1992 01 27CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR HEETING
3ANUARY 27, 1992
Mayor Chmlel called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason, Councilman Workman, Councilman
Wing and Councilwoman Oimler
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Charles Folch, Scott Hart, Todd Hoffman, and Paul
Krauss
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve the agenda With the following addition under Council-Presentations:
Mayor Chmlel wanted to dlscuss the Clty Code Amendment concerning mooring of
watercraft that was approved at the last City Counc£1 meeting. All voted in
favor and the motlon carrled unanimously.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEHENTS:
Lenny Cooper: Hello. My name is Lenny Cooper. I'm one of the new Directors of
the Chamber of Commerce here and I'm the new appointed Government Affairs liason
type people and my job will be to help the business community get more
information from the Chamber meetings and hopefully provide the Council here
wlth additional information that you might be able to need from different
businesses in the area that are Chamber members. So as to act as a 11ason for
you, we're just to help information flow from your slde to local businesses.
I'd like to introduce Kevln McShane here also. To further delineate my duties
because I'm not totally sure as to what they are other than being a liason for
the Council here. Do I have any questions as to?
Mayor Chmlel: I guess not. Everyone has that smug face.
Lenny Cooper: I'm a lot better with questions to answer.
Mayor Chmlel: No, but we appreciate the fact of gettlng this kind of
arrangement between the Chamber and the City. To have this kind of cooperation
[ thlnk ls golng to be great. We look foward to having you here and at any
glven time when there's given problems or suggestions, we have that ear for
listening. Appreciate it.
Lenny Cooper: Thank you.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Tom.
Councilman Workman: I'm also a member of the Board of the Chanhassen Chamber
and I was £neffectual in getting you guys to see it the business communEty's way
so Z've enllsted Lenny and Kevin and Mr. Jude to help out and make sure that
everything works smoothly between the business community and City Hall, which
they should. But lt's a good bunch and Kevln had an organizational meetlng at
City Council Heeting - January 27, 1992
his home a couple of weeks ago Saturday. It was ?:00 a.m. of all things until
noon and I think it looks good and it looks exciting. Kevin's President this
year right? And I'm going to be working with Lenny and hopefully to keep the
business community a iittIe bit more informed with what's happening with the
City CounciI. I think that's kind of why they wanted. It was maybe a
suggestion that a Chamber member be present at Council meetings to help report
and keep an eye on and do some things and one of my suggestions i$ I do maybe a
Iittie better job of informing the Chamber myself. I'm here and why drag people
through these boring meetings so that's one of my resolutions now that I own a
home in the community. But ~t's an exciting bunch and there's a lot of really
fun things going on so I appreciate their coming tonight.
Councilwoman Oimler: Well Hr. Hayor I'd like to say too I'm a member of the
Chamber and I really wasn't aware there was the problem. I thought we had a
good working relationship and I hope we can continue.
Councilman Workman: I was being my usual sarcastic self.
Mayor Chmiel: I too am a member of the Chamber but thank you. One more time
for any additional public announcements. Seeing none we'll move right along.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Hason moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve
the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Hanager's
recommendations:
c. Resolution_~2-O9: Accept Street and Utility Improvements in Reed's
Orchard Ridge, Project 88-24.
f. Expand Authorization of Official Depository to include the following
investment institutions:
Resolution ~92-10: Prudential Securities, Inc.
Resolution~2-!l: Shearson, Lehman Brothers
Resolution ~2-12: Palne Webber, Inc.
h. Approval of Accounts.
i. City Council Hinutes dated January 13, 1992
Planning Commission Minutes dated January 15, 1992
Publlc Safety Mlnutes dated January 9, 1992
k. Resolution #92-13: Approve Contract Change Orders Nos. 1 and 2 for Well
No. 6, Project 91-1.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
B. ESTABLISH FEE SCHEDULE FOR IN-HOUSE ENgiNEERiNG SERVICES.
Councilman Mason: This, so anyone who calls up and wants to know the size of a
lot's going to have to pay two bills? Two dollars?
Charles Folch: That's correct.
city Council Meeting - January 27, 1992
Councilman Mason: How many calls a money is just someone who wants to buy a
lot? Not a developer but.
Charles Folch= Typically what we've found is that the months between late
March, early April, through the summer, into the fall are the busiest and it's
typically more so realtors than it is private individual homeowners that are
calling for this information. Zt does take time to go and pull out this
information and be able to give it over the phone. We would prefer actually
that we send them something. It's very easy to look at something on a plan and
transpose numbers as you're talking over the phone. Then they write it down.
They take it. They might transpose it and then it goes on some document and
then there's a confusion as to who goofed up so we'd actually prefer that they'd
request we send them an official copy of something that they can take a look at.
But most often though we get calls for just verbal information over the phone.
Mayor Chmiel= Charles, how often do we provide this service now? How many
times do we do this in a given year? Ballpark.
Charles Folch: Z'd hate to venture a guess on that. We haven't tried to
officially tally the numbers. Actually this idea or the issue came up when
Carver County made the announcement to us that they were going to this program
and it was towards the end of the season for last year so we really haven't had
an opportunity to monitor a full season of how many calls we actually get.
Mayor Chmlel: Okay. I was just wondering if we have 5 or.
Charles Folch: From talking to both Dan and Dave, it's a significant number of
calls that we get.
Councilman Mason: I think Chan is, hopefully we're all operating under the
assumption that the people that work for Chan are friendly, helpful people and I
think they are. And as far as I can see for a big time development or something
like that, charging some kind of fee, I have a little trouble with some guy or
gal saying excuse me. I'm thinking of buying this lot. Can you tell me what
the size is and say well, we'll tell you if you give us 2 bucks.
Charles Folch: And actually there is no charge is a person wanted to come in to
City Hall and actually go back and take a look at it themselves. There's no
charge for that.
Councilman Mason: I think you could maybe argue that it would even take more
time for you folks to show them that than it would be to give the information
over the phone. Maybe not.
Charles Folch: It could be.
Councilman Workman: It would take more time to set up the bill.
Councilman Mason: Yeah. I mean I understand a charge for a fax and that other
stuff. How's the rest of the Council feel about that? I don't know. It just
kind of struck me the wrong way.
City Council Meeting - January 27, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Well, I think in this day and age as I look at everything that's
being done, if you sometimes review our own Council's bills as well as our
consultants that we have on board, no matter what it is or the time that you
involve talklng to them, we are charged accordingly for that. If we have any
klnd of correspondence that we would 11kw sent, we're even charged for the
mailings portions. I guess from a standpoint of City, and I don't disagree.
Chanhassen belng as a frlendly area. I agree totally but I thlnk you almost
have to do some of these things on a business type of basis even though you'd
just 11ke to pass it on by. That's the reason why I questioned how many do we
have. Is it 5? 107 157 I wouldn't have any problem with that. 8ut if it
goes to a hlgher amount in numbers, than we have to write off those costs for
that employee doing those kinds of things.
Councilman Mason: Would something be said, how will the people know that they
won't be charged if they come in in person?
Mayor Chmiel: I think that would be up to us for them to tell them.
Charles Folch: Typically when someone comes in they also want a copy of what
they see so that's actually where the charge would be lncurred would be through
copying services.
Mayor Chmlel: Yeah. I don't thlnk they'd be charged for a phone call.
Charles Folch: No.
Jay Johnson: Jay Johnson. I was just listening to this because I wanted to
listen to one later but, one way around this ls have like a quarterly minimum.
If they don't, because it w111 cost more than two bucks probably to send out the
invoice within the labor of the city to collect. You know spend $5.00 to
collect $2.00. That if within a quarter the company's b111 does not add up to
more than $10.00, you don't bill them. So that individual person who called up
and now only has one $2.00 charge, lt'd be ludicrous to send hlm the b111 for
$2.00. If you dldn't pay it, they didn't pay the $2.00 b111, I mean we're not
going to go after them for $2.00. It's going to cost far more so if you could
put a minimum in there, like maybe $10.00 a quarter for these real estate
companies, then they would st111 get charged because they'll be dolng more than
five a quarter. And these one and two timers won't. A suggestion.
councilman Workman: Except that a real estate company like Burnet has dozens of
agents and a separate one mlght call. I don't know. I agree with Don that, and
thls memo brings up the fact that lt's probably not the average citizenry here
that's generating the work. It's not like Kim Heuwissen has a book right there
with all the slzes of the lots and she just goes through it and flnds lt. She
has to get up, go do something else and it's a very disruptive day I can imaglne
for somebody. Or for multlple people. I don't know. I mean yeah, for what the
cltizens pay for taxes and what they pay to run their city, I buy that argument
but I know that there's got to be a large majorlty of the people that are uslng
this City Hall for things are the same ones and the same type of people that ue
should and probably could be b1111ng.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I think true. That it probably isn't so much the
¢ltlzens of the Clty of Chanhassen. It's the people that are considering movlng
City Council Meeting - January 27, 1992
here that are looking at it that are not citizens yet.
Councilman Workman: But that tuo bucks wouldn't be a big deal but maybe along
Jay's line there, one free one a month.
Councilman Mason: Then that gets into the bookkeeping end of it.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, does this check in the corner OW~, does that mean
checked, okayed and approved by the City Manager?
Mayor Chmiei: That's uhat it looks like.
Councilman Wing: I would move approval of this item then.
Oon ashworth: If I may though. I did have some concern over and I did not get
a chance to stop back and talk with Charles on potentially billing $2.00
accounts. I wouid prefer taking some time and making sure that we know that
we're going to be able to reasonably collect this and that ue're not incurring a
$5.00 charge to collect $2.00.
Counciiman Mason: Then maybe for a month we should monitor this or something.
Yeah because if it's a need, I don't have any trouble with that.
Mayor Chmiei: I uould think that that would be a good suggestion to monitor
this during the period of time uhen most amount of calls basically would come in
and then take it from there and see what that would be. So is that your
position not to take action on this item at this particular time? Once we see
what transpires?
Councilman Mason: Yes. I will so move.
Counciiuoman Dimler: Second.
Councilman Workman: So ue're going to approve aii of it except for that part?
Mayor Chm£el: No, I think.
Councilwoman Dimier: Just have it ail monitored for a month.
Mayor Chmiel: Just have it ail monitored.
Counciiman Workman: But the fax and things.
Mayor Chmiei: Well the fax is just an automatic. If they aant us to send them,
what's our cost on the fax?
Don Ashuorth: We own the machine. I'm assuming local calls so there is no
cost.
Councilman Workman: Chanhassen Secretarial charges about $5.00.
Don ~shworth: The cost involves getting somebody to take it in, feed it into
the machine. Putting in the number. Waiting and all of that.
City Council Meeting - January 27, 1992
Councilman Mason: How about if we approve everything except for lot size
requests?
Councilman Workman: I'd second that.
Councilman Mason: I think all this other stuff, it all makes sense to me that
you would get charged for plats and registered land surveys. Well those are
bigger deals.
Mayor Chmiel: Hake that as a friendly amendment for motion and does the second
accept that for discussion?
Councilman Wing: My comment on approving it was based on the City Manager
having reviewed and approved it. In 1leu of that, I would just rather than
complicate the lssue just slmply send it to the Clty Manager for revlew and
discussion with Charles and if they see fit to resubmit it with justification,
we could revlew it at that tlme. Otherwise let's drop it unt11 such tlme
totally. Just a suggestion.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well now we're more confused than ever.
Mayor Chmiel: As Council has indicated and we have a motion on the floor, would
you accept that frlendly amendment?
Councilman Mason: Yep.
Councilwoman Dimler: Now what is the amendment?
Mayor Chmiel: Basically.
Councilman Workman: Approve it all except for lot size requests.
Mayor Chmiel: Is that your intent Richard?
Councilman Wing: That was just a suggestion. The motion stands.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have a motion on the floor with a second.
Councilman Mason: To approve all except the lot size request portion.
Resolution ~92-14: Councilman Hason moved, Councilwoman Oimler seconded to
approve the Establishment of a Fee Schedule for In-House Engineering Services as
proposed except for lot size requests. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
E. SET DATE FOR BOARD OF EOUALIZATION AND. REVIEW, HONDAY, APRIL 20, 1992.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I'm just sort of pulling this just to make people aware
of the fact that we're going to have a local boards of revlew whlch the Clty ls
golng to have. This is going to be held wlthin the city at Clty Hall on April
20th, whlch lsa Monday at ?:00 p.m.. The continued meeting, if one ls
required, would then be May 11th which is also a Monday at ?:00 p.m. here at
Clty Counc11. I would so move thls.
City council Meeting - January 27, 1992
Councilman Workman: Second.
Nayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman eecoT~led to approve the date for the
Board of Equalization and Review for t~nday, AprLl 20, 1992. All votc~d in
favor and the mot/on carried unanimously.
G. ORDINANCE AHENDING CHAPTER 12 OF CITY CODE RE~RDING PARKZNG OF HOTOR
VEHTCLES TN HUNZCTPAL PARKZNG LOTS, FZN~d- Rt;ADING.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay item (g) has to do with the second reading of a
parking restriction in municipal lots. I see that Scott is here and I just
wanted to know in, I see under the prohibition there you're putting up these
signs. I just wanted to make sure that that's budgeted for and do you have any
idea what the costs will be?
Scott Hart: No, I haven't had an opportunity to get together with Jerry and
Charles on that yet.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. But you don't foresee any problems? We've got
miscellaneous money available? Okay. Also under the 4 hour waiting period, how
is that going to be executed? Boss this mean that the citation is left on the
windshield or is the owner of the vehicle notified and you give them 4 hours
after the person is notified?
Scott Hart: What it means is we're giving the violator 4 hours to remove the
car to prevent the situation we talked about last time. Someone just putting it
there because they've had car trouble o'r very temporary basis. The majority of
the cases we call when a vehicle's left in a lot and inquire as to whether it's
been stolen or there are other problems with it. It's always up to the
officer's discretion but we always try to get a hold of the person first.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but you do foresee a time when just the citation
left on the windshield 4 hours past and then the vehicle is towed without the
owner being notified?
Scott Hart: That's a possibility.
Councilwoman Dimler: I just wanted to make sure on that and see how anyone else
felt. Any problems with that?
Mayor Chmiel: I guess are you saying that there should be some kind of call
placed as well as the issuance of that ticket?
Councilwoman Dimler: I would like to see it after the owner has been contacted.
Mayor Chmiel: That'd be a little difficult I suppose depending on when that
ticket was written. If they see that vehicle at 2:00 in the morning.
Scott Hart: It's similar to a vehicle that's parked along the roadway. A vast
majorlty of tlmes the people are tempted to be called. The dilemma is we flnd
more and more situations with people with unlisted numbers. Registrations that
don't come back to the proper party. I don't foresee this as an ordinance where
squad cars are going to be cruising the lots look£ng for someone to tag. It's
City Council Meeting - January 27, 1992
really here $o we have a way to respond to vehicles that are left there over.
Councilwoman Dimler: A longer period of time.
Scott Harr: Right.
Councilwoman Dimler: I thought I brought this subject up before. I would
rather not see them drive home if they've been a Pauly's and they leave their
vehicle overnight. I'd rather have the vehicle there and not have them punished
for having left it there.
Scott Harr: Sure. I think that situation we could work with the person as we
do anyone that receives a citation for an exterraneous reason. Not saying that
we'd overlook a citation but certainly the court's sympathetic to situations
where a necessity arises.
Councilwoman Dimler: Because this person obviously wouldn't know they were
going to be doing that and they wouldn't have time to come in for a permit at
1:00 in the morning. Okay. Is everybody comfortable with that?
Councilman Workman: How many signs are going to be posted?
Scott Hart: Well one at each. I would anticipate one at the entrances to each
of the municipal lots so that people wouid realize that there was a limitation
there.
Councilman Workman: I just, we're getting a little out of hand with signs and
things. Particular up on Kerber there where it's a school zone. We have more
metal in the ground there.
Councilman Mason: Good point.
Councilman Workman: You drive by there. We tend to, maybe we're doing
something there but boy, it's sure like, ue must have put 50 to 70 signs or
posts there.
Scott Hart; Yeah, those aren't discretionarily placed. Those are all required
for a school zone. This ordinance is to help us to prevent people from keeping
vehicles there for a long period. I really don't foresee a one overnighter
being cited.
Councilwoman Dimler: But it does leave it open to that and I'm saying that then
the officer has to use discretion. I just think that that can lead to problems.
Also I have problems with exempting city vehicles from that then. I mean I can
see why you would want to exempt them but I always have a problem when the City
asks for special treatment that the rest of the citizens aren't going to get.
Scott Harr: Well I don't really see it as special treatment because these
aren't city vehicles is where they're kept routinely. The city lot is designed
to accommodate city vehicles. The municipal lots are not designed. They're
designed for business purposes and not for people leaving cars there. When
they're on trips or because they're broken down and.
City Council Meeting - January Z7, 1992
Councilwoman Dimler: I do want to give you a tool to handle it but on the other
hand, the taxpayer did pay for those using those municipal lots as well so
I have a little trouble telling them they can't park there overnight. But not
an abandoned vehicle and I understand that's what you're getting after.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anyone else? Uould you like to make that motion?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. Being that we clarified all those points I would
move approval of item (g).
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the second and
final reading of an Ordinance amendLng Chapter 12 of the C/ty Code regard/rig
Park/rig of Hotor Veh/cles /n Hun/c/pa! Park~rig Lots. All voted in favor and
the mot/on carried unan/mously.
3. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING al REDEVELOPHENT PLAN ~ODIFICATIal
NO. 11; AND RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO HODZJrY ECONalIC
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2. INCLUDING CONSIDERATION OF ACOUIRING A SCHOOL SITE,
AND AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF A TAX INCREHENT FINANCING PLAN FOR-DISTRICT NO.
2-2.
Councilwoman Dimler: This has to do with the calling of a public hearing to do
some, what do you call, modification of the economic development district. I
would just like a little bit more information on what we're doing here and to
make sure there we're just calling for a public hearing and we're not really
saying that we approve of these changes just yet because I don't have enough
information to do that.
Don Ashworth: [ can assure you that all you are doing ls calling for the public
hearing. That action does trigger sending the notices to the School District
and the County of our intention to consider thls change and so by doing that we
are triggering a request for a response from them. Typically you haven't
received any response but they could.
Councilwoman Oimler: Okay, thanks. I move approval of item l(j).
Councilman Workman: Don, this ls an enlargement of these districts or an
expansion or brand new creation. Hasn't year's past tax increment legislation
really, don't they look at that? Creatlng new districts?
Don Ashworth: I think what you're referring to are questions regarding our
larger dlstrict whlch we have avolded making any boundary changes there because
it would then trigger new requirements and basically establish new prohibitions
for us. Since, there's three changes. Wlthin the larger district, the
boundaries basically as staying the same. The changes being made there are
addltlon of additional projects whlch would lnclude the construction of a future
library on the Pauly's/Pony's side and the rennovation of the lower area of City
Hall for senior center. The inclusion of a central clty park. Those are all
three project related but not really boundary changes. The other one is a
boundary change as it deals wlth the HcGlynn dlstrict area. The HcGlynn
district and in that instance we are enlarging the district to include lthe
City Council Me,;ting .- January 27, 1992
school site which just gives us flexibility in terms of the amount of dollars
that might be required to acquire that for a school.
Councilman Workman: But I thought an enlargement was kind of a taboo thing now.
Don Ashworth: An enIargement puts you, forces you to conform to the newest
rules that are in effect. Both of these two new districts are following the new
rules so therefore it makes no change.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I have a motion on the floor.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Resolution
~2-15 calling for a public hearing on Redevelopment Plan Hodification No.
and Resolution ~2-16 calling for a public hearing to modify Economic
Development District No. 2, including consideration of acquiring a school site
and authorizing preparation of a Tax Increment Financing Plan for District No.
2-2. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Gary Carlson: My name is Gary Carlson. I live at 3831 West 62nd Street and the
mailing address is Excelsior', 55331 and I'm a resident of the City of Chanhassen
and I have been for the last 23 years. Good evening ladies and gentlemen. It's
good to see you again. I wish to thank you for administering the city's
business. I think you do a very good job and I wouldn't keep you here one
minute longer'. I've saved these two issues, which I have tonight. Two issues.
Two unresolved issues for a short agenda night. I've discussed them with the
different city employees through the years and they just keep getting put on the
back burner and I think I need to make a presentation tonight to get them going.
The first issue is related to the Minnewashta Meadows development which came on
line in i987 and I wish to report is just about completely sold out. It was a
very good project put in by the city and the residents there are very happy so
I wish to give you that good news. The issue that is left from the Minneuashta
Meadows development is one that was supposed to be cleared up by engineering in
regards to when Warren was still the City Engineer. Mr. Warren was still the
City Engineer. My development, if I could put it on an overhead I could show
you. I can explain it about just as fast. The original city sewer and water
project that went in, and I have some notes back to '75, '73, '67. Well I've
got them. That improvement was put in along my rural farmland and laterals and
trunks were charged. Those lateral charges which were put in like 2 or 3 stubs
every acre were assessed and I paid those assessments some 27, 28, I guess over
$28,000.00 in charges for that sewer and water line.
Mayor Chmiel: You said that was 19797
Gary Carlson: If you direct me to someone in the city and say will you take
care of lt, I will get everything in line and we can go through it once agaln.
Although I have submitted those papers once already. That project was put in,
and I have the Mlnutes from some of those Counc11 meetlngs and some of those
Council actions. If that property was developed in the future, and those unit
charges weren't used, they could be credited because obviously you're going to
10
City Council Meeting - January
have some more assessments if you do a whole development. Those original
assessments, not the ones that pay for the trunk which is the full length of the
pipe to get the sewer there but the unit charges could be credited back to the
development. And I can't get the credit from the City of Chanhassen and I can't
get anyone to act on it.
Councilman Wing: Just a quick question, will you put the Headows on the map
for me?
Gary Carlson: Minnewashta Meadows.
Councilman Workman: North of TH 7?
Gary Carlson: It's TH 7 and Church Road. Right across from the Fire Station.
Councilman Wing: Oh okay. Northwest corner.
Gary Carlson: So that's one unresolved issue and we can call that credit of
trunk charges to, and I gave.my name and address previously and I can be reached
there. 1'11 give you my phone number, 474-3354. The second issue involves and
it involves 4 families and I would like Hr. and Mrs. Wing, Mr. and Mrs. Dimler,
Mr. and Mrs. Chmiel and Mr. and Mrs. Ashworth to put yourself in the place of
these four families. The four families are, Mr. and Mrs. Hark MacPherson, Mr.
and Mrs. Terry To11, Mr. and Mrs. A1 Gelschus and Mr. and Mrs. Gary Carlson,
although my residence is not this particular address that I'm referring to but
it is a full home that ! own. You four families live on a street, let's call it
a road, in Chanhassen. Your road has never been plowed once. Your street
address is off of a neighboring street. You four don't have any address that
you can say is addressed to the street in front of your house. What
referring to is the cartway. There are four families that have very nice homes
on the cartway. It's called the cartway in the city's directory of streets but
it is not named the cartway. We have an unnamed street in the city of
Chanhassen that the four of us have a home on. It was originally a [6 [/2 foot
cartway that four nice homes were built on and it's in the city of Chanhassen
and it has remained that way for the 23 years I have lived here. Now the four
families that live on that road, Mr. and Mrs. Dimler, Mr. and Mrs. Wing, Mr. and
Mrs. Chmiel and so on and so forth, you all pay the same taxes as Mr. and Mrs.
Tom Workman. Now what would you four families do if you lived there for 23
years and never had your street plowed? Never, don't even have an address that
corresponds to your house. Would you ask for a rebate? [ know that some tax
pay for schools. Some pay for the city fire and we do have fire coverage, if
they can get down the road. But what would you four families do? We four
families are in this boat. We have a cartway up there that the four of us live
on there. It can be plowed by any of your very nice looking 4 wheel drive green
vehicles. The City of Shorewood that's right across from me, they have a small
plow rig and they, I don't know what they plow with. They must plow with
anything that's small because they don't use their big tandem dump trucks on it.
The other thing is we get no street improvements for our taxes and we pay the
same. The four families have just lived with it and if you would direct us as
to what to do. If you uant ali of us down here, ue will gladly come down and we
will all tell you the same thing. We would like our taxes to pay, for what the
four families are paying in taxes, ue would like that much improvements. We
don't expect you to come out and pave the road. We don't expect you to plow it
il
City Council Meeting - January 27, 1992
four lanes wide. But we would like to keep it open for fire reasons. We would
like it to have some gravel put on it. Now the Clty of Chanhassen back in this
orlglnal water project dld put a sewer pressure 11ne under the road. So there's
culverts and it's a full pressure llne under the road. At that time they
elected not to lmprove the road. It's got the clty of Shorewood's park,
Cathcart Park on one side of it and lt's got 3 of us on the other side of the
road and then at the end are Mr. and Mrs. MacPherson. So they elected, those
people at that time said, '73-'72, they wanted just a gravel road just the way
it is and it's stayed that way. It's just that all of our taxes are golng lnto
the city and we're receiving no benefits there. Those are the two issues and
where to turn from here, I hope you will help us.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I'd like to just ask a question relating to your cartway.
Has that ever been a dedicated street to the clty when that development took
place?
Gary Carlson: My development on Minnewashta Meadows is just off that property.
And one or two lots do abut that cartway. I don't think the city took enough
easements. They should have taken some more easements off the back of that lot
from me. I would have glven that to them. I don't know those lots now. The
lot I'm referring to that I own on that property, Mr. and Mrs. Gary Carlson own
a home on that cartway. At the time I built that home, the city took full
easements to put ina full wlde road but rlght now the publlc domaln ls 16 1/2
feet wide. Public owns it on the plat. Public property.
Don Ashworth: I do recall Gary's, what he had stated in regards to connection
charges were discussed and to the best of my knowledge were approved as a part
of puttlng sewer and water up in that area. i'm not aware of his not belng able
to get credit. I don't, my recollection was that you'd pay the full cost.
Others didn't want to, didn't requlre the sewer. Dldn't want lt. You needed it
as a part of your development. You were therefore wondering if you paid
literally the full cost, if at a future polnt in tlme if one or the other of
those that were saying at that point in time that they didn't need it and in
fact they dld connect back ln, couldn't the clty charge them an additional
amount and reimburse that to you. That's my recollection of what we did.
Gary Carlson: Can I, ail of what you're saying Don is true. That was on that
Church Road side and that is working perfect. That I did pay for and that I
have already been reimbursed for one of those assessments. That's not the one
in question. It's going back to issue number one which is the credit of trunk
charges. That's my western boundary so that sewer and water 11ne was put in in
1973. I'll have to look at my notes but it was put in and unit charges were put
all along there. In my development all they dld was come down and hook to that
main line. All my unit charges, all my lateral charges go up in my internal
streets so i'm not uslng all those charges up and down that west line. What
you're referring to is the Church Road side. That's working smooth. That's a
whole different lssue and your recollection ls exactly rlght and lt's.
Don Ashworth: I didn't realize Gary was going back to the original project
whlch was that '72-'73 timeframe.
Gary Carlson: Zt was brought up and Warren was here at the meeting and he saLd
we wlll look into that and we wlll get you an answer on the credlt of trunk
12
City Council Meeting - January 27, 1992
charges dating back from the original project and that hasn't been resolved.
Don Ashworth: As it deals with this street and I was hoping that this was one
of the issues that we would get some clarification and discussion on as we went
through the special assessment manual which was scheduled to be one of the
projects we'd be working on here this winter. But there are really three
classifications of streets or three types of streets that you have within the
community. There are those streets that the developer had pitched as private
and had said we want to have the full responsibility over these streets. We
will build them to a lesser standard because that's what the people want in the
subdivision and as I'm selling property, they know that's going to be the
responsibility for them to maintain and if it's replaced in the future, it's up
to them, etc.. Streets like that would include all of Hesse Farm is in that
type of category. Timberwood area. I'm trying to think of some others. Then
there's a second group of streets that have really never been brought up to city
standards. One of the ways in which, they may exist within a platted area so !
mean back in the turn of the century there may have been a plat that showed the
road but the group of residents have really never wanted to take and pay the
costs associated with bringing that up to full standards and in those instances
we don't maintain them until they are brought up. Streets like that are Teton
Avenue. Dogwood in the Minnewashta area. Carver Beach was that way for a
number of years and went through sealcoating and whatever and then the owners
there petitioned and we finally brought those roads up to full standards, albeit
they're not as wide as we have in other spots in the community. But we designed
them. We put the streets in and now we plow them and in the spring sweep them.
My guess is that the street, the Cathcart cartway fits into that category.
Gary Carlson: Yes sir it does.
Don Ashworth: And then there's the last category which is just the typical city
street and the developers have put it in and it meets full standards and we'd
plow it and sweep it, etc.. I would, what is the feelings of your neighbors? I
don't know if we would accept as narrow of a street as it is right now if they
petitioned to have that brought up to city standards. ~nd I doubt with 16 feet
it would be nice if there was at least 6 more so you could get it up to 22 or 24
or 28 but I mean what would the neighbors think of the city improving that and
charging them the cost of that asphalt?
Gary CarIson: I'm in favor. I've already given the Iand in front of my house.
I'm in favor. I can't speak for the other neighbors. If it came how opposed
they would be or if they would be here behind me lined up to have it done, !
can't say. I think maybe one would be behind me to have it done. The other two
are just happy to live at the end of the smallest road possible.
Don Ashworth: May I suggest that you instruct staff to review both of these two
lssues. The connection charge issue as well as thls one. Potentially
developing maybe even some cost estimates. Put it onto, if not the next agenda,
the following one and when we're looklng at some solld facts then we can make a
decision as to should we move to a next step to ask the neighbors what they
thlnk or are there some other solutions out there?
Mayor Chmiel: I think that's a good suggestion but I also think that probably
before we proceed much further, it might be an advantage for Gary to discuss
13
City Council Meeting - January 27, 1992
this with his neighbors. At least see what position they would take on it and
if you have a unanimous group that would want it, then of course we could
proceed with it and then at least come up with some cost factors. Or even come
up with some estimates on it.
Gary Carlson: Alright, I will. Very good and if we could have the street even
named, then everyone could say what street we live on.
Mayor Chmiel: We could probably call it Carlson's Road or something.
Gary Carlson: Well that'd be alright but, the problem on the street is that the
whole one side of it is Cathcart Park so Shorewood would have to, they own
cathcart Park. Unless you owe Shoreuood a lot of assessments right now or you
could get them to owe you some.
Councilman Wing: Don I was just curious. This was just kind of put forward as
an issue and if I heard Don Ashworth correct, the issue of not getting their
dollars worth and not getting their tax money back in services. Did I hear you
say that this road isn't entitled to plowing? It's not a city street. It's no
more like my private driveway is entitled so it's really not an issue.
Gary Carlson: So it's not entitled to any city services?
Councilman Wing: Not plowing. Not anymore than my driveway is.
Mayor Chmiel: Not unless it's brought up.
Gary Carlson: Even though the city owns it?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Gary Carlson: Even though the City has a trunk line under it which they said
they would maintain the roadbed over the top of that. I do get a little
maintenance by calling the street department. I did again this fall. Mr.
Schlenk, the manhole's showing again, which it does. It starts to stick up over
the top and you can't. He didn't get to it this fall but I'll call him again
this spring and we were told at the time that sewer line was put under the
street the city would at least keep it graveled because their pressure line is
under it. But I will talk to the other residents and I don't know how to name
the street also but I appreciate your time and looking at the two issues and
again for the good job you do.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you for bringing it forward. Anyone else?
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
CONSIDER MORATORIUM, HIGHMAY 5 CORRIDOR, COUNCILHAN
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, the word moratorium I guess I don't believe in
support or even care if lt's the subject of this. My only concern is that, to
be somewhat simple in my speaking. I guess when I come to Highway 5 I have this
dream. I have thls vlslon and I can be very specific. As I head west from
Chanhassen 20 years from now and the residents use Highway 5, I'm hoping it
14
City Council Meeting - January 27, 1992
doesn't look like University Avenue or Long Lake and Hwy. 12 and we've discussed
this before. $o I have this vision that it's going to be more like the parkway.
It's going to be something moving westward towards the lake and the Arboretum
area and my concern is that the task force that was created simply isn't moving
along here quickly enough. It isn't in force the way I think it should be. I'm
hearing rumors of possible development along Highway 5 and things occurring and
there's issues involved such as setbacks, which right now could be, I think Paul
you mentioned as little as 30 feet in one point. Land useage, signage, parking,
lighting, crossovers, landscaping. I think these are all things that we need to
look at in this corridor study. $o there's nothing personal here for me. I'm
trying to get really far ahead. We can't predict what's going to happen on TH 5
other than it's going to develop but we can create it and that's the word I want
to stick with tonight. I'm worried about creating something on Highway 5. And
talking to both Paul and the City Manager, I believe the Planning Commission on
the 4th?
Mayor Chmiel: 5th.
Councilman Wing: 5th. Is going to have the University of Minnesota there and
give kind of their final presentation and I guess my need to push the Council
for a decision on this issue really should wait until after that point. So
I guess at this point I'd like to urge the City Council to, if at all possible,
attend the Planning Commission meeting on the 5th of February. Hear the
presentation and from that point I'd like to see it return to the Council and at
that point I'm going to request the Council either strongly support this
corridor study, whatever that means. It may involve money. I'm not suggesting
that. Or non-support is alright with me too. I'd 3ust like to see us be
somewhat decisive in what we want to do with Highway 5. Either move to create
something or just let it develop under Paul's direction and do the best we can
as the various units come in. $o those are my only comments. Thank you.
Councilman Mason: If I could just comment. I've been involved with that
corridor study and I think Councilman Wing and everybody else will be pretty
amazed at some of the suggestions that are out there right now. I think some,
from what I've seen, some of that vision certainly is in place. You've been
there too Don. Your comment, I don't know where it was that I read it about how
exciting some of these visions are, is very well put. And I do think that the
more people we could get at that meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: I might even suggest that even to listen a second time might be
of some additional benefit.
Councilman Mason: I'm planning on doing that, yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: And I'm planning on that also. Being at the Planning Commission.
Councilwoman Oimler: I was at that December meeting also and I was very
impressed with how much has been done and I realize we can't move as quickly as
some of us want but I think we have made progress and I don't intend to give up.
Mayor Chmiel: You're right. In fact I had some discussions with Paul on some
of those things and some of the things that Morrish has indicated. More
specifically with the brldges over TH 5 rather than culverts and some thlngs
15
City Council Meeting -January 27, 1992
that we can be thinking about at this time as well. Those are costly items in
there. Maybe if some of those things can be brought up and discussed with
developers, potentially see if there can't be some contributions towards that
from the developers themselves who might pay. Okay, anything else on that
Richard?
Councilman Wing: No. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess the other thing that I had was the ordinance that we
amended chapter 6 and 20 of our Chanhassen City Code concerning mooring of
watercraft. This we passed this past Council meeting which was January 23rd.
One of the things that was brought up to me and I thought it was a very good
point and I'd like this possibly to be brought back for reconsideration.
Obviously a majority of voting on this as we all did in the positive. That's
the reason I'm bringing this up again. As that Section 1, 627(8) of Chanhassen
City Code is amended to read that no watercraft shall be moored or docked
overnight o;) the water of any lake unless it's currently registered pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 361 in the name of the owner of the lakeshore site
in front of which the watercraft is moored or docked. There is a specific
dockage within the city of which a gentleman owns. Does not have a boat. He
does not have a boat docked at his dock himself because he doesn't own one but
his daughter and son-in-law just two houses down do not have lake rights, do use
that dockage with their boat on his property. And somehow I'm sure that some of
these situations will occur from time to time and I guess the reason I'm
bringing it up is because I would like for us to look at this and see if there
is someway that this can be brought up or consideration given for this kind of
situation because technically by law, this ordinance reads it's not permitted.
Councilman Wing: I have a friend's boat at my house. What are you going to do
about it? You're right. This is a case. The issue was the mooring in front of
someone else's house and no ordinance to effect it and I think that's how Roger
got to this point. I think we're looking for some way to remove a moored boat
from in front of your home and I think there's a better way to do this. This is
a very awkward paragraph and I think it could very definitely be reviewed and
rewritten in an appropriate manner.
Councilwoman Dimler: What you're saying Richard is you would want to initiate
the complaint and then have this go into effect?
Councilman Wing: Well, if we left it as it is, I don't think anything would
ever be said or done. This really gives some teeth to the City to be able to go
out and enforce someone that arbitrarily moves in on somebody. On the other
hand, I can see this being rewritten. I tell you it's going to be awkward. On
Lake Minnetonka if I owned a lot, I can't rent or lease but I think that's all
we have to put in here. You can't rent or lease that dock site but you can
certainly have a friend or neighbor as far as I'm concerned. I have a friend
and I didn't worry about this because it's not going to affect me. Nobody's
going to complain but in your case, I agree Don. I think it could easily be
rewritten to accommodate your concern and well worth reviewing.
Mayor Chmiel: I would like to make that as a motion to have staff review and
come up with some type of a solution to that specific problem.
16
City Council Meeting - January 27, 1992
Councilman Wing: mAnd I'll second that.
Councilwoman Oimler: I don't think we can act on it because it's a Council
presentation. We have to wait until next meeting.
Councilman Workman: We're acting to modify the ordinance?
Mayor Chmiel: Just to modify the existing ordinance.
Councilwoman Oimler: It has to have a public hearing doesn't it?
Don Ashworth: I hear you say, and maybe this isn't what you're saying but you
want staff to come back with a solution. Suggestions on how to do tt so the
actlon would be thls.
Mayor Chmiel: No, that's right. I don't want any action to take place.
Councilwoman Oimler: It doesn't need a motion?
Mayor Chmlel: Well at least to direct staff to proceed with it.
Councilman Wing: Just to review this.
Mayor Chmiel: If everybody's in agreement, yes. Basically we're not going to
need a motion.
ADHINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
mA. PLANNING CONNIS$ION GOALS, PLANNING DIRECTOR.
Paul Krauss: Basically in the past few years we've come before you with the
ongoing issues list from the Planning Commission. This is something that they
update every month t6at they use as a tracking mechanism to know what they want
to tackle in the year and set some priorities. In the past few years we've been
presenting this to the City Council for your comment. Just briefly going
through it here, this is the most current list that we have. It starts out with
the issue that Councilman Wing was discussing a little bit earlier which was the
Highway 5 study corridor. This was originally the study area. It's been
expanded to the corridor and that's what we were charged with doing when you
adopted the Comprehensive Plan. So that's at the top of their list. There was
also a desire to see the 1995 study area south of Lyman also defined so we have
this big blank spot on the map that said study area and I think everybody would
like to shoot for having some idea about what it's going to be before it's
brought into the MUSmA line. $o that was one of the jobs to do. mAgain we've
been going through these things. Eezoning the BF district. It's something that
they haven't gotten a hold on yet but that's that area down below the htll on
old 212. There's a fair amount of discontent with the development we've had
down there and the Planning Commission from time to time has thought about
different approaches to suggest to resolve that. That's something they need to
get a handle on and bring back to you. The sign ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul could I just?
17
City Council Meeting - January 27, 1992
Paul Krauss: Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: Interject something to that. We're going to move that from BF to
Agricultural 2 district. The existing properties that are zoned that now, would
they, the owners of those properties be taklng a reduction on the value of that
property? 6nd could we get some repercussions from that?
Paul Krauss: We've asked Roger this from time and time and Roger said we have
an obligation to make some use available for these people. Whether or not they
go with A2 or some other mechanism ls still open to question. After tosslng
this around for a couple years, my own reaction is, rather than get rld of the
BF dlstrlct and go to an ag district, maybe it's better off to get some decent
standards in the BF district because it's not going to go away that easily. But
lt's really interesting though. You have to see a map of that area and when you
do, you find that half the stuff that's down there lsn't in the BF distrlct
right now. It's just non-conforming 11ke Frenchy's junk yard lsa
non-conforming use.
Mayor. Chmiel: Isn't that in Eden Prairie?
Councilman Workman: Frenchy's the doberman.
Mayor Chmiel: That's what I keep saying all the time. Oh that's in Eden
Prairie.
Paul Krauss: Moon Valley is not in the BF district. There's a lot of stuff
down there that's particularly almost offensive in terms of uses but they're not
in the dlstrlct so lt's a tough lssue.
councilman Wing: Paul, when I drive down there and I look at the history signs
that are down there and lt's got thls blue 11ne that's klnd of scalloped on top
and it's almost half way up the hill to Moon Valley where that flood was in 1952
and then in the 60's. Isn't that whole dlstrlct and development in a major
flood plain situation?
Paul Krauss: Part of it is, yes. The flood plain comes, most of the properties
on the south side of the highway are in the flood plain.
Councilman Wing: So develqpment is legal, illegal or not real bright to spend a
lot of money there?
Paul Krauss: Well the later is certainly true. As to whether it's legal or
not. Now we've also worked wlth the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and gotten
thelr agreement. You gave me a resolution about a year ago to ask them to
expand their park boundaries up to the south side of the highway so as Congress
appropriates money and as they are able to fund the acquisition, ultimately
hopefully the wildlife refuge will be the south side of the hlghway. Everything
else wlll be gone on that slde whlch then leaves us the north side whlch has
some problems in it's own right.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we have a superfund site that as you call it Frenchy's.
18
City Council Meeting - January 27, 1992
Paul Krauss: I uouldn't be at ail surprised. There's been a lot of stuff that
ue hear about going on down there. It's very hard to keep track of it. $o
that's one that's been tinkering on from time to time. We'll get around to
that. The sign ordinance task force. Councilman Workman's on that and in fact
it's a ueek from Wednesday Tom. First meeting. We did put an issue paper
together. Planning Commission reviewed it and we're going to have the first
meeting of the sign task force that includes not only Councilman Workman but
Kevin McShane, Gene Borg, Jeff Farmakes from the Planning Commission and my
staff. We're working on tree protection ordinances with the ONE. We just got a
grant to get some assistance with them on that. Of course you're kept abreast
of the storm water surface water stuff that we're working on. Shoreland
ordinance we've got to update that. We're under charge by the State to complete
that in another year. Group homes is one that I raise that as an issue.
think from time to time you've got to review these things. My own personal
belief is that the City's got an obligation. Most communities have an
obligation to provide locations for locally based facilities that need to be in
your community. Whether it's for seniors' with alheizmer's or troubled teenagers
or whatever. But there's a lot of new court cases on what you can and can't do
about these things. I've asked Roger to write kind of an update memo on what's
new with this lam. The ~orst time to re-examine your ordinance is when you've
got something that turns into a hot potato so we'd like to get on that ahead of
time. Rural area policies. That, we got the Metro Council to approve. Go back
a little. With the Lake Rnn agreement we ~ere forced to require all the area
outside the MUSA to have 2 1/2 acre minimum lot size and [ per lO acre density.
We agreed to that but then I found out that 2 months after they made us'go with
the 2 1/2 acre minimum lot size, they left everybody else do whatever they want
and it was almost punitive. We don't have any argument with the 1 per lO
density outside the MUS~ line but that 2 1/2 acre lot is a real land intensive,
almost a wasteful way to develop. It chews up a lot of ground. If you have 100
acres, maybe you should stick those lO homes that you can get over on a small
corner of the property. Leave everything else unencumbered and that-may ~hen
development does occur, it can occur in a good manner. We've got approval from
Metro Council to do that. We have to change the ordinances now to get them up
to speed. PUD ordinance. We finished that except for the residential district
standards and the Planning Commission's chewing that one over for the 6th or 7th
time and hopefully you'll get that pretty soon. Downtown traffic study.
There's nothing new ~ith that but that you're kept abreast of, especially if
you're on the HER. Reviea of architectural standards. This sort of is related
to the TH 5 corridor study but then again it's not because this would occur
every place in non-residential development let's say. This one is one that a
lot of communities are beginning to talk about and nobody's quite sure exactly
what to do. But it will be an interesting project when we figure it out. Bluff
Creek corridor greenway. There's some interesting things happening ~tth that.
Now this goes back to the hike that we had last year with the two fellows who
gave us the presentation. Now we've designated this as bluff protection area.
We've got it protected physically. In fact one of the guys from the University,
Lance Neckar told me about it after the fact but he wrote a grant proposal. He's
trying to get a funding grant to allow the city to acquire some of the land
around there. The golf course land and develop it for park. Todd and I have
been talking to not only Lance but also the wateshed district wants to become
involved in preserving that area. No~ if ae can couple this with a watershed
improvement project, we can get additional funding to help with recreational
19
City Council Meeting - January 27, 1992
development too. So wheels are starting to turn. Hopefully we'll see some
things with that.
Mayor Chmiel: Have we made any applications to the watershed for some of those
bluff areas that we had looked at as well?
Paul Krauss: That one, they tell me that they don't have the means of
interacting on that. We're still working with the Soil Conservation Service.
They were supposed to be doing up some sketch plans for the guys and I checked
about a month ago and they were still worklng on it. The other stuff is kind of
minor. Ursula and I are golng to meet wlth Scott and Kate to talk about the
temporary use/sales ordinance later in the week and see where that's going to
go.
Councilwoman Dimler: It's on Friday correct?
Paul Krauss: Yes. So this is the range of activities at this point in time.
Mayor Chmiel: I think there's one other thing that you and I had discussions
on. We talked that the city of Ramsey is having glven problems.
Paul Krauss: Ah, the sexually oriented.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. To look and see what we can do with those kinds of
facilities if they were to come lnto the city.
Paul Krauss: Okay.
Councilwoman Dimler: Good idea.
CITY COUNCIL/STAFF GOAL~_{DISCUSS STAFF/COMMISSION/COUNC~LGOALS FOR 1992), CITY
MANAGER.
Don Ashuorth: We've been looking, the Mayor and I have been talklng potentially
a date when we could get together with the Council. All employees were
evaluated prlor to the end of the year which was an update of all of thelr
position descriptions and the staff, department heads have now completed their
own recommendations for goals that we should be looklng at. We've completed
back wlth each of our commissions. We're at a point where we're ready to submit
the staff goals including commission goals and hopefully have the Counc11
prioritize those, which is what I think you did this past year. Or select what
you consider to be the most important. Add to those. Delete from them, etc..
One of my biggest problems is tile timing and I think we had suggested the 15th
or 22nd.
Mayor Chmiel: 15th, which is Saturday. Or the 22nd.
Councilman Workman: 22nd I can do.
Councilman Mason: 22nd I can do.
Councilwoman Dimler: 15th I can do. I can't do the 22nd.
2O
City Council Meeting - 3anuary 27, 1992 ....
Councilman Mason: We can take really good notes.
Councilwoman Oimler: I won't miss it.
Don Ashworth: Okay, 15th is bad.
Councilman Workman: I cannot absolutely make it.
Councilwoman Oimler: What about the 29th.
Mayor Chmiel: I have them both open. I'd just as soon have us get going on
this a little earlier than we did last year.
Councilman Workman: This is what we did last year. We argued about it...
Councilman Mason: It was in May wasn't it?
Oon Ashworth: Well no, the first one was in March.
Councilman Wing: You can't make it on the 22nd?
Councilwoman Oimler: No. That's the only date I can't make it is the 22nd.
Councilman Mason: I have a class that weekend.
Mayor Chmiel: The 22nd you can't make it either?
Councilman Mason: The 22nd's wonderful for me.
Councilman Workman: Me too.
Councilman Wing: Me too.
Mayor Chmiel: Me too.
Councilwoman Dimler: Not me.
Oon Ashworth: See if Chuck will come.
Councilwoman Dimler: Chuck. will you attend for me7
Councilman Workman: 2~th7
Councilman Wing: I'd like to attend the fire school on the 29th and the subject
is commanding the fire scene with minimal equipment and manpower.
Councilman Mason: You'd better go to that one.
Councilman Wing: I'd hate to miss it. It's a good class. It's a lot more
important than Workman playing basketball on the 15th.
Don Ashworth: We picked out a Saturday morning. How about an off Monday?
21
City Council Meeting - January 27, 1992
Councilwoman Dimler: I really would like to be there.
Councilman Workman: I think the ~gth is good. I mean nobody knew we had a
29th.
Councilwoman Dim].er: Right. That's why I picked it.
Councilman Workman: I would move the 29th.
Councilman Mason: You mean you want to spend that one extra day ue get every 4
years?
Councilman Wing: Would it be possible to move that say to 3:00 on so I could
attend the school in the morning and sneak out early? I'm flexible. I'm going
to be more flexible than the rest of you. I'm going to be there regardless.
Councilwomin Oimler: Well I would be here on the 22nd but I'm go1ng to be out
of town from the 19th on and I will not be back until the 23rd.
Councilman Wing: I don't mean to embarrass anybody.
Councilwoman Oimler: Otherwise I'd fly back just for that.
Councilman Workman: Why don't we let Councilman Wing and Councilmember Oimler
figure it out and let us all know.
Councilman Wing: Just set a date and I'll be there regardless.
Mayor Chmlel: I'm available any Saturday.
Oon Ashworth: 1:00 p.m. or 2:00 p.m. wouldn't be possible?
Councilman Workman: Mornlng ls best.
Councilman Mason: But not with that class.
Councilwoman Dimler: Could you make it back by 2:00?
Councilman Wing: Well the class goes from 8:00 to 4:30 and if I can sneak out
at say 3:00, I'd be in good shape. I'd hit most of it and still get credit for
it.
Mayor Chmiel: That sort of breaks up the day for everybody else including
staff.
Councilman Wing: You're right. Let's just go with the 29th and I'll adjust
accordingly.
Councilman Mason: Well that's not right.
Councilman Wing: Let's get it done. I can go afterwards. We have to get a
date set. I think that's more important.
22
City Council Meeting - January
Mayor Chmiel: How about the 8th of February.
Councilman Mason: I can't.
Don Ashworth: I'll be out of town as well.
Mayor Chmiel: How about this Saturday?
Councilwoman Oimler: That's fine.
Mayor Chmiel: Oh, I had my open house.
Don Ashworth: I think it would be. If we tried to get everything out to you
and I think you and I talked about making sure that we had established an agenda
and how that would be put together so we don't end up.
Councilwoman Dimler: Too much pressure to get it done by the first huh?
Don Ashworth: By this Saturday. I mean I would have to be literally gettlng
stuff out tomorrow. You're chance then to review it would be very short too.
Councilman Wing: Is there anybody has any trouble with the 29th Mr. Mayor
except for me?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Wing: So moved. I'll be there.
Mayor Chmiel: 2gth. What time? 8:00 a.m.? Where at?
Don Rshworth: Fire Station unless you hear different from me. I do have to
verlfy lt's open.
FEASIBILITY STUDY UPDATE ON__TRUNK SANTTARY SEWER AND WATERHAIN ~HpROVEHENT TO
THE UPPER BLUFF CREEK DISTRICT, SECTIONS lO AND 15, CITY ENGINEER.
Charles Folch: I passed out a request, if you will that we recelved from Opus
Corporation. They have interest in development rights for approximately 190
acres of property which ls located in the southeast, a majorlty of lt's located
in the southeast quandrant of TH 5 and TH 41. As this relates to the overall
Upper Bluff Creek trunk sewer and water study that's currently being done, you
will recall that at the last Counc£1 meeting you amended the feasibility study
scope to lnclude some areas for a property that the Hagen, Roman Roos and Rod
Grams were developing. This fits rtght in wtth that study. In talking with Bob
Schernlck of Bonestroo, the work for this property would not, ls belng completed
at this point in time and is not going to change either the scope or the cost of
the work they're dolng now. Basically your last amendment allowed them to take
into effect the whole study area into consideration so therefore there's no
actlon needed on your part tonlght. I just wanted to keep you abreast as to
what was happening there. The schedule we're looking at is to bring back the
feasibility study optimistically on the loth of February for your recelpt and
then call for public hearing on the second meeting in February and we would try
and hold a neighborhood meetlng between those two dates to meet with all the
23
City Council Meeting - January 27, 1992
property owners. But I just want to keep you abreast on this. There is a
significant amount of land holding out there that is not now interested in
seeing these major improvements be conducted over the next year or two,
Hayor Chmiel: Okay. Any questions?
Councilman Wing: In line with the public, I thought that the meeting the other
night with Minnewashta Parkway went very well. Was very well received by the
residents. I was real pleased with the staff presentation. The way the
questions were answered and I thought that was a real...meeting.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Hanager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
24