1n. Minutes lam.
11
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 22, 1991
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened
' with the Pledge to the Flag.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Workman, Councilman Mason, Councilman
Wing, and Councilwoman Dimler
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Paul
Krauss, Sharmin A1- ,Taff, Scott Harr and Todd Hoffman
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to
approve the agenda with the following addition: Mayor Chmiel wanted to discuss
the letter from the Senior Commission under Council Presentations. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
' PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: .None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
a. Storm Water Management Plan, Authorize Execution of Contract, Bonestroo
Rosene Anderlik and Associates.
b. Kurvers Point Second Addition, Project 91 -11:
1) Approve Development Contract
2) Approve Plans and Specifications for Street and Utility Improvements
' d. Resolution #91 -67: Accept Utilities in Chan Haven Plaza Third Addition,
Project 91 -2.
e. Resolution #91 -68: Call Assessment Hearing Dates for:
1) Audubon Road South Improvement Project 89 -18
2) Frontier Trail Improvement Project 89 -10
' 3) Country Hospitality Suites Project 89 -25
4) Lake Ann Interceptor Sewer Project 87 -35
' f. Approval of Accounts
g. City Council Minutes dated July 9, 1991
Park and Recreatibn Commission Minutes dated June 25, 1991
h. Approve Wetland Alteration Permit, Herman Field Park.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
1
1
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Mike Pflaum: My name is Mike Pflaum. I'm Vice President of Lundgren Bros.
Construction and I wanted to bring up a matter for I imagine future
consideration by the City Council. It pertains to a city policy which I just
recently became aware of which I feel is perhaps counter productive and Lundgren
Bros. is concerned about it being damaging to development. The policy has to do
with the point at which building permits are issued in new development. This is
' a policy which strangely enough, even though we've been developing in the
community for about 10 years, has never come to our attention up to the present
where we are now developing a plat called Trappers Pass 4th and having been
delayed by weather and so forth, are seeking a building permit prior and
this is the key, the application of a blacktop surfaced street. The policy
briefly stated is that no building permits will be issued until the utilities .
1 ' have been accepted and there is a blacktop covering on the street. What I would
like the City Council to do is hopefully review this particular policy in light
of the development world of 1991 which basically prohibits development of large
projects and because of difficulties in obtaining financing, restricts the
' amount of time that a developer has to pay back the money, the capital that is
lent to development in the first place. The situation in today's world is that
the traditional development lenders, meaning Savings and Loans and banks are out
of the picture. Recent problems with the real estate loans have sent them
running for cover. They're making their money on consumer lending and so forth.
We, as a developer, have had dozens and dozens of dealings with major banks and
savings and loans and not one of them has ever lost a dime on us but because of
policy decisions in those institutions, they don't want any part of land •
development lending. So we have been forced to rely upon alternate sources of
capital. Those sources are basically vendors. People that are dependent upon
development for their livelihood and thus see a motivation beyond the mere
interest that they earn for providing revenue to us for development. The nature
of those loans are that they are in smaller amounts and they for shorter
duration. The policy that the City is presently enforcing essentially postpones
for anywhere up to I -would imagine 6 months, perhaps longer, the start of
cashflow back to the developer to pay off his obligations and we think it's a
very serious problem. It may never have come up. Nobody may have ever brought
it to your attention but it is a problem and we'd like two things. First off
we'd like the City Council to direct staff to look at alternatives to this
policy. We'd like to have some documentation of what specific problems that
have necessitated this policy and we would like the City staff to have enough
latitude in making decisions to be able to make objective decisions as to
whether or not the issuance of certain building permits would not be
' inconsistent with the objectives of the current policy and thus enable us and
other developers who might be in the same position, to be able to get some work
underway. As I say this is, for us a very important issue. In terms of just
about a 2 second explanation of why we never heard about it before. It's my
understanding that the policy is a couple of years old. It is not incorporated
in any of our development contracts so we would not learn about it through them
and the fact of the matter is, I looked back over our record of development in
this city, we have only developed one plat in about the last 4 years. That was
Trappers Pass 3rd and I checked Trappers Pass 3rd and discovered that our first
building permit was applied for after there was a blacktop surface on the street
so we didn't find out about it then either. We found out about it just
1 2
1
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
recently. So if the City Council would consider our request, we would be most
grateful. That's all I've got to say.
•
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Mike. Anybody from staff address?
Charles Folch: Yes Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Mike and I have talked 1
about this a couple of times on the phone at great length. Essentially'a number
of issues that he has presented tonight and to date I guess all we can, between
staff and Mr. Pflaum himself I guess all we can do right now is agree to
disagree. There's a number of concerns that have developed if you will or
pre - empted why this policy has been established administratively. It was
basically started before my term and I know that since coming on board myself,
all the plats that we have approved and developments that have occurred have
basically followed this policy and we haven't had a complaint from any developer
concerning it. A couple of main issues associated with this and one of course
is safety. I guess I've talked with Scott Harr, the Public Safety Director
concerning this matter and Scott's here tonight to address some of the safety
aspects and requirements of why we have such a policy.
Scott Harr: Charles and I have discussed this this morning. This is not a 1
concern that had been brought to my attention by Lundgren before. Our primary
concerns are first of all with the utilities. We want to make sure that water
supplies are adequate and on line but regarding the road surface, our hands are
tied by the Uniform Fire Code which applies to Chanhassen that requires fire
access roads to developments like the one being discussed. And the fire code
requires an all weather driving surface and a surface that would be adequate to
support any fire response vehicles that we'd be using. So in that respect we
see that our hands are somewhat tied to go ahead without some minimal road
surfaces in that addition. 1
Charles Folch: Sort of further continuing on that issue, one of the other
problems that typically occur, if we allow building permits to occur before
utilities are accepted and before the first lift of bituminous is down, some
thought has been, or it has been suggested by Mr. Pflaum that some other
communities require that those installations not be complete prior to the CO
being given. However, if that occurs or if we allow that to occur what often
times happens is the lots are sold, the homes are built and we get a call 2 days
before a closing is to occur from the mortgage company wanting to know why the
CO isn't given on the property and utilities may be 2 or 3 weeks away from being
completely accepted or the street, maybe the first lift of bituminous isn't in.
They're upset. They're mad at the City for allowing this to occur and not
having better control of the project and so having this requirement I think
gives us more control over the progress of the project. I've also contacted a
number of other area communities to find out what their policy is on this matter
and what I found is there's a variety of requirements made. Anywhere from not
allowing or not requiring these utilities and streets to be accepted or not
granting a CO until they're completed all the way to being the most stringent
where some communities don't even allow private developers to install the
streets and utilities. I think Chanhassen sort of sits in the middle of the
pack with the policy on this issue.
Mayor Chmiel: Charles, with the amount of dri.ing in and out of there, would
this cause any problems as far as crowning? In other words, getting depressions 1
3
1
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
within that road and then comes back and does the regrading.
Charles Folch: Well it's often times that's a very good question. That's often
times a problem. What you can have is if you just have a Class V base put down
on the road and then you let subcontractors come in and build homes, as you can
II pretty well imagine from what we see, all the dirt and silt and erosion that
occurs on our streets now from the lots that are being developed. Often times
what happens is that Class V gets contaminated and next spring we're in a 3 way
I argument between the City, the developer and the home builder as to who
contaminated the Class V and who's responsible for sub - cutting or replacing. It
can be a real mess.
II Mayor Chmiel: Alright.
Frank Kurvers: I guess I want to speak on this sarhe issue. I'm Frank Kurvers
II from Kurvers Land Company. I think Mr. Pflaum, what he said about financing is
100% true because I think there could be a reasonable mix I think as far as
allowing. I don't think you should allow the entire development to open up and
I build houses on it but I think there should be some type of percentage maybe
given close to a hard surface or something like that where you would be able to
recover some of your money that you have invested and you really can't get any
return on it. All you do is pay interest. So.there should be, I think some
I kind of a mix rather than say no you can't do it. I agree that you could
probably destroy some of the soil as far as getting the tar down in the spring
or fall. Whenever you do that but I think overall when you get the compaction
' of the street, you're still going to get a good street. So I go on record
supporting Pflaum.
' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Mike Pflaum: Can I just make two quick points?
I Mayor Chmiel: Come up to the microphone please.
Mike Pflaum: The first point I wanted to make was that this question of fire
access. It seems to me that the responsibilities for fire protection extend to
occupied homes.. The developer or builder who's constructing homes that are
beyond the reach of the fire equipment would have to rely upon whatever
protection the insurance policies provide. Furthermore this business about
contaminating streets and so forth. The City of Chanhassen has financial
guarantees for every development that it does not release until after it's
completed. If the work has not been satisfactorily completed by the developer,
' the City has the wearwithall through those letter of credit to do it itself.
I've heard a number of possible problems that could occur if this policy were
relaxed or altered in any fashion. I have not heard specific problems that
actually have occured and I would like to hear about what the motivation is. Not
what the potential problem this is to avoid is. I don't think that's fair to
the developer.
II Mayor Chmiel: I don't think we're here to argue those points right now.
Mike Pflaum: No.
r
1 4
r
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Let me just ask you another question. In your development of
Trappers Pass and Trappers Pass 3, in developing or putting in a model home, had
any considerations been given to developing that particular home right adjacent
to the tarred street before you come into your new subdivision?
Mike Pflaum: We have a model home right at the line between the new subdivision . 1
and the old subdivision which we obtained a building permit for from the city. .
It's my understanding that some of the municipalities that have a similar policy
to this do not enforce it quite the way that I understand Chanhassen intends to
enforce it. In other words, Minnetonka and Eden Prairie have a very similar
sort of policy but they permit their staff to make objective decisions as to the
prudence of issuing a building permit because of the location of the home. Now
I think that the City of Chanhassen has got a fine staff that is perfectly
capable of making the same kinds of decisions. But at the same time I would
like to see (a), not only the City staff be able to do that but (b), I'd like to
see a review of the policy to see if the policy is necessary.
Mayor Chmiel: I think I'd like to make just a quick recommendation. Being we
can't take action on this at this particular time, I'd like to see staff work
with Mr. Pflaum to somehow come up in resolving these specific issues with a
given problem and if there seems to be some discussion back and forth, I suggest
then we get it on our next agenda to come up with some kind of a conclusion. I'd
like to be kept abreast as to what the status is and where it is on the -
particular project as well. Okay? Does Council have any input at this
particular time?
Councilman Workman: Does this require a motion?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Workman: I guess dozens of times a year citizens who are new
residents of the community come to us and say why didn't you stop this developer
or this developer and I would like some more information from Public Safety and
Engineering on why exactly this is because on the surface it would appear as
though it's a protection for the people who are eventually buying those homes.
Perfectly reputable developers have done large subdivisions in this City have
left us a couple years later holding many a bag and so my allegiance would be to
the buyer of the home and not to restrict development and developers coming in
here but we've seen it all too many times. We have to answer for the developer
when the developer is now long gone. Being on the Board of Adjustments and
approving of variances, large named developers building homes with sliding glass
doors which can never build a deck. Your builders for life to name one. And so
while they're reputable and I know they have, Lundgren Bros. has good
intentions, the financial world is not our doing and I'd like to have definitely
further information on it.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Any other discussion on it? If not, we move on to the
next item.
AWARD OF BIDS: CITY CENTER PARK HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT_
Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor and City Council. As noted., this award of bid is for
the handicapped accessible playground structure at City Center Park. This is to
5 ,
1
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
be purchased with the Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant monies.
Bids were opened last Tuesday morning. We received two bids in the amount of
$19,700.00 and $19,958.00. The low bid was received from Flanagan Sales who
quoted Iron Mountain Forge Equipment. It is staff's recommendation that that
bid be awarded to Flanagan Sales in the amount of $19,500.00 for both the base
bid of Phase I and Phase II and the alternate bid of Phase III at $6,1£30.00
which is part of that $19,500.00.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any questions? Tom.
Councilman Workman: Todd, did the people that bid have a pretty good idea about
the amount we were allocating?
Todd Hoffman: The amount of dollars allocated on that? Not any idea from staff
or no, they didn't know our budgeted target amount. But we did, as in other
projects you want to design the particular piece of equipment to expend the
' maximum amount of dollars because if we did not expend that Community
Development Block Grant money,.it's gone. But we had $20,000.00 of which to
expend so the project was designed to fit that budget amount. And in dealing
with playground equipment, it's fairly easy to go ahead and calculate those
types of dollar amounts so we designed the structure to meet that.
' Councilman Workman: I guess another quick point. On another Board that I'm on
we had a $70,000.00 contract and everybody that bid on it knew that it was
$70,000.00. All the bids were within $100.00 of each other. $69,750.00 or
whatever which you know, I don't know which is the right way to go. I guess we
publically announced that we wanted to use the Block Grant money, etc..
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I think that's been some of my concerns with some of the
bids just because we come up with a specific bid. We have to be careful as to
how it does go out and or if that information does go out. Being these are
public hearings and people watch this maybe on TV, there's no way of hiding it.
Maybe we're going to have to become a little more discreet in determining total
numbers to give the Council and so we can keep it on the table here rather than
talking about it at the time prior to submitting bids. Oftentimes if you have
an awful lot of hungry people, specifically contractors who are bidders for the
respective item that we have, we may be getting better bids so somehow we have
to watch that. Don.
Don Ashworth: I should note though that in this particular project we had
employed Mark Koegler to give his advice as to - how much it would generally cost
to put in playground, handicapped accessible playground equipment over at that
' park. We based our grant application to Hennepin County then on that amount.
In going out for bids, items like this as Todd noted, you already - really know
what most of the pricing is. If you asked us for a specific design, we could
almost tell you because all of this equipment is literally out of catalogs so I
' don't think that this is a situation in which the bidder knew what we were, how
much money we had and bid to that amount. They bid to get the work and we did a
good job of insuring that we'd put as much equipment into that park as we could
1 for the amount of money we had available to us.
Mayor Chmiel: It's a little different situation than from some of the other
bids that we get.
6
1
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
Don Ashworth: I think so.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Any other discussion? If not, can I have a motion?
Councilman Workman: 1 would move approval 'of the award of bids, City Center
Park Handicapped Accessible Playground Equipment.
Councilwoman Dimier: Second.
Councilman Workman: I would add that that would go to Flanagan Sales.
Resolution $91 -69: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimier seconded to
award the bid for the handicapped accessible playground equipment for City
Center Park to Flanagan Sales in the amount of $19,500.00. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously.
MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY FEASIBILITY; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS, PROJECT 90 -15.
Public Present:
Name Address
Julie Flemming 3966 Linden Circle
Jim & Lois Zaste 3960 Linden Circle
Ken Smith 3837 Red Cedar Point
Gordon Freeburg 3891 Lone Cedar Lane
Jim Connor 3901 Red Cedar Point Drive
B. Fuller 7025 Red Cedar Cove
Nancy Nelson 3891 Linden Circle
Harry & Chris Drahos 3911 Linden Circle
Zoe Bros 6631 Minnewashta Parkway
Jim & Susan Gulstrand 3831 Red Cedar Point Road
Steven Erickson 3850 Leslee Curve
Jeanette Boley 7414 Minnewashta Parkway
Jim Borchard 7331 Minnewashta Parkway
Jim Josin 7301 Minnewashta Parkway
Peter Benjamin 7231 Minnewashta Parkway
Al H. Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd.
Doris Hanson 6210 Cypress Drive
Edwin & Leivia Seim 3616 Red Cedar Point Drive.
Robert G. Schunight Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik
Peter Moe 7141 Minnewashta Parkway
Pam Smith 3714 Hickory Road
Al & Carla Smith 3706 Hickory Road
Marcia Rowland 3921 Glendale Drive
Ed Oathout 3940 Hawthorne Circle
Alice Johnson 3940 Glendale Drive
Don & Barb Bittermann 7085 Red Cedar Cove
Louis Guthmueller 7095 Red Cedar Cove
David L. Tester 3897 Lone Cedar Lane
Jery L. Kortgard 3901 Glendale Drive
Jim & Ruth A. Boylan 6760 Minnewashta Parkway r
7
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
Name Address .
Kevin Cuddihy 3900 Stratford Ridge
Tim Fisher 7099 Red Cedar Cove
Dave Headla 6870 Minnewashta Parkway
1 Dave Hempel 3707 South Cedar Drive
JoAnn Hallgren 6860 Minnewashta Parkway
Lura Genz 7096 Red Cedar Cove
I Deborah & Janet Hofer
Charles H. Anding 7098 Red Cedar Cove
3631 South Cedar Drive
Ric & Marianne Anding 3715 South Cedar Drive
I Charles & Vicki Anding 6601 Minnewashta Parkway
Ada Anding 3631 South Cedar Drive
Jill Hempel 3707 South Cedar Drive .
• ' ' Michael David Kammerer 4000 Crestview Drive
I Christi Monette 4000 Crestview Drive
Scott Kalash 4000 Crestview Drive
Linda Baner 3624 Red Cedar Point
II Mayor Chmiel: What I'd like to do at this particular time, we had several
questions that were asked of the City. Council, staff and anyone else who had
questions were directed to Bill. What I asked Bill to do was prepare some
II
answers back for each of those questions. I would like to go through that
process first and have him address those. Then what I'd like to do as well, in
sitting down with Bill last week, Monday and this Monday as well. I would also
1 like him to go over the State Aid, extending that for some additional dollars
plus taking out approximately $91,000.00 for the walls which would bring, if the
project were to go through, would bring the total assessments down. So with
II that I'd like Bill to take it from there and address those issues.
8i11 Engelhardt: Thank you our Honor. Members of the Council. My name is
Y Y
Bill Engelhardt, Engelhardt and Associates of Chaska. As the Mayor indicated,
I I've spent the past 2 weeks going through the Minutes of the previous meeting,
the July 8th meeting. I've attempted to address the concerns that the property
owners spoke of the night of the July 8th meeting. In general the questions
I focused on six major issues. I think what I'd like to do is summarize those six
major issues and then I have each individual property owner that spoke. I've
pulled out of the Minutes again their comments and to the best of my ability
I I'll try and answer them for you. The six issues that I focused on that I think
are the major concerns with this particular project is number one safety.
Number two, proposed new road width. Number three, the walkway. Number four,
project environmental concerns and drainage. Number five, the cost of the
I project and number six, the method of funding of the project. Now to clarify
each of those six issues, safety. Minnewashta Parkway in our opinion is
deficient in about every category of design for a safe roadway as it exists
II today. We have poor sight distances. The roadway width is inadequate. We have
problems with vertical alignment as well as horizontal alignment. That means
the hills that you have to go over, the curbs that you have to go around. We
II have poor slopes and alignment of access points on the major arterial highways.
Specifically TH 7 and TH 5. We have no shoulder areas. There are no clear
zones. Clear zones is the traffic terminology for the distance from the edge of
the road to obstructions. When you have a rural section under your State Aid
II standards, which the road exists today, that's generally considered a safe zone
1 8
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
or clear zone is generally considered to be 40 feet. Now that's quite a bit
different if you use the barrier curb which we're proposing on the proposal.
The barrier curb allows those obstructions to be within 1 to 2 feet. Structural
strength of the roadway is very questionable and there's no separation of
pedestrian or vehicle traffic at this time. Second issue was of the proposed
new roadway width. The reconstruction of the roadway is proposed to be 32 feet
back of curb to back of curb. The right -of -way in this particular area is 66
feet and the existing roadway, as it's constructed today varies from 28 to 22
feet with the 22 foot section being on the southerly end closest to TH 5. In
general the roadway is about 28 feet throughout the length. The new design adds
approximately 6 inches of bituminous to the present edge and 18 inches of gutter
line or concrete gutter. In most areas the new width we feel will not encroach
on the manicured lawns. We're going to be working pretty much within the
disrupted area adjacent to the existing bituminous mat. The reduced width keeps-
,
the tree clearing to a minimum but we have also incorporated replacement trees
as part of the project. The pedestrian separation would be provided by the use
of a barrier curb and boulevards wherever possible. Proposed walkways 6 feet in
width in conjunction with a maximum boulevard of about 5 feet. We'd have a
total construction width of 43 feet. The boulevard width will vary under
certain circumstances where we're going to be trying to save trees. Work with
driveways and the close proximity of residents. Again the proposed walkway is 6
feet in width. Construction of the walkway alone is not recommended. With a
clear defined separation is barrier curb. You have the possibility and the
potential of vehicle directly accessing the walkway. In addition to that,
future reconstruction of the roadway along with drainage facilities will require
removal of any walkway constructed today. We also feel that the cost'of the
walkway is estimated at 10% to 20% less if bid with the overall project so the
State Aid funds would provide funding for the retaining walls, tree removal and
tree replacement. Fourth issue, drainage and storm sewer facilities. Present
drainage patterns do not provide for erosion control or storm water treatment.
There's uncontrolled drainage to the ditch sections or the side of the road
which increases with every heavy storm. The uncontrolled drainage in the ditch
results in the contamination throughout the entire street. From vehicles. From
salt, sand, snow and even from the lawn and weed control and the fertilizers.
The utilization of curb and gutter and storm sewer control drains from the
streets and the adjacent areas conveys the storm water to retention ponds where
the heavier particles are settled out. Floating material is skimmed prior to
discharge. With the use of these types of facilities you can control the rate
of discharge and regulate your discharge. The City is presently undertaking a
storm water management program for the entire city and I feel that this area
will require work in the future even if the street construction is not
undertaken. The proposed design will require both the approval of the DNR and
the Watershed Districts. We'll be working very closely with them to coordinate
and provide for the best methods of treatment for the storm water. Fifth item
was cost. The estimated project cost in the original study was $2,112,738.00.
That cost included a reduction of approximately $100,000.00 due to reducing the
road width from 36 feet to 32 feet. That reduction in the roadway width came
about after the neighborhood meetings and discussions with MnDot where MnOot
allowed us to go down to 32 feet. The shifting of the walkway as discussed at
the last meeting from the east side of the road to the west side of the road
from TH 7 and Kings Point Road will also result in the savings of approximately
$95,000.00. We will not have to construct as much retaining wall as originally
anticipated. Therefore the estimated project cost is $2,017,738.00. The '
9 '
•
1
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
funding for this project will be provided by four sources. Number one,
municipal State Aid Street Funds. Number two, General Obligation Bonds. Number
three, Special Assessments and number four, the Trunk Water Funds. Under
funding, Minnesota State Aid Fund for designated streets, the City of Chanhassen
I has an annual allotment of $274,378.00. This amount will increase each year and
is estimated at $323,000.00 for future years. The annual allotment of Minnesota
State Aid Street Funds depends on the population and future needed road
' construction dollars. These are all taken into account and added together for
cities that are over 5,000 and allocated each year. As the City expands and the
population grows, a proportionate share of dollars assigned to Chanhassen
increases. It also should be noted that monies that aren't encumbered does have
' the effect of reducing your allotment of your State Aid dollars. This is very
rare though. This money must also be used only in Municipal State Aid streets
that are designated by the City and approved by MnDot. The general obligation
' funding as part of the project will be used for various items of the project
including storm sewer and walkway construction. This is in keeping with past
policy for projects previously undertaken. The special assessments for this
project was originally proposed at $1,250.00 at an interest rate of 8; over 8
' years. The annual cost would be $256.00 the first year and reduced to $165.00
in the last year. Calculation for the assessments was based on a unit method
where raw land is calculated at 1.8 units per acre after reductions for wetland
' and streets. In some cases developers had submitted sketch plans for several
areas where previous discussions had been held with the City and they developers
or property owners to determine the units of assessment. Now the City Council
11 requested an additional one year of State Aid funds be applied to this project.
The effect of adding additional State Aid funding will be a reduction in the
assessments to $758.55 per unit. We have to be very careful that•this amount
equals 20% of the project because under State Statute 429 for public
' improvements, a minimum of 20% of the project must be assessed. The $758.55
meets that test. The present MSAS fund balance would be used including the 1991
funds plus 2.5 years of encumbered funds. This along with the general
' obligation bonds, the assessments and trunk water funds would finance the
project. Trunk water funds will be used for a very small amount of realignment
of some watermains to accommodate the construction. Now that's a summary of the
' project. Some of the notes and comments that we heard during the meetings. I've
taken the Minutes of the July 8th meeting and folks in each individual property
that spoke. The first one that I have is Arlene Herndon and please excuse me if
I don't pronounce your names right. I'll do my best. Her comments focused on
' the loss of property value and no benefit to the property. My answer to that is
a very general answer. I've been. experienced in projects of this nature for
about the past 20 years. Numerous projects of this nature have been undertaken
' by both the City of Chanhassen, cities throughout the country, throughout the
metropolitan area. The test is benefit and I feel very strongly in this
particular case that we could sustain the benefit if challenged in court. I also
believe that the improvements do tend to increase property values and that your
assessment would be sustained. Mr. Jim Boylan had several areas of concern.
Number one was street width. He questioned whether the 32 foot street was
verified by MnDot. The MnDot standards for a low density collector, which this
' is designated as, allow for a 32 foot width and this has been verified by MnDot.
He was concerned with six maple trees that would be probably taken during the
project. We asked the DNR Forester to go out and examine those trees. Look at
them and render an opinion on those trees. I've attached the letter from the
' 10
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
DNR Forester. If you'd like, I can read it or summarize it. It's up to the
Council.
Mayor Chmiel: I wish you would.
Bill Engelhardt: Okay. This is addressed to Bill Engelhardt from Alan Olson, 1
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Subject: Sugar Maple trees at
the Boylan residence, 6760 Minnewashta Parkway. The description of the trees
found is as follows: Starting with the northerly most tree in the row. Tree
#1. 45 inch DBH. DBH stands for diameter of the tree where it's measured and
it's measured 4 feet off the ground. So the diameter of that tree is 45 inches
4 feet off the ground. His comment is it's hollow. He says multiple rot
pockets and forks 6 and 1/2 feet above the ground. The significance of the
forks in the tree at that width is that he feels that healthy trees need to have
• their structures or their forks at 16 feet or above. It supports the canopy
better. Tree #2 is 29 inch DBH. It's hollow. Forks 5 feet above the ground.
Tree #3, 30 inch DBH. Shows rot and forks at 8 feet. Tree #4, 26 DBH. Shows
rot and forks at 10 feet. Tree #5, twin tree rot at point of forks, 16 inches
and 14 inch DBH. Tree #6, 6 foot stump. Tree #7, 23 inch DBH. Forks at 12
feet. Trees are from 52 to 56 feet tall and have multiple leaders with large
crowns. He goes on to say all these trees were planted at approximately the
same time. The estimated age is 100 years. I did not take a core sample to
more accurately determine their age. There are signs of rot in all the trees
but the two trees north of the driveway having the most extensive rot. These
trees are a potential hazard to the road from splitting during stormy weather.
It is always difficult to accurately determine how much longer a tree will
live. These trees are certainly mature and showing signs of damage to the main
stem of the tree. The vigor that these trees once had to outgrow problems is no
longer a part of these trees. As with anything living the growth slows down.
The tree reaches the later stages of it's life. This is where this group of
trees is at this time. The next item that Mr. Boylan spoke about was concern
for his next door neighbor not aware of the location of the new trail. I met
with Mr. Jeff Kristen of 6810 Minnewashta Parkway on July 18, 1991. I explained
the location of the roadway and the trail. He was concerned with the saving of
his large maple tree. I feel that we will be able to save that tree. We will
have to make some adjustments in the walkway alignment. Mr. Kirsten was very
reasonable. We will review the final drawings with him prior to bidding. He
felt very comfortable with the proposal. Next item was the Eastern Carver
County Traffic Study was in error. I guess the best I can say is the Eastern
Carver County Study was prepared for a coalition of cities along with Carver
County to plan for future traffic volumes of the area. The study was conducted
using traffic models which incorporate TH 7 and TH 5 corridors within these
cities and Chanhassen. I do also feel that the traffic modeling that was done
had slightly higher numbers than what I think we're going to see out there from
a personal opinion. That's why in the designing of the roadway we used the low
density collector and the low volume of traffic. If we could have used modeling
at the higher rates that was suggested by the study, you would see an excess of
a 30 foot road. He questioned State Aid. This may be somewhat repetitive but I
think the confusion surrounding this term is mainly due to the recent
legislative session where State Aid to cities was a commonly used term. The-
correct terminology for this project is Municipal State Aid for Street
Construction. Cities with a population of 5,O00 or greater share in a pool of
money set aside from the gas tax user fee. This money is proportionated to the
11 1
1
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
cities on an annual basis and it's based on the calculated cost or needs of the
City to rebuild or construct designated street. The annual allotment
incorporates a city's population. The greater the population the greater the
need the greater the proportionate share of money. Again the City of Chanhassen
has an annual allotment of $274,373.00. Based On the needs that have been
' calculated for the City of Chanhassen, next year's allotment should be in the
range of $323,000.00. The next person who spoke, I'm going to say Lettia Seim.
Okay, it's misspelled. I'm sorry for that. Her question basically centered on
' why is the proposal changing? One day I come in and tell you one thing and the
next day I'm telling you something else. The street width was reduced through
the discussion with MnDot and this is very common practice. As the project goes
on you keep defining and redefining your concerns. The homeowner meetings were
very helpful. We took note of the comments from the homeowners and we tried to
address those and when we did address them, we needed to make changes. The
drainage was discussed with the DNR. That was another issue. Why does that
' keep changing? One time it goes to Minnewashta. One time it goes to Lake
St. Joe. Again, through discussions with the DNR, these items change. They
need to be defined and even to this date we don't have a conclusive answer on
' this. Most of these projects, review agencies will not give answers or comments
without a full set of design drawings to review. They will only comment in a
general way of proposals which does leave the impression that we're changing
' constantly. This can't be avoided without a complete final set of drawings
submitted for their review and comment to the various agencies. Harvey Sobol's
question was, will Minnewashta Parkway become a TH 41. Proposed roadway design
will not turn Minnewashta Parkway into a highway 41. In fact a standard
' Chanhassen residential street is 28 feet in width. The collector, as this is
being designed, carries traffic from a large area which increases the traffic
volumes which dictates a wider street design to meet the MnDot safety design
' standards. The proposed roadway of 32 feet is only 4 feet wider than a typical
residential street for the city of Chanhassen. Peter Benjamin. Will
Minnewashta Parkway be 4 lanes? The answer is very simple and straight forward.
No. Mr. Ed Oathout. What is the design speed? The design speed for the
highway is 30 mph by State Statute. He feels that enforcement is the key to
speed control. In most cases and we found this time and time again when speed
studies have been done, that a lot of times the residents who are driving the
' road daily tend to speed slightly on the road. Basically because they're very
familiar with the road. Familiar with the hazards of the road and they'll tend
to increase their speeds somewhat. He also questioned the residential trips per
' day. In the study we indicated that for design of roadways, traffic planning
utilizes 10 trips per day for residential area. This is a traffic planning
model number. It's been studied throughout the country and it's a well
documented number. It includes the number of trips that a resident or the
residents will make from their residence. It also includes deliveries and those
types of things. For traffic planning and traffic design, the 10 trips per day
is found to be a very accurate number. Omar Proshek questioned the increased
' traffic. The only answer I can give to that, as the Metro area grows the
traffic volumes have grown. The traffic on the parkway will increase. State
Highway 41 and CR 13 we feel will carry the .majority of the traffic traveling
north or south between the two arterial state highways of 7 and 5. Those two
II particular roadways the speed limit is 50 -55 versus a speed limit of 30 mph of
the Minnewashta Parkway proposal. He also questioned where does State Aid come
from? We the taxpayers. Mr. Proshek is correct. It comes from the taxpayer.
It comes from the gas tax that you pay on your gasoline. Not only from the
' 12
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
residents but it comes from trucks and it comes from corporations all paying the
gas tax into the system and it's divided according to the formulas for State Rid
again where each city over 5,000 receives their proportionate share based on
their population. hr. Dave Headla commented on assessment policy. Would like
to see deferred assessments for the raw land area. The City could defer
assessments. They would have to be levied but deferred. But we suggest that
large property owners that are not ready for development, that they be assessed
a minimum of 1 unit at this time with any additional units assessed when the
property is developed through developer's agreements and when the exact number
of units can be calculated based on their development. However we feel very
strongly that developers in the area should not have deferred assessments at
this time. Mr Terry Forbord of Lundgren Bros. questioned the benefit. My only
answer to that question is the City could not allow development to take place
until the collector street system is in place to accommodate the additional
traffic that might be generated by the development. He also questioned the unit
method of calculation. We feel very strongly and we still recommend that we
maintain the 1.8 units of raw land area. We did deduct out of this land area
for wetland. We also deducted for any additional street widths. The 1.8 units
per acre would leave each lot created at 24,200 square feet. Mr. Tom Allenburg.
The street is 25 feet in front of his house. Will it increase to 44 feet?
Again, the proposed width is 32 feet wide. 16 feet on center. The walkway is
proposed at 6 feet with a 5 foot boulevard as maximum boulevard where allowable
where it can be constructed. Again this boulevard will vary to accommodate
specific property needs such as trees, driveways and slopes. Total right -of -way
is 66 feet. The roadway with a 5 foot boulevard, a 6 foot walkway, would
encompass 43 feet of the 66 feet leaving 23 feet of right -of -way split between
both sides or 11.5 feet of right -of -way on each side of the road. On the road
side where the trail is not being constructed, more green area would be
maintained on that side than on the side that the walkway will be on. Mr. Rich
Commer suggested an overlay. Placement of an overlay does not solve the
inherent problems of this roadway. That is drainage, subgrade, sight distance
and alignments. In fact, a 3 inch bituminous overlay would create a multitude
of problems on this roadway where drainage is concerned. Court MacFarlane
questioned taking trees. We've done our best to save trees wherever possible.
Some trees have to go. We can't avoid that. As part of the project design we
incorporated the 170 replacement trees. He also commented on the sheet drainage
of the roadway. Sheet drainage does not, let me step back a moment. Sheet
drainage is when it hits the road and goes directly off the side of the road.
Sheet drainage does not provide for adequate erosion control. Does not provide
for adequate erosion control of the natural slopes along the roadway. We have
steep slopes along there. Those slopes are eroding today. By use of the curb
and gutter erosion can be stopped and controlled in those areas of slopes and
where the driveways are adjacent to the lake. These areas are now eroding and
would be prepared as part of the project. We also have several culverts that
are discharging into the lake. They are also eroding. Those erosion problems
at the culverts are causing the slopes to erode and weakening the vegetation of
the slope. Mr. Arnie Head questioned the need for another north /south
collector. Minnewashta Parkway is a north /south collector and will carry more
traffic whether improved or not. Traffic will increase or accelerate the unsafe
conditions. We felt very responsible when we were preparing this report that
it's our responsibility to point out safety concerns for all property owners.
Mr. Kevin Cuddihy who's question was additional cost will be incurred in the
future. That's very true. We did a present value of the future worth of the
13 ,
1
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
project. Today's dollars of $2,017,738.00. Assuming an inflation rate of 5%
over the next 5 years as an annual rate might be a little bit high but it's an
7 average. Future worth of the project is $2,575,200.00. Mr. Lowell Carlson, the
status of maintain the walkway. This particular walkway is considered a walkway
the City does maintain. It provides pedestrian transportation, not just for one
' street but a general area of the Minnewashta Parkway area. His question also
was, is the City reducing the minimum lot size? What Mr. Carlson is referring
to is unsewered areas. When we commented about the 1.8 units per acre. The
' minimum lot size for this area is 15,000 square feet. The 1.8 units for raw
land allows for single family lots of 24,200 square feet. We think is a very
conservative estimate for single family homes. This is a resident and the
question was, will utility lines be buried. NSP will consider bury a power line
' but may charge the City for this work. During final design we submit these
plans to NSP for their review and comment. If they find that it would be less
• expensive to bury the lines at this time versus relocate the poles, they would
'
consider burying the power lines. However you have to remember that when you
put in an underground power where the overhead now exists, connections from the
homes to the underground has to be born by the property owner and that cost for
these particular homes up there could be in the range of $800.00 to $1,000.00.
That's generally how NSP operates on their underground power. It's the
responsibility of the homeowner to bury their power and convert their system to
their house to underground power. And with that your honor, I think that
' addresses most of the concerns that I might have and I think with the six
questions that we focused on in the beginning, should give us a pretty good
basis for-the discussions tonight.
•
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you Bill. I might add I think that was well
done a_- essing all the respective questions that were brought forward at the
previous meeting. As I mentioned, even though the public hearing was closed,
' that I would allow anyone who wishes to speak tonight to address any specific
questions. They may so do at this particular time. The only thing I ask is
that it not be repetitious of what it was when we discussed it previously. That
' there's something new, I'd like this to be brought up as well. At this
particular time I would be more than happy to have you come up. Please state
your name and your address and we'll go from there.
James Boylan: James Boylan, 6760 Minnewashta Parkway. Before I even begin I
would like to thank Councilwoman Ursula Dimler for coming out to the house. She
is the first one that I've seen since this thing has begun. I guess . I don't
' really know what to say to you other than I don't want to belabor the fact about
the trees but there are some issues here that I just don't quite understand
myself. Nobody has come to me and talked to me about it except Ursula herself.
' While she was out there Sunday, I had found out from my 15 year old daughter
that somebody had been out to examine our trees. The report that Bill has
differs from what my 15 year old daughter told Ursula and I herself about what
' the guy said about the trees. So you know, I guess if this becomes an issue
where we have to go to court over the value of those trees, then I guess I have
to spend the money but I'm a property owner. I'm a homeowner. I'm a resident
of Chanhassen. It's not my job to get involved with valuing my property and
' deciding whether or not you're doing damage. A simple city plot map will show
that my family and I own both sides of the road on that piece of property and
either the developments originally proposed or the new one does a certain amount
of damage to our property that I guess I'm having a hard time seeing where it's
' 14
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
really a property evaluement and enhancement. I guess I have to say that Bill
has done some of his homework in the respect of evaluating the condition of the
roadway and that's absolutely true. I guess last time that we were sitting here
talking about this and Rich Comer was up here, I have to say that from my part
he did a better job of explaining what he thought needed to be done with that _
roadway than I did. I kind of had a personal ax to grind with my property and
I'd like to put that aside tonight and just talk about the road itself and what
• he was trying to say and he's not an engineer. I have some traffic engineering
but it's more from traffic control and I'd kind of like to address these points
from my point of view too. I think we talked about safety last time and Mike
and Tom, I am not anti - safety but I also have to look at the fact that as a 20
year resident on that road, there hasn't been a great deal of problems that have
been documented. I mean we thought there was a death on the road and to the
• best of my ability to find out what that was, it was like 25 years ago. An
alcohol related incident with a single vehicle where a man rolled his car off
the road and killed himself. That was a bad deal. It's unfortunate but those
things happen. There was another incident where a young man hit a tree down by
Leech's Resort in that area. He was being chased by the Sheriff at 11:00 at
night. Another alcohol related incident and he was violating speed laws and
lost control of his car. The other two incidents that I personally know of on
that road occurred where Leslee Curve comes down into Minnewashta Parkway. One
was during the wintertime when there was a high piled snowbank and the car
couldn't see far enough and went out into the intersection to look and was, two
high school aged boys and one T -boned the other because he pulled out too far
and the other one was going too fast and couldn't stop under the conditions. No
injuries. Just damages to cars. The other one that I know about was a 13 year
old boy riding his bicycle down that hill on Leslee Curve, ran the stop sign and
was hit by a car. Very unfortunate and he was very lucky. He bent the front
wheel on his bicycle and went home with a couple of strawberries and a good
lesson and it was very fortunate that there wasn't more damage. There have been
some serious accidents on both intersections on the end and that's
understandable. TH 7 and TH 5, high traffic areas. High rates of speed. Poor
visibility. The State already is addressing this with the possibility of stop
signs so I'd like to separate that from the road because the stop signs at those
intersections will do a lot to control those types of incidents so we're not
talking about the road itself. But let's focus on the road a bit and talk about
the condition of the actual road. 20 years ago this city elected to put in
sewer and water on that street. At that point in time I'm a little confused as
to who's jurisdiction this really was because it was Carver County 15 and was
kind of owned by the County and kind of in the City of Chanhassen and I'm not
sure who was responsible for that project particularly. Whether it was joint or
the City and the County together. Whether the State was involved or whatever
but whoever inspected that really didn't do his work. I mean what Rich gave to
me the other day is a copy of Braun's Engineering test report on this road. It
basically shows about a dozen test borings that were done along the side of the
road. I guess I have to say Bill, you're absolutely right. I'm surprised, you
know you said something about if we don't do anything today the road will have
to be fixed within 5 or 10 years. It isn't going to last that long in most
cases and part of the problem is that the bituminous overlay varies from 4
inches to 11 and in most cases it's either on they call silty sand or right
on the clay base itself. Sandy lean clay whict• means that when they went
through in early 70's and did this, and you can't tell me that technology didn't
exist at that point in time to understand how to put in a road bed, they tore up
15 ,
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
the old road. Put in the sewer and water and all the rest of the stuff. Put
the clay back down. Never put in any drainage. Never put any aggregate on.
Just laid the bituminous back on it and screwed us in the deal. They didn't
give us our money's worth for that road at that point in time. Now that puts
the road in the present condition that it's in but I have to agree with my
II friend Rich Comer in his assessment of. this. In most cases that road bed's been
there for 100 years and there are yes, a few places where there's some real
problems and it's easy to see from these test boring results why. I mean here's
' one down by Leech's old resort that's 11 inches of bituminous on 2 feet of sandy
silt and then the sandy lean clay goes down to about 5 feet and then there's
another 5 feet of peat. I mean it's a swamp. Now why didn't somebody look at
that back in 1970 and say this is potentially a bad deal. Let's put a culvert
II in here and put in some proper drainage. How come the City could approve back
in 1971 a situation where they lay 9 inches of bituminous on top of sandy lean
clay or 7 inches of bituminous on top of silty sand or even 4 inches of
1 bituminous as the road bed. That's 4 inches. I mean is that what we paid for?
Is this kind of stuff? I'd like to give you the guys the benefit of the doubt
of knowing what's best for us from an engineering standpoint and the rest of the
I stuff but the last thing I'd like to bring up to you is something that Bill
mentioned in one of the earlier meetings. Not in front of the Council but when
we had the public meetings about the Stratford Ridge development. Somehow this
City allowed Stratford Ridge to put in a settling pond in front of their housing
I development that's about 6 feet wide and about 20 feet long that's just a mud
hole with a drain that goes straight into Lake Minnewashta. Now how in the hell
you ever got that by the DNR or anybody else I'll never know but even Bill said
I that that needs to be redone. That's 3 years old guys. 3 years old. Get with
it. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Unfortunately some of those things have happened. I
agree with you, they should not have happened. We watch what's happening now.
Three years ago none of these people sitting here were on the Council.
Unfortunately but we are watching roads that presently we're having moisture
1 coming up through. Those are being addressed and taken care of because we
picked out two different areas that that's happening now. It's within that
guaranteed time and we will have it done and taken care of. I just thought I'd
I mention that.
Terry Forbord: Your honor, members of the City Council, my name is Terry
Forbord, Lundgren Bros, 935 East Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata, MN and I would just
I like to enter into the record or clarify for the record. I don't have a copy of
the Minutes but Mr. Engelhardt was speaking from the Minutes about some
statements that I made and I would like to clarify that one item that he did not
I mention and I have not had clarified to me was the discussions between the City
of Chanhassen and the City of Victoria. We would like very much to be a part
of that and if that is not in the Minutes of I believe the July 8th meeting, I
I would like to have the Minutes amended because I did make statements relative to
that. That's the first item. The second item is that I know Mr. Engelhardt
personally. I have worked with him. He's extremely competent as an engineer
and so I do not challenge any of his credibility with that. He's a very
II competent person. I've worked with him well before. I would like to just at
this present time share with you two exhibits. If may approach the audio
visual equipment. As I mentioned to the Council before, Lundgren Bros. has
I secured the opportunity to develop approximately 50 acres, a portion of that
1 16
1
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
being in the city of Victoria and a portion of that being in the city of
Chanhassen. I have asked our consulting engineering firm from Sathre - Berquist,
Mr. Rick Sathre to conceptualize what I would describe to you as an aggressive
site plan. In other words by that to try and get as many lots on that
particular piece of land as possible to see how the proposed assessment formula
would effect this particular piece of property. This is a copy of an overhead
of a memorandum from Mr. Sathre, Consulting Engineer to Lundgren Bros.,.to me
and the subject would be the Boley property. The piece that is in the city of
Chanhassen. Okay now I have a copy of a sketch that I'll put on here as soon as
we walk through this. They are connected as far as the material they represent.
It states that the attached sketches do reflect new information. The OHW which
is the ordinary high water mark in this case would be Lake St. Joe is 945.2 feet
as located in the field by a survey. The wetland edge on the plan which I will
show you is also field located. . The riparian lots on the concept plan which are
lake lots must be 40,000 square feet with 150 foot width at the building and at
the lake OHW. That's in the City ordinance in the shoreland district of the
City of Chanhassen. The non - riparian lots which are non lake lots must be
20,000 square foot with 100 foot width at the building. Now this is under
standard subdivision regulations in the city. This is the best of my
information and maybe I have some inaccurate data and I hope I do and I hope the
City can show me if I am wrong. Okay, Lots 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 and 10 are
riparian. The rest aren't. The wetland setback for buildings is 75 feet by
city code and the lakeshore setback from the OHW is 150 feet. Now I will put on
here a copy of this plan. I have asked the consulting engineer, I said try to
get as many lots on there as possible so we can see if the assessment formula
works and that's the only reason I asked him to do it. Okay, what we have here
is Lake St. Joe. The ordinary high water mark as field located here. The edge
of the wetland as field located here. This is Boley property. The area that is
net of the road and the wetland which I believe is how the proposed assessment .'
formula policy is formulated, is 23.5 acres. There is a total of 35 lots. 8 of
the lots are riparian which are 40,000 square feet and I already detailed for
you. 27 lots are non - riparian and they're 20,000 square feet so what we have
here is 1.4893 dwelling units per acre as the City Code allows. Now you can see
it's a fairly aggressive site plan. You may end up pulling some of those lots
out of there if you really wanted to have a nice site plan. This is in concept
only. The only reason that I'm pointing these things out to you is we're
talking about a small amount of difference from a 1.8 assessment to a 1.4 and
I'm not trying to quibble about small amounts but what I think makes more sense
from a city standpoint is what is equitable. And whether it be Lundgren Bros.
or anybody here in the audience who happens to own a piece of property, I
personally don't feel that it's appropriate to assess somebody for something
that the City ordinance prohibits you in doing. And so what I would recommend
as far as an assessment policy, that it could be at 1.8 if that is what is
deemed to be prudent. However, there should be a rider on that that if city
ordinance prohibits for whatever reason a property owner meeting that density,
that the assessment formula will revert to whatever the city ordinance allows
them to do. The question relative to benefit of this particular project or any
assessment project or city project really comes down to in my opinion who's
money's at stake. When one puts their money on the line, whether it be a
homeowner or whether it be a developer, what it really comes down to is how much
benefit was there when one goes to try to sell the property and would somebody .
be willing to pay them more money if a particular road was any different than
other. In my 25 years of real estate experience, I certainly have noticed that '
17 1
1
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
11 there is benefit to certain road projects. If you live on a gravel road and you
pave that road in front of the particular property, the majority of people would
probably be willing to pay more for that particular piece of property. Whether
a road has a pothole in it or whether it does not, I have yet to find a customer
come to me and be willing to pay more money for a particular lot or a particular
' home if a road does not. And so I think it becomes a subjective thing. I'd be
happy to answer any questions relative to the information that I've given you
this evening or any of the exhibits that I've put before you. Thank you.
' Councilman Workman: Terry?
Terry Forbord: Yes sir.
Councilman Workman: I would disagree with your last point. I am in the housing
market and it does make.a difference to me. Somebody told me that it wouldn't
make a difference and we spent a lot of money on a big report when a certain
' church was built in here and that wouldn't make a difference and,it makes a big
difference to my wife and I.
Terry Forbord: That's entirely possible.
Councilman Workman: Okay. I don't know the accuracy of this but Lot 34 we
' wouldn't even approve up there. So I don't know the accuracy of this and we
wouldn't approve a pie shaped lot like that. Just to name one point so there's
all sorts of ways to shave a point through here. Would we approve a?
Terry Forbord: We have in the past. We have many of them in our subdivisions
now. This is for concept purposes only. I'm not saying this is the way.
Councilman Workman: What I'm just saying, you're talking about our city code
' and what we do and we would not do that and it's just a minor thing and I wanted
to.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul would you just like to address that.
Paul Krauss: Well a couple of points. We haven't been able to review, this is
the first we've seen this so we haven't been able to review this. Whether or
not this number is right, you know it's in the same ballpark that Bill was using
but I would point out that number, if it's correct. If Terry's number is
1 correct specific to this site, the deciding factor here is the shoreland
ordinance and Lake St. Joe is a natural development lake and has the stiffest
development restrictions of any lake in the city. All that vacant land or not
' fully developed land if we use that terminology, north of Lake St. Joe. North
of the street, isn't subject to that same criteria. So even if this is accurate
and I can't verify it or not until we look at it closer, this is only
appropriate for this particular site and doesn't apply elsewhere.
Mayor Chmiel: Good point. Thank you.
Terry Forbord: Mr. Mayor, that's why I've suggested that you could keep the
same formula. I'm not suggesting that that is unfair. However, there may be
specific sites that are within what you're calling the assessment district that
11 would be impossible to meet that test and so all one would need to do is part of
18
11
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
the assessment formula is say, if there is a specific site, that that would be
adjusted to the number of building, home sites that would be allowable under
city ordinance. Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. 8i11, would you like to?
Bill Engelhardt: Can I just comment briefly? The purpose of proposing a method
of assessment, the actual assessment policy will not be set down until the
assessment hearing which is after the project is completed and all the numbers
are arrived at. The general policy is that when we get to that point and we
have a developer in the area or property owner, we'll sit down with them. We
discuss their property with them and find out how many units can that property
accommodate and that's what goes into the assessment roll. So those are details
that are taken care of at the time of the assessment hearing.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. • '
Jim Jasin: My name is Jim Jasin. My address is 7301 Minnewashta Parkway. I'd
like to speak in favor of the parkway and the walkway. I think you've all done
an excellent job of listening to the people. You've taken the assessments from
$2,300.00 to $1,200.00 to $750.00. You've given away two years of funding on
the State roads. You've done an awful lot of things right. I haven't been at
all the meetings but : heard Bill talk tonight and I think Bill has done just an
super job of investigating the whole thing from beginning to end so I'd like to
see the Council approve it because I think you've done everything you can do.
You're giving as much as you can back to the people here. So I'm all in favor
of it. Thank you.
Resident: Amen. 1
Harry Drahos: Honorable Mayor and Council, I'd like to, first of all my name is
Harry Drahos. I live at 3911 Linden Circle and I want to express my thanks to
Councilwoman Ursula Dimler for visting our picnic. Our Minnewashta Creek
Association happened to have a picnic on the 13th and she came and listened to
us and I'm sure she heard both sides of the story from quite a few people. I
objected and again I'm not against progress but I objected to the way this was
being funded for the simple reason I live on Linden Circle and if you're going
to do something to Linden Circle, assess me. That's fine. But for being
assessed for Minnewashta Parkway, that kind of turned me off because there's
more people using it than the 307 families that are living there now. But the
fact that Ursula Dimler was there and as I understand the assessment went down
from $1,250.00 to $758.00, maybe we should have another picnic and you can drop
it some more. But I want to thank you very much. Again, this was my main '
objective to the way it was being funded and the fact I know there's going to be
more people using Minnewashta Parkway than just the 307 families or 532
eventually that are going to be there. And when you hear comments that gee
that's good you're going to get repaired or a walkway, I'm going to use it too
but I don't have to pay. That kind of smarts a little bit so that's all I want
to say. Thank you. 1
Leidia Seim: My name is Leidia Seim. I live at 3616 Red Cedar Point. I
guess I'm not in a congratulatory mood tonight. It seems to me that the fact
that from $3,500.00 assessment we are down $750.00 gives me some doubt as to the
19 1
1
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
efficiency and to the way things y t gs are done in government. If we did not squawk,
if we were not here all asking why and when, we probably would have been stuck
with the $3,500.00 assessment so I question government. Big government and how
it goes. After that I have a question for the engineer. Last time we mentioned
that we had to have 30 mile speed limit because it was a State regulation. Now
in going around Kenwood and Lake of the Isles and that area, I have seen 25
speed limit. 25 miles. Why is that?
Mayor Chmiel: Basically in some of those areas it warrants that type of speed.
' MnDot, State of Minnesota, people will allow or not allow that speed to happen.
It has to have some real given problems of concern and sight lines and the road
itself. So oftentimes that happens. I have been in discussion with Mr. Bill
Crawford from MnDot who is the Chief,Engineer for the entire State and he and
I are going to be having some discussions regarding that 25 mph speed within the _
• . city. I don't know whether we can have MnDot accept that but I feel too with
the entirety of the city I think we have roads that are just driven too fast.
If they're marked 30, they're 35 and 40. Those situations are happening but
whether they would allow it or not, that's another question but that's something
' I'm going to have discussions on.
Jim Borchard: Jim Borchard, 7331 Minnewashta Parkway. I think we all agree the
road has to be repaired some way soon. It's tearing our vehicles apart. It is
becoming dangerous because it's hard to maintain control of a vehicle when you
hit a bump that shakes your teeth. Another situation that exists on my property
is the drainage. We have the drainage out of Maple Ridge coming off of the
Parkway and we are washing hundreds of tons of silt and nutrients into the lake
each year. The holding pond at Maple Ridge was filled by many developers.
About 4 times the City finally did repair that and here we are getting good
' water but something has to be done. Bill Engelhardt has been out. The City
Engineer's been out and everybody has agreed upon this. I do have one concern.
It was mentioned that the road may have to be closed for a short time in
portions and my concern is not having to walk to one to the other but what about
fire and ambulance protection?
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Jim. Yeah, those are concerns also by the Council.
When we worked Frontier Road, we took that into consideration and in most
instances they did have accessibility through that particular site. I think the
intent is when they say it may be closed for a short period of time and I'm
going to look for some divine guidance here. Can someone clarify that point?
In my opinion a short time is maybe an hour or two or something of that nature.
8i11 Engelhardt: Well I don't know Mayor. You're putting a lot of pressure on
me. I'll tell you what we did on Frontier Trail. We had basically the same
circumstance. Not quite as long but basically the same circumstance. We had
approximately 50 residents in that particular roadway. We specified in the
specifications and had it bid with the big documents so that all the contractors
are aware that they're to keep on site and on call 24 hour basis heavy equipment
to pull any vehicles out. In addition with that vehicle being on site, if
there's a fire, no matter how muddy it is, we're going to get the fire truck
into you. Now we may take a little time getting it out but we're going to get_
it in there. That's how we accommodate it. The other thing we did on Frontier
Trail is that we worked half the roadway and in this particular case I really
haven't decided which half or how I'm going to start it. That comes with the
20
1
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
final design but we work half of the roadway and actually paved the upper half
before we even open cut the second half. So we had a blacktop bituminous
surface almost through the entire roadway through the entire construction except
for a very limited time of maybe 2 days to 3 days when we were tearing down the
road and lying down the rock and curb. So there's no question that there's
going to be inconvenience. We try to accommodate you as much as we can. We
also provide in the inspectors with their vehicles to help carry groceries and
that may sound like a small point but very important to a lot of people that
have to walk any distance. So to make it real short, those points are all
considered in a project of this nature. We've done it before and we know how to
do it. We can do it again.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. 11
• Tim Fisher: My name is Tim Fisher. I live at 7099 Red Cedar Cove. I've lived
there for 3 years. For the 10 years previous to that I lived barely a quarter
of a mile down the road at 7371 Minnewashta so I've lived on the parkway for
about 13 years. For almost every day of those 13 years I've run up and down
that street at least once. Sometimes more and I've biked it quite a bit too. 1
I'd like to say on the issue of safety, first of all I'd like to say for me it's
a sad day to see it happen. I think it's a fore gone conclusion you're going to
do it. But on the issue of safety, I've listened to the experts opinions but in
the 13 years I've certainly seen an increase in traffic and as I said, it's a
daily routine with me. I don't see how it's possible that by increasing the
condition of the road and the width of the road that we're not going to see
increased traffic between TH 7 and TH 5. And on the issue of safety there's two
points. Basically as far as I'm concerned and I would think anybody who's on
the roadway and I know you're going to stick in a sidewalk, I certainly won't
use it when I run. Never have when I've been around but there's the issue of
speed and there's the issue of how many cars. Now it may be that local people
drive a little fast at times but they also are aware of the habits of the people
and their neighbors that are on the parkway. Those people that come zipping
from TH 5 to TH 7 aren't and won't continue to do what they do and if you want
to reduce speed there's two ways you can do it. You can_drop the speed. I know
when I drive to work I go through around Lake Minnetonka and through a few local
streets and there are 3 or 4 of them are in the 20 mph range and there's one in
25 mph range. If you want to do something about speed for us, stick in speed
bumps. There is something you can do about speed. The other thing I want to
say is that I spend, I am grateful to see that the amount you're going to assess
us has gone down quite a bit. I'm a little guy. I spend over $3,000.00 a year
on real estate taxes which I consider to be a pretty generous allowance to the
County and the City for them to do their projects. I certainly think for
myself, given what services I use, the amortization of road repair and upkeep
ought to be included in what I spend. Now admittedly for the 10 years before -
the past 3 and my previous property I was about a third of that but nevertheless
I consider that amortization of road repair and upkeep ought to be included in '
that. And I know that given where I've moved is someplace real new that I'm one
of those who's causing the need for greater use but I think it does make a point
that those who move in and add to the amount of traffic that's being caused are
probably those who really are the ones who should be bearing the cost since,
those that were there first really didn't cause that to happen. Therefore the
services that are being demanded now are those that are being demanded by people
coming in. One last point I'd like to make. I have a 11 year old son who lives 1
21 1
•
1
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
11 with me and I thought about the safety issue a lot because I didn't want to say
anything against this knowing that you know heck is someday somebody got run
over there, I'd feel terrible if I had said something against it. But I can
tell you straight out that I don't care if you build a new road, 36 feet or 42
feet, if you have a sidewalk on the side of it, I wouldn't feel any less or.more
safe. I'd be a fool to think that my son riding up and down there, running up
and down there, walking up and down there, hitting a ball out in the street.
Whatever he's doing, would be one iota safer. We're fooling ourselves and I'd
be fooling myself. Thank you.
Ed Oathout: My wife wanted to join me tonight. She was unable to so we wrote a
letter. Before reading that letter though I'd like to say, is the $758.00.
Mayor Chmiel: Could you please state your name and your address?
Ed Oathout: Yes, I'm sorry. My name is Oathout, 3940 Hawthorne Circle.
Earlier tonight you mentioned, somebody mentioned that the $758.00 per unit
number was what the residents would be assessed for this project. Is that
number a hard number or is that number one that's subject to go south or north?
' Mayor Chmiel: To the best of my knowledge, we've looked at that and that's
quite realistic.
Ed Oathout: Realistic? Because there are some things that I wanted to go
through in my letter that I just didn't know, I know what estimates are and
I know that usually engineers are pretty close but I know that there's a lot of
issues on this particular project that haven't been even addressed, let alone
settled or that are impossible to deal with right now and I just wanted to know
what the possible bottom line was.
Mayor Chmiel: I think where we did start with was roughly $2,500.00. It was
brought down to $1,250.00. We sat down a week ago last Monday. I asked Bill to
look at that and see if we could afford to go with the additional State Aid. We
did only because of the fact that we've done this in other locations. I feel
what's just for one is just the other and that's why it's down to that
particular figure right now.
Ed Oathout: Thank you Mayor. The letter goes, we, Judy and I are in opposition
to the proposed revision to Minnewashta Parkway. Although we believe that the
design of the parkway is unsafe as it exists, we respectfully suggest that the
danger is to pedestrians, not to automobiles traveling the legal speed. Danger
exists because both motor vehicles and pedestrians are using the same path.
Logic suggests that to create a safe situation we must separate wheel traffic
from foot traffic. We propose the following. Repair the cracks and potholes.
Restructure the small area of unsuitable soils and build a sidewalk. All this
can be done on the existing right -of -way without widening the roadbed, polluting
' Lake Minnewashta, cutting down trees or expending over $2 million very precious
tax dollars. Safety issues. Personal safety. We've neither seen nor been
informed of any study by any traffic safety engineer recommending any changes to
Minnewashta Parkway at all. Unfortunately, we residents of Chanhassen have a
questionable history of safe road design. A recent example our downtown main
street. Councilman Wing during the public hearing said that he was unaware of
any serious injuries on Minnewashta Parkway during his long term residence in
22
i
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
the area. During the public meeting prior to the public hearing the engineer
Bill Engelhardt stated that the actual traffic counts were far below those
predicted and that only one traffic ticket for speeding had been issued in the
recent past. A resident stated that he had seen a child playing in a puddle.
We suggest that this is criticism of the child's parents, not a residential
street. There are over 12 roads connecting TH 5 and TH 7 between Waconia
and 494 shown on regional maps. We residents, because of TH 5 traffic know of
several others. People wishing to avoid the TH 5 bottleneck traveling from west
to east will quickly find out that the new Minnewashta speedway is the shortest
and most scenic route between the two major highways. Minnewashta Parkway is a
residential collector street, not a shortcut between highways. We residents,
our children, our grandchildren travel on and across Minnewashta Parkway between
the neighborhoods and between hom and the lake. There's no park to use. There's
no sidewalk area to use for walking for exercise. If residents safety is a
• primary concern of the Council, we propose the rather unusual option of ending
thru traffic by' deadending the parkway from each end somewhere near the center.
Providing cul -de -sacs and using the resulting spaces as a land bridge safe zone
between the lake and the neighborhoods. Modern technology can certainly supply
several ways to allow emergency fire and rescue traffic through the blocked
cul -de -sac area. Environmental safety. We are unaware of any environmental
impact study addressing the proposed Lake Minnewashta Parkway changes. The fact
is that Lake Minnewashta was judged to have the finest water quality in the area
according to a very recent article in a Chanhaseen paper. Changing the
filtering action of the absorbent areas between the parkway and the Lake to
runoff through a sewer from a wetland to Lake St. Joe was proposed by the
engineer at the last public hearing. That engineer also stated that Lake St.
Joe was the primary concern of the DNR. We don't feel that way. The issue of
water quality on Lake Minnewashta is absolute. The method of insuring safe
water, it's environmental and monetary costs have not been presented to either
the DNR or the City Council. Minor erosion issues mentioned during the public
hearing are easily solved without building an entire new $2 plus million dollar
road sewer system requiring the planning of several hundred whips to replace the
mature trees now holding the soil in place and helping to establish the high
property valuation for the benefitting properties. Cost issues. Without
knowing the requirements of the State regulatory agencies concerning water
safety and the environmental impact of changing a residential collector street
into a connector between two major highways, this Council risks the
embarrassment of authorizing issuance of a planning check. The ultimate cost
will be paid by every single resident of the City of Chanhassen. I heard during
the public hearing that the over $2 million dollars in cost was a good deal and
that unless quickly spent, the State may force us to spend more money in the
future. We disagree. Minnewashta Parkway is a residential collector street.
Not a State Road. Not a County Road and hopefully not a speedway between major
highways. If the State needs to change this residential collector street into a
highway, they must compensate the effected property owners and bill it at State
expense. We do not believe that the majority of residents of the affected area
want the proposed change. We realize the State funds exist to do part of a job.
These funds would serve Chanhassen better is expended on TH 5 widening, TH 1 01
straightening or even creating needed shoulders on existing collector streets.
If these projects are not worthy of State funding, we would vote to return or
delay spending the money. State funding is net free. These taxes were
forcefully removed from all motorists pockets they purchased gasoline. We,
the affected residents will be triple dipped taxed. We will pay for the '
23 '
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
1
remaining portion of as an assessment on top of increased property and sales
taxes. And also join the rest of Chanhassen to pay the principle and interest
on the general obligation bonds proposed for this unneeded and wanted good deal.
I have a copy of you Mayor and anybody else.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Ed Seim: Mr. Mayor, my wife has already spoken but I think there's one
underlying point which has not been brought out. Has been woven through
everyone's thoughts uut they have been anxious to point out the cost features.
I think it was one of those concerns which was brought out last week but I don't
' think - it was adequately addressed by Mr. Engelhardt. Now I need -to go back 30
years or so and point out that I was one of the first members of the Park
Commission of this town when we first came in. When Minnewashta first became a
part of Chanhassen and we labored many long hours to try to save our lake system
' and to try to develop a system of parks and trails connecting those lakes. Dick
Lyman was on that and several others. One of the Reverends. And you have
pictures around the room and in the hallway pointing out what a valuable
' resource we really have. And you have a maple leaf of the Chanhassen tree
behind you and yet what I hear very often in the deliberations is let's become
more Edinish. Let's become a big suburb. Now I live in California and we say
let's become Orange County. If you know Orange County. And there seems to be a
plan to develop rapidly, fa.t and to change the Whole nature of the community.
Most of the old residents moved out here. We didn't have sewer. We didn't have
streets. We came because we liked the sylvan nature. And we still like it and
' we come back as often as we can because of that. And we've hung onto our
property even though the taxes have tripled and escalated and we'll continue to
come back sc long as it has that sylvan nature and so it gives us that respite
' from the hubble and bubble of the city life. Otherwise we could go down and
live downtown. Anytime. Or we could live in downtown LA or downtown San
Francisco. This is real resource. It was interesting this week driving around
the lake to see that in order to save the Lake of the Isles and Lake Calhoun the
' city has narrowed the streets and made them one way and put in little parking
diversions and things like that to cut down traffic and to cut down the speed.
We ought to be protecting this resource rather than straightening it out and
' making it a big collector. Think about the park system. Think about what you
had. I think perhaps this speech is 20 years too late. I understand that parks
is also recreation but I was reflecting this evening. I remember the first year
we saved $5,000.00 from our budget to buy land. At the end of the year the City
Council took away our $5,000.00 because the fire department had gone in the red.
So we had to start over the next year. It was interesting to find that now you
had $19,000.00 to spend from someplace on recreation equipment. That would have
been a big plus in our day to buy a piece of parkland. Thank you.
Dave Headla: My name is Dave Headia. I live at 6870 Minnewashta Parkway. I
must admit I've changed my mind. I used to be quite an outspoken critic of City
Hall as Don and some of the staff well remember. In fact at one time I got so
outspoken that the deputy visited me. Hauled me in here and lo and behold I was
in the kangaroo court and who's the judge. One of the Council people. You know
they had the gall to charge me an extra $50.00 because I lived in Western
Chanhassen. Couldn't believe it. Okay, if I had my druthers I would like to
see us go back to early 60's and go back to Minnewashta Parkway into Yellowstone
Trail but that's ludicrous. That isn't going to happen. Things have got to
24
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
change. I think you've looked at many alternatives. The proposal you're
working on I think is the way to go but I've got some questions. Bill, I'm very
concerned about the traffic. Are we going to put stop signs somewhere along the
parkway? Now if we can have one or two sets of stop signs, that's going to
knock oLlt that semi traffic.
Mayor Chmiel: Dave we're going to have for
Dave Headla: You are? Okay, what about parking? Are you going to allow '
parking on the parkway?
Mayor Chmiel: I think not. Only on specific situations where people are having
a party and they can't accommodate enough cars. On a one time basis.
Dave Headla: That's fine. If we were going to allow parking, then we're
probably in a worse...because kids can dart in and out. Then the last thing is,
what about street lights? I really would like to see street lights and I would
guess now would be an opportune time to put it in. Has any thought gone into
that? '
Bill Engelhardt: We have not looked at street lights. You could look at them.
We'd have NSP probably that supplies the street lights for the city look at it.
That would be a policy decision as to whether or not you wanted to do that.
They're not part of this proposal.
Dave Headla: I guess if it's easier to put them in now rather than later, I'd
like to see you do it. Then finally if we could project ourselves into 1995 or
the year 2000 and look back at this meeting tonight, I can't believe anybody
wouldn't say, what in the world are we talking about? The decision is easy.
We've got to go through with what you've proposed. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Yes sir.
Peter Moe: My name is Peter Moe. I live at 7141 Minnewashta Parkway. Bill
mentioned six points this evening. I think it really still comes down to two.
Safety and cost. I am positive that the children are going to be safer walking
on the sidewalk when they're going to the bus stop, going to a future park or
whatever than they are on the side of the road. It doesn't make sense to build
a sidewalk and not take care of the drainage problems we have and so I think for
that reason we should go ahead and also•for the cost issue. Even though it's
going down now this spring and summer, waiting another couple of years, the •
costs are going to go up very much more. I think we've got a good financing
package here and we should go ahead with the project. '
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Yes sir.
Jim Hofer: Jim Hofer, 7098 Red Cedar Cove. I heard Bill answer a whole bunch
of concerns and questions of the citizens tonight and I've never worked with
him. I have no idea whether he's being honest or not.- There's some things I
did not hear him say. I did not hear him say that his fees would go down if the
cost went up. No, they'd come out of our pockets. All of our pockets. I did
not hear them say he'd reimburse homeowners if their home value went down. He
says they're going to increase. I'm not convinced of that. That's going to be
25
1
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
11 born by us the homeowners. I also didn't hear him say why the City Council is
still considering this despite the many objections, many of them empassioned
objections of the residents of the area. I object to this project. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Jim. Yes Ma'am.
Ruth Boylan: My name is Ruth Boylan. I live at 6760 Minnewashta Parkway. Or
possible Six Rotten Maple Tree Way. This is really tough. I've lived out here
' since 1953. My great, great uncle bought 55 1/2 acres from the government. He
was the first private owner. My husband, my two children and I now own the last
of my great, great uncle's 55 1/2 acres and we have a little under 3 acres. I
believe in safety. I do believe in progress. I do not believe in destruction.
' I do not believe in having meeting upon meeting where your people have said to
you time and time again that they do not want this. We have already voted down
.twice a walkway. We have voted if down twice. Now we are the same people that
voted you in. We are also the same people who can vote you out. I do not say
' this lightly. I have talked to some of you Councilpeople before you were
Councilpeople and I voted for you because I had your assurance that you would do
everything you could that Minnewashta Parkway would remain a parkway for it's
' people and not for it's government. Not for it's developers that are going to
take a few acres of land and put 35 proposed houses on it. This is a land that
was created by many of the people that now live on it. We bought it for a
reason. To raise our family...This is very serious to us. This is my heritage.
This is something that my 10 year old daughter said to me last year as we stood
out on the.deck and looked at our 6 rotting maple trees. And she said, mom.
' Someday I hope God will enable me to buy this from you and dad and I said I hope
so too because it's been in my family for over 100 years and those trees were
planted by my uncle. I believe in safety. I have walked that road. I have
riden my bike. I have ran on that road. I've hopscotched on it. Years ago.
' I've walked hand in hand with my husband. My father. My mother. My
grandparents. My children. My sisters. My former brother. There has been no
incident. I have a family of 3,000 that visit us about every weekend, right
' honey? There's never been an incident. We the people have to be responsible
also when we're walking a road. We need to be responsible. We do not need to
talk a private parkway of residents and make it into a speedway from TH 7 and
' TH 5. There's no need for it and I don't understand how come after the 3
meetings you have already had with your constituents, that you haven't just
said, hey our people don't want it.
Lowell Carlson: Lowell Carlson, 4141 Kings Road. I guess some of this stuff I
don't quite understand. For instance, from Victoria line out to TH 5, is that
only a 22 foot road? I mean is that all they're got for right -of -way?
Bill Engelhardt: The existing bituminous surface is around 22 feet. There's a
66 foot right -of -way.
' Lowell Carlson: There is a bigger right -of -way to make this road what you're
saying, 22 foot then? Okay then secondly, is there going to be any additional
enlarging of the sewer and water? I've - been hearing a little bit about it but I
' really don't quite understand whether there is or there isn't.
Bill Engelhardt: There is not.
26
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
Lowell Carlson: So it isn't going to be like buying a car? 23 to 12 to 7 and
now we're going to come to the accessories and start putting it up the other way
so basically we can go by the $700.00? So the accessories they're going to put
on there, basically there ain't going to be none right?
Bill Engelhardt: You've got it. II
Lowell Carlson: Okay. I'll stay with it if it stays there. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to
Council and come up either with a conclusion or whatever.
Councilwoman Dimier: Or no conclusion huh? '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael. Would you like to start?
Councilman, Mason: You picked on me first last time Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Chmiel: That's why I did it again. ,
Councilman Mason: Well since I've been elected this is certainly the toughest
issue I've had to deal with. Just going down some comments from some people. I
appreciated what Mr. Boylan said about the past. I wonder if what we're doing
now isn't trying to rectify some of those problems as Don said earlier. On a
real specific level, Mr. Forbord mentioned the subjectivity of a good road /bad
road. I think of Frontier Trail and riding my bike on Frontier Trail before it
was fixed and what Frontier Trail is like now and boy I sure like riding my bike
on Frontier Trail now. I really do. I disagree a little bit with whether
government is being efficient or not. We could have, at least my understanding
of the process is that we could have just said this is your assessment at
$2,500.00 and been done with it. I think on the contrary. By listening to all
of the opinion out there and by what the Mayor's been able to do and what we've
all been able to do, by continuing to take a look at the situation, we've been
able to come up with some more appropriate figures. I wish I could remember who
said this but I know some political pundant did say, if you ever get elected to
office, in order to do your job you should never take office with the intent of
getting re- elected. This may happen after whatever comes up here. We'll see.
I don't see fixing the road up, turning it into a speedway. I spend a fair
amount of time on Frontier Trail, both in a car and on a bike. I haven't
noticed an increase in speed and good grief, with the shape Frontier Trail was
in prior to what it's like now, if there would be an increase you'd think that
would happen. I see two main issues here. Safety and environment. I
understand that within the last 25 years 2 or 3 people have been hurt. That's a
very good record. Clearly as developers come in, as more people come into this
area, there will be more traffic on that road and I think the safety issue
becomes paramount. I do have two kids. In terms of getting to a bus and what
not, I would not be comfortable with them walking on the parkway the way it is
now. I'm not going to put our Public Safety Director on the spot here but last
week we drove up and down the parkway a number of times. There was an elderly
gentleman with two canes walking along the side of the road. Certainly his
right to do that. Had we not crossed the dout:e yellow line, there would have
been a very serious problem. Now crossing a double yellow line in a situation
like that is no big deal but yet should it be done. Shouldn't it be done. In
27 '
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
that same drive there was someone o in down the road and '
� gg s a d I m not sure of the
corner but again, we had to cross the double yellow line. I'm very troubled by
that. There hasn't been a problem yet. At what point will there be a problem?
That's something, that's real tough for me. The environmental issue is another
real tough one. Without proper drainage, where is all this stuff going that's
' running off the road? With our surface water utility management plan, something
will have to be done eventually anyway with that situation. We have the tools
in hand now to do something about it. I know clearly there are a lot of people
' out there who think let well enough alone. Clearly tonight there are a number
of you who feel that we should do something about it. One last point here, I've
only lived in Chan for 5 years and someone who lived here about a year said,
well you must be an old timer then. I said no. No, no, no. Not at all.
II Partly I think this is an issue of old versus new too and I believe some people
addressed that. An area such as Chanhassen that is growing as rapidly as we
are, these are issues that the Council, constituents, all of us I think
' constantly have to grapple with. I think it's very difficult for both sides. I
think it's very difficult, it's more difficult for the people that have been
here a long time. What are these upstarts doing? Coming in here trying to
II change our land and that's a very, very difficult. issue. Do I need to say now
whether I'm going to aye or nay?
Mayor Chmiel: No. Not at this particular time.
' Councilman Mason: Okay. This is very difficult. That's enough. I'll stop.
11 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Only because you're bringing up the safety and the
speed limit issues, I'd like Mr. Wing to possibly expound on that with some of
his studies that he's done on that particular road with speed over the last 4
days or however many days you were out. Plus whatever else you have.
I Councilman Wing: I made a comment at a prior public hearing where people kept
bringing up the comments of speed and traffic and by our actions it was going to
increase traffic and it was going to increase speed. And the same arguments
have come through tonight and I would ask everybody that's brought up speed and
traffic issues, is this something you've done a study on or engineers like Bill
I have commented on or is it just your personal opinion and I can offer my own.
The comments are well taken but I guess I'm not convinced that this road is
going to increase or decrease speed and I think speed can be controlled by the
City. I think we have a very proficient Public Safety Director that would be
I more than happy to do what has to be done to protect the residents should that
occur. Whether it was speed bumps or stop signs or whatever. Both the traffic
and the speed issue, they're kind of moot points to me because no one's proven
I to me they're going to go up or down nor is traffic going to increase or not
increase. I've lived there long enough to know that the progress is here and
I hate progress. I discouraged about growth but it's reality. There's no sense
I fighting it. We don't live in the rural areas anymore. We're very closely
coming an inner ring suburb if you will. At any rate, on the street issue,
because there's so many questions I asked Mr. Harr, our Public Safety Director
if he would assist me in a traffic study over the last week and both the
I Sheriff's Department, the Highway Patrol, Community Service Officer and myself
were out with radar on the Minnewashta Parkway. course I was just in my .
private car monitoring and I came up, just for the: of you that are interested
and Mr. Mayor where this is appropriate you can just pick out these numbers.
28
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
I/
The average speed on the road as a whole was 32.6 mph. That was from end to end
and I was out from 7:00 in the morning until 9:00 at night at sporaic times. An
hour at a time and I averaged during the day about 60 cars an hour which
surprised me and then in the evening it was reduced to about 40 cars an hour.
So the traffic was consistent. The highest speed limit I found was about 34.5
mph at Red Cedar Point Road on Minnewashta Parkway. The interesting thing is
that I noted every car turning into Red Cedar Point and you know it's the old -
routine, if you can slow the locals down we'd reduce half our problem. But the
average speed of the cars turning into Red Cedar Point along that stretch of
road was 35 mph. They were the highest. The people that had the highest speeds
were the cars that turned into Red Cedar Point. The list went on and on. The
one area that really did concern me greatly was the traffic count and the speeds
directly in front of the beach, the Minnewashta Creek Homeowners at Linden
Circle and is it Kirkwood and Linden on Minnewashta Parkway. I found the sight
line to be non - existent: Steady stream of children crossing in the blind curve
and the average speed there was 33.3 mph with cars either decelerating right at
that point or accelerating just after they passed it so I almost felt I should
call the Association and say, wave a red flag or put up a red alert because
those of you from that particular area that are using that beach, if there's a
problem on Minnewashta Parkway, that's the one I think that I identified and I
don't know how Scott Harr would refer to this as Public Safety Director but if
there was a blind corner with high speeds with heavy children's useage, that
was the corner. The other one was the Boley curve down towards the Boley
property on 7300 Minnewashta Parkway. Roughly in that area where it comes
around very strong, steep vegetation. The average speed going around there was
33.6 mph. A completely, totally blind curve and then to tell there's no safety
issue on that road is absurd. I run it every day. I never run on that side nor
do I ride my bike on that side because any car coming across there that's not
paying attention is going to hit me. Is going to find me in their way awful
fast. The highest speed I found on that curve was 41 mph. And interesting,
every speed over 38 mph, with the exception of one city vehicle, was a young
man. In afraid they just have a habit of driving kind of fast. The highest
speed on the parkway was 41 that I found the entire week. The lowest speed was
22. Again, the average Mr. Mayor I believe was 32.6. I think that's specific
enough.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Is there anything else you'd like to expound on besides '
that?
Councilman Wing: Well, as long as I have the floor. You know being from that '
area and having lived there for 26 years, I've seen the changes occur. A lot of
the comments brought up, emotional or not...whether they're founded or not, I'm
very sympathetic for. Obviously I have a responsibility to the City as a whole,
including this project. Whether it's best for the locals in short term or long
term is a very difficult decision but I am very sensitive. I am very sensitive
to the issue of the local input and control of the locals and more than once
this Council has listened to the local individuals. Whether it's been Bluff
Creek or even more recently the Kurvers Point project, we've listened to the
input from the locals and we've sided with that or let the project ride as such.
I think it's a good project. I think it's an improvement to the community. I've
looked at the new road at the Arboretum where there used to be a road similar to
Minnewashta Parkway. Now they've curbed it ark I think it looks classy. The
environmental issues are very difficult for me. We're not to free to pollute ,
29 '
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
as we will. We're not free to let drainage go as we will into Lake Minnewashta.
It's a Class A lake, so far. That water quality is going down yearly. I live on
it. I've watched it. I've disked it every year. It's not improving. It's
getting worst. Boat pressures. Pollutants from our yards. Gasoline from the
roads. Within the next few years, and there's a gentleman tonight who could
' probably address it. Within the next. few years we're going to have to address
storm water control on Lake Minnewashta and Minnewashta Parkway and it's not
going to be free. There's going to be something done so what's happened is the
' Mayor has worked diligently to come up with a path to try and solve the safety
issues which has really been almost unanimous as I've seen it. The path issue.
But to do a path and the grading without fixing up the road and the road is an
issue. I mean here's where somebody wants the road fixed and somebody doesn't.
' Somebody wants the path but some don't. Some say there's a safety problem and
some don't. Some say there's a drainage problem and some don't. So now what?
I'm trying to be sensitive to the local needs. I think it's an excellent
' project for a very, very effective cost. I think that the people that are
concerned are very short term in their thinking and that as a Councilmember
representing your area and living in your area and using that road on a daily
' basis, even putting myself into the assessment, it's hard not to be supportive
of this. On the other hand, two issues come up. Local control and listen to
the local desires which is extremely important to me and I am so setback and
disheartened by what the County Assessor did to us this past year and what they
' did to our taxes that I don't care if this assessment was $30.00, I have a hard -
tirme putting it on anyone. So Mr. Mayor, at the present time I'm vacilating and
it's a very emotional issue for me. Safety. The trees. There's going to be ,
some victims. The roadway, I won't support patching it or overlaying it.
That's a waste of money. Environment. That's a big one to me and Mr. Mason has
spoken to that. Appearance. I think it's going to greatly enhance the
appearance. Speed. I think it's going to, it's not going to increase the
' speed. I think we can control it. Traffic. We can control that. Property y
values. I think it's going to be a classy operation if the Council chooses to
approve it this evening.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Ursula.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you. From the information that I could gather, I'm
going to give you a few facts here and I hope that, some of you will like them
and other won't but I guess I can't please everyone. At the public hearing on
July 8th there were 87 people. 20 of those spoke publically at that time. 13
' were against the roadway improvement. 5 were in favor of the entire project and
2 just asked questions but voiced no opinion as as I could see at that time
but they may have asked the questions because they negative on the project.
I don't know. Out of the 13 no's, only one was opposed to everything and I
think most people favored a walkway. At least that's my assessment of that
meeting. Since then I have done a survey of my own. I spoke to 31 people
' eyeball to eyeball and out of those 31 people there were 23 who were not at our
public hearing on July 8th. Out of those 31, and that's the sector that I
wanted to reach. If you'll recall, I wanted to reach the silent sector. Out of
those 31 people, 25 favored the upgrade and the walkway and 6 did not want it.
' And in further talking with the residents, those that I did talk to, I didn't
find anyone who opposed the storm sewer. Most acknowledged that there was. a
drainage problem. Most also expressed safety concerns and acknowledged that
something needed to be done with the road in the future, whether it be done now
30
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
or 10 years from now. And again, most wanted the walkway. In addition to that
then, 4 parties called me on their volition by telephone this week. Again, 2
were fer and 2 were against. I received 8 letters prior to the July 8th
meeting. All 8 of those were against, although 1 has since changed his mind and
now favors the project. One of the others•'that were against though stated that
they were willing to accept the majority opinion of the neighborhood as long as
the Council made every effort to get an accurate assessment of the neighbors and
that was what I was attempting to do. I received 4 letters here tonight and
there were 2 for and 2 against. That does include the letter we received from
the Oathout's. This leads me to the conclusion that the silent sector does have
an opinion and that there are some that are for the project but I don't have a
handle on the percentages as yet. I think that seeing that-the cost per unit is
now down to $758.55, I think that's a positive because that does answer the
concerns that I had for those residents that expressed financial concerns. To
me an 80/20 split with 20% going to the benefitted properties, that's a pretty
good deal and I do want to compliment Engelhardt and Associates again and the
City Staff and the Council for continuing to bend to the concerns of the people
as we gather more information and gain new insights. And I guess several of the
people here tonight asked why do we continue? I know it's frustrating. We
continue but I think those are the reasons we do continue is because we are
gathering more information and gaining new insights as we go along. I do
continue to be grieved over the proposed loss of the trees on the Boylan
property and I have experienced with the DNR people coming on my property
without permission to assess some trees and I know how you feel. It's not a
comfortable feeling. I would have liked to have been included in the process
instead of just having them knock on the door later on and tell me what they
found. So I'm thinking that maybe as is now popular with the Medical
profession, they get a second opinion. Maybe we can get a second opinion by a
tree expert and that would be of the Boylan's choice. '
James Boylan: The one that they sent out there, you heard what my daughter said
about what he said to her.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. I don't have that documented though and I think the
rest of the Council.
James Boylan: That's the problem...
Councilman Wing: Before we get off the trees. Bill, you know they may be 300
years old and they may be kind of rotten but they are classics. Is there any
way those can be saved as long as we're around the issue of those trees? Can we
go around those and project them?
Bill Engelhardt: No. As I said all along, we're not in the business of trying
to cut your trees. I don't have a grudge against your trees. If I could save
those trees, I would save them. Like Mr. Kirsten's trees, the neighbor to the
Boylan, his maple tree, we're going to have to pull the path tighter to the back
of the curb and that will work there. In the case of the trees on the Boylan
property, even if we have to build a little retaining wall, I don't know if that
will help to save the roots but we could do that. We can try it.
James Boylan: Bill, Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry to interrupt and we're kind of out of
line here but how come in all of this that the only one who has ever come to
31
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
' talk to us is Ursula? When we seem to have.
Mayor Chmiel: That was Ursula's choice to do that. We have been out there
looking. I've been out there 3 dozen times. I drove past your house. I've •
parked out at your house. I was waiting for you to look out the window. You
never cane out. But the point being.
James Boylan: Well I'm sorry Mr. Mayor. I guess I should have stayed home for Y me and
you.
Mayor Chmiel: Well you were looking out the window.
James Boylan: Now the hell do I know it's you out there. I've got people
driving by all day long...
Mayor Chmiel: That's besides the point. I will ask you to be in proper decorum
11 in this Council chamber.
James Boylan: I apologize Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. You will continue. You're done speaking Bill?
Bill Engelhardt: We'll do whatever we can to save them.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Appreciate that.
Councilwoman Dimler: I do too. I guess my feelings still is like I don't have
a handle on the percentages but I know there's some support out there and I know
the percentages could very well be 50/50. I don't know. So my opinion is that
I would favor to get an accurate assessment and that I would invite the rest of
' the Council to come out with me and we could finish it up in one day by
canvasing the neighborhood like I did over the weekend. It was fun. I enjoyed
talking to everyone and I think then we can all come to a conclusion that we're
comfortable with.
Mayor Chmiel: I think maybe most of us can come up with a conclusion this
' evening one way or the other.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, if you've done your own surveys. I do have two
I areas of concern though that I would like to address and that is that I've heard
practically nothing about the land swap with Victoria and apparently Mr. Forbord
indicated that that land was in their control and he indicated that they hadn't
II been approached. I'd like to have that answered and see if there's any extra
cost involved in that.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I just address that? That is a decision between the City of
Victoria and the City of Chanhassen. I think Mr. Forbord could be there but
that decision making is between the two cities.
I Councjjwornan Oimler: Okay, and have we decided on which land it is?
Mayor Chmiel: My understanding is the parcel to the west of Minnewashta Parkway
will stay within the City of Victoria. Those on the east will be brought into
1
32
1
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
the city of Chanhassen.
Councilwoman. Dimler: Okay, and what land are we swapping for those then? 1 1
•
Mayor Chmiel: Don?
Don Ashworth: No decision has been made. We have met with Victoria. The
Council was supportive of working with the City. We have some options. We
could go in and take the roadway only and not take any of the properties on
either side. That would put some stiff financial burden on Victoria as well as
the owners on either side because that section does not have municipal State Aid
and then in that case those owners would be faced with the full brunt of the
cost. I don't think that the Victoria Council wishes to impose that kind of
cost on them and so I anticipate that their statements that they would like to •
work with the City in completing the project at the comparable cost to the
section in Chanhassen is a true statement. We have not stated that we're going
to give away any particular parcels. I think that that's an issue that we
should be open minded on but I see that we probably have, we're probably holding
more of the cards at this point in time than Victoria. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but do you anticipate any extra costs to be addedd
to this project as a result?
Don Ashworth: No. Not to the project.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, thank you. And then the other concern is that Jo '
Ann Hallgren's concern about her 17 units. It's my understanding that she has
an easement on an unpaved road that really belongs to a resident in Stratford
Ridge and this easement is for only one single family. And therefore when the
rest of her property is developed they will have to gain access from TH 7 so I'm
wondering why we are proposing to assess all of her units;
Bill Engelhardt: I guess we're not aware of the easement situation. The
property was laid out and sketched as how many units could be accommodated in
that with access to Minnewashta Parkway. In the case of the Hallgren property,
it is green acres and those assessments could be deferred until development
takes place and the exact number of units are determined and I think that
would...
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay but if she only has access for one unit from '
Minnewashta Parkway, then I can't see why we're.
Bill Engelhardt: I guess that would be something.
Councilwoman Dimler: Because that is an easement from a private property owner.
Bill Engelhardt: ...consider her as only one unit until it's developed and I'm
sure 17 acres in that area is going to at some point in time.
Councilwoman Dimler: But they won't have access to Minnewashta Parkway from.TH '
7. I mean from Minnewashta Parkway. They'll have to come in from TH 7.
Bill Engelhardt: If that's the case, you would only have one unit. '
33
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, that was the concern. That's all I have.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Tom?
Councilman Workman: I think this project comes down to either doing the job
correctly or not doing the job at all. I think we know what doing the job
correctly is and by not doing the job, as I mentioned earlier, we will just
simply be putting this decision off to a not too far in the future Council.
Future residents. Older residents or other residents. It needs to be done. I
am a little concerned about how the assessment kind of came down and I'd like to
write that off as effective community involvement in the political process to
where we got it to where it's supposed to be. It seems to me it's a little bit
like we should have maybe attempted to give our best shot a little earlier. I'm
reminded of a sales person who said I can do this for this price. And when
'another sales person was brought into the scene as a competitor, he suddenly is
able to reduce the price further and it did more for mistrust for the buyer than
anything. I guess I'd like to address why maybe just Ursula was out there and I
have been out there and I've talked to people and I think I've spent an awful
lot of time out there. This Council is human beings and I'm reminded of the
time on the other side of the lake when a gentleman, there was a lot split. 20
acre lots. Had to have 10 acre lot minimums and it seemed to me the situation
was, a younger couple coming into town is going to have 10 acres and the older
gentleman is going to have the other 10. We're trying to figure out where to
put the easements and the easements could go anywhere. On either of the two
lots. The listened to both sides. The younger couple and the older
gentleman. The older gentleman looked us in the eye from that podium and
basically called us a bunch of jerks for even thinking we could do that. If
anybody dollars to donuts as to where the easements went. It ain't going on the
younger couple. We enjoy being respected and at least somewhat appreciated for
some of the time that we put in and quite frankly I think some of the comments
have done the argument against this parkway more damage than good. I as a human
being do not tend to go where number one I already know what that person's
thinking. Number two, they don't respect me and that's what I've been told, in
so many words. So I go where I know I'm going to maybe get some differing
opinions and some open mindedness but not closed mindedness. This Council is
trying to manage the growth. I don't know that we're trying to promote it or
trying to manage the growth. The sewer, the water and the growth that's coming
to Lake Minnewashta is not spurned on by this Council I can tell you and we who
operate on the minimum staff level, I don't think staff has all the time in the
world trying to promote and urge people to grow. It's happening naturally. I'm
going to vote for this project because I do think it is a good deal, if this
roadway project can be termed that. Looking at all roadway systems and how that
system operates and again, we don't create that system. We attempt to operate
within it and you either do it or you don't and you wait for the consequences
later on. I don't believe in doing that in this situation. If I were voting on
this. project solely for re-election or for votes, I may not and probably
wouldn't vote on it. If I were counting heads in here, who's going to vote for
me and who's not, I'd probably vote against this project. And that is not why I
was elected. This is an unfriendly moment for this Council who is at this
11 moment in time have to make, have to make the decisions and so I am doing that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks Tom. I know exactly a lot of the feelings that you
people are going through because of the assessments and because of the change.
34
1
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
I've gone through it and I've probably sat in the same position that you're in.
Getting on this Council gives us a position that we have to look at the overall
good for the city and I don't want to quote. I'm not God by any stretch of the
imagination. I'd like to spell God backwards and have it be as a dog. Just wag
my tail rather than my tongue. But I feel that there are several issues here
that needs to really be addressed. One of those that directly points to us is a
fact of safety. Safety is an issue to me for every resident of this community.
Not just Minnewashta Parkway. Environmental concerns are the other concerns
that I also have within this city. We as a Council have adopted some strong
stringent requirements as far as the City's concerned. Whether it be trees or
runoff water or whatever the situation is. We look at that and we practice
basically what we preach. There are a lot of concerns. I look here tonight and
I see a couple of youngsters and it's sort of nice to have them here so they
know exactly what's happening too. But as I look at this I feel that by putting
• some stop signs in the area, those two areas that we had looked at was Kings
Point and Linden Circle, will be sort of a deterrent. We're not putting them in
for the fact of that stop signs are put in to control traffic and flow. But
there is a need for those signs I feel and there is a safety issue along with
that. I don't expect to see that road be a 45 or a 55 mph speed limit. I want
it as a 30. And if it can be less, that's all well and good. I think the
residents of that area will probably be the first ones in uprising and saying
keep it at 30. Don't put it down to 25. Many times we find ourselves moving '
and going from one point to another and find ourselves going a little too fast
than what we should be. Time is what's needed and to allow for that time. I
think that over the period of time I was out there when Richard was out there
doing his calculations on speed with the radar. I ran into a couple of the
other Council people as well. I've had people stop and talk to me as I sat out
there on a Saturday for almost an hour and a half just to see what was
happening. I've tried it during the week. I've tried it early mornings and
there is a lot of traffic. There's no question and it's generated from within.
I wanted to do a study to find out where people were coming and going from.
Whether they were using Minnewashta Parkway as an access from TH 5 to TH 7 or
from TH 7 to TH 5. I don't think you're going to find that because of TH 41
keeping it at 55 mph speeds. They're in a hurry. They're going to be going to
work or coming from work so they're not going to go back down to a 30 and making
stops as well. If it presents a problem, we'll enforce that. We'll enforce
that 30 mph speed and I think we're going to have to. So with that I think I at
least feel I know where I'm coming from. I wanted to make sure that when we
brought these figures down that everyone has been treated equally in trying to
II
determine how we came up with that. We had to do some review back into other
projects that had happened and how did we treat those people and I wanted to
make sure that how we treated them was the same way we were going to treat you.
So with that I'll just sort of close. I will call for a motion on this project.
If someone would be willing to make that motion? And by the way we do need a
4/5 majority for this to go through but I'd still sort of question that portion
but.
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, I'm still really uncomfortable. Is there any
reason why we couldn't survey one more time those who are not here? I really
would like to see. They're not here tonight to have a say.
Mayor Chmiel: I received calls, 2 for and received a letter this evening,
another one for. 1
35
r
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
11
Councilwoman Dimler: Right, yeah.
' Mayor Ohmic': And I don't think if we went through that again, I don't think
we're going to come up with a conclusion.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I don't have a feel for the Trolls Glen area or you know
towards TH 5 because I was working from the south going from TH 7 towards TH 5
and I didn't get to that area on TH 5 towards TH 5 at all and I have no feel for
' them. I did try to call a few neighbors out there that I know and see how they
feel and they didn't get back to me so. I mean that's a large section of people
there that are unrepresented then.
' Councilman Mason: Mr. Mayor, there were a number of meetings before this.
We've had one official public hearing and one unofficial public hearing on this
and I guess I, at this point I don't see the point of delaying the vote any
' longer.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, I can understand but I did have some people say that
' I called today in that Trolls Glen area, this was the first they'd heard of it.
I know that's unbelieveable but it's true.
Councilman Mason: At that point I'm not sure that that's our problem.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. This has been in the paper. Front page and everyone
receives it.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, I'd make a motion to approve the feasibility
study for upgrade to Minnewashta Parkway, authorize preparation of plans and
' specifications, Improvement Project 90 -15.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Resolution #91 -70: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to
' approve the Minnewashta Parkway Feasibility study and authorize preparation of
plans and specifications for Improvement Project #90 -15. Mayor Chmiel,
Councilman Workman and Councilman Mason voted in favor. Councilwoman Dimler and
Councilman Wing were silent. The motion carried unanimously.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT REGARDING THE FENCE SCREENING HEIGHT FROM 8
FEET TO 15 FEET, 7851 PARK DRIVE, LAKESHORE EQUIPMENT, STEVE WILLETTE.
Sharmin Al -Jaffa Mr. Mayor, City Council. The applicant is not present. He's
not here to represent himself. He's aware of the item being scheduled on the
agenda.
Maycr Chmiel: Okay, if he's not here I would suggest that we possibly table
this and put it onto our next agenda and make sure that he's notified so he can
' at least be here to discuss it.
Paul Krauss: We'd be happy to do that. He was notified several times but
things come up so yes. We will make sure.
36
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
Councilman Wing: Paul, before we get off number 7. That entire corner is kind
of pre -dated from our time. The setback, the signs and then the kind of
buildings of that particular business just doesn't seem compatible with what
we're after.
•
Paul Krauss: There's no question you're right. 1
Councilman Wing: Alright. So it was pre -dated happenings and there are no
solutions?
Paul Krauss: Well, the building wasn't built that many years ago. It's still
in recent memory but there's clearly a lot of things that we've changed in
ordinance since then and the expectations have changed since then.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's move on to item number 9.
APPOINTMENT TO THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. -
Todd Gerhardt: At our last meeting the City Council directed staff to advertise
for the appointment of HRA position that was open. We did not receive any
applications for that position. Charlie Robbins has expressed to me that he
would like to be reappointed to that position. We can advertise again if you
wish. Staff would lea..e that up to the Council.
Mayor Chmiel: No. I would like to make a motion that we reappoint Charlie
Robbins for a commissioner of the HRA for a 5 year term. I'll make that as a
motion.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Councilman Wing: 5 year term? '
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Wing: My limited experience with the HRA is that they control
enormous amounts of money. They have a lot of control and power and authority.
They have incredible impact on this city. It's appearance. It's future. It's
growth. Businesses. I guess I'm very pleased to see two council members on
there. I'm elected as a City Council member and I have less budget than the
non - elected individuals on the HRA. And this Council, at least this Council's
working on the City's future and TH 5 corridor and all these issues but I don't
see any inbetween between the Council and the HRA other than we have council
members on there. But what's happening there isn't really being discussed here.
And we of course have staff who's kind of compatible with both groups as I see
it. Who gets appointed? I'd like to see another Council member on there
frankly but in lieu of that Mr. Mayor, I would ask that as Mayor and a member of
that Commission that there be considerably greater communication and inner house
cooperation between the HRA and the City Council. There's just too much going
on that I feel I want to be in on and have some say on. If nothing else just to
attend the meeting and be on record. That starts with rooflines, which is of
course you and I don't want to get into that but everything you've done I happen
37
1
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
1
to agree with but I'm not so sure we're not just lucking out. I happpen to
really like the monument you're creating for the city but are we lucking out or
is it a plan and is it compatible with the plan the Council's working on?
Mayor Chmiel: Councilman Wing, you have my ear.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd like to, I haven't made any bones about it in
the past and I haven't changed my position. Because of that same reason, I'm
glad to hear Richard say that. Because of their huge budget and they are non-
elected, I have always felt that the Council should be the HRA and I continue to
feel that way.
1 Councilman Macon: That's interesting that you mentioned that because I just
whispered into Tom's ear. .
1 Councilman Workman: He was looking at Richard through there.
Councilman Mason: Well that could be. About what would the advantage be to
' having City Council be the HRA? I agree with what Dick was saying. Boy that's
a lot of money.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I feel that that's true and that was one of the positions
that we strov_: for was to have at least 2 Council members on there. I like
having the genE ral public as well. Some of these people are experienced in a
particular and have the expertise. For those reasons I would just as soon
' have it kept as a 3/2 with at any given time Council has any real concerns,
those concerns can be brought up to the HRA.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, we can bring up the concerns but we don't have any �.
say and they do have the final say and I guess I still oppose that.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, that final say.
Councilwoman Dimler: And we are really in a time of rapid development and like
you said, the TH 5 corridor. It can make such a difference to our city and the
' citizens won't really be represented. It will be those individuals who have
been appointed.
Councilman Workman: Well I've always said that, and this is what Mike is maybe
getting at here is an accountability thing with the money and yeah. There's a
lot of cash there and there's going to be a lot of cash in the future. The
biggest thing that I see is where, and this has nothing to do with the
individuals on the HRA now who are non City Council members. It's a general
statement that they are not as, I'm very in tune with what the HRA is doing and
the City Council. They are not in tune, as in tune with what the City Council
' is doing. Now whether or not that's, and maybe that's why HRA's were set up to
keep it separate and have different goals and different ideas than the whims of
the voters.
Councilwoman Dimler: That doesn't make any sense.
Councilman Workman: Well, people can apply pressure to vote to elected
officials where they can't to non - elected.
1 38
1
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
Councilwoman Dimler: It's their money.
Councilman Workman: Well that remains to be a question of who's money it is
too. But you know whether all City Council, I don't think we could go wrong
with 5 City Council members as HRA members. But are we closing the process up II and I don't know.
Mayor Chmiel: Sometimes I think we are. Same thing with the HRA or
development. I still like the involvement of citizens within the community
rather than having the full fist control as we would here. Maybe there again
we're getting 3 more opinions as opposed to the 5 that we have here.
Councilwoman Dimler: Right. And I agree with that except you know we do have '
other commissions. They don't have such a huge budget. That's what really
concerns me.
Mayor Chmiel: You realize why the budget
y udget is there and I know you know that.
It's only because of the tax increment financing that we acquire all those
dollars and put into the fund to be used accordingly to advance the City with
the different projects that we normally wouldn't be able to.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, if I support you and Tom, that would be the
majority vote so I guess it's kind of moot at this point. Which I would intend
to do but January 1, 1992 I would like to see a real program of cooperation and
communication.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we can certainly do that.
Councilwoman Dimler: As I understand it, we don't have a vote anyway. We just
are discussing. You make the decision is that correct?
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. But you get to vote.
Councilwoman Dimler: We do?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. '
Councilman Workman: I thought it was your appointment.
Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor with a second. '
Resolution #91 -71: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to appoint
Charlie Robbins for a 5 years term to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority.
All voted in favor except Councilwoman Dimler who abstainted and the motion
carried.
Councilman Wing: Informational question Mr. Mayor. Why a 5 year term? It ,
seems extremely long.
Mayor Chmiel: That's the By -laws. _ II
Roger Knutson: It's a Statute.
39
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
L
1
Councilman Workman: I might add and this might not be comforting to the other
' three because the other three certainly have the option to come to the meetings
and it's tough to add another meeting but I used to have a lot more suspicion
about the HRA than I do now. Now people suspect me. I feel comfortable that
Todd and Don and Chairman Horn and the Mayor and all of us have them on a pretty
tight leash.
Councilwoman Dimler: And no, I trust you guys but it's the future that I'm
concerned about. And for the record sake, you didn't call for an abstention but
I would like to have my vote be an abstain.
COUNCIL PRESENTATION:
t Mayor Chmiel: I received a letter from Barbara Montgomery, the Chair of the
Chanhassen Senior Citizen Commission. She would like me to attend a particular
' meeting and they're also looking at many different needs of the Seniors and
feasibility studies and things to be done and so on. We're also going to take
to them about the potential of trying to get some citizens for the tasks as I
' have mentioned. So I will be attending, if I'm comprised of that meeting. I
will try to attend that next meeting and address some of these issues that are
there.
t Councilwoman Dimler: What day is that?
Mayor Chmiel: I don't know. But I'll be told. When will the Senior Commission
meet again?
Paul Krauss: Mayor I'd have to check my calendar. It should be 4 weeks from
' last Friday.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay last Friday which would have been the 19th. The 16th of
August?
' Paul Krauss: I believe so. I can confirm that for you.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Would you please. Would you let me know. And that's at what
time?
' Paul Krauss: 9:30.
Mayor Chmiel: 9:30 a.m..
' Councilman Mason: Mr. Mayor one, this isn't really Council presentation but at
the Board of Adjustment and Appeals? I will be out of town on the-next Council
meeting that would come up. That's my neighborhood. I'm wondering if that
could come up on the Council meeting after that?
Paul Krauss: We have no problem with that. We just have to inform the
applicant.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. What's the time frame for i„e applicant on that particular
item? Do you know?
II 4O
City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
Paul Krauss: I don't know.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe you can check that out with them and then get back to 1
Councilman Mason.
Councilman Mason: Okay thanks.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATION:
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Paul. Moon. Is this something we should even discuss? 1
Paul Krauss: Well there's two things. One is still a confidential nature and
you've got an envelope updating you on that. The other concerns some action
that we frankly already have taken but haven't gone before the Judge yet and we
just wanted to appraise you of that. You'll recall that Moon Valley was
involved in the creation of the ordinance from the get go. I mean we listened
to them. Tried to develop an ordinance to achieve the City's goals without
telling them they had to stop. They were given 6 months to apply for a permit.
I notified them by registered mail twice during that period. They refused to
apply for a permit. In fact they sued us at the end of the 6 months questioning
our ability to regulate them at all. The Judge threw their suit out. Said we
did have the right to require a permit. Gave them 30 days to respond. That was
I think May 25th. About May 20th they hired a planning consultant who Roger
and I can vouch for his professionalism and validity. We're glad to see they
hired John Voss to work with them but in the interest, and John had just come on
and in the interest of allowing him to prepare a plan we said alright. The
Judge said May 25th. We'll give you until June 30th. Give you an extra 30 days
to develop a plan. June 30th nothing showed up. Early July I spoke to Mr.
Voss. He's now saying he's got his authorization to proceed but he needs more
study and he needs this and that and he gave me a tentative schedule that sort
of said we may have something to review by September. At that point I went back
to our legal counsel and said this is getting silly. We really have to hit him
with a 2 x 4 if that's what it takes to let him know that we're serious. So
what we've got scheduled is a court hearing back down in Carver County asking
the Judge or telling the Judge that we gave them extra slack. They still
haven't performed. We'd like to see them stopped. A stop work order posted. I
don't know what the likelihood is he's going to do that but it should light a
fire under them and let them know we're serious. If there's no, if you have a
problem with our proceeding along these ways, those proceedings don't have to
be, you don't have to go through it but that's what we're scheduled to do at
this moment-.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess we're trying to really make him comply with what
the requirements basically are. I don't like taking anybody's livelihood away
from them. Putting a stop work order on a facility. Somehow I would try to get
back to them. Reiterate just exactly what you said and if he doesn't comply
with that, then I would suggest we have to more forward to what you're saying.
Give one more attempt.
Paul Krauss: We've been in contact with his attorney.
Mayor Chmiel: Have we tried directly with hiR? .
II
41 1
1
L City Council Meeting - July 22, 1991
1
Paul Krauss: With Zwier? No. We met with him 2 -3 months ago. 2 months ago.
It was Tom Scott and myself. A few other staff people. And frankly it didn't
reassure me much. They had decided they were going to move forward and listen
to the Judge's order but it was clear to me we were thinking about two different
things in terms of what should be left of that hill when it's all said and done.
But be that as it may, we're not getting any response. I can try to contact
Zwier directly.
Mayor Chmiel: Let's try that before we put that slap on. But if it's to no
avail, then we're going to have to proceed. I don't like doing it but that's
what We're going to have to do. Okay, if there's no other discussion, can
I have a motion for adjournment?
Councilman Wing: Can I have one quick question? I don't know if I need it on.
Mayor Chmiel: Was it on the agenda?
Councilman Wing: When you say this agenda thing, I'm always so striken with
' being here that I hesitate a split second and all of a sudden you're on. All
I'd like to know is that the next meeting from staff, I don't want to see this
TH 5 corridor study get dropped. I'd like to know where Paul and Don are
thinking and where they're going with it. Number two, the sign ordinance has
been asked for some action. I want to know, and I realize there's, you can do
it in one sentence but I'd like the sign ordinance addressed but most important,
I'm concerned about new development. I'm hoping and assuming that on the new
t landscape ordinance the Council might vote on a couple extra trees. I'd hate to
see any new developments come in without this landscape ordinance.
Paul Krauss: A couple of those things I can quickly answer. We're kicking
' those ordinances back into the Planning Commission. As you're aware, they've
looked at a preliminary draft to cut some of these things and given us some
marching orders to change some things and we're doing that. Relative to the
sign ordinance, I think most of you are aware that we brought on a part time
planner. Jo Ann is now on a part time basis herself and Kathy Aaneson is now
with our department and Kathy's got some excellent experience. She worked in a
' 80,000 suburb of Salt Lake City and one of the things she did there which made
my eyes perk up in the interview is she wrote their sign ordinance. She and I
are working up a proposal because we think we need a sign task force to work
with on this thing and that will be coming to you shortly.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. One other thing before I ask for the adjournment.
The specs for Kurvers 2nd Addition. Staff would like these back so if you would
' just put them up here so they can collect them. So they don't have to get more
printings done and save another tree.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:35
p.m.-
' Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
' 42
1
. .
(
. ,
- .
,
.
.,. , -
.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION ' • '
„‘ REGULAR METING . . .
-, - - JULY 17,- 1991 , . . :
- . .
11 -
. ,
, .
= Chairm.an EmmIngS called the meetIng to order at .7:40 p.m..
. .
. .
1 - ME111§.ER5 1 - ''Tirr.i . Erhart, Steve Enimings, Bran Betz li. and Jeff' Fa
I MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd conrad,, Ellson and ioan
. . , ) . .
, ■ , ,, ' , ,
., , . "6;.TAMLetggtit: ' Paoi Kraims,-- Planning -Director, t 40 Ann ,,Olsen, , Senior
Planner; KathY . Aanen.son, Planer XI and CliarleS,rOlOh; ASst.,:t ity Engineer
L
Ptj t__,..gILBLAVNAt-_:,,,,::_.• ,,-; ' -, i , ,--••',, ;, ,, ,; ,:',: ,,•; •-; .: -, ,-_, ' ', ;,, , :,, ' .
EstAllt) °t - -' = "-'t •Otii=:° RM T , a - IT - NS' A A aisi AN 0 e ONtl , TIiN OF ,-.--
. . , • a - - z ,,,, , , .„
t ii ..- ' D , 1< - - --.' .". -207 - ,.'• 'Mt ,.? ,., AN' 7' , 41 , T., THE'', '. ,,,- - -.11 , - ° -S• Ni• '
• - - • - R A k'PIELii PPM< ' D `1•;;* - - , - a titD. A ,, '1. ' ,:iF,' siTtiT_'A
lf..-0 fte*„..C.,....!...-± .',_. ' , --,' .-_,,,:".„'' ':..-, ; •;', :':...'..•°- , ' : ,'' , - .'', -, - - - '
.. ,,, . . ..
Jo inn ()leen ' the Staff , rePort-, Chairriticti4Pomi, 00$ •OailedZ- the , - •
,-,--,- ,OUblio'lheating to Order;
. = -
, .
:Batzlis to , olose the Pubitchearing... All , Voted in
f,f4VOr'''and motion: carried. ,' The pUblici heati.'.n4 „Wp1S.,....adOed,
'Pnrt14: n9 Jeff , ;do' haVe any comments on. thiA? .,„. , •;;' - - ,i , ,,, r: ,, ;-,_.- , , - _
,..._, , , , __• ,
.,„ ,
Fl •t Par'Makes,z - .1:. have 'no Obtomentd'on,thi,s,(
. .
,., .
.EMMinsze AltiObt.' , - t3rJan?
-.: • - .
• .„ ,,_ ,
...,
„ •
Bat*li z JO Ar1: can you pot ''0081n- , exactly - where ;they're 901 to be
"pilittin0 the deck
.. .
1 0 ise nr. it. ' $ 9Piti9 to be on the east Sj.de ...:.through wetlands here, . -
:, ,.-• . . ,-, -
,
1 Batzi,i:.- Juat frOm 'a philosoPhical Standpoint, will we be enoOuragin more
: ,' traffic 'throi the wetland? X mean_ obviously Your intent is to keep
..people, the - superdeck but will. there be more trash? People jumping off
people
• :Hr' the deck' ...=. ;Whatever into the wetland areas. _
i
1 Olsen, -- Where they '1'49 in Carver Beach and the ArbOretuni,
-.-• -
that hasn't, been, e* Hennepin ,county Par,*- Preserve 'that has
1
those and they haven that was ,'.6 problem. That they've been really
, '4
- iti of theSe ,tha' 'people ,that 'reallY get in and' see the
-'"-- , vegetation. - If ,any.thing Wetlands More. As far as - staff. No,
. .
we 't have a concern a,bolit,• that
. .
. ,
. - Batzli: , I, gyess I tend: to think of- the Arboretum for exaMple. there's very
few kids that 90 ; - in there but we're going to have here a,Playground type
area that t it will be fri4zmented, more by kids without adult
sUpervision. My only concern is that we get a bunch of kids throwing stuff
..,..„..
iii
1 ,
- ,
11 Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 2
1
into the wetland and tooling around in the wetland. We might be
encouraging it a little bit is my only concern. I think you're right. I'd
like to see us have more access to the wetland. Have people be able to-
appreciate it and go through there but I think that's a concern that I -
don't know if it's been addressed or if it's something we need to talk
II about or even consider.
Olsen: What we could maybe do is to, I could bring that concern back to
the Park and Rec Commission and maybe, again if there's anything going to
be happening next year that they can look at what, signage or maybe even
have like something so the kids can't climb from the boardwalk into the
' wetland.
Batzli: No matter what you build, they're going to be able to climb over
it. If it's a sign, it will probably encourage it. They'll say oh we're
not supposed to do it. Great, let's do it.
Olsen: I guess I don't know what you could do to prevent that.
Batzli: I don't know. My only concern is by putting the deck through
there that you'll be encouraging traffic through the wetland in ways that
you don't anticipate right now. Otherwise I'm in favor of it.
1 Emmings: Tim?
' Erhart: I think the concept's just fine. What's Andy's Acres up there on
the drawing? My drawing says Andy's Acres. Where you said Outlot 8, mine
says Andy's Acres. What is that?
II Olsen: That's the Ziegler property and that's like Andy's Acres is a
really old subdivision.
I Erhart: Okay, so now it's just part of the park?
Olsen: No, that's not part of the park. The park is right here. It
I borders it. That's the Ziegler property. It's the daughter of Delores
Ziegler.
I Erhart: Okay. Then to the west of that it says Minnewashta Park so what
have we got? One lot that kind of sticks in the whole area then.
Krauss: There's actually two subdivisions north of the park. One being
1 Minnewashta Park and the other being Andy's Acres.
Emmings: It says it over here too.
II Krauss: Well it's confusing but that Minnewashta Park is the name of the
next subdivision. •
I Erhart: Oh I see. Down on the lower right hand corner you see approximate
location of trail alternate 1. What is that all about? The arrow points
right into the wetland. Is that just the arrow's not complete?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
ting
July 17, 1991 - Page 3
Olsen: They've got it set up into the different stages and different
phases. The only trail that will be going into the wetland is that
superdeck trail. •
Erhart: Why do you call it a superdeck?
Olsen: I think that that's just the terminology that they used.
Erhart: That's common terminology?
Olsen: For the wood part.
Erhart: You show up here on the east side of the superdeck, okay so blue. II
Before it hits the dots but yet that's within the wetland limits. Is that II
going to be fill? The east end of the superdeck it shows a blue line.
Krauss: The jagged blue line? 1
Erhart: The straight blue line.
Olsen: Yeah I don't know if that's just they extended their...
Erhart: The west.
Olsen: Right I see that. The superdeck would all be the boardwalk. We
wouldn't allow any filling.
Erhart Okay, so the superdeck goes all the way back.
Olsen: To the edge. '
Erhart: To the edge of the wetland. What's the superdeck going to be
constructed of?
Olsen: It's wood.
Erhart: Treated? 1
Olsen: The details on that, I believe that.
Erhart: I don't know. There's been a lot of adverse data coming out. 1
Olsen: Well it depends on what type you use. Yeah, we looked into that
with the boardwalks in Crimson Bay and some say yes. Treated wood is bad. II
Some say treated wood is, actually I don't know exactly what. If they even
know.
Erhart: I guess I would just suggest tha* maybe you do a little bit_of
research. I don't mean specifically. •
Olsen: When they put out for bid for it? 1
Erhart: Although I don't know. I supposed there's a lot of docks.
There's just been a lot of data coming out lately about treated wood.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 4
Emmings: Dave Headla brought that up along time ago. Were you here?
Erhart: Yeah, I remember that and ever since that time.
Emmings: My recollection is that we talked to somebody from the State
about that and th.y said they didn't think it was a concern. I haven't
heard anything about it since that time.
II Erhart: Okay. Well there might be instances. I think that's the only
thing I had on it. Like I say, it looks like fun.
Emmings: I don't have any additional comments. I think it looks like a
11 reasonable proposal. Unless anybody's got any, does anybody have anything
else they want to say on this? Is there a motion?
I Erhart: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland
Alteration Permit #91 -2 to allow construction within 200 feet of a Class A
wetland and the installation of a superdeck per staff's proposal and
II conditions and the plan -shown dated, what's the date on this?
Emmings: June 13th.
Erhart: 13th. Okay.
Emmings: I'll second it. Is there any discussion?
II Batzli: I would just like the City to consider the issue of encouraging
people into the wetlands. I would encourage them to move slowly and see
11 how this one works out before they plan a lot more of these.
II Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #91 -2 to allow construction within
200 feet of a Class A wetland and the installation of a superdeck nature
trail through a Class A wetland as shown on plans dated June 13, 1991 with
the following conditions:
1. Type III erosion control will be placed between all construction areas
and wetland limits.
2. The super deck nature trail 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 within the Class A
wetlands. .
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
i
Planning Commission Meeting
1
July 17, 1991 - Page 5
PUBLIC HEARING:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE REALIGNMENT OF HWY 101 (SOUTH LEG) AND II
ALSO THE WEST 78TH STREET DETACHMENT AND THE MITIGATION OF APPROXIMATELY
2.5 ACRES OF WETLAND. CITY OF CHANHASSEN.
Public Present:
Name Address .
Marge Shorba Hwy. 101
Jo An Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Emmings 1
called the public hearing to order.
Marge Shorba: I just have a question. '
Emmings: Would you please stand up and identify yourself.
Marge Shorba: My name is Marge Shorba. We own property on Hwy 101 south. II
Right after you go over the bridge to the left. I'm just not quite sure
where this is with our property. I guess what I want to make sure that it
is far enough east because the frontage road will now be running in front
of our property. The new highway running directly behind it. At one of
the other meetings they had promised us that they would build a dirt sound
mound adjacent to our property for the noise of the new highway.
Olsen: Those plans are still.
Marge Shorba: Okay, I just wanted to make sure that this wouldn't be 1
taking any, that there still would be room for that mound.
Olsen: Oh yeah. Actually this is part of with that design of the street. II
This is not.
Marge Shorba: Nothing else then? 1
Olsen: I think it's pretty well south of you where the creek?
Marge Shorba: Okay, we own property right after you cross the creek. '
Olsen: Oh okay, to the south? It shouldn't.
Marge Shorba: We own two lots there.
Emmings: Is there anyone else who has any questions or comments on this? II
Erhart moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. '
Emmings: Tim, have you got any comments on this proposal?
Erhart: No, I don't have any on this one. ,
11
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 6
Emmings: Brian?
II Batzli: Is an earth work permit going -to be required to do this? Is that
going to be brought in separately? Are they going to have to move a lot of
dirt for this?
I Olsen: Yeah, they'd be getting into that. They'd be over 1,000 cubic
yards.
II Batzli: We can't do that administratively?
Krauss: We can. Public projects are exempted from that requirement.
Batzli: Okay. Good. That's all I have.
II Emmings: Jeff?
Farmakes: I have no further comments.
II Emmings: I don't either. Is there a motion on this?
I Batzli: I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland
Alteration Permit #91 -3 shown on plans dated July 2, 1991 with the
conditions set forth in the staff report.
II Erhart: Second.
Batzli moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #91 -3 as shown on plans dated July 2,
1991 and with the following conditions:
' 1. The wetland mitigation area will be increased to 1.66 acres and be
designed to meet the six Fish and Wildlife criteria.
2. Type III erosion control shall be installed between the existing
wetland area and all disturbed areas.
3. All disturbed areas shall be spread with topsoil /muck from the project
to revegetate the area with existing vegetation.
4. No alteration /construction shall be allowed during waterfowl breeding
season.
II 5. No direct storm water discharge into the wetland will be permitted.
6. The storm water pond shall be seeded with MnDot roadside mix for steep
slopes (clover).
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 7
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO DEFINE /CLARIFY BED AND BREAKFAST
ESTABLISHMENTS. -
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Emmings called the
public hearing to order.
Erhart moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Emmings: Does anybody.got anything they want to talk about?
Erhart: Yeah. What in our ordinance says that this building's even going 11
to have running water or insulation or heat?
Olsen: Well for it to get an occupancy permit. You'd have to go through II
the Building Department.
Erhart: It's all clear? '
Emmings: Isn't this also a conditional use?
Olsen: Or interim use. '
Emmings: So if anybody's going to bring one of these in, we're going to be
able to see it. It's not just a permitted use...so we'd be able to judge
things like whether or not the accessory structure fit in in a way like the
one that we looked at did. Was it compatible with the other building and
so forth. ,
Erhart: I missed that meeting. How were they going to put plumbing in
this garage? Were they going to have a bathroom in the room?
Olsen: You mean the one we just processed?
Erhart: Yeah. 1
Olsen: Yeah, they were even adding a new septic site.
Erhart: Oh they were. See on this condition use permit, "we have to
almost, I mean we have to show a reason to deny a conditional use if it's a
permitted use. That's why I'm saying, if there's some other ordinance that
also ties into this that requires it properly constructed for human
occupation.
Olsen: The Building Code requires that. II
Erhart: Okay. If we're going to do this, I like the idea of making it
broader to accessory buildings because if you say garage then it looks like
we're doing this for one particular individual. The other comment I had
was on your second page there; On owner occupied single family home which
not more than 5 rooms and so forth and so far. Seven or less consecutive
days with the same person. Let's say a couple rents this thing. They
could alternate back and forth one week renting one and the next week
II Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 8
II renting to the other person. Refer this to the attorneys here. If Y ou
change that to same person or persons, I don't know if that would have any
I effect but it's possible with that language that somebody could rent it on
a monthly basis. If anybody cares.
I Olsen: Person or persons.
Batzli: I was kind of leaning towards I didn't know if anybody cared.
I Erhart: The scenario that I could see happening is if the place gets run
down and it could very easily turn into a boarding house. Where somebody
would start using it as a more permanent residence. That does happen.
1 Batzli: I guess I still think of bed and breakfast in England where they
were permanent residence. I didn't know why it matters.
II Farmakes: I stayed in some in California where you have a limit of 2 days
that you can stay there and it was a local ordinance.
I Emmings: And was it en'iorced in your experience? Did the people that run
them.
II Farmakes: It was in the literature and I asked about it. She just said it
was a local ordinance. I imagine for what you just talked about. There was
a limit. I didn't get into it any further than that but that's how they
qualified as a bed and breakfast.
I
Batzli: Why do we care?
I Erhart: Because I don't think we want to turn it into a hotel. I thought
the intent was.
I Olsen: This gives us enough that if it did become a problem we could bring
them in and say it's not meeting the interim use permit or conditional use
permit.
1 Krauss: I think the reason for it though is boarding houses have
traditionally had the potential, if not the reality of causing neighborhood
problems. There's a different element that lives in a boarding house. A
I transient as opposed to somebody who's looking to get away for the weekend
with their wife or spouse or whatever.
I Erhart: That's what I had.
Emmings: Okay, Brian?
II Batzli: I think that makes sense to make the change that we're talking
about there. The interesting thing I thc,ght the detached accessory -
structure, do you feel comfortable that $.race it's a conditional use that
I we'd have enough leverage over it or do you want to put some sort of intent
to go along with when we would allow the accessory structure. Like
provided that such detached accessory structure fits in with the character.
Whatever we want to put in there. Do you want to put something in there?
11
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 9
Emmings: Sure. That's a good idea.
g g
Batzli: Otherwise I agree that we're looking like we're kind of doing this I
for that one...
Erhart: Should we even go farther than that? Say the existing structure II
has to already exist.
Batzli: So they don't build another one?
Olsen: We discussed that. That it has to be at least 10 years old or 50 11'
- years old but then.
Batzli: What's the difference?
Olsen: Yeah.
1
Farmakes: That's when the walkway, just build a walkway out to it.
Olsen: I think it's probably a good idea to do something like that. So
just built to similar architectural? See that's what, we discussed it and
it was really hard to pinpoint. I think we all know what we mean but•it's
hard to explain. ,
Emmings: Well it should be compatible with the other buildings on the
property. I don't know I suppose compatible is a word that's awfully broad I
but.
Erhart: Something with the style and nature.
Krauss: We're comfortable with compatible. It's the City Attorney that
glinches a little bit but just simply because it gives us more latitude to
be able a little inconsistent with it. But we've used that same term a lot I
in the ordinance.
Emmings: Okay, we'll do that.
Batzli: That's all I have.
Emmings: Jeff.
1
Farmakes: Everything has been discussed up until this point. The one
thing that I had brought up right now is the issue that if, as I understood
it if they built a walkway out to that gatehouse, they would have conformed
to the existing structure. It would have made it attached right?
Olsen: Right. Well it had to be a walkway with a roof.
Farmakes: Right but I believe that, a fr.end of mine just built a house
out in Afton and did not want a detached garage so he just built a walkway.
It's just a little stick roof with sort of a dock type floor off to it. So
it got around the ordinance in that way. I'm just wondering if somebody
wished to turn a barn into a rentable situation or something other than a
i
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 10
carriage house, to qualify for that do they just have to build a'walkway to
' do it? If that's an existing structure:
Olsen: Well with this you would be able to use that barn.
I Farmakes: That's what's considered attached then right? You can just
build a walkway.
' Batzli: But they do have a conditional use for, and I believe we limit the
number of rooms.
• Farmakes: It was 5 wasn't it?
Batzli: They would have to come back in, yeah.
' Emmings: Yeah, once it's attached because they've already got the maximum
number of rooms in the main building. Just by attaching it they can't do
anything because that won't get them anything extra. I supposed you've got
I control that way. The other thing we could do I suppose, if this
situation, I don't know`how often attached structure is used in our
ordinance but do we have any requirement in attached garages in anything?
I don't think so.
I Krauss: Actually we do have one style of housing that requires attached
garages.
II Emmings: We could simply define, we could define attached structure is one
that shares a common wall with the principle structure or something like
' that and that would eliminate that problem.
Krauss: In fact that's something that we need a little clarification of.
We've had a couple of instances where if you have an accessory structure
1 you have one side yard setback. Detached. If you're having attached, it's
a different standard and we've had some people try to play with that lack
of a definition to get the best deal on putting the building in the side
' yard.
Emmings: Okay, so if attached is sharing a wall in common with the
principle structure, would that eliminate these problems or not? It seems
II like it would.
Krauss: Well actually I'd like to be able to bounce it off the building
II official because Building Code and Zoning Ordinance tends to differ in
intent and the results we get on that particular issue. I think we need to
work out something that works with both.
' Emmings: Okay why don't you, there's something we can head off maybe.
Erhart: Can these rooms be in the basement?
Emmings: Theoretically but again it's got to meet Code.
Olsen: And have the windows and egress.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 11
Erhart: Windows, that's all stated?
Krauss: Realistically I don't know how much we're going to see of this. We '
only have one in town now. There's a potential with the seminary that they
may develop the two homes as adjunct kind of accessory guest houses but
with the development that we've seen and then with the rural development up"
on the bluff, there's just no place else for it to go.
Erhart: Is something happening with the seminary? '
Krauss: Well it's kind of an ongoing odyssey. We've been talking to the
same individual for about a year now.
Erhart: But nobody's putting money into it yet?
Krauss: Well they claim to be on the verge of submitting an application. II
Farmakes: I have no further comments.
Emmings: Okay. I agree that it should say structure rather than garage. 1
Otherwise everything I've got has already been discussed unless anybody
else wants to do anything further, is there a motion on this? Brian why
don't you do it?
Batzli: I move that the Planning Commission adopt amendments to the City
Code as set forth in the recommendations of the July 10, 1991 staff report II
with the following changes. In Section 1 where it says person. It would
read person or persons. And at the end of Section 2, paragraph 4 it would
read, provided that such detached accessory structure is compatible with II the existing principle structure. Now I say that and I didn't include the
word architectural. I almost wanted to compatible architecturally with the
existing principle structure and compatible with the bed and breakfast type '
use. Something like that.
Olsen: But the one we just did wasn't, when I was drafting this too I
wrote architecturally too but the one we just did had barn siding versus
Chaska brick.
Batzli: I don't think we're looking architecturally. I think we're II looking more that it fits into the bed and breakfast concept. That's what
makes it tough to put into.
Emmings: I'll second your motion. Is there any discussion? 1
Batzli: I'd like Jo Ann to think about it a little bit more and if she
comes up with something better before it gets to City Council, recommend
that.
Batzli moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to
adopt the amendments to the City Code as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 20 -1 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by
amending the definition of "bed and breakfast" to read: '
II Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 12
An owner occupied single family home in which not more than five (5)
' rooms are rented on a nightly basis for a period of seven (7) or less
consecutive days by the same person or persons. Meals may or may not
be provided to residents and overnight guests. .
I SECTION 2. Section 20- 252(4) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to
read
' (4) Not more than five (5) rooms may be rented. All rooms must
be located in the principal dwelling except that one room may be
located in a detached accessory structure, provided that such detached
accessory'structure is compatible with the existing principle
' structure.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated
I June 19, 1991 were so noted with one exception. Commissioner Batzli noted
that under Members Present it looked as though he, along with Annette
Ellson had arrived late. He wanted it clarified to show that only Annette
Ellson had arrived late.
II CITY COUNCIL UPDATE.
Krauss: There's actually a couple interesting things in there I think. One
minor one. The Roger Byrne plat, the one that we discussed here with
whether or not the driveway should be paved. We were directed to go, the
determination was not to pave the driveway because the street wasn't but we
were directed to go talk to the City Engineer. See if there's a way to
minimize erosion problems. After the meeting we did sit down with them and
they told us there really wasn't a good way of doing that. That paving the
thing is really the only way of dealing with it. So we went back to the
City Council with the recommendation that the thing be paved but it not be
paved to the 20 foot width. That it be paved to a width that's consistent
I with the fact that there's a fire plug on one side and there were trees and
that garage pad area on the other. Ultimately that was the way the Council
approved it so it will be a paved driveway. It's kind of a modified
pavement. I believe the Byrne's found that acceptable as a compromise.
II Emmings: I thought he had decided to put his road in a different place.
Am I wrong about that?
r Olsen: His driveway. Well it was going to be adjusted because of the fire
hydrant.
' Emmings: No, but I thought he was actually going to, when I was here at
one meeting. At one City Council meetint•:_t was, has he been at two "City
Council meetings or one?
11 Krauss: Just the one.
II Emmings: Didn't he talk about actually putting his driveway in a different
place altogether? Okay, I made it up.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
1
July 17, 1991 - Page 13
Batzli: I thought somebody got a variance to build their driveway or
something too. Is that a different guy? ,
Olsen: It was going to be shared and so he was going to move his so they'd
be separate because it wasn't going to work that they would be shared.
Emmings: Right. Maybe that's what I'm thinking of. Okay. Thank you for
bailing me out. And why is that road not paved? The road itself. Not the
driveway. •
Krauss: Chairman Emmings, you're dealing with a neighborhood where there
are no good answers. The road doesn't go anywhere but it sort of does. It ,
actually is a thru road now if you wind back up the hill. I think
ultimately we're going to find that the surface water management plan, the
water quality element in terms of the list of things that it's going to
prioritize to do is going to tell us to do things like that for that reason"
alone. Over time I've got to believe all the roads in the city that aren't
paved, and there's very few of them right now will be paved because
maintenance cost gets pretty excessive. But it's just one of those things,"
There's no good reason. Another action that was taken, the Kurvers Point
2nd Addition, Final Plat was approved. We did meet with MnDot. There was
continuing concern but it was concluded that they would go with, they'd be II
allowed to go with a cul -de -sac. There was a concern or our concern was
how do we upgrade that existing curb cut to make it safe. We've had a long
standing concern that MnDot really doesn't have a very high standard they
enforce on TH 101. And frankly we still have that concern because MnDot
doesn't see themselves maintaining the road for very long but we did meet
with MnDot at the site. Jo Ann was out there with Dave Hempel from our
engineering department and there are some improvements that are going to be
made to the accel and decel lane. They're not major improvements but it
will make for a safer intersection. And the final plat was approved with
that condition. The other items that were taken by the Council are very II straight forward. In your packet I gave you some information about Kathy
Aaneson our new staff member who you've met. We're expecting real good
things from Kathy and are very excited to have her working with us. Kathy
was brought on board, as you read for a couple of reasons. Our work load II
continues to increase and Jo Ann has asked to go on a 4 day work week and
we needed to balance those two out. We think Kathy's experience is going
to be really ideally placed here and one of the things we'll be working on II
right away is a sign ordinance and a lot of the code enforcement type
stuff. Some of the projects that will be coming along so you'll be seeing
her come before you with some project reviews in the near future. The
Surface Water Management program continues to progress. Jeff say in on the
interview panel that we had approximately 4 weeks ago. We interviewed 5
finalist firms and most of the City Council was there. The Mayor and Mike,
Tom Workman and Ursula. In fact I think the entire City Council was there. II
This was a whittling down process. We started with 16 firms to respond to
a preliminary request. We got it down to 5 and the group was very
supportive of, well basically it came down to primary discussion between 1
two firms. And the Bonestroo firm was ultimately awarded the contract and
we're finaling up the contract language with them right now. Bonestroo has
been doing some very good work for us lately. Bonestroo is the firm that
worked with Eagan on their water quality plan which is really the one that
people look at. They're working with Maple Grove on a combined project
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 14
that is similar to ours. They pitched in at the last moment P ment and really
helped us out on the Comprehensive Plan. Trying to smooth out the issues
I before they came up at the Metro Council and right now we have them doing
our, what we call our Comp Sewer and Water study. It's a study of how we.
actually bring service to the area that we expanded and now we can provide
I service to. So we've got a good working relationship with them and we hope
to have them under contract in the next few weeks and get together the task
force and start work. So I think you'll be seeing results of that pretty
II soon. Things are also starting to come together on the TH 5 corridor. As
you're aware, working on the TH 5 corridor and determining what should be
in the study area was a mandated of Council when they adopted the
Comprehensive Plan. You had already made that recommendation as well and
I about a month and a half ago we did have a tour. Bus tour of the TH 5
corridor. We had along Bill Marsh from the University as well as a
landscape architect from Barton Aschman who's helping us right now in
' downtown design project. There was a lot of excitement generated by that
bus tour and as a follow up to that, we've been negotiating to put together
a program that will combine the talent of the, primarily of the University.
I The University Urban Design Center has a lot of computer modeling expertise
and they're very interested in doing sort of an experimental project. Sort
of how do you envision what's going to happen here and then you can play
with it. I mean it's actually what they call an CAD CAM system and you can
I set up different scenarios and see what they'll look like. The Arboretum
interestingly enough is also going to be participating in this with us.
Causing me a little bit of trepidation, I'd like to see their role a little
I more defined because of meetings I've relayed to you out there but I think
it's good that we're bringing them on the inside instead of bumping heads
on the outside. 5o hopefully again you'll be seeing something down the
pike in the not too distant future with that. The HRA is going to look at
II this program tomorrow night. We're using HRA funds to pay for the City's
share of doing the study. I've got to sit down with the City Manager and
clap out the work program but it's our anticipation that the work effort
I itself as far as it has to be coordinated obviously with the City Council
and the HRA but the primary dialogue to get the stuff together and off the
ground would be with the Planning Commission. So you'll be getting exposed
I to that in depth as that comes together. I had a few other things. Oh,
one thing I threw in there and it's peripherally related to the surface
water and to this design study and it gets a little esoteric but we've been
looking into getting a geographic information system. The GIS. It's a
II buzz word a lot of things around the City and they're fairly expensive to
get into but now that we're able to piggyback it on two major projects, the
cost goes down considerably. The GIS system is a computer generated data
I base of all city functions and it's based upon a series of layers based
upon the city map. The layers could include the utility system. The city
topography. You could put variances. You could put where you have
complaints. You could put building permits. You could put zoning
II violations and you can layer this thing altogether and it really
facilitates manipulating the data. Makir, it available to us when we're
writing reports. Making things available to citizens when they want to
I check on a property they're looking at buying.
Emmings: You put all your overlay districts on there. All the mapping
1 that you've done with trees.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 15
11
Krauss: Or wetlands. Information and you can generate any kind of may you
want to out of this and it's a centralized. Right now this information is I
generally available in 3 dozen draws and 4 offices. You've got to put it
together and it's not exact and it's difficult to update because there's -
different bases. It's really a wonder what you can do with this stuff.
It's something that we've looked at £Tying to budget for the last couple of '
years and really it's very tough to bite that big a bullet but now we're
getting as a part of the storm water plan, we're getting a lot of the City
base mapping done in digitized format anyway. It doesn't cost them anymore'
to do it the old fashion way on mylars than to do it off of a computer work
station. And we structure the program in such a way that we're getting
enough product out of that and out of the TH 5 study that we've really got
a significant percentage of what we need to get this system off the ground.
Hopefully in the not too distant future you'll be seeing the benefits of
that. I hope our information for you will be more precise. Our ability to I
follow up on things will be greater. Our responsiveness should be better
so that will be an interesting thing to follow. What I have attached here
is a report that was prepared by Hartley Associates who's a consultant
who's worked with the City on our computer needs. The person who's helping
us tie all this together. In your packet I threw in an item on Moon Valley
litigation. It was dated June 20th and there's since been some updates
from this: As you're aware, we developed a new grading and mining and
earth work permitting process last year. It was done partially in response"
to Moon Valley but it was also done quite legitimately to respond to an
area that we had very little in the way of regulatory control. Moon Valley.
was involved, as you recall in there from the start. They participated. '
They had copies of all the ordinances. Their attorneys were at all the
meetings. Well the ordinance once it was adopted gave them 6 months to
apply for a permit. Moon Valley in spite of being reminded by registered
letter several times to apply, refused to do so. At the time the 6 months
was up, when we were on the verge of taking action against them, they
pre - emptively filed suit against us claiming we had no right or authority
to regulate in this case. The Judge, Judge Canning down in Chaska said
that that was wrong. We did have the right to regulate. Gave them an
additional 30 days to make application to the City. They have retained a
planning consultant who both the City Attorney and I are famliar with over II
the years and who is a legitimate and responsible professional. He came in
and said he'd only been given, this was virtually the week that the Judge
had said your stuff was due. He came in and said they were just given the I
authority to work on the project and that he needed enough time to get it
together. In the interest of trying to be cooperative and since nothing
was going on out there at the moment that we felt we had to react to, we
gave him an additional 30 days which was up until the end of June. And we
have letters from our Attorney going back and forth confirming that. Well
that time period passed and I got a call from the planning consultant on
Monday indicating that there's much more data that they need that they
haven't acquired yet and they want to do soil borings and other sort of
responsible investigation. I said that's fine. I understand why you need
this stuff but why wasn't it done 8 months ago and he's claiming that he
needs another 1 to 2 months to prepare the application. I think for
obvious reasons I'm growing increasingly frustrated with their whole
manner in handling this and I don't how much of it frankly is due to the
owner of the property who you've met, Tom Zwier or his attorney but in
speaking to our attorneys, we already unilaterally extended Judge Canning's
11
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 16
order for them to comply in the interest of being cooperative. They busted
' that deadline. We are now going back to the Judge and saying that they're ,
in violation of his order and asking him to shut them down. Now whether or
not he'll do that is open to some question but we really want to keep the
I heat on this. I think they're making a good faith effort, or at least the
consultant is to comply but I'm not sure that he has the backing of the
property owner and again we want to keep the flame to their feet. We'll be
letting the City Council know this action on Monday so they can confirm
that they want us to proceed along this route. But that's where it stands
right now. At this point I don't expect to see anything in our hands until
sometime in September.
Batzli: So you've already done that or you're going to ask the City
Council?
1 Krauss: We're going to ask the City Council for authorization to handle it
that way or just basically tell them we're in the process of doing this.
Let us know if this is a problem. Anytime we open the City to litigation
I we'd like the blessings .of the Council. At least to have them fully
informed but this is pretty much consistent with what we've been doing all
along. We have been as patient as I think anybody could possibly be on
1 this.
Emmings: Alright.
II Erhart: I noticed in the newspaper this week, was it Opus that announced?
Olsen: Ryan.
Erhart: Ryan announced. Which sections are those?
Krauss: Well there's two. Ryan is looking at the site south of the
I railway tracks off of Audubon Road north of what's his name's property.
Rod Gram's property. The triangular piece kind of down in the valley.
1 Erhart: Okay. Is that weather station still active?
Krauss: Yes it is. We met with them.
Erhart: That's next to that then? •
Krauss: The weather station would be contained within it. They are
II working on submitting plans for a PUD on that site.
Erhart: Are both sites south of the railroad?
1 Krauss: No. The other one is the one north. We've advised them to go
with the site south first since that is somewhat cleaner. It's consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and there's some possibility. Getting services
in there is a fairly complicated matter but we want to get the ball
rolling. The other one that they're doing.
I I Erhart: Is that serious?
•
1
Planning Commission Meeting
i
July 17, 1991 - Page 17 1
Krauss: Services?
Erhart: The whole project. Is•this project serious? '
Krauss: Oh they're quite serious, yeah. The other project is in the II Timberwood area. You know you almost don't want to kick this one so soon
after going through the whole thing but when the Comp Plan was adopted, we
showed the residential uses around Timberwood but you'll recall I told you
that the City Council, after a.lot of discussion came off with an alternate I
scenario that could, or may be considered in that area around Timberwood.
Emmings: You're talking about the area between Timberwood and TH 5?
Krauss: Right.
Olsen: By the school. 1
Emmings: Yeah, the school site.
Krauss: Exactly. And there were 8 conditions that were set before the
City would consider a non - residential use there. I don't remember exactly
what they were but one was preservation of the school site. Another was I
preservation of the creek corridors as recreational areas. Establishment
of buffer. Basically brick or better with primarily office construction. A
really Class A type of project. Higher architectural standards. Higher
landscaping standards. The works. Ryan understands that and believes that'll
the site is a worthwhile one to pursue. The premise that we'd be bringing
this back to you with is that they meet those 8 criteria. Now that one is
just not as straight forward as the southern one for obvious reasons. '
Erhart: Do you feel, you're thinking about that kind of quality on the
southern one as well? Is it an office or industrial?
Olsen: Industrial.
Krauss: The southern one, yeah. They're looking for buildings that are
more similar to what we have in the existing industrial park. That kind
of.
Erhart: Like our yucky building. ,
Krauss: That kind of a mix you know. In fact they saw the higher quality '
buildings going up near Audubon. Then as you go back down in the valley
and you're near the railroad tracks, there it probably is going to be the
tip up panel type. Very small office component. And which we have a need
for. We have no space virtually for any of this anymore in this city.
That's a real out of the way place. So I expect you'll be seeing some
application for that within the next couple months. We're proceeding to
deal with the school site. We wanted to keep that alive and it was always I
clear to us from the time that the Mayor and City Manager and I and Tom
Workman met with them a year and a half ago, that if we wanted a school to
happen there, it's something that the City's going to have to work to make
happen. The fellow that we dealt with at the School District has since
left and become the Superintendent for Shakopee I believe. We had a
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 18
1
meeting with the Superintendent of the Chaska Schools 3 -4 weeks ago. He
I tells us that they're still very interested in the site. That they
sincerely believe, or he's speaking for himself you know. He sincerely
believes that they need to expand and that Chanhassen is the place to do .
it. We were working under the assumption that this would be a middle
I school. It's a very touchy issue because of the old Chanhassen /Chaska
competitive espirit I guess but there's a possibility that it may be more
cost effective for them to convert the Chaska High School to a. Middle
I School and build a new high school here. He in no way committed to either
option. He has informed us that he is convening some sort of a building
and facilities committee to look at expansions and to make these decisions
and I believe I'm supposed to go over to the School Board at the end of
this month to give them an overview of the Comprehensive Plan and what we
see happening around there. So we're trying to keep the ball rolling with
that. There's a very good potential that, again this is very preliminary
1 but if we're able to put together a package with Ryan on the area in front
of Timberwood, that it would be done with some sort of a redevelopment
district. We could then free up the money to be able to secure the land
' for the school district. So these things are all in the works and I can
keep you posted at this point.
Emmings: Is there enough space there for a high school and all of the open
space you need by a high school for sports and other extracurricular
activities and also for this business park?
I Krauss: Well keep in mind we set aside a 40 acre chunk for the middle
school.
' Emmings: Alright and how much land is in that chunk north?
Krauss: Well there's 137 acres that's been considered for sale. 40 acres
of which we assumed would be school. Of the rest, of the remaining 100
acres, about 40 acres, 40 or so is in an area that we designated for
industrial use adajacent to the McGlynn. There are two creek systems that
divide that so at dispute is that the middle 50 -60 acres. So we'll see how
I that goes.
Emmings: ...ordinance is going to be on in August huh?
Olsen: Yeah, we just sent out the letter with the ordinance and it should
be in the second meeting in August. Will be in the second meeting in
August.
1 OPEN DISCUSSION: NON- CONFORMING USES.
I Olsen: The non - conforming use, that one came about when there's been
requests for variances in Carver Beach where a house might already 25
feet from the front yard lot line but thr . want to make an expansion: Like
' in the back it still meets all the requir but technically you'd have
to go through the variance procedure because it's a non - conforming
structure. So what this is meant to do is allow us to still permit that
expansion so much as it's not expanding the non - conformity. It's the house
I is a permitted use but it just doesn't meet the setback and the
non - conformity isn't increased. So it allows us to do that. The way the
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 19
ordinance is stated right now, it's a little confusing. You can kind of
read it. It gets into use and then structure. It's confusing so what
we're trying to do is make it clear that you can add an addition to your
home as long as the setback's not being.
Emmings: And then Roger, what Roger has written here is suppose to clear I
up that confusion?
Olsen: Right. '
Emmings: Okay.
Batzli: I must be sicker than I thought. I understood it. 1
Emmings: Well, Roger's the guy who eventually has to enforce these things.
If this makes him happy, I'm not going to complain. •
Olsen: It was a request from us. The other one really gets into a lot
. more discussion.
Emmings: Well let's not go onto those. What do you want us? Is this a
news item?
Olsen: Yeah. We thought we'd throw it on.
Emmings: Sounds like a good idea to me. Does anyone got any comments on .'
that?
Batzli: I don't like it.
Emmings: Why?
Batzli: Who's deciding whether it exaccerbates the non - conforming problem I
or not?
Olsen: Well if the problem's the setback and they're not. '
Batzli: But this will cover other instances. It's not limited to just
that.
Olsen: No. It's the non- conformity so if it's a duplex that is in a
single family district, they cannot, we have another section. You can't
make it into a six unit. Whatever that non - conformity is, you can't
increase that.
Batzli: Yeah. But there may be instances when you don't know whether
technically what the non - conformity may worsen.
Krauss: We have surveys submitted in support of the building permit.
We're able to tell from that.
Emmings: Well that's where it's going to come up is when people come in.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 20
1
Olsen: It's just we've had a couple of cases and I don't know. It's one of
1 those, maybe it doesn't need to be fixed but it's the way the ordinance is
now, we had to take people through a variance procedure which we're all .
actually in favor of. Where they'd actually be improving the home in an -
area that needs to be improved.
Batzli: It's basically making them go through an expense that they
probably shouldn't have to go through. Going down to the County and
I getting the names of all the people and addresses.
Olsen: Yeah, it's expensive so it gives us a little more flexibility.
1 Things really aren't going to be changing that we don't want to be
changing.
Emmings: Okay. Anything else?
I Batzli: No. I'd rather talk about the trees than this stuff.
' Emmings: The trees?
Batzli: Well her letter.
' Emmings: No, no. That's not next.
Batzli: I know but I'm saying, I'd rather talk about that.
' Emmings: You're going to have to wait.
' NON - CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS.
Olsen: The purpose of this is each summer we realize that the recreational
beachlots that have been grandfathered in are actually increasing their
I use. They're expanding the docks. They've expanding the number of boats
being moored and it's one of those how do we address that. It gets down to
proving what was there versus what is there now. That's tough because
' we've had three different surveys in the past 10 years where we can maybe,
the survey's will show there's only 2 boats on that recreational beachlot
and maybe 2 of them were out on the lake while we were out there. It's
going to be hard for us to prove what was actually grandfathered in. So
II one of our options was trying to do kind of like what we did with
contractor's yards with conditional use permits. Make them all come in and
get a permit to document what was there when the ordinance was in effect.
I For us all to come to an agreement that that was what was grandfathered in
and that's all that's there so we have a legal document from which to work
with. So if next year we found that they were permitted to have 4 boats
I and next year they have 6, we have something we can enforce. Right now
it's really not enforceable. Trolls Glen is going through a difficult
situation where actually the Homeowner's .asociation, the people within it
are suing each other over the use of their beachlot.
II Batzli: Is that the one where they couldn't get the two boats off the
lot? Or is that another one?
1 Krauss: No, that's a different one.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 21
Emmings: That's a different one. Trolls Glen is on the southern end of
Lake Minnewashta and it's a real nasty.
Olsen: And in that one we're being, the City's being pulled into that .
because it is our ordinance to be enforced and the two people who are
bringing the case against the others saying that they can only limit the
number of boats out there. Is requiring the City to enforce the ordinance
so it might go to court. And again, we're just going to have a tough time
proving what was there and who has the right to what. So this is one way .'
that we think we can get a hold on it. It doesn't solve the problem.
Emmings: I think this is real important to do because I've been on
Minnewashta for 7 years and it's absolutely obvious to anybody that the
beachlots that have docks and boats, there are many more. The docks get
longer and the boats are more and I think it's important as part of this
permitting structure too. Maybe to get a permit they have to tell us, we
ought to have a description of the boats and their license numbers and who
the owners are. The boats that are out there at the time they apply for
the permit. I have no doubt in my mind that there are boats in front of
some of these beachlots for people who don't live in the area. They belong
to other people. I don't know if that matters or not. It may matter to us
sometime.'
•
Olsen: Or we could make it so that we do checks. We can check the
licenses.
Emmings: It will never happen. We don't have the people to enforce that. 1
Olsen: But if you have a homeowners association with 50 lots and they're
only allowed 4 boats, they do a rotation system so that might be kind of.
Krauss: Well if we had annual renewal though like we have for the toilets.
Emmings: I think the thing is though, is just to cap their growth is the '
most important thing. I think it's critical to do.
Batzli: It's nice to do it this way because you're forcing them to bring II
in. You're going to make them do the work.
Olsen: They might come in saying that they had the right to 15 boats and I
we know that that's not so it's still going to be difficult to bring them
down to what actually did exist.
Emmings: Going back to the one that had the pontoon boat out in front of II
it where there shouldn't be a boat. You're pursuing that separately. That
was removed as a condition by the City Council and you're just going to
have the City Attorney pursue that?
Krauss: We're still trying to do that in- House. What we try to do and
it's a procedure that was developed primarily in Public Safety but we agree II
with. You try to do these things diplomatically at first. I don't
believe, when you're talking about somebody's boat, it's like talking about
their dog or their kids. They feel very possessive about it. I doubt that I
it's going to work but maybe we can work out something. Failing that, we
1
II Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 22
II
have the ability to issue citations or ask the City Attorney to take legal
I action. We're hoping that this one's a little more clear cut than most of
these issues seem to be. Oftentimes when you look at the information as
I indicated to you earlier, you're just Yelunctant to put yourself in the
position of standing in front of a judge and saying.
II Emmings: But this one, as I recall was specifically granted with no docks,
no boats.
I Krauss: This one is one of the more blatant ones.
11 Emmings: Yeah. I think there's a second boat out there at this time.
Krauss: They acknowledged it.
I Emmings: Oh they have?
Olsen: Isn't it in front of the Lund's property?
I Krauss: When we were out there this morning, yeah and it was.
Emmings: You didn't look at my dock did you?
I Krauss: No, there was another boat...
I Olsen: So we're going to bring it back for a public hearing and that will
also include notifying all the recreational beachlots. The legal and
non - conforming ones and it's really going to open up everything again but I
I think it almost has to be done.
Emmings: Oh yeah. I think it's important to do.
I Olsen: Trolls Glen will also, we had discussion last week with the
homeowners association and rather than the City pursuing our action against
them to bring them into conformance, they have agreed to make application
I for a conditional use permit for a variance or even to request the
ordinance to be repealed. So no matter what it's coming back. The
recreational beachlot ordinance for it's annual visit. So hopefully we can
I kind of get everything all together and address everybody's issues. Should
be fun.
Emmings: Okay, Brian wants to talk about trees.
1 Batzli: I didn't know what the Urban Tree Management Program was. I
didn't know we had one. I didn't know we were working on it so I didn't
i know we could complete it. .
Olsen: It's a pilot project with the DNR Forestry Department. We don't
have anything yet. We've got a preliminary, the aerial and we've got a
plat showing the trees and so we are pursuing that so we can.
Batzli: Is this our tree overlay?
1 Olsen: Exactly.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 23
Batzli: I didn't know we had a name for it. If she had said tree
overlay, I would have understood.
Olsen: Tree overlay? I wouldn't know what you were talking about.
Emmings: Tree in 'entory. 1
Olsen: But it's also going to include the new ordinance. So it's still in
the works. 1
Batzli: So have we hired a student worker?
Olsen: Well there's none available right now so we might be working with 1
the DNR with some of their interns to work with it. Or else in the fall we
can probably get an intern but we're going to still move ahead with the
ordinance part and have it in place and once we do find out what we want to
preserve, we'll map it.
Batzli: Ken Holman and,Jonathan Steigler? 1
Olsen: They're DNR. They're in the St. Paul office and they work more
with the ordinance.
Batzli: So there is no current model ordinance? We're going to be like a
pet project for them?
Olsen: Exactly. And there's a couple of new ordinances that are getting al
lot of recognition but our's will add to those. And also we've already
been contacted by the Builder's Association of Minnesota and they want to 1
get involved to make sure their interests are met.
Emmings: What are their interests?
Olsen: I think that they just want to make sure we don't make it
prohibitive to build. I don't know exactly. We'haven't sat down and
talked with them. They just want to come and I said that's fine. 1
Batzli: That sounds good.
Emmings: We've stalled as long as we can. We've been fooling around up
here. What can we do? When do you expect whoever's coming?
Rick Sathre: We were expected to show up at 9:00.
Emmings: Okay, let's take a break until 9:00 and see who shows up.
1
1
1
1
II Planning Commission Meeting .
July 17, 1991 - Page 24
II .
INFORMAL DISCUSSION:
I LUNDGREN BROS. /ORTENBLAD /ERSBO, PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND
RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY LOCATED -EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD AND SOUTH
OF LAKE LUCY ROAD: .
I A. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 30+ ACRES TO CREATE 37 SINGLE FAMILY
LOTS.
II B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALTER /FILL CLASS B WETLANDS.
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item.
1 Emmings: Does the applicant want to make some kind of presentation?
Terry?
I Terry Forbord: My name is Terry Forbord with Lundgren Bros., 935 East
Wayzata Blvd. in Wayzata, Minnesota. With me this evening are a number of
people who will help me hopefully answer some questions for you and for
I anybody else who may be here to hear what we have to say. Mr. Rick Sathre,
our consulting engineer, Mr. Frank Svoboda, Wildlife Biologist and Mr.
Roger Carpenter who's a Limnologist. They are with the firm Braun
I Intertec. Paul pretty much has said a lot of the things that are relevant
to this proposal so I won't get too much into those things because I would
like the people that are here with me this evening who are very well
qualified to deal with the specific issues, talk to you a little bit and
1 then hopefully you'll have some questions or if there's any other
discussion we can answer your questions. But I would like to just touch
upon a couple things briefly. You may recall a number of months back I was
I before you with a gentleman named Mr. John Shardlow. We talked a lot about
PUD's because I know the City of Chanhassen was looking very strongly at
amending their Code and their ordinances relative to PUD's. If you recall
in that discussion there was a lot of discussion over what is a PUD and
II what is it for. Typically there's a misconception of what it is and what
it is used for. It doesn't necessarily always primarily have to do with
density or lot sizes or things like that. However, it may and it doesn't
I necessarily have anything to do with trade -offs or anything else. However,
it may. When we first met with the staff many, many months ago, even
before we secured the development rights to this property. We've had
I numerous discussions about this because we knew it was a very, very
sensitive area but that's why we had selected it. We've learned over 22
years that our customers like to'live in areas where there is wetlands and
there's wildlife and there's neat things to look at so we typically try to
II find the most beautiful sites we can and then do the best we can with them.
And so in working with staff it was very evident to all of us, staff and
ourselves and our consultants that this was a classic piece of property to
I be developed as a planned unit development. But because of the things the
city was going through in redeveloping their ordinance and because`of the
various timeframe that we were on and the , timeframe has only to do with
II the fact that the weather in Minnesota gl‘cs you only about 6 months of
buildable season. It was mutually agreed upon, relunctantly by all of us
that maybe the best thing to do was to proceed under standard subdivision
regs which Paul has already described. That was a dismay to all of us
II because this is a classic piece of property for a Planned Unit Development.
Because it has natural amenities that should be treated very carefully.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
11
July 17, 1991 - Page 25
But under standard subdivision regs you can't. It's literally impossible
to do it. Unless you come in and ask for numerous variances which kind of
flies in the face of what everybody's really trying to do. So after we
made an honest effort to make this work with standard regs, it became
evident that we should withdraw. We should reconsider and then come before '
you and recommend that this would be a Planned Unit Development because
that will allow us to bury things like, it's not so much clustering as it
is maybe varying a front yard setback. Varying a street width here and.
there because it may save a significant tree or it may save from filling a
wetland which would be allowable under the DNR and the Army Corps.
Hopefully we can modify some of those things by varying some of the strict
things that are normally required under a standard subdivision regulations."
5o that's why we have pursued it. And I've attended enough meetings that
you've had relevant to those discussions that it seems like this is very
much in the spirit of things I've been hearing from the Planning Commission
and the City Council and staff for years here. And I must say, because I II
know staff is too modest to admit it, but I must say that they've been
very, very interested in this and helpful to us trying to solve problems.
They haven't in any way tried to impede us. They've said here's some II problems, what can we do to fix it and they've been very helpful in that.
Because it's such a sensitive site and because we're not experts at these
many things like wetlands and wildlife, we pursued to find the best people
we could in the region to help us and assist us. And so we have hired the
people that are here tonight to do that. Through the process of
researching this site we found out some things that were somewhat
surprising to us. That the major wetland that is on that site is, and I'll,'
use it in lay terms but it's very close to death because of very many
things which they will address. So that kind of changed our course of what
we were trying to do. We realized not only were we going to be coming in II
here and trying to create a sensitive development. A nice place to live.
We were going to have to do some fixing of what man had already damaged and
man was the problem here. Over the last 30 -50 years. What man has done
has been very damaging to that site and we're going to try to fix that. Atli
this time I'd like to introduce Mr. Rick Sathre. He's the consulting
engineer and planner on this proposed neighborhood community and he can
give you a little background of the proposal. And this is conceptual only.
This is not with the items that Paul has talked about. Reduced front yard
setbacks and the reduced street widths. Those things, those are
refinements that would be made in our submission of the Planned Unit I
Development documents but it would look very similar to what you're seeing
here.
Rick Sathre: Good evening. The red blob on here is the site. This is
Lake Lucy Road along the northern edge of the site. This is County Road 17
or Powers Blvd. to the east. Lake Lucy and Lake Ann. It's about a 30 acre
site. Just slightly over that. Looking a little closer. Zooming in a
little closer to the site you see again the property's bounded by the red.
The Ersbo parcel is at the northeast corner. That's on the Ersbo property,
on the half section maps right now appears the first plat that the City
approved. Subsequently there was a second plat with a different street
configuration approved. The Ortenblat property, the southwesterly property
of this land is still without any division. We're combining the two. You
can see to the west the larger rural parcels and to the east and to the
south and to the north the urbanized subdivisions around the site. This
1
II Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 26
isn't the world's best ra h'
g P 1c but this is the City's aerial photo with
contours overlaid on it. The blue boundary is the approximate site
II boundary. Here on top of a hill is the Ersbo home and farther to the
southwest is the Ortenblat home. Here's the Ortenblat driveway. Long, .
long driveway coming back to this house. The Ersbo driveway doesn't show
II up nearly as well but it follows this path. In the north central portion
of the site there's a large open water wetland area. That's the DNR
wetland that you see from Lake Lucy Road. Way down in the south portion of
I the property and straddling the southerly boundary is another Class B
wetland in your ordinance that appears on this site. There are several
others. Four other small wetland bodies also. This is a copy of the
boundary survey of the parcel and it shows again the houses. The two
houses are in red on this drawing. The large green boundary here is that
northerly wetland and this one is a southerly wetland. There's also, the
real constraining thing about this property is that the wetlands are spread
I out so much. If it was all one big body, it'd be easier to work around.
But besides the two wetlands that have always appeared on your maps, there
are four other small ones. There's a finger of wetland south and east of
II the Ersbo home. Another one due east and then two small little pockets up
at Lake Lucy Road which are separated from this main body by the driveways
into the two homes.
Erhart: Rick, does the water flow from one wetland to the other?
Rick Sathre: Yes. On the ground we've found a shallow ditch right here
connecting this one to this one. The southerly wetland is lower by, I
would guess it's 5 or 6 or 7 feet. This one's lower.
II Erhart: In a storm, where does the water go in that wetland?
Rick Sathre: Right now, before Lake Lucy Road or before there was a city
project to upgrade Lake Lucy Road we believe that the water drained to the
1 south out of this ditch. When the Lake Lucy Road was upgraded there was a
pipe put under the street up here. Catch basins in the street and a pipe
underneath. Right now water could go out to the north or to the south and
I I think it does.
Erhart: And you're proposing to raise the water level of that pond?
II Rick Sathre: Yes.
Erhart: Well obviously you're going to build up the south end. Am I
II getting ahead of you a little bit here?
Rick Sathre: Well you're getting a little ahead of me but we're talking
I about taking the water out of this wetland to the south but we're talking
about in effect damming the wetland up by filling this ditch or eliminating
the ditch and plugging the northerly outlt so we can hold more water' in
there. Get more volume in the wetland. More water volume for several
II reasons.
Emmings: Okay, how will the water then go to the south?
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1091 - Page 27 1
Rick Sathre: It would drain through a series of storm sewers and wetlands.
The existing wetlands and ones that we're proposing to create or enhance.
Terry Forbord: There's quite an extensive'comprehensive system that we've
developed to accomplish all those things and we can get into that in
greater deatil if you'd like.
Rick Sathre: This just recaps basically what we're'doing. What we were
proposing to do if it hadn't been recommended now that we go back and look II
at PUD. We had been thinking that we would do an RSF subdivision with
these standard setbacks. 30 front, 30 rear and 10 side and the land lends
itself well to creating 37 single family lots on little over 30 acres with II
an average lot area of about 30,000 square feet or over 30,000 square feet.
The density of that is about 1.25 units per acre. This is the concept plan
that we're working on refining right now. If you'll remember the Ersbo I
plats that you've reviewed in the past in this corner had different street
configurations. The significantly different thing about what we're doing
now is we're trying to get a street that aligns with Arlington Court I
believe it is on the north side of Lake Lucy Road to come into this site
and go through the site past the Ersbo home to provide a large loop through
both properties. The difficulty here, one of the things we're working on
now is trying to work on the curvature of this street and tightening up the ll
alignment of the road. Maybe working on narrowing the road for a distance
to sneak through or sensitively pass between the steep hill and the
wetland. That's one of the major things that we're working on right now.
Trying to do that sensitively. Over here in this portion of the property
there's some beautiful trees and here to we'd like to find a sensitive way II
through that tree stand with the road so we're working on, through the PUD
provisions we'd be working on some refinements to this plan to sensitively
go through that area as well. Once you get back into the southerly portion
of the property, we don't have steep slope constraints anymore. We don't
have tree constraints anymore but what we have down there is wetlands and
they're constraining as well. Here's a graphic that shows that subdivision II
superimposed on the existing lotting pattern in the area so you can get an
idea, feel for how the streets line up with streets elsewhere and how the
lots would back up towards other parcels. I guess you'd have to study that
one for a while to see the real important features of it. This is a
graphic that shows, the red boundaries on this plan are the wetland
boundaries. Braun Intertec, their technicians went into the field and I
physically staked the boundaries of the six wetland areas. Our surveyors
at Sathre - Berquist went out behind them and located the stakes and then
we've drawn them on the plan. Drawn the lines. Connected the dots if you I
will and so those red lines represent those boundaries of the wetlands as
they exist. The blue areas are upland areas now which we would propose to
turn into wetland. Some of these areas would be, this little blue area and
this one are brand new wetland areas that would be used for sedimentation.
They'd be water treatment basins. Trying to trap some of the nutrients and
the sediment that was heading toward the rarge wetland. We'd also be using
this area on the northwest corner for the same purpose. To trap as much as
we can of the bad things in the water before it gets to the wetland. This
basin on the western boundary of the site and also this new blue area plus
this portion of the existing wetland, we're talking about, we're II investigating the logistics of creating new wildlife ponds. New wetlands
that have a very diverse character. Have a varied edge to them and a nice
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 28
1
bottom topography so we encourage different plant growth. So three of the
' wetlands that we would be draining actively through with storm sewer, we'd
have a little different character. These would be very natural looking
wetlands we hope. Much better than what the site has right now and the
sediment ponds would be more of a functional, a man made treatment system.
Erhart: Rick, can you throw that back up again. It looks like there's a
high ground between your sediment pond and the existing Class A or is it in
reality.
Rick Sathre: Here? Or there?
II Erhart: Both places. That's just shows where the edge is or is it
gradually. It's all going to be one?
II Rick Sathre: I guess the way I see it, and I think we're still working on
how it should look but around the periphery of this DNR wetland there is a
fairly gradual slope. A lot of the slope it's very gradual. 5o the way I
see it, that edge would continue up and once you got beyond the wetland
boundary, then there'd be a rolled slope back down.
Erhart: So you see those being separate from the existing wetland then?
II Rick Sathre: Well we need to separate them physically because of the
function that we're trying to promote in these. We're actually trying to
11 use them to trap the sediment. So we don't want to intermingle them.
Erhart: How is that different from what we've done in the past?
II Krauss: That's the thing. I think there's something that needs to be
touched on here and possibly it's something that Frank Svoboda can touch
on. Functionally there needs to be a separation for the flow between the
I two areas for this thing to work. Visually we want this to work as a unit.
It's going to be so close and...indicated, there's some design where the
barrier is at the water level. We can have wetland vegetation on the
I property. There's not going to be a wall. So it would look like a...sort
of wetland with different areas when it's all said and done. It's not
going to be this standard, uniform, rectangular, excavated retention pond
I off in the corner someplace. It will look from a distance or look from
being there as though you're talking about a single wetland.
Erhart: Okay. Why is this going to work better to clean the water than
I what you just described?
Terry Forbord: You're raising really good questions and part of the
presentation, it's a step by step process, as we walk through that you'll
hear answers to that. Just one more item to address that. The
conservation district, the conservation zone that Paul spoke of that would
surround that wetland is going to be somewhere between 10 and 20 feet.
II Right now what we're determining is what is the optimum amount. That's
very hard to measure because that depends on the plant types and things
like that but because of that and emergent vegetation that will occur in
II the wetland area, you won't even be able to see that. It will look like...
wetland.
1
i
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 29 i
Rick Sathre: I suspect you'd see a change in plant life. You'd have a
different plant species there than you would inside this area or just 111 inside here a little bit. I guess as long as I'm on this, I didn't talk
about, a minute ago about where we're intruding on the wetlands and I
should do that. Starting up here, in order to get a road into the site we
needed to impact ,. nfortunately either this wetland or this little tiny one.
We're making a conscious decision that if we had to choose that we should
be impacting this small little basin. Not this one. So we're showing a
filling of about half of that little area which is a very small area. A I
tenth of an acre or less than that. Also up here in the northeast corner
there's a small little wetland area. I think Frank will talk about why
they're there. But anyway we're talking about eliminating that one I
altogether. As we are proposing to eliminate this basin which is straight
east of the Ortenblat home and we're also showing some encroachment into
fingers of this southerly wetland. An item of major interest and major II work has been the effort to minimize or eliminate the impact on the large
wetland by this road. As I said before, we're working to try to minimize
or lessen anyway the impact on the upland grading here. There's steep
slopes and trees in the.upland. Trying to balance that out with some
intrusion perhaps into the reed canary grass that surrounds the open water
wetland. We're working on the logistics of that. I guess the graphic I'll
share with you right now is the topographic map. The significant tree
areas on the site. North of the Ersbo home on this northerly facing slope
there are a great many dead elms unfortunately. There's also other
species. As you get east of the Ersbo home and then down in the southerly,
southeasterly part of the site there's mature trees. We'd want to preserve
as many of those as we can. East of the Ortenblat driveway next to the
wetland there are significant trees as well as just north of the Ortenblat
' home. But the absolutely best trees on the site are way up here in this
northwest corner. Large oaks and other large trees. One of the things the II
PUD will let us do I hope is lessen the right -of -way width and even lessen
the pavement width perhaps for a ways to get through that area and minimize
our disruption. With that I'd like to turn it back to Terry.
Terry Forbord: Let me just touch upon a couple of things here before I
introduce the next individual. Probably the easiest thing to do as far as 1
the development of these two combined sites would be to cut all the trees
down and then grade the entire site flat and we wouldn't have to worry
about any of the things we're talking about here tonight. Obviously that I
may be the most efficient thing but it certainly doesn't fit the spirit of
what we're all trying to achieve. The other thing that we're trying to
achieve here that we have consider obviously are the people who live there I
already and who's property it is. Mr. Ersbo, he's going to stay in his
home and he's going to live here so obviously we have to be sensitive to
his wishes because he's going to be there. The same with the Ortenblats so
all the physical constraints that exist on the site plus protecting the
private property rights of the individuals so they can enjoy their quiet
enjoyment of their property, made it a difficult site of where to put the
roads and deal with all of these issues but I think you can see by just I
this exhibit right here, the different constraints were enormous in trying
to make this work. At this time I'd like to introduce Roger Carpenter.
He's a Limnologist and when we took Frank out as a consultant to tell us
about these wetlands and what we should and shouldn't do, the first comment '
he made was, well I'll tell you right now this thing's real sick. He says
1 Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 30
there should be these types yp s of vegetations around it. There should be
these types of vegetations in it. And that thing, for whatever reasons is
I
dying or very close to death. So we decided we'd better get somebody in
who's an expert at understanding why that occurs and take some tests. Have
them analyzed by an independent laboratory so we're able to make some
1 recommendations and part of this development process will be able to
restore the vitality that that wetland probably at one time had. Roger.
I Roger Carpenter: I'd just like to explain basically what I did to try to
take a look at the situation as it exists now and try to make some
conclusions. We went out and we took some water samples and had them
analyzed at a certified independent laboratory for a number of different
II parameters that we would normally look at in a water body. The main thing
that came back was that it was extremely high in nutrients. Mainly
phospherous and nitrogen are the two that we would be concerned with. The
1 phospherous is the most important because that's a controlling factor for
algae growth in lakes. So after taking a look at the results of the water
analysis, everything kind of fell into place and it kind of explained what
I we were seeing there which was basically as Terry mentioned, the absence of
any emergent or submergent type of plants. The entire water surface is
covered with a rnat of a very small plant called duck weed and that's again
characteristic of an over enriched type of environment that you would see
' where one type of plant is able to dominant the situation to the exclusion
of other types of plants. The adverse effect of this is that we aren't
able to, or again the emergent types and submergent types of plants like
' cattails or bullrushes are not able to gain a foothold. This mat of duck
weed that covers everything shades out the other types of plants and it
also reduces, because of the shade reduces the oxygen so that different
II types of animals are not abundant in the water. The advantages of having
these different types of emergent and submergent types of plants is that
they are able to bind up this phospherous and nitrogen within the plant
body. Within the roots and the part of the plants that are sticking out of
I the water. It's able to reduce the nutrient loading that's in the water
and reduce the amount of nutrients that are able to leave the site also so
that a more desirable type situation would be to have these, a more diverse
1 type of situation with the different types of plants we're talking about so
with that I think I'll introduce Frank Svoboda who will talk about some of
the different things that can be done to enhance this wetland area.
I Frank Svoboda: Thanks Roger. I guess I've been, Terry's been houses
almost as long as I've been in the business of doing wildlife management
and wetland studies. Over the course of that time what I've learned is
that wetlands are really a reflection of what goes on in the surrounding
landscape so that the wetland is sort of a mirror or reflection of what
actually goes on in the upland that serves as a drainage area to feed that
I wetland and provide it with water. So the first thing that we always do
when we come up with a situation like this, what may be some circumstances
that we don't really understand is that t• take a look at the land use
history of a particular parcel of land arc what we discovered in this case
I was that by going through or going back and looking at the aerial photos,
the earliest one being 1937, we discovered that from 1937 through
approximately sometime between 1937 and 1963 this area, the large wetland,
1 Wetland #1 or the DNR wetland had been cropped that entire period of time
and that's consistent with this shallow hand dug ditch that connects this
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
July 17, 1991 - Page 31
wetland basin with this basin. And again this is a fairly common
occurrence in the urbanizing areas where in the past farmers wanted to use
perhaps this wetland for hay or for pasture and what they would do is look
for a nearby wetland that was lower in elevation and then they'd dig a
shallow ditch connecting the two wetlands together. In fact they may be in"
some instances we've seen just a series of these shallow interconnecting
ditches. Typically you'll see these ditches are somewhere in the
neighborhood of a couple of feet wide and 18 inches to 2 feet deep. One of
the things we did that we looked at for this particular ditch, collected a II
sediment core. A soil sample to see how much sediment had accumulated in
this ditch and what we discovered was there was about 6 inches of sediment
that had accumulated over the years and as a result it acted as a dam and
gradually because the water couldn't drain in this direction, it gradually
water would start accumulating in the wetland. When we had the meeting
last week, one of the individuals that attended that meeting indicated that
as recently as 1974 they actually had corn planted in this wetland and that'll
before they could get in there to harvest that corn, this basin filled up
with water because of heavy fall rains so they were unable to harvest that
corn crop is 1974. So in effect what might appear to be a wetland that may ,
have been around since the last glacier came through in fact has been -
modified in the past. Has been exposed to agricultural activities. Land
use activities that have changed it's character and in fact that activity '
took place as recently as 1974. What I would like to do now is to just
briefly show you some color overheads and walk you through the wetlands on
site. Wetland #1 is the big DNR wetland to the north. Lake Lucy Road
extends right in front of these houses and at the north end of this
wetland. Wetland #1, and these classification systems, even though they
look like they're incomprehensible, they represent a hierachical code
that's developed by the Fish and Wildlife Service for their national
wetland inventory. I won't go into all the particulars and details of that"
classification system other than it allows fairly detailed descriptions of
individual wetland basins so that for example the OW, the P stands for II polestrian. That means it's a wetland. The OW stands for open water. G
indicates that it's generally flooded. The EM stands for emergent. That
means it has emergent vegetation that actually breaks above the surface of
the water. And this means that it's persistent. It continues to stand. It I
doesn't fall down. The F indicates that it's generally semi - permanently
flooded representing this edge. And then the D indicates that it's been
ditched. Each of these classifications allow that sort of level of
descriptive detail. We're basically standing at the south end of the
wetland looking north. This fringe of vegetation around the edge is
primarily canary grass. One of the things that I look for to indicate
whether a wetland is healthy or not is the amount of vegetative diversity
that you observe. And I like to compare this to for example an
agricultural cornfield. Agricultural cornfield has only one species on it.
Corn. And that's not very productive for wildlife. One of the theories or I
I guess it's more than a theory. A proven fact is that the more
vegetative diversity you have the more productive a particular community is
and that also applies to wetlands so the greater diversity of vegetation
you have, the more aquatic species and terrestrial species that you can get II
utilizing that particular wetland. So this was one of the factors that
indicated to me that there was something not quite right here. The other
thing was that as I looked at that wetland, there should have been more
wildlife species present and certainly there were frogs present. We've
1
i Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 32
observed some individual mallards using that wetland. Occasionally
muskrats have been observed out there but again as one of the residents
indicated at the meeting last week, an individual who has lived in this
area for 26 years, he said over the last several years the productivity of
this wetland has declined. And he said in fact several years ago it was
not at all uncommc to see numerous broods of ducklings on this wetland and
now we did not see a brood of ducklings or any broods. What we did see
were some individual birds. So we've had some verification as to what my
I original hypothesis was and that was that there was something not quite
right with this basin and that was further confirmed when Roger went out
and did the water chemistry analysis. Wetland #2 is the other large basin
to the south and again supporting a monotypic stand of reed canary grass
and literally no open water in this basin whatsoever so it has limited
value as far as wildlife is concerned and one of the things we would like
to do to this wetland is create some open water adjacent to it to improve
I it's diversity. I think what I'll do quickly just to get you oriented to
where these different basins are as we're talking about them is to put one
of the previous overheads up so that you can get your orientation. Okay
Wetland #1, the DNR wetland. The one with Lake Lucy Road in the
' background. Wetland #2 is the large wetland to the south. Wetlands #3 and
144 are wetlands that essentially formed as a consequence of these two
driveways that were constructed. This is not at all an unusual occurrence
' when you have road construction because either culverts start filling in
with dirt and the drainage starts getting altered or else maybe elevations
aren't set right to begin with or just as a result of the construction of
the ditch you start getting some minor accumulation of water in these
roadside ditches. The reason that these are called wetlands however is
that they do satisfy the national criteria for delineating wetlands. That
is they have to have aquatic vegetation. They have to have hydric soils
I and they have to have hydrology. And certainly these two basins do meet
those criteria but in terms of origin and function, they are really
marginal in terms of wetlands. Then the other two remaining wetlands, this
is a basin just to the east of the Ortenblat residence. This one is
somewhat, actually topographically it's quite a bit higher than Wetland #2
and is connected by an overland drainage Swale where after the water
I reaches a certain elevation in this wetland it kind of spills over and
seeps overland into this basin so it's connected. This area that's shown
here is just an overland spillway. So keeping in mind then that Wetland #3
is east of the Ersbo driveway. That Wetland #4 is west of the Ortenblat
' driveway. #5 is east of the Ortenblat residence and then #6 is connected
to Wetland #2. As I mentioned previously the ditch that was connecting
Wetland #1 and #2, the hand dug ditch, the ditch itself does not show up
' here at all because it is so shallow but there is some trees on either side
of the ditch and in places there will be some canary grass and goldenrod
but basically it's very shallow. In fact on the one instance when I
visited the site was after quite a heavy rainfall and in spite of the fact
II that we had probably over an inch of rain or better, there was just some
seepage collected in the bottom of that ditch and within 2 days when-I
returned to the site, the bottom of that ::itch was entirely dry so that
I ditch is just marginally functional. Wetland #3 is the one that was east
of the Ersbo driveway. Again mostly canary grass. Some box elders around
the edge. Just basically a fairly marginal wetland. #4 is the wetland to
the west of the Ortenblat driveway. This wetland is a few feet higher than
the main DNR wetland and again the canary grass surrounded by some box
Planning Commission Meeting
r
July 17, 1991 - Page 33
elders but basically just a relatively small, small basin. Wetland #5 had
some water standing in it. Had various wetland type shurbs. Some wetland
trees and again the canary grass. Finally wetland #6. Basically very .
similar to wetland #5. Some shurbs. Wetland type shurbs. Box elders and
again canary grass. So that's an introduction overview to the wetlands on ,
site and what we're proposing to do as a result of the development, what
the developer's proposing is that there will be more than just no net loss.
In other words, there will be more than an acre per acre replacement of
wetlands impacted relative to the wetlands replaced. So we're
accomplishing a couple of things in this design. One is to deal with
improvement of two of the wetlands to create more wildlife habitat on the
site and for three of the wetlands, as Rick indicated earlier, to use those"
wetlands as water quality enhancement pools and that would be the wetland.
Partially filled wetland west of Ortenblat's driveway. The larger wetland
to the east of the DNR wetland and what appeared as a square wetland
straddling that drainage ditch between #1 and #2. What's illustrated here II
is the concept called the Walker model and Dr. Walker is a researcher who
specializes in urban storm water quality. Urban storm water management and
actually he did some of his developmental work in the City of Vandais
Heights where this particular concept was tested out and applied. This
pond called the Walker pond is actually, if you look at it from a planned
view, looks almost like a triangle. The water comes into this triangle at
the shallow end and weaves at the wide end. Then it has a bel'ich at the r
shallow end and then gradually gets deeper with the maximum depth being
somewhere between 4 to 10 feet. And there's some fairly a variety of
mathematical formulas that you go through to calculate how big this pond
is. How deep it's supposed to be and what size_it needs to be in order to
perform the water quality function. I won't get into that because that's
not my area of expertise. There's other, Roger knows the details of that II
but basically what I do want to emphasize here is that a slug of water
remains in this pool and it remains in this pool for a certain minimum
period of time. Long enough for the sediment particles to settle out
because most of the nutrients come into a body of water, the phospherous
particularly comes into a wetland attached to particles of sediment.
That's a primary means of transport. So if you can provide a means for
those sediment particles to settle out. If you can cause this water to sit"
here and remain calm and allow those small particles to settle to the
bottom, then the next time you get a major storm event and you get a new
slug of water coming in, it pushes this cleansed water out the outlet end
and brings in a new, or the water that's in here now is dirty so to speak
and then again the process repeats itself. And depending upon the size of
the pond, treatment efficiency can vary from 40% to 60% and if you put two
of these in series, one ahead of the other, you can increase the treatment II
efficiency by a little bit. What we're proposing is to use these as
single celled ponds to reduce the nutrient loading before it gets into the
DNR wetland. Then the other element of this plan, because we recognize I
that the DNR wetland has deteriorated in quality, we're proposing to raise
the water level in that wetland to increa e the volume of water that's in
there. So by increasing the volume of water, we can increase the dilution.
factor of the nutrients. So besides pre - treating some of the water that
runs into the wetland, we'll also be holding more water there so that the
nutrient load will be diluted and the other part of that is if we can
reduce the nutrient load, increase the water level, we're expecting that
we'll get a vegetation response in that basin that once we change the water II
. r
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 34
1
chemistry and the soil chemistry which are basically the main parameters
I that limit the kind of vegetation you have. If we can alter that, then the
vegetation will respond because different birds, different animals will
bring the seed in so we're not worried too much about the seed source.
What we need to do is work with the chemistry of the basin. Change those
I conditions so the seeds that do come in can then respond. For example what
happens with the mat of duck weed that covers that basin, it cuts out the
sunlight from penetrating down to the bottom of the wetland so these other
I more desireable species can germinate and as a result of that, we end up
with this sterile pool and with monotypic fringe of canary grass. So we're
trying a number of things which have been studied from a scientific sense.
We're applying those principles and expecting a. positive response.
Emmings: Have you had any experience in attempting this type of
restoration in the past?
I Frank Svoboda: 1 guess in terms, this is a fairly new approach and the
reason I say it's new is because only recently has anyone recognized and it
I was just mentioned quickly in passing earlier. The idea of using wetlands
to manage storm water quantity has always taken precedence and the water
quality aspect has kind of taken a back seat. If you're following any of
I the literature, or I shouldn't say the literature but the news accounts
about different writers or different people that are interviewed talk about
the benefits of wetlands and quite often they'll say we need to preserve
wetlands because we can use wetlands to enhance water quality. Well,
I that's only part of the story because if you're using a wetland to improve
water quality in a lake, stream or river, obviously if the water quality
improves there, it's going to have to deteriorate somewhere else. So the
I idea of, well the recognition that if you use a wetland for water quality
treatment purposes, you are going to sacrifice other functions. That is an
inevitable result. People aren't pointing that out_. That's only coming
about just very recently. And so the reason this hasn't been done is
because people really haven't recognized that this is a problem and so what
we're saying here is yes. In fact this is a problem. It's not all that
uncommon in urban areas and when you make a decision about using a wetland
I for water quality or water quantity treatment, that decision has to be made
consciously on the basis of facts and information. So that if we choose to
use big wetland for water quality purposes, we're going to sacrifice
I something in the way of wildlife habitat. Now when that decision is made
consciously, that's fine. So the response is we're basically on the
cutting edge here because no one is thinking about wetlands in these terms
and so it really hasn't, the question hasn't surfaced. Now in terms of a
I more general sense, having done wetland mitigation in the past, there's a
project that I worked on several years ago near Forest Lake where we took a
Type II sedge meadow and converted that to a Type III wetland. I would
guarantee I could take anyone from, who didn't know the history of that
wetland that's a biologist for a public agency. I could take them.to that
wetland and they would not know that that was a modified wetland. I was
II out there one spring. There were three species of frogs. A Great Blue
Heron. Several ducks on that wetland so there was just a tremendous
response in terms of wildlife.diversity. The other thing that that project
did was not only did it enhance, change the character of that Type II
I wetland. It also provided some surrounding upland habitat as well so we
actually designed a wildlife habitat area. And that project was extremely
Planning Commission Meeting 1
July 17, 1991 - Page 35
successful. Successful to the point where both people from the DNR and the II
Corps of Engineers point to that project as one of the classic examples of
what can be done if the job is done correctly. As I said, someone could go
out there and they would not know that that was a wetland that was created. I
There's no indication that it was ever engineered or anything like that. It
just looks very natural. So in one sense we're doing some pioneering work
here. In another sense, other aspects of this work has been done before.
Emmings: Given the wetland, the big wetland. The DNR, what we're calling
#1, the condition that it's in today. To get it be what you describe to be II
a healthier wetland. One with more diverse vegetation and so forth, is
that a difficult thing? Easy thing? Is the transition from a poor wetland
to a good wetland going to take a year or 10 years or 20 years?
Frank Svoboda: In some respects it's going to be I would say that what
we're doing here perhaps is somewhat, I wouldn't say it's entirely
experimental but to some extent it's a consequence of how much damage that
wetland has sustained in the past because as I indicated previously, the
limiting parameters are water chemistry and soil chemistry. So what we're
trying to do is improve the quality of the water that's entering that
wetland in two ways. Pre - treating the water and also increasing the
volume. Now we've talked to numerous experts at the University and some
other Limnologists and all indications are that the approach that we're
proposing here is in line with the scientific knowledge as it exists today. II
So on the basis of what the experts are telling us, we think it's going to
work but we're not going to know if it's going to work until we actually go
out and modify the, increase the water level and pre -treat some of the '
water that's going in there. But the best indications are so far that
we're reasonably sure of success. But again, the wetland business, some
people will say it's a science. Certain aspects of it are scientific but
much more of this craft so to speak is art rather than science. You apply
principles and then you wait for nature to respond to the application of
those principles. So there's a good deal of art involved in this as well. I
Try and apply what you know in a creative way and predict a certain
response.
Erhart: Frank, what's the average depth of that pond now? The Class A
pond.
Frank Svoboda: Well, from what we can tell and the reports we've gotten is II
2 years ago this basin was completely dry. Although we didn't actually go
out into the center of it, our expectation is it's probably somewhere
between a foot to 2 feet deep. Probably more in the neighborhood of a foot •
to a foot and a half.
Erhart: Do cattails grow in areas that aren't permanently wet?
Frank Svoboda: Cattails, depending on the species of cattail, they will '
grow in areas anywhere from 6 inches of water all the way up to water 3
feet deep.
Erhart: But if it gets dry they won't grow? Every year it gets dry
they're dead?
I/
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 36
Frank Svoboda: Right. Although.
Erhart: I guess what I'm saying is, what makes you think that the reason
that you only get canary grass is this is a non - permanent water area. If
you take a field, a filled field like this and dry it out every 3 years or
1 4 years, you're not going to have cattails.
Frank Svoboda: Actually there were cattails in there because when Roger
' was out on the site he did find the residual remains of cattails along the
fringe and what happened was when the pond dried up a couple of years ago,
then the cattails died back and it was replaced by canary grass. Eventually
that cycle will repeat itself but the other part of the equation is
II hydrology. Clearly if you have a drainage area that's small relative to
the wetland, then you're going to get these fairly severe fluctuations in
water. Now by redirecting some of the runoff on the site and attempting to
I capture more water, what we'll try to do is kind of reduce the extent of
those fluctuations. So where it might dry out now during certain periods
of time, we might have 6 inches of water in it where in the past it was
complete dry. So we're also doing some work with the hydrological part of
II the equation and trying to bring more water in there.
Erhart: What's going to be the final depth? What's the control structure
I you're going to use there?
Rick Sathre: We're talking about a pipe outlet that would be up probably
II about 2 feet higher than the ditch outlet now. I would expect you'd get
the very center there could be water approaching 4 feet I would think.
Erhart: Yeah. At the design level, what are the slopes going to be at the
II shoreline?
Rick Sathre: On the western edge next to the woodland, next to the
' Ortenblat driveway I would say the slopes are probably between 3 and 5 to
1. Something like that. On the eastern side, the eastern shore the slopes
are probably more like 10 to 1.
II Erhart: So in any case, whereas the slopes now of the shoreline is
probably more like 20 to 30 to 1.
II Rick Sathre: They're pretty flat.
Erhart: Pretty flat, yeah. So you'll be able to maintain a pretty
consistent shoreline assuming you don't have any leakage at your higher
level.
Rick Sathre: That's a concern too. The soil is pourous enough in some
II places where we probably will get some seepage.
Erhart: If you can do that, that will he_p you a lot in maintaining the
I cattails and more traditional shoreline just by having a consistent.
Maintain a consistent water level. One that doesn't move around on you.
Terry Forbord: The interesting part of this is because Chanhassen is
probably the, of all the municipalities in the metropolitan area,
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 37
1
Chanhassen probably is more interested in this type of thing than anyone I
can think of. Plymouth is also somewhat interested but Chanhassen appears
to be more on the cutting edge of understanding, or attempting to
understand it. And when for us, when we realized the problems here and
realized that the do nothing approach. If we don't do anything, what I've
been told by Frank and Roger is that that existing wetland, and even the ,
other smaller ones, will continue to decline in quality just because of
what man has already done. Because right now it's in an uncontrolled
environment for it. If you start controlling the environment, controlling
the amount and the flow and the types of runoff that goes into them,
cleansing the runoff that goes into them, that you can attempt to bring
them back. So that's become'an interesting part of our proposal.
Rick Sathre: Did you want to talk about that...
Frank Svoboda: What we would like to do with the two ponds that we talked '
about for wildlife habitat. Typically the ideal wildlife pond has a ratio
of emergent vegetation. Vegetation that grows above the water. The water,
it's a ratio of about 2:1. That is roughly 33% open water and about 67%
vegetation. The other thing that you try and accomplish is not to have all"
the open water in one spot. All the vegetation in another spot. Is to try
and create some variation in the location of that mix of vegetation and
water. So what we're proposing for those two ponds is to create a wetland II
that has an irregular meandered edge to approximate a natural condition and
then from the upland here and the first several feet of the wetland,
designing the bottom at a ratio of roughly 10:1 to 20:1 so it's fairly
steep here. Then as you get into the deeper water, this edge being 0 to 1811
inches deep. Getting into the deeper water, 18 to 36 inches deep and
making the bottom flater. Something like 20:1 to 50 :1 here and then in the
middle having pockets of open water that would stay open water permanently. '
So here you'd have water preferably 3 feet and deeper. In cross section it
looks like this. Where you have the deep pocket here. Then this kind of
hump which would be the 18 to 36 inch so you get some vegetation maybe - II staying below the surface or breaking through the surface. So you have a
bottom that's irregular and you have an edge that's irregular. That is
typically when you see a natural wetland that was formed by glaciation,
that is the kind of pattern it has. So that's what we're proposing to do II
in these two wildlife wetlands at the south end of the site. The one which
would be excavated from upland and the second one which would be a
combination of upland excavation and some modification of the existing
canary grass wetland. So this is our concept here and this is, as I
mentioned to you, the wetland at Pioneer Point in Forest Lake. This is the
type of approach that we used there and it works very well.
Terry Forbord: Frank, what types of vegetation will be introduced in this
type of wetland?
Frank Svoboda: Well preferably what we like to see in addition to the
cattail are things like pickerel weed and bullrush. Depending on the water
quality, we would like to get some bullrush established. Some of the other I
wetland grasses besides canary grass. Wetland herbs like swamp milkweed.
There's literally hundreds of wetland species and a good healthy wetland,
the healthier the wetland the more variation you have in the vegetation.
Generally a good indication of a wetland that's suffering from something, II
1 Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 38
I be it poor water quality or some sort of problem regarding soil chemistry,
you tend to end up with a wetland that's fairly monotypic. Either canary
I grass, continuous stand of canary grass or continuous stand of cattails and
little else. What we like to do is try and vary that diversity and again.
the two things that we have to work with are the soil chemistry and the
I water chemistry because my feeling is if you get those things in balance,
if you get those things corrected, then these other plants will start
showing up.
II Erhart: Where are you going to do that? Is that the Class A wetland or
the other ones? Is that the one on the west boundary?
I Frank Svoboda: Okay, it would be these two. It would be this basin plus
this part of the wetland which is excavated out of upland and then which
would extend to this part of the existing #2 wetland.
' Erhart: Okay. To get bullrush and swamp milkweed and all that, do you
have to plant those or will they show up naturally?
II Frank Svoboda: There are two schools of thought. In fact there's been
established nursery business in wetland plants. There's a couple of
nurseries in Wisconsin and there's several nurseries on the east coast. My
I feeling is if you bring the soil chemistry and the water chemistry into
proper balance, the other species will come in. In many instances there is
a seed bank within the wetland that is lying dormant and it just takes the
I proper conditions in order to invigorate that. In other cases or in
addition to that, ducks travel numerous wetlands and seeds will stick to
their feathers. Stick to their feet. They'll consume seeds of other
plants and those will be passed in the excrement and the seeds get
I introduced into the wetlands. Plus some of the seeds are wind born so
there are numerous mechanisms for producing a seed bank. One of the things
that led me to this conclusion was that reading through the historical
II I records when the land was first settled, we had numerous wetlands around
here that had wild rice present yet we no longer see any wild rice here. I
believe if we look at the type of water chemistry that wild rice requires
I in the wild rice beds farther north where the water quality is much better,
if we looked at the water quality there and compared it to the water
chemistry we have here, we'd understand why we don't have wild rice any
longer is because of the effect of agriculture and various land use
I practices that changed the water chemistry. So that's why I'm such a
strong believer in getting those two elements back into proper balance
because then the rest of the community, the ecosystem is going to respond.
I And certainly I'm not going to tell you that 5 years from now this is going
to look the way it was in 1750 because I don't think that's possible.
That's like saying that you could go out and recreate a native prairie in
an agricultural field by seeding Big Blue Stem and Indian Grass and a few
II other things. Certainly you've re- established the native plant species but
it still isn't the proper mix of all the ; lements of what the native -
prairie once was. So I'm not going to stand here and tell you that this is
I going to look like it did in 1700 but what we're trying to do is make it
better than it is today.
I Emmings: When you're creating these wetlands, I read about how when
loosestrife is introduced to these areas it takes over. How do we know
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 39
we're not just really just creatin g a happy home for some loosestrife?
PPY
Frank Svoboda: There is an element of risk with that, particularly since II
loosestrife is established immediately across Lake Lucy Road.. What happens
is when you disturb an area, create an open soil condition, then that's a
real optimal situation for purple loosestrife to get established. And so II
there's going to have to be some diligence, some care taken initially to
prevent that from being established there during those first couple of
years when that soil is raw and exposed.
Emmings: Will it become any less a problem thereafter?
Frank Svoboda: Once you get a good tight vegetative cover established,
it's less apt to invade. The most vulnerable time is when it's first
disturbed but certainly there's numerous cattail wetlands around the
metropolitan area that had no disturbance and they're full of purple
loosestrife. So that's certainly a factor that has to be recognized. I
believe that there may be a few scattered individual plants that came in on
the south side of Lake Lucy Road probably as a consequence of the
reconstruction of that road and the exposed soil that was there at the
time.
•
Terry Forbord: Are there any other questions we can answer fqr you I
relative to the aspects of the PUD proposal other than wetlands or if you
have more wetland questions, that's fine but maybe there's some other
things that you.
Emmings: Well yeah, we've spent a lot of time on this single aspect. I
guess everybody's pretty interested in it. Are there other people here who
have questions or comments about, I see other people have come. If you'd II
like to ask your questions or make your comments, this might be a good time
to do that.
Joe Morin: My name is Joe Morin and I live directly to the west of this 1
development.
Emmings: The property neighboring it to the west? Right next to it?
Joe Morin: The next door neighbor is Ted Coey. He has a 20 acre parcel
and I'm next door to Ted. I have a 5 acre parcel. Basically I have a few I
comments to make about the work that the staff did. This is a difficult
site and they're to be commended for the work that they've done up until
now. I think their report is well done and it's sensitive to the
environment in the area but I do have six concerns that I'd like to outline I
briefly in the interest of saving some time. It's getting late and two
proposals that I'd like staff to look at. My first concern is basically
with the transition of this type of development into the surrounding
developments. If you look to the south i- the Greenwood Shores area -you
can see that the lot sizes are much large'. And if you look to the west of
this development, the existing homes in that area are higher valued by
considerable amount than are the value of the homes proposed for this
development. It's my understanding that part of what you're doing is
struggling with developing a PUD ordinance at the same time we're trying to I
understand this particular development so the comments that I make are
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 40
relative to both. What I would like to see is a future kind of ordinance
and also the problems that I see in this proposal. The second concern that
I have is the exiting of this road. There's two major problems with that.
The first of course is the impact of that road on the residents across the
street. It comes out right about at their front door. And the second and
I very serious concern I have is that it goes right across the top of that
knoll where all t,lose beautiful oak trees are. There's a huge beautiful
mature oak tree and also birch and aspen and it's just a gorgeous area. I
think that there are some things that can be done to bring that out at a
' different location. The third concern that I have is the view from Lake
Lucy Road looking into that high density development. What you're looking
at is the back yards of a whole lot of houses. That's not a real, I don't
I that's I think something can be done to mitigate that as well. I
understand there was a problem with that on Lake Riley Hills development
and some work was done to mitigate that concern. I'm not fully
understanding what they're saying about this holding pond. To me it
I appears that all of the surrounding homes are draining into that Class A
wetland and all that fertilizer and stuff going in there is going to make
that a lot worse. There's this tiny little holding pond at the exit of
' that Class A wetland that's supposed to protect Lake Lucy and I'm not real
confident that this experimental project is really going to do that. So
I really feel that with 37 homes on a site that small with that much
I wetland and with Lake Lucy, the headwaters of the chain of lakes downstream
that we need to take a stronger look at that. That Walker pond concept
sounds interesting but it's certainly not doing anything to protect that
Class A wetland. I just want to make sure that's understood. Also the
II developer.
Emmings: What do you mean it's not doing anything? I understood them to
I say it was going to do something. I wonder what you mean.
Joe Morin: Here's what I'm trying to say. You have all these homes here
with fertilizer on their lawns draining directly into this Class A wetland.
There's nothing stopping that except hopefully there will be some buffering
in there.
II Erhart: Joe, if you don't have it draining in there you won't have the
pond.
Joe Morin: Right. That's what forms the Class A wetland. The reason it's
dead now and has a lot of duck weed in it is because of all the fertilizer
that the farmers put on the cornfield. All that stuff was already there.
All that phospherous was in there and what this does is it simply adds more
I nutrient loading into that area. Now as I understand it, maybe I have it
wrong but there's a little pond here where this thing is flowing out.
That's the Walker pond proposal.
1 Emmings: Okay, what I understood is that the water that they collect from
other parts of the site, storm water and so forth will be going through the
' pond that's going to be built to the east of the wetland.
Joe Morin: This one up here ?'
Emmings: Right. That's what I thought they were talking about.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 41
Joe Morin: ...but none of this other stuff that's flowing g in there is
being buffered at all.
Emmings: I understand.
Joe Morin: And perhaps the storm sewer coming down here, I don't know is I
that a Walker pond down here?
Rick Sathre: Let me address this. This one? This is a Walker pond, this
is a Walker pond. That's a Walker pond. All of the street runoff would be
directed through one of those three before it goes into the Class A
wetland. •
Joe Morin: But you have all of this going through that and then going in. I
Emmings: No. It's going the other way.
Rick Sathre: The water's going in through this into there.
•
Joe Morin: Well yeah bat the proposal is to block the exit to the north so '
the only way to come out is this way.
Rick Sathre: Well but it won't go through this little basin...a separate II
pipe that takes it out.
Joe Morin: What does it drain into?
Rick Sathre: It will come down to this wildlife pond after it's stored in
there and then it will discharge into this area.
Joe Morin: These hold the storm sewer runoffs but they don't hold runoffs
from all of the surrounding properties and they don't do anything to
protect Lake Lucy from all the runoff... And even if they did, looking at I
the size of the relative size of that area and in effect that this is an
experimental project, I don't have a lot of confidence in the fact that
that's going to be protected. That's my concern. The other thought I had '
is I know that this is well within the guidelines proposed in the
Comprehensive Plan in terms of density but that isn't really a zoning
requirement in that we still need to look at those as guidelines. Areas in
the high terrain area surrounding the north side of Lake Lucy, the areas '
that primarily drain into the Lake I believe should be looked at as larger
lot kinds of homes than what is being proposed here. Also for all the
other properties to the west that haven't been developed yet, including my I
own. And I guess my final concern is what a horrible precedent we're
setting here. There's 11 variances that are proposed on these lots.
That's something that really troubles me a lot. That's my final concern -. ,
My two recommendations that I think could be studied. I'm not a civil
engineer or anything but it looks to me like the impact on this knoll could
be mitigated by coming out through the area where the existing driveway
exits rather than coming across this knoll and certainly that would have an I
impact on this wetland somewhat. But in terms of the overall environment
that this knoll and the trees surrounding it and this area are far more
valuable than is a tiny section of this wetland area. So one of the
thoughts might be to redirect this road to follow closer to the wetland
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 42
area and then move the
homesites to the other side. That would put the
front yards visible from Lake Lucy Road rather than the back yards and it
would conform to the terrain of the properties I think a lot better. The
other thought I had was in looking at this area here, in order. to reduce'
the total number of variances required, 11 here, perhaps by combining some
' of these lots. Instead of having two small lots, make them one larger lot
and instead of having a road in here, you could service four of these with
a private driveway which would bring the homes further from the wetland
' area and I think would make a more suitable development for this
environment with all it's amenities. I think maybe it's not economically
feasible to put $300,000.00 homes in there today but it was 5 years ago. It
may be again 5 years from now so I'd hate to have the economic conditions
at this moment in time ruin what could be potentially a very beautiful
area. For all of Chanhassen.
' Emmings: Thanks. Is there anybody else who has comments on this? Okay
Eric. You're a notoriously long speaker. Have you got a list like Joe
where you can just hit us bing, bing, bing?
1 Eric Rivkin: I'm also historically improving my, cut down on my. I just
want to say I have some concerns. I'm not going to repeat what Joe has
said. I do agree in spirit to what Joe has said although the solutions may
I not always be there. I am concerned about the trees on the northwest
corner of the lot being destroyed. There is a very high knoll there and it
would really tear into that I think in a wrong way. To add a benefit to
' Joe's proposal of moving the street around to where the existing driveway
is, I think the benefit would be to take the runoff, nutrient rich runoff
from the backyards of those things and then it will be intercepted by a
street. Then that would also guarantee that a true nature buffer area
I
between the road and the pond existed rather than have an artificial one
only 10 or 20 feet wide created by a back yard conservation easement. I am
concerned that not all runoff is redirected to be so called cleansed. I
I think that should be mitigated in some way so that the spirit of this, so
that this experiment could work. Given a chance to work. I think that
developments like this have to move in this direction where water quality
I is put a front seat to water quantity and so I think it should be mitigated
in some way to guarantee that all the runoff is redirected to be cleansed.
And if that means laying it out again, so be it. I'm also as Co -chair of
the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association I'm concerned about any water that
I enters Lake Lucy watershed. I understand from talking to Terry yesterday
that, am I still correct in assuming that this, all the water is now going
to be running into Lake Lucy watershed and not into Christmas Lake
' watershed?
Terry Forbord: That's correct. A very small amount of it, if any, runs
I north at this present time. The watershed district boundary is on the
center line of Lake Lucy Road so everything north of Lake Lucy Road is
supposed to go north. Everything south supposed to go south. It's the
conclusion that it would best be served t_ run it south.
I Eric Rivkin: By deepening the water, increasing the water holding capacity
of this whole site, and when you have big storms, you're going to have
I flushing of nutrient rich water going into Lake Lucy. I'm concerned about
that. What guarantees do we have that the water quality is going to be
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 43
improved over what it is now at least and are there any water quality
guidelines that could be proposed to say okay, we are going after this much
levels of phospherous or whatever and try to set some clear cut goals and
some ways of meeting them and guaranteeing that they be put in place
through conditions on the plat. Another condition that I saw kind of
looming on the horizon here was what is going to fund the nutrient
harvesting in those catch basins? In order to prevent phospherous from
moving down the watershed and ruining wetlands downstream as our
Limnologist said here, the phospherous has to be removed every so often. He I
said, did he Paul said that the City is responsible for harvesting those?
Cleaning those basins out every once in a while.
Krauss: Well yeah. We have a number of sedimentation basins existing
around the community. They have a service life that varies depending on
how much erosion is getting into it and what not. We have an obligation to
maintain those things and they're in every subdivision and that's primarily I
the reason why we've steered plans to having essentially focused collection
points. You know instead of having 8 or 9 small ones around, have 2 or 3
that we can manage. The fact of the matter is though is most of these
things are still relatively new given the timeframe of development of
Chanhassen. To the best of our knowledge they haven't failed yet, at least
from the sedimentation basins. We need to start structuring, and Charles 11
would be able to take this one, but we need to start structuring a
maintenance program for our sedimentation basins. Now we are starting to
use these basins in an expanded mode to also improve water quality. We
will need to maintain them probably more frequently than had been the case }'
when it was just for water volume for the water quality aspect. In some
cases it's weed harvesting. In some cases it's sediment removal that will
have to be done. Certainly going to be coming in and taking out the fines
that have settled out. Otherwise it won't function. Up to this point we
haven't had an active effort to do this because (a)_ it hasn't been
necessary and (b) we haven't been able to afford it. That's one of the
primary reasons we got into the surface water utility. We now have a '
source of revenue that in part is going to be used for the planning effort
to get our water quality program or our storm water management and wetlands
effort on track but that's only about a fifth of the funds that we'll be
generating over the next 5 years. The rest of it is for land acquisitions. I
It's for maintenance programs. It's for street sweeping. It's for going
in and dredging these things out on a more periodic basis so it is I
something that we're responsible for. It is .something that we're getting
up and running now so we'll be ready to do that yes.
Eric Rivkin: Okay. Well my concern is that the guarantees will be in
place forever basically because that's what you're creating here. Also
with the people that are living there got these basins in their back yards.
Does that mean a truck from the City is going to be driving through their I
lots to clean these basins out at a time when wildlife is trying to
establish itself? I mean the timing is important in this. Maybe the
basins ought to be moved closer to the road so people don't feel, and the
wildlife aren't going to be encroached on at the same time. It's a
thought. It's an environmental issue and it's also I'm sure the people
that are going to be living there, it's going to be an issue.
1
II Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 44
II
Charles Folch: Yeah, typically when we review a development proposal we
I take a look at how we are going to access these ponds. We normally require
an access easement to get to the pond. We try to control the steepness .of
the grades to get down there. Certainly -there is going to be some
disturbance when we have a heavy piece of equipment going in there and
I doing the dredging work and cleaning it out but hopefully with the methods
that we're learning here as far as our revegetating of these wetlands, we
can implement those same procedures to help restore any disturbance that
I occurs when we do go in and do maintenance.
Emmings: I think tonight and given that it's almost 11:00, what we're
going to do here is I'd like to get the concerns folks have out on the
I
table and not to respond to them so everybody gets a chance to say their
peace and get everything out on the table. Because they're going to be
going back to work on it and there will be another public hearing where we
I can maybe budget more time for this. So go ahead Eric.
Eric Rivkin: I didn't expect any answers now. I guess also, is the 20
I foot wild easement around the backs of these lots, is that consistent with
the diversity of vegetation concept or re- establishing wildlife? I don't
need an answer but I don't know what the ideal conservation easement is
- going to be here.
I Krauss: Keep in mind the wetland body itself is going to be protected. I
mean there's no question of that and we're talking about it as an upland
I area beyond the wetland. In the past when we've had a setback, we've had a
75 foot setback requirement but you could sod basically up to the wetland
and we've become convinced that whether it's 75 feet, 35 feet or whatever
I it is, unless we have a fringe of natural growth, we've got a significant
problem because anything that's put on the lawn, any grass that's cut on
the lawn just flushes right into it and the idea is to keep it up there.
I Eric Rivkin: Right. That's all I have. Thank you very much.
Mark Sanda: Hi. My name is Mark Sanda and I live just to the west of Joe
I Morin about a quarter mile or so. I just wanted to state that I agree with
Joe's points and I feel they're very important. The slide to me that is
the most telling one is the plat map that shows this new development in
relationship to the plat maps of the other developments and it just is
I taking a little bit away from the area. We're trying to shoehorn a few too
many homes into a limited space. A very valuable space and we can't lose
sight of the bigger picture of how close this development is to the shores
I of Lake Lucy. Many of you have sat here for many hours as we've debated
our problems with Lake Lucy and the declining water quality there and we
really have to be mindful of how this development, even though Lake Lucy is
1 shown as little tiny corner on these maps, is very, very close. It's just
a few hundred yards away. That's basically all I wanted to say.
Emmings: Thank you. Is there anybody else that wants to put anything on
I the record here tonight? I think maybe we ought to, I don't know if
anybody else has comments they want to make at this stage of things. I
think we ought to give some direction in terms of whether or not we think
I this ought to be done as a PUD as opposed to a straight subdivision,
especially in light of the fact that we don't have an ordinance to guide us
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 45
1
in this. That doesn't seem to bother Paul, which I guess, I don't know.
Does anybody have any comments they want to make?
Erhart: I think you're doing the right thing by raising the water level of
that pond. I guess I tend to believe that will do more for wildlife than
any single thing. I mean ducks just don't breathe in 6 inches of water. I
They'll rest there and move on so I think increasing the water level there
will have a dramatic effect on the value of that wetland so I think we're
doing all the right things there. We're mitigating, we're moving things
around because you have to on roads. And the fact is that we're replacing
with more and trying to allow people some live there I think is good. .I
think sometimes we tend to think that when we do subdivisions that somehow
aliens are moving in from Mars to live as neighbors but you know these are
people that are going to live here. It's a growing population and we've
got to make room for them in a manner that's consistent. The other people
are already there but we try to make, we try to accommodate them the best I
way we can and I think for that reason we have to, as much as I don't like
to move wetlands, sometimes you have to do that to make it sense for people
to have homes and enjoy the wetlands like so many of us do now so. I think
it appears as though we're on the right track here. Interested in I think '
it was Joe's comment. The idea of putting the road next to the pond like
they used to do in the old days. You know they put the road next to the
lake and have the houses face the pond. It just sort of hit my curiousity I
there. I don't think anybody's used that approach for years but I just
wonder what the impact of lot prices would be if you were to do that.
Terry Forbord: Would you like me to respond? 1
Erhart: I don't know. Do you have a quick answer?
Terry Forbord: I have a couple answers for that but if you would like me,
we can address them later. If you'd like me to address them now, I'd be
happy to do that.
1
Erhart: I thought it was an interesting question.
Terry Forbord: Well there's a number of things. First of all you have to I
remember in today's lifestyles that people have, they don't spend a lot of
time in their front yards. I mean if you think about what you do day in
and day out by enjoyment of your private property, the majority of that
time is spent in the rear yard area with your family or just trying to get
away. Most people don't like to watch the cars go by. At one point in
time it was exciting maybe when the vehicle was the biggest thing around, I
that was something people liked to do. From a design standpoint, I think
if one was just to go out and look at this property, you can see very
easily where people would like to enjoy their particular homesites. That 1
would be looking at the habitat we've already discussed. From an economic
standpoint, it would prohibit the values cf the site just because... -
Erhart: Well you could only get lots on one side of the street.
Terry Forbord: The think that occurs, see one of the problems is we
focused entirely on wetlands and what we've done, I mean we've focused on
that because we know it's a serious issue in Chanhassen. We've focused on
1
II Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 46
II
that a little bit tonight. g One of the things we all forgot to do here is
II that you have to look at the whole equation. Do you want to worry about,
do you want to grade the site a lot? So in other words you have to cut
down all the trees so you can move the different places to put
homesites somewhere else so we took not just trees into the equation. We
II took not just wetlands. Not just wildlife but we took people who live
there. We took everything into consideration. Now there were a lot of
very good points raised by every speaker tonight. Every single one of them
I was taken into consideration into the design. The key is the balancing
act. Where is the fine line where the ultimate balancing act is so the
optimum is created with the least impact on the entire site. Is it worth
filling a good large portion of a wetland to save one tree? That's the
I balancing act we have to do. We've done that over and over again.
Erhart: Okay. Just the last item. There's one reoccurring theme I hear
I here from Joe and Eric and the other individual here was a great concern
for that northwest corner. I think maybe what we need to do in the next
meeting is, Rick you kind of stated you had a good reason to move it to the
I left instead of the right. Maybe what we need to do is have a good
explanation when your final decision for everybody to understand why you
picked that particular site and not get into it tonight. I think that
would be helpful for everybody.
I Terry Eorbord: Actually we'll address each concern that was raised by all
the individuals tonight and explain in detail why we chose what we did.
1 Because like I say, you have to take the whole equation to understand...
Emmings: What do you think about doing it as a PUD as opposed to doing it
as a straight subdivision?
II Erhart: I think if time permits, that's obviously the way it should be
done because you avoid setting the precedent of all the variances. So if
II the developer is willing to do it as a PUD, I think we ought to do it that
way.
I Emmings: Yeah, and so do I. Go ahead.
Batzli: Can you put the overhead back up which shows the development in
the context of the surrounding development? My general philosophical, two
I question philosophical questions. One is, it appears to me that there is a
higher density here obviously than the areas directly surrounding it and it
appears as though some of the problems with setbacks and looking at it as a
I PUD is in part because we are shoe horning a lot of things in there.
Compared to the surrounding properties. I mean I think they're nice sized
lots but you look at what's around it and they are smaller. I'd like to
II I guess see maybe fewer lots put in there personally. The other thing is
addressed to our planning staff and that is, Paul. Has there been any
thought as to how the properties to the west are going to develop and the
effect of placing the road that close to the boundary line and would it
I make more sense to try and stub something off on the side or has there been
any thought on that?
I Krauss: In fact there's been a fair bit of thought on that. It hasn't
been mapped out but the Lundgren proposal was originally, I don't know if
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 47
it was intended to but they intended to work out an arrangement with the
adjoining property owner, Coey. Bring that into the plat and it had some
nice advantages. Unfortunately.they weren't able to do that. So we're
left to deal with what we can. We have looked at that area to some extent.
For example we know that there's no way to provide sewer into this area
without a lift st -tion. The lift station that Lundgren is proposing, we're'
having a stub go out to the Coey property so that can be extended along the
lake as property owners need it. In my view it's unfortunate for both
properties that the Coey property wasn't brought into this at the same time I
because that's going to be very difficult to develop by itself.
Batzli: It's going to be impossible almost from looking at it.
Terry Forbord: May I just address that? Because I think I can answer many
• of the questions immediately on that. There's some natural features of
this area that if things were on an ideal situation, would dictate that
some properties be incorporated with other properties. There's 4.8 acres
of the western, excuse me the eastern section of the Coey property that
lends itself to being incorporated with the Ortenblat property. Primarily
because there is a ravine, there's a knoll, there's a wetland and then
there's another wetland. So in actual configuration would go something
like this. Down like this and then back down like that and it's about 4, 41
1/2 acres. Not very large piece of property. It should be incorporated
with this. There's no way you can make a link of a street to fill, to fit
or serve just those 4 acres. It would have to be incorporated here and
this street would have to be servicing it. We looked at that. The only 1
way for Mr. Coey in the future, if he ever chooses to develop that part of
his site, would be to have to cut all the trees down and fill in the ravine
with some kind of a mass grading on that piece of property to connect it
with another road. He told us it didn't make any difference because he
didn't want to develop it anyway which is a right that he certainly has and
so we did research all those different components and met with staff and
tried to see what could be done and actually the best way to serve the
property would be off of Lake Lucy Road at this point in time on the Coey
property. And getting back to the other question, the property is zoned
RSF. It meets the land use guide plan and all the criteria of the existing'
comprehensive plan. I believe that RSF zoning classification is a 1.4
dwelling units per acre and this is 1.2 it's almost at the very lowest
density that is allowed in that particular zoning district.
Batzli: I understand that. I tried to preface that by saying I personally
would like to see that. I understand that it meets criteria and compared
to my postage stamp sized lot, these are mammoth but that's another issue. 1
Paul, has any consideration been done? Granted the gentleman who owns the
property to the west doesn't currently want to develop but for example when
we were looking at Vineland and some of those other things, we had
engineering look at how the heck are we going to service these things if
they develop. Has any thought, has our engineering department or have you
guys looked at it?
Krauss: We have. We've done it in house. We haven't gotten it formally
done up for you and frankly the thought of not connecting up to Lake Lucy
at this time and leaving a leg to be connected across the Coey property in
the future did occur to us. We didn't pursue it at great length. You know
1
II Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 48
if you had our druthers as '
Y Mr. Forbord 's saying, if the road would have
come out over there. We could still force it that way but that's an awful
I
long dead end cul -dc -sac that would exist for an indeterminant time. We
could look at that a little further if you'd like.
1 Batzli: I don't know. It just seems, I have to go out and look at that
site too because I didn't recognize that it'd be that tough to stub
something out.
111 Joe Morin: Can I say something?
' Batzli: Yeah.
1 Joe Morin: If Ted says he doesn't want to ever develop, that'd be just
great with me because I don't want to develop either. So that property
1 would stay just like it is for the next few years.
Batzli: Well yeah I recognize he doesn't want to do that now but in 20
years when he does develop it. Anyway, enough of that.
Terry Forbord: I think it would be, we've actually laid out that whole
area. We've done 3 or 4 concepts trying to figure out...as you suggested
1 and the topography, if you saw a topography map of the area and then go on
the site, it'd be easier to understand why that link between these two
can't be made. I believe we submitted to the staff, the engineering
1 department those layouts so they can see those. I'm sure they'll share them
with the Planning Commission at the next meeting so they can understand.
Batzli: The question about looking at the back yards from the road I
1 thought was an interesting one but I think as Lundgren's pointing out, they
really, you want to put the back yards around that .wetland so that's an
interesting observation to kind of make. From Lake Lucy Road what are you
1 going to be seeing? That's interesting. What does the DNR think of these
experimental ponds? Have you guys had an opportunity to talk to them?
1 Krauss: Well let's focus a little bit on the experimental issue a little
bit and maybe Frank could expand on this. We like to think we're on the
cutting edge of a lot of this stuff and I think we are in terms of we want
to use this stuff in the real world and do this. The concept of these
1 ponds has existed for quite a while. The State Board of Soil and Water
Conservation Service has published a manual on how to do this a couple of
years ago. The Metro Council required that we do these kinds of things as
i a matter of police as a condition of approval with our Comprehensive Plan.
They required the same thing of Eden Prairie and everybody else that comes
before them. It's called Best Management Practices. We are trying to
break some ground here but we're not, this is not an experimental program
that has a high risk potential that won't work. I mean the science behind
this is pretty clear. The designs of thr-,- things are pretty clear.- Where
I think what Frank was touching on where rte art comes in is how you put
1 together all these elements to achieve what you really want to in the
wetland. It's clear to anyone that looks at this that we're doing a much
better job with this one that has been done in the past. The degree of
1 effectiveness is something that you have to see so I shy away from the
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 49
1
semantics of calling it an experiment. I really don't believe that that's
the case.
Frank Svoboda: When I spoke about it being experimental I wasn't talking
about the water ponds. That concept has been around for quite some time.
The experimental or trial aspect of this is a question of what's going to 1
happen when we try to alter the water chemistry of the wetland that's been
degradsd. That's where the results of that aren't unclear. Certainly our
intent is we're trying to take, we know what the condition of the water
quality of that wetland is today. Even if we improve that 25% above where
it is now, we've made some marked progress so that's what the trial aspect
• of this is. If we improve that water quality 20%, how is the vegetation
and how is the wildlife going to respond? That's the part of what I was
describing that's a trial aspect. So the storm water ponds, the Walker
concept has been around for quite some time. In fact that concept has been
adopted by the NUR program. National Urban Runoff Program and this pond
design is actually incorporated into those standards so that part is not
experimental.
Batzli: And one final question if I could for Terry. Can I ask what your 1
range is going to be for the homes in this? Your kind of target range.
What you're thinking right now.
Terry Forbord: That's an excellent question. Sorry I didn't address that 1
earlier. The price range of homes in this area in today's dollars would be
somewhere of about $150,000.00 to $220,000.00 - $210,000.00. That's what our'
preliminary estimates are.
Emmings: That's the home or home and lot?
Terry Forbord: Home and lot.
Erhart: What are the lots going to run? 1
Terry Forbord: The lots, again this is real preliminary because you don't
know until you're all done. I wouldn't be surprised they're somewhere
between $40,000.00 and $65,000.00.
Emmings: Thanks.
Farmakes: In•your development if you sell the lot, you do the development
right?
Terry Forbord: Right. Lundgren Bros. primarily develops real estate for 1
it's own benefit. Over the years, the 22 years that we've been in
business, periodically some of the larger scale neighborhood communities
that we've developed, we've allowed a few builders that we've done.business
with and that are friends of ours to come in and build a home here and
there. This particular neighborhood community is quite small. It's only
35 homes that are for sale and the intent is for Lundgren Bros. to
construct all of the homes in,this particular development.
Farmakes: There was very little said tonight in regards to the wetland
that borders this area up in here. It's a different type of wetland.
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 50
1 Basically I believe the wetland picks up a majority of all these lots here
and then it goes up into there. The southeast corner of that. I'd like to
I see more information on that wetland. At least as much as you have on the
Class A wetland up above where it's marked #2.. The majority of the
discussion that we had there was in regards to that wetland. Your property
I and your development also borders that lower one. I'd like to hear more
information in regards to how that would be effected. The type of wetland
that it is and so on.
I Terry Forbord: Would you like to hear that tonight? The reason we focused
on the other one is because that one is...
I Farmakes: I understand that. I was just wondering, I'm assuming that one
is in better shape. That is the last one I believe before it gets into the
lake?
1 Terry Forbord: Frank's more qualified to discuss that than I am.
Emmings: It's just getting too late. I think what he's saying is he's
I interested in that and we're going to be asking you about it when we do
have the public hearing.
I Farmakes: I have just a couple more quick things. If we can put that
other schematic up.
Emmings: Take whatever time you want. If you want him to answer it now.
I
Farmakes: No. I just want to list it as a question. I don't need a
response right now but I would like to hear more about that. The schematic
1 that you had up prior to that.
Terry Forbord: This one?
1 Farmakes: Yeah. I guess I don't have any problem that you made a
, conserted effort to deal with the barriers that you could to the south.
There is a large wetland there and a lot of those lots look a lot larger
I than they really are in the Greenwood area. Greenwood Shores area. To the
north there's the highway there separating the two. I'm concerned to the
west and I'd like to see the proposed plan, the Coey development, that
I topography as it goes west is pretty dramatic. There's a lot of hills and
valleys and terrain is pretty severe topography. I would like to know, I
know that you're not going to develop the property to the west at least
I right now with this proposal but I'm concerned about what type of buffers
potentially could be there between homes in the $250,000.00 or $210,000.00
range that you said or the $150,000.00 to $210,000.00 and the types of
homes that go to the west. That really hasn't been addressed in these
I schematics. I'm a little concerned that that housing density goes right up
to the west there and I think there are slime natural buffers to the north
and to the south. To the'west there's thF_ highway there. Or excuse me, to
I the east. 5o in general I like the fact that it seems like a natural thing
for a PUD. At least the criteria that we discussed. I support that it's
being done that way. But I do have concerns about the density of it in
relationship to how it would work west. And that's it. That's the end of
my comments.
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
July 17, 1991 - Page 51
Emminggs: I can't tell from looking at the drawings that are in front of us '
how much actual area there is on a lot of these.lots. On the Exhibit I,
once you get the wetland in there and I assume that the purple line that's
on there is the wetland at the higher level that it's designed to be at .
after it's deeper. And then you get the wetland setback area: There's not
a whole lot of, it doesn't look like there's a lot of room on the lot and
I'm going to be interested to see what kind of ground we've got there. I
think it should be done as a PUD. I think you've obviously done a
tremendous amount of work trying to put something together that's
appropriate for the area. I don't think I have a problem with the density -'
but like Jeff mentioned, there's a lot of those lots look real big and of
- course they're going to be, there's a lot of wetland area. But I think it
should be developed as a PUD. Just one other question I have. There was al
comment made over here that, I don't remember who made it now. Maybe it
was Eric. But someone said that the problems with the amount of nutrients
that are in that area at this time is a vestige of it's use as an
agricultural area. Is that right? Can you maybe answer that one quick?
Is the problem that there were a lot of fertilizers or something on that at
one time that's still making that nutrient rich? Is that true?
Frank Svoboda: That certainly, what happens is there's only two ways 1
nutrients - can leave a wetland. Either it's flushed out with water when
'it's suspended or else when it's tied up in the vegetation. You come in
and cut the vegetation and haul it away.
Emmings: And if you don't haul that vegetation away, it recycles?
Frank Svoboda: It falls down and dies so it constantly recycles in the
system and continue to add more nutrients...
Emmings: Is there something you can do about that before you put this all II
permanently under water?
Frank Svoboda: Well we were somewhat facetiously talking about this the
other day. The suggestion came up to drain it and put corn on it for about
3 or 4 years and don't put any fertilizer on it. Take all the vegetation
off and you take all the crop off and basically the consequences is you tie I
the nutrients up in the growing material and then you haul it out of there.
And they've done this with cattails for example in some instances where
they've allowed the cattails to reach a certain stage of nutrient I
concentration and then come in and cut all the cattails off and haul them
away.
Emmings: You said facetiously right? ,
Frank Svoboda: Well the answer is you're not going to or you can't turn
that into a corn field anymore because it's a protected wetland. The
concept is that you do something like that. You raise a crop, whether it's!'
corn or cattails or whatever. That is r €'ily the only way to get rid of
that nutrient accumulation. You get it suspended in the water and flush it
out or tie it up in...and harvest it.
Emmings: So what's your plan then? What are we doing with that?
1
I Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 52
Frank Svoboda: The third alternative is to add more water with less
nutrients in it.
' Emmings: And then over time the hope or the plan is that that will what?
Frank Svoboda: If you reduce or stabilize the amount of nutrients that
I enter into the sy -t.em, then over some extended period of time, gradually
those levels will diminish.
' Emmings: Alright. And what about it continuing to be fed by back yard
runoff from the use of fertilizers?
Frank Svoboda: That's one of the benefits of the PUD is that you can
' increase that setback in the backyards and then you have that strip of
natural vegetation between the cultured lawn and the edge of the wetland.
So that standing vegetation that remains natural would catch, will
I intercept any nutrient rich runoff before it gets into the wetland. So by
going to the PUD concept you've accomplished two things. One is that
you've minimally reduced the amount of area that's cultured grass and is
t subject to fertilizatio-a across the entire subdivision. Secondly, you
would have this natural buffer that will pick up any of the nutrient rich
water and retain the nutrients there in the upland and hold it.
' Emmings: What's going in this natural buffer area? Is it trees? Shurbs?
Grass or all three or whatever? Whatever happens to grow there?
I Frank Svoboda: Well primarily right now, depending on where they're at,
it's either trees, variety of species or mostly grown grass.
' Emmings: So you're just going to leave what's there? Is that the idea?
Frank Svoboda: Right. And the other thing is, Terry's answer was, if we
raise the water level, we're going to increase or shift that zone of
' saturation so now it's canary grass and cattails and grown grass will turn
into canary grass or something else. In terms of I think a couple of
spots we did talk about introducing some other vegetation. One location
' was here where we have this curve in this public street and the idea was to
steepen this slope 2 :1. Make it 2:1 scope to minimize what encroachment
there might be into that wetland. Then the other offsetting factor would
' be some habitat landscaping.
Emmings: I can tell you one thing that's going to be of interest to us is
what kind of, how is that we're going to keep people from pushing their
I lawn mowers into the conservation area. Is there going to be a siren that
goes off when they do that because that's going to happen. It's happened to
us over and over.
I Terry Forbord: I'll just touch upon that briefly because that is something
that the City should deal with. Not just now but also in the future and
we've already dealt with that in a couple of areas. Some of them right
here in Chanhassen and very recent in Trapper's Pass 4th but in another
example would be in a neighborhood community that we've recently developed
in Plymouth called Bay Point on Mooney Lake. There's a number of things
1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 17, 1991 - Page 53
you do. Deed restrictions on each lot. Easements that run with the lot
and enforcement aspects that the municipality has.
Emmings: I think we've talked from time to time here about having
something that marks it on the property. I think that should be there. A
visible reminder to each property owner that what's beyond that point in
their yard isn't just theirs.
Terry Forbord: Additionally you know and this was raised at the
neighborhood meeting. I haven't shared with you any of the discussion that'
occurred at that. It was about a 3 1/2 hour meeting. I considered it very
productive. One of the people who live north of Lake Lucy Road in Curry
Farms shared with me afterwards, they said one of the things that was
frustrating for them was that there was never any informational packet
given to them so they knew what was occurring the day that they bought the
house. Well in all of our neighborhoods an informational packet is part of'
the purchase agreement as an exhibit that goes into detail all the
easements that exist on their particular lot. What they can and they can't
do. '
Emmings: Give them the packet and then tell them there's a test at the
end.
Terry Forbord: But that doesn't suggest that maybe we can't do a better
job and we're looking at that and we're trying to find ways to accomplish
the very things that you raise Steve so those are good points.
Emmings: Does anybody got anything else or can we leave?
Farmakes moved, Batzli seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor'
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11 :30 p.m..
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
.1
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION t, .,
x REGULAR MEETING • ,
JULY 23, 1991 '
il
Vice Chairman Andrews called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m..
11 MEMBERS PRESENT: Wendy pemrick, Curt Robinson, Jim Andrews, Dave Koubsky
and Jan Lash
1 MEMBERS ABSENT: Dawne Erhart and Larry Schroers
STAFF PRESENT Todd. Hoffman, Park and Rec Coordinator and Jerry Ruegemer,
II Recreation Supervisor
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Lash moved,. Koubsky seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated June 24, 1991 as
presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATION :
I - Hoffman: Item 2, I anticipated that Mary Kay Schmidt of Shadowmere
development would be here this evening. We had a conversation late in
June. She had made a request or inquired about a potential park property
within the Shadowmere development. At that I had asked her to write a
letter to the Commission in that regard. That letter was sent to the city
offices with Schroers name on it so they forwarded it then to Larry
II who's on vacation and did not retrieve the letter until this evening.. I
contacted her this evening; but was unable to get a conf= irmation so she's
not .here. I believe the Commission can`go ahead and review the request
II She has sent a letter and list of` ° residents showing their wishes. The
Commission can go ahead and review that and then make any recommendations +
as to how they would like staff to progress. We would like to research the
history of the Shadowmere development and why parkland was not taken at
II that time It's within the service areas of Carver Beach playground and
Meadow Green Park and Chanhassen Pond Park at the current time but it is -
somewhat isolated by the configuration of the road which leads into that
II area. - - -
Andrews: So is this something you need for us to move forward on today or
would you want to put this on a future agenda ?
Hoffman: Correct. I w ould just want some direction as to how Y ou would
: like to further pursue it and put it on a future agenda and then again I
II can contact Miss Schmidt and have her in at a future meeting.
Robinson: I think you said this was developed about 3 years ago. I think
I it'd be interesting to go back at that time and see what reason we did riot
take parkland at that time. To go and buy that type of property now seems
a little spendy.
II Lash: -- What's the estimate for the lot cost there?
Robinson: I think it's two lots isn't .t? .
, II Hoffman: Two lots that are shown. Ballpark, $50,000.00 would probably be
ballpark.
. r - -
11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 23, 1991 - Page 2
Robinson: Per lot?
Andrews: Todd, how close is this to the nearest park with playground and
II ballfield facilities?
Hoffman: Carver Beach or Meadow Green. Carver Beach playground or Meadow
II Green Park.
Andrews: And that would be about how close would you estimate? A mile?
II Lash: To go to Meadow Green from here wouldn't be.
Hoffman: It would be a parent with child type of activity.
II Lash: They'd have to go all the way down Big Horn and across Kerber and up
into Chaparral.
1 Hoffman: Correct. It is within the service area of 1 mile so it's well
within that.
I Koubsky: Has the developer been notified of this petition?
Hoffrnan: This proposal? To my knowledge, yes. As you can see, as noted
I on her map, Lot 11, which I believe that entire lot, the L shaped lot is
Lot 11. The entire lot is stated there for...park. Don Statton in
litigation with that because unbuildable lot because of the size, setbacks
1 and the nature of the grade.
Lash: Well after the 14th, if they're going to Court on the 14th, we maybe
would have a better idea the status of that lot and if it's declared
I
unbuildable, there's a possibility that maybe we would be able to acquire
it for, if they're supportive of this to start with. The builder, maybe
they'd be willing to just give it to us if they can't sell it anyway.
I Hoffrnn: I believe the development has had some difficulty in marketing
all those lots in that area so the development's not full.
' Andrews: How many other vacant, buildable lots are in this development
would you estimate?
1 Hoffman: I can't estimate that. Through the names, Lot 1, 2. It looks
like Tony Ediem has got, must be either a builder.
I Andrews: He's a builder.
Lash: He's a builder and he's the owner of 8 lots.
1 Andrews: Yeah, I would think we'd have a potential enhancement to the
builder's chances of selling his lots if we were to be able to put a park
in this area. So maybe it's a situation where we could help them and they
I can help us.
Lash: Especially if we had a canoe or a. boat access where people could get
II off of Lotus Lake. That would definitely be a selling feature.
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting 1
July 23, 1991 - Page 3
Robinson: Yeah, you notice that one in the corner is,there's 95 foot of
frontage there. I think that's what they said.
Lash: Or a small swimming beach or whatever. I would agree with Curt's
comments in investigating why it wasn't done in initially. Then after the
14th we'll have more information. Maybe after the 14th you could contact
the developer and see if you could sort of feel him out on his position.
Hoffman: Sure.
Lash: Personally I don't see that we've got $50,000.00 to •$100,000.00 to
spend on that. We need to have the background to let the residents know.
Is there a specific date Jim that you think that we wanted to try to
schedule this on the agenda?
Andrews= This is set to go up, the Court review date is when, the 14th of
August?
Hoffman: As stated on here.
Andrews: Okay, why don't we put this on the August agenda then for review
and see what progress, if any has been made in Court. I think until the
Court situation is done with, we're going to make no progress on this at II all. It has to be settled. I guess I personally, I feel that there might
be a real opportunity here to sort of, I hate to call it arm twisting but
I'm sure that the developer could see the benefit of having parkland in
this development. I would think that perhaps the land price could be
reduced because of that mutual advantage of that park. So let's put it on
the agenda for next month. Do we need a motion for that?
Hoffman: Yes. To go ahead and investigate it.
Lash: Okay, I would move that we direct staff to investigate the history
regarding this development of the park property and also to contact the
developer, Jim Fenning in regard to the status of Lot 11 in Shadowmere.
Robinson: I'd second it. '
Lash: And that would go onto the August agenda.
Lash moved, Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission '
direct staff to investigate the history pertaining to the Shadowmere
development; contact the developer, Jim Fenning in regard to the status of
Lot 11, Shadowmere; and to bring the item back on the August agenda. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW: LUNDGREN BROS /ORTENBLAT /ERSBO.
Hoffman: The location of the proposed de. »lopment as shown is in the
vicinity of Powers Blvd...and across from Lake Lucy Road. Encircled by
this dark boxed area. Just north of the Greenwood Shores neighborhood and
just south of Curry Farms. The proposed layout of that particular
development is in this configuration. There is a large wetland in this
11
11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 23, 1991 -- Page 4
II area...up in this area of the development. Mr. Terry Forbord with Lundgren
Bros. is here. Give him an opportunity to speak if you wish. He's here to
I answer questions that the Commission would have. Surrounding this
development is classified for single family residential. The adjacent
zoning currently includes Curry Farms again to the north, existing single
family to the south and east and then some large unplatted land to the
I west. The property does currently lie within the service areas of the
Curry Farms Park directly across the street, Pheasant Hill Park which has
yet to be developed and Carver Beach Playground. So it is served well by
I park property currently within the City. The trail plan identifies the on
street trail that exists along Lake Lucy Road. This trail abuts the
northerly border of this subject property. No trail links or loops are
identified in the Comprehensive Plan in relation to this particular piece
I of property. A trail connection to the south allowing access to Greenwood
Shores Park and Lake Ann Park would potentially be desireable because it
allows a quick and easy access to get into both Greenwood Shores and the
I trail system down to Lake Ann. However, accommodating that would be
difficult due to the lack of a current easement there at Utica Terrace and
Greenwood Shores area. So sufficient right -of -way via Lake Lucy Road is
I available to allow the future construction of an off street trail if that
was deemed necessary as Lake Lucy became increasingly busy from the future
development in that particular area. It is recommended that the Park and
Recreation Commission recommend the City Council accept full park and trail
I fees in lieu of parkland dedication and /or trail construction for the
Ortenblat and Ersbo subdivision due to the reasons I stated previously.
I Andrews: Terry, do you have anything more you'd like to add about the
development?
I Terry Forbord: I'm just here to answer any questions that anybody has.
Andrews: Okay, are there?
I Lash: I happen to live in Greenwood Shores so I'm familiar with this and I
guess I'm a little bit interested in the lots that will be backing directly
up to Greenwood Shores on that cul -de -sac shown there. Is that, is it not
I swampy up in that area?
Terry Forbord: If`I may, we have some exhibits over here unless they were
removed in the last 48 hours.
II Lash: I'm pretty sure from looking at this that 7, 8, 9 and 10 would all
be pretty wet. But I'm not up on the other end and I'm not quite sure.
I And will that cul -de -sac then come out very close to Utica Terrace? I mean
am I looking at this straight?
I Terry Forbord: I'll try to address all your questions. This is an aerial
topography map. It was done for the City of Chanhassen I believe in the
last 24 months the City did the entire city so they would have aerial
photos for topography. I'll turn this around so north will be up. This is
I Lake Lucy Road. This is the Ortenblat property. This is the Ersbo
property. Some of you may have been on the Park Commission long enough to
remember the Ersbo plat. We are replatting that property. It's kind of an
I unsightly plan... There are 6 or 7 wetlands on this property. Now
II
Park and Rec Co,., ,ission Meeting
II
July 23, 1991 - Page 5
II typically when you have a piece of property with wetlands, they're usually
concentrated on one part of the property. This is a very unusual assembly
of land in that the wetland happen to be scattered here and there. Some of II
them are very small. Some of them are probably just as small as the area
were standing in. I mean just right in this area. But nonetheless
because of the vegetation, the type of vegetation...wetland certainly need
to be dealt with accordingly. There's also steep slopes, vegetation and
some larger wetlands, houses, things like that, roads which make it a real
tough site to develop. ...is certainly more challenging than others but
down in this area, you can see in this lighted area, I-'m going to switch 11 exhibits here because this one is so difficult to see. I just wanted you
to see that. Same direction. This is north. This is the subject
property. This is the wetland down in the southeast corner and I believe ,
you were asking about this area?
Lash: Well, I know that that area down there is very wet and I was II wondering about around the cul -de -sac down there. That area.
Terry Forbord: There is an existing wetland right here and there is an
small little wetland right here and most of these wetlands, first of all
these wetlands were created by man... I know you...1 won't because it will
open up a can of worms and I can talk about this for 3 hours and it doesn't
have anything to do with planning parks but we are mitigating the wetlands II
so wetlands that have to be removed because of roadway right -of -way, we'll
be building new wetlands. And a lot of, we've hired the top people in the
region. Frank Svoboda who I believe is also being hired by the City of
Chanhassen to assist the City in their storm water management plan in II protection of their own wetlands...Needless to say, all these wetlands are
being taken into very careful consideration because it is sensitive. Any
area that has any wetlands in Chanhassen certainly has more than... But on
the layout and everything else has been, all those things that you just
mentioned have been taken into consideration.
Lash: So the cul-de-sac down in the bottom left hand corner, that would be II
close to Utica Terrace?
Terry Forbord: Utica Terrace actually...that shows where it is. This will I
probably be the best thing that I have here but there's a hill right here.
Utica Terrace is down in this area. Some of the residents from your
neighborhood attended the informational meeting that I had and... They II expressed very clearly that they do not want to have any trails connected
through their property. But I would imagine that there's a couple lots in
here...Utica Terrace I believe is a cul -de -sac that probably is somewhere
right in there. Approximately. Does anybody else have any questions?
II
Lash: My only other concern would be, and I realize that Curry Farms Park
is just going to be on the other side of Lake Lucy Road but if I lived in II
this development, I would not want my children to cross Lake Lucy Road to
get to a park alone. I don't know if that's something we want to, that's
more of a public safety thing I guess.
I
Terry Forbord: It's a concern though that I think anybody would have. In
any given situation. The other night I was at the City Council meeting
there was a lot of discussion about roads and safety and it's very apparent II
11
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 23, 1991 - Page 6
41
11 that those same concerns are felt by everybody everywhere. So I think
those are the type of things that are always challenging whether it would
be in this neighborhood or an existing neighborhood and it's one that
I
parents...to teach their children when riding on the street.
Lash: I just don't want that one to come back to haunt us in about 5 years
I when the people who live there are upset because their kids have to cross
Lake Lucy Road to get to a park.
I Andrews: How many total lots are we plotting here?
Terry Forbord: There's a total of 37 lots. Two of them have existing.
homes on them. This area is guided residential single family. It is the
I Land Use Guide Plan calls for that type of zoning. RSF zoning ranges from
a density of 1.4 dwelling units per acre. In this particular proposal
there's 1.24 dwelling units per acre so it's the very lowest. Now even if
I you took the wetland out, it would be 1.4 which is still low...
Andrews: These are larger than average?
I Terry Forbord: The size required in the zoning district is 15,000 square
feet minimum. The average lot size in here, if you incorporate all the
lots, and two of them have homes on there now, would be 30,000 square feet.
I I think if you took those two existing homesteads out. One of them is
fairly large. The Ersbo property. The Ersbo property, the only way and I
don't know if those of you are familiar with the current plat of the Ersbo
I property but there's just a cul-de-sac that comes in here. It's platted.
It's of record. They can start building there as soon as they get a
building permit if they would like to. It's an unsightly plat that has no
feel to it whatsoever and what we've proposed to do, really we acquired it
I
to protect ourselves because we didn't want something to go in there that
would hurt us. Plus the City, engineering and planning staff preferred to
have a loop road that would go like this so there was a connection versus
I just two cul-de-sacs. But because...the Ersbo property, the only way that
he would do the transaction would be if he had a larger lot. So I think
even if you took that out, you would find that these lots are probably
I 22,000- 23,000 square feet average. We're not trying to get as many lots in
here as we could. If we wanted that, you'd see more lots in here because
we could do them and do the zoning regulations.
I Andrews: Any other questions or comments from this commission? Would
somebody like to put forward a motion please?
I Robinson: Yeah I'd make a motion that we'd recommend the City Council
accept full park and trail fees in lieu of parkland dedication and /or trail
construction for this subdivision.
1 Andrews: Do we have a second? Can I second it? Am I allowed to do that?
I'll second the motion. Okay, any other discussion or questions or
comments before we take a vote?
I Lash: I guess I'm just not comfortable with the. I realize it's within
the service area and usually I'm not that greedy but I'm afraid it's going
1 to come back and haunt us if we don't acquire something.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 23, 1991 - Page 7
Pemrick: That's a lot of homes and a lot of potential. 11
•
Lash: What do you think? I mean I know it was your recommendation that we
not.
-
Hoffman: Based on the number of homes which would go in there, we would be II able to acquire, if it was gone ahead and looked at, less than 2 acres of
property. Again then that would drain our financial means of gathering
financial support for our park acquisition and development fund at that
point and obviously it would reduce the number of lots in that development. II
For the developer and the owners of the property. It is across the street
from, on Lake Lucy Road which is a major road. It's a major thoroughfare.
• It's a collector. It's busy today. It will continue to get more busy.
Curry Farms Park is just a stone's throw away. It's directly across the
street. If parents are concerned about their children, their families
crossing that street, this is a small enough loop road where potentially if
they want to send them there, they could walk them to the road such as they II
do at a bus stop. Follow them across the street. That type of thing and
return home. But again, in 37 homes it's not as large as Curry Farms but
again it is a good chunk of homes. There's going to be many families there II
and they're going to be crossing the street to Lake Lucy if there is not a
park there.
Robinson: Could there be signage or some kind of a traffic control put on II
Lake Lucy Road where they would be expected to cross which is at the
entrance there I suppose?
Lash: And that was a concern with Pheasant Hills from the people who lived II
on the south side of Lake Lucy Road too was their kids crossing to get over
to Pheasant Hills. And I don't know the different options that are
available in the public safety area. If it's something where they could
put up a crosswalk and a flashing light or speed bumps. I don't know what
can happen. I think we'd be kind of derelict in our responsibility to just
send this right through without giving that some thought because I think in II
the future it's going to be a problem.
Hoffman: We would need to take a look at that and address that with the
Public Safety Commission and with the engineering department. What kind of II
signage would be able to go into that area. The accesses are directly
across from Arlington Court which is a court. Devonshire Drive happens to
end up in the middle of the lot line there are you can see so it's not a
direct crossing from either the public street as it's labeled there either.
Those egress points.
Andrews: Terry, you had a comment?
Terry Forbord: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I didn't prepare II
a presentation for a number of reasons but I would like to keep a couple
things in perspective on this particular piece of property. There's a
total of 30 acres. The upland area is probably close to about 21 acres, if ;
that. I know you've heard these types of statements because and I'm not
telling you this. There's no smoke in mirrors in this statement. If 2
acres were taken out of this piece of property to have some type of park,
nobody would develop it. I would withdraw my application. The dynamics of II
11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 23, 1991 -- Page 8
11 a piece of property like this, when you have 30 total acres, gross acres,
where only 2/3 of it are useable because of the type of, there's so many
I wetlands on the property, the dynamics, the reality of it is the fact that
you couldn't put a park there and make it work. And there are a number,
I'm sure there are other parcels in this City that have a similiar
circumstance. I know you all have studied the comprehensive plan and had
II input in that. The Urban Service Area was just expanded to include all of
the land westerly along Lake Lucy Road and a great more acres of land that
is off Lake Lucy Road. There are some significant large parcels of
I property in those areas that will be developed sooner rather than later. It
seems more appropriate to me for this city to be able to have a park that
more people in the area could use. This piece of property will not develop
if there's a park on it. Not by Lundgren Bros. or anybody just because the
1 dynamics wouldn't work and I think that the staff realizes that themselves
because they deal with this stuff so often and I think that's probably why
they recommended that in lieu of a dedication of land, to be able to
I approve the plat and take the money and apply it to a park somewhere where
they can utilize it. Now the safety issue I think is an issue that needs
to be dealt with whether there would be a park here or not. Or whether
I there was a park at Curry Farms or not. My personal belief is that even if
there wasn't a park in Curry Farms, that there's going to need to be from a
traffic safety standpoint some crosswalks on Lake Lucy Road for people to
be able to cross. I mean that's going to be a given. I would certainly
I think that as development occurs, and it will along Lake Lucy Road, that
that method of allowing people to cross in a safe zone so to speak, would
be implemented.
II Andrews: Can you read back the motion we have in front of us?
Hoffman: The motion was made to approve the Ortenblat / Ersbo subdivision
II
recommending to City Council accept full park and trail fees in lieu of
parkland dedication and trail construction.
I Andrews: Let's call the vote. If it doesn't carry the vote, we'll
entertain a new motion.
I Robinson moved, Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that the City Council accept park and trail fees in lieu of
parkland dedication and /or trail construction'for the Ortenblat /Ersbo/
Lundren Bros. Subdivision. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
II Hoffman: To make one comment on the comment by Mr. Forbord. Staff does
not make recommendations based on the presumed hardship of developers so
I that would not be a reason for us to make a recommendation.
Lash: Did you say that you would then contact Public Safety regarding
' this?
Hoffman: Sure. We can run it through them to see as it moves through the
approval process what potential things we can be taking a look at to
1 potentially look to a crosswalk or some other type of safety signage.
Lash: I would certainly like to see that be addressed before people have
to come forward.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting 1
July 23, 1991 - Page 9
Andrews: The other comment I'd like to make too is that Lundgren Bros.
does have an interest also in seeing a safe crosswalk because that enhances
the value of their development so I'm sure there will be ample pressure
along Lake Lucy Road, both here and other areas where traffic is going to
develop where we're going to need traffic control. There's no doubt about
it. ,
Robinson: Yeah, is the property just to the west of this site undeveloped?
Hoffman: It's a large unplatted single family home. ,
SITE PLAN REVIEW: AMERICANA BANK.
Hoffman: This is a PUD amendment. Planned Unit Development amendment to II
replat a portion of Market Square PUD and for a site plan for a 7,740
square foot building, a bank on the property zoned PUD and located in the
southwest corner of West 78th Street and Market Blvd.. The applicant again 11
is Americana Bank. The location is just...City Hall being in this
location. The proposed bark being in the corner of the proposed
supermarket and shopping mall location. This particular piece of property II
is an out.lot. for that entire parcel. The layout as you have in your
packet, this is the site of the bank. This is City Hall up in this
location. 78th coming around and Market Blvd. going down with the bowling
complex across the street. The present zoning of this property is PUD.
The adjacent zoning to the north is Office Industrial District. To the
south is General Business. To the east is the Central Business District or in
our downtown and to the west again is the general business district.
Comprehensive plan identifies this property as lying within service areas
of City Center Park. Acquisition of additional parkland from this parcel
is not reasonable or desireable. The comprehensive trail plan does
identify the property as lying within the downtown business district and as II
in the remainder of the downtown, pedestrian walkways are to be installed.
Walkways are currently depicted on the proposed plan as bituminous.
However, all walkways in the downtown will be constructed of concrete and
both their architect and Americana Bank has agreed to that particular
point. Again it's very straight forward. The recommendation would be that
the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council accept full II
park and trail fees as part of this development. The trail fee credit for
construction of walkways is not deemed necessary as no credits have been
given in any previous cases of development in the tax increment district. II
Businesses located in this district are to pay full development fees.
Lash: Is the sidewalk also along Market?
Hoffman: As shown there, 1 believe it is. On the opposite side of the
street it is in bituminous but it would be on the west side in concrete to
lead down then in front of the supermarket and down to the bus shelter
which is across the street.
Lash: So concrete on Market or not?
Hoffman: Concrete on Market, correct. The trail which is just across the
street is presently bituminous.
1
II Park and Rec Commission. Meeting
July 23, 1991 --- Page 10
11 Andrews: Any other questions? Comments? Is there anybody here from the
audience here to speak on this issue? Can we have a motion please?
I Lash: I recommend that we accept full park and trail fees for the, what is
it, Americana Bank.
I Pemrick: I'll second it.
Andrews: I was just wondering as a friendly amendment if we could specify
II that no credit be given for construction of concrete sidewalks as per other
developments in the area. Is that okay?
Lash moved, Pemrick seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
I recommend that the City Council accept full park and trail fees as part of
this development. A trail fee credit for constrution of walkways is not
deemed necessary as no credits have been given in any previous cases of
II development in the tax increment district. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
I 1991 REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
Hoffman: Item 4 concerns the 1991 report to the City Council. I need to
I apologize. I believe this is probably what Don and Richard are here for.
This was the original memo which you received at the meeting prior. I did
change that memo and then upon leaving on vacation Karen finalized the
I packet and sent off my original memo. My new memo explained that this r
entire report of the 1991 report to the City Council is all part of the new
1992 budget process and as such would be included in that process as we
worked through it. It would just be premature formulating our report to
I the City Council concerning our 1991 activities until we get farther into
this budget process. However, did you both just come out of that
particular item or just out of general interest? General interest? Okay.
I And so if there's any points that either Don or Richard would specifically
like to see addressed in our report to the City Council along with their
1992 budget requests, we can hear from them tonight. Otherwise the
I Commission will discuss this further. Because the next item we discussed
or the sixth item when we discuss it, again our initial proposals for 1992
budget requests.
II Andrews: So this is going to be deferred then?
Hoffman: Correct.
' 1991 FOURTH OF JULY EVALUATION.
Ruegemer: In looking at the annual 4th of July Celebration, it's in the
II interest of our department to come up with an informational tool in
bettering the celebration for the next year. In gathering information and
as evaluation is compiled c` the actual events and the overall celebration,
I I would like to take a look at that but first I would like to thank all the
commission members that volunteered their time to make the celebration a
very well received to the community and very nice celebration. We have had
II heard a lot of good comments about the celebration and everybody seemed to
11
Park and Rec Col-dission Meeting 1
July 23, 1991 - Page 11
II enjoy themselves thoroughly. I'd just like to recognize commissioners who
were present in volunteering. I would like to thank them and I'd also like
to, I don't know if mentions here in the evaluation but I'd also like to II recognize the Rotary for a fabulous job they did also in working the
concessions up at the City Center Park. Lake Ann Park on Thursday and down
by the beach and also during the ball tournament on Saturday. They were
out there a number of hours and really did a very wonderful job. Everyone
was appreciative of concessions on the hot days that were along with the
celebration itself so. And also I'd like to briefly go through the
evaluation and I'd like comments or questions that any the commissioners
would have just to feel free to talk about those. So in looking at these
evaluations we go through each individual event and write down and look at
things that we ourselves, the staff would take a look at for next year in II
bettering those events and also comments that we hear from the public or
other staff members or anybody that really has any type of comment with the
events. With that information we compile this information to take an II overall look of the 4th of July celebration itself. How we can better it.
What type of things that we can do differently next time. Areas that we
can improve. With this information we put it in the file and come next
year as we're looking back on this, we can get a better grasp of what we're
doing as far as the setup and development of the 4th of July celebration.
So at this time I'd just like to open it up to the Commission members. Any
questions or comments that they would have concerning the 4th of July II celebration.
Andrews: The comments I got back from neighbors were extremely positive. I '
think this event is just going to snowball each year as more and more
people come and experience and see how much fun it is. I think it was a
lot of fun. I think a lot of people put in time. I wish I could thank
them all.
II
Ruegemer: If I could just interject here for a minute. If there's any
specific event that a commissioner would like to comment on, your comments
would be welcome.
Lash: I guess the carnival games, you said they were very popular. Maybe
an additional new game could be added. I guess I would go along with that. II
1 think they are very popular.
Andrews: Would there be any chance that we could obtain carnival rides of II
a little bit more advanced stage? They don't have to be that 200 foot
ferris wheel but the ones we have now are these little cars that go in
circles and they're good for kids up about 4 or 5 years old can be modestly II
entertained but there's not a lot for the 8 to 15 year old. I wonder if
there's something we can look into or if that's something we purposely
avoid...reasons or what. I think we're drawing a big enough crowd now for
this where we could probably attract a larger program of rides. 1
Hoffman: There's been discussion among staff the entire time that I've
been here that many of these town festivals go ahead and invite the II carnival ride type of vendor into their festival and carry some liability
but most anything does in life. If it's_looked upon as a favorable
addition, we could certainly investigate it and see what type of, obviously II that's a pretty time of the season or year for those folks and you almost
II
II Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 23, 1991 -- Page 12
11 have to step in line in which vendor we could get and how much it would be
but there's obviously plenty of room just to go from the warming house
north and thcn Spread them out along the grass. It would not have to be
1 on concrete or bituminous surface as in many communities.
Lash: One of the nice things about it now, I'm not saying whether I like
I the idea or not because 1 have to kick it around a little bit but one of
the nice things about it, my kids love it and they're in the 8 to 15 year
old range. They love the games and they love the music and they get to see_
I their friends from school that they haven't seen for a month. Another nice
thing that I've heard from people is it's a nice time. You can go up there
with your whole family. It's not expensive and if we did have a lot of
fides up there, that gets to be costly then when your kids are nagging you
I all night long to go on rides. So its one time you can go and do
something with your whole family and it doesn't cost you $50.00. You can
get by pretty cheap and my kids just love it. It's almost one of the
I highlights of their summer. They think that's really a ball having a band.
I heard one comment on the band and that was, it was a much bettor band
last year. 1 would say next year to publicize in the Bulletin the rain out
dates for the band. The fishing contest for the kids was great. I think
I they all, it does get crowded out on that pier and it was so icky that day
that there weren't that many willing to go in the water to fish. I don't
know what we can do about it but I see that was mentioned in here. Maybe
I there'd be another option for kids. I don't know. It's a good way to get
rid of the bullheads. What was the biggest one?
1 Hoffman: 2 pound, 6 ounce carp?
Lash: Yeah, Good way to get rid of all that junk - out of the lake.
1 Koubsky: I suppose my comment. I wasn't able to attend because of some
family scheduling but I do work with a lot of other people in the area who
got out and saw fireworks on Minnetonka and got out at Eden Prairie and the
I word was that Chanhassen had the best fireworks in the area. So just a
comment that was noted outside of our area that this was the place to see
fireworks.
1 Hoffman: Look out next year.
Andrews: Well it's not only the fireworks themselves are good. We've got
I an exceptionally good spot to show the fireworks. That's what makes it
half the fun. You have a beautiful beach and it was a beautiful night for
fireworks. Just ideal.
1 Hoffman: I was curious to see how the parking was going so we drove around
in the Cushman through the park and there was still parking available in
II the new section so it filled up nicely with that additional parking. In
past years we went ahead and did overflow parking out on Field #3 but it
wasn't necessary. And then departing the park afterwards went fairly
smoothly as well. I think it lasted about 20 minutes which isn't too bad.
1 Lash: Well I thought it was great. It was a lot of fun.
1
II
Park and Reo Commission Meeting 11
July 23, 1991 - Page 13
it
Hoffman: One comment that I'd like to make is that an Lash does deserve
the blue ribbon volunteerism award. She was there at every turn the
step and helped out just a tremendous amount. Without assistance we would
have had 3 much more difficult time pulling off the entire event.
Lash: Thanks Todd. I'll do the raffle again next year. I like that.
Ruegemer: That was fun wasn't it?
Lash: That was a good idea. Whoever came up with that. That was a good II
one. I think everybody liked that. Maybe we should set up a Bingo.
' Andrews: Did we liquidate our t -shirt inventory pretty good? ,
Hoffman: Fairly well. It was disappointing over past years. We've never
had that many t-- shirts left over. We put them on sale and left them up in ,
the lobby over the past 2 weeks. We'll pull them in now and save them for
next year for prizes and that type of thing.
Lash: Were you selling them on the 4th down at make Ann too? ,
Hoffman: Sold them at the entrance as they came into the park there.
They're a nice souvenir. You can't beat them but the public's just not II responding to it so potentially we may pull them out a year to the general
population for selling them but just have shirts for volunteers.
Lash: Yeah, maybe we could have some of them as the raffle prizes too.
You know that just brought to mind one thing. When we give those away as
prizes next year. I mean it's a nice prize except if you're a size 16 and
you get a size 8 shirt, you can't get really too fired up about that. '
Hoffman: Yeah, you've got to give it to your little sister or brother if
you even have one. The shirts aren't an item to make money. They're
purely a promotional memorabilia type of item for the event. So we'll need
to evaluate those sales.
Lash: They're getting to be my whole summer wardrobe. I've gotten 3 or 4 II
of them now.
Andrews: Any other comments?
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to commend staff on the job that they did. They
just literally ran their legs off and did well. I think besides the
enthusiasm... I'd like to thank them and the Commission...
Hoffman: Thank you Don.
1992 BUDGET, WORKSESSION. - 1
Hoffman: Item number 6 is a worksession for the 1992 budget process. At
the June 25th meeting we had an initial worksession. The results of that
discussion have been combined with a list tabulated by staff over the past
6 to 8 months. As things have come up we've jotted those down and included
them in this list. It's very easy to use this list in conjunction with the II
1
Park and Pe-c Commission Meeting
J u l y 23, 1991 - Page 14
1991 park inventory to go ahead and see what currently is in our parks and
what putent.ially is being proposed for 1992. Developments and improvements
to the park so we can kind of create that balance in both our old and new
II parks which we have here within -the city. Again this dialogue is
preliminary but it's a very vital step in the development of the capital
improvement program as we get closer to that timeframe where it needs to be
I firmed up. Having this in our vest pocket to go ahead and look back to is
a very valuable tool. The dollar estimates for each of these individual
items are not affixed at this time. Once we refine it somewhat then we'll
I go ahead and begin investigating with the commission the estimated dollar
amounts for each one of these particular improvements and continue to
refine it from there. A few additions prior to the start of the discussion
would be to Lake Ann Park. The omission of the conversion of Field #2 to a
I Little League field. That was approved by the Commission and we'll need to
go ahead and budget some dollars for that. My intent is to go ahead and
perform that project in house with our own staff and then as well to make
use of volunteers from the parents. I've heard to date there's a
consortium of about 10 parents who are willing to work on this particular
project so we'll take advantage of those folks as well. Then again on Lake
I Ann Park, 3 canoes are listed there. 2 as rental canoes and then one is
kind of a chase boat. Anytime we get into that boat, recreational vehicle
rental type of business, we need to have a chase boat for people who end up
on the other side of the lake and don't have the gumption to get back
I across the wind. I would propose to change that to 2 canoes for rental and
a small rowboat which is much easier to handle in the case of a potential
problem. It's easier to, not as potential for tipping and that type of
I thing when you border up to another boat. Then as well, this entire arena
of recreational vehicles there's the paddleboats, canoes, the watertryks
which are unbelieveably popular. Jim may as well get into sailboats.
What's the other ones? The surfboards with the.
Andrews: Wi ndsurfers .
I Hoffman: Yes, thank you. But there's another one as well which are
unbelieveably popular. The small kayaks where they're about 8 feel long
for 1 person and children as well as adults just love them. You get in and
I use a kayak paddle. Double edged kayak paddle including half a dozen of
those kayaks which come fairly reasonable and would be rented on a fairly
consistent basis would be desireable as well. Those would be the only
changes. Jim, go ahead and run through this in whatever fashion you like
1
with the commission and we'll go ahead and take notes.
Andrews: I guess what I'd like to do, if it'd be okay. To me one of the
I things we tried to do last year and carry forth into this year and
hopefully into next year is we were looking at some prioritizing of Lake
Ann and City Center Parks as being areas that we wanted to really try to
II complete. I don't know if anybody disagrees with that but I guess with
that in mind. Jan, if you don't mind, why don't we start with you and
we'll work it down the commission here. Items that you feel are important
or items that you feel would be as high a priority. We'll try to weed it
1 out that. way.
Lash: How about if we just did it one park at a time?
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting 1
July 23, 1991 - Page 15
Andrews: One park at a time? That's fine. Let's do that.
Lash: That would maybe be a little faster.
Andrews: Okay. Why don't we skip right to Bandimere? Well I" think we can
skip Bandimere Heights Park. Park sign I think is an obvious item. We're
going to do that for all parks.
Hoffman: Right. We're just picking up the ones that are left without a
sign. The things occurring at Bandimere Community Park are such things as
closing up of the well. Disconnecting the utilities from the buildings
which are there. Our parks maintenance in conjunction with the fire
department has taken down the barn. It was a severe safety hazard. I
They've taken down that and boarded up the building and will be using that
for training and that type of thing until such time as we start active
development in the area.
Andrews: The farm house is gone already or will be gone?
Hoffman: The farm house is boarded up. Will be used for fire training.
Smoke runs. That type of thing.
Andrews: I know at some point there was some interest in preservation. I
don't recall what that was but it's certainly an unsafe building as it
stands. Okay. I think we could move to Carver Beach Park as our first
park. I guess it says play area corrections. If you could fill us in Todd
on just a bit more detail there.
Hoffman: Carver Beach, this is the beach location on the south side. The
slide there is very steep pitch. It's a substandard slide installation. II We would go ahead and correct that and then there's no resilient surfacing
or pea rock at that particular play structure. It's just a very small play
structure but it still indeed needs border wood and rock surfacing in that
location. Then as well a potential.
Lash: Is this the one down by the beach?
Hoffman: Correct. Right down by the beach. Just below the parking lot
which the Boy Scouts constructed in that location.
Andrews: Is there anybody that has any additions or deletions for Carver I
Beach Playground?
Lash: As far as the spring animals go, do you have a real good feel for
age range over in that area because those are for pretty little kids.
Hoffman: There's a couple daycares in the area and other than that Carver II
Beach is really a mixed neighborhood. It's not a brand new neighborhood
which is attracting just the young fami1 -.-. There was the addition - to the
play structure added this year. The spring animals would be added just to II
add extra excitement to the particular play area. The swingset is, it's
old. It's still useful but it's not worth dumping in a lot of money to buy
new brackets and new swing belts and that type of thing. We could probably '
limp along in that particular swing there for another year. Just continue
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 23, 1991 - Page 16
1 to re-evaluate it on a year to year basis.
Andrews: I believe what I'm hearing is we have no deletions or additions
I
for that. Chanhassen Estates, park sign. Why don't we move to Chanhassen
Hills Park.
1 Lash: I look at that as somewhat a priority. Not that we can do all of
it. What would be the next phase?
I Hoffman: Again, Chan Hills is a perfect example that you're indeed
correct. We can't accomplish all of those but initial phase development
there included the play structure. The first phase of the play structure
and the volleyball court and it was not included in the 1991 capital
II improvement program so it potentially should be included in 1992. But it's
for the Commission to wrestle with.
I Lash: What do you think would be the next logical?
Hoffman: Ballfield construction because it has a major impact. Visual
I impact and as well it's less expensive than some of the other areas there.
The play area addition would be nice. You start to weigh it because it
does cost a little bit more money. They already do have play equipment. Do
they need additional equipment? Construction of the tennis court and the
I basketball court is a major undertaking. $35,000.00 depending on,
$25,000.00 to $35,000.00, depending on if we look at a single court, double
court or combination thereof of the basketball. Installation of trees, I
I believe it would be very beneficial in these parks, which 1 call cornfield
parks which were planted in corn 2 to 3 years ago, to go ahead and invest
some dollars in 2 to 3 inch caliper trees to be planted in specific areas
around the play structure and those types of things so we can get some
I diversity in our tree cover in a fairly short order and as well provide
some shade for those particular areas. I believe that is important. Then
again the park sign for identification.
I Lash: Just as a thought as far as a basketball court on these things go.
When we're putting in the little parking lot and stuff, would it be totally
I unsafe to just stick a basketball hoop up at the end of the parking lot so
when there's no cars there, kids could shoot baskets?
Hoffman: We denied that in two other instances. Rice Marsh Lake Park and
II Curry Farms Park.
Lash: You can't do that?
1 Andrews: I would think it's a liability issue. That'd be just really
risky.
II Hoffman: You're advocating or constructing a parking location and then as
well saying it's available for play by children which is a conflict of
interest.
I Pemrick: I've had a comment from two homeowners in Chanhassen Hills Park
saying they would like to see the next play area addition so for the record
' I think we should make note of that.
1
Park and Red Coh,,,lission Meeting
July 23, 1991 -- Page 17
Andrews: I'm kind of an ogre up here I guess. I look at we always come
back with these huge, huge budgets that we can't possibly finance so we
have to start cutting. To me what would make sense would be to put the
ballfield in and do the site grade work for the tennis court and basketball
court. Grade it out but don't install. And go ahead and put the trees in
after the grading's done so those have a chance to get going and you don't
have to come back in with heavy equipment to do the grading later. I
guess I would feel that the courts themselves would be deferred and
although there's a desire the playground equipment, I'm confident with some
of these other large projects we've got going. Especially Lake Ann. We're II
going to be really hurting for money this year to bring some of these
projects to completion. So I would say that should wait and that would
free up some funding for other projects that we put a high priority on. '
Lash: I would agree with that. Totally. I think if we looked at the park
sign, the trees and a ballfield for 1992, playground for 1993 and then II somewhere down the line after that the tennis court and basketball court.
Andrews: That's what I'm thinking. I guess I'm optimistic that with the
MUSA expansion we're going to see some cashflow changes here too hopefully, I
next year in particular but I would hope that that's going to create some
funding rather than more land. That's what we're going to need because
we'll have to go back and re-invest in some of these parks that we've had
to leave go for so long.
Lash: Do you think that that sounds reasonable? Just your initial
reaction as far as money for next year? '
Hoffman: Yes. Maybe a good point to discuss a little bit farther. What
some of the forecasts for our revenues and expenditures are. I believe we
discussed the last meeting, or the meeting before that revenues are they're
above last year but they're still behind our anticipated revenues. It's
not due to single family homes. It's due to the industrial commercial lag
in development which we're currently seeing. We have such things as the
supermarket and shopping mall coming through, we're going to see a big
boost which we did in some of the years of '88 -'89 and '90. Those type of
years. So we are somewhat behind. We are going to see a reduced budget. I
We had about $175,000.00 to work with. Initial reactions are we're going
to be closer to the somewhere just over $100,000.00 for 1992, Depending on
what we take a look at. How we close and again where the economy goes from
today's date. So we're going to be somewhat more restrictive. Again with
the Lake Ann shelter, with all the other projects that were hanging on the
table and we went ahead and initiated those projects...next year plan II accordingly but again we're still in good shape to continue development of
our parks.
Koubsky: That's my approach. Like the Chanhassen Hills Park and the II totiot or additional play areas. I think it's important to at least give
everybody in town something. Everybody has a phase I and other lots don't
have a phase I and money should be directed to empty parkland. Even if it I
comes to ballfield construction or even adding, I'd like to see movement
ahead on each of the facilities. But I think it's very important that that
park area that doesn't have anything on it should at least move ahead and
get something on it. ,
1
II Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 23, 1991 -- Page 18
11 Lash: You're going to come back with figures right?
Hoffman: Correct.
I Lash: So then we'll have to chop it some more anyway.
I Andrews: We had our big wish list. Now we're going to get our small wish
list and then we'll go to reality after that.
I Hoffman: This list however compared to last year's is somewhat reduced
already. Last year we started real high.
Andrews: But you just talked about a 75% cut in funding. I mean that's
I really going to cut it down to the bare bones. I also have a concern about
our capital fund. I think we've hit into that heavy and I don't want to
see anymore deterioration on it.
1 Hoffman: Correct, and we have reserves left in there for Minnewashta
parkland and those types of things.
1 Robinson: But I think this is the right process. To start with a real
wish list and keep narrowing it dowry.
I Andrews: Well you have to to help you prioritize. Okay, let's move on to
Chanhassen Pond Park. Kerber Boulevard enhancement. Is that a significant
cost project?
1 Hoffman: No, that would include, as you walk along the trailway which is
almost a boulevard trailway, to incorporate a couple of picnic tables with
a cement slab underneath them for securement so that area can be enjoyed.
I
Andrews: That sounds like perhaps an internal project that's going to just
sort of appear magically?
I Hoffman: Correct. And with the purchase of a couple picnic tables.
I Andrews: Let's leave that one as is I think.
Lash: I wouldn't classify that as a real high priority.
1 Andrews: No.
Lash: It's going to cost that much to start with if we have to start
1 chopping.
Andrews: City Center Park.
I Koubsky: I guess I have a comment on here. Being with the playground
committee, we did pick out a very nice playground set for that addition.
The problem was that was brought up at the last meeting, was a little more
I funds were used for the development of the area than originally anticipated
and what we had ended up for the play equipment was nice but it wasn't
nearly the amount we would have liked to have spent on it. I think if
I there was one area that we needed to add play equipment this might be the
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
II
July 23, 1991 - Page 19
one. Just from the useage it would get compared with a ne ighborhood lot. It
It is a school. However it is a park and I think all the kids there are
going to almost overuse this equipment. I think it will probably be
presented...Todd with the final plan we had approved for the Commission's
approval?
Hoffman: Correct. Again, I apologize. It was not included on the agenda 1
this evening. I did bring the plan to present during Commission
presentations to the Commission. If they'd like me then to follow up and
include the entire package for review in administrative packet at another II time, I'll go ahead and do that. The time line, it was the commission's
wish to go ahead and review that prior to approval but the time line in
. this project was just unbelieveably crunched and we were going day to day II
and hour to hour to get this part of the project completed so we could
accomplish this part. Calling meetings 3 days in advance and that type of
thing to get all these particular portions of the project approved.
So I'll have a chance this evening to present the board to you concerning
that west area playground. My other comment is I included in the
administrative packet for this evening's meeting a news article on the
slide 100 feet long connecting different play areas which is a joint II project between the City of Chaska and the School District. I just
included an asterick near the funding portion, the last paragraph of that
showing the funding there. The school was much more favorable in funding II that particular project. In fact it's an exact flip flop. They funded
about how much we did on this particular project for Chan Elementary and
the school district funded the...that location. So it has been the history
of development of City Center Park to be about an even 50/50 split between I
the School District and City. The School District is not able to
accomplish that this go around. However, the Commission and Council was
happy to go ahead and initiate the project. However, it would be my
opinion that we should be looking to the school district to pick up some of I
this tab in the future as well.
Lash: At the last meeting I think I recall you said that you had some cost II
savings by having staff do certain things. Has that already been spent
now?
Hoffman: The cost savings? The cost savings were incorporated into there I
so we could accomplish the project. There were such things as pulling out
the line. Painting and now the school's agreed to do that. Reducing the 1
border wood from a redwood edging border which we use on our play
structures down to a green treated pine material.
Lash: So I think there was something like $15,000.00 or something. Has
I
that now been used by more play equipment?
Hoffman: Correct. The total figure for play equipment on the west side is II
$10,000.00. For the purchase of actual play equipment. The remainder of
that went towards land development and those drainage improvements and
those type of things. We had to scrape and scrounge for it to come up with
that $10,000.00. 1
Lash: Even with the $15,000.00 savings, you only spent $10,000.00 in
equipment? 1
1
II Park and ho=c Commission Meeting
July 23, 1991 - Page 20
1 Hoffman: Well the savings were not potentially savings but cost reductions
in the overall project to get that back down.
II Lash: We don't get much for slo,000..00.
Hoffman: We'll go over that this evening.
II Lash: I work in the same building with the administrators and
superintendent and we're like this. But when I read that in that article
II that just made me sick to think that they gave the Jonathan School
$75,000.00 for play equipment and would give us nothing.
Hoffman: $2,000.00 was what we ended up with.
I Lash: Sometime when I see him and he looks like he's in'a good mood or
something, I'm going to approach him and just ask him what the deal is.
1 Andrews: I hate to be ungracious but I feel that was a real slap. A real
major slap. That's sort of like well, we'll give it where we have to but
I where we don't, well let's see how much we can get from Chanhassen. I
could see maybe a $2,000.00, $3,000.00, $4,000.00 difference but that's
incredible. It makes me somewhat angry to think that that's, you know I
think we have a very desireable project with a lot of benefit. I feel like
I that just wasn't right.
Lash: I'd just like to know where they got the $75,000.00 to do it. I
I mean I've been at School Board meetings and you go in there and ask for
something and there's never any money. I mean it's like everywhere else.
There's never any money for anything that you want to get and then they got
$75,000.00 for play equipment.
I Hoffman: The money was, in my opinion or my impression land locked for
that new school project so it was tied into that. The new school funding
II package.
Lash: That was part of the referendum. Do you think it was built into the
I referendum cost?
Hoffman: I don't have any.
II Andrews: For me personally the play equipment is a higher priority than
the hockey improvement at this point. I feel like if we had to defer
another year with our hockey rinks and the condition they are and our
I warming house, the condition it is in, we could do that. I just keep
looking down at Lake Ann and I see a huge project there and most of that to
me looks like if we don't try to do it all at one time, that we're really
I not doing the, right thing.
Lash: Also the warming house improvements, what else needs to be done to
that?
I Hoffman: The warming house is to a point where it's not worth making a
major investment but if something comes up on an annual basis that needs
11 some attention, you know a $500.00 item or less. That type of thing. It
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting 1
July 23, 1991 - Page 21
was the new furnace was installed. The shingling of the building this
fall. The foundation is beginning to rot up from the bottom and it's a
building which will reed attention in the not tdo distant future but we
just need to patchwork it now to get by. The hockey rink replacement again 11
is an item which was incorporated into the whole City Center Park
improvement project but was taken out of the 1991 improvement package
because of funding. The rinks are the only two hockey rinks within the
city of Chanhassen. They're the only two hockey rinks that we offer.
They're used for practices and pick -up games. They're not used for
official games because of the access to the community center and other
indoor ice sheets within the area. So it's a difficult position because
again they are our only two rinks.
Andrews: I'd just like to re- emphasize that to me the Lake Ann Park is the II
priority. It's our showpiece. It's going to require a huge amount of money
to get it going and I guess I feel like if we've got a functional hockey
rink and a functional warming house there, let's make it go one more year
and try to divert that money to Lake Ann and provide all the necessary
additional items that are going to be needed to get that up and running
next year and hopefully by doing that, yes we'll have incurred a lot of
expenses but perhaps we'll have enhanced the revenue generating ability of
Lake Ann too to help pay back some of those expenditures. For what it's
worth.
Koubsky: When this says hockey rink replacement, was that the realignment
of those Todd?
Hoffman- No, just the replacement in their current position. The '
realignment then would incorporate removal of the poles and re- installation
and the re- wiring.
Koubsky: Have they got new boards?
Hoffman: The hockey rink replacement would include the dismantling of the II
present boards and either constructing new from scratch or purchasing a
package.
Lash: So if we don't have any money in there we won't have any hockey
rinks at all?
Hoffman: No. They'll continue to be maintained in their present and
repaired and maintained and used in their present state.
Andrews: Is there anybody here that would like to speak against deleting
the hockey rink replacement and warming house improvements at this point?
Then let's cut that for budgetary purposes. I mean keep the notes handy
but let's see where that leads us.
Lash: Postpone that for 1993? -
Andrews: Postpone that for later. Okay, let's skip to Herman Field Park. II
Oh pardon me. Is there anybody that wanted to speak against additional
play equipment for City Center Park. Alright, now we can move on. Herman
Field Park would be the next one that has significant activity. 1
11
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 23, 1991 - Page 22
II Lash: Can we back up to Curry Farms?
Andrews: Sure, park sign.
I Lash: Yeah, but did they get something this year? Did we spend any money
there this year?
II Hoffman: $10,000.00 was budgeted in 1991. Play area expansion is just
being finished up this week. They're going to be subcutting the trail, the
I extension of the bituminous walkway within the next week and putting in a
ballfield. 5o the walkway is going to be advantageous since in the spring
that area is so wet at.times, that were only going to put the aggregate at
an even level with the grade there and then apply that bituminous on top of
I that so when it receives a large amount of rain you should be able to walk
the walkway there and_ make use of the park. Out there today talked to two
different neighbors and they're very happy with the activity that's going
I on there. Glad to see that the trailway was going to go in there. The
kids Big Wheels and tykes and bikes and walks around the parkway. Excited
about the new play equipment and looking forward to the ballfield as well.
I Lash: So you feel they'll be content next year? -
Hoffman: Yes.
II Andrews: Herman Field.
I Lash: You had a rough estimate of about $50,000.00 didn't you for this? Y
Hoffman: Herman Field is receiving $50,000.00 in improvements with the
access road in 1991. Pre - -construction meeting is being held early next
I week. Initiation of that project was held up due to Wetland Alteration
Permit process which we needed to go through. So that $50,000.00 includes
the construction of that roadway and the grading of the open area of the
I park. Restoration of that area and as well blacktopping and asphalting of
the roadway and then the parking lot. Then come next spring, it's going to
be a road with a parking lot and a barren field so that's where we need to
I pick up in 1992.
Andrews: I would think a ballfield would be a natural with the grade work
out there. Do you agree with that Todd?
I Hoffman: Sure.
I Andrews: I think we get our most efficient thing for a buck by doing it
right at the same time.
I Lash: Do you think that we could trim it to the play area, picnic tables
and ballfield construction for next year and hold off on the trail and
boardwalk?
II Robinson: Yeah. -That boardwalk has got to be costly doesn't it?
Andrews: I'm not convinced that's a great idea anyway.
II
II
Park and Rec Co; Fission Meeting
July 23, 1991 - Page 23
Lash: I think it's a necessity. We talked about it at the last meeting.
It's so you can get the trail through the wetland.
Hoffman: It's a split issue. It's fairly short but it is expensive 1
material. Same material which the swimming raft is made out of at Lake
Ann. It's the best there is in the industry and if you fool around with
wood and Styrofoam, you replace it in 3 years. It's really a split issue II
here because the park all along has been spoken of as a natural area to get
away. To take a walk. That type of thing. The superdeck floating
boardwalk and the trail construction were included as alternates in this
year's contract. There was not enough money to go ahead and take those
into consideration but they're very highly ranked by the neighborhood in
the surveys which were taken in that area. So if we went that way, it shys '
away from what we traditionally think of as initial phases in development
of the park.
Andrews: What's the nearest ballfield that is available to that
neighborhood?
Hoffman: Across the highway at Minnetonka Intermediate.
Andrews: So quite a ways then really.
Hoffman: They're isolated. '
Lash: Maybe what we could do is, either do the trail and the boardwalk or
the play area, picnic tables and ballfield construction. 1
Hoffman: The trail construction is, it's really a no cost item. I
seriously doubt we'd have to rent any equipment. We have equipment which
can handle that. It would just be a matter of staff time to accomplish
that. But if you construct the trail and it deadends at the wetland area,
you need to purchase the boardwalk to get across.
Lash: Could that be an Eagle Scout project? Or not?
Hoffman: Again, then we would need to revert back to the wood construction
and it would cost us $4,000.00- $5,000.00 in material and we would need to
replace it at some point in the future.
Andrews: But you're saying the neighbors near there expressed a definite II
preference for trails rather than a play area?
Hoffman: It was a high priority but again, they'd like to see it all done. II
Lash: Maybe what we could do is, like I said either one or the other but
get input from the residents before we actually start anything as to which II
they would rather see in there first. Tell them we can do one or the other
but not both next year.
Andrews: It is a unique park in that it could be one of our few wild `parks II
where there is a walking trail and that could present something different
to the whole city. I mean most of our parks are the totlot, the ballfield,
the tennis courts and the basketball hoops and like you say, it's a '
1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 23, 1991 - Page 24
II cornfield 3 years ago and now it's a park. 1 think Jan maybe has a good
idea. We've got x number of dollars. Maybe we get a little bit better
input and it's going to be either or. Not both situation. So I guess 1
II feel, why don't we group the first two items together and the last 3 items
together and get a figure on those two as a group and see if you can come
back to us with that and see what we come up with as an estimate there.
1 Hoffman: We'll take a look at that. The play area, if it's a small
initial phase, can end up in like the $8,000.00 range. Ballfield
I construction is again accomplished by park maintenance staff and includes
the purchase of the aggregrate. Purchase of the bases. Purchase of the
backstop. So it takes some dollars. It takes a considerable amount ofi
staff time as well. So again, as we look through this we not only have to
1 look at, we're severely maximizing the use of our park maintenance
personnel this year in installing equipment and doing park improvement
projects as well as park maintenance projects and the phone calls are going
I to begin to increase as we get closer to the end of the summer and
residents are not seeing their particular playground installed and that
type of thing. So we need to look at both aspects. Both our available
I resources and dollars and our available resources in work force as well.
Koubsky: As far as a questionnaire approach Todd, last year did you guys
do something similar where you had kind of a list of wants and solicited
1 the local public opinion for what they'd like to see?
Hoffman: The list is compiled through the knowledge of the Commission and
1 staff from the public comment heard in the past so there's not a general
solicitation from the public to go ahead and receive.
1 Andrews: We did that survey though. What was it 3 years ago? 2 years
ago?
Hoffman: Yes.
1 Andrews: And it's pretty predictable. I mean the basic survey is you want
everything. Then it's just a matter of well because you can't have
I everything, what are the things you really want. And it does seem to boil
down to the play areas are always high. Then the ballf'ields. Multiple use
ballfields. But I look at Herman Field here again as kind of a unique wild
area. Perhaps this might be an opportunity for us as a commission to
II present an alternative type of park.
Hoffman: That's how it initially was presented and then again, the
1 neighbors liked that idea but we don't have a play area. We don't have a
Ballfield so we went for the mix.
1 Lash: And as far as ballfield, that was basically just an open area where
they could play catch.
Andrews: We can provide that without doing anything.
1 Lash: Yeah but so then do you think the ballfield construction could be
lumped with the trail construction more or do you think the other breakdown
II is better?
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting 1
July 23, 1991 - Page 25
Hoffman: (gain, as Jim was just eluding to, like the Pheasant Hills survey II
stated, they don't necessarily want formalized ballfield right off the bang
so the ballfield construction we could relabel that and just say open field
and it would be done in this year's contract. Leave out the $2,000.00 in
material that it would take to construct the formalized ballfield.
Andrews: Do you recall what the superdeck estimates were? They were
II
fairly high?
Hoffman: They were fairly high 1 believe. I guess in the $8,000.00 range. II
$6,000.00 to $8,000.00 range.
• Lash: So that would be comparable to playground equipment?
I
Robinson: I thought it'd be more than that.
Pemrick: I did too. I thought we were looking at $30,000.00 or
II
$40,000.00.
Robinson: So did I.
1
Hoffman: No. $10,000.00 would be a cap.
Andrews: I'm leaning towards the idea of emphasizing the wild aspects of II
this park as being quite different from most of our other city parks.
Having that be the funding priority but I still think it would be a good
idea to look at this as an either or basis and maybe get a little more
II
feedback. If there was a strong neighborhood opinion that if we have a
choice between a wild trail or a totlot and a ballfield for our kids, we'd
rather take our wild kids to the totlot than take a hike in a wild park.
Koubs ky : I agree.
Lash: But maybe the open field would kind of be, it could go with either
II
one if that's not a big cost item.
Andrews: And that's going to be done anyway now this year so we'll have a II
flat area.
Lash: Oh, did you say you're going to do that this year?
II
Hoffman: The ballfield area will be constructed, or open field area will
be constructed in a level manner and seeded. II Robinson: Maybe it'd be helpful Todd if we could see the 1991 items that
are either planned or are completed. And maybe we could then also time
phase these if we can't do it next year. Instead of just looking at 1992, II
push it out and say we're going to do this part in 1992 and this part in
1993 and this part of 1994 and kind of make it a long range plan or at
least a 3 year plan.
Hoffman: The next go around we can go ahead and take a look at the 5 year
layout that is incorporated in your park improvement, capital improvement
budget. 1
II
II Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 23, 1991 -- Page 26
II Robinson: I think that would be helpful.
Andrews: Let's move on to Lake Ann. I think we've rehashed that one
II enough- Todd, you made a comment about the sailboats like I guess I'll
surprise you and say let's not jump into that too quick. I think the chase
boat aspect and the organizational aspect of trying to put on a sailing
I program is more than you'd want to do all in the first year. Looking at
this lengthy list here of items, that's got to be a lot of money. I guess
the one comment I have and I don't know what the ordinance is on Lake Ann.
If we would be allowed to have a gas powered motor so in the event of a
I rescue situation, we don't have a dead battery. I, guess I look at electric
motors are quiet but when they're out juice, they're out of juice. You
aren't going to move. At least with a gas powered motor you can make the
II rescue if you've got to make it.
Hoffman: You're correct. I thought on both items, either one is going to
II have to be removed from the boat and stored securely in the building. We
can go ahead and take a look at the particular ordinances on a gas powered
boat.
II Lash: The DNR uses a motor with gas.
Hoffman: I don't foresee that there would be a problem with it.
II Lash: But if it's a real emergency and you have to go into the store room
and get the motor and take it out and strap it on the boat, you're going to
II be dead.
Hoffman: Yeah, you'd want to do that each shift. In the morning you would
prepare the boat. Either put the trolling motor and battery in or the
II outboard motor.
Andrews: You wouldn't need a very large motor. I mean a 5 horse ought to
II be plenty.
Lash: I thought when we talked about food we kind of had it boiled down to
1 just cold things and snacks and stuff so do we really need to have a
microwave?
Hoffman: It's included just for discussion. If you want to do the
I rnicrowaveable hot dog, sandwiches, that type of thing or if you would like
to see that incorporated at a future date if demand is there. That type of
thing.
II Andrews: I'd like to see it left. I guess I feel a little fancier for
product sales. You're looking at $150.00- $200.00 for a commercial grade
microwave.
II
Lash: Yeah but then you've got to start buying the food and if people
don't buy the food, then we're using up food that you're buying that
II nobody's. I just don't know if there's going to be a demand for it and I
don't think we'll know that until we've done this for a little while to see
if people come up and say. what do you mean no hotdogs? No hot pretzels.
II No whatever they want and I wouldn't want to be stuck with a bunch of food
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting 1
July 23, 1991 - Page 27
that isn't going to move because that kind of stuff you can't keep for a
long time as opposed to like bagged popcorn or chips or some of those kind
of thingE. last a little bit longer.
Koubsky: We kind of discussed just having bagged treats and cold pop.
Lash: Yeah. Just kind of simiple to start with and then go with whoever's II
working there, if they get a handle for what people are requesting. Take
it from there.
Koubsky: Yeah, I think it's okay to move slow into the concession aspect II
in this thing.
Lash: And as far as the rental boats, I guess I'd like to keep it to the II
pretty basic things that the average person knows how to use and not get
into some of the things that you mentioned I've never heard of before.
Andrews: Do you know what the difference between paddle boats and water
trikes are?
Hoffman: The paddle boat? ,
Andrews: The paddle boat and the water trikes?
Hoffman: Paddle boats, those boats where people sit in there and paddle
them. The water trikes are, you take a regular trike. Enlarge it. Put on
huge wheels and then the back tires spin. Where you have water trikes and
paddle boats, the water trikes go first.
Andrews: Yeah, I guess I feel like we're offering or attempting to offer
too many selections as far as types of boats.
Lash: The water trikes seats one person?
Hoffman: Two people.
Andrews: You said water trikes go faster than paddle boats? 1
Hoffman: Yes. But then again they appeal to the different groups. The
kids can take those water trikes. Right now an elderly person would much II
rather perfer a paddle boat. The paddle boats are going to go out for a
number of reasons. Recreation. A person's going to go out and read a book
and cast a line in. Water trikes are for real active type of recreation.
Lash: How are you going to control the number using those things?
Hoffman: The access dock will be there with the equipment chained to the
dock or else brought up in the shore area there which will be incorporated.
When they check them out they check out, ,le people are there at the
counter. They check out their two life ,;—_kets. Whatever they need for
their equipment and the boat is unlocked and off they go. A friend swims II
up to it and jumps on out in the lake, then you have a potential problem.
1
1 Park and Roc Commission Meeting
July 23, 19(3'1 - Page 28
Andrews: I want to make one comment. This has to do with Lake Phalen
which is where I've seen their rental operation. From what I can remember,
the; don't rent canoes and I think there's probably two reasons for that.
I One is that you do have to have some knowledge of how to paddle a canoe in
order to do properly. To return it back to where you need to go. I think
a paddle boat or a water trike, I think anybody can master that very
I quickly. I think the other thing is capsizing and rescues. I would think
that canoes just are much more likely to be capsized either accidentally or
perhaps on purpose by people looking at a hot day to have some fun and I
think that's going to create a lot more demand for us to go out and get the
II swamped canoe. Drag it back in. Pick them out of the water. It's not
that I'm against canoes but I think from a rental standpoint, it could be a
bigger headache than they're'worth. I think also a lot of people, they do
I own canoes but very few people would own a water bike or a water trike.
They could perhaps have more of a desire to rent something like that.
I Lash: How about the storage aspect of those things?
Hoffman: Storage of these, the building that is currently at Lake Ann, the
tin shelter, is beyond it's capacity and Dale Gregory would be proposing a
I second maintenance building. Pole barn building at Lake Ann in his 1992
budget request. The building which is currently there...you should go
ahead and purchase the equipment just to fill out the purpose and the
II intent of that building as a rental center. Concession center so the
equipment is necessary but again, canoes. You're going to want to ask the
people if they've ever canoed. If the person taking up the rear has ever
II steered a canoe or paddled a canoe. Life jackets are going to be required.
That type of thing. And again you do lose control of those people.
They're on the other side of the lake and they want to take a life jacket
off and take a swim. Those types of things.
II Robinson: I would agree with you Todd. I think we should have a little
variety to start with and see what goes.
II Pemrick: I'd agree with that.
Andrews: Should we get some estimates back as is and work from there?
I Hoffman: Sure.
Andrews: The microwave I sort of see where yeah, there's a concern with
hotdogs not selling but to be quite honest, I can't imagine a park not
being able to move a few dozen hotdogs every day regardless of what the
I weather conditions are like. And I look at the difference between buying a
microwave or not buying a microwave. If we decide not to sell hotdogs it's
not a very big factor in the big scheme of things.
I Hoffman: The refrigerator will be there and the vendor, the food vendor
who is chosen will vend all these particular items so you can order
respective amounts and increase the order or reduce the order by a weekly
II basis. That type of thing.
Robinson: Was some of this covered in the building Todd, like the water
II and electrical hook -up?
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting 11
July 23, 1991 - Page 29
Hoffman: Water and electrical hook -ups of the ballfield concession II
building were not covered. That would include, this is for the separate
building up through the ballfield. We are running water and electrical
service right by that' building and it makes good sense to go ahead and hook
it up.
Andrews: There's another opportunity, if we're not selling hotdogs at the I
pavillion, take them down to the concession stand and believe me they'll
sell down there during a ballgame. Even if it means bringing hotdogs in
portable coolers. I'm sure we'll get use out of it. -
II
Robinson: I think it would help to get some dollars attached to this. Boy,
some of these are really expensive and some of them are.
I
Lash: But some of them are just necessities.
Andrews: The way I look at this whole budgetary process is, it's going to II
be Lake Ann and then whatever's left over. How far will it go is kind of
the way I look at this. I think with some dollar figures here, will give
us a better idea how bin of a pile of money are we going to put into Lake
II
Ann. If it's just too disproportionate, we're going to have to cut back
there. Spread it around a little bit.
Koubsky: I guess I see Lake Ann as important and I wouldn't disagree with '
that but if we're at that limited of a budget, I would also hate to put all
my money into one park. It's a big city. There's a lot of new
I
development. There's a lot of new areas. People don't always recreate
down at Lake Ann Park and I think we need to keep into consideration the
entire city. It's an important project but I hate to start getting pigeon
holed and start putting all my money, limited funds into one location where I
there's other locations that obviously need work. So I'm not saying I'm
against any improvements to Lake Ann but I don't feel that Lake Ann is the
number one priority and everything is second hand. I think we need to go
on it as a systematic method and before we reach decisions, figure out what
everybody else reeds and where our budget lies..
Lash: I agree with that Dave. Even as far as setting this up for next
I
year. The building is going to be there. The building is going to be
nice. There's essentials we have to have. The lifeguard equipment. The
first aid equipment. Really personally I don't think any of the other
things are that necessary for the very first year. I mean with construction II
schedules and I know we want to try and have it done at the beginning of
the season but if you look at history, boy there's a lot of projects that II don't get done on time and we pigeon hole all our money to buy the rental
things and food things and all that and then it doesn't get going right
away, and I'm down across from Lake Ann beach a lot of days during the week
and a lot of days there's hardly anybody over at that beach during the week II
so I kind of hate to sink all of our money into supplying concessions and
rental things for the weekends and that's what it's going to boil down to.
I think.
Hoffman: Again, when we attach some dollar figures you'll be able to get a
better handle on it. The things such as the dock for the rental boats,
I've tossed around. There's been discussions of the lifeguards, are the
II
1
I Park and flee Commission Meeting
July 23, 1991 Page 30
II docks which are currently in the swimming area necessary? They're there.
Children jump off of, lifeguards guard off of them but in many beaches
there's no docks. We could use one of those docks for this rental dock.
1 Andrews: Some cities remove the docks because they don't want them there
for people to get caught underneath and not be useable.
II Hoffman: Correct. Correct, and again we are going to be working with a
somewhat reduced budget and I'll be able to bring in a better figure back
later on in the fall but we've accomplished and are in the process of -
accompli ahing a tremendous amount of capital improvement in 1991. Those
parks which received those improvements are not going to be able to, don't
need to see improvements in 1992 so the ratio of what we're going to get
I done is going to be about the same in 1992.
Andrews: tAJhy don't we try to get a lot more detail in particular on the
II concession area of Lake Ann and the boat items. 1 guess those are the two
items that 1 look at as, if we had to cut some corners, that's where we
could cut it from.
I Lash: From the first year anyway.
Andrews: - Yeah. 1 somewhat agree with Jan that the first year the public
II knowledge of what's there isn't going to be fully achieved and 1 don't want
to have $15,000.00 worth of boats sitting there that nobody even knows are
there.
II Lash: Well and that will really be, you're liable to, even if we have the
money, that will be a good trial year to just get feedback from people.
You're going to get calls and people are going to say, well why don't we
II have hotdogs down here or why don't you have canoes or why don't you have
sailboats and you'd maybe get a good feel for what we really should.
I Hoffman: And wh do you have a rental area and not rent anything?
Andrews: If that's the worst complaint we have, that's not too bad.
I Lash: Oh, 1 didn't even see the page 4.
Andrews: The back page, yeah. Can we move on to Lake Susan Park?
II Lash: Yeah. Aeration system? What is that?
I Hoffman: To aerate the lake. To preserve the fishery in the winter. The
lake freezes out partially or significantly about every third year. With
the boat access and the park development, the DNR is beginning to stock
walleye and bass in Lake Susan once again and to try to preserve that, an
II aeration system in Lake Susan had been requested by the public. Any lake
within the City of Chanhassen, Lake Susan is the most suitable for an
aeration system. Again, there's grant opportunities available for that
I through the same grant program which the DNR fishing pier out at Lake Ann
was acquired. Through the Corps grant program so it's included because it
would be necessary to preserve that fishery in any sense of form. Otherwise
they continue to stock it and it gets winter killed, etc.
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 23, 1991 -- Page 31 1
Pemrick: What's a track ride?
Hoffman: Track ride is about an $800.00 item to finish the play.area.
With the budget that was available for the expansion this year, it could
not accommodate that piece.
Pemrick: That's turning into a nice play area. We go there quite a bit.
Lash: Like a long bar overhead and you get on one side and hang onto the II
ring and you can slide down.
Pemrick: Oh fun. 1
Andrews: A ziploid.
Lash: Well we have an archery range. We almost have to get the targets.
1 put that as a priority. Otherwise that's kind of a waste.
Andrews: 1 don't see a lot there that can be eliminated at this point.
What are we looking at pavillion improvements? What were the things we
were looking at there? Do you recall?
•
Hoffman: Pavillion improvements include evaluating the condition of the
fixtures in the bathrooms and those types of things. They were installed 9
years ago and they're just going to be starting to be used extensively this II
year so are we going to run into some problems and are they going to need.
Andrews: That's kind of a monitor rather than necessary a definite budget II
item? We talked too about vandalism and lighting. Have we done anything
to change that for this year or for next year?
Hoffman: The lighting of the? 1
Andrews: The lighting of the pavillion area. Wasn't that vandalized
repeatedly during construction? 1
Hoffman: Yeah, during the construction period when there was lack of
activity and a lot of broken glass and that type of thing. There is a
safety light on the south side of the building and then parking lot lights
on the north side.
Andrews: Activity in itself should reduce that I would think. Is there
anybody that has any specific additions or deletions for Lake Susan? Okay,
let's move on.
Hoffman: Excuse me Jim. Just one note on the trail link to Chanhassen
Hills. The piece of property, Outlot E which is necessary to construct
that has not been deeded to the City as of yet. That is an important trail II
link because Chanhassen Hills relies on that to access Lake Susan Community
Park. Joe Miller, the developer of Lake Susan Hills West, we could ask
them to deed that over and they would probably not have a problem with
that. What they're waiting for is once they go ahead and go into that
addition of their housing development, then they require to deed it over
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
il July 23, 1991 -- Page 32
II but not prior to that time. So that is just one question mark on that one
item.
Andrews: Meadow Green, that seems pretty straight forward.
II Lash: Do these trees come from the tree farm?
I Hoffman: Trees will be removed out of the tree farm this fall and placed
in the parks. Again, Meadow Green Park is somewhat of an older park but
continues to be fairly barren out there in the middle of a maturing
1 neighborhood. The installation of some $400.00, $300.00 - $400.00, 2 to 3
inch caliper trees. 2 or 3 or 4 of those in strategic locations would help
the appearance and future look and fee)` of that park location. But then
they are going to be augmented fairly strongly this fall in many park
II locations by the tree farm.
Andrews: Let's move on. Minnewashta Heights.
II Lash: Is this the one the lady was in a few meetings ago?
Hoffman: Correct.
I Pernr.ick: Those are the improvements?
II Hoffman: This year we included the installation of the border wood and the
pea gravel and then next year looking to some sort of potential expansion.
$4,000.00-$5,000.00-$6,000.00.
II Andrews: Let's leave that in. I think we've kind of committed ourselves
on that one. Minnewashta Park, funding reserve.
I Hoffman: The fund reserve is currently at $100,000.00. As recent activity
shows, $100,000.00 isn't going to get us that far and if we have the
capability to increase that reserve, the demand is there. The need is
I there. I'm not so certain that an extra $50,000.00 is there but we
continue looking at it.
I Andrews: I see this as a bit of a priority partly because of what Terry
said from Lundgren that there's going to be a big increase in development
on the western, going towards the west. I feel it's important that we do
try to hide some funds. Being in a specific reserve or anywhere but just
I looking at how we can have some money available so when those western parts
are really going to need to have some active development:
I Lash: If we're looking at $100,000.00 budget and we want to put half of it
in the reserve for that? We're not going to be able to do anything else.
I think it's a priority yeah but I just can't imagine that we can put
$50,000.00 into it.
I
Andrews:. Well I agree with that. You can't put half of our eggs into
that.
I Koubsky: We should put something. It might even be $5,000.00 but I think
something.
II
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 23, 1991 - Page 33 1
Hoffman: Again, the $50,000.00 in reserve would not necessarily need to be
a portion of the general capital improvement program. We can take a look
at our overall bank budget at the end of, as we get closer to this and see
what type of reserves we have in there. We also have $100,000.00 reserve
which is set aside for matching grants so when we have the opportunity to
take advantage of a LAWCON grant. Presently we have $200,000.00 in reserve
and our present capital improvement budget balance is somewhere in the
neighborhood of $550,000.00. That's going to take some stiff hits with all II
the activity that is going on and it's going to reduce it fairly
significantly so I'll bring back some more defined figures for you later on
in the year.
Andrews: Why don't we look at this as an update item rather than a dollar
figure item. North Lotus Lake. That's my area. I don't see any of my II neighbors here so I can speak freely. I still feel that we have an
adequate play area there now, to be honest. Especially if the swingset, is
that going to appear?
Hoffman: Correct. 1
Andrews: I think we could be okay there if we needed to be and defer any
expansion again. As far as installation of trees, there are some up near
the play area and to be honest, I think the rest of the park would be best
left open. It gets a tremendous amount of field play. Soccer or football
or frisbee or whatever it is. I think we could pretty much leave it as is. II
I think the only need I've seen lately is parking. That park has become
more than just a neighborhood park with Little League games and soccer
games and soccer practices and so forth that the parking area near the
totlot or whatever. That's typically overflowing and they're parking all
up and down the street and Fox Hollow and on the grass which is so I don't
know if that's something we'd want to budget but it certainly is an ongoing
problem. If that means we have to expand the parking area or perhaps widen 11
Fox Hollow to accommodate off street parking. There are portions of that
road that are barely wider than a car so it's.
Hoffman: It's interesting to note that problem or that parking takes place II
there. It's the largest parking lot in a neighborhood park.
Andrews: But it's more than a neighborhood park though too. It really 1
does draw in outside activity and it is a very nice park and that's part of
the reason why. It's got a very good soccer field or ballfield.
Lash: Well games are scheduled there.
Andrews: Yeah. It mows in a lot of people and the tennis courts are busy II
every night. Usually with several groups waiting so I think we can get by
without any equipment changes. I think we can get by without the trees to
be honest.
Lash: How about if we just got a few trees farm?
Andrews: It's sort of where would they go? There are some up near the
picnic area already that were put in last year,
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
II July 23, 1991 - Page 34
11 Hoffman: The comment I received from some of the residents was something
that would potentially class that park up 20 -30 -40 years from now. We'd do
some boulevard tree planting along the road bisecting the park from the
tennis court up to Pleasant View and to plant that along there so in 20
I years the park has some integrity. Some class by having those boulevard
trees in that particular location.
I Andrews: That could be done. I guess I don't look at that as a big
priority to me. You look at the whole neighborhood there is basically a
bulldoze it down and stick the houses in and plant trees so yes. If we're
going to put in trees, now would be the time so they would be at the right
II
size with the'other trees but I look at all along that boulevard there,
there are no houses real close at this point yet.
II Hoffman: Just for the park.
Andrews: I guess the way I look at it, if staff has time, if you've got
II some trees, go ahead and stick them in the ground but I don't see that as
something I'd want to designate money to. I really don't. I'm only
speaking for myself.
I Hoffman: The quote I fall back on is, the best time to plant a tree was 20
years ago. The second best time is today.
I Lash: If we get them from the tree farm are they free?
Hoffman: Correct.
II Lash: It's just city staff time to do it.
Hoffman: Until they get so large that our tree mover cannot move them.
II Andrews: If we've got staff time I'd say do it. Otherwise, I don't see a
funding requirement there. As far as the parking area goes, 1 don't think
we're going to address that are we? It's not a crisis but if it's more of
a convenient situation on only a rare basis when they've got two soccer
practices going at the same time.
1 Hoffman: There are areas much worse off. Rice Marsh Lake and Carver Beach
are much worse off.
I Andrews: Pheasant Hills. I anticipate some pretty heavy neighborhood
pressure on that park on an ongoing basis. I think we can look at the
progression of things. I think grading and surfacing would be a
II responsible goal for next year. I know I made the comment when the
neighborhood group that this isn't the kind of thing that appears over
night but it's something if we could make some progress on it next year and
then go into the totlot and the ballfield the year after. I think that
I makes some sense.
Lash: That gets pretty expensive though doesn't it?
I Hoffman: We'll take a look at doing that one. Again it's my statement
really on staff time. It's something we can accomplish a great bulk of it
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 23, 1991 - Wage 35 1
in house with both the park maintenance and street maintenance folks such
as we did at North Lotus Lake. That was the grading was completed in
house. Otherwise you're looking at the contract for Herman Field is
$50,000.00. We're getting asphalting and road work and site preparation so
in order to accomplish that big of a grading project we need to rent
equipment but that's not nearly as expensive as hiring a contractor.
Lash: So even if they couldn't get at it until fall. 1
Hoffman: We just need to keep those residents informed. Take a look at
our staff work load for 1992 and make an objective decision on whether or
not we could accomplish that in house because we are limited in time and
employees and that's one reason we contract out. We can't accomplish
everything by ourselves.
Andrews: Any other comments on Pheasant Hills? I see nothing for Power
Hill and Prairie Knoll.
Koubsky: I don't think Power Hill has any development around that does it 1
Todd?
Hoffman: Just reaching _ That phase has just been approved with Flamingo 1
Hill Road which, or whatever it is goes up in that area so development is
occurring. My opinion on Lake Susan Hills West is that we put in a pretty
big hunk into Sunset Ridge Park and should try to nuture that one along to II
get a pretty much established park in that central location and then to
look down to future years to pick up Power Hill and Prairie Knoll. It's an
unusual Eituation in that there's a multitude of parks in that particular
location and when it's eventually all developed, they're going to have fine
facilities. Prairie Knoll is in the opposite side of Powers Blvd. and that
neighborhood with the construction of the bridge which will eventually go
in this year to, they have easy access to Lake Susan Community Park as
well.
Lash: So really, ultimately Prairie Knoll isn't going to have anything on 1
it anyway is it?
Hoffman: Open field and the master plan calls for an open field, sliding
area. That type of thing. A trail connection from Dove Court out to the
trail on Powers Blvd. and then a small play structure.
Andrews: Let's move on to Rice Marsh. It was rennovation replacement 1
work. Was that what that was?
Hoffman: Rice Marsh Lake, play area expansion. Removal of the swingset
and that type of thing. They've received numerous requests on a consistent
basis since we took that action to remove that equipment and install a hard
surface basketball court. To go ahead and see some additional play
equipment put back in there.
Lash: That really does need it. As long as we're having scheduled games
over there, there's got to be something. 1
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
il July 23, 1991 - Page 36
I Andrews: I agree. That's one that needs some help. There's_ not a lot
other accessible sites near there.
Hoffman: It not only serves the Estates now but also Hidden Valley which
I is just as large as the Estates development right next door.
Robinson: Where is Chan Estate Mini - -Park? That's up by DataSery then?
1 Hoffman: Correct.
1 Robinson: I see. T got the two mixed up.
Hoffman: Just past McDonald's on the right hand side. It's a little Known
park hut we definitely need to bring it into our system. We own it.
I Lash: Where's that?
I Hoffman:, There's a swingset there and a sandbox currently.
Ruegemer : West of DataServ.
1 Hoffman: If you drive by McDonald's on Lake Drive East going towards
DataServ. You get a block past McDonald's. It's off to the right.
There's large trees, arborvitaes all the way around it so it's hidden from
I view but if you get into it, it's a beautiful large expanse. .There's a
double swingset currently there and a grill and picnic tables in the one
corner so employees of DataSery can come over there on the lunch hour and
I sit in that area would be nice and then eventually expansion of play
equipment or something like that.
Lash: How long has that been there?
I
Hoffman: n number of years.
I Andrews: Didn't know we had it. South Lotus. Curbing access road.
Robinson: Where is the access road into that?
1 Hoffman: This is the boat access.
Andrews: Okay, we talked about the problem with boats getting off into the
grass and talked about widening the pull up ramp out of the water too.
Robinson: That's been done.
1 Hoffman: That was widened and a portion of curb was put in. Not only does
it look very nice but it also inhibits the car pulling off the side of the
road. So if you get a chance, when you drive down there, take a look at
I it. The curbing would be, it'd be real advantageous to complete that. If
it's not a high visibility project, but it's something we can potentially
take a look at.
I Andrews: That's sort of a preventative maintenance too. If you put the
curbing in, you cut down the erosion which would really lead to big money
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 23, 1991 - Page 37 1
if that ever got away from us so that perhaps could be another one of those
mystical staff projects again.
•
Koubsky: Is that bituminous or concrete?
Hoffman: Concrete. Contracted with a contractor.
Andrews: That would be basically the finishing touch for that part of the II
project then?
Hoffman: Correct. Take a look at if the project is, basically the
improvement project is basically complete. We will be pulling in through
the street department one last step in that the grade of the hill just as
you go down on the right hand side of the access road is so severe from the
initial development that you cannot mow it. It has to grow up in weeds and I
be trimmed down with a weed...that type of thing so they have excess fill
and they'll be dropping that in and grading that area out and restoring it
so that will be the final phase of this year's improvement project there.
Robinson: No tennis courts in there.
Andrews: Next is park rule signs. We've already talked about that, was
that last meeting we talked about the rules?
Koubsky: You missed one there. '
Andrews: Oh, Sunset Ridge Park. Excuse me.
Koubsky: That's mine. That's a big area over there. I don't know if any II
of you have been there but really that's the only park that would service
Powers. You know crossing Powers Drive is a lot like crossing Lake Lucy.
I guess there are some things scheduled on that's been real slow because of
the weather and the schedule. There was a totlot and volleyball this year?
Hoffman: Volleyball, finish grading, seeding and construction of the
ballfield.
Koubsky: And the ballfield this year?
Hoffman: Correct.
Koubsky: So that will be a big improvement. I guess I'd put, well I don't I
know if we can afford it next year but I guess I'd keep my eye just when we
can. I am a hockey rink fan and we only have the two. I'd like to see a
hockey rink go in there when we can afford it and then another one...to
provide the City with another sport. Currently they have to go elsewhere
for it.
Hoffman: We do need to go ahead and wait for the development of the access I
road which comes in off of the other side of McGlynn Road. Currently we
couldn't access it for plowing or flooding, that type of thing where you'd
need to drive down those little trails which we would break rapidly with a I
water truck.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
II July 23, 1991 - Page 38
II Lash: So how much has been done so far?
Hoffman: The grading at this point. Its a slow process. You have many
backyards which abut the park and some of those folks have sodded all the
I way to their lot lines. Some have sodded a little past. Some have not
sodded up to it so they've needed to locate all of the lot corners and the
play areas prior to grading that so they're in the grading process right
I now. They will be finished grading it. Seeding and then when they're out
there grading they'll subcut for the ballfield. Get the aggregate in there
and subcut for the volleyball. Install the sand. Prior to that, finish
grading and seeding...install the play structure. It's going to be similar
I
to the situation which we had at Curry Farms where that play structure went
in and it was a barren seeded field but the play structure will be in
fairly close proximity to the asphalt trail so residents will be able to
I walk down the asphalt trail. Traverse the next 50-75 feet across the
seeded, barren ground. Hop into the play area and be able to make use of
it this fall and then next year when that grass is growing.
I Lash: So that's all been ordered?
Hoffman: Correct. Play area's here. The backstop is here. The reason it
1 is not slated in 1992 proposed improvements. We've really been on an every
other year basis for these new park locations. Received $19,000.00 worth
of funding this year. Fairly large amount.
I Koubsky: I think there's one thing they would need is probably trees
because that's a soybean field. I think with the playground facility and
1 the ballfield, that can probably get into 1992 but it is barren. There's
no shade. There's nothing so if we could.
Hoffman: I do concur with Dave however in that that's a large area and
II it's getting bigger quickly. When you drive by you say boy, 2 1/2 years
ago...getting larger by the day.
I Koubsky: Yeah, Joe Miller seems to be the preferred builder that I've seen
in the area.
' Hoffman: And again, we're going to go ahead and offer the playground
totlot program there next year. It was slated for this year but with no
equipment and not even any sense of it being a park, we moved it over to
the community park at Lake Susan.
I Lash: So you could throw some tree farm trees over there too?
•
I Hoffman: Correct.
Andrews: Okay, park rule signs. 50 signs provides us with, it's more than
1 per park I assume. Is that some extras?
I Hoffman: About 36 locations for signs which include every park as well as
parks that have dual access points and some additional signs.
I Andrews: We're talking about metal signs for these?
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 23, 1991 -- Page 39
Hoffman: The poly plate. It will be a relfectorized sign but poly plat I
material which is indestructible basically. You can't bend it. You can't
cut it. Can hardly mar it. It's a wonderful material and most parks are
using it
1
Andrews: Trails, aggregate for the south railroad trail. Do you have any
idea what we're looking at for dollars at that? Real ballpark on that?
Hoffman: I can't even venture a guess at this time. We need to take a
look at volumes and that type of thing. Aggregate which was purchased,
it's cheap but it's going to be immense.
Andrews: On a tight budget I look at this as a large project that's not
going to benefit a lot of people. To start with at least.
Pemrick: I think we should find out too when the two that we connect with,
Eden Prairie and is it Victoria or Chaska?
Hoffman: Chaska.
Pemrick: When are they going to have their's completed?
Hoffman: They want to know the same of us. Eden Prairie is going to move
forward I believe in 1992. They're taking a lot of heat as well from the
residents and the horse constituents and those types of people would like
to see some activity. Their basic opinion which is very true, you have a
good opportunity to spend some dollars and get a pretty big investment in
value. Whereas if you had to start from scratch, you'd never be able to
accomplish it.
Robinson: But is it useable without the aggregate on it?
Hoffman: The ballast which is on there, I wouldn't want to walk on it.
Lash: There's real big rocks. The horses couldn't walk on it. '
Hoffman: 8 to 10 inches of railroad ballast.
Robinson: Then I guess I would agree. For what we're getting there.
Lash: But wouldn't this come out of our trail fund budget?
Hoffman: Park acquisition and development really should be labeled park
acquisition and development and trail development.
Pemrick: I'd like to see that proceed. There's a real demand for that,
from what I've heard from different people and if we have the added value
of connecting with Eden Prairie and Chaska, that'd be a wonderful trail.
Hoffman: Chaska is questionable right nc. The length which the Hennepin
County Rail Authority has purchased goes st across TH 212 where you take
the big loop going down into Chaska and then there's the railroad overpass.
Just beyond that ends in Chanhassen and Chaska is just beyond. So Chaska
is still unclear what they're doing with it. If they're going to acquire
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
II July 23, 19q1 -- Page 40
I an easement to use it to bring it down into Chaska... They're a larger
question mark than Eden Prairie.
Andrews: Let's try to get a ballpark on that one and see what...come back
1 a third tirr;,: around and see what...
COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATION.
1 Lash: I'm just going to complain again. The dock at Greenwood Shores is
way out. Its over my head. It was today. I couldn't, before I dragged
the garbage cans in. I can't they're out so deep now. 5o I don't know
I
what we can do about it but. It could end up being a liability if
somebody's swimming along and you smack into the post out in the water
because you have no idea it's out there.
I Hoffman: The dock.
I Pemrick: It's under water?
Lash: Yes.
.
I Hoffman: If its the same individuals that have done it in the past, -in
talking to the resident that called and informed me that he had talked to
those individuals parents and the problem had subsided for a while. It's
I back so we'll take some measures with Public Safety in calling those folks
and sitting down and having some conversations.
I Lash: I mean you don't know for sure who's doing it.
Hoffman: No, you don't.
1 Lash: We knot-, there was a.
Hoffman: We just need to make some inquiries because they've gore ahead,
I the resident;, in the neighborhood have pulled that dock out of there a
number of times. Staff has pulled it out of there at least 3 times and
staked the thing down and paddlelocked it to the shore and they must be
pulling the pole or cutting the chain or something.
I
Lash: Somebody suggested that if we were to put the chain through the
wheels, then the wheels wouldn't be able to go.
I Hoffman: They'd have to lift it.
I Lash: Yeah, and who would do that. So maybe that would be an option too.
I mean you hate to have to take it out just because there's a couple of
little creeps out there who think it's fun to take it out.
1 ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION.
Andrews: We talked briefly about the slide already haven't we Todd? Very
1 briefly.
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 23, 1991 - 'image ,41 1
Hoffman. Correct and this was just some information to let you know what's
going on down there at the new school. I'm following up on some of the
pressure that Mr. Lambert is receiving in Eden Prairie. They copied us on
their letter to their director.
Andrews: I guess this a comment on this.slide. This kind of bothers me
still. I think and I'm sure Todd you probably have already done some of
this but I think a discreet comment about what we feel is a quality project I
here in our area might be appropriate. I don't think we need to say it's
not fair or it isn't right but I do think we have a very worthwhile project
here in City Center. Perhaps with just a comment or two perhaps we could
shake loose some more dollars and some additional interest on the School
Board.
Lash: You know another thought on that is, now that Kathleen Macy has gone I
from Chan to be Director of Administrator Services, we may have an ally
there.
Andrews: Any other items that need to be discussed?
Hoffman: Just a brief staff presentation on the City Center Park west
playground configuratiow... The school gymnasium is in this area. The
present swingset is right here as you walk out from the back door... Then
there's the overhead monkey bars over here. That's going to be
reincorporated... Proposals which were thought... Phase 1 would be this
piece right down in the south. Phase 2 is called out in this configuration
and Phase 3. As you can see, Phase 1 is small but potential for Phase 2
and Phase 3 are very exciting because the next time you bring in a phase,
you start out with this small little corner but then Phase 2 incorporates
the rest of the entire area...north and south. Phase 1 is $10,000.00. The
entire project is approximately $50,000.00 in todays dollars. Being Phase
2 and Phase 3 being about $20,000.00 worth of equipment.
Pemrick: Combined?
Koubsky: Each. 1
Hoffman: $50,000.00 total...
Lash: Boy it'd be nice if we could get the District to give us $10,000.00.
Koubsky: Go halves. 1
Hoffman: Again, I don't want to be blunt. I don't feel real...financial
contributions. The APT committed $8,000.00...school district as a last I
ditch effort. I called Kathleen at home and said... But again, everything
will be there. All you have to do is buy $20,000.00 worth of equipment and
then... The border will be there. The pea rock will be there...so it's I
not going to be boring on this site...other pieces of play equipment that
are currently there. The contract was just awarded last night for the
handicapped equipment and that incorporated all three phases. So that's a
huge addition on the north side with the tennis courts being refurbished
this year...
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
II July 23, 1991 - Page 42
' Koubsky: And in doing that, we did have other options to go with that. We
may have gotten a few more items on there but they weren't nearly as
exciting. They're all the 24, 40 inch thing. They didn't have any 72 inch
I slides or anything big that we thought was needed at the school. We'd just
like to stress. that Phase 2 is going to be fairly important for the amount
of kids that are going to be using this. Whether the school participates
or not. This is probably going to be the most used piece of equipment in
1 the city.
Lash: Did you say that the old swings are staying in?
I Koubsky: Yes. You can see Jan in the corner there's a little better plan
map. In the red corner of the print.
I Lash: What's the Rind of triangle looking.
Hoffman: ...relocated slides, swings, tether ball, four square and
1 basketball.
Lash: Just those things alone because that's where the big kids go for
1 recess. 4th and 5th graders go out there so just the tether ball and the
basketball and stuff is going to be real popular.
Hoffman: - ...four decks and horizontal bars and two slides and two 7 inch
1 decks over vertical ladders. .
Lash: Well I'd certainly be in favor for next year if we're going to
allocate money and at least get Phase 2.
Andrews: I guess I feel like no matter how futile,_it never hurts to try
I the partners. 50/50 or match or whatever you want to call it. Just to try
to shake loose every dollar we can from them and I'm sure they'll try to do
the same thing with us. It's a bit of brinkmanship here. Who's going to
fight first? But I agree. I'm glad the approach that was taken was, I'd
I rather do it a little bit smaller and do it right rather than just spread
it out and not do it right. Even if we have to spread it out for 2 or 3
years I think it will be well worth the initial posterity.
I Lash: Thanks for taking that out and Larry.
Andrews: Any other items?
Lash moved, Koubsky seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
1 and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m..
I Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Recreation Coordinator
Prepared by Hann Opheim
1