1j. City Council Minutes March 11, 1996.CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 11, 1996
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Berquist, Councilwoman Dockendorf,
Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Kate Aanenson, and Bob
Generous
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the
agenda. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE RED GERANIUM AS THE CENTENNIAL FLOWER
Mayor Chmiel: Are there any public announcements at this time? Seeing none, I do have one. This is a
proclamation declaring the red geranium as the Centennial Flower. Whereas Chanhassen will celebrate it's
100th birthday on May 5, 1996 and a variety of special events have been planned to commemorate this day.
Whereas it's hoped that everyone in the community become involved in the Centennial celebration and show
their community pride. Now therefore, be it resolved that I, Mayor Donald J. Chmiel hereby proclaim that the
red geranium be declared the official Centennial flower, and further, that all residences, businesses, churches and
schools are hereby encouraged to plant red geraniums in honor of our city's 100th birthday. Is there a motion?
Councilman Berquist: I move approval of the resolution.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #96 -22: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve a resolution declaring
the Red Geranium as the Centennial Flower. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the following
Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
c. The Woods at Longacres 3rd Addition, Lundgren Brothers:
I. Final Plat Approval.
2. Approve Development Contract & Construction Plans and Specifications.
d. The Meadows at Longacres 3rd Addition, Lundgren Brothers:
I. Final Plat Approval.
2. Approve Development Contract and Construction Plans and Specifications.
f. Approve Condemnation Settlement on Klein Property, TH 212 Corridor.
g. Approval of Bills.
1
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
h. City Council Minutes dated February 26, 1996
Planning Commission Minutes dated February 21, 1996
Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated February 27, 1996
i. Appointment to Southwest Metro Transit Commission.
j. Change Work Session Times, Strategic Plan.
All voted in favor and the motion carded unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: We'll move the, are they quick items or is it going to take time?
Councilman Senn: We can just move it to the end, that's fine.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We'll move that to items number I I(a).
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Bill Schubert: Bill Schubert, 640 Conestoga Trail. All I'd like to do is bring to the board's attention the 212
toll road. The proposal that's been going on lately ... make a decision on this?
Mayor Chmiel: No, the Council has already made a decision. A 4/5 vote to approve the proposed 212 toll
road.
Bill Schubert: So right now you're proposing we'll have a 212 toll road?
Mayor Chmiel: That is the Council's position, right.
Bill Schubert: Okay, because I would like to voice my opinion against the toll road. Questioning the necessity
for something like this, or is it the... for the benefit of this. Well first of all, there's the idea that we should have
this road to alleviate some of the traffic that goes... Certainly TH 5 is quite full at this time and this would
alleviate some of that traffic. However, the necessity for making it a toll road I question the State's proposal
for ... whereas this State has managed to survive since the inception of building roads and the amount of
infrastructure for our ... to now make toll roads in a state that's done quite well without them. I'd like to...
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you Bill. Is there anyone else?
PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST TO TRANSFER OFF -SALE NON - INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE (3.2
BEER OFF -SALE) FROM GATEWAY FOODS, INC. TO OASIS MARKET; BROOKS SUPERETTE, 594
WEST 78TH STREET.
Don Ashworth: All forms necessary to effectuate the transfer have been completed. Public Safety did make the
background checks with the Carver County Sheriffs Department. Staff recommends approval of transferring the
off -sale non - intoxicating liquor license from Brooks to Oasis Market with the expiration date of April 30, 1997.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any questions of Don?
2
1
r
n
i
1
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, I'd move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve transferring the off -sale non -
intoxicating liquor license of Brooks Superette from Gateway Foods, Inc. to Oasis Madcet with an expiration
date of April 30, 1997. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: Before I do that, let me close the public hearing.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS BETWEEN LOTS 1 & 2 AND LOTS 2 & 3
VINELAND FOREST, MICHAEL HOMES INC.
Public Present:
Name Address
Phil Larsen 6493 Nez Perce Drive
' Bob Generous: The applicant is requesting vacation of the existing drainage and utility easement between Lots
1 & 2 and 3 & 4 on the plat at Vineland Forest. The applicant will be coming in to propose a new... subdivision
combining part of Lot 2 with Lot 1 and part of Lot 3, creating two lots out of three. At that time the city
' would take an easement over the common property line of the new lot. So we are recommending approval of
the vacation subject to the conditions of the staff report. One issue, the neighboring property owner to the east
was concerned that he built his house approximately near the existing property line so they would maintain a
view because there is a minimum of 60 foot separation and he's concerned with the vacation that with the 30
foot setback, that someone could build within that area. While code would permit that as part of the vacation,
you may want to look at requiring an additional setback.
L
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any questions of Bob?
Councilman Senn: What's the...?
Bob Generous: That would be the new casement, the drainage and utility easement on the common property
line.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so that'd be the new property line? So that's where you need to consider the setback
from?
Bob Generous: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
3
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Bob, why aren't we doing this all at one time? Why are we doing the vacation
and then. ,
Bob Generous: The subdivision wouldn't come back to City Council. The code permits staff to administratively
approve that. You're not creating a new lot. We're actually decreasing.
Councilman Senn: Do you need some direction on the additional setback or do you do that administratively?
Bob Generous: No that, Council would have to make that a condition. I
Kate Aanenson: What Bob's pointing out, it's not a requirement of the City Code. We have 'been notified by
the neighboring property that he is concerned about that. He sited his home based on the fact that there would '
be three lots there. If we combine it to two ... and he sited accordingly. We're saying based on code we can't do
that. If you want to work out something that's acceptable language to try to push the home to maintain his view
corridor, we'd ask that that's one of his concern. That we may want to put that in as an additional condition. '
Councilman Senn: What's your feeling?
Kate Aanenson: Well he did place his home based on the fact that there was three lots there. Certainly he '
made a decision on the best information he had and I'm not sure if the applicant... split has a concern over the
additional setback. There's plenty of lot space there. Plenty of setback so he could maintain that.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I see staffs recommendations indicated as such that they do recommend the following '
motion as indicated in the packet. Are there any other concerns?
Councilman Senn: One more question. What would that additional setback mean...?
Bob Generous: The 60 foot setback would maintain that area.
Councilman Senn: Versus?
Bob Generous: Code requires 30.
Councilman Senn: That's not part of your recommendation here.
Bob Generous: No. I did, when the neighbor came to me, I did request that he contact Michael Homes and see
if he was amendable to that. I haven't heard from him since.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Bob, why did the property owner choose this new lot line which goes directly '
down the middle of all those pine trees? He's trying to make two equal lots or?
Bob Generous: Not equal, no. Because he thought that would act as a separation or screen. ,
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh okay. But if we ever need the easement...
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? If not, is there a motion? I
I City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
' Councilman Senn: I'll move approval with the addition of the 60 foot setback.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second it.
Resolution #96 -23: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded that the City Council
' approves the vacation of the drainage and utility easements along the common property lines of Lots 1 and 2,
and Lots 2 and 3, Block 3, Vineland Forest, subject to the following conditions:
1. The property owner shall make application for and receive approval of an administrative subdivision of the
properties prior to recording of the easement vacation.
2. The property owner shall dedicate to the City of Chanhassen a 10 foot wide drainage and utility easement
' centered along the common property line of the proposed administrative subdivision.
3. The landowner shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the city stating that if the city were to ever
use the proposed drainage and utility easement within the administrative subdivision, the city would not be
liable for the replacement of any trees or vegetation planted within the easement. As an alternative, the
property owner could realign the new property line to avoid the pines planted in the area.
' 4. There shall be a 60 foot building setback from the new common property line.
All voted in favor and the motion carved unanimously.
' Mayor Chmiel: I noticed that we're going to have, or the seniors were going to be here this evening. I noticed
that we've gone through already as far as the visitor presentation. And at this time I'd like to just back track a
' little bit with this to have them come forward and indicate some of the information that they did with
congregate dining survey.
Kate Aanenson: Surely, or otherwise we could tie it right into the next item.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, do you want to go into that?
Mayor Chmiel: Alright.
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
ALLOCATION OF 1996 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROGRAM.
I Public Present:
Name Address
Scott E. Nefstead
Selda Heinlein
Sherol Howard
Margie Shorba
Roseville, MN
Senior Commission
1005 Pontiac Lane
Chanhassen
61
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
Kate Aanenson: At this time of the year we're required to hold a public hearing on the 1996-1997 allocation for
CDBG funding. This year's amount is just a little bit less than last year's, $49,940.00. As you recall, last year
we did recommend to you approval for a commercial stove and that would be to provide congregate dining and
Meals on Wheels. Two weeks ago the seniors came to you and told you that they would be conducting their
own survey about what the need was out there in the community and I've handed out to you a survey which
we'll go through in a minute. But again, keeping in mind the objectives of the CDBG dollars. Of what they
can do. We told you last year that $50,000.00 wasn't quite enough to provide everything that we needed to be
done for the stone. With the expansion, possibly of City Hall, there's an opportunity to see where it fits in best.
We do have the possibility of providing congregate dining now based on the seating capacity now that the
senior center is 4 years old. As you recall, when we did that original senior center, congregate dining was
originally a proponent and as it came down to the dollars amount, that was left out and so we did request and
we told you it would take 2 years funding to get that. If there is left over dollars, we could reallocate those
dollars. It does require a public hearing and then just a matter of reallocating those dollars. But we believe that
it's somewhere between $75,000.00 to $100,000.00 to complete that. Just to give you an update. I did pass out
this survey on congregate dining the seniors did. They had a list of over 500 households. They contacted 262.
Just to go through, they believe that there is. They asked the following questions. Would you use congregate
dining? If yes, how much and how often would you need transportation. And there is one correction on the
meals per month. It was 578. It's actually 468 they believe and that's 5 times, they don't serve on weekends so
it'd be 5 times really for 4 weeks generally... and again this would be serving Meals on Wheels and congregate
dining. So we believe the need is here now, so does the Senior Center. The need is there and as time has
progressed, more and more demands have been made on that facility. So we are recommending that $49,000.00
be applied towards the commercial stone. If you have questions of the seniors, they'd be available to comment
on it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Are there any questions of the seniors in regard to the recommendation?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a question. If we do set this up and we have the capability of doing
congregate dining, and particularly the Meals on Wheels I'm concerned with. Is that going to require future
staffing for that service or would the seniors be doing that themselves?
Kate Aanenson: There's a lot of different ways }'ou can do it. Through service organizations. Through CAP.
There's a lot of funding resources to do that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So there's currently no plans on fitting it into a future city budget?
Kate Aanenson: No. Not city dollars.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike.
Councilman Mason: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
I
L
L
n
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Steve.
Councilman Berquist: No sir.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a recommendation?
Councilman Berquist: I'll move approval of the resolution approving the Community Development Block Grant,
$49,940.00 for the year 1996 -1997 to be used for the project as detailed therein.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Resolution #96 -24: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the resolution to
allocate $49,940.00 of the Community Development Block Grant funds for the Chanhassen Senior Center
Remodeling. All voted in favor and the motion carved unanimously.
FINALIZE ORGANIZED COLLECTION STUD RECOMMENDATION WITH APPROVAL OF
CONTRACTS OR ACCEP TANCE OF HAULERS ALTERNATIVE.
Name Address
Public Present:
Carl Peters
Farmington, MN
Gary & Pam Lano
731 Victoria Drive, Chaska
Willard Johnson
1660 West 63rd Street
Dean Johnson
Eden Prairie
Tim Schweizer
3725 So. Cedar Drive
Tom Workman
181 So. Shore Court
Bill Schubert
640 Conestoga Trail
Sandy Carlson
7271 Kurvers Point
Gary Arens
7140 Willow View Cove
Dorothy F. Shay
7230 Frontier Trail
Marcus W.
740 Canterbury Circle
Mary DeZellar
1731 Wood Duck Lane
Uli Sacchet
8071 Hidden Circle
Michael O'Kelly
685 Carver Beach Road
Dick Nelson
1070 Lyman Court
Craig Larsen
7240 Sierra Court
Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor. The city's consultant, Dean Johnson with Resource Strategies is here to
give a brief presentation and be available for any questions you may have.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you.
7
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996 '
Dean Johnson: Mayor, members of the Council. I'm not going to take a lot of time because I know this is an
item that's been before you for almost 2 years now. Back in May of 1993 we were hired to assist the city and
conduct a study on organized collection. I'll just mention briefly for the benefit of the audience, the objectives
'
of that study were to evaluate the efficiency of the existing service ... open collection. Cost effectiveness of both
open and organized collection. ...services environmental impact. Infrastructure impacts. Public safety and
impact on the existing haulers themselves. We spent about 6 months coming up with different elements of a
'
study that identified the difference between open and organized collection. With the help of—created by City
Council and ultimately recommended that the city consider organized collection. The committee was quite firm
that the type of organized collection include all the existing haulers. At that time there were six licensed haulers
serving the city. At this time there are five. The Council accepted the recommendations. We went into the
'
second phase of this activity, which was actually identifying contract features to come up with a pricing
structure which was first presented to the Council back in February of 1995. We then spent about 6 -8 months
looking at scheduling of the fees, bringing this back to the table. Actually met with the haulers from October to
'
December of this last year and submitted another revised contract to the Council which shows an organized
collection system that could ... the current licensed haulers, basically divides the city into five equal districts.
Collection would be limited to a single hauler within each district. There'd be just one hauler serving each
'
neighborhood or one resident each week. Came up with a pricing structure which you have some copies of
which reflects some savings over the average existing levels in this community, out study had indicated that
organized collection in general is less expensive in not only this county but throughout the Twin Cities. We've
had throughout this process had direction from the Council to solicit an alternative from the haulers for our
proposal on organized collection and you've received a couple of those. Last year, at the meeting that we had
about this time one year ago, the haulers presented a concept in which the city would be divided into districts,
one day of the week and there would still be free enterprise within that system. That is the residents could still
'
have the choice to select haulers from any particular neighborhood but only have collection on one particular
day. There were discussions at that time about using mini packers during spring postings to minimize some of
the impacts on streets. This fall there was a second proposal submitted. In all honesty it hasn't been endorsed
'
by all of the haulers but it was advanced to the City Council and that was considering the use of mini packers
throughout the year. Not during the spring posting period. In that instance the city would also be districted.
The same number of haulers would still remain in the city and the residents would still have an option to select
the hauler of their choice. So again that might be an option where any given day of the week or particular
'
neighborhood that would be just day I should say during the week when hauling would take place but still...
different haulers. That most recent proposal, as I stated, was not one that was unanimously embraced by the
rest of the haulers. I don't know where that physically sits in terms of a proposal to you. It was advanced by a
'
single hauler. What you have in your packet, the staff prepared a summary of these three alternatives I suppose
you could call them. We have a copy of the organized collection contract... mentioned. It had gone through...
revisions with the haulers during the month of October to December and at this time, rather than rambling on
after this long process, I'd just like to answer any questions that you may have.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Steve, do you have any questions? '
Councilman Berquist: Not at this time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen. ,
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike.
L_ J
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
Councilman Mason: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Well this is something that, as Dean has indicated, we've looked at for a long, long,
long, long time. Probably too long. But I think, as I mentioned in our last meeting that we had, we need to
make a decision and hopefully that decision's going to be made this evening. And I would like at this time to
accept anyone who would like to approach the podium and indicate their concerns, and if you would please state
your name and your address and what your concern is. And I'd like to limit this to at least no more than 5
minutes, and if it's a little over that, that's fine too. Anyone who'd like to come forward and indicate their
concerns one way or the other, please step forward.
Willard Johnson: My name is Willard Johnson. I live at West 63rd Street, 1660. ...I'm against organized
t garbage collection. ...satisfied with him. He picks anything I throw in ... I feel I have a choice. If the city, I
don't want to call up City Hall here and chew somebody ... to answer any questions. I'd like to call the hauler
directly and say—pick it up or...
' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Bill Schubert: Bill Schubert again, 640 Conestoga Trail. I've gotten as much, or most of my information...
from the Chanhassen Villager but it does disturb me the way the proposals and the reasons behind create a
city... rather than the free enterprise system that's available. Some of the information that's been ... garbage
collection reduce the amount of traffic on the streets and reduce the wear and tear on our streets. ...1,650
automobile equivalents... which is the equivalent average for the damage... by each garbage truck and recycling
truck. I question whether that's ... How many is that relative to the number of automobiles that are out there?
The buses. The regular traffic. What percentage of the damage to the roads are we ... proposal here is actually a
series of questions which many of the answers... Right now they talk about the original stay to six now... there's
five haulers that could go to many different neighborhoods. As best as I can tell in my neighborhood, there are
only three that service ... If there's only three in our neighborhood, how many other neighborhoods have less than
five. Therefore we'd be saving two trucks as opposed to... Why are we less than Carver County? ...only thing I
could come up with is that Carver County has the homes and they're on a straight area... the haulers in this area
have. The price structure was designed to ... I'd like to know what kind of external costs could warrant an
increase in our ... and what is ... that's proposed for this. .A haven't seen any numbers at all. Is there a cap
annually to the amount of increase in the amount of cost. There's the ... day trucks. Again, what's the equivalent
of, as I stated, number of automobiles... If it's not that much,...they're in competition. These five garbage
collectors have all taken, let's say a piece of the pie. They're in competition... As new development rises, do you
split that development into 5 little sections? Each one gets a little piece of the pie... Under the creation of this
city one, garbage collection system, there seems to has a few benefits. I can't see how they operate ... As you
remove competition, you're also creating a society where you cannot have the best benefits and you're only
getting one choice and the only thing that I can associate with that are the ... choices you get by a government of
Communist societies. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Bill. Anyone else?
0
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
Mary DeZellar: I'm Mary DeZellar, 1731 Wood Duck Lane and I too an against the organized garbage
collection and I also found out about it from the Chanhassen Villager on Thursday and since then, I'm in a
pretty public job where I see a lot of different people and I questioned them as to whether they were aware of
this proposal and no one responded with a yes ... be advised to somehow poll the residents of the whole city to
find out how they stand about this proposal. And also I'm wondering who would be sending out the statements.
Who would be doing the billing? Would that be the city themselves or the garbage company'? Again, I share
the other gentleman's concerns about if there's a problem, I don't want to have to call the city to deal with that.
I'd rather deal directly with the garbage company and I did want to increasing our ... on this proposal so I'd like
to speak in favor of what we're paying now versus what we would expect to pay. And I feel that a five year
commitment is a big ... could we renew the contract next year instead of 5 year intervals. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Mary.
Marcus Spiney: My name is Marcus Spiney. I live at 740 Canterbury Circle. I'd like to begin by saying that I
fully support the... recommendations, staffs recommendations to go with the organized collection. I feel their
proposal is the only one that would truly realize, have the residents realize the benefits of organized collection
such as fewer street repairs, lower collection costs, increased public safety, and increased aesthetics. I've spoken
to a lot of people in Chanhassen also and passed, circulated a petition which I have received about 29
signatures... neighbors... In addition I spoke with Steve Mithune in another neighborhood a little north of mine,
and he also circulated a petition and he received a number of petitions also. I'll submit that for your review.
They all were told the pros and cons of the issue and as far as my experience with the residents I spoke to...
concern about was the cost. They didn't want to see their cost increase. They really didn't have much concern
about their choice with... I'd like to also say that organized collection is nothing new. It's a system that is
present throughout the United States and I think Chanhassen would benefit if they would go with that system...
Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Tim Schweizer: My name is Tim Schweizer. I live at 3725 South Cedar Drive. I'm the owner of AW
Disposal. It's a difficult question you're faced with. It's hard on my part because haulers are competitors and
it's a very unorganized system for haulers to get together and agree on. But through the last three years we've
come together with a lot of different ideas to meet some of the issues of this organized collection. I know one
thing, I'm the only hauler that lives in this community and makes a living here and so I call myself self
appointed spokesperson. In the last 3 years we've spent a great deal of time in meetings and committees
addressing issues relating to this organized collection. I don't see that there's an easy answer one way or the
other but I think we've come pretty far in helping us, helping the city meet some of their objectives. The
haulers have gone along with limiting the number of licenses so there's no new licenses so we can stop this
concern from this day forward. We've also agreed to zoning of communities so that the work week is split up
among 5 equal days. Therefore reducing visibility of truck traffic to one day. We've also reduced some phase
in of minor vehicles. All the haulers at one time or another agreed to using lighter vehicles. I think along this
process... organized hauling has been promoted also throughout the county, by the county in an effort to direct
the ... disposal costs and I think that's being addressed right now for a lot of processing Chanhassen's waste. I
look at the current system representing what looks to me like Best Buy, Circuit City and Radio Shack as far as
options for the consumer, and I'm all for the options for the consumer. Thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Anyone else?
10
L
I
C
L
I
Fi
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
Gary Lano: Good evening. Gary Lano, Chaska Sanitation, 731 Victoria Drive, Chaska. First of all I'd like to
thank the entire city for working with the existing haulers. You know our company has serviced the city of
Chanhassen for over 30 years. To be honest it's been very frustrating the last 3 years for us as the haulers, city
staff, city officials, Dean Johnson, the consultant. I would really hope to say that this will come to an end
tonight. It's been a long process for everybody. I feel that organized collection, through organized collection,
all the objectives that we went through for the last few years, all the meetings, all the time we put into this, we
have met all the objectives of the city...safety, aesthetics, street issue, the pricing selection itself. We're a family
owned company. Customer loyalty throughout Chanhassen has been excellent for us. That's the one issue that
hurts the most. I guess in all honesty how do you say to a customer you've serviced for 30 years, we don't want
to be able to service you any more. Times do change. We have to go on, which is really hard for us. I also
feel the use of mini - packers year round throughout the city is not the answer. Most companies... come into a
given area, basically cleaning up ... economically speaking. All the companies involved, I'm talking basically my
own, we have major capital investments. At the risk of not knowing what direction this is headed, it's been
very hard to cope with. Hopefully tonight there will be something made one way or another. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Gary. Anyone else? Someone started to come up in the back there.
Craig Larson: Good evening. My name is Craig Larson. I live at 7240 Sierra Court here in Chanhassen and I
just wanted to bring forward that I am very much opposed to organized collection of garbage in the city itself.
realize that a lot of people have different opinions as far as whether it's damaging the streets, those kind of
things. Yeah, probably in the spring during a couple months it's very true. It sounds like from what I've heard
throughout this last 2 years that the garbage companies have come through and made agreements as far as
their ... and how they're going to change to address issues. We use Chaska Sanitation right now and I'm a very
loyal customer. It's been 7 years using those guys and they're pleasing, very good to work with. I'm not willing
however to give up my freedom of choice, and that's what it comes down to here within the City Council
tonight is the freedom of people like me, citizens of this country, to come in and choose our collection. Who
we want to do things with. If I don't want to go with Chaska anymore, I want to go look for somebody else, I
should have that right and that option to do that. Every time I hear one of those garbage trucks go down the
street, I think about that's our free enterprise system at work right there. It's free enterprise choice to come in
and say whether this company is going to work with me or this company's going to work with me and I think
that's very important that we maintain that as a country. Our free enterprise system is the only thing that
separates us from a lot of other countries out there and I urge you to maintain that. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Sandy Carlson: Sandy Carlson, 7271 Kurvers Point Road. Just want to say that we are in favor of some free
enterprise, although our neighborhood is rather unique in that we have all banded together. There's 40 of us.
40 homeowners and we have organized collection within our neighborhood. We use Chaska Sanitation and we
have now for 5 or 6 years and we do the small truck. It's safe. One day a week. Everybody's picked up by
one hauler and we have our own neighborhood contract at a reduced price so I guess we would be in favor of
the hauler's alternative and then I would hope that the neighborhoods on their own would contract with one
hauler to reduce their own city street construction, because really that seems to be the only issue that the haulers
alternative doesn't address. So we would strongly recommend that the neighborhoods do their own selection
process and band together. We would have organized collection in a more informal manner and leave city
government out of it, and then also maybe you guys in city government could just patrol the weight restrictions.
11
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996 1
1
Councilman Mason: Sandy, can I ask a quick question? What kind of price break did you gat by doing that?
Do you have any idea?
,
Sandy Carlson: No, I don't know. It's pretty cheap.
Gary Lano: ...very competitive.
'
Sandy Carlson: It's about $150.00 for the whole year. So I guess we feel it's a pretty good rate and he picks up
just about everything. We're very happy so if there was organized collection, we would want Chaska Sanitation
in our district. Thank you.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Looks like there's a little payola here.
'
Uli Sacchet: My name is Uli Sacchet. I live at 8071 Hidden Circle, and ... 3 years ago that was on the recycling
committee that spent quite a time looking at this and I'm looking forward to see the city make it tonight. I want
to express though that what I'm in favor of. I'm in favor of the garbage being picked up. And ultimately it
,
doesn't make that much difference to me who does it. For me personally I think it would be preferable to have
one truck come by the neighborhood than four. I look to you as representatives of the city who have been
struggling with this issue for about 3 years now, you have the information to ... decision and what's the good for
the whole. Because I personally still struggle a little bit with it. Is this an issue of the good of the many or the
,
good of the few. The few being garbage haulers. The many being the city. We also have a lot of people
speaking out that they like to choose their hauler. I will make myself clear. I'm in favor of garbage being
picked up and who does it, somebody needs to do it. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else?
'
Dick Nelson: My name is Dick Nelson. I live 1070 Lyman Court. I'm opposed to organized. collection. I
think the reason is, the founding fathers when they formed this country said there was only one reason to form a
government, it was to secure our rights. For the government to take away the rights to choose without a
compelling reason seems ridiculous. It shouldn't even be discussed. That's all I have to say.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Dick. Anyone else>
Michael O'Kelly: My name's Michael O'Kelly from 685 Carver Beach Road. I'd like to take and state right ,
now that I'm opposed to this organized garbage collection. I side with a lot of people that have spoken here
already tonight... be able to choose who my collector is. I don't really worry about the price... because I'm able to '
shop that garbage collector make a determine myself who would be the cheapest one to go with. I've already
gone through a situation of going from one hauler to another, not only because of price but also because of what
he was able to deliver as far as the service. Thank you. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Anyone else? This is your opportunity.
Bill Schubert: Excuse me, Bill Schubert one more time. Is there a proposed price that's being set at this stage?
Mayor Chmiel: No. Well Bob, yes.
Bob Generous: Under organized collection there is a rate structure. '
12 1
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: Right, there's a rate schedule.
Bill Schubert: Is that something that can be shared with we as a community?
Bob Generous: Sure
32 gallon per month.
each of those rates.
t
i
1
It's been broken down by level of service. I'll skip the bi- weekly one. It's $10.90 for a
$12.60 for 64 gallon per month and $13.90 for a 96 gallon per month. Plus 67 cents to
Bill Schubert: Plus 67 cents. And then what additional charges would be required if you went beyond...?
Bob Generous: It could charge up to a $1.00 I believe ... $1.50 a bag.
Bill Schubert: $1.50 a bag. And then 13?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: 90.
Bill Schubert: $13.90 for a full sized.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: A 96 gallon container.
Bill Schubert: ...which is basically about what I'm paying right now ... I rarely ever need much more beyond this.
Where is the savings to the individuals that has been proposed, and I understand there should be a reduction to
the street damage. I've also... How is this, how is the Council able to justify this as opposed to... Is the Council
able to respond to any of these questions that the citizens have tonight?
Mayor Chmiel: I think many of those concerns have been addressed through the past years, and I believe that a
lot of those questions that have been asked, have all been answered to a certain point. But I think that much of
what we have looked at to date is from the past 3 years. So there's some new things in there.
Don Ashworth: Regardless of which action City Council takes this evening, first reading of an ordinance to
basically accept the haulers position and put that in writing, or kind of a first reading on an ordinance for this
organized collection, it would be just that. So people leaving here would have an indication as to which way
the Council was heading but this item will come back in 2 weeks or 4 weeks. People like, was it Bill?
Bill Schubert: Yes.
Don Ashworth: Okay. Would have an opportunity during that time frame to come in. I think you're right Mr.
Mayor. There's realms of material available here to look at. But I think, so tonight's action will not be final.
But it will be a strong indication as to which way the Council is going.
Bill Schubert: Okay. I'd just like to see as much information as possible... come from another city that had
organized garbage collection... that much problem but I didn't have much choice either. So now we see, this is
the first time I've had an opportunity to hear the numbers. That doesn't seem to be a savings on a flat monthly
basis ... damage to our roads ... I'd like to see an analysis that is showing us what percentage of the damage that we
get to our roads is caused by garbage trucks rather than normal wear and tear to the vehicles. I'm assuming that
is available. Is that available?
13
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
Dean Johnson: It would have to be generated.
Bill Schubert: Is the answer to that question in that data?
Dean Johnson: You'll have to talk to the City Engineer about that... concrete data regarding street damage and
cost. I can't give you ... all the information that we've received from MnDot on representing thie impacts.
Bill Schubert: Because from the best I can understand the aesthetics has been taken care of. The only thing
that still has not been fully cleared is the damage to our roads, even though the haulers have offered a smaller
sized vehicle. So the damage to the roads ... is caused by these trucks... certainly worthwhile. But if it's a small
percentage, I question the reduction of the free enterprise by making... so I guess I'll have to come back during
regular business hours I'm assuming to review this?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Bill Schubert: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Bill, Willard.
Willard Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make one more. I'm on a fixed income so when I hear Bob Generous'
quoting prices, it's going to cost me an extra $100.00 over and above, or better, a year for my extra stuff. I
wonder if the city's going to pick up the tab for that.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think so.
Willard Johnson: That's why I feel freedom...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there anyone else? Yes Gary, one more time.
Gary Lano: Gary, Chaska Sanitation. Just real quick. Don a question. Why the delay? What's the 2 to 4
weeks? I guess I thought there'd be action taken tonight...
Don Ashworth: As far as I know, if we're going to do an organized collection, that is going 90 require an
ordinance. Well actually, the haulers proposal is really going to require an ordinance, as I read your materials.
Correct Bob?
Bob Generous: Correct.
Don Ashworth: Okay. That's what would take. The Council will tell us tonight what they want to see in there
If they want to go with the haulers' proposal and then they'll list what they want included with that. Or they'll
say they want to go with the contract route.
Gary Lano: So leaving here tonight we're going to ... indication which way this is headed?
Don Ashworth: Correct. Assuming the City Council does make that decision.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: We're not going to table Gary.
14
F 1 ,
Pi
F1
i
F1
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there anyone else? If not, I'm going to bring it back to Council and at least get an
opinion from each of the people here. Mr. Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: Yes Mr. Chmiel. I've actually had my mind fairly made up for quite a little bit of time.
Actually I think probably since the last meeting that we had 6 weeks ago, or 8 weeks ago when all the haulers
got together, all of the Council and some different things were tossed around. All of the haulers agreed that
mini packers throughout the year would be something that they would be amenable to exploring. I'm in
agreement with everyone that has talked about free enterprise. I'm in agreement with everyone that has talked
about choice. I'm in agreement with everyone that has talked about the city has no business being in a
supervisory role in trash collection. I'm even in agreement with the gentleman that talked about thinking that
the trash truck going down the road was the essence of the free enterprise system relative to the country. I
mean that's sort of true. Anybody with enough money to come up with a vehicle can go out and hustle some
business and make himself a living. It's a very elemental segment of the free enterprise system. I don't have
any concrete data that supports a myriad of garbage trucks going through neighborhoods on a weekly basis. I
don't have any data that supports safety issues that have been talked about. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist
to realize that a 30 ton truck does more damage than a 4 ton truck on any road, regardless of whether it's a
residential street or a major highway. I don't know that there is any hard evidence, documented evidence that
supports that fact that a 30 ton truck does more damage, but I have to rely on my intuitive belief that it's true.
Given that, and given the haulers agreement to use mini packers, I propose that that be where we start. If in
fact after 2 years we realize that we need to put teeth into some kind of an ordinance. Whether we need to
correct some abuses that are taking place, we always have that option. I firmly do not believe however that to
...into an ordinance in an organized trash collection system in the city is in anyone's best interest. So that's the
mood I'm in.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Steve. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I've been over my notes for the last three years and I was on the original
committee that looked at it in depth and to answer some of the concerns about the problem. Where this got
started. What the process was ... know, the initial reasons that it came from. Just to highlight. Road damage,
and we do have documented evidence about what trucks do to the streets. We can't put a price tag on it for you
Mr. Schubert but we know that it causes it. There's the aesthetic issue. The number of the haulers on the street.
I know I live on a 6 house cul -de -sac and we have 4 haulers on our street. Safety. There's a perceived and a
real safety concern. It's certainly perceived and there is, in fact there was last May, a little girl was hit by a
garbage truck. I can't remember the city it was in but there was an article in the Star Trib. And rates. Can we
do this better? The process that we went through started at the committee level with the Recycling Committee.
We brought in Dean Johnson as the consultant. We brought in the haulers from the very inception of this to be
part of it. We've had numerous public hearings. It's been in the Chanhassen city newsletter maybe 3 or 4
times. Maybe 5 times that I can think of. There was a survey done, not blanketing the city because that is
extremely cost prohibitive but I think we surveyed, Dean do you recall? Uli?
Uli Sacchet: I think we sampled about 100 people. That would give about a 95% accuracy.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. Thanks. And we discussed at Council, both in a public forum and also, I
mean in work sessions as well as our Council meetings, so I think the process has been very public.
Unfortunately people don't take notice of these things, for whatever reason. They don't read the Villager. They
' don't read their city newsletter. There's not a lot that we can do without doing a massive, expensive mailing to
get the news out so what we have to rely on, we've done. Anyway, the results of that, in my mind, I've really
15
I I
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996 '
come to the conclusion that in order to achieve our objectives, that this is the way to go. The organized
collection. I mean this is not something new and way out there and communistic. I mean it's not uncommon '
for a lot of cities to have this in place. It's seen as a basic utility. And I think we're not taking away people's
choice of what type of collection they want in terms of if you want doorstep, it's available. If you want a
certain size container, it's available. They'll take all your same recycling. I think people are really concerned ,
that they'll have a cutback in what they can get. The cutback, and it's a huge one, or the disadvantage, and I
recognize that people have a strong feeling about this, is that you do not have your choice of hauler. But the
benefits I think over ride that. You know Councils year after year after year sit up here and have to assess
people for street reconstruction and when you get hit with a $4,000.00 45,000.00 assessment for a new road,
that's when it hits you. Anyway. I think the haulers will also achieve a lot of efficiencies... To answer the
question of how the city was districted is based on current market share and expansion, or new neighborhoods,
etc. will be given to a hauler who's the closest there and that will be reviewed I think on a semi, or annual basis '
to shift the lines a little bit. So I think over the course of this we've looked at every angle. I think all the
questions that are out there we've looked into and now comes to the decision and I guess my decision is that we
should go with the proposal in front of us.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm sorry, one more thing. The reason I have a problem with the hauler's
alternative is that all of the haulers do not have the availability of mini packers so that's a huge capital
'
expenditure for them and it still doesn't address a lot of trucks on the street. Granted it's only a certain day of
the week but anyway, that's why I just don't think it's going to work. Also, I'm sorry. We did look at, I think
one of the things that Sandy Carlson addressed was getting the neighborhoods to do it themselves. That would
be the ultimate solution but, and we discussed whether we should do huge communications. Whether staff
should help neighborhoods organize and it's, it didn't seem like a viable alternative because the neighborhoods
are just not that well put together in terms of organized themselves so, anyway. Now I'll shut up.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: When this all started, to these many years ago, I was definitely in favor of it. It's a good
'
idea. Dog gone it, we're going to clean up the streets. We'll have fewer trucks going down the road. It
sounded good, and it still does sound good. Over the three years I've been asking myself over and over and
over again what do we really want out of all of this. And then I waited for the calls to come, and they really
,
didn't, although I would say the last 2 weeks I've had about a half dozen calls on this issue. Certainly they've
all been the majority of the opinion expressed tonight saying they don't want it. So I got to thinking. One of
my many times there have been neighborhoods that have come up before us and said, I don't believe you're
going to let this happen to the neighborhood next to me. I don't believe you're going to allow this subdivision
to go up and I've said, and I will continue to say it, that unfortunately sitting up here, our charge is not
necessarily what's best for the neighborhood but what's best for the city and hopefully those match. Frequently
they don't. I could argue on this one but I think it is probably better for the city if we were to go to organized
'
collection. I then look through the contract that's in place and I kind of thing, holy cow. What's going to
happen in a couple of years. And then I think well, I hear the people. I hear the haulers talking about mini
packers and how they're willing to give that a try. I think well, that takes care of one of my concerns.
,
Cleanliness for me, and I've got Chaska. I still do but there are many other trucks that go down my road and
it's in a not a very good shape road. It's a very steep road but you know, I've never seen any garbage laying
around on my street, and I do give the haulers credit for that. Wear and tear. That's an issue I'm hoping we
can address here. Safety. Well, this may seem kind of knee jerk coming from me but well, ilk we're going to
'
16 1
L�
L
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
tell garbage haulers they can't come down the street, well what's the next truck. What's the next truck. So I
don't know. I'm certainly not willing to tie apple pie and motherhood and all of that stuff to this but there is an
issue here, freedom of choice. And I find myself, after saying what's, you know it may not be best for the
neighborhood but I think it is best for the city. I'm not convinced that this organized collection plan is best for
the city and if I don't think it's best for the city, I certainly don't think it's best for the neighborhoods. So I'm
not in favor of it. What I would like to see, and I think Steven eluded to some of this, is back track. I've heard
haulers saying, one hauler anyway, talking about incentives for neighborhoods getting together and just getting
one hauler in. Well, gee. Maybe we should take a little stronger look at that. That truly is grass roots if
something like that were to happen. I like the idea of mini packers. I like the idea of day certain collection. I
might go one step further with this mini packer thing and say, mini packers during posted times and maybe mini
packers only on roads that are deemed sensitive by City Engineer. Maybe that's an option. I don't like the idea
of, I hear that well, almost everyone's price will go down. Well that means some people's prices are going to go
up and in my mind, the benefits of organized collection, and I think there are benefits, do not outweigh the
benefits that we have in place, knowing that we have haulers that have already addressed some of these
concerns and appear willing to continue to address them. So I would like to see us work on an amendment to
the ordinance dealing with mini packers during the posted times and that's the direction I'd like to go.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Mike.
Councilman Mason: Yep.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: I'm not sure I'm going to be a whole lot of help because from day one I've been split on this
issue and I guess the way it's shaking down, I still like half of it and dislike half of it. My personal feelings are
I'd like to see a form of organized collection simply because it would accomplish I think some good and
important roles that we set in the first place which was one set of trucks. Meaning one recycle, one trash in
each neighborhood one day per week. And the outcome of that goal was to increase the longevity of the roads,
reduce the maintenance costs and make it safer for kids on those streets. The half I don't like about where we're
sitting right now is effectively the way it impacts, I don't know if you call it the free market system or call it
competition or whatever but effectively those issues. You know some of the other Council people kind of
referenced this but I think it's kind of real interesting when you look for and expect the feedback. On this one
in my mind it's been kind of an interesting issue because the feedback coming over the last 3 years, it hasn't
been feedback that I've heard tonight or even in the last 2 weeks. What we do won't impact my neighborhood
because we organized 5 or 6 years ago. I think at that point we were 15 houses and now I think we're built out
at about 40. And we did save a lot of money by doing that. The interesting part is, most of the people I've
heard from who supported the concept of organized collection, it's no longer going to impact them either.
Because most of the groups, or people I've heard from asked how, you know I organized this back in 1991 and I
just passed on all of the information and every one of those neighborhoods is now organized. I've heard very
little from people city wide as to whether they liked or disliked organized collection. And I think an interesting
point is to be made as to when you decide you like organized collection or don't like it is going to be when the
need arises to redo the street and you're assessed for it and it's not city wide that's paying for it. It's the
neighborhood that's paying for it because it's only going to be assessed to the abutting properties. I truly think
that organized collection is an overall benefit to the city. And I still can't get past the issue of messing with the
controls on competition and the free marketplace. When I first entered this discussion, what I was looking for
was a system where we could have effectively an organized collection system but only to the point that the city
establish some type of grid system or policy whereby it reached our goals. And beyond that leaving it up to the
17
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
competition or the free market system to implement per se. I've been told along the way that that's not possible
to achieve. Simply because it's administratively impossible or whatever. So I guess the simple fact is that I
continue to be very split on the issue. I still would like to see and think there's a better solution than the two
solutions we've come up with. Quite frankly I don't, if I have to decide between these two issues, or these two
proposals, I guess I would side with the organized collection proposal versus the haulers' proposal because I
don't see the haulers' proposal as achieving the goals that at least I set out up front in relationship to this issue.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. As I sit back here and listen to everybody and I think each have good points
to what they're indicating. I'm sort in the camp of Steve and Michael's. What I see with the mini packers
themselves. If I can see the mini packers being within the city all year long, I wouldn't have any problems in
going with that. That's one of the suggestions that I would make. And no, we're not a communistic
Chanhassen by any stretch of the imagination. I like the free enterprise system. I really do because as one of
our members indicated, one of our citizens indicated, that if he doesn't like what that present hauler is doing, he
can get another hauler. And I think that's good because I've made changes in that as well. When it comes to
coming up with a rate, how do you know what's a fair rate or what a fair rate is 3 to 5 years down the line?
How do you determine that? That sort of just grabs me a little bit. I know that there's been an awful lot of
information that's been gathered from the Sheriffs Department and overweights with these trucks during
springtime and of course a lot of citations have been given. That's the point I think that I'd like to see changed
is again going back to the mini packers. I guess rather than to continue on with what I'm saying, I would like
to bring it back to Council and even ask for a motion rather than sitting back and trying to determine which
way to go.
Councilman Mason: Alright. I will, let's see if this motion will fly. I will move that the City Council will
direct staff to implement a hybrid or any combination of alternatives 1 and 2. Yeah, I'd betterr start over. You
can just jump in any time you want to Steve.
Councilman Berquist: Well I've got one kind of.
Councilman Mason: Well wait. Steve has one written down already. Go ahead. Let's hear it. Go ahead.
Councilman Berquist: Alright. I was going to see if you liked this. The City Council authorizes staff to
prepare appropriate revisions to Chapter 16 of the City Code requiring all licensed trash haulers serving
residential streets to limit their vehicles to a gross weight of, a poundage. I don't know that number, i.e. mini
packers. These trucks are to be used on all daily operations within residential streets only, and I'm not adverse
to putting something in there as far as days, or limiting days ... talk about it.
Mayor Chmiel: I think you have it.
Councilman Berquist: Am I in the right direction?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes,
Councilman Berquist: These trucks are to be used in all daily operations within residential streets only. That's
the closing paragraph.
Councilman Mason: So that, your amendment is calling for mini packers year round on residential streets?
18
r
J
1
1 City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
I Councilman Berquist: Yeah.
' Councilman Mason: That wouldn't necessarily include collectors? How are residential streets defined?
Charles Folch: 7 ton.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We have a motion on the floor.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Discussion?
' Mayor Chmiel: I'll call for a second then we'll have discussion.
Councilman Mason: Could I hear the motion one more time please?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
t Councilman Berquist: The City Council authorizes staff to prepare appropriate revisions to Chapter 16, I think
that's the correct chapter, of the City Code requiring all licensed trash haulers serving residential streets to limit
their vehicles to a gross weight of blank pounds, i.e. mini packers. These trucks are to be used in all daily
operations within residential streets only.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. If some of the haulers, I'm not sure whether all the haulers many mini packers. Do
they? I notice we have 1, 2, 3. 3 of the haulers here.
Audience: Four.
Mayor Chmiel: Four. Yep. Does everyone have mini packers?
Councilman Berquist: The impression that I got at the meeting that we had 8 weeks ago was that they were all
' amenable, if they were not in possession of, to possess them.
Audience: There was never really a consensus at all of the haulers agreeing to do that. There's two of us
' sitting right here and both of our mouths are hanging wide open.
Mayor Chmiel: That's the other.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I mean you've got capital costs to them which will be passed along to the
consumer and if the consumer's going to start comparing, then we're effectively shutting out a couple haulers in
the city, which was one of our original objections to not do that.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We do have a motion on the floor. Thank you.
' Councilman Mason: I'll second it for right now, yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, there's a motion on the floor with a second. Discussion. Colleen.
19
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, as you know, I don't agree with the motion. However, I would encourage a
friendly amendment to make sure that we address day certain collection and that we address the recycling. That
it's not bi- weekly. That it continues to be weekly. And that we also talk about closing the number of permits
to new haulers.
Mayor Chmiel: I would like to address the, you said not weekly for recycling?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So that it stays weekly. Because Alternative 1 says bi- weekly.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Yes. I go along with that. Okay.
Councilman Mason: Steve, what is your rationale for going mini packers year round as opposed to street
postings and sensitive roads?
Councilman Berquist: Well, I've been under the impression that damage is not limited to spring only. Damage
is a year round phenomena with the weight of the large trucks.
Mayor Chmiel: I think the Sheriff Department would .... that as well. Only because of the fact that the, if you
can get another load, get another load and get another load, those things get to the point where the weight
becomes the problem.
Councilman Mason: While we're discussing this, I guess I'm curious to know, in the hauler's, my understanding
is, I'm hearing that they're opposed to year round mini packers but they're not opposed to mini packers during
spring postings? And I'm not, I guess I'm just, as long as we're open to discussion...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Would you like to come up to the mic please.
Tim Schweizer: Tim Schweizer, AW Disposal. Again, it's hard to get a consensus here amongst haulers
because we're competitors. I know that a lot of haulers right now have their mini packers, road restrictions goes
on some of us in 2 weeks and there might be some concerns here about availability for equipment but I don't
think there's any hauler here that over time can phase in, as you upgrade equipment and through time can phase
in with mini packers. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Councilman Berquist: Well my intent is certainly not that we mandate this be done by the first week in April
Councilman Mason: But no, that's a legitimate concern and I'm not surprised, I would have guessed that was
where you were coming from.
Councilman Berquist: My intent would hopefully, I mean I believe all of our intents would be to allow
investments to take place over a period of time and gear up towards this. Not that we need to impose it
immediately. It's the first, it's what I would hope to be a first and last step, although.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? If not, I'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion
signify by saying aye?
Councilman Senn: Are Colleen's in or out or what?
20
1
L
r
r
J
J
L''
e
F1
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
Councilwoman Dockendorf: They have not been addressed.
Mayor Chmiel: Wait a while. Maybe that suggestion as to what you made, may be a good friendly
amendment. Would you repeat that portion of it?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm not making a friendly amendment but I'm suggesting that someone do so that
we close permits to new haulers. That we talk about day certain collection and that recycling stay weekly.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright. Those conditions that she indicated, would you make that as an acceptance?
Councilman Berquist: Explain to me close permits to new haulers?
Mayor Chmiel: No more haulers within the city.
Councilman Berquist: ...for that.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: To reduce the number of haulers over time so as happened in the last year, one
goes out of business. Another can't come in.
Councilman Berquist: I've got a fundamental problem with that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Or cap it at a certain number.
Councilman Berquist: I have a fundamental problem with that. I don't have a problem with day certain
collection. I don't have a problem with weekly recycling...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Would you accept those two then?
Councilman Berquist: Those I would accept. I would though, if I may, like to, Gary Lano talked about his
mouth being down around his knees. I'd like to hear more about that. Were you surprised? I mean if you
remember our last meeting, was the closing comments not, did they not include... agreement on the haulers' part
that they would be amenable to mini packers?
Gary Lano: There was never a consensus that we were going to go throughout the whole year with mini
packers.
Mayor Chmiel: But that was the discussion of Council at those particular meetings though.
Gary Lano: It was never a consensus of the haulers. No way.
Mayor Chmiel: Well it may not have been the consensus of the haulers but it was the discussion I think.
Gary Lano: ...to run little trucks throughout the course of the year. It was brought up, right. That was it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
21
City Council Meeting e March 11, 1996
Councilman Berquist: Well my motion stands with day certain collection and weekly recycling as the
amendment.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And does the second also?
Councilman Mason: The second will also stand. I wonder if we need to do any sort of time continuum on this.
So the haulers know that we don't expect this to happen over night but yet we do expect it to happen within x
number of.
Councilman Berquist: One year? Are you agreeable to one year?
Councilman Mason: I guess I'd want, and I don't know that it would happen tonight but I guess I'd want to
know a little bit more about the impact on the haulers on this.
Councilman Berquist: The cost?
Councilman Mason: Yeah.
Councilman Berquist: Well then I don't think we can put a time on it. We just give them direction and decide
on a time length.
Mayor Chmiel: Roger?
Roger Knutson: Yes sir.
Mayor Chmiel: Give me a little clarification. Would that be acceptable?
Roger Knutson: It's not uncommon to put various respective dates for conditions to kick in. In ordinances and
statutes. It's done on a frequent basis. More with legislation and statutes than ordinances but you certainly
could say, and I'm not going to give you the dates, but you could say by April 1 of 19, you'll have to have
enough mini packers to cover a certain part of, or certain things ... for when seasonal road limits are on or
sensitive streets. By the following date, you'll have to have it for everything in the city.
Councilman Mason: Those sound like things that could be worked out.
Roger Knutson: I think staff and Mr. Johnson and from discussion with the haulers to bring some suggestions.
To phase in, I think that'd be a little bit difficult...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. You had a question.
Councilman Senn: No. I think we're in discussion aren't we?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Well the motion's been made and discussion was opened.
Councilman Senn: Maybe my recollection is different but I think we're really treading on some dangerous
ground here and we have not.
22
I City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: Can you clarify dangerous grounds?
' Councilman Senn: Well dangerous ground in the sense that we have not really fully studied or examined
effectively the motion which we are now considering. In our discussions we never really fully studied what that
information bought for us relating to going to this type of a system. And I do remember in the meetings and
' the hearings where the haulers were there that every time that suggestion came up, the two smaller haulers
pretty much said it could drive them out of business. And correct me if I'm wrong. And I remember that very
distinctly and that's why the conversations never really went very far on that, because we decided one of the
premises here was that's not what we wanted to do. This proposal which is an out crop of ... comes from I
believe the three larger companies. I think what you're about to vote on, and it sounds like 3 of you pass, is
effectively going to kill a couple of haulers and I'm dead set against that. In my comments I said, given the
proposals before us, which is organized collection or the one we are terming the haulers' proposal which is
somewhat akin to what you're suggesting. But given the two, organized collection sounded better and I'll tell
you that's one of the primary reasons why. And I remember those comments loud and clear in those hearings
from those two haulers...
' Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to call the question.
Councilman Berquist: No. We've got more discussion. This is too important to not hear everything everybody
has to say.
Mayor Chmiel: If I call the question then that means there's no more discussion. But if you'd like to do that,
I'll withdraw my motion of calling the question and let Michael speak.
Councilman Berquist: Please do. I think this is too important to go off half cocked.
Councilman Mason: Well I don't think anybody's going off half cocked and I think this has been studied. I
think we have lots of information. This is a first reading of something and if a hauler can come back and show
that by any ordinance that has been passed tonight, it will effectively put them out of business, voting in the
' affirmative means that it can be reconsidered and brought up for reconsideration. So maybe that needs to be
taken a look at but I think that, I don't know that things are quite as extreme as were said and if it can be
proven that they are, then I would certainly take a look at reconsidering.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I'll call the question.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to authorize staff to prepare the appropriate revisions
to Chapter 16 of the City Code requiring all licensed trash haulers to limit their vehicles to a gross weight of a
certain pound limit, i.e. mini packers, to be used in all daily operations within residential streets only. Also
that collection be appointed to a cettain day for each neighborhood, and to continue with weekly reclycing pick-
up. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn and Councilwoman Dockendorf who opposed, and the motion
carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Mayor Chmiel: Two nays and three ayes. And I think each of you made your clarifications as to the position
that you're taking. Okay. Thank you.
23
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE FOR LANDSCAPE NURSERIES & GARDEN CENTERS IN THE A2,
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT, SECOND AND FINAL READING; AND APPROVAL OF
SUMMARY ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION PURPOSES.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. After last City Council meeting this item was tabled for the second reading. The
direction was given that Councilman Senn had an alternate proposal that he would like to have considered. I
met with Councilman Senn and Berquist to review this consideration and while the proposal :teemed to have
some merit with three separate conditional use permits, it goes back to the same discussion we had before with
the conditional use permits and that is.
Councilman Senn: Can you hang on a minute? It's really hard to hear you. Thank you.
Kate Aanenson: With three separate conditional use permits and that again is that the property in our mind,
this is the problem we had with it before and Roger's confirmed in his report, that it is guided. for residential
development and a conditional use is a regulation in conflict with that. So we're putting it back to your
discretion. We still recommended the second reading of the Interim Use Permit. Again, we recognize that the
sticking point seems to be the number of years in the interim use permit. Obviously that's the sticking point and
maybe there's a way to resolve that issue. Otherwise the other alternative is to try to do a separate settlement
agreement. As you know that's a course of action that the staff has been working under for a number of years
and we didn't seem to get anywhere on that issue. If someone has, other alternatives under that, we'd certainly
like to pursue that. I guess the issue with the settlement agreement, really what it does is circumvents the
requirements of the CUP process so the staffs position on that is, if we're going to get relief from that
requirement, then certainly there should be some benefit or gain to the city. So we're just looking for direction
on that issue. On these issues.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks Kate. Are there any questions that you have of Kate, Steve?
Councilman Berquist: I was really disappointed to see that Roger said no. Or maybe I should say I was really
disappointed to see that the State of Minnesota said no... No, I really don't have. I hope it can be resolved in a
manner that allows the business to continue to operate and grow in the manner that it sees fit without causing
any undue hardships.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don.
Don Ashworth: I'll make a quick clarification. You don't have to choose one or the other. The Council may
like the ordinance and may still want to pursue some discussion with Halla, Mr. Halla, with whomever. So it's
not a matter, you don't have to choose one or the other. You can actually approve both.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, as a point of clarification, since Kate and I talked and Roger talked, I've talked with
Roger some more and two things. One is, we can do what I want, or what I suggested, but we have to amend
the comp plan to do it which is not a wonderful process to go through. Okay. Secondly, we can do what I
suggested we do but we do it under a negotiated legal settlement versus through ordinance and we can still
accomplish the same thing. It simply means we need to sit down and negotiate out that settlement involving
those points and controls and then it can be outside the State's interpretation.
Councilman Berquist: Then we don't need to amend the comp plan.
24
J
L�
� I
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
Councilman Senn: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: Is that right Roger?
Councilman Senn: And I think I'm ... what we talked about correctly, am I not?
Roger Knutson: Yes ... what Don said. It is possible Councilman Senn to do everything you said. But this is
really in summary a separate issue. If you think this is a good amendment, even though you don't want to use it
as a vehicle to settle your issues with Mr. Halla, you can still adopt this amendment. I'm not here... for the
amendment. I just want to make it clear, just because you don't think this works for Mr. Halla's situation, you
may think it's a good idea for the city in general and you can still, if you desire to, adopt this amendment and
then pursue other options with Mr. Halla.
Kate Aanenson: Can I just go further on what Roger said? Again, you know this got called the Halla
amendment. They originally proposed it for it but we had still, on the staff, we believe that there is a need out
there for this type of ordinance so we would still support the ordinance. Mr. Halla does not have to approach
us, the city, but it is still a mechanism for other people, whether Mr. Halla chooses or not to provide retail sales.
So we still as a staff support it. Okay? Again as Roger said, they don't have to go through it and if you do this
and still work to the other alternative as Don indicated, you can kind of track through the separate settlement
agreement. That's an option too. We're just looking for some direction on what you would like to see us
pursue. But just so it's clear. We still would like to see the ordinance adopted.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Steve, did you?
Councilman Berquist: No. I think I understand much better now. Issue one is the amendment and issue two is
I-Ialla and we can do them differently and you'll negotiate them and work out a settlement agreement.
Councilman Mason: At no cost to the city.
Councilman Berquist: That's even better. Yeah, right.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, Colleen. Do you have any questions of Kate?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. No questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mike.
Councilman Mason: No, I don't have any questions. I think it's a good amendment and I definitely see it as
back -up. And if something can be worked out with Halla's, don't get me wrong, I think that's great. I also
know how much time and how much money has been spent on both sides of this fence over the years and I
worry about negotiating a settlement with Halla and seeing bills go up and up and time go up and up and that's
a real concern of mine. Now if someone on Council can negotiate that and all our city attorney has to do is do
this or do that, cool. But you know, I just.
Councilman Senn: Roger, can you do that?
P&
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996 ,
Councilman Mason: I just know how much time and how much money has been spent in that arena already and
I'm quite concerned about that but I think this is a very good amendment. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Good, Mark. Anything more?
Councilman Senn: I have no problems with the amendment as it stays free but I think the direction from ,
Council should be to resolve the Halla situation through negotiation and I think you are very close to being
there given effectively what I suggested and the blessing of the Council there, I'd be more than happy to sit
down and culminate that in a form that can be presented to Roger. ,
Councilman Mason: I'm assuming that this settlement is amenable to both city and Halla and staff. Well, I
understand that. Okay. Because I guess I'm concerned about city position on this too. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions?
Councilman Mason: Do we need to move on this amendment again then? '
Kate Aanenson: You approved the first reading. It's on for the second reading so you do have to approve the
second reading, correct. '
Councilman Mason: Okay, I'd like to move second reading.
Mark Halla: I'd like to speak.
Mayor Chmiel: Just a moment. I was just going to ask. Mark, do you understand what's happening?
Mark Halla: I understand...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Would you like to come up? Just a couple minutes. We've got a long agenda yet. '
Mark Halla: I'm Mark Halla. 730 Creekwood... The amendment as I see it, is rather pointless. It's been stated,
we brought up the amendment initially. We said we wanted to be approved. We were told by staff that we
were ... non-conforming use and as such we had no right to expand our use whatsoever, even though State law
indicates that we can put up an agricultural building on our agriculturally zoned land. We were told we couldn't
do that because, and the city's ordinances also support that but because the Planning Commission said the comp
plan does not approve of what Halla Nursery is, we can't do that. We're illegal. If a tornado came tomorrow ,
and wiped us out, we'd be done for. We'd have no chance of rebuilding short of coming to Council and saying,
can you make an amendment to the... building. To make that an interim use or even to go ... I don't see the point
in that. The Planning Commission had said ... simply, agricultural land in Chanhassen is slated to go. It's not '
going to be. We want it out of here. They said they want to eliminate agricultural uses. It's in the record
books. That's what they said. People said to me, okay what's the big deal. If you apply for an interim use,
don't you think you can get 10 years out of this and in 10 years when you go before Council, they'll say sure...
complaints, that's the concern... That's a little bit of a risk. Right now we've been in Chanhassen for 30 some '
years. We've been in business for 54. There's no intention on our part to apply for an interim use that would
eliminate us. We brought it forward, when Council said let's go with the interim use we said, we want to
withdraw our applicant. Staff picked it up and brought it forward. To me it doesn't make any sense. I '
understand that the negotiations that we have are separate from this item. We got that ... and it doesn't seem to
26 1
I City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
me that it's serving any purpose to approve it. All that you're going to be doing is helping other people that
currently have non - conforming uses, figure out how to become legal. Some of those people are already in areas
' that are going to be zoned differently in not too short a time. It seems to me to allow any retail in agricultural
for anyone under any purpose, if that's the plan...against, that's what Council says isn't acceptable, then there's
no sense following through with this. I'm at my wit's end. I'm tired. I'm exhausted of trying to work this out
' with, we want to bury... It's been made clear to me, succinctly by staff, that they have no intention, no
intentions of working this out with us. That unless Don Ashworth, the City Manager directs staff to work this
out, they aren't going to. Pretty strong statement. The more I talk about it, the more angry I get. If the city
doesn't support our business, at least it's out. I feel more comfortable having known that. Then I'll have to
work around that. I don't have any intention of giving the city any more control of my business. I would love
to negotiate something and I'll be reasonable. I'll say I'm willing to give this if you're willing to give that. We
can both say this is what we're shooting for and maybe we can work it out --- I think we might come to an
' agreement. Staffs gotten involved ... but the fact is, staff made it clear to me that I've burned a bridge 5 years
ago, 6 years ago, 10 years ago. Somewhere along the line communication broke down and it's been made clear
to me that Halla Nursery is not a welcome member of this community. Hopefully that's a misinterpretation
' and...
Mayor Chmiel: I hope so.
' Mark Halla: ...we have the opportunity to try and work that out. We've been good ... for Chanhassen. I think
we've done a good job here. We'd like to remain. I'd like some support. I'd like to find out what the main
problems are. If the main problems are how are these new neighbors coming in going to relate to the nursery
' having peacocks and starting Bobcats and sending landscape crews out, maybe what we need to do is talk to
those new neighbors and say, be aware. ...garden center that's been here for 30 years and it's not going
anywhere. Don't assume that because you move in here, you now have the right to say gee, I don't like that.
' Let's have it eliminated. Gee, the golf balls coming through my rear windows aren't much fun. Can we get rid
of the golf course? I think the city sometimes needs to support the people that have been here ... the community
coming in. Although they have rights and they should be stood up for, they don't circumvent the rights of those
already here. So if we can work something out, let's shoot for something to work it out for everyone. Or let's
' not spend any more time on it. I'm not in favor of the interim use. I think for us obviously it would eliminate
our business. I'm not interested in that. For other people, I don't know. I have not talked to any of the people
in reference to that. It seems to me that Council may or may not have feedback from other businesses in
' reference to that. I don't know if there's a need for it ... If we can work out ... I'd love to. It seems to me ... awful
lot of things because to make an interim use obviously helps my business. Then the attorney will...
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Any additional questions?
Councilman Berquist: No.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I know emotions run high on all sides to be honest and I think we are
' separating the two issues. If you don't like the ordinance, don't deal with it. But I hope, and I put my trust in
Mark Senn that he'll be able to come to a resolution.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
1 27
111�
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
Councilman Mason: Nothing to say.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: No questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion?
Councilman Mason: Yes. I will move we adopt the second reading, that the City Council approves the
amendments to Section 20- 576(7), 20 -1 and 20 -257 to permit both wholesale and retail nurseries in the A2
District as an Interim Use, as outlined in the staff report dated November 27, 1995 with the amendments that
follow in the staff report.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded.
Councilman Berquist: Discussion?
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion.
Councilman Berquist: What do we really gain, or lose, by voting on issue one? Does the fact that it's in place
add to or detract from any negotiations? Does it any way color any negotiations that would take place?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think it colors them regardless of what we do because 3 months from now we
could look at this ordinance and approve it. So regardless of the action we take tonight, it's going to color it.
The fact, if we approve final reading, I think it kind of strengthens the city's argument. Or not argument but
side. I see this as a back -up.
Councilman Berquist: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. But hopefully with some magic wand that Mark might come up with, I'd love to
possibly see that and maybe some of that can still be worked.
Councilman Mason: Quite honestly, the reason I'm moving this has nothing to do with a negotiations here with
Halla. I see those as two separate issues. Right, but I see, I understand staffs position. That this is going to
help the overall development of the city in a much more orderly fashion and I think this is the tool in the future
the city's going.
Councilman Berquist: And I'm of the opinion that the two gentlemen that are going to hash this out will be
able to hash this out regardless of whether or not the ordinance is in place. The question though still remains,
will it color it and if so.
Councilman Senn: I think the answer to that is in terms of what you compare a settlement to. If you can look
at a settlement on the face of itself, it won't be colored. If you try to compare a settlement to this ordinance,
28
n
IF1
J
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
yes it will color it. It wouldn't be my intention to compare it at all. I would... separate and I think that can be
done. I think if I'm hearing everybody, I think we're all coming into it on that basis.
Mayor Chmiel: As long as the legality is there, you don't have any problems.
Councilman Berquist: Legality isn't affected by the adoption of the ordinance?
Councilman Senn: Correct.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. Thank you.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve amendments to Sections 20- 257(7),
20 -1, and 20 -257 to permit both wholesale and retail nurseries in the A2 District as an Interim Use, as outlined
in the staff report dated November 27, 1995. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mark Halla: Your Honor, thank you all.
Councilman Mason: Your Honor, would it be possible, just because I know the Quinn's have been here a while,
to flip flop 8 and 9? Are we going to be taking...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And 7.5?
Councilman Mason: Oh we still have 7 point, oh yeah. Yeah, whoa. How about if we do number 9? I would
move we go to item number 9 and then come back to 7.5. Sorry Todd.
PRELINIINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE OUTLOT A OAKWOOD ESTATES (2.06
ACRES) INTO FIVE SINGLE FAM LY LOTS, 532 LYMAN BOULEVARD EUGENE QUINN FIRST
ADDTFION, OAKWOOD ESTATES.
Mayor Chmiel: Nice to see you back in town. How long have you been gone?
Eugene Quinn: We've been gone 4 years.
Mayor Chmiel: You notice any difference?
Eugene Quinn: The downtown area.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Bob.
Bob Generous: Mr. Mayor, Council members. This property is located north of Lyman Boulevard... The
applicant is requesting preliminary approval of a 5 lot subdivision and final plat approval of Lots 1 and 2 of the
development at this time. Lots 3, 4 and 5 would be preliminary platted right now and one of the conditions
prior to final platting that is that they have a wetland delineation to determine the viability of those lots for
actual development. This was originally outlotted until city services become available with the Lyman
improvement. Highway 101 improvement. They are getting sewer and water brought to this site. Staff is
recommending approval of the preliminary, the subdivision subject to the conditions in the staff report. I'd be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
29
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: Steve?
Councilman Berquist: No sir.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: I just ... because I had a real hard time up there understanding things. Where the wetlands
began.
Bob Generous: Well they did too.
Councilman Senn: You are too, okay. But that's effectively, it's Lots 3 and 4 that you think will be
predominantly affected then?
Bob Generous: Correct. Mostly 4.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anything that you'd like to say at this time?
Eugene Quinn: I don't think so. If you've got any questions.
Councilman Senn: I'd move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the preliminary plat of Oakwood Estates
First Addition, prepared by William R Engelhardt Associates, Inc., dated December 28, 1995, for five lots and
grants final plat approval for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Oakwood Estates First Addition, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Submit an evaluation of the soils at the proposed house pads. This shall be done prior to issuance of any
building permits.
2. Revise the grading plan to show the location, lowest floor and garage floor elevations and type of dwelling
using the city's standard designations prior to final plat approval. the lowest floor elevations of all
dwellings shall be constructed a minimum of two (2) feet above the 100 year flood elevation of the pond.
The lowest opening or walkout of each dwelling shall be a minimum of one (1) foot above the emergency
overflow swale elevation.
all
r City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
3. Rock construction entrances shall be employed and maintained at all access P oints until the street has been
paved with bituminous surface.
4. The applicant shall be responsible for water quality and quantity connection charges in accordance with the
City Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). Credits will be reviewed and applied to these charges upon
' final plat consideration based on the applicant's contribution for meeting the City's SWMP requirements.
5. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat a drainage and ponding easement over the pond up to the 100
year flood elevation and a 20 foot drainage and utility easement centered upon the common lot line of Lots
3 and 4, Block 1 for the emergency overflow swale.
6. The applicant's engineer shall work with city staff in revising street grades along Quinn Road to provide for
' an emergency overflow from the pond out to Quinn Road.
7. Individual grading, drainage, tree preservation and erosion control plans will be required for Lots 1, 2 and
' 5, Block 1 at the time of building permit application for the city to review and approve. Lots 3 and 4,
Block 1 shall be graded in conjunction with Phase II site improvements.
8. The public street and utility system shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the city's latest
edition of street and utility standards. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for
Phase II for city staff review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat
approval for Phase I1. The plans and specifications shall be prepared in accordance with the latest edition
of the city's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
9. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-
' mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with
the city's Best Management Practice Handbook.
10. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm event
providing ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with the City's SWMP for the City
Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre -
developed and post - developed stormwater calculations in existing basins, created basins, and /or creeks.
Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if
sufficient catch basins are being utilized.
' 11. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial
security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract.
12. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed
' District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their
conditions of approval.
13. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and
shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
31
17. A conservation easement or tree removal limit shall be placed over the following lot areas:
a. The northern 145 feet and western 20 feet of Lot 1.
b. The western 60 feet of Lot 2. '
c. The westerly 60 feet of the southerly 30 feet of Lot 3.
d. The northern 35 feet of Lot 5.
18. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around all trees and wooded areas that are to be preserved on the
'
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
on or adjacent to the lots.
14. The applicant has the option to install the storm drainage improvements from the pond to Lyman Boulevard
,
at their own expense. If the applicant petitions the city to install these drainage improvements under the
Lyman Boulevard Reconstruction/Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93 -32B, the
'
applicant shall accept the special assessment for the cost of extending the storm drainage improvements
from Lyman Boulevard to the pond. The cost of these storm drainage improvements will be assessed on a
per lot basis over Lots 1 through 5, inclusive. The applicant and /or property owners shall waive any and all
'
procedural or substantive objections to the special assessments associated with city public improvement
,
Project No. 93 -32B including, but not limited to, hearing requirements and any claim that the assessment
exceeds the benefit to the property.
'
15. Quinn Road shall be extended and upgraded to a city standard urban road in the future. The applicant shall
provide a temporary turn around with Phase II improvements that meets city standards with a barricade and
signage stating that it is a temporary cul -de -sac and this road will be extended in the future.
'
16. Applicant is required to plant 10 trees as replacements for canopy lost. These trees shall be 2 1/2 inches in
diameter and from the primary species in the Approved Tree List. Three trees shall be planted on each of
'
Lots 3 and 4, and four on Lot 2.
17. A conservation easement or tree removal limit shall be placed over the following lot areas:
a. The northern 145 feet and western 20 feet of Lot 1.
b. The western 60 feet of Lot 2. '
c. The westerly 60 feet of the southerly 30 feet of Lot 3.
d. The northern 35 feet of Lot 5.
18. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around all trees and wooded areas that are to be preserved on the
'
site. Such fencing shall be installed prior to commencing grading, excavations or other site improvements
on or adjacent to the lots.
19. Entry monumentation for the development shall require a separate sign permit and must comply with city
,
code.
20. The applicant shall hire a wetland expert to delineate the edge of the wetland due to the marginal soil
'
conditions in the area. Based on this delineation, Lots 3, 4 and 5 may not be developable or a Wetland
Alteration Permit may be required. Such delineation must be done prior to final plat approval for Phase II
of the development.
,
21. Review the plat to ensure that the landscaping along the collector street meets city ordinance.
22. Full park and trail fees shall be paid pursuant to city ordinance.
'
All voted in favor and the motion carved unanimously.
AUTHORIZATION TO FORMALLY SUBMIT SITE PLAN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND
APPROVE BUDGET /FLOOR PLAN FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY ADDITION.
'
32 1
1
J
F
Ll
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
Don Ashworth: I'd like to start really with an apology to the City Council. It was my firm belief that in
October we concluded a very long process that really started with building additions in both the front and the
rear of this building. As time went on, the cost associated with being able to do both the construction in the
front as well as public safety just did not occur. The total budgetary amount went over HRA funding. That
kind of disappeared and the fundamental decision we made in October, in my mind, was really one of saying
okay, we should really be moving ahead with this public safety wing. It was not my belief that when Todd was
doing cost estimates as to what public safety would be versus a combined building, that we were limiting
ourselves to exactly what would be the shape, size, color of that rear portion. We proceeded with the next 2 to
3 months in very arduous types of meetings with KKE, Todd and each one of the departments because at that
point in time we had finalized the general areas, the functional areas that would exist with both the existing City
Hall as well as the new addition. I put the task back to our staff. I said you know we can't be blowing up
walls. We have to keep the budget in mind out of this whole thing. Yet we need to take and ensure that we
have an efficient structure. One in which an inner relationship between planning and engineering stayed in
place. The public safety would work to ensure that we could provide a service to contractors while still being
able to be a functional part of the building. How the counter would be used as a spot to be able to take and
ensure people got back to finance and that that element fit in together. The long and the short is those three
months literally examined every portion of our city operations and tried to develop a plan that would meet
those. I guess I can proudly state to you that we've done that. And we've put together an interior layout that
works for the efficiency of our citizens. That provides an effective way to provide a service to our community
and what I considered to be the minor portion in the budgetary change is important, yes. But I do not consider
that that budget, as it had been just charged to Todd. Meaning well, what will it cost if we just square the
building out here and how much does that cost in comparison to dealing with the... building. I honestly thought
that those discussions we're trying to put to bed this final decision as to front and back or solely back. With
that, I guess I would recommend that the City Council approve the proposed site plan. Authorize staff to submit
that to the Planning Commission and approve the budget as presented by Ameon.
Mayor Chmiel: Do you have any questions? Steve?
Councilman Berquist: No questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen. Mike.
Councilman Mason: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: One question on the staff report. Don, on page 2 under where we are. There's reference to
assuming that one of the future Community Development Block Grant allocations would be to remodel a portion
of the lower level for a crafts room, okay. That's the first I've heard of that. Are we talking about the Block
' Grant action we took tonight or are we talking about a future when ... we probably won't get any?
Don Ashworth: The one we approved tonight was really for the kitchen portion. Ironically we don't really have
a spot to put that kitchen. When I used the word craft room, it was really more example type of a thing. The
seniors have used that as a specific example in talking with staff but it would sound as though, of course, the
action earlier, probably the first request is going to be they physical area for where this kitchen is going to be
located.
33
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
Kate Aanenson: Correct. That's one option. As we indicated ... we may not be able to get an existing kitchen
space so we could use this future expansion is left open right now. We're taking it as a separate project so we
wanted to decide which was the most efficient as far as future needs. Right now we continue to serve, or it
could serve with the existing senior center, where their seating is right now ... space needed for the kitchen. But
that's a possibility...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there any discussion? If not, is there a motion.
Councilman Senn: There is discussion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay,
Councilman Senn: You asked for questions. I was limiting it to questions to start with. The, basically with the
information we got back in, to be honest with you, I don't like the fact that the budget has grown again. But I
also would be realistic and realize that there's really no way we're going to know the budget until we did the
project. Okay. My suggestion would be to go ahead and authorize this be submitted to the Planning
Commission as suggested, but with several clarifications. They're not really clarifications. With several added
understanding. One is if we don't pass on the budget tonight, and that we get the project bid and at that point
we look at the budget and decide what budget's going to go and what elements are going to go based on the
cost. You know. If this comes back in at $1.4 million because we bidded it out, I think this Council's got some
work to do to look at what goes or doesn't go. Because we don't really have enough information to do that.
And the second part of that, since there's one already suggested in here, I think any contingency that's put on
this project should be a Council controlled contingency and require prior approval from the Council before any
expenses are made, or committed to be made out of this. Versus an after the fact approval as we often times do
with contingencies. And lastly, I would like to see the construction management contract revert to the original
percentage which we approved and ... because I see no reason why it should be increased to the ... over what was
previously approved.
Mayor Chmiel: Do you have any thoughts? Yes
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd like to know, probably from Todd. In terms of the budget, I mean you've done
this many times before. There's probably a little give and take but like any project we're at a detail level where
you can pretty accurately estimate what the bids are going to come in as.
Todd Christopherson: Yeah...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So your professional opinion is with this budget we can do what we want to do?
Todd Christopherson: Right. If you feel comfortable with the contingency that's identified is reasonable to
accommodate any...
Mayor Chmiel: I also did ask Don just now to sort of clarify as to some of the things that Mark brought up.
Don, would you like to.
Don Ashworth: The only one that, if you hold up on the project and do that as a part of when bids come in, I
don't see a problem with that. If you want to control the contingency more closely, that's fine as well. As it
deals with the management fee though, I mean you take a large, the larger the project becomes, the more you
34
1
r
I
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
can demand a reduction in the fee from whatever professional. For this articular building, and again knocking
P g g g
off the front, and just doing the portion behind, they're still going to be evaluating the existing mechanical.
Everyone of the systems within the existing City Hall. Just as if we were literally putting on that front addition.
I think that it's really not fair to Todd to force him into a position of accepting the fee that might normally be
associated with a much larger project, now that we've made a decision to basically cut it in half. And I guess
you're too nice of a guy so you should stand up for yourself a little bit.
Todd Christopherson: Well I guess, yeah. Thanks. The only thing I have to say about that, we're in a very
' competitive business and the fee structure that we deal with is fairly well known if you were to talk with other
professionals in the same business. I mean it's a fairly structured fee system. Projects that are on the order of
$4 or $5 million ... are typically in the 2% range for this scope of services. Projects that are a million dollars or
less are typically about 4 %. And that's based on a project where you assign the project and move ahead with
the project on a timely fashion. This, like our's where we talked over an extended period of time about a larger
project and then scale it back, the fee that we're looking at now is still within that 4% range and it includes all
of that ... leading up to that point in October where you said let's scale the project back. So we felt that we
would look at it as, it was still a reasonable fee. We felt that it was well within what ... market might be for
those services. The reason we did that is because when we started the project, this was about a year ago, we
started that fee structure... so we feel we kept that in line with what we started.
Councilman Mason: Your fee structure changed when we changed the scope of the plan, right?
Todd Christopherson: Well it has again. That's what...
' Councilman Mason: I mean that's what you're proposing, right?
' Todd Christopherson: Right.
Councilman Mason: Which I guess makes a certain amount of sense to me.
' Councilman Senn: But no Michael, not the fee structure. The overall fee amount increased even though the
project has been cut in half. Yes. That's your October submittal.
Councilman Mason: I don't know why we're going through this again.
Councilman Senn: Well, we talked about it the other night too.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, I thought it was resolved.
Councilman Senn: I thought it was resolved that it was going to stay where it was. That's why I was asking it
to be included. When we negotiated these things up front with both the construction manager and the architect,
we stuck in percentages but we also stuck in not to exceed and we established those numbers. We did that with
the architect too because we were all concerned about all the money we had already spent on the project and it
wasn't even being determined as being part of that fee. And so in both of those cases we should not be seeing
increases in this final contract come out of either architecture or construction management. That was the deal.
Don Ashworth: Again, we didn't know exactly what we were going to be building back at that point in time so
to say that it was fixed. I agree with one thing and that is, once you really do get to a final budget portion, as
35
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
we are this evening, then those fees should be set. And if then bids actually come in and they're higher, they're
locked into that amount. But I do not consider that Todd knew full well that when we asked him to give us a
cost estimate for squaring off the back end of the building, that he believed that that was going to be the final
fee figure. I just don't.
Todd Christopherson: I guess I want Councilman Senn to be ... was $1.9 million total project. That included the
$750,000.00 in land acquisition. Now we have a project that's $1.2 million that doesn't, we took that out of it.
We made a decision that that was no longer part of this construction project. That land acquisition. So if you
look at, when we talk about percentage, we talk about the percentage of the construction cost. Our costs and...
take a look at taking a fee that was a percentage of what your costs are for land or for other fees... Strictly
construction.
Councilman Senn: We got two budgets from you in October. First budget was the number you just set and
then we had after a work session, we got a new budget that was a scaled down budget of approximately
$900,000.00. Okay, so the total project cost, and the fee identified in it, which was kind of the go ahead at that
point. Okay, and that's the fee in front of me now. The $30,000.00 fee that was in there in relationship to that
$900,000.00 budget. Or $900,000.00 and some. I can't remember the exact number but it was 900 and some
thousand dollars. So that fee wasn't based on a $1.9 million project. In the first place, a $1.9 million budget
includes the $750,000.00 land acquisition which has absolutely nothing to do with this... So the $30,000.00 fee
we talked about, agreed to at that time, was based on that budget around 900 and some thousand dollars. And
we discussed that as being the fee. I remember asking you that question directly. Just as we asked the architect
the same question directly. I just object to changing it now.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussions?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I was in the office an hour this morning also because I was riding the fence
and I came away very pleased and comfortable that I was pleased, or pleased that I was comfortable. I guess
that's the way it was. That although the process has been arduous, it's probably been necessary the way we've
done it, since it is a huge expenditure and it lands right on our shoulders. But I think we need to go ahead with
it. I think all the departments heads have been consulted in terms of the efficiency of the use of this space. I
think it's a conservative and good use of the funds that need to be spent and I think we need to, to use a terrible
sport metaphor, step up to the plate. I mean we need to make a decision.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anyone else?
Councilman Berquist: I look at this as something we've been working on for too darn long and we've been
vacillating back and forth and listening to Mark and listening to Todd, listening to Don and everybody's been
putting in their two cents worth. The fact of the matter is, the CM is hired to work on our behalf. We've got to
trust that he's going to do that. The plan is good. I don't like spending the money. I don't like spending
$900,000.00 much less $1.2 million but I don't like spending anyways. So having a 30% increase before we've
even gotten bids on the darn thing is somewhat disconcerting but that's exactly the fact. We have not gotten
bids on it. On the $800,000.00 or $900,000.00. $932,000.00 budget that we were given back in October was
done on a shirt sleeve. Or a table napkin, or whatever you want to do when you're doing a quick budget
number. Probably a little bit better than that. So the old fisher cutting bait.
Councilman Mason: It's about time. No, I agree with Colleen and Steve. I think it's a good project. I thought
it's a good project from the start. I personally think some good has come out of the time spent on this. I think
36
I
fl
L�
1J
1
n
1
I
I I
U
1
I
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
we've gone on some tangents that we haven't needed to go on. I agree with Steve's comments about we, you
hire people to do the job and I think sometimes we, this Council has a tendency to micro manage instead of
lead and I'd like to proceed with it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'm not going to put my two cents in because I was here this morning as well with Don
looking at the situation and I pretty surmised the same thing as Colleen as indicated so I'll call the question. Is
there a motion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would move that we submit the site plan to the Planning Commission and
approve the budget and floor plan for the Public Safety Addition.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve authorization to formally submit
the site plan to the Planning Commission and approve the budget and floor plan for the Public Safety Addition
to City Hall. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried 4 to 1.
CONSENT AGENDA:
( ). AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL RAISING OF FUR BEARING
ANIMALS OPERATION OF RIDING ACADEMIES COMMERCIAL STABLES AND KENNELS IN THE
BF, FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT, FINAL READING AND APPROVAL OF SUMMARY ORDINANCE
FOR PUBLICATION.
Mayor Chmiel: In going to number 8, I'd like to go to I I (a), Consent. Item (e), Mark. We have some people
here that I never noticed that were interested in this and they've been sitting here this long. So if we can move
to item I (e) and your concern on that.
Councilman Senn: I didn't know we had people here on that. No, I just simply, on that one I simply asked it
to be removed. I think on the first reading I voted no because of the, I don't like the fact that it's abutting up to
residential property and I continue to have that concern so that's the only reason I removed it. I wish I would
have known they were here.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well then I will move it.
(Mayor Chmiel called for the vote and Councilman Berquist was out of the room.)
Councilman Mason: Do we need 4/5 on this?
Kate Aanenson: I think we need 4/5 on it so.
Mayor Chmiel: I was just going to say, we'd better wait. We just moved item 1(e).
Councilman Berquist: The fur bearing animal ordinance?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
37
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
Kate Aanenson: Fur bearing should have been struck off. I apologize for that. It's off the regular agenda but it
ended up on the cover. We don't want to bring in mink.
Councilman Berquist: Here's my notes that I type for every one and it says, fur bearing animals. Amendment
to City Code.
Mayor Chmiel: We'll retract the motion.
Kate Aanenson: We do need 4/5 for a second reading? Code Amendment. 4/5.
Roger Knutson: Which one?
Mayor Chmiel: 11(e). Or 1(e).
Kate Aanenson: Second reading. It's a code amendment.
Roger Knutson: Item I P
Mayor Chmiel: No, I (e) of the Consent.
Roger Knutson: Is that in the Zoning Ordinance?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Roger Knutson: That needs a 4/5 vote.
Kate Aanenson: We were missing one person. We didn't have 4/5 so I asked.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Why don't you go ahead and make a motion.
Councilman Berquist: I'll move approval of the amendment, ordinance amendment amending Chapter 5 and 20
of the Chanhassen City Code. No, it doesn't say fur bearing animals. Concerning commercial stables and
kennels in the business fringe district.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded approving an ordinance amending Chapters
5 and 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning commercial stables and kennels in the BF, Fringe Business
District All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carved with a vote of 4 to
1.
W]
F1
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
APPROVE PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS FOR POWERS BOULEVARD (CSAH 17) RECONSTRUCTION
FROM TH 5 SOUTH TO LYMAN_BOULEVARD, CARVER COUNTY /CTTY PROJECT SAP 10- 617 -14
CITY FILE 93 -29.
Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Tonight we have the project engineer, Mr.
Greg Brown from BRW to provide you with another review of the primary project elements involved. Also to
note some changes that have been made to the plans following input from the feasibility hearing we had back in
January. Provide you with some revised project cost estimates based on these final set of plan documents, and
also provide you with a revised construction time schedule for the project. With that I'd like to turn it over to
Greg Brown.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Greg Brown: Charles, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I'd like to just go through quickly the project this
evening just to kind of refresh your memories and then we'll get on the three of the main issues that were
discussed at the public hearing on January 8th. It's all in the packets and ... those items here. I think everyone is
probably familiar with the project location. It's Lyman Boulevard from Highway 5 and essentially
reconstructing from two lane rural to four lane divided... One of the three issues brought up at the January
meeting was the access at Oakside Circle. The median was presented that there was no access at Oakside
Circle. Final plans reflect that there is full access to Oakside Circle. So there will be a left turn, right turn on
the main line and also... The second two issues that were brought up and kind of general in nature was the
landscaping and I'll just go through the plans here quickly. -what the plan shows ... to provide trees back in the
landscaping plan... existing tree masses as you see on the southern end where Lyman Boulevard is ... provide
screening for residents and as you move up, a lot of those residents along the west side there... trees that were
taken out as a part of the construction. Another facet of the landscaping is to the X in the intersections
and... flowering trees placed at intersections and all the landscaping is placed behind the pathway and that's
mainly for sight line spacing and also—concerns. No landscaping is going to be placed in the median at this
time. Or between the path and the roadway. This is another example. This case shows some of the extensive
landscaping in the city park area. Future park area located just to the east of the roadway between Lake Susan
Hills and also on the end here there's ... that would be part of the project and that's fairly extensive landscaping.
We have had a neighborhood meeting and discussed with many homeowners relative to their concern, the
screening and such. I think we've been able to address those concerns and will be flexible during the
construction to make sure everyone's happy... The third thing that was brought up in the public hearing was
street lighting, and essentially we have street lights located behind the pathways as well. That's also a
maintenance and safety issue... They're spaced at approximately 250 feet and they are also, we amended the
number of lights around the intersection to improve the visibility of the major intersections ... we did on street
lighting was to provide for both side shield to limit the amount of spillover of light that can get on a house...
That's something that's relatively an inexpensive problem ... In addition, the street lighting will all be installed, the
wiring will be all installed with conduit, which should provide a little better maintenance situation for the city.
Especially with the recent history ... so that would be a part of this project. This is an overview of the cost,
which is in your packets. As you can see, the current final design costs are essentially comparable to the
feasibility study cost. There's I guess one exception, sanitary sewer. We have a lift station...
Otherwise... comparable. This is the current project schedule, assuming that the Council approves the project
tonight. We have a bid opening scheduled for April 2nd and we ... and a potential begin construction date is May
6th, which will be about 30 days from the award and that's kind of ... This is about the same schedule that we
were promoting in January. I think the only thing that has changed is...
39
1
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996 1
I
Councilman Mason: About how long do you anticipate this to take?
Greg Brown: The project is scheduled for, it's a working day project so we schedule it at 155 working days.
What we anticipate to happen is, the project will be completed in essentially three phases. The first phase will
be the future northbound segment from Lyman Boulevard to Highway 5. And second phase would be ,
southbound from Highway 5 to about Lake Drive. Just slightly to the south of Lake Drive. At that point we
would build a cross over and all that construction would hopefully take place this year. There's 105 working
days allotted for that. And generally in a project, about 15 to 18 working days, essentially a working day...
That's a typical MnDot administered project. That's a pretty fair way as far as the contractor's concerned. You
don't get caught up in arguing over if it's good weather or not. And they have pretty strict rules as far as what's
a working day and what's not... The third phase would be about 50 working days and that would essentially
account for the remaining southbound roadway from Lake Drive to Lyman. In addition, probably the pathway
can be constructed in that phase final... landscaping and of course miscellaneous clean -up, sucli...contractor's
option and he may elect to do some of the finish work in Phase I too of the project as well. Currently the plans
are at State Aid for review and I've gotten some initial comments back. One recommendation that they are
making to us is, the request they're making is to have the City Council issue a no parking resolution for both ,
Lake Drive and Powers Boulevard. I guess I'd like to request that tonight, if we could, if the Council could
make those resolutions along with approving the final plans and specifications for the project, if it's possible. I
guess other than that, I'll answer questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any questions at this time?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: A couple. Phase III then would be neat spring? '
Greg Brown: Correct. I would suspect that Phase II could be finished...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. And is there a penalty on not completing? '
Greg Brown: Yes, there is ... damages in the neighborhood, I think it's $2,000.00 a day. They actually run for
each phase and they're, I can't remember now what ... because we said Phase II is more critical. Basically it'd be
nice to get that done before the winter shut down.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. I'm trying to picture the area and don't we have a couple ways accessing
directly onto Powers. Just north of Oakside.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And they will continue to? Obviously, what else would they do. So they'll have
to go up and take a U turn if they want to.
Greg Brown: At Oakside Circle.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: At Oakside Circle, okay. How, since we haven't resolved the issue of burying the I
electrical lines, how would that impact our budget if that was deemed to be a city expense?
Charles Polch: What you see here tonight presented in terms of cost estimates for the project, do not include I
any costs associated with relocation of undergrounding of public utilities.
40 1
I City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Any idea of ballpark what that might be?
Charles Folch: Well the Lyman, the Lyman project I think they estimated about $132,000.00 to do that
segment. This is probably a little bit longer road segment than that one so maybe $150,000.00... long standing
breaks for that crossing there. And it's almost the same problems that we run in with the railroad.
' Mayor Chmiel: We don't have too much to stand on.
Charles Folch: At this point, that's the word we're getting from the County.
Councilman Berquist: So burying the electric lines and just leaving the pipelines is going to add $200,000.00 to
this price?
Charles Folch: Could very well. If that's how it ends up being resolved.
Councilman Berquist: Colleen asked about these, the houses that are north of Oakside.
Charles Folch: Yeah, there's two homes.
Councilman Berquist: Are they going to be able to, they're not going to make a U turn at Oakside according to.
Charles Folch: Yeah, there will be a median cut at Oakside with a turn lane in either direction so they'll be
' able to make a U turn there. The problem with, at this point, of trying to provide another median cut to get one
of those driveways ends up being in the middle of a, well in a taper or in the middle of a turn lane for the next
intersection to the north. So it just isn't feasible to do that.
Councilman Berquist: I'm just, I'm not saying to give them access all the way across. I'm simply looking at the
plan... scale and saying, to make a U turn and they're going to be in a southbound left lane with no.
Greg Brown: There's no turn lane.
Councilman Berquist: There is no turn lane there. And they're going to be turning into an area where there's no
' merge lane either. So it's hope to hell and hit the accelerator. I'm just noticing on the, coming out of Oakside
Circle. There is really no merge lane there either.
Greg Brown: Well generally on the, I'm going to say for a right turn. We'll have a short tapering at the
intersection like this will have probably a 15 to 20 foot taper where the radius is set back. It's not a typical or
average acceleration lane.
Charles Folch: At this point it's kind of constrained too with the right turn lane.
Councilman Berquist: Was there a lot of objection, was that done because of the pressure from the Oakside
residents?
Charles Folch: The median cut?
I Councilman Berquist: The median cut.
1 41
Charles Folch: Well we'd like to see it at 40. It's likely that it could get posted at 45. But we don't want to
see it at 50 if at all possible.
Councilman Berquist: The other, the only other question I have, remembering back, and again with this small
scale it's difficult to know but have the medians been reduced in width? I mean is this still going to maintain
sort of a parkway flavor?
Greg Brown: There's still, one of the changes... concrete median strip. I
Charles Folch: Actually... back curb in those areas where they're going to have to be mowing so that there's
more protection. Instead of having like a 6 inch curb that you're mowing up against, they're providing a much '
wider, called a ballpark back curb so that it's a little safer for the maintenance people to get out there.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike.
Councilman Mason: No. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Mark. I
Councilman Senn: A couple. Charles ... one and two, those basically are coming from other funds? They're not
really part of this project as part of the assessment then?
Charles Folch: No, that's correct. They're just trying to use the economy of scales to our advantage. And some '
of them...
Councilman Senn: Secondly. The meeting of February 28th. I stopped down here for the meeting and there
was a packed house. What were the major issues that everybody was here for? I mean are those issues
resolved or, because there was quite a large turn out.
Greg Brown: It was. Generally it was a very favorable crowd that night. Most people I would say were just
interested generally in what the project was. There was a number of people abutting, and their main...
landscaping and how close to the trail will be in my property and that type of thing ... say well, it's going to be
approximately 50 feet from your fence now or that type of thing. In addition we had easements at that time,
and Gary Fuchs was here... meeting for them earlier and went through the easements and during the course of the
night, he spoke with each person with their easements... There really was no negative talk. Only one person
was questioning the need for the road period. Traffic, etc. But otherwise it was ... There was a good turn out.
42 1
,
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
Charles Folch: Actually as it turned out, we looked at, when we determined what we'd like to have the design
speeds at, it facilitates, if there's design parameters opening that up there. We had to shorten up the turn lane.
Try and take that left turn lane northbound to Oakside Circle is a little close from a design standard to that
'
intersection with Lyman Boulevard but.
Councilman Berquist: So you're using that as a method of negotiating your posted limits?
Charles Folch: No. It actually falls within what we'd like to see for the posted speed.
Councilman Berquist: Which is?
,
Charles Folch: Well we'd like to see it at 40. It's likely that it could get posted at 45. But we don't want to
see it at 50 if at all possible.
Councilman Berquist: The other, the only other question I have, remembering back, and again with this small
scale it's difficult to know but have the medians been reduced in width? I mean is this still going to maintain
sort of a parkway flavor?
Greg Brown: There's still, one of the changes... concrete median strip. I
Charles Folch: Actually... back curb in those areas where they're going to have to be mowing so that there's
more protection. Instead of having like a 6 inch curb that you're mowing up against, they're providing a much '
wider, called a ballpark back curb so that it's a little safer for the maintenance people to get out there.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike.
Councilman Mason: No. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Mark. I
Councilman Senn: A couple. Charles ... one and two, those basically are coming from other funds? They're not
really part of this project as part of the assessment then?
Charles Folch: No, that's correct. They're just trying to use the economy of scales to our advantage. And some '
of them...
Councilman Senn: Secondly. The meeting of February 28th. I stopped down here for the meeting and there
was a packed house. What were the major issues that everybody was here for? I mean are those issues
resolved or, because there was quite a large turn out.
Greg Brown: It was. Generally it was a very favorable crowd that night. Most people I would say were just
interested generally in what the project was. There was a number of people abutting, and their main...
landscaping and how close to the trail will be in my property and that type of thing ... say well, it's going to be
approximately 50 feet from your fence now or that type of thing. In addition we had easements at that time,
and Gary Fuchs was here... meeting for them earlier and went through the easements and during the course of the
night, he spoke with each person with their easements... There really was no negative talk. Only one person
was questioning the need for the road period. Traffic, etc. But otherwise it was ... There was a good turn out.
42 1
1 City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
' Mayor Chmiel: Of else we'd see a lot of people sitting here right now.
Charles Folch: That's the other point. They were all notified that this was coming up tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion?
Councilman Berquist: Last item, alternate number 2 where you talked about resurfacing Park Road and Park
Drive.
Charles Folch: Alternate 1?
Councilman Berquist: Alternate 1, sorry. That's part of the normal surface? I mean I own a building on Park
Drive. It seems like those roads are still in good shape. Are those things due to be re- milled or re- overlaid?
Charles Folch: They are at a point where, they're still in good shape although we do have, you're starting to see
a lot of transverse spots cracking if you will. And what you end up doing is having those slabs. We tried to
crack seal them but you will still get moisture in them. Over time you will start to see those slabs moving but
industrial park carries a lot of heavy truck traffic and we don't restrict it during road restrictions so it definitely
carries it's burden out there and we're at a point now where if we don't put this structural overlay on now, which
' is about your, oh that industrial park was done probably in the mid, '83 -'84 area I think it was. So right about
that 10 -12 year interval which is the normal life cycle of the road that you'd want to put that structural overlay
on the road surface.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion?
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Sure, I'll move the plans and specs for Powers Boulevard and reconstruction from
Trunk Highway 5 south to Lyman Boulevard. Project 10- 617 -14. To include no parking on Lake Drive or
Powers for the duration of the project.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #96 -25: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the plans and
specifications dated January 22, 1996, and authorize advertisement of project bids for Powers Boulevanl (CSAH
17) Reconstruction Project from Trunk Highway 5 south to Lyman Boulevard, Carver County S.A.P. 10- 617 -14,
City Project File No. 93 -29, and approve the resolution for no parking on Lake Drive and Powers Boulevanl
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
REVISIONS TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, PLANNING DIRECTOR.
' Kate Aanenson: Thank you. I put this item in for your edification. The neat year's block grant allocation,
Hennepin County has passed a resolution re- addressing how they're going to allocate their monies. I believe a
lot of that came out of a report that was given, developed by the staff, housing strategies. What they've done is
taken those communities, there are a number of communities that have 50,000 population, which are direct
entitlement but those communities that aren't, and put them into a large pool. If you look at your last page of
the report, it shows you the communities and the breakdown and just magically they came up with the 50,000.
They were looking at even 75,000 which would take in possibly, depending on where the allocation fell, Mound
and possibly Champlin. So what they're doing is putting everybody into a pool neat year so we will not get the
1 43
�1
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
direct $49,000.00. What they're going to do is based on priorities, look at those communities under 50,000 and
making sure that you're meeting your objectives. Give you an opportunity to actually pick up other
communities monies. In looking at where that came from, one of the recommendations out of this housing
study that was approved last summer by Hennepin County was to actually go in and look at actually pooling all
the money, except for the entitlement money and opening it up, because what they're trying to do, at the County
itself, is look at other strategies for housing. So I believe this is, a large portion will be at housing. So what
it's going to force this community to do is to push to make sure that we have a project that's meeting the goals
and objectives, which is housing, which is why we felt strongly about putting additional money in for the senior
housing needs because we're going to have to try to do something more housing related most likely in the next
year. Which is a good goal too. But what it does is it provides communities such as Minnetonka Beach and
Greenwood, who have such a small allocation and no leverage, to pool that money. That's another thing they
want to do is do some collaborative things where other communities are working together with HRA's, as we've
done with Carver County. So I just wanted you to be aware of that. They have already approved this
resolution. That was done back in February so it's on the books and that's what we'll be forced with the next
year. The only way it wouldn't happen is if for some reason the allocation comes back and we're bumped back
over 50,000. Then we could just again, do whatever project...
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, being that we have only one house in Hennepin County, and they derive quite a bit of
taxes off of what we have within Hennepin County, I think they should reconsider some of their thoughts as far
as Chanhassen.
Councilman Berquist: We have one house in Hennepin County?
Mayor Chmiel: That's it.
Don Ashworth: And we had to negotiate that one...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There isn't any action that's required on this.
Kate Aanenson: No, this is just for your edification.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. We'll move on to I I (a). Item a.
CONSENT AGENDA:
(A). CITY CENTER PARFJCHANHASSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PLAYGROUND EXPANSION,
MATCHING FUNDS, CHANHASSEN ELEMENTARY PARENT ORGANIZATION.
Councilman Senn: I was somewhat confused in reading the Park and Ree's Commission's Minutes which stated
that these dollars to be drawn from 410 Parks and Trail Acquisition and Development reserve established for
this purpose. By this action the Council shall amend the 1996 Park and Trail Acquisition and Development
budget to include this expenditure. Yet the staff report we have here basically says that it's already included.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I had the exact same question and I called Todd.
Councilman Senn: Okay. That was question one.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And he didn't return my call.
44
�I
1
I
n
CI
I City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
' Councilman Senn: Yeah, I didn't either so. So that's question one.
' Mayor Chmiel: Don can answer that.
Don Ashworth: Maybe let's finish...
' Councilman Senn: No, go ahead. I'm sorry if you've got it.
Don Ashworth: The answer is yes and yes. If you're looking in the budget, you'll see an amount in the lowest
portion there it shows reserve for future projects. Literally all you're doing is just moving it from a future
reserve item to a current budget item. So it is there. When you look in your 1996 budget, you'll see that the
Park Commission anticipated that this would become a project at some time in the future. So they established a
line item as a reserve for the item. They're now saying let's activate it.
Mayor Chmiel: This isn't the first time we've done this.
Don Ashworth: No, this is a typical fashion.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Second question. I commend the PTO for raising the $7,500.00 or whatever it was
' that they're asking. Or I guess they've raised approximately $7,000.00 if they're asking for the matching funds.
My question is, why are we being asked to match it and why is not the School District? You know we paid for
everything that's out there now. Okay. Yet the predominant user of that equipment is the School District.
When's their turn to step to the table with some type of a contribution towards that equipment or the ongoing
use of that equipment?
Don Ashworth: I'll have to defer that one to Hoffman. I'll have him prepare a memorandum. I know that
there's a joint split. There was a shared position on equipment that's out there. My recollection there was a
grant but I also believe that you are correct. The City of Chanhassen was the primary funding source.
Mayor Chmiel: ...when we did all this?
Don Ashworth: Not the big play equipment stuff.
Councilman Senn: Well the city, you know according to the information I have, the city paid for it and it just
seems to me, I mean we paid for our park. We provided a Phase I, in fact even a renovation I think as part of
this and.
Don Ashworth: I'll have to talk this one.
Councilman Senn: I think it's great the PTO's raised money but I think the school district should be holding up
here, not the city.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there any other concerns?
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Does anyone else wish to move this?
45
City Council Meeting - March 11, 1996
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I move to table it. So we can get that answer.
Councilman Mason: I'd like to get that answer before I voted on it. I'll second to table.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table the City Center Park/Chanhassen
Elementary School Playground Expansion, matching funds request. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjoumed at 10:25 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
46