1k. minutes 1
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 24, 1992
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason, Councilman Workman, Councilman
' Wing and Councilwoman Dimler
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Todd Hoffman, Jo Ann
Olsen, Kate Aanenson, Sharmin Al -Jaff, Scott Harr and Charles Folch
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
' approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
1 Councilman Workman: I was just upstairs, and I don't know how well it was
publicized. That's why I want to make sure that it gets publicized so people
have time. We discussed at 6:30 tonight that the stop signalization of West
78th Street and so it's a rather important meeting. We're going to have the
second and final one in September 14th. Courtyard room just like we did tonight
before the Council meeting. Last chance.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think probably a lot of people have missed it.
Councilman Wing: Including me. I wasn't notified.
Mayor Chmiel: You and I both. And if need be, with one that was tonight and I
see there was about 2 people present outside of Council. We may have to take
this on a 3 run stint. Maybe have two afterwards but we'll see what happens on
the next one. Any other? If hearing none, we'll move right along with the
agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve
the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
11
a. Wetland Alteration Permit for Alteration within 200 feet of a Wetland, 7201
Juniper Avenue, Greg Datillo.
b. Wetland Alteration Permit for a Right Turn Lane Adjacent to a Wetland,
Cheyenne Trail and Highway 101, City of Chanhassen.
d. Carver Beach Park Vehicle Parking.
e. Resolution 192 - 93: Resolution Approving Membership in the Southwest Drug
11 Task Force for 1993.
1
1
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992
f. Resolution 192 -94: Approve Plans and Specifications for 1992 Sanitary Sewer
11 Rehabilitation Program; Authorize Advertisement for Bids, Project 92 -11.
g. Resolution 192 -95: Call for Assessment Hearing on West 79th Street
1 Improvement Project 91 -8.
i. Approval of Bills.
II j. City Council Minutes dated August 10, 1992
Planning Commission Minutes dated August 5, 1992
II All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
I C. BLUFF CREEK ESTATES, SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5 ON THE EAST SIDE OF AUDUBON ROAD,
KEYLAND HOMES.
Councilman Wing: The Bluff Creek Estates, I don't have any issue with that
II other than the Williams Pipeline runs right through the middle of a house and I
think that's a significant issue on this development. I think the Pipelines
going to be marked. I just wanted to ensure that the developer, the sellers,
11 whatever the case were, other than the owner getting it through the Abstract,
disclose the fact that the Pipeline is there. That the lot is on the Pipeline.
That there is an easement. That the easement has restrictions. I also didn't
I understand, I thought that the Williams Pipeline, from my knowledge, required a
50 foot from center line easement and we're taking a 37 1/2 foot so I didn't
understand the difference there. Not that it matters but, and also that a
driveway required 3 feet of cover. A roadway required 5 feet of cover. I just
II want to ensure that those were being met. So disclosure being my first concern.
The second concern is that the people understand that in that easement there
can't be any trees, any digging, planting, decks of any kind because the
1 pipeline could be directly under the soil. I think there's a hazard in that
setup so I guess summary was, disclosure to the buyer to make sure they're aware
of the Pipeline. Understanding the ramifications of the easement. Making sure
II that we have 5 feet of cover where the roadway goes over the pipe. If that's
required. That's all the information I had. I think that's adequate.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think that's a good point. Only because often times
I people are not aware but upon purchase of those properties, normally it's
contained within their deed indicating what those requirements are. But how
often do we really look at those. That's a good point to be brought up. Thank
1 you. Would you like to move item (c) then with those concerns.
Councilman Wing: Yeah, with the addition of the disclosure. I guess the
disclosure's the only issue. And the addition that the people on the Pipeline
I understand the dangers and ramifications of digging of decks, planting of trees
and so on. I'd move.
II Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Bluff Creek
II Estates, South of Highway 5 on the East Side of Audubon Road, Keyland Homes with
the understanding that the developer provide a disclosure regarding Williams
II 2 -
II
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992 .II
Pipeline being located on the property and notifying buyers of the dangers and
ramifications associated with the Pipeline: 1
1) Final Plat Approval
2) Approve Development Contract
II
3) Approve Plans and Specifications
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1
H. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER N0. 1 TO MARKET SQUARE STORM SEWER, BUS SHELTER
RELOCATION, PROJECT 90 -13.
Mayor Chmiel: I just wanted to pull that one and I was going to talk to Charles II
today but I didn't get an opportunity. And I don't see him here at this time.
But this was a change order which was adding a change to the original contract I
that would specify some of the work items on construction of a right turn lane
off West 78th Street to Market Square Development. Change Order amounts to
approximately $19,188.00 for a right turn lane. To me that seems a little high. II Is that the norm for it?
Don Ashworth: What this change recognizes is that Market Square will be opening
this fall. We needed to get the turn lane into the shopping center area.
II
Originally we had hoped that the work in front of the shopping center would be
done at the same time as the West 78th Street realignment and as that project
has drug itself out, we recognize that it could not be completed through that
project by the time that the shopping center opened this fall. So we went back
to the contract that we did this past fall for the storm sewer that included the
curb and gutter over by the bowling center. And this change order represents
extending that contract to carry out that one turn lane. We did have several
I
bidders on the contract from this past fall. I feel comfortable that that's a
good bid.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. II
Councilman Wing: Don, just all we did was switch the dollars then from the
II
detachment project to them?
Don Ashworth: Right. I mean the same amount will end up being assessed. That
segment will now be deleted out of the West 78th Street realignment project
I
hopefully when that is let this next spring, but at least we'll get the work
done to make sure people can in fact get into the shopping center.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay with that explanation on it, I'd so move item (h). Is there II
a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
II
Resolution 192 -96: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve
Change Order No. 1 to Market Square Storm Sewer, Bus Shelter Relocation, Project '
90 -13. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. 1
3 II
II
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992
INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR EARTH WORK/MINING OF A GRAVEL PIT, NORTH OF HIGHWAY 212
AND EAST OF THE CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY, TOM ZWIERS, MOON VALLEY
AGGREGATE.
Mayor Chmiel: Before we get into this, there are several things that were
' concerns that we had had from the previous Council meeting and asked for some
clarifications as to the questions that were asked by the citizenry and to have
review of this by staff. To come up with some conclusions to explain to Council
' the position that they're going through. What I'd like to do at this time is to
re -open that meeting from the last time and I did want someone to at least
address each of those respective issues that were asked now. And then I'll open
it back up for any additional comments. I would like at this time to have you
limit your comments from, if you had gotten up last time, that we have comment
from you without reiteration from what was said the last time because we do have
them contained in the Minutes and it's rather lengthy and we know exactly what
' has happened. If there is some additional information that you'd like to
supply, we'd be more than happy to listen to that. So with that, Kate are you
going to present that portion of it?
Kate Aanenson: Specifically there was a few areas that the City Council
addressed the staff to further investigate. That being visual impacts, the
linkage, and the EAW, Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Specifically...those
questions as far as linkage. The Attorney advised us that going ahead with the
northern area, even though it would cross over into some of the southern
property, would not constitute expansion of that non - conforming status. The EAW
we felt the fact that our ordinance is pretty sophisticated as far as what the
Council would require, we really don't feel we'd be gaining much by doing an
EAW. That does not meet the mandatory requirements so we certainly could ask
for one but we felt that we've gone into quite a bit of detail as far as what
we've asked for and as information. The other area was the visual impact. I
think that's of most importance to the neighbors too. Again, there will be some
additional grading being done that will cause trees to be removed but we feel
that the exchange of the loss of the trees, we've also leveraged that by asking
for reforestation so there's kind of a trade off there. Again, we've kind of
recommended that there's four alternatives that the Council can do at this time
and one is approve the application with all the conditions outlined previously
in the staff report. Deny the application and then come back with a Findings of
Fact of the reasons for that denial. Modify the request, and approve only that
' portion relating to the clay and the open area. Eliminate the southwest corner.
There is the concern that was raised at the Planning Commission meeting,
previous to the Council meeting, regarding the sedimentation pond and the
drainage and what that would do to some of the wells in the area. And the
fourth option would then be the, require the EAW. And we did note in there that
it would take, before this would come back, it's a lengthy time period. 30 -60
days to get it back and have it published before you would see it again. That's
all I have.
•
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Is there anyone at this time that would like to bring
any additional facts before the Council? Yes, please state your name and your
address and who you're representing.
Rick Sathre: Your Honor, my name is Rick Sathre with Sathre - Berquist in
Wayzata. I'm the consultant for Mr. Zwiers. The engineering consultant. I
4
1
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992 ,
think the biggest outstanding issue last time, at least in my mind, was the
issue of view. The neighbors or anyone along the bluff buys a piece of property
or a home with the idea that they're going to have a view. And their view is
important. I guess what the people up there see largely is trees but in the
wintertime they've got views across the valley. We have a videotape with us
tonight that we'd wish to show if we may to the Council showing some of the view
issues.
(Rick Sathre then showed about a 15 minute video presentation to the City
Council showing different views from the property and looking at the property
from the adjacent neighborhood.)
Rick Sathre: Well thanks for that indulgence...they have the trunks and the
branches. The clay mining operation, if it's permitted, would happen during the
construction season so when the leaves fall off, the work is going to come to an
end shortly thereafter and then the ground gets covered with snow. The
southwest pond that would straddle the property line of the north and south
parcels, that work would go on, it probably wouldn't start until next year or
after and that work would go on into the future. But again, if there's any
questions we'd be happy to try to answer them. Thank you.
Councilwoman Dimler: I do have a question. In the Planning Commission Minutes '
I was reading that there was some concerns from the neighbors about the well
water and the levels to which you were going. Would there be any danger to
their well water. Since this could be a public safety hazard, public health
hazard, I know at the time that you said you didn't have an answer for that. Do
you have an answer for that now?
Rick Sathre: Well let me explain what's happened then and since. The 1
information that I presented that night was some impressions that I had as an
engineer. One thing that I said was that the proximity of their septic systems
to their wells would be more of a hazard than our drainage into the ground 1,000
feet away. The second thing I noted was that ground water movement is toward
the river. That the aquafir is sloping downward as it gets toward the river and
I guess an example of that fact is all the springs that you see along river
valleys and along gorges. And another thing is that the bottom of these seepage
ponds that we're proposing to excavate, there may be some perched water tables
close below the surface but for the most part, the wells in the area are at or
below the Minnesota River Valley level. Below the river itself and we're still
way, way higher than that. The bottom of these ponds would still be 100 feet or
so above the river. So there's all that soil to filter the water and it's only
rain water to begin with. Since the Planning Commission public hearing, this
matter was reviewed by the Watershed District at their regular meeting in July
and the Watershed engineer concurred that there should be no hazard. No danger
and they approved of this request in July. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Are there any other questions?
Councilman Workman: By Ursula? 1
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm through.
5
City, Council Meeting - August 24, 1992
Councilman Workman: You showed an awful lot of videotape on the west side of
II the railroad track right -of -way. What does that have to do with it?
Rick Sathre: Well what I hoped to show was whether or not the people could see
I the railroad corridor itself. The homes above. Whether the tree cover was
sufficient enough to block their view of even that corridor. Because the
excavation in Moon Valley would be lower yet. Would be below the corridor and
to the east of the corridor. So if you can see the railroad corridor, you can
II see down into the pit. I think in the wintertime you may be able to. Just like
you can see across the whole river valley. But right now you can't.
I Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions?
Rick Sathre: There was a secondary reason too, Councilman Workman. One of the
' neighbors had testified that there really wasn't any erosion problem in the
railroad corridor and there is, and that's typical in the area. It's not an
unusual thing.
1 Councilman Workman: Well I was back there and that face that you showed was
obviously there for as long as the railroad. I mean I threw granite rock from
the roadbed at it and it was probably harder than rock. In fact it's so hard
I you'd expect to see bird holes in it. It's too hard for birds. So I mean it's
been there for what's considered to be erosion, it didn't seem like there was a
whole lot. Over as many years as it's not been taken care of. 30 years or
' whatever.
Rick Sathre: Or longer. A lot longer probably.
Mayor Chmiel: Many people don't even remember that being a railroad
right -of -way. And we can't find anything on any of our maps within City Hall
that showed it as such. Michael, do you have any specific questions?
II Councilman Mason: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Richard.
Councilman Wing: Ursula asked the one I was interested in.
11 Mayor Chmiel.: Okay. You mentioned something about the washout area. That
should be filled. What would be your suggestion to eliminate that and what
should be used for that kind of fill within?
Rick Sathre: Well honestly my solution wouldn't be to fill it but just do what
we're trying to do which is direct the water back away from it. But if there is
going to be an action taken, if Council agrees with the Watershed and says, fill
II that ravine up. Then I would think we'd be pushing clay and putting topsoil
over the top of it to try to get it to match the ground on either side. Or it
could be left as it is and over time if the water doesn't continue to run down
II through there, it would develop some grass and tree cover on it's own.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. But removal of the 250,000 cubic yards of clay, what depth
would that, or what would be the depth of the, what am I looking for? What
would be the depth of that hole that would be existing?
1 6
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992
Rick Sathre: In general we're talking about lowering the elevation of about 22
acres. 20 -22 acres. Within that area there would be two seepage ponds or
ponding areas dug. The southerly one, actually we'd be excavating the deepest
point would be about 25 feet. But in general, across the whole 20 acres or so,
the mean depth or the average depth that we're digging to is about 10 feet. So
it'd go from zero to 25 and average.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. That's going to be contained as clay and stay. We're not
going to see any seepage possibly going through that either. No percolation.
Rick Sathre: Through the remaining clay?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Rick Sathre: Well it's very, very tight clay and it would be very slow so the
water would tend to run to the low points which are those two proposed ponding
areas in the north part. And there we'd pierce through to the sand underneath
and the water would seep into the ground in those depressions.
Mayor Chmiel: What is the depth of the clay within that area?
Rick Sathre: Well the backhoe excavation that was done in the ponding site
showed it to be 25 feet. The contractor has taken some soil borings as well and
I'm not sure if, I haven't seen them but have you guys seen them? But one of
the fellows that's here, the man that did the videotaping, he had dug through,
down to the sand layer at 25 feet. And I'm sure it's different in different
parts of the site.
Mayor Chmiel: You'll be able to go to those soil borings or not right now. You
don't have them?
Rick Sathre: No. They were done for the contractor that's working at the
landfill and they haven't been released to us. I haven't thought to ask before
the meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there any other questions from the Council? ,
Councilman Wing: What about restoration? Would you cover that briefly? I mean
what guarantees do we have? 1
Kate Aanenson: We would require that one of the conditions in our previous memo
that there be a letter of credit and we also got some recommendations from Alan
Olson from the DNR and what he felt would be the appropriate amount.
Councilwoman Dimler: Are you still at the $50,000.00?
Kate Aanenson: The original condition was $121,000.00. Number 6 in the staff
recommendation.
Councilwoman Dimler: 121.
Councilman Wing: So the net effect of this is at least 22 acres is going to be
lowered 10 feet...still with the clay base underneath it of 13 feet. Traffic's
11
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992
all running out to the northwest right, northeast rather, right to County Road
II 1. So it really doesn't even effect Chanhassen per se.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion?
II Rick Sathre: Your Honor, one thing I'd like to reiterate. Last meeting I
mentioned that, it hasn't been talked about tonight and that is that the clay
removal operation is a separate thing from that southwest pond excavation. The
1 clay operation is really that of the landfill contractor so if this is approved,
a letter of credit amount somehow should be split between what guarantees of the
work in the clay mining area and that which would be applied to that southwest
I pond. And I had done a rough calculation of about half and half is how it's
split. About $60,000.00 in each area. But that could certainly be staff
verified. Thank you.
II Councilwoman Dimler: Just one point of clarification. You're not asking for
any variances to the setback from neighboring properties are you? Is there any
area where you'd be getting into the setback?
II Rick Sathre: We're asking for a waiver of the 300 foot distance that we're
supposed to stay away from the property line. The reason we're asking for that,
I it's not a variance. It's a waiver. The reason we're asking for that is
erosion's occurring out near the property lines on the east and the west and if
we don't go out there next to the erosion scars, we can't get the drainage
reversed and brought into the middle. So no, we're not asking for any variances
II and really there's no.
Councilwoman Dimler: You're just asking for a waiver of them.
II Rick Sathre: And there's no permanent use permit being asked for either. The
excavation is a temporary permit. So there's no home building or anything
I proposed at this time.
Councilwoman Dimler: Jo Ann, are you comfortable with that waiver?
I Jo Ann Olsen: Kate should probably be answering that. She's been involved in
this more than I have.
I Councilwoman Dimler: Okay Kate.
Kate Aanenson: Well I'd turn it over to Roger. The way I'm understanding it,
he's asking a waiver to get in and work to control erosion, not to do mining.
II Councilwoman Dimler: And then to leave.
II Kate Aanenson: Yeah. So I'm comfortable with that.
Roger Knutson: We've discussed it at length with Paul when he was here and he
II was very comfortable.
Councilwoman Dimler: You're comfortable? Okay.
II
II 8 _
II
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992 II
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone that wishes to come forward at this
time and provide additional comments?
Cathy Bartholow: I'm Cathy Bartholow and I live at...Deerbrook and I guess
maybe what I would start off by saying. I really appreciated the video. That
was very helpful for me to see...what impacts this would have on our area and
the neighboring area. I not...but I do have some pictures. One individual
cannot be here tonight. I was kind of surprised at. The individual building
this lovely home at the end of the cul -de -sac. They have a direct view of Moon
Valley right now and with trees. Without trees, this is a pretty direct view.
You are able to and actually if you would have asked us, I would have asked you
out to back of my deck and you could have taken some pictures from there...
because it really is deceiving to look from the end of the driveway, which in
this neighborhood are quite long, to what we actually see in the back.. -The view
is just part of what I think we're all here to talk about but I guess what I
wanted to just let you know is that there's a little bit more to it. This is
the view of the north...from our house. This is the view of our house from...
parcel. These pictures didn't turn out real well...another parcel of land which
was mined and has not been restored. And I think the impact is that, that's our
concern. We don't want to look at that. We want to make sure first of all that
we don't have to see something like... I have a couple of questions. I
appreciate the response as far as the water concern. We have to trust that that
is the case. That the water does go downhill to the river and that during the
next storm we're not going to have that problem. I guess my question is, if we
did have a problem and the water was contaminated in the well because of this,
who is responsible for that?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, if you'd like to address that, please do.
Rick Sathre: I don't think there's any answer because it would be so hard to
find what the source is. If there was danger, it should be cut off ahead of
time. Not allow it to, our ground water is precious. We don't want to
contaminate it. It's hard to find, unless it's a point source, it's hard to
find the culprit. Here where we're just changing the surface of the ground,
there's no industrial use or anything like that happening. I don't think it
would be possible to determine where a pollutant came from. I don't have an
answer.
Cathy Bartholow: And then I know you don't have pollutants that you're working '
with but as someone, and I don't know really what could be on the ground...but
the concern I have is, okay I'll trust that you guys know what you're talking
about and hopefully we have documentation that records that, but I want to make
sure that if there's something wrong with that documentation, what is our
fallback point ?...what the recourse would be.
Rick Sathre: I don't think there's a reasonable r.ecourse. I think what should
be done for all of us is watch upstream from us. You know look for you it would
be look to the north and see where is my ground water coming from. Not where is
it going to. To the north of you, Lake Riley and beyond. Your ground water
comes from a long way away and we're all drinking the same water and we have to
watch our for industrial polluters I guess.
9 11
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Well too, and industrial polluters are normally governed by the
State with a NDPS program which is the National Discharge Permit that they are
required to get with whatever they do. And it either disallows them to do with
discharging out into the open and of course they're checked on a constant basis
' by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Rick Sathre: And we're all doing a better job these years. All the levels of
' government. The wells that used to lie open when somebody's house was torn down
now are being closed properly. Most of the pollutants get directly into the
ground water one way or another. Like down an old well shaft so if we do a good
job of closing our wells, that will cut off a lot of it.
II Mayor Chmiel: About the only kind of problem you could have there is some kind
of a tanker truck that could have an accident.
Cathy Bartholow: I think my concern was more...and things that we were talking
about earlier. The other question I have is, the length of time in the north
parcel we'd be going through...
' Rick Sathre: Well that's true. Construction shuts down in the wintertime and
so once the ground freezes up, then work would cease say December 15th or
I something like that and then it would lie dormant until the spring.
Cathy Bartholow: Do you know how many months...
II Rick Sathre: I don't know the answer to that because the contractor's working
on, he's got a deadline on the other end to get the landfill work done.
Councilman Wing: I'd just got a couple more questions. I was thinking a short
time period here. It was going to be done in one construction season but we're
into August now so we're well into next summer? There really is no time limit
on how long this could take?
Kate Aanenson: You mean the total excavation or the restoration?
II Councilman Wing: In other words, does it have to occur only this summer or only
through next summer?
II Kate Aanenson: Well we put a condition on there that July 15, 1993.
Councilman Wing: '93. Okay that's, and how about the restoration. When does
restoration have to be completed?
Kate Aanenson: Same date. July 15, 1993.
II Councilman Wing: Is that right?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
1 Councilman Workman: And they still agree to that because I thought they had a
problem with that last time. July 15th is the day? I had that underlined.
II Rick Sathre: That's fine for the north parcel. That southerly pond area, that
1 10
1
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992 , ,
doesn't work for that. If you permit that, that will happen over the course of
future years and not be done all at once like this clay removal. That may not
be clear at all. The south ponding basin that straddles the south property line
is partly in the pit and partly on this north farmland or north parcel. The
mining operation is- taking some sand and it's being trucked around to build
streets here and there and do whatever people do with sand on a market driven
basis. And so we don't really know. Tom Zwiers can't tell you when all the
material will be removed from the pit and when all of the restoration would be
done in the pit. It happens just with the market and so that excavation of that
northwest pond that straddles the property line would be done over the course of
years, not over the course of one. And that's why I suggested that you separate
the letter of credit amount because you'd be holding that one much longer. '
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Yes sir. Please just state your name and your
address. '
Jon Lonstein: Thank you. Jon Lonstein, 9861 Deerbrook Drive. Just like to
make one small point. The Council last time raised some concern about the
applicant not complying with Court conditions and things that the Court had '
said. With the two separate, with the clay mining area, there's a definite time
table to be finished by July next year with an amount in escrow which has been
proposed at being $60,000.00 and that amount would be enough to restore that
meadow area. But with regards to the southwest parcel, the ponding area,
there's no definite time table. The escrow amount which would be $60,000.00,
would be wholly inadequate to reforest that area because at today's cost, it
costs somewhere between $15,000.00 and $20,000.00 to reforest an acre and we
don't know when this is going to stop. When it's going to end and my concern is
that that area will be left as the pictures you just saw. Thank you.
Councilwoman Dimler: Could I have a point of clarification. I said earlier
what was the letter and you said it was $121,000.00 and now he's saying.
Kate Aanenson: I'm sorry, I'm not aware of the two separate letters of credit.
It could certainly be put together that way.
Councilman Mason: It just popped up tonight. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that was a clarification that was done here.
Councilwoman Dimler: Oh I see. You're dividing the 121.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. And staff recommendations that we had, it was item number
6 that covered the $121,000.00.
Councilman Wing: Also this was bought as a meadow and are we only requiring
that the meadow be restored and the trees taken out in that one tree line be ,
restored? We're not asking for a reforestation of the meadow are we? That's
agricultural land. Maybe if somebody wants to put it back into corn, not trees.
I don't believe we're asking for reforestation of that meadow. It wasn't bought
forested. They haven't cut anything down. We're only asking for restoration
of any trees damaged, minimum caliper, etc, etc, etc, and then reclamation of
the meadow area. However that's done. Are we talking just seeding?
11 '
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992
Kate Aanenson: Right. So we'd have erosion control measures and the like.
Roger Knutson: You can spread the black dirt down, 4 to 6 inches or whatever it
is and then you reseed it.
' Councilman Wing: Topsoil and grass. I just wanted to clarify that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? Okay, is there anyone else?
Richard Vogel: Richard Vogel from 105 Pioneer Trail. I think back at the
' Planning Commission there was a letter in here from a Carver Soil and Water
Conservation District and I think it was brought up that time. It sort of said,
they questioned the idea of excavating through the clay barrier to the sandy
underlying areas for the holding ponds. This would allow for excessive rates to
seep into ground water which before excavation was not the case. Does the city
have a provision for slowing down the rate of surface water to ground water? It
would be highly recommended to slow the rate of seepage to the ground water.
' And also the elevation to show excavation depths on the plan map are incorrect.
To my knowledge that has not been brought back, I don't think. I may be wrong
but I don't think. Also, the breakdown of the letter of credit. It says here
for Moon Valley Aggregate, north parcel. And then the Roman Numeral I. Now
everything seems to be on the north parcel to come up to $121,290.00 and
splitting that would be the $60,000.00. Does that include the reforesting of
the, let's say the bluff that's there now on the south in Moon Valley? Is that
included in the $60,000.00 to reseed or reforest that? Or is that just the area
where the southwest part of the north parcel where some trees will be taken out?
And about how many acres of trees are going out on this southwest corner of the
' north parcel?
Mayor Chmiel: Kate, do you have any idea?
Kate Aanenson: I was going to say, it would probably be easier, we've got a
complete breakdown that's included in the packet. But it includes the site
reforestation for the north parcel, which would be topsoil, reseeding and mulch,
erosion control fencing. I'm just giving you itemized the things that would be.
Erosion control blankets, slope stabilization, reforestation of all slopes.
Richard Vogel: Well this is reforestation. Now on some of them you're only
going to see them. I guess I'm kind of, where do you do which?
Kate Aanenson: This letter was put together by engineering so I guess I'd let
' Charles.
Charles Folch: I'm sorry, what was the question?
Kate Aanenson: The reforestation estimatation and letter of credit. Most of
that is for the north parcel though. That's correct.
' Richard Vogel: But part of the condition of using that southwest corner of the
north parcel was to reforest the big scar that's there now, isn't that right?
On $60,000.00?
12
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992
Kate Aanenson: No. $121,000.00. I'm not sure where that $60,000.00 keeps
coming in. I'm not sure. 1
Mayor Chmiel: It's the total of $121,000.00. They want to divide those two
onto the two different parcels.
Kate Aanenson: We're recommending $121,000.00 for the north parcel.
Richard Vogel: So then that would not include the south parcel? ,
Kate Aanenson: Right.
Richard Vogel: Then I think we should better get that straight where that's
going to come from.
Kate Aanenson: That's what Dave recommended. I think put together it says ,
north parcel, recommending $121,000.00. If you look at Dave's letter. I'm not
sure if Charles has clarification on that but that's what it looks like.
Richard Vogel: And then this, what this Carver Soil and Water Conservation
District was asking too and, do you want me to finish and then let Rick get up.
The other thing was, if you do go to those homes that are on Deerbrook Lane, I
think those are all 2 1/2 acre lots. If you just sit in your house and look at
the tree ahead of you, you maybe can't see the southwest parcel or the mining
operation but you've got 2 1/2 acres. You can walk over and it is very visible
from when you're on there on your lot. And I think Cathy did say you know,
taking the pictures from Deerbrook Trail, which was back a ways, does not give a
clear picture when you look down into the valley. My main concern is that there
is something there you know to fix up what they're doing and I don't think you
can, what do you want to say? Reforest or reseed that scar that's on the south
parcel now for $60,000.00 plus what they're going to take out the trees out of
the southwest corner of the north parcel. Also, there's no time limit. That
will just go on. How much can they take out of that southwest corner of the
north parcel? I haven't heard anything definite on that and I guess that's
where J'11 leave.
Mayor Chmiel: Do you have any comments?
Kate Aanenson: Paul Newman from the Soil Conservation District is here. He's
here for Halla but ifyou had specific questions, he could probably address
those.
Councilman Wing: Just while we're on the subject of money. Rick, one of the '
examples we have here is the breakdown of security letter, and it specifically
says the north parcel and it specifically spells out the north parcel and I
think the suggestion tonight that breaking that in half maybe isn't going to be
adequate. This $121,000.00 is solely directed at north parcel restoration.
Kate Aanenson: Right. '
Rick Sathre: Your Honor, Councilmember Wing. It's my division that's confusing
everything. What, I've read this too and I haven't talked to Mr. Folch or to
Mr. Hempel who I think put it together but my belief is that from number 1 thru
13 1
11
II City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992
II 3, under (1). It starts out (1), site restoration on the north parcel or for
north parcel and they have an item for topsoiling, reseeding and mulching.
About $40,000.00. Erosion control fencing for around the perimeter, $5,100.00
and site grading $10,000.00. I think that beyond that, number 4, 5, 6 are
II actually having to do with that south pond. The reason I say that is the
erosion control blanket south pond, it says south pond. Then number 5, it says
2.5:1 slopes. Now in the north clay excavation we're not doing anything steeper
I than 3:1 but in the mine, 2.5:1 is the final slope of the pit. So I assume that
that meant stabilizing the slopes in the pit.
Councilman Wing: The 500 seedlings relates to the south also. Not the north.
II I don't believe there's 500 seedlings or trees required on the north half.
Rick Sathre: Right. There's none. So that's why I broke it the way I did.
1 I thought it was about half and half but that's my interpretation.
Mayor Chmiel: But that is not really what was intended for that. Where we
II would disallow the 60/60 on that particular aspect as far as we're concerned.
From what I'm understanding from what Council is saying.
Rick Sathre: So you'd put the whole letter of credit amount on the clay mining
II excavation and there wouldn't be any on that south pond?
Councilwoman Dimler: That would be separate as far as I'm concerned.
II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that would be separate in addition to what's existing for
that 121. Right.
II Councilman Wing: That $121,000.00 as I'm reading it, is including more than the
north parcel so that breakdown's not accurate. It's not even a number we can
connect at.
II Rick Sathre: I would suggest that the staff clarify the number and I guess if
there was a big problem, we'd come back to you.
II Councilwoman Dimler: Last time I brought up the concern that we kept talking
about the north parcel and the south parcel all together in one permit and it's
confusing. Is there a possibility that, are we considering one permit for both
II or are we considering two permits that we are trying to approve in one shot
here?
II Kate Aanenson: ...I'll let Roger answer that.
Roger Knutson: Tonight the application is for one permit.
II Councilwoman Dimler: For both operations. For the north and the south
operation.
II Roger Knutson: You've already given a non - conforming use permit to the south
operation. For the mining operation on the south.
II Terry Beauchane: The south part of the north operation...
II 14 -
II
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992 • ,
Roger Knutson: Just the bluff area. That little piece of the bluff area.
Councilwoman Dimler: The south part of the north operation so we're just
approving a permit for the north operation with the restoration of the south
part of the north. Okay. '
Roger Knutson: We're requiring that restoration of the south as a condition.
You're not allowing the mining on the south. All you're doing is requiring
restoration.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but what I'm saying is that if I approved of the
mining operation in the north, I'm also approving of the ponding in the south? '
Councilman Wing: As part of this one, yeah. But it would have nothing to do
with the taking of the sand out of the south with 3:1 bluffs on it so. 1
Roger Knutson: You've already approved that. We've already approved the permit
for the south operation. We've litigated it for several years. We've given a
permit for it.
Councilwoman Dimler: So that's separate?
Councilman Wing: That's done.
Rick Sathre: Your Honor, we have only applied for one permit but it has two
different distinct parts to it and that's how we view it. When I sat down, Mr.
Vogel asked me if I would address the issue of how much tree loss there'd be to
do the south ponds. If we could put an overhead up that shows that south
ponding area, that would help. I think it'd be best if I went to the screen to
deal with this. Right now this triangle, well this area which is the
southwesterly facing slope, that's treed. Mature trees as is much of this area
down in this part of the site. There's in the video you can see there was
regrowth trees. There's a low spot in here and there's a ridge that's wooded.
South of this line the excavation and the mining permit and the grandfather
mining operation, taking all trees south of this line. What would be taken to
build this pond would be trees in this triangle here and how big is that? Let's
see. On this map it would be trees right in here. In that little triangle. I
supposed it's probably 2 to 3 acres. Something like that. This is 160 acres
from here to here and down to that corner. So this would be 40. It might be as
many as 5. 2, 3, 5. Somewhere in there.
Councilman Workman: How about the ridge? The trees on the ridge?
Rick Sathre: This ridge? There's trees on the north face of that slope.
They're raising from the south, from this line south...mining operation. That's
the issue. Mr. Krauss supports the idea anyway that it might be reasonable to
take that intermediate ridge out. Just the south face of this whole pit area is
void of trees. If this ridge line is removed, then everybody that's south gets
a full view of this wooded scope that's never going to change. If you take the
scar landscape away, you see what's beyond it. That's what we're asking to do.
But it would sure, it results in tree loss to accomplish that. And that
activity is really very separate from the clay mining. It has it's own merits.
What we gain from doing that is expose that wooded slope to full view and also
15 '
1
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992
create a place for ponding to occur before the water goes farther south. And
the loss is, what we lose is the trees that are in the slope.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else?
Terry Beauchane: I'd like to see if I can get this point. My name is Terry
Beauchane. I live at 240 Flying Cloud Drive. I'd like to see if we can get
this point clarified because contrary to what you people may be thinking right
now, I think you're about to be duped. This is called divide and conquer. This
is his door into the north property which Judge Kanning has not allowed at this
point. As soon as you authorize this permit, it's a two part permit. One is to
take clay out of the north portion up there but the other is to do this, what do
you call it? Ponding which is also in the north part. To do the ponding, he's
going to do mining. Excavating. He's already admitted, or at least his
spokesman has, that it's an ongoing operation. No limit. No time. Forever. I
hope that sinks home to you people. And if it doesn't, go down and stand on 169
and look at Moon Valley and that will tell you what it's going to look like.
Ponding operation, my foot. That's his door to open so he can go back to Judge
Kanning and say, see. The Council said we can go into the north part of my
property now. Everything is grandfathered in. I don't care what you say.
Legality or anything else. We all know the legalities. Only as good as the
11 person's character who's putting his signature to the document. Right? He's
been to Court. He's kept you in Court. He's spent our money. This is his way
of getting in to the north property and I hope you people see it. Because he's
telling you right there in black and white.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay thank you Terry. Yes sir.
' Councilwoman Dimler: In response to that, could you reiterate my concern about
the linkage of and Roger how you feel about that?
' Roger Knutson: Judge Kanning has ruled in our favor. That he has no
non- conforming use rights in the north parcel.
Terry Beauchane: But you're giving it to him. Once you give him this permit.
Roger Knutson: Nothing you do today, whatever you do, will change that. That's
already been legally decided. That he has no non - conforming use rights.
Period.
Councilman Wing: So taking the clay off the north has very little to do with
what he's doing on the south. Two separate issues.
Roger Knutson: Right. We will not give him any non - conforming use rights. You
' give him a permit, then you're giving a permit to do it. But that's not based
on any non - conforming use rights. This will not muddy that water in our
opinion. And believe me if I thought so, even as frustrated I think as anyone.
We've been litigating this for years.
Councilwoman Dimler: So by putting a limit on the north to clay only and a
specific date, then that's it, up in the north parcel, that's it?
Roger Knutson: Then he's done.
16
City Council Meeting - August 24. 1992
Mayor Chmiel: There's only two winners in this situation. It's both attorneys.
Roger Knutson: It's been very frustrating. 11
Mayor Chmiel: Yes sir. '
Earl Peterson: Good evening. My name is Earl Peterson. We have 180 acres just
east of Moon Valley and down on the farm I guess we like to shuck it down to the
cow, so let's do that. You hear a lot of likes and dislikes here but likes and
dislikes have absolutely to do with this. We have to all obey the law. And law
of the land says that no private property shall be taken for public use without
just compensation and that's the United States Constitution. The Constitution
of the State of Minnesota says...13, private property shall not be taken,
destroyed or damaged for public use without just compensation therefore, first
paid and secured. Now it's nice that we all like on somebody's else property
but unless you own it, you don't have any say about it. And you know, I've had
an ongoing operation on my farm for 30 years. A lot of corn and soybeans come
off of there. And everybody's got the right to do with their property to their
best, what they like. You've got the right to drive your kind of car. I can't
tell you to drive your kind of car or paint your house or whatever. These are
rights and these are freedoms, and the Constitution does not give us these
freedoms. The Constitution protects these freedoms. Now the last three Supreme
Court decisions upheld all this. This last one in just June of '82. States
must compensate landowners for regulations, and that was down in South Carolina.
Here's one of June of '87. Where the High Court...landowners rights and it
says, in a major property rights decision the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that
landowners must be compensated when government regulations bar them even
temporary from using their property. The Court by a 6 to 3 vote said
regulations such as zoning ordinances that impose new limits on a loaners use of
land may amount to the taking for which the Constitution requires just
compensation. So it doesn't matter what we like and dislike. I don't like a
lot of things in life either but I have to face reality and I think we all have
to face reality. And if we don't stand up for something in this country, we're
soon going to have nothing. And if they do it to my neighbor, then they can do
it to me. They can do it to you.
Mayor Chmiel: Earl, I'm sorry I missed, what was your address?
Earl Peterson: I have a farm in Eden Prairie, 18700 Flying Cloud Drive. Let's
see, developers deserve compensation if their land is restricted. Another
Supreme Court regulation. So here we are. If we restrict this fellow from
using his property to what he wants to use it for, then we have to give him just
compensation. Now I'm a taxpayer and I don't like that. I don't want to pay
him my just compensation and I don't think you should either. I'd let him get
his own. Let him do with it as he wants and I think when it gets all said and
done, that thing can be developed or landscaped to the best of everybody's, you
know where you can see something where you want.to see. It isn't going to be an
eyesore. It's already there. You've got to deal with reality. We've got to do
what's right. Now zoning to be legal has to be a contract and it has to be a
benefit to both. Otherwise it isn't legal. You can't just arbitrarily say
Earl's got to drive a green car. I want to have to drive a green car. But
anyhow, I get a little nervous up here. I'd rather be out in the cornfield.
But anyhow you understand. I can give you copies of this if you want. '
17 '
1
11 City Council Meeting - August 24. 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Councilman Wing: As long as we're on that subject. This land was zoned
agricultural. Bought agricultural. The City had rules. The City had zoning
ordinances. He knew the game I'm assuming so there's no question what the game
was when he bought this so these aren't rules in effect after he bought the land
to penalize him. He's simply not willing to live with the rules that existed
when he bought it. Is that clear? I want to make sure that's where I'm
' standing.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Roger Knutson: When he bought the property, it required a, I think at that time
a conditional use permit to mine and anyone has the right to apply for a
conditional use permit.
Councilman Wing: Okay. So we're not restricting his use? We're not just
granting another use?
Roger Knutson: One of my favorite subjects to talk at length about this but I
won't do that because you want to go home tonight. I'll just leave it to
saying, there is no taking issue here. If you want to go over all the Supreme
Court cases, just give me a call, I'd love to talk to you about them.
Councilman Workman: Are you saying that we can say to these people they can't
take anything out of there?
Roger Knutson: It wouldn't constitute a taking of property because you'd have
other reasonable uses of it. From agricultural to single family homes. It
would not envoke the taking clause.
' Councilman Workman: So you're saying, we can say to these people, you cannot
remove anything. You cannot mine this property.
Roger Knutson: I'm saying, that would constitute a taking of his property in my
opinion. There's no question about that. You do have an ordinance. And your
ordinance specifies conditions and if you comply with the conditions, you're not
creating a mess out there, then you're entitled to a permit. It's not based
upon the Constitution, at least not that provision of the Constitution. Based
upon your own ordinance...
1 Councilman Workman: So you're saying we can't not allow him?
Roger Knutson: If he complies with the ordinance.
Councilman Workman: And he is doing that.
•
Roger Knutson: That's your judgment.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's your judgment call.
11 Councilman Workman: The ordinance is open to judgment, okay.
1 18
1
City Council Meeting - August 24. 1992 II
Earl Peterson: Maybe I can clarify that for you. The law of the land, the
misconception is that any statute passed by legislature bearing the apperance of
law, constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law
of the land. Any statute to be valid must be in agreement. It is impossible
for both the Constitution and the law violating it to be valid. One must
prevail. This is, whatever that word is, stated as follows. And it's in
American Juris Prudence 177. The general rule is that an unconstitution
statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law but is
wholly void and ineffective for any purpose. It goes on a little farther but. '
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Emily Pischleder: Emily Pischleder, 185 Pioneer Trail. I guess my concern is
that we all pay residential reat estate taxes and I just want to know how many
years coming ahead as what's already happened behind do we have to put up with a
commercial business operation being done behind us with whatever, the noise and
everything entails? So that's my main concern is the time thing. Is this going
to be done in a year and then 2 years later again and again?
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else? Richard.
Richard Vogel: I guess I'll just say it from here. I'd still like a definition
if there's one permit for the clay mining and then the ponding area in the
southwest corner of the north property which will go into the old Moon Valley.
That is under one permit and there's no time limit as to when he can mine in
that southwest corner. How far can he go with that?
Roger Knutson: The City Council will decide how long he can mine on the
southwest corner. That hasn't been decided. I haven't heard anyone vote on the
subject matter yet. There's one permit for the north parcel and one permit for
the south parcel. They're separate permits.
Richard Vogel: What about the part where they're connecting? What permit is '
that?
Roger Knutson: You mean the reforest, what are you talking about specifically? 1
The reforestation?
Richard Vogel: The ponding area in the southwest corner of the north parcel.. 1
Roger Knutson: That's part of the north parcel.
Richard Vogel: But they're going into the south parcel to do that. They're ,
taking some trees out of the south parcel and there's some of the ponding area
that goes from one parcel to the other. That's it up on the map.
Roger Knutson: The stuff from the north parcel is under the north parcel permit
and the stuff from the south parcel would be under the south parcel permit, if a
north parcel permit is granted.
Mayor Chmiel: It's getting to the point where I think we're having enough
discussion on this and I'd like to.
19 ,
1
II City Council Meeting - August 24. 1992
Councilwoman Dimler: Could I just ask one more question?
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, one more question.
Councilwoman Dimler: In regards to the last concern that was brought up about
the timing and how long is this going to go on. I'm wondering, has anybody ever
discussed the end use plan and what are our, how can we get that going? Do we
have anything there that we can work with? Roger.
' Roger Knutson: Certainly.
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead Roger.
Roger Knutson: Have they supplied an end use plan?
Kate Aanenson: A reclamation type plan? Not yet. That was one of the
requirements that they do that. I just want to clarify too. We put in there
that all operations cease within one year. I mean that's your perogative if you
want to but that's what the staff recommendation. We have the one year
requirement. People have been throwing out different options but that was the
original staff recommendation. Was the one year.
Jo Ann Olsen: Including the ponding area.
Kate Aanenson: Right, everything.
Councilwoman Dimler: It all has to be done within a year?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. That was our recommendation.
Mayor Chmiel: We had it shown that all mining operations and site restoration
' would be completed by July 15th. Now that has slipped one month. And if you
want to keep that at July 15th or August 15th, that's our perogative.
Councilman Workman: Do we have a list or an idea of the dimensions of the pond
listed here? What are the dimensions?
Kate Aanenson: I'm not aware...
Mayor Chmiel: Do you have that?
Rick Sathre: Your Honor, I could estimate each of the pond sizes. Are you
thinking about the one in the north parcel totally?
Councilman Workman: Yes.
Rick Sathre: May I come up here?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure,
Rick Sathre: North is to this side. This is the east property line... This is
the central pond. This is 1 inch to 100 feet. So across the very bottom it's
about 100 foot wide area. The length is... This is about 250 feet from there
1 20
1
City Council Meeting - August 24. 1992 II
to there. It's about 250. And this is, well this is about 150. So it would be
like a football field or a little less.
Councilman Workman: How about the bottom one?
Rick Sathre: This one? Well that one, I have to get another drawing. It's
smaller. This the ponding area that straddles the south boundary and actually
the excavation area would be the triangle, this shape on the north parcel. This
is 1 inch per 200 feet. So this is about 600 feet across the base. The total
area that would be excavated would be... And this third pond which is up on the
north...area that was once mined.
Councilman Workman: I think there's, I appreciate all the comments and
Mr. Peterson's comments make a lot of sense. There's a lot of wisdom in that
and the Constitution and rights and everything. I think we take that into 1
account every Council meeting. We try to. And so we try to do the best we can
with people's rights without infringing on the other. If I own an island next
to Mike's island and Mike decides he's going to start manufacturing pig manure
on his island and that ruins my opportunity to have a nice resort community, I
guess my island isn't worth as much as I thought it would be unless I get into
pigs. But the more and more we've talked about this, it's been sort of just a
project that I've been kind of concerned about but suddenly I realize why these
neighbors are so frighten. Because we don't really know the dimensions and we
don't know the times and how long is this going to go on. It could be, I don't
think that these neighbors want to infringe on anybody's rights anymore than
their own properties but this is a huge, huge project that to me still has no,
not enough deinition to it. It's kind of a blob. We don't know, still don't
know. I've got to believe that with an environmentalist like Paul Krauss saying
this isn't a bad idea, I have less reservations because if you harm a tree, Paul
has a problem you know. But Paul's not here to reassure us maybe on what he had
in mind. I think we need a drop dead date on the whole thing so that these
people know whether they should sell their homes or not. The dimensions of the
pond and realistically how much time it will take to construct that pond I think
need to be before us before we can make a decision. As we ask more and more
questions, Mr. Beauchane's concerns sort of became a reality then. So I think
we're still, I know we had a tour of the south part and I've walked the north
part with Mr. Vogel and I still have his mosquito spray in fact. But I very
much feel uncomfortable about it. I don't know if an EAW might not be a good
idea to give us, or rest more of our concerns on that and maybe staff can give
me an idea. There was a petition filed. Does that mean we have to do the EAW?
I mean it's starting to seem like more and more that should probably be done.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, that's fine. I think too that some of the things that
we're looking at and showing on drawings that we've seen and everything that we
have had, are a little sketchy. It's not really detailed and shown. Soil
borings. I'd like to know what those are as well. I have some concerns with
that. And I think that would sort of substantiate some of the additional things
that Tom has said really. I know we've gone through, we're the RGU within it
but still deemed I think by Council. At least Tom's position until we have a
motion. That an EAW be done and this is going to have to be published in the
EQB Monitor as well for a 30 day period. And that means that after that period
of time it would then come back to Council with the determinations of the RGU,
which is still the City, to come up with those additional answers that we're
21 1
1
II City Council Meeting - August 24. 1992
still looking for. And I don't, we don't have it and its just too loose. I'd
I/ just like to see that tighten up a lot more than what we've done. I understand
what we're looking for with the restoration of the other pit and I don't
disagree with that. We do want that and that's still going to come. But I
think we best know exactly where we're standing with what we're going to do this
evening and get clarifications and a little more information. Well I should say
clarity contained within so we know just exactly where we're going.
' Councilman Wing: Let's get an aerial photograph too. We can blow that up and
then we could have an overhead with an aerial view to show us exactly what we're
talking about geographically. And I'd like to see the Dimler linkage dealt with
here. Tie both pieces together in the schmatic so we can see how they intermix.
These costs need clarification too. I think you brought that up didn't you?
' Mayor Chmiel: Right. So with that, I would entertain a motion at this time.
And that could almost be done as to per discussion that we've just previously
had.
' Councilman Wing: The motion would be table pending an EAW for clarification of
the questions brought up by Council.
Councilman Mason: I think maybe we should have a little discussion about the
EAW first or are we all in agreement that that needs to be done. I mean we've
got staff saying they don't feel that's necessary.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, there are still some things that are still loose and that's
still not providing us all the information so that could be dictated by the EAW.
Councilman Wing: But staff may have that. I'm agreeing with Mike, staff may
have that information. Watershed District saying the water, there isn't a
problem. Infiltration will be normal, etc, etc, etc.. Paul may have that
information that would satisfy us.
Councilman Mason: I guess I'm not, I'm on the fence on the EAW thing but I
agree with you Don. That there are a whole lot of questions that need to be
tighten up before we can act on this. I mean staff is saying on one of the
recommendations that all mining operations and site restoration has to be
completed by the 15th of July, 1993 but now I'm hearing that can't possibly be
' done. Well, these things need to be worked out. I don't think we're anywhere
near approving this yet.
Roger Knutson: I know it's difficult this evening because Paul's not here and
he has the most expertise on this. But maybe if Paul brought back all the
information, he met with the engineer and the applicant, maybe in 2 weeks you
could have the answers sufficient so you could act on it and maybe an EAW would
not be necessary. I don't know that to be the case but maybe you'd want to give
the applicant that opportunity to meet with Paul and bring everything back and
give it one more shot at your next meeting. In the meantime you won't lose any
' ground. After meeting with Paul, if Paul decides an EAW is necessary in his own
mind, then he can just tell the applicant that that's his recommendation and
you're probably going to follow it and he can get going on his EAW. But if
' everything can be tied up without that, maybe he should be given that
opportunity. There's a lot of loose ends like he said that maybe could be
1 22
1
City Council Meeting - August 24. 1992 • II
resolved without the EAW. You can have an EAW but there has to be findings and
potential for a significant adverse environmental effects and what not.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. That could be so concluded with this as well. But I
think probably with your recommendation to put it to the next Council meeting
for that, to see if it's resolved and if it's not resolved with that, we can
mandate the EAW then after that.
Roger Knutson: That's correct. 1
Councilman Mason: So moved.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Councilman Workman: Is that a tabling motion? If I can just add a couple
things. I guess taking into account number 14, on how long or how long they
need to complete the project. It seems July 15th is off. I guess I'd like that
to be further looked at in relationship to number 3 which would, I would hope
disinclude Saturdays and make it Monday thru Fridays. That would maybe have to
extend it out. So that might just make a situation go longer and maybe the
neighbors don't appreciate that.
Kate Aanenson: Can I comment on number 14? This is kind of a philosophical
argument or we just need to get some direction from the Council on because we
said one year and we feel comfortable staying with that. They're saying they
can't make that one year, for whatever reason. They want to continue extraction
in that area. We need some direction from you as far as what you feel
comfortable giving them that drop dead date because if you want to separate
those two. Yeah I think the other issue, some of this information we know we
don't have. If you want to give direction for the applicant to supply some of
this, I mean I have notes of I think there's some information that definitely
you need to make a better decision regardless of the EAW but as far as
separating those two, I think we can complete the north parcel reforestation
within that one year but as far as the ponding, if they say they can't meet
that, what sort of information would you like them to provide to say why they
can't meet that and how long they think. Is that what you're looking for?
Councilman Workman: Well, you know I asked them about how many trees and well
about 3 to 5 acres.
Kate Aanenson: Right, we can get more detail on that, certainly.
Councilman Workman: Yeah, and then how big is the ponds and we didn't know that
and so.
Kate Aanenson: I've created a list of things. r
Councilman Workman: If their engineer doesn't know how wide or big or deep that
pond is, surely he wouldn't know when it would be done. And I guess I go back
to this, our bluff preservation ordinance and somebody wants to build a deck
within 1 foot of that line, we say forget it. And boy I tell you, if you want
to build a deck on the bluff, you're open with me.
23 1
1
City Council Meeting - August 24. 1992
Kate Aanenson: I just want to make sure when we come back next time we've got
I/ enough information so you can make a decision.
Councilman Wing: You know because of the time involved we've spent on this, I'm
not so sur a tour down there wouldn't be in order to really clarify this
visually. At least I'd like it. I've walked it but I still have trouble
identifying the sites.
Kate Aanenson: I think your suggestion on an aerial photography would be
helpful too.
Mayor Chmiel: I think the decision can be done rather quickly. Either aye or
nay or whatever it may be, or the EAW. So with that we have a motion on the
floor and a second. Go ahead.
Councilman Mason: I just wanted to quick ask some of the families that are
here, if it came down to Monday thru Saturday or Monday thru Friday and they're
going a little longer, what's your preference?
Audience: Monday thru Friday.
' Mayor Chmiel: And that throws off their timeframe too.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, and I understand that. I understand that but I
certainly share, in fact I brought it up at the 24th meeting. If I lived there,
I wouldn't want those trucks Saturday morning.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to table the Moon Valley
request to mine clay under Interim Use Permit *92 -5 until the next City Council
meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
' Jon Lonstein: Mr. Mayor, could I ask that if you do have a tour...we'd like to
accompany you. Also, I'd like to invite you to come and see the view from our
point of view from our properties. Not from the street but from our decks and
from our rooms, and I'd especially like all of you to arrange to...because his
' deck is the one that is most close to the southwest corner of the north
property.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LOCATE A PORTABLE CHEMICAL TOILET ON MINNEWASHTA
HEIGHTS BEACHLOT.
Kate Aanenson: Minnewashta Heights is asking for a conditional use for a
portable toilet. This beachlot did receive a non - conforming permit allowing 14
boats just recently. It meets all the standards that we have in the conditional
use as far as being anchored down and landscaped and screened. We had
recommended that a trellis be put up around this area and in reviewing with the
' Planning Commission, they felt that it was screened, based on this redwood fence
right here and the canoe racks, that additional screening may not be necessary.
That really it is a pretty nice situation. Basically we recommend approval with
the conditions in the staff report.
11 24
1
II ' City Council Meeting - August 24. 1992
Councilman Wing: So moved.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Very well done.
To adopt it as to the Council approving Conditional Use #92 -1 allowing portable
chemical toilet on Minnewashta Heights Homeowners Association Recreational
1 Beachlot with the following conditions of 1 thru 4. Is that correct Kate?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. 5 would no longer be.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to approve Conditional Use
Permit #92 -1 to allow a portable chemical toilet on Minnewashta Heights
Homeowners Association Recreational Beachlot with the following conditions:
' 1. The applicant applies for a license from the city on an annual basis prior
to installation of the portable chemical toilet.
1 2. The portable chemical toilet shall only be permitted from Memorial Day to
Labor Day and shall be removed from the beachlot during the rest of the
1 year.
3. The beachlot shall be maintained in good condition in a manner consistent
with previous approvals and current ordinance requirements.
4. The portable chemical toilet shall be located in accordance with the
application /plans received by the City on June 26, 1992.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
' Mayor Chmiel: I think probably our mosquito control in parks is maybe going to
be just a little bit longer than what Halla Nursery one might be. And I would
accept a motion to move that from, and just switch 4 and 5 around.
Councilman Wing: I'll so move Mr. Mayor.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to amend the agenda to
switch items 4 and 5 around. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
DISCUSSION OF GRADING_ PERMIT FOR HALLA NURSERY, 10000 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD.
Mayor Chmiel: Is Mr. Halla here?
Jo Ann Olsen: Neither Mr. Halla or his son are going to be here tonight but
they still wanted us to go ahead with this item.
Councilman Mason: I was just going to make a motion.
Jo Ann Olsen: Go ahead.
25
1
City Council Meeting - August 24. 1992
Councilman Mason: I'd like to move that this go before the Planning Commission,
as is one of the options.
Mayor Chmiel: Well we do have Mr. Paul Neumann from the Soil Conservation here
this evening and I'd like to get a little bit of information from him.
Councilman Mason: I'll withdraw that for now then.
Jo Ann Olsen: Well, we're putting him on the spot but essentially Paul was ,
asked to come if you had questions about how bad it really was or if they were
doing it correctly. I don't know, do you want to maybe give your history. What
your involvement with them. '
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, why don't you come up here to the mic.
Paul Neumann: Paul Neumann. I'm with the Carver Soil and Water District and I 1
did see that everybody's got a copy of this letter. I happened to be on site
when that survey was run, that original. We ran a profile down through there.
You know could I use that up there?
Mayor Chmiel: Certainly.
Paul Neumann: If I could just real fast... You start up here and again the
overflow is running like this out at the nursery site. And the bottom of the
gully was...going along like this. But in this one we had another real steep
drop off and it continued on down like that. At this point here, it was already
getting to a situation where by the time we would have tied the fill in, gotten
up here where we could pond water, we ended up with something like this where
you had a real small pond and our design... Plus, this means that this bottom
isn't stable yet... What happens is this...all the way up. So this is an
unstable situation right here and in our letter, that's what we were trying to
stay away from that thing because if you built back here, that's when it went
over that point. Now I don't know where this dike is anymore in relationship
to...but I do know that if a...and this is one of the things that scared me a
little bit when I first saw it is the pipe. I don't know if the pipe is going
through like this and coming out. If it's bent. If it just comes up here or if
it goes down like so and comes out. What happens with any dike like this, you
get what they call a...line and that's where you have like literally flowing mud
the dike so if your dike isn't long enough, and it starts seeping out the back
side... So that's why way back when we suggested was he just went back and
would have somebody engineer it. Figure out what was in there and how it was
constructed to make sure that the pipe was solid one way or another. Because
without that...water's traveling underneath the pipe. The only way you could
fix it, that I would think you could, you'd have to extend the pipe out an awful
lot further and really secure that pipe in a really solid, I mean really solid
in clay and then run in fill all the way back out to here to secure it...in my
25 years, we have never saved structure yet once it's been... We've tried
fooling around with them and everything else and they end up where the pipe ends
up down the gully someplace. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, do you have any idea as to taking care of it in the proper
manner, what costs would be entailed in that?
26 1
,City Council Meeting - August 24. 1992
Paul Neumann: If he can get the fill for little or nothing right now they, if
11 we were going to go in there and work on it we'd have to lower the water down.
Siphen it out or whatever. Drain it down. Dig everything back out, including
the pipe and then relay everything again and then start from the bottom and go
up. If we were going to do it. And even if the fill was free, it'd still be
all the excavating and repacking that pipe and it'd be a lot of.
' Mayor Chmiel: The type of fill and soils best used within that would be clay?
Paul Neumann: Right. Just solid clay. When we put in a dike or anything like
that, in an area like that, we clear out all the brush, topsoil, debris,
' everything and then it's core trenched. That's where you cut a V right through
the existing clay on each side that you can get a notch of clay that's not even
native to the area. You bring it in there. Pack that down so you don't get,
otherwise your entire berm could also just start sliding downhill.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Does anyone have any other questions? Thank you. Is
there any discussion from Council? I was going over this with some of the
questions and concerns that were had before. And I don't think that 1,000 yards
is really going to take care of the situation whatsoever and some of the other
concerns I have is there's some significant amount of organic nursery material
' being dumped within this area too which filters on down through and eventually
can get back into the river. And having such really can cause more given
problems. I appreciate Mr. Hanes concern in trying to substantiate and keep
' that dike or the ponding area there. But to take over some of the things that
he's talking about, 1,000 yards is not going to come anywhere near close. At
one time there was a request for 100,000 yards but somehow or another that was
never carried through so we've not really gone through that part of it. I also
understand that we have some pictures from staff too that there are appliances
that have been thrown into that particular area to eliminate flows from going
down and through. I guess there's another issue that came up was about the
' gate. I think the only thing that staff is really looking for was a gate to
disallow other people from going into that area to dump other kinds of material.
And we're not looking for additional fencing as long as it covers that
particular area as well. It's just a gate to eliminate other people from going
through that process. If and when we were ever to go through this particular
process, I think I'd like to see staff being present when anything is going to
be done. Making sure that whatever is done is being done in the right, proper
' engineering manner so we don't come up with those problems. I don't know, I
guess maybe that's about some of the things that I had seen and also the type of
fill that he was going to use and that clay that I had indicated before because
' anything else you put is just automatically going to just wash away and build
up. So with that I open this back up to Council. Ursula.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well after having read all the reports, it was obvious to
me that that dam was never properly engineered in.the first place because it has
required emergency measures over the years and I think a more permanent solution
is indicated here. I think the fact that Mr. Halia withdrew a former request
that was made in 1990 because he did not agree with the conditions also
indicated that the erosion of the dam may not have been his number one priority
and yet I found it comical that he was urging us to make the "right choice"
regarding the environment. And yet the proposal here, which is supposed to be
environmentally responsible has not proven to be a permanent solution to the
r 27
1
City Council Meeting - August 24. 1992
erosion. And I was wondering, as I read that there were appliances and tree
debris in there that maybe he was using this as a landfill and I think that my
position would be that I'd have him go through the proper procedures for an
interim use permit and have professional engineering.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, let me ask you another question. If they were to, this was 1
to be built, and having an 18 foot say...3:1 slope, would that be an acceptable?
Paul Neumann: I'd have to check our engineering manuals on that. ...something
that we could work with. One of the things that comes...back side, that it
could well require a terraced back sloping which you'd have a step where we put
the water off the slope and then divert off the water... Could quite easily...
So it's going to be, it will take quite an expensive plan.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Even though this is on private property, are there any
dollars out there available to assist in this kind of a proposal?
Paul Neumann: I would say there wouldn't be any Federal or State dollars
because I think if we were looking to solve an advancement...you could do it
with what we call water and soil...which would be constructed literally up in
the nursery itself given the...because we've been receiving directives right
along. Go for the least cost solution to the problem...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Any other discussion? Tom.
Councilman Workman: Well, it sounds like Mr. Halla's right. Right? Mr.
Halla's correct. The dam is going to go and he's going to have a big problem.
However his method is not correct it sounds like and the pictures don't look
real friendly for a guy who uses the word environment. But so I mean do we have
any options? I mean do we just modify? It's clear, I think we all know what
business he's in. He's in the nursery business and he probably has a lot of
extra fill and a lot of extra stuff. Do we allow him to fill and take care of a
problem but make sure he's not putting, by- passing the landfill?
Mayor Chmiel: I think you can condition that if you so choose to allow him to
put another 1,000 yards into that location. 1
Councilman Workman: Just 1,000? 1,000 won't really do anything though will it?
Mayor Chmiel: Not really. ,
Councilman Wing: Well but what would 100,000 do? Is that the fix? Is that the 11 permanent fix?
Mayor Chmiel: I think 100,000 would probably, Charles give me a little feed on
that?
Charles Folch: 100,000 yards is a lot of material.
Mayor Chmiel: That's my thought. 1
Councilman Wing: That goes all the way down to the river...
28 '
1
City Council Meeting - August 24. 1992
II
Mayor Chmiel: I thought we'd be building a bridge over the River Kwai.
Councilman Workman: So I mean are we going to, Mr. Halla's not here tonight so
I'm assuming he's just leaving it to us. If it goes, it goes. It's on his
' property correct?
Paul Neumann: There is one thing...
Mayor Chmiel: Sure Paul, do you want to come up to the mic one more time
because then we can't pick this up on our Minutes.
' Paul Neumann: One other thing and that is, what you could do, there is such a
thing as the State law about dam safety. And all dams and man made dams, dikes,
and such, I think they're in pounds. Certain amount of water. Certain height.
You have to meet a certain standard no matter who builds them and if they don't,
I think that because we have to have the dam that is on Darrel Hesse's property
happens to be one that we built. And that one we have to look at just
periodically to make sure that it's not eroding or look like it's going to be a
' hazard for anybody downstream. And you might want to look into that because
there are some State laws regulating impoundments like that. And whether he'd
want to keep it or not keep it or fix it or not fix it, then it would be like I
think some State laws that would enforce whatever you wanted to do with it.
Mayor Chmiel: Charles, would you check into that.
' Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, that kind of brings us down, if I could bring the
sequence here. The discussion has gone nowhere the two nights we've discussed
this. We don't know what's there. We don't know if it's safe. We don't know
how we should fix it. And every recommendation in every packet we've gotten
says there should be a professional soil engineer. A professional and the
professionals are recommending that we get a professional. So we know what's
there. What should be there. What a professional, permanent fix would be. Is
there a safety hazard and I don't think we can go ahead any further on anything,
including allowing any more dirt in there until we find out what's there, is it
safe and how do you permanently fix it. And if it's nothing but filled with
' trees and debris, it's probably going to be, no amount of dirt's going to fix
it. Or solve the problem. Now I don't know how we would get to the point of
demanding that or asking for that but he asked for 100,000 cubic yards of dirt
to be hauled in but yet he didn't want to spend $3,000.00 to find out from a
professional how to build it, fix it and... Maybe the City has to absorb that
cost just for it's own safety of the people downstream of that thing but I think
to go any further without a professional engineer's study and opinion on that
dam is foolhardy at this point.
Councilman Workman: But we can't require him to do that. It's on private
property. Didn't they build it? Who built that ?. The Corps of Engineers built
it?
Mayor Chmiel: No. My understanding is that that was done strictly by Mr. Halla
himself.
Councilman Workman: So I mean, we can't require him to do anything or spend
$3,000.00. If the dam goes, what does the city have to do with it? Because
29
City Council Meeting - August 24. 1992
•
then, and I remember last time they said well then what we're going to do is
when the erosion gets back to our farm fields, then we're going to start filling
it from there and there's not anything you're going to be able to do about us
putting it there. I don't know. We need to fix the problem. I think you're
right. $3,000.00 doesn't sound like a whole lot of money right now to me.
Mayor Chmiel: No, that's true. In the long run I don't think it really is.
But it depends on who's pocket it's coming out of, yours or his. You know,
that's really what it's hinging on. 1
Roger Knutson: There's really two issues you're wrestling with. The first
issue is, if he wants to put any more fill down there, what does he got to do to
get your permission to do so. Are you going to direct staff to issue a permit
for 1,000 yards or would you want him to go through the interim use permit?
That's issue one. Second issue, and really actually is a separate from it. If
he doesn't do anything at all and there's a safety problem out there, what can ,
we do about it? I mean the first one I think you can easily address. The
second one, I think we're going to have to do some research and get back to you.
Dam safety laws and maybe there's something there.
Councilman Workman: I'd approve Option 3 and move that.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, because 1,000 yards isn't going to do anything so '
why approve it?
Roger Knutson: A quick suggestion. Maybe adding 1,000 yards will make the
problem worst. Put the wrong material in or put it in improperly, that's 1,000
yards that's perhaps got to come off someday before you start doing it right.
Mayor Chmiel: Conceiveably, yeah. 1
Roger Knutson: I mean I don't know.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion. Is there anyone wishing to address
that at this time? We have a motion on the floor.
Councilman Mason: I'll second the motion for Option 3.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Any other discussion?
Jo Ann Olsen: What exactly is that?
Councilman Mason: That's going back to. '
Councilman Workman: That we need professional advice and dam specs.
Jo Ann Olsen: So you're saying that they cannot do anything and check into the 1
safety issue?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. We're denying the 1,000 yards and doing extra '
research.
30 1
City Council Meeting - August 24. 1992
Roger Knutson: If he wants to put in fill, he should come in for an interim use
1 permit.
Councilman Mason: Which would then go before the Planning Commission.
11 Councilman Wing: How do we get the professional opinion on this dam? It's his
property. Who pays for it, him or us?
' Mayor Chmiel: It's his property, it should be his dollars.
Roger Knutson: We'll check out the dam safety laws and advise you as to whether
' there's anything that's applicable there.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to deny the request for
1,000 cubic yards of fill and approve Option 3 for the grading permit for Halla
Nursery. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
' MOSQUITO CONTROL IN CITY PARKS.
Todd Hoffman: Add a little bulk to your packet. Mr. Mayor and members of the
' City Council. Put aside for the moment the issues of Eurasian Water Milfoil and
goose control, mosquito control is here. The Park and Recreation Commission
reviewed extensively the issue of mosquito control in the city's parks and has
forwarded the following four part recommendation to you. Number one, in regards
' to larval control briquettes, allow their use to continue providing notification
of the treatment areas and times are provided. Number two, in regards to adult
mosquito control chemicals, cold fogging, to eliminate their use and to
re- evaluate this program in the fall of 1993 or next year. Number three, they
had been landing the helicopter off and on at Lake Ann. In regards to the
landing, take off and loading of MMCD helicopter in city parks, this practice
shall be prohibited. And number four, that staff and the city actively pursue
' other measures of controlling mosquitoes such as volunteer groups who are
willing to remove breeding site containers, possibly plugging tree cavities.
That has been done in the city previously. And whatever else we can do from a
' community standpoint to control mosquitoes without chemicals. Staff concurs
with this recommendation as you've seen in my memo. I find that it will not
present residents with any undue hardship. I would be glad to address any
questions that the City Council has in this regard and again, there are probably
possibly members of the audience who'd like to speak in this regard.
Mayor Chmiel: I have just a statement. I don't want the city to be a catalyst
' between Mr. Rivkin and Mosquito Control. I think if that's a real problem
between the two, I'd just as soon that it be directed in that particular
fashion. I don't disagree with some of the things you said and of course
' getting sick from that spray, just a note. About 3 years ago or so, my wife was
out in our back yard, she had gotten sprayed with it as well. Fortunately, she
didn't get sick from it. But it can effect people in different ways and I
' didn't know about it until I started discussing it with her. She said let me
tell you something, and she did. I was amazed that she didn't tell me about it
before hand. But with that, is there any other questions that anyone else might
have? Michael.
31
City Council Meeting - August 24. 1992
Councilman Mason: A real quick one. Number one there Todd. About the control
briquettes. That one hits home to me a little bit because two years ago I was
wandering around down in the ponds down by where I live and my little girl has
one of these in her hands and I quite honestly, I had no idea what it was. How
are we going to, what's the notification process? 1
Todd Hoffman: This would have to do strictly with City park property. If you
want to deal with the notification process outside of park property on private
land or otherwise, you would have to address that with the MMCD. As the Park
and Recreation Commission, they strictly handled this issue as it has to do with
public park property.
Councilman Mason: So, what kind of signs are we talking about here?
Todd Hoffman: We have an example of a sign. It was posted at Lake Ann Park
prior to their adult control at Lake Ann this past July 13th. They did not
notify the City of that spraying per their agreement with us but they posted a
sign which was a card about this big on a stake at the entrance to the park. We
simply feel that the accountability of another governmental agency performing
operations within city park property is not too much to ask.
Councilman Wing: Is there some other history we ought to know about here? Any
other local communities nearby tell them to go away?
Todd Hoffman: Items in your packet, which are hard to reference simply because
of the length but yes, there are other cities. Other municipalities who have
taken a look at this issue and have either banned their use or restricted it.
Councilman Mason: I was glad to see the recommendations about ending cold '
fogging and prohibiting the helicopter. I certainly think that's a step in the
right direction.
Councilman Wing: My in -laws are up on Leech Lake and there's no spraying and
there's no mosquito control. They have mosquitoes. I live on Lake Minnewashta
and we have mosquitoes. And if I walk through Lake Ann, we have mosquitoes.
One thing nice if they'd come out with safe mosquito lotions that are very
effective. But if I was to see a helicopter come over my house with a spray or
my daughter picked up a briquette, unless they're willing to eat it in my
presence, I don't want it in my yard. I don't think it's that effective at all. '
I think it's the most incredible bureaucracy I've ever seen get formed here in
my opinion. I listened to the presentation at the, was it the Planning or Park?
I guess it was Park and Rec. They brought all these high flyers in from all
over the country to defend the situation but when it came down to it, nobody
wanted to drink it. It's safe as can be until someone sits and reads the can
and it's going to cause cancer in little mice. Much less my kids. So I'm
really glad we're addressing this issue because I don't like it. My kids, they
won't, my college kids being environmentalists, won't even allow a can of Raid
in the house. I don't even have that option anymore.
Councilman Mason: Geez, you lead a tough life.
Councilman Wing: But they're making a point and they're making a good point.
What are we dumping. And then the highlight was, a month ago in Shorewood going
32 '
City Council Meeting - August 24. 1992
down the railroad tracks and seeing a lady just reaming on a County guy cold
fogging that Shorewood Park over there. Demanding he get out of there and just
furious that he was fogging that park when she was trying to exercise and jog
and I really enjoyed her presentation. And I had to agree with her, and it's so
safe but this guy was bundled up like a moon man you know. And I said, well if
it's so safe, here I am in my underwear jogging and you're bundled up like a
moon man with aspirators on and saying, something's really out of line here. So
at any rate, to get down to seriousness, thank you for bringing this to our
' attention. I think it's an issue well worth discussing. I would much rather,
if they were going to cold fog Lake Ann Park on the 4th of July for fireworks,
my kids wouldn't be there. Pure and simple. I don't want the risk and
' mosquitoes are not controlled by dumping tons of pesticides, even though they're
safe. Even though they're safe. Tons of pesticides, which brings up milfoil.
How much do you spray for milfoil before it's dangerous and you destroy the
lake? I mean there's limits here and I guess I'm saying I'm going to put up
' with milfoil because I can't tolerate the spraying. And I'm going to put up
with mosquitoes because I don't want them buzzing my house with helicopters. If
the vote was up to me tonight, I would vote to exclude them from Chanhassen but
that's my own personal.
Councilman Workman: Briquettes also?
Councilman Wing: I don't see the reason for the briquettes. I'd have to see
their effectiveness proven to me and then in very limited, low lying areas with
specific reason to.
' Councilman Mason: Yeah, I think that briquette thing is a whole another issue.
I mean I sit out on my deck for 3 minutes and I've got 20 mosquito bites and I
know there are briquettes down there so 20 bites or 40 bites, who cares? I mean
at that point I'm going inside anyway so.
Councilwoman Dimler: Recent evidence I think has shown that mosquitoes are
purely a function of the rainfall. So in a dry year we're not going to have
mosquitoes and in a wet year you do. So I guess I would go along with what's
being said here about the effectiveness of the chemicals. I like Option 4 that
you have down there but I'm wondering how realistically is it that you're going
to have volunteers. Groups that are willing to remove breeding site containers
and plugging tree cavities or whatever else needs to be done to control it
without chemicals. Have you had any feeling for what's the public saying.
Todd Hoffman: Simply by conducting a litter pick -up at Lake Ann Park or any
other community parks, which we do on a routine basis through community
organizations, Girl Scouts, that type of thing, will remove breeding sites. But
again, it's a drop in the bucket. It's a move towards the right direction but
realistically, if we think we're going to control mosquitoes well.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, and plugging tree cavities and stuff like that is a
little bit more extensive and to get people to volunteer to do that, I wonder.
1 Todd Hoffman: Correct. That occurred from a few years back when there was the
issue of the disease carrying mosquito.
Councilwoman Dimler: The encephalitis, yeah.
' 33
City Council Meeting - August 24. 1992 II
Todd Hoffman: We had sacks of concrete out in the front hallway here and people
came in and headed home and sealed any of those cavities that they saw in their
area.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Now in the interest of public safety, are we well
enough informed in, prior to a case of encephalitis when encephalitis bearing
insects are in our region? Or do we have to wait for a case to appear and then
we're all up in arms looking for it?
Todd Hoffman: The Park Commission addressed that extensively and the
recommendation comes forward with that in mind. That issue being addressed.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, well I like the four conditions at this point.
Mayor Chmiel: We haven't had our parks sprayed in a year? 11 months.
Todd Hoffman: Other than July 13th. I have the numbers that Mr. Ross Green of
the MMCD did forward to the city on cold fogging treatments. In 1992 we
received no treatments. It was a backpack treatment he informed me out at Lake
Ann. 1991, no cold fogging. 1990, Lake Ann received five treatments, Lake
Susan two, and the Rice Marsh Lake Park one. In '89 no treatments so again as
I raised in my memo, the issue is not much of an issue. It just hasn't been
done. Our folks are out there in the parks utilizing them. There are
mosquitoes there certainly...in my back yard and in yours but we learn to
tolerate them. '
Mayor Chmiel: No, I can't tolerate them. I just go inside.
Councilman Mason: That's right. That's the answer. ,
Mayor Chmiel: It really gets to that point where there can be 15 people out and
2,000 mosquitoes and you know who they're going to nibble on.
Councilwoman Dimler: You're so sweet.
Mayor Chmiel: ...any other discussion?
Councilman Workman: I just had one thing. We aren't going to let Eric talk I
guess huL '
Mayor Chmiel: Well, we might. I think we've gone through. Excuse me, I've got
one more packet that we brought.
Councilman Workman: Isn't it Eric V. for volumes? I agree with most of this
really. I mean I tell you what, I've been sitting out at the 4th of July every
year for 5 years and it's been the same every year. I mean nothing's changed. I
feel nothing has changed. It gets dark, the mosquitoes come out. But very
early in the packet, because I only read 2 pages of it, no. Eric makes the
point that you can live by the ecology and the way the system works is, after
two seasons without chemical mosquito controls in my wetlands at Lake Lucy,
mosquito annoyance feels less than it was with chemical control. But the
important sentence is, the difference might be in the hordes of dragonflies that
return to eat mosquitoes along with frogs and snakes after the chemicals
34
City Council Meeting - August 24. 1992
II
disappear from our ro ert . We've known this for a long time that those P P Y 9 ho kind
of things, a healthy wetland will take care of itself but we're always kind of
tinkering and so everything that I think the Mosquito District wants to do kind
of goes against that. And so I don't feel any different. This is really a no
brainer for me to say, gee. Let's do without something I didn't know was really
working anyway.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can we get our property taxes back then?
Mayor Chmiel: Well really the cost and the cost that it does on that for the
city, we pay a half percent and normally 1% entails roughly about $90,000.00 so
we're paying about $45,000.00.
Councilman Workman: Can we opt out of the system?
Mayor Chmiel: There are other things of concern. How do we really address
this? How do try to eliminate what the given problems are as far as mosquitoes
are? What do we do? I get a little concerned with this encephalitis. More
' specifically with young children. Just to cite the July 4th. We all stood on
my deck. It held us up. And my granddaughter who is 4 1/2 years old. She's
allergic to just about everything and she has asthma bad so you can't spray her
with mosquito repellent. But she wanted to watch this and I said now,
' constantly just keep brushing your face away. She did some of that and her dad
doing the same thing. When I saw her the next day I thought she had measles. I
mean, he face was just literally covered. She was bundled up so she could not be
' bitten fully as she could have been if she has been in a pair of shorts or
something. So it is a bad situation. Of course Carver County has been
chastised by Hennepin County as the growing fields for mosquitoes. And I know
that, the briquettes that have been put out in use, from my understanding and
talking with some people, other than Mosquito Control District, they say that is
the healthful way. Unfortunately your daughter did pick one of these up.
Probably more do, that's another question. But I think we have to really look
at this fully to come up with a conclusion as to how, and what's the best way to
real]; do it. Do we eliminate it? We're not going to get rid of mosquitoes.
We're just going to have that many more. If we get rid of tires or the
' breeding, wet areas. Once it dries they come back.
Councilman Workman: Don't we have enough history in this thing? Is somebody
going to come along? Have they proven, maybe somebody can tell me if it's in
the packet somewhere. Isn't there enough information that says this program is
working or is not working? How do they measure their results? How can you
measure the results? I guess everybody here is saying, we don't think it's
' working or maybe is not worth the risk but are we exposing our community to some
other disease if we say no to briquettes and everything else. I would think
they would somehow begin to arrive. Is this a protected bureaucracy that isn't
going to go away no matter what? I mean hey, it's not working folks. Thanks
for your efforts. Why don't you...Mobility Transit program needs some money. I
mean are they at that? I know there's a debate in the legislature and places.
We have some local legislators that are very active in it.
' Councilman Wing: I think the night of the Park and Rec, they brought up two
separate programs. One is the mosquito program. The other is the encephalitis.
What they're doing at Lake Ann is different than what they're doing out by the
35
1
City Council Meeting - August 24. 1992
•
Junior High School so I would make an exclusion here. Just again my opinion,
when we opt out with the exception of the encephalitis program. Where it's
identified. Where it's known, that it be attacked aggressively and there they
are using briquettes and they're filling the cavities and getting rid of tires
and the cans and so on and so forth. There I think they're providing us a
service that's well worth the money and the effort, but it's a separate program
as I see it.
Councilman Workman: One of my questions for the larger question is, while we ,
don't believe in the Met Council so we're going to not follow what the Met
Council says and does. Mosquito Control District is a regional government that
has a certain amount of power somewhere. Can the city say, maybe we can get
Roger, can the city say we're going to pick and choose what we want to do here?
Roger Knutson: I think the answer is no but let me look at that. It's on
public property. They have statutory authority to go out and do their thing and
they don't need our blessing for it. But I'll double check that. That's not
something that comes up too often. '
Councilman Wing: What if Mr. Rivkin then threw him out of his neighborhood?
Roger Knutson: Oh city property, sure. You can keep them off city property. '
Councilman Wing: Then Mr. Rivkin has the right to keep them off his property,
which he chose to do. '
Councilman Workman: What property can they go on? Other's property.
Roger Knutson: People who don't complain. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone here from Mosquito Control that can answer that?
Bob Shogren: Good evening. My name is Bob Shogren. I'm the director of the
Mosquito Control District and I've enjoyed your discussion here this evening.
I'd be happy to answer a few of the questions. First of all, the program is a
regional program that is directed at identifying the most prolific mosquito
breeding locations. Of some 70,000, we rank them. Map and rank them and treat
the most prolific ones and those areas, we make these treatments on to surpress
the numbers. Now on a regional basis, as you get inside of the working area of
the district, further than where Chanhassen resides, you get the surpression
effect from the program. Unfortunately you are near the perimeter or near the
edge of it and these mosquitoes can readily move 15 to 30 miles. Regarding
eating of the material, the briquettes, I'd be gladly to eat good parts of it.
I don't think I'd eat the whole thing because it's the size of a rock but I'd be
happy to eat a quarter of it in front of you. That material is approved for
use. If you think it's funny, it's even more funny that if you look at the
material, it is approved for use in cattle feed thru. Chicken feed thru. This
Morman feed block that is for face fly or for horn fly control has the exact
same material in it that's in a mineral block so it is approved and it is a '
material that does not have any activity on humans. I say activity because
insecticide in this case, it's a mimic of an insect hormone that is used to
regulate insect growth of these particular insects. Humans don't have any
receptors to have, to receive the effect which is a growth regulator.
36 ,
'City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992
Regulation. We can get into that further but I respect your frustrations about
having mosquitoes. I share those same frustrations as administrator of the
program. I've been in mosquito control for 32 years and here for 17. You have
an area here in Minnesota that has extremely extensive mosquito production. We
do not have, nor am I proposing that we should have, funds to treat all the
sites which produce mosquitoes. I also live in a perimeter area and we have
mosquitoes. Our goal is not to eliminate the mosquitoes. It's to reduce those
' numbers and again Chanhassen unfortunately is at a perimeter of the developed
metropolitan area and you receive the infiltration of a lot of mosquitoes that
come from outlying areas. Regarding adult mosquito control your feelings, like
' you say, even though it's safe. People don't want it and we're hearing this.
We've begun 2 years ago, 3 years ago to develop, to encourage. We can't afford
to develop it nor should we, but to encourage development of a whole new concept
of mosquito control which uses attractants. We hosted an international
conference in 1989. Brought in 17 of the world experts in this field. It can
be done. It will take a while to be done but adult mosquito control, people
don't like it. We've heard that too. And so we are reducing the adult mosquito
' efforts because of this. We are a service agency. We should be servents and
it's my goal to be servents to what the people want. We all live in times of
change. Change is inevitable. We don't have any trouble with that. We are
striving. We have a group of professionals that are well trained and I'm very
comfortable with the decisions that are being made to rank order all the
mosquito producing sites. Treat those that have the highest numbers to bring
those numbers down. And those numbers, in terms of evaluating the
effectiveness, I'd be happy to demonstrate. Take you into the field, show you
prime mosquito breeding areas. Where we're treating. Collect the mosquitoes
that have been treated with the hormone. Follow whatever the numbers of adult
mosquitoes that emerge from these places. The material leaves. It does not
effect this. There's a lot of common conjecture that merely is wrong in terms
of, you know talking about the dragonflies and stuff. We're not treating places
where dragonflies develop. Those are in lakes. And dragonflies are not a major
production. In the shallows, the most prolific areas that mosquitoes produce
are in what you'd call wild hay meadows. The places where they go in and
they're wet and dry. They have reed canary grass in them. 93% of all
' mosquitoes, and we have 50 different species. We work primarily on 10 but the
most common is about 70: of all the annoyance is caused by one species and that
one develops 93% in wild hay meadows. That's the places we focus on. Perhaps I
' might answer specific questions you have. Again, I respect Mr. Mayor and
members of the Council, I respect your total responsibility to do what's best
for the citizens of the community and it's my job to serve you in the best way
that we can to meet the needs that you have.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Does anyone have any specific questions?
' Councilwoman Dimler: I'm just wondering, what is your opinion of the rainfall
amount and how that effects the population and if :your program does anything at
all for that?
Bob Shogren: Okay. It is true that the mosquitoes are stimulated to hatch the
eggs which can lay dormant for 6 to 8 years and accumulate over time. As you
get very heavy rains, the egg bands are hatched and that as the rain stimulates
the hatch. That we are not able, over the some 3,000 square miles of the
metropolitan region, we're not able to treat all the mosquito breeding sites.
37
1
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992
We focus on treatment of the most prolific ones with this 80/20 approach. There
are places that we go by that we do not treat because they have lower levels of
mosquitoes in them. Those lower levels of mosquitoes in areas such as
Chanhassen as a perimeter, create a background population that, like you say, if
you've got 20 or if you have 50, what's the difference? Unfortunately, that is
the case but in the large regional context, that focusing on the most prolific
areas does drop those mosquito areas. We have a quality assurance program that
assesses the level of control that is achieved in the treated area. If you look
at the difference in the levels of mosquitoes in the exterior areas versus the
interior, you would find them to be in the neighborhood of 80% reduction. It is
not complete but also in 7 counties that's covered, the problem is very acute so
the choices are not to have any and that's an option. Or to reduce the levels
to the greatest degree possible with what realistically should be spent out of
many other public demand requirements to suppress those populations to the
greatest extent that can be done efficiently. In recent years the program, the
legislature and citizens asked us to include biting gnat control. It became a
severe problem in the mid 80's and Chanhassen doesn't have a major problem but
Hennepin, Anoka, Ramsey, very heavy populations in that control. Recently we
also asked to undertake studies on lyme disease ticks. We're doing that work. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: So do you in a dry year then do less controlling?
Bob Shogren: Yes we do. 1
Councilman Wing: What about the statutory question that was brought up? Do you
have the right to go and statutorily what are your responsibilities? 1
Bob Shogren: The responsibilities are to conduct the functions of the Mosquito
Control District. If citizens wish, if they have opinions that they choose to
hold and they wish the district not to control mosquitoes on their property,
that is honored. In terms, I'm not aware of the statutory factor in terms of a
city opting out. I'm not an attorney. That hasn't been done in the past. But
it's open to legal interpretation.
Councilman Wing: Where can you go to work or where can't you go? I guess is
there a simple answer to that? 1
Bob Shogren: We are responsible to inspect and to monitor for pest and
mosquitoes. Disease mosquitoes on properties except those that are denied
access by the property owners. If there's a disease problem such as
encephalitis, then we are empowered to go into those properties and to inspect
and determine whether those types of mosquitoes are present for purposes of 11 control. But for pest mosquitoes, not.
Councilwoman Dimler: Then could you answer that question I asked earlier about,
do we have to wait for a case of encephalitis to show before you're aware that
those types of mosquitoes are present or do you know that beforehand so we can
take preventative measures?
Bob Shogren: We know that beforehand. If we're not barred entry from working 1
in the area. We have a LaCrosse encephalitis prevention program and it works
throughout those counties where this particular mosquito occurs as well as the
virus and those areas are surveyed. As you may know, Zumbra Ridge is a 1
38 '
1
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992
classical virus area. Virus contains itself through the presence of the
mosquito in artificial containers as you spoke. And tree holes. We have a
monitoring program on the mosquitoes and based on that monitoring program for
the numbers of mosquitoes of that type that transmits LaCrosse encephalitis,
there are two types of encephalitis that occur in Minnesota. LaCrosse
encephalitis in small children is the one that year to year can occur because
the virus carries over in the egg of the mosquito which can then come out, even
in a chipmunk can amplify. In unusual circumstances, there's a second virus
' called Western encephalitis virus. That occurs in open meadow country. That
one, in the late 30's, early 40's, there were over 10,000 horse cases in
Minnesota. In '76,'78 and '83. In '83 there were about 1,000 isolations of
that virus in the State. But yes, we can determine in advance by the number of
mosquitoes of the type that can transmit. That's the key as to whether control
measures are recommended to be initiated. And if those levels are low, then the
probability of transmission is low. It's not an all or none but it's a
probability.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. And so at that point did I hear you say if that
were present in our area, you would automatically come in and do something with
it? You wouldn't need approval to do that?
Bob Shogren: That's correct. We can inform you about it but would not need
approval, unless you decline that service.
Don Ashworth: It's been a number of years ago, but I'd seen some of the
' correspondence that had occurred between DNR and your agency in terms of
treating the lower Minnesota River valley area that had literally been taken
over with the control of that by DNR. Some of these same questions were kind of
posed at that point in time. In other words, the potential effects for wildlife
and whether or not you should be in there or not in there. How was that issue
ever resolved? Are you currently treating that area?
Bob Shogren: If I can clarify between DNR and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service so
let me first talk about DNR. Because there have been assumptions of
environmental harm and that the technical literature has not been regarded as
valid by those who make these claims, principally the environmental groups. Mr.
Rivkin and others. In my 32 years of working mosquito control, there are about
10 or 15 people who have mounted these claims. The commission has decided that
the only way to resolve this is to set up an independent research panel of
technical experts to make the decisions and the environmental groups appointed
two experts on their group. It's called Scientific Pure Review Panel. After 5
years of research, a report is due out this fall. I can get copies of the
report if you wish. The bottom line is that the two larval control materials,
the bacteria and the insect hormone is specific to the mosquitoes. We have now
back to the, DNR has a representative on that Scientific Panel. We have a
' memorandum of agreement with the Department of Natural Resources. These control
materials like the insect hormone does not remove the food for the ducks and for
other insects. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, it's a political decision.
' That is a political decision that's been pressured by environmental groups.
There is not a scientific basis for making the decision but they allow us to
monitor in the river valley but they do not allow us to treat. And it's an
interesting approach for me technically because there's not a valid basis but
' following the political pressure that they receive, they made that decision.
39
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992
Don Ashworth: Does that area, you mentioned that the grassy areas are the most
prolific as far as producing mosquitoes. Is the Minnesota River basin area, is
that considered a prolific breeding ground area or does that get into the minor
area, the 20: breeding ground.
Bob Shogren: Some of each. Areas where there is reed canary along the '
shoreline, it's prolific. Particularly where there's a very flat shoreline and
times that the river valley floods. Where there's cattail marshes, very low
production. There is a type of mosquito that's called a cattail mosquito that
develops breeding through the roots of the cattails. That we do have a control
program in areas where there are not fish, as required by the label. And that's
again the insect hormone. Insect hormone does not have an effect on fish but
it's a regulatory change that has yet to be taken.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Any other questions? Thank you. Eric, I'd like to allow
you at least 10 minutes.
Eric Rivkin: I was going to say 6 but.
Mayor Chmiel: It's the old story as they told us in the Army. You expect 10,
you get 5 but you get 3.
Eric Rivkin: Okay, well I didn't intend that the packet become as thick as it ,
did. If some of you didn't read it all, I'll recap a few things. And as my
letter of June 26th in your packet indicates, I didn't intend that the debate
involve anything more than adult mosquito control, pesticide use in Chanhassen
Parks. It can, as Dr. Shogren had said, and I also know the law very well
because I testified in committee at the legislature about this law. Statute 473
704. That allows individual citizens, businesses, or cities, municipalities to
object to the nuisance mosquito control program. Not the disease carrying
mosquitoes, and I wouldn't want to object to it and I didn't and I can't and I
wouldn't want you to. If there's an outbreak of LaCrosse encephalitis, or any
other disease, I would want somebody to come in and find out where the source of
it is. However I think there's a little bit of misinformation or
misunderstanding about where these mosquitoes breed. LaCrosse mosquitoes breed
exclusively in artificial containers and old tires, beer cans, thousands of them
lying in our parks. They do not breed in wetlands and they do not breed in hay
meadows. The 90', of the mosquitoes that Dr. Shogren says is called an Aedes
vexans and that is the common nuisance mosquito that is the target of the
larvacide program and that there's a cattail mosquito..., which is the target of
also the larvacides too, because it's an aggressive biting mosquito and it's a
target of a nuisance control program. The technical advisory board and the
Scientific Pure Review Panels are two independent advistory boards of the MMCD
acknowledge in many publications that the 99.99 of the budget of the Mosquito
Control District is for nuisance mosquito control. And I want to explain the
facts, the evidence, regarding any disease carrying mosquito threat in our parks
because I think that's the issue. If you want to, the city does have the right
to expand this, the right to cancel the nuisance control program on city owned
land as Minneapolis did. They banned mosquito control in 6,400 acres of parks
and city land. The issue here tonight recommended by the Park Board is parks
only and adulticides only. I recommend that we keep that, we can vote tonight
perhaps to keep it that way for now. Just so we can move on to something else.
But if you want to expand it to larvacides, I won't be back for a long time.
40
11
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992
II
Councilman Workman: So moved.
Eric Rivkin: So, it's 20 after 10:00 so it's up to you. I do want to say some
things. I did not intend for this to become an issue in Chanhassen parks until
my son and I became sick last year because of confirmed exposure to Punt
' insecticide as a result of the MMCD illegally spraying at Lake Ann Park in June
of '91. And I'd like to ask you, how many more people have to get sick from
chemicals that are scientifically proven toxic to fish, birds and insects, as it
says on the labels on these chemicals. These labels are in your packet and the
MMCD had a lapse in respect for these labels last June of '91. How many more
people have to be needlessly exposed if they're in the park when spraying is
occurring when our own State Health Department warns us not to breathe the mist.
Two weeks ago, the Assistant to the Department of Health to the Commissioner of
Health has a report. They evaluated all the scientific literature about health
effects of adulticides to people and they are recommending officially, it's in
' the review of the MMCD right now, that people should not breathe the mist of the
adulticides. There's no warning that these chemicals are sprayed on foliage.
These little yellow signs that they post in the parks were completely missed by
a teacher of pre - schoolers that I videotaped when I was there witnessing their
spraying on July 13th. They came, drove in. Played in the playground while the
sprayers were going back and forth. Thank God they were down wind or otherwise
I would have informed them a little bit more serious threat because it made me
sick. And I talked to the teacher up there. I said, did you see the signs they
just posted a few seconds ago? She said, what signs. I didn't see any signs.
Bright yellow. Didn't see them. They posted them, two of them up in the road
in the middle of the park, hundreds of feet away from where they sprayed on the
harborage in the edge of the woods. And you know, completely missed them. And
she was worried because some of the kids in her class had allergic allergies.
' And our Health Department warns that people who have ragweed allergies, if they
touch this substance can get reactions as I and my son did. The children at,
school children at Crosby Park in St. Paul were there when the sprayers were
coming and they were fogging and the foggers of the MMCD told the park
naturalist that the stuff is safe. You know we don't, it's not going to hurt
you Keep on doing, conducting your class in the woods where they were spraying
hundreds of feet and one of the children noticed, well if it's so safe, how come
you guy; are wearing masks. Same point you brought up. And how much more
should our wildlife suffer when scientist have confirmed evidence that the
adulticide Scourge kills butterfly larvae and many more insects in the food
' chain than just mosquitoes. This is very recent. 1992. A study that was done,
a conference in Florida. Mosquito Control Center of the United States and there
are scientists in here in Gainsville, Florida who have confirmed that these
adulticides kill far more. They are not specific to mosquitoes. And there are
' also reports in here about, comments about larvacides being uneffective. They
are recommending to the State of Florida, who spends $60 million for mosquito
control for the entire state, that they ban or consider alternatives other than
' chemicals. That includes larvacides and adulticides. This is the state of the
art. This is two months ago and as Dr. Shogren said, things like attractants.
Beating the mosquito at it's own game. Outsmarting it, is the trend now. In
your packet there you see an article in Time magazine bears the same thing out.
This is what scientist, not me. Not Dr. Shogren but many, many more scientists
and experts are in the know about this thing. I think we should trust them.
And so how am I to convince you also that these mosquito, the adult mosquito
controls are ineffective as well as unsafe. Well, we've heard the antidotal
1 41
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992 II
evidence. Al Klingelhutz testified at the last Park Board meeting that people
were not annoyed by mosquitoes at the July 4th events. I talked to the gate
keeper and fine lifeguards there who said mosquitoes were not bothersome this
year. The park hadn't been sprayed until July 13th means that for a whole year
no nuisance mosquito control, including no larvacide treatments surrounding all
the wetlands for a full 2 years, shows that natural factors determine the low
mosquito annoyance. So why do we need it? As Todd points out, in the front
page there, people in Chanhassen have enjoyed outdoor activities there without
mosquito controls. The MMCD's own tests, which I saw at a TAB meeting this last
March, show that mosquitoes return to normal levels within days after treatment
from adulticides anyway. And if it rains, it's even sooner. So let's consider
the mosquito transmitted diseases for a minute from the big picture and review
the evidence in Chanhassen parks. The mosquito disease program is budgeted less
•
than 1% of the MMCD's budget. $118,000.00 for 1992. It consists of a cost
effective, and I'm bragging about this. It's a cost effective, monitoring and
education to remove breeding sites such as tree holes, tires, litter containers
in high risk areas. I'm quoting from the Mosquito District's own literature on
that one. Craig Hedberg who is the Department of Health's representative on the
technical advisory board of the MMCD told me that chemical controls are only
used in a local area as a last resort only, underlining the word only. When
there is a reported disease confirmed and traced to a particular area and after
removing breeding sites have already failed. The common nuisance mosquito,
Aedes vexans does not transmit human diseases. Lake Ann Park is not identified
as a high risk area nor any of our other parks. The mosquitoes have not been
found to carry any virus nor have any cases been traced there to the Health
Department's knowledge. Last reported case in Chanhassen was 1984, according to
Dave Neitzel of the MMCD. And these pamphlets distributed by the MMCD which are
upstairs in a foyer, suggest a threat of encephalitis can be, LaCrosse
encephalitis can be 100% eliminated by education and removing the breeding
sites. We can do what the Park Board recommends by on a volunteer basis. The
Park Board of Minneapolis gave approval unanimously for staff recommendation to
ban all mosquito controls. Other parks and natural areas in the 7 county area
which you'll find in the packet right here, on the August 4th updated list, does
say that the 0NR Wildlife Management area, scientific and natural areas of the
DNR have been, are all controls are prohibited. Carlos Avery, the National
Wildlife Refuge in Chanhassen. Mary Mitchell the biologist down there has long
known that mosquito controls can effect, the food chain disruption and long
before the environmental groups had ever, I'm on the scene recently. And many
other parks and nature centers around the Twin Cities area. Since I am an
expert on finding the right information, I'm not an expert on mosquitoes. I ask
the opportunity for you to use me as a resource for facts that question the
safety or effect...mosquito controls. For information that helps some of these
park boards and whatever make these decisions. And I think Todd and the Park
Board have done a wonderful job and I'd like to, do you want to take time to
debate the larvacides, I can tell you facts about them but I just hope for now
that you support the Board's recommendation in it's entirety without the
larvacide being an issue. As far as the briquettes,'I want to respond to a
couple of things that Dr. Shogren said. Although it's of low toxicity, not
non - toxic, it is not specific to mosquitoes. The study that Dr. Cooper did
shows that it does kill midge larve which is a protein source for ducklings.
The study hasn't been concluded yet because he hasn't gotten funding to complete
it. As far as it's effectiveness of the briquettes. If you look at their
annual report, in a newsprint article that was in the Tribune recently, over one
42 1
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992
half of the total acreage treated for 1991 and 1990 is with adulticides. We're
' talking 220,000 acres. That's 57% of the total acres treated in 1991.
Estimated for 1992 this season is 53% of total acres treated. That either
indicates that the larvacides aren't working very well or we just have too many
mosquitoes that are ever going to make a difference with larvacides or what, we
don't know. There also have been no mosquito movement studies ever done that
really are of any scientific proof. Where the mosquitoes are actually coming
from. They have been asked for but never really done. So whether our
mosquitoes are just local for here, is a matter of opinion.
Mayor Chmiel: You have about 10 seconds more.
Eric Rivkin: Okay. The label on the briquettes says, keep out of reach of
children. Big letters. It's not approved for use in any fish bearing waters by
' the DNR. They cannot apply it within 150 feet of any fish bearing area in the
water. When they apply briquettes to mosquitoes. Thank you.
Councilman Wing: Eric, before you go, just a question. The people that,
I including the doctor this evening, appear to me to be very legitimate. Very
sincere. Very knowledgeable. Very trained in his field. How do you relate to
the Metropolitan Mosquito group? I mean I don't disagree with what you say but
11 on the other hand, they seem to be a little more defensive. They come in with
information that isn't quite as aggressive as yours and I seem to feel very
comfortable with the fact that they are very professional.
Eric Rivkin: Well I can only, like I say, I gather information that is quite
compelling that either contradicts or compliments concerns about the environment
and they're quoted in here in my June 26th letter. I quoted out of this study
' called Mosquito Control Pesticides Ecological Impacts and Management
Alternatives. And it's listed under, are mosquito control chemicals harmful to
the environment. These are scientists you know, like Dr. Shogren you know. All
over the country at the mosquito research center who have studied these for
years and years and are coming up with these statements in here. And these are
very recent studies so I try to provide you with the most recent things and the
most knowledgeable from real experts.
' Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions?
Councilman Workman: I suggest we institute a mosquito banding program
immediately. It's funny because I'm thinking of this regional government thing
and I'm sitting in a meeting on a transit meeting not that long ago on a task.
A legislative task force and a legislator from Minneapolis chastised our city by
name as a city that's getting away with murder on sewers and expansion and just
unbelieveable. Well what the mosquito control district is telling me is that
mosquitoes can travel 15 to 30 miles. Well that's Minneapolis and St. Paul and
' we're getting mosquitoes from Young America and then out there. So our job is
to help them. Well why should we? You know because that's the way they've got
the whole system set up. It's transit and mosquitoes and everything else. I'm
1 starting to get this trend here you know. The region, we're a part of the
region only to help Minneapolis and St. Paul I sometimes get the feeling.
Councilwoman Dimler: Not only sometimes.
11 43
1
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992 II
Councilman Workman: I'd make a motion.
Mayer Chmiel: Okay, I will entertain one. 1
Councilman Workman: As proposed by Park and Rec.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Eric Rivkin: We've got one more speaker...
Councilman Wing: Then I'd like to hear the MMCD have a short rebate.
Mayor Chmiel: We have a curfew time with Council. So therefore we've heard the '
pros and cons of the issues. We've read the issues. I think we have a pretty
good idea.
Al Singer: All I can say is that I can be a resource if you're so inclined.
I'm the Environmental Ed Coordinator for the Minneapolis Park Board...
subsequent decisions. I've worked at a facility in West St. Paul that
eliminated mosquito control...1980's so if I can be, I don't live in Chanhassen.
I live in Maplewood...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) ,
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion by Council?
Councilman Mason: One quick comment. I wonder if Park and Rec should be
looking into with some of the things that appear to be coming out now, if we
should be lc.oir:g at even, I'm not sure what's the word. Less participation
from thF MMCD on parkland. I mean I think this is a step in the right direction
and I'm not necessarily advocating that we should but I think we should be
locking into it.
Todd Hoffman: Specifically at larval control?
Councilman Mason: I think that, yeah. Yeah. '
Mayor Chmiel: It's something we can look at.
Councilman Wing: Would you entertain one more question? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Just real quickly, I was curious. Why did Minneapolis Park and
Per's elect to ban mosquito control? What was, did you have a 3 minute answer? '
Al Singer: Again for the record I'm Al Singer. I'm a resident of the city of
Maplewood and I'm the Environmental Ed Coordinator for the Minneapolis Park
Board. We actually had the people from the mosquito:control district visit our
staff and talk about some of the issues as it pertained to Minneapolis.
Obviously Minneapolis is much different than Chanhassen. By and large the only
available mosquito habitat in Minneapolis is parkland and so we looked at
literature from across the board, including material provided by MMCD, and
basically it came down to several things. One is, we did not feel that the
district could prove that they'd been effective both in terms of the number of 1
44
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992
mosquitoes and in terms of the amount of money that has been spent. Secondly,
' there still are some questions about some of the long term effects that by
MMCD's own admission they still do not have the answers for But I think the
most compelling reason is that we felt, the Park Board has been working on a
comprehensive environmental policy to govern all activities of the park and
recreation board. Now the park and recreation board is much more atonamous than
the commission it is here. And so we're looking at things from chemicals that
are used in turf management. We're looking at energy efficiency. We're looking
at products that are used in our operations and so forth. And so this
recommendation to the board prohibiting the use of chemicals for controlling
mosquitoes really went along with that policy and that provided the basis for
our decision.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. We have a motion on the floor with a second.
' Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the Park and
Recreation Commission recommendation regarding mosquito control in the city of
Chanhassen parks as follows:
1. In regards to laval control briquettes, allow their use to continue
providing notification of the treatment areas and times are provided;
2. In regards to adult mosquito control chemicals (cold fogging), to eliminate
their use and to re- evaluate the program in the fall of 1993;
' 3. In regards to the landing, take off and loading the MMCD helicopter in city
parks, that this practice be prohibited.
' 4. That staff and the city actively pursue other measures of controlling
mosquitoes such as volunteer groups who are willing to remove breeding site
containers, possibly plugging tree cavities and whatever else can be done
from a community standpoint to control mosquitoes without chemicals.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
REVIEW DRAFT OF THE MINNEGASCO /CITY FRANCHISE AGREEMENT.
Don Ashworth: Just an update for Council members. I have, Mayor Chmiel and I
have been discussing the proposed draft with his experience in the franchise
area and I just wanted the Council to be aware that we are in the process of
working on that. If Councilmembers have concerns, if you'd address those either
to the Mayor or to myself. Hopefully we'll have a draft in front of you
1 hopefully by next City Council meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: One other things. One of the things that I suggest that we,
t rather than granting a 20 year franchise, that we look at 10 because things are
changing. The other thing to think about is, franchise fees. I'm not advocate
of it because you put it back on the residents within the city. They are paying
that so it's another kind of taxation in itself but that's something we'll just
' really sort of thing about. I have other things that I've worked in here that
I have some comments on. And the other thing Don that I'd like us to do is to
look at our Village of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota Ordinance No. B. In
there I think we've got to make some changes from village to cities and update
' 45
1
City Council Meeting - August 24, 1992
this. And also include Hennepin County in as a part of the thing as well as
with Carver County. 1
Don Ashworth: That's the original one as it was signed back at that time. I'm
sure the codification process, and I didn't make a copy of the most current one.
Basically that is the original one.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. And then we'd have to insert the new names and company as
opposed to what they have in here previously before so we're sure that we've got
it. So with that, just something for you to think about. I'd ask for a motion
for adjournment.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. 1
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10 :40
p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim '
1
1
r
•
1
1
1
1
1
46 ,
1
1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 19, 1992
Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad, Steve Emmings, Brian Batzli,
Jeff Farmakes, and Joan Ahrens
' MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Ledvina
' STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; JoAnn Olsen, Senior
Planner; Kate Aanenson, Planner II; Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering
Technician; and Todd Gerhardt, Asst. City Manager
' PUBLIC HEARING:
SUBDIVISION OF A 5 ACRE PARCEL FROM A 19+ ACRE SITE ON PROPERTY ZONED A2,
' AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED AT 10151 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, DAVID
TEICH.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report. Chairman Batzli called the
public hearing to order.
David Teich: I'm David Teich and I'll be subdividing the property that I'm
' selling. I'm selling 5 acres off of the 19. It's as simple as that. I'll
be moving off the property and the home on the 5 acres. One question about
the easement. Now the map is in error. To my knowledge, the survey I
' provided does allow for a 66 1/2, at least that access right off of TH 101
to the north portion. That would be the access to the 14 acres that I
think you need. The line, if I could use the map for just a moment does
not go where it meets TH 101 on the northwest corner there. There is 66.
Aanenson: Right here?
David Teich: That's right. The line will fall 66 1/2 feet, at least that
to the south of that point. I'm sorry Kate but I didn't see that until on
the way up here this evening, on your staff report. The easement you're
' requiring I think is already there.
Aanenson: We can verify that. It's a lengthy legal description...but we'd
' also still be concerned because that would only serve possibly this
portion. It is in the bluff overlay zone and these lots would still meet.
They wouldn't want anything to cross over that ravine there so we still may
want to secure, make sure there's access to that northern portion because
of the bluff overlay zone.
Emmings: I thought you were requiring an easement on the north portion.
r Aanenson: Exactly. He's saying he's got access through here.
Emmings: Oh. Is that what you're saying?
Aanenson: The land itself is not landlocked. It wouldn't be because I do
have access onto TH 101.
Emmings: From the 5 acre parcel?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 2
1
David Teich: From the 14 acre parcel. With an established access there.
Aanenson: He's saying it would follow along right through here. This is
what we're showing as the property line. He's saying it's right in here.
' Emmings: I thought that was a deep ravine there?
Aanenson: That's what I'm saying, yeah.
David Teich: In the middle there, yeah. That's right.
' Emmings: How do you do that? I'm not understanding this. You're saying
there's an easement that goes across the ravine?
David Teich: No. I have an access onto TH 101 from the 14 acres that will
be left.
Emmings: Where is it? Would you go up there and point to it.
David Teich: This line here will actually go, there is 66 1/2 feet here
with an access already established there. That would be the access to the
' 14 acres.
Aanenson: But you'd still have to cross a ravine to get to that northern
portion which I'm saying you still would need an easement.
David Teich: Okay. This 30 foot road, this down here and this is part of
the 14 acres. It is a mess and I was handed that by my father... I do own
' this 30 feet and this here is an easement, not recorded, with Mr.
Graffunder and I have access there. I've talked to Paul about that. My
understanding is that we were just going to leave it as it is. I could use
it as my own. That road because anything else ever happens, as you well
know, the road will angle up so we discussed that it may not be worth
getting an easement for that road because if anything else did happen back
there, the road would then go public anyway. And as far as the question of
' the land becoming landlocked, it's not. There is access with the exception
of having to build a bridge across that ravine.
' Emmings: Well I think that's obviously what they're concerned about. They
want access to the part on the other side of it.
David Teich: There is access. I have access to that part.
11 Ahrens: Through an unrecorded easement.
David Teich: That's right.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else
would like to comment on this?
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Joan, do you have comments? Questions.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 3
Ahrens: Kate, you said that, eventually there's going to be a trail
easement on either side of this road?
Aanenson: Correct.
Ahrens: Of TH 101? '
Aanenson: Yes.
Ahrens: Would they only need to secure a trail easement now?
Aanenson: That was a recommendation from the Parks Commission and I guess"
Krauss: If I could. There were some decisions that we made in house about
that. The future of TH 101 is completely unknown to us. It clearly needs
to be upgraded. It clearly is a State highway and the State clearly won't '
do anything about it. They want to give it to the County. The County
doesn't, or the City, nobody wants to take it until it's fixed. The
alignment that Kate has up on the board there is one that we developed in II
conjunction with Mr. Halla's plat 2 or 3 years ago because it's very clear
that we have that very tight curve through Mr. Halla's property that even a
minor upgrading of the road is going to want to make that change. But loll
term, we don't know what alignment this road's going to take and it pretty
significantly impacts Mr. Teich's property. 1 mean it basically almost
takes it if you go with this alignment, and this alignment has no legal
standing. It's just again, it's an inner office design that we came up
with and we didn't feel that that was strong enough basis to require
dedication which may in fact be a taking of the property. When MnDot or
the County actually figure out the proper alignment in the future, that's II
when they'll have to get the right -of -way.
Ahrens: Now when you say that this property is going to be unbuildable, II
are you implying that once the MUSA line moves out, it will be buildable?
Aanenson: Well yeah, it's the 1 unit per 10 because you're outside the
Urban Service Area. 5o once sewer's available.
Ahrens: You're not implying to the applicant that this is buildable land
right? '
Aanenson: No. It's in the bluff overlay zone and that's been zoned,
correct. As far as what he can get for density, we have no idea at this
point. What we're saying is that he couldn't pull, even though he couldn'
pull another building permit for the rest d'f the remaining portion even
though he's got 14 acres because he has less than 20 at this time. He's
got one home so he'd need exactly 20 to get two lots. '
Ahrens: You might want to say it's not, instead of saying or identifying
it as unbuildable land, just say it can't be developed. Just so they don't
think that when the line goes out there, it's going to automatically be
buildable property and it may not. 1 mean this may not be, right?
Krauss: We were looking to put a deed restriction there that says it can't
be developed until municipal services are provided.
i
II
Planning ommission Meeting
9 1 g
August 19, 1992 - Page 4
II
Ahrens: I'm just questioning the wording of buildable. Have you seen this
1 easement he's tacking about that he has with Graffunder?
Aanenson: No.
1 Ahrens: The unrecorded easement.
Aanenson: No.
1 Ahrens: Any idea if that would be, this is the first you've heard of it?
1 Aanenson: Yes. I guess I would just check with the Attorney's office and
see if they were comfortable with accepting it that way.
1 Olsen: We've got a copy of that easement. We went through that when
Gerrish went through with the subdivision so we do have that in the file
and it has been verified and we can get a copy of that for you.
II Ahrens: I suggest that, to record it too.
Aanenson: Well, that's what we're stating. That's what we want to make
II sure that that's a recorded easement.
Ahrens: I have no other questions on this.
1 Farmakes: I'll just echo the comments there for staff recommendations. I
guess I'd have the same question about the buildable language in 1. And on
2, the issue of the access...That's it.
1 Emmings: I don't have anything additional. I support the staff
recommendations.
II Conrad: Nothing more.
Erhart: Yeah, I don't mean to, the easement lines to Dave's house but I'm
1 not quite ready to give up our easement yet and since a lot of us use this
TH 101 and hope someday it will be upgraded, so I want to work that issue a
little bit more. Every other thing that's come in here along TH 101 we've
I taken the other argument that gee whiz you know, what is it. Minor
arterial, we want 120 feet and therefore, how it came in with their
subdivision, we got the extra 27 feet or so from them when we did this.
1 And while I want to pursue how close this house is, we're saying two
things. I don't think we want to lightly give up an opportunity to get a
wider road here. This isn't going to move. I mean TH 101's going to, I
don't care who owns it or who argues about who owns it, it's going to be
1 where approximately it is for a hundred years. And forever. So with that,
in the first place I would say, if Dave says that there's 66 feet on the
parcel that he's keeping, certainly we ought to get the extra 27 feet on
1 that and then deal with how close his house is, which is, what is that?
Like 25 feet from the edge of the road Dave?
David Teich: 33 and an inch.
II
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 5
Erhart: So you know, to come up, I don't know. I don't know what the
answer is but I think we've got to be a little more consistent. Even if well
just take 3 feet or something. Maybe there's some reasonable solution but
just to say we're not going to take any, try to expand the right -of -way
here when we have an opportunity because we don't know where TH 101 just II
doesn't sit right with me. And I don't know what the solution is. Other
than that, you know everything else is pretty straight forward.
Batzli: So are you proposing that we amend the conditions to take that
II
footage?
Erhart: Well certainly on the, if there's 66 feet of frontage on the
property that doesn't have a house, certainly we should amend it to take II
the same width that we took in the Halla subdivision. I mean that's 66
feet. And to give some consideration of where you would get the full 120 II
width in the future. Maybe if we leave out some portion around the house
or maybe some wisdom says that we take some of it further to the north or
further to the south. I mean obviously we have to give consideration to II the existing house. I don't know if I have an answer. Any ideas?
Krauss: No, we got to this point because we had the same dilemma. We do,
most of the time, recommend that you take the right -of -way. You take it II
when the getting's good and you can take it during a subdivision process. II
On Mr. Halla's property, it's clear that any kind of improvement is going
to take that kink out of the road. What is left there is as you move to
the south, how do you traverse the bluff? Is it going to maintain that
existing alignment down there or is it going to swing wide? When we looke
at where the easement fell out on Mr. Teich's property, it was virtually
into his front door. 1
Erhart: But we took 27 feet all the way up to Pioneer Trail. It wasn't
just a matter of dealing with that lot. 1
Krauss: Right. Or the major subdivision.
Erhart: Consistent approach we've taken.
II
Krauss: And we improve the intersection at Pioneer. And it was a part
of, I forget how many acre subdivision Mr. Halla was coming through with II
and platting his property. It also traversed vacant land and I get
somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of us being in the position of risking
a taking of property for a project that MnDot won't confess that they will II
ever do. I'd rather they took the hit on that one.
Emmings: Why is it a taking here and not in any other case?
Krauss: Well Mr. Halla clearly is getting benefit from a major subdivisio
that he's ultimately going to have on his property. It cuts across vacant,
I mean it's a tree lot. In this case it cuts into or virtually into a
II
single family residence.
Conrad: So the future is dependent on MnDot and what are we prohibited
from doing then? Will we never have a trail?
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 6
Krauss: I'd have to look back to what we are doing. What the City is
doing on TH 101 north of 212 where you've seen the official mapping for
that. The City actually is taking a proactive role in that and saying that
we're not going to wait for MnDot or the County. We're going to be
building it and we've already begun to build it in steps and it does have a
trail corridor in it. And it also involves some major condemnation
hearings to get it to so far, to get the road down to where it is now.
Erhart: Let me ask you this. Let's say the purchaser of this land in 5
years decided to tear down the house and build a new one. If we left the
right -of -way the way it is today, then he could build it within 30 feet of
the existing right -of -way even though it's the old design. Whereas if we
decided to take an additional let's say 15 feet, then you'd have to cut it
back 15 more feet. So the effect of taking an additional easement today
really has no effect as long as that house is occupied. There really is no
' taking.
Krauss: That's a possibility. If your recommendation would be to include
' a condition to that effect, I don't have a problem with that but I'd like,
before we get to the Council, have the City Attorney review it. There's
been a lot of rulings in the State and...would know better than I about
that issue.
Erhart: Can we ask the applicant if he had any reaction to that.
' Batzli: Yeah, go ahead and ask.
Erhart: What do you think of the discussion regarding this? You're
' selling it so...you've driven TH 101 all your life.
David Teich: Born and raised.
Erhart: Yeah. What's your reaction to whether or not we ought to take the
opportunity to try to get easements to get it ultimately improved or not?
David Teich: I think it's futile.
Erhart: Pardon.
David Teich: I think it'd be futile to take easements...
Erhart: I'm generally looking for your reaction being a long time
' resident.
David Teich: I don't foresee the road really widening...
' Al Klingelhutz: I know the public hearing's over with but, I think I'm
going to have to disagree with Tim. I don't disagree very often with Tim.
The house is very close to the road. It's an old Chaska brick house and
our company happens to be the one that sold the property for Dave. People
that are buying it bought a similar house in the city of Shakopee and
they've completely redone it and it's a beautiful place. This is probably
one of the oldest Chaska brick houses in Chanhassen and to put an easement
through the house I think is something that if you want to have any
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 7
11
historical preservation in Chanhassen, it would be against my grain. The
house is structurally sound. It is that bad of home. It needs a lot of
work inside and I'm sure these people are going to do it. If I could take II
you over to Shakopee and show the house that they've redone, you'd say
they've just did one beautiful job. We've got about three Chaska brick
homes in Chanhassen. Carver County Historical Society has taken a hard
look at them and they really would like to see those Chaska brick homes
preserved. And if you took another 20 feet on Dave's side of the road, it
would cut about 15 feet off the house. Thank you. '
Emmings: Is it likely that, if the road, I know we don't know what the
path of the road will be or what would be done if it were to be upgraded
but is it less likely that any widening would occur in that direction
because of the way that the ravine comes up to the road? That it will more
likely be to the other side.
Krauss: Well yeah, Dave and I talked about that. Dave Hempel and I.
Dave I believe was the originator of this alignment and when we looked at
it, we thought that simply from an engineering standpoint there'd be some II
desire to push it to the west. But the critical factor here and one that
we never looked at is how does that merge with whatever route is selected
to go down the bluff. I mean if you're going to make safety related
improvements, and the one through Don Halia's property was frankly regarde
as one that we may be able to persuade MnDot to do just as a safety relate
improvement, the same way we got the 4 way intersection at Pioneer and TH
101. We're not sure which way you've got to skew the road up here to match"
with the route going down underneath the railway tracks down the hill.
Emmings: But are you really likely to move it to the east? Are you really,
likely to move this portion to the east?
Krauss: From an environmental standpoint, no but we don't know if you
pushed all the way to the west you wind up taking out 4 or 5 homes. We 1
honestly don't know.
Emmings: It seems to me going east appears to be an unreasonable
alternative. It isn't a reasonable possibility. That's why I wouldn't bell
in favor of doing anything with an easement on this property now. And I
think the preservation, if that home is going to be restored and preserved,
I think that's a worthwhile thing to do, especially on that isolated piece ,
of land that fits on it.
Batzli: Do you have anything else Tim? '
Erhart: Nope.
Batzli: I don't have any additional comments other than, I have two quick"
ones. One, the driveway easement. I echo Joan. I think I'd like to see
that recorded. Make that a condition. And do we not have an obligation t
preserve historical buidings and site within the city, Paul?
Krauss: There's no statutory obligation to do that.
Batzli: But as part of our plan. 1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 8
1
Krauss: We have spoken about it in the comprehensive plan.
Batzli: That's one of our guiding beacons so I would prefer not to put an
easement through the house or within an inch of it personally. Is there a
motion?
Emmings: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Subdivision #92 -9 to create one 5 acre parcel from a 19 acre parcel subject
to the conditions in the staff report but I'm going to modify number 2 so
it will read as follows: A driveway easement is secured and recorded
allowing for access to the remaining 14 acre parcel. More particularly, to
that portion which lies north and east of the ravine.
Batzli: Is there a second?
' Ahrens: Second.
Batzli: Is there any discussion?
' Conrad: Yeah, just real quickly. We're not precluded from carrying out
the trail. Does it still validate the easement that we put on the Halla
property? By doing what this is, does that invalidate that easement?
Krauss: No.
Conrad: It's still something that could be done?
Krauss: Well yeah. I mean the easement that we took on the Halia property
' is a recorded easement and we have that.
Conrad: And why do we need it?
Krauss: Long term they have a goal of getting a trail down to the bottom
of the river.
' Conrad: And the Halla easement is on the east side?
Krauss: I don't, JoAnn, would you recall which side the trail easement is
' on on the Halia property?
Olsen: I don't think we have one...I think that was on the east side I
believe.
Conrad: So, we took that because we wanted that. We want to get a trail
down there but now we're saying maybe we can't.
r Emmings: Already, they have to cross the road. Because of the ravine you
may be in a situation where you have to cross the road with the trail,
right?
Conrad: Yeah.
Emmings: Which wouldn't be good but it might be necessary.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
9
August 19, 1992 - Page 9
Conrad: I guess my only point is, if we're not really going to have a
trail, we really should take the easement off of Halla. 1
Krauss: But there's also possibilities too, and the city has talked from
time to time about investigating Bluff Creek Golf Course and securing the '
ravine system that comes through there. It may well prove to be a better
option to bring the trail over through the golf course and down that way
than try to snake it down with a very restricted highway that's very
difficult and expensive to go down that bluff. 1
Ahrens: I have one more comment. Steve, on number one.
Emmings: On unbuildable?
Ahrens: Right.
Emmings: What do you want to say?
Ahrens: May not be developed. Cross out. ,
Emmings: That'd be fine. Why don't you propose an amendment.
Erhart: Can I comment? I think you ought to be a little bit careful here,
It's possible that somebody else with another, what do you have, 14
acres? Somebody with 6 acres could buy that and combine the two, have 20
acres and it could be developable as a replatting. So in the use of your 1
words, consider that.
Ahrens: What do you mean? Out that I thought it can't be developed until ,
the MUSA line was done.
Erhart: No, if somebody bought. Let's say somebody, somebody adjacent ha
6 acres. They combine the two and then you'd have 20 acres.
Ahrens: Oh, I see what you're saying.
Erhart: Now you can split that again into two home sites so really, it's II
not unbuildable.
Ahrens: Well you could say, until such time that this area's inside the 1
Urban Service Area and water and sewer are available or upon city approval.
Krauss: Well yeah, you might want to put in, or addition of sufficient '
land to meet the 10 acre rule.
Aaneneson: You could keep saying or, or, or you know. ,
Krauss: But city approval's kind of an open ended thing. It would imply
that anybody could come back at any time and just ask the Council to change"
their mind.
Ahrens: Well, what do you feel comfortable with?
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 10
II
Krauss: I'd prefer to have, if you want to allow that option, to say that
II unless additional acreage is acquired to meet the 1 per 10 acre density.
Batzli: Do you want to propose an amendment Joan?
II Ahrens: I'd propose that number 1 read as follows: The City Attorney's
Office shall prepare a development contract stating that the remaining 14
acre parcel may not be developed until such time that this area is inside
I the Urban Service Area and water and sewer are available, or until such
time additional land is acquired to meet the 10 acre density as required by
ordinance. Do you want that?
II Krauss: Yeah.
I Ahrens: As required by City ordinance.
Batzli: Is there a second?
II Conrad: Second.
Ahrens moved, Conrad seconded to approve an amendment to the motion to
1 modify condition number 1 to read as follows:
1. The City Attorney's Office shall prepare a development contract stating
that the remaining 14 acre parcel may not be developed until such time
I that this area is inside the Urban Service Area and water and sewer are
available, or until such time additional land is acquired to meet the
10 acre density as required by ordinance.
II All voted in favor of the amendment and the motion carried.
I Batzli:. Is there any other discussion on the other motion?
Conrad: Well, just one other point. We're convinced that they're going to
restore?
I Ahrens: If they don't, we'll send them to jail.
11 Conrad: Al, they are going to do that?
Al Klingelhutz: The main reason they bought the house is this is what they
11 do. They buy these brick houses. Fix them up and plan on living there.
They've lived in Shakopee for about 5 years now. They get the value out of
it. They probably will sell it after they'fix it up but it will be
completely restored.
II Conrad: And it is structurally sound?
II Al Klingelhutz: It is structurally sound...
Batzli: Kate, was there a...?
1 Aanenson: ...map showing the 5 acre split with a legal description and
then the original lot, metes and bounds legal description.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 11
1
Batzli: You're comfortable with that? That that's included?
Aanenson: Yes. And I've checked with the Carver County Recorder's Office"
and they are willing to accept it this way.
Ahrens: Did you read through this legal description? ,
Aanenson: Yes.
Batzli: If there's no more discussion, I'll call the question. ,
Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommend II approval of Subdivision #92 -9 to create one 5 acre parcel from a 19 acre
parcel, subject to the following conditions:
1. The City Attorney's Office shall prepare a development contract statinll
that the remaining 14 acre parcel may not be developed until such time
that this area is inside the Urban Service Area and water and sewer are
available, or until such time additional land is acquired to meet the
10 acre density as required by ordinance.
2. A driveway easement is secured and recorded allowing for access to the II remaining 14 acre parcel. More particularly, to that portion which
lies north and east of the ravine.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONCEPTUAL PUD ON 18+ ACRES FOR A COMMERCIAL /RETAIL CENTER LOCATED AT THE I
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET AND POWERS BOULEVARD, TARGET
DEVELOPMENT.
Public Present:
Name Address 1
Judy Landkammer 6901 Utica Lane
B.C. "Jim" Burdick Excelsior
Bill McHale 12237 Chadwick Lane
Rick Whitaker 9225 Rhode Island
Margaret 0. Fleck 4426 Haven Avenue
Fran Hagen, II 8683 Shayview Court
John Dietrich 2721 Colfax Avenue So.
Tom Legierski, James Co. 6640 Shady Oak Road
Charlie James 6640 Shady Oak Road
Doug Kunin Eckankar
Brad Johnson 7425 Frontier Trail
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. '
Batzli: Thanks Kate. Anyone on the Commission, would anyone like to ask
Kate any questions before we ask the applicant to make the presentation? II
Okay, would the applicant like to give their presentation.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 12
1
Bill McHale: Good evening. I'm Bill McHale with Ryan Construction. I
' will mostly be addressing our concept, as we're talking about it Outlot B.
I've got with me Margaret,Fleck who is the architect for Target and I think
it's probably most appropriate that she go through that site, the building,
etc. which is obviously the driving force behind the development and once
any questions have been answered there, then I'd just like to make some
comments about the concept on the outlots. Margaret.
' Margaret Fleck: I'm going to begin by just showing you what our standard
new P193 prototype is and this is the new prototype. It's slightly
different than what you've been seeing. Earlier renditions where we had a
red truss system and it was also exposed. It's a fairly simple building.
' Two tone and it has an asymmetrical.
Batzli: Excuse me, can you maybe move the stand a little bit forward so
11 it's larger on the monitors and we can see it.
Margaret Fleck: This is just for you to get an overview of what our
prototype was. Or is. This is what we are proposing to put on the site.
It's varied quite a bit. We're putting a pier element in that projects out
from the wall surface and breaks up the wall surface. We've added what we
call our Greatland colors. The blue and the green. It's normally in only
our Greatlands but we feel that it's appropriate here to break up the
surface of the wall again. We've put the gateway that's very similar to
our Greatland stores in here and have stayed with our prototypical colors.
It is a masonry building. It's what we call rockface. I believe the term
that was used in the staff proposal or narrative was, weathered. And that
is very similar to this element right here. It looks like a piece of rock
' rather than ,just a flat surface element and I will just set that down if
somebody wants to grab it and feel it. The colors are very specifically
chosen by our people to try to keep a certain image. It is a coated
surface which is a sealant that coats the block or the masonry. The lower
portion of the masonry is an 8 x 16 block. The upper colors, the lighter
color is an 8 x 8 block. The massing changes along in here also so that we
have some variation. We've completed and followed this through on all the
' other sides. The line here that I'm showing, we had a conceptual
difficulty here. When I was first having this developed by my architect,
he misinterpretted the grades and this is the true grade here. This area
' here will be changing to look a little, a bit more like this massing rather
than the piers. There is a standing seam roof on the front entry area that
does return and go back and show it's face, just a side face on 78th
Street. Does anybody have any particular questions on this? In general,
' that's the basic building. We are 375 feet in front and approximately 400
feet front to back.
' Aanenson: If I could make just one comment. One suggestion we had to was
that they put tree wells between those columns so we put that in the staff
report to soften the building.
Ahrens: Put what?
Aanenson: Trees in wells or something along that sidewalk between the
columns.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 13
Margaret Fleck: In the sidewalk area we could leave, put leave outs
Mar ga 1 , P s and
add. We would like to stay with an oranmental tree. A smaller, maybe
blossoming tree and keep it away from the actual building foundation that II
we could place then right along in here. And it already begins to be a
landscape area up here so you already see them being reflected. I could
even bring them to this distance. I would prefer not to bring anything
within the gateway area.
Emmings: ...is the south facing, west side of the building? And the side"
that faces 78th Street is which one?
Margaret Fleck: This one.
Emmings: Okay. '
Margaret Fleck: This is, again the rear of the building. This would be
the one going to.
Batzli: The loading dock area is the lower corner on the right?
Margaret Fleck: Yeah, this would be the highway side and that would be th
direction they're running into and this is actually, excuse me. Along here
would also be the dock area.
Batzli: Okay.
Margaret Fleck: There was also another comment in the staff report about II
rooftop units not showing and we did go ahead and do a sight line study
which I have copies of. I apologize for not getting these here earlier.
The study was done from two points on TH 5. A high point that would be
looking from up here across and none of the rooftop, well the rooftop unit
shows by .01 foot which is about a 1/16 of an inch. And that's with a 4
foot additional parapet from what we do on prototypes. There is one
element that does show currently. It's a satellite dish which would be
positioned right here. It's mounted from the rooftop, it mounts and goes
to 9 feet above the rooftop. You would see 3 feet of it. It's II approximately an 8 foot round satellite dish. You're going to be seeing
that the upper half of the sphere of it for 3 feet. So your top element
would be 3 feet and you're only going to see about 6 feet across and that
would hit right about here. And that would be seen from really TH 5 only.
It's for communication to our district offices of our sales data, etc. and
it's a very important element to our operation of our buildings. And part
of it is also transmitting orders. That type of thing.
Farmakes: Is it necessary that it be placed on the roof?
Margaret Fleck: Our normal effort is to do it up on the rooftop. I don't
know where we'd put it down on the ground and really have transmissions
that we need.
Farmakes: The total height there is? ,
Margaret Fleck: The total height of the building here is 28 foot 8. And
that's at the high point here. It does go:.. You're seeing, that's the 2
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 14
foot 8. 26 foot 8 is right here.
Batzli: Does anyone else have any questions on the Commission?
Erhart: The pitched part of the roof is only over the opening? Over the
entranceway.
Margaret Fleck: Yes it is. That's, we worked a great deal on that and
' that is one thing that I went back to my people and we just feel very
strongly that it's an entrance element that really is, reads entrance to
it. Especially on a commercial building of this type. And I made an
effort, I can honestly say, for some depth.
Aanenson: We also asked that the element be carried, instead of just the
front facing Powers Boulevard but that element be wrapped around West 78th.
' Margaret Fleck: When I came in to the staff, it was actually narrower than
this and I have widened it to 12 feet from the 8 feet I previously did,
1 which isn't a great deal but I went back and tried to get more than that.
In fact, when I first originally designed this, I had a larger pitch. I
can honestly say that it's going to be a big question. I could go back and
tell them that it's being asked for. It's a cost. It's a great deal of
cost.
Ahrens: It's a cost and not a...design. ...people won't find the entrance
to Target.
Margaret Fleck: No. They're not really concerned about that but it is
architecturally an element that should be read for an entrance. If we
bring it along this side, it reads that something should be there that is
not truly there.
Ahrens: According to them.
Margaret Fleck: According to all of us, yeah for a pier. And then there's
the cost of it. It doesn't do anything for our building whereas using it
for an entrance identification, it does do something for our building and I
can rationalize that cost. You're talking another *100,000.00 when you
start turning around the corner. And a maintenance problem.
11 Krauss: If I could touch on that for a bit. Well first of all we're not
asking you to look at cost projections and decide what's reasonable. Our
concern here, as Kate indicated earlier, we took the very unusual step of
laying out a proposed or potential site plan since we knew Target was in
the market for the site ahead of receiving their ideas on this property.
And we factored in a list of items that we felt were important for the
City. We being members of the planning staff, engineering staff, the HRA,
Planning Commission, and City Council had a meeting. One of the things
that came across very clearly is that a Target store or anything else on
that block should not turn it's back on downtown. Therefore we felt it was
important that since we knew that the primary entrance would be oriented to
the west, but visually, architecturally the importance of the 78th Street
frontage needs to be expressed and needs to be carried around on that side
and that was our concern with that.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 15
Margaret Fleck: And if I can interject on that. We really felt like we
did that without having to add a rooftop element where anybody that's in all
car or even walking in the area is going to have to look up 30 feet to see
in comparison to piers that we put in and massing that we put in as it's
brought down into a human scale. A walking and residential scale and II that's really where we felt the money was appropriate. Not up at the 30
foot height level. One of the things I possibly could look into is going
on the 78th Street side with an element on the piers that gave you a littl
bit of a, very similar to what you have. Just a framework like you have a
your, I believe it's the fire station across the street. That type of
thing.
Aanenson: This all will be...during the site plan review too. These are 1
some of the issues that we've raised and we're moving in that direction.
Batzli: Kate, let me ask one question about the report. You have staff
recommends the pitch element be carried around the West 78th Street side o
the building. You have in the next sentence, you're recommending that the
design be further refined to offer roofline elements consistent with
downtown Chanhassen. Are these two separate issues or are we talking aboull
the same thing?
Aanenson: Are you on the last page of the recommendations? 1
Batzli: Page 3. New page 3. First full paragraph. Is this one and the •
same issue or are there two different issues here on our roofline?
Aanenson: Same issue. Carrying that pitch around and trying to reflect
the other elements we've got with Market Square and the visibility from 1
West 78th. They've oriented toward Powers but we're also saying that
that's a long segment of wall too on West 78th that should also have a
front door look.
Batzli: Yeah, okay. Go ahead.
Margaret Fleck: Do you have any more questions for me? 1
Batzli: I don't think we do right now.
Farmakes: I have one further question. You show trees on the bottom two 1
views and then as you work your way up to the top the trees become much
more scarce. Is there a line of thinking that it was important to see the"
building and that that interferes with the sight line for identification
or, even when there's no signage on the one side?
Margaret Fleck: At this point in the development of the site plan, this
a landscaped area behind. We do not have a roadway back there so there is
landscaping shown. That's the same along the sides and along the sides
here and all the way around the far side. This is quite a large area of
trees. That's that lot that's being saved. It was just one, we don't
normally care for maintenance reasons for leaves being on our sidewalk
where our customers roll their carts and that type of thing. To put trees
in if we can help it. We do do it and we will be happy to do it in this II
condition. It's just something that we don't normally do automatically.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 16
I
And then there is, the main concern is to have some visual clearance for
the sign at the building because it is another identifying element.
Farmakes: So it's not the building itself. It's just the logo and the
entrance?
11 Margaret Fleck: Yeah, that I would need to maintain the clearance for.
That and just a general area in here and sidewalk area. Our sidewalks are
meant for our customers to be able to traverse into our building and not
have to walk a great deal in the driveway.
Erhart: Jeff, you're talking about trees adjacent to the building?
Farmakes: I'm talking about there's four views there and...if you look at
the bottom two, there's several trees running along the plane of the
building. On the upper two, there are very few. I'm just wondering,
marketing wise, the intent.
Erhart: Yeah, and your suggestions is...you're suggesting that you might
want to have trees next to the building to further screen, is that correct?
Farmakes: I guess that would be somewhat consistent with what we've been
requiring on other things. However, I wanted to know what their thinking
was as far as marketing the site.
Margaret Fleck: On the West 78th Street, I'm not sure we're showing all
the trees that would be there. Next to the building, exactly next to the
building there's only a 3 foot sidewalk which has an overhang of 2 feet for
your .. .
Bill McHale: The landscape plan will. The depiction is, there's actually
trees along the boulevard but they're not right next to the building so
from the roadway you don't have any problems. That's all trees and the
elevations she's showing you doesn't step back to the street to see the
trees. One of the reasons that we don't have much room in there is because
the building, pursuant to staff, was pushed further north to save the big
grouping of trees adjacent to the freeway and that limited the area. That
elevation, it really isn't representative...
Margaret Fleck: ...the architecture, not the trees.
Aanenson: If I could make a clarification on that too. Actually at this
point...
•
Erhart: We're ultimately waiting for the developer to do some drawings of
trees.
Margaret Fleck: We'll be happy to.
Farmakes: No, but if you're tacking about adding elements to the side of
the building to improve the look of the building. If we cover it up by
trees, there are ornamental trees, it is kind of dubious whether or not
we're gaining anything.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 17 1
Margaret Fleck: They could be shurbs, if you want some greenery or they
could be flowered plants. You know I mean we can work with that. '
Batzli: Thank you.
Bill McHale: I don't have any pictures to look at so this is going to be
dry. All I'd like to do is give you I guess our reasons for why we're
going through kind of an awkward process with one site that's so refined
and one that we're getting arms around everybody getting comfortable with.,
Obviously Target is what's leading the direction and the outlots and the
compatibility to develop them I think is something that's desired by the
City and Target and that's what we're trying to effect right now. One of ji
the things that I feel strongly about is we need the flexibility to develo
this site and that's why we're looking for something. If we're to commit
going here, we need to know what our possibilities are. A couple comments"
We're real comfortable with the materials that the staff has recommended
and that the buildings on Outlot B are compatible. We don't want them to
look the same but we do think similar materials and the materials you use
in downtown would be certainly acceptable. That's no problem for us at
all. There's questions in the staff report regarding setbacks. One of th
problems we're having and we feel that the PUD should allow us a
flexibility to some of those setbacks is, in addition to setting back fromil
the roadway, there are some utility lines that exist in the existing 78th II
that can't be moved. That we can't build on top of. Target has concerns
about sight lines and we're trying to preserve ones to the main
intersections which should be to everybody's advantage. If you take all II
that into consideration and then you set back everything, the projected 50
feet, in some cases there aren't building pads available. If we can't
build on it, we can't buy it and then we're left with the question with, II
who's going to pay for the open space. So we think that if you look at th
entire Outlot 8 and have some flexibility, we think we can work that out.
We are not sure where the two fast food restrictions came from. In talking
to Kate earlier, I'm not sure that she knows for sure. I sent a letter to
Don Ashworth after several of our meetings a long time ago and told him
that we felt that that was somewhat problematic. We would like the market
to determine the appropriate uses. We think we can work within the
landscape requirements. The City's parking requirements but we feel
strongly that anything that's zoned for that area should be allowed. We
have no problem working with staff and approving one building at a time. III
fact, that's the way we'd prefer to do it. That's why we agreed with stafill
to come up with just Outlot B rather than platting it into separate lots
which would give you less control. I think we understand where staff is
coming with with pitched roofs. We would like at least the flexibility,
depending on the exact building sign when We come in. In some cases, maybe
an increased parapet another element would be satisfactory. I think one of
our major concerns here and yours are architectural and screening the
rooftop units. We think we can accomplish that. One other thing that cam
up is the seeding of Outlot B. I don't put grass where I don't irrigate
because it doesn't grow. The only thing that grows is the weeds. We also
will probably be, we're not positive at this point because of title. Tit
issues and ownership issues, we're not positive we can grade the Target
site and Outlot B at the same time. So that may cause some problems. I
think what we are comfortable with is where we've graded it, I think we ca
take erosion precautions and we normally would throw down someting that
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 18
would prohibit growth until we brought in sod and irrigation. We have not
had good luck at all with seeding areas, hydro seeding. Doubling the seed
load. If we're not going,to irrigate, we don't seem to get grass. I think
those are my only concerns with the staff report. I think otherwise we
think it was fairly, very well represented and we think we're on the same
11 page. And I'd be glad to answer any questions if you've got any.
Batzli: Does anyone have any questions of the applicant before we open it
up to the public? Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing. Due to the
probably number of comments and people commenting and offering their
testimony if you will today, I'd like to ask that you approach the
microphone and give your and address for the record. Try to be brief. If
you can keep your comments to a couple of minutes, that would be much
appreciated. Would anyone like to address the Commission? Okay, I'll ask
for a motion to close the public hearing unless anyone would like to
address the Commission at this time.
Conrad moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Tim, I'm going to start at your end.
Erhart: Well let's start out where Jeff left off there and maybe add some
good ideas. What's the use for that vehicle? That parking there north of
the building along West 78th.
Bill McHale: Employee parking.
Erhart: Oh, that's employee parking. Other than trees along West 78th, is
there a berm there or anything else?
Aanenson: Right in here?
Erhart: Yeah.
11 Aanenson: They're showing a...adding to the PUD zone because we think
these are the only two lots that are left between Market Square that are
unbuildable and it makes sense to tie those in architecturally in what
we're trying to do with the PUD zone. We're not sure that this connection
is based on grades... We may recommend that it be more of a landscape
element up in here but there is a change in grade.
' Erhart: What about along West 78th...row of trees and then it's flat
grass. •
Fran Hagen: If I may make a comment. The building itself...
Batzli: I'm sorry, who are you for the record?
Fran Hagen: My name is Fran Hagen with RLK. What I was stating, do you
have a grading plan by chance? I don't know if you've had a chance to see
the site. It is falling away from West 78th Street quite, I think a total
1 of 30 to almost 40 feet to the low point down where the pond will be
constructed. What we have is coming into the site, 2% and 5% grade until
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 19
we get to the front entrance of the building. We're proposing a grade at
the street connection in front of Target of 63.5. Elevation 963 and the
building will be set at 58 so that's about 5 1/2 feet lower there. But as
you progress further to the east, the east property line there, the
elevation of the roadway is about at 72 so that's about 12 feet.
Erhart: It slopes down toward the building?
Fran Hagen: Right. There will be, there was I think a plaza area up theril
wasn't there?
Aanenson: That's what we talked about if the connection didn't go between!'
this parcel. Between the two parcels. That there'd be a plaza.
Fran Hagen: I believe on the landscape though, even with that parcel we -
were showing a retaining wall and a plaza area up in that corner.
Proposed, not necessarily. Up in the northeast corner of the site. As fa
as berming, I guess that's what I heard you addressing.
Erhart: I was just wondering if.
Fran Hagen: It's pretty physically.
Erhart: Trying to understand what was there.
Fran Hagen: That's where we hope the tree massings and we do have quite a
bunch, what is it? 1 1/2 times the normal requirement. So we're trying
the best we can to mass some trees in there.
Erhart: It appears that you're doing more to the west of that with shurbs l
Fran Hagen: Again, the grade difference over in there is much less becaus
by the time you come to the second entrance, you've dropped down 10 more
feet. That second entrance closer to, or further to the west is down at a
53 elevation. Proposed. In fact I think it's been graded. Rough graded
there if you were to see the site. It's intending to drop down to a low II
point right around that westerly entrance to the Target site.
Erhart: May I ask Chuck Oimier, we don't see his stand on here. Where
does that go when we're all done?
Aanenson: The corn stand?
Erhart: Yeah. •
Fran Hagen: Probably right where the entrance is.
Aanenson: Talk to Todd.
Erhart: Okay, and what, nobody's objecting to the idea of adding the
Burdick Park Addition, Block 3, Lots 1 and 2. Is there a problem?
Aanenson: We haven't noticed that. We're.saying when it comes back for all
preliminary, as we've gone through this, we realize those are the only two
1
' Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 20
lots and what we're recommending, when it comes back for a preliminary, we
noticed that and put that in as a part of the PUD.
Erhart: ...be done?
Krauss: There's a lot of, I mean this isn't the only action occurring on
this. There's a lot of negotiation between the city and the property
owners and the HRA so yeah, that should all be resolved by that time.
Erhart: Well, I guess it's obvious from everything that's been supplied,
somebody's put a lot of work into this already. Quite frankly, I was you
know, like everybody else, you don't want Chanhassen to change too much too
fast and I'm kind of nervous about Target coming to our little Chanhassen
but after seeing the plan, I'm just a lot more comfortable with it.
Particularly pleased that we could save those trees next to TH 5 so it
11 isn't shocking when you, it doesn't end up looking like Eden Prairie Center
when you drive there on 212. Regarding the, let's see, at this point when
would we expect the entire area, including Lot B to be developed? Assuming
' the economy doesn't get any worse.
Krauss: Well yeah, it's really hard to know. It's contingent upon market
conditions but I think in the very brief period of the last 2 or 3 years,
11 you've seen the Chanhassen market just accelerate extraordinarily rapidly.
Having Market Square opening up in October is going to add to that. Having
Target, Target wanted to break ground this fall yet. I can't believe it's
going to be too many years before Outlot B is built out.
Erhart: Your reaction to the statement about not sodding Outlot B.
Aanenson: That's erosion control.
Hempel: I'm sure Watershed would have some concern over that also.
Erhart: Well yeah but yet we've left the Charlie James property sit over
there with weeds for how many years now? How do you differeniate our
position? How do you justify our position?
Hempel: Well our main concern is to control the erosion obviously and what
we try to get is some fast growing cover. Not necessarily grass but we do
get a clover, an oat, rye, barley type growth. Just to mitigate erosion.
Erhart: Would we be doing something to the Charlie James property as well?
' Hempel: That's exactly it. It's left in it's natural state and eventually
weeds do overcome it or prairie like atmosphere.
Erhart: Of course that's all going to be redone now. On the other hand, I
do think people do plant grass and it does grow. The Highway Department is
proof of that.
Batzli: My front lawn isn't.
Erhart: Anyway again, I'm a lot more comfortable with it. Other than
that, that's about the only comments I had.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 21
Batzli: Tim, speak to us philosophically for just a second about, by
making this a PUD, what do we do with the areas around it? Does this
change anything about the lots directly behind it between the building andll
the Monterey there and the property to the north? Do you see a problem
with redoing this as a PUD? 1
Erhart: The last time we had this in here, I stated that I'd like to see
us do something to bring the whole Monterey Drive into the plan. But at 11
that time, I thought the entrance was going to be to the north. Maybe
that's why, and this way, looking at it today and going out and looking at
the site, and actually the back of the building faces Monterey, I don't
feel, I guess I didn't feel that that was a problem. Your question
regarding making this a PUD relative to the Monterey Drive area, I guess Ili
don't follow you.
Batzli: Well this whole development. We're looking at this as a 1
conceptual deal. Do we want to rezone? Is this the kind of development
we're going to want here? I guess I'm asking for your impression on what
do we end up doing on Monterey between this and the back of a huge
building? What do we do to the north? Do we want to realign the road tha
way? We're doing a lot of things here conceptual rather than you know,
what's the slope of the roof. I think. 1
Krauss: If I can touch on something you said Mr. Chairman. The alignment
of the road is something that the City's been planning on doing for a largil
number of years. That's not contingent upon Target or anybody else.
That's something that we need to do to have a safe intersection with 78th
Street and the boulevard. We also intend to carry 78th Street to the west II as a, I forget what we're calling them now on the Highway 5 study. I see
some of my task force members here.
Batzli: Frontage. 1
Krauss: Well sort of a parkway design and it's going to have an entrance
into the park and continue on down. That road needs to be back far enough
from the TH 5 intersection to be safe and that's why we'd always planned t�
do that.
Batzli: So you're comfortable? 1
Erhart: Assuming the area on Monterey would become, right now it's zoned
what? ,
Aanenson: General business.
Erhart: Yeah, so now we have an industrial. Essentially an industrial '
site there. I would assume that with Market Square and this being here,
any future development would be more likely retail or office, would it not?
Krauss: Well there's no question that what occurs on the lots north of II
Pica Drive would fit into the commercial /retail context of downtown. Early
on, the Assistant City Manager's and was participating in some of these
discussions. We looked at the building down on Monterey. The industrial
building that's back in there and they adviseability about including that
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 22
and it's really innocuous. It's really concealed from most off site views
and it's going to become even more so as it would develop and there really
didn't seem to be any need from a design standpoint to incorporate it into
the project.
Erhart: Yeah, that was the other thing when I made that statement that
time was again I assumed that a lot of those trees would be, I thought all
would be gone and you'd essentially start with a clean sheet of paper on
all parcels. Thankfully which is not going to be that way and you're
right, it's low and they're actually screened quite a bit by those trees.
Batzli: What do you think about tying this in? Does this, according to
the plans as they stand, do they tie in with the rest of downtown so that
you get a feeling that this isn't isolating this and the adjacent retail to
1 the west from the remainder of downtown? Do you think they've done an
adequate job along the side of the building to West 78th to make it
pedestrian friendly or don't you care?
Erhart: Well again, I would hoped that the entrance would have faced West
78th Street and I guess I always viewed it that way. Although I know, well
anyway. The way it's configured to the west, I guess it acts as a wall
between the downtown and where everything here is going to be. In that
respect, that's where I was picking up on Jeff's idea there. The
importance of how this looks from West 78th Street along with the pitched
roof. I guess I'm not quite satisfied that we have an adequate appearance
from West 78th. What we don't want to do is to have it look like the side
of Target like you do when you go to the Eden Prairie Center parking lot.
I'm not sure we're that much different than that from what I've seen so
far.
Batzli: I don't know if we're different at all really.
Erhart: I hate to think that we're going to go down West 78th Street and
see a side of a building.
Batzli: Big side of a building.
Erhart: If your question is whether we want Target at all? Quite frankly,
Eden Prairie with the traffic's getting too far to go for diapers.
Batzli: I'm not asking that. I'm asking philosophically, you know have we
done the best job we can on that site to tie this into the downtown so it
makes sense to do it this way. Because we're, and this is the conceptual
approval stage. I mean do we kind of like what we see here? I'd rather
talk about whether they did a good job on the entrance treatment when we
see the real plan. I don't want to say yeah, that's good tonight. I'd
like to see them work on it some more and I don't really want to say you
have to do this and you have to do that and we'll approve it. I don't
think that's our function tonight. I'm looking more for some suggestions
or guidance on whether this fits in with what we want our downtown to look
like and whether this is something we'll be able to look at when it does
come in and not suddenly say, what have you done. Ladd, go ahead.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 23 1
Conrad: I'll make my comments fairly brief. It's good, I like Target
coming to town. They're a great retailer. I think some nice things have II
been done to date. I have some general directions that I feel real
convinced about. That we're not even close in terms of what the building
should look like on West 78th. Not even close. I would like to see, and
don't know how that. You know we have to go back to the architect to make
it kind of friendly. It's 330 some feet and I don't think we've tried yet.
I would like to see something that's kind of friendly to Chanhassen II residents on that side. I don't care if it's roofline or a grassy area.
need something on the street itself. We've got a sidewalk there and I know
we have some vegetation plantings but it just seems real unfriendly. Real"
cold and not what the rest of Chanhassen looks like right now. Other
comments, I don't know how big the parking lot is. It's hard for me to
tell but I'm sure we don't have a parking lot this big in Chanhassen yet.
Other directions. I'd sure like to see, it is kind of broken up with some
it's kind of broken up. I guess my preference, and this is a costly
recommendation, but I'd sure like to see a grassy area that divides that
parking lot in two. Going from east to west. From the front door going I
the west property line and I don't know what I'm talking about literally
but I'm kind of concerned that it is a huge parking lot and visually from
the road, I'd like to break that up a little bit. And then my last
comment is, Outlot B. It just is hard for me to visualize it. It doesn't'
seem to be a PUD type of drawing. I don't care if it's any one of the
three it doesn't, I'm not real comfortable with. It's building, parking
lot, building, parking lot and driveways going through and it just, I'm II
kind of uncomfortable with that. Of all those comments that I've made, th
critical one is how we look on West 78th. There's just no doubt. In my
mind we're not even, Target hasn't tried yet.
Batzli: Steve.
Emmings: My comments are going to sound almost identical to Ladd's. I 11
wrote them down so I could repeat them. The 78th Street side of the
building was number one on my list. The parking lot is number two and
we've had some discussions here about parking lots being able to be
designed so they don't look like parking lots. We haven't gotten into thall
in any real depth yet. I don't know what it means but I like the sound of
it and that's something I'm going to be looking at real hard. Outlot B, II
the idea of that. It is hard to get an idea of what's going on. They're
even looking at three plans and I agree with Ladd, right now it doesn't
feel like it's integrated either with this project or even with itself.
The idea that that could be all fast food restaurants would be abhorent to,
me. I would prefer there be none but setting a maximum on it seems like a
real reasonable thing to do to me. I don't have any idea what the
implications are. All the truck traffic to the back of this building is ,
going down Monterey and then over on Pica Drive. I don't know what the
implications are for the lots that are there or for the roads that are
designed to handle that kind of truck traffic. But that must be a
significant amount of traffic with some pretty big vehicles. I don't know
Is that something we've looked at or if it might be nothing to be concerne
about?
Krauss: Yeah, I don't think it really is a major concern. Monterey's beef
accepting the truck traffic for the industrial building for quite a while.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 24
' It's also the main access to the service area of Market Square. When the
possibility arose of getting the service bays for Target back there where
it's really totally concealed from off site views, we frankly jumped at
that chance. I think it should work rather well.
11 Emmings: Okay. Well, that's good to hear so I guess it's the, I don't
mind the entrance. It would be nice to have the entrance on 78th Street
but I don't think it's terrible where it is. I think I can sure live with
that. I don't think there's anyway we're ever going to think that this,
we're ever going to integrate this gully into the rest of Chanhassen just
because of the scale. It's so far off from anything else that we have,
there's just no hope of it feeling like it fits. I don't think. But that
just means that a lot has to be done to that 78th Street side to do the
best we can. I think that's about all I've got. Right now anyway.
Batzli: Okay. Thanks Steve. Jeff.
Farmakes: I'm just going to make a few general comments. You were talking
about philosophy and I've always been confused by what Chanhassen is
philosophically. The city, because there really wasn't a city here, sort
of built up from the 70's and basically were primarily in the commercial
11 section here, the small strip mall. We sort of have evolved to a little
larger strip mall from there and we have the possibilities of bringing in
what is called some anchor to the retail section here to get people to
drive to Chanhassen, and I know a lot of people are a little nervous about
that. I'm not really familiar with the marketing strategy behind Target
putting a store here. It seems to me that it does not follow typically
what they do in some of the surrounding areas here. Typically they
position a store adjacent to another large commercial development. I think
the nearest one here is Eden Prairie. Typically they don't have
residential across the street from there and typically they don't make up
half of the commercial area in a downtown. And so I think certainly, I
understand some of the concerns of the people who have voiced their concern
to me anyway about this, as to how that's going to change what they
11 perceive to be as Chanhassen. From what I see on the buildings here,
you're obviously trying to tackle that and I'm sure that the staff is
pursuing a PUD to try and achieve that and give the City some control over
this thing. I'm a little concerend about where these people are going to
be coming into Chanhassen from. I know from what I've heard, at least
initially on this traffic report, is that it's not going to impact the city
but I can't help but believe that we're going to get a lot of people coming
11 in here from Minnetonka. Or the Minnetonka area which is going to mean TH
101 or CR 17 or TH 41, to access this area.from the north. We certainly
don't have a lot of people to the south here. We have a lot of forest and
open farmland between here and Shakopee. But I'm sure possibly your
marketing reports tell you exactly where these people are, where you
believe these people are going to be coming from. And I'm a little
concerned that once that traffic gets here, as to how it's going to impact
some of these problems that we have had. The island situation and visual
clear sight lines coming in off of Market and looking down 78th. I'm not a
traffic engineer but I know when I come out into those islands, it's hard
to see and I have to commit to going out into the street before I can
really see down the street to see what cars are coming up. And I'm
wondering until we work out some of those problems, I'm a little concerned
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 25 1
about bringing in this much traffic into town. Again, that's a non-
professional opinion. I am concerned about the sight line from 78th Street
for some of the reasons that I brought up earlier. Residential across the
street. I think we have to be sensitive to integrating the commercial nex
to the residential. It's going to overlook an awfully big parking lot
which brings me to another issue. I thought in the earlier drawings we
were going to try and minimize a very large expanse of impervious surface
which we've already got locked up. We really don't have a main street.
just sort of have a lot of parking lots and commercial areas off of what
call main street. It certainly wouldn't hurt to try and work in a few more
trees into that parking lot. I know it may create a problem with the sig
lines for the entryway and probably not something that you're going to ge
a dollar back on but I think it would go a long way to try and break that
impervious surface up and come in from the west. That brings me to my las
comments. The Outlot B, I'm a little worried as to what type of restaura
and what type of developments would be going on there. My hope is that we
would try and balance out what type of development we're going to get
there. Hopefully Chanhassen, we're not going to wind up with the west
section of commercial being a discount area. Totally. And like an Arby'
and something like that there where we get a lot of back...plexiglass or
something of that nature. But all and all, I think that the architect in
this particular building, this is certainly a big improvement over Eden
Prairie. That's it.
Batzli: Joan. 1
Ahrens: I'm going to start with Outlot B. You're recommending that there
be no more than two fast food restaurants in there but it looks like on t
plan that there are other restaurants that are expected to locate there or
are possible.
Aanenson: Correct. 1
Ahrens: What kind of restaurants do you think are going to locate next to,
like Perkins? 1
Fran Hagen: An Applebee's... We don't know at this time but that's the
kind of things that could be in those... An Applebee's or Bakers Square.
Don't know for sure.
Farmakes: That's in addition to the fast food?
Ahrens: Right. I can't tell by the plan tither what this is ever going t�
look like and I picture in my mind that this is going to look like one of
those areas around Eden Prairie Center you know where the McDonald's is an
there's a little shopping center and you have to drive. There's lots of
parking lots and it's hard to get around and it's just kind of, like
somebody just dropped this commercial, little commercial area with lots of
a couple fast food restaurants and a couple of other restaurants and it
doesn't look, it's not a real welcoming place or real comfortable looking
place from either a retail standpoint. A restaurant standpoint... The
only thing I can think that this is going to look like by looking at the II
plan.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 26
Batzli: Are you thinking of the west end?
Ahrens: Kind of west. It's on that southwest corner of like 212 and
Prairie Center Drive. That area in there.
1 Batzli: Yeah. Kind of a jigsaw puzzle.
Ahrens: Yeah. Yeah. So I think there needs to be a lot of thinking on
what's going to go on in this area because I can't tell and it doesn't look
good from what I can tell. I thought we talked about a long time ago
putting islands in the parking lot. The impervious surface for this
parking lot, impervious area is, almost 80% right. What happened to that
idea? Or was I dreaming that up? I heard putting islands in and you know
making it, giving it a better appearance.
Aanenson: Like I say, we'll be looking at the site plan more specifically.
At this time we're really focusing on the zoning and the PUD itself. We
raised some of the issues we had. I'm pointing them in that direction but
if that's the direction you want us to go with the.
Ahrens: I know you keep pointing us over here and we want to talk about
these things over here.
Aanenson: No, I'm not saying, that's what we're asking for is direction.
If you want us to look at the landscaping, that's what we're asking you for
is direction.
Ahrens: Okay, I think we should look at that. And I don't see why we can't
11 incorporate or why Target can't incorporate some type of an island. I know
it's not what they usually do. I know it's more difficult planning wise. I
know it will cause some maintenance, but who cares. The store itself, I
don't know. To tell you the truth, the Chicago type store or the
Minneapolis type store, they all look pretty much alike to me. It's just
that there's a stripe here and there and maybe an entrance monument.
Batzli: I think she just committed architectural sacreligion. I'm not
sure.
1 Ahrens: Well they're gray. Long gray buildings. That's why they put
trees up. We do have to, I would like to see some, there's got to be a lot
more effort into how this looks from 78th Street. I agree with Ladd. I'm
not going to repeat everything and I wrote it down too but Steve already
restated everything that Ladd said. I like the PUD concept. I think it
has to be developed this way. I don't understand what would ever go in to
that lot that's located between the Target store and Monterey Drive. Is
that retail? Is that what we envision or what?
Krauss: It would likely be retail or office that's already into 78th
11 Street, and frankly that's, it's a big element of tying the Target into the
downtown streetscape because whatever's there is going to conceal the back
part of Target and kind of bring you around that corner which is now an
' open corner.
Ahrens: But we would have control over what goes in there?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 27
Aanenson: That's why we're recommending the PUD for that piece too.
Ahrens: The store itself, it does need a lot more work. I mean I agree
with Ladd. I don't see a big improvement over anything we've seen in the
past. We want something different I guess. We just and I think we've sal
that all along from the very first meeting at the fire station through
today. I mean we want something that's very different from what Target
normally develops and I don't think it has to cost Target a lot more money
It may cost them more money but they also want to be in our community and ,
think that we have the right to tell them what we want too. On the
landscape plan, the plantings that they're proposing to put in here are
pretty small types of trees and bushes which doesn't seem to me that it's
going to make a real big impact on how this building looks to people comi
into town and I think that needs to be redone and put some bigger trees on
the plan and something besides the crab trees and that type of thing. Arell
all three of these exits going to be, are there going to be stop lights?
Aanenson: No.
Ahrens: Which one? I forgot.
Aanenson: This is where we're recommending it be right turn in, right thrill
out only. This one will have a stop light at the entrance to the Target
store and this will be, it may or may not be signalized. It will be a full
intersection though. 1
Ahrens: I'd like to look at removing this parking lot too from the 78th
Street side of the building.
Margaret Fleck: Moving it this way?
Batzli: That's the employee parking? 1
Margaret Fleck: Oh this portion?
Ahrens: Yeah. That's all I have right now. r
Batzli: Thanks Joan.
Erhart: Brian?
Batzli: Yeah. 1
Erhart: Do you want more, I have some more issues here.
Batzli: Okay, let me run down a couple and we'll come back to you. I
think there's been a lot of good effort that's gone into this plan. A lot
of work. I think the applicant is working with staff. It sounds like
they're being sensitive to a lot of things that we like. I think the plan,
needs refining. I think whatever we do along West 78th Street needs,
careful attention needs to be paid to that. The Outlot B, Kate help me out
here. Unless I miss something. Whatever happened to our Outlot B that wall
sort of a food court? What happened to that?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 28
Aanenson: Well I think that their concern with the design and the views of
Target and the spacing of the buildings. They've basically thrown that
plan out. That was one of the options that Barton- Aschman put together.
Fran Hagen: And the parking.
Batzli: Parking?
Fran Hagen: The parking was insufficient...
Aanenson: They're trying to maximize the views from Powers and so they
have the outlots spaced so you can see the front of the Target store.
Batzli: Because I think one fo the things we really liked about that plan
probably unfortunately, given what I've just heard, was that we could do a
lot with the backs of those buildings we felt and put up some trees and do
some things where there wouldn't be a sight line at all from Powers into
the front of the building. I guess in looking at these plans, I was
disappointed in Outlot B from the standpoint that it seemed like a maze or
a jigsaw puzzle to traverse within the retail stores in that section. It
didn't seem particularly, there didn't seem to be a logic to it then and
I'm sure I have an untrained eye and there is a logic to it but it did,
when Joan brought up that part of Eden Prairie Center, by the west entrance
I think it is. I don't even go to those stores because of, it's just maze
like in there. To me. I don't go in there. It's unfriendly. I don't
think that, the logic of how they have it arranged in any one of those
three could be explained to me but if what I hear is that the logic is that
they can see the entrance to their store, that doesn't carry great weight
with me particularly because I don't want to see a poorly developed end to
Chanhassen so that somebody can get a glimpse of the Target store as they
zoom up Powers. There isn't going to be an entrance there. If people are
going to Target, they're going to know that Target is there. I don't quite
understand that. So I would like to see, at least rationale presented when
this does come back to us as to why it has to be arranged the way it does
or certainly Outlot B needs a lot of redesign in my opinion. Is there any
effect Paul, based on what we do tonight? Are we somehow limiting
ourselves to one of these three choices that they've presented for the
Outlot by us approving this tonight? Or giving this the okey dokey on the
1 conceptual stage.
Krauss: I don't think so Mr. Chairman. At this point, the level of design
11 concept that is used in looking at is limited because they haven't really
had an opportunity to explore it fully. We've raised a lot of the same
questions you have. We're convinced that under the PUD we can coordinate
the development on this. I mean the worse case scenario from a visual
traffic standpoint is if we go with the additional lotting that's along
78th Street. You quite frankly have the potential of having 8 fast food
restaurants and a Goodyear store or something like that. Each having
separate driveways. Each loading onto 78th Street. Each looking
completely different and despite our best attempts, probably having a blue
building here and an orange building there and that kind of a thing. This
opportunity under the PUD is that we are going to coordinate the
architectural styles around it and frankly Bill Morrish's opinion on that
at that meeting was that unified building or individual buildings having a
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 29 1
similar architectural theme, you can probably achieve most these same
goals. So we are certainly asking them to refine that more and we'll brill
back more definition but it's still an open question. They haven't really
laid one concept on the table and this is it. So we've taken the proactiv
step of saying okay, here's our concerns so when you do bring one back in,�
here's the guidelines we're going to live by.
Batzli: Well my concern stems from condition 4 which says the three
proposals for Outlot B may be acceptable. Is that saying to the applicant
that the Planning Commission and subsequently the Council is saying yes.
One of these three is fine as long as you go through proper channels to ge
each building approved.
Aanenson: No, we go back through the preliminary process, we want to see in
those refined.
Batzli: Well I know but we're somehow giving guidance to the applicant
that we find one of these three, one of these three may be acceptable. 1
Aanenson: Right. What we don't know, and it's hard because of the mix of
use. They each have different parking standards so you really can't tie
that down too much because if it's fast food versus sitdown versus retail,
we have different parking standards. Basically we know there's only so
much square footage and we've given you the range based on the different
versions. 25,000 to almost 30,000 square feet of additional buildings andll
there can only be so much square footage on there. That parcel's only so
big. Yes, we agree that it needs to be refined. The maze look and some of
those sort of issues but there can only be so much useage of that and we'r
saying, based on that, we feel that the comparable range, that much square'
footage and it needs to be developed further.
Krauss: At the very least, you're going to have a concept that lays out II
the internal road system there that defines the architectural theme that
they're going to have that mandates a signage package. That limits the
number of free standing pylon signs. Mandates a landscaping package. Thall
limits the more obnoxious uses that are potential on that. And also it
sets aside an appropriately sized piece of property. I think about a half
acre for the HRA to work with developing entrance monumentations. We
envision there being a prominently designed landscape structural feature II
similar to what we're looking at doing on Market and other entrances into
downtown. So there's a lot of framework to hang anything they come in with
in the future on. 1
Batzli: Okay, let me ask my question one more time. By us saying the
three proposals may be acceptable, not in terms of square footage or numbe'
of buildings but just in terms of the layout that we see on our plans
today, does that mean that when we see this back as a plan, that we're
actually acting on, it's more than likely we're going to get one of these '
three plans?
Aanenson: I don't think so.
Krauss: I think you're going to see a refined version of one of them,
yeah.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 30
Batzli: Because if it was up to me, I'd say the three proposals for Outlot
11 B are probably unacceptable and please redo them. I mean I'd rather say
that. I don't know that ..any of us is enamored with it. I know the
applicant hasn't come up here and spoken with us and explained the
rationale for why they're doing things a certain way and as you indicated,
they're still working on it themselves. But you know, I don't really want
to say that these plans may be acceptable knowing what I know right now.
So I'm just trying to discern whether we should be a little bit more
careful with this language.
Krauss: It's certainly appropriate to make these concerns known. The
major part of this process at this point is to give them direction to come
back in and resolve these issues.
Batzli: That's what I'm doing right now. Is the sight line study that you
passed out. or Target gave you today, have you had a chance to look at it?
And what does it say to you and why? In 2 minutes or less.
Aanenson: Can't figure it out.
Krauss: We really need some time to go through it with them. I mean this
is the kind of analysis we need to have done. When we opened it up, one of
the pages didn't seem to jibe with what we recall the elevations to be.
Batzli: Generally. Sight lines from up on TH 5. Given the elevation of
the building and your understanding of the elevation of the road, are they
doing a good job hiding the H back and the Satellite dish and whatever else
they've got on the roof?
Krauss: It appears that either, yeah. That it's going to achieve the
goal. What they're going to demonstrate to us here is the wall and does
the wall need to be 2 feet higher to achieve it or that. But yes, you will
not be looking down on a maze of pipes and air conditioners as has often
happened in the corridor.
Batzli: And I know that you said to Steve that there's not a concern about
the truck traffic going back on Monterey to the loading dock area. Is the
outlot where the trees will be located, is that ever going to be some sort
of, or is that going to be just kind of a nature area? Is the City going
to have title to that?
Krauss: The City would acquire title to that, yes.
Batzli: That will not be maintained as a park or otherwise as an
enticement to small children or anything else?
1
Krauss: No. The idea is to preserve the trees in perpetuity.
Batzli: And where do we envision the truck traffic coming into this area
from?
Krauss: Maybe that's a question we can refer to our traffic consultants
who are here tonight. There were several questions that were raised
regarding approaches to the site. Not only from commercial traffic but
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 31 1
also from customer traffic. There has been a lot of study done on the
downtown street system. The questions that Commissioner Farmakes is
raising about the downtown street system are frankly, I mean we've got the
design solutions for all of them and it was going to have been under
construction this fall but after we started working with Target, we put of
the project a little bit to make sure that we'd accommodate those concerns.
But I'd like to have Tim Feeno from Strgar- Roscoe - Fausch, who is the City's
traffic consultant possibly address some of those questions on approach II
directions. Jeff Bedenaur from Strgar- Roscoe is also here tonight.
Batzli: Okay, why don't they do that real briefly. 1
Tim Feeno: Jeff Bedenaur is our...specialist and he did most of the
traffic analysis that was done earlier on and I'll let him try...
Jeff Bedenaur: Based on the region location of Chanhassen and the site in
particular, most of the truck traffic that we anticipate will be trying to
ingress or egress the site would be coming from the east on TH 5. Both foll
the commercial /retail /wholesale outlets.
Batzli: Excuse me just one moment. Can everyone hear or maybe you can go
to the microphone to make sure.
Jeff Bedenaur: Based on our previous traffic study for downtown
Chanhassen, the major direction of approach, because of the regional
location of Chanhassen and the site in particular, is going to be from the
east on TH 5. There's also a great number of trips who will come south on
TH 101 and enter the downtown Chanhassen area from the east but they would
be clients and patrons of the retail and commercial uses that are being
proposed here. The truck traffic primarily would be coming in on TH 5 and
I would expect that there will be a desire for most of the truckers to com
in probably at Market, once they know the site and how to get in and out,
they'll probably come off TH 5 at Market. Come up to West 78th and then
travel west to Monterey and into the site from that direction. There might
be some who continue on TH 5 to Powers and come around but it's kind of a II
reverse movement and I wouldn't expect there'd be a great deal of that.
Batzli: Wouldn't they be making a left hand turn across traffic with
islands right there for the stop light?
Jeff Bedenaur: Right. There would be a traffic signal at the intersection
of Market and West 78th that would facilitate that turn for them. We
anticipate that over time West 78th Street will convert from a 2 lane
divided section to a 4 lane divided section as far east as Laredo and
possibly Great Plains. 1
Batzli: Do truckers like making left hand turns as opposed to right hand
turns because they're going to be making several left hand turns if they 11
come in the way they propose on Market?
Jeff Bedenaur: Right. Well as I indicated, they'll have a traffic signal
at Market to facilitate that left. And then the left at Monterey shouldn't
be that difficult depending on the time of the day they make that turn.
Typically I'm sure that there are trucks that are going to coming in and
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 32
out at all times of the day but I would expect it would be during the off
peak periods that most of the truck traffic would be entering the site.
Batzli: Is that true? That people from Target, is anybody here from
1 Target, is that when the trucks normally enter?
Bill McHale: They try not to mix truck traffic with their...
1 Jeff Bedenaur: And as Paul had indicated, that ultimately there would be
also a traffic signal at Monterey and Kerber to help facilitate that left
turn as well.
Farmakes: Excuse me for a minute. Are your traffic comments directly
related to the Target or retail in general in Chanhassen?
Jeff Bedenaur: The direction of approach percentages, and if I can find
them I can detail those percentages, are to the downtown in general.
Farmakes: So the access that you're talking about when you're talking
about accessing into town off of TH 5 from the east, is retail in general
and not directed specifically to Target?
Jeff Bedenaur: That's correct. We anticipate that 30% of the traffic into
and out of downtown Chanhassen would be coming into or leaving on TH 5 to
the east. 25% would be coming in or going out to the north on TH 101. 10%
would be coming into downtown or going out of downtown to the north on
Powers. 15% would be coming into or going out of the downtown area on TH 5
to the west. And additionally, 10% would be coming in from the south on
TH 101. That's the generalized directional distribution that we used in
our downtown traffic forecast. The truck traffic in particular would be
much heavier on TH 5 to the east.
Farmakes: Doesn't discount retail have a broader draw than normal retail
though?
Jeff Bedenaur: ...didn't have an opportunity to look at a great many or a
large spectrum of directional distributions based on the land use that we
were looking at for the downtown Chanhassen forecasting work. This is a
generalized distribution and it's one that represents a mix of types of
land use. Office, retail, commercial, entertainment and so forth so it's a
real mix. It's a real generalization.
Farmakes: As I said in my comments earlier, what worries me though is that
I believe the nearest Target to the north is Ridgedale. Is that correct?
Jeff Bedenaur: That's right.
Farmakes: Okay, and then to the east is Eden Prairie, correct? And we
11 have comparatively to our size, Minnetonka is 60 how many thousand is
Minnetonka?
Krauss: About 50- 52,000.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 33 1
Farmakes: Okay. And they're directly to our north. They're a much large"
population base than we are and on the far north corner of that is a retai
market. I would assume that a lot of density along TH 7 will consider
making the trip to Chanhassen from the north.
Jeff Bedenaur: That's right and that's one of the reasons we have 25% of
the traffic coming into the downtown area on TH 101 and 30% coming into the
downtown area on TH 5. 1
Farmakes: But I know a lot of people also would cut across because of the
limited amount of retail directly to the north. The communities of
Shorewood, Excelsior, Mound, all over to the west because there is a
limited amount of retail shopping there. How much traffic do you envision
on Powers or even TH 41 or Galpin Road?
Jeff Bedenaur: Well we have estimated that there'd be about 10% of the II
total traffic to the downtown area would come in from the north on Powers.
I'm not sure what the land use densities or intensities are for those area
along Powers north of Chanhassen but we felt that based on the regional
model that we used to help us develop these directional distributions, that
that was reasonable.
Batzli: What percent did you have leaving the site going north on TH 101?
Jeff Bedenaur: 25 %. 1
Batzli: Is there going to be a traffic light at the intersection at the
bend of West 78th where it turns into Great Plains and continues straight ?"
Is there going to be a stop light there?
Jeff Bedenaur: That will probably be the first traffic light that will go
in on West 78th Street.
Farmakes: Is there an existing market study that Target has in regards to
where you think your customers are coming from? 1
Margaret Fleck: I'm sure there is one...
Farmakes: Have you seen anything to that or where they think the customer"
base is or where they're drawing from?
Krauss: No. I have no idea. 1
Batzli: Thank you.
Jeff Bedenaur: You bet, thanks. 1
Batzli: Dave. You had I think a fairly lengthy memo as to things that
should be looked at. Do you feel comfortable with the resources that this
building is going to take as far as water and sewer and what have you in
terms of city? In terms of runoff into the drainage areas. Are you
comfortable with the way this is going?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 34
' Hempel: To be honest Mr. Chairman, Charles Folch the City Engineer was the
one who actually reviewed this one and based on his memo to the Planning
Department on it, I believe he does feel confident that we do have enough
infrastructure to accommodate the site and the proposed use. Storm
drainage calculations of course were preliminary he looked at and there is
an existing storm sewer line that could accommodate part of the site
drainage already. On top of that, the required on site retention pond
1 would handle the remaining runoff.
Batzli: Do we know Paul if a building like this is going to require any
additional fire equipment or things like that?
Krauss: No we don't and we don't actually do a calculation of that In
terms of scale, if it puts it into perspective at all, this building is
approximately 10,000 square feet larger than Market Square. And in terms
of what you're going to see ultimately in downtown, it's really kind of
hard to project that far forward. But on the north of this site we have
11 the Charlie James' piece which is equally able to accommodate significant
retail and which is appropriately zoned so in terms of what percentage this
will be of the total development in downtown, I did a guesstimate the other
day and probably about a fifth of the total. The ultimate.
Batzli: That's all I had. Tim, did you have something else?
Erhart: Yeah, a couple of things. The size of the Target in Eden Prairie.
Bill McHale: It's about the same.
Erhart: About the same. And does the parking lot meet the new standards
that we put in in our PUD? In terms of the islands and things. We wrote
into the PUD standards. If it falls into that. I mean it's regulated by
' the new PUD.
Krauss: It's under the new PUD ordinance but it doesn't have specific. I
11 mean there's density. Hard surface coverage requirements.
Erhart: There's requirements in there for trees?
L Krauss: No. Well our parking ordinance does require a certain amount of
parking lot landscaping. It always has.
1 Erhart: Maybe that's the one I'm referring to. Does it meet this one ?...
•
Aanenson: Yes, it does.
1 Erhart: Okay, and then what, we were going to use pots to put these trees
in? Is that what I read in there?
11 Aanenson: The ones in the front along the building?
Erhart: No, the ones in the parking lot. The islands are planted in the
ground, not in the pots correct?
Aanenson: Right.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 35
Erhart: What is the, in the CBD in this area if on a standard development
what would be the impervious coverage allowed? And this is 70 %. What arell
we looking at here?
Aanenson: Well the average we gave you in the report, it talks about 60 II
something.
Emmings: 68 and 67. '
Erhart: Including Outlot B?
Aanenson: Yes. We didn't include this or we took out the tree
preservation area and we took out the area for the monument too. We didn't
count those as part of it.
Emmings: If you just look at the Target site itself, it's real high.
Aanenson: Right. But we did let them count the trees and it's close to 11
80.
Krauss: But again, this is a very conservative projection. I mean if you
draw the line around the entirety of the PUD, the average lot coverage
comes out quite a bit lower.
Erhart: Yeah but I'm talking about just the Target site is well above 700
Regarding that West 78th side here I'm still, it kind of, I wonder when y
take the most valuable street we have in town in terms of facing in terms
of retail, is that we would put a side of a building there. I wonder if
you couldn't look at it in terms of reconfigure the building to make it
more east /west and move the entrance to the corner so the entrance would
face both north and west and then making the employee parking lot part of ,
the parking lot. That would reduce the size of the west parking lot and
break it up. Or why can't you have two entrances? Both an north and a
west entrance. Maybe you've looked at all of this.
Krauss: Well I'd let Target answer why they have to have one entrance. I/
That's an internal configuration but when we were trying to lay out the
site configurations here, we're not dealing with a site that's terribly
deep. The deepest spot is where the Target building is proposed right now,
When we knock out the area we want to preserve for the tree preservation
area, there's a limited footprint left. You don't have enough, I mean
people will only walk several hundred feet from their cars to a front door
of a store. And if the entrances veered tb the north side, the
perponderance of the parking is moved away.
Erhart: But they're there now.
Krauss: It's not that, it's toward the north end of the building but it'll
still fairly centrally located.
Batzli: And that would be like going to the Knox store in Hopkins. I mean
you talk about a weird entrance. - 1
Erhart: Is that the entrance on that drawing? Is it on the north end?
Planning Commission Meeting
1 August 19, 1992 - Page 36
Bill McHale: Just about centrally located towards the parking lot. The
parking lot veers north towards...
Erhart: Well, I won't spend any more time on it but it's just that there
1 seems to be, there's something that can be done to make that north side
better and I think we've all said that and we're just trying to. I'm not
the guy that ought to be trying to solve it for you but it seems to me
there ought to be something more sensible.
Krauss: Oh I think there's a lot. There's a lot of things that can be
done there.
Batzli: The only other comment that I'd have is, I would like to at least
see a discussion when we take a look at this, if the City Council approves
it and we proceed, some sort of discussion about a sidewalk or something.
Maybe not just along West 78th but to the other retail areas. If there
will be any movement back and forth, if you park your car once and walk
from Target over to the other retail centers, I would prefer to see some
sort of sidewalk treatment there. Is there anymore?
Farmakes: I don't think we talked at all about lighting at all and I don't
know if technically we need to get into that but I know it's been a
discussion of some of the other things that we've talked about. The intent
of trying to minimize the indirect light that escapes. I know there's a
lot of indirect lighting for a commercial development. Where you get a
concentration of cars and street lights so is that, the lighting was kind
of, weren't really addressed. Are we doing everything we can with the
' lighting to make sure that we minimize that impact? Because basically
there's a fair amount of single family homes just to the north of here and
our park is to the northwest.
Krauss: City ordinance requires that light spillage be limited to a
maximum half a foot candle at the property line. Which is fairly tight.
And they're going to have to demonstrate to us that it achieves that. Now
1 more than that, we get into, when we get to that level of design, what do
the fixtures look like? They're all downward oriented fixtures and
arguably you can even get into what kind of fixtures should they be. That
all comes out during the site plan aspect of it. We just want to make them
aware that there is a concern with that and they'll have to deal with it.
Batzli: Is there a motion? Oh, yes sir.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: My name is B.C. "Jim "'Burdick from Excelsior. I...
negotiated out this arrangement to sell this to the city and then to Ryan
Construction. And first of all, I appreciate your concern about those two
lots on Monterey. I've own those for a number of years and am very
concerned about their position relative to this. Now in negotiations with
Target, at one time that building was going to be katty corner and faced
' northwest. Another time it was going to be a bit farther south. And I
gave on these points but it's very essential for us that there be a drive
from the Target parking lot into the two lots we have between Target and
Monterey. There's a racetrack style circle up there to identify them in
the northeast corner and I negotiated this with Ryan and Target. Having
this drive through there and I just wanted to bring up that this is very
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 37 1
essential and important to us. And of course I do appreciate the concern
that every one of you has shown about these two lots on Monterey...what's
going to happen to them. And I would like to bring up one other thing for
your consideration and that is about moving the Target building a bit
farther south and partly into this area of trees. I don't like to see
those trees, anything happen to them either but they're oak trees. The
larger ones are very old. Almost any development, the oak trees die.
There's no more sensitive tree than an oak tree. You can drive on maples
and many other trees. Elm, if they don't get a disease and even around
birch, more than you can around oak. So intentions are good on saving
those oak trees but believe me, it's a job to save an oak tree if you've
ever built a house near one. If you've got a house 50 -100 feet from an o
tree and those will die. Not only 9 times out of 10 but probably 98 out
100. So if you'd consider moving Target a bit to the south, it would most
certainly help us develop those two lots and I think be more attractive II
taking the picture as a whole because as things now stand, we'll be so to
speak behind the Target building. I believe that's all I have unless you
have some questions. 1
Batzli: Thank you very much.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Thank you. 1
Batzli: Is there a motion?
Conrad: I'm not sure what the motion is intended to do. There's a lot ofl
detail. I guess I'm kind of uncomfortable with what's here. There's some
details in here that I didn't know were part of the conceptual review.
Basically this is our time to tell the applicant what we think and kind o
give some direction. So I'm not sure what this, there are details in her
that gee, I would have to reword the whole motion to tell you the truth.
But maybe staff is looking for us to somehow come up with some consensus
Paul, what are you looking for? Are you looking for, you know you're goi
to go through the same steps with City Council so the applicant can hear
their concerns and provide the applicant with their direction. What's the"
point of the motion?
Krauss: Well, to the extent that we haven't articulated your concerns or
if you think we've misstated something. It would be appropriate to throw
some language in saying that you have these additional concerns of da da
da da and we'll carry those forward to the City Council and the developer
will go back and start working on it. You know of course conceptual I
approval is by nature of the beast non - binding on all parties so you can
have some latitude to say your piece.
Batzli: You would prefer to see a motion which includes your points plus 1
any additional concerns which we have?
Krauss: I think so, yeah. 1
Aanenson: If we could do like we did on the Oaks. We just said based on
all the input. Just pass that report on and what we did is we took the
Minutes and summarized those and made a laundry list of concerns and pass
those onto the Council.
•
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 38
Batzli: You're uncomfortable with that?
Conrad: No, not at all. I'm not going to make a motion. Because there's
just a lot of debate in my mind on some of these things. I don't know if
there's.
Erhart: What happens if we want them to come back with something, just to
' come back with three treatments of the West 78th Street. What would
happen?
Conrad: That's the point of why we're doing this.
' Erhart: Well I'm not sure we're ready to make a motion. We don't want to
have it come back and look at it differently. I haven't seen any motions
' yet. I thought I heard a universal feeling from the Commissioners that the
West 78th side is not acceptable. That's what I heard.
Krauss: Right.
Erhart: So what's the point in a motion?
Aanenson: You tell them to do that.
Krauss: Yeah, I mean you refer the item on.
Erhart: Refer it onto Council?
Emmings: My feeling about what we're doing here is we're saying, yeah. We
' think this whole area ought to be a PUD. We're not opposed to something
along the lines of what's being proposed for the Target store in any way
and I think that's about it. And then there's a bunch of particulars
including some more reasonable or some better design of the West 78th
Street side but they've heard all that. But I think the main thing is that
we're in tune with developing the site as a PUD.
Erhart: Okay, so we wouldn't be surprised if it came back then after
tonight with a building that was reshaped? We aren't locking in on this
shape?
' Emmings: I don't think we've locked into any particular details have we?
It's a general concept.
Krauss: Yeah, I think you should not expect, I mean unless you're stating
something specific, you shouldn't expect radical deviations. A U shaped
building would be pretty radical.
Erhart: That's what I would have gone for because I think the building
shape isn't right to optimize the use of the property. The use of the
property and to solve a problem.
Batzli: I think a lot of effort has gone into that particular point to
date. Looking at all the conceptual things they've done and given the
slope of the lot, I wouldn't expect that they would come back with a
reconfigured shape of the building at this point.
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 39
II
Emmings: Ladd's point is well taken. Why these conditions and we say
we're doing kind of a conceptual approval and yet we're making these very II
specific recommendations here and really could make a lot more.
Krauss: Kate and I had this discussion while we were writing this thing. II
Should we be more specific or less? We came down in the middle.
Aanenson: I don't know if that's true Paul.
II
Batzli: You came down on Paul's side.
Aanenson: I said we should put as many conditions in here but, we had the'
same concern with Oaks. Remember the residents got up and we spoke and a
lot of time and you're going to see a different design. They've taken in.
We forwarded it on, like I said, we made a laundry list of all the
II
concerns. The residents concerns and I think you're going to see a
redesign. As you stated, I don't think Target's going to be completely
reconfigured. I think we'll see the outlot reconfigured but if you want t
throw this list out, I'm comfortable with that.
Emmings: I think what we did on that one was we said, with all of the
conditions in the staff report plus all of the concerns raised by everyone'
who spoke, either from the public or on the Commission.
Ahrens: I don't get the feeling we want to do that with this one. For I
instance, what Brian brought up earlier about the three proposals for
Outlot B. I don't think any of us are sold on those...and see one of those
come back to us.
II
Batzli: Well I might like one of them if it was properly explained too.
I mean I tried to say that but.
Ahrens: Right but are we limiting ourselves? I
Emmings: You can change may to may or may not.
II
Ahrens: Well that makes it meaningful.
Emmings: Yeah, I think it does. I think if you want to avoid being
trapped into them saying hey, you led us to believe that one of these woul
be, you haven't done that. They can't say that. That's the only thing
that helps. The point of that being is that regardless of what they do II
there, each building's going to have to come through a site plan review.
Batzli: I personally would be comfortable with the motion that talked in il
terms of we need work in these areas. The conditions set forth in the
staff report and then I would hit the highlights of what we discussed
tonight. I don't think it's necessarily fair to the developer to say, plu
everything that was said. Well, go for it then. Do you want to make a
motion Jeff?
Farmakes: With all these lawyers here?
II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 40
Erhart: Okay, let's list the issues and then one of us will make the
11 motion. One is the north, West 78th Street view.
Emmings: Parking lot.
' Erhart: Parking lot, two. What else?
Aanenson: Design of Outlot B.
Farmakes: Particularly in relationship to the park.
' Erhart: Anything else?
Conrad: Jeff's concern was traffic.
Ahrens: I think we should say the size and type of landscaping as it
relates to the parking lot on West 78th Street and wherever else people
have a concern.
Farmakes: 78th Street view, do you have?
Aanenson: Internal access into the walking?
Farmakes: And it would be interesting to know that 20% that they're
talking about from TH 101, it'd be interesting to know how that relates to
our Target...customers.
' Erhart: Okay, going once. I'll move that the Planning Commission.
Emmings: Okay, one other thing. On Outlot B, no one else really commented
on what they felt like with regard to fast food restaurants.
1 Ahrens: The number or?
Emmings: Yeah.
Ahrens: Well I'd like to see none.
' Emmings: Yeah, so would I.
Erhart: I would agree. Without getting into it but the thing, I agree
with Brian entirely is the place at Eden Prairie, it's awesome and I avoid
it like the plague because you don't know .what's in there and even if you
see the building in there, you can't figure out visually how you get to it.
You don't go in at all.
Ahrens: I went in once and it was a big mistake.
Erhart: It's goofy. On the other hand, I didn't comment on it tonight
because I somehow I feel we could spend another hour on that and you know
when we actually saw reality, it wouldn't be anything like we thought
tonight anyway so I kind of feel it's a waste of time. But I think the
comments are good for whoever develops that area is that Eden Prairie area
where they have the fast food restaurants in there is just goofy. It's got
11
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 41
to hurt the potential business for the people there. Anything else Steve"
Emmings: No.
Erhart: Well let me take a shot here. I'll move that the Planning
Commission recommend the conceptual approval of PUD #92 -5 as shown on the
plans dated August 7, 1992 with the conditions set forth in the staff
report, 1 thru 11 with additional. And that the Planning Commission
expressed additional concerns that we'd like to have staff review further II
the subjects of the view of the building from West 78th Street. The view
of the site from West 78th Street. The parking lot. What it's view from
all sides and the feasibility for either the size and type of landscaping,,
particularly as it relates to the West 78th Street and in the parking lot.
Four, the design of Outlot B. Specific concerns so that it's useful and
friendly. And five, the pedestrian. Whether or not they expect to have II
any pedestrian traffic and how they would get from Target to those
buildings on Outlot B and possibly through to other areas that pedestrians
might use such as the bus depot and so forth or whatever. And item number
6, concerns with look further into concerns of traffic.
Batzli: Is there a second?
Emmings: I'll second it. 11
Conrad: So what does that position us in in the staff's 11 points? It I
means we all endorse bringing the Burdick parcel in. Endorse a 6 foot
sidewalk. That's what bothers me. That's too detailed but anyway, I just
don't like that. I think that's not a big deal though.
Erhart: Your concern is with the 11 issues are too specific?
Conrad: They're very detailed. I don't want to tell the developer exact)'
what to do. I want to give them our feelings and it's his duty to work
with staff to see if they can resolve them. But I don't want to delete or
change your motion Tim, that's fine.
Erhart: Good, because I'm not planning on it.
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of PUD #92 -5 as shown on the plans dated August 7, 1992, subject II
to the following conditions:
1. Burdick Park Addition, Block 3, Lots 1:and 2 be added to the PUD at th'
time of preliminary PUD.
2. Submittal of PUD plans consistent with the recommendations of the stall
report and Engineer's memo.
3. The most westerly access on West 78th Street shall be a right turn -in II
and right turn -out only, full access be limited to the other two
locations shown on the site plan.
4, The three proposals for Outlot B may be acceptable but each building II
must proceed through site plan review. This site plan review shall
1
Planning Commission Meeting
11 August 19, 1992 - Page 42
consider the remainder of the balance of the site. This includes
landscaping impervious surface, parking, etc.. Any major changes would
constitute a rezoning.
5. Vacation of the existing West 78th Street.
6. Acceptance of full park and trail dedication fees.
1 7. Six foot sidewalk along West 78th Street and Powers Boulevard.
8. Architectural compatibility with all buildings in the development.
Compatibility with all signage, lighting, and landscaping.
9. Pitched roof lines are required on all building in Outlot B. Target
shall have a parapet wall that screens all HVAC equipment. Pitched
roof elements shall be introduced on the entry portion and the West
78th side of Target.
' 10. Submittal of all required site utility improvements including storm
sewer, water and sanitary sewer.
11. Uses are limited to those outlined in the report including the
limitation of two fast food restaurants.
' Further that staff review the following subjects:
1. The view of the site from West 78th Street.
2. The parking lot.
3. The view from all sides and the feasibility for either the size and
type of landscaping, particularly as it relates to the West 78th Street
and in the parking lot.
' 4. The design of Outlot B. Specific concerns so that it's useful and
friendly.
5. Addressing pedestrian traffic and how they would get from Target to
those buildings on Outlot B and possibly through to other areas that
pedestrians might use such as the bus depot and so forth.
6. Look further into concerns of traffic.
•
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 43 '
PUBLIC HEARING: II CONCEPTUAL PUD FOR 113 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON 63 (NET) ACRES
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 41, ADJACENT TO BMT AUTOMOTIVE (7305
HAZELTINE BOULEVARD), LUNDGREN BROS. DEVELOPMENT ON JOHNSON /DOLEJSI /TURNER
PROPERTY. '
Public Present:
Name Address '
Tim Oas 7305 Hazeltine Blvd.
Tim Keane 7900 Xerxes So., Bloomington
Dean Simpson 7185 Hazeltine Blvd.
Don Roy 7205 Hazeltine Blvd.
David Weathers 7235 Hazeltine Blvd.
Paul Youngquist 7105 Hazeltine Blvd.
Jay Dolejsi 6961 Chaparal Lane
Linda Carlson Gaipin Blvd.
Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros. Development Company
John Uban Dahlgren, Shardlow & Urban
Ron Peterson Summit Envirosolutions
Ken Adolf Schoell and Madsen '
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item.
Batzli: Jo Ann, you're recommending that we approve the concept? Thank
you and welcome back. Does anyone have any questions before we hear from
the applicant?
Farmakes: Has the type of tree cover, has the city evaluated the tree
cover that's proposing in your recommendations that they not build through?
That they eliminate some of these lots. Has the types of woods been
evaluated?
Olsen: Right, the applicant has provided on some of the plans. I think
it's on the grading plan you can see where there's detailed trees that ha
shown and yes, we have looked at some of those areas.
Farmakes: I couldn't discern what exactly was on there. 1
Olsen: We did request a cleaner copy which we got today which shows
without all the grading and everything on it, which shows specific to what'
the trees are. I have not had a chance to•look at that closely. We just
received it today.
Emmings: Have you looked at connecting the cul - de - sac at the end of Stre
Whether it makes any sense to preserve the option of connecting that t
the east?
Olsen: Which one was that?
Emmings: Whether the cul -de -sac that's at the end of Street B, whether ill
makes any sense to look at preserving options for connecting that to the
east or the one at the end of the Street J or connecting it to the south.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 44
' Olsen: Right. We looked at all of those to see whether there should be
future connections and we found that due to topography and to existing
wetlands, that we should not be. The topography going east of the B
cul -de -sac was fairly extreme and the connections would not have been
possible. And Dave looked at that closely.
Emmings: And south out of that cul -de -sac on J, is that wetlands down
' there?
Olsen: Again that's wetlands. That large wetlands.
' Emmings: So if they develop the property to the south of that that's in
the 1995 study area, that will have it's entrance off of the new road?
Okay.
Batzli: I guess Terry, if you have a slide show and a presentation for us.
Please proceed.
Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission, my name is
Terry Forbord. I'm Vice President of Land Development with Lundgren
Brothers in Wayzata. 935 East Wayzata Boulevard. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you this evening on this proposal. At this
time I think I need to say that we're a little confused because I believe
our application was for a concept plan, a preliminary plan and I think our
' application shows that and certainly our fees do and this was the first
that I realized that this was just a concept approval because I believe our
application was otherwise, to the best of my knowledge anyway. With us
this evening I have a development team that I'd like to introduce to you.
To my immediate left is Mr. John Uban of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban. To
his left is Mr. Ron Peterson of Summit Envirosolutions. And to his left is
Mr. Ken Adolf of Schoell and Madsen. He is our civil engineer. Ron will
has done all of the wetland delineation on this property and he can address
all those issues. Our land use attorney Mr. Bruce Mulkerson has a conflict
this evening and he may be here shortly. I thought that prior to me
turning the presentation over to Mr. Uban, I should give you just a little
bit of background. Most of you know who we are. Some of you may not but
we've been in the community already for approximately 12 years and Lundgren
Bros. has developed over 23 years, approximately 2,200 single family
11 detached dwellings in the metropolitan area. Primarily in the western
suburbs. Also there has been hundreds of multi - family and commercial
projects developed by the company. Approximately 75% I'm guessing of those
have been planned unit developments. The planned unit development within
your community that you may be most familiar with is the Near Mountain
planned unit development, half of which is in the city of Chanhassen. The
11 other half, the northerly half being in the city of Shorewood. And like
I said, that approval was obtained here I believe somewhat around 12 years
ago and we are just finishing the final phases of that. John, would you be
so kind to run the slide machine for me. I'm just going to talk very
briefly just about our planned unit developments, and Near Mountain in
particular because it's easier for me to refer to that being that you may
be most familiar with it. It's approximately 300 and some acres. 360
acres. Approximately 450 dwelling units and there's a number of reasons of
why we did that as a planned unit development. Primarily because it allows
flexibility and design and for us to achieve an objective while being at
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 45
II
the same time sensitive to the existing land features. Typically, as you
all know, we provide a great deal of detail in our entrance monumentation.'
It's point of arrival to our neighborhoods. And as you know, the PUD
oftentimes allows you to have some open space where you can provide other
amenities that you may not see typical in other standard subdivisions. '
These particular slides are going to be of homes in the Near Mountain
neighborhood. These lot sizes that you are going to see range in size from
8,500 square feet to about 11,000 square feet. Lot width at the setback 11
55 feet to 75 feet. And these are homes in an established neighborhood.
They've been tucked into the trees. A great deal of care was given, even
12 years ago before most people were attempting to do that. And these
slides represent examples of that. Now you'll see in this particular sli
in Chestnut Ridge, even though there are 9 foot setbacks on the house sid
and 6 foot on the garage side, you will see that this is probably about a
30 foot amount of space between these two dwellings and that is because e l
it's on a curvalinear street or it may be on a cul -de -sac. This is anoth
home with a 20 foot front yard setback. 9 foot on the house side. 6 foot
on the garage side. This home was featured on the front page of Better
Homes and Gardens. This is another example of the type of homes that we'd,
be producing within a neighborhood community that we have before you this
evening. Again, it's the same setbacks. This particular lot is a 55 foo
wide lot and is 8,500 square feet. That's another example of a home wher
this one is more in an open area. This particular street where you've se
most of these homes has been featured in three national publications. Many
of you may not know this but the reason it was featured was because of thel d
environmental sensitivity that was used in the design of this neighborhoo
on a small lot product in a wooded area. And again this is 12 years old
and the city of Chanhassen, even 12 years ago was on the cutting edge of II
developing planned unit developments in the United States. This is an
example of how you have a steep topography, terrain. Significant wooded
area where you nestle a home into that area with the least impact on the
environment as possible. You can see, if you look closely in the shaded I
area under the trees on the left side, that that is a boulder wall. A
retaining wall that enabled to limit the amount of grading on this
particular building pad. This is another example of something. There's
not a lot of grading here but just right in the front of that sidewalk we II
were able to put in some retainage and maintain the least impact possible
to that significant tree. This is a home that's typical of an open area i
Chestnut Ridge and it's not unlike the homes that we would be proposing in�
this planned unit development. And likewise with this. We showed you
earlier one of the entrance monuments to Chestnut Ridge. This is an
entrance monument to Churchill Farms which is in Plymouth. Now one of the
things we try to do is a little bit better :job every year in the way we
identify our neighborhood communities. The reason that we're showing you
this, as the next slide will show, is that this isn't a very good shot of
it but it has the split entrance. There's a median in the middle that's 11
vegetated or plantings and flowers. Petunias. All of our entrances are
irrigated so they stay green during the growing season. And you can see,
if you look closely, that it's a very grand entrance and this is very
II
similar to the type of entrance that we would be proposing for this
neighborhood community. This gives you a little closer shot of the median.
Now the medians are, most of you are familiar with them. They're all over
the Twin Cities. It's not, if you ask any public works department or any
engineering department in any city, anywhere in the United States, they
II
Planning Commission Meeting
' August 19, 1992 - Page 46
will tell you they prefer not to have them. The reason that we put them in
is because we don't design them primarily just for engineering purposes.
We design them for people. It softens the entrance. It gives you a very,
very nice point of arrival. The neighborhood community that we are
11
proposing this evening has a private park. This is something new for us in
the city of Chanhassen, although we've been doing it for years in other
communities. We haven't had a new development here that was large enough
in order for us to provide a facility like that. But what we do is we go
in at the very beginning. Before all the homes are built, we put in
totlots similar to this. This is a $30,000.00 structure that was installed
in Churchhill Farms in Plymouth. We put in tennis courts, basketball
hoops, volleyball courts and we do those things at the very front end. And
it provides our homeowners with something that they can't get anyplace
else. It certainly increases the appreciation value of their homes and
' insures that their investment will be well protected and then when they go
to resale their home, they stand a very, very chance of competing very well
with all the other homes on the market. I won't get into elaborating in
detail about Lundgren Bros. because most of you know who we are. We try to
do a good job in the city. Every project that we do we go back. We assess
it. Try to determine what we could have done better. It's very
11 interesting if you look at Near Mountain and the newer neighborhood
communities we've developed since then. There's a significant difference.
There's more open space. We're trying to do a better job. This is not a
departure from that. The proposal before you this evening is very, very
' low density. Has a lot of open space. A lot of things that we wouldn't be
required to do. We're trying to provide a neighborhood community that is
different than what the buying public can buy someplace else. At this
time I think it's, I should just tell you, in case you may have forgotten,
that we've been working with the city on this proposal for 2 to 3 years. I
was going to look up the date before I came and I just didn't have time. I
was trying to prepare a presentation but it took place when all of you were
adopting the comprehensive plan. You may recall at the last minute you
included this property into the comprehensive plan for reasons that you
already know and so it's been a long process and now the feasibility
studies are being done for the sewer and water. We have had numerous
meetings with staff over the last 2 -3 years on this proposal and now we
finally have the opportunity to present it to you. With that, I will turn
the meeting over to Mr. John Uban of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban. He will
be presenting and conducting the presentation for Lundgren Bros. and we
will be then also utilizing the other two consultants to talk about
engineering and wetlands. Thank you.
John Uban: Thank you Terry. What I would' like to start with is give you
an overview of the site so you can see it from the air. Get some feeling
about the natural features because that is really what's driving the
uniqueness and the difficulty on the site and the flexibility that we're
requesting in the PUD. How to get around trees. Work with the rolling
I/ terrain. The wetlands. All these things come to play and at the same
time, take these things that are difficulties and make amenities. Make
actually very positive open spaces that enhance the neighborhood that we're
creating. This aerial shows generally, if you were over TH 5 looking
' across toward the land, on the far right corner is CR 17 I believe and then
you can see the lakes and so forth in the background. And just below what
looks like a cultivated field, that is the northern boundary of the
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 47
property and the property then comes all the way to the south on down to
the wetland. This is looking from the north. Looking back toward TH 5
which is right at the top of the picture. We see TH 41 as the large
highway running through and once again that cultivated field that forms the
northern edge of the property. Along TH 41 we have just one opportunity
for access and we have trees. We're working inbetween trees. There's an
industrial site there that we will be removing. Taking out a non-
conforming use. Parts of the areas you can see are wooded. It's mixed. 11
Very rolling and through all of this we're trying to locate a collector
road as sensitively as possible, which has to go from TH 41 and through the
adjacent property. Once again we're looking at the site from the south,
approximately over TH 5 and in the center of the picture you can see the
property and then there's a line that separates the property from the
adjacent property which is a power line. And this forms the eastern edge
of the property. And forms a sort of barrier that we have to incorporate II
into our platting.
Terry Forbord: John, maybe we could pause there for a minute and just sh
the collector goes.
John Uban: Yeah, if you could trace generally where the collector road
will go. We're going through and there are wetlands and rolling hills an
lakes and we have to follow really a very specific course and then we mis
wetlands. Come down through the property and back out to TH 41. And as we
go specifically into the plan you'll see how this has to snake through thel
terrain.
Batzli: On this picture, where is the proposed PUD in the future, can yo
where that is on that page?
Terry Forbord: You mean the outlot?
Batzli: Yeah. ,
Terry Forbord: To the south. That property...
(There was a tape change at this point in the presentation.)
John Uban: ...we have a power line and then we have a wetland and this is�
the area where the collector road is going to come through and link what i
called the Song property directly to the east with this parcel. And you
can start seeing some of the wetlands and so forth that are in that area II
where we're trying to meander our road. Just another general photograph
from looking at the site. Another one from the north looking back onto it.
Terry Forbord: ...the Johnson property. 1
John Uban: That gives you an overview and I will now use the overhead
projector and go through the various drawings. The subject property,
approximately 95 acres. This shows the surrounding property and it also I/
shows the general location of the proposed collector and this is located
really to meander through the property and. miss all the wetlands and so
forth in that area. The comprehensive plan places this area just north o
study area, as brought out before and we're at 113 lots and if you
1
Planning Commission Meeting
1 August 19, 1992 - Page 48
looked at the net density and translated that into maximum, it'd be about
' twice that amount, so we're really at a fairly low level to begin with. The
kind of density that we're anticipating on the property. Existing
conditions on the property and if you recall the photographs that we look,
we saw that here were the wooded areas in green. Along in here. Down on
the southern edge. Here's the wetland that forms the southern edge. We
have inside of this various different kinds of wetlands. There's a variety
I of qualities and these are the ones that we're trying to get through, miss,
mitigate where we have to fill and at this point I'd like to, here's our
line, power line that goes through the western edge and in orange, here's
the industrial use and here's the existing house. And you can see some
I other trees that are just single lines which was also incorporated which
were planted with the homestead. And all of this is folded into our
approach to the property. The wetland conditions, we'd like to have Ron
' tell you now how that mitigation and which wetlands are being treated in
different fashion.
' Ron Peterson: Thank you John. The wetland resources on this site were
looked at in some detail, almost from the outset and delineated or staked
in the field and surveyed in so these are pretty precise boundaries. There
is approximately 10 wetland basins on the site. The reason I say
' approximately is that some of these basins are remnants of larger basins
where you have two remmants of what formerly was one basin. The reason for
that is that this entire site has been very heavily tiled for agricultural
use. And virtually every wetland on this site has tile graded to some
pipe. For that reason, some of these wetlands have been greatly benefitted
by the tile drainage. Other ones have been virtually eliminated. What we
have tried to do in the process of laying out the plans for the site, we
tried to, besides from just avoiding and minimizing wetland impacts in
general, we've attempted where we can avoid impacts, to orient those
impacts towards the most degraded basins. So that the more pristine or
' natural basins on the site are the ones that we had the most emphasis on
preserving. There's approximately 24 acres of wetland on the site so out
of 95 acres, that's roughly a quarter of the property. The impacts that
are associated with the proposed layout are 2.81 acres. The...
approximately 60% of that, involves this wetland in the center of the
property. I think that in your packet it labels it as basins 9 and 10.
That area is probably the most graded wetland on the site and in fact when
we looked at it, we spent a lot of time scratching our heads deciding
whether or not it really met the prairie wetland criteria in the first
place. The reason for that is because it's extensively tiled. Tile
' drainage flowing to the south and into this larger wetland complex of the
development. I think the City's wetland consultant has also looked at this
area and he had similar reaction...difficult to make a determination... of
upland versus wetland on that development. But as you can see, we've tried
to limit our impacts as much as possible to the most degraded basins on the
site. The one on the far left, we're attacking the uphill of that basin.
Again, part of that basin was formed mainly by tile drainage from upwards
to the north. The third...is man made drainage swale that carries drainage
from the face of the three. The next one over is a small seepage flooded
basin and then the last one on your far right is the remnant of a drained
' wetland that once existed at the edge of the property. The only reason
there's any wetland vegetation there at all is, does that help? The only
reason there's any wetland vegetation in that area at all is because there
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 49 '
is this drainage coming in from off site to the east. That's still flowi
into that area and because of the extensive tile drainage underneath that
area, water flows onto the site and essentially disappears. Percolates
into the ground and enters this tile system. Comes out through a ditch
down into the wetlands to the south. The blue areas, which Ken can addre
in more detail, are proposed storm water ponding locations. In developin
our wetland mitigation areas, we have kept those separate from the storm
water ponding needs of the site so as to avoid routing speed runoff into II
our mitigation areas. We've shown a series of locations along the south
end of the site trying to keep our mitigation areas somewhat isolated from
human activities as much as we can and tie them in with the existing
wetlands on the site to insure that they're viable. Those areas, we have
done a preliminary grading analysis to make sure that they fit in with th
grading that's needed for the other storm water ponds in the lots.
However, we will be refining that as we get into the detailed design
process and there may be some refinements to those areas as we move forwa
if we find that we can actually reduce impacts further as we get into more
detail. Then we may modify some of those. The mitigation that we've shill
is at a 1 to 1 acreage ratio to what's being effected. I would say that
the quality of what we're going to end up with in the form of mitigation
areas and the number of cases on the site, far outweighs the value of the
wetland remnants that we're replacing. Each wetland will have a ,
conservation easement around it. Both the portions of the existing
wetlands that are being preserved as well as the mitigation of wetlands
that we're creating. I think that's all the comments I have. Any
questions?
Batzli: I think we'll probably have some a little later. Thank you.
John Uban: What I'd like to do now is really go through the attributes o
the PUD. Why we're doing it this way. What we're trying to create from a
design point of view and how we see a neighborhood being created here and"'
the sort of uniqueness and the flexibility that we hope will meet with yo
approval. This is important to us. How this all works together is part of
the creative nature of planning but it's real important because what we d
is really create neighborhoods and it's this process that's very importan
to us. This is the general layout and you can see that what we're trying
to do, as you recall the slides, that we're trying to adhere to the
topography of the area the best we can. Yet at the same time,
incorporating a collector road through the site. Using cul -de -sacs to
reach up into the areas that do not have access from other directions.
We're also reaching down into the areas along the wetlands for really the II
nice homesites. So we look at it, where do homes really want to be. Wherg
would they naturally want to set and then build a road system to serve
those homesites. And we're also preserving woods. Of course staying out
of wetlands and through this process, we have an existing home we're
saving. We're building on the front edge entrance. Boulevard conditions.
We're bringing people in on a bridge that comes across this connection to
the wetland. This bridge system really starts to make this neighborhood a,
special place and where all these things have to work together to make a
nice design. This collector road, as talked about earlier, as it goes
through our property. Here we've shown how it has to miss the wetlands all
we have some high points and steep grades in the north so we actually go
through here missing all the significant features and placing it in the
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 50
best place possible. This is how we've organized this area and pre - studied
then the future connection. The overall impact, and I think some good
points were brought up in the staff report and we are endeavoring to do
better as we start our grading. But what we have seen and what we can do
by some adjustments. Some of them were pointed out. Making sure our homes
or design of each individual home meets the site by grading our road system
but trying to leave as much of the wooded sites ungraded so we actually fit
' a home to that site Doing that kind of approach, really a tailor made
connection between each lot and each home because there are 15 homesites
that we can show you tonight if you we have time, and how they fit on each
one of these sites. So what we've done is we've calculated with our most
sensitive siting and so forth, that out of all the treed areas, we will be
preserving about 2/3 of it. And that's really a, from looking at this
difficult a site, is doing very well. And this is what we're striving for
and we think we can accommodate that. We have very good preservation
techniques for actual construction. And we will preserve a fair amount of
these trees. The important thing is to understand that we also, even
' though these are trees that are in the backs of lots and so forth. That
you saw on the photograph that when we just grade the roads and leave the
lot, when we match the home, we can save trees up in the front yard too.
It's hard for us to predict at this point exactly what that's going to be
like but that is how we've developed in the past. The open space that
we've provided is in a system. We have a large wetlands to the south of
course but along the collector road, we've also located other things. And
' you can see the private park. The front entrance. At the bridge we have
this view in towards the wetland. This is part of our entrance feature.
We have a wetland that we're exposing to the traffic as you drive by. It
is, we don't want to hide all these in people's back yards. We want to
bring them out onto the street as much as possible so that your feeling of
what the neighborhood is really like. Sharing all the amenities as people
drive in. And this is important because we have to build roads then
' because no one has a lot up and we have 1,090 feet of frontage on roads
that are being built that don't have a home on it. And that is a lot of
frontage and this is frontage we could otherwise consume as lots and be
' more efficient. But this is what we think creates a very special
neighborhood. And this is part of the flexibility. This is what we're
giving is all this amenity exposed to the public street. Over 1,000 feet
and we're looking for in return the flexibility on how we design our lots
and make it fit to the site. Part of that, when we look at the different
lot sizes. This is just a quick graphic that shows the different sizing.
The green being the smaller lots and the blue being the large lots. Over
3/4 of an acre. The largest lots get up to an acre and a half or so. And
what we've done is those are the ones close to the wetlands or in the heavy
woods on this side. This is up next to the power line but here's next to
the amenity in the northeast corner. All of these work within the system
of creating a variety of lots. This creates a variety of homes. Variety
of prices. All of which are the goals or attributes you look for in a PUD.
So it's this variety that's very important and trying to adhere to just for
instance a 90 foot width on a lot. It's very important for us to be able
to fluctuate from that and that's what a PUD ought to do. You should make
sure that it works well and that you can locate lots. For instance, 2/3 of
the lots are under 90 feet. Or 1/3 rather, but 2/3 are above that. But
one half of the product can sit on those lots that are under 90 feet. And
so we have a great variety. A great opportunity to put a lot of different
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 51 1
product on these variety of lots. If we went ahead and put in 90 foot lo
and figured it also that all the lots had a 20 foot setback because this •
designed on a 30 foot setback to begin with and then see where we need the
flexibility and so what we looked at is where we have lots around a
cul -de -sac for instance. It's a pie shape and if you move the setback in"'
to 20 feet, which we don't really anticipate doing, the width actually
narrows up considerably but yet the lot is very large. And so this is the
flexibility. This is where you have a large lot and sensitive area but
you're really narrowing it up on the front side but you need to match the
product to that lot. And so we might lose up to 7 lots if we just tried to
make them all 90 feet for instance. And this, on a product around a desi
that already is very low density and already contributing 1,000 feet of
frontage of road that exposes amenities, it becomes a burden and an edge
the PUD that is saying, are we really getting the flexibility that allows
us to make this kind of design work. And this is just one consideration."
Batzli: Is this discussion in response to the staff's request that you
move the front yard setback to 20 feet? ,
John Uban: It's on all lots. We don't need it on all lots, especially on
cul -de -sacs we don't need that. We need the flexibility on just certain
lots around wetlands. ,
Terry Forbord: We would prefer to have a reduced front yard setback. It
makes a lot of sense from an environmental standpoint. It makes a lot of 11
sense from quality of life standpoint for the people who live in these
homes. However, there are certain areas where it just doesn't work.
There's a few number of lots that it doesn't, and that's not uncommon to 11 have some degree of flexibility on those difficult lots to adjust...
John Uban: It's that flexibility we're really looking for in the PUD. The
flexibility on the side yard setbacks. This shows generally how it really"
works. Still keeping the separation of 20 feet between buildings. Wherell
we would have a 6 foot setback to a garage, perhaps there is a tree that
happened to fit just off the property line and if we were 10 feet from it
we'd rather be 14 feet away. You know it's that kind of adjustment to ge
away from trees or on curvalinear streets where all the lots are just a
little bit different and the home wants to sit straight but it's not
straight to the one next to it. Corners of buildings may come a little bil
closer and then we can move the buildings around and this works very well
when you have a developer that develops the lots as well as builds all the
buildings. And this gives that adjustment and yet when it's all done, yowl
don't notice that it's any different than .a normal development. The
separation is still there but there's the flexibility to move it back and
forth a little bit with each siting of each home.
Terry Forbord: It's important to note that those are minimums. It's a
minimum of 6 foot on the garage side and a minimum of 9 feet on the house
side. If you go to up Near Mountain and took a tape measurer, I would II guarantee that you would find very few instances where they are actually
that long. But what it does give you is the flexibility as an example that
John gave. If there are trees there, a steep slope, you can move that a
little bit and that certainly is in step with what the staff and the city
have been suggesting as far as preservation...
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 52
Olsen: But you're also saying that you will maintain at least 20 feet at
all times.
Terry Forbord: Correct. And the staff, the PUD ordinance apparently as
written is 10 and 10 and the idea probably behind that is that you want to
maintain a minimum of 20 feet between homes and we're assuring you that you
would have that.
' John Uban: Specifically on the entrance, I just want to share with you
some of the design and how it works. There's a single spot on TH 41 that
we've worked out with MnDot where access is appropriate. We're curving
that road in. It comes in and curves around and at that same time you get
a view that comes right across into the wetlands and this is part of our
entrance. A way to make a dynamic entrance. A special place to live.
It's looking at it just beyond trying to fit a certain number of lots on a
piece of property. And right in this area there's a very large oak tree
that we're going to key on and create this bridge with a large oak and then
we'll have the pond and the wetland and it will be a very nice setting and
nice entrance. We are planting along the highway through here where we
have lots that back up to the highway. The problem here is the highway's
higher than the property. We can't berm for it. I mean it would create
another highway next to a highway practically. So all we can really do is
do some planting along the back sides of the property, and that's what we
plan to do.
Terry Forbord: John, would you please note the outlots at the entrance.
Typically we do not believe that it is good practice to put homesites right
at the entrance to a neighborhood community. If at all possible, we prefer
not to. And so this neighborhood community is depicted on the landscape
plans. Those are outlots that will be vegetated and are planted heavily
and so we've deleted the homesites from those areas.
John Uban: It helps, as people come in. Get a focus towards where we want
them to look and see a nice area. It also shows the median that we're
proposing to help separate traffic but at the same time make a very nice
entrance. The park area, we're proposing the skating pond, tennis court,
and as you come across this bridge, here's a big row of evergreen material
that we're saving to help edge this entryway. Coming in and then focusing
11 once again on open space which is the park area. The double cul -de -sacs
that we've talked about. This design, here are two wetlands you see in a
little lighter green. This is an upper cul -de -sac and a lower cul -de -sac
and they look out over these wetlands. So we were creating these lookout
conditions. Really nice sites. Once again looking for where the nicest
sites would be and then creating the road system to work with that. We
have explored, as suggested by staff, a method of combining these two. I
don't know if I'll get it to line up perfectly here. In that fashion
generally. Connecting those two cul -de -sacs. This is something we will
strongly consider. We think the cul -de -sac system gives us really nice
home sites but if there's a strong need to connect and the City really
wants us to, we will look at this and see what adjustments we can make. We
would prefer of course to keep the cul -de -sacs.
Terry Forbord: Now we do concur with the city engineering department that
moving the water and we would not be opposed to running the sewer through
i
V
11
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 53 ,
those cul -de -sacs down that ravine. Actually that would be beneficial to
us... However, the main purpose for the cul -de -sacs is that 99.99 people '
out of 100 would prefer to live on a cul -de -sac is you gave them that
opportunity. And that's why we're showing it like that. We actually gain
a homesite by connecting the road but it's not a deal breaker by any means
for Lundgren Bros. if you demand that we connect those. We just think it
would make a nicer neighborhood.
John Uban: Also, part of our system of cul -de -sacs. There's another '
element that's important to us and that is the development of the landscape
island. This island really breaks up that large expanse of asphalt that ,
often ends up there and that's usually the most negative part of a
cul -de -sac system. People love to be on cul-de-sacs. They like the
privacy and so forth but that expanse of asphalt is usually the part that
people don't like and we have worked in other communities. We've worked i,
Burnsville for instance since they became a city. We've been their
consulting planner and we're making a list of all the cul -de -sacs and we
found that it's several pages long which have islands and it really
enhanced the city as a whole and it's a very nice way of breaking up these
cul -de -sacs. We have some slides to show you. In addition, we just want
to point out that we've studied this in detail working with the standards
of a city. Making some adjustments. Working within the right -of -way tha
this will accommodate most trucks and firetrucks and so forth. The turni
radius while maintaining an island in the center. And I think this detail
will be able to work out with city engineering. Oftentimes it's the peopill
who plow snow, do maintenance and so forth that wish they didn't have to c
around something. It slows them down. But in reality is, they aren't that
much more difficult to plow. That really an island absorbs the snow. Y
don't have to plow the snow off the island and it actually provides a
place, when properly constructed, to place snow. And we'll show you some
slides on how that works, and all of these are maintained by the homeowners
association. All the open space. All the recreational facilities. All II
the medians. All the entryway features. All the landscaping that is
common to everyone, which includes these islands. And it is there. They
pay fees and it works very well. If I could just turn this off, I don't I
think we'll conflict without moving. These are just medians and roads.
This would be similar to the median we proposed at our entrance but you can
see how it really would break up and help create and define views as you
enter first into the subdivision. But designed in such a fashion that it
allows good sight .distances out to the highway. Those two things must wor
together. Here's an island in the center of a cul -de -sac. You can see
this particular one is elevated. You pile snow around the edges of it. III
is not, it doesn't have to be grass. Gravel works out very well so you
don't have to mow it. The snow doesn't kill it. Maintenance is much lower
and then you plant trees and so forth and what it does then, is here's a
planted island from the ground and you can see, instead of driving down a r
cul -de -sac and seeing many garages, that will be broken up. You'll see the
plantings in the center. And this really does a great job of creating a
nice setting for the cul -de -sac system.
Terry Forbord: I think it's appropriate to point out that the myth that
people have or misperception that they have that vehicles cannot turn
around when there are islands. If you take for instance a semi - trailer.
Semi -truck trailer, even without an island in a cul -de -sac they can't turn
Planning Commission Meeting
9
1 August 19, 1992 - Page 54
around. That's a fact. If you've ever been in a semi - trailer or if you
know anybody, watch them. They cannot turn around in an existing
cul -de -sac right now. Trie island does not become a factor for a moving van
so to speak. Some of the large fire trucks cannot turn around in a
cul -de -sac without an island. So they have to back up anyway. So often
times you may have heard the argument that well if there's an island there,
that means they can't turn around or can't drive through it, can't anything
so I think it's very important to recognize that.
John Uban: The last thing I want to show you and then I'll have Ken Adolf
go through some of the engineering elements, is just what we've done to
' further show that we're adhering to all the setbacks. The setback from
wetlands. The buffer edge. Adhering to the useable back yard plus
accommodating a deck on a 40 x 60 pad. And each one of these lots we've
exhibited the wetland in gray, a line around the wetland shows the
combination of buffer area and the useable rear yard or setback which is 30
feet, and then we've shown each one of the homes and a deck that would
happen on each one of those lots. And this shows how we'd...regulations
and buffer ourselves and separate ourselves from the wetlands.
Ron Adolf: I'm going to briefly discuss the site engineering issues. The
site is within the MUSA expansion area that was described. The developer
or Lundgren Bros. has petitioned the City for the extension of trunk
sanitary sewer and water service to the site. The sewer service would come
from the extension of a gravity trunk main from the Lake Ann Interceptor
11 which is east of Galpin Boulevard. That gravity sewer would be expanded at
some point east of the site and then a lift station would be constructed.
In discussions with Bonestroo, that would be constructed someplace over in
this area. When that lift station would then service the...elevation
properties both on the site and also east of the site. Property of the
site and that lift station would pump the flow into the gravity sewer.
' Lateral gravity lines would then extend from that lift station along the
streets to serve both lots. The trunk sewer, as well as the trunk water,
as I said, that feasibility study is in the process and the current time
table on that is that will be available in 1993. Water service to the site
would be provided by a 16 inch diameter trunk watermain which really
follows the collector street and continues east through the Song property
and then connects to the water system at the pump house on Galpin
' Boulevard. Again the lateral lines would be extended from that trunk main.
The trunk main would also provide the lateral benefits along the collector
street. The storm water management plan would consist of accepting the
surface runoff in the streets and gutters. Conveying that to some storm
sewer. All the storm sewers would discharge into some storm water
management ponds which are shown in blue. The number of ponds is really
dictated by the amount of relief on the site. It is very difficult to try
to consolidate the runoff into a central location so each one of these
provides treatment of surface runoff prior to discharging into the existing
wetlands. The storm water management would comply with the City's current
11 draft ordinance on the storm water management. On the site grading, the
first phase of the development would be on the west side obtaining access
from TH 41. TH 41 does have a controlled access and really the location
shows where this collector road connection is the only location that is
available for access. The site would be graded in phases. Probably a
total of five phases over a period of 4 to 5 years. Initially we'd just
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 55 1
grade the first phase plus the street alignments that would contain the
necessary sewer and water lines to provide service to the first phase. Fc,
instance this collector street would need to be graded to allow the
watermain construction and some sanitary sewer would be required down to
the lift station. The details of the grading plan will be refined. Stafil
has come up with some good comments in their review and we're reviewing
those comments and trying to really achieve the goals of minimizing the
loss of trees and the total grading on the site. I'd be happy to address
any questions later.
Batzli: Thank you. Is this a wrap up? '
Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. We actually
edited our presentation to you this evening because of the lengthy
presentation to you earlier so we've skipped over a number of things that'll
may be of relevancy to you. We have a number of concerns about the
recommendations. More importantly I'm concerned about that we were
applying for a preliminary plat and I'm not exactly sure how to handle thll
at this time. But we are available for questions and I'm assuming that y
have a lot of them and we'll do the best that we can to answer those.
Batzli: This is a public hearing. People in the audience that would lik
to address the Commission, please step forward to the microphone. Give u
your name and address and we would appreciate brevity.
Linda Carlson: My name's Linda Carlson, I live on Galpin Boulevard. I II
heard them say that the roads that go through there are public roads. I
don't know if that's normal or not for a PUD but my feeling is that the
parks ought to be public as well. There are no parks in that area for th�
people in that area. So that was my comment.
Paul Youngquist: My name is Paul Youngquist. I'm at 7105 Hazeltine Blvd"
I'm the cultivated area on the north side that you saw in the pictures.
Boy it's late and I would not want to be on the Planning Commission.
Thanks for doing your job. This might sound like a paid endorsement of II
this project but unfortunately it's not paid. But I'm assuming that thislO
in general is in compliance with the comprehensive plan and I feel pretty
lucky that Lundgren Bros. has laid it out the way they have and I'm pretty"
well sold on everything that's been talked about. I like that east /west
road. I know the earlier plan called for a much larger road and this is a
smaller road in size and it meanders through and respects the contours an
the trees and everything. I like the amount of open space. I like the w
they've left existing trees and so forth and I personally appreciate that
the larger lots seem to be on the north side and the smaller lots on the
south side, although the smaller lots are smaller than I thought they
really would be. But having said that, we have a couple of concerns. On
is assessments. We were hit for the Lake Ann thing here this last year and
I'm worried about are we going to be hit for something else? I was real
pleased to see, I didn't learn until tonight that things are coming in fr
the east rather than like coming from the north or something. I'd
encourage you to take a good look at the density and lot size and then I'd
trust you to enforce the wetland regulations. Thank you. 1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 56
Batzli: Would anyone else like to address the Commission?
Dave Weathers: My name is Dave Weathers. I live at 7235 Hazeltine
Boulevard and that's the square block which's marked out as exception on
the north side part of it. And I pretty much echo the comments that Paul
11 had just made. That we are fortunate that the developer that came along
has laid it out the way he has. My concerns are the same thing. The
density. The amount of what I consider a high density in that area. I'd
prefer to see it less possible so I hope you study that as closely as you
can. And also I am concerned about the assessments that will come with it.
And with that I will make it as brief as possible so I'll stop there.
Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you.
Don Roy: I'm Don Roy, 7205 Hazeltine Boulevard. I'm on the northwest
corner of that property. The only concern I have is the, we all have 'wells
that are up there at this present time and I wonder what the plans are for
hooking up when this comes through and how soon and when will the sewer be
available to us if this projects goes in? You will have a little bit of a
problem I think as far as drainage from these properties.
Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the
Commission?
' Erhart moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Joan.
Ahrens: I'm sure my fellow commissioners will be greatly disappointed but
I'm going to have to abstain on this project from discussion because of a
' conflict of interest. If you want me to talk about something else I will.
It's only 11:30.
' Batzli: She was the epitome of brief. Okay, Jeff.
Farmakes: Did the staff on their recommendations that I read in here in
regards to shortening J, eliminating H, connecting G and I. Did you do a
calculation of the 120 lots, what you envisioned that would reduce them?
I mean I did a guesstimate of 8 maybe. Did you calculate that out at all?
Olsen: No, we did not.
Farmakes: So I'm assuming that some of those comments that you made that
you, I believe the time here that you want to discuss that further. I
think that the recommendations are right on. Exactly where they should be.
It seems to me that the purpose of the PUD, as far as the City goes, is to
achieve some of the objectives that were pointed out here tonight. 37% of
11 those trees it would seem to me would be greatly reduced, that figure
anyway if the city's recommendations were followed. It seems to me
percentage wise, lot wise, that would impact on the total amount pretty
slight. I'm not sure on your bottom line where that falls but from the
City's position I think the comments have been a good recommendation from
1
Planning Commission Meeting
II
August 19, 1992 - Page 57 -
1
the staff. As far as the cul -de -sac and connecting I and G, I think that
that cul -de -sac is too long as it is without a connection there or a loop"
I'm sure obviously Lundgren is market driven. They're a successful
developer and a good one in this part of town and it helps sell. We
certainly know here anyway that it helps sell homes and that's what peopl
want. The problem of course is that they don't provide bus transportatio
Someone else has to do that for them and pick up their kids and take them
to school. They don't drive an ambulance and some of the other problems
that are involved with long, single access cul -de -sacs. I think the City ll
recommendation on a connection is a good one. Was there a price range at
all mentioned in that report? I couldn't find one. I was wondering, do
you have any information in regards to the pricings since the lot sizes i
so different from the bottom to the top?
John Uban: We do have a general range. We have the products in a general
range. We didn't show you all of that because of time.
II
Farmakes: So from the bottom to the top in the price range would be?
Terry Forbord: In today's dollars? II
Farmakes: Yeah. II Terry Forbord: And this is subject to change at all times.
Farmakes: I won't hold you to it. We won't close the deal tonight.
II
Terry Forbord: The intent here is, if you study the market in Chanhassen,
there is very little housing stock in, it is usually at the extreme. All
the way...low end and at the high end. And we believe that what Chanhass
probably needs the most of...housing objectives, is probably to be, have
some housing stock in that $150,000.00 to $250,000.00 range, including lo
and that's our intention. Now we are working on additional assembly of
parcels in this area and if that occurs, and it may, then that would be a
broader price. There would be some homes in the higher price range and
hopefully some homes below that. Although it's getty very difficult in il
Chanhassen to do that because of development costs.
Farmakes: The other point I wanted to make, is we spent a lot of time
discussing the issues of minimum square footage on a single family lot. III
seems to me that the ratio here, I guesstimated here that under 15,000,
they had about 24, somewhere in there, of under 15,000 square feet.
Olsen: I haven't done that calculation yet until the preliminary plat. II
Farmakes: Percentage wise, it seems to me that that would be reasonable.
It doesn't seem to me that they're taking advantage of that situation. Ti
private park. You said that the Park and Rec had went through that and I'm
not sure that they inquired about the park needs in that area and I'm not
really familiar with park service on that end of town so I guess I have nil
way to comment on that.
Olsen: The way they would have looked at it is that the neighborhood wou
have been resulting in the need for a neighborhood park and they feel thall
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 58
the developer is still providing that.
P P 9
Farmakes: The final comment that I have here, on that lower section that
you develop, I hope that by that time anyway, is that frontage road would
come through in that section correct for TM 5? Was that our vision? It
1 wouldn't meander because on the preliminary section it kind of meandered up
a bit.
Krauss: Yeah, we're not exactly sure where it's going to go. You have
that Bluff Creek system coming in through there. It needs to be defined
whether it's going to come north or south of that creek.
Batzli: Let me ask the question before we move on, on this private park.
How private is a private park?
John Uban: It's a private park in the sense that the homeowners use it.
They maintain it. They own it. They pay taxes on it but it's pretty
obvious that children know no bounds and friends of friends and so forth...
So in a way, there's no way to stretch any significant...but it is
something that is part of that neighborhood. It's designed to be an
amenity that they control. If they want to add another tennis court, it's
up to themselves. They're in control of their own destiny in that respect.
1 Batzli: But there's no parking there correct?
' John Uban: That is correct.
Batzli: So it would be limited to on street if you will. For example I
ride my bike from Lotus Lake. I go to the park. Can they kick me out?
John Uban: I suppose if you're drinking beer and being rowdy.
•
Terry Forbord: For most of you who have traveled around the country and
this is certainly something that is not uncommon all over the United
States. You don't see a lot of it in the Midwest. You have to get to
Chicago probably to see a lot more of this. We've been doing it for
probably oh 3 to 5 years but we have not done it in Chanhassen because we
have not had a new neighborhood community in Chanhassen. As I eluded to
earlier, we've gone to great lengths to try to be better at everything that
we do everytime we do a new project. You can't do something like this
either unless you've got a significant, enough size of a site. We were
before you not more than a year ago on what is now called Willow Ridge, or
you may recall it as Ortenblat /Ersbo on Lake Lucy Road. And that
particular property was not large enough for any type of a park and had any
type of economic feasibility in it. But more importantly, what we are
11 trying to do as a company is we really don't have any desire to try to
develop real estate and have neighborhood communities that are just like
everybody else's. We can, all of us can get in our cars and drive all over
the metro area and see plenty of that already. What we try to do and what
we've always tried to do, we're more a nitch developer. A nitch builder.
We're trying to have something that is a little more upscale I guess or
something. A little more special than what everybody else is doing and our
buyer profile, if you look at them or interview them, or even the census
data, will show you because it's that localized now. The data's so
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 59
specific, the buyer profile that typically comes into our neighborhoods is
willing to pay a little bit more money to have something that's not just II
like all of our competition. And we also have found through exit
interviews of our homebuyers and we also have found out just by market
analyst data that when people sell their homes, they have a much easier
time selling it if they have some special amenities in the neighborhood
where they live. And so really what we're trying to do is have a
competitive edge over our competition. Create a better neighborhood '
community. There's absolutely no doubt that it takes stress off the city'
park system. When we do this, we go in and we build it right away. Now
those of you who have worked on the parks commission in the city know that
they usually wait until all the people are there and then when there's
enough money, maybe then they build the park. And every city has that
problem because there's just simply not enough money. So what we are doing
is we are putting it in immediately so people know that it's part of the '
package. The homeowners association controls it and owns it and it's a
real benefit to those people who live there. And it also benefits the city
because it takes some of the financial burden off of them.
Batzli: So the operative word there though was the homeowners own it and
control it.
Terry Forbord: That's correct. 1
Emmings: I don't think I have much to add. I guess my observation would
be that I think that the staff, the conditions that have been attached her,
or put down by the staff are a good list of issues. I'm not sure that I
necessarily agree with, when it says reduce front yard setbacks for all
lots on local streets to 20 feet. I don't know if you want to do that bull
I think the conditions do a good job of identifying the issues and maybe
that's enough since we're, this is really a concept plan. Why does he
think we're doing a preliminary plat and the rest of us think we're doing"
concept?
Krauss: We're really not sure. We were under the impression we were in
sync on that but it is a PUD.
Emmings: We always do a concept review, right?
Krauss: Yeah. It's optional actually. 1
Emmings: Oh really.
Krauss: Yeah, it's optional to do. By typically what we do is we come
back in and the same thing with Hans Hagen. You come back in after the
concept with the preliminary and plat concurrently at the next round of II
meetings. And then that would be the last time you see it.
Emmings: But as far as, just so we're clear on what we're doing, we're II
looking at it as a concept?
Krauss: It's set up as a concept.
Batzli: It was published as a concept.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 60
1
Emmings: Okay.
Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair,?
•
Batzli: Yeah.
Terry Forbord: I would like to point out that the ordinance allows an
applicant to go through both processes at the same time and we've done that
before with the city and our application I believe it clearly shows that's
what we applied for and the fee structure that we paid for... And if it
was an error, then so be it but I want to make sure the record's straight.
11 Emmings: And I guess if we were going to look at this as a preliminary
plat at this point, we had an awful lot of conditions and we've got an
awful lot of things that are unresolved and I don't think I'd be willing to
do that, but.
Batzli: No. But clearly if they've paid the fee for the preliminary plat.
Olsen: It's just one fee for the PUD.
Krauss: We went with the unitary fee structure. It's not broken out.
11 Batzli: So they will not have to pay another fee to go through the
preliminary plat?
Krauss: Well, we're always willing to take a developer's money.
Batzli: Ladd.
Conrad: A gentleman had a comment about sewer and connecting.
Krauss: I think we can try that one. We've got the feasibility study
being done now and the honest answer is we won't know the answer until the
feasibility study is completed. Now knowing what we know about how this
project is being laid out, there's not, I won't say there won't be any
assessments off site to the north but I don't think there will be. The
utilities are being brought in from the east. If there's any benefit
accruing directly to lots, it comes through the east side. So as it goes
out to Galpin and Lake Ann Interceptor. That information will be available
when the feasibility study is completed and there's a public hearing held
at the City Council. When that happens, all benefitting properties, all
the properties that stand to get an assessment are notified and invited to
come to that public hearing. And the Council makes the final determination
as to who's going to be assessed and what will be deferred, if anything.
The other question in terms of extending utilities to adjoining lots,
that's something we regularly look at when we get the final engineering
done. We look at where it's appropriate to extend it. I don't know
specifically if it will reach some of your properties. Some of them are
considerably uphill from the site which makes for difficulty. We usually
terminate these things at property lines and don't extend it. If you want
to give Dave Hempel in engineering a call in the next couple of days, he
can tell you specifically how close he thinks we're going to get with the
utilities.
1
t
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 61
Hempel: If I just may add to that. I believe the acceptance or
consideration of acceptance of the feasibility study is scheduled for
September 14th City Council meeting.
Conrad: Parks. The Park and Rec has identified, is there a neighborhood"
park in the area?
Krauss: No.
Conrad: Will there be?
Olsen: Well it wouldn't be a neighborhood park. What they're providing 1
essentially a neighborhood park. What you're probably thinking about is
more of a community area and I don't know that they have identified a
larger park in that area.
Aanenson: I think you also should look at the fact that Minnewashta
Regional Park is close.
Olsen: Kitty corner, yeah.
Krauss: This is the first private park if you will that the Park Board hi
looked at and we didn't know how to react to it but they were comfortable
with it. Keep in mind too that they're not getting any credit on park
dedication so the developer, for the right to do this, is essentially
getting hit twice.
Conrad: That's recognizable. There was a comment that said maybe we nee
parks in the area and I just wanted to follow that up. That somebody liv
outside this area.
Krauss: The other property in this area that could theoretically benefit!'
from a park is the Song property. Now Lundgren Bros. may or may not work
on a coordinated project with that. In the future I know that it's been
discussed. If there is, and if it coordinates with it too, I suppose the
would have...to this park or another similar one would be built .there. I
somebody else develops that, I think the Park Board's going to have to loo
at having a separate neighborhood park and resolving some of those
recreational issues on that site. 1
Conrad: Generally I really like the plan. I think it's neat.
Recommendations from the staff, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are pretty absolute and I
guess, you know it's sort of the PUD. We can slip those. I don't want t
slip them in all cases but I think, I'm not sure I'm as absolute as maybe
the staff is on that and I think there was some things that Terry talked •
about and other presenters that I think we should listen to. Again, I
think we just want to be sensitive to that. My only other two comments,
and I'll probably be all by myself on these. 16 and 17 in the staff
report, connecting I and G. I really like how it looks. I just like thil
cul -de -sacs that way. I think it's terrific design. If we take a look a
what City Council approved at Kurver's Point and the cul -de -sacs there,
we're not consistent as to how we implement this. I really like this. I
like how it makes the neighborhood and I know there's concerns about that
but that's just my point. I like the center islands. I always have.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 62
I think it makes it attractive and I know there's no engineering group or
maintenance that will say they like it in the world but I like them.
Batzli: You like the little islands?
11 Conrad: I sure do.
Batzli: And cul -de -sacs too?
' Conrad: Yeah. I think they look neat and they can be an asset. So those
are my two off the wall comments...
11 Erhart: Okay, well other than the late hour, I'd like to say that Lundgren
Bros., and thank them for really, they've spent an enormous amount of time
on this in the last, I didn't realize it was 3 years but they volunteered
to come to our wetlands ordinance group and speak to us about this and they
brought in practically their whole staff on another evening to describe how
the new ordinance would effect this development. So that's appreciated
guys. And I think the development's really neat. The difficulties that
you have here combined with, in light of the fact that actually it's a
beautiful piece of property and this particular piece I think represents a
11 lot of the property that remains to be developed in Chanhassen. I think we
really use this as a prototype of what we do with the rest of the city
because what it is is essentially wooded areas that have been, where the
trees have been removed from small fields that are high ground surrounded
by wetlands and it's just a lot of, as you walk around Chanhassen, that's
really what all remains in the whole city. So I think we're learning a lot
on how to do this and how to do it right and I'm pretty confident it's
going to look really neat when it gets done. So just quickly, I'll just go
through my list. On page 4 that you talked about this exception to the
property being designed so that it can be ultimately access from Street G
but it's just not clear on the plans to me how that would happen. I'm not
asking for an explanation now... Also, again when we go through these PUD
lists of things that we're looking for, it implies there that we're
actually expecting the developer to react on each one of them and I didn't
think that was our intention of a PUD. That they had to give us something
on all of them. ..ask them now to respond with more and I'm not sure
that's needed. I agree with Ladd. I see no point in connecting I and G.
People want cul -de -sacs. It's safer. It is safer and these are not long.
So I'd like to see it the way it is, although I guess I'd like engineering
again to review the possibility of extending Street B to the end of the
property so if it's possible to hook up later on in what I think is the
Song property.
Krauss: We looked at that in a lot of depth. Over a period of about a
year.
Erhart: Well I'm getting used to be disagreed with tonight. One more
isn't going to hurt. Removal of 8 in lieu of private streets. I think we
ought to look at doing more of that. I think private streets, when you get
in this kind of area with the slopes and the wetlands and stuff, can do a
lot to fit things in without destroying things and what you're giving up
there sometimes though is a sharing of some of the things. The nice thing
about the streets and cul -de -sacs, it's sort of a nice, even sharing of the
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 63
II
wetlands over a large number of houses so I think agree that looking at 2
private streets is a good idea, and they do work and they're used a lot
really outside of Minnesota. But when you travel around you see a lot of
private streets. I think our ordinance allows what, 3 houses? 4 houses?
Krauss: Four. II
Erhart: The lot widths, we tie that into the 20 foot. Terry, you tried
tie in the 20 foot setback and correct me if I'm wrong but I thought what
you said is, if you measure the lot width at 20 feet, then it becomes
smaller. That's one of the reasons why you have so many sub - standard
narrow lots. I guess my feeling is that I sort of agree with staff that
ought to maintain the 90 foot, although they ought to be measured at the
foot setback. So when you 'get on those lots where you have 20 foot
setbacks, it could be less than 90 feet. Then going back to the
recommendations where we say reduced front yards on all those streets at
feet. You know if we just want to make a carte blanche statement like
that, then you've got to question is our ordinance right. I don't think II
our ordinance is wrong.
Olsen: I intended it more for.
Erhart: I think we ought to do it lot by lot. II
Olsen: Yes, that's what we...
II
Erhart: Let's see. I think I'm now convinced that the idea of just
requiring 20 feet between buildings has some merit and would agree with
that. I notice I don't see woodland easement or what do we call it, tree ll
easements so I'm pleased with that so far. And hopefully on a later
meeting we'll have time to discuss trees before this one comes back in.
I'm not suggesting we do it tonight anymore. This foundation plantings a
your rear yard trees is an interesting thing Terry. I don't know, you mu,
have read the Minutes of the meeting where we discussed in our new PUD. I
voted against the PUD because of particularly those two requirements. I
didn't think it made any sense and in discussing with Paul earlier, I thi
now I understand where we weren't communicating on this. I viewed the PU
as it is applied against a subdivision where the lots are sold and the
people get their own developer and make their own builder and build their
own house and I could not visualize how you made the connection between t
guy developing the lot and the guy who builds the house were two entirely
different people. Apparently you were not thinking that way at all. You
idea was, or most of the Commissioners idea was in this PUD is that the
developer also is the builder. Now maybe I'm wrong. Is the builder always
as a developer? See, I didn't think so. So I think we've got this first
case of a problem, this foundation plantings and your rear yard trees are '
problematic. I don't see how we can, it doesn't seem to make sense to us
to have a PUD where we require foundation plantings and rear yard trees
because it is unconnected to the subdivision. It's something that relate
to the building itself so I don't know. I think it's a good point and
maybe we can.
II Krauss: We've spoken to Terry tonight about some options for resolving
that particular point that I think you'll wind up agreeing with. You also
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 64
are trying to cover with the ordinance, you're covering cornfield
development too where there isn't anything and it may be sold off to
individuals. But I think we've got a positive way to work out that issue.
Erhart: Okay. My question here in, we talk a lot about saving trees. I
was a little surprised that someone stated here that we were going to lose
approximately 1/3 of the trees. How do you know this far in advance
exactly where the building pad's going to be to determine how many trees
are going to be lost? Can you do that? Do you know where the building
pads are going to be?
John Uban: Generally yes.
Terry Forbord: Terry Forbord from Lundgren Bros.. Even though we are in
the conceptual stage of this, staff usually likes to know so they have an
idea of what impact the development may have on the site. And so we take
the time. It's not specific because we haven't been out and surveyed each
lot and surveyed the building pad. But by utilizing the technology that we
have, you can get a fairly clear idea, plus or minus there's obviously some
room for error. But a fairly good idea of what you're going to be taking
out and the grading plan, you're trying to balance the dirt on the site and
so you know what you have to do and so you come fairly close but you really
don't have a real concise idea until you're in the final design phase.
Erhart: But this 1/3 does include the building sites?
' Terry Forbord: I'm sorry, I can't hear.
' Erhart: Losing 1/3 of the trees, that includes the trees lost for building
sites?
Terry Forbord: That's from development. I don't believe that was
calculated into actual pads, was it?
Farmakes: Total loss to development is 37 %.
John Uban: That's based on grading the whole site and in some cases
putting in different homes like ramblers. Not ramblers but not having walk
outs in some cases. So we've adjusted the grading plan to reach that
number. And also we may be able to save more but we don't know until you
actually match a specific house for a specific owner.
Terry Forbord: It's probably fairly close because we recognize that most
of the building pads in this neighborhood'community will have corrections.
In other words, you'll be doing soil corrections on almost all the pads so
that's probably fairly close.
Erhart: Of the 33 %, what does it do to house pads versus streets and
utilities? Okay, 33% of the trees are going to be lost. Of those 33 %,
say now that's 100 %. Of the 100% trees lost, what percent is due to
streets and utilities versus the housepad?
I John Uban: About a third for a street system. Actual street and then the
rest. Eden Prairie for instance. They are very aggressive when it comes
1
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 65
to fitting development into existing woods. Aggressive in the sense that
they have very strict rules and very...method of figuring things out. So ,
they just automatically assume that you're going to lose probably around
40% of the trees. And that's just what you have to accept in development.
You know doing a road with lots and you get the lots and the homes... 1
Erhart: Alright, well that just gives me an idea here. I'm trying to
figure out where this tree thing for notes later. The islands. Maybe on
and for all we can get an action here where we can have islands in our
city. Because everytime islands have been proposed by a developer, it's
always okay Dave. We're going at you here. It's always the street
maintenance don't like it and by the time you get all done and we all up II
here kind of go along and it gets thrown out. And I've always liked
islands. They're all over the place. Eden Prairie's got them. Maybe we
have more snow than them. Do we get more snow than Eden Prairie that we
can't have islands here or something? I guess I'd really like to see the
Commission take a stand and maybe a poll here to see if we can get rid of
this mentality that we shouldn't have, of not having islands because I
think they're, as Terry said, I think there's a lot of advantages. I thill
we ought to allow islands. I know Ladd said we ought to allow islands.
Batzli: I don't know if we're going to allow rebuttal. Do you have real"
rebuttal or just it's going to save us money and stuff like that?
Hempel: No, just a couple comments I guess towards the islands that we
have problems with. One of them is our public works maintenance. Snow
plowing and so forth. Damage to the curbs on the island and so forth takes
repairs. Again, the street function in itself is for vehicles. Manueveri
and so forth and with those islands and that, they do look aesthetically
pleasing and they break up the neighborhood asphalt surface but again the
may be safety issues with children playing on them. Cars coming around and
so forth. These are all issues to be looked at. There may be some I
liability risks of having an island such as what is proposed. Those are
some of the things we consider.
Batzli: Thank you. You don't get rebuttal. Next point. 1
Erhart: Can we get what the other Planning Commissioners. Some direction.
Batzli: Oh, I like islands. il
Emmings: I like islands. 1
Erhart: Jeff?
Farmakes: I think they look just fine. Personally I don't like
cul -de -sacs. I think that they're private streets and a lot of them are
are paid for by the public. But they're in demand. Consumers want them
and that's why they're there. It obviously looks nice. 1
Ahrens: It hasn't been a real big issue for me Tim but you know, I guess
they're okay. I agree with Jeff's statement about cul -de -sacs in general
I think it does create too many private streets but they're okay.
Planning Commission Meeting
g
August 19, 1992 - Page 66
Erhart: Okay, then to go through your recommendations. I think most of
' them look reasonable. 5 maybe add lot widths so each lot has a minimum of
90 feet at the normal 30,,foot building setback. Jo Ann, maybe that's...
We talked about the 20 foot. 16. I would not connect I and G. On 17,
1 delete islands, we talked about that. So that's it. Thank you. This guy
extracts all this stuff out of me from Target when I had little to say, and
now I have something to say and you guys laugh.
Batzli: Thank you Tim. I just have a couple of quick comments or
questions. One is, there was talk of a lot of tiling on the site. What is
the effect going to be when we start grading it? Are we going to take out
the draintile and how is that going to effect the wetlands? Is this going
to effect which wetlands still exist or is that being calculated into the
runoff through the NURP ponds or whatever we're putting in?
Olsen: We haven't looked at that in detail yet.
Batzli: Okay. Have you guys looked at that in detail?
Ken Adolf: I'm Ken Adolf. I'll address it from the engineering point of
view. As far as the drain tile, I think it would be best when the drain
'
tile are found, to try to maintain them, especially they can be routed into
some storm sewer and then go into ponds. The drain tile is providing a
function in kind of draining the on site soils and if you just arbitrarily
block that, it could cause water table to rise in some area that we don't
know about. So I think we take some care to try to maintain those and
connect them into the new storm sewer and drain it into ponds. As far as
the impact on the volume requirements for the NURP ponds and so forth, the
drain tile typically drains at a very slow rate over a period of time so as
compared to the runoff you get from a rainfall, it's very low volume so it
really wouldn't impact the storage requirements for the NURP ponds.
1 Batzli: Okay. Are we going to require or are we going to need to require
some sort of easement over these drain tiles if we're going to try to
maintain them? Have we ever done that before?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe we have. We have numerous drain
tile systems within the city and we constantly are uncovering them. We do
11 have problems in the future once the development is in and the home
building starts and these drain tiles are uncovered in building sites. And
the homeowners are subject then to a drain tile system and sump pump that
pumps 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Their only recourse is to pump it
usually out into the city street and the City then has ramifications of
repairing that. Connecting them to a storm sewer system or something. In
fact we are considering in some of these areas to look at requiring a drain
tile system behind the curb just for these situations that come up where
they're excavating large amounts of fill along the sides of hills that may
expose a seam where there's ground water problems or drain tile problems.
' So it's starting to be a problem for us I guess from a city maintenance
standpoint and we are having some injuries from pedestrians and bicyclist
with these drain tile systems draining out into the city streets.
Batzli: Have we looked at, I know we've spoken about this at the City
Council /Planning goal session or what have you, to have everyone's sump
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 67
pump drain into the storm water, storm sewer system. Has that been looked
at all for this particular area?
Krauss: Actually there's some changes in the Building Code that they're
looking at. It's now mandatory for every new house that you pipe a sump ,
pump to the outdoors.
Batzli: Understood.
Krauss: Which it didn't used to be. You used to get a sump pot and then'
it was up to you and most people just dumped it in the laundry tub which
causes problems. '
Batzli: Right.
Krauss: What Dave is referring to is situations that run all winter long"
We've had icing situations.
Batzli: That's why I'm asking. Can we require them to put it into the II
storm sewer directly and not into the street?
Krauss: If it becomes an issue, I suppose we could. We haven't tried th .
yet.
Hempel: I believe that's something the City Engineer is trying to get on
the books. '
Batzli: Thought I'd ask. The private park I'm sure is an interesting
concept. I'm not quite sure how it works. I'm not sure how it ties into
the development to the east or to the south. I don't necessarily like th
idea that this is private to the exclusion of someone bicycling in from the
neighborhood next door. Although it may not be very likely to happen, bu
the possibility would exist for in essence the neighbors to say, get out
here. This is private. That kind of troubles me. I think I like the
price range that's going in here. I like the development in general. I
think a lot of work's been put into it. I like the treatment of the
wetlands. The one thing that did concern me regarding the streets, I
actually like the cul -de -sacs. I like the islands. One thing that
concerned me about the street was the way that this, I don't know what
we're calling it a collector, or what are we calling it, the one Street A''
Olsen: Collector.
Batzli: What kind of traffic are we expecting on that street?
Krauss: It really should not generate significant thru trips. You're
talking about serving this neighborhood and the adjacent neighborhoods. II
Now emergency vehicles will be able to transit through there if they need
to. Delivery vehicles. But there's really no reason for, especially whell
the new frontage road is built, there's really no reason for anybody else
to use it.
Batzli: Okay. So this bridge is going to have to be built for pretty
heavy duty stuff if it has to, firetrucks and what have you anyway.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 68
Krauss: Right, there's no question of that.
' Batzli: The location of the roadway into the Song property. Has that been
looked at by that landowner and they're comfortable with where that's going
in there?
11 Krauss: Well yeah, I don't want to speak for the Song's. I believe
they're out of the country right now but we did have a meeting. We being
' myself, engineering staff, Terry Forbord and the Songs were both present.
And we did look at options for getting the road through there and I
understood that they were comfortable with it. Frankly it's really the
only place to put it. It's a very tough route to take to get through.
Anything else causes significant damage.
Batzli: Regarding conditions 5, 6, 7 and 8, I think those should be looked
at individually. I think probably the City and the developer are thinking
of the same things here as far as how to combine those conditions so that
they treat the wetlands sensitively and maintain some space inbetween the
houses. So I guess I've already said I like the center islands. Has there
been, the trail system through this neck of the woods. That is just
running along TH 41 now?
Olsen: That's correct.
Batzli: There wouldn't be a trail system coming along Street A at all?
t Olsen: There will be a sidewalk. Not a park trail system.
' Batzli: Is that one of the things that you had a problem with Terry? The
sidewalk along Street A.
Terry Forbord: Typically we do not like to have trails or sidewalks in our
1 developments because the people who live there don't want them. Usually
people who use trails enjoy them but they prefer they're in somebody else's
neighborhood. However, we believe that this particular sidewalk probably
makes some sense because it's...I think there is some merit to having a
sidewalk along...to go from one side to the other without having to be on
the street.
I/ John Uban: We think it should be on the north side.
Terry Forbord: ...because the park's on that side.
Batzli: Those are my comments. Does anyone else have anything? Anyone
have a motion?
Erhart: Again, it goes back to just a question of, why do we want to adopt
a motion?
Batzli: Because you're going to love Steve's wording that you're just
about to hear.
11 Erhart: Great, let's hear it.
r
Planning Commission Meeting 11 s
August 19, 1992 - Page 69
Emmings: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for 113 single family lots with the '
understanding that the applicant will continue to work with staff on the
conditions presented in the staff report in accordance with the comments
that have been made.
Erhart: You took the words right out of my mouth. I'll second it.
Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for 113 single fami
lots with the understanding that the applicant will continue to work with
staff on the conditions presented in the staff report in accordance with
the comments that have been made.
1. Reduce the amount of tree removal currently proposed through reductio
of grading, use of retaining walls, removal and shortening of
cul -de -sacs, different housing styles, lowering of street grades, and
reconfiguration of lot sizes and locations.
2. Provide a detailed tree removal plan illustrating types, number and I
caliper of trees over 6" caliper being removed.
3. Revise lot areas by removing wetland area from the calculations. ,
4. Demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a 60' x 40' building
pad and a 12' x 12' deck without intruding into any required setback II
area or protective easement.
5. Revise lot widths so that each lot has a minimum of 90' at the buildill
setback.
6. Demonstrate that each lot provides a 30' rear yard setback and that
there is a 30' exterior setback.
7. Reduce the front yard setback for all lots on local streets to 20'.
8. Maintain a minimum 10' side yard setback for all lots and that all 1
accessory buildings and structures will maintain a 10' setback.
9. Revise the landscaping plan so that it provides the landscaping 11
required for a residential PUD (boulevard plantings, exterior
landscaping foundation and yard plantings, tree preservation) and
provide a proposal for a budget for foundation plantings.
10. Provide architectural covenants.
11. Locate the extension for watermain service along the east side of Trull
Highway 41.
12. Extend the watermain beyond "I" street to "G" street to loop the two I
water systems together.
13. Locate fire hydrants approximately 300' apart and in accordance with II
any location recommendations by the Fire Marshal.
r
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 19, 1992 - Page 70
14. Provide storm drainage and ponding calculations to verify pipe sizing
and pond volumes and extend storm sewer lines to the detention ponds to
minimize erosion along the slopes.
15. Provide a 5' wide concrete sidewalk along one side of Street A.
16. Review the connection I and G street to provide a 3% or less grade for
the first 50' at intersections.
17. Delete the center median islands on A street and all cul-de-sacs.
18. Submit details on proposed wetland alterations, mitigation, buffer
strips and protection of wetland.
1 19. Provide as built locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads.
20. Respond to issues raised by the City Engineering and Park Department.
All voted in favor except Ahrens who abstained and the motion carried.
' PUBLIC HEARINGS:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO DEFINE DOCK SETBACK ZONE, AND;
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING FENCE REQUIREMENTS.
Batzli: The other two, they're public hearings so I just want to make sure
that there's no one in the audience that has come to discuss either the
' Zoning Ordinance Amendment to define dock setbacks or fence requirements.
No? Okay. Seeing no one in the crowd, is there a motion to table those
two items until our next meeting?
Emmings: Yeah. I'll make that motion but, I want to just say that it
seems to me that the way that dock setback zoning ordinance amendment is
written, is very, very confusing. I think it really needs some serious
work.
Olsen: Yeah, we've gotten a lot of comments on it.
Aanenson: We would have recommended that it be tabled anyway.
Emmings: Yeah, there's at least, the 100 feet makes no sense. It doesn't
you know, I don't know if there's anything that needs to be said here about
situations where you have shared docks.
' Aanenson: Yep, that's what we're going to put in. An exception or
exclusion in for a common dock...
Emmings: Also, look very carefully and decide whether you mean, if these
are the extended lot lines and you go in 10 feet, from the definition it
sounds like it's the area in here that's the dock setback zone but it's
not. The 10 feet on each side, so I think it really needs a lot of work.
1
- CHANHASSEN PARK AND ? �`
RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 25, 1992
Chairman Schroers called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Lash, Dave Koubsky, Larry Schroers, Randy Erickson,
' Jim Andrews, and Fred Berg
MEMBERS ABSENT: Wendy Pemrick
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Coordinator; Jerry Ruegemer,
Recreation Supervisor; and Dawn Lemme, Program Specialist
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Schroers: Are there any corrections, additions, or deletions to the
Minutes?
Berg: Yes. The very last section, the administrative section of
' presentations. Everything that I'm given credit for saying, I didn't say.
I don't know who did.
Erickson: Was it good?
Andrews: Did it seem to babble along? That might have been me.
Berg: It didn't seem particularly illustrative...so I don't want to take
credit for it.
Lash: Where are you?
Berg: On the very last three pages.
Hoffman: Page 60, 61.
' Berg: 59 actually.
Schroers: Okay, Fred we'll scratch you. Does anyone want to.
Hoffman: Claim those comments.
Lash: Well I recall on page 60, I recall saying something about...trees. I
don't know how anyone would mistake our voices.
Hoffman: I said the bottom one there. •
' Lash: Correct?
Hoffman: No. We also have a letter in here from Mike Gorra. Or no,
somebody said that, that was in the administrative packet.
Schroers: It looks to me Todd like you filled in a couple of times here.
11 Koubsky: I think that was me. Page 60. Berg vs. Koubsky.
1
E
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 2
Hoffman: Okay.
Koubsky: Oh, that might be me all the way through. It's all about the
trees.
' Hoffman: Corrections so noted.
Lash moved, Erickson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and
Recreation Commission meeting dated July 28, 1992 as amended on pages 59 -61
changing Berg's statements to Koubsky. All voted in favor of the Minutes
as amended and the motion carried.
' METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION, EUGENE KLEIN, 8412 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD.
Hoffman: Thank you Chairman Schroers. Members of the Commission. This ie
a straight forward lot split by the means of a metes and bounds
subdivision. Mr. Eugene Klein is present this evening and may have a few
questions. Essentially what it is is a subdivision of 1.5 acre parcel intc
two lots. The dimensions shown there. The square footage. It's located
' at 8412 Great Plains Blvd. just south of Lake Susan Park, as you can see or
your location map. It's currently zoned residential single family. The
zoning around the property is all residential single family, with exceptior
to the north which is Lake Susan, RD. Recreational Development lake. The
comprehensive plan identifies that this parcel does lie within a park
deficient area of the city. However, due to the size of the subdivision,
this situation cannot be corrected as a part of this proposal. In
reference to the comprehensive trail plan, the plan does identify a future
trail along TH 101 south. The exact alignment of which is unclear at this
time due to the new proposed highway 101. We question which road will the
trail be on? The new TH 101, the old 101 or both. Most likely the new 101
for sure but then taking a look at the old 101 and what portion of that
road will necessitate a trail as well. And that's stated there again.
' Best predictions are present that the trail connecting the Bandimere
community park with the downtown will follow the newly constructed TH 101.
That alignment will pass over 212 which will be somewhat lower than the
overpass, to try to make the noise factor as minimal as possible with that
trunk highway 212. Staff considered recommending the taking of a permanent
20 foot easement on the south property line of the subject lots for future
potential trail purposes. But upon looking into that further, it's
apparent that the likelihood of such an easement being utilized is somewhat
minimal. As such, it is recommended that the Park and Recreation
Commission recommend the City Council accept full park and trail fees for
the newly created lot as a part of the subdivision request. These fees are
to be collected at the time of the building permit issuance for the amount
then in force for park and trail fees. Currently those fees are $500.00
and $167.00 respectively.
Schroers: Okay, thank you. At this time I'd be willing to entertain any
questions regarding this matter from Mr. Klein.
Eugene Klein: Is this standard procedure...?
Schroers: Yes, I believe it is.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 3
1
Hoffman: Correct. During any subdivision. Any subdivision of any
property the City then has the authority to come in and assess park and
trail fees as part of that subdivision. So we either require the
dedication of parkland at a per unit basis. However, in this case it's
just one lot being created so we assessed the park and trail fees against
the building permit on that new lot. '
Eugene Klein asked a question that was not heard.
Hoffman: Correct. So the person taking out the building permit on the ily
lot will be the responsible party for paying it.
Eugene Klein: ...why are you assessing it now... '
Hoffman: Trail fees are collected and deposited into a fund which is then
used to finance all trail development throughout the city. 1
Schroers: Alright, any other questions or comments by Commissioners?
Koubsky: Are you satisfied with the answers?
Eugene Klein: Yeah. I was...
Schroers: Can I ask you a question. Is this the parcel where Walter
Kersick also lives on? -
Eugene Klein: Right... '
Schroers: Okay. Thanks very much. Alright then, if there isn't any
further discussion on this item, is someone ready to make a recommendati
not, I will. Okay, I'll recommend that the Park and Rec Commission
recommend to the City Council the acceptance of full park and trail fees
for the newly created lot as a part of the subdivision. And that the fe�
are to be collected at the time of the building permit issuance in the t r
in force for park and trail fees and the current fees are $500.00 and
$167.00 respectively. Is there a second?
Koubsky: Second.
Schroers moved, Koubsky seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend the City Council accept full park and trail fees for the newly
created lot as a part of the subdivision request. These fees are to be
collected at the time of the building permit issuance for the amount thell
in force for park and trail fees. Currently those fees are $500.00 and
$167.00 respectively. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Andrews: Mr. Klein. Be sure to take note that the fees that we mention"
here are whatever the current rates are. So the property doesn't get
built, or a permit not taken out now. Those fees could change.
Eugene Klein: Okay. Is that standard...
Andrews: Yes. 1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 4
Eugene Klein: It's not an add on charge?
Hoffman: It would be listed as a separate line item on your building
permit. So you'll see it there, park fee, trail fee. It will be listed
right on the building permit application.
' Schroers: But it's the same citywide. It doesn't change from one parcel
to the next. •
Hoffman: Correct unless, what is assessed back. If you take property and
that takes the place of half the fees, then the fees may vary some. Some
households or building permits get charged $250.00 because that particular
' subdivision dedicated a park as part of that subdivision. So they were
given credit for that land.
' SITE PLAN REVIEW, CHANHASSEN RETAIL OFFICE CENTER, 840 WEST 78TH STREET.
COPELAND - MITHUN INCORPORATED.
Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and members of the Commission. This would be
1 the second phase of the Chanhassen Retail Office Center or what is commonly,
referred to as the Chanhassen Medical Center. With the soon to be moving
of Chanhassen Lawn & Sports, the new supermarket mall in town, that allows
this lot to come up for development. It's a site plan review for Phase 2
of Chanhassen Office Retail Center. For a 10,600 square foot building.
The lot size is 25,123 square feet. I believe that 2 in front of there is
just Lot 2. So the size is significant. It's significance is somewhat
minimal. It's approximately half an acre so if we take that times our
current industrial /commercial park and trail fees of $2,500.00 per acre an(
$833.00, you come up with somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,500.00
generated off of this development. Again, the location is 480 West 78th
Street. The applicant is Copeland - Mithun, Inc.. Mr. Bob Copeland did cal?
me today questioning whether I thought his presence was necessary this
' evening. I informed Mr. Copeland that it was not. Present zoning is
central business district. It's deleted there. It's been omitted.
Adjacent zoning to the north is high density residential or the apartments
in that vicinity and the remaining adjacent zoning is CBD or Central
' Business District, Comprehensive park and trail plans, the subject parcel
lies within the City's central business district and as a commercial
development, is subject to commercial /industrial park and trail fees.
Non-vehicular access to the site is provided_via downtown sidewalks. This
is not subject to the vacant parkland that's proposed. The recommendation.
It is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the
City Council accept full park and trail dedication fees as part of the
development with the current fees again being $2,500.00 per acre and
$833.00 per acre respectively. Again, these fees will be collected at the
time of building permit issuance.
Schroers: Okay, thank you Todd. I think that's all pretty straight
forward. Is there any discussion on this? If not, is someone ready to
make a motion?
Andrews: I move that the Park and Rec Commission recommend the City
' Council accept full park and trail dedication fees as a part of this
development. Those fees to be paid at the time that permits are drawn.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting II
August 25, 1992 - Page 5
The current fees are . $2,500.00 per acre and $833.00 respectively.
s P P Y
Schroers: Is there a second? 1
Lash: Second.
Andrews moved, Lash seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission II
recommend that the City Council accept full park and trail dedication fees
as part of the Chanhassen Retail Office Center development with the curr t
fees being $2,500.00 per acre and $833.00 per acre respectively and that
these fees be collected at the time of building permit issuance. All vo c
in favor and the motion carried.
II
APPROVAL OF THE 1992 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PURCHASES.
Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and members of the Commission. You have bef c
you the distributed packets as noted in your packet mailed out or droppe
off last week. It includes a memorandum from myself, bid tabulation,
product evaluation for the phase 1 play equipment structure at Herman
Field. Then the quotation forms sent back from the various lenders. Th
you go into a larger, 11 x 17 packet and it has the diagrams of the three
vendors who chose to present proposals for the Herman Field play structur�,
With us this evening we have Mr. Bill Jananosky of Value Recreation. He E
one of the vendors located here in Chanhassen. Mr. Jananosky would like tc
introduce himself and his business prior to reviewing this proposal.
Bill, I don't think you're going to review your proposal in detail. I'm
not sure if that would be fair to the other vendors but Mr. Jananosky cou c
certainly introduce himself and his product and if you have questions
specific of Bill, I would think you could ask those.
II
Bill Jananosky made a statement from the audience.
Hoffman: Well sure we can do that or if you want to take a few minutes. 1
Bill Jananosky: Yeah, I just got this information about 10 minutes ago.
I'd like to...
Hoffman: It will probably take us 10 or 15 minutes. Okay, we'll walk
through this step by step. Sheet 1 included the proposal for the provis r
of a swing and two spring animals. As you can see from the bid tabulati
sheet, all vendors, there's five vendors which the proposal was sent out
to. All chose to provide a quotation on those items. The low bid there E
Value Recreation for a total of $1,685.00. That being the swing bid at
$935.00 and the two spring animals at $750.00. The other bids range from
a second low of $1,838.00 to a high of $1,913.43. Again, as the
recommendation that Value Recreation's bid of $1,685.00 be accepted for tit
provision of these three items per the specifications listed.
Koubsky: Is it three items or two items? 1
Hoffman: A swing and two spring animals. Three items total. The spring
animals is $750.00. That's for any two spring animals.
II
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 6
Lash: So if we're looking, the bids that we have are supposed to be
corresponding with the drawings?
Hoffman: The bid tabulation is separated by three sheets. Sheet 1 deals
with a swingset and two spring animals. Sheet 2 has to do with picnic
' tables. And then sheet 3 is the play structure which we will review in
detail. The play structure bids correspond with the 11 x 17 sheets that
you have.
Lash: Okay, and the swings and the spring animals don't?
Hoffman: Correct. These are separate items. These two items happen to be
for Carver Beach playground.
Lash: The swing and the spring animals?
1 Koubsky: Todd, are they all bidding on the same thing? Do one have metal
swings and one might have redwood?
' Hoffman: No, the specifications were specific in that they all bid on
identical specifications. In essence of the swing. The spring animals
varied from vendor to vendor. I've provided them the option of providing
' different prices on different sets of animals so if they had a deluxe line
and a standard line, they could give us those prices on both those
different lines.
1 Schroers: Would you define the product evaluation phase Todd?
Hoffman: Product evaluation is for the Sheet 3, the play structure only.
' That runs through the play structure bids. The proposals which were
received. Again, Sheet 1 and Sheet 2 are fairly straight forward. Sheet
gets somewhat more complex and we'll walk through that on the overhead
' proposal by proposal. I would recommend that you act on each separate
sheet.
Schroers: Okay. Are you wanting us to continue on this right now?
' Hoffman: Sure. I would go ahead and make a motion to award each sheet so
again it is recommended on Sheet 1 for the swing and the two spring animals
11 at Value Recreation's bid of $1,685.00 be accepted. If you have additional
questions, I have catalogs here if you'd like to see what you're buying.
' Lash: That would be nice. I usually kind of need visual aids.
Koubsky: Value Recreation's located out'of Pennsylvannia?
Hoffman: Playworld Systems is located out, the Playworld Systems the
company which Value Recreation and Bill Jananosky represents.
Koubsky: Did Landscape Structures not submit for the first bid tabulation
there Todd?
' Hoffman: Landscape Structures is represented by Earl F. Anderson and
Associates. If you want me to run through there. Landscape Structures out
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 7
of Delano is represented by Earl F. Anderson. FSI or Flanigan Sales Y 1g les Inc.
represents Iron Mountain Forge Equipment. Bob Klein and Associates
represents Miracle Play Equipment. Minnesota Playground represents, it
escapes me at the moment. And again Value Recreation is Playworld Syste
Andrews: Can I try a motion here?
Schroers: Yes.
Andrews: For Sheet 1, I move that we recommend to City Council that we II
accept the bid of Value Recreation for $1,685.00.
Schroers: Okay, for the provision of the three items. '
Andrews: The three items on sheet one.
Schroers: Okay, is there a second? '
Erickson: I'll second that.
Andrews moved, Erickson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend the City Council accept the bid of Value Recreation in the amount
of $1,685.00 for Sheet 1, a swing and two spring animals. All voted in II
favor and the motion carried.
Schroers: Can I then ask for a recommendation on Sheet 2?
Andrews: I move that we recommend to City Council that we accept the bi
Y P
of Bob Klein and Associates for $1,199.00 as the low bidder for that
project.
Schroers: Okay, there's a correction, $1,949.00. You said 99.
Andrews: I must be reading something different than you are then. '
Lash: Are you on the front page?
Andrews: I'm on the bid tabulation page.
Schroers: On the front page it's $1,949.00. ,
Hoffman: There's a typo there. Go to the.
Erickson: On the bid tabulation sheet it's $1,199.00. ,
Schroers: Is that the correct one? 99?
Hoffman: Correct.
Andrews: My motion stands then. 1
Schroers: Yeah. And then is there a second?
Erickson: I'll second. -
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 -- Page 8
Andrews moved, Erickson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend the City Council accept the bid of Bob Klein and Associates in
the amount of $1,199.00 for Sheet 2, picnic tables. All voted in favor one
the motion carried.
' Schroers: Okay, Sheet 2 has been recommended.
Hoffman: You said on Sheet 1, who moved?
' Andrews: I did.
Schroers: Jim did.
1 Hoffman: Seconded on Sheet 1? Erickson.
Schroers: And the same on 2.
Hoffman: Yep.
Andrews: For Sheet 3, I guess I'd like to make the comment that. I
personally have a preference that we, when we have an opportunity to do
business with a local vendor, that we do that. When it's not to the
' disadvantage of our city. I feel that in spite of the fact that FSI has a
slightly lower bid, that I feel there's a benefit to giving our business tc
a Chanhassen business for what I consider to be a small amount of money.
Hoffman: I'll run through on Sheet 3. When I send out the specifications
for a piece of play structure, we actually give them the budget amount so
they all knew went into this proposal. They all knew going into this
' proposal that we.
Andrews: Shooting for a figure that they already know about.
' Hoffman: Correct. And what they're trying to do is maximize the play
value and maximize the product for the money.
Andrews: Todd, do you have any comments about the equality of what's beinc
provided here then since we're really working with a target number?
Hoffman: Correct yes, and I'll go ahead and run through those comments.
Again, Sheet 3 is the phase 1 of Herman Field Park. The product
evaluation's conducted resulted in the attached chart do not conclusively
identify a superior proposal. However, each of those has it's strong
points for the Commission to consider. The most notable being Earl F.
Anderson's attention to the requirements'in compliance with the mandates of
the American with Disabilities Act. ADA. Flanigan Sales, numbers of play
components. They came across with the most play value. And then again
Value Recreation's location here in town leading in their offer to
providing maintenance on a complimentary basis. Each proposal has it's owr
' merits. The advantages and shortcomings of each is open to a large
variation and interpretation. I will be providing the Commission with an
overview of each proposal upon which the Commission may decide a method
they would like to use to award this purchase. Your familiarity with play
equipment will prove beneficial in this regard. The product evaluation
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 9
1
for phase 1 is essentially a disect each proposal which come in. Which is
proposed so you break it apart. Look at how many decks. How many play
components. How many posts. That type of thing. How they conform to Air
specifications which were provided, etc.. Again, the three companies
making proposals were Earl F. Anderson or EFA, Flanigan Sales, and then
Value Recreation. The price includes tax and delivery on all... Again,
the manufacturers of the different play structures are Landscape Structu
out of Delano. Iron Mountain Forge from Farmington. That's Missouri, not
Minnesota. Playworld Systems from New Berlin, Pennsylvannia. One of th
questions asked of the suppliers was to provide a statement of compliancy
with the Consumer Product Safety Commission and ADA, the American with
Disabilities Act. EFA provided both of those. FSI did not. Nor did Va e
Recreation. Delivery within 30 days, EFA, FSI cannot do that and Value
Recreation did not specify delivery within 30 days.
Bill Jananosky: 30 to 45. '
Hoffman: Okay, 30 to 45.
Koubsky: Todd, if it's, your no indicates that they didn't submit that II
with their bid?
Hoffman: Correct. ,
Koubsky: Do we have any idea if they do have a statement of compliance?
Hoffman: Again, in this tabulation this afternoon I contacted both FSI �c
Value Recreation. Bill will have to speak for his proposal this evening.
FSI indicated that no, that was an oversight but the catalog which I hav
here this evening will say that their equipment conforms to CPSC, the ne�
guideline.
Lash: So FSI does comply? ,
Hoffman: That's what the representative I talked to today said, yes. They
would comply but again, on the plan you'll see from Earl F. Anderson, it
stated right on there that in their opinion it does comply so we can onl
take it for face value. If we flip the sheet and start looking at other
components of the play structure, accessibility is the big issue today.
Accessibility to the main structure is provided through all proposals.
However, in the second proposal from FSI, it did not provide it in phase .
It's provided in phase 2. Essentially what the accessibility to the main
structure means is you have a hard surface coming into a transfer deck.
Then with a rubber matting or a rubberselient material being glued down
that concrete to allow that accessibility to be gained. Accessibility to
the swing sets, Earl F. Anderson provides that. The other two proposals c
not. Taking a look at the number of decks. Square decks versus triangl
Earl F. Anderson provides you with 6 decks. FSI, 3 square decks and then 4
triangular decks. Value Recreation has essentially 3 square decks. One f
those 3 being considered as the combination of some components on the
structure. 15 inch transfer deck and then 3 steps and 2 triangular deck .
Number of poles is essentially identical. 14, 15 and 16. Not in that
order. Number of advance play components which includes such things as II
slides, bridges, those types of components. Climbing bars. Each one, E 1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 10
F. Anderson provides 5. Flanigan Sales 6 and Value Recreation 4. If you
look at the final page, the number of simple play components which is a
1 fire pole or some similar type of apparatus. Earl F. Anderson has one.
FSI has 3. Value Recreation proposes 1. Number of swings are identical in
all proposals with the exception that, in Earl F. Anderson and Value
' Recreation's proposals, it's 1 bucket, 1 belt and a tire. Where in FSI
it's 2 tot and a tire. Those differences resulted from struggling with
CPSC guidelines and then trying to provide swings underneath this type of
bidding climate and bidding dollar restrictions. CPSC says you can only
' have 2 swings and 1 bay and they should be identical types. 5o you should
have, if you have 2 swings in 1 bay, you should either have 2 tot seats or
2 belt seats. As you can see, FSI conformed with that providing 2 tots and
1 tire. The other two elected not to. To provide the diversity. Again,
it's purely a standard. It's not law. Provision of border is essentially
identical throughout all the proposals. However, I could not confirm the
' lineal footage with FSI. However, they did state that they would provide
all redwood border for Phase 1. The other two are 268 lineal feet and 266
lineal feet of redwood border which totals a dimension of 5 1/2 inches by
11 inches. And then tiles for accessibility. Earl F. Anderson provides
' 12. Again, FSI none and Mr. Jananosky... the structure to the main
structure, they need to put down those tiles. So in this proposal there
would be 4 tiles here...
' Schroers: Okay Todd, thank you for that information.
Hoffman: Larry, I think at some point we're going to have to go through
' these step by step. If you want to do that at this point through your
large packets or if you discuss it among the commission for a few moments
and then we can do that.
r Schroers: Well we may as well get all the information before we discuss
it.
Hoffman: If you want to follow along... These are in alphabetical order.
The first sheet... The second sheet in that packet shows the phasing.
Essentially we've split the structure in two. At this point, everything tc
I the north would be the main structure. The swings, the tire swi.ng...would
be in phase 1...
11 Lash: Is the bid for tonight just phase 1 then?
Hoffman: Correct. Again the price tag on this is $12,500.00. The
' manufacturers and the manufacturer's representatives' opinion that both of
these play structures...did comply with the CPSC guidelines... Again the
accessibility to the main structure comes via the hard surface with
resellient tiles in this location and then the swingset with the hard
surface...in this location. These two being tied together by an asphalt
path which would then lead back to the parking lot and the curb cut...
Number of decks again as shown are 6 decks on the main structure. Four in
' this location and then 2 on the other end... The advanced play components
are comprised of 5. Phase 1, the horizontal ladder in this location. Two,
...adult slide... Three, the suspension bridge running across...
Lash: The horizontal ladder, that's the bars right?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting ,
August 25, 1992 - Page 11
Hoffman: Correct. A number of simple play components would be one, which
would be the addition of that... The swings shown in phase 1 again are
tire swing and then a bucket and a belt seat. This one here would be
accessible...
Schroers: What does the loop pole do? '
Erickson: Is that a firemen's pole?
Hoffman: Not a firemen's pole but it would be a firemen's pole with loop"
tacked on at either end for climbing. Essentially it access...
Erickson: And when you're talking about the swings, I know what a belt II
swing is. What's a full bucket?
Hoffman: It's a tot seat.
Erickson: Tot seat, alright,
Hoffman: Other questions on this proposal prior to moving forward. The,
whole plan is effected on the front here. Again showing the phasing. Phase
1 and phase 2. Phase 1 would face north.
Koubsky: Todd on those slides, how high are up are those? I guess a
couple questions. Is this a wood structure or a metal structure?
Hoffman: Metal structure. The poles would of galvanized metal. Then II
metal decks coated with poly vinyl.
Koubsky: How high up, how many inches? Where the tunnel slide and the II
wave slide and the pole.
Hoffman: The deck there is shown at 66 inches. So 4 feet, 8 inches, ,
Schroers: Does the bid include everything on phase 1, the resellient
surfacing and the redwood border and the entire?
Hoffman: Phase 1 bid would include.
Schroers: Everything that's on here. ,
Hoffman: Correct. Minus the pea gravel. Pea gravel would be supplied by
the city and installation supplied by the city.,. ,
Schroers: But the resellient surface, the tough turf and all that is
definitely included in this bid?
Hoffman: Correct. The rubber tiles would be. The question is on the
concrete or bituminous which is underneath. That would be installed by t e
City as a part of our installation requirements to install.
Schroers: And that's not included in this bid price?
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 12
Hoffman: Correct, no it is not. Installation is not included here. This
would be a city installed project.
' Lash: And we're only giving input on phase 1 right?
Hoffman: Correct.
Schroers: Okay, you can probably move on to the next piece then.
Hoffman: The second proposal is Flanigan Sales representing Iron Mountain
Forge. If you're familiar with the piece of play structure which is the
newly installed last fall handicapped structure at the north playground...
same manufacturer. Again, you can follow the lines. The dotted lines
here...to the north and then phase 2 will be on the south. Flanigan Sales
bid is at $12,295.00. Again, they provided no written statement of
' compliance with CPSC or ADA... Delivery within 4 to 6 weeks.
Accessibility to the structure, they did show it in their phase 1, phase 2
plan, which under their opinion in regard to the ADA, does comply.
However, it was reflected that... What they show in this location is the
phasing line comes right down through this location but they had included
the resellient tiles in phase 2 and not in phase 1. Again, no
accessibility through hard surface is shown. Number of decks is 3 square
decks in phase 1. The 32 and 64 inch deck. Four triangular decks, 16 to
24. They enter onto the play structure and then you cross the bridge...
trinagular decks and eventually they're over...number of play components
being 6. Those 6 being, at the start of the structure...and then bridge
' going over...coming out to a horizontal ladder in this location. And agair
those...
Schroers: Again, are the poles metal in this?
Hoffman: Correct. All poles were specified as galvanized steel with steel
' decks and poly vinyl covering on there.
Schroers: So for all three of the bids that we're going to be looking at,
that's the same?
Hoffman: Correct. There is an alternate. We put it in your packet for
redwood poles to show... instead of the steel poles. We have an awful lot
1 of redwood equipment already in the city. We do experience some minimal
problems with it with splintering and it's my opinion that instead of
putting all our eggs in one basket, spread out our equipment... Park
maintenance has a very good luck in installing the metal play structures
and they find them to be tough out in the field.
Lash: Did you, I was kind of looking at this. If you start at the bottom
I where the double slide is and the inverted arch climber. So is 32 the size
of the platform?
Hoffman: The height
Lash: The height, okay. So this little double slide here would be more
for the little kids right?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting 11
August 25, 1992 - Page 13
Hoffman: Yep.
P
Lash: And then a berma bridge, is that an expansion bridge or whatever II
they call those things?
Hoffman: It's a bridge crossing.
Lash: Are they those kind of bouncy things?
Hoffman: I'm not exactly sure what a berma bridge is. '
Koubsky: Is it going to be the same as the one on the Landscape
Structures? '
Hoffman: No, most likely not.
Lash: A berma bridge is 14? ,
Hoffman: Yep, there it is. Probably not as exciting as a clatter bridg
or a suspension bridge.
Lash: It would be more challenging for little kids. Dave and I were just
kind of in a discussion of how we'd hate to see, we were using the word
whimpy. Whimpy things going in all the time because they're kind of sho
lived and I know, there's pros and cons to both I guess. The clatter
bridge is fun. All the kids like those. This would definitely be more
challenging but then it would make it hard for little kids who are over 11
the lower things to get over to the higher things. But then that might be
a nice way to set it up too. If they can't hack the crossing, then they is
probably can't hack the...
Schroers: It's so low in the way it's constructed, if they can't handle
the chains, they'll just hop off and run across. '
Lash: And then what's an 8 foot challenge ladder?
Hoffman: Again that would be. ,
Koubsky: Horizontal bars?
Hoffman: It was specified that a horizontal ladder should be included."'
Lash: And then you have the firemen's pole. The loop climber, we alrea
about that. And then these other two slides then are from 64 inc l.
high?
Hoffman: Yes...
Erickson: Backing up just a second Todd. You said that this wouldn't
really meet the ADA requirements until the second phase was put in?
Hoffman: Correct. For accessibility?
Erickson: Right.
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 14
Hoffman: Again, the interpretation of the guidelines that are...talk to
and what they'll tell you...
Koubsky: Todd, does this berma bridge count as an advance play component?
Hoffman: Correct.
Lash: How far down, do you happen know off the top of your head how far
along we have phase 2 coming? How many years?
Hoffman: Phase 2, play expansion beyond 1996.
) Schroers: Okay, are there any more questions on bid from FSI?
Hoffman: Chairman Schroers, we didn't make it quite all the way through.
' We're at 6, advanced play components. The number of simple play components
would be 2...panel with a steering wheel. Again the swings are the same
number provided. Three, two tots, bucket seats, and a tire swing. And the
border is all... Are there any questions on the second proposal? No, I
don't think so. I think we can move on to the third. The third proposal
is provided to you by Value Recreation. One note, the omission of this
spiral slide will show up under the current price...so omitted on phase 1
goes into the phase 2 proposal, Quickly running back through again, the
price on this structure is $12,500.00...compliance were not provided...
Again, you can note the delivery time is 30 to 45 days. Accessibility to
the main structure is provided. ...included but it does include resellient
tiles... Accessibility to the swings in this location is not addressed.
The number of decks, again 3 being counted as square decks. 36 inch deck,
48 inch deck and... Number of poles is 14. Number of advanced play
1 components would be 4 with the tube slide in this location. The clatter
bridge as shown here and...I may have counted the spiral slide...another
one...
' Lash: There's the tree climber, the two slides and the loop ladder. Are
those all the. Tree climber is number 23.
' Hoffman: Yeah, that would be a simple component.
Lash: That would be simple?
Hoffman: We have 3 advanced components in this proposal and then the tree
climber... Moving to the swings as shown in phase 1. The total allotment
' for swings in this proposal and that would be a belt swing, bucket seat anc
a tire swing. Again, depending on the.. is 266. That's a double
stacked. 6 x 6 is at a nominal width.
' Koubsky: I guess on this one Todd, the bridge isn't being counted as an
advance play structure right? Where on the other two proposals the
suspension bridge and the berma bridge are being counted.
Hoffman: Yes. In this one it would be counted. We have the...slide in
this location. The bridge...
Koubsky: The wave slide, is that not on there?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 15
Hoffman: The wave slide didn't show up.
P
Lash: There's a jet slide, a tube slide. '
Bill Jananosky: You don't have both the slides on the picture there.
Hoffman: That's what it is in this location.
8i11 Jananosky: There'd be four of the advanced play structures. And
that's not if you count the bridge.
Hoffman: The wave slide isn't shown on your or else my 17 did not show u
on the transparency. So the chart is what...
Erickson: Then Todd on the 36 inch triangle off the horizontal loop, is
that open? Are they climbing and jumping off that or is there some, I II
don't know.
Koubsky: What's the safety factor? How high can you have an open
platform. Right there.
Hoffman: Right there, I believe there's a separate there...
Koubsky: Okay, so there's a rung where they can climb up to that? ,
Bill Jananosky: They can step up to that. They can't reach their feet 11
that high. But...
Schroers: Okay. Any other questions or comments?
Erickson: The swings are included in phase 1? The tire swing and the
bucket and the strap?
Hoffman: I'd take that to be true...
Erickson: And the spring animals are in phase 2?
Hoffman: Correct. This is...include these swings in phase 1...
Schroers: But that is not the...system that's coming in. '
Hoffman: Just an example of the product.
Koubsky: For? ,
Hoffman: Playworld Systems. Value Recreation.
Andrews: My question is, how long has Value Recreation been in Chanhass
How long have you been doing business here?
Bill Jananosky: 2 1/2 years. ,
Schroers: Okay, Todd. The correlation between Sheet 1, Sheet 2 and She
3. We don't necessarily need to follow suit or stick with a particular
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 16
pattern on that. I mean for Sheet 3, we can pretty much decide which way
we want to go without having an effect on 1 or 2.
Hoffman: Absolutely. Sheet 3 would be awarded on your perception of whicF
proposal provides the most product. The most play value for the money.
Lash: Mr. Jananosky, did you come up with whatever you were working on
over there?
Bill Jananosky: ...a few comments. Would you like me to address the
Commission?
Schroers: Yeah, we're ready, please.
Bill Jananosky: I've got a flyer for you all. As Todd mentioned, we're
right across the street above Merlyn's Hardware. We've been here for 2 1/4
years now. Our primary line of business is Playworld Systems here. They
probably count for 80% or 90% of our revenue activity. Playworld Systems
as you can tell by the photo is a very impressive, very nice, high quality
product line. At this particular juncture, I would be in a position to
prove that it's the highest quality of all three lines that you are
entertaining tonight. Now it would probably take me an hour and a half to
walk you through all the products and explain all the advantages and I
realize we don't have that so we'll have, at one point here maybe I'll skin
through a couple things but for the most part we'll have to leave some of
that discussion for another time, if it's necessary. Playworld Systems has
11 been in business for 35 years. They've always offered steel systems. The
have the best safety record of any manufacturer in the industry. They've
never had a serious injury on any of their equipment. All they do is
11 playgrounds. They focus very well on it and I honestly believe they're the
best. As a matter of fact, I left another company to go to work for these
people because I thought they had a better product and the company that I
left was Landscape Structures. Earl F. Anderson and Associates represents
Landscape Structures too out of Delano. Now Landscape Structures, as far
as I know, represents possibly exclusively all the playgrounds that the
city has purchased in any recent years from what I've seen. From what I
' can tell. They're a very good company but Playworld Systems is just a tad
better. And that's not why I left. I left because I was the National
Sales Manager and I was traveling all the time and it was really hard on
the family life. I was never home. Fortunately I was able to find another
company with similar philosophies and attitudes and concerns and to work
with here, Playworld Systems so that all worked out. But nevertheless, I'D
probably the most knowledgeable person, at least in Chanhassen in terms of
playground equipment and making valid comparisons between these guidelines.
Obviously I've seen every structure in the city many times over and
inspected them all many times over and bit my tongue hundreds of times in
11 the last 2 1/2 years. I regret not coming before the Commission before
this. I'm not the most aggressive person in that regard. I was trying to
work through proper channels. It finally got to the point where I wasn't
' getting anywhere and I felt maybe if I could come meet with you folks,
you'd have a better appreciation for who we are and what we do. We did not
just fall off the pumpkin wagon. I've been doing this for 8 years. When I
was a National Marketing Director for Landscape Structures, I spent 3 1/2
years inspecting playgrounds on a national level. I served on the National
Park and Rec Commission Meeting II
August 25, 1992 - Page 17
Safety Commission. I've served on the ASPM...Safet Y Commission. I was e
head of the product development committee for Landscape Structures. Rig
now I'm the head of the product development committee for Playworld
Systems. I eat, live and breathe playground equipment and I've been a
little disappointed that I haven't been able to be more helpful to the cit>
of Chanhassen. I basically have not been able to get involved for some I
reason. So what we would like to do is, not only propose our equipment
you but also propose that somehow we strike a stronger relationship here
and you can take advantage of our abilities and we can help you with you
parks and help make them safer, more proper and more cost effective play
areas and hopefully give you a little more bang for your dollar as well Q
a better maintenance situation. Being so convenient here, across the
street, we have a parts inventory. If for some reason anything should
require maintenance or parts. We're in the position to make it availabl
as easy as Kent can in the hardward store there. So if any larger part's
necessary, there's a safety issue involved, we typically fly those parts"
overnight because once we hear the word safety, that's a buzz word to us
and that means it's got to be dealt with immediately. You don't leave
safety hazards to linger on and on and on. I think the city could benef
tremendously, not only by getting involved with a higher quality product
line, but also allowing us to help you with regard to what's appropriate r
terms of CPSC guidelines. What's safe on the city's parks and what is not
safe. What's appropriate for ADA and all those types of issues because II
that's all we do. We deal with it all the time and I've been involved Ale
national level. So we feel we're quite knowledgeable in these subject
matters. At this particular juncture there's approximately 2 dozen safe
hazards in the city parks that have been lingering for many years. That c
not conform to 1981 guidelines, let alone the 1991 guidelines. Obviously
more then has surfaced in the last 6 or 8 months since the 1991 guideline
were introduced just last November. I'm talking about things like
entrapment areas and... When I see these in other cities, obviously I
don't say a whole heck of a lot to anybody. Nobody likes to hear a
negative comments on these issues and they think...this, that and the of r
thing. But when my own children and my neighbors children and people we
care about are playing on this, it concerns us quite a great deal more thar
that and obviously we feel like we finally have to come forward and say il
something about this. I guess that's an issue separate from what we're
dealing with here tonight though. Maybe I should confine myself to
discussing the positive attributes of our play design here. This design
includes much more expensive components than do the other designs. The
intent here is to try to make it a little more exciting. A little more
challenging. More interesting. It also improves the upper body events
which was required in the bids. The second proposal does not include an
upper body events at all. I think any playground should have at least or�
upper body event on it. Normally 2 or 3 a playground this size. We
just went with one because that's what was called for. In this case, th
upper body event is the ring bridge and the best picture in this flyer,
without asking each of you to page through 110 page catalog, the best
picture of the ring bridge is right in the very center of this flyer. Just
to the right side of the crease you can see those triangular shaped ring
Well that's the 1992 version of a horizontal ladder. And that only has e
beam down the center of it rather than one beam on each side of it. They
go to a larger beam down the center. The reason for that is...get up on
top of that and sit up there, they can literally eat their lunch up therl
II
1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 18
on top of these horizontal laddres. And it creates an unnecessary height
situation. On playground height is like speed is on a highway. You try tc
avoid unnecessary height. It's one thing to do it cautiously to try to
create a little extra excitement but it's another thing to create
unnecessary height situations so our horizontal ladders utilize those run,
' triangular shaped run affairs. The tube slides you'll see on the same page
there, rather than being round are oval shaped. The reason they're oval
shaped is it allows the children to lift their heads up a little bit to see
where they're going so when they get to the bottom, they don't just fly out
' and land on the ground. They can actually prepare themselves for the exit.
Also, the exit section on this has a long deceleration zone to allow them
to slow down and often times stop right at the end. Their feet drop down,
they get up and walk away. Nobody loses control type of situation. The
seams on the joints of the tube slide are overlapping flange joints. It's
a much better seam than what the City's been accustomed to on tube slides.
1 Also, the panel on the top of the tube slide has a long groove across the
top of a hand hold for the kids so they've got a place top put their hands
so they can hang onto something and lift their feet up and actually get
into position. The other panels don't have that on there so it's a lot
more functional plan or slide in that regard from a user friendly
standpoint. Yes sir.
Echroers: I have a question back on the horizontal loop ladder. Are those
loops welded to the bar?
Bill Jananosky: Yes.
Schroers: So they don't swing. They don't move. They are locked into
position.
Bill Jananosky: Yeah. If they're moving, they're probably too similar to
what we would call a hand track or a ring bridge. Where the rings are
intended to swing. Swing across from one to the other. Also, if I can
move...phase Notice this upper body...that's as high as you'd want to
come off of, as high a deck as you'd want to come off of because any higher
than that and you're probably inviting the children more so to get up on
top of it rather than hang from underneath it. Unnecessary invitation to
get up high. Again, our city is full of playgrounds that have upper body
events coming off of 4 foot and 5 foot high decks. We're just inviting the
1 kids to get up on top of these things. The brand new one that just went it
at City Center Park here has those on it. On each end there's a deck at
the same height as the horizontal ladder. Just invite the kids to get out
on top of that. So we avoided that issue. The spiral slide is a $2,500.00
item. That's a fourth of our budget here for phase 1 so it's an expensive
item hut it's a favorite item. And the swinging bridge is an $1,800.00
item as opposed to a $400.00 chain bridge.
1 Andrews: I'm confused on the spiral slide. Is that omitted or not omittec
in phase 1?
Bill Jananosky: It's part of phase 2. I'm sorry, I guess I'm addressing
the issue as a whole here. Maybe 1 should just be looking at phase 1.
1 Andrews: That's correct, please.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting II
August 25, 1992 - Page 19
Berg: Now, that will be added where it's seen there in phase 2?
II
II
Bill Jananosky: Yes, although I didn't realize phase 2 was 4 years behi .
So I guess we'll just have to wait 4 years to put that...on there. Phas 9
includes the rubber pad. Now our rubber tiles don't require concrete or
asphalt underneath them because of the way they interlock, it isn't
II
necessary. You just use a good stable subsurface like a Class V or
something.
Schroers: Does it stay level?
II
Bill Jananosky: If you use a proper surface underneath it like just a
Class V. Something that won't shift. Something that's reasonably stabll
Stable it will stay in place.
Schroers: And the locking mechanism also stays in place and there's no II
warping or coming loose?
Bill Jananosky: No. There's three different...you can go depending on
your preference. We can go with cable, stainless steel rods or dowls.
if you want to, you could glue it down to asphalt. Or concrete. But it
isn't necessary. And that's something of course we'd keep a close eye on
for you. To make sure that there wasn't any. 1
Schroers: Todd did say in the initial presentation that you are willing t(
do ongoing maintenance as needed.
II
Bill Jananosky: Happily. You bet you. Sure.
Schroers: For an unlimited... 1
Bill Jananosky: Well as long as we're in Chanhassen. Because I can't
promise you that indefinitely. Certainly as long as we're in Chanhassen
we have a special interest. We would want to bend over backwards to kee�
this playground as safe and functional as possible. We have no intentions
of moving. We've been here for 12 years. I'm not only a resident of
Chanhassen. We also have our business here so we're very active in the
community.
Schroers: It would probably be a handy selling point for you also. For"
clients. You could say, well we have...right here,
Bill Jananosky: Yeah, it'd be very handy to have something in town. Tha
why we feel if we rolled up our sleeves here and gone after this. In te
of pricing and discounts. Any other questions on...
Berg: I'm sorry, maybe I missed it. How high off the ground is the 10011
ladder?
Bill Jananosky: About 6 1/2 feet. Now we've got...data and depending oll
which age group you want to make it appropriate for, we can vary that an
inch or 2 or 3 one way or the other...probably want to make but depending
on how you want to orient that. My impression is that that first phase
for the older children so we might want to make it age appropriate for tf
II
1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 20
4th thru 5th graders. 8, 9, 10 year olds type of thing. The younger
children don't usually get involved with the upper body events. That's why
they also include it in part of phase 1 for the older kids.
Schroers: Okay.
Bill Jananosky: There's a pathway for the play structure but there isn't
for the swingset. A rubber pathways for swingsets are very controversial.
Very few people bother to do them. I was surprised to hear Todd promote
' that because 3 weeks ago in his office he was telling me all we had to do
was eliminate the timber border and that would qualify for passing with the
ADA. Granted, nobody can interpret ADA 100% accurately without a crystal
ball because of course you have to test the Disabilities Act but I think if
you talk to the people on the committee and you talk to the chair people
who we have working for us on a consulting basis, they will tell you the
intent of these rules and based on what we hear from them directly, with
their intent to what they're trying to accomplish here, we design
playgrounds accordingly. And so this complied with the intent is our
position and somehow I failed to include a document to that effect but
1 would be happy to do that. It also of course complies to all the CPSC
guidelines. Their equipment complied with the guidelines last year before
the guidelines were even introduced. That was because they have 5 people
working on the national committee.
Schroers: I have one or maybe two specific questions that maybe you could
answer for me. How are we getting the most bang for our buck when we're
getting 4 advanced play components in phase 1 as opposed to the other two
where they are, EFA has 5 and FSI has 6?
Bill Jananosky: Well I don't know exactly how you define advanced play
components but these certainly are more expensive.
Schroers: I think what they're talking in advance is maybe both expensive
but also more challenging and also something that is more attractive to the
kids. More of a major component.
Bill Jananosky: Sure. Well, the swinging bridge is an expensive item. A
steel swinging bridge like that is an $1,800.00 item. That's almost 20% of
the budget right there. And it generally is considered to be one of the
more favored items. This is oriented so that a lot of disabled children,
once they come up here, they also will be able to cross the swinging bridge
but they would not be able to cross the balance beam bridge. We could have
1 done that and saved $1,000.00 and put 2 or 3 more play events on there
because the average play event, the less expensive ones you've seen are
like $300.00 a piece or something in that range. But this seems to be one
of the more favored events in playground. Generally when you do a
' structure, this overall size seems to typically include a swinging bridge.
Now the only exception to that is some people when they do the designs...
proposals like this and they have a tendency to change their priorities anc
' get involved with lesser expensive components...earning more points. This
wasn't the basis for this design in our case here.
Schroers: Okay. Any commission members have any particular thoughts? I
guess I do. I can say why that in the past we've gone with Landscape
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting II
August 25, 1992 - Page 21
Structures and Earl F. Anderson. For one thin g, they .
the have been more local
We have had good experience with them. We do think that they have a goo
product. We like their design. We felt like we were getting as much fo
our money there as we were anywhere else. And in some instances we thou t
we were going to get more for our money and better service and we very mucF
like the fact that they are fairly accessible without having to go to
II
Missouri or out to the East Coast or something like that for parts.
However, part of our program here is to the first...somewhat and some of
the advantages that you have pointed out I think are valid and I would n
be opposed to going with Value Recreation. The price is basically comin
in at exactly the same and I think it would be good for us to have some
different types and different brands and without doing so, it's hard for u=
to evaluate what we want to do in the future. I guess I would be in fall
of going with Value Recreation for the third item.
Andrews: Is that a motion?
II
Schroers: I'll make that a motion unless we have more.
Lash: I have a comment. It has nothing to do with any of the suppliers
It just has to do with plans in general. I don't want to claim that I'm r
expert at watching kids on the playground but I've spent a lot of time. I
mean I spend time every day watching kids play on the playground so I sell
the kinds of things kids like and the kinds of things that they don't li .
And I don't want to see us get too hung up on slides. Kids like slides but
it seems like the things they're waiting in line to do are to climb. An
I know that kids can climb on the slide and that's what they want to do.
They want to climb on the outside of the slide. They want to climb from
the bottom of the slide up and at school we have a rule you can't climb
the slide which then means it has one purpose only and that's just to go
down. So you know at school it's different than at a neighborhood park t
some of these plans that I see we get so hung up on providing so many
different kinds of slides and I think a couple of slides are fine but I II
like the climbing apparatus. There are so many fun things out now that
kids can climb on that I'd like to see us focus a little bit more on some
of the climbing things and get away from quite so many slides. I know j t
as an example, because I have yours open and there's 6 different varieti
of slides shown in the two phases and once we get to phase 2, whatever w
choose, I'd like to have us look a little more carefully at how many slides
we have. 1
Bill Jananosky: Generally you want to design a playground, like this may
be the only play structure that those neighborhood kids play on and
therefore hopefully they develop all their muscle groups equally well. II
you want to cover all the bases and I concur with you 100%. Although,
please bear in mind that what goes up must come down and so you end up,
there's a tendency to provide an equal number of entrances and exits whill
typically the entrances are climbing events and the exits are typically
sliding events. Although some of the climbers do go both ways. For what
it's worth, the Playworld Systems also has the strongest warranty prograll
by far. It's a 25 year warranty on the clamps which is a very integral
part of the system. 15 year warranty on the posts. 10 year warranties on
the decks. It's a very strong... Believe me, it hasn't been...equipmen
A lot of the larger cities that have urban vandalism problems tend to fa r
II
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 22
Playworld Systems because it is so heavy duty. It always has been a very
rugged product line.
I Berg: Have you supplied any systems in this area anywhere?
Bill Jananosky: Well let's see. There's one at Scenic Heights Elementary
I
which isn't too far from here. It's just over behind TH 101 and Excelsior
Blvd. over there. As a matter of fact, they're getting their second one
now that's going to be going in in about 2 days. They're real happy with
the first one. So that's probably the closest one.
Berg: Are any of the Commissioners acquainted with that system?
I Bill Jananosky: This is a steel system. I'm sorry.
Lash: That's alright.
I Bill Jananosky: The first design by the way was a redwood system. They
did not bid that in steel. That was just purely bid as redwood. And also
I that first design has two independent structures. When you break a
structure down into two independent structures like that and you make one
more age appropriate for the younger kids rather than the older kids. What
happens is the younger kids don't want to play on the smaller play
structure. They want to go to the bigger one so you end up spending a lot
of money on a structure that nobody's going to use. Also, both of those
structures have ADA entrances on them. They both have 5 or 6 decks that
have, serve really no purpose other than moving disabled people up onto the
higher platforms. Why pay that cost twice? I mean you don't get much play
value out of those types of designs.
I Lash: One of the more simpler items that we can ever get that I think is
always just a huge success is the firemen's pole. For some reason the kids
I just love those and it's something that makes them really, they're always
afraid to try it the first time and then all of a sudden they get the
courage to do it, and then they find out how much fun it is and you can't
get them off of it. No, there isn't one on there. There's on one of the
other ones.
Bill Jananosky: We decided to go with the 3 foot or 4 foot high decks. If
you get 5 or 6 feet high, it gets to be a long slide and you get some
broken ankles and that some of those kinds of issues.
Schroers: Okay, what we're going to be recommending here is on phase 1 anc
I we can add onto phase 2 or change things if we don't like the way it's
shaping up. If we feel that we do need more climbing.
I Koubsky: One of the problems I have with all three designs is swings. You
know we've had discussion on here that playgrounds need swings and it's
probably the way this was bid. But in each of these there are two swings
I ` and two of them, it's one belt and one tot swing. Two boys going over
there to swing together, or two girls, can't swing on these because there's
one limiting thing and that's the tot swing so you've only got one
preschool or school aged person swinging at these facilities at a time.
I And then the FSI, you just have two tot swings. So you don't have any
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting II
August 25, 1992 -- Page 23
II
swinging capabilities in the FSI at all. I don't know if we can change
g
that but I think if there's any way. Tot swing you need but I think in
minimum, on anything we put in, we should have two belt swings. Just
because friends go there and friends swing.
Lash: And even if it's a parent...
II
Koubsky: Families have more than one. Right, parents swing.
Lash: Although the tire swing, if there's two kids, they're going to got
the tire swing anyway.
Schroers: Tire swings are very popular. I don't know how we would do t t
without maybe the addition of another belt swing but I don't think that L
would want to eliminate either the one bucket or the one tire. We would
maybe want to try to just add an additional belt swing rather than
eliminate one or the other two. Do you happen to know what additional
costs would be for one more belt swing?
Still Jananosky: Instead of? 1
Schroers: Not instead of. Just in addition to. Just one more.
Andrews: Put another bay down, II
Bill Jananosky: Yeah, we'd have to get another bay and I'm going to guel
another bay with two swings on it, because they typically support two
swings. The second bay is less expensive than the first bay because you
can utilize the same center post and the same crossover section. So the
first bay might be $800.00. A second bay I'm going to guess is around II
$600.00.
Lash: So it'd be another $600.00. To add two more swings.
II
Schroers: I don't know that we can do that now on phase 1. I mean what WE
have to do is make a recommendation on what is proposed for phase 1. An
then if we wanted to add, we would have to do that in phase 2. And incl e
that into the bid.
Bill Jananosky: You could make phase 2, 2 or 3 weeks from now and then ji
make this all phase 3 if you're anxious to get them on there. There'd b
an advantage to doing that in the same time that we're putting in the
border and you're putting the surfacing material in there.
I
Schroers: Okay, so then in order to deal with this in a somewhat timely
manner, we just have to focus on what we have available here for us on
phase 1 and do the comparison of the three different vendors here. 1 guEllE
that 1 would be willing to formulate a motion unless there's more.
I
Lash: 1 was just looking at the picture of the tree climber in here. II
Bill Jananosky: Oh, we might have to go to the catalog for that. The tree
climber is like a, yeah. Oh you've got it there. Why don't you try page
14.
II
11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 24
Koubsky: Todd, do you have any background on this berma bridge as far as
safety or whatever? I've never seen a chain bridge like that before. That
would be on the FSI proposal.
Hoffman: No background that I call. No personal visit to a playground
where I participated.
11 Koubsky: Is it relatively new?
Bill Jananosky: No. We provide this also.
Lash: Here's a picture of their chain bridge which is different. I like
this one better. What would be the difference in cost if we were to do a
chain bridge instead of the.
Bill Jananosky: Swinging bridge?
Lash: Yes.
Koubsky: Is that fair?
Lash: I don't know. The other guy has a chain bridge.
Koubsky: Yeah, but the other manufacturer...
Bill Jananosky: $1,000.00, something in that range but it's going to cut
out that second phase for anybody who's handicapped. Potentially.
Hoffman: Chairman Schroers, if I could just comment on a few of Bill's
1 comments prior to moving forward. In his initial comments you talk, you
reference, just for clarification sake, the FSI proposal. That it did not
provide an upper arm, upper body. I would think that the 8 foot horizontal
ladder, just for clarification, would probably be considered an upper body
type of apparatus.
Koubsky: They all have the horizontal ladders.
' Hoffman: Secondly, Bill and I have had conversations in regard to the
safety standards which the new CPSC and the old guidelines as well. I
recognize that our playgrounds do have safety problems. The manufacturer,
or Earl F. Anderson is currently out in field doing, conducting field
visits and coming back with recommendations to the city so they are as well
following up on the new CPSC guidelines and going through each play
structure in town. I feel it's certainly not only important in our city
but in all cities. I feel our play structures which we maintain in the
city of Chanhassen are essentially safe. We certainly do have some areas
1 where we can make them improve their safety and we're working towards that.
However, I know that some other communities with older equipment which we
have worked tremendously at taking out and replacing as the commission
knows, the project at City Center Park was essentially a project to improve
safety and to expand play availability so the City's very interested in
doing that. Third comment was on ADA and certainly as I mentioned earlier,
I was not specifically promoting Earl F. Anderson's provision of two but
simply pointing that out to the Commission. I as well am confused by what
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 25
the American with Disabilities Act means for provision. We need to keep it
in mind but it means some common sense in regard to accessibility and as
well we need to keep in mind that it not only means wheelchair accessibly
Somewhere in the vicinity of less than 1% of people who are considered
handicapped are in wheelchairs. There's a variety of other handicaps which
people have and those types of persons would come and use these faciliti
as well. However, the CPSC does call out, or excuse me, the ADA for a 1 e
sensations meaning they would like to see you provide reasonable access to
like sensation being a set of swings or a main structure or if you put i a
couple of spring animals, if one of those isn't accessible, then you're r�t
providing like sensations to all persons. Those would be my comments in
that regard. You've obviously heard a presentation from one of the
manufacturers this evening. If you would like to make a choice, that's
your discretion. If you would like to hear from other manufacturers and
question them as well, I would be happy to arrange for that.
Schroers: Okay, thanks Todd. Are there any commissioners that have any.11
particular feelings in regard to Todd's comment? How do you feel about
asking another manufacturer to come in?
Erickson: I personally think that Todd makes a good point about
mentioning, possibly another manufacturer coming in. The nice thing about
having the gentleman here tonight was just to fill in some of the gaps ill
the stuff here and I think he that pretty well. The CPSC compliance and
the ADA compliance answered some questions there also on the delivery time.
And a little bit about the play structure. Clearing up some of those
components. I don't think we got extra information above and beyond EFA
much as just filling in the gaps for Value Recreation. That's my view. I
guess I don't find it necessary to have another EFA come in. They had a
pretty complete package. Or FSI.
Andrews: I'd like to make a comment in that I think if we recommend a
vendor other than EFA, that as part of our recommendation that we requiril
that that vendor does provide compliance documents before they are
considered to be a successful bidder for the project.
Schroers: I think that's a good point. ,
Koubsky: Yeah, they at least meet all the requirements of the
specifications. ,
Andrews: I think they ought to provide a written document that they are
guaranteeing that they are providing or have met the requirements. Not
just that the documents because I think that's what EFA did right? They
are saying that they are making the guarantee themselves. Not just
providing.
Hoffman: Correct.
Koubsky: Those are items that staff should address. As far as I'm
concerned with bidding, if you don't meet the requirements of the bid, II
you're out. I mean you lay out the requirements for bid specification. It
should be up to staff or some party to review those bids and bids that II
aren't in out. If you have to rebid then after because you don't have
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 -- Page 26
sufficient manufacturers who have complied with your bid, at least you've
made your point that we are not going to accept non complete bids. And I
have no problem with throwing out all bids. Making them rebid if there's
only one manufacturer who meets the specifications but I think it's very
important for us not to set a precedence in accepting bids that aren't
1 complete and then say okay, well we'll accept your bid now but now you have
to make sure you comply with the bid specifications. That's my thought on
bidding processes. We shouldn't see them if they're not complete. But
here we are.
Bill Jananosky: My impression is that the vendors supply statements
stating that they concur with, their proposal concurs with ADA and CPSC.
The intent there is that if for some reason it ever turns out that it does
not, you've got something to fall back on. And you can contact me or
whoever and say hey Bill, we've got a problem here. You said this
conforms. Somebody says it does not. We need you to stand behind your
equipment and stand behind your statement and help us out on this. Get
this solved for us which I think makes great sense. Likewise, I would
think a supplier that's supplying the city with so many playgrounds that dc
not conform with the 1981 safety guidelines should be asked to do what they
can do to help bring those guidelines up to at least, those playgrounds up
to the 1981 standards. I'm saying that as a taxpayer, not as a vendor
1 here.
Koubsky: Yeah, and those are issues that it sounds like it's being worked
on and we'll take those up with staff I guess.
Schroers: Okay but I guess what we are asking for here is that the ADA
requirements be addressed in writing. That your product does meet the
standards to the best of...
Bill Jananosky: ...had that on the drawing and when we, when our office
girl cut this out and pasted this on here, she cut that off the drawing.
They put that on all the drawings that they do that conform to ADA and they
all do to CPSC. They wouldn't let them leave their house. So that just
happened to be cut off the drawing when she glued it onto the board here.
Schroers: Okay.
' Lash: I'm going to be real honest here and when I look at the plans, I
certainly lean towards wanting to give business to local residents so I'm
very torn. I would like to do that but in all honesty I like the FSI plan
better. I don't know why. I think it looks like it's more fun to me and
it looks like it provides more. And I know logically that it's the
difference in the two kinds of bridges. You said the two kinds of bridges
amounts to about $1,000.00 so I'm sure for $1,000.00.
11 Bill Jananosky: The sprial slide is $2,500.00.
Lash: So I know the reason for it. I guess I am interested in giving a
local vendor a shot and see how it works out. And if it looks like we
don't get the service or the equipment or the return on our money that we
have in the past from other vendors, then I wouldn't hesitate at all to go
back to one of the other vendors.
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting '
August 25, 1992 - Page 27
Schroers: Well I think that's what ou're saying is, what I was trying to
Y Y 9 � Y g
say before. Unless we try a new manufacturer, a new product, a new vend ,
we won't know. We don't have any real valid way within our system to ma
comparisons and evaluations if we're dealing with the same people all th
time. I personally am happy with Landscape Structures. I think that they
have a nice product and to my knowledge we haven't had problems with the ll
components functioning and the kids seem to like them a lot. But we are
also not talking a tremendous amount of money. I mean there's no
difference in the amount of money between Value Recreation and EFA and j t
a very small difference between FSI so I don't think that the money fact
in this particular instance makes a lot of difference.
Lash: It still looks on the plans like you're getting more for your monil
from FSI. I can't help but get that impression from looking at the plan
Bill Jananosky: You would have preferred lesser expensive components an
more of them.
Koubsky: I think what's desireable there is two areas. One, you have ar
area for smaller people and one you have an area for larger people. You
have the height, the 64 inches. You have the upper body horizontal and
think that's the appeal there is the two separate areas.
Lash: Are you talking about on the FSI?
Koubsky: Right. Well actually for both FSI and Landscape. It's similar"
Bill Jananosky: Well this is polarized also for age appropriateness. The
FSI design does not have ADA in phase 1 and I don't think you want to wa
until 1996 for ADA.
Lash: Right. That's the down side for them definitely. Because we're not
even saying 1996 but we're saying beyond 1996. We don't even have it in
our budget yet. So we don't know when this is going to go in for sure.
guess with that I'd be ready to make a motion. Is that what you want to
do Jim?
Andrews: Yeah, 1 want to say let's try something here and see if it will
fly.
Lash: I'd like to move that we recommend to City Council that we go witll
Value Recreation's bid for phase 1 for Herman Field in the amount not to
exceed $12,500.00. And to meet all the specifications.
Schroers: Is there a second?
Andrews: I'll second that.
Lash moved, Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to City Council to accept the bid for phase 1 playground
equipment for Herman Field Park from Value Recreation in an amount not t
exceed $12,500.00 and that Value Recreation meet all the specifications in
a timely manner. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 28
Erickson: Excuse me, I have one other thing. You're going to send
something in writing besides your word, which I do trust, on that
compliance with ADA and CPSC to Todd.
Koubsky: That's to meet the specs. And I guess my comment to staff is,
bidders should meet specifications. That's why we write them. If they
don't meet specifications, I think they should be rejected and the project
should be rebid.
' Andrews: I agree with Dave on that. A bid that doesn't meet specs is not
a bid. The other comment I wanted to make Todd, and I don't know if we car
do anything here. I feel the opportunity here to squeeze $600.00 out of
someplace to put on another bay to get two swings is something that I'd
like to see us try to do. Before this thing goes up. So I don't know if
we can get something in the next meeting. Will this be put up this fall
yet or probably next spring?
Hoffman: Hopefully this fall. That's why the 30 day timeline on delivery
was.
Schroers: So you want it on phase 1 rather than phase 2?
1 Andrews: Phase 1 1/2.
Schroers: It's probably be easier to add in on phase 2.
Andrews: From a bid standpoint here it would not be proper for us to tack
on another item onto the bid without opening it to all bidders again. So I
guess I would say that we can look at this as a phase 1 1/2 special
' opportunity. Now that we've selected a vendor, it would only make sense tc
continue with the same vendor, which I guess is part of the secret of this
business of selling playground equipment. But I think for $600.00 that
swingsets are always the item that we seem want to put up and for $600.00
we can get two more. I think we're going to want to do that.
Lash: And I don't want to wait for phase 2 because we have no idea when.
Andrews: No, I don't either.
' Schroers: Well I think that we could probably steal $600.00 out of the
budget somewhere.
Lash: Do you think we can?
Hoffman: We'll bring that back to the next meeting.
11 Schroers: The vendor would probably be willing to give us a real bargain
and a half.
Lash: Another thing that I'd like to say. I think I recall, I don't think
we've bought playground equipment like this for a long time it doesn't seerr
like but it seems in the past that we had more input into what was actually
going in. And I would kind of like to revert back to that process where we
1 chew around what we think we'd like to see in there. Make a list of some
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 29
of the items we'd like to see and we pass it onto you. You put it
together. You send it onto the vendors and say, we'd like some of these
things in there and whatever else you think would make it nice and this
can't go over a certain amount of money and then let them come back with
plan. But giving us more initial input into it.
Hoffman: A couple of comments. My thought process did pass over that Al
the workload which the Commission has recently had. I threw that right out
the window and went with what we traditionally have specified in the pia
structures. A couple of clarifications before we move on. I would like
8i11 to clarify the number of tiles and the type. He talked about three
separate types that will be provided with this structure and then if the
quote for, the verbal quote for $600.00 for the two additional swings, ill
that quote is valid.
Bill Jananosky: That's valid. I'll commit to that. It was an educated
guess but I'll commit to that. $600.00 on that. You need the ADA statemit
from me and it is 12 tiles.
Hoffman: The dimensions are? 1
Bill Jananosky: Two foot squares so you have a 4 foot wide pathway which
is what ADA likes to see is the 4 foot wide pathway. '
Schroers: And the type of tile. What connector are you going to use?
Bill Jananosky: Recycled rubber tires. 1
Schroers: But you talked about different connecting mechanisms.
8i11 Jananosky: Oh yeah, I don't know. There's three. There's the cab
or there's steel rods or dowls.
Schroers: Which is the best?
Bill Jananosky: The dowls seem to be the best...going to put a wood bor r
around the rubber tiles themselves. Which causes a whole new set of
concerns because then you have a wood border that falls out in the play
structure so generally the dowls is the best way to go. To tie everythi
together it becomes one monogymous piece that's just too heavy to move.
Andrews: Is there a difficulty if we were to glue this to an asphalt or
concrete? 1
Bill Jananosky: No, it works fine. They do it all the time.
Andrews: I guess to me that seems like that would be a better solution
because you don't have a potential of moving a subsurface. Your Class V r
whatever you use.
Lash: I have a question. If you have an all asphalt surface there 11
already, why do you have to have the tiles?
Hoffman: Their reseilency from the bounce. 1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 30
11 Schroers: A cushion.
' Lash: Isn't this just a path that gets up to the play area?
Hoffman: It's still within the play zone or the fall zone.
Bill Jananosky: To answer your question on the Class V. We just did a
2,800 square foot play area for the city of St. Paul and that was all
rubber...and there was no asphalt or concrete underneath that anywhere.
Schroers: Well yeah, that's the thing. You just did it. Where's it goin
to be 10 years from? That's the bottom line. That's what we need to know.
' Hoffman: That's a different material than what is specified here. That
was a support...
Schroers: See I'm somewhat familiar with these type of things and all of
the synthetic surfaces that I've seen up to this point have all been glued
So I'm somewhat skeptical.
i Bill Jananosky: Well...would be a guarantee permanent where there is some
question of durability without the concrete or asphalt underneath that.
t Erickson: If we're going to do it anyways, let's go ahead and glue it on
top of the asphalt.
' Schroers: I would think that we would want to.
Hoffman: Then my question would be, the tiles. Does that include the
adhesive or is that an additional charge?
Bill Jananosky: That would include the adhesive.
i Schroers: There you go. I thought it would. We'd better move on here.
This is costing you money.
Bill Jananosky: Thank you very much for your time.
Koubsky: One comment. Like adding these swings as a phase 2. I think
that's great. I think if we see, and there's nothing wrong with calling it
phase 2. The neighbors see something new go in, oh they're adding
something. I don't think it all has to be an all or nothing for phase 2 or
' phase 3. If you see a fire pole somewhere or some of the facilities don't
have the horizontal ladders, and want to put it in, call it phase 2. It
doesn't matter. We should be able to put components, add onto these. It'c
fairly cost effective. You know small components. You just keep putting
something into the different parts without having to add a $15,000.00
phase. $600.00 or if after construction, maybe $1,000.00 set of swings or
a $1,000.00 horizontal ladder is great.
Schroers: Well what I really thought would be of benefit going with Value
in this instance is that they are going to have something right here where
their business is located that they're going to want to be able to show to
other perspective purchasers and my idea is that they're going to go out of
Park and Rec Commission Meeting 11
August 25, 1992 - Page 31
11
their way to do a particularly good job here on this one. We don't have
much to lose on this one I don't believe.
1993 PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, FINAL
DRAFT.
Hoffman: Thank you Chairman Schroers. Park Commissioners, this is a i
fairly detailed document. It is the second time through so we should be
able to complete it in somewhat of a timely fashion. You have a detail
sheet which is exactly what we need to come out of this meeting with.
That's the pages that would be 2 or 3 of your packet. It details there
what has been pulled out of the 5 year capital improvement program for t
fiscal year 1993. Totals that at a subtotal of $142,050.00. However th
as noted in the report, if you add on the $25,000.00 reserve which was
talked about for City Center Park matching funds, you come up with a total
exceeding the $150,000.00 target budget by the amount of $17,050.00. Soli
there do need to be some adjustments with the budget. You either need t
reduce some of the specific items which are listed there, or reduce the neu
reserve of $25,000.00 for City Center Park matching funds with the schoo
district. Or a combination thereof. Chairman Schroers, if you'd like
direction in how you should move through this, I'll be glad to provide
that. Otherwise simply.
Schroers: I think I'd appreciate it if you would. We spent a lot of till
on the last issue and if you'd move us through here in a timely manner,
we'd appreciate it. If I understand you correctly, what we need to do
come up with $17,500.00?
Hoffman: If you want to stay with your figures which were discussed at €
last meeting, correct. At the last budget meeting.
Schroers: If we stay the way it's proposed right here, we're coming up
$17,000.00 over budget? ,
Hoffman: Correct.
Lash: Well how about if we just reduce the City Center fund, and phase II
that in over 3 years and do it like $8,000.00 a year or something. Chances
are they're not going to come up with any money for a couple years anywa
Andrews: I think that makes a lot of sense.
Hoffman: That would be one suggestion. Again, if you're going through lic
comments, I wanted to make sure that you_bounced around the issue of thell
$65,000.00 in lights at Lake Susan which is 45% of the budget. I asked
Jerry Ruegemer, the Recreation Supervisor to respond to that. Again, II there's many issues and essentially it should only be justified if the
commission does not feel that that $65,000.00 would be better spent
elsewhere in the city. If it could be spent better for more value to mor
people, then we essentially should not be making that recommendation. 8
again as I stated, it's a one time type of investment. You simply at so
point need to bite the bullet if you want to do it, and get it done.
However, as stated in my memo, summertime in Chanhassen, you obviously h E
many opportunities. During the winter, I take calls from residents who
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 32
ask, are there additional skating opportunities? Are there additional
winter recreation opportunities? Where is the sliding hill in Chanhassen?
We haven't had one to date but hopefully now Power Hill will fill that
bill. So as the Commission, it's your responsibility as well to weigh
these checks and balances of our annual budget. Once you lock up
' $65,000.00 for a year and we go out to bid for that project, we commit
ourselves.
Schroers: What was the response from Mr. Ruegemer in regard to the
importance of the lighting at Lake Susan?
Lash: There's a memo attached.
' Hoffman: There's a last memo on your packet. In it he talked about the
numbers of baseball players and that type of thing in the community. The
' survey, the preliminary results on the survey don't rate lights highly but
you would expect that simply because it's only a certain segment of the
community. If you're not interested in baseball or have no children in
baseball, you're not a softball player, you're not going to vote yes for
athletic lights. So in that vein, the survey which comes back would tell
you to put that money elsewhere. Potentially in trails or neighborhood
park development. Not in lights but you need to come up with that thought .
process and struggle through it.
Lash: For one thing, we can't put it into trails. For another thing, the
' survey also put Bandimere kind of low and so if people aren't going to votE
to support the development of Bandimere, we're going to have to find other
alternatives to provide ballfields and this is a way that we're going to bE
able to almost double the useage on this one field. So what else can we
do?
Schroers: Also, can that lighting be used for anything else? Can that
' lighting be used for skating in the wintertime? Could we develop an
additional skating area there where we could use those lights?
Hoffman: Not at Lake Susan. Not in regards to skating. The outfield
' contains irrigation in it so you'd kill the grass. At issue of multi-
purpose use, we may be able to use Lake Susan for some fall soccer under
the lights. That type of use but adult softball would not be scheduled.
r Koubsky: You know the idea of just a nice ballfield. It's a great
ballfield. We need night games. We need to fertilize it. It's not green
yet. It's irrigated.
Lash: You kind of sound like President Bush. Not green. You need to
fertilize.
Koubsky: For ballparks, it needs that lighting thing.
Schroers: I do agree. At the rate that Chanhassen is developing and we'rE
only at half of our target population right now, that ballfield is
something that's going to be more in demand as time goes on and as time
goes on, lighting it going to get more expensive as well as everything else
so I guess I think that we should stay with the lighting.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting '
August 25, 1992 - Page 33
II
Lash: I think we need to come up with that. I agree, we need to do that
but we need to come up with the money somewhere to put into our, what we
the two things we were lacking? The Scout.
Hoffman: Yeah, listed on page 26. Other Improvements continue to see
money. The Commission has found themselves in many circumstances where
they'd like to do a $600.00 project and have not laid away the funds to
that so a contingency of at least a few thousand dollars, upwards of
$5,000.00 would prove very beneficial as you work through the year.
I
Schroers: Okay. Well if you would be so kind as to run a couple of your
options by us and along with the one that Janet made in regard to reduci
the matching funds for City Center and we can make a decision on this.
Lash: Under Carver Beach, can we pitch a couple of picnic tables? Can
they come out of the ones we just specified tonight or from somewhere ell
Hoffman: I'd hate to cut any picnic tables. We're strapped. We move then
around the way it is. In regards to the $17,000.00 that you're high, ifil
you take that off of the 25, you're left with $8,000.00. But if you wan
to use a portion of that for spectator seating, additional bleachers, or
put aside $1,000.00 for a Boy Scout project or put a few thousand dollar
away for contingency, you're essentially going to wipe out any reserve f
City Center Park for those matching dollars. So again it's back to the
Commission to make that call which they feel is more appropriate.
Andrews: I have one comment to make and that's just that the pace of I
current commercial development in our city, I think we're going to see a
II
shot here of revenue next year. Higher than what we saw this year. So IT
not as nervous about being slightly more aggressive in '93 as I was in ' .
So I think we can put a little more into the budget than we originally were
targeting.
Schroers: Now are we talking for the matching funds was for 1993 or for '
the whole 5 years? Did we put that $25,000.00 in for 1993?
Lash: And then that was supposed to be it. Just $25,000.00 and then II
whenever they matched it, we would do it. Well, if we phased it in now and
say we put in $5,000.00 or $8,000.00 each year over a couple of years, b
the time they're ready to match it, we'd have it.
Schroers: I think that makes a lot of sense to me. That way we don't have
to re- manipulate the. 1
Lash: I hate to see that happen because I'd like to see that project get
finished. But I think that we discussed enough last time that we don't
think it's fair that we carry the entire burden and I really don't see tilt
the school district is going to be coming up with any money for that for a
few years and I think that's that...
II Schroers: I think if we go ahead and foot the bill or show good faith t t
we are willing to, they probably won't.
11
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 34
Lash: Well, and if we come up with $8,000.00 and they match with
$8,000.00, that's a phase 2 anyway so, isn't it? I mean don't we usually
do it in like about a $15,000.00?
Hoffman: Each of the remaining two phases were called out at the time of
' the initial installation at just over $20,000.00.
Lash: Don't you think they could be pared down?
1 Hoffman: Certainly.
Andrews: I'd like to try a, so we get this going here. I'd like to
recommend that we put $8,000.00 into the City Center fund for this season
and to plan on contributing an additional $8,000.00 for the next 2 years
after this current year. Then we put the $1,000.00 budget item line in the
Boy Scout. project. That we put an additional $4,000.00 in the Lake Susan
for ballfield improvements relating to the lighting. That could be, that
could include bleachers or other improvements that would be suitable for
night. Night use.
Koubsky: Any idea on a contingency fund? We have no contingency fund?
Andrews: Thank you. We have $1,000.00 in there now.
Lash: What do you think is an appropriate amount Todd?
1 Hoffman: For contingency? You'll spend $1,000.00 in one little strike.
Andrews.: I think we need to have that up at 5. $5,000.00.
Schroers: Did we need the $4,000.00 to compliment the lighting project at
Lake Susan?
1 Hoffman: As far as additional bleachers?
'
Schroers: Yeah.
Hoffman: Well, additional bleachers are requested by the Athletic
Association on an annual basis as their events grow. Whether those would
go at Lake Susan or Meadow Green or up at City Center Park, but again we've
been buying one or two sets of bleachers on an annual basis to meet the
need.
Schroers: Yeah I guess I was having trouble following Jim because it seemE
to me like you were coming up with more than that $25,000.00.
Andrews: Yes I am. That's exactly right. What I'm saying is that I feel
that we can exceed our original target. The only reason I think that way
is because of seeing the plans come in for the Target. For the other mall
that seem to be coming. I feel fairly comfortable with the fact.
Schroers: That we can exceed our overall budget?
1 Andrews: We're going to have more cashflow than we originally...
Park and Rec Commission Meeting ,
August 25, 1992 - Page 35
1
Lash: So our budget was supposed to be, we were supposed to try to stick
to $150,000.00.
Hoffman: Correct. And 1 tend to agree with Commissioner Andrews but I
would stick to the $150,000.00 recommendation. Target will come in. It
will match, if it does get approved, it will match similar funds, revenue"
to what the supermarket development was. Past that point, we don't have
anything right on the verge of being constructed. There's certainly many
proposals out there. I feel very comfortable with that figure. The num r
does come out of the City Manager's office and would not be at the
discretion of the Park Commission to arbitrarily change it at this point
without additional review. But again, if we do take in $25,000.00 more •
revenue than expected, that just goes into the back account and if we ar
at, as addressed in earlier presentations, we are at a low.
Schroers: Then we can spend it as we get it, not before we get it?
Hoffman: Correct. We are at low tide. We're at the cash on hand of
$225,000.00. Barely covering our reserves where 4 years ago we were at
high of cash on hand of over $600,000.00.
Schroers: I like what Jim is doing but I think we have to do it within the
$150,000.00 framework so if you just want to reword that Jim. 1
Lash: But we can't. If we take, if we started out at $167,000.00. We
take off $17,000.00 from City Center, that leaves $8,000.00 like we just
talked. Then we're at $150,000.00 so we don't have any then to put into 1
the contingency or the Boy Scouts or the tree farm or anything else. So
that means we've got to cut something somewhere else if we want to have
contingency fund. And Boy Scout projects. So we've got to go back to t
drawing board.
Erickson: We're looking for things to cut out of the '93 budget. Make 1
sure I'm on track here, right?
Schroers: Yep, the '93.
Erickson: I was the one who originally brought up Chanhassen Pond Park.
Repair the observation platform. You have $2,000.00 on that. Maybe we
could bump that to '94. My greatest concern with that is really a safet
issue, not so much making sure people can see the park. That's not a hi
priority item. It'd be something that we should either tear down that deck
or fix it. Maybe we can just have Boy Scouts tear it out of there. Or II
maintenance tear it out of there. Put the improvement for '94. Or maybe"
even '95 and then at that point build it. Build a new one. I don't hear
neighbors clamboring for an observation deck repaired at Chanhassen Pond
Park. Although 1 think somewhere down the road, maybe next year, the ye
after, if that would be a good idea.
Lash: But if it's a safety issue, it needs to be addressed. 1
Erickson: That at least has to be torn down which shouldn't cost us any
money. Maybe maintenance can go out there and tear it down.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 36
Lash: So you're comfortable with that?
1 Erickson: I'm comfortable or moving it onto '94.
Andrews: I have another item. I'm wondering under Lake Ann, we have
$10,500.00 for the trail loop. Over the last years, there have been a few
opportunities where that's been done under city hours rather than out of
the budget. Park budget. Is there any chance we could look to that area
1 for a little squeeze there?
Lash: What is a bituminous, what is that anyway?
' Hoffman: Bituminous trail loop. Is a trail loop which has been grubbed
out and cleared in this large treed section of the western edge of the
park. It's an unused portion of the park and to be able to get folks in
there to enjoy that portion of the park would be a nice amenity. Through
the ADA requirements, the comments you are seeing is that gravel, turf,
those types of trails really just don't cut it anymore in regards to
' accessibility. You should be looking to bituminous surfacing. However,
this has been tagged on and deleted over the past couple of years. It's
$10,500.00, which by the way is simply for material only. We will be doin,c
the installation so if we contracted that job out, it would cost us
$30,000.00.
Lash: This has been postponed several years but when I read this, I lookec
' at that too and guiltily thought well it can be postponed again but then I
thought maybe it was something connected with the new picnic shelter. That
it was something in that area that needed to be done.
1 Schroers: Yeah, what actual amenities would this trail serve? What would
it tend to do? It wouldn't tend to give people another easier access down
to the beach from the western parking lot. It wouldn't do anything but
1 provide a trail loop correct?
Hoffman: Correct, sure.
1 Schroers: And a pretty small loop.
Hoffman: Yeah. The square footage or the lineal feet is upstairs. It's
plotted on an aerial if anybody's interested in taking a look at it. But
we are somewhat deficient in our city in recreational trails and a place to
go and walk and that is what it would be providing. The woods there is
1 very...
•
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Schroers: ...It's where the gravel is now and you can go down to the west
end of the beach that way. Part of it.
' Hoffman: Part of it yeah but it meanders through the entire western edge
of the woods there. And again, trails have been specified in the,
potentially not this type of trail. They're looking for access to and from
'
their neighborhoods to parks and to the downtown but trails nevertheless
are rated extremely high. Higher than anything else in the survey.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 37
Schroers: Yeah, I'm just wondering how much a trail of that type and of
that length would actually get used. I mean how many people are going I
say drive out to the park so they can walk it. It probably wouldn't be
mile.
Hoffman: The entire two loops are close to a mile. '
Andrews: I agree with Larry. I just don't see it as a destination
activity.
1
Schroers: I think that a lot of people aren't even going to know it's
there.
1
Koubsky: Especially without mosquito control.
Erickson: I'm sorry, where's the loop again? '
Lash: It's up in the woods.
Erickson: In Lake Ann?
Schroers: In Lake Ann and west of the ballfields. It probably stays on
this side of the creek. Where the creek goes underneath the road and ovt
Erickson: It's that gravel path that goes from like one of the parking
ramps back to that sand volleyball thing?
Hoffman: It shows the entire thing. Why don't you just continue to
discuss it and I'll go get it. ,
Lash: What we need to do is look for a fairly big buck item that we're
willing to postpone in order to have these other things and there's only
two of them on here. One is that and the other one is Sunset Ridge play
area expansion 2. Phase 2.
Andrews: I don't think we can delete that. ,
Schroers: No, I don't think we should either. I really think that, you
know as much as I like trails, I like bicycling and walking and jogging c
all that but I think a one mile trail through that woods, very few peopl
are going to know about it. I think it's going to be used very little. I
really don't see that as an amenity. I don't see anybody saying oh, II they've got a new one mile paved trail down at Lake Ann. Let's go down
there and use it.
Andrews: They're not going to drive to that as a destination. '
Schroers: It doesn't go anywhere. It's a loop. A few people in
particular who jog around there or walk their dogs around there may use i'
but I don't see it as something that's going to be as attractive to the
city as a whole.
Berg: What was the rationale for proposing it in the first place? If tic
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 38
has been postponed 2 or 3 times. What was the rationale for having it on
there?
Lash: Well it's just a turf trail now.
' Schroers: Yeah, it's supposed to be kind of nature.
Lash: Didn't an Eagle Scout do it or something? Brush it out before or
' how did that get there?
Hoffman: No...
Berg: Why did someone sometime decide that $10,500.00 was a good idea to
spend on this?
' Erickson: The basic rationale is you get a giant piece of woods there,
let's go walk through it?
' Hoffman: Right...
Erickson: Just a big piece of land that we're not utilizing.
' Lash: So it was a nature trail and if people aren't using it now as a
nature trail, are they going to use it when it's paved? Probably not.
' Erickson: Oh, this is the existing one.
Schroers: Yeah, this is the existing one...
Erickson: I like this little trail here. I didn't know that that was all
parkland.
•
' Hoffman: You and everybody else.
Erickson: Yeah, and you may want to keep it that way. I think the trail's
' a good idea. If not this year. There's already a nice walk at Lake Ann
from Lake Ann, the swimming beach and everything over to Greenmeadow
Shores. There's a nice...
' Schroers: Todd, can we just straighten this out and run it around the lake
and hook up to the existing trail on the east side? I'll go for that.
' Koubsky: You'd have a hard time pulling that one out.
Lash: How do you access...where you get into it? Up at the top of the
' hill by the volleyball?
Schroers: No, just opposite of Field 2.
Hoffman: Two separate points for access there. Well actually three.
Lash: But it's off the parking area then?
Schroers: Right off the parking area in here.
1
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 -- Page 39
II
Koubsky: There's a little gate there.
Schroers: Yeah. You can access off of the shore down there. Coming up II
. from the beach...
Andrews: I'm ready to bail you guys out here. I've got the perfect ,
answer.
Schroers: Oh good. I'm glad somebody does.
I
Andrews: We'll take the whole entire budget and... My idea was to do
this. What Jan said is right. There's only a few logical targets here ,
that can really make any real difference to our budget. My proposal is
that we contribute $8,000.00 towards City Center this year, as I said
before. That we allocate $1,000.00 for the Eagle Scout and we take
$9,500.00 and put it in contingency which is a large amount for contingely
but I'm sure that we'll have needs come up next year, as Todd has stated,
that we could easily use that in wise ways later. And that would then
balance our budget.
II
Schroers: And eliminate the paving of the proposed.
Andrews: Leave the trail loop and change our contribution to City Center'
to $8,000.00 instead of $25,000.00.
Erickson: And the trail loop is just going to be forgotten about or move'
onto future?
Andrews: It'd be deferred.
II
Koubsky: Deferred indefinitely.
Andrews: That " s one of the reasons I love that contingency. They're II
fairly large is that, if there's an important issue, we've got a fairly
sizeable amount of money to do something with. ,
Schroers: And I do like the basic concept of this trail but I think that
that's really a...since it doesn't really go anywhere except around in a
circle. I just really don't see it being utilized by a large number of rik
people. If it was connecting something, it would be different but it's
so I guess I don't have a problem deferring it. I really think that that's
a luxury and not as much of a necessity.
Koubsky: As far now Randy too, it is grubbed out. You can go in there a d
walk around.
Erickson: You can walk it now? It's just not bituminous? II
Schroers: It's kind of like mountain bike trails now.
II
Lash: Well would it be like walking around Chan Pond Park?
Schroers: More dirt I think.
II
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 40
I
Hoffman: And did your recommendation include the deletion of the $2,000.00
on the repair of the platform?
Andrews: I did not. I feel that we cannot responsibly defer that.
' Schroers: Okay. So that is a motion. Do we have a second on that?
Koubsky: I'll second that.
Andrews moved, Koubsky seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that the City Council approve the 1993 Park Acquisition and
Development Capital Improvement Program amended as follows: To contribute
' $8,000.00 towards City Center for 1993 with an additional $8,000.00 for
each of the following two years, allocate $1,000.00 for Eagle Scout
projects, and put $9,500.00 into a contingency fund. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
FALL RECREATION PROGRAM SCHEDULE.
Lash: Chairman Schroers and Commission members. The fall recreation
program update which is quite exciting, will be brought to you by Jerry anc
Dawn.
Ruegemer: Like Todd said, in looking at our 1992 fall newsletter that did
I come out I feel is one of our most popular and most exciting newsletter in
recreation...to offer that our department has seen in a number of years.
There's the programs that effect virtually every age group in our city. We
do have programs for preschool kids, elementary kids, teens...and so forth.
The adult activities and then senior activities. 5o it appears that we are
touching every section of population in our city. What we're going to do
is briefly kind of go through each age category as it appears on the memo
I itself. If there's any questions going through the memo, just please feel
free to stop and ask away. I'd be more than happy to answer those for you.
Starting with our Chanhassen Kids Club. In the past we've talked to
I various groups in our district and it appeared to me that there was a need
for an after school program. This summer Dawn and I have both' talked about
it throughout the summer and...take the opportunity to act on that notion
and try to offer a program for after school. That after school program
' will be on Mondays and Fridays when school is in session. It would be...
That will be daily occurring from 3:30 to 5:30 to 6:00 is what we're
putting in... That would be at the elementary school...having the gym
I available for kids who'd like to play basketball or do other types of
activities in there. Different special events. We will be...occasionally
field trips and going to...so it will really be kind of a socialization
program verus traditional education...
Andrews: Is this a fee for service program or no charge program?
I Ruegemer: It is a fee. It's a self supporting program.
Lash: What is the fee, do you know?
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
II
Par p n g
August 25, 1992 - Page 41
II
Ruegemer: The fee, we can break it down per quarter...per quarter...which
is approximatley $200.00. With a 10% discount on the second child. For"
one child it's approximately $25.00 per week and for the second child is
approximately $22.50.
Schroers: Have you tested the waters to get some idea of how much
II
participation you may generate in this program?
Ruegemer: Just talking to different, Helen...over at Chan Elementary an�
other various groups, it sounds like they've been getting numerous reque s
for at least the past couple of years to...additional pressure put on them
to offer an after school type of a program. '
Lash: I think you are going to be swamped. Do you have a limit of how
many kids you can take?
Ruegemer: We're going to keep it somewhat smaller at first with a max o
30 kids. And keep a waiting list and wait for any additional requests
after that, we'll certainly add on the requests.
II
Lash: So it's going to be first come, first serve?
Ruegemer: Correct. II
Lash: Will you accept part time people? ,
Ruegemer: We had looked at a couple different ways of doing it. Either
the way we're going to be doing it is pay in full. For a full quarter at a
time. We also had explored the possibility of doing, the possibility of. �
10 day pass throughout the quarter which needs to be paid. Whatever...
to have a punch card. Where he can drop in whenever they choose to. We
also looked at doing a...weighing all the pros and cons, we decided to g
with, for at the present time to go with the straight fee, 5 days a week
Lash: So that would discourage part time?
Ruegemer: We don't want to discourage any interest by any means but thi
is the way we're going to try it right now. If there appears to be the
need, after doing maybe a drop -in or a punch card type of system, we'll II
certainly address that.
Lash: And then what facilities at the school are available for your use"
besides the gym?
•
Ruegemer: Basically the gym,
Lash: The big gym? I
Ruegemer: Right. We'll be meeting with Helen...Dawn and myself on Fridl
morning...
Lash: And then who is going to be supervising?
II
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 42
1
Ruegemer: It will be, we'll be having a site supervisor as well as a
' coordinator and we'll be keeping a ratio of 1 for 10.
Berg: I don't even know that it's necessary. Have you done any talking
with the daycare facilities in the area?
Ruegemer: As far as?
Berg: As far as the fact that they might be down a lot of kids in the
afternoon. That might have a financial impact on an awful lot of people.
Like I said, I don't even know if it's necessary to let them know but
I would imagine there's going to be quite a few people that would just as
soon leave their kid there. To go back to the daycare.
Hoffman: I can comment in that regard. The school district has been
looking at this to an extensive degree. Many, many school districts, in
fact I would classify most, do offer some type of a before school and after
school daycare typically through the community education department. In
our initial investigations, they did get some opposition from the private
daycare providers to providing that service through the governmental
agencies. However, the demand for it to happen on site, in the schools is
very, very high. Simply from the convenience standpoint and transportatior
and safety standpoint.
Erickson: Is this something like what they're doing in Jonathon? Are they
' doing it after school in Jonathon or in the morning?
Lash: They're doing it both I think. And then are you thinking of the
possibility of expanding it at some time to the morning?
Ruegemer: Again, in conversations with...this afternoon, we're going to
kind of cross that bridge when we come to... They weren't really planning
on coming up here... If our program is successful, the discussion today
was...
1 Berg: Have you done any talking with the Athletic Associations in terms of
useage of gym because I know that they were talking about trying to see
about gym accessibility like after school. Obviously that's going to wipte
' this out.
Ruegemer: Really the Athletic Associations up to this point really will be
in the evening hours with the basketball program. They would meet
typically from 6:00 or 6:30 until about 8:00 or 9:00. Currently the demane
has been... Did you have another sport besides basketball?
' Berg: I was thinking specifically of basketball. The meeting I was at the
other night, there was an incredible shortage of gym space and they were
talking about at least ask that of you and also Redmond.
11 Ruegemer: The age group that has primarily been in Chanhassen Elementary
is 1st grade through 4th grade and it appeared to be that that would be
suitable. Their needs would be accommodated this year with... We're going
to be combining programs with Chaska basketball association for the older
aged groups.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 43
Lash: Are we talking about high school kids?
Berg: No middle school kids specifically.
Ruegemer: Again that would be in the middle school...
Berg: It won't be the high school. Well, maybe at night but not very
often at night.
Hoffman: Jerry does act as the liason between the Chanhassen Athletic
Association and the city so he would not program to conflict that
association and he probably has some knowledge on the middle school but
would think the elementary school and the local athletic association woult
find it hard to give up space at the school for the middle school at the
elementary school site. Space is tight, there's no question.
Lash: I think it sounds great. I think you'll be flooded with calls.
Hoffman: The calls on this program, the day after the brochure came out"
exceeded by far any other program.
Lash: Are you already full?
Ruegemer: We are currently taking registration. Okay, then just
continuing on. There's a continuation of the summer trips that were
offered for our teens in our area. We will be coordinating, or Dawn wil
be coordinating the Jr. High jaunts as trips just operative to the middl
school kids and other area kids that are of that age or in that age
category, an opportunity to go on these trips. To socialize with their II
friends so the trips are listed in order right here. They would be
starting in September and concluding in December. We felt there was a neec
for teen programming...
Andrews: A comment. This comes directly from my wife, but I think it's
probably relevant to those who live in Chanhassen and are in the Minneto E
schools. It would be really appreciated if you're publicizing in Chaska
schools, I think you should publicize in Minnetonka schools that are
effected. I mean I know you're not hitting the target quite the same way
but I noticed a lot of the other events are planned on holiday days or
special days off during the school year are Chaska school days. They do t
match up with Minnetonka. A comment my wife made was, well how come we
can't, why can't we get our opportunity. I agree. I mean I pay taxes a
I feel like in a lot of cases I feel sort of like the Minnetonka school
district people are kind of ignored when'it comes to programming. There s
not the same effort given to communication and recruitment or generation f
enthusiasm.
Lemme: We'll definitely for the fall trips through the Jr. High will be
publicized in the Minnetonka Intermediate School.
Andrews: I'd appreciate it. Well if you put up flyers too.
Lemme: We plan on doing that. Putting out a flyer because we want to II
promote these as much as possible.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 44
1
Andrews: We have to and appreciate that, thanks.
' Lash: Do you feel that there would be a lot of kids in the Minnetonka
district who don't live in Chanhassen who would want to participate in
these?
1 Andrews: I think the kids would create interest and I'm not sure we can
accommodate that, and then we can't.
' Lash: That would be my fear.
' Andrews: But I still think you can't say well then let's not tell them
about it because that's not fair either.
Lash: But it's all in the paper. It's in the mailouts. It's in a lot of
' those things but if you send it home to all of the kids in the Minnetonka
district and then all of a sudden 1,000 call.
Andrews: You can just put up a notice in the school. That would be
helpful.
Lemme: They've been real good about accepting our flyers and that.
Andrews: I know it creates a confusing situation when you've got people
that are across city lines. I know like things are more publicized here it
Chanhassen Elementary than they ever were at Clear Springs or Groveland or
well I think Groveland's totally Minnetonka but I know Clear Springs was a
mixed district school.
' Schroers: Would it be distasteful to put on the brochure, even though it'4
in the Minnetonka School District, Chanhassen resident teens. Attention
Chanhassen resident teens and just kind of specify towards the people who
live in Chanhassen.
Andrews: I don't think that's distasteful at all. No, I don't think it is
' because I think it's being sponsored by Chanhassen Park and Rec to put
Chanhassen residents. That's who your target is.
' Lemme: Well we are also doing this in conjunction with Chaska Park and
Recreation too, although we are having two pick -up sites. One is at the
Chanhassen City Hall and one is at the Chaska Community Center. So
certainly we want to get these going. We want these to be successful. We
want to hit those junior high kids who don't have, and most of these trips
do not start right after school so hopefully it wouldn't be'a
transportation problem if they were a Minnetonka person coming to the City
' Hall to pick up the bus.
Andrews: There's a lot more of them up there now with all the Lundgren
development up there.
1 Hoffman: To address that, the Department has always had the same concerns.
We've not simply forgot about the Minnetonka folks. We struggle with that
situation. The first thing I did when I came here as a programmer was to
pin map where our participants are coming from and they came essentially
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 45 ,
from the Chaska school district. That did not however mean that we drop
off publicizing information in Minnetonka. We do so very well at the
elementary age level because Minnewashta and Excelsior elementary school
will allow you to distribute all flyers to those schools. Clear Springs
will not. They do not send a Wednesday or Tuesday packet. They will
simply allow you to put it up in the flyer rack at the front of the scholl.
So that is the deficiency. But now we are moving forward with the middle
school and the high school age folks that are up in that area and we shar
the Commissioner Andrews' feelings in that regard.
Andrews: Good. We appreciate it.
Lash: And then when is registration due for these things?
Lemme: I believe it's specified in the newsletter. If not, really up
until the trip is full. If 3 days before these trips are, I think
basically on Thursdays. If the trips are not full by I'd say Tuesday, we
probably would cancel but we'll take registrations up until. I
Ruegemer: Continuing on. Continuing the middle school, teen night out.
They were a very popular program last year and that will continue again
next year and we have 3 teen nights out planned at the present time. On
in October, one in December and one in January. So we'll continue those
with the same type of activities as last year with a guest DJ, concessions
available, prize give aways, dancing and gym activities, swimming. Thos
types of activities so it will be fun for the kids.
Lash: Are you coordinating, I know you were asked to help with the midd
school parties too. Did you get sucked into doing that?
Ruegemer: No, we didn't.
Lash: So are these kind of coordinated with the school parties so they'll
not?
Ruegemer: Yeah, we had to address those concerns before we planned the II
dates. I also tried to work around...school parties as well as sporting
events that it would conflict with. Try to keep them on neutral nights...
with our special events for the fall. We have Oktoberfest coming up
September 25th. That will be right here in the lower parking lot. That
will include live entertainment, Rotary Bingo, concessions by the Lion's,
hot air balloons display and also...our annual Halloween party. That wi
be on Friday night, October 30th over at the elementary school from 6:00 1Ic
8:00. Also, in December we'll be having breakfast with Santa...include on
here will be the tree lighting ceremony that Monday after. We'll be hay' c:
plenty of special events coming up here and it appears...
Lemme: The birthday bonanza's is a new self supporting program. We're
going to run these out at the Chanhassen Senior Center. Three different
options for parents, just a birthday option. We'll have three different
parties. They'll be supervised by an adult staff running approximately 45
minutes of activities and then the last 45 minutes will be present openi,
cake and ice cream and traditional party things. We will provide some
basic necessities. As I said, supervised activities and we hope that these
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 46
1
will be accepted. I know that I was gone last week but there were several
1 calls on those already.
Hoffman: Again, self supporting. If you note, I believe most of these, if
there's any exceptions that are non self supporting, all of these would be
self supporting.
Lash: That's a great idea too.
1 Andrews: I think it's exciting to see all these new programs. Lots of
ideas. I think it's really creative.
1 Lash: And it's the kind of things that people are just dying for.
Everybody hates to have those birthday parties at your house.
1 Hoffman: It fits the demographics of Chanhassen for sure.
Ruegemer: Yeah, we feel this will be very positive... Saturday youth oper
gym will be available from 1:00 to 4:00 in the afternoon... Again, our
mens 5 on 5 basketball will be starting...probably the third or fourth wee
in November. ...after Thanksgiving we start with games and then our seasor
1 ends in March. ...games and that will be played at the middle school and
the community center in Chaska. There's also an opportunity for Chanhasser
residents to participate in fall and winter volleyball... It's kind of a
spin off from our spring golf classes. We will be offering fall golf
1 lessons this year to try to accommodate the people that didn't have a
chance to participate in the spring golf lessons. As of today, they will
be starting next week. Next Tuesday and we have Tuesday classes will run.
' We have enough registrations...at the present time so there is interest in
also the fall golf lessons and they will be offered out at Swings... That
will be taught by a very experienced golf...
1 Lemme: A couple extra added special events. Just some one day, a couple
hour little things. The Halloween mask making and the my pale the pumpkin
which is just a chance for parents and their children to come and carve anc
decorate pumpkins. We'll also have some games and activities and some
snacks of course. And everyone will get a pumpkin for that. Jerry touchec
on the Halloween party and the hayride. Anything else you want to say
' about the hayride? A couple other new craft classes we're going to try.
Dabble, dibble and doodle and make it naturally. Make it naturally did not
have the description. That's actually a description for a class entitled
tumbleweeds and that's another parent taught class and we just, we ran a 3
1 year old class this summer called summer sensations and it was real
popular. It filled up and we thought, let's try...and make it naturally
and the descriptions not on there. It's a nature craft, arts and crafts
1 class and that goes for 6 weeks. ...exercise is also a fitness class
formerly titled rockin and rolling I believe from last year. We'll add a
few other things. They'll be talking on nutrition and other health topics
' and those are both going to be run by Chris Stone who's worked with the
Park and Rec Department previously, Tiny Tot Tours is for parents and
their preschoolers also to have an opportunity to visit some places. For
parents to have a chance to socialize with other parents that have
' preschoolers. And we've already received many registrations on the tiny
tot tours. So just trying to hit, as we said, and then there's also the
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
g
August 25, 1992 -- Page 47
Children's Workshop. The happy holiday crafts. Trying to get some special
craft projects going. As we said, just trying to hit on some of the II different age groups. The preschool age, the grade school ages. We're
also having, I don't know if that's listed, a microwave kids in the kitchen
class which will be kind of an addition to the kids in the kitchen that E
run this summer. And a lot of these craft classes and the cooking class
are being run right after school as well as an option for kids just to wa
over here to the Chan Elementary or the Chan Senior Center. They don't
have to bus to...and come back. They can just stick around. 1
Ruegemer: I don't know if you happened to notice this but our department
is currently now computer registration ready...but 95% of the programs h €
a program code on it. Either that being a Y or an A. That is separated my
youth and adult programs. We'll be...descriptions on the computer for eacF
class. When the registrations do come in, it can just be...into the
computer. A program is already set up and...other information that's
pertinent to our overall success with the program. And also with the
program with registration, we will be training the receptionist to take
those...and entered in on a daily basis...
Schroers: Very ambitious agenda and 1 think you guys deserve a lot of
credit for putting that all together, especially with the success we've
experienced in the past and the anticipated success with your new program
You guys have done a great job. Thanks a lot.
JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL, SEPTEMBER LAKE ANN PARK PICNIC AND
RECREATIONAL SHELTER.
Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and Commission members. The City Council
meeting ran late as well last evening. I was not able to address this w F
them. 1 will do that administratively and through members of the City
Council and the Mayor individually and then distribute information via m l
back to the commission members informing them of that chosen date for th
meeting.
Lash: That was supposed to be at the shelter anyway wasn't it? ,
Hoffman: Correct. It was supposed to be at the shelter in August but now
we'll look at the shelter in September.
Lash: What was the point of it anyway? Did we have a point other than we
were just going to meet at the shelter?
Hoffman: The Council wishes to meet with all the commissions on an annu
basis and that would be a chance to discuss mutual concerns.
Schroers: Okay, thanks Todd. 1
Lash: 5o you're saying we'll be having two meetings in September? '
Hoffman: Potentially would have two meetings in September if the Council
chooses a date other than the regularly scheduled commission meeting. W F
the lengths of your agendas lately, I would doubt we could, we'd have to
meet at 5:30 and get our joint meeting done and then come back to do the,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 48
reconvene and get the business of the Park Commission finished.
' Schroers: Okay, thanks.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: PARK NEEDS SURVEY, SUMMARIZE RESULTS.
Hoffman: The summary results of the park needs survey will be distributed
through the, I believe the September 3rd edition of the Chanhassen
' Villager. Question 1 as you recall dealt with the overall feeling of the
park and recreation department and how that meets the needs. Thankfully a
high percentage is satisfied or indifferent and those two comprised
approximately 750 of the results. Bandimere did take a negative response
from the development of Bandimere from the results of the survey. I think
it is as a result of the continuing tax revolt in our community and many
others that folks are not prepared to invest their money in additional
youth athletic complex in the city. You'll see again, this is simply a
summary. You'll see a detailed report which is, will includes specific
comments which approximately, what percentage replied with specific
comments? 40? 51% and then those respondents that indicated they would
like a personal phone call will be contacted by myself. In regard to the
ranking of the recreational facilities, trails were three fold above
anything else. Underneath that category, the preservation of natural lands
for future park use came in second. After that city center parks scored
very highly. Everything else ran an inconsistent basis and when the surve>
results are distributed to you in your next packet, you will notice that.
Looking on downward to the other issues which were addressed. Essentially
that was it for crucial information. Then we went into age respondents anc
those types of things and that's all broken out as well.
' Schroers: Good, thanks.
Hoffman: Additional administrative presentations would be the issue of
' mosquito control. That report was given to the City Council last night.
The length of discussion was minimal. Probably taking about a half hour of
last night's agenda. Dr. Shogren, who was never present at one of the
11 commission's meeting was there to speak on behalf of Mosquito Control. No
other representatives were there. That may be due to my comments in my
report to the Council that Mosquito Control showed up in force. I just
' stated that as a comment. I didn't say that was wrong of Mosquito Control
but they chose to be there single handedly as the director of Mosquito
control. Mr. Rivkin and Mr. Singer, who is the environmental person. I
don't know his technical title, for the Minneapolis Park Board was there aE
' well. Environmentally he deals with environmental concerns with the
Minneapolis Park Board. Council addressed this fairly directly and for the
most part really didn't like mosquito control but we don't know everything
about mosquito control so therefore it's better off not being there. They
concurred with many of the Commission's comments that you stand before me
and say it is safe. The label does not and when I see somebody cold
fogging and I'm jogging in my shorts and the guy is in a moon suit and
you're still telling me it's safe, I'm not sure that I quite believe that.
Dr. Shogren acknowledged the public outcry which is forthcoming and the
mounting concern over mosquito control. Did not deny that. However, a
' large portion of their budget is taken up by adult mosquito control or colt
fogging. So they're cutting back in that regard. They did discuss the
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 -- Page 49
encephalitis issue and again, I think the percentage is less than 1% of
their budget or approximately $181,000.00 is consumed on that encephalita
program. So again the concern and the hype about encephalitis control w
downplayed as well. The eventual action was to concur with the
recommendation by the Park Commission with much discussion centering on e
possibility of even extending that to larval control. Extending that to
not only city parks but throughout the entire city.
Schroers: Okay, and did they go along with the one year review process 11
the larvacide program?
Hoffman: Your review was put into a statement in concern with adulticid
but they were in favor of reviewing larvacides as well.
Schroers: I thought that our recommendation was to ban the adulticide a
review the larvacide program on a yearly basis.
Lash: No.
Erickson: No. 1
Lash: It was to continue the larvacide. To ban the adulticide and revill
the adulticides.
Schroers: Review the adulticide.
Lash: In one year. At the end of next season.
Schroers: How did I get confused on that. I made that motion didn't I? 11
Andrews: That's probably how you got confused.
Lash: I know I was confused. When I read the Minutes, I asked for it di
be repeated about three times.
Andrew=: Have you heard any feed back from our contractor on Lake Ann o
is there a scurry of activity now in anticipation of paying fines?
Hoffman: Unfortunately the letter Commissioner Andrews is referring to
in the packet. They are not scurrying around. I would anticipate that
we're going to butt heads on this issue. They from day one have requested
contract extensions. From day one 1 was convinced that this contract tim
period allowed more than ample time for this contract to be completed.
Have been disappointed since day one in their lack of progress. Was out
there, called a site visit between the contractor, our consultant on the
job, building department and myself on Monday and again they're plodding
along but certainly by no means attempting to get the project done by t h
28th. 1 will keep you updated on the events occuring after that.
Andrews: Did they post a bond on this project? Performance bond. 1
Hoffman: Correct.
Andrews: So we're protected.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 50
Hoffman: We're protected. We're also having problems with B &B
' Underground...company has requested no payments be made to them. That is
in regard to the utilities which were installed at Lake Ann. They have not
paid some of their contractors. I've informed the City Attorney of this
and so he's being kept abreast but you're dealing with low bid and in
contractors that deal with municipal contracts, you often have problems one
unfortunately we'll have to deal with those.
Berg: Is the issue of the irrigation problem at Lake Ann come up at
Council?
' Hoffman: Correct. That was approved by the City Council. That budget
amendment. I apologize to the Commission if I've not brought that news
back to you. They approved that sight unseen on a consent agenda with the
report in hand and the recommendation from the Commission. I've since met
' with the representatives who design these systems and that will be going tc
formal bid process sometime in the first part of September with
construction beginning in October. The project will most assuredly lay
open during the winter and be completed in the spring of 1993.
Lash: What kind of impact is that going to have on the playing fields
then?
' Hoffman: The 1993 we wrapped up and there would be some sodding which
would take place. But impact would be minimal,
Lash: When we were talking about mosquito control and I all of a sudden it
dawned on me that I supposed that can go under the contingency. I just
' don't want it to be overlooked that we did the talk of the bat houses and
swallow houses...to act on that so if we want to earmark some specifically
or just keep in the back of our minds that some of the contingency should
be for that or something.
' Hoffman: It was a part of the motion which was approved by the City
Council.
Schroers: I think it is nice also that the City Council, for the most
part, were consistent with the way we felt on that. We look a little more
' unified and together than mosquito control would have made us out to be.
Lash: I feel good about that too. That was such a difficult issue for us
and if Council would have not gone along with our recommendation it would
' have not looked good for us at all.
•
Koubsky: I don't know. We had opinions. We listened. I think it's an
issue that you talk to a lot of people and you're going to get different
opinions.
Schroers: Well anyway, let's get this in the budget and try to move
1
through.
Hoffman: Other items of interest in the administrative section, of
' particular interest would be the article on the abandoned rail line.
Bridges to be raised. The commission has addressed this previously. The
r
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
August 25, 1992 - Page 51
southern railroad corridor is being looked at by Hennepin Parks as a
regional rail corridor. Thus they would be the governing body doing the ll
development, regulation, etc., etc.. That is to our benefit certainly o
the financial side. It may not be to our benefit on the control side over
useage, etc.. Those types of things. Unfortunately, there's a letter i
there from Jerry Johnson of the DNR informing the city that we would note
funded for the aeration system which means we made a $4,000.00 investment
to run electricity down there and we don't be able to take advantage of
that in 1993. Winter of and we may be subject to winter kill. The two
letters from two Dave Tillman's and Mr. and Mrs. Patrick McGrath are off
beat of the issue of tree cutting at Carver Beach and if you see the notes
there from, to Mr. McGrath, he had some differing opinions on what
potentially should be his rights in that regard. Took offense to the
letter and those issues were addressed with him on the phone.
Schroers: Very good. Anything else?
1
Andrews moved, Berg seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Rec Coordinator
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
•
1
1 ^
1
1
1
1