage
and treatment up to the limits that I've called for in my program. Third,
depending on the extent of the weed infestation, if any, and as a side I would
mention that no one has confirmed any sightings of the weed in any of the lakes
I've mentioned in my program but if the infestation does occur in 1989, to
commit the funds in an ongoing basis in 1990 to continue to cope with the
problem. If there are no further questions, I'd await your designation of my
contact so we can rapidly implement a program to deal with the program this ,
year.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. I want to thank you for taking your time out as you
have to have concerns about the lakes and the city. I think it's very well
documented and a nice job.
Steve DeCatur: So I should expect to return next time for action? '
Mayor Chmiel: We have not basically discussed this and I think maybe what I'd
like to do is just throw it open. Maybe Don you have some comments. '
Don Ashworth: Staff is already starting to carry out part of the program. The
signs I believe have been ordered. Contact remains between Lori. Si.etsema and
Scott Harr. Your crossing a number of borders in terms of a particular problem
and again I feel that both those staff members can react to any type of
questions you may have. At some points it may require again public safety
action. At other times, back with Park and Recreation and again Todd has been
active in the program to date as well. I think they've done an excellent job in
laying out the program. The thing that worries me the most is that if we do get
into a situation where the weed is prominent, we simply do not have either the
manpower or, the dollars to go through the type of program that's been outlined
if the weed does get to a dangerous condition.
Steve DeCatur: I understand that the signage has been ordered. I commend that. '
We can get that in place. I don't know the inner workings of city offices but
would only suggest as far as we've taken the program, there is some coordination
which I'm sure the citizens would be able to help in in getting people over to ,
6
MO
r j
Ca-r-
,
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989
Ir-- Minnetonka to learn what the weed looks like. To educate the patrols and
educate the access monitors. What I really see being a fairly narrow time
IIconstraint then is if they do receive a call. A second call goes to Don. To
Mr. Johnson at Carver County. He identifies the weed. Then there really is
only a letter and permit process to go through and that will be taken care of by
the contractor that you select to do the weed treatment. I guess I can't
' emphasize strongly enough based on the networking I've done, that if we let it
go another year and you don't treat it promptly or you don't get on it within a
period of weeks, the weed spreads very quickly. 2 inches a day. Fragments.
Spreads by fiberous root system. You're going to have a infestation problem
very soon that is very copeable if you will, can only be coped with with a very
expensive harvesting program. Again, I'm not trying to second guess your
judgment but I believe with the program far enough advanced at this point, that
we can reduce the manpower time required at City Hall. I understand that the
funding is an issue and I think that will have to be dealt with on an emergency
basis based on my input that I've had from people that I'm working with but I'd
' suggest if we can now to proceed with the signage. I would like a person
designated by you so that I don't have to go to Scott and Scott say well, I'm
not sure. Park and Rec's role is x and get this handoff back and forth. I
would like to have one clear representative at City Hall that I can work with.
Don Ashworth: I continue to look to Scott Harr to be that person.
Steve DeCatur: That's fine. I've had very good cooperation from Scott.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to thank you also. You look at these costs. This
is nothing compared to what would happen if it got established. If we can keep
I = an eye out for it. We talked about an ordinance prohibiting the transport of
the weed into our lakes or anything. What ever happened with that? So that our
' gate attendants would have an ordinance behind them where by they say you can't
put your boat in because you've got the milfoil on it. Right now does he have
the legal right to tell somebody that?
'
Mayor Chmiel: We did discuss that some time ago, you're right but I don't know
if there's been any follow-up of anyone on it.
' Councilman Johnson: I was thinking there was something within our nuisance
ordinance where we thought that it may not be necessary with our weed ordinance,
our nuisance ordinance we're able to say that he had that right. I think we
' ought to double check on that too and if we need, I'd like to see an ordinance
next time where we actually...
Mayor Chmiel: Give a little bit of bite to the people that are there.
' Councilman Johnson: Yes.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Steve DeCatur: So that I understand Mr. Chmiel, if we do find it and it's
If identified, what is our avenue of approach back to the city offices at that
point? I'm a little uncertain. I understand the program up to that point is
pretty much endorsed as indicated. What is the process if we identify the weed?
7
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 ' II
Mayor Chmiel: I would say get back to Scott Harr.
Steve DeCatur: Okay, very good. 1:-
Councilwoman Dimler: Steve I have a question. Did you say at the present time
none of our lakes have it?
Steve DeCatur: I will not testify to that. All I can tell you if Lake
Restoration who is the contractor that I've designated here has done a lot of
work in area lakes treating beaches, for other kinds of personal contract use.
Not for the city. They have not positively identified it in any of the lakes
and any of the quasi-educated persons that live on the lakes that have seen it
on Minnetonka have not reported seeing it but I can't testify that it's not
here. It certainly is not at a level where it's been noted as a problem.
Therefore, the premise of my program is let's get to it before it becomes a
problem but I can't testify that it's not.
Councilwoman Dimler: The reason I ask is because there is a native water
milfoil and perhaps we have that. I'm not sure.
Steve Decaturr: You could ask Howard. I'm assuming that there is a high chance
or high probability that we do have that in one or more of the lakes but it can
be differentiated from the Eurasian variety. '
Councilwoman Dimler: I understand that it's difficult though.
Steve DeCatur: That's why I say that we need an educated person. I'm I
suggesting here Mr. Johnson from Carver County be educated to do that. The
contractor's also have. the ability to identify the weed but certainly the weed
patrols are nothing other than a first look and if .there's a suspected weed
infestation, City Hall is called and whatever you determine. Whether you want
to use the contractor at that point or whether you want to use the Carver_ County
weed inspector, get them out there for positive identification, then it better
be treated in the next week to 10 days or we've got a problem where it begins to
multiply.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess my point is, I hate to see us spending a lot of I
money if we're dealing with a native and not the Eurasian.
Steve Decatur: You won't be. You will not be spending any money for treatment
until the weed has been positively identified and the DNR won't give you a
permit until they're certain that the weed has been positively identified. As
you can see, the rest of it is voluntary up to that point.
Mayor Chmiel: Steve, a few weeks ago, probably a month ago, I had heard that
DuPont had come out with something that would eliminate this. Is there anything
that you know? '
Steve Decatur_: No. I'd defer to Howard. I asked him the same question after
we had our conversation.
[I:1!
Howard Crush: I'm Howard Crush with the DNR. I'm the manager of the Monitoring
and Control Unit in the Fish and Wildlife Division. I believe the product
you're referring to is probably a product called Fluoridone. It goes under. the
8 1
Mg
'City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 'ate
I .� trade name of Sonar. It's not DuPont, it's Elanko has this. It's a systemic
herbicide. It received full registration, gee I think that was last summer or
the summer before. We don't know how well it is going to work in Minnesota. It
I 4 is probably the most widely used a quatic herbicide in Florida. That's where
their biggest market is. What they have determined in the south though is that
Eurasian Water Milfoil is very sensitive to this herbicide and they're not
making any claims yet but it's entirely possible that it may be found that it
can be used selectively to control Eurasian Water Milfoil.
Mayor Chmiel: Is that because of your water temperatures?
Howard Crush: It isn't so much the water temperature I don't believe. It's
just that it's a very slow acting product. It may take 60 to 90 days to become
' effective. Now that's most of the summer here but looking at that is one of
these good news, bad news things and it's not just one bit of good news and one
of bad. It's well, this is not so good but this is and this isn't and this is.
It appears to be selective but it takes a long time but on the other hand it
really does a job on it and it may give 2 or 3 years of control. It's kind of
back and forth. We are going to have some control plots or experimental plots
on Lake Minnetonka. We're working with Elanko on that and we're going to try to
see just what it does do.
Mayor Chmiel: Can we be informed or what's happening as well?
' Howard Crush: Oh certainly.
Steve DeCatur: I assume this year it's not an option until it gets through the
experimental phase? You wouldn't commercially or allow commercial...
Howard Crush: Well•'i.t is on our approved list. It has been used a little bit
' but we don't really know what to recommend. It's the sort of thing that is not
very suitable for making spot treatments in the lakes. About what Elanko thinks
is probably the minimum size area you can treat is about 5 acres. If you treat
' 5 acres, you probably eliminate all the sensitive plants within that 5 acre area
or you may get all the sensitive ones and those that are moderately sensitive
and only the most hardy ones will survive. Then outside of that area because of
' drift and this is quite a long lasting compound, you may control sensitive
species on another 5 acres. This is what we're trying to find out in
Minnetonka. It's been the experience in other areas, this is kind of what
happens. On a reservoir in Indiana, they treated oh I think it was something
' like 15 or 20 acres and they control 30 or. 40 acres of Eurasian Water Milfoil so
it's encouraging.
' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you very much.
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, another action we probably should do is
establish a contingency plan. I think the framework for said contingency plan
' is right here in the document that Steve prepared for us. In that if Eurasian
Water Milfoil is found, that Scott has a plan to open up and act. There's no,
we have a pre-approved eradication plan. That we don't have to wait 2 weeks for
the City Council to meet and approve it and things like that. I'd like to see
us approve it in advance.
9
'
MO
cIt�.ty Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 1
Councilman Workman: I think the contingency plan is only as good as the funding
and my next question was going to be, do we have any kind of funding or where
would the funding come from? I haven't heard that from staff. I remember
in January Park and Rec was thinking about getting rid of the parking permit
fees at Lake Ann. They were talking about doing that and there's about
$20,000.00. Maybe a percentage or something of that could be designated.
Something directly related to the quality of parks and lakes. '
Don Ashworth: There is no line item within the budget to cover really any of
these things. The administrative trust fund was established as a special fund
to be used by City Council for special projects as they would occur during the
course of the year. Staff has taken the position initially at least with the
signs, that this was an item that we felt the Council endorsed and was within
the intent and purpose of that fund. For us to spend further monies over again
that initial signage, I would feel very uncomfortable unless I came back to the
City Council. Again, having you designate a specific budget amount that we
could work within. Similarly, I guess I'd like to work with Steve a little bit. '
He said we have a contractor, though there are municipal contracting laws there
as well and I guess I'd like to know more about that contract. What it is we're
potentially getting into in hiring that contractor. How well that conforms with
the Minnesota Municipal Bidding laws for contractors.
Steve Decatur: There are multiple contractors. I only suggested these people
because I have worked with them and they've been most helpful but I understand
that what I'd like to do, as Jay has indicated, is run down those paths now.
Address them early so the process is there and I understand this is a
contingency issue but if we do wait, it's going to take a week to find it.
You're going to have to come back and if we hit the wrong schedule it will be 2
weeks before the Council meets again. We're going to be sitting there for 3
weeks to a month with 'absolutely no action. My personal feeling and it is only
that, is that if you forego some _picnic tables this year and you forego an
improvement on a picnic shelter, something else out of the Park and Rec's
budget, we should be prepared to postpone that kind of an investment until we're
certain there isn't a weed problem. And if there is, assess the magnitude of
the problem. Budget for it. Deal with it. You're talking about $375.00 an
acre and an acre of weeds is a lot of weeds. I think the numbers I've outlined
here, a total program of $16,000.00. I feel are fairly aggressive. So what I'm
really looking at is a way for the Council to say let's prioritize the Park and
Rec's budget until we have time to let the weed emerge if it's here. Find i.t.
Locate it and figure out how we're going to deal with it.
Councilman Johnson: As I say, I don' t think we' re going to hit up with 38 acres
right away so the number of $14,000.00 of control is probably way high because
we want to find it before it's an acre or anything like that so it is easier to
control. I would like to see a contingency plan made up. A preliminary
budget. We can go ahead and pre-approve a vendor, or we may not use them as
all. Say hey, we would like to have somebody bid on the job. What will you
charge us per acre? Whatever we have to do knowing that there is none to do but
we want to be able to jump on it when it does happen. Like I said, the
government bidding is not a fast operation.
Don Ashworth: I would suggest tabling this item to allow Scott and myself to
address each of the issues that Council has brought up here.
1
10 '
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989
x'67
' Mayor Chmiel: I think it's something that we do have to address before we can't
come to a conclusion this evening.
Councilman Johnson: It's a visitor presentation so it's automatically tabled.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Maybe you can do that. Review that with Scott and come
up with some conclusions as to what total dollars and get back to the Council
and we'll go from there.
' Councilman Johnson: I would say we could designate something, say $5,000.00
which is a third of what this would be. His assumption is that 5% of all areas
that are susceptible to this are infested and need to be treated is a very loose
assumption. So I would think that $5,000.00 would probably be more than enough
to handle it if the patrols catch it soon enough. If it doesn't, then we've got
a problem.
Mayor Chmiel: I still think it has to be tabled and come up with some
conclusions so we can do that.
Steve DeCatur: I'll continue to coordinate with Scott. Any involvement you
need from me, let me know through Scott. I'm here to volunteer.
Mayor Chmiel: Are there any additional visitor presentations?
Al Klingelhutz: I just wanted to talk a little bit about Eurasian Milfoil. We
had a meeting about 3 weeks ago and we're meeting again this week. The Carver
' 3 County Park Board which I'm a member of. We did send a letter to the DNR and
I don't know if any of these people are in receipt of that, asking them what
they're going to do about it. It looks to me like they're pushing all the
responsibilities of it onto the local communities that have lakes in their
' district but I think it's really a Department of'Natural Resources problem as
much as it is the local communities. I'm really concerned that we aren't
getting enough effort from them as far as their boat accesses and things like
' that which they have promoted on all these lakes to do some signage and get out
some educational material to the public so people really know what the concerns
are. I'd like to have a copy of the program that they've set out for the City
' of Chanhassen to take to my Park and Rec meeting up at Baylor Park Wednesday
night if I could have that. Thank you.
Councilman Johnson: Steve made this up, not the DNR I believe.
Al Klingelhutz: But I'd like to have a copy of it. We can probably take some
of the same actions.
Eric Rivkin: I just want to make some comments on the Milfoil. Eric Rivkin.
6095 Stellar Court. I support the program whole heartedly and it's nice to see
' someone else as passionately possessed as I am about the care of our most
precious natural resources. I live on Lake Lucy and right now Lake Lucy doesn't
have a public access and if it is opened up to public access, we of course run
the risk of greater infestation of the milfoil. I believe we have to do
whatever means that is possible to prevent infestation and attack the problem
immediately when it appears. With the high nutrient level and low water clarity
on Lake Lucy, infestation would be rapid and difficult to detect. I agree that
we can't wait for a slow reaction time. We have to attack the problem
' 11
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989
immediately. We need quick and immediate action to tap on readily available
funds. According to Steve's report, milfoil likes nutrient rich water and it
would make sense that since the introduction of milfoil is inevitable, that
preparing the lakes to make it difficult to take root and spread and keep the
water to clear to make it easy to spot would make a very strong preventative
measure. Combined with methods that are proven to reduce nutrient levels that
will hopefully be incorporated into the Lake Riley restoration program. These
measures will perform double duty. Perhaps the fund later on could be expanded
to include funds to help with these methods. To keep the nutrients out. I
contact several residents who have open water access and they're willing to
learn about milfoil and be part of the milfoil watch program on Lake Lucy and if
I ever get open water access, I will be an active participant also. I gave
Steve my number to be a contact for Lake Lucy. I have been in contact with him
already on this and he's encouraged to hear that we're going to be actively
participating. Thank you.
Cindy Gillman: I'm Cindy Gillman. I'm also on Lotus Lake. The one other thing
I wanted to bring up possibly, to put in for the immediate stop gap budget is
some kind of bouys or flags so that when it is spotted on the lakes, that bouy
is put in place or the flag is put in place so that boats are not going over
that until it is identified one way or the other.
Mayor Chmiel: Good point. Anyone else? Not hearing any we' ll close the
visitor presentations.
AWARD OF BIDS: NEW MAILING EQUIPMENT. I
Don Ashworth: Karen Engelhardt is present this evening, our office manager.
I've asked Karen to go through quotes. With the amount under $15,000.00,
official bids were not required. We looked at a number of different pieces for
our mailing system. Both new and used equipment. Funding for this had occurred
as a part of our overall building expansion program recognizing we're moving
people. We're also moving various functions. Again, this was a very needed
piece of equipment. Again, Karen has taken quotations. The low bid from Friden
is the one that's being recommended in an amount of $2,275.00. This is a
mailing machine, folder, inserter, letter protector and electronic scale. '
Councilman Johnson: $10,000.00.
Mayor Chmiel: $10,275.00. I guess I have a question. In looking at the
Friden from the first page on the memorandum as opposed to the second page, we
show the Model 9125 as a mailing machine for the same amount as what's on the
first page. The second item is the remanufactured one for about $2,000.00 some
dollars less. Now the mail opener, is that the same as what the letter
protector is?
Karen Engelhardt: No. The mail opener will actually slice the mail that we
receive every morning open. That's separate.
Mayor Chmiel: What's the difference between that and the letter. protector_?
0171
Councilman Johnson: They're the same price.
12 ,
II 6,1 Council Meeting - May 8, 1989
`,1 69
IMayor Chmiel: You have 5001 Letter Protector and then the other is known as a
# mail opener.
Karen Engelhardt: I used the term interchangeably.
Mayor Chmiel: Then the electronic scale is basically the same as the 5 pound
' scale?
Karen Engelhardt: Yes.
' Councilman Johnson: She used generic on the front because you had 3 different
bidders and it was specific in the back. I move approval.
Councilman Workman: Maybe I can ask a quick question. We've had a problem the
past 3 weeks with the copying machine.
' Karen Engelhardt: That's our next project. We just had a new motor installed
in the copier last week. It's kind of, the problems we've faced in the last 3
weeks kind of are the beginning of the end for the motor so that's been replaced
and hopefully we're back on track.
Councilman Johnson: But it still needs replacing eventually. It is an old
machine.
Don Ashworth: We do 5 year leases on the Xerox. We're up to running about
I 70,000 to 80,000 copies per month through that machine. The 5 year lease and
lit actually ownership ended this past year. I've been trying to get along, get
that extra 6th year out of it and I don't think it's worth the struggle. It's
i just old and needs replacement.
' Councilman Johnson: Remember your car. Your car went 2 years longer than it
should have.
' Resolution #89-66: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
award the bid to F.ri.den in the amount of $10,275.50 for the following equipment:
' Model 9125 Mailing Machine, System 500R Folder/Inserter (remanufactured) , 5001
Letter Protector and 8505 Electronic Scale. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
AWARD OF BID: CLEANING, REPAIRING AND PAINTING THE 100,000 GALLON ELEVATED
STORAGE TANK.
Gary Warren: We opened bids on April 26th for the subject project. We had 3
bids that were received. The low bid was submitted by Odland Protective
Coatings in the amount of $57,340.00. Reference check and the references, the
' project material they had to submit with the plans and specifications checked
out fine and we're recommending award of the Project 88-19 to Odland Protective
Coatings in the amount of $57,340.00.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I had one question. The tank lettering for $3,000.00.
Is that been determined that we letter all tanks? I know that we have the maple
leaf on the tank off Powers Blvd. which I think is attention as to what
13
SI
"ttt/Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 '
II
Chanhassen is. Is it necessary that we put the words Chanhassen up there?
Gary Warren: When we brought this up as a part of the plan and spec
preparation, I guess we were looking for Council input at that time also. As
you know, the tank is currently labeled with Chanhassen and our thinking, mine I
guess primarily was to continue with a name recognition consistent with what was
up there. In fact to change the lettering to the current letterhead style. The
name would actually be shrunk down but that was our thinking. The maple leaf is
used in several other communities as you're no doubt aware such as Little Canada
I believe and Maplewood so we thought it would be appropriate at least in the
downtown area to have one tank that has the name. Being a private pilot, I also
appreciate names, but that was the reason.
Councilman Workman: When will this begin? ,
Gary Warren: We had a condition in the specs I believe it was that it be
completed by the end of August. Painting i.s, as I'm sure you're aware, is a
little bit sensitive to the weather and they've got the rehab work and such to
do. We will be having a meeting following this and get a schedule from the
contractor but basically the only critieria we have is that he be done by the
end of August into September. '
Councilman Johnson: Did you get any feedback from the paint color from the
neighbors? '
Gary Warren: As I noted here, we'll be sending a letter out. We can select
that paint color up to the last minute almost so we're sending a letter out just
to get that feedback. '
Mayor Chmiel: Does the Council want to be consistent with all tanks being the
same color too?
Gary Warren: That was our approach here when we chose the color on the ground
storage reservoir and that color has received very good response so we're
intending to use, that's what we speced but as directed, we'll be sending a
letter to notify the immediate 3 block area around that this is what we're going
to be doing. We're also going to go with a new paint system which is, I
shouldn't say this for the public but it's a little more resistent to graffiti
so that means we're done now right. But we' re able to use solvents to remove
graffiti so it's worked out pretty well in other communities.
Resolution #89-67: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman . '
n D.mler seconded to
award the bid for cleaning, repairing and painting of the 100,000 gallon
elevated storage tank to Odland Protective Coatings in the total amount of
$57,340.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF A PORTION OF RENTAL PAYMENTS FOR USE OF OLD ST.
HUBERT'S CHURCH, MIKE WEIBERG, FAMILY OF CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH.
Dean Brown: Mike could not be with us this evening. My name is Dean Brown. My II
address is 18737 Clear View Drive, Minnetonka. What I'm here to do is speak in C'
terms of the sublease that the Family of Christ Lutheran Church went into
14
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989
271
Iagreement with the City of Chanhassen in regards to capital improvements to Old
St. Hubert's. From my understanding of the lease and I don't know what you have
in front of you but it basically seems to be an interpretation of money spent
for capital improvements for Old St. Hubert's church. The original lease
agreement which was signed and to go in effect on December 31, 1983 and run
through December 31, 1988 requested that the Family of Christ Lutheran Church
' pay $15,000.00 into a fund that would be used for capital improvements for Old
St. Huberts. At the time the least was written, it was in the spirit that the
Family of Christ would obviously pay for things that they were using within the
church. What kind of prompted the whole lease agreement was that the city just
had an outlay of over $4,000.00 for improvements to the furnance of that
particular church. At the time, the life of the furnance was deemed after that
to be anywhere from 15 to 20 years. The sublease agreement at that time was
then for 5 years. Subsequently, Family of Christ has upheld it's part of the
bargain. Has paid it's $15,000.00 and as we neared the end of our lease and as
we started to move into our new building as stated by Don Ashworth, what we did
was we contacted, let me get the letter out in front of me, a Jean Meuwissen, as
far as the fund was concerned and what was actually there. What we were fully
expecting to find was $15,000.00 of which we would receive 60% of that money and
then the City of Chanhassen would receive 40%. What we found was a deficient as
' the fund began in that year to charge us for the furnance of $4,000.49 plus the
appropriate interest charged to that $4,000.00. What Don Ashworth is contending
is that that particular money should be coming out of the fund and then what is
' left over after the $4,000.00 is deducted. We would receive 60% and the City of
Chanhassen would receive 40%. So what that's basically saying is that instead
of receiving 60% of $15,000.00 which is $9,000.00, Don is contending we should
receive about $6,000.00. So what we're looking at here is a possible difference
114 of $3,000.00. Our contention is that as a church we have paid our fair share.
Even if you took the $4,000.00 out of the $15,000.00, you as a city would not
have to pay anything- because again the original lease agreement said 40% which
would be $6,000.00 that the City would receive and then we would receive
$9,000.00. So in essence what you're making is about $2,000.00 even after
you've paid for the furnance. Now as we leave that particular building, there
' was a furnance that is there that still has a useful life of approximately 10
years so what we would like for the City to consider is that we've upheld our
end of the bargain and what we're requesting is a full payment of $9,000.00. In
' a subsequent meeting with a lawyer who represented us, Mr. Lyndahl, on January
30, 1989, Mr. Ashworth agreed to the fact, and I think you may have a copy of
this letter, that he would be more than willing to give us the $6,000.00 and at
the same time, if we could show our capital improvement expenses over and above
the $6,000.00, we would be reimbursed for that. Even at that point our lawyer
was interpretting it as $6,000.00 plus any additional capital improvements. It
just so happens that over the last 5 years we've made a number of capital
improvements of which we can attribute about $2,100.00 or have bills of
$2,100.00. I notice in a letter dated to the Mayor and the City Council on May
8th from 1989, Don Ashworth is contending that we. . .turn around and give us the
'
percentage back which means we'd even be getting less than what was agreed to
upon January 30, 1989. So, there we have it. Now another point I'd like to
bring up. I know that the City Planning Commission has probably heard this a
number of times but one consideration that we made when we built our new
facility where we reside now which is 275 Lake Drive East, one of the additional
items that we consented to pay for and yes it was for our benefit but we
consented to pay for enclosing the fire loop of the neighborhood directly south
of us as well as the neighborhood directly to the east of us. The reason that
15
may.
Gd J
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989
we consented to that was because the fire marshall at the time indicated that
there wasn't adequate enough pressure between the two or either one of the
systems to service us. So at an additional cost of $22,000.00 to our building
program, we enclosed both fire loops. Now yes that does benefit us and
obviously will provide fire service for us but at the same time it has provided
a service to the City that they themselves didn't have to provide. So we feel
that we've had a number of costs associated, that we would like that also to be
considered.
Don Ashworth: The only thing I'd like to relate is the spirit and intent of the
agreement from the initial point was that the church was to be responsible for
capital repairs. We knew full well that repairs would go beyond a useful life
but they were fully aware of the furnance. The furnance would be going in.
That we had this special account. That there would be a deficit position as a
result of that as they're leaving the church. Before they occupied that
building we releaded the windows in that building. As they're leaving the
church today, much of that work has to be redone. We're looking at a cost of
anywhere from $8,000.00 to $12,000.00. There's reshingling that's to occur to
the building. The entire purpose of that capital account was to insure that
neither the city nor the church would be unduly abused as a part of the contract
itself. I think that the overall lease amount came out very favorable for the
church. I think it came out very favorable for the City. The interpretation
that I've taken is one that's supported by the Attorney's office, the auditor's
office. In fact if I had any flexibility, I had gone back to the auditors in an
attempt to see whether or not I could achieve some flexibility in how that
section would be read but I received none. They felt that it was very clear.
The accounting over the years has been very clear. Staff continues to recommend 1.11
that if they can show that they've spent $2,100.00, we will reimburse them
$2,100.00 but that $2,100.00 would come from the special account and it would
reduce that balance that would be in there so that amount that they would then
be reimbursed would be 60a of a new $8,000.00 balance so they would receive
internal about $7,000.00. The way it stands right now, they would be receiving
$6,000.00. Of course they're seeking the $9,000.00 and I don't see how that
interpretation could hold but that's up to the Council. '
Councilwoman Dimler: I have a suggestion. I think it's been a win-win
situation all along. I'd like to see this be a win-win so I'm suggesting that 11 we split the difference of $3,000.00.
Mayor Chmiel: From the 6 to the 9? So $7,500.00?
Councilman Johnson: Sounds like a reasonable compromise.
Dean Brown: Obviously I'm here for an additional $3,000.00 but you're correct. ,
It is a win-win situation. As you well know and as the costs have been outlined
to you, maintaining that building has not been a small expense. We love the
building. It was a very hard move for us to make and we wish we could have
continued there but obviously our growth said we needed to move elsewhere but I
would feel that during that time obviously we maintained the building. Just
simple heating the building and keeping it going maintains it that much longer.
If the Council considers that, we would accept that compromise.
[1!
Councilman Workman: I thought that reading through all this information from
the Family of Christ in the council packet and I've heard it from you and I've ,
16 1
Mg
>t7 )
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989
heard it from Don, I'm still not sure that I understand what is going on here.
There's a lot of numbers and a lot of percentages and I want to make sure that
I understand exactly what's going on. It's a different kind of lease agreement
in that they're building up the account with the lease only to potentially be
repaid this money.
' Mayor Chmi.el: 60% of this money.
Councilman Workman: If it's not needed for capital improvements?
' Don Ashworth: That's correct.
Councilman Workman: So we're not sure, the discrepancy is who is responsible
for the capital improvements.
Don Ashworth: I think the question is, were they fully aware that the $4,000.00
'
expenditure that occurred for the furnance would came out of that special
account and I feel very confident that the people that I was working with at
that point in time did know that. But again, I have nothing more in writing
' except for the accounting that's occurred for that special fund every year for
the past 5 years.
' Councilman Johnson: Don, the furnance, $4,000.00 was prior to this lease?
Dean Brown: Correct.
Don Ashworth: This lease. I think the actual payment did occur in the 1984
I ti.mefr_ame. If I remember correctly, you were occupying that building prior to
the December...
' Dean Brown: Correct. We had occupied the building 2 years prior to that and
the original lease agreement was that the rent would just be basically $500.00 a
' year and that the point then that the furnance went haywire and we went to the
lease holder which was the City of Chanhassen, at that point then the City and
the church said oh, okay. How are we going to pay for this and the City
approached us and said, this isn't a money making thing for us. What we need to
' do is establish a fund which then would pay for all capital improvements on that
building accordingly. Even if you took the $15,000.00 and applied again the 40%
and 60%, at that time the City was potentially going to make $6,000.00 and we
' would make our $9,000.00. So if you take the $6,000.00 and apply it to the
$4,000.00 furnance, the City is still coming out $2,000.00 ahead. You
yourselves as the City are not losing any money even if the 40% to 60%. That's
why we felt and we were very surprised to see the original furnance already
deducted from the fund before the sublease even began, or after the sublease
began which was correct. Don said that it was paid for after the lease was set
up but the expense was really incurred by the City prior to the lease and the
whole lease agreement was come into play because of that particular thing.
Councilman Johnson: I see the pivotable point here is the wording. I think
that if Ursula's, a very good idea, was a motion I'll second it.
Councilwoman Dimler: It was a motion.
' 17
4'..°Ci.ty Council Meeting - May 8, 1989
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to reimburse the Family
of Christ Lutheran Church $7,500.00 of rental payments for use of Old
St. Hubert's Church. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
REVIEW OF TETON LANE ACCESS CONDITIONS, CURRY FARMS 2ND ADDITION.
Gary Warren: Curry Farms 2nd Addition, most of you are familiar with, is ,
located off of CR 17 just northwest of our ground storage reservoir across from
Lake Lucy Road. As a part of the conditions of the development of the 2nd
addition of Curry Farms, there was considerable discussion concerning or ,
relating to the concern of several of the existing property owners in this area
concerning the use of Teton Lane which at that time was a gravel road for
residential access to the 2nd Addition. A separate feasibility study was done
on Teton Lane to locate an option as far as the road itself was concerned. It
also was an issue because Teton dumps out on Lilac on the north here which is
shared with Shorewood City and some affected property owners up there.
Basically the results of the feasibility study and provided considerable history
on this in the Council packet but basically the result of the effort and the
approval of the plans and speci.ficati.ons for Teton Lane called for a compromise.
One thing was that Teton Lane would be paved as a rural section. Compromised ,
actually to 2 inches of bituminous by the developer and this has happened.
Secondly, Teton Lane would be barricaded to prohibit traffic from using
Teton Lane from the subdivision. The subdivision has adequate access out
through Devonshire and out to Lake Lucy Road so at least as far as the use of
Teton Lane is not that important an issue. Plans and specifications were
prepared with the barricade. The developer went to install the barricade in
accordance with the approved plans and speci.ficati.ons. We were notified I
believe it was Mr. Loris came in and objected to the barricading of the roadway.
The comment he had was the easement for access had not been released and
threatening civil action against the city if we pursued this so we backed off on
that issue. In turn the City Attorney sent correspondence to the respected
property owners of which we've got 6 of then. The Reamers, Loris, Carlson,
Shakelton, Natoles. We have not received any releases to this point in time and
have received refusals at least specifically from Franco Loris verbally and the
Reamers in writing which is also in the packet. The issue I guess before the
Council, we currently have one barricade up that you circle around so that's
probably not even a desirable situation. The question i.s, whether the Council
wishes to pursue in having these easement rights released which we're confident
that through condemnation proceedings the City will be able to have them
released. There will be an expense obviously involved of some sort. Or to not
require the barricading of the roadway and to alter the conditions of approval
to so state that. The property owner who currently uses Teton Lane is really
the Natoles on the end here who need the access. The Ware's I believe have
access up to Lilac across the Pickard property and Pi.ckard's have an access
on Lilac. Mr. Donovan has his access in here. The Reamers of course and the
Carlson can get out through the subdivision. Mr. Simcox to the north from
Shorewood is on the end of the road here has also been very adamant in opposing
this is as a thru road so that's pretty much the history of the issue. We were
I guess taken aback a little bit. I was personally with all the discussions
we've had here and neighborhood meetings and such about this being a good
LI1
compromise here. I think maybe we all took it for granted that the property
owners, since they were at the meeting, or a majority of them were, that that
solution would work and the neighbors there would be agreeable to releasing
18
■
-i;7,a7,
I ' City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989
II '--- their easement rights. However, we have not received any favorable responses so
the issue has been brought to the Council here for direction as far as what is
the appropriate course of action here. Do we enforce the condition of approval
II of do we change the conditions and allow access onto Teton Road? With that I'll
open it up for discussion.
IMrs. Natole: I tell you, this meeting that we had last fall, we thought it was
all settled. Everybody should have been here. We were all notified so
Mr. Loris and Mr. Reamer weren't here, I don't know why they waited until after.
I the whole thing was settled. Bill Boyt was the one that made the motion and
everybody approved that we would close it right here because they can.use this
road and they can go out that way or they can go out off of Lake Lucy but we
I only have that one access to go that way. And everybody said that was great. It
would cut out all this traffic and especially the traffic that is going up there
and they are using it. We've had a truck today that went up there with a whole
load of one house that they're going to build up by Reamers so. you know what a
Iwhole load of house is. That's a lot of weight so that one went up there. And
later on another truck came by with a backhoe thing so they are using it. Now,
they've put the sign on this side saying no construction traffic. Okay, the
I truck gets up there. Where the heck is he going to go? _He goes right. through
there and goes to where he's going. They do not back up so if they were going
to have a sign for them not to use that, they should have put it up by Lilac
I Lane saying- -no thru traffic. No construction but they didn't. Now they've put
a stop sign up there so the one family that uses it, us, we have to have a stop
sign there because we might speed. I'll tell you who's doing the speeding.
Well, I better not mention names that might cause trouble but all these people
I = that are in here that are coming up there are going between 40 and 50 mph and
that's what Mr. Simcox is hollering about, and I don't blame him because those
cars go past us and they have to stop there because they did start to make the
I second barrier so there's big holes. They go to . he big holes and then they,
swoosh. We have these great big huge trees. We moved there 27 years. Well
they were little then, so we can not go out of our driveway without having to
make a full stop and sneaking into the road so we don't get hit so that
Icertainly didn't do us any good. Another thing that Gary failed to mention was
when we decided this was going to work and Bill Boyt got the idea and we all
agreed that it sounded good, we gave an easement for the trucks to use our
I _ driveway. To come in and turn if they had to take the snow, snowplowing or any
work that they had to do on the road so we gave an easement to the City for them
to use our driveway. They then at the same time, Centex put in the well, 10-12
II feet of blacktop and then we finished it up to the whole house but this is not
working the way it is because the trucks are still coming up there.
Construction and the people who live up in here already are using the road so
that did not work. It's either got to be a full barrier and what I don't
understand is how did Shorewood get away with closing Christmas Lake and
Chanhassen can't close this one block. They must have gotten some kind of
agreement from somebody because I'm sure those people all had easements to use
II that Christmas Lake Road. So there's got to be something done. I don't know
what but something has got to be done. I guess it's Mr_. Reamer and Mr.. Loris
that are the two that are against it for some reason. As long as they have a
way of getting out, I don't know what the problem is but that's all I have to
111 say.
s
t
— Franco Loris: I'm Franco Loris. This does create a problem. I happen to live
IIat 6400 Teton Lane and I really believe that I should not be barricaded in.
II 19
■
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 II
Besides, the barricade is so terribly ugly, it looks like World War II dividing
two countries. It's an ugly site. I really don't believe that it's a little
bit exaggerated. It's not that many cars really going up and down at that high
speed of 50. It's almost impossible. I've lived up there now 21 years. I
should be the one to be unhappy with all the construction but I went along with
it, that's fine. At the beginning you gave us even another alternative to get
into Powers Blvd. but that never happen so why should we give up our easement
now? Personally I will not give it up except if you condemn it. Thank you.
Donna Pickard: My name is Donna Pickard. I live at 1215 Lilac Lane which is
the top corner property. I'd like to know who owns Teton Lane now. I was under
the impression that Centex owned it until they deeded it over to the City. Has
that been done?
Gary Warren: The City owns Teton Lane. We do have a deed for that. That's 11
correct.
Donna Pickard: I guess my question is, why did you accept it knowing that there
were easements on that road? I mean why didn't you check to see if the
easements were going to be easily handed over first and then accept it from
Centex because it seems to me that those people do, if they do have easements
they should have been told what was going to happen. Well they knew what was
going to happen supposedly according to the meetings last fall but I guess
what's happening now is they're demanding fair compensation and I don't know if
I blame them or not for wanting that. Not having an easement myself I'm not in
the position to demand compensation or not but I guess I'm just curious why the
City accepted it knowing that there were easements. I don't know what you can I
do about that now. It's the city's road.
Gary Warren: Whether-there were easements or not, I guess that in my opinion
wouldn't have affected our acquisition of the property. That was a condition of
approval that Teton Lane be deeded to the City. There were not any conditions
that said regardless of whether you have easements or not on them so the
easements really are a separate issue that I believe everybody assumed were
going to be released as a part of the process because everybody was tied into
this verbally.
Donna Pickard: I guess I have questions about the condemnation proceedings. Is '
that something that we'd talk about later because if it is, I don't have to ask
them now.
Mayor Chmiel: That's always an alternative but if you'd like to ask the
question.
Donna Pickard: How does that work and how long does it take normally?
Councilman Johnson: That's a good question.
Gary Warren: The Attorney can probably do better.
Roger Knutson: Normally it's about a 6 month process. If you were to order the 1
condemnation of those easements tonight, the next step would be to get
appraisals and the step following that would be prepare the necessary paperwork
to start the condemnation action. At that point the land owner has a few weeks 1
20 1
■
II 'City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 ' v
to respond. Go to court and public necessity is established. I don't know if
there'd be a problem with that. The next step is the Court will appoint 3
commissioners to evaluate the value of the easements. If everyone accepts that,
II ' that's the end of it. If anyone disagrees with that, then it's onto District
Court for a trial with jury. A vast majority of these cases end at the
commissioner's hearing. Not all of them. A vast majority. That process
' probably takes 6 months.
Donna Pickard: And who exactly pays for it?
' Mayor Chmiel: The condemnation? The City basically I would assume or
conceiveably it could be the contractor or developer. I think I would lean more
towards that than I would the City.
' Donna Pickard: I guess my question is, how could you lean towards them now that
it has officially been deeded to the City and the City owns the problem now?
Don Ashworth: They have responsibilities under the development contract. They
can't walk away from it.
' Donna Pickard: Oh I see. So even though the City owns the street, they don't
necessarily own the problem of the easement?
' Don Ashworth: We're going to be, if that's chosen by the City Council,
condemnation process, the City will take the initiative to acquire those
easements at whatever costs and in that process we will attempt to recoup our
monies by billing back the developer and our attorney has advised us that he
II feels that our position would be sustained and that we would be able to recoup
those dollars.
' Donna Pickard: Okay. I just wanted to, before I"sit down, to say that I think
the City and Centex has a responsibility to have what we decided last, I don't
know was it last fall? What we decided last fall to go through because at the
' time it seemed like it was the perfect solution to a problem that we'd been
working on for a long, long time. So thank you for your time.
Frank Natole: I'm Frank Natole. I live on Teton and in the evening from 5:00
to 5:30, one night I sat for supper when I counted 35 cars and trucks, panel
trucks and everything else coming up and down that road. They don't go slow.
They drive 50 mph I know. They come from way down below the hills there in
' Centex property and they're doing 50 mph before they go by my place and it's
dangerous. Very dangerous. i don't dare put my nose of my car out before I
look both ways and if you're going to let all this traffic come by my place,
' then I suggest you put either a big bump on both ends of my property so they've
got to hit that and fly through the air. Then I can have some freedom but the
way it is, I can't walk out there. My grandchildren come out to play. They
don't dare go out in that road. I've got to watch them all the time. It's more
' traffic than CR 17 that comes down there. At the present time it's a miserable
thing. That's all I have to say. That road should be, we agreed that they were
going to put break out posts so in case of fire or any emergency, they could go
through the breakout posts. That's the way it was agreed in the first place but
'1 now they've got that half a big sign there which if they would take that out and
put break away posts, then we'd get done exactly what we wanted done. Now
I don' t know how I'm going to stop this traffic or slow it down but there's got
21
,City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989
to be a way of slowing that traffic down if you're going to open it up.
I:-
Mayor. Chmiel: What's the speed limit on that particular street?
Gary Warren: 30 mph.
Frank Natole: It's 10 mph. It's been 10 mph since I bought the place. There's
a sign on the corner on Lilac that says 10 mph. Nobody goes 10 mph.
Gary Warren: In a way paving it hasn't helped anything as far as speed, that's
for sure. I don't know that there's any resolution on record with the City
signing that road. It would come under the State's Statute that's 30 mph unless
signed otherwise by resolution.
Councilman Johnson: The 10 mph was when it was a private road too.
Gary Warren: Right. As far as the enforceable speed limit, I would say 30 mph.
Councilman Johnson: Do you have any problem with the sheriffs utilizing your
driveway as a radar point? g y
Mrs. Natole: That road is so short, I don't think anyone would sit there. Is
that what you mean? Having a car sit there and monitor the traffic?
Councilman Johnson: Yes. Is your driveway a good nice hidden spot where he
could see them?
Frank Natole: Well I've got big pine trees there. They could hide behind the '
pine trees that's for sure. I've got pine trees that are over 20 to 30 feet
high. Run all along the road. All along Teton.
Councilman Johnson: Have the sheriff stop in and talk to you.
Frank Natole: I don't know what you're going to do about it but something has
to be done.
Councilman Johnson: Well if it's going to take us 6 months to get the access
rights reversed, then it's going to be open for 6 months. We need to do
something about, if there are people speeding there, we need to do something
about that. And if there's construction traffic, we need to talk to Centex.
They know there's not supposed to be construction traffic and they're the only
builder in there. It's not like there's 40 different builders in there so there
should be some control.
(There was a tape change at this point in the meeting.) '
Marc Simcox: .. .As a matter of fact, the construction traffic specifically I
think is one item that's been a very sore spot ever since they opened up that
north end. That was one thing that we discussed at length during the process
for them getting approval of the north half of the plat. They were very
condescending and patronizing to the people who lived in the neighborhood and
said absolutely not. They wouldn't do it and I can' t recall, I can't even begin
to recall the, I know I couldn't count it if I took my shoes off, the number of
times that I've called here and complained about the traffic going up and down.
22
, City Council Meeting - May 9, 1989 j
IIThey also used it steadily during this spring when Teton Lane is posted for, not
Teton but Lilac Lane is posted 4 ton per axle weight limit. And to talk to the
drivers, the drivers are instructed to use Lilac Lane and Teton Lane so the
II developer is extremely versed in that topic and that's just a further example of
why we fought this from the very beginning. When we discovered that this was
being brought up again, to open up Teton Lane, it kind of opened the wounds up
again and we thought that it's further evidence that the developer really
' doesn't care. There's never been an attempt to compensate anyone or even talk
to them about compensation for the easements on Teton Lane. I've spoken to Stu
Reamer about this who has written a refusal to turn over his easement and he
' said, oh no one ever mentioned compensation and that's exactly what it would
take. He feels that he has to go out the other direction and it's an
inconvenience to him and he feels there should be some type of compensation.
' And I think in this process, as we sent a letter out with the neighbors all
signing that letter, I don't know if everybody got that or not, is it's just
part of the normal process and I don't think that that process has completed
it's course yet and until that does and either the condemnation proceedings that
' the Court determines that there's no solution, that's when you should look at
opening Teton Lane up again. But until that, we should just follow the course
of the original agreement and close it off. Acquire those easements however. I
' don't think that that expense is going to be real great. Probably won't cost as
much as the postage machine or the postage equipment and solve a lot of
headaches for the neighborhood and still retain that to be opened at a later
' date should that other property up there ever be developed. Thank you.
John Speiss: I'm John Speiss and tonight I represent Centex Homes. What we've
found is that the compromise that we had, it doesn't appear to satisfy as many
I people as we thought. We ask the Council tonight to table this issue for 2
weeks so that we have a chance to meet with Don Ashworth, Gary Warren and the
City Attorney and see if there is something else we can do in 2 weeks.
' Councilman Johnson: Towards what?
John Speiss: Well we got the package today at 1:00. I spoke with Gary last
' Thursday or Friday and he said that it would come before the Council tonight on
the Teton Lane issue.
' Councilman Johnson: We had a copying machine failure last week.
John Speiss: We did receive it today.
' Mayor Chmiel: Being this has been going on for 2 1/2 years.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, this was the last 2 years was a very big issue.
' Everybody's been here many, many times discussing Centex. There's a lot of
compromise going on both ways. Both between Centex and the neighbors. It took
a lot of hashing over. A lot of tabling. We had many, many meetings discussing
Teton Lane. I thought we had finally cane out to a good compromise here where
we maintain the public safety aspects of emergency egress and ingress. Being
able to get in there and get out of there by the emergency vehicles and solve
the problem of excess traffic on Lilac Lane which can't handle it and
Teton which can't handle it. It's too bad we haven't solve this. I think I
haven't heard anything about compensation from anybody saying they want
compensation for this. I've just heard they don't want it.
23
1
m.
ty Council Meeting - May 8, 1989
IF
Mayor_ Chmi.el: I guess I heard a couple of them saying that they may want that.
Franco Loris: At this point, I don't want it but I live at 6400 Teton Lane.
Somehow I have to get to my house. It's a jc-:e living on Teton Lane and having
to come up another road to come home. I have to change at least my address or
something but I live on Teton Lane and I want it to stay Teton Lane. That's
where I live. That's where I come in. That's where I go out.
Councilman Johnson: The way I feel here is that the best is served by the
compromise we came up with a year ago. While it does inconvenience some that
are in the middle of the development that were there before the development was
there, it is for the better overall good of the majority. Unfortunately it's
the way of the world as we urbanize. There will be some people who will be
inconvenienced by that urbanization but we can't stay a rural community here in
Chanhassen anymore because it's happening. The pressure's here and we have to
respond to it and we have to provide a safe community or our
Y people. This may
adversely affect 2 of the neighbors but it will positively be better for the
Natoles and several of the other neighbors. I don't see Mr. Oerter here
tonight. I don't know why he hasn't signed his release.
Franco Loris: What do you consider a majority? You've got just the Natoles
sitting here. That's it.
Councilman Johnson: Also we have to take into consideration the people on Lilac
Lane. You've got the Pickards.
Franco Loris: That issue has.. . '
Councilman Johnson: But they still have the traffic going by their driveway.
Just because somebody does not live in our town does not mean that we can step
upon them. To increase the traffic on Lilac which is a shared, City of
Shorewood, City of Chanhassen road. Half that road is ours. We do have some
responsibility for that road also. We have to be neighbors. We all have to
live together. If we have to condemn, we have to condemn. I think if staff
thinks they can achieve something in 2 weeks, I'm willing to table this for 2
weeks. If it's going to be a 6 month condemnation process, 2 weeks isn't going
to make too much difference. There's also a quick take I guess. Can you
explain that to me Roger and what qualifies for quick take?
Roger Knutson: A quick take is a way of shortening up the condemnation process. '
Once you have your appraisal, you will write the land owners a letter and say,
90 days hence we're going to take possession of your property. You don't have
to wait until after the condemnation hearing to get access but you can speed it
up. There has to be necessity and good reason why you have to do it in a hurry.
Reasonable reason.
Mayor Chmiel: Compensation is what really is determined by the County '
Commissioners as to how much? In other words, take the property and proceed
with it and make it into a. .. I guess I'm in sort of favor, right now my
feeling is maybe tabling this for another 2 more weeks to determine whether
something could be resolved with Centex meeting with our people. With staff and
determining what could be done but I'll guarantee it's not going to go anymore
than 2 weeks because it should be resolved. It's 2 1/2 years ongoing and I
24
MO
II , City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 '`J
IIthink it should have been addressed a long time ago. I would make a motion that
we table this at this particular time and bring it back to the Council within 2
IIweeks with a resolvement for the approach that we're going to take.
3
Councilman Workman: I'll second that.
' Don Ashworth: May I make a point? The May 22nd meeting is a big agenda.
There's a lot of items on that agenda. We could try to get these people in as
early as possible as an unfinished business item but I mean you're looking to
' potential 1:00-2:00 in the morning the way it is right now.
Councilman Johnson: Maybe we should start early.
' Mayor Chmiel: We could do that too. I still feel that we should probably table
this item and it has been moved and seconded to table for the 2 weeks.- We'11
just have to struggle with it in the next meeting. I'd like to get it on the
' agenda as early as possible.
Councilman Johnson: Could we have, depending on how staff works on this, the
'
advertising of this in 2 weeks as a consideration of condemnation? The way we
advertise it.
Mayor Chmiel: That would be something in discussion that we would come up with.
ICouncilwoman Dimler: _I guess I wouldn't go on record as saying that I don't
think the other alternatives are feasible and I want to stay with this plan that
' f seems to be feasible for most parties. I would be in favor of condemnation
through the quick take process but if we can get it done within 2 weeks, I would
vote to table.
' Marc Simcox: Is there a way that we could be notified of the progress over
these 2 weeks so we'll have, better information.
' Mayor Chmiel: Can we have a representative from your area to be notified?
Marc Simcox: We can give a number.
' Mayor. Chmiel: Okay, if you could give Gary a number and then report back to the
neighbors as well so they know what's happening.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table action on
the Teton
Lane conditions for Curry Farms 2nd Addition for 2 weeks. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
' WEST 78TH STREET DETACHMENT PROGRAM:
A. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISING FOR BIDS.
B. APPROVE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH CARVER COUNTY.
I
Gary Warren: The plans and specifications have been prepared for what's been
commonly referred to as Phase 3 of the downtown redevelopment project which is
25
K2)6-7
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 II
the detachment of West 78th Street from it's current connection with Powers
Blvd. approximately 300 feet to the north to improve stacking distance, cueing
distance and just the intersection in general with Powers Blvd.. As a part of
the process, staff was directed to prepare a supplemental feasibility study
which showed a cul-de-sac public road access between the James and Burdick
property. This was done on August 22, 1988 the Council authorized staff to
prepare plans and specifications reflecting that alternative. Staff has done
this. BRW has prepared the plans and specifications and we've submitted them
for consideration tonight. The engineer's estimate for the project is currently
$1,232,000.00 and we're seeking Council approval of the plans and specifications
for advertising for bids and also as a part of that we will be submitting them
to the County for formal approval since this project includes reconstruction of
portions of Powers Blvd.. '
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: I'll try to keep this short but this is of the utmost
importance to us. Good evening ladies and gentlemen. My name is B.C. "Jim"
Burdick from Excelsior. The first item is real brief. It'd sure be nice if we
get these packets before Monday. We'd come better prepared. We'd have copies
of some things for you and what have you. I know copying machines break down.
The Indians are spearing fish in Wisconsin. There's a thunderstorm in North
Dakota but that shouldn't keep us from getting it 4 or 5 days before the
meeting. Okay. And while we're on that particular subject of the packet, did
you folks get this drawing? Do you have a copy of this? ,
Gary Warren: I have an overview of that Jim. I also forgot, I've got a note
that I received today.
B.C. Burdick: Now I don' t know what the policy of the city of Chanhassen has
been but I sent this to Mr. Gary Warren 2 weeks ago with other information. I
asked to be sent to each member of the City Council. and this wasn' t done. '
Gary Warren: That was delivered to the Council, the previous Council when we
tabled this action.
B.C. Burdick: Good, I'm glad to hear that. On the sheet, and I'll go with this
quite fast because you've heard it before, on the sheet that I've just given
out, I refer to the people at your meeting here in this building. I said once
before in error that it was at Carver County Courthouse and that came about
because we planned to meet in Mr. Roger_ Gustafson's office but at the last
minute he called and said he had to come down here anyway. A representative of
the Minnesota Highway Department was also there which isn't really much
significance because you said you can do anything you want to do if you aren't
on the highway. Then I came back here with the meeting before this, 8 years ago
before this Chanhassen City Council and the Mayor and it was approved, or
accepted unanimously as right turn in and right turn out. Both by their vote
but also by agreement with me whereby my position was, this most certainly
wasn't as good as a full right turn in, right turn out but I would accept it.
Not too different from the church here tonight. A compromise. This has become
of great importance to us at the present time. We have one of the 10 leading
restaurants in town ready to sign a contract to build a building on the point
and we're over 50% of the way along with people for the second lot from the
corner but they do want the right turn in, right turn out. I said what if we
don't have that? I can just tell you one thing, forget it. Simple forget it.
Everything is done. It isn't something in the fire. It's approved up and down
26 '
MO
i • City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989
' — the line on their end. Now so what happened? This is what happened. There was
a secret meeting or appointments made with the Carver County Commissioners. Don
II I Ashworth went there. It's a secret. I was not notified. Charles James was not
notified. Incidentally, Mr. Charlie James is in favor of the right turn in,
right turn out. It isn' t important to him as it is to us. He could live with
some other arrangement. The Carver County Commissioners were placed in the
position of believing that the City of Chanhassen wanted the old 78th Street
closed off. Now I've spoken to 3 of them and they've told me this. I happen to
notice Mr. Al Klingelhutz here tonight. His being here has really nothing to do
' with me but if anyone doubts that the Carver County Commissioners were under the
impression that Don Ashworth wanted this closed off, and the City of Chanhassen
wanted it closed off, just ask Mr. Al Klingelhutz. To say the least the most
' reputable person in the County. So I requested Carver County to open this up
and it was arranged that Don Ashworth and I would appear before them. I
appeared at the point in time, arriving there 15 minutes early. Spoke to them a
bit. Don Ashworth came an hour and a half later. I assume that part of the
' meeting was closed but he let them speak. I have no idea of what, yes I do too,
we have a -tape on what he said. He made a bit of a humorous thing out of it
which I object to. Now there is something about a cul-de-sac and another drive
' there but not only don't we care for this, we really don't want it. We really
don't want that cul-de-sac in there. It's kind of Mickey Mouse.. As you can
see, people would have to northeast, southeast, southwest and west. How many
'
more directions could they go? As an illustration, I brought some samples but
I guess I don't have to go into then. Now, it's been mentioned that this
intersection is not perfect. We agreed that night before the Council and it was
passed unanimously it was agreed it wasn't a perfect intersection but that's a
I fantastly good intersection compared to the one constructed 3 years ago almost
down to Pauly's on the main street and the main street that won't accommodate
fire trucks or U.S.. Postal trucks. I waited for 5 minutes on Laredo while a
' truck tried to make a right turn on 78th Street a couple days ago. The truck
finally backed up and turned east. It could not turn from Laredo to the west.
And as far as anything badly designed, engineers can work it out. I discovered
' something just a couple minutes ago that Brian
g gave to me. In many ways this
right turn i.n, right turn out will reduce the traffic instead of having cars go
north, east, southeast, southwest, west. They can just simple make a simple
turn. In other words, instead of going around the merry-go-round. Now what
' Brian just handed to me and has been some things a bit misleading said about
this is that traffic, from a traffic engineer's and Benshoof particular
mentioned didn't go for this right turn out. Didn't like it. Didn't think it
' was safe. But I have the report here dated July of 1987 to Ms. Barbara Dacy in
which they say, construct an exclusive right turn lane on the south appr_aoch of
CR 17. Design the right in/right out access as a typical commercial driveway.
24 feet wide with 45 foot radial and no directional island. Construct a raised
' median on CR 17 to prohibit left turns on the street. Elect signage directed
motorist on CR 17 to downtown via realgined West 78th Street. Elect signage
prohibiting U turns on the south approach of CR 17 west. Until the left turn
' lane is constructed. Not only is it from Benshoof, I hope I pronounce that
correctly and excuse me I'm not a very good speaker, Mr. James A. Benshoof was
the originater of the memo along with a Mr. Swanson. The only opposition I've
heard about is that Benshoof didn't like it. Unfortunately we don't have a copy
of this for each one of you but I'll gladly bring it up if you want to look at
it.
Gary Warren: It's in the packet.
' 27
,yam '
so
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 II
Brian Burdick: It's in towards the back. It's to Barbara Dacy and they draw
some conclusions at the end there with their recommendations.
B.C. Burdick: And we will most certainly go to the trouble of having an
engineering firm do some designing of that and make it, I don't know what, as
easy, as simple, as safe as possible. It won't be perfect but the only perfect
intersection as they said 3 or 4 years ago when it was up here, the only perfect
intersection is in the middle of the Sahara Desert and you don't need it there.
We're down to the point where we'd have a 90% perfect intersection. I thank you
and that's all I have.
Mayor Chmiel: Does anyone have any questions of Mr. Burdick? '
Don Ashworth: For the record, I am unaware of any secret meeting that has
occurred by Carver County. I'm unaware of any secret meeting that I supposedly
was involved with the Commissioners on. I'd just like to have that in the
record.
B.C. Burdick: I'm referring to about the third page of Mr. Gustafson's letter. '
The City was aware of this schedule but no other parties were notified of this
item being on the agenda. Since a request was specifically from the City of
Chanhassen, it surely would have been up to Don Ashworth who arranges to notify
us. So as far as I'm concerned and Charlie James, it was secret from us.
Gary Warren: Mr. James, we received this in the mail today from Charlie James I
and he asked that it be given to you. Basically, as Mr. Burdick eluded to
earlier, Mr. James...one way or the other with the connection. He would I guess
in all honesty pr_efe.r..the right in/right out but as stated here, he can live
with either alignment. But that was received in today's mail and I talked with ,
him on the phone.
Councilman Johnson: I wish Roger Gustafson would be here tonight. I think it
was Roger's opinion that the right in/right out wasn't safe as it was anybody's.
Then the County Board made the decision and I wasn' t at that board meeting. I
don't know what happened either. I don't think it's fair, it was public notice.
It was published in the newspaper on the agenda, to say it was a secret meeting.
I guess some of the people involved were not notified but there was no legal
requirement for. the County to notify them of that. The City was following up on
our commitment to Mr. Burdick and Mr. James to apply for the right in/right out
turn. We did what we said we had to do. When we applied for the permit to get
an access there. I can't say for what happened. This is another one of these
projects that has a long history of conflict.
Councilwoman Dimler: I think there's been a lot of misunderstanding here. It
was my understanding that the County Board never voted on it.
Al Klingelhutz: I guess I'd like to clarify some of these things. I think if I '
had a packet like this when it came before the County Board, it might have
turned out a little different but it was our impression that the City of
Chanhassen, Mr. Burdick and Mr. James agreed pretty much on the cul-de-sac
rather than right in/right out turn lane. I did not have a copy of the City of - '
Chanhassen's resolution to allow that at the present location of 78th Street.
I'm not blaming any one board because I think it was probably a lack of
28 '
•II ' City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989
communications that probably brought this all about. I don't know what can be
done to change it. It's possible that it can go back before the County Board
• again and have them reverse their decision. I'm not sure what that decision
1 : would be. I'm sure this was almost a complete misunderstanding at the time when
it was presented.
' Councilman Johnson: Has this been appealed to you in the last year?
Al Klingelhutz: Mr. Burdick approached the County Board on this, I think he
mentioned the meeting. I believe Don came in later and talked.
1 Councilman Johnson: No action was taken? There was no formal request for
reconsideration?
Al Klingelhutz: No formal request at that time.
' Councilman Johnson: Because I think that's the action that needs to be taken.
The County Board turned down the right in/right out so the County Board needs to
be requested to reconsider their motion. We cannot tell the County Board to
reconsider their motion. We did pass this unanimously. The right in/right out,
' there is concerns about the right in/right out as being seen as a short cut to
get to downtown and people utilizing that with the proper stop signs and stuff,
it shouldn't be too bad of a problem. I believe the right in/right out, I said
it then, will work. What's very important right now is to get the northern
' alignment which is unaffected by this, approved so we can get construction going
{ on the northern alignment and get this intersection up where it belongs. As far
as holding off on the cul-de-sac to where Mr. James and Mr. Burdick can request
I `_ the County Board, I think Al would probably carry it forward for you. I don't
want to talk for Al but from what he si.ad there, I think he might carry it
forward for you and go for the reconsideration if it's with new evidence. Not
evidence but new information. That's all I've got.
Mayor Chmi_el: As I look at this, for the right in/right out and I use Powers
' Blvd. on a constant basis, like 2, 3 maybe 4 times depending upon how many
meetings we have here a day. That right in and right out, I guess I don't
really have a problem with it. I guess I'd have to have more information
indicating as to what the safety factor is because as I see it, people coming
' across from the south, extending over TH 5 and coming into downtown Chanhassen
to go up ahead to that realignment which is being proposed, which is a fine
realignment for a right turn going off onto Powers Blvd., I still see that the
' access for people making that right turn at that intersection alleviates a lot
of problems because there again, you're not putting the additional amount of
traffic on that realignment. If someone does want to make that turn into the
' different lots here for the access to Lot 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, it's just so much
easier as I see it.
Gary Warren: One thing, if I could add here, the Benshoof report was done in
' July of 1987 and does not reflect the upgrade of TH 5. At this intersection,
the two lanes that will be added to TH 5 will be on the north side so just point
of information. The cueing distance, the stacking distance as was referred to
in the report will be further reduced because of that.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't see too many cars extending from the east going west to
make that right hand turn to come back in through here. What I see every
29
so
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 II
morning at that intersection are cars that are coming from the west going north
and cars directly extending from the south going north on Powers Blvd.. We
don't have too many cars making that right turn to come around to go back down
78th. If they're coming from the east going west on TH 5, I think they would
have tendencies to probably, once Market Blvd. comes in, would be turning in
there to get their accessibility to other areas. So I see things coming from
the west and from the south that way and that right turn to me seems logical.
Gary Warren: I think the position has been that the preferred alternate is not
to have to deal with a right in/right out or any connection at that point. I
think everybody could agree if you didn't have to do that, that that would be
the best so we could have the proper separation and even when MnDot reviewed the
plat as far as the James property was concerned, recognized that that separation
was important to them. It's not to say that a right in/right out can't work as
a second alternative so I think that's where all the discussion has really
centered around. When it was submitted to the County, it was submitted as an
unbiased submittal I guess to get their review and approval as to that
connection as to whether we would have it or not and it was in response to the
refusal that we then did the supplemental feasibility study and did the
cul-de-sac option. '
Mayor Chmiel: I think too that reconsideration, if Commissioner Klingelhutz
takes this back to the County Board and asks for a reconsideration, I think
that's probably where it should go so there's clarification because the County
has jurisdiction on that particular road. The City does not.
Gary War_r_en: That's correct. '
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, as you were talking I thought of another
alternative which isn't as good but a right in only.with no right out. It gets ,
the access to the lot from TH 5 which is probably an important aspect to the
potential purchaser of that lot. That somebody from TH 5 can get into Lot 1 and
Lot 2. Hey, let's run over here to whatever restaurant this is and then as far
as going out, they can go back up to the realigned 78th and back out to get back
out to TH 5 with the proper si.gnage there. So he achieves TH 5 accessibility
with a right in only. Maybe if the County traffic engineers don't like right
in/right out, maybe they'll accept right in only.
Gary Warren: I don't believe the right out is the real problem. I believe it's
the right in and the potential for shortcutti.ng and the potential for stacking
traffic into the future turn lane off of TH 5 from westbound traffic. That's
really the crux of the issue.
Mayor Chmiel: I can see that flow going much simpler by having that right in. I I
really do.
Councilman Johnson: Did the studies have Market Blvd. involved? Like the Mayor I
said, with Market Blvd. connecting there, the people who are going to go on by
turn around and then come back. If they're headed for Kerber, they're going to
go in Market and go into Kerber or whatever or they're just going to get
on Powers and keep going.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess as I look at it, I could see that there could be
some safety concerns. It's probably not the safest intersection but I believe
30
'City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989
that since the former Council approved this right in and right out, to change it
at this point would not be fair since the Burdick's have already made plans on
that decision. I think it would be a hardship to sell the ro rt and a
' 1 cul-de-sac would take the away the corner lots. Also I've talked with Roger
Gustafson last week and he confirmed to me that the County Board never voted on
it so I guess there is a lot of confusion there. So I would go with a
' reconsideration to take it back to the County and have them reconsider.
Councilman Johnson: They have a signed resolution that they voted on it.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I know it but he told that they didn't.
Councilman Johnson: He just forgot.
Councilman Workman: I was there too.
' Councilwoman Dimler: On the right in though Gary, I guess I am concerned about
having a right turn lane there. You have two lanes. Only for the right turn so
they wouldn't be in the stream of traffic in making a turn. Holding up the
traffic. Is that possible?
Gary Warren: It's kind of a paradox because as you saw in the comments from the
Benshoof report, they recommended that it really be a 24 foot driveway apron and
not really an island because you don't want to make it too attractive or
inviting for traffic to use this as a shortcut to the downtown and defeat the
purpose of the detachment. So by actually making a dedication turn lane for
that right in, that really would accentuate it as a by-pass route.
1 Councilwoman Dimler:
Yes, but I think for safety purposes that might be, as
long as we're going' to go with the right in/right out, I think we should have a
' right turn in lane.
Gary Warren: I would suggest that because this Benshoof Report did not have the
benefit of MnDot's plan for the intersection with the right turn lanes and the
additional lanes there, that we would probably all be well advised to take a
relook at that laneage issue with the benefit of MnDot's current plans and come
up with an appropriate scheme from that.
Councilman Workman: With the expansion of TH 5 and the two lanes being expanded
to the north side, I thought that we were running into problems with the
'
expansion of the two lanes on the north side because of Lake Ann Park and the
LAWCON grant and everything else there. They're going to jump back south after
Powers Blvd.?
Gary Warren: The transition through there and I looked at the map on our wall
here, the official map before I came down here, there is a switch. They sort of
' share alignment then come back by the time you get to Lake Ann Park because the
whole section ends basically at Park Drive so we're already nosed out. The
issue with LAWCON grant came in with this 8 foot trail that MnDot showed to
It build the bike trail all the way along this alignment so that would be
encroaching there and there the City would probably, they would request us to
build a trail so there wouldn't be a LAWCON grant issue. That's workable.
b
31
MO
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 . I
Councilman Worknan: I guess I would in negotiations with MnDot, look at the
possibility of enlarging and extending the right turn off of TH 5 going west
possibly in front of it. My biggest concern with this whole thing and maybe the
City is getting a little tired of the Burdicks but maybe the Burdicks are
getting a little tired of the City. You're getting it on both ends here. They
like another customer to the city have been blessed with a large chunk of very
valuable property and I would consider, I almost consider it a taking in this
situation where we're giving the James property possibly two corners and taking
away a fairly valuable corner from the Burdicks. I think the Burdicks have been
and will continue to be as cooperative as they can taking into account the ,
safety issue. I do see a concern and I also met with Roger Gustafson who has
concerns about the TH 5 traveling east traffic making a left north and what to
do there with the merging traffic that's heading north on TH 5. I'm not at all
sure where we would have a stacking problem with traffic heading north off of TH
5 and I guess I'm looking for at least, on our behalf, the City to look at
possibly some other and maybe simpler alternatives. I don't like the idea of
the cul-de-sac. I don't know that that situation is the best. Perhaps if the
Burdicks are agreeable to a driveway of some sort, and I would suggest and I'm
using my own word here, a baffle system of some sort to keep traffic from going
straight through to downtown off of that driveway. Perhaps a sharp right into
the commercial property. Something that keeps it very attractive for them to
come in and buy food on that corner but not to go through to downtown. I don't
know how the Burdicks feel about just a right in and not a right out. I guess
we'll know more about that later. That's basically my comments. '
Mayor_ Chmiel: I think what I'd like to do is make a motion that Mr. Burdick
goes back to the County Board to see if he can get reconsideration for the right
in and right out as opposed to a cul-de-sac. Also, in addition to that motion,
make the suggestion that the Council does support that position of a right in/
right out. It's strictly up to the County either approve or disapprove that
position because it is a County Road and the city basically does not have the
jurisdiction on it.
Councilman Johnson: Are you going to add to that approval of the north side of
this? Of the West 78th detachment? In other words, we're not approving the
cul-de-sac but put out, approve the plans and specifications without the
cul-de-sac so we can put that much out to bid?
Gary Warren: We really wouldn't be able to because the County I'm sure, in
talking with Roger Gustafson today, would want to see what we're doing with that
connection because that's part of the process. So I don't know when the next
County Board meeting is.
Al Klingelhutz: We've got one tomorrow. I guess what I'd like to see from the
Council is a motion from the City Council requesting that the County reconsider
a right in/right out turn lane at the present location of West 78th Street.
Mayor Chmiel: You heard my motion.
Councilman Workman: I'd like to also say that while it is County jurisdiction,
Chanhassen dollars are paying for this. I
Councilman Johnson: But the County's responsible for the safety of their roads.
It's Highway 17 and whether we can connect there. As you read their resolution, '
32 '
• EJ
IICity Council Meeting - May 8, 1989
IIr-- they're basically saying it's dangerous. We don't want the liability of having
that connection between that position.
ICouncilman Workman: Will the County then accept, and I'm asking not a county
person I guess but will the County then accept liability for possible court
action for perhaps the Burdicks?
' Councilman Johnson: Probably. It's probably fairly defensible from a non-
attorney.
' Gary Warren: Do you want to take a look at the hold harmless clause in the
County agreement.
' Councilman Johnson: What does it hurt us to table this then? This is basically
what we're doing.
Councilwoman Dimler: But we want to make a motion though. You've got the
motion on the floor and it wasn't seconded.
'
Mayor Chmiel: As I made the motion indicating that the Council does support the
right in/right out as the former Council has also.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that motion.
' Councilman Johnson: Let me understand your motion. Your motion is that the
City is going to request a right in or right out or we just support a right in/
right out?
' supporting Mayor Chmiel: We're
Y pLortzng the right in/right out and it will be up to Mr. •
Burdick to go before the County Board to get the reconsideration of that.
Councilman Johnson: So that means we would have to table the approval of plans
pp P
and specifications and authorization for bids.
' Mayor Chmiel: When is the next County Board meeting?
Al Klingelhutz: We have one every week. Every Tuesday.
Mayor Chmiel: So it would be the following Tuesday right?
' Gary Warren: It comes back on the May 22nd agenda.
Al Klingelhutz: I just thought if the Council would request it, it would have
' more appeal.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, that was going to be my motion after we passed the
motion that we approve the right i.n.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe my motion will die and somebody can make an additional
motion.
Councilwoman Dimler: I seconded it already.
Councilman Johnson: We can combine it into just one motion.
33
MO
•
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 II
Mayor. Chmiel: Sure we can. It'd be just as easy right Roger?
Roger Knutson: Correct.
Mayor Chmiel: The motion was to read, as I indicated previously with the
restate the portion that you wanted included in it.
Councilwoman Dimler: I would say that we send the right in and right out
proposal back to the County Board for reconsideration.
Gary Warren: And the City supports...
Councilwoman Di.mler: And the City supports the right in and the right out
concept.
Resolution #89-68: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded ,
a motion
that the City of Chanhassen support the right in and right out proposal for West
78th Street as opposed to the cul-de-sac and that this proposal go back to the
Carver County Board for reconsideration. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
B.C. Burdick: I want to thank you and I want to say we'll work with engineering
on this to design it the best way possible. And I thought of another factor
there. Minnesota is going to want some of my land to expand TH 5 100 feet I
farther east but only 40 feet at this intersection so it isn't going to hurt the
stacking distance a lot. If I bring this up at that time, I will ask them as
part of the settlement with me to do most any of you want as far as. ..the right
turn exit lane. Building it wider or whatever. So I'm almost certain I can
work with the Minnesota Highway Department very well. And if it's going to be
brought up next Tuesday at the Carver County Connissioners, I don't suppose the
Minutes will be typed up by then so I'd like to have something to show them.
Would it be okay if Mayor_ Chmiel wrote a letter simply concerning your action
tonight so I'd have something to show them. Otherwise I'll be standing there
saying what happened without any documents.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we also have a County Commissioner present.
Al Kligelhutz: You can ask to request by letter or request by phone to get on
the agenda and you have to do it by next Thursday in order to get on for next
Tuesday.
Councilman Johnson: That's almost implicit in the motion since we are '
e to
petition Carver County, we have to write than a letter to do it. We don't
necessarily need our Minutes to do it. I think it's implicit in the motion that
some form of communication to Carver County to request that will be made.
B.C. Burdick: That's what I'm asking. A letter from Mayor Chmiel to the County
Commissioners. Okay, thank you very much.
E
Councilwoman Di.mler: Jim, I have a question if you're willing to answer it.
What restaurant are you dealing with?
34
■
. City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 3
t Brian Burdick: It's premature right now to discuss that.
II 1 B.C. Burdick: I even have a real estate agent and it hasn't been signed yet but
it has been agreed on and written up.
Brian Burdick: It's been written up but it hasn't been officially signed yet.
Gary Warren: We need a motion Mr. Mayor_ then to table 9(a) and (b)?
' Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: Did we table the Joint Powers Agreement?
Mayor Chmiel: No we have not. I'll entertain a motion for that.
Councilman Johnson: Does it need to be tabled or can we make the Joint Powers
' Agreement?
Mayor Chmiel: Be tabled until the specifications authorizing the right in/right
out. I think it should be tabled.
Gary Warren: There's some wordage in there that reflects this access so it
should be tabled.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to table action on the
II Joint Powers Agreement with Carver County. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
' BANDIMERE PARK AND CARRICO ACQUISITIONS, AUTHORIZE CONDEMNATION.
Don Ashworth: The agenda per se is incorrect. The report in the packet
correctly shows authorize the appraisals for both Bandimere Park and Carrico
property. Little different situation in both of those. In the case of Carrico,
we had a lot of neighborhood support for a park in that area. We did carry out
' an appraisal. That appraisal came back at $60,000.00. The property owner
carried out an appraisal and it is at $330,000.00. I feel that given the amount
of difference and recognizing that once condemnation is started you don't turn
' back, that I'd like to feel on very firm grounds as to the amount of money that
we're logically going to have to pay for this acquisition so the Council knows
in advance, does not approve an acquisition for $60,000.00 and it turns out to
be $180,000.00 and we've incurred a lot of attorney expenses, etc., etc.. In a
similar fashion, the Bandimere Park property we're looking to for our park in
southern Chanhassen and I think that if nothing else but to insure the citizenry
that we in fact are making a reasonable good and a purchase that is in fact
' what? Conservative with City dollars. It seems only logical that we might
carry out an appraisal of that property as well to again insure that before we
consummate that purchase, that in fact it does represent a good value for our
citizenry.
IP Mayor. Chmiel: There's one discussion I had regarding the pipeline. If in the
event we have to do a tremendous amount of grading within that area where the
35
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 '
existing pipeline is at and we have to place some additional cracks in the
ground over and above that particular pipeline, one of my concerns was a break
within that pipeline or talking with the pipeline and finding out what the costs
might be for relocating it. I don't want to absorb those additional dollar
costs either. Because of the additional earth compaction that you put on that
pipe, you could have some stress on it that could cause some problems. I'd like
us to make sure that we look at that.
Councilman Johnson: But that could be handled as part of the engineering.
Mayor. Chmiel: Right but I still want to address it.
Councilman Johnson: Have we ever found out, I know we went to review what type
of pipe that was almost 2 years ago. Have we ever found out what type of pipe
that is?
Don Ashworth: I do not recall off the top of my head the technical description '
but I do know that the pipeline that broke had a longetudial weld and this pipe
that's in the ground here is not of the same manufacture nor does it have the
same weld characteristic of that pipe. 1
Councilman Johnson: Okay. That's good to know.
Don Ashworth: We will follow up with the Mayor's suggestion and what will be '
done there is that Mark Koegler will be used to carry out a sketch plan of that
property in a si.mili_ar fashion that we did for the Carrico property that would
show tentative uses that could be put on the property. Approximate grades. '
That also would be, he would look in a similar fashion that we did with Carrico
to other parcels in that area to insure that again this parcel best meets the
needs for the people down in southern Chanhassen. . I
Councilman Johnson: How can we assure neutrality on our appraiser here? One of
the reasonings between the two bids, we hired the appraiser and gave him the
ground rules to play with. The other guy hired the appraiser and gave a
different set of ground rules to play with. His ground rules were of course,
assume that the Met Council will allow this to be sewered property. Voila,
$25,000.00, $35,000.00, $40,000.00 an acre. Whatever it turns out. I don't
remember how many acres we got here but a big price. The ground rules we set
for our appraiser was assume the Met Council won't allow it to be changed to
sewered property. Therefore, $60,000.00 is a reasonable price. I think we
shouldn't even mention hiring a neutral appraiser that comes in and let him do
the research as to whether it's in the MUSA line, out of the MUSA line and
everything else. Say we're hiring you to appraise this property and not put any
kind of constraints on it.
Don Ashworth: Roger_ is the one who should respond but my recollection is that
in the first case, we did not give him any form of instructions. In fact, he
solely looked at that as an unsewered piece of property. In the secondary case,
that Roger_ should spend time to insure that the individual weighs both sides of
the issue and so that appraisal can take into account literally both sides.
Councilman Johnson: Take in the possibility or whatever? --
36 1
o y F
:.�.� .
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989
1 r Roger Knutson: In this case I did not hire that appraiser for Carrico. I of
involved a little bit later but I never tell the appraiser what to assume, not
to assume. I don't write to the appraisal.? pp.rai.sal. I don't prejudge it. I don' t tell
them we want a highball or lowball anything. I said I want an honest number.
I'm not going to tell them it's inside the MUSA or outside the MUSA. He makes
his own investigation. He comes to his own conclusions.
Councilman Johnson: Should, as Don's suggesting here though, since ncethzsissuch
a factor, I suggested that to do exactly what you just said, is that we don't
' inform them of any of the factors involved but there is some, if he's aware of
all the factors, he might because the condemnation court will be aware of all
the factors involved, he may be looking at it from a different point of view.
' Roger Knutson: One thing that's a little bit unique here is that in this case
it would be absolutely impossible to know all the facts unless you.. .the City.
They aren't available anyplace else. You really can't get all the facts by going
' up to the Met Council. They can just tell you where the existing MUSA line is.
Councilman Johnson: The thing is, what is the chances of it getting sewer? The
City can't say that because it's a Met Council's decision. The City can
petition and in this case we have a petition for such.
Roger Knutson: Except there's a process of taking land in and letting land out
and stuff like that which the City has more first hand information about. If he
can get all his information from Met Council and satisfy himself without talking
to the City, that's fine but frankly I don't think that's possible.
ICouncilman Johnson: So Roger would be hiring an appraiser for us in this case?
' Roger Knutson: I won't tell them a thing. I'll just tell them, here's the legal
description. Tell me what it's worth.
Councilman Johnson: That was my initial gut reaction on how to do it so go for
'
it. I move approval for authorization for appraisal of the Bandimere and
Carrico Pr_operti_es.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
'
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve authorization
for appraisal of the Bandimere Park and Carrico property. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
' ACCEPT COLONIAL GROVE STREET LIGHT REPLACEMENT PROPOSAL.
Gary Warren: The Colonial Grove subdivision, the first addition of that has or
had installed originally as part of the development, wood standards to give it
more of I guess the Colonial look if you will. Over the years, in fact this was
an item that's been since I've come here, we've received updates from NSP over
' the last 3 years for what the cost is to replace these poles. They're rotting.
They're a hazard out there and need to be replaced. NSP is currently estimating
costs, given us a cost of $7,813.00 to replace those poles and put in the
1
37
r
so
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 II
standard NSP fixture. We're recommending accepting that proposal and having
this installation done. We did send out a letter in February this year to all
the residents to notify them of the situation which is included in the packet
here and we had one call I believe, just somebody asking what the light was or
why we were doing this. Otherwise we haven't received any comments good or bad
I guess on it so I presume that it's okay with the neighborhood.
Councilman Johnson: Will they have to pay for this?
Mayor. Chmiel: The neighborhood?
Gary Warren: No, we're proposing that this come out of the street
City's s e '
lighting/signal fund. Y
Councilman Johnson: We're not going to allow anybody else to put up wood poles?
Gary Warren: Not without a clause that says that upon replacement the
association would make good on paying for it. That's correct.
Mayor. Chmiel: I'd just like to mention before we even go to vote on this that
it would be a conflict of interest for me and I'm abstaining from voting.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to accept Colonial Grove '
Street Lighting Replacement proposal, File No. PW-001. All voted in favor
except Mayor Chmiel who abstained and the motion carried.
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF OFFICIAL MAPPING ORDINANCE.
Gary Warren: Pretty straight forward item I believe Mr. Mayor_. The City '
Attorney requested them to prepare an amendment to the City's ordinance. As I
think Council is aware, we have got TH 101 realignment that we've been dealing
with here and which at the last council meeting we selected a preferred
alternate for that corridor. We also have received an official map for the TH
212 corridor and the City does not have an official mapping ordinance on record
here. The intent and desire here is to establish a vehicle whereby the City can
preserve these transportation corridors which are not going to be built
immediately but reserve them for the future so economically the city doesn't
have to pay outrageous fees obtaining land that has been built on and also so
that we can release property from being held hostage, as I call it, so that the
land owners can deal with the sale of their property and work around our
corridors so we're all kind of up front with things. So this is the first
reading of the official mapping ordinance for the City and we recommend
Council approve it. that the
'
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to just make mention that as it's indicated, May 16th is
the date that it's tentatively on for and that's the same evening that we do
have the Board of Adjustments and Equalization Review which will be held here at
7:00 p.m. in the City Council chambers which will follow right afterwards.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's not a regular council meeting?
33 1
II
II Ci.ty Council Meeting - May 8, 1939 : 37
IIMayor. Chmiel: No, but it will be a public meeting that evening.
Councilman Johnson: So we're having a special meeting at 7:00 or something?
IMayor_ Chmiel: That's correct.
U Councilwoman Dimler: On Page 2, on Notice and Hearing, under 15-25. I was
wondering if you go down to line 9 and it says, at least 10 days prior to the
hearing the clerk may also mail a copy of notice to each owner of land situated
within or abutting any street or other public ground shown on the official map.
I I'm wondering if that shouldn't read that he must mail. Change the may to must.
That would then call for going down to the end of line 15, that you delete the
word not so it would read, failure to serve any such notice shall invalidate the
Iproceedings.
Councilman Johnson: What happens if you, I think the not should still stay in
I there because what happens is you have a home that was recently sold and the
only reason it hasn't been posted so those people don't get the notice but
somebody else ends up getting the notice or things like this. A single error
like this can not cause the destruction of the entire process.
ICouncilwoman Dimler: Okay, but if the notice was served, just because one art
P Y
didn't get it, that would not invalidate the proceedings. But if the notice was
Inot served to anybody. That's what I'm getting at.
Councilman Johnson: Right.
IDon Ashworth: I think you'd know about that at the meeting. You would act to
table action then to direct myself or for whatever reason I failed to send it
out. You have 5 people come up to you and say hey, I'd like to see this item
I tabled and have a new hearing. You wouldn't let—the hearing go through.
I guess I agree with Jay's point though. If we had a individual owner and for
one reason, some reason he didn't get notice, later on challenge the whole
IIprocess and invalidate it, could be very detrimental to our city.
Councilman Johnson: And we see that every time. When you have any kind of
Ipublic notice, somebody always claims they did not get notice.
Councilwoman Dimler: Is that the intent here? Roger, can you help?
I Roger Knutson: Yes. Courts have construed this exact language to mean, you
have to make a good faith effort for example to give notice. If, like Don said,
it just slipped his mind or whatever and no notice went out, then I would
I certainly say forget it. Start over again but this saves you from the situation
where Don makes a good faith effort and he's sending out, I don't how many we're
talking about. Let's say there's 500 letters you have to send out. Let's say
one falls behind the file cabinet and it's found 5 years later.
ICouncilwoman Dimler: But the way this is written, what do Y ou think it
addresses? The general or that one specific case.
Roger Knutson:
I og` My construction, the Courts have given this exact language. It
saves you if you've made a good faith effort. If you've really blown it
I 39
II
■
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989
entirely, it doesn't save you but if you don't have language like this in here,
you really run the risk that anyone in the audience could stand up and say, I
didn't get the envelope. All we can say is we mailed it. I can't tell them he
received it because the expense of certified or registered mail on some of these
projects would be extreme. Then you have the problem that people won't accept
it and stuff like that so we normally just send regular mail. And someone could
stand up in the audience and say I didn't get it and invalidate the proceedings.
If someone wanted to stall things, by saying that constantly you could stall
things quite a while.
Mayor Chmiel: Could it be completely eliminated if they were certified letters? 1
Roger Knutson: Except it gets expensive and you have the problem, people won't
accept them. I'm on vacation for example or I have a lot of creditors and I'm
afraid of these certified letters. Certified means trouble, I don't take it.
Councilman Johnson: They have to come to the Post Office to get them because
we're a rural post office here so some certified, to sign for a certified,
they're not going to stop and come to your house for a certified letter. I had
a special delivery letter from the military I had to go to the Post Office and
get.
Roger Knutson: You also have the problems of contracts for deed situations and
multiple owners. '
Councilman Johnson: But the may should be changed to shall.
Roger Knutson: That'd be fine.
Councilwoman Dimler: • Okay, then I'll just reconsider and say that okay, change
on line 9. Change the may to must and leave the not in on line 15. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Does everyone have that?
Gary Warren: Is shall better?
Roger Knutson: I wrote down shall. That's the legal. . .
Councilwoman Di.mler: I'll accept that.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the first
reading of the Official Mapping Ordinance with the amendment on page 2, line 9
to change the word "may" to "shall". All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Al Kligelhutz: May 16th, is that when this will be on?
Mayor. Chmiel: Yes, Ma 16th. 7:00 is the
y equali.zati.on meeting. Right after
that which will probably be about 7:30.
II Councilman Johnson: This will be after the board of equalization? I thought
it was the other way around.
40
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989
II
Mayor Chmiel: Let me take another look at the agenda.
Todd Gerhardt: The equalization, that will take more than a half hour.
'y
Mayor Chmiel: I'm sorry, that's on first.
Don Ashworth: Now which one is at 7:00?
Councilman Johnson: The board of equalization is at 7:00.
' Don Ashworth: I was sure that had been set by your suggestion.
' Gary Warren: Maybe this should be on the 22nd.
Don Ashworth: I may be wrong but do you think we're going to have a number of
' people in here? I personally don't.
Todd Gerhardt: I've received one phone call today but that's been it.
' Councilman Johnson: They've only come out just recently. I just got mine last
week.
' Todd Gerhardt: This just came out today of when the meeting is.
Mayor_ Chmiel: What's the time?
Don Ashworth: Well we won't have a time. It will follow the Board meeting then
right?
' Councilman Workman: How about a consent agenda item on the 22nd?
Councilman Johnson: Can we have this right at 7:00? This should only take a
matter of seconds?
Councilwoman Dimler: Can't we put it on the consent agenda for the 22nd?
' Mayor_ Chmiel: Yes. Being that we've had the first reading, I think we possibly
could for the 22nd on the consent agenda.
' Al Klingelhutz: Do you have to have a public hearing on this?
Gary Warren: The actual mapping of a corridor requires a public hearing.
' Roger Knutson: It's a procedural ordinance.
Al Klingelhutz: It's something that's going to affect my property considerably
' so I want to make sure that I know.
Councilman Johnson: This one does not say Highway 101 anywhere in the actual
ordinance. The original one they proposed was specific to that. TH 101 and TH
212. We said, why don' t we just make it generic so if we have to do this for TH
7 or TH 41, it's on the books. Okay, then I accept the modification that we
' 41
VI-
.
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 a ,
have the approval for consent agenda on May 22nd versus May 16th. I don't even
know if we need to vote on that.
Mayor Chmiel: No. I don't believe so.
ADMINISTRATION PRESENTATION: SELECTION PROCESS, CITY PLANNER'S POSITION. ,
Don Ashworth: Two options to try to fill Steve Hanson's position. That was a
more recent acceptance. In other words, that was in September of 1988. I feel
that there is still a number_ of candidates from that selection process that
would still be available. The other option would be to readvertise for the
position and go to full route. If we readvertise, it likely will be September-
October before we would have somebody in to that position. If we would look to
taking from the candidates, the resumes from September, we could shorten that
process and hopefully if we had a meeting with the Council on May 20th or May
27th, potentially have somebody on board by the middle of July. Again, probably
2 to 3 months ahead of the other process. One of the biggest factors is in the
advertisement is the earliest we could get into APA and the League of Cities is
mid-June. So then if you start from an advertisement of mid-June and start
counting the days for sending in resumes and then sorting through those and then
interviewing and then that person giving notice, it moves you into that
September-October timeframe. Jay I believe is the only council member who did
interview the candidates back in September. I think that the second candidate
from that ti.meframe would still be available. He is currently in the City of
Minnetonka. I just told Jay 2 minutes ago that I might ask him to say whether
or not we should be looking at that individual with the other one that we had '
interviewed or potentially starting from scratch with 3 entirely new candidates.
Councilman Johnson: Our process last year went through interviews involving
members of the Planning Commission and also members of the Council. Due to some
conflicts, I had to be slightly late to the interviews. It got down to where I
didn't get to interview Steve as a matter of fact. It got down to a 2 to 2 tie.
Of the 5 people that were there of the voting side of it, it was a 2-2 tie
between Steve and Krause. I hadn't interviewed Steve. I had interviewed Krause
so that was unfair. Steve was still here in town. We brought him back from the
hotel and we talked and interviewed and I decided, I was the deciding vote
there, but it was extremely close. W'e're talking 2 highly qualified people. I
thought Steve came over, my decision was based on his talking ability. He
seemed a little more outward and outgoing. Otherwise, impecable qualificiations
on the others. There were 3 that were brought to us for interview and the two
shone well above the third. The third had been unemployed for a while and a few
other interesting things. I could recommend Krause if he's still available. I
don't know if he's still with Minnetonka or not. He is? There's not a lot of
these positions opening up every day.
Councilwoman Di.mler: Axe you sure that the number 2 candidate is still
available?
Mayor. Chmiel: Yes. Don just mentioned the fact that he still works.. .
Councilwoman Di.mler_: How recently have you checked?
42
■
II F ,City Council Meeting - May 9, 1989
Don Ashworth: Friday?
Todd Ger_har_dt: Thursday.
� Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, that's good enough.
Don Ashworth: So bring back 3 candidates hopefully shooting for May 20th, May
' 27th?
Mayor. Chmiel: As quickly as we can.
Don Ashworth: Knock out the third candidate or? He would really love to come
back and try it again but I think he was very weak. Knock him out and look at
' two other ones then?
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
Gary Warren: I've got an administrative presentation.
' Mayor Ch:niel: I'm sorry, it's not on the agenda.
Gary Warren: I know and whoever pulled my stakes out at Lake Ann Park wasn't on
' my agenda either. Just a quick comment because we cable broadcast the meetings
here. We've had some problem with, we staked, put in the construction stakes
for the Lake Ann Park expansion project and the contractor was hoping to get
underway with that work this week and it looks like the weather will probably
straighten out so he can. But we had a 4 x 4 vehicle pull out half of the grade
stakes that were installed last week which kind of raised the question in the
contractor's mind and mine I guess, we don't know who's doing this or if they
' are mistaking this property for the property next door or whatever but we will
be erecting a sign here, hopefully this week that will identify the project site
and I think it's good PR for us anyway to lay out the schedule on that but we
wanted to somehow_comnuni.cate to the public that this is the Lake Ann Park
'
expansion project and in no way related to any other activities that have been
popular in that area.
' Mayor Chmiel: Being that it's a short presentation, the clock tower.
I happened to drive by that the morning the car had tried to take it out and
they didn't try hard enough. Was there any structural problems with that?
Gary Warren: I went out there when I heard it had survived the blast test and
actually the only structural damage that I observed was that the two of the
wooden ballards had been parted so those will probably have to be replaced and
' the decorative chain between them and maybe some plants but the foundation of
the clock tower, the concrete or decerative stone base didn't budge. You can
hardly see any nick at all on it.
Mayor Chmiel: One other thing I just wanted to bring up. All our shurbs and
trees in our center median, have we approached the people who made the
installation and I know we do have a guarantee on them?
1 43
7
City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 11
Don Ashworth: We're also holding about $40,000.00 back in addition to the
guarantees. A letter to them, has that gone out? I know Ehret was working on
• a punch list and they've gone through the entire downtown examining every tree
and they were in the process of notifying them.
Gary Warren: I week ago Wednesday I believe they walked the whole site. Some
of the trees that looked burned out, they do have growth but they've come up
with this punch list and I haven't seen a letter to the contractor but they have
had an understanding what trees and foliage has problems so that will be going
out shortly I'm sure.
Councilman Johnson: Somewhat in defense of the downtown project there, when
people look and say, oh look. It all died. We all told you so it was going to
die. Lots of evergreens everywhere are in the same shape and some of them are
old and everything else. It was a hard winter on evergreens. Especially for
something that had only been in the ground for 6 months.
Mayor Chmiel: Moth infestation is causing a lot of the evergreen trouble.
Councilman Johnson: I've seen a lot of them, the west and north sides of them
are just all brown. I'm amazed what this winter did.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. '
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30
p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
44
■r
1? ,
/JIVED!
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION - 1
REGULAR MEETING iu
MAY 3, 1989
IChairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m. .
I MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings , Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad
and David Headla
MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli and Jim Wildermuth
ISTAFF PRESENT: Steve Hanson, Planning Director and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst.
City Planner
I
PUBLIC HEARING:
I WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS B
WETLAND ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 800 WOODHILL ROAD, JERRY
PETERSON.
IJo Ann Olsen presented the staff report .
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order.
IBrian Kihle: Thanks Jo Ann for that. My name is Brian Ki.hle at 234
Penninsula Road in Medicine Lake. I just wanted to say that I 'm not going
Ito be changing the flow of the water or anything . I just want to backfill
up to the house to get the water to drain away from the house and that' s
basically why I want to grade into that area.
IEmmi.ngs moved, Headla seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed .
I Emmings: It seems very straight forward to me and I certainly will vote
to approve it.
Ellson : I agree. I don' t see any problems .
IHeadla: How do we define natural state? I look at that and I circled it.
I think it' s a good word but then I think, do we, the way we interpret it
I now and in a little bit, is natural state always going to be i.nterpretted
the same? Is that the best definition we can give?
i Olsen: The better way to do it would be to have specific vegetation. To
specify exactly what we want .
Ellson: Aren 't you basically saying not altering it?
IOlsen : Right. We just don ' t want the lawns .
IEllson: If nature lets it get dry, it has to be we let it get dry but if
you mentioned a certain type of plant , that might be as natural 5 years
i-- from now.
Olsen : The natural vegetation does come back if it ' s left .
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3 , 1989 - Page 2
Headla : And then they can ' t mow it or anything like that? Okay, so that
transfers from owner to owner of the future?
Conrad: Which is a good question and it was my only question . How does
that. . .
Olsen : It ' s recorded.
Conrad: On the plat?
Olsen: The permit is recorded with the lot at the County so anyone who
purchases a lot in the future hopefully will research the title.
Headla : What ' s the mechansim? How do we know like it ' s, it seems if you
have an owner and you have a requirement, how does that get into that
deed?
Olsen: It ' s recorded against the lot. ,
Headla: What the Village records against that? Oh, that' s how they do
i.t. '
Conrad : I have nothing else. Is there a motion?
Jr
i
Ellson moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #89-2 as shown on the Site Plan
dated "April 25, 1989" with the following conditions: '
1. Type III erosion control shall be installed between the proposed
grading areas and the Class B wetland prior to any improvements to the '
site.
2. The proposed lawn area as shown on the site plan shall be limited to
20 feet around the front of the house and the remaining area between
the house and wetland shall be maintained in it ' s natural state.
3. The area between the driveway and the Class B wetland shall be
maintained in it' s natural state and not be seeded up to the edge of
the wetland.
All voted in favor and the motion carried . '
PUBLIC HEARING:
MICHAEL CARMODY, SOUTH LOTUS VILLAS TOWNHOMES ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R,
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED IN THE SOUTH LOTUS LAKE
ADDITION: '
A. PRELIMINARY PLAT 1. 475 ACRES INTO 14 INDIVIDUALLY OWNED TOWNHOME UNITS
AND ONE OUTLOT.
B. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 6 AND 8 UNIT TOWNHOME BUILDING.
_
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 3
IL
4
a
IPublic Present :
IName Address
Paul Struthers , Architect Clutz, O'Brien, Struther
Jannette Lapin 140 South Shore Court
I Mike Carmody Applicant
Bobbie Kussard 7604 South Shore Drive
Curt Robinson 202 West 77th Street
IDean Potables 200 South Shore Court
IJo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Conrad : Jo Ann to just discuss , the ordinance requires 28 spaces and
they' re providing 63 with 7 visitors. Quite a difference between this one
I and 2 weeks ago. Now I 'm really confused . 63 parking spaces versus the
required 28. Maybe the applicant will have more comments .
I Olsen: Again, they' re counting internal parking. Outside. Same thing .
It' s including the garage parking and parking outside for the cars .
1rChairman Conrad called the public hearing to order .
Paul Struther : I 'm Paul Struther with the architectural firm of Cluts ,
O' Brien, Struther. . We did the design drawings for the project. I have
I some boards here. This is TH 101, South Shore Drive. The project is
entered off of South Shore Drive in the corner. A private drive along the
north corridor with several drives to the buildings. The project consists
I of two buildings. One 6 units. One 8 units . We ' re developing the
project and some site elements such that we can interface the multi-family
with the adjacent single family residential . Maintaining the existing
berm. Planting heavy of plantings of Douglas Fir . Plantings along TH 101
I
and South Shore Drive. We would like to leave the view to the park open.
Staff has recommended some additional plantings and we ' ll certainly
accommodate that. The parking that you described , visitor parking .
I There ' s 2 here, 3 here and 2 here. The rest of the parking that we showed
in the count is on the 2 car garage aprons as well as storage within the
garage. We' ve included 2 car garages to minimize the amount of cars
I stored outside the garage. Most families have 2 cars so at times they' ll
be contained within the buildings and not be visible to the neighbors .
This board represents a view of the building to develop these as manor
homes rather than row houses to again provide some interface between the
I multi-family use and the adjacent single family use. Building materials
are brick and redwood siding with asphalt shingles . There were a couple
of times that I 'd like to clarify with staff based on the recommendations
I they gave us today. I haven ' t had a chance to talk to the City Engineer .
They all really refer to or relate to site utilities. They've asked us
{ to upsize the sanitary sewer and the water service and I believe that with
lirsome discussion with them, they may be anticipating some things that
aren ' t happening here . For example, I think they may be contemplating all
of the sanitary sewer coming from a single unit as opposed to a variety of
Uff
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3 , 1989 - Page 4
1
stubs . In addition to that , the building inspector had mentioned a need
for fire sprinkling of this building which is not required given this use
and that may have some impact upon the City Engineer ' s waterline. One
other item I 'd like to clarify was the extent of the curb that' s required
for the project . The statement in the staff recommendations indicated
B612 curb throughout and it ' s our understanding in earlier conversations
with the City Engineer that that ' s required on the primary service drive
and not on all of the edges of the bituminous. It' s uncommon for instance
to have B612 on a garage approach. I think with those exceptions , we' re
willing to accept the staff recommendations but we just want to be sure we
clearly understand them. I
Jannette Lapin : Hi . I 'm Jannette Lapin. I live at 140 South Shore
Court. I 'm one of the single family dwellings in the area. I guess we
just had some concerns . The developers were kind enough to send us the
Covenants and thank you. The Covenants had some compliance things that
mentioned the landscaping and no sheds, the maintenance of the exterior ,
etc. , etc. I guess we were a little unclear whether, is a conversant
something that can always be enforced or is it something that if .these , is
it 14? These 14 people can get together and say, oh we want to change our
covenants now. Now we want to put sheds up and now we don' t want to
maintain the yards anymore. And now we want to park boats on the side of
the lawns or whatever or is it something that can be enforced for the life
of the townhome?
Conrad : Good question . My understanding is the covenants can be changed
if they get agreement and I 'm not sure what kind of agreement they have to
have. If it' s 100% or a majority or whatever . '
Jannette Lapin: I guess that alarms some of us who have lived and been
around inexpensive townhomes like these in the past . That it starts out
with good intentions but as the life of the townhome gets longer , you get
more and more rental properties and the exterior and everything can go
downhill . Is there anyway, there's no way you can enforce something like
that for the life? '
Conrad: Steve, anything?
Hanson : I don' t know of anyway. The covenants are among themselves .
Olsen: We do have regulations over storage sheds and as far as parking
boats and things like that. The City itself has regulations controlling
that. We can not enforce covenants. They will be inidividually owned
townhomes .
Jannette Lapin : That was my other question. Is that something that can
be changed too? I read all this in the convenants and it sounded just
wonderful but if 14 people can just get together and change that , I mean,
and that' s what can happen.
Olsen : They would still have to apply the same controls that we apply to
your house as far as storage sheds and boat storage. '
1m
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3 , 1989 - Page 5
C
I Jannette Lapin : Yes, we had to meet a lot of very strict covenants in
terms of our siding and our roof and the square footage on our house and
things like that but us as homeowners , we have a lot more invested than
I the townhome people will have. I guess that' s why we were a little
alarmed because there is a really dramatic difference between the price of
these townhomes and the price of our homes. We have a lot more at stake
if they let the townhomes deteriorate .
IConrad: Good comments. Any comments on what she had to say?
I Mike Carmody: Yes , I 'm Mike Carmody. If you check Article 8 , Section 3
it gives the remedy in that article. It gives the Association the right
to give an owner who does not comply with the covenants and the rules of
II the association 10 days notice. Then it also gives the Association the
power to go in and do necessary repairs and file a lien against the
property. Also, as far as the covenants , the covenants run for 30 years
and then they' re automatically renewal for 10 year increments after that
II so they can not be changed, I believe after that 30 years it ' s 90% have to
agree.
ilConrad : So they are fixed for 30 years?
Mike Carmody: Yes , the covenants . They run with the land. In other
Iwords , through the heirs and . . .
Jannette Lapin: How are they enforced? Just basically neighbor to
neighbor?
IMike Carmody: It ' s enforced through the Association ' s right to lien the
property and foreclose a lien. I 've done several associations and this is
I by far the most stringent covenant and restrictions that I ' ve ever done
because we had a concern for property values in the area . We actually had
a neighborhood meeting with the owners of the property so we could go over
all this to find out what their concerns were. We tried to address all of
Ithose concerns .
Conrad : So in your mind or based on the covenants , they can ' t be changed
IIfor 30 years and then only with a 90% agreement?
Mike Carmody: I 'm trying to figure out where it was . When you read it
Iquite carefully, it does say that.
Jannette Lapin : Well , 30 years seems pretty good . I didn' t see that when
I read the covenants .
IEllson : Maybe it should be spelled out so you are comfortable with it.
If they can just add it to that point to make it really clear to someone
' moving in.
( Mike Carmody: At this point this is just a rough draft of what we ' re
proposing. After they read through the whole thing, if anyone has any
questions regarding those documents , we' re open to talking to them about
it.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3 , 1989 - Page 6 ,
17
Conrad : Did you get a copy of the covenants?
Jannette Lapin: Yes I did.
Conrad : They seem, based on what I 'm hearing , it seems pretty strict and
I think basically I don' t think we' re going to get people who want to
change things in there. I don' t think that but then again it can happen
and it' s probably to your benefit to read through the covenants again to
see if they are stated that 30 years it won' t change. I think that' s
pretty strict. It sounds pretty much in your benefit.
Ellson: I have a question of Mike I guess it was . The association, does
it have to be just the people that own the townhomes? Couldn' t it be some
neighbors that are across the street too? In other words, they'd be part
of this voting since it would somewhat affect them as well .
Mike Carmody: The Covenants that are recorded along with the deed apply
to all 14 units. The association does have the right to annex another or
deannex with another association. That' s pretty typical of an
association. However , there isn' t anything in the immediate area that
would probably be affected by that .
Conrad : I don' t know that you could give away, the association is for the
Iproperty owners in that block so to give somebody outside any voting
share, I 'm not sure.
Jannette Lapin : I used to live in a condo and I think that would pretty
much be outrageous . We 'd vote for them to do a lot of expensive changes .
I just wanted to clarify if this landscaping was really going to go in or
if they were like imaginary bushes or something .
Conrad: They have to. They submit a landscape plan and we enforce that.
Jannette Lapin: Well , thank you very much. '
Bobbie Kussard: My name is Bobbie Kussard. I live at 7604 South Shore
Drive. I 'm a new resident to the neighborhood . I recently lived in the
Chaparal twinhome development. I lived there for approximately 8 1/2
years . When we first moved in we were the first home on Chaparal Lane . It
was beautiful . It was wonderful . Everybody worked together. It was a
great association. I was involved . We got out because it went to hell ,
pardon my french. People didn' t care anymore. We couldn' t enforce
anything and it' s getting worse and worse. I intend on staying in my new
home for quite some time. I 'm sure their development will look beautiful
as ours did when it first went in . I can ' t imagine that they will have
enough money in their association to do the exterior maintenance. The
insurance for an association , I was on that with ours . It ' s tremendously
expensive because you have to have the common grounds insured. I just
can' t see this place , they' re selling the units for $75, 000. 00. Most of
us, our homes are $160, 000. 00 to $300, 000. 00. I 'm concerned about the
value of my home. When I want to sell , perhaps when I retire and those
things are going to be ramshackles so that ' s a big concern of mine. I
Planning Commission Meeting
ItMay 3 , 1989 - Page 7
C
II can ' t see how 14 units can get enough money in an association. We had to
repaint every 2 to 3 years and it was very costly. I admit we had some
200 units . They' re only talking, we had a lot of money coming in as well .
II They' re not going to have much money coming in. I 'd like to see expensive
multi -unit houses . I know that those lots can ' t take anything else but
some sort of multi-unit but I think $75, 000. 00 an apartment is
outrageously low for what we ' ve put into our homes . That ' s it.
IIConrad: Thanks for your comments . It' s an interesting question. To
make sure that this type of development and the association does have
I enough money through their association to maintain the maintenance. Now
it' s to their , typically it' s their benefit to have that much money in
there because again , their units , they have to buy and sell their units so
II I think the 13 others are going to, I think there' s internal pressure on
each other to maintain a budget that ' s going to take care of the
maintenance. That' s my experience talking to other people who live in
developments like this . It does become a problem and I don' t think I want
II to, the associations and , it is an area that can create some controversy.
Do we staffwise , does the City get involved in making sure that the
associations dues are enough for the ongoing maintenance? That' s really
Inot our role is it? I 'm sort of answering the question.
Ellson: Do we have any say in what their exterior is or anything either?
IWe can ' t say we recommend aluminum siding or make it a condition?
Olsen: That' s been done before .
•
I Emmings : In this case the question maybe is a little different than in
some other ones because this thing is part of a larger PUD and should the
people that got the PUD and got to build the single family, can they break
I this off and leave it just with it' s own association or should they
somehow have to account to everybody who ' s within the PUD?
I Jannette Lapin: In one sense I think the City Counci_l . . .would have to
police it but in the other sense I feel like you ' re the one that decided
on the land. Zoned the land the way you did and we pay a lot of taxes and
we ' re just really concerned about the property values and our resale
I values. In that sense we feel like the land was zoned kind of strangely.
Maybe that ' s something we should have been more aware of when we bought
the houses.
IConrad : When it came in, we said he knew exactly what was going to be
built there. This is not a surprise to staff or us. It may be a surprise
to you but . Michael , tell us a little bit about association dues and how
I it relieves some anxiety maybe from the neighbors if you can on
maintenance issues .
I Mike Carmody: We ' re applying for FHA financing and they have to approve
all of our association documents . . .so we are putting together a proposed
budget for everything that relates to insurance of the building .
,( Maintaining of the grounds. Maintaining the exterior of the building .
The maintaining of our roofs . The composition of the driveways . It ' s in
our proposed budget based on for example a 5 year painting cycle , every 5
II
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3 , 1989 - Page 8
il
C
years . . . 30 years on the driveways plus we allow for maintenance for
sealcoating . Insurance, we know exactly what all of these costs are going
to be.
Conrad : What do you think the monthly maintenance? I
Mike Carmody: It' s going to be $55. 00 initially plus the association in
any one year can raise that by 5% plus they have the , they can levy a
II
special assessment to do improvements if necessary. That special
assessment will be by two-thirds of the votes of the association . Also
someone was wondering about how long these covenants ran. It' s Article 9 , I
Section 6 . It states in there that these covenants and restrictions run a
period of 30 years from the date of recording them. . .
Bobbie Kussard : But a two-thirds vote can also change that . One small I
item in there that they want to change, they can change it with a
two-thirds vote . The 30 years , believe me you guys . It ' s all typed up in
paper and stuff but once those people own the houses and they' re the
II
bosses , they can do what they want . They can rewrite that anyway they
want. I 've been there. I 've seen it happen.
Mike Carmody: I don ' t think anyone can see what will happen 10-15 years I
down the road but because of the location, we feel that the property
values in the area are going to increase with the park which will II I eventually be built there. The lake access . There' s going to be an
incentive for the property owner , the people who own those units , to keep
them up because they' re going to increase in value and they' re going to be
a desireable unit . Also , I 've done a number of associations and I ' ve II found that the problems that they have out in Chaparal are related to a
couple of things. One, they' re a 4-plex . In other words, an over
building of 4-plexes during that time plus the size of the association. A
II
large association. Smaller associations , I 've done a 32 one out in Eden
Prairie and that' s going on 6 years now and that ' s beautifully maintained
so there' s a lot of pride in ownership. It' s next to a park and
residential area. It has a lot of similarities to this site. This is
II
even more desireable than that location. It' s a factor of a lot of things
but I think the prime thing is that people perceive that they' ve got
something that' s unique and in a good location and they' re going to take
II
care of it. If there are what, 500 or 600 other units in one
associations , there' s going to be a big turnover . There' s going to be
less incentive because of the resale for people to take care of them.
I
There are condominiums associations that are disasters and the problem
there is the condominium market is so flooded with resales , it' s
overbuilt. It ' s something that' s unique . It ' s built of quality and good
architecture and a good location. You can see examples of it all over
II
town that are generally well maintained .
Conrad: Thanks. Other comments .
i Curt Robinson: My name is Curt Robinson. I live at 202 West 77th Street.
\ I 've lived there about 16-17 years so I ' ve seen the property since it was II a cornfield . I was wondering if there was any consideration given to
opening up West 77th Street into South Shore. Right now it comes to a
II
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 9
X.
II dead-end . There' s approximately 20 feet from where West 77th Street ends
and South Shore connects there .
I Olsen : That was discussed during the PUD approval and it was decided not
to open that street. It will still remain closed even with this
development .
II Curt Robinson: Okay. Can you tell me , and this is kind of unrelated but
when there will be shurbery and a berm put in there? People are driving
over the grass constantly now.
IIOlsen : I would contact the engineering department and Jerry Schlenk. You
could let them know that or I can give them that message.
IICurt Robinson: Would you please .
Ellson : It ' s not planned to have berming or shurbery right now is it?
IIOlsen: No but they did have a barricade didn' t they?
I Curt Robinson: No . They' ve never had anything . We put a couple fence
posts up with an old rag and a rope hanging on it.
IOlsen : I ' ll have them look into that .
Curt Robinson: Thank you.
I Bobbie Kussard : Do you object to the children taking their bikes over
that? I have two children that are bike age and I don' t want them going
out on TH 101.
IICurt Robinson : No , I sure don' t because mine do it too .
Jannette Lapin : I have another question. Will that ever come up again?
IIThat street , will that issue ever come up to open the street again?
Conrad: Only if somebody brings it up. I think when the PUD, there were
II so much neighborhood concern that when the PUD was approved , that street
was closed but anything can change anytime. On an annual basis somebody
can bring up, even more often than that can bring up requests so nothing
II is forever but at this point in time, that street is the way it is unless
somebody applies to change it.
Dean Potables : My name is Dean Potables . I live at 200 South Shore Court
II and I 'd like to discuss that further. I have another subject besides but
at our meeting last week it was discussed that that was part of the plan
that that street would be opened in order to alleviate some of the traffic
I going out onto TH 101. When you have 14 units there, you are going to
have a lot of increased traffic in and out and having the access from
irSouth Shore Drive directly onto 77th is going to give everyone a more
direct route to downtown. When they redo TH 101, I think it' s going to
become important that that street be another area traffic flow and not to
stay blocked off. And we discussed that in our meeting , town meeting last
II
11
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3 , 1989 - Page 10 i
week. Now I believe that was one of the things that was mentioned that
was in the plans to be opened up. So I guess some clarification on that
would be beneficial .
Olsen : I can look into that . That ' s news to me. With TH 101 that might
have been suggested.
Dean Potables : Okay. The other subject that I wanted to address , and
this is a little bit again for the developers , there' s some wording in
here about additions to the existing property in the covenants . I 'm
unclear as to what it is and I guess I 'm just bringing it up for further
clarification . What is the intent of that , it says Article 2, Section 2
where they can add to the existing property if they get two-thirds vote
and a merger with an association I understand but what is the other intent
of that? Are there plans one, to either rezone some of the single family
into multiple family units such as the ones adjacent to the unit now? Is
it planned that it could expand? Is that what this is giving them the
ability to do or is it intended to , if there were another association
among us homeowners for example, that we could possibly combine that? I
guess what I 'm looking at is , is the 14 unit the limit or can they with
something like this rezone more and continue building more townhomes. '
Conrad : I think that just gives them the ability to do that. It doesn' t
preclude it. Whether they have that in design or not. Again, a lot of
your agreements try to give you as much flexibility as possible to do
something .
Dean Potables : Do you interpret it to say that it does give them the
ability?
Conrad : It does . More than likely, based on the surroundings, I 'm not
sure but again. . .
Olsen : It wouldn' t be able to.
Conrad: I really don' t know. Michael any comments on that?
Mike Camrody: There isn' t any other land that would be available right in
the area here. This is the only piece of land that we own. A lot of this
is standard format for an association from an attorney' s draft . That ' s
all I can tell you. I suppose there is a potential to merge with another
association . That' s not planned or any other land . We can ' t annex land
that we know.
Conrad : Even if they wanted to , I think it would be pretty unlikely.
Let ' s say there was a residential house across the way that they wanted to
turn into a 4-plex or 8-plex . Unless there was total community support ,
the City wouldn ' t go along with that. '
Dean Potables : What if it' s currently just a lot that' s for sale and
i zoned residential?
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 11
IL-
I
II Conrad : If it' s zoned residential , again what we try to do is cluster ,
from a planning standpoint, we try to cluster things and if you start
sneaking in multi-units into a residential single family area , that
I doesn' t make sense and we don' t go along with that. I don' t see anything
from our standpoint that we could agree to . I don' t think anything makes
sense for them to change the configuration here and add. This is a
IIclustered group and I don' t know how they' d expand . Other comments?
Headla moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
IIfavor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed .
Erhart: Explain to me, on your first paragraph on your report here. On
I the initial PUD that was approved for 23 single family homes , 28 townhomes
and 6 twin homes. Then you go on to say now we' re looking at 14
townhomes . Then you go on to say the applicant states that the overall
number of units originally approved would not change. I 'm missing a
IIlittle history here .
Olsen : I don ' t have the plan before this one but it included additional
I higher density and mostly duplexes in this area. Then they amended this
plan and it' s all single family instead of the duplexes .
IllrErhart: So what happened is the 28 townhomes were not built?
Olsen : No . But the overall number is still , what would have been
committed as an outlot is what they' re proposing.
IErhart : The original townhomes , that initial proposal , was it based on
individuals owning things like this?
IIOlsen : It wasn' t. It was just a concept plan just showing townhomes . It
wasn ' t discussed whether or not they'd be individually owned .
IErhart : You mean the property?
Olsen : Right . It was just showed that it was proposed as townhomes . No
II details as to what.
Erhart : Essentially this got zoned RSF at the time and they came in with
Ithis PUD in order to get the townhomes in. High density in there.
Olsen : Right but one of the reasons they also did the PUD was to get the
parkland in there. They were doing the transfer , the swap with the city.
IErhart : Okay because that wasn ' t r_equi red . Okay, now I recall this one .
The parkland wasn' t required at the time and that was a part of the
il negotiation .
Olsen : It was all a part .
, Erhart : Because it' s a PUD, are we required to change the land use plan?
II
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3 , 1989 - Page 12
Olsen: It should still be. ,
Erhart : High density? '
Olsen: Yes .
Erhart : So anytime we have a PUD and there' s townhomes then we have to go II
back and revise this?
Olsen : We should do , like for the Lake Susan Hills, we did that. We went I
back and amended the land use to correspond to the high density, medium
density.
Erhart : Other than the contract , there' s not a whole lot to this . I
think considering this and the one we saw last time, I think one of the
notes I had last time was whether we ought to consider , the City wants to
require double car garages on all these kinds of things . I think that' s
one of the real nice things about these units compared to what we saw last
time. Going back to this issue of how do you retain attitudes and values
in townhomes and condominiums? There seems to be a fine line there
involving number of units . Involving quality of their initial
construction. Part of that might be single garage versus double garage.
Floor area . Parking space. Lots of things because there' s no question
that in today' s market a lot of these shared ownership things , some of
them have devalued tremendously in value . It poses a real problem to both
people who bought and lost money on it as well as the City in trying to
maintain the quality of the structures we have in the area . Obviously
we' re not experts in trying to define that line but I think it probably
would help us if we better understand it . My concern in what we saw 2
weeks ago, they were below that line. I guess they start out at such a
low value . Yes, I think they could go lower . I think I 'm a little more
impressed with this one but it' s a concern. I really don' t have any other
specific questions on this particular one . Considering the history of
this PUD, it fits. ,
Emmings : I was just , and this may be more just idle curiousity than
anything else, do you remember when we looked at this one 2 weeks ago ,
what the square footage was as compared to this?
Olsen: I 've got the plan here. I don' t know if it' s in here though.
Emmings : Does anybody remember those numbers?
Conrad: They were around 1, 200 I thought. '
Olsen : I think they were comparable .
Emmings: So square footage wise, as far as the lots are concerned, ,
they' re about the same . Then as far as the , I remember we were concerned
about the impervious surface and here we' re up to 54 and what were we
talking about on that other one? '
11
I.
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 13
k
C
II Olsen: 50.
Emmings : We were looking for something quite a bit lower weren' t we?
IIErhart: What was the density, if you were taking the density I think that
would be different.
IOlsen: The density got up to 14.
Emmings : Yes, this is definitely lower . The numbers aren' t too different
I but I guess one significant difference between the one last meeting and
this one is this is contemplated as part of the overall PUD. I don' t
think we've got the same leverage here. I didn' t hear any response to his
Iquestions about the curb.
Olsen : Okay, I can look into that. I can ' t answer whether or not he ' d
have to require that . I do remember meeting with them initially and it
II was discussed just the main road so I can confirm that with the
engineering department . They would have to specify what they mean .
I Emmings: I do agree with Tim' s comment in general that maybe, again this
may be another one of those things on our wish list . The things we wish
we had time to do but, involving some standards for townhomes is probably
1ra real good thing to do . Something that should be done. Things like
parking and things like the double car garage. Here we' re saying there ' s
63 spaces but really all they' re really saying is there are 4 spaces per
unit. 2 in the garage and 2 right outside and the neighbors aren' t going
Ito be using each others so really the parking is not that great here .
We' re still going to have the problem if many people would show up to
visit at a time, the parking would be exhausted very quickly and then I 'm
II afraid would result in parking along that main entrance road which I
didn' t see any comments in the community safety comments from the fire
inspector or anybody else that they'd be concerned about cars parking
I along that road but that could be a real eye sore for the neighbors who
back up there too. I know there' s going to be a lot of landscaping in
there but still you can see there could wind up being a lot of parking .
Basically I think the plan is not a bad one. It points up our need to
I look at standards for townhome developments sometime in the future more
than anything else.
I Ellson : I think everyone who talked today, maybe with the exception of
Curt, I guess he ' s been there quite a while, probably moved into their
house when this was zoned that way. In other words , whether you knew it
I or you had a chance to find out about it at the time which the same thing
happened to me in my neighborhood . I didn ' t realize something was
happening right behind me until I moved into it so it ' s easier said than
done . I 'm the first to say that but I think that the smaller number of
I units in a neighborhood with higher valued homes will tend to keep that
area up. I agree with Mike in the fact that when you get to these huge
developments with practically names just to get between one house of 12 to
IFthe next is when you can run into a lot more problems. I think people
will move in here because it' s more like a residential area. I picture
the ideal couple that doesn' t want to fix up their home anymore and just
II
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 14
C
wants to be in a nice little residential area without the maintenance and
maybe they fly away every winter or something. But I don' t think it
necessarily means that these are going to turn into atypical . We might be
jumping the gun and making big assumptions with an experience that maybe
Bobbie had with something with 200 units or what have you. I think the
bottom line is we really can' t tell people to please keep up your home
because you' re my neighbor . Whether they' re a single family home next to
you or whether they' re somebody across the street in 14 homes. We try to
do it all over the place but you might have a boat out and they wouldn' t
like it or you might paint your house pink and they wouldn' t like it and
the fact that people are owning their own homes gives them those kinds of
rights. I probably wouldn' t like this so much if it hadn' t been for the
last one we saw which was just so chintzy. It had a single garage and it
had no places for parking and it had squished areas. All these buildings
were so close that there was nothing but tar everywhere and these people
were coming forward all proud of this plan and then I see this one. I
think it really had some forethought going through it. I like the size,
that it's only 14. The other one was 50 or so. Oh , 100 total units , ,
that' s right. So I think their plan , especially compared to what the
possibilities are is a little bit better . I made the point to staff and
I 'm still wondering , the people who came forth before us said they
purposedly went to a maintenance free exterior and they made the comment
because , in our experience in building these things, the maintenance is a
real pain on the associations and they were going to brick the whole way
or aluminum siding or something like that which number one can look very
nice and number two, if it' s definitely going to keep up it ' s look for 30
years , I can see putting something like that in like a townhome
requirement or possibly because this is tied in with our PUD, we could ask II
them to make the exterior something that' s maintenance free. I know that
the redwood siding is gorgeous but I also know that stuff needs staining a
lot and looks horrible when it' s not stained. If it starts fading so I
could see possibly doing something like that and I appreciate your
comments. The other guys what you think about that but in general I like
it. I see Steve' s point about the parking but I don ' t see it as much of a
problem as maybe he does. I think maybe I 'd ask my neighbor if I could be
in their driveway or park two-thirds the way down their driveway. The
other place didn' t even have enough driveway space to try to do something
like so those are my comments . '
Headla : Where do they pick up the garbage? Drive right in on the roads?
Mike Camrody: Yes. Right into the private drives. Up to the driveways. '
Headla : Okay, people bring their garbage cans out to the end of their
driveway? Well you' re going to have a strong base under the blacktop? ,
Mike Camrody: Yes . That' s one of the things we wanted to discuss with
the engineers. They' re asking us to upgrade the base of the road to an 8
inch limestone . We' re proposing a 6 inch limestone with a 3 inch. . .
Headla: The reason I 'm asking that is , if there is a fire in there and
you have 3 heavy fire trucks , particularly in the spring of the year , if
you don' t have that heavy base it may be more of a disaster than just the
Planning IF ' '
Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 15
C
11 fire itself. I hope the engineers insist on an adequate base to handle
the garbage trucks or the heavy fire trucks . I see they wanted a 20 foot
width road . The reason for that was?
IIOlsen : The fire trucks and just in case somebody does park on one of the
sides there. Outside of the driveway area .
IIHeadla : Does that allow for parking along the side?
Olsen: It gives them, if that does happen, they still can get through.
1 We still would prefer not to have the parking along the side there but
they could get through. Whereas the one on 16 feet, they would not be
able to .
IHeadla : Okay, and you' re making the assumption that there' s no snow on
the sides and that people park way off as far as possible.
1 Olsen : 20 feet is the typical width that they' ve been requiring .
Headla : I get back to my favorite page. I want to see a checklist from
I the fire department on what in the world they' re looking for . I don' t
understand why, if it' s this serious that they' re insisting the contractor
go to that expense , why aren' t we putting no parking signs along there?
lirWe do that for businesses. We don' t allow that. Now we don' t even talk
about it in this . I think that ' s totally inadequate fire department
report. I think they should get that shaped up on how they report. Do we
need any extra fire. fighting equipment?
IOlsen: Got that new truck. That should take care of even Rosemount .
I Headla : Our taxes our paying for it . We screwed up before. We should
have addressed that at the time. Not after the requirement came that we
had to have that. We should have addressed that before that became a
requirement. There' s a reason we needed that fire truck. We let
I buildings come in here that required it . Those buildings require that
type of equipment, they should pay for it. Not the general taxpayers of
Chanhassen . I got hung up on the roads. I spent too much time thinking
I about that and wondering what is a good thing. The rest of it, I think
it ' s fine. That parking just drives me up a tree. I see these places and
I can just see New Year ' s Eve. A lot of people come in. A lot of cars ,
II and rightly so . Then if we have a fire , where does the fire department
go?
Conrad : Thanks Dave. My thoughts kind of reflect what I ' ve heard . I 'm
1 still at a loss for visitor parking and we' ve seen an extreme 2 weeks ago
and now we ' re seeing something else and I really don ' t have a feel for it .
Steve out in Colorado, did you deal with units like this? Townhomes and
I how you handle parking because it can be a problem. Are you comfortable?
Have you dealt with it?
Hanson : It can be a problem. Some areas will require specific guest
Iparking areas. I think a lot of communities have tried to deal with the
worse case situation if you will . The New Year ' s Eve party or
AM
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 16 1
Thanksgiving when you have a lot of people over . . . .provide parking for
that situation. Then you probably ought to look at changing your coverage II
requirements so you would allow them to pave a whole lot of property to
accomplish that. There are a lot of trade-offs . I don' t think there' s a
simple answer because you can run into the same problem with single
family. Typically I think in a multi-family area like this , you have the
opportunity to work with the neighbors . I think some of the fears are
people are going to have a party all the same night which obviously then
you would have a problem. I think a lot of the times that generally isn ' t
the case that it works through that way because these people tend to have
to work closer with the neighbors than a single family. I think as a II result of that a lot of times they will share each other ' s parking spaces .
Conrad : Building standards for units like this . Do we have an
opportunity to look at building standards that might be different? We
have building codes which are basically set at State level .
Hanson: Are you talking about exterior materials? 1
Conrad : Well pretty much. Yes , that ' s what I 'm thinking .
Hanson: I think you do in this case in that it' s under a PUD which gives '
you more flexibility than you would under normal site planning process .
But it' s not like you have a standard that you' re dealing with.
A
Conrad : I think that whole area is intriguing especially as you get into
storage requirements. This looks as if, as everybody else has said , this
looks far better than what we saw 2 weeks ago. Yet on the other hand , I
I think situations talking about, do they have basements and their storage
area there and I think we have to , maybe we ' re looking at the only two
zero lot line or whatever that ' s going to come before us. On the other
hand , I think it' s probably wise Jo Ann, because you ' re going to be left
after Steve leaves us, I think we should take a good look at that. We
probably have the right , because this is a PUD, to request some exterior
maintenance free siding on these units. I don' t know. I tend to want to
stay out of that business and yet I think we probably do have that
perogative here because it i.s , this whole area is a PUD. Based on what
I 'm hearing for the maintenance , and again this is apparently not anything
we can deal with, association rules and regulations, but the $55. 00 a
month maintenance is probably reasonable from what I 've seen other
comparable developments having. It seems like it would set up a pretty
good kitty for maintenance . Just responding to some of the neighborhood
comments , we sure hear what you' re saying and it appears to me that the
mechanics are there for this to do a good job in maintaining the property
value versus diminishing it. At least that ' s my personal opinion. I
don' t live across the street or in the neighborhood but it looks like the
mechanics are there to appreciate versus depreciate and a couple reasons I
think is simply because there are only 14 units or whatever . I think
they've done a few things that look like they' re a nice way to design
townhouses like this . I 'm fairly comfortable with that but I guess my
directive to the staff would be for us to start looking at some of the
standards . Whether they be building standards or whatever and then just
to report back to us on our role with association. Do we have any role in
I
MO
Planning Commission Meeting
ILMay 3, 1989 - Page 17
X
IIthat and I guess you' ve told me no but I 'd just like you to double check
and make sure that we don' t. Those are my comments . Anything else? Is
there a motion?
IEmmings: I' ll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Preliminary Plat #89-6 and Site Plan #89-4 as shown on the plans dated
April 10, 1989 with the 10 conditions as set forth in the staff report but
I as to number 7 and 8, that those items be worked out between the staff and
the developer prior to the City Council meeting so that the City Council
can get an updated status on those.
IErhart : I' ll second it.
I Headla : Let me ask a question that slipped my mind before. The first
gentleman that spoke, you mentioned that somebody wanted the building
sprinklered?
111 Paul Struthers : Yes , it was mentioned by the zoning official that the
buildings were required to be sprinkled but that represented a
misunderstanding on his part because of the occupancy. He was looking at
II it as an apartment or condominium project which requires sprinkling. For
individually owned with zero lot lines , that' s not the requirement.
lir- Headla: You're in agreement on that now?
Paul Struthers : The building official is in agreement with me that it' s
not required.
I Ellson : You guys are in for putting maintenance free or that doesn ' t
bother you? I 'm sure the siding that they have is probably more expensive
1 than this kind here.
Emmings : I think we ' ve got to have standards. Maybe we don' t because
it' s a PUD but I think we ought to develop some standards. There' s
II nothing wrong with the materials they' re using . There ' s nothing wrong
with brick. There' s nothing wrong with redwood. That' s not a cheap way
to build . There are cheaper ways to build .
IEllson: Oh no. But the brick is obviously free.
IIEmmings : No it' s not . Everything , there ' s no such thing as maintenance
free so I 'm not for doing that until we have some standards to it.
I Emmings moved , Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Preliminary Plat #89-6 and Site Plan #89-4 as shown on the
plans dated April 10, 1989 with the following conditions and that
I conditions 7 and 8 be worked out between staff and the developer prior to
the City Council meeting so that the City Council can get an updated
f status on those.
ii-
1. The three internal drives shall be at least 20 feet in width.
r
UM
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 18 1
C
2 . Additional landscaping shall be provided along the northeasterly and
easterly lot line of the site.
3 . An additional fire hydrant shall be located at the northeast corner of II
the second building and that the fire hydrant located between the two
buildings shall be moved to the end of the middle of the driveway.
4. The land use will be amended to residential high density. 1
5. All side slopes greater than 3: 1 will need erosion protection.
6. Watermain looping and hydrant locations shall be included in the '
submittals, including valves .
7. The sanitary sewer system shall be 8 inch PVC main line with 6 inch
PVC house services conforming to City standards .
8. Typical sections of roadway and parking lot are to be shown on the
plans for approval with concrete curb and gutter throughout the site.
9 . All necessary permits for site construction shall be obtained . 1
10. The developer shall supply hydrological data showing that surface
drainage will not erode the existing ditch system.
All voted in favor and the motion carried .
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR DAYCARE CENTER ON PROPERTY ZONED BN, BUSINESS
NEIGHBORHOOD AND LOCATED ON LAKE DRIVE 1/4 MILE EAST OF HIGHWAY 101, G.P.
BAJR, INC. ,
Steve Hanson presented the staff report .
Conrad : For our clarification on what we are to do tonight , the variances ,
have been granted?
Hanson: That' s correct . ,
Conrad : So it is not our role to critique , even though we will , the
variances. They are granted. So as we review this tonight, I believe our
role is to assume that those variances are already, the applicant has
received those and now we' re looking at how this site plan conforms to our
rules but also including the variances that have been granted . If that ' s
not confusing but I think it' s important that we understand that that' s
how we have to review this . I think we should turn it over and have some
comments from the applicant just to react to staff report and maybe talk
about some of the questions that you know we ' re going to ask you and maybe
anticipate those and help us understand what you' re doing a little bit
more .
Randy Peterson : Okay. I 'm Randy Peterson . I 'm the representative for
the developer that' s doing the New Horizon Daycare Center over there.
r
'
Planning Commission Meeting
ItMay 3 , 1989 - Page 19
A
I Staff did an excellent job explaining through it. Basically we have no
problem with the two conditions that they have. The reason we did not
address it on that site plan was to find out if, and I guess staff has no
I problem this, that we place them in front of the fence in the play area .
It ' s rather difficult to put them in there with the children in there. As
far as the parking situation, we have adequate parking. I have
representatives from New Horizon here. I have a contractor here . I have
I the land owner. Property owners from around the area if you have any of
those questions . Basically I guess a couple of you are probably aware of
or a few of you are aware that with 16 parking stalls using 8 staff people
I at any given time, that allows us 8 stalls for the drop off and pick up of
children. Using this with a very conservative factor of turning them over
every 15 minutes , which would be each stall would rotate then 4 times in
I an hour, you would have 32 parking stalls for the use of the people coming
in there and we have approximately 20 to 25 drop offs per hour at the peak
hours which are 2 hours in the morning and 2 hours in the afternoon. I ' ll
let kind of stay right there and if you have any further questions you can
I definitely ask of any one of us . I think pretty much that is everything I
would like to say at this point and kind of open it up for questions .
IPat Hallisey: I don't want to get in the way of questioning . My name is
Pat Hallisey. I am the property owner . I represent Blue Circle
Investment Company. We' re the people who own the shopping center next
door and this property selling it to Mr . Peterson' s partnership for the
irNew Horizon ' s Daycare Center . I guess the thing I want to impress upon
you folks is that we have made a fairly major investment in your community
and have been here for about 2 years now and we are concerned . We've
I heard a lot of expression about concern of value and what goes on in the
community. We plan to stay here as a property owner for many, many years .
That was our intention when we built our project to begin with. There
I have been things that have happened on that corner that have changed the
circumstances surrounding the land and it ' s use . Changing the zoning .
Changing of future road patterns and whatever . One of the things that
we' re attempting to do is maximize the value of our property. We feel
I
very, very fortunate. Approximately a year and a half ago we were
approached by a different daycare operation and as we are concerned with
the value of our property, we spent some time investigating that daycare
I operation and we found that it didn' t really have a very good reputation.
We refused to sell them the piece of property. We feel , as their neighbor
and a major property owner in the community, we feel very, very fortunate
I to have the opportunity to have an operation the quality of New Horizons
as a neighbor . We just wanted to let you know that and if there' s
anything else about the property or any questions, I ' ll be happy to answer
Ithem.Sue Dunkley: Hi . I 'm Sue Dunkley, president of New Horizon Childcare
Centers and I just wanted to address the one issue that I think I heard
I about maybe the playground of the pearock. We were fortunate enough to
have been on Michael Breen' s program on Channel 5 news and quoted as being
one of the more expensive per square foot childcare centers with a lot of
I c___ safety cautions in mind in the building. They particularly noted the wall
carpet on our walls for children that are this high walk into walls and
those kinds of things and one of the things they did was a study on our
s
•
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 20
r
playground . Our playground has proven to be one of the very safest ground 1
covers so I was hoping when you were looking at that kind of thing , the
pearock was allowed to stay in our playground . We' ve been in business for
18 years and have 27 locations and we've tried sod which looks beautiful
for about 3 weeks but with little feet trampling it, it never stays . You
can ' t seed it because they' re out there and it becomes dirt and it becomes
mud and although you love to see the green grass inside the playground , we I
want as little green grass inside as we can and green grass the whole
outside of the playground for them to look at while it' s sprinklered and
has underground sprinklers. But the pearock is great because it stays
soft even in the middle of our hard winters so if a child does fall , the
pearock cushions them and there has been so few accidents on the
playgrounds that put the money into pearock which is a lot more expensive
than grass but we feel very strongly under our pieces of playground
equipment that we'd like to keep the pearock and it is a nice look. So
we' re hoping that that doesn' t change in your discussions any and I 'm here
for any other questions you might have. We' ve also been trying to be in
Chanhassen for 2 years. I know Brian (speaking to Ladd) you were here I
think 2 years ago when we tried the bond issue property behind the gas
station and didn' t get that one for soil condition reasons and then you
were kind enough to approve a center for us in the industrial park. We
were all ready to go on it and our landlord backed out on that one even
though you were all 100% for us and we have about 45 families that call me
once a week asking when our center will be open in Chanhassen so we sure
hope it gets open pretty quickly. Thank you.
Uli Sacchet: My name is Uli Sacchet. I live at 8071 Hidden Circle.
Ladies and gentlemen from the Planning Commission . I just want to make
sure that you' re aware that the neighborhood of Hidden Valley was very
excited of the prospect of having a daycare center this close and I would
hope that the little petition that we put together just to show some of
our support might have come to your attention too . It was unanimous
support. I went around and talked to some of the people and everybody was
excited . Everybody thought it was great to have a daycare center that
close. Now I 'm not an expert of what the technicalities are with
variances and safety procedures and so forth . I guess ideally we would
want to have a daycare center somewhere in the woods where no cars drive
by but I just wanted to make sure you undestand that the neighborhood is
in very strong support of that project and we would recommend that this is
allowed to happen . Thank you.
Erhart : That' s true that the New Horizons site in the industrial park is
not, that' s not in the plans anymore.
Sue Dunkley: Gone . He doesn ' t want to do it . We do . 1
Erhart: Yes, who was the landlord again?
Sue Dunkley: Hyttien . We went through all the procedures and were ready
to go and they turned it down at the last minute .
Erhart : Yes , that is unfortunate . I wasn ' t trying to get into these '
variances, I was just trying to understand. Explain to me again on the
II
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 21
Ito.
I spaces again . You feel the 16 is adequate yet you have 25 changes in a 2
hour period so that requires how many stalls?
I Sue Dunkley: Okay. In the centers we have now, and they' re all licensed
for about this many, around 100 children, we've done studies to show that
we have about 8 staff cars parked at any one time. Some do drive with
others. Some have their husbands drop them off. Whatever reasoning. We
II have 8 staff cars maximum in our largest center parked at any one time and
that still allows us 8 parking places for parents and we have sufficed .
For instance, we ' re in the Trammel Crow building in Normandale in
I Bloomington with just 4 parking stalls for parents. Parents who trusts
us , a parent who drops off for the very first time will stay 15 minutes .
Rarely do these parents, are fortunate enough to have 15 minutes in the
I morning when they've gotten 2 children up and ready and dressed . They
usually run in pretty fast and out pretty fast. They have the children by
their hand . We require them to sign them in in a sign in place in the
front of the building and then deposit the child in the classroom to the
I teacher for they have that ability but you'd be surprised how fast they
can do that. Get through there and get back out to work so we feel we
have more than adequate parking with 8 stalls and our parents come between
I 6: 00 and we have so many professional parents that come even late. It
used to be 6 : 00 to 9 : 00. We have parents that drop off as late as 10 : 00
in the morning now.
ir. Erhart : 100 children , on the average what every parent has what 2?
Sue Dunkley: Almost 30% of our families have 2 children so you ' re looking
I at about probably 70 cars , not 100 cars . We have one family with 4
children and that gets quite expensive but on the average, 30o have more
than one child so you' re looking at 70 cars coming in and out of 8 spaces
I in about a 3 hour stretch in the morning and about a 3 hour stretch in the
afternoon. In that time range and at that time, the nice thing about
that, at that time our staff is also leaving. They' re coming and leaving
I so it also opens some staff parking also . We' ve never had a problem yet
with parking. The only time New Horizon has ever had to make arrangements
for parking is when we have the parent programs in the evening and the
open house and we are sure our good neighbor will allow us to do that
I twice a year and make arrangements for the parents to do that. Come and
see their children perform but we haven' t had a problem at this point.
IErhart : Thanks . The HVAC was then moved in front of the building?
Randy Peterson: Yes .
I Erhart : And then that' s going to be surrounded with some kind of an
opaque fence or what? What' s that on the plan?
Randy Peterson : That will have a fence around the HVAC.
Erhart: What was going to be in front of the building before? Just
lifwindows? Is there windows on that side of the building?
Randy Peterson: Yes .
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3 , 1989 - Page 22
Sue Dunkley: I have a picture if you'd like to see it . 11
Erhart: Is the HVAC going to cover up a window now? '
Randy Peterson : No , it will be below.
Erhart: What I 'm getting at here is what' s this thing going to look like
from the street? Normally if you have a brick building with windows it
fits in. Now you put HVAC equipment on the outside, I just want to make
sure that it' s not . . .
Contractor : It looks like basically a condenser unit on a residential
house. That' s basically what it' s going to look like.
Erhart: I know what it' s doing but we don' t allow HVAC equipment in
people' s front lawns either .
Contractor : What will eventually be the front of the building is more
like the side. The front faces Lake Drive.
Randy Peterson: The front faces east . This would be all landscaped . '
Basically what it would look like is some type of a planter type set-up.
ir Erhart: Anyway, you've taken into consideration. Steve, are you ,
satisfied that that thing is going to be aesthetically acceptable in front
of that? I consider that the front of the building .
Hanson : I would too .
Erhart : Anyway, that' s just a point that I 'd ask you to moniter that .
Again, you have the same situation with the trash. I 'm trying to
accommodate this building here . We' re putting some things in the front
that normally you find in the rear and I just want to make sure that these
things are adequately covered up. Not to adversely affect the value of
your neighbor or the value to the neighborhood. What kind of fence is
around the play area? Is that a Cyclone chainlink fence?
Randy Peterson: Yes . '
Erhart : How high?
Randy Peterson: About 4 .
Sue Dunkley: Our kids are only 2 feet so 4 feet is good . '
Erhart : Is there going to be any kind of landscaping in front of that
fence between the sidewalk and the fence or does the fence go right up to
the sidewalk?
Hanson : It goes up to the property line .
Erhart: Oh there is no sidewalk on this is there?
Planning Commission Meeting
ItMay 3, 1989 - Page 23
C
IHanson : No .
II Erhart : Currently is there a trail or a sidewalk going along Lake Drive
East now?
I Pat Hallisey: No there' s not . There ' s nothing in front of our property.
Erhart: And not on the other side either?
IIUli Sacchet : To my recollection, there is a sidewalk on the side. . .
Erhart: On the south side .
IUli Sacchet : It ' s 3 feet wide. . .
Erhart: Yes , that' s on the south side of Lake Drive.
IIUli Sacchet : North side.
IErhart : Then that would go right through this property then wouldn' t it?
Olsen: It' s in the right-of-way.
1[ Randy Peterson: There' s no sidewalk on our property.
Conrad : It says existing walk on the plan.
IErhart : So does the fence go up to the existing walk?
IHanson: Yes .
Conrad : Is there a walk or not a walk?
I Erhart : Yes , for your information there ' s a walk. So the fence goes up
to directly adjacent to the walk?
IOlsen: The property line, yes .
Hanson : There is probably about a 6 inch . The sidewalk is going to be
Ioff 6 inches from the property line.
Erhart : Is that of any concern? I guess my preference and I think I
realize the constraint that you have with space here. I don' t have
I experience with daycares or probably will have within the next year so I 'm
just trying to conceptualize if that would be difficult. You guys
probably have experience but I just point out that the fence goes to the
I sidewalk and maybe you can see if there' s any potential problem with that .
The northeast side of that is essentially all woods in there or all
landscaped at this point. One of the things I guess regarding evergreens
in a narrow section like that , I think putting deciduous trees in there is
fine. One thing you can do with evergreens if you ' re concerned about
running into the street , it' s something we' re going to have to do in
am
. • ,
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3 , 1989 - Page 24
downtown here as these evergreens get bigger on the south side, is you can
trim them up. They don' t look quite a nice but it does solve the problem.
The one last thing I had was, one of the original requirements you had to
add parking spots to parking spaces and then it goes on they have to have
curbs. I don ' t understand that. Item 5, you have add parking .
Ellson: Stops.
Erhart : Then item 8 you' re required curbs .
Hanson: The parking stops are, I 'm asking for those to be added so you
can ' t drive all the way up to the curb. If you drive all the way up to
the curb, you' re going to hit the trees with that.
Emmings : Where there' s a tree would they have to have a stop? '
Hanson: Well I suggested that they do it on all of them.
Erhart : Why don ' t they just make the parking spot a foot shorter then?
Essentially that' s what you' re doing by doing that. In your
recommendation you didn' t include that item 5 so are you leaving that out? I
Hanson: They've added that. They' ve shown that.
Erhart : Oh they have. Would we get the same effect just by shortening
the parking stalls 12 inches or what am I missing?
Pat Halli.sey: Excuse me. There' s a difference between shortening the
parking stall and putting the stop in. You can leave a stall , I believe
it ' s 18 feet is your city code for the length of the car . You can put the
stop in like 2 feet behind the front of the stall so when a person pulls 11 up they hit the stop. You still have the overhang in the front of the car
past that that is within the parking stall . If you try to shorten the
parking stall up, that doesn ' t occur . They can still drive right up to
the curb.
Erhart : How are you planning on anchoring these things?
Randy Peterson: They don' t really get anchored . They sit there.
Erhart : What I visualize when you use those things, somebody hits it too II hard and then it gets cockeyed and then they all sit cockeyed and they all
end up. . .
Hanson : You can tie them down with rebar . A lot of times they' ll drive
that down through.
Randy Peterson : We can do that . We' ll do either or . We' ll remove them.
We' ll leave them in. We' ll anchor them. I don' t have a problem with it .
It creates a little problem in the winter plowing but that ' s the real hard
part. They get chipped up. They get hit trying to keep everything clean
and you end up with snow building up inbetween those and the sidewalk.
so
- .
I .
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3 , 1989 - Page 25
I Erhart : If the landscaping is so close to the front of the parking lot
that that cars are going to damage it, it will happen so I guess I 'd like
to see us take Steve' s recommendation but include that they be anchored so
I they don' t move around. I think that' s a real eyesore and problem when
they do that . That' s everything I had .
Emmings : I really don' t have anything different. I think that the
II
tremendous number of variances they' ve been given and we ' re not supposed
to go into that now and try and figure out what happened there but I think
the parking will be adequate and my experience with using daycare, I think
I that the place, at least one of the places that we used there were only
about 4 places with about the same number of kids and they turn over real
fast. 15 minutes is much longer than it will take for people to drop off
I their kids so I think it will wind up being adequate . I 'm not sure that
I 'd agree with the staff on increasing the landscaping along that one
portion of the yard there where the pea gravel is because that may be the
only sunny spot that the kids will have to go to because the rest of it
I looks like it' s either unavailable for play or else it' s already shaded by
large trees so I think it might be nice to leave that a sunny spot so I
would not impose that . I' d let them decide what they' re going to do .
II
ll Ellson : I have a question . I guess Sue could probably answer it . Is New
Horizon is it set up like a franchise? Is it self-supporting , each
IF individual unit? In other words, the tuition is what pays for everything
or you' re funded by a major big New Horizon also?
Sue Dunkley: No , the tuition pays for it .
IEllson: And what happens when one isn' t successful? What happens to a
daycare as it falls apart?
IISue Dunkley: Our company carries each one . The hope is that they will
have enough children that the tuition will do it. New Horizon is a
I corporation and has been for 18 years . There are periods in the history
where one center for whatever reason will be lower in enrollment for a
period of time and at that point obviously our company carries those
centers from some of the other centers who are doing well so we are
I financially very secure. We do keep the buildings up beautifully and we
do put underground sprinkling in so the grass is always mowed and looks
nice. Our CEO would have a fit if one of our names was off 2 inches he' s
I gotten so meticulous so I guarantee we will keep the building looking very
attractive.
Ellson : I wanted to be on the record that I 'm certainly for a daycare in
I Chanhassen. I don' t like this site for it though to be perfectly honest .
I wanted to ask staff if they knew where the local bus stop was to this
area?
IHanson : It ' s by the Legion.
if Olsen : That will be moved but right now it is by the Legion.
Ellson: And i.t' s going to be moved like do you know where?
Planning Commission n Commiss ' '
Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 26
C
Olsen : The new shelter is up across from Filly' s. I don' t know if you' ve I
noticed that but once the West 79th Street is opened up, the bus will come
through there and that will be the park and ride . '
Ellson: Okay, because I 've seen people use a daycare location to park
their cars . A great spot to pick up the bus and then leave it and then
I 'd be really concerned about these parking spaces which I already am. I
take my toddler to a daycare that has less than 100, probably about 65
kids with 10 spaces that the staff is not even allowed to park in and it' s
always the biggest complaint of every parent is the parking and that' s got
10 spaces with 65 kids. This is 8 spaces with 100 kids. I know that it' s
a huge problem where we are and I think that 8 spots is grossly
inadequate. Once it' s in there, it' s like impossible to change and we
have yet to have an accident at our daycare but you' re just hoping and
praying that it will never happen. Some little thing is running between
cars and cannot be seen and people are driving and parking behind other
people and double parking and it' s just scarey. I 'd hate to see me allow
something like that to go in without my two cents worth anyway of saying I
don' t like the number of parking places. I really want daycare. I just
don ' t think this is the site . I think it' s squished in there. I think it I
looks poor with the whole grouping. I don' t like the idea that they did
everything right up to the edges . I think the hidden court, or whatever
that group of townhomeowners back there is signing, I certainly agree with
them that we' d like daycare here . I think they would just as easily be
served with another daycare in a better location. I 'm also questioning
all the variances . I get really nervous about variances because of the
precedence it sets for other people and I would like it maybe to be looked
over again or something maybe when they get a chance to look at it again
but. Yes, I want daycare in Chanhassen but I 'd like it someplace else and
I don' t like it on this site . '
Headla : I 'm concerned about the way we do things. What' s the deal now?
We have these 11 conditions. The fire department recommended the entire
building be adquately sprinklered but it isn ' t in the recommendations . Is
what the fire department, is that automatically filled in or not?
Hanson : Their recommendations are included when they come in with a
building permit.
Headla : Then we don' t even need to talk about them in a planning 11 commission meeting?
Hanson : Well when it' s a building code requirement , they have to meet
that requirement at the time they get a building permit. '
Headla : I don ' t think we' re consistent. To me if they see fit to put it
in the planning commission notes and we agree with it, it ought to be
included in the recommendation .
C- Hanson: We can do that.
Alf
•
II Planning Commission Meeting
ILMay 3, 1989 - Page 27
C
I Headla : I guess I 'd like to see both them entered into the
recommendations .
I Conrad : Dave, just for my clarification . If it ' s part of the building
code requiring sprinkling, basically the fire inspector said you've got to
have it and they have to have it. It' s part of the code.
I Headla : How many times do we add , be redundant on different things just
to make sure it gets done? I see that done time and time again . If we' re
not going to do it, let' s be consistent and not do it. If we want to do
it , then let' s do it all the time and let' s say something about it.
Conrad : Basically what Steve and Jo Ann do is they take all this
I different input and they determine from the different folks who are making
recommendations and they determine what needs to be in the final staff
report . What you' re saying is if the fire inspector said it , they should
duplicate it in the staff report.
IIHeadla : If we agree is what I said .
I Conrad : But their perspective on this item would be yes , he said it but
it' s required by code anyway so we don' t need to make it a special item
and tell the developer they have to do it because they have to do it.
1rHeadla : My point is , we' ve actually put it in many recommendations
previously but it' s been part of the code but we want to highlight it.
Now we either do it or we don' t do it but let ' s be consistent. That ' s all
.' I ask. I don ' t know where we sit right now. I don ' t know if it should be
in there or shouldn' t be in there but I want some consistency in the way
we do it .
IRandy Peterson : We have no problem with that . . .
Headla: No, that' s an internal thing that I get confused on which way we
I should . I like the daycare center there. I drop my grandson off at a
center on TH 7. They don' t have fences . A lot of traffic out front. The
kids get a lot of tender loving care. I think they' re well cared for . It
I doesn' t have near the amenities that this has. I like it. And as far as
the heat ventilating and air conditioning thing , what are you going to put
in there that isn' t going to be some objection? It isn' t all black and
I white . You' re going to have to concede certain items . I think this is an
appropriate location. It serves an area. That' s all .
Conrad : When we grant variances Steve or Jo Ann , does the Attorney
I document why? Do we have to do that? Do we go through a statement of
rationale?
ilHanson : There ' s not a formal , if you will , formal filing .
Olsen: Sometimes they have though. Sometimes councilmembers have
'‘.-- required that the Attorney list why and it' s usually Findings of Facts for
denial though.
MI
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 28
4'
Conrad : Therefore a variance doesn ' t set a precedent? You literally can
grant a variance but is it precedence setting?
Hanson : Like I said , it' s kind of debateable. I think it' s precedence
setting in the sense of how staff would advise someone that came in
subsequent to certain variances being granted because typically when
someone comes in, the question they first have is , how does a city respond
to variances. Do they like them or don' t they? Do they grant them or
don' t they? What kind have they granted? I think an applicant in their
best interest , if they know what variances have been granted , you would
take those ones that are similar to your case and use those, at least as a
justification to what you want to do.
Conrad: Do we allow parking on Lake Drive East?
Hanson: No we do not . It ' s signed no parking .
Conrad: In terms of the parking lot, there are about 3 or 4 stalls to the II
right in the parking lot that basically they have to back up. They have
to back up a whole long way don' t they?
Hanson : Yes, it' s not the best . Previously there were 2 others over ,
there too.
f k Conrad : Got rid of those 2? '
Hanson: Yes .
Conrad : We' re hearing from the applicants that there' s enough stalls and '
maybe we've got split opinions here that hearsay from the Planning
Commission whether there are or are not. My question would be then , if
there are not enough stalls and they' re licensed for 100 children and we
create a parking problem, if, then what happens?
Hanson: We live with it . '
Conrad : So there' s recourse to restrict the number of children that
they' re licensed for? '
Hanson : Not the way that the 16 was arrived at . In other words, it' s
essentially an appeal of what the staff would have recommended because the
staff would have made a determination of how many parking spaces . The
Board of Adjustment had looked at it and at the time when it was at the
Board of Adjustment , the applicants had submitted a brochure describing
the size of the actual facility because what we were looking at that time
initially was just a setback variances . So when it went before Council ,
that' s when at that point in time we were aware it was 100 people and so
many staff employee people so we looked at what we ' ve used in reviewing
other similiar facilities. The one in the idustrial park and that ' s
r essentially where we came up with the number of 37 . When it was before
the Board of Adjustment, they had shown 18 spaces .
im
•
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3 , 1989 - Page 29
C
II Conrad : What' s the worse if they can ' t really accommodate enough cars
there? They' ll probably be motivated to solve the problem themselves.
I Randy Peterson : You' re absolutely right . The development group that I 'm
with has developed a very large percentage of the daycares here. New
Horizon owns 27 and we have not had a parking problem due to insufficient
amount of spaces .
IIConrad : And I ' ve heard you say that and I trust what you' re telling me.
The only thing I 'm saying is, I don' t want the City to solve a problem
II later on . That' s my only point . It should be a safe access and it' s your,
I think you' re motivated to take care of the problems but I literally
don' t think, because we are forcing something over sized on a smaller lot
I and I think in this particular case, I just don' t ever want to see the
city having to bail out because we allowed this to happen . I think the
applicant should know that they got the variances obviously and that the
City is not going to come back and solve a problem downstream. I think
II the applicant is motivated to solve a problem yet on the other hand, I
don ' t know what we do and maybe there' s not anything legal we can do but I
just don' t know that we certainly have solutions to cut into more of the
I green space and make more parking but I guess I really don' t think the
City should contemplate ever doing that. Anyway, I think parking is my
only problem on this particular issue and more than likely it' s not going
1r to be a problem but I 've got too many conflicting pieces of information .
I just don ' t want the City to have this in 5 years or whatever . That ' s
probably not even a concern. We' re fairly consistent, in terms of
setbacks Steve or Jo Ann, we' re kind of consistent with the building to
I the west. We' re kind of in sync. This -building. Not totally out. The
only other thing that the fire inspector didn' t comment on is the narrow
space between the two buildings for fire but I guess they know what
I they' re doing and I guess maybe that' s not a significant issue . Those are
my only comments and I ' ll vote for this given the fact that the variances
have been granted previously. I would certainly accept a motion.
II Erhart: I ' ll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site
Plan #89-5 dated , what date are we looking at?
IHanson: Today, May 3rd . That ' s the revised plan .
Erhart : Dated May 3rd with the 5 conditions correct?
IHanson: No, two .
Erhart : Your second condition is that they use the conditions what , 8 , 9,
I10 and 11?
Hanson : 7 through 11.
IErhart : Okay, the first condition you were proposing was additional
landscaping along the fence?
1 Hanson: Yes .
II
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 30
Erhart : Which is the area in front. I tend to agree with Steve on that
one. I 'm going to leave that one off. That' s the one you were debating
right?
Emmings : Yes . '
Erhart : So my motion then will only include the one item which refers to
your conditions 7, 8 , 9 , 10 and 11. '
Conrad : What are you saying about them? You' re keeping those?
Erhart: Those I 'm keeping. What I 'm deleting is the one referring to '
additional landscaping .
Conrad: Is there a second? ,
Emmings : I ' ll second it.
Headla : There ' s some discussion going on on what you' re deleting . I
don' t understand.
Erhart : When we talked about a motion earlier , that staff was '
recommending additional landscaping along the front fence. As much as I 'm
mostly in favor of a lot of landscaping , I think there are some places for
sunny areas as well . I guess it was my opinion that it would probably,
the area they have open now could be left open just as well as it could be
landscaped so I left that one off. So my motion does not require that
they provide additional landscaping along the front fence .
Headla: You want it every 40 feet average?
Hanson: They have that on the average. What I had suggested that there
be some added in that area that' s just along the fenced area which
essentially would be along the hard surface and the pea gravel area .
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Site Plan #89-5 as shown on the Revised site plan stamped "May
3, 1989" with the following condition :
1. Final verification of the following conditions by the City Engineer
prior to City Council review.
7. An erosion control plan shall be included in the submittals.
8. Typical sections of roadway and parking lot are to be shown on the
plans for approval with concrete curb and gutter throughout the
site. '
( 9 . A construction/permanent easement by Total Mart will be required
since the proposed utility is crossing private property.
i
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3 , 1989 - Page 31
lir
k
I 10. Add sanitary cleanout to proposed 6 inch line between existing and
proposed manhole.
Iii. Revise grading plan to direct surface water to Lake Drive East and
not to neighboring private property.
All voted in favor except Annette Ellson who voted in opposition and the
IImotion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
1 Ellson : I think it' s too big a piece of development on too small of land
and I don' t agree with the parking sites .
IAPPROVAL OF MINUTES :
Emmings moved , Erhart seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning
I Commission meeting dated April 19 , 1989 with the addition of a disclaimer
stating the sound equipment malfunctioned and this is a very incomplete
set of Minutes. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
II
OLD BUSINESS .
1rErhart : When is contractor ' s yards going to the Council?
Hanson: Monday. .
IIEmmings : My thing on old business is, this is sort of like when we try to
get staff to tell us what City Council had done with items that we had
II made recommendations on and they never did and they won' t yet and we ask
them everytime and they just don' t . It' s sort of like, there' s a story by
Melville called Bartle B where this guy' s works at this place and the guy
fires him but he lives there and he doesn ' t leave when he ' s fired .
II Everytime the guy says I fired you . . . Finally the guy has to move his
business to get away from him. But anyway, another item that ' s a lot like
that is under old business we ask that they list, that the staff list
I discussion items that we were carrying on from meeting to meeting so we
didn' t forget about them from our list.
IIEllson : Well you' ve got your folders too .
Emmings : I 'd still like to see what' s on there and now we should add
another one on there and that is standards for. townhomes .
1 Conrad: Jo Ann because obviously Steve ' s leaving, both of Steve' s
comments are real valid and they' re real important to us . We really do
I need that feedback from City Council . If we have to reduce the caseload ,
the number of cases or whatever that you have to bring up to us by one
i every 2 weeks , I think just to free up. I ' ve got to believe it' s an hour
to 2 of your time to condense what the City Council said . We really do
I need that feedback.
II
AM
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3, 1989 - Page 32
C
Erhart : Ladd , I think one of the problems that we have is this is a very
official agenda. Some of these things are not on the agenda and won' t be
discussed that time. I think it might be easier to get this thing
actually implemented and working if you'd create a second form that comes
with the packet.
Olsen : We had a list going . I remember getting that list before I left .
Erhart : What you need to do though is to get into the habit of having 111
this form, all the items that we' re currently working on listed on that
and then you have last action and required action. You' re not going to
change everything on every meeting . What you do is you just get in the
habit. Make a form up and it always comes out with this. Each time we
can review what the issues are. The old business we' re working on. It I
says on there hey, this is the actions because we don 't know. Everybody' s
got full time jobs including you guys , it doesn ' t relate necessarily to
all these things all the time. What it does is it keeps you focused on
those things so you don' t lose them. When we actually address one of
those things, then you just change a little notation in there that the
next action of the next item or something .
Conrad : You were going to compueterize that weren ' t you Steve? '
Ellson : If nothing else , that matrix was like the greatest thing I ever
k. saw in my life. I love it. I
Erhart : That kind of thing .
Olsen : We won' t go into details. We compiled that list for you to keep
and then we would be adding any new ones on there.
Emmings : It only has to be a list . We may or may not have them. It ' s
hard to keep track of pieces of paper but we should have it in front of us
everytime.
Erhart : Everytime these get mailed out , that list should be updated . If
nothing else, at least the list be updated .
Hanson : The special projects or the developments? '
Emmings: All of the things that we' ve said . . .
Hanson : But you' re not talking about the developments?
Erhart: No, no. These are the zoning issues . The one we want to add
tonight I think we have to very seriously have to look at this townhouse
standard thing. I 'm real concerned about townhouses with one car garages .
Ellson : I 'm concerned that we' re going to wait and not act on it today 1
but wait until we get a thing and then we' ve got this 140 one and we won ' t
�- have anything enacted by then so can ' t we at least send some signals of
what we' re planning to have it be? What always happens is that yes, we
think this is a problem but we won' t apply it to that one yet because
Planning Commission Meeting
May 3 , 1989 - Page 33
II there' s not a standard and by then we' ve got 4 or 5 that aren' t what we' d
like.
II Erhart : Jo Ann , in the previous zoning ordinance we had , what was the
highest density we had in that ordinance? Do you remember? Wasn' t it 8?
Olsen : Or 10.
IErhart : 12 was new because I remember when we went through this ordinance
change, we had a lot of heated discussion about whether 12 was really
II something that the City wants and boy looking at that proposal in here
last time, the real gut hit is it' s simply too much. Maybe an apartment.
Steve and I were looking at the ordinance and maybe what we ought to think
Iabout is looking at R-12 and saying that ' s apartments. Not townhomes .
Emmings : No ones ever going to be able to come in and say we' re entitled
to R-12 zoning for townhomes here because they' re always going to need
I zero lot lines and we' re always going to have to make it a PUD aren ' t we?
Right now we don' t have any zero lot line provisions. They can' t come in
and say here' s our townhome plan and we' ve scaled it to R-12. They can ' t
Ido it . They could do it but . . .
Erhart : In our standards just say that townhouse density the maximum is 8
L or 9 or something but 12, I just don' t think makes it.
Olsen : They could still choose to go with the PUD though.
IErhart: Yes , but we could still limit it. .
Emmings : But we don' t have to approve a PUD.
IErhart : We don' t have to approve it and particular if we have standards
on density.
I Conrad : There ' s nothing wrong with 12 or 15. I could have gone,
increased the density to 20 as long as, I 'm not too concerned about how
people are stacked together if they want to live stacked together . I 'm
I more concerned with how that fits in the neighborhood and also the green
space around it . You can still keep open space but I don' t think what we
saw last week was any example. It really takes an intent to allow some
I lower income housing and multiples in and all of a sudden we are kind of,
we' re going away from some very philosophic directions that the City has
and it' s a problem.
Emmings moved , Ellson seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10: 00 p.m. .
Submitted by Steve Hanson
'` Planning Di
rector
' Prepared by Nann Opheim
II
M
•
ICITY COUNCIL AND'ARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
IMARCH 27 , 1989
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel , Councilman Boyt, Councilman
IWorkman, Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Johnson
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Jim Mady, Sue Boyt , Ed Hasek,
I Larry Schroers, Dawne Erhart and Curt Robinson
•
STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema , Park and Rec Coordinator
IJim Mady: We want to kind of make sure we' re kind of going in the same
direction. We' ve. got the trail going in this spring hopefully on Laredo
I and Carver Beach Road and that was probably the top two priorities. The
third top priority is Minnewashta Parkway. We' ll be discussing that
tomorrow night and by the sounds of the comments from the Council meeting,
Ithat ' s a priority for you also I think but we want to find out kind of
your thoughts on the process and then kind of how we ' re going to pay for
all of these before we even start looking . -
I Councilman Johnson: One thing about Minnewashta Blvd. is it' s up on
engineering ' s timetable in 2 years for improvement with State Aid funds,
if the State Aid funds are still around. That is the time period, while
I everything ' s torn up for rebuilding the street , widening the street, that
would be the time period that you could most economically put the trails
in . We' ve got all the heavy equipment out there etc. . I want to try to
I push that particular project up because of all the streets that need State
Aid funds, that ' s one of our higher priority streets personally.
Councilman Boyt: Do we have any money? State Aid. I thought we'd
Iexhausted our State Aid .
Councilman Johnson: Not for this year . Next year we have some.
ILori Sietsema: I talked to Gary about that and he said that they'd have
Bluff Creek paid off and another one paid off so there would be more money
available and 1991 was his schedule for Minnewashta Parkway.
ICouncilman Johnson: They' ve had a couple of other streets in front of it
for 1990 which I didn' t think. I think there was something on Audubon
ISouth of the railroad bridge and a few things like that that may be moved
to 1991 and backwards . But that ' s something else to look at .
ICouncilman Workman : I talked to , if I can jump in because I think the
funding, a lot of the funding, if we had all the money in the world , we
wouldn ' t have a problem in the world . All of us would probably be at
home. I talked to Gary today. I had a lot of questions for Gary about
Ilike the packet for City Council so I just came in and I kind of asked
him, there were some questions about the funding for Lake Lucy Road .
c_ 31uff Creek and all that other that was kind of goofy and I wanted
Iclarification on it was all going to pan out and if we had lost any money
or what the problems were .
II
City Council/Park and Rec Joint Meeting
March 27, 1989 - Page 2
Councilman Johnson: Yes , and the State did some goofy things.
Councilman Workman: They process these projects differently so it looked
like Lake Lucy Road really wasn' t paid for in it ' s final payment or
111
something. But anyway, he clarified everything for me but what I said
was, and what kind of my point that I wanted to give to him and maybe I
want to give it to the commission here, is that I see the City and maybe
I 'm wrong and Gary kind of settled me down a little bit , that we' re always
buying off the future a little bit. How can we get a trail today by sort
of taking tomorrow' s money a little bit? I told Gary that ' s not just
trails, that' s how we do a lot of things, it appears with the City and I 'm
trying to get a better handle on that . That' s something that worries me a
little bit particularly in the economic climate that we might be entering
in. Who knows . We want all sorts of money to try and take care of
possibly an Eckankar size issue but we really don' t have it for a
community center but our money isn ' t there and like with the task force
Jim, in all honesty, I think a community center ' s a great idea. I 've
expressed that to you. One of my problems I had was that the bonding
limit, you kept saying well next year we can do more and then the next
year we can do more and the next year we can do more. It would be much
easier if we could say we could do it all next year but we' re kind of
looking 6 years down the road at the bonding limit and to me that kind of
said, we' re going to spend right up and that kind of worried me. Not that
he community center problem worries me , because I think a lot of people
relieve that we should have that kind of thing but the funding is the
underlying worry that I have. I expressed that at the last council
meeting that in the memo, there was a $25, 000. 00 estimate on Carver Beach
Road and it was now $83 , 000. 00 and not have anything to do with the
eventual problem because I _ thi.nk it' s a needed trail but it'd be nice to
get a better handle on these kinds of funds . We' re not sure where all the
funds are coming for to pay for it and it 's a big mess and that's what we
have to sit down and iron out .
Jim Mady: On Laredo Trail , that would have been a $25, 000. 00 trail had we
been able to put in a 6 foot strip of blacktop and not had to do anything
to the streets with the sewers and that . The residents wanted concrete .
That doubled the price right there.
Councilman Workman: Yes , but the funding is my biggest worry and Bill and
I have talked after the council meeting basically stating I 'm more
conservative with spending and Bill maybe isn ' t as conservative. Neither
being right or wrong but I just get a little more nervous that way and
that' s why I maybe the reflex a little differently and that ' s what made me
see, and that' s a tough thing to change.
Councilman Johnson: One thing that I ' ve learned over the last 2 years is
that Don is conservative. He' s also squirreling a little bit away that he
doesn ' t quite tell you about . When he' s going to tell you that he thinks
he' s going to have so much money, historically he' s always had more which
s the way I want it to be. That ' s why I have a little better feeling
about the financial side of things because it' s always been working out.
We' ve always been underestimating our revenues .
_ _
I . ' '
City Council/Park and Rec Joint Meeting
IMarch 27, 1989 - Page 3
ICouncilman Boyt : Can we take this and maybe you can pull this together in
house? Impacts the trail system. The two things that I heard you guys
wanted to hear about is the trail system and parks .
ISue Boyt: One of the questions I think we had was , will you support us if
we recommend the trails be put in a development?
ICouncilman Boyt: On new developments?
Sue Boyt: In a new development .
ICouncilman Workman: In any development?
IMayor Chmiel : I might have some problems with that.
Sue Boyt: That' s what we'd like to hear .
IIMayor Chmiel : . . .curbs on TH 101. I can see us supporting a trail system
along TH 101 because I think that really is a needed area and I 've
mentioned this before. Minnewashta Parkway. Powers Blvd . . The main
Iareas where there' s a lot of activity on the roads and providing a safe
place for the people. Kurvers Point of TH 101, I think that. . .to
I thought it was fine. But then to develop a trail system through that
Inew area , I think it just didn' t sit too well with me. And I ' ll tell you
why. Some of those people when they buy homes within a developments, they
buy them for peace and serenity is what they see . If people want to walk
Ithrough there, that' s . . . You can' t stop them from doing that. But to put
a specific trail through that area , I guess I don ' t see that particular
need. I think what we' re looking at is trying to serve a system that
would one, bring people into the downtown areas . Which TH 101, Powers
IBlvd. . Minnewashta Parkway of course wouldn' t because that' s at the far
side . . .and I think that by planning those kinds of trails, and that ' s all
the ones I really support. Putting sidewalks through residential areas ,
Iif the Park and Rec . . . to put that money into something as you did with
these last two, I think that ' s fine. But I can' t see us spending the
dollars for putting in sidewalks or assessing the property owners unless
those people really want that kind of trail or that kind of sidewalk. The
Isidewalk situation also leads me as to who really has that jurisdiction.
Does the Planning Commission have it or does the Park and Rec Commission?
IJim Mady: I think we' ve been told in the past on that question is that if
Park and Rec doesn' t. . .trails, the Planning Commission will . Maybe their
thoughts have changed in the last 6 months but that ' s what we ' ve always
Ibeen told. To address Kurver ' s Point . . .
Sue Boyt : I don ' t think we need to debate . We can just exchange ideas
and listen to points of view.
ILori Sietsema: Could I interject here. I think that , we only have an
lour. I think basically what the Park and Recreation Commission is
Ilooking for, do you support , the referendum failed to fund what was
proposed in the trail system and that' s what ' s been approved but generally
do you support what' s in the trail system or do we need to scale it back?
1
• , II
City Council/Park and Rec Joint Meeting
March 27 , 1989 - Page 4
How is the Council feeling about the trail plan altogether? We had talked
about it at the Park and Recreation Commission level about taking the
sidewalks off the trail plan altogether and asking Planning to make that
requirement of subdivisions . To include sidewalks on through streets .
That would accomplish what their intent , what the Park and Recreation' s
goals were with the trail plan and at the same time it would reduce what
that overall trail plan looks like. Is that something that' s feasible,
that the Council would be supportive of? Just as a conflict level , is the
trail system still a go or do we need to go back and rework it? Am I
right in making this?
Jim Mady: I agree with that, yes .
Councilman Johnson: Let me throw my point of view out on that . I like
what you' re saying there. I believe sidewalks within subdivisions are
needed . You look at who ' s coming into this town. You look at Curry
Farms. I was out there and couldn' t believe how many baby carriages were
being pushed along the streets in Curry Farms today. Same thing with
Chanhassen Hills and Hidden Valley. All the new subdivisions. It' s just
amazing the amount of kids out there and where do they have to walk? 28
foot streets. With the curvature we ' re putting on our streets and stuff,
it' s hard to see them. That' s why I 'm all for putting the trails , or
sidewalks , not necessarily trails but sidewalks for the people who are no
Conger rural . We need more urban type standards I believe to get the
people out to the trail system so they don' t have to walk down the
narrower streets to get to the trail system pushing their baby buggys or
whatever. So I will continue going for trails within subdivisions. Not
every street . Your main street that passes through the subdivision. The
cul-de-sac going off to the sides, no. We don' t need it running up there
but at least one side of that main street so that people have someplace
so they don' t have to walk with small children in streets. And they don ' t
have to walk this time of year in mud on the sides if they don' t want to
walk on the street. Chanhassen used to be a lot different. They didn' t
even put curbs in. Along Frontier Trail , there' s no curbs.
Lori Sietsema : It was the feeling of the Commission at the time that they
had that discussion that if they took the sidewalks off the plan, because
without the referendum it' s going to be very difficult to do sidewalks and
trails and everything with the trail dedication fund. So if they took the
sidewalks off and they had that a condition of approval through the
subdivision process , that would free up the trail dedication money to do
the trails that ' s Don talking about along TH 101 , Powers , Minnewashta
Parkway.
Councilman Johnson: That ' s a zoning ordinance amendment basically to
require sidewalks on main through streets in subdivisions .
Sue Boyt : I would like to hear from each member of the Council myself. I
( ouncilman Boyt: I think the Park and Rec Commission knows how I feel
about this . I 'd rather spend the time listening to how you all feel .
IL . '
City Council/Park and Rec Joint Meeting
IMarch 27, 1989 - Page 5
ICouncilwoman Dimler : I guess I was going to offer , I don ' t want to really
get into specifics but I do agree with Don that I don' t want to force
sidewalks on a subdivision that doesn ' t want them. I would like to kind
Iof study each one as it comes up and let the residents decide.
Sue Boyt : How would they decide?
ICouncilwoman Dimler: It would be approval of the site plan.
Sue Boyt : The developer?
I
Councilwoman Dimler : Yes . And then when they buy they know that that ' s
there. But generally speaking and I remember when both Dawne and Curt
Icame in to reapply, or you reapplied and she applied for the Commission ,
one thing that they said that really impressed. That was a very general
statement that , and this is where I 'm coming from, I believe the purpose
Iof the commission is to go over the information and to recommend to the
Council . I think as long as we understand that it' s only a recommendation
and it doesn' t always have to be a fight of your way and our way. It' s a
recommendation and we' ll work together and to me , that ' s what the
Icommission is there for .
Curt Robinson: And I think that ' s why we wanted this to get your ideas so
Iwante ' re not totally off base all at the time. If we can understand what you
gr , en we can recommend least . . .
ICouncilwoman Dimler: And I wouldn ' t be opposed if you' re planning
something , if you want to check with for my opinion about it . Give me a
call . I ' ve never had a call and I would like to see that kind of working
really going rather than surprises at the moment of crisis . That ' s the
Iway we have been operating. I don ' t like that .
Mayor Chmi.el : Communication channel has . . . I think everybody is putting
Itheir time into the City to do what we feel is really best for the City.
We have to look at it from a Council ' s side on it . . . from the dollar aspect
because we' re charged with that total amount and we have to be sure that
those dollars . . . That they can be expedited. I 'm sure each and everyone
I
on the Council feels that. Where they go through the development, I sort
of have in my own mind a priority which I see the downtown really coming
together. Getting that moving along before we start jumping things into
Iother different areas because once that gets pulled together , it ' s in
place and that' s going to be a couple yet, a few more years but good share
of it. We' re starting to get businesses to move into town. The
Icommunity to patronize those people by either driving in or walking in.
Trails or no trails. One way or the other_ . But there is a safety factor
and I realize that safety factor. There again, you can' t sit back the
safety factor and weigh dollars against a life because it doesn ' t work.
ISo I guess what we really have to come up with, how do we pull this all
together as a group . Not just one individual saying I need this , I want
I `hat. Work together as a group so we know what we' re going to have the
I -City look like. We sat down . . .one of the most open public forums you ' ve
probably ever seen because that ' s just the way to get it done. I think we
owe it to the residents , we owe a certain amount of responsibility to
II
r
II
City Council/Park and Rec Joint Meeting
March 27, 1989 - Page 6
C II
listening to them, knowing what they want and one part of the plan that I
was developed by the Park and Rec was saying we would consult with the
individual people to see what their likings are, what their dislikes are.
Some of those cases, you' ve done that. I
Sue Boyt : We won' t always respond to the needs of one small group.
Mayor Chmiel : No, I 'm not saying that. But we have to be listeners . I
Sue Boyt: Sure. That ' s what we ' re here to do.
Mayor Chmiel : We' re a sounder, every one of us here. II
Councilwoman Dimler : I think you should respond to the extent that you
II
can respond.
Jim Mady: That' s basically how we handled the Lake Lucy Road thing . This II is all well and good and fine but dollarwise we just can' t. $80, 000. 00. . .
Mayor Chmiel : And I feel the City doesn ' t have the $80, 000. 00 to do it
either. You' re right. I
Sue Boyt : Speaking of open communications , this might be a good time for
ou to talk to us about rotating chair . I think you have some concerns II about that.
Mayor Chmiel : Yes I did and I still do. My concerns are normally in II accordance with Robert' s Rules of Order. You have a chair and a vice
chair and each within each of their commissions has specifics spelled out
as to what you do and how you set it up. My major concern is that , if you
have a chair one week and that particular item is carried over to the next II week or it might be carried over to two, you then reappoint another chair
person for the next meeting . To me there isn ' t consistency when we do
that. I think we should stick with a chair or the vice chair, if that II chair is not there . Because it just sometimes will confuse people to come
back into those particular meetings and see sometime else sitting there
and that opinion might not be the same as what the previous chair .
Sue Boyt: So you' re saying that the chair has more power over what' s II
happening with that subject or that topic?
Mayor Chmiel : No. I guess what I 'm saying is that there' s consistency I
and that same kind of. . . i.s there .
Sue Boyt : So we could , if we had rotating chair and we were going to I
continue an issue, continue that chair to the next meeting. We don' t
continue that much.
Councilman Johnson: I kind of like rotating chair personally. In that it II
Ives experience to people who otherwise, getting into the City business .
A lot of times they may be moving on and eventually they may be running
II
for council or mayor and whatever if they want. There' s a lot of things
but it ' s also helps their own personal skills and helps I think training
II
mil
_1
City Council/Park and Rec Joint Meeting
March 27, 1989 - Page 7
Ipeople to attempt this chore. What I ' ve seen of it , it ' s worked very well
in the meetings I ' ve seen and various people have done it. I think it' s a
I good idea personally. Just from a training aspect of the people and the
better person they will be for having that experience. I don' t think it
will work on the Council level .
I Councilwoman Dimler : Does the chair have other responsibilities then all
the other commissioners do? Are there added responsibilities?
ISue Boyt: Outside of our meetings?
Jim Mady: No. We just run the meeting .
IMayor Chmiel : Outside attending the City Council meetings that you come
to.
IJim Mady: No , that ' s not a responsibility. That ' s just something I do .
The chair ' s position in our group is simply there to run the meeting .
ICouncilman Boyt : I don ' t think that would have to change Ursula . I think
we clearly want the commissions to have a chair, an official chair .
Sometimes I suspect that staff would probably talk to the chair about the
agenda.
'Cue Bo t : And Jim i.
Y is our official chair .
ICouncilwoman Dimler : And does the chair ever make decisions in an
emergency that is not . . .
IJim Mady: No . We' ve never had that . Lori ' s called me up from time to
time and said, what are your thoughts on this but it wasn' t . . .
Lori Sietsema : On whether the weather was bad enough that we should
Icancel the meeting.
Jim Mady: That' s the extent of it.
ICouncilwoman Dimler : I can see the point of continuity but I can also see
Jay' s point of giving everyone experience. But in my own experience I ' ve
Ifound that if I 'm leading a meeting , it takes me about a year to really
get comfortable with it and to know what' s going on and then to pass it on
to somebody else .
IJim Mady: How this all came about is last year I attended a couple
Planning Commission meetings and I don ' t usually go to those and Steve was
running the meeting . I asked Ladd about it , I saw him about a month
Ilater. He said they do it from time to time. It seems to work well .
Ladd was able to sit back instead of making sure this person , that person .
He was able to sit back and just operate as a commissioner and listen to
things and keep just what he wanted on his mind and not have to make sure
that everything happened. Then I started thinking about it and we talked
about it on the Commission , would you like to do this because it gives
each individual an opportunity to run the meeting and . . . so it ' s been nice
I
It
City Council/Park and Rec Joint Meeting
March 27, 1989 - Page 10
C
Sue Boyt: Everything we say? '
Councilwoman Dimler : No . But if that ' s the way Jim felt, I really felt
that' s what you were saying. Is that really what you meant before I go to
the next meeting?
Councilman Johnson: It seemed pretty straight forward to me. Just take
down the signs . That means there' s no trail .
Councilwoman Dimler : No, the bike trail stays .
Councilman Johnson: It can' t .
Councilwoman Dimler : Why not?
Councilman Boyt: Legally it can' t .
Jim Mady: Now it' s just another regular street.
Councilman Workman: What I was getting at , to maybe wrap it up, and maybe
this is what Ursula is getting at . You don' t like to be sitting on the
Council and say that the meeting before, we meet tonight. Tomorrow night
you guys meet and maybe react to what we' ve done tonight . You don' t like
letting tossed back up into the. . .and again this was something that was
said that I looked at twice one . Did you know that they're going to get
rid of your trails on Lake Lucy Road? There' s a certain group of people
who are adamant and then they organize and then they get all over backs
because, did you hear they' re going to remove the trails .
Sue Boyt : . . . speak about what you spoke about the night before . You are
a public meeting, open to the public. It' s alright if we bring up issues
that you brought up the night before and that ' s not . . .
Councilman Workman: But again, that' s going to create animosity.
Sue Boyt : If we bring up subjects that you discuss Monday night , if we
bring them up Tuesday night, it will create animosity?
Councilman Workman: If in fact a councilmember feels that it was '
improperly. . .
Councilwoman Dimler : It' s in the tone and stuff .
Sue Boyt: You weren' t there.
Larry Schroers : We need to talk about parks yet .
Councilwoman Dimler : I think that first we have to get these feelings out
of the way.
f
"Councilman Johnson : This is also carried over from the previous council
and the council before that. Park and Rec has never really had a very
good relationship with Council as long as I ' ve been associated, even
I
_
I '
City Council/Park and Rec Joint Meeting
11 March 27, 1989 - Page 11
II before. Long before and I think the commissions need to stay blue sky.
They' re making the recommendations for Park and Rec, what is the best
possible. The Council then has to put that into the perspective of the
II real world. I like the commissions to stay blue sky and this is the best.
This is our issue. We' re not looking at business issues . We' re not
looking at planning issues or water issues, we' re looking at park issues.
I Other people look at other issues and then we get all the issues and put
them together and sometimes override the common sense issues that you
brought up and that has created animosity in the past . You work real
hard to get something you think is just perfect and then the Council with
I 14 other issues coming in at us , overrides you and says , no it' s not going
to work in this case. That has been a sore point for years but I do think
we have to get to discussing pack acquisition and park deficient
Ineighborhoods and what do we think about that. I think that ' s on the
agenda .
I Dawne Erhart: That' s the one that ' s kind of near and dear to my heart.
Specifically the one in the southern part of Chanhassen that people voted
in the referendum. To go ahead and sell bonds. $300, 000 . 00. Where do
you people sit on that? Is that something you'd like to see a couple
Iyears wait on because I don ' t think we have it?
Councilman Johnson: If we wait 2 years , we' re going to buy 10 acres .
Councilman Boyt : I can tell you that the referendum was approved and that
II
money should be allocated. We' re doing the community, in my opinion,
II we' re doing them a disservice to basically veto that by not spending the
money.
Councilman Johnson : I really liked Al ' s presentation he made at Park and
1 Rec last week on those issues .
Dawne Erhart : He' s the one that ' s making us nervous . Telling us land
Ivalues are going up and there' s not much out there.
Councilman Boyt : I don' t know why we couldn ' t take out , make some sort of
commitment on the ability to buy the property if you guy would just
Iidentity the property. I guess I 'm pretty disappointed that over a year
ago the referendum passed and you have, in my opinion, done nothing .
ICouncilman Johnson : The day after that referendum we should have been
pushing . Land prices in this town are only soaring .
ILarry Schroers : Basically when you ' re talking parks , you' re talking
acquisition. That' s the key. If you don ' t get the acquisition, you' re
not going to have a park so that is definitely the first step and the
biggest , most important thing. The system that I work for , it' s a big
Isystem and their focus for the first 20 years was acquisition and then
it ' s development after that. We wouldn' t have nearly the system that we
I lave right now if they would have been acquire and then develop, then
II —acquire, then develop. You' ve got to get it now while it' s there.
Councilman Workman: How about the Carrico site?
City Council/Park and Rec Joint Meeting
March 27, 1989 - Page 12
Councilman Boyt: That got approved.
Mayor Chmiel : Yes , that was approved . Where' s it at Lori? '
Lori Sietsema: Roger met with the person who owns it and they' re swapping
their appraisals so the appraisers can look at each other ' s appraisals and
see where the differences were . Their appraisal came in at $330, 000. 00.
Ours was $57, 500. 00 so there are definitely some differences .
Councilman Johnson: Their ' s assumes the MUSA line is going to move. '
They' re giving a sewered cost .
Lori Sietsema: There ' s a lot of assumptions in there. So they' re going
to each look at each other ' s appraisals and they' re holding a meeting
again with them.
Sue Boyt : Have you looked at that point of land on Lake Lucy? Remember
the neighbors told us they thought the woman would donate it to the City.
She hasn ' t paid taxes in 2 years .
Lori Sietsema : Well she has and she won ' t . She has paid the taxes . She
paid $30, 000. 00 for the property and she' s thinking about listing it .
^herre are some people that are interested in buying it because they don' t
meant it developed and I 'm not sure what their asking price is . I think it
was in the 40 ' s. I 'm not sure .
Councilman Boyt : I would suggest that part of what the City seems to be
going through is Park and Rec two years ago met once a month and nobody
showed up outside of the commission. Now Park and Rec meets twice a month
and they get a roomful I gather with some frequency and things have
changed . The former City Council was certainly not in sync with
necessarily the requests that Park and Rec made. I think this City
Council has a great opportunity to do some good things with the trail
system and the park system and how we use them and so far I would say
we' ve done a pretty good job . We clearly disagree and part of that is I
guess maybe where we' ve come from. The experience we' ve had and what we
want to see happen in Chanhassen and that ' s why there' s 5 spots and not 1.
I would agree with Tom in that kind of looking for the guilty party here
is not serving either group very well . I think we have to come to grips
with, out of 12 people we probably have 12 different opinions about how
we'd really like to see the community develop. From my part , I 'd like to
see every development grant easements for trails . I 'd like to see us have
a lot more kind of vest pocket parks where people can go 2 to 3 blocks and
maybe there' s a swingset there or it' s just an open piece of property
that' s bigger than their backyard for them to congregate and play in. I
think this Council might be open to that kind of stuff. I know the former
Council wasn ' t . So I think as we evolve there' s a lot of good opportunity '
and the Park and Rec Commission, I 'd like to see us hold a few more of
l hese meetings , particularly before maybe you wade into how we' re going to
put an access on Lake Lucy for instance. The Park and Rec Commission
really absorbs a tremendous amount of information from the public and then
we sit back and read it and we' re all the smarter for having done that .
um
City Council/Park and Rec Joint Meeting
IIMarch 27, 1989 - Page 13
II think that if you can just get some of these emotional issues out of the
way, but it' s very natural . If I had spent the time, I have spent some
time on this but if I had spent the time that Park and Rec has spent on
Imany of these issues, I 'd be very emotionally committed to their point of
view and we all know what emotions can do to us .
IIMayor Chmi.el : I think that' s a good idea what you ' re bringing up Bill .
The fact that we probably should meet a little more often . I think the
perfect time would be prior to your commission meetings. Or even a
discussion during the commission meetings and have the Council at those
Imeetings.
Larry Schroers : I think one reason that there are so many emotional
Iissues over park and rec is because parks and trails are what' s happening
in communities these days . There ' s a lot of people that are very
concerned about it and it ' s definitely going to contribute to the richness
Iof the whole overall community if we develop a good park and trail system
so it is something that that' s real important and people do get emotional
about . As Bill said, things change as time goes on. 20 years ago, did
you even hear people talking about parks and trails? Very little but it' s
Ibecoming more of a pressing thing every day and that' s why I think this is
the third meeting that I ' ve been to in a week on it and we' re just going
to have to deal with it . I would really like to see the Park and Rec and
F `.he Council develop as good of working relationship as possible because I
.ceel that we do need to pull together in order to get things done. I just
wanted to m'ake one comment on the trails . I think the trails have to be a
Isystem. It has to be just like our roads and highways . We have to have
feeders and collectors and it all has to work together . I would be in
favor of seeing the developers putting in some of the key feeders that
would connect us to the main trails. Prioritize where we need them. If
Iwe can work together towards that end , I think we can develop something
very nice for the city.
ISue Boyt : Are you discussing Carol ' s replacement tonight? Is that on the
agenda?
Mayor Chmi.el : Yes, it' s on the agenda . Well , it looks like we have just
II
a couple minutes left. Maybe we'd best wind this down right now. Hope
that everybody at least has the feeling of knowing a little better where
we ' re coming from. I think we' re looking at some of those things rather
Istrongly. Dollars are the important factor and they' re going to be the
important factor for the city as long as I 'm here. . .achi.eve some of these
things without those dollar expenditures . . . Maybe what we should do is
Iset another meeting right now for 3 months? Couple months?
Councilman Boyt : When do they consider Lake Lucy? When is that up?
ILori Sietsema: I think it got scheduled for the 11th of April or the
27th. As far as the public hearing , bringing back the information that
)NR had and a feasibility on the outlot site.
Councilman Boyt : We should meet before they do that because we need to
discuss what we know.
II
um
IF
City Council/Park and Rec Joint Meeting
March 27, 1989 - Page 14
C
Mayor Chmiel : Your meetings are?
Lori Sietsema: The second and fourth Tuesday. '
Mayor Chmiel : My suggestion would be that probably your next Tuesday
meeting. What does that agenda look like? Do you have any idea?
Lori Sietsema: It' s starting to fill up. I think the Lake Lucy issue
will be on the meeting after that and I will have figures from the
feasibility done by then .
Mayor Chmiel : Maybe what we can do is start that meeting prior to your
meeting by an hour and if it goes beyond that, then you can open your
meeting and consider discussion.
Lori Sietsema: On the llth then?
Mayor Chmiel : On the 11th. Will you send notices?
The meeting was adjourned at 7 : 30 p.m. .
dubmitted by Lori Sietsema '
Park and Rec Coordinator
Prepared by Nann Opheim
I
1
1
1
1
d U N E •
1,. # , 1 • f
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
II ( REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 25, 1989
IChairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p.m. .
I MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Lash, Ed Hasek, Jim Mady, Curt Robinson, Larry
Schroers and Dawne Erhart
MEMBERS ABSENT: Sue Boyt
I
STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema , Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman,
Recreation Supervisor
1
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING CHAIR.
IISchroers moved, Hasek seconded to appoint Curt Robinson as the Acting
Chair for the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried .
IUPDATE OF LAKE LUCY ACCESS AND CHAIN OF LAKES IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
IPublic Present:
Name Address
'( Brian Tichy 1471 Lake Lucy Road
Allen and Barb Finstad 1701 Stellar Court
Madeline Hickey 6990 Utica Lane
I Dale and Gloria Carlson 6900 Utica Lane
Ron and Mary Knudten 6830 Utica Terrace
Conrad Fiskness Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Watershed District
I Joe Morin
Eric Rivkin 1441 Lake Lucy Road
1695 Stellar Court
R. Guhtmiller 1801 Lake Lucy Road
IISietsema : At the last meeting staff was directed to look at a couple of
options. One of them being the acceptability of a portage access, to
I check it out with DNR. The idea was to launch a boat on Lake Ann , paddle
across and portage through Greenwood Shores to Lake Lucy. I called DNR
and their initial reaction was actually positive. They thought that that
II would be okay. When they took it up to the head office, they denied it.
They said that that would not be an acceptable option It would not
provide equal access to non-riparian lake users . They said that the lake
is on Met Council ' s list of priority lakes and would require a ramp of
I it ' s own with parking. I then called DNR and asked them to meet with me
because I wanted them to look at what we were dealing with out here and
the limited options that we have out here. I approached them about the
I idea of dredging the creek between the two lakes , putting in a barrier so
that you could paddle up the creek and lift over as we had discussed in a
previous meeting which would not really be a portage but it would still
require paddling across Lake Ann to get to Lake Lucy. At first they
Iweren ' t real negative on the idea . We did go out and walk the site and
upon walking the creek bed they were not impressed with the idea at all .
.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 2 I
Although they wouldn ' t give me a flat out no, I have a hunch that they' re I
going to take it back to their departments and think of good reasons why
it would not be acceptable . Then the other option that we were to look
into, staff was direct to prepare a mini-feasibility on the outlot in Lake I
Lucy Highlands to determine if an access could be accommodate on this site
and what it would look like and what kind of costs would be involved.
Scott has prepared the mini_-feasibility study. It was included in your
packet and he' s here to address some of the high points of that . After
that I can address how DNR felt about that option as well .
Scott Harri : The subject piece of property that we were charged to look
into was Outlot A of Lake Lucy Highlands subdivision. The site is located
in the northwest corner of Lake Lucy on the south side of Lake Lucy Road.
Presently it' s a long rectangular lot almost 1, 100 feet in length from
north to south and nomimally about 300 feet in width. As you can see by
the little graphic marks on the subject piece of property, about 70% of
the site is marsh or wetland. About 30% of the site is higher ground . I
say higher ground , anywhere ranging from perhaps 3 to 6 feet higher than
the marshland. The proposal , what we looked at, Lori mentioned we looked
at two basic questions that we wanted to answer . Can we fit facilties
size large enough for a boat access to Lake Lucy and secondly, what would
the costs be for that . In applying the standard DNR criteria for a boat
access, we were able to look at a number of alternatives incorporating
various different options for parking arrangements for access , location
and also for where the boat access , either be at the shoreline or back
closer to the high ground . In looking at all these things, we presented
this one that you see right here which shows parking for boat and car
combinations of 7 which meets the DNR criteria of 1 every 20 acres of
water and we' re proposing a 20 foot wide driveway and a boat ramp that
would come down over in this location right here. Furthermore, what part
of this project would entail , dredging approximately a 50 foot wide
channel depending upon wher_e . . .and how deep the depth to the ground
surface. We would be dredging anywhere from 2 to 4 feet of material to
provide a navigatable type of channel out to a contour map where there'd
be about 4 feet of depth of water out to Lake Lucy. In conjunction with
this , we feel that the project cost is approximately $118 , 300. 00 to
accomplish this. In summary conclusion, we feel that parking access fit
on Outlot A. It can meet the DNR expectations and regulations for boat
access. The project would require both winter and a summer season to
construct due to the lake area dredging and the marshland types of
dredging. And that prior to proceeding with, I guess a commitment to
purchase the property or do anything further , we would recommend that soil
borings and topographic surveys be obtained so that we could better update
the cost that we presented in here because we' ve made a number of
assumptions which I guess was the intent of the mini-feasibility study to
get a ballpark cost figures . So we do think it' s a feasible project from
an engineering standpoint and we can fit facilities on the site.
Hasek: Is the cost of the topo survey and the soil samplings in the
$27 , 300. 00 or is that an additional cost?
Scott Harri : That would be part of the $27 , 300. 00 . '
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 3
III,
II Schroers : Do you plan on installing any retainers to keep the dredged out
area from filling back in with sediment?
IIScott Harri : We had not contemplated that level of detail at this point.
Our intentions was to do some over dredging if you will so that the 50
I foot wide channel could perhaps encroach over some purative years and have
some sediment build up could come and still the channel could be accessed
with boat traffic for an indefinite period of time before redredging or
widening would have to occur .
Mady: Do you have any estimates Scott on the length of time before
redredging would be necessary?
IIScott Harri : Not really. We have not looked at that at all . I think it
would be quite a long time. I think that marsh and stuff is a fairly
II stable area so I wouldn ' t anticipate within 10 years something would have
to be done.
Mady: You' re anticipating it would be a fairly gentle slope down to a 4
:, foot depth?
Scott Harri : In typical boat access areas , this portion of the ramp would
be fairly steeply sloped. 10% to 15% grade so that you could get a
trailer in the water to float a boat. Then this portion of the channel
would be excavated at essentially level . At one depth because it would
actually be the water level here and we would just take it down to a
Iuniform depth below that.
Mady: Okay, I was wondering about the side slopes of the trench.
IScott Harri : The side slopes in the trench, they could be made to be
quite flat, yes .
IRobinson: How long is that channel?
Scott Harri : This channel right now is about 500 feet long to get out to
Ithe area that is about 4 feet deep in the lake.
Hasek: Is the scale on the drawing wrong or is the drawing wrong? It
Ilooks like it' s about 800 feet if you scale it out. About 700 feet.
Scott Harri : From here to here? From the lakeshore to a 4 foot depth is
about 500 feet. That would be the lake area type dredging and then the
Imarsh area type dredging would be another almost 300 feet , 200 feet .
Sietsema: Upon receiving Scott' s feasibility study, I felt the DNR should
I take into consideration the economic impact of putting in a facility on
this site before flatly saying no to our other options so I asked them to
j come out there . We went over the options that we previously discussed and
I . we went to this site . They were excited about this site. They thought it
was a good site. They felt that they would not put in, they would not
recommend or require an access built to these standards. We could have an
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25 , 1989 - Page 4 '
access with a gravel road and gravel parking pad . We wouldn' t have to
have curb and gutter . They felt that you didn' t have to go to a 4 foot
depth. That would lessen the amount of feet you have to dredge out . They
felt there was a lot of cutbacks that we could make to make this work.
That would also keep it more natural looking and not have as much of an
impact on the wildlife that' s out in that area. They indicated that with
their resources they could probably do it for much cheaper and hearing
that, I asked them are you available to assist us in construction with
this because we don' t have $200, 000 . 00 to buy the property and put in that
access for 7 car trailer spaces on a lake of this type that has such
minimal open water . They asked me what I thought would be reasonable and
just as a shot in the dark I said, well what if we purchase the property
and you build the access . They said they thought that was reasonable.
They'd have to walk it around the head office and get everybody' s okay on
it but initially they didn' t really see that that would be a problem. I
think that they' re making a big effort to work with us on this and with a
downgraded access , you still could launch a boat similiar to what is on
the lake but it would not be attractive to a larger boat. It would be
attractive to the fishing type boat or canoes and that kind of thing and
that' s the kind of thing DNR wants to attract anyway. So giving that
information , that they wouldn' t approve a portage type access or the
dredging between the two lakes, what I need tonight is a recommendation to
pursue this or to look somewhere else. To do something different one way
or the other . We need to proceed with this because the chain of lakes ,
the PCA needs to see progress in our area because they are approving the
funds to be spent on the chain of lakes clean-up project. It would then
be staff ' s recommendation to pursue an agreement with DNR to have them
construct and maintain the access and we would purchase the property and
deal with enforcement . Also , then to recommend that we enter into
negotiations to purchase the property upon holding public, formal public
hearings to make sure that we've taken in all of the public ' s concerns and
get their input. One of the other things that I want to mention on this
site is that it would not require any kind of surface zoning on boat motor
size or boat size so whoever has boats on the lake could maintain what
they have. Again, to hold formal public hearings before actually
purchasing anything and then also to recommend that we apply for LAWCON
funds or State bonded grant to help us acquire the property.
Mady: The question I had Lori was on the grant. That' s not to build now,
it' s just to purchase without the actual building . Does that impact our
possibility of getting a grant?
Sietsema: I don' t think so because we' ve gotten grants in the past for
acquisition only. North Lotus Lake was acquired with a LAWCON grant for
acquisition only and so was a portion of Lake Ann Park so I do not feel
that that would be a problem for them. The only thing I can think of that
might give us fewer points or something is that DNR is actually doing the
construction and they may consider that the State' s share already and say
that they' re doing enough and maybe wouldn ' t kick in but if we separated
the two and this was acquisition only, my feeling is that we have a pretty
good shot at it. '
__
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 5
1 Mady: In your recommendation you mentioned that the DNR is looking
favorably on possibly building this ramp and you said and maintain.
I Sietsema: Well we didn' t talk about that at the meeting but it was kind
of a second thought after they left. If we buy the land, own the land and
enforce the rules , and we have them construct it and maintain it. They
I feel that the boat traffic will keep that channel clear and you' re never
going to have to go in there and dredge again. But just to be sure, I'd
like to stick in the agreement that they maintain it as well . It' s
something to try.
IHasek: I think even if we should lose it, if they don' t agree to it,
there wouldn' t be a whole lot of maintenance to go into a gravel lot.
I Some erosion perhaps . Even if it did fill in there in 10-15 years . The
DNR doesn' t think that it' s going to fill in so there' s a good chance that
it won ' t.
I Schroers : Lori , do you have any estimates on the cost of gravel versus
the pavement? How much are we saving and where is the money coming from?
It Sietsema : Well if they do it, it saves us the whole construction if they
It do it all . We don' t have to pay for any of the construction then. They
would do it. I don ' t know how much the paving is but Scott might .
IvHasek: It'd probably be the aggregate less the bituminous and the curb.
I cut the number in half myself.
Scott Harri : That ' s pretty reasonable for ballparking . Maybe even a
little less than half.
I Robinson: Anyone else have any more comments or questions before we open
up the public hearing?
I Schroers : I guess I have some comments on it . I think that Lake Lucy is
one of the last precious few natural environments left in the city. I 'd
like to see it left that way. I 'm not in favor of a formal public access
to Lake Lucy. I guess I would prefer to pursue making Lucy a quiet lake
I the same as Lake Ann . Non-motorized and I would like to continue
negotiations further with the DNR as far as working out something as far
as a portage type of access .
IMady: Lori , a question on that comment . When you met with the DNR, did
you bring that up, making it a quiet lake? With their requirement for the
non-riparian owner have the same rights as riparian owners , would those
Itwo coincide?
Sietsema : We can make it a quiet lake . We have to initiate , change our
I ordinance and submit the ordinance change to the DNR for their approval
but if it' s a quiet lake, it' s got to be quiet for everyone. That means
N- that people that live on the lake could not have motorized boats if the
general public was not allowed to. It ' s become a state law since the
I Christmas Lake ordeal .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 6 1
Hasek: Would that position go through Council for approval before it went II
onto DNR or would it go straight to DNR?
Si.etsema: It would go to Council first. If I could make just one more II quick comment. I know that Conrad Fiskness is here from the Watershed
District to answer some easy questions about what' s going to happen with
the Lake Riley Chain of Lakes clean-up project but I would like to just II say that I know that you got the work plan. It' s a draft copy of the work
plan of how the whole project is going to take place but it' s not our
jurisdiction as far as how that ' s going to be carried out and if people
have specific questions about the work plan, they should go to Bob
II
Obermeyer at the Watershed District and discuss those because it' s not
within our realm of responsibility or anything else. That portion of it.
Mady: What' s a BMP? Talking about non-point source of pollution. I
Sietsema : I don' t know. Maybe Conrad could answer that. I
Eric Rivkin : I 'm here because I live on Lake Lucy and I love our natural
resources so much that I had to find out what' s going on. My lot borders
the access . I have a couple of concerns . One is that, a question I have II is how tied i.s the ability to get the access to clean up lakes project? In
other words if, let ' s say there were different ways to do the clean up
that did not include DNR involvement so we would not have to be required II to put in the access , could we still get a grant to clean the lakes up?
Sietsema: As I understand it, Lake Susan is part of the chain of lakes
and for them to do any work on Lake Lucy, we have to have access so it ' s a
requirement. They can' t do one without the other .
Eric Rivkin: Is the plan designated with the EPA? Is funding designated? II
Sietsema: Yes .
Eric Rivkin : It is designated? In other words, everything that ' s 1
proposed in the plan, can only be funded by that grant? In other words ,
if other methods are picked . . . -
Sietsema: I might defer that question to Conrad. II
Eric Rivkin : Conrad , if other methods were picked or let ' s say we don' t
get public acceptance for whatever reason of this plan, that we could open
up discussions or get bids, the EPA could get new bids or whatever for new
proposals? I
Conrad Fiskness : Conrad Fiskness . I 'm President of the Watershed
District. The history of this is that over the course of a number of
years , there have been a lot of studies done on Lake Riley and the other II lakes within the Watershed District which includes the Riley chain. As a
regional do nd d em the t
ion eueal of ea ve mbf er the of EtPAingthey thwere appnkd g aohpla I type work. Because of the advance level of some of the work that has been
done on this chain, particularly on Lake Riley and some of the others ,
II
mm
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
II C
April 25, 1989 - Page 7
I this was identified as a system that met a lot of their criteria , in fact
virtually all of their criteria for a project of this kind. One where
they could demonstrate what they have developed today. And they really
I went through and looked at all the work that had been done and said, if
this agency will do this . If this agency will do what they have proposed ,
you' ll see in our proposals that have been made, I don' t know if this is
the report that you saw, there ' s a lot of work that ' s been done so the EPA
II
said, if this is done, we would do this project. So because of the fact
that this chain is in two cities and two counties , there is no one agency
that they could really go through without having a joint powers agreement
I other than the Watershed District so they came to us . They literally
recruited us to be the sponsoring body. We didn' t design the project. We
didn ' t decide what was going to be in the project. Basically we took what
I they came and said would be if, the EPA said we' ve already talked to the
MPCA and they' ll do this . We 've talked to DNR, and they will do this .
This looks to us like something that we would be willing to fund and if
you will do the work of coordinating and sponsoring it and one of the
I contingencies is that there has to be public access for the local , as I
understand it, they' ve got some rules . Number one, all of this should
have been done before they committed the money including the access but on
I the basis of commitments with the City of Chanhassen had made, they said,
okay we ' ll rely on that and we' ll go ahead . And they also were willing to
allow the DNR portion, which would be a lot of the work in the
restoration, to be counted as the local contributory part to the project .
I Consequently, the amount of money that has to come out of us here, either
the Watershed District or the City of Chanhassen or the City of
Eden Prairie is very, very minimal . We' re talking about $20, 000. 00 on
II what ' s almost a 1 million dollar project . So to answer the question, the
technology was basically brought to us. If we were to say, well we don' t
want to do it this way, they would say, well then you pay for it and that
I changes the whole ballgame because you' re talking about, for example the
DNR portion is $322 , 000 . 00. I don ' t know that our district, I know that
our district is not prepared or able to pick that up and I doubt that the
City of Chanhassen is either . That doesn' t mean that we have closed the
II
door to hearing other ideas. I know that Mr. Rivkin had an informal
meeting of some local residents which I attended last week. I believe you
probably received a letter from our engineer ' s office inviting you to come
I in and share whatever information that you have. I don ' t hold any great
hopes that we would be able to convince them to abandon some technology
that they wish to showcase . I don ' t know if that answers the question
I but. I don' t know that the door is 100°% locked but it' s a little bit
beyond our domain too to say okay, we don' t want to do this . We want to
do this and I think we would probably lose it all .
I Hasek : Is our portion of this worth about a million dollars? Our segment
of this as the City of Chanhassen? We are providing $20, 000 . 00 and DNR is
providing $320, 000. 00 and a remainder of that million for our segment is
Ibeing put up by the EPA?
( Conrad Fiskness : The total project is $966 , 000 . 00 and that includes
I public information. The construction work is estimated to be about three
quarters of a million and then about $200, 000. 00 in education to control
non-point source pollution.
: 1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25 , 1989 - Page 8 i
Hasek: Okay. The City of Chanhassen has committed to that public project
for $20, 000. 00?
Conrad Fiskness : No. That ' s split between Eden Prairie, Chanhassen and
the Watershed District so your share is one-third. The other thing though
is that it was the responsibility of the City in where a lake was located
to provide that there would be public access to the lake and the DNR can
not go in and do their work on public waters using public money for lake
restoration if the general public can' t use it. They just are prohibited
from doing that .
Hasek: Okay, second question. The project was basically begun because
all of the cities made a commitment to go ahead. They agreed that it was
good project and they made a commitment to find the accesses were
appropriate. Were we the last city to commit to that?
Conrad Fiskness : Yes . Eden Prairie, they weren ' t going to spend any
money unless Chanhassen committed to pulling their half of the wagon .
Eric Rivkin : I want to applaud the efforts of the Watershed District to '
try and improve the water quality of our lakes and I also want to thank
4. Lori for her asking the DNR whether they would help with acquisition and
development. That was one of my concerns early in the game and I 'm glad
to see some progress was made there . Also , downgrading the access to make
it unattractive to large boats. Thank you very much. If , for whatever
reason, the public access for the lake goes through, then I think we have
a couple of concerns. One was the number of trailer parking spaces in the
access . Dale Carlson who lives on Lake Lucy caught some discrepencies in
the report and there are 2 or 3 figures used i.n the plan and I found some
others that are used from government sources . �I got an aerial photograph
or drawing of Lake Lucy and it says 175 acres . There' s a figure of 120
some acres in the report. 132 and another says 94 . It makes a
difference in the number of parking spaces so if we could make it more or
less attractive for people coming to use the lake and cut that down by
finding out what is consistent and what is up to date with the figure .
Sietsema: And I 've done that . I checked with them and asked them what ' s
the real number and DNR goes by, and I forget the source but for their
requirement for parking , it goes back to what they have on their records
and it' s 134.5 acres or something like that so we have to have 7 is what
they require .
Eric Rivkin : There ' s less than that . That goes to the ordinary high '
water mark?
Sietsema: Right . 1
Eric Rivkin : And that would include about 50 to 75 acres of cattails and
1_ marsh.
r
' '
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 9
I Sietsema : Right and they are aware of that . I said don ' t you go by open
water because you can' t boat in cattails. But they said, no we go by the
I ordinary high water mark and that is determined by what they have on their
maps.
Eric Rivkin: As with public spaces , there' s always neighborhood concern
11
about parties and stuff going on there and people using the gravel road as
additional parking . I understand that you can actually turn around, it' s
limited to 7 and that' s it and you can be turned away.
1 Mady: Anybody can put their boat in and use it to park.
II Sietsema: If the City adopts a policy that there would be no parking
along the access road or along the street, which there is no parking along
Lake Lucy Road as we all know, if you post it that way, then you would not
be allowed to park there but you cannot turn a boat away. We tried to do
II that on the Lotus Lake deal and they said that was limiting access ,
therefore discrimnatory to the non-riparian lake users and therefore
illegal . And we went round and round with them on that one and we go
I nowhere fast . The only way we can control the number of boats is by
limiting the number of parking spaces and limiting where parking elsewhere
is available .
ICEric Rivkin: You' ve got to allow them, they can come in but they can ' t
park there? They have to make their own arrangements to park?
I Sietsema : So therefore if you had a friend that lived on the other side
of the lake and you could park in their driveway, you could do that.
You'd have to figure it out on your own where you' re going to park if the
' parking lot is already filled.
Eric Rivkin : As I heard at Minnewashta , I think friends of somebody else,
I at Lake Minnewashta Regional Park there are 21 spaces . They have a booth
there I understand . He was turned away.
Sietsema: That ' s the way it is and DNR is catching wind of it and it
I won' t be that way very much longer . They were doing that at Lake Riley
and they put the kaboosh on it immediately.
IEric Rivkin : So . . .get access?
Sietsema: That' s correct . 7 is the minimum. It' s not the maximum.
I Eric Rivkin: Also as a concern of myself and a couple other residents who
have canoes , that we ' d like to walk in and like a municipal park like on
Lake of the Isles, Lake Calhoun. Just have a simple, inexpensive canoe
I rack where we can simply lock up our own canoes and leave them there .
I don' t know what kind of liability would be turned over but I would like
to use it as a canoe storage myself since I 'm adjacent to the lot and it
would also eliminate the need for me to pursue extension of my permit to
dig a channel for my riparian rights to get lake access . I have a permit
with the DNR right now. All I have to do it get Council to approve for the
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
j, April 25 , 1989 - Page 10
extension which may not be so easy with this now so in lieu of that I 'd
like to see that for not only myself but for other people around Lake
Lucy. . .
Hasek: If I could address that . I think we' ve talked a little bit about
the possibility of putting up canoe racks. The problem that we've run
across and we haven' t decided how to handle it is who gets the right to
use them. I think because they' re on the lake, they' re put in by the
City, that all the residents in the City should have an equal opportunity.
I don ' t know if that' s done with a lottery or what but I think to expect
that we as a City, I know I wouldn' t be in favor of putting a rack down II there simply for the adjacent users to use because there' s a lot of people
in the City who would like to be able to get down to the lake . I guess
that' s my own opinion. We' ve talked about it but haven' t come up with a
solution to that yet.
Eric Rivkin: Canoe racks are a pretty low impact thing .
Hasek: No question about it. The question is, if you put them there, the
people to lock them, then what you' ve done is basically allowed them a use
that you haven' t allowed anyone else. The question is , how do you allow
that? I lived in Mound for a while and they had city docks out there and
the way the City docks were run is you put your name into a hat and each
spring they draw names out for the people who are non-riparian homeowners
within the city get to use the docks. You might have one year and you
might not have it the next year .
Eric Rivkin : It ' s worth a try. We' re not as populated an area . If it
doesn' t work, you can always take them out.
Hasek : Exactly. I think part of it is that not everybody is going to
want to participate in that particular use. Not everybody has a canoe but
however we decide to do that , if we should decide to do that, it has to be
equitable for the whole city. Not just for the immediate neighborhood .
Eric Rivkin : Also , there' s a wetland ordinance, as you all know, whereby
any alteration to a Class A wetland has to go through Council to prove a
benefit to the wetland . Just being treated equally here, I had to go
through the process in the alteration of this wetland .
Sietsema: We will too . The City will have to go through the same
process, or the State if they' re going to construct it.
Eric Rivkin : I 'd love to hear what they have to say about what proof
there is , that there' s actually benefit to the wetland. I also have '
questions , and they' re all technical oriented towards the project itself.
I just want to summarize the questions and if Conrad can answer any of
them, that ' s great . If not , either Lori , I would expect somebody from the I
City to try and investigate the answers to these. One is , as I mentioned
first , how tied is the grant with this? I know Conrad gave a very lengthy
answer to this but I talked to Mark Tomzcak who this was addressed to and
he seemed to be open to the idea of opening this up more to public
understanding of what' s going on. He said the plan would go ahead, he
--mm
n
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 11
I wouldn' t approve the plan unless there was public acceptance of this so
that means some kind of a discussion open to the public and open to
experts . Maybe scientists that are . . .that may have opinions about the
I plan or shed some light on it so we ' re not kept in the dark about what
we' re really getting ourselves into . My questions to Barr Engineering who
developed this plan, one is how many lakes have they restored and do they
I have any" data?
Sietsema: How many lakes has who restored?
IIEric Rivkin: Has Barr Engineering restored and do they have any data .
Hasek : Lori , the easy thing would maybe be to just, have him submit his
II questions to you.
Eric Rivkin : Okay, but I wanted the public to hear them because it may
spur some other questions. How much of the nitrogen and phospherous ,
II
which are the bad nutrients studied in the report , typically come from
outside the lakes? It' s shown that almost always more nutrients come from
inside the lake itself than from outside the lake . From things like
I waterfowl and fish excrement , 4 times as much nitrogen and phospherous is
released from bottom sediments when it' s released anirobically, which is
in sludge. In the muck. In the lakes than it receives from the inflow.
li, We can ' t put diapers on the ducks or geese . There' s more geese than
t ducks. I question the amount of effort that' s being put into cleaning the
lake . The nutrification which was cited in the report was the number one
water quality problem. On page 20 or 28 it says, that' s the number one
I problem. What are we doing about that? Also, the calcium nitrate
treatment which is slated for Rice Marsh Lake. Has it been proven to work
to reduce nitrogen and phospherous in a lake? I want to cite a report
I that -was done in Long Lake in the south basin done by. . .who is the Ramsey,
I think I gave Ursula a copy of that this morning . I don ' t know if it' s
been distributed yet for this meeting or not . . . He' s the Ramsey County
I City Engineer and they did a test , it was very highly experimental thing
where they took calcium nitrate and tried to improve the water quality
with it and the experiment didn' t work. The calcium nitrate happens to be
more soluable than sugar . It ' s 1. 2 times more soluable than sugar . I
II don ' t know why calcium nitrate has been applied . It' s one-third of this
$966, 000. 00. $310, 000. 00 is slated for calcium nitrate treatment.
Where ' s the proof that this is going to work? Water clarity on Long Lake
I was 11 inches. They said you could put the disc in the water , when it
disappears , that ' s when you read it . 11 inches is regarding as extremely
poor . Where is the funding coming from? The biggest part of this budget
is the Rice Marsh treatment . Is that really the pivoting point of this
I project or is it approved in the works somewhere and we don ' t know about
it. The City of Roseville, Eb Kane who is one of the councilmen up
there, Roseville turned it down after . . . Long Lake . I 'd also like to know
I which projects they cite to education. To farmers and residents to use
less phospherous and nitrogen . What projects have Barr Engineering
< conducted where education resulted in improving water quality? What
I projects have they conducted where a control of nutrient inflow resulted
in improvement of water quality? Do they know of any documented cases
where by manipulation of fish , which is cited as one of the inlake
II
mu
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
j, April 25, 1989 - Page 12
treatments , by manipulation of fish population contributes significantly
to the improvement of water quality? Water quality improvements is the
main objective of this project . That ' s why EPA is doing this . Again, the
predominant. . . identified in the report is nutrification. Why isn' t more
attention being given to that? I guess that ' s my observations .
Mady: Your questions are really technical in nature. My understanding
this whole project has been of an experimental nature. If there' s no
proof available that really show that calcium treatment does indeed work,
would you want the City to say no , not to do the whole project or to throw
it all out?
Eric Rivkin : Yes , I think we should . If it proves that the feasibility
of the recommendations show that it' s not going to work, why waste the
money and the effort. There are a lot of hidden costs and hidden agenda
in there. What happens when the calcium nitrate, when it fails? Will the
City have to pick up the tab to retreat it? It will be more expensive to
do it later . What would happen when the calcium nitrate, all it will do
is add nitrates to the water . I ' ve been told that it does not lock out
the phospherous which is the nutrient pollutant that they' re trying to
control . That we' ll be left with, they want to do it at Lake Riley, it' s
right upstream from Lake Riley. What ' s going to happen when all this
nitrate dumps into Lake Riley? Are we going to be left with all kinds of
environmental problems that are going to be bigger than right now? So
t yes . These lakes are our most important natural resource. We shouldn ' t
screw it up and it could be-- disastrous, I don' t know but I would like to
put the proposal to the test somehow.
Mady: I guess my comment is, I don' t feel we' re going to get a yes/no
answer on a lot of those questions .
Eric Rivkin: I know, not here. I don' t expect to. 1
Mady: But if we don' t have a yes/no answer to those things , I guess my
concern is, I 've been hearing about Lake Riley for 8 or 9 years now. How
bad Lake Riley is. I guess this is the only effort that I ' ve seen to kind
of address the problem. I would hope this is the best knowledge around .
My concern is if we don' t get a yes/no answer , what happens? If we do
nothing, because we' re losing Lake Lucy right now. Everybody admits the
lake is slowly filling in. It' s getting worse and worse and that process
speeds up, it doesn' t slow down.
Sietsema : What I 'd like to do is take Eric ' s list of questions and submit
them to Bob Obermeyer up at Barr Engineering and he can respond back to
us .
Schroers : Do we have a deadline that we have to meet as far as proposing
something to the DNR and getting the program started by a specific date?
( Sietsema : I have deadlines if we want to apply for a LAWCON grant money,
I have to know by June 1st so things can start getting, and we have to
show consistent progress towards access on Lake Lucy to PCA for them to
continue to hold those funds for this project .
-7
IF
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
jr April 25, 1989 - Page 13
IEric Rivkin : It ' s got to worth all this trouble. If we ' re going to have
an access and it ' s contingent upon, it ' s got to be worth it. I live on
I Lake Lucy and my biggest concern is there but also I hate to see a million
dollars wasted on something where, Bob Obermeyer told us we won' t see an
appreciable increase in visible water quality. That means when we look in
I the water , it' s not going to be really clearer than what it is today. I
think we' ve got to raise questions and get some answers on it pretty
quick. I 'm no,t sure that getting questions fr_om Bob maybe can answer_
those .
IResident : He' s not impartial though. He wouldn' t be giving an impartial
answer. You've got to get a third party to give you a partial answer .
IEric Rivkin : We need a second opinion . If the lakes have cancer , let ' s
get a second opinion.
I Resident : Would they EPA monitor this? Would they do anything else
afterwards?
_ 1 Hasek: I guess Lori the question that I have is , the City Council has
made a commitment to go ahead with this project and obviously. . .and it ' s
not going to work out and we find the answers to these questions are
negative, and we find we' re going to want to step away from them, what is
the potential impact on other things we may want to do this year? Is
— there any ramification? Is there any political thing that could happen?
I Sietsema: No. It ' s on their list of priorities. It would just probably
delay the access . There eventually, according to them, will be access
on Lake Lucy. It just will delay it because it wasn' t slated for next
I year ' s construction in this budget but it might be in 5 years or 10 years
or at some other time. I don ' t think that if we back out of this now
because we don' t agree with the project or what the project ' s going to do
Ifor us, I don' t think that has a negative effect with DNR.
Hasek: Do we know, are we aware of how the EPA assessed this program at
all? How they looked at it and what they did to analyze the program?
I They must have some means of evaluation to determine that it was a valid
way of attacking the problem.
I Sietsema: I 'm not aware of that but Jo Ann or Gary may be because I was
only handed this portion of it to get access on Lake Lucy. Then it goes
back to Planning and Engineering to coordinate the efforts with DNR and
PCA and the Watershed. The only reason Park and Rec is involved in this
I is because we' re in charge of boat accesses so I could direct Eric ' s
questions to Gary and he can get an impartial answer if that ' s what you
want to do too or I could do both .
IHasek: Perhaps if there' s not an impartial answer out there through some
t other agency that ' s already taken a look at it and determined through
rtheir own sources that the program has some valvalidity. I think it ' s like
anything else. As soon as you send something to test it, you ' re going to
get different results from everybody. The question is , how different are
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 14 i
the results? It may be worth while just to try and track down through the
EPA whether any studies were done by them on Barr Engineering' s proposal .
Conrad Fiskness : I think there' s a bit of misconception here. It is not
a Barr Engineering program. Barr Engineering is a consulting firm that
does the technical work for the Watershed District. The Watershed
District was asked to be the coordinating body. The technology was
brought to us by all the other agencies that have been mentioned .
EPA came to us and they had pulled all these things together . The DNR has
basically submitted what was their best technology. Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency and EPA so we were charged with, we' re carrying the ball
through the various local agencies and then also with the writing up of
what has been submitted. You go through the plan you' ll notice that a lot
of it, there are proposals that have been submitted by the other agencies
so all we ' re doing is really coordinating . As far as the statement how
many lakes has Barr Engineering restored? Barr Engineering is an
engineering firm and so they do have knowledge on staff and that kind of
thing but that is not their main thing. They' re a consulting engineering
firm but they are coordinating this effort as the hired arm of the
Watershed District.
Sietsema : And I ' d just like to reiterate again that the City Council made
commitment to the project and directed the Park and Recreation Commission
to achieve the mission of getting an access on Lake Lucy. These questions
N. may better be addressed at the Council level where they can direct the
appropriate staff . Not that I 'm trying to pass the buck. It' s just that
I don' t have the knowledge or even the contacts to find out some of these
answers . It' s not our portion of the project . We' re here to deal with
access on Lake Lucy. Questions about the work plan and the rest of it
should really be addressed to engineering and planning .
Schroers: I 'm just interpretting what I 'm hearing. It sounds like there
are a number of agencies that want to conduct experiments on our lakes .
That concerns me. If they work, fine. What if it doesn' t? Then where
are we?
Mady: I think Eric brought up the point, the comment he made that you' ve
got to look at it as cancer . Think of it as a cancer. patient. You have
to look at what the research that' s been done to date . Does it look like
it works? Does it look like it helps? Benefits. If it does , . . .then go
ahead and do it . If it doesn ' t , then throw it out if there' s evidence
that it doesn't work but there' s no way you' re going to get a scientist to
say unequivably that this is going to work 100% of the time. Just
anything , there' s no cut and dry answer to this . This thing is
experimental . We 've got a serious problem in the chain of lakes . There ' s
no doubt about it and to . . .
Hasek: I think Lori brought up a very good point that might help to kind
of shorten things up here a little bit. I know there' s a lot of concerns
out there about the technical aspects of the program. Park and Rec ' s
mission is to find an access so the thing can get onto Council . The
Council level is where all the technical issues should probably really be
addressed. You' re more than welcome to put them in the record here but we
im
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
IfApril 25, 1989 - Page 15
have no answers for you. Our decision tonight is this a good location for
an access? Should we proceed with it? If the project should go forward,
is there where we' d like the access to be and under this design so that ' s
kind of what our mission is here.
Sietsema: We don' t have the option of saying this is a bad project and
' not pursuing. We have to give the Council . . .
Hasek: The Council ' s going to give this , they have the final say on this
really. Our mission is to try and pick the best location for an access
and a design for that location.
Joe Morin : My name is Joe Morin . I live at 1441 Lake Lucy Road . With
' that in mind, I won' t comment on some of the previous discussion although
I do have some comments to make . With regards to the access , I really
support Larry' s idea that it should be a quiet lake and that we should
continue to pursue the alternative of a carry on access for Lake Lucy. I
' live on Lake Lucy and I 'm willing to give up my speed boating rights . I 've
said that before .
' Mady: If I 'm not mistaken though, you don ' t really have water . You 've
got a large swampland on your property.
Joe Morin : My property goes all the way down to Lake Lucy.
I Mady: Basically like Eric ' s property where you 'd have a problem getting
to actual open water .
Joe Morin : Not really. I have 10 to 30 feet of cattails to go through.
It' s not a problem. Neighbors on both sides have docks .
' Schroers : Do you happen to know how any of these neighbors may feel about
the quiet lake? Have you spoken to anyone else in the neighborhood in
regards to this?
Joe Morin : The people I ' ve talked to feel the same . I 'm not saying that
everyone around the lake feels the same.
' Schroers : But do you think there would be more neighborhood support for
making Lake Lucy a quiet lake?
' Joe Morin : I think you'd get in excess of 80% that would agree with that .
That ' s just my own gut feeling. I ' ve only lived there for a short time .
About one week so I 'm not a very good person to ask .
Ron Knudten: My name is Ron Knudten and I live at 6830 Utica Terrace . We
do have a beach . We do use the lake . There are a lot of people on the
' lake that enjoy it . We' ve been out there for 20 years . This is one of
the reasons why we moved out here. We would like to continue on with
( this.
IMady: You have a boat right?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 16
(7.
Ron Knudten: Yes. We have a boat. '
Schroers : It doesn ' t bother you that there may be, the general public may
be coming out there and using the lake as well . Seven other boats running
around out there doesn ' t bother you?
Ron Knudten: I don't think you' ll have 7 boats out there.
Barb Finstad : My concern about the access , and I have let the DNR know
how I feel about my concerns about that access but maybe the public will
share my concern. It' s to destroy the habitat for alb the birds and the II wildlife that are on that shore of the lake. I lived next to Eric so I am
also adjacent to the outlot and I ' ve observed a lot of the wildlife and
the habits and with the deer that travel back and forth, it would be right II
across the rear of that access . There' s ducks and geese and pheasants and
this year we' ve had egrets and herons that come and feed on that south
shore of that lake which if there were a lot of traffic, I doubt that they '
would. And they sometimes travel 50 miles when they feed. That' s my main
concern. I 'm not a boater . I would prefer a quiet lake but my main
concern is that area. If you just preserve it. It' s just beautiful . You
don ' t see much like that anywhere in the city or anywhere really. It' s so
protected right now and to build that channel through there would destroy
a lot of the habitat and the habits of the animals .
Si.etsema : I asked DNR about that because I gave them your letter because '
I got it before they did. . . .Their initial feeling was that this type of
an access , downgraded as I described, would have less impact on the
wildlife there than a house would and the people who own the lot are 1
planning to build a house.
Barb Finstad : And a channel?
Hasek: The channel , we ' ve got one gentleman who ' s already got a permit .
Barb Finstad: I know and I know what he went through. That' s why I was
surprised that this would be such a favorable site for the DNR.
Hasek: I guess what I 'm suggesting is , if he can get a permit for a
channel , then the likelihood of somebody building there and putting a
channel in that area is still there. . .
Barb Finstad : But if a single person had a channel , you wouldn ' t have the
cars and the constant traffic going through there to interrupt all that
wildlife .
Mady: One thing that Larry' s talked about is the City has to check with
Roger Knutson, the City Attorney and find out if making the lake a quiet
lake actually becomes a taking to those riparian owners and what
compensation would be necessary to the riparian owners for taking away
( their right to utilize the lake that they've had in the past . We would
need to find out what that compensation is .
Hasek: I guess again , I think that ' s a matter for the council .
1'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 17
li
I Mady: Yes , but the question should be asked.
I Mattie Hickey: My name is Mattie Hickey. I live at 6990 Utica Lane. I
also live on the lake. I am opposed to making it a quiet lake. We've
lived there for almost 17 years . We don ' t have a boat right now. We have
canoes and two sailboats but I don' t really want to give up what it does
for us to be able to . Our kids had allergies , the lake is filthy so when
our boat went, we didn' t replace it but now we' re going to be having
grandchildren . They may not have allergies . Also, just from a property
I value standpoint, it would reduce our property value if we live on a lake
that is not accessible to water skiing so I am definitely opposed to a
quiet lake.
IDale Carlson : I 'm Dale Carlson at 6900 Utica Lane. I 'm one of the 20%.
We've lived there for quite a few years and we purchased land there also
to use the lake and use a boat on the lake so obviously I 'm also opposed
to a quiet lake. Thank you.
Hasek: Just a further question. Are you in favor of a boat access?
IDale Carlson: I 'm in favor of a boat access if the boat access is
necessary for the improvement of all the lakes in Chanhassen . And I think
I need to thank Eric. Obviously Eric ' s done a tremendous job of
IIL researching what ' s kind of happening here. It amazes me how much he has
learned in the past weeks and months. Some of the things that Mr. Mady
you say are too technical , were not technical to me and from the
standpoint that why spend a million dollars if it' s not going to have a
pretty good chance of making it . And from what he said , it doesn ' t sound
to me like it has a real good chance of making it .
IHasek : I don ' t know that what he said necessarily makes it sound like it
doesn' t have a chance but there are certain questions that have to be
Iasked in order to make it reasonable to go ahead with the opportunity.
Eric Rivkin: Just a couple responses . I was talking to Larry and Barb
and Joe, myself about , trying to preserve that side of the lake is a prime
I nesting area for egrets and herons . Four beautiful snowy great whites
feeding there on the minnows and it was a beautiful sight . Now if we ' ve
got a boats zipping in and out of there, every 150 feet there' s either a
I pair of mallards or geese . That' s their territory. It ' s all around the
entire perimeter of that end of the lake. That nesting area . What ' s
going to happen when we have new chicks and we have boats zipping in and
out? On the other hand, there' s no dark shadow cast on this lake
I
improvement thing . There are methods that I know about that will work on
cleaning up the lakes and for a lot less money. I would like to have some
opportunity to present these for some educational purposes . I don ' t claim
I to be an expert . . . I 'd like the opportunity sometime to explain these to
Conrad and show him these lakes that have been improved by other methods.
It has worked and it is possible. If this plan is not gone through ,
I'. technically speaking it may not work. There are other ways to get grants
from the EPA through lobbying with individuals that I know about . I have
their phone numbers out , that can lobby to get grant the way we think it ' s
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25 , 1989 - Page 20
If we had to choose an access , I would choose this site . It seems to be
our only option but I even have questions then of spending the City' s
money that we would have to spend for that access unless have some pretty
strong guarantees that there' s going to be marked improvement in this
chain of lakes and specifically Lake Lucy. It would cost a very large
amount of money for this access and I guess that' s all I have.
Robinson : I 'd like to see us move forward with this. With an access and
I think the option we've looked at tonight seems to be the best choice. I
guess I would like to see if there are better methods as Eric has
indicated but I 'd like someone who is knowledgeable in that area to review
those . Do you want to make a motion?
Hasek : Yes. I guess based upon the discussion we've heard and been
entered into the Minutes this evening , I would like to go ahead and
recommend to City Council that we pursue, that they pursue an access on,
what it is? Identified as Lot 23, on the northwest shore of Lake Lucy but
that I would also caution the City Council to pursue any alternate method
of cleaning up that lake which might either cost the City less money or
cause less impact on that lake. Is there anything else that we need in
that motion?
Sietsema : You may want to recommend that they hold formal public hearings
and if they do go through with this , to approve a LAWCON grant.
Hasek: I think that' s just a natural part of this but if you'd like me to
put it in the motion.
Sietsema: We can do the LAWCON grant at another time.
Hasek: We _might as well do it all now because they' re going to have to
approve it eventually anyway. I just don ' t think that it serves the
community or us to keep having public hearings at this level when they
really should be at the Council .
Mady: I ' ll second that.
Hasek moved , Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to pursue acquiring Lot 23, the Outlot in Lake Lucy Highlands on
the northwest shore of Lake Lucy for a boat access . Also , to caution the
City Council to pursue any alternate method of cleaning up that lake which
might either cost the City less money or cause less impact on that lake.
Also, recommend that the City Council hold formal public hearings and make
application to LAWCON for acquisition. All voted in favor except Schroers
and Erhart who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2 .
k_
i
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 21
IPUBLIC HEARING ON PARK DEVELOPMENT PLANS :
CHANHASSEN HILLS
I CURRY FARMS '
LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST
IPublic Present :
Name Address .
IJill Blumenstein 9361 Kiowa Trail
Robert L. Eickhalt 9390 Kiowa Trail
I Cheryl Douglas 8650 Chan Hills Drive
Bob & Peggy Thompson 1330 Stratton Court
Jon Thornberg 1320 Stratton Court
I Kathi Clarke 6510 Devonshire
Bruce Kotzian 1340 Stratton Court
Harold & Virginia Larson 1350 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Joan Brewer 9366 Kiowa Trail °
I M. St. John 6450 Devonshire Drive
John Speiss 6610 Arlington Court
G. & Kay Eastrum 240 Eastwood Court
John Willman 6510 Welsley Court
Sietsema: Part of the 1989 Capital Improvement Program budget includes
Ifunds to develop plans for the parkland dedicated in Chanhassen Hills ,
Curry Farms and Lake Susan Hills West . Mark Koegler has prepared some
preliminary plans based on discussions that happened at the time of
I preliminary plat approval and site plan review. We' ll start with
Chanhassen Hills and I ' ll just let Mark take over .
I Mark Koegler : Mr . Chairman , I 'd like to open with some generic comments
that are applicable to all three of the items we' re looking at this
evening . First to talk a little bit about the process that we' re looking
at this evening, particular for those who may be recently relocated in
Chanhassen and not experienced what you ' re going through right now. What
we typically have done in the past and we' re doing with the three items
this evening is starting the process of the development of neighborhood
parks. That process begins with a meeting like we' re having this evening
which is simply basically an idea generation . We put a couple things on
paper to look at to focus some thought and we ' re here to seek the input
from residents and the Commission for the types of facilities and some of
the location entries to those facilities that you might have for each of
those parks . So that would apply to both Chanhassen Hills , Curry Farms
and Lake Susan Hills West parks that you ' re looking at as well . From
here, from this evening we' ll take the comments that we do hear , put those
into a more definitive plan form that will come back before this
e Commission . This Commission will have the opportunity to review that once
. again and then to take final action. At that point in time to recommend
adoption or adopting with modification of that plan to the City Council .
At that time the item does go onto the City Council and is formally
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 24
Koegler : Quite honestly, my opinion on that is additional parking is 1
going to be difficult on this site given the lot layout and the fact that
it ' s adjacent to TH 212. If you ' re going to look at any additional
parking and expanding the scale to roughly 4 spaces that are shown here,
you' re going to have to look at taking it internal to the site . You' re
going to end up with an entrance road essentially coming off that
northeast side into the center of the site basically and establishing a
parking site there. Again, that gets back to how you see the facility
being used . That ' s a fairly intensive application for a neighborhood
park.
Schroers : It seems as though it wouldn ' t be wise to develop the ballfield
to league or sanction requirements and then not have an ample area for
parking .
Mady: But don ' t you think Larry that you ' re going to develop a ballfield
for neighborhood use, you' re going to have kids who get together and it' s
still a fairly large neighborhood, who are going to meet at the Jr . High
and playing Babe Ruth ball , they' re going to be hitting the ball a long
ways . They shouldn' t have to worry about running into a tree when they' re
playing. They' ve got their 5 guys on the team and 3 in the outfield and
pitching and somebody else playing first base . I guess I ' d like to see ,
no matter what the intended use is in a neighborhood park that our ball
. diamonds in the neighborhood parks still be laid out so that they would
accommodate at least the 280 foot open playing space. That can easily be
done here.
Schroers : Yes , I would agree with that .
Koegler : You can have a clear zone basically. Keep the landscaping out
of this area and . . .
Mady: I don ' t ever anticipate us putting lights on this thing and fences
and that type of thing but we should at least have enough open space so I '
when the older kids are playing their games and workout and what have you,
the trees don ' t come into play too much .
Si.etsema: Does anybody want to hear from the public. There are people
from the neighborhood .
Robinson : Yes . Does anybody have a comment on this one? Chanhassen
Hills .
Mady: Is anybody here from Chanhassen Hills?
Resident: It looks fine to me .
Robinson : Should we vote on these individually or would you . . .
( Sietsema: Yes , I 'd like a motion on this park on if you want us to put
this down more concrete or make any changes or whatever . Direction .
', ,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
IIApril 25, 1989 - Page 25
I Schroers : I would say it looks to me as though Mark has done a good job
on laying out this park. I like the way it looks . The only concern that
I had was that there isn' t enough adequate open space for a ballfield area
I and parking should accommodate the expected use and it looks like he has
that covered so I like it .
I Mady: I just wanted to comment on the pond area Mark. Is that pond
sufficient size to allow for neighborhood skating on it? Obviously we
wouldn ' t be clearing that because of insurance problems.
I Koegler: I can' t give you a concrete answer on that yet. Lori and I
recently discussed getting copies of the developer ' s drainage calculations
for both this one and Curry Farms Park so we really can get a better feel
I for how much water will be in those sites and for how long . So when we
bring back a more defined drawing, we' ll see if we can have an answer to
that issue .
IIMady: Would there be a problem, just out of your background , if it is a
designated ponding area if we' re ever going to see flooding?
II Koegler : It would be no problem. I 'm aware of several cities that do
that. I don ' t foresee it being necessary. . . As long as the grade will
accommodate , which it could in this case and with parking lot located
IIroughly where it is, you' ve got good access for winter purposes and it may
be very feasible you could do that. The only concern I would have is that
pond does sit rather close to some of the residential lot lines . It' s
being looked at as a mor_e . . . site but if there' s no lights or getting
Idaytime and weekend activities .
Hasek: I agree . I think in concept the plan lays out very well .
ILash : I think it looks great . . . Will it be done in stages?
Hasek: All of our parks are done in stages . This is probably a 12 stage
I
park.
Lash : Maybe we should find out from4people what they think is . . .
IRobinson: In the preliminary stage, that ' s how we like it attend and it
goes in further details on it.
IMady: I ' ll make a motion then that we recommend to staff to go forward
with the master park plan based on the comments made to date. That we
proceed as quickly as possible to build this so maybe we can convince the
I
developer to do all the flat grading that' s going to be necessary on this
site to save the City a considerable amount of money in developing this
site.
IRobinson : I ' ll second it.
f
r
4
IF-
Mady moved , Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to accept the master park plan for Chanhassen Hills Park based
.'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 26
C
on the comments made and to proceed as quickly as possible in it ' s
development to possibly convince the developer to do the grading of the
site . All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CURRY FARMS.
Koegler : Procedure will follow the same as the last one. First some '
brief opening comments about the site itself. Curry Farms Park is about 6
1/2 acres . The main frontage is off Stratton Court which is on the
southern end of the site. Lake Lucy Road is further to the south of this II particular drawing . The park site is delineated by the boundary here and
I 'm sure most of the residents know where that is. The site itself is
essentially kind of bowl type of area . The elevation is probably I would
guess about 20-22 feet. The high points being literally around most of
the perimeter . When the developer came through and proposed the plans ,
when they were accepted by the Planning Commission and City Council , they
did, as part of their grading improvements , some improvement up in this
area which established essentially a pad for a parking area and kind of a
walkway, roadway down there that would be about a 7% grade . In essence
we' ve taken that for a starting point and used that grading and contouring II
that ' s there as part of the facilities that are identified in this
particular plan. Again, what we' ve started with are "typical"
neighborhood park type uses . We' ve shown a small parking lot in this area
Cthat I referenced a moment ago. We' ve shown a couple of alternatives for
discussion purposes of a play area and this is a totlot type of facility.
One places it up at top which would still allow buffering room between the
roadway. The other place is down below which obviously has more
separation yet from the traffic and from the parking area . I think you
can consider the merits of both of those locations. One is obviously a
convenience factor and one is an enhanced safety factor . We' ve shown
volleyball conceptually court in this particular site. We' ve shown a
mixture of a tennis court , a single tennis court and basketball court in
this particular location simple because of space allocation. We' ve shown II a ball diamond consistent with the Chanhassen Hills one at about 220 feet.
That can be expanded. However , it cannot be expanded to the degree that
Chan Hills was just simple because of the amount of land that ' s available.
This one can be bumped to probably 250, maybe 260. Probably not a lot
more than that . There are two ponding areas on the site. One sits over
in this area. The other is over here on this other side. I referenced
that last time also . We' re attempting to get copies of the drainage
calculations that were done at the time this plat was approved so we get
some feel for how much water is in there and more importantly during major
rain events, how much of that water is going to come in and inundate the
softball field for a period of time. Our best guess right now is that it
will not cause any major inconvenience to the neighborhood type users. If
you have league activities here, it might be a little bit different
matter . The other thing we show on this one is a walkway that would come
down and basically run in some kind of a cicuitous manner around through
the park. Again, we' re in a conceptual mode but our suggestion would be
that it would probably be a narrow bituminous strip. We bring that to you
for consideration because I think it would be wise to consider some off
street avenue for children to ride tricycles and bicycles and big wheels
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 27
and all those other things. I know from talking to a couple of the
residents , you ' re going to hear some information on the number of children
there. I think that will probably support that concept very readily. So
those are the suggestions that we' ve offered regarding that park for
discussion purposes and again consistent with last time, I 'd be glad to
entertain comments from the commission or listen.
Mady: I have a question Mark. The pond in the upper northeast corner , I
remember when we looked at this 2 years ago when it was in the development
stage, I remember that pond was formerly a volleyball area wasn' t and at
that time there was some concern from the residents on the Lake Lucy Road
area that what was being shown as the alternate play area would be fairly
close to that pond . Now that the pond ' s further north . . .
Koegler : This is taken from the grading plan and is part of the City' s
formal approval record so it ' s as accurate information as we have on the
site for the placement of that pond.
Sietsema: Those concerns were responded to by moving this ponding area up
more into the lots rather than on the parkland .
Mady: On the softball field itself, is there any way of turning this
field so that the backstop is in the southeast corner?
Koegler : There is . The actual orientation is shown on this particular
drawing gives the optimum orientation for ball diamonds. You can
basically take that and extend it and put it down in the southwest corner
and that really is kind of a second choice so that can be done. It did
not really afford much change in the size of the diamond that you could
fit in here so we oriented it this way so the infield activity where the
noise generation is the highest , is furthest away from most of the
existing residential structures . Rather than reverse it and put that
activity close to the backyards. It ' s a minor point . There isn ' t a
significant change but again, you ' re looking down on it so it is quite
visible from the perimeter of the site itself. But this is the preferred
location for the sign.
Hasek : Are any of the trees shown that are shown on your plan at all
existing?
Koegler : Basically here again we' re back to conceptual . We would be
enhancing the site with landscaping as a buffer in certain areas .
Mady: Doesn ' t the southern area . . .
Koegler : When you get to the west of here , northwest of here , there is a
significant stand of a wooded area .
Schroers : Do you know what the length of the walkway would be? Are we
talking roughly a half mile? A mile?
Koegler : I can give that some thought here for a minute and come up with
a response to that. I don' t know that off the top of my head . The
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25 , 1989 - Page 30
whatever reasonably the commission determines the neighborhood needs . The
reason Chanhassen Hills showed 4 versus 6 here is because Chanhassen Hills
had 80 feet of frontage. This site has 180 feet of frontage so there' s
more room to do some buffering .
Bruce Kotzian : But that number is at your discretion? If 4 is adequate ,
there' s no reason not to cut it down?
Mady: You also have to keep in mind that this park serves more than just
Curry Farms. It' s a 1 mile service area from this park.
Sietsema: A half mile.
Mady: So you' re taking in considerable amounts .
Bruce Kotzian: Considering where it' s located, there' s not much else
around there other than Curry Farms but I understand what you' re saying .
I guess our concern is , if we can still keep access to a half mile or
whatever it is . . .
Schroers : Do you anticipate that most of the neighbors will walk to the
park?
0. Bruce Kotzian : I think so . The way everything is laid out there . I
think everybody, most everybody would. It 's not that anybody' s that far
away from the park. Most of us live right on the park or within a half
block off. At the most, maybe a block away. It' s really a concentrated
area around that park.
Mady: My comment again was you have to realize that we can ' t put a park
within half a block or block of everybody' s house in this city so not all
people will be walking to this park.
Bruce Kotzian : Sure. I can appreciate that . We' re right now trucking
out kids to other parks to try to get them to use so .
Robinson : Did you say you prefer the alternate play area?
Bruce Kotzian: Yes .
Hasek : That seems to make the most sense to me too because I would hate
to live in this residential units abutting . . .
Bruce Kotzian : Yes , the guy who lives there couldn ' t make it tonight . He
called me just before I left and showed his concern on two points . One
was the number of parking stalls because that ' s right next to him and
where the totlot is going to be situated. He' s got 2 young kids and he 'd
like to have them close but I don ' t think he wants it right there . Nor do
we want it right next to Stratton Court, right next to the road .
Resident : Will there be any bick racks allotted here?
-
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 31
II Hasek: We haven ' t historically put bike racks in but that certainly
doesn' t mean that we couldn' t consider it .
I Sietsema: If they aren' t automatically put in with the development , I 'd
encourage you to write a letter to the Park and Recreation Commission
requesting that if you'd like them. Preferably before budget times .
I John Willman: My name is John Willman and I live at 6510 Welsley Court
which is down off of Stratton and Devonshire . What I 'd like to know, when
this project was originally planned and this land was allocated, which was
I approximately 2 years ago , why wasn ' t the money immediately set aside
because of the growth that' s going on within the community and all over
the area? I mean normally isn ' t parks and so forth set aside immediately
Ijust for this problem that confronts us?
Hasek: Historically I think yes , if I might just answer a little bit of
that. Part of the problem that we' ve got within the City is that we' ve
I had areas developed that needed parkland that didn' t fall under the
current ordinance which simple says that we take a portion of the property
or a park dedication fee for developments so we ' re behind the 8 ball . We
II started in the hole and we've been trying to crawl out of that hole since
then . When the dedication fees come from any particular neighborhood ,
they don' t necessarily go to that particular neighborhood. They go into
the City' s hopper and then they' re distributed . That ' s what ' s been
Vhappening . As an example, you have a piece of property in a neighborhood
here. I live on the other side of Lake Minnewashta . We don ' t have a
trail . We don' t have a park over there at all and we just recently
I started a fund to acquire property which simply means now a portion of the
money we get from all of these parcels that are developing in the city
will got into the hopper to start to purchase land in areas that don ' t
1 have parks. More recent than mine even is your neighbors right down the
road at Pheasant Hills . We ' re in the process of trying to buy a park for
an area that was omitted here a few years ago. Park dedication fees were
taken in lieu of land and they were left without park for a very
I substantial neighborhood over there so we ' re behind the 8 ball there as
well . So that ' s what ' s happening .
I John Willman : So what we' re looking at is we' re robbing Peter to pay
Paul?
IHasek: We' re taking from Peter to pay Paul , yes .
Mady: The City does not, your not paying any property taxes for park
development . Nothing goes . We get no money to develop parks out of your
Iproperty taxes. Every dollar we spend for park development comes from new
development so whoever screams the loudest , actually whatever is deemed to
be the most important gets funded first out of the pool . That' s how it
Iworks . That ' s how it ' s always worked .
( Sietsema : And a point of interest . Your development didn ' t pay any park
\ dedication fees because all of your park dedication went into the
II acquisition of the land so we didn ' t receive. Typically we receive a
certain amount of money with each building permit that goes into the park
II
um
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 32 ,
dedication fund that we pay for park development . In some cases where
we' re park deficient, we require land in lieu of those fees and that' s
what we did in your case . So there ' s no money coming in from your area
either to help for it so that' s another case where we' re taking from Peter
to pay Paul .
John Willman : I understand that. Then a suggestion I 'd like to make then
is, it' s kind of like going out and buying something when you don' t have
any money in your pocket. I think the next time you should wait until you
build up a little amount of residual and then go out. People sometimes
can' t always have what they want right off the bat so they' ll have to wait II
for it so what' s worth having is worth waiting for and it ' s better off
than not having anything .
Sietsema: But we wouldn' t have gotten a park in your neighborhood if we
hadn' t acquired it at the time.
Mady: We' re looking right now at trying to buy a new park in south ,
Chanhassen which we' ll be talking about tonight. A year ago that was
approved in a referendum. When that concept first went to Council , we
felt we could get land for $3, 000. 00-$3, 500. 00 an acre. We' re finding out II
$6, 500. 00 an acre is dirt cheap so the size of the park has gotten cut in
half . Land is getting harder to find and it ' s getting an awfully lot more
expensive than we ever anticipated so what we' re trying to do now is try
to find all the land we can get. Grab it now and at least have the land
and develop it at a later date versus having no land .
John Willman: Believe me, I appreciate that more than probably you II realize. I guess it' s just disappointing for a lot of us to think that we
were hoping to have a park and it' s now going to be 1990 before we' ll
probably see it or any part of it and it ' s tough to understand . . . .the
way we do things with the parks out here. Recreation' s a very valuable
commodity and it doesn' t come easy or it doesn' t come cheap for anyone and
to be able to recommend that you have to take time out of your . . .we don' t I
need to take the kids to the park today. We' ll just stay inside. You have
to make time to recreate and you have to have money to recreate and right
now we don' t have either .
Mady: That ' s a very good point and I guess you need to make that concern
available to the City Council members and tell them that you'd like to see
the city work harder to get more money available to development of
parkland. We' re stuck with what we' ve got too pretty much .
Kathi Clarke: My name is Kathi Clarke . I live at 6510 Devonshire and
I just wondered what are the restrictions regarding when it' s being used
and stuff for the softball fields. Will there be Little League teams
playing there?
Hasek: We hope not . Currently we' re in the process of trying to build '
park fields in larger parks so we can hold the league play there .
Unfortunately we' ve got a situation where we have got a demand that' s
beginning to exceed the availability of the fields that we have and we ' re
trying desparately to catch up with that . Obviously this field probably
En
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 33
I will not happen for a number of years . I anticipate that we will be at
that point ahead of the ballgame and this won' t have to happen. We have
at this point , had to move some of the recreational plan into some of the
' local fields. We don' t like to do that at all . We've been kind of backed
into a corner where we have to accommodate the demand that' s out there
right now. If the demand gets much more severe than it is right now and
' the availability of fields doesn' t appear on the horizon quickly, there
may be some cutbacks. We actually proposed that at one point this year
and we managed to work out way out of it but it was proposed early in the
year .
' Schroers : Also, the area that we have for this field here is not really
large enough to accommodate league play.
Kathi. Clarke : How do you address the safety concerns of the two
ponds? Obviously you moved one. What happens if somebody drowns there?
' I don' t know who ' s fault it is . The reason that I 'm concerned is. . .
Hasek: I don' t honestly know. It' s a requirement of the city to provide
ponding within , approved ponding . I don ' t know if the city' s liable for
that portion that' s on their property which would be the parkland.
(A tape change occurred at this point in the meeting . )
John Thornberg: My name is John Thornberg. I live at 1320 Stratton Court
and I guess everybody has said exactly what I wanted to say. We' re really
concerned about the light issue. We don' t want them. The parking lot , as
' small as possible . We don' t need any more traffic. The play area , the
alternate one is obviously right. You said it yourself, safety or
convenience . Well what do you think? Let' s go safety on this one. The
' softball fields is great. No problems . I had understood two tennis
courts . You' re going to have a lot of stressed out parents that need two.
These are things that probably can be done.
Hasek: We ' ve done something at another court where we had two of them and
it was the impression of the neighborhood that the tennis courts weren' t
being used at their capacity and a lot of people want to play basketball
' so what we' ve got is we' ve got standards for two tennis courts in place
but we ' ve put hoops on one side so it can be used as a basketball court.
That way the demand can kind of dictate whether you' ve got two tennis
courts or tennis court and basketball .
John Thornberg : That ' s great . I 'm looking at it from the neighbors I ' ve
talked to who play tennis . I notice two right here. They' re probably
' going to be looking at that and the kids are going to want to be playing
basketball and you' ve got 60 kids and a bunch of neighbors and the kids
are probably going to win out . That ' s something that we can address later
' but. The whole thing, the way the walkway on it. It' s fabulous. It' s
great . I guess at this point , my land abuts in the back to the park. I
would love to use this land. The kids i.n our neighborhood are using the
streets right now to play. It would really be nice to at least get it cut
I down so it' s not as tall as the kids down there. If we could get any use
out of it this summer whatsoever , I realize that you' ve got no money and
so
. 1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 34
the grading and this and that but it was nicely graded when I moved in II last August. There wasn' t a lot of weeds at that point in time. Now it' s
all just grown up . Not overgrown. I guess even if you could send a
couple of lawn mowers through there and just knock it down so the kids can II
get down there and just get some use out of it this summer . That can' t
cost too much. Otherwise, we just want to see this thing, at least the
totlot get started before all the 5 year olds are 20. Really, get going
on it. Just get in place and get started on it. It' s not going to get
done overnight but let' s get rolling on it a little bit at a time and
don' t worry, you' ll hear screams from Curry Farms. We've got lots of
people who ' d like to have a park down there. 1
Bob Thompson: I 'm Bob Thompson. I 'm at 1330 Stratton Court. I would
like to further address , just again the the . . .side of the park as soon as
possible. Last spring we purchased the property, the park was completely
bare. Flat. Not over the summer , last summer , the weeds grew at least
this tall. Great for wildlife. We like that but I think we do need some
flat area . If we could just get some weeds mowed down, clear out . Get Ir
some grass. Just plain grass. Seeded. Just get started on that. I
think that would help a lot . We don' t need trails just yet . Flat area of
grass would help. 1
Schroers : I appreciate the concern. I like the layout of the park. I
like the walkway around the park. I think that the alternate play area
that the residents are suggesting would seem to be logical there . I
sympathize with the urgency of getting something going . I hope that
there ' s a way that we can initiate something . I don' t have the answer
right at the moment but I like the plan the way it's laid out and I would
encourage us to do what we can to expediate the development of this park.
Erhart: I would go along with that. Also, in the meantime, if the City
would be able to cut down some of the weeds. I sympathize with you.
People that have children. I have a little one too and I would certainly
not want to play. I like the walkway. I 'd go along with the alternative
play area and everything else looks real good .
Mady: I had a question on lights. . . We don' t have the money to put in a
totlot there this year much less lights . We want to put lights at Lake
Ann and we don' t know how we' re going to do it. We' re talking $60, 000. 00
plus per field for lights so lights aren' t going to be a high priority.
The mowing question , we asked in our last budgeting process that the City
allocate money in their general operating fund to add another park
maintenance person on because we weren ' t getting stuff done in our
existing parks. I don' t know where we stand on that right now. I know
City staff was short last year . I don' t know if they' re going to have 1
time to go down and cut down the weeds in a couple of weeks. It' s going
to be tough but it ' s something we can suggest . They recognize the concern
but I don' t know if they can do it. We recognize and we sympathize with
it being done and I 'm sure staff will do everything within their power to
get it done but budgets are tight in the city. Otherwise, the plan
itself, I really like the plan . The earlier comment I had on, where the
backstop exists on the softball field, it really doesn' t make a lot of
difference to me. If it ' s optimum there , let ' s go with it . The sun will
1
i . •
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 35
' be the people' s eyes . I guess I 'd rather have it going in the sun hinders
it the least. Otherwise, everything else is great . The play area
definitely needs to be at the bottom of the hill . Not next to the parking
' area. Just leave that an open space. Green space.
Robinson : I like the plan as proposed . I like that the residents like
' the alternate play area and I 'd like to see if we can' t cut the weeds down
or make it so that the small children can at least play in it some before
we get it developed.
Hasek: I agree with all the comments . I guess I would like to suggest
the possibility of putting in two more tennis courts pads and
incorporating them as basketball with that as opposed to one tennis and
' one basketball . I think it gets some double use out of that area. I 'd
also like to suggest that if we do end up going with 6 parking spaces ,
that 2 of those at least be handicap spaces with the realization that not
everybody in the city is able and willing to walk to our parks . I 'd like
to at least be able to provide to the handicap and elderly.
Lash : I think the layout is fine too . I think it looks nice. I know my
' first thought was the play area alternate definitely would be my first
choice . This might sound kind of cheap on our part but if we could get
maintenance to go down and do the initial chopping down and mowing, if you
litguys could help out at keeping them down . Do you think maintenance has a
problem with that?
Resident : We could take a look at it . See what it takes I guess .
Hasek: A riding lawn mower .
Rsident : Right now it takes more than what we can do .
Lash: That ' s fine. If maintenance can cut them down, chances are that
you can get at it more regularly. The problem is that maintenance is so
busy but I think the layout ' s fine. •If that ' s the best we can do for this
year , I guess I 'm sorry that that ' s the way it is but I 'd like to put the
totlot in for sure next year .
' Schroers : Just for general information, you might want to know that there
are 2 park maintenance people for the entire city.
' Hasek: We have a big budget . I guess I 'd like to move that we go ahead
with the concept plan as kind of discussed with the alternate play area .
Perhaps extending the ballfield length to it ' s maximum that we can get in
' the park. Two tennis court pads as opposed to one and a couple of
handicap parking spots .
Schroers: I ' ll second it .
Hasek moved , Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
Irecommend to approve the Curry Farms Park concept plan with the alternate
play area , extending the ballfield to it ' s maximum, two tennis court pads
mu
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 36
47 11
as opposed to one and two handicap parking spots . All voted in favor and
II
the motion carried .
LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST. I
Koegler : Mr . Chairman, this item I think of the 3 will probably go the II quickest. What we' ve done . . .the two parks you' ve talked about already
were looking for very specific input which you provided . The third area,
the Lake Susan Hills West, there are two park sites and our interest this
evening really is not so much. . .but what facilities you might want to
I
include in that area and let me cover that quickly. You've seen this
information before. There was a report provided the Park Commission I
think it was in October of 1987 that looked at all of the parklands down II in the Lake Susan Hills West area just to try to determine if that amount
of land was adequate to service the residents that will be down in that
area. I think there' s something in the neighborhood of 2, 000 structures
ultimately will be down in that portion of the community. We' re focusing ,
on two sites this evening in a very preliminary form. The first is what' s
labeled as Outlot G which is 9.8 acres of land under it' s present
configuration . This road that was schematic and now is a little better
II
than schematic up in this portion, is Lake Drive East or whatever the
current name is . It ' s changed periodically. This site is one of the
larger sites in the area . The concept plan that was shown previously, and
again these are what we called thumbnail sketches at the time, showed a
II
ball diamond, soccer field, hockey rink, a couple of tennis courts and
parking that would suffice to serve all these areas and a designated
picnic area. Part of the rationale behind those facilities was that in II this particular site , the property that ' s on this side of the road is
zoned industrial . There' s also outlots and I don' t know what the new
letter designation was on this but that is being high density residential II so the users in this particular area were first of all more numerous than
you would find in some of the parcels we' ve already talked about tonight
but the composition will be a little bit different in that you may have II leagues that would spill out of some of the potential office buildings or
industrial buildings . They may want to do something on the site. You may
have noon hour athletes . Things of that nature . So that was the type of
facilities that we had shown a year and a half ago or so for that
I
particular site. I guess what we liked, before we go any further with
some of the planning like we' ve done the other two, is to get some
reaffirmation of how you feel about that now. Are there other facilities II you think we should look as a part of this as we go into more detail
effort on this particular property?
Robinson : I can ' t place where this is . Where ' s Rosemount?
I
Koegler: Rosemount would be northeast .
Sietsema : This goes over to Powers Blvd . and then will cross at the north 11
so that would be the park, Lake Susan Park and then further back from that
is Rosemount.
II
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 37
IC
' Koegler : That' s potentially the area we ' re talking about right now. That
pending zoning delineated line is the road alignment basically. So we've
got the IOP zoned north and the residential on the south.
' Schroers: Mark, is that two tennis courts just in from the parking there?
Koegler : Yes .
Erhart : Where' s the hockey rink?
' Koegler : There ' s a hockey rink shown in there. Two tennis courts and the
softball field with soccer overlay.
' Mady: The area that' s high density housing was on the right hand side of
this wasn' t it Mark?
Koegler : Yes . It would abut the softball field area which the property
' that ' s presently zoned R-12.
Mady: This is R-12. You' re not going to get young families in R-12.
' You' re going to get more singles. If someone would have a need for a
family on the north side, I 'd like to see a totlot in there.
Koegler: That ' s really what we ' re after tonight is just kind of a laundry
1 list and given the users in that area and the composition , what are your
feelings for what types of facilities should be there.
Schroers : I like the hockey rink in there . I also think that in this
type of an area that a volleyball court would be appropriate also.
Hasek: Frankly I don' t think that that ' s . . .wi_th the industrial areas
that' s up there, that we' re really trying to provide service for them. We
are suggesting that this might be a league play. I 'd rather see a parking
lot than street parking .
Koegler : The assumption I think we made in 1987 was that this would
probably be one of those prime reliever sites. When you' re not quite
'
meeting peak demand at Lake Ann and the new southern park, this one
borders the industrial area and the street and would be a more logical
choice than Curry Farms . So therefore the parking was on a larger scale
on this one .
Hasek: Then again , that' s not necessarily the layout that we see but the
facilities are what we' re after .
' Koegler : Right . We ' ll bring it a lot more refined back to you.
'
Schroers : Also Mark maybe take a look at the feasibility of a few
horseshoe pits .
Hoffman : Not everybody that ' s old plays shoeshoes either . Some young
1 poeple do.
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
. !
April 25, 1989 - Page 38
Sietsema: I don ' t really need a motion on this one. If you want to see 11 if there' s any comments and we' ll just come back with your ideas .
Mady: Was there anyone from the audience that would like to speak on
this?
Robinson: You don' t need a motion on this Lori?
Sietsema: No.
Robinson: Okay, does anybody have anything else on it?
Koegler: I ' ll cover the other one very quickly. County Road 17 is right
here. The other site we were looking at is further to the north. There' s '
a 3.9 acre outlot right in this vicinity. The crosshatched area in this
particular one indicates a steep slope area so there' s no wetlands on this
site. As part of the developer ' s plan they showed a conceptual trail
connection that would go through here and presumably tie into some kind of II
trails that would be on Powers Blvd. . The thumbnail sketch that was put
together for that one simple showed a neighborhood type ball facility and
possibly some tennis courts given the small size of the facility and it
would be walk-in traffic only. There ' s not going to be the ability to
take in access off of Powers and we didn' t see that it' s beneficial to
take any access off the cul-de-sac since it' s a narrow lot, neck type
situation so we see that one as being really more casual open space with
maybe a backstop only type thing even in terms of ball diamonds.
Mady: In this area didn' t you have fairly large lots because this is on
the east side of Powers , the lake side?
Koegler: The lots that were shown, at least that were shown on the
concept plan were probably close to city minimum standards. There were
some lots substantially larger than 15, 000 or 17,000 square feet.
Mady: That being the case , then I think a totlot might be appropriate I
because it is heavily populated . Actually it ' s heavily populated already.
Hasek: How close are we to Lake Susan? It' s just a stone' s throw isn' t
it?
Sietsema : A block away.
Koegler : A half a mile. Quarter mile maybe.
Hasek: So we' re within the service circle and maybe even considered the
half mile radius.
Koegler : Yes . I think you'd want to look at compatible facilities here.
If you put a totlot here, that you need at Lake Susan probably but you
t
need both .
Sietsema : Tennis is going in at Lake Susan and we' ve shown tennis at the
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 39
' other one . My big question would be, why do you think you need tennis
again?
' Hasek: I would rather delete the tennis out and put the totlot in.
Schroers: On Outlot H?
Hasek: On H, yes .
Schroers: That makes more sense.
' Koegler : Outlot H may, it ' s best purpose may really be a large grassy
field area. Just for kite flying. Frisbees. Whatever kids what to do
more than a developed park and it certainly would help your budget
situation.
Resident : Can I make one comment? One of the things that I think is
interesting is that you geared everything towards development for tots .
Swing sets , sandbox areas . Everything is totlots or volleyball and
basketball courts. The totlot area, they' re like 30 feet by 30 feet .
' They' re very small .
Koegler : On the concept plan, almost all the swing sets are 50 by 50 and
they' re intended to, it doesn' t say totlot it says play area and that
IIA, leaves in I think Lori ' s comment that when these get a little further ,
those are refined and it' s determined the composition. If we need more
small children facilities? Do we need some of the play gear that ' s
greared towards the middle range of ages so it' s not meant to imply only
totlots for infants .
Resident : . . . tennis courts . Basketball courts and baseball so I guess
I 'm wondering, how many baseball diamonds do we need for Chanhassen?
Hasek: Lots .
Resident : Can ' t we concentrate them in one area then . Put two of those
in one park area .
' Robinson : We will do that when we get into the details of each individual
park, that' s true.
' Hasek: And it ' s entirely possible that by the time he comes back with a
design for this thing , the demand might have changed too but right now
we' ve got a demand that ' s incredible for ballfields . It ' s like tennis
' courts 10 years ago. Everybody wanted a tennis court. Tennis has kind of
dropped off a little bit .
' Resident: Soccer is really big too.
Hasek : You can always put , or at least we are anticipating that you can
overlap a soccer field over a ballfi.eld so we' re trying to make a double
' use .
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 40 1
PUBLIC HEARING ON PURCHASE OF BANDIMERE PROPERTY. ,
Public Present:
Name Address 1
Hallie Bershaw 9271 Kiowa Trail
Jill Blumenstein 9361 Kiowa Trail i
Robert L. Eickholt 9390 Kiowa Trail
Kevin Finger 9151 Great Plains Blvd.
Arlen Finger 9201 Great Plains Blvd .
Fred W. Amrhein 9350 Kiowa Trail
Eldon & Rae Jean Berkland 9261 Kiowa Trail
Jamie Heilicher 9280 Kiowa Trail
Bill Bernhjelm 9380 Kiowa Trail
Sietsema: The Park and Recreation Commission and the City Council found
out that there 's a piece of property in the southern part of Chanhassen
that ' s available for sale known as the Bandimere Farm. It ' s located south
of Lyman Blvd. on the east side of TH 101, just north of Kiowa Trail .
What it comes out to be the piece of property right here. The City
Council met at a special meeting to look at the property more in detail
and determine that they should make an offer on the property. This is
using the funds that was approved by the residents of Chanhassen through
the referendum that was in February of 1988 . The offer was accepted and
that was before we do the deal and have signed the papers before we can
back out or anything , we want to get the input of the people that live in
the area to make sure that we' ve told you what' s going on and what we' re
planning . The initial plans for the parkland in the southern part of
Chanhassen when we went to referendum was to provide an active playfield
for the. ycuthof Chanhassen . Currently there is an active playfield for the
T-ball , ragball , pee wee age kids at City Center Park and there ' s an
active playfield for the adult league out at Lake Ann Park but we have
nothing for the Little League, Babe Ruth aged kids and the middle aged '
kids that play soccer either and that was the idea behind acquiring a
piece of property in Chanhassen. Number one it would be cheaper property
because it' s in the unsewered area and number two , many of our leages and
many of our children play with the children in Chaska and this would be a
meeting point . It would be more medium than in the sewered area or
northern part of the city. So what we' re proposing here is to , just as an
initial concept thing and to put 2 Little League fields, 2 Babe Ruth
baseball fields and a couple of soccer fields. Some parking. Probably
some play equipment or swings for the kids that aren' t playing ball . In a
nutshell , that ' s what is being proposed in this area . I just would
probably open it up to general comment and what your feelings are in this
area . If the city were not to purchase the property, it ' s quite certain
that a developer will and there would be houses back there. 1
Jamie Heilicher : My name is Jamie Heilicher . I live at 9280 Kiowa Trail .
My first question would be, when you refer to parking. You say some
parking . Obviously you' re referring to a number of ballfields for the use
of Chanhassen. What kind of parking are you referring to?
I
1' •
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 41
1
1
Sietsema: Mark, do you have an idea of what the requirements would be for
Ithose types of active uses?
Koegler : Most cities , I think you have to bear in mind that this park the
I way it' s proposed is the closest parallel in Chanhassen is Lake Ann Park,
should there be any misconception about the level of facilities that ' s
being envisioned. Typically any community in the Twin Cities that runs
say 4 diamonds and 2 or 3 soccer fields, we provide parking for anywhere
1 from 200 to 300 vehicles .
Jamie Heilicher : Whether I speak for everyone but as far as myself, my
I property now is on Kiowa Park which is the small park that ' s located in
the middle there and if this park goes in , about 75% of my property will
be boundried by the park system. My major concern for what is proposed is
the potential traffic problems that would occur on Kiowa Trail itself.
I The question would be whether Kiowa Trail could be designated as a dead A
end street ending at where it ends now. A no parking zone put in at that
point so that the parking, people that are using the park will use some
II other access and some other access to the parking area . That would be my
major concern if this was to go through. That would be one thing that I
feel the people in the neighborhood would really look for .
Sietsema: I would anticipate that the access , and maybe Mark can back me
up on this , but the access would come off of TH 101 and not off of Kiowa
Trail at all . Because of the slopes in this area , to get up to the active
1 area , if we were going to provide all the parking for Bandimere Park, we 'd
have to pave the whole thing .
I Jamie Heilicher : My concern is at the end of Kiowa Trail now there is a
sign up for what would be a street to go along the top end of that
line over to TH 101. You can see where the street turns left right there
I and right now there' s nothing there. That is just farmland where that
goes . My concern would be if that were to come through, we'd have a
tremendous amount of traffic in and out of that street coming in and out
of the park. Using an alternate route to get out of the park. I assume
I the parking would be on that area of the park area because of the
topography and how level that area is compared to the rest of it .
I Hasek: Just walking the site, it seems to me like the parking is going to
go over adjacent to TH 101 someplace . I think access would come in that
way.
IJamie Heilicher : Maybe in the northeast corner .
Hasek: Maybe not even in the corner simply because there ' s 2 residents
1 out there too and we ' re going to have to take them into consideration but
I would think that the access is really going to be based on the
( geometrics of TH 101 and engineering is going to pretty much tell us where
our possibilities are. The only place that I could see when we drove out
1 there that gives us at least a halfway decent stretch is on the west side
over there so the access will have to come in there somehow. And I would
I
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25 , 1989 - Page 42 I
anticipate that the parking would be on that side where I 'm sure we' re
II
going to put most of the ballfields too . We' re not going to jam those up
against the residents on the east side . It' s ridiculous .
Jamie Heilicher : Just a last question. Is there a time table on this as II
far as if it does go through, when they would start work?
Sietsema: We just looked preliminary at the time line. We' re hoping , I
we' re looking in the Army Engineers doing the grading . The soonest they
can get in, they need like a 2 year prep time to get it on their docket so
the soonest grading could be done would be in 2 years . And for this type
II
of development, I wouldn' t anticipate that we' re going to see fields that
we' re going to be able to use within the next 5 years .
Gary Eastburn: My name is Gary Eastburn and I live at 240 Eastwood Court . I
I 'm on Lake Riley. I used to live on Kiowa Trail there . My concern first
of all , what' s the size again Lori?
Sietsema: About 34 acres . II
Gary Eastburn : My concern focuses on the lake itself. You' ve had a lot II of discussion on the lake chain clean-up act that we' re trying to approve.
My concern folks is on is there going to be lake access allowed to this
park? Is that being considered at this time?
II
Sietsema: It is being considered but apparently this land in this area
that is vacant and the City Council directed the realtor to look into if
that property was for sale. What the availability was . At this time
I
I don' t know what the answer to that question is and I don' t know any of
the details.
Gary Eastburn : I guess there' s great concery by myself and on the part of II
a lot of homeowners that I ' ve talked to about more access. Particularly
public access to Lake Riley. Eden Prairie has a lake access on the east
side. There' s 34 homes or lots now on the south side that have a dual
II
access for everybody in that development all the way over to Pioneer
Trail. All those lots. Plus the surrounding public accesses that are
there so I guess that' s a concern for the traffic and the safety and I
everything else so I guess there would be a lot of people that would like
to say, hey no more public access to Lake Riley because there' s already
one side over there.
I
Sietsema : Yes and when the Council and the Commission met , it' s my firm
belief that they had no intention that there would be a boat type public
access . That is not the intent of what they would want . Their intent of
I
purchasing that property was simply to preserve lakeshore that would
enhance the quality of the park. They felt that it would make the park
more special if there was lakeshore there so we' re preserving lakeshore
and also providing a beach area or open space area on the lake rather than
add to the other amenities of the rest of the park. But as far as boat
access or anything like that , I can assure you that ' s not in the intent at
all .
II
1.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 43
Gary Eastburn: Other concern is that it ' s a major drainage into Lake
Riley. They've had problems there with the sewer washing up that' s right
there at the base of the property going into the access you' re talking
' about. The concern I would have there is with grading all of this thing
that maybe some consideration ought to be put in there for a drainage wash
outlot where something can have a chance to settle and set it ' s drainage
' before it comes into Lake Riley and I think that was something that Conrad
Fiskness could talk about if he' s still here because he and I have talked
about that in the past . So I think that ' s something that ought to be
considered environmentally about this lake because the concern of the
homeowners is Lake Riley' s quality has gone down over the past 15 years
appreciably so it' s a great concern and that ' s about all I 've got on my
list here .
Eldon Berkland : My name is Eldon Berkland and I live at 9261 Kiowa Trail .
He just voiced our worse fears about this park and that is , I think most
' of the residents with a well planned park and a lot of the input , are
actually looking at a developer coming in and the choice of a park, really
are in favor of the park going in. Now we want to address the other issue
that was addressed and in the paper last week and that is to actually the
term paper used was to condemn those lots and acquire them for a beach
front type park. You' ve got a big problem there and that' s Kiowa Trail
goes right through the city property, whatever you call it . The Bandimere
' Park. The little grassy area that we have there and with that possible
beachlot, it' s privately owned right now. It would greatly disrupt the
Kiowa Trail neighborhood and that little bay area where we live. We moved
in the area across the lake that was owned by Gagne that ' s now Riley
I Woods. It was undeveloped and we had a nice little bay. The bay is
shallow. We also had . . .egr_ets , herons , ducks , geese in our bay. With
this kind of activity, it would greatly disrupt what' s going on there and
'
it would really appreciably devalue not only our property but also our
appreciation of the environment in that area . Other concerns , we had a
neighborhood meeting this week and we talked about that . That issue was
basically our big, what we talked about. We didn' t really talk about too
much the Bandimere Heights property. My own concern right now is how that
community, how you see the community park that we have fitting in with the
big park that ' s going in there. Right now we have a severe parking
problem because soccer events are held there and I ' ve written to the, we
live at the end of Kiowa Trail . We have a real concern about public
safety vehicles getting through when there' s a soccer event going on and
' some of the residents don ' t like reinstituting the no parking that we had
on the street when Prince was residing there but I feel that we really
need to at least have just one side of the street parking presently on the
' street because no fire truck or ambulance could get through when there are
soccer games going on. This will allow us when people have house parties
and other types of things. But basically the biggest thing that we see is
we do not see that area as a good place to have a beach front type lot .
' Sietsema: Could I clarify then . You' re not in favor of the mini area but
you don' t have a problem with this area?
Eldon Berkland : Personally we do not border up to that property and I
think for us, I 'd rather see that being grassy areas even though they' re
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 44
ballfields and things. Again , talking about lights . Here ' s another '
story. If you ' re going to put lights anywhere, it sounds like these are
probably an area where you' re going to put lights . It probably wouldn' t
impact on us so much but lights are, especially because that' s a high area II
and all the residents are down below that.
Sietsema: Addressing your concern about what type of use this park would
get, I would anticipate that that soccer field would not be used or we'd
maybe take it out and do something else in that park. The current park
plan, even though we' re adding soccer fields up here. That would take the
pressure off and that may eliminate your whole parking problem here. We
can use this back for a neighborhood type use again.
Erhart: What about the road going behind it that somebody was talking
about? Is that going to connect up?
Sietsema: I was not aware of that and I will have to check on that
because I 'm not informed in that area .
Hasek: I don' t think, from the standpoint of this board, I don' t
necessarily think that we would be in favor of making that connection.
Just ringing the park with a road. I think it reduces access. We also
have the possibility when a piece that ' s north of that develops , that
large chunk, we've kicked around the idea of taking land in lieu of which
would actually increase the size of that park so we certainly wouldn' t be
in favor of pushing a road through there to sever that piece from the
larger piece down below.
Sietsema : If that were to develop into a housing development , then there
probably would be that connection but being it' s a park, I don' t know that
that would be the case . I could check with Planning on that . ,
Erhart: Would you remove the existing homestead that' s there now? The
barn and the house?
Sietsema: At least part of it. We haven ' t gotten into that much detail .
If there' s something to be saved there for storage or recreation rooms or
that kind of thing , we may keep some of the buildings but some of them
look like they' re past repair so definitely they'd be coming down.
Resident : Where the driveway is that comes up into the Bandimer_e property
right now, is that where you' re anticipating the parking would be?
Sietsema: No . That ' s down here. That ' s down in this area . That ' s where
the buildings currently are and given the curves on both sides of that, we II
were looking more in this area .
Resident : That was one of my concerns . Has any thought maybe been given
to parking off of Lyman? Oh, I thought it was going up there. Sorry
about that . Then again , that' s my concern. A parking lot , would we be
looking at a parking lot possibly then if we looked out our back?
Sietsema : Where are you?
1
,'
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 45
Resident: I 'm right on Kiowa.
' Hasek: I think it really depends upon the final layout and where the
facilities want to go but just having walked that piece of property about
2 weeks ago or whenever it was , it seems to me that there ' s kind of rise
' that goes across the middle of the property and that they' re may be the
opportunity to put all the parking on the far side adjacent to and out of
view of any homes. If it' s possible to hide or screen parking or any of
the uses that are obtrusive, we certainly want to try and do that.
' Resident: I guess that's my big concern. I 'm all in favor of a park,
just to let you know that . I 'm all in favor of it. I 'd rather see that
than a housing development.
Hasek: Just a quick comment on the lights too . If we got the park
started with lights in it, it would probably be our intent, at least it
' would be my intent . I would be in favor of developing the lights on all
of those fields before we move to another field. The side of that park is
kind of abutting industrial uses right now and it ' s out in the middle of
' no place so any development that came into that area would be aware that
those lights are there when they came in as opposed to where you are
having no lights and then all of sudden us trying to jam them down your
throat.
Resident : You do not have the money to budget for lights I hope. I guess
another concern, my husband wrote this. I 'm supposed to be asking these
' questions here . Is there a possibility of like planting trees or having
some type of natural barrier between the park and the Kiowa Trail homes?
' Hasek: Certainly.
Resident: What would they be?
Sietsema : Typically, well Mark and Scott both walked the site with me and
indicated there' s good potential to be able to work with the topography to
put the fields down , similar to what ' s at Lake Ann Park and if you look at
' other areas, we do use planting material to screen, especially parking
lots and roadways and that kind of thing so a landscaping plan will most
certainly go along with this to answer those concerns .
' Resident : And as of right now, you' re not planning tennis courts here
because they' re planned in these other parks , is that right then? You
really have no plans right now because it ' s mostly for Little League and
Babe Ruth?
Sietsema : It could accommodate it . It could accommodate tennis courts .
' We just haven' t gotten down to that level of detail .
t Resident : Okay. Thank you.
Bill Bernhjelm: Lori , are you considering the impacts of the pipeline
that goes through the property and how that ' s going to affect the grading
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 46
and so forth?
Sietsema : Not at this point , no .
Bill Bernhjelm: It' s something to consider because there' s a high
pressure fuel line that goes right through that property. Before you get
a 19 year old PFC on a D-9 Cat running through there we ought to be real
careful about that. That' s a concern of mine. It was a concern of mine
when I bought my property. That needs to be considered . The other thing
I want to make a comment on. My name is Bill Bernhjelm and I live at 9380
Kiowa . The other comment I would make is it seems that as it is a
somewhat intensive use of that property to put in as many fields as you' re
proposing , at least currently. The thing I would like to go on record as
saying is that as a property owner I would like to make sure that the
funds are allocated to provide the proper berming and natural screening
and noise protection and all those kinds of things before we get into a
situation . It would seem that if it came down to it, whether we put in 5 11 ballfields or 6, the line could be drawn if we put in 6 and and cut out
the berming and vegetation and that kind of stuff and I know that' s not
you guys intent but 5 years , you guys might not be there and the City
Council might not be there and the way the City' s growing , who knows who
we' re going to have in power and I 'm just going to go on record as saying ,
protect the people that are there now. When I bought the place last year
there was a farm there. I 'd rather have a park than an apartment building
or factory but I think we need to protect our interests .
Mady: The trade on that really is , look at Lake Ann and how we built Lake
Ann . That' s the way this City does their parks . You won ' t find a '
community park to my knowledge in the metropolitan area that is done as
good a job of building their fields. . .with natural sloping for visitors to
view games. Just the layout of the park being more passive. A passive
design for an active park. I think the City of Chanhassen has done an
excellent job there. There' s no one here that got involved in that. That
was a lot of years ago but that' s the way, I get compliments on Lake Ann
Park all the time from people outside the area who visit it and that' s the
way we' re going to do the south park too . I can reassure you. That' s the
way it' s going to be built. It' s going to be the best park in this part
of the country, this part of the State . It really will be. 1
Resident: I think people are really nervous. Watching what happened to
downtown Chanhassen in the past few years as to foresight in planning , I
think it makes people very, very nervous as to what people are going to
design in our neighborhood because I haven' t heard very many good comments
about downtown.
Mady: You' ve got to separate a little bit the bodies .
Resident: I 'm trying to do that but I 'm just saying, I 'm a little bit
nervous . That ' s our most recent project and I can ' t say that' s turned out
as we had hoped it would. I have great concerns about the lakeshore
— property. I think that before you condemn some of this property, you need
absolute dire circumstances when your backs are up against the wall and
I know that the people who own it don ' t want to sell it .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25 , 1989 - Page 47
Ursula Dimler : I would like to address that . I met with the neighbors ,
some of you there and I know it' s my position that I would never consider
' condemning property. It is not for sale and to my knowledge is there
another property there that is for sale?
Resident : Yes . . .
' Ursula Dimler : Okay. I would never consider condemnin g Mike ' s property
for that purpose and I know that Tom Workman indicated that he wouldn' t
' and I know Mayor Chmiel indicated that he wouldn ' t. I don' t know what Jay
Johnson told you because I left before he arrived but anyway you' ve got 3
votes there against it and I think that ' s pretty strong consideration that
' we will not be condemning that property.
Mady: Ursula. . . look toward the future in that, I look at this
development, whole development as the way Minneapolis developed their
' parks back 100 years ago . I don ' t know of anyone who would condemn
Minneapolis ' park development system. Back in 1880 people were run out of
town on a rail , practially tarred and feathering and the president of the
' University of Minnesota lost his job because of the design of the
Minneapolis parks . We have to look to the future. There is to my
knowledge no open lakeshore . . .
Ir Ursula Dimler : Okay, but we can wait until that property comes up for
sale.
Resident : I think too you' re talking about access for lakeshore . If you
' go alongside of Lake Riley Blvd . , you have the Lakeview Apartments which
have access on the lakeshore on that side. There' s also a new development
' a multi housing unit development going up for sale there as well . Now
that is also going to have access to Lake Riley. They own Lake Riley
frontage. If you want lake front, that would be the place for you to go
' to .
Hasek: I think that the concern is that a place in the city don' t become
private lakes if there' s anyway that we can prevent that. It ' s just an
' issue to look at . I don ' t know that condemnation is necessarily the way
that anything has to go but if we take a look at it and decide that we
have the ability to use the park access within Eden Prairie and that can
' supply us and will do, that that ' s fine. What we don't want is our
lakeshore in Chanhassen become exclusive and our ability to use the lake
eliminated simply because our ability to use the park in Eden Prairie is
gone . That I think is one of the concerns . If we have the ability to
' purchase at a decent price a piece of property and again , I don ' t think
condemnation is necessarily the way it has to be approached. It ' s one
approach and it ' s a very immediate approach . It could be used if we
wanted to use that tool . It was something that was thrown out, I think
that it ' s something that maybe scares people but it was a suggestion and
that ' s all it really was. Again, I think the Council would have to vote
in favor of it and I think Ursual has indicated that there are probably 3
on the Council , perhaps 4 , maybe even 5 who, if we were to suggest it ,
would simply vote against and maybe the motion would never even be made.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 48
C
Ursula Dimler : But it was also my understanding that that property never
really was for sale. When we were looking at that site, we were misled .
That property was not for sale at that time. We liked that site because
of that thinking that that property was for sale. I guess I 'm a little
angry about that.
Hasek: This particular piece of property in general , the mention was made
of the Gagne piece. When I first came on this council I think the first 11
night I was here we talked about the possibility of acquiring part of that
property and we just didn' t have the money to do it and that was really
what generated everything that ' s happened since then. The referendum and
everything else to get things going. We realize that there was a need
down there. The parcels of land were disappearing faster than we could
count and this is a fine opportunity for us to purchase a piece of
property at a real decent price .
Resident : I 'm very in favor of the park. I think that ' s a wonderful
idea. I 'm not in favor of the beachfront property and especially
condemning someone elses , what ' s to say you' re not going to say, well it' d
be nice we could expand this beachfront. Let' s condemn the property on
either side of this . '
Robinson : Let ' s move on. Did you have a comment?
Kevin Finger : My name is Kevin Finger . I live at 9251 Great Plains Blvd . II
which is not on Kiowa Trail but it ' s up to the north. There is some road
that goes across there. I 'm glad somebody brought up that Al Klingelhutz
misled you. He misled midled the paper also and that is that he could
call a couple developers and that property would be developed like that.
It' s not going to . I ' ve been in front of the Planning Commission a lot of
times and they have stated over and over and over that sewer will not go II south of Lyman Blvd . by Great Plains Blvd. . It ' s too expensive. It ' s got
to go down and back up for the service that would be used. It ' s not going
to happen because that was one of the big things before I bought my
property I went over and over that with them. They said no way and that' s
why Riley Hills I think it' s called , that ' s why they don' t have it .
They' ve got 2 1/2 acre lots . They couldn' t get sewer out there. Anyway,
but it ' s done . Another concern is you know, and I would be all for trying
if they could try to make that a lot like Lake Ann. It is very well done.
My concern is , if we' re going to put diamonds down, that pipeline is 4
foot under. That pipeline goes right through the heart of that property.
Somebody should look at that before you close that deal because if you, no
matter what you do with that property, you' ve got to do something with the
dirt because it rolls too much to do anything.
Hasek: Would you like to buy some?
Kevin Finger : I would like to buy 2 acres . I really would . I was going
to buy it and Klingelhutz told me, oh no problem. No problem. I ' ll let
you buy a couple acres before anybody else gets i.t . He ' s never even
called me before this deal was made. Never . Anyway, so let' s move on.
My biggest concern about the whole thing is , I 'm like everybody else .
A park can be one of the best things for everybody but I bought that land
I '
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
I A:
April 25, 1989 - Page 49
because there was a farm all the way around me . Total privacy. As long
as I can keep my privacy, I don' t care. But if I lose my privacy, I ' ll
fight this all the way but I think you can handle that if you do it right .
Future plans on paper, I really got concern because I have a feeling
there' s only one way this land can be expanded and that' s wrapping my
property. What are your future plans? How many more acres are you going
to think of taking and where are you going to go? Are you going to wrap
around my whole property? Should I just sell off now and hurry up and get
out and go out and get some other privacy somewhere? What' s the future
intent?
Robinson : We' ve reached our maximum as far as dollar amount from the
referendum. With the two pieces I guess. With the lakefront property as
well .
Sietsema : This person who owns this property has indicated that he ' s not
willing to sell until there' s water and sewer available and then that will
be a housing development so he' s not , unless we want to condemn, he ' s not
willing to sell until he can get development prices out of it. So I can
tell you that we can ' t afford it .
Kevin Finger : That' s what I thought but I 'm glad to hear it.
Sietsema : But I can ' t tell you that we ' ll never acquire the property.
What is likely is that when water and sewer is available and he does
subdivide that property, that we may at that time require additional
parkland but the maximum that would be is about 20% of what' s there.
Hasek : So of 50 acres is 5 acres . But just as an additional comment , it
wouldn' t make any sense for us to take 5 acres and wrap it around your
piece of property. If anything , we would try to acquire a piece that
would make some sense for additional activities in the park. I guess that
would be the intent of buying or taking additional land . Also , it ' s too
far down the road. This park is already in use and design and it doesn' t
make any logical sense to add to it at that location . It would make some
sense to take those dedication fees out of the 50 acres of land to develop
parkland so it' s something we talked about . Potential of that is , we
wanted how many acres to start with? 50 and we' re ending up with 30 . . .
(A tape change occured at this point . )
Ursula Dimler : . . .and it just wasn' t available .
Hasek: Which one is that? Is that the one that ' s down off of Pioneer?
Hoffman: Correct .
Ursula Dimler : TH 212 is going to be on the other parcel . It ' s going to
be east of that parcel that I 'm talking about. There' s 75 acres there so
t there won ' t be room for expansion .
IHasek : And he ' s willing to sell a portion of that?
i
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 52
I
this City who never will have the opportunity to be near a lake .
Hasek: It' s not actually the responsibility of this Board, it' s actually
stated in the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan which is one of
the things that we are supposed to use as a tool to make decisions. If
that ' s the vehicle to changing this . . . to change the comprehensive plan.
We have to take into account obviously the desires and concerns of the I
neighbors . No question about it . We also have to take into consideration
the wants and desires of the general public because that' s who this board
really serves in the general public as well as the individuals. The
question is, what' s the use that goes in there? What' s the appropriate
use? I 'm not saying , I didn' t walk down to the beach . I was dressed in
dress shoes and I had mud up to my knees by the time I was done walking
around where I did walk around in the cornfield out there. Perhaps the
beach just isn' t a logical use for that particular piece of property and
r ybe a natural area is . Security obviously is one thing we' re going to
.:.eve to consider and maybe it has something to do with the road design and I
wnen we design it, they' ll consider that . But I certainly at this point
am in favor of acquiring the piece of property that might be available ,
perhaps not through condemnation but at some point in time could it not be
up for sale and purchased at that point.
Resident : If you' re looking for a place to have, somebody mentioned
Minneapolis. Like a Lake Calhoun type. Picnic area. Maybe not a beach.
That area owned by Lakeview Hills Apartments is an excellent place. It ' s
on a major road that' s heavily traveled. It ' s probably not for sale
either but they may be more willing to sell than Sid Monmouth and
Halversons . It ' s a good spot actually for that type of use because the
road' s close to the shoreline. It' s a through road. You could have just
pull off the road parking . It' s got beautiful trees right now. It ' s a
nice spot. That spot on our street is not a good spot and it' s not for II
sale.
Lash : I think the intent of when we went and looked at this was that it ' I
appeared to be a natural extension to this park. I don' t think our intent
was to acquire lake property.
Robinson: That' s right .
Lash: When we into this we were looking basically for ballfields. When
we saw it we thought it would make a nice natural extension but I think
I
these are the exact reasons I was in favor at the last meeting of having a
public hearing before we went into a purchase agreement because these were
exactly the concerns , the kinds of concerns I fully expected to hear .
They were talking about take a look at Greenwood Shores . That' s where I
live. I know exactly what you people , I can totally relate to what you ' re
saying. I can totally relate to having a beach in the middle of your
neighborhood . It can be a nice asset to your neighborhood but it can
attract some unsavory activities that you don ' t want your families exposed
to .
Resident : The problem is this lake has got three of these beaches
already. Eden Prairie has a huge frontage on theirs. Lake Riley Woods
i '
II
I .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25 , 1989 - Page 53
I has an outlot which 34 people can party on. Lakeview Hills has that big
lot over there that can be used for the same thing so I guess from the
standpoint of whether or not the access is in Eden Prairie or Chanhassen.
I I salute the right for everybody to lakefront. I ' ve worked hard and long
to get my own but I want the people who aren' t as lucky as me to have that
access too but there' s nothing that says it has to be in the City of
I Chanhassen . The residents of Chanhassen have every right to drive around
and go do whatever they want with the Eden Prairie access over there, and
they do do that so I think it ' s great but I hear this body on one issue
earlier this evening talking about, getting really concerned about the
I quality of our lakes . The quality of Lake Riley has gone down over the
past 15 years so that' s a great concern. I don' t hear anybody saying I
want to do an envirnmental impact on what this might do to Lake Riley.
I All I hear about is gee, we'd like to get lake access for the residents of
Chanhassen . That ' s great but I hear one side of the issue over here says I
want a quiet lake and protect this but over here, let' s just go ahead and
I put this park in . I hear one guy saying, gee I 've never had a vision for
a beach on here. I hear another guy saying , gee we want beach access but
does it really make sense so I guess I 'm really concerned about what we' re
hearing here. There' s already plenty of access , public access for this
IIlake . There ' s 3 right out here.
Hasek : The reason that you talk about is the reason why we vote . If we
ivall had the same ideas , there wouldn ' t be a need for 5 or 6 of us , 1 could
do i.t.
Robinson : Is there any other new comments that somebody has?
, Resident: I do want to make a point when you said controlling. I think
until we can have more money to control , because it takes more money to
II control any of Lake Riley. We have what , one full time person that
handles all of the lakes in Chanhassen or Carver County. Last year we ran
into a lot of problems trying to get the drunk boaters off of the lake.
I We have very little people to do any patrolling at all on Lake Riley. The
second point is , there is a piece of property that' s for sale. It' s listed
in the multi-zoning properties but is not in Chanhassen . It is on Lake
Riley and there' s lakefront. It' s the perfect spot. There' s lot of room
I for tennis courts . It' s the old Eide property. If you ' re going to look
for pieces of property that non-residential areas , why don' t you look at
that .
ICarol Dunsmore : My name is Carol Dunsmore and I live on West 96th Street
which is just south of the proposed park area. I 'd like to go on record
I to request a certain designated use for this park area if it goes through.
I 'd like to see a combination horse trail and cross country ski trail just
around the perimeter of the park. That would be a minimal maintenance
type trail . You would just have to mow it a couple times during the year
I for the horses . No track would be needed to set in the front for cross
country skiing in the winter . I wonder if the sale goes through on the
( parkland and it will be a couple years before any grading is done , if II
horse people and cross country skiers would be allowed to use the
perimeter of the park? If that ' s an option before you get the grading
started. If we can seek permission to use that . So I guess that ' s just
II
MI
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25, 1989 - Page 54
C
an option I 'd like Mark to address when he ' s looking at proposed uses for
the park.
Mady: Where was the property that' s for sale? '
Resident: The Eide property is, if you' re walking it' s Lake Riley Blvd .
and it' s right after Lyman Blvd. . It' s Lake Hills, investment corporation
that owns the Lake Hills . . . Anyway down in this area, part of the
property is zoned multi-unit with lakefront rights .
Hasek: Is it on the lake? '
Resident : It ' s not on the lake because there' s a road . Lake Riley Blvd .
runs inbetween it so there' s quite a bit of property, I 'm not sure how
many feet there is between the lake and the road though.
Hasek: Is that attached to the piece to the north? Is the whole thing
for sale? Is there a big sign up there? '
Resident: It' s a very big home there.
Resident : 51 acres I think.
Hasek : Who ' s selling that?
Resident : I think it ' s Edina Realty.
Hasek: You don' t know who owns it? It' s not Derek Companies? ,
Resident : I believe it was Eide' s property.
Hasek: Yes but he sold it to a developer I think because I think we
worked on that piece of property.
Mady: That' s unsewered area? ,
Hasek: Yes . TH 212 also is a big chunk of that.
Resident: If there' s 51 acres for sale, TH 212 can' t be through all of
it .
Hasek: It ' s kind of cutting it in half and that was kind of the game the
developers were playing with at the time if it was being condemned and go
through condemnation.
Resident : The part where TH 212 is going through, is not even close to
the lake.
Robinson : Any other comments? Let' s close the public hearing .
k Sietsema: I don' t need any action on this item. It's simply a public
hearing so we can go on record and send these comments onto City Council .
I can tell you that I will check with engineering on some of the questions
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
April 25 , 1989 - Page 55
1467
that came up and also work with Mark to figure out some kind of a way to
work on the site .
Mady: Has the City entered into a purchase contract already? So the
price has already been set?
Robinson : We' ve paid earnest money?
Mady: We may want to , considering the fact that the pipeline is running
through there, we may want to see the hired assessors go through and
appraisers and find out the impact that pipeline has because if there is a
pipeline going through there, that property no longer is worth the same as
any other property there. We' re getting a little better deal but not
much.
Hasek: I think the fact that we have council members still here that
Council is on notice to what' s going on.
Mady: I just want to make the comment that maybe we need to look real
carefully and quickly at that contract and break it maybe and really look
at the price if possible . At least look at it . It' s still , in my
opinion, I ' ll go on record, looking at all the parcels we' ve looked at,
it ' s still the best spot for a community park. With or without the lake.
The Sever Peterson property' s got considerable topo. Large hills and
valleys .
Resident : I think you have complete neighborhood support for the park. I
don' t think that ' s an issue for the neighborhood.
Mady: My concern is to take every opportunity we have . We ' ll never look
at short term but if short term is beneficial , I always look long term and
the long term may draw a lot of screaming and yelling and whatever but I
will not support a short term ideal with then long term isn' t going to be
as good .
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATION:
Don Ashworth : The City Council at their meeting that involved the
Eckankar proposal , their ending position on that was that staff is to go
back to each of the commissions , primarily the community center task
force, planning commission, park commission for their input as to
potentially purchasing that property, all or a portion of it for park,
community center or school . Tonight there ' s no way we can address that
issue tonight without information in front of you. Having something
from Lori as to what the issues here. What did the school say and
something . I simply came down this evening to alert you to the fact to
the fact that the Council has asked for that type of input. The primary
question was really one of trying to package a potential referendum and in
f doing so, should they be looking at all of the property, none of the
property or a portion of the property.
Hasek : What was the survey results?