1989 04 24CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 24, 1989
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meet]_ng was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Counc]~lman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler,
and Councilman Johnson
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Boyt
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Steve Hanson, Jo Ann
Olsen, Jim Chaffee and Todd Gerhardt
RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING: Dave Peterson, from the Chanhassen Villager came
forward to draw the name of the person selected for the recycling prize. The
name wJ. ll be presented in the Chanhassen Villager after the recycling day.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve the agenda with the following additions under Council Presentations:
Mayor Chmiel wanted to d~scuss the 6% sales tax on refuse collection services
and also make accomodation to Steve Kirchman; Councilwoman Dimler wanted to
discuss a joint meeting with the HRA and Councilman Workman wanted to discuss
the Lake Riley Charon of Lakes project. All voted in favor and the mot]_on
carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Counc~.lwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
reconxnendat i OhS:
a. Resolution #89-58: Resolution Approving Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to TH
212 EIS Joint Powers Agreement.
b. Approve Fireworks Display Permit for Minnewashta Homeowners Association,
Bill Naegele.
d. Final Plat Approval, Buresh Addition.
e. Approval of Ordinance Amendment Authorizing Certain Public Safety Personnel
to Issue Burning PermJ. ts, Final Reading.
f. Resolution #89-59: Approval of Change Order No. 4, City Hall and Fire
Station Expansion Projects.
g. County Oaks Addition: Approve Development Contract.
i. Approve Plans and Specifications for Street and Utility Construction for
Chanhassen H].lls Third Addition, Project 89-5.
1. Set Special Meeting Date, Pay Compensation Plan/Comparable Worth Study and
Meeting with County Assessor.
City Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
m. Final Plat Approval, ~pak Addition.
n. Approval of Accounts.
o. City Council Minutes dated April 10, 1989
Plann~.ng Commission Minutes dated April 5, 1989
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried.
It~n l(c), Final Plat Approval for Heritage Park was requested to be deleted
frown the Consent Agenda.
G. COUNTRY OAKS ADDITION: APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR COUNTRY OAKS
ADDITION.
Councilwoman Dimler: I just had a question of Gary Warren. I see that there's
a cul-de-sac J.n that plan. As I read it, is that 60 feet? Radius of 60 feet?
Gary Warren: The right-of-way is 6g feet, that's correct.
Councilwoman Dimler: One of the comments that I've had other people bring to me
as they've be_eh moving into the developments is that the cul-de-sacs are not
large enough sometimes to accommodate a school bus turning around. That means
that the school aged kids are having to walk long distances and catch buses on
major roads. The resJ. dents seems to be upset about that and they're asking why
can't we build cul-de-sacs that are big enough for school buses to turn around
and I'm wondering if that's ever been taken into consideration when these plans
are made?
Gary Warren: Our standard radius plate which we've used for years should be
wide enough to accommodate a standard school bus I guess. This is the first
time that it's been ment~.oned to me that there's been any difficulty.
Councilwoman Dimler: I know of one in southern Chan where it's just impossible
and that's where the corrment came from. And I guess I just wanted to make us
aware of it that perhaps in future developments we can take that into
consideration and make sure that the circles are big enough to handle turn
arounds of school buses.
Gary Warren: We'll check with the school district on their turning radius
requirements.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and that would also hold true for the Lyman Court in
Chanhassen. I'm just going to add that in right now rather than bring it up
later. Thank you.
Councilman Johnson: Ursula, are you moving to change the radius?
Councilwoman Dimler: No. I guess I just want Gary to check with the school
district to see what's required and see if we're meeting that requirement, t
move item G(1).
City Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
CouncJ. lwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Plans and
Specifications for County Oaks Addition as presented. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
J. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR TRAPPERS PASS AT NEAR MOUNTAIN THIRD
ADDITION.
Councilman Workman: I just had one quick on the surface question and that was
in regards to what looks to be development over existing ponds.
Gary Warren: The questJ.on is what?
CouncJ_lman Workman: It would appear as though pre-existing ponds are being
developed over.
Gary Warren: The Near Mountain PUD area has existing ponds that were
constructed as a part of the earlier phases of the PUD and the ponds that are
shown on the plans in general I guess are ponds that are a part of this overall
plan. The only encroachment or work that's being done say in virgin territory
is along the wetland area on the south side of the development.
CouncJ. lman Workman: Are you saying they're man made ponds?
Gary Warren: That' s correct.
Councilman Workman: And they're being used for drainage right now?
Gary Warren: They're either man made ponds or they were ponds that are being
accentuated, taking advantage of lowland areas. Not wetlands but lowland areas
to make th~ into pond areas.
Councilman Workman: So these homes are going to be, there's going to be an
awful lot of fill used to replace those ponds and drainage going elsewhere?
Councilman Johnson: The ponds are going to exist. If you go back to page 5.
Gary Warren: The ponds are being established shown on the grading plan there on
page 5.
Mayor Chmiel: Each of those inlets, that does have a concrete apron with some
addJ. tional rip rapping in there?
Gary Warren: Pardon me?
Mayor Chmiel: I said on each of those inlets, that has concrete aprons for those
ponds and also some rip rapping so there's no soil erosion?
Gary Warren: Right. There's concrete flared end sections normal to any of the
storm sewer pipe installations and also skin~ner devices.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve plans and
specifications for Trappers Pass at Near Mountain Third Addition. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
K. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES,
FIRST RFADING.
Councilman Johnson: Item (k) did not appear in the newspaper as being under our
consideration tonight. I'd like to table it and have it published next week for
our next agenda so I move to table.
Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to table action on the first
reading of the Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance regarding Accessory
Structures untJ. 1 J.t can be publ~.shed. All voted ~.n favor and the motion
carried.
P. APPROVE RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING ODD/EVEN WATERING BAN REGULATIONS.
Councilman Johnson: This item was published as a regular Council item as item
12(a) and then moved to the Consent Agenda. The Consent Agenda is
non-controversial. Watering bans, I can't hardly see as a non-controversial
item and I would like to try to give the public any opportunity for public input
if anybody came here tonight to address the watering ban. I'd also like to just
move it back to 12(a) because that's where people believe it's going to be
unless there's somebody here right now that'd like to do it. But if somebody
was coming to address J.t, they wouldn't come at 7:gg being item 12(a). Maybe
lt:gg.
Darlene LovJ.ng: My n~ne is Darlene Loving and I'm on the Board of DJ. rectors of
Cimmaron Homeowners Association. My concern as far as watering ban is that due
to the ban last year, we have 12 1/2 acres of mowable lawn. Because of the
watering ban we lost, totally lost 5 1/2 acres of lawn. It was dormant seeded
last fall J.n October. At this point Jn time, it will be necessary for us to
water that 5 1/2 acres daily in order to have the dormant seeding to take hold
and whether it would be necessary for us to have a specJ, al permit or what but we
would not be able to water every other day. We were advised by the UnJ. versity
of Minnesota that we would have to water every day and keep J.t moist untJ. 1
does take hold so that is major concern for our assocJ, ation. We spent
approximately $1g,0~0.~ff in dormant seedJ, n9 and we'd certainly hate to see that
large su~ of money go down the drain so the consideration for that would be
apprecJ, ated.
Don Ashworth: We are proposing an odd/even ban. However, permits would be
issued by the City. Anyone in a s~milar situation as the lady who just spoke
should contact our Public Safety Depar~nent and they will J. ssue a pe~nit for
persons who again have new sod or new plant materials.
A1 Krueger: My name is A1Krueger. I live at 16gg Lake Lucy Road and my only
question on the watering ban, does this cover wells? I am not serviced by city
water and am I governed by a watering ban?
Don Ashworth: Jim, how did we respond to that this past year?
Jim Chaffee: It does not cover private wells. Only city water.
City Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
Don Ashworth: One of the problems we did have is in the actual enforcement. An
officer going by will see the sprinkler. If your home is even and it's not an
even day, they may very well stop and ask you to turn it off. If you would
demonstrate to them that you do have a well, that will take care of your
problem.
Counc.~.lman Johnson: I move approval of an even/odd watering ban effective May
1, 1989 with a provision for permits for special purposes.
Councilman Workman: I' 11 second that.
Resolution ~89-60: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve a resolution establishing an odd/even water ban effective May 1, 1989
with a provision for permits for special purposes. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: There were no visitor Presentations.
PUBLIC HEARING:
COUNTRY SUIITES HOTEL, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET AND MARKET BLVD.,
BLOOMBERG COMPANIES.
A. REZONING OF A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY ZONED BG, BUSINESS GENERAL TO CBD,
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.
Jo Ann Olsen: Country Suites, the first portion is rezoning of a portion of the
property which is zoned BG to CBD. The property is currently zoned BG. Market
Blvd. now separates that portion from the remaining parcel of BG so we're just
cleaning up the site. Making the whole hotel property under one zoning district
and recommending approval of the rezoning. The Planning Commission did
recommend approval of rezoning a portion from BG to CBD.
Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order on the rezoning.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public hearing.
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed for
the rezoning issue. '
Councilwoman Dimler: I talked to Steve Hanson this afternoon and he assured me
that this is just kind of a housekeeping item and I don't see any problem with
passing it.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Rezoning
Request #89-1. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VACATION OF UTILITY, DRAINAGE AND RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENTS.
Jo Ann Olsen: As far as the replat, there's going to be a requirement for
vacating right-of-way from Market Blvd. and West 78th Street. There are also
Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
some interior utility easements that also need to be vacated. We are
reconxnending approval of the easement vacations. Any utility easements or
right-of-way that is necessary is still being provided as part of the plat. We
should condition the vacation, I was just told, until the watermain is moved
which is located right now in the middle of the site. That vacation should be,
approval should be conditioned upon the moving of that w-atermain. That will be
accommodate with an easement that they are providing us.
Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carrJ, ed. The public hearing for the vacatJ, on
of utility, drainage and right-of-way easements was closed.
Resolution ~89-61: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve the easement vacation No. 89-5 for the Bloomberg Addition with the
following conditions:
1. Final plat approval of the Bloomberg Addition.
2. The vacation is conditioned upon the moving of the watermain from the middle
of the site.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
C. REPEAT OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN MALL INTO TWO COMMERCIAL LOTS.
Jo Ann Olsen: Again, to accommedate the hotel site, the applicant is replatting
Lots 1 and 4 of the Chanhassen Mall. They are also providing outlots that will
accon~nodate the ].mprovement to the parking areas which will then be reconveyed
to the hotel owners. They meet all the conditions of the ordinance. The
Planning CommissJ. on did review J.t and recommend approval.
Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing on the replatting
issue was closed.
Resident: Mr. ChaJ. rman? When do the nays get a chance to speak up? It seems
that every motion you ask for the ayes. All in favor say aye and then you say
motion carried. Don't the nays get a chance to talk?
Mayor Chmiel: Normally if we hear 4 of those votes being cast by each of the
members.
Resident: And you hear those? You hear them all personally?
Mayor C~hmJ. el: Yes, I do.
Resident: Oh, excuse me but parlimentary procedure, we always call for the nays
City Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
so that they have a chance to speak and so far tonight they've never had a word
to say. It seems kind of odd that there's a public meeting where the nays never
have a chance to say anything.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I'll address it at the next one. I appreciate it.
D. SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant is proposing an 84 suite hotel to be located on the
southeast corner of West 78th Street and Market Blvd.. The site plan meets all
the requirements of the ordinance. The Planning Commission reviewed it and
recommended approval with the conditions in the report.
Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing for the site plan
was closed.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Site Plan #89-2
as shown on the site plan dated "March 15, 1989" with the following conditions:
1. Final Plat approval of the plat for Bloomberg Addition.
2. The sign facing on the pylon sign shall not exceed 64 square feet.
3. Revised plans shall be submitted for approval that address the conditions
and discussion contained in this staff report.
4. An erosion control plan shall be included in the submittals.
5. All side slopes greater than 3:1 will need erosion protection.
6. A typical section of roadway and parking lot is to be shown on the plans for
approval with concrete curb and gutter throughout the site.
7. The applicant will be entering into a development contract with the City for
phased development of the site including the necessary financial sureties to
guarantee the property installation of these improvements.
8. All privately owned underground utilities, i.e. telephone, gas, electric
shall be relocated outside of the building pad at the time of construction.
9. All roadway and walkways disturbed by the construction shall be replaced in
sufficient proportion to provide a stabilized pavement area.
10. All conditions of the preliminary plat approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
City Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
PUBLIC HEARING:
VACATION OF UTILITY, DRAINAGE AND STORM SE~WER AND CATCH BASIN EASEMENTS, NORTH
OF WEST 78TH STREET AND SOUTH OF CHAN VIEW, HERITAGE PARK APARTMENTS, BLOOMBERG
COMPANIES.
Jo Ann Olsen: As far as the Heritage Park replat, there are internal untilities
overhead power lines that are no longer necessary and they are requesting a
vacation of those easements. Then again, all the necessary utility easements
will be accon~nodated with the plat.
Mayor Chmiel: You're saying because of those existing lines that were there
have been removed and now are underground and therefore that's the request for
vacation of the easements?
Jo Ann Olsen: Right. There's interior easements that are now no longer
necessary.
Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public
hearing. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Resolution %89-62: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve the Vacation No. 89-3 with the following condition:
1. Final Plat approval of Heritage Park.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
AWARD OF BIDS:
INSPECTION VEHICLES.
Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mayor, on March 27, 1989 the City Council approved the
purchase of two inspection vehicles in the amount of $32,090. 00. Using the
specification sheets developed for the public works Chevrolet Blazer, we sent
out four requests for bids. We received three. Thurk Brothers came in at
$14,152.00, which was the low bid. Tin~ne.rman Leasing came in at $14,395.gg and
Lenzen Chevrolet came in at $15,119.gg. It is our recommendation to award the
bid for two inspection vehicles to Thurk Brothers each in the amount of
$14,152.00.
Resolution %89-63: Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to award the
bid for two inspection vehicles, 4-wheel drive Blazers to Thurk Brothers, each
in t/ne amount of $14,152.0g. All voted ].n favor and the motion carried.
City Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
CARVER BEACH ROAD/LAREDO DRIVE TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS[
Gary Warren: On April 14th, the engineering department opened bids for the
Carver Beach Road and Laredo Drive trail project which was authorized early this
year. Although we only received two bidders on the project, we were very
pleased to receive a low bid of $43,788.97 from the firm of Siehndel
Construction out of Le Sueur, Minnesota. It' s almost $24,000.00 under the
engineer's estimate for the project and as you're aware, this is an area where
we've been hoping to be able to conserve park funds and it looks like we're
looking pretty good. Our reference checks of Siehndel Construction turn out
that they basically specialize in projects of this nature and we found very good
comments from municipalities that they have done work for. We are therefore
recommending award of the contract to Siehndel in the amount of $43,788.97.
Resolution #89-64: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
award the bid for the Carver Beach Road/Laredo Drive Improvement Project No.
88-21 to Siehndel Construction Company of Le Sueur, Minnesota in the amount of
$43,788.97. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CHURCH, 1/4 MILE NORTH OF
HIGHWAY 5 AND WEST OF POWERS BOULEVARD, ECKANKAR CHURCH, PETER BECK.
Mayor Chmiel: I would like to have those people who have not had an opportunity
to address this, when we call on them, to just address the specific issues that
you have. Those who have previously spoke, we do have that on record in the
Minutes and I would appreciate it, if you do have comments, that we keep those
comments between 5 to 10 minutes max. With that I would like to ask Mr. Beck to
address the number of issues that were presented at the last meeting that we
had. Specifically address the questions with the answers if you would.
Peter Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Peter Beck, 7900 Xerxes Avenue
South representing Eckankar. We don't have anything I guess to add to our
presentation from 2 weeks ago. We're here to answer questions. We have all of
the consultants who have submitted statements to the Council here to answer
questions. We have submitted to the Council and response to the request from
one of the councilmembers, an artist rendering of the night time lighting
proposed for the Eckankar church. Essentially this will just be down lighting
from the soffits onto the exterior walls of the church. Primarily or at just
high enough levels for security and safety purposes. We have also addressed a
number of questions that came up two weeks ago in a letter which we have
delivered to each councilmember and submitted for the record. I'd be happy to
go through that letter if the Council would like or, at the Council's pleasure.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I'd like you to address those Peter if you would.
Peter Beck: Sure, why don't we do that. We addressed first the points or the
recon~nended additional conditions from Councilmember Boyt and they were three.
The first was traffic control. Eckankar will agree to provide traffic control
as deemed necessary by the City's public safety director. The second was
replanting the property with native prairie grasses and that's what the plans
originally submitted to the City called for and we will be replanting all
disturbed areas with prairie grasses with the exception of areas right up in the
Council Meet~.ng - April 24, 1989
immediate entrance area and around, in close proximity to the building which
will be sodde~]. With respect to paying for the cost of public services, we will
of course make all payments required by the ordinances of the City as we have in
the past with respect to the assessments. Councilmember Johnson I guess it was
requested the night time view which we have prepared and the lighting which
I have just described. Councilmember Workman referenced the fact that we hadn't
provided financial information. We had provided prior to the meeting two weeks
ago the determination letter from the Internal Revenue Service classifying
Eckankar as a church and I have since then provided to the City, to the director
of public safety, the relevent section of the Internal Revenue Code which
provides that churches do not file income tax returns or other financial
information with the government. Next co~q~nent was a response to the point made
by the Mayor that in 1985 Eckankar said that it would pay taxes on it's proposed
International Administrative Campus. That is correct. At that time Eckankar
was proposing to build an actministrative campus on land which the City had
planned for a business c~pus type use. Specifically it had been planned for
Minnetonka Inc.. Eckankar's feeling at that time was that in recognition of the
City's plan for that property for this type_ of use, it would be appropriate for
them to offer to pay real estate taxes. Since then, the city rezoned the
property for residential purposes with churches as conditional uses in
residential zones are recognized tax exempt uses and Eckankar would be tax
exempt just as is every other church in the city and undoubtedly the state.
There were a number of questions dJ. rected at potential future development of
areas of the Eckankar property not occupied by the church. I guess we will
continue to represent to the City that those areas, there are no plans to
develop those areas but that they will only be developed, if at all, for
purposes that are allo~d by the ordinances of the City. Right now, as you know
and as I've just mentioned, the entire property is zoned for residential
purposes. No other use of the property would occur except for those purposes
that are allowed and in fact under the existing situation, no other principle
use would be allowed at all because it's a single lot and a single lot can only
accommodate a single use. Then the last few paragraphs of the letter which we
submitted to the City are addressed to an issue ~fnich came up since the meetJ, ng
two weeks ago when we 9ot the staff report, I think at the end of last week, it
was noted in the staff report the issue had been raised as to whether the
project should be submitted to the Enviro~nentat Quality Board to go through the
State Environmental Review procedure. The point which we've made in our letter
which we've like to enphasize again tonight, is that we submitted a lot of
information on the church proposal on January 23rd of this year and we decided
to collect some of that information in a format familiar to the City planners,
i.e. the State PAW form. The form was not submitted for the purpose of
initiating enviror~mental review of the project and Eckankar didn't then and
doesn't now submit it to voluntarily initiate enviro~nental review.
Furthermore, the project is exempt under the Environmental Quality Board's rules
from the environmental review process which exempts institutional uses under
5~,~0 square feet. So the EAW was not submitted to commence environmental
review. The project is exempt from environmental review. If, and furthermore,
and we've referenced the rule sections in here, if the City upon review of the
EAW form that was submitted, had determined that environmental review would be
necessary, it could have commenced environmental review but it would have to do
so within 3~ days of that January 23, 1989 date and we are now approximately 90
days beyond that date and to commence the environmental review process at this
point would involve an additional delay of at least 2 months. The process
couldn't begin until 2 weeks from today because of the Environmental Quality
City Counc~il Meeting - April 24, 1989
Board's publication schedule. Then there would be a 30 day comment period and
another 2 weeks for the City to decide so we don't feel that that kind of a
delay is justified given the fact that the project is exempt from the
environmental review process. But more importantly, your city staff has a
referral process pursuant to which they sent copies of the application
materials, including the EAW form to all of the agencies that would be
interested in environmental aspects of the project including the DNR, the EQB
and the Watershed and the County and those agencies, all of them that got back
to the City, indicated no environmental concerns and perhaps staff could
elaborate on exactly where the referral went and the agencies that did respond.
So neither the City nor the commenting agencies that the plans had been referred
to have identified any environmental concerns and none at all that would raise
to the level of potential for significant environmental effects which is the
standard in the EQB rules for commencment of that particular review process. So
we think that the environmental review process was cc~apleted after the referrals
came back and that 30 days expired and we would not see a need for it nor agree
to a delay in order to commence that process. The other issue that came to our
attention at the very end of last week was the fact, there were some questions
about barrels of hazardous waste that were at one time located on the property
and we have sent a separate letter, I guess I don't have a copy of it handy,
addressed to Steve Hanson who asked me for some background information on that.
And if I can sun~narize real briefly from memory, prior to Eckankar's purchase of
the property there were a number of site inspections. During one of those it
was discovered that there were some 55 gallon containers with liquid in them.
Eckankar insisted that prior to any sale or closing on the property, the
contents of those containers be analyzed which they were at the cost and under
the direction of the seller which was the First National Bank of St. Paul.
First of St. Paul retained Pace Laboratories who did testing on it. I believe
there were 7 containers. Discovered that I think it was 5 of them contained
materials potentially classified as hazardous under the applicable state
regulations. They were primarily typical farm waste. Apparently used crank
case oil, that sort of stuff, and then some concrete sealer but as a condition
of closing, before Eckankar purchased the property, those containers were
packaged by Pace for transportation and delivered by a company called Waste
Research and Reclamation Inc. of Eau Claire, Wisconsin to an authorized disposal
site. All that was done under the supervision of the Carver County, I believe
it's Carver County Environmental Services and the PCA and the EPA and there was
a PCA case number that we have provided to the city. Following the removal of
those materials, Eckankar undertook to clear the entire property of the vacant
structures and all the debris that was on the property. It's my understanding
that in a site visit, staff had discovered one barrel that apparently was used
for, a portion of the property, the old High Point Farm was a horse farm and had
a horse riding corral I guess for lack of a better word, where they apparently
did barrel racing. One of the barrels is painted and it's empty, the most
important fact. It apparently was used for barrel racing. There's another
barrel on another part of the property that also contains no liquids but it
apparently has some scrap metal in it but none of these barrels nor the barrels
that were removed in 1985 are located in any of the areas where land would be
disturbed for construction of the church. That area of the property is just
simply fields, farmlands. There's no reason to think there would be any
hazardous waste or any other materials on that soils. Of course the
construction activities will be standard for any other project. If anything
like that is discovered, it would stop until appropriate investigation had been
made. I believe those were the responses that we had prepared for the things
11
City Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
that came up. Let me just take a quick review of my notes. That was all, well
I hadn't really even prepared responses to that but those were the responses we
had made in our letter and also responses to the EAW issues. If there was
anything else that the Council, or any other questions that the Council had for
us, as I said, we have 2 additional representatives from my firm and all of the
consultants that I introduced two weeks ago are here to respond to those
questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Roger, in respect to the information that Peter provided us
regarding the EAW. Could you respond to that specifically?
Roger Knutson: Peter correctly cited the rule that institutional facilities
under 50,gg0 square feet are exempt from the EAW/EIS process. The only
exception is if the applicant voluntarily submits to that review. I guess you
heard Peter describe what he thinks that that has not been done. The second
issue I believe, or t/ne last issue is the question of not having submitted the
draft EAW doct~nent or whatever you want to call it to the EQB within 3g days of
receipt. The rules do provide you're supposed to submit it within 3g days of
receipt. The rules do not say what happens if you don't. There is no case law
on that subject but I would interpret that requirement as directional and
frankly not having any negative effect on non-compliance. I don't think you can
say you're exempt from the process because you don't submit it within 3~ days.
The rule does not say that that's the case.
Mayor Chmiet: Thank you. Is there any discussion by staff? Steve, do you have
anything?
Steve Hanson: Not unless you have a specific question you'd like me to address.
Mayor Chniel: No, I guess I really don't have any right now. What I'd like to
do is open it up to the general public to address their concerns and if so,
please conse forward. State your name and address and whoever would like to
start may start right now.
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, before we open up to the public, I do have a
question for Steve as to the main reason for tabling this in the first place was
to get the surveys back. I'd like to hear ~at the data is as of today.
Mayor Ckmiel: Alright. Steve, would you like to address that specifically?
Steve Hanson: Sure. That was summarized in the memorandum that you have in
front of you and also a few more of those cards came back in the meantime and I
recalculated that this afternoon. The total count was we had 1,495 ballots
returned. Of the cards, 8~1 had indicated no. 682 had indicated yes and 12 of
them I determined were invalid due to either havin9 marked both responses or not
marking either one of the responses. From a percentage standpoint, that's 53.6%
indicating no. 45.6% indicating yes and .8% were void.
Councilman Johnson: ~at's the percent of total returns from the total number
we sent out?
Steve Hanson: It's approx.]mately 35%.
12
City Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
Mattie Hickey: Hi. My name is Mattie Hickey and I'm extremely upset. I am one
of the members of Concerned Citizens for Chanhassen. I was the phone chairman.
I personally called over 800 people. I would like to address this to Eckankar's
attorneys. This is totally a land use issue. The very large majority of the
people were very angry at any people in Chanhassen that appeared bigotted in
anyway. They said they would not even vote on the issue or the petition unless
it was strictly a land use issue. I think that's the most. important thing to be
addressed to you attorneys. I would also like to address you with the fact of
your large amount of lawyers at each meeting with no representation from
Eckankar and I would like an answer to why. I find it intimidating to a small
city's Planning Commission. Intimidating to a Council and what would be the
reason for such large legal representation other than intimidation. I would
also like to address our local newspaper editor because as I was making these
phone calls, many many people were concerned with who is Eckankar. I called our
editor. I was certainly not and also told the rest of my phone committee not to
answer such questions because it wasn't our right. We can't tell each other
what we believe. However, in the March 13th paper, St. Paul was a front page
article of Mr_. Skelsky's explaining who Eckankar is. What they believe in.
However, St. Paul is not faced with this problem of 174 acres of tax free land
and we have to keep our mouths shut because of the First Amendment. I am
furious. Mr. Pederson, I thank you not at all. When I called you I said, this
is a concern of these people. Why won't you write an article telling the
people? If Mr. Skelsky is willing to talk to the St. Paul paper, I'm sure he'd
be willing to talk to the local paper. Our editor said, I won't touch this with
a 10 foot pole. Thank you Mr. Pederson. I'm shaking I'm so mad. I wanted to
address the next one. I'm sorry Mr. Boyt that you're not here and I invite you
to watch this on television. I want to thank you for being the champion in the
April 3rd paper. You came across as the councilman who was for our petition.
What a joke. What a joke. Everything that was said in the paper, I'm giving
th~ all to you council as exhibits, confused the issue. Confused the citizens.
Nobody knew what was What. Our petition was asking for land use which we know
you have the authority to use to condemn. That issue looked like perhaps it was
industrial. Perhaps it was this and that and the next thing. People read the
paper, they didn't know What our petition then meant. However, we did get a
reply of over 2,500 people who voted yes to acqu~.ring this land. Our petition
was a signed petition. Your survey had no signatures. It meant nothing and I'm
also challenging the amount. I called Don Ashworth this afternoon. Told him
I'm challening the amount of the tax increase. It's all wet. First you have to
take into consideration we're giving up 174 acres tax free. We're going to have
to go out and buy more land tax free. All these things have to be taken into
consideration. To get a fair notation Mr. Pederson in the paper, I myself paid
for an ad. What we were saying as concerned citizens is, yes. It will cost tax
dollars to buy this land. No. It will cost more if we have to go out and buy
more land. If Eckankar would like through your lawyers to step forward today
and pay taxes on 174 acres of our prime land, you're welcome. The fight is
over. This is a First Amendment issue. We're being taken to the cleaners. I
forgot What the bottom line is. The bottom line is, you can not disqualify our
legitimate signed petition because of your survey which didn't get the response
ours did in numbers. We are demanding a referendum. A vote.
Councilman Johnson: Mattie? Could I ask you a quick question on your petition?
Staff hasn't checked it. Looked it over. Does your petition include all the
cards that were sent in and the handwritten petitions also that you set at
City Hall and people came in and signed? You totaled them both together?
13
City Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
Mattie Hickey: We totaled them both.
Councilman Johnson: Did you eliminate all duplicate signatures?
Mattie Hickey: Right. We eliminated all duplicates and our mail in response
was way over 1,50g. Way over your a~ount.
Councilman Johnson: You eliminate everything that wasn't from the City of
Chanhassen? Did you give a cho].ce of yes or no?
Mattie Hickey: No. This was a petition for yes. We also made them pay
postage. We weren't asking them to pay postage to say no.
Mayor Cb~niel: Is there anyone else wishing to address the issue?
Conrad Jonrud: My name is Conrad Jonrud. I live in Greenwood Shores. My wife
has been at these meetings and her and I have discussed this. We've been
talking about this ever since it came in and we've been looking and trying to
find a real plus for these people that are coming in to the con~nunity and so far
we've just seen people angry at each other. Mr. Johnson over there is bikering
with this women here and people are dividing amongst each other and I see no
well being. I have read that you say they haven't harm any communities. I
haven't seen anything do anything. Their leader who originally wrote what they
believe in said they are cliff hangers which is, that's not an issue of the
religion. That's what he's saying. We believe this. We also believe that we
don't need churches but yet at the same time they have a tax free number for
churches. The other issue that I'd like to just speak for a moment on is, my
wife and I had 3 sons that are going to go to school so we called Chaska to find
out what the situation is there. 1993 they have to start building or they're
going to run out of room. So she asked, what about Chaska? We have no more
room over there. Nothing at all. And this is Mr. Bob Oslund who was very kind
to call back. The taxes, we're concerned about paying taxes like everyone else
is. We know we've got to pay taxes but are we going to pay taxes to build a
school, buy land and educate our children who are going to be running, sitting
where you people are when you people are gone, in a home or wherever you are.
The other thing is, I challenge you to vote as your heart says because your
children and your grandchildren are going to ask you and you're going to be
responsible. I'm not blaming anyone and I thank the mayor for talking to my
wife as much as he has but I say, and I challenge you to be responsible because
you're going to be responsible forever. As much as this has cut this town in
half already, you're going to be totally responsible for what happens here. And
these lawyers, I have nothing against lawyers, well not too much, because they
haven't harm family. My family and I have been in a situation with lawyers and
I can't see what benefit it's going to do them for this church to come in except
put money in their pockets. Take it out of mine and totally hurt the town and
if you're a lawyer you have as much right to be a lawyer as I what I do. I'm
not frowning on that but I think you have to consider what you're doing to
everyone else. These people, what the numbers I've read is 50 some thousand
people belong to this church or this group and they're coming in here and
submissing everyone's feelings and rights of less than lg,gg0 because they can
afford. These people obviously are just much better than I so obviously they're
making better money which is their way of life but I don't think it's right that
they have the right to oppress us as they have been doing. And I'm just saying
14
.City Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
that they're just cutting this town in half and I feel bad. We moved out here
looking for a nice place for our kids and I guess we are just, like a lot of the
people here, totally concerned about what is going on. We have never seen a
church, as this fella says, that is not that they've decided to be a church and
they're coming up and saying well, what do you believe in? Well, that's none of
your business. Well we feel we're not condemning them. They have condemned us
and that's what we're hurt about. Also I think a lot of people are so angry
about is they are judging us. We are not judging them and I don't think that's
right that they should judge people that they don't know. They have brought the
religious issue up. Pushed it in our face and that didn't work so now they're
pushing taxes which everybody's got to pay. It depends on where you want your
tax money to go. I'm not following what my wife and I talked about and I thank
the mayor for his time with my wife and I and I really think, even if it's not a
religious issue, I think some people should do some praying about this because
God is the only person. That' s not Eckankar ' s land, that' s God ' s land.
Mitch Weaver: Mayor Chmiel and members of the Council. My name is Mitch Weaver
and in 1 week we'll be moving in to 31 Hill Street, Chanhassen. I'm responding
mostly from Bill Boyt's con~nents that he was rather disappointed that there
weren't local clergymen who had made any response to this meeting. Therefore
I brought the matter up to our pastor, Dr. Bob Whitesel who's senior pastor of
Vineyard of the Lake in Wayzata. Dr. Whitesel is also citizen of the
neighboring con~nunity of Minnetonka Beach and considers this issue a personal
concern as well. Dr. Whitesel has written a letter addressing the issue from a
clergy's perspective and several other clergy persons of the Twin City area have
added their signatures to support this letter. We consider the signatures of
these Twin City clergy relevent to this con~nunity on the grounds that Eckankar
will possibly be located in Chanhassen but is also now located in Minneapolis
and headquartered in New Hope. These clergy recognize the broader picture here
as well and I would like to introduce now Dr. Bob Whitesel at this time to
present the letter to you.
Dr. Bob Whitesel: Mr. Mayor and m~nbers of the Council. I have a letter to
submit to you today and I'd like to read that. It's signed by myself as well as
12 other clergymen of the Twin Cities cc~nunity stating some interests that the
clergy have in this issue. I know and I want to thank you for asking the
clergy's input on this because the clergy makes up an ~mportant part of our
social fabric of our con~nunity. I'd like to present this to you and therefore
read it to you. Dear. Mayor Don Chmiel and Council Members. It has co~e to our
attention that as council members of the City of Chanhassen you have requested
the recon~nendation of Twin Cities clergy regarding an upcoming decision facing
you and the City Council. We understand from various media reports that you're
being asked to approve a pyramid shaped facility for the sect called Eckankar on
a rolling section of undeveloped land near the center of town. We will not
advocate that any group be hindered to their right of their free religious
expression, but we do question whether this type of organization will enhance
the quality of the co~m]unity's life. Now several tenents of the Eckankar belief
concern us Twin City clergy persons, and should concern those charged by the
citizenry with the preservation of the fiber and cohesiveness of the community.
Concern #1. Is the religious discord Eckankar has manifest against orthodox
Christian and Jewish religion in it's publications. Quotes about Christianity
are written in a clearly inflarm~atory style. An example from their founder's
Paul Twitchell's book The Tiger's Fang states that, "The whole pack of them will
start spouting something they've read in the scriptures...They quote Jesus as
15
~.~ Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
their authority and scream about his love for each of them personally. None of
which is true." The infl~natory tone of their writing provokes a religious
hatred that runs counter to our Lord's teachings to "love your enemies and pray
for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:44). ~ would caution you about
allowing such an atmostphere of religious antagonism to take root in your
coirmunity. Concern #2 is the strict obedience and unquestioning attitude
demanded by the leadership upon participants. Christianity is not immune from
controlling leaders or religious sects that practice mind control over
congregants. However, responsible Christian groups have done all that they can
to ensure that potential initiates are warned of these domineering groups.
Statements such as those found in Paul Twitchell's Santsang Discourses gives us
grave concern. These statements include such flagrantly manipulative stat~nents
as "The chela (~K Student) must not make judgments of the master nor his
words," "One must learn to keep quiet, ask no questions...", and "Once any
ECKist becomes a member of the Second Initiation and beyond...he cannot ever
resign from ECK...If such persons...ever attempt to resign or want to leave ECK
for any purpose, they will find it not easy to do...They will run into terrible
problems." Therefore, based upon the foregoing considerations that we feel run
counter to the message of Jesus C3nrist, as well as counter productive to the
religious harmony of the co~rnunJ, ty, we urge you to protect the quality of life
in your corrmunJ, ty and reject the Eckankar request for a pyramid shaped facility
for what to us appears to be a manipulative and religiously antagonistic
philosophy. Respectively, Dr. Bob Whitesel, Rev. Gary Hvass, Rev. Harold
Brokke, Rev. James Paydon, Rev. T. Bruce Talso, Rev. Roger Davis, Rev. Larry
Hale, Rev. G. Mark Denyes, Rev. Lynn Hayes, Rev. Jay Neu, Rev. Earl Quesnell,
Rev. Larry Freitag and Rev. David J. Torgenson. I would offer too, from a
religious viewpoint, to answer any questions if so deemed by the Council.
Mayor C~niel: Are there any questions? Thank you very much.
Dan Mahady: I'm Dan Mahady. I live at 1020 Butte Court. I've kind of followed
this right along from the beginning and I know there is a lot of issues that
have been brought up several times and I won't beat them to death. I live
across the street from this property. I'm a new resJ. dent here since October.
Myself, like many other people that have just moved in to nearby properties are
very concerned that things happen, things come up where if they should have to
sell their property, that is my great concern. It has been brought up by
Eckankar's side that there would not be any devaluation of property values.
There has been question by the Bud Andrus report that in the short term there
probably would be a devaluation of property values. Something could come up
t~morrow and I should have to sell my house, I'd like to know who's going to pay
the difference if in fact that there is a difference. I'm going out and paying
for on my own an assessment of my property value as it currently stands to cover
myself. I think a lot of other people that are in neighboring properties also
continue to have this concern. I know that over the long term they said there
probably would not be but that lays in question. That is a genuine concern of
mine that I have. I guess I'd like to know who's going to make up the
difference should there be a difference. Also, I know that it's been said by,
Mattie did a terrific job here of giving the group's views. I also would like
to say that I just find it totally unbelieveable that we could have such a multi
million dollar organization come into our small c~nunity and be such an
intimidation to our citizens and our city government. They're hiding behind the
First ~endment. I just think that a law that is supposed to protect our
citizens is being used against us. I just find this ridiculous. Thank you.
16
City Council Meeting - April 24~ 1989
215
Uli Sacchet: Dear Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Uli Sacchet. I
live at 8071 Hidden Circle. I live here. I've been living here for a while. I
came here to this conxnunity to make this place the home for my family. I'm
ashamed. I'm appalled at what I'm hearing here tonight. I did not come here
tonight to talk about this topic because I want to stay out of this. This is a
simple land use issue as it's been reiterated many times. But the picture that
is presented here is just not balanced. It's too one sided. This is the third
meeting of this kind. To me this is a witch hunt. An inquisition. A 20th
century inquisition. The level of intolerance is absolutely unbelieveable to
me. I can understand and I do encourage people to be cautious when they meet a
religious organization they don't know because there's a lot out there that is a
grave concern. But I would think that by now after the time that you've had to
research the situation and accumulate information, that it should be possible to
face the fear that has been cultivate in this city based on a good motivation.
I'm all for people getting involved and I think these concerned citizens did a
great job in terms of getting organized and standing up for what they believe.
But one major point they've missed. They cultivated paranoia. They've
cultivated fear, if not hatred in this town and to me that's unforgiveable. You
ask why that nobody comes up here speaking for Eckankar and then on the other
hand we read in the paper that statements from the City, people making that they
would lynch the first person that is a member of Eckankar that would move into
this area. That's the general feeling that's being given. I know I'm not
speaking a very popular stand here. I've traveled around a lot. I've lived in
Central Africa and West Africa and India, in Nepal over in Asia. I grew up in
Switzerland. The basis that this religion is not a Christian or Judeo Christian
based is quite ludicrous. I would urge you to face the fear. The postcard you
sent out, I can understand was a political move. You represent the citizens but
I personally, speaking for myself. I want to make this very clear. I speak for
myself here. Usually I come up here as a representative for the neighborhood
and that's why I came here tonight was to talk about the TH 101 street. I'm
talking for myself. I'm not representing anybody, but the postcard you sent out
was basically ludicrous. First you're asking if you want to buy something
that's not for sale and then it happens that it couldn't be afforded anyhow.
You say the taxes would have to be raised to the maximum allowed in the State
with the purchase price of 3 1/2 to 5 million. Two days later I read in the
paper that it might be more than 10 million costing so what are we trying to do?
Are we asking the citizens whether we want to have the City go broke? What
would that do to the property values of the whole city? Of the business climate
and all that? I think it's time to step forward and face the fear and dispell
it once and for all and tabling this issue any further, I think you would
express support for what I would consider discrimination on religious basis.
Thank you.
Terry Jones: That does it. I wasn't going to say anything tonight. I'm Terry
Jones from Ches Mar Farm. I didn't catch your name but I'll pray for you
anyway, alright. The issue of us against them is ludicrous. We all have to
defend the First Amendment. Freedom of religion is something I will fight for
you for. Okay? What we're talking about here is a tax dodge, see. Let's just
forget all of that and let's not get excited. Here we have a profit making
organization who's obviously doing very well from the sale of records and tapes.
From the sale of books to New Age book stores, okay? I'm getting upset.
Where did we get a church out of that? Did we send away to a mail order catalog
or something? For $2.00 and we were sent our diplonxna from some university for
a church. I don't understand. Obviously it's a tax dodge and it should be
17
City Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
turned down. You folks aren't here to listen about people's beliefs and
religions and so forth. You're looking for a reason to keep these people out of
this community. Nobody wants them here. You're our representatives. If you
vote any other way, you know, next year ~nen it comes to vote for your jobs, you
won't be here. It's just as simple as that. Okay. So I'd like for us to
explore how this church came into being and I'd like to defeat this issue on an
obvious tax dodge. If we don't, the next thing we're going to hear about, since
Prince's studio records records, we're going to have to leave them tax ex~npt
too aren't we. I have a guitar. I'll record a record and let's tax exempt Ches
Mar Faun, see. r_et's not set this precedent. Let's get on with loving each
other and First kmen~.t~ent and so forth. That's all I had to say. Thank you.
~.Mary Johnson: I'm Mary Johnson frc~n lg44 Pontiac Lane. I did come up and
address the Council last time but after this man spoke, I felt I should come up
again. I went around for Concerned Citizens for Future of Chanhassen with the
petition in the Greenwood Shores, the townhomes, twin homes in the Chaparrel
area and Redwing Court. And most of the people I did come in contact with were
concerned about the !and issue. The tax exempt land issue. I would like to ask
a couple questions. One, Ursula mentioned last time the &mount of acreage the
other churches in town do own. I was wondering if that would be addressed in
future for the present church that wants to come in. If there would be a limit
on the acreage that a church could acquire. Also, last time you did mention
about that it was the County that figured out how much would be tax exempt for
Eckankar. I was wondering if you had found out any information about that.
Thank you.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll address that in my closing comments, okay?
Jeff Kussard: My name is Jeff Kussard. I reside at 76~4 South Shore Drive.
I've been kind of standing on the sidelines watching the develo[~nents over the
last few months. I have to admit my interest was first peaked a number of years
back when the issue was first raised as a business campus but I have to say that
I stood back mainly out of s~_ne of the same concerns this other gentle, an had
with regards to freedom of religion and the First A~mendment and in some cases
found myself somewhat embarrassed by the reactions of a limited number of people
in our con~nunity. But I have to say that the points regarding land issue I
think are the real points here and I think the comments such as lynching are
probably that of a very, very small minority. I really don't think that we as a
con~nunity have anything to be embarrassed about regarding our position on this
subject. There's one thing that I keep finding myself wondering about regarding
174 acres of land. I believe it's 9 acres that the church occupies and the
concept of granting tax exempt status to all that property. I recognize that
this is going to be addressed later but in kicking it around myself, at first
I thought well, we can't take a position on how much land they own. The whole
issue of not taxing churches is to keep the government out of the business of
church. But a second concept came to mind as I was thinking about that and it
was one I think we should dwell on a little bit further possibly and that is,
one, yes we grant churches tax exempt status in order to keep government out of
the church's business but there's an underlying issue regarding that tax exempt
status and I think that that is, the church brings something to the community.
That the church is an active participant in the con~nunity and offers community
support services. ~.%e've heard no discussion of that regarding Eckankar. They
plan to come into our corrmunity. Take 174 acres off the tax rolls and I can't
see or hear anything that indicates that they plan on bringing anything into the
18
City Council Meeting - April 24~ 1989
con~nunity in return for that. I'm not sure it's fair and I guess that's about
all I have to say.
Sandy Eastling: My name is Sandy Eastling. I live at 7285 Pontiac Circle. I
would just like to emphasize that while maybe there has been a "crisis
situation" generated from this issue, I believe that the people who have been
working on trying to find out exactly who Eckankar is, where are they, here is
their representation tonight. Here is their answer. Consultants. Lawyers.
Architects. Engineers, on the land use issue. My understanding is that
repeated questions have been asked. There have been some answers but apparently
not everybody is satisfied and feels settled with the answers that were
provided. I believe that the citizenry of Chanhassen is rational and able to
make good decisions. Look who we put on the Council. I would encourage us to
try and remain, both audience and Council, as level headed as possible about
this issue. This is indeed a land use issue. The proposed church is not going
to take up very much land but it is in the middle of the property. I'm rather
curious as to why is it smack dab in the middle of the property. Is there any
area on the property that could also be used for this or does it have to be
smack dab in the middle? I live directly across the way fr~m the land and I'm
wondering, what will be there in 20 years? In 20 years I was expecting single
family homes or something like that. Frankly I was not expecting an ECK church.
I would assume, or I would think that the Council people probably have a pretty
good idea on what they're going to be voting and how their decision is but I
would just like to encourage you to remember that the citizens of Chanhassen are
not witch hunters. We' re not lynchers. Anybody here willing to lynch somebody?
That's a punchable offense. We care about our community. We care about what's
going to happen to our con~nunity. When someone who has heretofore been quiet
about an issue, starts taking action, that's because you're starting to step on
their toes and step in their comfort zone. If it had been the other way around,
I'm sure that we would have had other people that would also indicate their
concerns. Please listen to the people of Chanhassen. Please listen to 2,500
voices that say we' re concerned. We care and we know you do too.
Gloria Cox: Mayor. Council members. My name is Gloria Cox. I live in
Greenwood Shores. I am one of the concerned citizens of Chanhassen who walked a
petition around our town. The issue right here tonight is just land issue like
they said and as far as the people who signed the petition, they did it out of
concern for their own conxnunity. As far as religion, they didn't even want to
touch that but they did want a lot of answers to what has been written in the
newspaper and what's on TV. And your decision tonight I hope will be for the
betterment of our co, unity. Not only today but tomorrow and for years to come.
Thank you.
Jim Jonas: Hello. My name is Jim Jonas. I live at 6830 Pen~mint Lane. It's
in the Chaparrel development. I just want to voice my concern. My concerns for
my rights and the fragility that I feel about them in the proceedings that have
occurred here tonight and two weeks ago at the Council meeting which I attended.
The Eckankar church is legally a church by law. ~nat's already been
established. If that's the case, then they have every right in my opinion to be
protected by that law. Also, I've not seen or heard one thing of any citizen or
child or anyone being hurt or harmed by the Eckankar church or their beliefs. I
may not be completely comfortable with their beliefs but in that way they're
different rather than harmful. Also the concerns for my rights is that here in
America, that's our freedom and that's where our freedoms come from. And I feel
19
City Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
very strongly that that needs to stand in Chanhassen. Whether we agree or not
with who's moving in from a religious standpoint. They need to be protected by
those laws and those freedoms that we all have fought for. Thank you.
Leneda Rahe: Good evening City Councilmen, Mayor. I ~.m Leneda Rahe and I live
at 1(~21 Carver Beach Road. I too feel that the rights of the citizens should be
protected in that as I have been working for months in the petition drive and
hoping to get a referendum, we have worked long and hard to see to it that the
citizens' voice is heard. I feel like along the way the issue could get lost
and I want to bring the issue back to the fact that we would like to see the
property acquired, or the City acquire the property for public use. In 1965 and
197g, the Park and Rec Board of Chanhassen realized what a valuable piece of
land that was and they too set it aside for public use. For parks. For
Schools, etc. and I would like to know what form of action is needed to get a
referendum because I feel that the city survey that was sent out was maybe just
a ploy to make it look as if a few people were really with us and to confuse the
issue and it was not a balanced survey. It was biased in that it did not
present the other side of the issue. The issue is that we are growing at a
great rate. I grew up here and I couldn't understand why Chanhassen kids always
came to Chaska because they had a lot of development going on here then and they
had enough children to have their own school way back when. I don't know why we
as a city don't look towards those needs of the children and haven't established
schools for them already but it is inevitable and those issues were not
addressed on this survey. I'd like to know what we need to do to take this to a
referendum and how that could take place.
Don Ashworth: The C.~.ty Council has the ability to establish a referendum. That
would make the assumption that the Council in that process would be_ authorizing
condemnation of the property.
Leneda Rahe: So this evening possibly, if the citizens felt a referendum would
best fit the needs and speak for the voice that has been spoken here for 3
months, a~qoroximately 3 months, then we could go for referendut~ this evening?
We could vote on it this evening? Is that correct?
Don Ashworth: Roger, would you respond to that?
Roger Knutson: The City Council could call a special election on a referendum
issue selling bonds for a certain number if the Council chose to.
Leneda Rahe: Could you explain that in different terms for the people here?
What do you mean by selling bonds and things like that? Could you explain to
them what that means?
Roger Knutson: The purpose of the referendum, as I understand it, would be to
sell bonds to raise money to buy some property.
Leneda Rahe: Correct. But could we decide tonight if we wanted a referendum
because there's a lot of controversy as to whether or not a referendum should
even be an option and I feel that 2,Sgg petitions were signed and sent in in
hopes that this would lead to a referendum. Again, it was not a poll. It was
5,ggg mailing to every resident in the CJ. ty of Chanhassen. Your survey only
received a little over 1,ggg in response and it was a yes and no. We received a
greater response and it was just a yes because again like Mattie had mentioned
2~
City Council Meeting - April 24~ 1989
219
earlier, we could not afford as citizens to come up with $1,000.00 more dollars
for the return postage on the petition. And it was a petition, not a survey
because we didn't want to survey the residents. We wanted to see who stands
with us now so we could get on with the referendum. Could we discuss the
possible referendum this evening?
Roger Knutson: Mr. Mayor, I just want to point out two later points. If you
were to consider such a thing, you have to consider how much the referendum
would be for. How many dollars in bonds do you want to sell? Second, you would
have to consider, do you have the bonding authority to sell those bonds? There
is a limit on the bonds the City can sell.
Leneda Rahe: Which renews every 2 years, is that correct?
Roger Knutson: If you're talking about a referendum this year I believe aren't
you?
Leneda Rahe: Right.
Roger Knutson: So it's based upon the volume cap now for selling the bonds
today. Don, maybe you can address that capacity.
Don Ashworth: The auditors are just in the process of completing the audit
report. There appears to be some changes in the State law that has occurred
this past year. You heard staff members before state that the limitation would
be about 3 1/2 million. That was as of this past year. The changes in the law
would appear to have put us into an area of about 4 1/2 million. There's a
second procedural question though and that is that the Council has not acted on
an item unless the item has been published and is a part of the regular agenda.
This issue has not been published in that fashion. I guess there's the question
as to whether or not the Council needs to dispose of the issue of Eckankar. In
other words, by acting on the question of the referendum, are you not in fact
stating that, I guess it's again a procedural question. Is that an action to
table their request to see how the referendum goes or is it in fact a denial? I
guess I would like to see Roger be able to respond to that and I don't think
that it's fair to have him make that type of response with 2 minutes to think
about it.
Leneda Rahe: We've had 3 months. I'd like the people to stand who support the
referendum being something that we vote on tonight just to show the public
support to see if we do have a voice.
Don Ashworth: The third issue is that the City has continuously and I'll go
back to the two community facility, three con~nunity facility groups has
established citizen groups to review each of the different proposals that have
come back before the city to make determinations and recommendations to the
Council regarding potentially the ~nount of land that is going to be needed. We
really have not addressed that issue in any of the work. For example, the
school has stated that 30 acres would be more than sufficient to meet the future
schools for our co~aunity. I think that there's issue such as that, in other
words, whether or not the entire parcel would be required or not which should be
looked at by a group of citizens who could report back to the City Council as to
whether or not this is a reasonable idea or not. I'm just stating what your
previous policies have been.
21
Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
Leneda Rahe: The 3g acres for the schools and then the additional acreage
needed for the con~nunity center. Is the 3g acres including track fields and
football fields and things of that nature or is it just including parking in the
existing institution which will house the children?
Don Ashworth: That was a number that was used by Mr. Oslund before the
con~nunity facility committee. The question was combining schools with a
community center and his response was that 25 to 3g acres would be more than
sufficient for a combined use such as that. But again I think that this issue
should be looked at in broader scope than just one individual making one
statement.
Leneda Rahe: Well I agree. I'd like to add some information for the record and
for the meeting Minutes. The Record's office of Carver County states that the
value of the Eckankar property is $644,0gg.0g at agricultural which is what it
is now because they rent a part of it to a farmer. They paid 2.1 million
approximately and I think the scare tactics are being used in the community that
we can not afford this. That we'll be tying up our money forever and ever and
I'd like those issues to be addressed too. It is more than just a one scope
issue. There's a very big, broad facet of questions which need to be addressed
and I just want to ask if that can be done and do we have to make a decision
tonight then on the conditional use permit or can we look at some of those
issues and also at a referendum?
M~yor Chmiel: I guess I'd like to address that myself. In looking at some of
the things that I still feel that, because I'm charged with being mayor of the
city, I feel that I have a certain ~mount of responsibilty to the city and to
the residents. I'm still a little uncomfortable with the site as is with that
FAW which has been presented. I feel from information that I have been provided
with in this past week, your indication in your letter of 5 barrels and the 2
other barrels that are there. People have told me that there were as many as 15
barrels on that specific site. My charge that I feel there is the environmental
aspect of it. And I feel the environmental aspect of it is a charge that we
must address as a city and as a city council. What is there and what could have
been in those barrels, I'm not sure. I would like to see a Bill of Lading of
what was there. What it consisted of. I would like to have the EQB review that
site and come up with a determination. If it is a viable site and it's
operable, then that's fine but I want to be sure that that sJ. tuation is going to
be covered. I have one other thing as well. In looking at some of the way
things have been done in the past and some other cases that have come up, my
other basic concern is upon procuring the permJ, t to build from the City Council,
Eckankar could basically turn around and possibly fire the attorneys that are
here representing them now as well as their engineers and their consultants.
Stating that Larkin, Hoffman and Daly associates made certain promises to adhere
to city ordinances that they were not authorized to make. Thus, Eckankar could
begin whittling away basically at some of the various conditions and ordinances
that you have agreed to for Eckankar. This potential problem can be avoided as
far as I feel now by requiring two officers from Eckankar's managing board to
present to the Council J_n person at the next City Council meeting a certified
copy of duly adopted resolution by it's managing board, signed by the managing
board from Eckankar stating that the ordinances and conditional uses described
and presented by Larkin Hoffman will be adhered to by Eckankar. This will serve
two purposes. One, is protect Chanhassen's future from keeping Eckankar from
22
City Council Meeting - April 241 1989
going beyond their boundaries as to what those requirements are. And two, it
will make it imperative that two officers from Eckankar be present at the next
City Counc i 1 meet ing.
Leneda Rahe: Also for the record I would like to state that this is a land
issue and it is not a religious one in that there have been several properties
which former City Councils and Bill Boyt for one have said condemn it, condemn
it, condemn it. It's on many meeting Minutes. Many Council meetings in the
past and I feel that we are not treating Eckankar any differently. As a matter
of fact, in the last issue of the Villager on the very bottom of the front page,
Bill Boyt is quoted as saying that he would like to condemn some lakeshore for a
park in which we only want a football park supposedly. We still have to vote on
that too what the people want to see there but it was bought for ballfields for
the Little League players so they wouldn't have to share with the adults and I
don't see why we need to condemn lakeshore property. But what I'm saying is
that this is not the only land that the City has condemned. My neighbors are
Pauly's and they had a business here in Chanhassen for 50 years and they didn't
have a voice and the condemnation of their parking for their business was taken
with very little trouble and I want Eckankar to know that Pauly's Bottle Shoppe
was not a religious organization and their property was condemn also for city
use. And I'd like to thank the Mayor.
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, since you made a statement there. Do you plan
on proposing a zoning ordinance change now to require what you're requiring of
Eckankar of everybody who comes in here or is it just going to be churches that
have to have their Council come in because it's quite normal for a land use
issue, for attorneys and engineers to represent the owners. Sometimes we never
see any owners at all.
Mayor Chmiel: But there has been situations as I indicated Jay and it has been
tried. My concern are those and I pretty much stick with that. As far as what
you indicated, I think we as a community, we probably can't apply to Eckankar
but any other churches coming into the c~rmunity, I think we should have
something contained within our zoning ordinance and have a zoning ordinance
adopted indicating in low density and high density as to total number of acres
that they can have.
Councilman Johnson: I don't have a problem with that.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me just clarify one other thing. I also had received a
letter from an Eckankar member who lives within the community and asked me to
keep his name private and I will and I do respect his position. In fact, I
would also defend him in any case actions that some people have indicated that
if someone were to harm him, I would go to his aid and I want you to know that.
I'm not fighting it from the issue of religion. I am looking at it from the
issue of the land. As I mentioned before, we have, if that land contained
within that MUSA line were fully constructed with residential as it was zoned
for of the 174 acres, there would be approximately, on a conservative basis per
year, $779,000.00 in taxes. That' s one of my concerns. The City needs that
money to continue in operation of this city as well.
Bill Eggert: My name is Bill Eggert and I live at 800 Preakness Lane. Mr.
Mayor. Counci]~embers. I stand before you this evening as a member of this
community. As a taxpayer in this community. One of the taxpayers faced with
23
City Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
one of the heaviest tax burdens in the all of the western suburban areas and I'm
concerned. I'm concerned that we would be even willing to look at a tax exempt
status of 174 acres in this area for any organization that only intends to use 9
acres for the purpose that really constitutes a tax exempt status. I'd
encourage the City Council to explore with whatever monetary resources are
available to you the necessary legal counsel to combat this situation.
~v~. Mayor just stated that this represents $779 , 090. 00 a year if developed in
tax revenue to this coa~nunity. What could we buy in legal counsel for three
quarters of a million dollars and recover it inside of one year? Spend it.
Spend it on behalf of the taxpayers in this con~nunity. Eckankar has stated to
us that the property is valued from their position at 10 to 15 million dollars.
Tax them at 10 to 15 million dollar valuation. If they choose not to pay that
price, allow th~n to sell it at the true market value of 10 to 15 million
dollars if that's what it's really worth. I think we might question if it
really is worth 10 to 15 million dollars once that church ~_s there. But please,
respond in the interest of the taxpayers of the community. Thank you.
Wayne Skoblik: My name is Wayne Skoblick. 701 Bighorn Drive. I've talked to
you Don a couple times the last couple weeks and I just wanted to know whether
the people really knew if the land was condemned, on a procedure that would
happen after that. On who sets the price on the land.
Mayor Cnmiel: Basically condemnation, the court appoints normally 3
co~missioners from the County to review that and they come up with a
determination of the total amount of dollars that that is worth from
condemnation. Is there any further discussion?
Ginger Gross: I'm Ginger Gross. Ches M~r Farm Road, Excelsior. I'm a 17 year
resident here. I don't feel that our issue is just a local one. I feel that
our issue is a national one. We're dealing more with local taxes. We should be
dealing also with the issue of national taxes. If a group like Eckankar
continues to be tax exempt and there are many Eckankars throughout our United
States with millions and millions of dollars, their income is not being taxed.
We're paying their taxes. When do we as a nation stand up and say, no more tax
dodge? When does the big corporation quit hiding and when do we quit paying the
expenses that they put on us? It's time that we the people of 'the United States
of America stand up, not just we the people of Chanhassen but it must start
here. Thank you.
Dave Rahe: Mayor, Council, my naune is Dave Rahe. I live at 1021 Carver Beach
Road. My question was, and it didn't seem to really get addressed this evening
was in response to t_he City survey. I'm a m~m~ber of the Concerned Citizens for
the Future of Chanhassen and several weeks ago we met with Don Ashworth and
Roger Knutson in regards to a petitioning effort that we were going to bring
forward, which we did. Our question at that time was, we wanted to be very
realistic with people when we went door to door as to the prope_rty increase that
each citizen would be looking at. We realized that to acquire this property we
would be looking at a property tax increase which we told each resident as we
went door to door that they would be looking at a property tax increase. At
that time Don gave us a number of about 5% per household after it was
homesteaded. The number that we arrived at, as I said, was 5%. On my home that
equated out to somewhere around $100.00. The green card t_hat went out
apparently was significantly more than that. I guess I would like some type of
an explanation as to where the difference was and have that looked into a little
24
City Council Meeting - April 24~ 1989
further. There seems to be a very large discrepency there that seem to create
some questions in people's minds. Whether or not that difference was a real
determining factor, whether or not they felt they'd like the City to acquire go
ahead and aquire this property. Could you address that or is that something you
need to have more time with?
Don Ashworth: Sure. That's correct. We did meet and you had asked can you
give us an approximation of what it might be and if you will recall, I had just
quickly gone through some numbers and I believe that I had given you 5% to 7% of
the gross tax, not the net tax. I had a similiar question today from Mattie.
She had relayed an issue with Eden Prairie and Eden Priarie they are selling
bonds or considering the sale of bonds, 9 million dollars for a cor~nunity
center, park, various items and the cost estimate, I think Mattie we had talked
about $30.00 some dollars and I did talk with John Frane and he confirmed that
it was $39.00, about $40.00 on a $120,000.00 house to pay off a 9 1/2 million
dollar bond issue. Mattie's question really was if our issue is half of that
amount, how can that possibly be the same? Well I think what has to be
remembered and again I did get a chance to talk with John Frane in Eden Prairie.
They have a value 8 times higher than the City of Chanhassen. They have a gross
tax capacity of 57 million. Ours is 7.3 million. But an equal basis, what that
really comes down to then is let's say on a 4 million dollar issue which by 'the
time you get capitalized interest and other bonding costs you're at 4 1/2
million, roughly one half of the Eden Prairie so you're down to then, realizing
their issue is twice as high as ours so let's just cut it in half. Now you're
talking about 4 homes in Eden Prairie to what we have for 1 home. That $40.00
estimate then multiplying it by 4 equalling $160.00 on a Chanhassen home is very
similiar to what was sent out in that green card. So in other words, our
estimate was $163.00 versus the $160.00. The cost figures that were on those
cards are correct. We do not have the significant tax base that Eden Prairie
does have and of course the citizens have to make a determination, is that too
much or not enough. I don't know but the figures are correct.
Dave Rahe: I guess my other question was, did the figures that you c~me up
with, do they project any future growth? Is that as the population as it stands
presently?
Don Ashworth: We used an increase of about 5% per year and I know there are
those who would say that Chanhassen has such significant growth in the past
years that you should use 10% or 15%. The fact is that you're going out over a
15 to 20 year period of time and in all of the other projections that we use for
city debt and capacity, we use a much lower number than that. I tried to use a
higher number to insure that we did not understate the tax implications.
Dave Rahe: I just want to reiterate the concern that Mattie voiced earlier. We
have a need for a middle school. We have talked about a community center for a
number of years. We need additional ballparks. This is 174 acres of land that
if Eckankar moves on it will become tax exempt. At that point, we still are
going to have those needs. We're going to have to look elsewhere for additional
property that at that point would be tax exempt. People are concerned about
their property taxes now. I think we all need to look to the future and use a
little bit of foresight and my concern is that people are aware of what the
future's going to hold and that there will be property tax increases but at
least let's use the pr~ne piece of property that we have left in the heart of
our con~nunity for the benefit of the con~nunity. Thank you.
25
City Council MeetJ. ng- April 24, 1989
Lisa Jonas: Hi. My name is Lisa Jonas. I live at 683g Penamint Lane. I'd
like ho begin first by saying that I believe the Eckankar people have the same
right as I do to worship. I'd also like to say that I feel it is a very big tax
increase to purchase the property and I'm against it. That's my personal
opinion. As I understand it, if we purchase this property, we would have to
sell bonds at our iimit. That there wouldn't be much money left to do anything
with the land for some time and I think the need is there now for schools for
our con~nunity. Perhaps if we purchased this land now, we wouldn't be able to
build t_he schools as soon as we need th~n. Thank you.
Leneda Rahe: Addressing Lisa Jonas' question I think is important and one of
which is that if we do need a school, it would take approximately 4 years if we
act now, buy a different plot of property, etc., etc. because of conversations
with Bob Oslund who also gave you the 3g acre figure, he has stated that it
would be 2 years and then another 2 years before the building, etc. etc. so it
isn't as if, I mean we do need a school now. We should have thought of it a
long time ago but it still would take 4 years even J.f we decide now.
Bill Loebl: My n~ne is Bill Loebl. I'm at 7197 Frontier Trail. I would like
to reiterate Mrs. Rahe's question about the possibility of a referendum. After
all you have the request of approximately 2,5~g citizens who are interested in
acquiring this valuable piece of property and I hope that by means of a
referendum you will be able to find a way to acquire this piece of property and
possibly even allow the Eckankar people lg or 2g acres for their church and let
them build it. That would be a compromise solution and hopefully would make
everybody happy. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address this? If not, I'd like
to bring this back. I'm sorry.
Uli Sacchet: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. I was up here before. My
name is Uli Sacchet. I live at 8971 Hidden Circle. It appears to me that we're
standing in our own way with this issue with our fear and with our mistrust.
It's my understanding that from reading the local newspaper that it has been
established as early as last fall that this organization would be willing to
sell a part of their property for city hall or what have you. So it seems like
maybe the question i.s, ~nat can the City do in order to make this an issue that
moves forward. I don't know where that stands but I think by tabling this and
dragging it out now and possibly spending an amount of money that is common
sense wise beyond the reach of the city is paralyzing everything else tha't's
happening in this city. Schools and community center and all these things that
we'd like to see happening. I just have a question about that. I don't
understand why there's this mistrust that paralyzes our action as a city to move
forward with this and move ahead.
Mattie Hickey: I would like to answer your question. My name is Mattie Hickey.
699g utica Lane. I can't understand where you've heard any fear tonight.
Perhaps a little anger, particularly from me. I don't think any of us are
afraid of Eckankar and 9~ truly believe they have the right to worship a bananna
if they chose to. That is not our issue.
Jim Nelson: My name is Jim Nelson. I live at 729g Catus Curve and my backyard
overlooks this sJ.te where this junior space port is going to be filled. Frankly
26
City Council Meeting - April 24~ 1989
22?
my concern, fear if you will, is that my life savings that I've put into a new
home are going to be reduced significantly with this well lit thing in my back
yard. I know they've mentioned that the night lighting will be under the eaves.
However, I don't know where the eaves are on a pyramid. I would expect
somewhere up near the top but I'm not real sure. I'm really concerned about the
height of the building and the traffic in and out at night. Thank you.
David Rug: My name is David Rug and I live at 7560 Chippewa Trail. It se~ns
obvious to me that if the City Council is going to address the issue as the
people of Chanhassen obviously want them to, they have no choice but to turn it
down and I do not think that the Eckankar's are going to .be anything that's
going to be giving this community back anything. It's going to be giving us a
tax base or helping us in any way and I do not feel that they are going to be
doing anything that's going to help us and going to help our con~nunity now or in
the future or forever. So it seems that that's the only thing that we could
possibly vote on and if there's a land use issue, we should vote on that also
but we should vote on that after we get this church thing taken care of. Thank
you.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? If not, I'd like to return this back to the Council
now. Ursula, do you have something?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Thank you Mr. Mayor. It's great to see everyone
here again tonight and I hope this interest in our local policies continues at
this high level as I've seen it here for the last 2 meetings. I think it's
~mportant to have citizen input and I'm sure that I and the rest of the Council
appreciate your time and your effort. I also want to thank Eckankar lawyers for
another intimidating presentation answering most of our concerns that were
raised at our last meeting. I do have some information that answers Mary
Johnson's question about the tax exempt status about the entire parcel of land.
After speaking to our taxing authority and to experts at the Minnesota
Department of Revenue, I'm told that how much land will be tax exempt will be
determined in the light of a reasonable, natural and practical interpretation as
to the use of the property and this gives me some hope as I'm sure that our
taxing authority will be reasonable. Eckankar knows that they are asking a lot
of this con~nunity and I hope that they too will be reasonable. Although there
are no State laws that give taxing authorities clear guidance in these matter,
there are several Supreme Court cases where the taxing authority's decision to
limit the property that is tax exempt for a tax exempt entity was upheld. A
case in point is the Christian Businessmen's Association vs. Hennepin County.
There the court ruled that Hennepin County could prorate the tax classes of the
property. That means that some of the property was tax exempt and others was
not and they were paying taxes and I think that does give us some hope for
reasonableness. At the last meeting I did move to table the Eckankar
conditional use permit because of the results of the City's survey. They were
not complete and were not tabulated. We heard the results here tonight. I
personally couldn't see anything wrong with the survey. I do believe that the
results do have some weight. During the week I also spoke to a lot of people
who voted yes to buy the land and then called me and said that they had
reconsidered because they did think it was too expensive and that we were tying
up our monies for other important projects facing this City so I guess I would
have to take the people's concerns that are not here that did speak to me. I
would have to take th~n into consideration as well. I appreciate everyone's
comments here tonight and I'm especially glad that Dr. Bob Whitesel presented us
27
Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
with the clergy's views. That's something new that we hadn't heard. I don't
think that the Chanhassen citizens are a lynching mob and I'm proud of the way
the presentations were made and we do have the right to be heard and not to be
intimidated. I'd like to respond to Leneda Rahe's comments about condemning the
land. I will repeat that I stated last week that I'm on the co_~rnunity center
task force and we have talked about purchasing at a reasonable price acreage
from Eckankar for a community center and at least a middle school and possibly a
high school prior to the application of Eckankar for a conditional use permit.
We never talked about condemning it. We talked about purchasing it at a
reasonable price. Unfortunately those negotiations never came to frutition. In
response to Uli Sacchet's question about the purchase of tine land, we have asked
Eckankar to deal with us prior to the issuance of the conditional use permit and
they have responded that they would deal with us after so I do question where
the mistrust lies. I'd wish they'd come forward and deal with us. Addressing
the concern about what kind of a neighbor will Eckankar be, I think we still
don't know. I think that people are a lot like tea bags. You can't really tell
their flavor until they're in hot water. We have attcanpted to provide some hot
water for Eckankar to get into but they have refused to get into it. I guess I
am disappointed and maybe a little discouraged. Maybe somewhat outraged but
again, the fact re%~ains that their appearance here is not a condition of the
permit as far as I'm concerned. I only hope that they will stop being fearful
and want to be know and be the good neighbors that they proclaim themselves to
be. As far as the First Amendment issue is concerned, I believe that our fore
fathers had a lot of insight and foresight and I'm thrilled about that for my
own reasons. If we in fact try to take freedom of religion away from one group
just because ~ do not agree with their beliefs, we are in fact endangering our
own freedom of religion and our own beliefs. I don't believe anyone here really
wants to do that. In my life I've experienced that adversity only makes me
stronger in my own beliefs because it forces me to ask why do I believe as I do.
The end result is that I am more firmly rooted and grounded in my own beliefs,
not less. I thJ. nk Eckankar has presented Chanhassen residents with a challenge
and I hope that we all take it up. To root ourselves in our own beliefs and
teach our children to do the same. That's all I have.
Councilman Workman: I don't really have anything written down. With the last
meeting and then this meeting, I didn't come with any prepared text or anything
but other than what do you write down prior to ccxning into a room full of people
and a situation like this so again I'll have to wing it. If you live by the
cliche you'll die by the cliche I guess. But there's a lot of different
concerns again here and all maybe with a little different angle and I've spoken
with many of the Concerned Citizens of Chanhassen group and the leadership
there. They probably know very well my feelings but let me try and go over a
little bit of something I guess. A referendum. Now there is some doubt about
what this parcel of property might cost us in a situation. I've been doing a
lot of whispering with Roger our attorney here. We weren't trying to find out
what the Twin's score was or anything but rather some technicalities. The
referendum would of course cost us a little bit of money. Around $9,0~.~ to
perform but even if we had a referendum could we in fact accumulate enough money
to in fact buy the property which is a very expensive piece of property? Maybe.
Maybe not. It looks like it would be very difficult. Let's say we could and
let's say we did use our complete bonding authority to do that. Whether it's 5
million or 3 1/2 or 4 millJ~on or 1~ million. Our credit rating for any future
bonding would probably be, we'd be dealing with very expensive money. In
speaking with the Concerned Citizens of Chanhassen group, it was noted that it
28
City Council Meeting - April 24~ 1989
229
keeps coming back to money. Money, money. Everywhere money and that's
unfortunate but it's a fact of life for our city and the way that we have to
operate with all the other things that are going on. I can't think of one
council meeting that we've had yet this year that hasn't been about some big
money and a big issue. Probably half a million in the least. So I do have some
concerns in that regard. I would direct the Planning Commission and I saw
Con~nissioner Ladd Conrad here earlier this evening, to begin looking at what
perhaps could be done to restrict the size of church growth or property owned by
churches. I think we shouldn't wait another day for that in that regard.
Eckankar owns 174 and have said that they will not deal with us until it is
approved and in that light you do have 174 acres so we do in fact mistrust what
perhaps might be used for the rest of it. I guess in closing I would at this
time accept Mayor Chmiel's leadership on the environmental impact situation.
Perhaps looking further into a possible referendum and coming back in two weeks
or the first meeting in May.
Councilman Johnson: Thank you Mr. Mayor. On the environmental issue. I agree.
This is news to me when we start finding the barrels here. I think we ought to
add a condition number 10, beyond the 9 conditions we already placed on this
that Eckankar is to perform a enviror~nental baseline study of the area including
soil and ground water sampling. We can see, it's a common technique used to
determine if the soil and the ground water is cont~inated in the area. It can
be done fairly quickly. An area of 174 acres, costs will probably be pretty
high depending on how they do it. I know I did about a 110 acre site last year
at a cost of $70,000.00. But I'd like to see that done by an independent
consulting engineering group. I'd also like to see a resolution from the church
as a condition, from the officials of the church or Board of Directors of the
church and that that resolution say that they agree to sell a portion of the
property to the City at a fair market value for the use as a community center,
park or school as requested by the District ~212 School Board who is the only
people who plan schools here. We don't. It's the #212 School Board that pays
for the school. It will be their referendum to pay for that. Also the Park and
Recreation Commission. If they feel this is park deficient land and we need to
buy more parkland, they're the experts that are supposed to review whether we
should buy more land and with the Con~unity Center Task Force %~ich Ursula and
Bill are members of, if they want this land also. So basically the lawyers have
told us repeatedly in writing that the church has agreed that they will sell us
this land at fair market value. All I'm saying is, let's get that agreement in
writing as part of the conditions from the church so we have now obtained that.
The last condition I'd like to add when this gets up to a vote is that the City
petition, I don't know if that's the correct word there, the County Assessor to
prorate the tax base of the property with minimizing the amount of tax exempt
land. I think it is worth noting that 65% of the people didn't respond to the
City's petition. Only 35% did and of those that did, I think this is an
extremely unscientific thing. I've said it before. We needed a lot more
information but it really didn't tell us that the majority of the citizens are
for buying the land. It didn't say if they want to buy a little bit or all of
it or anything. Last time I asked who would be willing to buy the southern
third of it and got very few people wanting to buy just the southern third of
it. Tonight we're hearing people say, let's only buy part of it for our school
needs. Sounds like a reasonable thing. That's what my amendments would do.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Jay. Is there any further discussion of Council?
29
City Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
Councilman Workman: How many conditions do we have at this point? 137
Councilman Johnson: 9 and I'm trying to add 3 more. It would be a total of 12
when you get to the point of making a motion. Have you got any other
suggestions?
Councilman Workman: Maybe I could ask Peter Beck. In your night time drawing
here, would the pyramid ever be lit at night? No?
Peter Beck: The lighting proposal does not include any lighting of the roof.
Councilman Workman: Okay, I would make that condition 13 then.
Councilman Johnson: Let me talk to this architect here on that issue. Is this
a skylight in the center? If the lights are on in the inside of the sanctuary
area with the skylight in the top, would the skylight at that point be lit then
so the top of the church would be lit if the interior lights are on?
The architect's answer could not be heard on the tape.
Councilman Johnson: That should be also a condition. That at night that that
device be closed. What was your 13th condition there Tom?
Councilman Workman: No outside lighting of the pyramid and then the skylight.
Councilman Johnson: Why don't we call it the roof?
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to continue with your motion that you were going
to make then Tom or Ursula?
Councilwoman Dimler: He made a motion?
Mayor ~qmiel: Oh he did. I have a motion on the floor to table it.
Councilman Johnson: I didn't hear any motions.
Councilwoman Dimler: I did.
Councilman Workznan: I'll make one. I would make a motion that we table this at
this time until the next council meeting so that Council with city staff can
research the idea of a referendum, possible referendum and the possibility of an
environmental impact study.
Councilwoman Dimler: I second that.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to table action on the
condition use permit request for the construction of a church by Eckankar Church
untJ. 1 the city staff can research the idea of a possible referendu~m and the
possibility of an environmental impact study. All voted in favor except
Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1.
City Counc.~.l Meeting - April 24~ 1989
Councilman Johnson: The purpose of my dissenting vote, which I have the right
by our rules to enter that into the, is that it has been stated that in order to
have a referendum we have to have a price. The seller's not willing to work out
a price at this point. We don't know how much or anything. In order to get
this moving, we need to pass this issue and pass the conditional use permit in
order to find out that price and that's what we should have done. I'm voting
against it because it's just a delay. We' re only delaying it and we'll be back
in two weeks doing exactly the same thing.
Mayor Chmiel: We still have that concern on that EAW with the EIS Jay so that's
the other factor.
Don Ashworth: Point of clarification. Is the tabling for 2 weeks? The
original discussion by yourself and talking about holding the hearing. Mr. Beck
was correct in that that process would be at a minimum 4 weeks. Is this tabling
to allow that to be complete and not to reoccur until that is complete or is
this for a 2 week period?
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, if it goes to the EQB Monitor for publication and after
that publication interested persons have 30 days to make written comment. So I
would assume that, what did you say Peter? That there would probably be an
additional 15 days?
Peter Beck: The Monitor's deadline was today so we missed that. The next
deadline is 2 weeks from today. The publication is 30 days from then that the
period expires and then there's 15 days to receive...
Councilman Johnson: Mr_. Mayor? As I heard the motion, we did not move to turn
this into a discretionary EAW. I heard that you wanted staff to consider the
EAW issue. Was your motion Tom, was your motion to change this and require an
EAW? A discretionary EAW or what?
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe Roger could address that portion first before Tom responds.
With clarification Roger with the EAW.
Roger Knutson: I think maybe Tom would be the best person to explain what he
meant.
Councilman Johnson: Your motion was to, I'm trying to reclarify the motion, was
to refer the EAW to the Environmental Quality Board for consideration as an
official EAW as the regulatory governmental unJ. t, the RGU for this as an action
of this Council?
Councilman Workman: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: I still vote against that too because there's no grounds on
which to require an EAW on this property.
Mayor Chmiel: Other than the fact that there has been more than total number of
barrels discussed. We don't know what was in those barrels. We don't know what
it consisted of and we don't know what was the balance of those barrels either.
My concern is what problems could be to our ground water contamination. There
are locations that I'm fairly familiar with from the people who have indicated
this to me. Where those locations were and hopefully those are the areas that
31
Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
we check.
CounciLman Johnson: The EAW process does not include doing actual environmental
baseline studies. The EAW process is a paperwork process. It checks paperwork
and things like t/nat. You've been involved in many of these Mr..Mayor in your
work with NSP, I believe it is.
Mayor Chmiel: No plugs.
CounciLman Johnson: Okay. Forget I mentioned his ~nployer. However, the
baseline study that I was proposing would actually dig dirt. Would actually
sample ground water and we would find out if there was some contamination there.
The EAW is not going to show us that.
Mayor Chmiel: That's a good point. I agree. Would you like to restate your
motion Tom as per what Jay had indicated?
Councilman Johnson: One method to do it Tom would be to request Eckankar to do
some sampling of the site. That we have reason to believe that there is
enviror~nental contam].nat~.on of their site and we'd like them to do some
environmental sampling of the site.
CounciLman Wor~nan: How long would that take?
Councilman Johnson: In general, to develop a plan and everything, probably a
couple %~eks and samples back. If you had paid the lab to push the samples,
it'd take a couple weeks to get the samples back.
Councilman Wor~an: So what are you talking about, 4 weeks?
Don Ashworth: 4 weeks.
Mayor Chmiel: You're still looking at 3g days.
Councilman Workman: We're in the same situation.
Councilman Johnson: Right.
Peter Beck: Mr. Mayor, with the Council's permission. The EQB process would
take, I think the minimum of 2 months because there's the 3~ day commenting
period right J_n the middle of it. You've got 2 weeks, 3g days and 2 more weeks
for 2 months. The sampling process that Councilmember Johnson suggests would
take somewhat less than that depending on whether the Counc.].l wanted the area
that's going to be disturbed sampled, which could be done at a reasonable and
fair cost and would be_ the relevant J. ssue or to do soil studies of the whole 174
acres at this time could take quite a long time but perhaps if the area that's
going to be disturbed were sampled now and a condition on the conditional use
permit that any further development by whomever, whenever required that kind of
analysis of development sites in the future, then that's manageable.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess the point being too Peter that I just wanted to point out
that there %~re 2 farms located on that particular piece of property and there
were 2 dump areas that were located there as well.
32
City Council Meeting - April 241 1989
233
Councilman Johnson: Those two dump areas should be looked at. I'm famil]ar
with one of them up by TH 5 which I've walked through.
Peter Beck: That's right. There were 2 farmsteads. Neither of which cover the
building site for this building. What we could do, a survey of the building
site for this building and some investigation of those farmsteads. In fact,
that was done before they purchased the property but we could have, I think
there were 2 consultants at that time already. Maybe we could find a third to
look over their shoulder again at those sites but that'd be, the vast bulk of
the 174 acres is just simple fields.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, would that satisfy your concerns?
Mayor Chmiel: I think it would, yes.
Councilman Workman: What I'm interested in doing and I know the rest of the
city is interested in doing is getting this issue, as mucky as it is, behind us.
I don't want Council to have to act and react and react and try to put this off.
It can only be done for so long anyway. I would like to say that possibly if we
could get these questions answered in regards to the environment there and then
perhaps some questions from staff in regards to the referendum. Some precise
facts in regards to the taxes, etc, Money needed to be raised. Entire site
versus partial site, etc.. Get some better facts and figures there. Perhaps at
the next Council meeting this issue could ~.n fact be made, a decision could be
made one way or the other so that people could get on with their lives. A lot
of the discussion this evening in regards to a lot of the emotional issues is in
fact an issue between, somewhat between Eckankar and the citizens, a member of
which I am. The governmental body in Chanhassen has not been, pardon?
Councilman Johnson: Of which group are you a member?
Councilman Workman: I've been accused of that too. Now that my train of
thought is gone. The issue is in fact an issue, an emotional issue between
Eckankar and the citizens of which I'm a member of the citizens group and would
like to see it resolved as I know everybody would so hopefully with these
answers we can then proceed with a decision.
Mayor Chmiel: Do I take that as your motion Tom?
Counc i lman Workman: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that.
Councilman Johnson: The motion is to change the tabling portion. It's still
tabled right? The purpose here is that no matter what we find out there, we're
still building a church but we're requiring them to clean it up but that doesn't
slow down the church whatsoever so that could be added as a condition of
approval and we could have this whole nasty thing behind us and we could go on
with regular city business.
Mayor Chmiel: The motion is as such and it's on the table.
33
City Council Meeting - AprJ. 1 24, 1989
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to table actJ. on on a
conditional use permit to build a church by Eckankar so that city staff can
research the idea of a possible referendum and requ~.re Eckankar to perform an
environmental study of the property. Ail voted in favor except for Councilman
Johnson who opposed and the motion carried wi_th a vote of 3 to 1.
APPROVAL OF KENNEL PERMIT APPLICATION, 1630 LAKE LUCY ROAD, PHIL MATHIOWETZ.
Jim Chaffee: Under normal circumstances a kennel permit application ].s approved
by staff pending publication and successful inspection by our animal control
officers. If after publication we receive complaints about a kennel, then staff
submits the request to the Council for approval. In this case, some members of
the Council received a copy of a letter sent to me by Mr. A1 Krueger. HJ.s
concern is one of barking dogs. This was his complaint also last year. In
addition, he was advised last year to contact the Sheriff's Department each and
every time he has a complaint. The Sheriff's Department has been directed to
investigate the complaint and if verified, issue a citation. To our knowledge,
the Sheriff's Department has not responded to Mr. Mathiowetz' residence
regarding barking dogs since December of 1987. Since that time numerous
contacts have occurred between Public Safety, Mr. Krueger and Mr.. Mathiowetz.
Mr. Math~.owetz has responded to our requests on each occasion and we have not
heard from _Mr_. Krueger until his most recent letter since July of 1988. I have
written a letter to Mr. Krueger indicating that we are recom~endJ_ng to the
Council issuance of the kennel pemnit with the remedies to Mr. Krueger being the
s~me as they always have been and that is to contact the Sheriff's Department
when a violation is occurrJ, ng. At that time a deputy will respond and as I
said, they will either confirm or refute the complaint. Again, if the complaint
is confirmed, the deputy is to issue a citation to Windwalker Kennels. This
would appear to be a reasonable solution to a potentJ, al problem.
Mayor Chniel: Thank you Jim. Is the applicant here as well? If not,
Mr. Krueger.
A1 Krueger: Mr. Mayor and councilmembers. He's in error that I haven't called
the sheriff since 1987. I have ICR numbers. I've collected a few of those.
called his own office and the gal came out here just the other day, within 2
weeks ago. I was informed by her after filing a complaint because Mr.
Mathiowetz wasn't even home, that she could not even go back to his house and
say there was a complaint so what k~.nd of investigation is that? I'm going to
start with kind of the plan that I had here. I was just responding to his
situation. Respondin9 to the pol~.ce. I've called the police probably in the
last year and a half, oh 18 times maybe. SometLmes I've gotten ICR nmnbers.
Sometimes I have not. Sometimes they've tried to put two calls together because
the dogs had been barking continuously for 45 minutes to an hour. They've come
out, the Mathiowetz' are not home so they cannot do anything. Whether they
follow up or investigate, I hear no reports back. He has not tried to contact
me. He has my phone numbers. He has my address. He has my office number. He
has my attorney's number which in the last letter I asked to respond through my
attorney who is Gary Gandrud at Faegre and Benson. I think the City Attorney
knows him. He mentioned Jay's name too, and that contact was not made. Okay?
There was a letter wr.itten on the 19th. Gary was going to be my attorney here
tonight only he didn't have enough time to respond because the letter came out
so late. Okay? I'm speaking for my wife, Carolyn Carlson Krueger. My
34
City Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
children, Julie Krueger. My son, Christopher Krueger. We bought our property
back in 1977. I've lived there for the last 9 to 10 years. At that time
Mathiowetz was not anywhere close. He moved in about 5 years ago. They snuck
in a license because it was published in a paper that isn't even delivered to my
house at that time so it got through. Now I've been fighting. I've been woken
up in the middle of the night at 3:00. During the days. In the morning I hear
dog kennel cans and dishes getting kicked around. When Mathiowetz' come home,
the dogs are hungry. They know the master's home so it rares up. If I go down
and get my mail, I have a problem with dogs. Am I really supposed to call the
sheriff on that? If I do, I have called Mathiowetz I bet 6 to 8 times. I
always call Mathiowetz first before I call the Sheriff. Just out of courtesy.
I've been accused of having a residential problem here. Well, how can I make
friends with somebody that I've called the police on in the last 2 years onward
to 20 times. But I've got some exhibits here that I'd like to give the City
Council of my home and the kennel I'm involved with. The first picture is my
home. The second picture is Lake Lucy. The third picture is the kennel again.
There's a fence that I've been told was constructed to break eye sight. That
shot right there is eye sight from the road. People walking up and down the
road. Cars. Bikes. Kids throwing rocks in there accentuate the dog barking.
That doesn't alleviate it. That overhang that you see in the picture number 3.
That works as a megaphone towards my house. My bedroom. My bedroom is closer
to that kennel than Mathiowetz'. Acoustically speaking, I'm closer. That means
the decibels that are deducted by the mass that's in between, I'm a lot closer.
He's got his whole house between his bedroom and the dogs. The fourth picture
is again the kennel looking north. The fifth picture is there looking from my
bedroom porch down at the kennel adjacent to the horses. He has horses there
now. If you'll notice in one of those pictures, you're going to see two horse
trailers. I don't know if you guys can drive with 2 horse trailers behind your
house. He's supporting 4 horses. That requires a conditional permit as I read.
That's a whole other issue but horses and dogs don't get along. This guy goes
back and works with horses. He's been really into his horses lately. I think
he's brought one of his crony friends out of Eden Prairie because they have
ordinances that disallow recreational vehicles near their homes so being the
Fire Marshall of Eden Prairie, he has brought in this second one and the horses
have just appeared here in the last 3 months maybe. Something like that was
when I really first noticed. The sixth shot is a kennel shot. You can see it's
a nice kennel. I don't have a problem with the condition of the kennel or the
way he trains his dogs. The problem is, we go through different batches of
dogs. I go through new dogs up to 3 times a year so I get pups. So I get
hungry pups. I get everything else 3 times a year. Okay? Now we're sitting
with RR which is rural residential that's zoned from about 1400 Lake Lucy down
to about Pheasant Hills. About 3 baseball throws. Well, I couldn't throw it 3
maybe but nonetheless, we're sitting with a funny situation in there that I'm
condemned to getting woken up in the middle of the night and they don't bark
long sometimes but it's enough to wake you up. Both my wife and myself have
very stressful jobs. We've had those since we moved in and moved into a serene
little neighborhood. The Mielke's across the street don't enjoy having a
con~nercial kennel across the street but I'm on the firing line. They
understanding my problems. They're not here tonight. I told them that I was
airing my situation and nonetheless they believe in me. The guys that
investigate this thing, even municipalities out west of here send out a letter
to directly affected people of a situation. Here we publish it in the paper
that came out in Chaska that nobody ever even saw okay and I 'ye been fighting
this thing ever since. Okay? As far as investigation by Mr. Chaffee, I've been
35
CJ. ty Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
accused of again the problem with resJ. dences. He's the one that knows hJ.m
through his job in Eden Prairie so his recon~nendation can be discounted a lot.
He's not an unbiased person. Phil and him, Phil is the Fire Marshall like
I said and there's a professional buddy buddy there that's going on and I don't
like it and it goes on. The zoning I went through. Smaller cities. Like I
said, he didn't even give Gary Gandrud the courtesy of giving us letters or he
didn't even send a copy out to him where my last letter requested that
conmunication go through him or he would have been here tonight. Gary's been
confronted with these problems before. The issuance of the first license I went
through. Past City Council permitted the location on the property. That's
another issue. Phil Mathiewetz has a T type situation and the City Council
deemed it necessary...kennel again without contacting the local residents as to
building this tlning on the street. He had other preperty. There would have been
other property that he owns that would have been far more suJ. table to that
situation rather, than the road. There's been no correspondence with the
residents on this whole issue as I mentioned. Other cities do. What sets off
these barking dogs? Just people walking. Kids playing..Me walking to my
mailbox. Sunday morning I go out for church. What do I hear? Barking dogs.
They're hungry. ~_nother problem that I have with this thing, this con~nerci, al
kennel is that I've returned mail to other parties that are addressed to 163g or
whatever his address is to other people by the name of Bruce Johnson and Reg
K_nutson that are addressed to the Windwalker Kennels so he's running a
con~nercia! operation at my expense. At the expense of both the tax situation.
I'm sure if he's a smart man, which I'd like to think Phi! is, he's deducting a
good share of that thing against his taxes. He's not registered with the State.
He's not listed with the State. He has no name. He's not listed as an alias
with the State. I've talked with the Secretary of State and found that out.
When do they bark? Hemework. Piano. Dinner. You name it. The middle of the
night. Dog dishes clanging. If I'm outside werking in my garage, I hear it.
The more I'm eutside, the more I hear it. What kind of responses do I get from
the~ when dogs do bark? He kind of gets on it sometimes. In the middle of the
night is Phil's gone, I hear his wife hollering, shut up. Shut up. Two words.
Hey no. That's their solution for controlling the dogs. That's reality. The
Sheriff doesn't see that. I do. I live there. I lived there before Phil got
there and I'm living there now. The property values. Jim Mielke. He doesn't
like hhe kennel across the street. Warren Phillips across the street too. He
too doesn't understand why he needs a kennel in front ef his house. Betsy
Glaccum up 'the street, s~ne situation. Betsy was talking to him 2 weeks ago and
he said, okay I'm getting out of here. I've bought property somewhere else. I'm
moving. Two weeks ago. Okay? Now I've kind of been condemned to a situation
where I'm going te have this kennel, you can see by the pictures that it's
pretty well laid out and some guy that comes in there is going to be looking at
that. Problems with the sheriff. The sheriff. They call the dogs. He comes
out anywhere from 15 to an hour and a half later. I had one of the sheriff's
out there. He sat in my driveway for half an hour. This was in last year's
permit. He sat there for half an hour listening to dogs. He went back and he
said okay, i'm going to issue a citation. A citation was never issued. I don't
know whe tabled it. They couldn't even find the officer that came out. Now
that's our public safety department that's running thJ. s thing and they're the
ones that are okaying it and they're also his buddy buddy. Last call Phil
wasn't home. That's when I called the gal from the City Council. She agreed
that I had a problem. They all, every sheriff that's come out, and there have
been sheriffs. I've got seme ICR numbers, some not. They know I have a
problem. Even when I talk to them on the phone~ oh yeah. Hi. How are you?
36
City Council Meeting - April 24~ 1989
I'm getting to be buddy buddy with them sometimes. The objections to the
kennels. Not registered with the State. The trailers. Dogs and horses don't
click. Not where you're sitting them. Not when I've got to sleep next to them
or closer to them than he does. I'm looking to the City Council. These guys
haven't given me much satisfaction. They come out and the dogs are quiet. I
expect the dogs to be quiet. They get tired. Hollering at the dogs. I
mentioned it. I think she can holler louder than the dogs sometimes and that
comes from the other way and I hear that too. You're right. He's right. I
don't have a relationship with them. I can't. If I called the cops on you
half a dozen times, do you think you'd have a relationship with me? I can walk
into Warren Phillip's house. I can walk into Jim Mielke's house. We're
friends. Okay? I can walk into Betsy Glaccum's house because I've known her.
I've lived there a lot longer than Mathiowetz has been and I object to t_his
kennel and I hope you sympathize with me and reject this kennel license as it's
applied for. Thank you.
Councilman Workman: It seems fairly laid out in the Code book as far as what we
have in 3 different places and I'll quickly read through them and maybe we can
go from there arguing that point. In Chapter 13. The following are nuisances
affecting health, safety, comfort, or repose. Number 12. Keeping of horses,
cattle, swine, sheep, goats, rabbits, dogs or other animals or foul so as to
result in offensive odors or disagreeable noises to the discomfort of adjacent
property owners. Number 14. Causing or permitting any unnecessary noises or
annoying vibrations. Under the heading, the following are nuisances affecting
public peace and safety. Number 18, any dog which habitually barks in such
manner as to disturb the peace. Jim, is this situation in defiance of these?
Jim Chaffee: In my opinion, no. I think one of the issues you said is adjacent
property owners as in plural. We only have one. In others, we're trying to
establish a pattern whereby it would be considered a nuisance and we rely on
calls to the Sheriff's Department to do that. And again, to my knowledge, we
have not had any since the December, 1987 call. Now I'd have to go back and
check on the 2 week notice that he said somebody came out there but again, the
sheriff deputies have been directed to issue citations if there's a problem.
That's how we establish a pattern.
Councilman Workman: Well, I don't think the fact that it's just one property
owner makes, maybe the owners up Lake Lucy Road do have a problem in fact. I
own a loud dog. One loud dog. She's in my house and when she barks I have a
hard t~me begging her.
A1 Krueger: You should hear 11 dogs. Up to 11 dogs.
Councilman Workman: I guess just what I understand about the nature of the dogs
is that it's going to be a problem. Whether it can be documented by the
Sherrif's Department or Public Safety, that remains to be seen. Taking into
account what I know about a situation, living near a situation and I've near at
least one loud dog that wasn't my own. Multiplying that by 11 seems like it
would be a problem. I drive by this, as I've said before, Lake Lucy Road. I
drive on this road everyday so I know where this is. It does look close. It is
very much adjacent. I guess I'd like to hear the rest of the Council.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I was wondering A1 if you would be amendable to
having a public safety officer stay at your house for one weekend?
37
Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
A1 Krueger: Actually the dogs they have right now are actually quite good.
They' re not as bad right now as they've been.
Councilwoman Dimler: I was just kidding. I mean that may help shed some light
on it but...
A1 Krueger: I wish somebody could sleep up where I have to sleep and open my
doors and hear this stuff. There's other people involved in this thing too.
It's just not him. I've got 1 ICR number here if he doesn't have his records
together.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and the other concern I had was, i.s there a
registration witln the State required that Mr. Mathiowetz is not in compliance
with? Jim do you know?
Jim Chaffee: Registration with the State?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. For a dog kennel.
Jim Chaffee: No, there is none.
A1 Krueger: I just brought this up. As I understand it, he doesn't have 'to
register and maybe your attorney can, I talked to Gary about this this
afternoon. Actually he doesn't. You can start doing business if you have to
but you know, he starts protecting himself through situations like that. And
I hold the City liable for taking my property away from me and the sereneness of
what I had there. You see it's been taken away. It isn't a situation I moved
into.
Councilwoman Dimler: Roger, could you answer that? He doesn't have to register
with the State. Is that correct?
Roger Knutson: Does he have a kennel?
A1 Krueger: No, or an assumed business name.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and I assu~e that in this rural residential kennels
are allowed Jim?
Jim Chaffee: Yes, they are.
Councilwoman Dimler: I was going to check with some of the other neighbors
because I didn't receive any other letters. I guess I was concerned to check in
with the other neighbors. Mayor Chmiel may have some more information on that.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Prior to coming to the meeting I thought I'd call at least
one neighbor there who I know and ask their opinion. Their opinion was that
yes, the dogs do bark a lot. The dogs don't bother th~n as much because they' re
a good distance away but they clarified it which really brought this to mind, to
my mind, and said, if I lived where A1 lives, I don't think I could stand it.
So there is some kind of a concern there and I just wanted to make sure that I
got a little bit of record and I didn't have much more time than that one time
but I did talk to right across the road.
38
City Council Meeting - April 241 1989
239
Scott Hart: I'd like to make a few con~nents because I think I've been involved
with the investigative phase of this perhaps as much or more so than Jim in my
capacity as Code Enforcement Officer and this is a very, very good example of
why the code enforcement position can be difficult. Where one citizen's
perspective is totally opposing someone elses. One person says black. One
person says white and for that reason we take every complaint, particularly
repeated complaints such as from Mr. Krueger, very seriously. Mr. Mathiowetz
did call me this afternoon to explain that he had a college class tonight that
he's required to be at and is there anything unusual coming up and I wasn't
aware of anything having just talked with Mr. Krueger at the office last week
and I told him no, I didn't know of anything. Otherwise I'm sure he would have
been here. A few comments that I'd just like to respond to because I think
there are two totally opposing viewpoints here. We've kept up contact with Mr.
Krueger. I called his lawyer after he wrote us and told us to only con~nunicate
with him through his lawyer. I called his lawyer 4 times with no return
messages. Finally I got in and was told I don't have time to talk to you. I'll
call you back and that was about 2 weeks ago and I've heard nothing so we've
tried. We've tried hard. I think there was an implication that we don't take
these complaints very seriously. I was at a jury trial last week for a barking
dog complaint in town. We take these very seriously. I'm afraid sometimes more
seriously than the judges with the County do so we don't just brush these off.
There's an implication that we're biased because of our professional
relationship with Mr. Mathiowetz and I guarantee you that both Jim and I have
arrested plenty of police officers and fire fighters in our carreers. That has
absolutely nothing to do with it. The bottom line is simply that we've told him
because that's the only complaint that we get in that area, to call anytime and
we'll respond and we have. And neither the Sherrif's Department nor Chan Public
Safety has substantiated these complaints. The one issue where the deputy was
up there, that was easily verifiable and at that time that was early on and the
deputy said I'm going to refer it to the animal control people to try to work
out. That's how we always do it. We don't issue citations. We try to avoid it
frankly if we can to seek voluntary compliance and this deputy was told from now
on, as was the Sheriff's office, any complaints out there. Any so it wasn't
that we didn't know who it was. Deputy Selinski handled it just like we like
code violations to be handled here but unfortunately we have not been able to
help Mr. Krueger at all and frankly the last week when I talked to him, he just
left with his hands thrown up and said I just can't take this. We've worked.
We've worked hard on this. We can find no reason not to ~grant this kennel
A1 Krueger: I guess I'm curious whether you're here representing Phil
Mathiowetz or not. When I was at City Hall here the other day, you guys might
find out something now and I'll take a taxi home. My drivers license expired.
Okay? Well, it's expired a while back and nonetheless, that's the situation. I
had my DL run because I filed a complaint. Who are they investigating? Me or
the kennel? He told me the other day, he says hey, you better get your driver's
license fixed. He told me that. And you're right, I do. I've got to get it
fixed. My insurance is, nonetheless, who's investigating who? Who's side is he
on? I just filed a complaint. He's investigating me.
Councilwoman Dimler: Al, while you're up there could I ask you a question. I
guess I'm concerned, what is the story with your lawyer? Is he here tonight?
39
City Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
A1 Krueger: No t%e_'s not. He couldn't make it. That letter was dated the 19th.
It was received on the 21st and that was Friday.
Councilwoman Dimler: But did you state that all con~nunication should go through
him?
A1 Krueger: On there, I said yes. Not all c~unJ.cation. I said,
communication should, I think there's one letter that's been addressed there. It
says on the back there that con~nunication...
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, has he been unavailable?
A1 Krueger: I talked to Gary and Gary has returned some of those calls. These
guys are out just as much as Gary is. I think he knows Gary. I think he knows
his professionalism and I don't think Gary has got where he is without returning
calls. So knowing Gary, where he's been. Who he knows. That's not all legit.
Councilman Johnson: Tom, you say you drive by here everyday. I make it a
point to roll down my window as I come through here for the past several years
since this issue comes up every year and listen. Even in my wife's car which is
quite noisy, I hate to say, I haven't been able to create their dogs to start
barking as I drive by. I know that in the past, I don't know if he's got the
same dogs, the dog owner has gone to the expense of having the vocal cords
removed or whatever from some of his dogs. Had an operation to keep them from
barking. ~Jnen we first started there was an old wood fence up there I believe.
It's just a chainlink but Tom, you drive by everyday which is far more often
than I do. What's your experience?
Councilman Workman: I have two small children in the car with me. It's early
in the morning and I don't roll down the window. And I wasn't that aware of the
prdglem. I guess I don't really look that closely for them Jay.
Councilman Johnson: You probably will for the next 3 years.
Councilman Workman: I guess in all fairness, it would be interesting perhaps
and adviseable that Phil could co,me and represent himself. I enjoy dogs and I
would love to have a kennel set up like his. Unfortunately, if it's in a
situation where it's in close proximity to other neighbors, I think it's kind of
a tree fell in the forest situation here. So perhaps not to create a fighting
match here between two neighbors but to maybe in all fairnes to Phil have him
come in perhaps so we could talk to him too about it. I have no doubt that the
dogs are barking and that they're annoying Mr. Krueger and I have no doubt that
Phil enjoys doing what .he's doing because I enjoy dogs too but it's a situation
where I think maybe Mr.. Krueger's comfort is being sacrificed and I want to
maybe get the other side from Phil.
Councilman Johnson: I thJ. nk we also need to look at, these dog dishes clanging.
The dogs pushing the dishes around and stuff like that. I think there's
probably a few things we can do there. If he's using the big metal pans that
some people use to feed their dogs with and then they're tossing those around,
we can either secure the pans to where they can't be moved or use the rubber
pans. There are some things we can do. It's hard to stop a dog from barking
but if there's other noises, the fence rattling or whatever. There are other
things you can do to quiet those down.
4~
A1 Krueger: Another thing that I would suggest in that same mode is to at leats
have a number that the sheriff can go call when Phil is at his firemen's party.
Last year at the firemen's party, what did I enjoy? He enjoyed his little ball.
I enjoyed barking dogs. Called the sheriffs, they couldn't do anything. He
wasn' t home.
Councilman Johnson: Well now if the dogs are barking and the sheriff's there,
the sheriff can issue a citation. The person does not have to be there.
Jim Chaffee: Correct.
A1 Krueger: I was told by the sheriff at one time when he was sitting in my
driveway for half an hour listening.
Councilman Johnson: This was about 2 years ago I know because you told it to us
before but now our public safety is saying, if the dogs are barking and you're
there and you witness the dogs barking, issue the citation whether Phil's there
or not.
A1 Krueger: But the policeman has to sit there and justify that they're barking
right?
Councilman Johnson: That's correct. He has to hear them barking himself. He
can't issue a citation because you say they're barking.
A1 Krueger: That's the problem you know. They start barking at 3:00 in the
morning. I'm woken up. You know, what do they bark at? A raccoon. Here's teh
barking, it's gone and I'm already awoke.
Councilman Johnson: It's tough but I think we should table this until Phil can
come in here and present his side of it and I think we should look at what other
noise reduction techniques. It was a mistake to put the kennel where it was.
That was before any of us were on the City Council that it happened. I've been
J. nvolved in only renewals of the permit but Phil's at college tonight. He can't
skip his college for this either so he needs to be informed. I think we can't
take any action without hearing both sides.
A1 Krueger: I kind of agree with that. In Phil's last letter, in the
applJ, cation for last year he says, yes, I'm not completely without fault. I
don't have barking dogs so I don't know how much fault lies with me. That's the
Way it is.
Councilman Workman: I would move to table this item until we can get the two
together.
Councilman Johnson: I'll second that.
A1 Krueger: Can somebody from here contact the rest of the neighbors that live
up and down that road?
Councilman Johnson: Can that be apart of your motion there Tom to also contact
the rest of the neighbors?
41
City Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
Councilman Workman: Is that usual? Is it usual to notify?
A1 Krueger: It is in Watertown and some of the towns west of here.
CounciLman Johnson: Could you also, since I'm suggesting modifications to your
motion, look at asking the Public Safety Con~nission to review the licensing
ordinance to include the provision of notification of the neighbors? Because
any kennel, if you're putting a kennel in, there should be a notification.
That's a noisy thing. If you try to subdivide your land you have to notify
everybody. Subdividing your land is not going to be noisy if you're splitting
your lot in two but you still have to notify everybody. I think the dogs should
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to make that as part of your motion Tom?
Councilman Workman: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: I'll make that part of my second then.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table action on the
kennel permit application for Phil Mathiowetz until the applicant could be
present. Also, to direct the Public Safety Commission to reviewing the
licensing ordinance to include the provision of notification of neighbors and to
notify the neighbors in this situation. All voted in favor and the motion
cart ].ed.
Jim Chaffee: Al, could you get the ICR numbers to Scott here so we can
investigate that please?
A1 Krueger: I only have one at this point. When you wake up in the middle of
the night...
DISCUSSION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GREAT PLAINS GOLF ESTATES, TH lgl AND PIONEER
TRAIL, DON HALLA.
JO Ann Olsen: The applicant received an extension for his preliminary plat
which expires July lgth of this year. He did receive preliminary plat approval
for 37 single family lots. He came in under the old ordinance where it was just
2 1/2 acre minimum lot size and there was no 1 unit per lg acre density
requirement as there is now. The applicant has stated that he will only be
platting 3 of the 37 lots and the rest will be outlots which he can maintain his
nursery. The plat is valid for 2 years so when he would come in in the future
to plat those outlots, the 1 unit per 10 acre density could be enforced and we
just wanted the City Council to determine at thJ. s time whether or not they would
feel that the old regulations v~uld still apply or whether or not Mr. Halla
would have to meet whatever requirements are in effect at that time. We just
felt a little uncomfortable with these 3 lots being platted.
Councilman Johnson: I'm not sure how familiar you all are with ~nat happened
here about 3 years ago. With the Lake Ann Interceptor project, the Met Council
forced basically by contract said if you want this interceptor through your
42
City Council Mee-~ing - April 24, 1989
town, you shall change your comprehensive plan and your zoning ordinance to only
allow 1 house per every 10 acres in the rural area of town. At the t~me the
zoning ordinance was 1 house every 2 1/2 acres so they went through about a year
of public hearings and stuff. I wasn't on the Council at that time but I
attended some of the public hearings redoing the zoning ordinance. Finally
passed it after much argument on it and they gave an extension until January 1st
I believe of the next year, maybe it was the 15th or 30th, whatever, for anybody
to come in under the old ordinance and preliminary plat their lots. At that
time, that's when everybody, we had the Gagne property. The Halla property.
Your friends from Eden Prairie there that we talked to the other day. Sever
Peterson. He came in and several other people. Some of those were also
involved in the TH 212 and they've been given extensions because of TH 212.
Mr. Halla was probably the most honest of everybody saying he wants to grow
trees. He doesn't really want to subdivide but to protect his property value,
which is what everybody wants to do is protect their own property value, I'd
want to do it too, he wanted to plat this at this time into lots. So he's been
working on that. I just-wanted to give you that background. It was a tough
issue at the time, especially for trying to change that zoning ordinance. There
were some fun meetings. We packed them in out there in the hall.
Councilwoman Dimler: Gee I wish we could do that. I guess I have a concern of
treating people equally and who knows what the future is. I think it's really
unwise for a Council to make a judgment today on future decisions. In today's
circumstances and what's the circumstances going to be the day he comes in to do
that. It is my understanding that right now he's got until July 10th to still
go ahead with the 2 1/2 acres and then after that he'd be in the 1 and 10. Is
that correct, the July 10th?
Jo Ann Olsen: His intention is to outlot a majority of that site so the City
Council could either continue to have it 2 1/2 acre as it was approved or else
to enforce the 1 unit per 10 acres.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. That window was granted for a period of time and I
don't know how long that was. Is that closed now? The window on the 2 1/2
acres? That' s closed?
Councilman Johnson: Over 2 years ago.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, this is a real problem. I guess my other concern is
that you know we do have ground water problems and we could be looking at the
possibility of putting in 37 septic tanks out there or the property, this
probably is more unlikely but it could be served at the time and the 1 and 10
would no longer be in effect. So I don't know. We're making a decision here
not knowing what it's going to be at the time and I think that's in poor
judgment. I think we should continue and treat him like we have everyone else.
The window is closed and give h~m until July 10th to do the 2 1/2 acres. So I
would go with option 2 on the recommendation.
Mayor Chmiel: First of all, is Mr. Halla here?
Don Halla: Thank you. I have all through the time been very up front with my
discussion on it and I have met all the requirements of the city. We did file
timely the first time when other people were given extensions after that. Many
extensions have been granted. We asked for a 1 year extension before coming in
43
Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
with our final plat. In all of our original paperwork, if you look at the plans
and so forth, we had everything in phases and it was originally considered and
discussed that we would start the project and do it slowly over a period of
time. Not convert the whole thing at one 'time. That actually is falling into
what MnDot has wanted because they didn't want rapid development and really what
happened because of switching frown the 2 1/2 acre to 1 to lg, many, many
different lots came up and people subdivided instantly and it actually caused
what they were trying to prevent. Now really by my asking not to have to be
forced to develop the whole thing at once, I ~ trying to go along really with
the 1 in lg plan as far as doing it slowly. If I am forced to have to do it and
go into 2 1/2 acres immediately, then that's exactly what I would have to do.
I purchased my brother out of the pro~uerty based upon it being 2 1/2 acre
developable lots. If it reversed, I would lose three-fourths of what I paid him
for that land. I can't afford to do that bottom line and if I'm forced to do
it, I'll have to find whatever remedies I can to work around it but I would just
as soon, Jt was, as my understanding was, that we were allowed when we
originally came in and discussed this, that phasing was not a problem and .it was
approved on that basis. There was a question I think that Jo Ann came up with
that it needed direct Council statement and approval just to make sure that in
the future there would not be any problem with that and that the 2 1/2 acres
would carry forth. That's really what I'm here for and I would like to see an
approval of that rather than a disapproval and I assure you that that would be
less problems with the sewer problems and so forth and hopefully there will be
sewer by the time that it was developed. I don't know but I would be forced
into doing it J_n~]ed.iately by July lgth if that's ~/nat you decided to the
opposi te.
Councilwoman Dimler: What is your time line if we don't? If we give you an
extension, when will you have it done?
Don Halla: I don't know. That's the honest answer. If you %~nted to force me
into making a time line and you say that you want 37 lots out there with houses
on in lg years or 5 years or whatever, you would come to that conclusion. If
that's what you really want, that's what I present can be done.
Councilwoman Dimler: You see my point is that we would be treating. You had the
window. You took advantage of that but then you didn't go beyond that. You
didn't complete the process. I guess other people, I'm thJ. nking of MJ. ke Gorra
here. He didn't get in on that and say the Deglers or somebody wanted to
subdivide, they would not be able to get on that. They'd have to go with the 1
and t0 so I'm saying that you had your opportunity and then after that we're
just going to have to treat you equally like we would have to treat anyone else
that comes in here.
Don Halla: But that's exactly what I've done. I came in on the window. I have
followed all the rules a~d regulations.
Councilwoman Dimler: But the window is closed.
Don Halla: But we did what was required within that window.
Councilman Johnson: I think I can ask some questions of staff and I think we
may clarify samething here. If he plats all 37 lots today, does he have to
build all his roads? Does he have to sell all the lots? Can't you plat the
44
City Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
245
lots and not sell one of them but they're a platted lot out there? The platting
does not mean you put the streets and improvsments on them. What is the
requirements for putting ~mprovements on? Does he have to show some effort
towards improvements?
Gary Warren: It gets to be a question of phasing but typically, if he plats it
he' 11 have to enter into a development contract and our development contract
gives him a 2 year window basically on zoning changes or rule changes. But to
avoid paper platting situations, we do require the security be placed in to see
that those improvements are completed.
Councilman Johnson: But the development contract is per phase? You don't do it
for the entire project? So if his first phase is 3 lots, he'll enter into a
development contract for those 3 lots and the phasing plan would then have the
next lots at some time in the future? But in order to have all 2 1/2 acres,
you'd have to plat them all now because when you put it into an outlot and you
come back and replat that outlot later, that's a new platting. We're under the
new rules. The window's closed. If you change your plat now to have 3 lots and
one huge outlot and you come back and subdivide that outlot later, you're
subdividing under the new rules. Not the rules that expired 2 years ago.
Don Halla: I guess I didn't understand that.
Councilwoman Dimler: And in fairness w~'d have to do that. In fairness to all
the other people.
Councilman Johnson: How long do you think, maximum foot dragging it would take?
After he plats the first 3 lots, or after he develops the first 3 lots, if none
of those sell, are we going to say in 2 years you have to start developing more
lots even though none of those 3 have sold?
Gary Warren: He can plat the outlots at his discretion.
Councilman Johnson: What I'm saying is, he plats all 37. I shouldn't say plat.
Develops 3 of the lots. His first street going into whatever 3 he's trying to
develop right now and none of those sell within the next 4 years. Is there some
kind of schedule that we're trying to say in so many years he has to build them
all out? I mean we've got subdiv~.sions around here that have lots that haven't
sold in 20 years.
Gary Warren: I don't see that we'd be requiring him to go ahead. That's the
developer/landowner's right I guess is to develop his land at a pace that makes
sense economically for him. What we're just saying is whatever is final
platted, typically the City does take security to see that any improvements that
go along with it are accomplished and if those lots don't sell, like Saddlebrook
for ex&mple. Things are picking up. They've had a lot of lots that they wished
they had sold earlier but who knows how long they may be.
Don Halla: But you're required to enter into a development contract for the
whole property or just phase 1 or 2 or 3?
Gary Warren: For the portion that you're final platting. Chan vista's a good
example. Chan vista went to phases. There were 4 additions to Chan vista and
each addition, we had an overall contract and then we added an addendum for each
45
Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
subsequent phase. Each addendum had it's own portion that would be final
platted.
Councilman Johnson: As I remember Chan Vista, we platted each phase, the phase
behind my house first so I had the 37 homes behind me built first. Did we at
that point on that final plat put everything as an outlot?
Gary Warren: Right.
Councilman Johnson: Then when they ca-ne to the next phase, which was under the
new zoning ordinance, we allowed the next phase to be developed in accordance
with the preliminary plat. So when he took part of his outlot and developed it
according to the preliminary plat, which was approved under the old zoning
ordinance, same situation because Chart Vista was originally approved under the
old zoning ordinance and all the final plats were under the new zoning ordinance
were under the old zoning ordinance basically. So in this case, I guess what
I'm saying is Chart vista, if we treat him the same as Chart Vista, his outlots
would be platted under the old zoning ordinance in accordance with his
preliminary plat. Not in accordance with anything new.
Gary Warren: I thJ. nk, and Roger can correct me if I'm wrong but that was the
discretion of the Council at that time when they came in with the final plat. If
you wanted to enforce the new rules, that was your choice and in this case...
Councilman Johnson: I wJ_sh somebody had told me that at the time.
Jo Ann Olsen: I don't know that that had been over 2 years thought either.
Gary Warren: And that was residential single family, not rural.
Jo Ann Olsen: We just pointed this out because it will be several years before
he co~es in and we just wanted some sort of understanding now so he would know.
Councilman Johnson: I think he deserves to know where he sits but if he comes
back 3 councils later, lord kno~s where he sits 3 councils from now. These 5
people probably won't be here 3 councils from now. Some of them might.
Don Ashworth: You had mentioned there originally was a phasing plan that you
had submitted and that the City had agreed to?
Don Hal!a: It's all on our original, on our preliminary plat all has phasing
plans on it.
Don Ashworth: Maybe that would be one ~y to resolve this issue. We table it
this evening and resubmit the item showing that phasing and seeing whether or
not the Council is in agreement with that original phasing plan for this plat
extension. In other words, 3 lots within 1 year. 12 lots with 2 years.
~atever the original phasing plan was.
DOn Halla: I don't think we had time limits on the phasing but we had certain
lots beJ. ng developed J.n certain stages.
CounciLman Johnson: Did you request within that phasing plan?
46
City Council Meeting - April 24~ 1989
Don Halla: As far as?
Councilman Johnson: Your request for platting 3 lots? Was that phase 17
Don Halla: That was Phase 1.
Councilman Johnson: It was only 3 lots?
Don Halla: Yes. So I've been operating under the thought that what I needed to
come in by July 10th I guess is the date was Phase 1 and that took care of
everything beyond that.
Councilman Johnson: Our packet's a little missing in some information.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we should just table this.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have another question before we do that. Jo Ann, is that
correct that all the others that were in this window period have finished except
for Sever because of the TH 212 property?
Jo Ann Olsen: They're all in the process of being developed. Lake Riley Woods
North though does have an outlot that will be coming in with platting at the
corner of TH 101 and Pioneer Trail.
Councilwoman Dimler: DO they have the same deadline?
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes, they've all met the guidelines. It's just that there's an
underlying where the Council has the discretion to either allow the table, what
was approved originally or else to apply the new ordinance. We knew that with
this one it was going to be several years like 10 years, 15, 20 and we just
wanted the applicant to have a chance to know that he should plat it now. We
understand it's up to whatever Council is on at that time.
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't know. Leaving it open ended that long. Maybe we
could put a time limit on it.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe that's what we could look at right now with the tabling as
was suggested. Showing the phasing which was provided previsouly to the City
and take it from there.
Councilman Johnson: I think if we look back at the notes or at the Minutes from
the meetings, and like Don said, he was very honest. He wants to grow trees out
there. He doesn't want to plat and he wants to save his property value.
I think the Council very well knew that and the time that we passed this, I
think we were very generous and we indicated that we'd probably continue being
generous. We're not trying to get rid of Halla Nursery. If you'd rather grow
trees, that's fine with us. The thrust of 1 in 10 did not come from the City
of Chanhassen. The thrust of 1 in 10 came from the _Metropolitan Council and in
some people's opinion, was part of their method of making our population meet
their predictions.
Boyd Peterson: My name is Boyd Peterson at 325 Pioneer Trail. I'm a property
owner right adjacent to the nursery there and I have something to say about the
septics out there. I've got to have mine pumped every year and he's talking
47
Ci~y Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
about being forced to develop 37 individual properties with a septic system on
every one. Looking at the outline of the land around there, there's going to be
more people having that problem as we start havin9 more people dumping into that
soil. That whole thing, in my book, should wait for city water and sewer. It's
not far down the road right now in Eden Prairie and they're coming this way. If
he wants to wait 10 years, let's let him wait and get the city into J.t and do it
right instead of making everybody put in water and their wells and their septic
systems and then a couple years all of a sudden you're on city water and sewer.
Thanks.
Councilman Johnson: I'm at the point of saying, let's have staff come back to
us with what the phasing plan was...
Mayor ~a~niel: Let's table it and which was shogun previously and go from there.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to table action on the
preliminary plat for Great Plains Golf Estates until the phasing plan is
submitted. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
SELECT THE PREFERRED ALTERNATE FOR TH 101 PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENT STUDY (TH 101 TO
TH 5).
Gary Warren: As the Council may recall, we commissioned a study here to allow
us to obtain land use input as well as alignment input for TH 101. The impetus
for the study was actually the submittal by MnDot of the proposed official map
for the TH 212 corridor of which an intersection was shown with TH 101. Our
initial reaction to the area was that MaDot's plan was showing TH lgl would,
from the intersection, off load traffic onto the current alignment of TH 101
which v~uld then abut onto all the property owners as it currently does along
Lake Susan. That did not seem to be a reasonable proposal although we have
included it in this analysis as the do nothing alternative. As a result, the
City con~nissioned Fred Hoisington and BRW to look at the alignment and land use
issues. The current information in front of you and Mr. Hoisington is here
tonight to go into the details as you see fit, deals primarily with the
alignment of TH 101 and the four alternates that we looked at. Although in
order to make some sense out of it, we did include some preliminary land use
input so that you could see how the al ig~nent does impact land use options in
the corridor. There is a separate study that is going to be compiled for
approval at a future date dealing specifically with adopting the land use
alternatives. However, this is strictly to address the preferred aligr~ment for
TH 101 from TH 212 to TH 5. At your discretion, Mr. Hoisington is available
with some charts to go into any details. Likewise ~ have some of the land
owners and interested parties here. We had a very good, I thought public
information meeting on April 17th and we got some good input there so would you
like Mr. Hoisington to go into any presentation or what's your pleasure?
Mayor Chniel: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to take another look see
at 'what Fred has done previously? I've sat through this probably about 3 times
and I'm sure most of you sitting here have gone through it as many times as
I have and the rest of the Council. Have you seen it? If not hearing any,
we'll dispense with it because of the time that's fleeting.
48
City Council Meeting - April 24~ 1989
249
A1 Kl~ngelhutz: I'd like to take this opportunity to address you. I guess I'm
one of those in favor of leaving the alignment where it is but I don't think
that's going to be possible. I've got neighbors to live with but I prefer
Alternate 1. Some things about it that I don't like too well. You're going to
have single family dwellings with a road in front and a road in back and I think
that's something that the Council never did like to see in any development. It
happens to abut and be a good portion of my land that is in that area and I know
it's going to devalue the value of that land inbetween those two roads by a
considerable extent. Looking at the zoning, I see some residential medium
density right along the side of TH 212. I think with the impact of TH 212
coming in there, that maybe that should be a high density residential like
apartments or something like that. Mr. Barts who owns a piece of land just to
the north of my property, he's living down in Kentucky right now and I've been
having quite a little correspondence with him. In fact, I've qot his property
for sale and I think it would be sold if it wouldn't be for th~ fact that these
road alignments were being discussed. Also I would prefer it to stay on the old
aligr~nent down below there but he also prefers Alternate 1. The one thing he
did talk to me about, in that little center island there where it shows
residential medium density and with the single family to the west of that spur
that comes off of TH 101 going to 86th Street, he thought it should probably be
medium density all the way to that spur instead of that row of single family
there. That would be this piece right in here.
Councilman Johnson: Al? The only thing we're actually deciding on tonight is
TH 101. Where the side streets go. What's it zoned. That's a different issue.
They put it on here as an illustration only. This is a possibility. Any of the
side streets except for of course 86th and Tigua, which are already there, are
just illustrations. This is Fred's dream of what could be there in the future.
A1 Klingelhutz: When would we find out about the zoning on this property then?
Councilman Johnson: That would be taken up with the Planning Commission, I'm
taking over for staff here but I've heard this before. That would be taken up
as comprehensive plan change and zoning ordinance. Is that fairly correct?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: But really we needed some kind of example of what could
happen there and then we'll take in everybody's comments as to what will happen
there because it's their property. Everybody should have a lot of input.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. I would say that the property owner should have some
input on that.
Councilman Johnson: Right now it's where does TH 101 sit. You're saying number
1. You're saying Alternate 1.
Mayor Chmiel: Alternate 1 is your preferred? Right.
Councilman Johnson: Since number 4 you don't think politically would make it?
Just leaving it where it is.
Uli Sacchet: Personally and from the viewpoint of the Hidden Valley
neighborhood, even though I haven't been able to talk to too many about it, I
49
City Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
would also recommend Alternate 1. That's all I wanted to say[
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else wishing to address that issue? If not, we'll bring
it back to the Council. Further discussions?
Councilman Workman: I'm disappointed I didn't get to hear Fred talk. I guess
if everybody's excited about number 1 or that seems to be preferable. Yes, I
didn't like some of the offshoots the way they were laid out and maybe had some
zoning questions but if that's not to be brought up this evening, I won't so I'd
go with number 1.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess from sitting in at the meetings ~nich I've also done, and
listening to the people for their choice, I too would go for number 1.
Councilman Johnson: I'm going to go with nummber 1 also because I think the
prize is behind curtain nmmber 1 here.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm going to go with number 1 too. I listened at the
Planning Commission and listened to all their con~nents and I thought they were
very good and they decided number 1 was the best and if the residents agree,
I can't dispute that.
Resolution %89-65: CounciLman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
select Alternate 1 as the preferred alignment for TH lgl between the proposed
TH 212 alig~ment and the southerly extension of Market Boulevard and to
undertake the official mapping of that alignment during the month of May. Also,
to call a public hearing for May 22, 1989. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
VERBATIM PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES, PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR.
Jim Chaffee: Just to make this real quick. At the beginning of the year we
started taping our meetings at the Public Safety Commission meetings. Part of
the reason was to be consistent with the other con~nissions. The other part was
to have a readily available access to t_he tone, if you will, of the meetings for
us to go back and look at as staff after the meetings occurred. There seemed to
be some controversy within the con~nission itself on ~fnether or not to provide
the verbatim Minutes. Some were for. Some were against. It was suggested at
the last Public Safety Con~nission meeting to bring it back to Council to see
what your preferences would be.
CounciLman Workman: How many for and against?
Jim Chaffee: It's about broken right in half.
CounciLman Workman: There's 7 co~7~nissioners though right?
Jim Chaffee: That's right. 3 1/2 for and 3 1/2 against.
5~
City Council MeeLing - April 24~ 1989
Barb Klick: Barb Klick and I'm one of the Public Safety Commissioners and my
own opinion is that there are t~_mes when maybe some of the conlnission members
would not be able to attend the meeting and I know that there's a lot of people
that like to read some of the verbatim minutes from other conxnission meetings.
Sometimes I think the meetings could be more, the Minutes would be more
objective if they were verbatim so my push is for you folks to keep them on
consistency with the other con~nissions and I would go for the verbatim minutes.
Don Ashworth: May I make a point. At the last Housing and Redevelopment
Authority meeting which occurred this past Thursday night, there was a request
from one of the members that they start going into verbatim minutes there as
well. To have the Housing and Redevelopment Authority start verbatim minutes,
you should recognize that there is an expense associated with that. We have one
full time employee who does nothing but take City Council, Planning Con~nission
and Park Commission Minutes. That's one position right there for those 3
conniissions. Public Safety and HRA, since they only meet once a month and
probably are shorter meetings, would not be, we'd probably be a fourth time. We
haven't really analyzed that issue but there is going to be a cost factor
associated with it.
Mayor Chmiel: And what's that cost factor?
Don Ashworth: I should have had a number. Especially in light of the HRA's
action on Thursday night, will the Commission be meeting again Jim before the
May 8th meeting?
Jim Chaffee: The next Public Safety ~ission meeting is May llth I believe.
Don Ashworth: I could have that back to you by May 8th. It really goes by an
estimate as to the number of pages that are being transcribed so what I'd have
to do is get an estimate from Jim and also work over with the HRA how many pages
we'd be talking about and then I could give you the number of hours to record
and transcribe.
Councilman Johnson: The other problem that exists at the Public Safety
Con~nission meeting is recording. The sound system, if they come down and do
meet the folksy, informal method of putting some tables out in front and a
couple of microphones on there, only about half of them get recorded and that's
what goes onto the tape. So then the transcribing becomes hit and miss unless
we upgrade, either upgrade it or they sit up at the lofty podium which they,
s(~ne of the group don't want to do. But in order to record it well, they need
to be near a microphone.
Don Ashworth: We should touch on that issue as well.
Councilman Johnson: There may be a possibility of getting a microphone that
sits at the middle of the table that's omnidirectional or whatever, that picks
up every direction but that's going to pick up all the paper and everything.
It's not going to be the quality that we get with these fine mics but you've
seen them where, I think it's Chaska that has them hanging from the ceiling or
something.
Jim Chaffee: I think the previous public safety con~J, ssion meeting where we
tried the little folksy get together, I think everybody, at least to my
51
City Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
knowledge on the Public Safety Con~nission was convinced that that probably
didn't work out real well. As I pointed out to them, it was like a 3 ring
circus and for those of you who were there, you know what I'm talking about. I
think the only issue now is whether or not to take the meetings verbatim or have
them transcribed verbatim and I think I have at least convinced them that to do
it accurately and professionally, they need to sit up there with all the other
co~m~issions.
CounciLman Workman: Wnat was the vote? 4 to 3? Which way?
jim Chaffee: I can tell you. It was Candy Takkunen, Dick Wing and Bill
BernhjeLm were opposed to it. Bill Boyt, Craig Blechta and Barb Klick were for
it and Wayne was just kind of eh, I don't really care.
Councilman Johnson: I personally would like each commission to work out their
own problems. I would say if you get to Wayne, if it gets down to where there
are 7 members to the con~nission, you shouldn't have a tie vote. I'm for the
freedom of the commission to run their commission the way they want it. I guess
they can't decide how they want it. If it really comes down to that, you know
like a union negotiator. Send everybody back into negotiations once more.
Barb Klick: But it's not, it's certainly something that we can go to a vote but
the other thing is it impacts you people. We're an advisory board to you folks
and if there's some information that you want verbatim. You should consider
that also. It's not just our decision. It's also how do you want to use that
information?
Jim Chaffee: I think it was the consensus at least at the last Public Safety
Con~ni ss ion meeting that they would let the Council decide by everybody and we'd
just kind of take. Everybody would live with it no matter what the Council
decided.
CounciLman Johnson: If that's their decision that we decide, I've never been
terribly comfortable with the, especially several years ago when the Chairman
wrote up the notes. He played secretary and wrote up the notes because I sat in
on a meeting and then after the meeting read the notes and didn't believe I was
quite in the same meeting. I'd prefer the verbatim.
Mayor Chmiel: I think I would too. If it came' back to us. Verbatfm are there.
There's no question. This is what was said and it was recorded and just
transcribed.
CouncJ. lwoman Dimler: I guess I don't have any problem with that except I would
like to know the increase in cost and how are you going to remedy the recording
situation. I'd like to have those concerns addressed before we make the final
decision.
Councilman Johnson: There is no recording problem if they're sitting up behind
the podJ. ums.
Mayor Chmiel: But Don indicated it would be some more.
Councilman Johnson: One more what? f~nployee?
52
City Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
Don Ashworth: I think there'd be a quarter of employee but were you implying
that you'd like to have the item tabled so that I can respond to those issues?
Mayor Chmiel: I think it'd be a good idea, yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: Why don't I move that we table until we can figure out the
costs and address some of the other concerns expressed here tonight.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table action on the
verbatim Minutes request for the Public Safety Cor~nission until staff can get
some addition information to the Council. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel: I have one here that I just w-anted to call attention to. I'm
sure everyone has read it. This is from Jim Chaffee to Steve Kirchman
indicating that his efforts in obtaining a CBO certification as building
inspector are con~nendable. On behalf of the entire Public Safety Department,
and I think as well as the Council, we'd like to extend our appreciation for
your dedication and service. It's individuals of your caliber that make the
Public Safety Department outstanding in our efforts to serve the citizens of
Chanhassen. Keep up the good work and our utmost appreciate for your efforts.
Well done.
Jim Chaffee: I'll pass that onto Steve.
Mayor Chmiel: The other thing that I had was regarding that 6% sales tax on
refuse collection services. Don, do you want to sort of talk about that or does
staff want to respond to that or Jo Ann or who?
Jo Ann Olsen: The reason that I stuck it in the packet was we're getting that
from Hennepin County. They obviously don't want it. Carver County would love
to have it.
Mayor Chmiel: For resolution that we're also looking for.
Councilman Johnson: In our case, for our taxpayers, for what we'll be paying in
in sales tax, we'll be receiving as much if not more back.
Jo Ann Olsen: I don't know that.
Mayor Chmiel: That's the question. Hennepin County is saying no. They're not
going to get that amount back as to what they pay into it. That's one of
theirs.
Jo Ann Olsen: I was talking with Rick Schneider and yes we will be receiving
more than.
53
City Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
Councilman Johnson: I don't like uneven taxes as a principle but if we're going
to have uneven taxes, they should benefit our taxpayers. I would hope that
the State could figure something out better than this because I think the tax on
rather than collection tax but tax on what goes into the landfills to be used
from the areas that the tax was collected. I think it should be fair. If you
taxed a million dollars in Carver County, that million dollars should go to
Carver County. It should benefit Carver County.
Mayor Chmiel: I think what we should do is just have Don discuss this a little
further with Jo Ann and come back in 2 weeks and let us know.
Councilman Johnson: I think discuss it with 'the County staff too. I want to
know what the impact on our taxpayers are.
Mayor Ch~niel: Next item on Council presentation is Ursula. Joint meeting
wi th HRA.
Councilwoman Dimler: Some of the HRA members have indicated to me that they
would want to have a joint meeting with us for input as to the direction for
them. I think it's a good idea and would ask staff to set up a meeting. Pick a
date and set up a meeting that we can all meet together.
CounciLean Johnson: I' 11 second that.
Mayor Chmiel: Do we need a motion?
Councilman Johnson: I'll second the idea.
Don Ashworth: Use one of the off Mondays?
Mayor Cnmiel: I would think so.
CounciLman Workman: I can't make that. I'd like to meet with the HRA. May
lgth I can't meet.
Don Ashworth: The first Monday should be May 1st. That's this coming Monday,
or the other would be May 15th.
CounciLman Johnson: I'm ready to go for the 15th to give us a little time to
figure it out.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, 7:00 in the Council Chambers?
Don Ashworth: Almost go for 7:3g to stay in conformance.
Mayor Chalet: Okay, 7:3g May 15th. HRA. Tom. Lake Riley.
CounciLman Workman: Lake Riley Chain of Lakes improvement project. I've been
meeting with the residents up around Lake Lucy Road and helping th~n with a
litlte bit of information. Meeting them personally and talking to them. The
situation isn't so much anymore are we going to, we don't want a public access
here. They're all in favor of that so that looks like it's a diffused issue.
54
City Council Meeting - April 24, 1989
The issue now has turned to are we going to be doing the right thing for the
lake? There's an awful lot of money going in. That's why we're putting the
access in is to get the million bucks. The report that we have from Bart
Engineering, which works very closely with the Watershed District, is perhaps
being disputed by some that live on the lake. I bring it up at this point in a
public manner I guess to say, staff should keep both Council and those who live
on the lake informed as to what the process is going to be. What the process is
as far as who's making the decision and the final decisions on this because it
is a big impact from Lake Riley back up to Lake Lucy. So I would like everyone
to be kept informed as far as what the chain is going to be as far as who is
going to be making the decision on this. What is the City's involv~nent in the
clean up of these lakes so we can make sure that the citizens on that lake have
a say in regards to what is going on. There's already some big involv~ent by
the citizens up there. I'm meeting with Eric Rivkin, citizen of the year,
tomorrow morning to talk about it and he's got some insights in regards to that.
Mayor Chmiel: I've already had some discussions with Conrad Fiskness regarding
those as well.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. Ail
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
55