1989 10 09
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
0CTOB~ 9, 1989
Mayor Chniel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. ~ne -B-~cting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MMMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chniel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman,
Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Johnson
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Paul K~auss, Jo Ann Olsen, Gary Warren, Lori
Siets~na, Todd Gerhardt, Jim Chaffee and Dave Han~e~r, City. Attorney
APPR(Iv-AL OF AnRNDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the agenda with the following additions: councilman Boyt wanted to
discuss Frontier Homes, Lake Lucy. access, and Pleasant View s~ control; Mayor
Chstiel wanted to discuss David Headla's resignation from the Planning
C(x~tission; and Co~v~cilman Johnson ~Bnted to discuss the vacancy on the
Southwest Metro Transit Cc~ission. Don Ashworth had an Adminstration
Presentation, an [~sdate on the Pauls' acquisition. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
RMCYCLING PRIZE DRAWING: Mayor Chniel drew 5 names for the recycling prize
drawing to split the $5~M.00 pot into $100.00 per each of the names.
CONSENT AGENDA: co~cil~man Dimler moved, councilman Workman seconded to
approve the following consent agemda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recc~endations:
c. Besolution #89-108: Approval of Resolution for Joint cooperative project
with Riley-Bluff- Purgatory Creek Watershed District, Lake Riley. Maintenance
d. Approve Grading Permit, R~me Building Site, 1450 Park Road.
e. Approval of Bills.
f. City co~cil Minutes dated September 25, 1989 Planning Cc~nission Minutes dated Se~r 20, 1989
Park and I%screation Cc~nission Minutes dated Sept~m~e_r 12, 1989
g. Resolution #89-109: Approve Resolution Authorizing Acquisition of .the
Bongard Property.
h. Set Budget Worksession, October 16, 1989, 7:30 p.m. at City Hall.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATION: ~ITY CENTER TASK FORCE.
Lori Siets~ma: As stated in the material that's in your packet, the ~ity
Center Task Force is planning to take their findings and the research to the
cc~munity in community meetings in the next couple of months. Their goal is to
get residential input on issues regarding the cc~minity center. This it~n is
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
appearing on your agenda tonight to answer any c~.lestions that the Council may
have and also to ~mke sure the co~tunity center is on the right track. That
this is the right way that you'd like to see them going. In addition to that,
they wanted to make you aware of the budgetary implications that a special
referend~m~ ~y have if it comes to that. There are ~ers of the Cc~ity
Center Task Force here tonight to answer any questions that you ~y have and
hear your co~nts.
Mayor Chmiel: Are there any specific questions? Most of you probably have read
already in the Council packet the stat~nt of purpose for the cc~unity center.
Any specific c~.~estions that you ~my have regarding any of the infor~k3tion
provided?
Council~n Johnson: I had one. Part of the whole overall plan is to acq~ire
sc~ land at the grade school site. Is the cost to acquiring that land figured
into these and has that land owner been contacted and have any kind of idea what
kind of deal he wants?
Jim Mady: Yes he has and...
Counci]mmn Johnson: Good.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I had just one question. On the esti~mted budget that
you had pulled together indicates that the estL-mte was based on the tnfor~mtion
provided by Mden Prairie Cc~unity Center and Minnetonka Ice Arena. What years
were these provided frcm the~ in costs?
Jim Mady: The infok~mtion co~s frc~ the b~get done for the 1988 year. ~nat
was their budget for that year and then all preceeding actual data.
Mayor Ch~iel: Paul, what' s the polm]lation of Minnetonka?
Paul Krauss: Approximately 45,000.
Mayor Chmiel: 45,000. Do you have an idea as to Eden Prairie's?
Paul Krauss: I believe they're up in the mid-thirties now.
Co~ncil~n Johnson: Are you factoring in the size differences in this?
Jim Mady: Yes we did.
Councilw~mmn Dimler: I have a c~.]estion of Lori. Lori, I received a letter
October 5th that gave ~ s(m~ info,ration about the co~unity center and then it
also had this c~]estionaire in there. Did everybody in the co~unity get one of
these? Did that go out to everybody? Yo~%r four questions?
Lori Siets~k3: This packet that was in your...
Councilw~mn Dimler: No. I got it in a letter.
Lori Siets~m: That's beca~se you're a community center task force ~mmber and
all the task force ~mm~ers...
City Co~cil ~'cting - October 9, 1989
Co~cilw~n Dimler: Okay. That has not ~-cn mailed out to the population at
large?
Lori Siets~na: No. That was just to let you know that this was coming to
Council.
Councilw~mn Dim]er: Do you intend to mail that questionaire out or how are the
people going to be...
Lori Siets~m: Tne intention was that it ~)uld be handed out after the
informational ~tings and filled out by the people that are at those meetings
to get their in[m~t following the presentation.
Councilwoman Dimler: Thank ~u.
Mayor Chniel: I guess I have one more question that I have too on the
questionaire. We have one. Do you agree there's a need for a cc~unity center
in Chanhassen, either yes or no? What ~uld you like to ~ in the cc~m~ity
center and what w~uld it consist of? Do you think w~ should have s~mething in
here regarding are you willing to increase ~ur taxes to get a little better
feel to afford this proposal?
Jim Mady: We can easily. I believe each of the four proposals being shown
w~uld actually increase everyone's taxes. That's nothing that w~'re going to be
hiding. ~nat's a very obvious thing so anyone ~ho ~mnts a co~nunity center,
there's only one way of getting it I guess and that's to pay for it. There's no
free ride on this.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I have a s~all comment on the first question. The
first question says, do you agree there is a need for a cc~anity center in
Chanhassen. I'm w~)ndering if that couldn't be rew~rded. It's a little bit
leading I think. Is there a ~ for a co~ma~ity center in Chanhassem in your
opinion so sc~thing like that other than do you agree.
Lori Siets~,a: Perhaps it could read, do you believe there is a r~. Would
that do it?
Co~mcilw~man Dimler: Fine.
Councilman Johnson: In the project cost comparison, tax implication chart. Is
that annual? Potential tax increase. Is that annual?
Jim Mady: That's ann~l.
Councilman Johnson: For how many years?
Don Ashw~rth: 15.
Council~mn Johnson: 15 year bonding?
Don Ashworth: 15 to 20. Right now the market w~uld be better on 15. If we go
to 20 and end up with a reduction in those, we'd use 20 but that's based on 15.
Co,~cil~mn Johnson: When you put that out, you ~ to give all the
City Co~mcil Mmeting - October 9, 1989
infok~mtion. Tell them over the next 15 years it's $60.00 a year, $484.00 a
year or whatever but they know it's per year and the length of time they're
talking.
Mayor Chmiel: On these cc~m~ity gro~%~ ~=etings going to be scheduled, are we
talking in starting this in the month of November?
J~l Mady: Yes. It's getting a little late to get on anybody's October agenda.
If we can squeeze a couple of the ~mller groups in, sc~ of the special groups
in we may but the ~lblic ~etings definitely would be in Nov~er.
Lori Siets~na: I think the Rotary meeting was the only one that was going to be
scheduled for October.
Mayor C~iel: And we don't have anything for the balance of the ones on the
bottom?
Lori Siets~m: Pardon ~? As far as dates? No. Those would be the open
meetings that would be held. We picked out those three schools and the dates
have not been chosen yet because we didn' t know if we'd get your direction to
continue as planned or not tonight.
Councilw~m~n Dimler: I have one other question about the one that proposes help
frc~ the school. I know that we have a letter here fr(x, Robert Ostlund stating
his support but I'm wondering that in the light of the school district's
financial probl~s, if anyone has checked with Robert Ostlund. If that still
holds and I've asked several ti~s to get an amount there and I've never seen
any money amount as to what that would consist of. Don, can you answer that?
Don Ashworth: His letter, we had a letter frc~ a year ago and then the
co~ittee asked that we try to reconfi~ their position. The letter that was
enclosed was an attempt to respond to that second c~.~estion. As to the amount,
we have given so~ general n~m~ers but we have not given a specific n[~er and
one of the c~.]estions is really wg~at's going to happen with the school
referendum. That could change that amount significantly. But we would look to
during the course of the term of the bonds, the amount would be roughly 1
million dollars.
Co[uncilwoman Dimler: Okay, this letter I was referring to is dated August 23,
1989. Is that the latest one?
DOn Ashworth: That' s the latest one.
Councilw~nan Dimler: Now was that before or after the discovery of the probl~ns
with the budget?
DOn Ashworth: It would have been after it was publically disclosed. I don't
know if school officials knew about it at that date or not.
Co~mcilw~n DLmler: This letter was written p~ior to the public disclose=e?
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: I would s[~3gest that w~ check and get their firm
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
c~mmit~_nt and try. and get an amount. A dollar a~ount2
jim Mady: One thing w~ could add to this Mrs. Dimler is that, I'm sure we will
check with Mr. Ostlund on this but the monies that the school w~uld be making
available for this project do not come out of their per pupil cost. It's money
that doesn't, it's not money they're going to gain or be able to use to offset
their deficit at this point.
Councilman Johnson: As I understand this money, it's tax increment money, that's
what they call the windfall tax increment money. That if t~. pass their
referendt~, then the businesses are going to be paying more tax increment money
and that w~uld be a windfall to the city and the city. has the option to passing
that on to the school district or if we can show good enough ~ to utilize it
within the city, we can keep it within the tax increment district and utilize it
within the tax increment district. In this case we'd be looking to pass it onto
the school with the school's assurance that they'll pt~p it back into our school
here in Chanhassen.
Councilwoman Dimler: I just %~nt to make sure it's a firm commitment.
Mayor C~iel: Any other discussion?
Council~mn Johnson: Do we r~ scme kind of motion here?
Mayor C~iel: Yes. What's the pleasure of the council as to indicating whether
the Oral,unity Center Task Force should proceed.
Lori Siets~a: I don't know that a fontal motion is necessary, as long as,
unless you otherwise indicate to us, ~f~ will proceed as we've outlined. Go to
those ccmmunity-m~ctings and bring you back the recommendation to you after
that.
Councilwoman Dimler: I think maybe we should discuss the budget item if<we have
a special referenda. If it's not going to be on the general election in
November and we're going for a special referenda, that will ~ to be budge~
for. Do we want to discuss that noW?
O~ncilman Johnson: What's the cost?
Don Ashworth: $8,ggg.gg to $1g,gg0.gg. I believe that's the n~,ber we used.
'councilman Johnson: I think I'm going to ~, before I make a decision on
whether we're going to spend $8,000.00 to $10,000.00, a lot more feedback from
the citizenry,. I think they ought to go get that fccdback and then come back.
If it looks pretty iffy like it Ms last time, I don't know if I want to spend
the $8,~00.00 to $1~,00~.0~. If it is looking overwhelming in favor, then it
may be a good idea to go ahead and do that and get it separate frc~ the general
election.
Councilwoman Dimler: Should we make that a question on the questionaire then?
Do you feel there's a r~ for a special referend~ or is Nov~m~e~ of 1990.
Councilman Johnson: I don't think we ~, that's an executive type decision
that this body should be making based on our...
City Council ~=eting - October 9, 1989
Councilw~nan Dimler: But if you want input frGn the public?
CounciL.mn Johnson: Well on the project. Not on the details of the
adminstrative way of how w~ handle the budget. I don't mind the question but
it's kind of an ~n~mual c~lestion to go off. The nok~ml citizen in Chanhassen do
not know the intricacies of the budget. In fact we don't know th~l that
terribly well.
Co~ulcilw~m~mn Dimler: They don't really have to know them if you just state, a
special referend~ will cost between $8,000.00 to $10,000.00. Do you feel it's
necessary to go for a special referenda! or wait until the November election?
Jim Mady: One little bit of info,rotation that might be helpful with that
~estion also is that if w~ wait 6 to 7 months to hold a referend~n, that will
increase the cost to any site by between $80,000.00 and $120,000.00 just because
of inflation. Construction costs and inflation.
Mayor Chmiel: Are you saying 10% of the total cost?
Jim Mady: No, not 10%. We're saying sc~ewhere in the neighborhood of 3% to 4%.
3% to 5%.
CounciL.mn Workman: What is the general figure on the cost of this?
Lori Siets~ma: Depending on the site. The rough estimate that we've cc~e up
with to date is, if it's at the City Oenter Park/El~ntary School site, it
would be roughly 3.5 million. If it's at the site adjacent to Lake Ann, to the
east of Lake Ann, it would be roughly 4.5.
CounciL.mn Workman: I guess ~ biggest concern is I guess I don't want to start
out negatively. I think the idea of a c(m~unity center is great. Don't you
hate it when s~_body prefaces sc~ething like that? I an looking closely at the
school situation. Taxes are going to rise there. I've been told by the school
district that potentially in 5 years we're going to need the new middle school
and that will more than likely be in Chanhassen. I don't know how that's going
to affect the taxes. Chanhassen's, from my view, is a real classy town. I'm
not sure what we're doing different. Pll~)uth planned to build an 11 million
dollar facility. It's now been re-esti~mted that it's going to cost th~ 12 so
they've stopped or haven' t even begun. Chaska's building between 7 and 8
million dollar facility. I'm tempted to ask if in fact ~ybe we're not doing
enough? Then in that case, if we're not, can ~ afford to do that? We
obviously can't. So are we building a cc~unity center, because I know we're
going to hear and I've been hearing that a c(x~unity center's the thing that's
going to draw our c(m~unity together. It's going to be a focal point and we
need that beca~me the school districts split us up but is the premiere facility
that people are going to ~ant to have their taxes raised for? Is there going to
be, are we going to have a fully operational hockey arena here? Is that going
to be pretty much ready to go?
Jim Mady: It depends on your definition. The ice arena will have, obviously a
sheet of ice, air conditioning with boards. That will be the extent of it.
Tnere will not be locker rooms in it initially. We will not be ~]tting stands
in it initially. Those are it~ that can be added to at a future date. We do
City Oo,mcil Meeting - October 9~ 1989
not envision holding tournaments or high school games where w~ would ~ to
seat upwards of 500 people at it initially so there isn't a need at this point
in time to do that. So we're trying to keep the costs down. We're not looking
to putting up a pole barn necessarily but we're not going to make it. You know
the thing that Chaska's doing over there with 3 swimming pools and all the
wonderful things, it's beautiful but we don't, at this point we haven't heard
input frc~ the citizens to tell us to go that route so we're coming by to the
citizens with here's how we can do it. If ~vDu want more, we can alwa~s add.
It's always harder to go down so we're looking at here's how we can do it this
way and if you want more, we'll find the prices for you and then give us the go
ahead. But these are the things that ~ know we ~ now in the cc~unity so
that's what we're going to the citizens with and finding out if they agree or
not. If we're heading in the right direction.
Councilwoman Dimler: Jim, did you say there would be no seating at the hockey
arena?
Jim Mady: Correct. At this point in time. It's being built large enough to
handle it but at this point in time the seats won't be installed.
Co,~cil~m~n Dimler: Okay, this drawing does show the seating. So you're going
to put it in later?
Jim Mady: Hopefully.
Councilman Johnson: Any consideration for seating at the pool?
Mike Nie~eyer: No seating is planned. Initial progra~,ing at this time...
Councilman Johnson: How many lanes is the pool?
Councilman Boyt: Mike, t/~y can't hear you out there.
Mike Ni~meyer: ~ne estimate in the budget established for the progr~ has been
a bare bones. A starting facility rather than an end~, enriched facility.
The plan being that we can build that as the cc~munity grows and ~nts to build
and invest more ~ney in it. The space is there for seating in the skating
arena. There's no space planned in the PoOl area. Ho~=ver, there was a pool
expansion area identified with the anticipa, tion of putting in a second potential
pool, possibly directed toward a different ~t of the cc~unity. ~nat
expansion could include seating should that be the ccan~unity's desire at that
time. The lanes in the pool, I have to admit that it was 6 months ago that we
worked on this. I believe we had 5 but I could be off by a lane or two.
Council~n Johnson: Because I know there is a segment of our population that
are into competitive swimming. We participate in several different teams.
Mayor ~iel: I guess I still, I don't ~nt to start mine negatively either but
when I ran for election and I pounded all the doors that I possibly could from
last ~wmar. M~ch the position that I had taken at the time was that I saw that
the City of Chanhassen would c~ a center, co,inAnity center per se. But at the
time, because the population growth and where we're at right now, I didn't think
was probably the most adequate time to do this. What I saw was probably from 3
to 5 ~s down the line. I thought the city could basically go into providing
City Council Mseting - October 9, 1989
these kinds of entertainment for the citizens. I guess w~'re going to wind ~
letting the citizens ~mke that final choice. I guess I want you to know exactly
where I'm coming from. I still see that sc~ewhere frcml a period of ti~ of
anywhere from 3 to 5 years down the road. I think it might be just a tad
prorate%re but that' s my own opinion.
Co~nciL"mn Johnson: I think it's ti~ to go forward with this. I do agree with
Tc~ a little bit here is that we ~my have gone too bare bones on certain things.
Sc~ locker rooms and stuff like that might be nice if you've got a swimming
pool.
Jim Mady: No there will be locker ro(m~ in the facility. Tnere just will not
be individ[~l locker rocks in the ice arena itself and the locker to(ms that we
have planned are not, they will be a step ~ from what Eden Prairie has in their
cc~unity center.
Lori Stetse~m: Basically it's the team rooms that wouldn't be included in the
ice facility.
Councilman Johnson: So both tea~ would have to use the sa~ locker room.
That'd work for a swim team but I don' t know about two hockey tea~ in the sa~
locker roo~.
Council~mn Boyt: May I co~m~ent?
Mayor C~iel: Yeah, Bill.
CounciL.mn Boyt: Having been on the cc~unity center task force for 2 years, I
think the last time we went out with a very specific plan. You're asking
questions about specifics. One of the things that ca~ back last tL, le was it
was too planned before it went to the coca,unity so I think the task force knows
a lot about different parts of the facility but they're not going out with a
pre-conceived notion about what the building's going to look like. I think the
question they've cc~e here tonight to ask is if they cc~ back and ask for a
special referendum, given co~mlty support, is the Council going to vote to do
that? Before they go out and spend 2 or 3 ~onths working to get a feel frc~ the
cc~unity, they want to know if this council supports what they're doing. I
think that's only fair. From my part, I do. I'd like to see a referend~l on
this so we can ~mke the decision and build if we're going to build in the 1990
building season and not put it off and build the cost ~.~ to 1991 or further.
But that's ~ opinion. They know ~ opinion since I've been on there for 2
years but I think they'd really like to know yours.
Mayor C~iel: I already stated mine.
CounciL.mn Boyt: Is yours then that you would support the referend[~ Don or
would you...
Mayor C~m~iel: No. I'm at the point where I don't think that I'd support a
special referend~ Bill. Spending another $8,000.00 to $10,000.00 more.
Councilwoman Di~uler: I guess I had a co~_nt. I am doing, I started about 2
w~eks ago to do sc~ polling with ~ citizens alert co~mittee and I don't have
all the results in. I have talked to sc~ of the people. I feel really
City Council Meeting - October 9~ 1989
uncomfortable making a decision without sc~e input from them and I guess right
now what I'm hearing is yes, we want a c~m~nity center. We're not opposed to
it. We just ~nt to ~ the school issue is foremost in our minds and we don't
see any hurry on the coe~m~ity center. Like I said though, I would like to
cce~lete the polling and get a more detailed feel for ~hat's going on out there.
I guess I would feel more comfortable if the question that I stated earlier
would be on the questionaire about what ~x>u ~ant to spend $8,~00.~0 to
$10,000.00 on a special referend~ or are you content to have it on in the
November, 1990 election?
Councilman Johnson: But the full cost impact should be there. A 1 year delay
will increase the cost by.
Councilwce~n Dimler: Yes, but let's make that accurate.
Mayor Ch~iel: I think too, if that's what the citizens so desire, and they so
~ant, that' s what we do.
Don Ashworth: We may have a problem. How soon we' 11 get back results but our
certification. Nomnally we would have certified to the County by October l~th.
We're now into December. I don't know if results will be known by early part of
~r or not.
Council.mn Johnson: Are you talking about for the $8,000.00 to $10,000.0~?
Don Ashworth: That' s correct.
Councilman Johnson: Don't we have the adminstrative trust fund that could cover
that next year?
Don Ashworth: As we go through the budget, you're going to be looking at
certain alternatives but I thought you were saying you wanted to ~ait until you
had in[m~t back from the c(mmittee before ~x>u'd make a decision as to ~ahether or
not to budget that money for 1990. And I'm saying, we will probably have
adopted the 1990 budget before they have omupleted their work.
Councilman Johnson: This would be, would have to make the decision next ~ to
modify the budget.
Don Ashworth: If y~u had the resources.
Councilman Boyt: So is the Council ~ saying that they want the cceettttee to
go ahead and go to the ccemunity? That you envision supporting this is the
cce~unity strongly supports it or are you saying this really should wait until
Nover~er of 1990. Let's not do it now.
Councilwoman Dimler~. Well Bill, if the question is on there, then the coemunity
will tell us what they want. That's what I'm thinking to do.
Councilman Johnson: Let's take it out. Let's go for it and see what the
citizens want and really bring it forward like you're asking for citizen input.
The last time it did come off too much like, this is the plan. This what we're
going to do. Let's support it.
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
Helen Loebl: It's j~t a brief question. What was the population of Eden
Prairie and Minnetonka when their c(x~nunity centers w~re built?
Mayor Chmliel: C~c I don't know. I personally don't. Lori, do you know?
Lori Sietse~m: It may be in this huge file but I don't know it off the top of
Helen Loebl: It see~ls like w~'re ~mll comparable to those co~unities.
Lori Sietse~m: It was quite a few years ago. Eden Prairie was significantly
s~mller than they axe now.
Jim Mady: They've do~led in the last 5 years so they were ~n~der 20. ihat was
in 1979 when Eden Prairie built theirs.
Mayor C~m~iel: I think we could probably find out.
Helen Loebl: It might be interesting.
Mayor C~iel: Good idea. Are there any other visitor presentations at this
particular t~le?
Paul Oaks: I'm Paul Oaks from Frontier Hc~s. I'd like to address the Council
regarding a letter I received signed by Jim Chaffee dated September 25th. It
refers to some h(m~eowners who apparently have some c(m~laints regarding Frontier
Hcmes. I called Jim i~ediately upon receiving this voicing our concern and he
stated to ~ that he was not aware of any problem~. I'm asking the Council now
to please tell us of any problems because we are not aware of apparently what is
happening. I mean the letter I've got here shows ~lite a bit of hostility if
you will towards Frontier H(~s. We would like to know what the probl~ are.
We cannot solve them~ if we don't know what they are.
Mayor Chm~iel: Jim, do you have any c(x~nts?
Jim Chaffee: I'm not sure if the Council got copies of the letter that I sent
to Mr. Oaks. However, I basically told th~ that we'd like for him or his
company to take care of the problems that we have received cc~lplaints on in the
past 3 or 4 months and if such were not taken care of by October 6th, then we'd
be forced to take our concerns to the media as Council directed s(m~ Council
~etings ago. I believe Paul Oaks is aware of the proble~ that have occurred
with our new hc~eowners in Chanhassen. They ~my be 3 or 4 ~nths old but we
have ~k3de those problems available to him. I did tell Mr. Oaks on the phone
that we have not had any co~%~lalnts recently except for one from the Glaros'.
To my knowledge the problems with the Glaros' have not ~n taken care of
but I'm not sure of the other proble~. Scott Hart was going to check on it
today and I was not there this afternoon so I don't know what he came up with.
Mayor (l~iel: Co~cil?
Councilman Boyt: Well this is on Council presentations. I'd j~mt as soon wait
until then.
10
City Council Meeting - October 9~ 1989
Councilman Johnson: Do you think it will take a long time. We have the
representative from Frontier H~mes here.
Mayor Ch~iel: Yep. It'd be appropos to do it now.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. I can tell you that I don't believe you. So urove it.
Paul Oaks: Recently the company went under new ownership approximately a month
ago. Since then w~'ve installed a lot of things to insure us, on bonus systems
and so forth. Tt~ ~ers signing off. That's how all our e~ployees are all
paid. Based on the homeowners signing off that all their items are complete.
They're 10~% happy with their home. Going back and taking care of the old items
which were 3 or 4 ~Dnths ago as Jim stated, is a problem. We have one real
problem with the Glaros that has gone to legal ~ay or whatever you want to call
it. ~nat situation may not be handled for a while. All other cc~plaints should
be at an absolute minim~. We have had a problem getting our carpet supply
there and our linole~ s~)l ier. He' s had a problem getting those supplies.
Those complaints may not be handled but all other legitimate cc~plain~ have
been addressed. Since under new ownership, w~ have put on the help w~'ve
for a long time. C~plaints should be at the minim~,. Certainly less than
you'll find with any other builder. We will put up our ~ again anybody.
For the quality and the price, they're unbeatable.
Councilman Boyt: Well Mr. Oaks, it's pretty easy to claim that we've gotten new
ownership so we have a new attitude. I want to tell .u~)u that I spent the
reading the newspaper about ~en Prairie out here and the 38 homeowners that
were c~lite upset. Beading the letters that were sent to me by. Frontier
H~meowners. Reading the response of the former ownership in which they flat out
lied to the City about what they were doing and getting a response the end of
August from a h~meo~ner there that detailed what ~sn't being done. The
response that ~asn't happening from Frontier H~mes. I can give you another
couple ~_=eks but I want to -_---c proof that those people are happy..
Paul Oaks: What proof do you need? Do you want copies of the signatures from
the f~meo~s that they have signed off? That all their items are complete?
Councilman Boyt: That's a good start.
Paul Oaks: Could the Council then send out a new letter. Tne damager that's
~---~n done to Frontier H~mes I feel is unjust.
Councilman Boyt: What damage has been done Mr. Oaks?
Paul Oaks: The letters that were circulated within this City. that the paper got
a hold of in reference to one of the homeowners out there. Jim Chaffee
congratulated me the first time I met him out there before there was any press
at all on this. We j~ped in. We said we would repair it. We didn't feel it
was our responsibility.. At best a 5~-5~ shot. After that _m~cting Jim thanked
me. He said, Paul, I've got to thank you for handling this. He says, I cannot
put it on you. I could not put it on the bc~eowner. We assume that
responsibilty. We're willing to assume any responsibilities for it~m~ that are
legitimate. The Council has to know the difference. Once someone has moved in,
a stain on the carpet, we do not c~me in and fix that. The Council has to know
the difference also between legitimate and non-legitimate cc~plaints. The
11
City Council M~=eting - October 9, 1989
letter will go out to the hc~=owners asking them, re willing to do whatever
it takes. Okay? It has been very slow in the past.
CounciL"mn Boyt: And you were involved with that right? From what you just
said.
Paul Oaks: Yes I was. But I did not have the tools to get the things done that
needed to be done. Now under the new ownership, I have those tools. I've hired
the ~mnpower. I've got what I need to do that.
CounciL.mn Boyt: Well my purpose was to see people in. those hc~s live in a
good quality ho~ with a responsive builder. If you're telling me you did that,
then personally I'm comfortable with waiting a couple weeks to see if that's
true.
Paul Oaks: That has been done.
CounciL.mn Boyt: ~lt I can tell you that if it's not, then I would be all for
proceeding with what we planned to do.
Paul Oaks: Tnat's a fair deal. Mbo should I be in touch with at the City?
Should I go through Jim Chaffee with these items?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I would say Jim would be the individual.
Paul Oaks: Okay. I want to thank you for hearing ~m.
Councilman Johnson: Can I ask one q~ick c~stion?
CounciL-mn Boyt: Go right ahead.
CounciL.mn Johnson: Was this the homes where ~chanic liens were placed against
these hc~s for plumbing and heating all this other stuff and have all those
liens been cleared now by Frontier Ho~=s?
Paul Oaks: The liens were placed in the process of the changi~ of the guard,
as you will. Those are being addressed by both the old and the new cc~panies
legal. The subcontractors filed their liens to guarantee that they will get
paid. It's just a precautionary measure. %he liens will be cleared up but
that's being worked out with the old and the new ownership.
CounciL.mn Johnson: Because I know that really upsets a new homeowner when they
start getting the legal paperwork that there's bc~n a lien put against their
house for sc~thing they've already paid for once.
Paul Oaks: Title insurance is purchased on every hfx,e which guarantees then of
a clear title.
CounciL.mn Work, mn: Aren't we kind of proving them correctly that there are
problemm? There have been and why would we believe anything else? I don't
understand. Dave Peterson, I could probably ask, you can probably rome~er your
own newspaper articles better than I.
Mayor Chmiel: Chris.
12
City ~o,~cil M~eting - October 9~ 1989
Councilman Workman: Ch it was Chris? Chris Burns. In your article, wasn't the
management of Frontier Hc~es kind of admitting that they had problems and they
had growth problems and they ~_re maybe trying bo do boo much too quick?
Chris Burns: I believe that was the ccee~mt made.
Paul Oaks: Yes it was.
Oo,~cilman Workman: So whether the management was new or old and swithced or
whatever, what else do we have to go on. There have ~n serious problems. I
don' t understand where you say we' re false in making those accusations.
Paul Oaks: I don' t have a copy of the letter. There was a letter sent a few
months back referring to Mr. Glaros' residence %~ere there was a major
strucb~ral probl~. The h~eowner ran a large a~ount of water into his garage.
The hydraL~lic pressure on that blew out a wall. He ran his garden hose in his
garage without a garage floor. To settle, take out the frost. Took it upon
himself to do that and it blew out a back wall. That's what started this whole
ball rolling. It's ~n nothing but gaining s~. We have had our problems.
We' re not going bo shy away from that. That's one reason we're under new
ownership.
Mayor Ch~iel: Well that's good Paul. I appreciate your ~ts and hopefully
with the approach you're taking now, these things will all get corrected and
you'll continue with a...
Paul Oaks: We sincerely hope so. We're looking forward bo building in this
city for quite a while.
Mayor C~iel: Good. Thank you. Any additional Visitor Presentations?
PUBLIC HEARING: FRONTIER TRAIL UTILITY AND ROADWAY IMP~S: AUTHORIZE
PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SP~CIFI~TIONS.
Public Present:
Nane Address
Michael Bierlein
Walter & Gelen Bielski
Helen & Bill Loebl
Chuck Dimler
Sandy & John Beger
Cberi R~ker
Dick Pearson
Babs Arons
Bob Scholer
681 Bighorn Drive
7209 Frontier Trail
7197 Frontier Trail
7203 Kiowa Circle
7191 Frontier Trail
7194 Frontier Trail
7307 Frontier Trail
7211 Frontier Trail
7201 Frontier Trail
7202 Kiowa Circle
7212 Frontier Trail
Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor, as Council will r~, Sep~ 11, 1989 we had a
hearing and received good public cceme~t at that time concerning the Frontier
13
City Council Meeting - October 91 1989
Trail utility and roadway improv~nt project. At that ti~ the item was tabled
and staff was directed to take the record, such as it was, and address any
outstanding questions that w~re left from that ~=eting and bring them back to
Council for further consideration. We have done that and attached in the packet
is a supplemental feasibility report, letter report from Bill Engelhardt.
Towards the end of yo~r packet which basically s~mrizes as best as w~ could
interpret from the Minutes any of the outstanding issues that w~re still under
consideration. We also noted unfort[%nately that the legal noti6e did not get
published in the newspaper as required by statute so as we w~re bringing this
it~n back anyway, we did take the initiative to once again publicize this as a
formal public hearing just to ~mke sure we were covering the bases. It w~uld be
my recommendation that the testi~ny frc~ the September llth ~eting be
incorporated into this record also as a part of the hearing. The residents have
all been notified once again. We thank th~ for cc~ling this evening. I would
suggest either we can invite their cerements at this ti~ as a part of the
hearing or we can give a brief su~ary of the items that we interpretted to be
outstanding that Bill has addressed in his supplement report.
Mayor C~m~iel: I think that would probably be, we'll open it up for the people
as well. Those who have already spoken at the previous ~=eting, your
info,ration is on record for our review. If you have sc~thing new in addition
to that, we'll welcc~e your input. Maybe w~ should just address these specific
questions and then go frc~ there.
Bill Engelhardt: Your Honor, ~ers of the Council, I 'm Bill ~gelhardt.
E~gelhardt and Associates. We did go through the Council Minutes as Gary
indicated. We tried to pick out what we thought ~ere some of the key questions
and concerns that the public had up on Frontier Trail. I've listed thai just
starting out. Tne [~graded roadway width. Tnat was a question on a nu~er of
people's minds. The present width of Frontier Trail ranges fro~ 24 to about 28
feet at it's widest point and it just kind of ~7~ders through there. The
average width of the present gutter line is about 27 feet. The curb
specification that we're using, the B618 c~'b is a standard curb design for
residential areas. It's also used in ~mjor roadway areas but where you have
existing homes and not a new residential area, you generally go with the B618 or
the high back curb. By using that type of curb, we gain sc~e additional width
and it appears that we could put the road in there at a uniform width of about
27 feet but would keep our gutter line at about the sa~ area that it is right
now. In sc~ cases where we hit that 24-25-26, there's going to be sc~e minor
modifications in there but generally what ~ try to do is split the distance on
each side so it's not all taken on one side if that's possible. So I think the
question about are we going to put in a 31 foot roadway, the answer would be no.
We'd be putting in a 27 foot roadway at the gutter line which gives us about a
29 back to back so it's a little bit less than the 31 feet.
Mayor C~iel: Bill, when you say gutter line, are you saying frc~l the...
Bill Engelhardt: Face of the curb. Face of the curb to the face of the curb.
The second issue that I've highlighted was the question of existing curb on
Frontier Trail. We did ~_~c pictures that I believe it was Mrs. Bovey had with
her that night. I was guessing on the age of the pictures. I said 10 to 15
years and that may be high or low, plus or minus. That was my guess. Right now
there's presently, and maybe she's here and she can tell ~ what the exact date
is.
14
City Co~cil Meeting - October 9, 1989
Gary Warren: The 1968 ~as the photo date~
Bill E~gelhardt: So 20 years. So I guess I was low but there is an existing
bit~,ino~m curb there. It looked like it was bit~,inous to us and it's
basically to control drainage. That's the purpose of what we're trying to do
with the curb and gutter that we inter~ to install. The comment was made that
sc~e of the people had a concrete curb and gutter there at sc~e time and we
can't find anything in the records where there was curb and gutter. There's no
way to really dete~line ~aho paid for it. If it ~ms there. How it was removed.
~hy it was removed or anythi~3 like that so we felt that we would be replacing
the present bituminous curb with a concrete curb and gutter. It's a new
facility and it should stay in the progra~ and beoare part of the project and
those properties would be assessed like everyone else along the road for the
improvements. Another question was the unit method of assessment versus front
footage. I've done it both way~. Typically this type of street construction
where you have all of your properties abutting on the roadway, you do it on a
front foot basis. It gets more into a legal issue other than an e~gi~ing
iss[~ because the front foot assessment is easier to defend if ~u're going to
be challenged during an assessment appeal. You have to remsmber that the
project can be assessed for benefit and ben, fit is defined as if the property
increases in market value equal to the assessmemt. When ~x)u have a front
footage assessment, it's my opinion frc~ my experi~ in other municipalities
and this type of asses~,ent procedure, that the front footage assessment ia more
beneficial or it's easier for the City to defend. I guess my recc~mer~ation
would be to stay with the front footage. It's a policy that's been proven in
the past and it's highly defendable if it was to be challenged. Not saying it
would be but if it would be, it's highly defendable. I guess just one more
point. If we had properties that, and as an example the Bluff Creek Drive for
example Ms done on a unit method that we just got done with. But those
properties w~re off of the roadway but they did have direct benefit to that
roadway. Here, all of our properties that are being assessed are right on the
roadway. That's the differemce, this distinquishing difference on those two
projects. The assessment policy, that ~ms probably the most discussed issue and
it's one of the most difficult issues of the whole program. Our feasibility
study presented several options with breakdowns where we had different splits
between the cost sharing for the city and the cost sharing for the residents.
Our recommendation was a 40-60 split where we had 40% for the property
participation and 60% for the city participation. The basis for the cost split
was derived from calculating the cost of new improv~ts which w~re not
previously in place such as the curb and gutter, and some of the roadway base
and subgrade materials and that basically came out to be about 40% of the cost.
Driveway apro~. All of the new facilities that had not ~_n there before. Now
we did contact several cities for the initial study to get their reaction and to
get their programs. At the public hearing we had available other cities that
we had contacted for about a total of 10 and our conclusion is that after
talking to all of the various cities that we did contact, was that their
assessment policy is kind of worked on over the years. F~ny of the cities that
we talked to have ~ in this process for maybe 5 to 10 years and working in
the cities and their policy is refined as they go. Your public bearings kind of
shake out on how the policy should be looked at. The worse case scenario was
w~ere 100% of the cost Ms assessed back to the benefitted properties and there
were some cities that did that. There were also some cities .that took it all
out of the general tax. The City of Burnsville for example assessed 40% of the
15
..
City Co~mcil M~eting - October 9, 1989
street replac~nt costs and then 100% of the new improvements like the curb and
gutter. This see~d to be a hybrid policy to accomplish what we thought was the
work needed without putting a buzden on the overall tax levy. I think that's
what they were looking for on that one. But it was apparent that the, at least
to ~ it was apparent that the people seem to agree that the street needed scm~
improv~_nt. That the cost for paying the new facilities, although nobody likes
to pay costs, they seem to accept that. We still feel that the 40-60 split is a
fair and equitable basis for the assess~ent on this particular project. I think
that what you w~nt to do is, I guess ~ recommendation would be not to look too
far down the road where you're trying to say well, the next project are we going
to do it a 40-60 split or are we going to do it a 20-20 because when you get
into these projects, each individual project has it's unique features and you
have to be flexible and it does give you s(m~e lattitude. Maybe after you do 1
or 2 or 3 projects, you can focus in on more of a defined cost split on them but
you want to look at reconstruction, rehabilitation projects, rates where you can
review and update th~ml annually so you could look at each individual project.
So that was kind of what I picked out as the key issues from the public hearing
and I guess I' 11 be happy to answer any q~stions that you might have or the
public might have.
Mayor C~iel: Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to address the
Frontier Trail proposal?
Larry Leebens: Good evening. I'm Larry Leebens. I live at 7201 Frontier
Trail. I want to speak to the issue of the unit versus foot frontage concept of
paying for this assessment. No~mlly I would agree with that foot frontage is
the most equal, equitable standard ~ay of doing it. I would say it would take
care of 90% of the roads that are being built because they're straight. The
amount of foot frontage correlates to the size of the lot. In the case of
Frontier Trail, becatme of the curves, there are about 5 or 6 or 7 hc~s, mine
included of course, that have a large foot frontage because of the curve. It
doesn't have any relationship to the size of the lot. It just so happens that
we're on the curve so our assess~ent will be higher because the a~)unt of foot
frontage will be greater. I think that adds a different light of this road
ccm~ared to sc~ other roads that are being built in Chanhassen. Is there a
benefit to living on a c~rve? I'm going to be paying more because I supposedly
have greater benefit frc~ living in this area and I don't agree that there is
better benefit. If you can check my ~milbox about once every 6 ~nths after
it's been knocked or my yard that's been run into and the lawn torn up. I don't
have a greater benefit by living there. I do appreciate that there is curbing
because that will help that kind of a problem. The second part of this thing is
that not only will we be assessed greater, but we don't have use of that road
because there's no parking signs so I don't have the same kind of right of using
that road as everyb(xty else on Frontier Trail but again I'm being assessed
At the last council m~=eting there was a reference to another assessment being
~mde for driveways that are circ~lar and of course I have a circular driveway.
Again, if you look at the two houses that have circular driveways on Frontier
Trail, the Friedlander house and my hc~, they're at the very sharpest points of
those curves which makes it almost a necessity to have a driveway so you can get
out and be able to see the traffic in the road so I hope that that was a joke or
whatever and that that assessment isn't being serio~mly considered.
Mayor C~liel: Larry, what is your front footage on your property?
16
City Council Meeting - October 9~ 1989
Larry Leebens: You know, I don't know. I'm sorry. I think my lot is probably,
of all of ~, is probably the least amount. I think the otbe_=r 5 or 6 on the
corner have a greater front footage than mine but mine's right up there. Thanks
for your ti~.
Bob Scholer: Honorable Mayor and Council. I'm Bob Scholez, 7212 Frontier
Trail, Chanhassen. I also own Lot 2, Block 1 of Sunrise Hills Fourth which has
access from Longview C/rcle above. In other words, it's a double lot. My.
concern of course is for the great amount of footage that I have on Frontier
Trail that I really don't receive any benefit for. That's ~ahat I want to talk
about. I agree with the ergi~cr who says that ordinarily assessments are based
on benefit. I agree with that. I think the project has been broken down cost
wise into area served by the storm sewer. In other words, any drainage cc~irg
off of the subject lot, I would have no argument .... My. first feeling would be,
I shouldn't be assessed at all except for anythirg but storm sew~_r but to be
fair I have to say, if you would do it on a unit basis, I would accept it
because it's fair to the rest of the people living in my neighborhood. That's
really all I have to say I guess to that. I haven't ~n any revised
engineering drawings. I know there was a lot of discussion that may be over in
engineering and I guess that's probably playing it safe. I want to emphasize a
point that I think a unit base is more fair. I'll also say that being in the
real estate business, that it's ~ traditional, and I alwa~us flinch ~ we
hear that. I don't think there is any such thing as typical. I think every
situation has to be looked at individually. It used to be that we would think
of an asses~nt as being full on what was the front and then maybe 15%. It
used to be 15% of the side. The feeling being that it gave a builder and an
engineer, h~eowner, an opportunity, to decide where he wanted to bring his
driveway in or even if he ~nted a circle driveway, in and out. I think there
are more people today that I see that you couldn't give a corner lot to so I
think that's a fallicy. Which brings me back to my original state~a~t that I
think a unit basis on this project is more appropriate. Whether it can be
defended or not, I' 11 leave up to the attorneys. With .uour permission and if
you have time, I'd like to address th~ surfacing of Frontier Trail through the
2nd Addition of Sunrise Hills because at other h~arings, other meetings there's
~n a considerable amount of discussion on how that road was designed. ~ it
was designed the way it was. Why it ~s surfaced the way it was. Who did it
and who paid for it. With your permission I'll read scme notes that I made back
at that time and date. Is that alright Mr. Mayor? I'll mmmarize where I can
beca~me I've also got scme notes in here of s(~e other telephone conversations
with contractors that really doesn't have any bearing on the point. On
5-31-1968, and these are notes that were dictated then, I contacted Tory
Flannilbel who was the Village Engineer, to ~_. how much gravel would be ~ed
after the Village finished sewer and water work and the repl~t of gravel
that I had already put on there when I built the roads. Tory thought very
little and went so far as to say that the Village might cooperate by giving
credit for dust coat by furnishing more gravel or some sim/lar workable credit
to enable the work, that is the blacktopping, to be done now. Tb/s would also
alleviate some of the problems between Scott and Erickson. ~hat's down on the
lakeshore. I don't r~ the lot n~,bers. I should say the Er ickson house
and the Scott house. The last t~D hcmes on the lake on Frontier Trail, caused
by gravel washing off the road and into the drainage easement. Tory suggested I
call Mayor Gene Colter or see if the Village would cooperate. I called Gene the
same day and he thought this was a good idea. He'll go alorg with whatever
Tory, the Village Engineer rec(m~ends and suggests we put the plan down on black
17
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
and white and present it to the Council. Telephone conversation with Tory on
6-3-68. The Village is willing to go as far as they can to prepare for blacktop
if I want to do the blacktopping at this time. Tne Village will place the base,
shape, roll and pri~ and they'll give ~ credit for the sealcoat. I awarded
the contract to Northern will do the w~rk and give ~ their bid the morning of
6-4. These are sc~ other conversations. A review is this. Discussion between
the Village Engineer and ~5~elf followed by a letter from the Village
Adminstrator confir~ the agrc~m~ent as follows. The Village, at their expense,
would install the base as recruited and pri~ the sa~. Scholer ~0uld install
blacktop and backfill the curbs. The Village would issue a credit to Scholer
for sealing in the amo~nt of $922.00. The Village would sod or seed as required
to restore adjoining lots to original condition before installation of
utilities. In other words, I hadn't surfaced because t_hey hadn't done the
utilities so the agreement was that they tore ever~Wching up when they put in the
utilities, they agreed to replace the Class V, the base and everything if I
would blacktop it i~iediately. Blacktop was installed on 7-11-68 by Phelan.
Engineers inspector stopped the paving on the inside of the curve past lots and
that's blank but that would be at the low spot down there by Ericksons on Block
2, S\lnrise Hills. The inspector was on the job off and on all day, day llth.
No c~m~nt to ~ that the curbs were not straight enough. The co~nt was that
the center line of the paving around the curve was moved from a foot to a foot
and a half off center to fit the existing base conditions but this was not a
problem. In fact it was considered a normal situation. Paving operation was
stopped about 8:30 on the llth. On the morning of the 12th, the inspector
informs ~ the curbs are ready for back filling. I contacted John Anderson,
Boll ig, Brendon, Northern Contracting. Northern was the only one able to do the
work i~diately but the for~n said Friday afternoon was too muddy to work.
8:00 a.m. the following Monday, the 15th of July, they would start backfilling.
3/4 of an inch of rain on Thursday night, 2.4 inches of rain Friday night, 5.5
inches Saturday. Started backfilling Monday morning JUly 15th. Adminstrator
informs ~ 7:15 Monday morning that sc~ blacktop will have to be taken up
around the curve and the gutter line straightened. Northern and Phelan w~re
notified. 7:15, attended the Council meeting. Reviewed ~ intention to lay the
blacktop, fill behind the curbs as per agree~nt but refused to be involved in
the drainage and other problems that are really restoration probl~ resulting
from the contract between the Village and the general contractor. Taen I have
the times that I have there and Northern for~nan, that's Northern Contracting
for~mn says that my part, Bob Scholer's part of their agre~m~_nt ~as fulfilled
on 7-17-68 at 10:00 a.m.. Their contract with C~m~ercial Landscaping allows 2
inches of black dirt on the be~ls. A final brush-up of the power rake. I have
on July 17th we had .20 of an inch of rain. On the 22nd ws had 1/3 of an inch.
On the 23rd we have .10. On July 30th sodding began on the boulevards. On
August 3rd boulevard sodding was cc~pleted, 1968. That's about all I have to
say about ~n~ise Hills. I can give you one letter. I have more but in the
interest of ti~. On Rosevine, which is now called Kiowa. With your indulgence
I'll just...
Mayor Ct~iel: Bob, maybe if ws could get a copy. of that so ws could review it.
Bob Scholer: I'd like to have the people here hear, with your permission. I
won't take too much time.
Mayor Chniel: Sure.
18
City ~ouncil Meeting - October 9~ 1989
Bob Scholer: I'll try to put it in order here. Mmy 22nd, 1970. Letter frc~
Schoell and Madsen to the Village of Chanhassen. We've reviewed the proposed
grade for Rose Lane, now Kio~a, as sut~itted by. Mr. Scholer and find that it
will be satisfactory as shown on the attached profile. He proposes to do the
grading, to rough subgrade elevation. That is 10 inches below the final grade
and to place a 6 inch tube in ~ sort of way to convey a drainage from ~ end
of the existing tile line. That's a fuel tile that comes in from the west.
Through the fill. ~nis should prove satisfactory, te~porarily. Ultimately a
storm sewer with t~o catch basins will have to be installed at the sag in Rose
Lane but desireably this should be done in conjunction with installation of
sewer and water. July 22nd. We've reviewed the proposed storm drain to be
installed by. Bob Scholer across Rose Lane as shown on ~s-Enutson plan. Is
satisfactory, as shown. Should provide an eamav~nt it says. My. letter to the
City, June 24th. Please be informed that I've entered into a contract to brir~3
Kiowa to rough grade in preparation for the Village's installation of sewer and
water. The contract calls for the work to be ccm~pleted on or before July 30,
1970. The contract also covers the installation of the catch basins, the storm
sewer as approved by the Village E~3ineer in his letter of June 22nd. My. letter
to the Village says please be infozmed that on July 10, 1970 I completed the
gradirg to rough subgrade elevation and the installation of t/~ storm drain on
the above subject street as shown in the ~-Cc~bs-Knutson plan dated 6-4. Upon
installation of sewer and water by. the City as outlined by the ergineer, Project
so and so, I cont~plate completing the installation of the base and the 2 inch
asphalt mat. On October 8, 1970. This letter to Schoell ar~ Madsen, copy to
the Village. Regarding Sunrise Hills sanitary sewer, wate~main extension,
Project 70-2. Before the contractor for the above referred to project is
released from obligations, this is the City now putting utilities and Rose Lane
or Kiowa, I would ask that you make a determination if there's been damage to
the underground fuel and drainage tile in the eas~,en~ between Lots 1 and 2 of
Block 3, ~u%rise Hills 2nd ;~]dition to the west of Kiowa Circle. I've ~oticed
that the contractor has driven feat equipment over that tiled area during
construction of Project 70-2 and it would se~. very possible that the aligrment
of the 4 inch clay tile has been disturbed. I kindly request a copy. of your
report on this matter. That will clear up some misunderstandirgs as to who did
what and where the obligations are. Thank you for your time.
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Scholer? You mentioned that you also owned a Lot 2 on
Block 1. Is that correct? Is that lot buildable? I guess I'm not real sure
that it is.
Bob Scholer: Yes.
CDuncilw~man Dimler: It does not have a home on it though?
Bob ~ler: ~.
~ouncilw~man Dimler: Then the other one, you made a statement that an
agreement between the Village and the general contractor. It was my.
L~dezstanding that you were the general contractor or not. Were you not the
general contractor on Sunrise Hills?
Bob Schuler: And was this referenced to?
Councilw~mmn Dimler: I don't know. You were talkirg about the blacktoppirg. I
19
City Council M~eting - October 9~ 1989
have it ~nder date 7-11-68. I was trying to write as fast as I could. I didn't
get it all down but you said scmething about that it was an agreement between
the general contractor and the Village and it made it sound like you were not
the general contractor.
Bob Scholer: No.
Councilw~m~nn Dimler: You were not?
Bob Scholer: I was referring, in that instance I was referring to the contract
that the City had for the installation of utilities with that contractor.
Councilwo~mn Dimler: And who was that contractor? That wasn't you?
Bob Scholex: No. That was the Village's, I don't want to give a name because
I'm not sure. Now I could go back and look but I don't want to take your time.
I think it was Northern.
Councilwc~n Dimler: I'm just a little confused because I thought you were the
general contractor on Sunrise Hills.
Bob Scholer: NO. Tne Village was in control of the installation of the
utilities. You see you have to understand that I was the developer. I built
the street. I put in a base. I was told to hold it because the Village was
considering [m~tting utilities through Sunrise Hills 2nd Addition. By the way
they also assessed all of the lots in Kiowa even before I built th~ml. ~nat's
why they ca~ back in at a later time because I said now you assessed, now you'd
better do it so that's why we had this agreement that when I brought it to
grade, they would do it under the original assessment. But the general
contractor was whoever they contractor was that was in charge of the
installation of sewer and water working for the city.
Councilw~m~n Dim]er: Okay, thank you.
Bob Scholer: Any other questions?
Councilman Boyt: I have a c~estion for Gary about this or Bill. One of the
two. On double frontage lots, Mr. Scholer's second lot. The lot that's not
currently built on is a double front lot. How is that assessed?
Gary Warren: Well we would have to look at previous assessments against the
property. As far as what is it, Longview Circle which is the other side of the
frontage there, and see. Again, it would have to stand the test of benefit so
the starting point, the overall policy may be a front footage assessment but we
would look at specific cases such as double front lots. This outlot situation
that we've got 3 outlots on to arrive at the final benefit.
Council~mn Boyt: It's ~ understanding that hc~s are assessed by their address
generally?
Gary Warren: As far as what we consider their front footage? Well, I think
that doesn't hold in all cases. You have to look at, for example on corner lots
we look at giving a credit to the one half of the shorter side so even though
the address may be on short side, the long side, if it's on Frontier Trail,
20
City Council Meeting - October 91 1989
would be the full assessment side so ~ere the address is doesn't necessarily
hold true all the time.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, thank you.
Mayor ~iel: Is there anyone else ~ho wishes, I thought I saw one more hand
back there.
Dick Pearson: Back when a lot of this ~s going on, I was sitting where
gentle~en were, and the things that have ~ raised for the unit assessment
were the reasons that we did it at that time as a unit assessment.
Mayor Ch~iel: Is there anyone else?
Joel Jenkins: Joel Jenkins, 7226 Frontier Trail. I'd like to do two things
this evening. Real quickly since you have everything I said last time on
record. First of all I'd like to clarify my position in reference to the
sidewalk. It ~as my understanding that we had a choice of a 31 foot r~y at
that time, not the current roadway width. It ~>uld be my position that a
sidewalk still would be beneficial to our neighborhood. Yet I would prefer to
have the same 24 foot width across the board with a sidewalk as c(~npared to the
31 foot full width road and Bill has assured me we're going to have maybe a 28
Or 27 foot road so that's fine. I still think if you look at your feasibility
study, etc. maybe there is a rational reason to, if a sidewalk is ever going to
be put in our neighborhood, that that be considered now in the feasibility study
becaLme it ~Duld be a lot less expensive now to have the engineers look at it at
this time because I'm sure that they would change the roadway direction or path
a little bit if it was determined that there was to be a sidewalk s(~et~ in
the future. So possibly, I don't know how you do this. If it ~s to be a
neighborhood percentage of the majority, rules or something like that but I think
there are scme people in the neighbor~ that are very pro sidewalks. Some
people who are not pro sidewalks and I'm not sure what that percentage would be
or if it needs to be 1~% for or 1~% against. I'd just call your attention to
maybe, at least in the feasibility of a sidewalk, especially if it's the City
policy, that the sidewalk predominantly is paid for by. city funds throughout the
c~e~unity, that it be at least looked at in your study. I would also say one
other thing and that's, I would encourage you to do this project and I think our
neighborhood gives you full support. Thank you.
Bill Loebl: Bill Loebl, 7197 Frontier Trail. Mr. Mayor and ~s of the City
Council. Having heard Bob Scholer's remarks, I find that my re~arke of last
September 11 are even more important and pertinent. What is beccming more and
more apparent is the fact that the City, your predecessors, accepted and
approved a substandard piece of construction and my neighbors and I continue to
oppose the fact that we should be asked to pay for the City's mistake. Having
said that, I have given this a lot of thought and have ccme up with several
constructive suggestions which I would like to present to you. The first
suggestion I have is to postpone reconstruction of Frontier Trail until a road
restoration fund is available which should be started L-mediately. I believe
that every, property owner would feel much better about paying a few dollars into
the fund everytime we pay our real estate taxes and then after 2 or 3 years,
there might be enough money to pay for Frontier Trail out of this fund and the
City could have it constructed the way it ~nts it. At the time the fund is
established, a priority list should be started and Frontier Trail should be
21
City Council Mmetlng - October 9, 1989
first on the list because obviously it's badly in need of repair. There's no
question that such a fund would be needed anyway in the future as the City grows
and the sooner you start, the better off you will be down the road. The
mechanics of setting up and operating such a fund can be investigated easily by
contacting cities which have such a fund in operation. ~en Prairie and
Shoreview are listed in the study here and I'm sure that there are others who
have such a fund which you could approach. This proposal also addresses the
long te~l planning which should have replaced the hand to mouth operation under
which the city is now operating. It would also be relatively painless for
everybody. We on Frontier Trail would not be paying for the original mistake to
the extent that we're asked to pay for and it would mark you as the wise city
fathers for which I'm sure you would like to be r~ered in the future. The
second idea I have is...
Councilw~m~n Dimler: And mothers too.
Bill Loebl: City persons. My apologies. The second idea I have is to forget
about reconstruction and contln~ to patch the road when necessary. I have
lived with this for 11 years and sc[,e of my neighbors for a lot longer. It has
two advantages. One, of keeping down the s~ at which people drive. Also,
people will be less inclined to use the road because there are better roads in
the neighborhood. Finally, I have a question which I would like answered. In
the past several weeks I've noticed in the newspaper several references to
ex~ptions frcm assessments being granted to hc~ieowners age 62 and older.
Plymouth has such a policy and several others which I forget right now. What is
Chanhassen's policy on granting exemptions to people 65 or over? I hope my
suggestions will let you find a solution which will be less painful to us
property owners than what is proposed in the feasibility study. Thank you.
Don Ashworth: State statute addresses the issue. The City endorses that and
there is a deferment for senior citizens but at issue is one of based on
financial ~. So the senior citizen involved would have to show that there is
a financial need for that deferment. Records are kept confidential, from the
applicant, but that must be s~m~itted. Did you wish to state anything else
Dave?
Council~mn Johnson: Tnat's a deferment?
Bill Loebl: A deferment is not an ex~%~tion.
Don Ashworth: I don't know of any exemption.
Bill Loebl: Plymouth has it for one.
Dave Hard,yet: It's a council policy but the State Statute that Don is
referring to talks about deferring assessments for senior citizens if the
Council adopts number one, either an order or n~er two, a resolution setting
up that procedure. One of the conditions that has to be addressed is whether or
not the particular defermsmt is a hardship on the individual that is requesting
it. As fax as ex~ption goes, that would deal strictly with an assessment
policy that the Council might ~ant to consider. It's an unusual kind of a thing
because a portion of law says that assessments have to be spread uniformily and
if you ex~pt senior citizens, not based on hardship, then you're uniformity
sort of flies out the window.
22
City OOumcil Meeting - October 91 1989
Bill Loebl: Thank ~u.
Mayor Ch~iel: Is there anyone else? If hearing none, I would entertain a
motion to close the public hearing.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. T~ public hearir~3 was
closed.
Councilman Johnson: I think one of the issues brought up that I'm interested in
is unit versus front footage. I think w~ should set an assessment policy not on
what's defensible in court but what's fair to the people. In this case, when I
think the statistics was 60% or 70% of the assessments would be increased if we
w~nt to a unit basis versus a front footage, indicates to me that 60% tO 70% of
the assessments axe gettin~ better treatment than the other 30% to 40% of the~.
Those particular people with the longer front footages are footin~ a lot of bill
for other folks. When you have a street with a curve, you're going to have one
guy on one side of the curve with a whole lot of front yard and the other guy's
on the opposite side of the pie, he's going to have a very s~all front yard even
though they have exactly the same a~ount of square footage. Taey both may drive
2 cars amd they both drive on the same street. They both get the sa~e benefit
from the street so just because the other guy chose to live on the other side of
the street doesn't mean he should pay 2, 3, 4 times as much for the benefit to
live on that side of the street. P~ also gets a lot more enow plowed into his
yard every ~ear as the snowplows c~me by. So in this case I think it needs to
go, every assessment needs to go on a case by case basis and to me in this
particular case with the curvatures of the streets and the unequalness of this,
that a unit basis seems more appropriate to me. And I think the project does
need to continue on. It is probably one of our worse streets. I also think we
need, we don't ~nt to hold this one up for a couple y~ars ~hile we build a
fund. Another version of doing that versus building a fund is to have the fund
capable of doing assess~emt reductions. So although we may levy an assessment
at this ti~, that we can also create a fund to help pay those assessments
versus having a fund that pays for the street, have a fund that helps pay for
assessments which is something that I've talked about for a couple years.
Especially in places where there's a hardship to help senior citizens and other
people out. There' s been several times that we' ye, the past councils have
deferred special asses~ents to people for 5 y~ars or something and at the end
of 5 years, all of a sudden they've got this whole special assessment to pay.
So what do they do? They close the family fazm and they sell it off to a
developer to subdivide and they're off of their family farm and it's gone. I
don' t think defexments have ~ a real godsend to anybody. I may have delayed
the inevitable but it also almost increased the timing of when scmeb(x]y had to
sell off the family fanta. In one particular case when I moved into my house, I
talked to the neighbor behind me and he said, they'll have to carry me out of
this house feet first. I've lived here 60 years. I don't plan on ever moving.
Then he deferred a special assessment and 5 years later be sold off to a
developer when t/~ special assessment csme due. While I agree there are sc~e
hardships, especially people on fixed ~, the retired, that adding to the
cost of their hemes is unfair and we need a mechani~ to work with this. I'd
like to start looking at a special assessment reduction fund that is a
discretionary fund of the Council to approve.
23
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
Mayor C~mliel: 19917
Counci]m~n Johnson: Yeah. 1991 at the soonest.
Don Ashworth: I'd like to research that issue a little more. Anytime that you
switch from a special assessment program to so~ other type of program, you
typically end up with double costs. Right now you have projects that the city
property owners are still paying costs associated with the north sewer area.
Projects that have been done for the last 10-15 years. When you have a project
such as this one that will be assessed over a 15 year period of time, whatever
the ti~fra~ we used, and there is going to be a city participation along with
that, we in fact are obligating outself, ever?one here, to pay that amount, the
city portion, every year for the next 15 years. In a way you have established a
reduction program or n~ans by which we're all contributing to that because we're
all contributing to costs associated with Kerber Blvd., Erie, Chan view. When
those streets were built in that neighborhood 2 to 3 to 4 years ago. When we
did Carver Beach. The assessments associated with that. Greenwood Shores. The
sewer and water. Tnose were carried out over a 15 year period of time. ~nere
was a general obligation portion that went along with those. Again, if you move
from one method of paying your bills, you might say, to another method, you
typically will end up with a double cost because you still have those costs to
pay off and yet you're saying, establish a f~u~d so we don't have to carry these
over a period of years. Again, we can look at that as a part of the budgetary
process but it is quite expensive because you are taking do~le hits.
Councila~n Johnson: I think one of the ~min purposes of this fund is for
rebuilding existing roadways. ~nis is one of the first that the people have
already paid for the roadway once. It's now done it's useful life and we want
to rebuild it and there's quite a few others that will probably be coming up to
a useful life. Pleasant View and scum in Carver Beach and sc~ all over this
city. So this is s(anething that's going to continue to rear it's ugly head is
how do you do these projects as we ~mture as a city. We need to, I think start
collecting monies now. Putting it aside for everybody's road. Your street and
my street in another 20 years is going to need to be rebuilt. Mine's falling
apart already but.
Gary WRrren: Mr. Mayor? Just a c~ick co~l~t. If the Council would be leaning
in that direction, I think really what is the appropriate for~ for that is to
establish a payment nmnag~nt p~ogram wherein we do an inventory of the city
streets and prioritize streets and ~ke sc~ estimates as a part of that program
to establish what the total financial burden to the City would be. If we're
going to get into a 4 year, 8 year, 20 year type rehabilitation on these roads.
~nat's really the state of the art at this point in ti~ that a lot of
co~m~unities are going to. Where they are able to, through this initial study
which does take so~ detailed inventory of the streets themselves, they come ~t~
with scme reasonable projections on the cost burden and then can look at the
financial avenues that are available also.
Mayor Ck~iel: I keep thinking about when I first moved into my hc~. I had
rougly about a $10,000.00 assessment on that with road, sewer, water, and curb.
Whether you provide for it now and set ~o something or you pay for it over the
15 year period, I'm not sure what the cost differences would be to put into a
fund as opposed to pay what yo[~ asses~nt basically is. You have ti~frames
24
..
City Oouncil M~eting - October 9, 1989
either way. You either start putting money aside or you pay for it as you go
and as I have. I'm not sure.
Co~ncilman Johnson: Was that rebuilding your road or just putting it in?
Mayor Ch~iel: New road. Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Dimler: I'd like to address something that wasn't addressed h~re
this evening and I did talk to Bill Arons about it. He is an engineer and he
expressed a concern and I know Bill met with Bill Engelhardt and also with Joel
Jenkins. About this stom~ sewer, and I realize that if you're going to have
curb and gutter, you're going to have to have collecting points but it was his
feelin~ that w~ had too many catch basins that were shown on the drawings and I
talked to Gary about that too today. I guess I would just like to reiterate
that if we keep the project costs down, that no matter what percentage we
charge, the cost will be down to the people that are affected amd I would jusf
like to see that we do that. And that it was his feeling that we design for
what happens between 75% to 85% of the time and not for a catastrophe. Bill
said he had to be out of town this evening but he would be available-to meet
again with the engineers if it w~re necessary. He would be back on Wednesday.
I guess one cc~ment I'd like to make on ~ assessment. I don't think we need
to make a decision right now unless Gouncil desires to do so. I don't think
that will probably be until 1991 or so when that will ~ before us but with
M~. Scholer's explanation of how the Village ~s involved and the road has been
called substandard, many people feel it was substandard to begin with. I would
like to suggest that we do give a break and perhaps go with the
Mayor Chniel: As opposed to 60-4M?
Councilwoman Dimler: Right.
Mayor Ch~iel: Any. other discussion?
Councilman Boyt: I have a couple as we work down here. I think if the City's
proposing, as I understood it, that 60% of the cost of this was replacing the
existing road and 40% was bringing it up to city standards for an urban road.
So what I hear the City. saying is we're going to pay for 100% of replacing the
existing road and we're going to ask the residents to pay for 100% of upgrading
the road. Now maybe there are other scenarios but that sounds like exactly what
we would do if this was a new develotx~ent and we'd charge the residents 100% for
the new road they got. Is that right? Gary, did you follow that?
Gary Warren: I don't think I got all of it.
Councilman Boyt: Well let's start at the end of it. When the City asks, when a
developer co~=s in and builds a new road, how much of that does a developer
typically pay for?
Gary Warren: The developer covers all his costs for the installation. Passes
than onto the property owners typically when they buy the lots.
Councilman Boyt: And that would be, say in Chan Vista that would have been
ashpalt plus curb and gutter.
25
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
Gary Warren: Full city standard that is being constructed.
Councilman Boyt: So the property owner is paying 100% of that and the people on
Frontier paid 100% of whatever was built in 1968, I would assu~e. So now what
the City is saying is we'll replace that, paying for all of it. Taen they're
asking the people on Frontier Trail to pay for the upgrade.
Gary Warren: That's basically what we've been saying. Tne 40% recognizes what
for the ~)st part wasn't built before. What's new to the roadway basically.
Council~mn Boyt: I agree that this deserves a whole separate hearing all by.
itself. Just on the face of it se~ to make sense that we're asking the people
on Frontier Trail to pay what we would ask any group to pay. Now ~mybe there's
a hole in that logic scmewhere and we've got a whole year and a half or 2 to
figure out what the hole is. That's how it would se~m to ~. The other, as far
as reconstructing the road or not reconstructing the road, I asked Gary to ~mke
a very rough estimate and apparently we can count on spending, or this year
we've spent sc~where in the neighborhood of $5,000.00 to patch the road. Maybe
more. Maybe a little less. In the ballpart of $5,000.00. Gary did an even
rougher estimate to suggest that 2-3-4 years fr(x, now that would be looking at
$15,000.00 a year. Maybe ~re. Maybe less but it's going to go up. Tnat the
study shows the road is shot. I think ~)st of us who drive it would say that's
probably right. SO what I see the City looking at is do we want to rebuild the
road and I honestly don't know if the city has the money to do that personally
but if we go ahead, we're going to find the money s(m~ewhere. Or does the City
want to continue to pay an increasing amount to repair the road and try to keep
it healthy frc~ one winter to the next? Good question but I think a lot of
that, I think it's well worth doing the plans and specifications because so~
day that road's going to c(x,e out of there and when it does, we're going to need
this information so I'd be all for getting it. I think when we do, that we
should find out, because this is on the official city sidewalk trail ~mp, we
ought to do the plans and specifications for the sidewalk. It's very little
additional cost and Gary tells ~ that it will change the way the road's layed
out slightly if a sidewalk's last in there or not. SO if we're ever going to do
it, we ought to design the road so it can take it s(~eday. Whatever that day
is. SO I would like to see us authorize the preparation of plans and
specifications knowing that in all likelihood we'll probably proceed with this
because we' re going one more step down the path in that direction but I think
the City needs to look at the question that Gary's raised about how are we going
to fund these things. I think we're talking about $700,000.00, in that
neighborhood, for this project and that's cc~ing out of our bonding capacity, as
I understand it. That's a big decision. SO how in the long run are we going to
fund this stuff? I can tell you that we're not going to do very many projects
at $700,000.00 a pop out of our bonding capacity because we don't have that kind
of ~)ney in that capacity.. So I would like to see the preparation for plans and
specifications approved with the addition of sidewalk plan.
Councilman Johnson: Is that a motion?
Mayor Chmiel: It's still open for discussion.
Councilwoman Dimler: I would like to address that please. I think without
public hearing or public input for this sidewalk, I would be relunctant to put
it in and for one reason only and that is that once it's in the plan, people
26
City Council Meeting - October 9~ 1989
will cc~e hack amd say, w~ll see here it is. In the plan. We've got to put it
in. I gL~ss I don't have a real feeling for where the residents stand on the
sidewalk at this point and I would prefer not to put the sidewalk in at this
time.
Mayor Ch~iel: Yeah. I think that's...
Councilman Boyt: W~ll I'd like to respond to that. Correct me but w~ can't do
it both ~ays. We either approve this to include those plans or w~ lose the
opportunity to ever do that because that would mean ccming back and redoing all
the plans and specifications again.
Councilwoman Dimler: Gary, would ~u address that?
Mayor Ch~iel: For a sidewalk?
Councilwoman Dimler: Is it possible to do just Frontier Trail and then put a
sidewalk in later like w~ do with so many other roads?
Gary Warren: Well w~ have been doing that the last year and a half now that
w~'ve gotten into the program. Let me say that it's more efficient to do it at
that time. The plans could be prepared to show the sidewalk as an alternate and
either bid it and not accept the alternate or don't bid the alternate but at
least the plans could show so the design of the roadway, any horizontal or
vertical alignment issues could be sho~n to ~te the sidewalk and not go
any further than that so at least ~ have made ~ahatever provisions necessary in
the road al igr~ent to acc~n~odate the sidewalk.
Mayor Ch~i~: What additional costs would that involve Gary for that distance?
Gary. Warren: I think frcm a design standpoint, since the design fizm would be
designing the sidewalk as part of it, he's entitled to"his 6% fee ~hich is
typical for that so if w~'re looking at a $50,000.00 rough estimate for that
sidewalk, it's a $3,000.~0 cost roughly for including that in the plans and
specs.
Mayor Ch~iel: Would it be the same distance as wa have along Frontier as mbat
~ have on Laredo?
Gary Warren: Same distance?
Mayor Ch~iel: Dength.
Gary ~rren: I would think it' d be longer. It' d be pretty close probably.
Councilw~mmn Dimler: Gary, did I hear you correctly. You're going to do two
studies. One with a side, talk and one without?
Warren: Studies?
Council~mmn Dimler: I mean t~D specifications.
Gary. Warren: It would be one plan set and basically it would be dealt with in
the actual bid proposal. Whenever the project is decided to be advertised for
27
City Council Meeting - October 9~ 1989
· ..
bids, at that ti~ w~ either tell the...
Co~ncilw(m~n Dimler: You can leave the sidewalk out at that point?
Gary Warren: Yeah, w~ can delete it at that ti~ or incl~]e it or bid it as an
alternate to see what the dollars would be and still refuse to accept that
portion of the bid. So there is flexibility in it.
Councilwoman Dimler: But you did say it would alter the road?
Bill Engelhardt: Can I just clarify one thing? If we take an alternate bid and
the Mayor asked a question on the design fee of the sidewalk. If you take the
alternate bid, the engineer, my engineering fee is based on the award of bid so
if you w~re not to award the sidewalk, you wouldn't be paying for the sidewalk
as a design fee. What it does is it gives you the opportunity to have a price
in front of you. You can take a look at it and say, gee does it make sense to
put the sidewalk in at $1.00 a square foot because we got a good price. What
the residents say. What the...say of if we get a $5.00 a foot it doesn't ~mke
any sense to do it so it gives you a lot of flexibility and then you can make a
good decision as to whether it should go in or not. I guess I would say don' t
worry about the design fee which if it's not awarded, I don't get paid for it.
Gary Warren: Tnat's quite generous on Bill's part but I would think he'd be...
Mayor C~iel: Would you like to repeat that in the mic Bill?
Gary h~xren: He'd be entitled to a fee if he wanted it.
Councilman Johnson: So basically by incl~x]ing the sidewalk in the plans and
specs at this time, we'll have more infor~mtion to put in front of the citizens
when we talk about doing this project when we have the next ~=eting, which there
will be more ~=etings for approval of plans and specifications. Which will be
the time, at that ti~ to say, okay do we want to do it? W~'ll have ti~
between now and then to discuss these issues with the citizens without having to
delay the project.
Mayor Chniel: And whether or not do all the residents want sidewalks.
Council~mn Johnson: Yeah. That's the jest of it.
Councilw~nan Dim]er: That's alright with me as long as everyone understands
that just because it's in the plans and specifications, it's not autc~uatically
going in.
Council~mn Johnson: Nothing is autocratic.
Councilwc~n Dim]er: Well, sc~tL-~s that's the way it's presented.
Councilman Work~n: I don't have a whole lot of co~nts. This is a really
exciting topic. We're talking about an awful lot of money. It puts us in a
position the new co~ncil hasn't been in .vet and we we're not talking about
cracker jacks. If there ever were a test as to whether or not we should have a
sidewalk on a certain road, this may very well be it. It's certainly not a
cul-de-sac. I' 11 let the residents decide if they want a sidewalk or not. I
28
City Council F~eting - October 91 1989 -
think it should be 8 foot wide bitu%inous though on Jim's side. Just at Jim's
house. With a brid~e. Covered. I think we should move on this. I'm not going
to bore everybody. I'm very interested in listening to this. I am intrigued by
the per unit cost. I know those curves, when ~u really ask yourself the
question ~hat extra benefit is a person with more frontage in that situation
goirg to have, I don't know that I've found the answer .vet so sc~y's going
to have to, I understand why you're doing it per foot and everything but that's
a bend, that's a pretzel. I w~uld I guess go along with the sidewalk again and
ask for Bill to restate his motion so maybe I can second it.
Councilman Boyt: I would move that w~ authorize the preparation of plans and
specifications for Fronfier Trail utility, and roadway imurov~ts including the
plans and specifications for a sidewalk.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Besolution #89-11~: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for Frontier Trail utility
and roadway improvements including the plans and specifications for a sidewalk.
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Johnson: Hopefull we won't, because a lot of the discussions we've
had that the other issues, the side issues of how are we going to do this in the
future and special assessment reduction funds and all these other issues...
Mayor C~iel: Case by. case situation Jay.
Councilman Johnson: Right but we ~ to be looking into that in a more
comprehensive as more of these streets start going.
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO VACA~ A PORTION OF CSAH 14 RIGHT-OF-~Y.
Councilman Workman: I 'd move approval.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Councilman Johnson: You've got to open the public hsaring first.
Mayor C~iel: I already, did. I called it as a public hearing.
Councilman Johnson: I thought I heard sc~y move to approve it.
Mawr C~iel: Gary?
Councilman Boyt: Can we just see if there's anyone here fr~m the public? Save
some time.
Mayor C~el: I think maybe that's a good idea. Is there anyone who has
cc~ments regarding the Gounty State Aid Highway 14 right-of-way request to
vacate?
29
City Co~.lncil Meeting - October 9, 1989
Resident: I live there. I'd like to see what they're going to do there.
Gary Warren: CR 14 recently this su~ier has been upgraded by the County and
William's Pipeline has a petrole~l eas~nent that basically cc~s through this
right-of-way area. The County has a 100 foot right-of-way. 50 foot on either
side. William's Pipeline does not entertain or want to have to share an
easement rights with the County for the roadway which is not untypical for
petroletml products carrier so they have, in quite a bit of negotiations that
they've had, they've actually moved their whole pipeline out of the project area
here at sc~e considerable expense so what they have requested the County to do
and the County has agreed in the resolution in your packet and has asked the
City to also vacate because it Jaipacts our Deerbrook subdivision, is to
basically vacate the 5 foot piece of o~lr right-of-way here which has the effect
of adding 5 feet to each of these lots. Lot 1 and 2 and shrinks our right-of-
way from 50 feet down to 45 feet off the centerline so the total, at least in
this area where it will be vacated of a 95 foot right-of-way. The road is
built. It's a County road. We have sufficient right-of-way for that. We
no problems with vacatirg that extra 5 feet. It allows William's Pipeline to
have the sole dedicated right-of-way for their pipeline.
Council~n Johnson: So the t~z) property owners of Lots 1 and 2 would then get
that land as part of their land but it would still have William's Pipeline?
Gary Warren: Willlam's Pipeline eas~mlents still is there.
Councilamn Johnson: Right now it's not even part of their property. It's part
of the county highway.
Gary Warren: Right. So it goes from one to the other basically.
Mayor C~m~iel: Ail you're doing is dropping from 100 to 95.
Counci]mmn Johnson: And the guy's probably already mowing it and anything.
Taking care of it anyway.
Gary Warren: I'd say there's no visible differences out there that you'll see.
It's just from a legal standpoint to address William's Pipeline's proprietary
concerns for their petroletmi easement.
Council~mn Johnson: Does this go back then, would affect anybody's taxes?
Gary Warren: It's an easement so I wouldn't think so.
Councilman Johnson: So it doesn't increase his acreage?
Mayor Chmiel: Property value, no. I would say not. Anyone else wishing to
address it?
Mayor Chniel moved, Council~mn Johnson seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
30
City Council Meeting - October 9~ 1989
Resolution 989-111: Council~ Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve a resolution vacatirg the City's interest over said parcels of Lots 1
and 2, Block 1 of Deerbrook Subdivision. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: LAKE DRIVE EAST AND 184TH AVENUE ~ ~T 89-6,
AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
Public Hearing:
Jim Paulette - DataServ
Bub O~nundson - OSM
Councilman Boyt: Let's ~ if there's any public.
Gary. Warren: I see Jim Paulette frcm DataServ.
Co,~cilman Boyt: But they're not opposed to it.
Gary Warren: He might change his mind.
Jim Paulette: No.
Councilman Boyt: So maybe w~ can just move on this.
Jim Paulette: Can I speak on this?
Mayor Ch~iel: Yeah. Gary, do you want to just hit rather lightly?
Gary. Warren: Okay. Bud Os~undson is also here in case there's any questions.
On August 28th the City Council accepted the feasibility, study, and called a
public hearing. This project is intended to provide frontage road access along
TH 5 to connect with 184th Avenue ~ahich is included in YnDot's next phase of the
TH 5 expansion. Timing being what it is and such, ~ have gone ahead with this
project to coordinate pretty much with the TH 5 improvs~ents and to complete
this length and have work with DataServ smong others here to ccme up with a
coordinated plan for the aligr~ent of the road and the utilities. We're looking
to get council approval here after public hearing to authorize preparation of
plans amd specs so w~ can proceed then for awarding this contract in time for
spring of 1990 construction.
Mayor ~iel: Anyone wishing to address any questions or whatever? Please come
forward and state .uou~ na~e and your address please.
Jim Paulette: My. name is Jim Paulette. I'm facility supervisor over at
DataServ. Over on Lake Drive East. I just wanted to mention that DataServ is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Bell South. The property is presently owned by.
RG Properties out of Birmingham. Bell South will be purchasing this property in
November. They will be the owners of the property. Both RJ Properties, the
present owner and Bell South, the future owners, have revi~ this project and
they both support the project. That's all I've got to say.
31
City Council Meeting -October 9, 1989
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address this public hearing for
Lake Drive East and 184th Avenue?
CounciL.mn Workman moved, CounciL.mn Johnson seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CounciL.mn Johnson: I've got just one question just from what you said there.
Did we notify the owner of this public hearing or did we notify,.
Gary Warren: The owner.
CounciL.mn Johnson: I ~an it says DataServ here on our list. There's nobody
out of Bizmingh~! on this list of people notified.
Gary Warren: We put that description in for convenience so there would be name
recognition but the actual notices were sent out to RJ.
Councilman Johnson: I j,mt want to ~mke sure we're legal.
Mayor C~iel: As you indicate under the notes there that this does not include
the watermain installation on 184th Avenue which will be constructed under a
separate contract. Wluy don't we install that watezmain under this existing
proposal?
Gary Warren: That ~ater~min is included in MnDot's plans that Barton-Asch~n
are drawing ~ for that intersection and that was running through the line as
far as contractor responsibilities.
Resolution $89-112: CounciL.mn Work, mn ~ved, Councilwc~mn Di~uler seconded to
authorize the preparation of Plans and Specifications for Lake Drive East and
184th Avenue Improv~uent Project $89-6. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: 1990 BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION.
Public Present:
Na~ Address
Bruce Kotzian
Jon Thornberg
Kathi Clarke
Randy Karl
1340 Stratton Court
1320 Stratton Co~t
6510 Devonshire Drive
6391 Teton Lane
Mayor Ch~iel: Is there anyone wishing to address that?
Bruce Kotzian: My. name is Bruce Kotzian, 1340 Stratton Court.
Mayor C2mliel: Can I just tell you that we have strictly a h~upothetical budget
which is purely fictional because of the State legislature adopting those
guidelines for us to go by just this past session that they closed so the budget
32
City Oouncil Meeting - October 9, 1989
that ~ had previously ~as really s~mething that ~s hypothetical that w~ had to
prepare for accordingly until we knew which direction we were going.
Bruce Kotzian: Okay. I g[~ss a few neighbors and myself just have a concern
that we'd like to get on the record so once you get to the point of speaking to
the budget, we'd like to I guess get our opinion on record or our concerns. The
subject is parks. Recreational parks and our concern is, one park is Curry
Faxms and we' re w~ndering as residents of what money, if any, has been allocated
to Curry. Fazms for next year. We've ~n to a few Park and Recreation _m~.ctings
and it's been tossing the ball back and forth and we'd like to know one, is
there any money allocated to the park for next year. I guess that's what we're
just going on record to let it be known. Secondly, when you do get to a point
or down the road where you are discussing budgets or when you have that it~,s on
the list, how do you handle that? Is that an open meeting? A public meeting?
Mayor Ch~iel: Yes. It will be a public hearing and everyone can ccme back for
that.
Bruce Kotzian: So tonight's objection of the 1990 budget ~s to?
Don Ashworth: We're ~m~-cting State Statute. State Statute said that the City
had to hold this hearing without any knowledge as to what our revenues w~uld be.
Any knowledge as to expenditures. Why sc~ebody w~uld hold a bearing whe~ you
have no idea of what it is you're going to spend, seems totally ludicrous.
That's what we were required to do. We received notice this past week that if
you have already published, which we had in accordance to the guidelines, we
were to open this hearing. Take comments. Close it and to start a new set of
procedures but they haven' t .vet decided what those are.
Bruce Kotzian: So what we have to do is ccme back when it gets to that point?
Don Ashw~rth: If I could get your name amd address, I will contact you as soon
as we know what the process is supposed to be.
Bruce Kotzian: Okay. It's Bruce Kotzian. 1340 Stratton Court.
Don Ashworth: And I'll assu~e that you're acting as a coordinator for others.
Bruce Kotzian: Yeah. The concern is the money allocation for C~rry Farms Park
for 1990.
Councilman Johnson: Will that be brought up in next Monday's budget session
that we're going to be having?
Council~x~an Dimler: I've already talked to Lori about it. Lori, did you put
it in your request? Bsa~a~er when I asked you to put it in.
Lori Siets~,a: T~e Park and Recreation Ore, mission reccm~m~dation to City
Council on the Capital Improv~,ent Progra~ did not include funds for C~rry
Farms... I have information available to you...as you go into your preparation
of the budget, it will explain the Park and Recreation procedure...discussion of
that.
Council~m,an Dimler: Okay, but now that the sidewalk ~s taken out, we had
33
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
discussed that scum m~)ney could go to the park instead.
Council~mn Boyt: No sidewalk money.
Counc i lman Johnson: No.
Lori Sietse~m: Tne money that would be collected from the developer would go
into the trail dedication fund.
Council~mn Johnson: Can't rob Peter to pay Paul.
Council~mn Work, mn: Centex is going to do most of the developing in that park
an.v-way. Isn't that your concern?
Bruce Kotzian: No they are not.
Lori Sietse~m: They did the rough grading and they provided $2,500.00 for
totlot ec~lilm~ent. The fine grading has ~cn done and the installation of the
eqiul~nent has been installed and next spring the rest of the money will be, the
r~mining money will be put in a volleyball court at that site. The r~mining
facilities, there are no ~nies budgeted right now for the 1990 year. Tne Park
and Recreation Cc~m~ission put that as a future it, ll.
Council, mn Work~n: Do w~ have any new parks proposed?
Lori Sietse~m: Yes. They allocated, they are reco~m~endirg that the allocation
of money go towards C~anhassen Hills Park which has no facilities and lake Susan
Hills W~st. There's a whole list in there and that will be coming to you...but
the Minutes on those and the Park and Recreation Cc~mission recommendation will
be cc~ing to you...
Councilw~m~n Dimler: It was ~ understanding though Lori in ~ last
conversation with you that since those parks are, Curry Farms is al~mst fully
developed and those people still don't have their totlot equilm~nt.
Bruce Kotzian: That' s corrected. It' s in. The past week it' s been put in.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. That's great to know.
Bruce Kotzian: And being put to use by the way.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, good. But that ~ thought ~mybe it would be better
to finish a park where it's fully developed than to dedicate monies to sc~thing
where there's nothing there .vet. I guess we' 11 discuss that in the budget but
that was my understanding that Park and Rec would be in agr~ent with that.
Lori Sietsema: The Cc~lission was not in agree~_nt with that, no. That was not
their recc~m~endation. You and I had discussed that there were sc~
possibilities of changing that. The Co~mcil chose to do that. Tnat was not the
Park and Recreation Cc~mission's recc~m~endation.
Bruce Kotzian: I guess our concern is I believe there is approximately
$30,000.00, $10,000.00 each for three parks and all we're asking is we're the
fourth park and just like to have our fair share dedicated to the O~rry Farms
34
City Gouncil Meeting - October 9, 1989
Park. That's our concern and w~uld like to have it on records-
Mayor Ch~iel: Anyone else wishing to address anything? If not, is there a
motion?
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public
hearirg. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table the 1990 Budget
Adoption. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
AWARD OF BIDS: TRI-A)U.e. DUMP TRL~K.
Don Ashworth: The city has received bids. We w~re cor~_rned. When w~ had
initially speced this out this past year, ~ felt that the a~ount being
allocated w~uld be more than sufficient. As we w~nt into the bidding process,
there ~ ~ a significant escalation in the prices this year and we were very.
happy when the bids did c~me in and they approximated the ammant that we did
have in the budget. We are slightly higher. How~:wer, if ~u recall, we ca~e in
significantly lower on the articulated blower and 2-3 other pieces of equi[m~ent.
Accordingly, the overall budget will stay within the amount originally approved
and we're rec~ending the award to the t~D low bidders for the cab and chassis
and the dump body which w~uld be Boyer Trucks for the cab and chassis and the
dump to Midland f~/uipment.
Resolution 989-113: Councilman Boyt moved, Council~m~an Dimler seconded to
award the bid for the t_ri-axle d~p truck as follows: cab and chassis to Boyer
Trucks, Inc. in the a~ount of $60,576.~0 and tl~ bid for the d~,p body, pusher
axle and sander to Midland Equiim~ent in the a~ount of $15,997.0~. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIASXIE REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION AND Rf~0DEL OF AN A~DITION,
JAMES HENDRICKSON, 9131 LAKE RILEY BLVD..
Paul Kra~s: The applicants are requesting approval to construct an addition to
an existing home that requires a 4 foot sideyard setback variance. The addition
is part of a large scale expansion to the home. Ho~=ver, the expansion to the
south, on the south side, is the only one that does require a variance. The
addition in question ~uld be located bet%men t~ existing wings of the ~
that already protrude to within 6 feet of the property, line. The new addition
in this area is essentially infill construction. ~he extent to which it
protrudes to the side property line is consistent and no more excessive than the
existing protrusions of the h~,e. Staff gave this its~ a good bit of
consideration for considering a recc~m~ation of approval. We believe that
there is a hardship pertaining to this site. While the owner obviously has use
of the parcel, there is a single family hcme on it, the addition is an
improv~ent of the property that we believe is consistent with the efficient
utilization of the interior of the h~me. It will be used to construct a laundry
roc~md roc~ that w~uld connect an existing garage or where the existirg garage
35
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
was into the hc~. Frankly~ if this was an addition that could be located
anywhere on the property, a deck for instance or sc~lething of that nature, we
would possibly have reacted sc~what differently to it. We believe that the
package of improvements will result in the construction of a hcm~e that is
consistent with current construction in the city. We also note that the
non-confo~ling home setbacks on often underside lots are c(m~only found in this
area and in several other older lakefront areas in the city. Normal ordinance
requir~nts are often inappropriate in dealing with these areas and potentially
the correct way of responding to that would be the consideration of special
provisions in the ordinance that deals specifically with these areas. Lastly we
note that there is sc~ precedent for granting similar variance to rennovate
older homes in this area. In March of this year, variances were given for side,
front and rear setbacks for the property at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. for Janes
Jessup. During the consideration of that variance request, there were several
other similar variance requests historically that have b~ granted in that sa~
area that w~re brought out. Staff had recc~ended approval of the variance to
the Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adj[~tment ultimately voted 2 to 1
against approving the variance. The primary concern that was cited was the
concern that you would be adding, if this was approved, you would be adding to a
non-conforming structure.
Mayor Chmiel: Is Jim Hendrickson here this evening?
Rc~an Roos: Mr. Mayor, I'm representing Jim Hendrickson.
Mayor Chmiel: Rock, n, would you like to address this?
Rc~an Roos: I guess basically Jim is requiring that variance in order to
refurbish the home and add a second story addition onto it. He's not
encroaching on the lake. The lot is almost 15,000 square foot which is I think
within the requirements of the City of Chanhassen. Staff's report is pretty
much inclusive. It's an infill situation that would be very difficult. I guess
the only way to look at it, if you look at the 5 conditions to be ~t by a
variance, I think he probably ~=ets all 5 conditions. You can ask yourself in
those 5 sit[~tions and I think cGne up with a conclusion on that basis. Thank
you.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, I went out there and I looked at this. In looking at the
proposal as to where the fence is with the setback requirement, if we took that
additional segment of the building that's been put onto the south side, the 22
feet, I just sort of paced it off, it might be 23, and moved it to the north
side of that, to ~ there appears to be more rocm on the north side of that lot
fr(ml an~uwhere from the a~E)[%nt of 24 feet from where the existing building is
which I paced off, plus another 21 feet to the property line where the fence is.
Re, mn Boos: If I follow you correctly, you're saying.
Mayor Ch~iel: Just turn it around, yeah. Put it on the north side rather than
the south side. Tnan that would not require any variance at all.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, if I could clarify that a little bit. We do have the
building plans here.
36
City Oouncil Meeting - October 9, 1989
(The Council, Paul Krauss and Roman Noos reviewed the house plans at this point
in the meeting.)
Mayor Chniel: The other thing that I ~as looking at too, the adjacemt property
o~er is probably about 8 feet from that fence line as well, or the property
line.
Paul Krauss: Right. We didn't measure it but we believe that it is short as
well.
Mayor Chniel: I finally took a tape out of the car and I did measure it and it
is 8 feet. The other thing you indicated in here was there were shrubs.
I guess that's all I have. I was just looking at that observation. I thought
if you took that 22 feet, extended it over to the o~ side. Of course I
didn't realize they ware going to be putting the garage here as ~11 as that
screened porch and deck which would he interconnected because there's about a
foot that there's an overhang that there's no foundation portion under it.
Paul Krauss: Right and new footings will be under there.
Mayor ~iel: Okay, that's all I wanted to find out about.
Councilman Workman: Roman, they're proposing construction on the lake side then
in the future?
R~man Roos: On the lake side?
Councilman Workman: Yeah.
R~man Roos: We're not encroaching any... We're 8M some foot off the lake.
Councilman Workman: So the deck?
B0man Boos: There will be deck...
Councilman Workman: How far is that right now?
Paul Krauss: It' s 8M feet.
Mayor Ch~iel: Any other discussion?
Councilman Johnson: My discussion is, I don't ~ Jim Chaffee here, is ~at's
going on about the d~olition without the proper permits?
Mayor Ch~iel: We're finding quite a bit of that happening lately with things
being constructed. No permits being acquired.
Councilman Johnson: I think ~ r~ to continue the prosecution on that charge.
Councilwcman Dimler: What is their policy, there? Do you know?
Mayor Ch~iel: A d~,olition pezmit ~sn't acquired is basically what it was.
councilman Johnson: Yeah, there was no d~olition permit.
37
City Oounctl Meeting - October 9, 1989
Rc~n Boos: Building perm{it...
Councilnmn Johnson: Yeah, but they started d~lolition without d~olition permit
and then ca~ in and asked for it later?
R~mmn Boos: No...Tne building permit is the sa~ thing.
Councilman Johnson: Okay. The applicant started d~{olition of the old
structure on his property before obtaining a d~olition permit and was stopped
by the building deparim{ent. Okay, we went out there and took enforc~m~ent
actions and stopped the demolition. Hence the building application permit was
sut~{itted and discovered that the variance was needed so this is another after
the fact. I have no probl~{ with the variance. I think what w~'re doing here
is taking a non-conform{lng use and improving it. I still have a problem{ with
people going ahead.
Rc~an Boos: They can plead ignorance.
Councilnmn Johnson: Well ignorance doesn't help a whole lot.
Re, mn Boos: ...again, he just w~nt ahead...
Councilnmn Johnson: It's almost every week w~ see sc~ebody's already done
sc~ething and now they're coming back and w~ basically ask the~ to apply for a
pe~it.
Councilman Workman: Do w~ have an ordinance for fining?
Councilwcm~3n Dimler: No we don' t.
Council~mn Johnson: I believe it's a misdemeanor to build a building without...
Mayor Chmiel: Doesn't that no~mlly incorporate a double permit fee?
Council~mn Johnson: I think we added something to double the permit fee.
Counctlw~mmn Dimler: But that' s not substantial.
Don Ashworth: It's going to be very minor. Council should be aware of it.
Councilwc~an Dimler: One of the things we did on the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals that after we w~nt through these two processes, we discussed the
possibility of cc~ing {~ with a policy and perhaps it should be handled thro[,~h
Public Safety. I don't know. Or maybe Council has to have sc~e input into it
but to ~mke the fee substantial to be a preventative N~asure.
Councilman Boyt: Fee for what?
Councilwc~mn Dimler: For building without a perm{it.
Council~mn Johnson: See then we're doing a judicial thing.
38
City Council Meeting - October 9~ 1989
Council~mn Boyt: Well w~ can prosecute if that's what you ~nt to do. Let's
just prosec~lte.
Co~ncilw~n Dimler: I don't think we want to spend the money, or the time
prosec~lting all these people.
Councilman Johnson: There's possibility to settle with prosecution isn't there?
Dave Haumeyer: Are yDu asking me?
Councilman Johnson: Well, through the Mayor yes.
Dave Have,r: Yes. I mean anytime you prosecute a case there's an opportunity
to settle it before it goes to trial. Ei~ at an arraignment or a pre-trial.
If it's criminal in nature.
Mayor C2m~iel: ~hat determines a criminal nature?
Dave Harmeyer: If it's an ordinance violation.
Councilman Johnson: Would doing building modifications without a pemmit be a...
Dave Hazmeye_r: I'm sure it is a violation of 2x)ur ordinance~ I don't know the
specific ordinance but I'm sure it is.
Councilman Johnson: I doubt there's a city. around that it's not.
Councilman Workman: But how harsh is it? You know, that's the question.
Mayor C2~iel: If it's a misdemeanor and it requires the individual acquiring an
attorney which beccmes rather costly, is that right?
Dave Ha~meyer: Very. costly.
Councilman Johnson: There's an honest attorney..
Councilman Workman: How much is it Paul?
Paul Krauss: I don't know how much it is but it's Section 20-91 that says no
person shall erect, construct, alter, enlarge, repair, move, remove any building
or structure or part thereof without first securing a building permit.
Councilman Workman: Big deal. I'd chance it.
Councilman Boyt: I think we have an issue here that we've had before which
really sends a signal that people don't understand what we're askirg. I'd like
to ~-c the City. I guess be more proactive. I think we should have literature
that says something to the effect of, so .u~)u're goirg to expand your house.
Here's ~hat you ~ to know. Or you're going to build a fence or the other
typical kinds of things that we get confronted with. The citizen should be able
to c~me in and in 1 or 2 pages pick up all the directions that they ~ to
follow. That's not going to catch everybody but right now we don't even have
that available.
39
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
Council~mn Johnson: How ~mny basements in this town have been finished with
building per,its? I think it'd be easier to count the ones that have been
finished with a building permit than the ones that have been finished without.
Counci]_,~n Work~n: Maybe we can send those out with the water bills next or
something.
Co~ncilmmn Boyt: I'd like to c(m~_nt about this variance. I think the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals raised a couple of good points when they turned this
down. One of thai was, they said what we are doing here is expanding, they
described it as a non-conforming use. I'm not exactly sure that that fits but
it's clearly a variance that's in existence and we're being asked to expand it.
I gather that they had a hard ti~ and voted against it because of that. I
think if we're going to approve this, that we need to approve it for maybe so~
different reasons than the ones staff has identified here. As I've talked to
staff about this before this evening, if we stick with the definition of
hardship that Roger developed for the Board of Adjustment and Appeals that we
have turned people down who certainly had a good reason for w~nting the variance
but it was not a hardship, this is not a hardship. Not in the faintest
i~,~gination. This mud room is nice but so is the garage that the Colby's
wanted and we can go on down through the list of the variances that we've
considered in the last 6 months. You do not have to have a mud to(mi to enjoy
the use of your house and the way we've described hardship, it says that it
really comes down to whether or not you can use that piece of property without
the variance. And if you can't, then that's a hardship and these people are
clearly using this and this is not a hardship. I think there are other ways we
can pass this but I don't think we should be corrupting the staff report in
order to get it to an end result that we want to get to. We ought to just face
it. I think the w~y we justify this is because in this neighborhood we just
did this March 19th or whatever it was when that fellow came in and wanted to
build the big deck and expand his house. He was going to tear the existing
structure down I believe and we said you can't put the deck on because that's an
expansion of the house out and beyond where it is now but you can sort of fill
in the square which ~ant that he got sideyards and frontyards. He got several
variances to do that. I could see this being a comparable situation. We're
saying to the person, well fill in the square. You're not going from 6 feet to
5 feet. You're not expanding the variance. Maybe under that standpoint we can
do that and I'd sure like to see Paul and his people come back with some sort of
special zoning district so we can deal with the Carver Beaches and the Lake
Riley, specific areas where we know we've got house after house that has this
problem. Let's declare th~ a special zone and decide what the sideyards and
such should be just for that zone so we're not playing havoc with the whole
city. If we declare this thing a hardship, then I've got real problems with the
people that we've turned down previously. It's not a hardship in my opinion but
I think we can still pass it given precedent we've set in that neighborhood.
Council~mn Johnson: Is there so~thing on the books about having an existing
non-conforming use and you tear it down, you can't rebuild it or something?
Paul Krauss: ~ne restoration provision does not apply to single family
dwellings. For example a non-conforming commercial building, if it's destroyed
more than 50% by fire, you can't rebuild it. If that were a single family home,
you could.
40
City Oo,~cil Meeting - October 9~ 1989
Councilman Johnson: What if they took it apart ~lves more than 50%?
Paul Krauss: You' re grandfathered in general principle.
Councilman Johnson: Well I'm just trying to get it straight in my mind on the
commercial building. If this is a commercial building and they r~move the
building do~n to the foundation, could they rebuild on that old foundation?
Paul Krauss: Not if it was more than 50% removed or destroyed.
Councilman Johnson: Okay. Like I said, this is an improve~ent to that lot and
that neighborhood and what ~s there. I agree with Bill though. We cannot
expand. If he wanted 5 extra inches on there, there's no way in the world w~
could expand that.
Mayor Chniel: That existing structure of that proposal on the south side, that
all was remaining previously? Nothing was added? It's alway~ sat back those
am~mt of feet?
Paul Krauss: Right.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, Paul is it your feeling that this is the only way it
can be done or is there another way?
Paul Krauss: In my opinion, given the layout of the existing house, if you ~nt
to make an efficient utilization of the space that's there, this is the way to
do it. You had that garage slab there. ~hey ~ant to maintain that garage use.
They want to connect the garage to the house. You can't do that unless you fill
~ that space. At least not from the plans that w~ saw. The hardship
definition is always a tough one to grapple with. I've worked with different
definitions frankly in different oanmunities and I'm not trying to overturn any
kind of precedent that was established. However, one of the definitions that
I've worked with a lot was that not only we_re you entitled to having a use on
the property, but you were to having a valid use on the property. That if you
had a 1920 or 1940 bungalow that had (xle bedroom and no bathroom or w~hatever,
that there was sc~e entitlement to upgrade that to a current standard. Now if
that's not been the precedent here, then ~u~)u've got to be concerned about
establishing that. But in ~ experience, that's ~ used to establish a
hardship.
Co[~cilman Boyt: Excuse me but that's not the issue. We're not saying that
this ho~me doesn't have something w~ now require houses to have. It has
everything we require houses to have. We don't require houses to have a mud
room. We don't even require houses to connect to their garage and so you can't
say that they're doing this because the city requires it. We don't. If they
did, they'd have a valid hardship.
Mayor Ch~iel: Tom, do you have sc~ething?
Councilman Workman: I would approval.
Councilw~nan Dimler: I ' 11 second that.
Mayor fh~iel: I'd just like a little more discussion.
41
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
CounciL-mn Johnson: Basis of your approval and your motion?
Mayor Chmiel: No. I guess what I'm looking at is the wall that's existing
where it is, whether you ~mke that a laundry roc~ or a mud rocm or whatever they
want, it's still all within those confines of those walls right?
Paul Krauss: It protrudes no further than the existing walls.
CounciL.mn Johnson: There's was no wall going to that mud room.
Councilman Boyt: That's protruding further. It's just not protruding further
into the setback.
Paul Krauss: Right. It's infilling that hole.
Councilman Johnson: Basically rather than almost approving a variance, we could
also say that they are not ~mking any change to the existing grandfathered
variance of a 6 foot setback at this location. So no variance is actually
required because the 6 foot setback is being ~mintained versus approving. I'm
not sure how planning likes that kind of logic.
Paul Krauss: We had a long discussion about that and as a planner I would have
traditionally taken the more lenient approach to that. That you're not ~mking
anything worse so what difference does it ~mke. But I've been coached by a lot
of attorneys that when you intensify a variance, which essentially this is, you
no longer have grounds to assume it's acceptable and t_hey have to cc~ before
the Board and yourselves and get that reconfi~mled. There's no entitlement to
intensification of that variance.
CounciL.mn Johnson: So we have so ~mny feet of wall right now that's in
variance and he's going to add another 10 feet of wall that's in variance?
Paul Krauss: Right.
CounciL.~n Johnson: Or 20 feet. Whatever the length of this mud ro(m~ is.
CounciL.mn Boyt: I'd like to ~ybe take a different approach here. If we co~
back with a special district, it's conceiveable t_hat wa could say that the
sideyard setbacks in this particular area only need to be 5 feet. I think if
you walk down through that neighborhood you'd see sc~e houses that are already
sitting about that close to their lot line.
Mayor Chnlel: Each of them. Tney really are.
Council~mn Boyt: And if we ~mke the districts ~mll enough, what we would be
doing tonight is basically just pre-~ptlng that process a little bit and saying
alrlght, go ahead and build it 6 feet because ~ anticipate changing the zoning
requir~m~_nts anyway. Tnat's a possibility. The only reason I'd vote against
this is if it's considered a hardship and then I disagree with that and I'll
vote against it for that reason but if we can c(x~e up with a different logic, I
think we could pass it.
42
City Oouncil Meeting - October 9, 1989
Councilman Workman: I think the logic is that nobody's going to do anything
down in this neighborhood unless we start tearing down all the houses and
combining lots. I mean that's the logic. I think we've already got a special
district down there. Not that that wasn't a good idea.
Councilwoman Dimler: We didn't establish it but it established itself.
Councilman Johnson: It's there. It's just not called that.
Councilman Workman: And I think maybe Carver Beach has some of those same
characteristics too because Jay you bring that up. We're not going to be
combining lots. We're not going to be tearing down these homes. This is a very
nice area of the city and it can be made nicer I think tactfully and I think
that's maybe what's being done. These people should be giv~m~ scme credit for
what they are doing. You know, I re~~_r the Jessup's and the save kind of
thing. Yeah, that was a little more drastic but they're looking to upgrade and
improve which is perfectly natural. I don't think they're asking a whole lot
here. I don't see how we can demy it. I don't ~ it as a hardship. I don't
have a ~d room. I'm going to ask for one soon.
Councilman Johnson: As your kids get bigger, you'll want a mud room.
Councilman Workman: But I don't think anything's going to change down there
drastically as I've said so to allow these people to upgrade and update and do a'
lot of things and straighten out what their forefathers created for them with
these different and weird shaped lots ar~ skinny lots, that's where I'd like to
think we have s~me flexibility. That's where the variance process comes into
play. That's why I moved approval.
Mayor (h~iel: Is there any additional discussion? Motion on the floor then
with a second.
Councilman Johnson: I still ~nt to hear the logic of approval of a variance.
What are we approving it based upon? Staff report or...
Councilman Workman: What are we denying it upon?
Councilman Johnson: It's not a hardship.
Councilman Boyt: Why don't we approve it Jay on the basis that on March 19th or
whatever, we approved one in the same neighborhood. Basically the sa~e kind of
thing I think. I haven't read those minutes but as I recall, we were all here
for that discussion. Another possibility is to turn this down and get going on
the special district and write it in so it doesn't require a variance.
Council~ Dimler: I guess I would speak against that for the simple fact
that the neighbors there are real anxious to have it taken care of.
Councilman Johnson: In it's current state, it's a problem.
Councilman Boyt: That's right. It wouldn't be a good choice.
Mayor Ch~iel: Okay, we have a motion on the floor with a second to approve a 6
foot sideyard setback variance request for the construction and re, del of the
43
City Council M~eting - October 9, 1989
· .
addition of 9131 Lake Riley Blvd..
CounciL"mn Boyt: I have a question. This is reql quick. Do w~ have general
agre~lent that this isn't a hardship? Tc~i agrees with that?
CounciL"~n Work, mn: What I was trying to get with Jay was that while it's not a
hardship, it's also by us doing it and not creating anything more of a hardship
on any.
Councilman Johnson: That's what I was trying to get you to say.
CounciL.mn Workman: The Colby's were going 20 feet and 3 feet frc~ the road.
But I mean this is not, in the future that thing was going to bother s(m~e people
I had a feeling but this thing is not creating any more of what it's already
sitting on and I think ~mybe that's what Paul's getting at.
Councilwc~mn Dimler: It's not an expansion.
CounciL.mn Johnson: Not extending any further into the variance.
CounciL.mn Work, mn: You can't go by that either because Freddy Oeschlager w~uld
be in here too. He had other options and places to go. This is ~_rely a
filling of the gap and it's a smmll part that helps the entire house.
Councilman Work, mn moved, Councilwoman Dirtier seconded to approve a 6 foot
sideyard setback variance request for the construction and r~odel of the
addition at 9131 Lake Riley Blvd.. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Council~mn Boyt: I think it's i~x)rtant that the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals t~nderstands that from a hardship standpoint we agree with ~. We
worked a long time to get that understanding. I'd hate to foul that up.
REQUEST FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A DMCK ON A RECRFATIONAL BEACHLOT, LOTUS LAKE
HCME~~S ASSOCIATION.
Jo Ann Olsen: They asked to be moved to the next agenda. They w~nt hcm~e.
CONSIDER REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, NORTHWEST WHOLESALE NURSERIES,
9150 GREAT PLAINS BLVD.
Jo Ann Olsen: This it~ was brought up to the City Council after Mr. Finger
presented a visitor Presentation with concerns about the activities at the
nursery site. In the report w~ w~nt through the history of the Northwest
Nursery. What was approved. What exists today and what they are proposing to
do in the fut~tre. I'll just go real briefly. In s,m~lary, we are recc~~ing
that the conditional use permit not be revoked. We feel that we are working
towards a resolution of those concerns. That they can be obtained in the near
fut~zre and to satisfy some of the concerns of Mr. Finger. We have established
conditions as part of that approval...and if you'd like I can go through all
those.
44
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
Mayor C~liel: No, I don't think that's necessary Jo Ann. I had some discussion
with Mr. Finger yesterday. We discussed the conditions. He doesn't want to ~
the nuxsery go out of business either or for us to not approve the conditional
use. So with the additional conditions that you have had in here as to what
they should c(xgply with, the only question I have is the filling of the Class B
w~tland there.
Jo Ann Olsen: ~ney actLmlly have not filled in any w~tland. ~hey've ~n
filling at the edge of the wetlands.
Councilman Johnson: They still need a permit.
Jo Ann Olsen: Right.
Councilman Johnson: Have they applied for that permit?
Jo Ann Olsen: They had applied for the conditional use peri, It and the w~tland
alteration permit. That's what ~as Fabled last January and then we w~re
proceeding with that again with th~ when it was brought back for consider of
revocation so that's all been kind of put on hold until we see what happens.
They have made the application though. It's easy for us just to move ahead with
that. They have all the information.
Mayor Ch~iel: Is there anyone here frc~ Northwest Eholesale NUrsery? Is there
anything that you'd like to address? Hopefully .uou've ~_c-~n_ what the
rec(m~dations w~re by staff. Are you basically in agreement with those
rec(m~endations?
Mark VanHoef: Yes.
Mayor Chniel: Okay. Any other discussion?
Councilman Johnson: I've got a couple c(m~nents as we got through here. On the
plans for future, there's a pond on the north side. A nice little circular
pond. I'd like to see the 6 DNR or the 6 Fish and Wildlife normal
rec~n~m~dations be instituted for that ponding site. Ibe uneven sides. Rolling
bottcms, etc., etc. that we ask for. Looking at this diagran it looks like it's
a nice little circular hole in the ground.
Ga~ Warren: That' s a set basin.
Jo Ann Olsen: It's a sedimentation basin but that would be going through the
Wetland Alteration Permit process and we can look at that. Those conditions.
Councilman Johnson: We ask for that in a lot of sedimentation basins.
Jo Ann Olsen: As long as it can still do what it's purpose was. As long as it
can contain the water, we usually come to some sort of omapr0mise.
Councilman Johnson: It just has to be redesigned so it's not a little round
hole in the ground but still h.~draulically do it's job.
Mark VanHoef: My. name is Mark VanHoef. I'm a part owner in Northwest and the
only c~n~ent that I wanted to make with regards to the presentation that Jo Ann
45
City Council Meeting - October 9~ 1989
~de is that we definitely need sc~one to ~mke it clear that we are a wholesale
nursery. Mr. Finger ~mde sc~ accusations in several presentations. One that
I did sit through in front of the Planning Cc~lission and then also when he made
sc~te comments in front of this Council as to whether we're complying with a
wholesale nursery. Tne definition that we ourselves pursued right into your
zoning ordinances back in 1985 with the direction of Barb Dacy, are s(m~what
being questioned now as to whether they're complete enough. Whether they're
specific enough and before we can really go any further, we need s(m~eone to say
that yes, they definitely c~nply with the wholesale nursery. Jo Ann has ~rked
with %~. We've tried to get sc~ things rolling but I don't want to keep going
back to ground one saying okay, you've done this. You've done this. You've
done this but now scmeone else has cc~ to the front and said yes, but once
again we question whether they are a wholesale nursery. I don't ~nt to take a
lot of ti~ here. Don't want to get into a lot of what Jo Ann has prepared
because I think it's basically stating our case very well but it is a ~mjor
concern to us that this issue of a wholesale nursery definition is laid to rest
because we can't stay there if in tw~ years someone c(x~es back to this Council
and says, well we c~stion what they're growing and how they're growing it.
That needs to be clarified and put to bed. So that's all I'd like to say.
M~yor Ch~iel: The only thing that Mr. Finger had indicated to ~ was
consideration of loading and unloading of the trees in the back area. I don't
know where you place those trees. That was the only consideration he has to
offer.
Mark VanHoef: My reference is, the meeting that I sat through when he ~de a
presentation to the Planning Cc~ittee and those notes are in your packet, he
specifically looked at our operation and accused it as being brokering plant
material. ~estioned whether we were growing the ~mtertal. Your attorney has
sent an opinion which ~uld support us as being a growing. It's I guess how you
define growing of nursery stock but I guess I only appeal to the Council that
that has to be clarified. That right now the zoning ordinance is very broad in
spectr~n and I j~t hope that before we get too far down the line and spend a
lot of our money cc~plying with the request, that that issue is laid to rest and
that we are definitely defined as a wholesale nursery.
Councilamn Johnson: I think that we r~_~ to look at that definition in there
because I can't totally agree with our attorney that having a plant sitting in a
pot for a number of w~eks on their property is growing it on site. ~t ~ahether
a wholesale nursery requires to be grown on site. To ~ a wholesaler of auto
parts does not ~mke the auto p~rts on site. He buys ~. He brings that into
his warehouse and then he moves th~ off to sc~ retail outlet. So if that's
what the City intends as a wholesaler is the nor~ml definition of a wholesaler,
you ~et that. But I have to laugh when we say that a plant sitting in a
plastic bucket for anywhere from a week to a year is grown on site. That to me
just does not cc~ute. Therefore our definition is either too strict so what we
need is a zoning ordinance a~ndment to amend the definition of wholesale
nursery to what wholesale nursery is. If we're only talking a growing nursery,
then it w~uld have to be a plan that's planted on site. Something like what Tim
Erhart's doing where he puts a tree in the ground and a couple years later
harvests that tree. There is no harvesting when you put a pot on the ground and
a few w~eks later pick the pot up and put it back on another truck. I can't see
that that's harvesting that tree that's been grown on the site. Unless it's
ha~wested off the truck.
46
City OOuncil Meeting - October 9~ 1989
Mark VanHoef: Can I respond?
Mayor C2mliel: Go ahead.
Mark VanHoef: You bring up a good point and I'd like just to share two thoughts
with you. Number one, I would take exception to your c~mparing us with a
rewholesaler of auto parts because when that fender comes in and goes into
stock, it does not change. It stays a certain size. A certain part. It does
not change. When w~ bring stock in and you referenced shrubs for an example.
That material is brought in bare root. That material is ~ potted. It goes
on the site and it grows. The auto parts man does nothing to e~%nce his
product. In m~ writeup that is in youx packet that I provided Jo Ann with in
te~ms of a better definition of our operation, every single plant this is on our
site, whether it's growing in the ground or in the pot, receives care.
Fertilization, pruning and watering and in our opinion, everything therefore is
in a growing state. Everything is continually changing. We are expending man
hours and fertilization and a lot of those expenses are changing that invemtory
so it's our opinion that everything is growing. The other thing that I would
share with you...
Councilman Johnson: If you want to leave that in there, if ~u ~mnt to leave
that part of this definition in there, you're opening up to argmmant in the
futL=e because there's a logic to say that it was not grown on site unless it
sat in the ground. There's a logic there ar~ all I'm saying is that if that's
what we intend, if w~ intend enly to have sc~ething that is harvested, we ought
to say it as such. Something that is an agricultural operation. You could very
well go into an industrial park and do exactly the same. You could go into an
industrial park and within a greenhouse do exactly the same as what you're doing
out there as an industrial operation. It's a value added operation but I don't
see it as what you traditionally think of as a nursery where you're planting
something in the ground. It grows and then later on you dig it back up or repot
it but you are a value added type operation. Different than a car.
Mark VanHoef: Well I'd welcome you to come out to the site because there is a
lot of material that is not just in pots. That is in the ground. The other
point I wanted to make and I'll reference again my write up for Jo Ann is in
1985 when we were in front of the Council when there was no "wholesale nurserS'
on the books. We proceeded to have the ordinance changed. Barb Dacy put the
verbage in and then we had to apply to meet those zoning amendments. At that
time and I hope that you guys understand this, that we cave in front of the
Council on an evening when we w~re on the agemda and I had prepared a complete
presentation on what exactly our operation was going to be. Even to the tune of
including a slide presentation frc~ BacPA~an's ;~holesale ~hich is located in
Fazmington, Minnesota. Maybe it was our error not to be more vigorous and more
I guess forceful in saying rD, let's not table this. Let's discuss this because
at that time Mayor Hamilton says, well I don't think that's necessary. We
understand and they passed it. I agree with ~u ~aholeheartedly Mr. Johnson.
This is going to be up for review and up for discussion, then there's no sense
of us going any further until that is clarified for everyone. For us and for
the Council.
Councilman Boyt: Can I say scmmthing?
47
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
Mayor C2mliel: I think ~mybe w~'re already at a point where we' re just going to
belabor it.
CounciL, an Boyt: Well he's wrong. If you want to hear that, okay. If not,
it's up to you.
Mayor Chniel: Let's take a vote on this.
CounciL.mn Johnson: I'm the only one who's c(mmented on this so far.
Mayor C~iel: I think we know what the conditional use permit is and what it
consists of and what's there. I think all this is, as we've been though here,
is more rhetoric regarding it. The applicant is in agreement with. the proposed
conditions that are established. I think Mr. Finger is in the position of, I
don't know if he's happy or not but I think he's in agreement with what's here
because I did discuss it with him.
Councilman Johnson: I just heard the applicant say he doesn't want to do it now
unless we clear up this issue of the definition. I think Bill has sc~ethirg to
say about that too.
Mayor C2mliel: Okay. Bill, go ahead.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, this is real short. The Planning C(m~ission Minutes of
January 23, 1985. Your business was described in detail and I can understand
why the Council wouldn't need to go through that twice since they read it so I
don't know where Roger ca~ up with that this wasn't discussed but it was
certainly discussed in the Planning Cc~ission in which you said, your activity
would be limited to selling to licensed nurserymen and not to the general
public, and I ass~m~ you're doing that and to me that makes it a wholesale
nursery. That's just a very simple definition. As to whether they're growing
it in the ground or out of the ground, you said we'll have a greenhouse. We'll
propogate, clip, root and plant outside. Now I asst~e you're doing that.
Mark VanHoef: We have not put a greenho~%se up at this point.
CounciL.an Boyt: Okay. So ~mybe you're not doing quite what yDu described you
do when you got the conditional use permit but you certainly did describe it and
so I take issue with the position that the City Council didn't know what you
were putting in there. I think they did know because you described it. That's
what I ass~ you're doing and I don't have any diffic~tlties approving this
but I think we've defined what wholesale nursery is and if you're selling to
licensed nurser~n, that's wholesale nursery.
Mayor Ch~iiel: Okay, is there a ~)tion?
Councilman Workman: I guess I'd like to add just a couple of quick points.
I don't know how wrong Jay really is. I wouldn't call it growing ~5~elf. I'd
call it maintaining until I could sell it. I think by allowing that into the
wholesale nursery, you're not taking into account the traffic because if they're
just sitting, growing and ~mybe that's an oversight frc~ the previous Council.
If they're just growing, that see~ like a pretty peaceful place to m~. If
they're cc~ing in by the flatbed load, you're adding to the activity. Probably
by 50 times. Tnat I guess is just one ~mjor concern of mine, the site plan.
48
City fbuncil Macring - October 9, 1989
Can they go out of this site plan? Can an~ubody go outside of a site plan
basically?
Paul Krauss: No.
Councilman Workman: Have they gone outside of their site plan fr~m original to
other? Basically we're just kicking the walls out. So in other words,
basically they can go outside their site plan.
Jo Ann Olsen: They still have to go through the whole process.
Councilman Workman: I know but why? Because if they can still go out of it and
then we have to explain it and everything else, I needn't have had this
probably. That's where I get excited. Again, when I think about a nursery and
I understand. Grocery. wholesaling is groceries ccmirg in, groceries going out
so if you look at this situation like that, they're definitely ~holesaling but I
think we've got a gap there.
Councilman Boyt: They're only harvesting in the spring and fall.
Councilman Workman: They're only harvesting in the spring and fall. Does that
mean they're not hauling in trees?
Councilw~nan Dimler: Are you working in the wintertime?
Mark VanHoef: No we' re not.
Councilman Workman: Are you selling shrubs and bushes all during the s~er?
Mark VanHoef: Yes we are.
Councilman Workman: So they're c~ming in and out all ~.
Mark VanHoef: The question that I think references on that...the talk on
machinery and the answer with harvesting our field operation. All harvesting is
done in the spring and fall when plant material is dormant and they're out
actually digging the plants out of the ground, which according to the packet,
when you break dow the site, we have about 15 to 17 acres in plant production
which would be harvested in the spring and fall but the potted material that
we're talking about right now, that material is gro~n from spring to freezing.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I had a question and I argued with Mr. Finger
about this for quite a while. That was that, and I wanted to find out, that
once you have your site plan approved, can you never, ever expsnd?
Jo Ann Olsen: You just have to go through the process again and get permission
to do that but yes, you can expand.
Councilwoman Dimler: Gkay, but isn't that what they're doing.
they' re applying for?
Isn't that what
Jo Ann Olsen: They had it prior to receiving that approval.
Councilman Johnson: So are we prosec~lting?
49
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
Paul Krauss: There's no question that they exceeded the allowable use on that
site but you tonight here are part of the punitive action. You can very well
deny thsm for these past transgressions.
Councilw~n Di~ler: I guess being in the agricultural business ourselves I can
understand why, you know we grow sweet corn and we run out or our next planting
isn't ready, cust(mlers still want it so what w~ have to do is buy it fr(ml
s(x~eone else and bring it in. I can understand that if they are selling x
nu~er of shrubs that aren' t ready to go, where t_hey would have to bring in
plants to fill the orders. I don't think it's our intent to, at least it isn't
mine to be dictatorial and say that every plant that is sold out of there has to
be grown in the ground right there. It's never been my intent to restrict
business expansion either. I think we need to have businesses that are ~mking a
profit and I think M~. Finger's concerns have been very well addressed by both
staff and by the willingness of the nursery to go along with it and I think that
we've got a real workable solution here to the problem. I don't want to approve
revocation of this.
Mayor C2m~iel: J~t ~mke a motion.
Councilwo~n Dimler: I'll ~mke a motion that we do not revoke the conditional
use pe~it of Northwest Wholesale Nursery and that we approve the staff report
and the recc~endations that staff has made to rectify the situation.
Mayor C~iel: ~ have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? I'll second
it.
Council~n Boyt: I have a question. Jo Ann, is the c~rrent use of the property
larger than it was when it was approved in 19857
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes.
Council~mn Boyt: So one possibility tonight is we could ~lite easily not expand
the permit they were originally granted.
Jo Ann Olsen: That's a whole separate process that they' 11 be c(mling back
through.
Council~mn Boyt: Right but I'm just, so as far as we can say. Okay, we're not
going to revoke it but at the same ti~, we could give th~m~ indication that we
~my be asking them to go hack to their 1985 proposal.
Councilw~n Dimler: But ~ want th~n to rectify their situation as well. I
don't think we want to deny them that opportunity.
Mayor C~liel: To proceed with their proposed expansion.
Councilman Johnson: Proceed with their application.
Councilman Workman: Paul, you had said on the phone .that basically we had 3
points. Basic points. One, this Council is now aware of a probl~ that exists
which is good. Two, we're going to get some financial guarantees. On
specifically what?
50
City Oouncil Meeting - October 9~ 1989
Paul Krauss: On correcting the drainage improvema~ts, paving the driveway and
creating the berm and planting the trees along the TH 101 elevation.
Co~ncilman Workman: And then 3? We've got a date certain ~/ch is what?
Paul Krauss: June 1st. If we don't have satisfaction with these things by
then, which includes bringing the site plan into cu~pliance. Going through the
process. Getting approval of whatever they need to. If w~ don't have
complia~ by then, w~ would anticipate bringing it right back to you and w~'re
back to the revocation again.
Co,~cilman Workman: Could it be assumed that since activity would now be
diminished for the industry, June 1st or ~y 15th, or just prior so they, would
have s~me pretty good activity just prior to June 1st and w~ should be sitting
fairly quiet for this at this ti~?
Paul Krauss: I would believe so.
Councilman Workman: Is that shade structure being in back?
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes.
Councilman Workman: Because didn't we ask ~ with scme teeth to move that
back with the Council last year or a year ago?
Jo Ann Olsen: That was when I started the whole process. We let ~ keep it
there beca~me it was such a hot, dry, summer and they needed it to protect the
plans so we allowed ~ to keep it there with the condition that they would
make application for the conditional use ~t for expansion along with the
variance if they were not going to set it back. And that did get going and then
it was tabled. We feel that we are moving ahead with it now and we do have the
Councilman Boyt: Is there anything in this, in our approval tonight that would
be construed as a permission to expand their operation beyond what we approved
in 19857
Jo Ann Olsen: It's just saying that you don't ~mnt to revoke the conditional
use pe~it.
Paul Krauss: We did ask however that they give us our ultimate develolm~nt
scenario so you could see it and know what they're going to be coming in with.
But it was for information purposes only.
Mayor Ch~iel: What you're saying basically ~,e.~e should be another condition
onto this? Is that what you're saying?
Councilman Johnson: Under what authority are we asking for this $1M,OMM.0M
letter of credit?
Paul Krauss: As a conditional use you can establish, you've got s~me lattitude
in establishing. 1
51
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
CounciL, mn Johnson: We're not establishing conditions. We did that in 1985.
We' re now considering revocation.
Paul Krauss: Then you're a~nding the conditions of approval if you approve it
the way the reco~endation was structured.
Councilnmn Johnson: It's not before us to a~nd. The application's not before
us to a~nd the conditional use pea~lit. We're saying here tonight that we're
not amending the conditional use pe~ltt. We're just not revoking it but we're
expecting them to come in with an application to antend it. As part of the
revocation hearing, I guess it could be a negotiated point that they agree to a
letter of credit.
Councilnmn Boyt: Aren't we saying Jay we' re going to revoke this unless you do
the following? Don't we have the right to say that?
Co~nci lman Johnson: I don ' t know.
Councilnmn Boyt: We do have the right to say that?
Councilman Johnson: Okay.
Councilamn Boyt: Is that okay?
Council~mn Johnson: As long as we have that authority. I just wanted to ~mke
sure we had some kind of authority behind us to say this.
Jim Parker: I'm the fella who drew the site plan. I'm Jim Parker with Advance
Surveying and I think, as I sensed the needs of ~ client and why they were
preparing the site plan they were two fold. One was to address the problem,s.
The drainage problem. The shade structure. Screening the operation better.
Those kinds of concerns. The wetland. But the other side of it was that they
wanted to know where they stood. In other words, they did want to lay out their
plans for the future and find that these were either (a), acceptable or (b), not
acceptable because then taken as a whole picture, they could either continue
with their operation or they might say well, this operation can't be continued.
So I think they need a resolution of it as a package. I think that's what they
were looking for and it's why, it's what the staff wanted. They wanted to see
the future plans and so on.
Jo Ann Olsen: Right but that doesn' t have anything to do with tonight's action.
Jim Parker: Alright. I'm just saying what their position was as I understood
it. I'm saying I think they want to lay that forward and get it resolved so
they knew what they were going to have to do to coe~oly and what they would be
allo~sd to do in the future and I think they did intend to follow up with a
subsequent sut~ission for a new conditional use permit that would get a plan
developed that they could follow to avoid a problem in the future.
Mayor Cbe~iel: We have a n~>tion on the floor. Is there going to be an
additional condition contained within here? Is that what you're saying? If so,
please provide it.
52
City Oouncil M~eting - October 9~ 1989
Councilman Boyt: I think w~ talked about adding a condition that their use
would not be expanded beyond the 1985 without application being made for anothe~
conditional use permit.
Councilman Johnson: That's condition 2.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's in there.
Councilman Boyt: Well if it's in there, we're covered as far as I can figure
out. Don, if you think we've left something out, then I'd be open to others.
Mayor Chniel: I think you've got it right here.
Councilman Johnson: The letter of credit riot's in. the conditions.
Mayor Chniel: The applicant shall provide a letter of credit as detezmined by.
the City. Engineer and Planning Director to insure. That's it~ 4.
Council~nn Johnson: I'm sorry, that's 4. I was looking for the $10,~0~.~0.
Mawr Ch~iel: And it also covers the non-conforming shade structure by. June 1,
1990.
Councilwoman Dimler: It' s all in there, really.
Mayor Chniel: Everything's in hexe as far as I can tell.
Council%~x~an Dimler: It's in there. Let's move it.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, ~yor Ch~iel seconded to deny the consideration for
revocation of Conditional Use Permit ~85-1 for Northwest Nursery ~holesale with
the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall redirect runoff from the nursery by. using one of the
alternatives shown on the drainage plans as shown on Sb~_ct 4 of the plans
dated Se~ 27, 1989 and approved by Y~)ot and City Engineer by. June 1,
1990.
2. ~ne applicant shall proceed immediately with the application for expansion
of the 1985 conditional use pen~t for the wholesale nursery, and proceed
with the application for ~tland alteration for existing filling and
proposed fillirg adjacent to the wetlands and receive such pe~mi~ by June
1, 1990.
3. By. October 4, 1989, the applicant shall install Type III erosion control
betw~e~ the ben~ and holdirg area in the southeast corner of the nursery
site to prevent runoff and sedimentation fr(~ entering adjacent properties.
4. The applicant shall provide a letter of credit as determined by the City.
Engineer and Planning Director to ensure the drainage improvements and
proposed landscaping is cc~pleted.
53
City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989
5. The applicant shall r~love the existing nonhconforming shade structure by
June 1, 1990.
Ail voted in favor except Oouncilman Work, mn who opposed and the motion carried
with a vote of 4 to 1.
Mayor Chmiel: Tom, do you w~nt to state your reason why?
Council~kan Work~n: We weren't going to just give scmebody a little addition to
their house.
Co~u~cil~mn Johnson: We didn't give them anything here.
Councilsmn Work, mn: I know. They took it. You can't ~mke c(x~lents to ~
cc~ent.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
R~CONSIDER R~CYCLING CONTRACT, MAYOR CHMIEL.
Mayor Ck~iel: We had a vote on this particular decision at our last council
~3eting which was a 3 to 2 to discontinue the contract with Waste Mang~nt. I
had sc~ discussions with Lynn the latter part of last week regarding what can
w~ do and how can we continue on with what we have going with our recycling
contract. (l~r major concern was that I didn't want to see this stopped even
though Council's decision was such and ask Lynn had mentioned the fact that
possibly there were sc~ things that could be done. Of course, I asked her
before that is there sc~ way a pencil could be sharpened and I thought she ca~
up with sc~e fairly decent ideas for us to hopefully reconsider if the
opposition who ~mde the motion to deny were to entertain that. What it was,
maybe Lynn you could just short of hit on it and I'll just mention it. What she
~_ntioned at the time was to keep the price where it is now at $.87 through
1989. Is that correct? Then in January 1 of 1990, increase that fro~l January
through June to $1.35 and July through Dec~4oer at a $1.60. I've had sc~e
discussions with the Cc~issloner A1 Klingelhutz frcm the County in respect to
potentially what we could look from the County to provide to ~ in the amount of
a contribution because of the dollars that they'll acquire through the new
o~mibus tax bill of the 6% increase on garbage which the Co~nty would be getting
approxi~mtely nubS)ers $325,000.00. Of this I was asking the County as far as
the City is concerned, we are here maintaining their requirements as percentages
for recycling and was asking that we be provided a minim~ of at least
$40,000.00 for 1990. Tnat's mini~m~ as I say. Hopefully we can get ~)re. Tney
have certain dollar allocations they have to expedite for different things the
County has to implement in order to have these dollars and it's so stated in the
law. I will be ~=eting tcmorrow morning to address this before the County Board
requesting their consideration to assist us with the recycling. It will be just
on a presentation. No action will be taken. It won't be taken until that
following w~ek so I g~ss that sort of su~arizes it. Lynn, do you have
something more to say than that?
Lynn Morgan: No. I would say what you described is accurate Mr. Mayor except I
would ~ntlon as well that part of what we talked about is that we would like
54
City Council Mseting - October 9, 1989
to, if the Council is agreeable to this proposal that we made, also try and
increase the value of your recycling progran to the City by upping your
participation and w~'re willing to put some dollaxs behind that effort in the
form of helping the City develop artwork for a new brochure. Helping ccme up
with newspaper advertisement that could run in the local newspaper and perhaps a
few other it~ns to try to help you achieve a highex participatio~ which I think
will make your program a better bargain for this City.
Councilman Johnson: How much of this have you already done with us as far as
helping us advertise, etc.? Providing brochures and all that stuff.
Lynn Morgan: We've done a couple of things. For example a few w~eks back at
Oktoberfest, we helped the City. put together the recycling display that was up
which did draw a lot of attention frcm people that were there. We had a
recycling truck on display. We also recently reprinted the education tags that
our drivers leave if someone has made a mistake in what they put out in their
recycling containers so that's a little bit clearer and more helpful to
residents. I'm not aware of many things beyond that right now but I haven't
been here very long. I'd like to let you know too that we figured
probably getting sick of me so we brought in s(~e reinforc~nents and this is
Mike Berkepeck. H~ is the general manager of Waste Y~nag~t of Savage which
is the c(~y that actually comes in and services Chanhassen. Mike, I'd ask
you. Are you aware of any other public relation efforts? Okay.
Councilman Johnson: See that was one of the original things as I reme~oer it
when we were selecting Waste Management is that they're going to help us with
all this advertising over the small guy, who wasn't going to do this. I'm just
trying to find out, this is the second time that's been pr~nised basically. I
was just trying to find out the first premise is kept before we got snilin9
about the second one.
Jo Ann Olsen: The City took the initiative to have the brochure made up and
printed. Waste Managenent always offered to help with that and it was just
scmethlng that I had already got started and we didn't really...
Councilman Johnson: So we just never asked then to fulfill...
Jo Ann Olsen: No.
Mayor C~iel: One other thing that I forgot. I also asked the County to assist
to participate with us for the balance of this .uear as well. In 1988 the County
provided us $5,~.~ to work on what we have going at that particular time for
recycling. In 1989 they provided us $95.~0 so I'm hopeful to bring that up as
well to see if they would not try to assist us a little bit more to pick up the
balance that ~ have. (ktr dollars are expedited. T~ey're gone and so
consequently we're at that particular point.
Councilman Johnson: Don, to give you a little history on that. I believe
originally they had premised us $1~,~.~ and when they found out what we were
doing with it, they said well ~ premised ~u the money but we don't like how
you're spending it so we're only going to give you half anyway so they gave us
$5,000.00. So rec.ucling has not, the County has not been real participatory.
with us yet. I'm not holding my breath but we do get 2 county cc~issi0ners to
each of the County Solid Waste Om~nittee meetings. Chairman of the Board gets
55
City Council M~eting - October 9, 1989
there. Of course they're pretty straight forward with what they're going to do
with the purse strings. They're always pulled tight.
Mayor C~liel: So ali I'm doing basically is trying to bring this up at this
particular time so at our October 16th ~=eting this can be reconsidered at that
ti~ but the opposition are the ones that are going to have to bring that back
up if they so desire.
Council~mn W~rk~an: So we're going to get $.87 per for November-Dece~er?
Mayor C~m~iel: Yes.
Council~mn Work~n: (~mranteed?
Lynn Morgan: Yes. (l~r price to you will be $.87 for Nov~nber and Dece~nber.
Council~mn Workman: And we still have the 30 day availability to j~up ship?
Lynn Morgan: The 30 day cancellation clause?
CounciL,~n Work, mn: Yes.
Lynn Morgan: Yes.
Co~mcilman Work~n: I g~ss nothing has changed then, at least until January.
I'm delighted that we'd have the opportunity to again rec~cle. I think we have
sc~ very serious problems and again Bill addressed those last week about how
much it really is costing us for you to haul our newspapers away but hopefully
our recycling c~iittee can kick in and do sc~e things and get s(m~e action and
maybe where the council can all get together is go around and encourage as a
group people to recycle. ~nat would be someplace w~ere we could help. I would
move approval.
Councilw(m~3n Dirtier: I ' 11 second.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to discuss it a for a minute.
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Council~mn Boyt: Now I want to be sure that what we're considering here is not
binding us in anyway frc~! 1990.
Councilwo~n Di~,]er: No.
councilman Johnson: No. We have to negotiate that in the next 2 months.
Lynn Morgan: I think it's a s~qntics issue but what we would ask is a contract
through 1990. However the question that Co~cilme~er Workman posed was would
we still have a 30 day cancellation clause and if that's something you want,
yes. We'll write that but I guess we would act in good faith that you wouldn't
use that to have the short te~ contract at a lower cost and then j~p out when
the higher cost kicked in.
56
City Oouncil Mseting - October 9, 1989
Councilman Workman: But none of those 1990 costs a~e really locked in. I mean
we're going to see the $.87 but them it's going to go to, it could go higher or
lower than $1.35 in the first half couldn't it?
Lynn Morgan: No. We would ccitt to the $1.35 cost for the first half of 1990.
Councilman Workman: But there's no cc~nitment to the last half?
Lynn Morgan: Yes. We would write that. What we want to do is to write that
into a contract with you so that you have some certainity for now. I know that
this still leaves s(~e risk because you still need to find ~u~ long term
funding source for your recycling program but what we saw this as a way of
buying the city. some time to develop the direct bill method. To develop the
County funding. To develop your long te~m sources for your recycling program
without damaging your recycling program by cancelling and then att~mpting to
restart it when ~u had resolved s(~e of these larger issues.
Councilman Workman: But we would need to know ar~ have 1990's contract laid out
by the November 20th meeting.
Lynn Morgan: Why November 20th T~m?
Councilman Workman: Well for 30 days and because ~ we'd go into Dec~ber. If
we didn't like what '90 looked like, we could go through Dec~mxber and then, I
mean that's a negative way to look at it. You know what I'm saying?
Lynn Morgan: I think so. I guess the way that l~u want to proceed, we'd be
open to s~me discussion in that but what I would envision is that if for example
at your next meeting you were to vote to enter into a contract with Waste
Mang~ent, that we would then begin to work with staff to write that contract
through 1990. Does that sound like that might work or does that not answer a
concern?
Councilman Workman: So that w~ wouldn't go into 1990 at all, we'd ~ to know
by the end of November what we are going to do for sure for 1990 because we're
not really approving that contract here and now are we?
Jo Ann Olsen: No.
Councilman Workman: Again, it rests on a whole lot of things. $40,0~0.00 fr~m
the County isn't guaranteed. We don't have any guarantees really.
Councilman Johnson: I thought we were going to rebid service next year?
Councilman Boyt: Well actually I think we have to rebid service next year. I
don't think it's an option.
Councilman Workman: When will that take place?
Councilman Boyt: It could take place anytime we ~ant I suppose.
Mayor Chef el: I think we'd have to leave that to our attorneys to see that
we're meeting all of our legal obligations as well.
57
City Council Mseting - October 9, 1989
Council~n Workman: Tnat's where if we're locking into a contract tonight I
think we've got a probl~l.
Councilman Boyt: Well, I think the Attorney will tell you that we've got to bid
this.
Councilman Johnson: Why?
Councilman Work~n: It was a one year contract wasn't it?
Jo Ann Olsen: It allows you to extend it.
Council~mn Johnson: With an extension.
Dave Harmeyer: My understanding, your taking tonight or the proposed action is
merely to reconsider sc~ethlng that you did at your last ~eting. That allows
you at a future date to take the next step and whatever action is necessary but
by your motion tonight you're not really doing anything except bringing back
before you the opportunity to reconsider it. Whether or not advertisement is
leaglly required or not, I guess I would rec~st that I be given a chance, at
least for ~ to discuss it with Roger and look into it and c(m~e back with an
opinion.
Council~n Boyt: Okay. Well I'll put it in a different light. Tnat makes a
lot of sense. To enter into a $67,000.00, potentially a $67,000.00 contract
without looking for other bidders is something that I don't want to do
personally. I think that another thing that the recycling c~ltttee talked
about and we should be prepared to do is f~u~d this scale other way than out of
the general fund. If we're going to do this, then we should be looking at sc~
sort of a charge, a recycling charge if you will, for the households in
Chanhassen. That's one way to fund it that fits direct for the service received
but if we're going to sit here in good faith and say that we don't think that
we've got $67,000.00 or $27,000.00 to spend on this, then we're kind of wasting
everybody's time to pursue this further.
Mayor C~iel: I don't know if we're wasting everybody's ti~ Bill but we don't
know the total a~unt of dollars that will be allocated but we should have a
pretty good handle on that within a short period of time if we can get a
cc~it~_nt frc~ the County and that's the part that we ~my find out by tc~orrow.
At least an inkle.
Councilman Boyt: I appreciate the work you've done on this. There's no
question that you've made progress in this area Don and if by voting to
reconsider we buy another couple weeks for this thing to work itself out, then I
guess we haven' t lost anything but I think when we take that next vote, we have
to have a lot of information wa don't have now, in good faith for ~ to change
my vote.
Councilwoman Dimler: Right now all we're doing is reconsidering.
Councilman Boyt: Which is fine.
Mayor C~liel: We have a motion and a second to reconsider it at our October
16th ~=eting which is our budget meeting.
58
City Council -~cting - October 9, 1989
Oouncilman Workman moved, Oouncilwaqan Dimler seconded to reconsider the
Recycling Oontract with Waste Manag~t at the October 16, 1989 City Oouncil
meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chqiel: The next item that I had to discuss was the vacancy of Dave
Headla fr~q the Planning (2x~qission. I'd like to say thank you to David for
serving that ~o~nt of time and donating all the time that he has to the City.
It takes a lot away from people's business and their evenings as well and it
really is appreciated. I would think that ~ahat w~ should do with this vacancy
is go through the process as we have with s(x,e of these to advertise this
vacancy in the paper and review the candidates and go from there.
Councilman Boyt: I would r~ that wa also give David the Maple Leaf
Award. I think anybody that serves out a term.
Mayor Chniel: That's an automatic.
Councilman Boyt: It's good to hear you say that.
Councilman Johnson: His term expires the end of the year?
Coumcilman Boyt: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: Dale Geving's term, as long as we're talking about, his
te~, expires on the Southwest Metro Transit. He's not shown up for the last
upteen meetings. I'm not sure if he made the last one because I was with you at
the Southwest...so I think ~ should advertise Dale's position for another
c~issioner on the Southwast Metro Transit. The other thing we meed to double
check on that is whether we're going to get the rand(x,, the co~qission is
omqposed of 2 ms,bets from every city and then I forget, every so often each
city has a third me~be~. I think we're up next for that third m~mber. I'm not
sure because 1998 so there may be 2 slots open for this city in 1998.
Mayor Ch~iel: But what ~ should do is just advertise for the one and if that
does come available then we'll do it again.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, if wa have additional applicants. The previous
Council's position was that mev~ers of the Council should be on the ~ssion.
Primarily the commission composed of ~s of the Council with the exception
of I believe only 2 people who are no lo~ger on the Council. One, he was on the
Council and his ten, expired. He didn't run for re-election. The other was the
third person frc~ Chaska.
Mayor Chniel: What days are those Jay?
Councilman Johnson: ThOse are Thursday nights. On the third Thursday. I think
it's the third. When's our solid waste?
Mayor Ch~iel: We had that on the 28th.
Councilman Johnson: SO it's the fourth Thursday then.
59
City Oo~ncil Meeting - October 9~ 1989
Mayor Chmiel: Yep. You're right. It would be the fourth Thursday if that's
what you're saying.
CounciL.mn Johnson: Because we usually have our solid waste meeting on the
third Thursday and the reason it conflicted was because we moved it this one
month to the fourth. So it'd be the fourth Thursday of each month but that
could change in January because it changed last January. We used to do it the
second Thursday and we changed it to t_he fourth. But historically it's always
been on a Thursday. I'd like to get more bus riders on it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Tne next item, Frontier H~es. I guess we've already
addressed that. I didn't put it on here but everyone has a copy of the letter
that's addressed from Teton Lane requesting the clos[uce of the thru traffic.
Lake Lucy access.
CounciL.mn Boyt: In the Admin Pack is a letter that says the DNR will pay for
that access if we put it in the Greenwood Shores Park. I think that that should
be on an ~ocoming agenda.
Mayor C~iel: Where are we at?
Councilamn Boyt: I don't know. Two thirds the way through the pack I guess or
~ybe a third of the way through the pack. It's a letter addressed to you Don
dated the 12th of Sept~er. Department of Natural Resources would agree to
design, construct and pay for an access on the southeast side of the lake in the
city park. Tne access would contain four car-trailer spaces and they're saying
it's t~porary. So they'll put an access in and they're willing to put all that
money in there and then they'll let us put it s(m~=where else.
Mayor Chmiel: I ' ve never seen a t~porary.
counciL.mn Work, mn: Isn't that beach te~rary down there?
Mayor Ch~iel: Yep.
councilman Boyt Well I'm not saying, whether it's temporary or per~mnent, I'm
just saying, the DNR is saying they're willing to spend s(m~ money in our city
to do something that would cost the city a great deal of money to do and I think
we ought to talk about it.
councilman Johnson: In addition there's also the DNR, the MPCA said there's the
possibility that if the City paid for the treatment but then EPA, Mr. Rogers
with EPA and the EPA neighborhood, or Roberts. Mr. Robert's neighborhood over
there in Chicago, said no but it se~ to an initial reaction. Initial
reaction in DNR was no. Initial in MPCA was no. We've tttrned those two around.
We haven't talked to Rogers yet. Roberts. I think if he was a Presbyterian
minister he'd be easier to work with. Mr. Rogers is.
Council~mn Boyt: You're in his ballga~, maybe you'll give him a call. He's
convinced ~ through the press that that money's gone. ~nat's too bad. I think
the City did everything they could do.
counciL.mn Johnson: If the money's gone, why are we looking to put in a boat
access then?
60
City Council M~eting - October 9~ 1989
Mayor Ch~iel: We don't have to really then~
Councilman Boyt: Well it's not a matter of having to. It's a matter of this is
sc~thing that I ~Duld think the City would want an access on that lake
event,rally. The DNR's going to pay fo~ it, w~ ought to look at it.
Councilman Johnson: I'm, not sure that w~ do.
Mayor Ch~iel: Yeah, I'm not sure that I do either.
Councilman Johnson: Not all lakes deserve an access. Some lakes deserve to be
protected. We protect wetlands but on that particular lake, I'm not sure if I
want to put a couple more boats on there. The policy, of putting an access on
every lake, I don't think is a good environmentally sound policy, personally.
That's one of these little s~all, very. shallow lakes that canoes don't bother me
but boats and motors, they can cause more damage to Lake Ann from stirring up
the bottom of that lake and then...
Councilman Boyt: We' re not talking Lake Ann.
Councilman Johnson: I know. It's Lake Lucy. but Lake Lucy. is the top of the
chain. The damage you do to Lucy, you do to the rest of the chain.
Councilman Boyt: If the Council doesn't want to talk about this, then let's
drop it. If they do, let's put it on a future agenda.
Councilman Johnson: If the money's still alive, we should talk about it. See
I've heard that the money's probably not alive but I haven't ~ the funeral
.vet.
Mayor Ch~iel: I'd like to just add ~ing to that. I'm hopeful that maybe
for scme of the things of getting that aeration going with that into Lake Lucy.
as well as potential of maybe killing the lake. I'm not sure about that ~t.
After I ~ead scme of these things on the poison pond. I guess what I'm trying
to do is to ~c if I can auquire s~me additional dollaxs ~ereby ma.ube the City
won't have to pay those dollars. I'm thinking a private source and more after
Wednesday I' 11 probably have a little better idea.
Councilman Boyt: Well, while we're doing this, I'd like to see this thing put
on a future, say the next agenda and if in the meantime we find out enough to
decide it's a dead issue, then pull it off. What's the thought of the Council
on that?
Councilman Johnson: If it's an option, it should be made aware to the public
that it's an option that's going to be considered. I can guarantee you how full
this ro~m is going to be if it's considered.
Councilman Boyt: I'm not looking forward to that. I just think it's s~mething,
if it's out there we should talk about it.
Councilman Johnson: Sure. You've got face tough issues head on.
61
City Council M~eting - October 9~ 1989
Don Ashworth: One of the reasons Staff hasn't brought this back is there's been
a number of issues through the process as to what did or ~Duld do or wouldn't do
and even this notice came late in te~ls of I think the decisions had already
been made at the federal level. We can put the item onto the agenda but again,
I'm just wondering if. Isn't really the first issue to try and find out whether
or not the thing is alive or dead? Won't youx decision be different depending
on whether or not the grant is alive or not or would you still pursue the boat
access if the grant is dead?
CounciL"mn Boyt: I don't know. I might. It depends on what's going with it.
If the DNR is going to say w~ still have an interest. We're going to resu~nit
that proposal to clean up the chain of lakes now that you've got a boat access
on each lake, yeah. I'd be interested. They're not saying one way or the other
now.
counciL"mn Worknmn: Nobody's taking into account how it's going to affect that
park. They're talking about putting an access in there and then eveything else
disappears.
counciL"mn Johnson: I've said it before. You're not going to bring boats and
trailers down that road on that curve and everything. It's just one of the most
ludicrous places for a boat access personally. There's other more expensive
places for boat accesses if you want to put it on there. That's not the kind of
traffic I want to see going into that type of park and neighborhood. I'm all
for putting still 4 parking spots in that neighborhood but I'm not for putting
boats and trailers in there. I have no problem with a couple cars and 3 parking
spots and a handicap spot for that little park but I do have a probl~ with 4
boat and trailers and the removal of trees.
Don Ashworth: I would suggest placing onto the agenda for 2 weeks fr(ml today
the issue as to whether or not f%~ding is still viable or not and have the
decision at that point in time being one of whether or not you wish to advertise
and have onto the agenda pursuing the Greenwood Shores boat access.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
CounciL"~un Boyt: Okay, last item for ~.
Mayor C~iel: Next it~ that you have is Pleasant View. Speed.
CounciL"mn Boyt: S~ patrol and I would like to see the City Council discuss
the s~ at which we want traffic citations written.
CounciL"mn Workman: On this road?
Councilman Boyt: On this road but generally any residential road. We had a
traffic study. It's in the admin pack.
Mayor C~liel: One ticket was issued.
CounciL.mn Boyt: No tickers were issued.
Mayor Chniel: One ticket.
62
City ~ouncil M~eting - October 9, 1989
Councilman Boyt: Wheze?
Mayor Ch~iel: 42 mph.
Council~mn Boyt: 42 mph in a 25 zone.
Mawr Ch~iel: The others were 30 and 32.
Councilman Johnson: There was a 36 and no ticket ~as issued?
Councilman Boyt: There was a 36 and no ticket issued. There's tw~ issues. I've
already discussed these with Jim. (]ne of them is, if w~'re going to have a
traffic assessment done, I'd like to see the spccds written down for each car
that goes through that check as one officer did. Then I think the City Council
and ~ have talked about this at the Public Safety. Cc~mission and I will tell
you that I've gotten nowhere with the discussion so I'm bringing it to the City
Council after they've talked about it. That is that I believe that the City
should establish ~hat w~ want enforced in our s~ regulations. I'm frankly
very disappointed that an officer w~uld sit there ar~ watch a car go th_rough at
36 mph in a 25 zone and not write a ticket but I would like to see the Council
decide if they think that's accurate or if they think that I'm just being overly
restrictive. So if ~ could put this on a future agenda. Have Jim prepare
ought to publicly discuss that issue.
AI~INSTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Don Ashworth: I simply ~mnted to alert the City Council that a counter
proposal, not counter proposal. Pauls' have met the requir~emts set by. the
City Council from this last meeting and I will be asking the Mayor and do I ask
myself, to sign the purchase agreement. The City Attorney is in the process of
reviewing that document. Making sure that it is in accordance but they have
ccme back with the $1~,~.~ threshhold that the City Council had set and the
other conditions of the t~m~)rary storage and I think that was it.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting.
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at L1:30
p.m..
~tted by. Don Ashworth
city Manager
63