1991 12 09CHANHA$$EN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR HEETING
DECEHBER 9, 1991
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL HEHBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason, Councilman Workman,
Councilman Wlng and Councilwoman Oimler
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Paul Krauss, Charles Folch, Scott
Hart, Todd Gerhardt and Tom Chaffee
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to
approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve
the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
a. Resolution ~91-110: Approve 1992 Park and Trall Dedication Fees.
b. Approve Indemnity Agreement with First Trust National Association Regarding
Gladys Nelson Claim, Chanhassen General Obligation Bonds.
c. Resolution ~91-111: Accept Street Improvements in Country Oaks, Project
89-1.
e. Resolution ~91-112: Authorize Revlsion of Sanltary Sewer and Water Hookup
Charges.
f. Request Amendment to Conditions of Approval for Minnewashta Highlands,
Project 88-6.
g. Extend Final Plat Deadllne for Summlt at Near Mountain, Lundgren Brothers.
i. Approval of Accounts.
j. City Council Minutes dated November 18, 1991
Clty Counc£1 Minutes dated November 25, 1991
Plannlng Commission Mlnutes dated November 6, 1991
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated November 19, 199~
Senior Commission Minutes dated November 15, 1991
Public Safety Commission Minutes dated November 14, 1991
m. Zoning Ordinance Amendment concerning Non-Conforming Uses, Structures, and
Lots, First Reading.
n. Zoning Ordinance Amendment concerning Development Contracts for Site Plan
Approvals, First Reading.
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
q. Approval of 1992 3oint Powers Agreement Prosecution Contract with Carver
County.
K. RESOLUTION REALLOCATING FUNDS FOR WEST 78TH STREET PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I called Don and talked to him specifically in regards to
this. I thlnk we should have just a little blt more of an explanation on that
respective item wlth some clarification in regard to that. Don, if you would.
Oon Ashuorth: The West 78th Street Detachment project was approved by the city
as a project in 1988. We moved ahead with bonding for that project and after
bonding several questions arose as to the project itself. That project
interfaced with the County. The County's approval for the redesign for County
17 and any type of frontage roads required their approval. Literally during the
next year and a half we worked with the property owners and the County
attempting to resolve differences of all parties and by the time that ue moved
into 1991, we were literally ready to carry out that project in the Fall of
1990. However by that point in time the Highway Department had in fact set out
their schedule for doing TH 5 and if ue would have attempted to do the project
thi:s year, there was a possibility that ue could have ended up with Dakota,
TH 101, Market and 17 all down at the same point in time. The project was not
put forward in 1991. The Highway Department has assured us that the County 17
intersection will be the first intersection that they will do in 1992. Our
intent is to be into a position of letting that contract this winter so that ue
can parallel the construction of the Highway Department, meaning that when they
have 17 down, that our crews would be in working at the same time that their's
was. An auxilliary issue associated with this is what is called arbitrage.
What the Federal Government did in 1990 and ~hey made it retroactive back to
1988 so they passed a law that had certain penalties associated with it and back
dated it for 2 years. Those penalties said that if a city earns more interest
on a construction project than it should, then it is paying for those bonds,
that amount is equal lo what they call arbitrage. The check has to be prepared
and sent to the Federal Government February 15th of 1993. For us that amounts
to $220,000.00. Recommendation before you from Springsted, from Holmes and from
myself is that through a form of reallocation process we should be able to keep
most of that in our own pocket. Staff is recommending approval of the
resolution in front of you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Everyone understands that or do you have any questions or
discussion? Richard, did you have a question?
Councilman Wing: No. I just had a comment. This is one of Den's few memos
that seemed to be down to my level and worded that I could understand it.
Specifically the note sectlon. Garble--e-goop. I didn't have to look up.
Councilman Workman: Would it be appropriate for the 8urdicks maybe to say what
he wants to say here at thls polnt? I know that's on thelr mlnd.
Mayor Chmiel: That's one of the reasons I also pulled it.
Councilman Workman: I guess I don't recall the West 78th Detachment being a
part of or not done because of everything else being done. I thought we did
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
that with TH 101. We felt TH 101. I know the HRA was mad about that but I
don't remember us leaving this. I thought it was more tied in with TH 5 but I
didn't know that we had decided not to go ahead with it because.
Don Ashworth: It is tied in with TH 5. If I said TH 101, I was mistaken. It
was because of TH 5 construction and the potential taking down of Dakota, TH lO1
and Market and then potentially 17 at the same point in time. The project was
delayed to 1992.
Mayor Chmiel: Right, but that project will take place this coming year.
Don Ashworth: And I should mention one additional point and that is that as the
Council will recall, the original engineers on that project were BRW. During
1991 the Council acted to ask another consulting firm to take a look at that
whole project which was Strgar. Strgar came back with various alternatives and
one of the conditions or suggestions by the Council and HRA was to insure that
that new design for 78th Street, including then that section of 17, that that be
reviewed with the property owners. I see Mr. Burdick is back in town and this
does give us an opportunity to have him meet with those engineers so he can take
a look at the new design that has been, the City Council has seen.
Councilman Workman: Is that design going to also include, because I know that
the landscaping portion of it was left out and there was some confusion about
that. And switching consultants, which I don't think the Burdicks were upset
about because they didn't prefer the other consultant but it does seem like one
of those projects that's kind of leeched on and on and on for as long as I've
been around the Council and I know that the Burdicks are getting frustrated with
that. I don't know, maybe they want to say something.
Mayor Chmiel: I think probably what we'll do is give them that opportunity at
this time. If you'd like to do some discussions of this or express your views,
we'd be more than happy to listen at this time.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Thank you Mr. Mayor.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, while he's passing this out, do we have a time
frame for this extension? A starting time or a conclusion of this project.
Don Ashworth: We again have a commitment from the State that they will be in,
charles what was it the first part of May and be done by the end of June?
Charles Folch: That's correct. MnDot would like to have that intersection down
and completed by the end of June. Actually first of July is when it should be
open.
Mayor Chmiel: End of June to July. Okay. Jim.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Good evening.
Mayor Chmiel: First introduce yourself so we can have it recorded.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Yes, B.C. "Jim" Burdick from Excelsior. First of all I
want to thank you and appreciate having some engineers on this besides BRW. I
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
said once several years ago that BRW would probably be gone but not until the
Soviet Union was gone. They've both come about and they're wonderful
occurrences.
Mayor Chmiei: Good comparison.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Now all I want, ladies and gentlemen, ail ue want and some
of the landowners in that area is to get this off the back burner and onto the
front burner. It's been, I said 6 years here. It's been ? and 8 years that we
first talked about moving. At first it was the unknown and then it was going to
be completed in 1989. Then 1990 and we even have one case here with nice help
of Mr. Tom Workman, he called the engineers, City Engineers on July 16th and
they said bids would be let August 6th of 1991 and they still haven't been let.
In April I confirmed a conversation here when the bids were going to be opened
5uly of last year so that's all I'd like to have. Is to have it completed or
left the way it is. Believe me. If it's just all dropped and left the way it
is, that would make us the most happy but perhaps that isn't going to be left so
just complete it because we talk to people about building down there. There's
always fear of the unknown because until actually construction begins, it can
always be changed. And business will suffer greatly when the streets are torn
up. If it's nlce weather as Z put in the letter, it's dust. If lt's raln, lt's
mud and inconvenience and of course this applles to Charlie James to the north
and I think thls ls probably one of the ten reasons why the Market Square center
has been mlghtly slow, although I had news on Frlday. You folks probably know
about it, that Market Square was all set.
Mayor Chmiel: Not until we get the final answer.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Yes, I've been told this before.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I've heard those same things. I heard them 3 years ago
too.
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: That's right. Just like Z did on 78th Street. Well,
that's the whole story ladies and gentlemen. I'd just like to have you see that
that ls put on the front burner...
Mayor Chmiel: Right. I think you see that's where it's at right now because
lt's tlme that something get done with the road as well. And so everything
think is going to be moving as indicated. Hopefully it doesn't take another
years or 3 years or whatever. I thlnk it wlll move ahead from what my
understanding
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Sure. Because I'm convinced that downtown development will
come in a number of areas when that's completed. And because the completion
of TH 5 ls apparently golng to be by next Fall ls going to be a blg help too.
That was part of it too. Streets being torn up on both sides, TH 7 and ?Sth.
Okay, thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Jim.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor. This is an opportunity to maybe, how long will you be
in town Jim?
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: Part of this week.
Don Ashworth: I would really like to have you meet with the new engineers. Have
an opportunity to introduce to you. Let them show you the design that we showed
to the HRA and City Council for that section of roadway. Why they're
recommending it. They're going through some widening in the downtown area and
would you be available Wednesday or Frlday?
B.C. "Jim" Burdick: No. I've got tomorrow, Tuesday or Friday. Well possibly
Wednesday. Wednesday morning. Well, 10:00 would be okay.
Don Ashworth: Charles if you could try to see what their schedule ls and get
back.
Mayor Chmlel: Good polnt. With that I'd 11ke to move 1rem (k). Is there a
second?
Councilman Workman: Second.
Resolution ~F)l-lOOA-l: Ha¥or Chmiel moved, Councilman ~orkman seconded to
approve the Resolution Reallocating Funds for ~est 78th Street Publlc
Improvement Project. All voted tn favor and the mot/on carried unanimously.
L. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNIN~ MOORING OF WATERCRAFT, FIRST REAO~N6.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, there's several issues before Plannlng Commission
coming to Council having to do with recreational beachlots and the lake useage
ordinance. The one that was presented thls evening under (1), Zonlng Ordinance
Amendment concerning mooring of watercraft, first reading, as I read it didn't
meet the, I don't belleve met the lntent of the orlginal amendment nor the
Planning Commission's wishes. Two definitions here, dock setback. The dock
setback portlon of the ordinance states that a dock can't be within 10 feet of
the extended property center line. The problem we're getting is people were
putting their docks out on that 10 foot center line and then proceeding to moor
boats, put on boat lifts and extend right over the property lines. So the
latent was to keep 20 pounds of potatoes within a 10 pound bag if necessary.
Nonetheless leave thls sort of no man's land so this was rewritten today and
presented by Roger. All I've asked for ls that it basically stay the same other
than no watercraft, dock, portion of dock, storage, mooring or boat lifts w111
infringe on that 10 foot dock setback so as they leave thelr beach, thelr docks,
their ltfts, they'll in fact still be going somewhat going on thetr corner of
the lake whlch has been one of the major problems and whlch prompted this
amendment in the first place. So I believe that the copy that was given to us
is the actual latent of what we were trying to accomplish originally wlth thls
amendment.
Councilman Workman: Can you clarify precisely where those changes are on here?
Roger Knutson: Change in Section 2 of the Ordinance. (c).
Mayor Chmlel: Worded as?
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
Roger Knutson: It stops at the setback zone and the prior draft had continued,
in such a way that the watercraft or any part thereof extends across the
extended side lot lines of any lakeshore lot. That was dropped out. And the
reference to bo~t lift was added. Identical change was made in Section 3.
Councilmar, Mason: Why are we dropping that off?
Roger Knutson: The original draft would allow you to moor your boat in such
way that it extended all tile way to your slde lot 11ne. Your dock must be 10
feet from your side lot line but your boat went out parallel to the shore, it
could extend all the way to your property 11ne. The change says you have to
keep that boat moored so it's at least 10 feet from your property line.
Mayor Chmiel: In other words so you're not encroaching on any adjacent
property's water area.
Roger KnuLson: That's right.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Richard?
Councilman Wing: No, I'm very pleased with this. I think it almost resolves
some of the recreational beachlot problems by itself.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to make your motion to move this item?
Councilman Wing: Yeah, with just one quick look at Mr. Krauss.
Paul Krauss: No, that's fine.
Councilman Wing: I would move then.
Mayor Chmiel: Item (1).
Councilman Wing: Item (1).
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the First ReadJng
of Zoning Ordinance Amendment concerning Hooting of Watercraft. A11 voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously.
O. DEFINE ADHINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR TEHPORARY SALES/CHRISTHAS TREE SALES.
Councilwoman Dimler: Item (o) having to do with temporary sales/Christmas Tree
sales. When Z first read this I guess I was looklng for a reason why thls was
belng enacted. So I thought the only, as I was readlng through lt, I thought
tile only concern Z would have would be safety concerns that I could posslbly see
· that we would want to do something 11ks this. So I checked wlth Scott Hart to
find out if there had been any safety situations in the past on any temporary
sale at a11. He assured me that there had been none at a11, and even if in the
future that would be a problem, that this can be taken care of current
regulations through the safety hazards.
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
Mayor Chmiei: Right. That does...
Councilwoman Dimier: Seasonal sales, yeah. And also I'm wondering with trying
to take care of one situation we aren't creating more problems than we're
solving because as far as I can see, then we'd be regulating garage sales, Boy
Scout Christmas wreath sales, lemonade sales. Perhaps bizarre sales and even
our own t-shirt saies at our 4th of JuIy ceIebration. I'm wondering if we
reaiiy want to do that. Aiso I'm very uncomfortabie with giving government the
authority to interfere with free market. Z happen to beIieve that competition
is good. Also, I don't see any fee scheduie and Z think enforcement would be a
headache. So I am not in favor of this at all. I would move to deny item
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, would you like to clarify?
Paul Krauss: A couple things if I could. Councilwoman Oimler, there is no
ordinance in front of you tonlght. Thls could probably.
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't even want to proceed with this is what I'm saying.
Paul Krauss: Well this could probably have gone to the administrative section.
We have had problems with Christmas tree sales in the past and I think Scott can
tell you where we had one ina residential neighborhood last year where we had a
lot of complaints. I'm not sure of your conversation with Scott on this but
thls in part grew out of a memo ! got from Scott telling us that we dldn't have
adequate controls over some of these things. What it is is basically, you know
when you talk about free market, there's a lot of lssues you can get lnto but
I know that I've had a lot of complaints, not here but in other communities when
you have somebody selllng shrimp off the back of a truck who ls not paylng any
property taxes and who is not a member of a business person's associations or
anythlng else competing with somebody who's paying a fortune to be in the
Festival Food. So there's a lot of different thlngs that come into play and
I have had instances where these have caused trafflc problems. They set up shop
in a gas station on a major corner and people turning in. What this basically
was was an outline that says rlght now we'd like to contlnue to do business as
usual, especially with Christmas tree lots unless they show up in a residential
neighborhood whlch we won't allow.
Councilwoman Dimler: And that's according to zoning, not because you need an
ordinance?
Paul Krauss: Well but see in the past Christmas tree lots have always been kind
of a hands off thing. People would call up City Hall and say what do you do
about Christmas tree lots and there's nothing in the ordinance about it any
place and people were told that and the guy took that to mean that he could set
one up on hls front lawn off of TH 7 and he did so.
Councilwoman Oimler: Not in a residential. That would be a zoning violation.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, some of those things are in residential areas. I've seen
in Minnetonka just off of TH 101.
Councilwoman Dimler: But are you then getting into home sales, which I'm
involved in?
City Council Heeting -- December 9, 1991
Paul Krauss: No. No, not at all. No, this gets more into.
Councilwoman Oimler: Selling out of your home. Cosmetics.
Paul Krauss: If Mr. Burdick is correct, and I hope he is. I heard the same
information but once we get a shopping center up and if they want lo bring in a
carnival into town, are you going to want to regulate that? Well you might.
Again it's like the seafood shop setting up in a gas station or it's the velvet
paintings out on a fence on TH 5. Those kinds of things typically cause some
problems and there's VeFy little mechanism we have to deal with it. When the
Twins got into the playoffs I had several calls from National companies that
wanted to come down, they 9o around the country whenever there's a big sporting
event and they set up those stands. They wanted to do that here and I convinced
them not to.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I guess I'm going to say that that would be going
against the Constitutional rights because the Minnesota Constitution, Article
XIII, Section 7 says that any person may sell or peddle the products, and I'm
talking here about farm and garden, not t-shirts, that are grown or cultivated
by him without obtaining a license to do so.
Paul Krauss: Well i:here's no question that, the farm sales.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm just saying this would be a hazard to that.
M,zyor Chmiel: That's completely acceptable and it's not intended to be governed
by this respective temporary.
Councilwoulan Dimler'. That's not what I saw in here. I thought I saw something
about Kerber's belng grand fat hered in. Where did I read that? It must have
been in the.
PauJ Krauss: Well it says that these are either grandfathered in or allowed
since they're located on land used for agricultural purposes.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. The intent is not to govern that aspect of it.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, but even if it isn't grown there. The shrimp truck
can st111 come ln, wouldn't it?
Paul Krauss: No it can't.
Councilwoman Dlmler: Why not?
Paul Krauss: That's not grown in Minnesota. I mean it doesn't fall under the
State protection.
Mayor Chmlel: We don't quite have the ocean front.
Councilwoman Dimler: I know but how do you prove. I know there's obvious but
how do you prove the produce was grown in Minnesota?
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
Paul Krauss: I don't try. I mean if someone tells me the potatoes came from
here or from Idaho, you don't really try to do it. If it's pineapples, it's
pretty clear. Even at that you use some discretion. I mean if a fruit stand is
set up, I know I've dealt with them in different communities before, you just
don't bother with them. But the ones that do cause the most difficulty are the
ones who come in, I mean I've even seen stereos being sold by the side of the
road. You know these operations tend to cause some problems because they're not
here to warrant their stuff. They're not paying property taxes. They have
signage all over. It's those kinds of things you want to get at, not the other
kinds.
Mayor Chmiel: Something where it's in direct competition to what's existing
within a community.
Councilwoman Dimler: The produce sales are in competition with the new grocery
store.
Mayor Chmiel: But if they're grown here, that's a different thing. Host other
things are brought in as Paul has indicated. The same thing with stereos as he
said. There's a place within the community that will sell those items. Why
should that individual have the right to sell within this community when ue have
someone here supporting it. Besides those things might be so hot you couldn't
put them in your car.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well that's controlling the market to me and I don't think
ue should be doing that.
Councilman Wing: Last Christmas out at Minnewashta Heights one of the neighbors
decided to open up a Christmas Tree lot with signs, lights and it startled the
neighborhood. I guess I wasn't personally offended by it but ! think you got a
lot of complaints on that one. I don't believe we had any control or any say at
that point did we? Isn't this directed at that problem?
Councilwoman Dimler: How about a public nuisance? Don't we have a public
nuisance?
Paul Krauss: Well that's a very weak ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: This is a problem not only here but all over. I've heard the
same thing just the other evening that I was at a Planning Commission meetlng in
Sherburne County. They have the same problem.
Councilman Workman: I'll get on the side with Ursula because I think she needs
a little help here, if I can.
Councilwoman Oimler: Certainly.
Councilman Workman: It seems like it's too late for the Christmas tree sales.
Almost.
Paul Krauss: Well we never intended, basically what we did is lay out how we
would deal with Christmas tree sales this year. It hasn't been a problem but
we've been operating 11ke thls all along. We just klnd of wanted your blessings
City Cou.cil He~-;tinc3 []ecember 9, 1991
to do it that wax. Tl~e]~ outline some of the thi~,gs that we thought we might
like to get at .tn ordinance later on. If you don't want us to pursue it we
won't .
Councilman Workman: No, that's not what I'm getting at because I think there's
some middle ground here. The one that comes to mind for me, and maybe the
firewood was grown in 6hanhassen but the firewood guys just come out of the ~ood
work. Zn fact Z was sitting in a driveway at my old home and a neighbor, they
look at the stacks to see if you've got the fireplace or not. Well the
neighbors got a false stack. They had the zero clearance look on it but they
didn't have a fireplace and I kind of said to them, we were sitting out with
some friends and I said number one, they're not home. Number two, they don't
have a fireplace. The guy turned around and said well they're probably a bunch
of jerks. I wasn't goi~]g ~o get in an argument with the guy. I knew the people
was good people but I get a lot of hostilities from some of those people. They
come all the way down from Brainerd and wherever and whatever and they've got a
load of wood and they've got to get rid of it and they're quite aggressive
~hich, and Z wo~'t bring up Hike Hason's velvet Elvis prin[s. Z think something
needs to be done. If the produce stands that are found in town in the Fall Z
appreciate and so what I mean by getting along with Ursula, Z understand the
free market thing and so Z don't want to do something that ue don't want to do.
~nd are we doing that with this. It does start ~o get a little, ~e need control
but maybe we ought to sit down and figure that out. Pick out who we don't like
and I don'~ know how to do that because there are Sf. ate laws to go by and we've
got to figure out. Last year we restricted the sale of used cars at the corner
of TH 101 over there which a guy said hey, wait a minute. People have got to
sell their cars yOU know. It seemed like a good place to sell cars but it was
causing a safety problem so I realize that but I don't like to keep people from
being able to sell what they have because it's important for them to do that.
Frank Kurvers~ I was just listening to this.
Hayer Chmiel: Why don't you come up arsd introduce yourself.
Frank Kurvers: Z was listening to this, Z mean controlling all these businesses
and everything. What about the Schwann man? I mean you talk about things that
people sell in the store. They carry about everything on that truck and a lot
of people like their products which I'm one of them. Now are you going to
regulate the Schuann man? He just gave $? million dollars to the Hankato
College of some of this profits. I think that's a good business.
Hayer Chmiel: But he didn't give anything to Chanhassen.
Frank Kurvers: No he didn't.
Councilman Wing: That's not a good analogy because Schwann is ordered on a
private basis. It's like saying UPS can't come in and deliver a package. I
don't see that. I think there's a need for control. I think the City has
always had a live and let live attitude. I don't see that this is cutting it
out. It's cutting out the problem areas but I still see, I like your corn
stand. I'd protect that because I think we should have that. The raspberry
stands. I don't see it hurling those or cutting those out. It is getting ;'id
of some of the nuisance stuff. It does give Paul and Scott the authority to
10
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
take action if they get complaints and it is in fact not in compliance with
this. I thlnk this just klnd of cleans thls up like the noise ordinance. We
don't want to go out and pick on the community but if the complaint comes ln,
there's something here that our Code Enforcement people can deal with. And so I
see thls as really pretty luke warm. I don't see it as really attacking anybody
as I read it.
Councilwoman Oimler: Paul, are we talking about then regulating 11kw the
Christmas Boutique at St. Hubert's? The Fall Festival Sales at St. Hubert's?
Our own sales of t-shirts at the 4th of July?
Paul Krauss: Well in fact that's an area where you've got to be careful that
you're not dolng charitable stuff. In fact you want a mechanism to be able to
do stuff like that. The ordinance right now doesn't allow, theoretically allow
any of thls and if the Boy Scouts come and are maklng lawn furniture or
something.
Councilwoman Dlmler: Selling wreaths.
Paul Krauss: Well no wreaths is a door to door stuff. I mean my son does that.
Councilwoman Dimler: So you're allowing door to door stuff?
Paul Krauss: Oh yeah. That's no problem. But you've got to be careful that,
you know there's some classic events 11kw the charitable sales and you want to
make sure that they're called out separately. This is really gets to the stuff
that you see when you travel up and down TH 7 or TH 5 in places where the more
intensive things that pull into lots and take over part of the lot and put up
their slgns. Or the carnivals that show up wlth a lot of rides and people park
in the streets. It's those kinds of things.
Councilwoman Dimler: It still seems to me like we can already regulate that
according to existing, I mean safety concerns. They. must have some way to
control trafflc problems. If it's a nuisance, under the nulsance ordinance.
Paul Krauss: We really don't. I wish Scott was here to relate some of the
problems that hls staff has had in gettlng at some of those.
Councilwoman Oimler: Well I did ask him about it and he said there haven't been
any concerns with speclfic temporary sales.
Paul Krauss: Again, Scott and I conferred with this and this grew out of a memo
that Z recelved from hlm.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, but couldn't you shut thls operation down ina
residential area just because of the zoning of residential and the neighbors
were complaining of the 11ghts and the nolse and the traffic?
Paul Krauss: Well again, we're dealing with a classy use that wasn't regulated
at all in the past. When they called up and got a secretary or somebody to say
yes, we don't regulate Christmas trees, they understandably went ahead and put
it in the residential area. You're rlght, lt's technically probably a violation
of the zoning code. But at this point the guy had a 1,000 trees on his lawn and
11
City Council Meetir~g ,. December 9, 1991
when we went out there, or he had 300 trees as I recall, and when I went out
there and told him you're in viol;~tion and all this, which probably would have
taken us, if we really tried to push it, it probably would have taken us a month
or two to get something written up and on the docket and everything to take
action. By that time it's the middle of February. But he had already made that
investment and we felt we had to honor his ability to ~tay there and we just
asked him to keep the traffic down and watch out for his neighbors.
Mayor Chmiel: I think it's a little late for the Christmas trees as you
indicated but maybe what we should do ls just table thls and have some
additional discussions between you and Scott. Maybe Ursula can have some of her
lnput as to her concerns and then go from there. Maybe if you'd like to make a
motion to table ~his at this particular time.
Councilwoman Dimler: Then I'd have to remove my motion to deny.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Workman: I think it was dead.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, you didn't get a second. There wasn't any second.
Councilwoman Dimler: I thought you seconded it with your comments?
Councilman Workman: Did I second it?
Mayor Chmiel: No. No, there wasn't a second here.
Councilman Workman: I said I was going to help her out.
Councilwoman Oimler: Then I'll make a substitute motion of tabling this item
iznti], we can look at it further.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay is there a second?
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table defining
Administrative Procedures for temporary sales/Christmas tree sales for further
clarification. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
P. APPROVE HINNEWASHTA PARKWAY ANNEXATION.
Councilman Wing: I just didn't fully understand this and I failed to ask today
or I wouldn't have brought thls up. This annexation is done. 8oth cities have
in theory passed these resolutions and that means that lt's golng to be Vlctorla
on both sides and Chanhassen's going to have a road going right through Victoria
and it's as slmple as that.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct
Councilman Wing: Is that desireable or is it irrelevant?
12
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Well the only way they can have that project completely done is
to have them involved with that conclusion as you see between the agreeance of
both cltles and wlth the adopted resolutions.
Councilman Wing: So in the future Chan will be plowing and maintaining that
road but the homes on both sldes wtll be on Victoria?
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct but there's other things that I think would be
dlscusslonary at a later time with this and also with the City.
Councilman Wing: So you're comfortable that that's a reasonable way to go with
this at this tlme?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. At this particular time I am.
Councilman Wing: Wlth that I'd move approval of 1rem (p).
Councilwoman Oimler: Second.
Resolution ~t91-113: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the Minnewashta Parkway Annexation. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Kllngelhutz, please introduce yourself for those who don't
know you, and I don't know if there isn't anyone here who does know you.
A1 Klingelhutz: I'm A1 Klingelhutz, Chanhassen, Minnesota. 8600 Great Plains
Blvd.. Honorable Mayor and Council people. The reason I came up here tonight
was the last few meetings I've been gettlng questions from the rest of the
County Commissioners as to what Chanhassen is doing on redistricting. We're
pretty well set in all the rest of the County and what's happening ls Chanhassen
itself is more than one commissioner district in the 1990 census. Carver County
ls approximately 48,000 people. My commissioner district, today with Victorla
I've got about 14,500 in my district. What's going to happen is Chanhassen will
be dlvlded lnto two commissioner districts to a degree. We've been debating how
this would be done. We'd like to keep Chanhassen on the Iow end because we know
where most of the growth is golng to come in the next 10 years so that the
disparity isn't as big as it was the last 10 years. But it will be real tough
to do because we do have to stay withln 10~ of the population of Carver County.
I've heard some talk that there might be 6 precincts in Chanhassen. I've heard
talk there mlght be 5 where you have 4 now. 4 wouldn't work at a11. 6, we
couldn't take 2 and 1 wouldn't be enough to stay within the 10~. $ would bring
the population in thls first commissioner dlstrlct to approximately 9,600 people
which when you divide $ into 48,000 exactly is the number. So we wouldn't be
staylng under the 10~. But the County ls trying to come up wlth their own
redistricting until such time as Chanhassen finalizes their's so we can't do
that and that's why ! came up tonight to see if something, a solutlon couldn't
be done with that because all 5 commissioner districts are going to have to have
an election next Fall and some of them would 11kw to know how lt's golng to be
divided and if they're in the same district they are now or what's going to
happen. Thank you.
13
City Council Meotin:j -. December 9, 1991
Hayor Cl]miel'. Thanks A.I. I know that there was some lines that were being
proposed by the. Cou~r.y and I of course didn't agree with some of the thoughts
that were done at that particular time in taking swipes right down the center.
I don't think that that would be adv1.seable as faf- as the city is concerned.
Maybe with that ~'11 let Don address some of those respective issues as
Fedistricting does apply within the area.
Don Ashuorth: Well I thlnk A1 ls aware that we were waltlng for a long perlod
of time for 11te~'ally the maps to come up 'From the County. Those were received,
and I thlnk we've had them lot at least 4 weeks, maybe a little longer. But
· ~ome of the .i. ssue,s aFe beyond ouF control. Z ~ust got a call from Ann Higgin$
today with the League and this deals wlttl our legislative districts. I don't
know if you're aware of it but one of tile proposals has us as one district.
Another has now spllt off the Hennepln County sectlon whlch is really the way it
.should be because that nlean~ that Hennepin County's going to end up with a
separate ballo~. But in talking wlth Jean lt's her hopes that we're going to be
able to get that completed as soon ,'zs possible. We didn't put a time frame
associated with it and maybe Al, if lt'd be possible for you to stop in sometime
yet ti,is week, maybe you and I and Jean could visit as to where she's at. I
don't know if the Mayor would 11ke to sit on that.
Mayor Chmiel'. I think T would.
Doll Ashuorth: If there is a way we could push that ahead, I'm for lt.
Mayor- Chmiel: T_'d like for us to probably put ~ome type of a time fFame on it.
What ls the requirements as far as the County i8 concerned Al?
A1 Klingelhutz: Well they didn't give me a definite Lime frame. Chaska has
completed thelr's. Waconia has completed thelr's. We're waltlng for Chanhassen
to do the Carver County district. This w~s brought up at the last two meetings
...so T thought we'd better get on the ball and get golng.
Mayor Chmiel: Let us put it this way. That within the next two weeks plus we
should be able to have that pulled together. At least it wlll give you
something to glve back to the Board. Ooes that sound reasonable?
Don Ashworth: Z hope so. Z know that at the State level that they're going
through a lot oF debates as to was what the legislature did this past year valld
or not valld. Part of that's back in State Court, part of lt's in Federal Court
and .T. h~ven't quite sorted it out how that ~ffects us.
Mayor Chmlel: Right. There is some of those concerns.
A1 Klingelhutz: Z don't think the r'edistricting is dividing any municipalities.
~ know we're divldlng counties because Carver County the way lt's presently
districted has got...whicl~ is really going to make it tough as far as ballots.
But one thlng they don't want to do in redistricting is have to spllt a preclnct
so that if you'Fe voting for a county commissioner and half the people in that
preclnct have to vote for one county commissioner and the other half for
a~otheF.
14
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: No, that doesn't seem logical to do and I agree with that. I
agree with that. Okay, so with that we will try to pull this thing together and
it'd be good to sit down and come up with some kind of conclusions on it. And
I'd be glad to sit in on that.
Don Ashuorth: I would also like to, the idea of the two week timeframe I think
is good but maybe if it would be possible for you to come in, you and I sit down
with Jean and try to figure out what exactly the problem is because she's got
the map on her wall and the numbers are there. I think it's just a matter of
trying to sift through them.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
A1Klingelhutz: One other thing. We do have a public hearing on the Carver
County taxes.
Mayor Chmiel: The lOth.
A1Klingelhutz: Which is tomorrow night. Anybody is free to come. We hope to
answer a lot of questions. We hope that you didn't take too much to heart what
you saw in that tax thing that came out because it's going to be quite a lot
different than what it showed on that.
Mayor Chmlel: We've been preaching that here Al. From the Council standpoint
that if anybody wants to really be heard, that's the place to talk is at the
County. As you well know, thls won't be alred on TV until a couple weeks from
Thursday and it will be past the date so any word of mouth is good to get out
amongst the citizenry wlthin the clty. And lt's been advertised in the paper
and as I mentioned the last time, too often times we slt back and don't take
that tlme to go to lt. And we should. So end of sermon.
Councilwoman Oimler: Is it 7:007
A1Klingelhutz: Two years ago we had our public hearing and I think we had two
people there. Last year we had about 10. Now if there's 48,000 people in
Carver County, it doesn't hardly pay for us to get together.
Councilwoman Dimler: At 7:00 tomorrow?
Mayor Chmiel: 7:00 at the Courthouse. And I hope that place is packed. Okay,
thank you. Anyone else? If seeing none we'll move right along.
REOUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT, KURV~RS POINT 2ND ADDITION.
MELVIN KURVERS.
Mayor Chmiel: Don, are you addressing this or Charles?
Don Ashuorth: Charles.
Charles Folch: I can address that Mr. Mayor. Otherwise if you'd like we could
certainly have the visitors give their presentation first and I can just
summarize staff's viewpoints on it following their presentation if you'd like.
15
City Council Meeting -. December 9, 1993.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Gentlemen, either or.
Mel Kurvers: I'm Mel Kurvers and I think you have my request. I sent a letter
in and the reason that I'm asking for this is again due to the storm and we
didn't get the street in. We've got everything else in and we've got people who
are interested in building some homes. I know there's one that the request I
believe is in to the 6ity. It's a large home and it's going to take some time
to build and if we can't get an approval to start this home and we have to wait
until the good Lord takes away the snow that he dropped oil us.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm glad you didn't say until the Sun Shines Nellie. That's an
old song.
Mel Kurvers: It could be a real long time and again I think that these homes
that we're proposing down there, they're going to take 5 to 6 months to build.
If ue can't get something started and it's going to be quite a hardship on the
people who want to build and also for us. We've tried to do everything ue
could. We've got the rock down. We've got fabric down. We've done just about
everything we could but someone else was against us.
Mayor Chmiel: I think what you're talking about is roughly Lots 1, 2 and 6. Is
that correct?
Mel Kurvers: 6 is one of them. 2 is one of them and 1 is right near the
entrance and that's not one right now. There's 2 and 6 are the two. 2, 4 and
6.
Mayor Chmiel: 2, 4 and 6? Okay.
Mel Kurvers: 4 he talked to me about probably starting sometime in January or
FebFUaFy because, and again that's going to be a big house and they're hoping to
get in August or September and hopefully we'll have the snow gone. But
everything is in there except they were supposed to, like I stated, they were
supposed to start the curb on the day of the storm hit and we'd sure like to get
some kind of a waiver or something so we could start some of these. Do you have
any other questions on any of the engineering side? Scott Harri is here so, but
other than that if you have any questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Does anyone have any questions? Okay. Charles.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. As I'm sure you're familiar,
many of the ordinances and regulation requirements that the City imposes have
come about due to past experiences, past problems that we have to deal with. I
guess staff has a couple concerns with the original, with the letter that was
sent. In general terms it appeared that the developer was requesting a complete
waiver of the building permit requirement as stated in Section 19, Paragraph F
so there's a number of concerns with that. First of ail starting off with
unpaved streets such as this one require a significant amount of maintenance.
Frequent maintenance during the wintertime, particularly in the winter and
spring. Access, as I'm sure you're ail aware is very, very important
particularly from an emergency standpoint. Should there be a fire call out
there or some other type of situation with construction. Also public water
service must be available for fire protection. At this point in time the city
16
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
still has not accepted utilities. There's also problems that can result from
contamination and damage to the unprotected Class V, particularly again during
the sprlng thaw. We've also had a comment if you wi11, or information received
from the projects soil engineer stating their concerns that spring thaw truck
trafflc, construction trafflc may have some adverse lmpact on the fabrlc liner
uhlch ls installed underneath the Class V. And if damage would occur, lt's
nothlng that, it lsn't damage that would be easlly and readlly vislble. It's
something that we wouldn't see sediment problems for probably a few years down
the road. One of the main concerns again ls also related to the work that's
remaining to be done on the project. As Me1 has stated, the Class V is down.
Curb and gutter and bituminous pavement ls not. Also there is a substantial
amount of grading work yet to be done on the site. This grading work that's
done would certainly 11mlt many of the lots unbuildable at this point in time on
the project. I guess lastly but still importantly, the City from our standpoint
would take a consistent viewpoint wlth all these projects. Maintaln slmilar
requirements on other projects within the city this year such as Trappers Pass,
Lake Susan Hllls, Mlnneuashta Highlands. It was very important that we put all
these concerns together in order to formulate a solution to this situation.
Glven all thls information, taklng all of thls lnto consideration, staff at this
point in time, based on past policy or practice if you will, the City has
allowed lots adjacent to a paved hard surface to be develop on such as Lots 1
and 2 would qualify and where we've also allowed a lot which would qualify as a
model home if you u111 to also be bullt on. My recommendation initially would
be to, if the Council so deslred to allow the requirement to be waived for Lots
1, 6 and 14. Or I should say Lots 1, 2 and 14. Excuse me, it should be Lots 1,
2 and Lot 6 I should say. However, if Lot i is to be, is not in a crucial
situation at this polnt in tlme we could certainly allow 2, 4 and 6 as Ne1 has
requested but at this poont in time we wouldn't want to allow any other building
permlts. And I w111 condition that on any damage, contamination to the Class V
which is evident next spring would be totally responsible of the developer. In
addition the Clty shall have the ablllty to lmpose a vehlcle welght restriction
in the spring during the City imposed spring thaw period.
Hayor Chmiel: Thank you. Being that we haven't even got into winter, we're
still in fall, and would you be thinking of completing that project prior to
sprlng? My concerns were just with Charles is saying the trucks, the heavy
trucks that would be in there. I would think if you'd probably start wtth those
respectability, when do you comtemplate them startlng wlth let's say Lots 2, 4
and 6?
He1 Kurvers: 6, there's a request in here now. And that's the one I'm really
concerned with. We'd like to get that one going. It's a nice home. Lot 4,
they're talklng about they'd 11kw to start the basement sometime in the end of
January-February. And 2 I can't give you anything. We're still working on that
and I don't know if that would even come in before the blacktop is down. I'd
like to see that because I'd like to move some dirt across the existtng road
rather than across the blacktop and we're trying to. We don't want to break
anything up. I guess what I'd like to do is I'd like to work with the
contractors. The contractors that's doing the street sald they'd be willlng to
open up, keep the road open so they've got to grade it with blacktop. As far as
keeplng...flre department and any other emergency vehicles that may have to get
in but that's, I can't see anything more. I don't know, 6 is my big one. That
request ls in here for that.
City Council. Meeting -- December 9, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and ] guess what Charles is saying is that he would be
amendable ~.o that 2, 4 a~d 6 providing that the Class V doesn't become overly
disturbed with those trucks going in and causing any undue problems for the Cit/
to accept. I think the two of you are going to be sitting around there most of
that time so you're able to watch what's there.
Hel Kurvers: I don't know if I'm going to be sitting.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, hopefully you'll be moving around. If it's too cold you'll
be sitting inside watching.
Mel Kurvers: The other lots they mentioned were right near the blacktop so if
someone was to request [hat, to build in there, they could certainly get an
access off the blacktop. But the biggest concern is 4, 6 and possibly 2 that I
know of right now. The only other one they talked about was 13 and I don't know
about that one.
Ha/or Chmiel: 13 if I remember is quite a distance from those as it goes up.
Mel Kurvers= It's at the end, it's up the first cul-de-sac.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and that would cause more of a problem. I don't have any
real concerns with 2, 4 and 6 as far as I'm concerned.
Hel Kurvers: ...the ways of getting power in there but again I would certainly
want to work with the people as far as when the trucks come in. We certainly
have an understanding that the road is soft...
Mayor Chmiel: hny other discussion Council? Does an/one have any.
Frank Kurvers= That number 6, I want to enlighten you a little bit on number 6.
The power and ever/thing is accessible to that lot. The old overhead lines are
sti].l in there so it can be served with every utility that a normal lot would
have to have... The power line's right behind the lot... The next lot over to
the right can also have a power line because we don't have any utilities at this
time.
Mayor Chmiei: Okay, Ursula?
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'm a little bit confused because I've heard
different numbers of lots. I see 1, 6 and 14 and then I heard you say 1, 2 and
6 and now we're talking about 4, 6 and 2.
Charles Folch: 14 is a typo. I[ should be 4.
Councilwoman Oimler: Oh, okay. Which one is it then?
Charles Folch: On you~' staff report it should be 1, 2 and 6.
Councilwoman Dimler: 1, 2 and 6. Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: ...2, 4 and 6.
18
City Council Meeting -Oecember 9, 1991
Councilwoman Dimler: 2, 4 and 67
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilwoman Dimler: It's 1 they don't want?
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Okay if there's no other discussions.
Councilman Wing: Is this a Visitor Presentation?
Mayor Chmiel: No, this would take action.
Councilwoman Dimler: It is under Visitors.
Mayor Chmiel: No. So it would take action. Would someone make a motion with
the concerns that Charles had had and coverlng Lots 2, 4 and 67
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor I guess I hear Charles' suggestions that we're not
breaklng from a standard we wish to malntain by passing this.
Charles Folch: We're being relatively consistent with how we've operated with
the other developers. That's important.
Councilman Wing: I guess based on my knowledge of the Kurvers, their reputation
in that neighborhood and thelr past record in dealing wlth us on their
developments, I would so move amendment for the development contract, Kurvers
Polnt 2nd Addition.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Nason seconded to approve the amendment to the
Development Contract for Kurvers Point 2nd Addition for Lots 2, 4 and 6. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
AWARD OF BIDS: SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER REMODELING PRO3ECT.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, very briefly. I think most of you are aware that we're
on track to proceed with the construction of the senior center and the
unfinished space behlnd the Council's chambers. After receiving guidance from
the HRA, I believe the Council too, we did send out bids for architectural
services. We did recommend to the HRA that they go with EOS Architects. They
were one of the lower bidders. We also have a good track record with them. They
did other work at City Hall. The HRA supported that proposal. We're also
asking the Council to reaffirm that as well. We're prepared and the architect's
prepared to enter into a contract within the week so we can get them going on
this and get under construction sometime probably in February or early March.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Does anyone have any questions at this time? Senior
Center is something that we're proposing in putting right in this existing
building. We have an area that is empty right now. It's to the bare studs,
which is located on the front of the buildlng and tt's basically used as
19
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
storage. The intent behind this is to use this for a Senior Center. A place
for our own people to come to rather than going ~.o other communities as they've
been dolng in the past. We have a substantial number of senior citizens and I'm
lncluded wlth them, in the community and we do need something for our people
rlght here and so that is what t hls ls all basically about. Any discussions
from Count11?
Councilman Workman: I guess I don't have any comments. I did as an HRA member
look at this and so I'm not just belng qulet because I 11ke to.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes we did. Eventually you're going to get to my age too right
Don?
Councilman Workman: But I was all for it.
Councilwoman Oimler: Oid HRA recommend EOS as well?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Basically yes. They're very familiar with what we do and
the bullding in itself so.
Councilman Wing: If we look at the growth of the clty, ls opening thls up as a
senior center in City Hall going to necessitate an addition to City Hall in the
next 5 to 10 years because, are we talking space that in the long term plan was
hopefully going to be used by the City for storage or staffing? Whatever the
case was. Are we confusing lssues here? Should the senlor center be kept
.[:~olated From Ci~y Hall because of fu[ure space needs in City Hall?
Mayor Chmiel: Well, it's not saying that we may keep the senior center here at
all given times. It's true that expansion can be done even[ually. I thlnk
we're looklng at long term of havlng the exlstlng 11brary uithln Clty Hall in
anD[her locatlon within the City.
Councilman Wing: Which would open up that space?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Wing: So long term this is?
Mayor Chmiel: So long term I'd say this is something we can use here now. It's
a vacant space. It's a space that can be put to use immediately. I'm not
saylng that we wouldn't have something at a much later time frame down the line.
So can I have a motlon to get contractual agreement for architectural servlces
for Chanhassen Senior Center.
Councilman Workman: So moved.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Hayor Chmiel: As EOS as the architect.
Resolution ~91-114: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded that
EOS Architects be given the contract for a not to exceed figure of $10,152.00
for the Chanhassen Senior Center. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
2O
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
KENNEL PERMIT APPLICATION, ROBERT NASH, 855 LONE EAGLE DRIVE.
Mayor Chmiel: Who is addressing this, Don?
Don Ashworth: I believe, Paul are you handling this? Oh I'm sorry, you're on
the kennel permit? The City has received an application for a kennel permit.
Robert Nash, 855 Lone Eagle Drive. Procedure for a kennel's license, or really
any of our permit section list which includes stable is to advertise in the
newspaper informing the public that the City has received the application and
that we are considering issuing the license. In the meantime we do send our
public safety people to inspect the property and insure that it is the condition
for the number of animals that are proposed to be boarded at that location.
Along with any other concerns that the CSO may have. In this instance the CSO
found the property to be acceptable. The manner in which the animals are being
cared for is good. In the process we did receive a number of letters from
property owners in the area who did not wish to see this kennel license issued
because of what was referred to in almost every letter as barking dogs. The
parties writing in also requested to be anonymous. We believe that to be the
case but I think out of 1 or 2 of the letters may not ask for that and then our
problem was, we couldn't remember afterwards which 2 did and which 2 didn't. In
any case, typically a barking animal is not a valid reason for the denial of a
kennel permit. If it turns out to be a continuous problem, potentially with
next year's application it might be. In the meantime we did have a CSO go to
that location and was able to, or he heard the animals barking on more than one
occasion and issued a citation. Mr. Nash did plead guilty to that and at this
point in time the staff is under the belief that the barking dog complaints have
either been minimized or eliminated. If that is not the case, we would continue
to carry out citation process during the course of 1992 and would re-introduce
this issue to you literally a year from today. Accordingly staff is
recommending approval. I should note that the parties who did write in each
received a copy of the staff report that you have in front of you as well as Mr.
Nash.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is Mr. Nash here this evening? Would you like to add
anything to what Mr. Ashworth has said?
Robert Nash: Just briefly. In his letter he referred to, to the best of my
knowledge the neighbors concerns have been satisfied. To be honest [ didn't
realize there was a situation. My first knowledge that anybody was unhappy was
with the issuance of the citation. After follow-up to that, I spoke with
several of the neighbors and it seems as though we've resolved that. They're
basically house dogs. Spend most their time inside and I think we've taken care
of it.
Mayor Chmiel: That was going to be one of my questions. How often are they
inside? I have two small ponies of my own and they stay inside all the time.
A1 Klingelhutz: They are ponies too.
Mayor Chmiel: You've seen them Al. Okay, is there anyone else at this time who
would 11ke to address this?
21
City Council Heeling -- December 9, 1991
Councilman Mason". Just living in that area and some of these people that wish
anonymity have been talking with me about it and I wonder if there hasn't been a
misconception that if you get a kennel license and 70LL'Fe going to get 10 more
dogs in there.
Robert Nash: No. If it goes any direction...
Councilman Mason: Well yeah, and as I see in the permit process, if you wanted
to get another dog you'd have to reapply for a permit anyway. There'uas some
concern expressed but I would agree with Mr. Nash. I think that the barking
dogs in that neighborhood, it's kind of hard to say that it's just his 3
collies. There's other dogs in that neighborhood that let loose on occasion so.
Shelly Manion: I'd like to say something.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Would you like to come up here please. Just state your
name and your address.
Shelly Manion: My name is Shelly Manion. I live at 825 Lone Eagle. I live
next door to Mr. Nash. We at one tlme had two dogs. This is a dead end street.
It's 4 houses on that dead end street. There were 6 dogs. Yes, the dogs are
going to bark when people go down the dead end street. And we take care of hls
dogs at many tlmes. Those dogs do not bark any more than any other dog in the
neighborhood if people aren't around. They're very well behaved dogs. All the
dogs in the neighborhood are. And to flnd out that there's complaints, it
bothers me because we have 2 dogs and are we going to all of a sudden get a
citation. Somebody walklng up to our door saying here's a citation because you
have barking dogs. Our dogs are kept in the house also and it's just kind of
something that needs to be watched but yet needs to be notlced that these dogs
are watched and cared for. If somebody has a complaint, I feel that the person
who's maklng the complaint or if there are complaints should be notlfled before
a citation is issued. I mean I thought that was kind of over stepping the
bounds. He should have at least been notifled before the citation.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you.
Don Ashuorth: If I may follow up on that. I don't have the notes in front of
me but just so it doesn't sound as though we're mongers and going out and
immediately lssulng citations. After we recelve the flrst complaint, uhlch was
not one of the four that had written in, we did have the CSO go out on three
separate occasions and on the flrst two had attempted to go and get a hold of
the owner. There wasn't anyone home at the property. It was really only after
the thlrd vlslt that the cltatlon was issued. I could have lncluded coples of
those but it had all of the names of people involved and I would have ended up
wlth more x'd out areas than would have information for you. So I thlnk in most
instances Bob or one of the other CSO's attempts to get to the property owner
before we just go out and lssue a citation.
Mayor Chmiel' Yeah, I would expect that that really is what takes place. One
of those situations that probably occurred at thls particular tlme but it's not
the intent of this city to do those kinds of things. Only because as I
sald, I've got two dogs of my own too and I know how well they bark, but they're
22
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
also confined in a house. Any time they see anybody walking by the street or
anywhere close to the house, they're barking at them so I understand that.
Councilman Wing: Were these dogs tied in the yard or fenced in the yard? What
was the conditions? They're obviously outdoors during these complaint periods?
Under what circumstances do you know Oon?
Councilman Mason: They're fenced in.
Councilman Wing: Fenced in?
Don Ashworth: The letter simply refers to them being let out. That was
supposedly durlng those time frames and especially, lt's klnd of lronlc, in
defense of Mr. Nash. I have neighbors and I honestly don't think that they know
that when they leave the animal out in the yard and they go away for the
weekend, that that dog sits and barks all weekend you know. It becomes
difficult wlthln a neighborhood to take...a neighbor. I lost one neighbor many
years ago and I klnd of learned that I think dogs are more precious than kids at
tlmes.
Councilman Wing: That brings up the reason that we have tolerated the expense
of the C$0 program is because it would be nice if neighbors could deal with
neighbors but the hostility of the dog owner and the anomosity of the non-dog
owner gets to severe that the City's been forced to intervene. At great cost
intervene in these situations. I don't know where we're at on thls but I'll
just continue that thought. Looking at our animal control history, at one potnt
the Councll wanted to get rld of it because it was so costly. There was
actually an attempt to drop animal control but the community promptly let the
Councll know that anlmals are an lssue and they dld not want that program
dropped. One thing I think I've learned over the years on public safety was
outslde dogs in Chanhassen are kind of out. They're just not in vogue anymore.
People won't tolerate the messes, the garbage cans upsets and the barking of
outside dogs. I thlnk that's becomlng lntolerate and I thlnk that outside dogs
are increasingly becoming non-existent and in this particular neighborhood, as
I looked today, I saw it as a rather close, busy neighborhood that really can't
tolerate a lot. We just got down with the noise ordinance and people are very
sensitive to these nolse issues and barking dogs. When I saw kennel permlt here
I panicked. I saw just more dogs outside here creating a bigger hazard but the
blg question I had Mr. Mayor, I guess if they're house dogs and we're just
trying to control them.
Mayor Chmiel: They basically are.
Councilman Wing: But I think it's important to note that outside dogs and
barklng have never been in vogue and are becoming increasingly less in vogue in
the City and it's costing us a lot of money to enforce it and the citizens want
it enforced. $o I thlnk it behooves you to be very cautious. That that ls an
issue and people are very intolerate of a barking dog or a dog at large by
today's standards.
Mayor Chmiel: Thomas.
23
City Council Meetil]9 .- December 9, 1991
Councilman Workman: I think that was very well said because when I saw kennel
permit come up, I Vol nervous. More nervous titan Richard because the 3 of us
had a situatior, where the neighbors were just about coming to fist to cuffs and
the dogs were outside a~d then at 3:00 a.m. a racoon would walk by and they'd go
wild. And then when the CSO's went out there and [he Carver County police and I
think ue had the FBI out there, and of course they wouldn't bark. They'd sit
there for half an hour and they wouldn't bark so I'm glad that, I'm not glad for
Mr. Nash but we caught their dogs barking. But we've had similar situations
where Bob Zydousky went out to check on it, check on it, no barking dog and
finally the neighbor called me up and said I've still got a barking dog and what
are you doil~g about it. Then it becomes my problem you know. So I'm glad, I'm
no[ glad for any kind of a citation or anything but I'm glad to get the
clarification from Don that ue did follow some sort of a process because this
is, I think the Council almost came to fist to cuffs over this one and whether
it fit into the noise ordinance and the nuisance ordinance and everything else.
Ha/be we're getting a direction here.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Hearing none, can I have a motion?
Councilman Wing: I move approval of the kennel permit, 855 Lone Eagle Drive.
Councilman Workman: Secol]d.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the kennel permit
application for Rober Nash at 855 Lone Eagle Drive with the condition that staff
be instructed to continue to monitor and enforce our Nuisance Ordinance in
regards to "barking dogs". All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTHENTS AND APPEALS FOR A LOT AREA VARIANCE
TO BUILD A SINGLE FAHILY RESIDENCE, FRANK OAUGHENBAUGH, 750 CREE.
Paul Krauss: Hr. Mayor, as you indicated the applicants, they did receive a
variance approval from the Board of Adjustment but it was appealed by neighbors
to the City Council. The request is to allow building on a lot that contains
9,043 square feet. City Code normally requires ~5,000 square foot lots but
provisions in there allow non-confornling lots of record down to 75~ of that
requirement to be approved without a variance. So in other words, if this lot
had 11,250 square feet, another 250 square feet, it wouldn't need a variance at
all. Of course this is in an area that's been difficult from an ordinance and
enforcement standpoint since the ordinance was drafted. It is an old lot of
record. Near as ue can tell it existed as far back as 1932 in the same
ownership. The applicants are making a request to make this lot to use. It's
currently vacant. We did have some discussions with the City Attorney on this
and as in some other cases before this, the City has some perceived obligation
to make a lot useable. Zf there is no use for the lot, there may be a taking of
that lot. The applicant was able to design a home that fit on this lot without
needing additional variances. I think that that's really the break point. If
you can't build a home on a lot without any variances, I think argueably that's
not an acceptable lot but in this case it met that standard. That being the
case, we did recommend, admittedly with some reluctance to lot size that this be
approved because we saw no other recommendation that ue could make. The Board
of Adjustments did back that up and again it's been appealled by aggrieved area
24
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
residents who were seeking some appeal to the Council on that. Also in
reviewing this too, if this thing is approved or your agree with the approval,
we wouId like to add a condition. Drainage on this iot is being taken care of
but it is something of a concern. There is an outflow right over here and
there's sort of an impoundment area someplace like that where water, depending
on how fast it's flowing and how the pipe's working, may back up before it gets
through the pipe. What we'd like to do is protect that by an easement and if
you do approve it, I'd like to require as a condition of approval that a
drainage easement acceptabie to the City Engineer be provided. With that we're
continuing to recommend the variance be approved.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is the applicant here? Yes sir. Would you like to add
anything to what Paul has said?
Frank Daughenbaugh: My name is Frank Daughenbaugh. I'm the applicant
officially for this variance. The lot is actually owned by my brother-in-law.
The reason that we went into this is that he wanted to sell the lot. He's owned
the lot for 59 years and paid taxes on it and paid assessments. He wanted to
sell the lot but without a variance the lot is not buildable. Trying to sell a
lot that requires a variance scares people so we decided the best thing was
apply for the variance and build a house and sell it as a dwelling. We've
conformed I think to everything that's been requested except for one thing that
we can't change which is the lot size. The drainage I don't think is a problem.
I certainly have no objection to a drainage easement acceptable to the City
Engineer. There's about 8 feet of elevation from west to east. That is from
west over to Carver Beach Road there's about an 8 foot drop so I don't see
drainage as any problem at all. Setbacks are not a problem. I guess I can't
add much to what the staff report has already stated.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else who would like to address it? Yes sir.
Scott Nelson: My name is Scott Nelson. I live at 767 Carver Beach Road which
is a pre-existing home that is shown on the plat there. First I'd like to
present a petition to the Mayor from local residents who are against the
building on that lot. Second I would like to ask if all the board members have
gone out and taken a look at the parcel? Okay. It's a tough situation for both
parties. We understand Mr. Daughenbaugh's point and Mr. Tenney's right to build
a home on there. It's unfortunate that the home cannot be for Mr. Tenney. We
wouldn't like it but it'd be understandable. He has owned the lot for a number
of years and by that right he should be able to build on it. But what we find
here is that we're having a spec home put on the lot with no buyer either way
related to the party or unrelated. We feel it's going to be a direct
infringement on what we purchased. Our house is also on a small parcel of land,
however it was built in 1951. Our reason for moving out to Chanhassen was to
get away from the city. We lived in the city on Lake and Lyndale and we both
grew up in Glen Lake and liked the western suburbs. We moved out here, I see
they quoted me as saying fir trees in the notes but mature trees that we noticed
out in the area. I'm hoping that maybe we can come to some agreement with Hr.
Daughenbaugh. I know we have not talked directly for quite some time except for
the price of the lot which at that time was $29,500.00 and I don't know what his
situation is but I did have a thought the other day that I'd like to present to
the Council. And Mr. Daughenbaugh, if he's interested, can contact me after the
meeting. It's not going to hold up the vote. The vote can go through either
25
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
way. I inquired at my firm tl~at I woi'k at, public accounting firm, as to the
deductibility of the lot should either Russell or Russell gifted it to Mr.
Baughenbaugh, they were to give it to the City. It would be a tax deduction
generally speaking. I would have to do some re.'~earch, up ~o the fair market
value of the parcel and I believe less basis. What I'm proposing is if Mr.
Oaughel]baugh is interested, I will perform the research on that pro bono,
without charge for his review. He can take whatever information I give him and
present it to his tax adviser to see J.f it conforms. Where the City comes in,
if the City would accept the lot, that we would then take care of the liability
insur.znce on the property ~fter checking out to see how much it would run a
year. And possibly get other neighbors in Lhe area to donate playground
equipment and possibly along with this could be the park could be designated in
the name of Mr. Tenney. That way instead of having a house on it, we could have
& park where the kids could pl~y, and there are 15 in the immediate neighborhood
that would absolutely use the park and I don't know how many more are within a
block or two. That is the only other idea that I h~ve come up with. I know
that legally he is within the law and I'm hoping that maybe we can come to some
agreement. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Scott. Found new innovation ways of thinking. Anyone
else? Michae],.
Councilman Mason: Same thing occurred next door to where I live on an 8,000
square foot lot. In talking with Jean Nelson and ue chatted quite a bit about
it. It's very frustrating. I know Carver Beach. I learned very quickly Carver
Beach is a thorn J.n the side of the city because of substandard lots, lots of
record, this, that and the other thing. I guess what I'd like to pursue ls
finding out just what lots are still substandard size in Carver Beach and if
anything can be done about it and at what point does the Clty no longer have the
legal responsibility to say yes you can or cannot build there. I think an 8,000
square foot lot's pretty tiny when we're talklng about 15,000 square foot RSF
.1. ets. I understand the City's liability. I understand that the City
essentially has no choice but to grant the variance. I thlnk it goes beyond
that and this one may or may not be a done deal, although I think what you're
proposing is certalrlly worth looking 1rite. My hat's off to you folks for dolng
that. This will keep coming up until Carver Beach is totally built up on and I
have no ~dea what army of the legalese or what would be entalled but at what
point do we still owe a lot that's 60 years old a right to be built on? Forever
in perpetuity?
Councilman Wing; It's not buildable ;low right?
Councilman Mason: The lot?
Councilman Wing: Without a variance.
Councilman Mason: Without a variance but grant tile variance and we're saying it
is.
Hayer Chmiel: Is that it Michael? Tom.
Councilman Workmate: Well I've already saw this at the Board of Adjustments and
it was very difficult for the Board of Adjustments to deny it knowing where
26
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
maybe our hearts were on the matter and what we would llke to accomplish. It
becomes a very difficult decision because you don't like to say no to a group of
people who you know it's going to lmpact. I guess to answer Mlke's question
somewhat, if you pay taxes on a lot for 60 years, it would seem you do have
quite a few rlghts and that's what made it difficult for us to say no. I don't
have anything against Mr. Daughenbaugh but I realize how it's going to impact
the neighborhood. If anybody can glve me any shred of legal foundation to do
that, I mean we would. I don't think, and I said this before, that we would
have to buy the lot. We meaning taxpayers and I don't think we've ever done
that. If we're park deficient up there and we need a park and we can get a good
deal for a plece of park, maybe that changes the whole scenario. But it would
appear as though the profit mode of Mr. Oaughenbaugh is what's drtving the
thing. Maximization of dollars and I don't know how we would compete wlth that.
Mayor ChmLel: Good, thank you. Richard.
Councilman Wing: I vlsited lt. I vlslted the lot today. Paul one thing I
didn't understand is running east to west in about the middle of the lot is a
very significant low area swale. Almost 11kw a small dralnage dltch that's
already there going into that easement area you're talking about. Put a house
in the mlddle of that lot, there's clearly a, that depression that ls drainlng
that area. How are you going to with a house reroute that and then get it back
to where you want it?
Paul Krauss: Well, I think the area you're speaklng about, the natural dralnage
right there wants to come right through here. What they'd be doing is bullding
up, and they're showlng wlth arrows. We get better plans than that wlth the
building permit. It's raising the elevation of the earth around the house so
the water goes around it both to the north and to the south and wlnds up in the
same place.
Councilman Wing: Brian Batzli at the Planning Commission some weeks ago brought
up the issue of lot size and there was a lengthy discussion on lot size. And in
PUD's they were questioning the validlty of smaller lot slzes even on a PUD and
he was suggesting that 9,000 and 10,000 foot lots do nobody, including the
homeowner, buyer, the future, the city any good. That you wlnd up wlth a house
on a lot that has no room, nowhere to go, can't build anything, can't change
anything, can't put your deck on. All the problems and he felt the city was
doing a disservice to allow PUD's and we got into a discussion of lot size. In
a PUD they were suggesting that maybe no less than 12,000. I remember a number
of, even in a PUD where...lot size of 15,000, 13,000, 12,000. The issue was
small lot size. I klnd of hate to encourage another small lot. Continue the
problems in that area. On the other hand, the entire Carver Beach area is
substandard lots.
Councilman Mason: Oh, that's a gross generalization. A lot of it is but it's
not, to say that all of Carver Beach.
Councilman Wing: Well not all of it but a lot of it is.
Mayor Chmiel: There's a lot of lots that fall past...that actually shows it.
City Colznc£1 Meeting - December 9, 1991
Councilman Wing: So then I look at this and I see the neighbors are all on
sm~l], lots already and it'..-~ a lot of record, what do you do wlth lt? I'm sure
the Park and Rec doesn't want lt. Llke you say it's not bulldable without a
va~'iance. On tile other hand, it's a lot size that's compatible with other lots
in the immediate area. It's a lot slze we've allowed in PUD's. I just have had
a re~l tlme of it. I would llke to encourage larger lots. I would like ~.o get
out from under the problem we have in Carver Beach and we've encouraging thls
probb;m to continue. On the other hand, it is :zn old lot. An old family. A
lot of record that 18 bulldable with this variance and I guess unless somebody
has a solution as to what they want to do wlth that lot, I feel we either have
to allow thls party to bulld. The neighbors come in and buy it to thelr beneflt
and riley maintain it as a neighborhood park that they own or grant the variance
and let the house be bullt. To just leave it for another 60 years as an unknown
I don't think Zs reasonable at this point so I guess I'm tending to support it.
But I'd sure 11ke to see that Carver Beach area bulld and end the problem 11ke
you were commenting on.
CounciJman Workman: Somebody's going to have to buy the lots.
Councilman Wing: Yeah, at some point tile lot's going to get bought and I don't
see the Clty.
Mayor Chmlel: Yeah, that's not our responsibility to acquire lots I feel either
for the City and take those dollars and put it into just keeping them as such.
Then if we establish a precedent here, any other areas that would have lots that
would not be sold, we're saying why don't you buy here because you bought in the
other' locatlon and that's not part of our business, as far as I'm concerned.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor finally, it was a lot of record. I think it was
known to the surroundl¥1g owners. Z don't thlnk thls ls new. I don't thlnk lt's
a surprise so I think if the neighbors choose to buy it, that's an option they
have. Z don't thlnk lt's up to the city as you commented to take that
responability and ~ don't thlnk it's even fair for us to continue to leave this
an unknown. Z think we elther have to flnd a ~olutlon here and it seems like
tile easiest solution to me might be to allow this variance. I guess
favoring that direction.
Hayor Chmlel: Okay. Yes, would you like to say something.
Robert Rojina: I'm Robert Rojina. I live at 751 Carver Beach Road. I think
there's a survey of the average lot size done in Carver Beach and it was around
14,000 so what you're saylng doesn't, goes in contrast to the average lot size.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Ursula.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I want to take a lot more time on this because I
think everything that's been said is true so I won't repeat all those points.
The only thing that I thlnk denlal of thls would constitute a taklng whlch means
that we'd have to spend tax dollars. I believe at this point those would be a
high amount of dollars whlch I don't thlnk the City can afford. We just passed
a very tight budget and it didn't really leave room. Even in our Park and Rec
budget we were told that neighborhood parks, although they're very nice and I
supported them and would have liked to see more of them, they weren't a
City Council Meeting - December
priority. We were going more with developing city wide parks at this time in
the budget so I just don't see it in the budget in any area for us to purchase
that land even if we wanted to. Although I think that was a very good idea.
But I would have to go along with approval based on all the evidence.
Councilman Mason: Mr. Mayor, can I make one more quick comment?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure Michael, go ahead.
Councilman Mason: In talking with Ms. Nelson, she was told time and time again
throughout this whole ordeal if you will that it was an unbuildable lot. It's
an unbulldable lot. You don't have to worry about lt. It's an unbuildable lot.
That's essentially what was going on. And I think part of that's perception. I
mean if I was told by the city that hey, you don't have to worry about it, I
wouldn't. And then to have this come down all of a sudden would be pretty
upsetting and I wonder if maybe we don't need to take a look, particularly with
areas like Carver Beach. That the people that are dealing and the people that
are working for the clty that are deallng with the citizens, to be very careful
about what they say because to call, as I'm finding out, to call any lot in
Carver Beach unbuildable just ls not so. And I guess I thlnk Clty staff needs
to be very sensitive of the issues that are being raised in Carver Beach. I
suspect some of the problems would have been alleviated had they at least been
told well gee, this is Carver Beach.' This is a tough one. Just an I don't know
I thlnk would have been better than havlng them been led' along belng told it was
an unbuildable lot.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Is the house that, the plans that you've seen Paul, are they
compatible wlth the lot and compatible wlth the neighborhood?
Paul Krauss: Well, it is a little bit different looking as you might think
would fit on the property. But you look at the lnterior and it's got everything
a house is supposed to have. I don't want to stir the waters up any more on
this thlng elther but we're in a very preliminary stage of working with our
water quality improvement plan and it's clear to me, and I can't tell you where
these thlngs are golng to be but it's clear to me that at some polnt we're going
to need to obtain what little open land is left to intercept storm water before
it dumps lnto Lotus Lake without being settled out. I don't know if thls lsa
good site for it or not. I mean to get a settlement basin on this property
you'll have to tear down all the trees that you want to protect anyway but I
know that, I was talklng to the consultant tonight about the parcel at the end
of your street whlch would probably be 1deal for that. As far as a publlc
purpose goes, that is one that we occasionally have started to consider in
Carver Beach but again, I'm not certaln that that really justifies dolng
anything different on this one.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I too think that, from what I understand and what I see,
and I'm not too happy with that being built within there but nonetheless they do
have that right to construct. I did have some discussion wlth Mr. and Mrs.
Nelson this past Saturday as they came in and visited with me on Saturday
morning. I 11ke the ideas as to what he's come up wlth and that's something
that possibly you can have some discussions with Mr. Oaughenbaugh and also the
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
our, er of that particular property. It's your' choosing but as I see what's
available right now and as far as the land and the owner's shift of it, with
that variance we would be vulnerable to leaving ourselves open to a given
].awsuit as well. I know it's goi~,g to create a, imposition on the Nelsons and I
do feel bad with that and I've indicated that to them. I said come up with some
.[de,, some proposals and I thought that was a good one that you did come up
with. The only problem is you have to get the cot, sent of the our, er himself in
doing as such. But I encourage you to pursue it with them to see and leave it
there. I guess I [oo would have to go along with building a structure on that
particular lot.
Councilman Workman: Paul, is this and maybe Roger, is this strictly a lot of
record taxes issue? The point that Mr'. Rojina brings up about the average lot
size in fact being 14,000 square feet.
P~ul Krauss: I think your first point is probably correct.
Councilman Workman: I mean is that the only reason we have to, which is a good
reasons. I mean is tidal the reason why?
Paul Krauss= That's the primary reason.
Councilman Workman: I mean because on the Board of ~djus[ments well, and we've
kind of gone through that. The lots within 500 feet of this are smaii.
Paul Krauss: This graphic shows.
Mayor Chmiel: When you say small, you mean smaller than what's being proposed?
Councilman Workmate: Similar.
Paul Krauss: There are a couple of smaller ones within 500. We use the 500
foot radius. There's a couple of smaller' ones but there's quite a few larger.
The ones in this tone exceed the 15,000 square foot requirement. The ones here
are something less than that. So there's a great deal of variety in there as is
typical thoughout Carver Beach.
Kirsten Rojina: Could I say something?
Mayor ChmJel: Certainly.
Kirsten Rojina: According to them, my name is Kirsten Rojina. I live on 751
Carver Beach Road which ls directly across from Cree so our driveways will be
rlght against each other. The area less than 15,000 square feet, our lot ls
shown as that but we actually own almost an acre of land so I'm not sure that
that you can say that the surrounding lots are all comparable because I think
there's qulte a bit of difference between 9,000 and you know an acre.
Additionally, you were saylng lt's a hardshlp for the people actually who end up
buying the house because they can't add on and whatever. This is a corner lot
wlth two 30 foot setbacks and that makes it even more difficult to bulld and I
know that the house I~as all the appliances in it and everytl~ing but the actual
slze of the house ls, if you take the garage out, lt's extremely small. And
divertlng the drainage around the side lot is going to be a maintenance problem
3O
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
and I think it's going to be a drainage problem. I just don't think you can
write it off as saying that all the lots surrounding this lot are substandard
because in fact they're not.
Mayor Chmlel: Thank you. Any other discussion? Hearing none I'll entertain a
motion.
Councilman Workman: Can I ask one more question?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Daughenbaugh, ls there a chance that that lot could be
sold?
Frank Daughenbaugh: Could be sold?
¢
Councilman Workman: Without a house on it?
Frank Daughenbaugh: We trled that for a year and what we ran lnto was that
every buyer that was even, many interested prospects but when they found they
had to go through a varlance procedure and there was no guarantee that thls
would be in fact a buildable lot, it's pretty hard to write a purchase agreement
and to get people to put money on the lot on a variance. Zt's I don't know,
sort of a trust thing I suppose for one thing. So we decided after a year of
trylng to sell it that the best move was to go ahead and apply for the variance
and build and then sell the package. I'd be very happy to sell it. My interest
in the thlng ls to get my brother-in-law's investment for him.
Mayor Chmiel: One question that I have too that I was going to ask and it just
came back to me. How many square feet would that home be?
Frank Oaughenbaugh: What is it Stu, around 1,800 isn't
Stu: About 1,800 square feet. It's quite a blt larger than a lot of the homes
in the area as far as flnished square footage. It's similar to a house that's
on Pleasant View Road just north of the lake that was a second runner-up in the
Reggie competition in lg85 and there were several homes, it was so popular there
were about 8 other homes 11ke that bullt in Eden Pralrle. One near Town Llne
Road and Bell Road and in that area. It's a quite popular design and it's got
more space than a lot of the homes in the area. Smaller than some.
Roger Knutson: Mr. Mayor, maybe I can just clarify what the rules are on
variances. When zonlng regulations prevent all reasonable use of the property,
that constitutes a taking of that property. Invalidates the regulations, unless
you're willlng to buy the property. The exceptions are when the property ls of
such a character that any development of that property will do something like we
didn't have sewer and water there and it was rlght adjacent to a lake and you
didn't have a septic system that worked and you pollute the lake. Those kind of
extreme situations where you can turn down requests for a variance and say the
lot's unbuildable because if we allow you to build without sewer and water for
example, you're golng to pollute the lake and that's just not acceptable.
Barring those kind of extreme situations, you're almost put in a box where you
really have no cholce but to grant the variance or to acqulre the property.
31
City Council Meeting -- December 9, 1991
Councilman Mason, the situation you were talking about where a variance was
granted, the difference there was that fell within what's called the self
created hardship topic. Durin9 the period in concern, one person owned
adjoining lots and we can roquire them to treat those lots as one. That's the
distinction. Here that situation does not apply.
Hayor Chmiel: TI,ank you.
Councilman Wing: It would be ideal if one or more neighbors could buy that lot,
deed it back to the city and take tile write off.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, that was one of the things that I discussed with Hr. Nelson
Saturday,
Councilman Mason: Not very feasible?
Councilman Wing: It's unfortunate there's such a silence here. It means
there's more than one very valid slde.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's true.
Cour, cilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion to approve the variance.
Councilnlan Wing: I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded to approve the variance. Any other
discussion?
Councilman Wing: Only to say by seconding that I honestly, in support of the
neighbors, don't feel the Council has ally other option.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve Variance ~91-20
for 750 Cree, with the following conditions:
1. The applicant malntain the natural dralnageuay. A drainage swale shall be
created around the proposed residence.
2. The applicant shall submit a tree preservation plan prior to issuance of a
building permit.
3. A drainage easement acceptable to the Clty Englneer be provided.
All voted in favor except Councilman Mason who abstained and the motion carried.
Councilman Mason: I would just for purposes of clarification I would like the
Minutes to note I abstained on that vote.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to give your reasons for your abstention?
Councilman Mason: Well one, I live in ti'me area and I think that's a cop out.
Because I have said before, I can usually get my heart and my braln in sync on
these issues and the issue is, I would not, I understand the City's
responsibility there. I don't question the affirmative votes at all. Because
32
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
of that I would have felt uncomfortable opposing it but I also couldn't support
it.
Counciluoman Dimler: ~n abstention counts as a no right?
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
APPROgE BEgELOPMENT CONTRACT fOR LUNBGREN BEOTHERS/ORTENBLAT/ERSBO PLANNEB UNIT
DEVELOPMENT.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, you approved this project, preliminary plat for this
project last fall. The applicant is requesting approval of a development
contract to allow hlm to begin gradlng on the property. Now thls only really
applies to grading and it has something to do with our grading ordinance we
adopted last year whlch does not allow any work of this slze to be done unless
it's under a CUP, which this is not, or if it's under development contract for
an approved contract. In doing this you should know that you haven't yet glven
this final plat approval and we're all aware of this. Final plat approval, if
you approve thls tonlght, final plat approval must be submitted to you by May.
This is only to allow grading, site preparation work to begin and it's work
that's been approved by the regulatory agencies and I think you'll recall qulte
a bit of detailed investigations. There's a couple reasons for starting the
grading early. First of all we'd prefer actually from an environmental
standpoint that they do the work in and around the wetlands in the winter. It's
the better tlme to do it from an environmental standpoint. You cause less
damage. But secondly there's some changes in State law that are coming up
wlth January 1st, 1992 and they're really qulte complex and you know there's a
lot of uncertainty as to how that's going to affect projects and there's some
deslre, we've had thls elsewhere in town to get the project started and get it
going so there's no question about it. I see that they have Linda Fischer here
tonight from Larkln-Hoffman who can glve some explanation of the changes of the
State law, if there's any desire to get that. But it is quite complex and I
know Llnda's kind of an acknowledged expert on what changes are occurring. In
fact she gave a seminar on that not too long ago. But we are recommending that
the contract be approved. Agaln it is for the grading activity. We're getting
ample security to restore thls site if we need to and there's a condition that
the final plat be brought in for your approval by May.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, if it becomes complicated as you've indicated, but it also
ls something that would be applicable to follow with those guidelines that's
being proposed, why would we try to change that at this time?
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, when we had this project designed, we had it designed
to meet these interim regs that come inbetween 1992 and 1993 to the best of our
ablllty. We belleve we've done that in terms of the wetland preservation, the
amount of conversion we have. We have a positive balance in wetlands being
created. I thlnk you have a great deal of uncertainty in all these agencles as
to how they're going to apply all these rules and there's considerable concern
in the development community that while the State figures this out, that a lot
of things are going to be put on the back burner for who knows how long. I'm
not certaln if that's actually the case or not but I know that there's a lot of
concern out there about that and having dealt with some of the agencies, I can
understand where the concern comes from. I don't thlnk, in my oplnlon...all the
33
City Council Heeling --Oecember 9, 1991
agencies we've worked with, I think as you're aware we've contacted virtually
everybody there was to contact on this. That ther-e's nothing to change on this
project. It could just sinlply be delayed because of bureaucratic snarls.
Mayor Chmiel-' Okay, I'll have some other questions but I'll wait and listen,
Charles Folch: Mr'. Mayor, members of the Council. There's two corrections that
have come to my attei~tion with the development contract. In your item to
Attachment ~1, which is the cover page for the development contract, their item
3, development plans. The third sentence which reads the plans may be prepared
subject to city approval after entering the contract but before commencement of
any work in the plat. It should continue to read, except for Phase 1 grading.
The second correctio~ occurs on page 6. Section R. Stated as final platting of
the property must take place by, it should be May of 1992. Not 1991.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, anything else?
Charles Folch: That's the only things I'm aware of.
Mayor Chmiel; Okay. Paul, you mentioned that maybe some clarification
regarding wh~tt it is for 1992 as opposed to 1991 and someone's going to make
that presentation.
Paul Krauss: Well, if I could pass this over to Linda. Linda's clarifying for
me that one of tile ma~or concerns is tile ~rmy Corps permit which explres in
3anuary.
Linda Fischer: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Linda Fischer, 1500
Northwestern Financial Center representing the applicant t.undgren Brothers. I
was really here thls evenlng to answer any questions and it looks 11ke there may
be some. There basically are two reasons that the applicant has r'equested the,
I'll call it the early gradlng permit on the development contract. The flrst
really is tile Corps of Engineers per'mit. As some of you may know, the Corps of
Engineers under' Sectlon 404 of the Clean Water Act issues permits under varlous
types of authorizations. The two primary ones are individual permits and
nationwide general permits. There lsa nationwide permlt that authorized
wetland fill of less than I acre in certain isolated wetlands. The amount of
wetland f111 that was authorized in October by your wetland alteration permlt
is .7 acres in isolated wetlands. ~e have obtained a written nationwide permit
from the Corps of Engineers that authorizes the exact same wetland f111 that you
approved in October I understal~d of 1991. Nationwide permits are issued
throughout the country for 5 years. They expire in mass on or about January 1st
of 1992. We are concerned that the Corps has issued draft revisions to the
nationwide permlt rules but they will not be finalized unt11 January. To the
bes( of our knowledge, having reviewed those rules, the project would be
consistent wlth the proposed changes but because of language in the permlt and
our concern about losing a vested right, we want to do the work that is
authorized by the Corps permlt prlor to lt's expiration. That really ls the
principle reason that we are requesting tile early grading because of tile Corps
permit expiration. In addition and without trying to, I'm not trying to give
you a seminar- on the State wetland bill but you are aware that there is the
Wetland Conservation Ac[ of 1991 that was enacted this summer. Your staff of
course in your city should be commended as you're way ahead of most communities.
34
City Council Heeting - December 9, 1991
You already are regulating wetland alteration and you are generally consistent
in this project with no net loss policy that is now the pollcy of the State.
Thls project proposes to create i acre of new wetland and to f111 .7 acres and
to enhance over 5 acres by excavation and raising the control elevation so I
thlnk there's no question that it ls consistent ulth the intent of the Statute.
Point one. The interim program which has a moratorium on wetland fill takes
affect in January. The first guidance from BOWSR's, Board of Water and Soll
Resources was that plat approval obtained between August and January would not
exempt you from the interlm program. It now appears that that may not be the
case and if you have a plat approval in October as an example, you may be exempt
from the lnterim program. However, you may then come under the permanent
program in July of 1993 or when the rules are adopted. What all this means is
that there's a lot of uncertainty. And just advising the developer because of
one, the expiration of the Corps permit and two, the question of exactly what
the affect of the rules w111 be, it seemed prudent to them to obtain Watershed
District approval which by the way we have obtained last week I believe and City
approval and to do the work before the expiration of the permit. We really
believe and I think Mr. Krauss has indicated that we would be consistent with
the wetland replacement certification that we may or may not have to obtain but
this is a moving target and we just don't want to take a chance on the los$ of
our Corps permit. That's basically the reason for the request. I'd be happy to
answer any questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Are there any questions? Ursula.
Councilwoman Oimler: Yes. Could you please tell me why or do you know why the
Corps has made these revisions? What's the purpose?
Linda Fischer: Well the Corps, as I said, the nationwide permits are issued by
publication in the Federal Register. They're really not permits as you know
permits. Individual permits. They're issued nationally for a range of
activities that have been determined collectively to have minlmal environmental
impact. One of them is fill in isolated wetlands less than I acre. They expire
by law. There have been several of these. They expire by law in January so the
Corps published proposed revisions but they haven't, the comment perlod is over
and they've not lssued a final rule. So in the meantime when you get a
nationwide permit it tells you, it warns you that the permit may expire in
January.
Councilwoman Dlmler: But what I'm saying is, they didn't revlse them in years
past.
Llnda Flscher: Oh, they have. That's the other thlng. There was a nationwide
permit that ran from 1982 to 1987. It was slightly different from the one that
ls running now from 1987 to 1992, whatever. One or two years there so there may
be some changes. There may be a need to go back to the Corps. We think the
St. Paul Dlstrict wlll be here. You may have heard it will not. All of these
things are uncertainties and when you have a permit, the rule of thumb is to try
to do the work under the permit so there's just no question.
Councilwoman Oimler: There's no big outstanding disaster that.
35
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
Linda Fischer: Oh no, and as a matter of fact the, well it's virtually certain
that tile i acre of fill. wlll remain in tile permit when lt's reissued. I mean
from what I've seen unless something changes so that, but the question about
whether we need to go through a new permit[ing process, etc., etc., is sill1 out
there. So that's basically lt.
Mayor Chmiel: My understanding is that the Corps is going to remain in
St. Paul.
Linda Fischer: Yes, and that's what we thlnk too but.
Mayor Chmiel: That was decided just a few weeks ago.
Linda Fischer: It's something that we think would be prudent to do or at least
obtain the authorization to do so. As ue worked on this, it's changed. The
guldance we get ls changlng really on a weekly basis.
Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm just wondering, from what is existing, what's being proposed
will benefit the city. I guess that's my concern. From what they're talklng
about. Paul.
Paul Krauss: Mayor, if I could address that. Let's put it in the worst case
scenario. Let's put it in the context that those Class B wetlands where the
road is going to be are filled and at the same time the better quality wetlands
are expanded because that's the other part of the arrangement. We were getting
more wetlands out of this than ue started with. And at that point Lundgren
pulls in their horns and says they can't do this deal and they walk from the
site. Arguably I think that we've got a better site from an environmental
standpoint without any cost to us or impact at all. We're coming up with two
better quality, larger wetlands replacing some real periodic marginal ones and
it's at no cost to us. If there's any problem with not, you know even more
worst case is if the project's half done, we're asking for financial guarantees
so ue can finish it ourselves. I mean l. undgren I think has the financial
wherewithal to finish it of course but we are going to protect ourselves. So
I really think that there's no risk. In fact there's a possible benefit by just
proceeding with it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions?
Councilwoman Dimler: I thlnk maybe you just answered it but that was one of my
concerns. We just gave Lundgren an extension and I think for the second time on
their flnal plat approval for Summit in Near Mountain. That was clted that the
housing market or the bullders market lsn't real good rlght now in 1991 and who
knows what 1992 u111 brlng. $o my questlon was, what wlll thls early grading do
if they go for tile extension? Let's say they come back and want another year's
extension ln, [hey can't do it in May of 1992. Let's go for May of 1993. Wlll
that in any way lmpact us if it's done ahead of time?
Paul Krauss: No, again I think you'll have better quality wetlands and a vacant
site 11ke you have rlght now. So lt's no loss for us. There's no risk.
36
City Council Meeting - December
Mayor Chmiel: I guess the question I ask is, and maybe Terry can answer it, is
to delay one specific project in the area that we just talked about as opposed
to this and being able to build right now. Homes within that particular area.
Clarify.
Terry Forbord: Your honor. Members of the City Council. My name is Terry
Forbord with Lundgren Bros., 935 East Wayzata Blvd. in Wayzata, Minnesota. Your
honor, just to make sure I'm answering the question that you asked. Was your
question meant that why would we be proceeding with this proposal versus not
proceeding with the Summit which you allowed our firm to extend the filing of
it's final plat?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. The reason for that is that the market's not.
Terry Forbord: I think if you read the staff report, you'll note that the price
range of homes at Trappers Pass and at the Summit are considerably higher than
the price range that we are proposing on the subject property. Even though the
price range for homes $300,000.00 and up is soft right at this time, statistics
certainly will support that the price range of homes that we are proposing for
the subject property are doing quite a bit better. MLS statistics and Met
Council statistics for building permits would support that. And in our
business, just 11ke any other manufacturing business, we're always trylng to
meet what the market place is and that's a moving target. It's always changing.
Right now that ls where the majority of the home buylng publlc ls ls in that
price range. And so we are pursuing that. There are other things that
obviously have something to do with that although they may not be as important.
Those would be the timeframes of existing agreements that we may have with the
landowners. We have very favorable terms on the land in Near Mountain as far as
the amount of time that we have to develop the property with the sellers versus
the subject property. And there are numerous other items that certainly can
make us pursue one particular development prior to another. But the primary
reason is the price range.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any other questions?
Councilman Workman: So is there going to be a modification to number 1 or just
as it sits? We're okay on all permits?
Paul Krauss: No, that's consistent.
Mayor Chmiel: These are all existing 1 thru ll. Those have not changed.
Paul Krauss: The only changes were the ones that Charles had mentioned.
Mayor Chmiel: The only ones that you've indicated Charles in each of these.
Other than the grading in the 1st as well as page 7 or 6 was it? '92 rather
than '91.
Councilman Workman: Well I would move approval of the development contract
agreement for Lundgren Bros. Construction Project ~91-14.
Councilman Mason: Second.
37
Ci[,y Council Hee[i~]g - Oecember 9, 1991
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Development
Contract for Lundgren Bros. Project #91-14 as amended by the City Engineer as
follows: In Attachment ~1, item 3, development plans add the phrase, except for
Phase 1 grading at the end of the second sentence. On page 6. Section R, final
platting of the property must take place by May of 1992, not 1991. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously.
AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR TRUNK SANITARY SEWER AND
WATERHAIN IHPROYEMENTS IN UPPER BLUFF CREEK AREA ~SECTIONS 15 AND 22), PROJECT
91-1Z.
Charles Folch: tlr. Mayor, members of the Council, the City has received a
peLition from Ker, t Carlson of Ryan Construction Company, the developer of the
proposed Chanhassen Buslness Center property located west of Audubon Road and
:south of the railroad corridor. The parcel encompasses approximately 94 acres
and ls zoned offlce industrial. In order to be subdivided, the property
developed to zonlng standards, municipal sanltary sewer and watermain services
are needed to be provlded to the property. Therefore it ls necessary to conduct
a feasibility study to determine an appropriate sewer and water needs for this
property and the adjacent area north of Lyman Blvd.. In addition, slnce these
facility improvements will likely traverse properties owned by other
individuals, a feasibility study w111 evaluate the costs of speclal assessments
for benefitting properties within the study area. Tile consulting engineering
firm of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderllk and Associates has recently completed a
comprehensive sewer and water study for the Bluff Creek area. Glven thelr past
work effort and familiarity wlth the area, Bonestroo was asked to submit a
proposal for preparing the feasibility study. Their estimated cost for the
proposal ls $11,900.00. Such costs would be credlted against future design fees
should all improvement projec~ proceed. In addltion thls cost of the feasibility
study would be lncluded wlth the total project cost for speclal assessments.
Therefore it is recommended that the City Council authorize preparation of the
feasibility study to evaluate sanltary sewer, watermaln improvements to the
proposed Chanhassen Business Center and adjacent servlce area bounded to the
north by the rallroad corrldor and to the south by Lyman Blvd. conditioned that
a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $11,900.00 be secured to
guarantee payment of the study.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I guess I have just one quick question. Did we
contact all the adjacent property owners informing them of the potential of thls
feasibility study?
Charles Folch: I don't believe we have, no.
Mayor Chmiel: Should that not be something that we should do?
Charles Folch: Typically when we, after the feasibility study is completed and
we brlng it back to Count11 for presentation, at that point we notify all the
affected property owners of a publlc hearlng to conslder approving the
feasibility study at that point in time.
Mayor Chmiel: Right, but don't you think we should bring them ina 11ttle
sooner than that polnt in time in making sure that they're well aware as ~o what
we're looking at and what we're thinklng as far as a city goes because often
38
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
times there, it's an after the fact and they feel that they're not brought into
the total process of it.
Charles Folch: We could certainly have some sort of informational meeting if
you will held that would basically talk about the area to be studied. However,
without a study we wouldn't have any more detalled information concerning or
lines to potentially know what costs would be and things like that until we
actually have a study done.
Mayor Chmlel: I don't thlnk to have an informational meetlng for them because
you're right, it wouldn't dictate anything but just notifying those people in
and adjacent to where thls ls golng that this ls in process.
Charles Folch: I see. We can certainly send out a mailing. We can certainly
do that.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think it's good timing. And the other thing that I had
on this too, the City should not pick up any of the costs regarding the
feasibility study. Normally if a developer feels he wants to develop that
properties, that of course is a cost he's going to put up front for us as well
to do this.
Charles Folch: That's been our policy.
Mayor Chmlel: Rlght. Okay. Any other discussion? Ursula.
Councilwoman Dimler: I agree with both the points you just made Mr. Mayor,
especially the one about notifying the neighbors now because obviously they're
not asking for this and they're going to say why should we pay. You know I've
heard lt, we've all heard it before. Also, I was wondering if we only got one
estimate, why didn't we get more estimates?
Charles Folch: Well we solicited from Bonestroo agaln because they had done the
much larger comprehensive study and were familiar with the area and there was
some work that would not be duplicated. Having them proceed wlth this study
that would be possibly duplicated with another consultant. In comparing to
relative dollars, the estlmate for a similar study whlch was done in Lake Riley
Hills area was estimated well, it's estimated at about $12,000.00 and that's
what the costs are runnlng so it's fairly representative of the work effort
needed to do this study.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but are you saying that the information that BRA has
that might be duplicated is not available to another consultant?
Charles Folch: Well it certainly is but there is work that has been done
basically by them that they have the work...
Councilwoman Dlmler: I guess I'm concerned because we could keep dolng thls and
we're really favoring one firm and excluding others and I don't like to see us
do that. I mean I want to get competitive pricing which is when you get more
bids.
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
Charles Folch: Sure. I think if the estimate would have come back and appeared
to be somewhat unreasonable for the amount of work needed, I thlnk we would have
chosen to make that direction. We do try a diversity of consultants that do
work for the city.
Councilman Workman: Who's paylng for the study?
Charles Folch: Well we recommend ~hat the developer who's petitioning for the
project up front the inltlal security. If the project does proceed, these costs
as I mentioned wlll be included in the total project costs which would be spread
out among all benefitting properties in the servlce area. So ina sense what
they're basically, what tile developer's basically doing is guaranteeing payment
of the study should they walk away and the project doesn't proceed but they
would be credited for their fair share if the project is completed.
Councilman Workman'- I'd moue approval.
Councilman Mason: Z would second that.
Resolution #91-115: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to
authorize the preparation of the feasibility study to evaluate sanitary sewer
and aatermain improvements to the proposed Chanhassen Business Centre and
adjacent service area bounded to the north by the railroad corridor and to the
south by Lyman Boulevard conditioned upon receiving a cash escrow or letter of
credit in the amount of $11,900.00 to guarantee payment of the study. All voted
in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Councilwoman Oimler: Is that with the understanding that we notify the
neighbors now?
Charles Folch: Yeah, we'll send out notice.
APPROVE ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT WITH BARTON-ASCHMAN.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Very briefly, this
consultant agreement ls the flnal document needed to lnltiate the preparation of
the design plans and specs for the last segment of the previously programmed
TH 5 improvement which w111 extend from CR 17 west to TH 41. The 2.2 mlles
stretch of thls improvement project 1ie entirely within the corporate limlts of
the clty of Chanhassen. As such the clty w111 function a~ the lead agency for
MnOot and enter into a cooperative agreement wlth Barton--Aschman. Chanhassen's
role through thls deslgn phase wlll be very simllar to a project manager whlle
MnOot will be responsible for technical review and the actual contract
administration for the construction. The actual construction of this project ls
tentatively scheduled for a 1996 start date. However there is a possibility
that thls schedule could be accelerated as early as 1994. Therefore lt's sort
of important at this point in tlme to lnitiate a design for this project so that
the plans are available and ready to go should an accelerated schedule be
available for 1994. Therefore it ls recommended that the City Council approve
the consultant services agreement with Barton-Aschman for the flnal deslgn
services for the extension of TH 5 from CR 17 west to TH 41 in Chanhassen.
4O
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: That total amount of dollars paid to the consultant would be
what?
Charles Folch: Basically our share, the total design fees are estimated at
about $320,000.00 of which the local share is $50,000.00. That $50,000.00 being
split by three communities and Carver County. Eden Prairie, Chaska, Carver
County and Chanhassen. So Chanhassen's actual share is $12,500.00 of the
$320,000.00.
Councilman Workman: I would move immediate approval of this fine document.
Councilwoman Oimler: I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: A motion with a second to sign this document with Barton-Aschman
and Associates. Any other discussion?
Councilman Wing: Workman wouldn't have done that at 7:30.
Councilman Workman: Sure I would have. Are you kldding? This is the most
excltlng thlng on the agenda tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussions?
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm assuming legal counsel has looked at it and everything
is in order. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Just as good as you can get it. ! did have some questions but
think I'm going to forego those. The other question I think that Ursula asked
before is how many other consultants are there that could do this project as
well? Was this just provided to one respective consultant?
Charles Folch: This was chosen by MnOot. We really didn't have any control
over that.
Mayor Chmiel: You answered my question.
Councilman Workman: Barton-Aschman has done the whole thing.
Charles Folch: To maintaln continuity through all the segments of the project.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the Consultant
Services Agreement with Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. to provide final design
services for the extension of Trunk Highway 5 from CSAH 17 west to Trunk Highway
41 in Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
ADHINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: LOWELL CARLSON SI~E PLAN UPDATE. SEN~OR PLANNER.
Mayor Chmiel: Let's just if we could, let's just skip a couple of these and
let's go to item number 12. Can we? I don't want Mr. Carlson to stay here all
nlght. He might get a little tired here. If that's agreeable with Council,
we'll move to item 12(a). Paul, are you going to address this?
41
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
Paul Krauss: Yes Hr. Mayor. This one's got a long history and it's a little
confusing as to what's going on but I think you'll recall that we've had some
concerns with the outdoor storage on Hr. Carlson's property for a number of
years and it finally resulted in legal action. Hr. Carlson pleaded guilty to
maintaining a public nuisance and the Judge handed down a sentence which the
dates are not being adhered to that uell yet but I think we'll all working
touards that which includes clean-up of all items. Ail vehicles and equipment
stohed on site much be licensed and operable and he's got to submit a site plan
to the city showing that there's no exterior storage outside a building or
approved outside storage area. Mr. Carlson attempting to comply with this order
did submit a plan to us. I forget but uithin the past 2 months. ~e've got some
real concerns uith uhat he's submitted...square feet. That's larger than the
industrial building that you just approved on Park Drive by uay of scale and we
think it's somewhat excessive in that neighborhood. ~e developed sort of a
staff position as to what we uould find acceptable here but given the fact that
this isn't an ordinance requirement, ue uan~ed to bounce this off of you and the
Planning Commission so ue could get back to Mr. Carlson with a formal position.
Because this may uell have ~o go back before the Judge. ~e felt that, in fact
Jo Ann's got the conditions, '[he four conditions. That the building should be
no more than 5~000 square feet, uhich is quite large for a storage building in a
residential area. ~e think it's quite huge for a storage building in that sort
of an area. That's the total storage area. I'm sorry and the storage area,
they consist of a building. The building is 3,000 square feet so there'd be
2,000 feet of screened outdoor storage. The Planning Commission agreed with
these outlir, es but again we wanted to come to you and get your feel for it
before we officially get back ~.o Mr. Carlson and the Judge with our position. So
Mr. Mayor I'll throw it back to you and we're looking for guidance on this one.
Mayor Chmiel: Lowell, did you have something that you wanted to show to the
Council?
Lowell Carlson: Yeah. When this whole thing started out it was to, we didn't
have all the equipment inside storage. I mean I agreed and what they agreed and
thls whole thlng has turned lnto such a ~od forsaken mess that Z don't even know
where we're at myself. Anyway thls is all scaled out for this building. Some
of the equipment, thls is a11, each plece of equipment ls scale to slze. Some
of the equipment was not home at the time this guy took the scale and took the
thlng down for thls particular building. They're trying to tell me a 3,000,
5,000 whatever is...stand outside. I tell you, I'm 57 years old and that last
snowstorm worked out, ulth a piece of plastlc over my head, snow all over and
I worked with mud before that. Dear Council I am r'eally kind of uptight. I'd
11ks to have a building. I'd like to live 11ks a human belng and be 11ks a
human being like, Mr....built a big building over' here and nobody said anything
about that. You know I just got to the polnt where I'm too old to fight the
ueather and conditions and for somebody to tell me hou much square feet I need
to put and the rest should go outslde. My equipment gets rusty. Most of lt's
diesel. Won't start. What it costs me for my men to get these vehicles started
and rust and started and froze up and you name lt, I'm only asklng for the slze
building that I deserve and I've always been promised. They uent over to Mound
and accepted when I tore it down. They renlgged on thelr word. The Plannlng
Olrector was over there. She okayed it, Barb. Your building inspector was over
there. They okayed it before I tore it down. I brought it home. They sald I
had to have a movlng permit then and they've been at thls thlng, one thing ~o
42
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
another. I guess I deserve something before my time in my life. I'm asking you
people that I deserve the building of this size to only keep my equipment in
halfway decent shape and myself you know so we can work where it's warm and
decent instead of the conditions that we've had to work and trying to make a
living as a self employed excavator. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Basically what it boils down to is it's 140 by 80
feet and that segment that sticks out is the office portion there is roughtly 40
by 30. That entails as you're saying Paul 12,000 square foot?
Paul Krauss: That's the calculations that I have. Yes, 12,400.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And Paul you're saying basically a total storage area not
to exceed 5,000 square feet. This was brought before the Courts, the Judge
accepted the 12,4007
Paul Krauss: No sir. The Judge set no limit at all. He asked that a site plan
be submitted and that we see what we could live with.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Wing: Has this been to Planning?
Paul Krauss: Planning Commission did look at the same thing and agreed that the
5,000 square foot of storage space was about all they would feel comfortable
with.
Councilwoman Dimler: Paul, did I read that right that this is 6 acres total?
Paul Krauss: The site?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes.
Paul Krauss: Yes, I believe that's correct.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. And is this building proposed to be hidden somewhat
by trees?
Paul Krauss: No, I don't believe so.
Councilwoman Oimler: It's out in the open?
Paul Krauss: Well actually you've got quite an exposed site. There's very
little in the way of trees. On about the fourth page there's a site plan and it
looks 11ke lt's.
Councilwoman Dimler: But we're not asking for any landscaping or anything?
Paul Krauss: Well again, we weren't recommending that this be approved so we
dldn't spend a whole lot of tlme trying to make thls work.
Mayor Chmiel: You do have this building on site right now right?
43
City Council Meeting -- December 9, 1991
Lowell Carlson: Pardon me?
Mayor Chmiel: You have a building on site? One structure. This one 40 x 80.
Lowell. Carlson: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: That's an existing building that you have now?
Lowell Carlson: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Oh it isn't.
Lowell Carlson: That was the building that was okayed...Butler Building that
was okayed...come to the City of Chanhassen and wanted to go look at tile
building and okay it to put on that property. That's been what, 6 years, 5
years ago. So this bullding has been lying there, on my property for 5 or 6
years and thls thlng's... It was okay at the beginning and I've been to Councll
Inee~.ings, Planning Commission, planning board meetings...and at that time it was
under a speclal use basls whlch I was automatically grandfathered ln...whole
thing caught fire. And like Paul was not at the courtroom and tile Judge says
okay, if I satlsfy, I plead to gullty to storing debrls on public property of
one of those counts that was charged to me so I pleaded guilty to that one. The
Judge agreed that if I satlsfactored the City of Chanhassen, clean my place up,
he said he'd see that I'd got the, he'd give me the building if I did what
Chanhassen wa,ted. I have redraw plans. I don't know if he's got one here.
I drew three of them. I gave you a topographic plan. I drew one of them...
drew a landscaping plan of all the trees. I drew...plan. This is about, I
don't know how many plans on this particular one makes and still there's
something rotten in Denmark somewhere but anyway. But I've glven them
everything that...
Roger Knutson; To give you a little bit of background. My memory's a little
fuzzy because this goes back a long time. The Council granted Mr. Carlson a
conditional use permlt for a contractors yard. I forget exactly what year. A
number of conditions were attached to that approval and they weren't complled
with and numerous letters were sent and calls made requesting compliance and we
didn't get any compliance. The matter was brought to the Council's attention.
A publlc hearlng was held and hls conditional use permlt was revoked for non-
compliance wlth tile conditions of approval. And that's pretty rare here.
Lowell Carlson: Why's that?
Roger Knutson: It's rare because we usually work with people and get things
taken care of. Following that, letters followed to Mr. Carlson saying you have
to pull back your buslness to the scope it was in under your grandfather rlghts
and you have to get rid of the junk. We weren't able to get that ~ccompllshed
so relunctantly we resorted to litigation and the Judge, agaln rare, actually
walked the site and you don'[ find that very often. And he went through and
told Mr. Carlson he had to clean the place up: The result is ua're back here
now trying on Planning staff's recommendation for slte plan approval. ~ believe
that building, lt's on the site now lsn't that correct?
Lowell Carlson: Yes.
44
City Council Meeting - December
Roger Knutson: It's component piece is on the ground.
Lowell Carlson: Yes.
Roger Knutson: And they're weathered pretty hard aren't they?
Lowell Carlson: Well, they're all still got...but in any longer number of years
gone by I would say they're going to be... It's an ail steel structure.
Roger Knutson: It's a metal building?
Lowell Carlson: Yes.
Roger Knutson: Class V floor?
Lowell Carlson: Yes. Except the shop.
Councilwoman Oimler: Class V is dirt floor?
Roger Knutson: Gravel.
Councilman Workman: Weii if Mr. Carlson builds this smaller building, then what
have we got? We've still got stuff outside then right? Then we're going to go
to screening.
Paul Krauss: The proposal that staff developed said you've got this 5,000
square foot space, that's it. Nothing is stored outside of that. Also I don't
want to speak for the building inspectors but I know they have severe
reservations that that thing is salvageable. I don't know hoe many years it's
been lying there but I'm not even certain it's a legitimate structure anymore. I
knoe the building inspector's raised some reservations with it.
Roger Knutson: If I remember right, when it was brought to your site it was not
a new building right? It was moved in.
LoweIi Carlson: ...steei structure. They used it for all the people working
there for, I would say it was 30 years old.
Roger Knutson: $o what you have is a buiiding that's had, a metal building
that's had 30 years of use that's now been on the ground in piles for 5 or 6
years or something.
Counciiman Workman: Well, can ~e require that he has to use new construction?
Paul Krauss: I think that whatever goes on there has to meet Code and I've got
very serious reservations that that thing will ever meet Code.
Councilwoman Oimler: $o he couldn't use it?
Paul Krauss: I couldn't say with certainty but I don't think so.
Mayor Chmiel: As it shows here with all the items that were removed from the
site or stored in an accessory buiiding, quite a few things that were to have
City Council Heetil~g - December 9, 1991
been gotten rid of. Have most of those been taken care of?
Lowell Carlson: P~rdon me?
Mayor Chmiel: On the items that were listed be removed from the site. Have
those been dispensed with already?
Lowell Carlson: Yeah. There's a couple items that got snowed i. under...
Mayor Chmiel: That's understarldable this time.
Councilman Workman: Well I don't know how to otherwise distinquish between
whether 3,000 is enough or not. It doesn't sou,d like it's e,ough but I don't,
a 12,000 square foot bulldlng is going to be unbelleveable out there I thlnk.
don't know how to.
Mayor Chmiel: It's almost the size of what Cith Hall is right here. Pretty
close. We're 11,000 something.
Councilman Workman: I guess I don't see anything that we can do then other than
to ~.~pprove staff's recommendations and figure something out from there. Now if
you can make a 3,000 square foot bulldlng out of what he's got there or how that
works. I don't know to follow that but what else do we have to go by?
Councilwoman Dimler: Didn't we pass an ordinance that restricts the size of
buildings? Accessory structures.
Paul Krauss: Yeah, but this is under, and again I defer to Roger but this is
under a court settlement and I thlnk that you have some latltude to do something
other than what the ordinance says. Now I think you should refer to that a
little bit as guidance. Keep in mind here too tllat we've had complaints from
some of the adjoining property owners for a long time.
Counciluomall Dimlel-: And would you refresh my memory what was the square
footage on what we approved for accessory structures?
Paul Krauss: It's 1,000 square feet maximum.
Hayor Chmlel: It becomes a problem really to look at it and see from what he's
proposing to do from what the recommendations are. Not to exceed 5,000 square
foot and storage area must consist of bulldlng screened outdoor. The bulldlng
may not exceed 3,000 square feet. But as Paul said, we don't have to do
accordingly. Even a 5,000 square foot, that's 50 x 100 and what do you wlnd up
with when you're looking at the total size that Hr. Carlson's looklng at of
12,4007 Zt's a vast difference. What he's going to do with the balance of the
equipment?
Councilwoman Dimler: Well, I don't know what the answer is but I sure don't
think I want to go beyond the 1,000 that our accessory structure 11mits
everybody else to at thls polnt.
Mayor Chmiel: This is a little different case as with what Paul said. Because
this has been established by the Court so therefore you'd have that ability to
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
make that much of a difference.
Councilwoman Oimler: But that building will be there maybe long after
Mr. Carlson has sold it or moved or whatever. I would be relunctant to go
beyond our ordinary ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: It'd be hard to put a restriction on that as well I would think.
To saying that if he were to build a specific slze, that something like we dld
before ulth Minneuashta, that house. That bullding would have to be removed
either upon sale of the property or whatever.
Roger Knutson: Those things are extremely hard to monitor because the Clty has
no knowledge, when someone sells property, they don't send you a letter saying
we're leaving town.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. No, that's right.
Councilman Wlng: We have to bear in mind that that's an extremely cholce piece
of property. One of the finest pieces of property in Chanhassen so if it gets
sold, it lsn't going to be to store machinery. Someone's going to put up a
magnificent home there if Mr. Carlson doesn't.
Mayor Chmlel: Yes. That ls excellent.
Lowell Carlson:
approved.
For instance...what square footage have they got...that was
Paul Krauss: I honestly don't know that.
Lowell Carlson: ...riding stables or horse barns or whatever. I'm just asklng
if all the nelghbors...makes a difference or...
Mayor Chmiel: That's a good question. Could all that equipment that you have
there be called Mustangs?
Roger Knutson: One thlng to bear in mind, many of those buildings may very well
have been there long before your ordinance requirements are in and ordinance
requirements do change. This is a change.
Councilman Wing: The cases I'm aware of, that would be true. Mr. Mayor, I
picture Mr. Carlson, if I could be sllghtly colorful here, sitting up on the top
of his hill on a horse looklng around saying, what's gone wrong. Where did this
change? I mean this is sort of the last frontlet and Custard's last stand in
Chanhassen. He has a very labor intensive, very equipment intensive business
and when he moved out there and bought this property, nobody cared, nobody saw
it but it's an extremely prime piece of property. Very exposed and my real
concern almost is more for Mr. Carlson because in the very near future, and I
mean the very near future. Not decades but near future, development and housing
ls coming in and every single house ls going to complain. Everybody's going to
want to move the horse stables out. They're going to want to change it to their
liking and thls type of buslness ls not going to flt lnto that community. So
whether we 11ke it or not or you 11ke it or not, I think you're aware that
progress is going to squeeze you and I out. We're just not going to be
City Council Meeting -- December 9, 1991
acceptable anymore. As the guy that builds his house right next to [he horse
stable down south and the next day he doesn't like the smell, of horses and he
wins. Yotl know we just start shifting the city west and further out and you're
goillg to get caught up in that so my concef'n is, you invest money and time in
these buildings and all of a sudden the pressure becomes so great that you
simply cannut maintain the business anymore. The restrictions even here are
going to be very curtailing for you with the amount of equipment that you've
got. I just don't see an easy solution for you here. I see nothing but pain
and trouble for you regardless of what we give because progress is going to be
so against you in the near future. It's disturbing.
Lowell Carlson: Where can you go? I'm only a... That happens to be my
livelihood and this started in 1973 with you people. I mean there comes a time
it's got to come to an end. If we would have built this building in 1973 like
we were supposed to, a lot of, we wouldn't be here today... I mean I can't just
keep on all my 11re belng here at Counc11 meetings...a bulldlng that was
accepted... They said he'll be at it again...because I didn't have a horse. The
rest of them all got buildings because they had a horse or whatever they had at
tile timo. At what par't of tile smaller building, what sits outslde and what
don't? What englne don't start and what boxes don't I need to shovel snow off
of before I get... What equipment sits and what don't? If any of you have got
diesel, slttlng outside is pretty near impossible to get them golng. You lose
that much work and you lose that much on a job and the guy ask you why you ain't
there. I'm only trying to make a 11vlng.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I guess we're going to have to come up with a conclusion on
thls. Is there any other discussion that you'd 11ks?
Councilman Wing: Would you, I've done business with Mr. Carlson and know him
personally. Could I, would you allow me to bow out of thls discussion? Mr.
Workman has taken the words out of my mouth. Ny heart and brain here aren't
golng to come to terms on thls.
Councilman Mason: That's my line.
Councilman Wing: I gave you credit for that. I quoted you.
Councilman Mason: You said Workman.
Councilman Wing: Excuse me, Mr. Mason. I stand corrected.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, like I said before, I don't think the Council's
going to say go ahead with the 12,000 square foot building. I thlnk we need to
find a happy medium. Median. Medium. Anything less ls going to cause Mr.
Carlson irritation and so, I guess wlthout just throwing out an arbitrary
number, which I think is golng to be unfair and that's why the Council's klnd of
hemming and hawlng on thls one. Maybe we should go out there and try to flgure
that out. Get a little better. Maybe we need to go out there individually
agaln. But I don't know what, I have a good idea what thls 5,000 square feet
is. It's not a lot considering what he wants so it may not have any relevance
and maybe we're not supposed to care but I don't know how to make a decision.
I guess I can fee]. my temperature rislng and I'm about ready to go home so I'd
11ks to make a decision. Maybe we need to table thls. I know staff doesn't get
48
City Council Heeting - December 9, 1991
excited about that but maybe we need to, in 1973 I was a young lad.
Councilman Mason: Were you even born then7
Councilwoman Dimler: Extremely young. I just wonder about tabling thls. This
is our Zast meeting of the year. It will take us into 1992.
Mayor Chmiel: Well nothing's going to take place on the site.
Councilwoman Dimler: The Judge left no deadline when this was done?
Mayor Chmlel: No, I don't thlnk there's a deadllne on thls ls there? Roger?
Roger Knutson: The things were supposed to have been done some time ago
actually but we're the enforcement agency. We bring it back to the Court's
attention. He should have had this done back in September.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I guess I feel things aren't going to get better
and I think staff is looking for some guidance. Tabling isn't going to give
them any guidance.
Councilman Workman: Yeah but I mean to pull an arbitrary square footage.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well we do have an ordinance and that's why I sa£d that
earller that I wouldn't want to go beyond that.
Mayor Chm£el: Yeah but 1,000 square feet would be so minimal you couldn't park
my blg toe in there. It's much too mmall a~ far as I'm concerned. I make a
suggestion we come up with a conclusion. If you want to table this, that's our
perrogatlve and we can brlng it back. If you want to go out there and maybe
look and see total equipment. Or if you so desire, as I said tabling it, why...
Or come up wlth a conclusion as to total square footage. I think that the, as
everyone has indicated, the 12,000 square foot would be excessive but there's
got to be something that's golng to keep Mr. Carlson in business. But yet as
you look at the 5,000 square feet which is $0 x 100, that'~ not going to do
anything.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's true. I'm sorry, I was confused. We were not
talking about a commercial building there on the accessory structure. That was
on a residential lot? Okay. Do we have an ordinance then that covers
commercial?
Paul Krauss: It's illegal.
Councilwoman Dimler: You can't?
Paul Krauss: No.
Councilwoman Oimler: Okay.
Hayor Chmlel: That's why everybody's been wrestling ulth this slnce 1973.
Councilman Workman: I'm for taking one more look at it.
City Council. Meeting -- December 9, 1991
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess in that case we'd have to.
M~.zyor Chmiel: Make the motion.
Councilman Workman: I move to table this so that Council can get a better grip
on what the square footage needs of Mr. Carlson are and come back the first
Councll meetlng in January to make the decision.
Mayor Chmiel: I'll second it. Any other discussion?
Councilman Workman moved, Hayor Chmiel seconded to table action on the Lowell
Carlson site plan until the first City Council meeting in January, 1992. All
voted ~n favor and the motion carrJed.
Lowell Carlson: Let me ask you one thlng? What makes the different size is
what that bulldlng ls...long as ulde. Nobody's golng to bulld to the south of
me. Nobody's building to the west of me because I own property right up to the
west. Nobody down in the corner... The one who caused this problem...ye111ng
and screaming...but anyway. How two people or how two individuals, like I was
just listening to that dog deal you know. Tf one guy screams, you put the other
guy on the spot really... Anyway, the size to me, the length, this is going to
be to f'ront...lf it happens. Whatever's golng to happen. Zt's only in length.
And to screen...
Mayor Chmiel: The other thlng that bothers me a 11ttle blt about it Lowell ls
whether or not that existing building will even be in conformance wlth the Codes
as well at thls time.
Lowell Carlson: The Code, what I'd say...
Mayor Chmiel: State Bulldlng Znspector?
Lowell Carlson: So that was always, it was Code when Tonka Toys had it because
all the people as far as...that thlng was awful good constructlon...and
whatever. I called the Butler people and at that time it started way back on
the snow loads and whatever...
Mayor Chmlel: More than likely you're golng to see some of us there just taking
~ look see.
Lowell Carlson: Okay...
Councilman Wing: Lowell, before you commlt a lot of money to thls, I urge you
to remember my comments that you're the largest contractor lot in the Upper
Midwest rlght now rlght itl the mlddle of progress. I mean progress ls targeted
at your lot. I'm concerned about you putting a big lnves[ment into something
that lsn't golng to be feaslble for the future.
Lowell Carlson: I hear you. What happened to Mr. Wolf. I was at the same
tlme...lt was farm land. That was all...but I never could understand...whatever
happened. Things just happened in the area and like I say, I've been there
slnce 1973 and he bought that property out there 10 years ago. I was here when
it was still ~ township. Whatever.
5O
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I'd also encourage Lowell to sit down with building
inspectors uslng 1991 codes to flnd out what's involved with that. To correct
one of the misconceptions. I think Roger was asking whether it was golng to be
a gravel floor. I think a gravel floor ls illegal these days. We had to pave
the floor in our maintenance shed and put in grease traps in there because of
all the equipment we have.
Mayor Chmlel: Even in our own buildings.
Lowell Carlson: Shop floor. The shop will be ail that.
Paul Krauss: Right and it would have to have grease trap drains and you'll have
to maintain those.
Lowell Carlson: As far as me blacktopping the inside of there...
Paul Krauss: I don't know if it is or isn't but I encourage you to sit down
wlth the inspectors.
Mayor Chmiel: Lowell, why don't you come in and talk to our inspectors and have
them go out there and you can take a look see at that particular building. See
if lt's even acceptable.
Lowell Carlson: Okay, that's the third building permit...This one here was a
pretty high priced building.
APPOINTHENTS TO COHMISSIONS:
A. PARK AND RECREATION CQMMISSION.
B. PLANNING COMMISSION.
C. SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION.
Mayor Chmiel: I understand that we do have a Council person, starting with item
(c) who would like to serve on the Southwest Metro Transit Commission. Mike has
indicated that he would and I would like to go backwards on thls particular one
and start out with Mike because I've got someone's who...
Councilman Workman: I'd move approval of that.
Councilman Wing: Second.
Councilman Mason: Can I check with my wife first?
Mayor Chmiel: No. Any discussion?
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, yes and there is, and maybe Ursula's going to
get to it.
Councilwoman Oimler: I was just going to say it but go ahead.
Councilman Workman: No, please go ahead.
51
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
Councilwoman Dimler: Well I served on that Commission and I guess I have to say
that Debra, who also applied has done an excellent job and she is a rider and
that really is valuable input. However, Chanhassen has had 3 representatives on
it and now that priviledge goes to Eden Prairie and I understand tm]at they're
appointing a rider so that view will still be represented. And since we only
have two, I would speak in favor of having that person be a Council person in
the fact that we have a heavy legislative agenda and Council people apparently
pull something with the legislature there.
Mayor Chmiel: More so.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. Also, I would urge Debra to reapply when the city
of Chanhassen again has the opportunity for 3.
Mayor Chmiel: Next year.
Councilwoman Dimler: Is that what you were going to say?
Councilman Workman: No, yeah. Just a real strong thank you to her. We're not
trying to bump her out. As much as an elected official is usually.
Mayor Chmiel: I think a letter should be so sent to her indicating that so she
is aware that we'd like to see her 5ack again next year if she'd like to make
that application at that tlme.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to appoint Councilman Hason
to the Southwest Metro Transit Commission. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Park and Recreation. We have had the respective candidates
before us. I would like to make one recommendation, Mr. Berg.
Councilman Mason: Z certainly would second that.
Councilman Workman: I know Mr. Erickson also.
Councilman Wing: I'll move those two.
Councilman Mason: I'll second.
Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Erickson and Mr. Berg. Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Oimler' That would be as the Park and Rec Commission has?
Mayor Chmiel~ That's correct.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Hason seconded to appoint Randy Erickson and
Fred Berg to the Park and Recreation Commission. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Planning Commission.
Councilman Mason: I would move Mr. Ledvina unless someone else wants to?
52
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
Councilman Workman: Are those the only two?
Councilman Mason: Well there was Mark Senn, Walter Thompson.
Mayor Chmiel: How long has Mr. Ledvina been in town?
Councilwoman Oimler: 4 I/2 years.
Mayor Chmiel: 4 1/27 Okay. The question was asked of him whether or not
there'd be any conflict of interest, just for your information Tom. He is an
engineer. He's an environmental engineer.
Councilman Wing: Was there a motion on this?
Mayor Chmiel: For which one?
Councilman Wing: For the Planning Commission, because I would just to move the
re-appointment of the encumbants.
Mayor Chmiel: The existing encumbants that are four. Would you just read off
those names?
Councilman Wing: Excuse me. Mr. Conrad, Mr. Emmings, Ms. Ahrens, Mr. Erhart.
Reappointment of those 4 and the fifth application will go to Matthew Ledvina.
Mayor Chmiel: There's a motion on the floor.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, could I get Councilmember Wing to make a motion
just for the current candidates and do that as a second motion which I would
abstain since I didn't meet any of these people.
Councilman Wing: I'll so move that friendly amendment.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to appoint Ladd Conrad, Steve
Emmings, Joan Ahrens and Tim Erhart to the Planning Commission. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Wing: I would continue that motion Mr. Mayor, with Mr. Ledvina. I
did meet him tonight and I have not met the others. I am only doing that
because of my faith in the existing Commission and I feel that their first
choice happened to be him and I'm willing to support that position. They seem
to feel he's compatible and what they most need.
Mayor Chmiel: We already had a motion on the floor for Mr. Ledvina. Would you
11ke to second that? Michael made lt.
Councilman Wing: Oh excuse me. Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to appoint Matthew Ledvina to
the Planning Commission. All voted in favor except Councilman Workman who
abstained and the motion carried.
53
City Council Meoting - Oece~nber 9, 1991
Paul Krauss: We do have one more appointment that ue neglected to put on here
but it's one that the Council fiJ. l.s and that's the Board of Adjustments it
occurs to me tonight. Councilman Workman has served very ablely.
Mayor Ch~niel: We'll just ~_eave him on there then.
Councilman Workman: Praise the Lord. ~'m feeling better by the second here.
~ didn't even think about that. Aren't Z supposed to get champagne?
Mayor Chm~el: You're right...public.
Pau~ Krauss"- Zt's aluays fitled by a Council person anyway. That's a Counc21
position.
Cotinciluoman Dimler: It's up to Mr. Wing.
Councilman Wing: Why uould it be up to me?
Mayor Chmiel: Because everyone else has served on it.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mason has nou taken the Southwest Metro.
Councilman Wing: Because they're all hassles and they all come to Council
anyuay, can't ue just?
Counciluoman D~mler: No.
Mayor Chmiel: No. ~t's a very dLfficult job. ~t really is. But ~ uould like
to make that motion.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilman Wing: No, there could be a conflict here. The only disadvantage to
that is that as a neuly elected Fire Chief, it allo~s me to be there until 7:30
on Monday nights uhich looks good politically, off the record. Do these occur
every Monday night? Once a month?
Councilman Workman: They've been ~ust about every Council meeting.
Councilman Wing: When are they brought out?
Counciluoman Dimmer: ~t's uhen they come up.
Paul Krauss: ~t's virtually every, uell in the summer at any rate, spring, it's
every Council meeting.
Councilman Workman; Actually it's an advantage to be on it because it's kind of
like you get that nasty decisLon behind you and so uhen it comes to the Council
you can kind of sit back and laugh at people.
Mayor Chmiel"- And ue're moving a~ong.
Councilman Wing: Is it just simply my turn?
54
City Council Meeting - December
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Workman: Well your's or Mike's.
Councilman Mason: It's elther you or me. You do it this year and then the next
year.
Mayor Chmiel: You have the opportunity to either flip for it or.
Councilman Wing: Do I get paid more?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Workman: In spades, yes. I took it last year because Ursula had
already done it and the Mayor, you're kind of the.
Councilwoman Dimler: He's the alternate.
Councilman Workman: And I took it last year because you guys were playing this
I'm too green thing.
Mayor Chmiel: So I have a motion on the floor that Mr. Wing be appointed to the
Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Is there a second?
Councilman Workman: Second.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman.seconded to appoint Councilman Wing to
the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Al! voted in favor and the motion
carried.
SET I992 SEWER AND WATER RATES.
Mayor Chmiel: Who wants to do this one, Don?
Don Ashworth: Tom is here. Why don't I just start out by saying.
Councilman Workman: I would move approval.
Councilman Wing: No. Please, not yet.
Don Ashuorth: That it's been a real dllemma that we have with our sewer utility
operations. The biggest problem is the major, major increase associated with
the MWCC. To lncrease the fees to simply break even would put us into 40~-50~
type of an increase. Tom and I uill be discussing again as part of the budget
presentation in which the materlal you have I think is really probably 2 months
ago, to try to make more gradual increases. Albeit 20~ is not minor increase.
Mayor Chmlel: To me that's sort of hefty isn't it?
Don Ashworth: The shortfall, we're running into, we cut into our fund balances
thls year, next year. We've been going with a 20~. We'll see another increase
this next year. The only thing I can think of doing is in passing this to make
sure that we get as much publicity as we can. That the City is not collecting
55
City Council Meet i~g - December 9, 1991
any more for local costs thar, we were last year. The entire amount is gJing
over to MWCC. In fact more than what we're, 25~ more than what we're going to
be collecting is going to take and go to them.
Mayor Chmiel: How about if ue like our animal program, having an officer take
care of that, how about if we offer to some of the adjacent cities next to us
who don't really have water people, to absorb those into our system and start
receiving some revenues from that?
Don Ashuorth: Water is a revenue producer for us. If xou did not have a
combined water and sewer where the water was helping to offset all of your
sewer. Zt's the sewer that's the big cost. It's the sewer where you may have
seen the letter Z wrote to Excelsior in regards to some of the antics they're
going through up there. There's an instance. We'd be a lot better off just
giving that line up. We make money by giving up those customers. It sounds
ridiculous but that's the absolute truth. For every dollar ue collect from the
customers on Chaska Road, ue will pay out $1.10. It doesn't make any sense to
operate.
Mayor Chmiel: The same token they can go in and blame those properties for the
city once they start providing those services and we'd be losing those people as
well.
Don Ashworth: I talked to... She's our representative for MWCC. She's trying
to set up a meeting. I wouldn't mind at all seeing MWCC basically take over the
sewer system in Chanhassen and then we'll turn around and offer contract to them
for cleaning their pipes and doing administration. We'd come out 20~ ahead.
Right now we're losing 30X to 40~. I mean it sounds ridiculous but it's the
truth.
Mayor Chmiel: Something has to turn around doesn't it? I know when I threw
that out just sort of being funny, I'm serious when I'm saying...these kinds of
services to maybe other communities that are not able to do that. Maybe we
should look at that. Look at those new innovative ways of acquiring some
additional dollars for the city.
Don Ashworth: Well there is that possibility as it deals with the Shorewood
system. They're currently paying, what did I tell you it was Charles,
$40,000.007 $70,000.00? They're currently paying $40,000.00 or $70,000.00 to a
firm to simply tell them what it is they should do with them system.
Tom Chaffee: $70,000.00.
Don Ashworth: $70,000.00. With the new telemetry system we have in place,
maybe there is an opportunity. We've kind of shied away from that because
providing services to other communities hasn't been that popular.
Mayor Chmiel: No but it's becoming more and more, some of the things I know
we've been dolng and should be dolng. If we can beneflt from it but that's
something that has to be looked at. Maybe if you would take a look at that and
come up with some conclusions to see where we could move wlth it.
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
Don Ashworth: Otherwise I really don't know what to do with the thing. I don't
know if you've noticed in the newspapers been almost every clty has gone in and
got going through rate increases. St. Paul, Shorewood, Excelsior. Virtually
every community around and the sad part is we're high to begin with you know so
now by them ralsing, they're just getting closer to us but ironically we're
belng forced to raise ours that much more.
Mayor Chmiel: How is this going to affect the industrial or commercial
properties?
Don Ashworth: The rate per 1,000 ls the same for all users.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I'm saying how much would it affect their bills? We're
talking residential and we've had those prlce quotes in here. I don't have any
idea as to what the commercial or industrial people actually use.
Don Ashworth: Do you have any idea on an average Tom? Of course I suppose
there's a lot of variation. Take a large plant like an Instant Webb, Mail may
have less or equal useage wlth a residential home because they don't, I mean
except for the bathrooms, that's really it. Whereas others, Rosemount on the
other hand has a relatively hlgh b111.
Tom Chaffee: Their base rate is the same as the residential. The same as the
resident, I mean $2.60 per 1,000. Same as the residential rates it's just that
they have 1,500 employees that are in flushing the toilets every 10 to 15
mlnutes plus the fact that...typlcally the commercial and industrial users, they
have set... They're charged every quarter based on their water useage...because
of the fact that we have employment that will vary from one quarter to the next.
They shut a plant down in the winter quarter and you have 100 people or
whatever, we set their sewer rate at that. Then in the summer tlme when they
have 3,000 people...run us really into bankruptcy.
Don Ashworth: One of the nice things with, we used to have little postcard
type. Now we're sending the bills in an envelope. That does give us the
opportunity to stuff information with that bi11. One of the things that we do
would be to put some of these statistics in there and then we're looking at over
40~ increase from Metro. That we did not want to put on this type of an
increase but even with a 20~ increase, we're still losing 25~ and not one penny
ls golng to the clty. Not one additional penny is available for salarles or
anything else. This is solely going to MWCC. Try to hammer it home that way.
Councilman Wing: Is that 25~ going to be resolved if you solve the infusion
problem?
Don Ashworth: The I & I? Yeah but you can make a dent in I & I but you're not
going to take... Z mean we have high concentration of clays and at the same
point in time almost all of our sewer 11nes, I mean we're trying to keep
pollutants out of the lake and so the best spot to catch a lot of these sewers,
the septic systems, is rlght along the lake. So Z mean Lotus Lake, that's where
the sewer pipe is. It's 12 feet below the level of the lake. 20 feet from it.
There's just such an impact on that sewer plpe that no matter what you do,
there's still going to be some leakage. I think we really should, we need to
get an aggressive program on these home sump pumps. I know our neighborhood.
57
City Council Meeting - Decelober 9, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: That's something that's been discussed but nothing's being done
but what are ue going to do?
Don Ashworth: Well some of the programs we're talking about is when a home
changes occupancy, make sure that the building inspectors and others who are
golng in there, they look for thls. Whenever there's a change in the meter,
make sure they're looking for this. I don't know how effective.
Mayor Chmiel: You know I was looking at this before the average use and I came
up with this ls costlng us with the new rate about a penny more per day.
Don Ashuorth: I get so much of that at home where you know, buy whatever
insurance because it's only a penny more per whatever.
Mayor Chmlel: That's what Tom says all the time. But that's what I was looking
at, yeah.
Don Ashuorth: If some portion of this were going to stay local, I would surely
recommend using that as a means to tell people but I think we're better off just
te111ng, show them what the gross flgures are. How much more ls belng pald to
MWCC.
Mayor Chmiel: And that's what we have to offset because we just can't
supplement that either. That's flow water that's causlng it but somehow you
have to make up that difference. So any other discussion? Question.
Councilman Wing: I went into Tom Chaffee's office today at 1:35 feeling pretty
good and I walked out at 2:15 depressed. What I dld learn was that.
Mayor Chmiel: He gets me in 5 minutes.
Councilman Wing: It's my feeling that our sewer and water set-up in the city is
the greatest show on earth. It's the biggest bang for the buck I've ever
experienced and as Mr. Ashworth mentioned, the water ls holding lt's own. But
something we haven't discussed and I hate to bring this up because I don't want
to get battered by the Councll because they're so cost consclensclous but we've
talked conservation. We talk environment. We try and hold down sprinkling. We
encourage, we've had thls Recycling Committee. I've got water conservation
items on every faucet and shower in our home. I'm doing everything I can. We
don't sprinkle our yard and so I'm going to pay $1.10 for the first 25,000
gallons and I thank the City for that. I think that's a very generous offer.
But after that polnt I disagree ulth this $1.30. I thlnk that we at one tlme
talked about a graduated penalty. If you want to use water and sprinkle your
yard year round on rainy days and all night long, do it but it's not golng to
come cheap. We don't have the ground water, the well capacity to support the
use of water and I thlnk that we should be settlng a standard here and
encouraging conservation. All the advertising in the world doesn't have the
same lmpact as the water bill golng up steeply. And I would favor as a change
to this resolution a minimum of $1.50 for the additional 25,000 gallons to make
people start thinking. I conslder that to be really falr and reasonable. If
I want to stay within that 25,000, I pay $1.10 per 1,000. I'm going to pay 20
cents more over what's recommended. Now what happens? If people cut down on
water, it cuts down our flow which cuts down part of our sewer problem. Thls
58
City Council Meeting ~ December 9, 1991
whole thing comes back on a constructive nature. Less water consumption. If
?ou choose to use it, it's going to cost you a fortune but by cutting back and
encouraging a cut back we're starting to tackle some of the sewer problems.
Sanitary sewer problems so that's one issue in the water. And assuming I might
be in a minority here because of the conservative nature of the Council, I won't
support this rate structure. I don't think it's reasonable for the
environmental impact. The other issue is the sanitary sewer. It's in trouble.
I think we have to pay for it. Infiltration is done. Mr. Ashworth has said
even with repairing the new lines it's still the way they're laid out, we're
going to have an infiltration problem. Sumps. How are we going to stop this
flow? Cut back 30~, we're still going to be running in the red on this one so
it looks to me like we're going to have to foot the bill on sanitary sewer. I
don't see any way around that unless somebody has some ideas. And it's an
enterprise fund. There's a word I learned today. I'm so excited about
gobble-e-goop and enterprise fund. I got those both today. That has to be
supported. That doesn't come out of general revenues. That has to be supported
by the user. By that particular fund and so if it's costing $100.00 to run it,
we have to collect $100.00 in taxes. There's no way around it so if we owe it,
we owe it. When it comes down to these types of utilities, I'm glad that we've
got them and I'm going to be willing to pay for them.
Councilman Workman: We could always defund MWCC. That's another layer of
government.
Councilman Wing: I do wish Mr. Mayor that the Council would, before approving
this, address the long term conservation and environmental impact of the water.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we have done that before.
Councilman Wing: But it never got anywhere. I mean we really did discuss this
graduated scale and I don't know where it went. I think staff supported it and
I think the environmentalists supported it and thent he conservatives sald well
geez. And lt's easy to fall lnto that. But long term, let's get out of this
year, next year. Let's go 5-10 years. I think we're making a mistake not
taking a stand on thls. We don't owe the clty water at the rlsk of losing it
and giving it away. I'm really, whatever you can do to me to force me to
conserve, I'm all for lt.
Don Ashworth: Tom Chaffee will probably shoot me for saylng this but you do
have the ability to potentially put in let's say 15~. I hate to say 10~
lncrease on the sewer that would be effective January i wlth then a mid-year,
prior to the summer season occurring, a 10~ onto water which get the type of
thlng Dick ls looking for. So you move that from $1.30 to $1.45 or $1.50 next
summer and put on what would be the equivalent of 12~-13~ now. It should have
about the same number of dollars. You lose some in the flrst 6 months but
overall you may be able to put it in in a more gradual phasing process because
we'll get complaints twice.
Tom Chaffee: I should shoot you for saying that.
Don Ashworth: Let's look at what...
59
City Coullci]. Mee~.ing --DecembeT' 9, 1991
Councilman Wing: But I bet it's what you'd recommend. I bet if you guys were
to meet tomorrow that that's what you'd feel.
Mayor Chmiel: Z think they already...
Councilman Workman: Are we going to table this?
Don Ashuorth: That's not true.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can I ask a question? Does this require a public hearing?
Oon Ashworth: No.
Mayor Chmiel; In raising the water?
Councilwoman Oimler: Right.
Mayor Chmiel'~ No, other than the fact that we adopt it and not getting the word
out to the people and informing them that is what we do and showing them what
the difference in costs are in relationship to the MWCC.
Oon Ashworth: On any of these, if you felt this was really important, I'd like
to see a separate notlce appear in the newspaper. You can always do those
things.
Councilwoman Dimler: I know a lot of people are in a budget crunch right now.
Mayor Chmiel~ Everybody's on a budget.
Councilwoman Bimler: Yeah, everybody.
Mayo~' Chmiel: And all we keep saying is we're raising every time we turn
around.
Councilwoman Dimler: It's like increasing taxes.
Mayor Chmiel: I've been getting a lot of that and I'm not saying that no, we
probably shouldn't but I think we should get thls information out to the people
making them aware of the fact this is what we're looking at.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, and to really hit this point home that this is not,
the City's not gaining anythlng by this. It's all golng to HWCC.
Mayor Chmiel: It's all that we have to pay and there's no sense in going any
other direction in that.
Don Ashuorth: If the Council does not act tonight, it means that cannot become
then effective for January 1st so you bill on a series. In other words you
break it up lnto three different serles uhlch Z think all of our town ls broken
up into thirds. So that almost makes it more difficult. You're almost then
going to be startlng thls effective April 1st. ~e're already behlnd the 8 ball
with things. I mean can we get a minimum of lO~-lS~? Something that could be
effective January 1.
6O
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1991
Councilman Wing: We're talking sewer now?
Don Ashworth: Sewer.
Councilman Wing: Because I want to make sure the pounding fist heard, if you
use more, you pay more on the water. I don't want to lose track of that. I
don't care if I get voted down. I just want to make sure that there's a loud
statement from my part.
Councilman Mason: I think you might have a little support, at least on the
Council.
Don Ashworth: Why not then do the notice thing, that I could put in with the
sewer thing. Tell people this doesn't solve the problem. Additional rate
lncrease has to be looked at. Do a publication thlng that we could potentially
look at effective ~pril 1st for water rates. We've got the alternative then of
Councilman Wing's approach or take it all back on the sewer agaln.
Councilwoman Oimler: I do think it warrants discussion about our total package
as to what we're supposed to do. I would like to somehow notlfy the publlc and
get a 11ttle bit of input before we come up with the final solution. But I can
also see that we have to do something today with the sewer.
Councilman Wing: The public input can be whatever it wants. We still have to
pay it. It's not going to go away. It doesn't matter whether they like it or
not. I mean I don't want to pay it.
Councilwoman Dimler: Exactly.
Mayor Chmiel: But I think the point that Ursula's making is let the people be
informed as to why we're doing it before they get it.
Councilwoman Olmler: Yeah.
Councilman Wing: I agree. That's certainly fair.
Councilman Workman: So what's to do here?
Councilman Wing: What was the recommended increase rate the City Manager
suggested?
Tom Chaffee: The base per 1,000 increases from $2.20 to $2.60. It's all
correlated to the minimums, etc.. Increased accordingly.
Councilman Wing: And that's effective January?
Tom Chaffee: Effective as of January 2nd. Additional comments for any interim
solutlon proposed that the rate increase be effective in lt's entlrity for all
buildings as of January 2nd so we don't go into a staged approach for increasing
lt. As my memo lndicated...$100,O00.O0 as a result.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, as you indicated Tom. It's going to $2.60. Before it was
$2.20 and previously it was $11.00 and now it's $13.00 so there's a $2.00
61
City Council Meeting -- Becel0ber 9, 1991
increase there and 40 cents per 1,000.
Don Ashworth: I do think we have to put some portion of it on. I hear your
comment s.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and ue do.
Tom Chaffee: If you look at the proposed resolution there...presented earlier
in the budget process. The one that was presented earlier identifies this
specific differences...
Don Ashworth: Just to get us out of here, how about just taking whatever Tom
has presented there. Cutting it in half.
Councilman Wing: In my discussions today I really felt that that Tom and Don
had really thought this out and worked it out and what they're telllng us is
sort of not a maybe. It's sort of a must. Glve me a number Don. Z'11 vote for
numbors. Give me a number. What do you need? What do we have to do right now?
Tom Chaffee: $3.00/1,000.
Oon Ashuorth: We're not going to get there even with or without the
recommendation of Tom's. I support the publlc hearing process. I guess what
I'm saying is, put through one-half of what it is that Tom has recommended with
the ldea that in mid-1992 there wlll be an additional rate lncrease required. It
would probably go on water at that point in tlme and again we'll do all the
notification thlngs that we can.
Councilman Wing: I have to go to my financial advisor here Mayor Chmiel. Can
you accept that or are you hesitant?
Mayor Chmiel: No, I think I can probably accept it.
Councilman Wing: I'll so move.
Councilman Workman: What's the motion?
Councilman Wing: Acceptance of, I believe it was $3.00 Don?
Don Ashuorth: No. Taking the recommendation as presented by the Finance
Department as a rate lncrease and dlvldlng that by 2. That becomes the
effective rate January 1st.
Councilman Worknlan: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Councilman Wing: And the water fits in when later?
Mayor' Chmie],: Water will come back in April.
62
City Council Meeting - December
Resolution ~91-116: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to set
the 1992 se,er and water rates at one-half of ,hat was presented by the Finance
Department to be effective 3anuary 1, 1992. All voted in favor and the mot/on
carried.
AWARD OF BIDS. EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS.
Mayor Chmiel: I think everyone has had an opportunity to read this. They're
suggesting that they stay with their existing carrier Medica/PHP and it appears
as though all of the employees are relatively satisfied with what's here and Z
would like to have a motion for that.
Councilman Mason: With a 90X overwhelming choice of employees to stay as is,
I'd move approval.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilman Wing: Only that I still feel we should, as a city, for our young
employees give some relief on the cost of dental. I realize it's somewhat dead
at this point. However, I will introduce it as a motion and if it gets Council
support, I don't care if it's $600.00, $300.00. I don't care what we do. I
don't want to drop that.
Mayor Chmiel: There's certain things too that the employees feel are more
important than that to them and the way they're going right now I would suggest
that as long as they're happy, I'm happy.
Councilman Wing: Okay. And if you're happy, I'm happy.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to award the bid for the
Employee Health Insurance benefits to Medica/PHP. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:12
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
63