1989 09 25CHANHASS~ CITY COUNCIL
RE(XIAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 25, 1989
Mayor Chniel called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL M~4BERS PRESENT: Mayor Ch~iel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman,
Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Johnson
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Paul Krauss, Todd Gerhardt, Dave
P~m~ and Jim Chaffee
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconed to
approve the agenda amended as follows: Councilw~mn Dimler wanted to adopt the
City Values that was brought up last meeting and also a cc~plaint registered by
Marcy Waritz; Councilman Workman wanted to discuss the motion made at the last
~ting instructing staff to look at other law emforc~ment agencies. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
~LING PRIZE DRAWING: Mayor Chniel drew a name for the recycling prize which
is at $450.00.
CC~SENT AG~2~A: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwcman Dimler seconded to
approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
rec(mmendations:
b. Approval of 0~e Day Temporary 0n-Sale Beer License, Chanhassen Lion's Cltfo,
Oktober fest.
c. Approval of Msdical Arts Facility Development Contract.
d. 1990 Budget, Set Public Hearing Date (October 9, 1989).
e. Final Plat Approval, Reed ' s Orchard Ridge.
f. Approval of Position Classification and Pay Compensation Plan.
g. Final Plat Approval, Quattro Addition.
j. Consider Utility Service to Cedar Heights Addition, Shorewood, Kelly
Boswor th o
1. Accounts Payable.
m. City Co,~cil Minutes dated S~ptember 11, 1989
City Council Minutes dated Se~ 13, 1989
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Daniel Cole: Your Honor? We are here on behalf of Centex Homes. 0~e of the
itsms, l(n) involves an authorization to draw on a letter of credit. We would
ask that that ite~ be tabled until a future meeting. We think it's far fr~m
routine and w~ are prepared this evening to deliver, wa have a letter stating
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
Centex's position. We don't intend to take up the Council's time this evening
with that. We are prepared to answer any c~.lestions you might have but we
certainly ~ould rec~lest that that it~n be re~noved fr~n this consent agenda at
this time.
Mayor Chmiel: Could I have your name again?
Daniel Cole: My name is Daniel Cole. I'm an attorney with Briggs and Morgan
representing Centex Homes.
Councilman Boyt: Why don't we just discuss it. Get it over with.
Councilwoman Dimler: Sc~ebody pull it.
Councilman Johnson: I'll lmlll item (n).
Daniel Cole: If I might ask what the affect of p~lling it at this time.
Mayor Chniel: It will come into discussion.
Councilman Johnson: We'll discuss it after we approve the rest of them.
A. ORDINAk~2E AMENDING CHAPTER 6 OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING SWIMMING RAFTS.
Councilwoman Dimler: Ite~n (a). I just wanted to make sure that you all knew
that there w~s a new copy that ~as handed out this evening and it does include
the wording that we had in the Minutes the last meeting and I wanted to thank
Roger for getting that in there. Then there is a letter here from Michael
Schroeder that w~s just put on our desks. I don't know if you've had a chance
to read it but he did have a concern and it has to do with the mooring of his
boat. It states up at the top, it gives the amendment and it talks about the
removal of the boat but it doesn't, at the bottom when, the seasonal stuff when
you put it back in in the spring, it doesn't address the mooring at that point.
So the wording that we thought might be appropriate is that all non-confokming
structures except legally non-confo~/ning docks, moorings and switching rafts once
removed may not be returned to the lake. Legal non-conforming docks, moorings
and swinging rafts, for example the Carver Beach raft may be returned to the
lake. Any questions?
Mayor Chniel: I don't have any questions. Does anybody else have any
questions?
Councilman Boyt: It so~%nds like you're anending the motion. Is that right?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. I'm amending the wording of 6-30.
Councilman Boyt: And the effect of your amendment is to do what?
Councilwcman Dimler: TO put moorings in there in both places.
Councilman Johnson: Can I ask Roger a question? If it's a legal non-conforming
use, does it ~mtter whether it's said in here or not? It still stays as a legal
non-conforming use and can be put back whether we state it or not?
City Council Meeting - September 25~ 1989
Roger Knutson: Yes it matters because in another provision of the ordinance it
says that when non-conforming uses are discontinued 'for certain periods of time,
that they can' t be restored.
Co,~cilman Johnson: Isn't that a year though?
Roger Knutson: I believe that's correct.
Councilman Johnson: So even in this case, if they took it out and kept it out a
whole year, then it w~uld beccme a non-conformirg use. He'd have to put it back
in every spring so if he skips a spring, it doesn't really matter. I just want
to keep it straight in my, mind that we're not saying he can leave it out for 2
or 3 y~ars.
Councilwoman Dimler: I think w~'d all feel safer if the wording were in there.
Councilman Johnson: Sure. No big deal.
Councilman Boyt: I have a question about whether this is a legal non-confozming
use?
Councilman Johnson: Well we're not saying specifically that mooring either.
We're not saying his mooring.
Councilman Boyt: Is it legal now?
Mayor Chniel: As it is now, presently? Roger?
Roger Knutson: I don't know. I'm not familiar with that. I'm not m~e mhat
mooring you're talking about. I'm sorry,.
Councilwuman Dimler: Mr. Schroeder ' s here.
Michael Schroeder: I think I called you earlier in the w~_k...
Roger Knutson: You mentioned a Mr. Winters? ~nat situation.
Michael Schroeder: And I think I discussed in a letter...the one part of the
amendment states that dock moorings and other structures, it states that
non-conforming structures...and it says that docks and swim~ing rafts can be
returned k~lt it specifically ~ to leave out moorings...in the long history
of this process that that se~ms to specifically mean... I think I quote several
different documents and proceedings.
Mayor Ch~iel: Why don't you come up to the microphone.
Michael Schroeder: Basically I quoted several places in here from previous
parks -n-~ctings and from a letter from Mr. Ashworth to the City, Council
concerning this whole Carver Beach area and I contend first of all that it is a
long standing useage and I think you'll find d~tation that points to many,
many years of Mr. Tauch as well as Mr. Winters and the swimming raft up by
Rocky's area has ~ used in there. The second contentio~ is that specifically
leaving out moorings in the second part there of the a~a-~a~mt is discriminatory
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
towards just my own use and you seen to be leaving in the docks and the rafts
wherever they are in the City that w~re non-conforming but the moorings, which
is me, seems to be left out.
Roger Knutson: I was asked to investigate and briefly did, as to whether our
office had issued a citation on those moorings. I said to the best of my
knowledge the answer was no. I did not investigate further whether or not they
were legal or illegal moorings but this ordinance really has no bearing on that.
If they're legal, they're in, if you add that word.
Councilwnman Dimler: It doesn't hurt anything to add it?
Roger Knutson: No.
Michael Schroeder: That's where I pointed at the beginning there even with the
whole amendment is the use of the word legal and it wasn't really defined what
legal meant in the first part of the anendment and I think that affects also the
raft.
Roger Knutson: Legal means, as it conforms to ouz' zoning ordinance, is that
when it was put in initially it was not in violation of ordinance requirements.
Mayor Chniel: Any other discussion?
Councilman Boyt: I don't think, you know several claims are made in the letter
about length of time it's been out there and history and I have no reason to
doubt those but I also have no staff background other than what's in that letter
on what's going on there. The way this ordinance would be written with that
interpretation, if anyone in the City or outside the City wanted to put a boat
out on Lotus Lake in front of the boat launch or in front of that park between
now and November 1st, they could do it.
Councilman Johnson: No.
Co~ncilman Boyt: They couldn't?
Councilman Johnson: Because that would not be a legally non-conforming use.
The legally non-conforming use had to be at the time of the zoning ordinance
that was passed to make it non-conforming years ago.
Michael Schroeder: That's why you wrote that section is my understanding was to
grandfather things in, if I remember correctly.
Councilman Johnson: They have to be a legal non-confozming use as of right now.
Tomorrow you can' t start a legal non-confozming use. Am I somewhat correct
there Roger?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: So what we're saying then, I'm not aware of any others other
than Mike' s here.
Councilman Johnson: There could be.
City Co, mcil Meeting - September 25~ 1989
Councilman Boyt: There could be but, so we're sayirg that Mike is granted the
right to keep his boat in front of that piece of park property as long as he
puts it in every
Councilman Johnson: And if it can be proved that it ~ms a legal conforming use
when the ordinance changed to rake it a non-conforming use so thus it becomes a
legally non-conforming use. So he has to prove that that mooring has been there
a while.
Mayor Ch~iel: Sure.
Michael Schroeder: I think your files even have airplane photographic evidence
of it being there way back.
Councilman Boyt: I just want to understand what I'm voting on. And so ~ahat
we're voting on, if Jay is right, then we're voting to say that Mike's boat has
always been out there, or a boat has always been out there.
Councilman Johnson: Not that one particularly. If it has always ~n out
there.
Councilman Boyt: A boat?
Councilman Johnson: Yes. If a boat has always ~n out there.
Councilman Boyt: And as long as it's out there or another replacement every
y~ar forward, it's legal. Is that right? Is that the understanding that
everybody has?
Mayor Ch~iel: Right.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. ~nank you.
Councilw~e~n Dimler: I move ite~ (a) with tt~ ~ndment.
Margie Karjalahti: I'm Margie Karjalahti and I live on Frontier Trail and I'm
a m~ber of our h~meo~s association. I just have a question. Does mooring
mean the same as dock or is that different?
Councilman Johnson: No.
Margie Karjalahti: So it'd be if the boat was like there was a plug out there
and just hooked up to that?
Mayor (]~uiel: Yes.
Margie Karjalahti: Okay. That's what I was curious about. Thank you.
Councilwoman Dimler: I move it~ (a) with the ~m~uemt that we add mooring
into the w~rdage under Section 6-30.
Councilman Johnson: I ' 11 second that.
City Council Meeting - Sept~nber 25, 1989
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Ordinance
Amending Chapter 6 of the City Code regarding Swimming Rafts with the amendment
to add the word moorings into Section 6-30. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
I. APPROVE ENGINEERING CONTRACT FOR TH 5 INTERSECTION DESIGNS FOR GREAT PLAINS
BOULEVARD, DAKOTA AVENUE AND MARKET BOULEVARD, BARTON ASCHMAN AND ASSOCIATES.
Councilwoman Dimler: I pulled this one, I had a chance to talk to Don about
this one today. I have a lot of concerns about it and I think it's probably a
lot of unanswered questions so if we don't ~ant to go into a lot of
discLmsion, I'd just move that we table this one until we have those questions
answered. I left those c~lestions with Don this morning.
Councilman Boyt: Does this create problems for us Dave if we table this?
Dave H~m~pel: I guess I'm not that familiar with it Bill to give you an answer.
I don't think it will at this time.
Councilman Johnson: What kind of questions have you got?
Councilwoman Dimler: Well okay. Don, will you explain?
Don Ashworth: I think that was the problem.
Councilw~nan Dimler: We don't know what we're approving.
Don Ashworth: Had asked me various questions regarding the scope of the
contract. What parcels is it that we're acquiring as a result of the contract
back with MnDot. Barton Asch~an's role. Originally Barton Asch~m~ was going to
be employed because it could s~ the process up in that Barton Aschnan is the
engineer for the highway department as well as the person we work for so
therefore how is that going to speed th~n up. And I did not have those answers
for Co~cilw~nan Dimler.
Councilman Johnson: How does it speed up by having the same engineer work both
sides of the street?
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Councilwc~an Dimler: well they're going to have to go through the process
an~way for MnDot and we're saying that we're going to pay then extra to do it
for us as well. In other words, they're going to be doubled paid. Once by the
City and once by MnDot.
DOn Ashworth: we already w~nt through the example. In other words, it's a good
idea to hire Barton Asch~mn because you want to insure when you' re setting
grades going around a radius, that you've got a consistent point and one person
doing the job. And the question though, in terms of the various land
acquisitions that are going to occur, why is that process s~ed up by
~nploying Barton Aschnan versus simply letting Barton Aschman do it as a part of
the State contract.
City Oouncil Meeting - September 25, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Are these land purchases above and beyond the State
contract? The State contract is for TH 5.
Don Ashworth: It refers to 60 parcels that are going to be acquired in there
and again, I was not sure as to ~hat those parcels were.
Councilman Johnson: Because if we have to acquire the apartment parcel, that's
not one of the ones ~ to be...
Don Ashworth: No.
Councilman Johnson: Some of them are above and beyond what Barton Asch~an has
to acquire for MnDot. The way we could proceed is that anything that Barton
Aschnan already has to do for their MnDot contract cannot be charged to us on
our contract. We're not going to pay and a good reputable firm's not going to
ask to be paid twice for the same. Their accounting procedures aren't going to
evem allow it hardly.
Councilw~uan Dimler: Then there were several questions too on ~at does the
$74,~gg.g0 buy us? We weren't sure on that. We were not sure about the
$52,000.00 here because they w~re part of the $120,000.00 that ~ already
allocated to BR~ and that was supposed to be t/~ third phase of the BR~ and now
we've gone to Barton Asch~an and there ~_re just a lot of unclear things in this
so I asked Don if he would check those things out before we would vote on that.
Councilman Boyt: Well if it doesn't throw the time table off, it shouldn't be
any probleu in dealying it. It's just the time table that's critical.
Councilman Johnson: Right, and we don't know about that.
Don Ashworth: I don't think that it will but I couldn't answer those questions.
Councilman Johnson: Could we put a comditional approval that Don and Ursula
look at these conditions and if there's a problem with the~, that we'll bring it
back on our next age~da. In other words, we approve it. You two check it out
and if you're satisfied that we're not being ripped off by anybody ard that it's
all legal, vote for it.
DOn Ashworth: Then I could set up a meeting with Barton Asclx~nn and we could
bring somebody in and talk about each of it. You see the probl~ was what
parcels are we going to acquire? I didn't have a listing. It's late in the
day.
Mayor Chniel: I agree with it. That's a good idea Jay. As a friendly
amendment, would you accept that?
Councilwuman Dimler: You're making me do extra work huh?
Mayor Chniel: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: Or we could just say have Don do it.
Councilw~uan Dimler: No, I'll do it. I'll do it. That's fine. I'll accept
your friendly~m~inent.
City Council Meeting - September 251 1989
Mayor Chniel: Is there a second?
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilw~nan Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the
Engineering Contract for TH 5 Intersection designs for Great Plains Boulevard,
Dakota Avenue and Market Boulevard with Barton Aschnan and Associates with the
condition that the City Manager satisfactorily answer councilwcman Dimler's
concerns. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
N. AUTHORIZE DRAW AGAINST LETTER OF CREDIT AND COND~LNATI~ CURRY FARMS S~OND
ADDITION.
Councilman Johnson: I pulled (n) because w~ have people in the a[~ience that
want to talk about (n). I don't think we should have it on the Consent Agenda
there. To me, as long as I pulled it I get to talk first. It s~ns like a very
logical thing to do. I think we ought to go ahead and do it. I'd like to hear
why we shouldn ' t.
Mayor Chmiel: would you like to make your presentation at this time? Please
state your name and address.
Daniel Cole: My name is Daniel Cole. I'm an attorney with Briggs and Morgan in
the St. Paul office here representing Centex Hcmes. I really am not prepared to
take your time this evening to explain why we don't think this is a proper ite~i
for the consent agenda. We have delivered a...
councilman Johnson: It's not there an~vmore so you can explain it.
Daniel Cole: Pardonme?
Councilamn Johnson: It's not on the consent agenda anymore so you don't have to
explain why you pulled it. Now why shouldn't we approve it?
Daniel Cole: We are here tonight to request that this matter be tabled to allow
the staff and the council to review the infomnation that we have prepared since
we were informed on the 20th of the fact that this was going to be on the
consent agenda. Mr. T~n Boyce of Centex H~nes met on Friday with Don Ashworth
to try to understand why this item was placed on the consent agenda when the
staff has known .for some period of time that there's been a dispute about this
item and to put it on the consent agenda ~ a little premature. We have
delivered a letter which we hope people have an opportunity to read and think
about the rights of the parties here before deciding this matter. We hope that
the letter addresses most of the concerns. Without going into them in great
detail, there is a develolanent contract. There are other documents that have
gone into this ~mtter involving Teton Lane and some of the highlights of why we
don't think the council should take this action is among others, that we're
talking an improvement. That is, finishing a barricade. Improvements are
supposed to be completed by November 30, 1989. We're not at Nover~er 30, 1989.
We don't think there's any default. There needs to be a default before a letter
of credit can be called. We don't think there's an contractual obligation on
City Council Meeting - Se~r 25~ 1989
behalf of Centex to do what the City is now saying that Centex should do. That
is somehow pay some money in connection with the alleged rights of land owners
to ccm~oensate the~ for a taking. And w~ go into substantial detail on that.
Thirdly, it was the City ~ho told Oentex to stop putting up the barricade. For
the City to now call the letter of credit because the barricade isn't up, is
~t of a paradox, to say the least. We think that this ~hole it~n should
be reviewed. The idea of cost being incurred in connection with the barricade
beyond the cost of physically putting up the barricade ~as not considered and w~
think that based on that, and if there are going to be costs, that the
feasibility study should be reopened to decide whether that's what the City
really intended in this matter. We would move at this point that this matter be
*sbled until the next meeting or whatever =ting the City Oouncil sees fit
after staff input to see if there is a way of resolving this. Oentex continues
to ~nt to work with the City to resolve this situation. We think that there
are scme alternatives and w~ don't think that simply calling the letter of
credit is going to solve the situation at this time and w~'d hope that you would
consider our lettem. Thank you very much.
Mayor Ch~iel: You may ~ant to stay there in case there are some responses that
I'm sure there's going to be. I guess the only thing that I look at Mr. Cole is
that this has been going on for almost 2 years without resolve~ent. I think
it's time that something be grabbed onto and moved with that. At least that's
my position. It ~ that the letter of credit is going to be out by the emd
of November.
Daniel Cole: I think it's the e~] of Dec~r~er. I'm not sure. I'd have to look
at that but I think it's December 31, 1989.
Don Ashworth: It could be. They have to complete the work by November and so I
know it goes through that period. Whether or not Dec~mber.
Mayor Chniel: I stand corrected. From what I was infon~ed, it was the later
part of November amd I guess that's really where I'm c¢~ing from. It should
have been addressed before this period of time. Is there anyone else on the
Council?
Roger Knutson: I was just going to say. I looked at the letter of credit or a
copy of it. It expires the end of Dec~mber.
Mayor Ch~iel: It does? Okay.
Councilman Johnson: Do ~ know if there's a condition anywhere that they get
the access issue resolved or that they purchase or whatever. Wasn't that a
condition of the approval?
Councilman Boyt: What w~'ve got Jay is itsm (k) in the develola~ent contract.
It talks about prior to the City. signing the final plat, the r~y turn around
be provided. Part of the closing off the road was having some place for trucks -
and other vehicles who were going to be plowing snow, to turn around at the
barricade. It was, if I might interrupt for a second, Jay and I were both here
the co~le of times that this was talked about during the develoIm~ent contract.
It was certainly an issue of concern for the neighbors that w~ not increase
traffic and so tbs developer and the City. Council and the neighbors agreed to
resolve this by blocking off the road. There ~s s~me discussion that evening,
City Council ~=eting - Sept~ber 25, 1989
as you point out, about the turn around and it got specifically put in the
develol~ent contract. Since then I gather both the City and the developer have
found out that it wasn't quite that easy but if you want to know what our intent
was, it was to blockade that road.
Daniel Cole: Well we should point out that w~, we meaning Centex, has no
problem with the concept of blockading or barricading the road certainly on a
temporary basis. There is I believe Councilman, and I'd have to look at my
notes but I believe that there is a, in the Minutes, a statsment that you made
indicating that, in 1988, t_hat eventually Teton Lane is going to be a public
road so no matter what we do here, re talking about a ~rary situation,
and those Minutes are referred to in here. We agreed to barricade the road and
that is a part of the development agresment. The feasibility study, which
Alternative 4 was blockading the road, does not in any way address anything
about cost over and above physically barricading the road. Neither does the
develol~ent contract and there is a m~mo in here, which our client received a
copy of, I believe from Mr. Warren to Mr. Ashworth which it's here. Indicating
that when this was done, it was assumed that this was going to be done with the
cooperation of the neighbors. He even mentions there, it says it's now sc~what
frustrating that they won't cooperate apparently. All of this is in here. I
mean the record is here as to what happened but plain and simple there is no
contract~ml agreement that Centex was going to on it's own do whatever was
necessary financially to pay whatever was necessary and we're not agreeing that
it's necessary to pay anybody anything but if it was, that Centex took on that
responsibility. There's no default on the part of the developer as far as we're
concerned.
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor? Item (k). Tne development contract that Bill
was just talking to. SP-4 that you just gave us. The developer shall obtain on
behalf of the City a 12 foot x 15 foot roadway easement. Have you done that?
Tcm Boyce: That's completed. That's right. That's separate. That's done.
Daniel Cole: We're looking at (i).
TOm Boyce: We're looking at it~ (i) where it says barricade the road off. we
w~nt off. we agreed to acquire that easement. We did that.
Daniel Cole: Item (i) says the developer agrees to upgrade Teton Lane in
accordance with the approved feasibility study and plans and specifications at
the developer's expense. It is further agreed that the developer shall
reimburse the City for it's consultant's expenses and preparation of the Teton
Lane feasibility study. If you go to the feasibility study, one of the items is
barricading the road.
Councilman Boyt: I'm sure that you ~nderstand the legal ramifications of all
this more clearly than I do. I just, if there's any question about intent, and
you raise that question, the intent was that the road would be barricaded. You
and the City and the neighbors all accepted that intent and we're now looking at
this situation in which w~ek by w~ek more and more people get used to using that
as an access and an entrance. It's cc~pleting defeating the purpose of what we
were trying to do and we need to have, we need to reach that intent. I'm not
particularly happy, about drawing down your letter of credit. I want to get the
road closed and we can't close it because of the easement issues out there. We
10
City Council Meeting - Se~ 25~ 1989
need to get those resolved l
Daniel Cole: You say the developer, the City and the neighbors all agreed to
barricade. We agreed to barricade but if the neighbors are now unwillin~ to
have that happen, then we think other things should be looked at. What we ~mnt
to make clear is, we're not opposed to barricadir~3 the road. What we're saying
is, we did not agree to be the ones bearing the sole and the whole cost of
ac~liri~ any sort of eas~uent rights.
Councilman Boyt: Well I'd like to make one more point then I'll turn the floor
over to anyone else but I w~uld follow the logic in this of a but for ar~t.
We wouldn't have proposed the barricade if not for the devel~t. Therefore,
when the development ccmes in, the responsibility of settling that situation
rests on the developer and I'm just saying that that's a logical response.
Whether it's legal or not, I wouldn't be able to tell
Daniel Cole: All I can say is I think there would be scme serious dispute with
that under contract law.
Mayor Ch~iel: Your letter of credit, going back to our original stabsm~nt, does
expire in ~r of 1989. The develolmuent contract althou~3h does expire in
November of 1989.
Daniel Cole: As I read the develolmuent contract, the improv~emts have to be in
place by November 3~th of 1989.
Don Ashworth: That' s correct.
Daniel Cole: It's been almost a year ago that C~ntex was told to not put up the
barricade. Now we can put that barricade up I think fairly quickly if we're
told to do so.
Councilman Johnson: Do it.
Mayor Chniel: Not just by one person.
Councilman Johnson: Then we'll go to court with the Natoli's and whatever.
Mayor Ch~iel: Roger, do you have scmethin~?
Roger Knutson: Just briefly. First I've not read Mr. Cole' s letter. I've
glanced thro~h it so I can respond to everythir~ it says. I don't think this
is a great fort~ to debate the fine points of ~hat's right ard what's wrong as
far as the law goes but we do have a warranty deed from C~rry Fm/z~s that sa~vs,
they conveyed Teton Lane to us free and clea~. It's not subject to any
easements. That's what our warranty deed says and them .you have the develolmuent
contract. Again, I don't think this is the right place to argue what the law
Councilman Johnson: I think we should send this to our City Attorney and tell
him to handle it.
Mayor Ch~iel: Prior to any other discussions...
11
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
Mrs. Natoli: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chniel: Yes maam. I have a couple of people in back there that are
raising their hands.
Mrs. Natoli: We're all raising our hands.
Mayor Chniel: Right and I will recognize those.
Mrs. Natoli: I hope you're not going to table this for another year.
Mayor Chmiel: I certainly hope not.
Mrs. Natoli: It's been a whole year and it's getting ridiculous. I have a
school bus going by.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I have the gentleman who raised his hand previously to cGne
forward. Would you come up to the mic and state your name and address please
and your position.
Randy Carl: My name is Randy Carl. I live at 6391 Teton lane. I realize I've
come in on an after the fact situation here. I'm a new hGneowner up in that
area. The lady mentioned that a school bus is now coming down the road. We
were advised by the Minnetonka School District that a bus couldn't come up that
way to pick up the children if it had to turn aroused. Our children would have
to walk a number of blocks to the closest bus stop because of the way the
streets are designed so by blocking off Teton Lane, you're going to cause a
safety hazard for school children and there are quite a number of very small
children in that area that are now in school and other kinds that will be in
school as the years go along. I don't know if this has any bearing on whether
Centex ow~s the City any money but the issue of whether the street continues to
be blocked off I think would have an impact on the safety of our children.
Marc Simcox: My name is Marc Simcox. I live on Lilac Lane at the end of
Teton Lane. We've been in the thick of this since the very beginning and I just
want to reiterate. I think I talked to just about everybody in the last week
that no one has changed their position as to whether Teton Lane should or should
not be closed. I like to bring it up again that this is not a suggestion
brought up by anyone at all except Centex. Centex Farms is the one that
suggested this. They were the ones that suggested this to avoid building a
third exit out onto CR 17. Every time that it's ever toward resolution, they've
taken a new position and every time that it seemed that it was going to cost
them 5 cents, they wanted to back up and start over again and blame the
neighbors. Say it's their fault. It's everybody's fault except Centex Farms.
The fact is is that they suggested this. They agreed to it. Part of that
agre~nent was to turn over property that apparently they did not have clear
title to and they did that. I think that they've stated their position enough
times. Everbody's tired of it and just wants to see the whole thing end. No
one there has changed their mind yet and that's all I want to say.
Florence Natoli: If you ever get this solved I'll never come to this place
again. Mrs. Florence Natoli. Okay. I went and drove around and there's no
reason the b[~ has to cGne. I don't know how the rest of you did but I thought
back. I went to 8 grade schools, 1 junior high and 1 high school and the
12
City Council M~eting - Sept~ '251 1989
shortest distance I even walked was 3 blocks. Okay. Today I w~nt over and if
you enter off of CR 17 cc~ing from Chanhassen, you can go down Devonshire and
you can pick ~ at Preeton Court which is ~n the corner of Devonshire. You can
go over to Welsley Court and then ~u can leave via the exit onto Lake Lucy. Road
and it's a nice, a curvy, road. It's not like ours where they're going 100 mph.
We go have that 30 mph sign now but not too many people pay attention to it so
there is no reason for ~ to say they have to use Teton. They haven't used
Teton in a hundred years. It hasn't been a road. It was dead ended right at
Mr. Mac's place. It was never used for that so to say that these kids are in
danger is not true. They can use their bikes that they have to leave on a
corner. It's all by. itself. It's a nice neighborhood and I'm sure that one of
the other neighbors would let ~ leave their bikes there but that is, when I
saw that that really upset me but I've got a whole bunch of notes but I'm not
going to go into it. As Marc said, w~ all agreed a year ago and this has gone
on and on and instead of 100 people now as ~ur count had, there's at least 200
to 250 cars going now. And it isn't only caxs, it's trucks. A garbage truck
w~nt today. It wasn' t our garbage truck. We gave the easement to Centex to
turn in our driveway so if there was any reason to plow snow or any problem that
happened, they could use it. Now across the street is where the fire plug is,
the water, and so there's no reason for the C~anha~ people to go all the way
up Lilac Lane and ccme down Teton to go to that fire plug in case a fire. That
was the reason for the barrier so it w~uld be used as a fourth place to get the
people out in case of trouble. Now these are all the things w~ went through a
whole year ago and I just hope .uou'll get it solved and get it solved tonight
because Centex agreed alorg with the rest of us, and if they haven't gotte~
these easements, it' s not my. fault. They got mine about 1 week after. We've
had ours a whole year ar~ if you're not going to close the road, w~ want our
eas~emt back and we want a fence in the front of our house to keep everyb(x~y
out. So that's all I've got to say.
Councilman Boyt: I have a possible motion.
Mayor Ch~iel: Anyone else? Okay, Bill.
Councilman Bo.vt: I would move that the City. make plans to draw down the letter
of credit effective Nov~er 31st. If Centex hasn't resolved this situation,
that the City then draw down the letter of credit, acquire the easements and
block th~ road.
Councilman Johnson: How about Dec~s~er lst? There is no Novsmber 31st.
Councilman Boyt: Sure. C~, ~u're right. Fine. You've got the holes in the
road. We ought to get it blocked off.
Councilman Johnson: I' 11 second that.
Don Ashworth: I would like to have scme form of a progress checking. In
talking with the developer on Friday, he felt that if he were given permission
to meet with the owners, that at least he might be in a position of advising the
City as to whether he thought he could obtain those eamauents without some of
the burdens that we were looking at. I still think that's a good process. I'm
not changing the date but I guess I would like to see this it~ or the developer
be encot~aged to continue that ~ting schedule that I had set up with him. In
other words, within 2 weeks that he be responsible to inform myself of his
13
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
progress and if at any point in time prior to that ~er 1st date, I feel
that he has not been moving forward, that I would have the ability to bring that
it~n back to the City Council to potentially move it up even sooner.
Councilman Johnson: He's making a good point. He's not breached until Nov~nber
30th. If it's November 29th and he gets the eas~nents or whatever he has to
get, then he's fulfilled his contract? Is that reasonable to say?
Daniel Cole: The only comment I'd like to make here is that what we object to
in this is that sGnehow this is all Centex's problem and we do not see it that
way. Without the City cooperation in getting involved in this, we don't think
that it can be accomplished. It's ruy understanding that the neighbors, the
"neightbors" who had agreed to this, now do not agree. It doesn't take many to
not agree.
Councilman Johnson: The City has been involved with this. We've been fighting
this. We're sick and tired of this. Okay? There has not been a lot of
cooperation.
Daniel Cole: So does that mean we have to pay? Is that what is being said?
Councilman Johnson: I think you should have been brought on board a long time
ago ~ahen Centex was here without you saying that they would do this stuff. Now
they're bringing in the lawyers saying well we don't have to do it.
Daniel Cole: No, no. It's because you're drawing the letter of credit. That's
why we' re here.
Councilman Johnson: Well yeah. Tnat's the way we're trying to force them to do
what they've told us they're going to do.
Daniel Cole: You should do it by the develo~ent agreenent however.
Mayor C2mliel: Let me, this is not an arg~nentive position here. We're not in a
court of law so consequently I would just...We have heard from Mr. Ashworth
presently. Is there any further discussion on that?
Counciln~n Johnson: Can you think of an easy way to modify your motion to
provide? What Don wants is a little stronger to where we say we want to see
action...
Councilman Boyt: We can have a time table and adequate progress being shown on
the time table and that that time table should be planned to have this issued
resolved effective November 30th. If it's not, as of December 1, we will act on
whatever rights we have ~u%der the letter of credit to resolve the issue.
Councilman Johnson: Okay. I ' 11 modify my second then.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Roger, did you hear the modification that we had to the...
RDger Knutson: You want periodic updates on progress reports.
Mayor Chniel: Right. And if it were not, then as Bill mentioned, that it would
be on November 30th and then proceed to December 1st with the letter of credit.
14
City (~ouncil Meeting - September 25~ 1989
Councilman Johnson: Should we also say s~mething about that City, staff will
assist in talking?
Don Ashworth: I think just as the motion is.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to authorize drawing against
the Letter of Credit and COndition effective Dec~mber 1, 1989 for Curry Farms
Second Addition if no resolution has occured by. November 3~, 1989 and Curry
Farms will live up to progressing according to a time table established with the
City during that period. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
O. APPROVE PURCHASE AGR~ FOR SALE OF PORTION OF MURRAY HILL WATER TOWER
SITE TO GILBERT AND JILLENE KREIDBERG.
Councilwoman Dimler: I pulled it~ (o) because there is someone in the audience
that would like to address that and I wonder should they do it now or go to
visitor ' s presentation?
Mayor Chmiel: We can do it right now. Either now or later.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Mr. ~ayne Fransdal would like to speak to that
issue please.
Wayne Fransdal: My, name is Wayne Fransdal. I live at 6200 ~_rray Hill Road.
First of all I'd like to thank you for moving this frc~ the consent to the
discussion agenda. I appreciate the opportunity. My primary concern is with
the procedure used for the proposed sale. First of all, was there a public
offering or notice of the proposed sale? As far as I know, none of the
neighbors north of the property that ~ms proposed for sale were informed or
aware that the property was for sale. Was a study cc~pleted over the future
use of the property and was the property de,mined surplus? Has a public, entity,
what is the procedure for selling public property or public goods? How is the
price determined? If the property is sold, what is the adequate size to be
retained and what is it's purpose? In the past, many years ago, I attended
council mcctings when the school district has asked the City to discontinue use
of their easenent on the city property for access to the water tower. To use
the access fr~u the road. At that time the reason for not using the road was it
was a private road. It's now a public road and yet access is still frc~ the
school property. The question fr~u the school is, and rightfully so I would
think, is why should we provide access ~hen they're going to sell off their own.
Why don' t they use their own access from a public road? If the land is sold,
are there any restrictions or can there be any restrictions on the future use of
the land? Could there be a variance for a home for a suall lot? Could it be
used or restricted for outlots? Could it be restricted at all? As I said, my.
primary concern is the procedure. I agree with delegating to the lowest
possible level. Let adminstrative people do what they need to do but there
should be due process so that everyone has an opportunity, so that everyone
knows what the City is doing with the people's resources.
Mayor Ch~iel: Thank you.
15
City Oouncil Meeting - Se~r 25~ 1989
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor? I have to agree with the procedural aspects of
this and before I make a motion here I'd like to also say there's covenants in
here that no building will ever be built on this. There's also access to be
given to the City on an eas~nent so we can service the ~ater tower from that
side. So for those two things, we are providing both of those so there will
never be able to be a house built on that ~nall property plus the City will no
longer need the access fr(E the school area. But procedurally, I'd like to find
out if we may have goofed up here because there may be some, we may have to do
public offerings and stuff like that for excess and I'd like to table it
until...
Mayor Chniel: Or can we address it now?.
Gil Kreidberg: Maybe I could add s(Eething because I'm the buyer. Would you
like to hear what I have to say?
Mayor Chniel: Certainly.
Gil Kreidberg: Sc~e of you are familiar with this sitL~ation. My name is Gil
Kreidberg. I reside at 6444 Murray Hill RDad. Sc~e of you who were on the
Council a year and a half, 2 years ago, we started this process and Roger
Knutson, the City Attorney, are familiar with this situation. It's a little
more involved than just an outright sale of the property on the part of the City
for excess land. A couple years ago the City wanted to build, put a road
through to the tower and those people in that area, south of the tower and sc~e
to the north. Right at this ti~ I don't know but other people objected
strongly that they had the access and that they could possibly acquire an
access, a pemnanent access frcm the school district behind their... We were
concerned up there of changing the environment. D~m%age to the trees and taking
risk to the kids that play up there and so on and in the last 2 years I've
worked along with the Pleasant Hills HcEeowners Association trying to work out a
cGnprGnise with the City so they could get what they want and we could be
satisfied where we are in terms of the net result at the end. I've spent the
last year working very closely with Gary Warren, the City Engineer, trying to
work out a c(x~promise which we felt we had here. I'm sorry that this
gentle~mn's concerned about the procedure and I understand that issue but
essentially what was determined is that, I reside directly to the south of that
piece of property which means that what this is going to be is this piece of
land is going to become part of my yard. It isn't going to be built in
anything. It's not going to be developed. Nothing's going to physically change
up there except now it will be a 10 foot wide gravel path with a gate that will
prevent snowmobiles and all the other stuff that will go through there if they
don't gate it, from going back to the tower but it will be locked and the City
will be able to access the tower from the east side. I have agreed in kind to
build a fence along that pathway which will eliminate snow drifting and stuff
along their new road and it also will protect the cul-de-sac down to the south
against the additional activity that will be generated not only by the fact that
more people living up there but by the fact that there will now be vehicles
entering in there that were not entering in there before, ihe lot ~as appraised
as though it was a buildable lot. Okay? It is obviously not a buildable lot. I
have agreed to pay a buildable lot price which is more than what the City would
otherwise get with the covenants they put on it if they just put it up at
auction or whatever. Tne reason I'm willing to do that is obviously it becomes
part of my yard. Secondly, it's important to me in a sense to protect my
16
City Oouncil Meeting - Septe~0er 25~ 1989
investment and th~ homeowners around me to make sure that this thing is done
right. In a sense what I'm doing is funding the City's ability to Imt that road
in. I don't think that there's even an issue here that the citizens of
Chanhassen are not benefitted by. what's taking place. I appreciate the
possibility that the procedure may have ~ different but the circumstances
that brought this whole .thing about go back 2 years and they have to do with a
lot more than just me. We've been going through this for 2 years. I w~uld
appreciate not tabling it and moving forward unless by chance ~u have some
strong objection knowing the background and circ~mmstances that w~ do proceed
tonight. Otherwise I'd just like to go for~rd because it's taken a lot of
time, both mine and the city's and I'm sure...
Don Ashw~rth: T~e points brought out are correct. ~he only thing I might add
is that it did involve a lot of people through that whole process and a lot of
people coming into the City (k)uncil again very concerned with the t~ees. Very
concerned with access to the school. Very. concerned with how that property
might be used as it w~uld relate again back to the trail requirements and yet
still accc~plish the City. needs for that property. In terms of the procedural
question regarding the legality of publishing, etc. that is not there and I
think that the law understands issues such as this where the City. looks at an
issue as to ~w it's going to best serve the citizens in that area as %~11 as
the City itself.
Councilman Johnson: Can I hear from Roger on that one Don?
Don Ash~rth: Sure.
Roger Enutson: Bidding is not r.equired for the sale of property. Other stuff,
yes but not real estate.
Councilman Workman: What's the actual size of the lot?
Gil Kreidberg: Not even 2/l~ths. About .445 of an acre. Buildable lots up
there go for, I mean it Ms appraised at the equivalent of about $32,~.~ on
the basis of a contract for deed ass~irg it's a buildable lot and I volunteered
to pay cash if they cut it to $30, 000. 00. . .
Councilman Boyt: Why. isn't it a buildable lot?
Gil Kreidberg: Because y~u're putting a covemant in there that tells me I can't
build a home structure on it.
Councilman Boyt: But otherwise it w~uld be?
Gil Kreidberg: Otherwise in theory, it could be but you know, when we went
through this discussion...you weren't on the Council at the time, the whole idea
was we wanted to keep it like it is and the City. wanted to get their access but
we still had to w~rk on a cc~srcmise and I think this is fair because
essentially what I'm goirg to do is get the City. to put the road in and that
goes on the tax roll which means I' 11 pay taxes in the future, not to mention
what we're payirg now.
Councilman Johnson: Is there anyway to ccmbine this lot and your lot to where
it becomes one lot of record versus tm lots?
17
City Oouncil Mmeting - September 25~ 1989
Gil Kreidberg: You know I've asked Gary about that and I guess he wanted to
explore that. I don' t know.
Roger Knutson: You get one PIN number for it, yeah.
Councilman Johnson: Because if it's one lot, then you'd have to subdivide.
You've have to c(x,e in and request for a subdivision in order to build the
second house on it.
Gil Kreidberg: I have no problem with if you want to set it up that
I just want it as a yard and I want it as a buffer against this road and I'm
going to... It will be a nice deal when it's all done.
Councilwcman Dimler: I have a question Mr. Kreidberg. You say that you want to
clean it up. Would you explain that a little bit more? I understand...
Gil Kreidberg: ...a couple of the Council me~bers have. The City has let it go
downhill in the last 15 years and it's got barbed wire fences. It's got debris.
It's really a mess.
Councilw~nan Dimler: Brush you mean?
Gil Kriedberg: Not just brush. I'm talking about the land directly to the
north of this piece of property is a farm. It's a little horse farm. It's
about 2 1/2 acres and they keep horses out there and up until they actually
developed the area where I am, which is about 4 years ago, this guy used to let
his horses and everything wander over there. He built, he put up barbed wire
fences and an old wood fence and I mean there's all kinds of debris that was
thrown there from whatever the sources are and I told the City that I would, at
my expense, clean that property up.
Councilwoman Dimler: You're not talking about clearing trees and stuff?
Gil Kriedberg: Oh, that is the last thing that I want to do. I mean there's a
long letter...
Councilwoman Dimler: Alright, thanks.
Mayor Chniel: Any further discussion?
Councilman Workman: So he's basically paying $30,000.00 for less than an half
of an acre ~ there?
Don Ashworth: Tnat he can't build on.
Councilman workman: That he can't build on?
Mayor Chniel: Right.
Councilman workman: Might somebody else be interested in this property?
Councilman Johnson: Only if they could build on it.
18
City Council ~L~ting - Se~ 25, 1989
Don Ashworth: We could start the process over and advertise. I just fird it
very difficult to believe who's going to buy it under similar conditions.
Gil Kreidberg: Also remember there's a water ~ directly behind it. It's a
nice monolith but it isn't an art fo~m you would normally...
Oouncilman Workman: Is this kind of for the neighbor's, who voiced concerns, is
that bring things a little better into focus maybe as far as the purchase?
Mrs. Fransdal: ...no one knew anything about this. We had no idea this was
going o~. Even the Woida's directly, they had no opportunity to bid on the
property...I just wonder how the City...and what does he mean by a locked gate?
Gil Kreidberg: No, no. What the City is going to do, this is for ~uour best
interest. The City is going to build a 10 foot wide gravel path that allows
them to get their vehicles back to the tower. ~hey will also provide pedestrian
access to the middle school and the fields and so on back behind there somewhat
to satisfy the trail pattern here in Chanhassen.
Mrs. Fransdal: Will the children be able to get...
Gil Kreidberg: Ch absolutely. ~he reason for the lock is to prevent these
bozo's who run these sno~uobiles out across there fr(x~ going across Murray Hill
and shootir~3 right do~n that path where the kids are. ~he gate will allow
pedestrians through. It will be locked. The City will be able to unlock to
take their trucks down in there and relock it ~hen they leave so we don't have a
road in there that will have traffic. Only the one's we're suppo~ to have.
Mayor Oauiel: It's basically for the access of the City to get to there?
Gil Kreidberg: That is correct and for the pedestrians to get back and forth.
Mrs. Fransdal: This is our only legal walkway to MIS.
Gil Kreidberg: That's right and you're going to still...
Mayor Chniel: Right and that still will be because the City will still own that
10 feet.
Gil Kreidberg: 20 feet.
Mayor Chuiel: Or excuse me, 20 feet.
Mrs. Fransdal: Amd now maintain it so the children can welk?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Gil Kreidberg: That' s the whole idea.
Councilman Johnson: That was the ~hole purpose of this was to get that now.
The other part is how are we going to get the trail from 65th Street over. That
hasn't been resolved yet. ~hat's another one. A thorn in my side. After 2
~u~=ars we haven' t resolved.
19
City Council Meeting - Sept~m~ber 25, 1989
Mayor Ch~iel: That's not the issue.
Councilman Johnson: But this will be even better, right now they have to walk
through that lot and it's not in any good condition. They have to climb the
barbed wire fence and everything to get back there I guess.
Mrs. Fransdal: There's a little path now.
Gil Kreidberg: Right. Have you noticed the logs that are in front of the path
now that NSP cut down and left in the middle of the path. You will have a
better access back there because you'll literally have a 10 foot wide gravel
path. It will be easy for people to get...gate so you don't have sno~-~obile
traffic or small motor vehicles who might decide it'd be a good time to go
shooting through there.
Mrs. Fransdal: (kit main objection was to the procedure and not...
Gil Kreidberg: It' s my intent to inform Mr. Woida and Mrs. Woida what' s going
on but it's only been a few days that I've known about it and I just haven't had
a chance to visit with theol.
Councilman Boyt: I have just a quick question. Explain to me how kids are
going to get thro~.~h the fence but sno~obiles aren't going to get through the
fence?
Gil Kreidberg: Apparently, as Gary has described it, and I have not seen a
picture of the kind of gate. It's the kind of gate that they can lock but it
allows pedestrian traffic. He said they're used it on one other entryway. I
don't know if it's to a water tower or another facility here in Chanhassen. He
said there was one like that but the idea was, whatever the use, I've seen these
before. Not here in Minnesota but elsewhere where the gate locks and so on...
A snowmobile, you might be able to marginally get through that. I don't know.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, but the intent is to allow the walking path to...
Gil Kriedberg: Absolutely. Absolutely. It's a two prong thing. One, so you
can get the truck back and two, so that people can get back and forth. It'd be
self defeating if the people can't get back and forth.
Councilman Boyt: I think the neighbors have brought up an awfully good point. I
hope we've learned something from it and I'd like to see us move on this now.
Councilman Workman: What I'm trying to get at is there the slightest chance,
and maybe the Fransdal's can answer this right now, would sc~ebody else be
interested in this property? Again, it is all of our property and we are
selling it and it appears to be a good deal and you appear to be doing us good
by this transaction but could there be somebody out there that might be
interested in also owning this property and that seems to be the issue? Or in
what is going on with it.
Don Ashworth: I'm not sure. The issue originated when, well not only were we
looking at the trail but I believe ~ had a public improv~ent in the process.
Gil Kreidberg: You wanted to ~xlt a road in there and the...
20
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
Don Ashworth: The neighborhood had come out and w~ had 20 people who were here
talking on the issue and that's really where the issue had started. You know,
if I would have believed that the neighborhood had not supported this entire
transaction or there was anyone else who was interested or there was any
c~stion that this had not originated from the neighborhood itself, I guess we
would have gone through a different advertisement process than w~ did but I
really had believed this was kind of a grass roots process that they. thsmselves
were starting and finally a year and a half later wa finished.
Gil Kreidberg: I'm sorry.. I thought everybody, who was party, basically was
aware of the net results. They may not have all been aware of that this was
going to be decided here this evening because as I said, I just found out on
Friday so.
Wayne Fransdal: My. ~t is regarding the availability of the information.
We telephoned the three neighbors closest on the north side of this and none of
the~ were aware. If it's grass roots, it came fr(~n a very small group within
the development or people on the south who had an interest in it. The people on
the north who have equal interest and access from this property to the school
were not informed.
Gil Kreidberg: They ware infoKmed. They w~re informed all along up until
tonight. They. were party.. They signed a petition they objected to the road to
begin with. Mr. Woida did and so did Mr. MacFarlane and the other people on the
opposite corner of the MacFarlane's...
Councilman Johnson: Could you tell me what .uour objection is? What are you
trying to gain by. stopping this tonight? Would you like to purchase this?
Would you like to make us an offer? I'm trying to understand where you're
coming from?
Wayne Fransdal: Where I'm coming .from is the frustration with the adminstration
in dealing with a lot of issues in the city.. We can ccme in, developers can
come in, make a proposal as an example, and they get an approval and they go out
and do whatever they. can negotiate with the staff. This is a case that has been
negotiated with the staff and there was not public input from a lot of the
people in the area. Maybe is a frustration on my. part that we have things in
our neighborhood that if I individually came in and asked to do, they would not
be approved but when negotiations with staff, they end up being built and there
they are.
Councilman Johnson: So are you objecting to the roadway? Are you objecting to
the City tr,~ks going through there?
Wayne Fransdal: No. I think the City should have access to the water tower
from the public property, which they own. I do not believe that a complete study
has been made on the future use of this property. When we looked at all things
that are being done from digging a pipe in or installing public easeuents, we
had studies. We had envirorm~ntal impact studies. We have future use studies
and I don't believe they have ~_n done and for me to say there's someone else
that is interested in the property, I certainly don't know and no one in here
can answer whether someone else is interested unless you ask. I'm not against
the sale. I'm against the procedure. I may be all for the sale.
21
City Council Mseting - September 25, 1989
Mayor Chmiel: I agree with the concept and the idea that you have~
Councilwoman Dimler: ~hat should have been done?
Councilman Johnson: I can see staff's point of view. It's a little matter
that's been going on for a year and a half, two years since before I was on the
Council when this was originally approved there. This thing has been going on
and on and the developer caused some of the frustrations when he didn't give us
the trails he was supposed to give us and everything else and this is staff's
way of cc~ing to a conclusion on about half the problem now so we maintain that
open, it was kind of Council a few years ago, 2 years ago, whatever we were on
this, Council directed to reroute that trail through this property. I guess
that's...
Mayor Chmiel: I think that's very true.
Councilman Johnson: I think it could have been handled better.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to make a suggestion to staff that all adjacent
properties be notified on any transaction of sale of property within the city.
Tnat way at least that procedure would be taken care of. Notifying the adjacent
neighbors. Making th~ aware of what's transpiring and then proceed frcm that.
Councilman Boyt: This has been sort of in limbo for at least a yt=ar. I don't
think we, maybe we do, I'm not aware that w~ lose anything by publishing that
this property is for sale as a non-buildable lot and 2 weeks from now resolve
it. It sesms like we're following a better procedure to do that.
II
Mayor Ch~iel: Yeah, m speaking in the future with any other transactions that
we do. As I look at this particular piece of property Bill, if the road is
going to be on the far end adjacent to that Lot 1. No no would, in my opinion,
want to own that property with a road going through with an easement. What he
has is his land is abutting the property here and of course the road would be
on, if we're looking at a northerly direction, it would be to the north of that
segment where the road would go.
Gil Kreidberg: It gives me a little buffer from all the traffic is really what
it comes down to. I was willing to pay a pr~i~ because I live right next door
to it. Tne chances that sc~ebody will pay you what I'm paying you, they'd have
to be, you can't build on it. If you could build on it, that's scmething. You
know I'll leave it ~%o to your judgment. We spent a lot of time trying to work
up something that was amicable.
Councilman Johnson: Another thing we should have done, instead of having it 90
feet wide, we should have had it 89 feet wide because at 90 feet it doesn't need
a variance to build on it. Because it has the covenant it does but at 89, it
would need a variance to build on it at all so we couldn't even put it on
without a variance and the covenant on top of that. We'd have two ways of
telling thsm, if somebody came in 10 years frc~ now trying to build there, we'd
say you can't.
Don Ashworth: As long as it's considered a lot of record though theycould
build on it. If you bought a lot in the downtown and it's 60 feet in width, as
long as you meet setbacks.
22
City Council Meeting - Septer~er 25, 1989
Gil Kreidberg: What about my original suggestion of making it part of my
particular lot?
Don Ashworth: That's something that should be looked at. The covenant is good
but as long as it's a separate legal lot of record, it could be built on.
Councilman Johnson: Well if it's a separate legal lot of reference, they still
have to have a variance to build on it eve~ though it's a legal lot of record.
Mayor C~miel: Tney can make it contiguous though can't they Roger?
Roger I(nutson: If they legally split it, once you have a legally split lot, I
don't know how they'd get it legally split if it w~re only 89 feet but if they
w~re somehow to manage to acc(m~)lish that and they ca~e in for a variance, and
they own 89 foot lot, met all other ordinance requirsments, you'd probably be
hard pressed to turn down a request for a variance.
Co,~cilman Johnson: Unless there ~s the covenant?
Roger Knutson: Unless there was a covenant, correct.
Co~.tncilman Johnson: I mean you'd still ~nt both. You wouldn't get rid of the
covenant. What would it take to combine it to one lot?
Roger Knutson: Is your existing lot a meets and bound description or is it a
lot in block?
Gil Kreidberg: You ~ what happened is they platted 6 lots in ~hat they call
Pleasant Hills okay and this of course is not part of Pleasant Hills. Gary. was
telling me s(x~ething and I'm not sure that there's ~ ways. One is to keep
this separate and the other was to kind of redo it and I think they. had to
survey it and then there ware scme fees in filing but I think it could be done
and like I said, I have no probl~ with that. I'm not goirg to build anything.
I can't build it. It's going to be a y-=rd.
councilman Johnson: I think the City. should pay those fees and make it as a
single lot.
Roger Knutson: Your property that you presently own is a lot in block, is that
right?
Gil Kreidberg: Pa~-don me.
Roger Knutson: You have a lot in block legal description?
Gil Kreidberg: Yes I do. As a matter of fact I think I have it here.
Roger Knutson: See if you had a meets and bounds, then you could make one meets
and bounds description. ~nis a~lishes it. ~nis says non-buildable but you
can cc~bine then for tax pu~'poses. Have one PIN n~nber by working with the
County and if you ever wanted to divide a PIN n~ber, you've got to ~ back to
the City.
23
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
Councilman Johnson: The covenant is strong enough to where they'll never be
able to build on there.
Councilamn Boyt: That's the best ~y to do it. Otherwise, they can subdivide
the lots someday and build.
Councilman Johnson: Well the covenant ~Duld still stay there no matter what
did.
Cot~cilman Boyt: Let's table this for 2 weeks.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Mayor Ch~iel: It's been moved to t~_ble for 2 weeks to come up with a conclusion
and with a second.
Councilman Johnson: To talk to the neighbors and inform the neighbors.
Councilman Workman: Inform the neighbors and set up a policy that we can follow
each and every time w~ have a situation like this.
Don Ashworth: It will be short notice that will occur in the newspaper. We can
do it but w~ turn it in for this Friday and it would then appear in the
following Wednesday which then would be heard by the City Council on Monday.
Councilamn Workman: Is once enough?
Don Ashworth: You potentially would have a challenge that I only saw this.
Mayor Chmiel: Can w~ notify those adjacent property owners by letter?
Don Ashworth: Yeah. I'm just saying that w~ still have really the same list
from the last time.
Mayor Ch~iel: That would process it and make it move just a little faster.
Councilman Workman: If I could bring up one other thing while the motion hangs
here also and some fr,mtration up there. It's a different sort of a hill up
there as I 'm told by the neighbors. It was going to maybe be Carlton College up
there possibly way back? I don't know how w~ lost Carlton College but I would
like the Engineering staff and Dave, if you're listening, I believe it's called
Somerset Circle there off of ~rray Hill RDad. There's a large, very large
ditch there. I guess I'd like a little bit more infonnation. Neighbors
claiming t_hat perhaps that ditch is something that it never was intended to be
in the develo~ent contract. Can w~ check out what the circt~stances are with
that? It's the north ditch off of Sc~erset.
Councilman Johnson: That's a different subdivision.
Councilman Workman: Right. But again, adjacent to.
Gil Kreidberg: That'd be to the north about a block and a half or so.
24
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
Councilman Workman: But again~ it's a unique area up there and there's some
frustrations.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table approving a Purchase
Agreeuent for sale of a portion of Murray Hill Water Tower Site to Gilbert and
Jillene Kreidberg so staff can notify neighbors. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: There w~re none.
PUBLIC HEARING: ASSESSMENT HEARING AND ADOPTI0~ OF ASSESSMENT ROLLS:
A. KERBER BOULEVARD IMPROV]~4ENT PROJECT SD. 87-9.
Bill Engelhardt: Your Honor, mer~ers of the Council, this is the assessment
hearing for the Kerber Blvd. improveuent project. The total cost of the project
was $444,840.12. The project was covered by 55% tax increuent funds and general
obligation with the balance of the cost to be spread against the benefitted
properties along Kerber Blvd.. The developers of Chan Vista, Saddlebrook, the
Janes property, all had develo~x~ent agreements ~ere they agreed to the
assessment and those assess~uents have ~ collected as the lots have ~_n sold.
The lots that have not been sold, those assessments are on the assessment roll.
The project cost was slightly under the original bid amount which showed up as
about a $2,700.00 reduction in the feasibility study cost for the tax increment
and general obligation. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions you
might have on the project.
Mayor (huiel: Anyone have any questions at this time? Is there anyone wishing
to address this for the public .hearing? If so, this is your opportunity to come
forth and address it and if you do, please state your name and your address.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Besolution #89-104: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilw~uan Dimler seconded to
adopt the Kerber Boulevard assessuent roll as modified dated Se~ 11,
1989 with a payback term of 8 years with an established with interest at the
rate of nine percent (9%) of the unpaid balance. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
B. MINNEWAS~ MEADU~S IMPROV~H~T ~ NO. 88-2.
Public Present:
Name Address
3831West 62nd Street
25
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
Bill Engelhardt: Your Honor, members of t_he Council. This again is a public
· subdivision
hearing It's for the Minnew~shta Mm~dows consisting of, I believe
16 lots· The developer of the project, Mr. Gary Carlson, petitioned for these
improv~mtents. The original feasibility stray called for an assessment of
approximately $11,900.00per unit. The revised assesm~ent roll indicates that
the cost is within $120·00 of the original feasibility study. Mr. Carlson is
here tonight· We have worked with him on the project to try to address any of
his concerns and we'd be happy to again answer any questions that he might have
tonight or the Council.
G~ry Carlson: Good evening Mayor and Council. My name is Gary Carlson and I'm
the owner of Minnewashta Meadows and I live at 3831 West 62nd. I think on the
listing it shows my address, house number as wrong. It should be 3831· As I
previously mentioned at the last Council meeting, I again just want to briefly
thank this City for it's very expert and cooperative manner in which this
project was brought on line and completed. I especially want to thank the
engineer, Bill Engelhardt and his cc~pany. To see an undeveloped corner and see
it brought, put down on paper with ideas and see it accepted by the City and to
see it let and properly built by B and D Underground from Mound, Bob and Dennis
Frobar, they immediately came out and did the project and it's been done
excellently so I want to thank the City for it's ability to be able to move on a
starter h(x,e residential development and get it done· Get it done correctly and
also get it done within budget. There is just a couple items. When you're
doing single family, starter home develolm~ent, just as I'm sure all the Council
when you bought your first starter home, you looked at every item in that h~x~e
and did you need it and was it necessary and was it correct. So I'm looking at
a few, actt~lly there's 3 it~s within the assessment that I think if we could
accept the assesmuent roll tonight and just let this, because a couple of the
it,s staff hasn't quite had a chance to answer some of the questions. If we
can bring those three things up to resolve with me, then that will be possibly
lower the assessment because in single family starter homes, although we're
within budget, there are some it~$ that aren't answered. There are three
things as I said and we can discuss ths~ or we can just accept the assessments
with the contention that they be resolved and if they can't be resolved,
possibly the Council can again act on th~. Scmetimes it takes Council
decision. ~ three items would be how the Church Road assessment. You see I
was, my project was a stand alone project but there were scme costs coming off
of Cht~ch Road and those were basically, in other words, how they're being
assessed is not resolved tomy satisfaction and I explained that. The other
it~ is the interest charged on my bond issue that w~sn't used for a year.
Other cities do different things with that interest rather than charge it to the
develol~nt because those ft~ds, althot~h they w~re, the funds were obtained by
the City through a bond last year. The funds weren't paid out until August of
this year. Tnose funds were deposited in the City construction account which
drew interest of which I had no use of. Minnewashta Meadows had no use of so
other cities take that interest earned on that bond and take it off of yo~
capitalized interest cost which I'm being charged a capital interest cost from
the beginning the bond was let. Or they take that as interest that are accrued
and they credit overages in the construction. We had a few overages which soil
conditions were such that we had to do a little bit more with that road to bring
it up to stand up so we had some overages but our city just, in my case, I
wouldn't mind if I had a 160 lots to charge and spread it out. So what's a few
hundred dollars there? It's several thousand in this case. The third item is
this property had 8 sewer and water ~nits charged against it on the western
26
City Council Meeting - September 25~ 1989
boundary., none of which I'll ever use and I have Minutes frc~ previous Council
and letters frc~ previous councils that state that scme of those original
assessments that came with the original north end sewer project o~ undeveloped
property, if you developed in the future, they've stated in here that there's
possibility that they can be credited to future assessments. In other words,
I've charged 8 water and 8 sewer units on the w~stern boundary, which I'm not
using. I'm a stand alone project. I have my. own sewer and water that came in
the middle so some of those charges so it's just resolving these little it~mm
and whatever w~ can do to do it. I don't want to take up your time tonight. I
think it's just a matter of sitting down and sa.ring what's fair. My. interest is
of course to get starter home lots under $30,000.0~ if possible and I have to
keep assessments down as low. Other than that, I'm very happy, with the project
and I just want it to go ahead and be assessed out.
Mayor Chniel: I appreciate the fact that it's good to hear someone come in say
s~ething good about the City.. ~ank you Gary. I would make a recommendation
that we do accept that assessment roll as indicated with further discussion with
staff to come ~ with conclusions on those other three itens rather than
discussing ~ here e
Councilman W~rkman: I' 11 second it.
Councilman Johnson: If we accept the roll, aren't we accepting $11,786.05 per
lot?
Mayor ~iel: That' s correct.
Councilman Johnson: Then it would have to come back to modify, that in the
future if there's a change?
Mayor Ch~iel: That' s correct.
Councilman Johnson: Did we credit him with the interest we earned on that money
that we stuck in our bank account or whatever?
Don Ashworth: I checked with Andy Merry. He informed me that the capitalized
interest that he had shown was a net and it does show the word net because I
w~nt back and I checked the sale. Now we're getting down into the technical
portion of what did he consider in the word net. That's what they've done
previously and I did not have a chance to get into it in any further detail than
just that conversation and I believe...
Councilman Johnson: If we borrowed $188,000.0~ for one year and got $14, ~. 00
interest off of that, charged to us, I think we sold these bonds but this
$14,~00.00 isn't interest to date. That's the full interest of the bonds until
we pay all the bonds off so that would be, are they. 5 year bonds?
Don Ashworth: I believe these are going out over an 8 year period.
Councilman Johnson: It's 8 years but the $14,0~.0~ is 8 years worth of
interest on these bonds.
Don Ashworth: No. It would include t/~ interest... I think the F~yor's point
is a good one. Let staff work with the developer. Mr. Carlson presented the
27
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
issL~ tome on Friday. I tried getting back to Andy. Andy did get back to me
with the position that he had used net but w~ did not get down to act~mlly
looking at the detailed book records so I don't want to mislead anyone as to
what may or may not be in there.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't ~_~c where that ~Duld be any real problen Jay if w~ did
that as I motioned with a second.
Councilman Johnson: I think tabling it would be more appropriate then. Either
way it's got to cc~ back to us.
Mayor Ch~iel: Yeah but at least ~ know that that assess~ent is there and what
has to be done will be reduced frc~ there if it's going to be reduced. We don't
know.
Don Ashworth: Tne second part of that is, and again ~ don't know what the
state is going to do and when we're going to have to make certifications but
from the date that City Council adopts a roll, an owner has 30 days to pay that
assessment without interest. You literally are starting that clock. If during
the next 2 week period a lo,ring does occur, I'm sure Mr. Carlson's not going
to run in tomorrow and pay that amount until he's satisfied so if on 'October 9th
a decision is made for a reduction. Again, we've started that clock and we have
given him an opportunity to potentially see a reduction if he's capable of
convincing staff that there's been sc~ type of an error.
R~solution 989-105: Mayor Ch~iel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to adopt
the Minnewashta Meadows Assessment Roll for Improvenent Project No. 88-2 and
that the assessment te~m be set for eight year at nine percent interest. The
develo~x~ent contract requires that these assessments be paid at the time of sale
of the property and the security r~ain in force until they are paid off. Also,
staff is directed to work with Mr. Carlson to answer any questions he has
regarding the assessment amount. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
C. BLUFF CREEK DRIVE IMPROVEMENT PROJH2T NO. 80-5.
Public Present:
Na~.~ Address
Albert Dorweiler
James and Joey Jacobs
John Skraba
Nick Waritz
Roger and Vikki Broun
Joseph and Mary Elmgren
1565 Bluff Creek Drive
1545 Bluff Creek Drive
1530 Bluff Creek Drive
1271 Bluff Creek Drive
1200 Hesse Farm Road
1221 Bluff Creek Drive
Bill Engelhardt: Your Honor, members of the Council. This is the assessment
hearing for Bluff Creek Drive. ~ne Bluff Creek Drive project w~s a construction
of State Aid street from TH 212 to CR 14. As being a State Aid street, 80% of
the cost of the construction and the cost of the project are being paid for out
of the use of State Aid funds that the City receives annually. The renaining
28
City Council M~eting - Septs~ber 25, 1989
20% of the cost, ro,~3hly $148,200.00 is being spread against the benefitted
properties where in this particular project the benefitted properties w~re
considered properties having access not only directly on the road but off the
road. There w~re a total of 65 units on this particular project and the total
cost is divided by. the 65 units to cc~e up with a unit cost of $2,280.00 per
unit. The original feasibility, study on this particular project indicated a
cost of $1,647.00 per unit. At the time of the bidding w~ had very. unfavorable
bidding climate and the cost of the project, the construction cost exceeded the
engineer's estimate by approximately 19%. During the design phase, additions
w~re added to the project to meet State Aid Standards and that accounted for
scme of the increase in cost. At the time of the award of the project, the unit
cost was calculated to be $2,440.00 per unit and this cost was presented. The
project has underrun slightly...underneath the bid forecast unit cost. With
that, I'd be happy, to answer any questions on this particula~ project.
Mayor Ch~iel: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to-address
this? Please c~me forward and state ~ur name and address please.
Albert Dorweiler: My. naue is Albert Dor~iler. I live at 1565 Bluff Creek
Drive. As Bill said, about $1,647.00 he was talking about on April 20, 1987 and
they did a feasibility study,. So I understood when I was at this public hearing
on April 20, 1987, I asked Mawr Hamilton ~hat if it goes over? He said then
we'll have another public hearing. We never had that other public hearing when
this took place. I don't understand bow come this project got underway without
another public hearing. I guess that's all I had to say about that. It kind of
upsets me a little bit that you w~nt ahead with the project that there was not a
public hearing about it and Mayor Hamilton sat up there and told me that there
was going to be another public hearing. I said, what if the cost goes over? I
think the cost is quite a bit higher than the proposed 80%. $535,282.00, take
80% and that's what it should have cost us. I can't see that 10% over that.
Why these contractors can nsme their om price tag on these things here and
that's ~ahat I think is happening here. I am not really satisfied with what goes
on on that particular item and then there's a few other things I've got here.
Another thing that kind of upsets me here is the acreage deal. Across
where I live, up on 1565, there' s a whole cornfield, I don' t know how many acres
it is. How many acres that it, that kind of upsets me what's going to further
development in that acreage there across the road fr(x~ me there. I don't think
the asses~uent for his acreage is fair because I've only got 1 acre and we're
talking 10 acres. ~hat's across the road, I imagine by. looking at it it's about
80 acres there. What's going to happen with that? I just got a letter here,
let's see here. ~hat else do I want to talk about? Because of the traffic,
it's terrible. I've got a blind clrive~y which Bill f~x3elhardt did put up a
sign there. I was happy, that he did that but s~me people don' t look at that.
My. driveway I don't feel that is safe because I've got to go up a hill and
there's a blind drive%~y. Bill w~rked with me with that but I'm not completely
satisfied but I don't know what else we can do. I just wrote a letter here that
I'll present to
Mayor C~miel: Thank you. That's why tonight is a public hearing. F~pefully
this will take care of that specific suggestion that you made or indicated that
Mayor Hamilton said we w~uld have a public hearing on it. This is basically
what it is this evening. Bill, can you address any of those specific issues
that he was addressing regarding the 10 acres and 80 acres as to cost analysis
on that?
29
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
Bill Er~elhardt: The parcels that were large parcels that were vacant, we
looked at those as being split up eventually as rural subdivisions and counted
units for those based on the current zoning ordinance for those particular
pieces of property. So if you look at some of the property, there's one
particular property that was assessed 3 units. He had three 2 1/2 acre lots
with the 10 acre zoning I think is what it was and so they were included as
units and they did get more than just one unit. They were assessed for what
they could build on there. Excuse me. Tnat was done for all of the vacant
property up there.
Joe Elmgren: My name is Joe Elmgren and I live at 1221 Bluff Creek Drive. I
wrote a letter to Don Ashworth with a carbon copy to Bill and we do have a
couple of things we need to settle as far as the entrance of my driveway onto
Bluff Creek. Bill's been out there a couple times already and we've worked on
it and there's a couple things that haven't been finished but I'm sure we can
resolve that. I'm not here to say that the assessment is right or wrong. I do
have one difficulty with the road however. I sell furniture for a living and
I don't build highways but I've had this pointed out to me before. Where my
driveway, first of all, probably had the biggest impact as far as this Bluff
Creek Drive develo~x~ent was concerned. The access to Bluff Creek Drive now is
between 4 and 5 feet higher in respect to my driveway than it was in the
beginning. Before they started the construction. That's one of the things Bill
and I are working out as far as my entrance is concerned to make it a safe
entrance. What's happened to the Bluff Creek Drive is the curb on my side,
which is the west side of the road is, I mean I haven't taken a tape out there
to measure it but I would say frc~ standing on the railroad tracks, is at least
a foot higher than the curb on the east side so when the rain and drainage cc~es
down Bluff Creek Drive, it never reaches the sto~ sewers on the west side and
all drains over into the east side and they've also put some t~porary, what
looked like temporary drainage solutions on the railroad tracks. If we ever
have another one of those big storms like we had a few years ago, I just don't
foresee that those barriers are going to hold it. Did you get involved in that
Bill? In that drainage?
Bill Engelhardt: Yes. As Mr. Elmgren has stated, we have worked with him
fairly closely in trying to resolve his issues on his driveway and there are two
itsms that we need to take care of. Cne is straightening a lilac bush and
there's a culvert underneath his driveway that needs to be cleaned and that will
be taken care of. The issue of the change in elevation or difference in
elevation between one side of the road to the other side of the road. As most
of you are aware, Bluff Creek Drive was a very, very difficult grade. Had very,
very difficult grades in there and where he's talking about, we had to match 2
existing signals, railroad signal arms bases. Unfortunately the signal arms-
were not at quite the same elevation themselves so we came in around the curve.
We not only have to ~mtch those bases but w~ had to match the State Aid
requirements for what we could have a curve in there and so we tapered th~m in
the bases in lieu of having o~e of the bases sitting higher or one of th~m
sitting lower to provide for safety. If we were going to redo those without
doing the tapering work and having the difference, and I don't think there's a
foot difference. It's maybe a half a foot at the most but there is a
difference. If w~ were going to try to eliminate that difference in elevation
between those sides, we w~uld have to redo the railroad signals and those
signals were about $150,000.00 to redo those so we thought it w~s more of a
30
City Co,~cil Meeting - September 25~ 1989
benefit for the overall road project not to redo those. To keep the costs down
and to live with the slight difference in elevation on those sides. So that ~as
the reason for it but we' 11 take care of those two items that ~ou mentioned.
Councilman Johnson: Bill, can I ask you a question to follow up on that? Is
there storm sewers on the high side that aren't going to catch any. water?
Bill f~gelhardt: N~, that's not quite true. There are storm sewers on the high
side and because of the grade in there a~d the stee~ of the grade, it
doesn't catch as much as what we'd like it to catch but w~ even offset the catch
basins to try to get as much in there as we could. Now last winter and during
some of tl~ hsavy rainstoums, w~ didn't have the final wearing course on and
this spring when we put tt~ wearing course in, I tried to raise those to direct
it more into the catch basins and I think it's going to work fine.
Joe Elngren: I hope what he says works. My. concern is, there are right down
onthe tracks, if you go out and visit, there are ~at appear to me as t~x)rary
diversion dikes to prevent, for tt~ water that's supposed to go into the drain
sewer which now goes across the tracks, they appear to be temporary, little dikes
that send the water in the direction where it was supposed to come out if it had
gone through the storm se~rs. ~hat my. concern is, are those temporary? They
look awfully t~porary to me so.
Bill Engelhardt: I guess I don't consider them temporary. They are bituminous
swales and they are to prevent the erosion. We had some erosion problems on the
tracks and since we put those in there, we haven't had the erosion that wa did
and I feel they're going to work properly. Time will tell and I suppose if we
get a big gully ~sh we're going to have scme problems but I think under your
normal rain conditions, I don't see a problem with the~ and I think it will work
just fine.
Mayoz Ch~iel: Good. Thank you. Is theze anyone else?
Nick Waritz: Nick Waritz, 1271 Bluff Creek Drive and say hello to Don. He's
about the only real familiar face I see up there. I do ~nt to thank Bill. We
gave him a little heat at the first part when the project started. I think he
really did a good job. I think the road ended up very nice. Our .yard ended up
looking real nice after. It was sodded and everything. I think one area I'm
concerned about and I thought some people maybe did express that early on in the
yea__r was that the areas that were seeded, I don't even know if they seeded ths~
because nothing came up on there but ~eds and that looks pretty bad as far as
the areas that weren't sodded, that were just seeded. The major concern I guess
as far as the act~ml road construction have a little bit is the entry off of TH
212 onto Bluff Creek Drive. That se~us to he a little narrow. A little
confined and maybe there's a purpose to that to slow people down. I don' t know
but cc~pared to what we're used to, it used to be a real wide and it seems r~w a
little confined and in the winter time if you happen to slip a little bit and if
there's scme traffic stacked up there, you might just spin out into their side.
I guess the othe~ thing, which U~sula mentioned earlier, at least I heard my.
illustrious wife's name mentioned, ar~ I think st~ had called earlier, is the
amount of tr~k traffic that is continually been building on the road. I think
tonight I noticed and there must be a project s(mmewhere. Aftex I got h(x~e at
6:30 I counted about 20 semi gravel trucks going up the road and another 10 or
15 going do~n and this is at night. 6:30 at night. I understand during the day
31
City Council Meeting - September 25~ 1989
when I'm not there to count like the wife counted 37 s~mis and business trucks
just booming up and down the road during the day today within about an hour
period. I think there probably won't be any road left in a year or two if
that's going to continue. I don't know.
Councilman Johnson: Chaska's closed a road over there.
Mayor Chmiel: County Boad 17 is closed and I think that's probably why the
diversion of traffic coming that particular way. I don't think that's going to
continue. Or at least I hope not.
Nick Waritz: That's a concern and I guess I am a little bit concerned as A1
Dorweiler was that initially the project was plus or minus $1,600.00 and it
comes in about 50% over that and I know there w~re improvements like the
concrete curb and gutter which I like and I think it makes it look much nicer.
~nat would raise the cost and that but I'm a little concerned about that but all
and all I think it was a great job.
Bill Engelhardt: Your Honor, I'll try to address Nick's questions on the
seeding. It was seeded. Unfortunately sc~etimes seeding doesn't always take
hold and maybe we can go through there and get s~me of those areas shaped up and
seeded, put some more seed down. The issue of the road onto TH 212, that's a
very interesting issue. Tne state highway department gaves us the instructions
on how that entrance was to be designed. In fact they wanted it realigned so
that it came in at a 90 degree angle to the TH 212 highway. In doing so, the
turn lane that had presently existed was shifted over. When it came time to
blacktop the road and bring the blacktop into the TH 212, we were going to
blacktop that corner and feather it into the turn lane and the State Inspector
said, no we cannot do that because we have to hit a 90 degree angle coming into
TH 212. The intent is that once the State looks at this project and accepts
this project, that we may be able to do s~mething as a maintenance item and get
that blacktopped around the corner. So that's all I can say about that. It was
a State requir~_nt. We don't like it anymore than you do and hopefully we can
get it taken care of.
Council~ Dimler: Bill, while ~u're up here. I did have it under Council
presentations but maybe w~ can answer the questions now about the trucks, the
excessive t~uck useage. I guess we were wondering what tonage you upgraded the
road to and what trucks are legal and which ones aren' t.
Bill Engelhardt: Because of the State Aid f~tnding on it, which comes from the
gas tax and the Invet Fund and those types of things and also federal funding,
the road had to be built to a 9 ton design which allows for truck traffic and
I've been through this same issue in another city where the citizens have
requested that truck traffic or not trucks allowed signs be put up and you
really can't prohibit trucks from using a State Aid road. You can do it on scme
of your local roads but on a State Aid road where the funding has come from the
State and from the federal goverr~ent, which in this case is 80% of the cost of
the road, you cannot eliminate truck traffic without losing your State Aid
status of the roadway. As far as the amount of trucks on it, there's a
tremendous amount of construction taking place in this particular area. A lot
of road building. A lot of filling in sites. Industrial sites and that type of
thing and the gravel is c~ming up from the south of the river. In particular I
think this gravel is cc~ing up from Shakopee where they have a large project
32
city Oouncii Meeting - Septenber 251 i989
do~n there where they're trying to get rid of a lot of dirt. (~tly, the
shortest route according to the truck drivers is between, it's a straight line
and even if they wanted to, they couldn't use CR 17 because that's closed right
now for some reconstruction so it's a cc~bination of things. It's cauing
straight up frc~ Shakopee to get up to the projects that are requiring fill and
then the closing of roads and hopefully once those projects are completed, there
won' t be a need for those trucks to use that roadway but it's very., very
difficult to, in fact you can't do it without losing your State Aid standards.
Don Ashworth: In this same area, I did talk with Marcy today and I know that,
especially with the trucks and since they have gone through this detour, I think
they're trying to pick up some time so there is more speeding that's occurring.
We will try to do a blitz of patrol on that roadway the r~mainder of this w~ek
and next w~ek. Hopefully that will help some too.
Bill f2~3elhardt: The other thing, it w~uldn't be a bad idea to do a weight
check on the trucks because they do have a tendency to at times get over loaded
and once the word gets around that you're checking weights, they tend to stay
away iran it.
Mayor Chuiel: (k~d idea.
Joey Jacobs: Joey Jacobs, 1545 Bluff Creek Drive and I just ~ant to make one
statement that I know it's a State funded road and I understand that now. I
didn't know about the trucks but I just find it hard to pay ~hat we have to pay
for a State road that see~s more like a county road with semis. I was one
person that sat there and counted today, thinking of having this meeting
tonight, and I counted for 40 minutes and 40 huge s~uis flew by ard yes, tt~y do
spccd. But I wish I would have understood that I guess a little bit more
clearly before this happened because we had a nice country, road and now we have
a state funded highway that I'm helping to pay for so it's very difficult...
That' s my. objection.
Albert Dorweiler: My name is Albert Dorweiler, 1565 Bluff Creek Drive. I was
wondering now, because of all this truck traffic, how long that road's going to
last and who's going to be responsible for it maintaining that road after the
road goes?
Mayor Chuiel: That's a loaded question.
Bill Engelhardt: Omue on Al. That is a loaded question and the design is a 19
ton design and hopefully the road is going to hold up but again, unless we check
the weights on these trucks and if they are running over loaded, then we could
have some problems with it so we definitely need to watch it ar~ to watch these
trucks and find out where they're going. Now it may be a possibility that if we
can find out where they're going, that maybe we can consult with these
contractors and find out if they can reroute it. I'm not prcmising you can do
that but at least we could point it out to thsm that t~.'re going through
basically a residential area and that they are speeding. As far as ~
maintains it, it's maintained by. the City.. It ccmes out of the City's
maintenance budget or in the case of a State Aid road, we do collect State Aid
maintenance funds on roads of this nature. Then those funds go into the overall
maintenance program of the city of (hanhassen's budget to be used on all roads
and it could be used in particular on this road if we had to.
33
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Bill.
Albert Dorw~iler: I had one more question I forgot to ask. On my driveway and
retaining wall, I've got a retaining wall and because they raised the road 4
feet, I was wondering who would be responsible for that retaining wall because
of the road been raised 4 feet.
Councilman Johnson: Who's property is the retaining wall on?
Bill Engelhardt: The retaining wall is in the right-of-way.
Albert Dorweiler: It goes 25 feet...
Bill Engelhardt: Who's going to maintian it if it goes to pieces?
Albert Dorwei let: Right.
Bill Engelhardt: That's another tough question. If it's within the
right-of-way I would say we would have to maintain it because it was part of the
road cost. If it's on your property, technically we can't go onto your property
to maintain it but I 'm sure that the portion that's on your property Al would be
very limited in scope as far as what retaining wall would be involved and I
would think that we could use our State Aid maintenance funds to maintain it.
Councilman Johnson: Bill, if there is portions on his property, we probably
ought to look to getting an easement agreement for maintenance so we have an
agreement from him that we can maintain that wall if we don't already have it.
Jim Jacobs: Jim Jacobs, 1545 Bluff Creek. I'd just like to say there's always
going to be construction out in that area. All the land is so and we need a
weight restriction on there desparately.
Bill Engelhardt: You can't do it.
Jim Jacobs: You should have told us before.
Bill ~ngelhardt: It was always presented as being a State Aid road. It was
always presented as being a 9 ton designed in order to get the State Aid
funding. Again, that 80%, that was pointed out in the original...
Jim Jacobs: I wasn't aware of that. I'm a truck driver. I don't use it. It's
a residential area.
Bill D~gelhardt: I agree with you but again, the State Aid funding and because
of the designation and connection with a county road and a State highway, it
automatically becomes a State Aid road. The City, by having that piece of
roadway as a State Aid road, gets other funds for maintenance and it goes on the
overall syst~ml and you get additional monies from the State to take care of all
the rest of your roads.
Jim Jacobs: How do you, in a residential area, how do you get a 3 ton?
Bill Engelhardt: You don't. Not when it's a State Aid road.
34
City Council M~eting - Se~ 251 1989
Jim Jacobs: No variation? No exception?
Bill Engelhardt: No exception.
Jim Jacobs: I can only put it up to you and ask you for some kind of help on
that one.
Bill Engelhardt: The Council really can't do anything other than taking it off
the State Aid road and that is highly not recommended.
Mayor Chniel: Gnce State kid's ~ granted for something, it's very difficult
to take it back off Jim.
Bill Engelhardt: If you would take that road off the State kid route, you would'
lose the 8~% funding and the cost of that would have to go back to the
assess~nts, back to the property owners.
Jim Jacobs: That's it huh?
Mayor Chniel: Unfortunately. Thank you. Anyone else?
Roger Broun: My. na~e is Roger Broun. I live at 12gg Hesse Fazm Road. My
objection with the project is the ~ay the finish work is done on it. I'm very
disappointed at the ~ay the edges of the road look. They're full of weeds 6
feet high. I was under the impression that prairie grass would be planted and
obviously it didn't come up or whatever they planted didn't come up and I guess
I'm looking for more favorable response from you other than the fact that maybe
we can look at perhaps reseeding later. I'd like to see some t.upe of action
taken ~ere we know the reseeding is going to take place and that we're going to
have ~ kind of schedule on it. It was on the front p~ge of the paper last
October-November where the power cc~oany and phone company w~nt through after
the seeding had taken place originally and tore up the project somewhat and it
was stated at that time that someone was going to come in the spring ar~ regrade
and reseed and that never took place either. I just wonder who's responsible
for these, to make sure these people follow up and who's responsible to make
sure that the grass seed cc~es up. In some areas you have taken 'care of the
homeowners with sod. Our develolam.=nt, the entrances, you did nothing. I mean
they're a mess. There's 6 foot high weeds there so when can we expect scmething
to be taking place?
Councilman Johnson: We should talk to our w~ed control officer on that one.
Bill Engelhardt: The probl~ with the grass is that we use what's called
Highway Mixture No. 5 which is a fescue grass. It's not going to be a lush
bluegrass type of material in there. It's basically to. establish s(~e type of
growth in there to keep the erosion down. Unfortunately in the case of even
with seed, you have to do s(~e kind of maintenance and watering if you're going
to have kind of growth at all and it's just not practical on some of these
projects, especially in a roadway like this, to maintain and to cut the weeds
along the edge of the road. Now like I said, we can go back and try and get
~ to cut those ~s that are there and see if we can spread s~ue seed and
get it to grow again but it will be a Mixture No. 5 or High~ay ditch mixture in
order to get a more solid growth in there and not a lush growth. As in the case
35
City Co~mcil Meeting - September 25, 1989
of the power company going through, w~'ve been working with the~. They've been
fairly cooperative but on issues like this, they tend not to be cooperative.
All I can tell you is that we're working with then trying to get them back in
there to repair what they've done. Tnat's the best I can tell you.
Councilman Boyt: I have a c~stion. Why couldn't it be prairie grass sort of
thing? Why does it have to be this mixture number 5?
Bill Engelhardt: Well it could be. The mixture number 5 is designed
specifically for applications of this nature to get a fescue and to get more rye
grass in it. whe~ they're talking about weeds, they're seeing more like oats
and rye coming up because it hasn't been cut and once it's cut, you're still
going to have the good sound root syste~ and that's why I use a mixture no. 5.
You could use the prairie grass but it's not as hardy and it doesn't hold the
erosion along the edge of the curb and gutter and side of the road as well as
the fescue and the oats and the rye.
Mayor Ch~iel: That's not NSP that's causing that problem is it?
Bill Engelhardt: No sir.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Roger Broun: Again, I'm looking for a response as to when this will take place.
All of a sudden it's like, well now you've answered the question but there's no
time frame.
Bill Engelhardt: I can't give you a specific response. I can tell you that
we'll work on it and try to get it done within the next month before it snows.
Roger Broun: If you seed, you don't get germination in the cold weather.
Bill Engelhardt: That's right. You aren't going to get any geunination until
you'll have dormant seed at this time of the year. The other option is to wait
until next spring and then go through and seed it again.
Roger Broun: But will that take place?
Bill Engelhardt: Pardon?
Roger Broun: Are you saying that that will take place?
Mayor C~niel: Yes. Would you prefer that it be done in the spring?
Roger Broun: I would prefer that it be done.
Mayor Chniel: I realize that.
Roger Broun: I have no preference when. I'd like to see ground as opposed to 6
foot high weeds.
Mayor Chmiel: I think the intent is to take care of that with the reseeding and
have that completed.
36
City Council Meeting - Se~r 25~ 1989
Councilman Johnson: I prefer to have it done in the fall to where in the first
rains of the spring and the melt of the spring w~ can start getting it,
otherwise what will happen is what w~'ve see~ before. (~1 w~'re going to do that
first thing in the spring. It's too muddy to do it in the spring and now it's
June.
Mayor f~miel: It probably would be best in the fall.
John Skraba: I'm John Skraba, 1530 Bluff Creek Drive. Those weeds are terrible
like everybody says. I think there ~ms a mixture of cockleburr, a little rye
grass and an awful lot of some kind of brush. I believe it's box elder because
the bugs are just terrible. When they do do this ~ing next spring, I wish
they would pick up their two tires that they left that used to cross the road.
They left ~ on my. property. I put them out I don' t know how many times and
tt~y never picked ~ up. They're still layirg there. I will not get rid of
them. They'll have to get rid of ~.
Mayor Ch~iel: Can I ask you a question?
John Skraba: Yes.
Mayor C~miel: The locations of all these w~eds, what are the road sides like?
Can they be mowed with a mower? Is it hand mowin~ that has to be done or can a
rider be done?
John Skraba: Well I don't think you can mow the~ with a mowex with the curb. I
don't think so. You' 11 have to get beyond the curb.
Mayor ~iel: You can?
Bill Engelhardt: I think so. There are scme areas that are a little steep but
it depends on how far back you have to go.
Mayor (]mmiel: We' 11 have to have the ~ inspector take a look at it.
John Skraba: One particularly unsightly area is where they put in that wall,
that retaining wall just north of the Maloney property and that really can't
get, there's barely enough walk-~ay before you drop off the retaining wall and
the rag~a~d and goldenzod in there is like... I think the City's going to have
to go in there with one of these, what do you call those things? The strirg
that whips around. But that's got to be an every year maintenance problem.
Joey Jacobs: What was there wasn't tall and that's there now is so tall that we
have a real hazard getting out of every one of our driveways.
Mayor Chmiel: We'll address that. Is there anyone else? This is a public
hearing. You have an opportunity one more time. If not, does s(x~eone have a
motion to close the public hearing?
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
37
City Cbuncil D~eting - September 25 ~ 1989
Councilman Johnson: I move approval of the assessment roll. Adoption of the
assessment roll. Project 80-5.
Councilman Workman: What about these concerns?
Don Ashworth: Put those in as conditions of your approval that staff will be
directed to ensure and if you just want to go. As long as we're taking verbatim
minutes, ~ do have a list of everybody's...
Councilman Johnson: I would like to see staff address all of the concerns,
especially the sight hazards where tall weeds are making it difficult to get out
of driveways. We should have those cleared as soon as possible.
Councilman Workman: Also, perhaps checking on the general truck traffic.
Mayor Ch~iel: That will also be addressed with some weight restrictions being
checked on on those trucks as w~ll.
Bill Engelhardt: I think the most effective thing you can do on that is to
moniter the speed and moniter the weight so the word gets out that sc~ebody's up
there and they' 11 find different routes, because they don't want to get caught.
Councilman Johnson: We want scme portable scales out there.
Mayor Ch~iel: We will impose t_hat as soon as some discussion can be done with
the Sheriff's Department.
Councilman Workman: I would second the motion.
Resolution #89-106: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
adopt the Assess~lent RDll dated September 11, 1989 for Bluff Creek Drive Project
No. 80-5 and to establish a payback te~m of eight years and nine percent
interest rate for the assessments. Also, to direct staff to address the
concerns raised by the residents. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
AD~ARD OF BIDS: CITY HALL/LIBRARY REMC~ELING PROJECTS.
Todd Gerhardt: Attached for the City Council's consideration is the award of
bids for the City Hall and Library r~odeling projects. Included in the award
of bids for the City, Hall would be painting of the offices and common areas,
recarpeting of cc~mon areas that have...carpet and offices. Electrical would
include the replac~ent of the existing light fixtures with 3 way switch which
is the same model used in the public safety area at this point. Library
expansion would consist of painting the existing library and the new library
expanded area. Carpeting of both the existing area and the expansion area.
Acoustical tile for just the expansion area. Mechanical would be consisting of
the dropping of the sprinkler heads in the expanded area. Extension of the
heating ducts into the expanded area and also the relocation of a thermostat.
Electrical would include several outlets and the lighting of the expanded area
and the general contractor would be responsible for taking out the existing wall
which is dividing the existing library into what is the basement of the public
safety area for the expanded area included in the report. Staff is r~nding
38
City Oouncil M~eting - ~ 25~ 1989
approval of bids for painting, carpeting and electrical to Land Paintin9 and
Decorating, Pink C~ies, Page Electric for the City Hall exapanston for the
amounts of $3,200.00 for the painting, $10,579.00 for the carpeting, $14,975.00
for the electrical. The library expansion would be award to painting, Lund
Painting and Decorating for $1,300.00; carpeting, Pink (~ies for $7,230.00;
acoustical tile, Architectural Sales of Minnesota, $1,246.00; mechanical to
Allied Mechanical Systems for $4,660.00; electrical through Page Electric for
$2,624.00; and general contracting to Dean and Associates for $14,969.00. Staff
is prepared to answer any. questions that Oounctl may have. Included in the
report w~re the tabulation of bids for both the project library and City Hall.
Mayor Chmiel: This has already ~_--n included in the City. Hall expansion fund?
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Todd Gerhardt: That is correct.
Councilw~n Dimler: I have a question as to why, why didn't w~ get a second
bid on the electrical for the City. Hall?
!
Todd Gerhardt: We sent out four requests for bids to potential electrical
companies and Page was the only one that sulxuitted one for the City. Hall. So
that was all the bids ~ received for that project. I do not know why Vantage
didn't sutEit a bid.
Councilwoman Dimler: That ~-_~--~us strange.
Councilman Workman: I've never heard of these electrical companies. Don't
ever bid to local c~npanies or is this of a magnitude that it's larger?
Todd Gerhardt: No. We w~nt off the list that was provided as a part of the
City Hall expansion. The same contractors that bid that project.
Don Ashworth: You're talking about from Jack Anderson so you asked Jack to
provide a list of sub-contractors and this was the list that he had given you?
Todd Gerhardt: That's correct. And then ~ also included local people. I
guess I didn't know of a local electrican.
Don Ashworth: Because he wouldn't have b~ Lund. You must have put Lard on
yourself.
Todd Gerhardt: We also included Countryside Carpets, Allied was not a local
firm but was out in Hutchinson. They were awarded a bid.
Don Ashworth: I'm not sure on electric. We used to have Frontier Electric but
they're not in to~n an.~ore as far as I'm aware.
Councilman Workman: Not to prcmote (~aska but I know there's s(x,e good
electrical outfits out there. I'm speaking generally. Excelsior. I mean w~'re
going to H~tchinson for this stuff?
Todd Gerhart: Well they were one of the companies that w~re interested and did
bid on the City. Hall project. They were low bidder. I mean you're looking at a
39
City Co~mcil ~k=eting - Sept~nber 25, 1989
difference of $600.00 for that particular bidl
Mayor Chniel: Any other discLmsion?
Councilman Johnson: I think we ought to develop a list of local bidders that we
would like to see. It's off the subject slightly but I agree. W~ should, there
used to be a state law, I'm not sure if there is, where you can actually give a
price advantage to a local bidder on s(~ kind of contracts. I think it was a
federal contract. This is a while back. I think if on a federal contract and a
local bidder is involved, he can get a 3% break on his cost or something versus
what federal money's worth on it. I just want to say that I have no probl~n
with these bids as they are. I'd just like to see us make sure that w~ give
everyb(x~y in eastern Carver County a good chance at this.
Councilman Workman: I guess that's my. only concern in that I don't recognize
any of them and if I were an electrician in Chanhassen and s(Eebody from
Chanhassen called me up and said, or somebody from Hutchinson called me up and
said hey, would you like to bid on this and s~me nearby town electrician out
there, you know.
Mayor Chmiel: I would like to see us try to stick with locals as much as w~
can.
Todd Gerhardt: You've got two locals that sul~nitted.
Mayor Chniel: That's sGnething I'd like to see done.
Councilman Johnson: I just don't think w~ have a local electrician an~nore.
Councilman Work~n: I mean in the surrounding co,realities.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't believe we do. What is the starting date on this and
what' s completion date Todd?
Todd Gerhardt: This is going to be a very difficult in the anount of work that
has to be done. We have to move full file cabinets filled with files. You've
got desks that are filled. I want to start this Friday and have furniture in 3
or 4 of the offices moved out. Carpet would be ripped out in the afternoon and
then work on a three phase office system throughout next week for the carpeting
and painting. Electrical wouldn't have to be done at that time. This is just
for the City Hall. The library expansion would be starting next w~ek also, as
soon as we sign contracts with the general on it and we have been working
closely with the library on doing that work. There will be a one v~ek period
when the library will be closed.
Mayor Chmiel: I think one thing we should bring out the fact that the lighting
that's going to be done is to change out the old fixtures and putting in the new
which are more energy efficient. Over a long period of time it's going to save
us some money in cost of operating.
Todd Gerhardt: l~nat's correct. The lights in here are a 8 bulb s.ustem. We're
going to a 6 bulb which have also the capacity of breaking into phases where you
could have potentially 2, 3 or all 6 on at one time so that saves the amount of
wattage used and also breaks down on the glare when you're working on the
40
City Cbuncil Meeting - September 25, 1989
ccmputers and writirg reports at different times of the day that offices that
have lights or natural sun that c~mes in and w~rking in evenings.
Don Ashworth: I should note that I threw a monkey, wrench into Todd' s w~rk. He' s
been w~rking back with staff members. He's been ~)rking under the guideline
which really is $15,0~.~ as far as the biddin~ process and c~min~ back to
Council. I had stated that I wanted to see this onto the agenda and to insure
that the Council was aware of the work that we were doirg and that has delayed
s(~e of Todd's work and that's the reason again he had looked to this Friday for
that for starting. Again, I want to make sure that Council is aware of what we
were doing.
Mayor Ch~iel: That includes the library portion as well?
Todd Gerhardt: This Friday? That probably would not start this Friday. That
really falls back into Dean and Associates they have provided me with a schedule
that I received today. I think it starts next Monday.
MaWr Ch~iel: We're coordinating that with the library, people down there?
Todd Gerhardt: Yes. We're workirg closely with Mary frcm the library.
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor? Don just threw up a flag to me. Did you say
there was a limit of $15,000.00 here? f~mething in the bid informed ths~ that
if their bid was over $15,00~.0~?
Don Ashworth: No, no. ThiS was as far as bringing the itmm back to City.
Council as far as the State law is concerned in terms of what staff can award.
Again, I felt unccmrfortable in making sure that the City Council was fully aware
of the project. What it ~as we were proposirg to do so there was absolutely no
question as to again, the work that was...
Councilman Johnson: So there was no kind of $15,0~0.0~ cap that was put on the
bids?
Don Ashworth: No.
Councilman Johnson: Because ! notice we have $14,975.~0 and $14 , 969 . 00.
Don Ashworth: Not that I'm aware of. Todd do you know?
Todd Gerhardt: I was accused of telling ~ that and no. N~body referred that
back to thsm that they had to come under $15,0~0.0~.
Councilman Johnson: Because when ~u put in a maxim~ bid, you find people
coming in j[mt under that bid with a few if, ands and buts writte~ into their
bid that sometimes can add up to a lot of change orders so you've got to watch
out for that.
Todd Gerhardt: ~ne architect and...
Councilman Workman: I move approval.
Councilman Johnson: I second.
41
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
Resolution 989-107: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
award the bids for the City Hall and Library r~mlodeling projects as follows:
City Hall Contract
Bidder ~mount
Painting Lund Painting & Decorating $ 3,200.00
Carpeting Pink Cc~pantes $10,579.00
Electrical Page Electric $14,975.00
Library:
Painting
Carpeting
Acoustical Tile
Mechanical
Electrical
General Contracting
Lund Painting & Decorating
Pink Ccm~ies
Architectural Sales of MN
Allied Mechanical Systems
Page Electric
Dean & Associates
$ 1,300.00
$ 7,230.00
$ 1.246.00
$ 4,660.00
$ 2,624.00
$14,969.00
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 9.5 ACRES INTO 10 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, SOUTH OF
PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD, VINELAND FOREST~ VAN E~CKHOUT
BUILDING CORPORATION.
Paul Krauss: On September 18th the City Council reviewed access alternatives
prepared by staff to se~e the Vineland Forest plat and the surrounding area.
Alternative No. 3 was selected as the preferred alternative. Tnis routing would
ultimately result in the construction of a street connection frc~ Nez Perce at
the south to Pleasant View Road via Peaceful Lane at the north. ~ne applicant
was directed to revise his plat accordingly and to return to the City Council
for review of the preliminary plat. ~ne applicant has worked diligently with
staff to prepare the plat as requested. W~ believe that the result is generally
acceptable. The street aligr~ent that you see before you is consistent with the
selected alternative and most of the lots meet or exceed RSF standards. We do
however have several r~maining areas of concern with the design and note that
there are two variances that result with this final design of the plat. The
first concern is with the drainage plan and there's been s~me recent updating on
this. The original drainage plan utilized a series of three ponds which would
be coupled together before outletting water down the hill into an existing storm
sewer syste~. Staff had scme concerns with the use of three independent ponds.
They become a maintenance nightmare over time and s~me of the designs of the
ponds that were originally proposed really had some severe limitations on
individual rear yards. What people would perceive as their rear yards really
couldn' t be used as such because of easements that we would have to take. We
have worked with the developmer's engineer and he has prepared a revised plan
that we received tonight that we're really not in a position to show you but
basically what it does is replaces the three ponds with one large pond on those
two lots and we think the plan has a lot of merit. It does combine all those
ponds into one and it does avoid the need to build basically a dam at the end of
the gully over there which would have been used to provide ponding. We had some
concerns in terms of stability of that and what it would look like if you w~re
down the hill as well. So we think they made a lot of progress with that. We
propose s(~me stipulations for dealing with the drainage issue and we're quite
42
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
confident, especially based on what we received tonight, that those issues can
be worked out prior to the final plat. The plat design is based on the new
street that we proposed. Ho~=ver, it results in the need to serve one of the
lots by neck off of Pleasant View. If you recall the original plan had run the
street parallel to these lots and provided direct frontage to the~ and we had
some issues of concern regarding a stub end of a right-of-way that ran into a
hc~e on an adjoining property. Based on the City's redesign of access in that
area, there is sufficient area to create more than adequate lot areas for an RSF
lot. However, there's inadequate frontage. What they're proposing is a neck
lot with a 30 foot wide frontage up to Pleasant View which does take a variance.
Staff supports that noting that the lot is oversized and that all other respects
it exceeds ou~ ordinance requirements. The second variance is to allow a 10%
grade on what's called Vineland Drive on the plat. When we came to you last
time w~ 'acknowledged that there ~as, going back to the original, that there ~s
a bit of a design constraint in the area of the road connection the~e and that
ou~ emgineering department had designed a road section that used a 10% grade for
a short distance and did have an aoceptable landing area at the top which we
believe wo~ld be a safe way of routing traffic into the area. ~aat is however a
variance situation. I've ~_~n infomued that we've granted similar variances
previously and we are comfortable that a safe road design could result. We've
also tried to look at alternatives. What it would take to lower the road grade
in there to 7% and you wind up with an unusually large s~ount of grading that
impacts the adjoining lots severely and you lose a lot of tree cover as well so
we believe this is the way to go. Based on tbs foregoing, we're recc~x~anding
that the Vineland Forest preliminary plat be approved with the two variances
subject to appropriate stipulations.
Mayor (]x~iel: Thank you. Mr. Van Eeckhout. Would you like to?
Chuck Van ~eckhout: This drawing represents the current proposal of the
proposed change. The concern I have however is the stipulations that are being
suggested. One of which is that I seek to obtain additional right-of-way and
slope easements along what is now Nez Perce Drive to the south. I have no means
of doing that. I do not have the power of euinent d~main. I have an adjacemt
landowner who does not want the road there and so with that stipulation, I have
been cast in the muck so to speak. I cannot proceed. I'm dead in the water.
The othe~ stipulation as related to that also in that slopes no greater than 3-:1
which again we can't function on our own property with those slopes. The only
other mild concern was the water, in requireuent where they're asking for an 8
inch watermain to loop frc~ Pleasant View down to Nez Perce or Lake Lucy. The
extra size being a city requireuent and probably more a city expediate in that
it does help the~ to circulate the waterline ar~ perhaps if we did that, we
would like to receive the credit for the cost between the difference of the 6
inch line and 8 inch line. The 6 inch being all that we need for our purposes.
If the reservation on the right-of-way and slope eas~uents were lifted, I have
no problam with the other reservations but with that stipulation, I am nowhere.
If that stipulation has to be, and we knew that going in. I think I pointed out
to the Council that we did have substandard right-of-way and we also, the grade
is no problam. Never has ~ for me but I have no way of dealing with the
substandard right-of-way. I would like that stipulation r~oved. If it can't
be ramoved, then I would propose that we go back to the original proposal which
contains no variances and does muct all the City require~emts as to lot sizing
and so forth.
43
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Could you tell me what number those are in the
requir~nts?
Chuck Van ~eckhout: There are two sets of requirements. One by the planner and
one by the engineer in the staff report. In the engineer's report, numbers 2,
3, and 6.
Mayor Chniel: What page are you on?
Chuck Van ~eckhout: Page 3 of the ~ngineering letter from Dave Hsmpel to Paul
Krauss o
Paul Krauss: It's item 7(f) in the staff report on page 9.
Councilman Johnson: Are you saying that you're not going to be able to get the
necessary grading easement to get us to 10%?
Chuck Van Eeckhout: 10% is not a problem. It's the slope, I would have to use
very steep slopes on the sides...with some sort of an erosion control method. It
would have to be steep slopes with plantings and retaining walls of s~ne sort. I
have no means to acquire the additional right-of-way...
Councilman Johnson: You're about to show us where that is right?
Paul Krauss: Yes sir. The issue that's confronting us is that Park Drive isn't
under right-of-way. The dashed lines outside the limits of the right-of-way
indicate w~ere we think slope easements would ~ to be acquired. I've been
informed that, well there's two property owners there. One, as I understand it
is more willing to negotiate than the other but be that as it may, we don't have
final topog in that area. The engineer for the developer is shooting that
today. Based on our preliminary investigation, the data we had to work with, we
think it's workable. Now there maybe scum eas~nents that need to be acquired.
That could either be through the developer doing it or through the City's use of
eminent domain if it came to that. We are not sure of the final design of that
road though until we have that topographic information and wo~d like'to be in a
position to resolve that before the final plat.
Councilman Johnson: ...when ~ had to get an easement in order for things to go
ahead. We want to~mke sure we have those before we go ahead instead of trying
to get them after we ~_nt ahead. That's something that may change by final
plat.
Paul Kra[%ss: It could very well.
Councilman Johnson: 8 inches is pretty standard. I think we've done this on
several subdivisions. Take 8 inch.
Dave He~pel: Mr. Mayor if I ~myaddress that. I believe under the first
sutmlittal of plans they did show an 8 inch line going through the subdivision.
It was felt that for looping purposes and adequate fire flows that 8 inch would
be most desireable.
Mayor Chniel: 8 inch as opposed to nor~k311y for the subdivsion that size, 6
inch would be sufficient? Would it or wouldn't it?
44
City Council M~eting - September 25, 1989
Dave He~pel: I guess without calculations to be exact, it's gettir~ close I
guess. Borderline. For future flowa, possibly to the w~st to insure quality of
water and so forth.
Oouncilman Johnson: Do you have the cost difference between 6 and 8 inch is?
Dave H~npel: I would say approximately $3.~ a linear foot.
Ch~k Van ~eckhout: It's about $2,500.00 approximately~ It's not a real big
deal. The s~aller the lines you can use to serve the property properly is the
best line because you have the best flow and the best qualitywater. 6 inch
line is all we really want in there. If the City wantsmore for looping,
I understand that. I'm just suggesting that perhaps...
Councilman Boyt: I think we have a lot of precedent wherewe've required full
size lines.
Councilman Johnson: And for adding ox getting into the city water system, this
bec~es a part of the city water syste~. We will be doing the city a disservice
if we put anything in there less than ~hat the City requires for that line.
That is not one of the best areas in the City for utilities already. The area
to the south of that. Anything we could do to help would be appreciated.
Mayor Ch~iel: Any other discussion?
Councilman Boyt: Sure. Paul, I ass~e that in your staff report where you
indicate bc~e setbacks, that that's a t~vpo under the rear setback?
Paul Kra~ms: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. They look like they all fit. ~here is Lot 2, Block 3?
I don't think we got that on any of our plat maps. Maybe you can.. aue on this.
Councilman Johnson: Page 4.
councilman Boyt: Ah ha. (k)od. (k)t it. And that ~s a variance because of
what?
councilman Johnson: No frontage.
Paul Krauss: Lot 2, Block 3 has only 30 feet of frontage up on Pleasant View so
basically it's a flag lot...
councilman Boyt: So what you're salving there is that that lot faces Pleasant
VieW?
Paul Krauss: Yes. That and the one north of it, yes.
councilman Boyt: Well, my understanding is that variances require an-
overwhelming reason, especially when the developer has got a raw piece of land
and is c~ing and is laying this out and now they're saying to us, we can't do
it. Can' t lay it out and _n~ct city standards and what's the overwhelming reason
they can't do it? There's any n~er of st~_rred lots here that apparently don't
45
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
have the required width. I gt~ss I 'm not convinced that the develo~ent meets
our standards for a develolament.
Paul Kra~ss: If we could take the lot width at the right-of-way standard first.
I think the ordinance is a little ambiguoL~s on that as well. The ordinance
appears to allow up to 4 homes on a private driveway in the subdivision section
I believe but then says that all lots shall have 90 foot of frontage on the
right-of-way. Well, you can't have both. In this case, there was an original
road plan that would have avoided the need for a variance. It was designed
specifically, and sort of gerr~umandered if you will, to avoid the need for a
variance in the plan that you saw originally. This City Council has given scme
guidance as to the correct road aligrm~o~t for serving this area which results in
the stranding of quite a bit of acreage inbetween Pleasant View and the new
street. Tne lot as we see it meets all other RSF standards and would be a good
building site. Only by nature of the fact that we decided that the road should
run somewhat south of there, it can't be accessed. Given that kind of ambiguity
in the ordinance and the fact that we contributed to the situation, we felt that
the variance had some merit.
Councilman Boyt: When you're talking about Block 3, Lot 2, I think I can follow
the logic that generates that although then of course to take your definition or
the City's definition of this, then what happens to the other ~ lots in that
since they have no frontage, if that's your definition?
Paul Krauss: No, the other two lots have full frontage. Tree north one has full
frontage on Pleasant View. The south one has it on the new street. It runs
just off the bottom there.
Councilman Boyt: Is this what we've got up here?
Councilman Johnson: Yeah.
Councilman Boyt: Show me what we've got.
Chuck Van ~eckhout: We're talking about these 3 lots here. This one has it's
frontage right here. This is the variance lot with the 30 foot frontage here to
serve the center lot. This one has both frontage on the south street.
Councilman Boyt: Excuse me for laughing but I've seen that kind of street
before and what you've done by putting that bubble in there is create frontage
footage. You've got made the roadway safer but you're created a plowing
problem.
Chuck Van ~eckhout: Tnis is a temporary cul-de-sac until this gets built.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. Excuse me. So when that's straightened out, the
frontage is available.
Chuck Van ~eckhout: Right is what we vacated.
Councilman Boyt: So what you're saying Paul is that this private drive accesses
the middle lot and that lot has no frontage on anything other than the private
drive?
46
City Council Meeting - September 25~ 1989
Pa~l Krauss: It has 30 feet of frontage on Pleasant view~
Councilman Boyt: Ch because w~ create that flag?
Chuck Van Eeckhout: The width of the private drive.
Paul Krauss: As to the second group of apparent variances, that ~s s~mething I
came across in reviewing the plat. Again, there's an ambiguity, in the ordinance
where it says that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac require less than 90 feet of
width. You measure, I think you measure the lot width at the setback line for
the home. Now it just sa.us on a cul-de-sac. It doesn' t say ~here on a
cul-de-sac or how and in speaking to Jo Ann, it's ~_n my. understanding that
that's typically been construed to mean on outside curves as ~_11 as on
cul-de-sac bubbles, which is t/~ situation that we had in here. All these lots
exceed, far exceed the standard, 90 foot standard at the building setback line.
Councilman Boyt: Now this development hinges upon that access. So tell me, I
see~ to follow that you said the City ~s going to be in a position to ~ to
condemn that property?
Paul Krauss: That's not an implausible scenario. I discussed it with the City
Engineer and he indicated that that's a possibility. It would be our preference
to have the developer negotiate the easements but conde~ation I suppose is one
route the City could use.
Councilman Boyt: Rs~ind me again why we're doing this? I guess I need to see
the overwhelming public need for that piece of property..
Paul Krauss: The overwhelming public ~ if you will goes back to the access
concepts that were developed to serve the area and on the pres~uptio~ that the
selected alternative had some merit from an overall neighborhood standard. That
given all the options for serving that area, that this was the only reasonable
~ay of doing it. Hence it ~s scmething that we probably r~ to make work if
it doesn't work that easily on it's
Councilman Boyt: Are we in any better situation if we come up to Nez Perce or
Lake Lucy. s~x,eplace else?
Paul Krauss: Well we looked at all those alternatives and Nez Perce really lent
itself to the thru moveuent and to off loading traffic in both directions so
that hopefully none of the streets in the area ~re severely impacted. We did
look at all the other opportunities to connect and one of the ones was I think
Kiowa which is to the east had some grade problems and runs into a very dense
stand of trees. We looked at that outlot further down Lake Lucy. Road and while
that's technically feasible, it really didn't provide the thru movement that we
were looking for and didn't provide any direct service to this particular plat.
Councilman Boyt: We've generally not created flag lots, which is what that
Block 3, Lot 2 is. How ~p is that holding pond?
Paul Krauss: How deep is the new holding pond? 8 feet.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, and how deep is it during normal conditions? What's the
bounce? ~hile I'm interested in o~ people's questions, I guess I'm not real
47
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
c(x~fortable with this develo~xnent as it is.
Councilman Johnson: Why 6 foot of depth at normal time?
Paul Kra~s: I 'd llke to defer that to the engineer.
Steve Johnston: My name is Steve Johnston. I'm the engineer with Merrill and
Associates. The reason that we have 8 foot of depth in the pond is t~o fold.
One is that it was desirable we felt to create a pond that ~ould be an amenity
back there rather than just a hole in the ground that collects water during a
storm. We had sufficient room to do that and that's what w~'ve tried to
accomplish here. The second reason is with the increased fill required to
extend the road off of Nez Perce, we found ourselves extremely short of fill
material on the site. By going in there and mining that out to create the pond,
it served the purpose of obtaining that fill and at the same time create an
amenity and alleviated the staff's concern regarding the three smaller ponds so
we thought it was a very good compromise and met all of our design r~-~cds here.
Councilman Johnson: Are you going to have rolling bottoms, varying from 1 to 4
foot in depth as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommends?
Steve Johnston: What we've got shown here is a, probably not the most desirable
from a Fish and Wildlife Service but what we have got is a 6:1 slope above and
below the normal water level for depth of 3 feet at which point again, above and
below that it goes to a 3:1 slope. What this hopefully will do is to make those
side slopes as safe as possible while providing us with the maximin amount of
fill material to come out of that hole.
Councilman Johnson: Are you saying you've got 3:1 slopes outside the pond?
Steve Johnston: We' ve got 3:1 coming down the back ~vard areas. Flattening out
at around the nomnal water elevation to a 6:1 slope and then once we get out
over 3 or 4 feet deep, we w~re taking out a little more material out to make it
a little deeper.
Councilman Johnson: We have in the past asked that the Fish and Wildlife
Services, I think it's 4 or 6 conditions for wildlife ponds and this would be a
good place for kind of a wildlife because it's in the back of some folk's yards.
It's not really a swim~iing pond or anything like that. That those conditions,
we'd like to see those put in here. One of those is a rolling bottom so the
feeding birds that feed at 1 foot depth have 1 foot depth and those that feed at
deeper depths, you know.
Steve Johnston: I think we're going to find tho~E3h on this pond, it's going to
be very hard to obtain that rolling bottcm. The pond itself is not that large.
A whole lot of differential is going to be difficult to obtain although I'm not
saying it' s impossible to obtain.
Councilman Johnson: Since it just came up today and it's not before us to even
consider since it wasn't brought to us in time for us to see it other than that
drawing, something has to be done.
Mayor Chm~iel: Any other discussion or questions?
48
City Oouncil Meeting - Sep~ 25, 1989
Councilman Boyt: What's with Lot 13 and Lot 9 in Block 2? There were staff
cc~mants on both of those.
Paul Krauss: I believe that that's referring to the original pond design which
quite severely impacted those lots. I don't see the right illustration in front
of us but the original ponds basicallyabsorbed their entire backyard. The
edge of the contours cc~es quite close to the rear of the houses.
Councilman Boyt: Well there must be, is there quite a bit of grading going on
in their new ponding site?
Paul Krauss: Yes. That would have to all be excavated out.
Councilman Boyt: It looks like, from what I see right now, you've got a fairly
gentle slope across the back of Lot 5 and they're going to be recontouring that
whole area. What's that do to t/~ trees? I'm sure you wipe ~ out but how
big a percentage are you talking?
Paul Krauss: Fortunately that area of the plat, the tree cover is very sparse.
There's clearing in the general location of the pond and the tree cover
surrounding that...small ash on the order of 1 to 2 inch diameter ash...but the
reason that location was selected was because of the clearing that was there.
The natural break in the trees.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. I agree with Jay that the po~d should be bigger.
That's basically what it comes down to whe~ you start charging the bottom
contour. You've got to have a certain vol~e so ~u've got to make it bigger.
Ite~ 6 in the staff's conditions where we talk about tree preservation, I'd like
to __--c added to it~ 6 that all erosion control be put into place prior to any
grading permit being issued. That all trees be reviewed by the DNR, staff and
that all trees that will be saved be staked off at appropriate distance from the
trees prior to any grading penmit. And that all that be maintained throughout
the life of the develola~ent contract. I think there should be something in
regard to, I know that we specify, tree preservation. I've walked some of that
piece of property but I'd like to think that if we've got any trees in there
that are hardwoods in the nature of 80 to 100 y~ars old, that wa know about it
before those get removed. I want to avoid any radical changes in the ~Dodland
part of this develotxeent.
Councilman JoPnson: Bill, as long as you're talking about trees, can I
interject something? I believe preliminary, plat suppose's to show where the
trees are. I haven't found them .vet. This has quite a bit of forest. Usually
you have the little squiggley lines showing where the forest ends. Where is
that? That's a requir~emt of preliminary plat I believe to show that on the
drawings. In 'the past I've moved to table if I don't see where the trees are
and don't see what the grading is.
Steve Johnston: When the original topographic survey, was prepared...the nature
of the site which is condensed open areas and wooded areas and so forth, at that
point they were doing a rough topo for preliminary, plat purposes...which will
incorporate the final but it was felt that this preliminary, we ~ed to see
where wa going with it before a lot of dollars ~_re spent on the design...
49
City Council Meeting - September 25~ 1989
Councilman Johnson: What I'm saying, our city ordinance requires that
infoI/nation to be provided at this point. If we don't have that point, w~
can't evaluate what you're doing. If you don't give us any information, we
can't evaluate it. We shouldn't continue looking at these.
Chuck Van Eeckhout: We've spent 4 months on this application. We've never been
asked for it until right now. We certainly would provide it. Tae site is
almost entirely wooded mostly with young trees. You can't see through there
right now so it's essentially all wooded except in the northeast quadrant is
~t lighter. The rest of it does contain a ~mttering of mature trees
amongst the smaller ones. It would be kind of difficult for us to try to
delineate the trees. An aerial survey is probably the only way you really get a
good feel for it because it is a brushy, young forest interspersed with maybe a
few, maybe a dozen, ~mybe 2 dozen, more mature trees. I don't know if that
helps any but we have not been asked that information. We certainly would have
provided it.
Councilman Johnson: Have you read our city ordinances? We don't take
developers by the hand and say you have to do this, this and this. We have a
fairly new planner here that maybe missed that point. It's one of the points
that I've made over the years but it's in the ordinance. When you hire somebody
to do this for you, they take our ordinances and read them and I believe it's in
there. I didn't bring ~ ordinance book with me tonight. It's in my car, which
doesn ' t help.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, do you know whether that's factual or not?
Paul Krauss: As Councilman Johnson indicates, I'll have to plead ignorance by
reason of being a novice at it. I'm familiar with the tree preservation
statute. I wasn't aware that that was a requirement. It was certainly
scmething w~ were going to look for given the level of impact on those areas.
Roger, are you familiar with the exact citation?
Roger Knutson: Location of wooded areas is listed in the requirements...
Councilman Boyt: Well if the whole thing is wooded.
Councilman Johnson: If the whole thing is wooded but they've said that it's not
because where the pond is it's not.
Chuck Van Eeckhout: It is ~ooded with young trees. How you want to qualify
that I don't know. I walked through it and you can't see through it right now
but 15 feet above the ground you can, that's the height of the trees.
Counciln~qn Johnson: Okay, your engineer says it's clear and we're not affecting
trees. You say it's wooded so you don't have to show a line.
Chuck Van Eeckhout: I don't think so. He's saying there's no significant
trees. He's saying they're very s~all, 1 and 2 inch ashes I believe is what he
said. There's probably a few in there that might be 2 1/2 or 3 inches, I don't
know but there's no significant large trees that would be disrupted and we do
plan to move the trees that we can salvage from that area. That's what the
nature of the area is. It is a young forest of primarily ash and other similar
deciduo~ trees. A lot of decent trees in there for moving.
50
City Oouncil Meeting - Se~ 25~ 1989
Oouncilman Johnson: It's hard to get in and look at this spot. I ca~e in fr~m
the east up towards that retaining wall and above the retaining wall it looks to
be s~me fairly substantial trees in that area.
Chuck Van ~eckhout: Off to the south-, yes. That whole strip, which ~m my
original intention to try. and preserve that was the original plan. The whole
south third of the property or fourth of the property contains the majority of
the mature trees and the more mature forest. Th~ north half or two thirds of
the site is scattered s~all trees with a few small open spots, especially around
the house and then there are a scattering, a half doze~ or a dozen of more
mature trees on the north half of the property, but it's essentially all ~Doded
or partially wooded, dependirg on what you want to define as being ~Doded...
Councilman Johnson: I've got to let the engir~__rs tell me what is the normal on
that. I'm not a city engineer but, I've not walked t/~ whole property so I
don' t know. The City does not normally go out and condemn property, for
developers so he can develop his land. Of course by. saying w~ want this access
the way w~ ~ant it, we're kind of forcing him into that situation. The other
alternative is to go back to the original plan which then puts it straight
through many, many, a very long cul-de-sac off of Pleasant View ~hich I don't
think is very. desireable either.
Councilman Boyt: If I might suggest something. I think that the developer and
the City need to know a lot more about this conde~nation action that's proposed
and I don't know, if we can pass the preliminary, plat with a condition but I'm
not ready, for my. part, to say that tt~ City. will cond~m~n that land.
Chuck Van ~eckhout: I think the preliminary plat and the final can be handled
without additional right-of-way. I think we can get by with the 40 feet of
right-of-way.
Councilman Boyt: Well I don't. The City has a standard of 60 feet?
Dave Hs~oel: 50 feet.
Councilman Boyt: 5~ feet? And we r~ all of that and we're looking at going
to 66 feet at some point in the future so 40 feet, what you're asking us to do
then is squeeze the utilities into 10 less feet than we should normally have. I
don't know. I think that's the most volatile issue on this whole thirg is how
do we get access onto Lake Lucy. Road and Nez Perce. I'm not prepared to say
that I'm goirg to cond~n that guy's back yard.
Chuck Van Eeckhout: Fortunately it's a vacant lot' .vet but that doesn't
necessarily help the situation if we have an unwilling participant.
Councilman Boyt: Well we may want to shift that road to t/~ east some and move
that participant out of the ~egotiations. But if we do that, it's going to
change your lot sizes which is going to change the layout of your develolama~t.
It seems to me we have a tree issue. We have a holding pond issue. To s(x.e
extent we may have a variance issue. Ma.u~e not, from what Paul has said, and
then we've got this access issue.
51
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
Chuck Van Eeckhout: I just want to remind the Council that w~ had a proposed
plat that has no variances in it and the Council selected this one with all the
problems. I'm relunctant to accept all those problems. I think if you accept
this revision as a preferential one, that we have to find some way to go forward
here otherwise I'd llke to go back and have action on my original proposal which
Don Ashworth: In regards to the street access issue, I really do not think that
t_hat's going to be a problem. I have not talked with Gary but I think you can
recall, time and again on projects that we've had where the project has crossed
another parcel. It's literally impossible for a developer in that instance to
carry out that construction. He has no means to ensure acquisition of the
parcel and carrying out the construction. Although we don't like to go into
condemnation, in many projects it's the only way it can be done. It doesn't
mean that it's going to have to be that way if we can work s~nething with the
owner but I think again, if you think about, I think almost 50% of the projects
that we've had, have involved the necessity for the City to come in and do some
portion of the project. I mean you wouldn't have a business park if the City
hadn't gone... I can't r~mg~er now the famner on the corner of CR 17 and TH 5.
Even with the recent waterline down in the Lake Susan area, that was another one
that traversed a number of parcels. Anytime you get a project that again
crosses other properties, the City needs to seriously consider doing that
project as a municipal project.
Mayor Chmiel: Basically what you're saying is that that 40 feet would be?
Don Ashworth: Yes. We could either do that 40 feet or literally carry out the
entire construction. Very similar. We had one this evening. Tne Meadow (keens
where we carried out the entire sewer, water, street construction. Assessed the
lots. I think the developer was very pleased with that project. It involved 3
additional lots that really weren't under his control. That's one of the issues
he brought up to this evening was he had carried out the financing for those 3
lots and was hoping that at s(x,e future time he might get a reimburs~nent for
those. I mean those are the t~vpe of things that you work out with the
individual and I would anticipate that the city would be able to work with this
developer to ensure equitable lmalanent for the construction of that 40 feet or
whatever the distance is down there.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I feel c(xnfortable with that if that's something that
we' ve done previously.
Councilman Boyt: I'm not comfortable with agreeing or suggesting that we're
going to conde~m part of sc~ebody's lot when they don't even know it. I just
don't think that's a smart action for us to take. I have s(Ee real qualms. You
want to go back to your first develotEent, your cul-de-sac's too long as
I recall.
Ch~lck Van Eeckhout: It's well shorter than, it's half as long as a n~nber of
others that have ~n recently approved.
Councilman Boyt: Nothing by this Council.
Don Ashworth: A question for Paul. The property owner where the road is
proposed to go across, was he notified of the various hearings that we've gone
52
City Council Meeting - Sept~r~er 25~ 1989
through? He has to be frcm tbe standpoint that everyone within 30~ feet:
Paul Krauss: Gertainly he would have ~n on the mailing list, yes. I have not
spoken to him myself.
Mayor Chuiel: Have you received any calls?
Paul Krauss: No. Dave?
Chuck Van ~eckhout: The engineer has talked to the gentl~uan ~ho owns that lot
very recently. His indication was he would not cooperate. I don't know if
that's just an off the cuff r~a__rk or. He does not ~ant the road going his ~ay.
He was in the first m~cting where everybody didn't want the road goirg to the
south.
Councilman Workman: I thought Daryl Fortier discussed this with the owners in
there and said that everythin~ was on key ar~ goin~ great.
Chuck Van Eeckhout: On the east side.
Councilman Workman: Well there's two sides to this.
Chuck Van Meckhout: I know...
Councilman Workman: I guess I'd move tabling this ~til we can figure it out. I
don't know. I think we're running this thirg a~ound. We had scme plans. I had
nervousness about Nez Perce anyway but I think there's enough unsettling going
on to table at this point. I'm not quite sure what this 22 foot high da~ is.
Councilman Boyt: That's gone.
Councilman Workman: Ch that's going to be eliminated? Okay.
Paul Krauss: Which we had a lot of concerns with and we're glad to see it go.
Councilman Workman: We went from 3 ponds to 1.
~'ayor Chniel: I think with all the questions that are here, we have a motion on
tbe floor to ~_shle this.
Councilwoman Dimler: I ' 11 second that motion.
Mayor Ch~iel: And I think there are many questions that we have to get resolved
and get it resolved quickly. Is there any other further discussion?
Councilman Boyt: I'd sure like to see the developer ard the staff work on those
conditions about erosion control and such that I mentioned. I think if we can
get this road access situation cleared up, the rest of it ~ like it's pretty
straight forward to me.
Councilman Workman moved, Co~cilwmuan Dimler seconded to *ruble the preliminary
plat to subdivide 9.5 acres into 18 single family lots for Vineland Forest. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
53
City Council Meeting - September 25~ 1989
REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST FOR AN EXISTING DECK, 1710 TEAL CIRCLE, BILL
AND NANCY FEBRY.
Paul Krauss: The applicants are requesting a rear .yard setback variance fr(~n 25
feet down to 16 feet for construction of a deck. No building permit had been
requested for this deck and construction ~as not authorized. Staff only became
aware of it in responding to a complaint that was phoned in frcm one of the
neighbors. We're unable to find any hardship in this instance. Had the
applicant obtained a building permit thorugh the usual channels, he would have
been informed as to the limitations of the lot and we think could have designed
a deck that was consistent with those setbacks. The hardship as it is is self
~de here because obviously the deck was installed without any city approvals.
Staff is recxxamendin9 that the variance be denied and that the deck be rebuilt
to be consistent with City standards. Tne Board of Adjustments revie~sd the
it~n tonight and voted to deny the application.
Mayor Chmiel: Tnank you.
Councilman Johnson: Can I ask one question?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
councilman Johnson: Do we know who built, was it a builder or was it built
privately?
Paul Krauss: It was the applicant. It was the homeowner.
Counci]amm Johnson: There was no builder?
councilman Boyt: Tnere was a builder involved.
councilman Johnson: A construction company?
Councilwoman Dimler: But not with the deck.
Councilman Johnson: So it was a hGne made deck?
Mayor Chniel: Tae deck is very substantial. I was over there this evening and
looked at it.
Councilman Johnson: I was over there yesterday.
Mayor Chniel: Bill, would you like to.
Bill Febry: As I said earlier this evening, my wife and I and our three
daughters are new to Minnesota and without shedding any tear drops or asking for
a great deal of mercy, we have moved our family 8 times in 10 years. We've
lived in 5 different states and this is the first new h(m~ that we've owned.
Along that path I decided to leave the job that I had and take on a new job
responsibility here in the Twin Cities area to put sc~e stability in our
family's life. I don't know much about building. I personally did not build
the deck. I had a brother-in-law who builds decks for a living in Texas fly up
and put this thing together. Tne point that I made earlier this evening was
54
City Oounctl Meeting - Se~ 25, 1989
that not understanding codes, ordinances, or anything that you folks deal with
on a regular basis, we don't ask the types of questions that someone in the
business no~mally would nor did we anticipate this. When I met with the
builder, I explained the t.upe of home that we ~anted. We looked at it and I
also at that point in time, based on his pricing of a deck, indicated to him
that there ms a family me~ber ~aho could build a bigger and nicer deck and he
agreed with that and said fine. That's why it never appeared on the plan. At
the same time, the developer m~s fully aware of ou~ intentions. The size of
home. The type of deck that we wanted built and at no time did either party
indicate to Nancy or myself that this would be a probl~ on this piece of
property. If in fact that would have ~ the case ladies and gentl~en, we
would have not purchased this piece of land because this ms to be our dream
home. Again, we're not aware of how far back you had to be building a deck to
the lot line and so on. I would have found a different lot and I told the
developer that and I told the builder that. It's a little late now but
unfortunately we closed on the hcme and everyone has been paid and we're here in
front of you tonight. We have a couple of nice decks there. It's not that we
have such a large family that we ~ two decks but we had intended on building
a screened in porch on tt~ upper deck. That's why. it's as big as it is and
maybe eventually make it into a four season porch or whatever. ~t
necessitated another deck, a lower deck that we could spend some time outside
with. That's essentially the situation. You've seen the deck. It's all
redwood. The bill we got frcm Scb~ Brothers was ~2,00~.~0 for materials plus
my brother-in-law's airfare here and a few beers on the side. That's ~bere
we're at so when we got this notice, first we were upset and we didn't
understand what had happened and we called the builder and of course they
infonmed us that yes, that we have a probl~ on our hands and I also contacted
the developer and of course they said, ~ we have a proble~ on our hands so by
golly, we have a proble~ on our hands. They were right. So they were upfront
about that but we're here and we've got scme neighbors that own property
adjacent to ours. As you've seen out there, it's wooded and I certainly don't
~ant to be that close to my. neighbors and appreciate the privacy, that we have
so. I don't know if you'd like to hear from a few of these folks, we'll try to
keep it short. I notice the last thing on the. agenda this evening was
shortening meetings so I want to certainly try. and set the example ar~ move
along here so thank you.
Mayor Chuiel: Thank you.
Tc~ Nye: My name is Tom Nye. I live at 1641 West 63rd Street. I have 1,~0~
feet that is adjacent to Pheasant Hills 4th Addition. My property abuts up
against Mr. Febry's. I have in the past been most vocal about some things that
have happened in Pheasant Hills that I've found disturbing but at no time have
I ever found any phase of construction of Mr. ~ebry's obtrusive at all. In
fact, I can't even see this deck from my. property at any. point just by his
property being adjacent. Closer ex~tnation shows it to be a real asset to the
coemunity and I feel he's being singled out in that neighborhood whe~ there's
probably other cases that might be more objectionable. There's no objection
from me who has probably more at stake on that one section than anybody else
except his immediately neighbor behind him so there's nobody that objects to it
and I question who called in the first place.
Jim Flowers: My name is Jim Flo~=_rs. I'm at 1721 Wood Duck Circle and I'm the
one that's adjacent to him in the back. In fact my deck looks at his deck in
55
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
kind of a way except for there happens to be about 50 feet of woods. If you've
been out there, you've taken a look at that and I happen to think the deck is a
very nice addition also. It is redwood. It fits in with the trees and it's far
enough apart that we're not looking at each other all the time but I think if
you had to build kind of this funny looking little line deck, I'm not sure what
Bill could pat up there that would look as nice as what he's got there now.
I think there's no probl~m~ with it as far as I'm concerned and I am the one that
probably is affected by it more than anybody else.
Mike Kester: I'm Mike Kester and I'm going to be living at 1641 and I think
that when Tc~ Klingelhutz had that development, he didn't know it was going to
be quite as good as he anticipated and I feel that it's a real asset to their
house. With wooded area behind, I don' t think there'd be any probl~.
Mayor Ch~iel: Thank you. Anyone else? If not, any discussion?
Councilman Johnson: First I'd like to ask RDger about the pending legislation.
Do w~ know how pending that pending legislation we've been discussing the last
few times regarding variances?
Roger Knutson: Yes. I have testified before a legislative mini-session down in
Rochester on the pending land use bill. And interestingly, the only issue, the
only two issues in the whole darn bill that got everyone's interest up and one
was variances. The other was Ja~pact. Variances was the hottest issue there.
I'm not a phrophet but I would anticipate, I shouldn't even say this because you
never know what the legislature will do but I'll go out on a limb and say I
think there's every reason to believe that a bill will be passed this session,
but I don't know that.
Councilman Workman: For what? To do what?
Roger Knutson: To rewrite the whole land use law. One of the things that ~uld
be rewritten is the variance provision and as drafted now, and I don't know
what's going to happen to it, but as drafted now, in addition to the present
sit[~tion where State Statutes say what the requirements are for a variance,
they're going to say, or such other conditions as the City. Council may put into
their own ordinances. Give you really the right to state when you want to grant
an ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: When will this be formally? Is this with the tax bill too that's
cc~ing through?
Roger Knutson: No.
Mayor Chmiel: It's coming up next legislative session?
Roger Knutson: Yes. It was introduced last session. Last March. It's still
be stt~ied. Lots of people are looking at it. Generally people are in favor of
the idea.
Councilman Johnson: We're talking next year?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
56
City Oouncil Meeting - Segtember 25, 1989
Mayor C~Eiel: Doesn't really help us right now though?
Roger Knutson: No.
Cbuncilman Johnson: For those of you listening and wondering what we're talking
about, the State requires, controls when w~ can and can't grant a variance
because they make the laws. These are the laws. These are the standards. It's
like speed limit laws. The State says such and such a street has to have a 30
mph spccd limit. We're not allowed to go in there and give it a 50 mph or 25
mph. We have to give it a 30. The State does the saue thing with variances and
land uses. If you sat through it earlier, they w~nt through those 5 conditions.
For us to grant a variance we have to fir~ that those all 5 conditions have ~n
met.
Councilman Workman: Were the footings put in by. the builder for this deck?
Bill Febry: Yes tP~=y were.
Councilman Johnson: Which builder?
Bill Febry: ...I mentioned earlier to the omu~it~ that this is the first home
that be has built in Chanhassen. I'm not here to speak for him because he's in
t/~ business obviously and I'm not but the footings were put in prior to final
inspection. Again, I wish mmueone would have said s~uethirg to me then because
I wouldn' t have invested th~ money and the time in what I have. I would have
tried to, in lieu of the fact that I already bought the property, and the lxx,e,
designed something differently.
Councilman Johnson: Were they on the blueprints?
Bill Febry: No. I guess if you discussed it with the builder and the developer
and they don' t say anythin~ about it and they know what's happening, the~ we' re
kind of caL~ht. That's why we're a little disgruntled over it. Not so much
with the political process but with the fact that you invest a great deal of
money, at least for us, in something that is to be an exceptional piece of
property, and ownership and two groups don't c(~e forward and tell you tl~ whole
story. That's tough.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I was thinking about this quite a little bit this evening
and I even had to sit down and write something. It's not really going to help
you but it at least expresses my feelings on this. I wish there %~_re a way that
wa could acclaims]ate that variance. I really do because I kr~w there's a lot of
hard work and a lot of thought put into what ~u did. What I basically had
written down here is that we may think that we live in a world where an~vthing
goes but if we didn't follow rules of laws, etiquette, grams_ar, life would be
really sort of harsh. Rules make life sort of warm and easier and secure. I
find that C1manhas~ is like every other cc~mmity and we have to really abide
by. what rules we have. We have stopped people from building decks. People w4~
~nted to put on additions because of this side yard variances and so on.
I guess that really is where I'm coming from. Not as much as I'd like to. I'd
much rather see you acc~odated with ~hat's there. Let me ask another
question. By 9 feet, this is a 14 foot depth and 9 feet off that, that would
only leave that deck 5 feet right? That's not going to be worth having.
57
City Council Meeting - September 25~ 1989
Paul Krauss: That's true Mayor. The northern deck, or the lower one. The one
that's behind the garage, could be larger because the home is canted from the
back property llne.
Mayor C~miel: And I was out there and I looked at that. It's w~ll constructed.
There's no c~estion in my mind. I wish mine were as well constructed.
Bill Febry: I'll give you his business card. You can fly him up. Well, if I
could add sc~uethirg else. In the future, if there's some way that the City
could figure out how to be a bit more of an informant to people from out of
state or out of the Twin Cities area to let ths~ know that there are, when
developers are in the business to make money like everyone else. I sat and
listened to the gentle,an before this and all I thought of was boy, I'd like to
get up and ask him if there's roc~ enough on each one of those lots for people
like Nancy. and I to build the type of hc~e and deck that w~ would like. I
wanted to ask him that but of co~%rse it ~asn' t ~ place or time but the point
I'm makirg is, I don't know how you could address this for people in the future
but it certainly would avoid people like us, and I understand through Ursula
earlier on that we' re not the only ones. There have been several people that
have faced this so it is a problem and it's an ethics problem as far as I'm
concerned. These people that are in the business. We would have bought a
different lot. That's how si~le that is.
Councilu~n Workman: I think the variance sysba~ is actually not bad at all. We
don't have a variance s.ustem. We're not giving out variances. We don't have
flexibility. We're not doing anything. We've had long ti~ residents of this
co~munity that I'd like to do nothing better than to give the~ 2 feet but we
weren't. I'd like to say welc(~me to the co~munity and say yes, that'd be very
easy for me and I think this is all supposed to be set up so that it is easy for
me to make the decision to say no, forget it you know but it's not. It doesn' t
make it any easier. Case by case, piece by piece, we've again charged people
for an application for a variance which they probably didn't have a chance in
all get out of getting. So the warning needs to go up there too. Not that we
can tell you hey, forget it because they're not going to do it. Here's the
line. You can't build over it and the Board of Adjustments is going to deny it
and then we're going to reinforce the Board of Adjustments and that's the way it
is. I received more than one call from sc~eb~y, from folks on the other side
of the fence saying you're going to do it for one, do it for all. That's again
supposed to make it easy. I've been on the Council for 8 months, 9 months, and
I'm actually only 14. I look older now. But boy I can see the faces of the
folks that were supposed to have, wanted the same thing who have lived here for
years. They're going to line up outside that door and say what's goirg on. But
again, I'm disappointed for you and for us in that we really, where I think
we're supposed to have scme flexibility, we don't have it. The only advice I
can give you is after the legislature here passes their law, save your lumber.
We can put it up. Again, I'm disappointed for you. I'm sure it's beautiful. I
didn't have to go out there quite frankly. I didn't have to go out there and
look because I knew what was going to happen so it's disappointing. It's money
ill spent for the variance. End of preaching. Let's deny these people. Put
th~u out of their misery and let th~u go hcme and go to bed.
Councilman Johnson: Include a refund of the variance fee?
58
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
Councilman Boyt: No. Can't. Too much staff time. How are you goin~ to do
that? And I think the staff, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think when ~u
brought in this application, staff said to ~u it's not the kind of thirg that's
going to be approved. That's what they're supposed to tell you. Is that ~hat
they told you? But you didn't have a choice. If I had $2,00~.00 into that
deck, I certainly w~uld have paid my. $75.00 and given it a shot but staff
routinely Tom advises people of what their chances probably are and we've ~
pretty consistent on this so I think it's easy for staff to give you an idea.
Bill Febry: I understand what you're saying. I just have one more questio~ and
I don't mean to sound argt~entive b~_re but I'm a firm believer in uniform
enforc~_nt also and I'm not asking for special favors and so on tonight. I
understand the situation here. However, if it's going to be unifozm, then it
should be and what I've -_c~n~ and ~ told, not by any legal counsel but at this
point, that things were overlooked and not everyone is checked into as far as
permits and distances and thirgs like that. ~3ain, I'll drop it at that point
but it should be uniform and I appreciate, my. wife and I, your efforts to be
upfront about those thin~s. I w~uld only ask that the rest of thsm out there
that are totally cognizant of what's happening and what should and shouldn't
happen ought to be looked at in length.
Councilman Johnson: It' s difficult to find, when somebody doesn' t, scmebody has
to turn you in basically.
Councilw~%n Dimler: Yes, remsmber I said that at our Board of Adjustment
meetings. We ~uld never have c~ue looking for it but since there was a
cc~plaint registered, staff had to look into it and they had to bring it before
Councilman Johnson: I don't know how many bammmsmt~ have been finished in this
city. without a permit. How many decks have ~_n built. In the 2 1/2 or 2
years, 9 months, whatever I've ~ here, we've seen quite a few of ths~ come in
that have ~n built and later caue back. In fact we're going to see one on
Lotus Lake aren' t we?
Councilman Boyt: In all frankness, one of the complaints that I received is
that the City. hasn't ~_--~ lookirg. ~e residents that have cc~plain~ to me,
and there haven' t been a great many but there's been more than 5 or 6 in the
last year, who've said why. isn't the City. out enforcing this? Why did you have
to wit until I called in order to respond to this and it's evexything from
erosion control barriers being down to decks. I think that if we're going to
enforce it, that means that we enforce it. We don't close our eyes to a
situation that City staff or one of us sees.
Mayor Chmiel: I've had some discussions here with Don. Ma~oe ~u can just...
Don Ashworth: If I hear what the City. Council is saying, n~f~_x one, you feel
for the applicant in terms that there's a n~r~er of things that have occurred
regarding this permit process which if we had local flexibility, we might feel
differently about. In other w~rds, the sentiment of the neighbors as it applies
to the deck. The circumstances as it dealt with the permit issuance and
recognizing the move from states. I also hear the Council saying, very
correctely that their hands are tied in terms of State Statute as it's currently
written. The only alternative that I can come up with, I did visit very shortly
k_
59
City Council Meeting - September 251 1989
with the attorney on, I would see the Council's action really being one of
denial of the variance but in that process instructing staff not to pursue the
literal enforcenent against the property owners for a period of time. I will
pick out a one year period of ti~ and during that one year period of time, if
Roger is correct and the legislature does make amend to the lard use section of
State Statute and if that amendment process provides you with the flexibility
that Roger was discussing, then we can ccme back and deal with the issue as it
would apply to these owners and would give us a little more flexibility at that
point. Again, I think that the specific action would have to be one of denial.
There would have to be agreement reached with the owner where w~ would put in
writing basically what is occurring, and that would ensure s(x,e protections back
to the City so that tomorrowyou don't sell the bxxne and 2 weeks from today
we're dealing with a new owner. Totally unsuspecting. Whatever. I don't know
if that solution in any waywill work. I do not know if Roger's prediction that
the legislature will make that change or not but potentially it could at least
put the order stay for a period of time to find out whether or not the
legislature will make that change or not. Again, I don't know if that's
so~thing.
Councilwoman Dim]er: Are you saying we aren't going to prosecute for a year?
Don Ashworth: That' s correct.
Councilwoman Dimler: So you're safe for a year.
Councilalan Workman: Is the deck c(m~)leted?
Councilman Johnson: Ch yeah.
Councilman Workn~n: But you don't have it screened in?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Work~an: You might want to hold off.
Councilman Boyt: Yeah. You can't add anything to the deck. I think if you
asked Roger, in fact I'll ask him so he can tell you. What impact, no matter
what the legislature changes, what impact will neighbor opinion have on our
ability to either grant or deny a variance?
Roger I~nutson: None.
Councilman Boyt: So we're going to have to come up with some kind of criteria
and I don't think that's going to be easy. I think that's why we've got the
State gave ~m the ones that they did is there just isn't an easy way to be
flexible on these consistently.
Don Ashworth: That may be true.
Councilman Boyt: I've no problems with giving a 1 year extension or however you
word that but I just would hold out no hope.
Mayor Chniel: In the event that it doesn't happen, then sc~nething has to be
done o
60
City ~ouncil Meeting - September 25~ 1989
fbuncilman Johnson: I think that it's interesting and I'd like our Code
E~forc~ent people to look into the fact that the builder built the foundations
for this in the rear yard setback. As a professional builder, he should know
better, and ~ what w~ have for that action taken beyond the building permit
that was issued to him. The fact that our staff didn't notice tl~ foundations
out back when they're inside doing the final inspections. It does not relieve
the builder of any liability, in any case but generally when you have a violation
of a law or an ozdinance, code enforcement should be involved instead of zoning
is my. opinion anti, ay. If you're parked someplace, w~ don't get zoning involved
trying to change it to a parking area. Code enforcement gets involved. Public
safety, gets involved and issues a parking ticket.
Councilman Workman: I'd move denial of the variance with a one y~ar extension
for this already built deck until leadership frc~ the State is relaxed.
Mayor Ch~iel: With the additional conditions that Don had mentioned within
there. Indicating that hopefully you don't sell that h~me, that it goes to
another property owner. If it does, it has to be r~moved for that with scme
kind of condition in it.
Bill Febry: My interpretation of that is if the legislation is pending, during
that one year time frame...
Mayor Ch~iel: And is passed, ~ you're in good shape.
Don Ashworth: It ~Duld have to come back to the City. Council and establish
local rules and that may still not help you but it sounds as though the Council
would sure like to give it a try. and see if they can't find something to help
you.
Councilman Workman moved, Mayor Ch~iel seconded to deny the request for a rear
yard setback vaxiance for an existing deck at 1710 Teal Circle with a 1 year
extension for enforc~nent with the condition that if the property is sold during
that time, the deck shall be made to confon~ to city. ordinances. Ail voted in
favor and the motion carried.
CONSIDER PETITION TO D~.r,RTE SIDEWALK REQUI~S IN CURRY FARMS ADDITION.
Councilman Boyt: Mr. Mayor, I would suggest that we're probably not going to
get past item 7 tonight and maybe we can mention that to anyone who would be
wafting for the other items.
Mayor Ch~iel: If you ever get back to item 12, those are s~me of the concerns I
have which is how to short~ agendas.
Lori Sietse~a: The City recently received a petition from the Curry Farms
residents requesting that the sidewalk reguir~uent be reconsidered. This iteu
was taken to the Bark and Recreation Commission at their last meeting and there
was quite a bit of disc~msion as I understand in that the bottnm line, the
motion was made to delete the reguire~s~t that the sidewalk be required and
instead collect th~ trail dedication fees frcm the developer. The motion
carried 4 to 1.
61
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
Councilauan Johnson: It's going to be difficult.
Mayor Ch~iel: Is there anyone here wishing to address that specific ite~? And
I'd like to ask you to just limit it to as short as you possibly can and I'd
like to limit it to no more than 5 minutes max. If you can wind it up sooner,
I'd appreciate it.
Joe Cook: Yeah, don't w~ all. Joe Cook. 1291 Stratton Court. Basically what
w~ have here, Bill Boyt was out Sunday checking with sc~ of the residents and I
spoke with him at length outside and he had indicated his informal suxvey of the
neighborhood along Devonshire which is directly affecting it. Indicated that
most people along the route were in favor of deleting this trail. That's what
his info~lal survey found out. Ourselves, we did a petition of the neighborhood
and w~ have 36 households in the neighborhood who do not want the trail. Tnen
w~ do have 1 individual, 1 household that wanted the trail so there's an over-
whelming majority that don't want this trail. Again, we are the people who are
paying for this trail. ~ are the people that will in the future pay for it's
mmintenance through our taxes and assessments, etc.. Also we're the people that
are going to use this trail the majority of the time if it goes in. Obviously
there isn't any interest in having a trail and the idea of the Council and Park
and Rec's is to serve the people of the City and to be an extension. You people
are our voice in the City and our voice is telling you people that we don't want
this.
Mayor C2~miel: Thank you very much Joe. Anyone else?
John Flaa: My nam~ is John Flaa. I live at 6560 Devonshire Drive. The over-
whelming reason that we do not request this path is n~ber one, we don't see
that the vol~e of traffic warrants the kind of bike trail that is proposed to
be in the path like that. Tne traffic that's running through Devonshire right
now predominantly is a lot of construction traffic which within a year or so
will be gone since the development will be finished. Second of all, if you look
at how the trail is set up in it's dimensions and the way it's going to be
constructed, the type of trail that they're proposing is equal to those kind of
trails that you find on major county roads such as TH 4 that runs in Eden
Prairie and also on County Road 5 that's in Minnetonka. Tne same dimensions are
applicable to this road here which by no means carries the same kind of traffic
volume as either one of those roads. The road itself is going to run
approximately 2 blocks to the north from Lake Lucy into the park and also 2
blocks from Powers back into the trail heading west. So the functionality of
the trail, in our opinion, is not needed since the distance the people are
traveling is not great enough really to warrant the kind of construction that's
going to have to take place in people's yards. Another concern is the fact that
the houses are built awfully close to the front or to the street itself so if
you're talking about a total of about 10 foot, eating up of s(x~ebody's front
yard, they've got a 3 foot wide area that's just going to re~ain grass and then
you've got a 6 foot asphalt trail. So those of us who have 30 or 40 feet of
yard up until our house are going to lose about a quarter or a third of our yard
to this trail which we don't see a function for. Obviously the survey was taken
by those people who live there, who are going to be affected most by it. Tnose
people, the mmjority of them have s~all children who, it's ~ proposed that
this trail is for the safety of the children who live in the neighborhood. I
feel if the people are saying that they don't feel that it's a risk enough not
to have the trail for their children, they've obviously taken into account that
62
City Oouncil Meeting - September 251 1989
safety, issue of their children. So w~ feel it should be rejected number one2
The overwhelming majority of the people do not ~nt it. ~ t~, there
really isn't a need for it as it's proposed. N%mube~ three, which is a separate
issue that we had to deal with Gentex is they never told us about it in the
whole develolm~ent. It was never o~ any of the plats. It was never discussed.
As a matter of fact w~ started the issue with Gentex and we threatened to go
through legal channels with them but they are now behind us sayirg these funds
that they w~re going to propose to build the bike path, they're going to take
and apply them to the City. either in their general fund or apply ths~ towards
roads that could more effectively utilize a bike path other than ou~s. Thank
you.
Oouncilman Johnson: Before ~u sit down, can I ask Lori a question? 6 foot
asphalt through a residential neighborhood? We don't do that do we?
Joe Cook: It's like the one they put out on Pow~xs that runs right...
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, that's not a neighborhood, residential. Isn't this
supposed to be a concrete trail?
John Flaa: That's not how it's proposed.
Lori Sietsema: At the time that the Curry Farms develolmuemt w~nt through, we
were talkin~ about asphalt trails as sidewalks. 6 foot wide in the residential
areas and 8 foot wide along the collector streets. Since that time the trail
plan has narrowed it down or more specifically defined sidewalk to a 5 foot wide
concrete sidewalk. If that develolm~ent w~re to come in now, the requirement
w~uld be a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk. At the point in time when Centex came
in, what was required was a 6 foot wide bituminous.
Councilman Johnson: BUt we ~uld be lookirg at buildin~ a 5 foot concrete
sidewalk, not an asphalt here anyway because that's our new standard.
Lori Siets~ma: It w~)uld require a charge to the development contract.
Kathy Posth,~us: My, name is Kathy Posth~uus. I live at 655g Devonshire. Just
to be a bit sentimental. My, husband and I, we built our dre~u hcme on that
street and had we known there was a chance of a sidewalk going through our front
yard, we w~)uld have definitely reconsidered a different area and not have built
in this area. Chanhassen has a very interesting aura around it that it's
country, you know and lakes and the w~ods and the trees and we just feel that
sidewalk, bike path, whatever the term, is not indicative to the type of country
type livin~ that is prc~oted in this area and we feel that it w~)uld detrimental
to our property and it really w~uldn't be used we feel. How many times do you
see bikers goin~ down and they're in the road instead of on the bike path on the
side of the street. Especially the fact also that we ~ren't informed of the
fact by the builder, any of us. There are representatives frcm each household
that ~uld be affected on Devonshire here tonight and we just ~mnted to come to
make a point. Thank
Councilman Johnson: Bill, do you recall ~ahe~r this ~m one of the ones where
we told the developer to infonu the people? I know we've ~ doin~ that the
last ,u~ar or so. Saying hey, tell the people coming in that there's going to be
a sidewalk in front.
63
City Oouncil Meeting - September 25, 1989
Councilman Boyt: Can I respond to that?
Mayor Chmiel: In a moment. I'd like to see if there's any more people first
that would like to address this.
John Laduch: My name is John Laduch. I have a h(x~e at 6401 Teton Lane. Up in
the 2nd Addition of O~rry Farms. My. interest in this issue is one of Centex's
obigation to build a second path in O~rry Farms and I've a letter here from Lori
stating sc~ confusion perhaps on Centex's part about the petition and how it
might impact all sidewalks or paths in Curry Far~ rather than just the one down
in the 1st Addition. We have a path that's supposed to be adjoining ~ property
and eventually will make it's way down to the park at the lower end of the
develol~ent. I just want to make sure that this action that's taken here
tonight either does specifically exclude that second path or 'if it's a part of
it. That w~ all know exactly what we're agreeing to here.
Councilamn Johnson: Would this intersect the Devonshire path?
John Laduch: No it won' t.
Councilamn Johnson: Just to the park?
John Laduch: That's true but...by a letter I have to Ix)ri. Apparently Mr.
Spiess from Centex is holding back on some work that has to be done on the
second path, on the ~_r path, awaiting for s(mle action to be done because of
this petition and my. interest of course is either finish the path that he's
supposed to that adjoins my property because it's now bare dirt and causing an
erosion problem, or don't finish the path and sod it and forget it. I don't
care what they do one way or the other. Just finish the project.
Councilman Johnson: That's to give your neighborhood access to the park.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Randy Carl: I want to second what John ssys. I'm Randy Carl. I live at 6391
Teton. I've got 500 feet of access along this walkway that is currently dirt
and eroding along my driveway so I think it's real important that when you guys
make a decision, that if you're still working on one issue, that you separate
this from the other one or bundle it in but w~'d like to go away from here
tonight with a very clear message to Centex of what they can do, at least on the
upper trail.
Mayor Chmiel: Tnank you. Okay, you asked a question of Bill. Bill, do you
want to answer that now unless there's someone else who would like to address
this .vet.
Councilman Boyt: Yeah I would. I think if we checked, well let me start again.
Jay, what was your question so I make sure I answer it.
Councilman Johnson: We've told several developers that they have to infozm the
residents that there is a sidewalk planned. I'm pretty sure Lake Susan and the
one off of Kerber.
64
City Oouncil Meeting - ~ 251 1989
Councilman Boyt: In all honesty I don't r~smber. I know that w~ have worked
with developers. It might have started with the Lake Susan West develol~ent
most specifically to try to do that to avoid the probl~ w~ have here. At least
what I see as a probl~. I'm generally disappointed in the background
information that the Council received on this issue. Or the lack of it. I
think there's no question but that the sidewalks are going to be taken out of
this. It's ironic to find an issue that's so difficult to deal with. Tom was
saying he ~as having a hard time with the variance. I have an awfully bard time
w~rkirg through issues when the neighborhood doesn't want scmethirg that I want
and that I think is in the best interest of the City overall frc~ a safety
standpoint. I w~uld argue the side of the issue that says that this is part of
our c~mprehensive plan. The cc~prehensive plan states very clearly that w~
believe in a trail or sidewalk syst~, that connects from our trails to our parks
or basically connects our parks and neighborhoods to one another. Without this
there isn't goirg to be any. trail or sidewalk that connects fr~ the trails down
both CR 17 and Lake Lucy. Road into that park. I agree with the neighborhood
that the road, and I hope it always stays a low traffic vol~ue road. I w~uld
think it w~uld and being a low traffic vol~ue road, they can probably get away
without havirg a sidewalk. I can't recall a residential develo~ where we've
put a sidewalk or a trail in that's ~ anything other than concrete.
Saddlebrook had one of these. We worked with the developer and ended up putting
in concrete with the city covering the difference in cost. You name it and
that's the way we Put it into our residential develo~ent and I think it's
awfully unfortunate that the neighborhood was led to believe that this was going
to be scmethirg other than that. I think there's 2 issues that are very
important to me. One of them is that we don't resolve this until we have a firm
c~m~uitment from the developer to pay that money to the City.
Kathy Clarke: They made the co~mihuent at the Park and Rec Cc~mission reacting.
Centex was there.
Councilman Bo,vt: It's too bad they didn't stay around. Since they were here
earlier, I would have really liked to have had thsu on this issue ~cause in
talking to the people in the neighborhood, the people ~ho apparently bought
homes JUne and later, w~re shown a map with the trails on them and the people
who bought hc~es prior to that weren't. I'll make the accusation that that was
intentional.
Resident: That's incorrect. I bought a home after June. ~here was never a
sidewalk...
Councilman Bo,ut: And they didn't show it to you then? Well, okay. I don't
want to get into a debate with you about it but it just makes the point that the
developer didn't show you scmething that quite clearly ~s in the develolmuent
plan for that neighborhood and that, I think is an outrage. It circ~mwents the
intent of the Council when that development was Put in. So we need a written
verification from the developer that they. will pay that money and I know that
the neighborhood knows because I told thsm, at least the 80% that were there,
that the City., in my belief, the City. is not in a position to be able to
guarantee you that people won't spccd down that road. You've told me that you
accept that safety risk. I guess it's ~urs to accept.
Councilw~uan Dimler: I have one question of Lori and that is, where are the
Park and Rec Minutes to this? I was a real disappointed not to see ths~. I
65
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
think that would have given us a lot of good backgrourd info~mation.
Lori Sietsema: I was dis~myed that they w~re not included in the packet as
well. At the time that the packet was put together, they were not available and
so the decision w~s made to go ahead and put the item on the agenda and if you
felt that you need more information, you could at this time table it to make
your decision.
Councilwo~n Dimler: Because the neighbors very definitely did address their
safety concerns and I think one of the things was, I was very angry that they
were being accused of not being good parents because they didn't w~nt a
sidewalk. I think all the arg~ents that were used were intimidating and I
think that's one of the reasons Park and Bec didn't pass it then.
Lori Siets~na: The Minutes of that meeting are not completed yet.
Councilwc~n Dimler: But I just w~nt the neighbors to know that they're good
parents in spite of the fact that they're not going to have a sidewalk.
Council~mn Workman: I think my intentions are known on this.
Mayor C~liel: Anything else? If hearir~ none.
Councilman Johnson: Tne only thing I 'ye got to say is, right now that
neighborhood has a lot of young kids but when there's teenagers there,
especially like my neighborhood with a group of teenage girls at the far end of
it, it's a long cul-de-sac with sweeping streets. You shouldn't see anybody
speeding but w~ do quite routinely yell at teenage boys that are going to visit
the teenage girls at the far end of the cul-de-sac. We have a lot of young
children ~)ved in there and I would love to have a sidewalk now that we didn't
want when we first got there but at that time there was no teenagers on the
block and no speeding cars.
Mayor Chniel: By the same token, I've lived in my same neighborhood and we
don't have any sidewalks. I just went through the parade of hcmes and looked at
all the new develo~ents in 7 different devel~ents in 5 different cities and
each of those 7 develolmlents, none of th~ had sidewalks. So I guess with that
I'll call a question.
Randy Carl: Excuse me Mayor. Are you going to delete all of the sidewalks or
just the one on Devonshire?
Mayor Chmiel: We are basically in discussion on the one that we have before us
right now. It's not for the balance of it is my understanding.
Councilnmn Boyt: I would suggest that we need to get access to that park and
that those need to be paved. They're going to be used. It's a way to stop
erosion. It's just a good maintenance thing to do. Whether we pave it or not,
they're going to be going over that strip of property. I think the Chan Pond
Park is a good example of where the access to that, after a lot of erosion, we
just need to agree that we're going to pave that.
Resident: Tney can't access the park...so it's not clear access...
66
City Oouncil Meeting - Septenber 25~ 1989
Councilman Boyt: But isn't that where the outlot is that accesses the park?
Resident: That' s correct.
Councilman Bo.vt: So people are going to be going over that to get to the park?
Resident: Not unless t~. walk through... The trees are very, very thick
there. That's right adjacent to my property and it's fine with me. I Just want
to know what they' re to use...
Mayor Ch~iel: We're just dealing strictly with the one. Can I have a motion?
Councilman Workman: I would move, I don't know which way do wa want to look at
it? Denial or.
Mayor C~iel: Delete.
Councilman Workman: Deletion of the sidewalk through the Curry Farms Park along
Devonshire Drive with staff looking into retrieving the fees from the developer
for further use in other areas.
Councilman Bo.vt: Can't we make that stronger?
Councilman Workman: Where else?
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to guarantee that w~'re going to get those funds.
Councilman Workman: I think it goes without saying and I was disappointed that
Oentex also left because it was ironic that wa had the~ for 2 issues and I think
they've ~ giving us the run around and I think we better proceed with some
teeth. I know I had a conversation with Don Ashworth in regards to that in
getting those fees back. Whether they need to be designated for a wading pool
or s(auething for this neighborhood or ~hatever. Something but wa ~ to get
the~.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to delete the sidewalk
requirement on Devonshire Drive in the Curry. Famus develolm~ent and request that
the developer be required to pay trail dedication fees. Ail voted in favor
except Councilman Johnson who opposed and ~ motion carried with a vote of 4 to
1.
Mayor Ch~iel: It's fast approaching 2~ minutes to 12:~0. My suggestion is that
w~ table tt~ balance of tt~ agenda items and carry, this...
Co,m~cilman Johnson: Is Mr. Clark here?
Mike Clark: Yeah I'm here. I got here at 8:30. Give me 2 minutes.
Mayor C~iel: Okay, we' 11 give you 2 minutes but just let me finish what I'm
saying. Do this on Monday the 2nd at 7:30 with the balance of th~ agenda.
Special meeting.
67
City Council ~eting - September 25~ 1989
REQUEST TO ~%IVE REQUIRD~ENT TO CONNECT TO CITY ~ATER AND SEWER, 695 PLEASANT
VIEW ROAD, MICHAEL CLARK.
Mike Clark: Mike Clark, 695 Pleasant View. I'll just give you a quick
background on the house. I bought the house in December. It had been gone
through a number of hands. It finally we~t back to the bank. I don't know if
you' re aware of the background of the house. It's been run down. The taxes
hadn't been paid for I believe over 3 years. I acquired the property because we
love it. It needed a lot of improvements which we're doing. I was not aware of
the requir~tent to hook up to city sewer. I'm not opposed to doing that. If
you read the letter, I 'm more than happy to do that. I want to be hooked to
city sewer. My only argument is that I don't think I should have to pay for the
part that I haven't used and the other arg~ent along with that is, why didn't
this Council or a previous Council require this hu~e to be hooked up in 1986
when they passed the ordinance. I guess probably the response to that is, if
the c~rrent charges or the people before mr were paying like $9.00 for sewer and
so they probably didn't have a big reason to hook it up. I wouldn't spend
$1,200.00 either if all you were charging me was $9.00 and not requiring them to
do it. I will do it. I stated in the letter I would do it. What I want is the
fees that have accum~ulated so far that I've not used to be waived. It's that
simple and it's about, we're c(m~ing up on about $200.00. The price out of
pocket for me to have that done is going to be $1,200.00 to $1,400.00. I'll do
it. I just want you to waive the fees up to this point.
Mayor Ch~iel: I understand what you're saying. I went through the same process
with my hcme. It was necessary that I had to connect even though I had a good
septic system and with that I of course e~ded up putting in sewer and water as
well which I've been very happy with because I haven't had any problems with my
septic.
Mike Clark: It is already connected to the water. I'm not sure why it wasn' t
done at the same tin~ but it wasn't.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Nor~mlly it should have been because that's a requirement
of the Metropolitan Waste Control Cxmmission and has ~cn for some time. Any
discussion on this item?
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to hear from the City Manager about it.
Mayor Chniel: That was my next question. Don, would you like to address this?
Don Ashworth: I think the report is fairly clear, or at least I hope that it
is. The lower charge that was applied to the property only dealt during the
period of time that the hc~e was rennovated so where you have seasonal h(~mes,
the Carver Beach area, Riley and no one is occupying the bc~e in like new
construction, that's really the only time frame that you have that lower ~ount
in there. To the best of my knowledge, during the time frame that the Thc~psons
were in the property, they were charged a sewer charge associated with the
property very similar to what we have in place now for Mr. Clark. Mr. Clark has
made his points. I think that he has made those very w~ll. The policy as we
have had it in effect in terms of charging an individual for sewer recognizes
that you have a utility system and that if individual people have the right not
to connect in, the~ we'll all end up paying a higher cost associated with over
sizing the pipes and lift stations and all of the things that are needed to have
68
City Cbuncil Meeting - Se~ 25~ 1989
a syste~. Accordingly, over the years the City has established a policy, whereby
you are charged even if you're not connec~ and the reason for that is to
encourage you to make that connection. Again, I think Mr. Clark's point is that
they're new. They're trying to improve the property and they w~uld like to see
s~me relief in that area. I just don't have a good rationale for you in remus
of why or how that could be given.
Mike Clark: Is that a requirement of the ordinance to hook up? Doesn't the
ordinance specifically state that the houses must hook up?
Don Ashworth: That' s right.
Mike Clark: Then my question is, why. didn't you require it of the other people
so I didn't inherit the problen.
Don Ashworth: It' s probably one of those ordinances that, ~_11 I don' t ~nt to
say do you want to take it off the books because in the case where you
definitely have a faulty septic system, w~ %~nt to have the ability to get in
there amd to literally force that connection. We've used that ordinanoe maybe
3-4 times in the past 15 y~rs. Yes, w~ had some in there. We had one in the
Carver Beach area but generally it's simply not a good idea to be going onto
private property, changing people's plumbing around. We're going to be facing
claims for whatever number of years into the future for what it is that we did
wrong in going on that individual's property so although you want the ordinance
in place to protect you where you definitely have a leakage prohlam, you're
better off finding other fonus of encourageuent. ~arge the individual as
though h~ were connected and hopefully that will provide an encourag~aent for
him to make the connection himself. Only go onto scmehody's property if that's
the last resort. That's what 2 or 3 attorneys have advised over the years.
Roger, I don't know if I've recently confronted that issue with you. Do you
disagree with anything I've said?
Roger Knutson: No. ;~rtually the night I first started working for the city,
that was the issue discussed.
Oouncilman Johnson: It ~as almost your last night? I think we probably have
quite a few of these around where the people have ~ told you now have sewer,
you must connect and follow up the lack of staff and everything, the follow up
never was done to find out if they ever did connect. I doubt if we followed up
on 65th Street.
Don Ashworth: We can tell you every person that has mot connected. We know
that for billing purposes.
Mayor C~ulel: Michael, I guess we can't tell you why it wasn't connected.
Oouncilman Johnson: Don't we bill th~u as if thmy're connected?
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Oouncilman Johnson: Then that's overbilling purposes.
Don Ashworth: That still doesn't change the fact that they. are reported for
every parcel. I don' t know Dave if you ever got into any of that but w~ do do
69
City Council Meeting - September 25~ 1989
that~ We can tell you that.
Councilamn Workman: I guess the justification, the potential pollution, the
utility system, everything else, I think that goes without saying. What I'm
looking for is Mr. Clark have reason to plead ignorance in this situation for
his bill and should Council give him sc~e roc~ to go ahead? Is that where we're
heading towards here?
Councilman Johnson: That's what I'd like to see.
Councilman Boyt: When did you buy your house?
Mike Clark: I bought it December 1st of last year.
Councilman Boyt: When did the water bill start accumulating that now a~unt to
$114.00 or something?
Mike Clark: I got the first one I believe sometime in January and obviously it
wasn't possible, it wasn't possible to hook up until probably April when the
frost went out... Again, I have no problem with the ordinance and I will hook
up. As a nmtter of fact I did...but I wasn't info~ed...
Councilamn Johnson: I don't have a problem with a couple hundred dollars as
long as he hooks up.
Co~cilamn Worknmn: Are you planning on doing that this fall yet?
Councilman Johnson: I would put it that if the connection is made by such and
such a date, that we will not go after the $200.00. It's not like we've
provided a service to him that he's abused and doesn't wnat to pay for it such
as some of the other delinquents. In this case the purpose of charging it is to
encourage him to hook up and he's going to hook up. The purpose is there. It's
being achieved.
Mayor Chniel: I agree with that position.
Councilman Boyt: A question very briefly is, are you then saying that anyone
who comes in and sa~vs, I repent. I'm going to put in the sewer connection is
then rebated for their water bill for the year?
Mayor Chmiel: Not necessarily. I think it's a one by one situation.
Councilman Johnson: His uniqueness is that he bought it.
Mayor Chniel: He bought it in Decenber and he had his first billing in January
of this year.
Councilnmn Boyt: So the next person comes in and says, my sewer is working
great but I decided this year I'm going to connect and I want the rebate frc~
the beginning of the year.
Mayor C~m~iel: If the sewer ' s working good, then they' re in good shape because
then they didn't need their septic.
7~
City Oouncil Meeting - Se~ 25~ 1989
Councilman Boyt: Is your sewer failing?
Mayor Chuiel: The septic syst~u.
Mike Clark: No, it's fine.
Councilamn Boyt: So how is that any different? Ail I'm saying is, if wa're
going to do it, thsm w~ really should do it for everybody who comes in and says
I 'm going to connect.
Councilman Workman: Do those add up to a large s~ount Don? Why don't w~ be
Jimmy Carter here and offer amnesty. I think it's worth more than $2S~.0~ to
the City to have him hook up.
DOn Ashworth: It' s under 15. I personally think that it' s under 20.
Mike Clark: Put a stipulation in there that they stay through 3 1/2 hours of a
City Council meeting.
Councilman Workman: We can call it the Michael Clark ~ue~dme~t that anybody
that c(~ues across now and does it now, yeah wa will forgive then and let's get
Don Ashworth: October l~th is the last date for certification. ~he Council has
already agreed to this zoll. What I'm going to have to do is turn that over to
the County. If the work has started on or before October 10th, I will call the
County and have ~ delete it. Is there a way that you can have the work
started?
Mike Clark: Yeah, they told me they can do it within 2 da~us. The only thing is
they have to get s(mmething from the city. They have to get a penmit so however
long it takes for them to get that taken care of.
Councilman Boyt: O~e other question. You said you were hooked up to city
water?
Mike Clark: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: Isn't the water bill part of this?
Mike Clark: No, the water bill's current. I'm not disputing the water bill.
Mayor Ch~iel: Can I get a motion in?
Councilman Johnson: I move that if the sewer connection construction is started
by October 9th, that Do~ should contact the assessor and delete it.
councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded that if sewer connection
construction is started by October 9, 1989, the City Manager will contact the
County Assessor and delete the ~ charges for Mike Clark at 695 Pleasant View
Road. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
71
City Council Meeting - September 25j 1989
LAND SALE AGR~ENT, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HIGH~AY 41 AND WEST 82ND STREET~ GLEN
PAULS.
Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor? Item 9, do you want to take action on that tonight?
Mr. Pauls is here and is scnm~4%at anxious to try to...
Mayor Chniel: Everyone's picking up and leaving. I think w~ will adjourn and
I'm sorry Mr. Paul. What w~ will do is...
Councilamn Johnson: Does he accept staff's position?
Councilwcn~mn Dimler: I think we should discuss it.
Mayor Chniel: Yeah I think that's going to be a discussion so with that we will
continue this next Monday at 7:30 here in the Council chambers.
Glen Pauls: ...we're starting to grade the lot next to it and we're
basically...we're going to start grading on it.
Councilman Johnson: We were going to ask that it stay over winter anyway.
Glen Pauls: That' s our problem...
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, we have a possible annexation there I would
think frcm the City of Chaska, etc. and I think it's samething that we need to
discuss. If not tonight, Monday night.
Mayor C~mliel: Which would mean they remove their offer for that specific
parcel?
Councilman Johnson: Sure. It's a dead issue if we table it. It's a dead issue
if we deny it.
Mayor Chmiel: What's the wishes here? What should we do?
Councilman Boyt: Let's discuss it. It got ~ attention.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we will go on with item 9. Oonsider acquisition of public
works facility, corner of 82nd Street and Highway 41. Glen Pauls. You've got
the floor right now.
Todd Gerhardt: The City Council at their August 28th meeting directed staff to
work with Mr. Pauls in negotiating a purchase price for the existing public
works building on West 82nd Street. At this time we have agreed to the purchase
price of $100,000.00 for the property. Mr. Pauls' rec~est for that $100,000.00
for the property is that they take ownership i~mediately. Staff is making the
recommendation that we keep the facility until the new one is constructed and
Mr. Pauls is here to make his request of why he needs that immediately. Glen?
Glen Pauls: I'm Glen Pauls with Nordic Track from Chaska. I guess as I showed
in the last ~eting, the building we're building is right on the land behind
your property. We've ~n trying to negotiate out a price for sale on the
property. We would like we said earlier when we got into this whole deal, we
72
city CO--il N~eting - September 25~ 1989
were pretty, much led to believe that this was ail ~_n taken care of between the
two cities and that it was going to go ~uoothly but it's been a little harder
than I thought but I guess what w~'ve ~ tryirg to get through here is that
we're starting grading. They're going to start cutting some of the underbrush
tomorrow and the grading's goirg to probably start Thursday maybe. Wednesday or
Thursday. If we have to grade around that site, that's going to cost a lot more
for us to ccme back and cut it do~n later and I guess at that point we'd just
like to grade arour~] it and leave it. JUst build behind it. It really doesn't
affect our buildirg. We have to move about 15 parkirg stalls to another area
but it doesn't really bother the other site that much and being that we're a
mail order c~mpany, we're not really out for appearance. We're not try, lng to
attract, we're not looking for words for the building or anything. We're just
out to build a building. We need more space. The main thing is we've got to
get going now because we've got a time restraint so we've put in an offer of
$1~,00~.~ for a lot that we feel is only worth about $5~,00~.~, even with the
buildings on it. We've made offers to look into helping maybe move s~me of your
stuff into a mini-storages arour~ here being that there se~ms to be an extra
amount or surplus mini-storage space available. I guess none of that seems to
be enough to s~y you into sellirg the property so we'd just like to say that
we're basically to withdraw all offers and just go around it and see what
Councilwoman Dimler: Well I guess I'll start out. You know we never had the
need to sell it in the first place. We would still have to spend between
$36,00~. ~0 to $50, ~. ~0 for storage of those implements. We' re not ready to
move out before next spring and you're in a hurry, to get going and you want to
withdraw your offer. I guess that's ~hat you'll have to do.
Glen Pauls: I guess the only proble~ can c~ue up with MnDot requiring us, it's
supposed to be downhill. The grade is supposed to be downhill off of TH 41 onto
82nd Street there and it's 13 foot utmh/ll. I don't know what the percent grade
is but I guess Chaska's already gone through with, I guess they're pretty much
proposed grading that do~n for you. Doing the work and actually cutting the
dirt down.
Councilwoman Dimler: That was all premature. I did bring the question up of
annexation with Todd but we've never agreed to anything.
Glen Pauls: I don't know about annexation. I think they. were just going to do
it even if you still owned it. I'm not sure how that all w~nt. I wasn't in on
that part of it.
Mayor C2~iel: Those are the things that we don't know.
Councilman Workman: I was having a burger down at Butch's a couple weeks ago
and Alderman Dale Diedrick, proprietor of the place and I ended up sitting and
talking for a little bit. I spend a lot of time do~n in Chaska. In fact, right
in City Hall and I would like to work something out here. I think we should
give it to Chaska. Somehow...
Councilw~n Dimler: But they're in a hurry now.
Councilman Workman: Again, I think these are issues that are locming large for
the citizens of our c~mmunity. I'm not sure Don where we're going to come up
73
City Oouncil Meeting - September 25~ 1989
with the extra cash for buildirg this and I understand the positives. Again~
it's a situation, we're in a tough pickle and I appreciate if it's an
outstanding offer, we appreciate that. Again, it doesn't hide the fact that
we' re going to have to spend sc~e more money at a time when w~' re looking at
cutting a million out of our budget but sc~ebody's going to have to tell ~ how
we justify it to the people of Chanhassen that we sold off some sheds that we've
now got to i~rove. We're going to improve for the purpose of consolidation.
Councila~n Johnson: I don't know why anybody's talking about annexation though.
That's in the city limits of Chaska. It's not the City. of Chanhassen property.
Councilw~x, an Dimler: Yeah it is.
Todd Gerhardt: It's in the City. of Chanhassen.
Councilwoman Dimler: Once they purchased it, they w~uld want to annex it to
Chaska.
Councilamn Johnson: Well that'd have to be a condition of the sale is that they
don't do that. They it r~matns Chanhassen.
Don Ashworth: Keep an open mind in that area because if all of this would
occur, right now we're doing maintenance on that west side of 82nd or west side
of 41 and Chaska' doing the east side. We simply go down 300 feet and then
that's it. We turn around. It's a dead end run for us. If this property were
to be sold to the Pauls, and I think that's the most logical use for the
property. I don't know of anyone other that might ccme in and use it but if
that were to occur, it would only be logical at that point in ti~ that all of
their parcel would be within the City of Chaska and they would take over the
entire maintenance and building and everything else associated with 82nd Street.
I would echo Tom's ccm~ents. I hear a stata~ent that we need to do something
tonight and I would only hope that the applicant w~uld recognize that at 12:00,
good decisions aren't made. If we could have potentially a co~mittee, I might
think, maybe if we could talk between the council but Tc~, since you're in the
area. I don't know who else on the Council, maybe ~=et with the Pauls and the
City of Chaska or representatives and see if we can co~ back with s(x~ething for
this next Monday night.
Councilman Boyt: If I might, I think we ought to sell it. The question is, are
we giving up $150,000.00 worth of storage space here or are we not? I would
gather that you could ~ake the arg~ant either way but my guess is, given what
the property is worth to some other buyer, re not giving up $100,000.00 worth
of space in all likelihood and it's a chance to get your expansion done
properly. That helps the County and school district which is a big part of
Chanhassen so I want to see us do it. I think $100,000.00 is a good offer but
the dilemma is, what do we do with o~r equipment? Everything is good except we
can't just park that st,~ff on a field somewhere. Have you got an answer for
that?
Glen Pauls: Yeah, I've been trying to find some places for you. I don't know,
there's a couple different things. Mini-storages, I'd have to see what you have
but from what I heard, it's just mowers and what not in the wintertime.
Council~mn Boyt: Is that what we're talking? No big trucks?
74
City OOUnCil Meeting - Se~ 25~ 1989
Todd Gerhardt: There are some trucks that are stored out there, one truck in
particular Jerry told me. Fow~rs. A lot of sign equi[x~ent. That was the list
he gave me. He didn't give me a detailed list but those were part of that and I
think wa could w~rk sc~_=thing out or find s~me alternative storage.
Councilman Boyt: Before a proposal tonight that said in principle wa had sold
the property for $100,~.~ provided the City and Mr. Pauls, oz his people, can
find a bc~e and ~t convenient or at least no more inconvenient ~ for
the equi~t that's stored there until next spring. If we can get that done, I
think that we ought to sell the property.
Mayor Ch~iel: I guess I agree to a certain point with that Bill. The only
thin~ that bothers me is the fact that it's still going to cost our city to put
in a building of equal size an,uwhere from $36,~.~ to $5~,0~.~ more.
Councilman Johnson: Putting a lot better building.
Mayor C~miel: We may be having another better building. We may be
consolidating everythirg and having everythin~ closer but nonetheless th~ dollar
expenditure is going to be there.
Glen Pauls: I've got a copy of this plan that y~u're proposing to build your
building and I think you could build as good a building or a lot better than
what you have now for less money than that. I mean they' re looking at insulated
buildin~ right now because you might want to heat it. I don't know if
storing plows, you obviously don't ~ to insulate it.
~'~yor Ch~iel: We can't build a building like we have there.
Glen Pauls: No, but I mean you can build a concrete building I think for around
$10~,0~.0~. I think $15~,0~.~0 you're getting a few extras in there.
Mayor Ch~iel: I did a couple checkings with a couple contractors and they told
me we're in the ballpark from $136,MMM.MM to $15M,MMM.0M.
Glen Pauls: For the building on the drawing yes, but ~hat I'm saying is I think
there might he some thirgs you could pull off that. If you're really looking to
get, if you're looking to get a minimal building that will go along with your
ordinances. Like the floor drains and what not, I don't know if that's really
necessary in a building there.
Todd Gerhardt: Oode requires floor drains and it's only practical to have an
insulated roof and walls is what the architect rec~m~_r~ed. We've got to stay
with the same type of architectural style with the cracked off cinder block is
the existirg public works, just for unity in that area. I don't know, we've
talked about this a lot. Matal buildings aren't allowed in the industrial park
and you w~uld save minimal dollars takirg t/~ insulation out of the walls and
out of the roof. The floor drains, again you're talking less than, a total of
those tw~ I w~uld think no more than $5,0~.0~. T~ insulation and the floor
drain.
Councilman Boyt: So we ~nt to do a deal, I think and the question is, how do
we cover the City's concern foz storage.
75
City Oouncil M~eting - Sept~er 25, 1989
Councilman Workman: I think it's trying to explain to people that I've got to
explain to how Chanhassen got s~kaller and we're going to pay 50 grand to do it.
I mean it's just the economics of the whole thing and I've heard nothing but
good things about Nordic Track and the whole operation but it's a situation that
we're put into that we're being asked to do sc~thing at this point that we
never would have thought of otherwise. Or were thinking.
Councilman Johnson: One thing we would be doing is adding to the school
district's tax base because right now that is city property. Do we pay property
taxes on that? W~' re ex~lpt?
Councilw~n Dimler: No, but it's just going to be a parking lot correct?
Glen Pauls: Part of it yeah.
Councilwoman Dimler: You're not going to get much revenue off of that.
Glen Pauls: We have about 300 employees workirg there right now. We move out
of other building, that's going to bring in another company of another 100,000
square foot here.
Councilamn Boyt: Are you in the tax increment district down there?
Glen Pauls: Yeah.
Councilman Boyt: So you're really contributing i~mediately to, except for ~mybe
~mployees.
Councilamn Workman: I would be willing to give ~ that property for free if
you would trade us the sa~e size parcel of his and our park.
Don Ashworth: We looked at that and they do have sc~e parcels and they were
literally across the street.
Glen Pauls: Tne probl~ is, the parcel they have over there is that's owned by,
Nordic Track and the parcel over here we own personally. I guess we can make
scme sort of deal there but I don' t know what, would you want a piece to put
buildings on there or just a public utility? What would you do with that piece
of property?
Col~ncilman Work~n: It still would cost us money.
Mayor Ch~iel: We're still out storage and we still have to pay for the cost
differences between the two.
Councilman Johnson: It's more expensive to build on a vacant lot then attach it
to an existing building.
Councilman Boyt: So where are we going with this?
Don Ashworth: Basically we have a 30 year old building that basically is
depreciated out. You' re going to have to consider s(x,e form of replace~mt
sc~letime in the near future and you've got an offer to help the construction for
76
City Oouncil Meeting - Se~ 25, 1989
a new facility that truly b~- a $1~M,~0~.~ value. I think again, maybe if W~
could ~t, I don't care, maybe Tuesday, Wednesday, ~nursday and maybe come back
with some solutio~ that mcc~ts all concerns and wrap it up next M~nday night. If
in the meantime you made a decision that that's it, you can't ~ait that long,
well I ~ss that's the ~ay it is.
Oouncilw~an Dimler: That's right. We can't be put under that sort of
pressure.
Don Ashworth: If I hear the people, you'd like to work something out if you
can=
Mayor (2~iel: Yeah. If it's at all possible. That's right.
Oouncilman Workman: Again, I think the issue is also larger. It's unfortunat~
for the Pauls and what they've been placed in but we ~ to get together with
Chaska because the deal was done before we evem saw it with a piece of our
property. I hate to be greedy and grabby but that's what I think we need to
discuss.
Don Ashworth: Can we get 1 or 2 of their council m~ers to sit in on that type
of meeting?
Oouncilman Workman: Sure. I think Dale ~s agreeable. Bob Lindahl could
probably get up.
Co,~cilman Boyt: Tae way you explain this, we have an offer that's greater than
the appraised value of that property and to turn that offer down is chancey. I
think we ought to accept the offer.
Councilman Johnson: We'll never get $1~0,~.0~ for that again.
Mayor Ch~iel: I agree but we have to get the bottom dollar which is still the
replacement.
Councilman Workman: Can you give us another ~ek?
Glen Pauls: I guess if we can be somewhat assured we can get something worked
out here, we could hold off a little bit. Like I said, we're going to start
Mayor Ch~iel: Why don't we do ~hat Don suggested. That we get a couple council
me~bers to ~ with him and sit do~n and come up with some kir~ of conclusion.
If that's acceptable.
Counci~ Johnson: I move we table item 9 until next F~nday night so staff has
time to work it out for, especially the winter cold storage needs because we've
got to know exactly do we have the ability to store that equipment over the
winter and where we're going to store all that equiB~ent over the winter. That
to me is the most critical. The $36,~.~ to $5~,~.~ is, we're going to
have to replace that building sooner or later ard this seems to be the best time
todo it.
77
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
Glen Pauls: I was going to check into the Lake Regional Water building in
Victoria. I guess Flouroware is going to be moving out of there once their
building is complete. Flouroware's building is pretty near complete. That's
about the same type of building you're in right now.
Councilamn Johnson moved, Councilwoman Diniler seconded to table action on the
land sale agreement for the southwest corner of Highway 41 and 82nd Street with
Glen Pauls. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Work, mn seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meetirg was adjourned at 12:15
a.m..
Sutmlitted by Don Ashworth
City. Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
78