1992 05 18~ CZTY COUNCZL
REGULAR HEET/NG
18, 1992
Mayor Chmlel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
rEHBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmtel, Councilman Hason, and Councilwoman Dlmler.
Councilman Workman arrived during discussion of Item 4(b).
~:HBERS ~E~ENT: Councilman Wing
ST~FF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Paul
Krauss, Sharmin Al-Jeff, and Kate Aanenson
N~q~OV~ OF ~3END~: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Otmler seconded to
approve the agenda amended as follows= Under public announcements Hayor Chmlel
wanted to share something he received from Congressman 3im Ramstad; table item
(f) and (k) under Consent Agenda; and add under Council Presentations, goals
meeting, May 28, 6:00 to 7:30 prior to the MRA; and add Items 8, Data Serv
Assessments and item 9, Executive Session regarding Frontier Assessments.
Councilwoman Oimler wanted to discuss under Council Presentations discussion for
fining for building without a permit. All voted in favor and the motion
carried. -.
PU~LXC ~a~OUNCEHENT'-
Mayor Chmiel: One item that I have under public announcements and it's really
sort of tickles me because I'm glad to see that someone from Congress te going
to finally take a position in saying that'there's going to be a taxpayers summit
on deficit crisis and some way to get to Congress, the balance of Congress. Let
them be aware that there are real problems. It appears that the National Debt
is approaching 4 trillion dollars. The budget deficit projected to pass the
$400 billion mark this fiscal year and gross interest payments'on the Federal
Debt consisting of the taxpayers nearly $300 billion dollars a year.
Congressman Ramstad ts going to have his. town meeting covering the taxpayers
summit, which is going to be held on June the 6th at 9:30 a.m., which is a
Saturday morning at Normandale Community College.which is located at 9700 France
Avenue South In Bloomington. If there's any questions on this, City Hall will
have this in their hands to provide you some of the answers-
CONSENT ~6ENOR: Councilwoman Dialer aoeed, Councilman Haaon seconded to
approve the following Count ~genda items pursuant to the City ~ana~er's
recoaaendation~:
a. Reaolut[on 192-59: approve Plane and Specifications for Dell Road
Improvements North of TH 5 (Eden Prairie Cooperative Project), Project No.
90-8.
d. Resolution ~r'~--60: Approve Resolution Providing for the Prepayment and
Redemption of the 1983 Improvement Bonds.
City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992
e. Request for Reimbursement of Connecting Fees, Chuck Van Eeckhout, Edwards/
Vogel Subdivision, LUR 92-2.
Resolution ~.2-&1: Approve Resolution Acknowledging Satisfaction of
Contingencies necessary for the Vacation of Street Right-of-Way, Utility and
Drainage Easements located on a portion of West 78th Street, Picha Drive and
Monterey Drive in 8urdick Park Addition, Market Square.
m. Approval of Summary Ordinances for Publication Purposes:
1) Ordinance Expanding the Public Safety Commission from 5 members to 7
members.
2) Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code Regarding Buildings and
Building Regular ions.
3) Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Code Regarding Water, Sewer
and Sewage Disposal.
n. Approval of Accounts.
p. Resolut/on ~2-62: Approve Plans and Specifications for Dell Road
Improvements South of TH 5 (Eden Prairie Cooperative Project), Project 90-7.
AIl voted in favor and the motion carried.
C. APPROVE 1992 SE.qLCO~T PROGR/91; AUTHORIZE I~)VERTISEItENT FOR BIDS. PROJECT
92-8.
Councilwoman Dimler: Item (c) is the approval of the 1992 Sealcoat Program and
authorizing advertising for bids, Project 92-8. The reason I pulled it is
because I looked over some of the streets that are being done and my question
was, that a lot of them are relatively new construction. Within the last 3 or 4
years anyway and then I'm wondering why the roads in Chanhassen Estates which
seem to be in worst condition aren't slated to be done.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. To answer that question
Ursula, you're correct. There are a number of streets that are probably in
their third to fourth year following construction. -From a lot of the technical
information and studies that are being done now on maintaining and improving
longevity of streets, they're recommending that at about the third or fourth
year after a street has been constructed, when the pavement is starting to just
chalk up if you will, turning to a gray color, is the perfect time to get a
sealcoat covering over that if you will. It's almost like a suntan oil on your
skin to protect the pavement and improve longevity and rideability. As far as
in relation to the roads down in Chun Estates, the recently completed pavement
management study basically recommended that the needed repairs down in that area
involved reconstruction work. Basically removal of the existing pavement.
Removal of some of the poor soils that you have down there. Reworking the base
and reconstructing the street itself. This program here that we're doing is
basically just sealcoating operations. In fact to stretch the $90,000.00 budget
that we had for this project, our street forces this year will do their patching
City Council Meeting - Hay 18, 1992
and their oun crack filling to take that out so that ue have more dollars that
can go to sealcoatlng itself.
Councilwoman Oimler: Okay. So are we addressing the problems in Chan Estates
are we Just letting them go?
Charles Folch: Following the acceptance of the pavement management report,
[ believe it ~as back in February I prepared a 5 year CZP of ahich the first t~o
years recommended work to be done in Chan Estates. Unfortunately, one of the
things that ue need to do with acceptance of that program [s to develop some
sort of assessment po[icy for reconstruction projects. Ue felt that ue also
need to evaluate the forth coming comprehensive se~er and water po[icy plans
~hich vii! also have their own CIP's for the next 5 and 10 years. Look at what
those overall dollars and needs are and ~hat impact that has to the city and
what reasonably can ue share on some of the reconstruction projects.
Unfortunately, ue can't determine what that number's going to be for street
recon assessment poltcies untll ue look at ~hat those overall needs are.
Councilwoman Oimler: and you're saying sealcoating those roads at this time is
not going to be help them or-improve them at all?
Charles Folch: No. Not at all unfortunately.
Councilwoman Dialer: Okay. Then I have no further questions and I move
approval of item 1(c).
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilwoman Oimler moved, Councilman Raaon seconded to approve the 1992
Sealcoat Program; ~utherize advertisement for eid~, ProJect 92-8. ~11 voted in
favor and the eot%on carr%ed.
I. kETL~4D ~.TF.R~TIOII P[RflIT FOR THE RECONSTEUCTZON OF COUNTY RO~) 17 ~ THE
HITZ~TIOll Of ~tI t~)OITI~ 0.00$ AC~E$ OF tETi.~II) '~LOI~ LAKE ORZVE. CZTY OF
CH~NF~SSE#.,
Councilwoman Oimler: Item (1) is a wetland alteration permit for the
reconstriction of County Road 17 and the m[tigation of an additional 0.005 acres
of wetland along Lake Drive requested by.the Ctty of Chanhassen. Z have a
problem ulth that because if you look in the Minutes of our april 27th meeting,
that whole project vas defeated on a vote of 3 to 2. and therefore there's no
need for this alterat[on permit as far as ! can see.
Mayor Chmiel: That ts very true. at least was the position unless you have
something different than that.
Councilwoman Dimler: Isn't that the same project we're talking about? So if
that project ~as not approved, that ~e wouldn't need a ~etland alteration
permit.
Mayor Chmiel: MnDot vas putting in that certain segment from TH 5 back on Ce 17
south.
City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992
Charles Folch: Right. They will build down to about 300 feet south of TH 5.
Mayor Chmiel: So this really was what we looked at before with that wetland
alteration permit?
Charles Folch: That's correct. Actually the WAP permlt process and some of the
other agency permits were already in the progress, or in the mill if you will
from a tlme standpoint prlor to the project belng cancelled.
Councilwoman Dimler: So there's no need for the permit anymore or what are you
saying?
Charles Folch: Well at this point I think the reason it's before you is just to
finish through on the process. At this point.
Councilwoman Dimler: Because the project doesn't exist, we no longer need it,
is that correct?
Charles Folch: That's correct. This is not needed unless the project was to
move forward.
Councilwoman Oimler: Okay. So then with that I would move denlal of the
wetland alteration permit for item (i) by the City of Chanhassen.
Mayor Chmlel: Denied or tabled?
Councilwoman Oimler: Well we don't need it so we deny the application right?
Charles Folch: Yeah, unless the project would come forth again. That would be
the only reason or need to have this permit.
Roger Knutson: I was just going to suggest that if someone looking back later
trying to figure out what happened this evening and this became a controverial
issue in the future if it came up again, a denial might be taken as you thought
something was wrong with the permit application. I'm not suggesting that you do
or don't. Maybe since the City of Chanhassen is the applicant, you can do what
other applicants have done in the past and withdraw your application.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. That would have to be done by staff.
Roger Knutson: No. Move it here.
Mayor Chmlel: No, you'd have to move to withdraw the application.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Don Ashworth: From that meeting where the project was denied, I got the
impression that Counctlmembers wanted to see some additional research as to why
the project should occur. Charles and I have met wlth the County Engineer. I
think there's some very good reasons why the Council should consider that
project. Roger 6ustafson was in the process of drafting a report back to me to
City Council Meeting - May [8, [992
submit to the Council. Rather than withdrawing, it may require then a new
application process. ! would recommend that it simply be tabled.
Councilwoman OImler: Well, I have a problem with that because reconsideration
has to come from a 4/5 vote of the Council and we have not had that vote come
forward so there should be even no looking into the proSect as far as I'm
concerned.
Mayor Cheiel: One member of the Council can bring it back up for discussion
though.
Councilwoman Oimler: Right, but that has not been done.
Mayor ChmIel= No. Not as yet.
Councilwoman Dimler= Yeah. So we would have to do that and we would have to
have a 4/5 vote to go ahead.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Councilwoman Dtmler: So at this point this application is totally out of line.
And so I would submit that we withdraw it.
Councilman Mason: I guess before I would, although I'm Inclined to agree with
you, I guess I'd like to see what this Roger Gustafson and those people came up
with too.
Councilwoman Dimler: But we would have to do that at another Council meettng
and bring it up for reconsideration.
Councilman Hason: True. True, but I think if we withdraw this now, that sends
a different message than tabling It. I mean we can table it and withdraw It
later after we get some additional information.
Hayor Chm£el: That was my thought behind It. Only because If it dld come back
and there were things that were there that's going to still be a benefit to the
City, I thought it should be done as such and to table I think would probably be
better as well.
Councilwoman Dim[er: You want to table It?
Hayor Chmiel: Yeah. ! would like to do that.
Councilman Hason= Let's see what they have to say and then.
Councilwoman Oimler: That would be like reconsidering before we reconsidered
though.
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Paul Krauss: If I could. There's some time and expense Involved tn bringing
this things up before you. It had to be designed and taken to the Planning
Commission and Council. There's no obligation. I mean even if you approved
City Council Meeting -- May 18, 1992
this tonight, there's absolutely no obligation to proceed with the project at
all. It simply eliminates the need to go back through this process, if in the
future you decide.
Counciiwoman Oimler: I guess I didn't understand why it came forward right now
if the project was denied.
Paul Krauss: As Charles indicated, we started this 2 months ago so we try to
bring everything up to you at the same time. But again, I mean even if you were
to approve thls, you st111 haven't ordered the project ln. There's nothlng that
says you would or you wouldn't. That's completely in your hands. It simply
eliminates the need to go back through and resubmlt and do a new plan and
whatever else in the future.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I move to table item (t).
Councilman Mason: I'll second that.
Councilwoman Oimler moved, Councilman Hason seconded to table the Wetland
Alteration Permit for the reconstruction of County Road 17 and the mitigation of
an additional 0.005 acres of wetland along Lake Drive, City of Chanhassen. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
L. APPROVE PARK AND RECREATION NEEDS AS~ESSHE.NT AND OPINION SURVE__Y~
Councilwoman Oimler: Item (1) is next. (1) was the approval of the Park and
Recreation Needs Assessment and Oplnlon Survey, whlch I have no problem wlth
except I was wondering if we wouldn't, the way some of the questions were
stated, I had a 11ttle blt of a question, espeoially under question 3 in regards
to a trail system. It gives you only two options basically that are worded for
you and then you can wrlte in anything else you want. But I know one of the big
things that we've been contending with is that if you just say I am not in favor
of a recreational trall system in Chanhassen, it doesn't really give you the
option of saying I'm in favor of a system that lncludes connecting all major
streets. You know we've talked about that often. And you're saylng that elther
I'm in favor or I'm not in favor and I'm afraid you're going to miss that middle
ground if you don't put something in there statlng that.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. No, I agree. I also had that to be pulled but.
Randy Ertckson: What would you like to add?
Mayor Chmiel: Would you just please state your name for the record.
Randy Erickson: I'm Randy Erickson, a member of the Park and Rec Commission.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Councilwoman Dimler: Hi Randy.
Randy Erickson: Hi.
City Council Meeting - May [8, [992
Councilwoman Dialer: My point is that if, you're only giving us two options.
One ts saying [ am in favor and the other one is ['m not In favor. Okay?
saying that a lot of people might be in favor. They may not be In favor of a
total system that includes going into the neighborhoods and putting sidewalks
and trails and ali that but they might be tn favor of trails along major
connecting streets such as Kerber Blvd., TH [0[, HInnewashta and wherever else.
But by only giving them an option of I'm in favor and ['m. not in favor, it
doesn't really leave. Oo you understand? You're not getting an accurate
survey. Because tf ! were to mark this and it only had these two options,
would probably say I'm not in favor of a total system that.goes into sidewalks
in neighborhoods and all that. Requiring a11 that. But ! would be tn favor of
connecting the major connector streets. You know because people use the one on
Kerber. I see them walking all over on the ones that we do have and ! think we
should maybe go for some more on those major streets but not, the problem was
that people didn't want their sidewalks mandated in neighborhoods and stuff like
that.
Mayor Chmiel: Neighborhoods with low traffic, basically I think Is what Ursula
is saying right?
Councilwoman Oimler= Yes.
Mayor Chmtel: Your major arterial roads are the areas that trails should be and
[ think we discussed this many years ago. Such as areas of TH [0[. Some of the
County Roads.
Councilwoman Dialer= Kerber.
Mayor Chmiel: Which Kerber also had gotten. County Road 17. Areas as such.
Councilwoman OImler: Audubon.
Mayor Chmtel: Right. That was something that we had looked at before. Rather
than going through neighborhoods and putting sidewalks through, those front
yards that it's just not going to go because people Just don't want those within
a residential area. The other thing too which [ also agree. Being that we have
a, mine is a little bit askew on mine so I can't really tel! some of this but it
doesn't appear that there's any cost Involvement. What the cost would be for
these and where the dollars would basically come from. I think people should be
aware of that also as to what's going to be there. Because that way they get a
better feel because of the additional taxes. Whether they're going to Incur or
not incur and how you plan on doing this and what would be accomplished then.
Randy Erickson: Okay.
Councilwoman Dimler= And then I had one more and I know it seems'trivial but
it's under question 5. What ts your age? I'm not sure it's legal to'ask that
and Z was going to suggest that we put In an age range instead of direct age.
Like from 18 to 25, 26 to 40, 41 to 60 or 60 and above. I might be more
inclined to answer it that way. Don't you agree Mike?
Councilman Mason: Next month I probably will.
City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992
Randy Erickson: Okay, uell I can talk to the Commission about making those
changes in the questions.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, thanks. With those changes I recommend approval of
item (l).
Councilman Mason= So moved.
Councilwoman Oimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Park and
Recreation Needs Assessment and Opinion Survey as amended. All voted in favor
and the mot[on carried.
O. CZTY_COUNCIL MINUTES DATED APRIL 27. 1992.
Councilwoman Dimler: Those are the Minutes from the Council meeting from April
27th. On page 23 I believe. That goes back to the referring of that project on
County Road i?. I think that the motion needs to be corrected there. It says
the motion carried with a vote of 4 to i and I think it should be corrected to 3
to 2 because Councilman Wing abstained and abstenance counts as a no vote. Am I
correct?
Mayor Chmiel: No. Abstention means a yes vote. He didn't abstain basically.
Or did he pass that vote accordingly?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. He said I abstain which counts as a no vote.
Mayor Chmiel: That's a yes.
Roger Knutson: Silence are.
Councilwoman Dimler: No, no. Silence is a yes vote. Abstention lsa no vote
if you check in our records. So it should be 3 to 2.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Councilwoman Oimler: So could you have that correction made please? Thank you.
Thank you very much for your time.
Mayor Chmlel: Can we get a motlon for it?
Councilwoman Oimler: With that correction I move the approval of the Minutes
and all the Minutes in item (o).
Councilman Mason: So moved.
Counc/lwoman D/mler moved, Counc/lman Mason seconded to approve the follo~[ng:
City Council Minutes dated April 27, 1992 as amended on page 23 by Councilwoman
Dimler, Plann[ng Commission Minutes dated May 5, 1992 as presented, and Public
Safety Comm[ssion Minutes dated April 16, 1992 as presented. All voted [n favor
and the motion carried.
City Council Heeting - Hay [8, [992
~,, ZNTERZH USE PERHTT FOR 6RMM)/NG/EXCAU~TZON LOCATED RT LOT 5. gTJ4ELAND
ADDTTTON, FORTZER AND ASSOCZRTES.
H. ZNTERZ~ USE PERHIT FOR GRADI~XCAVRTZON LOCAT~ AT LOT 7. PARK ONE 3RD
AODITION. FORTZER AND RSSOCTATES.
Councilman Hason: ! can do (g) and (h) at the same time ! think. About the
Interim use permit. The concern in the report and I agree with It, ts the
amount of traffic during rush hours. I'm wondering if Counctl wants to limit
when they can do their excavating because they wtll be going down West 78th
Street to TH 5 and we already kno~ what tt's like at West 78th and TH 5.
Hayor Chmiel: It's going to be open soon.
Councilman Nason: Is it? Well maybe it's a moot point then.
Hayor Chmiel: Well hopefully, they have much of the blacktop tn. The only
thing they don't ts that center median portion. I drove there just by chance
yesterday to look at it, It's Just about there. Paul?
Paul Krauss: Hr. Hayor, in both report there's a condition there that gives the
City Engineer the option to shut them down if any problems occur. Now if you
are concerned enough about that to sort of pre-empt[rely Just determine that
they can't do that, that's fine but otherwise, ue have some means of going back
in and modifying It.
Councilman Hason: Well in view of, if TH 5's opening up pretty soon, maybe
check back on it. Alright, that's fine. I'll move approval of Item [(g) and
l(h) then.
Councilwoman Otmler: Second.
Councilman ~ason moued, Council,oman Dimler ~econded to approue Interim Uae
Permit for Grading/Excavation located at Lot 5, Vine]and addition, Fortler and
~soclates. Rll voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman ~ason moved, Councll,oman Olmler ~econded to a~prove Interim Use
Permit for 6fading/Excavation located at Lot 7, Park One 3rd RddttIon, Fort/er
and Associates. A11 voted In favor and the motion carried.-
VZSZTOR PRESENTATZON:
FZNAL PRE~NT~TTON OF COttPOST DEflONSTRATZOII S/TE. ER/C ~$.
Eric Podevals: I'm Eric Podevals and this was my Eagle project. I'm pleased to
say my Eagle project, Compost Oemonstratlon Site ts completed. Zt took 25
people [25 hours to prepare, plan and carry out the project. I'd like to thank
the City Council, Charlie from Park Haintenance and 3o Ann Olson, the Senior
Planner and Lotus Lawn and Garden for donating all the plants and trees out
there. This Saturday, Hay 23rd I'm going to have an opening ceremony at
a.m. and anyone is invited. We're going to have a short ribbon cutting which
should only last 15 to 20 minutes so anyone's invited and I just wanted to thank
you guys and It's completed.
City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Job well done Eric. I took a look at it as you
and I had discussion on the phone. It really looks neat. Really looks good.
Professionally done. Proud of it. Thanks.
CONCEP.I' PLAN AND REZONTNG FOR fi CONFERENCE/SPA CENTER ON [9+ led:RES OF PROPERTY
ZONED AZ, LOCATED AT 1350 FLYING CLOUD DRZVE (FORHER ASSUtlPTION .$EHINARy
PROPERTY), LELflND GOHLI'KE.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: The applicant is requesting a planned unit development concept
plan approval to rennovate the former Assumption Seminary. Proposed uses of the
site include historically consistent rennovation of the main building as a
business retreat and conference center, a wedding reception/banquet hall and
small spa hotel for weekend getaway. Staff has been working with the applicant
on this site approximately 2 years ago. It is proposed that the project be
developed in phases over a period of 2 years. All buildings, exterior walls,
and houses-as well as the surrounding grounds will be cleaned out in the first
phase. The applicant is hoping to start operation of the meeting space and
banquet facilities in the front wing by October of 1992. The most sensitive
environmental areas are located along Assumption Creek. A designated trout
stream and the northwest portion of this s'ite occupied by a calcarious fen. We
believe that the concept plan is sensitive to protecting these areas. Major
issues of concern is the on site sewage treatment system. The existing sewage
treatment system was built in late 1968. The capacity of the existing system
remains unknown. At first we'll need to be coordinated with other involved
agencies to insure that the design is acceptable. Staff believes that the
utilization of the PUD ordinance to develop this property is an ideal use for
this type of project. Keeping in mind that what we have before us is a concept
submittal, we believe that most of the development issues have been dealt with
on at least a preliminary basis and can be refined further when formal
application requests are made. Staff finds the request to be reasonable. We
believe that it will result in a high quality development that is consistent
with the comprehensive plan, ordinance standards and the goal of creating a
project that is sensitive to it's surrounding. Staff is recommending approval
of the planned unit development concept review with conditions outlined in the
report. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. Is the applicant here? Is there anything
that you'd like to say in reference to staff's information that's just been
provided to us? And if there's something more you'd like for us to see.
Jennifer Luhrs: Sure. My name is Jennifer Luhrs and this is Lee Gohlike, the
owner of the property. ! do have a short slide presentation if you'd like to
see that and it gives you some background on the type of rennovations we've been
working on in the past couple of years. ~nd would help you to visualize what we
intend to do at the Assumption Seminary site. I'd like to keep this fairly
informal. I'll just go through the slides and sort of comment on them. I'm
sure you're all familiar with the project as it looks today...
(There was a tape change at this point in the presentation.)
3ennifer Luhrs: ...medicinal healing qualities to the sulphur water and sulphur
mud. And he proceeded to build the sanitarium and they started treating people.
I should point out that in our restoration we will not be making any medicinal
lO
City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992
claims for our sulphur water and mud. This is a little bit later photo showing
the benefits of landscaping, and here's an aerial view of the project. This is
a postcard. Colorized postcard a little bit later. The mudcura treatments
consist of hot sulphur mud baths, hot and cold shower baths, hot and cold
sulphur water baths, massage and electric treatments. And they were recommended
for all kinds of rheumatism, gout, neuralgia, kidney, bladder and nervous
diseases.
Councilwoman Oimler: But it's not in Shakopee.
Councilman Mason: With those electric treatments, it's Just as well.
3ennifer Luhrs: These are people who have been wrapped in mud. We've been very
Lucky. 3oe and Hike Muber who actually, they live in St. Paul now but they're
from this area, have had a fascination with the mudcura project for years and
they collected all of these postcards and photos and have been sharing them with
us. In fact, if anybody has any other history on the property, we're very
interested in it because we're trying to restore the property as close to the
original as possible.
Councilwoman Oimler: My father-in-law worked there. You might want to talk to
him.
3ennifer Luhrs: Yes, we would like to talk to people who worked there. And
just to show that it really is mud underneath there. Now we will be doing mud
treatments. We have sort of a three part approach to this, developing this
project so that it is financially viable. We will be opening a health spa on
the premises. We will be doing mud baths, mineral baths, aroma therapy. Some
of the more modern spa treatments but we will be putting the emphasis more on
health and wellness and rejuvenation and not-on any kind of healing. But mud
treatments are very popular right now. Mud is making a big comeback. Believe
it or not, I have to confess, I had to see what a mud wrap was-like and I
thought well, it will mainly be relaxing if nothing else. And they heat the
mud. It's not cold mud. But really what you do is you sweat profusely and that
of course draws toxins out of your body. It was more than Just relaxing. It
had a profound affect so this was in Europe and we were .fortunate that we have a
spa director with some experience with European spas and so we're pretty
confident that it will be offering the highest quality mud treatments possible.
This is the only interior shot that we have really of the rest of the building,
and that was the dining area when you come in the front door. This is fairly
sparse decorating theme. We probably will not be that sparse. I think they
were trying to look more like a hospital. And these are, this is called the
pagoda. These are two little structures over the springs out in the fen. One
of the springs has sulphur water and if you go out there you can smell the
sulphur. And the other one we think was the spring with iron water. That's
where people went to either drink the water. We're not sure if they actually
sat in the sulphur water at the spring on the Left but this is something that we
want to reconstruct exactly as it is here. Because it is in the fen and the ONR
is very concerned about the fen, as we are, we're going to keep the traffic
mainly directed towards these t~o structures and restore the pathways out to
those structures. Now this was the original dormitory for the nurses and we
hope to be able to reconstruct this building too later on. And this is the dam.
Actually it supplied some electrical po~er. Mad a small hydro-electric
l!
City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992
generator in it. And the bridge over it, right now the bridge is out'and it's
sort of a mess down there. This is how it looks. That's where the bridge used
to be. This is one of the projects we've started on until we get approval.
We've mainly been cleaning up that part of the creek and we mere Just down there
this weekend and pulled out a few carburetors and mufflers and a car door and a
few other things in the creek and we're just trying to get it cleaned up so it's
not such a mess. Also before the clean-up. And this is the inside. We've also
been cleaning that up and basically demoing it at this time. The point of this
picture, ! know it's dark but there ~as extensive rennovation to the building
and we're interested in anything that we can possibly save or salvage. We also
use a lot of architectural antiques in our restorations and we took off some
asphalt tile and found wood floors underneath so. We found some wood floors and
we've also found some original brick that we can restore but in all of our
restorations we try to go as close to the original as possible and like I say,
not modernize but add architectural antiques or whatever we can to make the
project look old. Out at Pine Point, which is a similar project, we used a lot
of lO0 year old pine and fir boards on the floors and walls to give it
character. Now this is, if you're wondering why anybody would want to deal aith
such a mess with what the Assumption Seminary site looks like right now, this is
Pine Point~ This is the basement prior to being rennovated. And it's a mess
but it ended up like this. And that is the basement and as it turns out, it's
one of the mos[ popular meeting places. Pine Point is in Stillwater toanship.
It was also a PUD working with Stillwater township and it was a building that
had been abandoned for several years. Was badly vandalised just as the
Assumption Seminary site is. They wanted to put it back on the tax rolls and
they felt that Lee's proposal for using this property as a bed and breakfast and
conference center ~ould be compatible with the 350 acre park in which the
property sits and it's worked out beautifully. I think everybody's happy with
that project. These are some of the rooms. We try to have every room be a
little different. We put antiques in wherever we can. This is a bathroom.
This had been divided into a number of tiny rooms. It started originally as the
first poor farm, or second poor farm in the State of Minnesota in 1858 and
eventually became a nursing home. It was a bunch of tiny little rooms. Had to
ali be demo'd and the new rooms put in. We pride ourselves on our staff. We
offer very, very friendly service and we'll be doing the same thing out in
Chanhassen. We don't operate like a big business. We operate like a very
friendly, personal, small business. We have a full time chef on staff and we're
known for our excellent food. At the Chanhassen project, we will be I think
even going one step further because we are a health spa. We'll have organic
gardens and we will offer a lot of organically grown foods and just generally
healthy foods. We weren't originally going to have a restaurant open to the
public at all times but everybody that ~e've mentioned this to or talked to
says, please put a restaurant in so we're going to try to have our restaurant
open to the public with a limited menu but people can drop in anytime,
especially if they're interested in the health food. Or whatever the special of
the day is. Landscaping is going to be a very important part of the Assumption
Seminary project. This is Pine Point before landscaping. This is after.
Another before picture and after. And one of the reasons that the landscaping
is important is because we do a lot of weddings and that's also part of our
formula for being financially viable. On ~eekends we do aeddings and if we have
a wedding party, at the Outing Lodge at Pine Point, they're required to take the
whole building so they're not causing a disturbance for other guests. And that
actually turns out pretty well for them because most people have out of town
City Council Meeting - May [8, 1992
guests. The bride and groo~ stay there. There's not such a problem with
drinking and driving and then £n the morn£ng they get up and open their
presents. Have a wedding brunch and they end up getting much more of a family
experience for all the money they're spendLng. Xore impact for the expense of
the wedding. Winter weddings are also popular and ! brought this photo along to
brag that that's Bill Hoyers and h£s son ~as married at Pine Point and I think
they really appreciated the privacy and being able to be there for 3 days. For
the whole wedding experience, and ae do a lot of Christmas parties and other
special events such as anniversaries. Some fundraisers. This is Pine Point in
minter and we, as I mentioned, we do co-exist beautifully with the 350 acre park
we're in and ue do have cross country skiing out there which ~s popular. The
main feature of course at Chanhassen is the calcarious fen. We feel that that
will be an i~portant part of what the theme of the business, hnd of course the
other part of our formula for being financ~ally viable ts to have business
conferences during the week. We have a lot of 3H conferences, Cray Research.
We've had Honeywell, ~BX. The nice thing about the Chanhassen site is that
we're a little bit far away for some of the businesses from this side of town
and this will silos ua to also serve their needs for busLness, conferences. Now
this is another property that Lee owns and this o~e is also a very h~storic
property. It's in Lewis, etsconsin and it's called Seven Pines Lodge and it was
built in ~903. Not only is it historically significant. Calvin Coolidge stayed
there when he was PresLdent. But it's also a very environmentally desireable
project. It has a natural trout stream on it. That was a picture taken in ~9~5
and this Is a picture of it today so you can see that we've really worked hard
to keep it ~ooking original and not to modernize it or stray from the original
concept. Here's a picture of the interior in zgL5 and here It Ls today. This
is the gatehouse in ~9~5 and here it is today. And. this is the spring house
which is right on the trout stream in L9~5 and here it Is today, and we ~orked
with the Xisconsin ONR on a big improvement project for the trout stream. We're
very pleased to have the native brook trout stream In Seminary Creek on our
property now. as I mentioned, the ONR ~as out. They indicated that they think
it's the last native trout stream In the seven county metro area. ~t's a
beautiful stream. It's very delicate. It's going to require a lot of care and
we're definitely going to be very careful with it and work to make sure that
it's protected. ~e probably won't be doing anything uith the lower part of the
stream but If we do make improvements up towards the dam, we'd be working with
Trout Unlimited. They've been out a~ready and they're interested in the stream
too. So I guess in conclusion we try to do projects that.are sensitLve to the
history of the building and to the environment.
Hayor Chmiel: Thank you. are there any questions? I th~nk if and when we get
this really pulling together, maybe it would behoove us to probably .try to get
that as a Chanhassen address rather than Shakopee. Haybe we can make that part
of the approval once we get that going. Whether we can achieve it or not, I
don't know.
~ennifer Luhrs: It's because it's a Chaska post office. ! do know when Inver
Grove Heights shared a post office ~lth South St. Paul, you'd still put Inver
Grove Heights on the address and it would still get there. So ~aybe ~e should
check into that.
Hayor Chmiel: any other questions? I guess ! have ~ust one more. In do~ng the
total buildings that are there and ~hat's conte~iplated with what you're planning
City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992
on doing. What is the timeframe that you feel might be in order to pull this
all together?
Jennifer tuhrs: Well we indicated that we'd like to try for an October opening
of the first part of the development.
Mayor Chmiel: Phase it in, I guess I heard that part.
Jennifer Luhrs: Yeah. And that's a really aggressive deadline but if we don't
set these kinds of deadlines you know, it drags on forever. We'd 11ko to
develop the front part of the building and start doing business meetings and
weddings. Wedding receptions in those big common rooms and then add bedrooms
and sleeping rooms as we begin cash flowing. Realistically, if we shoot for
October and it gets to be more 11ko Christmas, then we go lnto a slow perlod in
March and April. If we're open and doing weddings next summer, that would be
the most, probably the most realistic thlng that we could hope for. And lt's to
our advantage to then finish it up as soon as we possibly can because that's
what produces the income to support the project. So that's probably the most
realistic picture.
Councilwoman Dimler: I was just wondering, I read in the report that you have
plans for a golf course. CouZd you elaborate on that a little bit?
Jennifer Luhrs: Now originally we thought the golf course would be out near the
fen and having gone out with the ONR, we agree with them that's not a good idea.
But we do have some cornfield area where we'd like to put ln, rlght now we could
probably put in about 3 regular holes or we could put in a par 3 course. We
hope to acqulre more land to be able to put ina 9 hole executive course. A
golf course is a very important draw when you're doing business conferences.
Councilwoman Oimler: So that won't be part of your phase 1 though?
Jennifer Luhrs: No.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, thanks.
Mayor Chmlel: There was one thing I did read in the staff report. Something of
concerns as to grading. Some gradtng plans. Can you address that?
Sharmin Al-Jail: None of the grading plans have been submitted yet.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I realize this is strictly a concept approval is what we're
looking at today.
Sharmin Al-Jail: But we would like to make sure that any grading that takes
place does not affect the creek or the fen area.
Mayor Chmiel: That's my concern.
Sharm£n Al-Jail: That would be taken into consideration at the time when the
plans are submitted and as we review the plans.
14
City Council Heet£ng - Hay [8, ~992
Hayor Chmiel: Okay. ! was Just looking at some of my notes and as you said,
I'd like to keep this natural feature of the area with the fen of course and
that's not too much of that around anymore. That's something we really want to
try to protect. I guess I den't have any other questions.
Councilman Hason: I was going to comment on the grading and drainage too.
Jennifer Luhrs: We're aware of the requirements for the grading and drainage
and we're working with an engineer to make sure eveyrthing drains away from the
creek. It doesn't right now but we'll make those changes.
· .
Councilwoman Oimler: Was it my understanding that the on1¥ thing we're
considering tonight ts the approval of the PUO and then all these other things
will be.
Paul Krauss: This is just a conceptual review.
Mayor Chmiel: Just strictly a concept plan.
Councilwoman Dimler: Oh, just a conceptual review? Okay. Not even the PUO?
I like the Idea. I think it's great.. I think we should preserve the history
there as much as possible. I'm glad to see them come forward to do that.
like the idea of a restaurant and to hold weddings. It really will beautify our
southern border. It's the beginning. I'm real pleased. I'm sure we can work
out the details and the things that we need to have as a city to preserve the
environmental sensitive areas. I think me can work together.
..
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. With that, can I have an approval as to staff
recommendation?
Councilman Hason: I'l! move approval.
Councilwoman Oimler: Second.
CouncUaan ~ason ~oved, Councilwoman Otmler seconded that the PUD Concept plan
for the Spa/Conference Center be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Prepare a formal PUD submittal responding to issues raised in this report,
while working with staff on the plan development.
2. Respond to issues raised by the conceptual review.
ail voted in favor and the motion carried.
B~CKGROUND INFORHRTION NID NON-CONFORtLTNG USE PERflIT FOR A RECREATI~ BEACHLOT
FOR TROLLS GLEN HOflEOMNERS A$~OCIRTI0#.
Kate Aanenson: As you know back in February we adopted a non-conforming use,
recreational beachlot use permit which requires that all beachlots within one
year of the adoption of the ordinance come in compliance. So the intent is to
try to determine what existed in p[ace in [~81. What the staff has tried to do
is put together a permit form showtng what the applicants of the beachlot
associations feel like they had In place in [98! and then ~e've also Included
15
City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992
what the Plannlng Commission recommended after their hearing. Staff is not
making a recommendation for the fact that there was a one day visit to the sites
and all we can say is that to our best knowledge thls is what we felt was In
place. And since we weren't here at that time, we've gotten kind of
uncomfortable maklng a recommendation but we're putting that ln. Again a
concern came up that it's taken us most of the summer to get through a11 [2
beachlots and slnce some of them will be coming in at the end of the summer,
what would be the intent as far as the city is, those that come in first coming
lnto compliance. So we felt 1i'd be appropriate to make it effective one year
from the date of adoption which would be February 24, [993. $o even though
they're golng through the process now, they have to be in compliance by 1993.
So with that, we put together the beachlot format and the first one we held was
Trolls Glen. Do you want me to go ahead and start with that one?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: Okay. Thls beachlot association has been in place slnce 1975.
It's not complying as far as the width of the shoreline, the square footage. We
included a lot of things that they had in place that are not necessarily part of
the ordinance but just that those recommendations if someone wants to complain
of what they actually had in place. Such things as the picnic tables and the
like, although those are not really regulated by the ord£nance. Staff did not
do inspection of this beachlot in 1981. Although there was a legal action
brought against two members. Two neighbors and it was determined by depostt[on
whlch we've lncluded in the report, the number of boats that were at that
assoc£ation. And those depositions say that there was 2 boats docked and two
boat 11fts in place. ! thlnk the homeowners association agrees that there was 2
in place at that time but their contention ts they always intended to put in 4
and they showed Mlnutes from the Association meetlngs of thelr intent to always
have 4. Now at the Planning Commission meet£ng they had pictures showing that
there may have been 3 and I'm sure they'll provlde the information for you
tonight. In summary then, we've shown on the permit what they've requested and
the Planning Commission recommended on a 4 to 3 vote that they contlnue to have
the 64 foot dock, I canoe rack and 2 boats at the dock and they can continue to
use their swlmming beach. So we've outlined for you the four areas that you
need to give actlon on. That being the dock, the canoe rack, number of boats
and the continuing of the swlmmlng beach.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Kate. Any discussion w£th regard to exactly what Kate had
said?
Councilwoman Dimler: Is the only thing that we're contesting now is the boats?
Kate Aanenson: Well those 4 items that we've outlined on the permit.
Councilwoman Dimler: But the others are, nobody's contesting any of the
others? It's only the boat that's being contested? The boats.
Kate Aanenson: As far as disagreement as to what, yeah.
Councilwoman Oimler: Yeah. Okay.
City Council Meeting'- May [8, [992
Mayor Chmiel: Oo you have anything more Kate? Okay. I think I've probably
done more reading on one beachlot than I probably have done for more things than
we've done within the city. We also received, hopefully everyone received the
memorandum that was pulled together by Mr. Metz and Mr. Johnson's attorney.
Councilwoman Oimler: ! didn't get that.
Mayor Chats[: Did you receive one of those?
Councilwoman Dimler: No, ! didn't.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, it shows that all of this was being sent to each
individual.
Councilman Mason: [ don't.
Mayor Chmiel: Didn't you get one either? Haybe you'd like to take a look at
mine but it shows that each of these have been sent. You can take a Look see at
that. I'll wait until you review that Just a tad. Basically what it covers is
the depositions by the people. Some of the depositions that are in there.
There are some things that are not finalized with statements regarding some of
the things such as page 12 or [3 in there. [ had some concerns with that.
does show basically what you have tn your packet or contained in.your packet.
think everything that is there Is in, and Information that we have. pulled
together totally by our staff, ghat they're Looking for in opposition of course
is saying that 2 boats should be remaining. The association Is requesting 4
boats be docked on site. Some of the information that I have read and some of
the Minutes, it also shows that there's some discussion of boats. 4 boats as
well and depositions sort of take a little different twist to it. Rs you may or
may not be aware, the Judge who did review this decided It wasn't tn the Court's
jurisdiction. [t was in the City's jurisdiction to determine those respected
needs. Isn't that correct Roger?
Roger Knutson: Simply, yes.
Hayor Chmiei: So with that.
Councilwoman Otmler: The gist of the report is that they send it back to City
Council to make the decision?
Mayor Chmiel: No. That is prepared by Mr. Herz' and Mr. 3ohnson's attorney
with all the information that we basically have here plus some other things that
they had you look at. Or to re-review. Our determination right now is to
determine how many we can have as well as the dock, the canoe rack, number of
boats and what was the fourth item?
Kate Aanenson: Swimming beach.
Mayor Chmtel: Swimming beach, right. Boss everyone understand where all this
is coming from?
Councilwoman Oimler: Sort of. I'm not real clear but anyway.
17
City Council Heeting - May 18, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: What clear do you need?
Councilwoman Oimler: I remember that, and I didn't see the Minutes attached
from our last meetlng when we brought thls on and ! thlnk I would have 11ked to
see them. I remember something about the Minutes of the Homeowners Association
pre-dating our ordinance. Is that correct?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Some of that's in here.
Councilwoman Dimler: And those Minutes stated 4 boats and it pre-dated our
ordinance so I'm saying my feeling is still the same. If it pre-dated our
ordlnanoe, then it was 4 whether they had 4 out there physically or not. I'd be
inclined to go along with the 4 boats and all the other thlngs that they are
asklng for. One dock, 64 feet. Swlmming beach and what was the other one?
Mayor Chmiel: Canoe rack.
Councilwoman Oimler: Canoe rack, okay. I haven't changed my feeling on that
since our last meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: In the scope of what's going on in the world right now, I
guess I do question a little bit spending this amount of time on this issue.
It's real hard to know on that one date whether there were 2 boats out in the
water or not. Or if there was one boat out in the water. Whether there were no
boats out in the water. The fact remalns there have been 4 boats there for
quite some time I believe. Ooes anyone know how long? Oo we have that
information? Bo you know off hand?
Kate Aanenson: They have documentation as far as the 1986 survey which we
included. And they provlded documentation too. In the 1986 survey they said
they had 4 speed boats. The staff did.
Mayor Chmiel: Tom, we're on Trolls 61en.
Councilman Workman: Shoot.
Councilwoman Oimler: Did you get this report?
Councilman Workman: Yes I did.
Councilman Mason: In terms of what's my personal preference would be 2 boats.
I think what's best for the ctty. There have been 4 boats there for 6 or 7
years and I'm a 11ttle hard pressed to say that we need to take those 2 back,
although before I make a, I want to hear what everyone on Council has to say.
know we've gone through the argument before about well, lt's wrong and there was
that ordinance with the Minutes prior to that saying there could be 4. I think
that does change lt. So I thlnk I'll let Councilman Workman oatch bls breath.
Councilman Workman: I guess I don't have a whole lot to say. It's the
discussion of whether it comes down to 2 boats or 4 and we had looked at this
one earlier on. I guess I fell on the side of the 4 for a lot of the same
18
City Council Heeting - Hay 18, 1992
reasons. I didn't hear a lot of the other reasons you guys had. To me it
doesn't appear to be so overly used that it is a prob[ee. [na genera[ sense,
it does come down to a property right that may have been built into-some of the
other properties that, if they have those rights, it means their properties more
valuable. If they don't, and so it's not Just a lake useage as much as It ts
what is perceived by the property owner as something that he has that maybe
somebody else in the neighborhood doesn't. Which makes it-difficult. Which ts
an added dimension to all of it. It's not Just, I like to go fishing and so I
keep my boat there. It's an issue of, if I move and sell my home someday, it
makes a difference at that point. And so that's why looking through all the
details and trying to weigh tt all out, I ended up.on that side.
Hayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess some of the same reasons that you have Just
finished saying is what I went through in reviewing this and came up with pretty
much some of the same determinations. Although I did come up with a couple
things that I did want to find out. When that #as platted, was that outlot be
part of that plat as well? And there are how many homeowners.within that
association presently?
Kate Aanenson: 12.
Hayor Cheiel: Total of 12. 5 of those existing and with the others on the out
portion. Okay. 4 for L2 to me is not that bad either, and I know there's sole
safety concerns that some of the things that were brought up by Hr. Herz and Hr.
Johnson too. We can't police that but I'm sure the homeowners themselves can
po[ice that portion of tt within that area. ! feel that if everyone In that
specific residential development watches what happens and whether it be you or
your grandkids or your nieces or nephews or sons or whoever, they have to be
cautioned to the safety of that. Because I think that was some of the concerns
that were there by the other homeowners and ! think we have to look at that.
You're the people that have to do the policing of it. We can't as I said. But
other than that ! think ! have sort of [maned to that 4 boats on there.
I realize too the least amount of boats that ue put on that lake environmentally
it's the best for the lake as well...association bringing that up in 1981. Hy
tendency is to lean that way right now. Hichae[.
Counci[man Hason: Can ue do anything about the safety issue? If safety becomes
a concern, can we pull this back if we approve 4 boats tonight?
Hayor Chmtel: I thlnk that's part of the Sheriff's responsibilities rather than
ours when they do police those particular areas. The water patrol. And I don't
think that we as a city have that kind of jurisdiction, Can you make. that
correction Roger?
Roger Knutson: Un[ike a conditional use permit ~here if someone violates the
conditions you Impose on it or a variance or ~hat have you, they don't follow
the conditions you can revoke the permit. In this case you.can't because all
you're doing, in this process ts Inventorying what you think they have the right
to or had in place on that date in 1982. So all you're saying is here's our
grandfather rights. Here's our rights to continue to use the property because
that's what they've got. That's how they're using it in 1982, unless they come
Into conformity with your current ordinance, ~hich in this case would be
impossible. So you couldn't revoke it.
19
City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Roger.
Councilwoman Oimler: One other question and that's pertaining to all of the
beachlots that Kate brought up and that was to set the date at February 24,
1993. Does that need approval by Council or was that different than it was?
Kate Aanenson: Your ordinance only adopted it. It said you have to come into
compliance or cease within one date of the adoption and we adopted it on
February 24th so that's where that.
Councilwoman Oimler: Oh, so that doesn't need further approval? Okay.
Councilman Workman: [ don't know how much I didn't catch. Maybe I can...Roger,
I was kind of through this whole process back earlier a few months, I was kind
of shocked at how the Counc11 klnd of had to become the Judge and jury in all
this. There's been people that have put a lot of time, effort and money into
protecting what they thought was theirs. How dld that happen? How dld we get
into the buslness of, I mean the courts kind of said, tell that Council to
figure it out.
Roger. Knutson: Mayor, if I could respond?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, go ahead.
Roger Knutson: A lawsuit was brought by someone against the ~ssociation or it's
members saying that they were in violation of the city's zoning ordinance
because they had too many boats out there. The court found, as it really should
have, that private citizens can't enforce the city's zoning ordinance. Only the
city can enforce their zoning ordinance so it dismissed the case saying that if
there's a violation, the city is the person that has to enforce it's ordinances
and prosecute violations.
Mayor Chmiel: ~ny other discussion?
Councilwoman Oimler: It's ali been said.
Mayor Chmiel: If hearing none, I would then call a question and ask for a
motion.
Councilman Workman: Can the motion be as simple as 4 boats versus 2?
Councilwoman Oimler: Well there's 3 other things we have to approve, right?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. We also have the dock, the canoe rack and the swimming
area besides 4 boats.
Tom Merz: Can we ask a question?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Would you like to come up to the microphone and please
state your name and your address please.
Tom Metz: My name is Tom Merz. I lived on this lake and been part of this
thlng for 30 years. I served the first, or probably 10 years on that Carver
20
City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992
County Parks in preserving Lake Htnnewashta and I was on the Planning Commission
for 6 to 7 years. Or 4 to 5 years. What bothers me is I sit here tonight and I
think this is the third or fourth meeting that we've come to and this Planning
Commission and your other members have been, we're so exactly opposite. They
had voted in favor of number one, to maintain this 1982 baseline for purposes
of, we spent so much time screwing around, for lack of a better word, trying to
figure out whether they should have 2 or 4 boats but you've got to remember that
this is a precedent case and if you allow this, it isn't 2 or 4 boats. It's a
50~ or 100~ increase over the useage that they presently have. And now you're
going to start fooling around with Carver County Parks. These people have got
50-60 boats and you want to increase this useage SO~ or 100~. You're starting
something that you can't stop and that's the purpose of this thing. We said we
finally had a guideline or a baseline so that ail of us would agree to and now
the first thing we're going, we're throwing that out the window and I think
that's what I object to. Other than that, it just seems how can we be so
diametrically opposed between our Planning Commission that does this work and
now we go to the City Council and we have a completely opposite opinion. Thank
you.
Mayor Chmiel: Tom, there was one additional thing that some of the people on
the Planning Commission did mention. That maybe they should have 3 boats. So
they didn't take that full stance with that. With the 1982 baseline.
Tom Metz: And it isn't, it isn't Trolls alert. I mean Trolls Glen.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I understand what you're saying.
Tom Metz: Because to me it's something that we're all involved in. The next
one is going to be the Minneaashta Heights and they've got 10 boats and they're
coming back for 20 boats and I mean my God, we're going to see this increase and
we haven't set a precedent. We haven't established any rules that we. want to
live by and I thought that was the purpose of our 1982 baseline. And these
people have gone back of the burden of the.proof and maybe it's exorbtnant but
it is burden of proof. There were 2 boats there in 1982 and while yeah, but
because we had an ordinance. Yeah, but well. On the Planning Commission we
must have listened to every other week there was a.new group of. people would
come in here and say, well yeah but we've got some plans in the future. Well,
let's stick with something we agree to and that was 1982 was the baseline..
Councilwoman Oimler: I guess I'd like to comment on that too and that it was
the Planning Commission was not in unanimous agreement. I believe the vote was
4-3. Rlso, ! remember and that's why I would have liked to have had the Minutes
from our last meeting. We did specifically state at that time that we would look
at each individual case and Trolls Glen was definitely one that I had said that
we need to look at very carefully because the Minutes did pre-date the ordinance
and to me that weighs very, very heavily. Rnd I do not want, I.don't think
this is a precent setting case because we will look at the other cases very,
very specifically and if they don't have some very, very good reason for
doubling, I certainly won't approve it. Because I do agree that we need to
protect our lakes and we need to have safety and for all those good reasons but
in this particular case, because the Minutes do pre-date the ordinance, I th£nk
they have a very good case for the 4.
21
City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992
Tom Metz: Yeah but there's housing developments out there that have ordinances
that they haven't developed their pieces of property. I mean they could have
pre-dated Minutes that they could come in and say that same argument. Then
you'd arbitrarily let them?
Councilwoman Oimler: No, because we now have an ordinance in place that would
cover it all.
Tom Metz: Excuse me. I'm arguing something that, you listen to me, I'll listen
to you.
Councilwoman Dimler: It's just that we have been given the ungodly task of
determining what was out there and I can only base it on what the information
that has been glven me.
Tom Merz: Yeah but we did determine what was out there.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well but like they said though, you can't prove that.
Tom Metz: We did determine in 1982. There's pictures and you have depositions
what was out there in 1982.
Councilwoman Oimler: Yeah but you can't prove that that was, that there weren't
boats gone when the picture was taken.
Tom Metz: Yeah, but that was the rules. We said 1982 is the baseline. That
was the rules when we left these last 3 or 4 meetings. 1982 is the baseline.
We all agreed to it. Now the flrst one that comes in, we're talking.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's right but you can't prove that there weren't
boats gone in 1982 when that plcture was taken.
Tom Metz: I think if you read that deposition, that very definitely, and they
took depositions of Mr. Bernie Schneider and Ivan Underdahl. I mean these are
very substantial people. And their deposition says there was only 2 boats.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Councilwoman Oimler: Our interpretations are different.
Mayor Chmiel: Rather than have the rheteroic going back and forth.
Councilwoman Oimler: Yeah, it's just difference of interpretation and that's
what we're saylng.
Mayor Chmiel: We're not going to argue points now. And I don't want those
feelings going amongst neighbors to neighbor. That's not my intent.
Tom Metz: That isn't my purpose either. I guess these people are very
substantial people. My children have gone through the grade school and my flrst
checking account was through Bernle Schneider so belleve me, I have no
anomosity. Hopefully I'm good friends. I certainly, maybe I know him. Good
friends or not. Excuse me. That's the reasons. I'm sorry I stepped up.
Anything else I can, I just thought I had to point that out.
22
City Council Meeting - May 18,
Councilwoman Dialer: Because I want you to know this won't be precedent setting
for me. Z mean I won't give everybody else a 50~ increase just because we did
it here.
Tom Metz: Okay. I would hope that our efforts would go towards fighting
milfoil instead of boats or something on our lake. Thank you.
Councilwoman Oimler: So with that ! move approval.
Councilman Mason: [ just want to make a quick comment on what Councilwoman
Dimler said about precedent setting. We talk about that with variances a lot
and [ think we do take each one as it comes along. Obviously we're in a can't
win situation up here. ! mean make no mistake. Whatever we decide to do, there
are going to be unhappy people. That's one reason we're up here and you're out
there ! guess. But ! do think in this particular Instance, there are some
circumstances that [ honestly don't know whether there were 2 or 4 boats, there
and I'm not denying the thing In the deposition. I'm not denying-the thing that
I got from Trolls Glen and I do think regardless, well I know regardless of how
I vote on this one, I share Ursula's concerns that this by no means is precedent
setting. I think each one does really have to look at very carefully. And I
think you know this. You're certainly not the only one that shares a concern
about the quality of the lakes around here.
Mayor Chmiel: Tom, anything more? Okay, with that then I'll call that question
one more time and ask for a motion.
Councilwoman Dialer: I'd make the motion if I knew what it should be. I guess
it's to say Trolls Glen gets one dock, is it 64 feet in length? Correct me if
I'm wrong. One canoe rack. A swimming area. Swimming beach and 4 boats.
Mayor Chmiel: 4 power boats.
Councilwoman Oimler: Power boats.
Mayor Chmiel: Somehow I would like for us to really emphasize that 4 power
boats will only be allowed at that location. If you would accept that as a
friendly amendment.
Councilwoman Oimler: You mean it can never be amended? Zs that what you're
saying? They can never come in and ask for more?
Roger Knutson: Not unless you amend your ordinance. Again what you're doing,
in this case you're not giving a conditional use permit where you can amend it
and add and subtract from it. You're basically performing an inventory function
to determine what rights they had when this ordinance went into effect in 1982.
By your motion you're finding that in 1982 they had the right to have 4 boats
there.
Mayor Chmtel: And not to exceed.
Roger Knutson: Not to exceed 4 boats. You can't amend this because you'd be
amending history. A11 you're really doing is.
City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992
Councilwoman Dimler: Did I state it correctly or how should I state it Roger?
Roger Knutson: Just perfect.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Councilman Workman: Second.
Counc/lwoman D/mler moved, Councilman Workman seconded that Trolls Glen Non-
Conforming Reacreational Beachlot be allowed the use of one dock, ~ feet tn
length, one canoe rack, a swlmming beach and 4 power boats. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
RECEZVE FEASTBTLTTY STUDY UPDATE FOR STREET AN UTIL/TY IHPROVEPENT~ TO TETON
LANE (LTL~C LANE TO ASHTON COURT) AND LTLAC .LANE (TETON LANE TO COUNTY RO~D 17);
CALL PUBLTC HEARING, PROJECT 91-4.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Engelhardt and Associates
has completed the feasibility study for improvements to Teton Lane. Proposed
residential development in the area has required an evaluation of needed servioe
improvements for the local area. The speclflc elements on the project for
improvements include street work on the portton of Teton Lane from Lllac to
Ashton Court and Lllac Lane from Teton Lane east to County Road 17. Improvements
of those road segments up to the city's current standard road section. Storm
drainage, sanltary sewer and watermaln ls also included. Staff and the
consultant, project consultant engineer have had a number of meetings with the
developer and the clty of Shorewood durlng this study process. Shorewood wtll
be taking this report before their Council on May 26th. As mentioned in the
staff report, there are some lssues surrounding the existing barricade on Teton
Lane north of Ashton Court. Staff continues to support it's removal. The total
project cost is estimated at $142,610.00 which ls to be financed via speclal
assessments and general obligation. At this time staff recommends receipt of
this report and calling of a public hearlng on this project to be scheduled for
June 8th. The project consultant engineer will give a formal presentation of
thls report at that publlc hearlng.
Mayor Chmtel: Thank you Charles. Can we, there's some concerns regarding speed
if thls were to open. [s there any way that we as a city can put a speed bump
in that location to slow that traffic down? If that is some of the concerns of
the exlstlng neighbors. If and when that street once opens. And Z'd also like
to see us keep this contingent upon the Shorewood approval. If Shorewood
doesn't approve lt, then [ thlnk we should have another look at lt.
Charles Folch: Yeah, we will have that information hopefully as I mentioned,
they're meeting ls scheduled for the 26th so we should have that information for
the public hearing. We can certainly take a look at measures of speed control.
Speed bumps though, from that standpoint, are very difficult to maintaln during
the winter climate. They become.
Mayor Chmiel: I realize that.
24
City Council Meeting - May I8, 1992
Charles Folch: But that's certainly something we can discuss and look at
whether it be from a design standpoint or something else. We can take a look at
the speed issue.
Mayor Chmlel: Okay. Is there anyone that would like to say something at this
time?
Donna Pickerd: I do have some questions but.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up to the microphone please and just state
your name and your address?
Donna Pickerd: I'm sorry. My name is Donna Plckerd and I live at 1215 Lilac
Lane and I have some questions but I don't want to kind of ask them out of
context. I guess if the public hearing is where these questions should be
heard. I mean I don't want to be out of line here.
Mayor Chmiel: If you want to discuss some of these things and they can be
discussed at this meeting or the next one as well.
Councilman Mason: It clearly will come up at the public hearing.
Donna Pickerd: I'm sure they'll come up at the public hearing. I guess I had
thought there was a mistake in the feasibility study. It said that 3ames
oonovan owned a strip of land along Teton Lane and as far as I know, I don't
think he owns that. Who wrote the study? Nobody here wrote the study?
Char[es Fo[ch: That's something we can check. Typically our consultants get
that information from the County. That's something we can certainly go back and
recheck but that information was gotten from the County property owner list.
Paul Krauss: I probably can shed some light on that. I think the bank
repossessed it from Donovan sometimes since the tax records were set up so they
may not be up to date but it's ay understanding that the...
Donna Pickerd: So that would be a mistake. So that Hilloway would be assessed
for 17 units on the assessment chart rather than the 15 that's in that chart
now?
Charles Folch: Yeah, the proposed Ithilten subcLtvision would be assessed for
each unit proposed within their plat so It ends up being I& or [7 or 18.
Whatever it is that they get approval on with their plat. That's ho~ many units
they will be charged.
Donna Pickerd: And if we had questions about specific changes like to the road
and stuff, that I can bring up at the public hearing?
Paul Krauss: Sure.
Donna Pickerd: So to understand how, what is being, uhat ls the process now,
you're presenting this to the council to look at between now and 3une 8th and
for them to study and if we have any problems with it now as a neighborhood or
25
City Council Meeting - Hay 18, 1992
as individuals, we can either write letters or talk to them between now and then
or also bring up questions then? I think that's all I had now.
Don Ashworth: Well, if I may. The City Council is the one that calls for the
pubIic hearing so we're presenting the item asking that the Council call for the
hearing on June 8th. That's the reason at this meeting.
Donna Pickerd: Yeah, okay. Thank you.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you have a copy of the feasibility study?
Donna Pickerd: Yes I do.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Florence Nato11: I can't keep my mouth shut. Florence Nato11, 6251 Teton Lane.
Now, I've got so many things marked in highlights on here but mostly what gets
me ls on page 1, 2 and 8. There's the words benefitted properties. Good lord,
we are not being benefitted in any way that I know of. I just can't see it
except that someday when we're both ready to dle or one of us does, we might
sell the place. God forbid that either one of us does in the next 10 years. I'm
supposed to 1lye until I'm 88 because everyone in may family dld so I've got a
long ways to go. But thls bugs me because that little btt of wording there.
Now let me flnd thls on number 8, is going to cost us $&,571.78. That's a lot
of benefits which we're not going to get. And as far as the safety of that road
ls concerned. Zf it had been done 11ke it was supposed to, and I have looked
back in my, I've got all the feasibility studies and all the background. And it
should have been a break away like we suggested they have over on Christmas Lake
Road and it's been there for 10-12 years that I know of and it's never been re-
opened. There are 4 houses that are completely cut off wlth the break aways on
Christmas Lake Road and they haven't done a thing or nobody's hollered. They're
gettlng along just flne. Zt can be done. That road can be closed. When we
talked to the Planning Commission, what would that be? The day I came back from
San Francisco. About the 26th of March and Z was darn tlred but ! can't figure
out why they had it figured out in their little minds that Ithllien is not going
to use that road going and drlvlng all the way through Centex. The only people
that are going to make use of that Teton Lane are those that are mentioned here,
21 homes on Teton Lane. They're the ones that are going to have this 210 cars
going down the road. So there's no reason that it still can't be left closed
and use break away. That was what it was supposed to be. Centex got out of
paying some money because no one kept after them to change that blockade. I say
that blockade can't be drlven through. There's no way it could be but it should
have been a break away. So Bill did that feas£bility study too so he knows that
he wrote break away in there and it should have been done and Z just oan't
understand why we, the three people on that road one of wh£ch, us. The only one
that use it and we're golng to have to pay for thls roadwork whlch we don't
need. We don't want. Because of the fact that it is benefitted property and
we're not benefitted in any way. I am in favor, if they want to bulld those
houses, fine. I'm not agalnst development. Th£s is not what I'm mad about. I
am angry that they're golng to dlsrupt our whole area for those houses and those
houses do not even need to use that road and we don't need the sewer. We don't
need the water and ue don't need the road. We're happy just the way it ls. So
I don't know. I'm going to have to come to that other meettng too. I'll be at
26
City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992
every meeting until you guys make up your mind but ! have enough arguments
against it and ! thought that Bill would be here tonight and I would ask him
what happened to his Ideas before. ! don't know why we and those poor people on
the corner that just moved there a l£ttle over a year ago. They're going to be
stuck with that same $6,500.00 and they don't use Teton either. It's getting to
be kind of a nasty feeling for all of us. We're going to be against those poor
people when they move into Ith~lien before they ever get there. But thanks for
listening because when I got this thing today, I started reading through it and
marking and I thought, this is ridiculous that We should be paying for something
ae don't need. But if you guys can prove to ne there will be a benefit to me,
I'll be real happy. ! don't know how it's going to be but I've already told you
that several times. Thank you.
Frank Natoli: The storm sewer.
Florence NatoIi: Oh yeah. I guess he forgot that we have a storm sewer in
front of our house. When they put in our sewer, they put in a store sewer
because there was one all the time when Bach had tt 40-50 years ago, it was put
in there and they were going to close tt and Frank talked to them. before they
got It done and they put in a storm sewer. So we even have the storm sewer In
front of our house.
Mayor Chm£el: That's existing.
Charles Folch: I belleve it's a culvert right now.
Florence Natol£: No, it's an open big thing like this with.
Charles Folch: It has an inlet to it but I believe it's a culvert section that
drains underneath the road there. This would be, the storm sewer we're adding
ls to take care of not only incorporate that but also Incorporate the road
dratnage now that we'll have the barrier curb on it so.
Florence Natoli: So you're going to have 2 storm sewers? The one in front of
our house and then you're going to have one up by Ware's too?
Charles Folch: No.
Florence NatoLi: That's what the picture shows.
Charles Folch: They're not shouing the.
Mayor ChmleI: They don't show the one tn front of Natoli's.
Charles Folch: It may be because it being considered a culvert type situation
but we can certainly take a look at that.
Florence Natoli: Centex put it in.
Mayor ChmieI: They did? Does that drain direct[y into the field or into that
proposed development area?
27
City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992
Charles Folch: It will drain into, any storm sewer system on Teton will drain
into the detention pond that's being proposed on the Ithilien development there.
Florence Natoli: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: That'd be drawing number 4 I think Ls what he's referencing. Is
that correct?
Charles Folch: Right.
Frank Natoli: I'm her better half. Or she's my better half. One or the other.
Anyway, I was talking to some people on the south side of the blockade today and
they don't want it moved because they don't want all that trafflc going by thelr
house and I don't blame them. And they have little kids and they don't know how
they're going to get a fence up to keep their 11ttle klds ln. And one woman
says she's ready to move already. She's only been there a couple years and she
says we're about ready thinking, if they open it up, then we're thlnking of
moving out. And I don't blame those people. These cars come down that road and
they're dolng 40-50 mph and if there's klds out in that road, somebody's golng
to get killed out there. I know that for sure. I'm just glad I haven't got any
kids out there now. ! have great grandkids that come out and vlsit me once ina
while but we tie them up when they come out there so they can't get out. But my
great grandkids used to come out there and they thought they were out In the
country and they'd run all over and they'd climb trees and they'd go out tn the
road and they were very happy. And a lot of these people over in the Centex
area and the south end, they're happy the way it is because they go down there
wlth their baby buggles and wagons and the klds come down there wlth skateboards
and walk their dogs. Of course that's one thing I object to but I'd rather see
it that way. They let their dogs go on my lawn, I'm not going to 11ke that
either but I'll get along with the people as far as that's concerned. That's
a11. I just wanted to brlng that up.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Frank. Michael. Anything?
Councilman Mason: I have some concerns that I think ! will probably end up
coming up in the public hear£ng.
Mayor Chmlel: Thomas.
Councilman Workman: Yeah, me too. I feel like we're dolng some other City
Council's work here. You know. Don't you? Oon, which Counctl was it?
Councilwoman Dimler: Former Counc11.
Councilman Workman: Former Council. They should never have connected this road
up to this. Match these roads up together or should already be through or
something. Even if the barricade doesn't go up, the Natoli's still pay for
lmproved road, sewer and everything else, right?
Charles Folch: No, the properties located on the east side of Teton are not,
there wlll not be a sewer or water assessment to those properties. Although the
developer has agreed to provide stubs underneath the roadway for future service.
28
City Council Meet£ng - May 18, [992
Councilman Workman: Why does the barricade cause them? Why do they get the
assessments £f the barricade comes down?
Charles Folch= There'd be a road and storm sewer assessment. Not sanitary
sewer and watermatn.
Councilman Workman: The road isn't going to get upgraded if the barricade
doesn't come down?
Charles Fo[ch= We[[ ! think it has a chicken and egg situation here. ~s a part
of, or at Least the needed improvements in the area to facilitate the
development that's occurring, you need to both Improve the roadway up to city
standards to provide adequate road capacity and the other thing is, it's time
for the barricade to come down. Looking through previous Minutes, back from
those previous Council as was referred to, it's quite clear from their
statements that at that time they assumed this would be a temporary situation.
ALthough they were told that, by Mr. Oonovan on the record that his property was ·
in a [00 year trust. Would never be developed and we're sitting 3 years later,
now there's a development proposal on there. ~t it clearly was the Intent when
it was approved previously that it was probably an Interim situation.
Councilman Workman: [ still don't understand why they get the a~sessment if the
barricade comes down but not if it stays up.
Charles Fo[ch: No. There would be an assessment for the Improvements
irrelevant of the barricade.
Hayor CheieZ: Yeah, the barricade initially was a safety factor that they were
using that.
Councilman Workman: But still nothing really changes in their assessment. So
there's two issues here. One, the big bucks regardless and two, the barricade.
Hayor Chin[el: Yeah. Safety factors with the fire department and ambulance.
Councilwoman OimLer: I guess to piggyback onto that. Could we d%scues the
feasibility of a break away and how that would impact the entire situation?
Charles Fo[ch: Sure. In fact I've talked for about a year now ~e've been
working with a street maintenance personnel and the public safety department on
this issue because we have had a couple of calls where we've had some problems.
[n tm[king to our street maintenance personnel, their thought was, even if the
barricade was a flimsy drive thru barricade that you could push over with your
hand, the problem is in the wintertime they have no place to turn around or no
place to push the snow. So what happens is they end up.
Florence Natoli: They've got an easement. The~ can turn in our driveway. We
gave the city an easement to turn tn our driveway for maintenance workers.
Better look in the fi[es, it's in there.
Charles FoLch: It's an awfully Large file. EvidentaLly they aren't aware of
any easement either to turn around but basically they really, there's no place.
It's not like a cul-de-sac where they have maneuverability to ~o around and push
City Council Meeting ~ May 18, 1992
the snow away from the barricades so what ends up happening is it gets piled up
along the barricade so in the wintertime lt'd be non-functional.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions?
Councilwoman Dialer: So you're saying it's not very feasible. How's it working
on Christmas Lake?
Charles Folch: That must be the city of Shorewood. That's not ours.
Mayor Chmtel: No, that's the access to Christmas Lake and they were trying to
alleviate the problems with cars going to and from as well I guess. Okay. No
other discussions. I'll call the question for the potential of public hearing
that would be held on June 8th.
Charles Folch: That's correct.
Mayor Chmiel: For the update street and utility improvements to Teton Lane.
Councilwoman Dialer: If we don't call for a public hearing, can we stop the
project?
Mayor Chmiel: That'd be rather difficult. I thlnk we've got to get ali the
perspectus and get everything tied in.
Councilwoman Dimler: I know. I'm just teaslng.
Mayor Chmiel: You were being facetious.
Councilwoman Oimler: Yes.
Resolutio~ f92-&3: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
receive the feasibility study update for street and uttltty improvements to
Teton Lane and to call a public hearing for 3une 8, 1992. All voted in favor
except Councilman Workman who ~asn't present In the room at the time, and the
mot/on carded.
COMpREHENSiVE PLAN AMENDMENT ANO ZONING ORDINANCE AHEN~HENT (FIRST READING)
REGARDTN6 MTN~HUM LOT ST~ES TN .THE RURAL .SERyTCE AREA.
Kate Aanenson: I apologize that the original Plannlng Commission memo didn't go
with this report but just to give you some historical perspective of why this is
before you. Originally the Met Councll had required the 2.5 acre minlmum lot
size and when we did the Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement we asked them to look at
it slnce we realize that they had now eliminated that. That they agreed that we
could also eliminate that mlnimum standard so in December, 1991 when they
adopted that. I per 10 still remains in place but there ls no minimum. So
therefore we took it to the Planning Commission and we went ahead with no
minimum. The Plannlng Commission felt uncomfortable with that because our
minimum lot size in the city is 15,000 square feet so they felt it would make
sense to be consistent wlth that minimum lot slze. $o then we also looked at
the ramifications of the 2.5 acre lots, subdivisions that we already have in
place such as Timberwood. So what we did is, it's klnd of hard to read thls.
30
City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992
Your copy got crosshatched but we recommended that the comprehensive land use
plan be amended and that the zoning ordinance be amended in two places. The RE,
Rural Estate zone and then the RR zone. and what we're recommending, is that
those subdivisions that are in place right now continue to have the same minimum
lot size which would be 2 1/2 acres but any new subdivisions that would' come in
would still have to have the I per lO density but the minimaa lot size would
then be 15,000 square feet and the same development standards for the RSF, which
is 15,000 square feet would apply.
Mayor Chmiel: That almost all sounds like double talk.
Councilwoman Dialer: It does to me too.
Hayor Chmiel: Go ahead. I'm sorry.
Kate Aanenson: I was going to say that really we fell that it makes sense as
far as urban sprawl. If the people do want to be out in the rural area and then
later at a future date they want to split those lots off again, it makes sense
for land use planning to have those in the fashion that they can be easily
subdivided again.
Hayor Chmiel: Okay. This is in accordance with the Metropolitan Council. The
City adopted, December 5, 1991 right? Okay.
Councilwoman Dimler: Is this favoring clustering then to make future
development easier for connection to utilities?
Kate Aanenson: Right.
Paul Krauss: Well frankly also...it also allo~s somebody in the non-HUSA area'
to continue farming but still get a little bit of value having a few homesites
on the corner...
Mayor Cheiel: Any questions?
Councilwoman Dialer= And it does prevent Timberwoods from occurring again?
Kate Aanenson: They could go in that way.
Paul Krauss: It doesn't prevent it from happening. It gives another option to
that rural property owner so hopefully he won't do that. You can still come in
with whatever sized lots you want.
Mayor Chaiel: Okay, can I have a motion regarding staff recommendation?
Councilman Workman: So moved.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution 192-&4: Councilean gorkman coved, CouncIleantttsonseconded to
approve the amendment to the CoeprehensivePlan and Zoning Ordinance to
eliminate the minimum lot size in the rural area as noted in the staff report
dated Hatch 20, 1992. ~11 voted in favor and the eotion carried.
31
City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992
Councilman Workman: It's kind of funny that the word Timberwood now, it's kind
of Chanhassen speak now. It's you're acting so Timberwoodish. Somebody can be,
oh you're from Tlmberwood.
COUNCIL PRESENTATION:
Mayor Chmiel: The only thing I just wanted to remind the Council of was that we
wil1 have a goal setting meeting on May 28th. The same day that we have HRA and
[ thlnk Scott indioated that it was from 6:00 to 8:00. HRA starts at 7:30 so I
would think that we would either be from 5:30 to 7:30 or from 6:00 to ?:30.
Councilwoman Oimler: We have Southwest Metro that night and also I'm going to
be out of town.
Mayor Chmiel: What time?
Councilwoman Dimler: Southwest Metro starts at 7:00 to 9:30. Can ue make it
another night after the 28th?
Mayor Chmiel: My suggestion is to talk to them and see if we can't come up with
another date then if that's not going to work. Hake sure that everybody else
wlll be there.
Councilman Mason: Fourth Thursdays are always Southwest Metro.
Mayor Chmtel: Don, could you check that out with Scott? We have 2 that can't
make it. I can make it and I know Tom can make lt.
Don Ashworth: Those meet earlier?
Councilman Mason: Yeah, Southwest Metro is at 7:00 and it's the fourth
Thursday.
Councilwoman Oimler= It's always the fourth, the same as the HRA.
Don Ashworth: Okay. We weren't very good then in picking out the HRA night as
the night to do those on.
Councilwoman Oimler: No. Because two of us will never be able to make that.
Mayor Chmiel: ~nd I'd just as soon have all Council there for that goal.
Don Ashworth: What about Wednesdays?
Mayor Chmiel: The 2?th?
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm going to be out of town.
Hayor Chmiel: How about Sunday morning the 31st?
Councilwoman Dimler: That's great. That's my anniversary. I can be here.
Don Ashworth: What about the Planning Commission in June.
32
City Council Heeting - Hay I8, 1992
Kate Aanenson: The 3rd and the 17th.
Don Ashworth: The 3rd and the [7th of 3une.
Hayor Cheiel: 3rd and 17th of 3une?
Councilwoman Otmler: June 3rd rings a bell. What is it?
Hayor Chmiel: Planning Commission meets that evening at 7:30. So meet that
night?
Don Ashworth: Yeah, start at 5:30-&:00 and be done by 7:30 so Paul can get down
there.
Hayor Chmiel: How does the 3rd of 3une look for everybody?
Councilwoman Dialer: Is that a Wednesday?
Hayor Chmiel: That's a Wednesday. Same evening that the Planning Commiss/on
has. [f we started that at say 5:30.
Don Rshworth: I think the first one will be public safety. Or this one is
proposed for public safety. [ really think we'd be done in an hour and a half.
Really, from Planning Oepartment standpoint, tt really wouldn't matter if it dtd
go past 7:30. So I mean Scott's position of 6:00 to 8:00 would work just fine.
Ha¥or Cheiel: Alright, let's put it down for the 3rd. Hight ! suggest that
with the abvent of summer coming upon us, that we try to eliminate all these
additional meetings because of other thtngs.
Don Rshworth: Do you want to skip 3uly then?
Kate ~anenson: Hr. Hayor, on the 18th of 3une didn't you commit to 3oan
Ahrens? I was just putting together a letter for the HRR meeting.
Hayor Chmiel: Yeah. That's at 5:30.
Councilman gorkaan: ghat issue is that?
Hayor Chmiel: The golf course discussion. That mould be prior to HRA on the
[8th.
Councilwoman Dialer: We don't have a meeting that night do
Kate aanenson: That's an HRR meeting.
Oon Ashworth: That's a third Thursday.
Kate Aanenson: You'll be getting that letter this seek.
Hayor Cheiel: So put that doan on your calendars. 3une 18th at 5:30.
Councilman Workman: That's specif[ca[ly on the golf course?
33
City Coundil Meeting - May 18, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. The study that they've gone through and some of the
reviews.
Councilman Mason: Now we're meeting on the 3rd now right for goals?
Mayor Chmiel: The 3rd for.
Councilwoman Dimler: A joint meeting with.
Mayor Chmiel: Public safety at 6:00 p.m. on goals. Item number 7. Single
family distrlct lot slzes, Plannlng Director.
Councilwoman Oimler: Did you want to put Council Presentations in there first
or shall
Mayor Chmiel: I just did it. Oh no. Wait all. Stop it Paul. Ursula did have
something.
Councilwoman Dimler: I had one, yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes you did and I had it over here.
Councilwoman Oimler: In reading through the Minutes of April 27th, I came upon
the variance of Mr. how do you say his name? Whatever. You know what I mean.
The deck and then I remember that we sald something about in order to prevent
this in the future or to have some bite for future Councils that we should maybe
come up with an ordinance to have a stiff flne for anyone that builds anything
without a permit. And I don't know who specifically. I didn't want to drop the
ball on it basically. That's why I brought it up. Who has to draft that type
of an ordinance or that type of a ruling? Is it an administrative procedure?
Roger, can you tell us.
Roger Knutson: I guess I'm in charge of drafting ordinances.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Would it take an ordinance to do that? To put a
fine onto.
Roger Knutson: You have a fine right now so to speak. Double permit fee right
now. Under the Uniform Building Code.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm talking about something stiffer.
Councilman Workman: Doesn't that, even if it's stiffer, don't you kind of.
Then we're glvlng people the option to go ahead...
Councilwoman Oimler: I understand that argument but on the other hand, they're
going to continue to do it and we're going to get nothing out of it except to
approve it after it's done. I don't see future Councils being too likely to
say, well take it down.
Mayor Chmiel: We've done it.
34
City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992
Councilman Workman: Say okay, you've got the option to keep it up. It will be
5 times... Because otherwise people are going to say, it has to be really steep
because otherwise they're going to say, well let's see here. I've got-an
option. It only costs me an extra thousand. Heck, I make that every day.
Councilwoman Dialer: You do? ! don't. To me a $1,000.00 fine is pretty stiff
[ mean [ think.
Councilman Workman: But no, there's going to be a lot of people in town that
will say, that's nothing. I'll build the deck. Z'll keep it up and I'll be in
violation but tough.
Councilwoman Oimler: Well okay. This gentleman was in violation and absolutely
noth£ng happened to him and we've seen others like that and I don't remember,
did ue make someone actually take it down.
Hayor Chmiel: Yes.
Don Ashworth: Chart Estates.
Councilman Workman: They just modified it.
Councllwoaan Dialer: They modified it and they bought extra land. I mean they
got around It.
Paul Krauss: No, there's two separate ones. The Febreves up in Pheasant Hills
bought extra land. The other one actually had to slice off a piece of their
deck and...
Councilwoman Dtmler: But they didn't take the whole thing down?
paul Krauss: They sliced off the offending portions.
Councilwoman Oimler: Okay. Now tn this particular one would have had to take
the whole thing down because the whole thing was offensive right? Was the whole
thing offensive in thts particular case that he would have had to take
everything down?
Paul Krauss: Well, in thls particular case, as I recall, where he put the deck
he probably would have only got about 5 feet of it.
Mayor Chmiel: Each case is separate upon review as we look at that rather than
do.
Roger Knutson: If I can point out one of the difficulties. Here, where you
have a situation where you say gee, we think this guy did it deliberately.
That's how you feel but tt's up and therefore we're not going to be the mean
guys and make him tear it down. That's unusual. Host of the times I would
think when someone comes in and doesn't get a butlding permit, everything is
just fine. I mean oftentimes they come tn. They butld their deck. They build
their addition.
Councilwoman Oimler: Oh they don't need a vartance you're saying?
35
City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992
Roger Knutson: No. They just build it and they didn't know or they
deliberately didn't get it or whatever the situation and so the building
inspector comes out. Inspects it. Stamps it. Everything's fine but so you get
the double permit fee. That's the more norm so if you were to have a situation
where someone was totally legal except but for a building permit, you might not
feel this is appropriate to impose a super fine on those folks.
Councilwoman Oimler: I see. So this is not a variance situation you're talking
about here? Okay.
Roger Knutson: No. Most of them aren't because they won't get building
permits. They're Just trying to save the $50.00 or whatever the permit fee is.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well, that's a major concern. That's a real major
concern. But if you don't feel we need it, Z guess I just didn't want to drop
the ball and carry through on my part. If the rest of you want to drop the
ball, that's fine.
Mayor Chmiel: Drop the deck. Okay, let's move on.
RQUINISTRAT~VE .PRESENTATIONS:
.~INGLE FAMILY DISTRXCT LOT SIZES, PLANNING DIRE_CT~R.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, in April there was some questions raised at the City
Council meeting about lot size. I was not present that night but I was asked to
write a response addressing your concerns and it fit in rather well since the
Planning Commission wanted a similar memo from me so ! didn't have to write it
twice. The first thing I wanted to make clear is the Planning Commission has
indeed been reviewing lot area requirements. But they have not been reviewing
it in the context of the RSF district. With one or two minor exceptions with
statements of individuals on the Planning Commission, they've solely been
looking at lot area relative to single family lots in PUD's. You may recall we
adopted a new PUD ordinance last year. About a year ago right now and when we
did that, I urged the Planning Commission to move forward with it because I
thought we needed it to accommodate the kinds of development that we're seeing
on TH 5. Ryan Development, that kind of thing. Because the Planning Commission
at that polnt couldn't flgure out how small lots could be allowed to be ina
PUD, I said let's move forward with that section of the ordinance. We'll just
forget about the residential for now. We'll work that out. Unfortunately, so
far we haven't been able to come up with any solutions but that's the only
context that we've talked about lot sizes. There was really never any
conscience effort to raise lot slzes beyond 15,000 square feet. Now beyond that
I put together information on the 15,000 square foot lot slze or lot slze in
general. The flrst thing I put in this report is, I picked a number of
communities that I thought had some similarity to us either because they're in
proximity to Chanhassen or they're in a similar development status. And that's
on the seoond page and I thlnk you can see from there that our lot size is
considerably in excess of most communities standards with the exception of
Shorewood and Minnetonka. Now both Shorewood and Minnetonka take, I don't want
to characterize it unfalrly but they have a fairly, well elitest approach to
development. I mean the only home you can bulld in Minnetonka, I mean I don't
think you can build one today for under $350,000.00 and the city doesn't
36
City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992
particularly care because that's Just the way it is. Shorewood I'm not as
familiar with but the fact of the matter Is, our lot size Ls quite large when
stacked up most of the metro area. ['d also like to point out that the density
in Chanhassen, density we develop at Is a lot lower tn Chanhassen than virtually
anyplace else in the Twin Cities. [n large part ! think that has to do with the
field that makes this a special place to Live. There's a lot of reasons for
that but [ note that the Metro Council assumes the average density is 2 1/2
units an acre In suburban development. Our average density is 1.7 units an acre
and it's because we were protecting wetlands before anybody else was. We have a
pretty hefty park dedication requirement. Our streets are nLce and wide. You
add all that stuff up and you're Just not getting the same number-of units that
you could in another community. Now all the cities are supposed to adhere to
the wetland protection that we've been doing for 8 years so maybe that will come
down a little bit tn some of those communities but still I think it's a good
factor. The last thing [ note is that we've got, if you view this-as a regional
or community wide system, we've got a tremendous amount of open space in this
community that's permanently set aside and It's wonderful that it is. It's the
National Wildlife Refuge. [t's the Arboretum. It's Minnewashta Regional Park.
Zt's our parks. You add all that up and you keep chipping away at what there Is
left to develop and I think you've got a system where we have a tremendous
amount of green space and the development is happening almost inbetween. The
next thing I touched on is the issue of sprawl In general.- Suburban spraul's
that derogatory term that we've often heard about and I'm hoping that It's not
occurring term. That the kind of development that we've been having and other
communities have been having over the last 10-12 years is much more reasoned.
Much more intelligent and I think you see it in Chanhassen-'s efforts to develop
it's downtown. It's public facilities.. The care wm.-have, for protecting the
environment. I saw a line in the newspaper a couple months.ago that there's
nothing sub about suburbs anymore and I think that really fits quite well. The
Metro Council was set up to stop urban sprawl. I mean that's their primary
goal. That's why the MUSA line exists and sprawl is quite simply Is the
gobbling up of land oftentimes leaping over some unused parcel to get something
cheaper a little further out. It has some very significant costs. I mean you
have to build schools. You have to build roads. You have to get fire and
police protection. School buses have to run down these streets. I thlnk
whether Timberwood is right or wrong Isn't an issue but I think it's an.example
of tremendous land intensive development. It has 26 homes in there. I think
very comfortably we're fitting 140 homes in a development site that's smaller
than Timberwood is and it's not to say that that lifestyle ts. good or bad or
indifferent. Simply that it's a much more land intensive type of development.
Land intensive development pushes the urban perimeter out at tremendously-fast
rates. If we all develop, if this community and Eden Prairie develop the same
way Timberwood developed, you'd have urban sprawl out to Young America and tt
would be going fast out there. Now that's the regional issue but I think the
local issue ts similar. I mean we're paying for the roads and uttlities..People
who buy houses are paying for the linear stretch of street and utilities.that go
tn front of their houses. So it's not this philosophical construct that the
Metro Council has. It's a very real cost on the ground for-us as a community
and for our residents. Environmental impact ts oftentimes, tt almost goes
against the grain to think that bigger lots are more damaging to the environment
but I often think that that isn't actually the case. Frankly I think there's
nothing holy about the urban lawn. It's a very massaged environment.-There's a
certain amount of grading that has to go tn for streets and homes, no'matter how
37
City Council Heeting - Hay 18, 1992
big the lots are and to a point, the bigger the lots are, the more area you're
massaging to get those units in. This is one of the primary reasons that as a
staff we've been advocating the PUD. Now whether that goes anyplace or not will
be up to you. But I think in Hans Hagen's development, he presented a very
interesting scenario where he was willing to adhere to our 15,000 square foot
average lot size. Old PUD's that caused us a lot of problems in the past went
below that and we've got a, we think we can address all those problems that
those PUD's have caused in the past. We're not going to try to defend them
because they did cause a little bit of problems but Hans was willing to come in
with a 15,000 or better average lot size. He wanted to put 20,000-25,000 square
foot lots in the woods by Timberwood but the 10,000 square foot lots would have
been out in the soybean field where you're basically masquerading anyway and it
doesn't hurt anything. I couldn't advise him to do that because the Planning
Commission hadn't decided this issue after 8 months of wrangling with it. I
think that environmentally it would have been a lot better in that. That would
have been appropriate clustering you know instead of massive use of 2 1/2 acre
lots. Appropriate clustering in the area that could have taken it. It also got
at that concern that was raised at the Planning Commission and I think here that
rightly or wrongly the folks in Timberwood seemed to feel that you had an
obligation to put bigger lots next to them because they were different. Well, I
don't know that I agree with that philosophically but functionally, Hans' plan
would have achieved that but we couldn't do that because we just had a, we did
15,000 across the board and I think we did an okay plat. I think we could have
done better. Costs of larger lots is an important factor. I think average lot
prices, and Tom you just purchased a home but lots cost $40,000.00 to
$50,000.00. Charles has been looking at lots and that's gradually if not
rapidly going up this year because we have a shortage of lots and a lot of
demand. It makes some sense that if we increase the lot size by 25~, you're
going to increase the cost by at least that much. Land is bought on a square
foot basis. A developer has to get what they think is a reasonable number of
lots out of it. There's additional linear feet of street and sewer and water
lines that have to occur to get the bigger lot. And just multiplying that out,
if you're $40,000.00 to $50,000.00 lot would have increased by $10,000.00 to
$12,000.00 if you add another 5,000 square feet. There's also a question I
have, and I don't know if this verges on an illegal. I touch based with Roger
on this or frankly the ethical but we have been assessing projects for years in
this community based on the assumption that people will get 15,000 square foot
lots out of that. Now that becomes meaningful if you own a piece of ground and
you accepted the assessments that you can get 10 units out of it. You paid x
number of dollars over the last bunch of years. If we then change the ordinance
it says, well you can't get your 10 lots but maybe you can get'6 or 7 because we
raised the lot area. I think we have something of an ethical concern at any
rate because somebody's been paying for something that they're not going to get.
$o I guess in summary, I think it's clear that we're not particular in favor of
raising the lot size. I mean there's nothing to stop anybody from coming in
with any size lot above 15,000 square feet that they think the market will bear
and I think we've seen time and time again where we have the more attractive
land. I'm not talking about the soybean fields right now but the wooded,
rolllng land that we have so much of in thls community, you tend to get larger
lots. The market bears it. It can support it and we get it. Over the 15 years
that I've been doing thls, I flnd I get to be much more 1'als affalre. Let the
economics of the thing decide and I thlnk that with the quality of land we have
in thls community, we've got every expectation that most of our lots are golng
38
City Council Neeting- Nay 18, 1992
to be somewhat in excess, if not greatly tn excess of that 15,000 square feet.
! do think that there are some issues with lots that need to be explored. You
know the Planning Commission's going to talk about the PUD again on Wednesday.
If you have any guidance for them, I'd sure appreciate it because they could
sure stand to be pointed in one direction or the other. And frankly this is not
an issue that we want to keep beating a dead horse on. I mean if we're going to
use 15,000 square foot lots, tell us. It's just being stuck in the middle and
it's kind of difficult right now. The other thing that I pointed out is that I
think we can fix the errors of the PUO's in the past. ! mean those PUO's were
sold to old City Councils for the wrong reasons. I'll save you money. I'll put
cheaper homes on there. I'll do this and this and this. There was no
expectation of quality development. There as no guarantee of what a developer
would provide. The ordinance was Ill equipped to deal with things like if you
build on this little lot, you can't put a deck on it. All those things can be
addressed but another thing that ! think needs to be addressed not on1¥ in PUD's
but everyplace is the useable or buildable ground on a lot. You can have a
15,000 square foot lot that's pretty junky and they're going to come back to you
for a variance if it's gobbled up by easements and wetlands and whatever else.
And one of the things that ! would encourage us to look at is mandating a
minimum butldable area. It's going to be smaller than 15,000. You'll still
have that area requirement. Gross area requirement but you'll have a buildable
area requirement and anytime a lot's platted, they would be obligated to
demonstrate to you that it can accommodate a reasonably sized home and a deck
and a yard area. That's something, whether or not you do the PUD I think you
ought to look at. With that I think I've said my piece.
Mayor Chmiel: Amen. Thank you. Any questions?
Councilwoman Dimler= Let me see if I've got this straight. You don't want to
go larger than 15,000 but you might be looking at going smaller?
Paul Krauss: Let's separate the two issues If we could Councilwoman Dialer.
The [5,000 square feet in a standard subdivision, I'm not proposing and the
Planning Commission's never proposed a change. The only place they're looking
at doing something different is within a PUB and the reason for that is two
fold. I mean we have expectations that we can have clustering and more open
space and more tree preservation and hopefully better quality development by
going PUB. ?hat's what we're getting. The developer on the other hand either
expects to get more homes or expects to lower their development cost-or expects
to be able to market a better quality product for the same dollars. One way of
achieving that is to lower the minimum lot area.
Councilwoman Dimler= Within a PUD.
Paul Krauss: Within a PUD. I've even come to the point where I'd be
comfortable saying that the average lot size in the PUD as Hans Hagen was
proposing is 15,000 but within that you've got a bottom end of 10. So
developer, you show us how you, right. The average is 15..So you show us how
you're going to do this and we will tell you if you've done a good enough job to
earn a PUD. Otherwise you don't have to do it. There's no obligation on your
part.
Councilwoman Dimler: I thought our PUD already allowed that~ I guess that's.
City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992
Paul Krauss: No. The old PUD ordinance had an average of 12,500 and I think it
went down to 10 or 9 but that vas eliminated last summer when we adopted the new
PUD ordinance. That was a bad PUD section and there was no desire to keep that
there because the projects that we had come in under it weren't very good.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think with the smaller size lots and the thing that
bothers me some is that when they do get smaller lots, the footprints on those
lots are much larger. They're not too large for what the size lot is so they're
still trying to get their buck out of that. That's where we're running into
problems with the decks and all these other things. Some of the concerns I have
with that as T. told Paul is that there are no backyards for kids to really be in
as well and it eliminates a lot of that.
Councilwoman Oimler: And you're creating a lot of variance situations.
Paul Kraus8: Well, one of the ways we thought to address that and we've had the
draft ordinance sitting around nov for 8 months or 12 months, is that it gets
back to that buildable area concept. And I forget the exact numbers ue use but
I think we said okay. Yes, you can go down to 10 and maybe an average of 15.
Maybe an average below that. Whatever but within that, you're going to have to
demonstrate to us how, on each lot that you can get a, what was it? A 40 x 60
building pad, 10 x 12 deck and 30 foot backyard. And if you can't do that, your
lot's going to have to be big enough to accommodate whatever it takes to put
that on.
Councilman Workman: Put Willard out of business.
Mayor Chmiel: Kind of look at some of those areas within Near Mountain. That
was some of the 10,000 square foot lots and those are bunched up right on top of
each other and that's a real concern to me. I don't think it's that great. And
what does it really beneflt the city or the people 11vlng there? It doesn't. It
benefits the builder and I don't degrudge them making their money.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. In a PUD we should get some benefit too.
Mayor Chmiel: You bet. That's the whole thing.
Councilman Mason: And it sounds like, if I'm understanding what Paul's saying,
it sounds like the ctty will take control of that. If we take a look at thts
other option here about minlmum.
Mayor Chmiel: We have that opportunity to review that, that's correct. To make
sure that they're going to comply with all those thlngs but yet after it gets
done, you look at it. Does it look that good. That's the other part.
Councilwoman Dimler: So will this come up before us?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, probably.
Paul Krauss: Well the Planning Commission as I say is going to talk about it
again on Wednesday. If they can get off the dime on it. One thing too, if you
refer to that table on page 2. Even if we allow a mlnimum lot slze of 10 with
an average of 15, we've still got lot sizes that are as big as most of the
40
City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992
minimum lot sizes in well, Excelsior, Maplewood, Maple Grove, Chaska.
Councilman Workman: How do they get away with 9,000.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, Chaska's low. Is this their regular lot size? This
isn't their PUD?
Paul Krauss: No. This is their regular.
Councilwoman Dimler: Boy, that's low.
Councilman Mason: That is small. That's very small.
Paul Krauss: Well keep in mind. And again, we've pulled this information
together enough times that we might have gotten it jumbled up but Chaska has a
lot of old in town development and it's not, I mean South Minneapolis the
average lot's 5,000 or 6,000 square feet.
Mayor Chmiel: &O x 150. [ used to live on a &O x 150.
Roger Knutson: Most of them are 40.
Councilman Hason: And I do sometimes think that's something we need to take in
mind here. That a lot of people do live on a lot less than 15,000 square feet.
I mean I'm not saying I think we should make it smaller or anything like that.
Mayor Chmiel: But, that's the reasons why people are leaving there to move out
here to go with what we've got. So okay, any other discuss[on?
Councilman Mason: Obviously you've spent a lot of time on this Paul and to me
it makes a lot of sense. Lot of sense.
CONSENT fdSENDR:
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'd like to go back to the two items that we tabled under
the Consent agenda because we need a 4/5 majority to vote on those t~o and now
that you're here Tom. It's item number (f). Zoning Ordinance amendment to
amend Chapter 20 of the City Code pertaining to the mining and earth work, first
reading, anyone have any concerns with that one?
Councilman Workman: I'd move approval.
Councilman Mason: I'd second it.
Councilman Ilork~an moved, Councilman I~son seconded to approve Zoning Ordinance
amendment to fmend Chapter 20 of the City Code Pertaining to Nih/rig and Earth
#ork, First Reading. all voted In favor and the ~otion carried.
Councilman Workman: I'd move item (k).
Councilwoman Oimler: Second.
41
City Council Heeting -- May 18, 1992
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Oimler seconded to approve Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to Require that Boats be Hooted in front of Lake Front
Parcels be Owned by and Registered tn the Name of the Lake Front Property O#ner,
Final Reading. All voted tn favor and the motion carried.
Councilwoman Dimler: I move adjournment.
Mayor Chmiel: No, we have a couple more items. We're talking about OataServ's
assessments.
Don Ashworth: During the course of the year I try to keep the Council aware of
where we stand with pending litigation items. I think you've seen various
correspondence in regards to DataServ. You're aware of the fact that we've had
some pending litigation as a part of Frontier Trail assessments. In talking
with Roger on Friday, those were all scheduled for today. We really reached
agreement on two on Frontier conforming to the other assessments in that area.
The one on DataServ also fell into place. I think you may have remembered they
had made all kinds of requests. Some dealing with zoning and some other type of
items. Ail of those kind of disintegrated and we reached agreement that they
would be assessed and I think it's like $104,000.00 for the cost of the land for
the roadway itself. That isn't the exact number that we've already assessed
them for from a year ago so I mean this isn't anything new but we included in
that assessment they initially then took the position we didn't have the right
to do that. They wanted a higher amount. They showed some other, well it got
down into last throws and they have agreed so that one settled out. There's one
other one that Roger discussed with me on Friday and I said, I really think that
we should use an Executive Session format to allow you to, meaning the City
Attorney, to tell the City Council where we're at on that. The way an Executive
Sessions works is we will continue to record all of the discussion that occurs
after the Executive Session starts. The newspapers, general public, etc. are
welcome to come in and listen to that but they don't get it until after there's
a court settlement of the case. So again we will record everything. If you
will agree to the executive session, I would recommend that. Again it would be,
you'd have Roger give you, tell you what he basically had told me on what I'll
call the final one of these assessments as it deals with Frontier Trail. I
don't like to do this. I think this may be, I don't know when in the last, I
don't think we've ever done this in 4 years.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think we've had one. No, not to my knowledge. The only
thing that I would suggest is that we then terminate our.
Don Ashworth: Would you check to make sure that the outside speaker is out.
Councilwoman Oimler: Should we adjourn then and then have this?
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Shall we adjourn?
Don Ashworth: Yeah, why don't we cut off the video portion and then if you just
keep the cassette portion going.
The regular agenda portion of the City Council meeting was finished and the
Council held an Executive Session at this point in the meeting.
42