09-21-98 Minutes
CHANHASSEN ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
September 21, 1998
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dotti Shay, Susan Markert, Andy Leith, Uli Sacchet, Jo Mueller
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Jack Atkins, Maureen Farrell, Clay Smith
STAFF PRESENT:
Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist
JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL:
Uli began the meeting by identifying three things he would like to touck on that night: where the
Environmental Commission (EC) has been, are now, and will be going. He recapped what the EC
has done, its past accomplishments and projects and then read the duties of the commission
according to its by-laws. The focus of the EC, he explained, is education and projects such as the
web page, Pollution Prevention Week, expanding recycling information, and organized collection.
The City Council’s (CC) assessment of where the EC has been: good, no comment, keep going,
direction is right on, etc.
Nancy Mancino thought the Natural Resources chapter of the Comprehensive Plan is an excellent
source of projects for the EC.
Uli agreed that there is so much to do, sometimes its difficult to stay focused and not become
scattered. TheEC is also having difficulty knowing how to handle certain duties - i.e. the advisory
role to the CC. An example is O-Shaugnessy’s property; the EC’s interest and passion was
sparked and they wanted to be involved. Another example would be the golf center. The EC
should be able to look into environemntal issues and have opinions on them.
Mark Senn: It’s not a positive or negative whether or not the EC can have environmental
opinions. What is needed of the commission is an environmental group focused on education.
The CC did not want another review or regulatory entity, but would value input from the EC on
environmental issues.
Uli: Issues of environmental significance should be commented on by the EC.
Nancy: I would like the EC to address larger issues and it should give opinions on issues when
asked.
Uli: The EC should have the freedon to make statements on any issues.
Nancy: The problem with that is that the Planning Commission spends a lot of time, energy and
brain power throroughly researching every development. Because the planning commission
spends more time on an issue, their opinion weighs heavier that a commission’s short review and
one-sided viewpoint.
Environmental Commission Minutes
September 21, 1998
Page 2
Uli: the EC did attempt to look at the Coulter Blvd. issue from every angle. The commission
talked to residents, the eng. dept, park & rec. dept., planning, etc. to get a complete picture. The
EC needs to finds a balance. It can add a valuable viewpoint from an environmental perspective.
Granted, it may be somewhat biased, but all recommendations from the different entities are
biased towards their perspective. The possibility of input is important to keep the interest of
memebers.
Nancy: The only way it would work would be extra review process and that will not work.
Uli: With the expertise of the EC members, the commission can give valuable input.
Nancy: Starting on plans outlined in the comprehensive plan is enough for the EC to do, review
isn’t necessary. The purpose of the commission has not been to review and formalize an opinion.
Steve Berquist: An invitation is extended to the commission to call any city council member
about an environmental issue. Staff can help gather information for the EC. Rather than making
a formal statement, a phone call would be effective.
Nancy: The EC should come back to the CC in two months with information on the EC’s
focus/goals for the next years and future.
Joint session ended at 9:00 p.m.
Prepared and Submitted by Jill Sinclair
g:/plan/js/ec/ec-ccMIN