1992 11 09CHANHASSEN CZTY COUNCZL
REGULAR MEET/NG
NOVEMBER 9, 1992
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Workman, Councilman Mason, and
Councilman Wing
MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilwoman Dimler
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Scott
Hart, Paul Krauss and Todd Hoffman
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Counciluoman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to
approve the Agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Chmiel: I do have a public announcement. Received a letter from Jean
Strauss, Communication Chairperson for Carver County American Cancer Soctety and
Jean is asking us to adopt a resolution regarding the following, which is
Celebrate 00ay Minnesota, November 19, 1992. It reads, Whereas, the American
Cancer Soclety, Minnesota Divlslon and the Amerlcan Lung Association of
Minnesota D Day, is a light hearted effort to encourage smokers to give up their
hablt for 24 hours on Thursday, November 19, 1992; and Whereas, for 17
consecutive years millions of smokers, including many in the city of Chanhassen
have participated in thls event; and Whereas, the health benefits of not smoking
are substantiated and well known, and Whereas there are additional civic
beneflts such as the reduction of the risks of accidental ftres and illnesses
related to a second smoke; Now Therefore, I, Don Chmiel, Mayor of the City of
Chanhassen, by vlrtue of the authority vested in me, do hereby proclaim
Thursday, November 19, 1992 as Minnesota 0 Day. In this city and in so doing,
urge all smokers and smokeless tobacco users, in the community to demonstrate to
themselves and their friends, that they can quit if they wish by joining the
Amerlcan Cancer Soclety and the American Lung Association in the 18th Annual
0 Day. Is there a motion7
Councilman Workman: I so move.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: I second lt.
Re~olut&gn ~92-124A: Councilman Workman mo~ed, Councilman Mason seconded to
approve the Resolution proclaiming Thursday, November 19, 1992 as Minnesota D
Day in the city of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, if I could maybe add something quickly to that.
I've had people unsolicited tell me that they noticed that all tobacco products
at the new grocery store are behind that one counter, and that seemed like a
very good idea. So seeing that this city is leaders in that area, it seems to
City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992
be not interfering with the commerce down there. I thought we could all pat
ourseives on the back one more time because we can do it so very few times.
Mayor ChmieI: You're right, I agree. And it did please me. I know it was
quite an issue at the time. They deiiberated whether it would be a payabIe
thing, but they did do it and I did thank them for it as well. It's really neat
to see it there.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve
the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
a. Approve Utility Crossing Lease with Twin City and Western Railroad Company,
Upper Bluff Creek Project No. 91-17.
b. Resolution ~2-125: Accept Public Street Improvements in Trappers Pass 4th
Addition, Project 90-6.
c. Resolution ~92-126: Accept Publlc Street Improvements in Lake Riley Woods
3rd Addition, Project 92-1.
d. Resolution ~92-127: Accept Public Utlllty Improvements in Wlllow Rldge,
Project 91-14.
e. Resolution ~92-128: Accept Publlc Utlllty Improvements in The Summlt at
Near Mountain, Project 92-4.
f. Resolution ~92-129: Approve Joint Assessment Contract for 1993-94 and
Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to sign the Contract.
Approve Settlement Agreement, Estate of Martin J. Ward, et al.
h. Approve Agreement to Terminate Development Contract and Release the Parties
to the Development Contract, B.C. and Brigltte Burdlck.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment Concerning Construction Site Erosion/Sediment
Control Requirements, Flnal Readlng.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Rezone 95 Acres of Property Zoned
Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planning Unit Development, Final Readlng
(Lundgren Bros Proposal).
k. Approval of Accounts.
1. City Council Minutes dated October 26, 1992
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmlel: I should mentlon the fact that we did get an approval settlement
agreement with Martin 3. Ward and also donated some of that property too. Is
that correct Don? A portion of something to.
Don Ashworth: We reached settlement. I'm not sure I saw anything.
City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992 '
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe ! was dreaetng about it. Hopefully, maybe wm.'Il'get one.
Don Ashworth: I'll take that back. He did donate a portion for the trail
system.
Mayor Chmlel: Well I thought that's what it ~as.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Ann Miller: My name is Ann Miller. I live at 6561 Fox Path. My question to
the City Council is, before me I have a planned residential development contract
that was revised on February 28, 1983 between the City of Chanhassen and the
Oerrlck Land Company, which I understand has gone bankrupt. On Sectton 5 it
talks about buildlng plan certification and it stat'es, due to extraordinary
slope and soil conditions, build&ng and site plans for all residences within the
subject property shall be certified as havlng been revlewed and approved by an
architect or civil engineer, licensed by the State of Minnesota. Satd building
and slte plan review and approval shall lnclude p~ovislons for slope protection,
surface and sub-surface drainage, prevention of siltation and the preservation
of trees and prevention of excessive vegetation removal during construction.
I'm asking for written proof that this was provided for on my property.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Don.
Don Ashworth: Have you visited the Building Oepartment?
Ann Miller: Ah yes, I have.
Don Ashworth: Their response to you?
Ann Mlller: They don't have anythlng in the file.
Don Ashworth: We can research it more. But we do keep ~.~.~.l[b~.1~meerG~LL.L.~'._.
industrial plan sets to lnsure for access, etc. But wlth the number of single
family, and all other type of permits, it would be larger than thts entire
buildlng to hold all of the plan sets that-have been received since 1983.
They're kept during the construction per!od' The end ~f th~t..c~n~t~u~t.ion. . .
peri~, lndlviddal p~n sets are"t~rown, zt,'~-0ur-~elief if they have met ali
of the Code requirements, most owners will keep a copy of their own plan sets.
So I'm not surprised that they dld not find anything.
Ann Miller: But that doesn't answer my question and it seems the Ctty'has an
obligation to provlde me with that information. Either the, gtving me the name
of the licensed either civil engineer or arChitect that did approve the site.
Don Ashworth: And the previous owners will not provide you with a copy of the
plan set? Or you don't have one?
Ann Miller: I've asked them for such things but they have not given them to me.
I moved into the house myself in July. We closed on it 3une 5, 1992.
Mayor Chmiel: Ann, maybe if you'd ~ust back up a little bit with the problems
that are existing with what you have.
City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992
Ann Miller: Yeah, it's the cul-de-sac at the top of the hill. It's a high
water table area. It's the Swedish house. Some of you may be famlliar wlth it.
We're havlng water problems pooling in the yard, etc. When we flrst moved into
the house I actually thought I had a uatermain break and had Hr. Boucher out
there immediately to check thlngs out. Fortunately ue didn't. Also had the
water sprinkler system checked out thinking we had a break there. We did not.
It has been a wet summer but the lawn never drles out. We have slttlng water on
the hill at all times wlth actual frogs and snakes everywhere in the yard during
the summertime. And we also have a boulng retaining ual1 that's puttlng extra
hydrostatic pressure on the house.
Don Ashworth: I can prepare a report or have Scott prepare one for the Council.
It would appear as though that part of Mrs. Mlller's problem is between herself
and the prevlous owner. But agaln I wlll ask that both Scott and the City
Attorney prepare a report for City Council hopefully having it onto our next
agenda.
Ann Miller: And when would that date be?
Don Ashworth: Two weeks from today.
Ann Miller: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you Ann. Is there any other visitor presentation at
thls time7 ...I know that there's some concerns from, let's just back up from
this public hearing. I know there's some people here from Hinnewashta Parkway.
Some of thelr concerns and I think probably at this time we give them an idea as
to where everything ls at. I've asked our city staff to pull together some
information in regard to this. And the status as to where it is right now. So
maybe at thls tlme we can have Charles start out with thls and take it from
there.
HINNEWASHTA PARKWAY UPDATE.
Public Present:
Name Address
JoAnn Hallgren
Dave Headla
Harold Taylor
Keith Bedford
6860 Minnewashta Parkway
6870 Minnewashta Parkway
3861 Stratford Ridge
3961 Stratford Ridge
Charles Folch: Thank you Hr. Mayor, members of the Council. We have our
project engineer, Mr. 8111 Engelhardt here tonight. We've prepared at least an
overview drawing which we can display tonlght to show you what the exact project
status is and what we wlll complete in the next 2 weeks on the project. 8111.
Bill Engelhardt: Your Honor, members of the Council. This is a half section
map that accomplishes four sectlons of Minnewashta Parkway from Highway 7 to
Highway 5. The bottom of the map. We're trying to highlight in various colors
in what the status of the road condition ls rlght now. The red sectlon that you
see is the area that has been, what we call rocked in or rock base has been
City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992
partially constructed. Of the 16 inches of rock base, 14 inches have been
applied to that particular section. All the retaining walls have been built and
storm sewer has been installed. The next section that you see in green, just
south of Stratford Lane, is a section that they're presently working on and we
believe that by the end of Wednesday night, that section will be red. So the
rocking is going to start proceeding tomorrow on this green section. At the
same time they will be proceeding to bring this to grade and by Wednesday night
the red again will extend up to Red Cedar Point. We feel that those are two of
the major goals that we establish and we will accomplish by that point. One is
to get up to the Stratford Ridge where the majority of the people have a
driveable surface and then on Red Cedar Point. That everybody can go out to the
north to Highway 7. The section that you see colored in light yellow down along
Highway 5, that's the fill section. There's about 8 to lO feet of fill going in
that area and as these sections are completed, that fiI1 material is being moved
up to that section so as these are being done, this is also being done. And we
believe that by the middle of next week, this section or the first HO0 feet will
have the rock surface on it and then the middle section between Red Cedar Point
Road and Hawthorne Circle should be completed shortly thereafter. Maybe another
3 to 4 days. The major portion of the work was up in this upper end. We had
deeper cuts. Tougher areas to maneuver in and the haul distance was
considerable. It was almost the entire, well it was the entire length of the
roadway to get to our fill area up in this area. But as we move south, that
distance from the roadway that they're working in to the fill area shortens up
and it moves along much quicker. And the area through here is already to grade.
We have that to subgrade. The storm obviously threw a damper in our entire
planning on it. We had fully intended and the contractor was notified that we
wanted him to complete the blacktop and the curb and gutter this year. His
indications were earlier that he could complete it and could do it. He felt
very confident on that. The snow storm has thrown that backwards basically.
What we're going to be attempting to do and what we will be accomplishing is to
have the entire roadway rocked in for the winter season for next spring. The
curb and gutter, we feel that it should be delayed until next year along with
the bituminous paving. We could put some in but we feel it would jeopardize the
quality of the entire project, and we're not willing to do that. It's our
recommendation not to do that. They want a good driveable surface and good hard
surface with a rockway. There's going to be some inconvenience when you have
the freeze/thaw where it's going to be mud but not deep mud. It's just going to
wet on the surface. The majority of the problems that anybody has experienced
up there was due mainly to the utility trenches. They have had a fairly good
driveable surface all through the project. When they ground up the blacktop,
they reapplied it and kept that open. There's no question that it's not 100%
but any construction project is, of this nature, is going to have some problems
with it. One of the biggest problems up here has been the traffic and just an
unbelieveable amount of traffic. The contractor has done, I think a very good
job of keeping the road open. We have never shut down the roadway entirely.
Everybody has had access to go back and forth. There have been delays but
they've always had access through the project. They've been very accommodating
and they're doing their best. That's about all I can tell you of the c'onditions
we have right now. But I think to push this and put the curb and gutter on, put
the blacktop down, I think you're going to be jeopardizing the project. But they
are going to have a good driveable surface. If you go out there, if you've been
out there, we even had the string lines up for the curb and gutter. It was to
start the Monday after it snowed. I mean they were all set to come in and pour
City Council Meeting -- November 9, 1992
curb and we would have been off running but the way it is right now, we just
won't do it.
Mayor Chmiel: I know today I drove out there and they were removing some of the
fill area to bring it up towards Highway 5. I think that's basically for a
better eye level at Highway 5.
Bill Engelhardt: That's correct.
Mayor Chmiel: Better views so accidents can't occur, or shouldn't occur with
the problems that ue had previously.
Bill Engelha)'dt: It's a very difficult project because of the tightness of the
fit. They're moving the dirt with scrapers up there. They could do it with
trucks but it would be slower and they couldn't move the volumes of dirt that
they can move uith, scrape with with scrapers. But because of that, and the
maneurability of those machines, it just takes a little bit longer. But it's
coming along very well. It could be going faster but the contractor is using
his blade out there. He's had a man out there most the time going up and doun
the road and some people that have had problems, it's mainly due to some of the
trench settlements, the storm sewer and the utility trenches. The gas mains and
the telephones that had to be lowered. And that was a consistent problem all
through the upper end. Having to go in and work around the gas mains and lower
those as they were going. 8ut again, the cuts are shallowing up and it should
go faster. The plow distance is shorter and there's not as much work to be done
in those sections.
Councilman Wing: Have we had an abnormal number of public service accidents out
there? Telephone, power?
Bill Engelhardt: For a job of this nature, we've had quite a few of them. I
don't know what's normal to tell you the truth. The gas mains are all over the
place out there and the telephone lines, they've had markers out there. People
marking. Even today when I was out there they had a mark and they've still been
hitting them. You don't know the depth of them. You know approximately where
they are but they're just all over the place. And I don't know if that was a
result of having the work redone or being done when the sanitary sewer and
uatermain went in years ago. I don't really know but they're just meandering
all over the place. So we've had to move those area. We've had to relocate
mains. We did add about $4,000.00 to $5,000.00 worth of storm sewer manholes to
the project tO avoid relaying gas main. Or having the company relay the gas
mains and we did that for one basic reason and that was for time. Because it
would have taken 3 to 4 weeks to move the gas main and ue felt it was imperative
that we not move the gas main. Hove the project ahead and so those manholes
were added in order for the contractor to proceed. But hopefully by the end of
this week, we'll be up past Red Cedar Point. And the contractor informed us
that he felt fairly confident that he could have it all rocked in and he will
have it rocked in one way or the other but he's saying in 2 weeks. But before
anything is shut down for the year, that roadway will be rocked in and it will
be a driveable surface. And he will maintain it. If ue get any soft spots, ue
will call him at any time that we need to in the spring and he will be out there
to straighten those soft spots out and keep the traffic flowing. I think the
advantage here, it was our hope to get it paved and it was presented as being
paved in one season. I think the advantage of going through the frost cycle
City Council Heeting - November g, 1~2
without the paving to get the settlement out and we could put both lips of
blacktop down in one season in lieu of waiting one full year before the final
11p goes in. So there are some advantages to the way it's being done.
Hayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there any other questions that you might have? Does
anyone from Hlnnewashta have any specific questions?
Bill Engelhardt: I should say your Honor too, the people up there have been
really good to work with. Very few complaints up until the snow storm. We
recelved after the snow storm not a large number of calls but more people
curious whether we were going to shut down or not for the year. The contractor
dldn't work for about 2-3 days there and I think people were concerned that we
were just going to be gone or the contractor was going to be gone. That's not
the case. They will be working as long as they can out there.
Hayor Chmiel: I know one of the questions that were brought up to me was the
fact that they weren't working full 5 days a week. I think I found out the
answer but I would appreciate if you would just bring that up for the balance of
Council and people that are here too.
Blll Engelhardt: The contractor's work schedule was for roughly 45 to 50 hours
a week. A number of his initial crews that were out there, the people live out
of town so hls policy with hls company is that he works 4 days and gives them
off Friday but in those 4 days he's working 10 to 11 to 12 hours. So he was
accomplishing as much work in the 4 days as what he would accomplish in the 5
days as far as hours go. We can't ask him, it's very difficult to ask him to
put in more than that when you start golng over t-he 45 to 50 hour limit. And
that was basically for his pipe crews. Now that all the storm sewer's
completed, his grading operation, his people work longer hours in that
particular area of the business and they're working 6 days a week and they're
putting in about 60 hours a week. So the first tnttial shot, people were
wondering why on Friday they were gone but by Thursday ntght, those people had a
lot of hours in and they were staylng in motels and they would go home for the
weekend to be with their families. But they did have a significant amount of
hours in by that time and again now it's 6 days a week.
Councilman Wing: A letter just recently came out. Charles, I think you just
sent it out. Stating that you lntended to blacktop and now that's outdated and
I kind of wished that letter hadn't gone out. I think we need to get a letter
out that hlts thls thlng head on. And the neighborhood has to know that they're
going to gravel it. They're going to shut down and nothing's going to happen
untll sprlng. And also, who to send the complaints to. I mean no sense calling
me or Oon or any other Council members. There's got to be a central, a.1-800
number. Crisis number.
Bill Engelhardt: They have our number.
Councilman Wing: I hope so.
Bill Engelhardt: They have our number. At the beginning of the project they
got our number and we try to be accommodating to them and work wtth them.
City Council Meeti~,g - November 9, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: If we have any power at all here we could adopt a resolution
asklng for a freeze because that would eliminate a lot of those given problems.
But I guess weather, trylng to work wlth that ls rather difficult.
Councilman Wing: Just suggest one quick comment Charles then I'm done. The
real concern of the phone calls that I had relatlng to the Councll meetlng
tonight were that they don't try to put in the curb and they don't try to
blacktop because everyone was in fear that it'd be a second rate project and I
think that a lot of people, even though they're concerned, are really happy to
see it comlng to a halt and then startlng out fresh in the sprlng.
Bill Engelhardt: There are only so many things that we can do realistically and
wlthout jeopardizing the job and those wlll be done. But we're not going to
sacrifice the quality of the project because of something. One other thing we
should mentlon too ls the mailboxes has been a concern. We've just lately had a
couple of questions. We have one big row of mailboxes on Kings Point Road.
We're going to, now that we're startlng to get the rock in and getting it in
place, we're going to start separating those up and get those closer to the
people's homes. They may not necessarily be right on the road but we'll use
Stratford Lane and some of the other roadways and we'll look at each address and
make sure that thelr mailboxes are as close to thelr home as posslble for the
wlnter. So that's one thing that we're going to be doing.
Mayor Chmiel: Bill, one other thlng I'd like you to mentlon too. As to why now
we can't put in that curb and gutter. And it would jeopardize the consistency
of what's golng to be put down. I'd just like you to clarlfy that too.
Bill Engelhardt: Basically, the reason we don't want to put the curb and gutter
down, lt'd be very difficult to backf111 behlnd the curb. Rlght now the
subgrade is a little bit wet on the shoulders and what would happen is it would
freeze and thaw and that curb is golng to move up and down next sprlng. If we
put it in, we're going to get movement. We're going to get a lot of cracking
and we can't backf111 because the materlal ls so wet out there along the sides.
We can't pull that up behind the curb and if you don't backfill your curbs,
they're golng to fall rlght off to the side. The other consideration is that,
if you don't blacktop after your curb and gutter ls in, withtn a reasonable
amount of time, your going to chip that all up and lt's going to be virtually
destroyed. So we would basically be, any curb and gutter we put in now, we'd
probably be rlpping out 90~ of it and replacing it next sprlng. That's the
basic reason is we can't backfill and we've got to have the blacktop in there to
hold it so we don't chlp it up when we plow and the subgrade is a 11ttle bit
wet.
Mayor Chmiel: Charles, you were going to say something?
Charles Folch: Yeah, I was just going to mention that the letter that did go
out to the residents about a month ago, we at that polnt in time still had
lntended on blacktopping thls yea)'. In fact tf we would have had about another
2 weeks of normal weather, we would have had the project blacktopped. The
letter that I sent out on Friday basically explained to the residents that we
intended to contlnue to work on the project as far as we could. At least
buttoning it up with a rock base and that I would follow up with another letter
within a week explaining, after reviewing wlth both the contractor and 8111 what
City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992
the status was of the project and looklng at some predicted weather patterns for
the next 2 weeks. That we would follow up a letter explaining £n more deta£1
how much we expected to do this year. So I'll follow up with that letter the
end of this week.
Councilman Workman: A member of the audience wanted to say something.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Would you like to come up to the microphone please and just
state your name and your address?
JoAnn Hallgren: I'm JoAnn Hallgren, 68&0 Minnewashta Parkway. And I'm
wondering if any of the Counc11 has drlven past and taken a look at the
retaining walls. I think the construction is poor. Evidentally those
contractors dld not own a level. I've seen a lot of retaining walls and if I
had asked for someone to build that on my property, I would not accept it and I
would not pay for lt. That's not just my oplnion. That's a number of residents
there. The other thing, today my phone lines were cut. I have two private
11nes lnto my home but no one came up to tell me. I had to drive down my
driveway and request that they do something about £t and I really don't know
I was treated well or not. No one did anythlng until I sat there in my car and
waited for the man in the red truck to go and report it. I talked to the US
West phone man and he sa/d, personally they don't care if they cut your 11nes or
not. And he just kept rlpping the line up wtth this Cat. So these are personal
things that I have come up with but there are very many people that are upset
about what's going on on the Parkway. And you can't even dress up and get in
your car and get out without getting filthy because of the roads, and now I know
that's not the problem that anyone's to blame for but we consider thts to be a
finish project by October 31st. Now everybody's making a joke, well that's
so that's my comment.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Harold Taylor: My name is Harold Taylor. I'm at 3861 Stratford Ridge which is
rlght on the Parkway. Saturday it looked like they did a tremendous amount of
work and the road's much more serviceable where it's been rocked. But from what
I've seen, there's now klnd of a mini-Baja there or something. £xcessive speeds
and the kids have several school stops there. If Lt would come, a halfway
decent snow, the retaining wall that's very close to the lake is low and if
there's not any markers up there, you're just going to lose somebody into the
lake basically. So that needs to be addressed if we're going to 1lye with this
through the winter. If you did get the red rock base in there, whatever it's
called. Z'm not an engineer. But that's very serviceable when they put it down
but it appears to have to be maintained all the time because it's been down
previously. So basically it's, I think we need some visibility of
enforcement basically. Especially early in the morning. Construction guys are
not, they're not all pick-up trucks per se but 6:00-6:30 in the morning, they're
really cooking through there. Now that they've got a road that they can do
that, they're golng to do that. And also later inthe evenings, weekends, that
sort of thing and when the road was basically a pottery glaze if you will, once
it got wet and froze, there's no way you can stop a car on it or you can drive
on it because I'm doing it 3 or 4 times a day. But basically it's Saturday they
made a big progress Saturday. Thank you.
City Council Meeting - November
Hayer Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Ann Miller: I'd like to make another comment about my property.
Mayor Chmiel: Ah, sure. Go ahead.
Ann Hiller: Just again, my name is Ann Miller. I live at 6561 Fox Path. Also
for the next Council agenda, I wish you would also conslder the proposal that
I'm asking the City to solve those solution. The water problem I have on my
property and I'm asklng them, the City to also pay for it. I have excavators,
approximately 8 of them come to the property. I've estimates anywhere from
$5,000.00 to $25,000.00 to correct the problem. I thlnk it's the Clty problem.
Mayor Chmiel: Now is that because of the flow coming off the street or because
of natural springs on the property?
Ann Miller: Both. And it's not off the street. It's off the hill. There is a
holdlng pond dlrectly above my house.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Councilman Workman: Can I ask a quick question about that?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Councilman Workman: I have a newer neighborhood and bullt, moved in last
January and I had a lot of sltting water in my backyard. Now the home next to
me got bullt and we've got a problem there. Between our two yards it was all
backing up into my yard and I had a lot of water sitting there. Water was
supposed to go out through the park. I'm not going to explaln where Z 1lye but
it was supposed to go out through the park. Well that would have been a very
difficult proposition. The Clty did end up taking care of it through the whole
way but under the basis that they approved the plat. Water was supposed to go a
certaln way. Zt wasn't and slnce the Clty approved it that way and it wasn't
doing it that way, that they were responsibility. Is that the same kind of
situation here? In a sense. By the way, I have a lot of water still sitting
there. Me and Ann are going to get together and.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't know if that's the same. The two are unrelated but one
to a certain point. And you don't have any natural springs on your property
there?
Councilman Workman: No. It's a natural dralnage area.
Mayor Chmiel: It's a natural drainage area.
Charles Folch: Yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: Wlth the topography flowing to where lt's supposed to go is what
you're saylng.
Charles Folch: Basically I think in Tom's case, Mr. Mayor, we had a plat that
was approved with an associated gradlng plan and then thereafter there was some
10
City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992
gradlng that was done to the adjacent park and somewhere along the line the two
didn't interface so one of the drainage routes for the, Tom and his neighbor's
backyards were actually blocked by some park work we did so it was something
that we had done that we caused so we corrected it.
Mayor Chmiel: Puttlng in sort of a swale or something of that nature?
Charles Folch: That's correct.
Councilman Mason: If I can make a quick comment on the Parkway. I think Mr.
Taylor's comments were well put. I've done some traveling on gravel roads and
they can become very slippery. I hope that the City ls on that the whole time.
Also I'm not, Mr. Engelhardt makes the comment that the mud won't be too deep in
the sprlng. I thlnk that might remaln to be seen, depending on the frost 11ne.
I don't know.
Bill Engelhardt: No, the rock base is going to hold up. It's a substantial
base out there. I don't think you're going to see...And I feel very confident
of that. I do.
Councilman Mason: Good.
PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION TO ADD CODE I AND ~ PLASTICS TO THE TARGETED
RECYCLABLES FOR THE CITY.
Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, in Jo Ann's absence I'll be brief. We have been
collecting plastics by regulation. Zt's only been the drinking containers. The
Recycling Committee would like to expand that to all types, i and 2 plastics
whlch are I think often described as any plastic with a neck. Any bottle wlth a
neck on it. It can't be a peanut butter jar, but anything else basically. This
recyclable materlal is, there is a market for it. It is being picked up by
Carver County. Jo Ann has spoken to two of the haulers. They were given an
opportunity to come speak earlier. Nobody was present but two of them contacted
her directly, Aagard West and Chaska. They both indicated they were already
doing it anyway so it's no big deal. I also spoke to Admtral Sanitation today.
They also said that they were already doing it. So I think by and large, the
blgger haulers are already collecting lt. But there lsa desire to get the
ordinance changed so that all the haulers do bring that on line. So we are
recommending that you do approve the ordinance revision.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone wishing to address this issue at this
tlme? As I mentioned, thls is a public hearing.
·
Councilman Hason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Chmiel: I think it's a well worthwhile item for us to do. Environmentally
lt's good. Z know my hauler has been picking those up as we put them out as
well. And I see that at the price of plastics are up a little bit more than
they were before so that makes it all the more marketable and to remove it from
our final resting place whlch is normally in dumps located throughout.
11
City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992
Councilman Wing: I'll so move the resolution adding Code i and 2 plastics to
recyclables.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded.
Councilman Workman: Hr. Mayor, can I maybe get an ldea about what the
difference between a 1 and a 2 is.
Paul Krauss: You may do that but not from me.
Councilman Workman: It's just a bottle right.
Mayor Chmiel: They're marked Tom. They're marked on the bottom of the
containers.
Councilman Workman: I know that but ! can't remember uhlch ones had a i and a 2
on them.
Paul Krauss: Agaln, most of the haulers Z know simpllfy it by saylng any
plastlc that they can form into a neck bottle.
Councilman Workman: But that's both so there'd different grades of bottles.
P~ul Krauss: Yes.
Councilman Wlng: That was 1. 2 now opens it up to other 1rems.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, such as windshield washer wash.
Councilman Workman: Well I've been doing that and they've been taking it
anyway.
Mayor Chmlel: That's what I'm saylng, yeah.
Councilman Workman: I've seen thls little comment. When they say no oll
bottles, are they saying motor oil bottles?
Paul Krauss: Yeah, because it coats the plastic.
Councilman Workman: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I have a motlon on the floor wlth a second.
Resolution ~g2-130: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve a resolution adding Code 1 and 2 plastic to the targeted recyclables as
noted in Section 16-1, Definitions of the City Code. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
12
City Council Meeting - November
PUBLIC HEARING: TARGET DEVELOPMENT=
A. VACATTON OF UTTLZTY AND DRAZNAGE EASEl"lENTS AT BURDTCK PARK 2ND ADDTTTON IN
ANTTCTPATTON OF REPLATTTNG OF RE~L PROpI[RTY,
B. ACOUISITZON AND VACATION OF HIGHWAY EA~[[I"IENT ON CARVER COUNTY ROAD $6-
Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, in Kate's absence Z'll take this item. As a part of
the purchase agreement of Lots [ thru 5, Block [, Burdick Park 2nd Addit£on, the
City completed a Title search and found that utility and drainage easements that
need to be vacated as a part of the rep[at of this area to Chanhassen Reta£l
Addition. The new utility and drainage easements will be dedicated with the new
plat that will be signed ton£ght and recorded tomorrow. Staff is recommending
that the City Council adopt the resolutlon vacating the underlying drainage and
utility easements for Burdick Park 2nd Addition.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And item (b) as well.
Todd Gerhardt: Correct. This is a utiltty easement. This was a litt[e
different. Thls goes back to when West 78th Street used to be the old State
Highway 5. It was then dedicated over to Carver County which then was known as
County Road 16 and wlth that the County had retained an easement for a snow
fence. This easement was not removed when it was dedicated back over to the
Clty of Chanhassen. A qult clalm deed has been executed by a Carver County
Board and will be signed tomorrow and also will be presented at the closing,
which ls planned for tomorrow. Staff ls recommending that the City Council
adopt the resolution vacatlng the underlying utility easement for the snow
fence.
Mayor Chmlel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone at this ttme wlshlng to address
this? Either item? Item (a) or (b), as I've Indicated. This is a public
hearlng.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Nason seconded to close the public hearing.
voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Chmlel: Can I have a motlon or discussion or acceptance?
Councilman Workman: I would move to approve both items 2.5(a) and (b).
Mayor Chmlel: As indicated by staff? Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution ~F)2-131: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Hason seconded to
adopt a resolution approving Vacation 192-7 for underlying drainage and utility
easements in Burdick Park 2nd Addition. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Resolution ~1~)2-132: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Hason seconded to
adopt a resolution approving Vacation t92-6 for the underlying ut111ty easement
in Burdick Park 2nd Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
13
City Council MeetJ. ng - November 9, 1.992
AWARD OF BIDS: RE3ECT ALL BIDS FOR THE WEST 86TH STREET WATERHAIN PRO3ECT
90-10.
Charles Folch: Mr. Hayor, members of the Council. At your meeting on September
14th, an award of bids for this project was given contingent that city staff and
the City Attorney would be able to work out the necessary easement negotiations
and/or right of entries to be able to construct this improvement project. As of
late, it appears that we are not able to work this easement negotiation out and
given this late time of the year as of course us're experiencing with some of
the problems with Minnewahta Parkway, it does not seem reasonable to move ahead
with the project this year. Therefore, ue are recommending rejecting all bids
for this year. The project may be rebid next year as a potential project.
Otherwise there may be another alternative that may occur next year pending what
development proposals are on the table at that time.
Mayor Chmiel: 0o you have any idea what the market is right now? The
availability or the dollars, I should say. I know there's golng to be some
hungry ones out there at thls time.
Charles Folch: As far as contractors?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Charles Folch: Actually what we've experienced through the fall here ls blds
slightly hlgher than what we were expecting and from talking to these
contractors, it appears that there's a lot of work out there and the uncertainty
wlth fall work also has caused that to be a little bit higher also.
Hayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Any discussion? Can I have a motion to reject
all bids for the West 86th Street uatermain project ~0-10.
Councilman Mason: So moved.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Resolution ~92-133: Councilman Hason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
reject all bids for the West 86th Street Trunk Watermain Improvement Project No.
~0-10. All voted £n favor and the motion carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICTS, FIRST READING.
Paul Krauss: You know this has taken so long I've forgotten what.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll table lt.
Paul Krauss: You know, in reading through this agaln, I was kind of shocked at
some of the thlngs.
Mayor Chmlel: Yeah, me too and that's what I had mentioned to you before.
Paul Krauss: Z thlnk as you're aware, we worked with thls with the Planning
commission for about a year and there were several versions of the ordinance
14
City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992
kicking around. To back up a little bit further, you know we passed a new PUD
ordinance 2 years ago which was very comprehensive and we've been operating
under lt. The only thing is there's not a lot of detailed information on how to
do single family residential PUB's. In the interim time you've approved at
least 2 of them, and maybe 3. Which ls kind of a good worklng experience. I
mean the ordinance doesn't prohibit you from doing it, it just doesn't give us a
lot of detall on how to do lt. The Plannlng Commission klcked around a lot of
different variations of this ordinance. At one time Mr. Mayor, you were correct
with your 9,000 square foot that we talked about tonight. At one tlme it was
10,000 square foot was the proposal. The proposed absolute minimum that a lot
could ever be. Thls ordinance that was brought forward to you from the Planning
Commission goes back down to 9 which was the origlnal proposal way back when.
There were other versions of the ordinance that had it at 10 but also requlred
that the average lot size be 15,000. And frankly that offers some possibilities.
I mean we've seen some situations, for example one comes to mind. The Hans
Hagen Homes proposal which could have benefitted from having an average lot size
of 15,000 but some smaller lots in the soybean fields and larger lots up on the
hill. Ultimately that project was not a PUO and it was brought in as a plat
because we dldn't have that option. This PUD ordinance though differs in a lot
of ways from what ue operated under a number of years ago. That ordinance
caused us no end of difficulty. That was the ordinance that gave us several
residential PUO's which were supposed to lower the cost of housing but in fact
they dld nothlng of the sort. All they dld is push bigger and bigger houses
onto smaller and smaller lots and the city wound up having to resolve a number
of situations where there was no room for backyards and no room for decks and no
room for garages. Where people had been told that the empty lot across the
street was golng to be a nature conservancy and on and on and on. That's an
example of everything that you shouldn't do. Should not do with a PUB. I think
we've trled to address those lssues ina substantive way. For example, although
this ordinance does lower the minimum lot size, it does mandate that you
demonstrate, the developer has to demonstrate that there's sufficient buildlng
area for a 60 x 40 buildlng pad I believe it is and a 12 x 12 deck outside of
any protective easements or drainage areas. I believe someplace else too, and
maybe it's in the wetlands ordinance, there's a part of the Code that requires
not only that but you have a 30 foot backyard outside of that area that's not
under water or anything else. Now I think that's going to result in lots, even
if they're undersized lots, that are oftentimes a lot better than the typlcal
lots we have today. There's any number of lots today that meet the 15,000
square foot requirement but are very difficult to build on because they're
encroached upon by a wetland or a drainage easement or something else that isn't
normally recognized. There is no slmilar obligation in the normal plat to
demonstrate satisfactorily that the lots are buildable. My staff tries to make
sure of that but, in fact I thlnk our subdivision ordinance can beneflt by
havlng some similar guidelines. Anyway, as you're aware, I think this has been
on your agendas late at nlght for something on the order of 7 months. I'm
looking forward to just gettlng this out there. I'm sure it's not going to be
approved in thls form but at least we have something to start the discussions
from. We're ready to work with you on this and I'd like to get something done
so we know what to tell developers. And I truly belleve that the flexibility
that a PUO can offer is really invaluable and I think we've demonstrated it's
utillty on several plats. For saving natural features. For getting good
residential neighborhoods in there. I think the details need to be ironed out
and we stand ready to do that.
15
City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Richard.
Councilman Wing: I've been waiting for this for 7 months. 8. Actually it's 9.
How long have I been on Council?
Councilman Mason: Longer than 9 months.
Councilman Wing: The MUSA line is starting to scare me because everytime we
shift the MUSA line, east, west, north or south, it opens land for development,
and we think that's good. So every development that comes in tries to get as
many houses in there as they can. Every development comes in kind of scares me
because I see traffic and more stop signs and density and cars and I say, what
are we doing? Why don't we leave the MUSA line alone and live happily ever
after? So in the future I guess I'll fight the MUSA line because that kind of
puts me where I want to be. Little larger lot. But my feeling right now is,
that the PUD is really a significant ordinance, and the PUO does work in our
favor and I really want to support the PUD ordinance and I think Paul's done
wonders with these PUD projects that he's come in with. And of course it boils
down to what we all conslder to be a reasonable lot size and I get concerned
about density and how we're going to devlse this. We talked about 15,000 feet
kind of belng small enough and I think there was agreement with some of us on
the Councll that 15,000 feet was a reasonable slzed lot and we dldn't want to go
any smaller. So if someone comes in here wlth a standard subdivision, they can
do anything they want to more or less. Build thelr streets perpendicular 11ke
Paul's talked about and do a standard subdivision. So then as the plum to try
to get them to manuever around, the PUD comes in and we drop the lot size down
so there's some incentive to have smaller lots. Bigger lots. Save trees. Save
wetlands. Whatever the case ls. But I still don't 11ke the density so I guess
where I stand on thls, the 9,000 I think is too small. We had been at 10,000.
That was the last one of these that I saw and the Counc11 klnd of sald, well
that's okay. My personal perference and what I would support and what I would
prefer to do ls to see our standard subdivision move to 18,000 square feet and
if somebody wants to come into the city and do a standard subdivision, that's
their right but they're stuck with an 18,000 square foot mlnimum lot size. The
incentive then is to go with Paul's PUD ordinance and the carrot at that point
is to drop the lot slze down considerably. 9 ls too small for me. 10, I'm
really not comfortable with. You know we've got a letter here from Tim from
Plannlng that talks about the setback belng 20 feet versus 30 feet. And you
know, we've sat on the Board of Appeals and Adjustments and the problems we have
wlth these front yards wlth short driveways and we just had a special meeting
just on that where people put their boats and motorhomes and 3 cars and so on
and so forth. So these small lot slzes aren't in the clty's favor I don't
believe. But any rate, my feellng is that if we went to 18,000 for a standard
subdivision, and then really made an incentive to stlck with the PUD ordinance,
and I would go, right now we go from, if we pick 10 as the magic number here. If
we went from 15 to 10, we're giving a 5,000 square foot difference. A 10,000
square foot lot. Well, I'm wllling to go from 18 down to say 11 and give them a
7,000 square foot difference so really have a carrot for a PUD. But I'm not
comfortable with 10. I would compromise on any other number just to get it
hlgher. But to get that number hlgher, we really have to have a plum whlch
means I think changlng our standard subdivision to encourage thls PUD ordinance.
So I don't 11ke the small lots and I don't 11ke thls ordinance because of that
and Z've debated this with Paul over the year here. Z favor larger lot sizes.
16
City Council Meeting - November
As far as I'm concerned, Minnetonka's got it together when they go 22,000.
That's fine with me but then I want to hit the other thing for you liberals and
that's affordable housing. There is an issue there that I think is justified
and I heard what you had to say. That we have to provide some affordable
housing which means the 10,000 foot lot size does help first time homebuyers.
But if we're concerned about first time homebuyers, and we're concerned about
cost, and if we really truly want to provide affordable housing, then let's deal
with that as a separate issue. I think it's Apple Valley, I'm not going to
commit to that but I think Apple Valley went a subdivision where they went 50 x
100 foot lots. Quality homes but to get the home, the cost of the home down,
they had to decrease the cost of the land. That's the way they did it so quality
homes went in but on small lots and I would favor and support us rezoning and
looking at our comprehensive plan and picking out specific areas within the city
that we would in fact provide affordable housing by getting land costs down by
allowing some smaller lot districts to occur. I think that's a way around
getting the whole city under this small lot umbrella. I'd rather see them
isolated in corners here and there and be part of other projects so. I guess my
intent right now is not to support the small lot size but I'm one vote.
Councilman Mason: I'm not quite sure why Councilman Workman wants me to go
first here but, I don't have any trouble with the smaller lot size. Simply
because if we don't want a PUD, we don't have to glve them a smaller lot slze.
Hy personal feeling is we're getting hung up on lot size in the PUD because we
can simply say, we don't want a PUD there so it's not a 10,000 or a g,O00 square
foot lot. Then it goes back to 15,000. So that's not an issue for me. I'd be
a 11ttle hesltant to go to 18 or 22,000 square feet because now we're talklng
about density versus urban sprawl and do we want everything all spread out or do
we want thlngs a 11ttle more localized. I thlnk clearly by some of the PUB's
that are in with some smaller lot sizes, people are buying them. There is a
need for them. I personally don't want to spend any time at all working on my
lawn. I don't like mowing. I don't want to take care of it. I've got other
better thlngs to do so I think there's a trade-off there that we need to address
and I think this PUD addresses that. And clearly with it having to accommodate
a deck and the building pad that's acceptable, I thlnk smaller lots in some
cases are just fine. Let's do something with this. We've been working on this
a long time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Thomas.
Councilman Workman: I'd ask Councilman Wing to take back that word he called
me. Liberal conservative.
Councilman Wlng: I was going to use the word psuedo intellect.
Councilman Workman: I think I'm somewhere between the conservative and the
11beta1 on thls one in that I don't think a g,O00 square foot lot ina PUD ls
necessarily a starter home because they aren't building.
Mayor Chmlel: Can I just put a clarlfler on that? Rather than that showing as
g,O00, that should have been shown as 10. Is what that really should have been.
Wlth the original lntent being, from the prevlous discussions that we had, we
brought it back up to 10,000. Not 9 and somehow it came out here.
17
City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992
Paul Krauss: I was trying to remember how that happened Mr. Mayor and as I
recall, when this got sent back, or when it went to the Planning Commission. It
wasn't officially on your agenda but you commented on it. There was a version
in front of them that the Planning Commission that did say 10 and I think after
month after month after month of not being able to come to terms, they just
threw up their hands and said, let's go back to the original and I think that's
where it came from. But I think you're right. I was a little bit surprised
myseJf opening this again after all these months.
Councilman Wing: Wasn't it also 10 with a mean average lot size of 157
Paul. Krauss: That's the way staff had proposed it and the Planning Commission
went so far back they went to lt's roots but we had proposed mlnimum of 10 wlth
all the same hookers in there. That you've got to demonstrate utility. That
one of the things a PUD also has to do that a plat doesn't have to do ls provide
permanently set aside open space on a slldlng scale. So al1 those things gets
thrown at you but it dld have an average mlnlmum of less than 15. And to be
honest, the two PUB's that come to mlnd, the two Lundgren PUB's all have average
lot sizes of like 18 or something 11kc that.
Councilman Workman: If you can...pond.
Paul Krauss: No, no, no. No, we gave you tables that knocked out all the water
~nd, I mean I'd be fully content that that gives us the kind of flexibility to
work with a developer on a unique piece of ground.
Mayor Chmiel: But I'd just like to clarify that 9,000 should be 10.
Councilman Workman: Well this reads 9,000 so unless we change it, I'm going
to...9,O00. But what was I talklng about? The Lundgren 8ros Wlllow Ridge
proves, I mean those are not starter homes and it's a PUD. I mean that's a
$200,000. and up, unless the dollar has done weird things recently. So I don't
know that that really makes a blg difference. I have served a year on the Board
of Adjustments and that is very irritating when, as a woman from 10 years, 9
years ago comes and she has a problem. Well, I know of a couple of people in
thls town who are still furious with the members of the Board and myself also
tgho didn't approve a deck. She could only have a 2 foot deck you know on thls
tl~ing. 81g house. 10,000 square foot lot, on a corner lot of all things. And
thmy weren't going to be bullding a deck. And I know they're st111 not happy
about that. 8ut it does create an awful lot of problems. I think though that
Met Councll and plannlng agencies are saying that this ls sort of a way to go
and you want to maximize your land useage. Minnetonka now has a 22,000 square
foot minlmum like our 157 But they obviously have a PUD. What is thelr PUD
minimum?
Paul Krauss: Minnetonka hasn't allowed residential PUB's. They did earlier.
They had the same experience we had but you know, there's been so much data
collected on thls that I don't have it here but we've provlded several tables of
what other communities have. Minnetonka is off the hlgh end. I mean I think
Eden Prairle ls 13,000. Plymouth is 12,000. Eagan is like 12 or 11,000. You
look at comparable growing communities, chaska is very low. We're up at the
hlgher end already wlth that. And as you polnted out, there's very clear
evidence that beyond a certain point, larger lot sizes are promoting just what
18
City Council Meeting - November
you don't want to promote. They're gobbling up land a lot faster. Pushing the
MUSA line out further than it would normally be. In addition to significantly
raising the cost. Lot prices these days it's common, $40,000.00-$50,000.00 a
lot. That's not an expensive lot. And every time you push out the linear front
footage, you're increasing the cost of providing sewer and water and street.
Councilman Wing: I don't have the floor here but just Paul, there seems to be,
and the thing that troubles me. If I'm cutting in, don't let me... There seems
to be an issue though that when you take the density we're looking at. Just for
me watching our city grow, the traffic and the number of people starts to become
overwhelming, and people are expensive. I mean I agree. There's got to be a
compromise here. The large lots, it does expand it and I don't refute your
argument there at a11. But when we start getting down to those 9-10,000 square
foot lots and we get a lot of them, I really do get concerned about the number
of people. The amount of traffic. The density we're getting and that's a
detriment. That's not a positive.
Paul Krauss: Well again, I think that's why as the Mayor cited, that there was
a version proposed by staff that had 10,000 square foot Iot sizes. An average
Iot size of 15. Effectiveiy you will wind up with no more homes than you would
have otherwise. They'd just be a iittie bit more appropriateiy distributed and
again, I think you saw that with Hans Hagen's deveIopment where he proposed
putting the lO's out in the soybean field where he couid just grade it fiat
because there wasn't a singIe tree and wanted to go with 25's and 30's up on the
hilis cIoser to Timberwood. Because he wasn't aiIowed to do that, I think he
stiiI did a fairIy good job but he just had a broad brush say, okay everything's
15.
Councilman Workman: And to me the biggest thing that I have a problem with in
lt's perception is the 20 foot front yard setback. To me that gives, that will
then tend to give a neighborhood with small lots the impression that they're
rlght on the road. And how important is that, I don't know. I have a concern
about that. It's maybe in part attached to our protecting of trees and tree
stands and so we'll let them move it. Move ahead if we can protect a tree or
two and God love the trees. I think the long term dictates that we should move,
we should try to keep them back a little bit because that tree could dle next
week of oak wllt or something else, and you've still got a house way in front.
I would like to take that front yard setback and keep it where it is. And have
us work with the lot as best we can. Other than that, I think I'm ready to,
those aren't maybe minor things but I'd be willing to go with the 10,000 square
foot.
Councilman Wing: 15,000 average minimum?
Councilman Workman: But that's what we're saying right?
Paul Krauss: Like I say, I became convinced over time that that gave us ample
flexibility to work with the developer. Again, this is minimums and all the
developers we've seen in the last couple years have provided far more than that
because it was more attractive to do it. And it just became a design
qualification. Where can you most appropriately put the lots saving wetlands
and trees?
City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992
Council. man Workman: I think we've been lucky. I think we've had some good
PUO's. I think the people who have large lots have potentially bigger problems
down the road than the people on PUO's do. I've already, I think I've heard
from some Timberuood people who are thinking about splitting their lots, and
what's that golng to do? Can they do it? They want to, they're bulldlng thelr
houses to the side of the ].ct so they can split it off later. You aren't going
to do that wlth a 10,000 square foot lot I hope. But I think we need to take
into account, I don't mind mowing my yard and trees and things. It may concern
~ne later but I thlnk today's society dictates that most people are more like
Mike and they've got other things going on and aren't really concerned with a
bio yard.
Mayor Chmiel: Amen? Thank you. I've got a big lot.
Councilman Wing: So do I.
Mayor Chmiel: I've got just about an acre. And I like it. I enjoy it. When
m7 kids were young, there were a lot of football games in the backyard. Area
that they could really use without any effort. I'm sort of lnbetween the devil
and the deep blue sea on this as well. I don't mind the, I think we need a pUO
for that. I look at the setbacks of 20 feet. If you go from thls wall and come
back from where that no smoking sign is back 2 1/2 feet, that's 20 feet. That's
not very much. And I thlnk 30 feet would be minlmal. And I say that for more
than one reason. It also would accommodate additional cars into that driveway.
Not havlng problems with streets plugglng up and parking on those streets. I
don't particularly like that. I know we have a couple areas within the
community. We're trying to resolve that lssue rlght now. And consequently,
those cars are there. To try to get even emergency vehicles through when you
have them on both sides and lt's pretty well plugged and lt's tight. It slows
(hir, gs down and I don't like to see that. Secondly, I see the 10,000 square
feet as a potential that it could maybe flt into it. I look at 12. 6o from a
!5 to a 12. That's givlng that much more room to the lot in itself. What I'm
looking at is decks in themselves. We're talklng about a footprint of 60 x 40
but. it's not incorporating a garage. And if it is, it's then cutting that house
down in slze. Number 2. If we do go through thls, and they want to put a deck
~:~ which we're talklng 12 x 12, which would go without any effort. If somebody
~anted a larger deck than 12 x 12, they're not going to be able to do it and
Lhey're going to come back in here to us again pounding and saying, well why
can't we have that? Because the setback lsn't there. And I've sat on the Board
of Adjustments and Appeals as well and it gets pretty difficult to tell people
they can't build something that they want to because we're not taking late
consideration what those basic needs may be. And so I am sort of leaning to the
fac[ of thls golng into the PUD, and I don't disagree with lt. But I thlnk I'm
keeping it at 12,000 for the departing portion with whoever wants to develop.
Councilman Workman: What's the minimum they used in Near Mountain?
Paul Krauss: 9. That's where that number came from. In fact, we had Forbord
give a presentation.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I know. And if you look at that and drive through there,
you ~an see that it's 9,000 square feet. I've done it several tlmes.
2O
City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992
Paul Krauss: Mr. Hayor, the prior PUD ordinance allowed decreases down to 12.
Now it was a bad ordinance in most respects but it allowed it down to 12. For
the last 3 or 4 years nobody used that ordinance. It wasn't enough, I mean with
all the, I mean developers don't like PUD's because it opens up, I mean if you
don't have to go through a rezoning actlon where City Council and Planning
Commission have a lot of latitude, they would just as soon avoid it. If I
recall correctly in the Lundgren project, the new one, ! think some of the lots
get down around, a couple of them are like 10,500-10,700 and I think that's the
smallest they get. And that's after you exclude any kind of, they're dry lots
but that's after you exclude the wetland. The concern I would have is that, you
know we already had experience of 12,000 square foot lots not being enough of an
incentive for anybody to use the ordinance. And if we're not going to have an
ordinance that's used, it's not going to do us that much good.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I would love to get this moving. I would propose
or I would make a motion that ue go with minimum 15. PUD to 11. Maintain a 30
foot front yard setback.
Paul Krauss: Average of 157
Councilman Wing: Average 15.
Mayor Chmiel: To 11,000 square feet?
Councilman Wing: And protect the frontyard 30 foot setback. That will make
Carol real happy on the Appeals Board.
Mayor Chmiel: With the 30 foot setback from the front, yeah. Okay. I'd be
ui111ng to do that. Anyone want to second it?
Councilman Workman: Second. I don't think that 15 will ever, average will ever
be attained. I mean we haven't come near that.
paul Krauss: We've always far exceeded it. The only ttme it comes into
questlon ls, oh I remember when we dealt with the developer who was dolng Rod
Grams' property. It's not a very interesting site. There's really no natural
amenities to protect. He wanted to came in and wanted to do a PUD just to do
cheaper homes and smaller lots and he probably would have wanted to do
everything to the bare mlnimum. In a situation 11kw that, and you find that
land tends to be south of TH 5. You know the active agricultural areas.
Somebody might come in and push it close to 15 so that's probably the only time
that's ever going to happen.
Councilman Workman: Do we have a problem, as you said, nobody uses the
ordinance. Oo we have a problem then? If 11,000 is so close to 15, our minimum
lot slze normally, then do we have a problem that nobody's going to use the PUB
again? I mean are we.
Paul Krauss: I honestly don't know.
Councilman Workman: I would say the only way to not jeopardize that would be to
say go to the 18. Go to the 18 and have the 11, and then you're going to get
the mix of people who are going to say, well I'd better go for the PUO.
City Council lieeting .- November 9, 1992
Paul Krauss: You know that's been raised a couple times by the Council and some
.., t PI. arming Commissioners too from time to time And my concern is it s
almost throwing the baby out with the bath water· I mean we have a subdivision
ordinance that's working pretty well and is at the higher end of what Twin
Cities communities are demanding. And to push it off the scale to make
something else work, I'd be concerned with. As to whether or not an 11,000
square foot minimum will work. Well it's clear that 12 didn't. I mean 12
was;~'t enough to attract them but when I look at again Lundgren's proposal, they
were pretty close to '[hat 11 minimum and maybe the 4,000 square feet is enough
latitude to get it. I'd sure give it a whirl if that's what you wanted to try
and we could see if it's working.
Ceuncilman Workman: Call the question.
Hayor Chmie].: Okay, we'll call the question.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve a Zoning Ordinance
Amendment establishing Residential Planned Unit Development Districts requiring
a 15,000 square foot average lot size, 11,000 square foot minimum lot size and
~o foot frontyard setback. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Wing: Hay I address Councilman Hason's concerns. I think Hike
represents a lot of people in the city who are up and coming homeowners and I'm
sti].l not satisfied that we have addressed your small lot, small land, reduced
cost issues.
Eouncilman Mason: I don't think it has been here but I don't know that that was
the intent of the PUO in the first place.
CouncZlman Wing: No, no, no, no. But the question you bring you I think is
valid. For those who would prefer a smaller yard. Don't have the money for the
l. snd. I would like to see us looklng at a small subdivision here, there,
wherever it ls, that does allow for reduced lot size with a quality control in
~hare
Paul Krauss: Councilman Wing, there's a part of this ordinance that nobody's
ever' discussed but lt's in here nonetheless. It starts on page 325-07,
stsndards and guidelines for single famlly attached houslng. Cluster homes.
This: is not for low density guided land. It's for medium density gulded land
but I know that, for example in Hlnnetonka, as the land got scarce and much more
expensive, you found people building the projects that were deslgned for folks
who .3list did not care to have a lot of maintenance responsibilities. That all
that land was held in common. Almost as though it was a townhouse but it was
de[ached slngle family homes on a relatively small lot. This would structure
that and allow that to occur on those medium density gulded sites. Whether
that's going to reduce housing costs or not, that's open to question. The ones
~ saw in Minnetonka were extraordinarily expensive. But it certainly can
['~appen.
Councilm~n Ming: I think Apple Valley went for an average home cost of
'~120~000.00 including the lot. The only way to maintain a quality home for
¢!?0.000.00 was to reduce the land cost so they went 50 x 100...
22
City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: I just looked at something that recently a new sign that just has
gone up where the homes were from $85,000.00 to $1ZO,O00.O0. Well that
~05,000.00 ls slashed and it's $100,000.00 plus and escalating up. So they have
oone up just in itself over the last year almost anywhere from $15,000.00 to
~25,000.00. Same development. Same homes. Just the escalation of price.
Tr>'ing to reach some of those things is almost next to impossible.
Unfortunately.
Councilman Wing: You make sure the Planning Commission knows we did something,
okay?
Paul Krauss: I'll tell them.
APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR TRUNK HIGHWAY 101 NORTH LEG REALIGNHENT;
AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS, PROJECT 88-Z2B.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. This project is the third
phase of an overall four phase program to relocate Trunk Highway 101 out of the
downtown area in Chanhassen. Basically this project consists of a construction
or reconstruction of Oakota Avenue, TH 101 and West ?8th Street al1 north of
Trunk Hlghuay 5. Basically these are the same design elements and plans that
have been presented to you in the past. The construction of this project will
occur in stages whereby we wlll build a by-pass in order to maintain traffic
from north and southbound TH 101 west along West 78th Street and then out Great
Plains to Trunk Highway 5. The access to the Business Park will be closed down
during the construction phase. We are unable to maintain access at that point.
Thereby sole access for the Business Park will be vla Dell Road whlch will be
completed, and is substantially completed at this po£nt in ttme and will serve
as the prlmary access for the Business Park during construction. The project is
estimated to cost, construction cost of $1,580,000.00. We will need to acquire
some right-of-way with this project. At this time we do not know the associated
costs but do not anticipate that they will significantly or adversely impact the
overall project cost. We will need to design and construct two railroad
crossings with the project. These design elements uill be designed under
separate and bld under separate contracts which will come before you I would
expect sometime after the first of the year for approval. As the City Manager
has eluded to in his comment, this project has some history related to speclal
legislation and tax increment fund£ng for this improvement project. It is
critlcal that we bid and award a contract for this pro~ect before December 31st
of this year otherwise those monies that were set aside or dedicated for this
project wlll likely be lost. ! would suggest that if there are speclfic deslgn
elements or problems or questions that come up with the project, that we still
contlnue ulth thls approval process and that we address and iron out any
potential issues before we come back to you with the award of bid
recommendation.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I do remember this quite well. Don and I spent an awful
lot of time trylng to convince the Commissioners to allow us to even do this.
And thank goodness after a period of time we finally accomplished it but it
didn't look like we were going to really have tt but they were gracious enough
to glve us that extension in time and it was well appreciated. When you're
talklng about the traffic flow, clarify this for me. TH 101 will be routed onto
78th Street, over to Great Plains and back out to TH 5?
23
Cit!? Council Meeting - November 9, 1992
Charles Folchr Yes.
~s?~r Chmiel: And I think as I see this, I get a little bit of concern with
that because we won't have a controlled intersection there yet. How can we,
d~rino the rush peak hours, and I know how, can we provlde some klnd of trafflc
cc, ntrol within there, either by havlng an offlcer during the peak tlme periods
~n ~t~: morning ~nd evening, to allow that flow of trafflc to continue.
Ci~rle~ Felt:h: That's a good question. That's something that we will have to
consider. What we'd 11ke to do with the other pro~ect, downtown improvement
pro..i~ct, is tr)' to accelerate construction and installation of that signal at
Rre~[ plains ~oulevard. It is unlikely that we wlll have it fully operable by
the time we want to begin construction on this pro~ect so that is probably a
likely alternative. Havlng a patrolman there during the peak a.m. and p.m.
r.~='riods to help improve the serviceability of that intersection.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Tom.
COlzncilman Workman: It seems to me we're getting out of whack here. Charles,
>.'ou and I talked a little bit about South Shore Orlve being turned into a
~'~ul...d~...sac or cut off and then West ?7th comlng through. Where are we at wlth
that before I proceed?
Chnrles Folch: Basically we are proposing to control access at thls point wlth
SrlUth Shore Drive. Our current plan proposed the construction and a barrier
;r,?d~an here which will only allow a right-in, right-out movement from South
Sk:c.r~. MnDot is currently reviewing the plans. There are a number of agencies
~"i.~ht now [hat were glven a plan that depending on comments and concerns that
the>' have, there may be some certain modifications that need to occur in the
~l~ns. One of whlch.~ one of the issues that I'm sure MnDot u111 be reviewing
,~ith Lhis intersection is, how well they feel that thls right-in/right-out will
fvnctlon and whether or not they wlll come back wlth a recommendation to close
t k=:::' ~.ntir~..~.ntersection or not, I do not know at this time. If they do come
b~ck with that recommendation, we wlll need to consider how that lmpacts the
,sd.i~cent neighborhood to the west. Specifically the South Shore Drive area. If
~e ¢.-11mlnate that access totally at that location, that subdivision u111 only
I-~L:t,e one other access, whlch is to the north.
Councilman Workman: But we're being asked to approve plans and specifications
and we really don't have those and so I'm wondering where do the residents on,
Luo things. The residents on West ?7th are obviously effected and have been
there a long time. And then we're going to kind of, potentially reconfigure the
~r~Ffi. c to the neighborhood. At what point do we invite those people in for
comment? Shouldrl't this have already gone out for notice?
Ch~r].eo Folch~ Well unfortunately we don't know. MnDot hasn't finished their
review ~o we do not know what their stance will be. If their stance is, that
the plans are specifically related to the geometries of this intersection are
&~ceptable, then that's the way the project will be instructed. If they should
com~ b~ck with basically a red flag at this intersection, I'm sure we will have
Ll',st information that was used from MnDot back before we come back to you with
~1 a~ard of blds recommendation. If that does become an issue, I would
r~commend that basically...add in if you w111 some medians to address that
City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992
specific design element, which could be an element that could be changed during
the project construction as a change order. Again at this point, ue do not
know. It may be a non-issue.
Councilman Workman: Well do the 51 sheets that you have show, they show the
median. Right-in/right-out.
Charles Folch: They show the median and right-in/right-out.
Councilman Workman: I mean I can tell you that the people on West 77th are
9oing to demand at least that. That we can get out of there without, because
then, in effect what you're saying, we would have three outlets to that
neighborhood. We wouldn't cut it through to West 77th.
Charles Folch: We are proposing to cut in through or off 77th Street unless,
that would not be investigated as a possible alternative unless this would
become a complete closure.
Councilman Workman: Okay, yeah. Good. Then let's not scare the chickens
until.
Don Ashuorth: Mr. Mayor? Is it your suggestion that we consider opening 77th?
Councilman Workman: No it's not. No, I'll tell you what. I live there but if
I acted 11ke I dldn't, then ! should act the same way obviously. I would be
very, very sensitive about what West 77th had done to them. You know I was the
driver behind the Tlmberwood, keeping it out of Timberwood down there and not to
separate neighborhoods but because then traffic patterns change and where people
bullt a home and have 11red for many years, now things change and I wouldn't
like that if I lived there. But no. If I could get to downtown the back way a
11ttle bit quicker maybe but to me that doesn't need to be done. And so it
looks really ridiculous having that little cul-de-sac wlth that little medlan
sittlng there and the UPS guy drives through there anyway you know. But no, I
don't think I would, living on West 77th, I wouldn't want it. As long as we can
get out of that neighborhood okay, Z think it's fine. Charles and I are going
to try and get a speed meeting on TH 101 here hopefully. Not too far from now
but and maybe that can be addressesd a little bit too. But I just want to keep
ahead of it here because that could be a real hornet's nest. I know of at least
one household that would fight it pretty hard.
Hayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions or discussions?
Councilman Workman: I move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution ~92-134: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to
approve the plans and specifications for the Trunk Highway 101 North Leg
Realignment Project No. 88-22B and authorize the advertisement for project bids.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
25
C~_~y Cou~cil Mo~ting - November 9, 1992
APPOINTltENT TO DISTRICT 112 YOUTH COHHISSION.
Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor and City Council members. This is really nothing more
t~::n...I'm bring this item to your attention this evening. Last February you
~;,pointed Heidi Halverson and Tim Clark as a youth and adult representative to
'th(s Youth Commission for District 112. It is recently come to our attention
i:h~t, both Ms. Halverson and Mr. Clark are unable to fill those appointments so
th~iL I)as created two vacancies. In reviewing the Youth Commission file, it was
s~o~n tha~ J~y Johnson was interviewed by the City Council last January 2?th as
,~ potential candidate for the adult position. And then has been lnterest
s;:pressed by Ms. Natalie Roslni in serving as the Youth Commission member. 8otb
those individual~ were contacted. Mr. Johnson ls out of the country serving in
~h~ Reserves but Sally Johnson has expressed his continued interest in servlng
on that Committee. Natalie ls at school this evening practicing for the play
~.~h~Cfl stir'ts tomorrow evening. She called today expressing her interest,
~.ntinued interest in servlng on thls Commission. I leave you wlth that
~nformation and khe Council may elect to appoint one or both of those current
~i'~plicants to thelr respective positions. Or as an alternate, ask that the
,.'zszncies be re-advertised allowlng for additional interviews prlor to making
~p!~ointmenls.
~.s~'or Chlniel~ Well we normally, in the past have always gone through the
~e-adYertising portlon~ on this. And I think it would be my suggestion that we
,:Ia +.hi:~. We keep it open as we always have to see if there any other people
that may be interested. If we don't get any, then that would be then to appoint
eli'-,cI two that have been indicated.
Todd lloffman: On both the adult and youth? The Commission had a meeting
tc. msrrow evenlng and they essentially contacted Natalie asklng her to be there
I~,, ~ ,~
._.,:~;. = ~id until Counci]. took action this evening.
.~!a.vor chmie.1.-' Right. We should be able to get something into the paper by
tonl..-,rrow morning, or will they accept anything?
Todd Hoffman: Potentially I'm working with him on another one so.
!l~.~.y,.~.~· Chmiel: Alright. And then we should have this back before us next
~.-. ~ ,.
,,c,,~ncil meeting~
='-~.,~,....,~ .~-~offma;l:. Between now and then would you like to conduct interviews then?
!qayor Chmiel: We can probably squeeze that in inbetween there sometime. Or if
it might be better, we could probably do it maybe a half hour prior to Councll
.......... hq, depending upcn total numbers, of the next Council meeting. Meeting a
[~.'tle earlier.
T-'.~,'Jd Hoffman: So noted.
REPLACE PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR'S VEHICLE.
S::ct~ Itarr: Mr. Mayor, Council. I have submitted to you a memo setting forth
th.. I:,a~i~ for my request, whlch I won't repeat unless you have any questions.
,',ar reasons I have outlined, I have recommended a 4 wheel drive vehicle as my
26
City Council Heeting - November 9, 1992
flrst recommendation with a sedan being the alternate recommendation. I qulckly
sought bids on 4 wheel drive vehlcles from Chevrolet and Ford dealers as well as
several different models of sedans to review. While ! do believe that access to
~ 4 wheel drive vehicle ls important and an appropriate recommendation, the bids
shot~ a wide range of prices. After carefully reviewing 2 wheel drlve optlons,
I did not think the Taurus or Luminas would be worth considering when compared
to the rather extraordinary value of the Crown Victoria or the Caprice on the
;Ot~te bid whlch we may purchase under. These are $21,000.00 list price vehicles
~v~ilable to us for under $13,000.00. Because of reasons including immediately
a~,ailabllity, I would specifically choose the Ford over the Chevrolet. Because
there lsa $4,274.00 difference between the 4 wheel drive from Polar Chevrolet
and the Crown Victoria on the State bid, I would like to recommend my
r~commendatlon to go with the Crown Victoria and request authority to
immediately proceed with the purchase of this vehicle and necessary equipment.
~ayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I know you have a lot of dollars in your
budget.
Scott Hart: He asks knowingly. Z'll defer that question to the City Hanager.
H~yor Chmiel: This vehicle was going to be replaced next year. Total miles and
probably by this happening, we probably lucked out. Luckily you didn't get
Scott Hart: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Which is one of the better items with it. Any discussion?
Councilman Workman: The Crown Victoria that you refer to is under the State
5id?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. That's the least amount.
councilman Workman: I'd move approval of that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: I'll second it. I wish we could get a 4 wheel drive vehicle
because I thlnk lt's better for the clty but at that price.
Mayor Chmlel: Well I looked at it too and I looked at the Sheriff vehicle. I
looked at the Hlghway Patrol vehicles and they all drive the Crown Victoria's
which I think is, and Z've had discussions. They seem quite pleased wtth those.
Okay, any other discussion? Richard.
Councilman Wing: I think Scott's decision is a good one. Just so we take into
account the fact that it ls rear wheel drive. It's not a real storm condition
c~r and the ideal vehicle for Scott would be the 4 wheel drive, 4 door. But it
lsa lot of money and...Counc11's decision.
M~yor Chmiel: Hotion's on the floor with a second to purchase a Ford Crown
Victoria in the amount of $12,725.00. I understand that there will be no
~dditional costs from relocating the equipment from the previous vehicle. From
27
~:'" COUlJCiJ. He.(;tir:g Nouember 9, 1992
cna to the Bt
,-'/' .?' '~
The insurance is also going to pay for those transition
Flarr: That's correct. We just finished getting the final test done on
~'~dio equipment to determine what all would need to be replaced· And
Foreman, Harold Brose is just completing the negotiations on that but our
· -cs~tJ. on is ~11 replacement will be paid by the other insurance company.
,,~--~.:.alution ~92--135' Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to
pL~rchase a Ford Crown Victoria in the amount of $12,725.00 for the Public Safety
Director's vehicle. All voted in favor and the motion carried,
:~'~,;',.-..r Chmiel' It looks like we don't have any Council Presentations or
,.;,,J,~',inistrative Presentations. Before going to an adjournment, I hope the
Conn..si. 1 has had an opportunity to review the Administrative Section and some of
',.'-'~:~ ¢..iscuss.~ons theft we see before us regarding, a couple items I just wanted to
.s~c. ?,krgar-Roscoe. Hope you see that with an increase of another $60,000.00
'-- ';f..s~O00.o0. And I w'm-ote J.n big red letters FOW because we've already
~-:,:~,;~-dit. ed $75:000.00 on this and it just, hopefully they can substantiate their
~Ti~ J..nd ~h~¥'¢~ those dollars are also going. And also the letter that's in here
':'.."..~..~, Hoody".~. Investor's sti]..1 putting us at our BAA1 rating even though we
---;~.:'.1 iust inc'r~:.~ssd some of that. Just alone on that again, if we had that BAA
,:.-;..::p~osed t.o P.,AA! on the [oral amount we're saving, roughly about $25,000.00
'.,:h'"h is a good substantial amount. There's also a letter from the 6rearer
h.'in*:?-zpolis Chamber of Commerce which is coming up November llth. Just 2 days
~:'-~:.::', ,*,o:,; and if anyone is able to attend that. I'm not. I have already other
.:_i'.F,,:.Jh~mJnts or'~ th,st da.y but if anyo;le can make it, I think it would be well
'..;,'...-'h ,,~hile. So u~th that, I would. Oh, very good. If you can just pan the
:;..':,in:r,'-;., I'd like to publically congratulate Colleen Bockendorf and Mr. Senn.
I.. ¢" ·
?!s.,'..~enn in back. He's sitting there so quietly Bidn't even raise an arm.
.'..:.r,r:,qFatulate them on being elected to Council. They'll be sitting up here the
..... ,~ psrt of the year and it's good to see you here tonight to hear all the
......,:,...,:-..,¢.~'~ f~tl thir, os that rue'ye got going. Congratulations one more time. And with
~ L..~.
C.'~':r,c-Zlm&r, bl(ng' Congratulations to Tom too. It was a good campaign.
i"i--..'¢,:'.,? chmiel' Well, he's not going to sit on this Council but yes,
· _--n-ir~tl.tlat. ions Tom. We've glven it to hlm 3 times already. And wlth that I'd
~.'~qL~est an ad iournment.
'.':',.:.s:,--nc. ,as.s,~l : Mayor.
i'i~t::'.2r Chmiol' Yes sir.
Vassar: ~ was put off tll tonlght to have you people on an assessment
and you haven't addressed it. I've been here all night.
~: ....... Chmiel: It wasn't on the agenda was it
'..:;'.;srne Vassar: You told me to come back in 2 weeks· I didn't hear nothing
.~.'.:.::, ~'our s!.aff that you were talking about· So I went and seen your staff and
28
City Council Heeting - November 9, 1992
they sald they were golng to get back to me and they never got back to me and
th:>' never sent me a letter or nothing.
_non Ashuorth: It's my understanding that you did not get a chance to meet with
Oave until just recently.
L. 2verne Vassar: A week ago.
~on Ashworth: He did write a letter, which I just received here today. I was
anticipating having this on to our next agenda. I do not recall that we
specified the date. That it was going to be a function of Hr. Vassar being able
to work with engineering. I apologize and you have not received this letter?
Laverne Vassar: No.
Oon Ashworth: It's dated November 6th.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we can provide him with that letter right now.
Oon Ashworth: I have marked mine. Charles, could you maybe take the letter out
of your packet or, oh. You don't have a copy. Mine is pretty well marked up.
We'll go upstairs and see if we can find another one. And I can put it onto the
agenda. Basically what it states is that, Mr. Vassar's bill was revlewed
before. A letter had gone out on May 21st of 1991 when it had been questioned
at that point in tlme. It was looked at at that time as a, at that time the
city inadvertently charged you the higher land use of $41.31 per acre per
quarter, which ls equivalent to buslness park rates. Since then your b111 has
besn revlsed to reflect the current land use. Industrial office rate which I
think ls what, almost a benevolent positlon by Dave. Mr. Vassar operates the
used car or the car place on 212 by the SA and so the lot is almost 100~ used
from the standpoint of the number of used vehlcles that he has on the slte and
the amount of runoff, at least that staff believes he has. 8ut they did reduce
that to the $32.24 rate. I've confirmed my drainage calculations for your
parcel and am confident that we are charging you the accurate rate per acre and
thsrefore no adjustment to your b1111ng ls warranted. Should you have any
questions, please feel free to contact me. And then attached to that was the
letter of May 21st.
Mayor Chmlel: Okay.
Don Ashworth: If the Councll wishes, we can stlll put thls item, or we can put
this item on for the next meeting. The Council should have copies of thls.
There are some aerial photos that do show the parcel and the land use intensity
that is occurring at that site.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Sorry that we kept you this long. I know you enjoyed
listening to everything we had to say.
Laverne Vassar: I'm on the Clty Council so I know.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. How about if we can have you back on the 23rd and we'll
put you rlght at the front part of the agenda rather than having you slt through
the rest of it?
29
:7.''.f''-' C. OLI. I':C~] Mc.nt. in<;--. November 9, 1992
:._'-'.,:.:.rr~e Yas:'.-;ar-'. ¢,!Fight.
.~z..'.-'c.? .SI,miel' Can us make sure that ue do that?
..~'"....,-. ~,sht~o'rt.h.~. T.*.. ~,~ould go under old business so it would be on the earlier
'"-"Jr.,...,. Ch~iel." '.Jell maybe ue can waive it and move it up ahead right after the
,::...-.r:c,.-.-nt. Yeah, ue'].l do that.
t.-~'..'.=.rn.e Vassa-r: Now, there's one question. This thing is set to be put on the
: ,';. >: -.':- s as of tonlght. I:t was 2 weeks you satd the last time.
3.:':'r= Ashuorth: t-Jell he was giving a 30 day period of tlme. Certification, if
· '_!"...:: ?J. ty Co~z.qc1] acts to modify that, that certification can be modlfied and
+!~'rr.. ~¢ould .-still be sufficient time to do that.
!'-'.~L'?c,r ChmJ_e!: Okay.
L'z'.'..*.-r.~ Vass~,r.' Okay. And the 23rd right?
"'..-_'?-:~- Chmie]' 23rd. Can we have a motion for adjournment?
:',~ttr..cilman Mason moved, Councilman ~ing seconded to adjourn the meeting. ~11
'..,'.?ted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting gas adjourned at 9."18 p.m.
.¢.- ,..: ~-:. ~': .i Lt. ed by ~on ¢.shworth
.. '..' manager
'~ ...... ~d by h!ann opheim
.'. -. ,','..I c.
3O