Loading...
1989 05 2215 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MAY 22, 1989 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Jo Ann Olsen, Todd Gerhardt, Jim Chaffee and Lori Sietsema APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the agenda with the following amendment: Mayor Chmiel wanted to move items 7 and 8 right after item 3 as well as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals which covers item 8; and Councilman Johnson wanted to add the visitor Presentation back onto the agenda as item 2(a). All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recon~nendations: a. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Chapter 20 of the City Code deleting contractor's yards as conditional uses in the A-2/BF Districts, Final Reading. e. Resolution #89-69: Approve Request by Centex Homes to make park improvements and authorize Expenditures of Funds. i. Adoption of Official Mapping Ordinance, Final Reading. k. Approval of Accounts. 1. City Council Minutes dated May 8, 1989 Planning Con~nission Minutes dated May 3, 1989 Park and Recreation Con~nission Minutes dated April 25, 1989 Joint City Council/Park and Recreation Minutes dated March 27, 1989 Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to reconsider the motion to approve the agenda as Councilwoman Dimler had some additional information under Council Presentations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, would you like to indicate your items for council presentation? Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. The first one would be citizen complaints about the large clumps of mud left in construction areas and making it difficult driving and hazardous driving. The second one would be choosing a new City Planner. I'd like to make some suggestions. The third is the status of the Instant Webb C].ty Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 permit and the fourth is congratulations to Mr. Mayor Chmiel and his wife Mary Lou for 34 years of blissful marriage. Mayor Chmiel: With those changes, is there a motion to accept? Councilman Workman: I'd like to add something. A little bit of discussion on Carver-Scott Humane Society and I also want to talk about the City Planner update. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to amend the agenda as presented. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 20g FEET OF A CLASS B WETLAND, 80g WOODHILL ROAD, JERRY PETERSON. Councilman Boyt: This is in regards to a wetland alteration permit and what I'd like you to do is refer to the map that's in the middle of that proposal. It shows the location of the driveway there. It doesn't show the location very clearly but the problem with this piece is that we're encroaching within the 75 foot setback from a wetland and ~.t looks to me 1].ke the driveway could have been put further out of that wetland easement if we moved it more to the left and that we could move it over to that property line or at least the 10 foot setback from the property line and gain more distance from the wetland. Councilman Johnson: That is a motion? Mayor Chmiel: When you're saying moving it to the left, are you saying to the west? I'm not sure if this is the north direction on this map. Councilman Boyt: Well, if the top of the map was north, I'd be saying move it to the west. There's room to do that. We should be working to protect these wetlands by keeping development away from them. At least the 75 feet our ordinance requires and in this particular situation we're willing to allow them to work within that area but I think we should move it as far away from the wetland as possible. So I would move that we approve this with the driveway shifted to the left edge of the property or at least 'to the lg foot setback. Mayor Chmiel: Is the applicant here this evening? Maybe before we make that motion, if you'd like to get up. Brian KJ.hle: Brian Kihle, Medicine Lake. The reason I put it there is there is a tree that I wanted to save. Other than that, I' 11 just have to cut the tree down. Councilman Boyt: How big is the tree? Brian Kihle: It's a pretty good sized one. I just like the tree there that's why I wanted to save it. Councilman Johnson: Is it 10 inch? 12 inch? City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 Brian Kihle: It's pretty good size. Councilman Boyt: Where is the tree? Brian KJ. hle: Just off the corner of that shed. Councilman Boyt: Well if it's off the corner of that shed, you're not going to have any problem because you're already going across there. Brian Kihle: No, it's up towards more the front. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe if you could just come up and show Bill the exact location of where the tree is at. Councilman Boyt: Well I don't want you to cut the tree down. Alright, well would you accept a motion that says move it as far to the left as possible and protect the tree? Brian Kihle: Sure. Councilman Boyt: I would so move. Councilman Workman: I would second that. Mayor Chmiel: Ursula also had an item on there as well. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess before we vote on it I'd just like to put in, there was a letter from a Charles Kbrsfold addressed to the Council on this issue. I talked to him today and he reiterated some concerns about the drainage on that property. Anyway that this property was totally under water in July of 1987 and I guess before I go ahead, I would like to see this property. I'm going to meet him out there tomorrow. I too do not think that we ought to get real close to a wetland because of the drainage problems and we have to protect our wetlands. I was going to move to table this until we had time to consider it further. Councilman Boyt: Maybe staff knows something about this. Mayor Chmiel: Does staff have any co~nents? Jo Ann Olsen: We have gone out to the site and the ~etland itself does flood in the heavy rain periods but the house will not be affected by that. Then we also had reconxnended to Mr. Boyt that he add a condition that they provide a drainage swale that for the drainage from the new house that would direct drainage directly to the wetland and would not increase any runoff to the neighbor's residence to try to prevent any impact from the house to his property. We think that might be a good way to solve his problem. It will not prevent the wetland from flooding or any flooding problems that he may have today but it would reduce the impact from his house. Councilman Boyt: So I would be willing to amend my motion to include that drainage swale. City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 Brian Kihle: I'm just wondering, how wii1 that affect the drainage to the house. That I put a house there. Why will that make the water go anywhere else? If anything will go to my basement? I was just wondering why will that affect water going to somebody else's house? Jo Ann Olsen: The slope does drain over to his property and with any increased runoff from this house, we were going to have you provide that drainage swale do it would go right into the wetland and not to his property. Brian Kihle: That's no problem but I mean, from the way the water flows, there's no reason for it to, I mean it's going to go that way whether the house is there or not. Mayor Chmiel: Basically you can' t encumber another person' s property by creating any diversion of water running onto their property. You have to take case of what's on your property and make sure it goes in the proper direction. Brian Kihle: Just a swale and bring it down the side? Gary Warren: That should be addressed as part of the building permit application so that would be the best place for it. Councilman Boyt: Well we can put it in here. Gary Warren: A condition here but we will look at it in detail as a part of the building permit. CounciLman Boyt: Does the second accept that change? Councilman Workman: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: That will be fine. Councilman Workman: Gary, is this kind of a buyer beware area here? I know I drove by there today to find it and I had a difficult time locating which house it was. It's kind of heavily wooded down there and the roads are not very wide. I had a m~no to Don Ashworth a couple weeks ago in regards to the Smiths down there and the creek and the drainage and everything else. It's getting to be a pretty impacted area down there for drainage. Is this going to be a problem, add to more problems down there? Gary Warren: Is this particular site going to be adding to the problem do you mean? Councilman Workman: Right. Gary Warren: I wouldn't say it's going to aggrevate the problem. It is a challenging area from when we did the subdivision review for Woodcrest subdivision there. We have a one way street and we've got some challenges there for access and snow removal but this particular homesite wouldn't impact it in any significant way. City Council Meeting - May 22~ 1989 Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Wetland Alteration Permit for development within 200 feet of a Class B wetland at 800 Woodhill Road with the condition that the applicant move the driveway as far to the left as possible and protect the tree and also construct a drainage swale to direct the runoff into the wetland. All voted in favor and the motion carried. D. MICHAEL CARMODY, SOUTH LOTUS VILLAS TOWNHOMES, SOUTH LOTUS LAKE ADDITION. Councilman Boyt: In item (d), the part that I'm interested in is there was some discussion earlier on about connecting a trail so that people wouldn't have to go out onto TH 101 in order to access the city park. Rather than spread the map out in front of me of this development, there is on the east side of this development there is a ~nall strip of property off the end of what will be a cul-de-sac accessing the two buildings and I would like to see the City given the right, a trail easement if you will, so that people can walk off the end of that cul-de-sac, cross that piece of property and access the city park rather than having to go out onto TH 101 to do that. So that's a condition change that I'd like to make. Mayor Chmiel: Are the applicants here this evening also? Would you like to address that condition or do you concur with it? Mike Carmody: I'm Mike Carmody, President of Gopher State Development Company. I believe we allowed for the easement for the trail in our revised plan. Councilman Boyt: I think that's the one right on TH 101 which at this point doesn't exist. You've allowed the easement so we can build it. What I'm interested in is until we get a trail built there, I'd like people to be able to walk across that fairly narrow strip of your property to access the park. I'm particular concerned that without that we're forcing kids to ride out on TH 101 to get to that park and that's just not a safe situation. Mike Carmody: If there's an easement there, we can't prevent someone from walking across it. Councilman Boyt: No, there isn't one there now. We don't have, I guess the ability to put the transparency up. You provide an easement along TH 101. My concern is that people coming from here and there will be kids coming out of this neighborhood trying to get to the city park up here. What I'd like to have happen is an easement right here so that kids can walk across that piece of property. Mike Carmody: Would that be permanent? Councilman Boyt: I could accept that it would exist until this trail is open. Mike Carmody: I think we can accept that. Councilman Johnson: Kids will go there anyway. Mayor Chmiel: I understand there are some neighbors also. Anyone wishing to address that? City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 Bobbie Kussard: My name is Bobb].e Kussard and I lJ_ve at 7694 South Shore Drive. I recently moved into the neighborhood out of a townhome development. When I first spoke with my builder and my architect we had a dollar figure that we wanted to spend on our. hame and I gave him that figure and he said forget it. You can't get into this neighborhood for that kind of money. You have to spend more. My biggest concern is that these towahomes or whatever they're trying to buJ. ld, they're already advertising them for in the 7~'s. (mr neighborhood is 165 and up. Their units will be_ the front door to our neighborhood and if I were planning on selling my home in the next year or two, I wouldn't have a problem with it because I'm sure the units will look okay in the next year or two. The development I moved out of is about 1~ years old now and it looks terrible. It's really run down and I plan on living in my new home for quite some time. I'm afraid that nobody's even going to drive into that neighborhood 2~ years down the road to look for. a new home because they're going to see this shambles sitting on the corner there. I realize that it needs to be multi dwelling. I'm wondering if perhaps it could be twin homes. Maybe $gff,g~.gg to $10g,ggg.~g. Just to keep up with the standards that have been set in our neighborhood. We had to go by rules and regulations and dollar amounts and I just think $7g,ggg.~g units are pretty low for our neighborhood and it worries me for the value of the rest of our homes. Thank you. Judy Podavels: My name is Judy Podavels and I live at 2gg South Shore Court. I also am concerned about the value difference between the townhomes and the homes that are already established in the neighborhood. I challenge you to decide for yourselves if it makes sense to put a $75,ggg.g0 home in with something of $2gg,ggg.0g value. Not only that but I'm concerned about the children that these townhomes will bring in. Already there is no place for. our children to play. There are no playgrounds in this area of to~a and they have to go all the way to Chanhassen school to get a playground. I'm also concerned about the increased traffic, especially with the realigr~ment onto TH lgl. I think that with the construction of not only the roadway, the diversion of TH lgl being changed but also the construction of the townhomes, I think that may cause a problem and I'd like you to consider that when you make your vote. And I'm worried about again, the increased number of children in the area. They'll be coming into our schools and will that area of property generate enough tax r.evenue to support our schools. Those are my concerns. I had one other question. I noticed on the agenda tonight that it says a site plan review for a 6 and 8 unit townhome building. .We're wondering what that was because the neighborhood was just aware of the 14 unit townhome development. We're not aware of any other buildings. Councilman Johnson: 6 plus 8 is 14. Mayor Chmiel: Right. It is a total of 14 units. Councilwoman Dimler: Two buildings. I pulled this mainly so the neighbors, I had talked to some of them earlier and that they could address their concerns and I also wanted to know if condition lg had been met. The developer was supposed to supply hydrological data showing that the surface drainage will not erode the existing ditch system. Can somebody answer that for me? Jo Ann Olsen: They've supplied that information. City Council Meeting - May 22~ 1989 Councilwoman Dimler: And how about obtaining the necessary permit approvals from MnDot? Jo Ann Olsen: They've applied for them. They haven't received anything yet. It's typical that they don't have those yet. Councilman Boyt: I guess I'd like to raise a question. We've had this concern before about how do we match different income level homes or different price level homes. I don't know that we've found a way to do that. In fact, I'm pretty sure we haven't. The argument that we've heard from developers is well of course we wouldn't build an inexpensive home next to an expensive home because we could justify an expensive one and we make more profits on those. But I'm convinced the City hasn't figured out a way to integrate values of housing so that we protect people and their investment. I'm sure that nice people are going to move into these townhomes but I'm also equally confident that your concern about what impacts $70,000.00 townhomes are going to have on a $200,000.00 house is probably pretty accurate. If anyone on the council has some way to deal with that, I'd sure like to hear it but I haven't come across a way yet. Councilman Workman: I guess Bobbie's biggest concern, I sense that she understands that perhaps they're going to go in but what safeguards might they have against ramshackleness. Does anybody on staff have any idea on how we might restrict this? I know covenants etc. are not our business and since it's not our property we can't tell people in the basic sense how to maintain their homes. Jo Ann Olsen: We've got ordinances that restrict outside storage and like with the landscaping and things like that that they have to replace. We do have certain controls to keep the appearance up. We can't them exactly what to do like through covenants. That's for them but what we have with our ordinances is we can enforce. Councilman Johnson: Tom, you live in a quad home neighborhood that's about 10 ~ years old. Counc i lman Workman: About 5. Councilman Johnson: Oh, your part but I mean overall they were there before I moved to town 8-9 years ago. They really aren't ramshackled or run down. They've been well maintained. I think it's partially the standard of the city. If I see t~ne same in downtown Minneapolis 10 years from now I might suspect that they're going to be more rundown. Out here I think that partially just the attitude of the people and the way of life will probably maintain them in a better condition. That's one way not to worry about it as much but that's no guarantee. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussions? Janet Weaver: My name is Janet Weaver. I live on 31 Hill Street. I didn't know about this development that's going on. I'm just hearing about it now. Where is it located? City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 Councilman Boyt: South Lotus Lake. There's a park there. There will be a park there. You know where those new homes have been built on the south end of Lotus Lake? Janet Weaver: I live on South Lotus Lake on Hill Street. Councilman Boyt: Okay, it's right between the new homes and TH 101. Janet Weaver: Okay, on that e~pty piece of property. The thought that was coming to my mind, I suspected that location. The thought that comes to my mind that is an area of concern for me would be the amount of cars due to the boat launching area. At this time there is quite a few cars that fill that up on weekends and I'm told by my neighbors that they also park along the roadways and they're not supposed to. I realize there's a sign up there but that has been happening anyway and that I assume is happening is because the parking lot is full so if we're looking at moving into this type of a piece of land even more cars and vehicles, it could be an over-population problem with vehicles alone. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: That could be something for publi~c safety to address from time to time making sure that that parking is not taking place on those streets. Jim Chaffee: We have strict enforcement on the weekends. I know the Sheriff deputies have been out there quite a lot writing a lot of tags. Mayor Chmiel: A_ny other discussions? Paul Struther: I'm Paul Struther with Clutz-O'Brien-Struther Architects and I wanted to address one item regarding the attempts that we've made to integrate this with the residential neighborhood adjacent and that is that we, at the neighbor's behest upgraded the siding to redwood siding. We've introduced brick on the front of the building. In addition to that we've developed these so that they have the appearance of a large home rather than a series of townhouses. I think t/nat within this type of development, I think we've done a pretty good job at meeting that need. I think one other con~nent that's not really mine to make but is the developers is that they worked with the neighbors to develop the covenants for this project. Mayor Chmie!: Have the neighbors basi_cally seen those specific, what you have there? Could you show that to the two ladies? Bobbie Kussard: Yes, we saw them. They had them at the meet~.ng we were at before. As far as working on the covenants with us, no. They mailed us a copy of the covenants which we appreciated but we had no input on the covenants. Also, as far as covenants go, they guarantee they can't be changed for 3g years because of the mortage with the bank or whatever. Like I said, I came out of an association. If people want to change the rules and regulations of that association, they will. These men don't have anything to lose. They have only something to gain once they sell their units. We're the ones that are going to lose lg years do~n the road when these people have banned together and decided yes, let's put our sheds up or yes, we can park the boats outside now. We don't care. We're the ones who are going to lose. Those rules and regulations, covenants and by-laws can be changed. City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 Councilman Workman: Is there anyway that perhaps the current homeowners in that area might be able to tie themselves into a homeowners association with the soon to be townhouse residents? Therefore, keeping a better eye on thy neighbor I guess. Is that perhaps a chance? Mayor Chmiel: Roger? Roger Knutson: Private covenants are just that. If the people of the surrounding residential neighborhood and the developer want to get together_ and do that, they certainly can but that's not a condition that the City really can impose. Councilman Boyt: I would suggest to you that covenants generally aren't worth the paper they're written on because they have to be enforced by the people who are part of that group. They very seldom will take each other to court. And when they do it's a sort of long arduous process so I wouldn't count on covenants doing any~]ing for us. The developer, is it accurate that you're selling these units for $70,000.00 or in that neighborhood? Mike Carmody: Base price will be $77,900.00 and then we'll have lot premiums and options. They'll probably average in the low 80's. Councilman Boyt: How does that fit the market? Mike Carmody: We know there's a market for the product. Councilman Boyt: I mean is that the middle of the general price range for those? The bottom? The top? Where does it fit? Mike Carmody: I would say it's not the very low but it's probably in the upper low end of the townhouse market. The problem is we've got 1.475 acres for 14 townhouses. We've got them 2 stories, you just can't get a large unit... The other thing is, there is a fair amount of screening between the buildings and the single family. There's a vacant lot on the northwest side of the s%te. Those will be single family in about the 150 to maybe 175 range which will be a transition from the multiple to the... Those will be 2 story houses. The ground is also higher in that area plus we've got $10,000.00 in our budget for landscaping and street improvements to the adjacent single family. Councilman Boyt: When did you buy this piece of property if I might ask? Mike Carmody: I'd say approximately 3 months ago. Councilman Boyt: When those of you who are living in that neighborhood now, since you purchased your houses in probably the last year, were you informed about the development of these townhomes when you purchased your property? So it's sort of a mixed reaction there. Mayor Chmiel: Any further discussion? Is there a motion? Councilman Johnson: I move approval of item l(d), parts 1 and 2 here, the preliminary plat and site plan review with all of staff's conditions plus a condition that a trail easement be placed along the driveway down and into the park so that the citizens can have access into the city park through this City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 subdivision. Mayor Chmiel: Do I hear a second? Not hearing any second, that motion dies. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to know from the developer what can you do to help us meet the concerns of the citizens. You just talked about that you suspected that homes were going to be built that will help transition this. You've met with them. You sent them a copy of your covenants but apparently that's not enough. What else can you do? Mike Carmody: Well we had the neighborhood meeting. We discussed the concerns of the neighbors and I believe at the meeting there were about a dozen people, a little more. When I had our attorney draft the covenants and restrictions, he had instructions from no notes taken from that meeting of the concerns for the neighborhood. Concern for the upkeep of the grounds...$55.00 per month plus they are assessed for any additional needed improv~nents. Similar townhouse projects, I would say the average association fee is far less than that. The restrictions do run for a period of 30 years. They are tied to the deed... If they choose not to enforce them, we don't have any control over that. We feel because of the quality we're putting into them and the design and the location that they're going to be well maintained because there's going to be a good resale value to them. They're right near the lake. They're right near a city. They're near to a park. For no other reason than they're going to go up in value and they're going to resale... Councilman Boyt: Well I agree with your location. I guess I'm a little surprised that you think that all you can sell there is an $80,000.00 townhome. You're probably sitting in one of the best locations in that part of the city and that's all you think the market can bear. Mike Carmody: The site was approved as a prior PUD for 14 units. I don't know that price is really the issue. We're offering 1,336 square feet... They've got a master bedroom that are 13 x 18 and that's bigger than a master bedroom in most $20g,000.00 homes. The fireplace is standard. Central air is standard. All applicances... I don't know if price is the issue here... We could probably sell them for more. I don't know. Because I'm in marketing, where's the market for townhouses? I can tell you it's not in the $130,000.00 or $150,000.00 range. Councilman Boyt: Well I can tell you how to make it more expensive without making them any bigger. You can put brick siding on your building. You can increase the thickness of your interior walls. You can do small things that have a way of adding up very quickly when p~ start talking about per unit price. In a word, the City Council shouldn't be in the business of designing your building for you. I am sure that's what you're saying to yourself and t don't disagree with you. Mike Carmody: ...As a matter of fact, the owner of the property redesigned our original plan because of these concerns... We put redwood siding on them... We believe the design and the architecture that we have... Councihnan Workman: Planning Con~nission recon~nendation number 2 is additional landscaping shall be provided along the northeasterly and easterly lot line of the site. What was agreed? 10 City Council Meeting - May 22~ 1989 Councilman Boyt: They pulled that out~ Councilman Workman: They pulled that out? Councilman Boyt: I think the feeling was they didn't need it. Jo Ann Olsen: Yes, that one was pulled out. Councilman Workman: Why was that? I mean that was kind of going to be a natural barrier from the more expensive homes. Councilman Boyt: There was one planning conmission member didn't feel it was needed. Brian's here if you want to put him on the spot. Brian Batzli: You can put me on the spot but I don't know what that means. Paul Struthers: I can tell you what we did to accommodate that request. We added 2 Linden trees in this corner. Our discussions with staff indicated that they wanted something on all sides of the property. The developer is interested in maintaining some view to the park. We added 2 Linden trees in this corner to meet the intention of that request. The neighborhood, single family neighborhood is well screened by a berm along that property line and large conifers. Councilman Workman: How big are the Linden's going to be? Paul Struthers: I don't recall that off hand. I think they're 3 1/2 inches. Jo Ann Olsen: They have to be at least 2 1/2 inch. Mayor Chmiel: Is there any further discussion? Any additional motions? Councilman Workman: Are those Linden trees put into the conditions? Are they written anywhere? Jo Ann Olsen: What they did inbetween the Planning Commission and the Council is they provided us with amended plans that met a lot of the conditions so we removed some of those conditions from the Planning Commission. Councilman Workman: So the 2 Linden trees are in the plan somewhere? Mayor Chmiel: Jo Ann, was there a landscape plan sut~nitted with this at all? Jo Ann Olsen: The new ones, I'm not sure if that... Mayor Chmiel: I don't see it, that's why I'm asking. Jo Ann Olsen: It's been discussed between staff and the applicant. We are still working. Mayor Chmiel: Tom, you feel that that's necessary to have a couple Linden trees off on that? 11 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 Councilman Wor~nan: I guess if they've already been agreed to then I don't think it would hurt to add tham in a condition in there. Counci]~man Boyt: I'd like to see that graphJ, c one more time. I apologize that we don't have something for you to put it up. How many trees, are those pine trees there on what appears to be the west side? Paul Struthers: Yes, those are, I don't recall the species but they're pine trees. Spruce I believe. Councilman Boyt: How much of that density are they going to create from the beginning? I assume that's probably a pretty mature tree you're drawing in. Paul Struthers: Yesf we're showing a mature tree. They'll be 6 foot trees initially. They are on a hillside, existing berm which we're maintaining. That's ~ny we job the driveway so that we could maintain slope here and create some screening with the grading. Councilman Boyt: But what we've got, what we're going to have with the 2 story building is it's clearly's goJ. ng to be visible to the homesite off to the west of it, southwest of it. Yes. Paul Struthers: Initially, yes I'm sure you will. Councilman Boyt: Those are generally 2 story homes in there. You're building a 2 story townhome. Paul Struthers: I think the forms of the buildings are compatible. You will see a roof but again it's not a flat roof or say a comptemporary roof style. Our intention was to produce a building apperance that was similiar in character with existing homes and the type likely to be developed next door. Councilman Boyt: You talk about a fee that you're going to charge the people, an association fee or that sort of thing. Is that correct? In that you have a buiiding maintenance component? Paul Struthers: You should ask the developer that. Mike Carmody: Yes we do. That will cover down to 3~ years for driveway. 25 years for roof. Painting on a 5 year cycle. Ground maintenance on an annual basis. Insurance. CounciLman Boyt: Okay. You said 3g years for a driveway? Is that what you just said? Mike Carmody: I think it was 3g or 35. CounciLman Boyt: Is that asphalt you're putting in there? Mike Carmody: Yes. Councilman Boyt: Well I would suggest 15. 12 City Counc~.l Meet~.ng - May 22, 1989 Mike Carmody: We're putting in an extra heavy base and we're putting in a 3 inch wear course on that. The main drive coming in is going to be built to city standards of 28 feet with V6...curb all the way around the outside of the development... Councilman Boyt: Where is your trash dumpster going to be? Mike Carmody: There won' t be one. Councilman Boyt: Oh, it's an individual pick-up? Mike Carmody: Yes. Councilman Boyt: So you're going to have a trash hauling truck that comes up that? Mike Carmody: Yes. Councilman Boyt: Well you've just tested that asphalt to the extent of any city road would be tested. 30 years is reasonable? Gary Warren: For an expected life? Counc i lman Boyt: Yes. Gary Warren: With routine maintenance. Councilman Boyt: And you have funds in your association fee to provide for routine maintenance of the asphalt? Mike Carmody: We've allowed for sealcoating... Councilman Boyt: Painting every 5 years and the roof is how long? Well gentl~en, I can't think of any reason why we shouldn't pass this. Councilwoman Dimler: Can I ask just one question? How much are the association dues per year per unit? Mike Carmody: They're $55.00 per month per unit with the clause that they can raise it 5% per year. 5% the first year and then I believe it was an extra 10% plus if there's a shortfall, they can levy additional assessments. Councilwoman Dimler: And you feel that that will cover all your expenses for maintenance? That sounds kind of low to me. Mike Carmody: We're basing our figures on our knowledge of the townhouse market and similar projects that other builders have done. For example, Rottlund Homes built a 110 unit project and their association fees are $38.00 per month for the first year. We're certainly higher than that. Councilwoman Dimler: You're only 14 units, I guess that's my concern that that's not going to be enough to cover everything. I know that we don't have any authority to tell you how to build your place but I guess just as a comment, what I'd like to see, to keep the concerns of the neighborhood, at least if we 13 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 aren't going to do anything to the interior, if we could go with the brick exterior and keep the outside up because that is their view. The people will see that first and then they don't see the rest of the neighborhood and the bigger homes. Mike Carmody: ...We originally came in with aluminum siding which was maintenance free. Councilwoman Dimler: I like brick. Councilman Boyt: I think what we have identified here is the reason why we need to look at our ordinances in regards to the size of townhouses and apartments. The size lots because those impact on dollar value. Certainly we need affordable housing. We need to deal with the buffer but I don't think we can do any of it because I don't think we have the ordinance ability. So given responses we've heard, I'm afraid that we need to just face up to the idea that this is going to be approved. The City needs to do everything it can to police it and I would make a motion that we approve item l(d) as amended by Mr. Workman and my condition. Councilman Johnson: I'll second that. Don Ashworth: For clarificiation, did that include the walkway easement? CounciLman Boyt: Yes. Don Ashworth: Was that permanent then or temporary? CounciLman Boyt: it was stated temporary until the trail on TH 101 is built. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve Preliminary Plat %89-6 and Site Plan #89-4 as shown on the plans dated April 10, 1989 with the following conditions: 1. The land use will be amended to Residential-High Density. 2. Ail side slopes greater than 3:1 will need erosion protection. 3. Concrete curb and gutter shall be constructed throughout the site except along driveways, which shall have valley gutter construction. 4. Ail necessary permits for the site construction shall be obtained. 5. The developer shall supply hydrological data showing that surface drainage will not erode the existing ditch system. Unless the developer changes the drainage to flow to South Shore Drive instead of TH 101 ditch as shown on the plans. 6. Provide a trail easement for a temporary walkway to the City Park until such time as the trail along TH 101 is constructed. 14 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 7. Provide the addition of 2 more Linden trees on the landscape plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Roger Knutson: Excuse me Mayor. The motion was specifically d(1). Did not include d (2) . Mayor Chmiel: It was my understanding covering as it was mentioned making both of those 1 and 2. Councilman Boyt: I would approval of item d(2). Councilman Johnson: I' 11 second that. CounciLman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve Site Plan Review for a 6 and 8 unit townhome building for South Lotus Villas Townhomes. All voted in favor and the motion carried. H. NORTH SIDE PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 87-17. Councilman Workman: I believe the last time that we discussed this as a council the primary concern that we had was the south exit onto TH 101 or West 78th coming out by the clock tower. I did talk to Gary today briefly. I guess I would just like to bring it up before the Council. I know Gary Ehret is here also. Maybe get some more con~nents. The Planning Corm~ission didn't look at that aspect of it again? Brian Batzli: I made a con~nent but everyone else seemed satisfied with it. Councilman Workman: I guess I'd like cor~ents fr~m the Council then as far as how they feel that south exit is. Councilman Johnson: I'll start on that. I'll basically make the same comment I made last time. As you can read in here, they did a lot of negotiation with the property owners that are paying for these improvements, that are being assessed for their improvements and the only way they will sub~it to giving that property to their, it's their property. They own it. They are going to deed it to ~he City at no cost and then they're going to pay to have it upgraded at their cost and they need that access according to their businesses. Take that access away, they're going to retract their offer to sell us the land, from what I read here. Then we've got no parking lot. No medical building. No development. Councilman Workman: Are you saying they're threatening us Jay? Councilman Johnson: That's the tone I get out of here. They didn't threaten. That's basically the agreement we made with them for this parking lot and if we change the agreement, go back on the agreement, they have the right to do that. Then we'll have to go into condemnation to condemn their land and buy it from them to do the same thing. In condemnation they may win the same argument anyway. 15 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 Councilman Workman: So Jay then you're saying you're fully in favor of this egress at least c~ning out at that intersection? Councilman Johnson: I believe that for the people ~no have been there, businessmen in our con~nunity for a long time, they deserve their parking lot to be convenient for their businesses. They would like a full right turn, left turn. We negotiated down to a right turn in and right turn out only. It's not the best thing in the world but the engineers say it's safe and it's a lot better than it is now because now it's ridiculous because people try to take that left turn in there. Now they won't be able to turn left into that so it's going to be an ~nprovement over the current situation but it's not going to be as good as I want it. That's what I think is the most reasonable, the best compromise to do. We have to live with those businessmen too. We can't just put them out of business. So that's ~/aere I sit. Is that it's a reasonable compromi se. ~V~yor Chmiel: Ursula? Councilwoman Dimler: I don't have any concerns. CounciLman Boyt: I find it interesting how we get ourselves into these situations of ~nere we, on the one hand we have business interests who very much want that .way in and out of their property. On the other hand we have the citizens who are going to drive through that intersection and I'm just sure they're not going to be pleased but I think as Jay mentioned, it's kind of part of the deal and though we may not be happy with it, I think we will be happy with the medical arts center. So although I was opposed to this, I'm willing to accept it~ I think it's the best compromise we're going to get. ~yor Chmiel: Basically from what both of you have said and I sort of agree with each of those. I think the accessibility has to be there too for the businesses. We may not be happy with what's there but I think it's the best thing we can have right now. I think Bill mentioned that. Councilman Workman: Okay, I guess I'd just like to say I'm totally for the businessman in the city. I in no way, shape or form want to, as I've said before, there's many other options for people to spend their money rather than downtown Chanhassen I'd rather see here. We in the past have made a mistake I think on that corner by the clock tower and I think we're adding a little bit more of a mistake to it. If we have an opportunity to fix it. I sincerely believe that it is going to create a problem if they do not have that access there but I think nonetheless and I guess I want to go on record as saying I think it's going to create a problem there. I know that TH lgl is going to be moved eventually so traffic should be reduced in that area but I still have concerns. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the North Side Parking Lot Improvement Project ~87-17: a. Pr~elim'inary Plat and Site Plan Approval for the Medical Arts Building b. Resolution %89-7~: Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize the AdvertisJ. ng for bids. Ail voted in favor a~ the motion carried. 16 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 J. SITE PLAN REVIEW, NEW HORIZON DAYCARE, LOT 2, BLOCK 1, HIDDEN VALLEY 2ND ADDITION, G.P. BAJR, INC. Councilman Boyt: It's no secret that I'm not in support of this but I think we can improve it by adding the conditions that we have with our industrial office park daycare. Those are really quite simple. I would like us to add an additional condition that they conduct an annual test of noise level, carbon monoxide and radon. We put that condition in for our previous daycare. I don't anticipate a problem with any of these but I think it's a good thing for thegn to be monitoring so I would like to see the conditions of approval modified to include that condition. Mayor Chmiel: Carbon monoxide and radon? Councilman Boyt: Carbon monoxide, radon and noise level. Councilman Johnson: At what location do you want the noise tested? Inside the building? Outside the building? What are we testing for on the noise? Mayor Chmiel: Yes, that was going to be my question. Councilman Boyt: Well we have kids playing outside right? So it makes sense to test it outside. Councilman Johnson: Are we looking at noise that's affecting the kids or the kids making too much noise to affect the neighbors? In the industrial park I think we were looking at noise to affect the kids. Councilman Boyt: That's what we're looking at here too Jay. Councilman Johnson: Because this is a residential neighborhood. Carbon monoxide and radon is inside the building? Councilman Boyt: Yes. Those two wouldn't make a lot of sense to be outside the building. Councilman Johnson: I just w~nt to be specific be~ause people will go and measure them outside and say, hey we didn't find any. Or you measure the noise inside, it doesn't do you much good. I have a question too. Why is this great big chunk of asphalt between the two playground areas? Councilman Boyt: It's a playground area. Councilman Johnson: This chunk of asphalt is a playground area? Councilman Boyt: Yes, for 4 square and that sort of thing. Councilman Johnson: Okay. I was just trying to get some more grass and stuff in there. Why does it have to go all the way out to the street and stuff? I never saw that on any previous plans. All of a sudden it shows up now and to me that doesn't make a lot of sense. Councilman Boyt: It was requested by New Horizon so they could have a hard surface play area in part of it. 17 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 Councilman Johnson: What about the landscaping? There was suppose 'to be some landscaping on that side. If you've got asphalt, you're not going to plant any trees. Councilman Boyt: I think the Planning Con~nission removed the landscaping. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, they did. Councilman Boyt: If you want to put it back in, be my guest. Randy Peterson: The landscaping is still the same. Actually it's a little more. I'm Randy Peterson representing the developer G.P. BAJR and the New Horizon building but the landscaping is still the same. Actually we've added some and the asphalt is inside the playground area. Councilman Johnson: Does it have to go all the way to your property line? Randy Peterson: That's for a basketball hoop and stuff. Councilman Johnson: You're not going to put the basketball hoop up next to the street because when they miss the basketball hoop, we're talking a ball in the street. Randy Peterson: And by the way I don't have any problems with his conditions. As I understood them though they're to start a year from now that we monitor them. After we're Jn there. Councilman Boyt: Right. Councilwoman Dimler: Randy, do you monitor them in any of your other locations? Randy Peterson: No. Councilman Johnson: I think Bill we ought to do a baseline. You should always when you first start it take them initially. Before you start operation. Randy Peterson: Well we don't have any problem right now. There's no building there so to start it as a baseline. CounciLman Johnson: Okay, but you get there a year from now and we find out there's a problem there, we don't know if that problem was existing before you got there or not so if you take the baseline before you start operations, then you may know you have an existing problem. Otherwise you'll be able to come back and say these were existing conditions that we're measuring now. It's not us increasing anything. There's no problem here. That's a standard technique but we're not talking $1g,gg0.gg to have somebody come out there, test your carbon monoxide and your radon. The radon test is I think about $Sg.gg to $6g.gg. Randy Peterson: It's not a matter of the cost. It's the matter of the delay. If we can still get permitted and do it as we go, fine. Councilman Johnson: Yes. But before you start operation. 18 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 Randy Peterson: I guess that's fine Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the site plan review for New Horizon Daycare, Lot 2, Block 1, Hidden Valley 2nd Addition with the addition of a condition that the applicant conduct an annual test of the noise level outside, and the carbon monoxide and radon level inside the building. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt ~no opposed and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: There were no visitor presentations at this meeting. P~LIC H~RING: MODIFICATION OF DEVELO~E~ DISTRICT NO. 2 A~ TIF DISTRICT 2-1. Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order. Todd Gerhardt: Attached for the City Council's approval tonight is modification to Development District No. 2 and Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-1. Attachment number 6 in your packet shows the existing district as it is today. Staff is reco~ending that the district be expanded to include a 20 acre subdivision zoned Industrial Office be included in that modification and that the increment dollars created from this district be solely used for the upgrade of Audubon Court and Audubon Road. The Planning Con~nission has reviewed this and feel that it is consistent with the plans for the development of City of Chanhassen and meet the zoning requirements. I've met with both Carver County and the school district regarding the modification. Their only concern was the length of the district. The district was created in October 10, 1988 and it has 7 years left. It's an 8 year district. Staff is recommending approval of this modification. I' 11 answer any questions that the Council members may have. Councilwoman Dimler: I just have one question and that is, would you explain to me how it passes the but for test? Todd Gerhardt: The but for test is a requirement that the State law has put on developments in assisting for public improvements for land write down to assist the costs regarding development of property, economic development property. In this case we're creating jobs. You're enhancing the tax base so you're meeting 2 of the criteria set forth in the but for for an economic development district. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay you're saying but for this assistance, that area would not develop? Todd Gerhardt: That' s correct. Councilwoman Dimler: It may develop but not as quickly as with the assistance. Mayor Chmiel: As I mentioned before, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to address this? Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 19 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 Resolution ,~89-71: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the resolution modifying Development District No. 2 and Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-1. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. AWARD OF BIDS: PUBLIC WORKS EQUIPMENT. Gary Warren: We have 3 pieces of equipment. We're seeking Council approval here for award of bids. One is the tractor backhoe. The other is a Bobcat mounted broom and the other i.s a trench compactor. The tractor backhoe as summarized is a very important piece of equipment which to this point in time we've rented from one of our local contractor's, Merle Volk. As you can see from the staff report, we've spent a significant amount of dollars over the last 4 years in rental fees here. We initially advertised for a rental unit to see if we could achieve a reasonable piece of equipment at that rate and were surprised to find that the rental units do not depreciate significantly so for a matter of a few thousand dollars more, it's possible to buy a new piece of equipment. So we re-advertised the bids and were able to obtain the low bid from Lon9 lake Ford of $36,494.g0. The Bobcat mounted broom is a very useful piece of equipment. An additional accessory to our Bobcat for cleanin9 streets and clean-up after repairs such as watermain breaks. Likewise, a trench compactor is very useful for our trench compaction on our watermain breaks and repairs of that nature. So it's staff's recommendation that we award the bid, the low bidders for the tractor backhoe to Long Lake Ford for $36,494.gg. The Bobcat broom to Lano Equipment for $3,530.gg and the trench compactor to Minneapolis Equipment for $1,625.~. Mayor Chmiel: Gary, I guess I have a question on this. Have we looked into the leasing aspect as opposed to buying? Making the initial investment in this for that tractor. Gary Warren: We haven't specifically obtained any quotes on leasing equipment. I guess our thinking on these pieces of equipment, because we do basically drive them into the ground and maintain them for a lon9 period of time, the lease buy option hasn't worked in the past. I haven't done it specifically here. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, have we looked at it most recently? Gary Warren: Like I say, I haven't looked at it at this time. Don Ashworth: Associated with the equipment itself, I have not looked at that with this specific one. We did look to both the copier as well as the mailing machine that was on the last agenda. Both of those items came in at a net interest rate of right at 11% and that was significantly over what I felt that we should be at. Potentially when our financial consultant meets with the Council, we can talk about that type of option because I believe you can get into municipal leases where you would package a number of items similar to this and look to a net interest rate which took advantage of the tax exe~nption of the City. Again, to date we had not looked at that as a part of this particular item. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion on this item? I think that's something we should start lookin9 at to see what's the best way to go because I know there 2~ City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 are a lot more companies that are going to leasing as opposed to buying and they are large companies and smaller companies and I think we'd probably fit in the smaller company category as far as the city is concerned. So with that I'd like to make a motion to approve the purchase of the tractor backhoe, Bobcat broom and compactor. The tractor from Long Lake Ford. The broom to be used on sidewalks in downtown from Lino Equipment and the compactor from Minneapolis Equipment. Carlson Equipment bid a Wacker Model BSY for the amounts of dollars so specified in the information we've been provided. Is there a second? Councilman Workman: Second. Resolution #89-72: Mayor Chmiel moved, CounciLman Workman seconded to award the bids for equipment as follows: Tractor Backhoe - Long Lake Ford in the amount of $36,494.00 Bobcat Mounted Broom - Lano Equipment in the amount of $3,530.00 Trench Compactor - Minneapolis Equipment in the amount of $1,625.00 Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. REVIEW OF TETON LANE ACCESS CONDITIONS, CURRY FARMS 2ND ADDITION, AUTHORIZE CONDEMNATION. Gary Warren: This item was before the Council at our last meeting. Since that time staff has met with the developer, in particular John Speiss from Centex Real Estate and I've had individual discussions with Franco Loris and with Mr. Mark Simcox representing the neighbors on the north side of Teton. Basically to capsulate here quickly, the issue was whether to restrict access on Teton Lane as provided in the original conditions of approval for the plat or to somehow modify those conditions recognizing the difficulty that we have at present to getting the easament rights released from the respective property owners on Teton. We've come up with I guess what I would s~arize as four options that may or may not have value. The first one is to release the easement rights and this would be to pursue this utilizing condemnation process to basically condemn the rights of the easement holders as they exist at this time. These are very crude estimates but we estimate that that's maybe an $8,000.00 to $12,000.00 option when we include all the costs, attorney fees and pursuing it through the courts. This would allow us then to put up the barricade as we presently had planned on doing on Teton Lane and blocking it off for everything except the emergency access. The second option we looked at was to establish what I had called for lack of any other name a Teton Lane Access Association. Basically what this would do is provide for the construction of a moveable gate which would allow the easement holders, similar to a garage door opener device, have that in their vehicles so that they could operate the gate to allow them and only them to use Teton Lane which would allow them that useage and not prevent them from their easement rights. This would be a construction cost of roughly $5,000.00 to $6,000.00. I guess the condition that I would place on that is that an association of the easement holders be established making them responsible for the gate and it's operation. The gate would be designed in such a fashion so that it would, if it failed it would fail in the closed position so that the conditions of approval would be enforced. The third item was to barricade Teton Lane at Lilac Lane which is the north end of Teton Lane and we 21 ~'~City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 don't have an overhead or I'd put the graph up but attachment 1 to the staff report presented a sketch where we showed an alternate barricade location on the north side. In reviewing this with the City Attorney, felt as long as we were outside of the Teton Lane easement area, that the City could install a barricade which would basically have a net result of restricting access on Teton with the exception that the Natole's now would have to utilize the Curry Farms road system to get out. They would no longer be able to exit on Teton or enter. Lastly the option that's obvious I guess to go to unrestricted access on Teton and not do any barricade and change the conditions of approval for the plat. I guess from a public works standpoint, we'd have a little bit of a problem with that and would want to take a look at restricting that road since it's not designed to a full city standard as a 7 ton road. We would have to sign it for some restricted load capacity and enforce that obviously. We did an interesting test here since our last meeting. We actually did install counters on Teton Lane on both ends and I was surprised to see that we basically are experiencing about lgg vehicles per day on Teton. Now this is a very limited study for 2 days. We' re getting all kinds of different traffic through there and a lot of it is obviously traffic with deliveries and such which are heavier trucks which are also impacting the life of that roadway so we very much would need to restrict it if we_ decided to open up the access. Also in the packet is a letter from the developer's attorney stating that Centex would be agreeable to fund the cost of ~n appraisal at this time to help define what the value of the easement rights are that the City is considering condemning. I guess staff's position on this has been tryiu8 to eliminate some of the unknowns here and I think it might be helpful for everybody's perspective to identify what the value of the easement rights are out there and is suggesting that Council consider the developer's position and authorize the preparation of an appraisal to valuate the easement right cost. Councilman Boyt: I would like to start by proposing that we follow staff's recommendation and authorize an assessnent to be made of what these rights are worth. The original condition placed on the developer for this development was that this situation would be handled. That the developer would enter into agreements with the property holders. The night we did it it didn't appear that there was a great deal of resistence to this proposal and I think now the City should continue to move in the direction that we initially indicated. But to do that fairly we need to know how much those easement rights are worth so the developer can make a decision and more fully enter into the discussion. CounciLman Johnson: We worked on '~-_~his issue, tabled it many times and had many times with the neighbors coming in. Worked very hard to get the agreement we did get with all the neighbors that were there at the time. We seamed to have agreement of the neighbors and then after all the proi~erty got approved and the people sold their property and the development moved in, then the agreements we seemed to have forged in public meetings was no longer as agreeable to everybody. It's interesting. I'd like to know how much it would cost to acquire this. I'm not too thrilled on the garage door opener route because that's going to take a lot of maintenance. I'm not too wild about opening the street for unlimited use because there are people with children living along there and it wasn't designed as a full street. I wish we had held the development up until this question had actually, the easements should have been vacated before we allowed them to start building houses out there. This was a little bit of our problem not following up of all conditions. ~Fnen you have a whole lot of conditions, somet.imes one slips through and this one slipped 22 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 through. I'm not 100% sure how I'm going to vote right now. I want to hear everybody else. Councilman Workman: So we're just looking for a second perhaps to the motion made by Bill right? Staff's recommendation that the City proceed with the appraisal step at this time I think? I think we ought to do that at this point. Mayor Chmiel: Let me interject something here too. I drove that area 2 different times and the accessibility coming off of Lilac onto Teton is there. Of course the day that I drove through there, there were about 2 cars at the same time that I was going through the area. ~ne accessibility of getting back onto CR 17, Powers Blvd. is a long drive to come from all the way through there to get to that end. Then even though that road is designed at less tonage, I look at it from the safety aspect and that's something I think we have to look at too. The accessbility by the fire department and also police department. How quickly we can get to and from that specific location. The access in and out so I guess it looks like the barricade is up there but there aren't too many people that are paying much attention to getting in and out either. More specifically the trucks. I observed a couple of cars that were going through there. They weren't going very fast because of that little dip that you have to have before you get on Teton and head towards Lilac. That consequently does slow down that traffic but once they get on Teton, it's just open enough where they can move forth and probably get a little higher speed. I did try that and there isn't that much distance in that s~all space, or the length of that road I should say. But other than that I guess I feel too that maybe we should follow staff's recommendations and look at that aspect of it. Councilwoman Dimler: My concern is still with some of the neighbors up there and the original proposal. I think if we're going to change it on th~, we maybe should have another public hearing. Councilman Boyt: I wouldn't anticipate changing any of those original conditions. As the Mayor mentioned, we put them in for safety reasons. Both safety of the residents and the desire to have a second access into that development. I think the reason for requesting the assessment on those easement rights is so the developer can know how much it's going to cost him. I'm sure that will catch the developer's interest depending upon whether it's $8,000.00 or $20,000.00 but there's never been any question in my mind that this is the developer's respondibility to clear this up because it was a condition of approval. Councilwoman Dimler: I'm not opposed to the appraisal. I'm just saying if there's going to be any changes, I'd recommend we have more public hearings so the citizens can again represent their views with the new proposals. Mayor Chmiel: That's fine too. I don't have any objections with that. Councilman Johnson: So I'll second Bill's motion way back when. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, to follow staff's recommendation for easement rights? Counc i lman Johnson: Yes. 23 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to follow staff's recammendation to authorize an appraisal of the easement rights along Teton Lane. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Gary Warren: I was just going to say, the residents and such are here just so you' re aware. Mayor Ct~niet: Yes. Is there anyone who would like to address the issue? Florence Natole: I'm Florence Natole of course, as many times as I've been here the past year and a half. We didn't ask for a complete blockage. We don't want that blockade. What was agreed 6 months ago, 7 months, whatever, was to have a break away so that it would be like Christmas Lake has and it would be just break away and if in case of fire or anything, God forbid, they could go through there because the fire plug is right on the corner, kitty corner from our place so we're not looking for a complete blockade of the road. It could still be used by the Centex people after they're gone as another access into the Centex homes so when we talk about blockade, everybody thinks we want to blockade this thing with uh and I don't think we like the idea of something that opens and closes. That doesn't work but we also gave access for the city to use our road to make a turn for their snow and so on. If you're not going to do that, then we'd like to have our easement back because we have to maintain that road and we put in a c~nplete, all the way up to our house, blacktop because of the City's putting in blacktop and we're very sorry that we didn't leave it the way it was. We do not like the blacktop so all and all that wasn't mentioned tonight, the break away idea. I don't know what happened to that but that's the way it was originally worded. Councilman Boyt: That's still the plan. Florence Natole: Yes, that's the best way. Just the break away. Councilman Johnson: Mrs. Natole, I think there's a confusion on w~nat a break away is. A break away is a post that blocks the road so people can't drive through that our fire trucks can drive through. So the Centex people won't be able to utilize that either. Florence Natole: No. Councilman Johnson: Oh, okay. I thought you said the Centex homeowners would be able to drive through there. Florence Natole: No, I mean after this is all built up, if there should be a fire or something, then the fire trucks and so on could come through there. Councilman Johnson: They're got a big bumper, they just knock them down and come on through. Florence Natole: Yes, right. That's what they've done over at Christmas Lake. A couple of them are down already. No, I knew that. That's what I wanted to get across. 24 City Council Meeting - May 22~ 1989 FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 7307 LAREDO DRIVE, JUDY COLBY~ Jo Ann Olsen: The Board of Adjustments met before the City Council and two voted for denial of the variance and one voted in favor of it. The applicant is requesting a 21 foot front yard variance to the front yard setback for an additional garage and deck. I've got a blueprint that you can pass down to show the whole property because I don't have the visual. Mayor Chmiel: Is Judy Colby here? Leigh Colby: Our home was built on a rather unusually shaped piece of property. It's not the normal rectangular shape that most of the h~mes have and what is legally defined as a front yard really is our back yard and that's how we use the area where we hope to have a combined deck and garage. The plans that we're working off of were actually drawn up 10 years ago from previous owners and is designed so the face of the house is continuous. It's designed to look naturally as part of the house but what you should look at very closely is the fact that part of the garage unit, the northwest corner, actually comes over the line and that's what we're asking for a variance on. From the street we've got 3 very large evergreen trees. You cannot see the house from the street so this is a very private area. Add to the fact that this, Laredo Drive is a dead end and it really is a very private area. That's why we use it as a back yard in terms of the way the house is laid out. In terms of why we want the garage, we have no place to put one of our vehicles and a boat and with our 15 year old, we would expect to have another car and want to be able to store that also so those right now are sitting outside. That's the reason for the request for the garage. The garage that we have is very small. It's a tuck under and it was built in 1961. I don't know if you've been in a garage that's about 17 feet wide but fortunately they're making cars smaller these days. We did ask at the earlier meeting tonight if they've granted waivers of this in the past and apparently they have so I don't really think that we're asking for much of a variance. Judy Colby: We're asking for a front yard setback but it's to the side of our house so if you will imagine your house and wanting to put in a garage, and it's a tuck under garage so it goes into the dirt. We have to excavate the dirt out. If you imagine putting that on the side of your house and a deck on top of it and no one will be able to see that, and like he mentioned, our garage is so small we get two vehicles in but nothing else so our recreation room now has become for the bikes and the sleds and everything else. But I went around the whole cul-de-sac to all the homes within 500 feet and everyone signed because they don't want our boat and our truck up in the front of our yard as we don't. We would like to get that in. And when we purchased the house, it's part of an association that has that beachlot so we don't have a place to dock a boat so you have to keep your boat on your premises. You can't keep it down at the lake but we have a beachlot and a place to put the boat in. ~nen also we saw these plans that you saw, plans that were drawn up by the people before we purchased the house so when we saw those plans, we never ass~ed there'd be any problem adding a garage on there for our extra vehicle and boat. Then when we found out that yes, it's the side of your house but it's the front yard, we said no. It's not the front yard. This is the front yard so it just doesn't se~m like, and we got all the signatures in the neighborhood. There was no on opposed. In face we probably have a couple neighbors right now saying please let them put their truck in the garage. 25 City Council MeetJ. ng - May 22, 1989 Mayor Chrniel: Any other questions? Councilman Boyt: Well I do have one. Are you aware of the covenants of the Association? Leigh Colby: Yes. Councilman Boyt: Are there any covenants in there about setbacks? Leigh Colby: Not that I'm aware of. Most of the covenants have to do with building sheds and that sort of thing. Detached from the house. I'm not aware of any other. Judy Colby: We did ask the treasurer to look into that and they didn't find anything. Mayor Chmiel: I did take a look at your location. You're at a cul-de-sac portion and it's a dead end road basically other than the other access to the residences there. I did notice a boat out in front in your first driveway as you come down. Of course there was one car in the garage at the time. Probably the second one was coming home. Judy Colby: The truck's being used by a friend. I wish that would have been in the driveway for you. Leigh Colby: You would have understood. It's 2g years old. Mayor Cb~niel: I guess what you're looking for basically is a 21 foot variance to the front yard setback which is requir~d. The proposed addition is going to be 21 feet wide, is that correct? Leigh Colby: That's right. And driving down the hill, the only thing you would see comJ. ng down Laredo to the cul-de-sac is the redwood deck. You would not actually see the garage. That would be about a foot above ground level and most of that ~uld sheltered by the trees. Councilman Johnson: I don't rem~nber in the past 2 1/2 years granting any 21 foot variances to front yard setbacks. Judy Colby: For the side of a house? CounciLman Johnson: To a front yard setback to ~nere we're getting within 9 foot of the street right-of-way. In a PUD we've gone to 5 feet from the street right-of-way. It's a bad precedence to start. I don't see the hardship. Because you own an ugly truck is not a hardship. I sold my ugly truck. Of course it didn't run. Your's obviously runs since you loaned it to somebody. Leigh Colby: I think you saw the property, you would understand that you cannot see it. I mean you cannot see it o Judy Colby: And the 9 foot, what you're talking about is you've got quite a few feel back to these huge trees and then there's this space which is dead so if that's our front yard, if you want to call it our front yard, you're stopping us 26 City Council Meeting - May 22~ 1989 frc~ using our front yard because you want more feet to do with I don't know what you'll do because you'd have plenty of ro~m for a sidewalk in front of those trees. Councilman Johnson: That's the only place you could put it on city property. Judy Colby: Right, and you have plenty of room without touching our trees there to put a sidewalk. I can't imagine what other use you'd have for that. Those trees will r~nain. Councilman Johnson: Unless we have a spruce disease and the trees die and then we've got a house... Judy Colby: Then we'll put a different tree in because we want the privacy. Leigh Colby: That's part of the plan is that the trees provide some privacy. We have absolutely no other place on the property that we can expand in any way because of the unusual orientation. Mayor Chmiel: You have a pie shaped lot basically. Leigh Colby: Yes. It should have been a smaller 2 story home turned the right way. Councilman Johnson: We shouldn't have approved the pie shaped lot 20 years ago or whenever either. We don't approve those anymore or try not to. I still, when we grant one, everybody comes in and says, well you did it for these folks and we want exactly the same thing. Then it gets kind of like potato chips or whatever. You had one, somebody else wants another. It just keeps going. Judy Colby: I think it's been obvious that the variance must have been granted to some people though because you haven't gone along those 5 restrictions that you have to prove and that's what we were told. And there was this drawing that we saw that we assumed we could do. That was an assumption and that was our fault for not checking into it but when you see the architectural drawing of something, when you're buying a house then you think, well good, then we don't have to store something in our front yard. Like I said, our regular garage is so small that we literally get 2 cars in only. Imagine your garage, if you have a normal house, and not being able to store anything but 2 cars in there. Councilman Johnson: When did you buy this? Leigh Colby: 3 years ago. Councilman Johnson: And at that time you were expecting to build onto the garage as part of it and you didn't check to see if you could? Judy Colby: Well we just did now When we were going to add to it. By the look of it we thought we had plenty of feet from the side of the house and I did call and ask What was a variance from the side of the house and I said oh well we're fine. Then when the contractors came out to give us some bids and they said well no, this is the street, you've got to be 60 feet from the middle of the road. We measured and we were 10 feet into the setback at that point but I guess that 60 feet isn't right now. 27 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 Councilman Johnson: Yes, it's 3g feet from the edge of the right-of-way of the property 1 ine. Leigh Colby: I think if you would have seen the property, you would understand that you can not... Councilman Johnson: I'm friends with your next door neighbors. I've been down on your block many t~mes. Leigh Colby: And if the restriction is that we also maintain trees along there, even if they're knocked down, I'm more than happy to comply with that because that' s ~nat we'd do anyhow. Councilman Johnson: And when you get transferred to Arizona next year and the new neighbor's in there and he doesn't like the view of the trees, he cuts them down. The ordinance is for protection for the long term. It's just like we're talking about covenants before. Once you leave, they're unenforceable and everybody says no, I'm going to live there until I die. Leigh Colby: I think most ordinances are written with common sense in mind and everybody who's walked it off agrees that aesthetically it really fits in. It really is a common sense issue. CounciLman Johnson: And we've turned down other things that appear to be common sense and aesthetically beneficial. Judy Colby: Have you approved things that don't have any common sense behind it? Councilman Johnson: Yes, because by law we had to. Councilwoman Dimler: I also looked at the property. I guess my impression was that that was the side yard. I've always thought of that as the side yard and so I was surprised that by legal description it was the front yard. I think they meet 3 of the 5 conditions and I would be in favor of granting this particular variance because Laredo ends in a circle and there's a lake behind it. It will never go further. I can't see anything that we would want to do to the street that we couldn't do that would be injurious to city property. Leigh Colby: You' re not going to make it a four lane? Councilwa~an Dimler: No, it's never going to be four lane. CounciLman Johnson: Ursual, can I ask you a question? If you're going to consider this a side yard, they'll still need a side yard variance if this was a side yard because they're going 1 foot in. Councilwoman Dimler: But they meet that. CounciLman Johnson: No they don't. It's a lg foot side yard setback I think so they would need a 1 foot variance. If they can cut this back 1 foot, they could meet the side yard. 28 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 Councilwoman Dimler: We talked about this at the Board of Adjus~ent and Appeals and there is room for a sidewalk or a trail or whatever we might want to put in there. Then also, the trees are there that you can't see it from the road. CounciLman Johnson: But they could also cut it back to a 20 foot instead of 21 foot and meet the side yard setback if you want to call this a side yard. Councilwoman Dimler: Fine, if that's what you want. Leigh Colby: It would just be that one tip. So you're saying, if I bevel the notch, bevel the one corner then I'll comply. Judy Colby: Because the road curves out there so our only problem with be down in the corner. Councilman Johnson: If you're going to grant a variance to this, I think one of the logical ways to do it, if you want to make it to where other people can't copy it, is to say in essence this is a side yard and they would not need a side yard variance so you would have to modify it where you would not need a side yard variance. I have a little trouble calling it a side yard since it's up against a street but I think you'll probably muster the votes to grant this somehow or another without me but I'm going to continue what I continued 2 years ago of not liking variances. I'll still give you my ideas on, if I hadn't taken this stand 2 years ago that I wouldn't grant variances unless there was a real hardship shown, I don't see the hardship here. Sorry to interrupt you. Councilwoman Dimler: That's okay, you do all the time. Councilman Workman: I apologize because I was unable to get out there today. You were on my schedule and the hours turned into minutes very quickly. I would like to get out there to see it. I don't obviously have a hard and fast rule towards variances. I think one of the reasons Ursula's on the Council is because she's open minded and can look at things in practical ways. Not that we need to give them to everybody but to look at it. I guess I would like to look at it a little closer than from a piece of paper which is what I have done so far. I apologize again. So not to delay your construction time or anything I guess I'd like to see this tabled so that I might have an opportunity to get out there. Perhaps talk to Willard and Carol and get some more input. Councilman Boyt: Before you consider tabling, I'd like to comment on this. There are, for the benefit of the rest of the people out there who may be wondering what's going on, ordinances are written through a rather lengthy process of public hearings and trying to clearly define what the concerns are and meet those concerns with a particular ordinance. State statute makes it very difficult to vary from an ordinance unless you want to rewrite it and go through the public hearing process again. A variance is changing an ordinance so there's 5 criteria because if we grant a variance as Judy and Leigh have pointed out, you've granted variances in the past like this, I expect you to grant it for me. I can assure you that if any one of you comes in here with a similar kind of problem and the need to move 21 feet into your front yard setback, you're going to reference this case ~nd say tell me what's different. So every t~me we do this, the State says you're supposed to follow the 5 criteria that they set up. This, by no stretch of the imagination matches those 29 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 criteria and I would suggest that if the Council insists upon passing this, that you best direct the City Attorney to find facts that support you. Leigh Colby: Bill, you said that this sets aside an ordinance. In effect negates it and most ordinances are written to cover a multitude of things but they can't address every unique circumstance and a variance is not a set aside but acknowledging that not all circumstances are quite what was anticipated when the ordinance was written. Councilman Boyt: Leigh, I agree with you but, you've clearly got some crowd support here. One of the 5 criteria is that you have a unique situation. That's ! of the 5 and as I mentioned earlier when I attended the meeting, I agree that you have a unique piece of land. Being a pie shaped piece of property but you have a house that meets all city codes including the need for a garage on that piece of property and that's all the City guarantees when they give a person a building permit is that your house will meet our codes. Now to go beyond that and say well but we'll give you the right to extend into any of those setbacks, if you meet the other criteria, then yes we need to have sort of flexibility to do it. One of the other pieces of criteria is that this is not a self-created hardship. I don't see how you can define your own purchases as not being self-created. They weren't acts of God. They weren't things that were out of your control. There is another one of the criteria is that it not be injurous to your neighborhood. I think you've demonstrated that your neighbors feel this is not injurous. The ones I've talked to agree that they don't see this as injurous to them. Leigh Colby: Most of them see it as an upgrade. Councilman Boyt: And it quite well could be in that regard. The other is that you need to have a situation which is a hardship. Not an economic hardship but sc~nething that you can't overcome. That there's no way to overcome it. I don't think that since your house already meets City Codes, I don't think there's anything there that you need to overcome. Where we have adjusted these in the past has been when somebody has been on a lake lot. They didn't have a garage. They wanted a garage. City Code requires a garage and we gave them the right to build into that front yard setback to do that. You don't have that situation Leigh. There is a quandry here. I'm sure when Tom goes out and looks at this he's going to say, well in your individual situation it looks like a pretty low impact thing. If the Council votes to approve this, I don't see how they can turn down anybody's request ~no comes in and says I want to extend my house. I'm going to have another child. I need another bedroom and so what if it goes 21 feet into my setback from the front street. I'll put trees up. I don't see how we could turn that down and be fair. Judy Colby: Look at my house and say that that's not the front of my house. It's the side of my home. Councilman Boyt: It's legally defined. Judy Colby: But it's the side of my house and I want to add onto the side of my house. Councilman Boyt: Well you're adding onto the side of your house that projects to the front street. 30 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 Leigh Colby: What I would recommend is that we table this. I think if you take a look at it, you'll find out it really would be a very tasetful addition. Mayor Chmiel: I think we're at that particular point for Tom to really take a look and review this. I'd like to second that motion to table it. Councilman Workman: I guess if I could make one more comment. My vote has already been predicted I guess. If in fact a variance is always going to be a precedented situation, then I'm going to assume that if you have any space behind your yard, it will probably be condemned by Bill Boyt for a park very soon so to set precedence. I would like to take it on a parcel by parcel basis and that's what I intend to do. I do move to table. Mayor Chmiel: I'm seconding that. Councilman Workman moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to table the front yard setback variance request for 7307 Laredo Drive until the next City Council meeting. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and the motion carried. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CHURCH, 1/4 MILE NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND WEST OF POWERS BLVD., ~CKANKAR CHURCH, PETER BECK. Peter Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Peter Beck, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South representing Eckankar. We have nothing much to add Mr. Mayor to the proceedings of the earlier meetings except to sun~narize what we have done in response to the Council's request at the last meeting. Everything that I'm going to cover tonight is addressed in the letter which we delivered and I believe is in your packet dated May 17, 1989 but perhaps for the benefit of those in the audience I'll just briefly review the steps we have taken in the last month. The City Council requested that a baseline environmental study be done of those portions of the property encompassing the former farmsteads and then the proposed development site for the church. What we did in response to that request was retain the firm of Protox Inc. to conduct such an environmental site assessment. In fact we directed them to cover the entire property in this assessment. Their study was, we asked them as the experts to recommend to us &n appropriate study for this piece of property and under the circumstances and then we met on site with city officials including the City Planner and Public Safety Director to insure that the proposed scope was adequate and appropriate and acceptable to the City. After that point then we contracted with Protox and they conducted a study. Although I'll sun~narize briefly their findings, the entire report that they suk~itted to us has been submitted to the City. The study included a visual and magnetometer survey of the entire property with special emphasis on the two farmstead sites and the proposed development site. The study also included subsurface soil vapor sampling at any location which the magnetometer or the visual survey indicated warranted further investigation. Then also a number of other randomly selected samples. The results of the study were that there was no evidence of any contamination anywhere on the property and that the construction activities as proposed can proceed without danger of environmental contamination from hazardous materials. Protox did recommend that 3 wells on the property be abandoned. That an underground storage tank discovered next to where an old shed was on the south farm, be removed. That a 31 ~-~City Council Meeting - May 22' 1989 potential second underground tank be investigated once excavating equipment was on site and if necessary removed. That a magnetic object which the magnetometer disclosed but which Protox wasn't able to locate with shovels and picks, also be further investigated with excavating equipment. They suspect it to be some sort of scrap metallic object like old tools but they think in the interest of thoroughness that further excavation should occur in that location. After receipt of that report, we have contracted again with Protox to follow up on all of the reco~Tmended actions and they are undertaking that effort right now. The wells will be abandoned pursuant to State Depart~nent of Health regulations. The one tank will be removed as required under, I think it's FCA regulations. Then the other two magnetic items will be investigated and if anything is discovered, it also will be removed under the relevant State and Federal regulations. We asked the principles from Protox who participated in the study to come tonight. They are available. John Nedved and Dan Fedder to answer any questions that the Council may have with respect to the scope and the results from their study. The second inquiry or request from the Council was that we submit some documentation from Eckankar itself with respect to the proposed acquisition by the City of a portion of the property for public purposes. The City had received a nunf0er of c~'~nunications from our firm as representatives of Eckankar on that subject but requested I guess confirmation from Eckankar and that was submitted and is in the packet in the form of a letter from Peter Skelsky confirmi.ng that reasonable portions of the property be made available for public purposes in setting forth some 9uidelines for negotiations towards this end. The other inquiries were with respect to again what portion of the property would be tax exempt and once again we're just suggesting that that issue be left to the discretion of the County Attorney where it rests under State Law. Again pointing out that if the County Attorney or if as a result of the County Attorney's investigation it's determined that under the appropriate laws and regulations the tax ex~npt portion of the property be limited, then that would be the case. Finally with respect to the skylight, we did again explain what was mentioned last meetin9. That the skylight can be closed and it will be kept in a position so there's no more illumination occurring from the skylight than from a typical lighting, exterior lighting from other churches in the conmunity. ...So that su~marizes briefly the activities and the efforts that we've 9one through in the months since the last City Council meetirg. From that point we'd be happy again to answer any questions that the Council might have. Ymyor Ckmiel: Are there any questions by Council? Councilman Johnson: I have a question of Protox. Are the 3 wells in adequate condition to pull a ground water sample from those wells? John Nedved: I'm John Nedved with Protox. There are obstructions in the wells in the form of pumps. Those are being removed and then I think we can probably get ground water samples from at least one of the wells. Councilman Johnson: I think I'd like to try to get at least ground water samples from all 3 wells if possible prior to you abandoning that well. I'd like the static water depth surveyed and put in there to mean sea level and all that good stuff and regular ground water samples taken and analyzed through your basic organic scan. As long as you're there and it's easy to do, it's well worth the time to find out what our ground water down there is doing. It-won't be that expensive. That's my only comment. 32 City Council Meeting - May 22~ 1989 Peter Beck: I don't see any problem with that recognizing that we' 11 only be able to do it if it's possible to do it. Councilman Workman: In regards to the skylight, Eckankar will close the skylight on it's church so no more illumination will occur than occurs from the lighting on other Chanhassen churches. I guess I would go along with that. That's something different than maybe we had agreed upon at the last meeting where you said yes, it wouldn't be illuminated. I guess I would hope that it wouldn't be too much lit up or act as a beacon or something else. I think most of the churches in town have exterior lighting on them, not eminating from them and that is what my concern was at the last meeting. I do have a quick question for you and I have some more concerns perhaps. Your law firm is very busy these days all over the place, particularly currently up in the Lake Minnetonka Hennepin Parks, just to the north of us up here. Peter Beck: Representing the City of Minnetrista. Councilman Workman: Right. In the Minnapolis Star and Tribune I believe Sunday, May 14th. Back towards the end of the article one of your representatives David Sellergren, s~=cial counsel for the City and an attorney with your firm said that the 292 acre park would result in the loss of Minnetrista's best land for development. He said the park would cut the City's tax base by as much as 100 million dollars resulting in a net loss of $242,000.00 per year. I find it kind of ironic that now we're on this side of it and there's always 2 sides, 2 ends of the candle which you guys sesm to be on both ends. This large parcel as we've been saying over and over is going to do pretty much the same thing that you are saying is going to happen to Minnetrista and that I believe has been the concerns of the citizens, a very large majority of the citizens all along. I am almost fully aware that most and most of the people in the room perhaps are fully aware that perhaps Eckankar is going to be building a church here but my biggest concern remains and is we haven't been able to get together and decide what in the future you're going to actually need on that parcel and we cannot force you to get into the hot water. I have a deep concern. In my college days I studied a book called My Cropolis in Transition which was written just about 20 years ago by the ex-mayor of St. Cloud talking about a lot of the big issues that were occurring with the growth of St. Cloud. They were going to be building a large airport, or they had a large airport just about in the center of town~ Wanted to move that. There were some problems with different trusts and owners on that large parcel. The question was, if the airport were moved, too much land would be taken up by tax free institutions such as schools, parks and churches and that the City would later find itself in a financial bind to finance routine city services in the area. A concern of city officials was understandable. St. Cloud already had one of the highest if not the highest ratio of tax exempt to taxable property in the state. Roughly 50-50. I would like to at this point request from the City Manager, Don Ashworth, perhaps a review of what our current ratio is. I understand another church from a neighboring con~nunity is planning to purchase another substantial tract of property to build a church and I think we need to look at exactly how much we can put up with. Don Ashworth: I was not prepared for that question. Jo Ann, do you have any idea? As we went through the Comp Plan, can you remember the statistics as to general versus the existing private? In other words, public sector lands in comparison to private. 33 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 Jo Ann Olsen: I know that we discussed it. I don't have that information on hand. Councilman Workman: I didn't expect an answer this evening I guess. It's even difficult restricting the size of a parcel. Churches can divide it up and own 5 different parcels. Hopefully Eckankar will come to a good conclusion as far as what it needs to be sitting on. We obviously have no idea at this point what your plan is. I also, in a little side note not to take up too much more time here, I did do a little studying on our city survey as far as mail surveys. Mail surveys are traditionally a very poor way of finding out what people are really thinking. There's probably the least amount of control on a mail in survey than any other survey so ~nether or not we can take that, I think we already knew what perhaps the survey was going to find out. I guess in conclusion, I've gotten a lot of help with my decisions as far as this large issue, from the con~nunity. Up until this weekend people delivering me newspaper clippings from some of your problems in Salem, Oregon which again you guys are aware of. But people are genuinely concerned I guess but within the concerns of again a very large majority of the people, there has always been a compromising tone I guess. The biggest problem I've had with some of these proceedings are that perhaps we as a City of Chanhassen are going to be called intolerable of other religions, etc.. I don't find that to be so at all. I think, as I stated in the first meeting, that the people in this cor~nunity have very genuine concerns about what is coming into their city. You've had the problems in every city that you've been in just about and moved around and you've had some internal problems that have made us a little bit leafy. I think we've been very open and very intelligent about how to best approach this. I guess at this time I'd like to just end my conments. Get some more input from the Council. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess this is a good time to bring this up because my major concern does remain and I think the citizens as well, and that is what does Eckankar want to do with the balance of the property. That has never been answered so right now Peter as a representative of Eckankar, I want to ask you, are you aware of their future plans that you want to share with us that we can put some of these concerns to rest at this time? Peter Beck: Mayor, Councilmember Dimler, I am aware that there are no other plans. The focus has been completely, and I've been working with Eckankar with respect to this piece of property now for 4 or 5 years. In 1985 when there was a request before the City for their International C~pus on the site, at that time it was proposed to divide the north half off, split the north, roughly a third off for residential development and the south, roughly a third would be con~nercial development. Since then the City rezoned the entire property so there's no more conmercial zoning on the property. When it came time to come back and take another look at using the property and appropriate uses, the efforts have focused entirely on the church and there hasn't been any discussion about what would be done on the balance of the property. Councilwoman Dimler: So they're not thinking into the future? That's what you're telling me? I find that hard to believe but. When we discuss plans for A we usually go with well what do we do with B and C? Peter Beck: They've asked us what's allowable under the present zoning for instance and we've said single family up in the north and multiple family on the 34 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 south. That's about the extent of it. We've knocked around ideas about do you think that con~ercial development could ever occur on the south? What about combining development down there with a city project such as a community center, school but it's just talk and I can tell you honestly there are no plans for the balance of the property and the focus has been just on obtaining approval to proceed with the church. Councilwoman DJmler: I guess another comment I had. I'm glad to see we got a letter from Peter Skelsky saying that they would be willing to sell some of the land if the City deemed it necessary but we would have to do that by December 31st was it, 1989 or something of that nature? But when we talked with them prior, I think that they were willing to sell it to us at cost and now I'm reading that it's at fair market value. Can you explain the difference there? Peter Beck: I don't now how the discussion about cost got started. Selling it at cost. I believe our earliest cor~nunications, you know when Don first inquired, and our response was at a fair price. I don't remember and Don can supplement this, ever saying orally that it would be at cost and I know that nothing was ever written to that effect. Then in subsequent, as you know the issue has kept coming back and it's been asked again and again and again and I think we've always said at a fair price or fair market value price. I really honestly don't know how the discussion about cost got started. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess when I was on the task force, Don didn't it come back at one t~e that it would be at cost? Don Ashworth: I know that wordage was used and again, I may have misinterpreted the first conversation that Mr. Beck and I had. I guess I believe that the cost back to the City would be one that would be very favorably received. In my own mind maybe I interpreted that to mean at cost and Mr. Beck was referring to at a fair value but I think that may be where it occurred. Peter Beck: I don't think even today that the intent is to hold the city up for it but it's just the intent would be to arrive at a fair price for both parties. Councilman Workman: Speaking of this parcel in thirds, the north third being developed, the south third. Could it be safely assume then that you want the middle third or approx~_mately 60 acres for this church? Peter Beck: I was speaking about in 1985 the plan did show and if I had to guess it would be a little bit, I'm just trying to from recollection, it was roughly a third and the middle portion, maybe it was 60, it might have been a few more acres than 60, were for the international campus of the church and at that time there were 2 buildings initially proposed with the concept showing numerous additional buildings as and when necessary. I can't recall the exact acreage amounts. Councilman Workman: You're talking about the previous plan? Peter Beck: Yes I am. In 1985 it was proposed to rezone the property to 'allow their international campus to go in the middle portion of the property as in fact the property was then and still is guided in the comprehensive plan for campus business and that plan was submitted in some detail. In fact it received concept approval from the Planning Commission and the City Council and then was 35 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 submitted formally and subsequently withdrawn. But it was that plan that I'm saying divided the property up into thirds. Councilman Workman: I guess I still have a concern that 6g is still an awful lot to be building a church on. Peter Beck: As I said and as we're saying in this letter and in my opening remarks, how much of the property is the church property for the purposes of state tax exemption will be determined not by you or me but under the Constitution and the laws of the State. Councilman Work,nan: Not even that. Right now that whole parcel is getting between $11,ggg.gg and $12,ggg.gg a year in taxes which isn't a whole lot for 174. I guess that's not exactly what I'm getting at. I'm getting at that most of the churches in this town which some may be bigger, are sitting on a couple of acres. My concern is to not build a monument out there you know. Again, I guess I'm trying to get a feel for what you guys eventually will feel will be a satisfactory amount of acres to leave sitting idle around this church. Peter Beck: I can tell that we just haven't taken it to that level of analysis. Some of the considerations are, in relative proximity to %fnere the church will be is a nice wooded area and I think the discussions have included preserving that for all time as part of the church property. Not to be disturbed by development but beyond that, in terms of acreage amounts or locations beyond just the generalize center of the property, there really hasn't been any analysis done let alone any decisions. Councilman Workman: Do you feel Ecknakar feels they might need 6g acres? Peter Beck: I really don't know. You know the 60 acres in 1985 was to acco~nodate more than just a church. It was to acco~nodate at that time an office building and a printing and publishing facility with the prospect of many more buildings. Right now it's not proposed that Eckankar would ever have anything more on the property than the church. Councilman Workman: I guess my final questions would be, does Eckankar plan to get into the development of the north and south thirds or will that be sold and developed by outside developers? Peter Beck: Eckankar is not a development company. Councilman Workman: Will they ever plan to be a development company? Peter Beck: No. They have no plans to ever be a development company and that's one of the things that they're wondering about. They're not a development company. They don't want to be a development company and they may just want to decide to hold onto the whole piece. That's a possibility. Councilman Work. an: I know. I have no more questions at this time. Councilman Boyt: Well Peter, I can't tell you how amazed I am to see you still here. I really thought we were going to deal with this issue a month ago. Although I think that the recent concerns about the environment were certainly worth researching. I think you've consistently demonstrated that you'll answer 36 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 any questions that anybody can come up with which I think is nice of you to do that. I think probably the one area that disappoints me a bit is that we don't have Eckankar members speaking to us in just a reasonable presentation. I don't know what their reasons might be for not doing that but I think it's unfortunate that they have chosen not to do that. I think that we've gone as far as the City can reasonably go here. I don't disagree with Tom that mail surveys, in fact I agree with him. Mail surveys are not particularly reliable. For that matter, neither are door to door canvasing but it's what we have to work with. We also at, I assume Council's direction, asked the various con~nissions and committees what their feelings were about purchasing the property which is what the city's survey was about, and they supported the survey results. So I'm sure that things will develop over time. I'm sure that you'll r~m~ain a visible part of this con~nunity and I'm hopeful that over time w~'ll all come to find that your presence in the community is valuable. At this point clearly there's unknowns. I can't help but feel that in spite of the tax concerns, in spite of the size of the staff concerns and so on and so on, that if this was a religious group that we had a great deal of experience with, we wouldn't have put you through this sort of hurdle. I'm concerned when I hear people say that the City should be moving to limit the entry of churches into our city or the amount of tax exempt property in our city. I'd hate to think that the next church that came in found that they weren't welcome. I think that for good reason there has been some hurdles in front of your group but personally I'm ready to vote on this. Councilwoman Dimler: I have a couple more comments to piggyback onto what Bill just said. I guess at the first meeting I think it was that I expressed a concern that maybe the City does need an ordinance that does restrict the acreage of tax exempt entities and that wouldn't only be churches. I still feel that way and I just wonder what the status is on that. Has anybody picked up on that Roger? Are you looking into that? Roger Knutson: I provided you a copy with Blaine's approach to that question. Councilwc~an Dimler: Okay. Now has anybody taken it further to develop an ordinance? Roger Knutson: No, I haven't received direction to do that. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe Don can address that. Don Ashworth: If the Council would wish to pursue that, potentially it should occur after action on this item. You would direct staff or the Planning Commission to look at the ordinance as prepared by the City Attorney and to carry out whatever necessary public hearings would be required to put that ordinance into affect. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, because I still think and I don't care what the religious beliefs are, I still think a parcel as big as 174 acres would be ridiculous for any tax exempt. And again, to state the concern, we don't want a 50-50 situation like they had in St. Cloud. I think we're getting into danger there. I guess my last con~nent would be that I still would hope that Eckankar deal with us in the spirit of open con~unication and address citizen's concerns in the future. I don't particularly like this hiding game. I've asked every t~e that they come forward and meet with us openly. I don't feel any of us are 37 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 afraid of them and I don't think we've given them any reason to be afraid of us so in future dealings I hope that they'll come forward and work with us honestly and openly and that's my final comments. Mayor Cbniel: Peter, at one time in discussions that we had had, I requested that we have two people from Eckankar who authorized to sign off on the conditions of the conditional use permit. Has that been adhered to yet? Peter Beck: Mr. Mayor, what we provided you was the letter from Peter Skelsky, the President confirming his authority to act for Eckankar by resolution of the Board of Directors so he has that authority that you were requesting. Mayor Chmiel: The other thing too is I just have two more conditions that I'd like to put into this. The first one being that the land may not be subdivided in any use other than the use authorized in this conditional use permit except for land devoted to public use approved by the Chanhassen City Council is prohibited without an amendment to this conditional use permit. Councilman Johnson: Can I ask you a question Mr. Mayor? Are you saying that they can't sell this to a developer and put homs on the north side and apartments on ~ne south side? Mayor Chmiel: Roger, would you like to clarify that? Roger Knutson: If the Mayor proposed condition were accepted, that's correct. If they want to amend the conditional use permit, they'd have to come back here. You're giving them a permit for 174 acres for one particular use and the Mayor is suggesting, if you want to change that use in any way, you come back and see US. Mayor Chmiel: The second portion of this, let me finish now. This conditional use permit is subject to annual and other periodic reviews to determine compliance with the conditions of the approval. The City Council may revoke thJ. s permit following a public hearing for non-compliance with the conditions of approval. Those would be the other two conditions that I would have. Peter Beck: _Mr.. Mayor, the first condition, it would be my understanding that the conditional use permit would in fact be issued for the 174 acres and that an amendment to it would be necessary in order to use the land for some other purpose so we have no problem with that condition. The second condition, I guess we have a little bit of a concern about that to the extent that it treats this conditional use permit different from any of the others. If the City ordinance provides for a revocation procedure which I believe it does, we would of course be subject to that and I would confirm that we are subject to that but I don't know that if the condition goes beyond the ordinance procedure for revocation, that it would be appropriate. So perhaps the City Attorney can enlighten us on that subject. Roger Knutson: I believe all this says is that we can inspect it periodically or annually for violations of the terms of the conditional use permit. I think it's just informing the applicant of the obvious. If he's in violation, they'll have you on their doorsteps. 38 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 Peter Beck: To the extent that it's no more than a notice in the resolution that we have to comply with the terms of the permit and that if we don't it can be revoked as the ordinance provides, that's fine. We would understand that to be the case in any event. Mayor Chmiel: Other than that I guess I've had my day in court too. Councilman Johnson: When we started the discussion we were just talking to their experts and then we got off and I haven't had my general discussion I guess, everybody else has. Since Peter doesn't have any problem with that, we've been having so much concern over getting this back on the tax rolls. Your first condition almost sounded like we're going to make it harder to get back onto the tax rolls but as Peter explains it, it doesn't seem that way so as they try to get it back on the tax roll anyway, they'd have to come in and modify the conditional use permit so I don't have a problem with that anymore. I would like to get something clarified from Tom. You made the statement that they've had problems in every other city that they've been in. Can you tell me the problem from Menlo Park? Councilman Workman: It was a rather &mbiguous statement Jay. You took it literally but in Salem, Oregon they've had problems. Councilman Johnson: That's one. Councilman Workman: Almost identical to what we've got here. Councilman Johnson: Except for Salem, Oregon was a completely different situation. Councilman Workman: How? Councilman Johnson: They were asking for a rezoning. They're not asking for a rezoning. Councilman Workman: But the cover issue is the same. Councilman Johnson: But the ability of the city of Salem, Oregon was considerably different than our ability. Peter Beck: Councilmember Johnson, perhaps I can just explain a little bit of the situation in Salem, Oregon. At that time the proposal was similar to what was proposed in Chanhassen 4 or 5 years ago. A campus for all of the international operations of the church and it was proposed that this would be part of a larger industrial park. The request to Salem, Oregon was to move their equivalent of the MUSA line. I think they call it an urban growth, you have the term probably in front of you, urban growth boundary or something but the proposal was to move in essence their MUSA line in order to accommodate this industrial park. The decision of that con~nunity was that they weren't going to expand their urban growth boundary. While it is true that during that discussion many of the citizen con~nents were received that have been heard in the meetings here in Chanhassen, the actual land use issue was quite a bit different. In all the other communities where Eckankar has the Eck centers and where their headquarters was in Menlo Park, to my knowledge they've been good citizens and there haven't been any problems. 39 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 Councilman Johnson: I guess I think it's time to move on this. It's past time to start tabling Mayor Chmiel: We're going to open it to the public yet one more time Jay. Councilman Johnson: Well, I mean tonight is the time. Not right at this moment. Well I could make a motion right now but I'm not going to. I'm going to wait for the public. But we've delayed th~m long enough. They've answered every question. We've put them through far more than we've put anybody else through. I'm glad you're supporting me now on inspecting of conditional use permits. It's been over a year I've been trying to get an ordinance change in on that. Jo Ann's over there smiling. All conditional use permits needs to be on an inspection schedule and we need, I'm going to pitch my ordinance again, need to change that ordinance. I hope I' 11 get support when I bring that up at the next Council meeting then. It sounds like I've got that support from you now. Mayor Chmiel: At this time I'd like to open it to the public. If we would keep our stat~nents basically to something that is different than what we've already indicated previously. I will then open the meeting now for that. Any one wishing to address it? Leneda Rahe: Y~y name is Leneda Rahe and I live at lg21 Carver Beach Road. I would like to address the Council of something they haven't heard before. I have listened to all the comments spoken at the meetings and I have weighed them heavily. All of us have exhausted ourselves to examine our resources. We have evaluated concerns such as the declining of property values, the legitimacy of Eckankar being a church and the fact that 174 acres of our prime land in the heart of our con~nunity will not be taxed. The City officials have needed to take into account the needs of each party involved and it has been an extensive job for which I am thankful to all of you. Many thanks to the Mayor Don Cb_miel. To the City Manager, Don Ashworth. Also to members of the Council who have listened to the concerns of the citizens. Thank you to the people on the city staff who have investigated extensively all avenues of this topic and who have sat through many long meetings. Thank you to the City Attorney Roger Knutson for assisting in the legalities pertaining to this matter. And Mayor Chmiel also, thank you for being fair to all people involved and I commen~ you for always remaining objective. This is an issue which should not receive partial judgment. One side cannot be favored over another and fair treatment is a must for both parties. A major concern is the issue of safety. Some members of the Council mentioned that an Eckankar member was afraid that they would not be safe here as a citizen. No one from the CCFC, Concerned Citizens for the Future of Chanhassen group has ever wanted to harrass Eckankar members. Ever since we, my husband and myself have been undertaking the responsibility of the citizen group's efforts, my family has received harrassment for our involvement. Telephone calls were made to our home that were antagonizing, anonymous and obscene. One gentleman called early one morning with accusations directed at myself and my husband. His first name being Gordy. Another call was a female voice who asked me to tell my husband that he was a very obscene name, I won't say it. The most recent and the most disturbing occurred late last Tuesday evening. I was on the telephone with Maddie Hickey who is also a m~nber of the CCFC. ~e were discussing Eckankar because we had just returned from a Park and Rec meeting where Eckankar had helen one of the topics. Suddenly a third party's 40 City Council M~eting - May 22, 1989 voice entered in on our line. The male voice said, you two think you are so smart, I'm going to bash in your "f" faces. A tap on the line is suspected. Maddie has an aerial telephone line and after investigation by the telephone security people by a certain individual named Tim, found that Maddie's line had been down and this would have made a tapping possible. It is my feeling that these instances are a direct result of my involvement on behalf of the con~nunity. That's my opinion. I had not received harrassment prior to this issue. Another reason I have my children with me tonight is because I feel it is unsafe to leave them with a babysitter who is only 13 years of age and I do not have grandparents in the area to help me in that area. Maybe we simply must pass the permit or the harrassment will worsen. I don't know. I am very disturbed by what has been happening and I wanted to relay the information before you and the public. Because of the fairness of the issue and because Eckankar has come forward with the same concern, I have felt that if the permit does not pass again, that the threats may become a reality. If they do, I would like it to be a public statement of what has been happening to myself and my family. Again, I don't know but right now I feel that my family is in danger and has been. Our comfort zone has been certainly pushed to it's limit and that is one of the requirements for the permit. Councilman Johnson: Mr. Chaffee, are you aware, as our Public Safety Director, have you been involved, obviously there's some investigating of this illegal activity? Jim Chaffee: Yes I am and yes we are. Tom Hickey: Mr. Mayor and City Council, my name is Tom Hickey. I live at 6990 Utica Lane and I just wonder if it would be permissible at this time, I know over the 4 year course of these carrying OhS on this Eckankar issue, to my knowledge we've never had a representative from Eckankar at these meetings. Would it be permissible at this time to determine if at this last meeting if there is any Eckankar people in the audience? Would that be possible? Peter Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, there are no Eckankar m~nbers here as a part of our effort. To my knowledge. Tom Hickey: I guess that raises a question that if this is so J~portant to Eckankar, where are they in the final hour if this is that important to them. I received in the mail last Saturday a cause that I guess is not really that dissimilar to the Eckankar issue. When reading through it, maybe some other members here or people within the c~unity received it and it was regarding the cause of Purple Loosestrife alert. It goes on to say, it says Purple Loosestrife is an aggressive plant that is invading our wetlands and it's very deceptive. It says don't be confused by these Purple Loosestrife look alikes. Then they go on to say Blazing Star, Fireweed, Blue Vervane, they all look alike. Then the essence of the whole brochure regarding loosestrife, it says beauty is only skin deep. The attractive plun~nage of Purple Loosestrife conceals it's menancing nature. I guess after I reflected on that for a few minutes I kind of thought of Chanhassen. In my estimation Chanhassen is like a flower garden. It's made up of many plants and it is the responsibility of the City Council to discern which plants go into that garden so we can have the proper mix in growth. Also to identify the weeds and not allow that to jeopardize that growth. When we elected Bill Boyt, we elected him because we felt he had integrity and good discernment. ~nen we the people elected Tom 41 ~3~ity Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 Workman, we elected him because we felt he had integrity and good discernment. ~nen we the people elected Ursula Dimler, we elected her because we felt she had integrity and good discernment. When we the people elected Mayor Don Ckmiel, we elected him because ~ felt he had integrity and good discernment. When we elected Jay Johnson, we elected him because we felt he had integrity and good discernment. ~nat we must discern is if Eckankar is a flower or a weed. 4 years ago Eckankar purchased 174 acres east of Lake Ann and requested the zoning be changed to accon~nodate a publishing house and domitories. They were told that the land was being rezoned for residential use and their request was denied. Not taking no for an answer, they hired the best land use law firm in the upper midwest in Larkin and Hoffman to assist them in getting their plans approved. They became a church to meet the zoning requirements. The people who challenge this legal maneuvering were then called bigots. We still haven't determined who we are dealing with and frankly we have been told it's none of our business for it is a land use issue. The only think we've seen so far is a drawing of a building which is absent this evening and gentlemen, that is no church. A bigot is a person who is intolerate of any creed, belief or race that is not of his own. What we are trying to determine is Eckankar a flower or a weed. The decision that is to be made tonight must not be one of emotion. It must come from the heart. I urge you to vote for the good of the con~nunity and vote no City Council. This is not a political issue and there is no compromise. Let the final decision rest with the Supreme Court who can properly discern if there is deception. Who can properly discern the First Amendment. Thank you. Janet Weaver: My name is Janet Weaver. I live at 31 Hill Street and I'd like to read a letter that I wrote to the editor but I decided to save it for this occasion. I didn't know what Tom Hickey wrote about but it's ironic that he's talking about a flower and a weed because I hope that this would maybe shed a little light on where the flower and the weed discernment comes. Since the Eckankar issue in Chanhassen has arisen, there also seems to have arisen some confusion about who God is. Is the God that Eckankar serves the same God as everybody elses? This question should be paramount in our minds for it is from this point of reference that we can determine whether or not religious harmony will abide in our community. As each one of us asks this pertinent question and fervently seeks the answer, we will thereby prevent other people's beliefs in and definitions of God to encroach upon our own. Those who believe that God is the triune C~ of the Bible should not accept statements that this same God is the God of Eckankar. After extensive doctrinal studies of the Bible as well as Eckankar beliefs, I was confidently able to conclude that Eckists and Christians do not serve the same God. In fact, Eckankar's founder Paul Twitchell wrote in his book "The Tiger's Fang" about those who believe in the Triune God of the Bible, "The whole pack of them will start spouting something they have read in the scriptures to quote Jesus as their authority and scream about his love for each of them personally, none of which is true." Twitchell's theology also identifies Cal, an Eck word denoting the devil as the father of the Christian faith and says Jesus is a "son of Cal, King of the lower worlds". This theology is found in Paul Twitchell's book, Eckankar, the Key to Secret Worlds. When Jesus was similarly accussed nearly 2,ggg years ago he replied, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kJ. ngdom stand." Matthew 12:25-26. Jerry Leonard, an Eckankar representative at the May 6, 1985 Chanhassen City Council meeting answered this way to Mayor H~i!ton's request for a statement on how Eckankar selected Chanhassen. "part of our teaching is that we become co-workers with 42 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 God and our fellow man. This means taking a part in the con~nunity that you live in. You have to participate in a con~nunity to appreciate it. All of these families that come here will be taking a part in the con~nunity and all the activities that are here." The outward ~mage of Eckankar is friendly and tolerant but after digging a little deeper I found a different attitude. Before we allow the proven truth of Matthew 12:25, every city divided against itself will not stand, to happen to our city let us examine carefully the beliefs of an organization that potentially could be by their numbers and stated intent influential to every aspect of our community and ultimately ourselves. How sad it would be if our future in Chanhassen was determined by complacencey and indifference towards this issue. If Eckankar says that the Christian's God is the devil and that Jesus is the son of the devil, who are we welcoming to our co,unity? Have we considered the great implications here? Thank you. Ed Field: Mayor, Councilmembers, staff, my name is Ed Field. I'm a resident of Bloomington. I'm here at the request of some members of CCFC. I'm affiliated with a group called Answers Incorporated. We're a cult awareness group. I have a question regarding morality. This question stems from an article in the Eck World News which is the official publication of Eckankar. The author's name is Helen Fry. The title of the article is "The Power of Sex". In no way does Eckankar, this is a quote, "In no way does Eckankar endorse or uphold religion's moral laws on sexual behaviour. Let the Eckist note that the Bible and the church's no-no's on the so called cardnal sins of foreign implants to the conscienceness of the human race, put their warpped and defame the culmination of human sexual love and for the benefit of Cal only." We've already heard who Cal is. I have a question that has to be answered. If they don't uphold the moral laws of religion, what laws do they uphold? I think that has to be answered. If those questions are not answered, you people don't know what you're letting in here. Now I could get into a lot of biblical and theological discussions with m~%bers of Eckankar, their legal staff. The Supreme Court has already adjacated what is morality with regard to the Mormon faith and their issue on polygamy. If you don' t have those moral issues answered, you have nothing. You don' t know what you're letting in here. That has to be addressed. Thank you. Public: What happened to the referendum? Is there anymore discussion on that? Mayor Chmiel: I guess we can address that. Don? Don Ashworth: The City Council asked that that item be sent back to our con~nissions for their review. The Park and Recreation Commission looked at the necessity for additional lands adjacent to Lake knn for park purposes. It was not put in the form of a motion. We did not aniticpate that we would be able to get a majority position. Two of the con~nission members felt that the City Council should use it's best knowledge in basically answering that question. One co~ission member favored purchasing the entire site. Three cc~mission members felt that approximately 30 acres should be purchased as or received through the normal dedication processes. In addition, we took the issue back to our schools. The City Council has a letter from Bob Ostlund representing the Chaska School District. Mr. Ostlund's position w~s that the acquisition of the Jonathan center will provide relief for both the Chaska and Chanhassen elementary in that that facility will be used for the kindergarten and special education activities. That should take us for a 2 to 3 year period of t~me. During that period of time, the school will be developing a referendum to build 43 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 a new elementary school on property purchased by or obtained by the School District in the Jonathan area. As in regards to a High School, they do not anticipate an additional high school occurring in the Chanhassen area. Their experience has been that a high school is very expensive and that any additions would occur at the Chaska location. None of their population projections would show that there will be a problem being able to house again that high school population at that area. The projection showed that a middle school will be required and that will be within a 4 to 6 year period of time. The projections themseif had shown it at a longer period. In other words an 8 to lg year period of time. They are very anxious in working with the City of Chanhassen in developing a plan to obtain lands in Chanhassen for a middle school. Their initial position has been that that middle school location should be west of Lake Ann Park recognizing the cheaper land values in that area. If the City would like to look at the Eckankar property or part of the Eckankar property for a middle school, they would be more than willing to work with the City in that effort. They would look to about 40 acres as the approximately size for a middle school. This issue was also taken to the community center task force. They looked at the issue. They voted that, t0 of their members felt that the con~aunity center should be built adjacent to this facility...the entire site should be purchased. If the Eckankar site were to be used, they would reco~Tmend that it be looked at in co_a~oination with the school and that would be about 40 to 50 acres recognizing joint useage of that facility. Those were the recon]nendations coming back to the City Council from their various con~nissions and that was included in the packet report that was given to the City Council this past week. Linda Kullman: My n~ne is Linda KulLman and I live at 1015 Pontiac Court. There's been a lot of things that have been said over the period of several meetings. Very honestly I've never really ever bec~ne involved in these meetings. It was always something else that I had to do. By me coming to these meetings specifically because of the Eckankar issue, I've found more concerns other than just Eckankar although obviously that's my biggest concern at this point. What I'd like to do is to say that over a period of time I've been seeing a lot of kind of sit back and say, well I guess that's all we can do. It's not really what I want but I guess that's what we have to work with. As a citizen of t/als co~nunity and I chose to be here and I am choosing to remain here, this is my home. I've made an investment of property and being a single parent I am not tax exempt. Neither is anybody else here so I think we have a vested interest in where we're all going. I'd like to see more of a proactive approach in this conmunity instead of a reactive approach. I really, really think that we've got to start thinking more ahead then reacting to individual's that cc~ne into our con~nunity or businesses that want a little extra land for an easement or for a driveway. I'm real concerned about this. We have an opportunity in this co~-munity to really be something special and I just would like to say, let's take a proactive approach rather than a reactive approach. That's all I would like to see happen in this corrmunity and I think from that point we'il be able to have the schools and the community centers and the right property so we're not going to have to buy and be at the mercy of someone else for buying back property at market value. Prime property in our community. I'm real disappointed and I'd rather stand up here and tell you I'm disappointed and this is another direction I'd like to see the con~aunity move in. Thanks. Susan Jonsrud: My n~ne is Susan Jonsrud. I live at 7961 Shawnee Lane and I'd like to know if ~ will be getting any answers on the moral issue question. Is 44 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 that something that can be looked into? Mayor Chmiel: Peter, can you address that? Would you like to? I guess not. Susan Jonsrud: I would like to see it tabled and get an answer. If the City were able to purchase part of the property with possible intent for a middle school or any public use, would the citizens have a vote? I personally would not be in favor of my children~going to a school that was next to Eckankar's building. I'd also like to read sc~ething fr~m the World Book Encyclopedia. It's on freedom on religion and it's a segment under traditions. The United States government does not have any particular religious creed but it is not irreligious. The Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in 1833 commented on Amendment One to the Constitution and on the general opinion at the time it was framed. He wrote, the general, if not the universal assessment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encouragement fr~m the State. So far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and freedom of religious worship. This view has been sustained down to our day. Justice William O. Douglas wrote in a Supreme Court decision in 1951, we are religious people who's institutions pre-suppose a supreme being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man dean necessary. When the State encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. Americans publically recognize the authority of religion in many ways. Sessions of Congress and of State Legislature open with prayer. The government exempts the property of churches from taxation and ministers of religion from military service. A national day of Thanksgiving, religious in origin in proclaimed each year. Witnesses in court swear oaths on Bibles. The official Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag includes the words, "one nation under God". Many oaths of offices include acknowledgement of God's sovereignty. Thank you. Ginger Gross: I'm Ginger Gross, 2703 Ches Mar Farm Road. I'd like to th~nk Susan Johnson for again opening the issue and directing it to the concerns of all of us. I would like to thank Leneda Rahe for making her statement of harrassments. Most of the city, most of the council people, all of the citizens know that the harrassments that Mrs. Rahe spoke of are only those that can be spoken of. Most of us know of the things that cannot be spoken of. The months and months of terror that the City has gone through. That no one has spoken of and because of that terror, I and many of us feel that one of the conditions for Eckankar coming in must be that we sit down with them and inquire of them who they are. We have questions that have to be answered. Mr. Hickey stated that there are weeds and there are flowers. We are responsible for what we plant here. We cannot allow anything to be planted here that will not prosper those who are already here. Much harm has come to our people. If we do not address this issue now, the issue will be worse later and impossible to pull out as a seed, as a root, as a ~cd in our con~nunity. It must be addressed. It cannot go unaddressed. Our citizens have concerns and we are the citizens who put our people in office. We now do request that as one of the conditions for the permit that we do sit down with the Eckists and without that there be no permit. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address the issue? If not, we'll bring it back to the Council. You've heard the additional concerns from some of the people and I will open it up again for discussion. Jay? 45 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 Councilman Johnson: I think all of us on the Council have looked hard at the moral issue of Eckankar, even though it is not at issue with a conditional use permit for a church. We've gone beyond that. I know that Tom and Ursula have met with the leaders of Eckankar and have looked into this issue. I have met with members of Eckankar. Gone to various sites and inquired in various police departments and even this weekend I met some people from New Hope. Since their international headquarters is in New Hope_, I asked them have you ever heard of Eckankar? Of course they said they've never heard of Eckankar so I explained what they were. I have not seen any evidence yet to say that they are immoral. I've heard of a lot of quotes from a lot of different sources. A lot of the same quotes over and over again. There's a couple of new ones tonight. I have no reason to believe that the location of Eckist in our con~nunity will be a weed° I guess a flower is in the eye of the beholder. Some people love Golden Rod. They think it's a pretty flower. I'm allergic to it. I have no problem with Eckankar coming in here. They've done everything legally that they need to do. If ~ae continue to require th~n to go, we've already required tha~ to go not 1, but 2 or 3 or 4 steps further than ~nat we've required other churches coming in here. We've bent over backwards giving variances. Ignored our own rules sometimes for other churches and we are really sticking it to Eckankar as much as we can. Salem, Oregon was a totally different situation. If they were asking us to change the MUSA line, if they were asking us to rezone the property, I don't think they'd have a chance in the world. There was a statement that when they c~-ae in here first their request was denied. No, their request was approved. They chose not to build the center here from public opposition from a meeting which I heard got rather nasty towards th~n. The rezoning of their land occurred after they decided not to build their international center here. Then the rezoning came up and the Council later rezoned the land in an effort to prevent than from utilizing the land that they owned. There was a loophole and it's a good loophole because the loophole allows a church in a residential area and I believe churches are compatible with residential areas. The State of ~Minnesota recognizes them as a church. They did not just recently as the publication that's been put out by the Citizens Concerned for the Future of Chanhassen indicated in their thing that they just recently bec~e a church. They've been a church since 197g something. 74 or 76, I forget the exact date. They've been recognized as a church. They didn't just change this. There's been a lot of talk about them int]_midating us with this vast number of suits and ties. It's typical developer. There's been quite a few developments where we've had this many suits and ties looking at us. It doesn't intimidate us. I don't know where the intimidation comes. From the cheering, the booing and everything else. Is that an attempt at intimidation or is 15 suits and ties? Most of us work everyday with suits and ties. It doesn't intimidate us. We just imagine them without the suits. That's a bad sight. But any-way, I don't feel that there's anything new brought forward today that would make this issue worthy of being tabled again. I don't think we need to table this again. There's nothing that's been presented tonight thas has anything to do with the conditional use permit being tabled. I am glad to see that there wasn't a whole lot of talk about property values and the other issues that have crept up and the talk got back to the moral issues because I think that was the root issue here and has been the root issue all along. There are some people who are concerned. Recently I got a letter this weekend, as long as somebody said what, from one of the em~embers of Citizens for the Future of Chanhassen that helped on the phone survey calling around where she said they've changed their mind. They're no longer opposed to Eckankar coming in. They 46 City Council M~eting - May 22, 1989 don't want Eckankar but they want to maintain the religious freedom of all churches. Leneda Rahe: What is the name of that individual? Councilman Johnson: If I remember the letter correctly, didn't the letter say that they didn't mind who saw their letter? An open letter? Councilman Boyt: I don't remember that. I think that's something for the person to come forward. Councilman Johnson: If somebody mails me a letter, if they want to come forth, I don't even know if they're here tonight. Most of the people, we've got the diehards here tonight I guess. I shouldn't say diehards but the really involved people. The majority of the citizens of Chanhassen aren't here. Leneda Rahe: ...insulting you and I would appreciate it if we did not have to listen to any... Councilman Johnson: I'm sorry but if you will read your letters to the editor, I don't mean to insult you by saying diehards. It's a good battery but if you read your letter to the editor, I would not say that you have not insulted us. I would say the opposite but since you brought that up, I wasn't going to bring that up. Mayor Chmiel: Let's stick to the issue. Councilman Johnson: There is no issue. It's closed. I got out of line. I apologize to you. That's it. Yes, thank you for all the comments from the audience over the past 2 months. Councilwoman Dimler: I appreciated the comment and I don't know the woman's name but the one about being proactive and not reactive. I guess I'd just like to express that I agree with that but since we've been elected only 4 or 5 months ago, or I mean we've only been in office that long, we've just been putting out fires that were started a long time ago. It's really difficult for us to catch up. We would hope that we could do that and then start taking the proactive stances. With that in mind though, I wonder why an ordinance wasn't written when ?~kankar first came to town but being that that's over and done with, we really can't do anything about it but I guess at this point I would move that staff and legal counsel begin drafting an ordinance to restrict acreage of tax exempt entities within the city and that would help the County Assessor as well that he has an ordinance to go by. This way he's kind of shooting in the dark. Do you want to vote on that motion now or do you want to wait until the end of my comment? Councilman Johnson: You should bring that up under Council presentation. Councilwoman Dimler: I already have a lot of council presentations. Mayor Chmiel: I think maybe we should. Councilwoman D~mler: Okay, just remind me to do it okay? I'd just like to say that I loved Tom Hickey's analysis of weeds and flowers but realistically weeds 47 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 are a part of life and I think they'll always be with us. It's a part of the curse. I'm also sorry for all the harrassment, and I know it's been tough. It's been tough on many of us. I don't think it's been easy for any of us though. I have no conclusions and that's it. CounciLman Boyt: What's that? Councilwoman Dimler: I have no conclusions. Councilman Boyt: You're undecided? Councilwoman Dimler: I'll keep you guessing. Councilman Workman: I guess the biggest word that struck me tonight was the word morality. Tonight I have two lives. ~ne council life and one a personal life. My personal life is highly personal and private as is my religious life. I'm a member, proud member of St. Hubert's here in Chanhassen but within my own church people have their own private ways of worship. There is without a doubt a concern of mine about the teachings of Eckankar because they're nowhere near mine but is a corrment that I would more wholeheartedly make with you outside. I think the battle will continue on this but I think as the room is getting perhaps a bit of an idea that the Council is going to have to make a decision as councilmembers. As a personal and private person, taking into account my family and my beliefs, that decision perhaps could be very different. That is the cross that i have to bear. I have gotten from many of you in the room as I look around, much sympathy and from many very close neighbors they understand the very, very difficult task that we have to make. The referendum issue, certainly a good idea. I think would have devastated us. I don't think it's really a viable issue. I wish it could have been but we cannot deficit our future. I too enjoyed the con~nents about proactive, being a little more proactive. I think we need to do a lot more of that but I guess I want to emphasize again that as a councilmember, I have to look at things one way not forgettin9 also that I'm a private person but not allowing my private half to dominate perhaps what is the obvious. Bill Boyt and I disagree quite often and maybe his private life doesn't mesh with mine and that might make things even worse but if Bill and I were up here arguin9 our private lives, we'd have all sorts of entertai~nent for you. I would like to thank the staff and the con~nissions at this point for their input. Like many people in the room, it's easy to make a decision in private when you don't have to make it in public so that's the situation we're in. I know you all understand. I've offered to start councilman for the month program with my seat if somebody wanted to do that come up but as I stated at the first one, we all accepted the challenges of the office and this is about as challengin9 as it gets and I'm anxious to hear Bill's con~nents. Councilman Boyt: You amaze me Tom. I think if we kept track of the council vote over the couple of months we'd probably find that 75% of the time we agree. _About 25% we disagree. About lg% of that is active. Four years ago ~nen Eckankar was in front of the Council I wasn't here and as I prepared to run for the Council on a ticket 3 years ago of being more proactive than the existing group, someone asked me about Eckankar. I said I'm really glad I wasn't here then. Things have a way of comin9 around and I guess I think this is, in some regards, has been an excellent sort of test. You never really know what you're going to do until you have to do it. In sortin9 this out over the months as I 48 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 indicated in the paper I guess about a month ago, I feel that Eckankar has met the City's demands. I hope those of you who are here believe me when I tell you that I appreciate the effort that you've put in. It may not go in quite the direction you want it to but I think we have a better proposal in front of us because of the questions you've asked. The thoughts you've provoked. It's been at some expense to our conm~unity and I look forward to having that cleared up. You know I don't think the City Council is very good at dealing with moral issues. I would hope that we're all, as the gentleman mentioned, we all have integrity and hopefully we all have a good moral base but I didn't particularly run for the City Council to make moral decisions. So I'm not making this on the case of whether Eckankar is morally right. That's just not my background to be able to make that decision but in terms of whether Eckankar has met the conditions of the City, I think they have. The City, hopefully has been proactive enough so that we all live with an appropriate degree of safety recognizing that that's pretty fragile and apparently Leneda has felt that her safety has been challenged. She's unfortunately not alone but I think that it's time for the city to take a vote on this issue. I think it comes down to, as Tom said, the reason we're sitting here is because we agreed that we would take these positions recognizing that you have the opportunity in a couple years to replace me. I encourage you to vote your conscience at that t~me but in the meantime I'm going to vote mine and what I think represents the feeling of the community which is that they want this issue resolved. So I'm ready to vote. Mayor Chmiel: Just for a quick reiteration of the two additional conditions that I had suggested at the beginning of the meeting. Just for your review so you're aware as to what the other conditions are and I'm sure we've indicated but I think I'd like to just read th~m to you just one more time. There are the 10 conditions with 10 having 4 subparts plus the 2 others so that means there are 12 conditions. 1. Detailed lighting of the exterior of the building be submitted for review by the City. At staff's discretion, the lighting may be presented to the Planning Co~mission for review to determine if the lighting is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. 2. All detailed construction plans and specifications are to meet the city standards. 3. Watershed District permits required prior to construction. 4. There shall be no outside speaker syst~ns on the site. 5. The facility is for the express use as a church and limited to normal operations and activities associated with a church. In no case shall rallies, conferences, meetings or gatherings in excess of the seating capacity of the proposed facility be allowed. 6. No tents, mobile homes, trailers or similiar temporary structures shall be allowed on the property. 7. Parking shall only be allowed in the improved parking areas as designated on the site plan. 49 ~'~ ity Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 8. No overnight stays shall be permitted including camping or lodging with the exception of the caretaker. 9. No use other than that specified in the conditional use permit shall be permitted unless the applicant applies for an receives approval of an new conditional use permit pursuant to the City Code requirements in affect at that time. lg. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following will be performed: a. The three wells on the property as shown on Figures %1, #2 and #3 of the Environmental Assessment Report shall be legally abandoned. b. The underground storage tank as shown on Figure #2 of the Environmental Assessment Report shall be r~moved, c. A potential second underground storage tank shall be investigated with excavating equipment and if necessary removed. d. The magnetic object identified west of the former house shall be further investigated when excavating equi~z~nent is on-the site. Those are the lg conditions plus the 2 that I said be_fore that I had read. It does get to that point where t think we have to face the issue. I really appreciated all the concerns of the people. Of all the calls that I received. All the letters that I have gotten. Many of the letters I have not been able to respond to be~ause there's just too many but I certainly appreciate the time, the effort that you've put into this situation that we have. I know that I would like to now call on our attorney to address the issues as to what Eckankar has adhered to as far as the ordinance requir~nents. Roger, could you address that? Roger Knutson: Mr. Mayor, I'll be happy to. This is in most respects a very limited, narrow land use issue. In reviewing their entitlement to a permit what you're required to do is review the evidence and their applications to see if they meet the standards in your ordinances. If they meet the standards in your ordinances, you have no alternative, under the law anyway, but to approve their conditional use permit. If you don't, someone else will do it for you. The Council really don't consider beliefs of the applicant under the First Amendment. You cannot regulate beliefs. You can regulate conduct. You can regulate building. You can't regulate beliefs. I guess you're asking the ultimate question and based upon my review of their application, my attendance at these meetings and my review of the planning reports and the reports from Public Safety and everything else, although it's a judgment call for youselves, in my opinion they meet all the ordinance requirements and therefore are entitled to a conditional use permit. Ed Field: Can I ask one more question? Would a group of Hell's Angels... Anybody that complies with the ordinance, is that correct? Mayor Chmiel: As long as they're in conformance with our ordinances, we_ have no other recourse other than the court situation and I being charged as the Mayor of this city am very aware of the fact that this can go to the courts. My major concern is that I will not allow the opposition to sue this city in any way. We 5~ City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 are in a bind. We have no other alternative. Ed Field: Are you a chartered body? Mayor Chmiel: No. It's statutory. Ginger Gross made a con~nent that wasn't audible on the tape. Mayor Chmiel: I guess maybe the governments have a lot more dollars than what the City of Chanhassen does Ginger and that's what I'm looking at. Ginger Gross: Are we not insured? Don Ashworth: You would not be insured for this type of an issue. What would be before the courts is whether or not the City had the right to deny the permit from this church group. What the City Attorney is advising the City Council is that that would be a very short court process and one in which the City would be damaged not only in the eyes of the rest of the community but also financially. (Ed Field made a con~nent from the audience that could not be heard.) Roger Knutson: Mr. Mayor, do you want me to respond? Mayor Chmiel: Yes, would you. Roger Knutson: That's certainly one of the factors, yes but not the only one. (Some comments were made from the audience by Ed Field and Ginger Gross that could not be heard on the tape.) Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I'm ready to make a motion and part of that will be modification to items 5, 6 and 10 in that I thought we already modified item 5 to say in no case shall national, regional or state rallies, conferences, meetings or gatherings be held at the proposed facility. The reasoning there is if w~'re going to say that you can't have anymore people there than seating capacity of your facility, then we're going to have to say the same thing for every other church in town because we have to be fair. So if we can't exceed the seating capacity, then I think there's a lot of Easter services that aren't going to be held in this town. Ginger Gross: Excuse me sir but I think I have the floor and I think that you've changed the subject and it's not to be changed at this point. Mayor Chmiel: Ginger, I'm afraid we did bring it back to the Council before. There wasn't anyone else to discuss the issues and I did open the floor just for courtesy at the given time so it is really back to the Council. It's discussionary t~e for us. Ginger Gross: Alright it maybe back to the Council but how about the citizens? We're told to remain quiet on these issues. We have remained quiet. Mayor Chmiel: The issues being which? 51 ~'~d~ity Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 Ginger Gross: You might ask Ursula which issues we were asked to keep quiet about and I think you know too Don. Mayor Chmiel: That's why I'm having to bring those up. Ginger Gross: We've been asked not to discuss them publicly and I've suggested that they be discussed. Not publicly. Between the Council, the city people, the Eckists and their attorneys. I'm suggesting that's an alternative. Councilman Johnson: I'm at a loss at what's going on here. Mayor Ckmiel: I guess I'm trying to find Ginger what is this... Councilman Johnson: Someone has told you you don' t have freedom of speech and you can't discuss something? Mayor Chmiel: I don't think that's the issue. Councilman Johnson: She says she's been instructed not to... Ginger Gross: Excuse me but I ~m speaking with the mayor. Councilman Johnson: Excuse me. I'm sorry. Mr. Mayor, would you please find out what she wants. Mayor Cb_miel: Would you just elaborate on it a little bit more. Ginger Gross: I think you all know what I'm referring to. I don't think there's any question. I think it's been one of the major issues behind the scenes and i ~n talking about the terror that has stalked this c~rmunity. I'm talking about full scale terror. I am talking about full scale terror. I'm talking about scandal. I'm talking about these things that have taken place before Eckankar comes in and I'm saying should Eckankar come in, it won't stop at what we have had happened and I will not allow, none of us will allow this con~nunity to be in a position for Eckankar to come in without knowing what we have gone through. It is not child's play. Believe me, it is not child's play. Leneda Rahe: Ginger, are you referring to the animal... Ginger Gross: I think you all know that's a very small part of it. Mayor Chmiel: As you've indicated this is prior to Eckankar's coming in. I'm not sure how it gets related to Eckankar. Ginger Gross: I think we're all pretty sure how it gets related to Eckankar Don. I think that we've got to face the issues. I don't think it has been general. It has been very select. The households that have been affected have been very, very select. Don Ashworth: Have you made Public Safety aware of any of these issues? Ginger Gross: Yes. Public Safety is very aware. 52 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 Don Ashworth: I am unaware of their finding any type of things that you're relating to. Ginger Gross: Then there really does need to be a discussion within the City. It needs to be recognized. Don Ashworth: Jim, are you aware of any of the issues that Ginger is bringing out? I think that there have been some things claimed but I am unaware of any findings of any of the, you see the problem is we're not really getting out supposedly what it is, but are you aware of any satonic type of activities? Jim Chaffee: I'm aware of reports that have come into our office in previous months before Eckankar came to the Planning Con~nission but Scott Hart has been investigating them both at the seminary and at Ches Mar and we have, to my knowledge, have not verified any of the problems that have been brought to us. Don Ashworth: Do you believe that they interrelate with Eckankar? J~m Chaffee: No, I do not. Ginger Gross: I still suggest that there be a discussion. I do believe that a discussion is necessary because otherwise the facts that we are relating to will be public knowledge. Now you're going to have to face the issues. Some of these are directly connected with Eckankar. Some of them have not been reported to Public Safety. The ones on Ches Mar were before Eckankar. Mayor Chmiel: On some of these issues I'm trying to really pull it together here and I am just not able to. Ginger Gross: Well Don I think you've had some occurences in your own home. I think Maddie's had some in her's of the same kind of thing that we faced in Ches Mar. I think there have been several throughout the area. I had a policeman at my house the other night who also told me of several of the same kinds of occurrences. Don Ashworth: If the Council acts to approve ~]e permit, or even if they do not, any type of illegal activities of the nature you appear to be presenting, and I have no idea what you're really talking about but if they are in any way founded, whether they're here or not here, you need to bring those in front of the public safety and whether they have the conditional use permit or not, any one should be prosecuted if they are in any way violating a law. By the City Council approving the conditional use permit surely does not permit them to carry out any form of illegal activities. Ginger Gross: It's obvious we're not talking about illegal activities sir. We're not talking about illegal things. We're talking about things that overtake a town. We're talking about things that are not visible things. Don Ashworth: I think we're back into some of the issues that we were in before and I am aware of the fact that questions like this were presented to public safety to look at as they would relate in other communities. We were not able to sustain in any way that Eckankar had led some other community into some wholesale whatever type of position you maybe relating. If you're aware of others, again we can go back and again investigate those but in all of the 53 ]ty Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 questions that have been raised, there have not been any findings to support the type of positions that you're presenting right now. Ginger Gross: There are many things that do support it and I am suggesting that a conference take place that related issues be discussed and I'm suggesting that it happen now. Otherwise it will become public knowledge and I'm saying that decision is yours. Thank you very much. Councilman Workman: My c~rment to the mayor was whether or not it would be prudent or not for us as a Council, perhaps a m~nber of the Council, city staff, perhaps a representative fr~n the law firm and perhaps co~nunity members. Maybe Ginger Gross, Leneda Rahe. In light of the pressure on the co~nunity with this issue to perhaps for a better awareness of ~nat actually is going on. I know there is, the way I see it now accusations of a dark side here which is very slippery and very hard for us as a Council to deal with and that's what I was talking about as far as the private side and the public side here but would it be prudent for us to perhaps help alleviate all of our fears perhaps to get a working session together some evening with representatives of Eckankar. The community feels either there's a victory won or a victory lost here tonight I think and there are still a lot of ~notions and perhaps the battle has been won but perhaps not the entire war so perhaps we still need to keep some open co~nunications as far as alleviating some of the pressures of the con~nunity. Councilman Johnson: So are you looking at a condition 137 Councihnan Workman: I think to answer perhaps potential questions, if we could get together on a casual basis to perhaps answer some of these questions. I don't know that that's going to answer or rectify any probl~ns but. Councilman Johnson: So condition 13 you want the Council to get together with the leaders of Eckankar and have a discussion? Councilman Workman: I think maybe for all concerned and the concerns of everybody, perhaps that might not be a bad idea to talk about it. Talk about those issues which we are willing not to discuss here. Maybe to better help us understa~J. To maybe better help Eckankar understand why we feel the way we feel. I would make that a condition if that could help. I'm sorry, I don't want to make it a condition of this. I want to make it a recon~nendation or olive branch or... Councilman Johnson: Something we do even though it's not a condition? Councilman Workman: Correct. Councilman Johnson: Okay. Mayor C~iel: Would the attorneys representing Eckankar agree to the proposal that Tom has brought forth. Peter Beck: Mr. Mayor, m~nbers of the Council, I think a request for a meeting that wasn't a condition of the conditional use permit, we would certainly transmit it to Eckankar with the reco~nendation that they meet with the City at this time or anytime as they proceed to build their church and in the years ahead to discuss any issue that the City thinks is of mutual interest so I don't 54 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 know why they wouldn't agree to meet. In fact, to my knowledge, they've agreed to every meeting that has been requested from City Council members or city officials or anybody else I expect they would continue to. A request like that would be passed on. I see no reason why it wouldn't be followed through on. Councilman Workman: I just think Peter there's perhaps a culture shock here and if we could maybe help Eckankar to understand why we feel this way which has kind of been my point all along or why Eckankar maybe does understand why we are not comfortable with this and perhaps in an informal... Peter Beck: I am personally at a complete loss to know what the whole discussion is about and out of curiousity alone I'd be more than happy to meet with you. Councilman Johnson: One of our members of the Planning Con~nission said please, bring evidence before us. Bring us specific information and all we get is allegations. Councilwoman Dimler: Peter, were you indicating that you would have ms~bers of Eckankar with you at this meeting? Peter Beck: We'd certainly pass that request onto Eckankar and in terms of a private s~iliar to what we've had in the past, I don't know any reason why they wouldn't be happy to do that. Public: But no residents would be invited? Councilman Workman: No, as I suggested. Perhaps the Ginger Gross's and the Leneda Rahe's and the Hickeys and the Kussards. Again, if we get a room this size and then invite Eckankar, it's going to be the same situation. We need a controlled... Mayor Chmiel: I think you'd have representation. Public: ...there have been allegations made. I think we're entitled to know what this is all about. Councilman Workman: And I don't think we have those answers and that's why... Public: But when you get the answers, will we know? Will this be kept secret? Councilman Workman: No, I would certainly hope not. I wouldn't intend it to be a secret meeting. Public: I mean the results. Councilman Workman: Maybe Mr. Peterson and Mr. Burns could be in attendance. Councilman Johnson: I think we tried to get what the allegations were. Mayor Chmiel: I think if we were to do that with the people that we've indicated, I think we can go from there. 55 ~ '~ity Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 Maddie Hickey: I would like to just address Mr. Mayor and Council. When you get into spiritual things, and I'm the least to understand them all, but we did report to the safety department ~/nen Leneda and I had a call on Tuesday. Now this has all just happened this week. When I and this doesn't mean it's even Eckankar, weird, weird things happening. I was at a Park and Rec meeting the other night. I felt I was treated rudely. They went ahead and made the vote before I was able to present what I had to present and so after they did that I said I feel I've been treated rudely. I think you need to listen to me as a citizen and respect my views as I respect your decision even if it doesn't agree with mine. And I just went, I don't even really know why I did it, I went and this gentlaman over here is an Eck and he has a right to be_ respected. And with this, that man jumped out of his seat and went tearing out of the room. Don't ask me why but it was weird. That night we get our first phone call. Two nights later we get another phone call and it's a radio broadcast in the background. Just this little subtle messages. Last night, and I guess last night was the last straw for me because I don't think these things are coincidental, and all of a sudden Leneda and I are again talking. Everytime we're talking about a strategic point, the first night we were talking I said wasn't it weird that he jumped up and left the room. If somebody asked me if I was Catholic and I have a right to my opinion, I'd say you're damn right I do and I'm shaking now. I am afraid of Eckankar. I'm sorry. So last night a break in comes ].n the line and it was the assultant is not the assultant. He's an angel of God. Now this is breaking into our telephone and where is it coming from? Three times in one week, I don't know if it's Eckankar. I'm just saying 'when I find out 'the things that I know about Eckankar and have found out about Eckankar and they won't come to one of our meetings, yes I'm scared of Eckankar. And I guess I'm getting more scared by the minute and I don't think the First Amenc~nent was established for cults. I think it was for freedom of religion. Whether you be mormon, catholic, protestant, jehovah witnesses but it didn't include people that worshipped Satan. I think we're in a serious, serious, serious deal. I know you're afraid. We've got a wonderful Council. There are a couple of you I don't know you very well and I haven't like your stands, either one of you on too much and I wouldn't vote for you Jay next time and I wouldn't vote for you but you three in the middle are three of the finest people I've ever met in my life and I know you're trying to do the right thing and I know you're all afraid of a lawsuit. 1 guess t agree with my husband, let the Supreme Court decide. I think Eckankar will run like hell. I don't think they want the publicity. I think they'd back out. Councilman Johnson: Should I continue where I left off about a half an hour ago. Anyway we're back to number 5. In no case shall we have national, regional or state rallies, conferences, meetings or gatherings at the proposed facilities. I'd delete in excess of the seating capacity because that's not what we've asked any other church because as I said earlier. Number 6 I'd add with the exception of construction trailers ~nere it's implicit. I think it's better to write it down because we allow construction trailers on any other construction site so we should allow a construction trailer. On number 10 I'd add a condition (e). Ground water samples be taken and analyzed for organics and pesticides at the 3 existing wells prior to abandomnent if at all possible. The if at all possible means if there's an obstruction in the well that you can't get s~npling equir~nent down to sample the water, then obviously you can't do it. I'd like to add the mayor's 2 conditions on there as conditions 11 and 12 and that's what my motion is. I move approval with the 12 conditions that I just outlined. 56 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 Roger Knutson: The normal procedure is for you to close the public hearing before you vote on your motion. Councilman Johnson: We never had a public hearing. Roger Knutson: Yes you did. Councilman Johnson: This isn't a public hearing. We opened it for the public. Roger Knutson: Didn't you advertise it for a public hearing? Councilman Boyt: 3 months ago. It's a continuance. It won't hurt. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Councilman Johnson: Now I'll make the motion I just made. Councilwoman Dimler: Before you do that Jay, would you repeat number 5 the way you want it to read Jay. Councilman Johnson: Okay, starting on the second sentence. The first sentence is fine. In no case shall national, regional or state rallies, conferences, meetings or gatherings at the proposed facility be allowed. So I strike, in excess of the seating capacity and input the word at and before rallies I put national, regional or state. Councilman Workman: How can you restrict a distinction like that? Councilman Johnson: Well it's better than saying you can't be over your seating capacity. We're saying this is a church. Normal church activity doesn't have national rallies at it. ~]at I'm doing is further defining the first sentence. I don't think St. Hubert's has ever had a national rally at St. Hubert's. They don't have a problem with this I think frem the last time we talked because if they've got a rally with 10,000 people. Councilwoman Dimler: I'm sorry, I thought we had it in there like this at first. I did have national and state in there but it was somehow taken out. I'm glad you pointed that out. Councilman Johnson: So that's my motion. And your two items also are part of my motion. Mayor Chmiel: Items 11 and 12 are the two additional conditions. I have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? Councilman Boyt: I'll second it. Councilwoman Dimler: What is the motion again? Mayor Chmiel: To accept all the specific conditions as contained with the changes that have been done plus the two additions. The one addition of item 10 57 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 which is ].tam (e) about the ground water contamination and the two additional conditions that I had brought up previously. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, thank you. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit ~89-1 based on the plans stamped "Received March 22, 1989" and subject to the following conditions: 1. Detailed lighting of the exterior of the building be submitted for review by the City. At staff's discretion, the lighting may be presented to the Planning Commission for review to determine if the lighting is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. 2. Ail detailed construction plans and specifications are to meet the city standards. 3. Watershed District permits required prior to construction. 4. There shall be no outside speaker systems on the site. 5. The facility is for the express use as a church and limited to normal operations and activities associated with a church. In no case shall national, regional or state rallies, conferences, meetings or gatherings at the proposed facility be allowed. 6. No tents, mobile homes, trailers or similiar temporary structures shall be allowed on the property with the exception of construction trailers. 7. Parking shall only be allowed in the improved parking areas as designated on the site plan. 8. No overnight stays shall be permitted including camping or lodging with the exception of the caretaker. 9. No use other than that specified in the conditional use permit shall be permitted unless the applicant applies for and receives approval of a new conditional use permit pursuant to the City Code requirements in affect at that time. lg. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following will be performed: a. The three wells on the property as shown on Figures #1, #2 and #3 of the Environmental Assessment Report shall be legally abandoned. b. The underground storage tank as shown on Figure #2 of the Environmental Assessment Report shall be_ removed, c. A potential second underground storage tank shall be investigated with excavating equipment and if necessary removed. 58 City Council Meeting - May 22~ 1989 d~ The magnetic object identified west of the former house shall be further investigated when excavating equipment is on the site. e. Ground water samples be taken and analyzed for organics and pesticides at the three existing wells prior to abandonment if at all possible. 11. The land may not be subdivided in any use other than the use authorized in this conditional use permit except for land devoted to public use approved by the Chanhassen City Council is prohibited without an amendment to this conditional use permit. 12. This conditional use permit is subject to annual and other periodic reviews to determine compliance with the conditions of the approval. The City Council may revoke this permit following a public hearing for non-compliance with the conditions of approval. Councilman Johnson and Councilman Boyt voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler and Mayor Chmiel did not vote and the motion carried. REAPPOINTMENT OF JIM BOHN TO THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to table this item. All voted in favor and the motion carried. RDCYCLING PRIZE DRAWING. Mayor Chmiel drew a name for the recycling prize. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. Mayor Chmiel: Number one, citizen complaints. Ursula? Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I'd like to address this to Jim Chaffee because it has to do with public safety I believe. I've been made aware that there are large clumps of mud that are left on the roads after areas that are being developed from the tires of the trucks and so forth. They are a hazard and I believe it's the developer's responsibility to clean them up after themselves. It has not been done, especially in the development that is behind where I live and I'm not really sure what it is. Is that Chan vista number 3? Okay, so I would like to see if you can check that out and get after the developer's to clean up after themselves please. Thank you. Councilman Boyt: It's all over by the way. It's Frontier Trail. Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, there's other roads and I know that they're having the same problem on TH 5 with Rosemount. Jim Chaffee: ...Bobcat and cleaning up TH 5 each and every night. 59 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 Councilwoman Dimler: Lake Lucy Road is bad too. Councilman Boyt: That's the City's project. Councilwoman Dimler: Then have the City clean up after itself. Gary Warren: Every half day we're out there with a front end loader. It is a challenge. Councilman Johnson: There are sane roads in Curry Farms that are pretty bad too. Most anyplace where they're got a pick-up truck going into a muddy yard, it ends up all over the place. Mayor Ckmiel: Okay, item number 2. Councilwoman Dimler: Item number 2 was choosing a new City Planner. I know we talked about this in a hurry after our last meeting I believe. I guess I have a concern about doing it real quickly. I agree we do need one badly and we should do it as fast as possible but if we do it too quickly and by-pass the normal procedure, I don't think we're giving everyone a fair chance at this and maybe not doing it in the best interest for the Chanhassen citizens, i know that we can't get into the League of Minnesota Cities magazine anymore but I was just wondering if we can't just advertise in the Star and Tribune and get much quicker results that way and I think we should interview all the applicants. Gary Warren: Ail the previous applicants? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, all the previous applicants that applied before. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to comment on that, having been part of the earlier interviewing process. We had two candidates that the previous council narrowed it down to that were basically a coin toss. I would recommend that what we do is take advantage of the work that's already been done. Have Don bring in another outside candidate and match him against this other person to see if either one of those two is what the current council would like to have. The reason I suggest that is not only is it fast but it saves a great deal of money. When we bring in, Ursula to interview everyone that applied, if we took the previous candidates that were interested, we're talking thousands of dollars. That's just not the way that a business would go about hiring that person. Mayor Chniel: Are you saying thousands of dollars for bringing those people in from different places? Is that what you're saying? Councilman Boyt: I'm saying that a good many of the good candidates from the last process were from out of town. Alaska for instance was one of the better candidates that we didn't bring in. We're talking about easily $1,ggg.gg if we choose to bring that candidate in to interview. Councilwoman Dimler: Then I might say that let staff screen down to 5 or 6 applicants and ~%at would be ~he ones that the City Council interview. Don Ashworth: I guess I interpretted Ursula's comments in that fashion. Bill is correct, we did take applications. I would say we had at least 150. lgg of those from out of state. There were a number of good applicants who met all of 6~ City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 the qualifications of the job but you have to sort down in any process and come down to the top 3 or 4 and that's what we did this last t~e around. I believe there are a number of those excellent candidates who would still be around. I think I could still accomplish what you're asking for and that is publication in the Minneapolis paper. That would probably put us back 3 to 4 week period of time. The mind,hum you should give somebody to respond would be 20 days. Basically 3 weeks so if I went into this next Sunday's newspaper, you'd be talking about roughly one month from today before you'd start screening those applicants. Councilman Johnson: That's a long time to give. Are you going to advertise more than one week then? Don Ashworth: What I talked about before and I think I'm too late for right now is going into a Wednesday-Sunday edition if that's what you wanted to do so I think I could still make a Sunday-Wednesday but if you want to still hit the 20 days, it's going to be a full month. Councilman Johnson: I just don't see that somebody's going to see an ad and then 20 days later apply for it. If they're that big of a procrastinator, I don't know if I want them as our City Planner. Councilman Workman: The gentleman who came in second place, his name was Krause or something? Councilman Boyt: Paul. Councilman Workman: My biggest concern there is I think he's got a very, very strong BRW background. I have questions about bringing in a person that had been working with a group that does an awful lot of business in the city and I think we should maybe get a little diversification. That's my concern there. That's not a personal statement against Mr. Krause and that might notbe a very good reason but I have a question about that. Councilman Johnson: I don't want to see that third candidate. Councilman Boyt: But I would think that we could very quickly get in Mr. Krause and whoever Don feels is a strong candidate of a pile of 150 tha~ he looked at and interview those 2 people. I think you'd find somebody there that you'd like and we'd be a month ahead. Councilwoman Dimler: I'm not sure we should limit it to 2. Go to 3 or 4. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I think you've had the opportunity to review those people but we didn't have that opportunity. Councilman Johnson: We only saw 3. We asked them to narrow it to 3 for us. Mayor Chmiel: That's what I think we should have at least the minimum of 3 to look at anyway. At least that's my opinion. Councilman Boyt: One possibility is bring in those 3. If that's a comfortable number, I think financially that's probably a reasonable number. I would encourage you to not run an ad in the Star and Tribune. Not because it won't 61 City Council Meeting - May 22, 1989 generate candidates but it will take a great deal of staff time to sort through those. To phone screen them. To organize them and before we go to that effort, I think we ought to decide that the candidates we can access from our previous search aren't up to the standards of the existing Council. If that's the case, then i-h's ~r'hh a search. (The sound equipment was being dismantled at this point and the audio portion of the meeting was inadvertently disconnected.) Councilwoman Dimler asked about a permit for Instant Webb and congratulated Mayor Don Chmiel on 34 years of marriage. Councilman Workman made a presentation regarding the Carver and Scott County Humane Society. Councilman Johnson wanted staff to look into setting up a procedure of inspecting conditional use permits. Councilwoman Dimter moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to direct staff to draft an ordinance restricting acreage that a tax exempt entity can occupy. All voted favor except CounciLman Boyt ~no opposed and the motion carried. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: R[EYCLING C0694iTTEE, ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER. Jo Ann Olsen asked for Council direction on whether or not to advertise for the recycling comnittee and how many people that committee should be. Mayor Chmiel stated that no more than 7 people consisting of citizens from within the City Council and County. Mayor Ch~iel and Councilman Johnson volunteered to serve on this committee. The City Council wanted to interview the candidates to select the me, tuber s. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 62