1k. Minutes CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 8, 1992
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Workman, Councilman Mason, and
Councilwoman Oimler
MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Wing
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Scott
Harr, Paul Krauss and Todd Hoffman
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve
' the agenda with the following changes and additions: Moving item 2 prior to the
Consent Agenda; Mayor Chmiel wanted to discuss County Road 12 and Senior
Volunteers; Councilman Workman wanted to discuss animal control and tree escrows
for new homeowners. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
' PRESENTATION OF THE 1991 AUDIT REPORT, DELOITTE & TOUCHE, CLIFF HOFFMAN AND
KAREN VANNEY.
Cliff Hoffman presented some overheads outlining the City of Chanhassen's 1991
Audit Report to the City Council. Taping of the meeting begun during his
presentation.
Cliff Hoffman: ...save another $900,000.00 over a 5 year period. So the
feeling that the State is going to save a lot of money by a lot of states going
out of existence, I really don't buy that. Buy that people are willing to give
' up their community identity for that kind of money. So if there are any
questions on the overheads, at this point I'll turn it over to Karen. She'll go
through tfie financial statements but you've had a very good year. You've got
good people and the question you always want to ask is, are we better than we
were a year ago and the answer is yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
' Karen Vanney: The Council should have received their financial statements in
their packets. I will be referring to pages within those financial statements.
The first page I'd like you to turn is page 5 and Cliff said, this is the first
year that we've had a clean opinion at the City of Chanhassen. For once our
opinion fits on one page instead of two and that's because we had a Marshall and
Stevens, the city had Marshall and Stevens come in and inventory all their fixed
' stats, that were able to audit them and we could then provide a clean opinion.
Okay? Turn the page to page 7. One of the things to note on this page is that
your overall fund balance, if you go over to the right hand side of page 7 you
have totals there. And down at the bottom, your fund balances increased
approximately 5.5 million dollars. The majority of this increase is in cash and
in investments and that's very good. Your debt which is about a third of the
1
1
City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992
way up page has increased and this is because you have issued an additional 6.7
million in new bonds this year and you've made payments of 2.5 million in
principle. If you look at your liabilities, you had a sharp decrease in your
deposits. They went from $439,000.00 down to $52,000.00 and the reason for that
I being is that you had two CD's last year that got paid back to developers in
1991. Those were the main things we wanted to point out on page 7. On page 8
and 9 we go to the revenue statement. The second line down are your tax
increment revenues and they've increased primarily due to increased collections
I and we'd like to point out that those will continue to grow as your property
values increase. You go down to capital outlays, your capital outlay went down
significantly from $1.5 million down to $1.1 million. And the reason for that
I is because you, in 1991 they didn't do the sealcoating program on the streets
that they were going to. If you turn to page 10. We'd like to point out that
within the general fund, that the overall forecasting for revenues was very
conservative and this was good. You were only $20,000.00 off on your budgeting
I for revenues for the general fund. We'd also like to point out that the control
over your expenses was very good. You had budgeted $3 million in expenses and
you only spent $2.7 million which is very good in these times as many cities go
I over their budget. I'd also like to reiterate Cliff's statement on the
excellent interest earnings for 1991. Okay, let's turn to page 12 which is your
enterprise fund statement. Revenues and expenses. You still have a loss from
II operations but it's less than last year. There were rate increases implemented
in 1991. Your wet summer didn't help as evidenced in increase of the fees from
the MWCC which went up dramatically from $608,000. to $736,000.00. On page 13
we have the statement of cash flows for the enterprise fund and we'd like to
I point out that you are, you do have net cash provided from your operating
activities. Your loss in your enterprise fund is mainly due to your
depreciation which is a non cash item and it's very good that you do have
II positive cash flow there. If we go to page 21, I'd like you to look at the
investment footnote. I'd like to point out that all of your investments are in
credit risk categories 1 and 2, which is very good that you don't have any in .
I category 3 which is considered the highest risk for the investments. And the
last thing I'd like to point out is on page 35. This is your general fund
statement of revenues and I'd like you to look at your homestead agricultural
credit. The reason I'd like you to look at this is because these funds are the
II ones that are most at risk when the legislature meets in the next year because
these are the items that they will be talking about and looking to see if they
can cut. Okay, are there any questions?
II Mayor Chmiel: Does the Council have any questions?
Karen Vanney: Thank you.
II Cliff Hoffman: I'd like to briefly cover the management letter. The management
letter is the one that has 4 sections on the front. Sections I, 2, 3 and 4.
II The first two, pages 2 and 3, the key thing that you should get out of that is
that we found no conditions that we believe to be material weaknesses in
internal control. That statement is found on page 3, second to the last
I paragraph, last sentence. That's probably the most important sentence that's in
that broiler plate. We had some small comments on pages 4 and 5 as far as items
for the current year. And we've reviewed these with management at the city and
we believe that they're going to take aggressive action on curing those
II conditions. On page 6 we've got a couple of items that were repeated from last
1 2
II
City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992 II
year. Investments I touched on earlier. Watching that. You're doing very well
but that does require very close monitoring and Mr. Chaffee's doing that.
Councilman Workman: Back on page 4. The first one. The first observation on
that interest. Where did that go?
Cliff Hoffman: We made that adjustment last, in 1991 so we did record an
additional $60,000.00 in interest income for 1991. '
Councilman Workman: Which we had so how does that affect us this year?
Cliff Hoffman: This coming year what you should do is also accrue the interest. 1
So what would have happened, if we wouldn't have booked the entry as a fund
balance would have been understated by $60,000.00. This is just a reminder to
make sure that that kind of thing gets accrued in the future. '
Councilman Workman: So would that mean that potentially we found $60,000.00
that we didn't have in 1991? t
Cliff Hoffman: Well you would have had it in 1992. But it really belonged in
1991 is what we're saying because it was accrued or earned. So. Any other
•
questions on that item. On page 6, we have a comment regarding the receiveable
on the bowling center. You're well aware of that. You're following it very
closely and we know that management is on top of it. Page 7, I think is one of
the things that is important. The City of Chanhassen has followed good
conservative accounting policies and there's a lot of things that you've done
from a financial standpoint but you really need to think about putting those in
writing. City Councils come and go. Mangement comes and go. City Manager's
come and go and it's nice to have some kind of framework. Sorry, Mr. Ashworth.
The last point on page 8 is we're encouraging you to get the certificate. Less
than 1% of the governmental units have it nationally and we believe you have the
talent now and the foundation for going after that for next year. ,
Councilman Mason: What's the benefit to the City to get that?
Cliff Hoffman: A couple of things. There's a very detailed 50 page checklist t
that has to be completed and there's a lot of additional statistical information
that you have to put in your annual report and what it means is that you're not 11 doing the minimum. You're doing what's considered nationally the best from a
financial presentation. People at Moody's and Standard and Poors will tell you
that, in a public meeting they'll never say it will raise your bond ratings but
privately they tell you that's one of the things that they look for. Is that
gives them a lot more comfort. That there's a higher level that you're meeting.
You're not just doing the minimum. You're doing really what's a nationally
recognized standard and people know that it's only about 15; of the governmental
units in the country have it. If you're, if we could just have a little better,
a couple of dry summers and improve performance in the enterprise funds and now
you've got a clean opinion, you don't have any qualifications in the auditor's
opinion. You get the certificate. I believe those elements together will make
a different in what your bond ratings are going to be for the future. What your
debt costs are.
1
3 11
1
11 , City,Council Meeting - June 8, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: I was just asking Don. We're presently in a BAA1. With the
11 report as I'm seeing now, would this or could this put us into a bond rating for
an A?
' Cliff Hoffman: Could. Could.
Mayor Chmiel: Which means we could get better dollars?
Cliff Hoffman: All your trends are positive. I just wish we were doing better
in water and sewer. Hopefully, the meters are spinning out there this summer.
Mayor Chmiel: As long as we've got the 4%, we're still not running a deficit.
We're not too bad.
Cliff Hoffman: If you look at the trend in your general fund balance, there
really are no financial skeletons in the closet. There really aren't. Your
debt per capita is a big number but you're a young city. It's not any different
than building a new power plant. You know what that is. We received the full
cooperation of the staff and management and like I said earlier, you've had a
good year and it's important that every year you're a little better. I think
you've lived up to that challenge.
Mayor Chmiel: As we look at that Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in
Financing Report, as an observation you indicate there's a Certificate of
Achievement for Excellence and Financing Report is really good as you said. In
making your recommendation that we should review this and go ahead and do
different things. Get some statistical tables and letters and so on. What cost
would that be to the City to pull that information together?
Cliff Hoffman: That's a very good point. The city went from 45 full time
employees down to 42 and you're really stretching staff. I know the finance
department spent a lot of time and energy getting the fixed asset records
established. That was an effort on their part. And external costs, you're
maybe talking the first year, $2,000.00 - $3,000.00 and then nothing thereafter.
' Internal costs though, it's something that staff, I'd prefer them to volunteer
rather than necessarily that the Council would order them to do that. But I
believe they're willing to do that. So it does take a lot of time the first
year to come up with the statistical tables that you're talking about are 10
years worth of data. So it does take time and there's a very detailed
transmittal letter that has to be in the front of the city's annual report. It's
kind of like a State of the City letter and so staff would have to write that.
' And hopefully the Council and the Mayor would agree that it is the State of the
City in the front. But that usually is not a problem. Really what it does is
makes this a very professional document. When you go to Moody's and Standard
and Poors and when you sell your bonds, it just moves you into a different
league.
•
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? If not, thank you. At least it puts us in
' the position of knowing where we're at and we're better than last year. Of
course we have staff to commend for that. Those are the people who really deal
with this. We try to keep the dollars down but they implement some of those
thoughts as well. So thank you for providing this and I think it's an excellent
report, only because it does look good for the city.
4
City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992 II
Don Ashworth: If I may add. It has been a good year for the city but I think
our auditors have been a part of that success. They were with us in the entire
process of developing that fixed asset system. Converting it to local controls
and putting it into a format that again is recognized through capra. Secondly,
it has been a good year in that at the start of the year we were looking to
arbitrage payments of right around $400,000.00. As we've closed out the year
and continue to meet with Deloitte and have their help in that process, I think
we're darn close to $150,000.00 so there's been a significant savings that just,
they're not obvious to the Council and I wanted you to be aware that it has been
a good working relationship between Deloitte and the city.
Cliff Hoffman: Thank you. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks.
Councilwoman Dimler: Should we make comments too? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. If you'd like to make some comments, be my guest.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. I appreciated the comment that we shouldn't let the
State dictate our financial policies because obviously we're doing much better
than the State is. And I think that the suggestion to develop a formal
financial management policy to pass on to future Councils and staff is an
excellent idea and I would recommend that we implement that.
Mayor Chmiel: Thomas, did you have anything? 1
Councilman Workman: No. I knew that Mr. Mayor, you're doing a great job so.
Mayor Chmiel: Everybody deserves a pat on the back.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve
the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
a. Resolution *92 -65: Accept Utility Improvements in Kurvers Point 2nd 1
Addition, Project 91 -11.
b. Resolution *92 -66: Accept Street Improvements in Lake Susan Hills West 2nd
Addition, Project No. 89 -19.
c. Resolution *92 -67: Accept Utilities in Lake Susan Hills West 7th
Addition, Project 91 -9.
d. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Chapter 20 of the City Code Pertaining
to Mining and Earth Work, First and Second Reading. 1
e. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Require that Boats Moored in Front of Lake
Front parcels be Owned by and Registered in the name of the Lake Front
Property Owner, Final Reading.
f. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding Minimum Lot Sizes in the Rural Service
Areas, Final Reading.
5 1
1
City Cquncil Meeting - June 8, 1992
g. Approval of Temporary On -Sale Beer License, Fourth of July Celebration, July
3 and 4, 1992, Chanhassen Rotary Club.
h. Resolution 192 -68: Approve Change Order No. 1 to Lake Ann Park Picnic/
' Recreation Shelter, Project RA -110.
i. Water Obstacle Permit, Lake Minnewashta Ski Club, John Timberg.
II j. Resolution $92 -69: Resolution Establishing Fees for Hazardous Materials
Incident Response Costs.
1 k. Approval of Accounts.
i. Board of Equalization and Review Minutes dated May 11, 1992
' City Council Minutes dated May 18, 1992
Planning Commission Minutes dated May 20, 1992
Public Safety Commission Minutes dated May 14, 1992
II All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilwoman Dimler: Could I just make a comment on item (h)? I'm so glad to
I see that the price of the Lake Ann Park Shelter went down and that we're going
to get a better product and this is the kind of example that I like to see. It's
really great work.
II VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENST TO TETON LANE (LILAC LANE TO
II ASHTON COURT) AND LILAC LANE (TETON LANE TO CR 17); AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, PROJECT N0. 91 -4.
Public Present:
Name Address
II Richard Bloom Rep. Hilioway Corporation
Jim Fenning Hilioway Corporation
Dave Priem 6360 Teton Lane
I Frank & Florence Natole 6251 Teton Lane
Gordon & Joey Johnson 1275 Lilac Lane, Excelsior
Donna Pickard 1215 Lilac Lane
Joel Dressel City Engineer, City of Shorewood
Randy Karl 6391 Teton Lane
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Our project consultant
1 engineer, Mr. Bill Engelhardt is here tonight to give a presentation on the
feasibility report. Then I will close the staff presentation with a few
comments before we can open it up to the public.
II Mayor Chmiel: Very good.
II Bill Engelhardt: Your Honor, members of the Council. As Charles indicated,
this is the report on the feasibility study for Teton Lane and Lilac Lane. The
1 6
City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992
project area is from Ashton Court north to Lilac Lane. From Lilac Lane out to
County Road 17. The project, from an engineering standpoint, is feasible. We
have a detailed cost analysis for all the improvements. The improvements
involved, construction of sanitary sewer, the public right -of -way the roadway
from Ashton Court north to the new proposed subdivision and I'll try to get this
right, Ithilien subdivision. That new subdivision consists of, I believe it's
17 single family lots. This sanitary sewer would serve the new subdivision,
flows south to the Curry Farms development. The total project cost for sanitary
sewer is $13,798.00. The second portion of the project is construction of a
watermain along side the sanitary sewer. You would connect to the existing
watermain at Ashton Court and carry it north to the proposed new subdivision
roadway. The developer then would pick up the pipes at that point, carry it
throughout his subdivision and make a looped system back to Lilac Lane. It
would ultimately end up... The cost for the watermain is $14,681.00. As part
of the street construction, we have storm sewer construction. Storm sewer over
to Teton Lane is a cross culvert maintaining existing drainage patterns. The
major portion of the storm sewer is up at Lilac where we'd be picking up a
portion of Teton Lane that flows to the north at this intersection and then
carrying it down to the County Road ditch area where it will be discharged. The
storm sewer portion of the cost, total Teton Lane and Lilac Lane is roughly
$29,000.00. The major portion of the project is street construction. Right now
we have an existing 22 foot mat on Teton Lane and similar mat on Lilac Lane.
Lilac Lane, corporate boundaries run down the middle of it where the south half
is the city of Chanhassen and the north half is the city of Shorewood. We
contacted the city of Shorewood. From a staff standpoint, there's some
willingness to participate in the project. There has been no official word on
the participation by Shorewood. The roadway on Teton Lane is proposed to be
upgraded to city standards. The 31 feet back to back, concrete curb and gutter.
Full depth section pavement. Crushed rock and 4 1/2 inches of bituminous base.
Lilac Lane would be constructed in similar fashion. There would be some
regrading and reshaping of that area in order to improve the sight distances and
the access onto County Road 17 would be realigned to provide for a 90 degree
access out to County Road 17. We can do that within the right -of -way that is
presently existing. So that intersection would be substantially upgraded. The
total cost for the roadway of the street construction on Teton Lane is
$53,499.00 and the portion on Lilac Lane is $31,283.00. The total project cost,
including a 30% factor, $142,610.00. Again the street construction for
Teton Lane is $53,499.00. The Lilac Lane is $31,283.00. Teton Lane sanitary
sewer $13,798.00, watermain $14,681.00 and storm sewer construction is $5,640.00
on Teton and $23,699.00 on Lilac Lane. The original report as presented to the
City Council for their acceptance of the feasibility study had a method of
assessment or method of paying for the facilities. There was some discussion on
that particular method at the time. The original method we had looked at all
buildable lots and what the potential for units would be if all of the lots were
totally developed. You have fairly good sized lots along Teton Lane. This was
the original total available units where Mr. Johnson had 2, Mr. Donovan had 2,
Norwest Bank which is the Hilloway Corporation and the subdivision was 15,
Charles Pickard had 2, Leonard Ware had 3 and F.T. Natole had 2. That was based
on a 15,000 square foot lot with a 90 foot frontage would develop into that type
of units. We went back and looked at the second method of assessment.
Basically maintaining the philosophy on how to assess it but adjusting the units
to reflect present day conditions. The present day conditions, Gordon Johnson,
Donovan, Pickard, Ware and Natole units down to 1 and we picked up... What that
7
1
City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992
means, if you look at the street map. Properties along Teton would be assessed
II just for the existing dwelling that is on Teton. Donovan along Teton and the
Gordon Johnson. There is some question about whether Mr. Donovan owns this
piece of property or not. Our understanding that it's the Hilloway Corporation
II has it under purchase agreement. It just hasn't closed yet so we didn't study
it. The County Records show it as still being owned by Donovan but eventually
that will be owned by the Hilloway Corporation and those units will go against
that particular subdivision. If we look at dollars for financing the street
1 construction and what I call assessable costs, $72,595.00. The reason I call it
assessable costs is because the portion that's in Shorewood, which amounts to
about $15,000.00,.is not assessable. We can't cross lines and we can't assess
I in Shorewood. They would have to assess their property and return those
dollars. I left that in there as a project cost, basically as a GO cost for
this particular project. Looking at the assessment rate, we would be at, taking
II the 21 units and assessing it equally, we get $3,456.90 per unit for the street
construction. On storm sewer, maintain the policy of 50% of the storm sewer
costs coming out of the storm water fund. The assessable cost would be then
$12,838.16 or $611.00 per unit. What that means to the individual property
II owners is that Mr. Johnson would have a storm sewer and street assessment. The
Donovan property which exists today would have a storm sewer and street
assessment. The Hilloway Corporation would have storm sewer, street, watermain
I and sanitary sewer assessment. All of the sanitary sewer and watermain has been
agreed to be paid for by the developer. There will be no sanitary sewer or
watermain assessments to the individual property owners along Teton Lane. We
would leave services for those properties so that in the event that they would
II subdivide, that there would be a service provided and we would not have to dig
up the street. That cost would also be assumed by the developer.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Strictly stubs would be put in?
Bill Engelhardt: Strictly stubs, right. The Charles Pickard property would be
I street and storm sewer. The Natole property, street and storm sewer. The City
of Chanhassen would have storm sewer of $12,838.17 and then again what I call
the non - assessable cost would be the portion that's in Shorewood, that's
$15,859.67 which is made up of $12,000.00 street cost and a $3,600.00 storm
1 sewer cost. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. Go
through any portion of the report.
II Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone at this particular time that would
like to make a presentation to Council? Questions you may have?
1 Florence Natole: Charles was saying he wanted to talk before...
Charles Folch: I can certainly finish up if you'd like at this point in time
before the public speaks, if you'd like Mr. Mayor.
I FLorence Natole: That's what you were saying.
I Mayor Chmiel: That's alright. Why don't you just stay right there. It won't
take him that long.
Charles Folch: One of the key issues that came up at the last meeting when the
II Council received the report was a question concerning the need for the
1 8
1
City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992 II
improvement. As Bill explained in his presentation, the existing road is
substandard. It's a 22 foot wide rural section. It's construction previously
was approved with the intention that it would be served more of a temporary type
of facility if and when a future development would ever occur on the large 10
acre parcel on the west side. That future sewer and water installation would ,
tear up any of the road surface that would be there and render it unuseable. So
the road was constructed with a 2 inch mat over minimal Class V as Bill
explained. The City's current urban street standard is a 28 foot wide roadway
section with concrete curb and gutter. The design section consists of 12 inches
of Class V, 2 inches of bituminous base and an inch and a half of bituminous
wear. The existing road section is inadequate and again the major disruption
which would occur with the utility installation would make reconstruction really
the only logical improvement. The proposed subdivision will create 17 new homes
as Bill explained and therefore there's a need to provide adequate road capacity
and safety for the increased volume which will occur. There needs to improve
the road to city standard urban section and remove the barricade north of Ashton
Court. Concerning the barricade issue, I cannot speak for previous discussions
and Council decisions which I was not a part of, but in reviewing Council
Minutes it does appear that the barricade was installed, one of the primary
reasons was to separate two different and somewhat at that point in time,
incompatible land use areas. There was a desire of the Council to preserve the
open, rural atmosphere that was occuring north of Ashton Court. However, with
the Ithilien subdivision and the addition of 17 new homes, you're going to have
a neighborhood not unlike the neighborhood in Curry Farms and not unlike any
other neighborhood within the city. Therefore the separation or barrier between
the two is really no longer warranted. Costs for the project, as Bill had
mentioned is $142,610.00. Staff has gone through as Bill explained and revised
the assessment methodology that is consistent with previous assessment
methodologies used on recent trunk sewer and water improvement projects so as to
not to force large lots and small acreage hobby farm land owners off their
property when an improvement comes by. That did make a significant reduction to
the large lot property owners proposed assessment on the east side of Teton
Lane. There also is a potential for senior deferment. In accordance with State
Statute, the City has in the past accommodated senior deferments of special
assessments whereby an assessment could be deferred anywhere from 5 to 10 years
or until a death or change of property ownership were to occur. Certain
financial criteria have to be met to qualify for this program. These are
reviewed when applications are taken following the levying of the special
assessment. The existing road section that's there today was built by Centex
Homes as a part of the Curry Farms development. The City has incurred
considerable expense securing the road easements and will continue to expend
dollars to maintain the new street and storm sewer facilities. Staff is not
aware that any of the properties along Teton Lane north of Ashton Court have
ever.been or have ever paid a special assessment for street or storm sewer.
Therefore the assessment for this improvement seems appropriate. As Bill
mentioned, staff has had meetings with the staff of the city of Shorewood.
Shorewood staff did present this feasibility study to their City Council on
Monday, May 26th. Or on May 26th I should say. Local residents along Lilac
Lane were notified of the meeting, as I understand. The report was presented
for informational purposes only and no other action was requested. Shorewood
directed their City Engineer to provide review and input on the project plans so
as to address any Shorewood resident issues that may come up. At the close of ,
this public hearing, if there are no other outstanding relevant issues requiring
9
City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992
further investigation, it's staff recommendation that the feasibility study for
improvements to Teton Lane from Ashton Court north to Lilac Lane and Lilac Lane
from Teton lane east to County Road 17 be approved and that authorization be
given to prepare plans and specifications for the project.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks.
Florence Natole: Florence Natole, 6251 Teton Lane. First I have to ask Bill,
did you say you would cut us down to just one per person?
Bill Engelhardt: Right.
1 Florence Natole: Then my lovely write up here is a little bit different from
what I thought because the thing that we received, went and got I should say, a
' copy of the feasibility study and in there you had charged us more than that.
So we didn't feel that it was a study. We felt that it was a price list and a
plan for the four of us to pay for that plan and this upset us quite a bit. We
felt that if the builder's going to build and needs to do something with that
' road, he should be the one paying it. We couldn't see why, in our case, there
would be a $6,571.78 cost to us for a road which we do not need and we do not
want and now what will it be, $2,000.00 and something. That's still too much.
The way we look at it, the road should be left open. I'll give you this
afterwards with the figures being different. The road should not be open. It
should be left but what you should do is what should have been done and I'll
read that part of my report. The problem of the hazard blockade at Teton and
Ashton Court. This was a compromise made because Centex did not want to pay an
additional amount of $72,488.00 and also lose some building lots to build
another access road. Therefore Bill Boyt, who was then on the Council, made a
' suggestion that a, in quotes, "in many, many places, a break away barrier be
built as Christmas Lake had ". They closed that road many years ago and it has
never been open. They did not object to setting a precedent to please the
homeowners even though several houses at the west end were barred from it's use.
This was finally agreed to by the Chanhassen Council on March 24th, 1988. Break
away was used over and over again. However, on January 29th, 1990, two years
laters, when the barrier was put up, it was a blockade instead and despite many
objections over the years, it was never corrected by anyone in authority. Even
though two instances that might have been emergencies, nothing was done and as
recently as March 26, 1992 a letter was sent to Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
from Mark Liftin, the Fire Marshal about the barricade. When I called about
this I was told they made a wrong turn. This could have been serious but it
would be prudent to have all members of the Fire Department know where the fire
11 hydrants are located so this will not happen again. However, again, we were
told 4 years ago that any of the Chanhassen trucks could go through any barrier.
When this latest thing happened, someone should have checked up on this problem
and corrected it. One other thing which was not mentioned, I noticed he
' mentioned something about this but I didn't hear of a repayment. Several
persons were paid for their easements to Teton Lane when it was closed. Loris,
Reamer, Cameron, Wong and Carlson. A total of $14,070.00 was paid. Will these
persons have to return these monies if the road is open? Sounds logical to me.
I have a simple solution, and to you it won't be simple. You're an engineer.
But we were not sent any notice by the way of the Shorewood meeting so we
couldn't put any input into it. In fact we did not any of us receive a notice
that this meeting was being held but we don't let this stuff get very far past
10
City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992 II
us. So I have a simple solution. Replace the present blockade at Teton Lane
and Ashton Court with the break away barrier which was proposed so long ago.
Give Hilloway Corp the go ahead to build the homes proposed with whatever
upgrading must be done being paid for by the developer as it should be. After 4
years it's about time to put this issue to rest for all time. Now, I have a
P.S. here. We're called benefitted properties in that report. The benefitted
properties would not be to us or the Ithilien development. Those homeowners
would probably never use the south end of Teton on their side of the barrier.
It would be more feasible for them to exit to the left for the short distance to
Lilac Lane than right down to CR 17. They would not want to drive through the
entire Curry Farm development. The in quotes, "benefitted properties" would be
the 21 residents of Curry Farms that are mentioned in the original feasibility
study dated September 2, 1987. These people are not mentioned in the newest
study and we're sure if each of them were assessed $6,571.78 as we are going to
be, this room would not be large enough to hold the protesters. So that is what
I came up with and now maybe the prices are a little less but it's still not
fair. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? '
Donna Pickard: Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: Could you please come up to the podium and state your name and
your address please.
Donna Pickard: My name is Donna Pickard. I live at 1215 Lilac Lane. I made 11
copies of what I was going to talk about tonight. Is that helpful for you guys
to have that or not?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Donna Pickard: Do you want it now? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Donna Pickard: Also, I'm not a very good speaker so I think I'm just going to 1
read this, if that's okay. The first part of it is kind of a statement and some
of it will be saying some of the same things that Florence brought up. Also I
wasn't here for the very beginning. You're saying that the residents that were
once assessed per unit is now just going to be assessed kind of a flat rate of 1
unit? Is that my understanding? Per existing house on each lot. So my
original assessment of $6,571.78 will be half that? Is that my understanding? ,
Bill Engelhardt: It will go down from $6,000.00 down to roughly $4,000.00.
Donna Pickard: Okay. Okay first I have a question about how the benefitted ,
properties are defined. We are referred to in this study as benefitted
properties. We would like to know how that is defined and then explain to us
how we are benefitting. If the roads are upgraded, the development built and
the barricade removed, our traffic, and specifically our traffic because our
house is located at one neighbor explained as a pivot point where we get traffic
on both Teton and Lilac Lane. Our traffic will increase from 70 trips per day
to 450 trips per day. The taking of property will occur in the process of
11 1
i
City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992
II
widening Lilac Lane, the loss of mature trees and shurbery is bound to happen if
II Chanhassen can only widened on their side of Lilac Lane. It is unclear in the
feasibility study how the road will be widened. So in the future we can look
forward to a 542% increase in traffic, it's resulting noise and dangerous safety
I situations, lack of privacy, loss of property and probable loss of trees and
shurbery, all resulting in the disappearance of a nice quiet rural neighborhood
that we now enjoy walking and playing in with our children. In addition, we get
to pay for all of these "benefits ". My assessments I'm told now will equal
II probably around $4,000.00. To me it doesn't appear that we live on one of the
benefitted properties. It feels like we live on one of the penalized
properties. Who's benefitting? Obvious Ithilien is benefitting. They receive
I their urban roadway that can handle their increase traffic at reduced
assessments and no penalties. Chanhassen benefits. The barricade which has
been a subject of controversy will be removed and the issues resolved. The 210
additional trips per day from Curry Farms doesn't affect the new Ithilien
development so while the opening of the barricade is a real concern for the
existing neighborhood, Ithilien has divorced themselves from the issue. Their
stand seems to be let's build in this neighborhood but ignore everything that
I has ever happened here or will happen here as a result of our building. We are
grateful that the City Council doesn't agree with that philosophy and is working
on getting these issues resolved before approving the final plat. Curry Farms
residents receive a nice benefit. The report clearly states that 21 homes in
Curry Farms pretend to use Teton and Lilac Lanes for ingress and egress.
They've been wanting this for a while now but Teton Lane and Lilac Lane were
never built to handle their traffic and the city held to their original
II
agreement with the Lilac Lane neighborhood to keep the barricade. When Ithilien
moves in, the roads will be upgraded. The barricades removed and the access
open. All to be paid for by the benefitted properties. Aren't those 21 or so
II homes in Curry Farms benefitted properties? And if that is the case, why aren't
they assessed for the improvements? As a matter of fact, they benefit more than
we do and without getting penalized since they will be receiving a new and
improved way to access their homes at no cost. I can't believe that those of
us who have a road that works just fine for us, have to pay for a new road that
we don't need while those in Curry Farms who want this new road, feel like they
need this new road, won't pay a penny toward it's construction. Let's us
II honestly look at who the benefitters are. It is unfair to charge us for a road
that doesn't benefit us at all. It is unfair that the real benefitted
properties, Ithilien and Curry Farms get away with reduced assessments or no
II assessments at all. I have some other concerns that deal with the actual
construction of the road that to me wasn't addressed at all in the feasibility
study and maybe they have since been worked on. But if you can answer these. I
don't know how much detail you have about...for construction but how wide will
Teton Lane be and where are you going to take the width for that?
Charles Folch: If it's improved to a city standard, it would be a paved road
I section that's 28 feet wide paved with concrete curb and gutter and it would be
centered, typically it's centered on the right -of -way that we have which would
be proposed to be 50 feet wide.
II Donna Pickard: That's Teton?
Charles Folch: That's Teton.
1 12
City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992 II
Donna Pickard: How wide will Lilac Lane be and where are you going to take that
width?
Charles Folch: Lilac, we also have 50 feet of right -of -way but the combination
between the City of Shorewood and the City of Chanhassen is 50 feet of right-of-
way
on Lilac so we would do our best and we would have to probably do a
transition just north of the intersection with Teton but then for the rest of
the remaining segment down to CR 17 but likely be centered on the right -of -way.
However, in order to get the right angle intersection at CR 17, as we get closer
to CR 17, we're probably going to have to shift to one side of the right -of -way
in order to form the curve to make a right angle intersection.
Donna Pickard: Just on our side?
Charles Folch: Likely on the south side. ,
Donna Pickard: Is there a map that shows that? I mean has that been drawn out
so I know what I stand to lose as far as property or trees? We have quite a few
trees there and I guess I just feel real insecure not knowing how much is going
to be taken.
Charles Folch: As far as property goes, the road is proposed to be constructed
within existing right -of -way so there'd be no property loss from that
perspective to you.
Donna Pickard: Okay property but even on the right -of -way there's quite a bit
of mature vegetation there. So that potentially, since it's on Chanhassen
right -of -way can just get?
Charles Folch: No, one of the things we will do as we get into the detailed
design, if we get into the detailed design segment, is to look at exactly what
the significant trees are there and we would, as we have on other projects such
as Minnewashta Parkway, when we had no choice but to remove vegetation, trees,
etc., we will propose a tree replacement plan. But that level of detail comes
out in detail design.
Donna Pickard: Are the residents notified each step of the way in the design
process? Or are we notified like we were tonight? You've got to look in the
Villager. ,
Charles Folch: Well, I have to apologize. There may have been an error in the
mailing list while I was out of the office the week before last and it appears
that maybe some of the residents weren't notified. I apologize for that.
Gonna Pickard: Was anybody notifed?
Resident: Yes.
Donna Pickard: Some people were notified? '
Charles Folch: But I apologize if there was a mix up in the notifications that
were sent out. At any rate, it's our intent to maintain open communication
through the project. It's likely that we would have probably a neighborhood
13 ,
i
II , City, Council Meeting - June 8, 1992
meeting as we get into the design process which would allow you to have some
review and input as to what's actually occurring out there and again, the
design, plans and specifications would be brought back to Council for approval
which you would have input at that time again in a similar situation as we're
here tonight.
Donna Pickard: Okay. Have you considered what the transition is going to be
like between the new Lilac Lane and the old Lilac Lane? Because it's a straight
road now and you're contemplating upgrading just a small part of it.
Charles Folch: Yeah we would, as I mentioned, start the transition probably
just west of Teton Lane and then carry the new section down CR 17.
Donna Pickard: Okay, but is there going to be like a curb there? I mean I just
want to make sure that, especially people in Shorewood might be aware that.
Charles Folch: There will be a curve as you get to the intersection with CR 17.
We want to try to shift it down to get more of a right angle intersection.
Donna Pickard: No I mean up on Lilac. I mean you're saying you're putting in
curb and gutter. I don't know, I guess I'm having trouble visualizing what
that's going to look like with an old tiny road and then a nice, big wide new
road.
Charles Folch: Well we will have to taper back with the curb section back to a
non -curb or rural section. There will be a transition through there. It likely
won't be a curve per se. It would probably be more of a gradual taper. It's
not going to be a sharp curve or anything like that.
Donna Pickard: Okay. Some of these things I just want to make sure you're
thinking about because it's going to affect what the neighborhood feels like and
I don't know if I want to feel like you're isolating part of the neighborhood in
order to facilitate traffic from houses that aren't even in the neighborhood.
And also you kind of got into this improving intersection geometrics at CR 17
and Lilac Lane. You were saying that you were going to take the road and kind
of tilt it in at more of a right angle?
Charles Folch: To improve sight lines, yes. Shorewood has received some
complaints in the past concerning both sight lines at that intersection and also
the steepness of the grade coming down with there not being a landing area,
particularly in winter time conditions. If the road have ice or snow and things
' like that. A few residents have filed letters with the City of Shorewood
concerning that issue.
Donna Pickard: Okay. Has any details been talked about as far as grading of
the road? I mean I know you just brought it up a little bit. We're right, I
don't know if you've ever been there? Because our house comes down and there's
a pretty big slope and then the road's straight and then especially west of us,
it drops down again. If you're bringing it down harder, then there's going to
be a lot of issues that you'd have to deal with, especially the landscaping on
our property. If it needs to be landscaped, is that something that's going to
be tacked onto the assessments for the neighborhood? Because there's going to
be grading that's going to be done and either landscaping or retaining walls or
' 14
11
City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992 11
as I said in my letter, erosion which is what happened on Teton Lane. They came
and just graded it and they didn't build anything, they didn't plant anything
there and it just kind of has been washing down. I mean now there's weeds there
so.
Charles Folch: As we would get into the design phase, Bill and his staff will
work with a number of profiles and then evaluate cross sections and try to find
a balance or happy median between the lower side to the north and your much 11 higher property to the south. Certainly we haven't defined exactly what the
impact is going to be as far as tree replacement and things like that but rough
numbers, as far as cost associated with replacement and grading, etc. have been
estimated in the cost that's been presented tonight. So there would not be any
additional costs. That's not been missed I guess I should say. That's not been
missed from the estimate.
Mayor Chmiel: Charles, maybe I can make a suggestion. In the event that it
gets pretty hard to visualize what's happening, it might behoove the staff to
come out to the site with Mrs. Pickard and show her exactly what you're talking
about. I think that way you can visually see and probably try to understand
that a little bit more. I know that oftentimes we sit here too and try to
remember exactly what you're saying. Where it's going to be presents a problem.
So maybe you can sit with or make an appointment with Mrs. Pickard and talk
about that.
Charles Folch: You bet, we can certainly do that. ,
Mayor Chmiel: The additional thing that I see too is that if these hearing
notices were not sent out, I think it would not constitute the public hearing
this evening. We're going to have to continue this public hearing until the
next Council meeting because legally, technically they should have been sent out
and somehow it just fell between the cracks. That's something that must be
done. 1
Charles Folch: Absolutely.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm sorry, Mrs. Pickard, do you have anything more? Would that '
be workable with you to have staff come out?
Donna Pickard: I would love to have more communication from staff. That'd be
wonderful. Along with what you just said, I hope that there is proper and
regular communication with the City of Shorewood on this subject and also with
it's residents. I think everyone, not everyone. All the residents along the
street in Shorewood should be sent all these notices too. Because although they
don't live in Chanhassen it directly affects them.
Mayor Chmiel: We have no authority to really send it out to the city of ,
Shorewood people. •
Donna Pickard: Pardon? 1
Mayor Chmiel: We have no authority to send it out to the city, people within
Shorewood. 1
15 t
II , City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992
Donna Pickard: Even a decision that will directly affect what's happening to
them?
Mayor Chmiel: Right. I still have some questions about Shorewood too.
Donna Pickard: Okay, that's interesting. And also I want to make sure that
there's an agreement, I don't know what you call it. An agreement and an
understanding or a contract as to who maintains these roads. I mean who's going
to plow them. Who's going to clean out the sewers. Repair them. You know fill
in the potholes.
Mayor Chmiel: I think as far as that road is concerned, it will probably be
Shorewood's responsibility to plow. The other maintenance as far as with the
sewers or water, that would be still our responsibility.
Gonna Pickard: That would be your responsibility to come and do, okay. I just
wanted to make sure that that kind of stuff was being done because it seems to
11 me before you, well one of the things you said at the last meeting, I think it
was the May 18th meeting, that you felt like this project was contingent upon
Shorewood approval so I would hope that they would get all the information so
that they can make an informed decision. Also at the last meeting you brought
' up the issue of speed control. While I know that speed bumps are not possible,
one idea that I had, I don't know what the policy is on putting up stop signs
but to put up a stop sign at what would be the newly formed intersection of
1 Teton Lane and the road that enters into Ithilien. That's about the halfway
mark between Ashton Court and Lilac Lane. To me that might be a good solution
to solve what is going to be an inevitable problem. Because a long, nice
' straight speedway with no driveways coming in, people are going to go real fast.
Anyways, thank you for your time and thank you for listening.
Joel Dressel: Mr. Mayor, my name is Joel Gressel. I'm the City Engineer from
' the City of Shorewood. I thought it was an appropriate time to jump in here.
From a staff standpoint, we do have several items of concerns, mostly revolving
around the geometrics of it, none of which I think are insurmountable but we
would like to have some input in the plan stage. She's also alluded to another
item of concern for us is to, who would be handling the maintenance. Would that
be a City of Chanhassen, a City of Shorewood, some combination of the two or
something like that. Those are the two major items that the City has a concern
with and we would appreciate notifying our residents for further input. From
Shorewood as the project progresses.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Richard Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. I'm
' Richard Bloom. I represent Hilloway Corporation, the developer of the proposed
Ithilien subdivision. First of all I'd like to thank Mr. Engelhardt and
Mr. Folch for the cooperation that's been extended to us. We've met with both
of them on several occasions relative to this whole project and they've been
very helpful and I think they've made their best effort to be fair in these
matters. I understand that arguing about who pays for it always get
controversial and I think they've tried to do their level best. I guess what
I might do is really make two comments really relative to the report and I guess
at that point I'd also like to offer an alternate that we would like to suggest
' 16
City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992 11
that you might want to give some consideration to. I guess the first comment
is, if you look at the project itself, it's really kind of a catch bag of things
that are being thrown in here in terms of what's being proposed for
improvements. You've got Lilac upgrading. You've got Lilac storm. You've got
Teton upgrading. You've got Teton storm and Teton sewer and water. The theory
is then, the way that assessments incidentally were handled, they were kind of
all lumped in the pot and then there was to kind of figure out how that would be
spread. I guess our concern is, especially as it relates to the Lilac storm
sewer and really for that matter the Teton storm sewer. When we designed our
subdivision, we were required to look at the drainage area within our
subdivision which is greater than our 9 acres incidentally, and we did provide
the pond...etc and all the wetland designs, which we laid out to handle that
whole area. As best we can tell in looking at the topography very carefully and
going out Friday afternoon and actually looking at the property again,.1 don't
believe that our property drains to the Lilac storm sewer at all. It was
thought that maybe the north end of our subdivision does but you've got Gordon
Johnson's property between us and where the storm sewer is proposed and it's
still going uphill. I think the north end of our property actually drains
across the street or across Lilac to the north and into Shorewood. The balance
of Teton, where the break point is from drainage really draining into our
subdivision, also the storm sewer proposed into Teton is draining really the
Ware property into our property. So I guess what we're saying is that from our,
from the storm drainage perspective, we feel like we're more than adequate
accommodating what's draining into our property and frankly that is being added
into, winds up being our portion of the cost for something that we don't
contribute any water to. Secondly, I would guess I would reiterate the comments
of Mrs. Pickard and Mrs. Natole earlier. I know the whole Teton barricade issue
has been very controversial. I guess we really take no position on that issue
one way or the other but the fact is, if the barricade is removed, there's going
to be considerable improved access provided to Curry Farms. Now we are being
asked to pay our prorata share of the roadways in this area. Primarily due to
the fact that even though we don't front on some of these roadways, i.e. Lilac,
we'll have our homes will drive down there eventually and we get an access
benefit. Well, if that's true, Curry Farms gets an equal access benefit for,
and I understand why you were not proposing to assess them because of the
controversy associated with that. I guess what we would suggest, and we would
be willing to maybe I guess throw out kind of a compromise that we would be
willing to do. And really the original sewer and water that we had proposed out 11 of the right -of -way, we did that at the time thinking we were going to go on
with a private job. Do this ourselves. Not affect the neighbors but then it's
kind of grown as we've gotten into the process with the feasibility and that's,
in other words the scope of the project has gotten a lot bigger than what we
originally anticipated. What we would be willing to do is to install the sewer
and the water coming up Teton, as is shown in the report. What we would also
work on upgrading Teton Lane along the length of the whole up to Lilac Lane.
Beyond, in other words our property. We would ask however that in exchange for
that upgrading, that we be given credit against our trunk sewer and water. We
actually feel that the sewer and water that's being proposed in Teton Lane is
not really a lateral to us at all. It will become a lateral once we install it
in our street and hook our houses up to it but really the piece that's being
installed into Teton Lane is really a trunk line that's coming up to our
subdivision. We will then in turn extend it into ours and then serve our 17
homes off of our internal lateral. So I guess what, and we would also ask that
17 '
City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992
II
some consideration be given to, and this would be subject obviously or
concurrence by Mr. Engelhardt and Mr. Folch, is we're not still yet convinced
that Teton Lane itself necessarily has to be torn up. The proposal is that it's
a 2 inch mat and a minimal sub base under it and therefore the substandard
should be torn out and replaced. Well, there might be possibly by increasing
pavement thicknesses or something like that, there might be an equivalent way to
give you the 9 ton or 7 ton load limit that you want on your road without
necessarily having to tear out the whole road. We would still propose curb and
' gutter along both sides and in effect then the widening would occur on our side
of the road, lessening then that you have a possible impact against the Natole
property. They've been very concerned about their trees in their front yard.
' This proposal will potentially would have minimal impact on them other than the
fact that curb and gutter be installed along their side of the road. Under our
solution then, what we would propose then is sewer and water that we would
build. We get credit for that but the city however could still gain those units
back for the credits you've given us by, if and when they're property ever is
subdivided. At that point you could collect a hook up fee so the credits you've
granted us, you could recover that back at such time as the adjacent people were
1 to subdivide. The advantage in what I'm suggesting here this evening is that
you don't have to assess now and then possibly defer under the senior deferment
or something like that because it still accrues interest, bear in mind even
though it's deferred. You could defer the matter until such time as they were
to ever subdivide. If they were to stay in their home and use it as it's
presently being used today. There would be no impact on them whatsoever. With
the one caveat I guess we would ask is that the Teton storm, that some
consideration be given to that. I guess we feel that we're the receiving end of
that little pipe that's coming across and that we would not be willing to build
that portion and we'll work with your staff maybe on solving that problem. But
it's really an overflow from adjacent properties onto ours. I guess as far as
the Lilac Lane improvements then, what we would strongly recommend you might
want to consider is the costly item in that project, for Lilac now I'm speaking,
is really that storm sewer that's being proposed in there which would be on the
south side of the road as I understand it. What we're thinking is, possibly by
rebuilding Teton or repaving Teton, we might be able to shift the drainage point
farther north such that we can divert more of Teton's water coming our way to
' lessen the water that's going to go down the street and around the corner. And
if we could do that, what we might suggest that you might want to consider. Now
I know this may not be a perfect solution but it would be I think a workable
1 one, is if you had some catch basins down at the bottom. Maybe several in a row
because of the water velocity. Where you could intercept that water coming down
Lilac Lane and then just have a pipe going underneath the road. That would take
out a pretty costly item in storm sewer then running that up the street. Having
said that then, if you look at the city's portion of what they were proposing to
contribute towards this entire project, frankly the city would probably, almost
have enough money to build the road with a reduced storm sewer and it might be
' fairly much of a wash. It would then have no effect on the city of Shorewood
people and it more or less stays the same. So I guess we would throw that out
as a possible alternate and also note that objections that we did make. Thank
I you.
Frank Natole: One question. What are you going to do with the storm drain that
is in front of my house now?
1 18
City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992
Richard Bloom: Well there'd be no change to that I guess is what we're saying
Mr. Natole. If that drain is currently there, it remains. If it's currently
draining our way, it would continue to drain that way and we would not propose
interfering with that one way or the other.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, maybe Charles, maybe you could give us a little insight.
Some of these things seem logical. I wonder if you could make comment on it. ,
Charles Folch: Sure. As far as the recon issue, as mentioned in my
presentation in the staff report, we are going to disrupt a significant portion
of the existing pavement that's there when the sewer and water would be
installed. There would also be curb and gutter that's going to be installed
along both sides of the roadway. In effect, if you went with an overlay type
situation, you're going to have, we could piecemeal it in that way but you're
going to have differential behavior of the pavement. Each pavement section
there. We also took a look at what would have to be the pavement thickness in
order to do just an overlay type situation and that amounts to basically an
additional 3 inch overlay. About 3 1/2 I believe it is above and beyond what's
there existing. I believe Al had the cost numbers, comparison between the two
but again as I mentioned before, the amount of pavement that would be saved
after we're done constructing utilities and putting in curb and gutter is going
to be minimal and in my experience with the type of settling and froze action we
have in our Chan soils, that you're much better off designing one uniform
consistent roadway section. As it relates to the storm sewer issue, it is an
interesting idea to try and move the high point along Teton Lane farther to the
north to eliminate or reduce as much drainage going to Lilac as possible.
However the high point in Teton Lane, in that segment of Teton Lane is about at
the midpoint or just south of the midpoint along that distance. The drop if you
will in elevation between the high point and the intersection at Lilac is 7
feet. That's going to be very difficult to try and bring 7 feet down in an
overlay type situation. Or even in reconstruction. Reconstruction would make
it more feasible to try and move that high point but we certainly couldn't move
the high point anywhere near that intersection. There's just too much drop. As
far as the utilities go, neither the sewer nor the water would qualify as trunk
lines. Based on their size, based on the type and number of connections that
are going into them. They're not trunk lines. They're local lateral lines and
should be installed and constructed as such.
Bill Engelhardt: We've been involved in Teton Lane for about 6 years I think
here. Going way back to the original study. There's a right way and a wrong
way of doing this job. What we've got proposed to you is the right way. I 1
disagree with what they're talking about in a storm sewer. Trying to move the
high point. We don't contribute to storm sewer. I disagree with that totally.
They are responsible for part of that storm sewer and they should pay their 11 share. In light of the fact that the city is even picking up half of the storm
sewer, for the developer to say that they're not responsible for any of that
storm sewer is ludicrous. We've tried to take the cost of this project and
divide it evenly. The property's on the east side of Teton Lane, Natole, Ware,
and Pickard are both very large properties. Originally as it was mentioned
earlier, the reason for the barricade was try to separate the rural area from
the developed area. Under the original, back in 1987 report, the Donovan
property was never going to be developed. It was in a 100 year trust. It was
never going to be developed. I think if you don't look at this project as
19
1
II 'City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992
I upgrading the roadway to city standards, upgrading the sewer and water in the
proper manner, putting in the right -of -way, taking care of your storm sewer,
you're going to be asking for problems down the road and we're going to be right
back here again looking at another alternative to try and fix the problem.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Is there anyone else?
I Randy Karl: I'm Randy Karl, 6391 Teton Lane. I don't know what you folks here
are going to decide on this. I would recommend that if you do decide to open up
the barricade on Teton Lane, that we try to do it as soon as possible. I think
you were made aware of one of our neighbors the other day that had a medical
I
situation and the ambulance got on the wrong side and the Sheriff had to go out
and get him and stuff and that could have been disastrous if his wife had not
had some medication to attend him. I believe the Pickards talked about putting
II a stop sign at this new street and being a resident up here, I know I don't like
to stop at a lot of stop signs but I think in the interest of public safety, it
might be prudent to consider putting stop signs at the corner of Ashton Court
II and the other street. That would definitely discourage a lot of that speed
being picked up there on that road and maybe cut down on some of the commuting
but at the same time it would help with the public safety issues of school buses
that now have to turn around at the corner of Teton and Bretton Way. I've got a
I lot of little kids starting to grow up, going to kindergarten, first grade and
stuff up there so that's a real safety concern with school buses and has been.
They're very careful and we haven't had any incidents but we also have had a
II number of incidents, now I think 2 or 3 where safety vehicles, either fire or
ambulances have, for whatever reason, got on the wrong side of the barricade.
I would hate for that to happen to any of the folks on either side if they were
II responding from Chanhassen and for some reason came up through our area and
couldn't get across. That could happen to anybody. We've been lucky so far.
So as you consider this, I'd recommend since the break away barricade that was
agreed to a number of years ago wasn't executed, and if the road is going to be
II opened up, that you consider removing the barricade as soon as possible and
maybe attending to some stop signs and stuff to keep the traffic slowed down
through that area so that it can be safe for everybody and enjoyable. Thank
II you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Randy. Yes.
II Richard Bloom: Maybe if I could just comment or clarify. As far as Teton Lane
and what we're proposing, I meant to say we want to explore the idea of this
overlay idea. Now if we find that in fact, and frankly it sounds like it may
II not be worth doing because the extra pavement. You might be better off just
tear it out. We are very willing to do that. Now our credit request as far as
the trunk sewer and water goes, I guess we still do feel that that particular
line and we have no lateral benefit off of it so it really is not a lateral line
to us. It is trunk. I understand what Mr. Folch is saying but we're also
talking about building a piece of roadway that doesn't abut our property and
we're doing so in the interest frankly of hopefully resolving many of the
il problems that you have out here. Perhaps not all of them but what we're
offering is really there would be no assessment at the present time at all to
the existing neighborhood. Other than with the possible exception of the one
II drainage coming underneath the overflow coming across Teton. That issue I think
we still have to resolve but I think that we were not, and also shifting that
20
II
City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992 II
high point, if we can, we'll shift it, we think we can move it slightly to the
north, especially if we now rebuild the whole road. We might be able to help at
least improve that to some extent. I wouldn't suggest for a minute we could put
it all the way down to the corner either. That's quite a drop and we understand
that too. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? I know I had some concerns about the safety aspect
of it too and I asked Mr. Harr to have someone from our Fire Department come
down and maybe we could just address that issue of that. 1
Scott Harr: Mr. Mayor and City Council. The public safety department has been
involved with discussions regarding this issue with the City Engineer and City
Planner, with the Fire Chiefs, the Fire Board and our entire department and our
position is that the fact that we have had two incidents involving problems,
once with a fire engine and more recently with an ambulance, indicates that in
our opinion the barricade does need to come down. Fire Marshal Mark Liftin is
here to address any other specific questions. Positions have been taken that
every fire fighter should know the exact way in and out and while they do try
their best, occasionally rigs come in from the wrong way. This happened once
with a fire engine and a second time with an ambulance and the ambulance
personnel are not city employees. They're going by maps and by routes that they
believe to be the best. But even if vehicles do come in the correct way, our
response protocols do not always permit a single entrance. For instance, if we
were to set up the aerial tower, that vehicle takes up the entire roadway and
we'd have no choice but to bring vehicles in from the other direction. And we
are human too and mistakes do happen and we do not want anyone's property or
their families to suffer as a result of that. Our position is that the
barricade be removed and as soon as possible.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you.
Scott Harr: Councilwoman Dimler?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, Mr. Harr could you tell me, would a break away
barricade answer all those safety concerns or is that not feasible?
Scott Harr: We don't believe so. There was already confusion about this
barricade that was supposed to have been constructed in a break away manner and
it isn't. We would not risk our vehicles with the barricade that's there now.
But we look ahead toward winter time when the street department would be plowing
and piling up snow there. We're not in favor of a break away barricade because
for a number of months of the year, it's still obstructed.
Florence Natole: Mr. Harr?
Scott Harr: Yes. ,
Florence Natole: How has Christmas Lake been able to do that for 10 - 12 years
and have no problems?
Scott Harr: I don't know.
21 1
1
II .City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992
Florence Natole: Well why would there be more problems for us than there is for
II them?
Scott Harr: I'm afraid I don't know what the situation is.
II Florence Natole: Well they've got two roads...and they don't fight Christmas
Lake people. If they put something in, it stays there and I would think that
il Chanhassen had a little power too. If it's supposed to be in there and supposed
to be a break away, it should have been done and it hadn't.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that's something we can discuss and talk about within
II that particular preview of that Christmas Lake situation. Thank you Scott.
Anyone else? We are not going to close this public hearing. We're going to
continue it. I think some of the things that you're looking at and some
II discussions maybe should be looked at fully. Come up with that final conclusion
of whether we do or whether we don't. And anything from Council?
Councilwoman Dimler: Lots of things. Shall I start Mike?
II Councilman Mason: I have lots of things too. Is tonight the night or 2 weeks
from tonight?
II Mayor Chmiel: I think 2 weeks from tonight probably maybe but unless there's
something pertinent to what we discussed that may be discussionary at this time.
II Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I've got 2 things in particular that might
influence what gets done in the next 2 weeks. Before the next public hearing.
That one is the break away barrier. Since we don't know and I think the
I question is legitimate, what has Christmas Lake been doing and I know in the
Minutes of the last Council meeting I brought that up too and it was just said
that that's part of Shorewood and it was dropped at that but maybe we should
II look into that and learn and see what can be done and if it is feasible. It
doesn't sound like right now it is but obviously it's been working for Christmas
Lake so for the next meeting, if we could have that study and then have a report
il on that.
Mayor Chmiel: And I'd like to know the length of the road that they had along
the lake frontage as well. What the distance was to be included up to the break
II aways.
Councilwoman Dimler: And the second item was, I do appreciate Mr. Bloom's
II efforts in trying to come to some sort of a compromise here but I do think that
Council in general should remember that this whole thing is before us because of
the development. If it weren't for the development, we wouldn't be looking at a
road upgrade. We wouldn't be looking at storm sewer and we are putting a cost
II on those neighbors and I think that we should consider that when you divide up
how it's going to be paid.
II Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Michael?
Councilman Mason: I concur with that. I think the point from Mrs. Pickard
I about benefitted properties is very well taken. Curry Farms certainly is going
to get a far more benefit out of this than the people already living on Teton
22
II
City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992 11
Lane and I don't think, as it stands right now, I don't think that's an issue
that this Council is dealing with and I think we need to. I really do. And I
guess I just, Bill what you said about a right way and a wrong way. I agree
with that completely. You know from a technical aspect. I think sometimes it's
not the only thing we need to look at. There's certainly a lot more to be said
but I guess it should probably wait for 2 weeks.
Councilman Workman: Well, I agree with sort of all. You know Shorewood, the
Curry Farms residents already paid for their road. And this road should have
never matched up with Teton Lane if it was never intended to go through so we
can blame our fore fathers and everything else on that but it never should have
been matched up and you know that we have wisdom when new neighborhoods are
coming in and we're saying, that they want to do that. They still want to do
that and you know, who wants to assess the Natole's or the Pickard's or
anybody? The fact is that Curry Farms paid for their roads and they probably
should already have that through. It should already probably be done. I think
we ought to be notifying those Shorewood residents a little bit better. One of
the strongest voices, Mr. Simcox, has I think given up and thrown in the towel
and he's probably more.
Donna Pickard: He was at the Shorewood Council meeting on the 20th.
Councilman Workman: He's given up with us. 11
Donna Pickard: Well yeah.
Councilman Workman: But he's probably got more riding, I think the headlights
go right into his house. He's probably home watching the Twins tonight. So
I mean just the fact that it matches up. It should have never matched up. We
could fix the situation maybe for public safety by just renaming one end of
Teton Lane. I mean that's, Natole Way or something. But I do too. I probably
talked about this issue now a half a dozen times so I won't go on any further
but you do have to look at the other end and what has been set up in Curry
Farms. And that isn't very good either but it's really a loser situation.
So I'll be announcing my resignation, no.
Mayor Chmiel: You can't do that until later.
Councilman Mason: Just one more quick question. I'm confused as to why we can
I/
be going ahead with this without anything from Shorewood. I mean this,
obviously we're not just going to tear down half the street. I don't get that.
Don Ashworth: Well, we are proposing a joint powers agreement. We have been in
meetings for issues such as the maintenance and what not. I've talked with Mr.
Herme on and I feel comfortable that Shorewood does know about the project and
that a joint powers agreement will be entered into and the issues that have been
brought out here this evening will be put into writing.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So with that I would like to continue this public hearing
until 2 weeks from today which will also be on a Monday evening.
Councilman Mason: We need to get the Pickard's and Natole's on the mailing
list.
23 ,
i
City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: That's one of the things I mentioned before. That we have to,
that's why we're continuing the public hearing is so we can recirculize to the
people who did not get notified and that's the reason why we're continuing the
hearing.
I Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
1 Don Ashworth: The Attorney informs me that it is more than just sending out the
notices that somehow did not get sent out. If you're calling literally for a
' new public hearing, it's going to require a new advertisement as well as the
individual notices. And I think, I don't think we can make that in the 2 week
period of time can we?
1 Charles Folch: Do we have someone from the newspaper here?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
1 Dean Trippler: You need 2 weeks don't you...
Mayor Chmiel: 10 days notification prior to the public hearing.
Roger Knutson: So you can't do it.
1 Don Ashworth: You're not going to be able to.
Councilwoman Dimler: Even with the continuation?
II Roger Knutson: Technically this is an invalid hearing. It's not a hearing at
all.
1 Councilwoman Dimler: I see.
Mayor Chmiel: So we're talking a month from today.
1 Charles Folch: July 13th.
Mayor Chmiel: That would be July the 13th. And I'd like to make one suggestion
with the agenda. To make sure that this is one the front side. Up close so
these people don't have to sit through hearing it one more time again. I'm sure
they enjoy coming here and they would just prefer doing anything else except. So
1 with that we will then republish and continue the public hearing in the proper
sequences our Council has indicated.
Councilman Workman: Do we need a motion?
Mayor Chmiel: Do we need a motion Roger?
1 Roger Knutson: It's a good idea.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I would call for a motion.
1
1 24
City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992 II
Councilman Workman: For a public hearing?
Mayor Chmiel: Call for a public hearing and notification of all adjacent
property owners included the Shorewood people as well.
Councilman Workman: So moved. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to call for a public
hearing on July 13, 1992 and to notify all adjacent property owners, including
Shorewood residents for street and utility improvements to Teton Lane (Lilac
Lane to Ashton Court) and Lilac Lane (Teton Lane to CR 17), Project No. 91 -4.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
NON - CONFORMING USE PERMITS FOR RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS: 1
A. FRONTIER TRAIL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
Public Present: '
Name Address 1
Andrew Hiscox 7500 Erie Avenue
Tom Manarin 7552 Great Plains Blvd.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the request before you on 5(a) is for Frontier Trail
Non- Conforming Recreational Beachlot. This one and the one following it are
fairly straight forward. They're requesting approval of the status quo
condition as was found on the property in 1981. Therefore there really is no
disagreement. They're inconcurrence with the original inventory. The Planning
Commission reviewed 5(a) and did recommend it's approval. Since the Planning
Commission meeting, there's been some discussion between the beachlot, the city
staff and the adjoining property owner, Mr. Hiscox. Apparently there's a boat
launch that is actually located serving the recreational beachlot that's
actually located on Mr. Hiscox's property. There's negotiations going on where
they're going to exchange easements to legitimize that. Additionally the
beachlots' dock which is currently located in the vicinity of Mr. Hiscox's
property will be relocated back onto the beachlot and be consistent with our
I/
•
dock setback. So we are recommending that it be approved.
Mayor Chmiel: There's only one thing that I see Paul and it's just minor. But
on the shoreline you show the non - conforming recreational beachlot permit with
the association request and it shows 200 feet. Shouldn't that be 193.5?
Paul Krauss: It should be. 1
Mayor Chmiel: It's on the second page in on the back of the second page. Back
side. You show 200 feet.
Paul Krauss: Yeah. We'll make that correction.
Councilwoman Dimler: Roger's gone? I wanted some legal counsel. '
25 ,
1
II City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992
1 Mayor Chmiel: Legal counsel has just left. Maybe before we go ahead with that,
and with your questions, is there anyone from the Frontier Trail Homeowners
Association who'd like to say anything? Are you pretty much in agreement with
the staff recommendation?
11 Tom Manarin: Yeah, I'm in agreement.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm sure this has been worked out somehow.
Tom Manarin: Tom Manarin, 7552 Great Plains Blvd.. The only question that we
have is, being that it is at 193.5 now, if we deed over another 30 feet, is it
going to raise any problems?
Councilwoman Dimler: That was my question to the lawyer.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, with that, I'm sure that that would have to go through the
process of the city making sure that that's connected with that.
Paul Krauss: If I can clarify that. Is that for the boat launch?
Tom Manarin: Well, it's the boat launch and then some. It is our opinion that
the boat launch is on our property and that it's a totally new survey that has
been brought up in favor of Hiscox's, not us obviously so he can do whatever he
wants to do. We're willing to live with deeding it over and having the easement
but our question is, how's it going to affect us with the city by losing another
30 feet.
Paul Krauss: We're basically validating the status quo. We didn't do any of
the surveys. These are privately done surveys. We accept them at face value.
We're acceting the conditions out there at face value. Which means that the
boat launch, if it is on Mr. Hiscox's property, that's just the way it is. I
mean the status quo is going to remain. The fact of the matter is, nothing's
changed out there. I mean a survey may have changed. A piece of paper may have
changed but nothing else has changed out there. So whichever way it turns out,
1 I don't see that as an issue.
Mayor Chmiel: So what you're saying is that everything is as status quo so
there shouldn't be any?
11 Paul Krauss: Exactly.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Point of precedent.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Could I just ask a question? Mr. Hiscox's survey
apparently is done so that he could subdivide.
Paul Krauss: That is true.
1 Councilwoman Dimler: And if that subdivision indeed does take place, how does
that affect this beachlot?
' Paul Krauss: In point of fact Councilwoman Dimler, I don't believe it does. He
is looking at recombining and separating lots away from the beachlot. He's got
26
r
City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992 II
beach rights for access for his new lots. We've run this past our city
attorney. Gotten some ideas from Roger. It doesn't appear to have much bearing I/
on it as I see it.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, as long as that's true then I'll. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, did you still have that question or was the question.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well, I think it's answered, yes. Thank you. And with
that I, did you move approval already?
Councilman Mason: Councilman Workman moved approval but I'll second it. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. You moved approval Tom?
Councilman Workman: Yep.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the 1981 status
quo for the Frontier Trail Non - Conforming Recreational Beachlot with one dock,
40 feet in length, no boats being moored, continued use of their motor vehicle
access, parking for 5 to 6 cars, a boat launch (20 feet wide) and approval of a
swimming beach. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
B. SUNRISE HILLS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
Public Present: 1
Name Address ,
Craig Luehr 7226 Frontier Trail
Paul Krauss: This is also another hopefully easy one. Again, they are
requesting approval of the status quo as they existed in 1981. Therefore as we
see it, there really is no issue. The Planning Commission recommended approval
and we do too.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone wishing to address this? Any
I/
residents from Sunrise Hills? Yes sir.
Craig Luehr: My name's Craig Luehr of 7226 Frontier Trail and I'm a member of
the association. I think we discussed most everything last time at the Planning
meeting. It seemed fairly straight forward and I think from my perspective of
being a• fairly recent member, that we're sitting pretty good. Since we've
talked Ursula, and I don't know if you have anything you want to bring as a
member too or even if you can.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes as a matter of fact.
Mayor Chmiel: She has to get off of her chair here and go down in front.
Councilman Workman: You need to leave the building is what you need to do. If
I might be so remindful.
27 1
1
City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll abstain my vote. No. One of my questions was, why
' did staff come up with 12, the number 12 on the parking because in 1981
certainly I know that we've had more than 12. There are no designated paved,
marked parking spots. What it is is grass and everybody parks on the grass and
I know we've had more than 12 down there. So where did the number 12 come from
and do we need to put it in there?
Paul Krauss: As to whether or not we should put it in there, yes. We should
have a number where we agree on so there's a benchmark to judge this against in
the future. That's the purpose of going through this. Where it came from
originally, I think we got that from the Association. As I recall on this one,
and forgive me but I was away when this was at the Planning Commission meeting,
is that there was no 1981 survey information I believe on this one. Therefore,
well I guess it was done. It showed one dock, 60 feet. Space for an off street
parking for 12 vehicles so I guess what we're doing is we're taking for granted
that this number was accurate.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I question that number because we've lived there
since 1975 and I know there are more than 12 cars down there. On certain days.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, one of the things the application showed, whoever filled it
I out, Charlie Robbins indicated number of parking spaces as 12 there.
Councilwoman Dimler: But it's just grass in there and everybody parks on grass.
There's no paved or marked spots so I'm wondering if we can change that number
1 at this point.
Paul Krauss: I don't have information on that Ursula. I mean you would know
more about it than I. Often times grass parking is more inefficient too than
marked parking.
Councilwoman Dimler: But we don't want to pave it because we want to save that
lake water. The quality of the water down there. So we'd rather park on the
grass. We don't want any more impervious surface next to our lake. Okay.
Mr. Luehr?
1 Craig Luehr: Could I just ask one question in relation to that?
1 Mayor Chmiel: Sure, go ahead.
Craig Luehr: Would the 12 lots mean that we couldn't put any more actual gravel
lots but we could park more cars or would that limit us to the 12 cars?
1 Paul Krauss: It would limit you to the 12 vehicles.
1 Councilwoman Dimler: See, that's what I'm saying. We don't want that because
we've had, I know in '75 all through we've had more than 12. I don't know
why Mr. Robbins chose 12 at that particular point but it's not an accurate
1 number.
Paul Krauss: I have nothing else to make a recommendation on.
1
1 28
11
City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992 II
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I can't even make a recommendation as to how many. Unless
what we can do is to approve this with some discussion to be done on those
vehicles to see what it could accommodate.
Councilwoman Dimier: Could we amend it to say 20 at this point? Being that you
just took the arbitrary number of what Mr. Robbins said.
Paul Krauss: Again, it was in the '81 survey and then we received the
application for that. I'm honestly not sure, I mean I don't want to sound
argumentative but I don't know if 20 fits. If you're telling us that it's been
there.
Councilwoman Dimier: Well 12 doesn't fit. 20 would fit better. So you know,
as long as we're going arbitrary, let's go with 20.
Mayor Chmiel: What open space do we have? How much do we have? Total space? ,
If you take a vehicle and just do it out mathematically, you'd come up with
what? '
Paul Krauss: A parking space and the drive aisles are typically thought to take
up 400 square feet apiece.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilwoman Dimier: Let me put my Council hat on. As a council member, I
would recommend.
Mayor Chmiel: As I look at it 12, and you're saying 20.
Councilwoman Dimier: Yeah. That's closer to what's actual and we've been
living there since '75.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, if you wanted to continue this, we could go take a look
at it. I mean roughly there should be 8,000 square feet of area to park in to
accommodate 20 cars. If that's what's out there, I guess I don't have a problem
with it.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you happen to know the square footage?
I/ Mayor Chmiel: No. It says length of the shoreline is 150 feet. It doesn't say
anything about the depth of the lot.
Councilwoman Dimler: Right. Shall we leave that open then for staff to check?
Paul Krauss: We can certainly do that.
Mayor Chmiel: You have to have room for the people to accommodate picnic area.
You have to have the room for the canoes and picnic tables, grills. You've got
a portable restroom. Temporary building. There isn't any. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: We have a Port -a- Potty.
29 1
i
City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Why don't we have staff do that review to make sure what it can
1 accommodate. I don't want to say 20 because I'm not sure that it can hold 20.
From 12 to 20 is 8 more and that takes up a lot of room. So why don't we have
staff review it and if that seems logical after that, then let it be included as
such.
II Councilwoman Dimler: I would rather have that. As long as were going to lock
into a number, I would want to see a more accurate of what's been going on down
II there.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I've never been invited down there.
1 Councilwoman Dimler: Oh, please come to our 4th of July celebration.
Mayor Chmiel: So with that.
II Councilman Workman: We might want to find out from the Attorney if Ursula can
make that motion.
1 Mayor Chmiel: No, she can't make the motion. I'm asking someone on the other
side of Ursula.
•
II Councilwoman Dimler: Why can't I make the motion?
Councilman Workman: Well, that's what I want to know.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Because you're a property owner.
11 Councilman Workman: You're an affected property owner in this. I'm only
looking after your well being.
Councilwoman Dimler: I can make any motion I want to.
Mayor Chmiel: Not necessarily. Can I have a motion with that suggestion?
II Councilman Mason: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
1 Councilman Workman: Are we going to carry the whole thing or are we just going
to carry the parking part?
II Mayor Chmiel: Just the parking would be reviewed and come up with a conclusion
as to what can be accommodated.
II Councilman Workman: Okay, second.
Councilwoman Dimler: Are you saying I can't vote?
II Mayor Chmiel: I think you should abstain.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's a no vote. I can't abstain.
II
1 30
11
City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992 II
Mayor Chmiel: Abstention, right? 1
Councilwoman Dimler: I can't vote on this?
Councilman Mason: Conflict of interest Councilwoman. 1
Roger Knutson: When your interest is different from the public as a whole and
you have an ownership interest in the property as a homeowners association, it'd
be my recommendation that you not vote.
Councilman Workman: But it's not considered a no vote? 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, an abstention is a no vote.
Roger Knutson: Silence is a no vote. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: No, silence is a yes vote. Abstention is a no vote and I
don't want to vote no on this.
Mayor Chmiel: Because of conflict of interest, no vote.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the 1981 status 1
quo for the Sunrise Hills Non - Conforming Recreational Beachlot with one dock, 60
feet in length, no boats being moored or docked, continued use of their motor
vehicle access, two canoe racks with space for 12 boats, a swimming beach with
swimming raft, marker buoys, and a boat launch. The issue of the number of
parking spaces will be tabled for further review. All voted in favor except
Councilwoman Dimler who abstained and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. 1
Paul Krauss: Just as a point of order, if that's a problem, is it reasonable to
absent yourself from the vote and then it doesn't count as a no?
Mayor Chmiel: No, just indicate it as a conflict of interest and not voting on
the issue.
Roger Knutson: It's an interesting academic exercise but you'v got the votes to
pass it.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: 1
Mayor Chmiel: I had one for the County Road Highway 12 which the County is
going to be turning back over to the City of Chanhassen. Charles or Don, can
you enlighten me on this a little bit more? Do we really want it?
Don Ashworth: County Road? 1
Mayor Chmiel: 12 and that's up by the, on the edge of Chaska by Gedney. And I
look at it from two concerns. One, who's going to maintain it because it's way
out in a line. Do we have any agreement between us and Chaska because Chaska
does plow through there? Do they take care of that? What happens to it?
Don Ashworth: I think to respond to your first question, do we want it. The
answer is no. Are we literally going to be forced to take it, the answer to
31 1
1
City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992
I
that is yes. Chaska has stated that they will plow it. The Council will do
some patching on the roadway. The County doesn't really care to give it over
but they're being forced to do such by the State and basically saying, with new
212, they cannot have two county State Aid roads that are less than 2 blocks
from each other. And accordingly, the State has put 212, which will become
obsolete, under the County State Aid system. Removing Stoughton and once that
is removed, just like here with our own main street, it comes under the
jurisdiction of the city whether we really want it or not.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, the 212 corridor we're talking about which is way down the
line yet, I don't know why we should be addressing it at this particular time
r now. I mean it could be 20 years from now before that 212 corridor goes in.
Don Ashworth: Except that the County has to submit their State Aid plan each
year and to show improvements that their proposing as a part of that system. It
was during that set of plan submittals that basically the State came in and
saying we are literally changing this over. We met with, and this is really not
new. Some of these discussions, maybe that's one of the problems is the final
resolution here is occurring I believe almost 2 years after we've already acted
on this. So there was a resolution from 1 to 2 years ago where they had
initially presented this. This is kind of the end of that process.
II Mayor Chmiel: It would have been nice if they would have come to us prior to
that time and inform us this is what they're considering in doing. Give us that
opportunity to at least look at it rather than come back with this resolution
1 saying you've got to.
•
Don Ashworth: The Council had asked, what would be the effect of not doing the
r CR 17 project and some of the businesses and potentially we should retook at
that issue. That does involve the County. Why don't I ask Roger Gustafson to
come to one of our next meetings. We will talk about the CR 17 issue and also
1 this one. If you would like.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Good. The other issue that I just wanted to talk about
is, as we've read in the papers again with these children abductions and funny
r things happening, I talked with Scott Harr today and trying to institute getting
seniors again involved. And it doesn't include a lot. Maybe just a jacket for
those people to wear and have a little walkie talkie or whatever. But at least
have those presence of those people within those parks to deter any of these
people that might have any wild ideas that might come up. I guess I want to
make sure that we don't have any more of that funny situations happening as
we've had in the past. Exposures and things of that nature for these kids. By
having some of these senior citizens as CS0's to go into these parks and at
least be present there, would make a deterrent for those people to think second
about doing what they were going to do. He was going to pursue it and come up
r with some figures and hopefully get back to us with that and we can go from
there. Tom.
Councilman Workman: Animal control. I had the opportunity to meet with Mayor
Haug up in Tonka Bay and he said he always watches the meetings so he knows what
we're doing so he's probably not watching yet so, it's an early meeting so too
bad. But hello if you're out there. But he had a lot of good things to say
r 32
r
City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992 II
about the contract and he really appreciated it and he said, I think he mentions
it to the Mayor once in a while.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Workman: I wanted to pass that along to the Public Safety 11
Department. In light of the harmony that we've got now that we didn't have when
we initially started the program about 3 years ago, I feel an awful lot better
about the program so it was fun to hear that. It was the one thing he said we
were doing right. But that was about it. If I could add one other issue
quickly.
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Councilman Workman: The continuing saga of the tree escrow to new homeowners.
This is personal experience now.
Mayor Chmiel: Next agenda.
Councilman Workman: If I could bring this up.
Councilwoman Dimler: Now wait a minute. Get out there. 1
Councilman Workman: What people have to do is they have to put a sod escrow,
which I find very appropriate. This is some of the pent up anger that people
have and until you really live it, you don't understand. So what I had to do
was, back in the end of January was put $500.00 up for sod escrow, which I think
is important because people should sod and seed at some point within the first
year. However, you finally do that, so at closing you put $500.00 in that's
difficult. You'd rather put it somewhere else. Okay, so you do that when
there's a burden. Now, you go to get the sod and you do that and that cost me
$750.00 so maybe our escrow isn't enough. But that costs me $750.00. There's
another burden and my money's sitting at City Hall. I won't see that money
probably until the end of the month. We're talking another 30 day wait. It's
my money, not the City's money that's sitting there. Somebody from engineering
has to come out and actually see that it's there. I don't think anybody's done
that yet. Engineering has vacated the room. It's a real burden to have to go
through what you're going through because it's kind of double jeopardy. Now
I've got $1,350.00 laying out there. Well I was a City Council member, they
made me kick in an extra $100.00 for some pool fund but it gets to be, you know
Mayor you talked about a guy who you knocked on his door a couple years ago and
he had a quarter million dollar home, which was a nice sized home, and he said
the $500.00 or whatever was a burden. It does get to be a real pain in the
butt, especially when my money's sitting at City Nall and I can't really get at
it. I had to go out and buy sod. You can't really use that money to buy sod
anyway.
Mayor Chmiel: Would it be better if you accrued interest on your money?
Councilman Workman: That's what I'm counting. But you know what I mean, so now
I've really paid for it twice and I'm still not going to get my money because,
it's not in the register tonight. It's not approved and so I'm not going to get
it until the end of the month. Maybe.
33
1
II City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Tom, that's all the joys of being a property owner.
1 Councilman Workman: No, that's all the joys of how the city functions. That's
just my point. That it is kind of irritating because now I've done it twice.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. For every one of those maybe that comes through. I don't
know, maybe you can answer that Don. Have we had problems with that before with
people and that's why it was instituted?
Don Ashworth: I've not heard of any complaint until this evening. I think Tom
hits bad timing. We pay bills every 15 days. One of the problems is, to be
able to make that payment though, the request has to be in like. Alright, if
you wanted a check that's on this Monday, it would have to be in by last Monday
or Tuesday. That's awfully close to when Councilman Workman had notified me
' that the work was done and I don't know if.
Councilman Workman: No, no. That's not the problem Don. I'm just stating some
of the problems. It was done the previous Saturday. I talked to them on Monday
1 so if it needed to be done on Monday or Tuesday it was. But that's not what I'm
getting at. I'm not getting into, I'm not trying to get into mine. It sounds
like I am. I'm going to get paid down the road. All of it's paid for so it's
not like a big deal. They didn't loan me the sod. So I'm just saying, those
are some of the things that people do get angry about and but I was told by
staff that on Monday that they would get out there either that day or Tuesday
and it hadn't been done so just one of those little customer service things that
could irritate somebody and has.
Don Ashworth: We can look at some other alternatives. I know one of them that
' we tried was literally having property owners sign off and if you failed to do
the work, that we could do it and actually put that as an assessment back
against his property for what would be the following year and hypothetically, in
11 that fashion he doesn't have to come up with the cash, at least as the
guarantee. He still has to come up with the cash to get the work done. One of
the problems there though is it's very easy for a builder to come in and simply
sign away your rights and all of a sudden the following year you find this
charge on your property tax statement and then you're back in as was the case
with the guy down at the Prairie House where the contractor signed off on like
$65,000.00 worth of sewer and water units and he didn't know about it until the
following year. So there's kind of some down sides. We can relook at some of
these aspects. You know another part is, your procedures are such that we make
sure that we get you the bill so you know who it is we're paying what. So you
1 get an opportunity to take and say, Tom Workman, $500.00. What's this for? I
don't really care to pay it.
Councilman Workman: Well, my point is this. We have this ordinance set up
because there are some problems. But they are the exception because people do,
95 of the people do sod or seed their yard or plant trees. Okay. But what
we're doing is we're taking out a whole bunch to get at the 1 or 2 or 3 percent
and that's what I don't like government doing because it's the old thing about,
we need to have, we need to force people to put 1 tree in because otherwise they
won't. Well the Mayor built his house in a beanfield and there's trees. There's
100 trees in your yard?
' 34
1
City Council Meeting - June 8, 1992 II
Mayor Chmiel: 67. '
Don Ashworth: I don't know if I would totally agree from the standpoint that if
left totally to their own priorities, would that $500.00 or $750.00 in your own
case, would that go into landscaping first. Something for the kids. Well,
maybe I can take and put some seed out there and that will be okay. How much
dirt and sod, or dirt and what not has gone into the street while you try to
explore the option of seeding the property yourself. ,
Councilman Workman: Yeah but I just told you I have $500.00 in escrow plus I
had to buy the sod. This system doesn't make it easy for people to go do it
because they're not really doing it with that escrow money. That's what I'm
saying. I just paid twice for it. Okay, so that doesn't make it any easier for
somebody moving into the neighborhood. That's what I'm saying. So now I've
paid $1,250.00 for sod and I have $500.00 still sitting at City Hall. That's my
point. Now I'm not really using that money to buy the sod. I sort of am and
eventually I'm going to but it doesn't make it easier for the homeowner to go
out and do that. '
Mayor Chmiel: Why don't we have it where they provide the receipt from purchase
of the sod people. Present the bill and saying that we've paid for this. Why
can't we then refund their money?
Don Ashworth: Or potentially, and I think we discussed this with the trees. Tom
notifies us in advance who it is he's going to purchase that from and we
literally process the check in the name of that firm. They either bill, we
could figure out some way in which we literally get that check to them. Whether
you hand carry it over to them at the time you pick it up or that they bill us
for that $500.00 knowing that we've already made out a check to them.
Mayor Chmiel: That sounds like it gets a little sticky.
Don Ashworth: Even pre -pay. So you've got $500.00 credit coming with Natural
Green.
Councilman Workman: So I should have went to City Hall the week before I got
sod or after I made the agreement with the sod and said, cut a check. Or a
month before and said, this company is going to buy, see that's starting to
get.
Don Ashworth: Why don't we come back with some suggestions for your Council
meeting. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good.
ADMINSTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. 1
Don Ashworth: The Optiscan is something that we and the County will go into.
It's there. You put the monies away. The County is the one who bid it up and
it was my belief that under a Joint Powers Agreement we simple pay the bill when
it comes back in front of us. It's not something that's required to be bid by
us because it's already been bid by them. In discussing the issue with the City
Attorney, the technical portion is the City Council must approve all contracts
35 '
1
II " City "Council Meeting - June 8, 1992
II in excess of $15,000.00. I can hold off and put it onto the next agenda.
Mayor Chmiel: I would think we should. And not only that but then at the same
I/ time, knowing the total amount of dollars we're going to spend for that. I'd
also like us to look at with our existing voting machines, is there a potential
we can sell those to someone else?
II Don Ashworth: I can...and respond to those.
Mayor Chmiel: With that I'll call for adjournment.
1 Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m..
1 Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
II Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1 `
II
II
1
1
1
1
1
1 36
1
f , 1
1 �,
1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
II REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 3, 1992
II Vice Chair Ahrens called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad, Steve Emmings, Matt Ledvina and
I Joan Ahrens
MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli and Jeff Farmakes
I STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I;
Kate Aanenson, Planner II; Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician; and Tom
Scott, City Attorney
PUBLIC HEARING:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR A WETLAND ALTERATION FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A
I DOCK THROUGH A CLASS A WETLAND ON PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND
LOCATED AT 7570 DOGWOOD ROAD, PETER AND DEANNA BRANDT.
I Public Present:
Name Address
II Peter Brandt 7570 Dogwood Road
II Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Ahrens: Kate, on your first three conditions. Who monitors that and how
often is that monitored?
Aanenson: As far as the?
I Ahrens: Or I guess the first two. I'm sorry, 1 and 3.
Aanenson: When we've passed basically, it's my understanding that we
1 passed the water fowl breeding season now and so that's my understanding
they want to put that in shortly so that wouldn't be a concern at this
point. I guess we would ask that they, we would advise them of when that
11 time is. We do know what those dates are and I believe that's June
something Dave. End of the water fowl breeding season.
Hempel: According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, June 15th.
I Aanenson: Okay. So we would advise them not to put it in until after that
date. I guess it's a complaint basis sort of thing too.
1 Ahrens: I mean, how about numbers 1 and 3? Who checks to make sure that
this wetland is not going to be disturbed after the dock is put in?
II Krauss: I think you're raising a real good point. These things do not
require a building permit as does normal construction. And your raising
the point tonight points out that we have been responding to these things
II on a case by case basis. We have typically not had a program of going out
periodically to check them. We certainly should be doing that the first
i
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 2
year with the construction. If you'd like to make, add a condition saying
that the applicant shall notify staff upon installation so that it can be
reviewed and signed off on, I think that would be appropriate.
Ahrens: Couldn't you just go out maybe 3 months from now or on a periodic
basis and check it?
Krauss: Well yes, sure.
Ahrens: I mean we have a lot of conditions it seems like that say that
wetlands aren't going to be altered and who's knows if they ever are.
Krauss: Most of the times though that you see those conditions, they're
associated with a larger development where you do have on site inspection
and follow up. Either through our staff's engineering department or for
the building department. This is kind of an unusual case.
Ahrens: Would the applicant like to address the commission? This is a
public hearing. Anybody.
Conrad moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart: Just to follow up on your suggestion. What did you mean by
periodic inspection Joan? Continuous or just after construction?
Ahrens: Well I don't have a real definite idea of what I mean by periodic
inspections. Just that we see a lot of wetland alteration permits come
through here and my experience, particularly in the development I live in
is that the city doesn't go back out and make sure that people aren't
altering wetlands unless there's a complaint made by somebody who lives
around it.
Erhart: Well I guess that gets into the basic philosophy is if we want to
have your government, you want them actively going out and looking over
this and all the other things or do we want to respond by complaint. I
think our philosophy has been to respond by complaint because for one thing
I'm not sure it's practical to go out and inspect every project.
Ahrens: Well we're trying right now to track all the wetlands it seems
like in Chanhassen. Hasn't there been an intensive effort to do that?
Krauss: You're both correct but there is an administrative problem.
Clearly we have an obligation to make sure that the conditions are adhered
to when the thing's initially installed and constructed. Periodic checking
of, we don't even know how many wetlands we have in the city. It's
someplace between 300 and 400 and how many docks we might have in the city,
that's simply beyond the ability of our staff to do it so we've been
relying on a complaint basis. Or we do have our building inspectors are
out in the neighborhoods constantly and they report back problems and we
respond to those problems.
Erhart: Okay, well anyway beyond that. I assume then it's consistent with
the requirements we imposed on the development next door?
Planning Commission Meeting I
June 3, 1992 - Page 5
1
Emmings: I agree with Matt's last point here. The way to do it is to have
the applicant notify staff. I think that's the way that condition ought to
be worded. And number 3. There should be no filling or dredging
permitted. I think there ought to be a period right there and we ought to
strike the rest of that sentence. They're not asking to do any filling or
dredging anywhere are they? Well let's just make that real blunt then.
The only other thing that occurred to me is condition 1 says that the
ground cover abutting the wetland won't be disturbed. We're talking about
a 1 inch strip or a 1 foot strip or a 10 foot strip. I don't know if they I
can read this and know what you mean.
Aanenson: Okay, it's about 15 feet and I met with the Brandt's out on the,
Mrs. Brandt out on the property. What the concern is we want it left in a I
natural state because it is abutting the wetland and in the past when we
haven't addressed this, maybe over the next 2 years they'll end up moving
it and then we're back to the situation where we don't have that butter
against the wetlands.
Emmings: But the condition doesn't tell them what you mean in terms of the
depth of that strip and I don't know what would be reasonable there but.'
Aanenson: I can extrapolate that from the contours of the, it's about 15
feet.
Emmings: Does it follow a certain contour?
Aanenson: Yes.
Emmings: Do you know what that contour is so we could just put it in right
now? Well, why don't you put that in between now and City Council. I
don't have anything else.
Ahrens: I agree with the comments made by everybody so far and I don't
have anything further on this. Can I have a motion?
Conrad: I just have one comment. We're assuming the wetland can't be
tampered with basically. What we're trying to do is keep the barrier there
for whatever reason. That's assumed. And is that assumed based on our,
DNR requirement? Assumed based on an ordinance that we have?
Aanenson: Yes. What we're trying to do is get the dock out past the
wetlands so it will just be over the top of the wetland and then all the
docking and stuff will occur past the edge of that wetland fringe. So
there will be minimum disturbance of the wetland.
Conrad: The idea is really not to tamper with the wetland. Let the dock
go through and keep the thing there. The first point, the ground cover
abutting the Class A wetland not be disturbed and shall be left it's
natural state. We really want that to apply to the Class A wetland itself
too don't we? Ground cover is insignificant compared to the wetland.
Insignificant.
Emmings: Ladd, isn't what's going on here, the general rule is, you can't
touch a wetland unless you get a wetland alteration permit. Now they've
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 6
come in here with their permit. Here are the conditions and sort of what
' I hear you saying is, you want to restate the general rule as a condition,
which I don't think you need to do.
Conrad: I just want to make, yeah. Other than the fact that the applicant
will know what the general rule is.
Emmings: Well he knows because he knows he had to come in and get this.
' Ahrens: It may be assuming too much though. I think it's never a bad idea
to restate something that is very important.
' Emmings: Alright.
Ahrens: I think that's a good idea.
Conrad: The Planning Commission, I recommend the Planning Commission
recommends approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -7 to allow
' construction within 200 feet of a Class A wetland and installation of a
dock through a Class A wetland with the conditions listed by staff. Adding
point number 5, that the applicant will notify the staff for review upon
completion of the project and that point number 6. The Class A wetland
will be allowed to return, the Class A wetland will be maintained in it's
natural state.
Ahrens: Maintaining implies though that they're going to be doing
something to it.
1 Conrad: Is there a better word?
Ahrens: It should be left.
' Conrad: Will be left in it's natural state?
Erhart: I'll second that.
' Conrad moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -7 to allow construction within
200 feet of a Class A wetland and the installation of a dock through a
Class A wetland with the following conditions:
' 1. The ground cover abutting the Class A wetland not be distrubed and it
shall be left in its natural state.
2. The dock cannot be installed during waterfowl breeding season and shall
be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation.
3. There shall be no filling or dredging permitted.
' 4. The dock shall be raised a minimum of one foot above the OHW 944.5'
level through the wetland.
' 5. The applicant will notify the staff for review upon completion of the
project.
Planning Commission Meeting
II
June 3, 1992 - Page 7
6. The Class A wetland will be left in it's natural state.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. '
PUBLIC HEARING: 1
NON - CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR PLEASANT ACRES
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
Public Present: . 1
Name Address
Pete Warhol 3831 Leslee Curve
Don Bulen 3871 Leslee Curve
Steven Erickson 3850 Leslee Curve
Jerry Johnson 3940 Glendale Drive
Steve Knigge 3910 Glendale Drive
Chuck Hultner 3900 Leslee Curve
Bob Hebeisen 3607 Ironwood
Tom Merz 3201 Dartmouth
Mark Rogers, Pres. 3951 Leslee Curve
Pleasant Acres Homeowners Assn.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this issue.
Ahrens: So if I can summarize here, what's different is the size of the 1
dock, the number of the boats at the dock and the 7 power lifts?
Aanenson: Yep. '
Ahrens: Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here who would
like to speak? If you'd step up to the microphone here and give your name I
and address.
Mark Rogers: My name is Mark Rogers. I live at 3851 Leslee Curve and a
resident of Pleasant Acres since 1986. I'll try and be brief. I know you
are familiar now with who we are and so forth. A couple of corrections.
One, our subdivision was not done in 1984 as Kate just said. It's 1954.
Ahrens: No, it says 1954 in our report.
Mark Rogers: She did just state 1984. I just wanted to make sure. 1
Ahrens: It's right in our report.
Mark Rogers: Okay, fine. Just making clear here. And before I start, I'd'
just like to again say that our beachlot has always been in very good
condition as maintained by our neighbors. Stated by our neighbors and the
city surveys and to my knowledge we have no outstanding complains by
neighbors or other residents of the area and since I've been there I have
known of none. Okay, that said. A couple of items. First, Kate you had
asked me for the Deed and Articles of Incorporation because you were unsure,
of the date. We were incorporated in 1968 and I have other copies of the
1
II Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 8
Deed if you're interested. Presently we have some, by my count 82 homes in
' the association. The City staff's Minutes I believe mention 65. I think
that number was taken from the blank on the application which said, how
many existed in 1981. So it's not 65 now. It is 82 or more. There are
more homes under construction. And here's a list of the known homeowners
U in the association. Now to the issue. We request that the Planning
Commission approve our non - conforming use permit for the beachlot at our
requested levels in some cases in contrast to the city staff, for the
' following reasons. Basically the first issue is that we do question the
1981 survey. The ordinance passed just this past February obviously refers
to the nature and extent of the beachlot use and obviously also sets
maximum limits on what can exist down at the beach and what can be used
down at the beach. However, the survey was also obviously a one time shot
and there's no evidence to say that the city attempted to determine what
the maximum use was during the summer of 1981. Only they did a one shot
survey. While the physical dock configuration might have appeared as
described, as you all know there's lots of different ways of tying up boats
to a dock or beaching them on the same shoreline or an adjacent shoreline
which was undeveloped property until about 1989 or so and some of our
residents did use that to beach boats. Secondly item A(2), Thomas Merz. A
resident. Long time resident of the Minnewashta area and a lakeshore owner
was called to the City Council meeting by Councilman Wing to testify on
' what his recollection were of the old studies and levels of boats and so
forth and he stated that he recalled that there were 15 boats at Pleasant
Acres back in 1981. Mr. Merz has no known obligations and was not under
contract or being paid by Pleasant Acres to do this. This was totally at
the request of Mr. Wing that he came and his own desire. I just mentioned
the fact that we had more boats in the adjacent lot to the north and our
own members' recollection is that there were never as few boats as what was
contained in the city survey kept down at the beach. And lastly, the issue
of dock length. The letter that came out for this meeting was the first
that my association had seen any information regarding the length and width
' of docks. It was not contained in the survey which was previously
distributed and this calls into question my mind the city's conviction that
either those numbers may not be accurate or that they may not be important.
' Indeed the City's own 1982 ordinance has two specifications for length of
dock. I believe it's either 50 feet or the length of dock necessary to
reach 4 feet of depth of water. Now, the item that I just uncovered today
as to why the city may not even legally be able to limit the use of this
' beachlot is based on a legal opinion written by the law firm hired as the
City Attorney. Now this was another issue that dealt with Pleasant Acres
of whether or not a proposed subdivision, Country Oaks could be included as
' part of the beachlot and the conclusion was that the City could not limit
the number of homeowners and their use of that beachlot or any other future
owners because their use effectively already existed because the lands were
' deeded to the association before the ordinance was passed. And this item,
and I'm real sorry the City Attorney isn't here to address this. Obviously
I'm not a lawyer. I think it takes someone with that sort of expertise to
comment on but the legal opinions I've gotten on is this a valid issue or
' not state that it is. And again this is his own firm and one of his staff
people and he signed the cover letter for it which to me indicates that he
approved the memo that the City must consider the use and extent that
' existed in 1981 as that which could potentially result from all the lands
which are not yet developed as well. Alright, now some details. On the
Planning Commission Meeting II
June 3, 1992 - Page 9
issue of the permit. One other item is that we're requesting which maybe
goes on a separate piece of paper is we do have a chemical toilet now and
have had one since way back when and it was there in 1981 and I'd like tha
to also appear on the permit.
Ahrens: That is a separate application process. Separate permit. ,
Mark Rogers: Okay. But my understanding is though is that it would be
grandfathered under the same sort of process or this kind of umbrella that
this procedure is here today. At least that's the understanding I got from,
Kate.
Aanenson: Yeah, that should have been included on there because he's
stating that as part of the grandfathering issue. I don't think we're
disputing that. It showed up on the 1981 inventory. That should be
included. 1
Mark Rogers: Another question I have is conerning the number of boats. I
just want to be clear. There would appear that you're count method for II boats on shore now does not include any canoes. There is one canoe rack
and it can have, I think the new ordinance states up to 6 canoes on it so
that the boats you've listed now, 3 on shore, do not include canoes and in
our case, over turned fishing boats laying on timbers. Now what they were ,
in 1981, I don't know what was there. Whether they were boats on trailers ■
Boats with motors on shore that were beached. I don't know. With that
I guess I'd just like to respond as required to discussion and allow other"
people to make statements. I believe this is going to be somewhat of an
interactive process.
Ahrens: I'm sure there will be some questions for you Mark. Thank you. II
Would anyone else like to speak on this? Step up to the microphone.
Pete Warhol: I'm Pete Warhol. I live at 3831 Leslee Curve and I'm the ITreasurer of the association. Anything that's built, to my understanding,
anything built in Pleasant Acres or property owned or sold by Mrs. Anderson
becomes part of that association. My count is, with the lots in Pleasant II
Acres and then the lots in Country Oaks, we have 113 lots and I know now
that on TH 7 across from the fire house, I think that's Mrs. Anderson's
property too and there's I don't know how many lots but there's several
houses that are built there and they're going to be in the association. III
just wanted to go on record with that.
Ahrens: Okay, thank you. ,
Mark Rogers: Yeah, the number of homes is not limited to just Pleasant
Acres...All of the land described on...
Ahrens: Okay. Would anyone else like to say anything? State your name
and address for the record.
Tom Merz: I'm the fictitious Tom Merz that you quoted so I thought I
should perhaps defend myself. I don't know where this 16 to 18 boats that
I said that was on there in 1981.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 10
r
Mark Rogers: I said 15.
Tom Merz. 15. I was trying to draw a parallel to last time when we were
talking about how we had designed through planning of this Lake Minnewashta
r because I also served on the Planning Commission and I served on the Park
and Recreation Committee for I don't know, 8 years. And part of this was
finding a way to control the riparian, non - riparian use of this lake. I
think what you're saying is that we said that there was like 50 boats that
' should be the non- riparian type of use and we said that by the time the
park was introducing about 40 boats and that Pleasant Acres was introducing
20 and there was 3 or 4 housing areas that were introducing boats.
' Probably that we are doubling and tripling the non - riparin use on it.
That's the statement I think I would have made. For me to say that there
was 15 boats on there is something I wouldn't have said. My opinion is,
number one I support that 1982 baseline. I think that for all of you who
11
haven't been on Lake Minnewashta. As you drive along Lake Minnewashta and
you see all of these beautiful homes with 1 or 2 boats on it. One for
sure. Maybe 2 and finally you come to this outlot and you see a smaller
' outlet than the conventional and you see 16 boats on that thing. To me
that's objectionable. I think that you people are here asking for 16 boats
to go onto our lake. It would be like saying, let's take our housing area
r and we'll knock down a few homes and put in a nice parking lot and we'll
see 16 cars sitting up there in the middle of their housing area. So to me
to think that 16 boats on a small lot is acceptable, is something that's
completely out of, is not something that I would support. I've come here
' tonight to perhaps ask you people that our issue is, we've got access to
that lake through the park. We've got an area to bring on an extra 20 or
almost 40 boats so if you would do your share of using your 4 to 6 boats,
' whatever was there in the 1982 baseline, it would be very simple to come
onto this lake and we could start preserving Lake Minnewashta instead of
trying to build up this lake use so that we'll continue to deteriorate what
' we've got. And I think that's my main purpose for talking here. I think
that the '81 baseline as we've hassled with this thing for so long. We had
agreed to the '81 baseline and there were 4 or 5 boats there. You
substantiated this last time and I totally support that you do not go above
r this 4 to 6 boats. I was at a Planning Commission, or not a Planning
Commission but as you know this Council meeting, the main Council meeting
and they took where you had voted the Trolls Glen and substantiated for
r that thing to say, stay 2 or 4. I think it was 2 boats. And they used the
premise about some pre - existing covenants. But to say that this applies.
We are never going to stop what we're trying to do here and that's the
' outlots that we have developed for all of these neighborhoods do not, any
of the new ones, do not have access. I mean they do not have boats for
overnight storage. We had agreed to grandfather this thing in for the '81
or '82 baseline and to now come back and bring this thing 300% or 400 %,
' I mean that's against what we've all worked so hard for. So that's all I
have to say.
r Ahrens: I have a question for you Tom. You said you don't remember that
there were 15 boats there in 1981. Do you remember? I mean do you have
any recollection at all of 1981 and what that beachlot looked like?
r Tom Merz: Gee, I've driven by it but to say.
r
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 11 1
Ahrens: I don't have any recollection of 1981 either.
II
Tom Merz: No, but I know that they did a survey. The City did a survey
and they took pictures. It was substantiated. So that's all.
Mark Rogers: I stand by my statement and I would challenge the City to go '
back and listen to it's video tapes and transcripts. _
Ahrens: Okay. Would anyone else like to address the commission? One II
thing, either Kate or Paul. Maybe you could explain why we're using.
There seems to be maybe a misunderstanding of why we're using the 1981 11 baseline.
Aanenson: That was the level of use. Even though the ordinance said roll
back to 1982, January of 1982. That's what the ordinance stated.
Basically what we're looking at is the level of use for the summer prior t
that. So is that what your question was? How 1981.
Ahrens: There seems to be a misunderstanding that maybe 1981 was just a I
date pulled out of the sky someplace.
Aanenson: That's when the new beachlot ordinance went into place that
requiring, and I talked to Mr. Rogers on that this afternoon. There was all
concern that he said you know, when we adopted this new ordinance, what is
non - conforming mean? Non - conforming means that you can't expand so I trie
to explain to him the only way you can expand non - conforming is by going to�
the Board of Adjustments and asking for that relief. So what we're trying
to do now is figure out based on what information we've got and informatio
they've provided, what that level of use was for 1981. And that's what the
ordinance that we recently adopted states. To try to go back to the level
and determine what that level was.
Ahrens: Okay, is there a motion to close the public hearing? II
Emmings moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in '
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Ahrens: Tom, do you have anything to say at all about this? I hate to put
you on the spot like this. '
Tom Scott: No, I wish I could be helpful but I'm not familiar with your
recent ordinance... This memo is just a generalized discussion about II expanding non - conforming use which relates to the Pleasant Acres beachlot
back in 1988.
Aanenson: The clarification, as I just briefly read it too, and this is I
what Mr. Rogers and I were talking about earlier today is that it talks
about the expanding of the number of homes into the beachlot. It doesn't
talk about the expansion of the level of activity of the beachlot and I II think that's where the confusion lies. I think Roger's point is that if
there's more homes being brought into the association, that may be
acceptable but what our understanding is that the level of beachlot use
II
should remain stagnant at the 1981 level.
. 1
Planning Commission Meeting
1 June 3, 1992 - Page 12
Emmings: Not that more people couldn't use this.
II Aanenson: More people can swim and go down there, fine. But the level of
the docks.
II Emmings: The facilities and the number of boats would remain the same.
II Ahrens: The public hearing is closed but if you'd like to make a short
comment, that's fine.
Resident: Yeah, if you read the whole thing it talks specifically about an
I example of a marina in Wisconsin where they extended the length of the dock
and expanded the boat storage. It is not just the number of boats or the
number of people. It is the size of...
II Ahrens: Well I don't think that we're going to be giving a legal opinion
up here tonight. First of all, we are not in the position to do that.
That's left up to our City Attorney. Steve.
II
Emmings: I've just got a couple of things. I guess first of all, I do
live on Lake Minnewashta and I'd agree with his comments that they do a
I nice job of maintaining the beachlot. As a homeowner on Lake Minnewashta,
the only thing that bothers me about, two I guess is the things that bother
me the most about the beachlots that are non - conforming are the cars that
I are parked on them and they're used to launch boats. I don't like that but
both of those things they clearly were doing back in 1981 and I think we
can't really do anything about that. As far as the number of boats is
concerned, that's obviously the biggest issue. It says that in 1981 our
1
survey showed that there 4 boats at the dock and there was room for 6 boats
so I want to be sure I understand that that's 4 plus 2. Or does it mean
that there was 4 boats and there was room to dock 6 more?
1 Aanenson: 4 plus 2.
II Emmings: 4 plus 2? And then the 1981 survey also showed that there were 6
boats on land. So in 1981 there were 10 boats on that beachlot. Is that
right?
II Aanenson: Correct.
Emmings: Do we have photographs of those boats?
II Aanenson: I have photographs from last summer and the boats that are on
land.
1 Emmings: I'm talking about 1981. So when they say 6 boats or 4 boats on
the dock and 6 on the shore, we don't know what they're calling a boat
right?
II Aanenson: The notes that I have from the person that did the inventory,
the boats that were on the dock specifically said motorized.
1 Emmings: Okay. How about the ones that were on land?
II
.1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 13 1
Aanenson: It just says land. There's no comment as to what type they
were.
II
Emmings: Okay. Well then I have a question for Mark. Apparently the
docks seemed to have been half the length in. Well no, one was 60 and one
was 48 feet according to the '81 survey and now we've got 2 docks that are I
96 feet long. As they sit today at 96 feet in length from the shoreline to
the end. First of all, is that an accurate number do you know? I
Mark Rogers: To my knowledge it is.
Emmings: How deep is it at the end of the dock? Today.
II
Mark Rogers: Approximately chest deep or so.
Emmings: 4 feet. Okay. I guess the way I'd come down on this. There's
evidence that there was 10 boats there in 1981 and I'd be comfortable with
the 10 boats. The dock length, it doesn't make any sense to me to ask the
to cut the dock back to a depth that would be less than our ordinance
presently allows.
Aanenson: Except for this is an L shape so I'm not sure that that argumen
is getting out to meet that 4 foot in depth holds because it goes out and
then takes.
Emmings: Well except that it's the 96 feet that gets them out to 4 feet III
think is what he's. The L is another 67 feet. Now that is clearly longer.
Well no. You didn't measure the L in 1981 right? That's what our report
says.
II
Aanenson: Right.
Emmings: So we don't have that number. And then the T dock is 96 with, I
and then the top of the T is 12 feet but we don't know what that was back
in 1981 either. So if the 96 feet I guess is getting them out to 4 feet, ,
that is fine with me. It doesn't make sense to restrict them. To make
them cut the dock in half because they have to be able to get out to that
• depth as far as I'm concerned. Our ordinance allows it now. And anything
else, I don't know if there are any other issues really are there?
II
Ahrens: The 7 power lifts.
Emmings: Well yeah. Now we haven't talked about lifts before as we're II our way through this but it seems to me that's just, either you tie
your boat to the dock or you put it 'on a lift and raise it up. I don't see
that that makes any difference. I think that ought to be. If we allow a II
certain number of boats, whether that boat owner uses a lift or just ties
it to the dock or pulls it up on shore, it seems to me is up to the
association and the boat owner. I wouldn't get involved in that. But I'd II
allow it I guess.
Ledvina: I also support the 1981 survey. It's from the direction of the
City Council. That's clearly the way they want us to deal with these non- II
II Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 14
1
conforming beachlots and I would also support the 10 boats that were
documented in 1981. Other than that I have no further comments.
Ahrens: What about the dock? Do you have any problem with the size of the
dock?
Ledvina: No. That's fine.
' Conrad: Homeowners were notified. Haven't heard from anybody on either
side right? Of this beachlot. I think I can, one thing that's
photographed quite a bit are lakes and beaches and whatever. There are a
lot of homes in this association and I think the one thing that would sell
us is if somebody came in and showed us how many boats where there. It's
not that people don't take pictures of the lake so if you don't agree with
what we come up with tonight, I think that the homeowners themselves really
1 have some power in proving what was there because other beachlots owners
have come in and done that and we pay attention. So again I'm going back
to '81. '81 is our baseline but if you can prove something different
' versus hearsay. Something that has some merit in it, I think we'd all
listen. I think what you've proven and what the staff inventory shows, and
I think a liberal approach on our part. Far more than what we've really
given anybody else. At least on this level. Maybe the City Council has
' given more but I think that 10, given the 10 boats that were inventoried or
possibilities, I guess I'm comfortable with that. That that can be proven.
And all the other things that the homeowners or the beachlot request permit
' is asking for. I'm comfortable with the seasonal dock. 96 feet. Now I
would be uncomfortable with that but especially if a local or a neighbor
showed up but no neighbor showed up.
' Emmings: You should also know. I've got 125 feet of dock out and
sometimes have more.
' Conrad: And it takes that much.
Emmings: And I have neighbors with 150 to get out to 4 feet so that's not
uncommon I think for our lake.
Conrad: Okay.
Bill Finlayson: Dick Wing has a 160 feet.
Conrad: He uses that for a runway I understand. Is Dick here?
Dick Wing: I missed that.
Conrad: We were just making light of length of docks Dick.
Dick Wing: I didn't get it...you've obviously measured it.
Bill Finlayson: Well, I'm pretty sure about that number.
Dick Wing: I can't tell you. How long is it?
8i11 Finlayson: Between 150 and 160.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 15
Dick Wing: And what does the ordinance say?
Bill Finlayson: That will get you out to about 4 feet.
Aanenson: 50 feet or whatever it takes to get you to 4 feet in depth. 1
Conrad: I'm just challenging. I just want to make sure that that 96.
Ahrens: It's just a joke Dick. 1
Conrad: Dick, watch it on TV. It's going to be pretty good. So as long
as everybody's comfortable with that 96 takes us to 4, I'm comfortable wit
that too. And all the other requests. The only other thing, we're taikin
about with other beachiot owners or homeowner associations. We're talking
about milfoil signs. As you know, we don't allow private accesses anymore.'
All the lakes are so, we're all so concerned with milfoil getting into the
lake that we really want your association to post milfoil signs and
although that doesn't catch it, at least it might make your association II members as they bring boats in and out a little bit more sensitive. That
is really a huge issue. You have the right to have the boat launch. It's
grandfathered in but you've got to control it and you've got to make sure
that, I think the city is going to get you some. 1
Aanenson: Yeah, thank you for bringing that up Ladd. I had written that
down. I was going to mention that when you got done with your comments.
That we do have a name and we've given those to the other associations that
have boats launched to put the sign up.
Conrad: That's all. 1
Erhart: What do you mean in your summary that the dock is 96 feet by 67
feet in length? 1
Aanenson: It's an L shape. It goes out 96 feet.
Mark Rogers: The dock itself is 3 feet wide and it has two sections of 32 II
feet...
Erhart: I just wondered, the way that's written now, is there some
potential to use that later to add more confusion and make longer Planning II
Commission meetings. In another 8 years when you review this again and
argue about the same thing. 1
Aanenson: I think when we do the permits, we're trying to synthesize this
information.
Erhart: If you could make that a little clearer I think it would be
helpful. The ordinance now says that you can have 50 feet or whatever it
takes to get to 4 feet. 1
Aanenson: A depth of 4 feet.
Erhart: Why is the term 50 feet in there at all? 1
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 16
Ahrens: Maybe there's some place on the lake that it gets to 4 feet at 25
feet out.
Erhart: Do we, in our current ordinance, are we trying to deal with off
' street parking at all in this new ordinance? Off street parking and trying
to document that today. Are we...
Aanenson: Yeah I guess we want to because we'd be concerned if they try to
expand that.
Erhart: Is that on the other applications?
Aanenson: Yes. Some of them do. The last two that we had. Both had off
street parking. Sunrise and Frontier Trail.
1 Erhart: Is it separate than off street parking. Okay, so we're definitely
trying to document. That's clear that that's 10. Okay. The ordinance, on
a new beachlot we would allow. There was no canoe rack in 1981, is that
right? There was a canoe rack?
Ahrens: There were no canoe racks noted in 1981.
' Erhart: There was no canoe rack, okay. Is there one now? There is one
now.
' Aanenson: Yes.
Erhart: Now that would normally be allowed on a new beachlot now.
Aanenson: Yes.
1 Erhart: And the chemical toilet's been there, that was there in '81?
Aanenson: Yes.
1 Erhart: The only issue is the number of boats. In a new ordinance now,
how do we determine the number of boats? If someone came in with a new.
1 Aanenson: Three.
Erhart: Three? So we don't distinguish between boats on land and boats in
the water or anything?
Aanenson: Well we say 3 can be docked. They can have a canoe rack holding
1 6.
Erhart: So it appears that really the, it's almost arbitrary. The only
thing we can do is go back and look at the one instance. Somebody went out
and looked at it and whether it was busy that day or not, I guess is,
without photographs is going to be real hard to determine.
' Conrad: Well, as staff inventoried it and the homeowners can show us
pictures.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 17
Erhart: Yeah I know but at that time there was no appeals process for the
inventory or no interaction. Somebody just went out on a certain day and
counted the number of boats.
Ahrens: As they did with all the other beachlots. 1
Erhart: Yeah, so whether it was a good process or a bad process, I guess 11 will be determined. Given that then, I guess I'd go along with what
everybody said with 10 and suggest that if the people involved in this can
come back and show that there was actually more useage, then they should do
that with the City Council because 10 is as good a number as any at this 1
point.
Ahrens: Okay. The location of these docks, there's no. Is there any
question that the perpendicular extensions don't.
Aanenson: The extensions still are within the 10 foot setback.
Ahrens: Okay. To be consistent, you know this has not been an easy
process for us at all. You're not the first beachlot to come before us.
We're trying to be consistent with the 1981 baseline unless there is other 1
information and it's tough also bringing pictures in and documenting that
the pictures were taken in 1981. I mean you know, I don't know what kind
of evidence that is.
Conrad: It depends on the boats.
Erhart: Type of swimsuits. 1
Ahrens: 1981 style.
Conrad: Emmings as a child would be running through it. 1
Emmings: A very young child.
Ahrens: So the kind of documentation that I think the City would need to II
document the 1981 use would have to be something more than a picture
because how could we tell when the picture was taken. I don't know. It's
kind of a tough thing.
Erhart: A lot of photos have dates.
Conrad: They used to.
Ahrens: Yeah, in the 50's and 60's. If it's dated, that's great. Yeah, 1
if it's dated that's great. Anyway, I'm going to go along with the 1981
survey also because it is the only thing that we have documentation of at
the moment. The power lifts, I have no problem with and the size of the II
docks, I don't have any problem with. Do we have a motion?
Mark Rogers: And the toilet is included. Everyone understands that? ,
Emmings: Let's just talk about that for a minute. Now we've got a
separate conditional use permit for chemical toilet now but they had one
II Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 18
back in '81 and that's been documented. So that's grandfathered in as to
' that ordinance even though the purpose of that ordinance is in large part
to protect the lake from these things spilling over. We still can't
regulate their's, is that right?
r Aanenson: That's my understanding.
Emmings: That's a funny idea because you know they could stop me from
' dumping my sewage into the lake and hooking up to a sewer and stuff like
that. Why wouldn't this be similar?
' Krauss: I think it is. If in fact this chemical toilet were leeching into
the lake and causing a pollution problem.
Emmings: Oh! So it would have to cause a problem. You've got to stack up
' some dead bodies before you can...
Ahrens: How is this being maintained. Maybe Mark can tell us how.
Mark Rogers: It's presently being maintained by BFI. How it was done in
1981, I don't know.
1 Ahrens: But currently you have a contract with BFI and they come out?
Weekly or something?
r Emmings: How often do they get at it?
Resident: Weekly.
Emmings: Okay. That's what we're requiring in the new ordinance. It
sounds like you're doing it anyways.
' Aanenson: It's set back. It meets probably what would be required if they
came in anyway so that's why I guess we didn't see a problem.
r Ahrens: One more thing Mark as far as the letter you have from the firm
Roger Knutson used to work for. If you have a question about that, perhaps
you could forward that to Roger and get an opinion about that and you can
' talk with the staff about that. Do we have a motion for the second time?
Emmings: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
Pleasant Acres Non - Conforming Recreational Beachiot permit with 10 boats
and essentially the docks as they exist. And everything else stays
essentially the way it was in 1981 except I note that there was no canoe
rack in 1981 and there is one now apparently.
1 Conrad: They're asking for one.
' Emmings: Yeah. And I'd have no problem with that.
Aanenson: Can I ask for clarification?
' Emmings: Yeah.
1
Planning Commission Meeting ,
June 3, 1992 - Page 19
1
Aanenson: Then on the boats on land, that would be included in total
number of boats? '
Emmings: Well yeah. I was afraid, yeah.
Aanenson: Well canoe rack, we're assuming you can put 6 canoes in there. I
I guess we can put it that way. Is that what you're assuming?
Emmings: Yeah, I'm assuming that the canoe rack is. Any boat that's not als
powered boat. A sailboat's fine. A 12 foot fishing boat is fine. I thintil
we lived through that when we talked about canoe racks originally. Canoes
are fine but not boats with motors.
Conrad: And you agreed with the power lifts?
Emmings: Yeah. And the rationale there is the lift is just one way to I
dock your boat and why get into it.
Ahrens: Is there a second? 1
•
Erhart: Yeah, I'll second it.
Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that'
the Pleasant Acres Non - Conforming Recreational Beachlot be allowed to have
two docks, one 96' x 67' in length and the second one 96' x 12' in length,
with space for 10 motor boats to be docked, continued use of the boat
launch, parking, chemical toilet, motor vehicle access, and swimming beach
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
BLUFF CREEK ESTATES, KEYLAND HOMES LOCATED SOUTH OF HWY 5 ON THE EAST SIDE.
OF AUDUBON ROAD:
A. REZONING FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE
FAMILY. '
B. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 61.45 ACRES INTO 78 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 200 FEET OF A
WETLAND.
•
Public Present: 1
Name Address
Dave Johnson 821 Creekwood '
Gayleen Schmidt 8301 Galpin Blvd.
Rod Grams 8640 Audubon Road
Gary Horkey 3471 So. 173rd, Jordan
James R. Hill 2500 CR 42, Burnsville
Richard Schuller 2724 Isle Royale Court
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
1
I Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 20
1
' Ahrens: Sharmin, I have a question about, on page 2 of your report where
you talk about Willians Pipeline Company with their 75 foot easement. And
you state that, the third sentence down. Your questioning the design of
' two lots, Lots 10 and 14, Block 2, that they're buildable. What about all
the rest of these lots? Like I guess Lots 11 thru 13 also and 29 and 30.
' Al -Jaff: Usually when we look at a parcel, we make sure that you can place
an average home with dimensions of 40 x 60 feet. You can place a 40 x 60
feet on those parcels.
' Ahrens: On these other ones?
Al -Jaff: Yes.
' Krauss: If I can add too Commissioner. The easement is useable as rear
yard area. The home just can't be in it or a deck can't be in it but
gardens, yards, possibly even play structures I suppose can be within that
area.
Emmings: How deep is the pipeline?
' Al -Jaff: Normally it's 3 feet.
' Krauss: The pipeline itself?
Al -Jaff: Yes.
' Emmings: Is that all?
Al -Jaff: When we spoke to the pipeline company, they said becuase this
' area has been farmed, they might have lost some soil but normally it is a
depth of 3 feet.
' Ahrens: But there's no problem with Lots 11 or 13? They could fit a
40 x 60?
Al -Jaff: We don't foresee problems with it. Unless they decide to build
extremely large homes which then we would recommend that they find
different sites.
' Ahrens: I hope the City makes sure that there are signs put up in their
backyards warning them not to plant trees back there.
Al -Jaff: Williams Pipeline usually sends their staff to meet with people
that live along the easement to educate them about problems that might take
place if they should dig in that easement.
1 Ahrens: This is a public hearing. Is the applicant here?
Hill: Madam Chair, if I may. Jim Hill. Consultants for Keyland.
1 Ahrens: Sure, would you like to step up to the microphone please.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 21 1
Jim Hill: Madam Chair, Jim Hill. Consultant for the applicant and the
applicant here is represented by Gary Horkey who's a principle of Keyland
Homes and Dick Schuller who is their sales and marketing director who will
speak to the two lots that staff had concern about. Show you how their
homes can fit on those lots. 10 and 14. And then Rod Grams, the fee owner'
who'd like to speak to you about the homestead driveway. If we may.
Dick Schuller: We had an opportunity to meet with staff here a few weeks
ago. She gave us a chance to look at this and suggested that we come up
with a couple, some plans that would fit on the lot. What we did is we ha
the engineering company... And the line that you see across the front
there is the setback in front of the house and your 10 foot setbacks on the'
side. The line in the back is a 10 foot setback along the pipeline
easement. Now an FHA loan you'd need to be 10 feet away from that easement
because all these homes are, in the range where they're really not going to,
be getting that basic financing so conventional financing you can bring
your house all the way up to the dotted line. So we're within 10 feet away
from that closest point. 10 feet away from the easement line.
Ahrens: What about a deck on that?
Dick Schuller: The deck would be on the west side but you're also 10 feet ,
away so you're 10 feet plus whatever this space is which is a good another
10 -15 feet on that side so you could put a real large deck there. This is
the house that one of our nicer homes that we'd be building. This is the I
plan that. This would be the sketch if we got it platted out on Lot 14.
So it would be real easy for us to be able to build that house on that lot.
We don't see that as a problem at all.
Ahrens: Why does the City see that as a problem?
Dick Schuller: It's really difficult to see sometimes on a small picture I
so we've measured it out.
Ahrens: Sharmin?
Al -Jaff: We didn't think that you could fit a house easily on it. It
would be a tight squeeze.
Ahrens: What do you think of what he's saying here? 1
Al -Jaff: What are the dimensions on it? ,
Dick Schuller: I had a little picture of it. This house here is 60 feet
wide and the deck on it is 34 feet. So it's not as deep of a house as 40
foot. That makes 60 of the different although when I think she originally
drew that up there was a concern about this 10 feet. Trying to stay 10
feet away from that back easement line. That really isn't a requirement on
a conventional home so as long as we don't need to stay within, as long as •
we go up to the easement line... But it's just less of a concern because
of that.
Krauss: It's our position that the developer has an obligation to
demonstrate that the lot's buildable in a reasonable manner. In this case
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 22
it appears that he's done so. I would ask you to let the condition stand
and we would work on this a little bit more prior to City Council. You
konw I don't think they're doing that in this case but if you can squeeze a
certain building footprint onto a limited site and it doesn't mean that it
has a great deal of flexibility. In this case it looks like there is ample
room. And I guess keep in mind though that again,that utility easement is
a great deal of open space. It is not, I mean it's the termination of a
buildable area but it's not the termination of useable space. But we'd
' like to research that a little further.
Ahrens: Okay.
Dick Schuller: That would be your one lot. This would be the footprint on
that one house. The other one is just, even easier for us to work on. The
garage would be on, right there. We have movement left and right...street
real well and then curves the way... Lots of space for decks out in the
back on the left side here. Or we could put the house around here
directly...
Ahrens: Would you like to address any of the other conditions set forth in
the staff report?
Jim Hill: Madam Chair, the Keyland Homes accepts the report except for the
comment regarding the two lots which they've shown they can build on. And
then Rod Grams would like to address the driveway on the homestead. The
other conditions are acceptable.
Ahrens: Thank you.
1 Jim Hill: I think he said he only has an hour to talk about that driveway.
Rod Grams: I've only got an hour.
Ahrens: You do?
Rod Grams: To keep you here. Thanks. I'm Rod Grams. I currently live on
the homestead and as most of you I don't know maybe are familiar with the
house, it's a Chaska brick farm home and it has a lot of historic value in
the area and we've gone to great lengths in this project to try and
maintain that historic value of the house. Part of the Planning or in my
view is we've tried to put it on a larger area because of the uniqueness of
' the house to blend in with the rest of the subdivision. But to take away
those two driveways would destroy the character I think of the way the
house its now on the site because it wouldn't then match with the other
three homes along the same street. So what I'm proposing is that the
' driveways be allowed to remain as they are because it is only for the one
house. And again it would stabilize or maintain the integrity of the site
as it is and the way the house is there now. So if you take those
driveways out and to push it off to the back I think would not maintain the
integrity that is there now.
1 Ahrens: Do you see the driveways following the westerly lot line of 8 and
7? Lots 8 and 7.
1
Planning Commission Meeting II P g
June 3, 1992 - Page 23
Rod Grams: No. I would like to see them stay where they are. The
existing.
Ahrens: Where is it now?
Rod Grams: They come out to Audubon Road. And like I say, it's only for 1
the one house so I mean you wouldn't get that much traffic from it but to
just leave the site as it is. Because to take the driveways out and to
change it, it would also change the whole apperance of the house and it
wouldn't.
Conrad: Why would it do that? 1
Rod Grams: Because of the way it's setting there now. I think the way the
house is and the historical preservation efforts that have been made of all
the houses in that area. So I think to take the driveways out, I mean you 1
would change the whole appearance of what it is now. And we've gone to
great lengths to try and keep the house and to keep it and to blend into
this subdivision but it's unique and it should stay that way from the rest 1
of the subdivision.
Conrad: The driveway comes from Audubon and it goes straight up to the
front of the house?
Rod Grams: Correct. Between the house and the garage there on the side.
Ahrens: It was a safety issue the city was concerned with right?
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Rod Grams: But it's there now.
Ahrens: But there aren't the other two roads. That Road E and Road D.
What's the minimum on a collector road?
Hempel: Access we consider 500 feet. I'd like to point out that Mr.
Grams, is there in fact two accesses to that lot?
Rod Grams: Yes.
Hempel: It's a horseshoe type driveway at this time so actually it's two
driveway entrances to that lot.
Ahrens: Do you want to maintain the horseshoe?
Rod Grams: It's been there all along, yes. I mean it's been there for, it
was build in 1900's so I mean.
Erhart: Yeah but you're tearing down the barn right?
Rod Grams: That's right.
Erhart: So I mean you aren't leaving it the same. 1`
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 24
we preserve the house the way it is. And t
Rod Grams: But a are trying to p Y the
house is unique and to take it away and try to move the driveways out, then
' you're trying to take a nice big old brick farmhouse and trying to conform
it to a lot where we're going to be building a newer house so it's not the
same. So we're just asking that the uniqueness that is there now, to stay
there the way it is.
Hempel: if I may add another point. We will be requiring deceleration and
' acceleration lanes into and from site and that may also impact the driveway
access to the existing house there.
Ahrens: I'm kind of confused about your vision of access to Lots 7, 8 and
' 9. The City's. Sharmin, in your staff report you said it should be
pointed out that Lot 9 should also gain it's driveway access off the
interior street Road E. Are you expecting then that all three lots, 7, 8
and 9 have access off of Road E?
Krauss: No, I don't think that's ever been proposed. We would typically
' put a condition in there just to make sure that that doesn't happen.
Erhart: 9 is the temporary one right?
' Al -Jaff: Correct. That's when they will build a model home. It will be
sharing the existing driveway. That's where Road E goes then.
' Oick Schuller: The reason we... This road right here, we're going to be
trying to be into the Parade of Homes this fall. Our concern is that this
street may not be ready yet so we were hoping to be able to come
temporarily off of Audubon through Rod's driveway to get to our house.
When this street comes in, then this driveway's going to go here across
from Audubon... So that would just be temporarily that will be hooked
up...just for a month until, and we're not even sure that that will be the
case. It depends upon how long or where we're at on the street.
Emmings: There's nothing that keeps you from putting in a paved driveway
over that easement? That's fine is it?
Ahrens: Williams Pipeline allows a paved driveway over that?
' Al -Jaff: Yes they do.
Jim Hill: Madam Chair if I may. Exhibits indicate that driveways...
Rod's talking about the homestead maintaining his own driveway along with
the Chaska brick home and not take away the individual access as there are
some other Chaska homes, brick homes on Audubon and not as proposed by
staff to bring a driveway from here.
Rod Grams: We want it to remain. I mean if it does have historical value
and to have it retain that is important I think. I think the access there
is going to set it apart.
Ahrens: Okay. Anything else? Thank you. Would anyone else like to
address the Commission?
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 25 ,
Erhart moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Ledvina: One thing that I noticed as I was going through the information
here. I have some questions regarding the variance that was proposed for 1
that building. I'm wondering if staff could explain how the situation
meets the criteria for a variance because frankly I don't see specifically
why it's being proposed. 1
Krauss: Well, this explanation is not going to fall within the normal
legal context of a variance, which frankly was the reason that I wanted to
get a range of variances reviewed by the Planning Commission instead of the
Board of Adjustments. The Board of Adjustments is very good at taking a
variance in it's usual hardship context for a garage or for a deck or you
know, to make a lot buildable. What they're less adept at doing is taking
a proposal, a development proposal in total, you know that does this thing
work? Is this variance not so much a hardship but does it reflect the way
this property should reasonably be developed. And in this case we thought '
it did. I mean theoretically you can bump property lines further out to
eliminate the variance. Conversely you can, or alternatively you can
require that the garage be torn down and moved. I mean we've done that. If
the garage is not in great shape, we've had that done in the past too. But
in this case there's a tree line back there. It lends itself to be the
appropriate place for the property line. Moving the property lines
significantly raised some problems with interior lots further in. So while
I can't tell you that it's a traditional hardship, it does fall within the '
realm of things we've considered at times in the past. So I hope that,
that probably didn't put your mind at ease.
Ledvina: You know I look at the issue as far as the vegetation is
concerned and in the winter there isn't vegetation and you can see thru
tree lines. Our activities, our approvals at this point don't in the
future prevent those trees from dying or being taken out. I see the issue II
with maybe contrasting building styles with an older shed or garage there
with newer style houses on, I'm not so certain that that really works
together and I'm wondering if we should try to separate that as much as
possible by the ordinance. Is there another mechanism we can use besides a
variance to allow this type of situation?
Krauss: Short of not catching it in the first place, no. There really
isn't.. I mean it does exist. Now again, there are alternatives and the
alternatives do include bumping the line or tearing it down. I'm looking I
at the lot right behind it. Lot 5 is a 16,000 square foot lot and it's
possible that we could kick the lot line around a little bit to mitigate
that. I'm not sure we can eliminate it.
Ledvina: That would make that lot 14,500 roughly. 14,500 feet and that
would be less than if you took it off the whole map.
Krauss: No, it's 16,000 now.
Ledvina: Right. You could just do that along the southeast part of that
lot line.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 26
Krauss: We can sure look at trying to do that.
Ledvina: Yeah, I would be against the condition for the variance. I just
don't believe that it meets the intent of, or the letter of the variance
' and I think some alternatives should be investigated for that. Otherwise I
really didn't have any other comment.
Emmings: I agree that we should do something other than a variance. Maybe
we can be more flexible. I still think though...and I think if something
can be done to eliminate granting variances, it should be done. If they
make that lot in back a little smaller, I'd rather have it that way. As
far as the driveways go, I guess I don't know how much distance there is
between the ends of the two ends of the U and particularly to the one to
the south would be more concern. There's only one person going to be using
that driveway so it isn't a lot of use but would you regard that as being
unsafe or too close?
_ Hempel: It sets kind of an example for the other 5 homes also that are
adjacent to Audubon Road which someday will be developed also. Their
access on a horseshoe driveway, granted it may be single use or whatever
but they do generate average 8 to 10 trips a day. It's an additional curb
' cut along the road and it may also impact an acceleration lane and so
forth.
1 Ahrens: What's the speed limit on that road?
Hempel: Right now it's 45. Actually it's probably a rural standard, south
of Huron Drive it's probably 50 mph. There's a crest there however with
' some sight distance but eventually when the road is urbanized, similiar to
what was done north of this development where it made the 4 lanes with curb
and gutter and so forth, use is intensified. More curb cuts out there.
Speed limit may be reduced to 35 or 40 eventually.
Emmings: Does the County have anything to say about the number of accesses
onto that?
Hempel: No. This is not a county road. This is a city street.
' Emmings: I guess what I'm trying to get you to commit to is, do you think
that it's a bad situation? A situation that should be avoided by us?
' Hempel: We believe it is, yes. Or at least limit the driveway down to one
access.
Emmings: That was my next question. If we take out the U and just give
him a single drive in, would that make you feel any better?
Hempel: Every little bit would help.
Krauss: If I could put into context. I don't remember the exact amount of
traffic that's being forecasted by the Eastern Carver County Study but I
thought it was somewhere in the neighborhood of 6,000 to 8,000 trips a day.
Emmings: For?
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 27
Krauss: When this area is fully developed. TH 101 right now is 10,000
trips a day so if that puts it, you can get a feel for that. So 50%-60% o
what you see on TH 101 today is going to be the ultimate traffic on Audubor�
Road.
Emmings: Another alternative might be to give them one driveway and put all
driveway easement across TH 7 and put that in our pocket in case it's ever
deemed to be a hazard?
Krauss: You can certainly use that as a fall back position but those
things tend to, if they're not utlitized at the outset, they .typically
won't be. Also, as Dave points out, we do have similar situations with th
Chaska brick homes across the street. Now they're all sitting on 5 and 10�
acre lots. In fact, the developer of Lake Susan Hills.
Hempel: Joe Miller Homes.
Krauss: Joe Miller Homes is talking to us about the possibility of
developing directly across the street from the north road. And that one i
a Chaska brick home. It's Willy Molnau's. And we've even seen a concept II
for that one and as I recall, I thought it was going to access internally
off the new street.
Hempel: I've never seen it I guess.
Emmings: It's hard sitting up here to know whether this is dangerous or 1
not dangerous. I think as a general rule we should limit the number of
accesses onto Audubon but I can see the point of wanting to maintain the
driveways since everything is oriented that way and my position on this I
I guess would be that we go along with the, I'm going to have to go with
the City Engineer and say that the driveway is going to have to go out
through Lot 7, unless the applicant can convince the Engineer from now
until the City Council, that it's a safe thing to do. That's all I've got.'
Conrad: For our front yard width, what do we do? Especially on
cul -de -sacs. It has to have a 90 foot width at what kind of setback from II
the road?
Al -Jaff: 50 feet setback. 1
Conrad: And all these do meet that?
Al -Jaff: Correct. ,
Conrad: There are a lot of narrow lots here and fairly deep. The square
footage by the depth. But I guess I don't have a concern with that. I am '
struggling, I don't think we should grant a variance that was for the out
building or the garage. But I am struggling with the curb cut for the
farmhouse. And I kept looking for another way to design this and I can't I
do it in 5 minutes. I have a tendency to want to grant one curb cut for
the Lot 8. My concern is the, what is necessary for safety for Road E and
0 and I don't know that right now. Therefore, my tendency is to go along
with Steve's motion until the applicant can sell our engineer on the safety,
and the engineer knows the acceleration and deacceleration lanes. I think
II Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 28
the farmhouse orients to the road. I guess that tends to sell me that it
should have Audubon access but I'm going to go along with a motion similar
to Mr. Emmings to allow the applicant to. I'm concerned about safety and I
need the applicant to be talking to the engineering department on that one.
' That's all.
Ahrens: Any discussion?
I Erhart: Yeah I do have some. Maybe I'm tired and crabby but you know,
for 6 years I've been trying to get a plan on this Bluff Creek Greenway.
Six years ago a development came in and put houses where I thought we
' should have preserved a corridor. We were real lucky back then because
that development never got built. We all committed at that time to lay out
a plan so when south Chanhassen got developed, and properties which include
Bluff Creek came in, that we'd have a plan. I walked out there this
' afternoon and I had no foggy idea where, in walking around that property,
where the backs of those houses are going to be relative to this greenway
corridor. I'm looking at it and looking at the contours. I hope it
doesn't interfere with the vision that I share with a lot of people on this
greenway. But after this thing gets approved, the worlds not going to move
it. I hope all of you, we got it on the action tonight and I don't
understand why the Park and Rec, who is spearheading this effort? Park and
Rec or is it us or who?
Krauss: Park and Rec has really taken this and hopefully is running with
it.
Erhart: Running with it?
' Krauss: There is no plan that exists. We have been taking land to get the
trail corridor in.
Erhart: I'm not talking about a trail corridor. We're talking about a
greenway here.
Krauss: Well the greenway is there Tim.
Erhart: Maybe your idea of there and my idea of there might be two
' different things.
Krauss: I think you've got a substantial amount. That's the half of the
greenway that happens to be on this property. The other half is on the
other side. The creek channel itself is way up there.
Erhart: Okay, the line that you cross, does that include what's currently
tilled also today down there?
Krauss: Yes. Part of that is.
' Rod Grams: No, the line falls just about...
Erhart: So the tilling would be on, it's under the high water mark or
' above it?
Planning Commission Meeting 11
June 3, 1992 - Page 29
1
Rod Grams: Some of it goes below...
Erhart: Well,. I'm not asking to hold this up but I think we'd would use
this to tell us.
Al -Jaff: We were out there and. '
Krauss: We're a little confused. I mean Rod lives there and obviously
knows the place a lot better than we do but we were convinced that there is,
tilling in this corner. And then when we get up on the Ryan piece, I know
that some of that area...
Rod Grams: A lot of that is meadow grass right now. There might be some I
tilling...
Krauss: But in any case, there is a substantial amount of land being
reserved so that we not only have green space. Frankly the green space
there, it is not, we're talking about a ditched creek in this area and I
think at some point in time the city's going to want to come in and do tree'
planting and whatever else along there.
Erhart: Right, and what you've got to have to do that is you've got to I
have enough high land so the trees will live. You can't plant oak trees
and maple trees in a wetland. That's my point here.
Krauss: That is true. But a lot of this area is out of the wetland
proper. It's mostly in the flood plain. 100 year flood plain.
Erhart: I couldn't relate this plan to that and that's why I think it's
important that we get in and we, just like we're doing on TH 5. You know
everybody who lives north of TH 5 wants to get this TH 5 defeined. Well I
want to, for 6 years have wanted to get this Bluff Creek greenway defined I
so when we got plans, we could actually compare it to some elevations and
say, okay. Yeah, this is reserved for a future greenway and we're not
going to have people's properties and we may have to buy that land at that
time but today I'm real concerned that we don't know what we're doing and II
I can't tell.
Krauss: Well I'd certainly support the idea of the Planning Commission I
stating a desire to have a specific plan developed for the corridor. You
know we have gone on record of going to the Park Board and asking for just
that and there is a meeting on June 18th that has, a special meeting that
has to do in part with the potential of a golf course. But the other part II
of that agenda is Lance Neckkar from the University who's worked with
Bill Morrish and us on the TH 5 matters, did a design for a Bluff Creek
Park that was featured at the Minneapolis Art Center. I have not seen it
yet myself but he submitted that for design competition and I'm kind of
hopeful that that's going to get the ball rolling to do just what you're
asking. '
Erhart: Yeah, that's my concern. In the future when the city, you know we
all talk about preserving open space and to me this is the perfect example
of doing that. In order to get what I envision as a Bluff Creek Park,
i
II Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 30
you're going to have to have trees on either side as a buffer between the
' trail and the developments along the park.
Krauss: Yeah, clearly that's the case and clearly that's not available in
' this area. It would have to be planted. But while I can't.
Erhart: It's high landed. The question is, is there adequate upland to
plant oaks and maple and stuff with this plan? Between the backs of the
' houses.
Krauss: Based upon what I know now, I'd have to say yes there is. And
' again, we're talking about land that might flood every 50 to 100 years.
Erhart: That won't kill trees.
Krauss: While unfortunately Tim, I can't show you the plan for Bluff
Creek. I know that at a staff level we have some very firm ideas as to
what that might embody and we've taken, you might recall on the Ryan
development we took that outlot with the island in it and the creek that
has the only mature trees left south of the railway tracks. We're working
with the railroad to get the underpass. The Hans Hagen development fits
into that concept and we've been working to get that further north and then
with MnDot so there's a lot of things happening. There just is not a plan
showing how it's going to work.
' Erhart: Well I just ask that we get on with this. I would ask that the
Commission consider this and if the Park and Rec isn't moving on it, that
we assume responsibility and get on with it. Maybe take that later on in
discussion so let me go ahead with this. Should we be doing anything here
today to provide utilities to Lot 1, Block 1 in Sunridge Addition? We
should have in our mind when that lot gets developed, that that be an urban
lot. Let it be divided into 4 or 5 logical lots and get it on the tax
rolls.
Krauss: We have not been requested to do that. We spoke, I mean I think
' we spoke to the person that bought it. That does cause a problem. That is
the problem that we've been telling people about that Timberwood's going to
face and Sunridge Court's going to face. That you have one lot, two lots
left that are going to attempt to be rezoned. Remember this is not RSF
land. But at the bottom end of a large lot, rural cul-de-sac is somebody's
going to sooner or later request urban density. That's a tough one. I'm
not certain the city's going to look on that kind of thing favorably. I'm
sure the neighbors, reasonably sure the neighbors wouldn't. I don't know
if that's a reality.
' Erhart: I'm not trying to decide that today. I'm just asking.
Krauss: As far as the ability to serve?
' Erhart: Ability to put in sewer and water into that lot. Are we doing
anything today that would...
Krauss: I guess I'd defer this some to Dave. My understanding is that
there is a utility easement that comes down through that area and we could
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 31
possibly look at terminating something there.
Hempel: I was just going to point out that utility service to these
phases, Phase 1 will be served from the sanitary sewer line...extending
down Audubon Road on the west side which will serve approximately an area
here to, from Audubon Road to approximately here. The remaining area west
of there will be served at a later date or next year I guess when the trunk
interceptor is brought up along Bluff Creek and then crosses across Bluff I
Creek to service that area. Because of the lay of the land, it drops off
very severely, elevation wise, it doesn't work without bringing this line
across from Bluff Creek. So at that time we can make a provision. They
are providing a drainage utility easement across here. I believe it was
for the watermain extension and storm sewer in this area to stub out
sanitary sewer lines to service in the future these lots.
Erhart: Okay, so there is an easement there? '
Hempel: There is an easement in Sunridge.
Erhart: What about this development? Is there an easement here?
Hempel: Yes. They are providing a 7 1/2 foot each side and we're
recommending that be increased to a 10 foot wide each side.
Erhart: Okay. So if somebody wanted to come in and petition to get that 1
moved into the MUSA line, they have the provisions to hook in?
Krauss: It is within the MUSA line.
Erhart: No, Lot 1 isn't.
Krauss: Yes it is...
Erhart: No, I'm talking about Sunridge. Oh it is? Okay. Alright, so he
can get access to sewer and water? '
Hempel: That's correct. With future phases. With this first phasing, no.
Erhart: What are we doing, Paul or Sharmin, what are we doing on water
quality with regard to I guess our swamp committee. Basically trying to
ensure:that every development has post runoff that's equal to pre runoff.
What are we doing in this plan to assure that? It wasn't clear to me.
We're not adding any holding or any retention ponds or anything.
Hempel: With this first phase, they are not providing any interim storm
sewer ponds, retention ponds. The ultimate plan does provide two retention"
ponds on the westerly portion of the development. If you look at the
grading plan provided there, it will show two small retention ponds.
Erhart: Okay. Now is that discussed in here? '
Hempel: We have made mention of it in the staff report, yes. In fact in
the conditions of approval I believe it's also stated.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
g
11 June 3, 1992 - Page 32
Erhart: Okay. The lots backing up to Audubon Road Sharmin, are they,
II given that they're double sided lots, do they meet all the standards
regarding depth and setbacks?
II Al -Jaff: Yes.
Erhart: Okay, so we're sure that there's adequate room to put in this
landscaping that they've shown here, which the way it looks on this drawing
1 is great. But is the drawing what we're really talking about doing here?
Krauss: We would commit them to this landscaping plan the same as any
II other developer.
Erhart: Yeah. It doesn't look like they're going to have much of a back,
well it looks like their whole back yard is going to be wooded the way this
II looks. Is there a berm there at all?
Al -Jaff: No, there isn't.
II Erhart: No berms. Our ordinance does not require, or our new landscaping
ordinance does not require a berm there?
II Krauss: It's either /or or both to accomplish the goal of providing
screening.
II Erhart: And you're satisfied?
Krauss: They're doing quite an extensive landscaping plan.
II Erhart: Alright. Well I didn't notice the berm although I missed the
ponds so. Okay, I agree with Steve and Matt there. You know as much as
I I'd like to, it doesn't make sense to worry about the 20 feet. I just
think we can start getting into a habit of allowing variances just... makes
sense. That's the problem but it's also what's right with our system of
ordinances. I would agree that we should try to keep the things meet the
II ordinance. Thought I was done didn't you? Okay, now we get to this
conservation easement. I noticed in the Minutes you didn't take that up at
the last meeting. Or did we?
1 Krauss: No we didn't. You asked that it be.
I Erhart: Yeah. And I know I've asked that we do this and I'm not going to
get into detail tonight but I've got a couple questions. Help me. What do
you mean by a conservation easement on what is a finch row of trees. What
does that mean? What is this conservation easement going to say?
1 Krauss: Well, you know unfortunately I have a copy of the conservation
easement on my desk upstairs. It basically says that the developer's not
I allowed to remove it and it even says, as I recall, that the homeowner can
thin and maintain and remove diseased trees. Otherwise, the trees are to
remain.
' Erhart: He can't take trees out? Or thin, what does that mean? Is that
the terminology that's used?
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 33 ,
Krauss: I don't recall exactly. I mean I'm hoping that Roger's
terminology is more explicit but I don't recall.
Erhart: Well, the point I wanted to get into the discussion was that I
guess I am of the belief that a homeowner has the right to do what he wants!'
with his trees and we shouldn't get ourselves in the position here of
essentially defining people's lives so strictly that we go in and tell them
what trees he can remove in his yards. I don't want to get into that II discussion here because it's not the subject on the agenda but again we're
asking for that and I think we need to really think that out Now in this
case, are we talking about conservation easements just on the, it seems to I
be at the discretion of the staff. Are we talking about easements just on
the trees along the north boundary?
Krauss: Yes. We considered doing it on other trees that are highlighted II
as being preserved in this plan but we reasonably didn't think that they
stood much of a chance.
Erhart: Okay. If we're going along the north boundary, I guess I don't II
have a problem because they're in the back yards but once again, I think
it's a subject we need to discuss because I think we need to think it
through and we're starting to see a lot of these things and to the extent
that the one development we actually changed our setbacks to preserve trees
and quite frankly, I just don't, why we have a problem with developers,
used to have problems with developers cutting down trees. Most of them
don't do it today. We had one and I'm all for holding them to the fire but
when we get to the homeowner, that's where I want to have this discussion.
So I'm okay with as long as we stick to the north area. I think it's
impractical to get in and try to, this tree control thing so. The Park and
Rec recommended that the city acquire ownership of Outlot A. And it
appears to be, then change to where we're asking the developer just to turn
over Outlot A to the city. Is that, does the process seem equitable? Or
is that we're just doing that or what is our city's, what is the process
for making these things equitable?
Krauss: This is our means of preserving the Bluff Creek corridor. In '
terms of equity, first of all we're talking about land that has marginal
values since it's all in the flood plain and can't be developed anyway.
Secondly, there is a cost offset and as I recall, the Park and Rec
Director's report is that in exchange for the land, they are not going to
be required to pay trail dedication fees.
Erhart: But then it adds in, they're putting in a, I'm a little confused. II
Aren't we asking them to actually put in a trail?
Krauss: No. We're asking them to put in a stub of a connection. What
that does is it's to provide access from this development to the future
trail system that the city has to develop.
Erhart: Alright, so we're not asking them to put in some trail that we
haven't really defined yet?
Krauss: No.
•
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 34
I Erhart: Okay. Why did we ask the developer to remove the island that he
was proposing on...?
II Hempel: We delete them for maintenance purposes. Vehicular access to it
and so forth. Snowplowing reasons. They're essentially in the way.
I They're a maintenance problem if there's landscaping and so forth on it.
Typically what goes in them is a landscape monument with a light shining on
it or something like that. A more appropriate place for that would be on a
I lot corner entrance. One of the corner entrance.
Erhart: What do other cities? You know Eden Prairie has got a number of
them.
I Hempel: Some cities have them. Some don't.
I Ahrens: Have you ever seen what our snowplows do to the curb? They
destroy them. Ours are destroyed every single year. Curbs and gutter.
I Hempel: It's hard on our trucks too when they hit them.
Ahrens: Huge chunks of concrete out every single year. It seems like they
need really expansive space in order to move the plows around, and they
don't even make it then.
Erhart: Well again, maybe that's something we need to discuss outside this
I development but again, I think they add character to the city. I hate to
see it, just reject them cart blanche without some kind of value decision.
I'm not an expert and that's not the kind of thing I'm going to decide by
myself but again I would hope that we're just not throwing them out without
I
some due consideration because I think they do give it some character and
again, after or before we maybe recess tonight, if anybody's interested in
discussing it, then we should throw it out and do it so. Right now, help
I me understand this. The City trunk sewer and water improvement project
will include construction of 8 foot sidewalks along the west side of
Audubon Road. Yet the trail coming down to this development is on the east
I side. How does that all work out?
Krauss: I don't know that any of us can adequately explain that. There
were two separate public improvement projects that occurred. We had a
I
group of residents that fought having a trail put in. Made it cross over.
I don't know. Dave, do you have anything?
1 Erhart: We've decided there's going to be a cross over?
Krauss: There's actually several.
1 Al -Taff: There will be two.
Erhart: Oh, you're kidding.
I Ahrens: Back and forth across Audubon Road?
I Emmings: How many trips a day?
II
Planning Commission Meeting '
June 3, 1992 - Page 35
Hempel: Originally it was proposed to have a trail, the trail system down
along the east side of Audubon Road with the original Audubon Road II improvement. However, I believe the Council felt at the time that there
would be no use for a trail south of Huron Drive because there was really
no development south of there. And so at that time they felt to leave it
out until future development warranted it. I believe with Ryan Business '
Center, there was a trail proposed. Sharmin, is it on the west side?
Ryan's Construction... It also looped back through the business center, if
I'm not mistaken.
Erhart: So we do have a plan for a trail. Once you get from Park Road
along the east side, is that the way I see that?
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Erhart: What is this on the west side then? ,
Krauss: The original Audubon Road improvement plan, if I recall correctly
two years ago, was supposed to put the trail down the east side of Audubon.
Area residents fought that. There were some trees located in the right-of-
'
way that would probably have had to be removed. Trail work put in as
proposed. There's a consequence the City Council didn't put any trail in
at all in that area.
Erhart: Now that's developed? Is it too late to get a trail in there now?
Krauss: The road project that had the trail attached to it is finished. 1
Erhart: Yeah, I mean we still can get a trail on the undeveloped land next,
to it perhaps or not?
Krauss: When that land develops, yes.
Erhart: Okay. Well, alright. Outlot extends to the east, okay so that's I
the trail. On page 10, that's the trail you're talking about. Okay, I
guess that's all. Again just a couple points here. The Park Commission's
recommending that no development occur in the wooded area. What does that
mean?
Al -Jaff: Disregard that. ,
Erhart: This is driving a point with me. We're getting some and I'll tell
you what. I planted more trees in this city than anybody ever has but we
are getting to the point where we're tree nuts. The idea of not putting
them in, the urban forest is something that's alive and over 30 years
people do plant trees and today, I've read someplace recently again where
because of urbanization there's less trees in our city. That's a bunch of
crap. There's less trees in this city when it was farmland. There's a lot
more trees here today than there was 50 years ago. It's a living thing and
trails are something that you put in and trail easements are permanent ,
hundreds of years. The idea of not putting in a trail because there's a
tree is crazy. And not putting in decent setbacks because there's a tree
is crazy. Those are permanent. Trees are something you can plant and in II
30 years you've got a shade tree. This city's going to be here 100 years
i
Planning Commission Meeting
II
June 3, 1992 - Page 36
and 200 years so we're setting a pattern here. I think we've got to really
' evaluate where we're going with this tree stuff. So I think that's all the
things I've got.
' Ahrens: That's it for you?
Erhart: That's it.
' Ahrens: Do you have anything specific on the wetland alteration permit or
the rezoning? Sharmin, on page 11. The lot width and page 12 and 13.
There's a number of them that appear to be less than the required 90 feet.
Al -Jaff: Those are on cul -de -sacs. If you take the setback of 30 feet,
then you would meet the 90 foot width required by ordinance.
' Ahrens: Okay, so every single one of these that's under, it goes on page
14 and 15, it seems like a lot of lots here. I count 29 lots.
' Al -Jaff: They're either on a cul -de -sac or on a curve and the ordinance
allows it.
' Ahrens: Okay. Do you have a condition in here, maybe I just missed it
about the applicants demonstrating to the staff that a house and deck can
be placed on those two lots?
' Al -Jaff: It should be in the preliminary plat.
Ahrens: Maybe I missed it.
Krauss: We believe there was one that probably dropped out in the editing
process. There should be one.
' Ahrens: Okay, and that should be in there?
' Krauss: Yes.
Ahrens: And also I think we should have a condition that all driveways in
the development not exceed 10% grade. This seems to be an issue with
' several of the driveways right?
Al -Jaff: It's in condition number 11.
Ahrens: Okay. Is there a question for any of the other lots besides Lots
25 and 26? Maybe we should just in general put. Because it's not just
those two lots we're concerned with. It's any lot in the development.
Al -Jaff: Correct.
II Hempel: It appeared based on the contours that they provided that those
were the only two lots impacted at this stage but if further modifications
are done, so it's known that 10% is our maximum grade.
1 Ahrens: On page 6 of your report, Sharmin you talk about protective
measures being implemented for using snow fences and other means during the
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 37
construction period. Do you have that in there? On page 6, your second
1
full paragraph?
Al -Jaff: I don't have it as a condition of approval.
Ahrens: And it should be. I have kind of a cryptic note in my notes here I
and I'm not sure what I'm talking about but someplace in your report you
talk about redesigning and raising lot grades to minimize runoff toward
Audubon Road. That's in here as a condition? If not, it should be. '
Hempel: Condition number 11, I think one of the sentences could be
expanded.
Ahrens: Pardon me?
Hempel: On condition number 11, midway through it. The applicant shall I
amend the grading plan for Phase 1 to accommodate future upgrading of
Audubon Road. That's where it was implied the back yards should be graded.
Ahrens: Maybe we should make it more specific because the concern seems di
be pretty specific about the runoff. I agree with everyone here who said
there should be no variance. I think that's a good idea. The driveway
access, I think we should somehow try and have a driveway access there. I�
don't think the main goal of the city is just to make sure that cars trave
as quickly as possible down roads. As long as we're building residential
neighborhoods along collector streets, I think that we should be concerned
with what they look like and how liveable they are and the character of th�
city.
Erhart: I didn't follow your recommendation. '
Conrad: What'd you say?
Ahrens: That there should be a driveway. We should allow a driveway. 1
Conrad: A curb cut?
Ahrens: A curb cut, yeah. A driveway out to Audubon Road.
Erhart: Just leave it the way it is. '
Emmings: Single or U?
Ahrens: It doesn't matter to me. I mean whatever can be worked out with II
the engineering department. I don't see that the horseshoe, it hasn't been
proven to me that that's a dangerous situation so.
Emmings: Has it been proven that it's safe? I mean in his opinion.
Hempel: It may be safe at this time but we're looking long range down the II
road. Down the way as the road capacities are reached.
Ahrens: But also as the road capacity is reached, the traffic slows down '
right?
II Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 38
Hempel: The speed limit changes, yes. Typically it probably would in that
area somewhat. Still there'd be some concerns with turning movements into
the driveway and so forth.
Ahrens: How many trips a day do you think Mill Street has down at
' Excelsior? Where CR 17 ends up. And there's curb cuts all along that
street. There doesn't seem to be any problem. They get a lot of traffic.
You know what I'm talking about?
1 Krauss: They also have lots of speed traps along there.
Hempel: 30 mph I believe too.
Ahrens: 30 mph, yeah. Okay. I don't have anything else. Is there a
motion?
Conrad: Let me ask one more question because I'm confused about the trail
on Audubon. On this parcel. Where is the trail on Audubon?
1 Al -Jaff: West off Audubon Road.
Conrad: Okay, it's close to the tree.
' Erhart: On the street?
Al -Jaff: It's part of the public right -of -way. It's not on the property
and the landscaping is being installed on the property.
Ahrens: Kind of like Lake Lucy Road.
Conrad: And is that the way we've been doing trails? That the city has
been developing the trail?
' Krauss: It's actually been a combination of either it's in the right -of-
way or occasionally there's a separate easement provided. Within the
1 downtown sidewalk system and Market Square here is not going to be in the
public right -of -way. It wasn't originally in the public right -of -way. It
was in an easement, off street. It's really a matter of how wide the
right -of -way is and can we accommodate it within it. In this case we can.
1 Conrad: And who's responsibility has it been to build the trail?
' Krauss: We have done it with public improvement projects.
Hempel: As we upgrade the section of street to urban standards, we would
include the trail section at that time. In some cases however we have made
the developer actually go back. Or include it in his project to build it
at this stage.
' Conrad: I have a recollection that we have done that. So we are doing it
two different ways.
' Hempel: I believe in this area because it's kind of a piece meal, we have
development down here. We have no development up here yet so you're going
P Planning I
1 ng Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 39
I
to have a stranded piece of trail out here with no connection inbetween. I
think that's where staff believes that the trail system will be built under,
an improvement project with the upgrade of Audubon Road.
Erhart: At 50 feet it'd have to be on street right?
I
Hempel: It would be within the street right -of -way, yes.
Erhart: It would be on the inside of the curb.
I
Hempel: It would be between the curb and the property line.
Erhart: Oh it would be on the outside of the curb like a sidewalk then? 1
Hempel: That's right. Typically it falls one foot inside of the property 1
line on the right. One foot towards the street.
Erhart: 50 feet gives you adequate?
Hempel: Yes. I
Emmings: Mr. Grams has left and don't we have a standard condition that in
the year an approval is given to a plat, the applicant has to declare
himself a Democrat? Haven't we used that before?
Ahrens: That was one of the conditions that was left out too.
1
Emmings: We'll add that in.
Ahrens: Steve, you're making a motion right? I
Emmings: Sure. I'll approve that the Planning Commission recommend the ,
City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -6 with the conditions
contained in the staff report.
Conrad: I second.
II
Emmings moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -6 with the following conditions: 1
1. All wetland areas will be protected during construction by Type III
erosion control. All erosion control shall be maintained in good
I condition until the disturbed areas are stabilized.
2. The wetland area remain undisturbed.
3. The applicant shall receive a permit from the Watershed District. 1
4. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #92 -5 and '
Rezoning #92 -3.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Ahrens: Motion on the Rezoning. II
1 •
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 40
Conrad: I move that the Planning Commission approves Rezoning #92 -3,
1 property from A -2 to RSF per the staff report's two conditions.
Erhart: I'll second.
Conrad moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Rezoning #92 -3 property from A -2 to RSF with the following
1 conditions=
1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract containing all of
the conditions of approval for this project and shall submit all
1 required financial guarantees. The development contract shall be
recorded against the property.
1 2. The applicant shall meet all conditions of Subdivision #92 -5 and
Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -6.
1 All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Ahrens: Do we have a motion on the Preliminary Plat?
' Emmings: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve Subdivision #92 -5 as shown on the plans dated May 4, 1992
subject to the following conditions. I'll stop right here and emphasize
1 that I'm striking the language granting a variance. It will be all the
conditions in the staff report. With regard to condition number 6, that
deals with the driveway for Lot 8 going out to Road E over Lot 7. I would
move that that language be retained in here with the understanding that we
feel that it may be appropriate for the character of the property to have a
driveway of some kind going out to Audubon Road, but that it will be the
burden of the applicant to get to the City Engineer and see what they can
1 work out between now and the time of the City Council hearing. With regard
to condition 11. Joan raised an issue that I didn't understand with regard
to runoff. Making something more explicit about runoff going out to
1 Audubon Road and I want that one changed to be more specific to take into
account the comments that she made, which will be in the record. There
will be an additional condition number 16, that between now and the time of
the City Council hearing the applicant should work out with city staff
1 whether or not Lots 10 and 14 in Block 2 are in fact buildable. And then
an additional condition number 17 related to the language on page 6 of the
staff report having to do with trees designated for preservation as was
also pointed out by Joan.
Erhart: Before someone seconds. I have a question. The last one on the
' tree conservation easement. That's what Steve?
Emmings: That's on page 6. The second full paragraph be added as a
condition that the trees designated for preservation shall be protected by
1 snow fence.
Erhart: Could I ask you to change 7(d) where it says conservation
1 easements over all designated tree preservation areas to conservation
easements over areas as designated by staff. Would you agree to that?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 41
1
Ahrens: What's the point of the change of language?
Erhart: Because now you're requiring essentially to have a conservation II
easement over every colored area on this map. And Paul's already said that
he doesn't plan on doing that. '
Krauss: And I think that's mentioned in the staff report too.
Emmings: Okay, that's what I meant.
Erhart: Alright, then I'll second it.
Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision #92 -5 as shown on the plans dated May 4, 1992 and
subject to the following conditions:
1. All storm sewer drainage pipes should be designed for a 10 year
frequency storm utilizing a rational method. Storm drainage retention '
pond, detention areas and outlet piping shall be designed for a 100
year frequency, 24 hour single event using the "SCS Method" established
for use in Minnesota. The discharge rate shall not exceed the
predeveloped runoff rate. Ponds shall also be designed to "NURP"
standards. All storm retention ponds shall be constructed to NURP
standards.
2. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance 1
with the current edition of "City's Standard Specifications and Detail
Plates ". Detailed street and utility construction plans and
specifications shall be submitted for City Council approval. '
3. The applicant shall apply and obtain permits from the Watershed
District, DNR and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with
their conditions of approval.
4. Watermain systems shall be designed to ensure adequate fire flow for
the site. Design calculations shall be submitted to the City Engineer
to verify pipe size.
5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and
provide the financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms
of the development contract. The final plat shall be contingent upon
the City Council authorizing and awarding a public improvement project I
for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities to
service the site.
6. All lots shall access from interior streets and not Audubon Road. '
Street grades shall not exceed the 7% maximum street grade per City
ordinance. A deceleration /acceleration lane shall be provided on
Audubon Road. The center island shall be deleted from the southerly I
access street (Road E). The existing driveway to the site shall be
relocated to access from the northerly loop street through Lot 7, Block
2. A cross access easement shall be convenyed to Lot 8, Block 2 with
the understanding that the Planning Commission feels that it may be
appropriate for the character of the property to have a driveway of
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 42
some kind oin out to Audubon Road, but that it will be the burden of
9 9
the applicant to get to the City Engineer and see what they can work
out between the Planning Commission and City Council meetings.
7. The final plat shall be amended to include expanding the 15 foot wide
' drainage and utility easements to 20 feet wide and extending the
drainage easements through Lots 12 and 13, Block 1. The following
easements shall be provided:
a. Dedication of all street right -of -way.
b. Conservation and drainage easements over all protected wetland and
ponding areas. Provide access easements to allow the city to
maintain all ponding areas.
1 c. A 20 foot wide utility and drainage easement over all sewer, water
and storm sewer lines located outside public right -of -way.
' d. Conservation easements over areas designated by staff.
e. Standard drainage and utility easements along each lot line.
' f. Dedication of Outlot A to the City.
8. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the pipeline company for
any grading or construction activity within the pipeline easement.
9. Fire hydrants should be spaced approximately 300 feet apart throughout
' the subdivision in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations.
10. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored
with seed and disc - mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of
completing site grading unless MnDot's planting dates dictate
otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be
restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket.
I 11. Until Phase II improvements are completed, interim sediment and /or
retention ponds shall be constructed and maintained by the applicant to
' accommodate Phase I storm runoff. The applicant shall amend the
grading plan to take into consider the runoff from the back yards for
Phase I to accommodate future upgrading of Audubon Road (urban design).
The grades on Lots 25 and 26, Block 3 shall be redesigned so the
' driveway grades do not exceed 10%. The applicant shall supply
earthwork calculations for both phases to the City Engineer for review.
Erosion control fence along the westerly portion of the development
1 (Phase II) adjacent to the wetlands shall be the City's Type III.
Additional erosion control fence (Type I) shall be installed on Lots 7,
14 and 15, Block 3 and Lots 8, 10 and 11, Block 1 as check dams.
I 12. Outlot A shall be deeded to the city. In consideration for this, full
trail fees will be credited. An 8 foot wide bituminous trail shall be
constructed from proposed Road E to the rear of Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot
' 1, Block 3.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 43
The to the City temporary street
13. h applicant shall convey o t ity a tempo y easement for
the temporary cul -de -sac at the end of Road E. In addition, a sign
shall be installed on the barricades stating that the street will be
extended in the future. All street right -of -way for all plat phases to
be dedicated with Phase I platting.
14. The developer shall acquire the required utility construction permits 1
from the PCA and Minnesota Department of Health.
15. The applicant shall meet the conditions of the Rezoning #92 -3 and the I
Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -6.
16. The applicant should work out with city staff to provide whether or not'
Lots 10 and 14 in Block 2 are in fact buildable between the Planning
Commission and the City Council meeting.
17. Trees designated for preservation shall be protected by snow fence or 1
other means acceptable to the City.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. '
PUBLIC HEARING: I
INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR EARTH WORK /MINING OF A GRAVEL PIT. LOCATED AT 100
FLYING CLOUD. TOM ZWIERS. MOON VALLEY AGGREGATE.
Public Present: 1
Name Address
Richard and Gayle Vogel 105 Pioneer Trail
J.E. Brill, Jr., Esq. 100 Washington Avenue So., Mpls, 55401
Tom Zwiers 9390 26th Street, Lakeville 1
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item and went through the
City Attorney's Findings of Facts.
Erhart: In this case, how do you know when you excavated below the water
table?
Krauss: Well, we looked at the possibility of putting in a single
elevation. A not to exceed elevation but in the City Engineer's opinion,
the ground water elevation was fairly variable across the property.
1
Erhart: A lot of changes.
Hempel: Sample borings can be taken to determine what the water level is I
in a specific area there. It's kind of to document the water table. Water
tables do fluctuate with seasons so it is a difficult to pin point a
certain elevation. You do receive modeled soils after just a couple feel
underneath the surface in some areas in fact. So it is a difficult answer
to give at this point but we feel by random borings to determine the water
table would give us a significant benchmark,if you will.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 44
Erhart: In your opinion it's not excavated below the water table now?
Hempel: In some areas, we do have well waters of adjacent properties where
the wells are 145 feet deep. Static water level is about 90 feet. As you
come to the bluff lines and so forth, the water table does eventually get
lower through a transition of the soils. In this case, some areas, it's
possible. It could be on the surface ground water. The aqua firs, the
city wells are and so forth are 300 and some feet deep. The wells though
in adjacent neighboring properties may only be 90 feet. 100 feet deep.
Erhart: Do we have anything that limits the depth of this dig at all? I
mean like below highway level or any arbitrary level?
' Krauss: Maybe this is something Mr. Scott can get at. I mean we had an
earlier plan submitted to us in the original packet that we effectually
' called it Dig to China plan and there was a reason for that. The applicant
has told us repeatedly that they reserve the right to dig the mineral out
wherever and whenever it exists. Now what we're saying is, yes. You
probably do but within limits of protecting public health and safety, we
have the obligation to see that it's properly managed. Tom, do you want to
clarify that?
Tom Scott: That's essentially it. We can limit how far they'll dig if we
have valid health and safety reasons for doing that.
Ahrens: What would be one? What would be a valid?
Tom Scott: Well ground water is the primary one that we have right now.
Erhart: Yeah. A second one would be, well if you're requiring 2 1/2 to 1
slopes, eventually you get to a point I guess so there might be another
one. I'm trying to visualize where do we stop it.
Krauss: The important thing to note there though Commissioner Erhart is 2
1/2 to 1 slopes are finished grades. Mr. Zwiers' plan is to take out
considerably more than that and then put stuff back.
Erhart: Put what stuff back?
Krauss: There's over burden. There's black dirt. Other material may be
trucked into the site.
Erhart: I wonder if we just shouldn't set some kind of feel for, I guess
my feeling is we should have maybe something in mind here as an agreement
with the owner here that there is some point where we all agree you can't
go below that or something. Does that seem reasonable? Or desireable I
guess on your part.
Krauss: It's desireable. Again, I go back to the fact that this is not a
normal application and we're somewhat constrained.
Tom Scott: Certainly that, if we can reach an agreement with the applicant
on that issue, that'd be preferable.
Krauss: He'd know our expectations then.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 45
Tom Scott: Right. But to this point in time, that hasn't been the posture'
that the matter's been put in. So what we're looking at right now is
regulating based on health and safety issues. So we're not really in a
position where we could set certain depth limit. Unless we can justify
that by some safety reason.
Erhart: Yeah, and you're using the water table and the problem is, we all
agree that the water table is something that you can't pin down. It's very'
difficult so it might be easier at some point to negotiate with the owner
to say look it. Let's come to some agreement on a level at some point.
Ledvina: The water table, you should be able to pin that down within 10 1
feet and the scale of this thing is huge so it doesn't make that much
difference.
Erhart: You think you can pin it down to 10 feet?
Hempel: A soil's engineer maybe will be able to determine based on the
types of soils and the fines and the sands and so forth. The glacial
layers and so forth.
Ledvina: Given my experience, I think you could pin down to 10 feet.
Within 10 feet in a certain area. It will vary across the site but you can
determine that as well.
Erhart: But then you change the site and then it changes.
Ledvina: Partly that's true. Due to the differences in recharge. If you I
change the surface water, drainage around the site, that will tend to
change the water table as well. Not from strictly removing material above
the water table.
Erhart: No, not above. Yeah, okay. Well my concern was that you
couldn't, this wasn't something that you could really measure. Now if you '
can measure it, then that's fine.
Paul Krauss continued with his staff presentation at this point.
Ahrens: You can't include that specific language in here?
Krauss: I guess I'd refer that again to Tom? '
Tom Scott: I believe it's covered by Paragraph 1. They're going to be
submitting the Erosion Control Plan and 1(b), correct me if I'm wrong Paul
as part of that. Or I'm sorry, 1(d), as part of the erosion control plan,
a phased plan for site restoration, establishment of ground cover and
vegetation would be part of the things addressed in the erosion control
plan. That's basically what we're talking about. 1
Krauss: That's quite true. The context is a little different but the
upshot of it is the same. There's severe problems that occur when you
leave that much open, bare land open for periods of years. In terms of
erosion and.
1
II Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 46
1
Ahrens: Well should 13 be cross referenced to 1(d) then?
Krauss: The last condition, condition 14 is that there be an irrevocable
letter of credit acceptable to the city in the amount of $51,000.00.
Honestly $51,000.00 is far from sufficient to put the site back to it's
finished situation. Finished grade. But it is a number that we're
comfortable with represents the cost of maintaining erosion control
measures on the site and remediating some of the more significant problems.
' The ultimate end cost to restoration is something that Mr. Zwiers should be
absorbing as his operation goes through. I'm not certain that we have a
real good way of getting a handle on that and consequently this was the
' number that the engineer's office came up with.
Ahrens: They should be but that's implying that it's not being done?
Krauss: Well we have a site that's been in continuous mining activity. It
has not per se been restored yet in any way. Now we do have a single owner
on the property. Mr. Zwiers has stated that it is his intent to put the
' site back to rights when he's done with it but there's, I mean North
America is full of mine pits that have been exhausted and then they move
on. We'd rather that not happen to Chanhassen.
r Erhart: There's also mine pits that have been restored too. I wonder how
the government controls that. Do you have any idea?
U Krauss: I could be wrong but many years ago, almost in another life, I was
working for a firm in Wyoming where you have a lot of open pit coal mines.
I believe they have to pay into a federal fund that insures reclamation.
' Now you're talking about reclamation on a very big scale and there was
always some questions as to whether or not it was effective. On a more
local scale, I mean you could look at Byerly's in St. Louis Park. That was
a gravel pit. Or the new Centennial Lakes development was the Hedberg
gravel pit. So I mean clearly there's examples of doing it successfully.
Erhart: The idea of paying into a fund, that's not realistic?
' Krauss: I guess I'd again refer to our attorney.
11 Tom Scott: The alternative of paying into a fund? There's no legal
mechanism that I'm aware of to do that at this point in time. In a sense
under this, they have the alternative of making a cash deposit or letter of
' credit. That's the best.
Erhart: Except that Paul readily admits that let's say they abandon the
land and go bankrupt or whatever. There's not enough money there. Then
they should?
Tom Scott: Then we have a basis for increasing the amount we...
Erhart: They're gone then though.
Tom Scott: No, no. At this point in time.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 47
Ahrens: I didn't understand the answer. Tim said, he was asking what
would happen if they went bankrupt or abandoned the site. '
Tom Scott: Right, and the ordinance, and as condition 14 is addressing,
our ordinance requires them to post a letter of credit or a cash deposit to
ensure that they comply with the conditions in the permit. So if the
$51,000.00 is not a sufficient sum to cover that worst case scenario, the
city could, we could increase the $51,000.00 that we're requiring. There's
also an annual review of this permit. The ordinance sets up. They've got
to come back every year and during that annual review process, depending on
what course the operation has taken, we can review the amount of the letter
of credit and if we think it's appropriate to adjust the amount of the
letter of credit, assuming we have a rational basis for doing that, we
could increase the letter of credit. So they've got to come back every
year for a permit review. This certainly is going to establish a basic
framework but if there's changes a year or two or three years from now, we II
can in what's being contemplated now, we can certainly add additional
conditions. Change the conditions and one of the things we can look at is
the amount of the letter of credit. '
Ahrens: But if we're so sure that this is an inadequate amount right now,
why set it at $51,000.00? I mean between now and the next period of, the '
next time for renewal they could be, theoretically they could be gone.
Tom Scott: I agree. Right.
Krauss: I guess when I tell you that it's not enough to restore the site
to the condition that Mr. Zwiers is committing to, I'm telling you that
from a gut feeling. And Dave and I had some conversations about this and II
to see if there was a rational basis for establishing a fee in a different III
manner. We had some difficulty thinking of a way to do that.
Ahrens: Someone must be able to figure out the costs of restoring the
area. I mean it must be done all the time.
Hempel: We've got a rule of thumb for restoring a site that is void of II vegetation on a rate of $2,000.00 an acre. That's for replacing topsoil,
reseeding and erosion control measures essentially. Granted on a site like
this, if we're faced with sheer, straight up and down slopes, it's probably!'
going to exceed that $2,000.00 an acre. It probably takes more engineering
calculations or even to get an estimate from a couple of contractors to get
a little closer ballpark figure of what it would take to restore that site
to 2 1/2 to 1 slopes.
Ahrens: I think the city should do that.
Erhart: Yeah, that's assuming that they are left at 2 1/2 to 1 slopes and II
you could get out there and find out the slopes were higher than that and
then you'd even have additional expense... '
Ahrens: What we want to avoid is a city getting into big trouble on this
and standing back and saying we should have done this and this after the
fact. '
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 48
' Krauss: Yeah, I share the concern and if there's a rational basis for it.
After spending 2 days on the witness stand explaining all that we've done
to date, and don't get me wrong. I'm not reluctant to go back and do it
again and it's probably inevitable that we will. But the Judge is looking
11 for a rational basis for us to support these conditions and we very clearly
made an attempt to do that. I think Dave's suggestion about asking for
some estimates is possibly a good one and maybe that would help.
Conrad: Well, what's the vision of restoration? You can have all sorts of
restoration. When you get an estimate, what's the point of the letter of
' credit is to restore it to perfect or to restore it to acceptable? I think
that has to be a good number and you two came up with something that we
haven't seen the rationale behind but I think there should be good
rationale. I think the applicant should ask for a good rationale for that.
' We should know what we want it restored to and then our contractor, we
should get some estimates to restore it to that. I think that's real clear
in my mind. I think it's clear from the city's standpoint and clear from
' the applicant's standpoint.
Erhart: Yeah, and the point being, I think w� can't figure that number our
arbitrarily. I guess we'll just leave it as we emphasize that we agree
you've got to have some rational. I guess maybe what the problem here is,
the statement that you made Paul was that in your mind it clearly wasn't
enough and maybe you need to go back and re- rationalize what...
' Krauss: Possibly there's also a resolution to it with something that Tom
suggested. That you can vary this from year to year. If Mr. Zwiers
complies with the guidelines we've established and restores the site on an
incremental basis, then the risk of being left holding the bag is
diminished every year.
Erhart: You mean possibly lower?
Krauss: Yes.
' Ledvina: The cost estimates for the restoration should be based on the
existing condition at that time and then the final end use plan. And as it
gets closer to the end use plan, that cost would possibly decrease. I mean
it's not the worst case scenario as to what exists now and what needs to
occur for the end use plan. And I think you should do that on the basis of
the engineering. The number of cubic yards that are required to restore
the slope. The number of cubic yards of topsoil and seeding. Of erosion
control. I think it can be fairly straight forward in terms of the
estimation technique...
Ahrens: Okay. I think you get the picture of where we are on this letter
of credit. The $51,000.00.
' Krauss: Well, that sums up our recommendations and review on this. We are
recommending that it be approved with these conditions. Frankly, I wish we
had a better prepared package to give you. Frankly, I wish we had a little
more latitude on it as well. We've elected to go the route of saying,
alright. This is what you've done. It's satisfied what the Judge said you
had to give us and here's what we feel we need to responsibly make sure
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 49 1
that the site is properly handled. Based on that, we're recommending that
you approve it.
Ahrens: Okay. Anything else. This is a public hearing. If the applicant
or anyone else would like to address the commission. Please step up to thell
podium. State your name and address for the record.
Jerry Brill:- My name is J.E. Brill, Jr. I'm the attorney for the
applicant. Our address is Suite 1350, 100 Washington Square in
Minneapolis. Our firm has represented the applicant throughout the
proceedings and through the preliminary discussions that preceeded the
litigation. Mr. Krauss has indicated to you that he wishes that he could r
have more latitude in presenting the package to you. He has. The comments
I'm going to make to you are going, the bottom line is going to be that we
think he has exceeded the latitude which the Judge has given the city in I
the recommendations that he's giving you as they are standing before you
tonight. I think a little perspective may at least, it may not change your
mind but it will help you understand the position that we're in and the II position we've been in as we proceed through these hearings. Mr. Krauss
has indicated to you that the city has never really contested the fact that
we were a non - conforming use and I think that's correct. There hasn't been
a contest on that issue. We went before the court on really two issues. II
One related to the upper portion of the property which Paul described
briefly to you where we were going to look for a clay mining permit which
is yet to come before you and will be presented in a separate application. I
And the Court clearly decided against us and for the city on that issue.
That we were not a non- conforming use as it related to that portion of the
property. There wasn't any doubt about that. I will tell you that the
facts that were, to support that conclusion were developed as we proceeded II
into trial this last time and at the trial. There weren't apparent to
either your counsel or to us until we got further into the actual facts so
that wasn't something that we were talking off the top of our heads about. I
I mean we really thought we had a case there and it really depended upon
the timing of when we bought that property or when that property was first
purchased and used for mining as that related to when you adopted your
ordinance. It happened to be 1972 which required a conditional use permit '
for any mining. And it wasn't until late in the proceedings that the part
of your ordinance that requires that conditional use permit was even
discovered by either Tom Scott or myself. So we came at it honestly. We
really believed that we had the mining there before you adopted those
conditions because we thought those conditions were the ones adopted in
1986 when that recent ordinance was adopted which required an excavation
permit. It turns out there was an earlier ordinance in 1972 that required '
a conditional use permit that preceeded any mining on that property which
took place just after that. There was a conditional use permit asked for '
by our precedessor owner, Mr. Griffin Trog. It was never pursued. It was
kind of left hanging. Nothing was ever done about it and the Court decided
and I think correctly, and I really don't disagree with that. That we
don't have non - conforming use rights for the top portion of the property. II
So that kind of disposed of that issue. The other issue relates to the
non - conforming aspect. Non - conforming use of the southerly parcel. The
perspective I want you to get, at least as far as we're concerned is that
it's been described to you that the city never contested our non - conforming'
use status. They didn't but they did say, even though they couldn't stop
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 50
us from mining, they could regulate us in mining. Your City Attorney,
Roger Knutson wrote an extensive memorandum which was given to the Planning
Commission and Council which I think was where the disagreement really
started. In the memorandum he said, I'll just quote from it. The
available vehicles for regulation are as limitless as the lawmaker's
creativity. That was a lot broader than we thought you had the right to do
in terms of regulating. He went on to say in conclusion, the enactment of
ordinances...related to the good and welfare of the immediate community
' will be upheld. We disagreed with that also and I think the Judge found
that it isn't as broad as that. It's a nice phrase and it's something we
all kind of thing that we're trying to protect the good and welfare of the
' community but there are certain things in the long where you're limited and
interfering with private property rights and in this case the Judge found
that you can impose regulations that are strictly related to safety and
' health. Now that is only a portion of the description of what your police
powers are so there are aspects of your police powers which this Judge
found you can't apply in this case because we're a non - conforming use. 5o
the description of good and welfare was just too broad. That Mr. Knutson
' was giving you at that time and that's kind of how we got into the
litigation. I think his description of where your regulation powers were,
were reflected in Paul Krauss' response to the application that we made. He
' did a very studious critique of our application and it went on for a number
of pages and it asked for a lot of information about things. About the
mining operation that we resisted. We didn't think we had to do because
they indicated you were trying to regulate us in a way which we thought was
' beyond what your powers were because we were a non - conforming use. And I
think the Court found that you were limited the way we thought you were, to
safety and health recommendations. As a matter of fact, Tom Scott's letter
' which is attached to Paul's presentation to you here. His letter of May
7th says that Judge Kanning in his Order stated that the city must clearly
identify health and safety issues if it is going to impose any of the
' following types of regulations. That is limit the quantity of the material
that we mine. Prohibit mining on any part of the property. Limit the
depth to which we can mine. If you're going to do any of those things, you
can only do them if they're related to the safety and health. That's I
think what Judge Kanning found. And in looking at what's being recommended
to you, we think that frankly your staff is exceeding that latitude, in
it's latitude as to what it can do and what it's recommending to you. And
' I'll tell you where we think that that's the case so you at least have our
point of view.
Erhart: Can I ask a question? Do you think that we are within our rights
to be concerned about effects on adjacent property owners?
J.E. Brill, Jr: On adjacent property owners? Yeah but I don't really
think we had any issues regarding that here.
Erhart: You don't?
J.E. Brill, Jr: No.
Erhart: I think there is. Grading so close with slopes that it's going to
erode their property and affect on wells. That doesn't have anything to do
with neighboring properties?
Planning ommission Meeting
9
June 3, 1992 - Page 51 i
J.E. Brill, Jr: I don't think there is going to be any undergrading of
their property. I think the undergrading that Paul's been talking about i4g
undergrading our own property on the bluff. We have been limited up to no
to grading within 50 feet of the adjoining properties on either side. One
of the property owners happens to be here tonight that you can ask him if i l
there's an issue there. If you want to ask him directly but we have been
limited to grading within 50 feet of the property on either side of us that
we don't own and we would observe that and will continue to observe that.
As far as limiting how far we can undergrade our own property or mine on II
the face over there, that's a different issue and I think that as far as
that's concerned, we feel we have the right to grade on our own property to
the full extent of this southern portion of the property where we have a I
non - conforming use status.
Krauss: Would you like me to clarify that? II Erhart: You're asking, change it to 100.
Krauss: Yeah. What Mr. Brill and Mr. Zwiers are theoretically retaining II
the right to do, as I understand it is to, you know you have a hill with a II
property line at the top. They want to knock off their half of the hill
and then put it back. In the process of doing that, the top of the hill
falls down. That top of the hill is owned by the adjoining property owner II
and it shifts and slumps onto the adjoining property. That was what our
condition was trying to attempt.
Erhart: Yeah. That's all in this report right? That's in there. I
Ahrens: Why don't we let Mr. Brill go on.
I
J.E. Brill, Jr: We don't think we have the right to do that to an
adjoining property owner and I don't think it's a matter of the city's
regulation. I think we don't have the right to deprive any property owner I
of his lateral support. We can't do that. I don't think those are the
issues here. I think what we're really addressing but let me go on. The
first recommendation that Paul has made relates to erosion control. We II don't think that there is an issue here related to health and safety. We
don't think that's been strictly related to a health and safety issue and
we would resist that condition on a permit. Number 2 relates to the, I'm II
going by the recommendations now. It's not in your Findings. It's a
little bit different but I'm looking at the recommendations in his Planning
staff report. Number 2 has to do with the engineered construction access
designed to minimize tracking of mud and debris onto TH 169 and 212. We
have worked with MnDot on this. The last we discussed this with MnDot. 8
the way, this is an area which we're very concerned with because it affects
our own safety of our own trucks coming in and out of that site so we're '
very concerned about that. Mr. Zwiers has talked with MnDot and the last
we talked with them, they were unwilling to put any deceleration or
acceleration lanes on the highway. Now if that's changed because of recen
conversations that Paul and his staff has had, we'd just as soon get into
those discussions and talk to MnDot about that and see if we can't work
something out with them that will help that situation. We think it's a
problem over there. We attempt to keep the trucks off the highway during I
the peak hours on the highway and have them working at night. We've done
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 52
that for a number of years and we know that MnDot, in our last
I conversations are unwilling to allow, to limit the speed there to something
less than 50 mph and they've been unwilling to allow lanes in there that
would allow deceleration or acceleration. That's the last of our
discussion with them. We'll meet with them and we'll try to accommodate
I that situation and do what we can but we don't think that they want to
modify the highway out there and they haven't been willing to do that in
the past. As far as the debris on the highway is concerned, we have
I cleaned that up from time to time. They brought the highway patrol out
there and blocked off the highway while we cleaned that up. We don't think
there's been a serious problem out there. We don't think there's been any
complaints about it. We attempt to keep that as clean as we can. As far
II as the brush is concerned, we're willing to eliminate the brush so it makes
a clearer, visibility out there. We're certainly willing to work on that.
As far as relocating the access point to the northeast, we think that
I that's a problem. I'll tell you why. One of the problems is for a traffic
that's westbound, decelerating before it comes into the site. If you move
the access to the site further to the east, you're going to make it more
I difficult for trucks, or anybody entering the site to decelerate before it
enters the site. It seems that the point is made here that the purpose of
doing that is to improve the acceleration lane as westbound traffic leaves
the site. Give them a longer acceleration lane. The fact of the matter
I is, Mr. Zwiers says that probably 75% to 80 %, maybe 85% of the traffic is
going the other direction. They're not going to the east. They go out of
the site and go left and go east back towards Eden Prairie but there is a
I problem of trucks which come down the hill going on the westerly direction
decelerating before they get into the site and if you move that access
point further east, it's going to aggravate that problem. So we want to
II work with whatever the highway department, the city, whatever we can do to
make those conditions safer if possible. As far as dust and noise, which
is point 3, the operator says the operator shall work with the city to
positively respond to these issues. Again, we're not sure what that really
I entails. We don't think there's been any complaints about that to date
that we're aware of. But we're willing to discuss that further with the
city.
II Ahrens: Do I understand you to say that you're willing to work with the
city?
J.E. Brill, Jr: Yeah. It's unclear what that really means the way it's
expressed here.
I Ahrens: Paul do you want to very shortly explain what that means so we can
understand what, if that is something...
I Krauss: Well for example, dust impacts. You know we have sort of a
natural bow there that the few times I've been out there has been
reasonably able to contain that but conditions can change. If you get,
when we have a project around town that's generating significant amounts of
I dust, we require that the operator wet the site to minimize dust control or
modify their operations during those periods to minimize that. As to
whether or not there's been problems with these areas in the past, I
II honestly don't know. I have not heard of any but we have new homes being
constructed closer and closer to this all the time and there sno clear end
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 53
date as to when this operation will cease so there's going to be more homes
I've got to believe in the future.
II
Ahrens: Okay. It seems clear enough. You would be willing to work with
the city on this issue if it became a problem.
I
J.E. Brill, Jr: If it does, wetting down of dust control.
Ahrens: As determined by the city.
I
J.E. Brill, Jr: Dust control is something that he would certainly
consider. We are on a bowl as Paul says and I think we are kind of I
screened naturally from the surrounding properties so I don't think there
had been any complaints in the past.
Ahrens: I don't think we're asking you to consider responding. We're
I
asking to respond if there are problems and would he respond. Yes?
J.E. Brill, Jr: I don't see that as a problem. Do you Tom?
II
Tom Zwiers: Yeah, that's no problem.
J.E. Brill, Jr: Okay. 4 creates a problem for us. This really has to do II
with the issue that you were raising before about the, coming close to the
boundaries of the property and I think what's, first of all this 1 1/2 to
1 grade is steeper than the 2 1/2 to 1 that we're showing our present plan I
out there. So that's the end use grade and what we're talking about is in
the meantime mining closer to that boundary between the north and south
parcel. We feel we have the right to do that. We feel that that 1 1/2 to I
1, we ought to be able to mine right up to the property line on that
whether that, we mine up to that line or we mine 100 feet from it, we have
the same slope remaining and the same safety issue, if there is one, exists
whether you're 100 feet from that point on the property or whether you're
not. As far as safety is concerned, this is private property. We are
willing to put snow fences up there. We do know that trespassers do get on
the property. I think the snow fences area a reasonable request and I II think that's something that Mr. Zwiers will do without any problem. But
again, I kind of remind you it is private property and I don't think you
require other people on this bluff to put snow fences up to protect them II
from where there's steep slopes and there are many areas along here which
have existing natural slopes that are that and worst. The railroad
property over here in their abandoned area have some extremely steep slopes
and they have no requirement to put up snow fences but I'm saying to you
that we will do that. I mean we're saying it's, we don't think it's an
issue and it oughtn't to be but on the other hand we're willing to put them
up there so.
1
Ahrens: Okay, so on 4 you're saying. You want to cut to the property line
but you'll put fences up?
I
J.E. Brill, Jr: Yeah. It's the 1 1/2 to 1 grade within 100 feet that
we're unwilling to do. We think that's limits us to what we can grade on
our property and we think we have a right to grade that and mine that. Butl
on the second,' the last sentence of that number 4, the temporary snow fence
1
II Planning Commission Meeting .
June 3, 1992 - Page 54
I is when we exceed the 2 1/2 to 1 slopes, we will put temporary snow fences
up there.
Erhart: Excuse me, but are you saying here that, you accept the 100 feet
on other property owners but not your own property to the north?
J.E. Brill, Jr: Actually no. Actually it's 50 feet that we have been
maintaining and we think has been required of this property up until now
and we would continue to maintain that up to the adjacent property owners.
I
As far as our own property's concerned, well on the north end of this
particular part of our property we don't, we object to that. Yes.
II Erhart: To any setback?
J.E. Brill, Jr: Yeah.
II Erhart: Paul, can you respond to that? Do you want to respond now or wait
until the end?
II Ahrens: No. I'd just as soon have him.
J .E. Brill, Jr: I'm almost finished. Number 5 is daylight and ground
I water resources. We don't believe, in fact I asked Tom about the ground
water problem. He tells me he has never been below, he's never reached the
ground water. He's never exposed the ground water table. He doesn't ever
I expect to do that. It's quite a ways down below this site as we've mined
it to date and we don't ever expect that to be a problem and that's a
condition that we don't have a problem with. The protecting of existing on
site wells. There is only one well on the property. That's... I don't
I know quite what's meant about protecting it. We don't think there is any
issue about polluting it.
1 Erhart: Are you using it?
J .E. Brill, Jr: I think it's utilizing a home where somebody lives.
II Tom Zwiers: Wally lives there.
J .E. Brill, Jr: The permanent capping I think is required by State law.
1 Ahrens: Yes it is.
I J.E. Brill, Jr: So that we have to do anyway. So the only issue here has
to do with protecting on site wells. I guess I don't know what that means.
Erhart: Well you can't cap it if you're using it.
I J.E. Brill, Jr: The protection means they'll cap it when it's completed?
When we finish using it? Is that what? Okay. So that's not an issue.
i Krauss: When you grade the area.
II J.E. Brill, Jr: Yeah. Number 6. The annual review, I kind of heard some
comments that that really means we've got to apply annually for this permit
Planning Commission Meeting
II
June 3, 1992 - Page 55
renewal.
Ahrens: There is an annual permit renewal, as far as I understand it right"
Paul? That section is part of that?
Krauss: The earth work permit, well maybe this is something that Tom needs
to clarify. The earth work permit does have a requirement for annual
review. It's mandated in that. I'm not certain as to whether or not the
Judge would deem that as applicable in this instance because of non- II conformity. However, we're saying that from the standpoint of adequately
managing the site and adherence to the conditions that are outlined, that
that's necessary to insure that these issues are being taken care of. '
J.E. Brill, Jr: It kind of relates to the erosion control mostly doesn't
it?
Krauss: Well the ongoing operation.
Tom Scott: The fact that they're a non - conforming use would not impact II their obligation to come in and get an annual permit. There is an annual
permit requirement. You look at it annually and you can modify or you can
change the conditions but obviously the initial look and the initial plan
is going to set the basic framework. But then it is annually renewed and
the fact they're non - conforming use doesn't change that.
Ahrens: And the annual review by the City Engineer would be part of that II
application process I assume?
Tom Scott: That's right. '
Ahrens: Okay.
J.E. Brill, Jr: I guess I would disagree that we think you have the right!'
to change the conditions annually. I don't think you do. I don't think
you have a right to impose different conditions than those that you do here
that are within the Judge's limitations of relating to health and safety. J1
We do object to paying the fee. We think as a non - conforming use we're no
subject to that fee. We did have a discussion with the Judge about that
and he left that question open so if it becomes an issue between us, he'll
address it for us but when we were there the last time. Number 7 is the
revision of the end use plan. I think that relates to the, it kind of
relates back to number 4. In other words, changing the plan that's up
there now which is B -1 I think so that it relates back to this 100 foot
setback. I think, if I'm not mistaken, that's really what you're asking o
that isn't it?
Krauss: It also implies to the fact that we have an end use plan that kind'
of conceptually illustrates where ponding areas are going to be. We're in
no way sure that those are appropriately sized or designed and we're asking'
for details on that be included.
J.E. Brill, Jr: Which one are you talking about? The one down below?
II Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 56
Krauss: Yes. Well actually you're showing two that kind of intrude onto
the property but yeah, the one down below. We don't know if it's in the
right place. We don't know if it's the right size. We don't know if it's
effective.
J.E. Brill, Jr: The other point you're talking about is the holding pond
up on the northwest corner?
Krauss: If that continues to be in the plan, yes.
J.E. Brill, Jr: Well the problem with that one is that that straddles the
two properties and we're not permitted to do any mining on the upper
' property. I was always hopeful, we got into a little bit of a discussion
about that the last time we were down before the Judge but I was hopeful
that that would be on the agenda tonight so that we could really discuss
' that because that holding pond is something that really relates to both of
these projects, the north and south parcel and it's kind of unfortunate
that you have to discuss it in pieces because there was one holding area
but that's the way it turns out and we would feel that we would have the
' right to mine the portion that's on the southerly parcel as it's shown on
that plan and not the other until that's approved and if and when it's
approved by the city under our second license. Second permit we'd be
' asking for. We do object to the letter of credit. We don't think that
again is related to safety and health and that that is not required of us
in this case because of our non - conforming use status. So those are the
conditions I've indicated that we object to. We're unwilling to undertake.
I think you should know our position. I guess I don't expect you tonight
to do other than what your staff and your attorney has recommended to you
but you needed to know where we stand on it. We feel that those conditions
' are not within the purview of what the Judge has allowed you to regulate
here. If there's any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
Ahrens: There may be some questions later. Thank you very much.
J.E. Brill, Jr: Oh, one other thing. The Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency has sent a letter. You may have it in your packet. It just came
' today. It's dated June 3rd. It was addressed to Tom Zwiers. He probably
will get his in the main tomorrow. That's my guess and we looked at it
tonight. It refers to the MPEDS permit. MPEDS permit. I think Paul has
indicated that that's pretty much the purview of the MPCA and we agree with
that if that's what he's saying and we will take that up with the MPCA and
don't think that's going to be a problem. I'm not so sure that we are a
point source that requires that. That, if I'm not mistaken Paul, that's a
fairly new area of regulation that's being addressed nationally and it's
going to require a lot of effort by a lot of people to regulate a lot of
storm water discharge from just about every roof and parking lot in the
United States.
Ledvina: I had a question about that, if I can just touch on this. It
says waste water disposal system. It says that you operate a waste water
disposal system. Is that the case? Do you generate waste water by this
process?
11
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 57
J .E. Brill, Jr: Okay, let me tell you what it is. This pond down below
down there collects the runoff, natural runoff on the site into that pond.
It maintains a sedimentation pond and that has, that flows over to a
culvert or it might have been an old cattle pass that goes underneath the
highway and then out into the riverbed. That's not something that we're I
putting water into except for this natural water coming across.
Ledvina: Okay, so that's surface water drainage. So there's no waste
water?
J .E. Brill, Jr: We're not washing on the site.
Ledvina: Okay.
J .E. Brill, Jr: We don't do any gravel washing out there at all. '
Ahrens: Okay, do you have anything else Mr. Brill?
J.E. Brill, Jr: I don't. '
Ahrens: Would anyone else like to address the - Commission? Thank you.
Erhart moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in I
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Tom Scott: Madam Chair, could I make one comment? 1
Ahrens: Sure.
Tom Scott: Just to clarify. The Judge's Order, I guess the best way to
characterize it is he's going to look by more strict standard and look
harder at regulations that are going to prevent them from mining some of
the material on the site. That's the stricter standard. Regulations like
some of the erosion control techniques or methods we were talking about,
the pond and things like that. If they don't preclude them from mining
some of the materials on the site, the stricter standard or this closer
look that the Judge is going to take, doesn't apply. So we've been talking
about a more stricter standard but it's only regulations that would prevent
them from taking some of the material out of this site. I think that's ,
been a bit unclear.
Ahrens: Actually the materials were very clear that were sent to us. I
mean I understand the legal issues and everything else...
Erhart: Can we talk just maybe about what this process?
Ahrens: I was just going to do that. You mean the process of what we're
going to do here tonight?
Erhart: Yeah.
Ahrens: Yeah I know. I'm a little confused about this too. We're
certainly not going to get into any of the legal arguments. Judge Kanning II
has told us, has told the city what we can do and what we can't do and
' Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 58
we're not going to get into the pros and cons of this decision. You want
us to just recommend to the City Council whether or not we agree with the
health and safety conditions that you set up for their permit right?
Krauss: That's essentially the case.
1 Ahrens: Do we have to adopt the Findings of Fact also?
' Krauss: Yes, that would be our preference. We have come back to you from
time to time of trying to update you on the Moon Valley and the City
Council as well. We've tried to get guidance before. We didn't originally
litigate this but before we'd taken action in response, we've consulted
' with the City Council on it. If you feel the course of action that we're
taking is inappropriate, let us know. As I say, I mean clearly if we had
our druthers we might be going about this a little differently but within
the confines of the limitations that I think we're working under, I think
this package is a reasonable one and that therefore we did support it's
approval. Recommendation for approval by you tonight.
' Ahrens: In other words, you know I don't think we're here to say that or
to set further limitations on the Moon Valley operation. I mean we have a
very limited role here and that is to, I'm not sure. Agree with the city
that their health and safety issues are adequately addressed and that's
difficult for us to do as lay people here. Some of these are pretty
complicated health and safety issues.
1 Erhart: I would think that our role here, how to basically define out
what's a good plan for this piece of property given that it's excavated for
mining. I'm not sure the Planning Commission ought to be dealing with the
legal aspects at all, quite frankly.
Ahrens: Well no. I don't think that's what we will be doing.
1 Erhart: If we can agree to that then I would say that what Paul's outlined
here, whether or not it has anything to do with the Judge's ruling, I think
' the recommendations are planning points that are probably good but minimal
so I would go along with the recommendation. Simple as that. Anything
else from a planning standpoint would be more restrictive but to get into
it would be a waste of time. So that's my comments.
1 Conrad: I'm going to adopt what staff has drafted. It's obviously an
adversarial relationship and comments I have would serve no purpose.
Ledvina: No additional comments.
Emmings: I agree.
' Ahrens: I agree also. Can we have a motion?
Erhart: I move that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve the Earth Work Permit subject to the 14 conditions.
1 Emmings: Maybe we should move that we adopt the Findings of Fact and
recommendations?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 59 '
Erhart: Okay, then I move that the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council adopt the Findings of Fact document. Is there a date on this
document or anything?
Emmings: It's dated today.
1
-
Erhart: Dated today.
Emmings: Second. '
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
adoption of the Findings of Fact dated June 3, 1992 and the Earth
Work Permit for the Moon Valley operation subject to the following
conditions:
1. Within 30 days of approval, the applicant shall submit drainage and
erosion control plans to the City Engineer for review and approval.
Plans should be developed biy a professional engineer in accordance with
MICA and BWSR manuals. Plans should include:
erosion control practices
designs of temporary and final basins, inlet /outlet structures, etc.
Final pond design shall comply with NURP guidelines to maintain water
quality. They shall be designed to maintain quality. They shall be
designed to accommodate a 100 year storm event.
The plan shall describe management practices required to effectively I
operate drainage and erosion control practices. It shall be the
operator's responsibility to maintain these measures in an effective
and operative condition.
Phased plan for site restoration /establishment of ground cover and
vegetation. All distrubed areas to be restored with topsoil, seed
mulch and /or wood fiber blanket and trees as required to prevent
erosion.
It shall be the applicant's responsibility to keep drainage and erosion
control plans current. When mining operations require relocation of
the pond(s) and /or alterations to erosion control measures, these shall
not be undertaken without prior written approval by the City Engineer.
2. Within 30 days of approval, provide an engineered construction access 1
designed to minimize tracking mud and debris out onto Hwy. 169/212.
Work with MnDot to relocate the access point to the northeast to I
improve the westbound acceleration lane on the highway and provide a
deceleration lane for truck movements.
During the course of mining operations any material or debris tracked
onto the highway shall be promptly removed by the operator to eliminate
a potential traffic hazard.
Brush located around the access point shall be cut back to improve 1
sight distance.
1
r
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 60
3. If noise or dust impacts materialize, the operator shall work with the
' city to positively respond to these issues.
4. Modify the grading plan to eliminate off -site mining /grading that is
presently illustrated on plan 81. To avoid under- cutting of off -site
slopes, in no case should excavated slopes exceed a 1.5 to 1 grade
within 100 feet of a property line at any time. When excavations
exceed 2.5 to 1 slopes, temporary snow fencing and signage is required
at the top of the grade to make individuals aware of hazardous
conditions in the area.
5. No mining will be allowed to take place which daylights groundwater
resources. The operator will protect existing on -site wells and will
permanently cap them off when they are no longer in use.
6. The site will be subject to annual review by the City Engineer, and
inspections to ensure compliance with conditions appropriate to
ensuring health and safety. When problems arise, the matter shall be
' referred to the City Council for action. Fees are to be based upon the
schedule provided in the Uniform Building Code. The initial $400 paid
on this permit request shall be deducted from the first year's fee.
7. Provide the city with a revised end -use plan consistent with all
conditions of approval.
8. The applicant should be required to maintain a letter of credit or cash
escrow in the amount of $51,000. to guarantee maintenance of erosion
control and site restoration, should he fail to adhere to approved
conditions for this permit. This is a major concern of staff's. The
applicant's primary interest in the site at this time is to mine sand
and gravel and it may or may not be in his best interest to comply with
' approved conditions of permit approval and /or with the end -use plan.
Staff could not reasonably ask the City Council to place their
assurances in the operator's stated intentions for the site and it is
' normal city practive to require this sort of financial guarantee.
Financial guarantees shall only be released after an as built grading
plan is submitted to ensure that the approved end -use plan has been
satisfactorily completed.
1 All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARTICLE VIII OF THE CITY CODE
CONCERNING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
Ahrens: This is what Brian asked us to table?
Krauss: Yes.
Ahrens: Does anyone have a problem with that?
' Conrad: No. None at all. I'm just curious about what people think.
Emmings: It's time to move it on. That's what I think.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 61
I
Ahrens: Yeah I do too.
I
Emmings: What do you think?
Conrad: I'm curious what you thought.
1
Emmings: No, no. You don't give up that easy. What do you think?
Ahrens: Do we need a motion to table this? No. Okay. 1
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Acting Chair Ahrens noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission dated May 20, 1992 as presented.
ONGOING ITEMS.
Krauss: Ongoing items. Apparently, Tim did ask me to get the tree 1
conservation on the agenda. I did have it in your last packet. It was an
oversight, we didn't put it in this one.
I
Erhart: I won't be at the next meeting.
Krauss: Well, let me talk about the next meeting for a moment. We don't I
have a lot of new items coming up for the June 17th meeting. We have one
June 17th and we have July 1st. On behalf of the Planning staff, we would
not be terribly put off by eliminating the June 17th meeting.
1
Erhart: If it were me, I'd beg you for 4 beachlots on the June 17th
meeting because I'm not going to be here.
I Ahrens: That's fine. There will be a meeting on June 18th though for any
of you interested in attending the meeting having to do with the golf
course.
1
Krauss: And the Bluff Creek corridor.
Erhart: Why wouldn't we do the PUD and the tree thing then? 1
Krauss: Well you could but would you want to have a meeting solely for
that and one beachlot?
1
Emmingi: Get something done. I don't know.
Krauss: Well a lot of us, I mean I'm going to be here but a lot of you are'
probably, I know Joan you're going tb be here the following night for the
golf course, Bluff Creek thing.
I
Emmings: So we cancel our meeting because she's got two meetings that
week?
Ahrens: Yeah. 1
Emmings: Okay. I don't know. Some of this stuff, whatever everybody
I
wants to do.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 3, 1992 - Page 62
Erhart: You're talking about the 17th? Okay, I'm not going to be here the
17th so that would be the tree thing.
Emmings: Probably this one too. Okay.
1 Erhart: You don't want to deal with the PUD thing tonight?
1 Emmings: Brian has asked to be here when we do it. I think any time
anybody wants something taken off so they can be here, we ought to do it.
Krauss: I should ask too, we're moving forward on getting the Highway 5
1 task force together. There's going to be another add in the paper this
week and we've already had some submittals. I'm working with the
consultant. We are meeting on that.
1 Emmings: I'm going to have meetings on that so if I have 1 of those
meetings the same week, then we cancel the Planning Commission?
1 Ahrens: Let me clarify that meeting on the 18th. It's at the Fire Station
at 5:30?
1 Krauss: The time has always eluded me on this one.
Erhart: What's been happening? Is there some movement on this?
Ahrens: We're going to have a meeting with the City Council and with Park
and Rec and other interested people and also we're bringing in people from
other communities who have developed golf courses and it's going to be
1 dinner, you know open forum. Question and answer type of thing.
Erhart: Now is this sort of a kick off meeting on this activity or has
there been ongoing stuff.
Ahrens: We've had small meetings.
Emmings: Let's get to the important stuff. What's on the menu?
Ahrens: I don't know, pizza.
1 Ledvina moved, Erhart seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:12 p.m..
1 Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
1 Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
1992 STREET REPAIR PROGRAM
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 92-8
JUNE 11, 1992
1
BID TABULATION
CONTRACTOR BID PRICE BID BOND
Allied Asphalt Company e 840, 0,
Astech Asphalt Surface P�' I
Tech. Corp. 6 9/3 . 82. �G �p
Aero Asphalt, Inc.
•
1
1
i
1
1
1
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
:
REGULAR MEETING r
MAY 19, 1992
Chairman Schroers called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Berg, Randy Erickson, Wendy Pemrick, Larry Schroers,
Dave Koubsky and Jan Lash
' MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Andrews
' STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Coordinator; Jerry Ruegemer,
Recreation Supervisor; and Dawne Lemme, Program Specialist
SITE PLAN REVIEW, PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BLUFF CREEK ESTATES, KEYLAND HOMES.
Hoffman: Chairman Schroers and Commission members. James R. Hill and
' Associates is working on this subdivision proposal. Jim Hill is in the
audience this evening and would be available to answer questions or to
address the Commission if you so choose. This is a preliminary plat of
61.45 acres into 78 single family lots and one outlot. The outlot is 19
acres in size and is currently designated or thought to be part of the
Bluff Creek preservation district. It also includes rezoning from A -2,
' Agricultural Estates to Residential Single Family and a wetland alteration
permit for development within 200 feet of the wetland. The location map
shows you where this proposed development is located. Again the applicant
is Keyland Homes of Burnsville, Minnesota. The Comprehensive Plan
identifies a majority of the site is lying within the service areas of
Power Hill Park and as being in the service area fringe of Sunset Ridge
Park. Both of those are located in the Lake Susan Hills West development.
' And then as well the new park located in the Stone Creek development which
the Commission recently went through the acquisition process for. However,
the railroad alignment to the north, Audubon Road to the east and a lack of
trail and street connections currently existing, or currently not existing
present barriers to free access to these parks. Comprehensive trail plan,
trails are identified by the Comp Plan in the area of the Bluff Creek
Estates are depicted on the attachment as well. There are two north /south
' corridors identified on or abutting this parcel. There's a Bluff Creek
alignment through the Bluff Creek drainageway which is currently identified
as a turf trail. I would presume and recommend at some point in the future
that when that entire drainage is acquired, that that be looked over and
reviewed for construction into bituminous to make it more multi - purpose.
And then the stretch of trail, off - street, that recreational trail along
Audubon Road. There's some background to this item. We initially reviewed
II it on January 28th. Since that time it's been on hold or been in the
process of coming back to the Commission and to the City on a formal basis.
In addressing park issues as a part of this preliminary plat, the City
11 would have the ability to acquire approximately 3 acres of park. Again,
it's comparable to Greenwood Shores or a portion thereof if we wish to.
The Commission has discussed that in the past. If acquisition of
developable parkland was pursued however, the City would forfeit all or a
portion of our $39,000.00 in park fees which we could currently collect. I
do not advocate the pursuit of park property in this case for the three
reasons stated. I will not go over those in detail unless the
II Commissioners have specific questions. It is the recommendation and
concern of park property that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend
1
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 19, 1992 - Page 2
the City Council require full park fees be paid as a condition of approval
1 of Bluff Creek Estates. Fees to be paid at the time of building permit
approval and the amount of park fees and in force at the time of building
permit application. In regard to trails, as mentioned, the preliminary
plat identifies the western 19.7 acres of this site as an outlot. This
entire area is below the 100 year flood elevation and will contain a
portion of the Bluff Creek corridor currently turf trail as identified in
' the city's comprehensive plan. This outlot extends to the east in a bottle
neck fashion abutting proposed Road E on the plat allowing for pedestrian
access from this residential street. The second trail again is along the
proposed Audubon Road alignment. Through consultation with the City
Engineering Department, we do not require any additional right -of -way along
Audubon Road to facilitate that trail. In fact as part of the sewer and
water project which is incorporated as part of the Bluff Creek Estates
development and then as well as part of Stone Creek, we may have the
ability to pursue development of that trail as part of that project.
Putting in sanitary sewer down along that location. So in reference to
trail recommendation, it is recommended that the Park Commission recommend
the City Council acquire ownership of Outlot A allowing for the
continuation of the Bluff Creek preservation corridor and require the
installation of an 8 foot bituminous trail surface from the proposed Road E
to the rear of Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 3 as a condition of approval
of this plat. In consideration for this, it is recommended the City give
full trail fee credit to the applicant. That's in the amount of $167.00
per lot or...credit for that piece of property and that trail. Allowing
that trail alignment back to the city.
Lash: Todd, can you point out, I'm not quite following you on the trail
from Road E to what does it say, abutting?
Hoffman: The reason exactly for that piece is to identify that as a trail
connection. We've been in that situation many times before. The bottle
neck is right in this area of Outlot A. It overlaps the Williams Pipeline
easement and we would ask the applicant to go ahead and enter into
negotiations for construction of that trail segment over their easement.
That would not be allowed and they would need to shift that either to the
north or south where it would be allowed. I don't presume it's going to be
a problem. In the City of Victoria, they've constructed tennis courts and
' volleyball courts and softball fields over the pipeline. But I can't say
for sure.
Lash: So that would be an access for people to get from Road E to the
Outlot?
11 Hoffman: To the outlot and then eventually to the north /south trail
alignment as will traveling through that area. If you recall to the north
of this site, this area was acquired as part of the Chanhassen Business
Center to the north which goes into the railroad tracks and then underneath
the underpass. There are also portions of easement to the south along the
Sun Ridge Drive lots. Actually that first section of north /south trail on
the corridor should be developed within the next 3 to 5 years.
Lash: And that's a nature trail?
1
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 19, 1992 - Page 3
Hoffman: As it's currently identified in the Comprehensive Plan, correct.
A turf trail. Nature trail.
Lash: When I look at this I see we're lacking a little piece here because
if we, if our hope is to have the people in this site be able to have
access to the park up in the Hans Hagen site, they would need to have a way II
of getting there and that trail off of Road E would get them to the outlot.
Then the trail going north would get them under the railroad tracks and
then how would they get from there over to the trail that we've required on I
the Hans Hagen. There's that gap right there.
Hoffman: Yes, that piece right there? That would be on street for the
1
remainder of the way. That interim piece.
Lash: So there will be a road there so that they can? 1
Hoffman: Yes, correct.
Lash: I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a couple of lots or something '
and people couldn't get through.
Koubsky: Don't we have an associated easement in the Hans Hagen 1
development on that east side? To bring that in.
Hoffman: Over here? In this corner? '
Koubsky: Yes.
Hoffman: That will be, actually that will be a dead ended street right
here where eventually that street will probably come through and loop up to
TH 5 in some fashion. That's where we would be accessing that.
Lash: Has that plan changed from what we have here? Because that looks toll
me to be a lot along there. A lot and then a street and then another lot.
Hoffman: In Hans Hagen? '
Lash: Yeah.
Hoffman: Which page are you looking at?
Lash: I'm on the one behind your January 23rd memo. '
Hoffman: Yes, that plan has changed.
Lash: So there's a road there? 1
Hoffman: Yes.
Schroers: The north /south trail then that would go along Audubon, that is
not designated as a nature trail than right? That would be part of a paved
trail? 1
1
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 19, 1992 - Page 4
' Hoffman: Bituminous off street trail. It's a pretty major link because
eventually we want to get that connected down to the school...so they can
get down onto Lyman...down in the Chaska area.
r Schroers: Does the applicant have any information that he'd like to share
with us before we ask for a recommendation?
' Jim Hill: Mr. Chair, no...
Koubsky: I'm sorry, I missed that.
Jim Hill: Mr. Chairman, we're here to answer to any of your questions. I
can review the same thing that Todd has said. We'll answer your questions
if you have some. And Mr. Anderson, Cecil Anderson, one of the principles
of Keyland Homes is here also this evening to answer your questions.
Schroers: Thank you very much. Well I think Todd was pretty thorough in
critiquing us on this development. Do any of the Commissioners have any
further questions?
Berg: Yeah I do. Thank you. In your rationale, your 3 reasons for not
pursuing park property. You talked about homes to be constructed wholly
within the park service area of Power Hill Park, etc., etc.. What are we
' talking about in terms of distances?
Hoffman: The distance is one half mile to the fringe of Power Hill Park.
The service area ring...configuration. The homes will eventually be built
on the eastern portion of the property. This is where it drops off into
the lowland on the outlots. So by comprehensive plan standards, one half
mile, within one half mile, it does meet the specifications I've
identified. My reference to inaccessibility stands currently because of
the lack of road connections currently existing between the park and the -
development site. This will change potentially somewhere in the fairly
near future because that will be a lot of...street connections will come
through that area. In fact there currently is a street which dead ends out
for future development right at this location...will be quite minimal where
currently it would have to go out to Huron Drive and access down...in this
location to get to the park. At that time it would be just as close to go
to Sunset Ridge...
Lash: What facilities do we have planned to go into Power Hill?
Hoffman: Power Hill Park includes the community sliding hill, potentially
a tennis court or a neighborhood pavillion. Picnic pavillion. Play
11 equipment and then on the north, farther northerly most piece is an open
ballfield. Open playfield.
II Schroers: For the benefit of some of the newer commission members, in the
past we had kind of set policy that in a sizeable development, if the
acreage was less than 5 acres, it's difficult to support the recreational
needs of development in an area less than 5 acres so it's kind of been our
policy to accept fees in lieu of parkland when the acreage is less than 5
acres if we can and then those fees help us to afford to develop and
refurbish the amenities in some of our other existing areas. It's a good
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 19, 1992 - Page 5 '
way to generate revenue for us as well. As long as we can meet the service,
needs of the area.
Erickson: Has there been any consistent policy in terms of taking that
money and developing the parks that are closest to that development? '
Schroers: No. That wasn't really identified. It's more like city wide.
What are the most pressing needs at the time.
Lash: When is Power Hill in line for?
Hoffman: Potential development? Currently they are working, on Flamingo II
Drive which skirts the, just about the entire eastern border of the park.
The developer in that location is bringing in the parking lot for the park
and then the city will follow with final restoration work and begin mowing II
the sliding hill over the next 2 to 3 years. I don't recall specifically
in the 5 year CIP but the play equipment does make it in that time span.
Schroers: Any other questions? Can I have a motion? Well I will make a 1
motion then. First on park property. I'll move that the Park and
Recreation Commission recommend to Council to require full park fees be
paid as a condition of approval of Bluff Creek Estates and the fees are to II
be paid at the time of the building permit approval in the amount of the
park fee in force at the time of the building permit application. Secondly
on the trail, I move that we recommend to the Council that we acquire
ownership of Outlot A allowing for continuation of the Bluff Creek
preservation corridor and require the installation of an 8 foot bituminous
trail surface from proposed Road E to the rear of Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1,
Block 3 as a condition of approval of this plat. In consideration for
this, it is recommended that the City give full trail fee credit to the
applicant. Is there a second?
Koubsky: I'll second.
Schroers moved, Koubsky seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission II recommend to require full park fees be paid as a condition of approval of
Bluff Creek Estates and the fees are to be paid at the time of the building
permit approval in the amount of the park fee in force at the time of the
building permit application. Secondly on the trail, recommend to acquire II
ownership of Outlot A allowing for continuation of the Bluff Creek
preservation corridor and require the installation of an 8 foot bituminous
trail surface from proposed Road E to the rear of Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1,'
Block 3 as a condition of approval of this plat. In consideration for
this, it is recommended that the City give full trail fee credit to the
applicant. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CARVER BEACH PARK; VEHICLE PARKING.
Hoffman: Item 3 has to do with the vehicle parking at Carver Beach Park. it
A portion of the members of the Commission toured that site this evening. I
believe the ones that did not have either been there in person or have been"
there during other Commission tours as well. The map which is included in
your packet that picks the current situation down at Carver Beach in that
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 19, 1992 - Page 6
the entire road sections abutting the park are currently posted no parking.
This has been an ongoing issue but one which I feel necessitates some
further review. Essentially due to ADA but then again it's due to being
' reasonable as a city providing services to it's residents and other park
users. To briefly review the scenario which has led us to this point.
This spring, again as is always the case, persons started to utilize the
park for fishing, recreating in the spring. Getting out of doors. Shaking
' out cabin fever. Those types of things. Many times you'll notice, you'll
witness cars parked in the no parking zone and for the most part, the
residents in the area tolerate that activity until it exceeds a certain
' level or until they just decide to go ahead and give a call either to the
Park and Recreation Department or to the Public Safety Department to come
down and have those persons informed officially that they cannot park in
those locations because of the street designation. That was the case this
spring. On at least 3 occasions that I'm aware of, that persons received
warnings that they were parked illegally and they would have to pack of
their gear and move because the area was posted no parking. One that
' stands out is the two elderly women brushed into the CSO on duty that day
that was called out to this location as to their rights under the new ADA
Act. Identified themselves as handicapped and questioned the officers as
1 to where they should park for utilizing this public facility. He did not
have an answer. In fact this was a Saturday afternoon and gave me a call
at home. I had the same answer back for him. We do not offer any parking,
either handicapped or non - handicapped at that location in the city. I
' believe it behooves us to take a look at this. To consider installing some
parking, although it be minimal at this park location. To offer
utilization by persons arriving at the park by motor vehicle. I do not
1 believe it is reasonable to expect the use of that park to occur without
access by motor vehicles. As the map shows, there are currently 4 spots
which were developed within the past 5 years at the south main beach
1 location. Those are off street parking. Pull in, pull out type of parking
off the street. It's currently a gravel lot and recommending to our street
maintenance and park maintenance crews that we go ahead and invest the time
and material to blacktop that. To stripe the lot into four spots and to
1 mark one of those handicapped parking as well. So we have that end of the
park cleared up. What remains is the issue down on the north end in the
area between the mini - beach, the so called mini -beach and then the existing
1 dock. The fishing dock which was purchased 2 years ago and canoe rack
which as well as recently was installed and is utilized as well. We as a
city and a Park and Recreation Department offer the service of a canoe rack
1 where you would presume for a person to get their canoe there, they would
have to drive a vehicle, unless they're very close to the canoe rack and
then if they want to come down and use it, would drive and park their
vehicle to go ahead and utilize their canoe on the lake. So again this
11 evening it is my recommendation that the Commission hold a public hearing
inviting the residents of that area. Discuss this issue and then for the
Park Commission to go ahead and make a recommendation in this regard to the
1 City Council. Whether that be for 3 parking stalls or 4 parking stalls. In
referring to stalls, it's just the widening of the shoulder 4 to 6 foot
Class V aggregate shoulder and then posting it parking between signs and
then designating the handicapped stall. That would be all we are
recommending. Forward that type of recommendation up to the City Council
for consideration.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 19, 1992 - Page 7 ,
Schroers: This would then be parallel parking basically?
Hoffman: Correct.
Schroers: And it would seem to make sense then that the handicapped
designated parking spot would be the closest one to the facilities. The
canoe rack and the fishing dock and at that point I realize that there is
quite steep topography along this area. When you get down that close as it '
graduated to the point to where a handicapped person could actually
negotiate from that parking spot to either the dock or the canoe rack?
Hoffman: It's flat. We discussed while we were there the distance issue ,
and it is. It's right at the edge of being reasonable. But if we move
parking farther up the street, then it would be directly in front of homes
which would be more controversial.
1
Schroers: I'm wondering why staff feels it's necessary to have a public
hearing. ,
Hoffman: Simply because of the.
Schroers: To keep peace? 1
Hoffman: That's one way of putting it.
Schroers: Might as well get right to the bare bones. 1
Lash: Well if it's been a controversial issue, you hate to go ahead with 11
this without telling people what's going on.
Hoffman: In my view, the entire development history, just going ahead and
looking back into the file, this park has been perhaps not controversial 1511
the word but residents in that area are certainly interested in what's
going on there.
Schroers: They are interested and they've been receptive and interested in"
the past to work along with the city on projects in that area. I guess
just as an information thing to let them know what's going on without kind '
of surprising them is a good idea but I think it's unreasonable for us to
develop new facilities like this and not provide parking. I mean that
doesn't seem reasonable.
Lash: Well we're not developing a new site. This is an old site.
Schroers: This portion of the site is actually pretty new. There used to I/
be an access there and now we took out that access. We put in a canoe
rack. We've put in a fishing dock. We designated that area as a mini -
beach and did some work in there.
Lash: We haven't...money lately but it's not a new site?
Schroers: No, it's not a new site but it kind of, it is and it isn't. '
Lash: We've been investing money into it.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 19, 1992 - Page 8
Schroers: Yeah. We've had the property for a long time but like within
the last couple years we've started to do something with it.
' Lash: I guess I'm going to admit my confusion a little bit. When we were
doing all of this, I thought it was at the one farther south and that's
where I thought the canoe rack was located, which then would have had
parking by it. And then a question I have about the ADA, just for my own
' clarification. Does this ap to ll xisting park or is to new
park sites and one that we are ply remodeling ar whatever? sites
' Hoffman: That's to all park sites. All public facilities.
Schroers: It's a State mandate right or a State law that applies to
' everything.
Lash: It makes it kind of difficult when you have an existing site. Say
you had Bluff Creek or say it was Power Hill and say Power Hill was
basically just a sliding hill and the topography just would make it
difficult for a handicapped person to negotiate it no matter what. What do
you propose to do with something like that?
r Hoffman: You're supposed to find a reasonable compromise. At this site
it's reasonable that we could provide both services and access for persons
' with disabilities. If you're at a site or a building or a facility which
it is not reasonable to assume that a person with handicaps is going to
want to participate in and if it's not reasonable from a financial
standpoint to retrofit that facility, then you're not mandated to do so.
Lash: Okay.
' Schroers: This is a little bit off the particular subject here but for
many organizations this ADA is just more than extensive. Doors have to be
widened. Pay phones have to be lowered. Electrical things have to be
rerouted. It's really extensive and it's going to hit lots of agencies
real hard right in the pocketbook.
Lash: I guess I don't understand why we put the canoe rack down there to
start with.
Koubsky: I think the canoe rack is on the southern one.
' Hoffman: No, it's at the northern location. Canoe racks were scheduled
for both the north and the south. The canoe rack was put at the northerly
location simply because of the ease of getting to it. Albeit the lack of
1 parking in the other location...
Lash: ...but you could launch your canoe at another site and get into the
canoe rack.
Schroers: You could but you know if everything was at the main facility
there, then that 4 cars parking lot wouldn't serve the needs of that
either. That was another reason for kind of spreading things out there and
not trying to cram everything into one spot. Because there really isn't
room there to develop more parking.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 19, 1992 - Page 9
I
Lash: Well I don't have a problem with it. Are you looking for a
recommendation to have a public hearing?
II
Hoffman: Correct.
Lash: So we're not voting on the actual action. II
Koubsky: I guess one thought I had Todd. When the people call in, are
I
there 3 or 4 cars down there? I guess I'm wondering how many people are
parking down there. It seems to me you could put 4 cars in there without
getting too far in front of the resident's home there.
I
Hoffman: I would say 4 cars would be an extreme in it's current use.
Koubsky: You mean too much?
II
Hoffman: No, that would be an extreme of the current use that you would
see. I'm not saying that's too much but more likely that there's one or
I
two cars presently parked there when we receive calls.
Lash: Well I can understand the no parking signs on the road as it exists '
now. Being down, having gone down there, it would be a safety hazard I
think to have cars parked on the road. But if we can widened it into a
safe, to make it accommodate cars and still make it be safe to drive down
the road, I don't see a problem with that.
II
Schroers: It should be safe because it's not on a curve there or anything.
Visibility should be good.
I
Koubsky: It's a very easy fix.
Erickson: Todd, would it be appropriate to maybe consider 4 spots and then'
if we need to compromise we could say, okay we'll go with 3?
Hoffman: Sure.
II
Erickson: That way it looks like we're giving in but if they'll go with 4
and they think 4 is fine, that would just make that much more room for more
people to appreciate the park.
Hoffman: The thing you need to consider is if we're looking at 3 spots or
we're looking at 2, with the handicapped we only have 4. We're looking at I
3 with a handicap. Now keeping the cars out of the handicap stall is
another story.
Koubsky: We can always expand another parking spot too. It's just a II
matter of pushing some Class V over there.
Hoffman: I would prefer once you go through a public hearing to put in 3, I
you're going to have to do the same type of issue to expand it to 4.
Schroers: I agree with Randy that we should for 4 and push that issue and I
say, and just explain it at the hearing that we need one spot for
II
II Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 19, 1992 - Page 10
11 handicapped and that just leaves 3 additional. It would hardly be worth it
for less than that.
I Erickson: The handicap would be on the end and that would be the one used
the least so that would most often be open anyways. So the one that kind
of, the one that you are down there by the one house that would have the
II sight of that, there normally probably wouldn't a car there anyway. I
would assume. I mean most handicapped spaces aren't utilized as often as
the other spots so that may be one way to approach it and mention it to.
II Koubsky: I'd go for 4. Good idea. I think there's room for it.
Schroers: Okay, then if someone would like to make a recommendation in
II regards to having a public hearing regarding parking at the north end of
Carver Beach Park.
Lash: I make a motion that the Park and Rec Commission hold a public
II hearing for the residents of Carver Beach regarding the parking at Carver
Beach Park on Lotus Trail.
II Berg: Second.
Lash moved, Berg seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission hold a
II public hearing to discuss vehicular parking at Carver Beach Park on Lotus
Trail. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Lash: How far will you be notifying people regarding this?
II Hoffman: As it exists, it's 500 feet. I'll make a judgment whether or not
that brings in everybody that's potentially a real interested party.
II Koubsky: We'll indicate on that too that we're recommending 4 spots
instead of 2?
II Hoffman: Correct.
Lash: And make sure they have ample notification of the meeting.
II
LAKE SUSAN PARK TO RICE MARSH LAKE PARK TRAIL CONSTRUCTION.
Hoffman: This is essentiall an informational item and one which is pretty
exciting. Hopefully if all goes well, within a month we'll have that piece
of trail constructed in the city without hardly an ounce of controversy in
1 the recent arena. It has taken 2 1/2 years to get all the easements
associated with this piece of trail cleared up. Now that that has taken
place and then in coordination with that Market Blvd., TH 101 extension of
11 south leg, we raised the question whether or not we should go ahead and
construct this piece of trail along with that project. Underneath the
funding of the road project. Those questions were answered to the positive
I so we are again moving forward with this project.
Schroers: Question. What about extending that trail along the north side
of Lake Susan to connect with Lake Susan Park? I have ridden along that
II
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 19, 1992 - Page 11
side of the lake with my mountain bike and there's actually an existing 11 road bed there, for all practical purposes.
Hoffman: You're talking Lake Susan or Rice Marsh?
Schroers: Lake Susan. 1
Hoffman: This piece exists in here from there and then it crosses this
bridge and it currently exists down to that location.
Schroers: But it's not developed at this point?
Erickson: It's paved, yeah.
Hoffman: It's paved. '
Schroers: The pavement is in now?
Hoffman: The pavement is in. It's been there for 2 years from this point I
back to the point...
Schroers: It hasn't been there for 2 years. It was last spring I rode on II
it with my mountain bike and if it was paved, it was covered up with mud.
Lash: Maybe it was 2 years ago.
Schroers: No, I don't think so. I think it was last year.
Hoffman: That section is blacktopped and if the Commissioners will recall,'
this section...Chanhassen Hills neighborhood was included in the 1992, this
year's annual capital improvement budget. So we're taking a look at the
design of that segment. This piece of trail will be the most
interconnecting, best utilized and one of the most beautiful trail segments
in the city.
Koubsky: Todd isn't there, at Rice Marsh Lake, I was there playing T -ball II
the other night. Wasn't there a trail segment north along Rice Marsh? It
looked a Class V. I
Hoffman: Yeah. It's a road...in this location that traveled up to a lift
station and Metropolitan Waste Control, Waste Commission, lift station in
that location. Eden Prairie is reviewing developments of this parcel and II
we've been in conversation with them. If that comes in, we'll make a
connection between the Eden Prairie, Chanhassen trail systems right at this
location and make that connection down that existing corridor. This by the!'
way lies on park property or Rice Marsh Lake park property. You make that
connection and then you can access Eden Prairie and cross under the new
trail viaduct under TH 5 and head downtown.
Schroers: That is following that interceptor or whatever they call that? II
That went right through there right?
Hoffman: Yep. This portion is following the interceptor. Interceptor, ,
the sewer interceptor goes from this point and then it cuts down.
i
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 19, 1992 - Page 12
' Lash: I have a couple of questions. First one, these little dotted lines
here where Larry said, where you said there's a trail and Larry there's
not. Okay, is that supposed to depict a trail or is that supposed to be
' the rest of Lake Susan Park?
Hoffman: Yeah. That's the boundary of that long outlot which contains the
trail.
' Lash: So then if you go down around the west side of Lake Susan, is that
also park property and is the trail there? Or there's going to be a trail
there?
Hoffman: Yes. The developer put in this portion right here. They put it
' in some sub - standard so actually the willows are growing up through the
asphalt. That's in their development contract that they are to construct
that portion of the trail from the northern reaches of their development
down to the western edge of Lake Susan. So they're responsible for that
piece and then we'll pick it up in this location and head south to
Chanhassen Hills.
Schroers: Wasn't there a deal there Todd where they went up to the creek
and then stoppoed? Is that now, is that completed? Is there an overpass
there that you can negotiate the creek?
Hoffman: That bridge, very nice bridge which trucks will be able to travel
upon.
' Schroers: Okay, and then let's clarify this issue. I'm not telling staff
that there isn't a trail there. I'm just saying last time I rode my
bicycle there, it wasn't paved.
Hoffman: It is paved.
Lash: And then when you're talking about this getting done in connection
some with road reconstruction, what road? Is there going to be a road
going in there or what?
' Hoffman: Are you referencing the underpass?
Lash: Well the whole dark black line.
' Hoffman: Yep...this is being constructed in conjunction with this Market
Boulevard. Right now Market Boulevard dead ends right here at Rosemount.
The entrance to Rosemount. This is coming through as the new main entrance
1 to TH 101 /Market Blvd.. That construction was haulted by the snow storm
last year. It gave us time to clear up all our easements in this location
and now this project is being added onto their construction contract as an
11 add for the installation of this trail. Approximately a mile, it's very
easy to install because of the grade and there is one cottonwood about 8
inches in diameter that needs to be removed. So there is essentially no
clearing and grubbing. Estimated in the field cost of that one mile of
trail there is approximately $60,000.00 to $70,000.00.
Lash: And so the people who live back in.
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 19, 1992 - Page 13
Hoffman: Hidden Valley? '
Lash: Okay. We already had easements through the back of all their
yards?
Hoffman: Correct.
Lash: And they were all fully aware of that? '
Hoffman: Well some claimed they were not but that was a gripe back to
their realtor. That was a long drawn out process as briefly explained in
the letter. The trail easement originally was on the utility easement
which was up pretty high in the back yard. The City said well, we can work
with you on that. We'll move it back down to the lowest point possible but
you need to sign over new easement documents. Unfortunately at that time I
some of the residents said well, this is a chance to block this thing. We
won't sign. We just kept the door open and said, well if you don't sign
the new one, we'll just keep your old one and we'll have this trail jogging
back up and forth in the backyards. So it was a pressure process over that
2 1/2 years to get them all to sign. One person had an attorney working
throughout the entire time and never did sign. But their piece of trail
alignment works on the utility easement. He essentially would remain
somewhat, it would have changed somewhat but not that drastically. And
just as recently as when they staked this line, the surveyors were out
there. There was one kink remaining between two of the lots and we said we '
can make that even better. We'll move it down. We coordinated a meeting
with the two homeowners. Said we can move that down. Make that alignment
much nicer. You just have to sign. We have to design to the easements.
You have to sign it over. They said fine. They have no problem with that.'
Schroers: I think that's great.
Pemrick: I think it looks good.
Schroers: Thanks a lot for bringing that to our attention Todd. Unless
there are more questions or comments on that, we'll move on to item 5.
ARBOR DAY CELEBRATION.
Hoffman: Item 5, well actually the remaining items are purely
informational. Dawne and I are coordinating the Arbor Day Celebration in
honor of Arbor Month. Press releases are being distributed. Commission
members will receive a letter of invitation. It is scheduled for next
Thursday, May 28th at 6 :45 p.m.. That coincides with the starting time of
the Athletic Association activities. So alas, we have a captive audience II
to use in our tree planting ceremony. Photo op. The paper will be there
hopefully or somebody with a camera will be there. We're planting 2 of the
6 trees which the city received courtesy of Lotus Lawn and Gardens as part
of our tree sale. We've identified a location just north of the warming
house. Try to keep out of all the proposed construction activity in this
area. We did acknowledge that is a playfield but at some point in the
future it would be nice to have some nice mature trees providing shade in II
the middle of it. So we'll take a shot at it and plant one 2 inch
hackberry and one 2 inch ash tree. The holes will be dug and we'll get a
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 19, 1992 - Page 14
couple of teams of kids to wrestle the trees into the holes and to cover
them up at the planting ceremony. It will last approximately 10 minutes.
Lash: What are you going to do with the other 3 trees?
' Hoffman: Put them out in some of the park sites which are cornfield parks.
1 Koubsky: How many trees were ordered?
Hoffman: 68 total.
Koubsky: And the deadline on that was?
Hoffman: May 4th. The program was well received. We had one tree which
was a problem and that was a tree which was held over by the nursery from
last year and everybody involved knew that it was going to be a problem so
when it was returned to Lotus Lawn and Garden, they simply accepted it.
Schroers: Okay, good. Then we can jump to item 6.
SUMMER RECREATION PROGRAMS.
11 Dawne Lemme: Again this is just another informational item...programs
being offered this summer and will be in the newsletter...couple weeks so
1 we can get some registrations going and the programs will start in June.
I basically just listed, I went through the last year's newsletter and
listed what's going to be offered again this year that was offered last
' year. A couple of the programs have been expanded or age groups that were
newly brought or kind of broken down into a smaller age group. And then...
and then there's quite a few new classes and programs that will be offered
this summer. We've got a fishing clinic out at Lake Ann for youth. We'll
be offering about 5 craft classes for children. Summer Sensations is kind
of like a playground program. With summer discovery playgrounds we took
out the 3 year olds. It's used to be 3 to 12. We changed that to starting
' at age 4. We just thought 2 hours was a bit too long for the 3 year olds
so...and that will be over at the Old Village Hall. We're going to try
doing a teen barbeque out at Lake Susan. It will cost roughly $2.00,
something like that. Where...the Rotary Club and Lion's Club to help
sponsor...with Chaska to get the information out. Because this is in
August, it's going to be a challenge to try to get that information to
everybody and hopefully we won't lose them by the time August starts but
we're just going to really push it and go through the school and maybe even
try to, I talked with one of the...Minnetonka High School about maybe with
their mailing that goes out to the kids in the fall, talk about fall school
1 and all that, maybe we can put in a flyer of our own which will catch the
kids one at a time. Also this is another thing we're, now that is
basically Chanhassen but Chaska will help advertise that. And then we're
11 doing some trips for Junior High and that is in cooperation with Chaska
Park and Recreation. We'll be taking bus trips to 5 different locations.
We try to keep it as reasonable as possible. All we really hope to do is
just breaking even. We're not trying to make a profit or anything. We
' just want to offer some opportunities for that age kid who don't have
transportation and who's parents probably don't want to be... Are there
any questions?
1
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 19, 1992 - Page 15
Schroers: It seems like an ambitious schedule. A busy summer.
Lash: Yeah, I think last year we talked about the discovery playground '
thing and came up with some suggestions now. Was that looked at? I don't
remember what they were but.
1
Dawne Lemme: We went through the evaluations and a couple of things were
people were asking for more hours and more weeks and so we expanded it from '
6 to 8 weeks and we also expanded it from one hour...and an hour and a
half...so now it's going to be 2 hours. So they'll be given some more
time.
Lash: And then on the registration form that's shown later on in the '
packet. Yeah, how are you supposed to know when you look at the...?
Dawne Lemme: After that went into the packet, I pulled it out. It hadn't
been...and run yet but I did add to that...sharing locations but they'll
have different leaders and different activities.
Lash: But at the same time?
Dawne Lemme: At the same time so that parents with kids in different age II
groups don't have to be bringing them there...
Lash: Great. Because I think that was one of the things from last year.
They were bringing kids at different times.
Dawne Lemme: So that was added.
Hoffman: Jan, we'll also go back and double check the Minutes of that
discussion.
Lash: I know we talked about it. I don't remember what we said thou §h. '
Hoffman: To insure that those discussion items are included.
Schroers: Good. Good job. Thanks a lot.
Lash: The trips for teens. When is that going to come out? The infor on II
that?
Dawne Lemme: The flier just got presented to me, typed up...and she's
planning half the trips and I'm planning half the trips.
Lash: So do you think they'll be distributed before school's out?
Dawne Lemme: Oh yeah.
Lash: Oh, okay. 1
Dawne Lemme: Our goal is to have them out...
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
i May 19, 1992 - Page 16
4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION UPDATE.
1 Ruegemer: We just received the artwork today from our designer. Polar
Enterprises, in developing the new T -shirt design for the 4th of July
I Celebration this year. We try to incorporate a lot of the stereotypes if
you will, of Chanhassen. If you notice the sailboat in there. Fun in sun.
We have the water. The waves in there for the water and the atmosphere.
We have incorporated some of the, like the glitter from the 4th of July
II
celebration into the artwork itself. So that's really going to be a nice
design and I'll show you the color scheme of that. The color scheme is
going to be, if we can just take a look at it. It's going to be actual
I teals will be this color. Jades will be the other color and it will be a
white puffed ink around the lettering. And like the sun here so it's
really going to be a classy and a flashy looking t -shirt this year.
I They're going to be on an ash t- shirt, 50 x 50. That's cotton and
polyester so it's going to be a nice wearing, durable t- shirt. And also
we're going to get some caps made too with the same designs on it. Try to
get those...about $5.00 -$5.50 and probably $7.00 to $9.00 for the
II t- shirts... Extra, extra large will probably be $9.00.
Schroers: Is that shirt basically going to be white?
1 Ruegemer: No. The shirt itself is going to be an ash. It's going to be a
light color. It's going to be a lighter gray. Yeah, it's got a little
bit of texture to it. So it's going to stand out. It's going to be a
II really nice looking t -shirt and the caps that we'll have, we're just going
to keep them basic. The same design but yet we're going to move the sun
and that over here just with the printing complications. It's a little bit
I too busy for hats. We're going to eliminate some of the glitter. Keep the
sun over here. Keep the sailboat, Chanhassen, the waves and just drop in
the 4th of July celebration. Just have it basically a Chanhassen hat. If
I we have any left over, we can give them away for prizes or whatever. So
we're going to get a minimum order of those and see how they sell. We
might as well try those sales too. I think, I've got a good feeling about
those. That they'll go this year. We ordered less than we did last year
II so we'll take it a little bit slower this year and see what happens. We
have the option too of, with our pre - sales, if we do need more we can
always order more in time to get before the 4th of July so... The shirts
I were ordered and hats ordered today so we should have those in roughly
about 10 working days. So we should have them by about the beginning part
of June. Comment Jan?
II Lash: No. I can't believe that we're talking about the 4th of July
already.
11 Ruegemer: Yeah, we're going to have those items here for pre - sales. We'll
have those going.
11 Hoffman: Volunteer incentives.
Lash: Did we talk last year about getting more big ones?
1 Hoffman: We always have.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting I
9
May 19, 1992 - Page 17
Lash: It seems like the big ones go...yeah because it seems like people
want big ones even for their kids. ,
Ruegemer: I think roughly we had, what was it, 25 adult smalls and like 20
maybe mediums. And a majority of large, extra large and extra, extra I
large. So we're trying to accommodate to the masses here so we should be
okay that way. And we have the opportunity too to also order more if we
need to at that time.
Lash: They make good door prizes. Or when we had the raffle, or what was II
that that we had last year?
Hoffman: Raffle board. 1
Lash: Yeah. Those were good prizes.
Ruegemer: Yeah, they worked out really nice. To date, as of today we have'
21 people at businesses that have donated money or gift certificates or
prizes. And we have, virtually they keep coming in every day so we're,
it's encouraging to see them keep coming in. So we're in good shape that II
way. Contributions keep coming in and we're busy putting, finalizing the
schedule of events. We're busy with promotion. We're going to have the
fliers of the fishing contest, both adult and the youth. The softball
tournaments and everything out in the streets by the week of, the first
week in June. So we'll be in a lot better shape this year in getting that
information out. We're going to incorporate this design in all our '
promotional advertisement so it's easily identifiable throughout the whole
community. We're working on other promotional items such as squeeze bottle
or cups with this design on it to give away as promotional prizes or prize I
give aways for the carnival and such. So we're busy with that. We're
going to get an insert in the Villager the 25th of June, which is roughly 2
weeks before the celebration and then we'll follow up with a feature story 1. the week before. Or that Thursday before. Is that the 1st? I believe
July 1st. The day before the celebration starts just to implement that in
and get that hyped up again. Basically we're just busy with promotion and
getting everything put together. We'll have a schedule of events and
everything out by the first part of June. Is there any questions regarding
any of the promotion? I think Dawne, do you want to touch at all on the
schedule of events? '
Dawne Lemme: For the most part it's, just from looking at last year's
things, it looks like things are pretty much the same. We have cut it down
to a 2 day celebration though because it runs over the weekend. It's going'
to be on Friday and Saturday. The things that have been moved from Sunday
are the adult fishing contests. That's been moved to Friday morning and
the adult softball tournaments have been moved to Saturday. So there will II
be nothing really going on.
Lash: The adult fishing contest is Friday?
Dawne Lemme: Friday morning.
Lash: When is the 4th of July? '
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
II May 19, 1992 - Page 18
Dawne Lemme: Saturday.
1 Lash: So you're assuming that most people have Friday off?
I Ruegemer: Everybody should. That's a national.
Lash: Is it?
II Ruegemer: Yes. The 3rd, Friday.
Hoffman: We put out an informal poll and we could find nobody that would
1 not be getting the Friday before the 4th off. Anybody here think they're
not getting that day off?
1 Lash: And then the men's softball tournament is Saturday?
Dawne Lemme: That's going to be Saturday rather than Sunday.
II Lash: When's the kid's fishing contest?
Dawne Lemme: That's Saturday also.
II Lash: I hate it when that happens.
1 Hoffman: It's a condensation of events.
Lash: What happens is the kids are down there trying to fish and then
their dads are playing ball and then the moms are the ones who get stuck
II having to take the kids to the fishing contest.
Berg: Who baits the hooks?
II Lash: Well I don't know. It gets to be a real problem because nobody
wants to touch the worms. Last year was great because the fishing contest
was a different time and that was the first year that I remember that that
II happened. So then the men could go and do the fishing contest and then
they went and played ball later or maybe our team just didn't play last
year. It seems like it was on a different day though. I remember somebody
II saying they thought that was neat.
Schroers: I think it is kind of nice though not to tie up the entire 3 day
II weekend with festivities and the staff and all the volunteers and
everything, it's nice for people to have one day to themselves as well...
(There was a tape change at this point in the meeting.)
11 Dawne Lemme: ...The kids fishing contest will be from 9 :00 a.m. to 11:00
a.m. and the softball tournament will go from 8 :00 in the morning until
11 6:00 at night so there's just a couple hour overlap there. On Friday there
will be the kiddie parade, the trade fair. Concessions will be both days.
There will be the horse rides again. We'll probably have some clowns,
1 jugglers, caraciature artists, face painters, the carnival games, the
square dancers are coming back and then the street dance. The street dance
will be the Hi -Topps again performing for that. Saturday there will be the
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 19, 1992 - Page 19
fishing, the softball tournaments, treasure hunts, sand sculpture, fire
department demonstrations, family games, inner tube relays. Jeff Brooks
will be coming back and possibly one other singer to cover the other area
of Lake Ann where it's been a little bit quiet. And then the fireworks.
Berg: I hate to ask, what has the commission volunteered to do in the
past?
Lash: Everything. ,
Berg: Whatever they feel like, right?
Lash: You do everything. 1
Hoffman: We'll get a list out to you. '
Lash: You get a t- shirt. If you whine really big at the gate they let you
in for free. If you really give them a hard time.
Hoffman: As well as it's always been an unofficial policy of the city to II
have everything conclude at the fireworks.
Pemrick: I think that's great. 1
Lash: I wish it was that way every year.
Ruegemer: Do the commisioners have any more questions regarding the 4th of '
July?
Lash: Last year...we had some suggestions didn't we but I don't remember. 1
If it was have it longer or.
Ruegemer: More prizes. '
Pemrick: You just said it was a real hit.
Hoffman: Bring out the notes.
Erickson: Do Commissioners get to light the fireworks?
Hoffman: Fortunately no. You can witness it. Be real close as a
commissioner.
Schroers: You can throw matches towards the explosives until you get
arrested.
Lash: And Jim had a suggestion. I think I remember him talking about the II
steps...afterwards for people going up. We were going to have flashlights
or something down there to help so people didn't fall.
Hoffman: Public safety coordination.
Schroers: Sounds like a lot of fun. We're "looking forward to it. '
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 19, 1992 - Page 20
Lash: Are you looking for volunteers now or are you going to wait until
June?
Dawne Lemme: We'll wait until June.
' COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATION.
I Lash: I have a question. Again I'm just full of questions tonight. I'm
sorry. A parent came to me at school yesterday because she knew I'm on the
Park and Rec Commission and she lives in the Timberwood area. She had a
question about swimming lessons and registering for swimming lessons and
' she said because they're not in the Minnetonka School District and no one
in their mailing route delivery is in the Minnetonka School District or is
on their mailing list, they don't get any thing about swimming lessons or
registration at Lake Ann. And she was wondering if there was some way that
everyone can be informed of the schedules and when the sign up is. Then
she said something, and I've never signed up for it so I don't know how
' this works but she said there's a lottery system and she felt that if
you're a Chanhassen resident and the swimming lessons are in Chanhassen,
that Chanhassen residents should have priority if there's only a limited
number of spots for something like that. I told her I'd bring it up.
1 Hoffman: Admitingly, this year that, it's a bad scenario. When we had
control over our quarterly publications when they were solely under Park
and Rec, we coincided just about exactly with Minnetonka so everybody
received the same information at the same time. And we went so far at
that time to accept registrations. To include a registration form for
Minnetonka swimming lessons in our brochure which they then had to send up
there. Now that the newsletter has gone all department wide, we've lost
control over that. Thus we've lost control over the publication date so
this year that's a problem. If that continues in future years, we should
II be looking at an additional mailer to cover the remainder of the residents
in Chanhassen. Lake Ann Beach and the services we offer there are just too
valuable. 5o I can see her point.
' Ruegemer: That information is included in the summer brochure. It just
hasn't hit the streets yet.
Hoffman: So again, it's not timely information however.
Lash: 'So has registration already started?
Hoffman: It's out.
1 Ruegemer: Yeah...
Lash: So registrations are being taken but there's a portion of people in
Chanhassen who have no idea?
11 Hoffman: Has it been included at all in the paper?
1 Ruegemer: No, it wasn't included in the paper.
Lash: And then what's the lottery system?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 19, 1992 - Page 21
Ruegemer: You have up to a certain date to either mail in the registration
and then after that they open it up. The lottery is just kind of random. '
Lash: So if you register by mail you get in and if you do it by a certain
date or something you're guaranteed a spot?
Ruegemer: It's not guaranteed but you have a better chance.
Berg: And then our publication will go out before that deadline? '
Ruegemer: I'm not sure what the deadline is but we're hoping to get that
out...
Lash: Do we always have way more people wanting lessons than we have
spots? Or why is there a lottery for it?
Hoffman: Typically at some of the other beaches, Lake Ann is a larger
program so there's not as many cuts made but at some of the smaller beaches
which Minnetonka Community Services operate, there are. I'm not aware that'
it's been a big problem.
Lash: Yet there are people who are getting turned away from swimming
lessons.
Hoffman: Not in numbers which have created a situation that I've heard
about. '
Lash: Then why is there a lottery?
Hoffman: At the other locations, they coordinate 7 beaches so at some of I
the other locations which are more crowded, they need that lottery. To
make the system uniform, they apply it throughout their entire 7 beaches.
For your interest, we'll go ahead and ask for the numbers, registration
numbers and lottery system numbers so that.
Lash: If it turns out that people are being turned down, then maybe we
need to expand the times that we offer lessons. Is that possible?
Hoffman: John Rabe, through coordination with myself and suggetsions from
parents from the Lake Ann location, have amended that program. If need be
to expand it additionally. I'm sure we can do that. That we'll have to do
it, we just simply pay for it.
Lash: But as far as you know people, I mean so her concern about getting
in this lottery, there shouldn't be a concern about it because she doesn't
have to worry that she won't get a spot? 1
Hoffman: I can't say that for sure but I know it's less of a chance. Less
of a likelihood at Lake Ann.
Lash: Okay.
Pemrick: I had a question. Who has jurisdiction over the Legion ballfield '
at TH 101 and TH 5? Is that Park and Rec or is that American Legion?
i
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 19, 1992 - Page 22
Hoffman: We schedule it.
Pemrick: My daughter attends New Horizon a couple days a week right behind
there and when I picked her up last week the kids were running on the field
' because their lawn had been treated with a chemical for weeds. And the aid
told me that they were told they couldn't run on that field. Is that
correct information?
Hoffman: By a Legion member?
1 Pemrick: I don't know. They said we talked to the people in charge and
they said they didn't want the kids running and I think that's pretty poor
that kids can't run out on that grass.
Ruegemer: What time was it? During the day?
Pemrick: Yeah, about 4 :00. And you know, I mean those kids aren't out
' that long anyway. For my daughter it's not that big a deal but some of
those poor kids are in that daycare 10 hours a day and if we have
jurisdiction, they should be allowed to run and play on that grass I would
think.
' Hoffman: I can only speculate who it was but it is still, it still remains
the property of the Legion. We simply operate it as a location for youth
' activities. So the representative of the Legion does have some authority
to go ahead and say, you were not authorized under our current agreement
with the city to be here. I can only presume they were probably scared
about liability.
Pemrick: Okay. So it wasn't anything that came from the city?
Hoffman: Correct. Not that I know of. It may have been that one of the
scheduled ball teams.
' Ruegemer: ...scheduled ball teams or the AAU age group, 13 to 15 and they
usually start about 6 :00...
Pemrick: But they were having so much fun and it just hurt me to hear that
because I thought oh, you know, it's such a nice wide open space. They
should be allowed to run and jump and play.
1 Hoffman: Valuable property. That field won't be there for long.
Pemrick: I believe that.
1 Lash: Isn't that the Target site?
Berg: No. Target is talking the west side.
11 Lash: Oh, the one with all the trees?
Hoffman: Proposed. One of the proposed.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 19, 1992 - Page 23
ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION AND PRESENTATIONS.
Hoffman: Does anyone have anything in particular to address in the 11
Adminstrative section? It's nice to see that we were able to contribute to
Judd's acquiring the rank of Eagle Scout.
Lash: The Ballmeister thing, do you know anything about that? When was
registration for that? Is that already closed?
Ruegemer: The flier just went out today. It's an extension of the Rookie II
League games from last summer that was put on by the Gophers from the
University. NCAA prohibits them to do such camps as they did last summer I
so we just made an extension on. Chris Ballstrom will be doing the
instruction with the help of some former professional baseball players. It
will be an instructional day camp. Day training. It's basically the same
format as last year with a few other items put in there like the... So it II
should be fun. They're going to be offering it for boys and girls.
Lash: You guys have a lot of neat summer things planned. You really do. I
Schroers: We do have three packets of Minutes coming out for next meeting
so unless we have something official, I'll call for a motion to adjourn and'
then we can have a social discussion after.
Hoffman: I've got one adminstrative presentation Larry. I'd just like to
pass along thanks. I've been hearing considerable positive response to the l
Commission members input at the Council level. Both from Council members
and then staff members as well. They find that real advantageous to have
that presence there when issues come up. In fact I used it for my benefit II
last night. I was ill yesterday. Jerry contacted Randy to attend the
meeting. Last night the park survey, park needs survey was on the consent
agenda. The item was pulled off and they discussed it briefly. Council
recommended some minor changes which Randy understood to a degree. I'll
have Randy just touch on what they talked about on the changes and then
that, it was approved and the survey will be going out sometime in June.
Erickson: One thing Todd that I noticed right away was just a typo in the
first question. And you probably noticed that too but my sharp eye, it's
Park and Recroation. But anyway, you might want to look at. The
Councilwoman that pulled it out and took a look at it was just, we'll go toll
the easiest part here first. The part I understood. On question 5 it says
how much would you be willing to pay per month in additional property taxes
to fund the park acquiaition development projects and then it has $1.00, '
$2.00, $3.00. They had no problem with that. The next question was, what
is your age. I know we discussed that a little bit when we were looking at
the questionnaire but she just thought it would be better to have a couple II
of separate age ranges to circle. She said in her personal opinion, if she
was filling it out, she would be a little uncomfortable putting her age
down. So she thought it would be good to change to age brackets which I
think would be good too.
Lash: I thought that's what we had wasn't it?
Pemrick: I thought we threw that out.
1
1 .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
I May 19, 1992 - Page 24
I Erickson: 1 think it was in the original one and then we changed it. We
had some reason. Anyway, she thought that would be appropriate and I don't
think that's too out of line. And then the one that 1 wasn't too sure I
understood was Question number 3 and that was, in response to the last park
I and recreation needs survey conducted in 1987, a large number of residents
identified trails as being an important part of the community. Most trail
segments are constructed as part of road improvement projects, many of
I which the city is currently involved with. The following questions enable
you to present a position on trails in the city of Chanhassen. The first
one you can make is, I am not in favor of a recreational trail system in
Chanhassen. The second one was, 1 am in favor of a recreational trail
I system in Chanhassen and would vote favorably on a trail expansion bond
referendum, tax increase in parenthesis, to assist in the expansion of the
city's trail system. And there was a check for other. The Councilwoman
I felt that there should be another segment in there that, as 1 understood it
said, favored a trail system that interconnected or that ran along major
thoroughfares like TH 101 that connected with city streets without having
1 to put additional trails and sidewalks through people's neighborhoods that
were necessary. Is that basically how you understood?
Hoffman: Essentially what I was communicated by other staff members was
I that, they'd like to define between a recreational trail system, as many
people may recall the entire map which was proposed as part of the past
referendum. Define trails on major corridors. Road arterials and
I collectors.
Lash: So would that be another whole separate option or would it be
incorporated in the one that says I would support a trail plan along major
I corridors and vote for a bond referendum.
Hoffman: I still haven't gone through the entire thought process but I
I would just at first glance would recommend that we go with redefining what
we've meant by recreational trail systems...
I Erickson: Yeah, I think that's what she meant.
Lash: Maybe there should be another one that would just say I'm in favor
of trails on major corridors being pursued at the time of, like we're doing
I it now basically. Without a referendum.
Koubsky: Yeah, that's kind of an either or. You're either not for trails
I or you're in favor of a tax increase for more trails. People can be in
favor of trails without the tax increase.
II Erickson: That was part of the point that she brought up. I was a little
baffled at this point...
Schroers: That kind of gives them an out just like last time. They can be
in favor of it but they don't want to pay for . W
us... Okay, anything else on adminstrative sectitionhich kind of leaves ?
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
May 19, 1992 - Page 25
Koubsky moved, Erickson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. 1
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Rec Coordinator
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1