1f. Minutes •
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 11, 1991
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. . The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Workman, Councilman Wing,
' Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Mason
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Jo Ann Olsen, Paul Krauss, Charles
Folch, and Todd Hoffman
I/ APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Wing seconded to
approve the agenda with the following amendments: Mayor Chmiel corrected the
1 spelling of the name on item 3 from Robert Kerling to Robert Klinger and added
under Council Presentations discussion on the police contract meeting. All
voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Chmiel invited the Brownier and Girl Scouts in the audience to join him in
the reading of the Proclamation declaring March 10-16, 1991 as Girl Scout Week.
Resolution 191-20: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve
a Resolution declaring the week of March 10-16, 1991 as Girl Scout Week. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR A SCOTT AND CARVER COUNTY RESIDENT FOR APPOINTMENT TO
THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL DISTRICT 14 POSITION.
(The taping of the meeting began at this point in the discussion. )
Mayor Chmiel: . . .I do not have a total listing. I have been told who they are
but I really don't remember.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and do you know, is there some Dakota County ones?
Mayor Chmiel: There was, I believe it was either one or two.
Councilwoman Dimler: We don't know their names?
Mayor Chmiel: No. I know one of them was Jim Mullin from Chaska and.
Councilwoman Dimler: And someone was from Shakopee I believe.
' Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: But you don't know if Dakota County?
Mayor Chmiel: I've not received those names.
Councilwoman Dimler: Does he have a broad enough base to choose from do you
' think?
1
i
I
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Well I think there's enough people that are interested in it ,
yes. And I think some of the ones that , welcome. A quick trip from the
airport. But anyway, I would like for us to.
Councilwoman Dimler: As long as he has enough to choose from, I will move the i
motion for the resolution.
Mayor Chmiel: There are sufficient candidates, yes. Is there a second? 1
Councilman Mason: I'll second it.
Resolution *91-21: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to I
approve the Resolution of support for a Scott or Carver County resident for
appointment to the Metropolitan Council District 14 position. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve
the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
a. Establish 1991 Lake Ann Park Entrance Fees.
b. Approve Development Contract for Valvoline Oil Change.
c. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20-41 by Adding Language stating
that Amendments shall not be adopted that are Inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, First Reading.
d. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20-576(3) Regarding Contractor's i
Yards as an Interim Use, Final Reading.
e. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20-406 Regarding Variances to
the Wetland Ordinance to Follow the Procedure as stated in Division 3,
Variances of the Zoning Ordinance, Final Reading.
f. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Revise Article V, Flood Plain Overlay
District, Final Reading and Approve Summary Ordinance for Publication
Purposes. ,
g. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20-29(d) Changing the Filing of
an Appeal to the Board of Adjustment's Decision from 10 days to 4 days,
Final Reading. '
h. Resolution 491-22: Support State Statute Amendment to Strengthen Cigarette
Sale Penalties. 1
i. Lake Susan Hills West 6th Addition:
1) Approve Development Contract - 1
2) Approve Plans and Specifications for Utility Construction
11
2 `
I
1
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1991
i'
k. Approve Contract Time Extension, Chanhassen SCADA Project 90-3.
1. Approval of Accounts.
m. City Council Minutes dated February 25, 1991
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated February 26, 1991
n. Approve Certificate of Correction, Chan Haven Plaza 2nd Addition, Ted Kemna.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS FOR A VARIANCE TO THE
REAR YARD SETBACK FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK; DANIEL KERLING, 310 SINNEN CIRCLE;
AND ROBERT KLINGER. 8180 MARSH DRIVE.
Jo Ann Olsen: This item was considered first by the Board of Adjustments and at
' that time the variance request to the decks was denied. Since then, or the
applicants did not go in front of the Council to appeal that decision. Since
then the applicants did construct the decks and the City is in the process of a
Court Summons with them. As part of that, the applicants have requested to
again go through the process to allow the Board of Adjustments to look through
the facts. To again study whether or not a hardship exists and then also to
give them an opportunity to have the Council this time review it. Staff still
sees the case the same. None of the facts have changed except that the decks
now exist . We still found no hardship and we went in front of the Board of
Adjustments and they also agreed that there was no hardship and again
recommended denial. So now it is coming before the Council for the first time
for your review. Again, we feel that there is no hardship. That they still
have reasonable use of the property and are recommending denial.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Jo Ann. Before we get into this, I would like to
have Roger give me an opinion what this second request. Roger, if you could
just clarify that please.
Roger Knutson: Certainly. Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. This evening
you're being asked to reconsider the unanimous decision of the Board of
1 Adjustments and Appeals who denied this variance. Based upon past practice, the
practice of this Council has been to refuse to reconsider unanimous decisions of
the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Since this matter is currently in
litigation, I've looked at it fairly carefully, very carefully, and I concur in
' the judgment of the Planning staff. Criteria for a variance are not met . There
is no hardship under the definition that exist in our ordinance. That's my
opinion. If the Council concurs, the Council could this evening vote to deny
the reconsideration. Thereby adopting, you could just vote to deny the
reconsideration. Or you could do what you will.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any discussion?
Councilwoman Dimler: If we deny the reconsideration, then it remains in the
Courts where it presently is?
Roger Knutson: That 's correct .
3
1
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Mike, do you have anything? I might say before I have you
indicate. I did receive several requests from the, for the construction of the
deck from different adjacent neighbors in the neighborhood. Either side but I
just want to point that our for the record. That these will remain within the
City.
Councilman Workman: Did you say on either side Don?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Mason: You mean on either side of the issues or either side of the
neighbors?
Mayor Chmiel: No. Neighbors either side. Either in the back or the front .
Councilman Mason: Yeah. I received those letters too and I thought they were
very thoughtful and very considerate letters. On this one I appreciate the
concern that the neighbors have but as I was at the last Board of Appeals
meeting and have gone through all the information on this, I think that 's a
little bit after the fact. These folks had a chance to appeal the decision in
the first place. They chose not to do it and with total disregard, put the deck
up. There's a comment about an ex-city employee saying oh, go ahead and build
it anyway. I guess I think that's a little irrelevant. I certainly think if a
Minnetonka police officer told me I could drive 50 in a 30 and I did it and
another Minnetonka police officer picked me up, I think he'd probably laugh at I
me while he was writing out the ticket. I concur completely with the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals. I don't like the idea of telling someone they have to
tear down all that sweat , sweat equity and money and this, that and the other
thing. However, it seems to me they've had total disregard for the codes of
Chanhassen and I think to let that deck stand is telling the rest of the City
they don't have to pay any attention to the time we spend making some of these
codes. I agree completely with the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. And it's
not easy for me to say that but that's the way I see it .
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. I
Councilwoman Dimler: I have a few questions that I didn't, the report was
excellent but there were still a few questions left in my mind and maybe Jo Ann
or Paul could try to address these. The first thing was, did they build the
decks over the drainage easement?
Jo Ann Olsen: No. No they did not. I
Councilwoman Dimler: So that's not a violation? Okay. And there was a comment
in there about the fee not having been returned and therefore it was implied
consent . Do we normally return fees if we deny?
Jo Ann Olsen: Only if it's requested and no, we do not normally. I
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and did they ever request to have the fee returned?
Jo Ann Olsen: We checked under the Building Department and we couldn't find any
4
I
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1991
record of it being returned or requested. I don't know if they found anything
since then but no.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Does the City usually look at the house plans and
okay them before they issue a permit?
Jo Ann Olsen: We always look at the setbacks. Just recently since we've had an
additional person in the Planning Department, we've taken the time to look and
see if there's additional room for a deck where it shows patio doors.
Councilwoman Oimler: Okay. And I guess this one I'd have to ask the applicant
' because they made a statement that the Council, and I think this was the former
Council, when they approved the PUD that they knew at the time that variances
would be needed and I just want to ask them how they knew that the Council knew
' this. Do you have that in writing from the Council members? Previous Council
members? Because you're saying this is implying consent again. When they
approved the PUD, they were implying that they would approve variances.
' Steven Peterson: Perhaps I can best, where are you looking at?
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up here to the podium and state your name
and your address please?
Councilwoman Dimler: In your statement of hardship I believe it says that and
' the pages aren't numbered but it 's the second to the last page. It says the PUD
was approved by the City Council even though the Council knew that there would
be problems and that the owners would probably not be able to comply with the
zoning ordinances. Did you have statements from those Councilmembers stating
that?
Mayor Chmiel: Could you please just state your name?
Steven Peterson: I'm sorry. My name is Steven Peterson. I'm an attorney here
in Chanhassen representing both of the applicants here. There are some Minutes
of meetings. My recollection is that they are from the original Board of
Appeals and Adjustments hearing made by Carol Watson stating that when this was
approved the Council knew that there would be problems, or words to that effect .
' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. So that 's where you got that? Okay, thank you.
Also, you state here that on the bottom of that page that city officials now
claim that the consent by one department does not constitute consent by another
and then it goes on to say, on the last page, that the City gave implied consent
to the construction of the deck and in fact gave actual consent to the
construction of the deck. Do you have something in writing that shows this
actual consent?
Steven Peterson: No. We have the statements made by a city official verbally.
' Councilwoman Dimler: But not in writing?
Steven Peterson: Not in writing.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, thank you. With that I guess I just have to say
5
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1991
that's the information that I needed and I want to say that I'm really glad to
see such harmony in a neighborhood and that everyone agrees with the
construction of these decks. But I've also seen cases where somebody has built
a structure that wasn't so appealing such as a dog kennel or maybe a slab of
concrete where they plan to put their boat and trailer and it was up to the
property line of the other people. And there the neighbors were the first to
say that they were glad that the City enforces it's ordinances. So I hope with
examples such as that , that we can see that the City needs to have some
ordinances here and they need to be enforceable. And from reading through the
reports and the timing that they actually on the day before Steve Nelson found
the decks all constructed, that there was a letter stating that the permit had
been abandoned and they don't intend to build the deck. To me that shows real
willful defiance of the City ordinance. And therefore I can do nothing else but
to support the staff and the Board of Adjustment of Appeals for all the time and
work they've put into this. And I know they originally made a mistake by
issuing the permit but they caught it in time. The deck was not built. They
were notified that the issuance of the permit was an error and yet the decks
were built . So with all those facts, I just can do nothing but to deny
approval. '
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Ursula. Richard?
Councilman Wing: I don't have any additional comments. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Tom? •
Councilman Workman: My comments are part of the record for the Board of '
Adjustments.
Mayor Chmiel: I too am going to support staff on this. About a year or year '
and a half ago I was out to Mr. Klinger's to review the problem of a variance
and discuss the deck with me. In discussion at that particular time, I told
them that it was not in accordance with the requirements of the City of
Chanhassen as far as the ordinance is concerned. And that a deck could really
not be built within that particular location. I did go back out and I did see
the decks, both of them and I sympathize with Mr. Klinger with his hot tub '
adjacent to that particular area as well as with the Kerlings but I too feel
that there were things that were done and should have been done and I certainly
am not too happy to indicate that I will support staff's position.
Steven Peterson: I should perhaps apologize by arriving a few minutes late for
tonight 's meeting. I would ask that you think about, at least reconsidering.
There was a city official at the time. This city official was advising both of
my clients on how they should proceed. My clients followed the advice of the
city official. That's what got them in trouble. They didn't know that
different departments had different authorities and might not agree with each
other. And the position that we have taken is that it is because of the advice
of the city official, that a hardship does exist. To go back at this point and
tell these two individuals that they were wrong for listening to a city
official, that for all intent and purposes had the power to bind the city of
Chanhassen with regard to the building of decks, is not something that the City '
Council should approve at this point. In other words, saying that well we may
have had a city official giving bad advice 2 years ago, we're going to ignore
6
I
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1991
the fact that that happened and enforce the ordinance. That 's not fair to the
residents who didn't know what was happening within the city and what must have
been some dispute between the city official and the city itself or within the
city, a dispute between departments. My clients were caught in the middle of
this and now they're being punished for it . I submit that that is not a fair
' and equitable way to treat my two clients. And again I would just ask that you
reconsider based upon the actions of a city official that had the authority to
bind the city and did so in an inappropriate manner.
Don Ashworth: I believe the employee you're referring to is Ron Julkowski.
Staff has talked with Ron. He has stated that he had never made those type of
' statements. He is no longer employed with the City. He has no reason to state
anything but what he truly believes is correct . His records stands for itself.
I mean he at no time ever waivered from the Codes of the City. Anything that
was approved was placed in writing. And he has the highest regard for Planning
during that entire timeframe. Jo Ann, Paul, Ron worked very, very well as a
team.
' Mayor Chmiel: Roger.
Roger Knutson: Just one comment . No one on city staff, the City Manager,
myself, no one can take away your power to grant variances or no ,one can ignore,
no one on City staff can tell an applicant to ignore the ordinances. No one has
the power to bind the City to ignore the ordinances. You cannot be estopped
from enforcing our zoning ordinances based upon allegedly bum advice. I think
it 's also important to remember the sequence of events here. They just went
through the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and they got turned down. They had
no right , if they got that bum advice from someone, not only legally does that
' not bind the City but it's unbelieveable anyone could rely upon that kind of bum
advice as given after they've gone through a formal process and told no, you
can't do it .
' Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you Roger.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, just a couple of clarifications that I had. In the
' packet on the second page, dating back here to June 26, 1989. Then as you move
into February. After being talked to by the City in February, 1990, Mr. Kerling
stated he did not build a deck but yet on March 3rd, Steve Nelson inspected the
' site and found a deck had been constructed. Then if we move down to 8180 Marsh
Drive, when Mr. Klinger was approached about a final inspection, March 2, 1990
the building department received a letter from Mr. Klinger stating that the deck
was abandoned due to financial factors. On March 3, 1990, Inspector Nelson
' verified that an attached deck had been constructed. These decks aren't even
subtle. You know I think as a City Councilman that would like to be flexible, a
double door and a deck to me could be subtle but what I found is not subtle. It
' was a major construction project that was really at a high risk factor and if
anybody that's flexible on these issues, I guess I feel I am and these
statements really trouble me as having been really flagrant confrontations so I
' guess, although I stated I didn't have anything to say, I guess I'm going to
support your position Mr. Mayor. I guess could you address those? These are. .
really conflicting statements. •
7
I
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1991
Steven Peterson: Certainly. When the City official advised my clients, it was
1,
prior to the hearing before the Board of Adjustments. He notified, or advised
my clients that they should appear. Attempt to get the variance. If the
variance is denied, to say nothing. To not appeal but to walk out of the
meeting. Then to go ahead and build the decks. And that if there were any
complaints, they would be run through him and his department and that nothing
would come of it . That should anyone ask what happened, they were to simply say
that it had been worked out with the City if 'a neighbor asked. But not to go
beyond that .
Councilman Wing: Based on the ordinances, you find that defensible?
Steven Peterson: The statement by the City official to do that or the position? ,
Councilman Wing: Well, based on the ordinances you find that that position is a
defensible position? I guess I can't.
Steven Peterson: I do not agree with what the City official said by any means.
I have an understanding and a sympathy for my clients for following his advice, 11 although in retrospect I'm sure they wish they had never done that .
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd like to make a clarification. We're not
talking about a City official here. We're talking about a City employee that
doesn't have the authority and I don't even believe he was head of the
department . Did he head up his department? Was he in charge of the department?
Don Ashworth: No. He was a building official. '
Councilwoman Dimler: He was just a building official and that's a really weak
thing to base your whole, and the fact that it was just one day, March 2nd. '
Councilman Wing: No, these are separate people. March 2nd, the building
department received a letter from Mr. Klinger stating that the deck was
abandoned. Yet a separate inspector, Steve Nelson on March 3rd verified the
deck had been built .
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. ,
Steven Peterson: The one day is when this was happening, the advice was given
long before that and the Board of Appeals hearing was long before that. '
Mayor Chmiel: Well, I guess that's why we have the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals to make sure that people do comply with the requirements of the City. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Plus I'd like to see it in writing.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah'. To just go ahead and, as Richard said, flagrantly '
construct and build that without having the authority, places them in a very
precarious position. And I don't see any additional discussion to be carried on
with this at this present time. I'm going to call for the question with regard
to this. For a motion to deny the request as suggested by our City Attorney for
not being in compliance with City ordinance.
8
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1991
Councilwoman Dimler: Shall we just deny reconsideration? Can we do that?
Isn't that what you suggested?
Roger Knutson: Yes, that 'd be fine. Denied based upon the record before the
' Board of Adjustments and Appeals and based upon the findings of the evidence
from the staff reports.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. With that correction.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I move that we deny reconsideration based upon the
staff findings and the Board of Adjustments and Appeals decisions that was made
twice.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: I'll second.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to deny the reconsideration
' to a variance to the rear yard setback for construction of a deck for Daniel
Kerling, 310 Sinnen Circle and Robert Klinger, 8180 Marsh Drive based upon the
record before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and based upon the findings
' of the evidence from the staff reports. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel: I just wanted to let the balance of the Council be aware of the
fact that we are having a police contract meeting to be held on March 20th at
7:00 at the Chanhassen Public Safety Building in the courtyard. And the
agenda's going to include some discussion on the advantages of police
contracting and how well police contracting works with the city and with the
' city and vice versa. So therefore I'd like to request that if anyone could make
it, please do so. I'm going to have to be in another public hearing meeting
myself. I'm not going to be able to do this, even though I hosted the
particular day, unless that gets changed for me.
Councilwoman Dimler: Could you repeat that day again?
Mayor Chmiel: It 's going to be March 20th at 7:00 p.m. .
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: SET CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP DATE, MINNEWASHTA
PARKWAY UPGRADE, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER.
Charles Folch: As I'm sure you're aware, the proposed Minnewashta Parkway
project is going to be a very large and involved project. The consultants,
' Engelhardt and Associates is for all intent and purposes completed with the
feasibility study. It has been suggested that it might be beneficial to hold a
neighborhood meeting and a workshop with the City Council to discuss key aspects
' of the project prior to holding the public hearing on the feasibility report.
I've conferred with Bill Engelhardt and Gary Warren, who's been closely involved
in the project , to get some suggested dates that would work with them. In the
' next few weeks or so only two dates will work for both Bill and Gary. Those
being Thursday the 14th, which is the night of the traffic signage workshop and
9
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1991 '
Wednesday the 20th of March. I guess I would like to pose the question to
Council on a preferred date or if neither one of these is acceptable, I'm ,
willing to entertain another date which we could work out .
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm not available on either date. ,
Councilman Workman: What are the two dates?
Charles Folch: Thursday. This coming Thursday, March 14th or next Wednesday, ,
the 20th.
Councilman Workman: And there's a Public Safety affair on the 14th. '
Charles Folch: That 's correct. If that was a workable date, in know the
difficulty in trying to get everyone's schedule to work out , if that would be a
date that everybody planned on, we could possibly schedule it after the workshop
was done.
Councilwoman Dimler: Because it was a joint meeting I believe with the Public '
Safety.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. And that's a 6:00 to 8:00 meeting. Is everyone going to
be there?
Councilwoman Dimler: After 8:00, yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: Right after 8:00.
Councilwoman Dimler: That would be alright . '
Mayor Chmiel: It 's not that bad Tom.
Don Ashworth: I don't think the item will take that long but the Council should '
be aware.
Councilman Workman: Is the public invited?
Don Ashworth: Well what this would be is a work session to insure that the
Council is aware of the proposed assessment policies that we would be looking at
before we send out the notices because we found that if we sent out the notices
and then we change, we're in more trouble than if we can come to some agreement
that this should be, that we should follow a procedure similar to Bluff Creek or
Frontier or whatever it happens to be. It gives the Council a better
understanding of what the project is all about before you go into the formal
hearing process.
Mayor Chmiel: I would like to see the same as Don is saying to have the
consensus and opinions of the residents within that specific area. To let them
know exactly what's happening and a meeting will be held for those people to .
explain what's going to take place and letters will be sent to all those
residents.
I
10 ,
1
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1991
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, can I get a review of what's happening here? On
the 14th there's a Public Safety meeting. Public Safety Commission meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: Right . That 's from 6:00 to 8:00.
Councilman Wing: And is that going to be a 'nint meeting?
-- '
Mayor Chmiel: That 's a joint City Council and Public Safety.
Councilman Mason: That 's the traffic signage one right?
Mayor Chmiel: Right .
Councilman Workman: At the fire station?
Mayor Chmiel: At the fire station.
Councilman Wing: And that has to do with signage?
Charles Fuloh: That's correct . From 6c00 to 7:00 there's a drug awareness
presentation and then from 7:00 to 8:30 is a traffic signage presentation or
workshop.
--
Councilman Wing: Right . And then after that is this Minnewaohta project?
Mayor Chmiel: Right .
Councilman Wing: Then on the 30th, what's the subject of the contract
meeting? Who's involved in that then? What's the purpose of that meeting?
Mayor Chmiel: That's the one that I have normally been going to and they go
from city to city.
-~ Councilman Wing: Oh I understand. And she's going to be at Chanhassen?
Mayor Chmiel: Right . They're going to be here.
Councilman Wing: That was really boring last time. It was terribly
=° . disappointing.
Mayor Chmiel: I know but I woke you up twice.
Councilman Wing: I'll ' . . .Don`uat comment on that I think will refer to the
past , you used to attend those on a regular basis and they were really
interesting and that one was just as pleasant and positive as it could be.
Okay, I understand.
Councilman Workman: The Council on a whole has become boring. That's a
compliment.
Councilwoman Dimler: Harmony is boring, yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: Richard? You're talking about my presentation that was boring?
~~
11
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1991 .'
Councilman Wing: No, no. Not at all. So we are hosting the County wide
contract meeting? ,
•
Mayor Chmiel: Correct .
Councilman Wing: Okay. Thank you. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Will that be in the chamber here?
Mayor Chmiel: No. Upstairs in the atrium. Unless there's an over abundance
and then we may move from up there.
Councilman Wing: And this Minnewashta issue is locked into the 14th. If '
there's anybody that should be at that one it's probably me and I don't think
I'll make it that night . Can I have a special session with the City Manager and
Mayor then perhaps to update?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Be glad to.
Councilman Workman: But if you want it straight , you'd better meet with me.
So, are we going to meet with Charles after the Public Safety then?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. After 8:00. Okay. There's one other thing I think we have '
to discuss and I think that each of you just received a packet this evening
which are the cooperative agreements for improvements on TH 5. Maybe Charles,
you'd just like to hit that just rather lightly. But if we do, we're going to
have to amend the agenda to set this and put it back on our agenda at this
particular time.
Charles Folch: The first document that you have before you is an agreement for '
the cost sharing on the installation of new traffic signals and lights at Dakota
Avenue, TH 101, Market and County Road 17. The other agreement is for the cost
sharing of the infrastructure improvements to TH 5 between the eastern Carver
County line and Park Road. These two agreements encompass the City's
participation in this segment of the TH 5 project . Thus their approval would
also be an approval for the underlying project plans and specifications. In the
intent of not delaying the March 22nd contract letting for another 2 months,
this item is put before you tonight for approval.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. And if we did not do it this evening, we'd put '
the whole project behind and that's the reason why I brought this up.
Don Ashworth: I have to apologize for getting this to the Council late. It
just came in Friday. It is in conformance with everything you've done so I mean
the Council's fully aware of what it is we're proposing to do along there with
the cost sharing elements. This includes the stuff back with the HRA. They
have problems in terms of getting the physical documents to us but then they
turn right around and say, you've got to sign them today, otherwise the project
won't go forward. So I find myself kind of between a rock and a hard place. If
you want to have the project move ahead, you really have to act on them tonight.
Charles, Gary, myself have all looked through them. I think that they are in
conformance to what you've previously agreed to and I'm sorry I'm bringing them
to you at a late minute but I would recommend approval.
12
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1991
Councilman Workman: I would move.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can I ask a question? Do you have a dollar amount on
these?
Don Ashworth: The signal portion of the agreement is $32,000.00. About
$32,000.00.
Mayor Chmiel: Approximately.
Councilwoman Dimler: For signals?
' Don Ashworth: Yeah. That represents 11% of the signal cost at each of the
signals that Charles had just gone through bringing out . It also includes the
entry cost , medians, lighting and that has a cost factor of approximately
' $400,000.00 and that was approved by the HRA roughly one year ago. Maybe a
little less.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. So this is HRA money. . .
Don Ashworth: In both instances.
Councilman Wing: Before the motion, there's just one comment I've been dying to
slip in sometime in my next 4 years.
Councilman Mason: You're going to shoot it this early?
Councilman Wing: I have a choice of going home two ways, TH 5 or TH 7 and I
think most people would prefer that I go TH 5 and stop for gas and so on and so
forth. I'm finding the City to becoming almost impassable .and I'm getting, just
enjoying the fact that I can turn off at Dakota. Leisurely drive through
' downtown and come back out on Powers Blvd. and be way ahead of TH 5 traffic.
Now into my concern here. On County Road 19 on TH 7 there's a new stop sign and
it clearly favors TH 7 and I almost don't notice it because it's just so
favorable for TH 7. It keeps traffic rolling and it 's green for a long time and
it kind of allows the other traffic to stay put. It seems to me that TH 5 is
not , the stop signs are not favoring TH 5. At Powers and TH 5 in particular,
even with no traffic going north and south, there's left turns, right turns,
' hesitation here and as a matter of fact , there have been times in may
environmental mode, just shut my car off because it seems more practical to do
that to sit and wait that sign out . I just wonder if you couldn't approach
MnOot and specifically ask, can we get passage through Chanhassen a little more
enjoyable with the signs favoring TH 5 a little more? A little less to the
lighter traffic, north/south streets. More green lights. Better timed. Better
traffic flow for TH 5 so that I as a Councilmen would use my own city versus
driving to avoid it.
Mayor Chmiel: Are you talking about Powers Blvd.?
' Councilman Wing: I'm going to start at Dakota and move right on through.
Mayor Chmiel: That's my exit too onto TH 5.
13
I
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1991
Councilman Mason: But have you been backed up at 7:00 in the morning trying to
get onto TH 5 from Chanhassen backed up all the way to TH 101?
Mayor Chmiel: That was going to be my next question.
Councilman Wing: No sir. I think the thru street is TH 5 and has to be '
somewhat protected, or at least better timed but I'm going from one sign to a
red light to a red light to a red light and all I'm telling you is, and we've
heard complaints here prior that people are cutting through the city. I'm just
telling you.
Councilman Workman: Well the TH 101 intersection's going to stop that because
you're going to have a light and everything else. You're not going to cut
through the City like that anymore.
Charles Folch: Actually this signal improvement that they're planning on doing
is going to install four new, fairly high tech signals which will all be
interconnected basically from CR 17 through Dakota so that they will be able to
time the lights in sequence so you can have steady platoons moving through the
city in a more efficient manner. And hopefully that will take care of some of
those problems that you're experiencing.
Councilman Workman: And the worst light of the whole system is Wallace Road in
Eden Prairie. 2:00 a.m. in the morning it will turn red. Nobody's trying to
get on. No nothing. It's just unbelieveable. As soon as you approach it you
trigger something and it goes red. I
Councilman Wing: I do come home from work at 2:00 in the morning though and I
go to work at 4:00 in the morning and I'm going through the night hours and I
just want to say, I'd like you to formally make sure that MnDot reviews that .
And off the record, I have found myself yelling obscenities at 4:00 in the
morning stopping at these stop signs.
Councilman Workman: I would move to amend the agenda.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to amend the agenda to '
discuss the Cooperative Agreements for Trunk Highway 5. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The agenda as amended.
Councilman Workman: I'd move to amend the stuff.
Councilwoman Dimler: To accept .
Mayor Chmiel: The Cooperative Agreements for improvements to Trunk Highway 5
between Eastern Carver County line and Park Drive.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's it . I'll second it.
I!
14
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1991
Resolution #91-23: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the plans and specifications for the upgrade of Trunk Highway 5 from
Eastern Carver County to Park Drive. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
' Resolution #91-24: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve a resolution to authorize the City to enter into an agreement- with MnDot
to share costs for the Trunk Highway 5 upgrade from Eastern Carver County to
Park Drive. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Resolution #91-25: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
' approve a resolution approving an agreement with MnDot to share costs of traffic
signals and intersection lighting along Trunk Highway 5 at Dakota Avenue, Trunk
Highway 101, Market Blvd. and County Road 17.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:17
' p.m. .
Submitted by Don Ashworth
' City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
II
•
1
1
1
15
11
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 6, 1991
I/ Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:35 p .m . .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart , Ladd Conrad , Annette Ellson , Steve Emmings ,
Brian Batzli and Jeff Farmakes
MEMBERS ABSENT: Joan Ahrens
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; Jo Ann Olsen ,. Senior
Planner ; and Sharmin Al-Jaff , Planner I .
I
Krauss: Mr . Chairman , if possible , could we jump to 3 . Where is that?
' Olsen: It 's not even on . We 've got Coil Strauss from the DNR .
Krauss: We have a representative from the DNR who 's come to talk to you
about some of the work that we 're doing ongoing and we 've had , just been
able to arrange for her to come and she 's got a commitment to go home to
her son and we said that we would get her on as early as possible . It
won't take a terribly long amount of time .
Emmings: That 's fine . Why don 't you introduce her and what she 's going to
talk about here .
Olsen: The purpose is that there 's a new shoreland ordinance that we have
to adopt and we will have to do it within the next 2 years . So she just
' wants to kind of go through it , what the new stuff is and what the
shoreland ordinance is for . Take it away Ceil .
Coil Strauss: Is it okay to speak from over here?
Emmings: Sure .
Ceil Strauss: First I 'll hand out some propaganda here . This is an older
brochure that talks about protective waters permit program and what I 'm
talking about here has to do more with our land use management and the
shoreland rules . First off , I 'm Ceil Strauss . I 'm the Area Hydrologist
within the Division of Waters DNR and I work with actually most of the
water related programs including the permits for working in wetlands and
lakes and overseeing the shoreland mangement . . . I 've got sort of an
official presentation . I 'm going to try and go through this to give you a
little bit of an overview . Maybe I shouldn 't admit it but you 're sort of
my guinea pigs here . I haven 't given the formal presentation before so
hopefully it won 't be too bad . Say Division of Waters , Department of
Natural Resources and we 're talking about , can you all see this?
Conrad: Sure .
Ceil Strauss: Okay . Shoreland management program . And what 's the purpose
of the shoreland management program? The goal is to protect and preserve
the shoreland environments in Minnesota and the main areas that the
guidelines address are water quality and scenic and visual quality issues .
This gives you an idea of the lakes distribution in the state and as you
I
w
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 -- Page 2
•
can see , Chanhassen 's right here near a high concentration of the lakes .
Water areas as I 'm sure you 're well aware . There was , the original
shoreland rules came out mid-70 's and Chanhassen does have an 'ordinance ,
well in fact you basically adopted the original guidelines by reference .
The guidelines were updated and became effective in July of 1989 and that 's
what we 're working with now . Most of the parts of the new rules are very
similar to the old . I 'll try to highlight the things that are different .
As in the old rules , what 's considered shoreland district is within 1 ,000
feet of the lakes and within 300 feet or the landward side of the
floodplain . Designated floodplain , whichever goes out further . I know
something that 's been brought to my attention here and some of the other
' communities is well , do we have to go out 1 ,000 feet . Well yeah you do
because that 's what it is in Staeute . We can 't change that . The situation
where you may be able to change it from 1 ,000 feet would be if you 've got ,
' if the drainage is such that it 's draining a different direction . It 's
draining to another lake or to another area before you hit the 1 ,000 feet .
Say you get here and you 've got a big ridge and all the water flows the
' other way and your engineering department probably has a lot of that kind
of information . That would really be the only situation where you can get
any smaller than the 1 ,000 foot area . Critical definition is the ordinary
high water level . This is basically the line of jurisdiction for all the
DNR permitting authority and relates to this program also . You probably , I
don 't know how familiar you are with that but you probably have heard of
that . It 's essentially the highest known , the point where water 's been for
' a sufficient period of time to leave evidence on the landscape . And we
usually give that as an elevation . It 's typically where the vegetation
changes from aquatic to terrestrial vegetation . On a water course or
stream , river , it would be the top of the bank . As part of the shoreland
program , the lakes are classified into three main categories . That 's
something you 've already got in your current ordinance . They 're classified
into natural environment , recreational development and general development .
These classifications were determined back in about '68 and it was based on
a number of different criteria . If you wanted more details on how your
lakes were classified what they were , I could give that to you another
time . The other thing I 'd like to mention is that you 're required to
include those lakes that were 10 acres and larger . They got classified the
first time around but we would , and the rivers too . The rivers that are
' protected rivers or protected water courses on the DNR protected water
inventory map but I would encourage the City to consider protecting or
having the shoreland management guidelines applied to areas adjacent to
some of the smaller lakes and additional wetlands . That 's an option you
can choose to add . You can call it a separate category if you want . If
you want to lump some of them into the other three classifications that are
already there . That 's an option . Some of the other communities have say a
1 35 foot setback I know in Minnetonka from wetlands . It 's something you
could consider . We 'd really encourage you to do that since you 've got a
wetland ordinance and you 're doing some work with the wetlands in the
community already but we can 't force you to . There are minimum lot sizes
depending on the classification of the lakes . There 's some minimum
setbacks , lot widths , that kind of thing . They differ for the sewered
versus non-sewered areas . That 's almost identical to what the old ones
II were . One of the few changes was , and this is a weird one but the general
development , non-lakeshore in unsewered areas used to be 20 ,000 square foot
minimum . It now is 40 ,000 square foot minimum .
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 3 1
Erhart: Can you put that one back up there again?
Cell Strauss: Sure .
Erhart: You 're saying that near a recreational lake that a minimum lot
within 1 ,000 feet of the lake is 20 ,000 square feet?
Cell Strauss : The lakeshore lots , right . I
Erhart: Oh , okay .
Ceil Strauss: The riparian lots are these combo and then the non-riparian 1
or non-lakeshore is the smaller lots .
Erhart: What 's the object of that? So then what you 're saying on a
natural environment lake , it 's 40 ,000 square feet lakeshore lot . It 's an
acre . Severed , what 's the object of that?
Cell Strauss : Well it 's a combination of the impact you get from the
density in terms of visual quality and also when people develop lots , they
don 't just leave the lot all in it 's natural state . You 've got a certain
amount of the surface that 's impervious . You 've got driveways . Impervious
surface from the building itself . Disturbance from the lawn . People
fertilize . They put Weed Be Gone on their lawn . All these things that go
into the development of a lot have an impact on the lake quality both from II
the aesthetics and from the water quality standpoint .
Erhart: What lake do we have as a natural environment lake?
Olsen: St . Joe .
Krauss: Rice Marsh Lake . Harrison . St . Joe , Rice and Silver . 1
Erhart : Okay , so we have to adapt these standards or we don 't have to?
Ceil Strauss: These are the minimums .
Erhart : That the City has to adopt . 1
Ceil Strauss: That you have to adopt . And actually , you already have
these standards .
Erhart: 40 ,000 square foot lots on Rice Marsh Lake? We don 't do we . I
tell you .
Ceil Strauss: And these tables are in the booklets that you got there too t
that show this .
Emmings: Well that 's real interesting when you think that that parcel that
came over that 's going to be bisected by the new 212 , wasn 't that high
density going right over to Rice Marsh Lake? Wasn 't that a high density so
they could never have built in there anyway under those standards . I
Olsen: Well they never would have had riparian lots . . .
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 Page 4
I Emmings: But that 's another good argument when they complain about that
being zoned down like we have , they couldn 't have built with that density
anyway . Okay .
Krauss: It does point out a problem with the State legislation . We 've
been talking to Ceil and other folks at the DNR about it . The State
legislature has a habit of designing a law that , it 's a blanket . While it
' works well over most of Minnesota , it doesn 't work as well in the Twin
Cities where within 1 ,000 feet of the lake we may have 500 homes . And one
of our points of discussion is how we rationalized that through variance
procedures . . .we 'd like to come up with a way of making this as easy to
administer as possible .
Erhart : Well I guess , my question is , I just don 't understand why you 'd
' take one lake which is a lake that probably has more capacity to absorb
runoff which would be a weedy lake versus a deep lake and all of a sudden
you require a 1 acre lots along that . I just don 't understand that .
' Ceil Strauss : Well that was something that was discussed at great length
at the time that the original regulations were presented up there .
Erhart : Well again , I guess I 'd agree with Paul . A lot of these things ,
and it goes with this net loss thing , that everybody in the legislature
tends to look at Minnesota as farmland and rural area and some of these
things I 'm not sure they apply so well to the city . But go ahead .
Ceil Strauss: Okay , the rivers and creeks were classified into a number of
' different classifications there . The only ones that really apply , it was
only the bigger rivers like the Minnesota River that got separate
classifications . Most of those in Chanhassen are the tributary
classification . They also have the minimum lot widths , setbacks .
Something that 's new in these regulations is the idea of a shore impact
zone . You 're familiar with setback requirements for structures . The shore
impact zone is half the structure setback and the idea behind that is that
' you 've got sort of a buffer zone . An area that you don't allow extreme
grading . You try to encourage that more natural vegetation is left in that
area . That you don 't have clearcutting in that area and that 's the main
' thing behind it . I think it 's a much smaller amount of grading in terms of
cubic yards that would require permits say from the city than outside that
shore impact zone . Okay and that 's just showing that shore impact zone as
half the building setback . Another aspect in the new rules is more of a
' concentration on building in the areas of bluffs and steep slopes . Now a
bluff by definition in these regulations is , well we 're just talk about
bluffs that are steep areas that are within the shoreland district at 1 ,000
feet back . It has to go at least 25 feet above the ordinary high of that
basin and that it would need a 30% slope and need to drain toward that
basin . And it can get real complicated showing how you figure out what 's a
bluff and what 's not a bluff but let 's just leave it at 30o there . Then
steep slopes we would consider to be the slopes where the average slope is
greater than 12% and less than your 30d that would be a bluff . An
alternative would be if you have all your soils mapped according to Soil
Conservation Service type groupings there . You may be able to use that
instead of the strict 12% , 30% . Then there 's also a bluff impact zone in
addition to shore impact zone where there 's a setback from the top of the
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 -- Page 5
bluff 20 feet before you would put a structure so you 're not putting
buildings right at the very edge of the top of the bluff .
Krauss: This still only applies to the 1 ,000 foot because the Planning
Commission is looking at bluff line preservation ordinance for the
Minnesota River and I think that that 's . . .
Cell Strauss : A lot that may be . .further . You could look at these
guidelines that are in here and see what would be consistent and I should
mention at this point too . Now both Jo Ann and Paul brought up the point
that these are guidelines that are for the entire State and there are areas "
where they don 't really quite fit your community . They 're not going to .
You can 't come up with a law that 's going to be right for every single
community and there is room for , there 's a couple different categories of
what I 'd call flexibility . One is in an actual flexibility definition
where if there are extreme circumstance where you just can 't meet the
minimums in your community and you can come up with good reasoning for not II meeting the minimums , then that 's a possibility that we could pursue . The
other area that I would see being more likely here would be substantial
compliance . Now you don 't have to necessarily use exactly the same bluff
definition we have or exactly the same way of looking at PUD 's but if , as I
I 'm working with the community here and the staff , we can see that what
you 've got or what you want to use addresses the same concerns , then we
don 't care if it 's exactly the same words except for the same definition . 11
So that may be something you 'd want to consider with your bluffing . You
don 't necessarily have to use exactly that . You 'd- probably want to have
the same bluff definition in the whole city . Okay , this is showing the
setback from the top of the bluffs . I think people can understand why you II
would want a setback . It 's largely for the aesthetics and also for the
safety concerns if it 's a steeper bluff situation . It wasn 't too far away
from here during the super storm where they had that big area fall down .
Okay , another area that the City can choose to be a little more flexible id'
for one water oriented accessory structure . Let 's go right to the water
oriented part . For normally a structure has to meet the building setback
which would be typically your 50 foot , 75 foot , whatever and in the rules
the City can choose to allow one water oriented accessory structure that
only needs a 10 foot setback as long as it meets certain conditions such as
there 's a maximum size , maximum height . You 'd want to look at screening . I
Coloring types of concerns but that 's something that you can think about
because that would be how you would handle gazebos , boat houses , some of
these kinds of structures . You don 't have to allow that but you can . 11 Okay , now here we get into the idea of land use districts and this is
another one of those areas where it 's sort of aimed at your non-metro type
community . What we 're getting at here is the idea of saying what 's going 11 to be allowed in what areas . I 'm just going to skip right to an example
here . That 's a river one . Let 's go with a lake one . But the idea of
having , and you 're doing it with your Comp Plan and zoning and I think
that 's going to be one of our areas where we talk about substantial
compliance . But the idea is that you 're deciding what parts of the lake
are appropriate for residential . What parts are appropriate for high
density , if any . What parts are appropriate for what types of use and II that 's something that the Metropolitan communities are very familiar with
so I don 't think that would be too much of a problem here but I do think
it 's going to be a situation where we talk about substantial compliance
rather than you using our five categories that we 've got in the guidelines . I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 6
And planned unit developments . That 's unfortunately , it 's unfortunate that
our guidelines use that term because our planned unit developments do not ,
are synonomous with the planned unit developments that are used in the
' metropolitan area . Essentially we don 't consider it a planned unit
development until you get up to about a fiveplex . Up to a fourplex , as
long as they 're on their own lot and they meet the minimum lot sizes , we
don 't consider it a planned unit development . But the idea , I think you 're
familiar with the idea behind planned unit developments . It allows some
clustering of the units . You can try and keep the disturbance of the area
concentrated for utilities and for roads and that kind of thing and then
' try and leave the more sensitive , nicer amenity areas as open space . It 's
something that we do again , we 've got guidelines for what kind of things
can be allowed within a planned unit development in terms of density and we
get into density multipliers and a whole bunch of stuff that we ' ll have to
look at how the city handles their planned unit development analysis or
review and see how the end result compares .
Olsen: And the City might be getting into this subject also . Things that
the DNR defines as , requires to be . . .of a PUD which we would not consider
to be a PUD such as , like an apartment complex . You might with high
- density , you might not require it to go through the PUD but it would have
to go through the PUD regulations .
Coil Strauss : Right . The multi-unit aspect . Anything that we would
divide into residential and commercial PUD 's and residential is any
situation where you 've got , we 've got minimum lot sizes for up to the
fourplex . Up to four units on the lot but when you get into an apartment
' situation or bigger chunks of townhouses there , then we 'd consider that a
PUD . We consider a hotel , a resort , campgrounds , all those kinds of , well
prison we 're working on . Prison came up in Plymouth that we 're discussing .
But the commercial is transient , usually voluntary , living quarters there .
And I 'm not going to go into the detail on how that 's analyzed but this is
sort of a schematic of what a PUD might allow . Some concentration of the
development .
' Olsen: With the PUD regulations . . . The new style isn 't because we haven 't
adopted it but for some reason .
Coil Strauss: And I don 't understand why but for some reason the
legislature in their wisdom , somewhere along the way said .
Olsen: As soon as that was adopted . . .enforce if a PUD came in with a
shoreland district now , we 'd have to use these regulations .
1 Ceil Strauss: Okay , and we get a little bit more into best management
practices . We will be having some brochures made up on best managing
practices for the urban areas . Agricultural areas and forestry which
probably the urban area best management practiced . That 'd be the most
useful here . And do you have any unsewered lake? Okay . Another situation
that is in the new rules that is really going to impact some of the
' counties is that any time someone comes in for a building permit or any
kind of permit and they 're in the shoreland and they 're in an unsewered
area , they have to show that their septic system is compliant . Even if
they 're coming in for an addition on their house that has nothing to do
with the septic system . That it 's written in the rules that you 're going
•
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 7
to use that as your time to go ahead and see whether that 's compliant or II not and then the communities are all supposed to need to come up with some
sort of a monitoring system . A way to get all the non-conforming systems
updated and replaced . So that , I don 't think you have too many to worry
about here but that 's a big workload in some of the other more rural
counties . I think the rest of this is just sort of more background
information . The administration . Most of that you 're pretty familiar
with . Variances , conditional uses , non-conformities so I won 't dwell on
any of the rest of that . You will be getting, or in the process of getting
your shoreland grant . It 's one of the few situations where you 're being
told you have to adopt something and actually being given some cost sharing "
money to do the adoption . So the City can get up to $5 ,000 .00 in 50/50
cost share grant money . And just as an idea of what the agenda would be .
The first thing will be that we ' ll take a look at the classifications .
Make sure we don 't have any disagreements on how you want to classify your
lakes and rivers and then we would look at some of the bigger areas like
how you want to handle your PUD 's . How you want to handle your districts
around the lakes and streams and rivers . Hopefully we 'll be to the draft II
ordinance stage at a minimum by 6 months before your 2 years is up . You
just got your notification , 2 year notification in January here so you do
have until January , 1993 officially to get an adopted ordinance . I ' ll be , II
it 's part of my job to be working with the community here . If you have
questions , if you things are unrealistic , we can sit down and discuss them .
There are a lot of things in the rules to address the kinds of problems
that typically come up . There 's some additional wording on , for instance II
some of the things that used to be variances that were almost always
granted as a variance . We 've got for instance , you have a number of
smaller lots . You 've got a lot that 's undeveloped but the neighbor on
either side and all the other neighbors have non-conforming structures .
They only meet a 40 foot setback instead of a 50 foot setback . There 's
language in there that you can use that basically says it 's not a variance . II
You don 't have to go through the variance procedure if that setback is the
same as the adjoining neighbors . Some of those kinds of things are
included in the rules now because we don 't want to have a lot of extra work "'
but you have to look at what 's realistic .
Olsen : What do you do if the setback is 75 feet and you have a house on
one side is 60 and the other one is 50 . Do you go 60 feet? '
Ceil Strauss : I think it talks about the 50% , you basically go halfway
between . I 'd have to look at the exact wording .
Emmings: We 've got 2 years to get this implemented . Where is it on our
work schedule? Is there any reason it should take that long?
Olsen: We haven 't really discussed it . . .get going on it . Now 's the time ,
to really get going on it .
Emmings: What 's got to be done first? What would be the first step? '
Ceil Strauss : The first step would be looking at what the classifications
are and deciding what you want to include under your management guidelines . '
Emmings : And you mentioned including maybe some wetlands under this?
I
I/ Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 -- Page' 8
Cell Strauss : Right .
•
Emmings: What would be the advantage of that when we have the wetland
' ordinance that we have?
Ceil Strauss: That. I 'm not sure of the details of your wetland ordinance .
Krauss : I think that we do a more specific and more appropriate job . . .
Conrad: What do you think about chemical toilets within 100 feet?
Coil Strauss : I already took a look at that . I saw that you had the
setback there of 75 feet in your proposed ordinance there . It seems like a
' reasonable distance . You definitely , I would want to see it meet the
structure setback . I 'm assuming these are recreational development lakes .
' Olsen : . . .accessory structures 10 feet back?
Ceil Strauss: Oh , I wouldn 't want it 10 feet back . Now that 's not a water
oriented accessory structure because you don 't have to have it by the
' water .
Emmings: First of all you don 't have a principle use on those lands so you
' can 't have it an accessory structure right? So I don 't think it would fit .
Ceil Strauss: Well actually , we would probably not consider it , we may not
consider it a permanent structure . It hasn 't come forward to my attention
II in the past so I haven 't guidance on that but there 's a lot of situations
where something 's considered temporary and our rules only consider the
permanent structures . That happens in our protected water regulations too .
' We get people that will stick boats on blocks and the neighbors complained
because they think it looks terrible . It 's on the bed of the lake but we
have to consider it a temporary structure . You get into some gray areas
' with that kind of thing .
Emmings : Anybody else have any questions at this time? Okay . Well , thank
you very much .
II Ceil Strauss: Sure .
I Emmings: We 're going to shift the agenda around a little bit because
apparently there are people here on the zoning ordinance amendment
regarding chemical portable toilets on recreational beachlots so we 're
going to take that item next .
IIZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING CHEMICAL PORTABLE TOILETS ON -
RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS .
ISharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item .
I Emmings : By way of a little further introduction from me , I drafted what 's
here because Sharmin called me up and said I had to right then and then I
had to fax it to her so it could get on the meeting . I put it off for like
2 months and then I had to do it in 5 minutes so I 've made some changes
IImyself . I 've got some things that .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 9 1
Conrad : What are you referring to Steve? '
Emmings: The last two pages is the draft that we 're going to be looking
at .
Batzli : It didn 't look like a draft to me . It looked pretty formal and
finalized .
Emmings: Okay . I guess in some ways when I got done with this I thought II
gee , it 's so hard to do that I wonder if people are going to think it 's not
worth doing it and maybe that 's okay but the one thing that I added under II
( a ) was that , it says setbacks from ordinary high water mark shall be 75
feet . And I think maybe we should add that side and front yard setbacks
should be maximized to aid and achieving a maximum screening . And in the
reason I didn 't put in side or front yard setbacks there was that I know we 11
have , I know that on the lake where I live , on Minnewashta , there 's a
beachlot with a portable chemical toilet and I don 't think that beachlot ,
do you know how , is that 25 feet Dick? Do they have 25 feet of shore 11 there? That 's all isn 't it? So I couldn 't think of anyway , and then I
know there 's another one on the other side of Lake Minnewashta , remember
where they had several hundred feet of shoreline and I couldn 't think of
any way to write side yard setbacks for 25 foot lot . I mean it just
doesn 't make sense so I thought let 's leave them out but the more I think
about it , I just thought maybe we could say that they should be maximized
to help achieve those screening . And then I put in another one , I don 't
know where it goes . I put it in as , well it could be a paragraph ( e ) or
wherever you 'd put it and that is that a portable chemical toilet should be
securely anchored to the ground . That was in the first one and it wasn 't II
in this one . I missed that and that ought to be in here and I asked
Sharmin to call them and ask them how they anchor them and apparently they
do have some way to do that . There 's something else I wanted to say here
and I can 't remember what it was right now . Oh . On the first page of your
staff report Sharmin it says that the amended version will require
applicants to appear before the Planning Commission on an annual basis and
that wasn 't my intent . I put it in here that , under ( c ) that it would ,
require approval from the City planning department . I thought this would
be an adminstrative approval by the City planning department . That 's why I
put it that way . I don 't see any reason for them to come through here .
Batzli : How about annual approval though? Did you just want them to do it
once?
Emmings: You know , I didn 't think about it . If they 're using , I guess to
some extent if they can 't screen it well enough , then they have to get the
neighbor 's consent in writing and that 's only good for one year . So it 11 probably wouldn 't be a bad idea to make it annual because otherwise the
informatio isn 't going to be fresh on who 's responsible for maintaining it
and I think that 's a real important item . So yeah , it probably ought to be
an annual . You may want to have a permit fee associated with it too to pay ,
for the processing cost .
Krauss: Can I clarify something Chairman? Now the initial time this is
approved it would be approved as a CUP through the Planning Commission or
not?
I/
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 10
1
Emmings: I don 't know . I saw this as something they 'd come to the City
for a permit for .
Krauss: Well I think from our perspective , we 'd prefer that at least the
first time through , it came through here with the public hearing process .
' It adds formal notification . There 's an opportunity for people to comment .
I would be relunctant to approve those things initially at a staff level .
Emmings: So then it could be renewed on an annual basis?
Krauss: Renewals sure because we process complaints and we can 'go out and
' check compliance for conditions .
Emmings: That 'd be alright then . That 's fine with me if that works
better . And the other thing that was in the staff report that wasn 't , it
' says the consent of all the residents using the beachlot would have to be
submitted to the city in written form and that 's just a little wrong . It 's
neighbors that have to consent . In those cases like a 25 foot wide or
' someplace where they can 't screen the thing , that 's where you 'd need
neighbors consent in writing in order to have it at all . I wanted to
convey the idea that if everything is just right , you can have one of these
' and if everybody doesn 't agree , then you can 't have one . I don 't think
they 're important enough to give to everybody . They seem to me to be
strictly a convenience . I think they 're important when some of the
beachlots , a neighborhood uses them that lives and again I keep , I only
know the specific examples around my lake but there 's one I think maybe
that you folks are associated with where everybody lives across Minnewashta
Parkway in an area of homes there and they all come across there and if
some mom comes down in the middle of the afternoon or dad with their kids ,
and they 've got 2 kids with them and one of them has to go back home , that
means everybody has to go back home to go to the bathroom or whatever and
' it just seems to me to be a real reasonable thing to have for people 's
convenience if you can handle them in some way . Anyhow . Okay . Now we
said we had a public hearing on this but I 'm really wondering if we have
because this draft wasn 't in front of anybody who got notice of a public
' hearing . This has never been , is that important?
Krauss: You did have a public hearing on an earlier version of this . Yes ,
it was a different version but I think it 's fair to say that those who were
interested in participating in the discussion had an opportunity and we
notified those same people for tonight . If you 're comfortable with the
ordinance , I would feel comfortable with you passing it along to the City
Council tonight .
Emmings: Are there , did you come on this issue?
IGene Christensen: Yes .
Emmings: Did you get to look at the ordinance the way it 's been drafted?
Gene Christensen : We just got it tonight . We 're looking at it .
' Emmings: Do you want to make any comments on what 's here?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 11 1
Gene Christensen: I have no objections to anything and I think it sounds
reasonable to everything you 've got in there . In regards to signatures
from people . I mean on a yearly basis is somebody supposed to go to all
the houses and get signatures saying is it okay for this year? That kind II of seems like an issue that should be , I mean I can see it should be done
but what 's the process for volunteering for something like this .
Emmings: With your application , at least the way I see it . With your
application to the city for your permit for the year , if you don 't have any II
way to screen it from view , you 'd have to go to the residential neighbors ,
in your case , on each side . I know there 's plans . You 've got houses on
both sides of yours right?
Gene Christensen: Yes .
Emmings: Now the house that 's on the north side of yours is going to be
town down and that 's going to be subdivided . I know that 's in the works
and there 's going to be two new houses in there . And to the south of you I
there 's a house so you 'd have to go to those two houses and say , if the
city thought you couldn 't screen it well enough , you 'd have to say . One
thing you could say is it was there last year and were there any problems
with it and otherwise sign this form giving us your consent so we can show
the city you don 't have any objections . Is there anybody else here who 's
got comments on this? We don 't really have a public hearing going I guess .
Well we 'll see who 's got comments here . Tim? I
Erhart : Well okay . I absolutely agree that the Planning Commission should
not review this on an annual basis . It should be a staff function . I
guess I 'm more inclined to have it completely a staff function . If it
meets the ordinance , on what basis do we deny it anyway if it comes to the
Planning Commission? I guess going a little bit deeper , I 'm bothered with , '
in the first place I think it 's a great idea to allow chemical toilets on
beachlots but I 'm wondering if we shouldn 't specify a little bit about
which beachlots are allowed and which shouldn 't be . I mean each lot that 's
25 foot wide with residents on either side , I 'm not sure we should be in
the business of allowing chemical toilets at all .
Emmings: Well I guess if the neighbors don 't care , do you? '
Ellson: But if the neighbors don 't care .
Erhart : Okay . If the neighbors don 't care . I guess what I 'm getting to II
is , let 's say you 've got a 200 . What 's the current ordinance for beachlot .
Is it 200 feet or 180 or what? 200 feet . You 've got a 200 foot beachlot
and you 've got 40 ,000 square feet . Let 's say you 've got an acre and one II neighbor is , his house is 200 feet away so he 's got 50 foot setback . He 's
150 feet away from the proposed chemical toilet and he 's going to say well ,
I 'm just not going to let you do it . Therefore , I 'm not going to agree .
Now that 's going to prohibit .
Ellson: No , read the part about screening . You only get the neighbors
consent if you can 't screen it from them . I think that 's the way I look at II
it .
Erhart: Is that the way it is? Okay .
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 12
Ellson: So if that guy is that far away , you could prove that .
' Erhart: Alright , so we 're not saying that one neighbor can disallow
putting this on there?
' Emmings: No . At least I wasn 't thinking about it that way .
Ellson: I didn 't read it that way . Look at number 5 and see if that 's
' where you get it .
Emmings: I don 't know if it says it that way but the notion was , you 've
= got to screen it from view because they 're ugly . If you can 't screen it ,
' you can 't have it . But on the other hand , if the neighbors that have to
look at it all the time don 't object , and you can get them to consent to
it , then why should we object? That 25 foot beachlot on Minnewashta had
one last summer and I only think I noticed it once or two times driving by
on the lake . You can 't see it from the road . I don 't know what the
neighbors thought about it .
' Erhart: I guess I was looking at a staff recommendation . Where does it
say in there? Are we looking at staff recommendation or are we looking at
your?
' Emmings : No .
IIEllson: Look at the ordinance . Last page .
Erhart : Maybe I was concentrating on the wrong thing . Well okay . The
question arises , let 's say that that 's covered . What happens if you have a
' 25 foot wide beachlot , as someone had mentioned earlier . The other thing ,
Steve where did you come up with , what was the purpose of the June 15th
thru September 5th?
' Emmings: Right out of the air . I thought they might want to have it still
there Labor Day but certainly not beyond Labor Day and I just put in a few
days for them to get it off of there . June 15th because that 's about when
I
school gets out and I think they start getting heavy use . Honestly I think
from what I 've observed , if they were there from June 15th to the middle of
August or the end of July would probably be enough . The area of the heavy
' use of the lake is really very short .
Erhart: Okay . I guess I would have thought if we were going to do it , I
guess I would have just picked Memorial Day .
Ellson: Memorial Day to Labor Day .
' Erhart: It 's not a big deal but I guess I remember the kids swimming
before June 15th .
' Emmings: Well that 's fine . We can change it .
Erhart : The other thing . On the chemical toilets that we have at the
park , do we have a contract with someone to maintain those? Who empties
and maintains those?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 13
Al-Jaff : BFI does .
Erhart : Why not insist that they have a contract with someone to maintain II
those as part of the conditional use permit?
Emmings: Can you even rent them without a contract to maintain them? ,
Gene Christensen : That 's an automatic thing . If you rent them , they come
and clean it . That 's part of the rent process . The contract . ,
Erhart : I guess that was my thought .
Gene Christensen: It 's going to be once or even twice a week , depending on "
if it 's used heavy or upon request .
Erhart : We write it as if someone , part of the group that is using it is II
going to be maintain it . That 's the impression I 'm left with what I 've
read but then again it wouldn't be the first mistake in reading this .
Batzli : So you 'd want as part of the application process a copy of their II
rental agreement .
Erhart : There 's got to be a contract to maintain it . That way there 's no II
doubt left that someone 's going to leave it unmaintained .
Ellson: So number 4 doesn 't tell you that?
Erhart : Well I 'm trying to , I 'm strengthening it I guess . The plan for
maintaining it could be that well gee , Nick 's son over there , 11 year old 11 Nick needs a summer job and he 's going to maintain it .
Batzli : Yeah right .
Emmings: We probably wouldn 't approve that . ,
Erhart: Okay . In that sense I 'm making it easier for the staff to , okay . ,
I guess I 'm also trying to push this over towards the staff approval even
though Paul doesn 't like it . It seems , it 's a real good idea but I think a
small thing is the ordinance is done correctly . That 's all I had .
Conrad: Paul would this be , what would apply for a sideyard setback as
Steve 's ordinance is drafted right now? There 's not in his ordinance .
Krauss: There 's none and that 's one of the reasons why I preferred that well
didn 't have it at a staff level initially . There's a lot of subjective
judgment that has to be made here . You run a little bit of a risk when you "
do that in an ordinance but you lessen the risk when you have 7 Planning
Commissioners deciding subjectively what a proper standard is than you do
if I do it .
Conrad: I just see that as a gap right now and I 'd have to go along with II
Paul . One , I don 't like chemical toilets . I think it 's just taking a risk
and a lot of other communities don't . Don 't like them . Don 't want them. I
Don 't allow them . Steve , I think you did a nice job of drafting this . I
think it got the intent of what . It puts some flexibility in terms of
I
1 Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 14
allowing it where there 's very , where we 're not hurting the neighbors .
We 're not hurting the environment . So from the standpoint of the draft ,
I it 's not too bad except for some , it still is open and in that case I would
not want staff to see it . It has to come here unless we put those
guidelines in and I don 't know that we 're smart enough to put the
guidelines in right now because every situation you 've got outlots or
beachlots that are 25 feet wide to thousands of feel wide and that varies
the same . The neighbors vary so I don 't know . In terms of keeping it
' flexible , the way it 's written , I think we have to review it . At least the
first time through . On an annual basis , then I think staff can do that but
there 's just no doubt in my mind the way it 's drafted now , we have to see
it . And again , I 'm real nervous about chemical toilets . Real , real
' nervous but I can go along with this if we see it and we protect the
neighbors and we protect the environment .
' Emmings: Anything else? Annette?
Ellson: No . I thought it was well written . I guess I can understand
Paul 's idea of having it come through the Planning Commission but I 'd can 't
see it ongoing but I could go along with that . And I think while they have
some risk associated with them , I think that some of the alternates that
people are taking advantage of now is probably even worst so I think you
' ought to have those toilets there .
Batzli : I think the benefits of allowing these in certain instances
I outweigh the disadvantage of the site . Pollution , if you will . I think
the risk of not having them , having lived on the lake growing up on Lake
Minnetonka is that people tend to use the lake directly as a toilet and
especially younger kids or people who have a long walk home . And so I
think this is actually an improvement over what you might otherwise see on
the lake . Crass as that might sound . So I 'm for this . I mean I see these
on some of the larger lakes and around public lakes in Minneapolis and
things like that . I actually think they 're a good idea and if it 's
administered properly , and that 's the key . That 's the key with all of our
ordinances is the enforcement aspect and if this isn 't enforced , then we 're
not doing a good job and then you 're risking the pollution of the lake . If
these things fill up , they're not properly emptied and some kids on a joy
ride with their Jeep tip it over , you may get something to go into the
lake . And so I think we do need the setback to at least minimize that sort
' of problem because I 've seen several instances , and especially on
Minnetonka where , at the Narrows , which is a fishing spot , they put them
right next to the Narrows and people push them right in from time to time .
' It also happened at Libb 's Lake and some other places where you have to
close beaches and you end up in a real sorry state if you don't properly
enforce , administer , tie them to the ground . But like when you contacted
11 that person , they basically said if you have several adults pushing it or a
Jeep , you 're going to be able to knock the thing over . So it 's something
that might be a problem but like I said , E think the advantages outweigh
those negatives . I liked Steve 's additions . I would add three things . One
' is, in paragraph ( c ) . I would have it read , use of a portable chemical
toilet shall require initial approval by the Chanhassen Planning Commission
after conducting a public hearing . In each subsequent year , the
' application shall be reviewed for approval by the City Planning department .
That way , the applicant has to come in . They have a shot . All the
neighbors have a shot . It 's a public hearing . We can then apply the
Planning Commission Meeting 1
March 6 , 1991 - Page 15
standards that we feel are appropriate and thereafter the administrative
approvals would follow in subsequent years . Paragraph , as it currently
reads , in paragraph ( d )( 2 ) . I would add at the end , after the word
ordinance , or if the portable chemical toilet otherwise presents a
nuisance . And I would also change the word revoked in the first sentence
there in paragraph ( d ) , I would have it read denied or revoked . I would
actually change that whole paragraph to number ( e ) and insert a ( d ) that
says , portable chemical toilets shall be securely anchored to the ground .
I guess Steve already suggested that . Those are my comments .
Farmakes: I live by the park in Greenwood Shores and I first noticed the II
need for a toilet facility there when I was walking through the trail one
day and saw somebody going to the bathroom on a log . There are specific
areas where people are channeled for recreation . Either ice fishing on the II
lake or in the summertime swimming , where those facilities aren 't available
and rather than hop in the car and drive into town or drive to a gas
station , when nature calls , they make the decision to do it there . So
there are some areas where these things are needed but I would use
discretion as to where those are . I would hope that the City would be very
careful as to how many of those are handed out . In particular if
somebody 's going to do it privately on their own , whether or not they 're
going to maintain it . I 'd rather see these as a commercial type structures
that are maintained commercially and as you said , that they have proof of
maintenance contract and that they 're being emptied properly . About twice
a year the one at our park is tipped over and these are BFI type thing .
They 're made out of plastic and there 's a vent at the top in the summer and
when they 're tipped over , and it 's on a grade , effluent just comes out .
They 're not in any particular area or sand or gravel area . They 're just on
grass . I think the maintenance truck backs up to it . Lifts up the old one
and puts down the new one . They don 't empty it . I don 't know how else , I
you know if you allow that , even in a park , to get too close to the lake ,
it 's going to go down the natural slope when it falls over . On 3 , on this
section here where it says portable toilets be firmly anchored to the
ground . Is there a definition of what firmly anchored is? The reason I
ask , for these maintenance things they seem to have a thing where they lift II
them up and drop them off . Or at least the one by our place . Is there ,
does that mean a chain to it or that we bolt it to the ground?
Emmings: That 's why I asked Sharmin to call and see what they did about
that and apparently what she found out , at least from BFI , that they put 2
foot long spikes that are driven into the ground to hold the thing down .
I 'd never heard of that before .
Farmakes: The one on ours is not adhered to the ground at all . '
Emmings: Maybe you have to ask for it .
Ellson: I think you probably would . I 'm sure they get people that request II
it but it 's probably easier for their guys not to have it down so in some
of those ballpark areas , they probably don 't even do it .
Farmakes : I think it would be nice if we define what , so that it couldn 't
be tipped over if they were allowed . If that 's how they do it . And the
other question I have on 6 is the facility shall be constructed of '
r
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 16
materials compatible with the materials used in the neighborhood . Does
facilities included , does that mean a shelter?
Emmings: I think you 're looking at an old draft . The new draft is the
last two pages in the packet .
Batzli : We got rid of the materials . Steve got rid of the materials
requirements from that draft you were looking at .
Emmings: I don 't foresee anybody building their all and maybe we should
make that clear . That they come from some commercial vendor and are
maintained by some commercial vendor . That 's what I had in mind .
' Ellson : That 's why you 'll be able to deny that when you see the plan .
Farmakes: That would keep them from deteriorating or that they 're at a
particular level of workmanship and performance so you know that they 're
not going to fail .
Emmings: Somebody said last time we talked about this that they knew
something about whether they leaked if they 're tipped over . And now what
you 're saying is very different than what I heard before . I don 't know ,
' Al-Jaff: There 's a letter from BFI that addresses that issue . Right
before the ordinance and it says that if this is tipped over , that it
usually doesn 't leak but I don 't know if there are any safeguards . They
also state that they use chemicals that are biodegradable to protect the
environment .
' Emmings: Yeah , it says here if the unit is tipped over .
Ellson : Backwards it cannot spill out forward unless the tank is over half
full .
Erhart : That provides the way out is to require that they put a kind of
wall around it . Fence or a wall real close to it and you can 't tip it
over . As you suggested in that last paragraph .
Ellson: Then it 's not so portable . In and out .
Emmings: Then how do you get in it?
' Batzli : Well what they do at some parks to avoid it is they require a
fence be built and basically the fence , or it 's a screen . Fence and
basically it hinges so in order to tip the toilet , you 'd have to run over a
pretty good fence . They do that in Burnsville and some other parks .
IIFarmakes: The one at our place , or in Greenwood Shores is just a portable
unit but the same unit is inside the Carver Beach area over by the skiing
' area . That 's in some sort of enclosure so they must take that out or drain
that in a different way . So they must have more than one way of
maintaining them .
IEmmings: Have you got anything else Jeff?
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 17
Farmakes : No , that 's it . '
Emmings: I guess the way I think about this is that it 's an experiment .
I 'm not sure that we ought to have portable chemical toilets in beachlots
but I know that there are some and I know that there are people who want
them . I guess I regard this strictly as an experiment and if it doesn 't
work , I hope it 's written such that we can prevent them . If we find things "
that are wrong with doing it , if we decide to go ahead and do it , we want
to be sure we 've got a tight rope that we can pull it back and get rid of
it because I can foresee that that might happen . But because there are
people interested in having it , maybe it 's worth trying to do it to see if II
we can do it in a way where we can keep a reasonable handle on it . Is
there anymore discussion on this? If there isn 't , I 'll ask for a motion .
Mike Mason: I just want to make a couple of comments . I share some
of Ladd 's concerns about chemical toilets . I spend a fair amount , I live
in Carver Beach and I spend a fair amount of time down there in the summer II
with my kids and I don 't care how often it 's cleaned , they stink . They 're
very . . . Lake Ann , the ones at Lake Ann and clearly these won 't be used
anywhere near as much . I understand that but they do create an odor and I
think that 's a concern . Listening to some of the commissioners , I find
myself softening a little bit on that . I do think that if this is
approved , " it should be done on a yearly basis . You get the approval of all
the people in the neighborhood want it . Well , in 3 years the. neighbors
change and there might be some . . . Certainly I think some kids are going toll
go use the lake for a bathroom whether you have a toilet for them or not .
My guess is use by the lake would be lessen . Use of the lake would be
lessen . I also share some of the concerns that Jeff raises about them
being tipped over . Although the one in Carver Beach , I know they do have
some sort of fence on one side of it so you really would have , it wouldn 't
be just a matter of 4 or 5 people coming to knock it over . You really havell
to work at it to do it . I like what you 're saying about the experiment .
What I see about that is once something like this gets in place , I think
it 's pretty hard to remove it . I 'm just voicing my opinion on it , that 's II
all .
Emmings: Dick?
Dick Wing: I 'd just to mature this thing , it 's got a lot of gray areas ,
before it sneaks out of here because then it just gets all the more
confusing . Specifically I guess I don't understand where we wound up here II
on the setbacks . I look at Pleasant Acres who has no depth at all and they
had 1 , 2 or 3 of them down there as I remember . They exist now . They 're
in place now . Beaches have them now and I think they need to be
controlled . I think there needs to be an ordinance to control the fact
that they are going to exist . So I have two questions I 'd like to see
clarified before it leaves the Planning Commission and one would be the
setbacks . I think that needs to be clarified . Especially this one for
Minnewashta Parkway area . It 's a very narrow lot with homes on both sides
and new homes going in and that 's going to be a real issue because I 've had
a phone call on it . I support the neighbors of the neighborhood and the II owners of the property so I 'm kind of going back and forth here trying to
do what 's fair . The other thing is screening . I think these are large
structures . I think they 're very unsightly structures . They 're not
compatible . . .beaches so the screening is a big issue . But to screen that
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 18
large of a building or structure on some of these smaller lots is a major
undertaking and I think that , I guess for me to support it , the screening
has to be well defined . And then the neighbors that are requesting it ,
have to realize that there 's going to be quite a bit of inconvenience to
them to properly screen it . Whether it 's done with vegetation or done with
the proper fencing . I don 't know which would be best . I don 't have an
opinion but the issues of the setback and screening , I think the Planning
Commission really needs to kind of set those in concrete a little'bit . . . .
here without those details .
Emmings: My comment on that Dick is this . If we 're going to specify the
screening and we 're going to specify the setbacks , then I don 't think we
' can do it . And the reason I don 't think so is this . It 's going to have to
be real site specific because you 've got such a variation . If for example
you 've got a situation like the one that Minnewashta Heights has , there 's
no way . They had one down there last summer and there 's no way you could
see it from the road . They 're only 25 feet wide so both neighbors on both
sides could see it and you could see it from the lake . I don 't know how
you 're going to write any kind of a sideyard setback for that place because
even if you put it right in the middle , you 're only 12 1/2 feet away from
each neighbor and that 's not far enough really . And I think for someone
like them , it 's going to depend on the neighbors past experience with that .
' If they didn 't like it there , this is a chance for them to put the kabosh
on it , which I think they ought to have . A right I think they ought to
have . But if it hasn 't been offensive to them in the past and they know
11 that signing a consent is only for one year at a time , they might say fine .
Go ahead and do it . As far as screening goes , if I 've got again , a
beachlot like that , there 's probably no way I can screen it other than
building a structure and again , if the neighbors don 't care , I don 't know
' that we should care . And there will be some beachlots , I think where
because of topography or other things . You know if you 've got one that 's
300 feet of lakeshore that 's all trees and shrubs , you can probably put one
someplace on there where nobody 's going to see it from anywhere . And that
one would be real easy to do . But I don 't know , other than saying that we
regard screening as critical and that if you can 't screen it you can 't have
it , I don 't know if we can go further to say specifically how they 're going
to screen it . There might even be places where you 'd prefer not to have
them build a structure because the structure would be as ugly as the
portable toilet itself .
Mike Mason: Could you put something in the ordinance that would strengthen
the site specific statement because I can just see hey , there 's one there .
How come I can 't have one here . And I know you 've got something in here
already .
•
Emmings: Yeah . That 's why when we wrote the , I wrote the intent it says
II the City recognizes that maintenance and use of chemical toilets on some
beachlots may be unsuitable because they cannot be adequately screened from
residential neighbors or lake users . That was sort of the point there .
Maybe it 's not strong enough .
Batzli : But then you clearly , you know in paragraph ( d ) that you say it
could be denied or revoked based on violation of the intent of the
ordinance . That intent statement does set forth that some lots might be
unsuitable . It depends on if you want it strengthened .
I
Planning Commission Meeting '
March 6 , 1991 - Page 19
Erhart : I guess , going back to what my thought was . You know we regulate II
whether you can have a dock depending on how many feet of shoreline you
have so we have set precedent for looking at the size of these things and
it determines what you can do with them . I guess when I was reading this ,
I wasn 't thinking of a 25 foot wide beachlot . I guess quite frankly in my
mind , the purpose , is not the general purpose of this is to serve a
beachlot that has higher than , fairly high use? And I guess when I think
of a 25 foot wide beachlot , what 's the purpose of that? Is it just for the
purpose for someone to get access to the water but not hang around there?
Emmings : No .
Erhart: What do they use it for?
Emmings: It is very heavily used . And I have to say , well . You 're closer
to it than I am Dick but I live what , 4 houses down from it or 5 houses
down from it and it imposes . When I first looked at it I thought boy ,
that 's going to be a pain in the neck and it really is not at all .
Erhart : Okay , but what , do families take their kids down there and picnic? "
Emmings: Oh yeah .
Erhart : Is there a bigger area in the rear? '
Emmings: No , it 's just tiny and it 's very heavily used .
Erhart : How do you keep the kids off of the neighbors lawns and stuff? 11
Emmings: They have fences on both sides of it . I don 't know if they do II keep the kids off the neighbors lawns but they fences on both sides of it
and they seem to me to be very responsible in their use of it . It 's kept
pretty neat . It looks pretty nice all the time as far as I can tell .
Ellson: . . .the neighbors mind, then they have a chance to say no .
Erhart: If you can 't , it isn 't wide enough. to have this thing so many feet "
away from the property line , then it isn 't big enough to have a Satellite .
Conrad : But the neighbors aren 't going to decide .
Ellson: What if they all say no , I 'm not going to sign it?
Conrad : They can screen it . '
Batzli : They can screen it .
Conrad: Remember the neighbors don 't have control based on the way the 11
ordinance is worded . Only if you can 't screen it .
Erhart : I 'm all for this . I think it 's a good idea but there comes a point "
I guess where the lot 's just not adequate physically to .
Ellson: There 's one in all of Chanhassen that we 're talking about? I
I
' Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 20
I
Emmings: Again , I hate to be put in a position- of defending this , and
' I feel kind of like I 'm doing it but the flip side of that Tim is that
little one is getting heavier use . Minnewashta Heights , I don 't know how
many boats they have out there which is something else we really need to
get a handle on in the city because that thing grows every year and they 're
not under the ordinance . I know they 're grandfathered in but they 've
expanded the use of that tremendously over the years . But that heavy use
may be more of an argument to have it than not to have it . I don 't know .
' Maybe it is .
Batzli : I think it does . And given the nature of the use with a lot of
kids , I think that 's the kind of arf,a that you need one of these . And the
fact that it becomes odiferous actually probably means something positive ,
unfortunately . Somebody 's using that instead of going where they
shouldn 't .
Mike Mason: It doesn 't to the neighbors though . You know if they 're
getting that whiff through the window all night long .
Ellson: But you know , I 've been around some of them and I know that I 've
been around some smelly ones but I 've also been around some that are really
' clean . I don 't know if maybe those need to just be maintained more often .
Maybe they need a daily clean-up or whatever it is but isn 't it possible to
complain about those things and have them improved? Because I 've really
been around some and I can 't believe that so many people went through it .
Dick Wing: Again if I could offer an opinion . More than that. , just during
the Fire Department picnic at my house . . .the first two years we had one and
' even though we put it as far off the yard as we could , it was no man 's land
that day and the next time I said , you know let 's just use the house . It 's
more pleasant but that 's neither here nor there . Specifically Minnewashta
Heights with that narrow lot , what bothers me about these setbacks is that
' if they put it anywhere in their outlot or their recreational lot , it 's so
close to the water that should there be any vandalism , it 's in the lake .
That 's all there is to it . And in Greenwood Shores , I think they 'd be one
of the worst abusers , the City itself and the City ought to be required to
anchor these down . Specifically with Minnewashta , should you tip it over ,
it 's directly into the drainage directly to the lake . So it 's , I 'm going
' back and forth with you Steve . You really can 't write any rules . On the
other hand , without the rules , they really can get kind of carried away .
In those little lots 10 feet from the lake abutting the neighbors houses .
' Emmings : We do have , you know right now we do have an ordinance that says
you can 't have them and we can leave it that way . I mean that 's the choice
that we 're talking about here .
Dick Wing: Minnewashta Creek , who I think brought this up , has a good
sized lot and would adhere to your ordinance which is the main issue- and
frankly I think that 's . . .and then from that point on, I think other lots
are going to have to fall in line . They 're either going to work or they 're
not going to work . They 're either going to have to go home , and I don 't
know how much lake useage there actually is . . .little kids going to go up
and use that anyway or is the lake still their primary means? So pollution
versus convenience , I don 't have any idea on that . I 'm really worried
about the smaller lots . The one we were discussing that brought this up ,
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 21
isn 't going to be a problem . . . On Pleasant Acres there 's no setback . . . I II
don 't know the other lakes . I 'm not . . .beachlots or Carver Beach . Are we
going to , is the ordinance going to be so vague that they 're just going to
exist all over the place or are we going to put in enough controls that are
going to say some lots can 't have them?
Emmings : Anything else? I
Erhart: I might offer that there is a way to keep them from tipping them
over and that 's attaching them on the bottom . Attaching them to a
permanent wall on the side at least 4 feet high or something instead of
trying to attach them to the base . Require that they have a concrete block
wall or something which could be part of the screening and attached in the
center halfway up . There 's no way you 're going to tip it over . The only II
question is , will the BFI company provide a method of attachment 4 feet up .
I don 't know . Again , I think we ought to proceed . We have to learn some
things as we go along . I think in general it 's a good idea . '
Emmings : . Do you have a motion?
Batzli : I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of the ordinance "
amending Section 20-263 set forth in this packet with the following
modifications . Paragraph ( a ) , second sentence it says , side and front yard
setbacks shall be maximized to achieve maximum screening from adjacent lots II
and the lake . On paragraph ( c ) , the first sentence shall be amended as
follows . First sentence would read , Use of a portable chemical toilet
shall require annual approval . The application shall be initially approved
by the Chanhassen Planning Commission after conducting a public hearing .
Each subsequent year the application shall be reviewed for approval by the
City Planning Department . In subparagraph 4 of ( c ) I would insert the word II commercially before the word maintaining . New paragraph ( d ) which reads ,
the portable chemical toilet shall be securely anchored to the ground to
minimize tipping of the toilet . Letter ( d ) shall become ( e ) . The words
denied or shall be inserted before the word revoked in the first sentence . II
In subparagraph 2 . After the word ordinance , the words or if the portable
chemical toilet otherwise presents a nuisance shall be added .
Emmings: Is there a second? '
Erhart: I ' ll second it .
Emmings: Alright . As far as discussion goes , I think we 've got a problem . II
We can 't approve anything can we? We can? Without City Council taking
action on it? He said that the Planning Commission is going to approve .
Batzli : Well we recommend that the City Council adopts this ordinance .
Emmings: Is that understood from what he said? ,
Krauss: Sure . Yeah .
Batzli : I meant to say we 're recommending that they approve it . He knew II
what I meant .
Emmings: Alright . Is there any discussion? 11
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 22
I
Batzli moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to
approve an Ordinance Amending Section 20-263 of the City Code which shall
read as follows:
THE CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL ORDAINS :
Section 1 . Section 20-263( 2 ) of the City Code shall be amended by deleting
the words "portable chemical toilet" .
' Section 2 . Section 20-263 of City Code shall be amended by adding the
following Section :
16 ) Portable chemical toilets may be allowed on recreational beachlots
so long as the maintenance and use of these toilets have no
undesireable impact on the environment , residential neighbors or
lake users . The City recognizes that the maintenance and use of
chemical toilets on some beachlots may be unsuitable because they
cannot be adequately screened from residential neighbors or lake
users . Any use of chemical toilets on recreational beachlots shall
be subject to the following minimum standards :
a . Setback from ordinary high water mark shall be 75 feet . Side
and front yard setbacks shall be maximized to achieve maximum
screening from adjacent lots and the lake.
' b . The portable chemical toilet may only be used during the period
from June 15 through September 5 and shall be removed from the
beachlot at all other times .
' c . Use of a portable chemical toilet shall require annual
approval . The application shall be initially approved by the
Chanhassen Planning Commission after conducting a public
' hearing . Each subsequent year the application shall be
reviewed for approval by the City Planning Department. All
applications shall be accompanied by the following information :
1 ) Name , address and phone number of applicants .
' 2 ) Site plan showing proposed location of chemical toilets .
3 ) Name , address and phone number of entity providing chemical
toilet .
4 ) Plan for commercially maintaining the chemical toilet ,
including a copy of any agreement for maintenance , and the
name , address and phone number of person responsible for
maintenance .
' 5 ) A written description of how the applicant intends to
screen the portable chemical toilet from all views into the
property including views from the lake . The City regards
screening as essential and no portable chemical toilet
shall be allowed where it cannot be screened unless all
residential neighbors consent ( in writing ) to allow the
toilet without screening ( any such consent shall be deemed
Planning Commission Meeting ,
March 6 , 1991 - Page 23
to be given only for the year in which it is given and not i
for any other future time ) .
d . The portable chemical toilet shall be securely anchored to the II
ground to minimize tipping of the toilet.
e . Approval for a portable chemical toilet may be denied or
revoked upon any of the following grounds :
1 ) Complaints of residential neighbors;
2 ) Any violation of the intent of the ordinance or if the
portable chemical toilet otherwise presents a nuisance.
3 ) Any evidence of failure to maintain the toilet to eliminate
odors and pollution or to maintain screening .
Section 3 . This ordinance shall become effective from and after its date II
of publication .
All voted in favor of the motion except Ladd Conrad who opposed and the
motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1 .
Emmings: Ladd do you want to state your reasons? I
Conrad : I just don 't think the benefits outweigh the risks and I do
believe that as the ordinance is worded , I would change this and basically II
my direction , if we are to be flexible , would be to have some certain
minimum standards . 100 yard lot width for sure . 30 yard side yard setback
for sure . Anchoring to some permanent structure for sure . And probably a
statement , intent statement that we , and this is my own thought and it
obviously doesn 't reflect anybody elses here but generally discourages the
use of chemical toilets except when certain conditions exist that protect
the environment and the neighborhood . Did I say yards? I meant feet .
Thanks for catching me . On those standards I was thinking feet .
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARTICLE VIII PERTAINING TO THE PUD,
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Emmings
called the public hearing to order .
Erhart moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed.
Emmings: Anybody want to talk about this? '
Erhart : Yeah , what was the reason when Mark , let me step one back further .
When we first redid our PUD ordinance , that was on here a few years ago I II
guess , I was always left with the impression that we were talking about a
PUD related to residential development in a residential zoning district .
It never occurred to me at that time we were talking about anything other II
than that . Then Market Square came along and all of a sudden we were
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 24
talking about a 100% commercial area and we were doing it PUD . Where did
Ong 9
I go wrong originally? And secondly why , remind me again why Market Square
is a PUD .
Krauss: Well I think , Tim your perception probably goes back to the fact
' that Chanhassen historically has used it more in a residential setting than
we have elsewhere . Now that goes against conventional wisdom because the
reverse is usually true in most communities . In fact arguably , we 've had a
' lot of problems with residential PUD 's and that 's why you got into that
because the changes in the PUD ordinance were designed to address the
problems that became evident after development in neighborhoods like
' Pheasant Hills took place and you saw that nobody had room for decks and
' that sort of thing . I 'm sorry , what was the second question?
Erhart : What was the purpose in Market Square? Why was that a PUD and
what did we get out of that?
Krauss : Well I 'd like to think that the end result was that we got a
fairly high quality , fairly high level of design architecturally from a
landscaping standpoint .
Olsen: We got setbacks . It was in the CBD where there is no setbacks .
Krauss: I don 't know what the trade off is supposed to be . I mean there
was always , it was an implied . Like I say , conventional wisdome was that
' there 's supposed to be a trade off but it never said that in the ordinance
and it never gave you any kind of indication as to what we should expect .
Also the rationale for Market Square in part being a PUD is because the
development was intense enough that -they needed the flexibility . They
needed to be able to get around things like the hard surface coverage if
they were going to make the development work . That 's fine if you 're
getting what , if the City gets what they want out of it . And I think that
' one worked out . But it only worked out after literally dozens of meetings
with the developer saying you know , putting our foot down and we 're not
going to take this and trying to work out compromises . And as I recall ,
the Planning Commission itself was negotiating architectural detailing at
the very end .
Erhart: Were they negotiating or just imparting our wishes? Is one 'of the
' complicating things here is that you 're trying to make one ordinance cover
multiple zoning districts?
Krauss: I don 't think so . PUD is a generic term . It 's a generic ,
administratively functionally it cuts across all the land use categories .
We have some specific standards for single family because of our unique
experience in using it . Having seen some of the end results here with
residential PUD 's , I personally wouldn 't advocate that we ever do it again .
Not for single family but I think that if we did it again with the single
family , we 'd have better guidelines than we did before .
Erhart: You don 't think we got additional open space?
Krauss: I 'm not so sure . Well in Pheasant Hills we did get some outlots
that were protected but we couldn 't have probably protected them anyway .
I
Planning Commission Meeting I
March 6 , 1991 - Page 25
Olsen : That was before the .
Krauss: Was Lundgren 's after?
Olsen: That wasn 't a PUD .
Batzli : Was Fox Hollow before or after? '
Olsen: Before . Lake Susan Hills was one of the after ones and we did
definitely get more . 1
Erhart: It was my impression that the whole negotiation there was that we
got open space out of that .
Krauss: Well again , if the City 's getting what is meeting it 's
expectations . Pheasant Hills was designed apparently on the presumption
that it would lower the cost of housing by going with smaller lots . That II
clearly didn 't happen up there. There are other ways of achieving that .
There 's another type of housing that I talked about briefly in here but I
didn 't propose standards for it but I was familiar with it from working
with it in Minnetonka . Is that I found that with several developments over !'
there , zero lot line or Z type of development . I don 't know if you 're
familiar with it but they 're single family detached homes on very small
lots that share , you know one wall of the house is virtually on the
property line and the wall of the house adjoing it is virtually on the
property line and then there 's common spaces inbetween . I found that you
had to develop specific standards to deal with that type of development II such as you already did with single fmaily because you have people living
in such close proximity that if somebody sticks their air conditioner
compressor under the other person 's bedroom window , you 've got a major I
problem . Or you want design flexibility in the house but window , you know
one window here shouldn 't look into the bathroom over there .
Batzli : In that type of setting , are they physically , are the walls
physically attached or is zero just kind of you 're a couple feet apart?
Krauss: Usually you 're a few feet apart . 1
Emmings: Can you put a portable chemical toilet inbetween?
Krauss: Split the difference . '
Emmings: Just enough room in there .
Krauss: I don 't know if we 're going to have that here . I 've got to assume !'
that sooner or later somebody 's going to propose that . I do have some ways
of handling it but I didn 't feel like muddying up the issues too much at
this point .
Conrad: I 've just got some thoughts . I think we 're going in some good
directions . We 've talked about some of these things in past years and some II
of it may be before Paul 's time . Maybe Jo Ann and I were the only ones
around but a lot of what happened . A lot of problems occurred when you get
into PUD . We don 't have a clue what we 're getting . We don 't know what
we 're giving up value wise . Therefore , we don 't understand the negotiation
r
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 26
process . Strictly city negotiating . There aren 't concrete performance
standards which a lot of communities have . We 're not smart enough here or
' haven 't put the time in to develop those performance standards . We talk
about them but we don 't really know what they are . You reduce density by
x . You will increase or you save a wetland , you will actually increase . It
will give you x percent increase in density . We have a little bit of that
here but not very much . So it 's like we 're bordering on something and to
really have good performance standards in one terrific , a whole bunch of
work . Otherwise we 're back in the same game of well , is staff negotiating?
And I think , I don 't want to discourage what Paul is presenting here
because I think anything that helps define more what we 're doing is better
but again , I just think for those of you who haven 't been around a whole
' lot , performance standards can be extremely complex . They 're great if
you 're smart enough to figure out what they are . Typically you 're smart
enough . Don 't put enough time into it so you kind of wing it when the
' developer comes in . But again , the thing that I need , I don 't know that
some of what we 're giving Paul is meaningful . I don 't know that taking a
lot from 15 ,000 square feet down to 12 ,000 square feet is meanginful . It
might be but I don 't know what the developers think about that . We haven 't
seen them flocking in and requesting PUD 's because of that . On the other
hand , because I don 't know what that , how meaningful that is economically ,
I don 't know what we can expect from a developer on the other hand . So
' again , from a commissioner , from a lay person , you almost have to trust the
staff can figure some of this stuff out . And again , it 's a lot of , it 's
staff negotiation . In here Paul , I 'm just going to wing a few things about
what 's here . Under the allowed uses , there was a section called specific
uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be delineated in a
development plan . The performance standards . So you have to make those up
every time a development plan comes in?
' Krauss : Well you do , but that 's part of the flexibility that a PUD gives .
I can give you an example of one that , I was kind of pleased with how it
turned out . The Minnetonka Corporate Center is an industrial office PUD
that Trammel Crow developed . It 's off of 494 and the Crosstown . When we
worked the PUD agreement up for that , it laid out what types of buildings
and what sizes of buildings and the number of stories where going to go on
individual areas . It delineated all the tree preservation areas . It
delineated where wetlands were going to be preserved . Where wetlands were
going to be created . Where major landscaping features were going to go .
It laid out a whole signage package . We threw out the sign ordinance and
came up with a coordinated sign program . Came up with a coordinated
lighting program . There were general architectural standards that were
' approved in there where most of the buildings were going to be glass and
brick and there was limited use of tip up panels where truck loading was
concealed . Where there 'd be common spaces in some of the buildings . And
this is a 15 year development program that was laid out and it was a book
that was developed which was adopted and it was amended from time to time
but that book has essentially guided that development to where it is. right
now . Now it 's not finished to this day but I think , you look at the
general level of development in there . The standards that have been
adhered to and they 're pretty good . That 's what I see being adopted when
hopefully , when the development group comes in with 160 acres on TH 5 and
' TH 41 . That would an ideal spot to go through a procedure like this . What
I would like to avoid like the plague on a site like that is zone the whole
thing IOP . Have it split up into 45 lots and anything that comes over the
Planning Commission Meeting I
March 6 , 1991 - Page 27
next 20 years goes . That seems like we 're throwing out any kind of control "
we can exercise over it . Now you do exercise control over it through your
site plan ordinance and we 're trying to get better code requirements in
there . But I think you 're a lot better off if you can look at the big
picture on something like that and get those areas preserved that you want
to get . Get the building massing in the right places and get it all to
work as an overall concept .
Emmings: Now the site that you just mentioned in Minnetonka , was that done
on an ordinance that was similar to what we 've got in front of us here now II
to review? What were the performance standards in the Minnetonka ordinance
that that was developed under?
Krauss: That was developed under an earlier version of the Minnetonka '
ordinance . I wrote the current version of the Minnetonka ordinance and I
took a lot of that and kind of changed it a little bit but fit it into this II
proposal that you 're looking at now . What was in the Minnetonka
ordinance though were basic expectations , even the old ordinance , as to you
know , protecting the exterior of the PUD as to what the City had a right to
expect . The current version of the ordinance is more explicit . But 11 Trammel Crow was a good enough developer too that we were able to kind of
work mutually towards this thing and basically the current version of the
Minnetonka ordinance is reflective of my experience working with them on
that and what we had a right to expect .
Emmings : And just for clarifiation for me anybody , to the extent that I 've
been involved with PUD 's , it was always my understanding that , like you
said in this one introductory paragraph . It was kind of common wisdom in
the city that a development has to earn a PUD zoning but it 's not really ,
that expectation isn 't written down anywhere . I know that when I was here II
through one revision of the PUD ordinance , everybody said if we don 't get
something that we want out of this . And it 's not preservation of a wetland
because they have to do that anyway . We don 't ever , they don 't get any
points for that because they have to do it anyhow . They have to really
give us something that we want or we deny it and that didn 't work over here
on Lake , was it Lake Susan Hills? The big development that 's west of Lake
Susan , what is that? ,
Olsen: Lake Susan Hills .
Emmings: Yeah . Because I remember the Planning Commission there felt we 1
weren 't getting anything and we recommended denial and the City Council saw
it just the other way around. They saw it as a tremendous opportunity to
zone a tract that was over 300 acres and they said it was a PUD so
obviously in the City we haven 't had any concurrence or any agreement on
what we 're doing here so laying this stuff out I think is real important .
Conrad: In that case , they thought they were getting a good park and we ,
didn 't think we were getting a good park . Or play area or whatever . There
was just a whole lot of difference of opinion on that and again , it goes
back to we don 't have a clue what we 're getting . What is the developer
getting value wise for increased density or for something and what are we
getting back? I 've never had a handle on that one . And most of the times ,
most of the PUD 's I feel we 're giving up far more than what we 're getting II
but that 's just .
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 -- Page 28
Emmings: And interesting , in that case too , the threat was if we didn 't
see it as a PUD , then they would come in under the subdivision ordinance
and just put in a straight subdivision . And we said , on the Planning
Commission we said fine . We think we 've got a good subdivision ordinance .
Go ahead and do it because we don 't think that 's what you want but that did
scare the City Council . They didn 't want that .
Conrad: Yeah . And they have known something we didn 't know .
Emmings: Right .
' Conrad: Are there cases where we would require a PUD?
Krauss : Well I would like to be in a position to require developments to
go PUD because I think we get better product and can work it better . Every
time I try it , the City Attorney tells me I can 't do it . You can almost
kind , you can ask somebody to do it . You can be very specific that we 're
not going to let one variance go through unless . You can really put
I somebody in a position where they wanted it . Also , developers these days
are more savy than they used to be and they realize that PUD 's allow
phasing . They allow the City to look at different standards for streets .
They allow them more flexibility at building clustering . Maybe more
' density than they would normally get . And the better developers are , you
know they 're typically looking for that .
' Conrad: I don 't know . I like PUD 's . I don 't think we offer enough in
exchange in some cases . I 'd like to really encourage things like open
spaces and stuff and I 'm not sure what we are able to give really does
' that . In other words , instead of putting 8 units on a piece of property ,
my posture and it 's really changed over the years . Instead of the 8 , if
you clustered them in a highrise which takes us to a different zoning
category but you know , double , triple the number . Leave some open space .
In essence what you 're doing is preserving some of that lot for open spaces
or whatever but you 're really , you 're kind of changing what the zoning .
You know , my philosophy , I 'd be putting in a highrise to do that and I
don 't know that that 's what the current ordinances allow . But
philosophically , there 's just some neat trade-offs that you can make but a
lot of people still love large lots and I think there are reasons to change
that because it preserves some other things out here that are equally as
' valid . Couple other questions . I don 't want to dominate this but the 5
acres sort of bothered me because I don 't know if you can have a PUD in 5
acres . You said you 've heard that 's a standard that other communities have
but I 'm just sort of , you can 't have a residential . It 's though to have a
residential PUD in 5 acres . Maybe you can have some other kind of PUD but
that 's a real , I guess that gives us flexibility . The other point I wanted
' to add on . I think in this thing Paul you should be saying we would , the
City encourages PUD 's and maybe we can 't require it but I think wording
wise , we want to encourage it and at least my opinion is that we want to
encourage it because we do , we can get some things that we like in that .
' But I don 't know if you want to word that in there . I do like the density
transfer stuff but I 'm not sure again , I 'm not sure where that leads us .
The density transfer there , under the required standards Paul and Jo Ann .
It says density . The increased density , increased transfer for density
may be allowed at the sole discretion of the City . . .but it doesn 't give in
that area , do we have to drop back to the density? The increased density
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 29
could possibly go down to 12 ,000 square feet . Is that where we 'd flip back
to the required standards 504? In 505 you said we encourage it but there
aren 't any standards . But then we go back to 504 for residential and is
that what would apply?
Krauss: For single family . '
Conrad: For single family? See in that case , I just don 't know that we 're
going to get much and I help put those standards in .
Olsen: We aren 't turning developers away as far as single family
developments . When we first meet with them , they ' ll compare what they can
get with the PUD versus the straight subdivision and they go straight
subdivision .
Conrad: I guess I 'm sort of mumbling but if we want to encourage stuff , I
you 've got to be able to hang a carrot out there . So far the carrot 's not
big enough . Maybe that 's 'okay . Maybe we shouldn 't change it .
Erhart : What are they looking for? What do they think is reasonable?
10 ,000 square feet.?
Emmings: Or more clustered?
Olsen: They all want the single family and they want the small lots .
Emmings : How small?
Olsen: As I was just telling Paul , you know 12 ,000 . That 's our minimum
but I don 't know how you can go much smaller but some of them like the I
11 ,000 and 10 ,000 . I don 't know because what we do is we do take out the
wetlands first of all and we do take out the sloped areas so there goes
some of their net density right there . And then plus we 're saying we 're
going to take parkland and trails and additional . And when we start taking I
all of that away , their density just goes , you know they 're left with maybe
50 lots when they might get 52 lots going . It 's comparable .
Conrad: In the PUD that you 're proposing , 25% in this draft , 25% of the
original intended zoning can be altered so basically we could move those
units into a multi-family area? ,
Krauss: Conceiveably yes .
Conrad: And therefore we could get some open space . '
Krauss : Sure . I suppose if you had a large enough site and it could be
designed , you could have some townhomes in some section of it . 1
Conrad: And you feel comfortable with 25% because it keeps the intent of
the original zoning . The 75% , that 's basically it .
Emmings: Then you wind up again with a situation where they come in and
they lay out a plan and over here they 've got , what they want is the 12 ,0001
square foot lots and they get some of those and they 've got to leave some
open space and they get some multi-family . They put that in for you and
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 30
then they build the homes and they never build the multi-family because
there 's no market for it . I think we 've seen that in Lake Susan Hills .
They were supposed to , have multi-family there and we wanted that and we
haven 't seen any and the reason I assume is that there 's just no market for
it . We never will see it .
Krauss: In Lake Susan Hills though , the sites are still being held for
townhome and high density developments .
Emmings: Yeah . Until they come back and say geez , we just can 't sell
them . Can we change this and I fully expect that to happen and that was
predicted when they were here with their plan . So that 's another problem
with that is we don 't have the range in the market out here . When people
come out here to buy , they come out to buy a single family home . It seems
like . At least now .
Krauss: I think that 's been the traditional . Well , traditionally
Chanhassen 's been a bedroom community but I think we 've all seen that
change in the last 5 years . I 've had several people making inquiries about
multi-family housing lately which surprises me because there 's , since 1985
when the tax law changed , there hasn 't been much multi-family built
anywhere in the Twin Cities and there 's a glut on the market in most
' communities . But there are some people looking seriously at it here .
Emmings: Do you think it 's because of the jobs that have opened up? It 's
people moving out to be closer to their job .
Krauss : I think it 's because the city 's changed and jobs are a big part of
it . We have a lot of people who have children grown up here and then they
have to leave town because there 's no place to live .
Conrad: Let me give you a hypothetical case . I really like density
' transfer and again it 's not anything I 've ever seen that would do a whole
lot here . But let 's say we have a 30 acre PUD which under today 's
ordinance we get 3 lots per acre or something like that . So really they
could have 90 single family residential lots there . Let 's say we wanted to
put those on 45 , no on 15 of the acres . So we had 30 acres to begin with .
We want to keep 15 open and we 're going to drop . We 're going to transfer
the density that they could have had in those 15 over to the other 15 . Can
this ordinance handle that situation?
Krauss : Yeah .
' Ellson: By keeping the other one open?
Conrad: Again I 'm just , that seems like something that you 'd want to do in
I certain circumstances . We 're going to move just half the lots and we 'll
double the density over here . Well see I don 't know that Paul is` right
because what we did is we took 15 ,000 square foot lot and we just took it
Idown to 7 ,500 based on what I just said .
Krauss : Well no . The problem is we have separate single family standards .
If you 're talking about single family detached housing , you 're stuck with
Ithe 12 ,000 square foot minimum .
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 31
Conrad: So we could only transfer a couple acres worth of density to the .
We could only open up a few acres basically until we got to that 12 ,000
square foot minimum . Whatever .- So basically density transfer is an
interesting idea . I don 't know if we 're using it to the point where we can
encourage really some significant benefit . You know , if you open up a I
little bit of space , who cares? It might not be that big a deal where if
you open up 15 acres for some particular reason , it may be a big deal .
I guess what I 'm saying is , I 've never seen our ordinance able to really
encourage creativity because we havge some restrictions because we , the I
community are saying hey , we value single family so much out here we want
big lots . That 's why I moved here , and we 're not going to sluff that
standard . So I bring that up . I don 't have a solution to that but density '
transfer I always thought was a neat thing to do if we ever figure out how
to do it . Some of the ratios Paul , in your hard surface coverage . Boy ,
I guess , and I don 't know if they 're right or wrong and maybe you robbed
them from some other place but the one thing that 's kind of neat that •I
I always feel I have control over , even in bad situations . Even let 's say
in industrial/commercial uses , I think some of the neat things about our
industrial park is that it does have green space . It does , we 're set apart
because it 's not wall to wall , concrete to concrete , asphalt to asphalt
stuff . I attribute that to one , good planning and some sort of plan . But
two , our requirement for impervious surface ratios that kind of gives some
berms out there . Kind of gives some trees . So when I see them , the hard
surface , I 'm not sure how much that 's changed and maybe it hasn 't changed
at all . I 'm just sort of talking here but that adds to the character of
our industrial parks . The greenery in it and as much as I 'd like to
consolidate those parks , I still like the green . I still think we can makell
them as pretty as what we 've got but I 'm not sure I like sacrificing some
of that and so , I sure could be persuaded . You know my intent or where I 'm
coming from . I think those are the bulk of my comments on that .
Emmings: Ladd , can you think of any time we 've had a PUD here where it 's
really given us something? Where it 's really worked the way we 'd like to II
see it work? I can 't .
Conrad: I 'm having a tough time . There are PUD 's where we 're getting some '
things but as I said . I 've never seen a real creative PUD .
Emmings: I haven 't either .
Conrad: And you know , the smaller the property , the less creative you can
be . But I don 't think we 're really encouraging them either here with what
we give . I don 't look at it as a totally what do we get out of this PUD , II
I think it 's Chanhassen wants this , developer wants this and the developer
can save him some money by clustering utilities and things over here and
Chanhassen can add to it 's quality of life by doing some other things . So
it 's a give and take but geez , I get real frustrated by what they 're giving
and that 's simply because I don 't have a clue what we get now in some of
these negotiations . I just don 't know and maybe I never will .
Emmings : It 's a funny thing because it seems to me like a PUD is an ideal
way to develop any big piece of land . Any big housing development . Any
commercial development or industrial development . I 'd like to see it all
done under here but if that 's right . The reason I like it is because I
think we get to have a hand in the planning or the design so that we do get
•
' Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 32
some things we like . Whether it 's open space or extra landscaping or
whatever , but it 's never happened . So something is screwed up and I don 't
know , do you have any idea Paul why it 's never . I don 't think it 's ever
' worked here . Lake Susan Hills , we have PUD 's but it 's just another
subdivision really .
Krauss: I do think the Market Square is probably the best example , the
closest example of where that could work . If that was developed under the
CBD zoning , anything would have gone on that property . I mean there were
' no setbacks anyplace . You have the 1 per 40 requirement for trees .
There 's no coordination of access . There 's no architectural standard that
you really adhere to . On Market Square we felt very comfortable pushing
very hard for better than normal design . Remember we had the whole
argument about the roof lines and they came back and said it 's costly and
you were saying , well that 's part of the trade off . And we required very
large trees and a large number of them , particularly in the back property
line and through the parking lot . We developed architectural standards for
the two outlots . So we don 't know what 's going to go on there but we know
that it 's got to be consistent with .
' Emmings : Well why in that case didn 't they just say , the heck with you ,
we•' ll just develop it with it CBD zoning?
' Olsen : The impervious coverage and there were some things that they
wanted . Parking .
Emmings: Okay . So they couldn 't go CBD there? just come in with
something that fit .
' Krauss: Not and have the same project , no .
Emmings : Because what you said just makes it sound like we 've got holes in
our standards that we require for development in the CBD really . It would
seem to me that anything that goes into the CBD ought to be done as a PUD .
Maybe .
' Krauss: Well the CBD is sort of a frightening district . Now it 's not
unlike a lot of communities that have a real old downtown where there was
no standard and it 's tough to begin a standard in that kind of a context .
But I feel very comfortable that we did a lot better with the PUD over
there than we would have done otherwise . And we got coordination that we
wouldn 't have had . I mean we have internal access roads . We had them
build turn lanes . They 're moving bus shelters . There 's a lot of stuff
' that goes in there and it 's tough to keep , for an accounting of this stuff .
I mean there 's not a balance sheet that says we gave this . They gave this
because it 's an ongoing process . I mean we get something out of them .
I They get something out of us . In the meetings before it comes to
the Planning Commission , the Planning Commission you went through that
project 3 times that I was familiar with .. Each time there were more`
criteria . The City Council did the same thing .
Conrad: But you know a lot more than we do Paul . You 've done that .
You 've gone through it and you know when we see it on a one shot deal , we
don 't know what 's been negotiated really . We 're really in the dark .
Planning Commission Meeting ,
March 6 , 1991 - Page 33
Krauss: Well one interesting thing with Market Square too that I think
points out why one aspect of why a PUD is a good thing to have . You 're all
aware that from time to time over the last 2 years it seemed like Market
Square was going to wither and die and go away . It now seems as though
it 's really going to happen but I 've had from time to time interest in
splitting up the properties and being just able to develop , parcel things '
off and people have come in and said , I 've got every right to do this . Or
you know , it 's owned by 3 individuals right now . Burdick owns part ,
Bloomberg owns part . Burdick will just take his piece and develop it
independently . I 'm sitting here saying you can 't do that . The whole thing "
is zoned PUD . The only thing that could go on it is Market Square and
anything else that you want to do is going to have to go for a rezoning and
we 're not going to recommend approval of a rezoning unless there 's a
comprehensive plan that we find acceptable . So we haven 't gotten Market
Square. in the ground yet but we haven 't gotten piecemeal stuff that 's a
problem .
Emmings: I thought you had to have unity of ownership before you could
even have` a PUD .
Krauss: That 's fine . Then the partnership agreement does say they would I
do that .
Emmings: Oh , okay . So there is a partnership between those three on that II
property? Okay . Well this could go on for a long time and we 've got to
shorten it up somehow . Annette , have you got anything?
Ellson: Well I like the idea of getting it a little stronger and I "was
thinking the same as you Steve . It always seems like we 're in such a
reactive mode and I think I say it like every meeting but I really think if "
we want to ask something and we think PUD 's the answer , then let 's go out
with our ideas and talk to people and help because by the time a developer
likes this piece of land , he 's already got it in his head and then we 're II going in and trying to do whatever . We 're so reactive . That 's one of the
reasons I feel we don 't always see ourselves getting involved because
they 've got it all laid out . They had that 100 homes in there or whatever
and if we could say , offer people . You know we 're taking a look at density
swapping . Are you interested because we 'd like to keep this grove of oak
trees . Here 's a couple ideas any developer , let 's talk . I don 't know . I 'm
thinking in terms of something like that but I agree that this is like the
most beneficial zoning we can have . We really could come out with stuff
that we really want and preserve everything that our goals do if we work
with this the right way . I also agree with everybody else saying that so
far nothing too swell has come out of it yet but the potential is there .
So I just think we have to go out and do some of that ourselves and offer
the opportunity to people and the kinds of things that we want to maintain
and what we 're willing to swap for . And you make the good point . Do we II have enough of a carrot to say , throw it all on 7 1/2 . . .allowed to do that
but we could have such potential . It just seems like you want to take
advantage of it but I like what you 've done . It 's very difficult to fine
tune it though . I tried to help but I don 't know exactly where . So those
are my comments , as inept as they might be .
Emmings: Should we vote on how inept they are? Brian? I
1
11 Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 34
Batzli : Paul was right about one thing and that was that there was a lot
in here and I think , as I sift through it , I still I don 't think have quite
' figured out what we 're really trying to do with this even yet . I guess , I
like parts of it and parts of it I don 't understand why it 's in here . I
don 't know where Paul got some of these -things from , even in the intent
section so I think we need to have a lot more discussion on this and what
it is we 're trying to do . I think it was raised by several commissioners
and that is , we seem to want this but we don 't know why we 're not getting
anything with our current ordinance . And if our current ordinance is
' vague , by beefing up the intent and demanding more , I don 't think we ' ll get
more in . So I guess I don 't understand what we 're hoping to achieve by
toughening an ordinance when we 're not getting any PUD applications in here
now with a weak ordinance . That 's a philosophical , rhetorical question . I
don 't know .
Farmakes: You made the comment that for financial reasons or market
' reasons that you 're not getting a lot of applications for this?
Krauss: Sure .
Olsen : Most definitely .
Farmakes : Do you believe that that 's going to change or do you think that
' it 's just Chanhassen in general? I mean if the ordinance is weak , you say
there are some people who are inquiring about this?
Krauss : The only thing that we 're not getting right now is we 're not
getting applications for residential , single family residential PUD 's . And
from my standpoint , that 's fine because they cause us more trouble than
' it 's worth . Where I think you 're going to be seeing this more and more is
mixed use residential , commercial and industrial . We 've reached the stage
in our growth where I guess for lack of a better word , we 've hit the big
time and the kinds of development we 're going to be getting out here over
the next 10 years require more sophisticated approach that a PUD can offer .
The industrial park . Chanhassen Industrial Park should have been a PUD .
I 'm firmly convinced that as good as it is , we could have done better had
' that ordinance existed at that point in time . Now we have tracts of land
south of the railway tracks . You know , assuming the MUSA line gets
approved . We 've got a 90 acre chunk south of there . We 've got 160 acre
' chunk on TH 5 . We 've got some commercial development around new TH 101 . I
mean there are lots of sites where this is going to come into play . And I
think you really need to change gears for a moment and project forward as
to where this is going to be used in the next decade because I think our
past experience of , in this isn 't really going to be very relevant .
Batzli : Do you think we should go in and rezone areas that we want PUD PUD
' right now with the new ordinance in effect and to basically demand that
they be developed PUD?
Krauss: Well that 's an option Commissioner Batzli . In fact , I don 't like
' to keep referring back to Minnetonka but when we developed the 394
ordinance which is a corridor ordinance , we rezoned everything to PUD up
there and then developed corridor standards that applied in those PUD 's .
Conrad : That really makes a lot of sense .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 35
Ellson : That 's not a bad idea at all . '
Batzli : That would be the only thing that would make sense to me because
otherwise you 're going to , I think get exactly what we 've had in the past
and that 's somebody 's going to come in . They 're going to look at our PUD
and then they 're going to say , well I don 't want to give you that much .
I 'm just going to develop it to your lower standards that you 've got in I
your IOP district standards or your BF or your CBD . Whatever else you 've
got . I don 't see that they 'll use this unless we rezone it .
Erhart : Aren 't you missing though , you don 't get anything because they 're I
not big enough? A PUD works when you have a large piece of land under
single ownership . Whether you zone an area PUD or not that 's not under
single ownership , you 're not going to get anything . The key to getting
something is a large parcel of land under single ownership . Isn 't that
really the crux of it?
Krauss: That 's a lot of it . That 's the easiest , that 's the best place to I
get the most bang for the buck . But those are the same tracts of land .
Those are the tracts of land that we have out there . We do have massive
ownership . I mean the whole TH 5 frontage is probably in 15 property
owners hands . And they 've already formed a development consortions .
Ellson : Yeah , I was going to say . Those people were all signing off on
these things . I
Erhart : And we if can get them to do a PUD and collectively work together ,
it will be great . What is a real thing here , if we want to get some neat II
stuff done here , is to focus on encouraging massive developments where you
can go in and look at it from a broad point of view . I 'm not sure we can ,
this is going to do that much .
Conrad: Let 's say we zoned the entire TH 5 corridor PUD . Does that
encourage the current owners to consolidate ownership?
Krauss: Not necessarily . What it does do though is give you more design
latitude to require what you think is appropriate .
Emmings : Now we just went through a process for the Comprehensive Plan '
where we fussed around specifically laying out zoning .
Conrad: We could have gotten out of all of that Steve by just zoning it
PUD and telling the residents that we didn 't know what was going to go in
there .
Batzli : But you can do PUD and it would just have to be developed
underlying in accordance with the comprehenisve plan .
Krauss: Which is land use . And in fact , one of the things that the City II
Council did that I informed you about was when they talked about the 137
acres in front of Timberwood . The City Council approved language that
basically left that residential but stated conditions under which non-
residential may be considered . One of the requirements was that it be
developed as a coordinated PUD . You know , along with the design standards .
In fact that brings to mind one thing too . John Shardlow in all his '
I
' Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 36
1 presentations . Remember John Shardlow wasn 't only a planning consultant ,.
he 's a member of a consortion that owns that 160 acres out there . He 's
' already stated a couple of times that it 's their intent to come in with an
overall development plan . A PUD development plan .
Batzli : For the whole corridor?
' Krauss : No . For their 160 acres .
' Batzli : Well they had some sort of plan already that they tried to show us
didn 't they?
Krauss: Well yeah ,
' Batzli : Well it was a plan .
Krauss: Yeah .
Emmings: Jeff , did you get a chance to finish?
Farmakes : No , I have no further comments . I think it 's a good thing .
Ellson: How about you Steve?
' Emmings : I guess everybody 's , I don 't have anything to add really . I
think it 's important to do . I don 't know how we get from where we are to
getting a better ordinance that will get something done . And the only
specific thing , while somebody was talking here about open space , I don 't
know if any of our ordinances or anything we have ever mentions open space
as something . You know we talk about trees and other things but the PUD
ordinance doesn 't mention open space and I think maybe somehow we ought to
specifically reference it . That that 's something that we would consider an
asset . Preserving open space is something .
' Batzli : That brings a smile to my heart you guys talking about open spaces
in a positive way . I like that .
Emmings: Very Zen . We 're into Zen . But how can we get any further down
the trail?
' Conrad: The one thing I 'd like Paul to say , I 'd like Paul to tell us some
things about , to do some criticisms of some of our standards . The 12 ,000 .
He basically left some things in place not wanting to really attack them
but just sort of an analysis to say , hey do we have enough flexibility?
Density transfer 's a neat word but is it really going to be useful? Or do
we have to change something . And maybe there 's some other things . Lot
sizes . Is the 25% that he 's now putting in to a particular PUD where we
can change it from the original intent , is that enough? I guess I.m just
curious , I 'd like him to come back or staff to come back with some
rationale for changing certain of our guidelines . Standards .
' Emmings: The other thing too I think , under the intent section , all the
things that are listed there are specific and somehow to me there ought to
be some kind of a general statement of intent . A general statement that
we 'd like to encourage this kind of development . That we expect somehow to
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 37
get something and we expect to give something . Maybe it would be a good
idea , I wonder if it would be a good idea to have somebody like John
Shardlow or other developers who you know , or have worked with in the past ,
come in and tell us what they want to get from us in order to give us some
of the things that we 're interested in getting . Do you think that that
would be useful?
Krauss: I think that kind of dialogue might help . Somebody like Bob
Worthington possibly might be willing to do that . John Shardlow might too .
Emmings: Well maybe you ought to get 2 or 3 . Shardlow 's obviously got a I
specific thing in mind when he talks to us and that detracts from it 's
value to some extent or you 've got to be aware of it . But maybe if you can
get somebody who 's more neutral .
Batzli : I 'd like to see like the guy from Lundgren , from an RSF
standpoint .
Emmings: Yeah . Those guys know what they 're doing . They seem to be very
knowledgeable . I don 't know if they ever developed PUD 's but . Maybe that
would help us get us to figure out what 's going on .
Ellson : Yeah , because we don 't know what incentive items at this point .
Conrad: And then maybe Paul can also tell us some things about zoning . 1
The options of going back and zoning PUD 's right now . If that makes sense
or we shouldn 't do it or should .
Erhart : You know how you can get open space in residential area? You
increase your minimum lot size and then you- offer the 12 ,000 foot . . . I
think we 've all agreed that 12 ,000 is getting pretty close to the absolute
minimum . If you really want open space , you increase your average lot size
or your minimum standard lot size in the subdivision to a bigger number
like 20 ,000 square feet .
Emmings: Then you 've got all open space between houses .
Erhart: Because when you do that , then the developer 's going to come in
and say , gee whiz . Alright now I 've got some incentive to go to PUD
because I can save . I can go from 20 ,000 square feet to 12 ,000 square feet
and I 'm giving you up that density in terms of open space . But the problem I
is , we 've got our standard lot now so small that the spread between the
12 ,500 and 15 ,000 isn 't adequate to incentivize a developer to come in and
develop open spaces .
Batzli : I would agree . But I think that 's the problem in each one of our
districts . If you looked at it district by district , you could go through
and say , this is why they don 't use PUD more . '
Erhart : I don 't know if anybody 's ready to increase our lot size from
15 ,000 .
Batzli : I would be .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 38
Krauss : If the focus is on the single family and I guess I would have
preferred to stay away from that but I think you can actually go with a
smaller lot size in residential PUD 's as long as there 's a commensurate
requirement that architectural design is known ahead of time and approved
U and designed to match . The problems we 've had is we let somebody build on
a smaller lot and they put the same , if not a larger house than they were
going to do before . Didn 't tell the property owner anything and put this
big patio door over looking the backyard that really is illegal to use
because if you build a deck out there , it 's in the neighbor 's lot . Those
things can be , I mean they 're design problems . You can go with much
tighter lots . You can almost go down to the zero lot line situation as
long as you lay out the design parameters ahead of time . They 're filed
against the property . The owner , the purchaser of the lot understands
them . The developer is obligated to build to that standard and you know
what you 're getting ahead of time . It just doesn 't work when you give
somebody carte blanche to do whatever they want to do after the lots are
created and that 's the problem we 've had .
Conrad : You know why we focus on residential Paul is because usually when
we look at commercial or industrial , it is one building going in on one
parcel . It 's not where you have 20 acres and somebody 's coming in to , we
don 't see that much of that .
Ellson : That 's why he 's saying , this is a potential in the future .
Conrad: Paul , he 's going to have to educate us in that area because we
really don 't see much of it and we don 't know .
Krauss : One other example you might want , if you 're tooling past there . If
you want to see a monolithic one building PUD that I think worked real well
is look at the Fingerhut headquarters on 494 and Baker Road . We did that
as a PUD because it encroaches into a single family neighborhood and we
wanted to be able to give assurances to the neighbors that what we saw is
what we got . We bought a package and we wanted to keep it that way and we
wanted to incorporate high levels of design and a lot of site buffering and
we wanted to make sure that that was permanently required . That somebody 5
years from now couldn 't cut down all the trees just because they felt like
it , which they could do under normal zoning . So that was done as a PUD and
'
I think if you look at that , you 'll see how it 's designed to set into there
with rolling land and wetlands and ponds and trees .
Batzli : But the issue I think we 're having problems with , how did you
force them to go PUD rather than develop it some other way? Did they
request a zoning change?
Krauss : We couldn 't sell it to the neighborhood unless we did it that way .
Emmings: What was it zoned?
Krauss: There was an office zoning for the older part of the building and
they owned some lots south of there that still had residential zoning on
them . Even though they were guided for office use in the plan that we had
because we knew that Fingerhut bought it and had sat on it for a number of
years . But we told them that there was no way we could work it through the
neighborhood in good conscience unless they went PUD .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 39
I
Farmakes: The residential looking building by the water tower , was that
also part of the PUD?
Krauss: No . That 's owned by Bob Naegele .
Emmings : What 's in that building? 1
Conrad: Yeah , what does he do there?
Krauss: It was supposed to be his restaurant empire which he has since
sold off .
Emmings: Is it just offices in there? 1
Krauss : It 's offices and he fought us . He wanted to build a billboard
into the side that faces the interchange . '
Emmings: - Okay , we 've got to close this off . We 're going to be here
forever unless somebody 's got some burning issue but I think , unless
somebody 's got another idea , let 's get some people talking to us about what 'll
this means to them and you can address some of the things that Ladd brought
up because I think they 're important . Whatever they were .
Conrad: I can 't remember them myself .
Emmings : Okay . I
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Emmings so noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission dated February 6 , 1991 as presented .
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Emmings: Let 's assume that everybody 's read it . Does anybody have any
questions for Paul?
Ellson: I have a question on that Teton Lane thing . Just a quick I
question . I didn 't understand it . I can 't remember . I remember I wanted
that road to go through . I can 't remember how it actually got . They don 't
have to build it through and now the guy wants to subdivide? I remember
this but I don 't remember what City Council ended up passing on that .
You 're looking at upgrading that but was it a condition for them?
Krauss: It was conditioned for the developer to acquire easements so that
we could deed the road to us but that it be barricaded so nobody could ever
use it because the property owners , well the property owners along side
Teton swore that they 'd never develop their property and that they didn 't II
need it and they didn 't want the traffic to go through there . So the
Council approved barricading of Teton even though it is a public street
now . Now since that time Donovan split off the corner in a one acre lot
and he 's now talking to a developer about platting out another 10 acres of
it and he owns more land in there . There 's another lot that 's for sale and
other lots have development potential . The Council was put in a tough
position on that one . I mean here they basically believed people that said ll
they would never develop property and now , a year and a half later , it 's
being developed .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 40
Ellson: Isn 't that surprising?
Krauss : The first time this was heard by the Council the same neighbors
got up and said that they spoke to Donovan and Donovan denied that he was
talking to a developer . Well , the second meeting we presented a copy of
' the development agreement .
Ellson: Okay . Well that was the question I had .
Batzli : The wildlife , protection expansion of the wildlife refuge . What 's
the next step on that? Do we just kind of sit and wait for the U .S . Fish
and Wildlife and those kinds of people to get back to us?
Krauss: Yeah . Fish and Wildlife was making an appropriation request to
Congress this month and they agreed to include us in there . Basically
expanding the boundaries of the park . Now what that means is if it 's
approved that acquisition of those lands in Chanhassen would be eligible
for funding but it 's based on a prioritization and Tom Larson
understandably said that they have higher priorities for more
environmentally sensitive areas that are threatened . And my position on
that was that 's fine . This is a long term commitment and as long as we get
our foot in the door , at this point we 're okay .
' Batzli : They don 't think the auto salvage yard would qualify as .
Krauss : A sensitive environmental , a nesting site for something . At some
point we might want to become active with our Congressional delegation you
know basically supporting funding for the refuge so that they 're in a
position to acquire those properties .
' Batzli : I say it kiddingly but I think that area , it would be a good thing
to get rid of some of those uses on that side of the road .
Krauss: No question .
Batzli : And I think it is kind of an environmentally sensitive areas and
those are some of the wrong uses to have in that area .
Krauss: Well I 'm glad that , since we discussed it here last fall I had the
opportunity to go down and talk to Tom Larson and found out that when they
drew the park boundaries , they just drew boxes around any existing use that
was there figuring that it might as well stay there . We weren 't consulted
' at the time and I don 't know if the City had the same sensitivity to it but
those uses include the motel , the junk yard , the SuperAmerica , the burned
out drive-in .
Conrad: It 's sort of a garden spot isn 't it?
Krauss : Yeah .
' Emmings: Anything else on the City Council update? Anybody got any other
questions?
Conrad: Good report .
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 41
OPEN DISCUSSION: 1
A. DEFINITION OF STRUCTURES . I
Olsen: We 've been having a lot of discussions from residents lately and
through the Planning Commission and City Council what a structure actually II
and how do we define it and how do we control it . We have gone through
the definition before and it just never got through to the Council so I put
that back in here . The Planning Commission recently did go through the 111 definition . We kind of combined the two sections into one saying ,
including but not limited to what structures are . So that kind of helps
the situation but what we 're really having the problem with is where the
building code doesn 't require permits . So then we don 't know that a
structure is going up which should technically meet the setbacks and we
don 't have the control over it . The only way we have control over it is if
a neighbor calls or if that person by chance calls and asks if that dog
kennel actually has to meet a setback . So in writing this , it 's easy to
point out the problems but there 's really no good solution . In talking
with Roger , you know there 's really nothing we can do . It 's like if we
come up with a solution , there 's lots of other cities that would like to
know it too . So I don 't really have resolution on that . We can amend the
building code . It 's a real difficult process . So what we 're just going to
try to go with is just education with our new city newsletter.. Try to make 1
people understand that you might not have to have a building permit for a
dog kennel but you do have to still meet setbacks and try to enforce it
that way , if you have some good ideas on that . 1
Batzli : If we go with the new definition that 's tougher , is it a situation
where the people that have the existing structures , accessory structures ,
are those people grandfathered in?
Olsen: Well the problem is that they call up and say I 'm putting in a 100
square foot storage building . Do I need a building permit? Well , they 're II
told no . The building permit is really where we catch the site plan and
tell them where they have to meet certain setbacks . So even though the
definition is stricter .
Batzli : If you 're going to put up a dog kennel let 's say and you were
going to do it tomorrow and then you called the City and said I 'm going to
put it 5 feet from my rear lot line . What would the City tell them today? II
Olsen: Well it depends on who they talk to . Again , if it 's the Building
Department , usually what they ask is do we need a building permit for that .
They will probably , they 'll be told no . And we 've been trying to work the
communication where they 'll say but , you need to talk to the Planning
Department because you still do need to meet setbacks . Most people just II don 't even call in the first place . They just assume they can have a dog
kennel . Or play structures . We get lots of complaints . You know they 're
not just the swing sets anymore . They 're the huge things with the bridges
and people putting those right on other people 's property lines and yes .
That 's a structure and yes , that does need to meet the setbacks but does it II
need . You know people don 't even call to get the building permit so it
gets into more of an enforcement issue .
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 42
Batzli : But what are we doing , I guess I 'm confused . I thought currently
it wasn 't clear that playground equipment and those things were structures
and required to meet the setback today .
Olsen: I think we were thinking that that might be the solution to define
' what really is a structure but then it went one step further than that as
to what we define as a structure versus what the UBC requires . Wood
structures , they require to get a building permit which is really again
where we enforce setbacks .
Batzli : Okay but , I guess I 'm still confused because I thought , this
originally came up because we were trying to define structure better to
include things that weren 't currently included like playground equipment ,
things like that .
' Olsen: Right .
Batzli : But you 're telling me now today that if somebody asked you , you
would say that you can 't put your swing set within whatever number of feet
of the rear yard?
Olsen: I would , if they talked to me or anyone within the Planning
Department , would say yes . That 's a structure and it does need to meet
setbacks . But normally when people call to find out the regulations on
buildings or structures , they go through like the building department and
usually the first question is do I need a building permit and it usually
ends at that point .
Batzli : But how does this .
Olsen: What we 're doing really doesn 't change the situation . That 's what
I 'm saying .
Ellson: All you can do is depend on complaints .
Olsen: And education and you know communicating between the building
department to always say , and they 're the ones . They 're doing a really
good job of catching the ones that aren 't .
' Krauss: There 's a couple of other anomalies too . For example , if you
build a retaining wall over 5 feet high , over 4 feet high , it requires a
building permit . You cannot have a retaining wall within 75 feet of a lake
' because it 's a structure yet we have a lot of people who need to , you know
they have a fairly steep bank and if they want a rear yard , they need to
have a retaining wall . I mean it puts us in a tough position . Should we
I look the other way because it 's really not a structure? Technically it is
a structure and it requires a building permit . Another area where, I have a
bit of difficulty is if you have a deck attached to your house and there 's
a 25 foot rear yard setback , if you take the same deck . Separate it from
' the house and maybe not make it as tall . Because it 's physically separated
from the house it becomes a patio .
Olsen: It becomes an accessory structure .
Krauss : Which only has a 5 foot setback .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 43
Olsen: It can be off the ground . But that 's when we get into accessory
structures which is the next discussion . That 's where we just talked about "
those deck variances and that 's another . So anyway , I just wanted to point
out the .
Conrad: What 's the setback for a fence Jo Ann? '
Olsen : We have specific regulations in the ordinance for that .
Emmings: It 's lot line unless you agree with your neighbor and if you
don 't , then it 's a foot off isn 't it?
Olsen: Right . Well technically it just says it can 't be on the lot line
unless you have the neighbor 's permission .
Conrad: What 's the setback for a dog kennel? '
Olsen: A dog kennel would come under , we would consider that a structure . I
An accessory structure and so that would be 10 feet from the side , 5 feet
from the rear .
Conrad: That 's an accessory structure .
Olsen: Or a structure .
Emmings: It is a structure but it 's used as an accessory structure .
Olsen : But it 's not required by the building code to get a building permit
so most people would never even think to contact the city to see if there 's
any specific location that it has to be in . So anyway that 's , I think that
we should still go with the new definition that we had worked on . I think
that would make it a little bit clearer .
Conrad: Is that the one that you got in the first page?
Olsen: Yes . And that 's with your addition to it . '
Emming: Yeah . That was so long ago , I don 't even remember doing it .
Olsen: I almost forgot that we had done this . It 's got the legal ,
including but not limited to . So I guess there 's nothing really any more
to do . I guess it 's just to kind of let you know what the situation is .
Emmings: Well but now what is the status , did we?
Olsen: You recommended approval of that definition but it never got in
front of the City Council .
Emmings: And it 's back here?
Olsen: To update you on the whole structure because people have been
questioning what is a structure and how we define structure .
Emmings: How do people feel? You know when I read this over this time ,
how do people feel about there being no setback requirements for driveways?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 44
Or sidewalks? Driveways in particular . And whether there should be a side
yard setback for . Obviously I don 't think you need a front yard , you can 't
have a front or rear but a side yard setback for a driveway kind of makes
sense to me .
Krauss: We don 't have a driveway permit in the ordinance period .
Olsen: How would you enforce it?
Krauss : Well some cities require driveway permits , the same as MnDot
requires that you get a permit if you 're coming out onto a State road .
Olsen: Access permit?
Krauss: Yeah , an access permit and a lot of cities have regulations on how
steep a driveway can be and where it has to enter . How far from a corner
and that kind of stuff . We don 't have that at all .
Olsen : Especially next to a wetland .
Emmings: But I guess if we had a setback requirement , presumably
developers would know it and if somebody was unhappy with someone driving
right down the lot line , they could do something about it . Right? Because
it was always shocking to me that when people put in roads into
developments , they can butt that road right up next door to , right up to
the next door neighbor and I always , that just seemed so wrong to me . That
I could be living on a lot and it 's been next door to me for , if he owns a
big parcel , he could develop that and he can put the entry road to that
development right down the property line with no setback at all from my
property and that 's always seemed just horrible to me .
Ellson: Did you ever see it done?
Emmings: They talked about doing it up on , off of Lake Lucy Road on a
piece . That 's where it first came to my attention .
Batzli : Vine Forest?
Olsen: Vineland on Pleasant View?
Emmings: No .
Batzli : Yeah . Yeah , because that was the guy that was renting .
Emmings: Oh yeah , there too . That 's another one . That was off of
Pleasant View . On the other hand , in that case if you 're going to bring in
a big long road into a subdivision you know , and that guy had a long' skinny
lot and there was another long skinny lot and he was going to bring the
road right down one side of it because he said that was the only way he
could build houses over here and I don 't know that we necessarily want to
create a long narrow strip for nothing .
Batzli : Open space .
Emmings: Open space .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 -- Page 45
Krauss : But then nobody maintains them .
Emmings : That 's right . Well that 's okay too actually with me .
Conrad: It 's all real confusing Steve .
Emmings: If nobody maintains it , we call it a natural area . And that 's
-
okay . By the way , it 's kind of on the subject . If a person wants to let
areas of their yard go back to nature , is that alright? I
Olsen : Unless the weed inspector gets you .
Emmings: What if we plant a few wild flowers there and call it? I
Olsen : I 'd tell them to do it and . . .
Emmings: That 's what I 'm planning to do .
Conrad : Is that to hide the portable toilet that you 've got? I
Emmings: When you come to my house , you won 't be allowed to use it . But
anyway , I think there ought to be side yard setbacks for driveways and
sidewalks . I don 't know what sidewalks mean in this town and for roads .
If it makes sense , you know I just , I don 't know . So this doesn 't require
any action . Is there anybody else that has any comments either on the
structure definition or the accessory structure discussion in here?
Olsen: Will you follow the accessory structure one?
Emmings: Huh? I
Olsen: Would you follow the accessory structure? Again , that 's one that
was tabled .
Batzli : But there 's no action is there?
Olsen : No , there 's no action but it kept getting tabled at the Council .
Do you agree with the most recent amendments to the ordinance and do you
want me to bring that back to the Council again? The most recent
amendments now say the maximum is 1 ,000 square feet or . . .principle
structure . That 's what you passed onto the Council . Then the Council
wanted to change that to 80% of the principle structure . That was their
most recent . . . Then the other one is the gradual setbacks . So 5 foot for II
a rear yard setback up to 140 square feet for accessory structures . 10
foot for 141 to 400 square feet and then 30 foot rear yard setback for
anything over 400 square feet . So that 's the most recent one that 's been II
proposed by the Council . . .
Emmings: I have a question on that . That 's Attachment #4 right?
Olsen : Well Attachment #4 has been changed with 80% principle and then the
principle structure too . That was taken out .
Emmings : Alright . Now has B , under that 20--904 , was ,B changed? The 30%
is gone?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 46
Olsen : 20-904? No , that 's still there . There 's still 30% .
Emmings: Okay . Let me tell you what I -think might be a problem there . I
don 't know why it says rear yard .
Olsen: It 's always said rear yard .
Emmings : Well it isn 't always the rear yard .
Olsen: Accessory structures .
' Emmings: Not riparian lots . And I think , why doesn 't it say 30% of the
area of the yard in which it 's built?
Krauss : Do you want an accessory structure in the front yard?
Emmings : I live on the lake . I don 't want to build a garage or have
people building garages between their houses and the lake . So if I built a
' garage , it 's probably going to go in the front yard .
Krauss : Or side .
' Emmings : Front or side . That 's why I say , why not change it to the yard in
which it 's built rather than just saying rear yard . Usually it 's going to
be your rear yard but now always .
Olsen : Is that number 2? I 'm sorry .
' Krauss : But if you did that though , you need to add a front yard
requirement and the accessory building should be no closer to the street
than a principle building would be .
' Emmings : Well sure you 've got setbacks . Right? You 've got the setback to
take care of that don 't you?
Krauss : Well you wouldn 't unless you adopted it with this because these
are the only setbacks that apply to accessory structures .
Emmings: Well what does a person do that wants to build a , does this thing
as it 's written . No , I know it says on riparian lots you can build it in
the front or rear yard . I don 't know why you 'd build it in the rear yard
' but must comply with front , side and applicable ordinary high water marks .
That 's fine but you don 't have your percentage requirement applying there .
Don 't you want it to?
Olsen: Yes . So we 'll just somehow tie those two together .
Emmings: The other thing , the other question I had on that one is , it
' says , in ( c ) it says in any residential district and then it says or
agricultural district , parcels with less than 3 acres . I take it that
parcels with less than 3 acres goes with agricultural districts there?
' Olsen: That one we kept changing . I lost track on it .
Batzli : I thought that went with both .
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 47
Emmings: Well that 's what I 'm wondering .
Olsen: I think we went with both too .
Emmings : Okay , I thought maybe it just went with agricultural . That 's
fine then if it goes with principle .
Olsen: That 's new . The adding of or agricultural district , parcels with
less than 3 acres was one of the things that the Planning Commission added .
Emmings : So is it your understanding does parcels with less than 3 acres
go with both residential and agricultural? '
Olsen : Well it 's not real clear . Maybe we should make it . In any parcels
with less than 3 acres and any residential district . Put that at the
start?
Emmings: Whatever . It wasn 't clear when I read it today .
Erhart : Well it was supposed to also include agricultural districts .
Olsen: Right . It says , well . • I
Erhart : You have to say any lot less than 3 acres period .
Olsen: But do we need to specify residential and agricultural? Where it I
says commercial?
Erhart : Well what does this apply . The ordinance is the what?
Olsen: It 's any .
Erhart: Well , I guess leave it what you 've got . Residential or '
agricultural district .
Olsen: I 'll make sure they 're tied in together . '
Emmings: Does anybody else got anything on this?
Conrad: It 's tough to reflect back .
Emmings: It 's impossible .
Batzli : I read the Minutes and I couldn 't recall any of it . I really
couldn 't .
Conrad: Yeah , it 's really tough . I feel kind of uncomfortable sending
something to the City Council .
Erhart : Even after reading all of the old Minutes? '
Batzli : Yeah , I read them and I was looking at my own comments going ,
I said that? My only comment was , and I don 't know where this came from
and it may have come from me because I seem to have been talking about
swimming pools and tennis courts but the detached accessory structure may
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 48
' occupy not more than 30% of the area . How realistic is it to assumethat a
person 's going to have a tennis court that doesn 't take up 80% of their
backyard? I mean a tennis court is huge .
Emmings : They can 't have it .
Batzli : Is that what we were really trying to do? Basically we 're banning
tennis courts .
Ellson: You need to have a huge yard .
Batzli : Because we say it only has to be 10 feet from back yard and side
yard but boy , in other words . If you have a huge yard , you can locate it
right next to the guy but it can 't take up more than 30% . That seems
silly . I don 't know .
Ellson : That 's the way it is .
' Conrad: So what 's happening on this?
1 . Emmings : Nothing .
Olsen: I just wanted . . .what I 'd like to do is to take it back to the
Council and finally get it through .
Conrad: What are you going to take through? You 're going to take through
the definition?
' Olsen: Or we can bring it back and hold a public hearing on it .
Conrad: Don 't bring it back to us . I thought we made some good decisions
back then but I just can 't remember why .
Emmings: I think we ought to stick with what we did before , whatever it
' was .
Conrad: Boy , the City Council could rip you apart with what you 're
bringing to them .
Emmings: I think the last time it was there the Council had two different
members so it should be fun to take it back again .
' Conrad: I wouldn 't do it .
Olsen : But we need it .
Ellson: Go ahead . They might send it back but we 'll let them decide .
' Emmings: The definition of structure and then what 's on the Attachment #4
is modified .
II Conrad: Yeah , and that 's one . And sidewalks is out Steve . You don't want
anybody to review sidewalks even though Jo Ann said she was going to review
sidewalks for setbacks . Were we dropping sidewalks and driveways?
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 49
Emmings: I don 't know anybody that 's got a sidewalk .
Conrad: No . We don 't allow those in Chanhassen .
Emmings: I love sidewalks . I 'm a sidewalk lover frankly but nevertheless , '
I would want . I think there ought to be setbacks . Sideyard setbacks .
Conrad : Basically Steve you don 't care because we don 't have any so we 're I
okay?
Emmings: I care about driveways but I don 't know if sidewalks is , talking
about sidewalks is meaningful .
Conrad: Yeah . Driveways would be .
Emmings : Let 's abandon this interesting issue and go on to the landscape II
ordinance .
Batzli : What are we doing with it? '
Emmings : Nothing . We 're not doing anything .
Batzli : Are we giving it back to Council?
Emmings: Do you want it back here? Who wants it back here? Who wants to I
look at this again? Accessory structure .
Olsen: I could hold it . . .
Ellson: For an anniversary party .
Conrad: An annual review .
Emmings: I think you should take it to the City Council and if they want
us to look at it again , because it 's been so long , we will . Otherwise they '
can deal with it any way they see fit .
Batzli : I have one more question . Does Section 20-615 which provides a 20 II foot setback for accessory structures in RSF district , does that mean that
people are going to have to put everything 20 feet from 'all side yards ,
back yards , everything?
Olsen: I think that might be referring to height . '
Batzli : Is that height? Okay . That 's in the height section there? Okay . "
Conrad: Do we have to send City Council Minutes of our discussion on this
last item? I 'd just sort of like to pretend it 's now getting to City
Council after we reviewed it . '
Emmings: I think somehow Jo Ann is going to blame us for the delay .
That 's really why she brought it back here .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 50
LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE .
Emmings: Next we 've got the landscape ordinance issue paper . Another
thing we could spend most of the rest of the night on . Paul , do you want
to talk about this?
Krauss: Well Mr . Chairman , I 'm wondering if you want to , I mean I 'd like
to get into this but I wonder if you want to pay .
Ellson: Let 's do this another time?
Krauss : Yeah . We don 't have a whole lot on our next agenda .
Ellson: This would be really worth discussing when we 're not in this state
of mind .
' Batzli : I move that we defer this issue to our next meeting .
Conrad : The only reason Richard has stayed with us this late .
Dick Wing: Not at all . I just know that there 's a moratorium on building
until we do something .
Krauss: As I say , we need to carry some stuff across to our next meeting .
Emmings: Let 's do that . Does anybody disagree? We 'll bump this over to
the next meeting . Alright . Considered it bumped .
Krauss : I do have a few things I 'd like to go through and I think Mr .
Chairman you also mentioned that you 'd like to go through the .
1 Emmings: You and I will do that and then we 'll present it for their
approval . That can 't be done by committee .
1 Krauss : Can I then touch on?
Emmings: There 's still .
PENDING WETLAND LEGISLATION=
Krauss: The State is very serious about adopting no net loss legislation
for wetlands which we applaud . I think it 's about time that they did more
than recognize the DNR wetlands which is a good program but didn 't go far
enough as we all know . Now Chanhassen has been , we 've played a leadership
role in wetlands protection and we have a lot of fundamental problems with
some of the bills that are out now for no, net loss . There 's two bil-is
pending . One is the Munger Bill which is in the State House of
Representatives . The other is the Davis Bill in the Senate . The Munger
Bill is the one I was led to believe that has the inside track . It 's got a
better coalition behind it . Willard Munger 's been an environmentalist for
many years and this is I guess his last term and his crowning achievement .
Yeah . The problems we see with the bill are not the no net loss provision
or even the 2 to 1 conversion . Now you 're supposed to seek to avoid
wetlands but if you do need to damage a wetland , to get something done .
It 's approved . You have a mitigation plans approved . That every acre of
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 51 i
wetland that you lose you have to create 2 new acres elsewhere . I don 't
think we even have a beef with that . Our concern is the administration of II
the program . Basically what it does it sets up a whole new bureaucracy .
Ellson: The County? I
Krauss: Well , they changed that . That was the , we had the earlier version
of the bill . Now it 's the local water management organizations which are
the 3 or 4 watershed districts that we deal with . But there 's oversight
review by this board , the Bowser Board . Board of Soil and Water
Conservation something or other , which nobody 's quite sure exactly who they
are or what they do but they 're looking for work apparently . But the
existing infrastructure , the existing bureaucracy we use with Army Corps of
Engineers and Fish and Wildlife and DNR , aren 't going to go away . It 's
just a whole new layer on top of that and there are things in there like
you have to have a mitigation plan developed which is fine . We 'd do that
but then you have to get it approved by the Watershed Management
organization . They don 't have the staff or the time or the money to do
these things . Kind of confused . Then the Plan gets passed along to the
Bowser Board which is completely removed from our local sphere and they
have 120 days to review it . Then it 's got to be published in the EQB
Monitor so anybody can protest it and if they protest it , it 's got to go
through another review . Once the mitigation plan is approved , the law now II
requires , the draft now requires that you go do the mitigation and let it
sit for an entire growing season , an entire year so you 've got a 2 year
delay before you turn the first shovel full of dirt on the project . And
we 've obviously , we 've got some real concerns with it because ( a ) we think
we do a good job . ( b ) , under the storm water management plan , we 're going
to do a better job . ( c ) , we don 't think we 're the only community in the
Twin Cities doing this . I mean there are good communities . Bad
communities relative to wetlands but we think we 've got a good relationship
established with all these agencies and we do more typically than anybody 's
ever asked us to do and we want to be in a position to continue to do that .
The bill was drafted , both bills in fact were drafted largely with ag
interests at the sole root of it plus environmental interests . Counties I
have been allowed to participate in the drafting of the bill . They pretty
much completely left out local units of government . Either intentionally
or unintentionally and they completely overlooked the fact that we 're in
the metro area and we 're somewhat different . One of the other problems I II
have with the bill , and I was talking to Commissioner Emmings about this ,
is that the bill very heavily stresses payment to farmers for wetland
protection . I have a personal bias that if I 'm going to , well first of
all . It 's more than that because we 're telling developers we 're going to
take that wetland and protect it for free yet the farmer across the street
is going to get paid by the State for doing something that he maybe should
be doing anyway . Be that as it may , we don 't want to get into a shouting
match with rural versus metro interests and we think that there 's ways of
working these things out . Jo Ann and I have been active in spreading the
word about these bills . There 's been very little said about it to date .
We 've been active . Jo Ann 's going to be speaking before the Sensible Land II
Use Coalition . They 're developing a meeting on this . We 're working
through the Planning Association . We called Munger up and met with him and "
his staff yesterday and he was very receptive to the changes that we had
proposed and in fact , we have Roger Knutson right now drafting an
alternative language bill that basically , it 's not an exemption but it
11
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 199a - Page 52
I
treats metro area communities differently . If you adopt a wetland
protection plan that meets the DNR guidelines , they 'll develop guidelines ,
it meets their guidelines , it allows us to continue the program pretty much
as we 've laid out today . And we 're comfortable that we have the desire and
' the wearwithall to do that and we don 't mind having DNR looking over our
shoulders to make sure that we do it correctly . And if communities get
these plans approved and then don 't do what they 're asked to do , the DNR
can revoke that local authority . It 's the carrot and the stick approach .
Ellson: He 's saying that that 's something . . . .need this Bowser Board?
Olsen: We wouldn 't have to deal with that .
Emmings: Or delay development for 2 years .
Krauss: Right . That 's what we 're hoping .
Ellson: So it looks like he 's going to be changing that or he seemed to be
receptive to looking at our ideas?
Krauss: He was receptive .
' Ellson : He doesn 't need votes anymore so maybe . . .
Krauss: But we 've never , I 've never gotten into the legislative arena
before and it 's kind of a new area for us and Jo Ann and I find ourselves
in the unusual position of this is that we got out in front of the entire
metro area on this somehow and I think it was because we found out about it
' earlier than most . Yeah by chance because they really , well they really
did not try to make anybody aware of this thing so Jo Ann 's on every
wetlands group and Board in the Twin Cities and we happened to catch wind
of it . Some wildlife biologists people we know told us about it and some
DNR people so we got involved . We 'll keep you posted on it . We 're very
hopeful that the final bill will give us the teeth that we need to back up
what Chanhassen 's been doing . Chanhassen 's been , we 've gone out on a limb
because we feel that wetland protection is worthwhile in it 's own right .
And the City Council has backed that up . City Council can always change
their mind if pressure were brought to bear and this is not a criticism
' against them but there 's no overriding State law to say that we have to do
what we do . Plus somebody could tell us , well I can move down the road to
Chaska . Maybe that 's not fair but , or Rapid City or wherever , that doesn 't
require us to have the same level of concern for wetlands so there 's a
competitiveness aspect of it . When you have an overriding State law that
requires no net loss of everybody , you eliminate that and I think that 's a
good idea too . It gives us more back bone to work with .
1 Emmings: Now that takes care of the bill in the House side . The Senate
bill you said was different and worse?
Krauss : Yeah . It completely turns on it 's head every way of looking at
wetlands . The DNR 's very uncomfortable with it . The DNR favors the Munger
bill .
Olsen: They also warns us to get active with that one .
r
i
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 53 1
Krauss : We 'll be participating in that as well .
Emmings: I thought your letter was a good one .
Krauss : Two more things . Well , actually three . Relative to that last
one , I 'm going to be meeting with Gary Warren on Saturday morning so , he
and I are going to develop the request for proposals for consultant
assistance for the storm water utility program . So now that we 've got the 11 Comp Plan out of the way , I 've got a little bit of time so hopefully we 'll
get this going in the next month and start getting some responses back and
can start doing work with that . Related to that , there 's an item in your
packet . Metro Council Analysis of Water Quality in Area Lakes . '
Emmings: I wanted to bring that up because I see that Lotus Lake got a C
to a D where Lake Minnewashta got an A . I just thought I 'd mention that .
Ellson : I thought it was disappointing because of that .
Krauss: There 's some scarey information in here . I would ask you to use
some caution . This is Dick Osgood 's work . Dick Osgood is a reputable
scientist' but he also has a personal agenda . He 's got 10 or 12 years of
research and he 's got a mind set of how things work . There are
hydrologists out there who dispute some of his findings . So take it with all
grain of salt . I 'm not a scientist . I can 't critique this in any more
detail but I wanted you to have this report card aspect of it because I
thought it was important . Yeah , Minnewashta is a good clean , deep lake and ,
doesn 't seem to have any problems and they did not survey . I mean these
are very few lakes that they 're surveying in the Twin Cities . It gets kind
of interesting . You pick three lakes in Chanhassen to look at but Riley is I
a C- which doesn 't bold well for it and Lotus is a C or a D which is really
kind of worrisome .
Olsen : You can 't get much worse than Riley .
Krauss: I don 't know but there 's been antidotal evidence and I know Ladd 's '
mentioned over a period .
Conrad: It 's terrible .
Krauss: But it 's hard . It 's like watching a child grow you know . You
don 't see it over time but if you go away for a year or 2 and there 's
obviously differences in the quality . So we 've given a copy of this to the "
Council . I think that this substantiates or helps to substantiate why
we 've gotten into this whole water quality arena at all and hopefully we
can turn these grades around and we 'll be working on that . The last thing
I wanted to touch on and it 's kind of an informational item . This may be I
breaking in the press on Friday . We 've been talking to the U .S . Weather
Service about locating the Twin Cities Meteorological Station in
Chanhassen . At first I was not terribly excited with the idea . I had heard '
different sites that they were looking at and they weren 't consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan . I assumed that as a federal institution they don 't
pay property taxes . And of course , a weather statement has a weather radar
which always causes problems . But they came out here . They flew some
folks out from Kansas City and also had Jim Campbell along who 's the Twin
Cities Meteorologist . He 's a high profile guy . In fact , later that
11
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 54
afternoon I heard him talking on WCCO and whenever they have weather
' questions , he 's the person they always ask . What they 're looking to , well
first of all , the site that they 're looking at is in an area that you 've
guided for industrial office use in the new MUSA expansion area . It 's the
area just north of Rod Gram 's farm on the corner of Audubon .
' Erhart : How big an area?
Krauss: Well they need e 10 acre site and that 's part of one of the things
I found out that I 'd like about it . They need a 10 acre site . They 're
looking with a 15 ,000 square foot building , office building that is a
pretty high quality brick structure . They gave me an illustration of what
' it would probably look like . The reason they need a 10 acre site is one of
the things they do from this station is release weather balloons twice a
day and in a high wind , they need enough acreage so that the weather
' balloon gets up high enough before it clears the fence line that it doesn 't
bump into the house across the street or whatever it 's going to do . But
part of the beauty of that is when you have a 10 acre site and a relatively
' small building , most of it is going to permanently be green space .
Ellson: There 's our open space right there .
Krauss : Well it sits on the buffer yard area and I 've explained that to
them . Found out that they will be paying property taxes because in all
likelihood they 're going to have a private developer build this for them
' and they ' ll lease it . It does have a weather radar .
Ellson: How tall does that thing go up?
Krauss : The weather radar is 130 feet high from ground to top . Now we
approved the cellular tower which is admittedly a smaller diameter tower
and doesn 't have the golf ball on the top . It was approved for 185 feet . I
just got word back from the FAA that they made them lower it to 130 feet .
This will be a high profile facility . It not only has the meteorological
station but it would also have the River Flood Forecast Center for most of
the northern states and it also has this remote sensing group that uses
satellite photographs to interrupt snowpack and what not .
' Ellson : Where are they now?
Krauss : Well a few of them aren 't in the Twin Cities and the rest are at
the Airport and they 're in very crowded environs there and they really
' wanted to be in Chanhassen . Well our location is ideal for them since most
of the severe weather approaches from the southwest and west .
Emmings: You right now they always say the snow is measured at the
airport . Well , they 'd be saying the snow , the official snow as measured in
our Chanhassen .
Krauss : I specifically asked them that and they said , yes they would .
Emmings: We 'd have lots of PR .
Krauss : They 're going to keep the rain gauge and the temperature thing at
the airport but they 'll also have one out here so a lot of the radio
1
I
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 55 ,
stations will say , you know out in Chanhassen or when they call the
Meteorologist , it will be out in Chanhassen . They 're white collar jobs .
They 're good jobs . I mean they 're research scientist type of facility .
The antenna tower itself , I had questions about the health effects and
they 're going to provide some documentation on that . Apparently this is II even lower powered than the cellular antenna was and Jim Campbell pointed
out that if there was any health effects , he wouldn 't be putting his office
right underneath the thing because this is manned 24 hours a day . But they .
will be providing substantial data on any kind of health effects . I 've '
asked them to provide a legitimate site plan for that site .
Ellson: How many people will be working there?
Krauss: I think it 's about 60 .
Emmings: floes the site go all the way down to the railroad tracks? '
Krauss : No . It 's just the 10 acres on the corner . There 's a 92 acre piece
over there that 's zoned IOP or would be zoned IOP . '
Emmings : That goes further up the hill?
Krauss: Yeah . It 's just the other side . Where the fence line is with
the , not the willow 's but the trees along Rod Grams north fence line .
Erhart: Are you talking about accessing this directly from Powers Blvd .? I
Krauss: What I talked to them about is I want this to come in as a
component of an overall plan for the 92 acres . And the way I see it is
they 're probably going to have an access road coming in closer to the
railway tracks . Bring an internal road up to this thing . Now the reason
this may come out in the press on Friday , they 've been real cooperative
with us . I 've told them I want them to work with the neighborhood . Hold all
lot of meetings and they 're going to do that . But there 's an Assistant
Secretary from the Department of Commerce coming into town for an
Emergency Preparedness Governor 's Conference Thursday and Friday and NOAH
the Weather Service is a part of the Department of Commerce . Jim Campbell
believes that this guy may be coming to announce that they 've got a site
for a new facility in Chanhassen and he was very concerned that he let us
know because he 's talked to us about it , that it doesn 't come as a surprise
to you or to the City Council and I 've explained this to most of the City
Council . Nobody 's given them any assurances and there 's no approvals of II course for anything yet but it 's at an early stage but I 'm getting kind of
hopeful that this might turn out to be a valid project for the City and
I just wanted you to know about it ahead of time .
Emmings: Anybody got any comments? Sounds interesting .
Erhart : You might want to let the Met Council in on it too since they 're
renewing our Comp Plan .
Ellson: Do they have stations like this probably all over the country?
Krauss: This is going to be one of the three largest meteorological
stations in the country . They are redoing their weather radar system
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 56
nationally and this is going to have a new weather radar but this is going
to be one of the three largest stations . You know when you mentioned the
' Metro Council though and I can recall when the tornadoes came through the
Twin Cities in '82 , there was a tornado that sat down on the roof of Mike
Munson 's house which I thought was devine retribution for , he 's the
' demographer for the Metro Council . I recall his being on TV and being
interviewed .
Ellson: What 's the significance of dropping off the Comprehensive Plan at
4 .28 . It 's like that 's when the clicker starts or you were just so glad to
get it over with you wanted to document it to the minute?
' Krauss : I wanted to know it got there and I thought they closed at 4 :30 . I
later found out they closed at 5:00 . I had Sharmin run down there .
I promised them at the State of the Region , I bumped into a lot of Metro
' Council people there . Told them we would get it into them on Monday so we
just make it under the wire .
Emmings: Realistically , when would you think you 'd get any kind of
feedback on it?
Krauss: Well they 're supposed to be sending us a letter on the
completeness of it , meaning that they 've accepted it .
Ellson: Accepted it to look at it .
' Krauss : For review and that the clock is ticking . I spoke to Rick
Thompson over there . He didn 't see a problem with it at this point and I
thought I 'd have his letter already . I should call him tomorrow but
everybody I 've contacted over there says that you 'd better expect it 's
going to take the full 90 days .
' Emmings: To review or to get the letter?
Krauss: No , to review it .
Conrad: Do they pay taxes , the National Weather Service?
Krauss : They don 't but if it 's done through a developer building it and
leasing it back to them , they will .
Farmakes : What would happen if there 's no longer a tenant there?
' Krauss: If they were no longer a tenant , if they left , we would have a
decent office building and a tower that somebody would have to knock down
and the rest .
' Farmakes: Good radio reception . Can you, tell me , the 300 foot radius that
these two buildings require . These out buildings . Is that just flat
ground? I mean does that have to be non-obstructive or can that be
landscaped or with trees?
Krauss: Apparently the balloon releasing facility , they don 't want real
large trees right around that . I 've told them they have to have large
trees in the buffer area and they 're going to design accordingly . I think
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 57
we 're looking at a lot of open space . Possibly that might be an area for
prairie grass or some lower vegetation . '
Farmakes: So we 'd do something pretty serious out side of the 350?
Batzli : That would be nice . Otherwise you 'd end up with prairie grass and '
buildings which , so you 'd have a lot of open space but I don 't know if the
balloon launching building is all that attractive .
Krauss : That 's a small building . That can be concealed. They also said
that the balloon launching facility itself is not a permanent structure .
That the technology already exists . The doppler radar can see wind flow I
which is why they say it can see where the torandoes are coming . Well , if
they take a doppler radar and they shoot it straight up, it can see the
wind speed at different altitudes so the technology is there but the
machinery isn 't available yet so they see this being phased out over the
next 10 years .
Farmakes: How many people employed here? '
Krauss : 60 .
Emmings: Why , because it 's around the clock? 1
Krauss : Yeah .
Farmakes: These cars are a little too big then huh? How come the tower is
not in that sketch , I 'm just curious?
Krauss: Well they have a series of CAD . If you flip through there ,
there 's a series of CAD drawings that do show the perspective .
Emmings: The same reason whenever you see an eleveation on a building , '
they don 't put the rooftop equipment on there . They always forget . They
just forget .
Farmakes: Is there any safety benefit of this facility here?
Krauss : I don 't think so . I mean the entire Twin Cities is on the same
notification network . If a tornado pops out , by nature of the fact that
that 's here , we 're not going to get any better warning than somebody in
Maplewood would get . But by nature of the fact that the facility is in
Chanhassen and not the airport , the entire Twin Cities benefits .
Emmings: Brian wants to talk about the golf course .
Batzli : I enjoyed the fact that it was a positive editorial . How did this 'll
come about? How 'd he get involved?
Krauss : Peterson?
Batzli : Yeah .
Krauss: I think he just sits at all the council meetings .
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 58
I
Ellson : They were talking about it at the Council meeting probably .
' Batzli : What 's the next step on that? Anything? Anything we can do to
push it?
Krauss: At this point , I think the best thing that can be done is if
there 's support for it at the Council . To have the Council appoint a
working group on this . Ideally it would be a couple of Council people . A
couple of Planning Commissioners . A couple of Park Board people to work
together and see if they can flush out a concept better . Unless there 's a
group pushing this .
Batzli : It will die .
Krauss : It will die .
Emmings: Appropos of that or nothing , in talking about study groups and so
forth , we 've talked about doing that for the TH 5 corridor study and 1995
' study area , the north one . Now are we going to wait to start anything on
that until we see what happens with the Comp Plan?
Krauss : We were not planning on working on the study until the Comp Plan
came through . It may be useful to get a group assembled you know to sit
down and knock out some goals . By the time a group gets assembled ,
hopefully it will be later in the spring anyway and getting close to the
time the Metro Council hopefully will be finished .
Emmings : How will this group be formed? I guess I have , I 've talked to
you about it but I have a pitch to make on how that group is formed . Will
the City Council wind up appointing that group?
Krauss : I think they 'll have to the way they structured that
recommendation with the approval of the Comp Plan .
Emmings: Then maybe what we should do is let them know , I don 't know who
sitting here is interested but I think we should let them know who would
like to do it and maybe , so they don 't just , we wouldn 't want them to
appoint people from here if they 're planning to have Planning Commission
members on it who aren 't interested in doing it . You know I want to be
sure they vote for those most interested and want to put in the time . But
beyond that , I know there 's been some talk about appointing developers and
I think that 's a real mistake . I think it should be run like , I think it
' should just be people from the city who sit on that commission and that
they should get input from developers . But to have somebody on the body
itself with a built in bias , I mean having somebody on there like Shardlow
comes to mind as an example . Not that I want to pick on him but I think he
should come in and make a pitch because I think he has things to offer .
Same goes with Olin from the Landscape Arboretum . I wouldn 't particularly
like to see him on the Commission but I think he ought to be invited to
come and give testimony and that stuff should be taken into consideration
by other people . That 's what they do with legislative committees who
propose legislation . You know , they set up a certain number of the , I
don 't know . Maybe they 're some City Council members . Maybe they 're some
Planning Commission members . Maybe HRA . Maybe Park and Rec . Whatever .
Maybe just citizens at large . I wouldn 't mind seeing that but I don 't
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 59
think you should go around putting people with built in interest on that
group . I don 't think you 'd get anything for it except . . . So anyway .
That 's what I think . Anybody else .
Batzli : I agree with you . I
Erhart: Are we talking about what? A special group just to talk about the
TH 5 corridor and the 1995 study area? . . .are you looking for people to
volunteer for it?
Emmings: Well I don 't know . I don 't know what the City Council wants us
to do . Maybe you can find out . If they want us maybe to recommend a
couple people from here . I don 't know how many members they want . I think
there are a lot of people here who are interested in being on it .
Dick Wing: . . . just reference Council . I just made a comment , it was
something in passing , that I was not willing to sit on the Council and have
west of Powers Blvd . look anything like the east side of Powers Blvd . . I
kind of put them through this little ride through town making fun of it and II
it 's not very impressive and that got . . .I really would like to see a
corridor study done or a community task force . Corridor study . . .but a
citizens task force from the people you 're talking about . Citizen task
force to determine what do we want our city to look like . Not a developer . 1
Not anybody involved in commercial . What do we as residents want that
section of road to look like and everybody went . . .and that 's the end of it .
The comments were that it would include Park and Rec , Planning , Staff and
City Council and then some citizen input . That 's where it was left .
Emmings: Can it go on the City Council 's agenda as an item to take action I
on to appoint?
Dick Wing: . . .has to bring it up again . I think the goals session is
coming up with the Council and I 'm waiting for the goals .
Emmings: Yeah , but that 's not until April . That 's been put off until like •
April 6th .
Krauss: I don 't know when it 's put off til . Is it April 6th?
Emmings: Yeah . '
Erhart: Well the same with the golf course . I mean is that back on the , '
is that going to come back on the agenda for discussion?
Krauss: It 's not scheduled to which is why I think some , if it 's going to
go , somebody 's got to carry the ball . in
Erhart: Somebody on the Council?
Krauss: Ideally . '
Emmings: Can 't a City Council member who 's interested in an item have it
• put on the agenda for action?
Planning Commission Meeting
March 6 , 1991 - Page 60
Dick Wing : Us new guys . . .admit that we 're not really City Council . . .
although this is an issue that I think has to be dealt with . I just don 't
know how to get things moving properly so it does get through .
Ellson : Well these guys can help you .
Emmings: Well let 's close the meeting . We don 't need to talk about this
on the regular . Anybody got anything else?
Conrad moved, Ellson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 11: 10 p.m. .
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
IIRIrflITi: u
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION TI
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 12 , 1991
Chairman Schroers called the meeting to order at 7:35 p .m . .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jan Lash , Dave Koubsky , Larry Schroers , Curt Robinson ,
Wendy Pemrick and Dawne Erhart
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Andrews
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman , Park and Recreation Coordinator ; Don
Ashworth , City Manager ; Dale Gregory , Park Foreman; and Mark Koegler , Van
Doren , Hazard and Stallings .
LAKE ANN PARK PICNIC/RECREATION SHELTER — REVIEW DESIGN AND UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTS.
' Hoffman: I believe we all know each other in the room here . There 's
different reasons for all of us being here . Mayor Don Chmiel is here for
his own interest and I 've invited Dale Gregory , our Park Foreman along .
' Obviously Dale and his department will be doing the daily maintenance work
on this building and we certainly want to have his input as early as
possible as well . This afternoon Mark Koegler , Scott Harri of Van Doren ,
Hazard and Stallings and Don and myself met to discuss this preliminarily
II at that time . We thought it would be adviseable or be worth our while to
have Don in as well to discuss some of the financing options and those
types of things that we 're looking at as part of this project . So the
' variety of areas we 're going to take a look at . We 're going to look at
utilities in brief . I know the commission had some concerns about
utilities . We 've talked about it in the past . All those areas have been
investigated . The utilities question can be addressed . There 's specifics
that we don 't need to talk about here . However , if you do have specific
questions on that portion of the project , we can certainly discuss that .
The main brunt of tonight 's discussion will center around the shelter
building itself . What type of facilities we want to put in that building .
What type of mateials , construction and we 'll briefly talk about a schedule
of this particular project and where it 's going to go from here . So with
that I believe we 'll take this in order . We 'll have Mark present first or
Don?
Don Ashworth: Probably , maybe if I started out in kind of an overview . We
' met earlier today . This is maybe the second or third meeting on the
project and one of the areas we were going through was , I 'll call it the
bigger picture because every project that we 've become involved with ,
you 're looking to multiple funding sources and each of our commissions and
the Council and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority , etc . , each have a
part in insuring that particular project is done . Very few projects are
' solely with one commission versus another . Most of them will go across the
lines of Planning Commission , Park Commission , Housing and Redevelopment
Authority , etc . . As we were starting to go through this project , I think
I was losing both Todd and Mark and they asked if I could come in and see
if I could help relay kind of the bigger picture financing associated with
the project . As you 're all aware , that 's an area that I enjoy is the
financial side of any objective the City is involved with . That 's not
41 really from the debit or credit side . When I talk about the financial
side , you 've got , if many of you heard me , give this little lecture but
I
11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 12 , 1991 - Page 2
we 're actually operating somewhere around 150 companies . Each company has
it 's own assets and it 's own liabilities and it has to have it 's own set of
books and you can 't really cross barriers . On the other side , as you 're
' doing projects , each particular funcational area can take a certain
responsibility in terms of assuring that that project gets done and that 's
where the fun comes back from my standpoint is insuring that as we look at
a project like the Lake Ann Shelter , you 've got sewer operations and
they 're going to come in and they 're going to play a part in insuring the
sanitary sewer 's extended to this facility . You have water operations and
they 're paying the cost associated with the project . I think every one of
the projects that we get into , again has those same type of aspects and
again the larger the project , the more complicated it becomes in terms of
the number of players that are involved . I think one of the funnest ones ,
at least for me , was when we did the Lake Susan Park improvements from this
past year . That project involved a grant , $110 ,000 .00 . $110 ,000 .00
locally . Housing and Redevelopment Authority , they were in . They carried
' out all of the physical improvements on the site . The paving associated
with the parking areas . The curb and gutter . The lighting that amounted
to about $80 ,000 .00 . We got a Community Development Block Grant that
' provided the monies necessary for the walkway from the parking area over to
the fishing ramp . We were able to get a grant associated with the fishing
pier itself . And actually the public improvement project , meaning the
street project given the mass amount of dirt that needed to be moved and
' disposed of , actually came in and paid a good portion of that project .
There was , I think about $50 ,000 .00 or $60 ,000 .00 as a part of that street
project so it 's kind of fun when you 're trying to fit all these things
together . Let 's talk about our project here . In total we 're looking to a
project cost of about $270 ,000 .00 to $280 ,000 .00 . I 'm always protective of
Park and Recreation funds and so in some instances; when you 're looking at
who is in the best position to help fund a particular aspect of a project ,
you have alternative sources as to who has let 's say the most revenue or is
in the best position to carry out a particular activity and so from that
standpoint I try to be very protective of Park and Recreation dollars in
' insuring that we use those to the best extent we can . Again , the Lake
Susan project I think totally your dollars paid about 33% of that total
project so 67% came from other people . This particular project , if you
look at it , I ' ll call it kind of going backwards $270 ,000 .00-$280 ,000 .00 ,
we 're looking to costs associated with our water expansion fund or water
operations of about $50 ,000 .00 to bring in water . Again , Mark will go
through some of that . What that will do is it will bring in a major
service , a 6 inch line from the front part of the park and provide us with
the ability to at some time in the future , potentially sprinkle but at
least we can bring water into each of the two shelter buildings and
potentially have water available elsewhere in the park . Sanitary sewer for
the facility would actually be pumped over to Greenwood Shores . Cost of
that would be about $30 ,000 .00 . You have dollars remaining for electrical
that amount to about $15 ,000 .00 . So you total all of those up and you 're
up to about $100 ,000 .00 . It may get up to $110 ,000 .00 associated with all
of the utilities associated with the project . Working that backwards puts
you then down into an area of about $170 ,000 .00 . As dollars that we 're
' currently looking at , based on the current design standards , that would be
the cost associated with the park shelter . Again , Mark will go through
that aspect . We don 't have that amount of funding . You have approximately
$125 ,000 .00 set up under your capital outlay budget and that includes the
previous $110 ,000 .00 plus the most recent 15 to 20 from the Lion 's . So
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 12 , 1991 - Page 3
you 're at about $125 ,000 .00-$130 ,000 .00 there . We now have to determine ,
and that 's really coming back then into your bailiwick , assuming that these
other players take care of the other responsibilities associated with the
park shelter construction . How do we make up that difference between what
we 're looking at for $130 ,000 .00 versus $107 ,000 .00? We 've come through
potential cuts . Mark can go through those with you . It can come through
additional revenue sources . What I might suggest just looking at the
figures as I 've looked at them so far , is maybe a combination of the two .
We closed 1990 so starting in 1991 we anticipated a fund balance of
approximately $700 ,000 .00 in Park and Recreation venture capital budget .
You actually closed with about $730 ,000 .00 so you , we ended that 1990 in a
better position than we had anticipated just 2 to 3 months ago . There is a
• possibility to make a request to the City Council for literally a budget
amendment to look to that part of those dollars , potentially $25 ,000 .00
back towards the shelter building . I should have put some things in
context . The shelter building that we built at Lake Susan , that was
$220 ,000 .00 and that was back in 1978 . That was just , of course that also I
is a water pumping facility and actually on that particular project , I
think the Park and Recreation Commission came in somewhere between
$30 ,000 .00 and $40 ,000 .00 so you really leveraged your money on that
particular project . If you would consider that form of recommendation or
if the City Council would consider it , it could put you up to an overall
funding level of about $150 ,000 .00 but that 's still short of again what
we 're looking to for total budget of potentially $170 ,000 .00 . I don 't
think we have to make decisions this evening . We 're trying to put
everything into context as to where we are . What we might have to do and
I told Todd , I said you can hit the bricks . Go out and start finding
people to donate money which may be a possibility as well . I mean
potentially the Legion may be willing to come in and pay some costs
associated with this facility and maybe not . I don 't know . That kind of
puts in line the bigger picture . So in other words , at this point in time
Mark would actually be going through the designs that he has come up with
for alternative park shelter buildings and hopefully then as he 's
presenting the cost associated with those , you can get a little better feel 1
for where the current costs are for the design that he 's showing in
comparison to the dollars that we may have available . Did I totally
confuse everyone?
Robinson : No , that was good .
Koegler : Don is always a hard act to follow . The information that I 'm
going to run through , I guess I want to state right up front , is in very
preliminary form . A lot of , if any of you have built a house in recent
years , a lot of private home builders will tell you , when you 're in the II planning stage , put in everything you might want and then just take it out
later to reflect your budget . We haven 't taken that position with this .
We 've tried to reflect some of the comments that the Commission has offered
over the last , it 's been what? Last 14 months or so , as well as going back 1
to the original concept that was prepared for this site back in about 1984 .
And out of that we put together a couple of schemes tonight for you to
begin to kind of sink your teeth into and what we really want to get is , if II
we can , some concensus of what you 're really looking for . What bottom
line , you know do you want this building to be . What spaces are most
critical . If we have to make cuts , what kinds of things potentially can be
cut . And as Don eluded to , we 'll get into that in a minute . I 've got some
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 12 , 1991 - Page 4
11 x 17 's of these and I 've got some bigger prints too and maybe we can lay
the larger ones out so you can see them easier . I think I ' ll save the cost
' side of my discussion for perhaps after we 've kind of quickly at least
glossed over these and then maybe after presenting some costs , can get into
some real definitive discussions on what your throughts and comments are .
Both of these schemes don 't change the proposed location of the site and I
' think you 're generally aware of where that is in close proximity to the
beach area . We 're talking about a structure that will be a walkout on the
lower level . A walkin if you will on the upper level that will take
' advantage of being built into the hill on that site . The exact location of
that is yet to be pinpointed but it is workable within that slope area .
The first concept that we put together is very consistent I think with the
one that was done a number of years ago . It looks at , if you look at the
bottom of the drawing , the upper level floor plan . You would walk into
this building . It would be basically a large open pavillion . The way it 's
shown right there , there would not be any doors . There would not be any
screens . Any windows at this time . It 's an open picnic type pavillion
type of structure with roughly a 4 foot overhang around all of the open
areas . The center of this particular concept identifies a large fireplace
that could be open side on both sides . It could have some grills
integrated along with that . It 's assumed right now , and at least our
concept thinking , to be probably a stone fireplace . We 're thinking right
now , at least initially and we 've got again some cost information that the
material on the exterior of the building to the degree that it 's possible ,
may be stone . The only real model we 're going from is obviously the
structure that 's down at Lake Susan which I think people identify with
themeatica.11y and would like to at least pick up some of the same kind of
elements that are in that building and bring them to Lake Ann Park for some
overall consistency in the city 's park system . The upper level then would
' basically just house the open picnic function . As you look at the lower
level of this particular building , there is a food area which is meant to
be the sale area for packaged foods . There 's a counter there that would
handle rental of paddles or canoes or bike boats or whatever it might be .
The Commission some time ago requested that there be consideration for a
first aid lifeguard station . That is shown as a small little room
enclosure as you can see on the plan . There is a storage area that kind of
' sits in the middle of this particular scheme and then flanking that , off to
the south side both ways are the mens and womens restroom facilities as
well as some small changing areas that are shown there and I know that 's
' been the subject of some discussion before and you may want to get into
that later tonight . Is that something that 's desired or should that space
potentially be removed or channeled into another use or whatever? At this
point in time all of the material thinking for the building is in again , a
real preliminary sense . Typically for this type of installation , we would
use concrete with a concrete block type partition between the toilet
stalls . I don 't know if you can make it out on the copies but there are
floor drains that are shown in all of that . The intent would be that you
can just literally go in and hose that whole area down for maintenance
purposes . We 'd suggest that that be an epoxy paint on that just again for
maintenance . That it would be a very low maintenance item . The elevation
is just to give you some sense of what this might look like . The way we 've
costed this out now , would be a tpyical asphalt shingled roof . That 's
something we ' ll take a look at some other options and ultimately can report
that back to you . So you 've got essentially a deck area that sits on the
upper portion of that building that accommodates the picnic space . Then
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
II
March 12 , 1991 - Page 5
IIyou 've got the utility functions and the restrooms on the lower level . Let
me perhaps go through the second option also fairly quickly and then touch
on some of the costs associated with both of them . They 're not terribly
dissimilar . I 'll give you that preview . This particular plan shows a few II
different things . It kind of reorients the building , the access to the
building to some degree . As you see on the upper level floor plan , in the
bottom corner of the building would be the location of the fireplace . It 's 11
not a central unit here which gives you a lot more space and a lot more
flexibility for actual picnicing on that upper level portion of the
structure . Again we 've shown flanking the fireplace and built in as part
of an overall masonry unit . There could be a couple of grills , if that was
desired . Again it 's an open area . The large railing area there would be
kind of , if you will , a covered deck type of feel to it as you would look
out then over Lake Ann . The lower level on this one contains the same ,
essential items that are on scheme one . There 's a bit of a different
orientation . Perhaps it 's a little more functional in this regard .
There 's more control of entry points and corridors . There 's a. little bit II more room for the stacking of patrons around a food window and things that
could be under an enclosed area which could be nice to get away from the
sun and so forth . It does show the first aid lifeguard station again . It II
shows a little different orientation of the rental counter . The food
counter . The storage room but the same types of facilities . Roughly the
same overall footprint . This is 40 x 40 and I think the other was 34 x 40 •
if I remember correctly on the lower level . Now that size of the lower
level can be changed . What our thinking is at this point in time is that
the upper level probably can 't get a lot smaller than it already is . Just
so that you have the ability to accommodate at least the roughly 50 or so II
people that you 've indicated I think in the past you would like to be able
to house in a building like this for some type of a group picnicing
activity . We do have some flexibility still with the precast floor system
that we 'll use to do some cantilever so we can make the lower level smaller II
if that becomes necessary without necessarily having a significant impact
on the upper portion . With that as a quick walk through , let me address
what all of this cost . The sheet that I 've just distributed identifies
what we 've got right now labeled as preliminary construction cost estimates
and so we 're dealing with construction costs . Concept one , the first one
that we went through . Right now based on some assumptions on materials and
some preliminary estimates , we 're looking at that building price being
about $100 ,000 .00 . Just slightly above that . The fireplace as it 's
envisioned there is about a $15 ,000 .00 item so we have a total building
cost. of $115 ,300 .00 . Now you 'll note we 've shown an alternate for stone of "
$14 ,000 .00 . The base configuration that 's shown right here would be a
decorative block . A break off type of block which from a distance would
have a stone appearance but up close obviously it would look like a masonry II
unit . There 's an alternate also shown for epoxy paint which we probably
just should have thrown as part of the base amount . That 's pretty much a
requirement for this type of facility just for maintenance purposes . So ill
round numbers , we end up with about $115 ,000 .00 without the stone and
adding roughly $14 ,000 .00-$15 ,000 .00 more. so we 're around $130 ,000 .00 for
that Option 1 with the stone type of exterior configuration . The second
concept being it 's slightly larger in terms of the footprint on the lower II
level reflects just slightly higher costs . We 're dealing with $115 ,000 .00
on the building . $20 ,000 .00 in lieu of $15 ,000 .00 on the fireplace just
because of the configuration of that unit . For $135 ,000 .00 roughly of
II
building costs . Again , there 's a little bit more stone exposure on that
II
Parr- and Rea Commission Meeting
March 12 , 1991 - Page 6
second level , or second concept . The way it 's shown which adds about
$22 ,000 .00 if stone is to be used as an exterior material there . So that
particular scheme runs up roughly around $157 ,000 .00 again in a very
preliminary sense the way the numbers look right now . Those numbers can be
impacted in a variety of ways . Probably the most significant impact , if
we 're looking ultimately at some reductions , would come from a reduction of
' the actual floor space itself . Reducing the floor area of that lower level
for example would have probably one of the more significant cost savings
that we could actually employ . The other would be that at this point in
time we 're dealing with a range potentially of materials that we would be
using . What we 're interested in tonight is hearing a little bit more from
the Commission on what you would like the building to look like . Just some
sense . I think the only thing that I 've heard previously is "natural " .
' Natural is obviously a very broad base term . Does natural mean wood?
Would you like to work towards the stone exterior? Is a brick off block
acceptable? What are your thoughts there because then we can begin to pare
1 this down and make some refinements and bring this back to you at a
subsequent meeting . So with that , what we 're after tonight is some input
from you .- In essence , what do you want this building to be? What are the
really critical components of the building and then we -can go and sharpen
some pencils a bit and bring back to you a revised scheme once again which
reflects that as well as a more definitive cost estimate that we can hone
in a little tighter at that time . Do you have any questions on either the
building aspect or the utility aspect , I 'd certainly be happy to address
those .
' Ashworth: You should note , if I may . These are Mark 's best estimates as
to the construction costs . It doesn 't include things like any type .of
walks , any landscaping . There 's no fees associated with this number . You
should be looking to a minimum 20% add on to here and I think that 20% is
very low . I mean typically we talk about 25% to 30% in most of our project
areas . And again , by adding in that 20% , that 's where you start getting
into that $160 ,000 .00-$170 ,000 .00-$180 ,000 .00 figure that I had thrown out
' earlier .
Schroers: I have one question before we open it to comments to the
Commissioners . Did you get a chance Todd to get information together
regarding how much rent revenue we could expect to generate from a facility
like this within a year 's time?
' Hoffman: No . No , I don 't have . I can certainly do that but I don 't have
anything with me presently .
' Schroers : Alright . Well , why don 't we start with Jan .
Lash : I have a question to start with on Concept 2 . When you 're looking
at the north elevation , upper floor . Right in the middle there 's two kind
of dark things with two little lighter things on top of them . What is
that?
Koegler : Are you right here?
Lash : Yep .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 12 , 1991 - Page 7
Koegler : That is a view of , you 'd actually see the top part of the
fireplace is what that 's showing . That would be looking all the way across
that building and seeing the fireplace on that back wall .
Lash : Oh , okay . So what we 're looking at from that view , it looks to me
like there is wall and then an open area and then a. big wall and then open
area but really that 's all open? •
Koegler : Right . That is all open . So that you 're seeing the back drop of
that wall which is an angled wall of stone , the way it 's shown there and
you can see the two smaller portions off either side are flanking that
large chimney area .
Lash: Okay , that was one of my questions was I wanted to make sure that
the north exposure had the maximum amount of open space . . .
Koegler : Yes . It is open open . '
Lash ` And then I was wondering how people who are upstairs would get
downstairs to the restrooms? '
Koegler : What 's not shown , and Don referenced this , there 's a number of
site improvements that are a part of this . There would have to be probably -
a two prong system . First of all a stairway . Exterior stairway along the
foundation of the building transcending down from the upper level to the
lower level , and in all likelihood would have to have some form of handicap
ramp probably that would come around that may just have to go all the way
back over to where that loop road access is now and back around . Just
because the grade in this area , the slope differential there is fairly
significant . But it will be an exterior stairway that will be part of the
site improvements that aren 't shown here yet that will make that
connection .
Lash: Would it be possible to have it be an interior stairway or does that
take up too much space?
Koegler : It will be possible . The concern will be space and cost .
Lash: That would be more convenient I would think . And then I think we
had talked at the last meeting , I know I mentioned that I kind of , I
thought if we needed to cut anything , I thought the changing areas would bell
the first thing that , I would rather see more toilets and less changing
areas . I figured you could change , if you wanted to change you could
always go into a bathroom stall but being in line for womens bathrooms , I I
know what 's that like when there 's 100 people and 3 toilets . And that
might cost too much money to put in more but if you 're looking for
something to cut , I guess my first thing would be the changing areas could II
be cut . And in Concept 2 , which by the way I like the best I guess . I
just think it 's kind of neat with the thing at an angle . I guess I 'd like
to see the entrance for the mens room more on the exterior if that 's
possible . Does that cut into the hill?
Koegler : Yes it is .
1
11
11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 12 , 1991 - Page 8
Lash . I guess people , men would have to go through , go past this food area
with that door to get to the mens room and I 'm a little bit uncomfortable
with that . I 'm not sure why but I just thought it 'd be nicer if you could
' get to the mans room a different way .
Koubsky. I guess I was wondering on the Phase 1 and Phase 2 you have some
I square footages there . You had mentioned that a possible area to cut would
be in the lower level . In the Phase 1 you have a square foot . I think
that 's what it is right next to the scale of a 1 ,068 feet . Is that
' correct?
Koegler : Yes , that 's correct .
' Koubsky: Okay . Does that include any of the overhang or is that just
internal building area , do you know?
Koegler : I believe that 's actual internal wall building area . There would
be a slab obviously because you can see the outline on there . Underneath
that cantilevered portion above but that square footage relates only to
that useable space within that . It does not count the slab area .
Koubsky : Okay , and then that would be the same for the second option also?
Koegler : Yes . Correct .
Koubsky - I guess if I had a comment as far as which option I like or floor
plan , it would be 2 . I know it 's more expensive but I like the thought of
a fireplace out of the way with , it seems to me if you 're going to have 50
people or a gathering of people , they 've got a lot better access with the
fireplace tucked out . I really don 't know how often people would use the
' fireplace . Possibly the grills but where 's anybody going to get the
firewood . They 'd have to bring it in and I 'm not sure what the
restrictions the City would have on that in itself . Maybe you guys do .
Hoffman: Potentially , to head off any wood robbers in the woods there , we
could provide that firewood for a charge .
' Koubsky: I do agree that the storage areas could be reduced if we needed
to do that . On Phase 2 I guess from , what would that be , the southwest
side you could even take off some square footage there on the basement and
then move the toilets around a little bit and cut the storage area in half .
Or the changing room , I 'm sorry . I don 't know if really more than , the way
these changing rooms are set up , there 'd only be one family or one group of
individuals going in there anyway . I don 't see 5 men or 5 women going into
change . They 'd probably take turns so really I think you 'd only need room
for like a dad and his sons or maybe 3 people or something in there at a
1 time . •
Lash: I just thought of something when you were talking about the changing
area for the women here . If it was me , I would go and change in the stall .
' That would be more private than changing in this changing area right in
front of the door where everybody 's going to come walking through .
Koubsky: You 'd have to have a door on there .
Park and Pee Commission Meeting
II
March 12 , 1991 - Page 9
Lash : Yeah , but it doesn 't show a door so I don 't know if we 're talking 11
about a door or not .
Pemrick : Are these open stalls? I
Koegler : The way they 're shown now , they are open stalls , yes . There II would be side walls that would be the concrete wall . Block wall but there
would not be the metal door or something on them . Again we 're after
utilitarian maintenance purposes .
Lash : But everybody coming in the door would walk right past the changing II
room .
Koegler : Yes . I
Lash: So you might as well change out on the beach . As far as I 'm
concerned . It 's not very private and maybe that doesn 't bother men but .
II
Koegler : The men we tucked away .
- Lash : Yeah , the men is in the back corner here . The women are in front of
the main doer .
Erhart : Change bathrooms . '
Koubsky : Yeah , you could do that easy enough but still , it 's the same
thing . With the toilets then too , do those have the steel doors on in
II
front of them or would those be open also?
Koegler : They could but right now they 're open . The way it 's shown
conceptually . II
Koubsky: I don 't know . Personally I think it 's important to have those
doors on the front . You go for a hockey game you know and you look at them "
and nobody uses them . They wait . I think that 's important . And if you
did put those doors on the front , you could even extend that to make one ,
you know a separate private changing areas . Give them a couple extra feet
where if they wanted to change , all they 'd have to do is close the door and
you 'd have a little more room from the toilet to the door and really
eliminate the changing area all together . Although the changing area is ,
nice if you have your kids but I think if the kids are young enough anyway ,
you 're just changing them on the beach or wherever it is anyway . I do .
I don 't know if that 's allowed . . . I guess that would be an option . If you
wanted to eliminate the changing area , just extend the stalls and really II you cut your bathroom area in half . I guess that 's all I can think about
right now .
Robinson: Would it be practical to have wood on the exterior or is that II
too much maintenance? It 's natural , when you said natural but it would
require a lot of maintenance and could be damaged .
II
Koegler : Well the two concerns I think you 've just hit . General
maintenance , as far as just upkeep of keeping it stained or treated or
whatever but probably more so the visual aspect of kids carving into it and ll
burning it and whatever . We don 't necessarily have to rule that out but I
II
11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 12 , 1991 - Page 10
think we 'd probably think more along the lines of some type of masonry unit
that would be more durable . At least within reach . We may be able to do
some wood trim higher up or something that would be outside of the flow of
where most people could get to It .
Robinson: I see .
' Koubsky: I think wood too would require some maintenance . If not yearly ,
every other year . Otherwise that just gets away from you and you start
1 bleaching .
Robinson: Help me understand the financing . I 'm getting up to a lot of
dollars here . If I take Concept ,2 and with the alternate stone and epoxy
paint , I get $160 ,000 .00 . If we take Don 's 20% for what I call
miscellaneous . Landscaping and what not , and say it 's 25% to round off ,
that 's an additional $40 ,000 .00 so just in the building and the landscaping
' we 're up to $200 ,000 .00 . And the utilities and what not are another
$100 ,000 .00 . We 're talking to put Alternative 2 in there , in the
$300 ,000 .00 range . Is that , am I missing something there?
Koegler : No . I think in a general sense that 's accurate . You know Don I
think called out a range of $270 ,000 .00-$280 ,000 .00 . We think right now
' these coat estimates are conservative . I mean we 're not going to come with
something that we 're going to have to renig on later . So we 're pretty
comfortable that we can make some modifications . We can make some changes
to get within that budget but the way it lays out now , you 're correct . I
1 mean those are the numbers the way they would total . The 25% , hopefully on
this project it will be defined well enough that that would be high . That
the fees and contingencies and so forth would come in no higher than 20 and
' perhaps less than that as a final project budget .
Robinson: I too like the second alternative . If for no other reason the
additional space . You 're talking 40 x 40 which with a lot of people ,
that 's still not a real big area . I have no further comments .
Pemrick: I think they 're both very aesthetically pleasing . Both plans but
' I do prefer the second one . I think there 's a little more style to that .
I have a question on the material . You were referring to a break away
stone . Is that one of those thin?
' Koegler : No .
Pemrick: What is a break away stone?
Koegler : We 're talking about a masonry unit . Concrete masonry unit .
Pemrick : Like a pre-fab slab kind of thing?
Koegler : No , not necessarily . A lot of the office warehouse type
buildings around the Twin Cities are built out of a decorative masonry unit
11 and they can be either a variety of widths . That can be a full 12 inch
block and instead of having the typical kind of basement finish that maybe
you have on block in your house , it 's a decorative rubble type of exterior .
' And so that 's what we 're talking about and there are a variety of finishes
1
Park and Rea Commission Meeting
II
March 12 , 1991 - Page 11
and colors and everything else that ultimately we 'll get into but we 're II
looking at that as kind of a base and see where- we can go from there then .
Pernricf : Did you consider using the concrete slabs? We talked about I
that . Jim had brought that up at a meeting . Is that equal in cost?
Koegler : The only precast that we 're proposing right now , at least in our II
thinking , would be for the floor systems . The tip up panel type
construction has , certainly has benefits with regard to cost . My candid
opinion is that it 's not something that you probably want in Lake Ann Park . II
Lake Ann Park , at least in my mind , has always been kind of the jewel of
Chanhassen 's park system and I think aesthetically we can do better .
Pemrick : Okay . I guess I 'd like to see doors on the womens restrooms I
there and if we 're going to take away , I too agree . Maybe we don 't need
those changing rooms but we can always use storage . You can never have II enough storage and so maybe we could add on to the storage of the
buildings . And I guess that 's all I have to say .
Erhart : I 'd go along with the other commission members . I prefer plan
II
number 2 also and as far as some of the comments that were made on the
stone , I agree with Mark . I 'd like it to be a facility that we could be
proud of and it may sound a little spendy here but I see it being a II facility that we 're only going to probably use more and more as the
community grows . I 's personally hate to see any square footage on the
bottom take away . Bathroom doors are a must I think and I 'd be interested
in looking into some alternative ways of raising some money . Having Todd
come back to us with that . Like I say , I really don 't want to cut anything
awe> from it . And that 's it .
Echroers : Okay . I have a few comments . I too feel that there should be 1
doors on the bathroom partitions but that they should not be steel . They
should be marine thick , marine plywood and painted with epoxy . I think
that we want as little steel of any kind in the facilities . Anything
II
that 's not necessary because my experience with that is that it corrodes in
a very short time and you end up taking it out and putting in wood
afterwards . So I think wood is a better plan for the doors . I 'm not
interested in relinquishing space for money . I think the more space that
we can have , the better it will be used . Storage is very important . It
seems like storage is something that you can 't sell to the general public .
Therefore it 's unpopular but from a maintenance point of view , to have some
place to put the necessary items is really a convenience . You don 't want
to have to be hauling everything that you need to take care of the building
from your main maintenance shop , wherever that is . A given distance to the
building so storage is important . I agree with everyone else that if we do
have to cut something , the changing rooms would be the place to cut it .
Possibly cut them in half and give the other half to storage or for adding II
an extra toilet facility to each the mens and women , if there was a way , an
aesthetic way of doing that . We have changing rooms at French Park where I
work and they are the least used of any of our facilities . Mainly kids go
in there to hide and smoke cigarettes and very few people actually use them II
for changing . Most people come to the beach with a bag and they sort of
live out of their beach bag . They come with their swimming suit underneath il
and have a pull over for when they 're done and the changing rooms are
really not used that much . In the upper level of the facility I would like II
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 12 , 1991 - Page 12
to see floor drains as well so you can just go in there and hose the place
down . My next comment is going to be very unpopular but . I think that
having a fireplace is very aesthetic and very nice looking but if we had to
cut costs , that would be my recommendation for a couple reasons . Haring a
building that is not secured , it 's difficult to protect for vandalism and a
fireplace is easily vandalised and ruined . And also my experience has been
that people do not necessarily care to cook in a fireplace . They would
rather cook on a charcoal type of barrel drum type cooker that the City
could provide or that we could rent as an option . We do that . And also
' the fireplace is going to lend itself to people are going to be rummaging
around through the park looking for wood . Building bonfires in there late
at night . Kids in particular getting the fireplace hot and then maybe
throwing things at it and cracking the brick or the stone after it 's hot .
Also , having a ready source of fire available like that , burning picnic
tables is a lot of fun I know . And whatever else may be burnable so in
light of saving money and deterring vandalism and maintenance , I would
' recommend eliminating the fireplace and just going with some type of grills
or cookers .
Lash- I don 't understand what kind of grill you 're talking about . Like
this kind that they have with the hood?
Schroers: Yeah . We call them a super cooker . They have wheels on and you
can move them around to where you want them because invariably you get a
group in there that has a pre-arranged idea of how they want their function
to operate and they want to be cooking over here and they want to be doing
something else over here and so there 's room for something else over there .
' If ycu give them just one , you know the fireplace is just one option and
they ' ll make do with that but they seem to prefer to be mobile . And when
we rent out a shelter , we have one cooking unit like that that comes with
' it and then if they want an additional one , they can rent it and it 's a
charcoal thing and it has a little hitch on it . We can pull it behind the
truck . It 's got wheels on it so we can take it to a place , to a dump site
and get rid of the charcoal . Clean it out and bring it back . It 's much
easier to maintain . People like using it much better than they do a
fireplace for cooking . In my opinion , a fireplace is going to be
aesthetically pleasing and it 's going to be a toy but it 's not going to
function really as a useful cooking facility . And that is what people want
when they come to picnic . They eat .
' Lash : No , but I guess my question Larry was , the ones that are shown here .
Even if you got rid of the fireplace idea but you stuck with the permanent
grills with a hood system . I guess I feel like that would maybe be
somewhat more protection as far as someone getting a raging , you know
pouring the lighter fluid on and getting a rip roaring thing going on and
possibly starting a fire or something . If we had them stationary with a
hood system like this is shown , maybe that would be a little more insurance
over , for fire protection . I don 't know . Maybe that doesn 't happen but
that 's . . .but you could take the fireplace out and still keep the grills .
1 Schroers: I think that could happen but I think generally there would be
enough clearance from the grill to the ceilling that you would have to
really have a raging fire in order for it to burn because there 's really
nothing else there that would burn other than the roof . I don 't know that
the partitions that support the roof would basically be stone . The only
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 12 , 1991 - Page 13
thing I see with stationary ones is one thing , people can 't move them to
where they want and the other thing is , then they have to be serviced and
cleaned in place and when you 're trying to scoop ashes out , then you 're
going to get them on the floor . So first you clean the grill and then you
have to clean the floor . Whereas a mobile type grill , you can at least get
it out on the grass or you can haul it to a dump site and clean it up and
bring it back and you 're ready to go .
Lash : Another thing I just thought of when we were talking about that is ,
we did talk about outlets and you 're planning on having electricity right? II
Koegler : Yes .
•
Lash: I was at a shelter one time and I thought this was kind of neat .
They had some like built in just , I think some of them were even hinged or
something , but kind of counters close to where the outlets were so when
people come and they have , you 're having a family reunion and there 's all
the crock pots and all that , you have a place to set all those things and
plug them in and you don 't have to use , pull the picnic tables over and try
and walk around picnic tables to get at the food . '
Schroer, : We have those counters and they are nice . People like them .
And the electric outlets are build right into the bottom of the counter so -
they 're real handy . That works out very well . But these are things that
tend to get full of watermelon , baked beans , all sorts of things and you
really need to have the ability to go in there with a power washer , turn it
on full force and blast the stuff off and squeege it out and let it run
down the drain . It 's the only practical way of cleaning it . Otherwise
you 're going to have somebody in there full time , all the time , spending
all day everyday trying to keep the place in shape . And also , if you don 't
have the ability to clean it up with water , the sticky substances are going
to attach flies and bees and all that sort of thing and that gets to be a
nuisance .
Lash: I think at one of the other meetings I mentioned something about the '
floor drain upstairs too and somebody said they thought that was too
expensive . '
Koegler : That 's not shown on here but we 've assumed that that would be
included . '
Lash: Floor drain upstairs?
Koegler : Yes . Absolutely , to be able to hose it down is as essential
upstairs as it is downstairs .
Schroers: I like the fact that the upstairs is just open and it should be
relatively easy to take care of . It 's nice looking and it gives you a
welcome accessible feeling . That 's really good . I 'm not sure what we 're
thinking about in i o, food if II we 're looking for a second place to cut , that 's what I would cut . Health
codes , you probably are familiar with them Mark but they make life
difficult for you . Everything , if you 're going to be selling any kind of
food at all , everything has to be at least 6 inches up off the floor so '
you 've got room to clean underneath it and it 's really a headache to
Park and Pee Commission Meeting
March 12 , 1991 - Page 14
manage . It takes quite a bit of storage area as well to keep items on hand
;ni additional staff people to operate it which maybe it would be self
' sustaining and maybe it wouldn 't . I don 't know but I think if there 's
going to be one major headache in the building , it would be with the food
service , as far as staff is concerned .
Hoffman : Initial thoughts on that Larry are that that would be packaged
food only so we don 't have to mess with the food service standards and
those types of things . It would be selling packaged products and beverages
out of that area . It 's not shown as a very large area and that is the
intent that it 's not real large . It doesn 't take up a whole big part of
the area . That you can go there to get the snack items , the packaged food
items . Potentially if it was ever an option , we 'd go to the microwave type
of foods if that would be desireable . Other than that , just beverages and
packaged foods .
Schroe-rte, : Obviously it would have things like a refrigerator freezer , that
sort of thing . Amenities . Sinks and that .
' Koegler : We 're presuming that , again there 's all kinds of assumptions but
our assumption going into this is that you would have canned beverages for
sale so you would have refrigeration capability there . Typically un these
kinds of installations , they sell bomb pops and all that kind of stuff so
you 've got a freezer unit there also . There will be sinks either in this ,
either directly here or in this vicinity for clean-up purposes and washing
of hands and that kind of thing . So yes , those would be generally
'
components of that area . There would be no cooking of food the way it 's
envisioned now .
' Lash : The area behind , between the food and the rental area . There 's sort
of that big. rectangle and then it looks like a little L shaped counter .
Uhat is that?
Koegler : What 's shown there is counters that kind of wrap in behind . When
you come out the door of the storage area , what 's shown there is counter
and storage space on each side of kind of a corridor that you walk out of
if you will . You then take a right , that becomes kind of the work sell
space for the food area so that you 've got food storage back on that
counter . Back on that counter to the left of the window if you wil . I 'm
presuming there 'd be some storage underneath for whatever other products
need to be there .
Lash: And then is that like a counter behind the rental where it says
rent?
Koegler : Yes . Yes it would be . Or here again , everything is wide open .
That might be rack storage if you had canoe paddles back there . That needs
to be further defined as we go along with this .
Lash : And what kind of window locking devices did you have in mind?
Koegler : Nothing obviously has been speced out yet . It could be a metal ,
a steel type metal curtain window that would come down and lock off . It
will be something , the interest will be in terms of maintenance and
r - r k and Rec Commission Meeting I
March 12 , 1991 - Page 15
vandalism and everything else . It will be fortress like shall we say when
it 's closed .
Lash : And do you have drinking fountains? ,
Koegler : Yes . There will be a drinking fountain at a part of this also .
Lash : Okay . And did you , is the upstairs designed in such a way that
should the day ever come that we would have the money and the desire to
screen it in , that we could do that? '
Koegler : It could be . I think what we 're interested in hearing tonight if
that is a long term interest . You 've touched on a couple things . That 's
one tf _. t I personally would like some feedback from you on . The other
thing is Larry 's fireplace comment struck an interesting cord , if you
excuse the pun . Does the balance of the commission feel the same way?
You 'vc got a Lion 's Club I believe that save you a donation specifically
fr.r- fireplace which kind of to a certain degree negates the ability to
pull that out of the project budget unless you can say well we need the
grill __ . Maybe the grills are like a fireplace . ,
Lash : Well I think we were the ones who specified for a fireplace .
Koegler - Oh , it was labeled internally here? Okay .
LE,sh : Although my recollection , and I could be mistaken but I thought that .
I remembered it was to be an exterior fireplace that we had talked about
for more winter type gatherings and things .
Erhart : That 's what. I recall too . '
Lash: You could check and see because that 's something that could be done
totally separately . '
Schroers : I don 't think a facility of this particular design lends itself
ver / well to wintertime activities . I think in wintertime you basically
want shut this down and don 't even plow up to it . Make it as II inaccessible as possible just to deter people from using it in the winter
because without , you don 't want to encourage groups of people to come to a
place in the winter where there 's no heat . ,
Hoffman: We 're fortunate to have the Arboretum , Minnewashta Regional Park
and then Carver Regional Park which have much better facilities for winter
time activities . Cross country skiing and that type of thing . We 'd be
hard pressed to try to compete with those in the small area that we have
for cross country ski trails and then as well in the facility itself .
Lash : Well Don were you including that $20 ,000 .00 or whatever it was from II
the Lion 's in this already?
Ashworth : That $150 ,000 .00 I 'd given you , that was in there . 1
Schroers: I would be interested in hearing anyone elses thoughts on the
fireplace . ,
11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 12 , 1991 - Page 16
Robinson: I think you make some good points . Especially , where would we
get the wood? You know they 're going to be scrounging in the woods and
' cutting down trees and burning picnic tables and I can see all that . I
thought you made some real good- points .
Erhart : Yeah , the only reason why I didn 't mention anything about the
fireplace is I guess I was under the impression too that we would probably
use it into the winter . But if we are not going to , that is a very big
ticket item that I would agree Larry , very good point , to take out .
Koegler : This was a fairly grandiose fireplace . I mean it had built in
grills as a part of it . It was all made out of stone . The hood was stone .
It was a $20 ,000 .00 item on Concept 2 .
Lash: Yeah , that 's a lot of money . And having an 8 year old boy , I know
the fascination of the fire and of putting everything and anything that you
can find in there to see if it will burn and how long it will burn .
Schroers: You can just basically look at fireplaces , in general , and
they 're pretty . They 're nice . They 're aesthetic . Everybody likes them
but, as far as being practical , just about no one uses them for cooking and
unless you have a real special fireplace , it generally robs more heat than
it produces so basically they 're just , they 're an aesthetic amenity and not
11 terribly functional .
Koubsky: I think I agree with Larry too with the fireplace . I 'd just like
to say that . I think really the concept of a 55 gallon type of grill for a
large group probably lends itself to cooking a lot more than the grills
that would be rut on here . You could put all your burgers or whatever you.
wanted on a 55 gallon drum and everybody could eat at the same time .
That 'd be a lot more convenient for the people who would rent this out .
Koegler : So in general your thoughts would be that cooking activities
1 would occur outside of this building but you would like to consider some
counter type space with electrical outlets to handle crockpots and groups .
Lash : I guess I 'd like to see that but I wasn 't under the impression of
cooking outside of this .
Koegler : I guess I should have clarified it . Portable that you could
bring in and out but not a permanent part of the interior of the building .
Koubsky: And then there would be enough space in here where you could pull
that bar-be-clue grill or whatever and light it up without thoughts of the
ceiling sooting up or ventilation concerns?
Schroers : Well you know , that 's kind of a judgment call . Most people have
done this sort of thing before and they 'll put their charcoal in and
they ' ll soak it down with charcoal and everything will be fine . That 's 98%
of the people . But then the other 2% of the people are going to come in
there and fill it up with wood and dump 5 gallons of gas on it and throw a
match . So you just have to cover your bases as well as you can and I guess
that I really don 't know how likely it is that we could start the roof on
fire but I would say that anything is possible . We could maybe have a
caution sign on the grill itself or in the area saying , Caution . Charcoal
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
II
March 12 , 1991 - Page 17
IIand Charcoal Lighter Only . Absolutely No Gasoline , Kerosene or something
like that . You need some warning signs just to. remind people .
Lash: But then people will be bringing their own grills in too . 1
Schroers : Yeah . They do that all the time . A lot of times people think
that no matter how well you take care of the facilities , they 're going to II
bring their grill because they know that it 's working properly and it 's all
neat and clean and all that kind of stuff . So that 's another reason that I
think there 's a major expenditure on the fireplace that isn 't justified
because most people are going to bring their own stuff anyway .
Koubsky : Mark , how high up is that roof? Or the ceiling .
II
Koegler : I 'd have to measure that . I can 't remember that off the top of
my head . And you guys have all of my , my two scale copies .
Ashworth : While Mark 's measuring that , I was wondering Larry if I may , II
what has been your experience in terms of these roll down tops where behind
them you would have sinks? Do people enjoy having accessibility to a sink?
I don 't think you can just have a sink out in the open . I think there 'd be '
too much vandalism associated with it but if it was behind one of these
pull down type of grate things where people could check out the key , I II would think that would be real nice .
Schroers : You mean like in the upstairs , upper floor level to accommodate
the picnic people for just being able to wash their hands? That sort of
II
thing?
Ashworth: Well coffee and all of the things you might have along with II picnicing . Sure you want to wash your hands but you also want to start
some coffee and wash off the knife that fell on the ground .
Lash: Wipe off the picnic tables . I
Schroers: Well to answer your question specifically , I don 't have any
experience at all with the roll down cover over a sink . We don 't have any II
of those facilities . I 've never worked with them . Basically we have
running water available from a spigot that people can just go and get the
water that they need for their coffee and that sort of thing and then as
far as washing hands and stuff is concerned , we have full service
facilities close to the picnicing area and people just go to the bathroom
for their hand washing and that sort of thing . We don 't have special sinks
just to accommodate the picnic areas . What we do have in our full season II
building and outdoor recreation center where we have you might call them
small convention rooms or whatever that we rent out and we have sinks and
stuff in there that are behind doors but for our outside summertime picnic ,
use , there 's just a spigot available for water and the sinks in the
bathrooms . I think it 's a reasonable ides and I don 't know how much it
would cost and how you would install one on an open area that doesn 't have
a wall . I
Lash: Well what about the area that he shows now with the fireplace . If
that area were designated and could be closed in such a way that we could II
have a sink area in there and possibly the grill that would be for rent .
II
R Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 12 , 1991 - Page 18
And then if they chose to use that , they 'd be given the key but then
they 're have to pay extra for that and then they 'd have access to the grill
11 and people wouldn 't have to bring it each time it was needed to be used .
It would just always be there but locked up . Is that too much of a waste
of floor space? I don 't know .
Koubsky: I think it is . Even if , this is only designed for 50 people
which isn 't a real large group of people , I think you need as much open
area for people as possible .
Schroers : I think what we 're going to find is when people realize that
this facility is there , how convenient and nice it is , you 're going to have
groups of 300 that are going to want to go there . And I guess that 's going
to be up to staff as to how they want to handle that situation . There
again from experience , you overuse an area . It takes a beating . The grass
gets totally burnt out . All the landscape plantings and stuff around the
area get trampled to the ground and the bark gets beaten off the trees .
That 's one disadvantage with having a nice area because it feels the impact
of a lot of use . I don 't know what the plans are as far as maintaining
this building but I do know that if you do have a facility like this with a
full service bathroom downstairs , on your normal busy summer weekend day ,
they ' ll have to be checked like at least 3 times to make sure that there
are the necessary things like toilet paper , paper towels , whatever . I know
that this is something that we 're not really into yet but dispensing
machines of various types tend to just be a target for vandals . They don 't
generate very much money but somebody thinks there 's money in there and
11 they tear the whole wall down trying to get it open . As far as providing
sanitary napkins or whatever , for the little amount of money and
convenience that you may offer to the public , they 're really not a
worthwhile thing to consider . I don 't know if they were in your plans at
all .
Koegler : Not at this point they aren 't . The question that was posed a
minute ago on the height . From the floor up to the bottom of that peak .
the highest point of that roof , it 's about 22 feet . So that 's a large open
space the way it 's envisioned right now . Again , that 's right at the peak
of the height .
Lash: So how about at the lowest , right over at the edge?
Koegler : The lowest point is about 14-15 feet . 14 feet .
Schroers: Maybe Dale , the fire person here , could maybe tell us better how
much chance he thinks there is of a normal charcoal type grill starting the
place on fire .
Dale Gregory : Well if you 're talking 12-14 feet high , again it 's all going
to depend on what they all put in there . If they 're going to fill it up
with wood and throw your kerosene or whatever you want on it , you 're going
to have a fairly good chance of scorching your ceiling or something like
that . You know if you 've got the things sitting out by the side . Really
ideal what would be nice is if they had an area sitting outside there , a
cemented out area or something where the thing could be permanently mounted
or have a permanently mounted one sitting outside . It would eliminate your
sitting your grill inside taking up space where people are going to be .
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting I
March 12 , 1991 - Page 19
It 's going to eliminate having 50 people with little kids running around
II
where you 've got a hot grill . I mean eliminate it from that aspect of
somebody getting hurt .
II
Lash: But people are going to bring them in on the days when it 's rainy or
drizzly . They 're going to bring it in and we 've got to be ready for that . II
Koubsky: Yeah , you need a cover .
Lash : Will this have a sprinkler? Is that Code that it would have to have ll
a sprinkler system in it or something?
Koegler : At this point no . It 's not envisioned to have a sprinkler .
II
Schroers: That was a good point that you made Dale . That refreshed my
memory . The grills that we have that are permanent , that go along with our !'
outdoor shelters that we rent , are attached by chain and paddelock to a
stake that 's cemented in the end of the slab that is outside of the
roofline .
IIDale Gregory: So you 've got most of your smoke and everything else going
outside .
Schroers: You 've got most of the smoke and everything going outside and we 11
still have the ability to move them if we want to by unlocking the lock and
then pulling them away . But they are locked in position on a slab that is
outside of the roofline and then the counter is just underneath the '
roofline so that it 's in relative proximity to the grill .
Pemrick: I think anyone bringing in their own grills would just bring in II
little Weber 's or something anyway so I don 't think that 'd be a big
concern .
IIHoffman: And as far as some , there would not be direct supervision in that
upper area but for the majority of the times that picnics are taking place
up there , you know seasonal staff operating the lower level in this
building would be present and to some degree keeping some type of a
II
supervision on the building itself .
Schroers : Did you have any maintenance concerns that you wanted to bring
up Dale?
Dale Gregory: Just looking at it tonight and I think you covered a
majority of them as far as ease of maintenance . Being able to clean it up II
and everything else . I 'd just make a comment of making sure we 've got the
spigots around in the bathrooms and everything . Let 's not put them outside
somewhere where we 've got to drag a 100 feet of hose to get in . It 'd be
convenient to have one in each one of the bathrooms so we can just walk in II
and wash down and they 're right outside the door or something .
Schroers : And also they should be fairly convenient to winterize because II
it will need to be drained down and winterized .
Lash : I guess following up on Don 's earlier comment . If we don 't have
some kind of sink or water set up in there , I would like to see a couple , II
II
IIPark and Rec Commission Meeting
March 12 , 1991 - Page 20
IIat least one spigot upstairs that people could use if they needed water
too . To make coffee or whatever .
IISchroers : And I want to make it known that I didn 't really mean to step on
anyone 's toes by bringing up all this business about getting rid of the
II fireplace . If in fact the Lion 's or someone else was generous enough to
contribute that amount of money and had specifically requested a fireplace ,
I think that that deserves consideration as well .
IIHoffman: It just so happened the night that we were accepting that ,
recommended to accept that donation that the Lake Ann Park shelter was on
the agenda as well and each time the donations come in from the Lion 's , we
I seem to try to target a specific area where that could go and the
discussion that evening centered around the fireplace .
ILash: Well we could still put a nice plague in here saying that .
Hoffman: Money from that organization in that fund went towards the
I construction of this building .
Lash : And if we get money from other people , we could list them all on
there . .
.
1 Hoffman: Sure .
IRobinson: Was that from the pulltabs?
Hoffman: Correct .
IRobinson : And I understand that 's gone away .
Hoffman: It 's gone from the Filly 's location . It 's still operating in
IIPauly 's .
Schroers: Okay , Mark would you be looking for anything further that .we
IIhaven 't discussed?
Koegler : Well I 've taken a red pen and I 've bled all over this sheet that
I 've got here in front of me with all the comments that you 've offered and
II I think we can take those now and compile those and then what we 're hoping
to do is to bring you back one or two sketches that bring that to life and
then a. more definitive cost on that . At that time we 'll probably have a
1 better feel for the utility aspect and services to the building also and
can present that to you for information as well .
11 Lash: How about the future screening idea?
Koegler : Would you like us to look at that?
I Lash: I guess I would like to at least have that be an option that in
years to come , if we wanted to do it , we could do it for a reasonable cost
and not have construction be in such a way that it wouldn 't even be
II possible to do . I don 't know if it 's , is that something that you think
would get just vandalised?
II
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 12 , 1991 - Page 21
I
Erhart: Yeah , people I think would punch a lot of holes in that .
Schroers: Yeah , I do too . And I think that if you 're going to go with
screen that it would be , after the first season , it would be very
unaesthetically pleasing . It would be all torn up and dented up and look
not good and be full of cobwebs and all this fuzz from the cottonwood trees II
and all that sort of thing . Screen probably wouldn 't be the answer . Glass
certainly isn 't the answer . Plexiglass isn 't either . I just think that a
facility of this nature doesn 't really lend itself to being closed in
unless you turn it into a four season building that 's going to be used year II
round and then you 're talking about a totally different facility .
Erhart : Also Todd , I 'd be interested in just seeing how much money we can
generate out of something like this during the season .
Hoffman: Sure . I 'll take a look at the different venues if you will of
what will be offered there and some potential rough estimates obviously .
We can take a look at what those types of operations generate in other
cities in other park systems with the rental system itself . The food
concession area and then as well the rental of the building which probably II
for your dollar generates the quickest amount , largest money back the
quickest in the quickest amount of time . Obviously for the rental portion
of it , you 're going to have some capital outlay as well in purchasing
docks , equipment to go along with that so it 's going to be a long term
investment but one I think that would be well received by the public ,
Especially on the lake such as Lake Ann which is non-motorized . The use of II
canoes and water bikes and paddleboats and that type of thing would
certainly be viewed as desireable recreational item to include .
Dale Gregory : I had a question for Mark . Did you mention about steps '
going down from the upstairs around the outside?
Koegler : Yes . I
Dale' Gregory: Are you looking at one side or both sides?
Koegler : The assumption was there would be one side for now .
Dale Gregory: I 'm just looking at the way you 've got two entrances coming '
in and I 'm sury Larry knows from where he works and that , that kids are
going to go anyway they can around this building and like you say , you 're
going to lose shrubs . You 're going to lose everything and it may be
worthwhile looking at steps down both sides . You 've got people coming from II
the beach . They 're going to want to go up this side . And you 've got
people coming from the other side that are going to want to go down the
other side so you may want to look at steps going down both sides to
eliminate the kids running alongside the building and tearing all Of the
shrubs and everything .
Erhart : Because we wouldn 't be saving any money then if we lose those . '
Dale Gregory: You 'd be better off putting your steps there and then put
your shrubs beyond that . At least they would take and run down the steps II
anyway .
r
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 12 , 1991 - Page 22
Schroers: Or possibly you could address that situation by having the steps
on one side and a handicap trail on the other side and thereby kind of
consolidating .
Koegler : That issue is probably also best addressed when we look at the
actual precise location of the building . The sloped area that we 're
looking at has a fair amount of tree cover in and amongst it and it may be
such that we 'd have enough natural barrier on one side with grade and tree
' cover that we can get by with steps just on the other side . We can sure
look at that Dale .
' Lash: Todd were you , this will be based on the location too but was it
your thinking that say a larger party wanted to rent this space , could they
then also rent the top of the hill area? Is that close enough together
that they could have the under cover area for , in case the weather was bad
but then also spread out into the top of the hill area too?
Hoffman: Sure . You 're correct . We have to evaluate if we want to combine
these or still offer them as two separate areas and then offer them as one
package together so you can operate your food and that type of function out
of here but then have that other area for open space . Access to the
volleyball court which is there for your group and then as well taking a
look at going across to the softball fields as well . That can be used very
well together .
Schroers : I guess one more thing I would like to bring up is that
ornamental type of landscaping I would prefer to see kept to a minimum
because it adds an awful lot of cost . It adds a lot of maintenance time
and it definitely takes away from the natural aesthetics of the place . If
you plug this in amongst a bunch of oak trees and elm trees and ash trees
or whatever and then have a bunch of ornamental plantings around it , that
Itends to make the building stand out rather than to blend it in .
Lash: If you 're going to have water upstairs for the spigot , I guess I 'd
' just as soon see a drinking fountain up there too . One up and down .
Schroers: Anything else?
I Hoffman: Larry , if I may . Just briefly we 'll talk about the schedule or
forecasted schedule for the project so everyone has an idea of where it 's
going from here . You 're at a special meeting . Normally we meet the fourth
I Tuesday . The next meeting in 2 weeks would be too tight a timeframe to
come back to you . Then again I want to get a feeling from the Commission
if they would like to stay away from calling another additional special
meeting the month of April and have this drop back to the fourth Tuesday in
I April at the regular meeting? Obviously we have a time schedule where we
need to get the Commission 's work done . Get it up to Council for their
chance to take a look at it and their approval so we can go on with the
II plans and specs and the bidding process and eventually the construction .
Again we 're not real concerned about getting rapid construction schedule
early on in the summer because obviously it 's not going to be done for the
rush of this summer so we can have a late summer , early fall type of
construction but we certainly want to get the project done before the snow
flies etc . . So I just want to get your feeling . Would you like to have
this come back at the regular meeting in April or a month certainly is
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 12 , 1991 - Page 23
enough time if we call an additional special meeting but I just want to
know the feelings of the Commission .
Lash : Well we have a meeting already on the 7th of April don 't we with the
Public Safety?
Hoffman: Oh correct . Yep .
Lash: Could we just tack that the end of it? Tack this one on the end of II
that one?
Hoffman: On the 9th?
Lash : Yeah , whatever .
Hoffman: That 's a good possibility . I
Erhart : Would that give you enough time?
Hoffman: Again , we 'll have to address that with Mark and Scott at Van
Doren Hazard but those two options would then , either the 9th or else then
the 26th or 24th of April . Whatever it is .
Koegler : I think we could certainly do it by the 9th . To keep things
moving .
Lash: That 's a Tuesday isn 't it?
Koegler : That 's correct .
Koubsky: Just one last thing too . When you think about the drinking
fountains , you know consider the kids too . I don 't know if you need an
adult drinking fountain and a little drinking fountain for the kids• but
there should be a lot of kids using it and they should have access without
the parents picking them up .
Koegler : Okay , thank you .
Schroers: Thank you Mark . And generally speaking , everybody liked the
design Concept No . 2 correct? And the stone? Everyone agrees that the
stone is the way?
Koubsky: That 's a field stone Mark? That 's just a broken field stone? '
Koegler : Yes .
Schroers: Okay , it will be nice to see what Plan B . '
Koegler : Well April 9th we 'll take another look at it .
Schroers: Okay , good . Thanks very much .
1
U
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 12 , 1991 - Page 24
SITE PLAN REVIEW - SUBDIVISION OF 3.39 ACRES INTO 4 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ,
LAKE LUCY ROAD .
Hoffman: As the report stated , the applicant David Hughes in association
with Mularoni and Associates has presented a proposal to rezone 3 .4 acres
of rural residential to residential single family and then to subdivide
that into 4 lots . The 4 lots being the house which is currently there and
3 new lots . I took the availability to bring this to the Commission this
evening . The Planning Commission is going to take a look at it on March
20th so the timing was right . I thought it was important for the
Commission to take a look at it just for an interest point of view since it
is in direct vicinity and abuts the new Pheasant Hills Park property on two
sides . To be again somewhat candid , the Planning Commission and the
Planning staff does not see that the subdivision proposal is that good and
' it presents some certain problems about setbacks for wetlands and those
types of things and the private drive that comes in and circles the
existing house and access problems are a potential as well . However , we
specifically need to deal with any fees associated , park and trail fees
associated with this particular piece . Obviously we 've newly acquired the
11 plus acre site there . We don 't need to look to additional land , No
road segments which are connected are associated with this particular
parcel are identified in our trail plans so we really don 't need to look to
anything else except acceptance of park and trail fees if indeed this
proposal does pass through Planning and then eventually go onto Council .
Robinson : Has the Planning Commission seen this Todd?
Hoffman: The Planning Commission will see it March 20th . Planning staff
has reviewed it a number of times . The initial proposal came through that
they wanted to do a land swap with the City and get some additional land to
upgrade that road . Subdivide this into potentially 6 lots but we were not
interested in accepting that type of proposal .
Schroers : Are there any other comments from the Commission? Would someone
' like to offer a recommendation?
Robinson : I make a motion that we recommend that the City Council accept
the park and trail fees in lieu of parkland dedication and trail
' construction .
Erhart : I 'll second that .
Robinson moved, Erhart seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to accept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of parkland and
trail construction. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously .
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None .
Robinson moved , Lash seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor
and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p .m . .
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Recreation Coordinator
Prepared by Nann Opheim