1992 02 10CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 10, 1992
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason, Councilman Wing and
Councilwoman Oimler
MEMBER5 ABSENT: Counoilman Workman
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Paul
Krauss, Jo Ann 01sen, Kate Aanenson, Todd Hoffman, Scott Hark and Jean Meuwissen
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT:
PROCLAMATION DECLARING MARCH 1-8, 1992 AS ?VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION WEEK'.
Mayor Chmiel: First thing ue have this evening is a public announcement. This
is a proclamation declaring March 1-8, 1992 as Volunteer Recognition Week.
We're going to be adopting a resolution for this. The resolution will read, A
Resolution proclaiming Volunteer Recognition Week, March 1-8, 1992. Whereas,
the Volunteers of America, a Christian Social Organization, is commemorating the
foundlng of the organization on March 8, 1896; and Whereas, Volunteers of
America have demonstrated it is a dynamic organization, able to keep up with
ever changlng world, recognizing the constant need for developing new and more
creative ways to solve problems, meet community needs, and improve the overall
quality of 11re for all members of our society. Now Therefore, Be Zt Resolved
that I, Oonald J. Chmiel, Mayor of the City of Chanhassen do hereby proclaim the
week of March 1-8, 1992 as Volunteers of America Week in Chanhassen. Further,
that a copy of this proclamation be transmitted to the Volunteers of America
offlce as evldence of our esteem. Can Z have a motlon?
Councilwoman Oimler: So moved.
Councilman Wing: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Discussion. I guess I just want
to point out there's an awful lot that they do do for a lot of different people
in different areas. It's nlce to see that they have concerns about people.
Resolution ~92-17: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Wing seconded to
approve a proclamation declaring March 1-8, 1992 as 'Volunteer Recognition
Week'. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve
the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
c. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Concerning Non-Conforming Uses, Structures and
Lots, Final Reading and Ordinance Summary for Publication Purposes.
Cit. y Co[tllc.i. 1 Heetj. l~g -. FebruAry .tO, 1992
Approval of Accounts.
e. CiLy Council Minutes dated .]an~laFy 27, 1992
Resolution ¢92-18: Establish 1992 /.ake Ann Park Entrance Fees.
Resolution ~92-18: Designate the Park and Recreation Commission as the
Chanhassen Tree Board.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON WATERMAIN AND SANITARY SEWER
IHPROVEHENTS IN SECTION 24 AND LAKE RILEY HILLSi AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS
AND SPECIFICATIONS, PROJECT gO--l____O,.
Public Present:
Name Address
O~vid Mitchell
Mike Klingelhutz
A1Klingelhutz
John Klingelhutz
Jim Oolejsi
Richard Chadwick
Rick Reger
Russell Frederick
,:tim Curry
OSM, Engineers
8601 Great Plains Blvd.
8600 Great Plains Blvd.
350 Eas[ Hwy 212
9260 Kiowa Trail
420 Lyman Blvd.
5~0 Lyman Blvd.
540 Lyman Blvd.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. You will recall that the
public hearing was Fif'st opened at your regular meeting on November 4, 1991. At
that tlme you voted to table actlon and contlnue this publlc hearing for a
couple primary reasons. Firs[ of ~11 at that [line it was not known whether the
trunk sewer that would provide servlce to thls area would be galned by
reconstructing the exisLlng line along Rlce Marsh Lake or whether the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission would grant Chanhassen additional capacity
in the Lake Ann Zntel'ceptor whlch would m~ke available a more cost efficient
~olnt Lake Riley/lower Bluff Creek trunk sewer line. Secondly, large lot and
hobby farm type pa~'cel owners expressed concern over' the financial impact that
the assessments would have on the parcels since they are currently not planning
on developing. And also they expressed a concern that it may be difficult to
maximize development of their parcels to the number of units that were proposed
in ~he preliminary assessment role. Finally, since the Lake Riley Hills
property was 'the sole petitioner for these improvements, Council dlrected staff
to investigate any possible options that would meet the needs of the developer
and also reduce tho financial impact on other non-developing properties. Over
the last couple of months f. he project consultant engineer and staff have been
worklng together to address these lssues and are here tonlght to present two
options for con:}ideratiorl ~.o meet the established criteria. T'd 11ks to
introduce Hr'. David MJ.'Lche11, the project consulting engineer wltl~ OSH who is
hel'e tonight to 9ire a more detailed presentation of our efforts.
City Council Heeting - February 10, 1992
David Hitchell: Thank you Charles. Hr. Hayor and members of the Council. Az
Charles has outlined, you directed us to investigate further alternatives to
this petitioned improvement. Since November 4th, mome of the things that have
happened is the City's conmultant has made mignificant progremm in developing
comprehensive planm for this area. That area being the lower Bluff Creek and
Lake Riley Hills area. Also the City ham received an allocation of an
additional 3 million gallons per day going into the Lake Ann Interceptor. Other
things that the study ham establimhed to date is to emtablish a recommended
assessment rate for this entire area. That area including again the Bluff Creek
area and the Lake Riley area of $1,275.00 for watermain and $970.00 for sanitary
sewer. Also within this study, comprehensive planm have been developed to
indicate density for development. That density being 1.? residential equivalent
units per acre with associated multiplication factorm to take into account the
density of the redevelopment. For example, medium density residential would be
multiplied by 1.5. High density remidential and mixed ume aream by 3 and
industrial commercial areas would be by 2. What I'd like to do now is briefly
go through the alternatives. Number one, az we went through on November 4th and
for Council there's smaller of the overheads in the back of the mupplement
rather than opening up the large scale drawings. This im the proposed manitary
sewer alingment. I guess another thing that should be pointed out im during the
public hearing on November 4th the residentm of the area were somewhat concerned
with putting in a proposed uatermain one year when they knew that sanitary meuer
would have to be coming through in the not too dimtant future. This graphic
shows the propomed sanitary sewer coming down Lyman Blvd., up TH 101 and
extending into the Lake Ann Interceptor that goes through here. You may recall
one of the initial alternatives was to rebuild thim line here which is really no
longer an alternative. The proposed uatermain under Alternative 1 again is a 12
inch uatermain on Lyman Blvd. with a 16 inch uatermain extending out to Lake
Susan Drive. Coming out of the Chart Hills Firmt Addition area. The 12 inch
watermain would then be extended through to the Lake Riley Hills development
providing service to the high density residential aream over on thim mide. Over
on the eamt side of Chanhassen. What we've done uming the recommendations
developed by the Comprehenmive Plan im developed, and theme two are also in the
supplement that you have. Developed mome preliminary asmessment calculations.
For Alternative 1 the estimated developed remidential equivalent unitm im 463
with an additional 255 units coming from the apartment complex that ham been
previously assemmed for manitary sewer. Again, total proposed for amsemsment is
the same. Areas that are in green acre status by the way the green acre program
was set up, are deferred from assesmment until which point that the statum is
removed or the use of the property changes. Therefore, there are approximately
137 units within the area propomed to be assemsed that would be under green
acres at this time. The net remidential equivalent units for assessment, 226
which is 463 minus the 137 and 255 for watermain only. Ammessment rate being,
this is the $1,275.00 plus $9?0.00 which is recommended by the comprehenmive
study. The uatermain of $1,275.00. Total proposed trunk assemsment is $1.364
million. Net trunk assemmment for the 1992 or 1994 tax roll...is $1,056,000.00.
Estimated lot...benefit which is an assemsment to the Lake Riley Hills area that
would front on the 12 inch trunk uatermain that would extend through their
properties an additional $60,000.00 bringing the total proposed assemmment to
$1.4 million. The net assessment, this is again the net assemsment is those
green acre areas subtracted out, is $1.116 million. Estimated project cost for
this alternative im $1.5 million. $o what you zee is the total propomed
assessment im approximately $75,000.00 mhortfall. The net assessment, if none
C~.ty Council Meet. trig - February 10, 1992
of these green acre developments in the near future, shows a shortfall of
approximaf, ely $400,000.00. In looking at th.ts a .lit(.le bit further and talking
this over, discussing this with staff, we've come up with a second alternative.
/hat alternat, ive wou.ld be to extend the 16 inch watermain northerly on TH 102,
extending easterly on West 86th Street and coming southerly into the property.
Again the internal lilies being the same as if Alter,alive 1 was the route
chosen. I should point out that o, this graphic the areas outlined in red are
actually the acreages that are currently .in the green acres status. Again,
going through similar calculatio,s for Alternative 2, I won't go through all the
details but again we see Green hcre status being subtracted out wi~h a total
proposed trunk assessment of $349,000.00. Subtracting out green acre areas is
$164,000.00. Again the estimated lateral benefit to the Lake Riley Hills
development is $60,000.00 with a total assessment of $409,000.00 or a net
assessment, again subtracting the green acres o~ $324,000.00. Here we have an
estinlated project cost of $328,000.00. Somewhat of a shortfall in that the net
assessment is sl~owir, g approximately $80,000.00 in excess for the total proposed
assessment. It should be pointed out that it looks like this is excessive
assessments but again this assessment is set up to provide funds in the future
for the water towers, the wells in this area and those are currently not on line
or proposed to be on lil'le but definitely would be needed in the future as this
area develops. What I've got here is a map showing the assessment areas and
this should be something that was handed out ju'.~t prior to the meeting. This
dark line is in essence the dividing line between Alternative 1 and 2. The
areas with the crosshatch going from the upper right to lower left are areas
that would be assessed under Alternative 1. Again this area being the green
acres status at this time. Alternative 2 being upper left to lower right cross
hatch. What you notice .ts the Lake Riley Hills area a,d also this property
immediately ~o the east, or west of Lake Riley Hills would be assessed under
both alternatives. The primary reason for that is they would have the
opportunity ~.o hook up to that 12 inch. It would be serviceable from that 12
.inct~ that is extended through Lake Riley Hills. I guess with that I don't have
anything else to add. I can turn it over to Charles if he wants to add anything
at this point or' we can turn it back to the public.
Charles Folch: I think at this point we ca, open it up for any public
discussion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. As I said, this is a public hearing and I'd
like for those of you who would like [o address this issue come forward to the
podium, state your name and your address and the position that you have. And
I'd like to try and limit everyo~e ~o at least between 5 to }.0 minutes at the
max. So with that, anyone wishing to come forward at this time, please step
forward. It's always tile first one that counts.
Councilman Wi,g: I'd like to recommend A1 Klingelhutz start.
A1Klingelhutz: Seeing you asked me I guess I'll come toward. Could we put
that last thing you had on the screen showing both or the assessment areas. At
Lhe last assessment hearing Alternate 2 wasn't even discussed. It came as kind
of a surprise to me. I got the assessment notice of this hearing and I guess
I didn't read the whole tl~ing. I thought it was still the part, the number 1
portion of it. I came up here last week one day and I talked to Charles and he
said, hey. Yo~z're in this now. I know that land has been in the metro urban
City Councii Meeting - February
service line since the very beginning. A think a developer should have a right
to develop that property. I know he's been delayed a considerable amount of
time already because of the lack of water to the area. I guess my biggest
concern about Alternate 2, and I'm not against new utilities going through but
the fact that Hwy 212 and new TH 101 are sort of bottlenecks at the present
time. That land is virtually in limbo and I think you probably heard that
from Mr. Curry the last time. His is pretty much in limbo because of the
proposed zoning on it. Proposed zoning is commercial, high density on most of
this land and I have yet to see a developer come in and buy a piece of land and
put up commercial property when there's no highway there. $o this is the real
hang up I've got. I wouldn't mind the $85,000.00 assessment coming against my
property except for the fact I'm going to have to be paying 7~ or 8% interest on
that and I won't be able to do anything with the land until that highway comes
in. And if that interest could be deferred until Huy 212 is built to Lyman
Blvd., I wouldn't have any problem taking that assessment. My land is in green
acres at the present time. I could assure you if there was any development
coming into that property prior to that time, you could put the assessment on
that part of the property. And this is my big concern. I'm 70 years old. I'm
ready to retire. My income is not completely shot but it's going to be very
limited and to think of paying an additional $7,000.00 to $8,000.00 a year in
interest on something that I can't use, it makes it pretty hard to take. Outside
of that I have no problem with the assessment but if you could defer the
interest until such time as actually the land can be developed, fine. Thank
you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Al. Is there anyone else?
Jim Dolejsi: My name is Jim Dolejsi. I live on 9260 Kioua Trail. I represent
probably the majority of that property that's in green acres in Alternate 1. Up
until recently I haven't been certain if a certain developer that's been working
with me has been serious but he's pledged his commitment to working on a program
of developing my property and we've recently drafted a contract. We as the
sellers signed it and delivered it to the buyer and have come to a tentative
agreement on all the terms of the contract so from our perspective that property
is going to be calling for utilities in the very near future. And that property
will, as a result of development, be coming off of green acres. $o we'd like to
let the Council and the City know what our intent is for that property.
Furthermore, we feel whether that property develops or not, Alternative 1 would
be a more proactive approach from the city's standpoint in that if Alternate 2
were pursued, ue would be adding a water utility and developing that one
development and then really not have the sewer capacity to do any further
development without adding utilities. Whereas if we proceeded with Alternate 1,
it would pretty much open up that whole Riley Lake area for development and ue
see that as a real benefit. And I'd like to let A1 know I'm in mid-30's and my
income is shot. Thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: Jim, how many acres do you have?
Jim Dolejsi: 51.19. It represents about 87 units of the proposed assessment.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Wing: Where is his 5i on there? Can you just point it out?
City Council Hee;~in.9 -~ February 10, 1992
David Mitchell.: _T.L:s.': primariJ, y th[.~; p~rcel right I~ere, and correct me if I'm
wrong, this area her's. This is in error. This is not J.n green acres. This
small. 5 acre parcel down here.. Again Hr. Dolejsi's property are these two
parcels here.
Richard Chadwickr Ply name is Richard Chadwick. Z own about 15 acres just to
Ihs soutl~ oF Hr. K].ingelhutz' property and it's part of the Hwy 2~2 will come in
and take about maybe 1/4 of the 10 acre section that I have in the northwest
corner. There's not very much th~tt can be done with that until the highway
moves in. I'm in much the same position. I don't think that anyone's going to
come in and do any developing at all until somethirmg is solidified as far as
· that road 1.~: concerned. It would put us, most everyone down in that area to the
:~outh of pr'oposed 212 in substantial financial difficulty to have the
assessments come through agairlst it wlthout belng ina posltlorl to do something
t, ith it. I would certainly oppose, as I did last year, Alternative 1. From
what I understand this proposal 2, or Alternative 2 probably would not assess
any of my property. Is that correct?
David Mitchell: That's correct. I should point out that through staff...,
wh~[ we've done is taken into consideration this property ns well as any of
these properties in the area and have proposed that they would be assessed on a
one residential unit basis at ~.h.i.s time being a tot~zl ~ssessment of $2,275.00.
Previously what ue had planned was 10 acre parcels could develop into
potentially 17 acres th,tt couJ.d be a size,'~ble assessment. There would be a
sizeable assessment against each property.. Like T_ s~.ty we got it proposed that
tl~at be a single urlit at this point. I should point out that this is also
similar to the properties up on the Teton Lane. Again similar assessments have
been proposed fei- those properties.
Richard Chadwick: I've been advised by City Hall that I can't subdivide any of
that property ar. this time. Certain.l.y withol..~t sewer and water in~.o it and ~
don't thlnk anyone ls golng to come in and do any developing or purchasing of
any of the property until 212 .[.s flnished and we"re in a complete].y different
s1'tuation. Thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
A1 Klingelhutz"- I have one more question .... 10 acres on 86th Street don't
show any hash marks or... How would that be served wlth water'?
David Mitchell: Itl the fm,ture I believe what would be proposed is the watermain
would be looped through this area. The sewer service could come off of this
11ne as it comes back here and lnto a line along TH 101 up to the Lake Ann
Interceptor. Is that right Charles?
Charles Folch.' Yeah. Just to clarify initially what was stated in the
watermain. What w1].1 ].ikely happen is where we leave off on 86th Street with
the watermaln, that eventually wlll extend further to the north along TH 101 and
tie in ~o the crossing under TH 5 at Great Plalns Blvd.. So that will likely be
~.he frontage side tl~at the property w~ll access water service from~
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else has specific questions?
City Council Meeting - February 10, lgg2
Rick Reger: My name is Rick Reger, 520 Lyman Blvd.. If we go with Alternate 1
rather than 2, am I correct that it's golng to cost the City itself a lot of
money other than us?
Charles Folch: Basically what we have is a project which we estimate the cost
of about $1.5 million. With the information we had going into the meeting
tonlght and assumlng that there would be 80 acres of property under green acre
status that would have to have a deferred assessment, we would only generate
approximately $1.1 mllllon worth of inltlal assessment revenue untll the other
properties came off of green acres. If in fact the Dolejsl property would come
off of green acres, that would create an additional 87 unlts whlch would be
approximately $200,000.00 of additional revenue of the initial assessment and
we'd be $200,000.00 closer basically to matchlng the lnltial construction cost.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. In addition to that are you also taking consideration of
the other 51 acres that is in green acres presently?
Charles Folch: The 51 that I was referring to was Hr. Oolejsi's property. The
other 29 acres ls just to the east of him owned by Mr. Rogers.
Councilwoman Dimler: If we did go with Alternate 1, there is no assurance
though that, he wouldn't have to come out of green acres would he just because
we did that project? He'd still have the choice to stay with green acres if he
chose to?
Charles Folch: That's correct but it is something to certainly consider.
Councilwoman Dimler: So we're putting ourselves in a little bit vulnerable
position?
Charles Folch: Well lt's a rlsk that you have to decide whether lt's a rlsk
you're willing to take or not.
Rlck Reger: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Russell Frederick: Yeah, Z'm Russell Frederick. I 1lye at 540 Lyman Blvd..
seems that Alternate 1 is a shortfall proposition at this point as far as the
future can be seen probably through '95 or '96. Untll the road ls complete and
Optlon 2, from what Z can understand is a planned watermaln to complete the
waterloop for thls area that wlll be done withln a matter of probably the same
timeframe. So it seems to me that even if it's a $200,000.00 shortfall, it
doesn't make much sense wlth the economy as it's been golng to run the rlsk of
running up to a $400,000.00 shortfall ~ith no guarantee that that couldn't run
at least 5 years and longer. The other option I was looking at was if Optlon
were to be gone with I would think that it should not be gone with unless it was
guaranteed that the land south of Lyman was coming out of green acres. So that
it would at least assure a minimum of the $200,000.00 shortfall rather than the
$400,000.00 or better.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Anyone else? This is your opportunity to
voice your opinion. Now's the time to at least let Council know your feelings.
Ci~.y CoL~ncil Mecl. in.q . Feb'~uaFy 10> 1992
Is Lhere anyone else?
anyt h ins?
Oo we have any of [lie developers that would like to say
Job, Klingelhutz~ I'm Jol~n Klingelhutz. I guess it's kind of your call here. I
believe that the 'Fi'r'st aJ. terr, aliiue pl'obably is as good a decisio, as [he second
because of right tonight ~e heard of somebody coming up here and saying there's
going to be another S1 acres of lar, d witi~i~ tl',[s, p~'oject that will be developed
and I believe thai in [he next 2 years or 3 year's you're going to see a lot more
of that. It doesn't make a~y difference to me. I'm just sittings here listeni~g
to you people and thinking L[,at [hat whole area is probably the next area in
Cha~hassen that's goi~,g [o develop and with the market as strong as it is today,
it could bo shortly.
Councilwoman Oi. mler'~ Okay. John, is the assessment to you the same uhether we
go with Alternate 1 or Alternate 2?
Jol~n K.lingelhm~tz: That's righf.-
Councilwoman Oimlei': 'l'l'lat's what you're sayings'?
John K.1ingelhutz' It's: the same. And it's the Salne yet to everybody here. If
they have a 10 acre piece, their asseSSl,el~t is orlly on i Ltnit SO really no
matter which way J.t goes, it realJ, y doesn't hurt any of these homeowners any
different if they hav~. 1 ;:tcFe of 10 acres, Thank you.
Jim Curry: Jim Cur'ry. I own the 75 acres there north of Lyman. The one thing
I car,'[ assess I-,eye and I'd like r.o hear from you people. I suppose maybe that
comes next ir.: wl~at impact on the city does $200.000.00 have? I know it would be
about as popular ,'~s $200,000.00 worth of new staff or what. We can't assess
that out he. fo, o'r at least ~ can't. $400,000..00 is obviously twice that but
most of mil,e's itl gt'eefl ;ici'es :~o I'm I~ere kind of like Mr. Klingelhu~.z was kited
of w~tct~ing. Soone'r or' late¥ it's going to happen of course. We can't put that
in(o context. We don'~ know what that means. Sooner or' later will ~he project
inherit that iTiterest and sooner or later we'll pick it up down the road? Is
that how it works? I'd like a little edifica[iorl that way.
Charles Folch: Well initially anytime the City would carry a deferred
assessment wlr. h a project J.t basically on your bottom .llne balance sheet it's
looked upon as a debt that the Clty ls carrylrlg. As we mentioned in Dave's
presentation, in the fu[ul-e the sewer facility ~.o be constructed along TH 101 lap
to [he Lake AnT] .In[erceptot' w111 also provlde future service to a portlon of
wh~tt area that'~.~ [ermed ,'~s a lower Bluff Creek oF a 1995 study area so there
w111 be future units generated from that area to help ultimately offset the
construction costs of (l~e ~rLtnk sewer line alo~g TH 101. But again that area is
currently zoned or termed in the Comp Plat, as 1995 study area and basically
deveJ, opmen( won't occur il~ that area until after 19~5.
Jim, Curry: Are you doil~g this sort of thirlg now? Do you have other areas where
you have done this in the
just curlous for precedent.
Charles Folch: Well. being f'elatively new with the city I can't speak for
wl~a.t's been done over a period oF 5 or lO Fear his~.oFy but basically.
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
Jim Curry: It's something you'd rather not do, is that right?
Charles Folch: Well maybe that Don is back in here he can address that question
having more history with the projects in the city. The question Don that's been
posed is this potential deferment of somewhere between $200,000.00 and
$400,000.00 on this assessment for Option i, is this an idea or a plan that it's
simiiiar to projects that the City has done in the past where we've just
deferred or basically gone into initial revenue assessment shortfaii for a
period of time until future properties come on iine?
Don Ashworth: Generally you do not want to go into a project where you have a
deficit position. You can estabiish through bonding techniques a means to iet's
say set aside a certain principie will not start coming on untii a specified
date. 3 years from now or 5 years. But once that date occurs and if that
deveiopment has not come on iine, then it will be necessary to start ievying for
that. So if this project is carried over a 15 year period, you set aside the
first 5 years. That means that starting in that fifth year, if the deferments
aren't received, 1/10 then of that baIance w£ii need to go on starting in that
fifth year. And each year for 10 years.
Jim Curry: That's heipfui. When I look at the caiendar I think here we are in
February and I know how things go. I've sold an awfui Iot of land in my iife to
people. Z feeI sorry for the man who owns the iand south of Lyman there because
it sounds like if you went for this option 2, he'd be shut out Fight now. Isn't
there, if you had 90 days. 90 days gives a guy a chance to finaiize a deai, get
a plat and a plan, at Ieast then you'd know if you was $400,000.00 or
$200,000.00 and yOU're stili Hay so you're stili able to get possibiy into the
Parade of Homes in the faii with some of the models and that sort of thing. It's
stretching it a touch but it wouid work I think. This guy owns a good hunk of
ground there and just once suggestion. I'm not one ordinarily wants to delay
but I think that's cutting a loss in hail is quite a substantiai thing. Haybe
in May it would iook cleaner. That's a lot of time. Just one.suggestion.
Charles Folch: Just to address a potential 90 day delay. Given the size of
thls project, the preparation of the plans and specifications would be rather
extensive and fairly substantial in cost. It is likely that if we waited 90
days, preparation of these plans would also have to wait 90 days.
Jim Curry: So you'd lose a season?
Charles Folch: We would probably lose the season.
Jim Curry: I see. Well okay, that's helpful. Thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: Good thanks.
John Klingelhutz: I guess I'd like to say one other thing when it comes to the
season. I really want to get this project in the ground this year and I'd like
to do it wlth whatever process we have to get the water there. And if it means
we have to do that in the second phase here, that's the way I would like to see
the City look at thls. We've been worklng on thls project for somewhere's
around 3 years now and I want to make sure that we get in the ground this year.
City Council Meeting .-FehFuaf-y 10, 1992
Jim bolej~¢i: I guess I didn't say this earlier but the buyer that I'm working
with wanted ~.o he I-,et'e tonight. Doe'.-~n't want it misinterprettod ,'~s a lack of
int. erest or lack of dedication to the p'm'oject but he had commitments in 6hamplin
tonight with some meetings. Couldn't attend. We even met wi~h Charles eaf'].ier
today and then after that meeting he met with me for a couple of hours this
,'tfternooll so I mean there is a dedication and a seriousness t.o this project and
I don't know .[.F I conveyed [t~t. But otherwise my buyer would have been here
tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Rick Roger: If they do go put in the project south of Lyman, I know Lyman Blvd.
is not going to handle all the traffic. It doesn't now. I mean if we get a
I~eavy snow, we don't get out the next day. Is that considered in that
$200,000.00 to $400,000.00 to rebuild this road to make it a decent road to
serve these two projects or how does that work?
Charles Folch: No, There's no provisions 'for any type of reconstruction uork to
the road. We're proposing to ins~a],l the utilities off the roadway in the ditch
sections so there would be no, very lJ. ttle disturbance to the road and therefore
~o provisions to reconstruct.
Rick Reger.'. I think you're going to have to look at the road because it's bad
liens.
Mayor Chmiel.'. Th~nk you. Anyone else?
AJ. Klillgelhu~z~ ConceFnil;g Lyman Dlvd. and I think Charles might be able to
walk through thls a little better. I think in the East Carver County
Trar, sportation Plan, sometime in the future th,_~t road J.s supposed to become a
county road. lc: that right char les?
Cl'laFles Felt[',: Well, it's quite possible it could become a county road but if
the traffic capacity or carrying capacity in the future is estimated to put it
in a classification ,.ts a Class II collector ulrich would possibly require a 4
lane section of roadway. But whe[her it will be under local jurisdictior, or
county jurisdiction is still not known.
A1 Klingelhutz: A couple more questions for Charles. If Phase II was put in,
uould that waterline be the connection ~.o 6real Plains Blvd. or future extension
of lt? Or ls (hat one has been planned in the past to run that way and then
back up on 6Fe,.~[ Plains or was it designated a shorter route at some point in
the future?
Charles Folch: Actually the route that is proposed under Alternate 2 would have
been and still can be a future looping line for the southerly project. Both
will happen ultimately in serving the entire area. Lake Riley Hills service
~rea with sewe]' and water .~o whether we do the sewer and water project down
Lyman of- whether we just do the watermain pro3ect along 86th Street, both will
be long term 'FUl~c:tion,~l systems.
A1 Klinge.lhutz.' I guess that's why I asked the question. I didn't want to see
a waterline goi~g tllere that wouldn't be of any value as far as the loop is
10
City Council Meeting - February LO, L992
concerned sometime in the future.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Al. We had just a slight discussion here and I just
wanted some additional information which I finally got. Is there anyone else
that would like to address this issue? If seeing none, can I have a motion to
close the public hearing?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that one of the more concerns that I have within this is
of course the shortfall of $200,000.00. In lieu of the economy as it is, it
sort of bothers me a little blt too. I'm not trylng to push away from this but
I do have to look at it from a cost aspect from what it might be to the City.
I'm st111 keeplng an open mlnd on thls and I'd like to have a 11ttle more input
from Council. So with that I'd like to open it up for discussion. I'll start
out wlth Mike, belng lucky you're on the end there.
Councilman Mason: Thank you so much Mr. Mayor. Couple of things come to mind.
Can we do Alternate 2 and defer interest untll something ls declded with 2127
Is that an option or not?
Mayor Chmiel: That's always an option.
Councilman Mason: Is that advisable for the City to do that?
Don Ashuorth: That typically does not occur. It typically as it would be
submitted to the County Auditor's office, the interest would occur.
Councilwoman Olmler just asked me the same question and in the meantime I asked
Roger to check on another item so that's the reason he's out of the room. When
he returns I'd like to pose that questlon to the City Attorney.
Councilman Mason: My next question would be, if we approve Alternative 2 now,
ls there any reasons, depending on what happens in the near future that we can't
come back a month later and say well let's do Alternative 1 also? If it so
seems prudent ulth land belng removed from green acres and what not.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that's a good point. Being that just as Mr. Curry had
indicated potentially 90 days to see if there's anyone out there that ls really
overly interested in platting that now.
Councilman Mason: Well it sounds like it could be even less than 90 days right?
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's the point. It could be 30 days or 60 days.
Councilwoman Oimler: Mr. Mayor, my concern with that would be, with the people
that are inbetueen there, the two projects, would they be assessed twice? Once
for thls project and once for the other one?
Charles Folch: No they would not. There would be no duplication of assessment.
Councilwoman Dlmler: Thank you.
11
City Council Hee~i~.9., Februar-F 10, t992
Mayor chmiel: A~ything elce Mike?
Courlc'.ilman idasO~l; No. I'd like ~.o kl~ow what Roger- has I:o say about my first
questior~. From ,:~ city's standpoint it certaillly seems fiscally prudent to steer
clear of Alternative i until ue have a little better feel for that green acre
status.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Okay. Richard.
Councilman Wing.' I kind of co~cur wi~h Mike. I guess I look at Shorewood how
tlley ran separate projects and remember out in Minnewashta Heights we kind of
fougl~t putting sewer and water- in at the same time because we claimed we didn't
need them but how 'foolish it would have been to do that project twice and Z'm
glad we bit the bullet on that. I think .i.f we were going r.o look really long
term here and do what's really maybe in the best interest of the city for the
I~ext decade, you do project number .t. However, we can't predict the future and
with the economy arid the shortfall to the city... So the words that came out to
me were 212, unknown. The wof'd limbo. ~n unknown. The word shortfall. The
Mayor tends to look at, it's not your ballgame, the word shortfall and I think
wt.; have supported you on that. We have not tried to move on these issues if
it's going to force development or force sale of land or interfer'e with green
acres. So I guess numbeF 1, alLhough it certainly makes sense long term, more
pruder~t, number 2 seems to meet an immediate need and doesn't force us to
predict the future wl~ich I don't think we can do right now.
Mayor Chmiel:: Okay, Ursula.
Councilwoman Dimler: Basically I agree with the two that have just been stated.
I don't think we should go in~.o a deficit position and also I don't like the
position of beir~g real vulnerable on taking Alternate ~ and then not having that
land come out of green acres. I think that would be foolishness on our' part. I
wou]d like ~o see Mr. Klingelhutz' concerns and the other people who are in
green acres with accrued interest. If we could do it somehow through the
bondir~g. To be paid later when that property develops, I would like to see that
done.
Mayor Chmiel: Now we'll pose the question. Roger, you've had some discussion
with Boll and, what's the answer?
Roger Knutson~ As I mentioned to Don, you have the ability to assess and then
defer with or without interest your option until development. You could if you
could financially afford it. If you thought it was prudent, you could assess
this project and then defer- any undeveloped parcel without interest until
developmen[. Yes, you can do that. Whether you can afford it, that's
different.
Don ~shuorth: I think another alternative, and correct me if I'm wrong Roger.
Since these assessmen~.s ace being put oil in the form of REC charges, equivalent
unit charges, for sewer and water, we go through a process of updating those
cl~arges. Not t.tSU,.~J.].y every ye,'.tf' bttt every 2 or 3 years. Cot~ld Lhey not p~zt the
assessment through, the number of units that are being benefitted at this time.
Ones that would be under greer~ acres would be charged the then current REC
charge at the time that they develop.
~2
City Council Heeting - February 10, 1992
Roger Knutson: You can do it with a combination of special assessments and
connection charges.
Don Ashworth: I guess the point is, there's probably a way that that could be
done. I prefer that alternative because it does give the city some r'ecognition
escalating costs but it doesn't have the double or triple compounding effect of
interest that's just going on interest.
Councilwoman Dimler: Does that alternative then though put us into a deficit
position?
Don Ashworth: Sure. Until such time as those.
Councilwoman Dimler: Which may be what, 10-20 years? Can we afford it is what
I'm saying. Should we run a scenario to see if we can afford that.
Don Ashworth: We should test it. I have not posed it back to HcGillvery but if
we're looking to a total project cost of $1.5 million, $200,000.00 represents
between 10% and 15~ of the overall project.
Councilwoman Dimler: I think we're looking at Alternate 2 though. So that was,
what was it?
Don Ashworth: Alternate 2, the cost to the city on Alternate 2.
Charles Folch: The estimated project cost is $328,000.00. The net initial
assessment revenue, taking out the green acre property would be approximately
$324,000.00.
Don Ashworth: So Alternate 2 is basically a push for the city. Number 1 is
where you pick up the potential $200,000.00 to $400,000.00 deficit position.
Councilman Wing: Don, just a question on that same line. In the Minnewashta
Parkway project there was a lot of large acres involved and we assessed them one
unit until such time as they develop and then they have their charges and so on.
What's the difference between that and this? Why wouldn't the green acre just
simply get one unit charge until such time as it's developed? Is there any
difference between the Minnewashta Parkway project and this one really?
Don Ashworth: Well the biggest difference comes about in that State Aids
financed a good portion of that project and so the necessity, that provided a
SOUrCe of money that if some of those other units did not come on line, you
still had sufficient dollars to balance. You don't have kind of, if we had been
able to do that in a similar fashion where there might be an underlying tax
increment district where they could potentially pick up the differential.
Hayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Any other questions that you may or
may not have? This is not the easiest situation to...assess and it becomes
rather difficult but yet if we have that opportunity to be able to asslst
somehow, I shouldn't say take a position of either or, I'm going to just leave
that open.
13
City CoLtli~:i.t Mo(~tino --FobFuar'y 10, .1.997
Cour,c:ilmai~ Wi. flU: My quesLion, I ~us'l asked spool[it:ally to the City Manager,
what clo~.;s ho i','~comm¢~.m~d as OUr' bltsil~-;:~S Iflefli~ger pt;f'llal).~s cl~.~.af'ly to()?
Mayor Chm~el.~ I think.
Ooi, Ashworth; I wish I would have been able to hear more of the comments from
(I've effected property owrler-=~_ I think that that would have swayed my decision
because I think eitl~er of these are reasorlable al'Lernatives and Z'm not really
~l'l~t fearful as to the cost implications back f.o the city with hlternat, e 1. But
agaLn Z think how the pro,oct affects the people that ~re out there probably has
mol'e, .[.s a g~'eatei- woigllt [.o me than some of the nl.tmbers.
Mayor Chmie]: There's also the potential, of additional 51 acres coming on which
is u:'~;on acres p're:sently. I don't know if you were here for tl~at.
Don Ashuorth.' Well. :[ did, I read that.
Mayor Ohmic;l: Of course wi~.h ti~e I)alance of the o~hers that are there. Somehow
t Ii. ko that idea oF ~ven a 30 day period. I don't know how we can arrange that
i.n the event that tl~ere are other devoJ, oper~ tha~ are out there who are willing
(o come in with some plannings to us. If we were Lo vote otto this, either
A1Lernate i of Altornaf. e 2, a~d just out of the sky in com~s anotJ~er development
[hat s~ys I'm going to develop these properties and I'd like to buy it from Mr.
Cut-i'M or whoever. How can we word ti'mat Roger 90 it might leave a door open for
r-~Lher th~n Alternate 2 to Alterrmate t as well?
Roger Knutson: t.eaving tl~e door open Mr. Mayor is not difficult. 'File problem
is: you have order prepardtlon of ,olans and specifications and that gets
~.xp~:nslve. ~ mean theoretlcally you could just order tonight do a plan and
specification on Alternate i and Alternate 2 as an aiternatlve and do it a11.
would thil~k Ci~a'r'l~-;s would probably say ~hat's fJ.l~e and dandy but it's golng to
cost you an awful lot of money and you're not going to get very good use of at
lr.;ast half of lt. When you commit to orderi~g the plans and specJ, fic,'.~tions,
you're really commlttirlg to hlterrlate 1 or 2. I mean you could postpone maklng
the decision for 30 d~ys but tl~af.'s about it.
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Hayor, r had the same concerns you did but I think the
question ii,at Mr. Mason askod was if Mr. Ool~..'.jsi did decide to go ahead and
develop, that we could still do Alternate 1 and ttle same people were not
assessed and I gu~.;ss tllat puf. s my foars to rest that he would not be able to
develop or you know that it would be costly to the city later on and people
would be double assess~.zd. ~ tl~ink we could go with 2 and he could still
develop if he wanted to withif~ 'this year.
Mayor Cllmiel: Yeall, al~d I gue.ss too Uf'L~ttla, We have to be fiscally responsible
itl doing thlngs prudently For you. Also what's good for the area as well as
it's people there.;.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess one of the other questions I wan[ed to ask Mr.
Ashwor~h w~s, does this affect our bondll~g c~pacity? Are we ot the limit? Are
both projects feasible separately?
0o1'1 Asl'~wortll'- Ti'lo ~Jifficulty I I~awe itl ~':.'.:spon,:Ji~g f.o that issue is that the
14
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
City has been carrying, has carried out bonding at a level of about $3 to $4
million per year. In fact that's the approximate amount of bonds that are
dropplng off on a yearly basis. So as long as you stay generally in that range,
you don't really have a problem. At issue is we know that there are a number of
different projects that are being considered around the clty and whlch one comes
flrst and which comes last. Which one will exceed your yearly limit. As we sit
here today, no projects have been approved as 1992 projects yet we know that
Ryan development ls on their way in and they will be looking to something both
south of the rallroad tracks as well as north. In all likelihood from Near
Mountain will be before us.
Charles Folch: One thing I should point out from the standpoint of considering
dolng possibly both projects this year. Because the Kligelhutz, Lake Riley
Hllls subdivision and the adjacent property immediately to the east whlch ls
owned by T.J. Hirsch Management Company, because those two properties are
technically lncluded in both alternatives for assessment, if you do both
projects you're actually going to create initially a little bit larger
shortfall, revenue shortfall untll future development comes on 11ne because
they're factored into both alternatives. Just those two properties so they're
assessed on both one or the other. It amounts to approximately $200,000.00 from
the watermain standpoint.
Mayor Chmiel: John, normally the hearing's been closed but I'll.
3ohn Klingelhutz: I wanted to bring that up and the other issue I wanted to
brlng up ls, normally when you start a development in February, you don't get
done in that year. I have never been able to do that. I guess I'm wondering
how reasonable that really ls. To buy a piece of land the flrst of March and
have it in the ground in that year.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Any other discussion? Any other questions?
If not, I would entertain a motion.
Councilman Wing: I guess I heard everybody showing number 2 as more
conservative. A 11ttle more financially prudent at this matter and I guess I
would, to move this along, would just move approval of Alternate 2. Approving
Section 24, Lake Riley Hills, preparation of plans and specifications for
Project No. 90-10. I thlnk that's what I heard.
Councilwoman Oimler: Do we want to incorporate Oon's idea about deferring the
interest?
Roger Knutson: You don't have to. This is not your special assessment hearing.
Those things get worked out later.
Councilwoman Oimler: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, with that we have a motion on the floor. Is there a
second?
Councilman Mason: For the sake of a little more discussion I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, discussion.
15
C."Ll.y CouF~eil M,"~c'.i'.illg .-!:r~t)l-l.l, ai"y .'LO, 1992
Councilman Mason: I want to get straight iT1 my mirld that if we go with
Altef'rlate 2, we're not l/ec,';ssarily includil]g Alternative 1 il1 tile near fu~.ure.
That's correct right?
Mayor Chmiel.: You can always ,come bac:k.
Councilman Mason: And furthe;more, if we go with Alternative 2 we can do a
special assessment or something like that if it's deemed purdent to defer some
of ?.hal irlterest payment?
Councilman Wing: l'hat's tile assessment hearJ, llg.
Hayor Chmiel ~' Ye.~:.
Coul~cillnan Mason-'- That would be the assessment hearing? I mean that's another
ballgame right?
Councilman Wing: Except I don't think we want to get il]to that.
Mayor Cl~miel: It could be deferred but it can t)e done one of two or three ways.
Ones that Roger had said and the o~her ls that we had said we could approve over
tho:~e years but yet st11], be deferred.
Councilman Wing~ Didn't we promise, after Frontier Trail that we'd go on
everything pretty up front amid know what's going on. When we start talking
about unknown assessment hearings, that starts to scare me. A lot of gray area
there. I wi:~h we knew up freest what we me're gettirlg into.
Councilwoman DJmle~: That:s why I brought that up if we should put that in this
motion. I don't know if it's prudenl or not.
Roger Knutson: Legally, of comtrse the Council's always free to express it's
intent or what it's thirlking right now but legal.ty you're required to have a
separate hearlng. Public hearirlg on the speclal assessment and you really can't
tie your hands. Of course you're goJ~lg to express your intent but you can't
make a formal commitment to anythlng until that hearlng. That's the purpose of
that hearing.
Don ~shuorth: Statlng an intent into the record though is a good idea to assure
that that hearing, it just mak~.s ti'mat hearJ.~g go theft much easier because
everyone understood initially Wllat the lntent of the Councll was and the
cit±zens ..
Mayor Chmiel: And if that's the specific case.
(;oun¢;ilwoman Oimler: I would move that inr. ent but I don't know how to word it
Oon~ Would you word it for me?
[]on Ashwor~.h: That tl,e REC charge being established for properties within the
green acre designation would be charged at the then current REC charge when
those properties :~o developed. So whatever .~mount today, in 5 years from now
that equivalerlt REC is 10~ or 20~ hlgher. They would be paying on that hlgher
basis.
16
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. With that being acceptable as a friendly amendment.
Councilman Wing: Please.
Mayor Chmiel: Would the second also accept that?
Councilman Mason: Sure. Does that also address the property along proposed
212 then? Because I think that's a very legitimate concern. If that goes on
the rolls and it's just sitting there for 10 years, I mean somebody's got to pay
an awful lot of lnterest on that.
Mayor Chmiel: That's true. Potentially even though we've gotten $8.? million
dollars, that's still doesn't say it's going to move next week or next year or
10 years.
Councilwoman Dimler: Isn't that the same property that 212 is proposed to go
through is the property that...?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Yeah.
Councilwoman Dimler: Most of that is in green acres.
Councilman Mason: Most of it is in green acres?
Councilwoman Oimler: Let Mr. Klingelhutz address it.
A1Klingelhutz: I guess I've got a little problem wlth the same REC charge say
5 years from now as today. You're putting in the 1the today at a certain price.
Why should it cost more to, why should the R£C charge jump 20~ or 25~ 5 years
from now when the cost has already been established as of today or when the line
goes in? The 11ne is there. The cost of the line isn't going to cost anymore 5
years from now because it's already put in now.
Don Ashuorth: The reason I would suggest that it be put in and not go the
traditional fashion, yes. That's correct. The cost is there and when we go to
assess lt, those people who want to pay off that full assessment amount, brought
in money and paid it. Everything's fine.
Jlm Curry: Wouldn't it be either future cost or today's cost...Isn't that what
you're dealing with?
Mayor Chmlel: If we could let hlm finish first. Thank you.
Don Ashuorth: Well I think that Jim klnd of cut through it and that is that you
do have that interest cost and the city is paying those costs durlng that
timeframe. 8ut by adding the interest each year and compounding it, I think it
changes what might be a 10~ or 20~ or 25~ increase and magnifies it to 50~,
I think we've had certain properties that have been 150~. I think the Kerber's
property, that they looked that lnterest compounding on lnterest and by the tlme
they did come in, it was 100 and some percent.
Mayor Chmiel: Jim, would you like to7
17
City council. Hoot in9 - February 10, 1992
3im Curry: This J.s what he just pointed in the works. Zt seems to me you're
better off to get the cost then instead of interest on interest on interest.
The cost of putting those things isn't going to go up. Zt's not my issue but
mean that's your' alternative. Either J. nterest from now on and that way he can
do bls property now and we can go on.
Councilman ~ing: Hr. Hayor, are there some unanswered questions here regarding
some of these issues on assessment and interest that maybe makes a decision
tonight this much premature? I'm just slightly getting a little buried now. I
think I'd like a little more clarification on some of the concerns by Mr.
Klingelhutz and Hr. Curry. It might make a decision much more intelluctual. I
feel like we're kind of groping to get this through and I want to get the
development going. That's a real valid point. I'm not asking for a long delay
but certainly by the next meeting ue could make a firm decision on this. Haybe
with a lot more input from the City Hanager and City Attorney on what's best.
~nd if there was any feeling on your part for that, I would wJ. thdrau the motion.
If not, it stands. I'm happy either way. I'm looking to you for.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't know, if we were to delay I don't think we'd probably
come up with any other answer for' right now that we're coming up with at this
time.
Councilmar, Wing: Let the motion stand then?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
£ounciluoman Dimler: And I'm satisfied that the people in green acres would be
be~ter off with the way we'-re proposing and then with lnterest on interest. So
I (hlnk in the long run they'd be happler wlth that too.
Hayor ChmJel: Okay. Any other discussion?
Resolution #92-20: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman flason seconded to
authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for watermain and sanitary
sewer improvements in Section 24 and Lake Riley Hills as presented in Alternate
2 with the intent for approval being that the REC charge being established for
properties within the green acre designation would be charged at the then
current EEC charge when those properties develop. A11 voted in favor and the
motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: PROGRESS VALLEY HINI-STORAGE FACILITY, 1900 STOUGHTON AVENUE,
GARY BROWN.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW RENTAL OF TRUCKS AND TRAILERS.
B. ZONING ORDINANCE AHENDHENT TO ALLOW SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE AS AN INTERIH
.__
USE PERHIT IN THE BUSINESS FRINGE (BF) DISTRICT.
C. INTERIH USE PERHIT TO ALLOW SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE.
Jo Ann 01sen: Brlefly, the applicant flrst applled for a conditional use permlt
to allow the rental of trucks and trailers. This is permitted as a conditional
use permlt in the BF district. The Plannlng Commission recommended approval of
the Conditional Use Pormit with the conditions in the staff report. The second
1rem was a zonlng ordinance amendment to allow screened outdoor storage as an
18
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
interim use permit in the BF district. The applicant requested to be allowed
outdoor storage. The ordinance did not allow that as a permitted or a
conditional use so we did amend the ordinance. Recommend amending the ordinance
to allow it as an interim use and that it has to be totally screened. The
Plannlng Commission recommended approval of this ordinance amendment. And the
last section was the actual interim use permit for the screened outdoor storage
and again the Planning Commission recommended approval wlth the conditions in
the staff report.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is the proposer wishing to address the Council at
this time? On what staff has indicated. Gary, do you have anything you'd like
to add to?
Gary Brown: No, I agree with everything.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. As I mentioned before, this is a public hearing. Is
there anyone else wlshlng to address this at thls time? Golng once. Golng
twice. Going three times. Oo I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public
hearLng. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Oiscussion.
Councilman Mason: I think if the Plannlng Commission is okay with it, it sounds
okay to me.
Mayor Chmiel: Also staff recommendations as such?
Councilman Mason: Yes.
Councilwoman Oimler: I just have one. I usually don't like to alter ordinances
for one particular situation that's occurring because it might affect some other
business frlnge districts. Can you thlnk of any other area that this would
affect that they may not?
Jo Ann 01sen: You mean in the BF district?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. Do we have any other BF districts that this will
really affect adversely?
Jo Ann 01sen: No. I mean there's one other storage faciltty in the BF district
and they are permitted a certain amount of outdoor storage but it essentially
has to be screened already. $o no, it's consistent wlth outdoor storage in all
the other districts in the city.
Councilwoman Oimler: Okay. Then I don't have a problem.
Mayor Chmiel: flo Ann, just one other question I had. With the storage of the
trucks and faclllty per se contained on site, will any of these have any
maintenance belng done on those vehicles?
19
City C~mllc.fl. I'lo~;i..il~U - I-'ebll.t,iry .tO, ]99~
3o ~nT~ OtSel-~'. 'l'hc:y ',-'.:h~.~lL.i.~l l~ot have, no. No,- can they b~; slated in the
liayOF Cl~mJ.~.l: ~lF~ght.
Cou. iici].womc~ll Fl.~mler: Z move appFova.t of item 4.
Cou'nc.i.].ma n Ha,~'~o n ~· Second,
H~.~yor Chmie],: Yec¢ Roger.
Roger Knut~;on: Can T po.tnt out, one procedural item. 4(b) ie an ord~narlce
~m~.~ndment. This would be the first reading unless you ~aive the second readLng
and since you can'~ approve 4(c) until 4(b) has been accomplished.
Hayor Chm~el: We can go 4(a) and have Lh~e as a first readi~g for the zoning
ordinance amendment?
Rocjer Knutson: Right and then table (c).
Mayor Chmi. e,t: ~nd table ~.tem (c). So if ~e could get a motion for that with
item (a) ae approval; ~tem (b) aea f~ret reading; and item (c) as
Counc L] woman Dimler: Contingent. I so move.
Co~zncilman ilaeon: Second, ~nd then the rest wi].l go on Coneent ~genda next
~. i. me?
Mayor Chrome.I: That'~ correct. Right.
Counc~lNoman D~m].er moved, Councilman Ha~on seconded to approve Conditional Use
Permit ~7-2 for the rental of tru~ks and trailers N$th the foIloNing
conditions:
The applicant shall provide a landscaped screen Nith evergreens along the
fence line at the mouthNe~t corner of the
The storage of the truck8 and trailers shall be confined to the area
Ghown on the sSte pZan and the area shaZi have a gravel sl~rface.
3. The applicant shall provide a landscaping plan acceptabie to the PlannSng
Commission and a ].etter of credit shaZZ be submitted to cover the cost of
material ~nstaliat~on and one year Narranty.
4. There shalZ be no more than 20 trucks ~nd 4 traiZers and no trucks can
exceed 26 feet Sn length.
~1~o, to approve the fir~t read~ng of Zoning Ordinance ~mendment ~2-1 by adding
~rt~cIe II, BF, Fringe Bus,ness D~str~ct, the folloNing to Section 20-775,
Interim Uses:
(3) Screened outdoor storage.
2O
City Council Meeting - February
amend Division 4, Standards for Business, Office, Institutional and Industrial
Districts by adding the fol1owing:
Section 20-294. Screened outdoor storage.
The following applies to screened outdoor storage:
(1) All outdoor storage must be completely screened with 100~ opaque
fence or landscaped screen.
And to table action on the Interim Use Permit until after the second reading of
the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Hayor Chmiel: Now we did indicate, I should back up on that one with all the
recommendations of staff on each of those perspective items.
Councilwoman Dimler: Right.
Councilman Wing: It appears that Mr. Brown is stunned. You might want to
explain that it's over.
Mayor Chmiel: You can leave, thank you.
Gary Brown: What would you like me to explain?
Councilman Wing: No, you look stunned. I was just trying to explain, it's
over. It's done. You can go home.
Gary Brown: Oh, thanks a lot. Send me a letter as to what you want done.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, just send money.
AWARD OF BIDS: CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT. RESCUE TRUCK.
Scott Hart: Mr. Mayor and City Council. I'm here tonight to recommend the
purchase of a new heavy rescue truck as discussed in my memo to you, that was
included in tonight's Council packet. Also in attendance with me tonight are
our newly elected Fire Chief, Jlm McMahon and Captaln Bob Halvorson who has
chaired the truck committee. Any of us will be happy to answer any questions
you may have about the recommendation. Zt lsa recommendation of the Fire
Chlef, the truck committee, the general membership of the Chanhassen Fire
Department, the Publlc Safety Director and Clty Manager that the bld from Lynch
Display Vans be accepted and that the Public Safety Director be directed to
proceed wlth the purchase of a vehlcle and necessary equipment providing that
any cost above the $102,000.00 system be funded from other existing sources,
including the transfer of funds from the utility department fund so as to permit
them to use the existing vehicle.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Are there any specific questions that anyone may
have? Let's shift through this proposal for a rescue vehicle purchase. It
appears that we have the Lynch Dlsplay Vans, Inc., the people who have the low
bid and I guess what's being recommended is we authorize staff to establish the
fair market value of the old rescue truck. Authorizing lt's transfer to the
21
City Cour, cil MeetJ. n9 --Febru.~F? !0> .1_~92
Sewer ariel W~'~ter De. pa'rtment ~ts recommended and if you've read the correspondence
contained within, that WOLtJ.d be used with each of those compartments for all the
d~ffcr~nt, fittings and things that the sever department would need and there's
al~otl'~er need for thaL particular ~ruck there- So with thzt T'm going to throw
~'t. open. IJr'.~¢ula, do you have anything?
6. ouncilwoman Oimler: I've talked f.o Sco(~ extensively on this and after he
~.:xplained that thls company, Lynch DJ. spray Vans ls probably the only one that
can meet the specificatlorls and it's unllkely that we would get any other bids,
T'm al.! in favor of it and ~ 11ks Lhe conservative approach that they've taken
al.~o to getting funds from ai~other area within the Flre Department.
Mayor Chm.ie]: Richard?
Councilman Wing: The only thing I'd point out Mr. Mayor is that, of course
be.Lng on the Fi're Department I've had a little iiTsight into this but I think for
the flr:~t time in my history in Chanhassen, both the Publlc Safety Dlrector and
the Flre Chlef h~ve clearly directed the Fire Oepartment that they're not golng
Lo go over budget. What money was alloted is the money they're spending and
they've heJ.d ar. that tenaciously. And I think they should be complimented for
tha'l. They had x dollars to spend and they held the line on it and that's
r;xa.q:t].y wh,zk th~.;y did on this. The slight overage now ls based on that rescue
truck. That's all.
cour, ci.l. man Hason: Yeah I concur with that. I think both Scott and the Fire
O~.partment are to be commended for that, For staying within the budget. I mean
w.r.. appl'ove their budget and how Lhey thlnk it's necessary to use it. If thlngs
got .-sh.i. fted around, yeah. Good job.
Mayor ¢.hmiel: And I guess Dick indicated there's been a lot of time put into
this. A lot of extended effort. Of course that's the things that we like to
see done as w~.;1].. So maybe if Jim would just stand up so people would know who
our new Flre Chief is. Thanks for coming, unless you have something to say 5im.
.'lim McMahon: Thank you.
Councilman Wing: He was really hopir~g for a fight, I just want you to know
that.
Mayor Chmiel: tie said that if we didn't pass this, the next fire at my house
they wouldn't come. So consequently, thanks Jla. Can I have a motion?
Council. man Wing: So moved.
Councilwoman Oimler: Second.
Resolution ¢g2-21: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to award
the bid to Lynch Display Vans, Znc. for the purchase of a new rescue truck and
authorizing staff to establish the fa/r market value for the old rescue truck
and authorizing its transfer to the Sewer and Water Department. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
22
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
RECONSIDERATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE A~ENDMENT CONCERNING MOORING OF WATERCRAFT.
Kate Aanenson: This is a reconsideration based on your request that the staff
look at the way the wording is written in Section I and that was raised the
concern that riparian owners. The number of boats would still be limited to 3
as long as the owner had permission. Someone else could dock their boat there
as long as there was no fee involved. So that language has been changed.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Appreciate that. I would move it.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve adoption of the new
language for the proposed amendment for the Noosing of Watercraft. Al! voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I thought that was a good catch.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, can I just ask a technical question of the City
Attorney? This was already approved once and ue published it once but it was
never signed. Now we reconsidered it, do ue republish that and then sign it?
Mayor Chmiel: No. We voted on it didn't we?
Roger Knutson: What you have done tonight is you have voted to reconsider.
That does not pass anything. Ail it does is put it back up on the table. You
did not pass an ordinance by your motion to reconsider. You put it back up on
the table. You have not passed an ordinance by your motion to reconsider. You
brought it back up on the table. Under your By-laws you're not supposed to act
on it tonight. An ordinance itself. You're supposed to give everyone notice
who had notice of the original, initial action.
Aanenson: We did renotice this.
Roger Knutson: You did renotice, okay. Then unless you want to wavie the
requirements of your By-laws, it has to come back on your Consent Agenda for
your next meetlng.
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, it was my understanding that we reconsidered it
at our last meetlng.
Roger Knutson: Oh, you did reconsider it? Oh1
Councilwoman Oimler: So this is the time to do action.
Mayor Chmiel: You weren't here. I was going to say, you were absent.
Roger Knutson: I was told to stay home.
Mayor Chmiel: Right, I wanted to save money.
Roger Knutson: I said that because your agenda item says reconsideration.
23
City Count.il Heel. i~'mg -- Fnbrua'r'y 10, 1992
Co,tncilwomar, Oimle'~" Oh, okay. Sure. But this is the report for the
recor}oideration th,u.s, we approved last meeting.
Hay()r ¢'.hmiel: Yeats, ue discussed it at the last meet_~ng and that's why ue
brought it back.
Roger Knutson: You reconsidered it at the last meetlng and you're brlnglng it
back now?
Comtncllwoman Dlmler: Yes. So thls is the tlme to act on it.
Roger I(nutson: Okay,
Pa~tl Krauss: $o cio we then just republish it wi[h the correct language and have
that signed?
Rogpr Knutson: Yes.
REOUEST TO EXTEND VARIANCE, 9247 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, JAHES JESSUP.
Paul. Krau~: There's no action required on this.
Mayor Chmlel: Okay. Thank you.
ZONING ORDINANCE AHENDHENT ESTABLISHING REOUIRE.ENT FOR NON-CONFORHING
RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS OBTAIN A NON-CONFORNING USE PERMIT.
Public Present -'
Name Address
$.1t. Knigge
.lerry L. Kortgard
Jerry ~ohnson
Michael R. Ryan
Court MacFartane
Peter & Lola Warhol
Ran & Oebbie Ament
V.R. Isham
G.A. Peters
Mark Rogors
Tom Metz
Dr. Oavid Tester
Mary Jo Moore
Bill Finlayson
John Metz
Ivan Underdahl
8~rnie Schneider
Bob HebeJ. sen
Terry 5ohnson
3910 Glendale Orive
3901 Glendale Drive
3940 Glendale Orive
3850 Maple Circle
3800 Leslee Curve
3831Leslee Curve
4010 Crestview Drive
4030 Leslee Curve
4010 Leslee Curve
3851 Leslee 6urve
3201 Dartmouth Drive
3897 Lone Cedar Lane
3231 Dartmouth Drive
~320 Fir Tree ~venue
3900 Lone Cedar Circle
7502 .- 771h Street
7501 -- Z?th Street
Lake Minnewashta
3898 t.one Cedar Lane
24
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
Kate Aanenson: There's a long history of the recreational beachlot ordinance
and the lake management, which I'm sure there's other people that can speak to
that more eloquently than myself. I just would like to go through the brief
history of the two ordinances that you have before you tonight. Back in
September we told the Council that we'd be bringing these ordinances to you and
we have met with all the homeowner associations as ue did the inventory to
explain to them the process that we'd be undertaking. As you recall the intent
of this ordinance is to establish a baseline of what these non-conforming
recreational beachlots have as far as inventory of boats. When the ordinance
was passed in 1982, there was an inventory taken and since that time there was
an inventory taken in 1986 and in 1991. The reason ue recommended the two
different proposals is the matter of all ue have is a written inventory back in
1991. September of 1991 when ue did it, we took pictures and a video as well as
taking inventory and we felt that there was a little bit more validity.
Although there's the same margin of error in the fact that it's taken on a one
day spot. You know, all the boats may or may not have been in. So the Planning
Commission felt that the intent should be upheld and that we should stick with
the '82 ordinance, although staff still feels like 1991 may be acceptable too.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I know we've had a lot of discussions on this and we
did do a lot of review of discussions with it but I will open this up at this
particular time if anyone wishes to address any of those issues that staff has
brought up. So at this time I'd like to have about 3 minutes per each and we
will open it up. Open the floor up for that discussion.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor? If I could just interject here shortly. The
recreational beachlot, or the non-riparian lots of course as you mentioned, have
been discussed at length. But what's been lacking here throughout this
discussion was a hlstory of why prevlous Planning Commissions, Clty Councils,
city Planners and the DNR have in fact created these ordinances, the
non-riparian lot ordinance or recreational beachlot ordinance. There's been at
least two study groups put together that studied the city's lakes in terms of
boat counts and useage and acreage and that hlstory really lnvolves the
environment of the lakes. It has nothing to do ulth the individual people,
personalities or anything else. It strlctly involves lake useage and the
environment. And I've asked a gentleman, Tom Metz who lives on Lake Minnewashta
who was active in the Carver County Park Board and also on the Planning
Commission in Chanhassen during this period of time and also in 1986 he served
actively on the Park Study Committee and I thought it mlght be appropriate if we
could start out discussion this evening with Tom just presenting the history of
why these things occurred and why they were done and why and how we've gotten to
this point tonight. Because I think there's some real background here that goes
well beyond people. It's strictly having to do with boats, lake useage and the
environment, and Tom might be able to address that for our use tonight.
Mayor Chmlel: Alright, fine.
Tom Metz: Well I prepared some notes. I didn't think I'd get such a nice
introduction.
Mayor Chmiel: I'll scratch that 3 minutes for you.
25
C..~.ty C. ounc~] Meet.lng -.. Fel)ru~ry LO, 1<)92
Tom hlerz: I ::-'.~;.-,. WoI]. J.t's a ].et so'ye got to stop me. So maybe I've done
m~:re work I~8re :~o you can stop me. What I thought I'd do is just try and go
back through. Let's see, I've been 32 years lnvolved in thls thing. For those
of you who :~¢~y I don't look that old, it's nice of you to say that but I have
heel', around h~:re 32 years. In 1965, we'll start. Naegele sold that Ches Mar
F,~l'm.s to the park and with that he had a covenant of 15 boats with a maximum of
~() horsepower 11m¢.t. 1968 to 1972, Carver County developed a master plan for
i:h~:.; park. Annalee Hanson and myself were part of tho Lake Hinnewashta
committee and the other committee members for Carver County Park. We developed
thJ. s park. As you know it's a passlve useage. It's got the different boat
].aunchlng and we. felt that the park was deslgned to malntaln Lake Hinnewashta,
whlch means it blended in with it's natural, environment and that was the work
'for the commi, ttee durlng those years. 1972 to ~975, Carver County and DNR, the
ONR camde onto the 1,zke and gee, because you've got a boat restriction on your
lake, a maxlmum horsepower, we will not stock your lake. So due to some
hassling we said okay, we'll ~;1.tminate the horsepower restriction and you'll
agree to stock our lak~.. Of course we eliminated the horsepower but we have yet
to sec,. the stocking of our lake with any fish. About 1975 Carver County
contlnm~ed to ~c. roase it's useage from 15 up to about 25 boats. I'll never
forget thls Carver County Commissioner at this meeting saylng well, nothing is
cast in stone and therefore a].l of these rules are subject to change. About
1978 to 1980 Carver County and Lake Hinnetonka Homeowners met. At that time we
had finally gotten to be the Department of Natural, DNR. Department of Natural
Resources and we asked for thelr guidelines as to ~¢hat is the riparian and non-
r.i. parian use on an ordlnary lake. Ancl that formula amounted to one non-riparian
bo,:{t for every 20 acres of surface acres of lake and there's ZOO surface acres
of lake divided by 20. That's 35. The DNR said at that polnt, when you have
more th~n 35 boats of non-riparian use on this lake, you are exceeding the
guidelines. About 1980 Carver County requested that we close all the park
,'-.~c:ces.s, I mean all of the o(her accesses on the lake and that we allow only one
access to the park. At that polnt then we st111 had an agreement of 15 boats,
15 horsepower or .l. ess and then we agreed to up the other to 2& boats. So now
we've got 41 boats where we had agreed to a total of about 41 boats on a lake
(h,.~.t was supposed to have 35. In 1980 Carver County Park and the City of
£:h~,nhasse~ entered lnto some agreement where you jolntly were runnlng the park
and I'm not privlledgod to that but there's somehow that Carver County and the
city of Chanhassen are involved in the rules of the park. Somebody else can
expound on that. About 1980 to 1985 I became a Planning Commissioner member and
at that 'time I think that durlng those 4 years about, at least once a month some
nA.,.t,~ developnr would come in and say I've got this 20 homes off the lake and I
t,~ant to thi. s 65-70 foot lot and I want to put on 10-15 type of additional boats.
And of course we spent all our time fighting then. About in 1982 we finally
s..aid that we'd develop an ordinance and we sald well all of the, because at that
point we were fighting with the existing homeowners who were trying to expand
their property and we were trylng to of course comply wlth maintaining thls so
called DNR 11mit of .'.45 to 40 boats. So in 1982 when these gLtldellnes were, at
I.h.is lime when the guidelines were approved, we had Carver County Park that had
4.s heats in it. We had Minnewashta Heights and I'm guessing, they must have had
10 to 15 boats. ~e had Pleasant Acres who has 15 boats. We have another 6 to 8
development~ that probably had between 3 to 5 boats. Or another 40 boats so
even in 1982 we had a total of about 115 what we'll call non-riparian boat
us, e,'~ge.s for a lake that the guidelines were down to 35. So in 1982 we had
al. ready ¢.xceeded these guidelines by 30OX. 35 ls the 11mlt. At 1982 we were up
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
to 115 non-riparian boat uses. In 19911 guess ail I'm saying is that, you know
as I go out on that lake and you can talk about the quality of Lake Minnewashta
has gone down. I mean you talk about Saturdays and Sundays and then sometimes
instances, the lake is overused. I think our goal in 1970, '80 and '90 was to
preserve the quality of Lake Mlnnewashta. We've spent thls many hours, whether
it's Planning Commission, Park Commission, and we trled to maintain a lake that
wasn't a Lake Minnetonka. Something that we dldn't have surface zonage or
surface useage. Where we'd have hundreds of boats going around in a circle. We
tried to maintain a lake that we were all proud of. That we could pass onto our
children. And in essence that's the summary of my, I've devoted and like a lot
of you, 20 to 30 years of thls tlme and I think we're seeing the quallty of this
lake deteriorate. We agreed in 1982 that the lake was being overused and to
come back in 1992 and to find some reason to say that we want to lncrease thls
useage again, it doesn't make sense. The purpose of this thing was to pass on
something to all of our children, and I don't care whether we're homeowners.
That we want to take some of our boats off the lake or if we're non-homeowners
and we agree to take some off. Let's spend the tlme and take it back lnstead of
trying to increase this useage. That's all I've got.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Thank you Tom. Is there anyone else?
Dr. David Tester: I'm Br. David Tester. I'm a dentist. I've lived in
Chanhassen for the last 20 years and for the last 15 years I've lived on Lake
Minnewashta. It's a beautiful lake and at the time the property was subdivided,
there was a provision that there would be a homeowners association and the
homeowners association would have a beach recreational lot. Now that
recreational lot has about ?0 foot of frontage and since the inception of the
homeowners association, we've kept Minutes that date back to the 1977. Actually
we were platted and our covenants were approved in 1975 and we were given the
ability to govern our beachlot as many boats as we thought we could handle.
Most of the people dld attend the meetings annually. We had one meetlng
annually and it was usually determined how many boats would be moored or docked
at the one dock that we do have. In 1981, prlor to the beachlot survey, in the
Minutes we had authorization for 4 boats to be moored at the dock. I think at
that point in time we only had 2 boats. But I say I think this is apparently 2
boats because at the time the homeowner to the south, Chuck Crompton, it appears
from some pictures that we had, we thlnk that from the survey that Krueger did
in 1988, that actually we had one homeowner that was actually probably docked
off of the recreational lot that was the outlot. Because that survey seemed to
afford us about 12 to 15 more feet of frontage so I think at the tlme the
initlal survey was done in 1982, I thlnk there was more than 2 boats. I thlnk
there was actually 3 boats and 2 docks on that property. I would just like to
say that we would be happy if we could keep our covenants and have 4 boats as we
planned in 1982 and we'd be happy with that. As far as the 1982 or 1991
ordinance, we don't really, like I sald, we'd just be happy wlth what we had in
our covenants and the level that we were planning in 1981. That's all I have to
say. Thank you.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, on that line as the gentleman comes up. We get
into the discussion of city ordinance and covenants. Are we worried or dealing
wlth covenants tonight or are we dealing wlth clty ordinance?
27
C.~l.y Co~tnci.]_ Mr-:.c. tir,g I-'ebtuary .1.0, .t992
P. oOo'r I',r~kttc~or,: Tl~c City does not enforce covef,anl, s. Has no right or ability to
(-:~',fol-(:(: th,'."..m, ge.'¢e cone:et'ned ,'{bout ordillc/llC~?$.
Cou)]cJlmari t,]J'ng; hi. right, so the fact that covenants allowed them 20 boa'[S is
Rogr-.:',' Knu(.:on ,..0 of J. O0 o'r' none.
Okay.
Miiyor Chmie].: Yes sJ.r.
i'l~t~,'k Rogers: i'ly ~'~alr,~,. is Mark Rogers. I live at 3851 teslee Curve. I'm the
r.lock Chair,,a~ of [he Pleasant ~cres 14omeowners hssociatior, which is located
the west short o[' Lake Minr, euashta a't the intersection of 6.1endale and
it[n~,,~uash(,'~ P;.,rkuay. I believe the 9e~,tleman just referenced our beachlot.
This pt-opef'[y HaS deeded to the Pleasa~t heres Homeowners ~ssociation in May of
1968, so we've beer~ around for quite a while. Se~era]. of the other reel, beYs of
[his assocJ, at.[on are also here tonight to listen and participate. You've got
lt.~o versions:; et this amendme~t~ ordir, ance ratl~er in front o[ you. ~ith a few
m]n~r changes ~e w~uld support the adoption of the 1991 uersior, of the ordinance
o.s did Ll~e city planr~J, ng staff for the Planni~g Commission meeting. The Binot'
uh,~nges are to, and I'll Ii. st ti,em [J. rst so ue can concentrate on the major
.'issue ];t~L.. ~-(: to strike the last sentellco of paragraph (c) which essentially
re].~ases the city of liability in the eyelet that notice is not given of the
hr'.::rir,g to tl,e .lake I',omeouners. And I would also want that not. ice Lo be
¢;fLenfJ~(J to the owners of the beachlots as this ordinance deals wlth primarily.
!t dos~; i]ot do Lh~( r, ou. I'd al:so like (o ask [or later' clarification of the
f;ection on violat. J.o~s, uhJ. ch[n it's extreme could be fairly severe. Back to
[h,:~ p~'im,zry issue. Tl~e conditions of 1991 and 1982. ge, and the city staff
nr[ginal].y support the 1991 version of the ordinance in contrast the
r'~-'commendation o¢ tl~e Pla~nir~g Commission, hecau'..;e the il~ten[ of the ordinances
aye very good. [~asi. ca].ly to preuer, t the abuse of beachlots and the lake and the
l~r-~.[ghboring lakeshore owners. The 1991 version seems to provide fairness to all
~:nd it al].ous the process Lo proceed much more quickly. The 1982 version I
bel[ovo will lead to disputes and protracted negotiation and possibly lawsuits
due to the admJ. tteclly relatively poor documentation of the 1982 conditions.
I've alr~ady tonight seen a couple of examples of where the documentation
,:of~cef'i~ing the number of boats has varied dramatically. Pleasant Acres is a
ueJ.L org~nized homeowners association. We police our beachlot well. We believe
in cooperation with our neighbors and to my knowledge we ha~e no uutstandSng
pr'.[or complaints against oLtr association. And I'd appreciate knowing if that's
~-~(~t. t.~-ue, ge maintain our beach}ot very we}}, as again noted by the city staff
i~ ;t'c inuent or$~t¢ and u$th much pr'~de as ue recognize and enjoy ~t's ua~ue
perhaps moro than anyone. Be are a}ready }~m2tJn9 the number of boats and boat
;toe:ess amo~gst our own member's. Even now ue havu ~t people on the waiting
~,~.tth homos ~tnder construction ~nd m~y more p}anned. Others cert~n~y recognize
I. hc, u;t~ue of tl~Js prop~rty atso, most noteab}y re~]. estate agents and property
,7, l;l,~'aJscrs, as Cvidei~ced by the number of te~epl~one ca~}s Z receive year}y
~h~[ J.s the l~ketihood that ~ perspective buyer can have a bo~t down at the
}~nch z~nd so on. Zn s~tmmary, rather Lhan somewhat b~2nd~y attempt to recreate
~he ttl~(;erta~ cond~'L[ons of J.~82 and much has changed s~nce then. Z'm not
r.~"L¢~&n what. all has u$th regard to the ~ake and the boats but Z know 6hanhassen
28
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
certainly isn't the same city that it was in 1982 and neither was the lake. We
would recommend that the City focus on quality, responsibility and cooperation
and the ].991 version of the ordinance would seem to be the most consistent with
this goal.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Mary Jo Moore: Good evening. My name is Mary Jo Moore. I live on Dartmouth
Orlve Jn Chanhassen. I've been a resldent of the Lake Mlnnewashta area for 12
years. I've been lnvolved and very aware of the lake useage ordinance.
studied it thoroughly. I've tried to control, my home ls situated between two
recreational beachlots and Z know that the Minnewashta Shores has always been
maintaining thelrs. The other side does not malntain theirs and they sald, when
I had proven documentation and the city had proven documentation of the number
of boats in 1982, they came to me and said, we'll just extend the dock and then
we can have more boats. I think that's a lot of times what these associations
are dolng. They feel they can handle more boats so they extend the dock. The
take can't handle the boats. The Associations can. Thls lake cannot do it.
~t's unsafe out there now on weekends. And Z stick wlth the '82 census,
which I've 11red with and the others have and I think it was a good census.
They have the documentation. Z have documentation. That's lt. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Bill Finlayson: I don't have any prepared notes but I Bill Finlayson from the
Minnewashta Beach Association. I'm the Beach Chairman there. It's interesting
to hear what the Pleasant Acres Beach Chalrman goes through. I have the same
things happen with me. We have people coming into the neighborhood, we have
real estate agents calling us. Selling homes on contingency that they can have
a boat down there. The answer is always the same. You can't sell a home on a
contingency of you having a boat. We only work with a certaln number of boats
in our Association. Hinnewashta Heights Beach Association we feel is a well run
~ssoclation. We're a well organized group. We do not have an overrun amount of
boats. Like I sald, we work with a certaln number and if that number is greater
than the number, than those people are actually thrown on a walting list. We're
all concerned with the environment of the lake. I'm down there all the time. I
do not see that Minnewashta is an overused lake. It doesn't have the situation
that Minnetonka is for instance. The park acts as a turnstyle for boats to come
on and off that lake. They can't have more than the certain number that the
park allows. I think that's all I have to say. We are in favor of the 1991
part of this ordinance. If there must be an ordinance at all then we would go
with, be in favor of be able to work with the '91 version of that ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
John Metz: I'm John Metz and I live at 3900 Lone Cedar. I also am a member of
the Trolls Glen Homeowners Association and I probably do not represent the
majority view there. However, this issue is not necessarily just about Lake
Minnewashta. There are other lakes in this city that are impacted by thls.
Minnewashta happens to be the largest and probably the most populated but people
on the Counc11 should indeed think about the water useage for the other lakes
involved here. The smaller the lake, the fewer number of boats it would take to
lmpact this useage. Thls lsn't about Trolls Glen or any of the association
29
beacl~e.:::. Tt'..-; 'r'r:ally about wha'L the CouncJlmembers have a:.: a duty to protect
the enuiFol~ment for ail the lakes iii Cl',anhassen. I'm not goir, g to belabor the
FOJ. l~l... I 'think nmy vJ. ewpoJ, n[s at'e pretty well known from previous appearances so
[']..L just (l~,fr;~' any further comment. Thank you.
!".,:tyr)¥' C:hmiel' Tidal]ks 3ohn.
Tv,.:¢l Unclerdah]: Ivan Underdah]., 7502 West 77th. Member of the Trolls Glen
H, om,?ownc:~'s (tssociation. I would ~lso speak in support of the 1991 baseline. I
.C;z~-r~:~ j~ our parLicu].ar sJ. tu&tio~, as far as number of boats, it wouldn't make a
great deal. of ~liffcrent ~o tho lake. Zt means going from 2 or 3 to 4. Z guess
1' wofmdr:f' .;.f (line objective is to cut clown on the number of boats on the lake or
t.h,t( could uso the ].~ke. I'm not convinced that just number of boats determines
th¢.. Almloktnt o[ LtS8 ei.'Lher because some b,)ats are, even though they're at a dock,
(hey're seldom ou.t on the lake and Z'mn spe~king for myself in that regard.
¢~nother polnt, and Z don't know what bearlng or effect it would have but this
oYdJnAll(;e yOtt jttOt, passed earlier- ti'mis evening where you are allouLng a boat to
be docked at prlvate property uJth the owner's permission. Now Z don't know how
m21~y pieces of p~'.'LvaLe pFoperl, y there are ~round the lake but suppose 15~ of
them allowed another boat to be docked on their property. Isn't that going to
have ~n impact on the lake?
councilman Wing: Ivan: that ordJ.]~ance that was passed affects MOLl also. It
i,earls t l',at your :son-in-law of' brother--in--law of- anybody can use Four dock space.
Tlla'~.':: a].]. [t sayt.~ wi. th your permission. Everybody's numbers still stay the
same. That's ir'r'eJ_evanf.. Yt just says that you dol~'t have...
Zv,',n tJnderdal]l.'. Yeah but I guess what I'm saylng is:, maybe a property owner has
ormJy onr-?, boa l.
Councilman Wi~g: Host of them do.
T. van tll~derdah]: l. le would al.low 2. more.
Councilman Wing: That's true.
Lva~ tJr~cterdahl.: That's tl~e point I'm making.
r;:o~tncilman W..;.~g: That's right. The property owners can have 3 boats. That's
i. nc.Luded.
'[v,.~f~ Underdahl' That's right. Z understand that. And Z guess even in that
F,'?9.:,rd, I find it d.tff.tcu.~( to accept I guess that a private property could have
more boats thal~ a recreational beachlot. So I guess ~ would speak strongly in
support of J. 99.t as a baseJ..tne, or perhaps some variations I think if it really
involves .large numbers. But I think in our case I don't see that 4 boats
pf-esents any problem.
I'iayo'r' C:hmiel: Good. Thanks. Anyone else?
Rc, b I~ebr:Jsen: My name i.s Bob Hebelsen. .T.'ve been a res.Ldent of Lake
M~nncwashta for J, 4 yea~s, .T don't have a homeowners association on either side
c.f mo ,':,o .T fe~,]. T.'m a .1,~tt.l,o b~t imparLial on tills thing. But it just seems to
3O
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
me that if we had an ordinance that 'was passed in 1982, I don't really
understand why we're going to change it in 1991. Then we look forward to
changing it again in the year 2000. I guess one of the questions I would throw
back is what provisions are there to enforce this? If I had 5 boats, which I
know is not legal on my dock rlght now, would that give me the right then to
continue that? I don't think so. It shouldn't. And I think if we had an
ordinance in place in 1982, I thlnk we should stick ulth lt. Everybody thlnks
it was a good ordinance in 1982, it should be a good ordinance in 1991. Thank
you.
Dan Ament: My name is Dan Ament. I live in Pleasant Acres Addition. I've
11red there ]0 years. I have had my boat on the lake in that tlme, the full
time. Obviously I thlnk we were pretty well represented on how well our beach
area is kept and I guess when we moved to this area we moved there because there
was lake access. Obviously I can appreciate what everybody says. We want to
have it limited to so many boats on the lake. At the same time, I would like to
ssa Highway 5 11mlted to so many cars. Hlghway 7 limlted to so many cars. You
know life goes on. We'd all like to move back to 1964. It was a great year but
we can't move back. You have to move forward and I think we have to take care
of all of, try to appease society as a whole and I think obviously in that we
have to make sure that everybody does thelr part to keep it up properly and keep
iL clean and make sure our lake ls you know, for our children. I think we have
some people here who have thelr homes on the lake and they talk about havlng the
lake for their children. I think we all feel that way. We all want to have a
soclety For ol~r chlldren as well as for ourselves today. Thank you much.
Hayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Hark Rogers: First, just a note of clarification. You know the lake is graded
h as of 1991, The ONR's highest ratlng and it's one of the premium quality
lakes in the Tuln Clties, even ulth the boat useage that was there in 1991. I
agree it can get busy but it does not get as busy as Minnetonka and the DNR is
still pushlng to expand the use of that lake. So agaln it is a quallty lake.
It's serving a good purpose to our society and it is more crowded than it was. I
lmaglne 10-15 years ago, I wasn't here but lt's still providing quality servlce
to the people that want to use it. Now the other item I eluded to earlier was
the violations part of the ordinance. I'm a 11ttle worrled about this as it
says that each day of violation is considered a separate offense. Now if at the
end of the season someone comes to us and takes out a tape measurer and we set
one oF our docks wrong, you know that's an entire season of misdemeanors that
could have accumulated against us. I thlnk this is a little bit of unfalr
treatment for some violations. We do not intend to violate any sections of this
ordinance should it be passed for our permit conditions but I thlnk there'd be a
little bit more moderate way of deallng with that.
Tom Metz: Can anyone tell me the amount of additional boats that wl11, could be
allowed onto the lake if this was changed? Ooes anybody have that figure?
Mayor Chmiel: Something like 25 more or something.
Tom Herz: So we're not only going to take our boats from 115, 300~. We could
go almost another 75~ more. So we're going to go up to 400~ of the allowed DNR
31
[:il.>, Cou[,c:i] M~-.'.~.'l:ili<.j .-Fabr'tiar'y tO,
I:,.'..~at useage (::n ti,at ].ak~. .T. inean I don't know how ali. of tls can sit here and
:'.,~>' t i-,~t ~i',c ],'~ke i:-sn' ~ ~.~bused.
i",.,,yo'r' chr~.-;.el: I think that's what you quoted ~n 1985, J.1.5.
P~.t~.~. W~rho]; Ny ~,a;~,e io Pete Wa'r'ho] and I live at 3831 Leslee Curve and I've
lived in Pl~asa~t ;lcre~ fn~- 4 year's and I've I~,ad a pontoon boat for 4 years.
And ~ ~,ean, al.1. of these boats aren't out at the same time. I mean I think the
o;,].y day ;.he ].ake~s busy or overcrowded J.s on 4th of July when tl,ey ha~e a
[,arado of boat~ ai-o,.tnd th~ lake and I just would like to say, I would like to go
~,,ttl-, tho .199]. staff recommendation. Thanks.
Hayor C: [,m..i. e ]. .'. Thanks. ~nyo~e else?
,3eorg~; Pet,er.~: My name is George Peters. ~ live in the Pleasant ~cres section.
.z.'~ or, 'the list. .I've been waiting on the list and .I think Z'll die before Z
~.7~.~ ;i dock, So I)y the, time. I get my,
Ha>'~," Chmiel: r~on't think that way George.
George Peters: By thr,. time ~. get my bo,it in the water' I'io too damn tired to
:-;aJ.]..it. Thel] .l' have to sit there on the bench, get my breathe back and haul
th;.,, daf~,n t~oat back I~o,~:. I have gone over ~o the park to launcl~ over- there
t~ec,tuse ~: find it's easier' to launch. There's better- launch pads there than we
,~,~v' (: ,'.,.~ ou'r' oo.a' ch. There's beel~ a lot of discussion' mentioning impact. How
,4oes the impact of the park come _in? I've been a resident in Pleasant ~cres now
~nr ,7 years and f. saw th~.,, park expand over theru, I don't know how many spaces
yo~t have over there bltt there's quite a few spaces between those two boat
].attl~cl~in.q sJ[.,.,.s:. Nov j.f aiJ. those were ¢i.l. led, plus every boat of a homeowner
,.,," thosr.: tidal, are fortunate enough to get a dock, plus all those who have their
hoat. s f. ra'iler~.,.d o;~ their .land, all get out on the 4th of ~uly, we're going to
',',,~vr.-: problems. Dut ~ did want to bring up that one point and I'm a little
con(:e~nr:-d abo,.tt tl~e .[,~pact or sor0ethir;g like a park in addition to all the
councilman t~].no: Hr. Hayor, I'd like to jUSt address that because I vas
invo].ved Jn I:haf.. The park was a trade, off and Tom Metz' committee addressed
that very dirr.:ctly. It's not unrestricted access. There are exactly 26 spots
for boats and whe~ ~ comes J~, the park closes. That was the number' agreed
~,l~on and the trade off was Leech's Resort closed down which brought up to 50
boat.s on ,~ week,end and then all other public accesses on the lakes were closed
~!own ~t the s,lme, t i.w~.', so the lake was tighten up. ~].1 accesses closed down and
there's ,'.~, in .... tt~.,;re.'s ,'z boat launch for, was under 10 or 1.5 horsepower but the
main power' boats, the water ski type boats were limited to 26 parking places and
t!,,-~t's a total number on the lake so the impact on the park was predicated on
what the lake would handle on the ~982 boat count. That's Mr. Merz' argument
I',~.r-u is that tl~e'r'e was so~,sthing estabJ, ishe. d at that time and again in ~986 that
directly impacted the park's ability to impact tl~e lake. So that was clearly
defined and v~;ry resf. rictive.
32
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
George Peters: Can I ask one question? The impact on the lake, is that judged
at all by horsepower or sailboats or is a boat a boat's as far as impact?
Councilman Wing: You'd have to address that Mr. Metz. I don't know.
Tom Metz: They don't differentiate. They have the guidelines and all they say
is rlparlan and non-riparian boat useage ulthout any reference to the types of
boats.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Ivan Underdahl: I guess I would just say again, as far as being crowded out on
the lake, seldom have I ever seen it crowded out on the lake. It could be some
weekends. I'm usually not out on the lake on the weekend but speaklng of our
dock, where we've had 4 boats, never have I seen more than I boat away from that
dock at any one tlme either.
Terry Johnson: Terry Johnson, 3898 Lone Cedar. I would support the Planning
Commission's recommendation of the 1982 to be the baseline, Really the only
other polnt that I'd 11ke to brlng up ls that I feel that 1982 has been what the
ordinance was set at for so many numbers of years and the people that have
expanded on that useage that they willingly knew was the ordinance and I know in
some instances the City Attorney has written letters to the people that had
expanded on that use. I have the feeling that you're rewarding the people that
have expanded that use and disobeyed the ordinance since 1982 and it seems
unfalr to me to reward those people by givlng them the right and making 1991 the
baseline which ls of course an expanded use from the 1982 original ordinance.
Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel; Thank you.
Mary Jo Moore: If you'll give me one more minute. When thls gentleman said
that there's no impact on the lake. Prior to my time at Lake Minnewashta I was
10 years at Lotus Lake. When I moved out there it was a gentile, nice lake.
Very clean. I understand it is now one way and on a freeway if you get too many
cars, the Department of Transportation comes out and they survey it and they put
a couple more lanes in. We can't do that with our lakes. We've got what we've
got. There's no more and that's what we need as protected. And I'd hate to be
on Lotus Lake rlght now and have to go one way. If Z had to go home quickly,
I'd have to go all the way around the lake to get back there so it does make a
big impact with the number of boats.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? If not I'll bring it back to Council. Are there
any other further discussions? Richard, why don't we start with you.
Councilman Wing: Of course I live on Lake Minneuashta and I've been there for
27 years and so I've seen a lot of changes. I participate in the disc test for
clarity and I'm on the County Dlve Team and I can say that Minnewashta in the
last 10 years has deteriorated. The disc tests have gotten considerably worst.
It's st111 an A rated lake but we're not assisting it. Mllfoll has come on the
lake now. The lake's being used and as somebody that's been very active on the
lake, clearly it's becomlng more used. Weekdays, weekday evenings, weekdays.
Weekends are of course the issue. I've talked to some of the gentlemen from
33
C.i.t.>, Coun(':i..1.. Mer't.i.~9
ripest: as~c)u~atJ, o~s just sunday, Saturday and Sunday. I vas sitting here ,just
vac.i.J.l_,~[i, n9 back ,.~nd f~rth ol~ trying lo decide what's fair and what's besl. Z
~.~ ah.re to t~t].k [o lit. Metz this morning and get the h~story of this and why ue
did ~l,at ~e did ~nd ~hat has occurred and the decisions that ~ere made by
pre. vtoits Couno~.~s~ ~ started [o say, boy ~hat are ue doing here. T've got a
100 foot ].or and Z have one power boat. Last year Z had a friend keep another
boat there but I go Ltp and do~n ,~y shoreline, we've 9or a~ these ~00 foot ~ots
,'.tnd Mr-. Hebeisen T. think has one boat and Mr. Metz has one boat. ;Iohn Metz .I
think has two boats. ~nd so ~ started (comparing that lake useage and intensity
~_t'th my next door neighbors 2n Minne~ashta He£ghts and again, T. don't want...
anybody but the heights has Z think 50 feet. Z'm not sure what the frontage is
bttt SO feet ~.tth .!_2 boats and ~ looked on the 12st here tonigl~t with Pleasant
Ac, f es, they had ~ think ~50 feet and they've got 27 boats. Tro~ts 6~en has 65
feet and they ~ant 4 boats and I'm starting to see an ~ncred~bl.e intensity here
that ~e rea.t.ty d.idn't p~an on at ally point. ~nd one of the comments on the
PJ_ar~n.~n9 CoaaJ. ssJo~'~ was, yeah you have a ~ot of boats but you were never
entit]_ed to them in the first pi_ace so [here's real~y no argument here ~f we
~ent t~a(:k to .L982. The documentation issue comes ~n and there Z see so~e roo~,
for negotiation. So Z guess in al]. fairness 'bo everybody, if ~e go to t99~, it
,~J_~ows TroJ.]s Gl. rt..ii to have tr~pted. Ol' the Pteasant ~cres to have tripled ~here
we're only going to a~]_ow Tro~].s 6j.eh to double. That doesn't make sense. ~f
one can trJ. p.te, Z guess the other one can tripJ, e. So Z don't see any fairness
hef'e unless ~e start back at point one and justify 1982 and then move forward 2f
we. have to ,'~nd then staff has to negotiate and justify their position, that's
fir~e. BLt[ Jt puts the burden on the property owner then. ~nd Z guess it comes
dot4n t.o you Ro~er. ~hat .ts your opinion as to what's fair and just here and
~hat is the CJ. ty's posit.ton?
Roger Knu(son: The only advantage staff has identified and I have identified in
th(: 1991 b~se~ine is ease i.n documentation. That's the ,~dvantage it has, Zt's
ea.~ier to figure oLtt what vas there il~ Z99~ than back Sn ~982. The disadvantage
w(th the 1992 baseline J.s 2t rewards fo}ks or associations that have ignored
yoLtr ru].es. Tl~ere i.~ a certa2n unfairness about that. Some people, ~ don't
know anyone personal_ly, probably very knowingly violated the ru~es. Maybe some
of the~ unknouJ, ng.ly but you're creating an amenisty program in saying ]-et by-
gones be by--gone~ and we'l} just start with what's out there Ln 1992. On
t~.¢,}ance ~t seeas to me, a}though there is some adminstrative convenience in
going to 1995, even if we agree on 2991, ~ imagine we'[]- be getting into some
ztrguments over what vas there... Zt ui].} be a ].itt}e bit more difficult
ad~,Lnstfative}y than the summer of '82 but ~. think that's a problem ue can
hand.re and we'~]- dea} with it on a case by case basis the best we can. Z think
on baJ. ance, Z [rank.~y don't see much advantage ~n going with the ~99~ basetine.
Counc:i].man Wing: Mr. Mayor, just one additional comment then. I was determined
tonJ. ght to shut myself off frolr~ tl~is and just try and listen and be very
ob]ectJ, v¢. and if I'm .~ust picking up on tonight, the issues that were brought
~tp, I heard too much of me and I and today and what I want and what's bes( for
me. What I wnl~t to do J.s look to the future to the lake. The lake useage and
the environment because I see that as the issue. And if I separate those two
out, 1991 has got too much me today and the 1982 is addressing the issue of the
enviroi~ment and tl~e ].ake use. I guess just tonight that's where I'm finding
myself windlno Ll, p I~ere.
34
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Ursula.
Councilwoman Oimler: Okay. Before I start I'd like to ask a couple of
questions. Was Pleasant Acres there in 1982 Richard? $o they'd have a
baseline.
Hark Rogers: It was formed in May of
Councilwoman Oimler: Okay. Are there any other developments that have come in
slnce 1982 that would not have been?
Hark Rogers: I know for a fact we had at least ? boats there in 1982.
Councilwoman Dimler: What I'm asking is, are there any more developments that
are going to have lake rights that are not here right now?
Paul Krauss: Yes, but they've all come under the ordinance as it exists since
1982.
Councilwoman Oimler: They come under the existing ordinance? But that wlll be
an expanded use of approximately 25 boats did I hear?
paul Krauss: No. We don't know what could happen.
Councilwoman Oimler: You don't know what that will be? Okay. So expansion is
inevitable is what, is that correct?
Paul Krauss: In all probability, on some of the lakes there will be additional
beachlots.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, good. Also, it was my understanding that in 1991
staff took a video of all the non-conforming uses so you would have good
documentation for 1991 which ls not true for 19927
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, with that information I guess, also I would like to
know why this is before us again today. Could you explain that a little bit?
Kate Aanenson: When the ordinance was passed in 1982 there was existing non-
conforming beachlots. What happened is nobody went out and took an inventory of
what they had so as far as the complying basis, we have no basellne to say what
was in place and glve them, I won't say a permlt. A non-conforming permit to
say this ls what you can have and you can't go beyond that. $o because of that
they've continued to expand. What we're trying to do is to give them a permit
that says you can have this number of boats so when we get a complaint we can go
out and enforce it.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and this didn't come before us again because of the
lawsuit for Trolls Glen then?
Kate Aanenson: No.
25
r:.iLy Counc~.l I'ieel. Jn9 -- Fc~br~,.~ry ]0:i992
Counl:i].uoman 0imler: Alrlght. ~. jLtst wanted to establish that. Z guess my
viewpo.i, nt i'.s th,.~t ~. don't favor going back in time so I. wou].d go with the 1991
b~;~eline because it's easier, it i.s already documented and ~ thlnk the 1982 may
be hard 4. o verify and ~ think there'd be a lot of disputes. ~.t would intensify
the .~l:ruggle that's out there. As far as the Trolls Bi. eh area ls concerned, we
got the Mlnute.s IJ~;re from the.i.r meeting dated ~-~-81 which indicates that even
in ].98t they were at 4 and Z. would guess that, you mlght say the covenants won't
stand ~.~p in court b~zt ~. belong to the Sunrise Hills Civic Association uhlch is
eli Lotus Lake and we did take our covenants to court and they prevailed so
co~rt:s do h~ve ~ 'reck]. respect for covenants. Roger, would you agree with that?
Roger Knutson: Oh absolutely. My earlier comment was, not in response to that
question. The ClUeS~iOi~ as ~ understood it was, ts the city in the business of
~nforclng covenants? No, it's not. But the covenants can be, they can be
v~lid. Oh yes. Definitely. That's why they're 'there.
Councilwoman Dimler.' Ye~.~, and they do stand up in court because our's has been
t:.,..-::ted. So ~,)en 1[ we Werlk with lihe 1982, I can't see thal that would resolve
thr.. situation with the Trolls Glen. To me they're even with 1982 they're at 4
so .T. have no problems with ti'mat. I do have a concern, the safety issue has been
brought up several tlmes so I would guess, if there's been problems ulth sklers
dropping and so forth, whlch .I have heard, I would be real concerned that the
CJ. ty does have a responsibility to go out and check and see if all the requlred
setbacks are being met with docks and with swimming rafts because I c~n see that
to be a real danger. I dld have Scott check J. nto the pollce records to see if
any unsafe lncident had been recorded and he informs me that there is none on
re. corri. So I guess even wlth tl~e hlgh useage that I'm hearlng about, it is
relative].y safe. Also, I think that construction is inevitable and it's going
to be expanded and I think these properties also have a rlght to use the lake. I
did ta.l.k to Hr..Johnson today and after much pleasant discussion we ended up our
conver.~;atlon u.ith agreelng that although we would both 11ko to see chanhassen
stop deveJ.opment ~zs it is today, ue both realize that. that's unrealistic and I
tl~ld him that if I had taken that approach 17 years ago, that once I'm in no
more, that many of you wouldn't be here today. So I guess I'm open to looking
at things gracefully and growlng and havlng a balance so I would favor the 1991.
Councilman Mason: I guess I see the issues as being basically environmental.
Where as I agree we can't control what goes down Highway 5 or Highway ?, I think
we can contro], what happens to the lakes in our city. Belng on the Surface
War_er Managenlent Team or whatever you want to call lt, we're constantly deallng
with ti]ese kinds of problems. I 1lye &-? blocks away from Lotus and lt's the
p~tcs. It's ti~e pits on the weekends. It ls one way. There's a beach there. I
won't take my kids there to swim unless it's a ~ednesday at 9:00 because lt's
just, 1~ lsi]"t safe. Now certainly Mlnneuashta ls not at that position. I
f. hlnk from ~he Clty'.~ standpoirlt J.t wotzld be easier, whlle ~s I under~tand the
dJ. fflcully with going back to 1982, Z thlnk it would be easler to negotiate
~zp~]~-d than it would be to negotiate downward. If we accept 1991, that's it and
tho.-.-;e are the boats tha~ are in there. And whlle I certainly agree progress ls
J_nevitable, I think hopefully in Chanhassen we're structuring it in ,~ way that
[~c have progress but ue also need to be aware of what's golng on around us. I'm
~]oL sure what, in my mind, what rights non-riparian lot owners have. I mean
r:].early we have i:hese beachlots and there u111 be boats orl them and that's flne.
Wi~h uh;.~ ]' .~ee happening to the lakes in this area, I would just as soon see
36
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
the 1982 ordinance. I think it was, I forget who said it earlier. The
ordinance was made in '82. We change it in '92. What happens in 2002? Maybe
something needs to be changed. I think that's kind of a drastic change to
accept the 1991. I uould support the 1982. I also think that there will be
some negotiating to see uhat boats can go.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I think really basically what you said is sort of the
position that I'm coming from as well. Environmentally there are a lot of
concerns with the lake, and that's the number one issue. That's what we have to
look at and of course we found some. But I too feel that havlng those
restrictions back in 1982 probably was a good establishment and probably some
good thought put lnto what has developed on that lake. Overcrowding is, as some
said there's a lot of boats across that lake. You can almost on the 4th of July
or probably some other tlmes that you could almost feel 11ks you can walk across
the lake because of total numbers and that's not right either. Improvement to
the lake is not going to be there if that continues and uill cause some
additional problems with additional boats. Again, looklng back from '82 to '91,
belng that there are establishments made by staff with numbers per se, lt'd be
sort of nlce to reach a happy medium but you don't know what that happy medium
ls. Because everybody should have that opportunity to use the lake but not
abuse it. I think that's uhat it really boils doun to. I guess I would just
slt back and see what the motlon by Councll to see where we're golng to go wlth
this. You know it's not the easlest thing to tell people what to do or how to
do lt. Especially when they're entltled to use that lake. Wlth that I'll just
sort of throw it back open for any other discussion.
Councilwoman Dlmler: Mr. Mayor, I'd llke to make another comment here that the
ONR restrictions have been brought up and I find the DNR is a wonderful
organization but they frequently contradict themselves in the fact that they
always are pushing for public Iandings on the lakes and the attltude is that the
lake belongs to everybody. And then on the other hand, restricting the boat
useage, sometimes it doesn't make any sense and that's one reason why I tend not
to put heavy emphasize on that.
Councilman Mason: I guess I disagree with you on that Ursula. I think, I'm
$OFFy.
Councilwoman Dimler: Could I just finish?
Councilman Mason: Z'm sorry. I thought you were done.
Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you, no. And the other issue that I'd like to see
addressed is the violation and I thought maybe Roger could address that. The
gentleman that had the concern about the violation.
Mayor' Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: I think by limiting, I thlnk you could make an argument that
by 11mitlng the useage you do allow everyone to use it. Because with a set
number, Z mean that's the way it ls and there's overuse and there's use. I'm
not going to deny what you're saying about how State agencies can have a way of
maklng thlngs more difficult.
37
City Coul'~ci]. I~eet'.i.~9 - Fel)'rltary 10, 1992
(:o~t,~¢.'.i. lt,¢~),n~ Dim]or: I 9ue~s and tile oLher point is, you know it's on].y a
couple day.-; ,', year'. N~xybe Memori,sl Bay, ~nd evell if that, <~'r 4tl~ of ~uly where
th~.:re Zt::~ heavy useage. .GO to me. I'm thinking does it justify those two days?
councilman Wing: Tl~at's a.n assumption.
Coulee:il. man t. lason: Tt sets a precedent though I think.
Cou~,cilman Wing: That ].ake isn't heavily used on 4th of Ju].y and Memorial Day.
It's [~sed every evening it's hot. Not used on cold days and it's not used in
the fa.Il but it's certainly used during the nice weather of the summer.
CouncJ. lwoman Dimler' Yes, but not overused. I'm talking about overuse.
Counc.ilman Wil;g: How do we define that and at what point do you want to cut off
the number of boats here? We've expanded, expanded, expanded. Where do we
stop?
(;oul~ci.l. woman 01role'r-; I call overLtseage when you can't navigate comfortably.
There"..; too many boats &nd you feel that your- direction is bein9 threatened
:-somehow. You cail't have a-skier. Then I would say probably too heavily used.
COltnCiJ.,lan Wing: Why in the last 10 years has the water clarity dropped almost
4 [oat? Why doesn't the dive team even use Minnewashta anymore? What devotes
.~t, l:'m all for it. If the. argumer, t came down to it, I would more [.han happy to
give up nly boats and have canoes and sailboats because I know what my power boat
emits into that lake. There's no question about it and there's a lot of it
going in there. So the Inore boats, the more gasollne and o11's in the lake.
3u.st don't know where to draw the line. We trled to do that in 1982.
Councilwoman Dim].er: The other tiling that I see that I'm also on the Water
%ltrFaco Managemen[ and Z see our- purpose as being there is to control water
qu~.t.l, lLy. Tllat's my main purpose o'f belng there. And the reason we're trying to
have a good qttality of water is for recreation~l purposes so that we can fish,
ue c~n skl, we can canoe, we can do all [hose things. So Z guess Z come at it
f~'om the other approach that which proceeds what there? That's the reason for
h,iving clear water J.s for recreatlona], purposes. Otherwise why would we bother?
Counc~J. man Mason: Agreed. Of course, I'm a canoeist. Not a power boatist so,
but that.'s.
Councilwoman Oimlor; I'm hot h so.
Mayor C:hmie].: Okay. With the discussion that we've had, is there anyone that
wo~tld care ~o make a motion?
Counc.ilman Mason: Before I do that, is it an option to, and maybe this is
openJ, ng such a bJ.g can of worms that throw it out. If so, so be it. Is it an
option to go wlth 1982 knowlng that [here u111 be some type of negotiation wlth
each association?
Councilwoman Dim].er: You're opening a can of worms.
38
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
Councilman Mason: I understand that. Z understand that.
Paul I(rauss: In my opinion I think that's exactly what you'd be doing by going
with 1982. We've always had the assumption that we're deallng wlth some
information. We're going to have to rely on them to give us some information
and the Plannlng Commission and youselves u111 have to ultimately declde what ls
falr. Z mean if we had 3 boats in 1982 and they maintain that there were 5 and
they just weren't on the lake the afternoon we were there, Z don't know how ue
could dlsprove that too ue11.
Councilman Wing: I thlnk some are documented and some aren't. I thlnk there is
some gray area Roger and is that tolerable?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that 1991 can be disputed.
Roger Knutson: If I can just comment. So no one's under misapprehension if you
go wlth the 1982 baseline or whatever you decide. When you say negotiation
under this ordinance, if someone comes in and says we have x boats there. I'll
make up a number, we had 5 boats there and our best information says there was 3
and there's no other information, then you have to make your best judgment on
what was actually out there. But if someone comes in and we can know they had
only one boat there and they want to negotiate it up to 6, there is not kind of
flexibility when the ordinance was drafted. The negotiation process ls in
determining what was actually there in 1982 to the best of our ability.
Councilman Mason: Okay. Okay.
Councilwoman Dimler: I do feel though that ue are really putting staff in a lot
of jeopardy by going with the 1982. It will be a lot of staff time and be a lot
of tax dollars spent to try to verlfy that. 1991 is cleaner. Easier. Maybe
that's what we need to look at.
Mayor Chmiel: I thlnk if everyone were to come in wlth actual, factual and not
add a couple one or two to it, I think we'd come out alright. If everybody was
as truthful as they could possibly be. And I thlnk we've got some back
information here showing what they've been back in 1981. 1982 as they've
indicated. And some of those have gone up from that particular point. Some
didn't have any. As we go through more of these, it just automatically shows
how many boats have been moored on each of these locations. But I thlnk too, I
go back to what I just said before.
Councilman Mason: One point I wanted to make earller and I didn't. It does
seem to me, if we approved the '91 one, we are essentially saying we know, we
suspect, excuse me. We suspect that some people knowingly vlolated the
ordinance and we're saying so what. I have trouble with that. I don't thlnk
that's rlght. Because that lsn't fair to everyone else.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well no it isn't but you know, a gracious spirit grants
amnesty. We dld it with the mllitary durlng the Vietnam.
Councilman Mason: Well put Councilwoman Oimler. Well put. I don't feel
gracious on this one.
39
fio,,r~(.J]man b...'~ng: 7,; '.,liOh Mo',! Wo'I1(i haYe been more. at tile variance hearing
o,.~ i- l 'i ,'., r.
t'ia>'or Ci~,n.i e] '. Ok,ay. I ti,ink d.tscussion has bee. do.e.
Cottnc:jJ. uoman l].[mle~r: E do I~ave on~¢ r, ore concern and that is thatt if .staff is to
~lea.1. uLth tl~em on a one to u~e basis, Z do have .a concern about the Trolls G}en
,'~ne ~:.inue t.h~t u,zs a ~:~.t~'t ,':asa that vas throun out and bas[ca~J_y the c~ty
to ~lectde. F~om uhat ~' u~derstand, the judge threu it back to us to decSde and
n~u t,~e're .l. ett~ng ~;t. aff dec,de so those people have gone th~'ough the process
over and r:,ve~ and over again and st. ill no decision.
Hayer ch~nJ.e.k: True. True. BtL'L Z th:ink being reasonable uLth somothLng of that
nature, ~ think that can
c:ou,ci]uoman Dim]er' f:an ue just direct .staff ~r~ uhat to do $n that case?
l(~.tt~: ~anen~on: I)o you ua~t to take ~hat one f&rst, .ts that uhat you're askSng?
co~c~tuo~,an DJ.m~er: Because Z assume the Judge uanted us to make the decks&on.
K,~t~ ~anenson' I t. hir~k uh~tL the Judge saLd, they dLdn't exhaust their
;.d,~J~t;;:ti'atJve remedies and they had to proceed 'through this process fSrst
befnr'e I:hey couJd go further in court.
~t~ncJ)uoma~ r)im]e'r': So do you fee]. comfortable making that dec~sion?
Pa~.tt Krauss: Nr~11 t,~e uot~.~¢'ln't be, you uould.
coLt~lci].uo,~al~ D.i.m].ei": Z k~'~ou u~e're j~tst throu&~9 J.t to you.
I(are hanenson; ble~'e ~jot~g to j~st research St and come up uith the best facts
~d pre~ste~t .it to tl~e Plaything Comm$sston a,d then 'they'~ come up u$th a
?'eco,~,~e~dat.t~, ~z~c'l ~:h;~n pat, s that recommendation onto you.
councJ.].uoman DJ_n~J.~tr: So ~t comes r~ght back to us?
Counc.[~man I'1a~on: Go it co,~es back to us one uay o~' the other.
Katre hanenson: Each one, u~'Jl proceed vi. th a.l.]. 13 of 'them a~d maybe take a
coLtp]e at ;t
C:oLtr~c~luomar~ Dimler: I think that's acceptable.
Hayer' Chmie~: Okay. J;'m stLll lookSng for
Turin I~[,derdahl: C:~ Z j~tst ask a question? If they come up one a't a ti~e, or
uhatever a~ct a.tl prope~'i:y ouners on the ~ake have to be notSf~ed prLor to the
ar, l')lJ cal..~on I.)eJ. ng consJ, dr~red?
Hayer Ch~n~¢]: Pa~? Roger?
40
C~.ty Cour~cJ]. Heetin9 - February 10, 1992
Ivan Underdahl: I thought there was something in the documents that all
property owners on the lake where the matter arises have to be notifed in
advance that this is going to be considered.
Kate Aanenson: It does say that.
Roger Knutson: What the ordinance provides is that a l0 days maiied notice be
given to ail owners of property on the iake that the beachIot is iocated.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. In and adjacent to the beachlot. Not ali property owners?
Roger Knutson: Aii property owners on the lake that the beachiot is located.
Paul Krauss: We shouid ciarify that too. We don't know who's got covenant
rights beyond the iakeshore homeowners. We maiI notice to the President of
the beachlot association but we don't know who the members of that association
are. Now if ue wili get iists of their members, we can try to notify them as
well. Otherwise ue don't know who they are.
Tvan Underdahl: But as I understand it, that means aiI property owners around
the Iake. Not necessariiy just recreational beachiot owners.
Roger Knutson: That's correct.
Paui Krauss: That's true.
Ivan Underdahl: So think of all that paperwork.
Roger Knutson: We do it ali the time.
Mayor Chmiel: Unfortunately, it's one of those things. I agree.
Resident: My point was, when it goes to the Association officers and then they
take care of all the members that's in the Association.
Hayor Chmiei: What we do is we look at whoever gets the tax statement.
Assuming it's the beachlot association that gets the tax statement, whoever gets
the tax statement will get a notice.
Resident: In this case it's the property owners...
Mary 3o Moore: It's no longer separately taxed... Each owner is taxed.
Councilwoman Dimler: Our's is exempt. Sunrise HiIIs is exempt.
Roger Knutson: Whoever gets the tax statement.
Council. woman D£mler: Yes. It goes to every homeowner in the association.
Hark Rogers: It shouid but it doesn't. The maiiings do not do that.
Roger Knt~tson: Whoever the owner of record is and there won't be ?0 owners of
record for an Association.
41
C~.Ly (]o~c.i.]. i'lo-ol..~.ng -- Fe.[~T'uary .1.0,
'[v,:ti"m Und,.,.rd;Jh].; and will. thru: cost of all that mail.i, ng be tile City's cost?
Roger Knutsoll: Yo:s.
Mayor Chm~el.: IJnfortun,]telx.
CounciLman W~ng: Bu[ it's not a yearly cost. Zt's a one time co~t.
Kate ~anenson: We need to establish a fee as a pa~t of this. We had decided
~h,~.~ we talked about putf. ing a fee .tn wl~en they come in for their permit
process. That was one of the issues that was brought up before.
I'l;~,"y Jo Moore: Excuse me, can I ask a question? WL].Z the City accept
~tocum,;~nta~ion from the people who have it 'from 1982 as to the number of boats?
Pa~ Krauss: We'].1 accept anything to look at. Whether we make our
recommendation on that or not we'll have to submit it.
lt~y Jo Moore: No, but ~ me~n when you were saying you war, ted to go back to
].982, wou~d you accept documentation?
Paul Krauss: Sure. That's the reason why we'd notLfy everybody, even beyond
the beachlot homeowners. ~f you have documentation you want us to look at, we'd
t)o h,~ppy Lo.
Co~ncilwoman Dim].er; The polnt is there will be disputes amongst associations
.,;~cl you'l.t have to sett].e that apparently.
Kate Aarmenson: She keeps ~ayJ. ng we.
Paul Krauss: No, you will.
CouncJ.]woman Dim].er; Are you comfortable with that?
counc.;.lman Mason~ It will come back to us ~ think.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
counc.[..twoman Oimlo'r; TheJ'r recommendation though.
I.~j..1.] F.tnlayson: Vio].atJ. on of the 1982 ordinance, beachlots have been allowed to
grow past the 1982 nuinbers. There was never any per,nits issued giving beachlots
a ~;pecific number of boats in 1982. How could they violate something they
didn't know what number they were worki~;g wlth? ~ mean ~ don't understand what
this violation is or I~ow that can be a violation.
[4oger Knutson: Mayo-r? ~n 1982 tfme City passed an ord.tnance that required
a~yone who wanted to establJ, sh a recreatiormal beachlot to come in and get a
permit from the city. Beachlots that existed a~ of that date, as the date the
ordinance wa~ passed, had tho right to continue but they did not have the rig~mt
to expand. Any expansion of tl~at use i~ illegal unless they came in and got a
permJ, t 'from the Cit>,. So you were f'rozen as of 1982.
42.
City CouncJl Meeting - February 10, i992
Bill Finlayson: Somewhere it is written down that Hinnewashta Heights has a
cert,.~in amount of boats that they had to work with in 19827
Roger Knutson: The City went out and did an inventory in 1982 and now this
ordinance is passed, the process will be fixed right now to determine what was
actually there in 1982.
Bill Finlayson: That's one thing we've never been, I've never seen and have
felt at a disadvantage that I never have not been able to know which number I'm
actually working with. What is the 1982 numbers?
Roger Knutson: Which beachlot?
Mayor Chmiel: Minnewashta Heights.
Bill Finlayson: For Minnewashta Heights.
Roger Knutson: According to the inventory that was taken in 1981, ~ boats were
docked there in 1981.
Councilwoman Dimler: One more question?
Mayor Chmiel: One more question.
Councilwoman Dimler: On the Sunrise Hills beachlot here, I see that in 1981 we
did not have a portable toilet and in 1991 we did and that was with the change
in our ordinance. Does that mean they would lose the portable tollet then if we
go back to 19827 Because this is a non-conforming.
Kate Aanenson: They came in separately for a conditional use. They met the
criteria.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to call a question.
Councilman Mason: I will make a motion. We don't have one on the floor do we?
Mayor Chmiel-' No, no.
Councilman Mason: I'd like to make a motion leaving the ordinance to stand with
the 1982 guidelines knowing full well that there will be some further
discussion.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Is there a second?
Councilman Wing: Well like Mr. Emmings said, he wasn't popular but I'll second
it.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Mark Rogers: A question?
Mayor Chmiel: We're votlng.
43
Ii:,'rl., P. ou¢.'J::;. T u~(crs't.,:tn~! thai. buL you I~ven"l addressed a coupJe of my
Cl~t;$..:;LJons and tJrsu.l.a hvought thel, up.
C. omtnoilwoma~ Oim)~;r'. Yeah, T did bring that up.
H;:yor Chmie]: Okay.
Councilwoman OJmler'. For Roger to address the violations.
Roger I<nutson: The purpose of, what you have ii~ this ordinance is the same
thSne you have that's applicable to every other provJs$on of the City 6ode.
Actually this violation provision wasn't even necessary, lt'~ already .tn the
City Code but the Planning Commission and staff felt it better to point it out
to everyone so they realize the seriousness of it. In eforcing the zoning
~f'din~tn~;~, we're not out to get blood from people. Punish people. We're out to
gat compliance. We have never, ever' without a warning that Z can evel' recall
c.incc ~'ve been here, cited someone cr'lmlnally for violating the zoning
ordinance unless ~f. was just appalling. Z can't recal.t such a sltuation, until
w,::'vr~ se'm~t them a letter say hey, w~ fifmd you in non-compliance. 6et in
co,mpl.i, ance. And .if Lhey thumb their nose at us and they ignore us and don't get
~r~.,, comp~ianue, then we cJ. te them criminal. Otherwise ~e ~ou].d not do so.
~'['::; ilot oLtf-policy.
HayoY Chmio]: Very 9ood.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wi.g seconded to approve the first reading of
Zoning Ordinance Amendment establishing requirements that Non-Conforming
Recreational Beachlots obtain a Non-Conforming Use Permit using the 1982
guidelines. All voted in favor except Councilwoman Oimler who opposed and the
motion carried w]th a vote of 3 to 1.
Roge~' Knutson: Mayor, just so I can point out. This J.s tile first reading. For
f~,t'sf, reading yo~t only need a simple majority but obviomtsly for the final
i-eadi~g yo,.t']l need 4 votes.
Mayor Chmie].: Right. Thank you for coming.
APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY UPGRADE; AUTHORIZE
ADVERTISING FOR BIDS, PROJECT 90-15.
Ci.arl,'..,.s Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of Council. The most current engineers
estimate for this project is estimated to be $2.1 million. This is consistent
~i. th the preliminary estimat~;s that were presented at the time of the
fcns]b~.lity study. Presently we are working to accomplish some of the
ho~tsekeeping itemno sttch ;.ts construction easement acquisition, agency permit
appf'oval~ and roadway annexation f'rom Victoria. The project schedule at this
point calls fo'r al/ awaf'd of contract omi March 23, 1992. A consultant staff
.intend to make every effor[ to maintain open communication on the project,
particularly as Lt retaLes to boulevard slope matchlng and tree t-emoval
r:'~p].acement. Zn fact ,'~ neighborhood meeting ~as held 5anuary 22, 1992 to
present and discuss these project plans with tile ne&ghborhood and this meetlng
was a very, very positivn meeting. One last item, as a part of HnDot's State
A.id approval pf-oooss, they're requesting that the 6ounclt pass a format
44
C.~ty Counc,tl Meeting - February 10, 1992
resolution designating Minnewashta Parkway as no parking on both sides of the
street pending the completion of the project. $o at this point it is therefore
recommended that the plans and specifications for Minnewashta Parkway
improvement project 90-15 be approved. That authorization be given to advertise
for bid~ and that the roadway be signed no parking following completion of the
project.
Mayor Chmlel: Discussion. So moved.
Councilman Mason: Just one question. Why does it have to be no on street
parking?
Charles Folch: That's based on the road width that we have for the roadway. 32
foot curb to curb would be a no parklng designation.
Councilman Mason: Okay.
Councilwoman Dimler: Z$ there parking there now that would be something that
the residents are enjoying that's going to be taken away?
Charles Folch: That I'm not aware of.
Mayor Chmie].: I've not really seen any cars ever on there as many times as I've
gone by. Z don't know about you Rlchard. I've never seen them out there.
Councilman Mason: I was just curious.
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't see anyone here to address it so.
Mayor Chmiel: I moved it. Is there a second?
Councilman Wlng: Second.
Resolution ~92-22: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the
plans and specif£cations for the Minnewashta Parkway Improvement Project No.
90-15, authorize the advertisement for project bids and Resolution ~92-22A:
adopt/on of a resolution instituting a "No On-Street Parking" restriction on
both sides of Minne~ashta Parkway. All voted in favor and the mot/on carried.
M~yor Chm~el: ~lright. I'd like to get an addendum to the.
Councilwoman Dimler: So moved. ~genda.
M~yor Chmiel: Thank you. ~genda. ~t's getting late. ~'d like to move to item
11 and get the resolution adopting a redistricting plan.
Councilwoman Dlmler: Second.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to amend the agenda to cons/der
item 11 at this point. All voted in favor and the mot/on carried.
45
"~ "y -C,:':U. jlc:.i ~. Fj:":~: i.'J r,r.g jueJ)rLt,'~! y .1 O, 1.. ~'~
RESOLUT]'ON ADOPTING A REI)TSTRICTING PI.AN.
Who J,--¢ 9o';ng t.n be t l'~,tt lt.t,:ky one? Hr. Ashuorth.
[lo~ hs:hworLi,': W~':.l. 1, 'th;:; real o~e that will answer questions for you will be
.]~.:tn t~.::~us~: :~h:..-. I'l,&d prepared the map tl'~..~t you hay,-: and thL~nk you for moving the
T.l.,~.m ~1:' :;o 1. he'. Je;~m can ]nave. Z was really disappointed because the precinct
~,;(:,l k that .]'c~a.n I'm,:.Lcl complet~ed before Z really thought u~s the best. ~e followed
tho ..:ohoo.~ dJ.~ti'J, cL bourmcJaries and people generally kTmou what school dlstrlct
tJ'mr~y"m'~ .in. It (;reaL,:~cl ,,~ I~icc, c].e~n ]_ines. Zt uouJ.d I'mav~.~ b~.~el~ e~y to put
]~mi.,', th~ neu~:pnpo'r. Whei~ people call in. Unfortunately the new guidelines and
,~c:c~r'~.l.ing.l>' u~ c(~m~l.c.ln'~ u~e [.t. It has to follow physical features. Shoreline
c.f a l~ke. u road, etc. armd agal,'I think Jean has tried to look at it in terms
c,f ,mua11~y ,ts wo].]. ,.~ ~l~osc distinquishable lines. Th~erefore oh, I should note.
~ :2 t: ~ L[ :3 ~ I U~;C t~m;.it example with the Carver Beach Road as arm exdmp].e where you go
~n .~,-.I out ~,F ,tl~ro,e different precincts and then ~ went back and asked Jean to
k.lnd o'F ro.l. uok aL ~l~itt. She agrees that ue should modify and I~ave Carver Beach
~o~td repre~;unt the boun~l;tt-y. There's st.[].l going to be three different
~recim'~cts hut you'].1 end up, if you're on the north or ea~;t slde of Carver Beach
[~c;, being i~ I)recin~:; No. ].. ~f you't'o north of, ~nd I don'L even know what
th~. ,'Bad 1~:. If you're soutl~ a~d west of Carver Beach Road you would be in
Pi ecir~c[ No. 4. And thnn again, proper~iet: ~long Carve~' Reach Road, south of
~,~hnteuet' thc .... would be 2.
r:~)U]loi]mnl'l H~son: So you're just tej.].ing me my polling plaue just char,ged?
r)o~l Asl~worth: Prob;.tbly. ActuaJly tho reason Jean llas it in thi.,.~ fashion is it
do~s paraJ, lel Lhe school boundary lines in that area. So you've got a couple of
C:!lOi,:~'.,.~-.;. TI'i,'~. old one us~.-'d ~o he Carver Beach Road. That was ~he dlvlding 11ne
].n that ~;~'ea For l he exl~tlng precincts. As shown, fell. owing tho school
,:'l.i~stri(.t. 1i~:~s. Ar, d if you Wal~ to remalntail~ ~hat Carver Beach Road as one,
t l',,-':n ;'oil draw your li~e clown the center.
C:OLl. r~cJ. lm,'~ Haoon: By cl~l~g.tng the lille t.o, I mean l~othing would change. Leaving
.it [he way it is now, nothlng changes for' the people 1ri Carver Beach rlght?
.Tean HeuwJss~'~n: That's right.
Cour, cilman Mason: $o what's the advantage to changing that orl Carver Beach Road
E~on hshworth: Th1_:; i.~ going to be crazy be. cause somehow we're going to have to,
you .':'.~i,'J LI~,',.L ~.h,'--.? w.[.1.1 fl~d:[J, it, [l'~e Coun~.y Audir. ors agreed to n'lail everyone a
~,r.,tic~., ;~: [o what precinct '[h~_y'ro ~n'?
,[cal~ I-lel~wissen: And whe'r~-; they will vote.
I'~on A~l~worth-' ~ car, J. magine somebody tailing i.r, and saying well I live in the
C,:~r's'r-.'~' Beach area. I'm not quJ. t~. sure what ro~d i~ is but wl~at precinct am I
C,';.~]rlc..ilm,~l'l )'l~sr))'~.'. Well, if you do jt clown Carver Beach, if you change it to
CcSt'l-VF~.? [1C-'.,'~(:!i Po,'~,:.t, c,'-~rv,'-;r .~e~c.l~, it:; going to be iii two different precincts~ Now
4~
City Council Meeting - February lO, 1992
it's just in one precinct. The Carver Beach area. Not Carver Beach Road. If
you change that line to go down Carver Beach Road, my side of Carver Beach will
be in Precinct 4 and down in Pawnee and Mohawk and what not, will be in Precinct
1, if I read this correctly.
Mayor Chmie].'. Yep.
Councilman Mason: And I would almost think that might create more confusion
than what's there now.
Mayor Chmiel: To a certain point you're probably right but. I think what
they've done is proportionally tried to have numbers within each of those
precincts and trying to get as close as they possibly can. I know I've moved
from Precinct 2 to Precinct 5. Before we go to Chan Elementary and now we go to
Public Works. That's going to confuse people as well.
Jean Meuwissen: Actually I'd prefer to leave the line the way it is because it
leaves everyone in the Mlnnetonka School Dlstrict in one precinct. And if you
have a school election at the same time you have a regular election...
Councilman Mason: Yeah, I guess just for that reason I'd go along with Jean on
that one. I'd just as soon not change lt. Because that will.
Mayor Chmie]: Because yeah, if you go straight on.
Jean Meuuissen: It involves 125 people.
Mayor Chmiel: Lake Lucy Road as well? You've got that split there right? Much
of thJt to the north of Lake Lucy Road ls in Minnetonka School District.
Jean Meuwis~sen: ...any good way to do it otherwise.
Don Ashworth: I don't know if A1 has seen this.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, he's seen it.
Don Ashworth: I know he had the old one and I think he supported the old one.
Mayor Chmiel: Whatever.
Councilwoman Oimler: I guess population wise this is, there's some discrepancy
but you're looklng for growth in those areas right?
Mayor Chmiel: Revlew areas some time. Al, did you take a look at?
A1 Klingelhutz: I took a look at the original one that the County got down
there...the way Jean had it the flrst time. I don't know if it makes any
difference in that most western districts at this time... They're still going
to be, put us over the equal number of people...I thlnk Jean trled every effort.
The original one, accordlng...because it put the bigger Chanhassen distrlct
below the people population and you...one way or the other. Where the way it is
now, put us rlght on or a little above lt. In 10 years from now with the growth
we're having, we'll probably have the same circumstances we've got today...
47
",'o,l;.ty 'in ,~;.' ,':.i'.-;l~ i.~.:'i. ]"vr-'. g~:,i. 81.)uul. '.-'~:q~ ~[' the p;::Ol~).e .i.n C. 41'rve'c 6oLtnty... And
'.;',, ::,~l'i-"'.').:;::.: it, i~,'~:,'~: ~,r,,-.:.-r.~fl.l~ I,!.L~l~ ~iI.~S llOh! pJ_,'tll J.:"; '..;,:t. Lfsf~¢:~or'y l.a the
,.';.,:,Lt ~'l. 7. - .
?i,} )','., ~' .r.]'i~fl.:;.:~i.' I'",,q ;,'~)lt h~l:"pOll [o I1LiV(~ 0118 of th(,,. ].asr ones that we had Jean?
>'OLt l~,'tur;: ,bi:,~ li,'tl~'",)' fFOill Ol~l' [-)l'eViOIJ. S?
.;l :; ,-t i'~ H.'.)t.t~.~_~'~,Sel~; '/r~.,l;"~, ~ think ;r have. one ktpst:aJ, rs.
i'1,:~yor r. ll'l,~.i.e.1..' Yeah, i.( t¢c. nl. ff-o,~ 2' to 6.
Ban Ashwo'rt.i~.' £:,:'.¢. 't.h:~ o].d ohe k:'~nd of had the split across 'rep'resenting the two
:-;,:;boo] d.~ctricLr_; but ~],': do~'t hztve ar~y physic;zi re,.~Lt.~f'e.s to go acl'oss
Id..i. llf~:'.7.~,gdsh[,-t OF t. 91'.lt.'¢.
(':~)l.tn,:jl~or~an B&l~ler: 1' neve'r sa~ f. he old Olle .SO ~. dOrl"i: kilo,.
~¢..;-.:).,.:)r Chlni. c:].: H,'-.'. had ? (lJstr'icts ar-~ oppos{.'.d to 6.
C o I t l'l c ;[. ]. ~1 o ill ¢.t iI R J_ iI'l ]. P. T' ." Vns; :~
t"i,~/ct Fl:~i,.~ c.: ' .1' '
:':rlOU,; .LI r-';,'t? I)Ye.c~ nc;t,$.
C;c,,ur~c.~.]i,jOl~,'.(n [1.';.m)c'..-: ~l'~d [h';.,~.: docsn:t rea,]ly have anythJ, n9 to do ~J. th ho~ the
coll~lr~.~..~.'.4j, orl.~'.F dj..~:l.r.{.(;t.t:; ~j.~..l]. bt-.', foF does j.t?
2c,~n ['lCl.tt,J_~.:gSpll: Y:~s it does.
(2ou~,(:5.~,.~o~,~11 13?~r,~e'r: ~4ou]~l you exp~l.i.n that?
,g.1 K.l.~r, rJe~huLz: T~. has a lot to da ~.th jt be. cause Cha~ha~$e~ actually ~l~ be
J:-~ L~o (.'~o~.L~J. or~ dir.~tJ-~r.:t~ ~n the Future. T~o olr equ~], popLt].atj, ol'~. The
· ,.~'.::'L,.-','r rli. r:~'r'i.r:t~ iL ~ooks ]~ke ~e~1.1 b~ goin9 ~.ith k~.~¢tor~.a and Laketo~n
to~,rl~hJ.p and ti~e~ do,ri 'l.u
."::,':,u',r~(:.;.lt,,~oll]~r~ O,;_,~).eY: Okay.
..le. ar~ Pleu~sset~: Pre(:_~[lc:t. 6.
¢OI.tllC.i.]l.~lOIfldT'i I).;.llt]e..'-' Okay. ,4,11d then the i-'est of (he 5 pT'cci, nets would be
.'tnot:h,'~.,- comr~j.s,s.[.on:al' (-I[:~t.'~
R1 I(]JngeJhLttZ T:],~. td~)u}d b6: col~]ssJ, on distrJ.¢:t i at the p'r'esent tJ. ae
r:oun('.J.J,~¢~'n t. lason: IJ;~].] T'].] Ir~ove a(.'.ceptai]ce of the. PrecJ. nct BoundarJ. es as
:-:i
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
Council. woman Dimler: Second.
M~yor ChmJe].: Any discussion?
Resolution ~92-23: Councilman Mason Roved, Counci[uoman Dim[er seconded to
approve the resolution entitled "A Resolution Designating Election Precincts for
Future Elections". Al! voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Richard, do you want to be included in this one?
Council. man Wing: Mr. Mayor, whlch one?
Ha/or Chmiel: Redistricting. Okay. Do you want to be included in that?
Counc[lnlan Wlng: Yes slr, Z have no problems wlth lt. I'd like to see my area
with more people in it but that's okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Well we might get you one or two more. You're probably golng to
i'~ve two more spaces on the lake.
A. RECEIVE REPORT ON SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN FACILITIES IN MUSA EXPANSION
AREA, PROJECT 91-12.
B. RECEIVE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR TRUNK SEWER AND WATER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE
UPPER BLUFF CREEK AREA; CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING, PROJECT
M~yor Chmiel: Let's take each individual one on that and Charles.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Briefly we have two related
reports to present to you tonlght. The flrst involves a study on the trunk
utility needs for the municipal urban serv£ce area expansion. This presentation
u111 follow more of an executive summary if you will pending the completion of
the comprehensive sanitary sewer policy plan and the comprehensive water supply
,~nd distribution plan whlch are expected to be completed in May of thls year.
The project consultant engineer Mr. Robert Schunicht of Bonestroo is here
Lonight to elaborate more on thls MUSA study.
Mayor Chmiel: Z guess the question I had, just a quick one. The items such as
the 5 lift stations, the forcemains and future wells that we have to look at.
Are all these items figured into the cost per unit acre?
ROI)eFt Schunicht: Yes. Yes. Really what we do with these comments, ~ater
supply plans and comprehensive sewer policy plans ls take a look at the whole
system. Everything that you need to build systems completely to serve
saturation development in the city of Chanhassen. So we laid out that whole
system for both the sanltary sewer and the watermain system. Estimated those
costs and as we'll get into a little bit later, we determined the rates you need
to charge for those systems and those are the rates you heard talked about in
the public hearlng on the Lake Riley Hills area. Is there another question or
should Z cover this?
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
49
Rol::r~.,-i. ~-::hl~l~i~.:ht.-' ldr;ll. ~.'.~ Chd~-].es mt.~nt£Orled, we fir~.shed these two st~.~clle~. We
F.ir~:!~d t~:~.;~Jca.]ty ~'l,.r:~ dc.s~_gn and the ~':o:'.~t. e::st'~m~r: ~.~n(l we'~-e ~b].r~ to present
· to,Ss' ;~i;:Of'mn.~'l.'].(.:l'~ t() yOtt 'ton.tght and as I mentioned, cover saturation development
t:~ ~l;~. r'.nt.tf~? .::~.'L7 of Cha~mha:~sen for' the sewer system and water system and to
F.~tL I.t-,~i..it~ i~:;rspectJve. That means that you caf~ serve up Lo a population of
40,0~0 peop]r-~ w.ith youi- sewer system ¢~nd your' water system. ~ust br~efJ, y some
~r~,~.jof f,s,~t~t~'es of tho sanitary seeer system. We were able to get an additional
3 ~m~.ll.~n gal. J.o~s capac~ty...s>'ste~m over .~n Eden Prairie. That means it wo~ld
,:t]~,or.:1 lake comp~r, te sattt~'at~o'r~ of cleveLopme~t J.n the c.$ty of Chanhassen ~n the
!fi~(':~ .;ys't¢,,, ~,d ~l',eX Ll~Zr,k theft we ca~ tweak thLs, when we get to the point 20
F~;trs down [h~: LJ. ne. they th~nk the system can be tweaked and adjusted so ~t can
t. ic'i. th,-; ,':tddJtJ. ona] cap~c~t>'. 8asZca~y they're th~nk~ng ~t's no problem of
~har~hasser~ being completely served w~th se~er c~pac~ty ~n the ex~stJ, ng
f~:.it.i L.L~:..':; th~:'y have over' ~n Eden Pra.i.r.[e. ~e've got what ~¢ ca~ a permanent
Up?er ~]uff Creek ~i. ft statler,. ~dd~t~ona~ capacity a]..to~s you to take
l.~,~:~:tc~..t.t~ ev~rxthtr, 9 north of future TH 2~2, b~$~d a t~ft station for ~t and be
~,sured that you h~,ve pa'r,,a~er, t capacity for that Sn the M~CC facilities. ~nd
~h,~n w,?'ve gel al.so per,,aner~t capacj, ty for the R.~ey Lake are4~ and we've also
].4t~d out th~ symptoms to '~.~ko eve'ryth~ng ~n the Lowe'r B.tuff Creek area...br~ng
th;..'i' oft .i.~Lo ti~¢ I'iei:ro,oo~Zta~ ~J~stc Control fac.t.t~ty system. That essentLa~y
~.s the ~:os[ exp~;~;::;vc ~;ystem yott m.i. ght hav~ to deal. wi. th to p'r'ov~de se~er
servj, c:e For i_1',¢~ CLLF ~f Ch,~nh~,ss~r,. so agaSn, what we're doing Ss ~ook~ng for
,~,I<.~n(j ~ttr~:, yo,t ~:,',~ cover tf,~: costs and costs for the fac~JtJ, es. The waterma~n
::>':~t¢;,, h~c :;omo ~,,.~jor [eCt[tzros too. The dua~ c~ustered wet~ f2e.Ld. You have a
~u]..] fteJ. d right now on th~ south end of Lotus Lake. You have a we~ f~e~d over
,:,r, (;~p~n l~o~(J jusL west of I_~ke ~n~. ~e're exp,~rldSng those to provide dua~
c.l~r;ter...~yst~m and you have t~o aquaf~r sources for safety. They're spread
apart so again tl~e ..~,~me consJ, deraL~on. But ue c~us(ered them to some extent so
i.n ca~e you ~ant to put a treatment J.~ ~t some fu~t.tre da[e, you cern eas2]y do
theft... ~e'v~: exp;zndod [I,e I~.tgh pressure zor~. That's the zo~,¢~ that serves the
ochoo.t up Jn the north end of to~n. ~e brought that do~n a ~J. tt~e b~t from the
,;~,~ti~ en(I to set'v~¢ ::Como of t l'~ h~gh areas ;~round TH 4t and Ga~p.Ln Road. ~e
F.i'o?~:qed a reservojt' out Jn the ~ndustr~a~ area on TH 4~ that wJ.~ serve the
J~dust~'.t;~]. ar~,~a ,~l. ong T~I 5. ~so a connection out to M~nnewashta w~ enable
you t.o pt'or,de bettor water serv].c8 out there which has been a goa~ a~ a~ong of
tl~u ti. tx. go'vr~ ;.,.tso ~roposed ~ reservoir on Lyman D~vd.. That's to serve the
;-t~-'~,,'-t :;outh of Lxman BLvd. so as the MUS~ area expands to the south, you'~ be
ab]~; to take car~.~ of the water system needs do~n there. The needs that the area
.,,:.yl.h o'[ [.yman b.tv(I, can be completed served and developed and not have...
ii,*,yor ChmJe].: ttow many dead ends would we have on this? And how do we solve
~.!,¢. proble, m::; of sometimes hav2ng wa[er problems such as Jmpurit2es or whatever
bc:ca,.tse of no[ total amount of total circulation through thJ. s system?
P~¢hn'r't Schunicht; What you'].1 have when you get done ulth thJ. s system is a
looped sys:te~f~. .'Cl..[oo1.~3 trttllkS...J. 2 ~11011 and above. You'lL have to deal with
1.'~¢~pJn¢ on the ~atef'a~...deve]oparCnt and stuff ~&ke that between cu,-de-sacs and
r~L~t'¢f .]..Lke that.. Yott']~ stJ.].~ have a~.t those questions that co~e up ~hen Few
8r,,-~¢] ~t'~d You ~oop them arott]~d another cu,--de-.sac. Th~s w&~ be a complete
~..:;.:~i,~-~d :;y~:~t~-~m. Th~; i,;~.jo~'...~t~,d ,~]_1 the well f~elds so one mair~ i.s down, you
:'-i-,o~,]~1 b~ dt~].~.; to by--pass and get uater... ~nd one o'f the features that ~e
f;.~.].k~,d aho,~ a~.l ,,~ntJ~ned t.o Chask~-~ i~ the.ir connec~.ton. Ch~ska i~s ,~
,.~f. rf~;~-~,~t u,~ter supply al~d aquafi¥ than Chanhasse~ and by connect&rig Chaska to
5O
City Co~.Lncil Heeling -- February 10, 1992
the Chanhassen system we can supply either system very easily in an emergency
condition with one of three aquafirs so really it's a safety feature. It's also
a feature that the Her CouncJ. 1 is looking to be included in all the future water
p~r,s and they're just...b~d on that right nou.
Nnyor Chmiel: What aquafir Js Chaska lo?
Robert Schunicht: Chaska's in Hinkley, which is the lowest aquafir. The Jordan
ls ths well out by Lake GalpJ. n Road. The Drift ls on Lotus Lake so you've got 3
aquafirs so you're really looking at a very safe, dependable water supply for
both communi'[J, es by doing thls. It's very easy to do since you've got the maln
right there. So very quickly just to give you a synopsis, what we've done is
we've trled to glve you a synopsis of this trunk system to respond to the
deve].opment pressures that you're seeing out on TH 5. So we looked at the 2,800
acre HUSA expansion area and we said okay, we'll give you a synopsis. A brlef
preview of the overa].l plan. Tell you what you need to do to get this area
going whlle we're working on the rest of the plan. The plans are expected to be
ready ir, May. One of the things that i8 holding us up is that we're still
~,~orking on the digitized, a computerized base map that we're dolng as part of
[he storm water management plan. We've wrestled that to the polar where all the
maps and studies you'll see tonight are computerized. Are part of thls future
project...that you're getting as part of the storm water management plan. $o
again we're looklng at the 2,800 acre MUSA expansion area. Generally from Lyman
cfi ~he south, Audubon on the east and the city limits. Not city limits but
TH 41/Lake M~nnewashta and the Arboretum on the west. Ph11 will get into the
actual sewer system a 11ttle bit later when we get 1otc details but basically
w~'ve got a major lift statlon at the intersection of Lyman and Audubon Road.
Halos and sanitary sewers going up the 8luff Creek area and also a sanltary
sewer over in the, what we call the TH 41/6alpin Road area bringlng the
development that's ouned...Lake Ann Interceptor. So basically this system...
saturation development. Permanent capaclty saturation development in the 2,800
acre MUSA expansion area. Also, looked at the watermain in that area. A series
of mains connecting the existing system to the east. Looping around and going
o~,t and around TH 41... As you can see, this is the boundary of the...high
pressure zone that's been expanded down to the south. We have another towering
h~gh zon~ which wi11... Now to come up with the most important...estimated cost
and make sure that development and new connection to the area wlll pay for that
system and probably...make some adjustments in that system as you get done. So
that's one of the thlngs that we do as part of thls study. When we take a look
at the overall cost of the system. Now sanitary seuer...much more developed
especially in the Lake Ann area than the uatermain system so we're estimating
that completion of the Chanhassen sanitary sewer system uill be about $8.8
milllon while the completion of the water system wlll be about $17.3 m1111on for
a total of $26 million. Now that's a lot of money when you look at it all at
once but when you look at it over a perlod of 20 years, it wlll be something
that's phased in as development occurs. ~hat you do is you have a plan, you
know how much it's golng to cost...road map to tell you how to expand your water
and sewer system. What we dld as far as determining how to pay for this system,
we used your basic system that you're uslng right now which ls the system of
hook ~Lp charges and what we did, we took the land uses that are in the
Comprehensive Plan. Estimated the amount of areas that were left in the city to
be developed with those land uses, and assigned minimum densities to those
s~'ea~. Minimum densities in determining what the charges per acres are golng to
51
ar-:: !1~.~. ,s, ew,~::r an~l w;~t.e¢ ue'rvi, ce:::, ,.~re l';,i'ogided ~o the vc~ciou~ areas. So by
e.:-~l.~b.1..i.~h.i_r~9 ~ minimnmcn~-~' 'ge for t_he~e area.~ J.E mean~ that you're assured of
9etti. r,9 thi:.~ money in f',-or,, them f.o pay for tile system. Lateral charges are
U,]s~,~l c, iI c:,tp,'-.te, ify that the system was designed, t'~e capacity of the system was
der.;.i91~nd for these areas. So [hey're reaJ. ly paying for the capacity that they
I'~,~,;,'.~. be. eh ,~l.]_ocal:.'-:d in ~.l',e system. ~s they develop to a h~gh densLty, then you
-'' 'e,, ~h::m :'.:(:,.~!~'~. nlc~f',~:. T'f they develop at tower dens~ty, we~L that.'s too bad
b:acausc t. hey ar.'.?r~'t US.~.I~9 the fu~t capacity. The capac~ty's there. ][t h(ts been
paid rot. It's 'Lhnir responsJ, bil~ty to f~nance it for the areal, so
· ?::,tJnt,7, ted the co~ll,ecLions for tl~e sa~,itary sewer system and water system. The
t,~,ster :system b¢:.ill9 mor'e essent.~al].y because we've got the Lake
,4.',~,:-:]r~prn4.,.nt... $o the numbers that you already heard tonight when they were
-'~tkin9 ,.~bout [he Lake Riley ,-;ystem with trunk sanitary se~er costs of $970.00
f..'.,;" (he Res~;dent~'~l Equivalent Uilit.,. Cl~rgYn9 those costs as the system &s
¢}xpanded wi]l as.sure...pay ¢o~' the overall system. ~&th that T_'d be h~ppy to
,'~F:.;(~c.f- ;~11)' (iltrYS;(iOllS. Phi]. 6urvel from our ~irm i:s also here. He's done the
~;:c,'re detai.led wo'rk on the feasibiti'Ly study for...Opu~, Hails Hagen, Roos, the
,¢,.~v.'.--J.(,pmr.;l~t thc:.t's ek~erybody's t81kir~g about in the west end of town... With
: ,~t T'd be happy to nnswer any quesLions...
l-i,'~>'n,-' Cl~m[e.l.' Any queo~.Lons? Th,zrlk you. All we're going to do is basically
~'~-~:eiv~; Lhis r~;porL?
£1~,-~r]r;:s Folch; And adopt J'[ as the accepted interlm guide for this area untll
I
future compFenerlszy~, studies are completed.
Nayor Chmiel' R.i. ght..
(';otti'~oJ.].m~r~ lJi]~g: T ha,)e jl~st a few queslions on this report Hr. Hayor.
f!---:y3r' Cl~mieZ: Alrlght, 9o ~thead.
t:",~r.,(.~lman Wi1~9: ::'m br:jn9 sarcastic. Z wouJ. dn't know what to ask. Just real
q~.,.i.c',: ;~ passJ, r~9. What's being done here, is that pretty much the thrust of the
init..ial pro,ecl or are there some other things running parallel wit[i this? Are
you pretty much concentrating just on this one report right now?
Rober't..Ochu],J. cht'. We've got. 'the technical work done on the overall sanitary
,.;¢~.,-~,'r. All the technica.l work is done. What we have left to do is write the
;-'e,oort and fJ. nish tile draftlng of the maps and then draft the maps...
c:.'.~ll~C:T, lman Wing' Yeah, Z understood that. Z thought Z heard Watershed UtiZ£ty
oi:';frict o1~ t. hi:i; ul',o.le pcoject t,¢e have gOirlg- Are there othe. r things occurring
the same f. ime or' is this pretty much the conce~tratLon right now?
I~obert .Schun.ich[' Well [here's a whole other effort golng on for the stornl
:'-;nw.'-:r. The wetJ.,'~nds .... the w~ter quality modeling.
f:o~t~lC:i]man M.i. ng' ',,'hat's ongoirl9 now?
........ :-.:rt ~-chunic:l'lt' That .s ongoing now. That is probably at about ,'~ 30~ level...
Ti. . ~
i1~3~ arc- abottt 80% to 85~ level of COlflpletion
5~
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I'd make a motion that we recommend that this report be
adopted ~s the interim guide for trunk sanitary sewer and watermain systems in
the MI]SA expansion area pending completion of the comprehensive sewer policy
plan and the comprehensive water supply distribution plan and that the following
chart system be adopted for the financing of trunk sanitary sewer and water
assessments. Is there a second?
Council. woman Dimler: Second.
Hayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Oimler seconded to adopt this report as the
interim guide for trunk sanltary sewer and watermain systems in the
HUSA expansion area, pending completion of the Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan
and the Comprehensive Water Supply Distribution Plan and that the following
charge system outlined in the staff report dated February 4, 1992, page 3 be
adopted for financing the trunk sanitary sewer and water systems. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
M~yor Chmiel: Item 9(b).
Phillip Curvol: As Bob mentioned, my name is Phillip Curve1. I've done quite a
bit of the work on the Upper Bluff Creek report and I just have a 45 to 50
minute report here.
Mayor Chmiel: That's fine. If it takes you anymore than 3 seconds, we'll be
happy.
Phillip Curve1: Actually what I'd like to do if ~e could is go through quickly
~ith the proposed construction and then talk a little blt about assessments and
then get lnto revenue and then we could answer any questions that might come up.
The proposed project area is roughly in some of the area that Bob talked about.
Tt goes west to the Arboretum area and south of TH 5 over to Audubon and then
north of Lyman. The area highlighted here is the area that petitioned for the
project...we neglected to put in the report but it ls important to remember is
that 55.2~ of the project area has petitioned for this work. For the purposes
of the report we've dlvlded the proposed construction lnto two phases .... made
kind of an arbitrary and random basis that one thing we kept in mind was that
this area by Ryan here, thls buslness center was probably the closest of all the
proposed developments in the...so we drew the line at the Twin Cities Western
Railroad here and below that was phase I and above it is phase 2. Now that's
just for construction purposes. If this property or the corporate center
property wanted to go sooner, we could easily incorporate that into phase 1.
For purposes of the report and tonight's discussion, the...construction broken
lnto pha~es. The proposed sanitary sewer as Bob mentioned, connects onto the
Lake Ann ~nterceptor and it's a gravity system along Audubon...and then this
enables us to plck up as much of the area on elther slde of Audubon with gravity
sewer and even part of this proposed residential development here. The blg part
of 4h~.s project i~, as Bob mentioned also, a 11ft station at the intersection of
Lyman and Audubon. This would be approximately a 6 1/2 million gallon lift
station. The proposed sewer then runs up an NSP easement and along the Bluff
Cre~k alignment. The exact alignment of this has not been determined other than
we'd like to stay withln that NSP easement where we can. We need to do some
additional soil borings to determine exactly on that. The Phase I work is below
the railroad. Phase 2 work agaln ls north of the railroad. Another beneflt to
53
¢'~.~ f? (.iOJ. I1C:'[.1. I'I~;~;1. [nU - Ft~.h~'ttz~'y 10, 1992
f,.~!.l~,~.,¢.il~(; i hi:--.' ;-~]:ts.,nm,'.:nl. ~,il.h thts...J.-.': tt~t. on the c:.i. ty's mar,, the tra.i. 1 plan
.it cc~]..1, ecl f,~r a I'm~f. ltrl.', tf'~t¢] fl].Oflg her(-: :,nd th,st WOLtld work out well with the.
dr~::.'.f, cjn of thi.:s ctJ..'-:o .~;]llOe ]t WOU].d provide an access to the sewer system. The
?i"c, po.'sod watarmct.;.I] (:k qu.ite .~.~imilaf- natttf-e actually. Again broken up into two
f.'-haun.~.;. ]'h(' ph,'.~se 1. wo'¢k wol.tld be pf'etty simp].e with just getting some water to
,.]c. rv:.: Ry;.:.~, a]~d m.]:.';o install the trunk along ~udubon ill conjunction with the
:-;an.itary sewr-:¥' :-~er'vice. The phase 2 construction is more elaborate and that is
b,.~.s,~'_~l on the needs, the flows and fire flow needs for tile proposed development.
T',"~nr,'-'.'s al.s:o some ~,~ork in this area that's not being proposed at this time that
~,~ou]¢l be i. rj. gg¢~.red at such a time as the area .gets wholly saturated. That
¢.~¢_'-.:; fo'~' .'-:Ltre thi. s r-eservoir...But the work that's being proposed as Phase 2
~,J,:'~u]d b,~.: enougll to serve the immediate potential development in th~. area.
¢;s.':a:;:-;ments¢ th~a a~'ea ,~e're p¥'oposing to assess for sanitary sewe¥ is the
I,.,--.r,r...f~t area ,:,ci.~tally co~;.tsls of most everything...assessed .in this area under
thc, lake Ann pi'eject. ~nd the big kicker here i.s we're excluding the large
',,-:_'.:..';¢dent. i,--.1 ,xreas a.t th.is time which .inclttde. the Sttllf'idge area here and tile
l";.mb~-."r't~oor, l ,-~rna. [4;.'.'f'e not proposing to assess them at this time. They're not
i.n,:;].L~¢..'.-.'.¢l i~ [i'1~: r-e. venue forecast .... ~ltl',ough it's certainly ,zn option S¢ this
a,'r¢:, (.lo,':s: dr.'.velop ,~t :-~o,,e time. They would be assessed the unit cl~arges that
,?,~'-b cl-~.:sct.ts,.:';e¢.'] in the previous: f'eport. I t4on't thr-ow ~tp the watermain overhead
[)lti. ¢~'0 e~;s~ntia].ly 'the. same dj. st'riot as this except that we. eliminated this
,",.i'-e..~ her,~ a~:d t l~J.s, area hef",.e For trunk watermain assessments because these...
,-*,.n~l this are,.~ wou].dn't be immediately served...
Co~tncJ].man Wing' Nhy ¢.~re the residential areas excluded?
Phi.].].~p curve]: .As rat as I know, it s ju.:.,t due to their not being willing
p,':t r t ~ cipant s.
Rob 5chunicht-' Tn the overa].l trunk sanitary sewer and trunk watermaln
r, lliJ. osoph.ies, t,~e didn't know that...so it's a way of inaklng sure again the
,.-:;.,n ~. nm is pali. d for by ctnveloF, mr~ent...
ph.i. ll.i:~ Curvet: ~ ,~l~;o wanted to mention that there are a few proposed lateral
nql. tjvalent assessments for areas where these trunk Lttlllties would be runnlng
t!',rr~[,.oh ~ deveJ, opment whern they would be able to gel some lateral benefit from
th¢~ tr'm.tnk sewer or water golng through thelr property. That's described in the
f-eporl, pl-ett, y well. Hare':~ the grand finale. The total sanitary sewer cost,
uh~n you L~k¢~ thrt phase i cost and the phase 2 cost, ls about $2.8 m1111on. The
tot~.] water c:osk on page 1 and page 2 and is abou[ $2.3 million. The revenue
%~enor~ted with the proposed assessments for the sanltary sewer ls about $2.9
InJ].]]on ,~ncl that f-esuZts 1mi ~ net revenue of about $120,000.00 rema.{ning.
I.i. kew}.se fei- the wa'tel', l. hal'd be around almost $900,000.00 remaining. That
w~ter would go towards future projects ~l~ the area 11ke Z ment.toned. The to~er
and a COttp]~ of tl't:nks that ~e ai'e proposing to pL~t i~ right at this time,
Hayor Chmtcl: Call I ask a question on those dollars?
¢- I.
,-',,~.].1 ip £urve.1: SItre.
kla;,'~l" Chm i~.::l: As .T looked in time report, on page 6 it shows that phase i and
.. ' ' '"" '~ , , ~
ph,~.s,7: 2, ruer,'..'., specifical.l.y plla..,c 2 shows .it as $2 946,000 O0 and in our
,,emor'~ndttm .i.'l. ~.~hous total cost on phase 2 of $2.3 mJ. llJ. on. Which is correct?
54
City Co~nc[1 Meeting - February 10, 1992
Phil. l. ip Curvel: The $2.3.
M,'~yr..~r Chm£e]: $2,3 is correct?
Phillip Curve1: Yes.
Mayor Chmlel: And what's in the report and what's in the brochure is not right?
Phillip Curvel: The $2.9 is not right. The final thing after the Lake Riley
hearing, I hesitated to brlng thls up. If things would go as we have roughly
proposed here phased wise, there would be a 11ght deficit in phase 1
construction. That could easlly be alleviated by simply assessing some of the
area north of the railroad tracks. Their trunk assessment earlier and in all
likelihood, maybe the Hagen or the Ryan properties would want to be lncluded in
phase ]. regardless so that would alleviate this problem. This flgure I think
wi].1 get smoothed out on lt's own but if not, there is thls $336,000.00 deficlt
to contend with. Otherwise, scheduling wise where there's a neighborhood
m~eting proposed for this on Wednesday nlght and then we'd like to come back to
the next Council meeting and have a public hearing on this and if things go
smoothly, authorize the preparation of plans and specifications.
Mayor Chmiel: Is this on the developer's request that we pursue this at this
polnt? MovJ. ng it as we have from the 12th to the 24th? To meet in that time
Frame is what I'm saying.
Charles Folch: I'm sorry, I dldn't hear the question.
Mayor Chmiel: We're moving on this rather quickly. Looking at having a
neighborhood meeting on Wednesday, February 12th and publlc hearlng at City
Council's regu].ar meeting on February 24th. It looks like we're just trying to
push Shis a little qulck.
Charles Folch: Well it certainly is an aggressive project schedule partly
because of the, in talking with the developers who have petitioned for these
improvements and flnding out what thelr deslred schedules area and also lt's a
rather, as you can see it's a rather large project and the sooner that we can
get started on construction, the more that we can get done through thls season.
We have ~ent notices on the neighborhood meeting out last week so they actually
will. have probably 10 notice of the neighborhood meeting coming up.
Mayor Chmiel: ~ just want to make sure all the people within the neighborhoods
ar~ us11 aware that thls is going to move as qulckly as it is. Z think we're
being maybe just a little aggressive on it but that's what I was asking the
question.
Char].es Folch: Wednesday night should give us a good indication as to what the
feeIing.s are of the adjacent property owners. Particularly the large lot and
sma].1 acreage type parcels.
Councilwoman Oimler: These people have ail been notified as to Wednesday's
meeting?
-"~":~r],~.~-.', i'n],:l,~ '!hat:'-.'. ¢o~'r~c:t. r'ver? p'Fopert¥ wJth.[~ that bo,~nd,:~ry that you
see ol~.[.] [~,.:'~d Ll'~;l'~ !',a..:: be:~.n ~o'i..[fi.~'.;~l of tl~e ne[ghbo~'hood meet.[n.~j.
H,'.~FI~" r:h~,j~,.].. Ni,~,.r~ i:-.,' that 9o[ng to be he.rd?
(:'l~,:.~, ]_~;~ Foi,:;l~: R.~.~t~t her~: i~ the Cou~,cil chambeFs at 7:0o.
:'l,~Toi" ¢.hmie]..'. okay. Rny other q~e8'Lions? ¢,ny discussion? Hearing none, can
~,]~ I~a';.?. ,~. mot Jor~?
[:oi.!]~::i].l, an Hamon~ T ~;.il]. make the. i, otion t.o 'rece.tve feasibility study for trunk
:.'. :'." ,,.' (- ] ' :~.11-:.] t,~af, eF ~.mp'Fovo~l, entc: .[.n Upp(;I Bluff Creek area and also call for thc
..:~tb]..J.~: l'..earJ.]~9 on February 12th, on project 91-..3.2.
iic.,/,~r Chmie].' Februar)' .1.2tll is the r, eighborhood meetJ, llg.
f-'c;,itl,c;~]marl H,].eon' Oh ~'~ so;-ry. 24th for the public hearing.
~I,'.<>'o~' r.;hmJ, e].: 1' gL(r-'SS ~.~1. Jlf. Jlr.; deterl~inatiol~ once ;~fter we see what the
::,~i¢,]~.'.'i.].~laf] kla=~on-' Okay, so cl~ you wa]~'f, mP [~ take the pLtblJ, c heal'lng off [hen?
H,.~.F(,F Chi[,i~':].' Z wc~l~l~{ ]..(kc to .iu.'.:;t :{;ce
"~..,u',,ci].No~,lan Dimler'~ 3~t~'l. say []ave a pub].ic beefing wi. thin [he next mon[h
'., ;:I. i~,,.-.,.¢ ' I',,~n se[t ~.ng ,~.t d,'zt;;.
:-~hi.:,].~p F'!t;v,..,.].'. ._.adv.P.f't.¢se~ef~'t.s af~d sent out notices.
¢!:,'.tr].e.-~ Fo].,:::h'. Tllos~r; ~oLtld ,~c[[[,'tl]y go out '~.omo'r'f'ow. The not.ices of [he public
l,r'.a'F'~.n9. TI~..'y :'~hould have .i.0, [)asJ. cal].y 10 mailin9 days prioF to the hearing.
¢.oun(':.~.lwofnati Bimle'[': That's pushing .i.~..
Ha,',oF ChN, ie]; Yeah_ I tl~ink you're goi¥~g j,tst a little too fast. ~e may not
enco~l~ter any pFob].ems bu[ Z',~ think.[~g J_f we just mo~ed it back 2 ~eeks into
r:o!.tn¢;.ilwoi~an bim.12f': First meeting it] March?
C:h,~Flr-'.s Fo].c-.h~ We. cou.id do [I'~,'~[.
H,:~ynF ¢.hmi¢.l' F~r'sf. CouncJ. 1 meeting ii] Zarch is what I'd lJ. ke to see
Rc:c~tm~';e t,;.'."r'e s[:~(I.~.t'~g if. obit, t,.,e'F¢; already f. elling [he~ ,~hat we're going to do
,~f~'l Nr,'v.*~. ¢oJ. n9 '[o hzve a publio hearing a~ that particu].ar time but yet we're
n.::t ~.~.(n'..] ~.o [.~e they'd; to ge[ their input and take that into consJ, deration. I
ih.ink Ne 2]-e pIt..c:h3no a ].i. ttle quick.
~:h,~] !2.~; Folcll: W~. cou.].d c¢:r'~:~tinly push J.t back.
';- ..-
F,,:.>'~:,.," ChmJ. el Oka?'~ ]: agree.
City Counc.ii Meeting - February 10, 1992
Counci].man Mason: Yeah, so do I. Good point.
Councilwoman Oimler: So with the public hearing for the first meeting in March.
T'11 second that.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussions?
Resolution ~92-24: Councilman Hason moved, Councilwoman Oimler seconded to
receive the feasibility report for trunk sanitary sewer and watermain
improvements to the Upper Bluff Creek District, Project No. 91-17, and that a
public hearing on the findings of this report be called for the first City
Council meeting in March. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
AUTHORIZE UPDATE TO FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR STREET, UTILITY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROUEMENTS TO TETON LANE (ASHTON COURT TO LILAC) AND LILAC LANE (TETON TO
COUNTY ROAD 17), PROJECT 91-4.
MAyor Chmiel: Before we get into that, has all that been taken out of
bankruptcy? The property?
Charles Folch: The property from my understanding ls Hr. Jlm Fennlng has a non-
contingent purchase agreement on the property from the Sheriff's Sale and it's
scheduled for closing in Apr11. I can be as brlef if you want.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Charles Folch: Basically the previous, about a year ago at this time we were
looking at the same, basically in the same situation. James Development Company
h~s basically walked away from the property. It went lnto foreclosure and a
Sheriff's SaJ.e resulted. The new potential owner of the property w£shes to
s:~bdivide the property. In fact they presented staff with some conceptual
plans. As a part of the subdivision of the 90 acre parcel, the property would
require sewer and water and storm dralnage improvements along ulth street access
which based on the increased traffic generat£on from this proposed subdivision
uo~.~].d t'nquJre improvements to Teton Lane between Ashton Court and Lllac and
I_ilac Lane between Teton and County Road 17. This has basically been explained
to them. I've acquired a proposal from Blll Engelhardt who prepared the
original feasibility study back in 1988. His estimate to update the study would
be about $5,000.00. The developer's acceptable to that and ls willlng to
provide a cash escrow or letter of credit to secure payment of that study.
Mayor Chmie]: Dld we, with the prevlous on that was done by Bl11, dld we ever
col].ect our money for that part of it?
CharJes Folch: From the study that was done in 1988 or the study that was going
to be initiated Last year?
Mayor Chmiel: No, '88. The study that was prepared at that tlme. ! see us
charging $5,000.00 but did we, were we compensated accordingly?
charles Folch: T believe that was done in conjunction with the Curry Farms
development.
57
,,: ,(.;1!i : ~'ld '.[ 'ti]].I'll.: Wl,~ir. 'th~~. i'i~i:,'~)'r' ~r~y bt-.,, t. hJnking of J.s t. hal. ttl~:
.:!r.'.:. ].,_t!.,:'.: ,-'.i,:.~i,',.¢:[:.,.({ .'_-;()flit-*. 0[' ~.ItoDe r. zt)s'L:.~ ,",h(.~ N(t$1~;L Ib;~}'J_FI¢.', ~"~. had ,~ :.-:erLe.'s elr
-,',:'::'"".J.!1%:':..":!i:! '~.: :.'1!-"~::':~I I'.p F.,ly;.l~.;. That's the bottom line, He ended up paying.
?:,,';/.'.;,~' (~:hi:'..:l~r~].' Ilkay. .T. ,i~ts~ dor~'( wan~ I:o lose a few bucks. Okay.
.Cc'i.tr~t:Jlt,!o~nar~ o';~nl~'..',-'.' Z have. a uoncer~ [hough that this is a real controversiaZ,
:-:-' I-,,..~::~ b.'..~,'.,n ov,'_.l tl~e ycc~l't-~. If we .(jo al:cad ~,nd ,.'~LtthorJ. ze this study today,
th¢:i'3 t..:i.].]. St.[].] i~o t:ime '[or public ~nput after we accept the feasibility study.
i:r.: '!l.~.t rLgl'lt?
( ", ,:( ," l e q: Fo.]oh: T'[. would be a very s.i. mil i. ar process to what we've done tonight
,.[.ti-, th::-i,!t~.':-.,-:'~ .'-'.-×Fa~:-,J~ ,t'r'¢~,.'.~., Upper' ~.uf¢ Creek. You'd have erie evening to
i '.'.,_'.~.iv~..'. ~h~: r:ttt~!y. W~'d probably hold, ].ike].y [o hold a neighborhood meet.ing in
":'_-": i nt,'_-'r.;,, I}~twc~.':~ 'r',':coiv.fng tho report and holding tho public hearing, Pretty
:::i.!ch L i,;- :';,?,,;;,': ~:,r~'~.':~:.,';:'; uhicll w~::re.' seeing here tonight with the: other p'r'ojec'.t.
H.'.<?o, Ch!nie.~-. /; think w.'ty I:n. ck t~l~.~l~ we d£scussed this, we indicated that un
~:t'~ not going t(; I;rin9 thJ. s: hack to Coi.tr~cLJ unless [hose properties were
d~':',,clnp~d, hl~ of c~¢~.trse ~.s ~t'io~he~ ~ay of I'~;~v[.n9 ~ccessibJ. JJtF ~nto those
s~'ol*~rt.i.*::':~ u2thou[ e'./~:r~ going down T~ton as we].~ Z suppose. ¢tccess coB~ng
· ?,'r : ;~l. Lt(:, [3la'l; tl~,~t':s sotn~thino uu c;tn look at,
C!l.~'r'le.¢-: Ye.Ich;AI.)so.l ut ely and you'll also be go~ng through 'the r-et, iow process
· ', ~ >' ,::,.~d F~r~,~l p..d( oF I;ho property.
ii.-.-tyoi- C;~;~;iE?].~ Okay, a~ny ~liscLts:-:ion? Cab I have a motion?
· 't.::;.,q~..';]t~.~m,::.r, :.If. ruler- Th~.,. dove.toper is payir,g for Lhis 6tnd the money will be put
.';~, ;?.sc:row? .Tt'::; f-~of. 9o].n9 to co:..'.( tho C~Ly anyt. hing?
~":i,...-.']r:-_~ Fei. cf',' l'ha.f.',.'¢ correc:(. We would require a lett,er of credit of c~sh
-':.~,-: f' 0 ~.J ·
,_' ~r:c'i. lw,':ma'..'~ 3im].,~i" 1 .o:.;t~.ss ther~ we don*t have any reason to deny i[.
· ~.,',¢;',:'.';]~',c~rt ifi,:tson: I make a motion to authorize update to feasibility stud), for
:;~,"~"-,-.:]..~ It'.'.i]ii2' ,~rscl rl'r',~J, rsage improvements to Teton Lake and Lilac Lane, Project
F:eso]~tt~on_._~g2-...2:_~: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to
~uthorize the updating of the original feasibility study for street and utility
improvements to Teton Lane between Lilac Lane and Ashton Court and Lilac Lane
between Teton La~,e and County Road 17 conditioned upon the owner/developer
prey(din9 a t,otal security (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of
$5,000.00 to pay for the study and that the consulting engineering firm of
Fngelhardt & Associates be designated as the engineer on the project. ~1! voted
.i.n favor ~nd the inotion c,zrried.
City Counc:il Meeting - February 10, 1992
Cou)~cilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted tn favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashuorth
C~ty Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
59