1990 02 12CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR M~TING
FEB~ 12, 1990
Mayor Ch~,iel called the F~eting to order at 7:40 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCI~ PRESENT: Mayor Ch~,iel, Councilman Boyt, Oouncil~an Work~an,
Cotmcilw~an Dimmer and Councilman Johnson
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Paul Krauss, Jo Ann Olsen, Lori
Siets~a, Todd Gerhardt, Dave Hempel, Jim Chaffee and Elliott ~etsch, City
Attorney.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
approve the agenda a~ended as follows: Mayor Ch~el ~anted to discuss
Chanhassen's Anti-Drug Task Force proposal; Council~n Workman ~nted to discerns
the HRA, Heritage Park Apartmen~ and West 78th Street; and Councilman Boyt
wanted to set up a time for Public Safety (km~.ission candidate interviews. All
voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried.
RfEYCLING PRIZE DRAWING: Mayor Ch~el drew a na~ for the Recycling Prize of
$200.00.
CONSENT AGf~I~A: Co~mcilwuman Dimler F~ved, Council~an Johnson seconded to
approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City. Manager's
recc~ndat ions:
c. Resolution 990-12: Approve Resolution Amending the Joint Pod_rs Agreement
and By-Laws, Southwest Metro Transit Cc~ssion.
d. Preliminary and Final Plat Approval, Crossroads Plaza, Northeast corner of
West 79th Street and Market Boulevard, Crossroads National Bank.
e. Accept Donations to Park and Recreation Cc~[ssion Department fr~m the
Chaska Lion's and Chanhassen Ja.ucees.
f. Resolution 990-13: Approve Resolution Proclai~[ng the ?_~ck of March 8, 1990
as Vol~.mteers of ;~rica ~.;~cck.
g. Resolution 990-14: Set 1990 Liq~or License fees.
i. Final Plat Approval for Pleasant Hills 2nd Addition, ~reidberg/City.
k. Resolution 990-15: ;~thorize Preparation of Updated Feasibility St~y for
Park Place Phase II IF~orove~nts (Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 5th
~ddition), Project 85-13B.
1. Accept Engineering Inspection Report for Murray Hill Water Tower and
~lthorize Preparation of Rehabilitation Plans and Specifications,
Improv~nt Project 89-24.
m. Approval of Accounts.
n. City Co~u~cil Minutes dated January 22, 1990
Planning Cc~,ission Minutes dated January. 17, 1990
City Council Meeting - February 12~ 1990
Park and Recreation Ccm~,ission Minutes dated January 9, 1990
o. Authorize to l~.%rchase Recycling Bins.
q. Accept Resignations from Public Safety Ckx.~,issioners Takkunen and Wing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
A. APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AM~gDM~gT REGARDING SITE PLAN REVIEW
PROCEDURES, FINAL READING; AND APPROVAL OF SUMMARY ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION.
Co~u~cilm. mn Boyt: Okay, just a couple of changes to it. If you look at page 3.
This is our interim use ordinance. Sc~ething that I think we're all looking
forward to having. Section 20-676, ite~, 3 se~v.~ to m~ to be a repeat of item, 1
so mmybe we can just strike it.
Co:{ncilwo~an Dimler: T~v~0orary real estate offices?
Councilman Boyt: Since it's interim, uses, they're all temporary. Then I would
like to see in 20-716, the BH, ~iness Highway district that ~ allow temporary
farmer's markets so I'd suggest an it~v, 3, Fanv~r's Markets. In the BH. We
allow it in the CBD. It would seem like it would be even more appropriate in
the BH. That's all I had.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Okay, with those two changes, can I have a motion?
Councilman Workman: Is there a reason Paul why m~ybe w~ left that out of
there? O~t of the BH?
Paul Kra~s: No Mr. Workman. There really wasn't any intent to leave it out
and we have no problev, including it.
Councilw~ran DLm. ler: I'd appreciate seeing it in there.
Ccou~cilman Bo~:
CoLmcilw~van Dimler: Because we're in the business. I move item l(a).
Councilman Boyt: Second.
Councilwom. an Dimler moved, Co, mcilman Boyt seconded to approve Zoning Ordinance
Amendment regarding site plan review procedures, Final Reading and approval of
S~m~mry Ordinance fo~' l~lication as amended by CoL%nciLman Boyt. All voted in
favor and the m.~)tion carried.
B. APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMf~71M~T2 RFf~RDING THE REVIEW AND GRANTING OF
INTERIM USE PERMITS FOR USES THAT ARE TfFAOORARY IN NATURE IN ALL DISTRICTS,
FINAL READING; AND APPROVAL OF SUMMARY ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION.
Councilwoman Dim, let: I guess other people picked up on this too but we did talk
about, I talked to Paul earlier today indicating that this ordinance could be
passed the way it is and we could talk about the signage but I think that we
City. CoLmcil Meeting - February 12~ 1990
shoLtld mmybe take care of it right away. There are three options given in the
first page after the yellow page. I guess I'll go alorg with staff
reccm~_ndation of Option 3 but I'd like to hear sc~e discussion.
Councilm~n Boyt: I'd he happy to chime in. I think Option 1 makes more semse
because it keeps the City out of the sign business. ~ina se~s to he able to
do it c~ite successfully. You notice in ~ur packet, the part of it you just
received this evening, there is ~dina's requirements. I think that that to me
makes more sense to have the developer take care of this than to have the City
store 20 signs sc~place in city. property..
·
Councilmmn Johnson: For years all over the country, developers have done this. A
lot of other towns I've seen ever.uplace this is for subdivision you know. It's
the cost of doing business and it's not that expensive.
Co, u~cilman Boyt: We're only requiring the signs in some particular situations
that are reasonably dramatic so I think this sort of developer probably has. a
sign or is aware of the likelihood of ~ing it.
Co~u~cil~en Johnson: On the issue of 1, 2 or 3. Option 1, 2 or 3, I'll go with
1 right now with 3 in second place and Option 2 I don't like at all. The other
thing is, what are we going to require the signs for.
Co,~ilwuman Dim]er: We already discussed that. Let me just explain to ~u why
I liked Option 3. I think I explained the last time this cave around that we
had ~h a probl~, even getting a sign up for the garage sale for Chaska
Boosters because no one could co~e up with a sign that m~=t the ordinances. Even
though it was a temporary sign, that we finally gave ~ so I'm sa.ring if o~
rec~%irements are that difficult to m~ct, then it's going to be a hassle for the
developer to come up with a sign that will allow them to put up. On the other
hand if the City. makes the sign, we won't have that hassle. Apparently we're
going to m~=et o[tr own ordinance to put up the signs. Then also, it's not going
to cost the City. much because they. will be paying. It's just that they don't
have to he responsible for the design and all of that rigar~xoll c(~,ing UP with
the correct sign.
Councilman Johnson: ~ina gives you the exact design. 60 inches.
,
Councilwoman Dimler: Well then the City. would have to cc~e up with a design.
Co,.mcilman Johnson: I'd use Edina's. Why reinvent the wb~c_~l? We'd just have
to change Edina to Chanhassen.
co,~ilw~an Dim]er: Pa[il, do you ~nt to address that? I just r~r that
was s~.~h a hassle to get a sign, a t~a~x)razy sign to put up for the Chaska
Boosters who~ we wanted to support. They were having a rummage sale. It was a
very tev~)orary sign and we couldn't put one up just because w~ couldn't cc~e up
with the proper sign.
Paul Kra~ms: Well councilwuman Dimler, if gave criteria and changed our
ordinances if we need to, one of the things we ~ to do is ask Our attorney as
to what structurally we ~ to do when wa Fake a selection on this. But if we
rec~dred it, the sign co~ld go up without requiring additional permits. The
problev, I think you had with the t~nporary sign was that you ~ed a t~nporary
sign permit under our existing ordinances and those are somewhat restrictive.
City Co~mcil Meeting - February 12, 1990
The probl~, that we saw though in rec~%iring the applicant to obtain their own
sign ~as one of cost and ti~. They would need to procure a sign each ti~ this
ca~ up. The sign would only be used once and then it would be disposed of.
Oounctlw~an Dim]er: So it'd be a ~aste?
Paul Krauss: We think you could expedite if we had the signs on hand.
Co~u~cilwc~en Di~.~e~: Yeah. Plus they' re paying for it. I don' t think it' s
going ot cost the City much. And we're talking about storing 20 signs? We're
building a big new shed.
Council,'mn Johnson: When I look at sc~_body who's got a million dollar
development going and see a $200.00 expense on that million dollar development,
I don't see that I 'm breaking the bank. I see we're going to rent the sign to
th~ for $100.00 and sc~e of these guys can probably get it F~ke for less than
that if they have their own shops and whatever. It's just a big deal. I don't
want, we already do enough. Ou~ staff is plenty, busy without having to hire
so~body on to put ~ signs for developers. It's part of their job. If they
want to develop that piece of property, they just follow the ordinance. We used
to have...
Councilwoman Dim]er: ~lt under Option 3, the developer would be responsible for
even ~ltting it up and r~toving it. It's just that we'd provide the signs and I
think that's a good use of our natural resources. I hate to see us reinvent the
wheel all the ti~.
Council~n Johnson: Between 1 and 3, I'll go with 3 as easy as 1 but I still
think that we haven't defined exactly which things are going to need signs.
There are sc~ suggested ones in here but I think we have to decide what will
need a sign and what won't. Like this Shivley Subdivision later tonight. A-lot
split into two lots. Do w~ ~ant to have to l~t up a sign for that? I say no.
CouncilF~n Boyt: Well you don' t under this either.
Co~ncil~mn Work~.an: I think if platting rem~lting in the creation of 3 or Fore
lots, even if sc~,ebody probably already has a willing buyer for all 3 lots, what
do they care. That gets into a little bit of why we're doing this to let
everybody know but it's kind of a private deal. If 3 people bought 3 lots, what
difference does it Fake so~tiF~=s that it's been done.
Council~mn Johnson: Yeah, or whether your plat, if you're in a RSF district and
you have this cornfield in the RSF district and you're going to plat those into
15,000 sc~re foot lots. That's what expected to go in there. If you're going
to co~e in and put c~rcial buildings in there, then I'd see the sign. I'm
not even sure if replattlng needs a sign.
CouncilF~n Boyt: I think it needs a sign because there are all sorts of issues
Jay as you know around any develo~nt that comes in. We want more c(m~unlty
involv~_nt. When we Fail things to people within 500 feet, Fany tiffs that's
the sq%~irrels and the rabbits. And so when we put a sign up, everybody that
goes by there at least knows sc~thing's going to happen and they can call the
City to find out what. Ma.ube we'll get a few more people contributing ideas.
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
Mayor (~%iel: Tc~, do you have anything further? I guess I wouldn't have any.
problev~ with itev, nu~er 3 either. I think by. us having those signs available,
giving the~ to the developers. Let the developers install they, eliminates the
probl~, with ou~ people having to take that time out to do it.
Councilman Boyt: The City's talking about a $4,000.00 expenditure initially.
Mayor Ch~iel: Conceiveably ~aybe we won't get 20 signs right awey either Bill.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want us to move the signs separate fr~m where
need the signs?
Mayor Chv, iel: I think so.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so I would m~;ve that we adopt under signage option 3.
Councilman Johnson: Second.
Councilman Boyt: Before w~ take the vote, I'd like to suggest that there Fay be
sc~e logic here in what Edina is saying works for the~. Granted we haven't
decided what we're going to require a sign for but I would venture that in the
next 3 y~ars you're going to see even more develoImnent when the MUSA line
expands, as we know it will.
Mayor (2~/el: I think that's a foregone conclusion on that. I agree.
Councilman Boyt: If the developer's responsible for all of it, and really them
it isn't the City's responsibility to ~--~c, do we have enough signs. Spare signs
out there. How many rezoning signs do we get versus subdivision signs? We
don't have to worry with that if we go with 1 so I guess for that reason I'd
vote against 3, although I will acknowledge there's a very. ~all difference and
Ursula m~kes good points.
Co,~cilman Johnson: Well ~ one thing I would do, if you're using a sign like
this. I'd have the basic sign made and have rezoning on a separate piece of
~od. Subdivision on a separate piece of w~od. Ail tt~ other information stays
the same and then you just bolt on whether it's going to be a rezoning or a
subdivision so if it's a subdivision, slap that puppy, on. We don't ~ quite
as many.
Co,~cilw~man Dim]er: So then that would be better for the City too.
Councilman Johnson: Make it reversible.
Councilw~van Dimler: Yes. I agree. Wonderful.
Mayor Chv~el: Good points Jay.
Councilman Bo.vt: I give up.
Councilwoman Dimler m~ved, Gouncilman Johnson seconded adopting Option 3, that
the City. provide the signs and charge the developer a rental fee. The developer
would be responsible for erection and removal and for sign replac~v~nt if
needed. All voted in favor and the motion carried. _
City Council Meeting - February 12~ 1990
Councilman Johnson: Are you going to move on to for what ~trposes we're going
to put the signs ~p beca~t~e we didn't vote on that?
Mayor Chmiel: I think that's s(x%ething we're going to have to do.
Councilw~man DiN.]er: Was that your portion of what you wanted to discuss?
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. That was my, but we've really just discussed it with
Bill and Bill has convinced me that planning use would, so I'll go with the 5
listed. The 5 reasons listed in the staff report.
Co~mcilwo~an Dim]er: What page are you on?
Mayor Ch~,iel: Ite~ 1 thru 5. It's on the secor~ page after this yellow sheet.
Platting, rezoning, guide plan am.~x]m~nts and conditional ~me permits resulting
in the construction of new buildings such as a church and site plan reviews.
Councilman Dim]er: Is there a time liN, it on here? How long these signs have
to be up?
Mayor Ch~,iel: There is a time limitation. Paul, is that correct? How many
days prior to the public hearing must they be up?
Paul Erauss: The ordinances I've seen required 9 days prior to the public
hearing. I ~ould personally, w~ have a month notice when something comes in. I
would personally prefer that we use that.
Councilwoman DiN, let: Okay, but should we specify in here up to 1 month or do we
need a time restriction? I don't know if I follow.
Councilman Johnson: I think 2 w~eks. That gives us 2 weeks to get the sign up.
You say it's 1 month from when they bring it in to us until it comes before the
Planning Cc~,ission.
Paul Krauss: Right.
Councilman Johnson: So we're not going to get it up exactly the day it cc~,es in
here so you need, I would say 2 weeks prior to the first public meeting on the
action.
Mayor Chv, iel: Yeah, I think that would be fine.
Councilwoman Dimler: J~lst as long as there's something time wise.
Councilm~n Boyt: Where should that go in the ordinance?
Mayor Ch~.,iel: Where would that fit in Paul?
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, what we ~cd to do after w~ get your direction tonight
is to sit down with the City Attorney and figure out where exactly in the
ordinance we have to make these changes or if we can just do it as a procedure
without changing the ordinance.
Councilwo~n Dim. let: However this is the second reading.
City. co~cil Meeting - February 12~ 199~
Pa~ll Kra~ms: No, the thing that's for the second reading tonight is for the
site plan review ordinance itself.
Mayor Ch%iel: (~ay. Jay, w~ have a motion on the floor. 1 thru 5.
Councilmmn Johnson: I will. I'll move that we add reasons for the sign as 1
thru 5 and the signs should be up 2 weeks prior to the first public m~eting.
Councilman Workman: I g,~=ss I'd like to discuss a little bit what our bottom,
end on this thing is as far as 3 or more lots and what ma.w/De Jay or Bill,
sc~sbody can give me an idea about the type of impact that w~'re going to be
averting if we require that. I think that's a little bit s%aller time.
~ayor Ch%iel: Well if people within their areas are still concerned as to
what's happening in and adjacent to theirs with ~hat's being developed within
that specific area.
CoL~cil~an Work~an: BUt even for 3 lots?
Councilman Johnson: Well if you're sitting in an area where ever.ubody's got 1
acre lots and sc~body decides to convert his 1 acre lot to 3 15,0~0 square foot
lots. His neighbors w~uld be very. concerned about that. Theoretically he could
if he had just slightly over an acre, convert to 3 lots.
Councilman Workman: I agree that could happen but covenants usually provide
against sc~thing like that you know. Timber~ is an example probably. Well,
you couldn' t break those down into less than 2 1/2 acres anyway but.
Cot~cilman Johnson: No. Not until sewer c~s in.
Cx~lncilman Workman: But I'm saying, I don't know. Maybe it's hurting nothing.
It's going to put a burden on a small split I think. You talk about the million
dollar deals.
Councilman Johnson: You see so few s~all splits. Usually it's either 2 or a
What n~_r are you thinking? 5? 4? 127 5~?
Council~n Boyt: There's a good argument for why we don't ~nt it to be 2.
council~mn Johnson: Yeah. Everybody lot splits.
councilman Boyt: But up fr~, there, where do w~ go? I don't know what's magic
about 3 but I don't know where to stop either.
councilman Johnson: You can probably argue 4 as w~ll as 3 and 5 as well aS 4.
councilman Workman: You know I don't like to argue. That's fine. I guess I
still haven't heard any reasons why. but that's fine.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want to remove it out of there?
Om~cilman Workman: NO, because I don't really have an option. I don't have an
option up from 3. I don't have a logical point to stop.
City Council Meeting - February 12~ 1990
Mayor Ch~,iel: I think 3 or more lots is a good place to start with
Councilw~ran Dim]er: I do have a question on number 3. Paul, could you give me
an exam.~ole of a guide plan amendment?
Paul Krauss: Ch, it's a change to the land use plan. If somebody had a high
density residential site and they wanted it to be co~rcial/retail.
Councilwoman Dim]er: Wouldn't that be covered under rezonings?
Pual Krauss: They could theoretically ask you to change the land use plan
before they ask you to change the zoning.
Councilman Johnson: Then they can c~e back and say the land use says it's
supposed to be c(x~.,ercial. You have to change my zoning for ~e.
Councilm~n Boyt: I just thought of something. We're about to change the land
use plan. Does this m~an that the City has to run out and post the City?
Paul Krauss: There are practical limtitations to that. No.
Councilman Boyt: But we are changing. We're proposing to change the land use
in several areas. Can we handle that as a blanket for the whole city and we
don't have to get into, I would like to think that we're not creating a
situation in which we're suddenly going to litter the highways with...
Paul Krauss: We had no intent of doing it. If you'd like to specifically
exclude that, that would be the way to do it.
Councilman Boyt: Tell me, do we have to specifically exclude that to keep the
City from having to be concerned about the land use plan amendments?
Elliott Knetsch: N~er 3 only?
Councilmmn Boyt: Right. And it makes sense if a developer wants to cc~ in and
change the land ~me plan, that's pretty r~r.,ote but if they wanted to do that,
that that be posted. But what about when the City changes the whole land ~me
plan for the City? -
Elliott Knetsch: The way it is right now we would have to post signs. You
could distinquish bet~n private and publically initiated projects.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, except during the Comprehensive Planning process? Would
that exclude it?
Councilman Johnson: I will take that am.~ndment as a friendly amendment and
change guide plan amendments except for during Co~re~nsive Plan modification
or wording thereof. I'll let you work that out with the Attorney if my second
will accept that change.
Co~ncilman Boyt: Who's your second?
Councilman Johnson: Ursula.
Mayor Chniel: You haven't got a second.
City Co,mcil M~eting - February 12, 199~
Councilman Johnson: I thought Ursula seconded itl
Mayor Ch~iel: Not .vet. Do you ~mnt to second it.
Councilwoman Dim]er: I' 11 second that.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Any further discussion?
Om~ilman Johnson moved, councilwoman Dim~ler seconded to adopt that all signs
be posted 2 w~eks prior to the first public _m=cting for the following reasons:
1. Platting resulting in the creation of 3 or more lots.
2. Rezoning.
3. (tlide Plan Amendment except during the C~ehensive Planning Process.
4. conditional Use Permits resulting in the construction of a new building,
(such as a ch,%rch).
5. Site Plan Review.
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, ~m ~ action ~ ~ o~i~ it~lf.
~~ib~ Jo~n: I m~ i~ l(b).
~~il~n D~: ~ ~~?
~~i~ Jo~~: ~11 ~t~lly ~t ~ did di~'t ~ ~~ i~ l(b). It
~ ~ aff~t ~ i~, l(b).
~~il~ D~: ~o~.
co~ilman Johnson m~)ved, councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the second and
final reading of a Zoning Ordinance k~en~ent to Division XI regarding Site Plan
review procedures, and approval of the ordinance s~y for publication. Ail
voted in favor and the motion carried.
H. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY F(]R THE EXTENSION OF LAKE DRIVE
WEST FRCM COUNTRY RfI%D 17 TO AUDUBON RfI%D, REEMOND P~, INC..
Councilman Workman: I only ~ant to say that, and I'm not sure if the dimensions
here for the Redm~)nd Products construction which is going to be rather im~emse,
does appear as though it's going to be right near and across frc~ Lake Susan
Hills. Gary., do ~u have an idea about at this time, as infant as it is, any
idea about the impact on that neighborhood? They have a very large facility.
now. I know they're going to double or triple it.
City Council Meeting - February 12~ 1990
Gary Waxren: W~ll there is a separation between Lake Drive West and the actual
single family residential in Lake ~]san. There's a multi-family area that
hash' t been developed there.
Councilm~n Workm. mn: We're going to have multi-family there right on Lake Drive
West across fromL this?
Gary Warren: As proposed, that' s correct.
Councilm~n Work~.~n: That's really all I wanted to know. That ses~m like a
tight fit there and not probably.
Councilman Johnson: That's why w~ lmlt R-12 there versus single family.
Councilman Workm~n: R-12 are people too.
Councilmmn Johnson: I know.
Councilman Workmmn: I just want to start getting a little bit of an idea of
what the iF, pact is going to be. It se~v~ like a tight rub for cc~x~rcial and
residential. I would move approval of it~, 1 (h).
Councilman Johnson: Second.
Resolution ~90-16: Cot~cilm~n Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
~lthorize Preparation of a Feasibility Study for the extension of Lake Drive
West from, County Road 17 to Audubon Road, Redmond Products, Inc. pursuant to the
City Manager's recommendations. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: SENIOR CITIZENS YEAR END REPORT, JOANN KVERN.
Hazel Johnson: Good evening. I'm Hazel Johnson and I'm a Chanhassen resident
but I'm representing the South Shore Senior Center. I'd like to have about 5
minutes of your time to read this report. The Senior Center has been a part of
your c(x~,unity for 6 years. It will be 7 years this next September and thank
you for your support. This year w~ want to highlight sc~e of the activities
that our center in 1989. Cne of ot%r goals of the center is to inform, senior
citizens of issues pertaining to the older adult, we sc~etimes call ourselves
the recycled teenagers. Here are sc~e of the programs that ~ had in 1989 to
accomplish this goal. Medicare and the new catastrophic health care act. Long
term, care insurance. What is it? Do you need it? A ~neral insurance plan.
55 alive driving course, we had one each q~rter. The elder hostile program,.
Fra~ and scares aimed at the older adult. Modern day hospital procedures. The
living will. Your diet and cholesterol. Arthritis and what you should know.
Diabetes Association. How to control. And funeral preparations. A second goal
is to provide interesting educational program~. We had the following at the
center in 1989. A series on hobbies that might interest the older adult. Bird
watching. Norwegian ros~,ulling. Gardening for small spaces and textile
painting. We had two travelogues. (]me on China and one on Frace. History
program.~. The Lake Minnetonka area. Book reviews. Reading and discussion
group m~etings. The third goal is to provide an excercise program, twice weekly.
We had the following at the center in 1989. Blood pressure screenings twice
monthly. Over 50 and fit exercise class m~ets twice w~ekly. We had a health
10
City Co--il Meetir~ - February 12 ~ 1990
fair in the spring sponsored by. Waconia Hospi,s1 which covered diabetes~
glauc(m~, pu/monary function, cholesterol and blood pressure. We had a hearing
screening put on by. Oourage Center staff. A fourth goal is to have programs
that are entertaining and fun. We had the following at the center in 1989.
Monthly birthday celebrations with entertair~ent. Holiday celebrations with
entertain%ent. Spring ~as celebrated with an ice cream social. S~mme~ was
celebrated with a picnic. We have bingo parties. ?~kly 500 card tournaaemts.
?~kly bridge tourar~emts. ~k)nthly trips to pla.us, restaurants, points of
interest. Our center has a variety, of programs geared to attract a variety, of
people who's age range is fr~m 55 to one of our older participants being a lady
of 93. A fifth goal is to serve a noon meal. We served 6,249 meals at the
center in 1989. That averages out to be 42 meals per day each day that we are
open. A sixth goal was to have a transportation program. In 1989 we provided
5,620 rides to the center. To grocery shopping. To major shopping centers and
to F~dical appointments. A seventh goal is to have retired people involved as
volunteers at the center. In 1989 we had 63 people donate their time and
talents to the center. Over 5,000 hours of volunteer work w~nt into the center
in 1989. ~nank you again for your support in our program.
Fayor Ch~iel: Thank you very. much.
Councilman Johnson: I heard that there may be a probl~, with facilities at
South Shore. Can anybody address that for m~? I heard that you might have to
move or something.
f2~ta St. John: I'm f~r~a St. John and at the present time we are using scme
rooms in the old Excelsior high school which at one time was used for classrooms
and then the enrollment declined in the district and other people have moved in
and are paying rent. Well now the school enrollment is going up again and they.
are very pinched to have m~re space and we don' t know what this task force is
going to cc~e up with. Either building or it's talked about that they. ~ant to
tear the building down or use it in another way. We just don't know. We're
just keeping our fingers crossed that we' 11 have a place to meet.
Councilman Johnson: So you're going day to day right noW?
St. John: Day to day, right. And thank you for your support.
Councilman Johnson: I think everybody here has been there at one time or
another. They. invite us annually for various things and it's really, the
enth~mia~, going on in that place. The people that are working and the arts and
crafts are j~mt F~3nificent.
Hazel Johnson: I'd like to invite anybody to ccme anytime and visit us. Just
let us know if you want to ccme for a meal and let us know a few days ahead of
time.
Councilman Johnson: And these ladies can cook, let me tell you. I've had a
m~al there before.
Mayor Ch~Hel: Especially their desserts. Thank you very much for coming. We
appreciate it. Is there anyone else wishing to make Council presentation at
this particular time?
11
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
Jeff Dipwik: I think this is the right ti~. My na~e is Jeff Dipwik, 10300
Great Plains Blvd., (]3anhassen. I guess I have a question as much as anything.
I read here a couple 3 weeks ago about this problem over at Moon Valley and
G & T Trucking and I guess I'm a little confused. All of a sudden the last
couple of weeks I see belly d~os running down CR 14 in a steady stream.
There's a sign on TH 101 where I live watch for trucks. I did a little research
and find out that they're hauling clay out of the corner of CR 17 and CR 14 over
the landfill. Maybe I'm missing sc~thing.
Mayor Ch~,iel: It is on our agenda and we're going to discuss it under our
Adminstrative Presentations. Tnat's under 16(b) which is Moon Valley Aggregate.
Councilman Boyt: That's about midnight.
CouncilFmn Workman: Is that right at CR 17 and 147
Jeff Dipwik: I believe. I saw tb~m, working there this fall and I thought ~eybe
it was a ho~ming division or sc~thing. Is there housing going in there? Okay.
I'm not sure exactly where they're cc~,ing from but I just did s(l%e research.
Councilmen Johnson: Looking at this intersection right here?
Jeff Dipwik: Yeah, that was my assumption and I'm not positive that's where
they're c(~,ing frc~, but I just know they're going over. They're hauling the
clay from there over to...
CouncilFmn Johnson: ~%at's actually the City of Chaska.
Councilman Boyt: No. It's in Chanhassen. It's 20,000 yards but it will
probably be best disc[msed along with ~bon Valley.
Mayor Ch~,iel: I think Fmybe Gary can address that right now.
GaryWarren: ~nere's Fmybe 2 sites that Mr. Dipwik is referring to. We do have
obviously CR 17 where there's sc~e work as a part of the subdivision. The other
property which I think more directly addresses his belly du~ issue is the
Jeurissen property off of CR 14 near our westerly border. There's an '88 peak, it
for, actually for repairs that was pulled by the property owner for replacement
of a culvert that was washed out during our great storm of 1987. As a part of
that work there was 21,481 curbic yards of material of excavation that was a
part of that permit. So it was under that permit that they've been doing the
work. It's confined to the ~rrent 200 x 200 foot area and there's s(~ overall
F~ster plan that involves the Sever Peterson property and others that I think
maybe clo[~s the issue but there's been no approval for them to go beyond this
initial pe~,it that was issued. And in fact, they Fmy be interested to do that
but that would rec~lire a full Council permit and probably conditional use permit
to proceed. In a nutshell, that's where we are with it.
Councilman Boyt: There's ~re to it, if you ~nt to talk about it now. If they
pulled that permit to reconstruct a c~lvert, then they've gone way beyond the
intention of that permit because they're selling that land to t~den Prairie
landfill. That clay.
GaryWarren: That's why I said the original permit was approved for 21,000
odd yards of excavation F~terlal as a part of that '88 permit.
12
.City Council Meeting - February 12~ 1990
Jeff Dipwik: They've taken a lot more than that because they've ~ ~unnin~
steady for at least 1~ days on that road.
Gary. Warren: We've ~ watching ths~ and the quantities are definitely within
the pen~it rec~lir~v~nts.
Councilman Boyt: The City's also just required ths~ to put up sc~e erosion
control to try. to protect that and w~'re reviewing the whole nature of mineral
excavation this evening.
Mayor Ch~el: That will be discussed later on.
Councilman Johnson: Or early tomorrow morning.
Mayor Chv, iel: Yeah, very late. Anyone else wishing to make a presentation?
Bert Notenv~nn: My. name is Bert Notermmnn and I'm from Shakopee, Minnesota. I
came to this m~eting because I understand scmebody's been defaming my integrity.
of the Tri-Y Drive In for the last couple w~eks. I understand that this
individual has been defaming some of the businesses in the area and thank
goodness this is not Russia and that we have laws that protect the City and us
property owners. I just want to give you a little history, about the drive-in.
We bo~3ht the drive-in and ran it for quite a few years my wife and I. In fact
T~m Work~an, I think that's probably his first job when and I hope that wa can
be part.
Bert Notenvann: It wasn't your first job.
Councilman Workman: I was child labor.
Bert Notez~ann: Child labor. I hope we had a part in making him be as
successful as he is today. But anyway, I also own the Lion's Tap in ~den
Prairie and obviously that keeps me quite busy. so we closed the drive-in down
several years ago. And at that time w~ contev~lated turning it, destroying it
but beca~ of the fact that the State of Minnesota was cont~nplating buying the
property for a ~%ile and then the Federal Wildlife was also cont~olating buying
it and using it as a resting area so that's the reason w~ did not tear the
building down. And of course because of the fact it's probably, or it was I
should say, one of the older landmarks of the city of Chanhassen. I was
hesitant about tearing it down because as you know, a couple .~=ars ago without
my knowledge the zoning was changed without my knowledge and since that time of
course they changed it back to business fringe. ~%ile I was out of town about a
year ago, the property, was torched by sc~e little hoodlums. They never did find
out who it is and of course since that time I've ~_n ~nting to tear it down
but basically I felt that I didn't want to tear it down until I got some
directive from the City that I would be assured that my zoning would not be
taken away. I did get the letter last week saying that this would not infringe
upon my zoning so therefore I ~mnt you to know that the property ~as leveled
this afternoon. That's probably as quick a directive as you've probably ever
had done before but it's leveled and so I just say that probably not on the tax
rolls now but the building wasn't worth that much but hopefully in the next 6
m~nths to a year w~'ll be able to come up with sc~e type of building to put up
13
City Council Meeting - February 121 1990
there. Sc~ type of business to bring in sc~ more tax dollars for you. I just
wanted to let you know that it's down and the landmark is down. It kind of
bothered F~ that somebody would c~ne up and defame the integrity of that
land~ark. Thank you.
CouncilFan Johnson: I don't think anybody's trying to defame anybody's
integrity. It was a building gutted by. fire that to the citizen it appeared to
be a safety hazard. It was an unboarded up building and abandoned building and
he was asking the City to do sc~Lething about it and the right action has now
been taken.
Bert Noter~ann: ...safety hazard if that individual or individuals trespassed
and walked on the property, obvioL~ly then.
Councilman Johnson: That's right. And sitting abandoned you generally don't
leave those open. The windows should have been boarded or sc~thing but now
it's taken care of. You've done a good job.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Bert. Is there anyone else wishing to make a
presentation?
PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF BALDUR AVENUE, LfX?.%TED SOUTH OF Pr. FASANT VIEW ROAD
JUST EAST OF 6607 HORSESHOE CURVE, JOHN AND ANN DANIELSON.
Paul Krauss: The applicant is requesting vacation of Baldur Avenue south of
Horseshoe Olrve. The street's a 15 foot wide undeveloped right-of-way. It
serve no real public ~nction as it deadends at Lake Lucy.. It serves no real
h~sites and is basically too steep to accc~,~te a public street in any case.
We only ~ to retain an easement to protect the sanitary sewer which r~ns down
by the lake. The applicant for the vacation owns the property located west of
the street and presumably would try to get title to it. Issues concerning the
street were recently raised during the proposed subdivision for Sathre and
that's the property, RDbert Sathre, one lot to the east. i'nat lot is quite
unusual in that there's actually a finger of that lot that wraps down around
BaldLE Avenue and this area over here over which we have a per~nent easement.
While the items were discussed with the Sathre subdivision, the Sathre
subdivision is currently on hold at the applicant's request. We see no reason
to withhold action however on the vacation request. The City. Attorney tonight
though raised an issue that we had not dealt with and that is that, I believe
there was a change in State law a while ago that requires that when properties
are vacated around public water bodies, public bodies, that the DNR be notified.
What we'd like to recommend is that w~ add a condition of approval tonight that
the land not be released ~til the DNR has been notified and we receive some
c(x~ment back frc~L th~,. With that we are r~nding approval.
CouncilFan Johnson: Or should we table it as a different alternative?
Elliott Knetsch: I don't think that's necessary in order to comply with the
statute to notify. DNR. Just ~ake the vacation contingent on notification of the
DNR. If they did raise a concern, the reason behind it is so that in case they
want to acquire the property or they have sc~ ~ for it. If they indicate
they have no use for it than the action to be carried out so it's really your
option. If you want to table, you could do that or you could act tonight on
notice to the DNR.
14
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
Mayor Ch~iel: I don't find any reason why, ~ should have to table it. I was
out there and looked at it on Saturday and it is just a tip as it shows there.
I think w~ could just proceed with that as far as that's concerned. Is there
anyone wishing to address this? ~nis is a public hearing.
Councilwoman Dimmer moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Besolution $90-17: Oouncilman Johnson moved, Oouncilw~n Dimler seconded to
approve a resolution for Vacation ~=guest $9~-1 for the vacation of Baldur
Avenue with the following conditions:
1. A sanitary sewer easement should be retained/conveyed to the City over the
portion of the existing sanitary, sewer line.
2. No tree r~oval shall be permitted on Baldur Avenue.
3. The land will not be released until the DNR has been notified and the City.
has received their co~nts.
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried.
A~%RD (~F BIDS: TEST W~.r. AND OPTIONAL OBSERVATION W~.r. FOR W~.F. ~D. 5, SOUTH
LOTUS LAKE AREA, IMPROV~4ENT P~ 89-4A.
Councilm~n Johnson moved, Oouncilw~man Dimler seconded to award the contract to
Ben Ervin Well Oc~y of Oliva, Minnesota in the amount of $7,595.~ for test
w~ll constr~tion for Well No. 5. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSIDER LIMITING THE SALE ~F TOBA(X~ FR(~ BEHIND THE COUNTER ONLY.
Don Ashw~rth: The Council asked that this ordinance be drafted at your last
_m~cting. The City. Attorney has forwarded a proposed ordinance. It is in a
shell format ~aning that staff is assuming that the Council will either add or
subtract frc~, the ordinance as it has ~ presented. We were not quite sure as
to the type of controls Council is looking to and again, as first reading, the
Council should feel free to instruct staff in whatever form ~ appropriate.
Councilman Johnson: As you know, I brought this up originally and I gave my
ideas to the City. Attorney and he's pretty, well im~l~ented ~. I don't know
how many, I think a lot of people here in the audience are here for this issue.
I don't know how many copies of this have ~ distributed as to what we're
actually doing here. In your introduction ~u said limiting to behind the
counter only. Well that's not exactly what this ordinance does. It defines
what self service m~rchandising is as a means. Self service merchandising mea__ns
open display of tobacco products that the public has access to without the
intervention of an ~loyee. Vending machines equipped with locking devices
constitute self serving m~rchandising. I had actually, I said that ~ w~uld
leave that part of it out but oh yeah, right. It does constitute self service
15
City Council ~eting - February 121 1990
merchandising if it's a vending mmchine so the vending machines would still be
prohibited under this. And then the ordinance then goes on to basically
prohibit self service merchandising of tobacco products. It allows r~otely
controlled devices that an employee can work with such as a cabinet. Tnat you
have a button behind the counter and the e~loyee can allow the cabinet to be
opened and the cigarettes removed but it does not allow the personnel, the
people, buyers to just pick up a pack of cigarettes or carton of cigarettes and
walk to the counter and buy those. Or what we're actually trying to do 'is
prevent people from picking ~5o a pack of cigarettes and walking out. The whole
intent here is to li~'~{t who can get their hands on cigarettes. We're not trying
to prohibit anybody over 18 from, getting cigarettes. I reviewed all of our
convenience stores in town so far and the one that would be impacted the F~)st is
probably the SuperAmerica up at TH 7 and TH 41. They're the biggest
merchandiser of cigarettes around here as far as their cabinets. Very
interesting article on the editorial page today too, if anybody read that. The
Star and Trib%%ne on cigarettes but the cabinets at the SuperAmerica could be
retrofitted with a device. The doors would have to be changed. Then the
counter people can control and despite what the m~nager says, he has total
control over there, at the time I was in the store there was only one employee
and he was facing the opposite direction so if that's control over cigarettes, I
don't know what is. The cigar products again are down underneath towards the
front and not readily visible unless a tall person, such as the guy who's
working tonight at the store who is quite tall, is standing right at the cash
register. That's the only time you can actually view the cigar products there.
The City Attorney's put in sc~e things that if you're in violation of the
ordinance you lose your license for 10 days and the second time 20 days and
third ti~e one year. Things like that are in here. It's a pretty good
ordinance. They did a good job of looking at it.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Dimler: I have a few minor points. Under, let's see the first
page, it~a~, (c). It's Section 10-127, l(c). I'm not real sure I'm real pleased
with the wording on that where it says the present legislative method of
prohibiting sales of tobacco products to persons under the age of eighteen (18)
and prohibiting sales by vending machines has proved ineffective in preventing
such persons from, using tobacco products. I g[~ss I would rather have it read
something like prohibiting sales by vending ~achines is not totally effective.
Go to the positive on that rather.
CounciLman Boyt: Might I suggest that we just strike it altogether?
Mayor Ch~iel: I would think the word vending mmchines, they're eliminated
within the c(m~,unity.
Councilman Johnson: We eliminate (c) altogether is what you're saying?
Councilman Bo.vt: Yeah. Would you be open to, I would think this is a little
less moralistic if we take (a), (b) and (c) out.
CounciL~an Johnson: (a) and (b) establishes intent. What they're trying to say
there is that the current prohibitions aren't adequate to prevent. Even the new
provisions don't prevent using tobaccos. We're trying to prohibit, we're j~t
trying to Fake it harder for children to get ahold of them.
16
City Council Meeting - February 12~ 1990
Councilman Boyt: I don't think it's our position tm say that cigarette ~king
is da~/erous ~o h~n health. Other people can do that. I gather that all you
w~re trying to do is control o~e m~)re point of access for tobacco products.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I didn't write this section.
Councilmmn Boyt: I would emcourage us to drop those.
Coumcil~mn Johnson: (a), (b) and (c)?
Councilmen Dimler: I guess I would like to keep (a) and (b) and re~ve (c)
becaLme I do think that as a city w~ can uphold what our health and h~man
service department tells us and they have come out with these.
Councilm~n Johnson: We can modify (a) to say that the Surgeon General of
the United States has declared that cigarette s%oking is dangerous to h~%an
health to where ~e're not declaring it as a scientific body w~ are.
Co,~cilw~mn Di~ler: That's true.
Council~mn Boyt: Do we have any other ordinances that you can think of off hand
where we lead into th~, with a preamble?
Councilm~n Johnson: We put intents in other ordinances, yeah.
Elliott Knetsoh: The zoning ordinance has an intent section. Just maybe to
explain why. that's in there. In order to regulate in this area, the City
Council has to be acting for the health and safety of it's citizens. That is
the specific municipal po~r that we're relying on to regulate in this area. In
order to establish that it is a health or safety measure, these findings have
been put in which would lay the foundation for the action. Ho~a_=ver, I would
agree that (a), (b) and (c) are not absolutely essential to your findings
because I think that the pri~mry intent of the Council is probably anti-shop
lifting ordinance is what it's getting dow to. I could be wrong about that
too. I'm not trying to tell you what the in~ent of the Council is.
Councilman Johnson: You hit it. Anti-shop lifting by youth.
Councilman Boyt: I think that you find that if you ~nt to get an intent, you
can easily go back and read the Minutes to get intent. I just wouldn't put it
in there.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Let me throw it open to the public. Is there anyone wishing tm
address this particular issue at this time? If so please state your na~e and
your address please.
John Olson: Good evening. For the record my n~v~ is John Olson and I live at
69~ Conestoga Trail, Chanhassen. In addition to being a resident of Chanha~,
I'm also the director of goverr~ent affairs for the Minmesota Grocer's
Association. A statewide organization which represents over 15,~ wholesale,
retail and supermarkets and convenience stores as well. I'm P~xe tonight to
voice my opposition to the proposal to prohibit any. self service tobacco sales
within the city of Chanhassen. At the outset I want to make one point
absolutely clear and that is, our association does not under any. circ~%stam~es
support the sale of cigarettes to mdnors or theft of cigarettes by. minors or use
17
City Council Meeting - February 12~ 1990
of tobacco by minors. I want to make that abundantly clear at the outset.
association has spent a great deal of time educating our members on the
importance of this and why they need to be vigilant when making any tobacco sale
to a person of questionable age. We look at the proposed ordinance as one which
attempts to tells our industry how it can and cannot market it's products. Not
as a tobbaco issue. We feel strongly as an industry that businesses ought to be
able to make their own merchandising decisions. Businesses make merchandising
decisions for a variety of reasons but m~)st of all to differeniate tbsmselves
from other businesses. That's what w~ call competition. Adopting a
merchandising ordinance such as this sends an anti-business message to any
potential investor looking at locating a business in this cctv, unity. I have the
impression fr~, living here for 2 1/2 years that the City of Chanhassen w~uld
covet a ~lll service grocery store. Certainly many residents would welcome such
an addition to the com~tunity as well. However, passage of an ordinance of this
type se~.~ to send the message to potential developers and investors that maybe
they ought to be looking at making their investment elsewhere. If an ordinance
is passed which regulates the marketing of one product, it does sesm reasonable
to assume that othe~ products will surely be regulated in the future. Secondly,
it is our feeling that the ccmbination of the existing ban on cigarette vending
m~chines coupled with the gross misd~eanor law passed by the 1989 legislature
would seem to be adequate in keeping tobacco out of the hands of minors. It is
interesting to note that in the legislative intent section which you were just
discussing here a m~nt ago, Oouncilm~v~er Johnson see~ to be im~olying that
the vending machine ban has ~n ineffective in reducing access to tobacco by
minors and could also be construed to imply that Chanhassen has a probl~L with
minors who shoplift. It is our view that given the limited number of outlets
where tobacco products can be purchased in Chanhassen, the vending machine ban
and the gross misd~,eanor penalty provide adec~ate restrictions to minors
already and that recruiting all tobacco to be behind the counter will not have a
major affect. Dr. Jean Forester frc~, the University of Minnesota presented a
study which was discLmsed before you several ~=eks ago relating to access to
tobacco products by minors. In her study she fails to even mention theft of
shoplifting as a source of tobacco for minors. At this point w~ have been
unable to locate any imperacle data which supports that claim that minors are
going to resort to theft to get tobacco products. ~hird, most if not all
existing stores in Chanhassen lack the space behind or underneath the counter to
store cartons of cigarettes. While it may be feasible to try and force stores
to redesign their check out areas, there are other operational concerns which
need to be addressed. A hUmbler of activities already take place on the front
end of a convenience store. In the next two months other tasks are going to be
added when the first instand lottery tickets are sold in Minnesota. There are a
n~er of tasks which clerks are going to have to do in the course of handling
the sale, rede~,ption and accounting for those lottery tickets. ~ne botto~, line
here is that while the...under the counter other produts may be stolen. One
example would be increased drive offs of cL~tom~rs who fill their gasoline tanks
and leave because the clerk is too busy ducking around underneath the counter
looking for a carton of Brand X cigarettes for a customer who wishes to purchase
th~,. Worse .vet, sc~e stores may be forced to keep sc~e of their products in
the back room which means that instead of one person having their back b~rned,
there's going to be nobody in the front. That could create an even greater
security problem for us. Current displays are designed to be convenient for
customers. The cashier or clerk usually has the display in clear sight to
reduce the risk of theft. A carton of cigarettes is probably the highest ticket
it~, in most stores. Certainly in a convenience store aside frc~, a person
cc~ing in and pumping say $30.00 worth of gasoline. A $16.00 or $18.00 carton
18
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
of cigarettes, whatever they cost these days, is probably the single highest
ticket ite~, that they have within their stores. No store is interested in
merchandising a high ticket it~u like a carton of cigarettes in an area where it
cannot be m~nitered easily in an effort to reduce theft. ~hey are going to
m~)niter it closely. B~/uiring all product to be behind or under the counter
would pose a real challenge to any future grocery store that may want to build
in the Chanhassem area given the design considerations and the fact that each
check out lane cannot be equipped with the proper displays, what have you. Our
industry strives for efficiency. We want all custer,_rs to be able to purchase
those products they ~nt in as quick and efficient a manner as possible.
Mandati~ that all tobacco products be behind the counter will make the front
e~d less efficient for ev~loyees and custca~s alike. Finally a word or
shoplifting. While there is cextainly concern about the theft of cigarettes,
particularly among minors, we are more concerned and no one is as concerned
about shoplifting as the owners and manager's who actually operate these stores
because it's their bottom., line that's at stake. Besponsible m~nagers are
continually working to try. and reduce shoplifting of the products in their
stores. Tobacco products are just one of those items that they have to moniter
within that store to try. and cut down on theft of those products. Providing
special treatment for tobacco may re%ove one sy~om but it certainly does not
provide for an overall cure of the shoplifting proble%. One very. effective took
for reducing the incidence of shoplifting is through prosecuting those
shoplift regardless of age. We would strongly urge Chanhassen to work with the
local merchants on prosecuting those minors and adults who are caught
shoplifting tobacco products or anything else for that matter, if they're not
already doing so. Shoplifing is something w~ also take very. seriously as an
ind~mtry. Solving an undocumented theft problem, by. penalizing businesses does
not focus on the real problem. Publicizing the prosecution of shoplifters may
not be flashy but it certainly sends a positive message to the present and
future ~ssen business c(m~m~nity that the City is very concerned about
shoplifting and is willing to do something about it. In closing, we feel that
the ordinance fails to achieve it's goal. There's a lack of credible
info~mation which points to a problem with minors stealing tobacco products now
that the vending machine ban is in place. While some may question the legality
of an ordinance of this type proposed here, our feeling is that this proposed
ordinance is an anti-business, anti-convenience store ordi~ which attenpts
to mandate how businesses m~_rchandise their products here in Chanhassen. I
thank you at this time and I'll try to answer any. questions that you have.
Mayor Chuiel: Thank you John. Does anyone have any. questions? I guess there
are none right now. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address this
issue? Hearing none, we'll bring it back to the Council for fux~r discussion.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want me to start?
Mayor Ch~,iel: Sure.
Councilwoman Dim]er: I guess one of the other things that I wanted to look at
the ordinance before I bring up these points is under Section 1~-132. Under
penalty., it says a person convicted of any violation of this article shall be
guilty, of a misdeueanor and I'm wondering if that shouldn't be gross misdem~anor
to be in. Should that be gross m~sd~av~anor to be in cur~pliance with our State
law?
19
City Council Meeting - Febr~ary 12~ 1990
Councilm~n Johnson: That's a different controlling thing. We can't do gross
misd~mveanors as a City.
Elliott Knetsch: Maximin, penalty for a city ordinance is misd~eanor.
Councilwo~an Dimler: Don't we have to ccmply with the State law?
Councilman Johnson: They're not selling tobacco to a minor here.
Elliott Knetsch: We could prosecute under the State law or we could prosecute
~%nder the city ordinance. So if the State law provided a greater penalty,
they'd be prosecuted under the State law. This section will really...
violations of the ordinance that aren't related to the State law in which a
gross misd~eanor to sell to minors.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so now we' re just, our ordinance is m~[sde~eanor
only?
Elliott Knetsch: Right.
Co%u~cilwo~an Dimler: Okay. My. cc~v, ents then are, I guess I would like to
reiterate that for me this is not a shoplifting ordinance. It has always been
the issue of limiting access of tobacco products to our minors. It so~v~ed to
me that people believed that shoplifting only began when the vending ~achine ban
started and that is not true. Shoplifting was going on before that. I have 4
teenagers. They all have friends and you won't believe the stories I hear. I'm
not at liberty to disclose the~, because they'd all be arrested but anyway, it is
going on. I don't want anybody to think that we're making this up. That
shoplifting is occurring of the tobacco products. I don't know what else is
being taken. However, tobacco products are one of the favorite it~ to be
shoplifted. I ~.~ess I just wanted to bring that out.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Tc~;, do you have anything at this time?
Councilman Workman: Yeah. I guess first of all the ordinance would need for me
to be happy, with it, would need to have their Section 10-129 r~,oved co~)letely.
I'm considering 10-128. I'm not s~.%re how that ~ould fit in. Maybe the Attorney
can answer me how that fits in with vending. Maybe it doesn't. We've r~,oved
vending m~chines fro~, the city and ~'ve had the argument on r~tely controlled
devices on the vending mmchines and the Conncil has decided we're not going to
use they, and I don't think that ought to be a part of this.
Councilman Johnson: Vending machines with locking devices are a self service
~erchandising so they would be prohibited ~nder this ordinance. ~nat's under
the definition of self service merchandising.
Councilman Boyt: Not as 10-129 reads.
Councilman Workman: 10-129 reads to me that those are completely allowed.
Councilman Johnson: No, this w~uld not be vending machines. Look ~under (d).
Device shall not be coin operated. A vending machine is coin operated. This
would be the cabinets.
20
City Oo,.~cil _~ctlng - February 12~ 1990
Co~u~cilman Workman: Okay. Nonetheless, I'm not for any remotely controlled
device on any kind of a machine.
Councilman Johnson: Why?
Councilman Workman: Well my cc~v~ts are clearly stated in the record frc~ the
past m~eting I g~ss. I think it's just another inch back towards a precedence
that wa didn't ~nt to get into the last time. In regards to that, Section 6,
It~a~ (g), Inspection fees. If w~ struck Section 10-129, (g) probably wouldn't
Councili~an Johnson: Oorrect.
Co~.~cilman Workman: I don't know Jay. My. vending machine ordinance ~aS so
sim~le. That's why. I think Bill and maybe I and the rest of us don't want to
make this thing too foggy. Mr. Olson, I found your co~nts very. interesting
and I know that the cigarette industry, is takirg it on the cuff and now perhaps
the convenience store, grocery, store operations are taking it a little bit on
the c~lff. We do have the grocery, store cc~plex coming into town. I don't know,
as Bill wo~tld say, I don't know if coveted is the word but I think most w~uld
agree that a grocery, store is needed in the city. of Chanhassen. I don't think
Mr. Cooper's going to t~n back and say w~ll, I can' t sell cigarettes in this
manner so I'm not interested. He's going to have an opportunity, just like other
convenience stores in town to sell cigarettes. Your [mhilosophies on
m. erchandising and merchandising decisions. Penalizing businesses. For many,
~any years I think the ~erchandising industry has merchandised these things
aimed at all ages. I think they. are h[~3ely ~lilty of also marketing those
things to youths. Driving ~ TH 169/212 up by. Flying Clo~ today, there's a
huge billboard. Orange. It's as big as it can get I think. I forget the brand
of the cigarette but it was a packet of cigarettes and one big word. Flavor. I
can go h~ve and suck on one of my gfm socks.
John Olsen: Mr. Mayor and Mr. Workman. Those are decisions...
Co,~ilman Workman: Excuse me. Exo~e me one second. When you say
merchandising decision, there's many reasons why m~_rchandising decisions are
made as you say. The free market all of which I believe in and everybody..else
here believes in. One of the big reasons for putting those cigarettes and
bombarding the front ends of your counters are to get ever.ubody that's passing
by. an opport~mity to k~y those. We understand that. That's why. Target puts the
toenail clippers and everything else there. It's very. ~r~rt to do that. We
understand that. I think what wa're trying to do is differentiate this product
from all other products. I'm not concerned about, as I stated before, about the
stuffed olives at Brooke's being stolen or an.vthing else. I've indicated before
I'm not going to concern myself in the vending machine issue with the inventory.
at a local bar beca[%se perhaps a bartender or somebody else might be able to
steal ~, m~re easily. I do recognize that as a probl~,. That's sc~ething
that I think for the greater good can be ~anaged and handled. With sc~e
F~difications I ay, for this. Again, I don't think an.ubody here is denying
anybody the right to sell cigarettes. We're asking you, since probably on your
own you probably would not do this on your own.
John Olson: Mr. Mayor. Oouncilman Workman. I think there are t~D issues here.
One is the cost of having to retrofit a front end of a store to try. and
21
City Council M~eting - February 12~ 1990
acco~Lodate this. And secondly, frankly the grocer/convenience store operater
is equally concerned about having that jar of olives shoplifted as much as a
pack of cigarettes. The reason that you have cigarettes on the front end is
that yes, in fact they can be pilfered but when you lm~t them LRo front, they are
in an area which is controlled by e~loyees where they can be monitered almost
continuously and at this point I'd like to ask Mike Jong frc~, Brooke's
Supermarket if he can cc~ up and talk a little bit about what might be involved
with sc~ of the issues that he has to contend with over there. Mike.
Mike Jong: As John told you, I'm the Fzanager at the Brooke's right across the
street. Jay's been in Fq store. A lot of you have been in my store. I do have
cigarette displays. They're on my counter. The furthest distance any of those
cigarette displays are from my cashiers is 3 1/2 feet. I F~asured it this
afternoon so I could tell you this when I ca~ tonight. Now my cashiers are
always at the register when I have a c~lstomer in the store. My displays are
high. In order to reach one of my cigarette displays, you have to reach like
this. Well any cashier standing at a register with a drawer full of money is
going to get real nervous when they see a hand c(~,ing toward their face. So
they're going 6o see that hand. It's very difficult to 1~.]11 a pack of
cigarettes off of that rack without that cashier noticing that hand going up.
We do cigarette inventories every day. Every single night those cigarettes are
counted. Every single pack in the store. We ~intain controls on them. We
~atch the youth in the store probably more carefully than we do the adults which
is probably part of our proble~-~. It's easier for an ad,fit to steal cigarettes
frc~, us than it is for a youth because we' re looking for the youth to steal.
Our cigarettes are also lined up with our candy aisle. When we have a theft
problem,, a lot of o~%r theft problem is o~.%r candy aisle. The kids like the
candy. That's where it goes. It's easy to pocket. So when they're watching
the candy aisle, they're auto~atlcally watching that rack of cigarettes at the
sa~ tiff. All ,~ e~,ployees are trained thoroughly on all the regulations on
selling cigarettes to minors. I teach them to check ID's on anybody who's even
re~,otely q%~estlonable. They've checked ID's on people who have gotten very
angry and stomped out who were legal to b~y cigarettes. We follow all the legal
laws we need to. We exercise as many precautions as we possibly can. We don't
have a serious problem with it. We never have had a serious proble~ with it and
we don't have any reason to believe that we ever will have a serio~ problem
with it. We're concerned about the kids having cigarettes t~t your ~ajor
probl~, with the kids getting the cigarettes is not shoplifting. Your major
probl~, is other adults coming in and buying those cigarettes for t_he kids.
We've seen it happen at our stores. We can't stop it because they have a legal
right to buy the cigarettes but that's where yo[tr problem, co~s in. We have not
seen a shoplifting problem. We never have and I don't have any reasons to
believe we ever will. Thank you.
CouncilFmn Johnson: Where are your cigars, your chewing tobacco and pipe
tobacco? Is that in plain view of yo~r ~,ployees? Is that at a high area?
Where are your cartons of cigarettes? Are they at a high area where you have to
reach for the~?
Mike Jong: I'd be happy to answer your c~estion if you give F~ a chance.
Councilman Johnson: Well, I had to finish it. Okay?
22
City Co~ncil Meeting - February 12~ 1990
M/ke Jong: Okay. My. cartons of cigarettes, 98% of my cartons of cigarettes are
behind my counter as it stands right now. The percentage of cigarettes that I
have outside FLy counter are also within 3 1/2 feet of my cashier in a direct
line with the door. Okay? The rack is a very snug rack. It's very difficult
to pull a carton of cigarettes out of that rack. You couldn't do it quickly if
your life depended on it because I tried. It can't be done. As far as my
cigars and chewing tobacco and that, they are down in front of the counter but
again they're solo. That unless you're a 4 year old, you can't conveniently
reach them without bending down and they are exactly in front of the cashier.
They're not off to the side of the cashier. They're right in front. If sc~_=one
bends down, the cashier will look. They are in front.
Co[~ncil~n Johnson: To the left. From where the person, when you put .uou money
up there, to the left is the cigars. I F.~an I cc~e in every F~rning.
Mike Jong: I work every, day.
OouncilFmn Johnson: Okay, but it's not directly. The cash register is on the
far side.
Mike Jong: When you're paying for your groceries, you're standing in front of
the~,. Okay? It's the only place you can stand because there's a display on the
other side of wire so you co[%ldn't stand there if you wanted to. Okay? They.
are controlled. You can see when someone is reaching for ~. They are
inventoried on a regular basis also and we have not had a probl~ with loss on
the~.. I have very. rarely ever have seen a child out s%oking a cigar. It's not
a real c(m~n occur~ that I've ~--~cn an.uway. Can I answer any other questions
for you?
Mayor Ch~Liel: Any. other c~estions?
Council~mn Boyt: Sure. How many. have you lost?
Mike Jong: I'm not at liberty to give out an exact r~m~r but the amount I've
lost would constit~lte anything per vol~ae.
Council~an Boyt: Well I have no idea what .uou sell.
Mike Jong: ~m I at liberty to give out the n~ers?
Co~ncil~n Boyt: Well you take an inventory every day. Give me a ballpark. Is
it F~re than a case? Less than a case?
Mike Jong: It's less than a carton ~hich constitutes 1M packs of cigarettes.
CouncilFmn Johnson: A day? Or a F~nth?
Mike Jong: In a two week period. It would be less than 1M packs of cigarettes.
CouncilF~n Boyt: How about the other tobacco products?
Mike Jong: Cigars ah.
Co~u~cilman Boyt: ~nokeless tobacco. How much of that do you lose?
23
City Co~ncil Meeting - February 12, 1990
Mike Jong: ~Lokeless tobacco is behind my co~mter. It's not reachable at all.
Never has been.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Okay, thank you.
John Olson: I also have Jeff Steel who is one of the Fmnager's fro~., one of the
SA stores and I'd like to have him cc~e up at this point and put in his two
cents worth on this as well.
Jeff Steel: Mayor. Councilmembers. I am the Fanager of the Super America at
TH 7 and TH 41. I have ~c.n the Fmnager there since the store opened up on July
the 24th of last year. We do not have any t_heft proble~.~ with our tobacco
products. Now Fmybe I'm very fortunate alright but we have not had any problems
and I do not foresee that we're going to have any problems. When Mr. Johnson
ca~ in the store, he asked questions about the shortages and the shrinkage of
cigarettes. I told him at that time that we did not have any proble~,s in that
store and that we had tobacco t~der control. I reinforce that statement to you
at this ti~. ~nat w~ do not have any proble~m.
Councilm~n Boyt: Where is it on display?
Jeff Steel: All the loose packs of cigarettes are inside the checkout on racks
above the cashiers. The carton racks are alongside the check-out approximately
3 feet frc~, the check-out visible fr(m, the elevated register stands that we have
by employee at all ti~es.
Councilmen Boyt: So the difficulty for you with this ordinance is that you'd
have to find a place for the carton of cigarettes?
Jeff Steel: ~nat would be very difficult sir, yes.
Councilm~n Johnson: Work with sc~ kind of, as it's written without the
F~dification, r~,ovlng the rewrote control or put a device where you have control
over those, physical control versus risk,al control and you only have visual
control when you're looking at it. I've tm~t a thing in here for having a
r~,otely controlled cabinet so to say. To where the doors can only be opened on
the cabinet by the control of your ~,ployee. So if sc~body wants to open the
cabinet and get a carton of cigarettes, your e~.,ployee has to allow him to do
that by sc~.~ F~=ans. Electrical ~ans or ~'~chanical ~ans.
Jeff Steel: That would be very expensive.
CouncilF~n Johnson: It Fay add sc~ expense.
Jeff Steel: And it's an expense to cure a problem, that does not exist.
Councilman Johnson: The other problem that does exist, which this is addressing
sideways, is the entire merchandising of tobacco. The fact that to buy anything
at a lot of these places and Brooke's is one of these that when a child comes up
to buy a candy bar, he is surrounded by tobacco. On that one side of your
co[bnter, you co~'~ ~p to buy so~thing. You're surro~nded by tobacco. Yo~tr
children are surrounded by tobacco and this is more saying tobacco's okay.
Tobacco's good. You can get a deck of playing cards. You can get sunglasses.
24
City Oo~mcil Meeting - February 12~ 1990
It's m~)re enforcing that tobacco is good for you. TO tell you the t~uth; p~t
of my intent on this is to continue to tell the children of this ~)rld that
tobacco is not good for you and that we don't want you to start. There's been a
lot of w~rk done saying that if you start as a child, that ~u're going to do a
lot of s~king. If you don't start as a child, you may not ever start. I'm
try. ing to prevent people frc~, starting to smoke.
Jeff Steel: We're not encouraging people to start ~oking.
Councilman Johnson: No you're not. But .uou're surrounding ~, with saying
tobacco is good. The whole merchandising of tobacco in this country., not just
this city. This whole country is not a good thing. It's way beyond our control
but anything we can do to stop one child from snoking is worth it as far as I'm
concerned. ~nis is just one m~)re thing.
Mayor ~el: Thank you.
John Olson: Perhaps in response to Mr. Johnson. Your stat~v~mt is correct.
You may not be, and I'm paraphrasing you now. Y(~ may not solve it here. When
a person walks ~) to the front end of a check-out. They're there to purc~
whatever product that they may have in their hand. They. don't typically look
around and go oh geez. Here are all these cigarettes. I think I'm going to
start s~king today. Mr. Workman talked about the billboard that he saw on TH
169 and he can't even r~a~er the name of the partic~lar brand. People
selectively block these things out of their m~nd. The reason those things are
on the front end, again is to prevent shoplifting of those it~ because they
are small. They're easily concealed. You can grab one quick. Throw it in your
pocket and walk on out the door. At this point I'd like to call on Colleen
Lapel who is a district ~=%nager for Super/~merica and she can talk a little bit
Fare about perhaps s(~e of the F~_rchandising aspects and what they're doing.
Colleen Lapel: Hi. My. name is Colleen Lapel and I'm an area manager with Super
America. The Chanhassen store directly reports to ~e. First of all I'd like to
say that S~erAmerica is cc~t~ to making sure that m~nors do not purchase
tobacco products fr~, any of our stores. Tonight I'm going to discuss three
aspects in which we ensure that this does not happen. First of all through
signage in o~ store. Second of all through the training of our ~loyees and
third of all, through the follow-up on our compliance procedures. We at Super
&verica have put together a signage package that b~_- been installed at all of
our stores. These signs can be found in various locations throughout our
stores. I've bro[ght together a package of the signs that we have in our stores
and I'd like to share ~ with you this evening. For those of you who can't
read this, I' 11 read it to ~u. ~nis one says, Dear Costomer. Please do not
be offended if we ask for ID for ~---.x or cigarettes purchases. It's the law.
~nis we have lamenated to o~.~ check-out counters directly where a ~tomer will
bend to write their check. Our manager signs right here. It's a c(anm/tment
fr~, him that he and his e~ployees will not sell to ~[nors. On our cash
register itself, we have this sticker. We put it right above where the door
will pop open and it says, r~r to ID cigarette sales and it's a constant
r~.-'[nder to our cashiers that this is the law and we intend to co~ly with it.
The sign here says, if you're not 18, don't ask and I guess that's self
explanatory, what that means. This hangs on our front doors as you're entering.
No cigarette sales [~nder 18 years of age. Excuse me. This is the one that
hangs on the front door. This is the one that we hang on our pack rack so as
25
City Co~cil Meeting - February 12~ 1990
our cashiers are reaching to sell a pack of cigarettes, they're going to see
this sign and it's going to be another r~,inder for them to ID. ~nis also is
either placed on o~tr carton rack or somewhere in the check-out area. Legal age
to purchase cigarettes, alcohol. We want to protect you, the e~loyee. You
could be assessed a $3,000.00 fine. We hang this in either the break room or
the back rock, where the cashier ~Duld hang their coat or take their break. And
again, here's a larger sign of the first one that I showed you where the manager
has signed the botts, stating that we are going to ask to see your ID and please
do not be offended. Through the training, all new e~)loyees are given an
o~-ientation and are required to read a training kit. Inside the training kit is
a suppl~_nt which covers procedures and policies. Several pages refer back to
the sales of tobacco products. In addition the cashier has signed a statement
acknowledging they understand and will cc~91y with all policies and laws.
Minneapolis zone has gone a step farther and has added a second page that they
have the cashier sign stating that they will comply with all laws. Within the
first month of emplo~nt our cashiers will attend a cashier training class
given by myself, the area F. anager and other areas ~nagers. One of the topics
that we discuss at that tiF~ is the laws of selling tobacco products and again
it is reinforced at that tiff. I just would like to Fake one note that one
thing we do show is a tape taken frc~. o~ store. Fro~t our video caF~ras showing
the theft of cigarettes and I'd just like to make the comment that on this 3
minute tape, not one of the thefts is taken by a minor. Tney are all adults.
The last thing I wanted to talk about is what we have at SuperA~rica to Fake
sure we are complying with the laws. We have 3 particular ways in which we do
this. First of all our auditor from our corporate office is sent out and he
goes to all of the SuperA~'~rica stores with sc~=one who is 18 years of age. Just
barely 18. Looks real young and sees if we're carding for alcohol. Excuse F~,
for tobacco products. It is then passed down through the area Fenager back to
the store F~u~ager so we know if we are complying with the laws. The second way
we do that is through the zone level. We as area F~nagers go out and check out
stores and check other stores with sc~..~=one who's 18 years of age and then also
each area ~anager has got stores doing other stores. Making sure that we're
following ~o that people are carding for tobacco products. That's all I had.
Mayor Ch~iel: Good. Thank you.
John Olson: I think given the discussion here, I think you've got a clear sense
that (a), our industry is c(m~itted to trying to keep cigarettes out of the
hands of minors as much as possible. I can' t stand up here and say that's going
to happen 100% of the ti~. That would be foolish but we certainly Fake a
concerted effort to try and do that and we're going to continue to try and do
that as much as possible. The real issue here is F.~rchandising. We feel very
strongly that it is not the appropriate role of any government body within
reason to cc~e in and tell us how we can or cannot F~rchandise those products.
(l~r goal is to Fake sure that we can cut down on shoplifting of all ite~. Not
just one ite~, but all items within that store beca~use frankly shoplifting costs
all of ~m money and higher prices. Every day. It's our goal as an industry to
make sure that that is cut down as much as possible.
Mayor C~,iel: ~'nank you John. Appreciate it. Any other further discussion?
Council~an Boyt: I've got a couple ite~.~. I've been sitting here thinking about
this. I'm not c~]ite sure how this is different than the vending Fmchine
ordinance we looked at. I'm sure there are sc~e differences and maybe we can
26
City Council Meeting - February 12~ 1990
talk about those but one of the things that occurs to me is, they. display
cigarettes so they can advertise cigarettes. That ~Duld be the reason. By. the
cash register is a reasonable place. Everybody goes by. there. Naturally you
see it. I have no idea what the profit is involved in selling a pack of
cigarettes but the State certainly makes a lot of money off of the~.. But it's a
balance between their desire to advertise their product and losses of the
product beca~me of ease of theft. I don't see either one of those as our issue.
I think our issue is access to the product. I'm not sure if it adds anything to
our insight to this matter but I fired myself wondering why don't w~ sell liquor
in convenience stores. I haven't figured out the answer to that .vet but sc~/~ow
along the line w~ decided that w~ wouldn't do that. Sc~ of ~. Not all of
them, ~lt s(~ of they, can sell beer but ~w we decided that it wasn't
appropriate. S(xneone decided that it wasn't appropriate for ~ to sell
liquor. Well we're saying it is appropriate to. sell cigarettes and our question
is how do we want those accessed. I'm not sure what the answer is but I find
myself struggling with so~=thing that usually one of the others of .you bring up
and I'm trying to counter it but I' 11 sort of toss it out for this discussion.
How does the market make this decision? If theft is too great, they're going to
put ~, behind the counter and lock them up. So it's a balance between theft
which some of them, say is very radnor and I would suspect that in Chanhassen
theft would be very minor and their desire to make the product visible. So I
haven't, as you might tell, there's a lot of quantities here. I haven't figured
out really how to vote. I definitely believe in controlling access to tobacco
products. I think Jay is onto ~t the right track but I don' t know what
the right ordinance is for that.
Councilman Johnson: To say a word about what Tom wanting to eliminate 129,
rev~)te control device. What that does is puts a real crunch on Super ~merica as
far as that 7 and 41. The other stores, and also on Total down here because
they. also have the large cabinets. Brooke's, 95% of his cartons are behind the
counter and the other dlspla.vs are quite m~nor. Eenny's is almost all behind
the counter. Just sc~e minor displays. Super ~merica down on TH 212 has
nothing out in front hardly. It's almost no impact on ths~. Really the store
that's the biggest i~act, Cooper Super Value being impacted where they. can
design because they're in the design stage. So that can be designed into the
design of the store. But my primary, reason for putting the rev~tely controlled
device is so that we don't as badly impact Super America at 7 and 41 and Total
which are the two that have the largest displays of cartons. As far as
displaying them, on the counter, put a clear lexan shield around thsm to where
you can still display them,. You can still see the~,. They're still there. None
of the things I'm doing, you're still displaying the~, in the exact sa%e spot.
Ail I'm saying is that I don't want the citizen to be able to grab those without
the assistance of an 18 year old adult. You can still see, yeah. Earlier I
said I don't want to see then but at this point, I'll cross that road later. At
this point, I'd rather have them not there at all.
Audience: You're contradicting yourself.
councilman Johnson: Yeah, I'm contradicting myself. I am because I'm trying to
be reasonable. Ok, ay? I'm try. lng to say that while I would love to see
cigarettes eliminated frc~ this country.. I really would. It's killed too many
people. It's going to kill too many. people in the future. I think that the way
the co~mtry is, that's not a reasonable thing to do is just ban it. You know we
tried that with prohibition in the 2~'s and it didn't work then. What I'm
27
City Council M~eting - February 12~ 1990
trying to do is control one ~all aspect of it. You know I'd like to go a 10t
further than this but I've tried to ~lt this re~otely controlled devices section
in here that you're against T(x% so there's a reasonable way for the people to
Ferchandise their product. Tney can still have it up there and it will still be
visible but it won't be self service. So while I do say my total intent would
be to eliminate it altogether, this is not the lmlrpose of this ordinance. Tne
ordinance is to limit access. I would love to eliminate cigarettes but I'm not
going to do that in my position as a city council F~bers for the City of
Chanhassen. Eliminate cigarettes in the United States.
Mayor Chv, iel: Anybody else? Tom,, do you have anything?
Councilman Johnson: That's my pitch to keep the rem, ote control device included.
John Olson: Mr. Mayor, may I add one c(x~'~t please and t_hat is that the
implication seem~ to be that a lock-out device or whatever exists. Unfortunately
no such device exists. You have interlocks on vending mmchines which are
relatively new but there is nothing out there in the marketplace that one of my
m~v~ers can install on the front end of their store to interlock say a carton
rack for instance. It's not there.
Council~mn Johnson: No it's not.
John Olson: It's awfully hard to try and cc~ly with an ordinance with a piece
of equi~nt that doesn't exist.
Councilm~n Johnson: Tnat's another point I was going to bring up later is that
for that particular instance, we're going to have to put sc~e time frame in here
so that device can be designed. It's not going to take a rocket scientist to
design this thing. It's not that big of a deal. There are other r~v.,otely
controlled devices in other indL~tries that do exactly the same thing and it
wouldn't be that hard to find one. Interlocks are not that difficult.
Microwave ovens have interlocks.
John Olson: But by the same token, a microwave also allows the user to be able
to pop that open. I guess the other concern we would have is if such a device
were to be created, on the interim we still have the problem, of retrofitting the
front end of any one of the convenience stores to try and accom~,odate that and
obviously th at's an enormo~s expense, l'nen all of a s,~]den down the road we're
being asked to retrofit again for something completely different. This comes in
light of the fact that, you know we've heard from, 2 convenience stores in this
town who have told you that there frankly is not a problem,.
Councilman Johnson: 10 packs every 2 ~ks.
AL~ience: Who's stealing th~n though?
Councilman Johnson: Who knows.
Jeff Steel: I would say that 90% of the theft of cigarettes is adults or m~re.
Mayor Che, iel: If you could address the chair. Thank you.
28
City. Council ~=eting - February 12~ 1990
John Olson: And I think that point is also ~_ll taken that the merchandisin~ of
cigarettes on the counters, that's designed for adults. It's not designed for
kids. ~ney are staffed front end and frankly that's one of the tasks that the
people that work in our industry, have as a responsibility, because it's the law.
Mayor Chniel: Okay. John, thank you. We've got a few things to keep moving
here. Appreciate that.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'd like to ask Jay a question. Jay, if we emitted
Section 1~-129 and subsequently then the section On (f) and (g) from Section
1~-126. Because the device is not available right now, pass the ordinance
without those two and then after the device was invented added it in? I guess
my main concern is that I want to make perfectly clear amd I think this does it
although I'm wondering if it can't be misinterpretted that this does not include
vending machines.
Councilman Johnson: It's perfectly clear that it does not include vending
machines by. the definition of self service m~rchandising.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. I read that. Is there any possibility in the future
that someone would come along under this remote control device and have a
vending machine that is not quite operated and be able to put this device On
there? It's a possibility.. I mean there's just a s%all loophole.
Councilman Johnson: It depends ~on ~hat you ~ant to call a vending machine.
If you define a vending machine, anything that vends a product, them anything's
a vending machine just about. I mean if they have a lock on it.
Mayor Ch~iel: One of the concerns that I have Jay is there's something that's
not available right now to even do.
Councilman Johnson: I almost brought in s~me designs but I was too busy working
this Lake I~'y. project this weekend. I was going to draw up s(x~e designs for
how to do this at these various stores because it's not that tough. I would
imagine, and it's not going to be that expensive. If your thing is going to
cost you $1~,~.~ 'to retrofit ~ur doors with a couple of magnetic interlocks
and a k,~tton, to say this is going to be an enormous expense I think is
ludicroLm.
Councilw~an Dimler: Well would you go for it though if we left it out now and
added it in later when the device is available?
Councilman Johnson: I think that really presents a hardship on the people who
have the very, you know Super k~erica at 7 and 41. They do a lot of business On
cartons. They have a very large display. Ail of a sudden that, I don't know
what percent of his store that is but it's a big part of his store. Must be 3~
foot long counter of stack of areas that's all of a sudden going to be very
vacant. I'm trying to be reasonable and trying to give...
Councilwoman Dimler: You think this will help the% to merchandise it then?
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, this could allow ~, to continue merchandising the
product and especially if we throw in a section where we give them sc~e time.
That ~as the one thing m~lssing from here Ms the time. When is this going to be
29
City Council ~=eting ' February 12, 1990
effective. How soon are ~ going to expect they, to cc~oly with this. With the
vending machines it was several months in the future because it in January 1st.
That hasn't been discussed .vet.
Councilm~n Boyt: I'd like to propose sc~thing.
Mayor Chv, iel: Tom, had sc~.~thing he wanted to say.
Councilman Workman: Jay I g~ss what's happening is, and I think I explained
it. Tne heat ~as going to ~s on this issue and the heat's definitely up. I
guess the only thing the Council can do is apologize to the people of Chanhassen
for keeping the lights on so late here over this cigarette issue. We've been
made to feel guilty, us have been made to feel guilty for wanting to keep an
illegal product out of the site and reach of minors. I don't feel g~ilty for
that. This is a product that for years has been misused. Missold. In vending
machines. At c~ick stores. At supe~arkets and everywhere else and everybody
who's sold thor, has seen it and has done it. I can guarantee you of that. I'm
not going to feel sorry for this issue. The only question right now is are w~
going to go with one reading like w~ did with vending machines. I'd like to
move approval ~mless you w~uld like to, of this ordinance scratching Section
(a), (b) and (c) on the first page. Section 10-129 on page 2 and (f) and (g) on
page 3.
Mayor Chmiel: Take cc~,pletion of Section 6...
Councilman Workman: Yeah, Section 6.
Don Ashworth: Section 3 and 6.
Councilman Workman: So I guess there's many a folk buried 6 feet in the ground
from this habit and there are professionals a plenty in this roo~, fighting for
the right to continue doing this. That's the issue. Inventory. No way.
Subliminal m~ssages to youth that it's okay, yes. You're on the right track
there and I think it's time w~ all took the initiative on this and m~)ved on with
it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any f,.~ther discussion? Bill, did you have sc~thing?
Councilman Boyt: Yeah, there wasn't a second. Maybe w~ ought to find out if
there's going to be a second to this.
Councilwc~.an Dimler: I ' 11 second with a friendly amendment.
Mayor Chniel: You may a friendly am~_ndment.
Councilw(~van Dimler: Keep (a) and (b) in under Section 10-127.
Councilman Johnson: Do ~ want to m~dify (a) to say the Surgeon General of
the United States has dete~,ined cigarette smoking is dangerour to the human
health.
Councilw~van Dimler: Yes.
Councilman Workman: I ' 11 accept that.
30
City Oouncil Meeting - February 12~ 199~
Mayor Ch~,iel: And (b) also?
Councilwoman Dim]er: And (b). But take (c) out.
Mayor Ch~iel: Any. other discussion?
Councilman Boyt: Right. What about, I know this makes it more ccmplica~.
I know that's what Tom's going to tell me but if w~ establish sc~thing within
reach or eyesight or in ~ ~y control of the person at the cash register, we
haven't pretty m~_h accomplished the control of access. I ask that question.
It c~licates it.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Bestate your question Bill.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. My. question for us is, if we put, if this is written
instead of behind the counter which I think is what it says now. To mean within
the sight and control of the counter person, have we given ~ sc~e flexfbility
and acccmplished 95% of what we ~nt to ~lish?
Councilman Johnson: How do you define it? Okay. Sc~e people define sight and
control as they're visible if scmebody's looking. I mean it's only visible when
sc~_~.'s looking at it. T~e 7 and 41 station. There's t~ sides to the
counter. Cigarettes are on one side. I don' t know was it the east side, and
the west side, there's another cash register. If there's only one person at the
cash registers at the time and they're at the west cash register, then nobody's
looking at it. So it's out of control. It's in sight but it's only in sight if
you look at it. I think it'd be almost unenforceable. I don't know how you
w~uld enforce a statement like that. If you're tall enough you can see the
stuff that's low. It's a raised platform, yeah. ~'nat's why. all those guys look
so tall to F~. I'm short in the first place but now I know why. all your
~{slo.u~es are so tall. ihey're on a raised platform. I thought ~u only hired
basketball players.
Councilman Boyt: I think that it w~uld be certainly open to interpretation.
Granted sc~eone could chase ~ around a bit on this. On the other hand, there's
s~me situations where it's just obviously not being in their sight and control
or Faybe we have our attorney, define what that means. I'm lookirg for a little
flexibility. If it's the desire of the Council to make this real clean, then I
don't suppose you want that flexibility..
Councilman Johnson: Well there's another ~y to do it too. The cartons may not
be a shopliftable item. Not an easily shopliftable it~. While they're there
and the displays are there. These stores are in plain view, I haven't ~--.c.n any.
open cartons at any of the convenience stores here in this town. I have -_.-~n_
they, at Target in f~en Prairie. When you go where their cartons are ~ahere it's
completely out of the view of any ~1~, several of their cartons, the ends
are open and there's packs of cigarettes missing. I don't know if they're
selling tbsv,, if they. allow tbs% to be sold individually. Since I don't buy
cigarettes, I don't know. Maybe that's the ~y their m~_rchandising is you open
a carton and you take out how many packs you want and then you take the~ up to
the cash registers. I tend to believe that that's not what's happening. I tend
to believe that sc~abody's open cartons and shoplifting ~, and I don't know if
those are children or not. I do know children do steal cigarettes and I do know
31
City Council Meeting - February 121 1990
of a child who once stole s(~ve cigars and got very sick.
Councilm~n Boyt: Let's try to amend it here and see if it goes. I would move
that w~ amend this and direct our attorney to construct language that would
indicate that cigarettes and other tobacco products m~st be within the sight and
physical control of someone at the counter.
Councilwoman Dim]er: Wait a minute though. We have a motion on the floor.
Councilm~n Boyt: No, I'm amending that. I think it's all in order to att2%pt
to amend a motion and I'm looking for a second.
Councilwoman Dimmer: Which section are you amending?
Councilmmn Johnson: He's asking for the attorney a whole reword.
Councilmmn Workm~n: I g~ss I would suggest, if this is going to be the first
of two readings, that we pass it basically as we had it with instructions to the
attorney to look into those modifications.
Councilman Boyt: If w~ think there's a possibility that it will pass, that
makes sense. If there isn't, then we might as well face up to it. So I would
move that we seek to investigate the appropriateness of adding within the sight
and physical control of the counter person.
Councilman Johnson: Physical control. That m~ans that the counter person can
physically touch it?
Councilm. sn Boyt: Yeah. Sight. I want sc~e possibilities here that give us a
little more flexibility than strictly behind the counter.
Councilman Johnson: Within sight you can have a mirror up here that looks down
an aisle and they could be way down that aisle and they're within sight.
Councilm~n Boyt: Direct sight. I don't know. I don't know Jay. If you don't
want to [m]rsue it, I don't want to spend a whole lot more time on this.
Mayor Chv, iel: I don't either. I think we sho, tld start moving on it.
Councilman Johnson: I think we'd have a real probl~, with that.
Mayor Chmiel: We have an existing motion on the floor.
Councilm~n Boyt: So there's no second to that?
Mayor Chmiel: I don't see one coming.
Councilman Boyt: Well I've got one other c(xmv~nt then and then I'm ready to do
whatever you want to do on this and that is, I'm confident that the State
legislature in their wisdom, is going to attempt to take this completely out of
our control because of what I see happening around us with this issue.
Mayor Chmiel: That could very well be. But ~ntil then I think we're sitting
back and trying to protect the youth of our city. I think that was the basic
32
City Council Meeting - February 12~ 1990
intent of what ~'re proposing. So ~ have a m~tion on the floor with a second
to r~m~ve it~ (c) under Section 1, and change (d) to (c) and it~ (e) to (d).
Councilman Johnson: And modify. (a).
Mayor C~iel: Yes. And m~dification to item (a). In addition to that,
r~oving Section 3 and re,Loving Section 6. Call a question.
Council~m%an Dimmer: Just a point of clarification. ~hat did you say under
Section 10-127.17 Are you making (d) (a) ?
Mayor Ch~iel: Under those p~rticular items with modification to it~ (a). (b).
(c) is struck. Rather than having it as (d), just ~ve it down to (c) and (d).
Co~.~cilw~an Dimler: Okay.
Councilman Johnson: No, (b)'s not m~dified. (a) is m~dified.
Councilman Boyt: Mr. Mayor, this is a first reading so those people that want
to get on the public record can ccme at us 2 weeks fr~, today.
Mayor Ch%iel: That's exactly right.
Councilman Workman m~ved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the first
reading of an Ordinance ~nding Chapter 10 of the Chanhassen City. Code by
adding provisions regulating the sale of tobacco products with the following
a%en~nts:
k~end Section 10-127.1 to read as follows:
(a) The ~rgeon General of the United States has determined that cigarette
~king is dangerous to h~an health;
(b) The National Institute on ~rug Abuse found that cigarette s%oktng precedes
and ~ay be predictive of adolescent illicut clru~ use;
(c) Open display makes tobacco products easier to shoplift and therefore more
accessible to persons under the age of eighteen (18); and
(d) The enactment of this ordinance directly pertains to and is in furtherance
of the health, safety, and general w~lfare of the residents of the City,
particularly those residents under eighteen (18) years of age.
Delete Section 3 and delete Section 6. Ail voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Mayor ~,iel: Thank you. This will be on in 2 weeks fr~m today.
33
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
REVI~ FINAL MEDIAN ALTERANTIVES FOR KLINGELHUTZ PROPERTY~ GREAT PLAINS
BOULEVARD AT SO0 LINE RAILROAD TRACKS.
Gary Warren: This ite~, is unfinished business started approximately a .~=ar ago
as...staff report in which case, hardly at the interest of trying to complete
our railroad crossing at Great Plains Blvd. w~ w~re in earnest trying to get
this median issue resolved. Specifically as it relates to turning movements
into the Dinner Theatre and access into the Klingelhutz-C~aven property. At
that tiF~ Council had looked at n~,erous alternatives which I did include in the
staff report and won't go into in great detail. Basically had requested staff
to look further at alternative 2 of the proposal which I will put up here.
Alternative 1 basically providing median cuts into the Klingelhutz property and
also providing I think the scale of this drawing is a little bit deceptive but
providing turn lane ~v~nt for access into the Dinner Theatre. The concern at
that ti~ which staff was then directed to re-evaluate the alternatives, was for
rear end potential for a vehicle waiting to t~rn into the Klingelhutz property..
It either was prohibitive frc~ that mov~_nt because of stacked cars waiting for
the F~v~_nt into the Dinner Theatre or any minor interruption which would cause
him to stay in the thru lane for Great Plains Blvd. on the south and then which
is contrary to the rest of the ~dian cut concept on the West 78th Street road
section. This was further reviewed and in fact an Alternative 2(b) looked like
it Fay strike a good compromise for the access. Basically I think w~ thought
that w~ had something that was workable here in that we were able to provide the
protected turning movement for southbo%~nd traffic into the Klingelhutz property
while also providing protected left turns into the Dinner Theatre. On further
study and discussions with the Dinner Theatre people, we have done sc~e analysis
as to the Fmgnitude of the turn mov~,ents into the Dinner Theatre and basically
the Dinner Tneatre has capacity for 1,000 people as it c~rrently exists and
there's discussions and I guess we all hear about plans for expansion but there
are apparently plans for adding onto the Dinner Theatre. ~t currently there's
about 1,000 capacity at the Dinner Theatre. We've analyzed it and estimate that
approximately 270, roughly there's about 2 people per vehicle. On the average
it's a little bit higher for the Dinner Theatre that tend to, you've got about
300 vehicles that are co~,ing to the Dinner Theatre for the events. Of that
about 270 of those vehicles are esti~..ated to use this access. 70 of those
roughly southbo[%nd and the vast Fajority, about 200 of those vehicles are
northbound. Turning vehicles looking to use this access. With the turning,
the median as it shows in this alternative here, re only able to stack one,
possibly two vehicles in this shorten ~dian because of providing obviously for
the southbo~nd F~dian. Design standards for 200 turning vehicles during the
peak hour would suggest that we have 5 to 7 vehicles storage in that lane to
have a reasonable amount. That relates to approximately 125 to 175 feet of t[trn
lane. Our total median width frcm the railroad tracks to this location is about
200 feet so we could get basically 175 foot turn lane in that area. 0bvio~ly
it can't be done if that ~dian cut is provided. Fr(~, the safety standpoint, in
recoginition of, I guess it's not to diminish the i~ortance obviously of the 5
parking stalls getting access to the Klingelhutz-Carven property but in
w~ighting that against the 200 turning mov~_nts during the peak ho~tr, it's the
reco~a~ndation frc~ my standpoint that the priority needs to be given to the
safety of the 200 turning mov~_nts. Also recognizing the fact, as you've all
been through this before, the access that is available to the City parking lot
which is in close proxi~[ty to the Klingelhutz building, and in fact a current
useage trend se~ to indicate that there are several spots along this property
which is convenient access and c,~rrently ~%~ed by Klingelhutz-Craven tenants.
34
City Oouncil Meeting - February 12~ 1990
Ult~ate useage of this property, is a consideration concern. What type of use
could be proposed here and in fact there were earlier discussion and maybe the
,%ltimate what we saw here w~uld provide more flexibility in that if a new
building were built say in favor of the southerly portion of the property, the
parking could be expanded to acc(a~nodate this with very. easy access to that
building and again dimdnishing the i~ortance of this existing driveway. So I
~ss from the perspective that I've ~_n asked to look at this, the magnitude
of the turning ~v~ents are I think a legitimate im~x)rtant concern. Alternate
access is available to the site, to the parking lot area. It's my
rec~dation that the Council consider approving the ~dian as it basically
was originally proposed for this area without a median cut.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Gary, quick question.
Gary. Warren: Yes sir.
Mayor C~,iel: For the Klingelhutz property, that's probably used from the hours
of 8:00 in the morning until 5:00 in the evening. What's the flow of the Dinner
Theatre traffic going in and what time?
Gary Warren: The theatre has got a matinee I believe it's on Wednesday where
they have vehicles coming in periodically. Late morning type arrivals I would
estimate them s~etime during that time period. Tmen the show times exactly, I
would expect that the majority, of their traffic is probably 5:30 to 6:30 type
arrival.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Yeah. To Fe that might have a bearing factor on ~hat you're
proposing to do in changing it back to what the existing was. Still the
accessibility, for Klingelhutz property, and accessibility from the north going
south and going from the south going north is no probl~,. Your major concern is
basically that cx~ing frc~, the north or making that turn.
Gary. Warren: The northbound traffic movement is the major...and it does get
c(~~ed with buses. I know Al's P~_re this evening as you know. I'm sure
he' 11 ~ant to talk.
Mayor Chv, iel: But to me that just scmet~ doesn't make that mA~/~ sense. I
would think that as a property, owner, he needs that accessibility, to that
particular area as well. And I'm looking at it from the Dinner Theatre side too
and that's later in that evening. I'm sure you have it in the afternoon but how
many. That's another question so your flow of traffics are at different times
as far as what I see.
Gary. Warren: There's no question that the peaks do not always correlate and I
don't know the use patterns for Al's building. I guess he could address it as
far as his tenants and his business. So we ~anted to bring this back for
Council consideration so we can get the final report off to MnDot as they're
working on the design for this median section right now.
Mayor ~[el: Yeah, eventually that median is not going to be part of the TH
101 as it is presently. Even though there's a design, they look at that design
and further control access out to TH 5 I would most imagine.
35
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
C~___ry Warren: I don't know if I follow you. This median would be a part.
However, we arrive at our final configuration as a part of the TH 5 plans.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Right. That's what I'm saying. For the access onto TH 5.
Gary Warren: But it would be city control after the project gets built and TH
101 is designated. That' s correct.
Mayor C~iel: Right. Anyone else. Al?
A1 Klingelhutz: I guess I was rather surprised when I got this big fat envelope
in the mail last Friday evening. This came up to the Council March 29, 1989.
The opening in the median ~as approved at that time and the ~dian was supposed
to be put in with the opening and if it caused any trouble in the future, you
would take another look at it. I was really sort of shocked that I would have
to even come back here tonight. Before the ~dian was installed like it was
approved by the Council back in March 29, 1989. I g[~ss I have to disagree with
Gary about the people going in the Dinner Theatre. Firstly, at the times that
I 'm at my office, which is usually fro~, about 8: 30-9: 00 in the F~)rning until
5:00 in the evening, I 'ye never had any problem. I've never been rear ended and
it's almost a year now. I think that ~as one of the indications of taking
another look at it. I've been driving in and out and my clients have been
driving in and out. There hasn't been an accident there. Not as F~ny as ~%~ on
Fain street. In fact there wasn't any at that intersection. You all probably
got the same Minutes that I got. I'm not going to take a lot of your time
tonight. I still feel that the access should re~ain open. I even understand
that the HRA recopy, ended that it stay open besides the City Council. What m~re
can I say. I do need the access. If I don't have the access, I think it's
going to devalue FLy property. I kind of recall, this ~as about 2 years ago when
this little diagram was shown to m.~. Showing the parking lot and the entrances.
Not showing a m~ian. That's when we sold the City the property. Taking the
frontage away from our property, putting a parking lot back nearly on our
doorsteps. ~ne closest on one emd of o~= property to the street at the present
time and this wasn' t drawn %~ by me. Let me see here. Set back fret, new TH
101. That means' new TH 101 is 40 feet in the closest place. The setback frc~,
the furthest distance from, our property is approximately 150 feet. If taken
direct highway frontage away fr~, commercial property. We sold that property in
good faith at a very reasonable price. Not expecting to lose access to this
property but in good faith thinking that we were doing the City a favor by
selling this property to them and letting them, put in the parking lot that they
could put in. Now I find that I'm going to be penalized, Jack Barnes and I for
being good people. Thank you.
Mayor f~v, iel: Is there anyone else? Hearing none w~'ll bring it back to
Council.
Councilwoman Dim~er: Do you want me to start?
Mayor Chmiel: If you'd like to, be my guest.
Councilwoman Dim]er: Okay. I guess I'm real surprised that this is ~der
unfinished business because I tho,x3ht it was finished business. I'm wondering
who's bringing it back. I can't ~ any need to Fake any changes. The fact
that he has an alternate access which is not very desireable, I guess I could
36
City Co~cil ~ting - February 12~ 1990
say the Dinner Theatre has an alternate access as ~_ll. I think that the point
the Mayor brought up about the time when the Dinner Theatre is Fast busy.. The
business going into Cravens is probably, if there is any at all, it's quite
dimini~.
Councilman Johnson: I agree that I was a little surprised it came up but I do
understand. I voted against it the first time. I had a probl~ with the safety.
of it. I agree that the timing may to our advantage here. I have an alternate
2(d) which still is not real great but at certain times it's goirg to be
difficult to Fake that left turn southbound into Al's back parking lot but with
the 200 cars trying to make the left turn into the Dinner Theatre, they r~_~
Fare room then ~hat ~as provided in the alternate 2 that was shown. What I was
looking at is taking the back median and Faking that into a half median so you
can stack s(~e cars back here and that during that rush period, 6:00 to 7:00. I
forget what the stage time is. When you have to be there but I know it's not
like 5:30. That basically w~uld be very difficult for scmebody to make the left
t,~rn unless s(~body's nice enough to let them go through. So basically the
left turn lane w~uld go all the way across the curb cut so at certain tim~s of
the day when there is that big rush and we'll give the 175 feet we need and A1
will get his access. The Fain probl~ with it is that the southbound cars, if
scav~b(~y stopped to make that turn, they may get rear ended. I have a back and
shoulder injury that's going to be with me the rest of my life fr~, when I got
rear ended 3 years ago and I know what it feels like. That's my main misgiving
is that we Fay be creating, but alternate 2 already created that hazard. As far
as I'm concerned, Alternate 2 was passed over my objection. It was a 3 to 2
vote. It was passed and this w~uld almost have to be a reconsideration. Not
unfinished business. As I read the Minutes here, it was a done deal. But I
w~uld like to change Alternate 2 a little bit to give a little ~are stacking
space for the Dinner _Tb~__tre because without that we're going to have cars in
the driving lane on both sides of the street. Now talk about a problem. We're
creating a probl~ on the southbound side by. occasionally, if s~mebody happens
to ~ant to ~=n into the Klingelhutz building at the rush hour of the Dinner
Theatre, that they. w~uld have a potential re~ end problem. But with the 2
design, you've got a potential rear end problem on both sides of the street as
people are stacking in the main driving lanes to turn left into the Dinner
Theatre and in the driving lanes to turn left into Klingelhutz'. So that's ~at
I'd like to ~_. if s(~mody w~uld like to vote to reconsider this and change the
curb cut. If that's what we actually have to do is reconsider.
Councilman Workman: You want to chan~e it to what Jay?
Mayor Ch~,iel: ~mnge it so you can get ~are stacking.
Councilman Johnson: I've draw it sort of on m~tne here in the black.
Mayor C2~,iel: This sort of cuts down on that oenter portion.
Councilman Johnson: I made that hack island narrower so now you can stack 3 or
4 mare cars there.
Councilman Boyt: Makes it entertaining when you turn across where that person's
trying to m~ke a left.
Councilman Johnson: Yes it does.
37
City Council Meeting - February 12~ 1990
Council~n Workm. mn: But it shouldn't be a conflict~
Councilm~n Boyt: It should be confusing though.
Councikm~n Johnson: I've seen worse turns. But see that'd be quite rare but as
alternative 2 is right now, that is what we passed last year, we could possibly,
frc~ what I'm hearing, have cars stacked up in the driving lane both northbound
and southbo[~nd with what's been passed as of now. This My maybe we'll only
have sc~body stacked up in the driving lane southbound.
A1 Klingelhutz: Which one are you look at Jay? 2(a) and 2(b) or 2(c)?
Mayor Ch~,iel: It's a modification to 2(a). It would be te~med as 2(d).
A1 Klingelhutz: You're saying from the divider by the railroad tracks to the
one past...
Mayor Chmiel: That would still give a left hand turn lane in there?
Ga~y Warren: The question is this nose here I guess. We've showed the standard
width here, I think it's a 4 foot width that could be shrunk down sorest. We
could possibly use sc~e of this for stacking. It's not the m~)st desireable I
guess because of the s~ller the nose here the less visible it...
Councila..~n Johnson: We'll plant a tree there.
Gary Warren: Well there won't be a sign. It'd be marked there I guess. A
number of you I guess have raised an issue of why we brought it back and I guess
I have to take the responsibility for that. In reading the Minutes I guess it
said to have it studied and re-eval~uated.
Mayor Ch~,iel: After the operation. After once it's in.
Council~mn Johnson: It never got put in.
Gary Warren: We w~nt frc~, that to considering, and Al I think had actually
m~ntioned it. If we could do back to back turn lanes. That was the 2(b)
alternate. See how that would fit in I guess. Maybe I misinterpretted and
apologize if that's the case.
Councilman Johnson: Gary, the bottom median's already there. The southern most
m~dian' s already there.
Gary Warren: We went and put in a, I'll call it a bav~rary m~dian so that we
could get the railroad crossing open. Part of having this whole issue resolved
so we actually drilled dowels in the road and did a raised median section that's
basically t~porary. I mean it will last for...
Councilmmn Johnson: So it doesn't have the normal big foundation?
Gary Warren: No. There's no curb and gutter or anything. It's all on surface.
So it can be m~dified.
38
City Oouncil Meeting - February 12~ 1990
Council~n Johnson: Are they having a stacking problem, now with that median as
it is?
Gary. Warren: Well the m~dian only goes up to about this point so there's no...
We haven't ~ out there to study to ~ if there's anybody ~aiting to turn
into the Klingelhutz property, while the Dinner Theatre is there.
Councilman Boyt: Why. can't we leave it open?
Councilman Johnson: Can w~ leave it as is and observe it and see if w~'re
having s(me of these problems you're trying to predict that w~ F~ght have?
Gary ~arren: We can, any of those. Any of the above.
Councilman Johnson: What does that do to ~H 5? I don't understand how this,
north of the railroad tracks affects TH 5 at all.
Councilwoman Dim]er: It doesn't.
Gary Warren: Well it affects TH 5 only from the standpoint that the State is,
based on our original layout of approvals, incorporating the interchange designs
for Great Plains, Dakota, Market Blvd. into their plan study...so this ~s an
element that it doesn't have to be. I don't mean to imply that it has to be a
part of TH 5 construction. It's just that we're at a point now ~here they're
finishing up the prelim~inary design and if we're going to get it in as a part of
that, instead of having to let it at contract, this is the time to do it.
That's the only reason.
councilman Boyt: You're saying the State ~Duld pay for it if we didn't act?
councilman Johnson: No. ~hey just build.
Gary. Warren: It'd be worked on our cooperative agre~nent.
councilm~3n Johnson: So we're going to pay for it and whethe~ it's through the
State or through the City. bidding it ourselves? I wouldn't be surprised if we
do a better job bidding it.
Gary Warren: I don't like the hack to back turn lanes so I don't think 2(b) is
a feasible alternative. Ma.u~e you can open, instead of that, that is the best
position at this point. Recognizing we do lose a little bit of protection on
the turns but maybe that's not a bad
Council~m~an Dim]er: What are .you saying, leave it open?
Councilman Boyt: Leave it the ~ay it is now.
Gary. Warren: Leave it the ~ay it is but we can st~i~ it to show basically a
double cross for turns in bath wa.rs. Both directions.
Council~n Johnson: I've got no problem with that.
39
City Council Mseting - February 12~ 1990
Councilwoman Dimler: Let's leave it as it is then. I move that we leave it as
it is now with the striping.
Mayor C~,iel: I don't think we have to move an.vthing on it because.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah w~ do.
Councilman Johnson: Actually the last m~)tion last year said we've got to ~lt a
curb in.
Gary Warren: Alternate 2 which ~ould be with a cut.
Councilwoman Dim]er: So we w~uld be Faking a change...
Co~ncilman Johnson: It's close to what ~as alternate 3 or sc~thing.
Councilman Work~n: Second.
Councilwoman Dimler: With th~ stripe.
Mayor Chmiel: With the striping is that Ga~ had indicated.
Co~ncilman Johnson: Well do yon want that ~'~dian that's there to be ~ade
per~anent to continue with it temporary? Take it out. The southern median,
there's a short version of the southern m~dian that is there hit it's a
t~,porary m63dian that does not have a foundation underneath it.
Co%~cilw(mmn Dimler: Shall we re~ve it?
Mayor Chmiel: No. Leave it there.
Gary Warren: We can al~ays replace it if it goes kapoohy.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve leaving the
m~dian that exists on Great Plains Boulevard at the Soo Line Railroad Tracks as
is with striping as recommended by. the City Engineer. All voted in favor and
the ~tion carried.
REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A SHED THAT WAS A NON-CONFORMING
STRUCTURE AND RECONSTRUCTED AFTER FIRE DAMAGE, 620 FOXHILL DRIVE, JIM AND PEGGY
MCALLISTER.
Councilman Boyt: Could we get a F~[nnte on why this ~as tabled?
Jo Ann Olsen: They were q~lestionlng whether or not, he was claiming that he had
a general pe~.it.
Councilman Boyt: Got it. Okay.
Councilman Johnson: We want to review the documentation. We were not given a
cc~,plete file.
40
City Council Meeting - February l~ , 1990
SUBDIVISION OF 3.9 ACRES INTO ONE SINGLE FAMILY LOT OF 1.49 ACRES AND AN OUTLOT
OF 2.42 A~RES, 2150 CRESTVI~ LANE,' THOMAS ASD JEAN SHIVLEY.:
A. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL.
B. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL.
Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant is rec~sting to subdivide a lot into two lots. One
lot to contain the existing single f~ily, residence and then the other, the main
portion is an outlot. The Planning fkx~v, ission reviewed the its~ and staff ~s
rec~v~~ that the applicant provide right-of-way for the extension of
Crestview Lane in a c~ll-de-sac and that they also provide extension to the south
for fut,~re subdivision. The Planning (kx~nission reccav~ended approval with staff
conditions except that they changed it to only provide the extension of
Crestview Lane and that it not connect to the south. Another its~ was the trail
eas~v~nt on the north of the property.. T~e Planning Co~ssion did pass on the
recommendation of the Park and Recreation for a condition of a 20 foot trail
eas~v~nt along the northern portion of the property.. Those are just really the
tw~ major issL~s. Other than that w~'re recc~_nding approval with the
conditions fro~, the Planning Cc~ission.
Mayor Ch~del: Would you like to say something Jean?
Jean Shirley: F~%bers of the Council. I'm Jean Shivley, the property owner and
I hope that you've read the c(m~_nts m~de at the Planning (km~ission because
this has been going on long enough and I don't think you ~nt to hear anything
m~re that I've got to say except that if you intend to consider the extension of
the road to the south, again I would ask that I be given another opportL~nity to
address the City Council. Basically I have no objections to the recc~er~ations
that have been placed before .~x~u at this time. The property purchaser is here
and would like to co~nt on the trail issue. I personally don't care. I'm not
going to be there. The trail has been functioning informally very ~11 for the
4 years I've resided there and I don't see the ~ for anything further and my
neighbors all complained about it the last tim~ ~ ~re here. The only cc~v~t
I would like to make, I think there are two. First of all, there is a ~ here
to Mr. Ashworth from Jo Ann that states that on January 17th the Planning
C~v~[ssion reco~~ approval with the following conditions. I personally
attended that m~eting on the 17th and to the best of my knowledge, n~v~er 3 ~s
not a recc~dation of the Planning Cc~v, ission. There was certainly discussion
and the discussion as I recall it indicated that at any tim~ that Outlot A was
to be platted or redeveloped, that the City. Council wo~%ld have another shot at
the extension of the road to the south. ~t at no tim~ ~as it made a condition
of the subdivision now that the Outlot could not be replatted or developed until
m~rounded area was in the MUSA line. ~ne entire parcel, the 4 acres as it
currently stands is in the MUSA line. With the extension of Crestview, as
indicated on Exhibit B, the variances axe addressed. The potention subdivision,
at least as far as access is addressed and they'd still have to cc~e back in
here to you to do anything f%u~ther with the property, so I would object at least
to the representation that this was a condition of the Planning C~ssion. And
just as a short explanation regarding the paragraph on the bottom. The surveyor
asked the City of Chanhassen how to show the extension of Crestview to serve the
outlot and was asked to label it as right-of-way. As I understand it,
now asking that that be dedicated. My. only explanation is, it was drawn
originally as rec~lested by. the City. Thank you.
41
City Council Meeting - February 1-2, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion?
Council~'~n Johnson: Well I'd like to hear from the ~lrchaser on this trail
issue. The trail issue is very near and dear to my heart.
Michael Schultz: Thank you. Members of the Council, mq nam~ is Michael
Schultz. I a~., the p~rchaser of Jean Shively's property. I w~uld concur first
of all with what Jean said and I was also at the Planning Cc~v, ission m~eting and
I would agree that the condition that the M~SA line be extended was not
discussed, at least to my recollection at the Planning Cc~,ission. As far as
the trail goes, it's interesting because I had gone to the Park Board meeting
where the trail was discn~ssed and none of the neighbors ware apparently notified
and none present. There was no discussion to any degree about the trail and the
neighbors did not express their will at any time at the Park Board. ~lt then
when the Planning Cc~v, ission m~t...there was considerable nt~er of neighbors
that appeared and none of the; opted for that trail. One of the pr~,ises that
was expressed at the Park Board was that the trail was wanted by the neighbors
and that this would service the neighborhood and it doesn't appear that that's
the case. I had the opportunity to go out and look at the property and I could
see no established trail. It didn't appear to my view that this trail has been
used, at least to the extent to have a beaten path. As far as I know, the
neighborhood kids ware as likely to use other existing trails on other property
just as they would to use the Shively's property. In fact, to use their
backyard rather than the wooded trail proposed. At any rate, I think ~'mny of
the concerns about the trail were expressed in the Planning Minutes and I think
if Council looks at those, they'll see my arguments. I would add though that if
in fact the Council does opt for a trail, that that trail be a nature trail and
not be developed. No trees cut. No blacktop ~m~t in. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion?
CounciL,'~n Johnson: I'd like to hear from Don.
Don Kelly: I'm Don Kelly. I live at 2081 West 65th. I haven't seen the m~o
that they mentioned or item 3 on it but the restriction on s~tbdividing the lot
was in the Council's original discussion of the sewer project a few years ago
because the MUSA line was extended [%nder ~ergency provisions for health
reasons. Som~ of the neighbors were concerned that the subdivision would result
when sewer was brought in so those neighbors ware assured that the sewer
wouldn't result in any additional subdivision until the MUSA line was brought
down to surro[~d that area. I'm concerned about access for my children and for
neighborhood children to the intenv~diate school to the west of us. When the
property was developed, the property to the ~st of ~%s, which is to the north of
what you're considering here was developed, there was provision for a trail
eas~v~nt through the s~bdivision. It was incl~.ESed in the develo[m~ent contract.
The developer and the City failed to incl~e that easement on the deeds on the
plats when the property was, whatever it is they do with it.
Councilmmn Johnson: The final plat.
Don Kelly: And as a result the trail that ~ had expected to be there didn't
materialize. There's been an informal trail. Our kids walk through the
neighbor yards and get to school and there's no probl~, with that. In the
absence of any formal easement, I would like to make sure that wa do have so~
42
City Council Meeting - February l~ 1990
kind of formal eas~m~_nt s~v~way going from our street, West 65th Street, to the
school. When I spoke to the Planning O~ssion, I said that the trail easement
on this partic~llar subdivision see~ kind of silly but if that's the only
option that we have for our kids to get to have some kind of easement in
perpetuity to get to the school, them I think it should be included. Thank you.
Mayor Ch~iel: Is there anyone else?
Dick Vandenberg: My name is Dick Vandenberg. 6474 Murray Hill Road. My
property adjoins the Shively property on the north amd the trail would abut my
property. The trail as it's proposed or as I understand it's proposed, would
run the full length of my property in the back leavir~ me mo privacy whatsoever
in my backyard. In fact the trail would come within 30 feet of my den so I
think the trail as it's proposed is highly intrusive to our personal property
and it's a security risk as well because it ~Duld give public access to our back
yards. Thank you.
Dick He~rboldt: Good evening. My name is Dick Herrboldt and I live at 6464
Murray Hill Road. I a% right next to Dick Vandenberg and the proposed trail
would also run through my back ~vard and we've been in front of the City Council
before. We've talked to the Planning Omn~,ission and I an totally opposed to the
trail for a variety of reasons. I think we have, as Dick mentioned, a security
proble%. Ail of a sudden, now we have access to the back yard by anybody who
chooses to go on that trail. At the present time the access through my back
yard is primarily by children on their way to school or people who want to use
the facilities over at the Middle School. In addition, there is now a trail
available next to tb~ water tower which anybody can use any time they choose to
use it. It see~.m to re that it's a waste of the taxpayer's F~ney to go to the
expense to como%arm propexty, to tear down trees and to put in a path which, and
I'm not certain who's going to ~atntain that path, when less than 50 yards away
there's a trail that accesses the school and I'd like to know why you want to do
this o
Co~cilm~n Johnson: Can I ask you a question?
Dick Herrboldt: Yes.
CounciLm~n Johnson: How do they get from 65th Street or Crestview to that trail
that accesses the school?
Dick Herrboldt: They walk right through the Vandenberg's back yard onto Murray
Hill Road. Down the street and across...
Councilm~n Johnson: They trespass.
Dick Herrboldt: Alright. If you ~ant to call it trespassing. They have the
pemdssion of the neighbors.
Dick vandenbezg: With my penvdssion. That's the point. The point is, and
ex~u~ Fe for...
CounciLman Johnson: Will you own that in perpet~ity?
Dick Vandenberg: No I will not.
43
City Co~mcil Meeting - February 12 ~ 1990
Mayor Chmiel: Dick, will you co~ up here to the mic so we can get this?
Councilm~n Johnson: Will you give ~ an easement to where we have that in
perpetuity through your yard?
Dick Vandenberg: No I will not. The reason that I allow children to trespass
now is because I can control that. I can control access to my backyard. The
way I look at it, my backyard is a sanctity. You have backyard barbeques. Not
frontyard barbeques. Okay? And I don't want public access to my backyard and
the whole back of my house, and that's why I allow children to trespass. It's
very simple because I know they,. I know their parents. If I have a problev,
with they,, I can call the parents up and say look. Here, Johnny was doing this.
If it's a public trail, I don't have that type of control and I will not grant
it.
Council~mn Johnson: See the whole thing that happened here was this development
had a trail easement through it and the City screwed up.
Dick Herrboldt: We [~derstand that Jay.
Council~mn Johnson: Now this Council and the last Council and m~ybe even the
Council before that have been trying to fix that screw up by getting a
legitimmte trail or path or sidewalk or sc~,ay that when you sell your house
and decide no, I don't want that. If so~ kid from Whitetail Ridge m~>ves in
there across the street and he wants to walk to school, you don't know him and
you say, well you can't co~ thro[~h my yard because I don't know him. ThOse
kids, they can walk down the County RDad and to Melody Hill and go around it.
I'm concerned on the safety of the kids getting to school. I don't like seeing
the~ walk down County Road 117 and things like that. I don't know how we could.
One of the plans had trying to get an easement not only, not in the Shively
property but act[~lly through both of your properties at one tim~. The
developer suggested that one if I re~.~er right. Tnat'd even be worse.
Dick Herrboldt: The end result is the sa~e. Whether it's on our property or
right next to our property, the end result is the sams. You've got access to
our backyards and currently we have controlled access.
Councilm~n Johnson: Don, who lives across the street from, you?
Don Kelly: Atherton's.
CouncilmAn Johnson: Yeah, because if they took the trail east along that
property line and then, or not east, north and then west along Lot 6. Whatever
that corner lot in the little Murray Hill subdivision and got it out there, has
anybody tried that? And that's impossible?
Lori Siets~na: Staff has contacted Atherton's and they are not willing sellers
of a trail easevent. NOr is the person, the people that own the lot directly
north of the...development.
CouncilmAn Johnson: So the LOt 20 there as it shows on here?
44
City Oo,%ncil Meeting - February lZl 1990
Don Ashworth: The parcel to the north in all likelihood w~uld come back f6r
replatting at some time so you potentially could get it through there. ~ne
q~estion ~ through Atherton's.
Keith Boudrie: Excuse me. I'd like to introduce myself. I'm Keith Boudrie. I
live at 6482 Murray Hill Road. I'm on the other side of Dick Vandenberg. I'm
the first resident of the M~rray Hill subdivision and we've done a fair' m%ount
of developing in our backyard with a swimming pool and other things. At the
time the title search w~s done on our property., there ~s no indication of any
easements or information on trail systs~s or whatevex else and we purchased this
property. I find it interesting that in canvassing the neighborhood, and we've
had people in and out of the neighborhood. We've had a chance of owners in the
neighborhood. That everyone's quite happy., as Mrs. Shively indicated earlier,
with the progr~, we have now where all tl~ kids are allowed to cut through where
necessary and in many cases, m~re conveniently than any trail syst~ would offer
Councilman Johnson: E~erybody's happy with that?
Keith Boudrie: There's only one person that I'm aware of that is not happy, with
that and that's Don Kelly and I was talking to Don earlier. I said you know Don
I'd really like to be hc~ tonight and I sure don't see where this is going to
help any to continually take up Oouncil ~ and Planning Om~,ission time when
we have a good working s.vst~ as it is. I said have I ever restricted you or
your children from c, ltting through or any of your neighbors and be acknowledged
that I never have and there's never ~ a concern over that. My. kids play with
his kids. His kids play with my kids. My. kids cut through by his house and
it's a nice safe, equitable arran~nt right now. We even ~mnt so far as to
spread wood chips down because in the springtime it gets pretty muddy and the
kids actually go out there and keep the w~ds cut back. I don't really
L~derstand why. all the com~,otion. Why. all the City. time. ~ all the dollars
and cents being thr~ around discussing this trail s.vstem when w~'re forgetting
a very basic principle in the ~)rds neighbor. We're a neighborhood and we're
neighbors. No one's putting up huge fences and attack dogs to kee~ the other
neighbor out of their yard. My. kids need to cut through Dick Vandenberg's yard
in order to go visit a friend that lives over on Galpin. If a fence goes up or
if this trail syst~, goes in, it's of no advantage to my kids. Then they have
to' travel CR 117. Now you talked about people c(~..~tng frc~ the other side of CR
117. I think the City's got a bigger probl~ there than the kids coming through
and [~ not letting tbsm cc~e through. I think the bigger probl~ is how you
going to get the kids safely across CR 117. I don't know if anybody's done any
traffic m~)nitoring on that road lately but with the expansion in Chaska, there's
a lot of thoroughfare through there now. So I think that's an issue that the
City's going to have to address dow the road and the safest m~ans right now are
for those kids to be bussed, which they are.
Councilman Johnson: They're bussed to the Middle School from there?
Ketth Boudrte: They're bussed to the Middle School. And we do have a quite
substantial path now going through by. the water tow~m which facilitates most of
the neighborhood. I apologize for all the time it's taken. I think it's
ridiculous.
Mayor Chv~iel: Thank you. Appreciate that too.
45
City Co,~cil Meeting i February i2~ 1990
Dick Vandenberg: Let me just add one point. ~ae wy the informal trail syste~
works now is there are two accesses through my property which I don't object to.
One goes to the school and the other goes into our c~ll-de-sac. The kids can
interchange with the school and with children in our cul-de-sac. If the trail
goes through, I'm going to put a fence up in the back of my yard and
cul-de-sac loses access to the other streets back there. It's that simple.
Dick Herrboldt: As far as the useage of the neighborhood children now, they
often cc~ down my driveway. Right across my back yard and I don't mind that.
They're kids on the w~y to school. That's the Way I went to school and I'm sure
that's the way many of you went to school. In FLy old neighborhood, my son went
to school that ~ay and that's fine and everything is working out just great.
Why can't we deal with this 10 years fr~, now if it becomes a proble~L? Why
can't we let it go at the present tim~ just the w~y it is?
Keith Boudrie: It hasn't posed a probl~L so why take up all this tim~?
Councilmen Johnson: To Fe history says that people get old and cranky.
Dick Herrboldt: Then there won't be any children in our neighborhood to use the
trail so it won't be a probl~L.
Jean Shively: I promised I wasn't going to say an~vthing. I've been there 4
years and why are you trying to fix sc~ething that isn't broken? I mean we all
get along just great. I think the trail issue, in my personal opinion, has
caused more controversy in that neighborhood than any of the kids we're talking
about. It is ridiculous. There is an access through to that school. We've got
cooperative neighbors. We don't want strangers back there. I do have an attack
dog but he's in a kennel. I keep him locked up as long as it's kids. I mean
really. I have ~cn down to this City Council 4 times on the trail issue and it
is ridiculous. Nobody in the neighborhood wants it so who is it serving.
Keith Boudrie: We have one person and I tried talking to Don before this
~=eting tonight to save ~'~>re tiF~ and I'm just, well if you get killed on your
back frc~, Florida, you Fray you know. We could all get hit by a bomb but we're
neighbors and it all works out. If it becomes a problem, fine. t~lt like Dick
said, if kids start riding their ~>peds up and down through there, I can walk
out and say, don't ride your ~>peds through there or call their parents and say,
don't ride your mopeds down through there. If it becomes a city program.,
then I've got to call the City. The City's got to send an officer out. The
officer's got to come out and catch the kids doing it and then he's going to...
Councilman Johnson: You can still tell the parents their kids are riding their
mopeds there. I F~an just because it's city property doesn't F~an that you as a
citizen can't call up a kid's parents and say hey, your kid's riding a moped
riding down here.
Keith Boudrie: Jay, in all due respect. 2 1/2 hours were taken up on
cigarettes and meybe that's a more im~oortant issue than trail sys~.
Councilm~n Johnson: Maybe not.
46
City. Co,~cil ~=eting - February i2, 1990
Keith Boudrie: And ma.~oe not. But I don't see where the city. gover~nt is
spending effective time or effective taxpayer's money working with this issue
when you've got the majority of the neighborhood saying we've got a good working
sitt~tion. Why come in and destroy that?
Michael Schultz: We also don't have an easement on Don Kelly's lot or some
access to 65th Street which would have to obtained, purchased.
Councilman Johnson: It's supposedly obtainable.
Keith Boudrie: I've gone...and my son cuts through his yard to catch the school
bus.
Councilman Johnson: We have an opportunity with this subdivision to fix
s~vething that isn't broken, as you say. To ensure that...
Dick Vandenberg: To break s~.%ething that isn't broken.
Councilman Johnson: TO break something that isn't broken. To assure that if
s~body decided, if you sell ~ur house and get tzansferred to New York City. or
New Jersey, one of those glamorous spots of the country, and you sell to somebody
who's willing to buy. your house and he puts up a fence and it's all gone now.
There's no long that friendly neighborhood. What do we do?
Dick Herrboldt: Can you protect every citizen of Chanhassen against one bad
apple?
Councilman Johnson: No.
Dick Herrboldt: Then why. try? What if? What if?
Councilman Johnson: We have an opportunity.. We have an opportunity to put the
trail through to the school. We have a trail plan that says that we're going
to, well w~ don't have a trail plan. Our city plans, whatever, say we are
going to try to connect schools, business centers, whatever with neighborhoods.
That's what we're trying to do. We're trying to acc(x%plish an orderly city...
Dick Herrboldt: Could I get the Mayor's convents and Don's and Ursula's and
T(~,' s?
Mayor Ch~,iel: That's the position I'd like to take.
Councilman Johnson: I ' 11 shut up now.
Mayor Chniel: I'd like to have some m~re discussion on the issue.
Councilman Workman: I'll k~-----p it real quick. I agree with the neighborhood
idea concept. I certainly agree with the property rights thing. There's only
one thing and that's one thing we've got to clear up because I had a situation
like this when I grew up down in Chaska. I live just south of the high school
and I walked up there every day. I had to walk through gra~ra and grampa's yard
every day. Now I never asked for their permission. It was kind of an unwritten
rule. I kind of walked a line betw~em this property and that property and make
st%re I didn't go too far on there. Because of logistics the people to the east,
47
City Oouncil Meeting - February ~2 ~ 1990
and I'm just going to throw this point out. I'm not Faking a judgement and maybe
this is a harsh word. When they have to feel subservient to a sit~tion,
another property owner granted you own the property. How they should act. How
they should walk. What they can ride. What they can walk. That's where the
City has the, I think the question because if I moved in there and then my kids
and kids are kids and they don't act a certain way and they're getting yelled at
by the neighbors because they have that ~written priviledge of ,ming their
~vard, you kind of get into this subservient neighbor kind of relationship.
That's the only thing I'm worried about. I think that's what this thing is
trying to fix. I think it's a terrible situation to be trying to fix it now. I
don't know what would have happened there if it was co~,pleted before. It would
change everything obviously but I think it's a real dile~%a for everybody at
this stage to try and fix it. I certainly agree with the neighborhood trying to
keep things, maybe neighbors don't get along you know and there's no written
rules about how that should be done. We didn't pass a noise ordinance this year
so that you couldn't go out and call the police when your neighbor was taking
too loud of a bubble bath or sc~thing. So I agree with trying to make it work
out and it works now. It's that down the road what happens and these people
have to go way back out and aro[~d and everything else.
Dick Vandenberg: Let me just address one point you ~de and that is, we're not
really dealing with a neighborhood. From, our perspective, to try to protect our
property, we're not dealing with a neighborhood issue here because this would
give access to everyone. Not just the neighborhood kids and the point is, the
way it's working now is, we know who the neighborhood kids are and they have
access and we understand and it's a working relationship. ~lt if you formalize
this, it's going to give access to my backyard. The entire length of my back
yard, 30 feet from my den. It's going to give public access to it and I object
to that. That's why cities have sidewalks in the front of their properties.
Not in the back so people can have privacy in their backyards. ~nank you.
Council~n Johnson: Put the eas~nent, got the easev~_nt and didn't build it.
Didn't build anything. Until wa reserve the easement, we reserve the right in
the future to build it if a problem, occurs. If we have no probl~ but in the
future if a proble% occurs and we have no easev~nt, there's no way to solve it.
But if we don't build it now, we just say okay we want the easement but we do
not plan on building this because it works fine the way it is.
Dick Vandenberg: That doesn't address the issue I just talked about. ~ae
easement gives the public access to my backyard. I object to that. I don't
object to neighborhood kids having access to my backyard to get to school.
Councilman Johnson: Until the trail is built.
Dick Vandenberg: No, it' s still...
Councilman Johnson: Nobody knows the easev~nt's there.
Dick Vandenberg: A lot of people here do.
Mayor C~iel: Back to the same iss[~.
Dick Herrboldt: Let me j,mt address that. You were saying, well what happens
if the neighbors m~)ve and then there's no access given. I'm sure the City
48
City Council Meeting - February 12-~ 1990
Council's going to charge over the next couple of years. What happens if the
easement's granted and somebody decides to put a concrete 12 foot wide driveway
through there?
Mayor Ch~iel: Exactly.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's right. Okay I guess I'd like to make a comaemt and
that is, you know I'm really sorry, that the City. screwed up here and I do think
that eventually wa may ~nt to fix that but I don't think that w~ should fix it
now on the backs of a neighborhood that's functioning well so I would be in
favor of at this time of not getting the eas~anemt for the trail.
Mayor Ch%iel: Okay. Bill?
Councilman Boyt: I guess wa all judge this based somewhat on our own
experiences as Jay tells us from time to time. In reading the Planning
Ccmv, ission Minutes, which m~)st of you said what you've just said again tonight,
one of the things that came through to me was everybody, was saying well ~, we
want the trail but I don't ~nt it in my backyard and here are the reasons I
don't want it. You're saying that well I want my kids to be able to use it. I
~ant the people's kids that I know to be able to use it and that's reasonable.
And it's certainly reasonable to have a degree of fear about the unknown.
Everybody does that. The situation that I relate it to is back when Chan Vista
was developed behind my house. The City. had a comprehensive trail plan that had
a trail running right behind my lot and the people who wexe on the Council at
that time said we don't want it. We're not going to ask for that easement. And
so houses were built and one of the houses, one of the three houses on my back
lot line said even though people had historically taken that route to get into
the park hack there and so~..e of ths~ to ~mlk up to the elev~mtary school because
it saved about a half a mile, they. put a fence up and said no. We want to grow
grass and you can' t walk across our lawn. As luck would have it, for the flow
of things, I've got a big enough lot that I didn't care and I told ths~, walk
back there if you walk back there and I have occasionally asked myself what
would I do if the City. cave along and said we want to put a trail in your back
yard. In all honesty, I don't know. Much like you, I'm ccmfor~le that people
are there and I don't care if it's somebody I know or not, but it certainly
makes a difference if it's official. So I think we're all ~thetic to what
you ~lys are saying. Another part of this though is a real irritation. I
r~~_r when wa w~nt through this issue a couple of years ago about Ostrom and
his development. I maintain that the guy. intentionally deceived people who w~re
going to build there. Live there. He built they, but the people who w~re going
to live there and the City. just to ~ if he could get away with it and that
really irritates me. The City. has spent 3 or 4 y~ars tzy. ing to work this out.
I know Lori has worked any n~er of possible solutions and it sort of sat there
because, for the last few years, because the best thing wa could work out that
created the least difficulty, and sort of evex~y would survive with, is to let
people walk through that driveway. Access Murray Hill Boad and then cut across
the water tower or wherever they could get across through somebody else's yard.
Well, that's working from what I unders~. The difficulty, that I have with
this, and the reason that I'm going to vote the way I'm going to vote on this
thing, is because the City has, in my opinion, the City has to take every.
opportunity it has when develoI~nts come in to assure that wa are doing, that
we're thinking about the future. We're thinking about access issues in this
case. And so to me, if this lot hadn't subdivided, I wouldn't have co,ye in and
49
City Council Meeting- February .i~ 1990
haven't in the last 2 years, to force so~e kind of action to create a trail but
I think to not do it now is irresponsible. The City has an opportunity to get
this easement at no cost to the City and as Jay said, w~'re not proposing that
the trail be paved, woodchipped or anything else. It's just an easement. It's
pretty much worthless ~less we can connect it with either through purchasing
property or getting other eas~_nts because right now it goes, it starts nowhere
fro~., nowhere. So I don't know exactly how to say this other than to say that I
understand your issue and I'm not uns.umpathetic to it. Frc~, the City's
standpoint and from what I think my job is, I can't turn that easement down
personally. And so my intention would be to vote to support the Park and Rec
Cc~v, ission in their easement.
Jean Shively: Can I make one more comment Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Ch~,iel: Sure Jean.
Jean Shively: Just to pick up on Council~'an Boyt's c~nts. I too am
irritated about how this is co~,ing about and it's been very difficult for me to
try and stay out of the discussion but the fact is that trial was planned for.
What is being done with my property is not a develo[~nt. It is a subdivision
into two pieces for financing purposes and I think the Council is losing sight
of that. This is not a develo~nt and I am also irritated that the subdivision
which is purely for financing, is being used as a lever to get the trail. I
didn't screw up the trail and the previous owners didn't screw up the trail but
just the fact that the property has to be subdivided for financing purposes, now
allows the City Council to insist to [mit that trail back there that doesn't go
anywhere and doesn't connect to West 65th Street and I just ~%rge you to keep
that in mind because in sc~e ways I feel that my subdivision is being held
hostage by an issue that wouldn't have come up if I had just sold the property
in one piece. This is not for develol~nt purposes. Thank you.
Mayor Chv, iel: I guess that's part of my concern with this whole thing. Trails
and me with backyards is just a bad issue as far as I'm concerned. I don't see
why we should have to disturb the privacy of other people by having a trail
through there. We have an existing trail that comes off of Murray Hill Road
adjacent to the water tower for the accessibility to the school and I know that
going across other people's property can be a problem, but for the kids, and that
is what this is basically being looked at is to making sure that they have t_hat
accessibility to the school. I too go on the subdivision aspect. That it is a
subdivision. It is not a development. You are ~'~)ving forth because of
financial reasons with those tw~ particular lots. I guess I'm ready to vote on
this particular issue.
Councilm. mn Johnson: ~nere's another issue that hasn't been addressed about the
future subdivision of the property only when the MUSA line changes. Thinking
back to the Crestview and 65th Street, while w~ changed the MI3SA line a few year
back and added this property to the MUSA line under em, ergency provisions because
of the dying septic system~. I don't recall whether there was a restriction
that w~ couldn't add any more lots. I would think that if we subdivided this,
that the outlot that is being subdivided off of the other property would
auto~.~tically have to be rem~oved from the MUSA line.
Jean Shively: For clarification Councilm~n Johnson, that paragraph doesn't say
when this property is in the MUSA line. It says when the surrounding property
50
City coun~ii Meeting - February 12, 1990
is in the MI;SA line and I assure that that's referrirg to the property, to the
south. That that p~ragxaph is putting a lim~ttation on the development of the
outlot on my property, pending the MI3SA line situation of the property, to the
south.
Councilman Johnson: Well ~hat I'd like to .~--c is that the 0utlot A be r~oved
from the MUSA line. That only Lot 1 be included in the MUSA line. That
modify our MUSA line to remove that property fr~, the ~3SA line.
Jean Shively: As I understand it, your Ccmprehensive Plan am~t already
requests inclusion of the property, to the south within the MUSA line and that is
before the Metropolitan Council now so you'd take one lot out and put that
whole...
Councilman Johnson: If the Met Council approved that other, and that's an if.
A very. big if because, is that before Met Oouncil? It can't be before Met
Council because it hasn't c(~ before us yet. So it's a long ways before Met
Council and Met Council's current contract with us says the year 2~ and Jo
Ann's ~aving vigorously.
Jo Ann Olsen: ~ that property, ms included for the e~_zgency purposes in the
MUSA line, there ~as a condition that no additional lots could be added onto
that syste%. It is an outlot so it cannot be developed without being replatted.
We still ~ to have, and w~ want to make that clear, that that would not be
considered a developable piece until it ~ms included in the MUSA line. That
other surrounding property..
Councilman Johnson: But the other surrounding property doesn't make any sense.
Jo Ann Olsen: Well because once that's included, then that m~ans that that
property...
Councilman Johnson: Wouldn't it simplter just to r~ it. ~nat w~ request we
r~ve it?
Jo Ann Olsen: Well the other question that she had brought up.
Councilman Johnson: Met Council has never seen anyhody request that. They
w~uldn't know how to handle it.
Jo Ann Olsen: The fact that it's an outlot is essentially doing that. I think
that you'd have to go through the whole MUSA line ~.~k~_nt again to
that. I think that's just a lot of unnecessary steps.
Councilman Johnson: S~3~w we have to understand that it is not serviced by.
municipal services. That outlot does not...
Jean Shively: That's correct. Right now that is correct. That connection only
co~s to the end of the driveway.
Councilman Johnson: And that's only a single connection to your house.
Jo Ann Olsen: Right and also that it's just. I'm sorry., what were you saying.
51
City Council Meeting - February l~, 1990
Gary. Warren: I was just saying, the outlot won't be buildable until it's
subdivided either.
Jean Shively: That's right and you see all of this has to come back here again
before anything further will be done, even changing what you call it frc~, an
outlot to a lot has to co~ back here again.
Council~mn Johnson: At which ti~ we can say, until the MUSA line changes,
we're not going to let you do it.
Jo Ann Olsen: Right. We're passing on a F~tropolitan stipulation. We're just
Faking it clear that you couldn't cc~ in next week and apply for that outlot to
be replatted because you could not add that onto that...
Jean Shively: Well you could apply for anything. We probably wouldn't get it.
Jo Ann Olsen: And just the other point I wanted to ~mke is that that was a
condition in the Planning Cce~,ission's packet. They did approve that.
Don Kelly: Can I c~e~_nt on that? In the a~nc~Lent that was proposed and
approved by th~ Metropolitan Council, they specified that no additional hook-ups
beyond the 16 lots would be allowed. They did specify, there couldn't be
subdivisions so I think if you just ignore the whole situation it will work just
the way you want it to.
CouncilFmn Johnson: I just don't like the way they've worded nu~er 3. I know
what you're trying to do. You're trying to say you can't hook up the~.
Councilman Boyt: Why not say what the Met Council has said? No additional
hook-ups allowed. Isn't it now, what's the minimum size out of the MUSA line?
2 1/2 acres still? They're not going to break this up into 2 1/2 acres.
Councilwc~.mn Dimler: It's 1 in 10.
councila.an Boyt: It's not 10 everywhere is it? 1 unit per 107 We're safe.
Why don't we just add, change 3 to read no additional hook-ups.
Paul Krauss: That rural density though doesn't apply to this lot beca[%se it's
zoned RSF. So theoretically 15,000 square foot lots are available now on the
outlot. The only thing preventing that outlot fr(~, being developed is the
outlot status and the stipulation that the Metro council put on the approval of
that when the house was hooked up.
Councilman Johnson: So what Bill is saying is we're going to say there will be
no additional hook-ups granted for the outlot? So they can subdivide but they
can't get water or sewer and you can't [m.~t a septic syste~, in on a 15,000 square
foot lot by our rules.
Jo Ann Olsen: You'd have to add to when that would no longer apply.
CouncilFan Johnson: Right. Until such time as the Met Council approves our
change to our MUSA line.
Councila..an Boyt: SO are we going to a~nd that?
52
City Council Meeting - February l~, 1990
Mayor Ch~,iel: Shall we ~d it~% 3 as to ~hat Bill has indicated?
Rephrase it Bill.
Consensus?
Councilman Boyt: Okay. I would m~e that we amend item 3 to read, and if Mr.
Kelly would share the language of the Met council, I think we can probably just
put that in. It says something to the affect that ~o additional hook-ups on
this sewage line until the MUSA line is extended in this area. Can I borrow
that for a second? Do I have the right one here?
Don Kelly: It's the last line of the top paragraph.
Councilman Boyt: It doesn't add a whole lot to this.
Councilwoman Dim]er: It's not what you wanted?
councilman Boyt: Well it sa~ no additional hook-ups beyond the 16 lots will be
allowed. I guess that says it. Maybe there's no r~ to make it, until the
MDSA line is extended. So I would move ~%emdment of point 3, condition 3 as
such.
Mayor ChriS: Okay, no additional hook-ups beyond the 16 lots until the
MUSA line is extended. Is there anyone else from the area that would like to
~ake a statement? Okay, let us vote on that additional recommendation to read
as such.
Councilwoman Dim]er: Do y~)u want to take each ~ndment by. itself?
Mayor Ch~,iel: Yes. Let's take the first one now that we have no additional
Councilman Work~an: Can I ask a quick question?
Mayor Ch~,iel: Yeah.
Councilman Work,an: So were we to grant this and have that whole side, ~ Mr.
Kelly is saying that he is a willing seller of the easee~nt?
councilman Boyt: We aren't talking about the trail y~t.
Councilman Work~an: I know but can I ask that question real quick? Is that
what you're saying? What are ~u willing to do
Don Kelly: Okay, there currently is a, at the ti~e that the original trail was
worked out, shortly after that, we did give the City an easement which goes to
where the we expected the trail to start.
councilman Work~an: Going north to south?
Don Kelly: Well it's actually...
Councilman Boyt: Would you show us? We have a little diagram. Maybe ~u can
show us.
53
City Council Meeting - February l~ 1990
Lori Siets~a: I've got it.
Don Kelly: No, not north to south. Right. The horizontal part of the,
actually 65th Street is shown there as going through to the property line but
there is a cul-de-sac roughly at the intersection of those four lots. I can't
see what they are. Right where it says 65 there's a circle.
Councilm~n Workmmn: You're saying the piece that extends further west?
Don Kelly: Right. There's a cul-de-sac so there is a pedestrian easement that
goes on west frc~, there across our property.
Councilman Workm~n: And then down the west side of your property is what?
Don Kelly: That's the interesting question. The trail that w~s proposed by
Ostrc~; would have been on the west side of that property line. Basically my
wife and I have discussed this and I asked her how'd she feel about ~%s providing
an eas~-ent. I g~ss we'd have to bury her out there and then put the easem, ent
in is the answer I got.
Mayor Ckm.'~iel: Over her dead body I rem~er reading.
Don Kelly: Yeah, that's what it was.
Councilm~n WOrkm~n: But that piece is in limbo? I mean you don't know what?
Don Kelly: As a Patter of fact for my kids, we don't need that eas~.ent which
is a very selfish attitude but I've been here for y~ars trying to work out a
less selfish attitude. For people to use that particular stretch, the odds are
pretty good that they would wander up the driveway and around the corner of the
garage and across the yard and so forth. I agree with the other neighbors in
te~]v,s of what we have works great. There's absolutely no probl~v, with the kids
being able to wander around through the neighborhood and get over to the school.
The only problem, is that if sc~one, I used to walk to school the same way as
everybody else did, through yards. My walk over the period of years got longer
and longer and longer because the little shortcuts that you take kind of
vanished for one reason or another. People build. Fences go in and so forth.
Keith Boudrie tells F~ that he and his wife are going to live there forever and
so it's not going to be a problem for us because our kids and our grandkids can
walk through that path. ~lt I'm just concerned that circnav~tan~ change and
sc~'~=one Fay decide to build there and lm~t in a fence. My own feeling is that if
there's a path through there, if that's what it would take to give my neighbors
the same kind of peace of mind that I would like that yeah, I would sell an
easement along t.hat north/south line.
Councilmmn Workm~n: You would?
Councilman Boyt: He would.
Don Kelly: You [u%derstand though that I am., a joint owner of this property.
I've expressed my personal opinion and of course we're a long ways from the days
when a Fan would speak for his wife.
54
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
Councilman Workmen: Okay one other question that I have quickly then is, where
are the Wolf's? The owners of the Wolf property. What is their status?
Lori Siets~%a: I've had conversations with tbs% and they're willing to sell
that portion of their property..
Council~a~an Dimler: It was my understanding that Bill had a motion and I don't
know if it was seconded or not but if it was, I'll second it and I call the
question and that was the one pertaining to it~, 3. I'm ~ving it. I can move
it.
Mayor C~iel: We' 11 m~ve to question. Ckay, you seconded it for the additional
change to ite~, 3. Okay, let us go back to the first itsm.
Oouncilw~an Dimler: Don't you want to take a vote on it?
Councilman Boyt m~ved, Councillor. an Dimler seconded to s~_nd condition 3 to read
as follows:
3. No additional sewer and water hook-ups beyond the 16 lots will be allo%md
until the MUSA line is expanded by. the Metropolitan Council.
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Okay, got one down. It~a~ (a). Preliminary. plat approval. Does
someone ~mnt to m~ve that?
Councilman Boyt: I don't think we can do that until we clear up these
conditions.
Co,~il~m%an Dim]er: I think we should handle the trail next.
Mayor C~.iel: Airight, let's take the trail situation.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I m~ve that at this time the City not require a
trail easement.
Mayor ~,iel: I' 11 second that.
Oo,~cilman Boyt: Well I think there ~s to be a little discussion.
Mayor Ct~,iel: Discussion.
Councilwoman Dimler: What have we been doing?
Councilman Boyt: We have been discussing this. ~ecognize that w~'re talking
about an issue that's going to stay with us for a ~hile, it's certainly worth
the time ti takes the 5 of us to get it resolved. I'm sure we'd all agree to
that. We've got so~thing that looks like it all cc~s together. If the trail
easement doesn't cc~e together, having this trail eas~%ent costs the property.
owners nothing because the trail goes, it starts no~bere amd no one's going to
Lu~ it. They have no way of getting to it. If it all c(x~es together, we've
55
City Council Meeting - February ~2~ 1990
given people access that they are not guaranteed of any other way and w~'re not
talking about the people who happen to abut the Murray Hill develolm~Lent. We're
talking about the people in Moline's Addition on our map. We're talking, until
w~ get scm'~thing off the end of the cul-de-sac on Crestview, we're talking about
everybody that really lives between CR 117 and the school ground and wants to
get there reasonably. They may not happen to know the folks who live in that
property.
Mayor Chmiel: They have that upper trail there to get over to the school
property.
Co~mcil~an Boyt: They don't have any way to get to that trail.
Mayor Ch~iel: Cc~ right down Murray Hill coming down.
Council~n Boyt: Okay, so there's a good many people there that the only way
they can get to that middle school is either if they cut across sc~body's
property or they get in a car or their bicycle and they go down CR 117. The
City, I would hope that we would take this easeaent because it's nothing more
than that. Until all the pieces c(m~ together, it's really nothing. If all the
pieces cc~ together, it's a great opportunity for those people who live in that
area to get to the middle school. An opportunity that we can't guarantee they,
any other way.
Keith Boudrie: I'm looking at the dotted line here and I have to apologize.
How do people frc~, the, what is it Crescent?
Councilman Johnson: Crestview.
Keith Boudrie: How do they get to that trail?
Councilman Boyt: There's only one ho~me there. Oh the people on Crestview?
Keith Boudrie: Right.
Councilman Johnson: They can' t.
Council~..an Boyt: Right now they don' t.
Dick Vandenberg: I can tell you how they get there now, which is okay with me.
They cc~e right up through Wolf's property and along my property line onto the
cul-de-sac and over.
Dick Herrboldt: Or through my back yard.
Dick Vandenberg: If this trail goes through, there's going to be a fence there.
Okay? Nobody from Crestview is going to get through that way so I don't know
how that, perhaps t.hey get through this way but that's how they access Murray
Hill and that's how they get over to the school.
Councilman Boyt: But it won't Fake any difference if you put your fence up
because they'll have a trail to go there and they're both going to the middle
school ground. All that open area off there is the middle school.
56
City Council Mseting - February 121 199~
Dick Vandenberg: So how do the kids fr~m M~rray Hill access the trailway?
Council~n Johnson: Well M~rray Hill's got their own trail.
Councilman Boyt: Because they want to go to CR 1177
Dick Vandenberg: Wherever. I m~an isn't the trail supposed to...
Council~n Boyt: Well you give us that access when you sell the lot.
Dick Vandenberg: 'There are 2 or 3 school children on Crestview and 2 or 3
school children on 65th access the school yard. You're talking about public
access through my back yard and my sanctity. You're not talking about 2 or 3
school children...
Mayor (~m~,iel: Let's continue discussion of the trail.
Dick Herrboldt: Does that trail syst~, accomplish anything more than allowing
the kids fr~, West 65th Street, ass~tng that the Kelly's sell property., to get
to the school? So the City is going to purchase property to allow the kids on
West 65th Street to get to the school? Is that ~hat I was hearing?
Mayor C~,iel: Lori?
Lori Siets~a: Yes.
Dick Herrboldt: Are those my tax dollars?
Mayor Ch~,iel: could very. well be.
Councilwoman Dimler: They are.
Mayor Ch%iel: Okay, the trail situation is what w~'re discussing. Anything
more? Is there a m~)tion?
Councilm~n Boyt: You've already got one.
Councilman Johnson: Would you review the motion again? Like you said, it's
been so long, I forgot what the beck it was.
Mayor ~el: The motion was m~de by. Ursula.
Councilwoman Dim]er: I m~ve that the City. at this time not seek to get the
eas~v~nt for the trail and it was seconded by. Mayor C2~el.
Co~ncilwm~an Dim.~er ~ved, Mayor Ch~iel seconded to delete condition 2 from the
recc~ndation of staff which w~uld not require an easement for a trail at this
tim~. Ail voted in favor except Gouncilman Bo.vt and councilman Johnson who
opposed and the ~tion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
57
City Council Meeting - February 12~. 1990
Councilm~n Johnson moved, Councilm~n Workm~n seconded to approve Subdivision
989-16 as shown on the preliminary plat dated Dece~er 29, 1989 with the
following conditions:
1. The final plat shall be aw~_nded to provide right-of-way for the extension of
Crestview Lane as shown on Exhibit B.
2. No additional sewer and water hook-ups be~ond the 16 lots will be allowed
until the MUSA line is expanded by the Metropolitan Council.
3. Future s~fodivision of the property and extension of the watermain to the
property will result in the requirement of an additional fire hydrant as
rec(xav~_nded by the Fire Inspector.
4. A cross easement shall be granted over Outlot A to Lot 1, Block 1.
5. A trail ease~'~nt shall be reviewed further by the City Co,~cil and/or Park
and Recreation Cc~ission.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilm~n Workm~n moved, Councilwc~n Dimler seconded to approve the final plat
for Subdivision 989-16 for Shively Addition with the following conditions:
1. The extension of Crestview Lane shall be dedicated as public right-of-way
and labeled as Crestview Lane.
2. A cross easemLent shall be provided for access over Outlot A to Lot 1, Block
1.
3. Typical drainage and utility easements shall be provided along Crestview
Lane.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 20.9 ACRES INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 10.1 AND
10.2 ACRES, LOCATED OFF OF ~D EAST OF LAKE MINNEEASHTA), PETER AND DEANNA
BRANDT.
Councilmmn Johnson: Jo Ann, as you start this, didn't wa subdivide this
property a couple years ago? But that never went thro~3h?
Gary Warren: It never w~nt through.
Councilm~n Boyt: Before you proceed, if it's 11:00, then I would move that we
adjourn.
Mayor Ch~Liel: I would motion that ~ continue on with the next and proceed with
what w~ have going. There are people sitting here who have been here all night
waiting to discuss s~ of these things.
58
City Council Meeting - February l~ 199M
Councilman Boyt: We would ~ to a~end our rules. If that would be you~
motion then.
Mayor Chv~el: That would be my m~)tion to a~erd the rules. Is there a second?
Mayor C2~el moved, Oouncilw~man Dimler seconded t~ ar~m~d the Rules of Procedure
for the City Council to consider an it~ after the City Council's curfew. Ail
voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and the motion carried with a
vote of 4 to 1.
Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2~ acre piece into tw~
1~ acre parcels. The issues with this one are future road access and
impro~nt to existing roads. Staff proposed to the Planning Omv~,ission that
the applicant provide the necessary easev~nt to provide the full 5~ foot right-
of-way to serve the lot and we also recognize that that be approved... The
Planning Om~,ission feet,mended the easement be provided but that the road not
be improved at this time. They did go alone3 with staff rec(ar~emdations to
provide future easements to the east and the Park and Bec Oar~ssion's proposal
for the trail ease%ent so w~ are recc~v,e~ding approVal with the Planning
Cc~,ission's conditions. Again that does not recc~me~S im(oroving the street at
this time. They brought another plan amd I can put it up here so you can mc
it... The other issues that originally they were going to have the turn around
in this location. They have moved that more to the north so that will service
s(~e of the other existing lots. We are asking and this isn't a condition, that
we ~ to add it in that they provide an easememt for the turn around where
it's being proposed to be moved. Other than that we're recc~mer~ing approval
with the conditions and that one a~.~dmemt.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Is there anyone here who would like to address this?
Ken Daniels: Daniels is my name. F~n is the first name. We have 3 people here
that are concermed. Beally t~o people that are involved and they're in favor of
this. They have no objections. I think everybody's ~)oth and everything's
worked out. We had a long time...city planning ard I won't take up your time
anymore.
Councilman Johnson: ~here do you live?
Ken Daniels: Where do I live?
Councilman Johnson: Are you o~e of the neighbors or are you the proposer?
Ken Daniels: I'm on the buyers. The other buyer's right there.
Co~cilm~n Johnson: That's the other buyer. You said there were 3 people here
then. The existing owner?
Ken Daniels: Right.
59
City Council Meeting - February '~'Z 1990
Councilman Johnson: Okay, and everything's ~ooth? Okay. No neighbors showed
up?
Ken Daniels: No. ~ney w~re here at the Planning.
Tim Foster: Dan Herbst is here. He's the Crimson Bay neighbor.
Mayor Chv, iel: Dan, would you like to co~ up? Do you have something to say?
Dan Herbst: I'm Dan Herbst. I live on Crimson Bay and also developed Crimson
Bay and I support the proposal. I think they're done a lot of housework with
your Planning Com~,ission and yo~r staff and it's a good plan before you.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I like this c%~l-de-sac further north too.
Mayor Chv, iel: Okay, discussions.
CounciLman Johnson: Does that make that Lot 2 a flag lot then out to a
cul-de-sac?
Jo Ann Olsen: Tnat still has the right-of-way. The right of way is here.
Councilman Johnson: Oh, the right-of-way still goes but they're just building a
c~ll-de-sac back there and he's going to put a driveway through the right-of-way?
Jo Ann Olsen: Right. Well actually the right-of-way's going to be going on the
easev~nt over Lot 1 to Lot 2. They're going to be providing it but wa'll still
need an eas~nt... The right-of-way will be there but will not be improved
unless you recc~m, end so.
Co~mciLman Workman: So the future of a road going through, all the ~ay through
Jo Ann Olsen: Unless you request that eas~v~nt to be provided at this ti~,
it's pretty much a dead issue.
CounciLman Johnson: ~nere's sc~ pretty bad topography there ain't there?
Jo Ann Olsen: It can be done though.
Councilman Boyt: What would the grade he?
Jo Ann Olsen: 7% to 10%.
CounciLman Boyt: We do it all the time.
CounciLman Johnson: How many trees, that's a forested area.
Dave He%pel: The applicant has a drawing showing the impact of the grading with
the 7% grade. It would approximately take about 150 foot swath through here for
our current standard rural width of 24 foot of bit[=,inous with 6 foot gravel
shoulders and a ditch section with 3:1 slopes.
Jo Ann Olsen: But that'd be a lot less with a 10% grade.
6~
City Oouncil Meeting - February 121 1990
Dave H~pel: With a 1M% grade it w~uld reduce s~e of the area down2
Mayor C~iel: Jay, did you have an~re c(x~nts?
Councilman Johnson: No.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Bill?
Councilman Boyt: Tell Fe about the iv, pact again of moving the cul-de-sac?
We've got it out of the trees?
Jo Ann Olsen: The t~lrn around that they're proposing is not going to affect the
trees.
Council~n Boyt: Well the originally proposed cul-de-sac was going to take
c~lite a whack out of the trees as I recall.
Foster: Tnat's where the power line cleared...
Councilman Boyt: It's already, gone? I think we should add in the condition
that the Planning (kav~,ission took out. I don't know if it's because they didn't
understand why it was in there. I think that was probably it but Lots 1 and 2
waive their rights to contest f~ture assessments as part of im~rov~ents to
Dogwood. The reason for that being in there is because they're creating the
need, the ~ture ~ for the assessments and so they're just simply saying we
agree that if they're n~ed or when they're n~ed, we'll do the%. JUst don't
assess ~ for them, now. And so we're just Faking things easier. It's not
taking away so~_body's right to protest. Now would be the time to do that but
it is saying it's part of this issL~ and we ~ to resolve it as part of this
develoImv~nt.
CoL~cilman Johnson: They also have the right to protest the lm~lic im~orov~nt.
Councilman Boyt: Sure. Ail we're saying, they're simply not contesting the
assessments. The other part, being consistent, I suspect this shouldn't
surprise anybody that was here through the last debate. I think it's important
to take eas~,~nts when the City can get th~. for free. I don't know if that's a
very. good way to go out and there may well be a point at which the City. comes
back as they did earlier this evening and vacate that eas~%ent. But it Fakes
sense to have the potential to have tw~ wa.~s in and out of s(~ething. This is a
chance for the City to begin to get that and it does create hardship to the
property. It's kind of the situation, not getting that easement creates a
potential for a hardship to people scot,day when that's m~bdivided so I would
enco,=age [m to take the easement and include the condition that Lots 1 and 2
waive their rights to contest future assessment as part of improvements to
D w d.
Tim, Foster: The eass~ent to?
Th,, Foster: Over to Crimson Bay?
61
City Co~cil Meeting - February 121 1990
Tim Foster: The preliminary plat approval in 1987 was without it but you
changed your ~nd?
CouncilFmn Boyt: Well ~e had, at that point Tim we were looking at, as I
recall, at a road that went way off to the east. Didn't it curve back around
that way? There was s~ Fmjor road.
Tim Foster: When I was going to k~ild a house there instead of the Brandt's,
the issue was the safe and it's just that there were 3 lots, not 2. That's all
we ware talking about.
Mayor Chrdel: Would you like to cc~ up to the Fdcrophone so we can capt,%re
this on the Minutes?
Tim Foster: Tip; Foster. 6370 Pleasant View Cove. Jo Ann and I and a n~er of
people have ~n working on this for sc~ ti~e and originally I was going to
~'~)ve there and the sa~ issue was, is the easement going to go through to
Cri~.~on Bay and at that tiF~ it was suggested that it wasn't and the easement in
front of now the two lots, and w~ req~ested 3 at that tiff, and there was a
potential at that tip~ of act~mlly, because of the fact that we didn't know what
we were going to do with the 80 acres. Okay? And now we know that
Co~rtenoy is building one h(~ there, okay at this tiff. And Ken Daniels is
going to build one ho~ on a 10 acre lot and the Brandt's are going to build
another hc~ so I think the timing is right to get an easement but I don't think
the timing is right here because of the fact that really it's actually less
density by 1 lot than it was in 1987 and you were going to allow F~ at that ti~
to build a ho~me there without an easement thro~3h to Crimson Bay.
CouncilFmn Boyt: Wasn't it, I'm trying to think back to that because we don't
have the Minutes to that ~=eting ~t that had sc~thing to do with where you
were putting your house. Weren't you putting your house so we were separating
your house fro~. the lake or so~thing like that with that easement?
Tim Foster: No. The road act~mlly had my house placed and designed Bill and
the road ended up kind of going through the corner of ~ garage so no, it
wasn't. I had ~'~t this morning with the people at Jim Hill's office and they
suggested that it is relatively difficult. Dan Herbst's house that he has right
next that is currently for sale would have, to bring that driveway up to grade,
would have a relatively steep driveway and I don't think any of the neighbors in
the Crimson Bay want that type of traffic going through their place so I think
the tiF~ to deal with the issue is really when sc~_body c~s in to develop the
80 acres or the Brandt's or the Daniels develop their 10 acres. There's really
not a whole lot F~)re development can go on there.
Councila.'~n-Boyt: Tim, the dil~a is, and I can understand why CriF~on Bay
doesn't want this road coming in. It's that there's no way that we can lay out
a road...
Tim Foster: You don't need a road now Bill.
CouncilF~n Boyt: No, but just wait until I finish this point. On a piece of
~u%developed property. We can't lay a network of roads on Chanhassen
unfortunately and say okay, this is it. Now build aro~ux] it. We have to take
62
City Oo,~cil Meeting - February 12~ 1990
th~ pieces as they cc~ to us. And so you get Crimson Bay and son of a gun, it
doesn't go all the way up to the north. So w~ don't get to build a road all the
~ay up to s(~=place in the north and now this one doesn't go all the way to
Crimson Bay. S~ewhere out here and maybe this isn't the point at which w~
fight it, I don't know, but sc~~re wa'ye got to have a plan on ~ahere the
roads are going in this town and where the trails are going or we'll end up with
a bunch of dead ex]s.
Tim Foster: Bill, you have an 80 acre parcel and two 10 acre parcels and I
think the tim~ to do it obviously, if it always stays that way, then the road
situation is possibly you'll improve the road that goes by the Girl Scout Camp
so I j~%st don't think the timing is right. You don't r~ the cards now. You
don' t really ~ them in yoiu~ hand. I think when s~meone cc~s in.
Co~mcilman Johnson: We'll never get the% in the future.
Tim Foster: ~hy not? You still control the deck. Someone has to cc~ to ~u
to get f,=ther subdivision Jay.
Council~n Johnson: If Lot 2 never further subdivides.
Tim Foster: Correct.
Co~%ncilman Johnson: Whichever one that is, and a lot of people sitting around
thinking...don't, w~'re never given the deck back. We have to ask for that deck
back. We have to have a subdivision in order to get that easement. If w~ get
the easement now, w~ retain that card you know.
Tim Foster: I think it's an undue hardship on that Lot 2. It's not talking
about a trail which they are suggesting a trail and we worked with Jo Ann. Or
she did and the Park people for the trail going around it but this just isn't a
trail with sc~~ walking across close to your garage. It's a road close to
your garage so therefore it's still...
Councilman Johnson: An easev~nt.
Tim Foster: I ,u~derstand. I think it still is the time for is when the major
portion cc~s in and that's when either the 80 acres or sc~e~ajor develoIm%ent
cc~s in there and I don't forsee that occurring until the MUSA line allows some
type of develo[a~nt there. And when that's going to occur, I still think Jay
that you control the cards.
C~cilFan Johnson: Not for Lot 2. We control LOt 2 today. ~en that 80 acres
develops, we control that 80 acres but we control LOt 2 today. And if we give
away that, we' re going to hand t~, that card today. We' re going to say here it
is. No easement or we're going to keep the card. We're going to have this
eama%ent and we'll slide that thing up our selves to play it sc~e other day but
if we hand the card over, unless they. want to cc~e in and give the card back to
TL~, Foster: As you recall the studies done by. Van Horn or ~hatever the name of
the people was that did the studies, there wasn't any of the roads that went
thro~lgh to TH 5. They all w~nt in and came back out through the 80 acres. It
wasn't even suggested that they go thro~h there anti, ay I think.
63
City Council Meeting - Febr~ary 12~ 1990
Councilman Johnson: Now does Crimson Bay have a road access going all the way
to the property line? A road easement?
Gary. Warren: Yes.
Jo Ann Olsen: A 25 foot easement.
Councilman Johnson: 25 feet. So when the property to the north of th~,
develops, they. get another 25 and have 50.
Gary Warren: The property to the east of them.
CouncilFan Johnson: Or east of th~,.
Gary Warren: The Arboretum's.
Councilman Johnson: The Arboretum. If the Arboretl~, ever w~re to develop, then
we would be able to connect and there would be the ability to go out to TH 5.
There would be the ability to access Crimson Bay fro~, the north versus having to
access it only from TH 5 in case of a natural disaster or s~methlng. It makes
sense to reserve that ability. I don't know, there's probably 10 ti~s a year
we give back those ease~.~nts because we got them 20 years ago, 30 years ag~ and
finally decided they weren't worth having but so~thing could have changed and
they might have been worth having. Once you give it away, you never get it
back.
Tim Foster: Never say never.
CouncilFan Johnson: I haven't seen ~'any people come walking ~ and say, oh
yeah. Co~e on and put a road access through here.
Co~mcilw~an Dimler: Jay, I guess I would like to hear the two buyers of the
property c(~e up and tell us how getting that eas~nt now is going to affect
the plac~a~ent of their homes.
Peter Brandt: In ter~s of obtaining an easement right now, I guess I don't
understand why you would need one for that piece of property specifically
because we are essentially surrounded by either 80 acres, which TC~L Cour%enoy
owns. The other piece of property or the Cri~.~on Bay thing on the other side or
the Arboretum,. If you're going to build roads in there, you'll probably cc~ in
through the 80 acres more than likely. You're not going to come in through
Crimson Bay because that's going to create a traffic probl~, on TH 5 for you.
Councilwo~an Dimler: Could you address how it's going to affect the placement
of your h(~ if we take the eas~ent now?
Peter Brandt: Well, I guess I can't tell you specifically how it's going to
impact the design of our ho~ but it could. We haven't designed it yet so we
would have to work around that sort of thing. I think the studies that have
been done show that that type of a road in the first place is going to be, it's
going to hurt the properties. Not only our property, but also the Crimson Bay
properties because they're going to have to build a grade in there which will,
64
.City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
by the way also go over their septic syst~, and it's going to create trem~x]ous
proble%s if a road is ever built.
Co, mcilm~n Johnson: Go over their septic syste%? Oh the grading. Let me give
you some of my logic for saying that if the Arboret~ develops. If the MUSA
line c(m~s down there in the future and then wa develop, we bring in sewer to
the area. We develop the Arboreta, or s~~ develops the Arboretua% property.
The 80 acres. That whole area eventually's going to develop. Crimson Bay's a
long, long c~ll-de-sac going through forested areas. It's your typical safety.
night~e if there's a natural disaster, tornado, whatever of getting access
back to that last house. You always want the back door.
Peter Brandt: The last house will be my house.
Councilman Johnson: Frc~, Crimson Bay. Crimson Bay is the last house. You're
even a longer ~l-de-sac.
Peter Brandt: Right.
Councilman Johnson: And access to .uours, if there's s(av~ reason, you'd have two
accesses to yours. One frc~ the south and one from the north. It provides more
options for future develolmvant if that is there.
Pete~ Brandt: When and if future develoiar~nt occurs, then I would cc~e before
you again to suggest another plan for the land and subdivide the land.
Councilman Johnson: You're talking only Lot 2. We're talking the whole area.
We have to think bigger than exactly what's before us. If we only think about
the minute part of the city before us, then we'll be micrc~anaging the entire
city and nothing will ever interconnect.
Peter Brandt: Right and if .~ou look at the way that land is laid out today and
where people o~n property., ~re than likely a road will c~me in through County
Road 41, not through TH 5. There's act~mlly no reason to c~x~e in through TH 5
because it's going to create more proble%s then it's worth, both in terrain of
traffic and in terms of destruction of the property themselves.
councilman Johnson: How will this ever hook up down to Crimson Bay?
Peter Brandt: My. property to Crimson Bay? I don't understand.
councilman Johnson: No. The new develo~t you say that's going to come in
fr~, TH 41 rather than TH 5.
Peter Brandt: Why. would it have to hook up to Crimson Bay?
Councilman Johnson: That's one of the things we're try. ing to do is give them a
back door. Okay, they have no back door. Would you build a house without a
back door? Only a front door.
Tim Foster: Jay, June 21st of 1988 I think this study was like $4,000.00 that
the City. paid for with their plans A, B, C and D and they. all suggested going
back out through the 8~ acres.
65
City Council Meeting - Febrtmry 121 1990
Councilman Boyt: I think that's the one you decided not to l~lrsue isn't it Tim,?
Tim Foster: Well I sold the 80 acres.
Councilm~n Boyt: Took care of that problem,.
Tim, Foster: I can...speak for Peter because I was in the same position that he
was in and I'll tell you where my house would have been placed. I wouldn't have
built on there.
Councilmen Boyt: Tne other part of this is that sc~nere in here w~ looked at
upgrading Dogwood. The neighbors came in and said, we're tired of plowing this
thing. We want the City to take it over and the cost of doing that and the
trees it was going to amount to r~,oving, the neighbors decided that once they
saw the bill, they didn't w~nt to do that an~vmore. Tney'd just as soon plow it.
There's so~thing about the terrain, the type of houses, everything that
indicates that nothing's probably going to happen here for an awfully long time.
Expense. All those sorts of things. I'm just saying, and I think Jay is saying
the sam.~ thing that frc~, my point of view, easements are so~thing that now's
the time to get the~,. When the property's in it's biggest possible piece. I
don't know that we need to belabor this. A couple of you haven't spoken at all
on this issue. I personally would like to see us get the easement.
CouncilmmnWork~n: R~ne only thing we have before us is what's taking place now
in a very sm. mll, I don't know what's going to happen on putting another,
w~'re going to have to have our exit/entrance onto TH 41. That's no better than
putting it on TH 5. We only have what's before us tonight. I don't know if
Public Safety ever got a chance to look at this but it's gone completely.
Leaving this a cul-de-sac goes completely against everything that we've ever
discussed. Vine Hill, we were worried about 400 foot, 500 foot c~l-de-sacs and
this is about a mile at least. It see~m to Fmke sense to go through to Crimson.
I'm anxious to hear others.
Councilw~n Dimler: I guess the reason I was asking if anybody knew how they
were going to place their house yet and if the eas~nt would affect the
plac~'~_nt of their house. If it doesn't, I guess I would be in favor of taking
the eas~ent at this point also.
Councilm~n Boyt: I think what Tim said is it might very well affect the
placement.
Tim, Foster: ...I don't think they'll be a house there.
Councilmmn Boyt: Okay. I don't know what that ~ans Tim,.
Peter Brandt: Tnere's a good chance I wouldn't buy the property if that
easement's in place there. It's just that sim~le. It destroys the lot.
Dan Herbst: Mr. Mayor, m~ers of the Council. When I came before you with
Crimson Bay, you were very concerned about introducing 5 more lots onto that
access that goes into the Arboretum, because the entrance and exit to TH 5 there
is substantial and it's increasing daily with the activity at the Arboretum. I
think yo~%r st~y took that into consideration. If the Arboreta, or the Apple
Orchard is developed to the east of Crim, son Bay, TH 41 frc~, a traffic count
66
City. council ~ting - Februazy 12~ 1990
point of view and a visibility point of view and all the other activities, is a
lot more desireable than goirg onto TH 5. Also, the second thing that you've
just touched on is the topography's very tough L~ there. You're talkirg about
putting 150 foot swath through this 0utlot 2 and also going onto Lot 5 of
Crim~on Bay. I think when the 80 acres of Foster's is developed and when the
Apple Orchard is developed, you've got opportunities to look for alternative
accesses on TH 5 which w~n't conflict with the Arboret~ entrance and you'll
have other opportunities to get a couple of accesses onto TH 41 which is a lot
less density as far as traffic goes in TH 5 so. And I think that was a concern
when w~ developed C~imson Bay and it doesn't make any sense to take all the
Tanadoona traffic, the Dog~)od traffic and d~%p that out onto TH 5 at the
critical entrance to the Arboret~m~.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Thank you. Any other discussion?
councilman Johnson: In spite of whatever I've said...
Councilwoman Dim]er: What did you say at that time Jay?
CoL~cil~an Johnson: At what time?
Councilwoman Dim]er: The Council that Dan is referring to ~s the former
council. Were you a part of that?
councilman Johnson: Yeah.
Councilwoman Dimler: How did you feel about the TH 5 issue at that time?
Councilman Johnson: Oh, I wanted to keep traffic off of TH 5. If you've ever
turned into Crimson Bay, especially if ~u're eastbound on TH 5 and try to turn
into Crimson Bay. It's taking your life into your o~ hands.
Councilwoman Dim. ler: So then it w~uld Fake sense not to bring the easement
through? I F~an to get the eas~%ent to bring the road through back onto TH 5?
councilman Johnson: Well an easement out to the Apple Orchard or to there and
at that point when the Apple Orchard goes, it gives that back door there. There
is a lot of capabilities here. Future eas~r~nt up the side of Lot 1 when the 80
acres develops. That gives a very. short cul-de-sac then. When the Apple
Orchard develops, w~ can connect into Crimson Bay fr~m the Apple Orchard. In
this case, despite what I'm saying, I love to reserve easements before. I like
to have as Fany cards. Since I'm going to Reno tomorrow, I like to have as many
cards up my sleeve as I can get but in this case, I'm not sure if it's
absolutely necessary because where the Apple Orchard or the 80 acres develop we
should cut that...
councilman Workman: Are you talking about the Arboret~ developing? ~nat' s the
second tim~ I beard that. Is the Arboret~v,...
councilman Johnson: Eventually maybe.
years°
knows ~ahat's going to happen in 50
councilman Bolt: Tax free land?
67
City Co~cil Meeting - February 12~ 1990
Mayor Ch~,iel: That will probably stay there forever~
Council~.~n Johnson: It would take a beck of a lot of pressure to do it.
CouncilFan Work~an: That's not an option out to TH 5.
Council~mn Johnson: No, I don't want it out to TH 5.
Councilman Work~n: Or 41. That's not really an option.
Councilman Johnson: And Crimson Bay? ~c I'm not too sure if I want to connect
too many m~re lots into the Crimson Bay. Then people are running through
Crimson Bay out to TH 5 and TH 5 is a mess. Whether they're ever going to 4
lanes through Lake Minnewashta.
Councilman Work~an: But do w~ want a mile long cul-de-sac?
Council~.an Johnson: The mile long cul-de-sac would be solved when the 80 acres.
I F~an we've got that now with the only way to turn aro[~nd is to go into
s(~body's driveway at the end of Dogwood. This extends almost, it doesn't
extend anything does it?
Tim Foster: Tc~t, if we would just look at the work that the engineers did in
1988, every one of the plans A, B, C and D all went back out through the 80
acres.
Councilman Boyt: But there's no loop Tim. There's still only, it's just a long
T instead of.
Tim Foster: No, there was so~ plans that looped and s(~ that T'd.
Councilman Boyt: Well I think I've got all four of the~, in front of F~ and I
don't see a loop in any of them. Have you got one?
Councilman Johnson: They weren't looking at future development on this plan
anyway. Taeywere looking at what can we do now. They weren't looking at when
this was within the MUSA line. That was not their objective in this study.
Gary Warren: I believe, if I could just interject, the feasibility study that
Van Doren was directed to do was with the conclusion that a Crimson Bay
connection was not a part of their evaluation.
Council~an Johnson: ~'nat's right.
Council~n Boyt: What does that F~an?
Gary Warren: That they were not to look at taking it any further to the south.
That was pretty, well concluded already that that would not, the Council wasn't
interested at that ti~e in pursuing that connection and therefore we were just
dealing with the internal street setup on how to address Dogwood and Tanadoona.
That's the reason why the report does not talk about going out to TH 5.
CouncilFan Boyt: Gary, through the 80 acres, I don't see a loop. Do you
r~a~er a loop? This isn't a loop because we ~_re going to shut off this.
68
City Oouncil Meeting - February 12 ~ 1990
Gary Warren: The only loop that I recall is ~t to ~hat was proposed here
is that the road pattern through the cuttirg, transversing through the 80 acres,
if you w~uld keep Tanadoona in place. That really ~asn't attractive because of
the camp property, and the difficulty in psssirg on assessments for that road
improvement.
Councilm~n Boyt: Now ~hat I see here is alternative D, exhibit 6. I don't know
if you have a graphic of that but it shows Tanadoona crossed out.
Councilman Johnson: We Fade t~ slightly shorter cul-de-sacs off the end.
Councilman Boyt: Right, a T.
Gary. Warren: Right. That was as close as you get I think to the loop.
Councilman Johnson: That's still undeveloped to the 80 acres. That 80 acres
develop, part of that cul-de-sac Fey connect to other road syst~%s. There will
be other roads going...and a road going through there. They. didn't look at what
the ultimate develop~t w~uld be. They only looked at the short term, in this
study.
Councilman Workman: I don't know if this makes anybody happy, but I think
there's sufficient confusion that we might want to table this. I know there's
people who are intending to buy. a lot and the lot hinging on that. I don't know
that w~ want to make an eleventh hour decision on this this evening because
there's quite a bit in the balance for individuals. ~ don't w~ w~rk with
staff. I know this packet was extra big and it wasn't fun. This is number 9
but I think ~ should Faybe F~ve a little bit slo~er about the potential for
fut,~e mov~%ent to Czi~on before ws just kind of shoot it here.
Councilman Boyt: I w~uld second that.
Mayor ~,iel: Yeah. It's ~n moved and seconded to have staff review and c~me
~ with sc~e F~re conclusions.
Om~ncilman Workman F~ved, Councilman Boyt seconded to eahie action on
Preliminary Plat $89-11 to subdivide 20.9 acres into t~ single family lots
for Peter and Deanna Brandt. Ail voted in favor and the F~tion carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE AM]~]I24]~%~ TO MODIFY THE RfX/REATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINAI~2E TO
CLARIFY LOT DEPTH REQUI~, FIRST READING.
Councilw~van Dim~ er: I move its~ 11.
Councilman Johnson: Second.
Mayor Chv, iel: It's been m~ved and seconded. All those in favor.
69
City Council Meeting - February 12~ 1990
Mayor Ch~iel: Disc~msion? You have sc~thin~ to say Bill? I thought I'd get
it past you without a word.
Councilman Boyt: Yeah, wsll I guess I'm going to have to go frc~, ~nory since I
don't see my notes but there was a couple things that I think deserve a little
c(x~nt. One of th~, is, Steve ~,ings did a terrific job. Let F~ borrow yours
for a second, in rewriting this thing. There was, if I can find it and that was
one of the, I don't know about you but I had a hard ti~ finding the ordinance
in the pack. It wasn't front page where it noz~.mlly is. It's back in here and
there ~as just.
CounciLman Johnson: Yeah, it was Attac~_nt 7.
Council~.an Boyt: Is it after all those Minutes?
Co~mcilw~man Dimler: Yeah.
Councilman Boyt: What I really like about this is the flexibility in it. It's
really going to depend upon, it's going to be as good as w~ make it. If w~ let
sc~e things fall through here that could, but right now we've got a great
ordinance in which to work with and apparently you all did too the way you were
going there. How are we going to enforce it is the question I have? Will we be
willing to pull the pen~,it if sc~ebody who, because there's a lot of stuff in
here about Faintenance. It' s going to take sc~ inspection. Sc~body doesn't
do it, are we going to pull their beachlot peri, it?
Councilwoman Dim]er: I think like we do now. If we get a cc~,plaint. I'm not
sure that we're going to go all out.
Jo Ann Olsen: Cc~,plaints will be, they're all conditional use permits so they
all have an annLml review. We usually don't revoke. We usually try to work
with th~, and let th~, know what they aren't ~eting and have th~. If they
don't confoz~, after a long period of time, yes we do bring it back in front of
the Council.
Council~an Boyt: I would suggest a nit picky point but Faybe one worth putting
in. 13 (c) where it says planting of trees and shrubs. I think we want to lm~t
in planting and Falntenance. We talk about Faintenance of their structures
but I also think there's a Faintenance factor in trees and shr~s. I'd like to
see that added to (c). I think we should stop the last paragraph of the
ordinance. It says if the City finds it necessary based upon conflicts and so
on and so on. I think we should put a period after, to the extent feasible the
City may impose such conditions even after approval of the beachlot. The rest
of it ' s really not needed.
Councilwoman Dim]er: What does the rest of it say?
Councilman Boyt: The rest of it says, if the City finds it necessary based upon
conflicts of the use of other property or failure to ~aintain property or
equit~.~_nt. That's just a restat~,ent of the ordinance so I think it Fakes it
just a little cleaner to just drop it.
Councilwoman Dim]er: I'll accept those two friendly amendF~nts. Do you accept
those two friendly amendments?
70
City Council Meeting - February 12,' 1990 ......
Council~an Johnson: Absolutely~
Council~m~an Dimler m~ed, Oouncilman Johnson seconded to approve the amendment
to modify the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance to clarify lot depth requirements
as shown on Attac~v~nt $7 amending Section 2~-263 (13) (c) to read the planting
and Faintenance of trees and shrubs; and to amend the last paragraph to read:
To the extent feasible, the City. may impose such conditions even after approval
of the beachlot. All voted in favor and the m~)tion carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE ~ FOR RSF DISTRICT STA~ DEALING WITH LOT FRONTAGE
AND ACCESS BY PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS, FIRST READING.
Paul Krauss: Over the past 6 m~nths the issue of accessing single family lots
by. private driveway has been discussed on several occasions. This type of
access is currently not allo~md or requires a variance on ¥oux part which has
been granted ~)st recently, as I recall in the Vineland Forest subdivision.
When these things had cc~e up, staff has indicated a belief that this type of
lot Fay often represent the ~)st sensitive way to develop an otherwise
acceptable residential parcel. In discussions with the Council, staff was
directed to propose an ordinance revision that would deal with this ~.atter
directly. We've drafted such an ordinance and basically what it does is it
allows up to 4 lots to be accessed by. a private driveway. ~er, since it's
our preference that lots be accessed by. public right-of-way if possible, there's
a series of standards proposed. First, there is criteria outlining when a
private drive would be considered. Basically they're findings. Findings that
the applicant would have to denonstrate to ~ur satisfaction. Basically they.
constit~lte a d~nstration that the private drive option is the
environ%entally sensitive option in that it doesn't impact adjoining parcels or
minimizes impact on adjoining parcels. The ordinance then outlines very.
stringent standards for the construction of private drives. The standards are
particularly stringent because w~ believe w~ have to maintain a legitimate
access both for the people that live there and for the City. ~ergenc~ vehicles.
Finally, recognizing that neck lots or flag lots or lots accessed by. private
driveways oftentimes are different or are out of place in the neighborhood as it
develops, if you have hc~s lining a street, this is behind that, w~ %~nted to
provide s~ additional protection for the adjoining properties. So we've
proposed that the 90 foot lot width be increased to 100 feet and that the
foot sideyard setback be increased to 20 feet. We really want to avoid
im~actirg people's rear yard areas and we think that this goes a way to doing
that. The drafted ordinance would also ~k to clarify lot frontage
requir~ts on lots fronting on cul-de-sacs and curvalinear streets. You may
recall this also cam~' ~ during the Vineland F6rest subdivision. The ordinance
right now allows you to m~asure lot frontage at the building setback line on
~%l-de-sacs. It doesn' t say ~ahere on cul-de-sacs. We're proposing that it be
changed so you m~asure it that way on cul-de-sac bubbles or an outside curves
along curvalinear streets where the same situation results. ~ne Planning
Omv~dssion reviewed the draft in January and reo(~m%ended several changes. ~st
noteably they requested that similar standards be allo~d in the rural
residential district. The City Attorney. also requested some changes and both
his and the Planning Cc~v, ission changes have been incorporated. The ordinance
was drafted in consultation with the fire chief and the fire marshall and we
71
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
beleive responds to their needs and fire code requirements. It was also
reviewed by the Public Safety Co~,ission earlier last week and they
recoF~ended that it be approved. With that we're recommending that the
first reading of the ordinance be approved.
Mayor Cbm, iel: Okay thank you. Any discussion? Not hearing any.
Councilman Boyt: I'd add one thing. Excuse me. That is that the main body
of the lot should meet 15,000 square foot standard.
Councilman Johnson: Right. It's not included in the flag.
Councilman Boyt: That's right.
Mayor Chmiel: Not including the flag.
Councilman Workman: This is the first reading?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Is there a motion?
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the first
reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment for RSF District standards dealing
with lot frontage and access by private drives amended to read that the
main body of the lot, not including the neck, shall meet the 15,000 square
foot minimum requirement. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
SET SPECIAL MEETING DATES: A. REFUNDING BONDS OF 1990/CITY AUDITORS/
POSITION CLASSIFICIATION PLAN.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to set the date of
Tuesday, March 6, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. as the meeting date for the City
Auditors and Position Classification Plan and approved Resolution ~90-18
calling for the sale of the 1990 Refunding Bonds. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
B. BOARD OF REVIEW AND EQUALIZATION.
The City Council set the meeting date of Tuesday, May 15, 1990 at 7:00 p.m.
for the Board of Review and Equalization.
COMMISSION INTERVIEW PROCESS, COUNCILWOMAN DIMLER.
Councilwoman Dimler: That is a resolution to establish procedure for
filling coF~,ission vacancies. I don't know if you've all had a chance to
read it but it deals with the co~,ission never risking the lack of a
quorum. It also deal with the encumbants knowing that they're reappointed
prior to the expiration date. It deals with the new appointees having time
to become acquainted with their responsibilities prior to taking office on
January 1st. And there are 5 reco~m, endations then that the advertisement
announcing the coF~ission vacancies be placed in the official newspaper
during the first week in October and shall be published 3 consecutive
weeks. Number two, that after the third publication, application process
shall remain open for another 2 weeks. Item 3, the co~,ission members
interviewing applicants at their regular scheduled meeting
72
City council Meeting - February 12~ 1990
just prior to the Thanksgiving holiday. N~ber 4, the Council interview
applicants at their first regular scheduled m~-~-ting in De~m~er. ~me Council
may interview all the applicants or just those referred to by. the Ore, fission.
And number 5, the enc~ants who are reappl¥ing for the position do not ~ to
be interviewed by. the c~v~dssion m~m~ers and should not be involved in the
interviews and selection of their competitors but they do need to be intervie~sd
by the City Council. This resolution shall ~ effective immediately upon
it's passage. And I move the adoption of this resolution.
Mayor Ch~del: I think that's good.
Councilman Johnson: There's only one problem. I like almost everything that
you said there.
Councilman Workman: I'll second it.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Okay, discussion.
Councilman Johnson: The one point is lame duck Councils where in December where
t/~ majority, of the Council may be leaving for even 2 out of 3 or whatever, you
know may be leaving and they now have a chance to appoint the Planning
Ore, fissions of the future. What I w~uld rather do is, instead of having their
terms effective January Let, move their tents into the year to ~here they don't
run January. There's nothing sacred about January. Let, so that we don't have
the situation of a lame duck Council appointing Planning Om~,issio~s or
appointing themselves onto cc~v, issions or ccm~,ittees. That happened. Before
Bill and I cav~ in.
Councilw~,~an Dim]er: I just have a point. It isn't State statute to have
Don Ashw~rth: The council can set c~x~,ission ending dates. That w~uld require
an ordinance amendment.
CoL~ncilman Johnson: That's what this is isn't it?
Councilwc~an Dim]er: This is not an ordinanoe a~m~nt. This is just a
resolution.
Councilman Johnson: See I'd move everything to March Let.
Councilw~van Dim.~er: I agree with you that it is a problem. ~r, let's see
that's only frc~,.
councilman Johnson: Every other
Councilw~van Dim~ler: Nov~er through, that's only a 3 month period. We have
what, tw~ m~etings? After election is in Nov~tber, and they. take office in
January. We have about 3 m.-~_---tings. It's during holiday season. Can't we just
state that. o o
Councilman Johnson: Why. don't we move commission's terms to start March Let?
Councilwoman Dim]er: That screws up this whole schedule.
73
City Council Meeting - February 121 1990
Councilman Johnson: Well you just move your schedule 3 months. Sure it ~esses
up your schedule but the one problem; with the schedule is, or what's the time
period? How long does your schedule take from the start of the process until
they' re appointed?
Councilw~an Dim. let: Fro~, October to the first part of Dece~er.
Councilman Johnson: 2 months. So w~ would start the process the first of
January. After the holidays w~ would start the process with the new Council of
advertising for all the c~,issions and stuff. The new Council will have 3
months to be, or a couple months to be on board and get to know their job a
little bit before they're appointing people to work with theft. Even as I think
about that, it starts to ~ke sense to re to say JUly 1st to where the Council
knows what they're doing by. the time they appoint. If you think back, in
February when you started on the Council or when I started on the Council in
January, did I know enough about city business and the City. Council to make
appointments on these very critical c(m~issions?
Councilman Workman: Do we still?
Councilman Johnson: Do w~ still? We're a lot better shape now than we were a
m.~nth into it.
Mayor Chmiel: I think what I'd like to see done with this thing Jay is adopt
this resolution as we have here before us and then have staff review just
exactly what you're saying. To cc~e ~ with som. e conclusions to then take care
of it.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. ~nat would work.
Councilw(~an Dimler: Okay, and there was just one other question I had. The
Board of Adjustment and Appeals, I guess they're up every year and they -r~cd to
be reappointed?
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
Councilw~mn Dim]er: And do they c(~e thro~E~h the same procedure?
Councilman Workman: No.
Councilwoman Dim]er: Are they a co~,ission?
Don Ashworth: The appointment there is by the City Council.
Councilw~van Dim]er: There's no interviewing process?
Councilman Johnson: There could be.
Councilwoman Dim]er: No advertising?
Councilman Workman: I'm thinking of...
74
City Council Meeting - February 12~ 1990
Don Ashworth: I don't know why the procedure would really be any different. I
think there's one council member and then two citizens at large.
Councilm~n Johnson: At this point they have not ~ reappointed. We have a
lame dL~k group that ~s to be reappointed. Except for me, I 'm the only one
and I got appointed this year so I guess that counts. But both Wlllard and
Carol indicated that they'd like to be reappointed. I think w~'d like to stick
that onto a future, if not next agenda and we'll just reappoint those t~o.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Okay. We have a motion on the floor.
Council~n Boyt: I've got a question. ~hat happens when you can't follow the
schedule? What are you going to do?
Councilw~n Dim]er: You can stick as close to it as possible.
Councilm~n Johnson: It's a resolution.
Mayor Ch%iel: Yep. Strictly a resolution.
Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that we adopt on 5, after ~ to be, let's
see. There's sc~=thing here about, oh that the Council interview applicants at
their first regularly scheduled ~ctirg in December and just stop there. Or
selected applicants.
Councilwoman Dimler: I really think that Council should have the flexibility of
calling up any of the applicants even if they weren't passed on by. the
Om~v, ission.
Councilm~n Bopt: But you have that if you just stop at your first period.
councilwc~n Dimler: We don't want ko maybe in~ez~ie~ they, all. You know.
Mayor C~iel: Yeah, I don't see anything w~ong with it as it is.
councilwoman Dim]er: We may want to interview those that they passed onto us
plus only 1 other one.
Councilman Johnson: It's redundant but ~ho cares? What does it hurt to have
that sentence in there?
Councilwoman Dim]er: I think it kind of clarifies it that we're not going to
interview them all or why. have the c~mission interview ~ then you know.
Council~an Johnson: It sa.us ~m could if we want.
Councilman Boyt: We can do it eithex my.
Councilwoman Dim]er: We can if ~m %~nt but w~ don't have to. If you just leave
it the ~ay it is, it implies that we're going to interview ths~, all.
Mayor (~el: I think this thing is very sim~le. Direct to the point. I think
we should move on it.
75
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
Councilm~n Boyt: In number 5, I happen to think it's a good idea for the
co~ission m~'~ers to interview everybody including the people who have been on
the co~r~,ission. You see ther, in action but here's a chance maybe to ask the~,
about so~ stuff. Why are we telling the~, not to do that?
Councilwc~n Dimler: Because I feel that if they've been on the c(m~,ission,
they all know each other and it's kind of a ~ste of time for the cc~v, ission
men, ers then to interview those that they've been working with for a year, mmybe
2 y~ars, mmybe 3 years. It kind of gets to he...
Councilm~n Workm~n: I would say that if they want to be interviewed, go ahead.
Councilw~v~n Dimler: If they ~ant to, that's fine but they don't have to be.
Councilm~n Work~'~n: I'm leaning towards the~,, but they probably shouldn't be a
part of the interview process. That I go along with.
Councilwc~an Dim]er: That's why I said they do not need to be. They can be if
they ~ant to be but they don't ~ to be.
Mayor Ch~,iel: Okay. Okay, we have it before us. A m~tion.
Councilm~n Johnson: We could even reword that slightly to say that, never mind.
I had the wording and then it left me.
Council~n Boyt: As this is written Mr. Mayor, you're giving up all your powers
to appoint people as applicants. Not as applicants but as people to be
interviewed by the Council. I m~an you have the sa~ power anyone else has
under this. Under ordinance, there are s~re where you're the person who selects
the candidates that we either put on or don't put on.
Don Ashworth: I believe that's only the Housing and Redevelo~nt Authority and
your local procedure really can't change the State law which that says.
Council~n Boyt: So for that one. So all the others.
Councilwc~n Dimler: Yeah, the HRA does not cc~ in.
Mayor Ch~,iel: That's my understanding. We have a motion and a second.
Resolution 990-%~. Co~cilw~n Dim]er m~ved, Council~mn Workm~n seconded a
resolution for the C(m~,ission intemwiew process as follows:
1. The advertise~,ent announcing the commission vacancies be placed in the
official newspaper during the first week in October and shall be published 3
consecutive ~=eks.
2. After the third publication, application process shall revmin open for
another 2 w~eks.
3. The co~,ission m~'~oers interviewing applicants at their regular scheduled
m.~eting just prior to the Thanksgiving holiday.
76
City (bum=il Meeting - February 12~ 1990
4" The Council interview applicants at their first regular scheduled mccting in
Dece~er. The council may interview all the applicants or just those
referred to by the Ommission.
5. The enc~nbants who are reapplying for the position do not ~ to be
interviewed by the cc~mission members and should not be involved in the
interviews and selection of their competitors but they do ~ to be
interviewed by the City Council.
This resolution shall become effective imaediately upon it's passage. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
C(XRqCIL PRESENTATIONS:
LAKE I/3CY HC~4EOWNERS ASSOCIATION, LAKE CLFAN-UP.
Councilman Johnson: Let me just give you a quick rundown ofwhat's~.-=n
happening. ~nat's Lake Lucy.. This ~sekend a group of about 20 of us.
Dale Carlson: 16.
Councilman Johnson: 16. Well that's about 20. We went out and oh my the ~ay,
if you'd like copies of what w~ did, ! even have a copy. for everybody.. Courtesy.
of the City Engineer and also my copy. here. All the little circles are where we
drilled holes in the ice and surveyed then the weekend before last and then went
out and did sc~e mare surveying this weekend. Drilled holes in these locations.
Checked the depth to the top of the muck. Tried to, well sc~e people called it
the bottom but this lake is, the top we found that the top 6 inches or so is
extr~ely thin mud such that if you take just a w~ight and go down there, you
won't even feel it until ~u get through the top 6 inches of what's actually not
water an~%ore but was classified as a truly thin mud. We had a special device
that we lowered down and it was quite interesting. We did that and them we
stuck a pole down in each of these 90 some locations and saw how far we could do
it. We had a 20 foot pole. We had a 30 foot pole. One of the 20 foot poles is
still in there because we couldn't get it back out after it ca~e apart. The 30
foot pole ca~ apart and we ended up with a 10 foot pole in hand and 20 foot in
the lake...~ slowed down operations. Then we went in for lunch and had some
great chili and brownies from Dale's wife here. The...dissolved oxygen readings
at 4 places in the lake and we took water samples at 3 and we're having the
water samples analyzed. In order to have something to show you, last night I
c~lickly charted out the bott(~., and it comes out very. close to what the DNR
charted the bottom which isn't too terribly surprising. We did find scme
differences but these charts up here are DO readings. The first two are in the
main body of the lake and what it sa.us is we've got dissolved oxygen in the top
part of the lake this year. The DNR's telling me that there's almost no lake in
the state that's going to have a fish kill because we haven't had any. snow so
the light cc~es through and produces oxfgem. And they. said at this time if you
have dissolved ox.ugen at this time of the .~ar, 2 milligrams per liter or less,
that they would believe that you're going to have a fish kill in your lake that
y~ar. It would probably open it up to unlhvtited fishing on that lake. What
they. used to call prc~,iscuous fishing but they no longer call it that. We found
that this back bay here at the surface had barely over 1 part per million
dissolved ox.~gen that w~nt do~n to .7 at the bottx~ so if there's any. fish in
77
City Oouncil Meeting - February 12~ 1990
this area, with the exception of the black bullhead and the mud minnow will
probably be dead. There's been reports that there's black bullheads and w~
found what w~ think tomy be a mud minnow and the place w~ found it was solid mud.
So there's a lot of activity going on here. A lot of work by the citizens
that's a very devoted group. I just want to tell what the start is. Dale, if
you ~ant to get up to the chair here, if you've got sc~.~...
Councilman Boyt: Where are we going with this?
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, where are we going.
Dale Carlson: Dale Carlson frc~; Lake Lucy. I think w~ wanted, since the City
owns property on the lake, we wanted a representative frc~, the City to attend
so~ of the m~=etings that we've been having and participate in those kind of
activities that we had last w~ekend, eating chili and that kind of stuff.
Secondly, all this informmtion that we've gathered now, we don't know what to do
with. We need to get sc~eone who knows a whole lot more about this stuff than
we do and we had sc~ discussion with Del Hogan who has sut~,it~ a bid to
analyze sc~e of this informmtion and to approach the Watershed. We feel that
with monies that have ~-~n spent to this point and with the proposal from, Del
Hogan, that we have sc~ start-up costs of around $2,000.00. We are asking what
portion tomy, would the City be interested in participating in and what as a
lakeshore owner would the City be interested in paying their fair share of, am., I
asking the question right?
Councilmmn Workm~n: I think my m~,o kind of addressed sc~,e of this. Don's m~,o
back to me sort of. I think kind of missed the mmrk. I don't believe that I
made any decisions certainly on behalf of the Council financially or other. I
sim~)ly inquired as does Dale. I don't know if you have a copy of my m~%o. I
copied Eric. I figured Eric would be here tonight.
Councilmmn Johnson: He couldn't be here tonight.
Councilman Workm.~n: And then this sitLmtion obviously raises a lot of questions
which Don highlights precedent, contractual authority, etc. and that's what the
Council ~s to disc~s I guess. My two points were, can we ~,power a city
representative to attend the meetings and make decisions on the City's behalf
and what amount of money is the City willing to invest in the plan for aerators,
insurance, consulting fees, etc.?
Councilm~n Boyt: I saw a figure in the m~eting before this one I guess where
you were proposing to assess people on our side of the lake something like
$2~.0~?
Dale Carlson: I think where we started from,, the very initial costs Bill w~re I
think to have Mr. Hogan here that evening that you were here, he charged us
$135.00 and we had a few other expenses involved in that. We've paid those
privately. Now we're going after that next step. So far the expenses that
we've incurred have been shared by myself and Eric with anticipation of being
reimbursed at sc~ve point in time by the rest of the residents. But I guess we
know that that next step is a little larger and we feel that it's im, portant
because we feel it's important to go to the watershed. I don't think this whole
project can be taken on. If we have to we will, but it's going to be a little
difficult to take on this hundred and some thousand dollar project on a 15 or 20
78
City Oouncil M~eting - February 12~ 199~
individual land, property, owner basis. So we're going to assess about, there's
about 2~ property owners, assess whatever the City. can't share in. So if that
m~ans we have to divide $2,~.~g by 2~, then be it. 0~ can the City pay sc~e
larger share of the $2,~00.00 and then divide what's left by. 20 or are w~ going
to be dividing by 19. That's I guess what we ~nt, what we're trying to find
out. SO we haven't determined the exact asses~%ent. Is it going to be
$100.007 Is it going to be $200.00? We think w~ ~ $2,000.00 to get started.
Mayor Ct~iel: $2,000.00 will get us started. Dale, how much do you think it's
going to cost totally? The end figure.
Dale Carlson: Well the n~ers that ~_re put tog~ at the last ~ting that
we did have were in the $100,000.00-$150,000.00 kinds of n~ers. I feel, and
this is, I feel with what we found out on Saturday, this lake is in a lot w~rse
shape than we thought it was. If that lake with all the muck in it and
obvio~mly a whole lot of nutrients and with all those fancy w~rds are, if .that's
at the head waters feeding these other lakes going do~ here, w~ better hope
that the water level stays down because there's a lot of stuff going to be going
down into Lake Ann, etc.. SO s~mething has to be done with that lake and if
it's, I don't think we should necessarily, we should be holding back. I'm going
to be surprised if $150,000.00 is going to do it. When you can't reach the
bottom, of the lake with a 30 foot pole in 17 feet of water, as a Fatter of fact,
at the 7 feet off the shoreline and a 20 foot pole disappears, so you've got 13
feet of muck and 7 feet of water, that tells you we either have to do s~mething
with it or I could maybe pour c~ment in it. I don't know which but it's in bad
shape. I think that s~mething else, and I don't ~nt to keep you guys up any
later, but sc~thing that the City. should plan with. Ail this discussion's ~_n
going on now for the last 9-10 months about water quality and cleaning up the
lakes. We spend m~ney to, we set money, aside for maintenance of our roads and
we talk about m~nies for maintenance of any ~ of different things in this
city.. We've got to set aside some money, for maintenance of our lakes. - I think
this is an indication of that. This lake hasn't been touched for, to my
knowledge, ever. Sc~e fish were put in it I think back in 1970 and everbody
keeps going out and checking it and ~ing it deteriorate but nothing's ever
done with it.
Oouncil~an Johnson: There's a lot of short te~m and long ten~, issues on this.
You don't treat the lake without treating the watershed that's running to the
lake. If everyb(x]y in Greenwood Shores that runs to this and along the other
sides of the lake, continue using high phosphero~m fertilizers and have Chum
Lawn c~me in and spray their lawns in the morning with the rainstozm in the
afternoon and that washes down into the lake, nothing gets accomplished. If the
City gets involved in investing a large a%ount of m~)ney in aerating this lake to
avoid winter fish kills and to do some more ox~3en burning of some of this m~ck,
it's totally useless without watershed control. SO there's going to be
tough issues to face over the next 6 months as to what wa want to do here. If
we ~nt to, and the sa~e issues go for every lake in town. ~nis may be the way
to experiment here at the headwaters and find out what w~rks. What doesn't work
and then. apply that to our other lakes. Watershed may come up with m~ney next
year. Sc~e of the residents want to put aeration in this year and I'm not sure
where we're going to come up with that kind of ~ney this year. I think we
~e~r it's a me~er of the Council or not. I'm going to a lot of the~, on more
of a technical aspect of things and don't really, I've gotten involved in it
79
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
because I like this kind of work. I've built a water sampler for the~, and
whatever. I've got probably 60 hours invested into this thing now.
Dale Carlson: It's well appreciated by the way.
Council~n Johnson: As long as your wife keeps those brownies c~ing.
Councilw.~n Work~n: I guess for reasons of expediency, if Jay wants to be that
rep I guess I'd be all for Jay being that rep.
CouncilFmn Johnson: No. I'd rather not be.
Councilsen Work~n: The bigger issue is the other 11 or so lakes in the city
and how we address the problev,. I think this group of people is going to do
more with $150,000.00 than the DNR or EPA could do with a million to clean up
the lake. So I'm excited about it and I'd like to see it go. I guess I don't
know if we have enough inforFmtion about the exact dollar costs that the City's
getting in and I think we need to sc~how know that. We're just 1/20 of the
expenditure I believe but we have property on every lake and so we could be in
12 ti~'~s or so and so I think we need to figure out where this is going to cc~,e
from. I'd suggest the Mayor's salary. I don't know if we have enough, that's
why I had a conversation with Eric. That's why I finally just drafted the memo
and try and raise the questions and get it moving. We mmke a decision or we
don't because it is a financial SC~Lething that is going on.
CouncilFmn Johnson: I think the water fr~, this lake affects all the rest of
the lakes down the chain and therefore the City. has more of an investment in it
than being another lakeshore owner. I think we have our percent being a
lakeshore owner but I'd like to see the City pick up on this $2,000.00 that
they're talking about to do some of the initial studies of the lake. To have the
analysis done and to prepare for going before the Watershed Board so that we've
got s(m~ say into what's going on here. I've got sc~,e misgivings of
bi(manipulation and stuff like that that have to be talked about later. I'd
like to see the City pick up sc~e percent of that $2,000.00 plus it's lakeshore
percentage or whatever our percentage of lakeshore is of the re~.minder as one of
the lakeshore owners on this lake. Prince has sc~~t agreed to picking up his
41% of the lakeshore. That's very, very tentative.
Councilw~van Dimler: Did you talk to him Jay?
Council~an Johnson: No I didn't. Tc~, did. Tc~, talked to sc~x~y. Not Tcm,
Ji~,.
Councilwmn Boyt: I'll be a~mzed if Prince gives 41% of $200,000.00 to this
project.
Councilwoman Dimler: I will too.
CounciLwan Boyt: Tne other thing is, the DNR stills wants to do this. They
still want to be involved in cleaning that lake up. And for us as a City
Council to spend city ~)ney and tell the DNR no, re not going to go that
direction, I don't think we should be doing that. We should pay, I've said all
along that I' 11 vote to pay our 1/20 or whatever the nuF~er of property owners
is, our share for sure but I don't see how we can take a lake that has no public
80
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
access and pay more than the property, we own because if w~ do, then I think Lake
Riley ought to be in here saying to us, well we want to try. this. Do it with
us. Any. lake with a probl~. Now Lake Riley should be c(m~emded. I mean
you've done s(~thfng that no other group of lake hc~e owners has done and I
think that's, in organizing and ccming up with a p~oposal. The City. already, has
$8,000.00 in this and so personally I think the City. should participate for 1/20
of the additional expenses but we shouldn't do more than that.
Councilman Johnson: Ail we're lookin~ for right now, all they're looking for
right now is not the whole $200,0~0.00 but that initial, because we believe the
Watershed should be participating in here considerably. I ~an it's a watershed
issue. This is the top of the watershed. So we ~nt or 'they ~ant, I shouldn't
say we, get enough money, together to make a presentation to the Watermhed based
on the data that's been collected and it's going to take an analysis of the data
and whatever. The total cost for presentation to the Watershed, etc. is about
$2,000.00. You're saying the City. ~uld only pay...
Councilman Boyt: $1,~0.00.
CounciL"~n Johnson: Huh?
CounciL"an Boyt: It's $2,000.00. No, it's not $1,~0.~0. If it's $2,~0~.~,
1/2~ of that is what? $1~.~?
Mayor Ch~el: 1/2g would be $1gg.gg, y~p.
Councilman Boyt: I'd be happy, to -.--"c the City do that.
Mayor Ch~el: Let F~ ask a question. Jim, have you had any ~)re discussions
with Prince's people and that letter that I wrote to ~, requesting a few
dollars?
Jim Chaffee: No I haven't. I'm mseting with Red White later this w~ek and
that's one of the topics that we're going to be discussing.
Mayor Ch%iel: Okay. Thank you. So I guess where we're at right now, I don't
as Bill has indicated, we'd be willing to go 1/2~ of it right now.
CounciL"mn Johnson: I'd be willing to go more. I'd like to see ~hat other
people are willing to do.
Mayor Ch%iel: Open for discussion.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to ~ us go half of the $2,~.00. As
encouraging these private citizens to continue their efforts and encouraging the
watershed saying, hey. We do support lake restoration in this town and that we
realize that while we are a 1/20 property, owner on this lake, this lake then
affects Lake Ann and Lake Ann affects Lake Susan and Lake Susan affects Rice
Marsh which affects Lake Riley.. This is only one sympton. So the City. has-more
of a stake in this than just Lake Lucy.. That's why I say we should, if the
Council doesn't feel like going for half of it, a quarter of it. $5~0.00.
CounciL-an Work~an: Jay, we just have to base it on s(~~ng. 1/2~ is based
on the fact that we're 1/2~. You know what I ~an? We ~ a basis so that
81
City Council M~eting - February 12, 1990
next tiw~ wa have a sit,ration like this on another lake, wa have sc~tething to
guide us rather than shooting wildly. We need to have a cc~fortable basis for
why we're giving half or why, if we're 1/20 out of a partner.
Council~n Johnson: We' re ~)re than 1/20.
Councilw.~n Work~n: I'd like to see us pay the $200,000.00 but we need to have
a basis for what, you know we can't just pull.
Council~n Johnson: I'm not for us paying the $200,000.00...
Council_wren Work~n: I'm just saying, if we give half now, is that a precedence
that sets the basis for we pay half. The insurance half. The aerators.
Council~n Johnson: No, no. We would definitely be saying all we're doing is
helping that this sets no precedence for the aerators or anything else in that
wa expect other partners to be involved. DNR, Watershed, whoever we can get
involved in the future work to provide more of the ~)ney than what we are.
We're saying there's so~,e start-up fees wa want to support these citizens with.
Councilman Boyt: The Watershed has no money.
Council_wren Johnson: Watershed has no money this year, I know.
Councilman Boyt: The DNR will not do this without, you know their requirements.
Councilman Johnson: And if it looks like we can do something and DNR gets
involved, then we'd have to get an access on here. When I voted against the
access there was no action going to be taken on the lake. If there was going to
be so~ action taken on the lake and in order to finance it we have to put in
access, then I'm in favor of putting in the access.
Councilman Boyt: You're saying if the DNR says we want to clean this lake up if
you put an access on it, you'll vote to put the access on it?
Councilwan Johnson: Right. But when so~tebody says I'm not going to give you
any money but will you ira.it an access on it anyway, I voted against the access.
They had already pulled the money away. It was a done deal so I voted against
the access.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor, you Fray want to consider again the percent thing as
far as like we're 1/20. I guess I started thinking about the lineal footage
around the lake but you get into let's say Lake Susan ~ have Fmybe at least 50%
of the ownership around that lake and I know in previous years they've done
very worthwhile things down there. The carp kills and sc~e other types of
things. If you did it as the 1/20, you probably would have less repercussion if
you look at Lotus and Christ~ms and whatever. Our percent then is going to take
and you go down and you might say in sc~ of those other lakes it will be 1/200.
1/300. 1/30.
Council~mn Johnson: I think what the citizens ware looking at was lake frontage
though. That's why Prince has 41% and why we have 1/20 because wa have very
little frontage on there.
82
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
Councilman Boyt: They took, and you can speak to how you organized
this but what I heard in that meeting was the way it was organized was
that people on the City's end of the lake were being assessed a little
higher because they had a little better shoreline but it was everybody
along there got the same assessment as I saw that letter. The people
up on the north end of the lake got a somewhat lower assessment
because they didn't have the useable nature of the lake. Didn't you
propose something like that?
Dale Carlson: Can I coF~,ent? On this $2,000.00 start-up thing. We
just said let's not worry about who's got how much and whatever.
Prince has 41% of the lake. We didn't go to Prince and say, Prince we
want 41% of $2,000.00. This is $2,000.00 to get us started to find
out if we know what we're doing and see if somebody comes back and
says yes. Present us a plan and go to the watershed and see if
they'll listen to us. So the $2,000.00 was to just be split up based
upon the number of property owners. We get into that bigger kind of
number, that's when we got into what you're talking about Bill. Where
we said okay, there's some people who have better property on the
lake. More access to the lake than others and it's not necessarily
fair to expect these people over here, even though they have more
lakeshore but they don't have iFw, ediate access, real good access to
the lake, they pay a lesser share. That's when we included Prince.
Since he has 41% of the lake, to take on 41% of that total burden
whatever that is. We don't even know what it is yet so I think,
I understand the position you're in. We don't want to put the City in
a position that is going to, if we can accomplish two things. Get a
representative to attend our meetings number one. And number two,
pick up one, whatever that is, 1/20, 1/19, 1/22, I'm not sure just
exactly how many properties but that would certainly, I think that's,.
we can't get in any trouble that way. Thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we're going to come up with a conclusion as to
what we're going to expedite or is this something we should have as
discussionary?
Councilwoman Dimler: It's a Council presentation.
Mayor Chmiel: That's what I'm saying.
Councilman Johnson: We can waive our rules and take an action. They
need some action on the money side of things so they can figure out
how much they're going to charge each of the lake home owner
associations. Whether they're going to pay $100.00 a piece or $50.00
a piece or what.
Councilman Boyt: I would move that the City pay a representative
portion of the bill and that will leave it open to whether it turns
out to be 1/20, 1/19 or whatever but a representative portion of the
start-up bill as proposed to us this evening.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, first don't we have to waive the rules?
83
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we will have to waive the rules because this on
the Council presentation.
Councilwoman Dtmler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to waive the
Rules of Council Procedure to vote on a Council Presentation. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Bill's statement as such is to move forth and take the
percentage as to what he said, 1/20, 1/19, whatever it might be.
Councilman Workman: I would second Bill's proposal based on we don't
really know what percentage is proper or fair to the City at this
point and when we find out, we can make that change.
Councilman Boyt: We're talking about something that, a representative
part meaning if they have 20 homeowners, we're going to pay 1/20.
Councilman Workman: I'm saying that based on Jay saying half of it or
25% of it.
Councilman Boyt: That's not in it.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the City
paying a proportionate part of the start-up bill for the Lake Lucy
restoration based on the number of homeowners on Lake Lucy, i.e. 1/20
or 1/19 or whatever. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who
opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Councilman Workman: Are we going to choose a rep and to what extent
does that person have powers?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, Jay. Do you want to continue with this?
Councilman Johnson: Well I'm not working with them as a city rep.
I'm just working with them as a concerned citizen and helping them on
the...
Mayor Chmiel: Do it from both sides then.
Councilman Workman: Are you going to do both?
Councilman Johnson: I'd prefer Tom to continue. He volunteered.
Councilman Boyt: What I would suggest. If you would notify us,
I know I've been to as many meetings as I've been in town for. I'm
interested in this issue so I'd like to come to your meetings.
Whether I'm the rep or not, I'm not pushing for that position. I
think as many of us as can attend so much the better because it's
84
.City Council Meeting - February 12~ 1990
awfully important to the City how this develops but if you want to be
the official rep, that's fine with me.
Councilman Workman: And that's fine with me. As I said in the memo,
they don't want me but tough.
Councilman Johnson: I've never seen, what powers does a rep have
other than bringing recommendations back to the Council.
Mayor Chmiel: That's it. Just convey the information back to the
Council.
Councilman Workman: Free check writing power?
Councilman Johnson: Exactly. I mean that's kind of the way it's
saying there. Make a decision on how much money...
Councilman Workman: I get to type my own memos so I'll get them to
you as soon as I can and let you know what's going on.
Dale Carlson: Who did we get stuck with?
Councilwoman Dimler: You got stuck with Tom.
Councilman Boyt: But do let us know when your meetings are.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, let us know when your meetings are Dale.
Councilman Boyt: Can we move item 16(b) up?
Mayor Chmiel: That's exactly what I was going to move to.
MOON VALLEY AGGREGATE/LETTER REGARDING THREATENED LITIGATION.
Paul Krauss: Do you want a brief overview on it?
Mayor Chmiel: Very brief.
Paul Krauss: As you can see, we got a letter from Michael Dwyer
representing Moon Valley Aggregate where he's threateni.ng us with a
$8~,~00.~0 lawsuit which he graciously said he wouldn't file if we
didn't regulate Moon Valley. I forwarded the letter to the City
Attorney. He's looked at it briefly. Since litigation is threatened,
I think that you need to talk to the City Attorney privately. When we
got into the Moon Valley issue, we told you that whichever option we
chose, that litigation was likely to be the result. I guess we
haven't been actually served with any papers on the thing yet. If you
have any direction for us, we'd be happy to receive it. Otherwise I
think the City Attorney can respond to you directly in private.
Mayor Chmiel: That's what I think we should have done.
Councilman Johnson: My personal opinion is, let's serve the papers
85
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
and let's get on with this. Let's get this in the courts and let's
find out if our City Attorney's right. He's saying we have a
defensible position and we can go in and win, so let's go win, win,
win. Win one for the Gipper and who's going to pay 1/207
Councilman Boyt: Did you ever find those aerials? You've got them?
I don't know, it may be too late for this.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't think we have to go into this portion of
it. I think what we can do is either consult our attorney, each of us
individually to find out what's happening or have Don get it and have
him give it back to us.
Councilman Boyt: Obviously the people from Moon Valley are here but
the other thing is, aren't we pursuing, still pursuing the ordinance
change?
Paul Krauss: Yes sir we are. I've been coF~,unicating with the City
Attorney. We think we should have the ordinance on the Planning
Commission the first meeting in March so you would have it later in
March.
Councilman Boyt: As we saw with the other clay pit, we have a
challenge in front of us. These aerials just show the two if you
should happen to want to look at those.
Councilman Johnson: And it's not a specific ordinance at Moon Valley.
There's no way that an Attorney can say we're picking on them. No.
We've got to control this in our city. Two operations and there's
going to be more and more.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. So further discussion, I don't think we have to
do. Does anybody from Moon Valley want to say something?
Tom Zweres: I happened to be in Scottsdale, Arizona at a classic car
auction so I missed the...
Mayor Chmiel: Would you just state your name and address.
Tom Zweres: My name is Tom Zweres. I understand that you had one
complaint. I think this is kind of getting a little carried away from
one complaint. My understanding through talking to my people, I also
own G & T Trucking, that there were several accidents. G & T Trucking
has never had one accident going in or out of Moon Valley Aggregate.
Nor did Moon Valley's truck have one accident. He also stated that he
had a problem with traffic getting out of his roadway. 99% of the
material we hauled have gone east, has gone east. He stated that
there was no erosion control. We have dug large sumps up there. We
have put dykes in place. We have done everything there is to stop and
we have stopped the water from coming down the hill. He also said
there was a 250 foot face of gravel. Well, from the road to the top
of the hill is only 250 feet. If you've gone in there you noticed
we've step mined it and there's a reason for that. I intend to
reclaim the land and I intend to do something with it. I'm not going
to just walk away from it. That land's very expensive. He said we
86
City Council Meeting - February 12~ 1990
hadn't done anything with the State as far as traffic goes. I talked
to a fellow by the name of Mr. Moen several times out of Golden
Valley. I asked him about lowering the speed limit down there because
when they come around that corner, they come around there at 65-70
mph. I can't do anything about that. I'm trying to run a business
and I guess if we have to take it to litigation, I guess that's where
it's going to go but I think it's really stupid from one complaint.
You guys can come over, I'll take you up there. I'll show you what
I'm trying to do. I'm not playing any games with you. We lost the
job hauling the fill into the landfill. It's kind of like a slap in
the face, 2 weeks later all of a sudden they're hauling the material
from 2 miles down the road from me. I couldn't get a permit or I
couldn't get the right level at the top of the land that I wanted but
it's okay for a guy 2 miles down the road to get it. I don't think
that's right. My understanding is he has a permit to mine 2~,~0~
yards. Is that excavated volume or is that loose volume? There's
quite a difference. There's 33% difference. We hauled out of there
and he has my competitor has about the same amount of trucks Randy and
I do. We average about 4,~00 yards a day. If you're running lq days,
that's 40,0~0 yards. I think we all should talk about this before it
gets carried away. It's stupid from one complaint to get this that
far.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Tom.
Councilman Boyt: We don't want to respond to him now do we?
Mayor Chmiel: No. I think not.
Councilman Workman: I would like a tour up there. Maybe sometime I
can give you a call up there or something.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Okay, the next item is Council Presentations.
I'm just going to touch on mine real quick. I have in front of me
what I'm proposing is the City of Chanhassen and a Drug Task Force.
Some time ago we adopted a resolution keeping the City of Chanhassen
drug free. In looking at some of the things that we've done, it's
just words that I felt and I felt that we should try to draw together
people to come up with some conclusions and know how we can address
the problems and let them come up with their own thoughts and ideas
and concepts as to how this specific task force should be. What it
would consist of real briefly, and I'll just touch it, 6 to 8
junior-senior high school students. 4 from Minnetonka and 4 from
Chaska. 1 Public Safety representative. 1 City Attorney
representative. 2 Council members. County representatives.
Co~unity Service. Chemical Dependency Program. County Sheriff
representatives. School District representative. Chamber of Commerce
representative and one or both local legislators. What I think this
would do is to at least make us more aware as to what the problems are
and what exists and hope we address those.
Councilman Johnsom: Two members at large?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
87
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
Councilman Johnson: You had no at large citizens.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. This is basically what I see now. If you see
something that can be added to it, I'd be more than happy.
Councilman Johnson: I'd say 2 members at large. I'd volunteer to be
one of the Council members on this.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd also like to sit on it myself.
Councilman Boyt: Why do you see these people, I haven't read this
obviously so...
Mayor Chmiel: There's some additional information contained in here
from Hubert Humphrey has come out with his prevention blueprint as he
calls it. It's a process of improving...be added into it and I'd more
than welcome it.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. We can discuss this at a different meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. You're on Tom.
Councilman Workman: Main Street. When I was elected to the Council,
the biggest problem, the biggest complaints I had was who the hell
designed downtown street and everything else. Who the heck designed
it. I think it's time in light of the Medical Arts building being so
close and those questions have resurfaced and are probably louder than
ever that the City, the building's not going to move. That the City
and we'll have to hire more engineers, look at what in the heck we're
going to do with that road for the long range. Public Safety Minutes
which I think maybe you all read, Sgt. Bob Vandenbrooke alerted the
Co~,ission of a stalled vehicle eastbound on West 78th Street near the
Dinner Theatre and the dangerous situation it created. He stated that
traffic had to drive up onto the curb to get around the stalled
vehicle being the road is so narrow. I think it's time that we take a
look in relationship to A1Klingelhutz' piece of property down there
and the Dinner Theatre traffic, maybe it makes sense to make a 4 way
stop where that comes out and run a driveway right into the Dinner
Theatre straight through from where TH 101 is or something. I think
we need to take a look at the options as far as the median. Do we
need the median? Don't we need the median? I think we need to start
looking at this. Seriously, it's the biggest number one daily
complaint I get and with that building there, it's exemplified.
People, apparently we moved it back even further than it was. It was
even closer. It wasn't moved back 7 feet or something? Something
happened there. I'd like to get some answers on what we can do about
it. Either put a stop in there to handle Dinner Theatre traffic,
that'd be the first time I'd be for one of those but it's something
that people are talking to me about daily and I felt the need to bring
it up. In relation to that, Heritage Park Apart~,ents, basically the
elevation on that being raised about a foot and a half or 2 feet, I
think everybody felt that it didn't look like it was supposed to be
that high. A foot and a half isn't a whole lot I guess when you look
at that thing. The thing looks like it's sitting high and the
88
City Council Meeting - February 12~ 1990
neighbors have been complaining. What I guess I'd like the staff to
figure out, what is our recourse? In a situation like this, it makes
us look a little silly. That basically things are happening and going
on and this is certainly nothing to do with any particular staff
member. That's for sure. But developers going ahead and doing
something blantantly. Without our control and then they wonder why
when the hotel comes in and they want to make changes, we say forget
it. My third point is, and I asked at the last Council meeting that
the City Council discuss the future of the HRA. I guess I'd like to
request that it officially be placed on the agenda so the Council can
discuss this and we can make a determination on whether or not we want
to continue with that situation.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Bill? Public Safety.
Councilman Boyt: If this was earlier, I'd love to respond to some of
those HRA issues you brought up but I'm not going to now. Public
Safety interviews. We need to, we have recom~,ended 4 candidates for
the Council to interview and I'd like to see those conducted at the
next council meeting if at all possible. We'd really like to get the
3 openings we have filled so that we can begin. I think we have just
some amazingly qualified backgrounds to run by you. We'd like to get
on with our year. We have a pretty aggressive schedule planned.
Councilwoman Dimler: Bill, who are they?
Councilman Boyt: I can't remember their names but we have one fellow,
Don would probably know. He's on the Rotary. I think he's your
treasurer. He's got experience with, he's assigned by the Air Force
to Hennepin County's Emergency Preparedness Planning Group and so that
background was real impressive. We've got a fellow who was in charge
of the Drug Task Force for the Metropolitan area. Terrific background
to put on the commission and there's a couple others that were, all
four of them I think are great candidates.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe what we should do is look at our next council
meeting and start maybe an hour earlier. Do the interviews then.
Councilman Boyt: Like 6:30?
Mayor Chmiel: Yep.
Councilwoman Dimler: BOA meets then too doesn't it?
Paul Krauss: The Board continued one item, for that meeting.
Don Ashworth: What about the joint meeting date with the Planning
Com~,ission. Is it possible that the Council could do those interviews
in advance of the Planning Commission?
Paul Krauss: That's possible.
Councilman Boyt: Why don't we hold it, can we start at 6:00? Hold
our interviews from 6:00 to 7:00 and then you guys, Jay is set for the
89
City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990
Board of Adjustment and Appeals?
Councilman Johnson: Ursula, don't you have an interference there?
Councilwoman Dimler: Next week?
Councilman Johnson: No, in 2 weeks.
Mayor Chmiel: 2 weeks from tonight which is the 26th.
Councilwoman Dimler: I think I can make it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, 6:00? If there is no other business?
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the
meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was
adjourned at 12:50 a.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
90