1989 09 13CHANHASSEN CITY ~IL
SPH~IAL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 13, 1989
Mayor Chniel called the meeting to order at 6:30 pJa.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chniel, (k)uncilman Boyt; Councilman Workman,
Councilwauan Dimler and Councilman Johnson
ZONING ORDINANCE ~ ~0DIFYING ZONING RESTRICTIONS AND LOCATIONS FOR
CONVENIENCE STORES, GAS STATIONS ARD A~IVE SERVICE STATIONS, FIRST READING.
Mark Koegler: I should cc~m~mt it's nice to address you during the daylight
hours. I will be fairly brief in terms of a presentation because I know you
have a lot of items to get through this evening, even starting when you a~e.
Cover maybe just a little brief backgrourd on what we have done to get to where
w~ are now and then certainly invite comments and direction, or further
direction from the City Council. This issue of convenience stores started in
about Decenber of 1988. At that time Steve Hanson being on staff had prepared
some material. Worked with the Planning (km~nission. With his leaving, I became
involved earlier this s~mner and essentially kind of picked up some of the
pieces where Steve left off. I want to ~aphasize fr(xa the beginnir~ the draft
ordinance and all of the supporting n~anor~a that you have in your packet is
basically evolved out of one central premise and I think it's important to note
that at the beginning because I gather from looking at the Minutes from the last
session that's perhaps where some of the disagreement pexhap~ lies. The premise
~as not to regulate specific locational criteria for convenience type stores.
The consensus of the Planning (kxmnission was that that was a free market
decision and you don't regulate the ~r of florists or the n%~nber of
restaurants or whatever and they took the approach of not necessarily
identifying locational criteria but rather to establish an ordinance that
allowed convenience store locations consistent with the purposes of the specific
zoning districts. That premise was reached, as I indicated, after discussion of
a ntm%~.r of alternatives and included among those alternatives were options such
as the geographical criteria. You can't have more than 1 per 2 mile radius or
whatever that might be. In discussions, that was viewed as being scmewhat
arbitrary in this case given the fact that land uses can vary fairly widely in a
1 mile circle. You can have the intersection of .major arterials occurring in
that distance and it ~s not ~-cn necessarily to be a valid criteria. If I can
have Jo Ann turn on the overhead, what happened then as a result of the
cc~mission's discussions is took a relook if you will at the ordinance and
almost set up a heirarchy type of schene of defining first of all the zoning
classifications which range anywhere from ~D, if we ~nt to say down, we'll say
down to neighborhood business at least in terms of intensity and scale. With
CBD being the district where you obviously ~nt to e~phasize higher ~mplo~ument.
You want to emphasize uses that you think a~e conducive to downtown type areas.
On the left side then looking at the types of convenience stores where we've got
convenience stores without gas pumps perhaps being the least intensive and going
to what ~s classified as motor fuel stations as being the most intensive, again
we get this heirarchy sch~ne working in two directions. I'm referencing the
chart that's on the screen right now which ~s part of the m~morar~ that ~s
City Co~cil M~eting - September 13, 1989
in your packet. I've shown on that the existing zoning categories and the
proposed categories that the Planning C(m~ission ultimately came up with. What
it ends up being is an approach that attempts to regulate convenience stores
first of all by defining t_hem. Tnere's definitions for the convenient stores
both with and without gas pumps and then you move into the auto service station
which is, in this particular case, a facility similar to the Amoco Food Shop
type approach where the main push is to sell gas and then the final one being
the more intensive, similar to Gary Brown's operation right now that has
mechanical services and so forth. So the attempt was to define which of those
uses should be permitted in the various districts. Which should be conditional
and which should be totally excluded. And again that was arrived out of this
pramise that the purpose was not necessarily to actually regulate the number of
these things and not to say that you can't have 2 on a corner or 3 on a corner
but to say that maybe sc~e of them don't belong in the downtown area or s~me of
th~ don't belong in the neighborhood businesses. As a follow-up I have looked
at ordinances throughout the Twin City area with a concentration on s~me of the
developing cities whose composition perhaps is more similar to that of
Chanhassen's. ~ne ~den Prairie, Maple Grove, ~an, s~me of those types of
community to see what approaches they take and it varies quite literally frc~ an
approach like the City of Bloomington that really treats these very casually and
if you meet their conditional use criteria, you're fine, to probably the most
specific approach again takes more of a district type of definition in saying
that convenienoe stores are only appropriate in certain districts. ~den Prairie
for example allows them only in neighborhood business districts and only in
highway business districts. Now that does tend to begin to limit tba~
geographically because in their ccmprehensive plan they state that a
neighborhood business district should occur at probably no more frequent than
one mile intervals so you have to a certain degree some restrictions in that
regard but then they also allow them in the highway business district which
doesn't fall under that same king of geographic type of approach. So I guess I
would assume it's appropriate this evening to clarify with the Council what your
direction is and what your interests are and if it certainly is different than
that that evolved at the Planning Cc~ission level, we can take that back to the
Planning Commission with perhaps some more clear statement on our part to th~
of what your end objective is and what it's going to take to achieve that. So
with that Mr. Mayor I would suggest, I'll kind of terminate co~ents and react
to any questions or comments that you might have.
Mayor Ch~iel: Any discussions? Any questions?
Councilman Johnson: Looking at CBD as an example and saying that we don't want
any kind of gas pumps in the downtown business district. To me that's a
convenience for the people who work downtown to be able to grab some gas. In
this particular location it doesn't make much difference because we have
business highway right behind them and plenty of gas stations. But in general,
if we're ever to expand or develop a different business district classification
someplace, which I doubt we would, it'd make sense to me to have full services
available for the people within the district. If we had a larger CBD area, it'd
make sense to have gas pumps there so people could get gas but in our particular
case with only one CBD and it's very ~all, with plenty of gas stations all
around it, and when there's already a grandfathered one within it, then I don't
have a lot of probl~.
City Oouncil Meeting - Se~r 13~ 1989
Mark Koegler: Philosophically I guess Cbuncilman Johnson I w~uld agree wi~h
you. You go to downtown Minneapolis, it's hard to find a gas station. There
a~e a few and theze are times whe~ you r~ it but this again ~ tailored more
specifically to Cha~ssen's existing land use pattern and projected land use
pattern which surrounds tt~ CRD with highway business, with general o0~mercial
so you...
Councilman Johnson: I ran out of gas in downtown Minneapolis a while back.
That's where ~t comes frc~.
Mayor Chniel: In downtown here of course, you're only within 2 blocks of a
station.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, and w~'ve gone one that's already here. We've already
got one convenience. Now does that become a non-confozmir~3 use then?
Mark Koegler: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: ~hat w~uld happen if for some reason they shut down their
gas pumps for a year?
Jo Ann Olsen: They w~uldn't be able to open up again if they closed down for a
year.
Councilman Johnson: I don't know why anyone ~uld close down for a ~ but if
they had a fire or something, they could rebuild.
Jo Ann Olsen: Not if ovex 50% has ~ destro~sd.
Mayor C~miel: So with a 50% clause is what you're saying? If it's destroyed
beyond 50%, they can' t redo it?
Jo Ann Olsen: Right.
Councilman Johnson: A non-conforming use is more than 50% destro~v~d.
Mayor Ch~iel: Right.
Councilman Johnson: Because I'll tell ~u what. ~hat little gas station on the
corner there does a bar~ up business. I don't know how many gallons they p~np
but they pump a lot.
Mark Koegler: They have the advantage of having historically a gas station on
that site also. Sc~e of us used to go to the Mobil station there regularly.
Councilman Johnson: Of course they've been gone for 2 years before they got
Bill. I'd think we'd at least wsnt to put as a cor~itional use in that to ~e
it's logical if that did burn c(x~pletely down to rebuild it as it w~s.
Councilman Workman: Which ome are we talking about?
Councilman Johnson: The Brooke's. If Brooke's burned down, totally burn down,
w~)uld we allow tbsn to have gas p%m~ps if t~ rebuilt? Under this chan~e, we
would not.
City Council Meeting - September 13, 1989
Councilman Workman: Maybe I can simplify this. In going from the intent from
the previous council, and Jay and Bill can help us a little bit, what are w~
trying to accomplish in a simple statement? What are w~ trying to accomplish
and so therefore Mark, under what direction did you feel you w~re trying to
accomplish scmething and are w~ doing that? I think we're trying to limit them
and are we doing t_hat? I guess if we can't do it, this is all just a bunch of
hot air but I guess the only real, if we can't control them and we can't tell
people not to put them here, which again I've stated that I'm not so sure we
should get into that business. But then we' re trying to restrict th~m. I guess
the only concern that I 'd have is where we have the biggest problem is under
Business Neighborhood, convenience stores with gas pumps. Other than that, I
mean business, general business district. Tney're probably going to be allowed
and there's not a whole lot of space for that anyway. Are w~ a~lishing what
w~'re trying to do here?
Councilman Johnson: The other thing we're trying to accomplish is a definition
of what the heck a convenience store was because it wasn't defined and that's
done well in here. I like the definition of what a convenience store is. That
one worked out. At least it's defined now instead of it was ambiguous. ~moco
says w~'re not a convenience store. W~'re a gas station that j~mt happens to
sell Pampers, but that doesn't make us a convenience store. And there's sc~e
argument over what is and what isn' t and that was one of the biggest arguments
as to what just to classify th~n as.
Councilman Workman: So we're no longer trying to restrict having our eighth
convenient store type operation?
Councilman Johnson: ~ne previous Council wanted to, they had the feeling that
we would have 4 convenient stores or potentially 5, another one where the Legion
is, in t_hat intersection. ~nat did not seem like a logical thing to do but int
his we've got business highway so they're allowed there. IOP, are they allowed
in IOP?
Councilman Johnson: ~'ney're currently not even allowed in IOP so you couldn't
get 5 on there because the corner is IOP on one side of that intersection. The
specific intersection that this was brought up on, which is the Amoco.
Mayor Ch~iel: I think the intent probably from the other Council is the fact
that the aesthetics of having as many on a specific corner is really what
they' re getting at. It's not very pleasant sight to see unless you' re running
out of gas. It's convenient for the motorists on the highway but you have to
take into consideration the aesthetics is something that the people within the
City are going to have to continue to look at and there have been many cities
that have gone to those kinds of locations of maybe 4 on all 4 corners because
it's a good intersection. Because it's payable but at the same, and it's a
paying situation for thsm but at the same time, you look at the same corners now
and those gas stations are gone. In my opinion, from what they've gone from to
looks a lot better than what it did when they had 4 stations.
Councilman Johnson: Right now at, what is it, 15 and 51 out towards Mmund?
There's 3 gas stations and a bank. All 3 se~n to be getting enough business to
City Council Meeting - Septenber 13~ 1989
stay in there. 15 and 19. Yes, 15 and 19. Extremely busy intersection2
Councilman Workman: But is ~ark's report, Mark are 2ou basically saying we've
got the definitions for convenience stores and gas stations and we're not doing
a whole lot of changing from what the original states. We haven't changed a
whole lot?
Mark Koegler: Yeah. I think that's the underlying thing that has to be brought
out here is that the approach, the ~y it evolved, ended up being not a
rec~ation of changing a lot. Changing sc~e districts a little bit. A~ding
some definitions to control the locations of these uses but not to control the
numbers. As I read through some Minutes from the last session, I know there ~s
at least s~me interest expressed of should we be controlling the numbers and the
Mayor just brought it out now, do we ~_nt 3 of these on an intersection or 4 of
these on an intersection. I know of an intersection in Phoenix that has 3 out
of the 4 corners with the same convenient store. ~he same one.
Councilman Workman: Three PDQ's?
Mark Koegler: Three ~O's in essence. I forget the name of it but I 'ye bccn
shown a photograph of that one and obviously that's not what you're after
necessarily but that's why I guess, I think Don suggested we originally we n~t
this evening to determine if .~x)u're e~d objective out of this is different. If
you' re looking at nt~nbers, we' 11 ~ to go back and scratch our heads and see
how that can mybe be achieved and bring that back to you. Again, this was more
of a free market approach of saying if, the ccum~ent statement you hear, I attend
enough Council _n~ctings and so forth, businesses have a right to succeed and
businesses have a right to fail. ~his kind of takes that approach that says the
market, if they say 3 of them will work there and if it meets all the City's
criteria for traffic. Traffic flow for sight considerations and so forth, they
would be allowed to go in under this kind of a treatment so if that's not the
direction of the Council, that's what we need certainly to explore.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm just a little bit confused. It se~ms to me that if
you're not going to limit ntm~er but you're going to limit location by. zoning,
that you would be encouraging 3 or 4 within a short distance. Does that not
sound reasonable?
Mark Koegler: You could almost end up doing that in kind of a defacto kind of
matter just by how your zoning map physically looks.
Councilwcman Dimler: So then we're really defeating the purpose for what we're
doing?
Mark Koegler: You may be in one or t~D isolated points around the city and I
guess that's something we quite candidly haven't looked at. We probably should
take a look at the map and see what potentials that major hub areas there are
for that to occur. As was pointed out, the TH 1~1 ar~ TH 5 current intersection
you've got 3 out of 4 of those quadrants if IK)u will that could contain, 2 of
them do now, this type of land use with the fourth one, at least at present
being immune from that due to zoning. I don't know if there's other...
Councilwoman Dimler: And this would not preclude them from doing that?
City Council Meeting - Septs~nber 13, 1989
Mark Koegler: It would not. That is correct. Providing they met all of the
site criteria that were part of the rest of the zoning ordinance.
Councilwcn~qn Dimler: So can we really control it by zoning then?
Mark Koegler: To do that I think we're going to have to enter an arena which is
not necessarily bad, of trying to look at so, emote innovative techniques to do
this. Literally no city that I could find in the Twin Cities handles these in
the type of manner that you're talking about. There maybe still 1 or 2 out
there because obviously we haven't looked at every single one but all of the
major cities, many of then are still in the position where they don't even have
definitions of convenience stores.
Mayor Chniel: New innovative thinkers here.
Mark Koegler: Tnat's the challenge right?
Councilwcman Dimler: I just wanted to ask a question and I don't know who can
answer it. In order, do we rm~d an ordinance to have a definition or do we have
a definition book that's separate from ordinances?
Paul Krause: It's part of the zoning ordinance. You have to change that to
incorporate the new definition.
Councilw~m~nn Dimler: But do we have a book that just has definitions?
Paul Krause: No. It's an el~nent of the zoning ordinance.
Councilwoman Dimler: So you ~ an ordinance just for a definition? If you
changed nothing else?
Paul Krause: Right.
Councilman Workman: I don't know how far we're willing to go and just as 4 of
these convenience stores on one corner wouldn't look pretty, the free market
system isn't pretty looking at all.
Councilwoman Dimler: No, and this doesn't seen to handle that situation.
Councilman Workman: So what happens is I would say that we can't really or
we're not really going to control it. Can we then say, well we could say, we
could basicallymake all of these business districts, put an x by th~n all and
say we don't want them in any of these districts and that would essentially take
care of it. I don't know if w~ could do that.
Councilwoman Dimler: It'd be illegal.
Councilman Workman: Would it? I guess the only place then that I see a problem
is in the business neighborhood district, convenienoe store with gas p~nps.
~nat's what we have with Brooke's. We have a problem. That's a conditional use
but I would.
Councilman Johnson: Brooke's is in BN.
City Co,~cil ~aetimg - Septenher 13~ 1989
Councilman Workman: It's not BN. Business
Councilwuman Dimler: ~hat' s the Superkmerica?
Jo Ann Olsen: Business Neighborhood.
Council~anan Dimler: %hat' s BN?
Mayor Ch~iel: That' s BN.
Councilman Workman: Can w~ maybe make m/nor modifications that ~y and say make
convenient stores with gas ~. Let me ask this first. Would business
highly and business neighborhood, could those t-wp conflict? Ehen w~ get TH 5
going out and everything and we've got a neighborhood just south of TH 5 and
we've got a gas station at the mouth of this neighborhood, is that going to
potentially be a problem? I know Eden Prairie does that a lot. Can we take
convenience stores with gas ~ as a conditional use out of the business
neighborhood?
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
Paul Krause: You certainly could but ~hen ~u think of the classes of uses that
are neighborhood oriented, oftentimes a small convenient store type operation
with or without gas pumps fits that bill. ~hat do .~x)u normally think of ~hen
you think of neighborhood businesses? It's the traditional dry cleaner, the
small grocery store, place to get a little bit of gas.
Councilman Workman: I'm worried about the gas. I'm not worried about the
convenience part of it.
Paul Krause: These da.us most of the developers will tell .you that they don't
put in convenience stores without gas ~. I suppose presumably you could
force them to but that's the orientation the business is taking.
Councilmmn Workman: But I'm sayirg that might clear up a problem that w~
continually have. I think the Total over there is fairly separate from the
neighborhood but now we've got the Brooke's and that's not so I 'm looking at
that use, the neighborhood use. The guy's back yard is 5~ feet from a gas p~p.
That tome is...
Paul Krause: One of the things you could look at, and one thing I've had s~me
experience with is putting distance criteria in the corditional use pemni~ from
the residentially zoned property.
Councilman Workman: Like liquor stores and churches.
Mark Koegler: The other advantage I think .uou'll see as time continues and more
residential develoimaent occurs in Chanhass~ is they'll be able to be planned
rather than kind of dropping one into an existing neighborlxx)d which is to some
degree what Brooke's did. Where you've got 3~ acres of open land and you plan
residential and you plan a small c(mmercial center, you can do buffering around
that site in a little better manner than ~u can in existing conditions.
Again, I would agree with Paul. Cities do impose various setback criteria from,
particularly when there's gas. Many cc~nunities get excited when there's gas
City Council Meeting - September 13, 1989
versus when there's a convenience store just because of the issue of tr,~k
deliveries with ~lel and so forth being close to houses.
Councilman Workman: Well we've got TH 7 and TH 41. That's a classic example
and that thing is a long way away. I think the nature of the gasoline business
is all around is what people are fearful of. I'm just saying that's maybe where
w~ could restrict these. Save ourselves the headaches down the road. We've got
Brooke's before us. We've got the SA before us and I suppose the SA down on TH
212 is probably a problem. I don' t know. I'm just throwing that out because it
doesn't look like we're going to be doing a whole lot with this anyway other
than putting definitions into the zoning.
Councilman Johnson: The SA on TH 212 is a legal non-confo~ming existingly. At
the present time right?
Mayor Ch~iel: That was my understanding.
Councilman Johnson: So we're not changing that particular location.
Councilman Workman: I understand that. I don't know, I guess I would move that
point with that modification to it.
Councilman Johnson: One thing I just went through which might help.
Councilman Boyt: Which point?
Co~cilman Workman: Tne conditional use. ~ne convenient store with gas pumps
out of the t~miness Neighborhood or take the suggestion that w~ get a distance.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I like the distance criteria. But we've only got
what? Two business neighborhoods in the entire area.
Councilman Workman: Well as TH 5 develops, we could have more of then. And TH
212 and everything else.
Councilman Johnson: When the MUSA line moves, we could have more coming up and
I think a distance criteria is probably the best thing. Maximum, minimum?
Whatever. Minimum distance frem any residential district for the location of
fuel dispensing facility or whatever. What I did, just as we went through here
was, mark down the changes on this little chart they've got there. In Central
Business District, convenient stores without gas pump or with gas pumps is going
from conditional ~me to not permitted at all. Business highway doesn't change.
Business general, convenient store with gas pumps going from pemnit~ to
conditional. Business fringe, automotive service station is going from not
permitted at all to conditional. Or I mean going from conditional to not
permitted at all and on business neighborhood, ~ only rec(x~nended change
they've got is going from conditional to not permitted for autc~otive service
stations.
Councilman Boyt: Did ~vou say there was a change in business general?
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: I don't see that change.
City Oouncil Meeting - September 13~ 1989
Councilman Johnson: Convenient stores with gas ~ is currently a pennibted
use under the BH.
Councilman Boyt: Well if I'm looking at the right page, Page 4, it sa.vs...
Councilman Johnson: Page 4. Business general. BG.
Councilman Johnson: No, mine says conditional. C. Cor~itional.
Mayor Ch~iel: Page 4 of Mark' s letter.
Mark Koegler: I don't know if you can see it on your monitor.
Councilman Johnson: The first page is the existing.
Councilman Boyt: Yeah, that I've got.
Councilman Johnson: And then ~n Page 4, w~'ve added one definition ~ahich is
what a gas station is. See one thing to me is automotive servioe station, a
place where Joe can fix your car. To me makes sense to be in a business
neighborhood because that's something that supports residential people is Joe's
gas station and Joe's Automotive Repair facility.
Mayor Chniel: One of the things that I was thinking about Jay is that presently
we probably have s~me of those areas classified as agricultural. Even though
there's s~me residential areas within those specific areas, when they come back
to rezone that, then you're going to start causing those problems.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. When the MUSA line charges, that's when this is
going to be more important. About 20 years from now. 10 years from now. 5
y~ars fr(xa now.
Paul Krause: I think you can get at some of that by., if you es*ablish a
distance criteria that the distance is measured fr(x~ land zoned or guided for
residential.
Mayor ~iel: Distance I think would take care of it.
Councilman Boyt: There were several issues the couple of nights we discussed
this with the former Council. One of them ~as certainly, it ~s a motivation
for some of the people was directed specifically at Gary. Brown's situation and
how does he get more leverage. That didn't happen to my issue. Mine, and I
think if you called people that lived around the city you'd see that there's a
general concern there's too many of them. ~he question is, there goes another
one. We don't need all these convenient stores with gas stations. Maybe you
don't ~ant to regulate those at all. I personally agree with those people that
say that every, as Paul said, every, shopping strip center that's going to be
proposed is going to be proposed with a gas [mxap and do we ~ant to have that
happen or not. I think that's the issue and I don't think the Planning
Omanission dealt with that issue. Well they dealt with it. They said it ~s
City Council ~L=eting - September 13, 1989
fine with then I guess. Well, I don't sense that that's what the comnunity's
saying.
Councilwoman Dimler: But Bill now are we saying then, the developer may not
come in here with a strip center at all if he can't put gas pumps in so we're
really saying that we've got enough strip centers. And as we develop, that's
plent?. Everybody will have to come to what's existing.
Councilman Boyt: I don't know what all the ramifications of our decision would
be Ursula. I'm just saying that I think people sense, when there's 5 currently
accepted by the City between what w~s it? Great Plains and whatever the staff
report said but roughly within a mile there's 5 of the~. The people that live
around that say that's more than enough.
Council~ Dimler: That's true but as we develop, that's not going to be
servicing those people that are going to be living out west and I can tell you
developer's not going to c(x~e in here if he can't make money and if he sees that
having gas pumps is what makes money or draws people in, then that's what's
going to keep him out of here. They won't come to Chanhassen.
Councilman Boyt: That's why, what we directed staff and the Planning Commission
to look at was how do we impact the density of these things. The number of
these things. It wasn't how do we eliminate ~ from the city. We currently
have what scme people were thinking is too many in one small area. If we allow
the market to dictate this, I can assure you that all you have to do is go back
and look at the abandoned gas stations to recognize that the market in the long
run, it will sort that out. Do we want to live with the consequences of that
sort process? I think that's tb~ issue.
Councilwuman Dimler: You can't regulate them by zoning. Tnat's when you're
encouraging them to be all bunched up.
Councilman Boyt: I think we can regulate them by zoning. I don't think that's
enough. We regulate virtually everything by zoning.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes but you're enco~raging ~ to bunch up which is
against what you're saying you want.
Councilman Johnson: Or you can also do like the contractor's yard. Have a
minimum distance betwt~n them because if you look at Galpin Blvd., when that
gets to be sewered, there's 4 convenience stores on that corner you know. It
will be the next place for some gas p~m~ps. I guess what we're saying is we want
to spread them out. Do we allow mini-golf with or without gas p~nps?
Mayor Chniel: If you want to putt around.
Councilwoman Dimler: well I can tell you that I drive west quite frequently and
if I'm low on gas, I've got to go all the way to Cenex in Victoria and hope I
make it. If I forget to get gas. If I'm low and don't check my gauge before I
go out west, I have a hard time. I hope I make it to Cenex. There's nothing
there.
Councilman Johnson: But what I'm saying is we don't ~ 4 at that
intersection.
10
City Co--ii Meeti.g - 13~ 1989
Councilwcman Dimler: But you're going to want s(xae there~
Councilman Johnson: We don't ~ 4 at the next intersection. We don't ~ 4
at the next intersection as the MUSA line charges. If w~ could say one within,
they have to be spread by. half a mile or you could say only 2 within a half mile
radi~ of each other or something of that nature.
Mayor Chniel: I think a good example is looking at some of those within the
city of ~den Prairie. Gas stations available. They. have one on TH 5 and
that's from o~r corporate limits outside of their corporate limits.
Councilwoman Dimler: I can usually make it to that one if I'm going east. But
going w~st, it' s tough.
Mayor Ch~iel: Going east there's not another station.
Councilman Johnson: Super~ica's the only one on TH 5.
Mayor Chuiel: There was a station ~hich has been removed right before the
railroad tracks.
Councilman Johnson: Isn't there one behind there now?
Mayor Ch~iel: Yeah, Mobile has that availability...
Oouncilman Johnson: But nobody ~__cs it.
Councilman Workman: But is ~den Prairie restricting?
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't think they are.
Mark Koegler: Through zoning. It's simply through zoning categories. The area
where SA is at TH 4 and TH 5 is zoned highway business and you look at the rest
of the corridor along TH 5 and you've got large industrial and the~ you've got a
fair anount of residential along portions of TH 5 and there aren't any other
opportunities. That's what can be done here. Speaking about tl~ future, the
structure of the zoning ordinance can be used to indicate where those things can
and can't happen just as the example you're pointing to in ~den Prairie is
working now.
Councilman Johnson: What ~'d have to do is zone an intersection, similar to
the Great Plains intersection. It's zoned business highway on one side.
Business neighborhood on, or on t-wp corners it's business highway. One corner
business neighborhood and one corner IOP. So one's a conditional use and two
sides is pemnitted use. So the max w~ could have at that intersection is 3
unde~ our current ordinance because IOP is not allowed gas stations. Actually
if you consider where Total is, being right next to it, you could get 4. Have 2
convenience stores back to back. That's possible. I've -_.-~n_ it done too. Do
w~ ~ant two convenience stores back to back?
Councilman Boyt: Personally, since you brought up convenience stores, I don't
understand the ~ for a definition of a convenience store. ~hat's just a
store as far as I'm concerned.
11
City Co~mcll Meeting - September 13, 1989
Councilman Johnson: The Gary Brown situation. Is that a convenience store or
is that a gas station? They're saying it's a gas station? It's not a
convenience store.
Councilman Boyt: Well I can see where there's a need to describe, well
convenience stores with gas pumps and more fuel stations but for sc~ebody to
come in and say I want to put a store in here and there aren't going to be any
gas pumps around it.
Councilman Johnson: Then it's not a convenience store.
Councilman Boyt: Why do we need to be in the business of defining what that's
got to be?
Councilman Johnson: It's a retail business.
Councilman Boyt: Well it's only when gas pumps ccme into play that it raises my
interest level in terms of the concern. As long as I'm kind of interruping Jay
here on these definitions. The other thing that escapes me is 400 square feet.
I notice that that happens to aim specifically at I think the Standard station
proposal but I think it's SuperAmerica that came in, I believe, with scme sort
of a definition that had to do with n~nber of items. It seem~ to me that t_he
difference between a convenience store and gas pumps and just a service station
that has a few items is the n~r~er of items they have. Not how big they are.
Councilman Johnson: By the type of items too.
Councilman Boyt: I don't want to encourage some place to come up with a 395
square foot mini-convenience store. Sell a few videos. Sell a little of this.
Sell a little of that. I'm afraid by our definition that's what we encourage.
I'd much rather see us say maybe we do a little quick study and see what's the
t~vpical number of items sold in a pure service station if we can find any of
those animals left.
Councilman Johnson: I don't think it has to be a pure service station because I
think what they're saying in here, limited amount of related goods. Things that
motorists look for. Not very many motorists are looking for video tape rentals.
That's not something that a gas station should be involved in. How do you state
something like that? Groceries but snacks, whatever. Chips and dips.
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't think we want to get into telling the businesses
what they can carry in their stores.
Mayor Chniel: No. I don't think that's our place to dictate that.
Councilman Johnson: But what we're saying is, define the difference between a
gas station and a convenience store. And what the differnce between a gas
station and convenience is what they sell. A gas station services motorists.
Councilwcman Dimler: But my point is, we're not going to tell th~n they can't
have videos if that's what they desire. Do you understand what I'm saying?
We're not going to sit here and regulate what each one can have and sell.
12
City Council Meeting - September 13~ 1989
Councilman Johnson: It'd have to be kind of in general but yeah~
Councilwoman Dimler: I think we're getting way too restrictive.
Councilman Boyt: It comes back to the, I think the point is, do w~ want to say
that we want to control the n~ber of convenience stores with gas ~? If we
do, then we r._~ to k~p worki~3 on this and if we don't, the mjority doesn't,
then let's stop using consultant time and get onto s(m~thing else.
Councilwoman Dimler: Like you said, if you don't have gas ~, you may not
have convenience stores either because a developer's not going to come in here
if it' s not possible.
Councilman Boyt: If you were talking about the area that's right around us
he~eo o o
Cou~cil~n Dimler: No I'm not. I'm talking about future. Out w~st.
Councilman Boyt: But if you're talkirg about somewhere that's ur~eveloped,
chances are no matter what density that we set ~, we're not going to keep th~
from buildir~ them west of here because there aren't any.
Councilwoman Dimler: We can't if ~u're doing it by zoning though. You don't
just zone it fox that.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe there ~s to be an interplay between concentration and
zonin~ so that we do both. We set up the zones we want it in and we set up the
n~ber that se~s to make sense in a given area.
Councilwoman Dimler: Are we wise e~ough to do that?
Councilman Johnson: We're supposed to be. That's our job. If we're not, then
we just say okay no rules. Let's all go for it.
Councilwoman Dimler: We have general rules but...
Mayor Chniel: Okay, I think we're goin~ longer than I anticipated goirg on this
particular subject. I thikn ~hat we have to c~me up with is a conclusion. Are
we goirg to send this back to Planning (2xa~ission with a sugges~
rec(xm~endations or are you going to say ~hat we have here is good enough?
Councilman Johnson: What I w~uld like to see is that the definitions are okay
with me. I think we need the definitions. We need gas stations added. I have
no problem with tt~ permitted business highway amd conditional business general.
Leave everything else alone and refer back to Planning Ommaission the density
issue.
Mayor Ch~iel: Distances.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, distances. A distance from residential should be
referred back to Planning Coamission fox recommendation on how far a gas lma~p,
whether it's a gas station, automotive service station or convenience store with
gas lma~p but a motor vehicle fuel dispensirg facility, how far that is from a
residential zoning. That's the action I w~uld take with this at this time.
13
City Council Meeting - September 13, 1989
Whether that means to table it tonight entirely or go with the defintions at
this time and go ahead, pass the definitions and table the rest. Refer it back.
Mayor Chniel: Okay, what's the pleasure of the Council? Do I hear a motion?
Councilman Boyt: I would make a motion that w~ refer it back to the Planning
Co~nission to propose a means of controlling the concentration of convenience
stores with gas pumps.
Councilman Johnson: Also, would you w~nt them to provide a distance from
residential to motor vehicle fuel?
Councilman Boyt: Well that's certainly one method of handling it.
Mayor Chniel: Yes, I think that should be under the BN district. A definite
one.
Councilman Johnson: Well any of them.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm more concerned with business neighborhood with adjacent
residential develol~nent too.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah but CBD also has an adjacent residential. BG has
adjacent residential. IOP has adjacent residential.
Mayor Chniel: I guess it does too doesn't it? So they all have.
Councilman Workman: The BG isn't going to get an~vmore.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah all they've got is the R-12 in both.
Mayor Chniel: Okay, I think that's something that should be looked at too is
those distances in each of those districts.
Councilman Boyt: Is there a second for that?
Mayor Chniel: I'm going to call for tbs question.
Councilman Johnson: I'll second it then.
Councilman Workman: Can you reiterate your motion?
Councilman Boyt: The motion was that we refer this back to the Planning
Cc~mission with the request that they come up with some proposals for limiting
the concentration of convenience stores with gas pumps.
Mayor Chniel: In addition, is there a friendly amendment to that with the
distances?
Councilman Boyt: Yeah, I don't mean to exclude that.
Mayor Chniel: As one part of it is what you're saying?
14
City Gouncil ~eting - ~ 13~ 1989
Councilman Boyt: Yeah, that's just one ~y to do it a~d if you'd like to know
what some other ~ays are.
Councilman Johnson: I personally think that no matter what they do, that should
be part of it. I think that's pretty, plain from our Minutes that several of us
think that ~ay.
,
Mayor Ch~iel: Do you have direction?
Mark Koegler: One final clarification. ~hen you speak of concentration, you're
talking about what I' 11 call kind of a microscale which is tl~ intersection
level that ~ talked about but you're also talking more macroscaled, talking
about neighborhoods. Central Business District. Tb~ City. as a whole. Is that
an accurate?
Councilman Boyt: Well I'm not particularly concerned about the City as a whole.
I have no My of projecting what that might look like. I'm just saying that the
problem that I see is that with 5 of them within a mile, I don't think that's
the way ~ want the City to develop. I see pressure to see it developed that
way by. people ~ho are proposing any kind of shopping center so what I'm looking
for is some insight into how we can control that. Is that the sense of the rest
of you? Or at least the people who plan to vote for this?
Councilman Johnson: Plus the concern of the distance, which is one method of it
but even if you don't do it. Even if they say they c(xae back, I still like the
distance part.
Councilman Boyt: Well if that ~s to be part of the motion, I'm alright with
that. I just think it' s the general sense of what we' ve been saying.
Mayor C~iel: Mark, does that make sense?
Mark Koegler: Yes. I think it's clear and the Minutes certainly should reflect
that clearly for the Cc~mission so we'll take a shot at it and bring it back to
you.
Councilman Workman: I think as one added point, Burnsville, and I know I have
family and friends that live in Burnsville and they have what we call a strip
mall on every corner. I don' t know that they even have a downtown. We' re
trying to build a downtown and by. encouraging even strip malls, amd if I own
property where a strip mall can go up, maybe all the power to me but if we're
encouragin~ a lot of mini downtowns in areas away frc~ downtown, it defeats the
purpose of what we've maybe frustrating ourselves through all along with the
ideal of a downtown. TH 5 amd TH 41, there's going to maybe be one there. I
don' t think anybody really cares to have 4 there and that's another
philosophical question. So somehow we've got to keep the~ in an area or alorg a
busy area. I think that's my point. In keeping them away from neighbor--s
and where they conflict and I know near a neighborhood is where you can make
money but that's my only point and I guess I'd agree with moving it onto the
Planning Coemission with those rec~e~m~dations.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to refer the Zoning Ordinance
Am~nc%~ent modifying zoning restrictions and locations for convenience stores,
15
City Council M~eting - September 13, 1989
Gas Stations, and Aut~notive Service Stations back to the Planning co~nission
with the request that they ccme up with some proposals for limiting the
concentration of convenience stores with gas pumps taking into consideration a
distance criteria. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe while they're doing that, we can see if Jim has any
questions since he's going to be on the Planning Cc~mnission dealing with it of
the thing we just did.
Mayor Chniel: Jim, do you have any questions in relationship to the direction
we're trying to give back to Planning Commission in relationship to the last
discussion that we had?
Jim Wildermuth: You're talking about density...
Mayor Chniel: Yes.
Jim Wildermuth: No.
APPROVAL OF NEAR MOUNT IAN PUD AMENDMENT.
Jo Ann Olsen: Just as a brief introduction, the applicant with the Near
Mountain PUD is proposing an amendment to the PUD to replace 114 condominium
units with 45 single family lots. The outlot is currently located on the
westerly edge of Trapper's Pass at Near Mountain. They...north of Lotus Lake
along Pleasant View and Iroquois. This plan shows the proposed amendment with
the single family lots. The Planning fkm~nission reviewed the PUD ameer and
reco~nended approval to allow the single family lots to replace the cond(~niniun
units. The major issues with what staff pointed out first was whether or not
this still met the intent of the PUD. Since the PUD was first approved, a lot
of amendments have been approved that have r~noved the higher density lots and
replaced them with single families. Again, the Planning (kxanission felt that it
was an appropriate use and recked approval. One of the major concerns for
discussion was whether or not Iroquois should be, with the outlot, should be
opened up for a street connection to allow a secondary access. This is on a
long cul-de-sac. It is very steep. Heavily vegetated. There is also 10% slope
coming up through Trapper's Pass with retaining walls on either side. Staff is
concerned that it would be very easy for that one...closed off there would be no
way to access the site. The handout I just passed out was from the engineering
department that is still pushing ard in staff we agreed that this should be
opened up as a street connection to allow that ~mergency access at all times and
a secondary access. The Planning Commission did not agree that it should be
opened up. They felt it should be provided as an emergency access with a break
away barrier or however it was deten~ined through staff that that would be the
most appropriate way to not allow traffic, normal traffic to use it... So that
is one of the major items that we still are pushing that. That Iroquois would
be opened up as a full street connection. Another item was that the Park and
Rec would like to have at least 4 to 4 1/2 acres of parkland provided to be used
most likely as passive parkland. They are looking at the lots in this location.
Other than that... Do you want ths~ to do the slides now?
16
City Oouncil Meeting - Se~ 13~ 1989
Councilman Johnson: Mr. ~yor. Before w~ get started here, I'd like to give
some of my thoughts on whether we should change this as a FGD. Make this PUD
~er~Al~ent and where the whole PUD process historically, whatever. If I may? It
might help the presenters think about ~hat to say to me to change my mind. A
PUD is a give and take situation. The developer wants s~mething. In this case
they ~nt sualler lots. ~maller setbacks so w~ came up with the Near Mountain
1st Addition, whatever it is, with less than 15,00M square foot lots and with a
25 foot setbacks versus a 3M foot setback. Lots of la~ge houses on relatively
small lots. And what's premised back for that was, o~e of tt~ objectives of the
FJD is to provide a variety of housing. Right now they've provided fairly large
expensive homes on snail lots and some very larger, very expensive hc~es on
larger lots, Trapper's Pass and Near Mountain. Amd the third thing they w~re
offering was the condcmini~n style hcme so that w~ provide a variety of housing.
With the cond(mxinium, up here at the top of Near Mountain, they w~re going to
provide a very large area of fairly virgin forest left in a natural state. At
this point that area has now ~ chopped up and w~'re going only to 2 varieties
of housing. One m_~_cting the zoning. Be very large houses on fairly large lots
and then the one that didn' t ~t the zoning where we gave ~ s(~ething, the
smaller lots with tt~ large houses, etc. and the setback. We're no longer
getting the large natural open area. It's not open. It's treed area.
forest is now going to have houses, streets and the refuge for the animals.
deer I spooked up out there today. ~%ey're going to be moving elsewhere because
there's going to be houses on all these lots. While these are large lots,
there's no lor~er going to be that large open area to be enjo~ by the
residents of the area. To make this change, they're going to have to give
s(xaething because they're taking back ~hat they gave the first time to get a PUD
and that was to preserve the natural e~vir~t of that hillside, i~aat top
area. Now they ~nt to, oops. He~e, w~ gave it to you. We want it back. We
didn't really want to put condominiums in there. Let's give it back. So that's
what I'm always afraid of when we get a PUD and then the parts that the City
want of the FJD are the last phase because that's 2 city council's later and
maybe even 3 city council's latex. I'm not sure whe~ the first phase was
approved. It was well before me but it's at least 2 city council's later
they're c(xaing back amd saying we don't want to do what we originally agreed to
do and give you this large open space here. We just ~nt to build houses. So
that's my introduction to it. You can see that I'm not exactly in favor of
changing the PUD. I have to really be convinced that we, the City, and the
people of the City are gaining scmething on this. I don't see any gain for us
on this. When they talk about giving us the minimm~ park area, they better be
talking double the park area if they want to charge their PUD. Give us
something. There's no give. 0nly take. I'm through. My soapbox is set down
to the side.
Mayor Chniel: Thank you. Anyone else? Would the developer's like to make your
presentation?
Peter Pflaum: My name is Peter Pflaum. I'm the President of Lundgren Bros..
The principle owner of the c(Epany and I'm the one that did tt~ zoning of the
site in 1978. It really upsets me to ccme before you and get lamblasted even
before I get up here on a project that we' re very proud of. The neighbors
I know like it. The people who live in it like it. It's been a ~1
success. The project happens to be bigger than just your ~ity. It happens
to be in two communities. When I originally zoned the site in 1978, there was a
road runnin9 through it on your own guide plan, and it's real unfortunate that
17
City Council Meeting - September 13, 1989
everybody here that I'm facing other than their City Manager, wasn't around but
the issue there was that there was a county road. It showed an extension on
your guide plan through the site. Now the only reason I mention this is because
there's a tr~nendous amount of thought went into that project because it's in 2
c(mmunities. The road, the developer, us, myself, working with the neighbors
convinced your City Council that that road wasn't a very good idea. Tne
reason I mention this is because scme of the neighbors here tonight are
concerned about the access on Iroquois. From the day we bought the site in
1978, I've been working on it all these 11 years after that, one of the main
concerns of tt%e residents has always been traffic on Pleasant View. ~ne reason
why we wanted an ~nergency access and the reason why the previous Council
approved it is because they agreed there should not be anymore traffic on
Pleasant View. And that has been a major issue from day one on this site. It's
hard for I know new council people to ~_~c everything in perspective but in ~erms
of that Iroquois access, I mean that's something that was fundamental to the
previous Council and if you remsmber, there are access on Pleasant View. 0ur
main access in your community was always sort of gerrymandered to start with
because of the developer and the city trying to figure out a way to keep traffic
off of Pleasant View. So we sort of tried to fix up a way so they couldn't turn
right. Let me back up a little though and talk about whether, you raised a lot
of questions. Whether this was a PUD and why we're trying to cheat the City out
of something. Well first of all we don't have to cheat the City out of
anything. I ask you to just check on who we are and what we're doing. I don't
think we should have to be insulted when we omne before you but let me point
this out that our project has been before your Council, I don't know. 7 or 8
times. We down zoned once in your comnunity already. We've downzoned 3 times
in the city of Shorewood and every single time nobody's ever challenged where it
was a PUD. Nobody's every challenged the open space and nobody's challenged our
credentials and why we're doing it so this isn't the first time. As a matter of
fact, before you council and in your own minutes, and the minutes of Shorewood,
I personally told everybody that we unfortunately aren't smart enough, and I
don't think anyone in this ro(xn is smart enough, to know 10 years in advance
what is going to happen. Ard I told, and it's public record, that the PUD is
going to change. As a matter of fact, the Council did not want condominiums on
the hill. They w~re fighting me but I said I needed the flexibility of density
because we weren't smart enough to know in 1978 what in the world the housing
market would be today. The history throughout the project, as a matter of fact,
everybody wanted just solid single family and they were fighting me even having
townho~mes and condominiums. Nobody wanted that but we said, it's a 300 acre
project in 2 comnunities. Some 600 units and we needed the flexibility. I
personally had to spend a lot of time with the neighbors on Ridge Road. I know
they'd all be here because they support what we're doing, and if it's necessary
we'll bring them all here so you can listen to ths~. They happened to be here
before. Dr. M~yers and his group. It's too bad they're not here now because
Jim Meyers would tell you that I personally had to go to his house and convince
him that maybe it wasn't such a bad idea to have the cond(~niniums up there. I
told him really Jim we don't want to do it. We just need the flexibility. So
my point is, frcm day one the Council in both comnunities has known that this
~as just an idea. That we never really ~anted all that density. We needed the
flexibility. The project has ~'cn downzoned numberous times. Once in your
community. ~hree times in another community. Never has it been challenged as a
PUD and never has the open space even ~--n concerned with. There has always
been, Councilman Johnson, concern on slope. You're absolutely correct. ~ne
wooded slope has always bc~n a concern of the neighbors. But I just wanted to
18
City Oouncil ~cting - September 13~ 1989
give you tJ~ historical preference because I know you're not aware of s(X~ of
this because you weren't around but believe me, when we started the project, we
really wanted to do single family. It was just we ~ed the flexibility and
the neighbors ~nted single family. The reasons for down zoning now I think are
obvious. ~ybe it's a good idea because some of you are concerned whether we're
entitled to even do this so maybe I think ~at we should do is we have a slide
presentation and the reason we did a slide presentation is I'm al~ays afraid
that people, this is a big project and you may not have ~n it or portions of
it you haven't seen. You've got a big c(mm~nity here so I understand you
haven't seen everything. So the reason for the slide presentation is to Just
sort of educate everybody basically what we're tryin9 'to do and we' 11 go through
it really quickly.
Mayor Chniel: We'd appreciate that.
Peter Pfla~n: Michael, my brother did the presentation before the Planning
Co~mission so I'll let him pick it up here.
Councilman Johnson: The reason I asked to talk before you had your chance to
talk was so you would have a better chanoe to convince me you know. I don't
really mean to make it as a lamblast but other developers are suspected for the
sane. There's other places where I wasn't here when you started but there's
other developments I was involved with ~hexe we are trying to get the density.
We are tryir~3 to get the R-4. The R-12 within their develo~x~ent and they have
more logical places. I have to agree that this is a lousy place for
condcmini~ns.
Peter Pfla~n: O~e thing I should ms~tion is, one of the concerns was originally
that nobody wanted over 2 units per acre on this entire site. If our approval
goes with the condominiums, the density will be 1.6 if we take the condomini~ns
out. The historic history on this is they wanted low density in this location
and large lots from day one.
Michael Pflaum: I'm not going to spend a great deal of time on this. The
objective of a slide presentation were to give ~t...the project the sense
of the community and design. Also give an opportunity I think you'll ~ the
types of housin9 adversity...but we've got lots rangir~ from 7,500 square feet
to over an acme on this one site. We've got t~s distinct neighborhoods.
Chestnut Ridge neighborhood and the Trapper's Pass neighborhood but they
integrate across one another with open ponds... ~his is the entrance. The
first thir~ that you notice is the perspective' off in the distance is the
fountains. It's vexy spacious. A lot of open space. You ~nt a sense that
these people have fox this site. It's not a constrained, confined area. It's
open. You're alternating with certain ~nall elements and features of the
subdivision such as the logo on the street signs and the rounded caps on the
posts. The Near Mountain emblem is used throughout the site. Again you see in
the distance a fountain... In this shot you can get a pretty good sensation of
again, openess. [~clutterr~ss. ~here aren't any fences there. People like
to live there and they like the openess. A different angle that demonstrates
the same point. ~his is o~e of the smaller lots that we began with over on TH
101 in the 1st Addition that Jay was talkie3 about. This lot is approximately
7,500 square feet. The house is less than 1,000 square f~et in size. This is
tl~ smaller house in size. This is the manner in which mailboxes is installed.
This is the view from the other side of that pond looking back at another p~rt
19
City Oouncil Meeting - September 13, 1989
of the Chestnut Ridge portion of the site. Those houses are bigger than the
ones along TH 101. There's an evolution product line as w~ went through the
site. Lots had to be a little bit bigger to acc(x~nodate bigger houses but it
was basically a semi-production type of housing.
Peter Pflaum: One thing you should mention is they're worried about whether
this a PUD or not. T~e first house that they showed started at about
$80,000.00. They were aimed at entry level housing at the time so the range of
housing on that site goes from $80,000.00 house to half a million. The range of
lots go, from like Mike said, from 7,000 to over an acre so although they're all
detached single family housing, it covers a whole spectrum of type of housing.
Michael Pflaum: This is another evolutionary fomn of the country bxx~e product
line. As some of you perhaps, all of you are aware, when the project finally
did start, it didn't start until 1983. The market conditions weren't right and
when we finally entered the site we entered it with an innovative product, the
country bx~e. It hadn't been done before. It was a new idea. The zero lot
line type approach. ~11 lot. Single family ~ and it replaced quadominiums
which at the time that we were planning the site were very much in vogue in
Chanhassen and by the time we got around to actually building something, nobody
was buying th~m. This is an example of the use of the existing topography. The
winding streets and in general the approach we take towards develo~xnent. Tais
is another pond. Good view across the pond at some of the largest of the
country hc~e product line built on this site. You're looking at a portion of
the site, the develoim~_nt, probably 2 1/2 - 3 years after the initial area.
There's another fountain. ~nis is an award winning house. Peter probably can
give you just a thumbnail on it. We're real proud of it and the City of
Chanhassen is very proud of it too.
Peter Pflaum: This house...project we have in the City of Chanhassen that won
national awards. This project won a national award from the America Wood
Council in terms of the neighborhood. It also was featured in the Builder
Magazine which...top on your list but this particular house was on the cover of
Better Homes and Garden. It was picked as the top house in the United States.
Now I don't know how many of you~ projects that kind of claim but we certainly
don't get it that often. We' re proud of that house because they picked one
builder in the United States and one house and ~ were it and it was in your
comnunity. That was a feature in 1987 on August Better Hc~es and Gardens.
Michael Pflaum: This is a countt'y h(x~e .right across the street from that
particular ho,~se. This is another entrance. This particular entrance to
Near Mountain you may not be aware of because it's in Shorewood but again you
see the same elements. Unity. Again, this is Trapper's Pass again showing sc~e
openess. The rolling nature of the site. The curving of the streets. This is
Trapline Lane and I'm going to go rapidly through this. All this is intended to
do is give you an indication of yes, we develop... This is in Shorewood in the
Sweetwater subdivision and was not built by Lundgren. Wait a minute. I take
that back. That's in Trapper's Pass. Likewise, Trapper's Pass. This is a brief
trip through Sweetwater. We're not trying to sell Sweetwater to you but we feel
that so far as the wooded area of the development and the homes will be closer
to the Sweetwater. Again, the entrance features. Another big pond. A street
going by Silver Lake. Open space. This is backyard open space. Normal back
yard open space. All of the hc~es in the Sw~etwater addition are not built by
Lundgren Bros. but a majority of th~m are. When we have had other builders in
20
City Oouncil Meeting - Se~r 13, 1989
with us on the project, they are pr~iere builders in the western suburbs2
Peter Pflaum: This is Chanha~ right here.
Michael Pfla~: No this is the one at the end... Housing types, variety.
We' re back in the w~ods now. T~ other ones obviously were out in the open.
Peter Pfla~: Why. don't you stop a minute. One of the thirgs that really
made this a great project on the Shore~x)d side is we have the cooperation of
three of the best builders in the western suburbs. You're lookirg at Bob Mason,
Steiner Koppl~man, Bruce Bren, the Bruce Brothers and Larry Craemer in addition
to us in here. In anybody's stretch of the imagination, those are the top
builders in the western suburbs and you have 6 of thsm operating together on
this site in Shorewood. You'd have to go a lorg ways, I don't evan know of
another subdivision of this size, 3~0 acres, that has had the kind of success,
not in terms of us doirg so well. In terms of beirg so well received in the
c~m~unity. I think ~u know yourself in terms of how many hcmes are sold in
Chanhasse~ o
Michael Pfla~: What is d~mm~strated t~_re is this is in Shorew~od. ~his is the
most recent addition of Sw~etwater. Ail it att~ to d~onstrate is the
capability to deal sensitively with the environmental problems with building in
the w~ods. I'm going to go back to that. The house on the left has got trees
in the front yard and trees in the back yard.
Peter Pfla~: Speaking about trees, everybody's concerned about trees, the
w~oded slope. I was asked by. the City of Plymouth to help them write their tree
ordinance representing all of the developers in the City. of Pl.~outh so I think
we're pretty, well respected for our ability, to w~rk in ~x)ded areas. You can
just happen to call the City. Manager, Jim Willis over at the City of Plymouth
and ask him and he'll tell you because we're ~rking...back .uazd in a project
called...
Michael Pfla~: This is an interesting picture. ~hat's the mountain that is a
topic of tonight's discussion.
Councilman Johnson: I always ~mnted to ~ ~here the mountain was.
Peter Pfla~: There actually is o~e.
Councilman Johnson: I lived in Colorado for 4 years.
Michael Pfla~: Okay, s~all mountain. This is a Minnesota mountain.
Mayor C2~iel: It's a near mountain.
councilman Johnson: It's a near mountain. Is that like near beer?
Michael Pflaum: This shot was taken through the window of a house under
construction in Fox Chase. Up near the top. of Fox Path. If you know the
topography there you'll understand that FOx Path rises to probably one of the
highest points within that particular develolm~ent. We're starting up tb~ slope
of another hill. But what this does show is looking across at the top of
Near Mountain, you're looking across these houses that are way down below and we
21
City Council Meeting - September 13, 1989
wondered how pleased these people are people on the other side who would be able
to see for sc~e distance would be seeing fairly large structures that dominant
the top of the hill. We feel from an aesthetics standpoint, tasteful single
family develol~ent of the site would he superior, at least in the eyes of the
people beholding from down below to condcmini~ns. This is a continuation shot.
The first one was, this is a panorama in other words. Rotating the camera.
This particular picture is the south of Lotus Lake taken from the park. This is
an establishing shot and it demonstrates that if you ~_re in that park and there
were structures on top of the hill, that dominate the top of the hill, you'd see
it from there. ~ne mountain again, this one is taken from the intersection of
Duck Lake Trail and TH 101. That's a Fox Hollow h<m~e in the foreground now.
Again, the purpose is to show that that particular site dominants a fairly large
area and what is placed on it we think should be as compatible as possible with
it's environment... I think that's it.
Peter Pflaum: Let me answer a few more questions. There was a c(xanent whether
we as developers gave enough. The question is whether should have to give
really but whether gave enough. The Park Omnnission requested that 2 of our
lots become a park. They also requested some trail. What we did and really
don't get credit for, before we ever talked to Planning Oan~ission or your
staff, we met with all your neighbors who border the site and their concern was
that there be some kind of buffer between our project and theirs that would be
preserved because they were afraid that if you sold single family homes, that
somebody would have the right to come back in the back yard and cut down the
trees so we've agreed to put a buffer in the back yard of all the property on
the Lotus Lake side of our site. Taat would give the~ the security of knowing
that that vegetation would be preserved and we did this by having protective
covenants that goes on the deed that would preserve the trees forever. Tne
other question was...
Councilman Johnson: ~nere are no trees.
Peter Pflaum: Oh yeah. Tnere' s, what the neighbors consider valuable foliage.
It's sumac and trees and high brush. Their point was they didn't want to see
that destroyed because they liked that as a buffer so we agreed to do that and
put on the deed. I don't know exactly where it came in with the concept that
maybe we should also preserve the slope by scme kind of protective covenants so
we agreed, Rick what elevation is that that we would put protective covenants on
the slope preserving the slope that cannot be cut down even if somebody bought
single family lots. T~y would not have a right to cut the trees down.
Councilman Boyt: 945 I think is what I read.
Peter Pflaum: And the reason for that was to preserve the slope and the wooded
character of the land as much as possible and yet allowing development. Rick,
can probably point it out.
Rick Sathre: I think it was Jo Ann's idea probably basically to preserve the
north facing slope below an elevation of 945 which is right here. I guess the
issue of preservation down in the western area is...Park Cce~ission's
recce~endation to take that land for park. Then along the southwesterly face of
the plan, what Peter mentioned was conceived of as that other buffer strip. I
guess that presezwation area is the northerly 20% or something of the land.
Probably more than that.
22
City Oouncil Meeting - Se~r 13~ 1989
Oouncilman Johnson: 997 ~
Robert Rojina: My name is Robert Rojina. I live at 488 Indian Hill Road.
amount of traffic that's on Pleasant View Boad now is pretty substantial since
the Near Mountain has started and the new residents have moved in. By putting,
was it 45 units in up there? The average family has 2 cars. That's-what, like
90 vehicles. More vehicles will be using the road than there is now and I
really feel that there's got to be another access out of Near Mountain as they
have it planned now other than what they have.
Rick Sat/are: Your honor. My name is Rick Sathre. I 'm the engineer for
Lur~rens. I work for my own omnpany, Sathre-Berquist. ~hen wa plan the single
family neighborhood, w~ were trying to be consistent with the way the concept of
the condominiums or the multi-family structures ~_re planned. All along since
t/~ first effort at this site, the planning effort, we've tried to find the best
way up to the top of that knoll, that mountain. That near mountain. We chose
the spot to go up tt~ slope that was the most gentle and there aren' t any gentle
slopes out there on that site. A secondary access to the site would be, I guess
the next most gentle spot to come up to the knoll is Iroquois or Indian Hills
Road. I think that street grade' s probably around 15%. It' s excessive. I 'm
not sure what the gentlenan meant exactly by where else we could go down but a
point I wanted to make. Alright, well that's very steep. If you walk through
there.
Robert Rojina: I grew up in that area but if I~u do put it down through Indian
Hill Boad, Iroquois, whatever, that's defeating the lxlrpose to give tl~ people
easy access out because you still have a great deal of traffic ccming all the
way through Pleasant View here were actually people have no purpose other than
to get to Excelsior or out to TH 101.
Rick Sathre: Our proposal has never been to connect that as an actual street.
The proposal is to provide for ~mergency access in th~ event of a fire or heart
attack or sc~ething of that nature. I agree with ~Du that there are no direct
links. Pleasant View Road is a circuitous route. That's some of the chazm of
it I guess.
Robert RDj ina: It' s not very practical is it?
Rick Sathre: Well we've tried to direct our traffic towards TH 1WI recognizing
that tb~ majority of people would use that thoroughfare to go to downtown
Chanhassen or to go to Minneapolis.
Peter Pfla~: Tree answer is that from day one the vast majority of the
residents insisted w~ have no access on Pleasant View Road. As a matter of
fact, they ~are adamant about it. ~hey'd fill this roc~n. ~hey're still upset
about it so what we did is wa said the only access we wanted was in case of an
emergency. The other is just a trail, walking trail so we're just responding to
what, amd this goes back to 1978 when there must have ~-=n, I don't know, 300 or
400 people. Tmere was a lot of people very upset and they sided with us on our
project because they felt it was the best use of tt~ land but they made it very
clear that they didn't want any traffic on Pleasant View so that's been from day
one. The over riding concern.
23
City Council ~L=eting - September 13, 1989
Rick Sathre: The other big issue to think about is what we're really proposing
to do is reduce the traffic by changing the land use. The approved use is 114
multi-family dwellings which largely have 2 vehicles too.
Peter Pflaum: (k~ the average.
Rick Sathre: Right. 43 or 45 single family homes would generate much less
traffic than the multi-family use.
Robert Rojina: I don't know. Since like you said, since Lundgren Bros. have
built the Near Mountain additions, the amount of traffic on Pleasant View at any
· ..there's probably, I'll bet you it's at least double. The amount of more cars
and traffic on Pleasant View, I don't know if you ever go out there and watch
and count cars. You hear a lot of cars that travel Pleasant View during the day
and it's not a very big road. It is a very cuzwy, windy road. I really think
Near Mountain needs another access to ease the flow of traffic going all the way
through Pleasant View to get to CR 17 or Excelsior, to Powers Blvd..
Rick Sathre: Let me assure you that we've tried to choose the two most
reasonable access points already and they're farther east on Pleasant View· I
think the other thing to r~msmber is that when Near Mot~tain was conceived of
and first started, there was very little develo~nent except for right around the
lake, Lotus Lake and Silver Lake and Christmas Lake. Large areas of Eden
Prairie and the rest of northern Chanhassen have developed during this same time
and I certainly agree that the traffic on Pleasant View has increased but I
don't think in fairness that you could say that it's the Near Mountain
neighborhood alone· I think it's an acc~m~ulative thing and I think the traffic
will increase even further.
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we seem to be getting into an extended
discussion on Iroquois and Monday night we had residents in here. We discussed
this Monday night· Monday night we gave these residents assurances that
Iroquois was not going to be made into a street. If it's now being rec(mmended
by planning and engineering that it is made into a street, maybe we need to put
this to bed real c~ickly. My personal point of view on Iroquois is, looking at
the grades and everything, it's the only logical place for an energency access
but that is as an energency access and not as a street. Similar to what we're
trying at Centex. I don't know if it will work but I don't see any reason to go
28 feet wide· I think we've got 2 people that don't know why. Neither of then
want it. We're not hearing frGn the people who do want it. I'd like to hear
fr(E Gary as to why he wants a full street right there and why we can't do it
with a ~naller, single lane emergency access? That's kind of a pedestrian path
most of the time, an ~nergency access if needed.
Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chniel: Go ahead Gary.
Gary Warren: Staff's position, engineering's position has been I think
consistent in the matter and we've met with Rick and talked about it and tried
to kick around ideas. I know it's no s~u.~prise to Rick that engineering still
supports a full secondary access there· The grade, the tough grade on Iroquois
already exists. The 15% grade which it is is for the existing roadway in front
of the existing properties which is being used. As you get up into the slope
24
City Council ~eting - September 13~ 1989
into Near Mountain, that grade is far more gradual and ~ get back to even
within the city standards of 6% to 7%. So I think that should be kept in mind.
We've looked at what the Near M~untain, the su~mit proposal here, we closely
looked at the 10% grade that's being proposed by. the developer to come in and
see if that could be improved on and get closer to City star~ards.
Realistically grading and impacts to the site w~uld not allow that to happen so
w~ bought into the fact that c(xaprc~ising city standards on this 10% but what it
has got, I guess a concern fr~m an engineering standpoint, and I think it's
supported by the public safety department here, is that w~ are brirgin~ in roads
into the site on some tough grades. The actual full access is a 10% grade
proposed with retaining walls in some pretty extensive areas in this 10% grade
area and a large density, or suall cc~munity up here up on the mountain. I guess
we all have our own impressions about what calamities and enviror~ental hazards
are and ~hat's the w~rse case scenario that could happen but it continues to
point I think to public safety's interest and ergineering's to be able to access
that site. Maybe you can compromise somewhat on the road section from the 28
foot section but it wouldn't be from an enviror~ental hazm standpoint. The
Oentex, Curry Farm issue maybe, frc~ my perspective has somewhat tainted me on
ccmprcmisirg on our road sections. Once burned, twice cautious here. We're
still w~rking on that one. I guess that's the engin.~_ring position on it. We
think in order to adequately service that site, w~ really believe that the
detriment to using that as an access more than putting any barricades or
anythirg else on that site is that it is relatively an obscure access. When ~u
drive Pleasant View Road, a lot of people don't even know that Iroquois even
goes up in that way and w~ w~uldn't be chargirg that attractive entrance or to
make that entrance an.~more attractive and the slope amd such so there are mmme
natural aspects of this that I think w~)uld make it a deterrent from a coamon use
standpoint. Full city section out to Pleasant View Road w~uld be the more
desireable.
Councilman Johnson: What's the street that goes down after Indian Hill Boad or
whatever? Tt~ street y~u get down and then you get to that 2 way stop, that
T intersection. That's probably one of the w~rse intersections in our city as
far as visibility and traffic.
Rick Sathre: It' s called Vallhalla.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, Vallhalla. ~atever. It's not a place that I'd
like to see any kind of increase in traffic. That's why I'm, if there's some
~ay to make that an e~_rgency. This is a lot different than Centex in that
there's no ea~a~ents and there's only one owner involved.
Rick Sathre: Your Honor. If I could, I'd like briefly to show ~u ~hat we've
tried to do in the design of the single family subdivision to lesse~ the
likelihood that there would be a ~ for using that secondary access. The
cul-de-sac, the dead end without secondary, access really starts down on
Trapper's Bass and a section of the street that's not built, g~en it was a one
way in and a one way out all the way up to tl~ top of the knoll where the
buildings would maybe cluster. ~his distance was over 1,~00 feet. I don't know
exactly what it was but the previous Council recognized the need to have some
other way to serve that knoll other than just one dead e~d. When we did the
single family plannirg, we wanted to get away from one way in ar~ one way out.
We previously had put in a secondary exit and this just got paved in the last
few days down on Pleasant View but now what you see is on the knoll, up on the
25
City Council Meeting - September 13, 1989
mountain we've got this looped street so there's really only about a 600 or so
foot long area that could get blocked and cause problems. If blockage occurred
sc~ewhere else, we don't have a problem. There's t~) ways in and out so there's
less likely to be a catastrophic problem. With decreased traffic and everything
else, we just felt it would work without a whole street. But I agree very much
with Mr. Warren that we're not talking environmental harm by making the
secondary connection. We're only talking need.
Councilman Boyt: I have a question. You said only 600 feet so it's not a
problem. Did I hear that right? That's what I heard.
Rick Sathre: I'm sorry. 600 feet is long too but there's a big difference
between a 600 foot one way in and out versus over 1,000 feet. 1,500 feet.
Councilman Boyt: How are we now down to 600 feet? Where's the secondary
access?
Rick Sathre: The street loops here and there's more than one way to this point.
Once you get to this point, there's more than one way to get to every ~ above
that point so if there was a blockage in the road which would prevent access, it
would have to occur in this one little segment of the road. That's what I mean.
That was the point. We tried to make it a less likely event that the road would
be blocked.
Councilman Boyt: Except if it is blocked, you'd still block 37 homes. If it
blocks in that 600 feet.
Rick Sathre: Then that secondary access, ~mergency access would be used or
should be used.
Councilman Boyt: Can you guys talk to this. I'm real concerned about, the
emergency, access when it's flat and we've got some rocm like say the Centex
thing here, it becomes manageable to get in there and plow it but now we're
talking a narrow road and a grade and I'm a little concerned that our emergency.
access isn't an access at all.
Gary Warren: Iroqouis is plowed right now.
Councilman Boyt: Well I'm talking about, we're talking about putting some kind
of breakable barricade in there. Now I knowyou're not. They are. If they put
some sort of a breakable barricade in there, can we keep that clear?
Gary. Warren: I don't know if I'm understanding you completely Bill but the
grade of the road on the sun%mit area here is actually within the City's
standards, 6% to 7% grade could be built there.
Councilman Boyt: But you're going to have to put some kind of a turn around at
each end of that barricade right or wrong?
Gary Warren: You' re saying if you put in a bart icade?
Councilman Boyt: If you put in a barricade. We're not talking thru street
here. We' re talking about some kind of an emergency only access. That means
barricade to me. Is that the only way we can control that?
26
City Council Meeting - Se~ 13, 1989
Gary. Warren: If you're goin~ to put in a barricade, then you'd need to make
provisions for vehicles to turn arou~.
Oouncilman Boyt: Okay. Let's talk about that a little bit.
Rick Sathre: Our p~oposal has been to create a 3~ foot wide corridor that w~uld
go through betw~m~ the lots. It's angled off from the current Indian Hills or
Iroquois so that w~ don't have headlight intrusion one way or the other. We
propose that there be like, what w~ talked about a one lane wide paved what
would be used no~mally as a trail. I think that the gate that blocks the thing
wouldn't have to be a break away barrier. It could just be a gate that swings
and an.ubody that ~nted to swing it open, could swing it open. If it's meant to
be an ~ergency access and that's abused, the~ there's a problem and the~ you
police it but I think locking it is too ~s~me on police and fire people. I
think it should be easily moved or not there at all. It would be plowed in the
winter by one pass of the City plow.
Oouncilman Boyt: I can tell l~u fr~m my perspective, I can't ever conceive of
voting for the City. to build an 8 foot wide road or for the City to have
responsibility for cleaning a driveway. I just can't imagine it fr~m my
perspective.
Kevin Peeper: (k)uld I make a point please?
Mayor Ch~iel: Sure. G~ ahead.
Kevin Peeper: My. name is Kevin ~per. I live at 541 Indian Hill Road and just
looking at, I'd like to point out here with this overlay. If you made this a
thru street, full section street, headlights from this, cars exiting will shine
down on 2 existing h~es right here. Direct light into those houses. We were
originally told that this would never be a thru street. It was e~ergenc? only.
We have a steep grade here. Steep lots as w~ll. There's a lot of small
children in this area. If you're accessing 45 houses out here, it provides a
very good way of access for these people to come down here and go over to Powers
Blvd.. I think you should not overlook the safety aspect of jeopardizing the
people that are already, living in this area. Not only that but th~ fact that
the headlights on these t~D houses. Thanks.
Mayor Ch~iel: Any other further discussion? Does anyone else wish to address
anything from the audience?
A1 Krae~er: My ~ is Al K~a~er ar~ I live at 531 Indian Hill Road. I j~t
~t ~ ~ke ref~~ ~ ~ ~~e ~~e of I~i~ ~11 ~ ~ ref~r~ ~
by ~ ~~ring ~~t. I'd ~y ~t ~ d~ ~ strut si~ at ~
~t~ of ~ s~t right ~ ~n~u~ ~t ~ ~ ~e ~re of ~
r~ ~ ~io~ly if ~t ~e a ~u ~t, ~u ~d ~ lo~ ~ve a d~
e~ si~ a~ I ~k ~ple ~u~ di~~ ~t it's a ro~.
Gary Warren: I guess I would agree that at this point in time a dead end sign
obviously is a deterrent to that aspect. However, the fact that whe~ you look
at that intersection and you can't see anything except a sharp left also to the
people who aren't familiar with the area, wouldn't expect to see that as a
convenient route. Another point just briefly that from my perspective wa'ye all
27
City Council ~=eting - September 13, 1989
talked about, not only with this subdivision but with our Van Eeckhout
subdivision, about Pleasant View Boad and how if w~ all could do it over w~'d do
it over. The point has always been, the less that people have to travel
on Pleasant View Road, the better w~ all are. By not having an access at this
location or one of the secondary benefits maybe of having an access in this
location is that people who are interested in going westbound to get to Powers
Blvd. and getting to Excelsior and such, will be spending less time on Pleasant
View Road and sc~e of the tougher parts of Pleasant View Boad. Without that
acess, the westbound traveler has to go to the access currently now by our
North Lotus Lake Park area. Get on Pleasant View Road. (kx~e down through the
chute there so to speak and then on out so an extra distance traveled. I think
that should be recognied on Pleasant View Road instead of cc~ing out here.
Councilman Johnson: But with 45 h~neowners in there, or 43 h(aneowners will
discover that road very quicklyand all their guests and maybe some service
vehicles.
Bruce Nord: I have one last c(xanent. It looks like you're all getting ready to
go home so I'm just going to j~np up here. My name is Bruce Nord. I live on
551 Indian Hill Road. I'm on Lot 11 right there. I'm going to be having
probably the most affect by having a road through there. The road itself is,
everybody said the grade is so steep. S~netimes we can' t even get up there in
the wintertime on a bad snow. In order for you to make a road through there,
you're going to have to change everything. I mean you're going to have to
regrade the whole road. Have to make it wider. At certain times, if you get a
car parked on either side of the road, you can barely fit a car down the middle
of them. It's a road. It's not an upgraded residential street. It was made 25
years ago and it's the way w~ like it. I don't mind walking up the hill a
couple times a year when it snows but the whole safety factor of having people,
potentially 90 cars using that road. There's a lot of little kids on the road
and you know, anybody that's on the road and they're not familiar with it and
they're not familiar with little kids on there, any road with a grade like that,
if you're not riding your brakes down the hill, you get going pretty fast.
Unless you live right there and you're aware of this, there's people going to be
flying down that road. I mean you probably could take your foot off the gas,
off the brake and you could probably be doing 45 mph by the time you hit that
curve if you weren't aware of that. I'm just real concerned for everybody's
safety. There's a lot of kids there. People walk their dogs. Whether you
access to Pleasant View a few hundred yards down or right there, you're still
going to have, you're right in the heart of Pleasant View Road right there.
You're still going to have the same amount of traffic so it's just a real bad
idea and everybody on our street is against it. If any of you ~Bnt to drive up
there and take a look at it, right at the bott2m of it there's a big curve too
and it's a really bad curve. You have to be going really slow around it. If
you're shooting 90 cars, potentially 90 cars down that hill, hitting that curve,
you're just going to buy yourself a lot of problems I'm afraid. As Kevin said,
we understood when we bought our house 5 years ago that that would never go
through. Tnat it would just be an emergency access. As far as a turn around
for a plow, heck. It's a dead end now and they use our driveways to turn their
trucks around now. Tney could feel free to do it in the future so as far as a
turn around access, that isn't a real probl~n. Once you do reach the top of
that, the grade is quite ~naller.
28
City Oouncil Meeting - Se~ 131 1989
Peter Pflau~: I have tm quick points. One is, you're not really talking about
45 homes using it. This w~uld be a short cut for a lot of people in the project
once they learned about it. Second of all, I think you're doirg a real
injustice. If the Council's really serious about running Iroquois through, if
that's really what the vote's goirg to be, I think you owa it to the rest of the
people. I know what a big topic of concern Pleasant View is. It's not as big a
topic for me but I know the residents that live there. They w~uld fill this
ro~m and if you w~re really serious about running that through, if that's the
consensus, then you really ow~ it to your citizems to table it ar~ have tbs~
c~me here and speak. It doesn't kill us if ~u run it through but I know they
don't want it.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'm ready to comment on this. I'd like to say
that I agree with Peter Pfla~ that none of us are wise enough to see 10 years
into the future. ~aat's the point that I was trying to make with our last it~
on the convenience store ordinanoe. I think they've done a great job. Not only
in Chanhassen but in all the otbe_=r c(mauunities that I've ~ their develol~ents
in and I think a major concern for me is that the neighbors are all in favor of
this. Therefore, and I think it's in conformity with the existing PUD so I move
that wa accept the PUD smenctme~t to replace 114 cond~ini~s with 45 single
family lots and that for safety, concerns, Indian Hills which is fozmerly
Iroquois, will be ~nergenc-y access only.
Mayor Ch~iel: I'd second that.
Councilman Boyt: I'd suggest to you that that will fail. It takes a four-
fifths vote.
Councilman Johnson: Well, for discussion purposes, there's a lot of other
issues to be decided beyond just let's let this go. We've got tl~ park issue.
We've got a triangular lot in there ~ich I'm surprised there hasn't bccn a lot
of talk about that triargular lot yet because every other plaoe we've had a
triangular lot, the planning staff's j~ed up and down about. I'd also like
to see s(x~e design of that e~ergency access. Whether wa put a, half way through
it wa put a turn around where wa...
Councilwca~qn Dimler: Can that be discussed later?
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: We don't have to get the details on that now.
CounciLman Johnson: But wa ~ant to know that there's going to be more design to
that and the builder r_~s to know that. It's not just goirg to he a trail.
The My I see it is that half My through it, there's a place for snow plows to
go up, move scme snow and there's a barrier at that point so they can plow it
c(xaing from either direction and there's a barrier halfway through that in an
~ergency you can go on through that barrier then.
Councilw~aan Dimler: Can wa recommend that they get together with city.
e~gineeri~g to design?
CounciLman Johnson: Stuff like that but wa also ~ to look at the park
issues.
29
City Council M~eting - September 13, 1989
Oouncilwcman Dimler: I think they've been well enough addressed.
Councilman Johnson: What are they? How are they addressed? Are we taking 8
and 9?
Councilwoman Dimler: Park and Rec recommsax]ed 4 1/2 wasn't it Jo Ann? W~'ll
take their recomnendation.
Councilman Johnson: Okay. What about the triangular lot? What do you think
about the triangular lot Jo Ann?
Jo Ann Olsen: I love it.
Councilman Johnson: You love it? You've hated it every other subdivision now
you say you love them?
Jo Ann Olsen: That was one, there are a lot of other issues w~ were looking at.
I didn't really focus in on that.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. I know. ~nere's 26 conditions which is a beck of a
lot conditions but it's a big place.
Mayor Chniel: Is that buffer on the 26 conditions?
Councilman Johnson: Also the buffer. I'd like to see that. There's a couple
other things. ~ne buffer. The clear cutting of trees throughout in this whole
area. I know you've got the 945. It seam, s inconceiveable that people would buy
a wooded lot and clear but it but I can show you two examples that have happened
in the last 2 years of people buying a completely forested lot...
Councilwoman Dimler: But can't we, with the history of this particular
developer, he seans to know how to work around the trees.
Councilman Johnson: It's not the developer. It's the bxaueowner that cleared
the trees. One on Lake Riley.
Councilwoman Dimler: We're talking about the development right now. We're not
trying to regulate what the specific h~neowner is going to be doing in the
future. We're trying to get the PUD changed right now.
Councilman Johnson: And this is the point that you do that regulation. You're
going to say, one of our things for this is that no h(xneowner can be allowed to
clear cut his lot.
Councilman Workman: Isn't that item 2 Jay?
Councilw~n Dimler: Sure it is. It's covered because later on it will be,
the City has to approve, with each permit the City has to approve a particular
site. Okay? So that's covered.
Councilman Johnson: No, that's not covered.
Councilwc~an Dimler: Sure it is.
30
City Council M~eting - Sept~ 13~ 1989
Councilman Johnson: When they build their house, they can't cut the trees d6Wn
but 5 minutes later they can.
Councilwoman Dimler: They omme in for a peri, It and the City works with them at
that time.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, the next ~wner buys the lot and cuts every tree
off th~ lot.
Councilwoman Dimler: You can't control. Can you see 10 years down the line? 20
years? Jay, if you can, I wish I could. That's wonderful.
Councilman Johnson: What I'm saying is, I don't ~nt to see those lots clear
cut 10 years from now or 5 years frc~ ~ow.
Councilw~man Dimler: But you can't control what people are going to do 10 to 15
to 20 l~ars frc~ now.
Mayor Ch~iel: As most people do ~hen they get their ow~ lots, it probably
happened o~e time and that's a probl~ but just as evreyone else has done, I
came out to my property and I had 4 trees totally. I now have 43 trees since
I've lived there. Eve~ if they're existing, how many people will cut the~ down?
Councilman Johnson: But in the last 2 years we've had 2 people clear cut
totally wooded lots leaving in one case no trees and in the other case a couple
trees tossed here and there.
Councilwoman Dimler: So we're going to stay here and discuss this forever and
hold up this? That's not what we're here to discuss in my opinion.
Cour~ilman Boyt: Jay, maybe ~>u could suggest a possible ~y to cover your
concerns?
Mayor Ch~iel: Yeah, what is ~>ur concern on Jay?
Councilman Johnson: I need Roger here is what I r~. For how to make ib~ 2
go beyond the original builder of the lot. How do we put a covenant upon the
lot. Don't tell me we can't. A~e l~>u a lawyer?
Councilman Workman: Well we can't enforce a coveDant later an~uway.
Gary Warren: It' s recorded against the property.
Councilman Johnson: I mean you're already saying the 945. ~hat we can enforce
the 945 which is a real good start for what we're doing.
Michael Pfla~: Excuse me, may I ask a question? There is a prohibition
against cutting any trees below the 945 elevation on those lots.
Mayor C~miel: That's sce~=thing that you're going to have registered?
Michael Pfla~: Right. And the City of Chanhasse~ is working on a tree
preservation policy and ordinance is it not?
31
City Council Meeting - September 13~ 1989
Councilwoman Dimler: That' s right
Michael Pflaum: Well it seems to me that the application of what Councilman
Johnson is saying should be city wide.
Councilman Johnson: Exactly.
Michael Pflaum: And if that's the will of the City Council, it should be done
by ordinance and govern everybody in the city of Chanhassen. Not just the
people that live in this particular subdivision.
Councilman Johnson: Agreed. Agreed and w~ are trying to do that but that is
not before us tonight. What's before us, as you showed in your pictures, is the
Near Mountain that is visible all across this area and if the top, what is it
Block 5, Lots 1 thru 15 are almost totally treed lots except for 4, those lots
aren't protected at all from clear cutting.
Michael Pflaum: ~ate me. What is the definition of clear cutting so I know
what we' re talking about? Is that taking all the trees down?
Councilman Johnson: Take all the trees down and putting in sod.
Jo Ann Olsen: Anything over 4 inch caliper, 4 foot height is what we define.
Councilman Johnson: Right. Bushes and sumac, that's one thing. Clearing brush
is not considered clear cutting but taking out your maples and your oaks and
stuff so that you can play croquet in your back yard. Tne green area showed
around the circle is all solid trees.
Rick Sathre: Tae green area there is the mature trees I can say it right now.
Peter Pflaum: The reason for that area, we put the protective covenants on is
that is the most visible. That has always been the one of most concern
throughout the history of the project so we felt if we can put a covenant on
that and protect it, and if you know the slope, it's very severe and anybody
buying there would buy with the knowledge that they couldn't take trees down.
But the other area is pretty much similar to anybody in your cc~Eunity who's got
a wooded lot. So we thought it would be unfair to penalize those people when
the benefit is really a neighborhood benefit. The benefit with the area of the
protected covenants is co~Eunity benefit and that's why we chose to do it that
w~y.
Councilman Workman: What is the green?
Peter Pflaum: The green area is the actL%al one...the trees are and what Michael
was saying, I'm going to direct you to a point. One, the area that is most
concern to the residents is the area that we've shown right where we're willing
to put protective covenants that cannot be cut in the future and that goes on
the deed. ihe other area of %pods we feel is only really a benefit to the
neighbors and I don't feel, what Michael is saying, we don't think it's fair
that those people who buy those lots should have to have a covenants on their
property when anybody else in the c(xanunity does not. If those trees were a
major concern to all the people around it, that'd be true but in this case it
32
City Oouncil M~eting - September 13~ 1989
isn't. The ones that are a major concern, ~ have protective covenants 0n2
That's all w~' re trying to say.
Oouncilw~mn Dimler: Yes. It's covered.
Councilman Johnson: In your opinion it's covered.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: So you're saying that the view from the south, the view
from the w~st don't count? Only the Shorewo(~ view and the F~yer's view count
because those are the people that are the most concerned.
Peter Pfla~: No. We're saying...
Councilman Johnson: A loss of trees, the loss of the enviroNaental benefits of
Peter Pfla~: No we're not saying. We're saying that if you're out on the site
you can see what we're talking about. The Silver Lake side is where, first of
all that's a nature preserve area. ~he slope there really goes down 6~-7~ feet.
Almost solid do~n and the stand of trees there is very significant. On the
other side ~ahere we showed a little protective area, there really aren't any
mature trees in that particular area.
Councilman Johnson: I'm not concerned about that area. I'm concerned about
this area. There you go. The top of the mountain.
Peter Pflaum: And I think the issue there is, is it really fair for them buying
the lot?
Councilman Johnson: We've done it else~ze. It didn't work.
Councilw~m~n Dimler: So why. are we trying to do it again?
Peter Pflaum: I guess that's the issue. Is that really of significance to the
c~munity? I mean we have never had a problem. That's not saying it couldn't
happen but people buying out here are paying a pre~/~n because it's a ~Doded
lot.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. And then they cut all the trees down.
Peter Pfla~n: What we're sort of saying that we tried to protect it where we
knew it was of omnnunity benefit and nature preserve area. And the other areas
we're just saying, hey, it really isn't any different than the trees in
Trapper ' s Pass.
Councilman Johnson: Nobody in Trapper's Pass has clear cut their lot you know.
It was two other neighborhoods that did it. It was the individual h~meowner.
Peter Pfla~: I think really the only solution for that is to have some
protective covenants are not effective, you have to have an ordi~ against
it. You treat ever,ubody the same. That's what Michael was saying.
33
City Council Meeting - September 13, 1989
Councilman Johnson: We are trying. We are working towards that ordinance but
you're up before us before the ordinance is through.
Peter Pfla~n: But the truth of the matter is, it won't be built before. I
mean, this project won't get built this year for example. I mean your ordinance
will be well in effect before and there has to be another subdivision built
before this one gets on it's way because there's a project inbetw~en it. So
you're looking at a minim~n of a year, year and a half before anybody ever gets
up here to build.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussions on this Jay?
Councilman Workman: Ultimately what do we, I guess it's all in the package but
ultimately what can we leave out as far as decision items tonight? Can w~ come
back to trees? Do we need to discuss sidewalks tonight?
Councilman Johnson: We can do trees and all that stuff in the develounent
contract. We're going to see this thing a whole lot more and the platting.
Mayor Cbmiel: You're going to see the platting come back anti, ay.
Councilman Boyt: That all has to be worked out tonight because I could be wrong
but I don't think the PUD is going to pass unless this is worked out. I don't
know that it takes any big changes. I think it's awfully close. I'm curious if
Jay has some ideas on how he can protect those trees. I'd like to hear them.
As he said, we've tried a couple things that hasn't been real successful. That
doesn't mean we shouldn't try s~nething else.
Councilman Johnson: The only thing I would like to put in here maybe is that
this does not specifically grandfather to where they don't have to comply with
future woodlands ordinances. So sc~nebody can't oane in and say, hey this was
already subdivided and PUDed so I don't have to cc~ply with that. Just
eliminate a defense. Historically, like you say, it is a good example of the
saving of trees. Tne builders in there hav worked very diligently to do that
and the h~neowners have gone in there because they don't want to mow lawns and
put in trees...but there's always that one radical.
Mayor Chniel: Would the developer agree to that? What Jay was saying.
Peter Pflaum: We would be willing to go along with that. I think legally we
couldn't grandfather it in anyway. We'd have to go along with the concept
of...that we abide by it.
Councilman Johnson: Now this isn't the platting? We get the platting cc~e up
later right?
Jo Ann Olsen: Tnis is the prelimnary plat actually. Final plat would be coming
in.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, so this would be the time to untriangle Lot 17
That's a concern to me. It's not a huge concern in that it's a side of the
hill.
Rick Sathre: This Lot 1, Block 1 that you're concerned about?
34
City Council Meeting - Septenber 13; 1989
Councilman Johnson: Yesi
Rick Sathre: It' s about 175 feet wide at the street and it' s about 22, SSS plus
square feet and it's in the woods too. We didn't realize you'd focus on it
but I can change it.
Councilman Johnson: Well we've not allowed them elsewhere in the last 2 years.
Jo Ann Olsen: It's difficult to enforce the setbacks.
Peter Pflaum: If you want to put in a condition to change that before final.
Councilman Johnson: Right. So your triangular, where is your rear yard setback
of 30 foot? There is no line to set back frcm. ~here's a point.
Councilman Workman: It's the Colby's lot.
Councilman Johnson: So that would be condition 26.
Councilman Boyt: I don't see a good quick solution to that because you're not
going to eliminate the lot I wouldn't imagine.
Councilman Johnson: (h no. Basically you move that lot line slightly to the
west and you have a small back yard.
Rick Sathre: I think there's a few ways to draw a line. I'll try one and if
you don't like it.
Councilman Boyt: I'm just curious as a concept. It looks to me like you're
going to make the lot ~naller.
Rick Sathre: I think that's safe to say. ~he lot that we had drawn, it's about
2,~ o~ 3,~ square feet bigger than the smallest ones in this particular
subdivision. I think one thing w~ could do would be to change the angle of some
of the other lines. Perhaps draw this line this way and this line across this
way to create more of a rectangle out of it. I don't think it would hurt Lot 2
or 3. I would think we could balance t/~ square footage even on that lot too if
Councilman Boyt: 3 looks a little bizarre doesn't it? Jay I think the times
~ we've ~ concerned about triangle lots is when they're been turned around
so the narrow end is at the street.
Councilman Johnson: No. There's Chart Vista they had like 5 of the~ coming
together and it was in an area where if everybody put fences up, you know. This
isn't the same t~upe of area but I think it could be worked out and said...
Mayor Ch~iel: Jay, is that acceptable?
Councilman Johnson: Yes. It's even better than ~hat I drew.
Mayor C~miel: Can we move on this then? You've got condition 26 then or is
that 27?
35
City Council Meeting - September 13 ~ 1989
Councilman Johnson: 26 w~uld be that useless one about future tree ordinance~
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so 27 would be redefine Lot 1.
Councilman Johnson: I'd also like to see that 20 foot nature area increased to
30. 20 foot's not very much. That's as far as from me to you. In fact w~'re
probably 25 foot or 30 foot.
Councilman Boyt: How deep are those lots?
Rick Sathre: Here they average around 200 feet so the rear of the homes we
would anticipate the rear of the hc~ being back not more than 100 feet I would
guess.
Councilman Johnson: You've got a 30 foot setback in the back there anyway.
Buildirg setback. Now we'd have a 20 foot nature setback ar~ a 30 foot building
setback. Why not make th~n both the same so you don' t have too many lines
drawn?
Councilman Workman: Which number Jay?
Councilman Boyt: That's 21.
Councilman Johnson: Right. Item 21. fhange it to 30 foot. It's one less line
when you get to the final platting to draw on each of those lot things.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, change that from 20 to 30? Is that agreeable?
Councilman Johnson: Yes. The minim~n lot there is 188.
Mayor Ch~iel: Okay with those additional changes? I'll call a question.
Councilman Boyt: Wait. Wait. We've got to get down to the other end of the
table here. Real quick and Michael you may want to wait to raise your concerns
until I finish here. Item 2. Tree r~noval plan. I would like to add in there,
approved by the DNR and City Staff.
Councilman Johnson: Or forester?
Councilman Boyt: Yes. IlaR forester. I'd also like to add that all trees to be
saved are to be staked off before the ground is disturbed. So once we decide,
when you've got your tree removal plan and we stake off the trees that are to be
saved, in that way maybe there's a chance that they'll survive.
Rick Sathre: This is when you get to the building permit stage you're talking
about?
Councilman Boyt: Item nt~ber 2 talks about~ right. Each lot prior to issuance
of the building permit. You raise a really good point though and I don't know
if this Gary r~cds to be a separate issue or if it's covered under standard
develol~nent contract language elsewhere but I would like assurance that the DNR
forester is reviewing the cutting plans of the development. Tnat's now standard
language or do we need to put that in here?
36
City Oouncil Meeting - Se~ 13~ 1989
Gary Warren: It's not specifically writte~ that the DNR forester ~ould review
that. That would be added or it's a staff, w~ nomally defer to them to get the
expertise. It's our adminstrative policy.
Councilman Boyt: It's become pretty standard to have the ENR forester, Alan
Olson is it, review these things.
G~ry Warren: Right.
Councilman Boyt: Does that ~ condition 29?
Councilman Johnson: It'd be 28. We've got 26 and 27 already.
Councilman Boyt: Alright. 28 then is the tree cutting plan for the
develoB~ent, however one would phrase that, would be reviewed by the DNR
forester and City staff. ~3ain, I think that's pretty standard. We're Just
bringing it up. I re~anber we had a big discussio~ about that the last
Trapper's Bass addition. Then last point. I would suggest Jay that one my to
protect a few of the trees is to use this idea of the conservati(x~ easement that
is already in place but to use it in the back yards of the lots on top of that
hill. Not the whole back yards but if we could use 15 feet on either side of
the property. The property line between Lots 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6 and 1 and their
back door neighbors. Now on 8 that's not appropriate because they have it looks
like two front lots. That's an interesting situation.
Councilman Johnson: So's 7.
Councilman Boyt: That's another thing we normally don't approve but I'd like to
see except for the portions of Lot 8 and Lot 7 that border on the road, it would
~ to me that a conservation easement, I doubt they're going to cut those
trees anti,ay but a conservation easement would just give the City sc~e way of
assuring that the top of the hill stayed wooded. I would think that would be a
selling point in ~uour development actually. So those are my concerns. What are
your reactions to those?
Michael Pfla~n: I guess I was jotting notes and I didn't get exactly where the
conservation easenent would be drawn. Was it along the rear lot line?
Councilman Boyt: Yes. The thought being that is they each gave 15 feet, that
would create the sa~e 30 feet we're doing do~n that other strip. I don't think
it's much of a sacrifice if any.
Michael Pflaum: I think we can work that out.
Councilman Boyt: I think we've got a good development.
started it out.
I know as b'rsual
Michael Pfla~n: May I make two s~all cc~ments?
Councilman Johnson: Where is the access for Lots 7 and 8?
Rick Sathre: From the cul-de-sac.
37
City Oouncil Meeting - September 13, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Is there anyway to assure that?
Councilman Boyt: I'm sure it would be.
Jo Ann Olsen: There's a retaining wall going along.
Rick Sathre: Tnis is a typical mountain develounent see. W~ have a high side
an~ a low side. We're going to access frcm the high side.
Councilman Johnson: ~nat's right. ~nat's got the double retaining wall at that
point doesn't it?
Rick Sathre: Yes. It' s pretty safe.
Michael Pflaum: The first point is this. I believe I made it last night at
12:30 and it was so late that I hardly r~ember it myself. The 4 1/2 acre
figure for park dedication came frc~n misinformation at the park cc~nission
level. The park commission was recc~m~ending 10% of the land. 10% of the land,
they believed to be 4.5 acres. It's a 39 acre site and it so happens, as
I pointed out last night, that Lots 8 and 9 and the trail outlots combined are
3.9 acres. That's my first point and I would request that rather than the
acreage, that specific allocation of land be, those specific lots and outlots be
taken. The other thing is there's been no discussion today, which may be good or
c~inous, of the trail. The sidewalk. Perhaps I should hold my tongue. I just
w~s going to say that the history of the sidewalk has been that there have been
no sidewalks. As recent as last year the City Council elected not to have
sidewalks in Trappez's Pass 3rd Addition which is an extension of the project
and as inappropriate as we felt it was to have sidewalks in Trapper's Pass 3rd
Addition, w~ feel it's much more inappropriate to have them up on top of the
hill. I guess I' 11 leave it with that unless Peter wants to say something more.
Councilman Workman: I guess my very quick cc~ments. I'm still not quite sure
where Council is leading with Iroquois. I think if we can get a tree ordinance
or tree protection in there, I think that's great. My concern is also with
sidewalks. As it sits now, we've got sidewalks, 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk?
Is that listed under 22?
Councilman Boyt: It's 20.
Councilman Johnson: 20 and 23.
Councilman Workman: I would suggest r~oval of the sidewalk as it doesn't fit.
It goes against my I think already known philosophy of large lots, expensive
hc~es, sidewalk leading to nowhere. I would suggest correcting n~nber 2. With
20 ending with in lieu of park dedication fees. Period.
Councilwoman Dimler: Rhank you.
Councilman Workman: Bill, I understand your concern about wanting sidewalks but
I don' t think you want townhouses.
Councilman Boyt: On, I ' 11 take them.
38
City Oouncil Meeting - Septenber 13~ 1989
Osuncilman Workman: That's great. If you want townhouses on bop of this hill~
that's fine.
Councilman Boyt: I didn't say I did. I said I'll take ths~ though.
Councilman Workman: You will take the~ over sidewalks?
Councilman Johnson: How wide's the street section?
C~_ry Warren: 31 back to back. 28 gutter to gutter.
Councilman Johnson: The one thing we should have done a while back was with
sidewalk, one street with. Without sidewalks, a wider section so there's more
roan for the people who then have bo walk in the streets.
Councilman Boyt: We tried that Jay...kids to get out there and mix it up with
the cars.
councilman Johnson: Yeah. It still is. T~e one thing on sidewalks here,
within the mature tree area, which is Block 1, Block 5, Block 2, most of Block
2, and Block 3 doesn't have some trees. Putting a sidewalk in there. To take
out the trees to put the sidewalk in is a problem. We spent a lot of time
tonight talking about protecting trees and then we start taking the~ out to put
a sidewalk through.
Councilman Workman: I guess I don't see ~here they're going to fit in there. I
don't know. I think Jay, you've added sc~e of the things. I don't know Jay
where you ~are c~ning from as far as the e~ergency exit. tn regards to the
e~ergency exit, is that an ~nergency exit for e~ergency vehicles coming in or
e~ergency exit for people trying to get out of the neighborhood?
Councilman Johnson: Mostly energency vehicles ccmirg in.
Councilman workman: Because if they're trying, where's the fire truck going to
come fr~n if a house is on fire on this hill? Downtown?
Jim (]~affee: Right. Downtown.
councilman workman: I don't know how they're going to get 'there any quicker
going any other way.
councilman Johnson: But what they're saying is if it's blocked, you r~
another wy in.
Mayor Chniel: That' s right.
Councilw~nan Dimler: Blocked by. what?
councilman Johnson: lhe only place I want to see, I'd like to see a trail
developed in Outlot B over bo tt~ park area. Ma~e from Trap Lane in Outlot A.
A going across so the people over t/~re can make their way to the park.
Then Outlot C of course the ~uergency access there becomes a trail. There will
be people ~nting to go to that park from the other parts of Trapper's Bass.
39
City Council Meeting - September 13, 1989
Councilman Workman: Basically as entrances and exits, blocking entrances and
exits?
Councilman Johnson: Right.
Councilman Workman: I don't have a problem with that. Are you talking about
wood chip or scmething?
Councilman Johnson: I 'm not designing it.
Councilman Workman: You already designed the lot and a couple of houses
tonight. I 'm kidding.
Councilman Johnson: I don't like wood chip. Especially in Lot 8 because the
woodchips are all going to be down on the cul-de-sac on Trap Line. The city
crews will be pickin L~ ~oodchips everyday at Trap Line every time it rains.
Councilman Workman: I think Jay, to add into number 2, I could go with a trail.
I think that's natural. It's like up by the water tower on Murray Hill. It's
going to be an area that you want to get through anyway. But I would propose no
sidewalks on Trapper's Pass.
Councilman Johnson: I have to in this case, because of grade and tree cover on
the places they're proposing it, it's going to be difficult to put it. Lot 1,
Block 2. ~nat thing is steep. Right at the edge of the street, it's dropping.
I think it's dropping down. It'd be tough to put, it's going to be tough to put
a house in there no less a trail. Sidewalk. It's not impossible but I'm not
totally sure if it's going to cause more damage than is necessary. In that case
I'm, I hate to say this but I'm not in favor of the trail in this neighborhood.
Especially since we already lose the trails next door.
Councilwc~an Dimler: You mean sidewalks?
Councilman Johnson: Yes, sidewalks. Trails. I use th~n interchangeably within
this type of neighborhood. I want the trails in the outlots to connect in. I'm
not too wild about the sidewalks through the forest. If this is open cornfield,
I'd be arguing very strongly to put the sidewalk from the trail in Outlot A to
the trail in 0~ltlot B to get to the park. Okay? Because I don't see providing
a safe trail, put somebody out on a residential street. If we're leading
scmeJx~y to a park, I'd like to see a sidewalk but in this particular case, the
topography of the area and the trees in the area, it'd be difficult to put the
sidewalks in. I would like to see the streets slightly wider but I don't think
that's going to work either.
Councilman Workman: I have no more comments.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to respond to Jay's concern if I might. As we
pointed out several times here, this road is kind of an interesting situation.
Partially because we' re talking about rock walls. Sc~e double rock walls.
We're talking about heavy trees and we're talking about bad sight lines. We're
talking about 37 homes that are going to access through (~tlot B to a park so
there's a draw. There are going to be kids on that street. We just heaEd the
guy from Iroquois talk about all little kids in his neighborhood. Now I'm not
proposing that they're going to go up the mountian in order to get to the park.
40
City Oouncil Meeting - Sept~ 13~ 1989
~hat I ~ proposin~ is that this develoim~nt is not going to be any different~
They're going to have their little kids and what w~'re sa,ring when w~ don't put
a sidewalk in there is that we believe it's alright to put those kids on the
street. So that's ~hy I'll vote against this. I supported trails in the
earlier addition and it lost. I guess it can lose here but this is the time to
build those trails. It certainly isn't the time to go back and try to build
~ after the houses are built. But before people buy those lots, they have a
choice of which side of the street they want to be on. It's one of the nice
things about the wy we're laying out sidewalks is they're on one side of the
street o
Councilman Johnson: But ~hat about from 0utlot C to 0utlot B? ~here the
topography isn't there and the trees aren't there. It's only a s~mll section of
trees. Gc~promise.
Councilman Johnson: Put a sidewalk in Block 3. Lots 1 thru 10.
Councilman Boyt: I think that looks a little bizarre. If we put the~ around
the mountain and we're sa.ring to all those people, you've got a safe place to
stroll your kids. I can assure you that what's goirg to happen is that these
people are going to come in here sometime in the next couple .~ars and they're
goirg to say, we want you to control the spccds of people going around our loop.
We've got the sports car nuts up there and they're driving around. We ~ant you
to stop that and part of their argunent's going to be our kids are driving or
riding their bicycles and ~lking on that street. If we have a chance to put a
sidewalk in before houses are built, I think we ought to take it and that's why
if you can't agree to that, then okay. It looks like you've got the four votes
to pass it.
Councilman Johnson: Gary, do you think it's engineering wise feasible to put
sidewalk from Outlot A over to Outlot B through Block 2?
Jo Ann Olsen: Along Block 2?
Councilman Johnson: It's hard to tell just looking at it.
Gary Warren: It's hard to tell just frcm a map I guess.
Councilman Boyt: You can put it right in the road right-of-way Jay.
Councilman Johnson: It would be in the road right-of-way but they're not
necessarily going to clear cut the road right-of-way. This is a heavily treed
area. Are they required to clear cut the road right-of-way?
Gary Warren: Not necessarily. It's pretty hard not to. Depending on soils.
councilman Workman: I move approval with all the c~es that we've made.
Mayor Chniel: We already have a motion on the floor.
councilman Johnson: We made a whole lot of changes to it. You ~ to modify
you~ motion technically to include all the additions.
41
City (buncil Meeting - September 13~ 1989
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I will modify that motion then to include all of the
conditions that have been discussed and consensus has been gotten on.
Mayor Chmiel: And I will modify my secor~.
Councilw~man Dimler moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve the am~t to PUD
~79-3 to replace 114 cond~nini~ units with 45 single family lots on Outlot D as
shown on the preliminary plat dated "July 14, 1989" and subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant provide a plan showing the exact location of the Class A
wetlands adjacent to Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2 and adjacent to Silver Lake
and that the final plat would provide a drainage easement over the protected
wetlands.
2. A tree removal plan approved by the DNR Forester and city staff will be
required for each lot in the subdivision prior to issuance of a building
permit. Taere shall be no clearcutting permitted for any lot except for the
placement of the house pad and utilities. Clear cutting is defined as
removal of any vegetation with a 4" caliper or more at four feet in height.
3. A conservation easement will be provided at the 945 contour along Lots 1
through 7, Block 2 and the 910 contour on Lots 8 and 9, Block 2. The area
below the 945 and 910 contour, including the wetland and shoreland, will not
be permitted to be altered.
4. Lots 3 through 9, Block 2 which have lakeshore on Silver Lake will not be
permitted to have docks accessing Silver Lake without receiving a wetland
alteration permit.
5. Development of this site shall not take place until roadway and utility
improvements have been ccmpleted on Outlot A.
6. The applicant shall obtain and cc~ply with all conditions of the Watershed
District peunit.
7. Detailed construction plans and specifications including calculations for
sizing utility improvements shall be sut~nitted for approval by the City
Engineer. As-built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of the
construction.
8. Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all public facilities.
9. Wood-fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stabilize slopes
greater than 3:1.
10. All street utility improvements shall conform to the City's standards for
urban construction.
11. The applicant shall submit for approval details for the construction of the
retaining walls with the plans and specifications.
12. The City's standard detail for the installation of the Type III erosion
control shall be placed on the grading plan and utilized.
42
City Oouncil Meeting - Septenber 13~ 1989
13. All appropriate drainage and utility easements along the side, front and
rear of the lots in addition to all appropriate drainage and utility
easements for pondirg sites and storm sewer facilities shall be shown on the
final plat.
14. The plans and specifications shall show a second street access through
Outlot C to Iroquois as e~ergency access only.
15. Additional spot elevations and necessary, contours shall be provided with
the plans and specifications for proper surface drainage around proposed
buildings and drive~ay location.
16. The applicant shall enter into a develoIxment contract with the City to
provide the City. with the necessary, financial sureties to guarantee the
proper installation of the Lmprove~ents.
17. A hydraulic study is required to evaluate ard address water pressure
18. A soils report ~s to be included for analysis of proposed construction.
19. The developer shall suhnit a plan set ccmplyirg to City. standards for
cc~aparison of hardship before a variance could be granted.
28. The developer dedicate 4.5 acres for park purposes including Lots 8 and 9,
Block 2 in lieu of park dedication fees.
21. Provide a conservation easement over the 38 foot section of the rear lot of
all lots in Block 3.
22. Work with the City to properly finish off the end of the Iroquois including
a turn around.
23. Direct staff to review the possibility of integration of trails into an
overall trail plan if possible.
24. Determine ~hether the trail on Outlot B will be as far r~aoved from the
existing residences as possible so as not to be intrusive with their back
yard.
25. The developer shall work with staf to develop mane assurance through the use
of convenants or whatever, who is responsible to maintain the retaining
walls.
26. Ail lots shall conform with any future tree protection ordinances.
27. 'The applicant shall redefine the triargular lot.
28. All trees to be saved shall be staked off prior to issuance of building
permits and approved by the DNR Forester and city staff.
43
..
City Council Meeting - September 13, 1989
Mayor Chmiel, Councilwcman Dimler and Councilman Workman voted in favor.
Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted in opposition and the motion failed
with a vote of 3 to 2.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to talk on the trails a little more, or the
sidewalk.
Mayor Chniel: Go ahead.
Councilman Johnson: In looking at it with the rock w~lls on Block 1, Lots 2 and
3, at that point, it's not feasible at all to put a sidewalk in uhless it's in
the right-of-way in front of the block road. Yeah, I guess it is feasible then.
I think it's feasible.
Councilman Boyt: I think we're pretty used to putting them into the
right-of-way.
Councilman Johnson: It would have to be in the right-of-way. You can't put it
in the yard.
Councilman Boyt: Either the street right-of-way. We've typically done that.
If they need to move along Block 2. If they need to move a little bit more
towards the top of the mountain where there's less geography to deal with, then
now is the time for them to be thinking about that. I'm just saying frcm the
concept standpoint, Jay, that we're doing these people a favor safety wise.
Councilman Johnson: Bill? Let's look at, is Block 1. I can see sidewalks from
the two outlots over. In other words, do Block 2 and Block 3 but leave off
Block 1 and Block 4 from sidewalks because that's just three houses there.
Co~ncilman Boyt: Leave what off?
Councilman Johnson: Block 1 and 4. So it's about two-thirds of it has
sidewalks which go from trails to a park. What you don't have is a sidewalk.
You don't have one along Trapper's Pass once it gets out of this neighborhood so
it doesn't make sense to me to start one, just start it in the middle of
nowhere.
Councilman Boyt: Well let's finish the whole loop. It doesn't have to go down
the hill but let's move it around.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, just loop it around but not the Trapper's Pass?
Councilman Boyt: Yep.
Councilman Johnson: Eliminate it from going up.
Councilman Workman: What we've got is we've got now a race track around one
portion of an 8 Addition neighborhood. We're basing a sidewalk on safety.
We've got 108,000 square foot lot and we've got to guarantee them 5 feet of
concrete in the front of their yard for safety? I think it was just this past
sumner in Madison, Wisconsin four girls got killed walking on a sidewalk. We're
not going to guarantee anybody any safety on a sidewalk.
44
City Council Meeting h September 13~ 1989
Councilman Johnson: We're not trying to give anybody a 100% guarantee]
Co,~cilman Workman: I hope not.
Councilman Johnson: But are ,you going to say you're just as safe with a baby
stroller on a city street as you are on a sidewalk?
Councilman Workman: If it's 3 feet off the road. My neighborhood doesn't have
any sidewalks in it and people are playing on the streets and driveways and
that's where I grew up. Not that that means I have to give that to these
people but these people are spending, how much do you figure per lot and house
average on this hill?
Peter Pfla~n: Probably $4"00,000.00 or $500, ~00.00.
Councilman Workman: Boy, these are some pretty silly people up here. You know.
I don't know... I don't think this density is conducive to traffic. This
sidewalk issue, I'm wondering when we're going to talk about this sidewalk issue
because it keeps omning up and now it's holding up something. I think it's a
small part of it. Holding up a rather large deal here. I just don't see where
we' re going to, I would be very disappointed if my, 54,~00 square foot lot had
this sidewalk in front of it.
Councilman Johnson: So you're saying a more dense neighborhood that has a more
logical connection to a park, you my be more willing to go rowans a sidewalk
but in such a...
Councilman Workman: Well Jay, it's like Curry Farms. Those people, all except
one resident, and those aren't in the caliber of this, they aren't interested in
that sidewalk.
Councilman Johnson: But they bought houses with the sidewalk planned in front
of their house.
Councilman Workman: And now they don't ~mnt it. So the proof is kind of in the
putting.
Mayor Ch~iel: It's a suit.
Councilwuman Dimler: That's what they said last night.
Councilman Johnson: Wix) are they, suing?
Mayor (2~iel: The developer.
Councilman Workman: I'm just saying, I think that it's a s~all issue that's
made big. And why, these people now have to be ~ they, ~ a sidewalk while
all these other idiots to the east failed.
Councilman Johnson: So ccmparing this to Curry Fanms, which would you put a
sidewalk in?
Councilman Workman: N~ither. I'd rather mow my front yard and put sc~e bushes
45
City Council M~eting - September 13, 1989
up and some trees and keep the traffic off the front of my yard as a through
way.
Mayor Chniel: If it ~ere a major roadway creating a lot of traffic, then I'd
say yes, we need it.
Councilman Workman: In talking with the Finger's down on TH 101. ~ney're
frustrated as all get out. People are talking about putting 5 foot concrete
sidewalks on cul-de-sacs and they don' t have a place to go down TH 101. We
still haven' t addressed that.
Councilman Workman: Yeah sure but what you did was you drew everybody else in
frown areas like this that had no interest in it so they're going to say no.
Sure. So TH 101 was part of the package. They'll cut off their nose to save
their face you know so I think it would look, I just don't see where a sidewalk
going around in a circle around right here for these expensive homes is going to
do a whole lot. I think this is a beautiful area and there's a lot of beautiful
trees. I don't see where the sidewalk fits into the plan. Sure, I think you
can maybe have a little bit more safety but I think for the aesthetics of it,
the cost of it, it just to me, it just doesn't add up and I don't know, has it
been measured? I don't know. This is not a Pontiac Circle.
Councilman Johnson: Let's recall the question.
Councilman Boyt: But may I respond to what 3 people have talked about here?
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to call the question Bill. I think w~'ve had enough
discussion back and forth and it's time to call it again. I recall the
question.
Councilman Boyt: Well it's your decision.
Mayor Chniel: We have a motion on the floor with the acceptance of all the
additional conditions that Jay has put into it and Tc~ and everyone elses.
Jo Ann Olsen: If you're approving it, number 14 is saying that there will be a
second street. I don't know if you...
Councilw~nan Dimler: I did address that.
Councilman Johnson: She did mention number 14 but she said that it'd be
energency access only. There has to be s~ne more design work on it to figure
out exactly what it's going to be as ~nergency.
Gary Warren: Plans and specs will be one of the steps here.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve the amendment to PUD
#79-3 to replace 114 condcminitm~ units with 45 single family lots on Outlot D as
shown on the preliminary plat dated "July 14, 1989" and subject to the following
conditions:
46
City Oouncil Meeting ' September 131 1989
1. The applicant pzovide a plan showing the exact location of the class A
wetlands adjacent to Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2 and adjacent to Silver Lake
and that the final plat would provide a drainage easenent over the protected
wetlands.
2. A tree r~oval plan approved by. the DNR Forester and city staff will be
required for each lot in the subdivisio~ prior to issuance of a buildirg
permit. There shall be rD clearcutting peunitted for any lot except for the
placenent of the house pad and utilities. Clear cuttirg is defined as
r~moval of any vegetation with a 4" caliper or more at four feet in height.
3. A conservation eamament will be provided at the 945 contour alorg Lots 1
through 7, Block 2 and the 910 contour on Lots 8 and 9, Block 2. The area
below the 945 and 910 contour, including the wetlard and shoreland, will not
be permitted to be altered.
4. Lots 3 through 9, Block 2 which have lakeshore on Silver Lake will not be
permitted to have docks accessing Silver Lake without receiving' a wetland
alteration permit.
5. DeveloIm~ent of this site shall not take place until roadway and utility
improvem~_nts have ~ completed on Outlot A.
6. The applicant shall obtain and c~aply with all conditions of the Watershed
District permit.
7. Detailed construction plans and specifications including calculations for
sizing utility, improve~=_nts shall be sukmitted for approval by the City
Engineer. As-built mylar plans will also be required upon omupletion of the
construction.
8. Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all public facilities.
9. Wood-fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stabilize slopes
greater than 3:1.
10. All street utility improveuents shall confozm to the City's standards for
urban construction.
11. The applicant shall submit for approval details for the construction of the
retaining walls with the plans and specifications.
12. The City's standard detail for the installation of the Type III erosion
control shall be placed on the grading plan ard utilized.
13. All appropriate drainage and utility easements along the side, front and
rear of the lots in addition to all appropriate drainage and utility
eas~ma~ts for ponding sites and stomn sewer facilities shall be shown on the
final plat.
14. The plans and specifications shall show a second street access through
Outlot C to Iroquois as emergency access only.
15. Additional spot elevations and necessary contours shall be provided with
47
City Council M~eting ' September 131 1989
the plans and specifications for proper surface drainage around proposed
buildings and drive~ay location.
16. The applicant shall enter into a develo~ent contract with the City to
provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the
proper installation of the improvements.
17. A hydraulic study is required to evaluate and address water pressure
concerns.
18. A soils report needs to be included for analysis of proposed construction.
19. The developer shall sut~nit a plan set complying to City standards for
comparison of hardship before a variance could be granted.
20. The developer dedicate 4.5 acres for park purposes including Lots 8 and 9,
Block 2 in lieu of park dedication fees.
21. Provide a conservation easement over the 30 foot section of the rear lot of
all lots in Block 3.
22. Work with the City to properly finish off the end of t_he Iroquois including
a turn around.
23. Direct staff to review the possibility of integration of trails into an
overall trail plan if possible.
24. Determine whether the trail on (lltlot B will be as far r~noved from the
existing residences as possible so as not to be intrusive with their back
yard.
25. ~he developer shall work with staf to develop some assurance through the ~me
of convenants or whatever, who is responsible to maintain the retaining
~lls.
26. Ail lots shall conform with any future tree protection ordinances.
27. The applicant shall redefine the triangular lot.
28. All trees to be saved shall be staked off prior to issuance of building
permits and approved by the DNR Forester and city staff.
All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and the motion carried
with a vote of 4 to 1.
Councilman Boyt: In the future in a debate that it should certainly be possible
to respond when 3 councilmembers raise a point and objection. Any one of us
should be able to counter that.
Mayor Chmiel: Bill, we've been talking about it all night. Back and forth and
it still didn't go.
48
City Oouncil Meeting - Septenber 13~ 1989
ACCEPT PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL: KERBER BOULEVARD IMPROV]D4~%~ PROJfL"T NO~
87-9.
Gary Warren: ~nis ite~ is on the agenda more for infozmation purposes for the
Council bo become familiar with tt~ assess~aent rolls. Both 15 A, B and C are
that nature. The formal public P~aring and opportunity to adopt the roll is
already scheduled for September 25th mccting. Specifically on t/~ Kerber Blvd.,
item 15A, Improvement Project No. 87-9, the City project has been completed and
the costs have come in favorably compared bo what we had estimated in the
feasibility study. We therefore have been able bo hold the front foot
assessment rate, which was proposed and thoroughly discussed as a part of the
feasibility study, such that I guess in layman's terms there's no surprises here
bo the abutting property owners. The preliminary, assessment roll has ~
prepared on a front foot basis at $24.04 per front foot and within that roll,
without going through it too extensively, the people who haven't paid. Sc~e of
the developers such as Enterprise Properties in Chan Vista have ~ paying
their rolls as they sell lots so the remaining parties obligated bo pay have
been notified and the roll has been prepared accordingly. So if there's any
questions on the rolls, I'd be happy bo answer the~. Otherwise, there's rD
action necessary at this time.
Mayor Chniel: I believe there's s(x~one here that would like bo address
s(xaething here this evening.
Gary Warren: He would be on the Minne~shta.
~yor C2m%iel: On its~ B? Okay, any questions on 15 A?
Councilman Johnson: Enterprise Property. has been paving them before we even did
it?
Gary Warren: The development contract, because Enterprise Property. ~as a total
owner of the Chan Vista 2nd, 3rd and 4th additions, and bo avoid having bo
involve all of those properties once we got around bo assessing this and bring
the whole development in here bo discuss it, the development contract called for
then bo pay as they go. The rate ~s spread fr~ the front footage into all of
those lots so they pay on each lot as they sell the lot and it's worked our
quite well.
Mayor C2~iel: We'll have a public hearing on this September 25th.
Gary. Warren: That' s correct.
B. MINNEW~SHTA ME~IX~S IMPR~ P1KXJI~T NO. 88-2.
C~_ry Warren: Minnewashta Meadows Improvement Project No 88-2 is a private
developer, Mr. Carlson, who is here this evening. Petitioned the City bo
install this as a public improvament project. ~nis has ~ done. There was
s~me delay due to the inability to get the security in place initially and
Council may re~anber that we had bo reject the bids and then readvertise. The
project is very near cc~oletion at this time and the dollars in the project, the
total costs have ~ calculated here. The unit assessment, this is based on a
49
City Co,~cil ~=eting - September 13~ 1989
per lot unit asses~nent. Proposed is $12,427.45 per lot. Again, as per the
develolm~_nt contract, it's the obligation of the developer to pay these
assessments and I guess I don't know if Gary wants to speak on the matter. If
not, it' s pretty straight forward.
Gary Carlson: Just a few quick ~ts. I've driven the extra mile both
Monday night and Wednesday night and I could have sent you home maybe that late
Monday night in better feelings. I just wanted to thank the City planning
department and the city engineering and the contractors. I know you were
some~t involved in passing a few of the things. It was mostly done on last
year's Council but the project is, as Gary said, is just about complete. It's
met all of the neighbors and all of my expectations and we're all very happy
with it. Especially Gary Warren's astute manner and professional experience
that he used when he first came with the City in getting MWCC, when they tore up
Church Road, he was able to obtain a fully upgraded road at no charge to anyone
all along Church Road and I don't think you can say enough thank you for that.
That's a very expensive improv~nent that was gotten for the City's benefit up in
that area at no cost to the City. So I really wish to thank the entire City.
Mayor Chniel: Thank you very much. In fact we' 11 have you c(m~ back at another
council meeting and give us some more of that good. We appreciate it.
Councilman Johnson: Gee we get a thanks and there's no reporters here.
C. BLUFF CREEK DRIVE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 80-5.
Gary Warren: 15 C is the Bluff Creek Drive Improvement Project 80-5. The
assessment roll for 80-5 is prepared on a unit basis. Again, project roll has
been prepared. We had scme changes in the project which Cbuncil may recall
here. The necessity for a retaining wall added sc~e cost. We updated our
cc~Eunications to the residents as we received this updated or increased costs
and had resolved the latest communication to the residents was that we were
looking at a $2,400.00 approximately per unit asses~nent rate. Fortunately the
costs have come in under that so we are looking at a $2,280.00 per unit
assesanent so we came in about $160.00 underneath o~r latest forecast to th~n.
I believe the project has gone well. Many people are happy about it and I guess
we'll see the true feelings here at the public hearing but I don't see any
surprises here either.
Mayor Chniel: Okay. Any questions? If not, there's no action that's really
rec~lired. That public hearing will be held on September 25th.
~ITY SURVEY, COUNCI~ BOYT.
councilman Boyt: Well I think it's pretty self explanatory but I'll.add a
couple points and I'd look for your input. This is, as I mentioned in that
cover note, a chance for us to go out to the community as a group and I think
gather some information that we then, in a second stage, could come back and
hold S(mle neighborhood meetings. I think virt~ally everybody campaigned at one
time or another at the idea of improving cxxanunications. This is one way to do
it.
50
City Council M~eting - Se~r 131 1989
Mayor C2~iel: Anythirg else?
Councilman Boyt: I'd be interested in ~ur feedback.
Mayor Ch~iel: Okay. Any discussion?
Councilman Workman: Bill you know I'd show up with my little red textbook for 4
~tirgs and now I don't have it. I had it only merely for reference in that I
had basically, and I mentioned this during the ~ckankar shenanigans, that I had
basically a s~minar class on public opinion. That's basically what the book
eludes to. I like the idea and I w~lcome an opportunity to find out more about
what people are thinkirg because usually you hear either one e~d of the extreme.
Unfort~tnately I don't think us going door to door is the ~ay to do it and
that's kind of what I basically brought that newspape~ article from Brooklyn
Park. Brooklyn Park basically hired a consulting fizm or a survey fi~m to do a
survey. The City of Chaska does surveys every once in a while. I talked to
Dave M~2Drney about it. I said what ~uld a good survey cost? He said you
could probably do and get a good survey for about four grand. He told me to
research for somebody and Brooklyn Park used ~y else. Somebody different.
The problem with goin~ door to door is I w~uld probably invoke a different
response than you w~uld depending on ~ho it is. If you really t~uly ~ant it to
be scientific and to really get the responses that are worth while, all printed
material says that that's not the way to do it. So I don't shoot down the idea
because the c~munity survey idea is s~methirg a lot of surveys do. Another
city person said isn't it interesting how you always, when .~x)u have these
surveys you always fird out how great 2x)ur cities doirg. I don't know if people
are lying or something but if you're looking at it scientifically and whether or
not we're maybe spinning our w~_~ls or spending time maybe where we shouldn't be
or spending money that we shouldn't be going door to door, us councils
wouldn't be the way to do it. It would have to be a phone survey, with
scientifically proven questions. In other w~rds, so they're not leading you
know and again, I don't say that that's what's in here. It's an inefficient and
a poor way to gather the infozmation, t~mfortur~tely. I think it's good for us
to go out and meet the neighbors but for us to get a survey. I 'm goirg to ccme
in with a batch of answers that if I w~nt to a 1~0 hcmes and you went to the
same 100 h~mes, we'd get different responses and that's been scientifically
proven because they like guys with lighter colored hair. I don't know. There's
too many variables and that's what they say. They say and there's experts down
at the U of M that we can contact but I think if we're serious about doing a
c(~munity survey, we ~ to budget or look at that as going with an outside.
Oouncilw~man Dimler: I guess I have a few c0axm~ts I'd like to make. It's
really interesting that I had a phone call from David Paterson, the editor of
the Chanhassen Villager today. I don't know who prompted him to call me but
anyway, he was very curious how I arrived at my results that most of the
citizens of Chanhassen did not want the noise ordinance. I explained my
procedure to him which is essentially a telephone tree. If you r~member that I
had a citizen's alert committee established when I was running and I do have
certain contact people in all areas of the city of Chanhassen. I merely call
the one individual and they check with 5 to 10 of their neighbors. They get
their response back to that individual and that individual gets the response
back to me. I feel that way that I have probably gotten more input than most
people if you're just walking down the street and you begin to chat about a
certain issue. Maybe if you get 10 people's response on any one issue, you
51
City Council ~=eting - September 13~ 1989
think arid 8 of them lean one way and t~D the other, you tend to go with
probability and that's how most of us make our gut level responses I guess.
David informed me that that was a very unscientific way to have a survey.
Councilman Johnson: That didn't surprise you. You've always said it's
unscientific.
Councilw(x~an Dimler: Yes it is but I also think that it is a good way to get a
feeling.
Councilman Johnson: Better than nothing.
Councilw~nan Dimler: That's right and I explained to him that there is no way
that I can go to the expense or the time to go and do a scientific survey each
time I want to get a feeling fo how the residents are feeling. So I g[~ss to go
along with Tcm t_hat this is a very unscientific and it is a good way however to
get out and meet the neighbors, but also you will get a different response
because, each one of us has a different personality and we' re going to pose the
c~stlon just slightly differently. And they will respond to us what they think
we want to hear because of the way we posed the question and therefore I don't
think that we can ccme up with any kind of consensus on the survey. Although
it's a wonderful way to get out and meet the neighbors and to let them know that
we're working together.
Councilman Johnson: It's a comnunication device more than a scientific survey.
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't think we could use the data though to make any
decisions.
Councilman Johnson: Tne data would have to be extremely overwhelming in any
direction because the spread of the uncertainity would be so large. If you had
90% c(Ee back with such and such a response, you could say that was significant.
If you had a 60-40 split on something, you'd have a hard time saying it was
terribly significant. If you got any closer on that, 55-45 or whatever, it'd
even be worst but it is a tremendous way to show. When Bill and I started doing
the campaigning that we did which was kind of the first of the real neighborhood
walking and then you all were all involved in real neighborhood walk. We had a
lot of, I had several people say, gee you're the first person to ever come to
the door. S(Eething like this would create more trust. I think it's a good
thing to do. Like I say, the scientific nature of it, it's as scientific as
what you did and maybe slightly more but I'm willing to do it with my spare
time. And Bill knows what I'm doing between now and October 14th with the 3
different soccer leagues I'm involved with right now. ~lt I'll interview a lot
of soccer parents.
Councilman Workman: How young do you have to be for soccer?
Councilman Johnson: First grade.
Councilw~nan Dimler: The other point I had was, w~re these the only questions
that were going to be on it Bill or are you open to other questions?
Councilman Boyt: I am looking for in~lt.
52
City Council Meeting - Se~ 13, 1989
Mayor Ch~iel: I really agree with what's ~_n said heze. As far as I think
surveys are good to a certain point. If one individual's going out to just
improve his own segment for himself but take a consensus of the whole thirg, it
depends ~on how it's phrased. F~w it's put together and get different answers
and I fully agree with that because I've seen how the survey is done and I guess
that' s about all I ' ve got to say.
Councilman Johnson: Now could this survey be done to ~here you stop in. You
talk to tt~ folks. Say hey, I'm your city council. I'm concerned. I want to
get some information from you. Here's a survey. At your leisure, could you
please fill it out and mail it into City, Hall.
Councilw~m~qn Dimler: They w~uldn' t do it.
Councilman Johnson: Well s~me w~uld, sc~e w~uldn't.
Councilw~m~n Dimler: Very few.
Mayor Ch~iel: You'd only get about a 20%-3~% return.
Councilman Johnson: But you'd get more than if you mailed it to ~. ~hey're
goirg to be impressed that their city. council person took the time to personally
~ to their door and hand them this survey. ~hey're much more likely to do it
and then you've taken some of the bias off of us tryirg to explain the questions
and sitting there over their shoulder answering the survey. ~hat re~ves some
of the bias.
Councilman Workman: All I'm saying is, if ~ want to cut to the cbm_me and save
ourselves s~me time and again, not that mcctirg the neighbors isn't good. If
you really ~mnt to c(x~prehensive survey to find out ~hat people are thinking,
and do it quickly and actually if you're paying $4,00~.00 it's probably the
cheapest because I can do other things, you know I'm w~rth about $5~.~0 an
hour. Really you could be doirg other things and I don't know. Maybe you can
certainly have the option to go out and m~ct your neighbors or pick a
neighborhood.
Councilman Johnson: Anyway.
Councilman Workman: Yes, absolutely. But then to ccme back and say, look.
These are the results and everybody wants a sidewalk policy.. Everybody. wants
sidewalks on every lot in every neighborhood in the City.
Councilman Johnson: We have just as much right as what Ursula has whe~ she
cc~es back and says everybody doesn't ~mnt this.
Councilman Workman: Absolutely. I'm just sayirg but then...
Councilwoman Dimler: M~st people.
Councilman Workman: I'm just sa,~lng that tt~ believeability and the usefulness
of that to the rest of the Council and to the City as a whole has ~ judged by
scholars past that it just doesn't add up. It doesn't w~rk in the computer and
it doesn't really show. You can't say from a door to door survey by. all of us,
give or take 3 points, this is accurate. You can't say that so that's ~hat I'm
53
City Council Meeting - September 13, 1989
saying. If we want to find out if people want a ccn~nunity center, and all the
rest of it, I think there's one of two ways to do it. We could spend $4,000.00
on an election or we could spend $4,000.00 on a survey. What's an election
cost?
Don Ashworth: Nine.
Councilman Boyt: Referendum?
Councilman Workman: Yeah. A referendum to find out. I don't think you guys
disagree with that point. It depends on what we really want to find out. I
don't think we' re going to be able to use the big pool of information that we
have. It's like the Eckankar thing. How scientific was that?
Councilman Johnson: Was what?
Councilman Workman: Was the Eckankar poll.
Councilman Johnson: Who did the poll?
Councilman Boyt: The City sent out the green cards.
Councilman Johnson: Not very.
Councilman Workman: It couldn't have been used in a court of law.
Councilman Johnson: I don't think Bill's intent here is a plus or minus 3 point
survey. We're not trying to elect a president.
Councilman Workman: No, no. But I'm saying if we really want it to be useful
data, rather than just personally useful. If we ~ant it useful for the City as
a whole, then we have to do what Brooklyn Park did. What Chaska does. They
keep polling, right before the ccmmunity center gro~nd breaking was, they found
out that 75% of the people in town really favor the community center but it was
done by a professional group.
Councilman Johnson: We did a similar thing for park needs. Park and Rec needs
a few years ago where the survey, it was a telephone survey and it was done by
volunteers but it was set up by professionals on how to set up a survey. Tne
questions were written by other people. Then the people just called and asked
the questions. The person who called me was very unbiased on how they asked the
questions. Even though I think they were on one of the co~nittees or something
but they just read the question exactly as it was. Did not enumerate at all
until I tried to catch them a few times.
Councilman Workman: I would suggest that we have a lot of questions in the City
at the rate we' re flying here. If we really want to find out some, get the
barometer reading on what they think about all these various problems and items,
that we go ahead and give it to the professionals to do it. Every time you try
to pinch on something like that, it's another doubt about the authenticity of
the poll I think. Anyway. I ccme from the textbook version of all this and
that's maybe a little unforgiving.
54
City Council Meeting i Se~ 13~ 1989
Councilman Johnson: Bill, when you did your survey of the 20 househ01ds~ how
did you, did you ask them would you please fill this out? Did you do questions
and answers with than and you fill it out or what? How you'd do that that you
got a 60% response for, which is a darn good response.
Councilman Boyt: I w~nt up to ~. I introduced myself. I told ~ I was
interested in finding out what their opinion ~s on several issues and left it
Councilman Johnson: And they mailed it back?
Councilman Boyt: Then they mailed it back. With their stamp.
Councilman Johnson: With their stamp. Now that method of doing it does have
some scientific validity to it. A lot more.
Councilman Bo,vt: I think the advantage of this, the reason I brought this to
the Council as a whole was because I knew all of us were interested in improved
communications. I can't think of anything that we've done in 9 months together.
Councilman Johnson: To improve ccamunications?
Councilman Boyt: Well, no. I can't think of anything w~'ve done in 9 months
together.
Mayor Chniel: There was though Bill. Several. You bet.
Councilman Johnson: There's a couple 5-M votes.
Councilman Boyt: What we've got here is not, I wouldn't claim that these
results are scientific and ~hen I got the results back in regard to, I don't
know the park or whatever, I didn't make that claim. I think what we'd have
though is, if wa did this by neighborhood, then w~ could go back into a Near
Mountain and we could say, well here are your results. Tell us some more about
it. It's kind of like a focus group on a neighborhood level. Now maybe the
right way to do this is Tom's approach. Mail out the survey. I think we lose a
little.
Councilman Boyt: Well I was involved in the Park and Rec survey by phone and
it's convenient. It was fairly handy. What we lose in this, whether it's mail
or phone or whatever, is we don't make contact with those people. One of the
reactions I got last fall was the only time I see you people is ~ you're
asking for my vote.
Councilw~aan Dimler: That's not true with me.
Councilman Boyt: I think what we lose in scientific validity, wa gain in a
neighborhood focus group effort. ~hat's why I brought it to the Council. I can
certainly do this as an individual. I mean it se~ed to me that it would be
scmething good for all of us to do.
55
City Council Meeting - September 13~ 1989
Councilwoman Dimler: Well I agree with you there Bill. I think to go out and
have that contact is very, very important. I do that on a regular basis when
any iss~ comes up in that neighborhood that I know that they're concerned
about. But I don't want to see us cc~ing back here then and trying to use those
results as a scientific approach to base our decisions on. If you want to go
gut level, then okay.
Councilman Johnson: But you based yours on your poll and it's a lot less
scientific.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well absolutely but I'm talking about really, really big
issues. Huge dollars. Then ~ need to do something that is more accurate.
Councilman Johnson: Tnis doesn't really address any big issue per se.
Councilwcman Dimler: I think the cce~uunity center's a big issue.
Councilman Johnson: ~ne community center's probably the only one.
Councilwcman Dimler: I think city parks and park equitzuent.
Councilman Johnson: ~nis is almost a score card. We're not asking specific
questions. We're kind of scoring you know.
Councilman Workman: Who gets what neighborhood?
Councilman Johnson: No. Everybody would do the same neighborhood at the same
time.
Councilman Workman: we'd all go together?
Councilman Johnson: All 5 of us would go together. Hit a neighborhood on a
55~day afternoon or a Saturday afternoon. You go to one house, I go to one
house, Ursula goes to one house and we spread out throughout the neighborhood.
Councilman Workman: People will be bolting their windows shut.
Councilman Johnson: What religious group is this?
Councilman Boyt: ...spread these things out a little bit but we'd just focus on
a neighborhood. We'd go out there. I'm really not trying to push this thing.
I just ~ant you to understand the idea that I had in mind and see what you ~nt
to do.
Councilwoman Dimler: It's a very good idea however...
Mayor Cbmiel: I think the concept is good. The one thing that I looked at this
one specific question Bill. How many people are going to be really aware as to
traffic flow through downtown? How would they judge that?
Councilman Johnson: Especially Lake Minnewashta .
56
City Oouncil Meeting - Se~ 13, 1989
Councilman Boyt: That's why, if ~ were talkin~ Near M~untain or w~'re talkin~
out on the other side of Lake Mi~shta, re probably, if we get responses
on this, they're probably not going to be real significant. If when we hit the
old Chan neighborhood, we get responses on this, w~ll you've got to figure those
folks deal with this a lot. Their responses are probably, and since my thought
would be to use this to open up a neighborhood meeting with people, re really
not, I wouldn't envision cc~ing back here and saying, 99% of the people want all
tl~ dogs off the street or scmething. I don't know that it has that kind of
validity but I think it has the kind of thing that when we talk about it in
neighborhood, we can say Near Mountain seems to be real concerned about animal
control. It's not a lot different than what we do now to cc~e up with
information.
Mayor Chniel: I think this could even be expanded on through additional things.
Just as we discussed with, not too many issues ago, on sidewalks.
Councilman Boyt: Ch yeah. Aren't sidewalks in there scmewhere? Yes, sidewalks
in new developments. Should the City encourage these or not?
Councilman Johnson: ~here may be, instead of Just saying y~s, no, or don't
care. The don't care in the downtown develolmmant and sc~e of these other. No
opinion should be allowed you know. Poor to excellent or no opinion. ~
people in this town who've never seen downtown Chanhassen. Scme people in this
town don't know they live in Chanhassen.
Mayor Chniel: We had a fonmer council me~ber mbo put through Lake Ann Park and
just this past year is the first time he'd ever ~ in the park.
Councilwoman Dimler: The other thing is Bill, I would not be adverse to going
out on a Saturday. Going into a neighborhood. Knocking on the door and
introducing myself and saying, would you fill this out and mail it back. I can
do that maybe 2 Saturdays in the fall a~t that's it. I can't be doing that
every Saturday. We do have family and other concerns and I know people are
busy. I'm not the only one that's busy. Whe~ the results oaue in, who's going
to take the time to go through them and compute them? Is this supposed to be
city staff time?
Councilman Boyt: Well, that's a real good question. I don't particularly
think, it's not one of those things that'd be easy for city staff to do because
there's roan for c(mm~nts and my experience ~as that I got a fair mmg~er of
com~ts. The City staff could certainly do the n~nber e~d of it. A typical
neighborhood might have 2~0 hc~es. If we get 6~% response, we're talking about
12~. I'd be interested in reading all of ~ myself, from the cc~ments
standpont.
Councilw~mk3n Dimlex: You're talking about one neighborhood Bill. How many
neighborhoods are there.
Mayor Chniel: But w~'ve got an entire city that we should really address. Not
just specific neighborhoods.
Councilman Boyt: No, but w~ll we're not going to hit the mhole city at one time
I hope.
57
City Council Meeting - September 13, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Over the next 2 years we might hit the whole city~
Councilwoman Dimler: How many homes do we have? 3,000?
Councilman Boyt: And if Ursula is saying, yeah, we do.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so that's 3,000 surveys conceiveably.
Councilman Johnson: More. The hL~band and the wife both want to have a survey.
They may have different opinions.
Councilman Boyt: To make this manageable I would think that it makes sense to
approach it one neighborhood at a time. If we have, and it seems to work out
that we have 2 weekends in t_he fall and maybe we have a couple w~ekends sometime
in the winter, and hope that everything works right w~ather wise.
Councilman Johnson: Now that's impressive if you go knock on scmebody's door in
the middle of a blizzard.
Councilwoman Dimler: Tney' re going to think you' re nuts.
Councilman Boyt: I don't know. It just seems to me like the goal is someplace
that we need to go. If you've got some ideas on how we can get there. I kind
of get the sense that people might want that goal.
Councilwc~an Dimler: I'm just concerned about, after ~'ve done it the results
of, who's going to take the time to really get a good accurate feel for what has
been done.
Councilman Johnson: Another way instead of door to door is to try to hit more
of the association meetings and things like this and hand them out at those.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that's a good idea.
Councilman Johnson: I've always had the idea of holding the council meetings at
various parts of the city. Our part of the city up in Lake Minnewashta believes
that they' re totally ignored all the time. One or two council meetings a year
have it at the Minnewashta fire station. Which probably nobody would show up
but I know a previous council tried that.
Mayor Chmiel: We have it centrally located and distances aren't that far for
people cc~ing from any parts of the city. And ~ welcome you there.
Oouncilman Johnson: But people up there are way up at Lake Minnewashta.
we'
Councilman Boyt: I think w~ might have a draw if we're saying to people, re
going to discuss the results of the survey we conducted in your neighborhood and
listen to your concerns in more detail. It's a guess. I think people would
turn out for that.
Councilw~nan Dimler: My. other concern is, have you calculated a cost for
getting, is the City supposed to print them up?
Councilman Boyt: Sure.
58
City Council Meeting i Se~ 13~ 1989
Councilwoman Dimler: Have ~vou calculated the cost?
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm real concezned about it looking like campaigning amd
at that point it has to come out of our canpaign funds rather than the city.
Gouncilman Boyt: You think the City's effort to find out ~at people want, the
Council's effort to find out, is campaigning?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah because if you're going to go into 1990, a canpaign
year.
Councilman Boyt: Well let's not do it. It's sure not ~orth it. I'll do it.
Councilw~nan Dimler: If you can get it done before Chris~ perhaps but once
you get into February, spring time of a campaign l~a__r, it can be looked upon as
campaigning.
Councilman Boyt: Well, I wanted your input. Appreciate it.
Councilman Johnson: Usually for city office, you don't start campaigning. It's
getting earlier now but July. You can start telling that it's an election ~
by things going on in the Council. Ms, bets w~axing their shoes the whole night.
Councilman Workman: I knocked on doors last fall and man, I can walk fast and
we're not going to, there's no way we're going to hit 3,000 doors. I don't know
how many we're going to get. I moved fast and I gave attention where people
cared to have attention without being verbosed and so, I don't know how much.
You can hardly make a dent. It gets tou~h. I'm just saying, let's maybe direct
our efforts towards really truly doing tl~ survey. I thought Bill maybe you'd
be more agreeable to a telephone survey or mmmething.
Councilman Boyt: I'm not disagreeable to that.
Councilman Workman: But maybe we can find another way to meet. I think meeting
with people at the association m~ctings, etc. or maybe, I don't know if moving
the meeting, that doesn't sound like such a bad idea. Have it on a pontoon in
Mi~shta s~netime next July or scmething. I don't know. I hate to say I
don't have the time but I went to a meeting Monday night, TUesday night.
There's a meeting tonight. Public safety tcm~rrow night. My, wife has kittens.
Councilman Johnson: C~ really. I thought you had a dog.
Councilman Workman: I don't know. Bill, I'm trying not to make it sour~ like
it's a bad idea. I'm trying to be constructive I hope and it's just going to be
really tough I think to maximize benefit frcm it.
Coumcil~0man Dimler: I think we've all said it's a good idea.
Councilman Workman: But it's so bulky..
Councilman Johnson: One of my. probl~as right now is my. schedule.
59
City Council M~eting - September 13, 1989
..
Mayor Chniel: Well I don't go to many meetings at all
Councilman Johnson: Maybe just leave it at strictly voluntary type thing.
However it can get organized and paid for.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Councilman Johnson: There was some discussion about also expanding it to ou~
co~mission members too if they wanted to participate in it. Not necessarily
just the council.
Mayor Chmiel: I brought that up.
Councilman Johnson: Yes. We could have Park and Bec cc~nission. Whatever
com~lissions wanted. It'd force multipliers.
Mayor Chmiel: Have each of those responsible areas address those questions.
Councilman Boyt: I'm not quite sure what that means.
Councilman Johnson: It's impressive to the citizens to see that a member of the
Planning Omnnission is concerned enough to come walking by. They've never met a
member of the Planning Omnnission. This group of people that are there making
decisions.
Councilman Boyt: ~nat would be fine. I haven't quite got the sense of what the
Council wants to do with this. On the one hand I hear, yes it's a good idea but
on the other hand I don't hear any direction from here as to where you're going
to go wi th it.
Councilman Johnson: Strictly individually volunteer.
Councilman Workman: My point is, yeah, that point plus we better research the
idea of paying for a survey. I said that three times.
Councilman Boyt: If the thought is, let's go out and have a professional survey
of the City, I'm certainly okay with that.
Councilman Workman: That what I think we can talk about in the budget.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Put that in our budget work session.
Councilman Boyt: There's no money for it. Okay.
ACCEPT PAT SWENSON'S RESIGNATION FROM THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
Mayor Chmiel: The next item is to accept Pat Swenson's resignation frcm the
Ho~ming and Redevelopment Authority.
Councilman Johnson: With extremely high regret.
60
City Oouncil Meeting ' Septenber 13~ 1989
Mayor Ch~i~: You bet. And I talked to Pat about it too. She is at the p6int
where she just ~nts to settle back and do ~ahat she has to do as far as a
grancl~othex ar~ a business w~nan.
Oouncilman Johnson: She deserves it.
Ma.uor C2miel: Yep. And I honestly and truthfully feel that the City is having
a great loss by Pat reuoving herself from it. I'd like to have some kind of
recognition given to Pat for this on behalf of the City. We thank her for all
her past perfozmances. Not only on the Oouncil but all the other oc~missions as
well.
Oouncilman Johnson: What about Oktoberfest?
Councilman Workman: Is this appropriate for a maple leaf award?
O~uncilman Boyt: Sure it is.
Mayor Ch~iel: ~hat w~uld be, I would think that that is very appropriate for a
maple leaf award. And with Pat's r~m~oval frcm the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority, I received one letter of request that an individual be appoin~ to
the HRA. It's the perogative of the mayor to make that appointment and
therefore I'm going to appoint Tom Workman to the Housing and Redevelofxmant
Authority. I would like to make that into a motion.
Council~mman Dimler: Second.
Councilman Boyt: I've got a question. ~his really isn't anything that City
Council votes on.
Mayor C2m~iel: I guess that's right. It's purely an appointment.
Don Ashworth: There has to be concurrence by the City Council. 0nly the mayor
can nc~inate but the Council has to agree to that nomination.
Councilman Boyt: That's not what Todd told me when I asked him. So you're
clarifying his position, is that it?
Don Ashworth: Taat's correct. I didn't realize he made that position to ~u
but I 'ye checked before. I know that's the correct response.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to see us advertise for the opening.
Councilman Johnson: We advertise everyt~hing else that's open. I'd also like to
see a ~ of the Council on there.
Mawr Chuiel: That's my position and that's what I basically ~ant to ~ is
someone from the Council on the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. so that kind
of infonmation can c~me back to the council. We can get the infozmation. Not
that we're not getting it but at least we get a different perspective and view
from the other side of it too. ~hat's my position for __m0_m_inating T~m. I ~ not
going to make this into an open position for anyone to fill. We have had one
individual and we've already sent a cc~mm~nt back indicating as to why.
Consequently that' s where I'm moving right now.
61
City Council M~=eting - Se~r 13, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Our city ordinance say~ all vacancies on co,nit,s,
co~xnissions and boards shall be advertised to seek applicants.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. On all others except Housing and Redevelopment
~lthority.
Don Ashworth: The mayor's correct. ~ne Housing and R~develolmnent Authority is
governed by state statute. The ordinance was drafted to try to bring
conformance but that's one area that you can't change state statute.
Mayor Chniel: So I do have a motion on the floor. Any further discussion?
Councilman Boyt: Well, what's your position on the park Tc~? That seems to be
the issue of controversy. What is it City Square? Colonial Square Park?
councilman Johnson: You mean adding to it by tearing down the buildings?
councilw~nan Dimler: Are ~ supposed to be interviewing Tc~ right now? Don, is
that proper procedure?
Mayor Chmiel: No. It's not. It's an appointment.
Councilman Boyt: You're saying that w~ don't have any rights to ask the person
you're appointing any questions?
Councilwoman Dimler: You can ask him after he's been appointed I guess.
Mayor Ch~iel: Yes, you can ask him after.
councilman Boyt: I don't mind you making the decision and just making it. I
mean that's fine but if you want our vote, shouldn't ~ have the opportunity ask
a few questions?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
councilman ~orkman: You're talking about the park down by?
councilman Boyt: The one right bet~n City Hall, the church and Pauly's.
Councilman Workman: As far as it becoming a future park after the
condemnations?
Councilman Boyt: No. Tne controversy laid out by Mr. Ashw~rth was that there
was apparently a split in the HRA about what they should do with those
buildings. Is that right?
Don Ashw~rth: How the property should be used. Half believe that it should be
used for park purposes which would include extension of the historical thsm~ but
generally park. Tne other would like to ~c the buildings raised and a
commercial use, probably being a professional building, office type of use on
that property. And yes, that is where the split is. Between those two uses.
All 5 agreed that the buildings should be r~noved. Where the split occurred as
to how reuse of the property sho~zld occur.
62
City Gouncil Meeting - September 13~ 1989
Councilman Johnson: I think it should be a historic district2
Council~mman Dimler: See w~ could discuss this forever. I'm just wonderin~ if
it's fair to put Tcm on the spot like that. Usually in an interview they have
time to prepare.
Councilman Workman: I didn't know that you guys didn't want me on the HRA.
Councilman Boyt: That's not true at all.
Councilman Workman: I think that my. philosophies are pretty clear after 8
months on the Council. I wish when we appointed Bill to public safety, I would
have asked him how do you feel about public safety.
Councilwoman Dimlex: That's right.
Councilman Workman: So maybe Bill's going to regret having me on the HRA. F~'s
using his head. I haven't made a decision on what I really would like to. I
~ more information. I've been asking those questions. Fr~ my coming onto
the council, I've ~ uncomfortable with condemning a lot of old time
businesses in town so it goes ~y back you know. Now that it's in motion, I
would probably have different opinions since it's already in motion because I
think things are already kind of done. ~he City park down there I -think is
nice. Would be nice. You're talking about all the way from here to the church.
I go to Chaska every day. ~hey have a city park. ~hey appreciate it. It's
centrally located. It's a place where people can get together rather than the
cornfield up here behind city hall. But I have concerns about such valuable
property and even more valuable since we've condemned scme vital businesses
there. It's an expensive park. I have some concerns about us using that
expensive of property for a park. So sounds wishy washy. I'd like parks
everywhere k~lt I think the economics of the feasibility, of it after we're all
said and done and I see the bottom line of what this little parcel cost us,
I think we're going to want to get some tax revenue and maybe some money out of
it. Again, that's just basically where I'm sitting now ar~ that's on a fence.
Councilman Johnson: How much could Chaska sell their center park for?
Councilman Workman: And those indian mounds don't have indians buried in the~.
Councilman Boyt: This is my last question and I ask it in all good faith. Are
you supportive of the downtown redeveloI~ent that you see there?
Councilman Workman: Boy, I think that's a big one and with so much going on
Bill, I would choose not to answer that. But tl~ way it was done, was I happy
with it? No. You're going to have to be more specific if you ~ant a specific
Councilman Johnson: Most of it's a pretty done issue.
Mayor Ch~iel: Being that was the last question.
Councilman Workman: Bill, I lobby for your support and I hope that I get it and
I hope to do a good job for this council. I had questions and conoerns about,
and I basically penned Mayor Ch~iel a letter. F~'s misplaced it I guess, saying
63
City Council Meeting - September 13, 1989
that I had strong desire to be a member of the HRA once I four~] out, in fact
I wrote it the day after I got the letter from Pat, that I'd be proud to be a
member of the HRA and that representing the City Council and keeping an eye on
the HRA for the City Council. I don't know Bill. I think you and I have had
scme like kind ideas about HRA getting into the grocery store business and those
kind of things. I think our economics come a little closer together when it
comes to HRA.
Councilman Johnson: Originally we had two council m~mbers on the HRA.
Eventually I'd like to see it get back to that. But when the previous lame duck
Council had an opportunity to reappoint quite a few appointments and they w~re
made.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to appoint Councilman Workman
to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
DESICAqATION OF FINANCIAL CONSULTANT AND AUDITOR.
Councilman Johnson: Are w~ going to do these in two separate steps?
Mayor C~niel: I think so, yes.
Councilman Johnson: I don't know if I have a real feeling for everybody but I 'd
like to move just to get it started here, that we accept Mericor for financial
consultants.
Don Ashworth: If I may make a point. I did have Springsted contact me today
stating that they feel that their quote, or at least that their proposal was
misinterpretted by staff in terms of the cost implications. Specifically the
figure using, the figure of $150.00 per hour would probably be more like using
people in the $90.00 and $120.00 range instead of the $150.00. If that's true,
it potentially deletes $10,000.00 from that proposal. Their second point was
that the hourly position should not be really looked at at all because they
would fold that in with the bond issues tbanself. If the Council is going to
consider Springsted, I would really like to then table that because I know that
that's incorrect. On each of tbs issues we've had downtown, the first thing we
try to lay out on the table is whether or not the particular proposal requires
to be bonded or not. The preferenoe has been to not bond. If we can do a
proposal and not have it bonded, have it as a pass through type of a proposal,
that is far preferred by the City. That's exactly what happened regarding the
apartment complex. There is no city bonding involved in that. There ~re
numerous hours spent by Andy. Merry on that. You may not like the supermarket
deal but there was no bonding associated with that. ~npak, no bonding. A
majority, of the projects downtown have involved no bonding. If you don't do
bonding, you don't get paid. I mean at least using Springsted's position that
they're not going to charge us. I feel very uncomfortable with that. I would
like to take and bring someone in and say, alright. Let's analyze this both
Councilman Johnson: Don, do you feel that there's s~m~y in the Council
that's pushing toward Springsted?
64
City (bum=il Meeting 2 Septe~l~r 13~ 1989
councilman Workman: If I can raise the point. What I did was, and Springsted
and is it Dave M~Gillbry, basically what I did ~as I initiated. I guess Don, I
didn't feel c~nfor~le with scme of the statistics. We based all our financial
advisors on F~ricor's hours of 218. ~hat lead I was following was ~_ll,he' s
kind of a one man show a little bit. My idea ~as well, Springsted, they're
rather large. I figured well they're so large that maybe they didn't ~ to
spend as m,~_h time on it so what I did was I said, I went back and I called up
Mr. Polsher and I said, is my theory correct? I said you look like you're
double. You're good. Every city in the metro area uses you but you're double.
~hat do they know that w~ don't? So I asked if he could give us some more
detail. He did fax a copy of a letter which is made out to Y~yor Don Chniel,
msmbers of the City Gouncil and to you DOn. He said that he had it delivered.
Don Ashworth: That's the reason I'm going through this explanation because I
then called M=Gillbry back and I said, you don't mean this. There's no ~ay that
you can be putting this on tt~ table.
Oouncilman Workman: Basically ~ere he said it, and again you are the brass
tacks guy, with all this. I was kind of hoping for scme change in this area a
little bit so that's why I initiated it. Dave had said that certainly with the
City. initiating or if the city is interested in their services, t~. would
certainly do whatever they could to work with a~d figure out ~mat the area that
they need to be in. Not to bid low just to get us in but the botb~n line is
basically 77 rather than the 11~ or so.
Don Ashworth: I told Dave tbe sa~e thing. I said, you know if you want to
clarify your proposal and have the thing down into, I don't care if you make it
75 or if you want to make it 9~ but you cannot be serious in tenns of saying
that you are simply going to for gratis do non-bonding type of deals.
Councilman Workman: Is what you're saying there is in a situation where maybe
w~ should bond and where we shouldn' t, Spr ingsted might lean towards y~s, let's
go ahead and bond?
Councilman Johnson: Because that's the only way they're going to get paid.
Don Ashworth: Right.
Councilman Workman: And ~ricor does it for free?
Councilman Johnson: No. He charges by the hour.
Don Ashworth: He charges by, the hour and the Springsted proposal is quite clear
that they have an hourly rate associated with their hourly work. But again, if
they ~anted to clarify that with us and say, City Council, Don, I will assure
you that we will not be billing people at that top rate. T~at we will be
billing people at the $90.~ or $12~.00, that's fine but to not consider billing
at all, how do we trust that rec(~mm=J~ation as to whether or not the ~k deal
should have been a non-bonded? You've got to look to a n~nber of alternatives
with every one of these bond issues and they're a lot of hours.
Mayor (l~niel: And basically ~hat they've taken out is the hourly billings at
218.5 hours. $32,775.00.
65
City Oouncil Meeting - September 13, 1989
Councilwoman Dimler: But see the 218 was based on Mericor's. I think they
could probably put in less hours since they have more people and more
experience.
Councilman Johnson: Tney'll probably put in more ho~rs because they're got
their lower guy doing it plus their going to have QAQ steve, they're going to
have their higher guys looking over their shoulders. They're going to have more
layers of management. ~ne larger the ccmpany, the more layers of management.
Tne one thing that's always impressed...
Councilwcman Dimler: We won't be paying the whole company. We're just going
to have one person do it. They probably won't bring in the top guys is what I'm
saying on every issue.
Councilman Johnson: Almost everything gets reviewed by, everything that my
staff sends out, I review it before it goes out and I put my hours against it.
That's the way consulting business works.
Mayor Chmiel: Which you have the right.
Councilman Johnson: I make a lot of changes too. They don't like me because of
my editorial changes but they're getting used to me now.
Councilman Workman: Why are they bonding for 9/10th's of the cities in the
metro area?
Councilman Johnson: One thing that has impressed me over the last two .u~ars is
when you go into the League of Cities manual, the Minnesota Cities Magazine,
there's a section that talks about bonding. Whenever I've looked in there, when
we've done a bond iss~ and they compare bond issues that are going out that
month that had been issued and what the rates are, almost every time we were in
the bottom third of all those rates going out. Scmet~ we were, it was
extremely impressive the amo~mt. Sometimes by a full percentage point we were
over Chaska or Shakopee or scme of the other surrounding cities with the same
ratings as us but we got them in cheaper. What I'm saying is that we've got a
really proven track record in the last two years that I've seen of coming in
low, interest rates on bonds because of some unique things they've done. Bill
and I now have 2 years of experience with Mericor, with Andy and his thoughts.
He really puts a lot of his personal, his real, we are not 1 of many, many
clients that the big companies have. We are a favorite son, a favorite client.
I think we will get better service from the amall guy in this case. I'm not
leaning the same way on the auditor because the auditor is a different type
function. It's follow the recipe, 1, 2, 3 type function where the financial
advisor is more of a brain game of coming up with unique ideas. I don't want a
BRW type of financial advisor. Tne big corporate okay here's bing, bing, bing,
bing. Here's the answer. I want scmebody who will think off on these tangents
and pull them in and bring in t_he best possible solution. Not the one that is
the textbook so to say solution but more the uniq~ solution and we've had
several of those come out. G~tting insurance on s~ue of bonds really helped us
out and he went through the, okay we've got to pay more money for the insurance
but when we get out, we ended ~%~ saving thousands of dollars more than what the
insurance costs us by getting a AA or AAA or whatever effective rating on those
bonds. Some of the other stuff he's done. It's been very impressive.
66
City Oouncll Meeting - September 13~ 1989
Oouncilman Workman: I don't have doubts about that. Springsted is also very
impressive.
Councilman Johnson: Except for they are doing 9~% of those that are higher than
us. They are representing those other towns and Mericor appears to be beating
them.
Councilman Workman: Appears. Again, I don't have that d~tation.
Councilman Johnson: I didn't go back and, I didn't think this was going to be a
big issue tonight so I didn't go bother to go back to the old magazines and pull
these out and compare th~m to Mericor's cities or I mean c~mpare Springsted and
M~_ricor city by city. It could be done. To go back and say in some month...
Councilman Workman: I guess if we want to look for more doc~nentation.
Don Ashworth: I tried to get back to Pulsher today and he was out. Thistle was
out...but they don't mean this. This is a bad idea.
Councilman Johnson: Now if we didn't go with Mericor, I'd rather go with
~y less expensive because I think PFS would do just as good of a job as
Springsted so I'd rather reduce the cost to our citizens than increase the cost
to our citizens. I have no reason, I don't see a whole lot of reasom to j~p
ship.
Don Ashworth: But again, I think this issue should be clarified.
Mayor C2~iel: I think before, if we ccme to this conclusion that yes, I think
that this should be verified because it looks like they are really shaving here.
Councilman Workman: It was my. concern that everything was based on Mericor's
hours. Was that realistic? Treat ~ms my concern and I'm not certain that I
don't still think it's not. I want to be sure.
Don Ashworth: This is on a misunderstanding. In fact, David even called me and
asked me. When I had told him that if we cost out on tt~ hourly rate and then I
received this back fr(~n him, again I just couldn't believe it. It makes the
assumption that those hours, that 218 all led to bonding deals ard part of what
a fiscal consultant will do for you is speclative. You bring him in and you
say, we've got to fund t/~ water tower. It's part of our water sysba~. How are
we going to get this thing done? He's going to take in and give you different
ideas. We get down 2-3 months into the process and we may come back and say, we
just don't have the money to do this. We're not going to do it and he doesnt'
get paid. How many runs has the ccmmmity center task force looked at on
bonding associated with the ~ity center?
Councilman Boyt: Unfortuna~y.
Don Ashworth: Never once has there ~ a billing on that.
Councilman Workman: Hourly bill?
67
City Council Meeting - September 13, 1989
Don Ashworth: No. No. Because if that would beccme a deal, it would be
potential bonded...
Councilwc~n Dimler: There' s been no ho~rly charge, for that?
Don Ashworth: There's been no hourly charge.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well how come ~_ricor says he has a hourly rate that's not
related to bonding?
Councilman Johnson: ~nat's for the other projects. The supermarket. The
apartments. Those things when bonds were never...
Councilman Workman: You mean a successful project?
Don Ashworth: A cc~x~unity center would be bonded. If we go back to voters and
we say, will you vote for 1 million, 5 million, whatever million. Andy Merry
would be paid based on a percent of that issue. 3% or whatever he'd get.
$26,000.00 or $15,000.00 or whatever. But just as it has, the thing has
continued to come back and he's continued to run schedules and provide advice.
He's never been paid anything on that.
Councilman Johnson: And Springsted wouldn't either.
Don Ashworth: On the other side of the coin, when we called Andy and said,
alright. They're proposing an apartment project. Part of that is, they want to
subsidize the senior units. The HRA would like to see a certain n~ber of units
be senior units. They want to see that subsidized. They'd like to see a
portion of the incr~ent passed back to the developer to provide an incentive
for him to subsidize those units. Andy worked ~ all of the schedules on that.
All of that w~s done on an hourly rate. ~he reason was is there w~re no bonds.
We were not going to sell bonds in that particular case.
Councilman Johnson: You hired him simply as a financial advisor.
DOn Ashworth: That' s correct.
Council~ Dimler: I'm sure Springsted would do that too and then they would
have an hourly rate if you said this was strictly a financial...
Councilman Johnson: The letter here says they won't. They'll do it for free.
Don Ashworth: And that's what needs to be clarified.
Councilw~man Dimler: ~ney will. You know if you say we're not bonding this one
but we want your advice, I'm sure they'd give it to you and they would charge
you an ho~ly rate.
Don Ashworth: Right. But that's not what this says.
Councilman Johnson: The letter says they'll do it for free if it's a tax
incr ~ment project.
68
City (]our=il Meeting - September 13~ 1989
Don Ashworth: It just needs to be clarified. Anyone pickirg this up could at a
future point in time just say, they shouldn't have billed us on this. ~hey have
said here they're not going to bill us for those types of services.
Councilman Workman: I think w~ could use s~me more clarification.
Mayor Chniel: Maybe w~ should just t~_hle this one until we do get that
clarification?
Councilman Johnson: There is strong sentiment to go to Springsted at this
point? At t/~ same time what I'd like, if we're going .to get more clarification
I would like to have ccmparisons done of the bonds that Andy Y~rry has done for
us simultaneously with the bond issues, the saue month, just by pulling those
articles out last year out of the magazine. Gc~paring against cities that
Springsted did and see if you can draw any cc~[karison. Who did better head to
head at the same time under the same econ(xnic conditions.
Councilman Workman: I requested this when I thought we were mccting tonight. I
didn't know it was for all the rest of the council meeting so I wasn't fully
clear that we were going to be discussing this. When I contacted .them, I
thought we had 2 weeks so.
Councilman Johnson: We do. ~here's no hurry to do-any of this.
Councilman Workman: I thought we had 2 weeks and at the next council meeting.
Don Ashworth: There is scme. I mean we want to sell bond~ in Novenbex and you
should start backing up 9~ days fr(m that so I mean we' re running past the clock
right now.
Councilman Johnson: If we don't make a decision, it's Andy because he's our
current advisor.
Don Ashworth: Our next regular =ting is the 25th. That's fine.
Councilman Boyt: I think in fairness that we should go back to both of the
other tw~ candidates and ask them to resu~xait a bid. Now that they've seen the
other bids, they should all. If we're going to give the opportunity to
Springsted to come in with a different bid, everybody has to have that
opportunity. I don't think they're going to clmarge anything but I think they
ought to have that.
Councilman Johnson: That's only fair.
Mayor C~.iel: Get than in by ~nday?
Don Ashworth: You mean by the 25th?
Mayor C~aiel: By the 25th.
Don Ashworth: The only proble~ is if Springsted has a proble~ responding by ..
that point.
69
City Council Meeting - September 13, 1989
Mayor Chniel: Why don't we do that. What's fair for one is fair for the other
and then come ~ with a conclusion on it. I'd make a suggestion that w~ do
table.
Councilman Boyt: He's done sc~e good deals. Springsted didn't even know what
our Stardard Rnployer's Rating was. I wasn't real impressed by them.
Mayor Chniel: We don't ~ to vote on that? All we have to do is just that
action?
Councilman Workman: Again, I have no reason to defend Springsted. There are
some very obviot~ things going on that Springsted's doing right and that's why I
bring out the question. I think I'm doing my job when I ask that question.
Don Ashworth: We probably should have a motion.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table designation of
financial consultant to get more info~mation fr(xn the applicants. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
DESIGNATION OF AUDITOR.
Don Ashworth: Staff had brought forward Lloyd Haskins for the Council to
consider. Council felt that Penell had done a very excellent job as a part of
the interview process and would like to ~_ them further considered. In fact,
it appeared as though the decision was really down between Penell and Deloitte.
After relooking at the issues again, staff c(Ees back to recoamler~ing Deloitte
basically based on costs and hours that they would ~t in for us. Theirs is a
better proposal.
Councilman Johnson: This is a 1, 2, 3 type operation where you've got a recipe
amd you're doin9 it. It is for us, to provide the citizens with the least cost
w~ can. Of the qualified bidders. I will move support of Deloitte.
Councilman Boyt: I'll second that. There may be ro(E for discussion here but
that's, I think another big factor is that a Big 8 Firm may very well improve
our bond rating, and that' s big money.
Councilman Workman: I did a little more research. Again, I emphasize the night
when we intezwiewed the auditors and I think Ursula did also that Panell Kerr,
while T(E Bromberg isn't going to be working directly with us, he is a
communications link. Local cc~nunications link. I do like that. There's a
difference of about $1,200.00 between the two over 3 years. There would still
appear to be scEe difference of opinion on what happened in Wayzata. Their
explanation of what happened was basically the charges of the city were going to
be about $10,000.00. The head financial employee, financial director left
in January or February. Nothing, and I don' t know accounting legalies but
nothing was put together. A paragraph in there that states if scmething crazy
like that happens, what are you going to do? Basically Panell Kerr said wtmat do
you want us to do? Do you want us to reconcile these accounts? Do you want to
do it? How do you want to do it and we can work that out. With the 3 people
that I talked to, the 3 people that were there, all agreed that they discussed
70
City Gouncil Meeting - Septenber 13~ 1989
it. Went over it. It was agreed by Wayzata that yes, Pannel Kerr should do
The charges ended up to be $16,0~0.00. Not $38,000.~0 or whatever thousand
difference I think that Don had. And it ~s something I think that if it
happened in our city, it would be the same thing. We'd be in trouble if it
happened in our city. Or any city. If any of those people left in January. when
it's reconciliation time, you're going to have a proble~ so there's going to be
more work to do and so that's what they were hired to do. They continued, as
Don says, they continued to do business in Wayzata.
Councilman Johnson: The exact sa~e thing just happened to me with one of my.
clients. Tmey ware supposed to provide me infoz~ation. ~hey didn't. I had to
go get it. They agreed that I could bill them another $5,0~.0~.
Councilman Workman: So with that and I know Deloitte is a good fizm. I've
heard good thirgs about then. Given anythim] else, I like Pannel Kerr.
Councilman Johnson: I have one thing against Pannel Kerr. It almost looks like
w~ are goirg to ~ simply because one of their people are a resident ar~
friends of the Council and w~'re being impartial.
Councilman Workman: No Jay. I'm going to stop you right there. That's a big
statenent and I think you're accusing me of something.
Councilman Johnson: NO, not you.
Councilman Workman: Who?
Councilman Johnson: The statements made by Ursula the last time about her
friends at Pannel Kerr or whatever creates that image. There was some statement
she made. I forget exactly the gist of it but it was...
Councilwoman Dimler: You better have that straight Jay.
Councilman Johnson: I think you said scmething about your neighbor you know and
Councilw~aan Dimler: He's our neighbor. He's ever.ubody's neighbor. He lives
in Chanhassen.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, and I don't think that has anything to do with the
auditor.
Oouncilw~man Dimler: Well it doesn't. I don't know them personally really ~11
at all but because they do have a me~ber that lives in Chanhassem, I think be
would be responsive to fhanhassen's concerns and can make those concerns known
to the people that will be workin~ with us. There's a little personal touch
there from a resident ~ would have other concerns than non-residents.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah but he's not goirg to be workin~ the project
whatsoever.
Councilwoman Dimler: NO, but he'll have marne input.
71
City Council Meeting - September 13, 1989
Councilman Johnson: No. He'll have no input whatsoever. He's just there. The
weakness of their management statement, which is the biggest part. I mean all
this, you look it over and you've got to come up with the conclusion that
they're not the ones for us. When I see it and then because the only real
reason I heard yet is that he's a resident of the city.
Councilwoman Dimler: No they are a good firm and they have a good record.
Mayor Ch~iel: It's a reputable fi~m. Very reputable.
CounciLman Johnson: It's reputable, yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: Plus they have the added addition that they have someone
with them that's local that can give them sc~e input as to what's happening in
Chanhassen.
Councilman Johnson: When you're doing an audit, it doesn't matter. You're
adding numbers. You're counting. You see that the checks balance and that
these balance and everything c~m~ together. What's happening in Chanhassen
makes nothing to do with anything.
Councilw~m~3n Dimler: I believe that the auditors also, one of their functions
would be to make recommendations to city staff as to how they can more
economically manage.
Councilman Johnson: And that w~s one of their w~aknesses that they showed in
their proposal is making those recc~mendatlons. But anyway.
Don Ashw~)rth: ~at reminds me, I should have passed out the Springsted.
Voto-Tauges felt that the question regarding what recommendations they had made
and what not, that they w~nted to see' that clarified and they sent this over
today. Did I send down enough copies? I don't think that there's any question
that Pannel Kerr is a very re~table firm. I'm a little concerned that part of
the policy or the statement is going to be because of somebody local. I think
maybe it should be just left with the qualifications. The only reason I say
that is, one of the people we inte~wiewed on the City Attorney lives in
Chanhassen. One of the proposals here involves for the financial consultant, is
a citizen living here in Chanhassen. In fact, Deloitte had called ar~ said,
would you like me to take and look to see if we have any people who live locally
and I said no. I don't know what his point there was but he came back to me
specifically saying we have over 500 people who live in this area or live in the
Twin Cities.
Councilman Johnson: The chances of having one of their ~mployees.
Don Ashw~)rth: That's why I don't think that, maybe the decision should just be
one of your consideration of the firm. If you have s~me personal beliefs.
Councilwcman Dimler: I assure there is none, and I don't like the insinuation
that there is.
Councilman Johnson: It's just the ~y you said it.
Mayor Ch~iel: He wasn't ~
saying that.
72
City Osuncil Mseting - September 13~ 1989
Councilwnuan Dimler: No, no. Jay did earlier and you .know, we were talking
about being neighborly to Chaska. That w~ consider then. Well I'm considering
him a neighbor. That was really a bad thing to do Jay.
CounciLman Johnson: Ah, I'm sorry. It's just that that impression was being...
Councilwoman Dimler: We're being neighborly to one of our neighbors. Okay?
And there is no ties.
Councilman Johnson: This is not a place to be neighborly.
Councilwoman Dimler: Ch really? Then why did we do what we did the other
night? The dog thing for all the neighbors to be neighborly.
Councilman Johnson: That's a place to be neighborly.
Council~xaan Dimler: Ch you get to pick and choose. Okay.
Mayor (2~iel: Okay, that's not the issue.
Councilman Johnson: We have a motion and a second for Lloyd.
Mayor Ch~iel: Ch, I was gone.
Councilman Johnson: We started this with a motion and a second for Llo~.
Councilwoman Dimler: I didn't bear a second.
-..
Councilman Boyt: Can I make a comment before we vote to go on the record?
Councilwcman Dimler: Did we have a motion?
Mayor Ch~iel: No. I didn't hear a motion.
Councilman Johnson: I started it with a motion 10 minutes ago. Bill seconded
it.
Councilman Boyt: This ~s on the Deloitte. That's true. But before we vote
I'd j~mt like to point out that if we turn to the Page 17B I guess it is. It's
whatever we got with the new agenda. It's information. It says 17B on the top
of my mine. Look at what we're getting. T(xn says the difference in rates is
$1,200.00 or less. But look what we're getting for ~ahat the rate is.
Councilman Workman: Bill let me just interrupt what you're gettirg at. Again,
this is something that is basically, I don't know where the nu~mers came from
and my. discussion with Pannel Kerr, they're different also.
Councilman Johnson: Their proposal says they're going to do 25 hours of a
partner. Deloitte's going to have 53 hours. They're going to have their
manager for only 50 hours. Deloittes going to have 105 hours of their manager
for less money. We're getting high priority people. Then senior, 180
for Pannel. 200 again for Deloitte. Again, a higher pod,_red person. Fore
hours. Then when you get to semi-senior, Pannel has more hours. Deloitte has
73
City Council Meeting - September 13~ 1989
175. They don't even do a junior. Deloittes got 175 and zero. Stat and
typing, that' s different. That' s probably overhead rolled in with Deloitte I
would assume. They're charging ~ for $30.00 an hour for their typist where
Deloitte's using it as overhead. I think that's the point Bill's trying to make
is that for less money, we're getting higher powered people. Is that the point
you started to make Bill?
Councilman Boyt: Yes. ~nat's kind of the direction I was headed in.
Councilman Johnson: Sorry to interrupt you.
Councilman Boyt: No. That's just fine. The other part of it is trying to add
these numbers up but it looks to me like Deloittes estimate is something like
708 hours? Pannel's estimate is 470 ho~rs? So not only are we talking about
the hours distributed so that we have more experiences people working on it, but
we're talking about considerably more hours. Almost, I don't know, what is that
70% more hours.
Councilman Workman: But the bottom line is, basically the 3 year total comes in
the sane. Whatever estimated hours are for whatever, the end product, as Jay
says, is the same. ~ney're counting beans or whatever. It's a history lesson.
It's a re-enactment of history and so whatever the estimated hours at whatever
the rates are, whatever that all is, the bottom line is the bottom line and we
should expect to get the same product. About.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. Well you guys are going to do what you're going to do
but I would just like to point out that I don't think it's defensible. I think
that in terms of the a~]itor, if you go out to the C(mlmunity and tell them that
you bought 250 hours less se~wice by more junior people and gave it to a ~naller
firm, I don't think that's defensible.
Councilman Workman: Defensible for what reasons? Is this a...election or
something? I don't understand.
Councilwoman Dimler: Why do ~ have to defend it?
Councilman Boyt: We have to, I would think, that you feel you can defend every
vote that you make right?
Councilwoman Dimler: Is somebody going to challenge us?
Councilman Johnson: Yes, they challenge you every day.
Councilman Boyt: I don't know if they challenge you. They challenge me. So I
just think that, if you feel comfortable with it, obviously you're going to vote
to do what you feel comfortable doing. I don't feel comfortable accepting a bid
that number one is more money for less hours by more junior people. I think
that's not a good bargain.
Councilman Workman: Again, it's a schenatic.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I interrupt for just a minute? Tom, you wanted to say
s~nething.
74
City Oouncil Meeting - Se~r 13~ 1989
Tc~ Chaffee: If I could make the point that, in the discussio~ here that
relative to the comparison be~ Pannel versus Deloitte. Bannel Kerr and
Foster were the only group in the auditor's considerations that did not contact
the finance department. Did not omue in and look at our accounting syste~. Did
not question us on what we're doing or how we're doing it. I was curious to
know how they came up with such a specific proposal...without actually looking
at what they're working with.
Councilman Workman: Do we have something so different that they'd be unfamiliar
with it?
Jean Me~rissen: The others all came.
Tcm Chaffee: My. point being that t~. were the only ones that did not.
Jean Meuwissen: The rest all came.
Council~ Dimler: Did you ask the others to come?
Jean M~uwissen: No. They called us and asked for appoin~ts.
Councilman Workman: That's a point to be made.
Councilman Johnson: How much time did you spend with these others?
Jean Meuwissen: An hour and a half to two hours.
Councilman Johnson: And every city has different accounting systems. We
utilize some kind of minfra~s o~mter off in Rosemount or some crazy, place. I
don't know. Where is that computer?
Councilman Johnson: Well that's close. They both start with an R. And some
other city. does it on a PC and ever.~ching so it's important infom~ation to know
to make the bid. It's one of the first things that we do ~hen ~ go out to make
a bid for scmebody is to do tl~ intelligence. Gather their work to find out if
we can do it for that price. I'm glad you said that. I assmmed they probably
all had done that.
Councilman Workman: Again, with the auditor, I think there's some, I didn't
feel c~nfor~le with the numbers because when presented on the side to Pannel,
they didn come anywhere near matching up and so I get a little cautious ~hen I'm
trying to get directed do~n a halley that I'm not so sure that I want to go
down. So I start to get cautious and when the numbers don't, and People are
telling me s~mething c(~pletely different from what's on a piece of paper in
front of me how it's been presented to me, then I get cautious. ~hat's why I
called Pannel. That's why.. I called Springsted. To find out why is Springste~
double. I don't think Springsted, do you believe that Springsted's double? It
was made to look that ~ay so I do get a little cautious and that's mybe an
inherent defect or maybe it's what's kept me alive for nearly 30 years. Again,
I'm doing for the folks out there who would just love to be in my seat asking.
I'm making the accounting office nervous. I'm giving Don kittens.
75
City Oouncil Meeting - September 13, 1989
Councilman Johnson: He's been through a lot worsel
Co~Lncilman ~brkman: Sure he has and he will be through worse. Taat's not a
prediction, just a hope. So it's, Don with the auditor and with the financial
advisor, those are Don's double barrels in his holsters. Like I said, I'm
asking the questions that people I think want me to ask and Jay, I'm making you
nervous and that's what it is worth. In no way, shape or form in business, on
City Council, anything, would I let a personal relationship. I've just until
recently gotten to know Tom Bromberg. I want to say again, however, maybe it's
your delivery but it sounded like I was being accused of patronizing somebody
and I am not in fact. I have gotten to know Tc~ Bromberg. He's an outstanding
individual. I don't know Deloitte amd so that's to Tom Brc~nber's, maybe their
advantage. I am weighing it out on paper and you kind of feel good about one
where you don't feel so good about the other. That's where I ended up with
Pannel. The enployees, you have to work with them, preferred Deloitte. Don
prefers Deloitte. It sounds like 3 people on the Council perfer Deloitte. That
means sc~ethng also and that's why we're discussing it. And so I think
Deloitte's an outstanding firm also. I think they're both and so again, I did
the 1xmlework and I came to some conclusions. I'm coming to maybe some new
conclusions but that's why we're sitting here on a Wednesday night.
Councilw~nan Dimler: I guess I'd like to make a statement too and just for the
record here because I have ~ accused of patronizing. I am not patronizing
either. I have the same concerns and did some research.
Councilman Johnson: I wouldn't say it sounded that way. I didn't say you were
because I didn't think you were.
Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you. Thanks for your vote of confidence. I am now
concerned that they didn't ccme in. That thro~s a little bit of a red flag.
I have nothing against Deloitte. I think they're excellent but I just wanted to
also, for the sake of the citizens, ask the right questions.
Mayor Chniel: Any other further discussions? It'd be j~mt for me to reiterate
a lot of things that were said here already so there's no sense in taking up
anymore time being that time is fleeting as quickly as it is.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to designate Deloitte Haskins
and Sells as the City ~itor. Oouncilman Johnson and Councilman Boyt voted in
favor, Councilwoman Dimler and Mayor Chniel voted in opposition and Councilman
Workman was silent, ihe motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Mayor Chniel: I didn't hear your vote.
Councilman Workman: Tnat's because I didn't.
Mayor Chmiel: So you're voting for Deloitte?
Council~mnan Dimler: Your silent vote is a yes.
Mayor Chniel: Your silent vote is a yes vote.
Councilman Workman: Then I was silent I guess.
76
City Co, mcil Meeting - Se~ 13~ 1989
COUNCIL PRES~TIONS:
Ma-or Ch~iel: Can w~ do these quickly? We have Lake Lucy. Road, parking
pen, its.
Councilman Boyt: Don, can we announce to staff, so they don't stay around, that
we are not going to talk about the budget tonight?
Mayor Ch~iel: Well let's see. We have already discussed public safety and
we've already discussed...
Don Ashworth: The only thing left is administration and then we can start in
discussions as to how do you want to proceed next. What ~Duld ~u like to see
~e do.
Mayor Ch~iel: I'd like to see you ~ up with s~me different figures than ~hat
we've had. I'd like to see if at all possible to review those respected budgets
Councilman Johnson: I think we need to cut a million dollars out.
Don Ashworth: Is it fair to say that the City Council wants to see no property
tax increase when I bring it back?
Mayor Ch~iel: That' s my. bottom line.
Don Ashworth: Okay. And then a listing of what it is that I would recommend to
be cut to accomplish that?
Mayor Ch~iel: Okay.
Councilman Johnson: Do we want to provide any direction as to favored
departments? Engineering, public safety, whatever.
Councilwoman Dimler: Would it be fair to say to cut the fat?
Don Ashworth: A million dollars, ~u~)u're going to be cutting.
Council~mn Johnson: There was a lot of very honest people saving that there was
fat in their budgets.
Councilman Boyt: I didn't hear that. Nscognize that the budget is a little,
I'd call it odd in that we've got Frontier Trail in the budget when in fact
we're not going to tax for that sucker an.~ay. Pardon my. language but I mean
it's just...
Councilman Johnson: If we're going to bond for it, we ought to put the bond cost
in.
Councilman Boyt: Yeah, the bond cost ~s to go in there but I would like to
see the City Council ~=et to discuss the philosophy behind the budget before you
cut your million dollars out. That only makes sense to me.
77
City Co~mcil ~L=eting ' September 13~ 1989
Mayor Ch~ilel: Yes it does. But on the other token, I'd like each of the
departments to look at their own budgets and go through their cuts to see what
they can cut out.
Councilw~m~n Dimler: Yeah, have th~ decide where.
Mayor Ch~tiel: They're the people who are in that position and there's going to
sc~ that will say no, w~ can't ~lt and that's where it will have to get it.
Councilman Boyt: I agree that I'd really like to see the staff work out what
the budget specifics are. I'd like to see the City Council work out what the
budget priorities are.
Mayor Ch~iel: Certainly. It cc~tes back to us event[rally.
CounciL"mn Boyt: I think what we're leading to is if w~ say to the departments,
do out and cut out 20%, what you're going to find next year is that everybody
builds 20% in. Then they'll be ready for us.
Mayor Chmiel: i~nen you might go 40 to co~pensate for that 20.
Council~mn Johnson: The policy of the Council for the last 2 years and what
I just heard tonight is going to be for this year, is that the mil fate's going
to stay the sane oK reduced. I would be willing to bet that we will get a 5-0
vote if we ~de that a motion. That the policy of the Council is no increase in
mil rate for next year's b[E~get. I think that's alN~st a foregone conclusion.
I think I know everybody that much.
Don Ashworth: There's sc~e other miscellaneous things we need to talk about
including like newsletters, I've got sc~ costs in that and kinds and sc~ other
things in the legislative area but I those I think can wait for another night.
Mayor C~liel: Okay. Let's move on to the balance of the itens. Quickly please.
Co~cilw(m~n Dim]er: I'd like to say that I don't have my agenda fr~ last
w~ek.
CounciL"mn Johnson: The first it~n she asked for was Adoption of City Values
was yo~r first one and this is what I passed out several months ago on city
council goals from the city of Champagne. I also had their city values but
I misplaced those.
Mayor C~m~iel: I have them at hc~e.
CounciL.mn Johnson: I have that at home too but my hc~e is misplaced right now
too.
Co~cilw(mmn Dimler: Well I don't have my notes and I don't re~a~er exactly
what all I had written there but I'll try to go from ~ory. I was concerned
that we had left Marge kind of hanging. We hadn't ~mde an action one way or the
other and I would recc~nend at this ti~ that we adopt those values.
CounciL.mn Johnson: I think that this co~%ncil should provide their own values,
even though I think Margie's is extrenely good start. There was a lot of
78
City Council Meeting - Septer~er 13~ 1989
thought put into that. I think they may have ~ helped. That may be more of
a natural type thing that is ccming through. Those are very good and
unfortunately I've not had time to really go over it closely.
Council~mman Dimler: Jay, by the time w~ have the time to do that, you know how
busy w~ are, I would just say that we adopt them now and if you want to get more
stringemt later on, that's fine but at this point this is a good starting point.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah and in addition I'd like to see the Council adopt some
goals. This is just an example of how C2mmpagne did it and they have these
available to all citizens. They publish their values. The Council values and
they have them sitting in everybody's office in city hall. The goals are
published and set on the wall in city hall so the employees are constantly
reminded of these.
Councilw~nan Dimler:
there a second?
·..but an~vway, I did say it first so I move that. Is
Councilman Boyt: Wait a minute· We'd have to set aside our rules here to do
this ·
Councilwuman Dimler: No, because that was brought up last time. That's why I'm
moving it now.
Councilman Boyt: It's not on the agemda.
Councilwoman Dimler: It certainly is.
Councilman Boyt: Not on the published ageoda.
Mayor Ch~iel: Eve~ though it's here, that was at the particular m~_cting so we
do have to carry it over.
Councilman Johnson: C~, this is a council presentation. We can't move on it.
It has to go onto the regular agenda so you want to put that on the next agerda
unless we waive our rules.
Councilwoman Dimler: We couldn't move it last time because it was a Visitor
Presentation under that same rule. So now it's under Council Presentation
because I wanted to make sure that we moved it.
Councilman Johnson: The council presentations, as it says, no action will be
taken. It will go to the next age~da unless we waive our rules. I move ~
~aive our rules so w~ can move on this.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. I second that.
Councilman Boyt: Wait a minute. We assigned this to Lori Siets~,a to research
what ~s going on in the other half of our c(x~mmity. ~e other half of
Chanhassen ·
Councilman Johnson: Minnetonka.
Councilw~mmn Dimler: The Minnetonka School District, ~v~s.
79
City Oouncil Meeting - September 13~ 1989
Council~n Boyt: We've already got her working on it. It only ~mkes sense to
get that infom~nation.
Co~ncilw~nan Dimler: But that doesn't n~an w~ can't adopt it.
Don Ashworth: I've had calls in to Drayer for the last 3 days and there has not
been a response to those calls. The other thing on the Co~mcil presentation
portion, when the it, ll first c~ on, I tried to be very good in te~ of
insuring that I published the it~n and that I got all enclosures in so you
potentially could vote on it.
Councila~n Johnson: It's just a w~ek.
Councilw~mmn DL, iler: No, it's 2 weeks.
Councilman Boyt: I talked to Margie. You probably talked to Margie. She
completely understands why w~ didn't take action on it that night. She's not
pushing us to take action i~m~diately. Why don't you let staff find out what's
going on?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, why don' t w~ do that.
Councilwc~n Dimler: I don't know if staff is going to find out whether w~
agree with you. What they want to know is if Minnetonka wants to get involved.
I brought that up and I just simply wanted to know if it was just school
district 112 or whether we were including Minnetonka. It was just a technical
point. It has nothing to do with whether wa adopt the values or not. And I'm
just simply moving now that we're adopting the values.
Councilman Johnson: Why don't we publish it? Put it on new business. Publish
it in the newspaper and ~ybe s(Eebody else will have s(m~e c(m~nt to it.
Councilwcman Dimler: It's been published in the paper.
Councilman Work, mn: I don' t know Jay. I don' t think that ' s...
Council~an Johnson: Visitor Presentation?
Councilw~mkan Dim]er: No, but I mean every other c(x~unity around us has adopted
it and they've been specified...
Co~mciLman Johnson: They have?
Councilwc~n Dimler: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: Minnetonka?
Councilw~n Di~ler: Not the school district. The cc~lunities.
Councilman Work, mn: If it's not too late, I'll second Ursula's motion. I don't
know if we ~ to have a motion to ~dify the...
80
City Council Meeting - September 13~ 1989
Mayor Ch~iel: My understanding is that this is not a published itam. This ~s
just brought up even though w~ had it on the agenda previously. This is now
being brought up by you at this particular time which does not put it into the
proper perspetous for the...
Council~an Dimler: Well then how else should I have made sure that w~ moved
on it? It could have been just totally forgotten.
Mayo~ C~,iel: Then ~ can put it on the next agenda.
Councilwoman Dimler: So then I make a motion that w~ put it on the regular
agenda for next time.
Councilman Johnson: Second.
Co~u%cil~mnan Dimler m~ved, Councilman Johnson seconded to direct staff to put
Adoption of City. Values on the agenda for the next City. Council meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chniel: Next, Lake Lucy. Boad parking permits.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. My. only reason for bringing that is because the
Tichy's have gotte~ their permits and everything is working fine. However, the
other residents, Nancy. called me and said I'm not sure the other residents are
aware that it is now available so I was going to ask the Villager and the Sailor
to publish. Make sure that it gets in the paper so that the people on Lake Lucy
Road know that they are now available. Would you do that Don?
Don Ashworth: Okay.
Councilman Johnson: Wouldn't it be easier just to tell ths~? Tell the 10 of
then or 15 of them?
Don Ashworth: Send them a letter you mean?
Mayor C~,iel: Jim, is there some way that you can notify, those people either by
letter indicating that they are available to those people adjacent to Lake Lucy.
Rsad?
Jim Chaffee: Yes. We can send them out like w~ did the others.
Don Ashworth: Has anyone called in to get a permit or anyone complained about
it?
Jim Chaffee: No. We've had a couple...parking probl~ns of people who don't
live on Lake Lucy. and wanted to park on Lake Lucy. but no, none fr(x~ the
residents.
Mayor Ch~iel: Okay, the next itsm on the agenda is (hanhassen Phanmacy.
Councilman Johnson: Parking in front of.
81
City Council Meeting - September 13~ 1989
Councilwcmmn Dimler: Okay, Mr. Tang who is the pharmacist there, owner, brought
it to ~ attention that there are only, with the redoing of the lot, there are
only 2 handicap parking spaces and perhaps that's all that is required but they
are both in front of his pharmmcy and there is none anywhere else. So that
se~m~d rather ridiculous. Then the four spots that were allotted to hJml are 2
handicaps and 2 fire lanes. I'm just wondering why it was done that way. Could
staff please find out why it was done that way and if it can be corrected,
please do so.
Mayor C~mliel: Lake Lucy public access. Who's discussion was that?
Council~mn Johnson: That was yours Ursula.
Councilw~mmn Dimler: Like I said, I don't have my notes and I don't r~ember
why I put it on. Give me just a incident.
Mayor Chmiel: Why don' t we let Eric, he' s been here all night. It' s your turn
to sing for 5 minutes Eric. I'd like you to convey the information to the
balance of the Council as you told ~, that specific information. I know it was
longer than 5 minutes but if you could condense it.
Eric Rivkin: I was wondering if we could schedule a ~eting, open to the public
of course, to discuss the financial obligations that the City might have to face
and to try to move the project forward to a successful conclusion in an
expediate ~mnner. I want to read 50 words of ~ su~ry, and I won't read any
more, from the stm~ary first and then you can give me questions. I'll give you
a su~mry of my notes.
Council~mn Workman: I was going to suggest to Eric that he perhaps, when he has
a letter, that he send it directly to us rather than to City Hall.
Council~mn Boyt: Didn't we get something on this in the last Admin pack?
Mayor C~m~iel: Yes, we did.
Eric Rivkin: My conclusion to all of this was, I think we ought to owe it to
ourselves to hire a consultant to take sc~ of the ~nique solutions that we came
~ with so that he can resolve the...and save us a lot more money and grief in
the long run. I would say to th~, we've got this lake restoration project and
the probl~ with putting in an access. The current work plan was rejected once
already because it doesn't meet the public's water quality bill so what do you
recommend that we do is basically it. I explained that a lot further on why we
should hire... Between the both of them they've gotten over 100 EPA grants in
their careers and they know all the people that we've talked to and they know
all their bosses. They know the people that work for them. ~ney know people at
the DNR to talk to. To be able to get...mechanical lift or not at all. To get
eliminated is the ass,m~tion I was working under and writing these little notes
last night. If that bec~es an option, I wanted to demonstrate that we could
pose an alternative here which showed that we could consider sc~e costs of
restoring the lake, Lake Lucy. and if we have to sever it frc~ the project. It
does sound feasible to ~m but how it gets done is still...guarantee ~et certain
water quality goals that are expected in the project. Now to mesh those in
82
City Council Meeting - Septembe~ 13, 1989
really nicely I think is beyond our capability to do that. Technically~
politically and... I've checked ~ out and theylve been involved in water
quality improvement and restoration projects all throughout the state. They
know everybody there is to know to get things done. I think we owe it to
ourselves to look at the~. I think they'll be able to save us money, in the long
run so I was w~ndering if we could schedule a ~ting, a public meeting to be
able to discuss these a lot further in a timely manner to be able to see what
kind of cost outlays w~ have to face. If we're going to ~mpl~t this project,
is the City going to have enough money to be able to buy an access? Probably
not. As far as money for lake restoration, probably not. How can w~ get the
money to do it? We've got to talk about it so. There are scme ideas in there.
S(x~e things that you probably already had thought about. A point is that I
don't have the time and I don't think you guys have the time to be able to
research on all of this thoroughly enough to be able to say this is our
solution. That's why. I'm rec~mmer~ing these consultants.
Councilman Workman: Eric, I kind of caught you halfway. Were ~u talking about
Clean-Flo? Checking the~ out?
Eric Rivkin: No.
Councilman Workman: Because at our meeting, and I know you're a Clean-Flo kind
of guy, are you aware that the DNR w~uldn't propose that type of aerator in the
lakes?
Eric Rivkin: To do what? To prevent fish kill, yes they would r~ it.
TO aerate the lake and destratify the lake, ~ they. would do that. I know that
people would recc~d it. TO reduce m~ck and...
Councilman Workman: I'm just saying when w~ went to that meeting with Fisheries
and Mr. Shannon and those folks and those people at that, and it's tough keeping
track of everybody that was at the t~hle but w~ were at the DNR and they were
all shaking their heads to it. I don't know anything about it.
Councilman Johnson: I really liked in the admins~ati~ packet the fact that
DNR is now considering letting Chanhassen do it's own thing to that lake versus
putting a public access on it. I've ~ pushing that for well over a year
without it being able to get it past Lori and I thank Don for getting it there.
We have the opportunity. What we can do is put out an RFP out to the various
people that do this kind of work, and there's a lot more. ~is is not nearly an
inclusive list, for proposals on how to do this. What you end up with. If you
do it s~artly, what you end up with is getting people to c(x,e in like .they came
in and talked to all of our financial people before they put in a bid. They.
c~me in and do some basic research on the project. Look at the lake. (k~e back
with, each different firm c(~e back with various proposals. Then we'll have
maybe 1~ different proposals on what various people think is the actions to be
tak~ to clean up the lake versus just going with one guy and saying, okay how
do we do it because every one guy's got his one idea and his idea is the only
way that will work. Our 1.~%~%ologles in my. office, he laughs at the Riplox.
He's got all of the reports fr~m Long Lake because w~ did Lon~ Lake. Loren
Larson. He ~u~ed to be with EPA. We hired him about a year ago. Several years
before that it was the firm that I got hired on in May that did Long Lake. So
there's a lot of people out there. We could put together an RFP that comes out
with a lot of unique ideas on how to do Lake Lucy.
83
City Council Meeting - September 13, 1989
Councilman Worknmn: I have just one quick comment and I mentioned this to Eric~
In even pulling the lake out, and were the City to expend funds on that lake, we
still would have a situation. We still have the same situation why the DNR
isn't likely to l~t public f%%nds into an access less lake because it would
appear as though you're trying to clean up a private lake.
Eric Rivkin: That's where...can co~e in. ~ney can negotiate with the MPCA to
change the st~state agree~_nt because they know these people and they know how
to get it changed. They can lobby for this.
Councilman Johnson: It's illegal for DNR to put money into it without it but we
can put money into it.
Eric Rivkin: The substate agreement is such that it says there has to be public
access on all the lakes that are involved in the project even if they, I don't
know. Sc~_how it may tie lake Lucy in even if we pay for the restoration
ourselves. Sc~how the MPCA could ~mnipulate that around. I don' t think we hav
the resources or time to be able to convince them that we'll do it the way...
Council~n Johnson:' These two gentlemen have already had a meeting that has
already, is going that w~y. We have a letter from them saying that that might
be feasible. The DNR.
Mayor C2m~iel: This is through MPCA too working throt~gh EPA to see if they would
agree with that.
Councilman Johnson: We're already going in that direction without hiring
sc~_body at $80.00 to $100.00 an hour to help us do it.
Mayor C~mtiel: Let me give you a copy of this letter. You can read that. We'll
move on. I've just got two letters here that I'd just like to address real
quickly. One is from the city of Greenwood. On behalf of the Mayor and City
Co~cil and residents of Greenwood, I'd like thanking Chanhassen City Council
fo~ extending your ani~ml control services to include our neighboring
cc~ities for the short tez~ basis and I won't go into the full context but
what it says again is thank you Chanhassen City Council again for consideration
and approve the short te~ agre~m~_nt to provide anJaml control service. We look
forward to working with you in the future. I've got one also frc~l the City of
Victoria and it says, on behalf of the City of Victoria, I'd like to extend ~
appreciate to you and your staff offering to provide animml control services to
the City of Victoria. I believe the City of Chanhassen, and I like this
paragraph believe ~. I believe the City of Cha~ssen is setting an example by
showing a tr~ sense of c(~m~unity spirit by lending a helping hand. We look
forward to working with you on this endeavor. I thought that was pretty neat.
I think that's sc~thing that we can look at as a city.
Councilwo~mn Dimler moved, Councilman Work, mn seconded to adjo[trn the ~=eting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15
p.rti..
Sutm~itted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
84