1990 05 14CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR HEETING
HAY 14, 1990
Hayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:50 p.m..
COUNCILHEHBERS PRESENT: Hayor Chmiel, Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler
and Councilman Johnson
COUNCILHEHBERS ABSENT: Councilman Boyt
·
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Paul Krauss, Gary Warren and Todd
Gerhardt
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve the agenda amended as follows: Councilman Workman wanted to move item
13 and 1rem l(k) to 1rem 4. Under Council Presentations, Councilwoman Dimler
wanted to discuss the trees on Kerber Blvd. and Councilman Workmah wanted to
dlscuss street slgns. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the
motion carried.
Per Councilman Johnson's request, Mayor Chmlel read off the 1rems whloh had been
deleted from the May 14, 1990 agenda.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEHENTS:
Mayor Chmiel read a Proclamation establishing May 19, 1990 as St. Jude
Children's Research Hospital Day and a Proclamation establishing May 20-2&, 1990
as Natlonal Publlc Works Week. Don Ashworth stated that the Clty of Chanhassen
was havlng an Open House for the Public Works Butlding on Sunday, May 20, 1990
from noon untll 4:00 p.m..
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Hanager'$
recommendations:
a. Adminstrative Subdivision to Divide an Existing Double Bungalow, 7&ll
Iroquois, Anita Thompson.
b. Approve Agreement for Soutwest Mutual Aid Association.
c. Approve Development Contract for Chanhassen Lakes Business Park &th
Addition.
d. Accept Proposal from Barton-Aschman for Trunk Highway 5 Crossroad Entry
Monuments, Project 88-28D.
g. Resolution ~0-53: Accept Feasibility Study, Walve Public Hearing, Order
Plans and Specifications and Adopt Connection Charge Poltcy for Harvey/
O'Brlen Sewer Extension Project 90-5.
h. Resolution ~90-53A: Approve Petition for MnDot to Enter into a Cooperative
Agreement for Frontage Road Improvements at Trunk Highway 5 and Lone Cedar
Lane, Joseph Mitlyng.
L
City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990
i. Approval of Accounts.
j. City Council Minutes dated April 23, 1990
Planning Commission Minutes dated April 18, 1990
Plarlning Commission Hlnutes dated Hay 2, 1990
Park and Recreation Commission Mlnutes dated Apr11 24, 1990
Pub].ic Safety Commission Minutes dated April 12, 1990
voted in favor and the motion carried.
I(L) APPROVE AHENDHENT TO 1990 BUDGET TO PURCHASE A NEW CSO VEHICLE.
Councilman Workman: I wasn't a part of the majorlty on this item to approve
this. I wasn't irlterested in providing animal control services for all of our
neighbors and so I'm not in favor of buylng a new vehlcle to do it.
Councilman Johnson: I move approval.
Councilwoman Dimler: Don't you thlnk we should discuss it a 11ttle?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. There should be some discussion.
Councilman Johnson: We've got a commitment to our neighbors. We've already
committed...approved it. We've told our neighbors to do this. We've entered
1nfo contract agreements to do this and I thlnk lt's good that Tom continues to
let hls opinion be known but we have to approve that. So I move approval.
That's my discussion.
Mayor Chmiel: Don, maybe you'd just like to clarify what this is about so the
public is aware?
Don Ashworth: The budget as Jt was established in uorklng out a cost system
back wlth the neighboring communities, included a cost figure of $10,000.00 for
a vehlcle whlch at that point in tlme Publlc Safety was looklng to a used
vehicle. That has really concerned me because with the number of miles we put
on and recognizing that the newer the vehicle we can get the better gas mlleage,
etc. you're going to get with that type of vehicle. The other part was that in
that contract we have outllned a cost of $.25 per mlle back agalnst each of
those communities. Typically the $.25 per mlle includes, a portlon of that
in fact ls depreciation or replacement of a vehlcle. So in fact ue really have
an additional, Z can't remember what it was at, $3,200.00 per year so almost
$9,000.00 bullt lnto the budget in addltlon to the $10,000.00 for a vehlcle. If
ue would be looking to a plck-up type vehicle very similar to the existing one.
One that we could put a camper top over the back end and have that serve for the
contract system, we're estimating that that would be about $15,000.00-
$16,000.00. Again, in comparison to looking for a used vehlcle, hoping that it
would meet the specs and everything that we would hope for, it just seems that
as long as we have the money why not go for the new vehicle.
Mayor Chmiel: Do you know what the existlng mlleage, I thlnk that was one of
the thlngs Z had requested before? Zndlcating as to total miles on the vehlcle
that you're proposing to making replacement on. OD we know what that is?
City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990
Don Ashuorth: I do recall that you asked for that information and I do not have
it for you. Oo you know Todd? What, are you going to run and look?
Councilwoman Dimler: Don, while you're looking can I ask, what is the length of
this contract with our neighboring communities? How many years?
Don Ashworth: It's a 3 year contract but we put in there a provision that
basically would allow the City to get out of it before that length of time.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. So we're saying here for 3 years we're golng to buy
a vehicle for approximately $16,000.00. If we decide not to contract after that
3 year period or pull the contract before that time, what could that vehlcle be
used for?
Councilman Johnson: It's still the C$0 vehicle.
Councilwoman Oimler: Well you're using it for animal control and is it going to
have a problem wlth odors or?
Mayor Chmiel: They utilize the same existing truck presently for their normal
CSo duties as well as with the...
Councilman Johnson: Animal control is a big portlon that they have now.
Councilwoman Oimler: So they don't have a special thing to put the animals in?
Mayor Chmiel: No. It's existing.
Councilman Johnson: Aren't there cages in the back of that thing? I've never
looked in the back.
Don Ashworth: They have cages. ! don't know if they keep them in there all the
time. I would suspect that they do.
Todd Gerhardt: 67,000.
Councilman Johnson: How long have we had that? 2 to 3 years?
Bon Ashworth: I'd say 3 to 4.
Councilman Johnson: It wasn't before I came on Council because it's been since
I was on Council.
Todd Gerhardt: I think around February of 19877
Don Ashworth: That's a much lighter pick-up than you use with associated with
publlc works. Any of those type of functions. It really is more of a road type
of a vehicle.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I have one other question. Was the vehlcle
specifically included in the contract as part of the deal?
City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: I think at that specific time, if Z remember, it was discussed
but I don't know if it was part of the contract.
Don Ashworth: If we did not furnish another vehicle and somehow simply used any
other vehicles available, I'm sure we'd still be in compliance with the
contract. I mean what we're saying is we're estimating the, we put dollars in
there to insure that we would properly be reimbursing ourself. However we were
to be able to accomplish that. If you had to use a street sweeper. I'm being
facetious but I mean that would meet the intent of the contract.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay.
Councilman Johnson' But in our discussions with them did we not indicate that
we planned on buying a new vehicle? That ls why our cost ls as high as our cost
was for that?
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion?
Councilman Johnson: Now can I move approval?
Mayor Chmiel: You're anxious to move it Jay.
Don Ashworth: I'd also like to mention that when we did meet, we had looked at
again that Flre Chief vehicle and we were looking at that polnt in tlme were
looking at a cost factor of about $23,000.00 to $24,000.00. We were able to
purchase a used plece at that polnt. In fact the Council authorized $14,500.00
and the following day we were able to negotiate that down to $13,500.00 so
agaln, I thlnk the staff has continued to show that we're trying to save
dollars. I think in this particular lnstance you're golng to get a better bang
for your buck buying a newer vehicle that will meet the specs of what we're
looking for than a used vehicle.
Mayor Chmiel: We're not going to find another one like we found for the Fire
Chief?
Don Ashworth: We could look and if we found that, we would surely come back to
you with lt.
Councilman Johnson: This doesn't preclude that.
Don Ashworth: This doesn't preclude it.
Councilwoman Dimler: In other words you'll spend less than $16,000.00 if you
can?
Don Ashworth: That's correct.
Councilman Worknlan: Well my reason for bringlng this up lsn't to drag thls out
all night. My purpose lsn't the vehicle. A new vehicle or a used vehicle. My
purpose is...
City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990
Councilman Johnson: We shouldn't be in the business at all.
Councilman Workman: We shouldn't be in the business of catching neighboring
clty's dogs. They're in the buslness of inspections and fire and providing
their own police and everything else but all of a sudden you get down to this
one thlng and they want us to do it and it's the dirtiest of them a11. And
we're doing it for them. You know my comments so it doesn't have anything to do
with the vehicle. I thlnk we're worklng towards the Clty Councll members all
getting their own vehicles. Mine will be a BMW so it has nothing to do with the
vehlcle per se as it does wlth the principle of a private business that perhaps
these cities should be obtaining their services and not from us because it just
means further growth and somehow down the road a further cost to us somehow, and
that's what. We've indicated by doing thls that we don't have enough of an
anlmal control problem ourselves so we've expanded it to take care of everybody
elses in $ other communities.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah I think some of the discussion was at the time as to the
additional hours that we would have for our ¢SO's to work was one of the reasons
behlnd it as well. But also to provide a better service for ourselves too.
I guess the vehlcles are not the lssue in itself but yes, there are dollars that
are going to be spend and there are some concerns about those dollars. Any
other discussion? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion.
Councilman Johnson: Gee, I think I might have one.
Councilwoman Dimler: He's never been seconded.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I've never been seconded before so it might be a
first to get seconded. I move approval of having staff prepare specifications
for a new CSO vehlcle and modifying the 1990 budget for such as recommended.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe as a friendly amendment to that indicating, unless there's
availability to flnd another vehicle such as we had found in a good used one
with low mlleage.
Councilman Johnson: That meets the specifications, yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: At a better price. At a better cost I should say. Okay, there's
a motlon on the floor. And you accept the friendly amendment. Is there a
second? Oh 3ay, you're dead.
Councilman Workman: You're not golng to second it Don?
Mayor Chmiel: No, I'm not. Dying for lack of a second. As it appears it's
dead. ! would like this to be reviewed a 11ttle closer and posslbly to hunt
around to see what we can get.
AWARD OF BIDS:
COUNTRY SUITES HOTEL SITE INPROVENENTS, PROJECT 89-25.
Gary Warren: Briefly Mr. Mayor, we received bids for the Country Suites Hotel
site improvements recently and we, as anticipated, have very competitive bid
City Council Meeting -- May 14, 1990
climate. Receiving 6 bids with the low bidder was Alber Construction Company at
$208,937.95. We are recommending award of the project for the Country Suites
Hotel site improvements to Alber Construction in that amount.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anyone wishing to address this? If not, any discussion by
Council?
Councilman Johnson: Just interesting how everybody was really, there were a lot
real close there at $300,000.00 and $12,000.00 less. Alber found something in
the bid where he could cue $12,000.00 out but he has to meet the performance.
What were the nlinor tabulation errors? Do you know in ~lbers?
Gary Warren: I don't recall exactly. Usually they're just an extension when
they multiply the units times the quantities they drop a decimil point
sometimes. Z don't know exactly uhlch ones they were.
Mayor Chmiel: Have we used this contractor before Gary?
Gary Warren: I personally have not but we do have experience with them through
BRW's experience and such. They're a reputable contractor, yes.
Councilman Johnson: Some of the other bidders are their subs on it.
Gary Warren: Well yeah, in that regard. Northdale Construction is one of the
subcontractors. They are our Lake Drlve general contractor for the Rosemount
project. We've had acceptable work from them. That's a major part of the
effort here is the sewer and water work.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I have a motion?
Resolution #90-54: Counc[lman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Oimler seconded that
the construction project for Country Suites Hotel Site Improvements, Project No.
89-25 be awarded to the firm of Alber Construction in the amount of $288,937.95.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
WELL NO. 5 PRODUCTION WELL, PROJECT 89-4A.
Gary Warren: Once again Mr. Mayor we advertised for bids for the production
well now based on the good results we've had from our observation wells at Well
No. 2. This is for the new well, pumping facilities and expansion to the
chlorine doslng system to accommodate the additional flow. Low bids agaln were
vet'/ favorable. The low bid of $88,243.00 was provided by Bergeson-Caswell of
Maple Plain. A reputable flrm. Has done a lot of work in the area and lt's my
recommendation that we award production well for Well No. 5 to Bergeson-Caswell
in that amount.
Mayor Chmiel: I just have one question. In our contracts that we have, do we
have penalty clauses contained in there if the contractor does not complete it
by the speclflc date?
Gary Warren: Yes. We typically have liquidated damage clause in the contract.
Off the top of my head I don't recall the dollar amount on this one but it's
typically $200.00 to $500.00 per day.
City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion?
Resolution $90-55: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded that
Isprovement Project No. 89-4A, Well No. 5 Production Well, be awarded to the
firs of Bergeson-Caswell, Inc. of Haple Plain, Hinnesota in the amount of
$88,243.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
I(K). ZONING ORDINANCE AHENDHENT PERTAINING TO EXCAVATING, HINING, FILLING AND
GRADING, FINAL READING.
AND
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PLATTING APPROVAL FOR 2 1/2 ACRE LOTS BY GIL LAURENT,
BRUCE 3EURISSEN AND SEVER PETERSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR.
Paul Krauss: Item (k), the second reading to the ordinance for grading, mining,
filling and excavation. On April 23rd the City Council approved the first draft
of the ordinance wlth some proposed modifications that have slnce been
incorporated by the City Attorney. We've also asked that I meet with anybody
who's interested, in particular Mr. Beauchane, he and I met on this several
weeks ago. One thing I would like to point out though however is, at the last
meeting I was absent at, the administrative review procedure came into some
question. The original proposal was that staff be allowed when they're
comfortable to do so for these guidelines to authorize grading, removlng enough
...up to 1,000 yards. The Council, or several people on the Council were
concerned wlth that and proposed a lower total amount to 500 yards. ! guess I
would ask that you reconsider that 1,000 yard cap. Speaking in favor of it, I
guess I have a few points. I drafted an ordinance similar to thls in another
community and had an opportunity to work with it for about 4 years and found
that the 1,000 yard total was a reasonable one. It covered a lot of 1rems that
you really would not want to be bothered with frankly. If there were any items
that I thlnk that the Council or Plannlng Commission be concerned about, lt'd be
our obligation to bring it to you and we of course would have that option to do
that. I'd also 11ke to polnt out that we're working with two parties rlght now
to take care of some dirt that's been contaminated by gasoline leakages. We're
golng to be bringlng one to you at your next Council meeting because we want you
to see how this w111 be handled because I think it's going to be occurring more
and more. It's obvious lt's something...to clean these thlngs up.
Interestingly enough, both requests that we're looking at, one's a city request
and one's a prlvate party are 600 to 800 yards. In the future if we can do
this, we'd like to be in a positlon to expedite the removal and treatment of
black dlrt if we can. Rlght now, one flnal question kind of sittlng out in
front of the Hanus site where...so again we'd 11ke you to reconsider that 1,000
yard total if you're comfortable dolng that. Otherwise the ordinance is drafted
right now with the 500 yard cap.
Councilman 3ohnson: In support of the 1,000 yard total, z calculated since I've
been working with soccer so much lately, what the minimum size youth soccer
field for an under 12 game is 70 yards by 110 yards. That's what's recommended.
We're putting in a smaller one here in our town for older youth but that's a
different question. If you took just that area, 70 yards by 110 yards, 500
City Council Meeting-- Hay 14, 1990
cubic yards is 2 1/3 inches of dirt over that area. So you know you're only
talking about yea much dirt over a soccer field and if they did anything more
that, that. If they wanted to put 6 inches of dirt or move 6 inches of dirt for
the soccer field, they'd have to come before us. 1,000 will be a little less
than 5 inches as a matter of fact so to build a soccer field where you have to,
on the average move 5 inches of dirt, it'd have to come before the City Council
at 1,000 cubic yards. So while 1,000 cubic yards sounds like a lot, it's not
really that much when you look at earth moving.
Mayor Chmiel: How many truck loads would that be Paul?
Gary Warren: How many truck loads to 1,000 yards?
Resident: About 100. 10 yards a load.
Gary Warren: If you've got a 10 yard truck.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Oimler: Do you want to amend that right now?
we go to 1,000.
would second that
Mayor Chmiel: Well that would be something after once everyone has a little
more discussion.
Councilman Workman: Is that number 7-35(A)?
Councilman Johnson: It's in a couple actual places. It is in A.
Roger Knutson: 7-30. The first two sections.
Councilwoman Dialer: Wherever it's 500, we change it.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, increase that to 1,000.
Councilman Johnson' Something way in the back too has it too.
Mayor' Chmiel: There's a couple different locations. In the front page it's 500
also.
Councilman Johnson: I'm sure they can find all the locations and change it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, if there's no other discussion, can I have a motion to make
the change rather than belng 500 cubic yards, putting it to 1,000 cubic yards.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to amend the Zoning
Ordinance Amendment Pertaining to Excavating, Mining, Filling and Grading to
change the 500 cubic yards to 1,000 cubic yards. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Paul Krauss: Orl item 13, staff received a request for the extension of
preliminary plat approval for 6il Laurent, Bruce Jeurissen and Sever Peterson.
You may recall that these individuals recelved conceptual approval for 2 1/2
City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990
acre lots prior to the date of adoption of the ordinance which eliminated that
from the ordinance which was 1987. Since that time you have to have 1 per lO
acre zoning. They have been given several time extensions. Host recently I
believe in January, to bring in a plat with the concern being that until the
location of TH 212 was deflned with some certainty, that it was difficult for
them to design around it. Highway 212 has been officially mapped and the
individuals are asking for further extension. I understand their concern in
wanting to establish the fact that they credibly do have the abllity to
subdivide 1nrc 2 1/2 acre lots. With a further understanding that there's a
continued difficulty with TH 212 placement, we discussed the RALF funding
program with them. However, we had a similar request by Gil Laurent in February
where ue indicated that we were concerend with extending these things ad
infinitum. We dld slgn a contract wlth the Metro Councll and dld change our
ordinance as a result of that telling them that we would no longer plat these
lots in the future. We are of course in the process of worklng on a major
comprehensive plan amendment and frankly we'd be concerned with alienating the
Metro Councll...letting these things continue on. We do however want to have
some documentation by way of official Minutes and letters to the individuals
saying that at thls point in time that ue are in fact...for 2 1/2 acre
subdivisions and ue understand that the reason you did not proceed is that TH
212 is a pendlng roadway improvement and that they could use that official
record when MnOot goes to acquire the property to show evidence of what they
could have achieved on that. So we're recommending against the extension of the
preliminary plat for those reasons. There's a somewhat related matter that
you're aware of concerning one of the properties and I might defer to Roger to
explain a little further. There has been grading activity occurring on
the Jeurlssen property. We became aware of thls, well we've been aware of it
for some time but last fall we were very actively involved wlth it relative to
what was golng on on that property relative to how we interacted with the Moon
Valley issue. Mr. Jeurissen had received the permits to grade his property some
perlod of time ago. We understood what we tried to honor thls permlt. We
understood last fall that the amount of materials...had been removed. We became
aware that operations were startlng up again this spring. We went and posted
the site with a stop work order which was ignored and we have since been trying
to contact Mr. Jeurlssen's attorney and the contractor to get some compliance
with that. If you have additional questions with that, we'd be happy to field
them. Fill you in wlth what we understand now.
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Jay.
Councilman Johnson: You know we changed one part of l(k). Are we going to come
back and finish the rest of l(k)? We had a motion to change it from 500 to
1,000.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Councilman Johnson: But we haven't approved the whole thing.
Mayor Chmiel: No we haven't.
City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990
Councilman Workman: Jay, I requested that they be looked at together because as
Paul mentioned, one of the properties is excavating and in discussions with the
property owner and the excavator and everybody else, continued interest in item
(k) was brought up and that's where, since that is a second reading and final
reading, ~'m sure they wanted to make some comments.
Mayor Chmiel: So that means we'll be going back to (k).
Councilman Johnson: We'll be going back to it?
Councilman Workman: And I figured we'd be bleeding over into either and each of
them somehow or the other and that we might as well...
Councilman Johnson: But 13 is only for extending preliminary plat. It doesn't
talk about excavating anyplace in 13.
Councilman Workman: Right but I just figured we'd be talking about them in that
11ght.
Mayor Chmiel: As discussion is going.
Councilman Johnson: It may be but it has, so what are we discussing now? Are
we discussing platting or are we discussing excavating or?
Mayor Chmiel: We're discussing both those issues.
Councilman Johnson: Simultaneously?
Mayor Chmiel: Platting as well as the excavation.
Council. man Johnson: Well I'm against extending the plat any more. It made
sense to continue extending it as long as TH 212 was available and once it got
to that polnt when they found out what TH 212 would do to thelr property, they
had the choice of elther golng in for the RALF funds to plat or plat it or
whatever. To continue to hold out to say in the future we can plat 2 1/2 acres
is against the contract that we have and really has no basis I don't think.
We've extended it for over 2 years now. The ablllty to do something that Her
Council has been trying to get us not to do for equally long period of time.
Councilman Workman: Paul, does the incomplete draft EIS have any bearing on
thelr abillty at this point to peg whether or not, where TH 212 wlll be or
should be? Is the TH 212 laid pretty well?
Paul Krauss: TH 212 has been officially mapped. Theoretically the EIS could
come up with, there are several alterantlves of the EIS and it could be changed
but realistically it's been officially mapped. I guess to answer your question
Tom, I don't thlnk it's golng to change anythlng substantially from our polnt of
view but I don't think it changes it elther from the applicant's point of view.
They'd like thls continued unt11 the highway's actually under construction.
Whenever that point is. The EIS is not going to firm it up in any way that
satisfies them because they still want to know, they have a difficult tlme
thinking about how to develop with a pendlng hlghway somewhere on the horizon.
Even though you know where the center 11ne of the highway is golng to be, what's
10
City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990
the lmpacts of... How do you bulld access roads? There are a number of tssues
that won't be resolved until it's actually under construction.
Councilman Workman: $o is what you're saying their ability to hang onto their
window of opportunity for 2 1/2 acre lots, can they hang that request on the
uncertainty of TH 2127
Councilman 3ohnson: Into the next century.
Councilman Workman: In 95.
Paul Krauss: I think that's a matter that you really need to declde. I think
that the Clty's gone the extra mile on this one. Frankly I don't believe that
Metro Council's aware that we've been dolng this and lt's not something we want
to make a lot of waves about. The City's trying to be cooperative with
individuals for qulte some tlme. It's been my opinlon and I guess I'd like to
defer to Roger on this possibly but if we can demonstrate that at this point in
time they were eligible to do thls, that that's documentation that wlll be
considered by MnOot when they actually go for condemnation for purchase of
right-of-way. So that value that they could have had, had they platted it into
2 1/2 acre lots, will be a consideration.
Councilman Johnson: Or they could just plat it right now.
Councilwoman Oimler: I guess I'd llke to hear from the applicants that are here
but before we do that, Paul you mentioned something about putting it in the
permanent record regarding the current ability of these properties to develop
lnto 2 1/2 acre lots. What dld you mean? What's the permanent record there?
Paul Krauss: The permanent record is the Minutes of this meeting and possibly a
letter of the resolution that you authorize to give to the applicant. Hr.
Laurent...out of this thing in February and at that time I scheduled an agenda
1rem with a letter to Mr. Laurent statlng that we understand that you're
withdrawing your potential subdivision application but for the record we
understand that you were ellglble to do that and the reason you didn't go
ahead was because of pending TH 212 construction. So that he would have
something officlal to go slt down and talk wlth appraisers with.
Councilwoman Oimler: Okay, but he still has the ability to go with the 2 1/2
acres right now?
Councilman Johnson: No.
Paul Krauss: Well technically not. Technically Mr. Laurent opted out of this
in February. We're not standing on a technicality. He's aparty to this
request.
Councilwoman Oimler: The other two applicants still have the ability for 2 1/27
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe what we should do is hear from the two applicants. Would
elther one 11ke to or both come up and lndlcate thelr position?
City Counci~ Meeting - May 14, 1990
Sever Peterson: Mr. Mayor, Councilpersons and staff, my name is Sever Peterson
and I have one of the properties that you're discussing here in question. I
appreciate very much Paul's comments. I'd say that they're accurate in many
ways. The Council has been patient with us as landowners here and has been
supportive. Staff has been particularly supportive of our landowner concerns
here related to Highway 212. I do feel that there are some cicumstances here
and I belleve that Paul is attempting to take them into consideration. I'm
confident of that but maybe as a landowner and taxpayer I might be a little more
sensitized to them personally. And to express those specifically, that I have a
real strong concern that Highway 212 may never be built and that's a real
concern and number two is that the roads that would be necessary. Yes we could
subdivide as I urlderstand, my property and my neighbor's property there, if they
deslred. Speaking for my own property, I could subdivide it into 2 1/2 acres at
this time because of the extension that the city of Chanhassen has offered me
and availed to me but a concern I'd have in doing that would be that the roads
that I'd be putting in. For example my property has 3 proposed corridors going
through it. It has the TH 212 proposed corridor. It has the proposed
relocation of Ploneer Trail and has the proposed relocation of Bluff Creek Road.
I'm not certain where those are going but that may be my own ignorance and maybe
those have been literally established. As I understand, there is an issue of
the Environmental Impact Statement. I don't even know how that affects me. I'm
speaking now from a practical point of view of these 3 roads and then to put in
the roads necessary to servlce the subdivision would seem to me, and now I'm not
a subdivider. I'm a farmer. Introducing myself as a farmer for those of you
that don't know but it would seem to me to have a subdivision one needs roads
into that subdivision ~nd to have 3 proposed corridors cutting through it at
some time in the future, I would think would be very difficult for a reasonable
subdivision. And in the past, the City of Chanhassen has granted me, I believe
it was in 198~ or there abouts, if my understanding is correct of this, that
they had glven me preliminary plat approval on a piece of ground of this farm
that I have that lies south of Pioneer Trail. And I had preliminary plat
approval on 5 acres there and I believe that was in 1987 and this property, we
cannot find interested people in those lots because people say, well where is
the I-Iighway 212 golr, g to be? ~nd ethically you know of course you tell them and
they say well, how's it going to lay? I mean I have no ldea how it's going to
lay but they aren't interested and I'm saying that to relate if it ls
applicable, that the corridors are a hardship to the development there. I might
say in closing that if TH 212 came through, that it mlght be you know in the
better interest of the City in order to serve the City as well here. I mean I
consider it my property as the landowner but I consider it within the City of
Chanhassen and their lnterest come to bear as well but that the best use of that
property may not be 2 1/2 acre lots at that time. It may well be but if a
highuay's not bullt, it very ~ell may be. But as a farmer right now, I would
like to request an extension because of the hardships that I've mentioned. If
the Counc11 would feel that they are applicable, I would like to have them
considered. Thank you may very much Mr. Mayor. Councilmembers.
Councilwoman Oimler: Mr. Peterson, how long do you want the extension?
Sever Peterson: Well Z have not specified a time but I would like to have it
unt11 the highway is actually belng built so that we knew where these roads were
and that we could act accordingly in some reason to the best use of the property
in terms of not orlly myself but also the City. If that could be possible.
City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990
Loren Habbeger: My name is Loren Habbeger and I'm representing Mr. 3eurissen.
What my situation is, I had talked to Tom here earlier today, is the
Environmental Impact Statement from the State standpoint will not go to the Feds
until June 6th and at that time it may take time before it's fully accepted.
The highway, you may have endorsed the corridor but the highway is no certainty
until the federal level approves the Environmental Impact Statement. So what
Mr. Severson, what he's talking about. Mr. Peterson, I'm sorry. But what the
situation is here, you're looking at something here that it may not happen. I
mean it's not a certainty that the highway's going to be funded. I'm working on
TH 169 by-pass right now on a couple development situations. The second phase
of 169 has not been funded. And it may never happen. 212, in it's situation
right now, has been approved to a certain point but what I think here is, I
think there should be an extension here on the time element here until an
environmental impact statement is done. There's nothing that there's a
certainty. I mean you people may have endorsed this but it's not for sure. And
the appropriations have not been granted totally for the funding of the highway.
Mayor Chmiel: Correct me if I'm wrong. I thought there was 54 million dollars
allocated for 212 corridor, isn't that right?
Councilman Workman: That's to Lyman and they're looking to appropriate '96-'97
for the rest of it. And there is a request for construction financing in
Congress rlght now for 12 m1111on which would finance it TH 41 in Chaska.
Loren Habbeger: But I guess what I'm looking at here is, you know until the
appropriations are met, you know you don't have a sure thing here. I guess the
thing ls, from the corridor standpoint, you may have endorsed it but lt's not a
deflnlte situation.
Mayor Chmiel: 212 is definitely a corridor that's going to be needed for the
additional flow thru the city and it's in the best city's interest to of course
see that go as well as our expansions that we're doing on TH 5. 212 is, I sort
of understand some of the positions that you're taking but hopefully you can see
the same positlon as what the City is here. We sort of get put into a blnd as
well.
Loren Habbeger: Well the thing is, what we're looking at here with Mr.
Peterson's property and with the Jeurissen property, to basically lay out
frontage roads or anythlng that's right now, it's a tough situation. I mean I
think if the property can be developed in an orderly fashion, until the
Environmental Impact Statement is done and you've got a concrete situation, that
you've actually got a commitment, we've got a pig in a poke here is what we've
basically got. I guess what I'm saying is here, we're asking to extend that
permit for 2 1/2 acre tracts and I think lt's a very feasible situation. You
can build some good homes in that area and make it worth while because I do not
feel that utilities are going to be out there for some time. So lt's not an
immediate situation as far as service.
Councilman Johnson: Do you understand RALF funds?
Loren Habbeger: Right but what I'm saying to you right now, until you've got
the, the RALF funding situation will not transpire until the Environmental
Impact Statement is done. You don't have a commitment totally. You may have
13
City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990
endorsed it. It will go to the Feds June 6th. I've talked to Mr. Evan Green.
Councilman Johnson: Later than that.
Loren Habbeger: June 6th is when they're...
Councilman Johnson: That's the public hearing here at the grade school.
Loren Habbeger: The public hearing and then the Feds take it from there. The
Feds can say, hey we're not going to give the money. So as a result, there is
not assurance that you've got the funds.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, Paul could I ask you on RALF funding?
Paul Krauss: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: At what point can we purchase his property?
Paul Krauss: We could process an application today. It would have to be
approved by the Metro Councll but the fundlng ls there and we could handle that
today.
COUrlcilman Johnson: So he's got a preliminary plat that's approved before the
Council. He can go into final plat at which time you would apply for RALF funds
to purchase the property at a fair market value for 2 1/2 acres, therefore
keeping hls value of his property. And that's what he's concerned about doing.
Paul Krauss: Right.
Councilmar, Workman: But the road doesn't go through the Jeurissen property.
Loren Habegger: No it doesn't. The situation, it goes through Mr. Peterson's
property but to run a frontage road or anything that you come into the highway
situation at this point there's nothing concrete. You could put a road in to
come out to TH 212 but until it's established, you don't know where it's going
to go.
Councilman Johnson: So what you're saying is that 3eurissen wouldn't be, your
client would not be eligible for RALF funding because he's not affected dlrectly
by the highway?
Loren Habegger: What I'm basically saying is that we're ready to go ahead and
work on developing the property but the 2 1/2 acre situation, what I'm saying is
to give an extension untll you know where you're golng to take your road and
where TH 212 is going to be placed so that you can make a plan for the whole
situation.
Councilman Johnson: We've got a map. The map shows the entrances. The exits.
The access roads.
Loren )labegger: But it's not, is not concrete at this point. The Highway
Department cannot give me an answer because there may be some changes unttl the
Environmental Impact Statement is done.
14
City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: Paul?
Paul Krauss: Hr. Mayor, the original time extension was granted until the thing
was officially mapped which was done last fall. Then a time extension was given
because there wasn't enough notlce to do that. Frankly, if there's a date
certain and the date certaln was whatever date the EIS gets approved by the
Feds, Z don't have a real objection to that. That's a finlte polnt in time.
guess what concerns me is keeping the foot in the door from now until 19g? or
whenever, open ended as has been requested. That's something that I really
think contravenes the intent of the ordinance. We think the EI$ is probably
going to be approved late thls summer or early fall and if it was tied into
that, we wouldn't have an objection.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Johnson: And say at that time they're going to come back and say
let's now tie it into funding.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well I was just going to ask. When the EIS is approved,
does that mean how much...
Councilman Johnson: It's not funded yet.
Councilwoman Oimler: How long before the funding ts approved?
Councilman Johnson= The phase that goes through this area. The EIS has nothing
to do with the funding. It's already funded.
toren Habegger: But it revolves on the Environmental Impact Statement. The
corridor can change. It's not a definite situation.
Councilman Johnson: The primary environmental impacts are east of your
property. The main change it would happen would probably be east of all those
properties rather than that area that we're talklng about with the Environmental
Impact Statement. The wetlands. There's some historical areas west of you.
Councilman Workman: Either the North Mitchell or the Riley.
Gary Warren: Yeah, I don't think the alternatives, I'd have to look, that they
lmpact this property.
Councilman Johnson: They don't even get to this point.
Paul Krauss: When you get to this point there's only the one.
Gary Warren: They've only shown one concept through this.
Councilman Johnson: That's what I'm saying is the EIS should not change
anything here.
Councilman Workman: Gary, I think it's plate 16A on the EIS on the aerial. The
reason I brought this up was because of the excavating that's going on in the
Jeurissen property so they're kind of intertwined because they'd like to
15
City Council Meeting -, May 14, 1990
continue to prep property and excavate on the property which conincidentally is
related to the need for clay, etc. over in Eden Prairie and whether or not they
have the capability to go ahead with 2 i/2 acre lots or not probably has a lot
to do or something to do with continued excavating although I believe the
landfill is what is driving the excavating at this point but ultimately for
preparation for development on that parcel.
Councilman Johnson: As I read our' packet, the excavating is in our City
Attorney's hand. They've been glven a stop work order and they're refuslng to
follow it and that's going onto the Courts. I don't see the permit or anything
to even discuss the excavating tonight that's going on there because It's not
even on our agenda or in our packet. In the adminstratlve sectlon of the packet
there was a letter telllng them to stop work agaln and again. But before I
decide anythlng on the excavating, I'd like to see excavating on our agenda in
the future or in the courts in the future.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's Z think a separate issue.
Lore, Habbeger: I think what you should look at here though is from a
development standpoint. You take France Avenue off of 494. The Hedberg
property was ,i mining operation for years and leveled off and put to it's best
use for development. To shape a piece you know it takes time and money and lt's
the same thing with Mr. peterson. He's going to have a considerable amount of
excavating but if you can remove materlal in an orderly fashlon and shape the
parcel so that you put in proper roads and level it off, I think you people as
from a tax standpoint should be looklng at a 2 1/2 acre tact wlth a substantial
amount of investment as far as what the housing would come in from a tax
standpoint and work wlth people that are trylng to develop rather than. What
we're doing is we're taking a hill out that's completely useless as far as
1evellng off the slte. It has to be taken out. I mean lt's, the elevations are
a problem so T mean as a result what I'm saying here ls, if you can see the
future deve].opnlent as far as to benefit the property and put it on the tax rolls
fro~, an agricultural standpoint back 1,to a residential development, I think you
people should be looking at lt. And it can be done in an orderly fashion. I
guess that's what I'm saying.
Councilman Workman: Is this directly related to what happened with the Halla
situation?
Mayor Chmiel: Sort of, yes.
Councilwoman Dim].er: Except Halla was not impacted by 212.
Councilman Workman: But he requested the window and we said develop or don't.
And he's not or ls he? He wanted it all the outlet.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Councilman Johnson: This is pretty much the same I see it.
Mayor Chmie]: Okay.
16
City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990
Sever Peterson: Mr. Mayor, Councilpersons, Sever Peterson again. As I recall,
Mr. Laurent's property and my own property and my Jeurissen's property were 3 of
the properties at the time that we had extensions that were either damaged or
intersected or cut or whatever the word is by TH 212 was the reason for the
consideration originally. I might say that t have spent considerably money on
the lots that I mentioned. I'm not sure that Mr. 3eurissen, although I do know
that they have spent money but speaking for myself, just how much I've spent
that I know that I have spent and not that it's relevent but just for your point
of information, that I have spent I would absolutely believe more than
$15,000.00 and I'm quite certain it's less than $20,000.00 in surveys and so on
that it takes to do the thlngs that we've done just to this polnt. I'm only
saying that to let you know that I am serious and I would appreciate
Councilwoman Oimler's questlon about how long, you asked me how long I thought
maybe I should be allowed to continue if you wlll in a grandfather type position
and I certainly respect Mr. Krauss', what I understood to be a comment
Mr. Krauss made about that and I would defer to that. As a property owner I
would defer to that. Referring to Councilman Johnson's comment that well, then
it depends on the funding and that may be. I'm not saying that I wouldn't come
in and say yeah but now I don't have the funding. I wouldn't come in and thls
will bring up another issue. I would hope that it wouldn't be that but if there
is a hardship case that I belleve would make sense ina speclfic situation, I
would hope that I would not be renascent about ratslng it to the Council. I
mean if it were a unique situation, I believe that that's a privlledge that I
have as a cltizen in the community to raise that to the Council and to then
depend on thelr declsion related to that. I'm only saying that at this point I
do feel that there are really some real problems with our properties there being
intersected by even more than one area and Councilwoman Dlmler, I didn't mean to
say just open ended with my foot in the door. I mean that sounds to me to be
unreasonable. I'm not demanding that or expecting that. It sounds like...
Let's take it one step at a time and if we feel there's a step in the future
that has merlt, brlng it before us. We'll consider that as a step at that tlme
but at this time this ls how we see it and so on. And I want you to know that
I'm not asklng just for an open ended foot in the door here because I certainly
respect Hr. Krauss, staff's comment on that and I think it bears merit. Thank
you.
Councilman Johnson: Most of these areas are in the 1995 study area. There's
all kinds of possibilities that 2 1/2 acres may not be the appropriate use for
this property long term. That this may be commercial. It may be industrial.
It may be whatever is branded by having this major highway cut through the town.
They start bulldlrlg homes on 2 1/2 acres here, we could be cutting our own
throats.
Councilwoman Oimler: One of my concerns is that we don't create another
situation like we did at Timberwood. We've got a mess there now because we
allowed residential development and now we want to make it go commercial/
industrial along the highway and those residents are upset.
Councilman Johnson: We had no choice.
Councilwoman Oimler: So I think in an effort to preclude another situation like
that, I would 11ke to see us work wlth the landowners tn a fashion that would
really benefit the City and the landowners in the long run. If that's right
17
City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990
now, all we can go for is to wait until the EIS is completed and you know, I
would go for that. Give them the 2 1/2 until then.
Councilman Johnson: About the 1995 study area. When will that study be done?
Paul. Krauss: Well the intent of that label on the Comprehensive Plan is that
1995 seemed to be an appropriate date to look at that area. You could conclude
in 1995 that it's not appropriate to do it for another 5 years. The reason for
that tlme ls hlghway construction. Also, Councilwoman Dimler, if there's going
to be a motion to extend tllis until the EIS is approved, I would ask you to do
it unt11 60 days after the ElS is approved because'we had that same problem wlth
the official map the first tlme. We need to give them some time to turn it
around and submit an application.
Council.woman Oimler: That's fine. My feeling is that we've got two issues
going here. One wlth the excavating and one wlth the 2 1/2 acres so is it
possible to move tho 2 1/2 acres with this proposal and then take up the
excavatlrl9.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we carl move on 13 accordingly. What I had written down
hero that we propose to extend the period of time of completion of the EIS with
60 days thereafter.
Councilwoman Oimler: Second.
Councilman Johnson: Approval of the EIS.
Councilman Workman: So sometime in the winter? You're saying we're going to
keep the door open.
Mayor Chmiol: Leave the door open for that period of time.
Councilman Johnson: It will probably be next spring by the time the ~0 days.
The draft ElS gets publlc hearing, gets rewritten as a final ElS. The ElS gets
submitted ~nd approved by Met Council. Federal Highways. There's a whole bunch
of people yet to see that thlng. We're probably talklng a December timeframe
for final approval of the flnal EIS rather than the draft EIS.
Councilwoman Dimler: Then you have 2 months.
Councilnlan Johnson: Then 2 month~ after that. So we'd be looking at February-
March timeframe of next year.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Oimler seconded to approve the request for
extension of Preliminary Plat for 2 1/2 acre lots by G1I Laurent, Bruce
3eurissen and Sever Peterson until 60 days after approval of the final EIS. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Let'~ go back to item (k). We discussed the full completion now
pertaining to the excavating, minlng, filling and gradlng whtch is basically on
the final reading. Any further discussion? Paul, dld you want to bring
something up yet?
18
City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990
Paul Krauss: No sir. I'm through. I'd just point out though that there's also
a synopsis of the ordinance for publication purposes.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Johnson: Is that included?
Paul Krauss: Yes.
Mayor Chmlel: The only thing we've done thus far is the moving of it from 500
cubic yards of material to 1,000 in a 12 month period.
Councilwoman Olmler: Okay, do you want to address how does that fit into thls?
Councilman Workman: I guess it doesn't. We've been saying it doesn't.
Discussing thls wlth the other one?
Councilwoman Oimler: Yeah.
Councilman Workman: I guess we've proven without a shadow of a doubt that it
doesn't so. Jay's words, not mine.
Councilman Johnson: I didn't say shadow of a doubt. That's a lawyer's word.
I'm an engineer.
Mayor Chmlel: We have before us zonlng ordinance amendment and this ls of course
as it is pertaining to excavating, mining, fllling and grading. The final
readlng. Zs there any discussion? Any further discussion? Changes that we've
got.
Councilman Johnson: I thlnk the synopsis should be expanded somewhat. It's,
you know we're talking a 10 page ordinance synopsed down to 10 lines. I don't
know exactly what salient polnts to be put in there but I can see where we are
saving a lot of money in pubIishing costs. I don't know, a couple of bullets
about what some of the major changes are. Permit are required or this or that.
The 1,000 yards exempt. Lanscaping. Fencing. Conditional Use Permits. Some
of the main bullets of what the ordinance does.
Mayor Chmiel: I think what we're really trying to do is see that the Council
adopt the second and final reading amendlng Chapter 7 and Chapter 20 of the
Chanhassen City Code pertaining to excavating, mining, ftlling and grading and
approval of the ordinance synopsis for publication purposes. Rlght Paul?
Councilwoman Oimler: Second.
Councilman Johnson: Was that a motlon?
Councilwoman Oimler: Yes that was a motion.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, would you include revising the synopsis to provide a
little more detail. You've seen the synopsis here. That's tr. It's page 3.
So you'll accept that?
19
City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: I would accept that as a friendly amendment, yes. Does the
second accept that?
Councilwoman Bimler: Yes.
Roger Knutson: Point in question. Are you talking about Section 7-30 of the
ordina,ce? Oh, the summary.
Councilman Johnson: The summary of the ordinance. This little thlng. Somehow
it's got to say a 11ttle more.
Roger Knutson: The Council has to approve the exact wording.
Mayor Chmiel: And I assume that you'll probably pull that together?
Roger Knutsorl: Yes, and I'll have to bring it back to you for your next
meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: We have that motlon on the floor ulth a second, all those in
favor. Paul?
Paul Krauss: I don't have a problem wlth bringing it back to you for that
revised summary but if we have to do that, that delays implementation of the
ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay with staff direction to make sure Jay? Would that satisfy
you? Wlth staff to grab onto that to make those changes accordingly and maybe
you can work with them if you feel...
Councilman Johnson: The City Attorney just said that we have to approve the
exact wording.
Roger Knutson: If you'd like, Z will sit here whlle you're worklng on your
other ltems tonight and Z wlll write it for you and believe you will have
something you can read.
Councilman Johnson: Then we can approve it tonight?
Roger Knutson: Yeah. Gary laughed because he couldn't read my writing.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Oimler seconded to adopt the second and final
reading amending Chapter 7 and Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code pertaining
to Excavating, Hining, Filling and Grading with approval of an amended Ordinance
Synopsis for publication purposes. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel: Somewhere along the line, we've been jumping around, I did go
past Visitor Presentation and I'd like to back up.
Don Atkins: Mayor and Council, I'm Don Atkins. I live at 9580 Eden Pralrie
Road. We are basically erosion control contractors. Explain a few things.
2O
City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990
talked to Don Ashworth the other day. ge got involved in this Lake ~nn Park and
we did the work on it. Now we have to redo it all basically to erosion
problems. I want to just discuss erosion problems for a little bit. I think
Chanhassen does a terrible job of erosion and I will explain why. I belong to
the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek. I'm on the Advisory Board for that. I'm also
President of the Minnesota Erosion Control Association. I've been in this
business longer than anybody in this area so we see a lot of faulty things that
are coming around. One of the things from Lake Ann Park, there should have been
a lot of erosion preventative measures put in, there was not so it's going to
cost me pretty good money to redo it again. I've got about 5 questions I want
to ask the Council. Does anybody know the proper methods of silt fence
installation? ghat's recommended. The other question is, why do we put hay
bales in front of silt fence? good fiber blanket and the property useage.
see it all over Chanhassen. It's not used properly, ghy, when you get, let's
say Rosemount Engineering down here for example. Didn't you have the contractor
like you go from Rosemount to the Church to £mpak building to the Opus Park,
whatever you want to call it back there, why wasn't there not rye seeded rye
itself? Grain rye put in so that a quick means to hold the soil so it wouldn't
all erode away. gaiting for a year for somebody to come along and do it. The
cost of that is very minimal and some of the things that I see that have
happened and I'll go on to just name a few. powers building in Lake Susan Hill.
The Powers Blvd.. The erosion on the south end of that even yesterday, today it
eroded clear down into the opposite field. There's probably a foot to 2 foot
wash out there so there's nothing been done in that job. Lyman Blvd. west of TH
101. Two years that has not been seeded or mulched. Opus Lake, erosion of the
dirt into the pond. ghy wasn't there a silt fence or bales put in the bottom on
it? goodwere in front at the very southeast corner of it. They dug and put the
woodwere in but they left all the dirt in front of the woodwere so the
principles are completely destroyed. Rosemount Engineering. Do they pay a
little bit extra? No hay bales in front of silt fence. All the other places
have got it but why not Rosemount? Stakes, 7 to B foot centers. Every plan
that you pick up it says the stakes should be on 4 foot centers. Empak, wood
fiber blanket on the north hill, it's not overlapped. It's laid the wrong way.
Hay bales staked with lath and I think the City did that themselves when they
had a problem early this spring. The City crew. So there's a couple of
recommendations and then I'll go back just a little bit. gsa the heavy duty
silt fence if anybody knows what that is. The heavy duty silt fence, rather
than putting hay bales in front of silt fence, I would love to sell. I bale
40,000 bales a year so I'd love to sell Chanhassen all my hay because I'd make
more money off it than I do silt fence but looking at it in the right
perspective, if you put the heavy duty silt fence in which has a nylon backing
with squares in it. It has a small rope put in the top of it. Use steel posts.
1 foot of silt fence, if it's the proper silt fence and again I see all kinds
of, it says in any spec, merify 100 or recommended use of it. There's a lot of
cheap stuff out that is absolutely you might as well just leave it at home as to
use it because it does not meet specifications. So if you went to the steel
posts, the nylon backing wlth the rope in top on 10 foot posts would be probably
the best solution you could have. Okay, we had an education program. I've been
to the City Englneer probably 3 times and talked to him. We had on March 16th
we had a meeting of there were 2 inspectors for example from the City of Eden
Prairie. We had about 40 people there. I had RSVP on it and about 2 days
previous, 3 days previous to the meeting I was in the inspector's office in the
Clty of Chanhassen and he sald he mlght be there. Well he didn't make lt.
City Council Meeting - Hay 14, i990
think that ue are trying to educate the people. Sever Peterson was up here a
few minutes ago talking. Sever's on the, what are you on? One of the boards
anyway. The farmers basically have got their stuff pretty well together but the
developers are raping your land without you knowing it. I'm not after the
developers. I'm just after it's what I believe in because I've done it for many
years. I spent a lot of money on my own place doing it. So if anybody wants
any questions and what I guess is about all the information Z need. Any
question:~?
Mayor Chmiel: No. Thank you Don for providing that information. I think
that's something that maybe we will look at within the City.
Don Atkins: Okay.
Councilman Johnson: You talked about Lake Ann Park and how you're going to have
to...
Don Atkins: Well we have to redo it because I took Bob Obermeyer who probably
everybody pretty weJl knows from Bart Engineering. He went out there and he
saJ. d most of the problem is erosion. ?5% to 80% of the problem was from erosion
so we are redoing the park but with the recommendations that Bob Obermeyer comes
in and puts, say this is where we have to have all types of whatever it might be
to stop the soil erosion. But the city has to, I'm just saying, then we're
doing that. It's going to cost us quite a bit of money but in the due
respect, I'd like to see it done to everybody elses too and some more things
that go on you know that could be curtailed in this thing. Thank you.
1
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address Council at this time?
Loren Habbeger: My name is Loren Habbeger again. I guess what we're looking at
here is where do we stand on this permit here? We're trying to level the site
off and get it ready for future development.
Mayor chmiel: Let me refer that to our Attorney.
Roger Knutson: There's been a lot of discussion but, was it you? I thought it
was someone else.
Loren Habbeger: You've probably talked to our attorney is who you've talked to.
I guess what we're trying to do here.
Roger Knutson: I've called him once and I've called him for the last 3 days and
I've not got a response to my phone calls.
I_oren Habbeger: I guess what we're trylng to do here ls we're trying to level
off a site and make it practical for future development. I don't think the
lssue, if you can lmprove the slte and make it work wlth the 2 1/2 acre
situation for future, I don't think you should hold back progress on that. l
jlz~t feel that we're not dolng something that's golng to be detrimental. It's
going to improve the overall development.
Roger Knutson: I don't thlnk anyone on the City Councll and the Clty ls holdlng
back progress. Z think the City wants you to go through the proper procedures
22
City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990
to get a permit.
Loren Habbeger: I guess what it amounts to is what permit was issued here?
This goes back to early 1988. I went to the Bepartment of Natural Resources. l
went through all channels as far as Watershed and so on and so forth. Mr. Brown
I started out with and what we're basically the understanding was ue were going
to level the property off and take it in segments of an acre at a time and
that's what we're looking at. We want to take and take that hill which is, it's
got a bad elevation. Tom was out there today. We went over the whole
situation. What we're trying to do is pancake the hill so that we can run our
roads in there for future development and make it work. So I guess, Tom you
know looking at the thing, there's excruciating circumstances because you've got
some elevations there that, all we're trying to do is make something work.
We're not out here to hurt anybody or cause any problems.
Roger Knutson: And the City is just trying to get compliance with it's
ordinances. I don't know if this is the best forum to resolve this tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think it's a point that we should resolve it. We can't
resolve it anyway under Visitor Presentations.
toren Habbeger: I guess the whole thing is what I'm looking at. Mr. Waingren
who did quite a blt of work for Naegele along 494. There were a lot of hills
there that were leveled off whlch ls all hlghway business now and residential
areas. I think the thing is, what we're looking at here. It's definitely
suitable for housing rather than commercial or anything like that. It's
definitely a residential area. I don't see a value there as far as commercial
because of the ! would say the vlew situation and so on. Zt would be more adapt
to housing and I think the same thing with Mr. Peterson's property. It
definitely should be a residential aspect that you people should be looking at.
I guess that's what we're trying to do and we may as well go into Mr. Peterson's
later on and develop that also. I guess what I'm asklng here rlght now...
Mayor Chmie1: I guess we're at a position where we can't resolve the particular
questlon that you're asklng right now. I think the resolvement will come from
further discussion with staff and 2 attorneys with that final determination
belng made then.
toren Habbeger: Well I appreciate, what we're trying to do here is we're just
trying to accomplish something here in an orderly fashion and we're not out here
to cause a problem. We're trying to improve the overall situation.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Loren. Appreciate it. Is there anyone else?
VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A MOTHER-IN-LAW APARTMENT, 8628 CHANHASSEN HILLS DRIVE
NORTH, ARLETTA BRAGG.
Paul Krauss: Earlier tonight the Board of Adjustments reviewed a varlance
request to establish a mother-in-law apartment in a new home that's currently
under construction for the Bragg's. The ordinance provldes for a varlance
procedure for these types of situations. Staff reviewed the request and felt
that it met the 4 standards that are located in the ordinance rlght now which
basically demonstrates that there's a need based on disability. That the
23
City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990
building externally looks like a single family home and that separate utility
services are not being provided and relative to the variance's impact on the
surrounding neighborhood. Staff bad recommended that the variance be approved.
The Board of Adjustment unanimously did that but there was some neighborhood
interaction. I think Mr. Mayor maybe you were here to hear that and there's
some reason to think that that decision would be appealed to the City Council
tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone wishing to address Council at this
particular time?
Councilman Johnson: Paul, the rights to appeal is what time length? 14 days I
believe?
Paul Krauss: Within 10 days?
Roger KnLttson: 10 days is my recollection.
Councilman Johnson: 10 days? No Council action is required on this at this
time.
Paul Krauss: Not unless it's appealed.
Councilman Johnson: Unless it is appealed and it can be appealed within 10 days
and at our next Council meeting it will come up again. What is the procedure
fo;' appealing it?
Paul Krauss: We simply need a letter from anybody that's agrieved by the
decision.
Robert Long: Can I ask a question?
Mayor Chmiel: Certainly.
Robert Long: My name is Robert Long and I live in Chanhassen Hills, what is the
address? I don't know the address. Wherever. I've only lived there 9 months.
I don't know where it is. I guess what I wanted to understand ls what is the
appeal procedure. It's a new one on me so I don't know.
Councilman Johnson' It's what we were just going through.
Paul Krauss: In the past we've allowed appeals to come directly right now to
the Clty Counc11 where you would state that you're agrleved by the declslon of
the Board of Adjustments and ask the Clty Council to reconsider. If you don't
do that tonight, you have 10 days to do that but you can do that right now.
Robert Long: Okay, let's try it right now while we're here. I think most of
you heard the arguments we brought up or maybe you dldn't. I don't know.
Mayor Chmiel: Some did. Some did not.
Robert Long: Again the problem that I have wlth the duplex golng in ls that I
dorl't feel it's a mother-in-law apartment. I feel it's a duplex. It's set up
24
City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990
as a duplex. It looks like a duplex. If it's a duck, call it a duck. You know
the old argument for that. I do not want my neighborhood a duplex when it is
zoned single family dwelling. I've got roughly $200,000.00 invested in my home.
I bought that home there and I built the home there with the idea that there
would not be a duplex in the neighborhood. It's single family dwelling. My
objection, maybe to clarlfy it a little more, given the fact that it is a
mother-in-law situation it lsa fact that the bullding ls set up precisely as
I understand a duplex to be set up. Carry the argument a little further, I know
what a duplex ls because I had a couple of them. I know exactly what they look
like. I know how they're set up and I have one set up slmilar which was the
grandfather clause in and there was a lot of, thls was before I purchased it but
it was grandfather claused in and it is single utility going in. It is a side
by slde unit but it is a duplex. This particular unlt happens to be an up and
down unit but I can't understand how you can turn around and call it a mother-
in-law apartment by fine tunlng a definition. My objection of course ls that
not the fact that it's going to be a mother-in-law apartment or mother-in-law's
living there or a family. That's flne wlth me. I'm comfortable with that but
the way the building is set up, when that building is sold, and it will be
because the average length of tlme that people own a home is roughly 7 years I
think, it is set up as a duplex. I've heard the Planning Commission's argument
that well at that time thls is set up for mother-in-law apartment for one
individual. Named individual, on and on and on and that part of it is
comfortable but my objection ls the way the bullding is set up. I would urge
the Council to take a look at it and maybe requesting that the building be set
up as a prlvate, slngle famlly residence. Mother-in-laws 1lye there, fine.
That's very comfortable. I guess that pretty much outlines what I have to say.
Chew on that for awhlle ls my favorite comment. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Hearing none, I'll just bring
it back to the Counc11. Jay. You sat in on the specific hearing on lt.
Councilman Johnson: This is a case where the applicant meets all of our laws
and all of our ordinances. If you're drivlng 55 mph down the road ina 55 mph
speed limit and you're in the right lane and you're going the right direction,
there's not much we can do about lt. As long as you're st111 ina car. In thls
case they're still in a car and they're doing everything by the law and we
can't, in my opinlon, we can't make up our own laws and ignore what's written in
front of us here in the zoning ordinance. They have met the specifications.
Whether these ordinances need to be modifled or not, ! don't know. I don't see
that the mother-in-law houses are that bad of a problem. I have no reason to
reverse my earller vote.
Gail Aneson: My name is Gail Aneson and we live at 8&25 Chanhassen Hills Drlve
and I just have a question. This house is already is well started. It's
enclosed. Windows and doors are in and we're just now hearing about the
variance. What if one of the criteria was not met? What if it does have
separate utilities comlng lnto it at thls point?
Councilman Johnson: It's already been checked.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, we review the plans when they're submitted. In fact
the original plans did have a kitchen downstairs and we made them take it out
City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990
and get a variance which is what they're doing now, before we would allow them
to build that.
Gall Aneson: Okay, so my biggest concern then is, in the future, since we let
this come in and it's a masked duplex, what happens because there's a lot of
vacant lots that haven't been built on yet. When someone comes in and starts
building a duplex with double entrance and a garage on each side and it gets to
the point that this house is at and they say, oh we just noticed that this is a
duplex and this is single family zoned? What happens then?
Paul Krauss: If it got to that point, we're not doing our job. We review it.
The building inspection department reviews it. A lot of departments in the City
review it before ground is even broken and we would not allow a duplex to be
built in a single family neighborhood.
Councilman Johnson: Paul, what you're saying is that the building plans that
were approved, you've removed the kitchen and stuff from the building plans.
Paul Krauss: Well when the building plans came in it was apparent to us that
there was on apartment in the basement and ue made that an issue and said look,
if you want to go ahead and start construction, you're golng to have to take
that out of the plans and if you want to go ahead, and apply for a variance and
that's in fact what they dld.
Councilman Johnson: So the current building plans do not include the kitchen in
the basement that are approved and they are bullding with?
Paul Krauss: That's my understanding of how the permit got issued, yes.
Councilnlan Johnson: So currently we're building a single family residence.
Once the varlance is approved, they can then resubmlt changes to thelr bullding
plans and put the kitchen back in.
Paul Krauss: They clearly have the intent to do that and the plans are
adaptable to it but that's the way we handled it.
Councilman Johnson: And a duplex would be a totally different issue. If they
came in with 2 garages and 2 entrances and everything, that would never get
through...
Paul Krauss: ...and one set of utilities. And frankly, there's no law against
somebody putting an extra kitchen in the basement if they wanted to. A lot of
people do that for entertaining. That by ltself does not constitute a duplex.
Gall 6neson: Well thank you. Like I say, our biggest concern is that no, in
the future because you know when you open the door a 11ttle bit, it can be
pushed wide open and in the future we do not want duplexes or multiple family
dwellings bullt in that development.
Mayor Chmiel: Within a residential area, it's a single family unit that can
only be built within that speciflc area.
26
r
City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990
Councilman Johnson: You are in a PUD that has multiples attached to it.
Apartment buildings planned for right next to you. As part of the PUD approval
there are some R-12 I believe.
Councilman Workman: Not right across.
Councilman Johnson: But it's all tied up with the TH 2i2 corridor but it was
originally approved with some. I don't see it on the map but.
Robert Long: We've got a big objection to 212 being stuck in there after we
purchased our property too but that's a different thing.
Councilman Johnson: Well 212 was there before it was platted but I sat and
listened to a real estate agent tell a guy that the land next to the house that
he was buying was zoned single family residential when it was zoned for
apartments so real estate agents don't always tell exactly the truth.
Mrs. Long: Well now this was something that I got from the City Council that
showed 212 way over by Lake Riley. Now you've got it going closer to us.
Originally it was not where you have it.
Councilman Johnson: They may have shown you one of the alternatives.
Robert Long: Before we moved into the area we requested all the information...
Councilman Johnson: A couple years ago I couldn't say that because the Mayor
was a realtor. That was the previous mayor. This guy only sell electricity.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Councilman Workman: I believe why Char Hills and Lake Susan Hills, that 2i2 is
going to be reassessed.
Robert Long: Is there a way we can get some more information on what people are
thlnking on that?
Councilman Workman: Sure, give me a call.
Councilman Johnson: There's a public information meeting, public hearing on TH
212 June &th at the grade school. That one's for the draft EIS. The draft EIS
is in the library right next door and you can go look at it at any time.
Mayor Chmiel: 7:30?
Paul Krauss: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? If not hearing any, I'll entertain a
motion.
councilman Workman: So moved.
Councilman Johnson: What did you move? I move denial of the appeal of the
declslon of the Board.
27
City Council Meeting -- May 14, 1990
Councilman Horkman: Secor, d.
Councilman 3ohnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to deny the appeal of the
decision of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for a variance request for a
Hother-in-Law apartment at 8628 Chanhassen Hills Brive North. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
ACCEPT CONCEPT PLAN FOR STORM WATER UTILITY; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF FINAL
STORM WATER UTILITY REPORT.
Gary Warren: The majority of the document should be somewhat familiar to
Council. This was reviewed at the April 30th work session. Basically based on
input r'eceJved that evenlng, we've had our consultant Short-E111ott take a look
at establisl,ing a $.50 per acre cost for the undeveloped and agricultural
property and we've pared down, and I should cautlon I guess that all these
numbers are just kind of concepts at thls time but we pared down the capital
improvement program to 1.5 mllllon versus 2 that we had originally put in there.
So the report basically reflects that input and modifications accordingly. Hark
Lobermeier ls here and I'd 13. ke to ask Mark if he'd come up and just klnd of
briefly run through the rest of the details that are pertinent here for this
evening.
Mark Lobermeier: Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers. ~s you recall, Z was at the work
sesslon about 2 weeks ago and we went through thls, some overheads on the
utility. I guess I'd just 11ke to go through a few of those agaln tonlght to
3u~,t kind of bri[,g you back up to speed to maybe generate some questions and
then cover some of the revised numbers in the draft report.
Mayor Chmiel: All within 10 mirlutes?
Mark Lobermeier' I'll do it as fast as I can. What we're talking about tonlght
is financing storm water projects using a storm water utility concept. As Gary
mentioned, the report that we're talklng about lsa concept report. It's klnd
of ].ike a feasibility study to give you an idea that thls is the way we want to
go or not. It's not a bindlng type thlng. More information and provlde you
with some direction. Storm water utility used to cover expenses such as
plar, ning and englrleerlng, routlne maintenance and also operating the storm water
~tt11[ty or things relating...and water quality in the city. Most of the
expenses that we've shown are in plannlng and engineering and they cover thlngs
like erosion and sediment control that were eluded to earlier. Local water
management planning. Water quallty in lakes and wetlands and also capltal
improvements such as new construction and reconstruction of a facility. Storm
water utlllty has several advantages. Flrst of all the contributers of runoff
from property who are causing the needs for improvement are the ones who pay.
Secondly, the charges are proportional to the amount of runoff or the pollution
that runs off of these properties. Third is a self financing method. That is
it doesn't compete wlth the general fund wlth other government concerns. The
utility doesn't cause an increase in the property tax levy. The revenues that
the utility generates are kept ina separate designated fund just for storm
water type lmprovemel]ts and it's legally defendable. By that I mean, you don't
need to show beneflt to properties in order to operate and charL properties wlth
the utilities. How wlll the utllity benefit Chanhassen? As we mentioned, it
28
City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990
will provide a continuous source of revenue. It's a self financing system. It
doesn't compete for the general fund dollars and it may even reduce the levy or
allow funds to be reallocated to other areas. Third, by constructing and
maintaining storm water drainage facilities, the City will realize benefits of
flood control which provide property and life protection, safe and open
transportation systems during storms, water quality improvements and enhancement
of recreational opportunities. The report that you have before you outlines the
financing dilemma as we call it, for storm water improvements. The basic
methods that you have available for financing drainage and water quality type
improvements include..., general passess or special tax districts, special
assessments which again can be very difficult when you need to show benefit to
properties. Building permits and land development fees. User charge or the
utility that we're talking about is another option and last of all...outline
some of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the methods. I think that
the best option that you should be looking at should be a fair method. Should
be dependable. Again, it should have a strong legal basis and should be
something fairly simple to operate. We think that through what's presented in
the report that we find that the best answer to that is a storm water utility.
There's just a couple key elements that need to be understood if you're going to
go ahead with the utility. First of all it is all real property within a
drainage basin will benefit from the installation of an adequate storm drainage
system. Not just those that at the bottom on the hill. Secondly, the cost of
installing an adequate drainage system should be assessed against all developed
property in the basin. To come up with an idea of what the charges might be, we
looked at a couple things. Again, as I mentioned the charges based on how much
water would run off a particular property and how much pollutant loads is
generated so we look at existing land use for the property. For existing land
use we look at how much rain would run off in this case or if we get 2 inches of
raln tonight, how much water would run off and on that basls we can say well
such a percentage of water comes off of residential property. Such a percentage
comes off of commercial property and on that basls we can come up with the
dollar amounts that support the programs that the City needs to implement. We
projected that a 5 year capltal improvement cost of about 1.5 mlllion dollars
which would be about $500,000.00 per year. That gave us a residential lot cost
of around $4.00 per lot per quarter or about $12.00 a year. Commercial property
would be charged on an acre basis at a little over $51.00 per acre per quarter.
Industrial lots would be around $40.00 per acre per quarter. And to get to
these numbers, we looked at the agricultural and the undeveloped properties in
the clty and charged a flat rate of $.50 per acre. We used the flat rate again
mostly to keep the cost for agricultural and undeveloped land at somewhat of an
acceptable level. Thls does have somewhat of an affect because the other
properties do have to pick up a little bit of the difference but if we go just
with the amount of runoff that would come off of these properties, the costs
there are too prohibitive. Again I want to point out that the numbers that
we're showing here are examples only and they don't represent any commitment at
this point by the City. The plan ts just under consideration as a concept and
through your approval tonight we'd 11ke to be able to go ahead and try to fine
tune both the capltal improvement costs and what the final property charges
should be. One important aspect when looking at the utlllty ls comparing how
the utility is supported to your current tax basis. The top line indicates that
residential properties currently pay about 50% of the taxes in Chanhassen. The
utility on the other hand would be supported only at about 38X by the
residential properties because only about 38X of the total runoff in the City
29
City Council Meeting - Hay 14, 1990
comes off of those same properties. Where that difference gets picked up is the
commercial/industrial properties would be paying a higher percentage into the
storm water utility that, they currently would in property taxes. Other points
that come up often is who else is doing this? Is this something new that we're
trying to do? A lot of people are doing this and we've listed just a few of the
communities in the metropolitan area that are implementing the unit storm water
utilities. The City of Roseville was one of the first to use the utility. They
use a charge of a little over $4.00 for residential lot and about $65.00 for
industrial property. Bloomington is another community that uses the utility.
They're about $?.00 for residential lot and around $16.00 for industrial
properties and commercial. They felt it was more important to keep the cost
down for the business properties. Eagan is one you may have seen just recently
in the newspaper' getting their utilities off the ground. They are similar to
$].oomir, gton at about $4.50 per residential lot and around $22.00 for industrial
property. Again, these charges are extremely sensitive to how much you're
trying to generate with your overall program so depending on what the acceptable
charge is determined to be and how much you want to accomplish over a certain
period of time, those charges can be varied to come out how you want them.
Gary indicated we'd like to get approval tonight to go ahead and just to fine
tune the program. Get some better numbers together and come back again for ~ou
and for the public. Some of the things that are coming next would be accept the
basic concept and that would be accept this report. Go in and ue look at the
cost projections ~r,d try to really get, one of the things that Chanhassen's
going to be doing in the next few years that would be covered by the utility.
Get a real good handle on that. We'd settle in'on the fact that we are going to
bass this utility on existing land use and we are going to base it on a certain
amount of rainfall. We used 2 inches because that gives us a certain ratio of
how much residential pays versus industrial. The more rainfall you use the
closer the industrial and commercial rates get. The less rainfall you use, the
farther away those rates get. The report indicates and a table that illustrates
that, that's one other thing that I think would be decided and finalized in the
next phase of the project. Next an ordinance would be drafted which would
provide legal basis. Would define the fee equation and any exclusions of
properties that would not be charged and also an appeal process. Item 4 is
probably the most important part if you do decide to go ahead. The utility
method is going to succeed and be a very strong public information program.
We're talking about things 11kc putting newspaper articles. Havlng some flyers
golng. Getting the word out on exactly what the utility is. Here importantly,
havlng one or more informational meetlngs where the publlc can come in and talk
about it. Thls is where I live. How much is my charge going to be and get that
input before the numbers are actually finalized and flnd out what everybody is
thlnking about. Try to keep it as open as possible. Once the public input
stage is pretty much complete, you have a good feel for where people are at, we
can look at going to public hearing and lastly, would be amending the billing
procedure which would essentially amount to addlng a 11ne where it says water
and sewer. Underneath it may say storm water utllity. So it's again a user
charge just 11kc the sanltary and water servlces that many of you are used to
paying every nlonth and I guess my 10 minutes are up.
councilman Workman: Maybe to discuss this. How about the folks that don't have
a water and sewer bill?
30
City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990
Mark Lobermeier: Well it would require to go ahead with the utility program
would be to expand your current billing procedure to cover those areas that
currently don't have city services. At some point as development continues to
occur, they will be hooked up to city services and of course those items will
just be added to the billing so to adopt the utility program would mean to
expand your current methods.
Councilman Workman: If we dubbed the $4.00 or something a quarter, that's all
they'd have on thetr bt11. They wouldn't have sewer and water. What really
would we have to enforce that? We couldn't shut off their abllity to have
runoff. I'm thinking of specific people who are probably thinking this too.
Councilman Johnson: We're not going to allow it to rain on their property
anymore.
Councilman Workman: My point's well taken.
Roger Knutson: ~hat you could do is you'd handle it the same way you do when
someone does not pay their water bill. It's under the same statute that allows
you to send your unpaid water bills down to the County for collection of taxes.
You can do the same thlng wlth thls.
Councilman 3ohnson: Plus interest and everything else. Pretty soon it will be
all the way up to $20.00 a year.
Gary Warren: Mark, by your earlier discussion as we've approached this, part of
the reason that the storm water utility is good is because it's defensible. It's
based on equations of runoff and runoff impact. Do we jeopardize that integrity
by fixing a flat rate for the agricultural/undeveloped land at $.$0 because
we're basically taking it out of the equation and setting that. We're not
saying that it's proportional to it's lmpact.
Hark Lobermeier: Utilities have operated in a couple ways. I talked with
Bloomington just the other day and they were very quick to point out that gee
here in Bloomington ue did establish a charge for undeveloped properties. The
basic utlllty concept as it initially stands is that just in developed parcels
should contribute so I'm not sure that it's really going to jeopardize the
program. I may offer that if you go straight runoff, that that may jeopardize
the success of the utility because the costs are just going to be too
prohibitive. When ue went through it just on a pure runoff basis, we were
comlng up wlth about a $2.00 an acre charge for agricultural property. Now
that'd be per quarter and they can average agricultural landowner...
Councilwoman Oimler: I do not understand where you come up with that because
you know to me agricultural land has very little runoff because there's very few
paved surfaces. There's no roofs. I mean the intent is for the rain to be
soaked up and the only time I can see runoff ls when we have a heavy raln that
washes when there isn't property erosion control. Now most farmers that I know
are very good about soil conservation and erosion control so to me even $.50 per
acre sounds like a lot. Where do you get the SZ.O0? I don't understand.
Mark Lobermeier: The $2.00 that was initially presented is based on a runoff
backer that's asslgned to agricultural land. It follows the $oil conservation
City Council Meeting -- May 14, 1990
service method for determining runoff for different properties. Looking at the
runoff factors or runoff tendencies that are assigned to different properties,
agricultural ]and depending on how it's treated. Whether there's no crops or
what have you, often time has a runoff factor as high as residential properties
because you have barer soil that's tilled up. And what happens is, as rain
falls, the soil particals 9et water around them and if you get enough of the
sand grated layer, you essentially form a layer that won't allow water to soak
in. If you get a nice soaking rain today, you don't get runoff off of much
property...
COUilcilwoman Dimler: We haven't had that problem for a few years.
M,~rk Lobermeier: ...but it doesn't run off your yard either. In a residential
sitLtatJo~ as agricultural, if you get a very heavy intense rain, it's all going
to runof¢. And the rows inbetween the corn that's out there, you're going to
get a fair amount of runoff.
Councilwoman Dimler: I've watched the corn roue after a rain and believe me the
water stays right there.
Mark Lobermeier: Well the factors aren't anything that we made up. They're
pretty weJl established by the Soil Conservation Oistrict.
£ouncilwoman Dimler: I just don't see it.
Councilman Johnson: I believe it.
Councilwomar, Dimler: I mean the purpose of the rain is to soak in and water the
crops you know.
Mark Lobermeier: And there are methods that a lot of farmers do use.
Conservation tillage and conservative farming to try to keep the water on their
land.
Councilwoman Dimler: So are you telling us then that we're going to extend the
storm sewer out towards agricultural land? I think that would be very
expensive.
Mark Lobermeier: No. What we're indicating is that runoff, well when it rains
water- comes off of all properties in the city so you have a certain volume that
comes off of each property and because that water has to be handled by the City
at some juncture, either through the water management organizations or it drains
into your storm sewer or culverts that have to be replaced, the City incurs
costs for managing this water. Or for trying to improve the water quality when
the water runs off of agricultural land into streams or into lakes, that's a
cost to the City and because of those costs, we're trying to come up with a
method to try to offset the costs that right now come out of general taxes.
Councilwoman Oimler: Okay, well I guess we'll have more farmers here to discuss
this at the public hearing.
Paul Krauss: What would we do with large lot residential? If you've got a 3
acre parcel, the home obviously occuples only a small quarter of that. Is that
32
City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990
balance of the property developed or undeveloped?
Mark Lobermeier: It can be treated a couple different ways. I guess for the
sake of the report we treated it just as a large parcel and gave it a runoff
index that would relate it to a 2 acre lot so that accounts for some of that.
If the charge is still deemed too high when we go through some of the public
information program, we could try to make it an overall determination say for
lots that are 2 1/2 acres and above will assume the residential lot cost of so
much and undeveloped property. We try to take that into account when we
establish what runoff factors.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussions?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I guess I'd like to add some other comments. I see
this as a tax so it somehow here we are increasing taxes. I would guess that in
order for me to vote for this I would go to what page 4 has to say about
reducing the tax levy which supports the general fund at that so we aren't
increasing the taxes. But I'm asking by what amount. What's the formula here?
Mark Lobermeier: I can't tell you that until we finalize it.
Councilwoman Dimler: What about the other cities that have done that? What
have they used?
Mark Lobermeier: I can't give you an exact figures although Roseville did note
a substantial decrease in thelr overall levy. Some communities say, fine we can
take that money out of general taxes. We ayen't going to lower the taxes but
now we have that money to use in other places when we put that together so it
may not necessarily mean lowering. It may mean a reallocation of some of your
funds but now...
Councilwoman Oimler: Well I would like to see it as a lowering, that's what I'm
saying. Also, I would be willing to study it more carefully but I would have to
see that we address water quality and not just dealing with water runoff. That
means that this money would be able to be used to restore our lakes. It would
be able to be used to educate the pub110 on use of fertilizers and washlng
detergents which pollute our lakes and also anything new that comes down the
pike here that we can do to protect the quality and quantity of our water. I
don't want to see it just being used to create new construction on storm sewer.
My other question is, ls the developer still going to be paying?
Gary Warren: Yeah, if I could maybe address a couple of your comments
Councilwoman Oimler. The developers would st111 pay as they do at our current
situation, to have the actual utilities constructed storm sewers that are a
pertlnance to development. That would not change. That would go consistent
with the developments. What we're looking at I think really is the blg picture
to be able to address as you say, water quality issues as well as the storm
water rate issue and runoff issue. We will be faced as we've reviewed in the
past wlth posslbly over $100,000.00 study just to meet the watershed
requirements here for this, it's called Chapter 509 requirements for putting
together the City's total comprehensive plan. It was partly with that funding
commitment or obligation in the future that we were starting to look at this
utlllty dlstrlct to see where can we fund thls from because we don't have that
33
City Council Heetillg -- Hay 14, 1990
storm water fund anyplace now. It would have to come out of streets or utility
or someplace. The other issue is, as the article from Eagan was pretty timely
here on the water quality management plan that they have in place now and my
impression is we deal with Eurasian Water Hilfoil and Purple Loosestrife and the
other challenges that we've been recently up against here on water quality is
that it is a plan of that nature that needs to be an offspring of this as well
and as a part of our 509 plan so that we have the tools in place to be able to
address and control the use and the development of these lakes. To equate it to
strictly if we implement the utility district, then we will have a comparable
savings in taxes I don't think is realistic. There could be some savings
because we use the street department for example to clean storm sewers. To
sweep the streets. ~round the lakes. To do retention pond cleaning, some things
of those nature that are happening now, we would not be doing out of the street
sweeping. We'd be doing it out of this fund but there are a lot of things that
aren't being done now because we don't have the ability, the staff or the time
to keep up with that that will lead to not a savings in the general fund but
would be funded directly out of this commitment.
Councilwoman Oimler: Which brings me to a few of my other things. Do we need
to increase our personnel for this program?
Gary Warren: Well part of the capital improvement plan that Hark references
here that I have not had a chance to sit down and say alright, this is what we
want to do but the typical plans that other cities have implemented show several
'things. One is increasing equipment. Bo you buy another street sweeper so you
can more religiousJ, y sweep the runoff areas closest to your more important
lakes. Increase staff to deal with that. The City doesn't even have a good
storm sewer map right now of our drainage improvements and we maintain storm
sewer culverts for example on a hazard basis. So if we get a storm and somebody
cal].s us up and says that this one is plugged and their yard is getting washed
out, then we're out there but it's kind of an out of sight, out of mind issue
for us right now and so I could envision as a part of honing the capital
improvement program that staffing, equipment and these two studies that I
mentioned earlier would be important parts that we would want to take a look at
and see where our commitment is.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you have any idea what the initial costs are likely to
be?
Gary Warren: In the plan right now that you have in front of you is a 5 year
program which would be generated 1.5 million dollars worth of revenues.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but what's the cost to the City to get started? Are
t here any?
Mayor Chmiel: There has to be.
Councilwoman Dimler: Start up costs.
Gary Warren: To initiate the CIP so to speak? Well let me give you a scenario
I guess. If we did not establish the district in time to get revenue in here
for doing the Chapter 509 comprehensive watershed plan which is about $100,000.
34
City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990
$100,000.00 study, we would have to fund that from some interim source until the
revenues would catch up.
Councilwoman Dimler: So the study is what you're talking about as being the
initial cost?
Gary Warren: That's one area. It depends how active we want to get as a city.
If we want to go out and abate Eurasian Water Milfoil on a very proactive
measure, anything that you want to pick up before the utility district receives
the revenues would have to be funded on an interim basis.
Councilwoman Dimler: And one final question. Does having this utility in place
enhance the City's chances of getting grants or decrease them? Will they say
they have the money? I mean if we were to apply for a grant and they see that
we have this in place, they'll say well they don't need it. They've got the
· money stored away.
Gary Warren: The grants that I'm familiar with and Hark may want to, he's a
little bit closer to the grants that I'm familiar with, no. There's no ability
to pay type criteria that falls lnto the grant program. A clean water program
for the Riley chain of lakes for example, they just wanted to make sure that the
City was able to pay their fair share under their criteria. I don't know Mark?
Mark Lobermeier: Most of the grants that are available...50-50 basis and there
ls no criteria.
Councilwoman Dimler: They're not going to look and see that we have this in
place? Okay. Thank you. That's all I have.
Mayor Chmiel: I had some of the same questions unfortunately.
Councilwoman Dimler: Fortunately you mean. We can get out of here.
Mayor Chmiel: No, unfortunately. I didn't get a chance to ask them.
Councilman Johnson: I've been in favor of storm water utility for a long time.
I've gone to several classes at the Natlonal League of Cities convention on them
and I've seen their effect. I see it as a way of in the future we're going to
have to pay, if we don't have a storm water utility, we're going to have to take
from the general funds money to address non point source pollution. To address
further eroslon rules that will be coming down from EPA and the State and those
moneies are going to have to be brought someplace and it's either raise our tax
rates, which the legislature is trying very hard to keep us from having the
ability to do or create this fund. The cittes that I have talked to through
these conferences and whatever, have all had a very positlve reaction to the
fund. When you're talking $16.00 per residential household per year, we're not
talking a terrible amount. The other blg thing about it is that Z think this is
a fairer way to do it because my house pays $16.00. The house at Near Mountain
or Trapper's Pass that's a half m1111on dollar house does not contribute to the
problem significantly more than mine does and they pay $16.00. So I think it's
fairer than using property taxes for this purpose. So in that case Z thlnk this
is a fair way to do it.
35
City Council Meeting - Hay 14, 1990
Councilwoman Dim].er: I agree with you Jay b~t I still think that the only way
we'll, make su'r'o, you know the non point source pollution that you addressed will
ol,ly be addressed by this if we make sure that water quallty is addressed and
~ot jm~st quantity.
Councilman 3ohnson: Oh it's got to be and I'm in total agreement with you
there. I think quality, we've addressed quantity for years and now we really
have to address qua].ity and that I thlnk ls already in here lsn't
P,~ul Kraus-o: G,~ry and I have talked about this for quite some time. This is
the mechanism that we would use to do water quality and wetland rolled into the
sam~ r, ackage because they're all co-mingled. I thlnk we should give ita little
~.,o're play in thr: text because it increases the obvlous merits of going ahead
with thi.s or the awareness of what we're going to be doing but it's always been
1nyc.Ired with that yes.
Councilman Johnson: At this point the text seems [o be pretty mechanical. You
know here.':.~ the cost to this citizen and thls. You know the beneflts aren't as
well lald out but I agree that up front the people, a lot of the people who
,~,oved Lc, this city moved (o it because of the amenities of the city and they
want to protect it and nicer the people I know, $16.00 a year is not going to be,
tlmey would contribtzte for environmental purposes. ~nd thls I think we can't
play this, J.f this thing gets bllled as the Clty's way of bulldlng storm sewers,
that's a wrong cor, cept. It's a water' quality and the overall planning for our
water here that has ~o be bl].led as to what this is all about. Protecting our
w-~ters ~nd our waterways.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay good. Anything else? Tom.
Councilman Workman: I'd like to back up in a general sense of what Ursula said
and that it is a tax and it ls another cost. We always say well $16.00 isn't
going to hurt us and $108.00 isn't going to hurt us for ~ community center and
on and on and on so you get a lot of them and we should always be cautious that
way.
6ourloilwom.~n Oimler: Yeah, that's why I suggest reducing the tax levy for the
general fund.
Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor, I think the capital inlprovement program that we'll
draft up here in a little blt more finite fashion, will be helpful to us and to
the Counc11 ~s far as giving us your impressions on what are the key lssues that
ua need to address with the funding that would come out of this utillty.
Mayor- Chnllel: Just so there's no surprises for everybody else, what's the cost
of this ~¢(udy going to be?
6,zry Warren: Of which study is that?
Hayor Chmiel: What you're doLng rLght now?
Gary Warre~l: This study has already been funded. Hark what are we?
H~i'k Lobermeier: $4,500.00.
3G
City Council Meeting - Hay 14, 1990
Gary Warren: $4,500.00 is what we had contracted with Short-£11iott to do this
phase of the work.
Mayor Chmiel: Upon finalization of it, what's the bottom dollar?
Gary Warren: Well this takes us through the adoption of the ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: The $4,500.00 does? Okay.
Councilwoman Oimler: I would also like to suggest that we do a community
questionnaire.
Councilman Johnson: What?
Councilwoman Dimler: I would like to suggest that we do the community
questionnaire. Would that be lncluded in the cost of the study?
Gary Warren: Well Council had budgeted $50,000.00 this year to take on this
lssue so I mean there's money there. 8y a community questionnaire, would that
be, do you have some specifics?
Councilwoman Oimler: Well it was suggested in the study. Can you address that
Mark?
Mark Lobermeler: There are different ways of gettlng public input. One would
be to have some newspaper articles or send a flyer out on that issue. There's a
number of different ways that it can be done and an overall questionnaire would
be another way.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I would rather have the community tell us what
they want than us put an article in the paper telling them this side of it.
Mayor Chmiel: Well I think we have to tell them what we're proposing and be
open to any suggestions to that would be recognized.
Councilwoman Dimler: Right. But they could back. I think a questionnaire
would be more revealing of what the public is thinking.
Gary Warren: Let us take a shot at drafting something up here. We are looking
to try to get something in mid-June for you, a public information meeting and if
we could get that questionnaire out and back so we would be prepared from that,
I think that would probably work out well to put it all together.
Councilman Johnson: I don't know about so much a questionnaire as a simple fact
sheet or a mailing that provides and it has to be brief. I've found that
something like this, if you send something like thls out, Iin 20 people mlght
read lt.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, but I'm a little leery when we send out a fact sheet
it doesn't leave any room for their input.
Gary Warren: We can do a combination I think. Give a fact sheet because we
37
C.~.~>' Council Mee~ir, g -Hay 1~, 1990
haue to explain what a utility district is if we're going to ask questions about
Councilman Johnson' It's an pretty interesting new concept for a lot of people.
Councilwoman Dimler: Right but they should also be able to feed back to us what
tl,~y thlnk.
Councilm~n Johnson: I think there would be an announcement of public meetings
too where they can come and talk about it.
Mayor Chmiel: I think what we should do is get a motion on this to accept the
concept plan for tl,e storm wate¥ utility.
Councilwoman Oimler: Second.
Hayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to accept the Concept Plan for
Storm aater Utility, Authorize preparation of final storm water utility report
and call for a public information meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
6a)'y Mar)'er,; Bi. el that motion include scheduling the public information meetlng
fo'r mid-June?
Mayor Chmiel; Yes. Well it doesn't that here.
Councilman Johl)~or,: And there's a uo~'k session you want June 18th?
Gary Warren: At Council discretion I guess we could have a work session June
.18th after we get a little bit better definition on the CIP.
COLtnci].man 3ohnsor,: I wi].l be in Omaha that day.
Cot.t,lcil~oman Oimler: I won't be here either.
Ga'fy Warren: Well if there's a better date. I'll have Kim try to coordinate
schedules.
ZONING ORDINANCE AHENDHENT TO AHEND SECTIONS 20-30 AND 20-903 OF THE CITY CODE
PERTAINING TO RECORDING OF PERHITS ANO ZONING LOTS, FIRST REAOING.
Paul Krauss: fir. Mayor, we have two housecleaning items for want of a better
description here. The first one is pertaining to the filing of permit
~pp~'oval.s, conditional use permits and what not against the property's title.
Tn th~. past we've had a requirement, in fact I think it was a State law that
some of these things be recorded but the Clty's had some difficulty in recording
some of these things that property 'owners will give certificate of titles after
the fact it's very difficult to oftentimes to get these things done. We think
that it's il[lperative that we clear this ul) a 11ttle bit because this is our best
mechanism of puttlng the conditions in the chaln of title and future buyers are
made ,'..:~.l~i'e of [t. So the City Attorney drafted an ordinance that stipulates the
;-ecordlng of permlls as a requirement and that whatever we are permitting does
not t~ke place u~til the permit's recorded and we have some evidence of that.
38
City Council Heating - May 14, 1990
The second housecleaning item has to do with a situation that occurs when a
building parcel is comprised of several underlying lots that have been combined
for tax purposes. Technically we st111 have to apply setback standards to those
individual interior lot 11nas. Carver Beach is the most notorious example of
these where you mlght have eight 20 foot lots maklng up a parcel. The Clty
Attorney's come up with a concept of a zoning lot which is a lot that's combined
for tax purposes whlch allows us to only conslder the perimeter of the lot for
setback requirements. I thlnk it clears up a little bit of an anomaly that we
have rlght now. It's not a major problem but we've had a number of these things
come up and this really gives us guidance as to how to handle them. Again, I
think both of these thlngs are relatively mlnor and they'll facilitate our work
in the future.
Councilman Johnson: If you have a house on 8 of these 20 foot lots and you have
a 10 foot sideyard setback on a 20 foot wide lot.
Councilwoman Dimler: You're in trouble.
Councilman Johnson: A 20 foot setback on a 20 foot lot, you've got to do
something reasonable.
Councilwoman Oimler: I have a question. I guess when I first read this I
thought that sounds great but I was wondering, is there a cost? I'm sure you
have to record thls at the County. What's the cost? Is there a cost?
Paul Krauss: Yes. There is a cost but I don't know what it's really.
Roger Knutson: It's so much a page depending on how long the document is and
frankly my secretary writes out the checks so I don't know what it is. I think
it's $2.00 a page or $10.00 a document or something like that.
Councilwoman Oimler: So it's liable to cost up to $20.00?
Roger Knutson: Well your average variance usually run two pages. Or
conditional use, usually 2 pages.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and also are you telling me that if I need a permlt
to replace my deck, that that would have to be recorded?
Paul Krauss: No. We're talking conditional use permits.
Roger Knutson: Not a building permit.
Councilman Johnson: Mining permits.
Councilwoman Oimler: Because on the second page here it says all permits so
that's why I was wondering.
Paul Krauss: No, it applies to variances, conditional use permlt, interlm use
permits and site plan approvals, wetland permits and mining permits.
Councilwoman Dimler: But I read somewhere where.it says all permits so I wanted
to clarify that.
City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990
Mayor Chmi¢l: That wouldn't necessarily necess a building permit.
Councilwoman Bimler= I was hoping that was the case. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion.
COUllCil,f, ar, 3ohnson' Is this a first reading?
Paul Krauss: Yes.
Councilman 3ohnson: I move approval of the first reading of Ordinance amending
Section 20-30 and 20-903.
Cour, ci].uomal~ Dimler: Second.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the first
reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment amending Section 20-30, Recording Permits
and Section 20-g03, Zoning Lots. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPOINTMENT TO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, this item was placed on the agenda to get feedback
from the Mayor and Councll regarding the appointment of a new commissioner to
th~ HRA. As stated in my memo, Chairman Cliff Whitehi11's term explres at the
e~,d of May 31st and Cllff has requested that he be reappointed for a i year
period of time that he may assist in the transition of the new chairman. Or
the past the Council has looked at advertising in the paper and requesting
advertising of a new commissioner's position.
Councilwoman Dimler: Why does he only want to serve one year?
Todd Gerhardt: To help in the transition.
Mayor Chmiel: To train the chair.
Councilwoman Oimler: Who's going to be the new Chair?
Mayor Chmiel: Well that would be something that would be appointed.
COU~lC~.luoman Dimler: So then next year we'll have to reappoint someone else to
take hls place?
Ha/or Chmiel: Yes is what he's saying. Don, did you want to say something?
Todd Gerhardt: Well 2 people.
Don ~shworth: Yeah, I wanted to note that the HRA appointments are different
than really any of the other appointments you have with the city in that the
nomination can only occur by the Mayor and the Council's role ls one of agreelng
or not agreeirlg to tile nomination made by tile Mayor. So again I hadn't
anticipated this 1rem belng on the agenda. Instead potentially just worklng
with the Mayor to see how he would like to proceed.
4O
City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990
Councilman Johnson: It should have been on the agenda about 2 months ago.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Don Ashworth: Well I thlnk we had our joint meeting between Council and HRA and
I think there were some thlngs that the Mayor was tooking at as well but anyway,
the questlon by Cliff. They are 5 year appointments so there would have to be
someway in whlch he literally would be giving you notification of his intent to
reslgn i year from today. I don't know of any provision other than the 5 year
because right now they are on a 5 year appointments and each one comes up one
per year.
Mayor Chmlel: That was my question. How does this deviate from the norm? How
do we go through this particular procedure as such?
Councilman Johnson: Is the 5 year state law?
Roger Knutson: Yes. And if someone resigns in mid-term, you appoint to fill
thre remainder of that term.
Councilman Johnson: So the Minneapolis City Council has appointed themselves
the HRA there but their terms aren't 5 year terms on the City Counc11.
Roger Knutson: Excuse me, there ls one exception. The exception is that if you
appoint only Council members as HRA commissioners, you can make the terms of the
HRA commissioners coinclde wlth the terms of the Counc11 members.
Councilman Johnson: If you have a mix of council members and regular members,
can you take the positions that our counc11 members and have them run with their
council terms?
Roger Knutson: I don't belleve so.
Todd Gerhardt: No, Clark would have fallen into that position.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, but see at that time we weren't even considering
that. I've said that we need members of the Council on the HRA and I see
because of now, I see why what has happened dld happen. Of course and then we
reappointed Clark and Clark has said that he would step down too if asked.
Several people got reappointed just as thelr terms were ending on the Council.
Roger Knutson: If you wanted it mixed that way and guaranteed it, I'd have to
check to be sure.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, because see that's what I'd like to almost see.
Mayor Chmlel: Whether they be on the Council or they're not, I would assume
that the 5 years would just an automatic. If a Councll person no longer was a
council person and his term still continues in my estimation. For instance if
he's on for 4 years as a Clty Counc11 okay and he has it for 5 years.
Councilman Johnson: Tom's is going to extend beyond that.
41
City Council Heeling - May 14, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Then I think that that's just an automatic extension to
that fifth year whether riley be on the Council or not. If they then become
citizens or they're not part of the Council.
Todd Gerhardt: It would be up to that mayor who would be running at that point
b~cause they would make that nomination. Now the term ends and you've got to
send ir, certification of both.
Cour, cilmar, 3ohnson: What Don is saying is that when Tom's term ends in 2 1/2
years, he'll still have a yeaF and a half on the HRA that he will continue
serving until that's over with and that's how we got in the HRA with no council
members on it because we used to have, we almost always had at least 2 council
members on it up until 2 years ago when the 2 vacancies got reappointed to lame
~h.[ck council members, one of which I believe has one resigned. Pat Swenson.
Todd Gerhardt: Tom was appointed rather than Pat.
Councilwoman Bimler: I have a question.
Mayor Chmiel~ Maybe rather than to keep running with this...
Councilwoman Oimler: But I just want to ask a question.
MayoF Chmiel: But let me state what I'd like to first.
Councilwoman Bimler: Go ahead.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. What I'd like to do is table this item. I would like
to then ask the newspaper's to put an article in the paper asking anyone who is
interested J.n serving on the HRA to contact me directly.
Councilman 3ohnson: Oon't we usually pay for' that?
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we can get some free press. I don't know, maybe it would
have to be an ad.
Councilman Workman: Which direction are you heading in then?
Hayor Chmiel: ~hat Z'm saying is, is to then get those people in who are
interested.
Todd Gerhardt' You want us to advertise the vacancy?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Cottncilmarl Workman: What about the proposal that we have?
Mayor Chmiel' That's why I said to table it,
Councilwoman Olmler: Are we saying that Cllff cannot just do it for one year?
He has to do it for 5?
Mayor Chmiel: I don't know.
42
City Council Meeting - May 14, 1990
Roger Knutson: Yeah. That's correct.
Hayor Chmiel: And he can tender his resignation if he so chooses after that
first year.
Councilwoman Dimler: But he doesn't have to.
Roger Knutson: I suppose if you wanted him to bring a resignation in hand when
you appointed him and say give us your resignation in hand effective.
Councilwoman Dimler: One year from now.
Councilman Johnson: Could we appoint Cliff as a special advisor to the HRA?
Roger Knutson: Sure. It has no official status.
Councilman Johnson: It has no official status but it says hey, we still want
70ur advice.
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't understand why, I mean the chairman usually takes
over without being. Did you get special training from Tom when you took over?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: I mean I don't understand the reasoning. I mean a chair
can just be taken over.
Councilman Workman: Yeah, are we moving ahead towards that councilmember?
Councilwoman Oimler: I would like to see that.
Councilman Workman: If we are, then advertising isn't...
Councilman Johnson: See I'd like to see the second council member on there
which means either Bill or Don in that Ursula and I are both on Southwest Metro
Transit which meets at the same time. So we're pretty well.
Councilwoman Dimler: And Bill's up for re-election so it has to be Don.
Councilman Johnson: Don's up for re-election too. They're both up for
re-election.
-..
Councilwoman Dimler: Don't you have a 4 year term?
Councilman Johnson: No.
Mayor Chmiel: So we come to a changing of the minds see.
Councilwoman Dimler: I really would like to see another council member on
there.
Hayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's probably very true.
43
City Cout~cil Meeting - May 14, 1990
Councilman Johnson~ I like Roger al~o in that the interim if we table this, to
look at the possibility of hauir, g two seats designated as Council members
running concurrent wlth their terms, whatever their terms may be.
Councilman Workman: But you can't force one of those persons to also take HRA
when they're elected.
Councilman 3ohnson: No, but whoever comes on the council in January, if we
appoint Don and Oon doesn't get re-elected, he serves until January and then on
January the new Councll appoirlts one of their members to take Den's place. If
that's legal.
CouncJ. lm~n l.~orkman: What if nobody wants to be on the HRA that'~ on the
Count:il?
Councilman Johnson: I didn't want to be on Southwest Metro Transit and I was
appointed to Southwest Metro Transit. I've appreciated it. I like it now.
Cou~,cilwoman Dimler: What's that term there? Is that a 2 year term?
Councilman Johnson: It's 3 years. I've got one more year. I've been
reappointed. I'll have one more year after I'm off the Counc11.
Mayor Chmiel: Let's just table this. Roger can look into that and then get
back to us and let us know. Okay?
Todd G~;'rhardt: ~dvertising? No advertising?
Mayor Chmiel: No, I don't think we'll do that until once we find out where
we're at with it.
Councilman Johnson: How about this Don? If Roger gets back to us real quickly
saying that my idea can't work, that you've got to go 5 years, you can't have a
hybrid, that we then advertise.
Mayor Chmie].: I don't have a problem with that.
Councilman Johnson: That way we don't waste as much time waiting for another
Council meeting to tell.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that.
M,~yor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. We're tabling it right now though.
We can't take action on a table.
Councilwoman Oimler: We tabled it.
Todd ~erhardt: There was no vote on tabling it. You just said, we didn't have
to do anything.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. So I don't think we haue to vote on it. Just proceed
w~.th what we're doing. With your suggestions.
City Council Heeting - May 14, 1990
Councilwoman Oimler: We tabled it with your suggestions.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Hayor Chmiel: Ursula, trees.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I had a call from a Mr. Hoffman from Saddlebrook.
He's concerned about the trees on Kerber Blvd. and they all look dead to me.
The evergreens there. And I know it's been going on for a while. I don't know
why nothing has been done. Also he says they are infested with some sort of a
bug.
Councilman Johnson: Pine beetle.
Councilwoman Oimler: Pine beetle. He wants to plant some in his yard but he's
relunctant to do so while this pine beetle is there. I've already called Dale
Gregory on it and I didn't hear anything back so I'm bringing this up so that,
would like a report and would like Council to have a report.
Councilman Johnson: I talked to Paul on it also. Or Jo Ann.
Gary Warren: Those are not city trees.
Mayor Chmiel: No, that's the developers.
Gary Warren: Rick Murray, I've talked to him about a year ago about the trees.
They are not a part of his approved landscaping plan either. He just got the
trees at a deal or whatever and installed them to try to dress the area up.
Unfortunately they didn't make it.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can we make him take them down?
Gary Warren: I would imagine if they're infected or have some problem of that
nature.
Councilman Johnson: I talked to you or Jo Ann or somebody on this.
Paul Krauss: It's the first I've heard of it but I would assume that if it's a
hazard, if lt's infected, under the nuisance ordinance we can order that it be
abated.
Councilwoman Oimler: Yeah, it will affect the other trees in the area.
Councilman Johnson: That's Todd Hoffman's cousin and he works for Minnesota
Valley Nursery as a nurseryman and so he's experienced. He says it's the pine
bark beetle. It affects diseased trees that are already weakened such as winter
kill or wlnter weakened trees so if you have a real good healthy tree, the pine
bark beetle can't hurt you. But rtght now if you look at the pines in this town
from all the wlnter damage we have, a lot of our trees are very susceptible to
this type of deal. And newly planted trees are also weakened and susceptible.
Councilwoman Dimler: I would like the City to do something. Either make the
developer take them down or if the City has to do something because they are
45
City Cour,c~l Heeling - May 14, 1990
infested with this pine beetle, you know we should go ahead and do something.
It's been lor,g enough.
Council. man Johnson= Yeah, the forester may be able to force it to be taken down
too. I'm not sure what the State laws on the pine beetle is.
Mayor Chnliel~ Tol,?
Councilman Workman-' In relationship to that neighborhood, there's a light pole
that's been struck o'r something.
Mayor Chmiel~ Just leaning a tad.
Councilman Workman: Well it's about like that. You can probably like a cigar
from ii or something. But if you go down and what I want to bring up is kind of
a redundancy and I'm kind of wondering about our street signs. We have kind of
two motifs now. We have the old brown metal one and we have the wood posted
or, es. The beveled~ On West 79th Street we have botl~. We have a beveled one on
one side of the road and a metal one on the other. It's redundant and you'd
figure when they put that beveled one because I think that's the last one they
put out, that they'd take that other one across the street and sell it or
something but I don't know. We have situations like that and it just seems like
~t doesn't belong there and somebody's just overlooked it. But we've got it on
either corner and we've probably got other situations like that. One other
thing. As I come off of Kerber Blvd. and Pontiac Lane, there's a street sign
there but it just says Pontiac. Now I live on Pontiac Circle and it just says
Pontiac there so people kind of look for Pontiac Lane and it just says Pontiac.
C~n we ge~ a Pontiac Lane sign?
Councilwoman Oimler~ Are you saying that people can't find your home?
O,~ry Warren: We'll take a look. It may have been platted as just Pontiac in
which case technically it should have a name change. I'll take a look at it.
Councilman Workman: I think all the other street signs down the road there are
Pontiac Lane-.
Mayor C. hmiel: Okay, is that it? I just wanted to take a little time for a
lett~.~· on Front[er Trail. The owner says, a good letter that you've written to
all the residents within Frontier Trail to make then, aware as to the pre-
construction meeting that's going to take place and also when the construction
is going to take place which would be about May 15th. That is tomorrow. With
,:~].1 this rain I don't think they're going to be doing much of anything. Who
kl,oWS but I thought it was a good letter that you sent out making them fully
aware as to what was happening and who to call if there are problems and how to
alleviate the given concerns that might be there. Other than that, that
concJudes what we have and I'll make a motion for adjournment.
Roger Knutson: One moment. Ordinance Summary. An ordinance amending Chapter 7
;~nd Chaptelr 20 of the Chanhassen City Code pertaining to excavating, mining,
fill. lng and grading. An ordinance amendment establishing the revised and
comprehensive standards and procedures for regulating all grading, mining,
~.xcavating, and filling activities fronl the City. Such activity involving more
46
City Council Meeting - May 14, 19~0
than 50 cubic yards of material but less 1,000 cubic yards may be approved
adminstratively. Such activity involving 1,000 cubic yards or more requires an
interim use permit. Certain exceptions for permit requirements are specified.
All existing operations occurring without a permit are required to obtain one
within 6 months from the date of the adoption. Operations are currently...to
permit must come into compliance at the time their permits are renewed. This
ordinance is in full effect commencing on date of publication of this summary.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. It's good we're only going to be charged for about 15
minutes.
Councilman Johnson: I move approval of the ordinance.
Councilman Workman: I second it.
Councilman 3ohnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Ordinance
Synopsis for publication purposes of the Chapter 7 and Chapter 20 as written by
Roger Knutson. Al! voted in favor and the motion carried.
Hayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
47