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