1991 10 14CHANHA$SEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 14, 1991
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILHEHBER$ PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason, Councilman Workman,
Councilman Wing and Councilwoman Oimler
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Todd
Hoffman, Paul Krauss and Scott Hart
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve the agenda as amended by Counc/luoman D/mler to d/scuss the Lake
Ann Interceptor Assessments under Comm'nc/1 Presentat/ons; and Hayor Chmie! wanted
to add under Publ/c Announcements an /tem regard/ng Hoody Investors. All voted
/n favor and the mot/on carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNC~H~NTS:
ACCEPT DONATIONS FROH:
A. VALVOLINE RAPID OIL, DONATION FOR THE FIRE DEPARTNENT.
Mayor Chmiel: Valvoline Rapid 0tl, they made a donation to the Fire Department
of $200.00. They're new within our City and they always feel like they like to
make donations to the City for any speclfic reasons that they feel are
necessary. That the City feels necessary. So consequently I'd like to thank
Valvoline from the City Council for maklng that contribution of $200.00.
B. CHANHASSEN AHER;]:CAN LEGION, DONAT]:ON FOR pUBL]:C SAFI~TY DEPARTHENT.
Mayor Chmiel: The next is an acceptance contribution from Chanhassen American
Legion. The Clty has been looking to acqutre a digital radar readout item. Make
people aware as to speeds that they're traveling within the city of Chanhassen.
We thought by education maybe is the best way to start. Maktng people aware as
to their drivlng at speeds elther beyond or excessive speeds within the Ctty. By
doing this it will not give you a ticket unless there's a poltce officer
standlng there and he decldes to pull you over. We don't intend to do that at
first. We want to use this just to make people aware that they should slow
down. We've been doing some intermediate checkings on our maln street, 78th
Street and there are people who are just driv£ng a little too fast. We have it
ulthln our residential areas. These are the kinds of locations us're going to
place this particular radar digital readout. And the Chanhassen American
Leglon has generously donated $2,884.95 for the purchase of thls unit. On
behalf of the City Council and hopefully the citizens, we wish to thank them for
that donation.
C. TI)NY BZESE, PARK AND RECREAT:;I:;ON DEP~IRTI'kE:NT.
Mayor Chmiel: We have one more as well and this one's sort of unique in itself.
It's a $300.00 donation to the Park and Recreation Department provided by Tony
City Council Minutes - October 14, 1991
Biese. He has worked for the City for a number of years as a part time and
during the summer. Presently Tony is going to college and come up with the
conclusion that he would like to give the City $300.00 just out of the
generosity of his heart to be put into the Park and Recreation Department which
is quite unusual. We would like to thank him publically as well for making
that contribution. He felt that he has worked for the City. He has given to
the clty hls tlme and belng compensated for it plus the fact he feels that he
should probably give something back to the City. On behalf of that, one more
tlme thank you. Each of these people u111 be receiving letters back from the
City with that thanks.
O. MOODY INVESTORS TOUR OF CHANHASSEN.
Mayor Chmiel: A couple of weeks ago we brought Moody Investors into our city.
When we go out for bondlng we go through Sprlngsted whlch lsa bondlng company.
We came up with an idea through Council and myself to get these people to come
down from New York Clty. When I say that I want to make the quote "New York
City" and come in and see what Chanhassen's about rather than provide bondlng
ulthout any realization what it is. What ue look like. How we operate and what
our books are. And of course they review the books but more 11kely what we
wanted to do was have them vleu some of the businesses ulthln the community.
And seeing that, showing how sound we are, how active we are and that we should
have a little better bond ratlng. Consequently we went over to the Rosemount
Industries, Instant Webb and Paisley Park for showing of their facilities to
Moody's and I'd 11ke to also thank them publlcally because they're CEO's of the
company took thelr time out to take them through these facilities, which I
thought was really sort of neat. They specifically expressed how well they
enjoyed having their facilities within the City of Chanhassen, which is I think
a little blt of a feather in our cap. But anyway, after all of thls that we've
been doing ulth them and in posing of bondings that we have going out that we're
going to dlscuss thls evenlng, we estimate that thls change ls golng to save our
community approximately, it doesn't sound like much but it will be one tenth of
one percent. Thls may sound mlnor but when the principle amount of the bonds ls
say $5 milllon over 8 years, the aggregate savings on that would be sizeable to
the amount of about $50,000.00. So with that type of better rating. From BAA
we went to BAA1 and that does make a little bit of difference for all the
taxpayers wlthln the community. So with that I just thought I'd 11ke to brlng
it out and make everyone aware of the fact that this did take place. We spent a
half a day ulth those people and if I could send a letter to or let them see
this communication by TV, I'd like to thank them as well because it does save us
money.
CONSENT AGENDA= Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve
the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
a. Resolution ~91-95: Accept Street Improvements in Zimmerman Farm First
Addition, Project 90-12.
c. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Create a Bluff Llne Preservation Sectlon of
the City Code, Final Reading.
City Council Minutes - October 14, 1991
e. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Rezone Property within the City Zoned A-2,
Agricultural Estate District to RR, Rural Residential District, Final
reading.
f. Approval of Accounts.
h. Resolution (r~l-g&: Resolution in Support of Clean Water Patnership Grant.
Ail voted in favor and the motion carrled unanimously.
O. ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AHENDHENT TO NtFJlD SE.CTIONS REC~RDTI, IG
LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION REQU~REHENTS. FINAL REDOING.
Councilman Workman: Are we going to try to hit these tomorrow night? I read a
note in the back that perhaps we'd look at these tomorrow night due to the
length of the meeting.
Mayor Chmlel: Yes. Yes, this is going to take a little more discussion. Maybe
we should.
G. APPROVAL OF HINUTE$:
Councilman Mason: Mine for item l(g), City Council Minutes. On page 52 it
should be, the parking on Woodhill really is not an issue. I am quoted as
saylng it really is an lssue. Mlnor polnt but just somewhere down the road.
Mayor Chmiel: Nice to see that you're reading them.
Councilman Mason: That's all. With that I move approval of 2(g).
Councilwoman Oimler: Second.
Councilman Nason moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the following
Hinutes:
City Council Hinutes dated September 9, 1991 as presented.
City Council Hinutes dated September 23, 1991 as amended on page 52.
Senior Commission Hinutes dated September 20, 1991 as presented.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATION: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPT ASSESSHENT ROLL FOR FRONTIER TRAIL IHPROVEHENT PROJECT
NO, 89-10.
Public Present:
Name Address
M.A. MacAlptne
Sandra Reger
Helen Bielski
7187 Frontier Trail
7197 Frontier Trail
7209 Frontier Trail
City Council Minutes - October 14, 1991
NaMe
Address
Arlis Bovy
Paul Differding
Wayne Mader
Don King
Pat Pavelko
Tom Pzynski
Robert A. Scholer
Lance R. Ford
Joel Jenkins
Bill & Helen Loebl
7339 Frontier Trail
7228 Frontier Trail
400 Highland Drive
7200 Kiowa Circle
7203 Frontier Trail
7340 Frontier Trail
7212 Frontier Trail
1711 East Koehnen Circle
7305 Frontier Trail
7197 Frontier Trail
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. During the continuation of
this hearing at the September 9th City Council meeting, staff was directed to
hold a neighborhood workshop as was requested by some residents. Thus notices
were sent out and the workshop was held on September 26th. The meeting was
initiated with a detailed presentation of the project costs and the rationale
behind the proposed assessment scheduie including the front foot versus unit
method of assessment. It was explained that on Oecember 18, 1989 the City
received a petition representing 33 of the 49 affected property owners that were
in favor of the front foot basis. Thus that is the rationale used behind that
method. As has been discussed previousiy, this is also a common method of
assessing benefit to properties for street improvements and has stood the test
in the courts. There was also a driveway concern raised by Jim Mady. This was
investigated by myself and Bill Engelhardt and is no longer an issue. There are
also apparentiy some other outstanding driveway complaints and it is my beiief
that any of these problems that are relevant and need repair could be taken care
of under the City's 2 year warranty bond for the project. There was also
question raised concerning the assessment of the beachlot and three other
outlots. I reviewed the Minutes from the hearing process for this project and
found no statements on the record which called for an exclusion of the beachlot.
Concerning the three outlots, two of which are owned by the City. The two owned
by the City are very narrow strips of property which are unbuildable and
adjacent to the road right-of-way and actuaIiy function as an extension of the
city right-of-way. According to the County Assessor, these pieces of property
have no value and thus you cannot sustain an assessment to a piece of property
which have no value. The third outlot is a lot of record and owned in fee title
by the owner of Lot 9, Block 3 which is Outlot 2. This outlot has some 3,000
square foot to it's area and thus does benefit the area 2, Lot 9 and it's
frontage is incIuded in the assessment. Finally on the manner of the assessment
split, it has been stated that or recommended by some of the residents that the
City should have a policy defining a certain percentage that should be assessed
for reconstruction projects. I guess at this point I'm not sure one certain
percentage would be applicable in ali situations. It's believed that maybe a
more appropriate method may be to continue analyzing each project on a case by
case basis and assessing for the improvements made to a roadway which were not
previously part of that roadway or paid for on that roadway during it's normal
life cycle. Thus staff reaffirms it's position on the 60/40 methodology.
I should point out that a deadline for certification of these special
assessments to the County for inclusion into the 1992 property tax statements is
November 30, 1991. Therefore it's important that the Council take action on
adopting an assessment roll for this project at tonight's meeting in order to
City Council Minutes - October 14, 1991
allow for the administration process and preparing necessary documents and to
allow for the required 30 day appeal pre-payment period prior to certifIcat£on.
Thus it is recommended if there are no further outstanding issues to this
project after tonight's hearing, it is recommended that the Council adopt the
Frontier Trail Improvement Project 89-10 assessment roll, revised copy dated
October 9, 1991. That the assessment term be set for 8 years at an 8X interest
rate.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone at this time that would like to
discuss their specific piece of property or any respective changes that you feel
might be necessitated other than what's been indicated? If so, I'll open that.
As I said, this still is a public hearing and I'd like those who'd like to state
their opinions please come forward. State your name and your address.
Robert Scholer: Somebody has to always be first. Mr. Mayor and members of
Counc11. My name is Robert Scholer. I reside at 7212 Frontier Trail and I'm
the lucky owner of two properties. I own Lot 12, Block 3, Sunrise Mills 2nd
Addltlon which ls my residence. And Lot 2, Block 1 of Sunrise Hills 4th
Addltion which is the mountain with a double frontage. One on Longview Circle
and the other one down on Frontier Trail. At the feasibility hearlng for this
proposed Frontier Trail I submitted orally and then I followed up by submitting
documentation of the construction of Frontier Trail and the flnal acceptance of
this City. You may recall that the presentation was a bit longer than you
wanted to put up wlth but I wanted to establish that the street was built to
city standards. At that time a criticism that the developer, namely 8ob Scholer
had not built it to those standards. I want to set the stage for pointing out,
as others have already done in subsequent hearings, that the City was somewhat
remlss and negligent in my view in not properly maintaining this street since it
was built and also negligent and remiss, again in my view, in not enforcing load
11mlts durlng construction of the neighborhood to the immediate west. At that
same heartng I agreed wlth the staff and the engineers that the improvements, if
they were improved should be assessed according to benefit. But I went on to
say that the only benefit occurring to my Lot 2, Block I in the 4th Addition was
for storm sewer. There was no beneflt received for curb or gutter or street.
Having said the above, let me respectfully state my position and my arguments
for your consideration. Number one. Lot Z, Block I should be assessed at the
very most for storm sewer. No curb cut was provided nor was I even asked if I
wanted one as accessibility was obvious and assessibility was obvious. Number
two. Fatlure to maintain and poltce Frontier Trail places Ithtnk an encumbant
responsibility of more than a 40/60 split of the cost to the city. I would
believe that a 30/70 division would be fair. Far more fair than a 40/60. Number
three, assessments should be on a unlt basis in my vlew rather than front
footage. In an established neighborhood such as ours of single famtly homes,
all the lots are built on, everyone receives the same basic benefit of access
for their property. Ingress and egress to the total subdivision regardless of
footage. Concluded remarks about people who have collected signatures and
people who sign petitions for frontage assessments. They're neighbors and in
many instances I would conslder them friends but I have to say this. This may,
this form of collecting signatures on petitions in this instance may to be an
appropriate part of our freedom under the Democratic process. But unless that
same petition is offered to me and to others with large front footages for
example for our signatures or comment or consideration, I consider that
discriminatory. It shows no concern for what is just and fair and I belteve
City Council Minutes - October 14, 1991
that it should be ignored. ~ou should go on the basis of benefit. Thank you
very much. And if I might suggest, a neighbor Tom Pzynski has worked up a
computer printout of what would happen under this various program and with your
permission I'll just submit copies of this letter. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else at this particular time?
Tom Pzynski: Good evening. I'm knocking over the podium. I'm Tom Pzynski.
I 1lye at 7340 Frontlet Trail. I'd like to follow up on a couple of comments
that Bob just covered dealing with the assessment based on a 40/60 split and a
front footage basls. I've done an analysls and I've got coples here if the
Council would like them. A spread sheet analysis. If you'd like me to hand
them out now or later.
Mayor Chmiel: Why don't you just hand them out right now.
Tom Pzynski: I'd like to comment on what Bob said agaln. Everybody in our
subdivision along Frontier Trail benefitted from the new streets. We've got a
nlce smooth road. We've got curb and gutter now that w111 handle water problems
but I don't, I just can't see any benefit to any property owner along Frontier
Trail based on front footage. We all get the same beneflt. I've contacted a
number of professional real estate appraisers and real estate sales persons who
have stated to me that at most the way a street improvement ls looked at by them
ls on an area basis in the neighborhood itself. How does it impact the
neighborhood? They never look at it based on a front footage value or beneflt
to the property owner. The only benefit that an improved street gives to the
property owner ltself ls utllity whlch basically ls use. Access to your
property and egress and ingress to the subdivision itself. So the front footage
basls and the argument for the front footage basls in my vlew has a lot of
holes. If you care to take a look at the spread sheet real quick, I've done tt
based on, I've got the cltles, the last one I have ls dated 9/3 so I don't have
the current, the one that they said was done on 10/9. The last one I have is
dated 9/3. Based on the way the appraisal and the assessment was done, based on
a unit basis for the storm and sewer and a 60/40 split on the front footage,
there's a $3,500.00 difference from the lowest to the highest assessment on the
roll that I have. And to me I can't see where you can justify that big a
difference to any one property owner. $3,500.00. That's a blg difference.
Based on a 70/30 split, per unlt basis, each homeowner would end up paying the
same amount. $3,434.59. Under that formula everybody pays the same because you
get the same benefit. If you'll notice in the last column on the spread sheet
that I gave you, there's a percentage change in difference. There are 5
property owners who's assessment would lncrease based on that 70/30 split and
those 5 property owners, one of them is an outlot along Frontier Trall and
Highland. Just where Frontier Trail and Highland meet. It's a long strip,
narrow strlp about 10 feet wide. I thlnk it belongs to 7341 Frontier Tra11.
The other one is the beachlot which there ts some argument, I guess there was
some argument made that the beachlot wasn't supposed to be assessed and I guess
now it is supposed to be assessed. I don't know about that. There's another
small one along Frontlet Trall at 7343 Frontier Trall whlch ls rlght at the very
beginning of the street which isn't even on Frontier Tra11. I mean there's
actually no property that I know of on Frontlet Trall there and the two at the
end of Frontier Trail, 7197 and 7199, their front footage is quite small. It's
32 feet and 79 feet. Those two properties. The petitlon that was sent around
City Council Minutes - October 14, 1991
for the front footage assessment never came to my house. I believe that it
probably never came to anybody's house who's property was assessed at a larger
and greater value than most of those who signed it. I think most of the people
who signed it were strictly a pocketbook issue. They were voting their
pocketbook and I can understand that. But I can also argue that based on a unit
split, everybody benefits the same. Everybody pays the same and I don't see
where you can say that there's a $3,500.00 difference between the assessment the
way it is now. Between a 60/40 on a front footage basis and the way it is
proposed. To me it just doesn't make any sense. It can't make any sense. You
can't justify it. Any questions on the spread sheet at all?
Mayor Chmiel: No I don't. Anyone else? Thank you. Anyone else?
Wayne Mader: Good evening. My name is Wayne Mader. I live at 400 Highland
Orlve. Obviously a corner lot. I attended the workshop on the 26th of
September and as of today now am even more disappointed in the lack of
communication from the City to the property owners regarding the whole
assessment issue from day one. What disappointed me most today was that after'
the meeting on September 26th at the workshop, I should say during the meeting.
Mr. Engelhardt had commented that there were some adjustments made to some of
the very long lots with a lot of frontage and some corner lots. I was unaware
of it at the time so I addressed Mr. Engelhardt at the end of the meeting and
inquired about lt. He lnformed me that he would check into it. Took my daytime
phone number and that was it. I never heard a word. Called him this morning.
He referred me to Charles who informed me that yes, indeed mine should be
changed and adjusted and Charles stated that he would take care of that. But
based on the communication thus far, I don't know what my assessment's going to
be. I think it's unfair that we're not being informed as we should be. We've
spent a lot of tlme coming to the meetings and the workshop and I'm
disappointed. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Do we have any response to that at this present time?
Charles Folch: Yes. I took a look at the plat for that particular lot. It
looked visually, the flrst tlme run through that that, the side that was belng
assessed for the Frontier Trail improvements was the short side of the property.
The shorter length which of course would be assessed the full length. After
looking at the actual plat, it appears that there was a difference and the
Highland Drive frontage was shorter. Thus we basically applled the same
methodology that we have for the previous curve'radius lots to make that
adjustment. The reason this dldn't actually stand out to us is because the
adjustment we made in the past were just for long frontage lots on curve. There
really was no corner lots that we had made adjustment for. We just used a
corner lot analogy to develop the methodology for that. But initially the only
look was at the large curve lots that were in excess of 200 feet of frontage.
Councilwoman Oimler: ...amount for the adjustment then?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Is there an amount different from what we thought
presently?
Charles Folch: Yes. The actual, frontage dropped by.
City Council Minutes - October 14, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: It was 146.61.
Charles Folch: It dropped by about 18 feet. About 18.31 feet was the reduction
in the footage. The original footage was 146.61 feet and it was reduced to
128.31.
Mayor Chmiel: And what does that bring it down to? Do you have that?
Charles Folch: The actual street assessment based on that frontage would be
$3,073.02. Add that to the unit storm assessment. The total would be $4,433.23
if my math is correct.
Mayor Chmiel: 44?
Charles Folch: $4,433.23.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else?
Don King: Don King, 7200 Kiowa Circle. I guess I'm thoroughly confused now.
Back here on the 9th of September I talked to Charles and we agreed at 154-157
feet was my frontage. Then we got into the tangent game of 190 plus and then
110 minus and then I talked to Wayne tonight and I'm reciting the story that he
tells me that he took his lot length minus 110 and half of the difference and
110 and half the difference. If you do that, that says my corner lot should
come up to be 133. Now I'm confused. What am I really being billed for?
That's just one of many issues here.
Charles Folch: As we talked about before between Don and I, when he questioned
the frontage on his lot, originally it was my understanding that he had
requested initially that the platted length be the length used in the property.
As it turned out, that was actually the longer distance so thus he requested
that the tangent distance be used. So we made that change. Then there was a
question on applying this long lot methodology along frontage to his lot.
Unfortunately his Frontier Trail frontage is his short side. Not by much but it
is the short side of the lot. Thus no reduction was applied to that footage.
In this case, in Mr. Mader's case, his frontage on Frontier Trail is the long
side of his lot. Thus the modification seemed fair.
Don King: So you have on the rolls for me at this point in time 157 or what is
the number? 7200 Kiowa Circle.
Mayor Chmiel: 155 as I have it.
Charles Folch: 155, that's correct.
Don King: Okay, so I'm 10 feet less than he is? So instead of getting a
reduction, I stay where I'm at? I still disagree with the ratio, the way it's
been set up with the 40/60. 40 on our part. I also am concerned about the fact
that almost every meeting that we have been here at, we have discussed the
status of Kiowa Circle and the devastation, destruction, tearing up that has
been done as a result of the construction equipment that's been on there. I
realize that that street was not part of the plan to be done. It was voted out.
Also at the same time it was not voted in to be a parking lot for heavy
C~ty Council Minutes - October 14, 1991
construction equipment. I don't believe that in the future if you should dectde
or have a need to do Kioua Circle, at that point Ln t~ae that I should be
subjected to having to pay more because of the amount of repair that mtght be
required on that street. I do believe that that street at this point in time
should be brought up to some level, whatever it may be. But you can go out
there and see cat tracks. You can see, I mean not little kittens running
around. You can see where heavy equipment has been parked With the wheel marks,
etc. and considered broken out. Mr. Sucher has moved and when he gets unpacked
he will find the photographs that he took at the beginning of the project as
evidence of what that street did look like prior to the start of that equipment.
So I'm very concerned that we've discussed tt and discussed and brought It up
and no one has taken any action on the Council whatsoever on this partLcular
issue. Furthermore, I was one of the family people that did sign on the
frontage basis of linear footage, at the time in my quick analysis of the who[e
thing, my pocketbook was part of my concern and I thought it would be fair
without someone doing a detailed computer analysts as Tom has done. I further
support and change my vote to that. That I think it would be a much more fair
and equitable for all of us to be on that basis by home because we all do share
that street. My concern further is that since Frontier Trail was put in and
upgraded and made access to [ guess what's called the...v£sta or somethLng, that
all the people in that area also share that road and there's been a considerable
increase [n traffic. So my concern Ls, has that street been upgraded in status
as not a feeder or whatever it is but has the status of that been upgraded as
such that the amount of construction work that had to be done, which represents
the 40~ increase that Mr. Engelhardt has proposed, is a result of that upgrading
rather than being a farm trail, if you want to call it that to a major highway.
To give you extremes. So I feel that, Ithtnk there's a lot of issues. As many
meetings as we have, I just don't feel that we're really getting down to the
real root of everything. We're st111 havtng concerns that are going on. I
believe that the communication, we've had a lot of meetings in the effort of
communicating but again I think we've fallen short. Such as the issue of the
Kiowa Circle that I have brought up. I've also brought up the fact of why have
we hid the expenses of the actual project? Not untll we were shown at the
meeting here on the 26th was it really brought out actually to anyone, and I
reallze that I have access to go to City Hall and get it but I also work a
distance from here and it makes it impossible for me to get that. It would
certainly have been nlce if that could have been communicated to each and
actually what the amounts were for the families. So I ask your continued
consideration on these particular lssues tonight as you ponder tt.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Councilwoman Dlmler: Mr. Mayor, I'd 11ke to ask Mr. King a question.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Would you like to come back.
Councilwoman Dimler: Don, being that we just got this I haven't had time. It's
by address, not by name. Do you know how much you save by gotng to per unlt
basis versus what we've got?
Don King: I've seen that report and I'm not, Ithtnk lt's around 20~ or 30~ it
means to me a reduction. Now that's based on the 168 feet I think that you used
in there for that whlch would be a further reduction if we used the 155 number.
City Council Minutes - October i4, 1991
I think on the average it looked like, I don't remember the numbers she had
there but it's someplace like 20~. 10~ or 20% per family overall reduction that
everyone sees.
Tom Pzynski: The lowest is 6.7~ with an average is about 14~. 14~ to 15~.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Anyone else?
Helen Loebl: I'm Helen Loebl from 7i97 Frontier Trail. I want to address this
idea of the petition that was taken up just about 2 years ago. I did not
appreciate the aspersions cast by Bob Scholer. This was presented and I do
believe that Bob was out of town at the time. I wouldn't guarantee that but I
know one of the petitions we took up he was out of town so we contacted hlm in
Arizona. Now as I say, I don't remember uhlch petition that was for. And his
answer was no. That he didn't care to slgn lt. To try to change this petttion
that contains the names of the very vast majority, I'm sure you all have a copy
of it there In front of you. That it ls the desire of the majority of the
neighbors and frlends that wanted this on a front footage basis. For a leu that
have the larger lots to try to change it for everybody I feel that thls ls belng
unfair. I go along with the other people who object to the 60/40 assessment. I
feel that flrst of all was thls spllt ever approved by the Council? Was it ever
presented to the Council before it was approved? And if so, when was that done?
It was my understanding that Council was to approve the spllt. I would 11ke
your consideration on upholding the wishes of the majority of the property
owners on Frontlet Trall that wanted the front footage basls. And as I
understand, you all have a copy of that petition in front of you. And also give
some consideration to a reduction in the assessment for all of the property
owners, not just a few. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Joel Jenkins: Joel Jenkins, 7305 at this time Frontier Trail. Previously 7226
and a few years ago when we were debating this issue I owned two properties at
that tlme. I guess my concern here ls two fold. Number one, it was my
understanding that Frontier Trail was to set a precedent for the rest of the
clty as far as the spllt in equity between the clty of Chanhassen's contribution
and the homeowner's contribution. If Frontier Trail is going to be a 60/40
spllt or 70/30 or 20/80, whatever it ls, I'm not sure that just Frontlet Trall
residents should be here negotiating with the City Council. I think it should
be a clty wlde discussion as to how we should handle streets in the future.
That would be my first contention. Second position is, through several
discussions ulth Gary Warren, our prevlous englneer and communication back to
me, it's my understanding since I was President of the Sunrise Hills Homeowners
Association at that tlme, that the beachlot would not be assessed. The reason
the beachlot would not be assessed is multiple reasons. Number one, if you're
golng by a front footage, the beachlot homeowners association ls not an owner of
any front footage unless the City has given us property since a year and a half
ago. If they have deeded us the property that ls platted whlch ls approximately
6 feet wide on the lot llne next to Steve Berquist and about a foot and a half
wide on the property next to Pavelko's, then the homeowners association has
front footage. Otheruise it's city property. Number two. Outlots apparently,
according to our County are not taxable entltles and therefore I'm not sure and
I was told they are not assessable. Again, this is what I was told at that time
10
City Council Minutes - October 14, 1991
as President of the Homeowners Association. So I would encourage Council and
staff to review those items before they assess the Homeowners Association which
is already being assessed because we're all homeowners in that area. I'd
finally like to say that I believe that the unit basis is such more fair to all
those concerned. Whether or not you've signed a petition or not it's fairness
that's appropriate. Lastly in all of our meetings, I am not sure that I saw one
Council member at those meetings and Z think that's where a lot of these
discussions were held and I think it's unfair to you as Council members to hear
us at this type of meeting complain and complain and try to sake a point when
you're kind of put on a spot to sake a decision. And so I would encourage you
to do what's fair and do what's right and provide the taxpayers with what's
appropriate. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks 3oel. Anyone else?
Pat Pavelko: Pat Pavelko, 7203 Frontier Trail. First of all I'd just like to
say that I think there's been a lot of issues that have been brought up tonight
that are still unanswered. Initially the comment at the beginning of the
session was that it should be voted on tonight to make sure that it is in the
1992 tax base. I really don't think that should come into any consideration
since there are so many unanswered questions to assure that this is in the 1992
tax base. I think we should make a decision that's fair for everybody and if
the proper information is not given to the City Council, let's not be under the
pressure to get it into the 1992 tax base. In terms of the percentage, the
60/40 percentage, some of the calls that ! have made to other cities, it seems
like the 60/40~ is a very, very high percentage when you look at other
communities and Z don't understand why the City of Chanhassen has decided on the
60/40 percentage. You can look at the city of Eden Prairie that has it into the
general fund and if the city of Eden Prairie is able to put that into the
general fund, I don't know how much of a difference the city of Eden Prairie and
Chanhassen is. And other cities have a very less percentage, around the 20~
market which as I understand it, I could be wrong but the state government says
that if you do have an assessment, there's a minimum of 20~ on the assessment.
If that is correct, why are we looking at a 40~ assessment? Other assessments
in the city of Chanhassen and the assessments have been 20~ and yes, some have
been State Aid because it's a state road but I guess when you come down to
percentages, whether it's 20~ or 40~ and if a road is getting State Aid, why
should that change the percentage from somebody that's not getting State Aid and
a road that is getting State Aid? I guess too in terms of the questions that
have been brought up in terms of the fairness of the front footage versus just
the lot footage, if the cost of each lot on the front footage has come out now,
I don't think it would be too difficult to obtain a new. list or a vote from the
taxpayers that live on Frontier Trail to see which they feel is .fair and
equitable. Whether it be by lot or whether it be by square footage. I cannot
imagine that taking more than one week to complete. Again, since it's the
taxpayers on Frontier Trail and that's what they should decide. Whether they
want to do it by lot or they want to do it by square footage. That's all I have
to say. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiei: Thank you.
to.
Anyone else? If seeing none, can Z have a motion
City Council Minutes ~ October 14, 1591
Don Ashuorth: I was prepared tOl respond to some of the points that have been
brought up. ,
Mayor Chmiel: You can still respond to it. We can just close the public
hearing.
Don Ashworth: Would you prefer doing that first then or do you want me to
respond?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilwoman Oimler: Let's leave it open in case they want to respond to what
Oon has to say.
Don Ashworth: The establishment of the 60/40 split, staff believed had been
approved by the City Council. I know that in the Minutes there was discussion
on the 70/30 but our slncere bellef was that the Count11 had come back with the
60/40. That is the basis under which the bonds were sold a year ago to finance
the project. That's really the basls upon which the levles have been set for
this next year. It was additionally set recognizing that the only thing the
property owner would be assessed for would be those items that were not there
before. I know Mr. Scholer stated that he built the road to city standards. I
agree wlth that. I thlnk that the standards that the clty had 30 years ago when
that road was first built, it was not anticipated that it would last 30 years
and probably would be closer to a 20 year deslgn. Puttlng that aside, the Clty
is still standing behind the road that he put in 30 years ago. The only thing
we are charging for are those new 1rems. As it deals wlth a precedent and how
it may affect other parcels within the city, I think we have to realize that a
majorlty of the roads wlthln thls community are in relatively good shape. We
put those into the sealcoat program and have been able to maintain those.
Streets, like Frontlet Tra11, were literally declared dead 10 years ago. The
same is true with the Chan Estates neighborhood which is one other area we have
a problem with. And in those areas we knew that total reconstruction would
basically be required. This policy as it would deal with those areas bringing
them up, puts the falrness posltlon in my own mlnd, it ls falr. Whether it be
Frontier Trail or that area or Chan Estates, they're going to be assessed for
whatever ls new. At some polnt in tlme my street Longvlew, whlch was brought
into the sealcoat program years ago, I don't anticipate that that roadway itself
wlll ever be totally taken up as we had to do wlth frontlet Trw11. Curb and
gutter may go on my street. My street, the curbs, the asphalt curbs are in very
poor shape. They'll only get worse. They're probably need to be replaced and
in that instance I'll be paying literally 100~ of the cost because there won't
be any cost associated wlth the maln portlon of the street itself. Issues
presented tonight regarding other cities and paying higher percents, I'm
guesslng that the questlon may be to Eden Pralrle and I'll have to respond to
this if I'm incorrect, were for, I'm not even sure. To the best of my knowledge
all of the newer roads golng in in Eden Pralrle are being pald through the
subdivision process. They're being paid 100~ by the people that are putting
them ln. I don't know where Eden Prairle's paylng for cost for streets. Maybe
on some of the county roads and in our own instance I think that's the only
deviation ls where you've had a State Aid roadway. Two that come to mind,
three. Bluff Creek, Kerber Blvd., and now Minnewashta Parkway. If you consider
Bluff Creek, you literally had no frontage along that roadway. I mean if you
12
City Council Hinutes - October 14, 1991
would have seen the people in that area coming tn who-were paying off line
assessments, they felt it was very unfair. The remaining port£on of the c£ty,
the property owners have paid literally 100~ of those costs. The other point is
in regard to the handling of the split of the assessment between the property
owners themselves. Again I believe that the 40& cost factor has been known and
should be continued. As it deals with how that would be split between the
property owners, ue attempted to use the same basis that basically has been used
for all of the projects I'm aware of. All of the projects within the downtown
area. Within the business park. Going back to projects in the '78 to '80
timeframe, specific area Chan View in which the City assessed frontage plus the
long side and one half of the short side. The only issue in my own mind is
since these are more on an arc rather than two straight lines coming together,
we felt that the 110 feet for a long side and then one half of what would be the
difference represented exactly the same policy that's been used for 15 years.
That decision rests with the City Council. It was initially presented. There
was a lot of disagreement. I know that Mr. Jenkins had come back in asking that
the Council reconsider that declslon and the Council reaffirmed that they were
not going to change their position. But again what we're talking about is the
$140,000.00 cost factor. How that's going to be split between the neighbors. I
think that if it wasn't Mr. $choler, I can't recall, basically got it down to
that polnt. That ls if it's on a unit basis, it derives one cost for this group
of neighbors. If it's done on a totally curvalineager frontage, it produces
another amount for each of them. And if it's done as staff presented lt, it
basically is what you have in front of you. We feel that this is consistent
with previous pollcy but again, that lsa declsion of the City Council. Should
you wish to use another method, I guess the only thing I'd make you fearful of
or make you aware of and fearful of is that any time you go through an
assessment method, you then kind of set a precedent for the next time around.
At least using this long slde and one half of the short side is something that's
been used for 15 years.
Mayor Chmlel: Yeah, and I guess I basically agree wtth that analogy that you
just went through. I know that when we first looked at Frontier Trail, at one
time we were looking at a 50/50 split. After we thought about that and looked '
at what was done previously, that's where we came back to the 60/40. I know
when it comes to assessments as a council, we really don't make any friends
because it's a decision that has to be made. But we are really in a process of
establishing a precedent as we are doing right now and have done previously in
trying to continue through with that same way. I think that being consistent
with this kind of a proposal of the 60/40 split to me seems very logical to do.
And to go through the process as we've done. I guess I support that specific
position. What Don had mentioned. Ursula?
Councilwoman Oimler: Do you want me to give my total comments?
Mayor Chmlel: Well, I just thought if you wanted to say something.
Councilwoman Oimler: Yeah, I wanted to address that because I found it very
interesting that on page 3 of the report it says that the City does not have a
policy established and a defined percentage to be assessed for reconstruction
projects. I'm not convinced that establishing a single percentage ratio would
be appropriate and fair to all projects. It may be more appropriate to analyze
each improvment project on a case by case basis. Now we're saying that this has
13
City Council Minutes - October 14, 1991
been a precedent and I know for sure, as I'm sitting here, that I never voted
for a 60/40 split. I will repeat again that I don't know who made that decision
and what they based that decision on but I know that I never voted for it.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm assuming you were here with us.
Councilwoman Dimler: I was and I never voted on that.
Councilman Workman: Well I don't know that we voted on it or not. I remember
we had an in depth analysis of at least 20 cities in the metro and that was how
we arrived at 60/40. I'm looking at Charles like he should know. Maybe he
wasn't here.
Bill Engelhardt: Councilman Workman, Bill EngeIhardt. In the initial report we
did go through a number of different cities and looked at how and what method
they used for assessing these types of projects. It ranged varying ali over.
Basically what it boiled down to is what we're doing tonight is that the City's
arrived at their percentage by arriving, taking the cost of the new construction
and determining what that percentage is. In the case of Chanhassen, the 60/40
was a very logical and very accurate representation of the type of materials and
the type of street construction that was going to take place on Frontier Trail.
Now it was not, as mentioned earlier, it was not beefed up or upgraded to a
higher standard because of other traffic coming through. It was based strictly
on the construction section for a typical residential street in the city of
Chanhassen. The 60/40 split comes out very well in numbers by paying for the
cost of new construction. Additional base, additional thickness of blacktop and
concrete curb and gutter. And that's why I think after the initial discussions,
the 60/40 continued on through in the bond issue of 60/40. Does that answer
your question?
Councilwoman Dimler: Then we didn't vote. You just made a decision with staff.
Bill Engelhardt: No, I didn't say that. I said that the 60/40 was presented to
the City Council as the appropriate method to financing the construction.
Councilwoman Dimler: And then I remember very clearly that as the residents
asked us for 70/30 and even 80/20, we were told by the engineer at that time
that we could make that decision at the time of the assessment hearing. And
here we are and we have been told that we already made the decision and I don't
agree with it.
Resident: Ursula, you're correct in what you just said.
Mayor Chmiel: Let's continue with our procedures here before we come back, and
we'll come back to you. I'd 11kw to keep thls going rlght up here.
Councilman Workman: I agree and Ursula I agree with that. I think by voting on
whatever we vote on tonlght we are settlng that prooedure and I think lt's
Important that we do set a split because if we're going to jump all over the
place with a spllt depending on the road, it's golng to end up just 11kw the
situation we have whether it's a unit method or front footage method or
whatever. You're going to make some people happy and then if you move over here
you're going to make these other people happy but then you know, so for future
14
City Council Minutes - October 14, 1991
Council's sake and for sanity ! think we have to set, and ! suggested and I know
it made it in the report again. We have to set a policy and a list of when
these roads and the schedule so these people do have an idea on when and how
this is all going to happen so it's not such a surprise. We have costs to
address for this roadway and Z do remember us making some reasonable decisions
based on 60/40. Did we have a final vote on it? Maybe or maybe not but I do
remember it happening.
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Workman, I normally don't disagree with you
but I do this time. I think that going on a case by case basis, I don't think
we need to set a precedent with this one because I can go later on in my
argument I ,ill show you why we can go with the 70/30 here and not necessarily
have to go with that in other roads because each case is different and Z think
that's the way we should proceed.
Mayor Chmiel: Ursula, as ! look in some of the staff report portions here,
changing the Frontier percentage to the 70/30 could produce a tax increase for
the city in 1992.
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't believe that at all. ! think that's a bunch of...
Mayor Chmiel: That might be your opinion but I think we have to.
Councilwoman Oimler: Can Z tell you why? Because you've already brought up the
fact that we just increased our bonding rate and we're going to be saving
$60,000.00 there. We can look at other projects. We can look at the fact that
that road has not been maintained and all the money we saved over the years by
not resurfacing it has got to come up to at least $50,000.00 so Z can think we
could look at getting some money out of there. We also, we helped the people on
Minnewashta Trail by a tremendous amount and we helped the people.
Mayor Chmiel: That was additional contributions though by State.
Councilwoman Dimler: I understand that.
Mayor Chmiel: So those are two different issues.
Councilwoman Dimler: But still, we helped them a lot. We also helped the
people with the Lake Ann Znterceptor a lot and if anything should have thrown us
into a tax increase in 1992 it would be the Interceptor. My gosh we just gave
them huge reductions. I cannot see that $S0,000.00 is going to cause us a tax
increase in 1992. I know we can pull it from somewhere.
Mayor Chmiel: Richard.
Councilman Wing: It's before my time Don.
Mayor Chmiel: It's your decision.
Councilman Wing: Any comments I would make would be as a resident. With 3 in
college my greatest fear next to thunderstorms in my work would be an assessment
as a taxpayer. I would agree that I don't believe we're setting a precedent.
think each one ought to be taken on it's own option. I don't want to see that
15
city Council Hinutes -- October 14, 1991
cast in concrete. I guess suddenly here, and I'm speaking in a very naive
position and I'm not in the foreground of this whole project and what happened
way back when but just looking at the numbers and the issue of assessments, I
guess I tend to favor the 70/30 in support of the neighbors. Not just in
support of this neighborhood but in support of the city residents overall, today
and in the future and trying to absorb this. Even if I'm going to pay slightly
higher taxes myself, because it's someday it's going to affect me and they'll
pay slightly higher taxes. At least this enormous burden won't be placed on me
individually and that's my greatest concern. I don't justify nor suggest a
70/30 but I'm not convinced it's not a more equitable way to go. And Don I say
that again as a very new member. Z'm hesitant to bring suggestions up. At this
point I would suggest, I tend to favor 70/30. I just feel more comfortable with
burdening the assessment. On the other hand, there is a responsibility to pay
for it and I certainly support Mr. Workman in clarify our future projects...and
getting up front real early in the process so when a project ls going to be
done, everybody knows exactly what they're going to encounter. Thank you.
Mayor Chmlel: Mike.
Councilman Mason: Well, I like Councilman Wing are kind of new on this issue.
I was curious to hear what Oon you had to say about past policy and the long and
the short. I'm curlous if the people on Frontler Trw11 were aware what the
policies were 15 years ago. $o before, I understand the difference between
curves and the rlght angles but I wonder if some of thls could have been avoided
had they known that past policies are such that if you have a corner lot or in
this case a big curved lot, that the long ls one percentage and the short of it
is another percentage. I understand the rationale on the previous policy. I
also have a little trouble wlth havlng the people ulth a 11ttle less front
footage havlng to share a larger burden. The other side of that is, there's one
lot here that has 30 feet. Should that person have to pay more than the per
foot lot because that lot is significantly shorter?
Mayor Chmlel: I agree wlth that portlon of the analogy that you have.
Councilman Mason: Mr. Engeihardt, you talked about 60/40 is logical. I bet you
could flnd just as many people that would say 70/30 ls logical.
Bill Engelhardt: If you go back I guess way to the beginning, in our initial
feasibility study, we were looking at a 5?/43 spllt and the reason that we
proposed the 5?/43...recommendation of Council is we felt based on the analysis
of the new versus old, buy back of the old street, that that was golng to be a
pretty good number. But as a tool of the Council will use because we were
trylng to come up wlth a program for the clty. We dld show some other splits in
there. We showed 70/30 and we showed 100~. What it would do and how it would
affect the property owners in how they'd be affected. But ue go rlght back to
the beginning and again the 57/43 split. After the analysis was done and the
design phase and the numbers were firmed up a little more, the 60/40 split was a
very good number for this particular street. Even after all the costs are in,
that 60/40 split is still a very equitable, fair number for the people that are
on that street. Whether they're paying for new construction that they did not
previously pay for. Now you may not want to set 60/40 as the next precedent
because as the City Manager said, that particular street may have just curb and
gutter golng that ls all brand new, they should pay 100~ of the cost. I thlnk
City Council Minutes - October 14, 1991
what you should focus on is the methodology that people on existing street pay
for new construction. You determine what the difference in cost is between the
old and the new and you pay for new construction. That's a fair and equitable
way of producing assessment rolls.
Councilman Mason: Can I keep going? When I asked that about if the people on
Frontier Trail knew about previous policy, I saw some people shaking their head
no. As a taxpayer in the city, ! understand what the people on Frontier Trail
are saying. That they're not the only people benefitting from that road. A lot
of people drive on Frontier Trail. ! didn't used to but now that the new road
is there, I use it. I'll admit it.
Don King: Put your money in the fare box.
Councilman Mason: And if we're going with this reduction thing that clearly
came into play late for some of the people here, ! guess I kim~ of see the 60/40
70/30 thing as a possible trade-off.
Mayor Chmiel: Tom.
Councilman Workman: are you done Ursula?
Councilwoman Dimier: I have another question but go ahead.
Councilman Workman: Well, I don't have anything to base 70/30 on. You said it
could be logical and I agree. It could be logical if it were based on the sound
fiscal balancing and the cost because that's what we're going to have to go
after the people in Chart Estates with. Next year. In two years. And they're
all going to be holding us up to the light and how we handled this deal and you
all know people over there and you're going to tell thee. And so that's the
only way that I can operate on this Council. Not just throw out a figure
because I want to give a reduction and I think that's the way ! tried to operate
on Minnewashta Parkway and I think we might have opened ourselves up a little
bit there and every other assessment deal that we have and we have to, it seems
like we have to deal with these things every Council meeting and they're not
fun. And so just as I'm on the Board of Adjustments for variance requests, I
have to make the decisions based on how I'm going to have to treat people in the
future and how they've been treated in the past and that makes it fairest.
Otherwise it gets political and it gets weighty and you can't deal with it. So
Bill gives me very good, sound reasons to say 60/40. And Ursula has said here
tonight that she is going to give me those same reasons.
Councilwoman Oimler: I'll give you some reasons for 70/30.
Councilman Workman: For the 70/30 and [ would love to do that and I'm very open
minded to that because ! don't have to like 60/40 but so far the money people
have told me that's the way it's supposed to work. Because of the cost and
because of taxes and the budget and everything else. That's about all ! have to
go but I'm going to have more to go on. The front footage method was selected,
if I recall, because the Courts have decided over and over and over that that's
the fair way to do it. For me to stick my nose in, an amateur and say the per
unit is fair when the Courts have talked about it, ! don't know if that would be
prudent on my behalf. Unless somebody can sho~ me Court cases that show the per
17
City Council Minutes - October 14, 1991
unit is. And I know that doesn't make some people happy obviously. When we
originally were talking about this program, we were talking about a sidewalk
through there. Who would have had to pay for the sidewalk?
Councilwoman Oimler: The residents.
Councilman Workman: I can't imagine us having that additional cost in here
right now. Now Joel, you were kind of for or against it depending on which side
of the street you lived on.
Joel Jenkins: I was for it all the way. Either side.
Councilman Workman: Okay. I don't know what we're going to do with Kiowa
Circle,
Councilwoman Dimler: I do.
Councilman Workman: Maybe we ought to just redo the whole street, I don't
know. I think it needs to be addressed and I know Oon you brought that up and
ue haven't really talked about it but we should talk about it and something
should be done. I don't know if we have recourse or if it was our fault or if
it was the contractor's fault or how they take care of their equipment in other
situations when they're repairing roads.
Bill Engelhardt: If I could just speak to that briefly. We touched bases a
little bit on that in a workshop. Kioua Circle was originally included in the
feasibility study. We considered Klowa Clrcle to be in as worse or as bad as
Frontier Trail and needed to be improved. It has a thln layer of bituminous on
it. It's a very soft base materlal init and we recommended that it be
incorporated and included in with Frontlet Trail. Whether the contractor parked
hls equipment on there or not has really nothlng to do ulth it in my oplnlon.
From an engineering standpoint, that street was dead, is dead or will be dead
until it ls repaired. It had a patch put init where they repalred the sewer
and they replaced the patch in the street with the same thickness of blacktop
that they found in there. That's the way the project was set up for that
particular project. The sewer rehab project, it did take longer and in fact
lt's falllng apart. That's the way the rest of the street, so I don't thlnk the
contractor or the sewer contractor or street contractor parking their equipment
in there really had that great effect on that particular street.
Mayor Chmiel: Of course I did see those people park in there but normally in
contracts that you have, if they do cause some problem, they normally restore it
back to the present condition that it was in. Oependlng on what condition it
was ln, should have been taken care of.
Councilwoman Oimler: I guess I'd like to respond to Hr. Engelhardt's comments.
What I hear people saylng, at least from that side all the tlme ls that if the
road is dead, let's not maintain it. That to me doesn't make any sense. We're
dolng the same thing now in Chart Estates. Those people are golng to be faced
wlth a project as big as this if not bigger and we're going to go through this
whole thlng all over agaln. I say, whether the road ls dead or allve, it should
be maintained. It should be maintained with at least a resurfacing
periodically. And it was not done. Frontier Tra11 was never done in 30 years.
18
City Council Ninutes - October
Therefore the subsoils were exposed to all kinds of weather conditions. The
cracking occurred and the road just got morse and morse and worse. Front£er
Trail at one time did have asphalt curbing. That was plowed down with the
snowplows and never refurbed and many people had drainage problems as a result.
We've been through this and we're doing the same thing. ! think a street should
be aainta£ned whether you think it's dead or not. And Kiowa Circle definitely
is in worse shape. Definitely is in worse shape. Like [ said even just as
short as 2 months ago they were still parking equipment there and they weren't
even working on the project in our area and it was heavy equipment. So they
need to be told not to use that as a parking spot, Just because it's a dead
street.
Bill Engelhardt: I wasn't aware of the last time that they parked on there.
do know that they parked in there during the project and there were some reasons
for it but ! guess to clarify too. I'm not saying that you should just abandon
the street at this point. I think under your seaLcoating program, include it in
a sealcoat and it seals it. Cosmetically it brings it up to a Little higher
level but it's not going to solve the inherent base and structural problems.
Councilwoman Oimler: That's okay. We Just want it maintained.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Wing: I've taken my coat off for a reason. Initially when this was
passed to me I sort of withdrew a little bit but now that I've got my mind a
little more established here. I did attend the neighborhood meetings, two of
them and I did Listen to all the comments. The arguments tonight we've heard
for months. The same complaints. Unit versus the front footage.- I guess as
much as it's difficult to say this, because the heat of the word assessment is
so strong tonight, the City Manager as I've met with him and the staff have been
very fair and conservative. They live in the city. We don't like it but it's
kind of common and normal what's occurring here. The members of the community
from Frontier that I've talked to personally after the neighborhood meeting, I
sort of said I thought it was cut and dry. Pretty well a done deal. That it
was fair and equitable. As fair and equitable as the city could make it. And
it does two things. It isolates your section from my section so in a &O/40
split, I'm going to absorb some of the cost in the west end but it kind of locks
me out from total cost. On the other hand, if they improve my street, it's
locking out you folks in the future from paying my share. So I guess I've been
left here as speaking somewhat new at the project. I feel, after meeting with
staff and the neighborhood meetings and talking to Councll through this process,
that this is as fair and equitable as possible. I sttll like the idea of
isolating the projects from the community at large. I think it protects both of
us. I think when ail is said and done, I have tend to say that this is as good
as we're going to go and the 70/30 split would make no more sense to me than a
90/10 split unless it's justified and we start all over again and we completely
redo what we intend to do in the future and I don't know if I favor that Mr.
Mayor.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Ursula?
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess this is my time to give the pitch for the 70/30
and the reasons for it because Frontier Trail does have some unique
characteristics and remember that I favor going on a case by case basis with no
established ratio. When ue talk about the situation uith the outlots, I'm just
outraged when the city says that they cannot be assessed because they have no
market value. Yet at the same time they want the residents to pick up that cost
when for the same reason they don't get any benefit out of it. There's no
market value for the residents as well so to me, that's just one more reason why
the City should pick up more than 60~. Also because the road was so poorly
maintained and that can be documented by people that have lived there the entire
lifetime of that road. It has never been resurfaced. And it simply got a
filling of potholes when they became unbearable and then every once in a while
ue got a tarring and the gravel thrown on top of it. I've lived there myself
for over 16 years and that's all that's ever happened since I've been there
and I've talked to the residents who have been there the entire lifetime of that
road and they concur with that. Like I said, it uae the snowplowing that did
away with the curbing so ue did have curbing. It's not something new. It's
just different. It's concrete now. It's not asphalt and it is better. I won't
argue against that but the question is, or because of the money that was saved
and I'll say it again, without proper maintenance. The money that was saved
for not resurfacing that road over the 30 years, I think that we can very easily
find $50,000.00 somewhere in our budget to make that a 70/30 split and have the
City pay it's fair share of bringing that road to the grade to meet city
standards.
Mayor Chmiel: Is that it?
Councilwoman Oimler: Yes.
Mayor Chmlel: I guess I, in my infinite wisdom said that I requested that we
establish our assessment policies for the city and that should be in writing.
The more I thlnk about it, the more flrm I become with it only because I really
believe that should be done. Basically in dealing with other portions of the
clty, and I still feel that if we go to that 70/30 and you sald both, I'm st111
concerned with the tax increases that this could create for 1992. I think being
at a 60/40 is a falr split. I keep throwing out the fact that just wlth my own
area in putting in street, a bituminous curb which no longer is there and the
water and the storm sewer, that assessment of mine came pretty close to
$10,000.00 plus the additional amounts. Nobody helped pay for that and I don't
thlnk that's rlght elther for all those people that that's happened to as well.
So that's the reason I come back to establishing something in writing and saying
thls ls what it ls folks and there's no argument that can come back from them.
You have to start somewhere and I think this is the place to start.
Councilwoman Otmler: If you want to do it after thls Kiowa, Frontlet Trail
project, that's fine wlth me but I don't think it's fair to say you're starting
wlth thls.
Mayor Chmiel: Then you're changing the whole ballgame. Well they dld some of
this in the inner portions of the city as well when they did this back at the
tlme. On some of those thlngs that they've done and in some other areas. And
if we haven't done sort of a 60/40 split, then I wouldn't argue.
20
City Council Heeting - October 14, 1991
Councilwoman Dimler: Then why does this policy, I think this was written by you
Don wasn't it or Paul? Or Chuck.
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilwoman Oimler: It's on page 3. It says the city does not have a policy
establishing a defined percentage to be.
Mayor Chmiel: That's exactly right. We don't.
Councilwoman Oimler: So why start now?
Mayor Chmiel: Because you have to start somewhere.
Councilwoman Dimler: Start after this project though.
Mayor Chmiel: To eliminate the problems that go.
Councilwoman Oimler: Right, but start after this project. I don't think it's
fair to start right here with this project then.
Nayor Chmtel: Tom.
Councilman Workman: Yeah Don Ashworth, is this $50,000.00 theoretical dollars,
is that a one time shot or is that an annual cost until '997
Don Ashworth: I think it's a little closer to $60,000.00.
Councilman Workman: Are those annual costs?
Don Ashworth: No.
Councilwoman Oimler: Just a one time shot.
Don Ashworth: Well, the way it would occur is if you look at the bond analysis
report. It's about the fourth sheet from the end. It's the one that looks like
this. What that shows you is that the City, and I've made an asterick by the
left hand column. That shows you that the city cost associated with this
percent is $352,377.00. You divided that by the &O~, you'd end up with
$&O,O00.O0 for each 10~. $o you'd be adding, if you find the sheet, it's about
the fourth one in from the end and the column I'm referring to or row is the one
with the large astericks that's on the left hand side. Going on across and
looking at the total, $352,000.00. So you're talking about $60,000.00 for each
10~.
Councilman Workman: That is what we will be paying on a 60/40?
Don Ashworth: On a 60/40.
Councilman Workman: Okay, Ursula's bringing up this $50,000.00. Additional
over the lifetime?
21
City Council Meeting - October
Don Ashworth: I'm saylng that that, I think what that is closer to &o and what
it would do is would change this number from $352,000.00 to $410,000.00.
Councilwoman Dimler: So it's an additional $60,000.00 about?
Don Ashworth: A little less. 58.
Councilman Wing: On that same line Don, why would we want to get this cast into
a policy? On that third page it would suggest that we would be a little more
flexlble and look at cost and impact on each project. You tend to support that
or do you tend to support a set policy?
Don Ashworth: Well it may sound as though Charles and I are saying something
different. I'm supporting placing in writing really what we've done so even
with the 70/30, if Helen Loeb1 would come in tomorrow and say well show me where
that's been done I would pull all of the assessment rolls over all of those
years and say here. Look at Mr. Roweln's lot, which is what Don and I dld thls
afternoon for the 78 project and the 88 project. But you won't flnd, even
though all of those projects were done in that fashlon, you can't plck up a
little book and it says, here's how it's going to be done. So you've got 15
years where you've done it that way but nobody's wrltten it down on a sheet of
paper. That should be done. Secondly I think it should be put into wrlting
that the Clty, how the Clty wlll assess ltems. So storm sewer wlll be a 50/50
split. Sidewalk would be a 50/50 split. Streets, we're basically taktng in,
we'll pay the cost of the streets except if there's additional wldth, in which
case you'd pay that additional wldth. If you didn't have concrete curb and
gutter you wlll pay that additional cost. Have each of those in wrlting. What
I'm saying is, that may then change the assessment amount within different
areas. In thls area it turns out to be 60/40. But in the Chan Estates area, it
may not be, tt may be 50/50 and onto my street, because I'm pretty sure my
street wlll be totally salvaged, the only cost I wlll pay, ! will be paying all
of the cost for that concrete curb and gutter. I'm real fearful that you adopt
like a 70/30 or 60/40 wlthout baslng it on something because otherwlme if you
did that and I knew that, when you came into do my street, I'd say well wait a
minute. Z want you to put in sidewalk. I want more street lights. I want
storm sewer. As long as my cost is going to be fixed out of the thing, why
would I, I'm going to be pushing for more thlngs. Especially as the percentage
gets higher for the city.
Councilwoman Dimler: Excuse me. Aren't we just talking about the percentage of
the road though? The 60/40 and 70/30. We're just talking about the road here.
We're not talklng about the sewer and the lightlng and the sidewalk. We're
talking about road only.
Don Ashworth: The cost though that 8111 has in there, he has separated those
out. Really the street portion, as far as an asmessment, the major portion of
that ls over on the clty side of the column. Right? And what's addlng up to
the citizen's side is the cost of the concrete curb and gutter which is on their
slde. The overall balancing comes out at the 60/40.
Mayor Chmiel: Tom, you wanted to say something. Why don't you come up here.
22
City Council Neeting - October 14, 1991
Tom Pzynski: Based on the 60/40 split again, and recommending a 70/30. I guess
the question Z have is, the road's been there for a long, long t£ae. 20 some
odd years. Going on 30 years and the question I have is, if the road would have
been maintained to a minimum level, okay. By the City over those years, what
would be the difference now in this project? Would it still be a 60/40 split?
60~ of the road is, the City's picking up 60~ of the road and we're paying for
40~ which is the upgrade for the additional base? Not just the curbs. Not just
the concrete curbs. We're paying for the additional base. We're paying for the
additional thickness in blacktop and the curb and gutters. But if the road was
maintained to a minimum level over these years, would It stll! be a 60/40? How
can you answer that?
Bill Engelhardt= I believe it would be, yes.
Mayor Chmlel: Someone ralsed their hand there I thought.
Councilman Workman= Well Don, one more point. Hy point was, before everybody
jumped in. Z hadn't finished my discussion yet is, and if we go back to our
original graph and we're paying $32,000.00 this year and $42,000.00 the next and
42 and 47, 46, 50 all the way up to 1999 at a total of $352,000.00 and we are
going to address let's say another roadway £ssue In the next year or two, like
all of Chan Estates. The old Chan Estates and we're going to have anything
that's simple or resembles this. ['m assuming we're going to be paying some
more of that. In the memo we're talking about that the amount necessary for
1992 is $32,722.00 with that amount increasing to $50,368.00 by the year 1999.
Dollars necessary fund the City's share of this project directly competes with
dollars available for police officers, street maintenance, etc.. How many of
these projects could we get going at the same time and still keep afloat until
1999 when we start dropping off?
Don Ashworth: The City definitely has to contlnue monitoring it's financial
position and once you start loading on more projects than you can, if you're
addlng on more projects than projects are dropping off, you're in trouble. So
right now you do have projects dropping off in terms of the bonds of '72 and '73
which ls basically providing room necessary for not only this project and also
Minnewashta Parkway project. That Is also a large hit tn this. I believe that,
this is based on our current analysis that the bonds of '83 currently have about
$8S,000.00 per year. It appears as though we will be tn a position to basically
delete that levy amount which then again wlll glve us some free board for
hypothetically the next project which may be Chan Estates. But once you're
addlng more to than you're taking off, you've got a tax increase or you're
taking away poltce officers, firemen, other services.
Councilman Workman: Well, and I wanted to kind of add in there that our
suggested policy of taktng the longer frontage lots and giving them a break kind
of throws a wrench I think in that fairness question. Agaln, I wanted to get
that in there. The budget is a finite amount unless we want to think of
property taxes as an lnfinlte amount 11kc sometimes I think the School Oistrict,
the State and the County do. And so we're trying to keep the budget of the City
down which means maybe a htgher assessed value for those who have street work in
front of their house, although the 60/40 we've tried to base on 'fairness. I
guess we could go, I would suggest and be the hero of the night to say let's go
90/10 and let's increase taxes and get tn with everybody else. It's not based
23
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
on anything. I might be the hero tonight. I might be somebody's goat next week
but that we have a small, relatively small budget in relationship to all the
other players in the tax game and our's is most effected. That's why, going by
the sound based of what we've tried to do. I know we've looked at it and looked
at lt. I just don't see where we can make compromise. We don't have a whole
lot of room to compromise. I know how difficult this is for us to move
SSO,O00.O0 here or there and we're about ready to go into that tomorrow night.
I guess I don't have to, 60/40 doesn't have to be a locked in basis for every
street in town but I have a feellng, and you know I thlnk Hllly Ives was saylng
we've never had anything done to West 76th Street. When's that going to
happen? They did have something done but we're golng to have some, we have tlme
bombs ticking out there and we have to.
Mayor Chmlel: That part Tom we've already discussed with staff. Sealcoatlng is
going to take place with the balance of the roads. One more comment.
Don King: I guess again I support the 70/30 but you're talking about playlng
games with money back and forth here. I've been 17 years on Frontier Trail.
Over that perlod of time, how many sealcoatlngs is city pollcy? Is there a
policy of how often you upgrade a street? If so, how much does it cost per or
ls it roughly 5,000 or 6,000 feet that we're talklng about?
Charles Folch: There is no written policy as far as a sealcoating routine,
although in the last, from records that I've seen over the last 4 years, 4 to $
years, tt has been the City's intent to try and sealcoat and do street repair,
crack fllllng, pothole patchlng and then a sealcoat on each street withln the
city on a revolving 4 to 5 years turn. So that every 4 to 5 years we could get
a street wlth a sealcoat. However, we have to remember that one thlng to keep
in mind is that that annual sealcoating budget is limited by comparison to the
percentage of total streets that the clty has to maintain. As we contlnue to
add more and more streets get built to this city, that $100,000.00 doesn't go as
far to make sure that every street gets sealcoated every 4 to 5 years. So those
are thlngs to keep in mind too. As we incur more streets under the
responsibility of our maintenance program, there's added cost there but the
amount that we get annually is limited.
Don King: And how much would you suggest that the cost of 6,000, roughly 6,000
feet I think it ls, of street would cost? If we do lt. If I take 17 years I've
been here, I know of one time that street was done. So we'll take it 4 tlmes in
the years I've been here that that street probably should have been upgraded of
whlch it was done once. What ls the expense of that 6,000? Obviously we made
some financial decisions some place to call the street dead. As we use the word
dead. Because lt's dead it stayed dead. It went downhill. You saved some
money somewhere in the city and now we're asking you to put it back in and go
for 70/30 and you're bickering about lt. I don't follow your rationale
whatsoever here. Also earlier on my comment about the shorter street, I just
reconfirmed with Wayne, you took the longer leg of hls home whlch ls 146. Well
mine is 155 long leg. Short leg is 147 so you should be calculating mine the
same as his. I think there's just complete inconsistencies continue to go here.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like a motion to close the public hearing.
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Workman moved, Hason seconded to close the public hearlng. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The public hearing ,as closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Any further discussion? If no other discussion.
Councilwoman Oimler: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move that we recalculate the
Frontier Trail assessment roll on a 70/30 split with 70X to be paid by the City
for the fact, because of the reasons Just stated by Mr. King. That the road was
not maintained and money was saved by not maintaining it. That to me is a good
enough reason to go for a 70/30.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, do you have that as a motion?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes.
Councilman Workman: ! would seriously consider seconding that motion if I can
be told where the $50,000.00 will come from.
Councilwoman Dialer: Money that we just saved in the bonding upgrade.
Mayor Chmiel: You're taking it from the balance of the city. From other people
that should be benefitting from that.
Councilwoman Oimler: How about the street maintenance fund? They're the ones
that have been savlng money by not dolng Frontier Trail?
Don Ashworth: As Charles had stated, and if I may be. I believe the policy is
in writing. Bill Monk was present. Me presented that program to the City
Council. The Council adopted what was the $100,000.00 amount. That we should
continue on an annual basis. One of the problems as Charles noted is as you
have more and more streets, it maybe should have been a percent basis rather
than more of a dollar amount. That is a possibility as a potential source. It
could not come out of the amount for the bonds because what you're talking about
is the bonds that will be sold tomorrow night to finance projects such as
Minnewashta and Audubon and those projects. The assessment, the ones who
actually benefit out of that are the people that were going to be assessed as a
part of that project. These bonds were sold a year ago and we're kind of locked
into those payments.
Councilwoman Dimler: But like I said, we didn't make that decision. Council
did not make that decision.
Don Ashworth: That's correct and should the Council make a decision to go with
70/30, we will have to accommodate that additional cost as a part of the
budgetary process. And yes, I don't know if it wlll come out of street
maintenance or police contract or what, but it will have to come out of
something.
Councilwoman Dimler: The other place that we could maybe do it is instead of
buying a lot of seasonal equipment that sits around during the off season, why
don't we contract for servlces whlch has shown to be a cheaper way to go and
just simply not buy anymore equipment? Seasonal equipment. I know we could do
a significant savlngs there. See Z have trouble with not giving these residents
25
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
a break of $50,000.00 when we so easily purchase a lawn mower for $50,000.00.
That to me just doesn't make any sense.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have a motion onthe floor. Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Additional discussion.
Councilman Workman: I guess I cannot make a decision based on that $50,000.00
based on a lawnmower maybe that the HRA bought or where that came from. I
cannot make a $50,000.00 movement in budget based on something I don't see. Out
of any funds and so I can't vote for 70?20 based on that. Based on the
emotionalism of the room because it's not based on anythlng that I've ever
discussed the budget on.
Councilwoman Dimler: But Tom, when we did the one on Minneuashta ue didn't know
where the money was coming from. When we did the one on the Lake Interceptor,
we dldn't know where the money was comlng from and we had no trouble votlng for
those two reductions.
Councilman Workman: We did. They didn't come out of a lawnmower fund.
Mayor Chmiel: They didn't come from any other place.
Councilwoman Oimler: No. No, but where dld it come from?
Mayor Chmiel: They're still all being financing through the people.
Councilman Wing: If we're going to set a precedent of raising my taxes living
on the west end by going with a 70?20, then I guess I'd like to complain about
my street maintenance too. Thls could go on forever. And perhaps there's some
money out there that I could be given back to make up for the additional percent
that I'm going to have to pay additional. We're golng to have to lsolate these
assessments and I guess I feel like Tom. The emotionalism. The issues tonight
are no different than last week, the week before or the month before. Same
arguments. Same complaints. It has to be paid for. How are we going to pay
for lt. The assessment seems to be falr and Don I'm not so sure there isn't
kind of a need and an interest, at least on some of our parts, to table this to
dlscuss the 70?20 a 11ttle further. Clarlfy in our mlnd what we're golng to do
and then come back and do it without any further public hearing.
Councilwoman Dimler: I wouldn't favor tabling because I think this issue needs
to be put to bed. I know that Charles has given us a deadllne and I think we're
thoroughly discussed it. Thls has gone on too long. I'm slck of it and I know
the residents are sick of it.
Mayor Chmlel: I don't think tabllng would be a bad idea to come up wlth that
discussion myself.
Councilman Wing: I won't vote for it tonlght.
26
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: But we do have a motion on the floor with a second. I'll call a
question on it. Mike, did you want to say something?
Councilman Mason: Yeah. One of the reasons I seconded it was because this has
been extremely confusing for a whole lot of people. I've mentioned some of the
confusion. ! think Ursula's mentioned some of the confusion. Certainly a lot
of people have mentioned a lot of confusion. I think we need to come up with a
way to end this kind of confusion. Z like what [ heard about trying to figure
out some kind of schedule. I think $50,000.00 over 7 years, 8 years comes out
to be $6,000.00-$7,000.00 a year. ! think this is a case by case basis. I
think because this is 70/30 does not mean the next project would be 70/30. [
think if raising property taxes in the city of Chart, I mean what. I know our
percentage of property taxes is very small compared to everyone else that takes
their piece of the pie. I think that's something we maybe, maybe need to take a
look at. I'm uncomfortable with the 60/40 split and the methodology arrived at
the lot reduction without the knowledge of the citizens on Front[er Trail and
that's why I voted for the 70/30 split and that's, excuse me. That's why I
seconded it and that's why at this point I would vote for it although I suspect
it may not pass.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I was at that neighborhood meeting and I thought
Bill and Charles made it very clear what the issues were. What the numbers
were. There was no confusion in my mind whatsoever tn ay mind when I left that
meeting on how these things were derived at. And they were brought up again
tonight but I felt they had been answered fairly and that's why I considered
this pretty complete at this point. So I disagree with some of the comments
from the neighbors. If they weren't at the meeting possibly but having been at
the meeting, I don't think they could make the accusations they have.
Mayor Chmiel: I'll call a question. All those in favor of a 70/30 split say
aye?
Councilwoman Oimler eoved, Councilman ltason seconded to recalculate the Frontier
Trail assessment rol1 on a 70/30 spllt with 70~ to be paid by the C/ty based on
the fact that the road was not maintained and money was saved by not aa/ntatn/ng
it. Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman ttason voted tn favor. Councilman
Workman, Counc/lman Wing and Mayor Cite/el voted tn opposit/on. The eot/on
failed with a vote of 2 to 3.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion to table this issue to
investigate the possibility of coming up with the funds to enable us to do a
70/30 split.
Mayor Chmiei: Okay, I would second that. Any other discussion?
Councilman Mason: This would need to come up on the 28th without fail I take
it.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Workman moved, Nayor Chmie! seconded to table the assessment ro11 for
Frontier Trail Improvement Project No. 89-10 unti! October 28, 1991 for further
investigation into the 70/30 split. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried.
27
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPT ASSESSHENT ROLL FOR LAKE DRIVE EAST IHPROVEHENT PROJECT
89-6.
Mayor Chmiel: This is a public hearing and I'd like to open that public hearing
at this time. Charles.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. This assessment hearing was
first brought before you at the August 2Gth meeting. At that meeting staff had
recommended that thls hearlng be continued to allow some more time for staff and
representatives of Sunlink/OataServ Corporation, the sole proprietor proposed
for assessment to resolve some concerns that they had for the assessment amount.
Some key points from staff's perspective on this issue. Number one, when the
project feasibility was flrst presented, the numbers and the cost for the
proposed assessment were presented and the OataServ company at that time felt
comfortable enough with those numbers to walve thelr rlght to a pub110 hearlng
at the feasibility time. Number two, the comparative assessment amount that is
proposed at thls tlme ls some $118,000.00 less than that predicted in the
feasibility study. Also in addition OataServ has been intimately involved in
the plannlng and deslgn of thls project from it's inception. In fact the actual
alignment was based on a conceptual design that they had submitted for the
project. It's apparent that there's an lssue resolved to right-of-way
acquisition that has surfaced whereby initially the State of Minnesota was going
to aoqulre the needed right-of-way for that frontage road in order to provlde
access to two lots which frontage would be discontinued off of TH 5. However
that acquisition did not take place. At thls polnt OataServ ls now requesting
that the City buy the right-of-way from OataServ for the project. One thing
that should be noted or considered in this situation ls that when a development
occurs, subdivision proposal, typically the street right-of-ways are dedicated
to the city as a part of the plat at basically no cost to the clty. This ls
why, given this fact and the fact that MnOot initially was golng to acquire the
right-of-way. These costs were not lnoluded in the orlglnal feasibility study.
At this point in time no favorable progress in negotiations, I'm not able to
report between the clty and Sunllnk/DataServ Corporation. Basically they are
maintaining whole objection to the assessment amount even though the comparative
amount ls, as I mentioned, $118,000.00 less than that at the feasibility
hearing. Nevertheless, as I mentioned at the last publlc hearing. It's
important that we adopt an assessment roll ina timely fashion glven the
requirements and constraints that we have in certifying these assessments to the
County. Therefore, I would recommend that the Clty would proceed wlth adopting
this assessment roll for the Lake Orive East Improvement Project 89-6 and I
would fully anticipate that durlng the lnterim that the negotiations would
probably still take place to try and resolve the issue at hand.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone here from DataServ? Sunlink/DataServ
Corporation. If seeing none, is there anyone else wishing to discuss this at
thls tlme? This lsa publlc hearlng.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Oimler seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Councilman Workman: I move to adopt the assessment roll for Lake Drive East
Improvement 89-6.
28
City Council Meeting - October [4, 1991
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmlel: Should we also mention in that motion Tom that the interest rate
and term be set for 8% for 8 years?
Councilman Workman: Yes.
Councilman Mason: I'll second that too.
Resolution ~91-97: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman llason seconded to adopt
Assessment Roll dated October 7, 1991 for Lake Drive East Improvement Project
89-6 and that the interest rate and term be set at 8~ for 8 years. All voted tn
favor and the motion carried unanimously.
REALLOCATION OF YEAR xv) COHHUNITY DEVELOPHENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS,
Public Present:
Name (q~klreas
Emma St. John
Betty Crouch
JoAnn Kvern
1621 West &3rd Street
Senior Community Services
9801 Penn-Ave. So., Bloomington
Sen[or Community Services
1600 2nd Street So, Hopkins 55343
Mayor Chmiel: This is also a public hearing and I'll open the publ[c hear[ng at
this particular time. Paul.
Paul Krauss: Thank you Mr. Mayor. As most of the Counc[1 ks aware, the HRA
approved a motion to amend their redevelopment plans to allow for the
construction of a senior center in the space behind the City Council Chambers.
The unfinished space in the basement of City Hall. One of the understandings
that was agreed to at the HRA was to the extent feasible we would use Coemun[ty
Development Block Grant funds to offset the cost of construct[on and programming
in the center. With that we had pigeonholed a couple of years ago some
$23,000.00 odd dollars in an undefined sen[or account in the Block Grant money.
These are dollars that we really need to expend or have under contract by
December 31st or we lose them. We need to have them spent by June of next year.
It seems to me that this was the ultimate purpose that these dollars were set
aside for. What we're proposing to do with them is broken into two parts. The
first is that we would propose to contract with Senior Commun[ty Services for
two programs that they offer up through June of 1992. That's a total of
$8,172.00. For those of you who are unfamiliar w£th Senior Community Services,
they're the group that operates the South Shore Sen[or Center and have a number
of other projects in the area. A lot of expert[se and a lot of fatth [n their
staff and programming. What we're proposing ks that $4,900.00 be appropriated
for 12 hours per week of staff time to organize volunteers, organizing
programming and organize the effort for the new senior center so when the doors
open, it's all set to go and possibly even some activities could occur before
the doors open. The balance of the money would be used for what ks called the
HOME program. I believe Mr. Mayor this fits in very well wtth your goal of
getting volunteers [n the community to help out our sen[or community. The
29
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
HOME program is designed to have a sliding scale of fees and be a volunteer
assistance no fees to enable seniors to stay in their homes but doing chores,
work they need done around the house. They also serve to channel volunteers to
make sure these are appropriate people to send into somebody's house and they've
got a lot of experience. They operate this program I believe in 5 other
communities. 3oAnn Kvern from Senior Community Services is here tonight to
answer any specific questions that you might have. The balance of the money,
approximately $15,000.00 we're recommending be appropriated towards the
architect's fees for the design of the construction plans for the center. We
think that's an appropriate use for the money. Also, you may recall that in
past discussions I told you there's a lot of strings that come attached to Block
Grant dollars. There's very limited places we can use them and this seems to be
the ideal way, we think to get the senior center kicked off and get it so we can
get into construction early next year. So with that we are recommending that
you approve the reallocation of funds. Agaln these are old funds. It's Year
XVI. These were appropriated I believe in 1989 originally. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Paul. As I mentioned before this is a public hearing.
The hearing is open at this particular tlme for anyone wishing to address this.
Seelng none.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Nason seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Let it be know that Councilwoman Oimler is not present for that
particular vote. I guess I don't see any real problem with this. I think we've
discussed this before. I thlnk that the appropriations can move forward. Tom,
did you have a comment?
Councilman Workman: I just wanted to make a comment on Nary Heiges, the Carver
County Library system letter in there. Basically her letter contends that the
11brary apparently doesn't have enough political power to get the rest of that
area. I don't think we made a declsion in that space to leave the library with
a shortcoming. I thlnk the HRA and the Clty have always talked about the need
for a larger library and probably outside of City Hall and we're worklng to that
means diligently I'd say and so in the next 2 to 3 years we could probably get
something going. I didn't like the tone of the letter and I just hope she
understands that people are very concerned about that but we have other needs
besides a library also and we're very short on space. But that we're working
probably in the m1111on dollar area in the future to flnd a permanent home for
the library. I guess I just wanted to.
Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Workman. A letter will be going out to
Mary tomorrow expressing staff's frustration and the City Council's in trying to
meet everybody's space needs. Senlors would have liked to have more space than
what they're presently golng to be getting. Staff is in need for additional
space. I mean we've physically got people in closets. We understand thelr
frustration and their needs for additional space and as you noted, the HRA is
hoping to flnd, to meet their space needs lnto the future. My letter wlll
express the Council's and staff's concerns regarding thelr concerns.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you. Any other?
3O
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I'll move this very shortly. Just one sentence
here that is so typical of government.' I just wish it wasn't here. $23,112.00
that remained unspent. These funds must be spent or we lose them. $o for
heaven's sake, let's spend them. I agree, this is appropriate but if those
dollars are there and haven't, it always amazes me.
Councilman Mason: I had a hunch somebody was going to make that comment.
Councilman Wing: No, I just wanted to say to the public.
Mayor Chmiel: His initials wouldn't be RW.
Councilman Wing: I think it's unappropriate to...government operates although
I understand how this evolves so it's somewhat sarcastic in it's comment. It
just points out. I would move staff recommendation to spend this grant as shown
by staff of $4,900.00, $3,200.00 and the begining of the senior center with the
$15,000.00 architectural fees. ! think they're well thought out programs. Good
direction for the money and I would move acceptance of that recommendation.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that. Can I ask a question? Are we choosing
between Scheme A and Scheme B today?
Paul Krauss: Basically you are. The Senior Commission made some
recommendations. I think we asked Senior Community Services to give us kind of
a Chinese Menu where we could pick what we thought was the best package for us
to start out with. There was a support for the 12 hours per week plus the HOME
program. I forget which package that was labeled as but that's the one that
we'd be going to.
Councilwoman Oimler: Okay, but we're not deciding on the outlay?
Paul Krauss: Oh no. No. Not at all.
Mayor Chmiel: Just for the funding.
Councilman Wing: Don, under this expenditure. Last year we gave money to the
group out at the Holy Named Church out on TH 7 which ! thought was, because I've
been in there twice now. That's not in this one. Why did you choose not to
support that this year?
Paul Krauss: This is not your total allocation.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have a motion on the floor with a second to approve the
resolution authorizing the allocation of Year XVI Community Oevelopment Block
Grant funds as follows. $3,272.00 funding for the HOME program through June of
1992; $4,900.00 for funding for staffing of Senior Community Services for 12
hours per week; and $14,943.00 reserved for architectural fees to prepare
construction documents for the senior center.
Resolut[oq ~91-98: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the resolution authorizing the allocation of Year XVI Community
Development Block Grant funds as follows. $3,272.00 funding for the
HOHE program through 3une of 1992; $4,900.00 for funding for staffing of Senior
31
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Community Services for 12 hours per week; and $14,943.00 reserved for
architectural fees to prepare construction documents for the senior center. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
AWARD OF BIDS:
A. LAKE ANN PARK PICNIC/RECREATION SHELLER,__PROJECT RA-110.
B. LAKE ANN PARK PICNIC/RECREATION SH.~LyER U_TILITIES.
Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor, City Council members. This morning the Lake Ann Park
picnic/recreation bid opening was held at 9:00 a.m.. Unfortunately the results
of that opening were not favorable. The low base bid of $279,800.00 is
approximately $90,000.00 higher than the budget and the original estimate. This
difference can be attributed to a number of factors but obviously it's not in
our best interest to move forward with the project at this time. It is
therefore recommended that the City Council reject all bids for the shelter and
table action on both the shelter and the utilities until October 29, 1991. In
the interim we will prepare a detailed assessment of the bid difference for
presentation that evening. However it should be noted that if the Council
remains committed to this project, we should look to the utilities portion of it
yet in the Fall of 19gl when the park is essentially vacant. If ue push the
utilities off until the Spring of 'g2, ue would run into many conflicts with
both the springtime uses and users at Lake Ann. A number of options are
available to the city to continue to move forward on this project. Hearing the
remarks from the City Council members this evening may help us in going forward
in that regard. As I noted in my original report, I did anticipate a number of
bids. We did receive 8 bids and ue anticipated that they would fluctuate just
not in this high end of the scale. I should note as well that Mr. Scott Harri
of Van Ooren-Hazard-Stallings is here this evening to present their viewpoints
in this situation if the City Council so chooses.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I think staff recommends basically we should
reject all bids for the shelter at this particular time. Probably delay that
until Spring. Staff has a good point in putting the utilities in at this
particular tlme. It would have tendencies to probably disrupt the park durlng
the Springtime. My only concern is that when we put the, if we were to put
these utilities ln, that it not cause a glven problem in locatlon of the
facility with the shelter and that be tied in properly so we don't accrue
additional costs wlth that. In other words, miss it from where the utilities
are as to where the building is.
Councilman Wing: Where are the costs being...? The utilities. Are those costs
set? Are those in line?
Mayor Chmiel: Those are probably pretty close. They're a little bit over what
ue estimated for the utilities by about what? $8,000.00 from what our estimate
was.
Todd Hoffman: Approximately yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Which is pretty close. Did you want to say something?
Todd Hoffman: No.
32
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: So what's the wishes of the council?
Councilman Mason: So we're looking at, the way I see it we have a couple
different optlons here. Todd you're recommending holdlng off on utilities until
the 28th as well?
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
Councilman Mason: I was a really strong supporter of the recreation shelter and
I don't want to see this thing die a slow death. I'm really concerned about
that with these bids coming in like this. I don't want to see this hung out to
dry. I really don't.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't disagree with you Hike but the cost differences of
$90,000.00 higher than what the estimate was is considerly more.
Councilman Mason: Right. So well, maybe we should just able it because we
still have a lot of stuff to talk about tonight but I think this certainly needs
some more discussion.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we basically have to reject the bids.
Councilman Mason: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: Tonight and then look at the possibilities of having utilities
back on October 28th and get those in before next year when we have the baseball
season going on.
Councilman Mason: Sure.
Todd Hoffman: Hr. Mason, there wit1 be much more information available at the
28th describing what potential scenarios were and why this ended up where it
did. Potential cost savings. Some of the contractors informed us that there
gray areas which they may have overbid in the project and we can clear'up those
types of areas in the specs and bring back some potential modifications as well
that they Council can mull over that.
Mayor Chmtel: Can I have a motion?
Councilman Mason: I'll move the motion to table this discussion for picnic/
recreation shelter bid and utilities btds until the 28th of October.
Councilwoman Oimler: Second.
Councilman Workman: Tabling or are we rejecting?
Councilman Mason: Okay, I'll make the motton to reject the award of bids for
the Lake Ann Park Picnic/Recreation Shetler Project R~-110.
Councilman Workman: And the utilities.
Councilwoman Dimler: ~nd to table it until the 28th?
33
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Councilman Mason: Do we do this one at a time or do ue do it all together?
Todd Hoffman: You can do it all at once. You're not rejecting utilities, gust
tabling action on that one until the 28th.
Councilman Mason: Okay, so we'll reject Lake Ann Park Recreation shelter bids
and table the award of bids for Lake Ann utilities.
Councilwoman Oimler: I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: Any further discussion?
Councilman Wing: Because you're looking for input from Council as to what
direction you mlght go. I went along with thls but I felt it was a lot of money
the record would show and I think if we can do the shelter for the agreed amount
of dollars and it can be reduced to that level or rebld to that level, then I
see no problem but if we have to come up with another $40,000.00-$60,000.00-
$90,0o0.00, I would prefer to see this project dle. We're havlng an assessment
problem tonight dealing with $50,000.00. I'm not going to put SgO,O00.O0 into a
park shelter under those circumstances.
Mayor Chmiel: You've got two different issues there that you're talking about.
And here we're providing the recreational facilities for the residents within
the community.
Councilman Wing: I understand that. That comment was slightly short sighted
but there's just a lot of money on the table and we're talklng about a lot more
money so my oplnlon ls we should try and stay wlthln the orlglnal bounds of the
expenditures. That's a11.
Councilman Mason: I agree whole heartedly with that. We're talking about a
facility that's going to benefit more than just the people on Frontier Trail.
Something that wlll beneflt Chanhassen and the envlrons around it for years to
come. If it comes to that, I think that needs to be taken into account too.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to re3ect the bids for the
Lake Ann Park Picnic/Recreation Shelter, Pro3ect RA-110 and to table action on
the Lake Ann Park Picnic/Recreation Shelter utilities until the October 28, 1991
City Counctl meeting. AIl voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CITy CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING "$£LF-SERVI_CE MERCHANDI$ING".OF TOBACCO pRODUCTS,.
FINAL READING.
Don Ashworth: We have before you the ordinance that the Council had looked at
from literally 2 weeks ago. The major change that was made was the inclusion of
carton sales from the draft that agaln was in front of you 2 weeks ago. In the
time following I did receive a call from Mr. John 01son representing Minnesota
Grocer's who asked for a meeting between myself and the Mayor to dlscuss how the
City or what, at least to provide their input as a part of that process. The
Mayor, that meetlng was held. The Mayor and I dld attend. I thlnk lt's falr to
state that as a part of that discussion, it became clear that the retailers and
agaln I'm talklng about primarily the convenience food retailers, were very
concerned again wlth the carton sales. If I may paraphrase the Mayor. He had
34
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
stated his concern for theft as well as illegal sales of both tobacco as well as
alcohol at these establishments. He was not able to attend or stay for the rest
of that meeting but basically gave back over to staff the assignment to continue
meeting with those retailers to see Ef there was some possible means by whEch we
could come to some form of an agreement on how to reduce theft as well as
illegal sales of both tobacco as weLL as aLcoholEc products. I wElL not say
that everyone in that room was in agreement with all of the points that I'll
bring out but I thought that a majorEty did state that they could 1Eve wEth the
following points. If they would become acceptable to the CEty to allow the
continued sale of carton tobacco products. First point that I thought was
interesting was the establishment of what was called a TAS Committee which
represents Tobbacco Alcohol SaLes. The group really appeared interested in
getting feedback not only from the community but CEty CouncE[ as to how illegal
sales and thefts could be curbed. They are wt[1Eng or want to take and receive
that feedback. If there could be thEs larger commEttee again representEng
community people as well as CouncE1, should the CouncEL determEne that, they
would welcome that. They see the sale of cartons of cEgarettes as $20.00 bells
and they're not interested En seeEng $20.00 bells stolen from them. They would
agree to a certifEcation process. AgaEn thEs would deal with both the alcohol
as well as the tobacco sales. Where each indEvEdual employee would sign a
statement saying that they know that Et ks illegal to sate to a mEnor and that
that would be signed annually. It would be given to the City as a part of the
annual licensing processing for both tobacco as well as alcohol. That would be
£mportant to the CEty as there has been Enstances En the past where an £llegal
sale has occurred and it's been by a younger person, someone who's lamely has
lived in the commun£ty for a long perEod of time. They have no prEor record of
any type of impropriety. And yet they are the ones who had sold an Ellegal
product and therefore they were the ones that were beEng prosecuted, not
necessarily the store. That placed the cEty En a dEffEcult posEtEon of knowing,
did that person really know that he should not be carryEng out thEs illegal
sale. They agaEn would agree that the CEty should establEsh agaEn that type of
a forum and should require that that be submEtted as a part of annual 1EcensEng.
They would look to restrEcted sales, meaning that the current ordinance
requirement, although not necessarEly desired by them, they could live wEth that
in terms of no self merchandEsing of tobacco products that were dispensed En
containers of 3 or less. Penalties, they agree that there should be penalt£es.
In the proposed ordinance, they would ask that an addttEonal change be made
which would basically make Et Ellegal for the minor himself to be purchasEng.
The idea is they do not, I'm paraphrasEng thEs wrong. They do not mind being
held responsible but they also thEnk that there may be a belief by the mEnor
knowing that he himself ks creatEng or ks acting En an Ellegal fashEon and can
be prosecuted hEmself may addEtEonally be a deterrent to that youngster trying
to purchase a tobacco product. WarnEng signs, there were all types of those.
The Council has one I thEnk £n the packet but they would look back to thEs
larger committee to establishing unEform signs and they would be willing to post
those however the city wEshed them posted. I refer agaEn thEs to cooperatEve
involvement program, much of whEch recognEzes that they do not care to see
Ellegal sales occur. They don't really care to see stEng type of operat[ons but
maybe there could be some other type of programs. I know that the Mayor had
mentioned this before he left in which the communEty becomes more involved and
he relayed an incident in whEch the had gone back and reported to an indEvEdual
clerk what he had seen as an Ellegal actEvEty and felt simply by takEng that
action, taking the time to become involved, that that clerk well En all
35
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
likelihood not do that again. Again I'm not quite sure what a TA$ committee
might come up with as far as a community involvement program. Maybe it's
something 11kc the Mayor mentioned. Maybe lt's just more awareness that we're
all paying that cost of products that are stolen. Staff placed in writing the
polnts whlch I heard the group state. Agaln Mr. 01son ls here. He may wish to
state that I have incorrectly stated their points. This occurred in one
afternoon and literally the packet was golng out at the tlme that these were
placed into writing, staff does believe, oh a final point is that the group
appeared to have the biggest concern. I shouldn't say biggest because I know
that they have individual concerns for a full line grocer and how a full 11ne
grocer may be able to place cartons behlnd the counter. They thlnk that that,
and again they're not speaklng for the full line grocery. They're worried about
thelr buslness but they felt that that full 11ne grover, Festlval Foods, should
be involved with this larger committee to insure that whatever type of program
we're developed, that they would be a part of it. They had two suggestions of
things that could be done. One of which has currently been done by Holiday
where they have created a U shaped sales area. You can only purchase or obtaln
cartons by entering the center of the U that is opposite the clerk. You cannot
go behind and grab cigarettes from the back portlon of that U. In other words,
entry only from the front. Another of the retailers suggested that they would
be wllllng to establish 11ke a plastlc or a glass coverlng over the carton area
prohibiting access. Breaking open of individual cartons with only the bottom
carton being able to be pulled out and further than puttlng a monltor or sensory
device on that. They don't know which of those may be acceptable to the
Counc11. If either. They know they have a real problem in trylng to put all of
the cartons behind the counter. They would hope that again this larger
committee that might be selected to work wlth them would choose one of those two
alternatives for potentially a better one.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there any response? Discussions that Don had just
had indicating what the discussions were. Maybe I see that you're present.
Would there be anythlng that he stated that would be incorrect. Thank you. Yes
sir. Please state your name and address.
Alex Wagenaar: My name is Alex Wagenaar. I reside at 7130 Willow View Cove in
Chanhassen. I'm also an Associate Professor of Epidemiology at the University
of Minnesota and have spent a number of years studying issues of youth
involvement in tobacco, alcohol and other drugs. I need to reiterate what I
said 2 weeks ago at the first readlng of thls change in the Chanhassen City
Code. That is that I'm very proud to live in a city that takes preventing
tobacco, alcohol and other drug use among under aged people and the prevention
of that use seriously. I again commend you Mr. Mayor and Council people for the
preparation of thls ordinance change. As we know, almost 400,000 people each
year die in the United States as a result of cigarette smoking. If we can get
our youth through the teenage years wlthout using cigarettes, they're very
likely to never use cigarettes. To never become addicted to nicotine. To never
experience the damaglng health consequences of that addiction. I have some
additional information that I was not prepared with a couple of weeks ago that I
think may be of lnterest to you. We've conducted surveys of Minnesota youth.
79~ of non-smoking Hlgh $chool students and 97~ of smokers say that cigarettes
are very easy for them to acquire. Most students report that the means by which
they acquire their cigarettes is they purchase them. A child who smokes just
one pack of cigarettes wlll develop a substantial tolerance to the effects of
36
City Council Heeting - October 14, 1991
nicotine that starts thee on the process touards addition to cigarettes.
Nicotine addiction ks a very difficult addlction to overcome. [t flay be sore
difficult than heroine addiction. Hore than a half of high school seniors who
currently smoke daily have tried to quit but they've been without success.
we make tobacco inaccessible to our young people it provides us a consistent
message that tobacco use is not a youth activity, and as parents and concerned
community members, [ think we have the right to expect that our children will
not be sold products that are illegal for them to use and that they will not be
openly displayed and readily accessible to under aged people in our community.
[ have a few other statistics from some of our recent studies. We asked high
school students for example. If you wanted cigarettes, how easy would it be for
you to get them? Only 6~ of the boys and 5~ of the girls said that they would
have some difficulty. Rll the rest said tt would be either very easy or fairly
easy to get cigarettes. Have you ever gotten cigarettes from a salesperson?
94~ of all smokers said that they had. We asked when trying to buy cigarettes,
have you ever been asked to show an lO card indicating your age? The percent
that had been ever asked for IO, 44~ of the males and only 41~ of the females.
The ease with which young people purchase cigarettes ts not limited to any one
type of store or outlet type. In our studies, i'll go down different types of
outlets that sell cigarettes and give you the rate of success of purchase by
underaged people. Restaurants, 50~. Gas stations, 67~. Convenience stores,
55~. Grocery stores, &4~. Drug stores, 5[~. Liquor stores, 50~ and private
clubs, lO0~. $old cigarettes to under aged individuals. Now there are
suggestions in the comments and the City Hanager has relayed some of the
suggestions on the part of the merchants. I think I would like to make a couple
of comments in regards to those suggestions for possible ways to address this
problem. First we should make it clear that theft is a very real probtem but
only part of the problem. The fundamental problem is that we don't ~ant under
aged people in our community using cigarettes and we don't want thee to have
access to cigarettes that are being sold in our coaeuntty. There's a question
of whether full line grocery stores could possibly comply with the requirement
to have behind the counter sales. But don't forget we have behind the counter
sales on a number of products. When I go to Cubs, the potato salad at the
is behind a counter and there's a person there that provides it to am. Rll the
other salads and deli meats and specialty cheeses are behind the counter. The
donuts, which i'll have to admit [ occasionally purchase, are behind the counter
and there's a person there that provides them to em. They're not self serve.
If the donuts can be behind the counter, why can't ae put an addictive drug like
cigarettes behind the counter? I think we still need to look at th/s a little
bit further. Admittedly there may be inconveniences. Cut [ would hope that the
grocers and the other businesses that I frequent in our cotmunity will consider
some inconvenience for the seriousness of the problem of addict£on to tobacco
and the nicotine that it contains among young people. [n regards to the
suggestions about sensor devices. Having those on the bottom of putting in
glassed in cases and cartons and having a slot at the bottom and some kind of
sensor device when somebody pulls out a carton at the bottom. [ will only
recall or relate what happened in St. Paul with the compromise that they sade on
the vending machine ordinance that we in Chanhassen did right. The compromise
in St. Paul was to have locking devices installed on the vending machines so
that before you can purchase a cigarette from a vending machine, somebody behind
the counter has to push a button that unlocks the device and then the vending
machine works. This was the compromise. It sounded very reasonable. However,
it didn't work because when you go to St. Paul and survey those outlets and look
37
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
at how easy it is for young people to purchase cigarettes out of those vending
machines, despite the locking device ordinance, it indicates that it's not
working. And what happens? The button gets taped over. The wire gets pulled
off. People get tired of hearing this crazy thing buzzing all the time. It's
not a viable solutlon so I would urge us to thlnk about those klnds of problems
before we might make a compromise like that that would in fact not realty work
and we'd have the expense of these devlces and so forth and not achleve our
intended objective. Increased penalties for the sellers however do help. In
1989 the State of Minnesota expanded the penalties for selllng tobacco products
to under aged individuals and there was approximately a 15~ reduction in
successful buys after 1989. If there's some compromise that comes out of thls
in negotiation that goes on about what ue might trade off and if, although I
would not be in favor of it, carton sales have to remaln openly vlslble and
available and accessible to anybody in a store without supervision, then I think
at a mlnlmum in exchange we should significantly lengthen the 11cerise suspension
time for providing tobacco to under aged individuals. It's currently listed in
the ordinance as a 10 day 11cense suspension, for a flrst offense. Maybe that
could be expanded to 30 days and the 90 day suspension for a second offense. To
lndlcate that the people of the City of Chanhassen treat this matter very
seriously about providing addictive drugs to under aged individuals. I urge you
to pass the Code change as lt's currently worded and if you're so inclined,
perhaps to expand the penalties to a longer term of suspension for illegal sales
of tobacco to under aged individuals. Thank you very much for your tlme.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address this issue?
Keith Carlson: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is
Keith Carlson. I'm here representing Brooks Food Markets. There isn't a great
deal that I can say in opposition to the last speaker with the exception that I
think as retailers, maybe we've gotten off on a bad footing to begin with wlth
the Clty Counc11. As retailers I don't think we're at odds with what the clty
is trying to accomplish here. I think at this point it's part of the reason I
was at the meeting wlth Don Ashworth, to slt down and say look. We are
concerned but we have been concerned and it's not a brand new concern that we
brlng to thls olty. As Brooks Food Markets, the affidavits that Mr. Ash~orth
discussed, we've been having our employees sign those for quite some time.
We've relayed the message to our employees in newsletters. We've had store
meetings. We have signs all over the store. It's not for lack of concern that
we do business. In our case we do happen to have all of our cartons and so
forth behind the register counter. We made the decision several years ago.
They aren't accessible. That just happened to be a corporate decision. However
I do respect the corporate decisions of Super America, Holiday, I can't remember
the other operation in town that decided they wanted to have thelr's on dlsplay
and use some of the devices that they can, and probably...there's more. But I
thlnk that agaln concern of the fact that we are golng down the same path as the
city saying we don't want cigarettes or any other tobacco product in the hands
of those mlnors, I think we can do thlngs together to make that a very tough
situation for them and still do retail business the way we'd like to and be
competitive wlth other sectors. Certainly for a supermarket that's golng to be
much more difficult thing but going back to the kinds of things we do with our
employees and the penalties involved. As a corporate posture we absolutely
concur that we do not want tobacco in the hands of anybody under 18. No
question about lt. Where we do have a definlte problem ls if we have an
38
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
employee that stands out there and makes a conscience decision to break the law
and under the same circumstance we as a corporation get our license pulled, I
think that's excessive. ! think maybe we can do a better job of policing. With
your help. With the police department's help and possibly even with citizens
help but I think it's a situation of working together to try to accomplish those
goals is much more effective than saying here's the City and here's the
retailer. We're at odds with one another and it's strictly a penalty against
that corporation. It's a very serious thing to have a license pulled. I agree
it's a serious thing to sell to a minor but somewhere along the line I think
we've got to use some reason to come up with good, sound measures to accomplish
the goals. I appreciate you maybe giving some more thought to this to see how
we can get that done. I totally agree with putting a panel together. Thank
you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Arnie Cribbe: My name is Arnie Cribbe and I'm with Gateway Foods of
Minneapolis. Mr. Mayor and Councilmen I was here probably about a year ago in
front of you and in fact after I gave my presentation on the supermarket that we
had proposed for Chanhassen, the question was raised about cigarettes and we
tabled it a little bit. I think I was asked what may position was on it. We
didn't fully answer then. I certainly agree with this gentleman here on some of
his points as far as we certainly don't want teenagers or young teenagers and
not adults to be accessible to tobaccos. But in a supermarket we do have a
problem when it comes to displaying cartons. We're probably not like the
corporation of Brooks Superettes where we do put them or are able to put them
behind the counter because of the number of cartons and the number of brands
that our customers demand from us. And a lot of our stores and the supermarkets
we do put them on a rack that has a plastic. We have also an alarm system and I
can say that that works very well. We also try to position that carton rack so
it's accessible to our checkers so they can keep an eye on it. We want to know
what happens to that carton of cigarettes after it's pulled out of there and the
alarm goes off. So we've got somebody watching it because it is a $20.00 sale
in most cases. But the City Manager had read some of the suggestions that were
put together and I can't see where a supermarket would have really a lot of
fault with any one of those with the exception of the cartons. The cartons we
would certainly have a problem with if we had to go and put them behind the
carton because we'd have to butld a counter that would be pretty large and take
up a lot of selling space that we normally could utilize some other way. The
gentleman also mentioned in the case of supermarkets they have to go and get
salads from behind the counter. If you shop Rainbo~ and Festival stores, you
have a choice. You can either get them from behind the counter or you can get
them self service. With that I'd like to thank the Council members here and
thank you Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? We still have two more members present that have
availability if no one else wishes to come forward and address the issue. Okay.
Tom.
Councilman Workman: Well thank you for the honor Mr. Mayor. And thank you Alan
for your, is it Alex?
Alex Wagenaar: Alex.
39
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Councilman Workman: You have a long last name too. I'm sure I don't have it
correct. It was very insightful your poignant comment on the dell goods and the
sardlnes and everything else behind the counter. I wlsh that the sellers of
this product would be as creative in trying to figure out a way truthfully to
keep it out of the hands of klds as they are at trylng to promote lt. And I
don't put that burden on the retailer so much as the promoter as the tobacco
companies behlnd the promotion and I thlnk we're all aware of that. I was
startled to see this at length memo by our cigarette smoking City Manager who
must be on Nlcarrest. And Don, you couldn't have, I don't thlnk we could have
done the tobacco industry any better than this. This is exactly what they
wanted. And that's who my beef i$ ulth. It's wlth the tobacco industry. It's
not with retailers. However, retailers are the middle people in all this and
that's why they're here tonlght. The retailers are here defending the sale of
tobacco for profits because it is very profitable. We know that. A member of
the Minnesota Grocers Association, he threw the figures out at us, 40~ to 50~ of
a smaller convenience store's profits are based on cigarettes. And I suppose
the premiums paid to display them, etc.. I hear it weekly because people know
that I'm not fond of this issue, that kids are buying cigarettes. And they're
buying them all over the place. How do you catch it? How do you place your
finger on it? You don't. You do what we're doing tonight and try to restrict
it as best you can and keep putting your thumb in the dam until you can solve
the problem. I don't consider the city and retailers to be at odds or gotten
off on a wrong foot. Because just about every speaker, retailer tonight spoke
in agreement of Alex, that retailers don't want tobacco in the hands of minors.
The tobacco companies could care less. So to go at the report a little bit.
When ue first started the issue of tobacco vending, and again ue discussed the
whole issue of beepers and buzzers and switches and everything else and I guess
ue don't have to rehash that. Maybe for the new Council members. It was seen
as a very big loophole that like a lot of this stuff in here puts the burden of
proof all on the city and our administration to keep track of employees, some of
these stores in town, committees, etc.. I believe Z see in here the onous to
catch let's say the teenager or the younger person who's working at the store
and have us find that person, or prosecute or other when that's not, I don't
believe that's our place. Our place and our permit for the sale of these
products is with store owners and it's their job to take care of their employees
and for us to come in and treat that it just, we're going to hire more people is
what we're going to have to do. When we first started out the vending issue and
a lot of the cigarette issue, Z know that I saw an awful lot of warning signs go
up, almost incredible. It was almost redundant. But they fall off and they
fall down and they go away and apparently it's though that the City Council
members do too. I am not in favor of keeping cartons out. We've had the
discussion that for whatever reason cartons are very, very easy to get into.
thlnk there's ways to get the cartons behlnd the counter. Brooks ls provlng lt.
We have a grocery store maybe that's coming into town. Maybe. Emphasize on
maybe. Cub, I've spoken of Cub. The huge grocery store who has the ual1 of
cigarettes. They also have a person that is a customer service person. Why
that person couldn't be sltuated in front of the wall of cigarettes and sell
them, I don't know. There's all sorts of ways around this problem. And so
I thlnk the ordinance is very short and very sweet the way it is and I thlnk it
takes care of the problems and concerns for now that we're zerolng in on. I'm
not adverse to lengthening the suspensions for some reason or the other if we
see that as something but I think we need to keep hitting this issue because I
thlnk we all know personally that it ls not belng addressed and it is not being
!
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
taken seriously, and we are. That's what ue've been hired to do. Take these
issues seriously. I think ue all know the ill and the people who've died and
people who are sick and I'd urge us all to vote on this. For it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks Tom. I noticed that one of the things that I sort
of brought to the table and indicating that I'm not condoning anything here but
I was thinking from working from the standpoint of working between the retailers
and ourselves and maybe some kind of a committee trying to set something up. I
thought too of the new supermarket coming into town. Just as you have on Hwy
12, you have a designated lane. Maybe make designated lanes within their
portions for acquiring cigarettes. Have 4, 5 or 6 with the availability there.
I don't know what that makes either but it's one of the things ! thought of. One
of the things that a few of the corporations had is an agreement of
understanding that their employees sign. Also in addition to that, they were
even agreeing to, correct me if I'm wrong, they were aisc talking about
termination of employment because of selling to under aged people. That's
putting it back on that ind£vidual who's going to be selling to these kids. But
if they do have specific things that they say they can and can't do and they
must know that they can't sell lottery tickets to anyone under 21 years of age
and alcoholic beverages, that they must ask for IO's and knowingly sell any
product to any adult. I wiil not knowingly sell any of these products to any
adult or use by individuals under the legal age. If I believe this is
happening, I'll not make the sale. As they say with the other thing with
termination of employment. They're looking at, I say how often do you do
this? How often do you go back to your employees and make reminders. A couple
of them said they do that on a 60 to 90 day basis. That they bring this back
out. Have them reiook at it and resign it again which I thought was going in
the right direction to making those people more aware as to the concerns those
individuals had. I was thinking that possibly if there was some solution that
we could come up with that could still be a way. We can't stop everybody from
smoking. We can teenagers. Adults we can't tell them what to smoke or what to
drink. I'm thinking we can come up with something to resolve those issues and
maybe they may buy that part of it. I don't know. But in order to sit down to
come up with some conclusions I thought maybe this would work out.
Councilman Workman: I guess I don't understand where that would go. If an
employee, if we directed the retailers that if a first violation of a sale of
cigarettes to a minor is a 10 day suspension, and they choose to keep that
employee on, that's their perrogative I guess. I'm not going to promote that
policy for them. I think we're all, we've all been, take a convenience store.
Convenience store and the nature of a convenience store is convenience. Quick.
Fast. We've all been in line at 5:00 or 5:30 at the end of the day and there's
about 7 people in line. Whether it's a gas station, convenience store or other
and we're all waiting and we've got things going and we want to get through
fast. That's why we're there. It's fast. We've ali seen the look on the
cashier's face that says I'm over loaded and I've got to get these people
through here as fast as I can. Because people are complaining. Mumbling. And
that's when I've seen somebody who's very underaged purchase cigarettes. No
questions asked. Maybe the person was. Maybe I'm getting so old that I think
28 year olds look like they're 15. Maybe that cashier already knew the person
but it happens over and over and over and I've been given the wrong change in
those situations. I've given it back for the record. You know what I mean
though? And so there's a pressure there and there's keeping an eye on a wall of
41
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
tobacco with a beeper on it, trying to help 7 customers, bagging things, taking
change, keeping track of the pumps. Clearing the pumps for gas. Worrying about
cigarettes? I don't think so. I don't think they're taking it that serious.
And so it's just a bottom line thing. Dollar thing and I think a few cigarettes
stolen here and there, you know. But I just don't see what we're going to work
out. I don't see how that can really be worked out.
Alex Wagenaar: Just a quick comment. I think your perceptions are very
accurate. I've just recently completed a study in which we had focus groups of
youth talk about how they acquired alcohol, which is very similar to this
situation, and they said exactly those things. The way they got easy access to
alcohol was to go to outlets when they were very busy. They would not get
carded. They had a very easy time of purchasing alcohol. The counter
balancing, if you want to get complicated about it, is they also would go to
outlets that were very quiet and in isolated areas and nobody was around to
observe. $o apparently the sellers in those occasions felt more free to sell to
under aged but your perception if exactly right in terms of what young people
are telling us about how they acquired these drugs.
Keith Carlson: If I could just address a couple of those issues. When we were
talklng about the affidavit Hr. Workman. We aren't asklng the Clty necessarily
to come together with a comprehensive file to monitor our employees and our
business. Durlng the meeting, I think that's my affidavit you're reading off
of. The ones we use in our stores. I suggested that we do have those on file
and we do in our stores...pollce department letterhead so there's more than just
Keith Carlson asking an employee. It's the police department saying yes. This
ls the law. Pure and slmple. If the pollce department dld want a copy of that,
we'd certainly be willing to do that but those are some alternate options we
talked about. We're not trying to put the City in a positlon where they have to
hire a lot of people to go about these things. As far as the prosecution thing,
agaln at some polnt in tlme I thlnk individuals have to be responsible for thelr
actions. Too busy, that's not a good excuse. Not a good excuse at all but
somewhere along in society we've taken responsibility away from an individual
and said it's somebody else's problem. It's the corporation's problem. It's
the government's problem. It's somebody else's and that's not the lssue. It's
our employee. By the way our policy is, if somebody gets caught selling to a
mlnor, they're gone flrst offense. Period and that's the way we do it. That's
the way we handle it and there's no excuses beyond that. But st111 it happens.
The cashler belng too busy, no. That's not a good excuse. If people are
trained properly and by God, I don't know what else we can do but at some point
we've got to look at that individual. Not just the one selling but the one
buying. I think it was suggested at one polnt that maybe community awareness.
If a customer sees these actlons taklng place, brlng it to the forefront. Let's
talk about it. Maybe ue don't need the clandestine type activities that we're
all talking about. If we have the total awareness, maybe we can get thls thlng
done and get it done properly. There was one other issue, and I'm not here to
speak for supermarket and I know that at the meetlng wlth Ashworth we talked
about the 16 and 17 year old's abillty to sell cigarettes. In our stores we
don't hire anybody under the age of 18 but I know that some operations do and
there were a couple at the meetlng that did. They had a lot of concern about
that. Again I think the supermarket coming to town with the vast amount of
cashiers, you're going to see a lot of l&, 17 year olds in the work force.
thlnk that's something that the City ought to take a look at. If you're in a
42
City Council Meeting - October
position at the supermarket where you can't have any of those young folks
~orking, Z don't think it's good for the city nor certainly good for the store.
But I can't emphasize enough that I think we've got to get the responsibilities
where they belong and to just yank the license when we've got all the procedures
in place to insure that that employee knows what the law is, then again some of
this may be coming on a police deparment letterhead would be very helpful to us.
That's the kind of thing we're asking for. Not necessarily the city do all that
policing. And maybe there's some other suggestions where we would do awareness.
We're certainly willing to look at it. Certainly willing to try to pull
something together for you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess my comments were that I'm still in support of the
ordinance as it is currently written which still includes the cartons and the
ban of self merchandising. I think that tobacco products are addictive and
deadly, whether they're sold in single packs or in cartons. And with me this
still remains a youth issue and I think it's important that we protect our youth
from easy access to a controlled substance. And I agree that with free creative
marketing, which is an approach by business except when the product is a
controlled substance. I don't go into a pharmacy and see a creative display of
controlled drugs and it takes a pharmacist behind the counter to sell those
drugs to me. That's why I also support that an 18 year old or older person
should be only allowed to sell a controlled substance like tobacco and alcohol.
I think that a 16 year old or a 17 year old can still work in that drug store.
Can still work in that convenience store. But they simply cannot sell that one
product. $o I don't think that you know, as far as the issue with the youth not
being able to work there and I don't think we're taking any jobs away from the
youth. Also, I do not favor the TAS committee that was proposed for the simple
reason that I think it's Council's responsibility and I think it's public
safety's responsibility to enforce what we pass as an ordinance. I don't think
we need more people here to dilute and cloud the issue. I also think that it's
kind of difficult to ask retailers to be on this committee in the fact that
although I believe they're making every effort to keep the products out of the
hands of minors as far as they can go but it's also no secret that the tobacco
companies vie for shelf space that is conducive to impulse buying and that they
pay slotting fees to retailers to encourage the use of unimposing, self service
wire racks. I think these slotting bonuses are a substantial to the
contribution of the profits for the retailer and I think therefore it is unfair
to ask them to be a part of the committee. I don't thin that we can get the
type of ordinance or enforcement that we're looking for with that kind of a mix.
Also I don't see that the approach of selling cartons that is short of having
them behind the counter that was proposed in the report is anything but a band
aid approach and I don't think it's going to do anything. Also the cooperative
involvement program that suggests that the general public report illegal sales
and theft of tobacco products. I think that's a fine idea if we lived in an
ideal world but we do not. I don't see that the general public would be willing
to snitch on anybody unless there would be a substantial financial reward as
there would be poachers program. But I would see that this money could be
better spent by the retailers and the tobacco industry in just simply redoing
their counters so we can provide for cartons behind them.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike.
43
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Councilman Hason: Also being an educator I concur 100~ with what Professor
Wagenaar said. I understand the retailer's need to sell things the way they see
fit. However, I read the statistics and I tell my third graders how many people
die each year from Lung Cancer, etc., etc.. It seems to me the bottom line is
health for kids and hopefully at some point the next generation coming up. It
was mentioned that we need, that the people that sell the cigarettes need to
accept responsibility for their actions. I agree with that. I think City
Council needs to accept responsibility for their actions and I think retailers
need to do the same thing. I'm not denying the right for retailers to sell
cigarettes. I do think we need to make it next to impossible for people under
18 to buy a carton of cigarettes and I think that the retailers, instead of
viewing this as a negative thing perhaps could view it as a positive thing and
say hey, look at what we're doing to try to do away with this problem. I
support the ordinance as it stands including the cartons.
Mayor Chmiel: Richard.
Councilman Wing: Hr. Mayor, I think it's all been said and we've batted this
around for 2 nights now and the arguments are kind of sound so I'd just like to
address the ordinance real quick but this is one issue I don't agree with.
We're not banning cigarettes. We're just trying to put some very, very basic
controls on them and I think with just a lttt'le bit of innovation and very
little hardship, the retailers can help City Council deal with, assist us uith
dealing a very major National problem. And I think if we're going to make some
restrictions, I think we ought to do just that. Restrict it as hard as we can.
Suspension of license on the ordinance. I support the issue of termination of
an employee that violates that. I see that as a corporate decision so I don't
want to get involved with that. I think our responsibility is to the license
and the managing of the license itself. The one issue of the ordinance that I
have trouble with is Section D on the second page and that's the sale by anyone
under 18. Having younger children that may be out looking for a job at 16 and
be very hirable by one of these corporations and a good employee, I'm not sure
that I'm not seeing some discrimination against my daughter or someone else's
child at this point. I think that the issue is training and that the
responsibility be made clear to that employee, whether that person is 16, 18, 21
or 30. I think the issue remains the same so the sale is the issue to minors.
It's legal currently in the city not only to sell cigarettes for also for 16
year olds to sell alcohol products. Non-intoxicating alcohol so perhaps we'll
address that issue in the future but my daughter may want to go out at 16 years
of age and find a job with one of these companies and this I feel is
discriminating slightly. I would rather drop the age limlt here in lieu of
training and education for the employees whlch would resolve that age
d£scrimination that I see. That's the only comment I had. I question the age.
Mayor Chmiel: The only reason I brought this up is so we'd have more
discussion. Sitting down with those people I thought it might be something we
would look at by getting more people involved in still trying to resolve the
issues. One other thing I think probably would enter into this if we see with
thls in adoptlng thls there's golng to have to be some major rennovatlons in
each of the stores. It's going to cost the money. I don't have the slightest
idea as to total dollars to accommodate those items. So I would suggest that we
allow them a certaln amount of time in adoption of this ordinance. Have this
effective by the flrst of the year. A consideration we should look at.
44
City Council Heet~ng - October 14, 1991
Hark Fornier: Hark Fornier from 507 Highland Drive. I was at the original
hearing on this ordinance. I'm not sure exactly on the correct procedure but I
just wanted to address one of the issues that Councilman Wing brought up and
that was on the age of the person who is selling the products. I think that
that's an essential part to this ordinance because as a youth, as a high school
student, as a person who's in that 16 to 17 year old age bracket, I think that a
person like that, when they're in a store setting and their friends and their
peer group comes in to that setting, it's sort of a pressure that isn't easily
overcome. You know just working in a store like Burger King and knowing when a
friend comes up and give me a glass of pop you know. That kind of pressure is
the same sort of pressure that is going to be exerted on someone who is behind
the counter selling tobacco products and I think it's essential that those
people aren't able to be in that situation. I think there is no problem you
know, the issue of discrimination. Of having the ability to be hired. There
are so many openings. So many opportunities to be hired. There's a shortage of
workers in that age group that there is no trouble with people my age getting
jobs and there certainly is a problem with those people getting a job in a
situation where they could be selling tobacco products and having the pressure
of people their own age exerting the sort of peer pressure.
Councilman Wing: I don't want to disagree with you at all except if my daughter
was here tonight, she would say as a responsible 17 year old, she disagrees with
you. It's a point well taken though, thank you.
Hayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Oimler: Not very long. I do want to address the one point that
I missed and that was that somewhere it said that it should be illegal for kids
to buy cigarettes and that we should make them responsible for their actions as
well. Although that sounds like a reasonable approach, you know let's teach
them a lesson. I think that we need to consider that making it illegal for
children to buy cigarettes does kind of take the focus of the responsibility
away from the adults and puts it on the children and I don't think that that's
what we need to be doing. Plus prosecuting children by one basis as we're
proposing at then would be an enforcement nightmare and nobody would ever get it
done. It's much easier to police licenses rather than large number of children.
And already we see that cities are relunctant to prosecute even the clerks that
sell to minors so how much more would they be reluctant to prosecute children
that are 13 and 14 years old. I just don't see it as a viable option to
penalize the youth. I think we should keep the responsibility with the adults.
Councilman Workman: If I could bring up one point in attitudes about this
habit. I was in a fast food restaurant in the area. Not in Chanhassen but it
was in a surrounding community and in the middle of this room we're eating our
hamburgers at lunchtime, were clearly a group of high schoolers, 4 of them
smoking heavily. Heavily. And surrounding this middle group were business
people dining at lunchtime. I confronted the manager of the store about the
individuals doing the smoking and I was laughed at. And so it was brought up
that well let's bring this up. If there's a problem and I see somebody that's
got a problem, let's bring it up. You do. It's not taken seriously and I've
been laughed at. ! was chosen, those kids were chosen. Their one order of
fries and a glass of water each were chosen over my $5.00 order and sometimes
$7.00 and so, and I will say. I do not frequent that restaurant anymore because
45
City Council Meeting --October 14, 1991
of the smoking policy they seem to have and that's why I don't think these
stores are taking it that seriously. That's my final comment.
Councilman Wing: If the majority of the country is non-smoking at this point?
Northwest Airlines got incredible publicity when they went non-smoking and it
increased their passenger load at that point. I can't believe that the non-
smokers aren't going to support the stores that choose to make these moves.
I think it's just another plus move. Mr. Mayor, I didn't bring this up but I
think there's enough of us concerned that I'd like to move passage of the second
reading of the ordinance amending Chapter 10 of the Chanhassen City Code by
adding provisions regulating the sale of tobacco products.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Workman: And if ue could maybe make that effective January 1, 1992.
Councilman Wing: Effective January 1st. Mr. Mayor, you've met with the
retailers. Zs that an appropriate date or is that a falr date?
Mayor Chmiel: It's the date I'm throwing up thinking that gives them time.
Councilman Wing: So I'll take the friendly amendment as such.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilwoman Dimler: Third.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the second reading
of an Ordinance Amendment Chapter lO of the Chanhassen City Code by adding
provisions regulating the sale of tobacco products to become effective January
1, 1992. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
LUNDGREN/ORTENBLAT/ERSBO SUBDIVISION REQUEST~ WEST OF POWERS BOULEVARD AND SOUTH
OF LAKE LUCY ROAD:
A. REZONING REOUEST FROM RR (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) AND RSF (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE
FAMILY) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
B. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 30+ ACRES INTO 37 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT AHENDMENT TO ALTER A CLASS ~ AND B WETLANDS.
Public Present:
Name Address
Terry Forbord
Rick Sathre
Frank Svoboda
Joan Ahrens
Gary & Ann O'Neill
Brian Nokleby
Ken Earhart
Lundgren Bros.
Sathre & Berquist Engineers
Wetland Consultant for Lundgren Bros.
6601 6haring Bend
6830 Utica Circle
6800 Utica Circle
6880 Utica Lane
46
City Council Meeting - October Id, 1991
Name
~ddress
Ed 3annusch
3oe Horin
Ted Coey
Brian Humphrey
6831 Utica Terrace
1441 Lake Lucy Road
1381 Lake Lucy Road
Paul Krauss: In viem of the late hour and ay rapidly failing health I'll be
brief. You last discussed this on September 9th and there mas a variety of
issues that were raised. A lot of them were discussed and I think largely in
view of the fact that you ran out of time, it was continued. Staff wasn't given
a tremendous amount of direction for nam things to be done at that time but we
did hopefully resolve a couple of things. Councilwoman Dialer asked what, you
knom sometimes a trade off rimmed for PUD and we had that way back in an earlier
report but there's so much paper in here it's kind of hard to find. So I
updated that and tried to put into perspective I think what the City gets out of
this being a PUD. Again I stress that this is not a small lot residential
development and those are the ones we've had the problems with in the past where
the city basically got nothing but a roomfull of headaches on variances and what
not. All these lots are far in excess of normal ordinance standards. 3ust to
touch on the items we thought were part of the trade-off, we've got greatly
improved pre-treatment of storm mater. We're going, this is kind of our test
case. We're doing a job on this that we've never done before and going in with
a lot of new techniques and improvements that we think may become the norm but
are not an ordinance yet. We've got a significantly improved package for
existing wetlands. Some are being, there's some trade-offs in there but we
think the net result is more wetland acreage. Better wetland quality. We
created a buffer strip around the metlands. Another nam concept that we hadn't
done before but we think gives a lot better result than just a simple setback.
We've increased landscaping standards. There's very good protection for mature
trees. Again, being somewhat innovative on this project, the larger stands of
mature trees mill be protected by permanent easement. That should avoid the
problems we've had in the past where we ask a builder to come in with a tree
protection plan and when they come in for their building permit, what they tell
us is I have to take down all these trees because that's the kind of house that
may client wants. When it's protected by an easement, they can't touch them.
You've got control over the easement. Permanently locked up. We've gotten some
improvement in architectural standards. One of the important things about this
PUD is it's used reductions in some internal lot setbacks. Not where they're
going to be visible from Lake Lucy Road but from internal streets and street
widths themselves to basically promote clustering. The houses are clustered to
the pavement on the street freeing up more greenspace and bringing them further
away from the wetlands. So we think that's a benefit and that's really one of
the primary uses of a PUD. To allow you more flexibility in how you lay
projects out on a land mass. Councilman Wing asked us to look into alternative
development. What could happen here if this didn't come in as a PUB. We didn't
spend the time to do a whole separate subdivision like that but we took some
attempt, we made some attempts at defining mhat the differences might be. There
probably would be slightly fewer lots if it came in as a straight subdivision.
But you've got to meigh that against the impact and the quality. We think that
the impact would be greater because you have a more difficult time managing
impact reduction on wetlands and tree protection under straight subdivisions.
47
City Council Heeting - October 14, 1991
Lake Susan Hills is a straight subdivision. I mean you plat out a cornfield and
lay it out and it works pretty good on flat ground. It doesn't work very well
on difficult sites. Impact on tree cover. I think clearly we're doing a better
job with the PUO than we would have with straight zoning. We've used for
example flexibility in the PUD to reduce road wldths and acqulre easements that
we couldn't have done under the straight zoning. Quality of development.
That's a 11ttle difficult to get a handle on. However, we have an exlstlng plat
that's being consumed in this, the Ersbo Addition. The Ersbo Addition has never
been one of our favorlte plats. It's legitimate. It met the guidelines of a
straight subdivision in the City. It was approved twice but frankly it's a
falrly low quality subdivision would result, because of the way the lots are
laid out and...next to Lake Lucy Road, would probably result in less desireable
homes because they're less deslreable homesites. Thls project results ina lot
of higher quality lots. Clearly we have an advantage of knowing what Lundgren
wants to do here whlch we thlnk ls pretty good but we thlnk thls lsa much
better quality project than we would have had with many little Ersbo's occurring
in that area, if that's what were to occur. We've got a street loop coming
through there whlch we think is advantageous from a public safety standpoint. If
we didn't use a PUD, we couldn't get that street loop. We could get it but we'd
be running the street through the wetland so that'd be the trade-off and clearly
I thlnk it's an advantage not to do it that way. The last commentary was on the
impact on wetlands wlth a straight subdivision. This site is extraordinarily
difficult to develop because it has many small scattered wetlands. It's
difficult to guess but I've got to believe that anybody comlng in to plat this,
whether PUD or subdivision, stralght subdivision ls golng to have the same
problems. I thlnk the bottom line for us is what are the solutions and under
the PUD we were able to develop a pretty good package of solutions here that we
thlnk make for better wetlands and better... There were a couple other issues
that we worked on resolving in the meantlme and Charles can throw hls two cents
in if he wishes. One of the concerns that we had was information seemed to
lndlcate that, well information clearly indicated that the main pond, the DNR
pond that we all see from Lake Lucy Road had been damaged before any development
had been done on thls property. It was damaged because of old farm activity. It
was damaged because of what's running off of Lake Lucy Road into it. And a lot
of people, including us asked the baslc question, well if we're doing our best
to improve water quality from this project but we don't respond to the stuff
flowing lnto lt, we're not golng to flx the problem. So what we wanted to do ls
intercept the water or as much water as we can from Lake Lucy Road and run it
through the storm water, the water quallty improvement ponds. The applicant
initially objected to the cost for doing that and the cost originally, if you
could flip on that graphic. The cost originally stemmed from the fact that
there are two catch basins over here and the cost to run a pipe from here over
to thls pond was falrly significant but probably more important to us, it
probably would have damaged the wetland. What we came up with was a way of
intercepting the water. There's a hill comlng down thls way. A h111 coming
down that way. What we did is we're golng to play around with these catch
baslns here and here and intercept the raln water that's running down the street
before it ever gets down to there and plck it up and run it into those catch
baslns. It's almost a...at that polnt. It really doesn't cost much additional
at all and it's really resolving the problem for us. What we're golng to be
dolng ls treatlng all the water that falls on the south slde of Lake Lucy Road.
You may recall that there's a question with Lake Lucy Road is the division
between two watershed districts and the only reasonable way we oould think of
48
City Council Meeting - October
dolng thls and we've bounced it off the watershed districts, is to split the
flo~ at the crown of the road. So basically what we'd be do£ng is £ntercept£ng
all the water on the south side. All the water on the north side ~ould continue
to flow out to the north through Curry Farms. We also had a gentleman here on
another matter, drainage matter who's name escapes me Mayor but he lives in your
subdivision who raised some questions on drainage last time. We met with him.
He came into the office. We pulled out all our maps and explained the policies
to him and the information that we had and how we regulate development. I hope
that put his mind at ease. I haven't heard from him stnce but basically we
explained that we do regulate the flow coming out of projects and we always do
insure that flood impacts are never made any worse downstream. Charles, was
there anything else you wanted to add on that?
Charles Folch: No, I think we just made it clear that the pre-developed runoff
rate would be maintained and he had expressed that his property had survived the
storm of '87 and we basically told him if lt's operated, functioned correctly
during that storm, all he would experience possibly in the future with
development ls just having a longer perlod of tlme that you'd have flow through
that area. But no more increase volume per se. Actually not volume. It's
actually the rate.
Paul Krauss: So with that Mr. Mayor I hope we've responded to the questions
that were raised. We're continuing to recommend approval. We've revised some
of the conditions to reflect the current planning and current plans we had. We
did receive a new landscaping plan from the applicant. It does a better job.
We still have a couple of revisions to make. I also noticed that we had an
omission under the Preliminary Plat, condition 2(e) relative to a landscape berm
off site. We wanted to make sure that, it's right up in here, where it will
protect an existing home from headlight glare. We wanted to make sure that this
plan is acceptable to those homeowners so if we could have some language in
there that the applicant work with staff and the property owners to gain final
concurrence on that. If I could sketch that in. The landscape berm will be
right over here. There's a home right there. Or there abouts.
Mayor Chmiel: That's coming from the east going west out onto Lake Lucy Road?
Paul Krauss: Right. That does it for me.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Terry, is there anything you'd like to say in
addition to what Paul has said?
Terry Forbord: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. My name is Terry
Forbord. 935 East Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata, Minnesota. I'm with Lundgren Bros..
At the September 9th meeting, because of the lateness, we didn't have an
opportunity to really respond to many of the concerns that the City Council had.
I'm not even sure if at that meeting the Council had an opportunity to even
state what all of their concerns were. However, at that time I did present on
the overhead to the City Council some items that we were concerned with with a
resolution and since that time we have met with staff. Corresponded with staff
and many of those items we have come to some agreement on. There are just a few
other items that, the resolution has been changed since the September 9th
meeting. The first opportunity we had to see it was today and so there's just a
couple items we would like clarification on. And again there will probably be
49
City Council. Meeting - October 14, 1991
a couple items we'd ask you to reconsider. However, because of this late time,
again I can talk for 3 hours when we have our consultants here but I'm sure
you'd rather not do that.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Terry Forbord: Maybe it would be better if I was able to respond to some of
your questions. 8ut before I do that I would like to say just a couple things.
Lundgren Bros. is close to not developing this site because the costs that we
keep incurring because what we're trying to do and trying to do a good job are
almost to the point where it's no longer worth it. Now I know you may think
that economics aren't important but I know each you just enough, and I've
learned a little bit about each of you from watching you at meetings that I
think you all really care about how the city develops. Well, in order the city
to develop in the way that I have perceived it, that thls Count11 wants it
developed, things have to make some kind of economic feasibility. This project
ls very close to not maklng any sense because of what we have had to do to get
to this point. So I would ask you to conslder this evening this item on the
agenda and we would hope that you wouldn't get 1nrc thlngs 11ke removlng lots
because the proposal isn't going to work that way. I wanted to tell you that up
front because I haven't had a chance to talk to any of you and I don't know what
anybody's thinking. There's been a lot of discussion that one, this project is
too dense. Thls project ls not dense. Just compare it wlth any olty anywhere
around here or even this clty. There's been questions that the lot sizes are
too small. The lot slzes are not too small. They meet the guldlng in the
comprehensive plan. There's been a lot of discussion that it's not sensitive to
wetlands. We've done everything that can be posslbly done to answer those
questions. In fact we're doing things that have never been done in the city of
Chanhassen. At thls tlme maybe lt'd be best if I just would respond to the
questions of the Clty Council. We do have our wetland consultant Mr. Frank
Svoboda and our consulting engineer, Mr. Rlck Sathre here if there are any
questions. If there aren't going to be any questions, I would like to just
dlscuss the 1rems on the resolution that we would hope to clarlfy and maybe gain
some reconsideration.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we could come back to that. We have some residents who
live within the area to state their issues. I'd like to ask them to limit your
tlme because of tlme fleeting. We know what was said last tlme because they are
in the Minutes and we have revlewed those. If there's something new and
additional that you may have, we'd be more than happy to listen to that. So at
this time I'd 11ke to take people who have some concerns with the project and
we'll go wlth that flrst.
Terry Forbord: Is this the public hearing?
Mayor Chmiel: No, but I have open meetings. Is there anyone who really wanted
to restate something differently, and if so, please come forward.
Gary O'Neill: Mayor and City Council. Gary O'Neill. I live at 6830 Utica
Circle. My property adjoins the wetlands that we're talking about here. I
trled to dlgest a 11ttle blt of what was in the reports before and I'm just
wondering if somebody with some expertise in the area could tell me, help me
understand it. Do I understand that there will be the same amount of water
5O
City Council Meeting - October
flowing through the wetlands behind my property that currently exists or will
there be actually more water but spaced out over a longer period of time? Here's
my concern. It's pretty saturated in my back yard right now. If more water
comes in, it will be saturated longer and my fear is worse than it is now. So
somebody please alleve my fear that it's going to be worse.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe Rick, the engineer can actually explain the amount. I
would anticipate that the volume would certainly be more than what you have now
but the actual discharge rate would not increase. Correct me if I'm wrong on
that Rick.
Rick Sathre: That's correct. I'm Rick mathre from Sathre-Berquist, the project
engineer. I think in that the ONR wetland is such a large area, we may have
potential to actually decrease the rate of flow off the property. We certainly
wouldn't increase it. We would control it at the current rate but anytime you
get more homes with roofs and more driveways, you always get an increase of
runoff volume and we can't get around that. There's going to be increasing
volume but we can control rate. So Mr. O'Neill would see water run for a longer
period of time but not any faster than it has in the past.
Mayor Chmiel: Or come up any higher than is existing?
Rick Sathre: Correct.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Ken Earhart: Ken Earhart. I live at 6880 Utica Lane. I'm also with this
wetland any my questlon ls to the engineer. Is how are they going to take the
water out of this wetlands that does lie behind us?
Rick mathre: Mr. Earhart, I'm not sure which street is Utica Lane and which is
Utica Circle. Are you on the east side?
Mayor Chmiel: As you come directly off of CR 17, that's Utica Lane. Utica
Circle goes back in.
Rick Sathre: Alright. $o that's the east/west street. The water from the
wetland that's between your home and the Ortenblat property, the water that runs
out of there goes out pretty much the southwest portion of the wetland under !
think it's Utica Circle and into the lake. If there are isolated low spots that
are too low for the water to get out the existing ditch, nothing would change
with that.
Ken Earhart: Nothing would change?
Rick Sathre: I mean the elevations of the basin of the wetland down behind you
home, there's nothlng proposed in that wetland area. If there's standing water
there now, there Would continue to be. There Wouldn't be a change in the
condition of the wetland basln.
Ken Earhart: Well, where I'm at I have a corner, I'm right at the corner that
goes lnto my neighbors property, the pond and then underneath the road. I'm
okay except on a 10 inch rain and then it comes up to my storage shed. I'm
51
City Council Meeting -. October 14, 1991
okay. The people behind me, the other neighbors, they are going to have even
more water end up in there because the land is lower on that end...and unless
you do something in that wetland, they are definitely going to have more water
and that is my concern.
Rick Sathre: All I can say again is that ue can control the rate of runoff so
it doesn't increase. Specific concerns over specific areas and how they'll
work, I think what would make the most sense is if ue can find out what exactly
the concern is and maybe meet and talk about it and figure out if there's
anything to do.
Ken Earhart: The whole upper end of Greenwood Shores, the water all comes down
through it because you've already got Greenwood Shores two drainage that come on
through and on into the area and down south on the north end of that pond...
until it finally seeks it's way out. Now we're going to put more in. That's my
concern is...
Rick Sathre: Your honor, members of the Council. I think we engineers benefit
very greatly from people telling us what they perceive is wrong. I think any
complaints that you get from the citizens about things that don't work well now,
I know from my standpoint I'd try to solve their problems. I don't know, if
they're not on our site or we can't really relate to them, it's hard for us but
I think it's real important that we understand what the problems are and be sure
not to make them worse.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess that basically would be the Council's concern too. At
least ~lot making it worse because I've been in a predictament like that as well
where, not in this community but in another community where I had water come
back into my back yard and right up to the back door. Never was that way before
until another home was built. Because of a swale not being there, it just
filled in. And here of course, this is restriction of water flowing back from
there through the culverts and back into Lake Lucy. Now the size of that
culvert that's existing, will that accommodate those additional flows and will
that accommodate a 100 year flood or 1,000 year flood as we had in the State
just not too long ago. I guess that would be some of the concerns.
Rick Sathre: Indeed. In the past the improvements that have, or the hard
surfacing that happened in cities, there wasn't nearly as much concern over
downstream volumes. I think Hr. Folch and the rest of the engineers out there,
myself included are all much more sensitive these days to making sure that we
preserve drainage rates. We're doing a much better job these days. And again,
all I can say is that we're committed to the idea that ue will not increase the
rate so there should not be a perceptible change in downstream drainage
conditions other than the increased volume of water which will help to flush the
wetlands out for a longer period of time but would help to increase the clarity
of the water perhaps. You know increased flow is good. Stagnation is bad. So
volume can be a help. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Did you want to say something Paul?
Paul Krauss: Well Hr. Mayor, it's not by way of providing an answer but the
city, you know we've developed up until now without having a comprehensive storm
water plan and as you're all aware, that's one of the products that we're
52
City Council Meeting - October
working on right now. In lieu of that, we've had a policy whereby every
project's required to design in retention so they discharge at pre-development
rate. So we're assured that we're not making anything any worse. We're not
sure that we're resolving any problems that may already exist downstream. We
don't know that. We probably won't know how the system functions until that
plan is completed in it's entirety. If there's an existing problem with that
discharge from there into Lake Lucy, there's going to continue to be a problem
and that's probably something that we should address. I'm not sure that we can
ask the developer somewhat further removed to address it but I think the City
Council can direct staff to take that into account.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I guess all it's doing is potentially could create a
problem for those existing property owners and that I look at from a concern for
that. That's why I bring that up. Ursula?
Councilwoman Oimler: Bo you want me to start?
Mayor Chmiel= Yeah. I don't know if there's someone else that wants? Ed.
Ed Jannusch: My name is Ed Jannusch. I live at 6831 Utica Terrace. I'm the
person that spoke with Paul Krauss after the meeting last month. In talking
with Paul he stated that the watershed had been dictated. That the line be on
Lake Lucy Road. All I'm asking I guess is that you would, or with this project
we would continue to drain some of that water to the north. Hr. Sathre had said
that we could, or that they could calculate the amount of water that is
collected on that northern area and what presently drains south I have no
problem with any of that. But the water that is currently draining to the north
I wish that we could continue that to drain to the north and that would
alleviate any problems that might arise because of this development. I don't
think that would be that difficult to do since the culvert's already in place.
Perhaps it needs to be cleaned out. However, the gauging of the sizing of the
culvert that would run in that direction I think could be calculated as was said
earlier.
Rick Sathre: I guess Ed, I can design things to work in any way. Or not any
way but I can make water run downhill. You just have to decide which way is
downhill or which downhill is better.
Ed Jannusch: Well after the meeting I went to that area and I walked through
that area that was the hand dug ditch and it has filled in with sediment and
vegetation. So currently there is no water running through that from that area
draining to the south except what naturally flows from the elevations further to
the east. Southeast. However, I guess since that water now is flowing to the
north, I just ask that it continue to flow that way. So if the Planning
Commission could look into that, I would certainly appreciate that. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Joe Morin: Hi. I'm Joe Morin, 1441 Lake Lucy Road. My basic concerns are
outlined in the letter July 18th to the Planning Commission. I'm not going to
talk about that. I am going to say however that I don't believe that these
concerns have been adequate addressed with the concept that's being proposed. I
would hope that with the PUD concept that some of' the concepts, some of the
53
City Council Heeting - October 14, 1991
points that I addressed in this letter could have better addressed. I think
there's been attempts to do it. I think previous concepts have come a little
closer than where we're at now. I guess the main points that I have are concern
with the blending of this concept with existing neighborhoods, both to the south
and to the west. The concern about the oak trees on the knoll on the northwest
corner. They're 150 year oak trees there and I still believe that some effort
should be made to move that road further to the east. Work with the DNR. Impact
the Class A wetlands and save that beautiful knoll and some of those trees. I
really believe that more work could be done in that area. The trees that are to
the east, Paul pointed out there are trees there but they're scurb. They're pop
ups. They're trees that aren't nearly as valuable as the trees on the knoll.
And the last point I'd like to make is, I really think a lot of good work has
been done in controlling the flow from Lake Lucy Road into the holding pond
areas. That I think is a benefit to the wetland area. I wish that we could
more in terms of the flow that's going to run off from all of the developed lots
that are going to be around that Class A wetlands and what I had hoped and kind
of saw as a promise for what we could do here is perhaps put a holding pond at
the south end of that Class A wetland so that those nutrients could settle out
before they flowed into the drainage system into Lake Lucy. And that these
nutrients then could be periodically removed from ail of the holding ponds on an
as required basis. Those are the three points I'd like to make. Thank you.
Hayor Chmiel: Thanks Joe. Anyone else?
Ted Coey: Ted Coey, 1381 Lake Lucy Road. Besides all the comments I made at
the last meeting and the ones that were made this meeting, the major thing I
wanted to get across was I'm the one most effected because I'm rlght next door.
I've got 18 to 20 acres and I want to make sure that the project, at least for
the comments I made last tlme, ls golng to be done tastefully so it blends in
with what I've got now and what I may want to develop 20 years from now. 10
years from now. Whatever. I thlnk with me belng obviously the most affected, I
think the points I made, also the points Joe made who ltves right next door to
me, are taken ulth some heavy thought because of the fact that the people that
are closest to this project are the ones who are going to have to work with this
as far as if they subdivide of sell down the road. Besldes the fact the
wetland, you have a problem with runoff and I haven't looked at the proposal
that closely to see how it impacts me but I've got a pond right next to the pond
now that drains from the north and it goes from there into the lake and I don't
know how that's golng to be affected as far as if more water goes lnto there.
That issue was never even brought up with all the flow of water and whatever.
I'm rlght next door and obviously belng, there's golng to be lots along the
line. I don't know if there's going to be more water at all running into the
west of the project. None at a117
Rick Sathre: No. We're not directing any overland flow towards that.
Ted Coey: That's good. Also the other thing was, what kind of impact or what
kind of look I would have as far as with all the houses that are going to be
backlng up to my property. If there's golng to be trees left or any berms there
or that type of thing too would be a factor as far as if I could look at all
these roofs. I'm on a hill so thank you.
54
City Council Meet/ng - October 14, ~1
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Okay. [f not, maybe we can pursue with some
questions. Who ~ould like to start ~ith this? [ ~ill start ~ith Mike.
Councilman Mason: Oh thanks. On the one hand this has been going on for a long
time but on the other hand, all the questions keep getting answered and things I
think keep getting closer and closer. What's going on with the total drain/ne
of that wetland and revegetating it? I mean really making an attempt to get the
phospherous out of that. Where are we at with that?
Paul Krauss: A couple things. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that
we've asked everybody in the State of Minnesota with any interest in wet/ands
about this project.
Councilman Mason: Yeah.
Paul Krauss: There appears to be, the information that we have is that there is
some nutr/ent saturated muck at the bottom of the th/ng. The ONE will not
cons/der go/ng /n and dredging it out. They don't think that's a particular
good idea. The proposal here is to increase the depth of the water. Make sure
that the water running into that wetland is of much higher quality than it is
today and that what will come out will be better quality than there is today.
~ don't know /f that gets, ! think /t gets it as much of that question as we
possibly can. Where the urban/zed, most of the urbanized area of this project.
As 3om Morin points out, there's back yards that fall down to that wetland that
we can't intercept that water. But virtually everyth£ng else, all the streets,
most of the front yards and a lot of the lots are going to be run through these
trev/n ponds. We're pretty convinced that plus fa/sing the elevat£on I foot,
[ mean we keep bickering whether it should be i foot or 2 foot, to provide more
open water should do the trick. Again, we don't know who else to ask about
this. The latest rev/s/on that we had with this when we flipped around the
dra/nage on Lake Lucy Eoad, we had them go from 3 small Walker Ponds to 2 bigger
ones at the recommendation of Bonestroo Engineering who's our consultant on the
surface water plan. We did g£ve them a copy of the final version of this plan
and they thought it was pretty good.
Councilman Mason: I'm just going to ask one more question for now and maybe
I'll try again later. No? This is my one shot? Oh geez. Paul, what's your
opinion of what we're doing by, if we rezone this to PUB, I believe it was Joe's
letter raised the issue about if this goes to a PUD and other people looked at
this and said this is a way for us to get out of wetland enforcement. I mean
we're not, I'm not saying that the changes we're making are bad or that are
proposed but there are some pretty drastic things going on in that area. Is
this a way down the road for developers not as reputable as Lundgren Bros. to
think ooh, we've got an out here? We can really go to town on this one.
Paul Krauss: If any less reputable developer wants to take on the cost that
Lundgren's taken on to do all the studies, develop all the plans for all the
mitigation and come up with a package like they did, we'd probably be supportive
of that. If that's a new policy, well we're look/ng at poi/c/es for the
wetlands now with our surface water task force anyway. We're reiunctant to
change them kind of willy nilly but we think that this is one the things PUD is
designed to do. It's designed to be a little innovative. Be a little creative
55
City Council Meeting -- October 14, 1991
and get yourself a better package for everybody than you would have otherwise.
We think this meets the goal. You know, they're not getting away with anything.
councilman Mason: I guess my concern is whether they're getting away with
anything or not...
Terry Forbord: Hr. Mayor, Terry Forbord with Lundgren Bros. Mr. Mason, maybe I
can just follow up with that a little bit more. The PUB is not for our benefit.
The PUD is as much for the city's benefit as anybody. If the city was smart,
every project would be a PUD because there's no other zoning tool that gives the
City as much control. Period. That's a fact. If this proposal, this site was
designed under the standard subdivision regulations, you wouldn't see any of the
things that we're proposing. You wouldn't have to because I could say, here's
the Code. Here's tile ordinance. I'm meeting everything that's in it and that
would be it. So the PUD is a benefit to the City. It ends up that ue can
benefit from it too and ue end up with a better product for the community.
I think Paul already mentioned that often times, certainly not always but often
times a developer will come to a city with a proposal for a planned unit
development and remember it's just a zoning tool. It's nothing really hocus
pocus about PUD's. Just a zoning tool but often tiloes they'll be asking for
smaller lots, which I do not think is a bad thing by the way, but I think it's
important to look at this proposal of what we're not asking for because really
what the City is getting here is they're having a site that is probably one of
the more delicate sites within the city. That's within your urban service area.
There's a few more over by CR 117 and TH 41. This is one of the more delicate
sites in the city. Because of the PUD, the City's going to be able to do a
balancing act and allow development to occur in a nay they'd never be able to
without it. So it's a real advantage to the community. I would encourage the
City to do more of it.
Councilman Workman: Well it doesn't appear as though as we are as far off maybe
as I think we all thought. Ursula looks really tired. I think, and I always
tell Hike, we're always taking about where's the dang water going and that's our
job. Where's the water going and if ue figure that out for everybody, then
usually we don't have any problems. I think as part of the record there was a
gentleman and I'm sorry, it was a Mr. Earhart? And everybody who's comments are
in the record, hopefully that's good enough for US to come back and say we have
a water problem now and Mr. Earhart or Mr. Cosy or whoever and his concern about
his problem and come back and say, or make it part of our motion that there
shall not be a noticeable problem. And if there is, then we'll have to address
it and that rightfully so. So I don't think ue have a problem. I don't know if
we have a problem or Paul if us're going to set ourselves up or maybe this has
been answered and I dosed off. Whether we're setting ourselves up for setback
problems with the wetlands. Are we setting ourselves up for problems with
that? Are we knock a metal sign in the back yard of every home so they know
that putting this white rock up to the shore is )lot permitted?
Paul Krauss: Actually we're going to do something like that. That's in the
package. There is going to be some sort, and we haven't agreed on what sort yet
but some sort of above ground signage or visible marker where your buffer yard
is which is 10 to 2S feet. It's variable, back from the wetland and what the
buffer yard is supposed to be is an area that's supposed to grow wild $o yOU're
not supposed to sod on the water side of that at all. So it will be visible.
56
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Everybody will know where it is. The easements are clearly laid out in all
titles and re shouldn't have the kinds of problems that we've had in the past.
I'm not going to say somebody's not going to be creative and wind up coming
before the Board of Adjustments. I continue to be amazed at what people will
come up wlth but we think we've got as many bases covered as we can.
Councilman Mason: Can I just ask a quick question? Aren't you doing something
about that in the packet that you develop too? I mean about the buffer strip
and all that? With homeowners. I thought you mentioned something and I might
be way off. If I am, I'm sorry.
Terry Forbord: Forgive me. Let me just try to clarify that. You said in the
packet that we would?
Paul Krauss: The sales packet.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, in your sales packet you talked about things that you
do for people that buy into your area.
Terry Forbord: I think at some point in time, whether it was at the Planning
Commission. I don't believe it was on September 9th but maybe on the Planning
Commission, maybe you were here for one of those meetings. Maybe you and Mr.
Wing and the Mayor came to a couple of those. I'm not sure if they were for our
ltem but you were here. Let me back up a little bit. For some reason the
ordinance in Chanhassen states that no structure can be any closer than 75 feet
to what ls designated as a wetland. There's no other clty in the State of
Minnesota to my knowledge that has that requirement. Probably the closest would
be Minnetonka whlch ls 30 feet or 35 feet. How the 70 foot number was developed
is a mystery to me and every other wetland specialist, scientist, limnologist
we've been able to talk to. Was there something maglc about the 70 feet? We've
discovered that there is nothing. There is no set number that if you pace off
70 feet, for sure that wetland won't be contaminated ifa bulldlng's bullt OVer
there. There is no such scientific data that supports that. However, what is
important, what we have discovered ls that a wetland ls only a product of the
watershed that's around it. And a lot of it would be put between that
structure and the wetland. And so in working wlth staff we discovered that what
was important to the City or to the Council, the Planning Commission, whatever,
was to flnd a way to mltigate whatever impact development may have on the
wetland so we came up with the idea of a preservation zone that could be
untouched. Couldn't be mowed. That had a conservation easement with it that
gave the City powers that they never had before. To go tn and tell the
homeowners no. You can't do this. It's not only in a sales brochure. It's
recorded on the deed as a deed restriction on the sale of every property so it's
entered into the tltle of the property. So then we were thinklng well geez,
that's really neat and it sounds real wonderful but how about the guy then that
sells his house 4 years down the road and how many people really read the Title
and all that other stuff. I mean most people don't. Let's face it. It's kind
of borlng stuff and that guy comes in unknowingly and says, gee. First week out
that he's in his new home he gets out the cycle and goes and just hacks off
everything that we've worked so hard to protect. Then ! think it was either
Paul or Jo Ann said maybe there's a way we can monument this. And you know that
wasn't such a bad idea. At flrst it kind of, well geez. I've never done that.
I've never heard of it. Then we thought, well maybe that's not a bad idea
57
City Council Meeting -- October 14, 1991
because every now and then you drive around the Regional Park and you see those
signs that say Hennepin County Regional Park. It's just a small little thing so
we're thinking maybe there's a way we can develop an inconspicuous. When I say
inconspicuous, I don't want it to be a 4 x 8 foot orange sign but something that
would just be marked at the boundaries along the lot lines that would delineate
that says preservation zone and maybe in small print that it says something if
you have any questions you can call the City at 937-1900. Whatever. At least
then people can see it. It's not just something that's lost in the Title
somewhere. And then we started thinking about it. Well one thing that we
always do, if we're in an area where there's something controversial, what we
typically do is create a disclaimer or something because we don't want our
clients ever coming back, well you never told us this. So what ue would more
than likely do, and we haven't gotten to that stage because we're not even at
preliminary plat approval. Is we would have something on the sales plat and for
those of you who have worked in our Near Mountain or seen the marking materials
we have in Near Mountain, we have a sales plat that depicts a certain area and
certain things you can and can't do and there's disclaimers on there and they're
part of every item that gets handed perspective clients. So to answer your
question in a long answer, I think that's a good idea and ue will be doing that
because it's something that we do in every project.
Mayor Chmiel: Anything more Tom?
Councilman Workman: I don't know how to address Joe's concern about the knoll
and trees. By having it encroach on the wetland or other, I don't know how to
address or place value on one or the other. $o I guess I don't know how that
would.
Paul Krauss: If I could very briefly. We did a very lengthy investigation of
the alternatives for that and in fact counted up the caliper inches of trees
that would trade off and contacted the DNR to see if they would let us impact
the wetland. They said they've never done that kind of a filling, approved that
kind of filling before but they would if, they'd consider it if we showed a very
substantial tree preservation that resulted. I don't have the exact number in
front of me but I think when we tallied up the caliper inches that are lost
under each alternative, there was a 40 inch difference. You save 40 more inches
by shifting the road into the wetland. And really that doesn't sound like it's
substantial enough to be allowed to do the filling that the DNR talked to us
about.
Joe Morin: I think my point Paul was the quality of trees. You can have 40
caliper inches of...
Paul Krauss: Well, if we get that up. There's some, I don't know how you
compare quality trees but we did have some quality trees on both. There is a
list in the packet someplace that breaks that out.
Terry Forbord: Your Honor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Terry Forbord: If I may. I need to take issue. I'm going to take this time to
take issue with some of the allegations that we have not been sensitive to trees
58
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
or road alignments. I have not taken issue to this point in time because I've
attempted to be very patient. 8ut within this packet of probably lO0 some pages
there's an answer to each one of these questions. There's been at least a half
a dozen road alternatives in Just that one corner of the site. Trees have been
measured per callper lnch. We've surveyed every tree. Measured how many
calipers are there. Put the roadway in that spot on paper. Looked at the
topography map. Determined what the grading limits of that road would be and
how many trees it would wipe out and we've done that for at least 5 or 6 road
alternatives. Additionally, in each lnstance because you can't, when you make
the decision on a site, whether it be trees or a pond or a hill, you can't Just
look at the h111 and make a declslon because it mlght lmpact the wetland. You
can't just look at the wetland and make a decision because it might impact the
tree. You have to look at each one of those natrual resources when you make
your decision and just determine what the balancing act, what's the least impact
that decislon w111 have. So then we had to go to the DNR with each one of the
road alignments and say, what do you think? Well obviously the ONE is trying to
protect their wetland and they don't want us to go into the wetland no matter
what and they're not going to give us the permit to fill it. To put that road
in when they say you can move it over here. So the juggling act that we had
then, we had these constraints. We were trying to satisfy the residents who
both lived across the street and 300, 400, 600, 800 feet to the west. We are
trying to build a road that we know would meet city standards. We're trying to
meet staff's requests and so worklng with staff, not against them, we finally
found a road alignment that had the least impact on all these things. But it's
almost been suggested that nobody has taken any time to look into thls. An
immense amount of time has gone. More than any project that I've ever been
lnvolved with in 22 years. ! don't mean to sound at this tlme that I'm
impatient but all these questions have been answered and they're all in this if
somebody would take the time to read lt.
Councilman Wing: Terry, the question of the trees. It's been discussed in every
Plannlng Commission meeting that I've been at but the gentleman brought the
point up again and I will br£ng it up again. You've done work. I don't deny
that at a11. You've put an enormous amount of time into this. We've discussed
this with the DNR. It doesn't change the issue that to him and to myself the
savlng of these trees and that clump of trees on the knoll to me aesthetically
and environmentally has a much greater impact than, is much more important to me
than fllllng a 11ttle blt of a wetland that's golng to be altered anyway. The
minor impact on that wetland is a minimal concern to me considering 'what we're
loslng environmentally on that clump of trees on that knoll. I mean that's a
major resource of the city. That crazy little question of wetland. I mean this
ls just, wetlands are so over played in Chanhassen, I have to be very careful
because I support it but having a daughter doing graduate work in soil
management and wetland conservation, she's sort of been prodding me saying gee,
how did this thing ever get going. Somebody must have a lobby on wetlands. I
don't want to dlmlnlsh thelr importance but that wetland mlnor alteration. Minor
alteration that will occur versus the trees we're going to lose, I don't see any
comparison. It's not my turn to talk. I just commented. I appreciate your
work but this map you provided shows we're losing a lot. An awful lot.
Terry Forbord: Councller Wing7 You cannot have development without affecting
the site. And I wish, what I prefer to do is I'll bring a cul-de-sac in from
the Ersbo property all the way around and I won't even enter onto Lake Lucy
S9
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Road. That's what I'll propose becuase what can I do. If the DNR looks at me
and says we're not going to let you have a permit to lilt the wetland to put the
road there, what am I suppose to do?
Councilman Wing: I understand.
Terry Forbord: That's what happens in development and I wlsh that I would not
have to cut one tree on this site. That would be my ultimate goal but I'm also
ratlonal enough to know that it can't happen without dolng lt.
Councilman Wing: 8ut I want the DNR to tell me to my face that those trees are
less important that a slight motlon to that wetland. That concerns me a lot
that that's their reasoning.
Terry Forbord: Well they have done that. They've responded to us and say you
just can't.
Councilman Wing: I won't belabor that.
Councilwoman Oimler: Can I just piggyback onto that? I wanted to ask Paul, are
those trees really over a 100 years old? And if they are, aren't they protected
under an ordinance that we passed? A tree protection ordinance if they're 100
yeras old. And if that's the case then we could not be violating our own clty
ordinance.
Paul Krauss: Boy, that one throws a new one at me. I'm not sure that we do.
I'd have to check.
Councilwoman Oimler: I know we have one.
Paul Krauss: I know there's been talk about a significant tree or whatever the
terminology was but I don't thlnk lt's ever been put.
Councilwoman Oimler: Trees that are over 100 years old. Do you remember
that? We passed that when Blll Boyt was on the Counc11.
Mayor Chmiei: Long time ago. lO0 years.
Councilwoman Dimter' Look it up because if that's the case, we cannot do it.
Or we'd be violating our own ordinance.
Terry Forbord: Your Honor. We have no ldea how old those trees are. That's
pure speculation.
Councilman Wlng: We could count the rlngs Terry.
Terry Forbord: That's true but there's been a number thrown around this evenLng
and there's no verification.
Councilman Workman: Let me wrap up my comments and then maybe Rlchard Lumberman
Wing. I'm going to wrap my comments up very quickly. I think that we're
dealing wlth some very reputable developers here. I thlnk we have a very
difficult piece of land here and the points about you're going to lose a few
6O
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
trees and move a little water and things to get these in I think holds true. At
least over in ay experience and so I don't tend to like to get too each into the
details of every bush and you know we got into some of the things that staff was
working BNR Forester to verify the appropriate landscaping. Tt doesn't seem to
be appropriate. We're kind of getting nit picky and T get back to my thing
about the requirement from 1 tree now going to 3 trees. We're going to talk
about that tomorrow might but somewhere we've got to allow these people to kind
of.
Councilwoman Dimier: But a 100 year cid tree is protected.
Paul Krauss: No, Ursula. Roger and I were just talking about that. Both he
and I recall Bill Boyt talking about doing that but we're pretty convinced it's
not in the ordinance. I look up 20-1179 which is tree removal regulations and
that's not in there. That's the Code that we go by.
Councilwoman Oimler: Don, do you remember that?
Don Ashworth: I recall the discussion but I do not remember the passage of that
ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: The adoptlon of it?
Roger Knutson: We'll double check...but we'll double check it for you.
Councilwoman Dlmler: Well check the Mlnutes too to get back there because I'm
pretty sure it passed.
Roger Knutson: I recall the discussion.
Councilman Workman: So I tend to and mabye that's to my disadvantage but I know
that, I know staff and everybody has tried to do as sound, ecological job wlth
this thing as we can and I don't know where to pull 2 lots out of. I don't know
what that wlll flx. But I have confidence in this process being able to work
out. Like I said, the wetland issue is, the water drainage issues will have to
be addressed as stated for the record and I know that we can get that fixed.
We've done that in the past. We've had a problem. $o I don't know, I guess I
don't know what we're getting at except we're getting down to some very nit
picky. Well I don't know if it's nit picky for a 100 year old tree but tt seems
11ke we're getting lnto some detail that we're rehashing an awful lot. I move
my discussion.
Councilman Wing: Well real quickly. We sit underneath this emblem all the time
and almost 100~ of the color in the city right now, fall foliage is the sugar
maple because there's densities of them. Why are we gotng with ash, honey
locust, linden...and there's no broad leafed, very aesthetically pleasing sugar
maples going into the landscaping? Terry, was there any reason to avoid those?
Terry Forbord: Excuse me. Just to make sure I understand the question. You're
asking about the type of tree species that the landscape architect is proposing?
Is that correct?
61
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Councilman Wing: Yeah. I'm just very partial to the shape and color and what
the maples give the city.
Terry Forbord: Sure. I think trees, colors, materials, textures are all
subjective things. You can talk to 100 people and 100 people will have
different oplnlons of what they 11ke. We use three different landscape
architects.
Councilman Wing: Okay, I'm the only one that's going to answer this question. I
get your drift.
Terry Forbord: I mean each one has a different theme. Let me just tell you the
theme we adopted with this proposed site. It's a very natural looking site. If
you drlve by it and you look at lt, you see a wetland. There's types of
landscaping that look real manicured and formal. We've specifically designed
the landscaping for thls slte so it does not look formal. That's why we use
quaking aspen along Lake Lucy Road. If you've ever been up north, especially at
thls tlme. Well a lot of them may be up but the quaklng aspens are in clumps
and they klnd of look like blrch trees and they're typically around marshy areas
and real natural. They don't look formal at a11. And so each specles that
we've selected was specifically for that. We're trying to make it blend in. We
don't want somebody to go by and go, geez. Look at all the nice landscaping
they did there. We don't want that. We want people to say God, that's a nice
slte. We don't want it to stand out. That's why.
Councilman Wing: See I like trees but I'm flexible. I have no more questions.
But my blg lssue here, I have no trouble wlth the PUD, whlch ls 1rem (a).
I have no trouble with the wetland alteration which is item (c). The only one
that I want to offer as a Councll member for discussion ls one speclfic 1rem and
that's the natural aspects of the land plus Lundgren Bros., Paul to me says
parkland. And I am not w1111ng to accept park fees in 1leu of parkland. It is
my recommendation, my lntent to support the taking of the parkland versus park
fees for thls development. I would 11ke to see a lot available for the
community. Picnlc table, play area. Whatever the case is. Left natural, I
don't know but I would tend to oppose park fees in 1leu of parkland. That's the
only comment I have.
Councilwoman Dimler: Due to the lateness of the hour, I guess I just have a few
concerns. I'm still a little bit concerned about the density. I'm not sure yet
that we're gettlng, the Clty ls benefitting as much as is being said here. Also
I'm in agreement with the neighbors on their concerns about the increase in
water in thelr back yards and posslbly in thelr basements. Thls remlnds me of
the case of Mr. Borchardt and his neighbor and they came to every meeting and
they expressed thelr concerns and when the development was started, there was a
definite increase and it was not properly addressed and there's a lawsuit that
resulted. I don't want to see that pattern repeated. Therefore Z suggest that
we document what the water is right now so that an increase can be detected and
that there wlll be no argument about lt. And that then the developer would then
take responsibility for causing that and improving the drainage. Also, I agree
that thls housing development, if there's 37 homes there, would stand to have at
least that many kids and maybe 2 per household. [ know what Curry Farms went
through in not havlng, they dldn't have the neighborhood park although it was
proposed. They didn't have it for a while. They couldn't get it fast enough
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
because they had so many children in the development. I cannot see putting in
this development without putting in a park for those neighbors. For that
neighborhood. They have no other place to go. They're going to go to Greenwood
Shores or they're going to cross the street and go to Curry Farms. I don't
think that's a safe situation. I think they have to have a park. I think they
will demand a park.
Councilman Wing: 0o you want a second?
Councilwoman Oimler: Yes. Those are the basic concerns right now. I guess I
want to say I don't want to be rushed into this and I think if you were to
threaten that the development will go away if I don't approve this tonight, I'll
say good-bye.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess in listening to what everyone has said here tonight, I
think some of my comments are said there with each of the suggestions. One of
the concerns I have is for those neighbors to the south in making sure that that
flow is not going to affect them. I'm not sure whether in reading the reports
that I saw that that would definitely indicate that that would not affect them.
I guess some of the other things that were said, rather than reiterate them I
would yield to those discussions previously mentioned. Other than just one.
Correspondence...agreed to that portion of it. I guess that was answered before
so I guess I'll just drop mine right now. Is there anything else you wanted to
say? Oh, I know. You mentioned the fact about some of the conditions and i'd
be concerned as to the conditions that you had mentioned that you'd like to
discuss. Maybe we can discuss those.
Terry Forbord: Your Honor, members of the City Council. If you could refer to
page 16 of your most recent staff report. Under the section of recommendations
referring to preliminary plat. If you recall at the last meeting, I just asked
you to reconsider the issue of street width. It doesn't make or break the deal
for Lundgren Bros. if you have a variable street width but I'm just asking you
to reconsider. I'm sure you thought about it because it was brought up before.
We think it would make a nicer development if it had a 26 foot street throughout
the entire development. We think that that's what the City's going to be doing
in the future is reducing the road right-of-way of city streets. I think for
sure it will happen. There's no doubt in my mind. It's happening all over the
country. You may not be ready for it now but you may want to look at this as
just a test project and try it here and see it. I'd ask you just to consider
it.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I just respond to that? I have some concerns with 26 foot
roads. I've seen problems existing within our community right now and I think
I'd like an opinion from our engineer regarding a 26 foot road because there are
parking problems, accessibility of getting onto that street and can cause a lot
of congestion.
Terry Forbord: I agree. I think that if parking is a normal feature on a
street that's 26 feet wide, that it would pose a problem. However, most homes
today and lots and driveway sizes have stacking features. Obviously there's room
for at least 3 cars or 2 cars in every garage and there's typically the
capability to stack at least another 4 of them in the driveway, if people would
have that many cars. Rarely in a local suburban streetscape, if you drive
63
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
through many of the newer developments in town do you see cars parked on the
street. The only occasion you may see them is if somebody was entertaining or
holidays. So it certainly lsn't uncommon. Z don't thlnk that lt's uncommon to
see streets of 26 foot widths. I mean other cities have been dotng it for a
long tlme and Z'm just suggesting from a streetscape standpoint, you'll see less
blacktop and more green and Z think that's in step or in splrit with what I hear
the Councll dolng on many other things from an environmental standpoint ulthln
the clty. And Z reallze, totally understand this is a new thing. It's a tough
thlng to accept because you're not used to lt. We thlnk it would make a bigger
project. Z don't want to make a big lssue. Excuse me a better project. Z
don't want to make a big issue about it because lt's not golng to make or break
the deal but Z would say that if you had a chance to get into your car or get
out of your car and walk down that street when it was done, you'd say boy, thls
really feels a lot better than if it was the other way. So agaln, I just ask
for your consideration on lt.
Councilman Wing: That would be my preference. Thls ls as you sald, a dellcate
piece of land and it glves it a little more of a closed effect than wide streets
so I guess I'd, in deference to the Mayor's concern.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I'd like to get Charles' opinion.
Charles Folch: I touched upon thls lssue ina staff report prepared for the
first Planning Commission meeting that this issue came up. In my opinion, you
have a street such as thls, typically you are golng to have people parklng on a
street. Oftentimes there may be guests, entertaining people. It may be cars,
older cars that drop oil and they don't want the oll drlpplng in thelr driveway
so they park their car on the street. But the thing that concerns me is you do
have a lot of beautiful environmental aesthetics associated wlth thls
subdivision. I thlnk lt's likely that you could expect people to be walking and
blklng around that neighborhood. There's not a tra11 for them to walk on so
they're going to have to walk on the street. And when you have a 26 foot wide
street and you may have cars parked, it does take away any remaining room that
you have with these pedestrians and bikers competing with cars on the roads.
Additional I could go on and on as far as snowplowing and slght 11nes on curves
and thlngs like that but you know, I could belabor the point but in my opinion,
from a safety standpoint, 31 feet, golng with the city standard would be my
recommendation.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor, may I?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Oon.
Don Ashuorth: I guess I would prefer the 31 feet and I think it's a compromise
that, the way it's already been presented that half of the time you can't get up
my street. Many of the streets in Western Hills area I really wonder if we can
get a fire truck through many of them just with the vehicles on the street. You
start gettlng lnto that 26 foot area and especially wintertime. Cars don't
really know where curbs are and they get further out in the street and it just
really becomes difficult trylng to get through in some of these areas. 2 feet
makes a lot of difference. I wish we had 2 more feet downtown.
City Council Meeting - October
Councilman Hason: For what it's worth, the roads are a whole lot narrower in
Carver Beach than 26 feet. And we have.
Councilwoman Dimler: It's a wonderful area though.
Councilman Mason: It is. It's a very nice area. I like the narrower streets
and we also have no parking on one side of the street now. On Yuma and
Woodhill. I understand the safety issue. I guess I'd kind of like to explore
the 26 feet a little bit more. I think that's an interesting concept for, I
mean that's essential. I mean it's not a closed loop but my guess is there
won't be a whole lot of traffic in there except for people who live there.
I mean it's not like a Kerber Blvd. or even a Nez Perce in Carver Beach that
gets a lot of traffic now. I'll look at it some more.
Councilman Workman: I agree.
Councilman Wing: Let's move on.
Terry Forbord: Your Honor. Page 17. I'm going to be very brief on this and
thls is 1rem (d) and I hate to talk about it because I support Richard's quest,
excuse me. Councilman Wing's quest so much for the tree ordinance but I believe
that the proposed tree ordinance ls prohibitive and not in the best interest of
housing in America because it puts a burden at the closing of extra cost on
somebody trying to buy a home. I think if you ask an individual who's closing
on their home what their priorities are. The first one is to be able to close
the loan. The second one may be to be able to put food on the table. Hake
their house payment. Somewhere down that priority list comes landscaping of
their lot. And you wlll flnd that most people who buy new homes today all want
to landscape their lot but they want to do it sometime within the next couple of
years. The cost of 2 additional trees, bagged and burlapped, guaranteed from a
nursery is $500.00. And $500.00 may seem like a small amount but it's a lot to
somebody's who trying to get into a new home. And so if, I don't know what the
Council's going to be doing tomorrow night and I realize this is a PUC and it's
not subject to some of the same things but we would like you to reconsider that.
The next item, item 4. This part of the resolution was changed from the
resolution on September 9th. You probably will see on your packet the changed
items are darkened or bolder type. All I'm asking for is a clarification
because we are not exactly sure what it means. That would be the first
sentence and then we'd like a clarification on the last sentence. We also would
like you to reconsider once again in that paragraph allowing us to raise the
level of that pond to 976.5 like we had requested. I'm going to let Rick Sathre
tell you what it is that we don't understand about the items in bold print. And
it may not be a big deal but we're not sure what it entirely means.
Rick Sathre: I should apologize. I haven't had a chance to ask Charles about
it and I'm not sure if more information is needed or not. The second sentence
of number 4 ls calculations shall be provided demonstrating that the revised
Walker Ponds are sufficiently sized to provide acceptable nutrient removal.
We've submitted calculations. Are there more required?
Paul Krauss: Since we drafted that we did have opportunity to bounce this off
of Bonestroo and they were satisfied with it so we think that's been taken care
of.
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: What's the other?
Rick Sathre: Then the other one, other than what Terry said about, we think
it's important that the DNR pond or DNR wetland elevation be allowed to go up to
9?6.5 and so we can get diversity of depths or variation or a good range of
depth in the wetland so we don't have the whole wetland f111 in with vegetation.
Anyway, then the sentence that's been added at the end, the bold one. The
developer shall modify exlstlng storm sewer outlet/inlet to become a flood
control structure. Really the questlon is, which way does the city want the
water to run? You know into the pond, off of the street or out of the wetland
to the north. Maybe we can't answer that now but I'm just not sure which way
the engineering staff was going wlth thelr thoughts. Whether we would contlnue
to have the water run into the wetland off the road or we wouldn't allow that to
happen.
Charles Folch: I believe the intent on that was to basically follow watershed
lines as far as determining the direction of drainage. However, we felt that it
probably wouldn't be a bad ldea to have basically a teller valve in that
structure which would allow under a 100 year flood condition, if that pond would
rlse, that there'd be a release valve if you wlll so that the flow could go to
the north under those extreme circumstances.
Paul Krauss: I think we came up with that in part in response to Mr. Jannusch's
concerns.
Rick Sathre: And we'd have to talk about how we could make that work. But oky,
I understand. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: As we keep progressing with time, hopefully you can sort of move
this a little quicker. Haybe for every 10 more mlnutes that you talk we'll have
to knock off one lot.
Councilman Workman: I think Terry's fillibustering anyway.
Terry Forbord: The issue on the elevation of the pond, if you recall, there was
some concern about the stability of the roadbed of Lake Lucy Road. Just to
refresh memory. There's a reason why we were hoplng to have a certaln water
level there. And Frank Svoboda can elaborate more on that but rather than bring
hlm up here after what the Mayor just said, I thlnk I'll just try to summarize
it. 8ut we're trying to increase the volume of water that's in the pond because
it w111 provlde a greater habitat for the wlldlife and because it wlll allow for
different types of aquatic plants type to grow there than what is there now. And
the more volume of water movlng through there helps cleanse it out as well. It
will look better and we feel that it wlll functlon better and the other wildlife
specialists, other than our own, concur wlth that. We share the concern that
the engineering staff has. We don't want to disrupts the road bed of Lake Lucy
elther so we went to another soil scientist, GME Consultants in Plymouth. Gave
them as the as-builts from the city. When the City did the project, we went to
the City's consultant's englneer at the tlme. Got the as-bullts. Sent them out
to a soil scientist and the opinion of the soll scientist was that the road ha
already settled. It's been settllng for oh, I can't remember how many years
it's been there but it's probably already settled as much as we thought that it
would and that no continued settllng would occur and it was in hls opinlon that
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
the additional foot of water wouldn't impact it. So we would ask you to
consider that. Page 18, number 14. I'd just like to.
Mayor Chmiel: Just a quick response.
Charles Folch: If I could just respond to that quickly. The information that
they had, as Terry mentioned was basically going off of plan information. There
is no actual official soil borings taken out there to verify that the granular
backfill for the road base was put in at certain depths and such. The key thing
to remember here is they were working with basically I would call limited
information in order to make the recommendation and they also, as a part of
their conclusion basically provide a disclaimer as to their recommendation based
on limited information. I'm not going to disagree with what Terry's trying to
do. I think that would be a benefit to the pond but my first priority is to
protect the facility infrastructure that we have with the roadway. We certainly
would be amenable to having some sort of a security or a guarantee provided over
maybe a 3 to 5 year period that no damaging effect has occurred on the roadway.
Terry Forbord: Maybe that's something we can research with the engineering
staff. On the next page, the bottom of the page. Municipal sanitary sewer and
water service should be extended easterly to the west line of the Ravis parcel
and sanitary sewer shall be extended to the Coey property. We do not have a
problem with that. However, we think the expense of extending those should be
born by the people who receive the benefit and that would be Mr. Ravis and Mr.
Coey. In discussing this with staff, we've been told it's a city policy. That
the developer paid for the extending of services that benefit the other property
owners adjacent to. I don't know if that's a written policy or not. I've not
been able to find that out. Z question the legality of that policy if so but we
are opposed to it. We don't think that it's right for somebody who has a
platted piece of property asking us to extend services to them so they can
develop their site but require me to pay for it. There's many analogies that I
could give you as examples but in other cities we're not faced with this so we
think that it's only fair that those benefitting property owners, that they pay
for the extension of services to their property so they can develop.
Mayor Chmiel: Charles, do you have anything?
Charles Folch: I guess in short, this is not uncommon that development extends
utilities to their borders to provide for future extension. If the sewer wasn't
along, constructed along Lake Lucy Road they wouldn't have a facility to tie
into either. In short.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright.
Terry Forbord: I could talk eloquently on that for a long time but I'll move
on.
Councilwoman Dimler: You've already lost one lot.
Terry Forbord: Our position remains the same. On page 19. Item 3, under
wetland alteration permit. I think it's important for us to define this because
the way this is written, there's no time that we could develop the property.
And we want to be as sensitive to, we understand what the concerns are. Totally
67
City Council. Meeting - October 14, 1991
but the way this was written, we couldn't go in and do it so what I would
propose would be that the alteration to the wetlands must not occur between
April 1st and June 15th because then we've allowed for the water fowl migratory
and nesting things to occur. But at least, remember there's only 6 months
during the year in which we can do anything in Minnesota because the rest of
it's winter so we would ask to modify that so ue would protect the water foul
during the times when it's most important. That's the only items we have.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Any other discussion?
Terry Forbord: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: In relationship to the concerns of those specific items. And if
not, what's your pleasure?
Councilman Workman: Are you ready for a motion?
Mayor Chmiel: Well.
Brian Humphrey: I'd like to say one thing. My name is Brian Humphrey. I live
at 6800 Utica Circle. I guess my concern is the wildlife. We're talking about
the wetlands but the runoff, the water could end up coming into my back yard...
but what's going to happen along with that is we're going to take away some of
the dry land for the wildlife that's there at this time. The pheasants and the
deer. Take away the trees. Put in houses. You're going to take away homes
from wildlife. That's my biggest concern. Thank you.
Councilman Mason: I think the issues that Lundgren Bros. have raised certainly
need some discussion and my guess is it's not going to happen tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: You're right.
Councilman Mason: I mean sharp. Sharp as a tack. But they sound on the
surface of it, I think they're legitimate concerns. I think ue need to get
moving on this and Z wonder if, can ue approve some things without other things
tonight?
Councilman Wing: Carry it over to tomorrow night Don?
Mayor Chmiel: We're going to be pretty well.
Councilman Mason: Originally we were going to be done at 6:00 and now we're
going to 8:00 or 9:00 tomorrow.
Councilman Wing: I would be available for an extra meeting to get this off the
agenda. Of course I have a more flexible schedule than yours.
Terry Forbord: Your Honor, are there any of the items that we, these are the
exact same items that we raised on September 9th so if there's any of those
items that I could clarlfy to make it easler.
Councilman Mason: Okay, I'll take a shot at this. What the heck. Okay?
68
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Councilwoman Dimler: Well the park issue. I'm still not happy with the park
issue anyway.
Councilman Mason: Okay. How about if we see if we can take care of everything
else but. Possible or not?
Councilwoman Dimler: I think it's too much.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't think so.
Councilwoman Dimler: At this hour we may make decisions ue wish we hadn't.
Councilman Wing: We've got the 26 foot road to discuss. Level of the pond.
Trees.
Councilwoman Dimler: There's too much there.
Councilman Mason: Well the trees, hopefully we're going to take care of
tomorrow night.
Councilman Wing: Not necessarily to the PUD. This is irrelevant. I'm assuming
we'll go with the same direction.
Mayor Chmiel: What's it going to be?
Councilwoman Oimler: I make a motion to table and send the park issue back to
Park and Rec and then we'll conslder the remainder on our next meetlng and put
it first on the agenda.
Mayor Chmiel: First item on the 28th.
Councilman Wing: I don't feel comfortable sending it back to Park and Rec. I
was there for the discussion. I thlnk we should make the discussion if we want
a park.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't think they would probably object to that. Todd's
here now.
Todd Hoffman: In taking it back to the Park Commission, their recommendation
was to accept fees in lieu of parkland.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's correct but I talked to two of the park
commissioners who said they were uncomfortable with how they voted.
Councilman Wing: We'll vote for them then.
Todd Hoffman: Correct. It would be going above the comprehensive plan which
identifies the park servlce areas. Thls area just happens to 11e within the
service area for 4 different parks and that is somewhat unusual. Typically a
development 1les only withln 1 or 2. The slte would only allow us to take an
area of 1.5 acres which would be a very minimal neighborhood park. In fact the
smallest that was ever developed within the city so those are additional thihgs
to consider.
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Councilman Mason: Quick question. How far does somebody have to walk to get to
a park?
Councilwoman Dimler: And how safe is it?
Todd Hoffman: Curry Farms Park is across the street which would be a block and
a half.
Councilman Mason: Well I don't know. I've got to walk 4 blocks to get to a
park for my kids to play in. I mean at some point.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do they have to cross a busy road?
Councilman Mason: Well, they've got to go down Nez Perce which is getting
busler and busler every day. I don't let them go by themselves but ue walk down
there together. I mean Lake Lucy and it's advantages is a very open and wide
road whlch Carver Beach and a lot of others aren't.
Councilman Wing: This is a very delicate piece of property which I think is
best served by keeplng the land open as much as possible.
Mayor Chmiel: I might make a suggestion that all these items be addressed by
staff and to come up wlth a conclusion and then flnally leave those thlngs agaln
as a recommendation and discussions that we've had this evenlng. Got it Paul?
Paul Krauss: No, but I'll read the Minutes.
Councilman Workman: I guess I'd move to table.
Councilman Wing: Second.
Councilwoman Oimler: Third.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table the Lundgren/
Ortenblat/Ersbo Subdivision request until the October 28, 1991 City Council
meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTHENTS AND APPEALS FOR A 3 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A PORCH, 410 WEST 76TH STREET, ADELINE SKLUZACEK.
Mayor Chmiel: Tom, you were there and Paul, do you have something to add to
that?
Councilman Workman: On number 9 under New Business, the Minutes have been
amended. I was in favor of the variance and it was reported that I was not.
Mayor Chmiel: They're looking for strictly a 3 foot variance on this from the
front yard setback and give me your decision as to why you thought.
Councilman Workman: Staff said no because, and the other two members said no
because the issue simple of nobody else was doing it. I found in this
neighborhood to I think for what Mrs. Skluzacek was golng to get and be able to
do for what I considered a minimal amount of footage for various problems that
7O
City Council Meeting - October
she has. Water problems, etc. that it was really not stepping out of bounds.
And if everybody in the neighborhood did this, I don't know that it would set a
precedence that we couldn't live with. It just didn't seem blatant at all.
Mayor Chmiel: And according to the plat or the survey that they show,
technically 3 feet is what we go to because we round it off. Technically it's
2.7.
Councilman Workman: It just seemed minor and for something that they want to
do, I know we have 18 and 20 and 50 foot variances and this just didn't seem to
rock any boats for me.
Mayor Chmiel: Is this where I read too that they were afraid that it might
create a precedent within that neighborhood as well7
Councilman Workman: And I weighed that with the rest of the neighborhood.
Taking what if. What if it did? I don't know that that would make a
difference. That's why I dldn't feel adverse.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion?
Councilman Wing: I looked at it at length today and during the summer it would
be irrelevant. The trees are so heavy with foliage that they really hide the
project but I dld feel the project ls golng to be large. Prominent. Major
project to the home. It is going to impact neighbors in that the houses all
have slmilar frontage and I thought this would be an unusual appearance. Not
compatible to the other homes. The precedent didn't bother me. I agree with
Tom. Wintertime, I thlnk it's not going to have an overly attractive appearance
in my opinion. That troubled me and my feeling after having looked at it this
afternoon was to deny it because of lt's slze. Not deny the overall project.
Just size of the project as I saw it presented. I think there was a more
conservative solution.
Mayor Chmiel: How do you say that it will distract from it?
Councilman Wing: It's coming out almost 9 feet there as I read this so you have
your homes generally are just a standard rambler and suddenly you're going to
have this g foot additlon coming out to cover that stoop and then go over to the
garage. I just felt it just didn't look right to me for that neighborhood.
Like I sald, durlng the summer it would be irrelevant. I was trying to picture
it during the winter. I just saw it as a very prominent, large structure. Just
11ke some of these decks came in wlth these double doors. Come in wlth these
major projects that really require a pretty hefty variance. I agree with you
Mayor that 3 feet ls maybe irrelevant. That's not the issue. It's the overall
size of the structure in it's total that troubles me. To put up a porch or a
cover over the front door I could have accepted but, it was almost 11ke puttlng,
I felt like we'd almost be putting a mobile home out in front and attaching it
to the house. It's klnd of the...
Councilman Workman: You're maybe considering the width of it and maybe what it
looks like. I'm taklng that into consideration. 2.7 or 2.3 feet ls all that
we're concerned about and if in fact they didn't need a variance to this, what
people, hopefully what people do to the front of their homes is going to be
71
City Council Meeting -- October 14, 1991
aesthetically pleasing. We can't legislate that. Zf he chooses to paint this
pink and the rest of the house is blue, Z guess that's the way it's going to be.
So I was simply looking at, this is what I think I feel is an improvement to the
home. 2.3 or .? feet, that is what I was looking at. If it's expanding across
the front of the home, and that wasn't something that I took into consideration.
So I would make a motion for discussion purposes to approve the 3 foot front
yard setback variance to construct a porch for Adeline Skluzacek.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and would you like to state the size?
Councilman Workman: Size? I said the 3 foot front yard. 3 foot or less.
Mayor Chmiel: 27.3 of the eastern half.
Councilman Workman: Oh, I'm sorry.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, a motion's on the floor and a second.
Councilman Mason: It looks like, from reading the reports we have, it looks
11kc there are other ways of solvlng the problem and that's my concern in
grantlng thls variance. It appears that what the building official says, thls
can be solved wlthout havlng to put that three season porch up and then we don't
even need to be concerned about the variance.
Mayor Chmiel: What's that suggestion then? On a way of doing it.
Councilman Mason: Not being a building official, I can't answer that.
Mayor Chmiel: Ali he's have to do is cut it back another 2 more feet in order
to make that much difference.
Councilman Mason: Well, it even sounds, according to this. It sounds like the
building official isn't convinced that this will necessarily solve the problem.
If that's the case, why are we grantlng
Councilwoman Oimler: I guess to piggyback on what Mike just said. I thought
about that too but then it doesn't say what other alternatives. It doesn't say
what the expense is. And will that solve the problem? I guess I would be in
favor since I don't see that it hurts the neighbors. The neighbors agree. I
think that we could give them thls and also solve, maybe solve thelr water
problem. Hopefully so and then also give them some enjoyable 11vlng area.
have no problem with it whatsoever.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I see this as really it's not any congestion for the
street or any increase danger of fire or public safety ls substantially
diminished or impairs the property values wlthln the neighborhood. I just
don't, I guess to me that minor amount of what they're proposing to put in is a
three season porch. The fact if anything it should enhance the property I
think. So I'll call a question.
72
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve Variance
·
Request J91-15 for Adeline Skluzacek at 410 West 76th Street. All voted in
favor except Councilman Wing and Councilman Hason who opposed. The motion
carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Counciiman Mason: I'd just like to state the reason I voted for denial is I
don't know that all the options were looked into. That's all.
Councilman Wing: The options concerned me and also we don't have any
information on the appearance or the intent or the dollars to be spent...
DISCUSSION OF CONSTRUCTION ACCESS TO TROENDLE ADDITIQN.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, we're really not sure where to take this at this point.
I think yourself and Councilwoman Dialer were in attendance when the meeting was
held I believe at Instant Webb with the applicant's attorney and designer and
the neighborhood folks. That meeting was held at your suggestion after we
concluded, and I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth but that the
Troendle Addition had been approved. There were conditions attached to it to
ultimately insure that the road could go through but there wasn't much else we
could do with the Troendle Addition at this point. The developer of Troendle
Addition has made attempts to bring their construction equipment in from the
north. We did look at some alternatives. There was some mention made of three
lots in the Vineland Forest Addition that had been acquired by Mr. Beddor. We
did confirm that yes, he had acquired that but our engineering department is
telling us that since new utilities had been run through those lots, that we
couldn't even put a temporary road over that. They're not very deep and we did
probably wreck the utilities that were put in. At this point we don't have much
else to offer. It seems as though things on the Owen's property are continuing
to move along at some kind of pace. I was out at the site with Dave Hempel from
our engineer department on Friday and we were told by Daryl Fortier that Beddor
has an offer in to buy the north half of the property. I made it clear that Mr.
Beddor could buy whatever he wants to buy but as long as, you know if they're
going to come in with a subdivision, we're going to take the right-of-way at
that point. And then it will be up to the City Council to order the project in.
So we're still in a holding pattern. We have every reason to believe that this
is going to happen in relatively short order. If it doesn't, you've already
established a condition for staff to bring this back to you, and I forget, 12 or
18 months so you can see what sort of options you want to exercise at that time
if nothing's happened.
Mayor Chmiel: I think the major concerns of the people within the area is the
traffic flow coming to and fro, in and out with the construction as well.
Unfortunately I dldn't stay for the entlrety of the meeting because I had
another meeting to go to so I don't know what the bottom line was. Ursula was
there.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess ay main feeltng was I appreciate the efforts that
Mr. Fortier and legal counsel, Mr. Smith made to answer the concerns of the
neighborhood but I thlnk that they really over shot the scope of what we were
getting at and I'm not sure they really answered the main concern which was the
safety of the young ohlldren that are on that end of Lake Lucy Road. I don't
think the neighbors really wanted to influence the subdivision or the changes
73
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
that are coming about or all the talk about Mr. Owen's property and so forth. I
don't think that was their main concern. I guess the way that I see that we can
maybe handle it would be through our public safety department because
construction is indeed happening now and I understand that they are using Mr.
Troendle's driveway to some extent. I would think that the public safety could
requisition the Sheriff's Oepartment that they would check that area frequently
during the construction. That they would make sure that the speed limit is
absolutely observed and maybe lower the speed limit during the time of
construction. I want to make sure that the road remains passable to two way
traffic. If it does not, if trucks are parked on both sides and only one way
can get through or nothing can get through, I think the people should be
ticketed and maybe a couple of tickets will get the message across to them.
Also with mud on the road and that type of thing, I think that should be
carefully observed. I would hope that that would address some the concerns and
maybe the neighbors would like to address, have a few other ideas.
Terry Barke: My name is Terry Barke. I live at 960 Lake Lucy Road and I'd like
to say that flrst off I appreciate the Hayor and Councilwoman Dlmler attending
our meeting. That was very nlce of you and I also appreciate Mr. Fortier and
Hr. Smith coming. Also I echo, I thlnk they dld a, it was nice of them to come
and explain what they knew. They answered the questions that they could do.
think there's really a good effort on everyone's part to try and resolve thls.
In the vein of trying to come up or help to propose some solutions in a
constructive manner, some things that we're thlnklng about. We st111 are really
strongly of the mind set that we want to share the construction traffic and I do
agree also from what I've seen that the developers are trylng to come in on the
north side instead of running all thelr traffic through us. We appreciate that.
I understand the problem with the utilities of brlnging in heavy equipment. One
of the ideas that we klcked around and we proposed possibly is deflntely brlng
the heavy equipment or whatever, down Lake Lucy Road, if it can be brought down
in a safe and orderly manner. Possibly some of the lighter equipment, pick up
trucks and vans and whatever, they can get through Hr. Troendle's driveway
without disturbing him too much. We'd appreciate it if they could do that. I
know at our meetlng there was some concern that the developers just don't have
control over all the vehicles coming in and out and pick-up trucks and that
would 11kely go down the paved road unless told to do otherwise. I'm not sure
that someone can't ask them to do otherwise and help us out there. I'd propose
that. Secondly, posslbly dolng something wlth the speed 11mlt on the road on
Lake Lucy Road. I don't know that ue shouldn't really be doing something with
it on more of a permanent basls other than just durlng construction. The speed
limlt's 30 mph now. Karen Green was mentioning that in School Zones where there
are lots of children, typically speed 11mits are 11ke 20 mph. There are lots of
children in our area. I don't know if there's a criteria on how many children
before it makes sense to try to cut the speed down but we certainly propose
taklng the speed down a little bit. It's 25 mph on Pleasant View and that's
supposedly a very major road also. So I put that forth as maybe another optlon.
I guess thirdly, there was some discussion at the meeting about at one point in
tlme another road or an extension of that Nez Perce Road comlng south and
hooking back up with Lake Lucy Road. And I understand that that concept was
rejected some tlme ago over lssues of grade. It would have been a difficult
connection to make although it seems to us that if someone wanted to do that,
that grade could be flxed up. We wanted to make sure that it was clear from our
standpoint anyway that we view that as very undeslreable for us. We hope that
74
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
in the future if you hold firm on that and not let that extension somehow creep
back in exiting onto Lake Lucy Road. That's basically what I have to say.
Mayor Chmiel: I was just looking at some of the things that were done by the
Sheriff's Department on special patrol. Traffic assessments we asked them to do
on different days that they had done at different given hours. Looking at the
average speeds on locations it looks like it was 28, 32, 29.4 and those that
were exceeding that speed limit were addressed. There was one that was reported
at 39 mph. Another one at 38 mph. And another day that they had the average
speed was 28.6. Highest reported speed that was there was 43 mph so they are
driving a little fast. Average speed on this one was 30 on another day so they
have been taklng checks there and been talklng to people drlvlng through those
areas as well. Unfortunately it's probably people within the area themselves.
Terry Barke: I think you're right.
Mayor Chmiel: And here again the average speed was 32. The highest speed was
35. Average speed 30. 35. 28 average. 33. So we've been doing quite a bit
of checking.
Terry Barke: And I'd like to say also, I really do appreciate that. We have
all noticed the presence of the officers on the street much more since the last
tlme we were here and I'm sure that's ina large part due to your
recommendations. We do appreciate that a
Mayor Chmiel: I just thought I'd mention that.
Terry Barke: Yeah, I don't know what the average in terms of, that to me seems
11kw people going very close to the speed limit. I don't know if that's typlcal
when you clock people on other roads that they tend to drive the speed limit but
I personally, when I drlve through our neighborhood, and maybe lt's just
because I'm sensitive to the kids, 30 mph is going to me anyway, quite fast
through that neighborhood.
Mayor Chmiel: I think I was part of one of those that 17 mph because I was just
watching.
Terry Barke: Yeah, at that range, 20 mph is about what I drive through there at
and that's uhat I feel comfortable myself at.
Mayor Chmiel: If you can only impress that on the rest of the people that live
in the area, you could probably resolve that problem.
Councilman Workman: I guess to maybe answer that one question. We have
discussed that issue of lowering in certain areas and certainly every Council
member wants hls down but that ls State mandated and it almost takes an act of
God to.
Mayor Chmlel: Well God is starting to look at it. It isn't me, it's the State.
They're reviewing some of these things within areas and looking potentially at
30 mph and seeing what.
Councilman Wing: We know what you intended Don.
75
City Council Meeting -o October 14, 1991
Councilman Workman: Yeah, yeah. But I mean just to say, why don't we lower
everything to 25 in the city, we can't do that. It has to be so justified and I
don't think we've ever seen anything happen like that.
Mayor Chmiel: I think I'd make a suggestion that maybe we should talk with Bill
Crawford myself from MnDot and he said he'd be willing to sit down and listen to
more of what we had to say. Maybe if I had another Council person we could go
over there and maybe plead our case a little bit better. So we'll set something
up for that.
Karen Green: I'm Karen Green and I really appreciate all the time that
everybody's put into this. The other thing that Z wanted to mention was that Z
believe there was a numbers, or what do I want to say. They took the number of
cars that were going along our street and I felt that during the time they took
that, there was no construction being done either on the Troendle Addition or in
our neighborhood so Z felt that the number was really insignificant to the
amount of cars that were maybe being brought on. And I had talked to the Safety
Director and asked him if there would be a possibility of maybe redoing it in
spring to summer when the construction is being brought back up again. To just
show exactly how much cars are being, I mean tile type of traffic that's being
used on our road.
Mayor Chmiel: They did show the total numbers. 13 on one. 12 on another. 17
on another for the period of time they uere there. 11. SO it looks like the
flows were pretty.
Councilman Wing: Those were the radar runs?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Councilman Wing: Further back on the traffic counts, we're talking 300, 400,
500 cars. Well between 200 and 300 cars in a 24 hour section that were actually
going through there. I see the construction traffic is just such an
insignificant issue here that I almost question what we're doing other than
possible road damage but the number of construction vehicles, what's that going
to add to a daily traffic count of 300? In this case, here's a 24 hour section.
On the 26th of September, 387 cars when down that road in 24 hours. You're
saying that Troendle is going to make a bit of difference?
Mayor Chmiel: It may make a 10~ difference I don't think.
Councilman Wing: And it's such a short te'rm issue.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think that was the point. I think safety was the issue
and the speeds that they're going is their concern.
Councilman Wing: One comment. One say, as a matter of fact I was looking for
your house and it's a wide straight away street. It's a collector street and
it's unfortunate. And when Nez Perce ls lmproved it's golng to be worse. I
don't see any way to avoid it so issues are stop signs and speed and enforcement
and so on. I thlnk you need that protection. But the day I was drlvlng down
there going eastbound, about mid-point in your neighborhood, doing under 20 mph
because I was looklng for a name and an address because I wanted to try and
76
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
contact you. Two kids with total disregard for the street, young kids. One on
a tric, one on a bike came straight down northbound from the south side, head on
lnto the road. I stopped. They went rlgh~ in front of me and said, aah!
Scrambled back up the driveway and I said holy cow. Grim. Very grim so I think
parents are golng to have to get serlous about keeping kids out of the front of
their house too. I saw your problem no question.
Mayor Chmlel: So I thlnk from here.
Terry Barke: Just to follow up on that. I think that's not untypical on our
street and Karen can probably talk about it better than I can being she's an at
home mom and has to deal with trying to keep those klds corraled all day long.
Just behlnd our house lt's heavily wooded and so our klds tend to play In the
front yard as opposed to the back yard. And it is difficult to, you know you
feel like you have to watch them every minute or something 11ke that's going to
happen. And it is stressful for everyone.
Karen Green: I just want to make a comment too that at the speed of 30 mph,
having to go up around Nez Perce with the speed limit at that and we're trying
to bring our kids up to the park and I don't feel that it's a full width road
right around Nez Perce. It becomes a very difficult issue. I'm very scared to
bring my kids up around there to go to the only park that's close to us and
that's why I thought maybe reducing the speed limit or at least making people
aware that there's a lot more kids around than what maybe people are aware of.
Mayor Chmiel: And I think signs in that specific area could be put up, Children
at Play or something of that nature. That's something we discussed previously.
Councilman Wing: What's Public Safety have to say Oon? Have you talked to
Scott? What's been bls position?
Councilwoman Oimler: Scott's still here.
Mayor Chmlel: He's sleeping right there. Regarding the signs.
Councilman Wing: Well regarding safety and regarding options. What might we
do? Scott Z see the Troendle situation ls irrelevant to the traffic count and
speeds on that road as whole.
Scott Harr: We ran trafflc checks and trafflc surveys up until yesterday.
Charles and I have not had a chance to review all the figures. I've given some
of the information out but we clocked 141 cars and the average speed was under
30 mph. 28.93 mph to be exact. The numbers, according to engineering, have not
come back as being unusual for the number of vehicles using that area. $o
Charles and I intend this week to take a look at signage and the deputies did
recommend additional speed signs just for air tight prosecution. But the speeds
are not terribly high. We do have a few flyers but it's apparently balanced to
reach that 28 mph average.
Mayor Chmlel: So I guess what I basically see here is that staff should really
possibly consider this matter closed until we have an application submitted by
Art Owens and once Art presents this, the property owner or until 18 months has
passed and City Council has directed you once again to bring this item back
77
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
before us. I think basically what you have here is what it should go tO. Other
than the fact of looking to additional signage.
Scott Harr: And I did tell Karen that. We'ii work on it again in the spring
tlme when the construction starts agaln and I talked to the Building Inspectors
to keep an eye out for construction.
Karen Green: I just have a question. What makes the difference of like our
road at 30 mph and Pleasant Vlew down to 25? Where that seems to be, the
curves?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Karen Green: But the curve at Nez Perce and Lake Lucy wouldn't change?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, the minimal amount and that is looked at too by Public
Safety.
Karen Green: So it isn't necessarily the amount of trafflc that's going by?
Mayor Chmiel: No, I think it's the State. The State dictates those speeds and
it's hard for us to get it changed but there are some thoughts of looklng at
changing that. Lowering that to lower speeds withln residential areas. Or at
least they're considering it and thinklng about it but they need more lnput from
other cities. That's where we're going to try to get it as well.
Karen Green: Okay. Also, kind of gettlng back to the construction. Would
there be a possibility of ever putting a construction speed limit down to 10 or
15 mph? Trying to enforce that?
Mayor Chmiel: That would probably be rather difficult to try to enforce. At
least I think so.
Scott Hart: Councilman Wing and I are working on some creative ways to respond
to traffic concerns which we'll talk about at the budget meeting tomorrow night.
I think one of the ways ls simply enforcement. It's so difficult to deflne what
a construction vehicle ls. I think the sheer numbers here show that the
Sheriff's offlce ls golng to be responsive and our CSO's can work too. So !
think given the opportunity we can make a good dent in the problem.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Fine. Thank you. Thanks for coming in and staylng here
until 1:00. Appreciate it. We're going to let staff come in tomorrow morning
a 11ttle later. Take another 15 mlnutes.
Councilman Mason: Can I tell my boss that too?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. I have a meeting at 7:00 tomorrow morning.
Councilman Mason: 6:30.
78
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
RECEIVE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR WATERHAIN AND SANITARY SEWER IHPROVEHENTS ~N
SECTION 24 AND LAKE RILEY HILLS. CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING. PROJECT ~0-10.
Councilwoman Dimler: I move approval of item 12.
Councilman Wing: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: We have a receive feasibility study for watermain and sanitary
sewer improvements in Section 24, Lake Riley Hills, call for public hearing,
Project 90-10. I think that has been pretty well reviewed. And I have a motion
on the floor. And there is a time restriction on this that they want to get
going this November with it. There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Councilman Wing: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion. I guess I just have one quick question. How does
this affect everyone else along the way..to this and the connection? Is there
any affect on anyone else7
Charles Folch: Oh absolutely. The service area is rather large and thus staff
has scheduled basically a neighborhood workshop or area workshop if you will one
week prior to the public hearing.
Mayor Chmiel: Good.
Resolution ~91-99: Council.o~an Dimler moved, Councilman Wing ~econded to
receive the feasibility study for uatermain and sanitary 8euer improvements in
Section 24, Lake Riley Hills Project No. 90-10 and call a public hearing for
November 11, 1991 City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
REQUEST FOR STAFF DIRECTION, HERZ/3OHNSON VS. TROLLS-GLEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATZON
BEACHLOT ISSUE.
Mayor Chmiel: Quickly Jo Ann.
Paul Krauss: Okay. In May we received a request from some attorneys
representing John Metz and Terry Johnson to respond to issues concerning the
Trolls Glen Beachlot with regards to there being an increase in the number of
watercraft that were docked there. We received some information that seemed to
be fairly accurate. At least something to look into. We did follow up on it.
We had a meeting with the Homeowners Association. We did tell them we thought
there was a problem. We asked them to respond to us within 30 days over the
summer. They did not do so. What we're being asked to do is to, what you're
being asked to do is direct us to take action on this now. What we have done on
this is basically punted. This is not an isolated issue. I think as Councilman
Wing is certainly aware and we've talked to the Council about it, there's a lot
of issues concerning non-conforming beachlots. Grandfathered beachlots. And
as a result we've gone through a whole packaged program wherein a new ordinance
has been drafted to require that the old beachlots get a permit. We'll be
meeting with all of them and trying to come up with some agreement as to what
was there. What actually is grandfathered and then give them a permit for that
amount so it's something we can regulate in the future. In fact, the first
79
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
organizational meetlng for it was held here yesterday at 5:00-6:00.
Councilman Wing: Today?
Paul Krauss: Well it's yesterday now.
Councilman Wing: I've been here since yesterday?
Councilman Mason: You're going to be here tomorrow too.
Paul Krauss: I guess it was our preference not to take any one beachlot out of
context as we've been golng through thls whole program over the Fall and early
Wlnter until we get it all resolved. We've declined to take any further
speclflc actlon. You're belng asked by Mr. Metz and Mr. Johnson to dlrect us to
change our minds and have us go ahead and prosecute.
Mayor Chmlel: Okay. Somebody care to say something?
John Metz: Lucky number 13. Mr. Mayor, Council members. I will make this
very, very brlef.
Mayor Chmiel: Just state your name.
John Metz: I'm John Metz. I live at 3900 Lone Cedar Lane and I've lived there
since 1977. The reason I state that is this issue has been going on since the
inception of Trolls Glen Homeowners Association and the inception of the concept
of this beachlot and the boats on it. There's been many, many discussions in
prevlous years wlth Barb Dacy and people have probably preceeded some of you.
The reason that I'm asking for th£s to be considered to be prosecuted by your
own Clty Attorney's admission, thls case ls rlght for prosecution. Thls
situation started long before I knew anything about a new ordinance being
adopted and the permlt process but let me just brlefly tell you a couple of the
things that are very important from my perspective that you understand. The
packets that you have contaln some portlons of depositions from prevlous
litigation that was gone on but the most important portion in that to my way of
thlnking lsa letter from my Attorney, Mr. Belsel to Mr. Ashworth whlch pretty
much states in detail that there is really no conflict with law to the
ordinance. Z mean the ordinance certainly supercedes the covenants and that's
well documented by law. The litigation that I was involved in with the other
members of the association was dismissed without prejudice by a Judge in Carver
County for the reason that we have not exhausted all of our options. I took
that to mean that I would have to come to the Clty, which I have done. Z'd also
take it to mean that we had to go back to the association and try to settle this
thing whlch was done on several attempts to no ava11. We have now exhausted all
my options. I have nothing left to be able to accomplish by anything except for
further litigation and Z can't, that's the last thing in the world Z want. Got
a very acrimonious situation in our neighborhood. I'd certainly like to see
that resolved as quickly as posslble and to my way of thinking, probably
litigation of this case or prosecution of the case ls really more accurately
stated, enforcement of the Clty's own exlstlng ordinance that was passed in
these chambers several years ago in 1982 and some of you remember that
discussion that went on in here. That was a long, drawn out flght. People,
there were many, many, many hours of discussion on it. The end result of it ls
8O
City Council Heetin9 - October 14, 1991
that to my way of thinking it was a very good ordinance passed in the lake use
ordinance. I believe the number's 49~D. The issues that are involved in this
thing are three fold. There's the economic issues. Some of the members in our
association believe that the right to moor the boats down there, the number of
boats depending on the number of property owners in the association which is 12
at this point, is their legitimate right to do so. I disagree whole heartedly.
They believe that it has economic impact on the resale value of their homes.
I disagree with that. I believe that the use that that confined lot is, and
here's the most important and I'm embarrassed that I've forgotten the plat map
of it and I'm not going to ask you to look it up but you can trust me. That
it's 69.3 feet wide. From the high water mark to the rear property boundary
that adjoins Hr. Johnson's property was 30 feet. This property does not in any
way even come close to conforming to the city ordinance. So from what the
confines of the property are, the property owners are entitled to no boats. But
because of the ordinance of '82 and because of the grandfathering clause, it was
long ago decided by myself and my wife that we would agree to the two boats that
were there from 1982 and that's all well documented. The other thing, one of
the second issues is the aesthetic issue of that low down there with the two
boats, two boat lifts, 64 foot lot on a very confined piece of property. It's
quite truthfully an eye sore. It's also a safety hazard, which I'll touch on
just briefly in a second. But it precludes the use of that particular piece of
property by other association members to any other activity except to that which
relates to boating. In the summertime you can't swim down there because the
boat lifts obstruct the swimming area. In the wintertime with the boat lifts
and the docks stored on the piece of property, you can't go down and have a
picnic down there with a picnic table to put your skates on and skate. It's
impossible. The confines of the property as in it's storage configuration at
this present time, which is limited, borders right up to my piece of property.
Borders right up to Hr. Johnson's piece of property and there's very little room
for any type of activity to go on down there. Lastly, and most importantly is
the safety issue of this piece of property. In the summertime with the two boat
configuration that we've had in the years past and this is no inference to the
unsafe boating practices of the operaters down there. I'm talking about the
unsafe situation created by the confined space of this piece of property. On
many occasions I've called my children in from swimming in front of own piece of
property because of the boat traffic in and out. Agreed, it's not very often
that you'd have two speed boats simultaneously operating in and out of there but
it has happened and it has caused, from my perspective, several occasions where
I've observed unsafe practices. Not necessarily unsafe operation by the
individual owners. I'm not claiming that. I'm just saying because of the space
and because of the way it's configured, it creates an unsafe situation. I have
a lot of other things I could say here but I'm not going to. I really ask the
Council to consider prosecuting this case or at least enacting it's own
ordinance without lumping me in to the other situation that you're going to be
coming in and drafting of the new ordinance or the amended ordinance or this
piece of property becoming involved in the permitting process. This case stands
on it's down merit. There's been, and I'm not going to get involved in the
ecnomic issues on both sides of it. There's been thousands of dollars spent
from myself in defense of what I believe is the City's ordinance should be
enacted. On the other side of the story, the people believe that they have an
inherent right to put a boat down there. 9uite truthfully it's important that
this acrimony that's created in our neighborhood has to come to an end. To my
way of thinking, the best way to end this is for this Council to act and enforce
81
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
it's own ordinance and let it stand on it's own two legs and the merits of this
documentation that's been provided, even though it's only a very partial piece
of it should be sufficient for you to understand why I'm standlng here and
asking you to act. I thank you and I'll answer any questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Any questions?
Councilman Wing: Just to verify John. The issue here is that the two boats
were grandfathered and that's not at issue here. The issue ls the expansion
from those two boats to four, ls that correct?
John Metz: That's correct in part. The safety issue will still supersede that
in my mlnd but the expansion beyond 2 boats ls totally unacceptable to me and
would cause me to take further action which I do not want to do.
Councilman Wing: I believe thelr covenants as I read them today at the meeting
was that their covenants, if agreed on, four boats.
John Metz: The covenants don't agree to any boats.
Councilman Wing: That's a significant issue to them. They believe that they
do, just for your information.
John Metz: It's not documented anywhere.
Councilman Workman: Roger, can that association's covenants outweigh, they
can't outweigh our ordinance in this situation?
Roger Knutson: They can be more restrictive but not less. We don't enforce
covenants. We have nothing to do wlth them.
Councilman Workman: So they couldn't have 4 boats?
Roger Knutson: If our ordinance says 2 and they are grandfathered in, that's
correct.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I was at the meetlng today and of course I've been
involved in several of these now throughout the clty and the entire, I think all
the associations wlth maybe one exception. No, they came in there. All of
Minneuashta, Riley and Lotus were at the meetings today ulth Jo Ann and Kate. I
found that surprisingly there vas support and cooperation between the
Associations and the permit system and the argument would be what was
grandfathered. In thls case the grandfatherlng ls qulte clear. I think that
we're going to be able to resolve thls and I thlnk your recommendation to ask
Mr. Metz and Terry to hold off mlght be appropriate and I thlnk I would tend to
support that to see how the ordinance goes. How the permit process goes. The
determination though and the lssue that's still golng to have to be resolved ls
Mr. Metz' insistance that he won't expand beyond the 2 boats and if the City
allows a compromise and glves 3 or 4, I'm hearing you say we're golng to wlnd up
back in Court then?
John Merz: Yes sir.
82
City Council Meeting - October
Councilman Wing: You're going to prosecute that then?
John Metz: That is correct.
Councilman Wing: I hear the associations today very cooperative and willing to
go along with the City's attempts to permlt and get rid of this grandfathering.
Just establish some guidelines and I would 11ke to see this situation put lnto
that process and hopefully resolve this and Mr. Metz I would just hope that
maybe there would be some compromise that you mtght be able to help us resolve
this issue also. You certainly have the option to insist on your rights but
maybe the permlt process will solve the problem and I'd suggest that you table
your concerns until this process is able to work and it will probably be next
spring before this whole thlng ls resolved I'm anticipating.
John Merz: I don't want you to take Council members that that was a threat. I'm
not a threatening type of person. Qulte truthfully I just want thls resolved
more than anything to resolve the disharmony that's in our neighborhood right
now. It's dlsasterous and some of it may never be repaired. Hopefully that
can. That's the most important thing. But I don't want you to forget about the
safety lssue here. I really raise that and stand here in front of you in
earnest in my heart believe that there is a potential dangerous situation down
there with the dockage of more than 2 boats. I prefer no boats and I also need
to let you understand that I am a member of the Trolls-Glen Homeowners
Association. My positions have not been represented by the leadership of our
association. I do not stand alone in my position. There are other people who
support me but ue are not the majority so that's important. Also it's important
to understand that what I propose here, the dockage of no more than 2 boats, I'm
imposlng on myself as well as the other members of the Association and lt's
really not my imposition whatsoever. It's the City imposition. It's your
position. It was adopted and it should be enforced. I see no reason not to
enforce it. I understand your reasoning but it's a long time issue. This issue
supersedes all this new stuff that's come up in the last 3 or 4 months by years
and the documentation is there. I've got a file very, very thick because I've
tried to maintain a very businesslike approach to this sad situation and it
should be resolved. Again I ask before I leave in my last comment, please do
consider enacting enforcement of this ordinance that is currently in effect and
should have nothing to do with what's coming up before you in the future days.
Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks John.
Terry Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Council members. My name's Terry Johnson as John had
mentioned and I'm his neighbor and border the other side of this property. In
fact John sald ue didn't brlng a picture of this property today but I thought
that Paul might be able to pull one out. Is that possible Paul?
Paul Krauss: I don't have the file. Oh, you mean just an overview?
Terry Johnson: Yeah. That might show lots.
Paul Krauss: I'm afrald we don't have one.
83
City Council Meeting -. October 14, 1991
Terry Johnson: The reason I ask that is because I thought it might give you a
better idea of what we're up against. I think this property is a little bit
unique in comparison to some of the other association properties that are out
there in that it is only 69 feet across the lake and is only 30 feet deep. It's
hard to tell from the pictures from the pamphlet that I know that you all have
but the back of the association property is my property. Hou they ever drew up
these lots I don't know but like John said, right nou they're taken their docks
out and their docks cover the whole property. The wheel of the dock is right on
my property on one side and all the other three sides, not on the lake side.
The other three sides have got boat lifts and docks all over the place. And to
accompanying the people that want to have the boats down there and their docks,
really my feeling is, and I'm an association member also, taking away the rights
of the other members to go down there and let their children play there in the
wintertime. Let the kids go down and like John said, have a fire down there.
We do that occasionally on my property and skate and that type of thing. The
other thing that I have a little bit of an issue with as far as with the way
this letter was written is if you look at about the third sentence it starts
out, if I may read it. On June 3, 1991 staff wrote the Homeowners Association a
letter stating they were in violation of the City Code and that they must reduce
the use to the recreational beachlot to what existed at the time the ordinance
was adopted. That may lead you to believe that letters were just recently
written from the City and the City Attorney to the Homeowners Association that
they needed to limit the useage of that lot to 2 boats which is what we believe
is grandfathered in at 1982 when the ordinance was changed. Up to this point
they pretty much have done whatever they wanted with that lot. But if you were
to look into the records you would see explicitedly that there has been a number
of letters written from Barb Dacy, I believe also the City Planner from back to
3 or 4 years ago and I personally know of about 3 letters that have been written
asking these people to adhere to the ordinance. Since that time we have talked
to them at Association meetings. Have had numerous discussions and basically
nothing has happened. We decided to go to a lawyer and have some counsel and
ask them what we should do and they've written letters back and forth and
corresponded with the City and since that time, as we've mentioned, your City
lawyer wrote the association and told them that they should adhere to the 2
boats which would adhere to the City Ordinance and that hasn't been done.
They've declined to do that and basically we're sitting at the same place we
were 3 years ago. That's why we feel our situation is a little bit unique to
the other associations there and we ask you tonight to act on this. To ask your
lawyer to continue to pursue it and to not throw us in with the rest of the
associations that may only take 2 or 3 months to decide and again the issue may
go on for 2 or 3 years. It's my feeling that when it does come up, as much as
Councilmember Wing said that they seemed to cooperate, all I've seen in the
past, and I've had discussions with you on this I thought Dick, that they've
said that there's been very little cooperation. At least I know that's been the
situation with us and I know I've had discussions with you about it.
Councilman Wing: But Terry one comment on your problem being unique. Your
problem as I see it addressed several other ones on Lake Minnewashta are mlnor.
We're talklng about associations having taken over other lots. Moored boats in
front of other people's houses, etc., etc..
Terry Johnson: That doesn't sound like cooperation to me.
84
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Councilman Wing: But because of these problems and staff has not taken it upon
themselves to try and create a new direction and to solve the problem. I guess
my recommendation, being in the middle of this and having attended the meeting
today and having talked with Paul, that request for staff direction simply be to
pursue the new ordinance. The new permit system and see if that will resolve
your problem. In fact the only permit they'll be allowed will be the 2 boats if
we go by what the intent is here which is what you're asking for anyway. It
will take a little time but by this spring everybody, if this permit is in fact
enacted, everybody will have to have a permit that has a recreational beachlot
and the number of boats, docks, everything they can do will be spelled out. And
I do correct Paul, it should resolve the problem as ! see it.
Paul Krauss: We hope it does. I guess it's tough for me to sit here and tell
you definitively that 2 boats would be the final answer there. I don't know
what will. Roger may wish to comment too. I suspect that if we took this to a
Judge right now who knew we were in the process of revising an ordinance that
the case is based upon, that we may have some difficulty getting...to give us a
reading on that. I don't know Roger, would that be a problem with him...
Roger Knutson: Potentially could be. Judges do everything to get people to
resolve these things between themselves. If they can find a good reason to go
back and work it out ourselves, they usually do.
Terry Johnson: Roger, can I ask you were you the one that wrote the letter?
Roger Knutson: No.
Terry Johnson: As the City's attorney, are you familiar with it?
Roger Knutson: Yes I am.
Terry Johnson: It sounded to me like there was some pretty strong language that
was used in the letter from your office to the Association and it gave me the
feeling that you belleve that we were correct in thlnklng that there should be
only 2 boats there and I feel like this has been tabled so many times since
llke I said, lt's been at least 3 years that I know of and wlth the letter that
your office put out, my feeling was that let's get this thing done. It's been
tabled many tlmes before. I'm here to ask that you make a decislon and we get
this thing resolved. Only that you ask the Association to adhere again to the
ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: The only problem I see with that right now Terry is that as Roger
just stated it, we don't have our things pulled together before we go in there.
He's golng to tell us to go back and just try to get it resolved.
Terry Johnson: You mean if you use a Judge?
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. And I think what they're basically saying right
now, we feel we're taking the appropriate action by pulling things together
wlthin the ordinance in ltself and that we pursue that particular part. Once
that's done in indicating that there are 2 boats going to be there and that's
lt, should resolve the lssue of maklng the other 2 boats out of there. $o it's
just going to take a little bit more time. I think you've been patient for 3
85
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
years and I understand that. I thlnk lt's just golng to take a llttle more tlme
for us to pull these things together to get them effected so we can really
enforce that part.
Roger Knutson: Just to make up one little short point. Crimlnal prosecution
does not enjoin someone from doing something. Frankly we often use it as a tool
to get problems solved but traditionally what the Judge would say for example
if he found that the 2 boats are all that should be there, he's going to ask
what's out there now. By the tlme I can get this thing to trlal, I know what
the answer's going to be. There aren't going to be any boats there.
Terry Johnson: In fact today there are no boats there. But my problem is
Mr. Mayor that tile safety issue, wh£ch has been a problem in the past and John
had mentioned a couple lssues. The problems that he's had down there.
Myself, I've got young children and what happens with this 69 foot lot is and I
understand. People come in and they want to drop their klds off when they're
skiing right in front of their lot. It's 69 feet uhlch the rest of the lots
around there, most of them are 100 feet or more and wlth 69 feet comlng in at 30
or 35 mph in a speed boat, trying to drop a skier off and everybody wants to get
off rlght in front of thelr dock, they buzz by my place. I've had numerous
lnc£dents of, a couple of them where they came within 10 feet of my wife laying
on a mattress and lt's scares me about my wlfe. Zt scares me about my chlldren
out there now. They could walk out to the end of the dock, a boat could come
buzzlng by at 30 mph or 2 of them or 3 of them or 4 of them speedboats whlch ls
what I think they've had there the last couple years and what the Association
thlnks they can have now is 4 or more speed boats on thls 69 foot lot. It's
totally unsafe in my opinlon and it scares me that by the time something happens
with thls new ordinance, that there could be an accldent prlor to that
happening. That's why I'm pressing.
Mayor Chmiel: And I understand that. But I think what we're saying right now
that the tlme frame for something like that to happen most 11kely won't right
now because no one's going to be out there skling anymore. By the tlme sprlng
comes, hopefully this can get resolved through the ordinance somehow. And
that's I think the approach we're trying to take right now because of the
concerns that Roger has indicated before as to the positlon that the Judge would
take. We have to go the route that we're going before we do much more.
Terry Johnson: I appreciate that. ~ppreciate all your time tonight. I know
lt's almost 2. I have to get up wlth my 2 1/2 year old daughter here in about 2
hours also but I appreciate your time. Appreciate your listening to me.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you.
John Merz: One more question. Assumlng that there's golng to be no action
taken on thls and I assume that that's the way lt's going, w111 the 2 boat lssue
be a part of the new. Will the 2 boat issue with the exlsting ordinance, wlll
that be considered in the permitting process comlng thls sprlng? Zf I could get
an affirmative response from that question, then I would at least have something
to go on and say yes. Z u111 lndeed endure the more patlent route here and I
would like to see that. If it's not going to be a part of this process, and
~ know that I'm asking something that's very difficult for you to answer, but an
indication one way or the other would be beneficial to me.
86
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Roger Knutson: If the ordinance is passed and I assume it's going to pass. I
think it ~ill...almost 2:00 in the morning. They're going to have to come in
and get a permit and that permit process will be they have to come in and we're
going to ask them what do you think your grandfather rights are. You can come
in and say based on something, we have a right to 100 boats or 4 boats, whatever
they say. They come in here and say they only have a right to 2 and here's our
evidence. That you only have a right to 2 boats. This Council will then issue
a permit. Agrees with you and says it's 2 boats, it's 2 boats. If we go out
there and find 3, we prosecute them.
John Merz: Thank you very much sir. Thank you very much for your time. I
really appreciate lt.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Okay, we'll move along with the last item 14.
APPROVE SPECIFICATIONS FOR MEDICAL INSURANCE~O COV£RASE, ASSISTANT CITY
NANAGER.
Councilman Workman: So moved.
Mayor Chmiel: I would second that. This is the first time this is going to
happen that we're going to go out for bids and I think that's the way to do it.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, on the Frontier assessment, what's our method of
reaching a decision with the problems we had tonight? We sent this back to
staff. We st111 haven't done the Frontier assessment. What ls our methodology
going to be here?
Mayor Chmiel: All those things they're going to puli together. All the
discussions that we had today.
Councilman Wing: What's the timeframe? By the 28th again?
Mayor Chmiel: Oh yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: Also, on the Notermann update, I'd like to have that at
the next meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: Just a minute. We have a motion on the floor with a second.
Councilwoman Oimler: To do what?
Mayor Chmiel: To approve the specs for the medical insurance/HMO coverage.
Councilman Mason: I think it's too bad this is coming up at a quarter to 2:00.
Councilman Workman: We could probably pass it off to tomorrow night.
Councilman Wing: I'd like to table it if I might.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you have some concerns?
Councilman Workman: I withdraw my motion.
87
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I'll withdraw my second if you have some concerns.
Councilman Mason: Todd's real happy now.
Todd Gerhardt: I'm not golng to be there tomorrow.
Councilwoman Oimler: Also, I would ask that the update on the Notermann, Lake
Ann Interceptor assessment because they ute taken out of the project and I just
want to make sure. Staff was going to follow up on that and work with them.
That doesn't have to be by tomorrow though.
Mayor Chmiel: We are going to then take the HMO tomorrow night. Tonight.
That's right. Thls evenlng. Can I have a motlon for adjournment?
Councilwoman Oimler moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 1:45 a.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
88