1989 08 28(2{ANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 28, 1989
Mayor Ch~iel called the m~ting to order at 7:4g p.m.. The =ting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCI~ERS PRESENT: Mayor Chniel, councilman Boyt, councilman Workman,
councilwoman Dimler, and Councilman Johnson
STAFF PRESENT: Roger Knutson, Todd Ger~dt, Gary Warren, Jo Ann Olsen, Paul
Krause, Dave Hempel, Lori Sietsena, ar~ Jim Chaffee
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the agenda amended to add under Council Presentations as follows: Mayor
Chniel ~nted to discuss Narcotics Control Program for a Council resolution, and
a letter fr~ Super~merica; Councilman Johnsc~ wanted to discuss the
intersection of Santa Vera and Saratoga; Councilwoman Dimler ~anted to discuss
the status of the Curry. Fazms Park ar~ tt~ concerns of the Wallentines and
Kerbers and other residents that back up to the c(aauercial property.. All voted
in favor of the agenda as amended and the motio~ carried.
RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING: Mayor Chniel drew a name for the recycling prize ~bich
is $35~.0~ for this drawing.
CC~S~ AC494[1~: Co~cilman Johnson moved, Councilwc~mn Dimler seconded to
approve the following consent ager~a itsms pursuant to the City. Manager's
recc~nl~endations:
a. Zoning Ordinance ~menc%ne~t to City O~de, Final ~Ref3d_ ing:
2) Section 2~-441, Regarding Enforceuent of the Wetlar~ Section.
3) Section 20-1921, Regarding Swimming Pool Fences.
k. Resolution #89-92: Approve Resolution Bequestirg MnDot's Approval for Trail
Crossing at TH 41 south of TH 7.
1. Approval of Accounts.
m. City Council Minutes dated Au~3ust 14, 1989 Planning Ccm~nission Minutes dated August 16, 1989
Park and Recreation Oannission Minutes dated July 25, 1989
n. Approve T~o Day T~rary Liquor License Application, C2manhassen Lions
Club.
o. Ordinance Approving Minnesota Valley Electric Coop Franchise Agreeuent,
Final Reading.
p. Resolution ~89-93: Resolution Approving Subrecipient Agreeuent, Year XV
CBBG Program.
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
q. Resolution #89-94: Set Public Hearing Date for Assessment Hearings:
1) Bluff [k'eek Drive Improvenent Project 80-5
2) Minnewashta Meadows Improv~ent Project 88-2
3) Kerber Blvd. Improvement Project 87-9
r. Resolution #89-95: Approve Resolution I~=questing ~Dot to Conduct a Hearing
on TH 101 Crossing at Dakota Avenue.
s. Resolution ~89-96: Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Sign an
Application for Minnesota POST Board Reimbursement ~bney.
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried.
A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE, FINAL READING. SECTION 20-3,
REGARDING DEFINITION OF DENSITY.
Councilwoman Dimler: I did call Jo Ann on this one today. I really ~ouldn't
have pulled it except I was made aware of a situation by Rick Murray. I know
that this one passed in 1987 and that there probably were public hearings on it
which he missed so I was just going to inquire for him, if he could get the
Minutes from those public meetings to ~_~c if anyone was present t_hat gave some
opposing view points. He did say that he had worked on the enviror~ental
protection comnittee that set L~ the wetland ordinance and that it was their
intent that the density could be transferred and he was not aware that when it
was going through l~lic hearings in 1987, that that was changed. So he simple
asked me if I would bring it up. He could not be here this evening to address
it but he can be here on Sept~nber llth which is our next meeting. So I would
just move that we table that item l(a) (1) until September llth when Mr. Murray
can address it.
Councilman W~rkman: Mr. Mayor, I spoke to Mr. Murray also and in a nutshell,
the way it was explained to me and I go along with Councilmember Dimler is that
if I buy 10 acres in the City of Chanhassen, I'm paying and I'm being taxed on
10 acres but then with what we intend to do regarding density. When I go to
develop my land, certainly in regards to impervious surface, I'm no longer able
to count in my. slopes and my. wetlands, etc. and that was scme of his concerns.
So therefore, it would appear as though he doesn't have much property there as
he intended when a buyer buys property. Does that make sense? SO if it's a
high density zoning, it has an impact obviously on the zoning and I think we all
understood that. It's something that he wanted to discuss.
Councilman Johnson: Actually this is a clarification of intent in that every
section had said net density except for one and that one the word net did not
show up. That happens to be the type of property he owns. I have no problen
with tablirg it. I'll second it.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I did explain that to him and he understood that an
I told him it was just a clarification because I knew what the intent was when
it was passed in 1987 but I think that we should still give him the right to
speak o
Mayor Ch~iel: I have a motion and Jay seconded it to table.
City Council Meeting - August 28 ~ 1989
Oouncilwcman Dimler moved, Oouncilman Johnson seconded to table action on
Section 20-3, Regarding Definition of Density until the Se~ 11, 1989 City
Oouncil ~-cting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
B. REQUEST TO LOCATE A SIGN AT THE S(X21"HEAST CORNER OF WEST 78TH ST~RRT AND
MARKET BLVD. (CITY PROPERTY) FOR FMG, F~%iH~NCE MANUFAC~JRI~ GRfYJP.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, I brought this up not simply because of the it
beir~ inappropriate to pull it at this point but I do not have a concern with
the sign. I agree with staff on that sign and it's denial. I have questions in
regards to the status of FMG in relation to the John Derrick property. I had a
conversation with John Dorrick scmet~ back and I in fact mentioned that
conversation to Todd about his desire to expand up(~ the bowlir~3 alley there.
Make it more of a midwest attraction cente~ as far as getting large tournaments,
etc. in here. I understand FMG is now manufacturing fragrance there which is
not a use in~ended. I guess I'd like a little more infozmation insofar as some
of the, I think the City owned that building for some time didn't wa ar~ the~ it
was, it's a little tricky and I don't mean to discuss it here. It's sc~ething I
think the City ought to look into in helping a current business owner perhaps
expand if he can. I know t_hat the property is currently owned by Bloc~bergs and
I'm not fully aware of all that we can do but something that, ar~ there's other
intricacies in the agre~nents. Since it's an attached building with what's
going on there, I think the Council ought to he made aware and that's all I
really had.
Mayor Ch~iel: ~hat you're looking for basically Tom is s~me additional
infozmation from staff covering this?
Councilman Workman: Right.
Mayor Chniel: Are you requesting that we table this?
Councilman Workman: No.
CounciLman Johnson: This has nothing to do really. ~his ~s actually the one
that I wanted to make a ccax~_nt to in that it's published as just request to
locate a sign. Staff's reccm~H~dation I want to note is that wa deny that sign.
I think when we make a denial and it's not so stated, it's ~ in the past,
because staff recommeoded d~nial and it ~asn't published as denial of request or
that it's ~ misinterpreted as it got passed. That's happened in the past so
we should be careful so I just ~nted to make sure we're voting on l(b) here
that we are denying the request for a sign.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to make a comment on this one as well. I think we
should clarify that Bowling Alley Road is or is not a public road. Do you know
Todd off hand?
Gary Warren: Dedicated right-of-way. Not all the ~y through to TH 1~1 at this
point in time but it is dedicated right-of-way by the bowling alley and for lack
of another name, that has surfaced but it's not been officialll~ adopted. I
don't know. Maybe Jo Ann can say as far as the road name is' concerned. That's
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
just been a necessity from construction.
Councilman Boyt: I think the problem, among others, pointed out here is that
the road doesn't have a name and I would like to see a motion that requests that
the process begin to name this road.
Mayor Chmiel: Bill, before you go to a motion. Is that road plowed by us as
well in t/~ winter? Okay.
Councilman Boyt: So if that's appropriate I would move that staff begin the
process of going about selecting a name for what is now being called Bowling
Alley Road.
Councilman Workman: I ' d second that.
Councilman Johnson: Would you also like to deny the sign request?
Councilman Boyt: Let' s do one at a time.
Mayor Chmiel: I tho~3ht that was your motion. You ir~icated that it was to
deny the sign request.
Councilman Johnson: There was no second.
Mayor Chniel: I didn't call for the second. Is there a second?
Councilwcman Dimler: I'll secord it. Now we have two motions on the floor.
Mayor Chmiel: Bill, will you withdraw your motion?
Councilman Boyt: We'll amend Jay's motion to include that staff be directed to
proceed with the naming of the road.
Councilman Johnson: So accepted.
Councilwoman Dimler: And I'll second that one too.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwauan Dimler seconded to deny the sign request
to locate a sign at the southeast corner of West 78th Street and Market Blvd.
for FMG, Fragrance Manufacturing Group and to direct staff to proceed with the
official naming of what is now referred to as Bowling Alley Road. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
C. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 22.8 ACRES INTO 2 LOTS OF 2.5 AND 20.33 ACRES,
CriES MAR DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE NORTH OF HI(NTWAY 5, CHES MAR REALTY.
Councilman Workman: It came to my attention that perhaps the Gross's would be
here to maybe make some comments.
Councilwoman Dimler: Ginger and Chuck are not here.
City Oouncil ~ting - August 281 1989
Councilman Workman: I guess Jo Ann, can ~uou explain to me item 3? Cor~ition 3
a little bit and our need fox that?
Mayor Chniel: The 35 foot roadway?
Councilman Boyt: That's really Gary's maybe.
Mayor Chniel: Yes, Gary do you want to address that 35 foot roadway easement?
Councilman Johnson: That's changed to 30 now. It's it~n 3 c~ the front page.
On page 4 it's it~n 1 for a 30. Is that ~at l~u're talking about?
Councilw~nan Dimler: Yes, item 3 o~ the first page.
Gary ~rren: This goes back into ancient history from my perspective.
Jo Ann Olsen: T~ whole reaso~ that we're requestin~ the 35 foot is to provide
us with a full 60 foot right-of-way for future improv~nents ~ahen Ches Mar Farm
ever ~rther subdivided.
Councilman Workman: Could ~vou show me where that is?
Councilman Johnson: Jo Ann, you already have 25 foot right-of-way on the other
side of the property line and now we're asking...
Jo Ann Olsen: For an easement alor~ here.
Councilman Johnson: So we' 11 have a 55 foot roadway easement instead of 60.
Councilwoman Dimler: Gary Kirt, he has access right?
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes...a private drive.
Councilman Boyt: It's my understanding that the City cannot create a ~
locked piece of property.
Mayor Chniel: ~hat' s correct.
Jo Ann Olsen: Well we're making...
Councilman Boyt: This is Block 1, whatever right? And this is ~hat w~'re going
to be calling the outlot? Rogex, I'd like to have ~vour clarificatio~ because I
saw a lot of confusion about this in the Planning Minutes but it's my
umderstanding that by doing this, we would in essence be creating a lar~ locked
piece of property. I can' t propose that.
Councilwoman Dimler: Maybe I can shed some light o~ it. I guess the proposal
is that Gary Kirt buy that 20 acres. ~hat's my we're going after this
subdivision? Because be has access already ar~ it would just be a continuation.
Jo Ann Olsen: It's not guaranteed that he will buy that property. ~he reason
the whole subdivision is being proposed is so the Gross' can buy their property.
The 2 1/2 acre piece.
City Council M~eting - August 28, 1989
Councilwoman Dimler: They have an option on the 1.9 they're on right now~
Councilman Boyt: Tney can't buy it without the subdivision.
Councilwoman Dimler: They cannot exercise their option unless they have, is it
due to taxes? Is that it?
Jo Ann Olsen: Because it's all one piece. It's actually all under single
ownership.
Councilwoman Dimler: Tney have to have a tax n~nber or s~nething. Is that
correct?
Councilman Boyt: Taey'd have to buy the whole piece.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I would like to expar~ a little bit on the
question and maybe Gary you could answer this. I don' t understand why the City
needs that roadway eassment. Is the City going to be putting in the streets for
the developer? Perhaps the people that develop it would like that road to
re~ain private. It's my understanding usually the developer puts in the roads
and then the City takes th~n over. Why are we doing this different?
Gary Warren: It's not uncommon to what we require in any plat for future
expansion if the plat at this point in time does not include roadways but we
recognize the future develo~n~_nt where access for future parcels is important
such as the Van Eeckhout item here that's on tonight's agenda where we will
resezwe a future right-of-way. Whether it's built on or not at this time, this
is the time to get the right-of-way is because the platting statutes are in the
City's favor as far as requiring the dedication without any reimbursenent so
this is the time that the platting...
Councilwoman Dimler: But why would the City have to do it? Why can't the
developer get those easenents?
Gary Warren: A developer could get the easements. It would be at some expense.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's why I'm asking. Why is the City doing this?
Gary Warren: Tne City would be doing it I guess to protect our options in the
future without having to use the condsmnation process to secure the easements.
Councilwoman Dimler: So that would benefit the developer?
Gary Warren: It benefits I guess the developer. If the City were to force him
to acquire the eas~nents, yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: Which is the normal procedure isn't it?
Gary Warren: Yes it is.
Councilwc~an Dimler: So again why is the City doing this? I don't understand.
Gary Warren: I sorry, which is the nominal procedure?
City Co,mcil Meeting - August 28~ 1989
Councilwuman Dimler: ~hat the developer would get the easements, put in the
roads and then sell then to the City or whatever for us to maintain them. In
other words, the future development then would no. longer have the option of
having that be a privabe road if they so chose.
Gary Warren: It'd still be a private road with the right-of-way. If w~ chose
not to accept it, D(x3wood Lar~ for example is o~1 a ctty right-of-way but the
City has not accepted that road for maintenance because it's deficient in road
sectio~ ar~ therefore w~ do not maintain it so you can have a private road still
even though there's dedicated right-of-way to the City. We haven't necessarily
precluded that option at all.
Councilman Johnson: this is fairly standard. I think I've seen it over the
last 2 1/2 ~v~ars several times that ome developer will be required to maintain
access to the next parcel because it makes sense for public safety purposes a~d
basic access and future develouaent. If we don't do things like this, we er~ up
with a road running down the middle of sc~e property ending in a large
cul-de-sac 2,000, 5,000 feet, whatever ar~ then right next door you have another
long cul-de-sac. It's all part of the planning process.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, I understand that Jay but that would come in with,
then we would be able to approve or disapprove of when they come in with their
development but I don't see why at this point we have to get that 'right-of-way.
Councilman Johnson: We've got 25 foot on one side ar~ 25 foot does us no good.
We have an opportunity for no dollars basically to get another 3~ foot to have a
55 foot ~hich is then a useable right-of-way if it's required in the future. If
we don't get it now, it gets much more difficult to get it in the future. It's
sliding a card up your sleeve or whatever you do while you're playing the g~ne
in order to have a chance in the future.
Councilwoman Dimler: So are we locking in by acquiring this now, are we then
saying that we will develop the roads in this development?
Counciln~ Johnson: No.
Councilwoman Dimler: And if we opt not to do that, do we then sell the easement
to the developer?
Gary Warren: We can vacate it at no revenue to the City.
Councilman Johnson: We've done that several times with easements that we
thought we nccded. The development developed differently than we thought. We
came back, vacat~t ~ eas~aent ar~ the two prope, rty owners ne~t to the easenent
got it back. In fact this is only an easement. 1~e property owners still own
the property. This just sa~us we have the right to bring a street in there if
that is what the plans show up eventually. E/nd of a shaft move in my opinion.
Councilw~mmn Dimler: Tricky.
Councilman Johnson: I think it's ccam~.
Councilw~xman Dimler: I don't think it's that coumon but an~my, thsnk 2ou for
answering my question.
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
Mayor Chniel: Okay, any further discussion?
Co~a~cilman Boyt: Yes. I was glad to here that discussion about the 30, 35 feet
or whatever it is. You have an interesting point and I can see for the City's
standpoint I know that this is sort of an automatic. When we get the chance to
do this we do it. Frcm the standpoint of it really doesn't go into any city
owned property, it's an interesting question. At this point I don't know what
the right answer is and maybe we hold off on this thing until we get a better
answer. My inclination would be to vote to take the easement because it's just
smart for the city I bet but this other issue comes up that Ursula raises is a
good one. I still think that the City should not be approving a subdivision in
which there is no access to the second piece of property. We're just asking for
trouble down the road ~re.
Mayor Chniel: You're back to the landlocked?
Councilman Boyt: I'm back to the landlocked thing. Roger tells me that there's
nothing in our ordinance that prevents us fr~n granting a landlocked division
here but I think common sense sort of prevents it. So I'm real wary of this.
If we accept the easement, I think we should accept a 35 easement because again
it's an easement. It's not an ownership issue and we ought to go at it with the
road width that the City requires which is 60 feet and we're going to go I think
pretty quickly to a 60 foot urban requirement as well so we can ~m~t in utilities
and put in the road and other things without having to buy property. So I'd
like, if we vote on this tonight, I'd sure like to ~.~ us go back to 35 feet.
Mayor Chniel: Okay. I think we're looking for that total 60 feet for
right-of-way with the 35 feet. How much closer does that come directly to the
house? One of my concerns. 5 feet can be more than inconvenience for that
individual property owner too and I think that was one of the reasons that they
decided to go to 30.
Councilman Boyt: But which side are we taking that out of? I thought we were
taking that on, is it the north side of the property? It's on the south side of
the property? It's away from that house.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mr. Gross, you can address that.
Chuck Gross: I'm sorry. I thought we were coming up a little bit later and
that's the reason why I'm late here. Could I say scmething about this?
Mayor Chniel: Yes. State your name and address please.
Chuck Gross: My name is Chuck Gross. 2703 Ches Mar Famn Drive. This is our
home that you're talking about and we've lived there for I believe 18 years now.
We're asking that the Council accept the plat as you've received it and we are
asking that you strike the item 3 on there. I base that primarily on the fact
that this is an area that the people that live on this farm wish for it to
remain private and wish the road to remain a private road. I guess if in the
future there was going to be a develo~mnent, which I don't believe there's
anybody that really wants that now, that at least lives on the farm, we would
like to have the option of being able to deal with that situation at that time
in relation to offering an easement for that to happen. When you speak of a 35
City Council Meeting - August 28~ 1989
foot easement or even a 30 foot easement, you're taking a lot of mature trees on
our side. It does get close to our hcme and the takirg of that would be very.
much an inctm~beranoe and I realize that granting an eas~a~.~nt doesn' t change
anythirg today but what it does do is it opens up for a developer. It makes it
much more easier for that developer to be able to come in and creat a
development and w~ simply do not want that. All w~'re looking for is to he able
to get our Tax ID number on the 2 1/2 acres so that we can continue to plan for
that area. We planted over 20~ trees on the property ar~ many of those are on
this easement area that w~'re talking about here. A~tually I personally feel
that if there was to be a developnent, perhaps th~ road c~xaing in there would
not be the best answer to it because it's not designed for that. With the house
on the north side as well as ours ar~ then going further into th~ fazm, the
bridge and the cut away ar~ such, would require a tremendous ~nount of fill and
it probably would not be the best answer. Addressing t/~ property, the 2~ acres
that would be divided off of this, as far as landlocking it, what I am told is
that there is a purchase agre~nent or an option with Mr. Kirt that owns s~me of
the rest of the property on the farm and that he's looking to buy that as soon
as we're granted ours. As soon as it's separated ar~ then it would be simply
joined to his property, and there would be no access problems in relation to
that. If there are any questions I'd like a chance to maybe answer them.
Councilman Boyt: I have a question. ~hat I think of as the fazm site back in
there, the largest hcme of all those h~nes.
Chuck Gross: That' s a sixplex in there.
Councilman Boyt: Who owns that?
Chuck Gross: Gary Kirt. There's a Terry Jones that lives in there now and I
believe he is operating with some type of a, perhaps an option with Mr. Kirt.
Councilman Boyt: It ~ to me over the past when we've discussed it there's
~ a series of people who have lived in that sixplex. Are you on the north,
currently, are you on the north side of this property we're looking at or are
you in Block 1, Lot 17
Chuck Gross: Block 1, Lot 1 on the south side of the road. ~nat's the 2 1/2
acre area that we're looking to divide.
Councilman Boyt: Okay so when we look at this. ~hen wa talk about 35 feet,
there's currently right along your proposed lot line is a private drive that
accesses the Kirt property?
Chuck Gross: Yes. Tne drive is a private drive c~ming in and our lot line runs
down pretty much tb~ middle of that private drive yes.
Councilman Boyt: Right now, given the size requira~ents for an individual
residence in the rural residential zoning, no one else can ca~e back in there
and build.
Chuck Gross: I don't believe it's suitable for any additional building.
Councilman Boyt: I think it's 1 in 10.
City Council Meeting - August 28~ 1989
Ch~k Gross: Yes:
Councilman Boyt: 1 house in 10 acres.
Chuck Gross: Right and I believe what was suggested in relation to the
additional 20 acres is that when that is divided off, that would be one building
site o
Councilman Boyt: Right because you're using one on your 2 1/27
Chuck Gross: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: But the 20 acres can only support 2 or t_he 22 acres can only
support 2 so the other 20 acres gets 1 house site.
Chuck Gross: That' s correct.
Councilman Boyt: I guess my point is that at least until that's rezoned, the
potential for any future develo~ent is pretty limited.
Chuck Gross: Yes it is.
Councilman Boyt: So I see the issue in front of the Council is one of do w~
protect a public right-of-way here or do we choose to not protect that public
right-of-way and then force the developer to come in and buy that property later
on? Interesting issue.
Chuck Gross: Were there any other questions?
Councilman Boyt: But if the City already owns 25 feet there, an easenent, is
that correct? The City already has easement purchased there?
Mayor Chniel: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: Or owned, not purchased. We already have control of an
easenent through that area.
Councilwoman Dimler: Is that correct? How did we get that?
Jo Ann Olsen: Through the PUD process.
Councilman Johnson: I've got a question for Jo Ann actually. We've now got a
20 some acre lot adjacent to Mr. Kirt's lot. How big is Mr. Kirt's area?
Jo Ann Olsen: Off hand I can't remember.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, and that 20 acre would support one house right now as
the current subdivision.
Jo Ann Olsen: One building eligibility.
Councilman Johnson: If it is in the future under single ownership and gets
combined with the property next to it, would it then be allowed 2 houses?
10
City Oouncil M~eting - August 28~ 1989
Jo Ann Olsen: No. Taat's why we had the condition for the develo[m~nt contract
that it would only have 1 building eligibility.
Councilman Johnson: Okay so it can't be further subdivided in the future when
it gets cumbined with another 20 acres which would ~ support 4 houses ar~
then cut up into 4 pieces.
Jo Ann Olsen: It could be cut into 3 pieces.
Councilman Johnson: Okay. So that ad infinitim means that that 20 some acres
is only going to be one piece?
Jo Ann Olsen: Well if it's cc~bi~ with another parcel that has 2 other
building eligibilities, if they want to have the buildings on this 20 acres, yes
they can switch them but this one is only good for 1 building eligibility
wherever you put the~.
Councilman Johnson: Okay.
Mayor Ch~iel: Any other questions? If not, thank you.
Gregory Korstad: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Gregory Korstad.
I 'm with the Larkin Hoffman law fi~m, 7900 Y~rxes in Blo~mington. We represent
Ches Mar I%ealty, the owner of this property ar~ I'm here basically this evening
to request of the City Council that the plat be approved per the recc~m~dations
of staff ar~ to advise the City Council that on behalf of the owner of tl~
property, we consent to and support all of the conditions that have been stated
in the staff reoan~endation to the City Council. Essentially what ~uou have
before you is a situation ~here but for the existence of the right-of-way
dedication, the City would be creating a 20 plus acre area of the City that
could be virtually landlocked without any access. We're asking that you provide
tt~ access. We're asking ar~ we want the City to confizm access through the use
of the ease~nt. The property belongs to C~es Mar Realty and (~es F~r Realty
inter, is that that easement go there and Ches Mar Realty does not intend that the
property be subdivided to create a 20 acre area of land that cannot be accessed.
We certainly wouldn't want to be doing that because that would be in essence
devaluing most of the property in order to provide an additional division of the
land there. There's really 3 ~l~s that this can be done ar~ staff I think has
properly c~mpromi~ the various positions and those opposing positions are one,
to allow subdivision of the property as we originally requested it. That is to
allow 2 parcels. One, 1.9 acres ar~ the other 20.8 acres both of which would be
lots in t/~ subdivision. Neither of which would be outlots. Both of which
would be buildable lots. Both of which would be entitled to receive access from
the City or the position of the Gross' that we landlock 20 acres in order that
they, owning now 2 1/2 acres which has been added from their 1.9 acres, and be
able to control ar~ prevent the development of the other property. We think it
would be grossly unfair to have 2 1/2 acres restrict 20 acres. Likewise, it
would not be probably good planning to have 2 driveway entrances off CR 41 so
the appropriate c0~promise for the situation is to put the easement where staff
has ir~icated it ought to go and thereby ~lish the greatest good for the
long term planning interest of the City.
Mayor C~niel: For your infozmation that county road is High~ay 41. State
High~y.
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
Gregory Korstad: Sorry, state highway 41. I have to apologize for not having
all of the t's crossed. I got into this fairly late this afternoon. Are there
other questions?
Councilman Johnson: I have a question. You represent the folks that are
selling the lar~ to the Gross's?
Gregory Korstad: We represent the people that own the property.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, what about the lot that the Gross' house is currently
on? The 1.9 acres.
Gregory Korstad: Ches Mar Realty has agreed to sell 1.9 acres to the Gross'.
Chuck Gross: No, 2.5.
Gregory Korstad: And Ches Mar Realty has increased the size of that, agreed to
increase the size of that to 2.5 if w~ get this subdivision approved. In order
to get it approved. The staff came back some time ago and indicated that we
needed to add property to that lot in order to make it meet the minim~n
requirements under the City ordinance and we have done that without additional
compensation.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, if this gets passed without the roadway easement,
it's not final until the owners sign off on it. It does not beccme a
subdivision just because we passed it. Am I correct also there?
Mayor Chniel: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: So in that case you could just not sell it and not complete
the subdivision if we pulled that. That would be one of your options?
Gregory Korstad: Legally that would be one of the options. It's not at all
preferred because what it does is it puts us back in the same place we were last
fall and then we' re still at a stalmate. We've found that the only way that the
stalmate can be broken is for everybody to give a little. Ches Mar Farms Realty
has given .6 of an acre and in exchange request that it be allowed to create the
eas~nent that staff has ir~icated should exist for the best interest of long
term planning of the City.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question. If Mr. Kirt ~_re to buy the 20 acres
that we're talking about, then that would not be landlocked. There would be
access. Is that correct?
Gregory Korstad: There would not be sufficient access because there wouldn't be
a wide enough easement to meet city standards to put in a road. There's a house
to the north of the existing easement and the existing easement tacks onto the
parcel that we're talking about here. It would not be possible to move the
existing easement farther to the north. There's not room from what I understand
of the property and I haven't looked at it so I can't say.
Councilwoman Dimler: ~lt basically it would not be landlocked? There would be
access, that' s what I wanted.
12
City COuncil Meeting - August 28~ 1989
Gregory Korstad: It would not be able to be accessed by the city street and
landlocked fr~n my standpoint is not being able to be accessed fr~m a city
street in order to use the property. I'm sure that the City doesn' t ~nt this a
long witting driveway back up towards the lake along this long narrow lot.
Oertainly the City's interest is in having a public street to be able to access
that. We don't want to create problems that are going to come back to you in
the future ar~ we don't want to be back to ~vou asking you to approve a 2~ foot
wide private driveway that runs way back to the lake.
Councilman Boyt: You've added another interesting perspective here in that you
own the property ar~ you're asking to grant this easem.=nt. There is, as far as
a private drive, you can access this property with a private drive and build on
that 2~ acre piece of property because a private drive can service 3 hours so
you can do that. F~wever, I'm inclined to support staff rec(mm~a~dation with the
eas~aent increased to 35 feet. It's the property owner that's asking us to do
it.
Councilwoman Dimler: Roger, would you please address the issue of, is it
~on for tt~ developer to buy t/~ easement ar~ the~ develop the road ar~
then later turn it over to the City or keep it a private road? Is that
something that's coamon or is that uncoumon?
Roger ~nutson: I don't know if I can quantify it. ~he most c~mmon thing is for
the developer to dedicate easements in the plat for the City.
Councilwoman Dimler: So we are doing it differently by proposing for the City
to get the easement and the~ the developer, we turn the~ over to the developer
so to speak?
Roger Knutson: No, what we're doing now is the most o0muon. To have it
dedicated on the plat, tl~ easenent. By c~mon, that' s the most common thing to
do is to require the developer to dedicate all necessary easements right on the
plat.
Councilman Johnson: The developer currently owns that and the developer is
asking to do it. He's saying, City we're going to give you it. Then he's going
to sell the lot.
Roger Enutson: Private drives are the exception for access to property.
Mayor C2xaiel: 0~e of the discussions at the Planning (k~mission Mr. Gross,
if I remanber correctly, the reason I think staff came up with a 3~ foot roadway
easeuent was that because of the trees. You wouldn't necessarily have to cut so
many trees on that one specific site. Was I correct?
Chuck Gross: That' s correct.
Mayor Chniel: And that's why it %~s trimmed back from 35 to 30.
Chuck Gross: Can I mention one other thing? The developer or the owner, Ches
Mar ~ealty, w~m_n they develop and produce an option on this property, they did
not have, there was rD easeuent in there. What they were doing was, they sold
this property without easements as such and it's not really theirs to give away
13
City Council Meeting - August 28~ 1989
at this point because we developed it. We entered into a contract with no
easement there. They're giving away something they don't have a right to give
away because we have a contract and that plat that you have there signifies
where the property lines are supposed to be with the exception that we added the
.6 acres to put on the south side. If w~ were going to have a trade-off, we
would prefer just to have the 1.9 and no easement rather than 2 1/2 with any
kind of eas~nent.
Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor? A couple of quick points. (1ir standard right-of-way
in the rural areas as noted here is 60 feet. The road that we build in that
standard section if it were a public road, is 24 feet wide with shoulders. So
just because the easenent would be 60 feet wouldn't mean necessarily that we
would have to indiscriminately be taking down trees to a 60 foot width. In fact
that rural section provides us with some flexibility in that regard. The other
issue that I see in staff's approach to the r~ for the eas~nent at this time
was restricted access on TH 41. With the minor arterial status that the road
has and will continue to justify in the future. It would be very difficult for
me to imagine that this connection, which is an existing connection that MnDot
must recognize, would not be the full access for this property and that to get
another access within a quarter mile would be a heck of a challenge.
Mayor Chmiel: Any further discussion?
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to ask our City Attorney a question there. If you
could comnent on Mr. Gross' because he has an option on this property and at the
time of the option there was no easement discussed. Does that mean, what does
that do? He doesn't own the property. He only has an option.
Roger Knutson: ~nat's a private legal dispute bet~=en the two of them. If this
is what you want, this is what you should request. And you decide what
conditions you want to approve it on and then work out getting t_he signatures.
We can't sit up here and resolve their private legal problems.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other further discussion? If hearing none, do I have a
motion?
Ginger Gross: Hi there. I'm Ginger Gross. He said some things that perhaps
should be brought out. There are two private land owners on the property. The
rest of the people who are on the property are not owners of the property.
Those of us who are there intend that our properties remain private estates. We
do not intend to subdivide at any point. Geri Eikaas in the back is on several
acres. She does not inter~] to subdivide at any point. When water and sewer
come in, she does not intend to subdivide. We in the front do not intend to
subdivide. We have a private drive going off the main road ccming in. Our
landscaping is such that we intend for ourselves to remain as we are in the
midst of our property. There is no benefit to either Geri or ourselves for a
public road to come in. Keep in mind that there are no other owners on the
property. It is a contractor who would like to develop the property who would
like the City to cause an easement on our property and the City to put a road in
through the property. That grant you would happen vexy quickly. We would have
a very wide road and a very dense property. I'm sorry, dense develolanent there.
I question, it may be legal to do the things that you're saying. I ask if it is
either morally or ethically appropriate to take our property to benefit a
developer who has threatened us. Who has caused us many problens. Who has
14
City Council Meetir~g - August 28~ 1989
tried to get us off of our properties any way he could. I ask 2Du if it is
proper to take ou~ property to facilitate that developer. If it is also proper
that the City pay for a road that will allow him to develop. I ask you if
that's appropriate. T~ situation is more complex. There are a series of
people involved t~re. 7hose people wishing to develop the property, have also
bought the gate house. That ga~e house is part of the property that has the
easement on it. They are the people who would make the money and that's the
bottom line with what is goirg on with that property because there's ~ a
disregard for the property until now. ~hey are the people ~o would make the
money. I suggest that if there is to be develouuent to come through there, that
you allow your developer to put the road in using that newly acquired piece of
property to move his house back on his property. Not to take oux property to
benefit him because we do intend to stay as we are when sewer and water oanes
through. When anything comes through. We do not intm~ to cut up into small
parcels nor do the people in the back of the faun. The 20 acres in the back is
the leftove~ piece of property after over 300 acres have ~ worked with over a
period of 20 years. Most of the acreage w~t to the park. T~at particular 20
acres that you're talking about, at or~ time was part of tl~ fazm. The only
reason this issue is here is because of the Larkin-Hoffman law fizm did not
cause tb~ proper moves to be taken to run it through City Hall at that time and
get it subdivided. Toere'd be no problem now but the legal work was not done at
that point. It was just filed with us as part of the 20 acres. That's really
not our problem. The 20 acres is a remaining island of property after
subdivision of a large parcel of property. I don't feel that I have to give
away my eas~m~t to give access to that property. I don't feel that I should
have to do that. My contract with Larkin-~off~man is such that states that I
have meets and bounds that will prevail and ou~ property begins in the middle of
that road. Again I say that the developers, the people involved with that
property have now acquired the property right across the road from me. If they
want to put in a develoD~nt, I suggest that they do it on their property and
not on ours. Thank you.
Mayor C2~iel: Any further discussion?
Oouncilman Boyt: I would move that we accept staff reco~m~andations with item 1
being changed to 35 feet.
Mayor Chniel: 35 would move that back, 'but you said again that it wouldn't
affect the trees?
Gary Warren: The stamdard road section built would be 24 feet of pavement and I
don't have an intimate knowledge of each tree out there but I would say there's
flexibility to work within that.
Ginger Gross: That would take out about 70 trees.
Mayor Oxaiel: 70?
Ginger Gross: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: It doesn't take out the trees. It places ~ within an
easement. That doesn't necessarily mean they die.
15
City Council Meeting - August 28~ 1989
Ginger Gross: ~ney are within, most of them are within 4 feet of the existing
road bed.
Councilman Johnson: So even a 30 foot eas~nent is going to take out most of
them?
Mayor Chniel: Yes. Unfortunately it will.
Councilman Johnson: It's not going to take out most of th~n. It's going to
include most of them.
Councilman Workman: Roger, how justified in a situation like this where it's
basically a private road. One property owner owning half of it, somewhat of a
short length. An important length. As Ginger says, the benefit is going to go
to the developer with the larger parcel whenever sewer gets out there. Is what
she saying is slide the road over? Give her her easement and slide the road
over and they take their portion?
Roger Knutson: Can you slide the road over?
Councilman Workman: Basically she's talking about what I would think, since
this line is in the center of the road, which is their north boundary, I think
what she's saying is take no more of our property. Take, in tb~ eas~nent, move
it all over here so that if they...
Roger Knutson: Who owns that propety? Is it available to you?
Councilman Boyt: We're not subdividing that property. We can't take any
eassments fr~n then unless you want to condemn it.
Councilman Johnson: That's a different owner too.
Mayor Chniel: That's a separate owner.
Gregory Korstad: On that issue, there' s not enough rock, from what I 'm
infonned, there's not enough rocm to do that without taking the house to the
north. You'd have to actually remove that house.
Councilman Workman: Isn't that the ga~e house?
Chuck Gross: Yes it is.
Councilman Workman: Who owns the gate house?
Chuck Gross: Tnat's exactly the point. That's the reason they want that 35
foot is so they don't have to deal with that house situation.
Councilman Workman: Who owns it?
Gregory Korstad: I don' t know. What we' re talking about here is balancing
interests. We've got 20 acres versus an easenent, which is not a fee ownership
here. I think it's pretty important to recognize that the City's got a fairly
substantial interest here too in what happens with that 20 acres.
16
City Council Meeting - August 28~ 1989
Councilman Boyt: Are you the people that just purchased the gate house as it's
being called?
Gregory Korstad: I represent Ches M~r Realty which is a trustee of the Naegele
Trust. More details than that I do not know. My understar~ing is that there is
an adjacent property owner that is considering some develotm~ent and that's all I
can really tell you.
Councilwoman Dimler: Did your client just purchase that gate house then?
Gregory Korstad: No. I do not, my, client, to the best of my knowledge, does
not own that gate house but owns the property and only the property that's
contained in the plat. There is, as I understar~ it, a developer to the
northwest that has s~ne property interests out there but at this point it's not
my knowledge whether they o~n that gate house or not.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can we table this until we find out?
Councilman Boyt: I don't think that it makes a difference does it?
Council~mnan Dimler: Ch yes because if they own it, then they can certainly
move the road.
Councilman Boyt: But the point is, if they did own it, they'd own both sides of
the road ar~ they're c~ing to us ar~ saying, we want the easement on tt~ side
that's being proposed tonight. I'd like to clear up a couple things. The City
isn't building the road. This road, the property is currently zoned in such a
fashion that it cannot be developed. They can only put 1 more house in there.
Moving the road to the north would be basically forcing someone to take out that
house. But quite clearly, the City is not building the road. If ~ahen we take
the easement we're simple saying that at scme point in the future someone has
the right to put a road in there. If develoIm~nt causes that road to go in, the
City won't build the road at that point.
Councilman Johnson: Who owns this entire 23 acres or mhatever the total is
here? 28.83.
Jo Ann Olsen: Cbes Mar Realty.
Gregory Korstad: Ches Mar Fan~s I%ealty.
Brad Johnson: I can answer the rest. I'm Brad Johnson. I represent Gary Kirt
who is the owner of Ches Mar Faun. H~ has sold that under option which probably
will not be taken to a developer. Since that did not happen, he's going to move
out there personally ar~ live there. There's an old gray house that's goir~ to
be remodeled and he's going to live there. ~he gate house is for sale.
Mayor Chniel: Who owns the gate house?
Ginger Gross: It ~ms sold to...Jones.
Brad Johnson: A fellow by the name of Jones. Gary Kirt owns the faum. The
property that, there's an outlot that is now urger, you know where the big house
is there? The sixplex?
17
..
City Oouncil ~L=eting - August 28, 1989
Mayor Chniel: Yes~
Brad Johnson: ~nat's under option to a fellow by the name of Terry Jones to
purchase. He has one more year to exercise that option. He originally had an
option to purchase our interest or his interest, Gary Kirt's interest in the
property, we were buying frcm Naegele's and he did not follow through on that so
that option is currently dead. So he has an option to purchase something as far
as I'm concerned is unsubdividable and that's the 6 unit apartment building.
He's currently living in it and he's invested quite a bit of time in there.
Gary's intent as I said, is to fix up the gray house and live there and then
hold at least until there's sewer and water out there, the balance of the
property. We've been asked by the Naegele Trust to help them complete the
purchase. We've had this property under option now for a year and a half or two
years. At one time w~ were going to develop it and we just decided that's not
the proper thing to do given all these kinds of things. I think we've met with
the City staff. We've agreed that that's going to become an outlot. There will
be no access into that except across that eas~nent that comes in at that end and
as far as I can tell, legally...will allow additional lots. This is a
development contract that Jo Ann has suggested. Now that can happen an~ay but
right now we have a development contract which finally allows them, the Naegele
Trust to deliver the parcel to the Gross'. Right now that parcel is not
subdivided. If it's going to go through the process of subdivision within the
City, it's our opinion that it's the requirenent that the City provide access to
the back scmeday. That's public. You've got a couple of cases in town here
where t_hat didn't happen and they're always arguing about it. When you get
somebody out in front and then you get a whole bunch of property, where there's
no access. We're not saying access has to be on this property. It could be
across, you know as we talked about the other day over to the south but in all
cases if you put a new access into that property, everyk~dy has to agree on it.
The neighborhood has to agree and right now that's serviced by two other people
so we're just t~ying to clear up a situation which could ultimately end up, if
not handled correctly here, with property that has no future access and I don't
think that's what the City wants to do. If you guys have a different ~ay of
doing it, we're more than happy, to look at it. This gives the City the right in
the future, if somebody comes in to subdivide it, to at least have public
access. And if you don't want to do it this way, maybe there's another way.
Maybe you can come in from the south at that time but right now that would take
care of it and it allows you to subdivide the property.
Councilman Johnson: My. original question was, who owns the entire 22.83 acres?
It's the Naegele Trust.
Brad Johnson: It's Gary Kirt.
Councilman Johnson: No, Gary Kirt doesn't own this yet?
Brad Johnson: No, he owns Ches Mar Farm.
Councilman Johnson: He owns the property that the Gross' are living on?
Brad Johnson: Ch that part.
18
City Oouncil Meeting - August 28~ 1989
Councilman Johnson: That's what I asked. Who owns the property, the Gross' are
living on? That's the Naegele Trust?
Brad Johnson: That's the Naegele Trust.
Councilman Johnson: Who's asking to subdivi~?
Gregory Korstad: Naegele Trust.
CounciLman Johnson: Who is asking for the easement?
Gregory Korstad: ~.cgele Trust.
Councilman Johnson: ~nree questions. Taree answers. ~hey're all the same.
What's going on with, they o~n the property. They have the right to do what
they ~unt to do with their property. If they're going to get sued by the
Gross's, that's beyond the jurisdiction of this Council to intercede into that
type of civil action. I think w~ ~ to move on this and get onto our r~_xt
i b~a. What are we on c?
Mayor Chuiel: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: I made a motion. It never got a second.
Mayor Ch~i~: Bill, restate your motion ar~ clarification with the road.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. I would move that the City Council rec~uuends approval
of Subdivision Request #88-27 as sukmitted by staff with point 1 being changed
to a 35 foot road easement.
Councilman Johnson: I ' 11 second that.
Mayor Chniel: Okay. And with items 2, 3 and 4?
Oouncilman Bo.ut: Yes. Right.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve Subdivision
Bequest 988-27 as shown on the plat dated July 25, 1989 ar~ subject to the
following conditions:
1. A 35 foot roadway eas~ma~t shall be dedica~ to the City along the
northerly property boundary of Lot 1, Block 1 of the Ches Mar Faun 2nd
Addition.
2. The applicnat shall enter into a develolmment contract with the City
designating that Outlot A b~- only ome building eligibility, and the
development contract must be recorded as part of the recording of the final
plat.
3. 0utlot A is considered unbuildable until it is cc~bi~ with adjacent
property or provides two approved septic sites ar~ street access.
19
City Council Meeting - August 28~ 1989
4. The applicant shall sukmit a revised plat changing Lot 2, Block 1 to Outlot
A.
All voted in favor except Councilwoman Dimler who opposed and the motion carried
with a vote of 4 to 1.
Mayor Chmiel: Care to state your reason?
Councilwcman Dimler: I just think there's too many unanswered questions. I
would have liked to have seen it tabled until w~ can establish ownership of that
house. If it indeed has been sold and...
Councilman Johnson: It doesn't matter.
Councilwcman Dimler: That's why I voted against it.
D. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 9.5 ACRES INTO 18 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, SOUTH OF
PLEASANT VIEW R(I%D AND EAST OF PG~ERS BLVD., VAN EfEKHO~ BUILDING CORPORATION.
Councilman Workman: I guess I'll just let Jo Ann go at this. I think Jo Ann, I
assume that this was not going to be on the Consent Agenda and now would be the
appropriate time to discuss it.
Jo Ann Olsen: ~ne reason it should be pulled off the consent is I believe some
of the public is here and the major issues are whether or not there should be a
thru street. A connection to the south and staff is proposing or reco~nending
that they do have both the north and south connection. One to Lake Lucy, and
also one to Pleasant View. The applicant wants just the connection
fr~n Pleasant View with a cul-de-sac and the neighbors on Pleasant View wish to,
they even presented a proposal with two cul-de-sacs and no flow thru. So it's
just to allow the public to speak. We're not changing our stand at all.
Mayor Chniel: Before we hear the public, I believe that Mr. Beddor would like
to address this. I think what w~ probably should do is see a presentation
from Mr. Van Eeckhout as to what he is proposing and where he's c~ning from and
then address the issue at that time.
Chuck Van ~eckhout: I assume w~'re all familiar with the general location.
We're south of Pleasant View and we've got approximately 18 lots in this
section. 3 more lots up above here that we're proposing. We originally came to
the City and discussed the concept of how to develop this piece of property. We
w~re talking about connections to Fox Chase which is on the east side of the
property or the Nez Perce area which is to the south. We were told that there
were serious grade problems which turned out to be about 17% going to the east.
Something around 10% going south and these ~re in excess of the City standards
at the time. We also had a substandard right-of-way condition to the south so
I went ahead and acquired another piece of property about 150 feet wide going
off of Pleasant View. We did quite a bit of work on planning and grading and
making sure the thing worked right and the lot sizes and so forth. We then did
a proposal which would show a single access to the north. I very much prefer
the concept of being able to develop a come,unity in here rather than a pass thru
situation where people could kind of identify with a very nice little area.
20
City Oouncil Meeting - August 28, 1989
It's all wooded and this proposal then was remmmended for apgroval by the
staff. At that time w~ Et through several different Planning Oaunission
meetings and it evolved at t/~ first meeting these folks were very much against
a south connection down here. The next meeting or so the Pleasant View folks
ca~e ar~ they were very much opposed to this connectio~ up here but wanted to
have it go all the way through. 1be r~xt meeting they proposed that we have
only the access to the south plus a short cul-de-sac to the north. So my
proposal is that we develop this piece by going north to Pleasant View. I
believe it's consistent with all the zoning ar~ planning ordinances and
I believe in having spent some time on it with some good professional people,
this plan does represent tt~ best use of that property. It is feasible frc~
every point of view. ~nysically. SeE and weter and so forth and will provide
the ki~d of neighborhood that I think is very desirable. The public safety
aspect is also a positive factor in I believe you have less crime and general
nuisance type activities whe~ you have an area where there's not a lot of thru
traffic. It contains less than half the n~nber of lots that I believe Fox Chase
has off of one access and I don't believe there are any star~a~s that would
indicate that putting these 21 lots on this one access, if it's properly done,
would prevent any particular safety or traffic problems. I would be happy to .
answer any questions.
Mayor Ch~iel: Are there any questions by Council at this time? If none. We
have, Mr. Beddor asked to address. It's your turn to cc~e up ar~ please stabe
Frank Beddor: My name is Frank Beddor. My wife and I live o~ 910 Pleasant View
Boad. The unfortunabe part...
Councilman Boyt: EEcuse me. You ~ to speak back by the mic. If you ~mnt to
move that stand. No one is going to be able to hear you.
Mayor C~niel: Right. We won't be able to pick it up on the recording.
Frank Beddor. That's the first time an~ubody said tl~y couldn't hear me. My
loud voice I wouldn't ~ the mic. We think it's unfortunate that originally
the developer wanted this property to be accessed to the south. The unfortunatm
part ~as that evidentally the City or staff thought that the grade was too steep
and had reccmmlended, or someone rec~ml~J~Sed that he buy the property off
Pleasant View Road. We're co~ about the safety on Pleasant View Road.
When we first got involved two Planning ~issions away, we also thought that a
thru street would be worthwhile but after talking briefly with Chuck the
developer and the~ having a chance to study that traffic pattern, we felt that'd
even be worst to have a thru street. And it's my understanding that you also do
not want, where's Chuck? You do not want a thru street right?
Chuck Van Eeckhout: that' s correct.
Frank Beddor: So the developer doesn't want a thru street and we don' t ~nt a
thru street. Since that time we asked our architect to react with the City to
see if it's feasible to have access to this property frc~ the south. First as
you can ~, their plan, the original plan is a very long cul-de-sac.
Councilman Boyt: Frank, if you don't go back by the microphone, the people
watching this on TV can't hear you at all.
21
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
..
Todd Gerhardt: You can take the mic off there ar~ hold it in your hand.
Frank Beddor: As you can see by this plan, this is a very, very long
cul-de-sac. I r~member when we were puttirg in 5 or 6 lots at Christmas Acres,
there ~as strenuous objection to a 500 foot cul-de-sac and we're talking about
1,200 feet. So we do not want to stop the developer. W~'re not asking that
they have larger lots. We ask that the Council take a look at another proposal
and that is, where you w~uld access off to the south, and you can still get 18
lots in this area and you'd have a short cul-de-sac ccming off Pleasant View.
In the future, you could have a loop by taking this access that's already
proposed on both plans, here and here. I think it's called Forest Street and
this could run back and loop to the south. We do not want a thru street as
staff has recc~mended because that's going to end up as a short cut for people
to go down to TH 101 and it really is a dangerous street driving on Pleasant
View. I mean anybody drives down that road to go to TH 101, you can be driving
as carefully as you want and scme other idiot on the wrong side of the road,
you're going to hit them so it is a dangerous situation. Now we realize you're
goirg to lose a few trees here on this side but we think when it ccmes to public
safety and children's lives, the trees are not the big issue. It is my
understanding, frc~ our architect Daryl Fortier, and I'd have to ask staff if
it's correct that the grade is now permissible or Gary, we do have a grade here
that w~uld be permissible?
Gary Warren: Council has approved up to 10% grade in certain situations.
Frank Beddor: So the grade is no longer a challenge and I tried to get a hold
of Chuck a couple times today a~d we played telephone tag but my wife and I
talked about it. chuck, we'd be happy, to buy that property from you for your
cost because we realize you w~nt out and bought the property just to develop
this. This particular piece of property. SO we are very interested in the
safety aspect. We're so interested in the safety aspect of Pleasant View Road
that my. wife and I are right now in the process of moving our driveway over 40
feet because of the traffic. We want to come out, there's a little knoll, we
want to come out at the knoll so we can see both ways because people come onto
Pleasant View Road very fast. It's wide open and then as soon you get past our
place, it gets very tight ar~ we think this w~)uld serve tb~ cc~munity, safety
and the developer to come into the south and you would have future access for if
there is other development to this direction by a secondary road. I wonder if I
could have, can I ask Daryl Fortier to fill in anything I forgot on this?
Daryl, could you fill in anything else here that I might have missed?
Daryl Fortier: Thank you. I'm Daryl Fortier. Fortier Architects. The one
issue I w~uld like to point out that Frank perhaps didn't mention and it goes
with your previous discussion. Carver Beach Estates, when it was planned a
number of years ago when you went through the approval process, specifically had
two outlets or tw~ access points to serve the property to the north and that's
the property that is now developing. It does make sense to have a loop for
public safety so you have two ways in. We think our alternate plan can provide
that. We would point out in contrast, if we go to the other plan which is being
proposed by the developer, he does have t~ future accesses and this is going to
take the number of lots from 21 to scme greater number. Much greater than 21.
This whole area will now be developing off of Forest Street and this area up
here will also be developing off of the northerly street so we believe the
22
City Oouncil Meeting -August 28, 1989
proper planning for this area, as it was master planned some years a~o with the
development of Carver Beach. You have t~D access points to it. We'd like to
see those two points developed. ~hat's all I have to add. Any questions?
Mayor Chniel: Yes. Ommirg down to the south, you're saying that would inter
connect with Nez Perce?
Daryl Fortier: That's correct.
Mayor Chniel: What's the width on Nez Perce?
Gary Warren: TP~ actual roadway?
Mayor Chniel: Yes.
Gary~]arren: It's a little bit less than our 28 foot section.
Daryl Fortier: I had the opportunity to go out ar~ measure Nez Perce as well as.
Pleasant View. They both came in identically at 20 feet.
Oouncilman Boyt: That's what I would have guessed. One difference though is
that ~hat m might call Lake Lucy Road is quite a bit wider.
Mayor Chaiel: Yes.
Gary Warren: ~hat's our star~ard 28 foot curb to gutter.
Mayor C~miel: I know that Pleasant View, here just not too many weeks ago,
right at the S turn where the stop sign is. As I stopped at the upper portion
to make my. turn, ar~ as I made that S turn, s(m~one was almost on my. side of the
road. I unfortunatley scared that w~man so badly I was afraid she ms going to
go into the lake. I really felt bad but I was hugging the side as far as I
could go but that's not the first time that's happened to me there. I've had
that 2 or 3 different times. I don't know if anyor~ else has had that
experience but there is a lot of narrowness with that road as far as Pleasant
View is concerned. There's not much t~)pe for widening that road within that
particular area because there's even a garage that abuts right up to the edge of
the road. It's all private property right tbe_~re. I'm not saying that
condemmation couldn't take place to widened it but I don't think that would be
th~ intent at this time. I'll throw it open for discussion.
Oouncilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, my only coame~t was when I saw this originally
was it appears as though it kim~ of switched a few times. Th~ Pleasant View
Homeowners are fairly mi1 organized and more power to the~. My concern is then
what are m putting on t/~ people on Nez Perce? As I look down Nez Perc~ there,
that's going to be the straight shot onto Ker~ ar~ then into town. It would
appear. I don' t suppose anybody would take CR 17. N~z Perce is a narrow road
also. We're making a selection betwee~ one narrow road ar~ the other. I don't
know how w~ll the Nez Perce people are organized, if they're here or not. Maybe
not.
Daryl Fortier: If I could address some of those points. ~he issue of the
substandard access point here has already ~ discussed with this property
owner. He would certainly be willing to assist in widening that right-of-way in
23
City Council Meeting - August 28~ 1989
exchange for the vacation so w~'d have 50 feet through here. We are putting
most of this traffic onto a 28 foot road. Nez Perce is 20 feet as is most of
Pleasant View. Tne issue here really, to alleviate traffic on both of these
roads. Not one over the other but both of th~n is to preclude any thru traffic.
If you have thru traffic, you will allow people to short cut this direction and
come onto Nez Perce or vice versa. They can short cut this way ar~ come onto
Pleasant View so the biggest concern w~ have for public safety is to preclude
the thru road. The second issue then is how do you get a loop circulation
through there for public safety? If you come off the north, you are putting a
great deal more onto Pleasant View. That is becatme of future develounent. If
you come off the south, you are putting both of then onto a road which is
already 28 feet wide and not necessarily onto Nez Perce.
Councilman Workman: What I 'm saying is you' re assuming that they' re all going
to head w~st. If I were going to head downtown to set my watch to the clock
down here, I would go down, straight down Nez Perce. That's definitely the
shortest path. That's all I'm explaining so while we're keeping it off of
Pleasant View, which is certainly a positive aspect of this plan, we're assuming
that everybody is going to go out to Powers and go south or north to whatever
they're going to do and that Nez Perce, we already have a fairly congested area
in that area with park and everything else right there also so I don't think we
have any less of a serious concern in this area. So while we're transfering, I
don't know if we're transfering or not. Maybe that's the wrong word but one
road or the other is going to get a lot more traffic and neither of them are
prepared to handle it. So whe~ we're making a decision between Pleasant View
and the Nez Perce people, that puts Council in a tough position so that's why
I'm asking for help.
Frank Beddor: I think one difference is that this is a much straighter road and
Pleasant View is very twisty and turny. The~ it's kind of Nez Perce's turn. See
we got Fox Chase with 41 hc~es. We were then trying to get a southern access to
that develoB~ent so we did get that to add to Pleasant View. But I think that
if we had another map that extended out you'd see how twisty and turny that
Pleasant view is and I think from a safety standpoint, then there's no contest
between both roads being the same length because this is a straighter run and
there's not as many blind turns or S turns.
Councilman Workman: And again, you're right. There's an awful lot of the
picture missing. When people cc~e south out of this new addition, you're
assuming they're going to go ~st. But when they cc[ne out to the north, you're
assuming they're going both ways. I'm assuming that they're also going to go
both ways on this.
Frank Beddor: I assume they're going to go both ways here. Both this way and
this way. I'm assuming that but this road is, if you drive this road and drive
this road, then there's no contest to me.
Mayor Chniel: We're talking roughly 18 lots. 36 cars at 2 cars per family.
Councilman Johnson: I have a question for Daryl I think. If he did this plan.
Where that, I guess it's Forest Street, if you want to use that name for it,
that new proposed street through somebody elses property. It runs out there and
takes the quick 90 and goes south. Is there access at that point or is that
~y's lot?
24
City Council Meeting - August 28~ 1989
Daryl Fortier: That's a dedicated Outlot B I believe it's called or 0utlot A,
which has ~...for future access.
Gary Warren: The City, if I could address that, the City has a ~arranty deed on
that as a result of the Carver Beach Estates. One question I have maybe for Jo
Ann, the Art Owens Vineland Plat, has that expired?
Jo Ann Olsen: I'm pretty, sure it's expired.
Gary Warren: Because this looping access is a big impact on that plat ~hich at
that point in time the City. had taken action to say that w~ really didn't r~
that outlot for access and we went with the cul-de-sac option for the
property.
Oouncilman Johnson: We w~re going to vacate that?
Gary Warren: Until such time as the Owen's plat didn't proceed, then we chose
to get the outlot.
Councilman Johnson: About a lam~r ago. Mr. Owen's was going to develop the
other side of tt~ water tower which the~ said we no lorger needed that
right-of-way which we reserved the .~ar before when we platted that particular
area. That area right there. The developer gave us a right-of-way to give
access to the next development north. Similar to what we w~re talking earlier.
Then we're goirg to vacate it wbs~ it was no lorger needed so that vacation
doesn't take because the plat expired.
Gary Warren: ~he develolmment contract called for Beck-Kevitt developers to
provide us with that outlot and I know for a fact that we did obtain that.
Councilman Johnson: We also w~nt to vacate it a year later with the Owen's plat
but if the Owen's plat didn't go through, then that didn't get vacated.
Gary~rren: We never fonmallyvacated it.
Councilman Johnson: We never formally vacated it. Okay.
Gary Warren: We have a fee title until, they just gave it to us.
Councilman Johnson: So that is there for future develoimm~nt? It makes sense to
me. I agree. We do not want to connect Nez Perce straight through this area to
Pleasant View. You couldn't imagine how many cars. I'm sure the computers
could chunk out a n~%ber for you and you'd be ~nazed at how m~ny cars ~)uld then
take that short cut through there instesd of goirg out to CR 17 ar~ down to
downtown. The folks would cut right through that subdivision, through Nez Perce
a~ it would make it far worse to both to have it cut clear through. To have it
come from Pleasant View down, go west and then go back down to ~here you' re
almost back out to CR 17, makes it to where it is not much of a cut through. To
where the people instead would take it all the ~y out to CR 17 on Pleasant
View. In other w~rds, takirg the option beirg proposed by the developer ar~
seeing that future connection into there. We have our tw~ accesses we ~mt for
public safety. The piece of th~ puzzle that's missirg is the pieoe of property
inbetw~en the tw~ that has to be platted to have a road that connects the tw~.
25
City Council Meeting - August 28~ 1989
But that makes, to me public safety sense to have an access from the south but
not directly from Nez Perce. I'm not sure what the roads are. I also agree
that Pleasant View is over used. I don't know if over used is the right word
but Pleasant View doesn't deserve more traffic either but then the developer has
a piece of property he's trying to develop. What rights he's got to that. He
owns both properties.
Daryl Fortier: I might add a comnent to that. The plat that you see, that I've
prepared is slightly different than the developers on the issue of a street to
the west, Forest Lane. I've realigned that. I've taken some liberty, with that
sketch. With the ove~wiew and at a previous Planning Comnission meeting there
were several msmbers who suggested that that street should be realigned. We
would leave that up to Council and staff's opinion of course but there is scme
liberty in this. It is not a direct representation of his plat.
Councilman Johnson: What I would like to see actually is how would Forest fit
through the property next to it? Every piece of this puzzle has to connect to
the next piece of the puzzle. Yes, we're giving you a 50 foot right-of-way to
get into the next piece of property, but is it in the logical place? We can
never guess what's going to happen over there but we can see all 100 foot. Not
even 100 foot. 50 foot. We can see the contours and see that there's no
interferences for 50 foot but what happens as you go further west and south off
of the developer's proposed Forest Street?
Gary Warren: Council has seen it before. Even the Art Owen's property is a
good exanple of the fact that the cul-de-sac option is more attractive for a
number of reasons with developers. In fact that was the arg~nent that Council
bought into at the time of the Vinelane preliminary plat was the fact that it
was a better, more appropriate lar~ use ar~ therefore they didn't want the thru
traffic concept there. I think that there may be a ccmbination someplace in the
middle. The Vineland plat had left an access to the east for receiving a road
co~ing here. Maybe instead of the U al igrm~_nt here, an S type arrangement
wherein the connection is still to Pleasant View Boad but it's an indirect
access so it isn't as attractive from a thru traffic standpoint. I have a lot
of difficulty buying into the fact that Carver Beach people, and we're talking
opinions here but that the Carver Beach people would look to this thru route as
an alternate to get to TH 101 recognizing as we've said here the difficulties on
Pleasant View Road. It's just hard for me to believe. We really haven't had
all the documents in front of us to take a look at all the pieces and maybe as
Councilman Johnson is addressing, that similar to what was done a year or so
ago. The Stratford Ridge area, west of Minnewashta Parkway. We actually
decided to look at a more comprehensive approach. Get a good direction on these
things and perhaps that would be prudent at this time is to try to put scme
concepts together for that general area from a develo~ent scheme standpoint and
then get back to the developer and such. And I know that that takes time but
there's a lot of good ideas that are coming out of here that I think need to be
addressed.
Mayor Chmiel: And I agree with that. I think we have to put all the puzzle
together. Chuck, I was going to ask you. What is your date to start your
particular project?
Chuck Van ~eckhout: About the first of August. We have looked at all these
things and I think...it's been 12 or 14 weeks since we first applied and we have
26
City (bum:ii Meeting - August 28~ 1989
looked at a lot of things. We've talked to a lot of people and as the architect
is pointirg out, the options that are available for, just to bring out his
drawing hare. The options have been worked out and as you can see here, while
they're not connected, we do have a street here that's pointing off to the w~st.
We have an access back to Nez Perce which is, as Oouncilman Johnson baa pointed
out, very close to CR 17 ar~ would prevent this person ar~ this person from
going down here. Cutting back through here and back and going this way. It
would not be practical so all the Gouncil would be faced with in the future is
s~e sort of control to see to it that there was a connection bet~en Point A
ar~ Point B. Not too difficult and no amount of study is going to really solve
the puzzle because sce~one may want to come in here and put in a cul-de-sac
here. There's all kirks of ways to connect Point A with Point B. That's what
you really would be concerned about in my view so I don't think this is
i~tible at all and I don't believe that anI~ore study is going to provide
any more infoz~ation. To get that second access, all we have to do is connect
this point with this point if it's deem~ necessary at the time this development
comes in. Now this develoummt may not ~nt to broke advantage of this access
and the~ that would have to be looked at. Such as this access here whioh was
left for the future but it left us with a 17% to 20% grade ~ahich is just not
practical.
Councilman Johnson: Poor planning. Do you know ~aho owns Lot 5 there? JUst off
of your Forest Lane?
Gary Warren: That' d be Art Owens.
Chuck Van Eeckl~ut: This lot here?
Councilman Johnson: I can' t see it frcm Pm_re.
Gary, Warren: This lot here?
Councilman Johnson: Next one down.
Chuck Van Eeckhout: This one here?
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
Chuck Van ~eckhout: No, I do not know who owns that. It might be Joe
Trundle's. I think he owns 4 but he might own 8 also. So Joe Trundle possibly
owns this. I can't say that for certain. In fact I believe he does. In fact
I've tried to talk to him several times ar~ we've just missed connections.
Because he's not interested in selling at this time he's indicated but that
would be a logical extension from here in some fashion through here ar~ I
believe you'd maintain sufficient control if you've got this access amd this
access to do whatever you wanted in here. If you wanted this connected or not.
Councilman Johnson: So you've got t~D more owners in this puzzle.
Mayor Ch~iel: Chuck, I think it'd probably be best for the City for us to do a
little more study on this and I don't want to delay you and I know you're
lookirg to get this started but I think wa have to pull together all the pieces
of this puzzle so we know exactly where everything is going. I would almost
suggest ar~ reommne~d that we table this for at least within the next 2 weeks
27
City Council Meeting - August 28~ 1989
can this data arr] infonnation be gathered?
Gary Warren: We certainly can look at it. There's another point that relates
maybe to Mr. Beddor's offer here and that is the utility service that the City
is interested in, especially the sanitary sewer, is to connect to Pleasant View
Road. That is very attractive frcm an enviror~ental standpoint because it
prevent us from having to go down a slope into Fox Chase and there's scme land
issues there that if the northern piece for example isn't included at this time,
we'd still want to have the easement to run utilities but I would think in 2
weeks time we can get with the developer and other parties here and bring this
is a conclusion.
John Von Walter: My. name is John Von Walter. I live at 510 Pleasant View Road
which is maybe half a mile to three quarters of a mile fr~n the develolz~ent in
question. In the last 3 or 4 years Pleasant View keeps getting dumped on with
all these develounents. We've got Fox Chase, Fox Hollow, Near Mountain.
Lundgren Bros. right now is putting in another one. Taere's going to be more
Near Mountain stuff that's going to be coming in pretty soon and all of us know
what Pleasant View is already with the up and down, the left and right and
little visibility. Three of my. neighbors have already had head-on collisions
and almost ~eekly somebody goes off the road and through somebody's yard. I've
seen kids hit. It's just too dangerous. Every single development we've had
options to go someplace else but we keep shoving them back on Pleasant View.
Sooner or later it's going to crack and do w~ have to wait until sc~ebody gets
killed or somebody gets hurt? I think w~ should start looking for other ways of
putting sc~e of these. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: There's a motion on the floor.
Councilman Boyt: Before we move on that, if I might. A couple of things. Now
as everyk~dy know Pleasant View is just an accident waiting to happen. Pleasant
View and Frontier Trail are probably two of the worse roads that we've got in
this city. And .vet the inevitable is that no matter which outlet you give this
develolanent, if they want to go to TH 101, how do you think they're going to get
there? They're sure not going to go around Lotus Lake to get to TH 101 down to
the south. They're going to go over to Pleasant View. If that means they have
to go over to CR 17 to get to Pleasant View, that's how they're going to do it
because that's the shortest way to get to TH 101. And I'll bet you that no
matter what access we give it, that if scmebody wants to go to TH 101, that's
how they're going to get there. There just isn't another choice.
Councilman Workman: Bill I guess I suggest that I never cross Pleasant View
living south of here. Cnce I'm on CR 17, I go to Excelsior and go over on TH 7
unless I'm trying to get...
Councilwoman Dimler: To get to TH 1017
Councilman Workman: Yes, if I'm trying to get to TH 101, the stuff that I want
to get to on TH 101 is at TH 7 so once you get onto CR 17, I don't know who
would want to, unless you're out for a nice fall drive. I find it much easier
and less hectic for me. I never go that way. Once I 'm on CR 17, there's no way
I'm going to take a right into Pleasant View.
28
City Oouncil Meeting - August 28~ 1989
Councilman Johnson: There's a lot of people ~aho do. I've followed thsm clear
through there. Starting from TH 101 all the way across.
Councilman Boyt: I guess it's ki~d of what you're used to and ma~ube you're
right. I don't know. I just know that CR 17, whe~ you get into Excelsior is
not a very direct connection to TH 7. You've got to go through town. You've
got to stop at t/~ stop signs. You get on TH 7 and 100 ar~ you'ze faced with a
left hand turn that's a challenge ar~ I'm just saying that no matter how we
access this, I think we're going to put moze traffic o~ Pleasant View. As John
was saying, I think as other developments come along, the same thing is going to
follow. I discovered today, Pleasant View has a 25 m~h speed limit.
Mayor Chniel: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: How often do we enforce that?
Resident: Never.
Councilman Boyt: Amd we had the same problen, I'll ass~e that that's kind of
the general flow of it Jim but we had this same problen come up last year whe~
Near Mountain ~s in and discussed their, what I guess is a right hand turn that
they couldn' t make or weren' t supposed to be able to make. I think it comes
down to among other things, no matter how muc~h traffic is on Pleasant View, the
s~ isn't enforced theze and that contributes to what's already a bad
situation.
Jeff Mann: My name is Jeff Mann. I've been on Pleasant View Road for a fairly
short time. About 1 yesx but I used to live here about 3 years ago and I live
close. I've ~n amazed at how the traffic's picked up in the time that I 'ye
~_ gone. We live in the old house on the hill. Used to be owned by the
Osgoods and we're fairly close. We ~_ a lot of the traffic there, maybe in
wa~us that others don't see it. It's like a race track. We're right on that
curve. I've almost been hit twice in one year right by my own house. I've
almost ~._~n hit once down by that one point that you were hit. The concern I
have, to your point Councilman Boyt. I think it's a very good point. I think
if you route traffic out, they're still going to (mane back through but there's
one major point that no one's brought up. If we allow the traffic to du~p off
at tt~ point indicated on Pleasant View Road, it's right where there's a hill.
Okay? Now it's ome thing if people go out to CR 17 and then make the choice to
come on Pleasant View Road and enter into the traffic pattern at that point. My
cor~ern is that if they enter at the point that it's currently planned, it's
going to be worse. It's going to be a lot worse because they're going to be
entering close to where there's the hill. ihere's eoough blind spots on
Pleasant View Road now and I think we're going to take a situation that's bad
and we' re going to make it worse, lhank you.
Councilman Bo~vt: Gary, I'd like to encourage you to look at, since we're going
to apparently table this, come up with a road pattern that sort of follows the
grade through that undeveloped area. I think whs~ we look at Fox Path, that's
crazy that we could ever think that Fox Path was going to continue on to the
west. So maybe at this point we can c=ae up with something ar~ indicate and
figure out a way that we could indicate to these property owners plan on having
a road that connects at these two places ar~ here's one possibility that will
work. I think that a lot of this turns on our ability to connect s(anewhere.
29
City Council M~eting - August 28, 1989
don't like a 1,200 foot cul-de-sac and if that's our only option, I'll vote
against it but I agree with Tcm. I also don't want to encourage any traffic on
Nez Perce. So that's one. ~ne other issue I'd like you to add, since we're
going to see this again, is in point number 1 where we talk about clear cutting
and the fact that we don't want that. We need to add a point to that that says
that all trees that aren't going to be cut are going to be fenced off prior to
any disturbing of the soils. Because as we all know, once you run a grader over
tree roots, the tree is dead so I think we should add that to point number 1.
~nat's all I have. Thank you.
Tim Foster: Tim Foster, 6370 Pleasant View Cove. Tnls is more in regards to, I
have 4 children and my. wife will not let them ride their bikes on Pleasant View
Cove. I go east to ~dina to work every morning and I do not take Pleasant View
Cove. I will go down and as the TH 5 improves, I think you'll see more people
avoiding Pleasant View and going down to TH 5. I make the decision as to
whether to take Valley View when I get to Chanhassen to see how TH 5 is so I
think you've got the options as Tom had mentioned that if you get on CR 17,
you're either going to go to TH 7 and go east into Minneapolis or those suburbs
closer or you're going to go down to TH 5. I think you should try to keep as
much traffic basically, it seems like the number of children are beccmling more
on Pleasant View as opposed to less but I'm not saying that's any less for Nez
Perce but that's just my comment. We've lived there for 8 years and we've
it's drastically, the traffic has drastically gotten worse. Thank you.
Councilwceumu Dimler: In the interest of time Mr. Mayor, I'll second your motion
to table.
Councilman Johnson: I have two quick points to make.
Mayor Ctmiel: Go ahead but be quick.
Councilman Johnson: Okay. First is the 10% grade. We have approved 10%
grades. This is one of the first points that came out. We have approved 10%
grades in the past. I think in general it's more of a secondary access type of
thing or it's actually the only feasible. It's kind of an alternative of last
resort. If it's the only access into an area, you don't want to see a 10%
grade. So to me to say we could ccme in from the south with no access to the
north and the only access having a 10% grade portion in it, I'm against that.
That gets too steep and too dangerous as an only access. If it's a secondary
access to an area, I can see a 10% grade but again I've said I don't want to see
this connected on both sides of Pleasant View ar~ Nez Perce because then it will
become a number one short cut. The other point is, I think t_hat the gentlem%an
there just showed, a traffic engineer will say people will take CR 17 all the
way to TH 5 and then TH 5 in and he takes CR 17 up here to 78th Street. Cuts
straight through, all the way through downtown past the St. Hubert's schools, a
couple churches. Through our fun little intersection there and t_hen does the
same thing I used to do. I no longer do it but make the decision whether to go
north or onto TH 5 there. Now that I work north I just go north. But there's a
lot of people that cut clear through town which is the same that we' re talking
here on Pleasant View. You say nobody would do that through those windy roads
through downtown but a lot of people do.
Mayor Cbmiel: Your two points are done?
30
City Council Mseting - August 281 1989
<l)ur~i 1~ Johnson: Yes2
Mayor C2~iel: Thank you. I have a motion on the floor and a second to table to
gather the additional data and information with access ar~ tie in th~ puzzle as
Mayor Chuiel moved, council~xaan Dimler seconded to treble action on the
preliminary, plat to subdivide 9.5 acres into 18 single family lots south of
Pleasant View Road and East of Powers Blvd., Van ~eckhout Building corporation
to gather additional information. All voted in favor ar~ the motion carried.
E. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST 2ND AND 3RD ADDITIONS.
Mayor C~miel: I see where there should be rec~-ue=--]ation of staff. There
should be an item 7 which is formerly item 11. ~hat should be added.
Jo Ann Olsen: For the 2nd or 3rd Addition?
Mayor C~miel: This would be on the nak~ Susan Hills West 2nd Addition. ~he
rec~n~endation on page 2. It appears as though you left off item 11, the
sedimentation basin shall be repaired prior to final plat approval. Has that
~--n done?
Jo Ann Olsen: It has ~ done.
Mayor Ch~iel: Okay, it' s repaired. Then we' 11 strike that.
Jo Ann Olsen: Any of the conditions that ~_re not repeated have all been met.
Mayor C2~iel: Have they? Okay. That was my major concern. I didn't see that.
So with that I would move that we approve ite~ (e).
councilman Workman: Second.
Mayor Ch~iel moved, councilman Workman seconded to approve the Final Plat for
Lake Susan Hills West 2nd and 3rd Additions pursuant to the City Manager's
recc~mendations. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried.
F. CHANHASSfN HILLS: APPI~DVE fIANS ~ SPH2IFICATION~ FCR EXTENSION OF
SANITARY SE~TER ASD ~TER TO LOTS 9 AND 15, BLOCK 1, ~SSEN HILLS 1ST
ADDITION.
Mayor Chniel: JUst a quick question to Gary on ite~ f, Chanhassen Hills.
5~ foot easement. Is that going to be recorded with th~ County on the
Abstracts?
Gary Warren: We would record that against the property, that's correct. ~hat's
our normal approach because it' s not worth anythirg until it' s recorded.
31
City Council ~%~eting - August 28~ 1989
Mayor Chniel: The other question I have, would or could these lots be
subdivided in any way?
Gary Warren: Planning may want to address that. I don't know the size of the
lots out there?
Jo Ann Olsen: I'm sorry. I wasn't listening.
Gary Warren: I think they're large enough. Are you familiar with the Lake
Susan Lots 15 and 9?
Mayor Chniel: Yes. Specifically 9 and 15.
Councilman Johnson: Can they be further subdivided?
Gary Warren: They're large enough I believe that they could be subdivided.
Jo Ann Olsen: You're losing me on what lots you're talking about.
Gary Warren: Right next to A1 Klingelhutz.
Mayor Ch~iel: 9 and 15.
Jo Ann Olsen: Ch, you're talking Chan Hills?
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
Jo Ann Olsen: I thought Gary said Lake Susan. Sc~y just said Lake Susan.
They don' t have the public street frontage. That would be the reason they would
not be.
Gary Warren: They would now if he dedicates this strip of right-of-way.
Mayor Chniel: Yes, he did.
Gary Warren: So they could be divided.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Does anyone have any concerns on that? If not, I guess
those questions of mine are answered and I would move that we approve it eh (f).
Councilman Johnson: Second.
Mayor C~miel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the plans and
specifications for Chanhassen Hills extension of sanitary sewer and water to
Lots 9 and 15, Block 1, Chanhassen Hills 1st Addition pursuant to the City
Manager's recommendations. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
G. APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST THIRD ADOITION.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, go back to item (e) for the notes to this on page 5. We
need to include so~e items in the develolm%ent contract. Since we just approved
th~ final plat, it would sean appropriate that we put those items in the
32
C/ty Oouncil Meeting - August 28~ 1989
develoBr~nt contract. They are the following, if i~u're reac~ to follow along.
On page 5. 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12 ar~ 13. To save time o~ this, Gary agrees with
me that th~se should have ~ included and w~ren't so it's simply .~) catch up a
bit of an oversight.
~ouncilman Johnson: Do you move approval with inclusion of 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12
and 137
Councilman Boyt: Yes.
Ray Brandt: I'm Ray Brandt and that itsm 3. I guess the question I have is,
the 3rd Addition doesn't touch Powers Blvd. so I think that itsm 3 really does,
all that applies to is the 2nd Addition.
~'~yor C~xaiel: Can we clarify that one?
Jo Ann Olsen: That must have been, because that is with the 2nd Addition so...
Gary Warren: It must have ~ Audubon Boad.
Councilman Boyt: Let' s get the map.
Jo Ann Olsen: It might have ~ Powers?
Jo Ann Olsen: Right.
Councilman Boyt: Audubon Road?
Gary Warren: A 2~ foot easement along the east side of Audubon
Councilman Johnson: So we have a t2pographical error.
Councilman Boyt: Thank you for catching that.
Ray Brandt: Okay, and then I don't like to he picky but itsm 11 I think
call it Lake Drive and I think they meant Heron Drive.
Councilman Boy~: Heron Drive?
Ray Brandt: Yes. Heron Drive is the major one through the 3rd Addition. Lake
Drive is on...
Gary ~arren: I thought it was because they're hack on to...
Jo Ann Olsen: No, they did refer to Lake Drive. What they wanted was to make
it umderstood that the lots that are abutting up against future Lake Drive, that
they umderstood that that w~uld he a collector.
Ray Bramdt: Ch, on the north side you mean?
33
City Oouncil Meeting - August 28, 1989
Jo Ann Olsen: Right. So that one was correct~
Councilman Johnson: What do we have to do about our previous approval on item
(e) then where we approved it saying Powers Blvd.? Technically do we...
Mayor Chmiel: We can just bandaid that can't we?
Roger K~utson: By youx voting on (g) which subsequently you're voting on the
prior motion, you've amended your prior decision.
Councilman Johnson: I ' 11 accept that.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the Develou~ent
Contract for Lake Susan Hills West Third Addition with the inclusion of
conditions 3, as amended to change Powers Blvd. to Audubon Road, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12
and 13 on page 5 of the memo dated August 23, 1989 from Jo Ann Ols~n to Don
Ashworth. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
J. APPROVAL OF 1990 CONTRACT FOR POLICE SERVICES WITH CARVER COUNTY.
Councilman Workman: Before Bill rips the contract, my only reason for pulling
item (j) was to c(mmend Sheriff Wallin and Officer Chaffee for being able to
work together in a contract situation which is often times very difficult.
Maybe Bill will prove me differently but I think it works effectively and I
think they've done a good job. I get along with those folks real well and I
just wanted to bring that up.
Councilwoman Dimler: I second that.
Mayor Chniel: I'll third it.
Councilman Johnson: While I agree that we have worked very well with the Carver
County Sheriff. He's provided us very go~d service. I will continue to say, as
I have for the past 2 years, this is the weakest contract I have ever seen, been
party to. Giving away all rights of the City to have the Sheriff in a decision
making mode for all decisions. It's an extremely one sided contract. I have
bee~ asking for it to be improved for years. It continues to work fine as long
as we have a good sheriff that does but w~ get a different sheriff in here who
decides they don't want, you know they have cc~plete control over who, what
vehicles. I mean they could put the sheriff's in here on mopeds and we'd still
be paying the same amount. Any vehicle, such vehicle. Horses. I mean you
know. We could bec~ne the mounted area. He has complete control over who
answers what. We have a public safety department that has, because they work
well together they have some .rights and they have done something but the
contract doesn't give it to us. It's just ~ personalities that do it. I
personally would rather ~cc a strong contract where we both have mutual
responsibilities and the City has control over a quarter million dollars that we
pay to the County for our services. We're going to give them $283,386.00 and
don't have much of a voice in how that money's spent. And again, althought I am
willing to continue to approve this because it is working so well, I do want to
see it negotiated. I mean for 2 years we said yeah, we' 11 start negotiating
with the Sheriff and we'll get a mutual contract. Taen it comes back, well the
34
City Council Meeting - August 28~ 1989
sheriff won't negotiate because this is th~ same contract t~. use with
ever.ubody. We're the only person with 24 hours per day of sheriff service.
It's a fine contract when you're getting 1 or 2 hours per day of sheriff service
but at this level it's a ludicrous contract.
Mayor C2~iel: Jay, what suggestions do you think s~muld be in there?
Councilman Johnson: I think our City Attorney should look at an alternate
contract that provides us control over the petrols that we are paying a quarter
million dollars a year to patrol. We can suggest to t~ that we would like
then to radar Pleasant View. If they decide, if the sheriff sa.rs rD, I don't
~nt to radar Pleasant View, we have rD control over that. If he decides he
doesn't want to radar anything, that's his option. Not tt~ City's option as to
what the police do in this town. ~hey just have to be in the town for 24 hours.
24 man b~urs per day.
Councilman Workman: Well Jay, we're starting to get on that old issue again
about police services and I'll go along with you fine until you staxt mentioning
that word control because I'm not interested as a council at this point in
having control over a police force. Ar~ while there's many good with a police
force, there's also many bads. You get some bad people on the Council a~d they
want to control police forces and everything else ar~ then you have probl~--
also. Perhaps you'll belp Sheriff Wallin get elected next year because I don't
know that we need to heavily laden the contract with must have guns. Must have
bullets. Y~st have ever.vthing else. I brought it up, I truly think that
Sheriff Wallin is doirg a great job. I'm sure there's many. different things
that we can straighten out and I think Ursula and I have been meeting with Jim
Chaffee and Sheriff Wallin on a once a month basis when we reuember ar~ it's a
great opportunity. It's the third Monday morning each month and it's a great
opportunity to get together with the sheriff and Jim and I'll tell you what. We
talk about an awful lot of good things and I think it's done a lot of good. I
still haven't ~_--n shown that we can get the level of coverage anywhere else for
that amount of money and until I do...
Councilman Johnson: I'm not suggesting that we go to our own police service. I
have said it many times that we eventually will be going to our own police
service and we ~ to plan for that and the Sheriff ~s to be included in
that planning. In the me~o they discussed that they are starting to plan for
that eventuality. Whether it's 10 years off or whatever to where there's an
orderly change over. All I want to say is that I'm spend~ a quarter million
dollars of our taxpayers money, with rD control over that. We've just handing it
over. There's rD other place that I think we hand that much money over to
s(xnebody and say here, do what you think is best when we have a professional
staff that can also provide input. And right now their input is being listened
to. It is being listened to but there's no reason that be has to listen to it.
Mayor Ch~iel: No, but I think there's kind of a working relationship be~
the two ar~ it's really come to a good understar~irg between both. I think to
try to have this additional control, I don't particularly think that that's
needed. The Sheriff's Department is going to provide us with th~ kind of
protection that we ~ at a reasomahle cost of a quarter million dollars. And
.vet we still can't provide our own for this. I think they've ~ doing a
commendable job. Just yesterday at St. HUbert's, they had cars parked all over
but ~ they didn't have to have that control to go out ar~ write tickets. Tt~y
35
City Council Meeting - August 9.8, 1989
asked the people to move those vehicles and they did and I thought they handled
that exceptionally well so there's a lot of pluses that I see that they've been
doing.
Councilw~nan Dimler: I too have been real proud of the way w~'ve worked
together ar~ I guess my basic premise is if it' s working, don' t fix it.
this point I can see no reason to go ahead and...
So at
Councilman Johnson: I hate to try ard fix it after it's broken.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to wade into this.
Mayor Chniel: Sure.
CounciLman Workman: I shouldn't have brought it up.
Councilman Boyt: If you hadn't, I would have Tom. The first point I'd like to
make addresses, if it's not broken, don't fix it. I would like to remind the
rest of the Council, though I was not supportive of it, t~ majority of the
Council supported spending quite a bit of the staff's time to investigate the
possibility of changing the City Attorney. That wasn't broken. In fact,
virtually everybody on the staff said the service we were receiving was
exceptional. We're about to do the same thing with the City. Auditor and the
City Financial Services provider. ~hey're not broken and .vet we're
investigating them very carefully. We haven't even pursued gettirg another bid
from another provider of those services so when TOm says nobody has offered this
se~wioe for less, we have never asked anybody if they would offer the service
for less. I think that on the one hand, it's certainly reasonable to
investigate the position of the City Attorney, the Auditor and the Financial
Services but it's equally reasonable to do that with probably one of the most
important public services we provide.
Councilwoman Dimler: Bill I think you might be missing one point and that is
that Carver County by nature has jurisdiction in Chanhassen. Chanhassen is in
Carver County and so the Carver County Sheriff has jurisdiction. With the other
providers such as law and the financial assistance and so forth, there's no one
that naturally has jurisdiction here. We can choose those fr~n anywhere but
it'd be pretty hard to choose police service when carver County has jurisdiction
anyway.
Councilman Boyt: Carver County is responsible to give us base level service for
our tax dollars but we then contract with anyone that can legally provide the
service to provide us additional coverage. And ~den Prairie, Minnetonka,
Excelsior and their combined, could all do it legally and we've never pursued
how much they'd charge us. And nobody can tell me what the base level service
is that the County's supposed to provide to us. I think we should investigate
that. ~ne contract that Jay mentioned is dictated to us by the legal suit
settlement so if we want to have a contract with the County, the County
Attorney's position is this is it. If we want flexibility in that, it's my
understanding that we can enter into letters of agreanent. I think we should
pursue those letters of agre~n~nt in addition to this but as this stands now, as
Jay made th~ point, the Oounty decides which service will be rendered. They
decide the standards of performance. ~ney decide if any officers will be
disciplined. They control all the personnel. We know all this but it's spelled
36
City Council ~etin9 ~ August 28~ 1989
out very specifically and the County also has om~plete authority to decide any
disputes. So they have the last word ~ tt~ whole contract. I think that w~
should prepare those letters of understandir~3 and lay it out. I think that the
County has definitely improved their service in the last year. Maybe because of
the =tings you've been holding. Maybe because of s~me of the other issues in
the c~m~nity. This is a critical issue and I'm disappointed that ~ have not
even pursued another bidder.
Cour~ilman Workman: Bill I don't know, and I don't know who ~Duld be bidding.
Hennepin County? South Tonka? But I guarantee that they. are not goi=3 to hand
over control of their officers to us. I guarantee that. I don't think Carver
County's specific on that. I don't think that those, whether they're wearing
blue or brown uniforms are going to give us control of their officers. That's
not goirg to happen with any other contract. So I'm not worried about bidding
out a contract. If it's not Carver County, it's somebody else. If w~ can get a
better price, that's fantastic. Ursula's point about jurisdicti~ is an
important one but I don't think that it's, it could very %~all be realistic. If
staff wants to look into searching out other units of goverrment that can afford
us. I have a question about why we're going to be doing dog contracts with
every, other city and that's coming up. We're expandirg our o~n public safety-
department even though we do have and are paying for coverage so there's all
sorts of different questions ar~ we again can sit down ar~ talk about that for a
long time and if you want to bid it out, I'd be more than happy.. I don't think
it's goirg to, I don't think we'll see any other unit.
Councilman Boyt: Well we have over a month to find out. Let's find out.
Mayor Ch~iel: It appears as though staff is satisfied with what they've
proposed Bill. I don't know why we have to go looking again. Just to satisfy
the whims and concerns that you basically have.
Councilman Boyt: It's not a whim.
Mayor C~aiel: Well to me it is.
Councilman Johnson: I had the same ~ in that case because it's the same
point I made the last tw~ years. Why don't we bid this service lik~ we bid
other services? It's not a new concept. I have ~ talking about the
jurisdictional problems that my ensue. That's why I didn't bring it up this
time but we are also a Hennepin County. city so maybe there isn't a
jurisdictional problem being a dual county city. Carver County Sheriff can go
into Hennepin County. within our city ar~ act as our city police within
F~mepin County I believe.
Councilwoman Dimler: So suppose that you do that and then you have no guarantee
that t/~ working relationship which we have now created with Carver County is
going to be a good one. Gkay? There's no guarantee just because we get another
n~bers bid fr~n then. There's no guarantee that that's going to be a good
working relationship and that's why I'm saying that if it is a good working
relationship, don't try to fix it. Even if we can save a few bucks.
Councilman Boyt: When we're dealing with a $283,ggg.gg contract and we're not
even looking for a secor~ bidder, I don't think we're doing our job.
37
City Oouncil Meeting - August 28, 1989
Council~ Dimler: Well I don't think anybody's going to provide it cheaper.
Councilman Boyt You don't know. I would hope not. I just think that we owe
them the assurety of having looked.
Councilwoman Dimler: But it' s cheap.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion to pass this and I think
it's unfortunately too late to search out another law enforc~m~ent agent? to
represent us but I would suggest that over the next year, 12 months, that we do
look at the cost. City Council's going to be deeply inbedded into 1990 budget
proposals shortly.
Mayor Chmiel: Basically I think what you're trying to say T~m is the last
paragraph. It says, however, if either party gives proper notice to cancel
police services for 1991, the actual costs for 1990 police services shall be
subject to recapture provisions above of which they're talking.
Councilman Boyt: Well I could certainly accept this contract if we lald the
groundwork so that a year from now we brought in other proposals or we at least
had gone out and searched for other proposals. But I personally would be very
uncomfortable sitting here a year frc~ now saying the same thing. I think we
need to make some progress on determining what our options are.
Councilman Workman: I think if we search out over the next year and weigh this
out and this Council started firing away at this issue in January. I think one
of the best places to discuss that would be in the budget proposals. I think
it'd be interesting to note for the record that the Carver County contract will
cost us $283,386.00 for 1990. The public safety budget request for 1990 is
$1,147,250.00. We' re spending another $900,000.00, supposedly for 1990. It
would appear as though Carver Oounty's efforts are a very small portion of what
we're doing at this point.
Councilman Boyt: Well it depends upon whether you break out Carver County's
efforts as an enforcement agency, dealing with the issues of s~ and such or
whether you deal with them as housing inspectors and that sort of thing. I
think you'll find the bulk of that budget in public safety goes to inspection.
Councilman Workman: Yeah. No, I'm not denying that. Jim, where does the
$283,000.00 come? Is that pol ice adminstration?
Jim Chaffee: Tne $283,000.00 is what we will be paying the Carver County
Sheriff's Depa~ent for patrol services.
Councilman Workman: So that's not even in the 1.1 million?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Workman: So we're at about 1.4 million.
Jim Chaffee: Wait a minute. That is in the total figure.
Councilman Workman: Is it in police adminstration, fire and resc[~?
38
City Oouncil Meeting - August 28~ 1989
Jim Chaffee: Well I don't have the budget figures in front of me2
Mayor Chniel: Tom, back into the $283,~0.00. As you can see, the contract per
hour cost only went up about 3 cents an hour ar~ from one year to tt~ next at 3
cents per hour, I can't argue that point at all. I think it's very, not
reasonable but it's with the rate of inflatio~ as it is, it's very cost
effective I think.
Councilman Boyt: I would make a motion that w~ approve the contract fo~ 1990 as
stated with the provision...
Mayor Chniel: Bill, w~ had a motion on the floor that Tc~ already did.
Mayor Chniel: No, it ~s interrupted at the time. ~nen he didn't finish it.
Oouncilw~nan Dimler: Whatever your motio~ is Tom, I secor~ it.
Councilman Workman: My motion ms to approve the police contract with Carver
County for 1990 as it reads with Council looking durir~ the budget process, etc.
to find out if we're getting a bang for our buck. I think that's what we've
~_n getting at since January. And I want to know if Jay's paying fox those
plastic pieces on that breathalyzer.
Councilman Boyt: Does that mean that you're directing staff to investigate what
it would cost us if we went with other agencies?
Councilman Workman: I guess what I'm directing is that, ~ in addition to
during the budget process fox us. Investigating and dissectir~3 where a 1.1
million is going for police and everything else.
Councilman Boyt: Well public safety. I just want to be clear that we are
asking staff to investigate this for next budget process or next year or
whatever in regards to t/~ availability of other service.
Councilman Workman: Sure.
Councilwuman Dimler: Maybe you just ~ant to see ~hat other cities are paying?
Councilman Workman: I would not be adverse to finding out any kir~ of
infon~ation. I don't think _c~__rver County's trying to milk us.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwunan Dimler seconded to approve the 1990
Contract for Police Services with Carver County ar~ to direct staff into looking
at other options fox the 1991 budget process. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
39
City Council Meeting - August 28~ 1989
VISITOR PRESENTATION: YOUTH DEVELOPMENT ~ITTEE/G(~LS, CHASKA SCHOOL
DISTRICT, LISA DILLEY/MARGIE KARJALAHTI.
Margie Karjalahti: I am a resident of Chanhassen and I'm here tonight to speak
as a representative of the youth development plan which was formulated through
the Chaska School District 9112 of which Chanhassen is a part of. I think
probably what w~uld best happen tonight right now, for a little break for
everybody, because I think you're going to like the change of pace w~' 11 offer
at this time. We're going to show a little video and the video will explain,
show you I think more clearly our concerns and maybe give a little rationale for
why we' re here tonight.
(At this point a video was shown to the Council.)
Margie Karjalahti: Well a very thought provoking little film. What the youth
development plan has come up with is that, as Tom Selleck said, it is very much
the school's responsibility to teach values and to portray th~m. But those kids
are out of school and either on the bus or playing at the playground or going
into stores in the community, and they have a lot of free hours and we feel that
it's just as much a responsibility of the entire co~m~unlty to be modeling good
values for the kids and seeing that they're upheld. That's why we're here
tonight. You have your packet which you received, and I don't know how clear
that might be to you because I know when I first looked at it it was a little
bit confusing so just for the audience too on TV, I will explain just real
briefly. There are four little s~ittees or components to that youth
development plan. T~e first one is curricul~m~ and that is how the schools are
addressing the needs of the kids in this area. Number t~) is the resource data
base. The resource data base w~uld be one place that everbody could go to for
infozmation that would help them with kids. Number three is the adoption of
values and promotion of values. That's ~ahat we're here about tonight and that
pertains to the co~unities. All of the co~unities within our school district.
Ar~ the fourth is a youth, the formation of a youth c(mmlission. I'll explain
that in a minute. Well, what we would like for the City to do. You have a list
of values that have been cc~piled there. ThOse values were brought about by
forum, s. Co~unity fortm~s, questionaires and c~m~nity meetings. And they did
involve representatives from every one of the cc~unities that make up School
District 9112. The bottom line was that in May there was a c~m~unity for~ and
they had a list of 28 values and in this for~ we kind of brainstormed and came
up with the ones that collectively we felt were the most important and they were
placed into this category of 8 simply to make it very manageable. What we w~uld
like for you to do is to adopt these values and then to promote ~ among your
staff. We see that the City ~ployees cc~e into contact with the public every
day and that would be a great first step in getting this whole concept started.
Just among, in the town. I guess the best story I can think of for the impact
that one person can have on kids is Jack who was the attendant at the warming
house in Chanhassen. I had heard of him just from my kids. They would c(x~e
hcme and say, oh mom. Guess what,~Jack tied my skates when my feet got cold. Or
they'd cc~e ho~e with a story about Jack every time they had been up to the rink
and often time it was well you know some of the kids were getting out of line
and Jack told them they had to leave until they could come back. Or Jack spoke
to these guys. Or Jack took care of screwy who had gotten hurt and that one
person modeled for all the kids in that skating area integrity, kindness, caring
for others and a respect for others just by w~D he was. I 'm sure that the
values that are here are values that we feel that the people in our cc~m~ity
40
City Oouncil M~eting - August 28~ 1989
already hold and have and our purpose is to encourage them to live ths~ boldly
and to be real conscience about living then and be aware because t/~y're
modeling then. Now the way we see this happening would be two fold to promote
theu once they've ~_n adopted. Prcmotirg thsm would be through publicity and
through awareness training of the people that work for the City. We have
already started to work on ways that we can help give you assistance in Prow you
might train the staff. You'd ~ to identify the people that work specifically
with youth. I'm sure Lori'd be great. She'd have a key into that. And eve~,
if you think through who all comes in contact with youth, you might come up with
some more ideas but what we'd like you to do then I guess basically is to first
of all adopt the plan and the second thing we'd like is for you to identify
within the City who works with kids ar~ begin an awareness trainir~ program of
s~me sort with them. We are mccting with our values cc~nittee to ccme up with
ways that we can help you with that. Now this may sour~ like a really good idea
and 5 years frc~ r~w it could be thought of as the idea that was there and
nothing happened to it. So the fourth component of the youth develo~nt plan,
which is the youth cc~mission, is to be developed too. And the youth cc~ission
will be th~ place. They' 11 be the authority or the responsible party to see
that these values aren' t forgotten and that the continuing ~s of youth are
continuing to be met. We'll give you an opportunity at a later dat~ if you'd
like to come back to ~ how you could help financially with that. So do you
have any, I know you'd like that opportunity. Do you have any questions?
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd just like to ask right off, on the youth
ccamission now, are you just talking about Chanhasse~ youth? Are you talking
about District 112 here and we also have another school district which is
Margie Karjalahti: Well you know I hadn't thought about that until we got here
tonight.
Councilwoman Dimler: I think we need to take that into consideration and work
out s~me details.
Margie Kaxjalahti: Maybe Lisa can answer that for you.
Lisa Dilley: I'm Lisa Dilley and I am also a citize~ of Chanhassen and I have
worked with this commission for the three .~sars that it has been developed
throughout tt~ area. It oaues out of a State funded program that is in all
school districts and is available to all school districts and all c(xmmmities.
When you get cities like this that cross frcm one area to another, we would hope
that with the youth ccamission we could work in conjunction with the Minnetonka
and ~dea Prairie school districts so that it would be a cooperative effort. The
idea is that what happens to a kid here affects ~hat happens there and we can't
isolate it. The cozauunities have to work toge~ ar~ the schools have to work
together to ~lish that. Ar~ with youth cc~nission we would work with all
tbe surrounding areas.
Oouncilman Johnson: Margie? Are you also working with the Athletic
Associations that is such a big part of our kids, as you know? The Chanhassen
Athletic Association, the Chanhassen/(~aska Youth Soccer, South Tonka Little
League are tb~ main three I think of off the top. I'm not sure, Babe Ruth is
still out of CAA isn't it?
41
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
Margie Karjalahti: Oh yes. Our hope is that if the City adopts these values
ar~ takes on the responsibility to see that they're not just an idea that's
sitting in their desk. Taat you would take on the co~ni~t, the City would
take on the commitment to see that these values are shared and taught and an
awareness made within your own city programs. Those are city programs.
Councilman Johnson: No, they are not city programs.
Margie Karjalahti: Oh, they' re not?
Councilman Johnson: Those are all private programs that exist here. Run by
parents.
Margie Karjalahti: Oh, but it's not Park and Rec?
Councilman Johnson: No.
Margie Karjalahti: But they could help us identify the people within the City.
Whether it's city organization or not, they could help us identify who it is
that w~ would contact to work with. And yes, we would. You know I didn't
mention that there scme organizations that we had specifically thought of and
one was coaches of leagues. Another was Sunday school teachers. Anyone who's
working with kids that way. Even child care centers and day care centers and we
hope to do some of this work through publicity also. Kind of like the litter
bug campaign. You know, if you just keep holding that standard up, people are
going to be aware of it and I think it's just going to draw what's already in
people a lot to just want to surface these values.
councilman Johnson: If the council r~msmbers a few weeks ago, a month ago or
whatever I presented a Council presentation in which we discussed City values
and the adoption of a set of City values such as what Champagne, Illinois did.
believe, I'm not sure if those were provided to everybody. I think we passed
those out then and this is very much similiar to that and this was in the City
of Champagne. It was taken. The City Council passed it. Each City ~mployee was
given a billfold size copy of it. It was posted at the entrance in just about
every office within the City. This is how we treat ou~ citizens ar~ this is
what the City's values are. The second item of that was, the goals of the
Council during their 2 year teun. Here's what wa are tm'ying to achieve and
here's the focus of our Council. I still believe that that's the two things
that we need to do is establish this Council's and it's two year term, what our
values and what our goals are going to be.
Mayor Chniel: Any other questions? If none, thank you Margie. We' 11 take this,
I mentioned to Todd that we'll pull sc~e things together here to ~cc what we
ccme up with. If it can be implemented as such and how it will take place, then
we can get back to the proper people to ~cc how we get it all going. But I
certainly even like the resolution portion where they hit on many things. ~
worth and dignity. The integrity of the learning. The respect for others. The
responsibility. I think that's just great.
Margie Karjalahti: Will you be discussing this now to adopt it now? That's
what ~ would hope for.
42
City Council Meeting - August 28~ 1989
Mayor Ch~iel: I think what w~ would probably do is try to pull everything
togetrher and pull a resolution together for this as ~_11. Probably be at our
next Oouncil meeting.
Margie Karjalahti: (kay. Would you like me to c~me back at that time to answer
questions?
Mayor Chniel: Fine. If you'd like to. M~re than happy to have you here.
Maggie Karjalahti: JUst for fun I would tell you that the school district has
adopted these values and so they' re going to be implem~ting. Well they adopted
ths~ last Thursday so they're beginir~3 already, with their workshops tumorrow to
train their staff and it's an exciting time I think for all of our ccmmm~ities
to be working together on this. Thank you.
Oouncilman Boyt: I think w~ should also find out ~hat's happening in Minr~tonka
since that's half our students.
Mayor Chniel: Yes. I agree.
Councilman Johnson: It's a good step forward.
AWARD ~F BIDS: 1989 STREET REPAIR PROGRAM.
Besolution #89-97: Councilman Boyt moved, Oouncilw~man Dimler seconded to award
the 1989 street repair program project to Allied Blacktop in the amount of
$1~6,328.69. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
UNFINIS~RD BUSINESS:
A. CONSIDER SITE ALTERNATIVES FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO LAKE LUCY.
B. AUTHORIZATIGN TO SUH~IT ~ GRANT APPLICATION.
Lori Sietsena: As you all know, this item has bccn tabled for the last couple
of =ctings so that the Mayor could meet with Joe Alexander to discuss what kind
of an access is going to be ultimately acceptable by the DNR. Do you ~ant to go
over your mccting with Joe first?
Mayor C2~iel: Yes. Turn and I had an oppor~ity to sit down with him, with Joe
Alexander who is coumissioner of the Minnesota Department of Natural Besources
and we had a very good discussion I felt. S~me of the points that w~re brought
up were already what we had discussed last week as far as the sites were
concerned. Joe indicated at the time that he ~sn't too happy with the
Gr~----nwo~d Shores Park portion. As part of that he said it just causes a lot
more concerns and it's basically how the ~ gets into a lot of problems. Going
directly into a residential area to provide those kinds of accesses. Let me
read to you what Joe had written a letter and sent me a copy. F~ sent these to
two people within the Department. Paul Swenson, T~ails ar~ Wa~ys Director
and Larry Shannon, Fish and Wildlife Director. Subject Lake Lucy. On Tuesday,
August 15 I met with Mayor Don (2miel and Councilman Workman frc~ Chanhassen
regarding the Lake Lucy. access and the application for improving the ~ater
43
City Council Meeting - August 28~ 1989
quality in the five lakes including Lake Lucy. Tais is the chain of lakes that
we're tryir~ to have still cleaned up ar~ we're working in conjunction with the
State MPCA who is the purse string holder from the dollars that they get from
EPA to fund this particular project of a million dollars. As he continues with
his letter, he says the present status of the public access on Lake Lucy seems
to be a stumbling block. Please coordinate an effort to explore some area of
the agreem~t. My opinion on the importance of public access need not be
detailed. However, I do have equally strong opinion on water quality. Maybe
there is sc~e middle ground. Now with this there's going to be a meeting coming
up on Wednesday of this week with Paul Swenson and Lar~ Shannon and Lori's
going to be there and I plan on being there and I think Tom wanted also to come
along. So hopefully we can ca~e up with some resolvement on the issue.
Councilman Boyt: When' s the meeting?
Lori Sietsena: The meetings is Wednesday at 11:00 in St. Paul.
Mayor Chniel: At DNR.
Lori Sietsema: It was really the only time I would be able to meet with both of
them because they were both in and out of town.
Mayor Chniel: 11:00 could change to between 10:00-10:30 too. Only because
I have another commitment at 12:00.
Lori Sie~: I will attempt to change that. Basically that meeting is set up
to deteunine what an access that does not nee~ to be detailed means. Get a
little bit further clarification of what Joe was directing both Mr. Swenson and
Mr. Shannon so to get a better clarification of what their requirements are
going to be as far as access. Then the bulk of the rest of the presentation
then is the four alternatives that have ~-c~n discussed to date. Basically those
being the Dirk's property which is the outlot in Lake Lucy Highlands. A newer
proposal which is the Christenson property off the north side of the lake and
the Greenwood Shores. The fourth being the lift over option between the two
lakes of Lake Ann and Lake Lucy at the side of the creek. Just to get that one
out of the way. DNR had indicated that they would not be interested in
approving a mechanical lift or mini-lock because it would not be handicap
accessible. We did check with a mechanical engineer to find out what such a
thing would cost or how it could be done so it could be handicap accessible and
it ~s deteunined that it would be scheft difficult. A large amount of
dredging would have to be done between the two lakes but it could be done and
his estimate was anywhere betwsen $100,000.00 and $200,000.00 to do it.
Mayor Chniel: Yes, $100,000.00 I thought was the figure that was pretty much
pulled together that Don had gotten in discussion with Bart Engineering as well
as Valley Fair because they're the people who have the Rub Goldberg kind of
thing that we're looking for. The mechanical lift.
Lori Sietsena: Right. The man that ~ talked to was from Bart Engineering and
he does the engineering of the things that they have at Valley Fair. He
indicated at that meeting that just for construction and dredging and that kind
of thing, it could be $100,000.00 to $150,000.00 and then you'd have to get the
property from Prince as well so it's anywhere between really $100,000.00 and
$200,000.00. I will go over the other 3 sites then on the overhead. The first
44
City OOuncil Mmeting - August 28~ 1989
site I will be discussing is the Dirk's property ~hich is right here at the
outlot in Lake Lucy. Highlands. It's off of Lake Lucy Boad ar~ you've sc_--n this
one before. Basically this portion of the property is ~t dry.. ~he rest
of it is pretty much wetlands. The access ~Duld come in off of Lake Lucy Road.
The turn around area on the knoll that's on the property, and this part would
have to be filled ar~ some dredgirg then out to the open water. The dredgir~ on
that proposal was, at the time we had this put together ~s roughly 4~ feet.
Since that time DNR bs~ said they would accept a scaled down versic~ that would
get you to a 2 foot depth and they felt that that could be cut down
considerably.
Councilman Boyt: To what?
Lori Sietssma: Without really knowing what the lake bott~n contour is but the
40~ feet would get you to a 4 foot depth so if you cut that in half you could
probably get to 2 foot.
Councilman Johnson: Aren't you still in the cattails at 20~ feet?
Lori Sietsena: Pardc~ me.
Councilman Johnson: Aren't you still in the middle of the cattails at 2~ feet?
Just won't have as much depth. You won't have as much width. Isn't that mostly
just cattails out there?
Lori Sietsena: No. I think it' s cattails in this area and this is water. It' s
just not deep water. It's just very shallow ams mucky, so this is tt~ portion of
th~ property, or the lake that would actually have to be dredged. A channel
would have to be dredged through to get to a depth that would be maneuverable in
a boat. ENR felt that a 2 foot depth was deep enough for a lake such as Lake
Lucy.. The secor~ site that I'll discuss tonight is tt~ Chris~ property and
that property is also off of Lake Lucy. Road. ~heir home sits on the north edge
of this property. They're talkirg about selling us an easenent along their
eastern boundary and selling off the lo,ar 5 acres adjacent to the lake. ~hey
would then have through this area to get to the open water. TP~ way that one
lays out, this being the access. ~e access road coming across and this portion
again would have to be dredged. You wouldn't have to dredge as much out into
the deep water as you would in the cattail area. Tree other question that is
unknown at this time is how much you would have to dredge through this area.
This area is not clear if that's always open and deep e~ough water to get
through. But evidentally this ban got quite a bit of depth in that area. This
one, the pros and cons of this one is that the negative aspect of this site
would be that it's not an open, not an easily patrolled. It's a more remote
site ~%ich my create some probl~s. The nice part about it is this is a nice
piece of property. It's dry. It's useable for other activities besides boat
access ~ereas on the Dirk's property, all you could do there is get the access
and preserve the wetland. The rest of it, the w~tlar~ would just renain as it
is. You could use this for other park purposes as well. It's a wooded sloped
area. It would be a nice piece of park property but again it's quite renote
from the road. Then the third piece of property is Greenwood Shores Park ~hich
lies on tl~ southeast corner. Staff and the consultants have expressed concern
with using this piece of property as a boat access given the neighborhood park
uses of the park. Originally wa had shown a big turn arour~] plan similar to
what's shown on the other ones and it would definitely have a major impact on
45
..
City Oouncil Meeting - August 28, 1989
the park. It would be questionable whether you could continue the uses with
that type of facility in there. DNR at the meeting we had here at the City
about a month ago, said that they would consider a scaled down version that
would just have, coming at the access road, turn around, back in your boat here
and then just pull in parking. They would except sc~ething like that with the
parking scaled down to four spaces. This site would also require dredging to a
2 1/2 foot depth. I believe that's the amount of dredging is in the test. I'd
have to look it up. I don't have that but that would also. The big question on
whether you want to put an access in on this site becomes one of how much use do
you really think this lake is going to use. It's going to get as far as the
access. And there's really no way of determining what that use level is going
to be. If it's minimal use and this parking area isn't filled on a regular
basis, it would have minimal impact on the existing uses. If it's quite heavily
used, it would then have an impact on that neighborhood and that's something
that we really can't predict at this point. So those are the three sites, three
options that we have available to us. I'll entertain any questions you have on
this.
Mayor Chmiel: Lori, I guess I have a question in reference to Greenwood Shores
Park. I took this out of the Comprehensive Plan. It specifically spells what
Greenwood Shores Park is supposed to do and what it should serve. It indicates
in the Comp Plan that it se~wes primarily as a passive facility, one. Another
portion of this it indicates too that this access should acc(~modate pedestrians
only and should permit the hard launching of canoes, fishing and observation of
the lake. So this being in our Comprehensive Plan, I just can't see how we can
even take into consideration that specific area.
Lori Sietsema: The reason we did consider it further is at the request of the
DNR, a scaled down version and that was basically, they were also concerned at
that point that the big turn around type access would not be something you want
to put in that park but they wanted us to show how s~mething different, a scaled
down would work and that's the reason we brought that back.
Mayor Ch~iel: Right. Any other questions?
Councilman Boyt: The Comp Plan does call for an access though at Greenwood
Shores Park. It's a hand launch access but it is an access.
Mayor C~iel: Where do you read that Bill?
Councilman Boyt: Item 4.
Councilman Workman: It doesn't fit the bill though.
Councilman Boyt: Well it doesn't fit the DNR's bill but it does indicate that
there...
Mayor Chmiel: It says the access should acc(m~odate pedestrians only.
Councilman Boyt: And should permit the hand launching of canoes, fishing and
observation of the lake.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Ar~ they do that.
46
City Council M~et/ng - August 28~ 1989
(buncilman Johnson: You just have to carry it in2
Mayor Ch~iel: Put the~ on their little carts and they haul them down there.
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chuiel: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: The Om~pr~ive Plan is the ~ehensive Plan. ~his,
you've just got to look at Greenwood Shores ar~ say this is no place for people
to be pulling cars with boats on it down in there on that curve and everything.
It's just ludicrous to even consider this as an access point in my opinion. I
can't __~c it you know. I do believe that there's a problen of access at
Greenwood Shores Park which I don't want to go into but I ~ totally against a
boat launch through here through that neighborhood. Does not make sense. The
use I think is i~tible in that area. I do want to thank you for your work
here in getting to the head of the E[~R there. While that letter is quite vague,
it does send s~ae messages to staff of the DNR to work with us. It's alwa~vs
good to get a vague letter from the boss. Usually don' t get any letters from
the boss. I kind of like the Christensc~ site of tt~ three sites. It appears
to have a few extras to it. We could develop a little extra in there. I'm not
exactly sure what can go in there until Park and Bec takes a good look at it but
it does ~ to be a nice site in an area that has been talked about being
scmewhat park deficient up that way. Still is too far away from Pheasant Hills
to really consider as helping out their park deficiency needs. I'd like to
figure out some way that we could afford that. ~nis is getting to be an awful
expensive proposition. This free million dollars is starting to cost us a ~ck
of a lot of money but I think it's necessary. We need to do s(xnething about
Lake Riley to clean Lake Riley up. As they say, you can't clean the bottom lake
in a chain of lakes up without working o~ the top all the way down. Like. I say,
I'm totally against the Greenwood Shores option as a place for people to bring
boats into Lake Lucy.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, I guess I'd like to hear from the audience at 2
minutes a shot.
Mayor (~miel: Being it' s 10: 30 amd it' s going...
Nancy Tichy: Nancy Tichy at 1471 Lake Lucy Road. I guess tonight is the firs
time I've ~ any mappings or any type of possible access going in on the
Christenso~ property. Their property abuts our property. I guess that area is
about a quarter of a mile from Lake Lucy Boad down to the lake and it's very
densely wooded. I guess I could see lots of problems with a boat access area
that far away from the road in a deeply~x)ded area. I c~uessI (~uestionth~
kinds of things that would go ondo~ ~n thatb°atacces~ area ~~ ~t-~' uld
not be easily patrolled. And the other thing is, with a park area, to my
understanding that Pheasant Hills wants a park. Curry Famms has a park. I
don't think w~ need another park area on Lake Lucy Road. ~hat would be 3 parks
in a half mile range. I just don't think w~ need another park area to add to
the public access. So I guess I 'm in favor of the Dirk's property as far as all
three goes.
Councilman Johnson: In response to that, Lori, what's the total dollar
difference between Dirk's and Christenson?
47
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
Lori Sietsema: About $25,000.00. The asking price from Christenson which was
just a rough guesstimate that he gave me, he said he'd be asking $85,000.00 to
$90,000.00. Dirk's were asking $15,600.00 an acre which would then be about
$110,000.00.
Councilman Johnson: So Dirk's are asking $110,000.00. It's takes $118,000.00
more to develop the Dirk's so we're talking $228,000.00 for Dirks?
Lori Sietsema: Right.
Councilman W~rkman: But Jay isn't the development cost the DNR's cost?
Councilman Johnson: No.
Lori Sietsema: One thing that I would encourage the City to do is to petition,
the DNR initially offered to construct access if we provided a site. If we
purchase a piece of property or provide them with a site, they indicated that
they would have the ability to come in and build the access. Preliminarily.
They didn't make any promises. I would suggest that we pursue that. Toe
biggest question is at what point in time they can get it on their docket. If
it's not for a 2 year time frame, then we're in trouble again with the whole
clean-up chain of lakes project. If they could get it on right away next
spring, then it would probably not be a probl~.
Councilman Johnson: But I understand we have to commit to access. We've
committed the access. We buy the property and it becomes DNR's probl~n of not
building t_he access. The chain of lakes program will still go ahead because all
we' re doing is awaiting DNR.
Lori Sietse~a: I would assume so but I mean I hate to assume anything but
I think we could work out those details.
Councilman Johnson: Assuming the DNR doesn' t cc~e through with their promises.
Lori Siets~na: Well they didn't promise. They indicated that it's a
possibility.
Councilman Johnson: Their indication of a possibility doesn't come through.
Mayor Chniel: Let me just add something in wish I didn't mention at the time.
Lake Lucy falls into Group 4 lakes. That basically means that it has to be over
100 acres and my disc~%ssion with Joe, I said it's approximately 137 acres and
there's 67 acres that is navigable on that lake. I asked him if he would even
consider r~noving Lake Lucy out of that Group 4 lakes. If we did, then we could
proceed with the chain of lakes proposal without any probl~ns. Now I don't know
whether wa're going to get any answer on that specific request that I asked.
Councilman Johnson: That would be the best of all worlds.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, that's right. And hopefully maybe he may come up with that
conclusion. I don't know. And maybe that's something we can pursue with those
people when we talk to on Wednesday.
48
City Oouncil Meeting - August 28~ 1989
Lori Sietsema: I asked the same question of Dale Barber who works in Trails and
Wateu~ys and he deals a lot with the open ~ater question. His indication was
that if they took out all of the wetland areas on the lakes that are in the
Group 4, which are basically you're right. It's 100 acres ar~ it's got to be 10
feet or deeper at s(~e point to be a Group 4 priority lake. F~ indicated that
that would probably take out tl~ mjority of the lakes in that group ar~ it's
not, and that's not typically done.
Mayor Ch~iel: No, and of course one of the other points that I pointed out bo
Joe too is that we have provided DNR with accesses on all the lakes. Not upon
their request but Chanbassen moving forth on their own and he thought that ~s
sort of ccemendable in itself so I'm not sure whethex Joe may not lean that way.
Lori Sietsema: I think it's definitely something we could pursue.
Councilman Johnson: Back bo my real quick dollars ar~ cents analysis. If DNR
doesn't build the access, we've got an estimate of almost $228,ggg.gg for the
Dirk's site. You said $9~,00~.~? S~ethirg like that fox the property over
there at the Christenson site and $45,~.~ to build it which is $135,000.0~
for the million dollars that's going bo be shared by. two cities. Most of which
c~mes bo the City of O~assen though.
Mayor Oaniel: Yes, but I think the more impor~t thing of the whole factor is
cleanirg up these lakes basically.
Councilman Johnson: Yep.
Councilman Workman: Mayor Ch~iel, what is our intended action tonight or what
are we being directed bo do?
Mayor O~iel: I think what we really have to do is Mit until discussions are
done Wednesday again right Lori?
Loxi Sietsema: Yes.
MaWr Ch~iel: To finally determine as to basically what we're going to be told
by the DNR. I was hopeful bo eliminate that Class 4 lake would ~.=gate havirg
any of these accesses and not having bo spend any of these dollars. That ~s my
real intent behind it but I guess the only thing we can do with this right now
presently is bo proceed with that LAWCON grants to see if we even...
Councilman Boyt: Ch no. You got my interest there. We can't proceed with
that. We have no chance of getting it. We shouldn't be spending $1,500.~0 to
$2,ggg.gg to proceed on a grant we're not going bo get.
Mayor Omniel: Well that was scem~hing we discussed and I thought you ~ere going
to pursue that.
Lori Sietsena: We did. What I did is that, the whole grant status has changed
this year ox the whole procedure. They now have a preliminary application. You
have to meet with all of the staff of DETED and they review your project and
determine if it's got. Number one, if it's eligible ar~ if it's cce~etitive.
Then they give .uou an indication of ~%ett~r you should actually apply on that
application, tt~ second application is due by Se~ 1st. I had the meeting
49
City Council ~eting - August 28~ 1989
with staff. ~hey indicated number one, the City of Chanhassen has jus% received
a LA,CON grant for Lake Susan access and it's not likely that they would give us
a big chunk of money the very next year. Tney like to spread the money around.
Number two, they have very cc~titive projects in this year. They have, in the
ccmpetitive process, each type of facility. The more multiple uses that you
have, the more points you get. If you have trails and ballfields ar~ boat
access and fishing pier and all those things, you obviously would earn more
points than the boat access alone. Therefore, she said that she does not feel
that it has much of a co~n~titive stand. It is an eligible project. Years past
they gave more points to an access, especially on a priority lake. However,
their priorities process is changing and that's no longer the case. She told
me, we can go ahead and apply, put in the second application but she is not
optimistic at all that we'll score.
Mayor Chniel: Where does the $1,000.00 or $2,000.00 cost come?
Councilman Boyt: The consultant we'd have to hire to put the project together.
Mayor Chmiel: Staff couldn't do that?
Lori Siets~ma: Well I've got a lot of the stuff together but the consultant
usually puts it in a nice pretty package and we score very highly by doing that.
He goes over it and picks out more things and adds more things. Tne trails and
the little things that could make it more oanpetitive.
Councilman Boyt: In the packet tonight Don Ashworth co~nented that tackling
this project would cost anywhere from $1,000.00 to $2,000.00. That's what I was
basing my c(mxments on. We shouldn't spend that money.
Lori Sietsena: That is typically what we spend on LAh~ON.
Mayor Chmiel: From my understanding, I thought staff was going to pull this
fully together without having a consultant ccming in. I know you could do it
Lori.
Lori Sietsema: I could do it but it's...
Councilman Boyt: It's not a good use of her time.
Mayor Chniel: What do you do with your time when you're not doing anything?
Councilman Boyt: She does her regular j ob.
Mayor Ckmiel: tl~at' s right.
Lori Sietsema: I could do it. It's just the details to work out.
Councilman Johnson: Plus we're under the gun.
Mayor Chniel: So I see that we proceed with what we've got to do right now is
just with what's going to happen W~dnesday and from there, to either go for one
of those two accesses.
50
City (bur=il Meeting ' August 28~ 1989
Oouncilman Johnson: I'd like to also ~___ us try. to get a little better
c~muitment than a by golly maybe type ommai~t from ~ on the construction of
that access. Are they serious about that or are w~ being led down the cherry
path?
Councilman Workman: I think DNR would, give~ that they don't have to pay for
the lot, j~np on that.
Councilman Johnson: If they look at their choice of $1gg,ggg.gg or $42,gg0.gg,
they may have a choice of lot too.
Mayor Chniel: That was one of the things I quoted Joe ~s total ~mount of
dollar expenditures we had to do for that lake. He just didn't say anything.
Just sort of shook his head and said that's a lot of money.
Councilman Johnson: For a dying lake.
Councilman Boyt: When they met with us, I gathered that they gave every
indication that if they. were building t/~ access, it wasn't going to be built.
That they have too many other lakes with higP~.r priorities in the city so if
it's possible fox the City. to buy. a piece of property, and wait for the DNR to
build it and still get the project, the~ we're probably not going to have a boat
access on that lake for years.
Lori Sietsema: I talked to Mike after that because I had ki~d of led him in, at
that point in th~ meeting, I had led him to that point that he had made that
indication to me that DNR would be willing amd he wasn't prepared at that point
in time to officially say at a meeting that they would yes, build the access if
w~ provided with the site. I asked him about it later and he said I didn't mean
to bail out on you but I don't want to say that at a public meeting until I
know, until I have more assurances that w~ can do that. He said that's
definitely a possibility, to us though. And I just think we just need to pursue
it further.
Councilman Boyt: ...part of this is that all three options are bad. You get,
we hear from Nancy and I suspect some others from up there if we decide to put
it on the Christenson property., they don't like it. You want to move it over to
the Dirk's property., we'll have Eric Rivkin in here and he'll tell us that he
doesn't like that one. C~ hi Eric. We have Greenwood Shores. The Mayor's
going to tell us that he doesn't want it across tt~ street from his house.
Mayor (~miel: Ch oh. Back up on that one Bill.
Councilman Boyt: I don't want to put words in your mouth but there's interested
parties around all three of these and none of ~ are very good at ~ahat we ~nt
to get done because from my. part I don't want to cut through tl~ wetlar~]s 200
feet or 40~ feet. So I'm real interested in how this works out because I don't
think it has an answer.
Councilman Johnson: It'd be tough to get a ~=tland alteration permit for it for
such a useless project to tell you the truth.
Nancy Tichy: I would hope that before you make a decision, I don't know if any
of you have visited the Christenson property but I would welcome you to do that
51
City Council Meeting - August 28~ 1989
an~ take a look at that property. C~ne on our property and take a look it
please because it is a long distance from Lake Lucy Road and you're right
Bill, I don't like any of the three. Also, another point which Lori mentioned.
I don' t know what the depths are from that property, out to the main lake. It's
pretty mucky and so there might be a lot more dredging on that property than w~
see right now too so I don't know but please go out and look at it before a
decision is made.
CounciLman Boyt: If I can just finish up. I think the best option is the one
we started with which is put th~n in Lake Ann. Get th~n across the lake
somehow. ~ae tremendous cost handicap is this need for handicap accessibility.
If we can somehow work out a trade, we then lower our cost from $100,000.00 to
$200,000.00 down to about $24,000.00 which is I think something the City could
consider but these figures, $129,000.00, $135,000.00, at some point it's just
not worth it.
Councilman Johnson: Is Lake Ann considered handicapped accessible? ~aeir boat
ramp?
Mayor C~miel: I think so.
Counc i]aw~ Johnson: So once you get in your boat...
Mayor C~iel: That's where I think that lift w~uld really serve the purpose. If
it's a devised mechanical lift where you have either a card or punch in n~nber
that you have to use so the kids don't use it as much, onoe it pulls in. It
just takes a boat. Lifts it. Cradles it. Takes it back on that track. Brings
it back over and drops it back.
Councilman Boyt: And that's $100,000.00 for that? Is that what you're saying?
Mayor Chniel: That's what they're saying.
Councilman Boyt: Taere has to be another option somewhere.
Councilman Workman: Not to mention insurance.
Councilman Johnson: Can you have people in that boat while you're doing that?
Mayor Ckmiel: Yes. They do it at Valley Fair all the time.
Councilman Johnson: I haven't been there for a few years. I haven't ridden
that ride.
Lori Sietsema: It' s the Flume.
Jeff Farmakes: I'd like to make a quick comment in regards to Mr. Boyt's
stat~nent. The Council received a petition last year from over 200 voters in
regards to develol~ent in this park of any kind. Besides parking there was also
development proposed for playground and volleyball court. A vast majority of
the neighborhood was opposed to any development. Also people from surrounding
neighborhoods. I just wanted to, because I thought maybe that stabsment eluded
that a few people here and few people that might be upset by any development or
any particular proposal. I just wanted to say that there was a considerable
52
City ~ouncil Meeting - August 28~ 1989
anount of people opposed and I 'm sure that any other neighborhood, not just
Greenwood Shores but any neighborhood who's neighborhood park would be taken
away, which under city zoning, 84 homes I believe are in Gr~-------n~Dod Shores, that
w~'re entitled to a neighborhood park under the City's own buildir~3 code. So
I'm certain that the vast majority of the neighborhood would oppose this. We
have held back in an organized response o~ this because wa have not heard any
concrete proposals and the three sites seem to be up in the air as to costs and
specifics. This the first time tonight that we've seen all three plans
together. So I guess my c(mment is that the neighborhood will be responding to
this when it beccmes an issue for consent.
Eric Rivkin: Eric Rivkin. 6~95 Stellar Court. You're all right in that our
prime concern here is conserving the lake quality. The water quality. The
enviromue~tal quality and that's why none of the options are going to work.
That carved swath into th~ lake disturbs the wildlife ar~ the fish and the
enviror~ent and everything. I want to thank the Mayor for pulling for us to
talk to Joe Alexar~er because it's s~methir~ that we, as a lake associatio~ had
pushed for. An alternative that wasn going to be the least impsc~l on the
envirorment ar~ ~n people's hearts and mir~s about their parks ar~ their
adjacent properties being innundated w~th party goers or problem things. I
agree that as a representative of th~ lake associatio~ that we ought to try to
__~c, w~ have enough arguments I think and on your meeting on Wsdnesday I would
say you hit the nail on t/~ head as far as trying to go for exemption of
Lake Lucy for an access. I think you've got enough aumunition there. I'd say
go for it. I think that would alleviat~ all the problems that we're having. I
th/nk it's probably more of an uphill battle or as much of an uphill battle as
the mechanical assist is but if they can't accept by definition of the Statute
about public accesses, it ~ again another loophole if you're trying to get
it out of Group 4 lakes. But if that can't work out, trying to call the~ on the
mat to define what equal access means. Is it equitable or is it, what that
definition is and you've already hit that point and I understar~ that's going to
be brought on Wednesday. I'm glad that it is because that was the argument
behir~ the mechanical assist. If that's the route, if you can get the~ to agree
on, okay what does it really mean and go for the mechanical assist, that's our
secor~ option. Third, is those three lots. I don't think Greenwood Shores is
going to work. I like that park the way it is and it would be detrimental,
severely detrimental to t/~ park to be carving through those nice woods. It's
bad point now is that you cannot put a canoe or boat in frem the park into Lake
Lucy. It does not meet, what you said is the C~mprehensive Plan of having
access. You do not. Period. You have to trespass. You can see on the
overhead. You have to trespass across Prince's property. He owns both sides of
the creek. You have to trespass through the woods and ~alk across the creek and
make your way with waders or get your feet wet in the muck ar~ try ar~ throw a
canoe in there and it's virtually impossible. So it's not accessible now but
even so, it's still got enough bad points that I wouldn't vote for either. I
can't ~ spending $135,000.~ or $228,0~0.~0 of taxpayers money. No matter how
you look at it, it's taxpayer's money for a boat access on a lake that is just
not worth it. People aren't going to complain that there's not a boat access on
Lake Lucy, I can wager half of your salary on that one. The Dirk's property I
think has already been discussed about it's envirormental impact. I don't think
w~ need to talk about it again here ar~ it's huge cost. Th~ DNR's budget for
acquiring public accesses in the entire state is just twice the cost of this
entire project. $50~, 000. 00 ar~ they're going to sper~ half of that kind of
money for a little tiny lake that has noth/ng to offer lake users. No fishing.
53
City Oouncil Meeting - August 28, 1989
Total fish kill. It's all muck and a lot of other problems with the lake w~ all
know. The Christenson property I think has equally bad problems. I'd like to
add a fact that it is aro[u%d that channel, around that island it is not passable
with boats with motors. Joe Morin reported to me and he can probably confirm
this that the weeds are so bad on both sides of the island. Once you get into
that lagoon, you can' t make your way out to the open water of the lake. You
can't so you have to add another $50,000.00 to the cost to dredge that out or
make it a canoe access or something. I don't know. It's not passable. And the
lake is nutrifying more rapidly and it will become less passable in the years to
ccme so I'd say, go for getting ineligible. Thank you.
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, a parting ommnent. Do you know how much money
w~ plan on spending of the million dollars actually on Lake Lucy? What part of
the budget it is?
Mayor Chniel: Very small.
Councilman Johnson: Very, very small. If we're talking about, the DNR says
they won't do anything on Lake Lucy unless we have access and unless Lake
has certain items done to it, certain work done to it. The fish kill and
restocking, whatever. Well the restocking is unimportant. Mostly the fish kill
and other work done to it, that they won't participate in t_he entire project.
Okay? If we're going to spend $90,000.00 to put lake access on a lake that
somebody will use but it won't be a major problem to somebody if it doesn't
happen, I would rather spend the same $90,000.00 to do the lake restoration
functions of Lake Lucy and say DNR, we will do the entire Lake Lucy restoration
ourself. Part of it. We will sper~ the money on it. You do not have to
restock this. We will restock the lake through our own funds and see if they
will then do the chain of lakes project without an access on Lake Lucy because
they are not doing anything to Lake Lucy. The City of (hanhassen will do it
with our own money.
Councilman Boyt: Let me pose another option. That would be interesting to know
what their answer would be but since this is a chain of lakes, what if that's
not part of the chain an~more?
Councilman Johnson: You can' t do that.
Lori Sietsema: I posed that very question to them a year ago. That we would do
the restoration on Lake Lucy ourselves and the PCA and DNR both indicated that
that they would not accept that. That's not to say we can't stress the point
again.
Councilman Johnson: I think we're in a different political atmosphere today
than we were a year ago. Okay? After the Mayor's meeting, etc. I think that we
have a different emphasize on this. It may fly easier this time. It may be an
alternative that is seen more feasible than it was whel it was only bureaucrats
and not politicians involved.
Councilman Boyt: Can we move this one way or another?
Mayor Chniel: Yes. I'm looking either for a motion.
Councilman Johnson: I move we table.
54
City (bum=il Meeting - August 28, 1989
Councilw~m~n Dimler: Second
Councilman Johnson moved, Oouncil~man Dimler seconded ~o table action on
considering the si~e alternatives for public access to Lake Lucy ar~
authorization to su~x~it LAWCON grant application. Ail voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Councilman Johnson: That was both A and B.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, I guess for my. input and my coements. I find
that any and all access, I think we have four total with the lift, to be
gigantically problematic. I think the City, I think we are potentially out of
the million dollar jackpot running. I think we ought to prepare ourselves to
figure out where our liability, is with t/~ Wateshed ar~ the City of ~den Prairie
in that they've put forth funds that perhaps we might have to reimburse. It
would appear to me to be a very. bad situation ar~ our best alternative is to
have no access and cut our losses.
Councilman Johnson: If we strive for an access in good faith, I can't --.~-~ how
we're going to. We obviously have dome a lot of work ar~ we have ~ striving
for an access. I don't know how they can say that we have acted in bad faith.
Mayor Ch~iel: We haven't. There's no question.
Councilman Johnson: I'm not sure they can get us for reimburseme~t.
Lori Sietsema: Excuse me. About the ~ grant the~. Did you want me to
pursue that or not?
Councilman Boyt: No.
Councilman Johnson: I t-bled both.
Mayor Ctmiel: Not if we're getting that many megatives on it.
RfE~IDERATION C~ A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR FILLING IN A S)RTIO~ (~ A
CLASS A ~, SO~ CORNER C~ KINGS R(~D AND MI~F/~ PAREH~Y, DARYL
KIRT.
Dsryl Kirt: My. name is Daryl Kirt and I live at 76[~0 Chanhassen Road. We
bought the lot at that address and we wanted to build a house on there. We just
feel that where the house would sit, where the wetland would start, we'd just
like that little extra fill that we feel would define that wetlar~ area and also
would prevent any erosion fr~m going into it. And we'd also leave it for
natural vegetation to grow up so we think it would just. be a plus to the lot
rather than anything else. It's a very s~all portion. ~he ~nount where the
wetlar~ would start, we're Just asking like for 20 feet. I think the distance
from the lake must be at least 40~ or 5~0 feet from the lake.
Mayor C~xaiel: Any questions or discussion?
55
City Council M~eting - August 28, 1989
Councilman Boyt: Yes, I do. My point would be to add a third condition in
regards to, I believe there should be some planting. I think that was part of
the discussion in here ~re previously that w~ should make very clear that
this is upgrading tb~ wetland amd in the process of upgrading the wetland
requires some fill. That if this is a matter of expanding your backyard, I'd
vote against it. I did before and I would continue to do that. If it's a
matter of upgrading the wetland, I think part of that should be the replanting
of appropriate wildlife, suitable habitation so I'd like to see that added as a
third condition. I think you plan to do that anyway.
Daryl Kirt: Sure, yes.
Councilman Johnson: We're talking berry trees and whatever.
Councilman Boyt: Well the DNR has a list of plants that are quite good at
attracting and holding wildlife in these conditions and that's what I would have
in mind.
Daryl Kirt: And that' s pretty much what' s there now. It' pretty much all
natural and wild.
Councilman Boyt: So I'd want you to probably enhance that.
Mayor Ckmiel: Any other discussion?
Councilman Boyt: So I would move that we approve Wetland Alteration Permit
~89-6 with 3 conditions. The third condition being the planting and maintenance
of appropriate wildlife habitation holding vegetation. In your decision,
subject to the following. We have staff's conditions and them we have Roger's
conditions. I guess we'd better be sure that Roger's conditions are added in
there as well.
Jo Ann Olsen: That was part of the recc~mendation we have.
Roger Knutson: The recommendations are the staff's conditions.
Councilman Boyt: The adoption of the attached Findings of Fact with the
followirg conditions and it only has 2.
Roger Knutson: The erosion...
Councilman Boyt: So to whatever conditions we are including, add the following
which is a condition about wildlife planting.
Mayor Chmiel: So in other words there are 3 conditions contained within your
proposal?
Councilman Boyt: Which would include Roger ' s 7.
Jo Ann Olsen: Plus the Findings of Fact.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Johnson: Absolutely.
56
City Gouncil Meeting - August 281 1989
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve Wetland Alteration
l~it 989-6 and the adoption of the attached Findirgs of Fact with the
following conditions:
1. Type III erosion control shall be installed as shown on the site plan.
2. The applicant shall receive a permit fr~, DNR ar~ t/~ Corps of Engineers.
3. The applicant shall provide the planting and maintenance of appropriate
wildlife habitation holdirg vegetation.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
SIDE YARD SEPBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 7410 CHANHASSfX~ ~, FRfD OELS(2EAGER.
Fred Oelschlager: Fred Oelschlager, 7410 Chanhassen Boad. ~he variance I'm
asking for. This is an old parcel of property. Sunset view an~ this is the
third time more or less, the first I've been to Council but it's come before the
Cc~mission before this. ~ne first time I came I had a separate building larger
than the one I'm requesting for as a separate building. We talked about it. I
understood what tt~y were talking about. The setback on the property and I
understood that had no problen with that. Went back to the drawing board and
did a little bit more thinking about it ard also talked to some of tt~ people at
the City at that time and encompass it into the three car garage that's there
now ar~ ~ould be tearing off one section of that old garage. That garage goes
back to about the 1930's. ~he existing one is back in the 1930's. I've cut the
building down. Instead of ccming out 30 feet fr~ the old building, we'd be
only ccming out approximately 13 feet towards the TH 101 or due east side. ~he
problem I have with staying with tt~ setback ordinance of 10 feet, infringes out
into my. driveway and causes a problem because I do have a considerable a~ount of
traffic there as far as people with cars. My existing neighbor to the north of
me, Henry Sosin, has definitely no problem with the construction of this garage
at that property. That close to the lot line. In fact ha would prefer having
it there than any other place on the property.. I guess what I'm saying is, I
understarzt the rules. I understarzt your regulations ard the setback rulings.
I'm asking for the variance basically because it's a separate deal. It's really
not going to hurt anyone in tt~ area and I guess that's what I'm looking for. I
can't prove hardship on it. I'll be honest there but if I have to come out 10
feet, then I'm creating a hardship. I understar~ that part but this... I guess
that's about the gest of it to make it simple.
Mayor Chniel: Thank you Fred. Jo Ann, would you like to address this from what
the Board of ~djustme~ts did?
Jo Ann Olsen: Well the Board of Adjustments denied it with a 2 to 1 vote. ~hey
still felt that again there was no hardship. That it was expansion of a
non-conforming structure. I think they understand his position and wish that
they could rec0m~em~ approval but it doesn't meet the conditions for a variance.
Fred Oelschlager: Can I say just one other thing y~t?
Mayor C~niel: Yes, sure.
57
City Council ~=eting -August 28~ 1989
Fred Oelschlager: The whole northern property line is a total of 462 feet frown
the lake to here. This is level ground fr~n this point, then it drops off and
goes down. This is a solid tree line. Large trees. It isn't just shurbs or
bushes. I mean they are full grown trees, 30-50 feet high all the w~y to the
lake. The Sosin property or h~ne is down about 170 feet down in the lower part
and they also have an existing garage which is back up to this at about...so
it's actually hidden from the highway. It's hidden frc~ the lake and also the
northern boundaries are completely hidden. And this property line on this side,
which are, I can't r~msmber the new owners but their property line drops down
and their houses are down lower so they can't even see so it's kind of existing
there by itself.
Jo Ann Olsen: The neighbor, Henry Sosin also preferred the location of the
garage where it is proposed rather than, he could possibly locate it close to
the lake but then it is in view of the shore from the lake.
Mayor Ch~iel: I was there out on Sunday looking at that and it's a hard thing
to stand back and say no to only because of the non-conforming use that's
already there and it's just an expansion of that. It's just like the Ten
Cc~a~andments. Somebody always breaks them. And this to some of us is like the
Ten Ccam~ndments. I can ~npathize with Fred with what he's proposing. One of
the other things that w~ looked at was extending that out into his drive~ay
further, of the garage and it would considerably cut down the driveway portion.
Fred Oelschlager: I have 5 cars in the driveway. I have two daughters. They
have cars. I have a ccalpany truck, my own truck and my wife's car and out of
the four stall garages that are there now, only two are useable for parking
vehicles which I think you saw Don when you were there.
Council~ Dimler: I have a comment. I've been through this whole thing with
Fred a couple times. I really, really want him to do this. I can see no
logical reason that we wouldn't allow this. It makes sense to do it this way
but I do want to make everyone aware that we do have a zoning ordinance that
prohibits non-conforming buildings to be enlarged and if we do give this to him,
we will in fact be going against our own ordinance. We can choose to do that
but I am concerned about setting a precedent.
Mayor Ch~iel: Jay? Bill?
Councilman Boyt: My intention is, it always has been to follow those five
guidelines. As Fred has pointed out, it's not a hardship. We don't get to sit
up here and make decisions about whether or not something makes sense. We've
got to ask whether ox not it follows our ordinance or it meets a hardship. We
can change the ordinance. If we w~nt to change the ordinance to say if nobody
can see it, you can do it. Maybe we ought to consider that but the way things
stand right now, it would my intent to vote against this. It's only fair to ~he
Colby's and the people who wanted the deck ar~ all the people that have
preceeded this.
Councilwoman Dimler: Who brought it up that there might be a State change?
Okay. Is that cc~ing up soon?
58
City <b~mcil B~etir~ - August 28~ 1989
Roger Knutson: It's part of the Comprehensive rewritir~ of the land use laws.
It was introduce~ last session ar~ tabled ar~ will be brought back for action
this session.
Oouncilw~man Dimler: Okay ar~ at that time the City would have more leeway in
establishirg their own criteria?
Roger ~utson: They said for good or bad, in the present draft that's the case.
Oouncilw~man Dimler: Okay, which means that there would be sc~e hope that
could change the ordinance to allow for it if ~ neighbors don't object and
it's not visible ar~ this kir~ of thing.
Roger ~nutson: Well you'll never get by if the neighbors don't object because
the Supreme Gourt has tossed that out as inpermissible but other conditions.
Oouncilw~man Dimler: So there' s hope.
Fred Oelschlager: There's no hope in other words is what you're saying?
Oouncilman Johnson: There's no hope tonight.
Councilw~nan Dimler: There's hope in the future when the State Legislature
changes it.
Fred Oelschlager: ...that's the thing you don't kr~w right?
Oouncilw~man Dimler: We don't know what time frame we're talking but the
session starts in February.
Councilman Johnson: Currently our zoning ordinance is based on State law. We
are told what it shall say to give a variance. It says tlx)u shalt have a
hardship. G~tting into this religious stuff tonight. The Golden Rule ~s there
earlier, whatever that might be.
Council~n~an Dimler: And it shall not be self imposed right?
councilman Johnson: I move we confirm the decision of the Board of Adjustments
and Appeals.
councilman Johnson moved, councilman Boyt seconded to confirm the decision of
the Board of Adjustments and Appeals to deny tl~ side yazd variance request at
741~ Chanhassen Road for Fred Oelschlager. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Mayor Chniel: Sorry Fred.
Fred Oelschlager: I understand. I have one question. Is it feasible to come
back again, one more time. I know it's a new issue ar~ ask for a 5 foot? cut
that in half? We're going to run into the same problen?
59
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Same problem i
Fred Oelschlager: My problem is the distance out into the driveway. That's a
real hang-up. Okay. Well, that's fine. I understand that. Thanks for all
your time.
LOT DEPTH AND LOT AREA VARIANCE REQUESTS TO SUBDIVIDE A 27,405 SQ. FT. LOT INTO
2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, 185 PLEASANT VI~ ROAD, CARL M~NUTT.
Mayor Chmiel: Is Carl here?
Jo Ann Olsen: It was denied and he's not appealing.
Mayor Chmiel: He' s not appealing it? Okay.
WEST 78TH STREET DETACHMENT IMPRO~ PROJ~CT 87-2:
A. RE-INITIATE FEASIBILITY STUDY - PHASE 1.
Resolution 989-98A: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
approve to re-initiate a feasibility study for Phase 1 of the West 78th Street
Detachment Improvement Project 87-2. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
B. PUBLIC HEARING - PHASE 1.
Mayor C~iel called the public hearing to order.
B.C. Jim Burdick: First of all, I would like to see this Phase 1 again if w~
may. I know it's late.
Councilman Boyt: Mr. Burdick, you need to introduce yourself.
Mr. ~rdick: Of course. B.C. Jim Burdick. Excelsior, Minnesota. I'd like to
see the Phase 1 again if we may?
Mayor (~iel: Sure. Gary do you have...
Gary Warren: I have an overhead. Tae West 78th Street detachment project, the
entire project just to start fr~ that point, is the attachment of West 78th
Street some 300 feet to the north of it's current alignment and the subsequent
improvements which include storm water retention pond south of TH 5. But
basically the Phase 1 elements of the project are all those north of TH 5 so
basically for all intensive purposes, this graphic from the feasibility study
will show, w~'ll bring the storm water over to the Eckankar pond. That's a part
of the project. The installation of the utilities on West 78th Street.
Construction of improv~m~ents, roadway improvements on CR 17 which would be
integrated with the TH 5 improvements now and realigrm~ent and the construction
of West 78th Street from Kerbers Blvd. to the intersection of CR 17.
60
City council ~eting - August 28~ 1989
Councilman Workman: Gary, what kir~ of, w~'re at the right-in/right-out and
what do we, I know I was at the Carver County meetir~. Where are we at with
that?
Gary Warren: Basically Carver County has issued a pemmit. A copy of that is in
the packet allowir~ right-in/right-out so our plans, which we will now go
for~ard from this =ting...acknowledge that a right-in/right-out connection
will be at that location.
Councilman Work~_n: Right-in/right-out except for the Burdicks? I'm talking
about some of the finer details about how traffic is goim3 to be curbed and
Gary Warren: The actual details of this private road as it has now bec~m~, and
right-in/right-out connection ar~ such will be up to the applicant to supply to
the City and to the County for review but there have been already discussions
about comtitions and elements of that design.
councilman Workman: We don't need to approach those this evening?
Gary Warren: No. Does that answer your question?
Mr. Burdick: Yes. I think it does. L~less you have a more detailed drawings
of this area.
Gary Warren: We do have a design set that's available in more detail but
basically this is the best overall summary I can give l~u at this point. It's
the same project that we've been through now since 1987.
Mr. Burdick: Yes. I believe I've ~ enough to go ahead. Now first, I w~uld
like to have the Minutes show that I delivered a letter ~hich is...and things of
this sort concernin~ tt~ assessment. Could we leave the drawing on the board?
Gary Warren: Sure.
Mr. Burdick: Now we are being assessed $14~,~.~ for this. Now the criteria
of assessment is only one thing. Does it benefit the property ar~ this is
obvious. In our case we are not benefitted. It's reduced because of our
property. Particularly Lots 1, 2 ~ 3, if you will point to those Gary ar~
perhaps the first half of 4 being assessed about $7~,~0~.~-$80,~.~ for
those. NOw there's no question but what this should not be assessed because
that portion of the road does not touch our property. It's not adjacent to our
property. It's ~n held many times that property cannot be assessed unless the
improv~t, the road improv~t is immediately adjacent to it.
Mayor Chziel: Jim, this is not the assessment bearin~ at this particular time.
Mr. Burdick: Ch, I understood it w~s and I stopped in City Hall and all.
Mayor C~aiel: No. This will come at a little later time and I think at that
time you can present your case but at this time it is not pertinent to ~t~at
we're proposir~3 to do.
Mr. Burdick: ~ank you. I inquired to City Hall.
61
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
Mayor Chmiel: ~nis public hearing is being held pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
Section 429. The area proposed to be assessed for said improvement is the
property abutting the above mentioned roadways.
Roger Knutson: This is not the assessment hearing. This is t_ke public
improvement hearing. State Statutes require you to say how much you're going to
be assessed. You may assess in that public improvement hearing notice. The
decision to assess specific parcels will be made by you at a later date when the
assessment hearing is held.
Councilman Johnson: Tnis is a public hearing to approve the feasibility study.
Mayor Chniel: Right. Exactly.
Gary Warren: Brian Burdick and I met last week and I had run through it with
Brian. Jim wasn't able to attend our meeting but basically I explained that
that was the process.
Councilman Johnson: But it's always good to let your opinion be known as early
in the process.
Mr. Burdick: Yes, I don't regret ccming. There's a number of other things I've
bee~ interested in tonight. Okay. And apparently this public, well it's not an
improvement because it's not an improvement but this change is all cut and dry?
I'm sc~ewhat of the opinio~ that this goverrment body at this time would not
vote for moving this street. It has been decided at the present time that TH 5
is only going to be 40 feet, that's 40 feet farther to the north than previously
and we're moving this street 300 feet, or 250 feet. Can this be taken up and
reconsidered at this time? The entire expenditure of over 2 million dollars
which I feel, I don't feel. Actually I know is not necessary. We' re taking a
beautiful straight street and making it a squirrely street.
Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor, if I could address that?
Mayor Chniel: Yes, go ahead Gary.
Gary Warren: The detachment has been supported by the County ~gineer and by
the Benshoof Report basically that was done initially on this alignment in
concert with MnDot who supported the separation. MnDot's road widening, I don' t
know if I understood you Jim about referencing 40 feet. That may be their
act~l TH 5 road widening requirements but the act[ml detachment at it's current
location is founded in the Benshoof Reports and the work that the Sta~e
basically did also as far as what they w~re interested in seeing so Mr. James
ar~ his platting of his subdivision had dedicated the right-of-way, as you're
aware the rough roadway is already put in the for the detachment so I would say
things are pretty well set in that regard.
Mayor Chmiel: You're also going to connect that into the future frontage road
too on the west er~ of CR 17 which will be going to Lake Ann Park.
Gary Warren: That's our intention at this time is to, in conjunction with the
por~ that will be built there, is to use this as a further extension of the
frontage road. %~nat's correct. That separation is founded primarily in the
62
City (bur=il Meeting - August 28 ~ 1989
necessity for stacking the vehicles at that intersection. In order to provide
enough room for stackirg during the light changes.
Mayor Chuiel: Any other discussion?
Councilman Boyt: I would move closing the public hearing?
Mayor Chniel: Is there a second?
(buncilw~man Dimler: Have you finished?
Mayor Ch~iel: Yes, are you done Jim or do you have some additional discussions?
Mr. Burdick: Oh I think so. I think so. I appreciate being here tonight.
I might not be here for the following meeting but Brian has heard my opinion now
so I'm sure he can carry (x~ without me. I just don' t want to be under the
impression that we're going to consider this as increasing the value of our land
so that we will pay an assesa~ent ar~ I think if we consider the entire piece
there, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, it would c~me out as a net loss to us. As I say,
we strongly feel you can only be assessed if an appraisal of the property before
and after shows an increase in value and of course it will not. ~mnk you for
your time.
Mayor (~miel: Thank you. I have a motion on the floor.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public hearing.
Ail voted in favor ar~ the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I move we accept the feasibility study as
updated August 24, 1989.
(buncilw~man Dimler: I second that.
Roger Knutson: Which means you're ordering the project. You're not ordering
plans ar~ specifications for it. Is that correct?
(buncilman Johnson: And authorize the preparation of plans and specifications
is the rest of the sentence.
Resolution ~89-98B: Oouncilman Johnson moved, Oouncilwcman Dimler seconded to
accept the feasibility study as updated August 24, 1989 and authorize the
preparation of plans and specifications. Ail voted in favor amd the motion
carried.
D. APPROVE INTERA~ AGR~ WITH CARVER COUNTY.
Councilman Workman moved, (buncilman Johnso~ seconded to approve the Interag~
Agreem~t with Carver County. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried.
63
City Council M~eting - August 28, 1989
ACCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR LAKE DRIVE EAST AND 184TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 89-6, CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, I move approval of this.
Councilwoman Dimler: I second it.
Ga~ Warren: This is Bud Osmundson.
Mayor Chniel: This is a quick proposal. We have gone through the books. But
give us a quick.
Councilman Johnson: We're on your dime anyway aren't we?
Bud Osmundson: Well I'll skip the location map and go right to the core of it.
The proposed improvements for the Lake Drive East extension. There are two
alternatives for the sanitary sewer. Alternative A is rec(mmended and it
consists of a 12 inch concrete pipe r,~nning westerly and connecting to a 21 inch
existing pipe that runs southerly into the ~ interceptor to the south. This
would be put in in the proposed road which has been discussed with DataServ.
Alternative B of the sanitary sewer would run to the east and to the south into
~den Prairie and as I pointed out in the report, there's quite a few hang-ups
with this alternative. The biggest one being that all this property to the
south would have to develop in ~den Prairie and right now this is outside of
their MUSA line. As of today they have not received any kind of approval from
the City for M~DC. The watemnain, the proposed watermain will consist of a 12
inch running in the new aligr~nent east and west to 184th and addition 10 inch to
be put in, installed to replace an existing watermain that's going to be renoved
due to the moving of the road. The storm sewer improv~nents proposed would
consist of namely just in the proposed Lake Drive East extension here and an
additional hook-up of a gap that's missing along the County line that would hook
up a 24 inch pipe which does get drainage from TH 5. We would just outlet just
south of the right-of-way to allow for develo~nent of the area and give DataServ
flexibility that they want. The street proposed has been discussed with
DataServ personnel. The reason for the street being moved is that with the TH 5
reconstruction project, they're requiring additional right-of-way to the south
which would overtake the existing h~m~p here and Lake Drive East. We're going to
move it to the south to best serve the area and additionally we were going to
upgrade the portion that goes through Chanhaven Plaza area, by M=Donalds and
bring that up to State Aid standards. That's a very brief overview. Cost
estimates does not include any easements or additional right-of-way acquisition
ar~ we will be requiring additional right-of-way in the Chanhaven Plaza plat and
through the DataServ property but the DataServ property, I do not believe it's
any probl~. The cost estimate does not include any of those things. The total
comes to $930,000.00 or there abouts. The funding will come from assessments
approximately $600,000.00 and MnDot funds and tax Increnent financing about
$300,000.00. The proposed schedule is to have a public hearing this fall yet.
Approve plans and specs in February of 1990. Open bids and award the contract
in March and begin construction in April. Oanplete construction in September of
1990. Do you have any questions?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
64
City Co,mcil Meeting - August 28~ 1989
Courcilman Work,~n: You mean to cc~pletion'Se~, 199~. ~hat's ~ot going
to cause any problems with TH 5?
Gary 19~rren: No. In fact that would coincide with ~hat we would want to see as
far as the completion of 184th and Dell Road intersection as a part of TH 5. So
I would say it would be very similar to what would happen here on 1~_st 78th
Street de~t. We' 11 be working both those projects at the sa~e time next
year.
Besolution ~89-99: Gouncilman Wor~an moved, Gouncilwcman Dimler seconded to
accept the feasibility study for Lake Drive East ar~ 184th Avenue Improv~ent
Project 89-6 and call for a public l~ring to be set for October 9, 1989. All
voted in favor ard the motion carried.
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW, MARKET SQUARE FJD ~IAL SHOPPING CENTER, SOUT~IEST
CORN~ OF WEST 78TH STRRRT AND MARKET BLVD., MARKET SQUARE PkRTNERSHIP.
Jo Ann Olsen: Just real briefly. ~he Oouncil is just to act whether or not
they feel a PUD is tt~ appropriate process for the applicant to be going
through. ~he Planning fkm~ission did recommend that a PUD is the right fozm for
the site plan so it's just really a concept plan at this time ar~ they're going
through the more detailed review.
Mayor C~iel: What does a ~ do for us other than the fact that...
Jo Ann Olsen: Well it allo~ us to require additional azenities that we
normally wouldn't have really the authority to ask for. Additional landscaping.
Additional architectural design. It's giving us a lot of ~ with them,
leeway with working on negotiating.
Mayor C~xaiel: Thank you. I just ~mnted the public to understand that.
Councilman Johnson: But at the sa~e time for that we're granting basically
variances to the zoning ordinance without the variance process. It is one
method, the only method really available for getting a variance for parts of the
zoning without showing a hardship. It's kind of a horse trading maneuver.
Years ago we didn't do very, go~d at it. We're doing a lot better now though.
It used to be a one way trade. The City nevex got that much but a new
ordinance, new people.
Councilman Boyt: And it takes a four-fifths vote.
Mayor Chui~: Yes. That's a reguir~ent. Otherwise it's a simple majority.
Councilman Workman: Can you s~arize for us what we're getting with the FJD
az~ what we' re not?
Jo Ann Olsen: Well we're still working on it so I can't tell you exacly what
we ' re getting.
Councilman Workman: How can we approve it then?
65
City Council Meeting ' August 281 1989
Jo Ann Olsen: ~nis is just the concept plan. Whether or not really a PUD would
be the way to go. They are going through a more detailed plans right at this
time. Like next week, a week fr(x~ this Wednesday, the Planning (km~ission w-Ill
be reviewing the development plan which is more detailed. Like a site plan
review but some of ~he things we're getting is like a pedestrian walkway through
the parking lot. The landscaping. Additional landscaping. Signage that we
want rather than j~t your basic wall signage. W~'re getting additional
amenities for the architecture of the building. We're getting some new designs
that they were going to propose and better materials. We've got in addition to
staff we have BRW, Gary Ehret and Jim Lasher is working on it and Fred
Hoisington so we have a big team that's really working on trying to make it a
good plan. We're still reviewing exactly what it is we want but getting closer
to that goal.
Councilman Workman: So tonight we either grant a PUD or we don't?
Jo Ann Olsen: No. You're just approving the sketch plan with the basic
concept.
Co~m~cilman Johnson: What are they asking for in this FJD?
Jo Ann Olsen: What are they asking for? Increase in impervious surface.
councilman Boyt: That's them here right?
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes Brad was here.
Brad Johnson: I think you've got the best version of the plan in front of you.
You also have a version that's a, I think you've got the one...
Jo Ann Olsen: No they don't. They just have the sketch plan so that version's
not very good.
Brad Johnson: The process we have to go through on a PUD is we cc~e here and we
got quite a bit of input frcm the Planning Ccamission ar~ we met with the staff
probably 2 or 3 times and they translated the feelings of the Planning
Cc~mission into a letter and we've bc~n~ adjusting our plans and resut~itted
those about what? A week ago, to the Planning Department and then we' 11 have a
hearing on that on the 6th of September. I guess what I'd like to hear from
you, basically as I understand it and I have not done a large shopping center
now has there been one done in this cc~rmunity but there is no real zoning that
fits, other than our CBD probably. The t~upical coverage of a shopping center
and no~m~ally the shopping center, because it's a large parcel, we're in what? A
BG or general b~siness district, which was, as I understand it, from the
Planning Cc~mission, designated that primarily for Mall lots and anticipated
the lots to be 1 to 2 acres and there you need a lot of green area as a
percentage of the whole thing to just meet setback requir~ments. A non, al
shopping center, the feedback I'm getting from the shopping center developers,
when you get into the 5 and 10 acre, has a 80% to 90% land coverage. The ones
you see at the shop, you know Southdale or over here at TH 4 and TH 5 or down
at, they're all much larger because they have a lot more parking requir~ents
than you're used to seeing yet you have the normal amount of green space. You
have the 25 foot setback fr~m the roads all the way around the property and
things like that so I think that's our major area where we have sc~e, where we
66
City Gouncil M~eting ' August 28 ~ 1989
went to the PUD. Had w~ asked for a rezoning to a (~D, which is adjacent to
that, ~ would not have had any of those requirenents but o~ the other hand then
you'd have to worry about us because w~'d have a lot of, (~D grants us a lot of
flexibility that lorgtenn probably the City. would not want to grant us so usirg
the PUD we' re able to achieve possibly those things we need on coverage and
you're able to maintain a control because we just don't have a zoning set up in
this, as I understand it. BR~ ~ are Pm_re. ghis is kind of a normal way of
handling this problem would be ~3~t:ough ~ PUD process. Ar~ just seeing how
it's working fr~m Jo Ann's point of view, we've increased I believe the
asethetic appearance. The Planning Cc~mission did not like the way the project
initially showed up in your drawings there and we've changed that quite a bit.
We've gone with some peaked roofs and we've changed t/~ front elevations quite a
bit ar~ gone with a lot softer feeling and the next time you see it, they'll
have all new colors ar~ it will look like a nice thing. I think it's premature
quite honestly to go into detail on that because we don't have the real kir~ of
drawings you need to see that kir~ of thing but you've all se~n the, wouldn't
you say Jo Ann, we've done s~ue improveue~t on the buildings and it's ~ a big
charge. I guess that's what is suppose~ to happen during this process. That
was the give and take. I know we've added $10~,~00.~ or so to the cost in the
process. We do have some ergi ~r~cring. It's a tough site to engi~ ar~ C~ry's
working on that right now. I think we've done quite a few things. We've got a
sidewalk now that runs around the whole thing and pretty, soon you' 11 actually be
able to walk across the tracks to the pond and turn left and go to the Amoco.
It's going to happen and I think all those are good things. There's a walking
path through the center of the. You know it's interesting. ~he retailers would
like to ~_ one huge parking lot with no trees, no nothing. So you've got on
one hand our customer who don' t like things that way and I don' t think the
developer wants to see it that way and it doesn't look good that way but fr~n a
maintenance point of view and people rauming into things, they ~ to ~nt
everything cleared out.
Mayor (hniel: In just looking at your landscaping on the plans, and I realize
this is just... One of the points I want to bring out is that we make sure in
doing that landscaping that we keep the street openings clear so visibility is,
fr~n a safety aspect because scm~e of these intersections we've got now, you
can't ~ left or right and you have to creep out into the intersection before
you can really see. So one of those I think we should p~y pretty close
attention to.
Brad Johnson: From our end of it, the way we'd like to see it go, as I said,
there were two wa.us to get it done. This seams to be the one. I think this
gives you the most control and I think w~'re ccmfor~le with the flexibility.
So far negotiations have ~ going fairly smoothly. It's ha~d to see, t/~ only
thing you really see, like you say, is the landscaping ultimately and the look
of t/~ building and we'll have those in color for you, which helps a lot, by the
time we come back again.
Mayor Ch~iel: Yes. This is just preliminary and this will be back to us.
Brad Johnson: Probably in a month.
Councilman Johnson: What time frame are you looking at this?
67
City Council Meeting ' August 281 1989
Brad Johnson: I don't know. You never know what kind of alligator is going to
leap out at you. We are, in talking to Gary Ehret earlier this evening, he
wandered around but one of the problems w~'re not quite sure of what the soil
conditions are on the southeast corner of that site. And that soil means cost.
We are up to about a 70%. A grocery store has just been increased in size and
concept to a 22,500 square foot grocery store ar~ it could be nearing inside the
size of a New Market. That has helped us a lot on the leasing. When w~ did
Town Square w~ were required to have 40% pre-leased by the lerding institutions
and thanks to our tax law changes, the lack of real estate investment, we're not
being required to pre-lease 70% and that's a real big difference. We've got a
redevelo[mnent agreement. If everything went smoothly, which we' 11 assume it
won't, we could start in October s(xnetime. We might be able to pull a grading
permit in October if things go smoothly. We have about 65% to 70% pre-leased
but I think I said we'd start this in about May of this year and things just
don't move. As I said, the world of real estate is changing and I spent the
whole day being hammered on because the clinic isn't started yet and people just
don't realize you know that this is what happens in the development business.
There possibly was a subterranean pollution of the water in Chanhassen. Because
of that the lenders were not going to leJES to anything in Chanhassen so we spent
3 weeks goirg to the Pollution Control Adminstration. Clearing the name of
Chanhassen with this one bank because people just don't understand it all and
it's just a lot of little things.
Councilman Johnson: Just from o~r gas station?
Brad Johnson: Yes. Not the one on 78th ~hough. The one down on TH 5.
Councilman Johnson: Ch Amoco?
Brad Johnson: Yes. It's out of the blue and those are the kinds of things that
we run across. We had scme other little minor changes in the clinic deal too
and that could happen here but ideally we would be there in October. From the
City's point of view, I think we're moving as fast as we can. Okay?. We also
have a new planner now so if I have to redesign it but this is, welc(Ee. But
that's kind of where we are and ideally we start in October. If don't, but
we' re getting close. I keep saying, the only shopping center that's been
started on TH 5 from Rainbow out this way is Town Square and it's done, in the
last 4 years and they've got 4 other ones they've been trying to start. And
they're got 3 proposed in town here they haven't started so hopefully this one
will get started here in the next 4 to 5 months.
Councilman Johnson: The one thing I don't want to see is another HSZ where
somebody gets up there, does scme preliminary grading, sets it out Over the
winter.
Brad Johnson: Where' s that?
Councilman Johnson: TH 7 and TH 41. A real mess. Erosion controls isn' t done
and planting and seeding next spring. It's all th~ way coming up to fall
already and no real progress.
Brad Johnson: It's tough to do a preliminary grade on this one without
financing on it because it's not going to be any small price. And you've got a
68
City Council Meeting - August 28~ 1989
developer in AMCON that's used to working in town here, or the contractor side
of it.
Councilman Boyt: How much is HRA going to be involved in this? It's their
property isn't it?
Brad Johnson: They're helping us finance it indirectly through, we pay the
taxes. They give us the money, approach to the whole thing. There are
people that are trying to relocate within the community. Bernie Hanson and the
Hardware Store which is about to lose it's situation over there sooner or later.
Then they approve, as you do, the site plan. they have architectural control.
Just by the fact that tt~y don't want to sper~ any money. They keep the right
because they' re supposed to do the town so they could r~ot sign our redevelofm%ent
agre~lent. You approve it but this is one other approval that they happen to
have. If they don't like the project, they don't sign the develoIammlt agre~ue~t
ar~ we don' t get the funds.
Councilman Boyt: It's going to be an interesting project for the new Council
because you're going to get a first hand look at what it's like to design a
giraffe. We have t%D different groups that both feel they have control over
this ard it becomes quite a balancing act.
Brad Johnson: I think in this particular case they're ccmzfortable so far so I
don't, we've just got to be careful that all the bodies get it at the proper
time rather than you find out we' re doing something. I think we're done it.
This particular plan, unlike a couple other ones we've done, has gone through
all the bodies at least once already. Got the cc~ne~ts. We're making the
charges so by the time we c~me back for the formal presentation, which starts
this Th~%rsday with the HRA, everybody's had ~ts.
Councilman Boyt: It's my understanding that the reason you couldn't put this
into a central business district is because of outside storage which isn't
allowed in a central business district. Is that right?
Brad Johnson: You could have done it on a variance but there's other things
that we might have had to ask for.
Councilman Boyt: Well variances, I would guess .-our chances are slim. In temm~
of ccm~ents, when you go for a PUD, gre~ area is important. What we're givirg
up here is apparently gr~-------n area. Gonceiveably this ~s a district all by.
itself. It beats me but if it goes PUD, landscaping is going to have to be
pretty impressive to replace that 13 or so percent hard surface that we're
picking up.
Brad Johnson: I think we've done that and we've also done it in the design of
the building but we've already gone through one stage of negotiations to get it
there.
Councilman Bo.ut: Then the ultimate stumbling block for me, which the HRA
controls. I guess that's why. I see this as a particular balancing act, is tl~
size of the grocery store. I'm glad to see that it's increased but what's the
size of the Super Value up in ~den Prairie?
Brad Johnson: Same si ze.
69
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
Councilman Boyt: 22,500?
Brad Johnson: 25,000.
Councilman Boyt: I wouldn't want to see us build anything smaller because I
think we get into a situation in which we really don't have a grocery store but
we have something that's going to make it absolutely impossible for any other
grocery store to come into town.
Brad Johnson: It's also expandable but the owner of the store is fighting with
Super Value to make it bigger. Okay? Super Value has the ~rse strings and
what he w~nts to do is make sure that this store is ccmpetitive bo any store
that's on our fringe for a very personal reason. He doesn't want to die because
he doesn't attract our business so he's matching this store against the Rainbow,
fr~n an internal. He can't get that big and still survive out here but frc~ the
pricing and that kind of thing and he's going to match the size against the
Super Value at TH 4 and TH 5.
Councilman Boyt: What I recall...
Brad Johnson: This is a bigger store than we used to have.
Mayor Chmiel: How many square feet?
Brad Johnson: We've got 22,500 now which is almost New Market size.
Mayor Chniel: I was thinking it was only 16,000 or 15,000.
Jo Ann Olsen: That's with expansio~ the 21,000.
Brad Johnson: We're expanding right away. We've already just increased the
size of the store.
Councilman Boyt: As I recall when this was discussed by the HRA about a year
ago, what was being proposed then was a pretty heavy subsidy by the HRA or the
grocery business.
Brad Johnson: If it didn't succeed.
Councilman Boyt: Are we still looking at that?
Brad Johnson: C~ yes.
Councilman Boyt: I'm not for that. You know, maybe I could be convinced but I
would say at this point, I don't think the City of Chanhassem should be
subsidizing a grocery store. If it can't make it, then maybe it's not the right
time.
Brad Johnson: Well the City's not. It's the tax incr~nent that is.
(~ouncilman Boyt: Well excuse me and I don't have any control of the HRA. What
we have control over is the zoning and so I'm just telling you that my concerns
are that the grocery store's got to be viable.
70
City <3ouncil B~eting - A~gust 28~ 1989
Brad Johnson: I guess you can attack, it's a technical issue because you can
deal with the development in different ways to make it viable. This was the way
-the HRA wanted to make it viable. There's all different kinds of ways of making
a project viable. Then a direct subsidy to the grocery store. You could write
down the land and subsidize the developer ~hich is done pretty c(xmnonly. Same
difference. In this particular case t~ did not want the money to go to the
developer. So they didn't. ~hat was just the difference.
Councilman Boyt: So they're going to put thenselves in the grocery business?
Brad Johnson: No. The developer would worse case because he's the one putting
the money in. There's no money ccmirg from the HRA directly in that case. It's
all provided by the developer but the string is, if it's not ~ed, the HRA
wants it to come back to their development fund. I'll go through that. You
just have to start from the beginning.
Mayor Chmiel: ~bey' re guaran~ x rmm~ber of dollars for that given year. Over
a 3 year period from my understandirg.
Councilman Boyt: Amd maybe I'm over simplfying it to say that then the HRA is
getting in the grocery business but that's what it looks like.
Mayor Chniel: When we entice something into the ccumunity, of what we don't
have, and that's sort of unites the downtown is what I think they. were saying.
Brad Johnson: Amd as I said, next time we c~me thro~h or maybe you could sit
in on the HRA meetings and review the development group but there's a lot of
~ationale but this was just the approach that we decided to take. E~erybody'
felt a grocery store was going to be successful. If it's successful, there is
no subsidy the way it's set up.
Councilman Boyt: Well I've kind of felt that the City is trying to for.ce a
grocery store where the market won't support it. I think that's what Cooper is
Brad Johnson: Not necessarily so. ~hat has happened is we don't have a
Driskill or a Cooper in our c~mmmi~ that has built the grocery, business over a
period of time. We did have scmeb(x]y who ~ in the grocery store where Kenny's
used to be. This is philosophical but I believe this guy's a policeman now but
Kenny's was originally, had it grown the way ~hatever that was before, it would
have ~ a Cooper's. That fanily would have continued in a ommmmity this size
providing groceries and had built a base and you would not have this kind of
situation. Excelsior has Driskill's. Hopkins has Tait's. We had somebody but
they dropped out of business and it's a million dollar investment on Oooper's
part, forgetting all this other garbage we're talkirg about. There is no proven
business here but if we don't do that, you won't have any retail business in
town because it's the main draw. It's just an interesting problom.
Mayor Chniel: Kenny's is at the point Bill now where they are on a month to
month basis.
Councilman Boyt: Right, I understand they' re leaving.
71
City Council Meeting - August 28~ 1989
Mayor Chmiel: And if they can find someone to take that space, they're gone.
Brad Johnson: I guess what I was saying there too is that that site was, I
don't know who owned that before h~t it was a local family but they just decided
to get out of the grocery business. At the same time Driskill's was in
downtown, it's just the way it has evolved.
Councilman Workman: I guess I don't like, the grocery store is my biggest
concern and some of the same Bill and I are philosophically correct together.
Boy that's different. W~_ tend to with our retail in town, w~ have a dry cleaner
in town but they aren' t dry cleaning in town. We have a bakery in town,
although they're not making bakery goods in town and so we'll have a grocery
store and I want it to be a grocery store. A place where we can do these
things. My. concern is, and looking ahead with the PUD, etc. and if we're going
to be asking for all sorts of greenery, doesn't greenery in front of retail
areas kind of block it and kind of defeat the purpose of signage and everything
else? It seems to me that the more greenery we pile into town and around these
buildings, that people driving by won't even be able to see th~n. We've got
Douglas Firs all over the place. They get pretty big don't they? Busineses who
are doing business in town probably want to be seen a little bit so I guess I'm
just adding my comment that somehow so we don't block it out too much and
defeating you know. we have a grocery store over there behind those trees in
there or something.
Mayor Chniel: Any other discussion?
Councilman Johnson: I want to ditto what Tc~ is saying there. I've said it
about the original downtown planning. I thought it was going to interfere too
much. I do have concerns. I want this to be equitable. I believe a grocery
store is a vital thing for the overall growth. I hear many citizens saying they
want a grocery store here in town. They don't want to ~_~c it some little thing.
They realize they're not going to get a Rainbow or a Cub size food store out
here. I do believe that it is very necessary for the continued growth of this
town. I also agree that in order for anybody to be viable, they have to be
seen. If ~ over plant to the point of blocking the view, then only the people
that know it's there will shop there and that's not good for retailing and
retailing is what these type of places are about.
Mayor Chniel: Right. ~rther discussion?
Councilwoman Dimler: I do agree with most of what's been said and especially
with what Jay said about the grocery store. The people here in Chanhassen do
want a grocery store. I'm not sure they want to subsidize it. That would be my
major concern. Also, I think that in a PUD, frcm what I read here so far,
I didn't see that the City was getting enough.... Or what we're getting even. I'm
not real warmed up to it.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? If hearing none, I think staff's looking
for direction of whether or not this should be as a PUD development for the
~e~cial shopping center.
Councilman Boyt: I would say there's really no choice but to come in under a
PUD unless we're going to rewrite our zoning ordinance.
72
City Council Meeting - August 28~ 1989
Mayor C2miel: Right. Very true. Okay. Is there going to be any motion?
Councilman Boyt: Is there a need for one?
Councilman Workman: I move approval of the sketch plan.
Councilman Johnson: We didn't see the sketch plan
Councilman Boyt: You ar~ I didn't receive the sketch plan.
Mayor Ch~iel: You looked at mine Jay.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, I looked at yours but I'm told that this isn't ev~
the current sketch plan.
Jo Ann Olsen: That is the sketch plan.
Todd (~erhardt: It's a sketch plan but it's ~ot the final. It's not the most
current but it's a sketch plan.
Councilman Johnson: This is the sketch plan but w~'ve got sc~ething better over
there.
Jo Ann Olsen: That's going to the Planning Ommuission right now. Staff hasn't
even made the final review of it yet.
Ma~u~)r Chniel: You still have control on it because it will be coming back, if
you're looking for the control.
Councilman Johnson: Do we have to approve the sketch plan? We have to approve
the concept for a planned unit development?
Mayor Chniel: Yes, you'd have to approve the concept for a planned unit
development, right.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, that I agree with. ~he sketch plan, I don't think we
want to say we approve it per se.
Mayor C~niel: No. Just the concept plan.
Councilman Johnson: The concept that this should be a planned unit development
area for ~ahat they're trying to do.
Mayo~ (~miel: Concept plan for planned unit develo~mm~nt. Is there a motion?
Councilman Johnson: I'll move that.
Councilman Workman: Secor~.
Councilman Boyt: I need to know ~E~at it is we're talking about here.
Councilman Johnson: We moved the concept of PUD.
Mayor (2~iel: Strictly.
73
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
Councilman Boyt: What does that mean?
Councilman Workman: I don't think it means much.
Jo Ann Olsen: There's three different stages that you go thro~x3h for a PUD.
The first one is a concept which is essentially, you just look at it as whether
or not it should be a PUD. Real sketchy.
Co,ancilman Boyt: All we're doing then this evening is indicating that this
could conceiveably be a PUD?
Jo Ann Olsen: Right. You're not giving. By, doing this is not saying you're
approving...
Councilman Johnson: I'll read the staff's recon~ner~ed recc~m~ation here. The
City Council recommends whether they feel a PUD is appropriate for this site.
I believe a PUD is appropriate. I move a PUD is appropriate for this site.
Councilman Boyt: And I think you got a second to that.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded that the City Council
approves that a PUD is appropriate for the southwest corner of Market Blvd. and
West 78th Street. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chniel: I would like to move to amend the agenda and have item 11, Mr.
Glen Pauls who missed the visitor Presentation. He's here now and I know he's
been waiting patiently so I would like to move that as a motion to amend the
agenda.
Councilman Johnson: Second.
Mayor Chniel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to amend the agenda to hear
Visitor Presentations at this point in the ager~]a. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATION:
Glen Pauls: I'm Glen Pauls. I represent the NordicTrack Cc~pany in Chaska.
What we' re looking at is buildirg a new building across TH 41 frc~ where we're
at now. Right across from the Aeration Building. Over on this site here where
I guess your public utilities buildings a~e right in this first corner. This is
82nd Street and TH 41, along this side. We've acquired this land already.
We're going to start grading on it this fall hopefully if things work out right
with the bids and what not. What we' re proposing to do is requesting the
Council to let the staff negotiate price in selling your public utility land
there. Moving that. I guess they have some ideas where they'd like to put it.
Just in that front corner.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to find out what it's worth.
74
City Council Meeting - A~gust 28~ 1989
Mayor Ch~iel: What kir~ of business is this?
Glen Pauls: We manufacture the NordicT~ack exerciser. Basically it's a
manufacturirg, sales, type of business. It's a warel~use also.
Mayor Chniel: You ~ the additional properties for your parking and so on?
Glen Pauls: Yes. There's a little bit of parking on there. It really doesn't
affect the overall thing. It's more visual than anything there. ~here's about
30 spaces of parki~ right in that corner. You can see the property lines are
right here to here out of the entire piece that isn't much of a chunk. It's
kind of the key corner on tbs end. It's the entranoe area there.
Councilman Workman: Todd, how do w~ win in this situation?
Todd Gerhardt: M~. Pauls was on tb~ last Council ag~. He had requested that
he be placed on the agenda. Staff had talked with Mr. Pauls several times. In
talkirg about sellirg the property, staff felt ur~ufortable dealirg with him at
that time until we had Council direction to sit down and negotiate with him.
Tonight-staff w~uld like council to direct us to sit down and try to negotiate a
purchase price on that property.. At one point Mr. Pauls had included a purchase
agreement of $65,00~.0~ in the last Gouncil packet. Staff had looked into
having EOS look at what replacement costs of a facility like that w~uld be and
it was estimated around $1~,00~.0~ for replao~aent of tl~ tw~ existing
buildings out there as to cold storage ar~ the existing public w~rks building
site. Staff would just like to sit down with Mr. Pauls and try to work out the
best arrang~ma~t that w~ can and then bring it back in the next agenda for
Council approval.
Councilwoman Dimler: I do have a couple of c~mmm~ts. I did hear at one point
that somebody thought the lard was worthless and yet Mr. Pauls has just
indicated that it's key. It's the key corner so that should give you an
indication as to how value. My. other point is, if it's going to cost us
$1~0,~00.~0 to replace, and he's only proposing to give us $65,~0.~, that's
not even our replac~nent cost and I would definitely counsel against that. And
you know, I think Jay brought up last time, do we have a need to sell.
Councilman Johnson: Do we have a willing seller?
Councilman Boyt: I think we have a willing seller.
Councilman Johnson: Where's the $4~,~0~.0~-differemoe ccmirg from?
Councilman Boyt: I think that's what staff negotiates about. I think we should
direct staff to carry for~rd the negotiations as a good neighbor. It may well
work out.
Councilman Johnson: It may well work out but I'm going to say...
Mayor Chniel: How many square foot building are you proposing on putting in?
Glen Pauls: It's about a 210,~0~ square foot. The first part. ~here's also an
addition. That's another, I think that was about ano~ $75,00~.~ to
75
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
$100,000.00. There's also more office eventually up here. I guess as far as
what I meant as key, the project is, I think Chaska is a little bit thinking a
little bit more about it. They've already asked us if they could put a mon~nent
on that corner saying Welccme to Chaska up there.
Councilwoman Dimler: But it's Chanhassen property.
Ga~ Warren: Say Welccme to Chanhassen.
Councilman Johnson: Who's construction trailers are those out that property
right now?
Todd Gerhardt: I don't know if they're construction trailers.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to see us make a motion so we can move along here. I
would move the City Council rec(x~n~ to staff that they proceed with
negotiations with NordicTrack to deteunlne if we have a workable agreenent.
Councilman Workman: I' 11 second that.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to direct staff to proceed
with negotiations with NordicTrack to be determine a workable agreement on the
property where the Public Works Building is now situated. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
Co~ncilman Johnson: I'd like to note that two of the Council menbers have not
actually seen a nee~ to sell.
Councilman Workman: I think what the plan kind of smacks of, Mr. Pauls. ~nacks
of, that's kind of dumb, is you've got basically a building laying there ar~ I
know the City of Chaska has gone ahead and they're very good neighbors but our
shed and everything is kind of laid out and now we're going to be kind of in a
bad situation if we don't approve it. So everything has kind of gone ahead and
we haven't bc~n~ asked if we wanted to give up those, which I think if we got rid
of those two ugly sheds, it'd be marvelous if we could work out a deal but I
think maybe that's where some of the, maybe I 'm wrong, where s~ne of the
concerns are that it's kind of done deal and now we just have to...
Todd Gerhardt: I'm sure Gary has s~ne concerns with two other sheds there...
Councilwoman Dimler: We don't need to sell. We do have to replace so.
Councilman Johnson: The citizens of Chanhassen do not want to subsidize Chaska
development.
CounciLman Boyt: We won't. Let's see it negotiate.
Councilman Johnson: It has to be negotiated to where no tax money frcm the
citizens of Chanhassen has to go for replacement of these building for we have
equivalent cold storage facilities.
76
City Council M~eting - August 28~ 1989
Mayor Ch~tel: But you have to remmmber ~'re getting a tax base for the school
district too.
Gary Warren: It's an opportunity for us to consolidate our operation which is a
benefit to us to have everything on one sit~ so there are some things that ~
would have to look at.
Councilw~uan Dimler: Yes but you certainly wouldn't sell it for less than
replacement costs?
Gary Warren: But when you say repl~t costs, I think that has to be looked
at closely.
Councilman Boyt: We're getting more than we're giving up probably.
Mayor C~xaiel: Okay. Staff will have discussions with you ar~ let you know as
to when.
Todd Gerhardt: We'll set up a meeting with the City Fzu~agex and myself.
Gary Warren: Mir~ if I sit in on that?
Todd Gerhardt: And Gary.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
C~ITY SURVEY, COUNCI~ BOYT.
Councilman Boyt: ~hat ! would like to have happen is I would like to have this
item, I thought this was going to happen the last meeting. I'd like to have
this it~a moved to the first order of new business on the next agenda.
Councilman Johnson: That's what I ttDug~ we did last time.
Councilman Boyt: I thought we did too but it e~ded up back in Council
presentations.
Mayor ~iel: Bill, I looked at this. (~3nhassen neighborhood focus and I'm
just wondering if it should fall under some of our commissions to pursue this.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to give this some discussion maybe when we've got a
little more energy. As part of th~ purpose is certainly to survey the community
but there are several other objectives here and one of them is, to give us some
contact in neighborhoods when we' re not seeking election. Whe~ we' re just
seeking information. I think that would be good for us.
Mayor Chniel: I think that's where it would probably come in through the
Ommnissions. Having these people going out and probably doing it.
Councilman Boyt: Well okay. What I'd like to see happen is I'd like to see
this. That could very well be the way we want to do this but I'd like to see
this put on tb~ ag~ so that we get to it maybe around 1~:00 or so rather than
after midnight.
77
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
Councilman Johnson: And that we actually do it before the snow falls.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you make sure that gets on the agenda prior to 10:00.
Councilman Workman: I included in my little mini-packet here an article fr~n
Star and Tribune which I can reproduce but I have some input on that.
Mayor Ch~iel: ...a Council resolution ar~ as it reads here, it says please be
advised that to receive Narcotic Grant monies for 1990, the State is requiring
that a resolution be passed by the City Council similar to the following:
Whereas Minnesota Department of Public Safety has b.~.n designated to administer
law enforc~nent funds available through the Federal Anti [lrug Abuse Act of 1986,
and Whereas, the City is eligible to receive funds for services set forth in
it's grant application. Now Therefore, it is resolved that the City of
Chanhassen enter into agreement with the State of Minnesota Department of Public
Safety to reimburse the City for monies spent for approved activities in
connection with the grant application. Be it Further Resolved, that the City of
Chanhassen and the City Manager, Don Ashworth be and hereby authorized to
execute such agreement and any amendment thereto. It is requested this
resolution be passed as soon as possible to meet the grant application deadlines
which are approaching. Can we have a motion?
Councilman Johnson: I move we waive our procedures and act on this tonight?
Councilweman Dimler: Second.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to waive Council
procedures to act on the Council Presentation presented. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
Resolution 989-100: Councilman Johnson moved, Council~anan Dimler seconded to
adopt a resolutioa to receive Narcotics Grant monies for 1990. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Johnson: As memory serves me, as sometimes it does, during the Chan
Vista there was a lot of discussion of putting up a yeild or a stop sign at the
end of Santa Vera Street as it intersected with Saratoga and Saratoga Circle.
Over the last year or so, as people have learned that short cut, people have
been completely at this point, cutting the curve where all 4 tires are going
across tbe people's lawns over there. Screeching tires arour~ the curve and
everything. I'd like to have that intersection looked at again. I think way
back what, 3 years ago when we approved this. I shouldn't say we. The prior
Council approved the Chan Vista, there ~as something about signing that
intersection. That hasn't occurred. That was I think well before youx time
Gary but it appears to be at least warranting a yeild sign. Any kind of sign up
there that they have to run over the sign versus running over the people's
lawn there. (k~ing the other way, the posts on the mail boxes have been taken
out once. It's ~n a bad intersection.
78
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
Gary Warren: We'll take a look at it~
Mayor Ch~iel: Anything additional Jay? ~hat's it?
Councilman Johnson: That's all.
Council~muan Dimler: Besidents over in C~rry Fanms are wondering ~hat happened
to their park. They do have the totlot equilm~ent is here and available ar~ it
hasn' t been put in. I guess that's their main concern because they have so many
small children in that area and they're wondering why this whole simmer
p~actically has gone by and the totlot equipment isn't in. I've talked to Lori
about it and I was going to ask her to update us but she's gone so Todd, do you
have any information on what the status is?
Mayor ~iel: It' s Gary.
Councilman Boyt: It's Gary people that put it in.
Councilwoman Dimler: I thought it was Park and Rec. I'm sorry. Would you
update us on that then please?
Gary Warren: It's the parks department but prior to the parks department it's a
matter of getting the grading omupleted by Centex. And there was a meeting here
last ~ek with Oentex to get some fine grading resolved out there. We've still
got some things that have to be ommpleted but that ~_~ting basically did
establish some understanding, from what I ~ms told, so that we should he
finishing the rough grading here in the next few weeks let's say and scme of
that will be done by our cre~ so at least as far as the park is concerned, that
should allow us then to go ahead with the installation of equilzment.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so do you have a time line as to when?
Ga~y Warren: I would say within the next 3 to 4 weeks I would hope.
Councilw~xaan Dimler: C~ good. ~m~nk you. ~hat's all I had on that one.
Councilman Johnson: Speaking of Curry Faxms the~e Ursula. I believe everybody
got the letter from the residents of Olrry Fa~2ms talking about the as~lt.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. That's a different issue tt~ugh.
Councilman Johnson: Actually it's related in that the main purpose of that
sidewalk was to get to the park. Why it ended up a 6 foot asphalt to get to the
park, it seems more appropriate the 5 foot concrete. Lots of babies in that
section. People are alwa~us walking do~ the street with baby carriages through
there.
Councilwtmm~n Dimler: Can you address that?
Ga~y Warren: The concrete along Devonshire and the roadways but the bibamir~us
is on the west side off of the end of Teton Lane.
Counci]man Johnson: ' Teton do~n to the park?
79
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
Gary Warren: Right. Cn the west side of this subdivision:
Councilman Johnson: On the mst side of street?
Gary Warren: Which is also the west side of the subdivision. Right off the
bubble from the Teton Lane cul-de-sac as it's been extended. Down the northern
side slope of the park area.
Councilman Johnson: Okay. Well the residents ~are confused there. In that
their letter indicates that the asphalt runs through the front yards but that's
a 5 foot concrete there?
Gary Warren: Right. Along the frontage, along Devonshire and such, that is
concrete.
Councilman Johnson: Tnat's more appropriate. 6 feet of asphalt.
Gary Warren: It follows our standard as we've been applying it to this point.
Concrete in front of properties. Bituminous in more remote areas.
Councilman Johnson: The other question comes, do you know if Centex Informed
the people that this was a planned sidewalk through their front yards before
they bought their houses.
Councilw~man Dimler: Can we address that sc~e other night?
Mayor Chniel: Yes. That's another time. Then Ursula, you had something else.
Councilw~nan Dimler: Yes, I just wanted to...They don't that it's adequate
separatio~ and I know probalby Jim they've called, have they called you with
some of their concerns?
Jim Chaffee: Yes.
Councilw~man Dimler: I just want to reiterate the fact that I think w~ really
ought to be paying attention to their concerns and doing something about them
rapidly.
Councilman Boyt: Aren't we? I thought we were. Didn't we direct staff to do
that a month ago?
Councilwuman Dimler: That was on the corner one only and I don't know how far
that ' s progressed.
Jim Chaffee: Yes, we've talked with a number of residents in that area. One of
the big complaints, well two complaints were the fence and the s~nell of the
garbage. I think the smell of the garbage has been corrected. The fence is on
hold until we get our bids in frcm the rest of the downtown area to complete
that fence. My research indicates that we will do the fence and we will bill
back partially to Weiss Construction or Weiss Managenent just so we have
continuity in fence.
Councilw~nan Dimler: Okay, so that's being addressed?
80
City Oouncil M~eting i A~gust 28~ 1989
Jim Chaffee: Right ~
Councilwoman Dimler: T~e other issue ~s, you mentioned the odor. And the pick
up of the garbage is at real early hours and they get awakened by. the garbage
trucks c~ming in there.
Jim Chaffee: That' s the first I've heard of that.
Mayor C2~iel: I had a call on that too.
Jim Chaffee: On the noise?
Mayor Chniel: Yes.
Oouncilw~man Dimler: And the time of the garbage pick up is more or less the
probl~.
Mayor Ch~tel: The odor was a probl~ there for a couple days amd the reason was
that the bill was not paid so consequently they didn't pick up. There's got to
s(xae consideration. It's very staunch. ~he odor is absolutely unbelieveable.
That really has to be addressed. Those neighbors shouldn't have to sit back ar~
have that. Okay, I have a letter here from Super~ica and it says, Dear Mayor
f2~iel. We understand ar~ respect the political process. We believe the
history of much of the success of Superkmerica is our total cc~ni~t to the
principle ~u articulated at the meetirg ar~ that is that Super~erica wants to
be a good neighbor. Gonsistent with the philosophy w~ have ccmplied with the
requests that we turn off the lights on the facia, even though technically and
legally the motion has the legal affect of the request. Misunderstandings do
occur and certainly that's the case here. There's mo way that Sup~rAmerica
w~uld have proceeded with the facia installation that they did absent of what
was fully approval from your previous planner, Barbara Dacy. Th~ facia that was
installed is an investment of over $3~,~0.~. ~re than an unlighted facia
w~uld cost. We want it clearly unders~ that our cc~pliance with your motion
has ~ voluntary and that w~ reserve the legal rights, which w~ have, and that
our cc~pli~ with your request is in no way to be considered as admission of
any kind or part of SuperAmerica. We look forward to ~)rking with you a~d
fir~irg an ultimate, permanent solution. Respectfully, George Townsend, Sr.
Vice President/General Manager.
Councilman Johnson: Do you think he had s~me assistance fr~m a legal beagle?
Mayor Ch~i~: I think so. JUst a tad.
AEMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
REQUEST TO PROVIDE ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES TO TONKA BAY, VICTORIA, EX~/ELSIOR,
GRR~OOD AND SH~, PUBLIC SAFETY DIOR.
Jim Chaffee: About 2 w~eks ago we were contacted by Larry ~%itaker, the City
Administrator for the City. of Shorewood ar~ he sounded kind of desparate on
phone. Apparently they had contracted for animal control services through
Midwest Animal Control or scmethirg liks that ar~ they had suddenly pulled out
of their agre~uent with these five cities listed which was Tonka Bay, Gr~w~od,
81
City Council Mmeting - August 28~ 1989
Shorewood, Excelsior and Victoria. They asked us if w~ could provide animal
control se~wices to them at least until the end of th~ year to make up for the
loss that they had experienced by Midwest pulling out of the contract. When I
asked th~n why they picked Chanhassen, they had a couple of reasons. One, from
a logistics standpoint we're better prepared to handle the animal control patrol
part. Ar~t two is that they have contracted with Jody Arndt of the Chanhassen
Vet to handle their animals and they just thought, from a continuity standpoint,
it would be best to try us. I asked if they had tried their own police agent?,
South lake Minnetonka, and they said they had. I asked who else they had tried.
They said ~hey contacted Minnetonka and they contacted Mound. Now Minnetonka
just refused to do anything, hbund sent them a bid and South Lake Minnetonka
Police Department said, no way w~ want to touch animals. I can understand. So
because they were desparate we said, well we'll give it a shot. We'll see what
we can do. Part of our reasoning was that one of our CSO's, Bob Zydowsky was
scheduled to go back to part time at the end of the s[m~ner which would be after
Labor Day ar~ we thought that this would be an opportunity for us to keep him on
full time and get reimbursed for the cost associated with keeping him on full
time. The other- side of that is that we thought we would probably benefit from
providing the contract services to these five cities in that we would have a
full time CSO then that would be available to handle the calls regardless of
where he was. If we got a call in Chanhassen and he was up in Shorewood or
Excelsior or Victoria, he'd still handle our calls. He'd ccme and take the
calls. It just seemed practical for us to do this on an interim basis until the
end of the year. It also gave us time, or would give us time to see if they
liked our services, whether or not they would want to contract on a more
permanent basis after, the first of the year. The numbers just seemed to work
out. Mound's numbers did not and logistically they just ~ren't prepared to
ccme down into the area and I'll show you that in a minute. Like I said,
South lake Minnetonka didn't want to touch it. SO let me show you the area that
we would cover. Now when you talk about five cities it seemed like a large area
to us until we put it on the map and mapped it out. You see that Chanhassen is
right here to the south. So you can see how we are prepared in Chanhassen to
cover the areas of the four cities and then Victoria, which is slightly off of
the map over here. Mound is ~re off up in this area and Minnetonka is
scmewhere off up over here. It's not a large area for us to cover. If you see
our borders between the cities, it would just be expanding north just slighting
south of the lake. Logistically we can do it and it's just up to the Council.
They are desparate, ihey've been contacting us at least 3 or 4 times a day. If
you've ~c~n reading the local papers, their councils have already approved
tentatively the agreement if it's approved by this Council here. ~hat's pretty
much it.
Councilman Boyt: How many people in that area?
Jim Chaffee: Population? If you could all five cities, it's about 10,000.
Councilman Boyt: How many hours of animal patrol will we be providing to
Chanhassen?
Jim Chaffee: The same amount as before.
Councilman Boyt: Well what's that?
82
City OOUnCil Meeting - Angust 28 ~ 1989
Jim Chaffee: We had one full time. We still have one full time, Dsb Rand and
the part time, Bob Zydowsky. It would be 60 to 70 hours a week.
Councilman Boyt: Taat's not all animal patrol though. How many hours is given
towards animal patrol in Chanhassen?
Jim Chaffee: I guess we've never broken it down exactly to ~at's animal.
What's crime prevention. What's various ancillary duties.
Councilman Johnson: When are they in the vehicle?
Jim Chaffee: They're in the vehicle doirg all kirks of thirgs. I mean they're
delivering packets. ~bey're running errands. ~hey're running tapes of Council
meetings ~ to Mound. They're assisting the deputies.
Councilman Johnson: How much are they' sitting in the office doing paperwork
then?
Jim Chaffee: We just haven't broken it down. We don't know. I don't know.
Mayor Chniel: I see that you made a rough breakdown of the gas, oil,
maintenance, salary and benefits and so on. What about the upkeep on that
vehicle and vehicle replac~nent with the additional miles that we'd be putting
on?
Jim Chaffee: We figured this out, w~ figured we'd put an extra 100 miles on a
day. The vehicle's old enough where we figure it's fully depreciated and we
figured that 22 cents a mile ~ 1~ miles a day and that's how we arrived at
that figure so it's all included in theze. And again, this is just on an
interim basis. If the cities do like our services, if the Council's agreeable
to it, we'll sit do~ and ham~er out a more refined agreement to take plaoe in
January if ever~ubody's in agreement to this.
Councilman Boyt: Isn't the vehicle like 3 years old?
Jim Chaffee: We bought it 3 years ago but it was used when we bought it. It's
a 1985 I believe.
Councilman Boyt: I would recommend that we develop the contract that the
Sheriff's Department is using with us. That way we'll be sure we have full
control.
Councilman Workman: I guess I don't ur~ersta~d where the City of Chanhassen
gains by getting into this business. We're already in the grocery store
business.
Jim Chaffee: We did contract out our animal control services to Chaska when
I first started here an~ it se~med to be a very workable agreement. It worked
out very well for both cities.
Councilman Johnson: I think it's the neighborly thing to do on an e~ergency
basis.
83
_ -
City Co~cil Mmeting - August 28, 1989
Councilman Workman: I agree with that but I don't agree with the more permanent
agreenent I guess.
Councilman Boyt: I think the advantage for us it allows us to hire someone full
time that we wouldn't have full time otherwise.
Councilw~nan Dimler: What happens in December then?
Mayor Chniel: We'll review it then.
Councilman Boyt: I see the advantage in that w~ have some flexibility. If w~
have a contract that gives us scme priority, we gain sc~e flexibility here by
using their money basically to help us maintain a full time person so I see an
advantage to it. I just want to be s~re that we sort of have all the cards.
Jim Chaffee: One of the advantages is we have put in, we do need another CSO
vehicle and it is in the budget for 1990. We have just briefly discussed it
with the 5 adminstrators from the 5 cities and indicated that if this does go
into a lor~ teun arrangenent, starting in January, we would expect them to pick
up proportionate costs of that vehicle and they seemed preliminarily to agree to
that.
Mayor Chmiel: I think for us providing that kind of service to our neighboring
ccm~nunities is fine just as long as it's not costing Chanhassen any dollars.
That' s my major concern.
Councilman Boyt: We should be gaining something.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. ~1~ should be making some money on it.
Councilman Workman: Tnere's a serious reason why plenty of other police forces
do not want to be in this business. It's not the most pleasant task. I guess I
would go along with approval until the end of the y~ar and we can relook at
things.
Jim Chaffee: I would have to agree with Councilman Workman that it's not a
pleasant business to be in. You can arrest a burglar or a robber, a vandal but
you mess with someone's dog and you're really stepping on forbidden territory.
But we're in it and we're used to it and we handle it I think fairly well.
Councilman Workman: I think Bob does an outstanding job, and Deb, and that's
not the point. I certainly don't have a problem helping our neighbors but I'd
like to see the benefits to the City of Chanhassen for getting into a business
which we really don't need to get into. That's my only concern so I guess I'd
like to look at it for the short term and then look at it again, as your memo
states, not so much as to that we're going to have a pemnenant agre~nent but
whether or not we should have one.
Councilwoman Dimler: You might like to see a profitability study I suppose
before we consider anything...because it certainly has to be profitable to stay
in it.
Mayor Chmiel: Do you have any ideas price per hour for patrol? You mentioned
scme figures. And then price for call for unscheduled services?
84
City Council Meeting s August 28~ 1989
Jim (~affee: The price per call, are you talking about the emerg~ call outs?
Mayor C~aiel: Yes.
Jim Chaffee: It would be over time or time and a half. A minimu~ of 2 hours
that they'd be reimbursing the city so it'd be time ar~ a half x 17 hours x 2
and I haven't figured that out yet. The $17.~0 an hour that w~'re charging
these cities is over and above what our costs are. Our costs are figured out to
be like $16.20 per hour and that's why I've shown in there we will make about
$800.00 ~ this short tenn basis.
Councilman Boyt: I would reccmma~, I was quite serious about the contract. I
think we're really, we shouldn't enter into this without a strong contract that
indicates how disputes will be handle. ~hat indicates ~hat will happen if the
costs exceed what we anticipate and so on. The things that are in that County
contract. That may be a little one sided but I think given the nature of the
experiment, it would be something good to do. Let's have a strorg position for
the City.
Councilman Johnson: ~ho's over the barrel this time?
Councilman Boyt: I think it's scmething we want to provide.
Mayor (2~iel: Which side of the street are you on?
Councilman Boyt: There are a lot of advantages to Chanhasse~ to maintaining
what we've now got and this is a ~y to do that. I would rec~ approval
with the condition that the contract be worded to be sure that w~ maintain
control.
Councilwoman Dimler: Even it' s no profitable?
Councilman Johnson: Well there's intar~ible profitabilities to it too.
Councilman Boyt: We certainly don't ~ant to be underwriting it but...
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't want the citizens to have to subsidize.
Councilman Workman: We're stepping in where a private business has just failed.
Councilw~nan Dimler: That' s right.
Councilman Boyt: Well we're giving it an opportunity to try it out during which
generally is a pretty slow season for animal problens. I hope. Is there a
second to that?
Councilman Johnson: Yes, second.
Councilman Workman: Are you adding in there that it would be until the end of
the year and then we'd look at it?
Councilman Boyt: Yes. t~ders~ that it's through the er~ of the year.
85
City Council Meeting - August 28~ 1989
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to authorize Public Safety to
provide animal control sel-vices requested by Tonka Bay, Victoria, Excelsior,
Greenwood, and Shorewood on a t~rary, 3 month period. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
DR. CHUCK LOFY'S TAPES REGARDING CC~LI~ICATION AND DEALING WITH CHANGE,
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER.
Todd Gerhardt: They're in the City Manager's office. Anytime anybody wants to
come in and borrow them, you've got to talk to Karen and she'll write you up and
you can reserve them for a ~=ek.
SET SPECIAL MEETING DATES, BUDGET WORKSESSION, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER.
Todd Gerhardt: Attached here are 7 possible dates that you could have budget
worksessions.
The City Council set the dates of September 7, 1989 and September 13, 1989 at
6:30 pan. as special meeting dates for the budget worksession.
DOWNTOWN PLANTING MODIFICATIONS, CITY ENGINEER.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to know, this is another it~n. I'd like to know how
this got on the end of our agenda.
Mayor Chniel: Because it wasn' t here the last time. It was at the end at that
time too.
Gary Warren: The current item on planting?
Councilman Boyt: Yes. Why wasn't that a new business or an old business
continued?
Gary Warren: I guess there wasn't co.m~cil action. There was council discussion
about the it~n so it was brought back as an actninistrative it~n.
Mayor Chniel: Tell us all about it will you Gary?
Gary Warren: Representatives from BR~J are here to fill in the blanks and the
details but I guess basically to address specifically Bill's c(xmnents. Before
proceeding with the plans here w~ wanted to lay the cards on the table as far as
what is intended and get your input, blessings, whatever. Don Ringrose is here.
Todd Whitman to do that.
Councilman Workman: I'd second your question.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, at $200.00 an hour I'd rather had you on the agenda 2
hours earlier.
86
City Oouncil Meeting - August 28~ 1989
Oouncilman Boyt: I can tell you that how this agenda is put together is a
m~ustery to me. Mow w~ ever get anything into the main agenda is baffling and
I'm tired of it.
Don Ringrose: Let me first do a little chronology of evemts here. I think it
would help set the stage for what I want to express to you with respect to the
downtown landscaping because I think it will help put it in perspective. As you
know, I think you know, that the landscape a~echitect that worked for BR~ for
well over 2 or 3 years on the downtown project, Jim Lasher, left our emplolaaent
in June of this year. His replacement in our office, Todd Whitman, landscape
architect, effectively came onto the job in July and one of his first tasks was
to get up to spccd on the status on the project and okwiously the first step w~s
to come out and make ~t detailed inspection. Familiarize himself with
what he saw and what the status of the project was. His initial response to us,
management back at BR~ was that he ~s concerned that there ~_re sc~e problems
out there. Ome of them in particular dealir~3 with the issue of appropriate
plant materials, i.e. in terms of the envirorm~ent that they're growing. Will
they survive, salt tolerant, etc.. In response to that w~ had a meeting with
Gary and Don Ashworth, ~ry Ehret, Todd and myself in early August where we
expressed those concerns to ~ staff ar~ outlined a plan whereby we would
undertake to make corrections that were our responsibility as well as
corrections that were already...ozmpleting or fixing up deficient work. Then at
your meeting on August 14th, w~ weren't here but we w~re provided Minutes of the
meetir~3 by Gary and apparently at that time several ms,bets of the Oouncil
expressed similar concerns ar~ I've gone through the Minutes and in some ~ay
there was, as I can see it, about 5 questions which were raised that evening.
Ome had to do with the budget ar~ if there's changes made, will the budget be
preserved. What will happe~ there. Is the time, our time, BRa's time, in texms
of correcting a redesign a city expense or BR~ expense. It ~ms noted that there
was dead materials down there s(xne of which were the contractor's responsibility
irrespective of the other issues. ~he potential use or reuse of materials in
other portions of the downtown project. And I think one of the major ones was
how c~ld you be assured, or you wanted to be assured that any redesign, Put
appropriate materials in the appropriate place in terms of their longevity ar~]
surviveability. Well when I became a~re in a sense of the, I guess heighten
concern of the council in response to ~ infonmation that Gary had given us, it
s~..~Kt to me it would he appropriate that, I guess on your behalf, to bring in
an ir~tependent consultant. Independent from BR~ to assure you, in this case,
that these questions, particularly the one with respect to appropriate materials
and surviveability, was being properly answered. I think in the communication
from Gary to the Oouncil and to Don Ashworth, he ir~licated that we had
anticipate~ takir~ that step. In fact we have taken that step. We have
retained Mr. Mervin Eisel. He's the Associate Professor of Horticultural and
Orar~ental Plants at the University Arboretum just west of town here. We made
this contact late last week and in fact he made an inspection of the area last
Thursday evening. This morning he met with Todd. at length to review the design
modifications that Todd had already detezIained to be appropriate, at least in
his opinion. And he's issued to us, or to Don Ashworth, a brief report. It
concerns the project as it exists primarily. It also addresses to a limited
extent the proposed redesign. The report is quite critical in some respects and
we don't disagree with it. In fact, the redesign that Todd had already Put
together probably addresses, I mean I'm trying to quantify bu~. something in
range of 90% of the issues which M~rv had identified in his report and in fact
we're confident that with some more conversation ar~ time with him, that we can
87
_ -
City Council M~eting - August 28, 1989
come up with a design that ~ould meet his independent criteria and secure his
independent approval in a sense on yo~r behalf. That leads us to the point now
where we need to make the corrections and get underway with the w~rk and I want
to see if we can cc~e to some understanding with the Council as to the mechanics
of that and what role, presuming you w~nt to have a role, what role and again
presuming that you find them to be satisfactory, what role he should play on
your behalf in insuring or satisfying you that the right decisions are being
made. The corrective work that's contemplated in the redesign involves the
removal of s~me plants without their replacement. ~ere's no question about
that. In some cases, there's r~moval of plant material which is already dead.
~ch of it's been removed and in some situations, the legitimate removal of live
plant material. That's simply the wrong plant in the wrong place. Now there's
a cost implication in all of these things to the extent that there's deficient
work or deficient plant material. That is the contractor's responsibility under
any circ~stance. That will continue to be his responsibility. To the extent
that there's design revisions made at our request, that will be our
responsibility obviously. Both any expense that the contractor incurs, we have
to pay him and obviously our own time. I cannot foresee where there would be
any expense on behalf of the city and in fact, to the extent that we reduce the
amount of plant material within the project area, most likely there would be a
reduction in the overall expense to the City as a result of the changes. What I
w~)uld like to suggest I guess is that, with your concurrence, and City staff
involvement, that we proceed with the modifications subject to Merv's review and
ongoing monitoring of the redesign. F~ has offered to make himself available to
the Council if you care to discuss this with him. I would prefer not to wait
for 2 weeks until the next meeting because we'd like to get on with the
corrective work but if there was a desire on the part of the Council in total or
any of you individually, we'd be glad to schedule a meeting as soon as possible
for that. We could do it early s~me evening to make it convenient so if you
wanted to get more discussion with him with regard to any issue that you want to
raise. I guess to try and sur~m~rize, we erred in placing too much confidence,
too much of our confidence in one of our employees who simply in the final
analysis didn't have the experience and the judgment to make all the right
decisions. I don't fault him. I mean we have to accept the responsibility. He
should have been w~tched more closely. We recognize our responsibility as a
design professional fi~m and we want to correct the situation as rapidly as
possible. It's not a lot of fun for us. It's going to cost us s~me money and
we recognize that and it's not particularly good for our reputation so we'd like
to get on with it. Bs~ind you that not all the problems by any means are our
responsibility. There are many, many, many problems down there that are
contractor related that are unrelated to this issue in terms of the design.
Upon cc~pletion of the corrective work, it would be provided a full accounting
of plants moved in. Plants moved out. What we paid for. What the contractor
paid for so there's no mystery or misunderstanding about who took care of what.
Finally, I guess I feel I must and it's appropriate that we apologize for the
situation that we find ourself in. We're not particularly pleased with it by
any means and with that I guess I would entertain your questions and hopefully
we can agree on s(x~e method by which we can move ahead.
Mayor Chmiel: I would think basically what you're saying, to make corrective
measures to rectify the situation that's there. Frem what you've indicated by
securing the individual you have from the Arboret~n plus your new staff m~mber.
88
City Council Meeting i August 28~ 1989
Don Ri~3rose: Plus I ~uld add, there's ~ issues raised by. staff and
Council. I mean some of them unrelated to plant materials. Sight distance
issues, etc.. We have collected those it~as and certainly will att~ to
impl~%emt them in the redesign.
Mayor Ch~iel: Scme of the concerns I have is probably not right now but as
those trees progress ar~ they grow, if ar~ when w~ ever have any problems within
the c(xmuunity of tornado or such nature, to take out those trees. We'd have
that complete downtown blocked ar~ I'm just womderirg whe~ total numbers were
really oversold in my estimation, feeling as I had looked at the first amount of
plantirgs. I thought there was an over abund~ of trees up and dom that
complete area. At least in my. opinion.
Don Ringrose: I understand that and that's one of those subjective design
issues but to tbs extent that there are trees down there now that should be
r~oved, either because they're already dead. Some of which have ~ moved, or
w~'re anticipating they won't make it because they're the wrong tree in the
wrong place, it might be appropriate that not all of the~ grow back. I mean
that's, if the consensus is there's just too much.
Mayor C2x~iel: Some of the bushes that are contained there, I'm not sure whether
they can withstand the amount of salt that's put on the boulevard sections.
Don Ringrose: Yes, and wa and he both will be addressing those issues. And of
course, like anything else, there's shades of gray here. I mean some of these
materials, proximity, to the road is related to the probl~ ar~ b~w far away is
far enough a~ay. ~here's judgments that have to be made here even still.
Either in Todd's judgments or Merv's judgments and I'm sure that in some cases
not evexyone of those will be 100% correct but ~at wa're hoping to do is
present to you certainly better judgments than were presented to ~ in the past
and that wa say to try and provide you s~me level of comfort. Somebody in and
additio~ to our staff and hopefully fr~ ~ that's recognized for their
own credentials.
Mayor Ch~iel: Anything else? Anyone else?
Councilman Johnson: A little over 2 years ago I said it to Jim and everybody
else. About twice as much plantings there that I wanted to see. I thought they
were going to interfere with sight lines ar~ everything else and it was just an
over abundance. I was over voted 3-2, which during that timefrsme ~as a normal
vote. But at one point I did get some support for that but never any action on
it. It sour~s like now wa're going to get some action on it.
Mayor Ch~iel: I think we'd like to see you proceed with staff.
Don Ringrose: I guess the thrust primarily dealt with the appropriate material
but I get the message strong and clear that I think the consensus is t/~y'd like
to ~ less.
Councilman Boyt: I don't think that's the consensus. That may be the majority
vote but I think if a tornado goes through downtown, we're going to have more
problems than trees scattered around.
Mayor Ch~iel: That' s true.
89
City Council M~eting - August 28, 1989
Councilman Boyt: I thought that one of the things was the general amount of
greenery was, all along the HRA and the City Council were trying to create a
shall town feel with greenery. How you do that, the vol~ne of trees it takes to
do that, I don't claim to know that answer. I expect you do. I appreciate your
professional approach to this problem. I for one would like to meet with this
Assistant Professor frcm the Arborett~n. I don't want anything to go in there
until we're convinced that it will work.
Don Ringrose: That's appropriate.
Councilman Boyt: What particularly troubles me is that your plan covered 90% of
the issues that were raised. That sends a signal to me that the first plan had
an awfully lot wrong with it that another experienced person would have said,
don't do this.
Don Ringrose: Wait a minute. (kit revised plan covered 90% of the issues that
Meow had raised. In a sense what we're saying is that Todd and Merv in a sense
saw the same issues. They're within 90% of concurring.
Councilman Boyt: Well and as you ir~icated, it didn't go the way you planned
either but I would almost rather, I want to see us get it right and if that
means we don't plant them this fall, I can live with that. What I can't live
with is planting something that a year from now is not working any better than
what we have currently.
Don Ringrose: I think we all have the same objective and I think if people will
acco~nodate sc~e schedules here and for example if you'd like to meet with Merv
and we could schedule a meeting as soon as possible based on yours and his
schedule, I'd like to do that so we can get on with it and I guess if any other
me~nbers of the Council wanted to be there, they're certainly welcome.
Councilman Boyt: Well I'd like to do that. I don't know if the Council is
comfortable approving this but personally I'm not. You know I'm surprised we
didn't a coUY of the report.
DOn Ringrose: It arrived here at.City Hall. It was faxed to us after 4:30
today from City Hall here.
Gary Warren: You mean the report from Merv?
Councilman Boyt: Right.
Gary Warren: I just got it, Todd it came to you. I don't know what time you
got it.
Todd (~erhardt: I got it at 5:00 and faxed it directly to Todd at 5:00.
Councilman Boyt: So we didn't have it until today?
DOn Ringrose: No, that's correct. I didn't see it. It was here at City Hall
before I even saw it so.
90
City Oouncil Meeting - August 28~ 1989
Councilman Boyt: Well I hate to hold this up but I don't have enough
information to approve anything.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd just like to thank you for your apology and I
think the citizens of Chanhassen appreciate that too.
Don Ringrose: Well I'm a firm believers. When you screwed up, step up to the
line and take your dues.
Mayor (2~iel: Clarification on trees Bill. My concern, if we had tornadoes or
straight winds c~mirg through downtown ar~ they blocked those streets, the
accessibility of the fire department c~ming out of there was one of my major
Councilman Boyt: ~h yes. I don't disagree with that. I'm just saving that the
trees w~uld be the least of my concerns.
Mayor Ch~iel: Right.
Councilman Boyt: Mr. B~rdick wanted to c~mmmt.
Mayor C~miel: Yes Jim.
Mr. B~rdick: In some ~ays this should be a great pleasure for me. I stood here
2 1/2 y~rs ago. 2 years ago. Talked about these trees. These bushes. Said
1~ times too many. Jay's nodding his head. I told these people they're
ridiculous. They, were nuts. Forget it. They're fine. These people. Put the
most ridiculous street in. The most dangerous intersection in 5 counties. A
main street the fire trucks cannot go down. Entrance to 'the Dinner Theater that
the buses cannot navigate. A turn by the post office that a postal truck cannot
come out onto 78th Street and turn west. I stayed for 5 minutes. Not a s~ai.
A truck. A main street that is so narrow that it's one ~ay traffic in each
directio~ and you have 4 lanes coming across the railroad tracks down there by
A1 Klingelhutz I believe. Tmeir designing Powers down here to carry more
traffic than TH 5 carries at the present time to omme down this one lane main
street. All I ask now is that you people take a hard look at BR~. Braised,
Ridiculous, Worthless. Or as a frier~ of mine calls thee, the 3 blind mioe ar~
he' s a famous contractor, Vern Donnay. ~lank you. And I appreciate this. I ' ye
waited 2 1/2 yeaxs for this.
Don Ringrose: Bill, did you want to try and schedule a meeting then?
Councilman Boyt: I ~uld like to schedule a meetirg and I'd be happy to do that
at almost the earliest convenience.
DOn Ringrose: Well maybe if I could just get a n~aber where I can reach you
du~i~3 the day tomorrow and we can get a hold of him and coordinate schedules.
Councilman Boyt: And Tern mentioned he wanted to be involved. Maybe others do.
Todd Gerhardt: DO you want to pick a date out now?
Councilwoman Dimler: Let' s do it.
91
City Council M~eting - August 28~ 1989
Councilman Boyt: Well I'd like to be involved2
Don Ringrose: Whoever w~nts. Cbviously all of you if you care to but I mean,
we'd like to do it as soon as we can...
Councilman Boyt: Can we do it tomorrow night, because this is Tuesday.
Councilman Workman: Tomorrow night is still Tuesday night...
Councilman Boyt: Well what do you think about Thursday? Are we doing something
Thursday?
Councilman Johnson: I 'm in Boston.
Councilman Workman: How about 6:30 tomorrow night right here? Are you talking
about the ~ Plan thing tomorrow?
Mayor Ckmiel: Yes, I've got recycling committee tomorrow.
Councilman Boyt: How about Thursday?
Councilman Workman: Thursday there's a water milfoil meeting at 6:30.
Councilman Boyt: Well is Wednesday good?
Councilman Wor~m~n: Wednesday at 6: 30? Do you want to check Don and see if
that fits? Maybe you can call the city office.
Don Ringrose: Right. We'll confirm it with ~rv tomorrow and we'll get back to
staff and scmebody will confirm with you through the staff then. Okay, thank
you very much.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meetlr~3 was adjourned at 1:00
a.m. on ~esday morning.
Suhnit~ by Don Ashworth
City Manager
92