2g. Minutes •
4:72
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
a REGULAR MEETING
111 SEPTEMBER 9, 1991
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason, Councilman Workman,
Councilman Wing and Councilwoman Dimler
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Paul Krauss, Sharmin Al -Jaff,
Charles Folch, Todd Gerhardt and Todd Hoffman
1
APPROVAL OF AGENDA; Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to
approve the agenda with the following additions: under Public Announcements
Mayor Chmiel added Carver County and exchange of household hazardous waste
collection date; under Council Presentations Councilwoman Dimler wanted to
present some concerns of the Lake Lucy residents about the construction on the
Troendle property; and Councilman Workman wanted to discuss the County
Assessor's office. All voted in favor of the amended agenda and the motion
carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT:
Mayor Chmiel: We're having, or I should say Carver County is having a paint
exchange and household hazardous waste collection day which is going to take
place on Saturday, October 12th at 9 :00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and this is going to
be at the Carver County Courthouse at Chaska. It's going to be in the parking
lot just the far side closer to the sewage treatment plant. What they're going
to wind up doing, it's going to be a special clean -up opportunity for Carver
County residents to properly dispose of household hazardous waste such as
' pesticides and herbicides, rodent baits, oil base paints, automotive products,
except tires, chemical household cleaners, solvents, turpentine, and wood •
preservatives. They're going to do a real good thing with this too. If you
need paint for anything, .check out your colors there. It's going to be free.
It's useable latex paint.` Half gallon or more will be accepted on that day and
residents who useable latex paint may bring it to the collection bay and
residents who need paint can come and get it free of charge. Now they say
there's nothing free these days but this is. The only reason is it's going to
cost the County $25.00 per gallon to dispose of paint and consequently it's
better if you can use it, come and get it. End of testimonial. Is there anyone
else with any other public announcements you'd like to make? Seeing none we'll
move on to the next agenda item which is the Consent Agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve
the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
' a. Approve One Day Temporary Beer License, Chanhassen Lions Club, September 28,
1991, Oktoberfest Celebration.
•
1
1
1 •
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
b. Resolution *91 - 83: Approve Plans and Specifications for Trunk Highway 5
Frontage Road Improvements at Lone Cedar Lane; Authorize Advertising for
Bids, Project 90 -9.
c. Resolution *91 - 84: Accept Street Improvements in Vineland Forest Addition,
11 Project 89 -27.
d. Approval of Accounts.
II e. City Council Minutes dated August 26, 1991
Planning Commission Minutes dated August 21, 1991
Public Safety Commission Minutes dated August 8, 1991
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Jim Borchardt: Jim Borchardt, 7331 Minnewashta Parkway and it's regarding
Minnewashta Highlands subdivision. The drainage problem. Basically when the
II
Council gave their approval of the plot we were told that the drainage would
meet the requirements of the neighborhood. I did meet out there with Gary
Warren and Bill Engelhardt shortly after, probably a couple months after and it
II was agreed at that time that all the drainage off the property would be routed
into Lake St. Joe. Gary Warren did make the suggestion and did follow through
at the time. I've talked to Bill Engelhardt a couple times since then and some
of the village members, staff members, and it's just, well I believe last
Wednesday or Thursday I got a call from Dave Hempel. I came in Thursday and
reviewed the plans and half the water is coming down into our area. Like I have
talked to several of the members of the Council, the Mayor and we just can't
II take any more water. Since Maple Ridge went in, I did some rough numbers and
before Maple Ridge went in we were getting in a downpour say like last night
somewhere between 50 and 100 gallons a minute of water running through there.
II Now we're getting somewhere between 600 and 800 gallons a minute. Now to give
you an idea of the amount of water coming through there now, Gary Warren did
suggest I put some rock by the beach by the outlet of the drain tile. I dumped
a whole...truck load in there and within one year most of it had washed down,
dug right in and the rock were rock like this. Not little pebbles. So we are
getting, we're taking the water far more than we should have. Now we just can't
take any more and the Council did at that time say that we would be protected
II when this development went in. There are two other neighbors here. I believe
they wish to speak too. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Jim, I did try to get a hold of Dave and Dave is on vacation so
consequently he hadn't gotten back to you today but yes he did contact me on
Friday and we discussed this. I left a note in his office Saturday morning
because I had open forum here for anyone to come in. He hasn't gotten back to
II you because he's gone so that's the reason. I wanted you to know that.
Jim Borchardt: Oh, okay.
II Mayor Chmiel: But I guess we're going to have to probably look at that and
address that and see because you shouldn't have those encumbrances causing
you...problems as well.
2
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
11
Jim Borchardt: Well even last night I got up twice and went outside once. The
water was starting to build in Mr. Jasin's ponding area and our main concern you
know all it takes is a kid to throw a beachball in that holding pond. If that
gets into the small part of that culvert, we're done in about 5 minutes.
Steve Bainbridge: Good evening. My name is Steve Bainbridge. I'm at 7351 1
Minnewashta Parkway just south of Jim's house just one slot. I'm relatively new
in the community, 3 years and yet my parents were in this community years and
years ago and we built out west and it seems, the most shocking thing I've found
when I came to Minnesota is they seem to bulldoze acres and acres without saving
a single tree and just sort of compounding on Jim's concern is that apparently
they're going to do the same thing with this approximately 2 acres above our
place. So I just sort of second Jim's concern. My lawn typically, if there's a
freeze and my drain tile freezes up in the spring, I'll typically have 4 to 6
inches on my lawn of water so I'm horrified to think of anything more that's
going to be added to it on the property above so what we're talking about here
is a property that abuts three lots that are along Lake Minnewashta all draining
down on it and what we understand is they're going to sort of level the property
of all trees and actually take what used to be an old nursery and take out fruit
trees and everything else and sort of leave a bare hillside there so we're just
worried about one of these either August of what, 1986. That rain storm and
certainly last Saturday night was pretty serious in terms of what happens to our
basements in.our homes.
Mayor Chmiel: You're right. The 100 year flood is here but I think we hit the
1,000 year flood. A lot of communities have. 1
Jim Jasin: My name is Jim Jasin, 7301 Minnewashta Parkway. Live next to Jim
Borchardt and the water down flow down through my lot and it's getting heavier
and heavier and some of it's going to be resolved with Maple Shores Drive going
under the road and into Lake St. Joe but it looks like now we're going to be
picking up water from the new subdivision, Minnewashta Highlands that we weren't
planning on getting so I guess I'd like to ask the Council just to look into
this and see what can be done.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Paul, are you aware of Minnewashta Highlands
with their proposal and what are they planning to do or have they talked to you
at all on that?
Paul Krauss: I received one phone call about a drainage problem over there and 1
referred it over to the engineering department so I think that's how Dave
originally came on board with that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think we probably twitched all of our ears up here 11
indicating we're moving all the trees. We've got a very strong ordinance in
this community with trees and hopefully we don't have bulldozers going through
and removing but Charles, maybe you can take this back to Dave and maybe discuss
that with him and come up with a conclusion as to what's being proposed because
as Mr. Borchardt told me, if he had 2 more acre feet on this property he's going
to be having a flood problem as well.
Charles Folch: This project was approved, went through the approval process
before my time but it was recent enough that it should have fell under the 1
3
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
conditions where the re- develo ed runoff rate would have been maintained
P p 1 for
the development. We'll make sure that that criteria is still met. There's also
the possibility that we may be able to divert some of this water in cooperation
with the Minnewashta Parkway improvement project.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Everybody satisfied?
Jim Borchardt: See what happens. I'll call you back.
11 Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Staff will prepare a report and it will be in the
next packet. Each of the property owners will receive a copy of that. If they
feel that it needs to be brought back further to the City Council, it will be
1 placed onto the next City Council agenda in hopes that staff will work directly
with the parties and resolve the issue.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Appreciate that. Okay, is there anyone else? Eric?
Eric Rivkin: Eric Rivkin, 1695 Steller Court. There's a culvert, storm water
' culvert underneath Lake Lucy Road at the bend right across from the Steinkraus
property where storm water from the Lake Lucy Highlands development concentrates
down and goes underneath the road and empties out into a Class A wetland with no
sediment retention pond or anything like that. It was put in I think about
1985 -1986. And according to the plat agreement that was approved by the Council
at that time, quantity was established that could not exceed I believe 2 tons of
sediment. I don't know how they were going to determine that but there was a
quantity determined that it could not exceed that as a condition of the plat.
And whether the figure is justifiable or not, there is a considerable amount of
sediment, even in mild storms that runs into the Class A wetland bringing along
all the nutrients. Just straight, raw right into there and I would like to
' request that if Council could direct engineering to investigate that and see if
it is meeting the requirements of the plat first and also if there's any
remedial action that could be taken to solve the nutrient problem with maybe a
project from the storm water utility fund which I believe is supposed to be used
for.
Charles Folch: Where is the location of this culvert?
1 Eric Rivkin: It's on, well it's right next to Al Finsted's property and across
the street is Meryl Steinkraus' property. Right at the bend of Lake Lucy Road
where it turns and goes to Galpin.
Mayor Chmiel: Just beyond Jim Mielke's there?
1 Eric Rivkin: No. Well past that.
' Mayor Chmiel: Oh, you're talking up further where that property's for sale?
Eric Rivkin: Right at the edge of Gutmiller and Finsted. Right there. Thank
you.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. You'll check that out Charles?
Charles Folch: Yeah.
4
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, anyone else?
PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF A PORTION OF KIRKHAM ROAD RIGHT -OF -WAY AND A
PORTION OF A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT, ADJACENT TO LOT 35, RED CEDAR POINT,
KENNETH SMITH.
f .
Mayor Chmiel: This is a public hearing and I'll open the public hearing at this 1
particular time. Sharmin.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: This is a simple application. Just some background as to how
this proposal got in front of you today. The applicant originally applied for a
lot frontage variance. The lot is located south of Cedar and east of vacated
Kirkham Road. It has 48 feet frontage on public right -of -way, 11 feet of that
is on improved public right -of -way. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals
approved the variance with a condition that the applicant provide a turn around.
The turn around would provide adequate frontage for a total of 42 feet on
improved public right -of -way as well as adequate turn around for emergency
vehicles. In order to achieve that turn around we needed to, to achieve this
alignment the application is dedicating a portion of his property...and in
return he's requesting vacation of the portion...Kirkham Road. The applicant is
also requesting vacation of a drainage and utility easement. Currently there's
a...utility and drainage easement running to the west of, I'm sorry, east of
this property... The natural drainageway takes place on the westerly portion of
the site...is dedicating a 20 foot easement on the westerly portion of the site
centered on the property line. Westerly property line. We are recommending
approval of this vacation proposal.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone wishing to address this? Mr. Smith
is here. Is there anything you wish to add to that?
Kenneth Smith: No, I think the staff has done a pretty darn good job. I ,
suffered a little at the cost of putting the turn around in but it's in and
working. And it even drains right.
Mayor Chmiel: That's something in itself. Is there anyone else wishing to
address this? This is a public hearing as I indicated. If seeing none, can I
have a motion to close the public hearing? 1
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Councilwoman Dimler: I move approval.
Councilman Wing: I'll second that. 11
Resolution 191 -85: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Wing seconded to
approve Vacation Request 191 -1 to vacate a portion of Kirhar Road as described
on the survey and vacation of the westerly 10 feet of the easterly 15 feet of
the drainage and utility easement as shown on the survey dated July 26, 1991
with the following condition:
5
•
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
1. The applicant shall comply with the conditions of approval of Variance
Request #91 -4.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously_
PUBLIC HEARING: LAKE ANN INTERCEPTOR ASSESSMENT ROLL, PROJECT 87 -35 (CONTINUED
FROM AUGUST 12, 1991 MEETING.)
Public Present:
Name Address
Eric Rivkin 1695 Steller Court
John Waldron 1900 Lake Lucy Road
Lisa Notermann 1450 Arboretum Blvd.
Clarence Haile 1675 Steller Court
Ted Coey 1381 Lake Lucy Road
Mayor Chmiel: I will now re -open the public hearing once again. Charles, do
' you want to give a quick overview? I think everyone is aware as to what we have
talked previously but maybe you can bring up some of the other proposals that
we've come up with for that.
Charles Folch: Okay. From discussions following the August 12th City Council
meeting it was your recommendation that a revised assessment plan be developed
that would relieve the immediate financial burden imposed on property owners,
address other relevant concerns raised and also importantly satisfy the
financial obligations that the City has for this project. I've had the
opportunity to review the City Council Minutes and it's apparent that there are
primarily three concerns that were raised by the residents. Number one,
residents stated that they would not be able to connect to the city sewer
immediately and questioned their benefit. Number two, some stated that the
assessment schedule would be a financial burden and would potentially force some
of them to sell or develop their property prematurely. And also many questioned
the total amount of buildable acreage on the property. In an effort to meet
these previously discussed objectives and address these relevant concerns, we've
' revised, we formulated a revised assessment strategy. The key factor of this
proposal would be the replacement of the per acre assessment rate with a single
trunk assessment of $850.00 per existing dwelling on a parcel. This amount has
been derived on two separate methodologies. One is based on the current single
family residential home connection charge which is $600.00. Of that it would be
fair to estimate that approximately 50% or $300.00 of this is used to maintain,
operate, repair our existing sewer system facilities and the other portion
typically be used to offset trunk facility installation cost and pipe oversizing
costs. The previously presented assessment rate was established at $539.00 per
acre of useable land. Given the deletion of some of the recently sewered areas,
Crestview Drive and also recognizing that the Ches Mar Farm properties west of
TH 41 are outside the MUSA area, the actual needed per acre increase to balance
the account would basically be about $550.00. Allocating $300.00 of a typical
' connection charge if you will to help offset this cost would yeild about $250.00
remaining. This $250.00 is considered a direct interceptor benefit, if you
will, to the service area. Therefore it is proposed that the assessment amount
be revised to $850.00 per existing dwelling unit. Parcels without existing
6
C.lL7 Junclx Ieelluy — J e}JLcnluer 7, 1771
dwelling units at this time would not receive any assessment. It should also be
noted that the City's current sewer connection charge of $600.00 has not been
revised or updated since the mid 1980's. If this $600.00 connection charge is
adjusted by incorporating each year's construction cost index factor for the
last 6 to 7 years, the current charge in today's dollars would approximate the
i $850.00 per unit. Thus given this fact it appears that the current sewer
connection charge that we're currently using in terms of today's dollars is
short of those dollars needed to adequately construct and maintain.and repair an
existing facilities. So therefore it would seem appropriate for the Council
also to take a separate action, if deemed appropriate to increase the City's
sewer connection charge to $850.00 per unit. At this time I guess we can open
it up to public discussion again.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Is there anyone at this time wishing to
address the revised proposal? I guess I had some concerns with the cost that
were being incurred by a lot of the people and I asked staff to review this. To
come up with a little more successful kind of dollar contribution and I think
we've done that but most importantly we still satisfy the financial obligations
of the city for this particular project. So with that I'll just throw it open.
Anyone wishing to address it at this time. Just please state your name and your
address please.
Eric Rivkin: Eric Rivkin, 1695 Steller Court. I have some questions based on
some new information here. Is this, you said if there's no dwelling, there's no
assessment. Can you elaborate on that?
Charles Folch: At this point in time that's correct. If there's an individual
parcel which does not have an existing dwelling unit on it, there is no
assessment at this time. The $850.00 is not assessed at this point in time. At
some point in time in the future that the parcel is subdivided, the charges will
be acquired at that time. 1
Eric Rivkin: That means there won't be even an $850.00 pending assessment on a
vacant lot? '
Charles Folch: That's correct.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Until a home is developed on that property. 1
Then that assessment comes automatically.
Eric Rivkin: I see. And if you've got 100 acres and you divide it out, you
paid $850.00 per dwelling at that time plus whatever costs are incurred to hook
it up?
Charles Folch: That's correct. The connection charges would be additional at 11
that time also.
Eric Rivkin: I see. To my knowledge there were in discussions that I had after
the August 12th meeting with Engelhardt and Associates who prepared the
assessment roll, it came to my attention that there were areas outside, I don't
know if you have a map with you on this but the line that you drew or the new
MUSA line is now, that there are properties to the south and west of that that
7 1
11
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
would benefit from this project but were not on the assessment roll. How are
you dealing with that?
_ Charles Folch: Who pointed out that there were some areas?
Eric Rivkin: Al Larsen.
Charles Folch: Those areas outside the MUSA at this point in time, and
therefore don't receive benefit at this point in time for the interceptor.
Eric Rivkin: Well I don't know how many are dwellings and how many are vacant
I lots but there are indeed lots that would, or property that would benefit
outside of that line there that were not on the assessment roll. And if indeed
that is true, then I would expect that the $850.00 would come down to spread out
a little bit more.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright Don, go ahead and then I'll address something else.
II Don Ashworth: I believe the areas that Eric's referring to again are south and
west as you described. Those will require sub - trunks to get to those areas. At
this point in time we are not sure if some of those will be brought back up into
' the Lake Ann Interceptor or head down closer towards the business park and make
a connection into the existing interceptor at the lower point. But the fact is
that this sub area is benefitting and the cost associated with it, we've divided
' those out to come out with those costs. Those people will also be paying that
$850.00 at such future time as there would be sub trunks put over into those
other areas. Those are the only ones that I'm aware of Eric. Like south of
TH 5. The area over where the new Shopco or whatever it was purchased property. 1
Eric Rivkin: Mr. Larsen did indicate that those would indeed be fed by gravity
to this interceptor.
Don Ashworth: From his calculations it could be fed by gravity unless they
would go back the other direction towards the Business Park. They could not go
1 up into the Lake Ann Interceptor area that Eric is currently being served by.
Charles Folch: That's correct.
Eric Rivkin: The MUSA line was, at that portion a political line. Not
necessarily the line that divides exactly where the people, the properties that
would benefit and wouldn't benefit from that particular.
' Don Ashworth: I would disagree with that statement. The original boundary was
set on a contour line and Metro forced the city to establish a physical line
' that closely approximated that topography. So we had to pick out a quarter
section line, a half section line because that was the only way they had of
describing it rather than a particular elevation. But it was very close to that
elevation line.
' Eric Rivkin: Okay. I'm asking that the truth about that be found out and in
light of the information that was told to me by them, to find out what fair
share...
•
1 8
Mayor Chmiel: I think what you're saying is the same things that some of the ,
people put into sewer mains and it paid for them and other people to connect it
to have not paid some of those same charges because they came on at a later
time. Those things happen. There's no way that you can stop that but I think
with the new assessment that we're coming through with the those total of
$850.00, that has to have a resident on it. Once anybody's property, as was
said before, becomes subdivided and a home built on there, that's an automatic
assessment. Those that are outside the MUSA line is the same conditions that
you were in a position at one time not affected by because you were outside the
particular MUSA line at that time and no charges were established back to you.
Eric Rivkin: Okay. Thanks. I just want to be sure that my point was made. If
anybody is made to paid for some share of the project, it's only fair that all
those that would potentially benefit be found out and it would be a simple ,
enough thing to do. It would share the cost because that's what we faced before
the MUSA line changed. We had pending assessments put on and the bank took
money away from a lot of people. I also for my own reiteration from the August
12th meeting, if anyone is made to pay for some share of this project, I think
it's only fair that those who will benefit from this project with absolute
certainty should pay their fair share whether it's $850.00 or whatever the
formula turns out to be. It's my opinion that unless the City can prove that
with absolute certainty our new over engineered septic systems or their
replacements will endanger the environment at some point in the future, then
there should be no absolute certainty that we pay for a service that we might
use or not at all. It's not fair to assume that sewer service is right for all
situations. It may be right for a crowded lakeshore homes like on Lake
Minnewas.hta with old septic technology where there's a high risk of
environmental damage, but it's not right for a lot with wide open spaces 1
dictated forever because of the unbuildable terrain with time tested septic
systems with little or no risk of environmental damage. So with that, thank you
very much. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address this at this
particular time? As I said, this is still a public hearing. It's still open.
John Waldron: Good evening. My name. is John Waldron at 1900 Lake Lucy Road. I
was at the August 12th meeting also and I'd like to speak in favor of those
recommended by staff, even though it would be a lot better at the time we
actually received the benefit, that's the time we paid the $850.00. It's a lot
more palatable. And also I liked it because of the last meeting when they had
large amounts of money that were going to be hit, especially on the larger
parcels, there was a fair amount of talk going around about those people might
be forced to develop and I think it would wreck the aesthetics of the
neighborhoods we already have and that sort of thing. So I would be in favor of
it. The last question, the only question I really have is the amounts that
aren't covered of the $550,000.00, would those be coming out of the general tax
monies or would those be coming out of the future $850.00 amounts?
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to address that? ,
Don Ashworth: It is our calculations that additional developments will come in
within that are which will have sanitary sewer and that the $850.00 generated
• off of those will provide sufficient cash to pay off that project.
9 1
1
11 City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
John Waldron: So we wouldn't be paying the $850.00 once and then be paying
through the general tax rolls another portion?
Don Ashworth: You will not be paying through general tax rolls a second time.
It's our belief that this subdistrict area will be paying it's fair share but
you're also correct, the new methodology has been put in trying to insure that
we do not force people off the property prematurely. We recognize that sewer
lines starting on one side and potentially by the time it gets to Eric Rivkin's
property, he may be the last one to develop and his two additional lots may
occur in the year 2003. And those dollars will provide the last debt payments
at that point in time.
1 John Waldron: So they would have the $850.00 plus whatever the hook -up, lateral
charges would be at that time?
1 Don Ashworth: He would have the $850.00 charge today or yourself and if you
were able to get an additional two lots off your property in the year 2003 when
the sewer came by, or Mr. Rivkin, and he decided to subdivide that, he would
have to pay those two additional units.
John Waldron: Okay. Appreciate staff taking time to figure out something
1 that's workable.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you.
Lisa Notermann: I'm Lisa Notermann. I live at 1450 Arboretum Blvd.. I just
have one question. Everyone that was assessed originally, will they all be
charged this $850.00 or will there be some exceptions? I mean did you look at
every case? Because I personally still don't know how we're going to hook up
because you know and I don't know that we should be charged if we can't hook up.
It's still on the other side of the creek so I don't know how we're going to
1 hook up to it. And so I don't know if that was looked at or not. That's my
questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to address that Charles?
' Lisa Notermann: We live, that house right by Lake Ann Park.
1 Charles Folch: Right. I'm looking at the plans that we have. It shouldn't be
a problem to make the connection at that point and location.
Lisa Notermann: So will we have to pay it before the hook -up is available to
us? Because is my house going to be there forever because when TH 5 goes
through, is my house going to go? And so are you going to make this hook -up
just for me for one year maybe and then my house be ripped out for the expansion
' of TH 5?
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's the thing to keep in consideration and negotiate with
1 the Highway Department. Keep that $850.00 in the back of your mind.
Lisa Notermann: But isn't that, I'm trying to think of a better word than
what's coming to my mind right now.
' 10
1
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
Councilman Workman: TH 5 isn't going on the north side at that location is it?
Isn't it swerving to the south due to the park property?
Charles Folch: Those plans actually are being worked, well they're going to be 1
worked on at this point in time in the future so the final plans haven't been
put together for that. At this point my gut feeling is that well it probably
wouldn't. The road will end up being close but I don't think it would
definitely entail having to take the house out.
Don Ashworth: I think this is one particular assessment that we maybe should
take a look at because there have been discussions with the State Highway
Department. I believe you wrote a letter a year or two asking that the State
literally take the entire parcel. 1
Lisa Notermann: My house is going to be worth dirt when that highway goes
through.
Don Ashworth: I think that if there's a general understanding that there will
in fact be a taking, that there no longer will be a house, I think staff should
work a little bit with Mrs. Notermann and try to come back. 1
Lisa Notermann: The thing is too, you'd have to spend money, a lot of money for
us to be able to hook up and it'd probably cost more than the $850.00 that
you're going to charge us. I guess it doesn't make much sense to me that you're
going to spend more than that $850.00 to enable us to hook up. You know I don't
know how you're going to be ahead that way. That's all. Thank you. s
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Yes sir.
Clarence Haile: My name is Clarence Haile. I live at 1675 Steller Court. I
think the question of the benefit to the people in this assessment area is still
a very serious question. We've talked about the issues that were brought up
last meeting. Certainly the questionable benefit. The economic burden which
you've reduced very kindly. And the questionable amount of buildable property.
It's very obvious that through re- evaluation of the amount of buildable land
there's been a realization that there was a serious over estimate in the amount
of buildable land that's available in this area. You have reduced economic 1
burden. I have to wonder how much of that is due to the fact that there was
serious opposition at this meeting previously. But still the issue is that
there's a lot of question concerning the benefit to the people in this area. We
have a lot that we developed just a year ago with a very heavily over engineered
septic system and yet we're still going to be asked to spend although less than
before, we're still going to be asked to spend monies for a sewer system that
we're not likely to be needing to hook up to for quite some time. I think it
would be much more equitable if the charges were made at the time that hook -ups
were available and if people actually hooked up and were able to take advantage
of these services. Thank you. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Would you wish to address that at all Charles?
Charles Folch: Well I guess I would like to make a point. I guess I've heard 1
it twice tonight about over engineered septic systems. The septic systems that
the City currently, the Building Department enforces the installation of is
11
1
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
required by the State Building Code. It is not a special type system that the
City of Chanhassen requires. It is required by the State Building Code.
11 Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Also backed up by the Department of Health.
Don Ashworth: If I may add a couple of points. Right in that same area is one
that we did have a number of septic failures. Septic system failures and the
people involved were back to this Council looking for some type of relief and we
were able to get sewer to them but that's quite a dramatic situation when you go
through that and you do have sewage in a basement. The sewer, the interceptor
1 in this area does provide the ability, kind of an insurance policy you might say
that at a particular point they can make a connection. Financially the City
would be in a much stronger position if we would have put the full assessment
amount against each of the parcels. After listening to the concerns and meeting
with the Mayor and discussing do we really want to see that or is there a way in
which we can try to reduce some of these concerns with the interest clock and
the compounding of interest. Is there a way that we can make some reasonable
1 predictions as to which area may come in first versus which area may be second?
I don't disagree with the gentleman that just got through talking. His area may
be third, fourth down the line but the fact is from an overall financial
security standpoint, the plan that was developed is one which staff believes
creates the least financial difficulty for the property owners in that area does
represent a charge back against that area as benefitting property owners and I
guess is sound. Staff continues to recommend it.
Ted Coey: Ted Coey, 1381 Lake Lucy Road. I missed the first part of this
little portion of it but I guess I understand that what you're doing is you're
1 charging $850.00 for each existing house?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
1 Ted Coey: And that's going to be assessed whether or not you've got
availability or not right?
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Providing you have a home on that piece of
property.
Ted Coey: Like I say that's a heck of a lot better than where we were at before
but I still would like to see it set up so you were assessed upon availability.
I still contend that the people in my area, we're never going to see the sewer
' down there. It would be too costly to go down where we are. I wouldn't mind
paying for, if you subdivide $850.00 a lot which obviously was what you've got
in mind but I think there should be some feasible time limit that you've got
that the people would probably hook up. I just can't see having the sewer come
' down where we are. I mean it's such a long ways and we're at the far end of
where, where I know personally I can hook up east. I think I talked about that
before with Tom and with you Don so I'd still like to see that the $850.00 was
assessed when you hooked up. Or when the sewer's available on the street so you
can at least have a chance to see it. It's a long ways away from where.we are.
That's all.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Did you win?
1 12
1
Gllj t,JmTCll 1m- eLlliy JUpLUMU T 7, 1771
Ted Coey: Oh we won, yeah. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? If seeing none I'll ask for a motion to close the
public hearing.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dimier seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? Well, let's start down on the far end.
Councilman Mason: You always pick on me. I'm quite honestly being somewhat new
on Council I sometimes have some trouble grappling with why people get charged
and some do and some don't. In my mind, and this is something I guess I'd like ,
talked about a little more is why are they being charged for it if, as said,
they're so far away from it the chances of them using it are minimal. Why
aren't they charged until they hook up? Tom just whispered to me because it's
already in the ground. And I understand that and that expense is already there
but something tells me, but wait. I'm not using something. Why do I have to
pay for it? I guess I'd like to hear a little more discussion on that.
Mayor Chmiel: I think basically from what I see, the City has been assessed
from Metropolitan Waste Control Commission such as Eden Prairie and also
Victoria. Those assessments that are made, it's just like putting in that
interceptor. You're putting it in for 20 years from now. In that 20 year
period there's going to be a lot of connections that will eventually go for it
but we had to put it in now. In the ground now and consequently now that the
MUSA has expanded, these people will eventually be utilizing that particular
facility at some time but somebody has to pay for something somewhere and at
some time. In order to offset our initial investment that we put in that and it
was how much? r '
Don Ashworth: $550,000.00.
Mayor Chmiel: $550,000.00. We have to get those dollars to pay for those kinds ,
of services that are going to be needed. So consequently that's one of the
reasons behind it. It's the same thing that the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission did with their initial sewers that they had to put in. They built
those for the year 2000. The year 2000 is coming and a lot of people have gone
through those same kind of assessments as well.
Don Ashworth: Part of the answer additionally lies from the standpoint, staff
recognizes that as that development comes on board again, I'm not sure which
areas is going to develop before another area. So which one is going to
generate 100 $850.00 charges versus another one but the fact is that that area
does benefit solely from that. Your house really does not benefit from that
sewer. In going through the calcuation staff said, well we know that we need x
number of dollars to make payments for the next 2 -3 years until developments
start coming on line and again not knowing if it will be x, y or z. We felt
fairly comfortable in saying that the x's, y's and z's would cover the payments
in years '94, '95, '96 and on out. But it seemed fair since we knew there would
be a shortfall in those early years, that everyone who we know had an.exisiting
home and at some time would benefit even though staff would be the first to
13
11
1
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
agree, you can pick some outside areas, Mr. Coey's or Mr. Rivkin's. They may
very well be the last ones to connect in. But they also are within that service
area and it just seemed like a reasonable methodology that you would have an }
initial stake in this financing for the overall project while simultaneously not
' - being forced off of your property prematurely. Some of those people who had
$15,000.00, $17,000.00, $20,000.00 assessments. There's no question they'd have
to sell. Staff knows that there's still some inadequacies as far as the
proposed assessment but of all of the different scenarios we worked out, this
seemed to be the fairest.
Councilman Mason: Would it be safe to say then that in order for the City to
meet their financial responsibility it needs to be handled this way?
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Councilman Mason: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thomas.
Councilman Workman: Thanks to Councilman Mason for his, my logic is usually
very, very simple. It's almost so simple it's confounding. I guess to further
back up what I had said to him, it's you know the darn thing is in the ground.
Now it has to be paid for. We're not sending it back C.0.0. and we're not going
to reject it and we don't have any options and we have to pay for it. The city
has to pay for it somehow and so therefore it creates the situation and it's why
we have a City Council and Mayor because we're elected to deflect all this grief
from staff see. That's all we're here for. We show up once every 2 weeks and
we take the grief. And so there really isn't a whole lot of options. I would
' say that particularly, and I know there's others. I don't mean to exclude them.
Lake Lucy Road people, why do they, why would they, why could they have a desire
to bring sewer on when they probably will never have a problem. That is the
' confounding part of all this. For example could Eric Rivkin split his lot and
develop it?
Don Ashworth: Not without sanitary sewer. But he is within the MUSA area and
' hypothetically through the extension of sanitary sewer he could split his lot.
Councilman Workman: Could his neighbors all up Lake Lucy Road to the east
split? I mean are we literally talking about some road coming behind their
homes? Between their homes and the lake and something could happen there? What
I'm getting at is they don't seem to have as much potential to develop. Their
' homes are built on their lots and situated in such a way that it would not
appear as though they would ever split their lots. In fact doing so would maybe
ruin their lot. So that is a tough part about it and I do have some hesitancies
towards that. I do however understand how we arrive at the area so I don't mean
' to set your logic Don. But I do appreciate the Mayor's efforts in trying to
keep this down. $850.00 in sone spot sounds like an awful lot of money to me.
Spread out it still is and when you have something that's a little bit
intangible, it's tough to pay for it no matter how much it is. I have a
question in regards to, let me take out a specific. John Hennessy. He said to
me that he paid a similar charge for a sewer project that went in in Pleasant
View Road. Would that have been possible? Would it be possible that any of
1
' 14
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
1
these persons on this assessment roll would have already paid for a sewer system
that maybe they were a part of before? City wide assessment? ,
Don Ashworth: The trunk charge is nothing new. I mean when I built my home I
paid a trunk connection charge and I paid for the interceptor coming into my
area. Councilman Wing paid as a part of the Minnewashta project. The Mayor
paid as a part of the Greenwood Shores project. So the trunk charge is nothing
new. The amount of it, I think when I paid it was $350.00 and today as Charles
mentioned it's $550.00 with recommendation that it go to the $850.00. 1
Councilman Workman: Has Eric Rivkin paid a trunk charge?
Don Ashworth: It's my understanding that he was required to put money into
escrow for this project. I'm sure that he would like not to have it go through
so he could get the money back but he'd have to answer that question.
Councilman Workman: Okay, so a person with their own septic system didn't have '
to pay so let's say John Hennessy who's home is much, much older, before this
project's time, probably never paid this charge?
Don Ashworth: Mr. Hennessy never paid for the property that he currently lives
on. If he used to live off of Pleasant View and if that area has sewer, he
would have paid a trunk charge on Pleasant View. '
Councilman Workman: I'd like to know how much Eric Rivkin has in that account.
I guess it makes sense and again it's a tough decision to make and however we've
come down and we've arrived and as Mr. Mason would say. Boy, when people
complain we react. That's probably a good sign because this looks like a much
better plan, however not the best one. I think we have to go with something
that resembles something like this. 1
Mayor Chmiel: The best plan I think we have Tom is no charge at all but we
can't get there. Richard. '
Councilman Wing: Well I'm not convinced that this maybe isn't the best plan.
These assessments are certainly frightening to me and I don't want them. I
remember our sewer assessment and I probably fought it and it was very costly
back then. As a matter of fact I'm sure I was here fighting it. I'm glad it's
there. My well, I'm on city water and sewer and city sewer and water is here to
stay. It's just a thing that's going to exist in this particular area, on Lake
Lucy and that area we're discussing is kind of an island. I mean here's this
City that's developed around them and here's this island that doesn't have it.
During the Comp Plan discussions this septic system was a big discussion point
and I distinctly remember those argments that here's this Comp Plan. We're
outside the MUSA line and we're this far away from it and we're putting in these
expensive septic systems that are going to last for the next umpteen decades and
are you going to leave us alone? I think there was an attempt at that time to
say yes, we're going to hopefully leave you alone. We're not going to run sewer
right by your house the week after you put in the septic system. Well, here we
are. It's done. It's in the ground. It's unfortunate that this little island
exists. It is in the middle of the city and the septic system certainly isn't
new and that was really a big concern of mine as we discussed this. However, as
it comes down to push and shove now and having to be paid for, there's two rules
15 ,
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
that I have kind of come up with in my short time on the Council. Number P Y 1 r one,
the issue of taxes and cost. I don't think they can be burdensome and I think
1 on Minnewashta Parkway there was a need for something done out there and I think
the Council reacted and got that under control cost wise so it was a very fair,
equitable assessment. And I think the Mayor and staff has done that in this
' case. They've taken this down from a tax roll, you know we all saw that
$28,000.00 or $10,000.00 that I wouldn't want. I wouldn't want any part of
that. I wouldn't have even voted on it but we're now back down to the first
' rule where we have a very fair, equitable price involved here. Secondly is that
I wouldn't support anything that was going to force sale or development of open
land. I think we should do everything we can to protect it. And this again,
thanks to Mayor Chmiel and staff clearly addressed that issue. we're going to
' tax just those homes that exist. That are buying, what we're really doing here.
True, a lot of these people aren't going to hook up but they are buying a
future, they're buying a right in the future to use this if they choose to.
They're buying a future option for $850.00 and Mr. Rivkin or anybody else could
tomorrow come in and decide to develop this property. There's nothing to stop
him. He may choose to. Or the septic system could fail for whatever reason.
' It may be very unlikely in most of these cases so the arguments on those issue
are valid but I do think that the City has been extremely fair and very
conscientious and I would have no choice but to support it at this time.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Thanks for letting me go last. Everything's been said.
I do want to compliment the former Council for making what I believe was a
correct decision to have the Interceptor put in and I am pleased to see what
staff has done. I think it's a benefit to everyone. I don't want to by my
decision however encourage or discourage development so I would like to see that
be market driven so if there's anyone here that would on this assessment go
ahead and come in tomorrow as Richard has said, I wish you'd let me know. I
guess from, I had a question about whether the City could carry the cost of the
interceptor until properties hooked up and I understand from the former
discussion that that is no. The answer to that is no. I would like to see us
give special consideration to Mrs. Notermann's property because of the
encroachment of TH 5 and I guess just to satisfy the question of benefit in my
own mind. I wonder if someone could answer the question for me. If the
valuation of the raw land went up just because the interceptor was put in. Was
there just a benefit from the fact that it went in? Do you know Don?
Don Ashworth: To meet the test of State law it has to and in this particular
' instance, there is no question in my mind that that entire area saw a
significant increase in it's value to having sanitary sewer out there. You went
from being only able to develop into 10 acre parcels down to 15,000 square feet.
There's just no question about it.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. So I guess that settles that question in my mind
' and I would not have any problem supporting this proposal.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I guess you more or less have seen my position
as to what I have seen with all those high assessments that were there and to
bring it down to that particular number, which I thought was reasonable. I
didn't want to see anybody really get hurt because I've seen it done before in
other communities. In other cities. I too, like Richard, got assessed for my
street and a few of the other things. Sewer and water and thank goodness this
16
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
is one of my last payments that I make next month. That was over a 10 year
period for a total of $10,000.00 so it does make a tad bit of a difference. But
nonetheless, I am feeling strongly with this and I'll call the question I guess.
Would someone like to make a motion?
Councilwoman Dimler: I would move approval of the assessment roll for the Lake
Ann Interceptor as received on September 9, 1991 with the exception of the
Notermann property to be re-evaluated by staff.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me ask another question. What about city sewer connection
charges of $600.00 to the $850.00? The one that Charles brought up previously.
Councilman Workman: Wouldn't that be kind of a natural extension of this since
we are doing this back for these people?
Councilwoman Dimler: I believe that should be a separate motion.
Don Ashworth: It should be a separate motion.
Mayor Chmiel: It can yes but. No, it should be a separate motion. ,
Don Ashworth: Staff wanted to make sure we brought it up because it seemed as
though number one, the charge for the entire community, it's been such a long
time since it's been brought up. Secondly, you are going to have properties
that will be back to back, one on one side of this line that pays $600.00 and
the other side of the line they're paying $850.00 and that just does not seem
reasonable. It may be well if the Council's generally in agreement that this is
a good idea, that it'd probably be better if staff brought that back as a
separate action and potentially have it set as a separate time frame because
you'd have certain builders who are already planning on building a house, like
Councilman Workman's, who've already figured in the $600.00 and maybe having
this become effective January 1st.
Councilman Workman: Let's make it effective immediately. 1
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, if I might add one thing. One item that was left
open for your decision and discussion was the term of the assessment. The
original assessment roll specified an 8 year term on the payback. At this point
in time we're sort of leaving the door open. It might be appropriate for us to
recommend something like a 3 or 4 year payback given the substantial reduction
in the assessment amount but I'll leave that up to you.
Mayor Chmiel: That's something to be considered in your motion.
.Councilwoman Dimler: We haven't discussed that. I would like to hear other
council.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that was brought up in the staff report in here that if ,
that were to go to either a 3 or 4 year as opposed to the 8 year because of the
substantial drop in the assessment.
Councilman Wing: How many years did we leave the parkway? I think that stayed
at 8.
17
1
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
Don Ashworth: I'm sorry.
Councilman Wing: Minnewashta Parkway I think stayed at 8 years?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, that's an 8 year.
Councilman Wing: And that was roughly an $800.00 assessment.
Don Ashworth: I don't recall what we did. I mean realize we've gone through
the public, we're at little different stages. This is an assessment hearing on
this one. That was a public hearing ordering the project. You wouldn't have
had to have made that decision and I don't recall that it was really discussed.
Councilman Wing: I just remember the $800.00, roughly $800.00 and the 8 years
' was what was stated to the people. In some cases there were hardships created
and so being able to pay it off over 8 years may in fact be very important to
someone now so to reduce it from 8 years on down then, for those who may have to
pay it on a yearly basis. Anybody can prepay anytime they want any amount they
want to but by leaving it at 8 years, should this by any means create a
hardship, it does allow that person the option to pay it off in a smaller amount
over 8 years and is there a real disadvantage to the City that might outweigh
that thinking?
Don Ashworth: Well if you recall one of the thoughts on staff was that we would
' need x amount of dollars in the first three years before you saw other
subdivisions come on line. Quite truthfully most of these will be paid off in
an earlier time frame. I see very few of them going over the 8 year period that
' you're referring to. If you wish to leave that as an option for those people
who felt that would better suit their financial needs, I guess I'm not concerned
that that's going to somehow break the city or put us into financial burden.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think in looking for it here as to what staff had
indicated and what it reads as such. It's saying that the term of the
assessment is recommended to be for 3 to 4 years given the substantial reduction
' of the assessment to property owners. However, the decision of the term for
this assessment is left open for Council action. It's also recommended that
Council take separate action to approve, that's inmaterial but they had
indicated 3 to 4 years and I think 3 to 4 years probably is not bad. But you
' may have a point that people can't afford it. I'd leave it open.
Councilwoman Dimler: What was the percentage rate?
' Mayor Chmiel: 9%.
' Councilwoman Dimler: 9%.
Charles Folch: Over 4 years is what, about $200.00 some dollars a year then?
Little more.
Councilman Wing: I don't wish to make this an issue. Just a thought. I think
with some of the folks on Minnewashta Parkway are in fact. planning on what we
suggested in the feasibility study. This may not be the case here.
18
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: I would say we should probably go with the 4 year on it. Anyone
who wishes to pay for it much in advance can do that of course. Would you like
to include that into your motion Ursula? '
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm sorry we closed the public hearing. I'd like to hear
what they have to say. I mean if they were counting on 8 years at 9'c, then I'd
hate to at this point.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think we had discussions at 8 or 9 or 8 years previously.
Councilwoman Dimler: That was never in the original proposal?
Mayor Chmiel: No. Not the last time that you weren't here. And it is
contained within the staff report here.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so the motion then would be for 4 years at 9%?
Councilman Workman: Could the option be left open where somebody if in fact
they wanted to?
Don Ashworth: No, the roll has to be uniform as far as the number of years.
Councilwoman Dimler: What if there's a hardship? Is there any possibility? '
Roger Knutson: The possibility of deferment for financial hardship, yes. But
they're very strict standards set by State law. But you have to decide whether
it's going to be a 4 year assessment roll or 8 year assessment roll. If you
• decide on an 8 year roll and someone wants to pay it off in 4 years, they
certainly can. Sooner. Or pay it off immediately. "
Councilman Wing: Would there be anybody in the room that might be concerned
about this issue?
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone who would like to address that at this time? A 1
little out of order but I'd just as soon hear that.
Councilwoman Dimler: We'll re -open the public hearing. '
Ted Coey: Don, I don't think $800.00 over 4 years is out of the question. I
think that's a fair amount. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Alright, then I'll say the motion to include the 4 years
at 9%.
Councilman Wing: I'll second that.
Resolution $91 -86: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Wing seconded to
approve the assessment roll for the Lake Ann Interceptor Service Area. Each
dwelling unit be assessed a cost of $850.00 at 9% interest over a period of four
(4) years with the exception of the Notermann property which is to be
re- evaluated by staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
1
19
11
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
PUBLIC HEARING: FRONTIER TRAIL ASSESSMENT ROLL. PROJECT 89 -10 (CONTINUED FROM
AUGUST 12. 1991 MEETING).
Public Present:
1 Name Address
Jim Mady 7338 Frontier Trail
Don King 7200 Kiowa Circle
Helen Loebl 7197 Frontier Trail
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to re -open that for the Frontier Trail assessment roll,
Project 89 -10. Charles.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. The project consultant
' engineer, Bill Engelhardt and myself have reviewed the comments and the letters
received following the assessment hearing on August 12th and per Council's
request offer the following responses to each of the noted comments. Dr. Craig
' and Debra Luehr had a question regarding their driveway. This has been
resolved. Luehr's driveway is one of the two driveways that was completely, had
to be completely replaced during construction due to slope problems. This
driveway has recently been redone by the contractor and this issue should be
taken care of. Mr. and Mrs. Paul Differding had a similar situation with their
driveway. This was also replaced within the last two weeks and is up to
acceptable standards and should take care of that situation. Mr. and Mrs.
' Zambrano questioned the cost of the assessment related to the method. They are
one of a handful of properties which are on pie shaped lots on curves and we've
formulated an adjustment for that which I'll discuss in just a few moments. But
' the bottom line is the Zambrano's assessment was reduced to accommodate the
large frontage. Bill and I also met with the Zambrano's regarding the drainage
issues that they had brought up. The Zambrano's had their driveway completely
overlaid under private contract and thus we have no authority over the work that
was done under private contract. They also questioned the drainage on their lot
and it's in our opinion that the drainage problems that they are currently
experiencing were not accelerated or caused by this improvement project. But
' were likely existing problems that had occurred. We offered several suggestions
to the Zambrano's to try and correct this problem and will continue to help them
with suggestions if they need it. Mr. and Mrs. Wayne Mader had a question on
the cost split. The cost of the project was broken down into four areas.
Street construction, storm sewer, sanitary sewer and watermain. The assessment
for the street construction is based on a 40/60 split between the benefitted
property and the City. The 40% cost reflects only the street construction cost
and is related to the share of indirect costs. The storm sewer is a 50/50 split
as is in the past and is policy, City policy for this type of improvement
project. Again the storm sewer cost reflects it's share of the indirect cost
' based on the construction of the storm sewer. The sanitary sewer and watermain
cost including the proportionate share of overhead costs were paid out out of
City trunk funds. Mr. and Mrs. Patrick Pavelko provided both verbal and written
' objection to the assessment amount which were previously discussed. They also
stated that they were never notified of the project. Numerous meetings and
hearings were held during the preliminary and planning process where all
property owners were notified. They also had questions on the quality of work.
' The contractor completed his project an orderly and timely fashion and we
' 20
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
believe the ualit of work was as a minimum comparable,
q Y p if not superior to
other projects similar in nature that did not have the construction constraints
or working conditions that this project had. Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Pzynski had an
objection to the assessment based on benefit. The Statutes allow for an appeal
to District Court if a property owner believes that their property did not
benefit equal to the assessment amount. The total cost of the project as
previously stated was broken down into 4 areas with direct cost and indirect
cost for each area separated for financing purposes. The total cost presented
on the August 12th hearing was as follows: street reconstruction, $352,644.40;
sanitary sewer, $93,479.85; storm sewer, $146,902.88; and watermain, $47,371.77.
These costs are not determined until the assessment roll is prepared at which
time all project costs are compiled. Mr. J.J. Waletski had an objection to the
assessment amount as not receiving benefit. Ms. Arlis Bovey again objected to 1
the assessment amount. Mr. and Mrs. David Wollan objected to the assessment
amount. They were also one of the pie shaped curve lots and as I mentioned
before I will get to the method that we have developed to try and accommodate
that situation. Mr. Peter Huber and Deborah Van Dyke objected to the assessment
amount. Questioned over payment for driveway work. As far as that issue goes,
all quantities for materials and labor were itemized throughout the project for
accuracy and no "double dipping" occured on any driveway work.
Mayor Chmiel: I was concerned with that one because I had quite a few people
call me on that. 1
Charles Folch: Mr. and Mrs. Jim Mady questioned the quality of work. No
specific items however were given as to what quality problems they had observed
but we can say that the contract, in our opinion performed the work in a
superior manner as we stated earlier. The standard construction practices for a
project of this nature were adhered to strictly and following our visual walk
thru of the project again last Wednesday we observed no workmanship or quality
problems from our inspection. We also reviewed the Mady driveway in the field
and found it to be very acceptable. There was a question as to cars backing out
of the driveway that were scraping as they backed into the street. The car we
used was a full sized vehicle and also had an extended trailer hitch. We backed
out of the driveway in and'out several times and did not scrape on the street so
apparently it was at least for the vehicle we used, which we thought would be a
typical large sized vehicle, did not create a problem backing in and out.
Mayor Chmiel: Was that a 4 x 4 or regular car vehicle?
Charles Folch: This was a regular 4 door sedan type car vehicle with a trailer
hitch. They also questioned the method of assessment which was previously
addressed with the split. In addition the assessment terms are consistent with
other projects that we've had in the city. Mr. Don King objected to the
assessment amount and method. There was also a question he had on the length of
frontage for his property and we've discussed this with Mr. King and we've
basically arrived at a tangent footage which is acceptable to the City and to
Mr. King which fairly represents the footage he has on the roadway. There was
also a question on Kiowa Circle as to some damage that was done due to the
contractor allegedly, Kiowa Circle was originally included in this project but
was deleted at the time of the ordering of the project. In preparing the
feasibility study Kiowa Circle was found to be substandard in terms of it's
structural capacity and in need of repair. In our opinion any construction
21
City Councii Meeting September 9, 1991
' vehicles that use this roadway did not really cause any additional problems that
already existed on this roadway. The sanitary sewer repair that was undertaken
' on Kiowa Circle to help eliminate the inflow, infiltration problem. The
pavement area that was disturbed was patched with the same existing section that
they had on the road and we observed that even through one cycle of winter here
that even that patch is failing. It's just poor subsoils in that area. And we
' also observed Mr. King's driveway which was also overlaid under private contract
and it appears that the problems that he is experiencing are on the private
sector of the driveway which again we don't really have any authority or
11 jurisdiction over.
Mayor Chmiel: The same contractor that was there who did a portion of the City
is the same contractor that probably did the driveway as well.
Charles Folch: That's correct. It was done all at one time. Mr. Ed C. Jordan
objected to the assessment amount on such a small parcel. This again is a pie
shaped lot if you will that abuts, has large frontage being on a curve. Mr. and
Mrs. Joel Jenkins objected to the assessment amount by letter. We also received
a letter from, a combined letter from Mr. Joel Wiens, Mr. Gary Boyle, Mr. James
' Kraft, Mr. Don Huseth, Mr. Harold Kerber and Mr. and Mrs. Steve Berquist which
was all on the same form letter which was a letter similar to Mr. Joel Jenkins
objecting to the method of assessment. We also received an objection from Mr.
and Mrs. William Loebl who objected to the amount of the assessment. Questioned
' the driveway quality. We also inspected the Loebl's driveway in the field and
found that there was no out of the ordinary conditions on their driveway. There
again they also had some of the driveway that was constructed under private
' contract. What we did notice is they did have some cracks that had developed on
the driveway towards the edge of the pavement and this we found probably
occurred due to cars driving close to the edge and there's no lateral support if
' you will on the lawn to hold the blacktop in place. But we do not feel that
this is severely impacting or damaging the integrity of the paved driveway
surface. Mr. Loebl also addressed the cost of the project but was inaccurate in
saying the cost or method of calculating the amounts. The watermain costs as
stated earlier was not assessed. The sanitary sewer portion of the project was
scaled down as suggested and'was not increased in scale. And the fact is, more
of the work was completed under the city's infiltration program which helped to
' reduce the scope of this project. That was what we accumulated of written and
verbal responses that we received since August 12th. One of the last items to
touch upon was the handful of homes or lots which were pie shaped on curves and
' incurred large frontages on the roadway. We took a look at the situation and
developed a methodology that we'd like to present to you for your review and
opinion and comment. The method basically is derived from a typical assessment
method for a corner lot if you will which has a road improvement project on two
' sides. Typically under that circumstances a corner lot would incur assessment
to the full frontage on the'short side plus one -half of the distance of the long
side. So if you sort of use that methodology and apply that onto a curve lot
radius, we looked at what was the average lot width on a tangent lot or straight
lot width if you will on the project and we found that to be 110 feet wide.
Therefore employing that with the similar corner lot methodology we took these
pie shaped lots and proposed to assess the full 110 feet as representative of an
' average tangent lot plus one -half of the remaining excess footage. Thereby
reducing these pie shaped lots by, in most cases, 25%. About $1,000.00 off the
assessment. Last and certainly not least again the question of the 40/60 cost
22
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
split and I think we've sort of touched upon this a few times in the past. p st . T he
40% assessment for the street improvements represents costs for the road
improvements which were not currently existing on the roadway such as the
widening, the curb and gutter and some of the subgrade structural work that was
done. So therefore there's some basis for determining that 40% ratio. As far
as storm sewer, the 50/50 cost split is city policy and it's been typically
employed on projects such as this and thus we recommend standing by that. As
requested again these are our responses to the relevant objections and questions
we've received. At the close of tonight's discussion, if there are no further
outstanding issues to be addressed or resolved, it would be staff's
recommendation that the Council adopt the revised Frontier Trail Improvement
Project 89 -10 Assessment Roll which is dated September 3, 1991 and that the term
of the assessment be set for 8 years at an 8'G interest rate. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there
anyone wishing at this time to come forward and either discuss the issues that
were brought up on each respective individual.
Jim Mady: Jim Mady, 7338 Frontier Trail. Mr. Mayor, City Council members. I'm
quite distressed tonight. I'll remind you that at the August 12th meeting I
asked you Mr. Mayor point blank if our neighborhood, the roughly 30 people who
were in attendance at the meeting that night and the rest of the neighborhood
would be notified of the meeting that was to occur so that two way communication
could take place on this project. You stated it would. I saw in the paper that
this meeting was being held so I'm here. In looking in the audience I think
there's 4 houses represented in my neighborhood. We weren't notified. I'm real
upset about that. We have no knowledge of what's going on. I would have liked
to have been with you when you walked down my driveway. I could have pointed
out a couple of things like the patch that I had to make on it just to make the
thing level. It's distressing to me that this is happening this way. It looks ,
like one way communication. It was brought to us that we would have two way
communication on all these problems. We're not seeing it. I'd like to hear
from you guys as to why all of a sudden it's here. Nobody was notified about it
and there's 4 of us here and we're not going to get anything done. It's real
obvious. It's going to get shoved down our throats and I'm not real happy about
that. I'm not even going to address any of the comments that's being proposed
to answer the assessment because I think you guys owe us notification that you
promised us. That you told us was going to happen during the meeting because
that's why there's no one here tonight. They didn't even know it was going to
happen. 1
•
Mayor Chmiel: Did you send notification out?
Don Ashworth: I'm not aware of a separate letter that went out. I guess what I
was going to look through was the Minutes. My recollection on each one of the
assessment hearings that we conducted so far we stated to the people this will
be brought back and we picked out a particular date. No we can't make it by
August whatever. It will be on September whatever the particular date was.
Again I would like to go through those Minutes to see if I can find those
comments or any comments from the Council that said there'd be some type of a
separate notice sent out. That is not a typical procedure. I mean you have an
initial hearing. If it is tabled to a subsequent time, we typically tell the
people when that subsequent time and place will be. And again, until I can go
23
11
1
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
1
through these, I can't tell you that that's true or not true in regards to this
project.
Mayor Chmiel: I know we did at that particular meeting indicate that tonight's l
date was going to be held.
Jim Mady: You also said you were going to have a meeting inbetween time for the
neighbors to get together with staff to handle the situation and discuss it.
That comment was made after you guys voted to table so it may not be part of the
Minutes but it was made and I know it's on tape. It's on your video so you said
you were going to do it. It never happened...and now all of a sudden we're
' hearing things.
Mayor Chmiel: How's memory on the rest of the Council?
Councilman Workman: I guess maybe what he's getting at is what I thought maybe
Bill Engelhardt and staff would be approaching individual property owners about
their specific problems. I don't know if that's been done. Certainly
' assessment questions or the assessment is too much, I don't know how much
further discussion can be done on that. But individual driveways, etc., I was
under the impression that we would be reviewing that personally. I don't know
' about a meeting that would be called but.
Councilman Wing: I thought there was a neighborhood meeting going to be called
because I asked to be notified of the date. I wanted to be sure I was included.
1 Jim Mady: That's what we were going to get. We didn't get it.
Mayor Chmiel: I reallyNdon't recall what that specific.
Councilman Mason: I wasn't here.
Mayor Chmiel: That's an easy out.
Councilwoman Dimler: I do remember we did say September 9th at that meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I recall that myself.
' Councilwoman Dimler: And I know that we wanted staff to address the particular
concerns because I talked to Chuck in the meantime too. As far as a
neighborhood meeting, I'm assuming because people were on vacation it just got
lost in the cracks.
Jim I called staff three times the last week because...we were going to
be notified and I was told it was going through. I'm still waiting to hear from
staff about my driveway. I hear tonight that my driveway's acceptable and
normal.
Don Ashworth: If the Council may recall, I was not here that night. Typically
1 we do a staff meeting following a Council meeting which we discuss the various
follow -ups so again I'm not privy to that. We still have time. If this were
to be tabled 2 weeks to allow for an additional notification be sent out,
1 opportunity for the neighbors to discuss, that should not be a problem.
1 24
1
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
Charles Folch: I guess we should probably define tonight what the directive is.
To have a meeting or just meet with the people individually. It seems like the
only, from going through the Minutes that were in there, as far as related to
driveway issues, it appears that most of these driveway problems are occurring
on the private segment of the driveway which is beyond the construction limits
of the project. The only two that were really relevant to the project we
overlaid Differding and Luehr's. Those were completely redone. As far as going
through the Minutes and looking at the Minutes, it didn't appear to be any other
things outside of whether it's a 60/40 cost split or the methodology is what I
guess appears to be the main focus here as far as I'm concerned and certainly we
can have a meeting to try and address that if there appears to be again
questions why we arrived at the 60/40 and such.
Councilman Mason: I'm hearing two different things here. All the people that 1
are here said, now I wasn't here that night I'll admit. I was camping but they
said there was going to be a meeting called and there was not. That to me is
over and above anything else that's going on right now. I think the thing about
the notification, they were 'told when it would be and it is in the Villager.
Notices of public hearings. Living in Carver Beach, I make a habit of reading
those things even before I was in City Council. But I'm concerned. I guess I
certainly think we should table this if they were told they were going to have a
meeting and it never occurred regardless of the format of the meeting. That's
just not right. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. We can't table it. We can just carry it over and keep the
hearing open.
Councilman Wing: I don't know how to get your attention. I don't mean to cut
in. I'll just reiterate my comment that I had specifically made a comment, I
think that will show in the Minutes that I be notified or that we be notified of
that meeting. I wanted to know what the date was because they asked that
Council members attend if possible. I remember that was an issue as I remember.
But I would like to try and get this for my own piece of mind, get this into
perspective for this assessment. Frontier Trail has been redone, improved.
Historically it is assessed back to the property owners. I don't think there's
going to be any exception in this case. There's going to be an assessment made.
I'd just as soon get that established now so we don't have to fight this
anymore. We're going to have, we're not going to ram it down anybody's throat
but we are most likely going to pass an assessment against the property owners.
I don't think there's anyway to avoid that. I'm new on the Council. I wasn't
involved in this but I'm not going to be able to say, well just put it in the
general revenues. That's not going to hold water and staff isn't going to
support that so as we come back into the public hearing's final stage, I think
people should come in knowing there is going to be an assessment made and in all
fairness there's not any way we're going to avoid it at this point. The road's
there. We're not going to just ignore it. It's going to get paid for and we're
going to have to be responsible for that and I think is there any question that
it's going to go to those property owners. I think we're being real fair.
Everything you've touched here since I've been on the Council has had the people
in mind. I think it's been very fair. I see this as fair again and if we could
just clean up these loose ends, I think it's going to make everybody a lot
happier. And this meeting, neighborhood meeting for communication purposes is
1
25
1
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
probably an excellent idea in this case so I would second Mike's suggestion that
we
Mayor Chmiel: Ursula?
11 Councilwoman Dimler: I have always had a problem with how the 60/40 was arrived 1
at. I still maintain that Council never voted on it and that we discussed
options but we never voted on it and I don't understand who made that decision
but I do think that that is probably the issue that we're getting at. I don't
think the neighbors object to paying an assessment but I think they would like
the 70/30 versus the 60/40.
Mayor Chmiel: Sure, I would too.
1 Councilwoman Dimler: And I did ask and you did address it somewhat in saying
the overall cost addition would be $50,000.00 but I didn't have the question
answered as to can the city afford to absorb that cost and where, out what fund
would the money come? I would like to see that addressed as well. I think we
should go ahead and have a meeting with the residents in the fact that they have
not probably seen their new assessment roll.
Don Ashworth: Tabling to our next meeting, September 23rd I think is what I'm
hearing everyone say and I think that's a good idea. The question as to
neighborhood meeting, getting back to Charles' point. I guess at this point I'm
wondering if it wouldn't be better for like Jim to be able to call directly into
Charles and set up a time where he could come out and meet with you right on the
property. I wonder how many questions we have if a general meeting, meeting
' down here is really going to meet some of these concerns or if it's not better
that during this two week period of time that the engineer go out and visit with
these people on their property. I think the issues such as the 60/40 or 70/30
are going to come back here. From a staff standpoint I don't think we're going
to resolve those, whether it be standing on a person's yard or sitting in this
type of a session. Does that seem acceptable? If you have a concern you would
simply.
Jim Mady: The problem Don is that there were roughly 30 people here and they
were expecting there was going to be a meeting and they told their neighbors.
Nothing's taken place and we don't know what's going on. We don't even know,
until I saw what Mrs. Loebl had, I didn't have any idea what was being talked
about tonight. I was still expecting to talk to staff and we were going to talk
about this split. We were going to talk about how the Minnewashta Parkway
' assessment was arrived at. We were going to talk about the situation where in
the feasibility study this proposed assessment was shown and the project came in
under cost yet my assessment went up. I'm kind of concerned about those kinds
' of questions. I'd like to find out the answers and I think it's best to handle
it on a neighborhood level instead of coming up here and taking up an hour of
Council's time. We can get a lot of that stuff talked and discussed and...
instead of taking an hour and a half.
Don Ashworth: Do you think a 5:00 or 6:00 timeframe would be acceptable to the
neighborhood? I guess what I'm thinking about is.
Don King: Pretty tight.
1 26
1
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
Don Ashworth: Too early? You prefer later than that?
Jim Mady: 7:00 so people can get home from work. 1
Don King: It's almost impossible for me to get home that early. Close to 7:00
would be about the best.
Don Ashworth: We have Charles attending a number of night sessions. I was just
trying to see if there was any way that I could, on a night when he might
normally be here for Planning Commission be able to start at 6:30 or something.
But we'll talk about it. You will get an individual letter. There will be a
set meeting. That's if the Council so desires. 1
Don King: Mr. Mayor, may I approach?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Come on. 1
Don King: Don King, 7200 Kiowa Circle. I just wanted to reiterate a few things
here. Of course the 60/40 split and I'm glad we're going to do something about
that in the meeting that Jim has brought up. I do not accept the fact that the
road construction equipment did not destroy Kiowa Circle. It did. It's
obvious. There's oil. There's footprint marks from it and now just this past
week somebody did something again in front of my place and tore up part of my
sod and destroyed more of the street again. Down in front of where Ursula lives
is where they put some blacktop down and that is even just sloughing off. I
thought that was a wasted effort. It maybe was some leftover blacktop they had.
So I think you need to revisit that issue. That is not done right. The other
problem I've got is I've got 172 feet. You're saying anybody over 190 gets
roughly 110 and I'm not quite understanding your math here completely except
your tangent. So that means if I don't have 190 feet, I've got to pay from 172
instead of 110 that someone else is getting because they live on a bigger corner
lot and they did both sides so I think you need to visit that issue again also.
Those are the key issues and I think this whole information thing. We started
from the very beginning, all the people that lived on Frontier Trail. We had a
lot of meetings. We met on Saturdays and everything and we in good faith have
tried to stay with this. I would expect you, the Council would stick with us in
good faith and continue to communicate. Yes we all agree we're going to pay an
assessment. We have no argument over that. It's just how it's arrived at and
we all when we go home we're happy. Thank you. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Good. I think as, Helen? Would you like to, go ahead.
Helen Loebl: I'm Helen Loebl from 7197 Frontier Trail. I didn't really intend 1
talking tonight so I don't have any notes to refer to but this method on the
circle or the curve that he's talking about, they're going to reduce those
assessments I assume. 1
Charles Folch: That's correct.
Helen Loebl: Okay. Where does the money come from that you're reducing those 1
assessments?
1
27 1
•
1
II City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
Charles Folch: In making this proposed revision we are maintaining the 40%
assessment ratio and we are not proposing to change the previously addressed
$23.95 per foot adjustment. So all of the property owners will not be increased
based on this modification.
Helen Loebl: But what I'm asking Charles is where is the money, you're going to
be minus x number of dollars on these people that you're giving a break to so to
speak. Where is this break money coming from?
Charles Folch: Whatever is not assessed is paid for by the City.
Helen Loebl: Alright. If you can give these people a break, it is just as
difficult for all of us with the regular sized lots or smaller sized lots to
make these payments as it is for the ones with the large lots. If you're going
to give them a break, then it is only fair that you give a break to all of us.
That to me sounds like a democracy. I have our foot frontage is 78.8 feet.
There cannot be a car parked in front of our house because of the no parking
II sign. I had a serviceman out there to do some work. He got a ticket for
parking there. I don't have any use of the street at all. But then my next
door neighbor can get about a 20% -25'c reduction in his assessment. Does this
seem right? Well alright, we won't go into that. There has been some comments
tonight about people who had their driveways done on a private contractor and
the City not being responsible for it. Our driveway was disturbed I believe it
was roughly 63 to 65 feet. The reason we determined, decided to have a new
driveway put in was because we did not want 65 feet of it new and the balance of
about 90 feet old. So we really didn't have any choice except to have Nissen do
it because and we took, thought that the City had used good judgment in having
Mueller who in turn should have used good judgment in Nissen. So for the City
to say they don't have any concern about these private driveways, I don't think
this is very nice. We took your word that we had good workmanship and good
faith in the contractors you supplied us with. But I would like an explanation
as to why these people can get breaks and other people can't. That's it. Thank
you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Don King: I heard a comment on this paving thing under Mueller. I called
Mr. Nissen again tonight and he swore a four letter word in the alphabet you can
come up with and told me to go wherever I wanted to go. Now that's the kind of
contractor that Mueller works with, I don't think the City wants that.
Mayor Chmiel: I think you're probably right.
Don King: I want my driveway taken care of whether it's private or not. 15 or
12 foot of it belongs to you the City and about a foot and a half into it on
either side. If I can't drive by truck a foot and a half from the edge without
breaking apart and not on the edge, then there's something wrong with that whole
project. I think it really needs to be looked in total. This individual. If
he can talk to Helen that way and talk to me and other people that way, he is
not a responsible businessman. I think he ought to be banned from this city.
Mayor Chmiel: That's something we conceiveably could well do and I think I'd
like to probably ask Charles to look into it because I think Helen had a good 1
28
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 1
point. If we get that contractor to put a certain portion of that tar in their
driveways and the balance is being done by that individual, it should be done to
satisfaction. I don't know what legal ramifications we have. I don't think we
have any but I think it's something we can talk to him on and see.
Helen Loebl: Further about what Don said. I have never in my life been
subjected to the phone calls that I had from that Mike Nissen. He was abusive
over the phone. He used words over the phone that no one should use to any
other person. Very well, I won't go into any details on that but it was a most
disturbing experience. They referred to the cracks in our driveway and that it
came from driving too close. No. We don't drive close to the edge of the
driveway. We have quite a wide driveway and there's only one car goes out of
there at a time. There are never any cars parked in our driveway and those
sides are cracking and for the people to sit here and say well, it's a private
contractor. What choice did we have?
Mayor Chmiel: I realize that and I think that's something we're going to try to
address and see what we can do. Provide any pressure back to that particular
contractor.
Helen Loebl: Mueller or somebody. Mueller should stand behind the work that he
did. '
Mayor Chmiel: Whether or not it's going to be done or not or whether or not we
can get it to your satisfaction, that's another thing but we're going to at
least try.
Helen Loebl: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Wing: Could I ask Charles a quick question?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. ,
Councilman Wing: I don't want to belabor this. One thing that disturbed me
that I just wanted to mention on this corner lot. Mrs. Loebl has 78 feet.
She's paying for 78 feet. She's paying less than the 100 foot lot and the
average lot was 110. There's one corner lot Charles that had a major assessment
on it because it went out and he had all the frontage. I was just wondering to
be equitable here and not impact people in a way that's going to affect them
financially that might have a corner lot like this, if we couldn't just assess
the longest lot length on one side rather than come up with some formula.
That's one unit. One house. The same service. He just happens to have a
corner lot of 200 feet. I just wonder if it wouldn't be fair to assess the
longest side.
Charles Folch: Which lot are you referring to?
Councilman Wing: I couldn't dig it out now but one of the gentleman who was in
here with a substantial assessment last time. It was one of the larger ones but
it had the corner lot. I think the 7200 block roughly. That area of Frontier
and even the curved lots. I think everybody is getting the same service and
whether you have a 35 or 31 foot lot is the small one up to the 160 some feet,
it's just one house getting the same service and I agree with you're trying to
29 ,
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
find a formula to tone them down. I don't think we're giving one person a break
' and another. I think we're trying to be equitable for everyone but that corner
lot is the one that stuck out. It was just a suggestion to try and assess the }
longest side and not try to come up with a formula for the rest of it. {
Charles Folch: Going back through the Minutes of the feasibility stage for this
project it was very clear that the people out there, a good large majority of
them brought in a petition to have the properties assessed based on a front foot
' basis for street and not based on a unit basis. Therefore when you have that
situation you're certainly going to have property owners with longer lots than
other property owners that are going to feel that they've been unfairly
' assessed. There's both methods of assessing for street improvement are
certainly acceptable. It's a matter of which one we prefer or the majority
prefer that we use. We're going on based on what the majority had presented
during the feasibility and that was presented as a front foot basis for street.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Okay, thank you. I would like to have a motion to
continue the public hearing to.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Can I make one comment?
Mayor Chmiel: Certainly. Go ahead.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I uess I'd like to address the comments by Mr. King and
9 Y 9
to clarify a point here that Kiowa Circle was originally included in the project
and was deleted because it created an additional $85,000.00 cost to the overall
project and it only benefitted four properties. So everyone else would have had
to pay, your assessment would have been higher in other words if it hadn't been
' taken out. But I also find it kind of curious that they say the road was
substandard at the time, and I agree it is, but then that's all the more reason
to me not to park this heavy construction equipment on it because it just makes
' sense that that would crack up the road more than the cars and the vans and even
if you have pick -up trucks. The heavy equipment that they parked there
definitely did do damage so I disagree with that statement. I also would like
to point out that Mueller and Sons have been parking their equipment on Kiowa
' Circle even as late as 3 months ago and they continue to use that street as a
place to park their equipment and I don't know what project they're working on.
I know they're not working on Frontier Trail so I would like the City to notify
' Mueller and Sons that they can no longer park their heavy equipment there
because our street is being damaged.
' Mayor Chmiel: Again, I'd like to have a continuation of the public hearing to,
rather and I said September 23rd, to October 14th. That would allow enough time
for staff to get together with each of the individual people and hopefully
resolve that specific problem that exist and a letter will be sent to each
' individual property owner setting up a meeting with Charles, either individually
or as however Charles feels he can accomplish this. So we'll have a motion to
continue.
Councilman Workman: So moved.
Councilman Wing: Second.
30
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table the Frontier Trail
Assessment Roll, Project 89 -10 until the October 14, 1991 City Council meeting. '
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Helen Loebl: When is that meeting? 1
Mayor Chmiel: October 14th and you'll get a notification prior to that to sit
down with staff regarding some of the problems.
AWARD OF BIDS: SOUTH LEG TRUNK HIGHWAY 101. PROJECT 90 - 20.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. On Tuesday, August 13th bids
were received and opened for the south leg TH 101 realignment improvement
project No 90 -20. The confirmed low bidder is Wm. Mueller and Sons, Inc. at a
total contract bid of $402,540.85. This is approximately 18! higher than the
revised engineer's estimate and after further investigation we found the primary
reason for this increase was due to the cost of the granular borrow.
Evidentally the material available has to come from some distance and also I
think most of the contractors were a little uncertain about weather conditions
they might experience this Fall in trying to get the project done in time. Also
as a part of this bid proposal each bidder was asked to submit an alternate
pricing for postponing of the wearcourse paving until 1992 should late Fall
weather construction not be favorable to complete. Wm. Mueller's bid for this
work was an additional $4,000.00. As we mentioned previously, we previously
talked about the basis for doing this temporary road improvement is to number
one, allow MnDot or enable Mn0ot to redesignate TH 101 out of the downtown area
via the Dakota Avenue /TH 5 and Market Blvd.. Also with the uncertainty of the
construction of the TH 212 improvement project which would then construct the
permanent TH 101 section, not knowing a definite timeframe for this improvement,
TH 101 could stay in it's present condition for another 5 or 10 years. It's not
known at this time. So given that need and the commitment that the City has
made to both MnDot, Carver County and Hennepin County to do this temporary
construction project, we feel it is still a cost benefit to the city to proceed
with the project. Therefore it is recommended that the City Council award the
South Leg TH 101 Realignment Project No. 90 -20 to Wm. Mueller and Sons at a
contract amount of $402,540.85 with an alternate bid price of $4,000.00 for
paving the wearcourse in 1992. We would contingent upon receiving the remaining
outstanding agency permits which MnDot, Carver County and ONR by September 20,
1991. The significance of September 20th is that we still feel that if we
receive the permit approvals by that time and can allow the contractor to start
approximately within that timeframe, the project could still be completed this
year.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Any discussion?
Councilman Mason: I hope they're not going to ask Mike Nissen to do the work. '
Mayor Chmiel: No, but I notice it's Mr. Mueller.
Councilman Mason: Well that caught my eye too. '
Councilman Workman: I guess that's my basic question. What's wrong with this
picture so soon after our discussions on Frontier Trail? I think the next bid
31 '
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
was like $9,000.00 more or something.
' Charles Folch: That's correct.
l
I Councilman Workman: What kind of conditions can we put in there to guarantee
that we're not going to have a problem with this? Obviously it's a .different
roadway system and won't be dealing with so many individual neighbors but how do
we get the point across to them that you've got a problem with subcontractors?
' Charles Folch: We can certainly point that out to them at the pre- conference.
Although I do feel personally that the problems associated with Frontier aren't
' directly related to the work that they've done or their intentions to perform
satisfactorily on the project. In fact, Wm. Mueller is currently doing the 79th
Street project and they're doing a very good job at it.
' Councilman Workman: I guess I would, I don't know how much we can discuss this.
I would highly doubt that Mr. Nissen would be doing a whole lot more work in the
city if we know about. But secondly I guess I would like to make it a part of
' the approval that Mueller and Sons selection of subcontractors in the future
could seriously put in jeopardy his ability to get contracts in this community
too. Please indicate to them that we have to put up with bad decisions. Bad
' business practices of developers all over and contractors and somehow I guess
I'd like that point made out. We. do I'd say millions of dollars of business
with Mueller and Sons and I'd like them to know some of the emotions that we
' have to go through even though we don't have a whole lot of options with
selecting a higher bidder.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you Tom. Anyone else? Ursula.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question on this is 18X over the engineer's
estimate and the reasons given are that because of the granular borrow has to be
' brought in from a long distance. Is there not a closer supplier is my number
one question. Number two talks about the uncertainties of the Fall weather
conditions. We have that all the time. I mean that's just part of the
contracting game. I don't understand why that would have to increase the cost.
' I wonder if we can go back to them and tell them we didn't accept those two
conditions and if they could come in with another bid.
' Charles Folch: Those two issues weren't really conditions of their bid. In
looking at all the bids that were received, all but one were in the same
ballpark price for the granular borrow. The only contractor who was lower than
' the rest of the pack happened to be Shafer Contracting becuase they had a
source, their own source closer by and of course they're currently mobilized
here on the TH 5 project. They however were significantly higher on their
overall bid and thus were not recommended for this project. As far as weather
conditions in the Fall, it's been my experience that Fall projects typically do
have a factor of cost added into them that the contractor feels comfortable with
to protect them in case of rain delays, because they're obligated under this
contract to complete under a certain timeframe. If he cannot do so, there's
liquidated damages that can be incurred that the City can recoup. Therefore
they have to protect their interest and this is naturally a cost factor that
they build into their pricing. It's not spelled out in any one particular item.
•
1 32
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 1
It's not a condition of their submittal bid. It's just a relative notice that
you can take on the cost of the prices for the work items.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and then I wanted to ask you too. I know I called
you on this today. We're talking about spending over $400,000.00 for a
temporary road here. Could you just explain to those that may be interested in
what will happen to that road in the future. Is it going to be a total loss of
$400,000.00 or is there some way that we can recoup some benefit? 1
Charles Folch: Well I guess at this point in time that may be a difficult
question to answer given that the existing road is a temporary, or the existing
TH 101 is a temporary trunk highway. If and when MnDot decides to give back the
road and to which agency, local, city or Carver County or whomever, that will
sort of dictate, have a big impact on what future needs and services the road is
going to be designed to handle and that will affect the design for any future
improvements. At this point it's not know. The total project is about 1,400
lineal feet of roadway of which about 100 feet will remain as permanent
continuing on from the existing permanent section adjacent to the Rosemount
plant. I don't know if that adequately addresses your question but there's too
many unknowns at this point in time to really determine who, number one is going
to have the jurisdiction over the highway in the future, and then two, what
needed improvements,will be incurred. At this time it's going to be constructed
to a rural section which will entail ditches.
Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Councilman Wing: I'd just like to follow up Ursula's question a little bit. '.
Until such time that this project is ready for a total completion, north and
south TH 101, why not just leave it alone? Why are we worried about anything
right now? Why not just do this when it's ready? Not even be bothered at this
point. I don't see any traffic issues involved. You could clean up the curves
on south TH 101 if you really wanted to do something constructive. For now
leave it alone until we're ready to do the project and do it permanently. '
Charles Folch: I guess that's a decision you know.
Mayor Chmiel: What does this really do to us Charles if we were to just let ,
this sit as opposed to waiting to finalize the balance of the rest of TH 101?
Would we get a better bid first of all because there's more work going to be
there?
Charles Folch: I suppose quantity is typically, quantity of work typically does
tend to give you an opportunity to get better pricing. The only advantage I
guess to doing it now is to get it completed and get the redesignation out of
the downtown as quickly as we can.
Don Ashworth: I think that's the key issue. As a part of the negotiations with ,
the State we agreed to redesignate TH 101 and to literally take it out of the
downtown. To carry out construction from the east end which includes the
apartment building, Taco, Red -E -Mix, that leg. They would then redesignate that
traffic all the way down TH 5 to Market Blvd. which would then be redesignated
33 '
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
as TH 101 and would move down and get rid of at least a number of those curves
' as they currently exist north of the bridge because the touchtone point on this
is the bridge. So all the curves north of the bridge and the bridge itself get
taken care of.
Councilman Wing: Automatically on this project?
Don Ashworth: Right, because you've already constructed half of it as it goes
down to the entry of Rosemount. So now it's from the entry of Rosemount to the
bridge. The other issue is that although only 100 feet is considered as
permanent and I agree with Charles' statement that you don't know specifically
' what future demands might be, I don't recall any roadway that we have built to a
rural section, meaning it has the ditches and then you have the pavement section
and then another ditch. When the final roadway has come in, Audubon, Lyman, I
I don't care which roadway it happens to be. CR 17. There's been additional
costs as the ditches have been filled in but I'm unaware of any time that we've
simply gone in and totally wiped out the subbase of the road and all of the
paving, etc.. So I cannot tell you that out of the $500,000.00 that we're going
to be wasting $50,000.00 or $100,000.00, but I do know that we're not going to
waste $500,000.00. I mean the roadway and the subbase, etc., in all likelihood
will continue to be used. Filling in of ditches may be a question.
Councilman Wing: And what's the penalty if we don't get the designation?
' Don Ashworth: I'm fearful of that because again I'm really worried about that
the agreements that we basically have entered into with the State could say that
we will carry out that joint project along TH 5. That we will carry out the
reconstruction of TH 101 north of TH 5 and that we will carry out the
improvement south of TH 5. The other factor was if the project can move ahead
this Fall, we look to having the least amount of conflict with Shafer and that
whole TH 5 contract because they're taking down the intersections and if we can
' get this segment of TH 101 up 'and operational, we don't have to be concerned
that old TH 101 and CR 17 and then Market are all taken out at the same time at
which time the Fire DepartqLent comes in here and says, hey we can't get down to
Rosemount. The employees can't get to Rosemount. So we were really pushing to
get this work done yet this Fall so we did not end up with those double
conflicts this next spring.
Councilman Wing: I think there's a clear public safety hazard on old TH 101.
With the completion of this new portion then, that will immediately be
abandoned? That will cease to exist at that point? We won't be responding to
personal injury accidents on those curves anymore?
Don Ashworth: TH 101 will become, new TH 101 will become the primary route but
you do have a small road section there. I don't think that the road can be
' totally abandoned. There are like four homes that are just south of the Q gas
station in there. I think we need to continue the service there.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion?
Councilman Workman: I move approval of award of bids for South Leg Trunk
Highway 101 Project No. 90 -20.
' 34
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
Councilman Mason: Second. 1
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded to have the South Leg Trunk Highway
101 Realignment Improvement Project 90 -20 to Wm. Mueller and Sons, Inc. for the
contract amount of $402,540.85 with an alternate price of $4,000.00 for paving
the wearcourse in 1992 contingent upon receiving the remaining outstanding
agency permits.
Resolution $91 -87: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to
approve the South Leg Trunk Highway 101 Realignment Improvement Project 90 -20 to
Wm. Mueller and Sons, Inc. for the contract amount of $402,540.85 with an
alternate price of $4,000.00 for paving the wearcourse in 1992 contingent upon
receiving the remaining outstanding agency permits by September 20, 1991. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ,
APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS FOR A 35 FOOT LAKESHORE
SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 3 DECKS (AFTER THE FACT), 6605
HORSESHOE CURVE, RON HARVIEUX.
Paul Krauss: As you indicated the applicants are appealing a denial from the
Board of Adjustments for the lake setback variance for the three decks that were
constructed. The applicant obtained a permit for the first deck which had an 80
foot setback from the lake, 75 feet being the required setback. He then called
for additional inspections. He built on two additional decks and the building
inspection department erroneously gave additional inspections which seems to
have led the property owner to believe that they were acceptable. Before the
decks were completed the building inspectors realized their error. There was a
stop work order posted and a variance was applied for. Staff reviewed the '
matter. Looked for neighborhood standards that might permit some deviance from
ordinance requirements and really couldn't substantiate one. We also checked
with the DNR, since the DNR shoreland regs come into play here. We came in with
a recommendation to the Board that we allow the second deck to stay, which had a
75 foot setback. A 5 foot variance but we're recommending that the third deck
be removed. I think we have to acknowledge that the inspectors did make an
error on this. They caught it. They caught it too late. There is some
financial expense involved. The Board voted to approve it but the approval
failed on a 2 to 1 positive vote. It needed a unanimous decision and
consequently it's being appealed to you. There's been some discussion about the
DNR's interest in this and are you're aware, there's a letter in our original
packet and I think you've got a revised letter tonight, where the ONR says that
they reserve the right to undertake legal action to have the City enforce our
setback variances. There was some indications at the Board of Adjustments
meeting that the DNR did not in fact have the right to do that. The City
Attorney has researched that further. We believe the ONR does have the right
for legal recourse and Roger can explain that further. However, I've got to say
we think it's pretty unlikely. Given our relationship with the DNR, given the
nature of this, I would suspect it's pretty unlikely that they would pursue it
to that end. In any case, Mr. Beck, the applicant's attorney has indicated that
they are willing to undertake any legal liability should the DNR pursue it.
Based upon all this, staff is continuing to bring forward our original
recommendation that the second deck be allowed to stay and the third not.
However we do realize that there's some significant extenuating circumstances
with this. With the building inspectors having gone out there. It's a rather
35 1
1
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
unfortunate situation. We've been assured that their procedures have been
changed so this would not in fact happen again but it's one of those tough
situations where we're asked to deal with a situation that has occurred. In
view of the fact that, well that there was a positive recommendation, although
it failed at the Board of Adjustments, we have given you conditions and findings
1 should you wish to approve all three decks tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you Paul. Has the applicant seen the letter that
we've gotten back from DNR?
Paul Krauss: We just got that faxed to us this evening. We gave it to Mr.
Beck.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
Peter Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Peter Beck. 7900
Xerxes Avenue South. In answer to your question, yes. Staff provided me with a
copy of that DNR letter as I came in this evening. And I might say first of all
that I never said the DNR doesn't have the right to bring an action. What I
said is they have no more right than any other citizen, which I think is the
case and is in fact what this letter says. Although I don't want to dare them
to do it, I concur with Paul. I think it very unlikely that they would and that
' is why Mr. Harvieux offered as a condition to this variance that he would defend
it if the DNR did bring an action. I think Paul in the staff report has the
background pretty accurately. It's not a situation where somebody went out with
' an intent to violate the Code. Mr. Harvieux came in and asked what he needed to
do to build a deck and he was told he needed a permit. He applied for the
permit. Unfortunately, he's doing this on his own and he didn't really have a
complete plan. He was kind of deciding what he wanted to do as he went and by
' his failure to understand he needed subsequent permits and his failure to
understand the 75 foot setback applied to the decks, he went ahead and kept
building into the setback and then as Paul pointed out, staff, the building
' inspectors erred in inspecting without a plan or permit and erred in approving
construction within the setback. So it's a mutual mistake if you will but the
result is that as a result of the, incorrect procedures that were followed, the
deck is there and it would be a great hardship to have to remove it. And I
guess we feel real strongly that this is an appropriate hardship under the
variance standards where the applicant, the property owners is put into a
position of hardship as a result of city action or inaction. We don't feel that
there'd be any precedent set here as Paul pointed out. The procedures that the
inspections department have been corrected so that this doesn't happen again.
Hopefully it won't. As long as it doesn't, there's no precedent here. That's
the technical stuff on hardship. We think the standard is met but we also
wouldn't expect you to approve something that would be harmful to Lotus Lake. I
have some pictures that I'll pass around. The first 4 pictures are of this
deck. As you know, it is up. There's just the one small section of rail that
' isn't installed so what you see here is what you'll see if the variance is
approved. And what you see is nothing. Because there's a large willow tree and
some other big trees and vegetation, it just isn't visible. I've got a second
set of pictures of other similar structures around the lake and we present these
not on the theory that two wrongs make a right if you will. Because there's
other decks or boat houses we should have one. But we present these just so you
know that this deck, as visible as it isn't, is not out of character. It's not
36
1
City Council Meeting — September 9, 1991
an abberation on Lotus Lake. The first of these pictures, the picture on top is
the property next door which does have a boat house and a deck attached to the
boat house. Again, we're not suggesting that it's there improperly. We're only
suggesting that it is there and that this deck would not be inconsistent with
that property or the other properties around the lake. The other pictures are
just different... Those pictures and I think most of the Council members are
familiar with Lotus Lake and many I think have had a chance to visit this
property. In terms of visibility, visual impact, aesthetic impact, this deck
just isn't going to hurt the lake. More importantly, it's not going to have any
adverse impact on the lake on water quality. As a matter of fact, the deck is
covering an old septic system location and a bunch of clay and unsightly soil
and will have some positive impact for this property in terms of aesthetics for
this property. The DNR position is certainly well stated in their two letters.
Again, the important thing is that they aren't making this decision. They aren't
holding the public hearing. They haven't heard testimony. They are not
annointed as the decision maker. The decision, it's a local decision. It's a
decision of this Council. I don't mean to suggest that their view should be
ignored but I do mean to suggest that the reason these are local decisions is
because the local decision makers have a better feel for what are the equities
here. What is appropriate and what isn't and I think that's the decision that
the Council has. One thing I did want to mention is that the agenda indicates
this as a 35 foot variance. It is not. It's about a 17 foot variance from the
75 foot setback. Is that correct Paul? The staff report says 17.
Paul Krauss: Yes, that's correct.
Peter Beck: But if there was any confusion, it's not a 35. One more point. In
terms of balancing and weighing the DNR's position on this. Under the ONR
regulations, this deck would be allowed if it was detached. It would be allowed
anywhere in the 75 foot setback area if it was detached from the house as would
a gazebo, a screened house, fish house, a boat house. So again, when you're
validating the DNR's position on this, I think you should keep in mind, under
their own regs, something much more visible, much closer to the water would be
permitted under their own regulations and we have suggested as a condition of
approval, I might mention. All the conditions recommended by staff are agreeable
to the Harvieux's and one of those include, in fact I think they're all ones
that we've suggested but the one we did suggest is that they would waive any
right to a detached deck or fish house, boat house. That sort of thing if they
could not have to tear down the deck. That I believe is it. The Harvieux's are
here of course if there are any questions about the request. Appreciate your
time.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Anyone else wanting to address this issue at
this particular time?
Councilman Mason: I'll volunteer. If the City had not made the mistake
initially I would vote that it needs to come down but I have a very hard time
asking these folks to tear down something that you essentially, from what I'm
hearing on both sides, you certainly didn't mean to infringe or encroach. As
has been said, the inspection process has been changed and it won't happen
again, i don't see this as precedent setting. I certainly would, with the
Findings of Facts we have here, I personally think it should stay.
37
11
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
' Councilman Workman: My comments, the Harvieux's and Peter know where I'm
sitting. I was one of the 2 who voted to approve it. I think it's merely here
before us just because Carol wanted to give it one more shot so Council was
' aware. Not to give away the intent of her vote but I think it was apparent to
most of us that it was a little late to be reverse inspecting.
Councilman Wing: Well with me that makes a quorum and I would move acceptance
of this variance.
Mayor Chmiel: We have two other people yet to comment.
Councilman Wing: Well can you take that into discussion? That happen in the
discussion phase or do you want to go down the line?
Mayor Chmiel: Let's go down the line.
Councilman Wing: I agree with what's been said. I think the owners are
' sincere. I think they did not do this intentionally. I will say in general
terms, I think the City...out of line if we want to look at the ordinance but
then to detach it and still allow it, it gets to be sort of.
' Paul Krauss: That's a DNR regulation. It's not the City regulation. We would
maintain the 75 foot setback.
' Councilman Wing: And I agree and I'm really concern about that and even in this
case. The loss of that 75 foot setback does concern me but with the mitigating
circumstances, I don't think we should request that that be taken out. I would
' like to make one comment though. That meeting after meeting we're spending a
lot of time on decks, and this is for staff. It's specifically, not the manager
and planner but our city inspectors I'd like to have notified. Mr. Harr. To me
there's some big issues in this city and one of them right now to me is TH 5.
The corridor task force and so on and so forth and we don't seem to have a lot
of time to talk about that but we wind up a lot of time on variances and decks.
Let's get these ordinances tighten up but let's get this, I think we've got a
' lot of inspection staff right now, if not excessive at this point. I mean
things are down. Let's get the inspection staff up to speed so these mistakes
don't happen. So these problems don't occur so we don't have to deal with them
at the Council level because I'm getting tired of being here late nights on
' these issues and not getting some of the really major issues that I feel are
more significant in the city. So thank you.
' Councilman Workman: At the next Board of Adjustments we have 5 variances.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess just to comment on just exactly what Dick -said.
' I know that years ago when I sat on the Board of Adjustments an Appeals, at that
time I would already have liked an ordinance in place that said anyone that
builds a deck without getting a permit, here's the procedure. We still don't
have that in place because this would certainly help in this case. I do
' acknowledge that the City did make a mistake and I apologize to the Harvieux's.
I think it's unfortunate but it does happen. I think this is a real tough
situation but I do have my doubts that they didn't, were completely unaware that
the permit might be a little, that they were a little bit out of line in that
' 38
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
they assumed that the permit covered three decks. Now I can see one and two is
stretching it. But I think three, that causes me to doubt. It leaves me with ,
some serious doubts. Although I'd have to compliment them for, I'm told that
when they were told to stop work, they did and I congratulate them for that
because I think it does show that they were working in good faith with the City.
So now I've told you what I think on both sides of the issue here. I think it's
really unfortunate but I think my bottom line is that I don't think the City
should take a chance to be involved. I don't think it's a proper way for the
city to do business and I think that we're leaving ourselves vulnerable. So I
would recommend denial.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I guess my turn. I was one of the three that voted for
this particular project at the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. In fact I, in
the event that it didn't go through I offered to buy the balance of the wood for
the deck so I could finish putting mine up. But it's one of those things that,
that really happened and we did discuss it. But, I had one concern really with
it. What happens if someone does this intentionally? I know what happens
because we made the other person take a deck down. How can we eliminate these
kinds of problems is what I'm really getting at. How can we stop these from
occurring? I know that their intent was as such and I do believe them because
as they progressed with that deck, it is a nice deck as well. But I guess 1 get
to a point of thinking, what or how, if someone decides to start doing this, how
do we really stop it? What recourses are we going to take? In this particular
case I don't have any real, I have a feeling about it but I guess I still
understand their position. Also in the event that the Department of Natural
Resources decides to go through their process, I don't want the City to be tied
in with any of those litigation. I don't know if it's proper or not Roger but
I think I would like to get a hold harmless clause if it's appropriate for this
so we do not become involved in this. It's between, even though the City's '
going to challenge us, the applicant is willing to accept those respective
costs.
Roger Knutson: That's listed as condition 6 of the proposed Findings and '
decision. If this is adopted by the Council, the next step would be to
incorporate this into the variance form and they would have to sign a consent
agreement to this.
Mayor Chmiel: That's my only concern because I don't intend to defend the
applicant's position with the DNR. Nor do I feel the City should waste those
dollars. Okay, any other discussion?
•
Councilwoman Dimler: I do have a question. There is a mention that the deck
covers an old septic site and that was one of the reasons given that it improves
the property. Is it deck number 1, 2 or 3?
Mayor Chmiel: Three.
Councilwoman Dimler: It is three?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. In fact that's one of the points that I brought up because '
of the erosion, having that deck where it's at and there's a steep embankment.
This has tendencies to alleviate any of the runoff from that particular area and
cause some erosion and having that going directly into the lake as well. No
39
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
other discussion, I'll call a question. All those in favor say aye?
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Variance Request
$91 -9 for a 17 foot shoreland setback variance to the 75 foot requirement
conditioned upon the following:
1 1. Applicant obtain a building permit for entire deck.
' 2. All corrections, if any, required by Building Inspections Division to the
existing deck be completed prior to completing construction.
3. Deck not be used until final inspection has been successfully completed.
1 4. No portion of the deck within the 75 foot setback area be enlarged or added
on to any time in the future.
5. No water oriented accessory structures, including boat houses, gazebos,
screened houses or detached decks, will be allowed on the property unless
and until that portion of the attached deck within the 75 foot setback area
1 is removed.
6. The applicants indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents
' and employees from any claim, suit, judgment, damage or cost the City may
incur, including reasonable attorney's fees as a result of approving this
variance.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we'd best also indicate that that be consistent with all
the requirements of the conditions contained within.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, could I make a motion then that we direct staff
to get right to dealing with the procedure that helps us to deal with after the
fact construction of any sort?
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to see us try to avoid some of that maybe by having some
kind of publications in the paper. Making people aware and also probably in our
newsletters that we send out making people aware of the fact that there are
' permits required for decks and specific requirements. I know I just had gone
through this same process with the city for the one I'm putting up.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm just saying that if we had a procedure in place, it
would make it so much easier for us to just go down the line. Would that be a
problem?
' Paul Krauss: Well I'm not sure how you deal with a uniform procedure for all
the variety of things that come up. I mean this one, you know the building
inspectors had some culpability with this but we've seen so many of them where
were not even brought in to us until the thing's up and it's an after the fact
sort of thing. I think you've come down much harder on those for obvious
reasons. I'm not sure how you would differentiate between them.
1
40
1
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
Councilwoman Dimier: Well how about just certain guidelines and still give
Council some ability to vary according to the situation. But to have certain
guidelines in place.
Paul Krauss: Well one thing you might also want to consider too and I'll leave
it to Roger to put it in legalese but we deal with some very complex ordinances
and we have enforced them to the best of our ability and we're sometimes wrong.
We try to correct our mistakes and simply because we did make a mistake doesn't
mean that the ordinance is invalid or that the thing that we had a problem with
is improper. We have tried to put individual residents on notice about building
permits. Every spring now for the past two years we've run articles in the
Villager and I think this year we had in our local newsletter as well, since we
have that now, we have a really neat picture that shows a deck that was built
without a permit that fell off the house. So we do try to get the word out.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, thank you. '
Peter Beck: Mr. Mayor, sorry. I'd just like to confirm that the motion was to
adopt that draft resolution with the Findings and conditions?
Mayor Chmiel: That's what the motion was, yes and I just reiterated it to make
sure.
Peter Beck: Alright. If we end up defending this, the Findings would be
important to us.
CONSIDER TRAFFIC CONTROL REQUEST: NO PARKING ON YUMA ROAD AND WOODHILL DRIVE. '
Councilman Mason: Incidentally, I had nothing to do with this.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We're going to just move that to the Admin Section.
LUNDGREN /ORTENBLAT/ERSBO SUBDIVISION REQUEST, WEST OF POWERS BOULEVARD AND SOUTH
OF LAKE LUCY ROAD.
A. REZONING REQUEST FROM RR (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) AND RSF (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE
FAMILY) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT).
B. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 30+ ACRES INTO 37 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALTER CLASS A AND B WETLANDS.
Public Present:
Name Address '
Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros.
Richard Sathre Sathre - Berquist
Frank Svoboda Wildlife Expert
Harry & Nada Murphy 1215 Lake Lucy Road
Mr. & Mrs. Jim Ravis 666 Old Powers Blvd.
Ted Coey 1381 Lake Lucy Road '
Joe Morin 1441 Lake Lucy Road
Eric Rivkin 1695 Steller Court
Ed Jannusch 6831 Utica Terrace
41 ,
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor as ou indicated, the proposal would result in
Y P ro P
subdividing a 30 acre site into 37 single family lots. Two of those lots would
be occupied by existing homes, the Ersbo and the Ortenblat homes. The balance
would be available for new construction. Access is to be provided by a loop
street extending from one end to the other to Lake Lucy Road around that large
DNR wetland. The site incorporates two underlying parcels as I indicated. The
Ersbo site, which has been the subject of two previous plats that the City's
approved but have never been developed, and the Ortenblat parcel which was one
' of the many parcels incorporated into the MUSA line with the Metro Council's
action in May. Development of a single family plat on this site is fully
consistent with city plans and policies and would not normally be a terribly
complex matter. However in this case the level of the complexity greatly
' increased for two reasons. The site contains a series of Class A and Class B
wetlands. Secondly, staff has worked extensively with the developer to attempt
to utilize the latest technology to protect the wetlands and actually hopefully
' improve water quality over the existing situation which does have some problems
while building attractive residential neighborhood. In a lot of respects these
practices that we've adopted or proposing to adopt are on the cutting edge for
' us and for most communities in the Twin Cities. In essence we're holding this
project to a higher standard than we have in the past and we think that based
upon what we know today, that's fully reasonable to do but it makes it a little
more difficult. We have to feel our way through it. Due to the need to utilize
some flexibility in development standards and our belief that an unusually high
quality project should result from this project, we ultimately recommended that
this be developed as a PUD. We initially tried to do it as a straight
' subdivision and it really didn't work. There were just too many things that we
had to squeeze and modify to make this thing work in an effective and efficient
manner. It must be stressed however that the purpose of this PUD is not to 1
permit undersized lots. We've had a history of problems in the city with PUD's
' developing on undersized lots. There haven't been many in recent years but it's
been a source of a lot of our variance problems. In fact the Planning
Commission which approved a new PUD ordinance has yet to approve a PUD ordinance
' specifically designed for undersized lot PUD's. They're still working on that.
But the lots in this project are not undersized in any way. In fact the average
lot size is over 31,000 square feet and when you eliminate the wetland area, the
I average lot size is 21,000 square feet which is still considerably in excess of
our 15,000 square foot lot area standard. The PUD will allow some flexibility
in lot dimension, home setback and street standards. In exchange we believe we
get a well planned project by a developer who's got a good track record in our
' community. In addition we get permanent tree preservation areas. That's one of
the new things we're trying on this project that we've actually blocked out
areas where there's significant stands of trees and would put conservation
' easements around them so they'll be permanently protected. We've had a series
of problems where we've desired tree protection plans and we get them written
into the project but then when somebody builds a house on it, they just build
whatever house they want to build and we lose all the trees. In this case the
lot would be sold with the full knowledge that there's a conservation easement
protecting those trees and you simply can't build in there. In addition we also
get extensive project landscaping, preservation of a buffer strip around the
wetlands which again is newer but it's commonly accepted technology now. Instead
of having the straight 75 foot wetland setback, what we're doing is having a
variable setback that would also protect permanently a buffer yard beyond the !
wetland proper which the DNR and most of the agencies tell us is a lot more
' 42
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
effective than a simple straight setback that will allow somebody to sod along
right up to the wetland edge and cause problems that way. We also believe we
get higher architectural standards and a sensitive wetland and water quality
protection program. We're also able to incorporate the Ersbo plat into this
project which I don't know if you all remember the Ersbo plat but the plats were
pretty well designed to fit that site but the site by itself is not a very 11 attractive one and probably would not have resulted in nearly as high a quality
of housing that I think is going to result from this. By incorporating the
Ersbo plat into this project we think we get a uniformally better quality of
project than we would have otherwise so we regard that as an advantage.
The Planning Commission reviewed the project at the July 17th meeting and after
extensive discussion they did recommend approval but asked that several areas be
further researched. Staff has also used the time to refine our review of the
wetland and water quality issues as well as getting feedback from all the
agencies that we could find that we felt would be interested in this. As I
indicated earlier, their approach to the wetlands is pretty creative and we
think it's pretty much on the cutting edge and we'd be very supportive of that
and wouldn't want to do otherwise but it has made it more difficult. It has
taken more time to work with the agencies and get their feedback. In our
current memo to the City Council we've attempted to respond to each of the
questions that were raised tonight and I won't spend a lot of time on that but
• I'll just touch on that briefly. With regard to wetland and water quality
issues, we've been informed by the DNR, Army Corps and Watershed Districts that
they will approve the plans as proposed. Some changes in the original proposal
include limiting the increased wetland depth to the present 1 foot. Original
proposals was to raise it 2 feet. The DNR wasn't sure that that really resulted
in that much of an improvement. Because of some blockage in the outflow of this
wetland, right now the wetland is 1 foot higher than it was originally. Our
City Engineer has some concerns that raising the water elevation further might
actually undermine the subgrade of Lake Lucy Road so we're settling on the 1
foot increase in the depth of the wetland which all concerned believe will
better support wildlife than the existing situation. Will better support a
variety of wetland vegetation and habitat. The outlet structure, the DNR has
requested a variable outlot structure so that we can raise and lower the
elevation of the wetland and get the plant material to establish better and
alter in the future if need be, that is going to be incorporated. We spoke to
Bonestroo who's a firm working with the city on the surface water utility
program. You know we don't have standards yet developed for water quality but
there are consultants working with us on developing these plans and they've
already got experience in working on similar projects in Union and Maple Grove
which are a little bit ahead of us on the water quality aspect. They made some
recommendations to us that we carried forward here. They felt that the three
Walker Ponds. The concept of the Walker Ponds to improve water quality is an
accepted strategy. Bonestrod however felt that using three small ponds was not
an effective approach and would have maintenance problems for the city. They
did recommend deletion of the southern pond which is in this area right over
here and an expansion in the pond that's over on Lot 2. Basically, not only
expanding that pond for that purpose but also to try to run some of the Lake
Lucy Road drainage through the Walker Pond. What we've got out there is a
situation where the wetland appears to be fairly significantly degraded before
developments occurred. But keep in mind the developer has not done anything yet
but there are water quality problems. Now some of that may stem from historic
use of that area for agriculture. Some of it stems from upstream development.
43
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
' Dumping nutrients into the site. Some of it stems from Lake Lucy Road itself
where the salts which apparently contain some phosphates as mell are flushing
right off the street and into the system. So what we're proposing to do is to
.capture a portion of those Lake Lucy Road fiowages and run it through an
' expanded pond with the goal that the total flowage through that area should be
of a higher quality than it is today. We reviewed revised access plans at the
west curb cut to save some trees and I've got a series of documents. I'll put
that up later if need be. There's a very significant stand of trees there and
there's really only 1 or 2 good places to come out on Lake Lucy Road for the
west entrance. The applicant spent a good bit of time trying to develop a plan
that's the most sensitive to protecting those trees as possible but the Planning
Commission wanted us to explore the idea of realigning the road so it sits on
the Ortenblat driveway believing that that would be less destructive. We did
look at alternatives to do that. What we found was that there was only a
' nominal improvement in saving the trees and in exchange for that we lost some of
the bigger trees. In addition, doing that would wind up filling part of the DNR
wetland. Now the DNR doesn't normally allow you to fill wetlands but they said
' if you could really demonstrate that you had substantial tree preservation they
might consider it. Based upon what we know today, I don't think we could sell
them on that. I think there was a net benefit of 40 caliper inches of trees
which is hardly substantial enough to allow filling of a wetland, I don't
believe anyway. An approved landscaping plan has been prepared. However we do
have several changes or additions to that which were being recommended that we
carried forward through the Planning Commission. Access and utilities to
' adjacent to lots owned by Ted Coey and Jim Ravis were explored. We concluded
that sewer and water should be stubbed into the Ravis property. The Ravis
parcel, if you could put the location map back up. The ravis parcel is just
' located to the east of the site in this vicinity here. I believe Mr. Ravis has,
if I'm not mistaken, this lot and this lot back here. We did conclude that
sanitary sewer and water should most appropriately be extended from this
property into that area. Access into that area was another matter however.
' That if that lot does have frontage out on Powers, there are some alternatives
for providing driveway access to it. We did conclude that a cul -de -sac however
extending from the Lundgren property made no sense in that area. You lost a lot
of trees to get it through there but by the time you got the cul -de -sac through
the Ravis property, there's no Ravis property left to develop. So it really
wasn't a very effective means of serving the property. The Coey property, we
did look at various alternatives for realigning the western portion of the
' street through there hopefully to avoid those trees. Mr. Coey's not involved
in this plat. He did talk to us earlier on about the possibility of becoming
involved in it and decided against it. But we did look at it from a topographic
' standpoint and again we concluded that it's not impossible to do things. Run
things out to that property but you did incur significant environmental damage
to do it and there really didn't seem to be any reason to pursue it any further.
' As far as utilities go to the Coey property, we are recommending that the
sanitary sewer be stubbed out that way. The lift station that's going to be
built in the Lundgren plat is deep enough so it can provide some service to some
of those properties west of the site for a short distance and we figure we might
' as put that in as long as we have the ability to do that. On the last matter,
the Planning Commission did not make this a condition. They made a suggestion
or some such language that Lot 14 be looked at as being removed from the plat.
We're not sure really how to approach that. The developer can speak for
' themselves but they believe that the economics of the project are contingent
44
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
upon maintaining the lots as they're shown but more importantly it's that we
couldn't find a rationale based on the ordinance or plan to tell them this lot
needed to go. There may be some lot reconfigurations that occur because the
pond on the Lots 1 and 2 and 3 has to be enlarged but as far as this plat goes,
the lots are larger by far than our average lot size or minimum lot sizes that
we've had in most of the recent plats while the density in this plat is
considerably lower than we've experienced elsewhere. So we couldn't find any
rationale to come-up with one way or the other for that. And again that was
not a condition. The Planning Commission asked that it be investigated I guess
was the language. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending that the
three requests be approved subject to appropriate conditions. I should also
point out that the Park Board did explore this I believe a month ago and
concluded that they would prefer to get the cash in lieu of land on this
property.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Paul. Does anyone wish to present anything from ,
Lundgrens?
Terry Forbord: Your honor, members of the City Council. Terry Forbord, 935 '
East Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata, MN 55391. Your honor we probably have 3 hours of
presentation if the City Council would like us to begin from the beginning.
Staff has done an exemplary job in the staff reports both at the informational
meeting for the Planning Commission, at the public hearing at the Planning
Commission and certainly in packet of information that you have before you. I
was looking at this this morning. It's been a long time since I saw a staff
report this thick on a project of this small size but every bit of the work that
went into it needed to be done and it has been thoroughly analyzed in a very
professional manner. But if the City Council would prefer, I will deal
specifically with the items that we feel are problems for us with this and I
will deal specifically with those. I would be happy to answer questions that
anybody on the City Council may have about specific items so I guess I will take
whatever direction the Council would prefer us to take. I know it's late and
I know.
Mayor Chmiel: I think I've sat in on this about 2 different times already and
I'm sure some of the Council has as well so maybe it'd be best for you to go
through your objections as to some of the conditions that were contained within.
Terry Forbord: I would like to say then in proceeding, many of the items that
I'm going to discuss with you tonight or ask you to review or reconsider, none
of them are really earth shattering issues. However, some of them are
significant enough where they may jeopardize the success of this project and 11 from a Lundgren Bros. standpoint, that's very important and we also believe from
the City's standpoint that they wouldn't want us to proceed in a manner that
would be something less than what the City would want as well. For the purpose
of saving time, I prepared a copy of the resolution for each one of you and
highlighted the areas where we would like you to either modify or delete. I
would like to just reiterate or elaborate once more that nobody in this room or
in this city has more at stake in this proposed neighborhood community than
Lundgren Bros.. Every single endeavor that we enter into we have our reputation
and our economic vitality at stake and I think it's only fair to say that we've
enjoyed working in the city of Chanhassen and I think they've enjoyed having us
here and so the issues that I'm discussing are issues that we feel are important
45
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
enough to bring to your attention. The first item that you will see highlighted
' in green is just an item that we'd like you to reconsider. Let me just tell you
briefly why. We had proposed initially a 26 foot wide street through this
neighborhood community. There is a very small number of homesites. The road
that goes through this neighborhood community serves only those home sites
within the community and this particular site, as Paul has elaborated on and if
you have read the material in the packet you surely discovered that this site is
very unique in the amount of wetlands and tree stands and slopes that it
' contains. So it was a very difficult site to design around because all sites
have physical constrains but typically they're concentrated in a particular area
of the site. This particular site has them scattered throughout which made it
' very difficult. And so there was some consensus that let's try to reduce the
right -of -way because as you know Chanhassen is the leader in trying to protect
trees and certainly maximize in senisitivity to wetlands and so there was design
11 parameters of the site. Attempts to reduce the right -of -way. Reduce the
pavement. Design this more to be sensitive as possible. And as many of you may
know, there certainly is a movement afoot nationwide on local neighborhood
streets to reduce the right -of -way, not expand it. And so we had designed it in
' that manner. However, there were some issues that were put forth by staff. Some
concerns that they had relative to that and so apparently a compromise was
reached that on certain portions of this site where there was a greater
' sensitivity than on other portions of the site, that those points there would be
a 26 foot right -of -way and at the other parts of the site I believe was, excuse
me. Not right -of -way but pavement. The other parts were 31. Is that correct
' Rick? We'd like you to just reconsider this and maybe a as a pilot program,
because it is our belief and I believe that staff would also suggest to you that
it is their belief that sometime in the future in this decade, you are going to
see probably within the city of Chanhassen you're going to be reviewing street
' widths and right -of -ways and things like that and should neighborhood
communities be designed for automobiles or should they be designed for people
and families. Obviously on collector streets and arterial streets, those
' streets need to be of a greater width because they create larger amounts of
traffic and so you may want to just reconsider it to allow this particular
neighborhood to proceed with a 26 foot wide street. There's really no financial
gain for the developer in doing this but it does impact the development in that
there's less blacktop. Less asphalt. The streetscape, the street scene that
you drive through the development does not, you're attaching more to the green
than the black and so we ask you just to reconsider it Item number 2 {b). We
' would like to ask you to delete that item. And I'm going to talk about
landscaping just very briefly. In my 22 years in doing what I do, there are a
number of overused words that I hear in Council Chambers all over the Twin
' Cities. One of them is berming. One of them is landscaping. One of them is
the work open space. And all of those things are extremely important and we put
lots of them in our projects. However, for the lay person they're overused
often times. They're thought of as fix alls and cure alls and that if we berm
' this or landscape this, then everything will be wonderful and rosy and fuzzy and
warm. Well I think any landscape architect will tell you that it's as important
of what you do not landscape as is what you do landscape. The best analogy I
could think of on my way here, for those of you who have ever been involved in
any form of marketing at all or design layout of advertising or whatever, they
will tell you it's not so much what you put in the ad. It's what you don't put
in the ad and it's called white space. They don't want to have pictures and
words everywhere in the ad. They want to leave some things open and they want
' 46
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
to put the focus where it is most important to have it. And so in my line of
work, one thing that we've done and you'll see this within your own community
and projects that we have done. Oftentimes we have areas where there's intense
landscaping and then you'll go around an area where there's none and we call
them peek -a -boo corridors. For instance in Near Mountain you'll notice that we
bring the roadway right on down to the pond and then all of a sudden you'll be
able to see that pond. You'll be able to look for a thousand yards: Or
hundreds of feet and you see these corridors. These view corridors. Well those
are all thought out very clearly and done intentionally. So when we go into
landscaping on our project and I think it would be fair to say of all the
residential landscapers in Chanhassen, we probably have done more of it than
anybody else. We take it very seriously and we're not trying to come in and
propose something to you where we're trying to get by or sneak by. We have a
hidden agenda of not doing any landscaping. That is not the point but we do
want to make sure that wherever we do spend our money, that it's put in the
areas where we think it's most appropriate. So item (b) where it says 4 trees
of the type recommended by the DNR Forester shall be added to the area between
the public road and the Class A wetland. In the staff report it said that staff
was recommending that they wanted to separate the road from that wetland and
they wanted to do it with some trees. We want to do exactly the opposite and
Rick, if you'd put up a site plan so we can talk a little bit about why. I
think you'll understand what I'm saying. If you've ever even driven around the
Arboretum and I know many of you here do, you'll see where they do the same
thing there. They want to bring the road right down to a very important part of
the site so people can see it. If you'd point to the corner or the shaded area
that I'm speaking specifically about. Right on the Ersbo curve is what I call
it. See that little shaded area. Now originally the discussion was that there
wanted to be some landscaping there and the discussion further eluded that the
main purpose of that was because there's a 2:1 slope there. We wanted to make
sure there was no erosion, etc. and we wanted to establish ground cover there,
which we think is very important as well. However, we want people coming in
there to see the wetland because it's important. We feel if we put trees there,
then it's going to take away from looking at the wetland. They're going to be
seeing trees. Now I'd rather take that money and put it at the entrance or put
it somewhere where you're going to get more bang for your buck. Item number
(c), there's a typo on the information that I've given to you. The first part
of that paragraph states that the berm and the landscaping on Lot 1, Block 2
shall be extended to the edge of the wetland. Maybe you'd show where that is
Rick. Okay right now you can see where it stops right there and that should be
added on...Rick would you maybe draw that on there. There you go. Now if you'd
use that other exhibit, the overhead that would show what our concerns are there
and I think these are small things but this is going to be the point of entry,
point of arrival to this neighborhood and we want to make sure we do this right.
We haven't had a lot of chance to sit down with staff and go over these fine
tooth details because I think staff would concur if we would have had the time
and the opportunity to do that. Because I know they're very sensitive to the
landscaping as much as we are. This is a blow up of the northwest corner of the
site where the roadway enters into the property and Rick maybe you'd point to
where that Walker Pond is. Okay right there is a Walker Pond and that is one of
the sedimentation ponds that is going to be collecting materials prior to it
being discharged into the DNR wetland. And the large dotted line, Rick, I
believe that is the grading limits.
47
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
Rick Sathre: Right. This line is the grading limits.
11 Terry Forbord: Alright, that is the grading limits. In other words, everything
north, if north was at the top of this exhibit, everything in the northwest
corner is not going to be graded and there is existing vegetation there now. So
it is our intent that we would leave that alone and left what is currently there
and if you look on the tree survey, you will note that there is vegetation
there. So rather than spending money putting it where there already is
vegetation in an area that isn't being graded or whatever, we think it's more
appropriate to take those monies and to put them where they'll have a greater
degree of impact. And additionally, we would like people when they come in to
see that pond. There are a number of places within that the City of Chanhassen
that you know there are ponds and entrances and rather than screen them, we
think it's an important amenity for people to be able to visualize them. Moving
on to page 15 of staff report and it would be page, I believe the 4th page of
the handout that I handed to you. That's all that I had to say about the
landscaping and I do want to close in saying that it is again, and I think it's
indicative of our neighborhood communities, it is very important to us that the
II landscaping be done right. We don't take it lightly and we are not trying to
escape what the City expects from us here. We're just wanting to make sure that
it is done and it's well thought out. Item number 13. We're asking to delete
that item. That item, the Planning Commission had asked, I'm not so sure if it
was a directive or if it was asked to look into.
Paul Krauss: Could I respond to that? I would agree with Terry that that's a
' typo on our part. Now we were laboring with engineering and ourselves Wednesday
and Thursday trying to figure out what our final recommendation would be. The
text reflects that our final recommendation for the Ravis property is, you know
we can't substantiate a need to put through a driveway there. We left it open
for you to decide whether you wanted to do it but we were not going to condition
that and that should be deleted.
Terry Forbord: Number 13?
Paul Krauss: Well are we talking about access to the Ravis property or the two
' lots on the curve?
Terry Forbord: Well I think it was the two lots on the curve.
Paul Krauss: Alright. Then that's another issue. That gets to a concern that
engineering had raised that we have a short area of, that's not the final.
' Terry Forbord: Actually I think it was an issue raised by the Planning
Commission and their concern was, Rick if you'd put the correct site plan up
there. That's an old. I think it's much easier to depict for members of the
' City Council. Okay maybe you'd point to Lot 6 and 7. Okay, that's Lot 6 and
that is Lot 7. The concern of the Planning Commission was that the driveways to
each lot may appear to be too close together and so they had asked that they
become combined driveways to serve those two lots. We just ask you to consider
' deleting that because first of all we feel that most people who own a lot would
want to have their own driveway. They would rather not have to share a driveway
with a neighbor and this particular curve is not unlike probably hundreds of
curves within the city of Chanhassen and on cul -de -sacs already in the city
1 48
1
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
1
where people all have their same driveways with the same radius that this curve
has and we think it will make it harder to sell those lots if we tell somebody
we have to share a driveway with your neighbor. We don't think it's a hardship
or an unusual situation here so we would just ask you to delete it.
Rick Sathre: The reason those driveways, I'm Rick Sathre from Sathre - Berquist.
The reason those driveways are close together is because the initial plan showed
an eyebrow cul -de -sac down here. Was just an extra asphalt being put in that
former project and I think we agree with the staff that maybe that wasn't
necessary so we redrew the lot lines taking out that extra pavement. That
brings the driveways closer together and taking out the street.
Terry Forbord: Again we'd just like you to reconsider and delete it if you 1
would agree. Item number 15 on the staff report. The resolution deals with the
situation that I'm not entirely clear on how to discuss this or share this with
you. However we believe that it is prejudicial against Lundgren Bros.. I
cannot think of and I called other cities today and real estate attorneys. I
cannot think of a project anywhere in the State of Minnesota to my knowledge
that has ever been a condition of approval where a developer is required to go
out and pull Purple Loosestrife out of the site and then maintain that for a
period of time and then also tell the homeowners that they have to do the same
thing. If it's a position that the city wants to take, I think they should
adopt an ordinance. They should make the people in Curry Farms do it. They
should make the people in Greenwood Shores do it. And they should make every
other citizen who has any•piece of property with any kind of weed on it that is
a noxious weed, everybody should have to do it. I don't think it is fair for
Lundgren Bros. to be singled out in this particular project and as a condition
of approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Greenwood Shores I know have done that. 1
Terry Forbord: Pardon me?
Mayor Chmiel: Their association has gone through and removed loosestrife as
well as sprayed.
Terry Forbord: I think that's commendable and I think that's something that all
neighbors can do but I don't think there's been a proposal before the city where
it's been a condition of approval. At least not to my knowledge.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I think we got that condition from the ONR. The ONR
occasionally overstates what they think we have an ability to do. As far as
development though, introducing or helping the spread of loosestrife, that
happens and it's probably reasonable to think that before the project is done
you go pull out what's there and make sure that we've got a clean site.
Thereafter it becomes a city controlled problem that we haye city wide. I don't
see how we can permanently bind anybody with that when they don't have an
interest but I think it's valid to look at if construction activity, disturbing
an area around a wetland helps to spread of Purple Loosestrife, it should be
removed when the construction is done and then let nature take it's course.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I was trying to point out is that some of the people take
this upon themselves as well. They went to the DNR. The DNR provided them
49
1
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
materials to eliminate it and of course they did a great job.
Terry Forbord: Yeah, I'm not arguing whether it's a noble cause or not because
it is but a similar example would be if you made a property owner who lives on
-Lake Minnetonka. He came in for a building permit and you tell him he has to
' take care of all the milfoil out in front of his property as a condition to
getting his building permit but nobody else on his street has to do it.
' Mayor Chmiel: It - sounds like not a bad idea.
Councilman Mason: You've got to start somewhere.
Terry Forbord: Well the point is, if that is the case, then let u"s start. Let's
make it an ordinance. Let's make everybody do it. Every developer. Every
project and I think it's prejudicial to single out this particular project.
' Item number 16. We would ask that you modify the language in this resolution.
It states municipal sanitary sewer and water service should be extended easterly
to the west line of the Ravis parcel. If so, we believe that the cost of
' extending the sewer and water service shall be paid by Ravis'. I would also
like to point out that there's a lift station that's being installed on this
property that's going to service that area. Lundgren Bros. is going to be
putting in for the record. I would like it stated that we believe that those
people should pay their fair share of that lift station.
Paul Krauss: You mentioned it and I was looking. There was an omission on this
' too because we also wanted to extend the sewer over to the Coey property and I
think that in fact is shown on your original plan so it wasn't made as a special
point. We certainly do, I don't know if that's a normal development cost or not
t but we certainly do want these things put in now. There's no question in my
mind that if you don't do that and we just reserve an easement, somebody's going
to plant their tomato patch there or their bushes and we effectively won't be
able to get services to these properties in the future.
.' Terry Forbord: We concur with staff on that. We just want to modify it and
make sure the proper language is in there. Item number 17, we would like to ask
' you to reconsider. This is going to take some time to talk about this
particular issue here. It states that the water level in the DNR wetland lying
south of Lake Lucy Road should be maintained at a level not to exceed 975.5.
' Probably the most indepth part of this proposal, the most discussion, the most
research, the most money spent to date has centered around that wetland. And
all has been intentional. I hope that each of you has visited this site
recently or at least sometime this summer. If so, you will see what certainly
' would not be classified by anybody, including the DNR, the Army Corps and by any
consultant, as a healthy wetland because it is not a healthy wetland. .It is
right now currently as it exists a slew. Now sure there are some wildlife that
' are living there. However, if that was a healthy wetland, you would see a
greater variety of species and wildlife and certainly a greater variety of
species of plant life in there. We do have wildlife and wetland specialists
with us this evening that can address these issues in greater detail but one of
the attempts when we looked at this site is that first of all we thought, this
thing has got a problem and how can we fix it. So we hired a limnologist to
study the water quality. We conducted an anlysis of the watershed because
really a wetland is only a picture of what the watershed around it is. And we
1 50
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
developed a methodology, the Walker Ponds of controlling runoff and
sedimentation, all in the attempts to try and bring this wetland back to life.
Now I don't profess to be an expert in wetlands but through this process I have
Learned enough and that part of bringing that back to life is increasing the
amount of water in it and also increasing the flow rate of water that will go
through it. I don't know how much background all of you have about this
particular wetland but it was not a wetland until probably 15-20 years ago and
aerial photos will certainly bear that out. However, over the course of time
because what man has done to it, and that includes the City because the city
probably has polluted that wetland more than any other individual with the
deicing chemicals on Lake Lucy Road, what we have done to that over time is
we've almost destroyed it. So staff, planning and engineering department alike,
one of the goals we all decided that we wanted from the get go was how do we
bring this wetland back to life. Make it everything that everybody probably
would want it to be. Certainly make it something that a home buyer would want
to live around. Well the way that it is right now, nobody would want to live
around it or up close to it because it really doesn't look all that healthy and
it's getting worse. So we developed, the engineers developed ways on how we can
bring that back to life. Now part of that involves more water. We are hoping
to raise that water level by 2 feet. Now the ONR, I'm not totally convinced
that the DNR said that they don't think that was a good idea because I met with
them out on site. They weren't entirely convinced that by raising the water
level would guarantee that the water quality would improve. However they did
say that the wildlife habitat would be greatly increased. That's even in their
letter. Now the people that were out there on the site from the DNR were not
water quality specialists. One was a wildlife, the area wildlife manager and
the other was a hydrologist. So with all due respect to the DNR, they certainly
have good people. However, they have not spent the amount of time on this that
those of us who are trying to bring that thing back to life. They have come out
and done what was asked of them to do. But the issue that I think staff had the
problem with was not whether it would work or whether it wouldn't work. It was
whether it would have a negative impact on the road base of Lake Lucy Road.
Currently the outlet that flows I believe out of that is at 974.5. Because of
sedimentation there's been a delta that has accumulated around that outlet and
it's somewhat plugged up so right now the water depth today is at 975.5. Okay
that is the recommended level that staff is proposing. So in other words, it's
going to look the same way in perpetuity if we keep the water level the same.
Now you can always say we're going to put in Walker Ponds and maybe over time
with sedimentation occurring in the Walker Pond, maybe over time the water
quality will improve. Our wetland consultant and our engineer are telling me
that they're very skeptical about that. That they think it's going to probably
look just the way it does today. If it stays at the same water level it is
today, it's going to look the way that it does today. And so we believe if we ,
can raise that water level up one more foot which doesn't sound like a whole lot
but in the scope of these types of things, one foot ends up meaning a whole lot.
That we will be able to have something that we believe the city will like seeing
there and certainly what we believe home buyers will like having there and I
believe that the little critters who probably live in that area will probably
enjoy it as well. Now the city staff, the engineering department's concern
about will it have an effect on the roadbed of Lake Lucy Road is obviously a
very valid concern. We asked JME Soil Consultants to study the as builts of
that road. The pre- existing conditions of that road prior to it's improvement
and we asked staff to assist us in the assemblying of those as- builts. '
51 1
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
Unfortunately the city doesn't have them and staff helped us determine who it
' was that was the consulting engineer and we went to the consulting engineers.
Got the information. Took the information to a soils scientist. The soil
scientist have written a letter to us and if you would like to put the last page
of that letter up there that depicts what the conclusions are. It is our, under
discussion, it is our opinion that an elevated water table will not increase the
long term settlement of the compressable soils because they have, maybe you can
quit doing that because that's making it harder for me to read. Because they
have previously undergone primary settlement and are currently undergoing
secondary settlement and they are in a saturated condition. The change in water
table elevation would not significantly change this condition or effect a clean
' granular fill soil which has experienced traffic loading and freeze thaw cycles
over a period now of 5 years. It is also our opinion that the increased water
level, although extending into the stabilizing aggregate, should not affect the
shear strength of the material causing premature pavement failure because the 3
' to 5 foot separation layer between the ground water surface and the road surface
will be maintained. Therefore, based on our review of the above information and
the assumption that the roadway was reconstructed using materials meeting the
' project's specifications as we understand, it is our opinion that increasing the
water level in the pond to elevation 976.5 should not affect the performance of
Lake Lucy Road. Rick, I think do you have any additional comments relative to
that? Is it your professional opinion that it will not?
' Rick Sathre: Yes. That's right. The raised water level will still be
approximately 5 feet below the road surface and that, in my opinion is adequate
separation.
Charles Folch: If I might add in there that the actual low point of the road
' where these catch basin structures are located, the water level will be within 3
feet of the surface but as you increase on the grade of course you've got a
greater separation but in that low point area it will be within 3 feet. The
water level would be within the structural granular soil correction that was
' done to the road base and one of the things that concerns me out there is that
maybe driving that road you've all noticed this too but there's been a
settlement in that road. The low point is no longer where those catch basins
' are. There's been a shear failure that's occurred even before this project was
even probably thought about. What that subsoil looks like at that shear failure
point? I don't know. Is the fabric still integrated? I don't know. You
don't know that unless you open it up. So intuitively my gut feeling is I have
' some concern with raising the water level into that structural corrected area. I
agree that if it was maintained at the current level, it probably wouldn't have
any differential impact on that super saturated soil that's there already. It's
' already like they mentioned, a secondary consolidation. Getting back into the
granular corrected area, that does have some concerns of mine and I certainly
don't want to come across as being a soils expert because I don't claim to be
that. Certainly GME are qualified people to take a look at this issue but it's
a gut feeling that I do have concern for.
Rick Sathre: You honor, I understand the fear. The problem that we've got with
' not raising the level another foot, right now if that sediment delta were
cleaned out there'd only be 2 feet of water depth in that wetland at the maximum
depth. Most of it would be about a foot deep. Right now with the sediment
holding the water higher there, the maximum depth point is 3 feet and probably
' 52
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
1
the average elevation in there over the whole basin is a foot and a half. What
we're trying to do is get some of that wetland area to have a water depth
between 3 and 4 feet. The reason that's important, as I understand it, Frank
Svoboda's here and he'd be better able to tell you this but if the water quality
can be improved enough so that the lake can get to the bottom soils of the pond,
we're going to start to get vegetation growing all over that basin. Where the
water depth is less than 3 feet deep, we're going to get emergent vegetation.
We're going to get reeds or something growing up through the water surface. If
the water depth is all less than 3 feet deep, that whole basin, the whole area
that's wetland would fill in with vegetation. So you won't have the diversity
of the open water and vegetation. So we need some area that's deeper than 3
feet in order to promote a diversity of habitat. We're successful cleaning up
though wetland that don't increase the water depth and eventually we won't have
an active open water or partially open water. That's our problem.
Terry Forbord: At times I think it's fair to say that that water level has been
higher than 975.5 because there have been storms that have occurred. Certain
events that have occurred where over a period of time that water level is higher
than it is now so we believe that that pond has fluctuated. It's been higher
and it's been lower. It's already been through those freeze thaw cycles now for
5 years and so, I'm not qualified. I'm not an engineer and I can only contact
soil scientist and talk to other engineers and ask their opinions and that's why
we hired GME which is a soil analyst to review the as builts to tell us. And
their opinion, as I read to you just previously, they don't feel that it will
impact it but I certainly can share in the city's concern. They don't want
anybody to do something that's going to cause harm to it. I think it's one of
those things that you look here and you say in the big picture we're trying to
accomplish a lot of things. We're trying to improve some things and what are
the down sides and what are the up sides and we believe that the up sides here
and the risk are minimal. Item number 18. We would like to ask you to modify
that. That deals specifically with what Paul has discussed about plugging the
catch basins on Lake Lucy Road and running storm sewer into one of our Walker
Ponds. I would like to point out that that is an off site improvement. That
problem is not attributable to the subject property and because of that we
believe that that should be a city born project and that the city should pay for
that. The last item would be on page 16 of the staff report or the last page of
the document that I gave to you. It states that the applicant shall work with
the engineering department to guarantee that increasing the water level of the
Class A wetland will not affect the stability of Lake Lucy Road. Now this is an
unusual thing because here we are. We're telling you we think you should raise
the water level because it's going to solve the wetland problem and we're asking
you then to delete the fact that we're going to guarantee to you that it won't
affect it. I know that sounds unusual but I'd like to just point out a couple
of things. When the city initiates a project anywhere in the city for any
particular infrastructure improvement, whatever it may be, they never guarantee
the project. There are some things that the wording here is just a little bit
too strong. Because there are some things that could occur that Lundgren Bros.
would absolutely have no control over and if the City's asking me to guarantee
it, how can I guarantee something I have absolutely no control over? An example
would be if there was a 100 year event where we had a 10 inch rainfall, or two
of them over a 72 hour period like we did not so many years back. 3 -4 years
where I believe we had two 10 inch rainfalls. And if somebody downstream
between our subject property and Lake Lucy, for whatever reason, chose to plug
53
,1
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
up the outlet. Both of those things would have occurred at absolutely no
control of us and if something happened that would make that road collapse, it
' could back and say well you guys guaranteed that nothing would ever happen to
this road. Well obviously those situations nobody can guarantee. So I just
believe that this should be diluted or it should be modified because the word
guarantee is stronger than even the City itself ever uses on any of it's own -
projects. Obviously we would work with city staff as we have in an attempt to
make sure that whatever public improvements goes in anywhere, whether it be the
' storm sewer or it would be a water pipe or whatever, would meet the
specifications and meet what is required of it. So those are the items that we
ask you to consider, modify or delete and we are prepared to answer any
questions. Once again we do have our wetland and wildlife specialist, Mr. Frank
' Svoboda with us in the audience and Rick Sathre, the consulting engineer to ask
any questions. Thank you very much.
' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to ask any specific
questions in relationship to the project? Please come forward and state your
name and address please.
' Nada Murphy: I'm Nada Murphy, 1215 Lake Lucy Road. Your honor Mayor and
respected Council members. Our concern is I can see that a lot of time and
effort has been put into the project to preserve this wetland. We do have a
' question as to the, we have adjoining property so we're just to the east of this
site. On behalf of the little area I can say there are deer inhabiting it.
Owls and other wildlife so there is wildlife there that is worth consideration.
And one of the concerns that we have is how many lots are there that will be
' draining into this area? How many lots in the project?
' Paul Krauss: There's 37 lots in the plat. Now not all of those lots drain
directly into the ONR wetlands. Some of them drain further to the south and
into other water bodies. Rick, do you know where the drainage split is?
Rick Sathre: I've got a drawing in here somewhere that shows it but basically,
let me use another drawing. The water that goes in there would break about like
' this.
Nada Murphy: Is that where the hill, the edge of the hill is?
' Rick Sathre: The water would break about...we're going to storm sewer into the
DNR pond like this. Then there's certainly water running down Lake Lucy Road
that goes in there.
Nada Murphy: We're aware of that. Okay. With all those lawns draining in
there, what will the water quality be of that wetlands area when all the
fertilizer and everything?
' Paul Krauss: We have no ability to really control what individuals use to
fertilize there. Some cities have actually put ordinances on the books to
' regulate a homeowner's use of fertilizer. I shudder to think how one might
enforce that and you really want to use an educational effort. But we're doing
a couple things here that we haven't done before that we think will help that.
We're protecting the, nobody's going to be allowed to sod their lawn right up to
54
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
the wetland which is currently the case. There's going to be a buffer strip
permanetiy established around all the wetlands that will be allowed to grow in
natural vegetation. And all the evidence we've seen says that will serve to
filter out a lot of what happens on the lawns before it gets into the wetlands.
Also we've had a lot of problems in the past that people haven't understood it
exactly where the wetlands are. We've been working with Lundgrens to actually
get monumentation on the property so a homeowner's going to know where that line
is.
Nada Murphy: That was my next question. How many acres do you actually '
consider wetlands or Class A or Class 8 wetlands?
Paul Krauss: We had that number broken out. I don't recall that number right 1
off the top of my head.
Nada Murphy: For instance, how much of it is wet right now? Today. And then
that would all be considered wetlands.
Paul Krauss: Actually we're getting a net increase in the wetland area and I
don't remember the exact numbers but we're netting something like .8 of an acre
increase in wetland area so they've actually done better than no net loss.
Nada Murphy: Then one of the other questions we had was all of the area from ,
Powers Blvd. and Lake Lucy Road, from that corner all drain into that wetlands
too and that's part of our, part of that is our property. Is that drainage,
that's a natural drainage area that flows because of the grade of the land and
so on, just flows into that area. How is that going to be maintained or is that
going to, how will that be affected in this process?
•
Rick Sathre: Are you talking about the drainage that comes across down in here?
Nada Murphy: We're right on Lake Lucy Road. Our driveway is 1215.
Harry Murphy: We're on the north end. North along Lake Lucy.
Nada Murphy: Well we're on the south side of the Lake Lucy Road but just to the
east of your project.
Rick Sathre: The water right now is sheeting . across this way. That would
continue to be able to come there.
Nada Murphy: That would? Okay. So that would not be disturbed then? What
about all the fill? There's a huge amount of fill going in on the corner of
Powers Blvd. and Lake Lucy Road and that is all draining too. We're also
concerned about that changing the natural drainage across there and is that a
permit situation?
Mayor Chmiel: That's the Kerber's property.
Paul Krauss: Yeah there is a. '
Harry Murphy: Kerber's have hauled in hundreds and hundreds of truck loads of
fill and...that grade of that land is 20 feet higher in spots. '
55 '
City Council Meeting'- September 9, 1991
Paul Krauss: Well we're not sure what his intention is in terms of use on the
property. I mean we've heard rumors from time to time that Mr. Kerber believes
this an ideal commercial corner which is in no way, shape or form what city
plans say.
Harry Murphy: How could you permit this to happen?
' Paul Krauss: Well what he's doing, we've also heard from time to time that it's
a potential church site but there are no proposals in front of us. City
ordinances allow sites to be filled or earth work to be undertaken and it's
presumably to make it more buildable. I know he's got a permit through our
' engineering department for less than the amount. We have a 1,000 yard cap and
he is under that. I know that Dave Hempel on our staff is working with Mr.
Kerber on that and the natural drainage flow is supposed to be maintained.
' Nada Murphy: 1,000 yard cap? There's 10, how many yards in a dump truck
because there's many dump trucks going in there?
Paul Krauss: About 10.
Nada Murphy: Yeah. 10 yards. 12 yards.
Harry Murphy: ...like 10 feet below the grade.
' Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up to the microphone and please state your
name and your address also?
Harry Murphy: Same address.
Nada Murphy: That's my husband, Harry Murphy. 1215 Lake Lucy Road. Okay. Our
concern is also that this is draining into this wetlands and if all that was
' being taken into consideration because everybody's trying so hard to do a good
job up here. If there's some little thing that isn't being taken into
consideration that's going to spoil all the great efforts that you are doing, it
seems like there's just a, I think it's highly complimentary as hard as you are
trying that it would be a shame if something was to spoil it. I'm just trying
to bring up these issues too.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Nada Murphy: And is it possible to find out which trees are being saved in
there?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. In fact we do have a map right here showing all the trees
' on site.
Nada Murphy: So we can get a copy of that? Okay, thank you very much.
Appreciate it.
Mayor Chmiel: You're welcome.
' 56
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
Jim Ravis: My name is Jim Ravis. I live at 660 Old Powers Blvd.. I'd like to
thank the city planner and their staff. Ordinary citizens have somewhat of a
problem dealing with developments. We don't understand the procedures. We do
not have engineering firms at our disposal so I do compliment the planning staff
in working with us on this issue. They've been very patient and I'd like to
thank them for that. It's been brought up by the developer that they would
expect us to pay for the sewer extension and I certainly would not disagree with
that. Certainly would agree that we should pay for any increase in cost to the
development. However I don't understand the request for fair share on the lift
station. I don't know who would determine what a fair share is. Would that be
the city? The developer? The engineer?
Mayor Chmiel: Charles, can you answer that? t
Charles Folch: I guess I was a little surprised with the lift station. It's my
understanding that the lift station that's located on this site is over in the
southwest corner and I believe that serving the Ravis property could be served
by gravity sewer. So I think that, we can talk to maybe Rick, can you touch on
that one a little bit. What was the rationale? ,
Rick Sathre: Let me put another map to tell you. The red line is the Ortenblat
and Ersbo property boundary. The Ravis piece is like this. The Ortenblat
property, when you get down toward the south end is too low to be gravity
serviced off of Lake Lucy Road as is the Ravis property. But the alternatives
to service Ravis were either to go gravity to the south in the pipe that's in
Greenwood Shores down in this cul -de -sac but there's no easement I don't believe
to do that. Or to come from the lift station...inside the Lundgren Bros.
project. But the gravity sewer in Lake Lucy Road isn't deep enough to gravity
serve the south end of this site or the Ravis site. It's gets too low. 1
Jim Ravis: The other issue is, what is fair share mean? What do you base it
on? Do you base it on the value of the property which is undetermined? So I
don't understand that.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we can try to answer that.
Paul Krauss: I think we'd have to go back and see some prior city policies on
some of this but we've often talked in the past about developer installed
improvements or should the city install all the improvements. If we install all
the improvements it's quite clear. Mr. Ravis when he hooks would be paying us
that SAC hook -up charge that we were talking about earlier and whatever lateral
cost there is. The developer wishes to install these improvements themselves
and part of the down side of that is that the City is not involved in that loop.
We're not doing a project and we don't have the ability to assess Mr. Ravis for
the cost downstream. In my past experience and this is in other communities,
that's been the down side risk that the developer essentially eats because they
believe they can put in the utilities or whatever cheaper than the city can.
The lift station is going to be installed to serve the Lundgren property anyway.
We're clear that that needs to be done. I don't know if it's being oversized to
handle some off site properties or not but I fail to understand how we get a
portion of the cost for that lift station assessed to either Mr. Coey or Mr.
Ravis, particularly when it's not a public project. I mean we'll accept these
things when they're done.
57 ,
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
II Mayor Chmiel: I agree with that analogy basically.
II Jim Ravis: Third concern I have is, if you could put a site map up there
please. The map of the development. In the south part of the development and `
in the southeast corner there's a wetland. That wetland has never overflowed
II onto our property even in 10 inch rains. It's a known fact that on slopes, when
you put them in a manicured sod, that you get much more runoff than you do the
way the property sits today. And I wonder if the proper analysis has been done
II to assure that that wetland will now overflow. I had asked about that before
but I had never gotten an adequate answer. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Could you quickly address that portion?
II Rick Sathre: This won't be very legible. This is the aerial photo of the site.
The blue line is the boundary. This is this southeasterly wetland. This is
II Greenwood Shores down here. The Ravis' property is over here. It appears that
he's correct and the wetland really doesn't go onto his property. Or it's right
at the edge. Our intention as far as the water flow, we haven't final designed
anything because we're still in preliminary plat stage but the intent is that we
I would start water in the DNR wetland hold it upstream to not increase the rate
of flow off the site towards Lake Lucy. We would actually propose to hold the
rate the same as it is which may actually slightly reduce the flow rate into the
I wetland that adjoins Ravis and is partially in Greenwood Shores. We have the
ability as part of the engineering of this subdivision to slow the water down
and that's what we propose to do.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Anyone else?
Ted Coey: I'm Ted Coey. 1381 Lake Lucy Road. I wasn't at the last meeting
II because I was on vacation but a couple things that bothered me mostly is the
fact that it seems that the land is being altered to suit the homes. I think
they're putting way too many homes into the site and I think it will affect the
I properties to the west because of the size of the lots and the type of homes. I
know BrianTichy has his house for sale. It's in the $400,000.00 bracket.
You're talking a hundred and some thousand dollar homes here. You've also got
30 acres but out of that 30 acres how much is actually buildable? A lot of that
II is wetlands, street area.
Mayor Chmiel: It's about 17 acres.
II Ted Coey: And that's an awful lot of houses for that site considering what the
properties are to the west. I'm definitely not in favor of the amount of houses
1 going in there. I think that the site should be, you should put the houses in
to suit the site. Not make the site suit the houses and that seems what's
happening here. If you didn't have the PUD, I think Joe checked it out and it
was 11 or 12 variances they'd have to have. I don't believe in that. I just
II don't think that this type of project should go in on this area. I think that
you should have the project conform to the rest of city's statutes without going
through with all these variances. Obviously you can get around it with the PUD.
1 I'm also concerned about the fact that I'm going to be assessed for something
else again as far as the stub. I have no intention of developing and obviously
if I have to pay a portion of the lift station, I don't think that's right
il unless I'm involved in this thing and planning on subdividing. I'm also
58
II
II
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
concerned about how close that road comes to the property on my east side and as
far as the impact on the pond and stuff on my property, which has a fairly large
pond which is right up next to partically to the lot line. So I have a lot of
concerns. Like I say, I missed the meeting that the Planning Commission had but
I just don't feel real comfortable with the way this thing lays. I hope the
City Council, I talked to a couple members of the Council and I hope this is all
taken into consideration because like you said, this is going to set a precedent
for other development like this and I feel strongly that the size of the houses
and the size of the lots should be a lot larger than they are just based on what 1
you have to the west of the property. I'd like to see the houses in the
5200,000.00 range at least. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else who has any concerns? 1
Joe Morin: I'm Joe Morin and I live at 1441 Lake Lucy Road. I'm Ted's neighbor
and I support what Ted has said. I issued a lot of my concerns in a letter to
the Planning Commission. I'm not going to go over that here because I think
it's in the record but there's a lot of unanswered questions and frankly I'm
kind of surprised that this has really gotten past the Planning Commission and
is in your hands today because there's still a lot of new questions that have
come up yet tonight that I feel haven't really been adequately addressed. I
also want to challenge Lundgren Bros. ascertation that no one has a higher stake
in this than they do. I think the people in the surrounding community, the
people who live next to this site, the people who are going to live in the site
and the people gathered here today and you folks, have a far greater stake
because your stake isn't one of economic interest. We live here and so I want
to make it clear that I live here and I think that's a heck of a lot more
important right now. Okay. We're talking about first of All the road. We
discussed moving the road to avoid wiping out that stand of 150 year old oak
trees. My question to Paul is, you said there's a net of 40 caliper trees. I'm
not sure what that means. I do know that the trees to the right, there's a lot
of them and they're little and they're scrub oaks and scrubby kind of brush
trees and I know the trees to the left are big, mature oaks, aspens and birch
so I think the quality of the wooded area that could be preserved by moving it
is something that hasn't been considered adequately. Do you have a comment
there? 1
Paul Krauss: Yeah. It's kind of tough to relate it to you because you don't
have access to this table but we had our engineering department do a table for
us to exactly what trees would be lost in the current proposal and what would be
lost under the alternative. It's kind of hard to compare apples and oranges but
the total difference in inches of trees is 41 inches. In terms of types of
trees, yes there are quite a few oaks that we're saving under their proposal.
Right now they're smaller. If we move it for example we lose a 30 inch oak and
a 27 inch oak. It really didn't seem to be persuasive enough to do it. Plus the
fact that the DNR has already told us that unless we bring to them some really
significant tree preservation issue, because they've never approved this kind of
filling of the wetland before, they're not going to allow us to do it. I can't
honestly go before them and tell that 41 inches of trees is substantial enough
to ask them for a permit to move that road into the wetland.
Joe Morin: If you could take them there and show them that knoll.
59
1
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
Paul Krauss: We've taken them there.
Joe Morin: And show them the scrub oak and show them the type of wetland and
the marginal impact that it would be I think, you've done that? I can't
believe that they would say don't move it. .�
Paul Krauss: Well they've already told us they don't give permits for filling
of ONR wetlands and that they could think of making an exception which they've
never done before if we bring to them that's incredibly different than what they
see and I don't think we have it here.
Joe Morin: We talked about the impact on the wetland. I think Lundgren talked
about the City's culpability here in deicing the road. Well that road's only
been there for 4 years and I think the pasture and the cornfield, the fertilizer
from agriculture and the manure for the past 50 years have certainly created a
far greater impact on that area than 4 years of deicing. But my main concern is
they are not doing anything here to improve the quality of the water. No matter
how much we've talked about it, we're back to ground zero. It's my
understanding now that we're not going to do anything, right? We once talked
about raising the level of water and now we're saying no, we're not going to do
that?
Paul Krauss: No, you're mistaken. What's at issue here is how much they're
going to raise it. It's already a foot above where it normally is because
' there's been some filling in the outlet. That...1 foot higher than it was
possibly. I don't know when this thing was plugged but it moves it 1 foot
higher than it was before. What the applicant would like to do and we've got
' some reservations with is boosting it another foot. But keep in mind that
there's a lot being done besides just raising the water level to remedy these
problems. We're requiring this development to install nutrient and
sedimentation ponds that we've never used before anywhere else in the city and
probably will be using them consistently in the city in the future. But this is
the first one to do it so we're taking care of their additional increment of
nutrients. We're coming in with a buffer strip around the wetland. Again is
something that we haven't done before but it should be a benefit. We're also
asking them to modify their system so we're getting some improvements from the
runoff from Lake Lucy Road and running it through their pond. Now I'm not sure
what else we can do at this point.
Joe Morin: Okay, let's focus on those Walker Ponds that you're talking about a
little bit here. I saw another change that was proposed here. Rick, could you
' put up a site plan overhead? At one time we had talked about a Walker Pond at
the south end of the Class A wetlands and I thought I heard you say in your
recommendations to the Council that that is no longer going to be there?
Paul Krauss: We're recommending that that be eliminated because we've had
advice that it's too small to be effective but in exchange this one's going to
be enlarged a comparable if not greater amount.
Joe Morin: Alright but all of the surrounding properties that the other lady
asked about are draining directly into the Class A wetland and then from there
they're going through a pipe into the Class B wetland. Is that correct? And
just dumping right in there.
1 60
1
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
Paul Krauss: It goes through another.
Joe Morin: It goes where?
Rick Sathre: A lot of the water that's running down Lake Lucy Road from these
properties and others goes into that catch basin system and right in there now.
A lot of that will still happen. I guess the way I would resolve the issue of
whether the road and water would be piped over to this pond. Then when the
water leaves this wetland, it would be discharged first into this new expanded
upland pond adjacent to the Class B wetland.
Joe Morin: I thought that area was decreased to make room for Lot 11. That
wetland is actually being filled is it not?
Rick Sathre: There's a finger here that's being filled and there's a finger
that comes up into here that's being filled but there's quite an expansion here.
This wetland area stays about the same or I think it's very, very close.
Joe Morin: Okay, but it is dumping directly in there. 1
Rick Sathre: This shows the filling areas. This is an expansion of the wetland
that we're proposing to enhance the whole area by recontouring it so that we get
a more diverse sedimentation base. And with the water that comes out of this
pond would be discharged into this one to maintain water levels in there and
then the water would run into the Class B wetland and on downstream to Lake
Lucy.
Joe Morin: But that is not a Walker Pond right there?
Rick Sathre: It doesn't have to be because of the fact that the water coming
out of the DNR wetland is, the flow coming out of there basically is... The
settling and stuff would occur elsewhere...
Joe Morin: Unless there's a event which causes more flow in which case it would
get washed and dump directly in there.
Rick Sathre: Well the more.
Joe Morin: My concern is that you have 37 homes dumping more fertilizer into
this delicate environment which is flowing down into Lake Lucy, the headwaters
of the Riley chain of lakes and no matter what you say here, we're adding more
garbage into that delicate environment and I think we're really overdoing it
here with 37 homes.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anything else that you have?
Joe Morin: Yeah, I don't mean to be. Basically I'm hearing a lot of talk about
Chanhassen being a leader from Lundgren and I really believe that we are. I'd
really hate to see us set an example with this kind of a, in the name of a
planned PUD to take these kinds of excessive variances I think in the
surrounding area. We counted like 11 I believe and filling two wetlands just to
put a lot in. I really don't, there's one other point I'd like to make. Do you
have that plat that shows the platting of this area and the surrounding
61 1
11
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
' Greenwood Shores area and the areas to the left? The one that you showed at the
earlier.
Rick Sathre: Well your point is that you think that these lots are smaller than
' everybody elses?
Joe Morin: Yeah. I'd like you to put that up. I think the Mayor just said
there's like 17 acres of land that's actually being built on. That would be a
density of about over 2 units per acre. Those are the end of my comments. I
don't want to delay this any longer_.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Joe. Anyone else?
Rick Sathre: Before we leave that point, this is a tabulation of the lot areas
in that subdivision. Total area and net upland area before and after the
wetland alterations. I guess it's pretty self explanatory. The average area of
the lots now, net of wetland is 21,705 square feet and after the development is
' completed they will be basically the same. That's well in excess of what the
City's expectations of 15,000 square foot...zoning district allows that.
' Councilman Mason: If the water level is raised 2 feet, according to the staff
report, it becomes about 15,000 square feet. If the water is raised the way you
guys want it. It exceeds 15,000 but it is less than 21,000 according to this
report on page 9 of this one.
Paul Krauss: No. What that says Mike is, we don't disagree with what you're
saying but what we're saying is it's still substantially in excess of 15,000.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, but.
Rick Sathre: Are you talking about that first line in the table?
Councilman Mason: No. Where it says, average lot removing wetland, before
raising water level is 21,705 square.
' Rick Sathre: That sentence says even after removing the wetland area the
avreage lot area is...
' Councilman Mason: Alright. Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: What I'd like to do, being that time is fleeting. I'd like to
limit other comments to about 3 minute each.
' Eric Rivkin: Thanks Mayor.
Mayor Chmiel: You're entirely welcome.
Eric Rivkin: As you can see by the number of people staying late that this is a
very important issue.
Mayor Chmiel: And we realize that so please state your issues.
' Eric Rivkin: Eric Rivkin, 1695 Steller Court and also the Co -Chair of the Lake
Lucy Homeowners Association representing 23 homeowners around Lake Lucy. We're
62
City Council Meeting - S eptember 9, 1991
very concerned about the water quality issues. I want to thank the City for
making an effort about saving the trees and water quality and I do support what
all the residents have said previous to me which will eliminate some time of
what I'm going to say. I think there are too many houses on this site for
different reasons. For environmental protection for one and removal of trees
and the density I think we're being a little bit, it's being a little bit
deceptive here if you put Curry Farms and Greenwood Shores and all the houses to
the west and east surrounding this, you'll see that the distance between houses
is extremely small in this PUD. I think they should be spread apart farther and
it's going to look very crowded. It's going to feel very crowded. It's going
to be out of place and inconsistent with the area. I realize that it may
eliminate some houses but the economics of it are no concern. I think it's
just, it's going to be way too crowded. The lot sizes may be, say they're
larger but actually in area but that's just becuase they're very long and
narrow. I do have a lot of background in water quality issues. Investigated
with our Riley- Purgatory Creek Watershed District on the Riley chain of lakes
project and I know that if you don't remove, it's my understanding that there's
no nutrients being removed from this wetland and I think, in my opinion and the
opinion of my biologist that worked for Lake Lucy's water quality, that if you
add developments around the watershed, that you are going to have a net
increase, a great net increase in nutrients loaded into a wetland that's
immediately on the edge of the manicured lawns and driveways and streets and
rooftops that are all going to drain into this. Unless you harvest the
nutrients somehow, get rid of them on a periodic basis, you're not going to have
a net loss of nutrients. Nutrients is the number one enemy of water quality
and everybody from the EPA all the way down to our own watershed district with a
mandate to reduce the water nutrient levels from our chain of lakes and the
entire watershed. I'm real concerned that if we are being sold on the basis
that there's going to be an improvement in water quality here, we need to put a
condition on this plat that provides a decent baseline to measure from. From
what I saw, to may knowledge so far, there is no decent water quality data that
involves what's in the sediment which is where the nutrients are at. There's no
water column, nutrient data and Mayor you know what I'm talking about. You've
got to have more than just an appearance, aesthetic measure of nutrients levels.
You have to do a bioessay and water chemistry that's thorough enough based on
U.S. Fish and Wildlife and ONR standards. We did that on Lake Lucy and measured
the sediment 40 feet down and the water quality and it only cost us $1,500.00.
Something of this size, I'm sure in a development that's going to be a million
dollars of land and houses is certainly worth, not going to cost that much. But
we need a baseline. We also need some kind of monitoring program and how do you
know how you're doing. What happens if it gets worse? What are the mitigating
measures and who pays for it? There are no water quality goals. If you have a
baseline data, you've got to have some goals. What are the nutrient levels
going to be 5 years from now? 10 years from now? Whatever in both the Class B
wetland and the Class A wetland. I also don't think enough effort was made.
I know Ceil Strauss, the hydrologist for our area and they do know a lot about
water quality. When they say that the land, they're going to get improvements
by improving, adding trees and stuff, they're talking about wildlife
improvement. They're selling us on the basis of improving it for wildlife. Well
that's what the ONR proposed. Let's put in some habitat that enhances that and
that's what they suggested. I don't think that should be eliminated. I also
think that there may be some error in, I'd like to see some figures and maybe
somebody can answer that for me now but I thought the wetland, the no net loss
63 '
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
wetland stake could not be underseeded. In other words, it's my understanding
' and I have a copy of the new law that says in developments like this, there's
supposed to be a 2:1 ratio of equal or better wetland quality and wetland
quality is measured by U.S. Fish and Wildlife classification numbers and by
what's there now for habitat and soil type and all that. I don't know what the
numbers are but I wish I'd like to see some real numbers on what's going on and
check the law out.
' Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I can respond to that last one I think fairly easily.
Roger and I and Jo Ann actually had a hand in writing the new law. We testified
in front of Representative Munger and met with his staff several times and had
some changes written in the law. To basically we thought improve it and give it
some local ability to do more than what the DNR was going to ask in fact. But
the law itself is not in effect. What is in effect is they basically said, and
I think Roger tell me if I'm wrong because I know I had you look this up, that
there's a no net loss policy that they want to do right now and we in fact
contacted the Board of Soil and Water Resources who's mandated to manage this
and they said the way we've proceeded to date is perfectly fine. They have a 2
year period during which they're going to write new rules. After that 2 year
period, they're going to come in with a 2:1 conversion but for the time being,
we're operating fully consistently with what they're telling us.
Eric Rivkin: Which is 1 to 1?
' Paul Krauss: Yeah.
Eric Rivkin: It's not 2 to 1?
Mayor Chmiel: Best to my knowledge I thought it was a 1 to 1 ratio. By the way
' you're 3 minutes are up 7 minutes ago so maybe if you could just summarize.
Eric Rivkin: I think the cost of lift stations, catch basins, storm sewers,
whatever is changed by the developer ought to be paid for by the developer. If
Lake Lucy Road fails, I think there should be a guarantee by the developer that
if it fails, the mitigating expenses should be taken up by the developer. I
don't believe, at the last meeting their expert on wetland biology said they
' want to reintroduce cattails into there. I haven't seen very many, if any
cattails in this wetland. If they reintroduce that, it's going to be cattails
wall to wall in probably less than 5 years and it will diminish all and any
' gains in wildlife habitat for any open water. I think that any filling of
wetlands to create a lot should be absolutely forbidden. I think with the
understanding that we have in our wetland ordinance, I think that isn't in the
spirit of it. Thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else?
I Ed Jannusch: My name is Ed Jannusch. I live in Greenwood Shores at 6831 Utica
Terrace. I have a couple of questions concerning the drainage of the DNR Class
A wetland. Was it Rick? Was the Class A wetland going to drain entirely to the
' south, is that correct?
Rick Sathre: Yes.
' 64
1
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 1
Ed Jannusch: So presently there is a culvert going under Lake Lucy Road and
I just drove by it today after the last couple night's rains and there's water
running through that culvert now. All of that water would then go into your
Class A wetland and eventually drain out through the Greenwood Shores Class B?
Rick Sathre: Historically we believe the water all drained off to the south
through a man made ditch. When Lake Lucy Road was upgraded there was a pipe put
under the road which allowed the water to really flow both ways. Now the
proposal is to allow the water that comes down to the south, the water that's
running on the south half of the road would go into this wetland and water
that's running into the north half of the road would continue through to Curry
Farms. '
Ed Jannusch: So the crown of the road then would determine which direction the
water flowed? '
Rick Sathre: Correct.
Paul Krauss: If I could expound on that for a second. It gets a little curious
on this one because Lake Lucy Road is actually the dividing line between two
watershed districts. We're not quite sure which way this was flowing. It seems
to flow in different directions depending on how plugged up the pipe is. The
watershed districts have asked us.
Ed Jannusch: Are you referring to under Lake Lucy?
Paul Krauss: Yes. There are various restrictions that have occurred. The
watershed districts have pretty much asked us to keep with their dividing line
so using the crown of the road is probably the most effective way of getting
that split so there's an even burden. There could have been some point in the
past when it all drains to the south. There probably was times when a lot of it
drained to the north. We're just not sure.
Ed Jannusch: Well I'm a bit concerned because after the last two nights of rain
we've had water, 1 live on one lot south of the one that adjoins your property
line there on the south and it runs directly over my property out through a
culvert which ends in the lot next to my property, under the street and then
into Lake Lucy.
Rick Sathre: Here's a water flow. This is Greenwood Shores down here. You
live, here's the cul -de -sac. A house here and a house and then ditch.
Ed Jannusch: Yes. I live right next to that ditch. 1
Rick Sathre: On the north side or the south side?
Ed Jannusch: On the north side.
Rick Sathre: This would be your home. ,
Ed Jannusch: Several years ago when we had the 10 inches of rain, I had water
within 6 inches of coming in my basement door. I know that if you were draining
all of that water from your DNR Class A wetland out through a Class B wetland,
65 ,
•
1
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
it would have been in my basement or will be in my basement at that time. It
seems to me that that should be split because some of that water is coming from
the, as you showed on your earlier topographical map, some of that Water would
normally drain to the north anyway and I think it should continue to drain that
way. Maybe it could be split so part of it does continue to go north and the
remainder of that drains south now could continue on that way. Earlier there
was a slide that you had up.
Rick Sathre: Engineers can or are charged sometimes to make things work
somehow. Figure out ways to make things work. Politicians and people that we
work for decide what might be wise and then we're told to go make it work. So
engineers can make things work. What our proposal is here, water comes into
that Class 8 wetland from every direction. It comes in from north, east, west
and south. Not much is going west. The water that's draining in from the
' north, from the Ortenblat property, what I would do at the final plat stage, if
we get preliminary approval, I would calculate out in a 100 year storm, a storm
that comes every 100 years theoretically and calculate out what this property's
' runoff is to the Class B wetland and I'd size the pipe coming from the Class A
wetland such that the water, the rate of water runoff down towards you would not
change. In other words, we would hold the water upstream in the Class A wetland
longer than it would be held now so that we don't increase the flow rate down
' stream.
Ed Jannusch: It would just flow longer then?
Rick Sathre: It would flow longer, that's right.
Ed Jannusch: So I would be under water on the rest of my yard for a longer
period of time?
Rick Sathre: Well, I don't know what drainage problems there might be in your
' yard right now but what I'm saying is we wouldn't increase your problem. If
there's a problem now, I think that's something else. We can't solve that.
Ed Jannusch: You're telling me it would increase it or it would not?
Rick Sathre: I'm telling you we would not increase the flow rate into the Class
' B wetland. If you have a problem now, we can't change that. That would be a
matter of cleaning out the culvert. I think it's clean. When I looked at it
last time it looked clean. I don't know why the water got so high. If there
was an obstruction or what but we wouldn't be increasing your problem.
' Ed Jannusch: It would just be over a longer period of time that I would have
the problem.
Rick Sathre: The water would flow through the culvert a longer time.
Ed Jannusch: Okay. Then the next thing I had a question is, how would the
' success or failure of the wetland modification be monitored or appraised? Would
there be any assurances in place to correct problems that may arise in the
future from these modifications? And would Lundgren then after all of the lots
are sold and houses built, does Lundgren just absolve themselves of any
reponsibility for the development and the taxpayer's left holding the bag to j
'
66
II '
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
correct any problems? Is there anything in place then to insure that you would
continue to work with the new technology that you're proposing to monitor that?
That's all.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Terry Forbord: Mr. Mayor, would you like me at this time to address any of the
comments that have been presented?
Mayor Chmiel: I think maybe we'll get to that very quick. It also seems to be
we'll have some comments as well but maybe if would. Just address each of those
repsective ones and then we can go from there. Let me ask one other question 11 before we go very much further too. I notice that the drawings that we received
for the preliminary plat, even though it's preliminary has not been signed a PE.
Normally even in some preliminary plats that come through or drawings, the PE is
normally signing his name to that. Is there any reason why that's not been done
at this time? Paul do you know?
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I know we look at that when we get the final
engineering plans certainly and the final plat. In this case too we've been
working with Mr. Sathre and I work with him on various projects over the years
and know his firm is certainly one of the more capable ones so we really didn't
raise it as an issue.
Mayor Chmiel: Sometimes those things become an issue after the fact that it
goes in and it's not signed. I would just as soon see some PE sign those
particular drawings. I think that's been a procedure of the city.
Paul Krauss: Certainly on all the final documentation.
Mayor Chmiel: Right, and making sure that it is as such. Terry. '
Terry Forbord: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. Terry Forbord, 935 East
Wayzata Boulevard in Wayzata, Minnesota. I'll do the best I can to just briefly
respond to some of the items that have been raised here by individuals. First
of all, a tremendous amount of scrutiny has gone into this and I say that not
lightly. I think staff will say and if each and every one of you read your
information and I know you do, you will be able to say yeah, a lot of scrutiny
has gone into this. Certainly more than the average subdivision. Each issue
that has been spoke of here this evening has been addressed and has been
readdressed and readdressed again. I would suggest that it is certainly not
correct to suggest that new things have been put before you this evening. The
questions have gone unanswered. That is absolutely not true because each item
has been answered. Each one that's been asked of us has been answered and
staff, I would certainly bet my money would support us with that. There are a
couple things I believe maybe were misspoke. Maybe they were misunderstood.
There are going to be no $100,000.00 homes in this neighborhood. The price
range of homes as submitted in our documents will be somewhere between
$175,000.00 and $275,000.00. In my experience, we build 150 homes a year that
is not a cheap home. That is not an inexpensive home. That is certainly more
than upper mid priced home. Lundgren Bros. has a 350 acre development, half of
which is in Chanhassen right now. Within that development there are million
dollar homes within 200 yards of homes that are $150,000.00. Good land
planning, a lot of thought go into creating a subdivision to protect property '
67 ,
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
values. A lot of it has to do with the type land. of 1 nd. There is absolutely no
question about it. Rick, do you have that exhibit that depicts the property to
the west? The one that you sahred with me prior to the meeting. Because I
think this is an important issue and I'm not pooh poohing this one bit. I think
that the statements made by residents to the west about properties to the west
' are entirely true. I think they need to be addressed. I think they should be
protected. Unbeknownst to a couple of the individuals who live here, are living
in some of these properties, every single other property owner in the area has
' contacted Lundgren Bros. on both sides of the road and asked if we were
interested in developing their property. And this has been going on for at
least 18 months and so we've done a lot of analysis of this area. More analysis
than I would imagine anybody else has. Primarily because we are looking at some
' of these properties. The circles here represent, and this is put up here based
upon topography maps flown by the city of Chanhassen and it was just meant to be
a simple analysis to show the number of building sites in the area that would go
' from our west boundary over to where I believe the edge of the Phillips property
is. Now you can see by the circles, the majority of the building sites, if any
of this area develops, would be on the Coey property. By the way the astericks
' represent existing dwellings. And there's very few building sites that are
shown anywhere else. There's a total of about 50 acres of land in there. The
purpose that I'm showing you that is because some land is designed, and this is
really pushing it trying to get that matey in here because of the steep slopes
' and the wetlands. Some land, because of the way God created it, is more
conducive to larger lots and the views and vistas associated with those larger
lots often times have more expensive homes. If you've been in Sweetwater at
' Near Mountain, if you've been in Trapper's Pass at Near Mountain, that bears it
out and many of the other developments that are in northern Chanhassen or in the
northern areas where there's site amenities that make it possible for that type
of home. Now if you look at the Ortenblat /Ersbo proposal in front of you, the
' reason that you're seeing a housing product that's from $175,000.00 to
$275,000.00 is because that site dictates it. Now I would like to suggest that
I wouldn't like to represent to you that we don't know what we're doing. We've
' been doing this long enough to understand the market. To understand the
specific site and how that specific site may develop and work to it's best
ability. We are certainly sensitive to property values because we deal with it
' within our own subdivisions. And by no means do we believe that this proposal
impacts property values in any way in a negative manner to the properties to the
west. In fact, like I said in my analysis of the one that you just showed on
the exhibit, that property should have been designed to have no more than the
' homesites that I just showed you up there on the exhibit and we've conducted
that analysis. Now like I say, it depends on the type of land and believe me
we've looked at every single site in here, mainly because the people called us.
About the wetlands. We can absolutely do nothing there. The City can choose to
deny this proposal. Lundgren Bros. can go away and the existing conditions that
are there right now will continue to get worse and they will continue to get
' worse and it will be less than if we go ahead with the proposal. So the choice
is really somewhat clear. It can stay the way it is and continue to get worse
or we can work cooperative in trying to make something out of something that has
not, certainly has not been, is not in the most pleasant condition. There's
been some discussion about the watershed. That this site, what this site is
going to do to the area. I would like to remain everyone that the watershed for
this site is not within the boundaries of the Ortenblat /Ersbo property. We're
talking about 30 acres here that we're impacting. Before we were here, it got
' 68
1
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
screwed up. We didn't do it so that watershed, I don't know how many acres it
is. Do you remember Frank? Well it certainly is far greater than 30 acres. So
the suggestion that maybe whatever we do here may have an impact on this wetland
simply isn't true. It's what everybody does anywhere within the watershed of
this wetland is what impacts it. As the lady who spoke first stated so very
clearly to you. Somebody down the road, not even adjacent to the site is doing
some filling. Yeah, you bet that affects it. So the point is what we're doing
here is we are putting in controls in an attempt to try to control situations so
they don't get worse and in fact so they improve. I could go on further but I
think I've covered the most important aspects of some of the comments. I
believe there's been some smoke in mirrors and we've tried our best to respond
to those. We'd be happy to answer any questions that the City Council would
have of either our wetland and wildlife specialist or our engineer or myself
would be happy to answer them.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I'd just like to make a comment on this. Being that '
there has been an awful lot of discussion on this, I think what I'd like to try
to do is to have us review probably all the comments that have been said this
evening. I think what I'd like to do is just table this for 2 weeks and come up
with some some conclusions. At least base your decisions on some of the inputs
that have been given on both sides of the fence. I think Lundgren Bros. have
been well on every project they've had within the city has been excellent. This
is something-new that we're embarking on. I'm sure they've given a lot of
consideration to what they've done but I think we should just then sort of
re- review this and come back at our next Council meeting. Not only because time
is getting late but I think you'll probably have another decision...so maybe ,
we'll entertain that. I'd like to have someone at least make a motion if they
so desire and then I'll open it up for questions. _
Councilman Workman: So moved.
Councilman Mason: Second. But we're still going to talk? '
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Mason: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion Ursula. '
Councilwoman Dimler: I would like to ask Terry a question. Usually when we
have a PUD consideration both parties are benefitting and I've gone through all
your considerations and deletions that you've proposed here tonight. How do you
feel that the City is still benefitting? I just can't see the benefit to the
city here.
Terry Forbord: Mr. Mayor, would you like me to answer that at this time? We ,
have an overhead of each and every item.
Mayor Chmiel: How many items are there Terry? ,
Terry Forbord: Probably about 13. Half of them are in the staff report
already. ,
69 '
1
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think what I'd probably much prefer to do is to have you
sit on this and come back with those answers to that particular question. Any
other thoughts or discussion? Mike, do you have anything?
Councilman Mason: I have three pages of questions.
Councilwoman Dimler: I do too.
Councilman Mason: I do think Lundgren Bros. does what I've seen and I know some
people live in Near Mountain. It's good stuff. I don't think you can
completely absolve yourself in responsibility of what's going on in the area
If this goes through, whether you created the changes 10 years ago or not, some
things will be forever changed and I think sometimes we lose sight of that.
Hopefully if this goes through and the wetland changes...we don't know that. You
will be filling in some wetlands. There are going to be some changes and I
' think we're all a part of this. Lundgren Bros. certainly is too. I think the
comments that the neighbors have made about the size of the project, there's
been a whole lot of input tonight that I think we need to think about.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Tom?
Councilman Workman: I've only got a couple of things. The shoreland treatment
for the existing wetlands and how these homeowners will treat their individual
shorelands. Example Curry Farms. And then with all the water and then half
the lot being water, what are we going to be creating as far as variances as far
' as future decks and how will the buyers be presented with that. That's all I
have for now. I think we should table it because I don't think we can do it
justice.
Mayor Chmiel: Richard?
Councilman Wing: I'd kind of like to get an update just because I'm not real
' familiar with this on the options we have. I understand the PUD and the give
and take and the variances but whether this is rural residential or residential
single family, small or large lot. If we didn't do the PUD, I'd like a
presentation on options. What might we gain by not going to a PUD. Might we
' get larger lots. The cost of the home doesn't affect me as much as the square
foot, the actual lot size. How else could we use this land? What are the uses
going to be put there under existing ordinances and how might we one it other
than PUD?
Mayor Chmiel: At one given time, if I remember reading on this, one of the
' property owners was going to develop his segment, one of them, into 7 lots. Is
that correct? So I mean there's been some of that thought given at that
particular time?
' Councilman Wing: For this particular?
Mayor Chmiel: Just for one of the property owners. There are two property
' owners involved.
Paul Krauss: You're referring to the Ersbo piece.
70
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Okay. Anything else?
•
Councilman Wing: No.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I have lots of questions that I've written in here as
well and I think I'm just going to defer those. So we have a motion on the
floor with a second to table.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table the Lundgren Bros/ ,
Ortenblat/Ersbo subdivision request until the next City Council meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, if I could add just one more thing in there. My
concern for pie shaped lots. I see three of them that could be a problem.
Mayor Chmiel: Appreciate your comments. 1
CONSIDER CITY COMPOSTING SITE.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I'm filling in for Jo Ann and Bill tonight so bear with
me if you will. We're seeking approval to allow the opening of a temporary
compost site for leaves, grass clippings and brush. Due to the desire to have
it available for Fall, clean -up, we're obviously running out of time so time is
very short. Recycling Commission has reviewed several alternatives ultimately
choosing to recommend a drop -off site be developed. Material would be placed in
roll off containers and collected as it becomes full for processing elsewhere.
We've got a proposal we received from R & W Rolloff to operate the site. There
would be a nominal charge for dropping off at the property. Of course if you
bundle up your material now and have your hauler take it, there's a charge for
that in any case. The location of the drop off site is really an issue. There
were three sites that were looked at. Bandimere Park, Public Works and Lake Ann
Park. Public Works site has some problems. We need that site as an operating
use and it really kind of makes it difficult to work around it. Staff brought
forward a recommendation to the Recycling Commission that they look at Bandimere
Park. Our concern with Lake Ann is that it's our most intensively used park.
Our Park's Director here tonight to comment on that. It really stands a very
high chance of causing problems with park operations. The Recycling Commission
recommended against Bandimere and in favor of Lake Ann believing it to be more
accessible and I think they had a concern with traffic safety. We're bringing
forward their recommendation to you but we're continuing to recommend that it be
a Bandimere Park and I think our Recreation Director can comment on that a
little further. As far as the traffic situation goes, we all know that access
to Lake Ann is really no prize as it is right now so we're not certain that the
'trade off is all that substantial. So we are bringing forward their
recommendation. We're continuing to recommend that this be established at Lake
Ann Park and that you authorize us to do this hopefully as soon as possible so
we can get it up and running.
Mayor Chmiel: Lake Ann Park, okay. Is the County going to do any substation
for this? They do acquire a certain amount of dollars. I know that some of
that's being cut back.
•
1
71 1
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
1
Paul Krauss: I honestly don't know Mayor. I know that Jo Ann was talking to
' them about this. At one point they indicated possibly yes and then we heard no
and I haven't heard the latest.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we should pursue it because we're taking care of some of A
the problems that are existing that have been put on the responsibilities of the
County and of course now they're throwing it back to the City. Some of those
dollars are appropriated out of Met Council as well as some of the other dollars
11 that come back to the County. So maybe we can check that out. Any
discussion? Do you like the one site over the other? Do you like Lake Ann
better?
1 Councilman Workman: I like Bandimere.
Mayor Chmiel: I do too but that's beside the point.
' Don Ashworth: If it is going to be considered for Lake Ann, the Park Commission
has not seen this to the best of my knowledge and I've got some real concerns
1 with Lake Ann Park. It's not really, we want to keep Lake Ann open as long as
we can keep it open. That means there's a lot of times when there's not a gate
attendant out there. Whereas with any type of composting or any type of drop
off area, you've got to worry about tires and all of the other junk that goes
out there. I think we need to talk about this one a little bit more before we
jump on it.
' Mayor Chmiel: I think too that Tom mentioned the fact of Bandimere and I feel a
little more comfortable with that because there's not as much traffic there and
it's a better site and not combining two different things. It's wide open. I
1 thought it'd be any problem just as Lake Ann but potentially I think we could
utilize that site more so than Lake Ann. If we continue with this for a period
of time with all the things that go on at the park, we could be opening
ourselves for more problems than what we probably want.
Councilwoman Dimler: I do have a question though. This is temporary right?
Mayor Chmiel: This is temporary.
Councilwoman Dimler: How long?
Mayor Chmiel: Temporary lasts forever. Unfortunately.
Councilwoman Dimler: How long do we look at using this site?
1 Mayor Chmiel: I think a temporary site, we should have a timeframe established
on it.
Paul Krauss: Yeah, I think basically we're looking, and Don correct me if I'm
wrong but we're looking at this Fall. We need to get a permanent site. We need
1 to get the cooperation of the County which has been like pulling teeth.
Hopefully over the winter that can be resolved.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so you're talking just this Fall? Okay.
1
1 72
1
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
Paul Krauss: That's not to say next summer they won't make...
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, we're not looking at developing the Bandimere Park ,
at all?
Mayor Chmiel: Not for a while. 1
Councilman Mason: Why is it unsafe at Bandimere?
Paul Krauss: Well, I think they pointed out you have the TH 101 and the curves. ,
Councilman Mason: Lake Ann's not a whole lot better for access.
Mayor Chmiel: With TN 5, no it isn't. And there too I think we can control the
access to Bandimere..
Councilman Mason: At Bandimere better, yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: With some kind of a gate in that area which wouldn't be too
difficult to put.
Councilman Workman: I think if we're going to keep it open for non - residents,
we ought to charge them double and have free for our residents.
Councilwoman Dimler: I think we should charge our residents as well.
Mayor Chmiel: I would think that we should, I hate tabling things. Everybody
knows that but I think there should be some more discussions on this as well.
Or do you have another?
Paul Krauss: I don't know Mayor. I suspect as it is we've got to get notice
out to everybody probably by a mailing that this is available.
Councilwoman Dimler: Does anybody know what the costs are that are involved?
Paul Krauss: Well there's cost that Jo Ann had acknowledged with Rolloff and I
think it was $1.00 per bag and $2.00 per bundle and that would cover their cost.
Councilman Wing: What about a pick -up truck?
Councilman Workman: Why don't we pack it all' in that barn and torch that barn.
Paul Krauss: Well this is with them putting those rolloff containers there so
they're going to pick it up and just move it.
Mayor Chmiel: Would anybody like to make a motion? 1
Councilman Mason: Yeah. I'll make a motion. While as I understand the
Recycling Committee's concern about Bandimere being unsafe, I think the
consensus of the Council here is that Bandimere is probably better than Ann
so I would like to make a motion that we, on a temporary basis only, i.e. this
Fall, make Bandimere.Park the composting site.
" 73 '
1
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? I'll second it.
' Councilman Workman: Doesn't that leave off too much though? I mean the cost
and who.
Mayor Chmiel: But you're going to have to do it though. We're going to have to
do something one way or the other.
Councilman Workman: Well we don't have to do anything.
1 Mayor Chmiel: No you don't but then wait until you start getting the phone
calls.
Councilman Workman: Well I've already gotten them.
Paul Krauss: We also have some funds allocated in our Recycling budget that any
cost would be taken out of.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, what costs are we really looking at?
Paul Krauss: The only one that I'm aware of, and I don't know about site
preparation, is that we need to have somebody there so we need to have a part
' time person down there and I talked to Todd possibly about getting one of his
recreation people down there on a part time basis.
Don Ashworth: ...volunteers as well but anyway, if we could get the decision
made that it should be Bandimere, we can bring back at your next meeting cost
implications, how we can make it cheaper, how we can whatever. '
' Councilman Wing: Is it going to be, rather than transfer it, is there an area
that could be filled and left to just decompose? Do we have to move this?
' Mayor Chmiel: The only problem with that Richard is that there is a tremendous
odor sometimes with these...and we have to be careful.
Councilman Wing: No question about that but is there anybody that would be
affected nearby?
Councilwoman Dimier: Yes. There's a resident neighborhood.
1 Mayor Chmiel: There's a few but they're far enough away that if we keep it on
the far end. So what's your pleasure? We have a motion on the floor with a
second. Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Dimier: This is with the understanding that we're going eto discuss
price and so forth at the next meeting?
1 Mayor Chmiel: Yes. We're just choosing the site to get some additional dollars
there.
1 Councilman Mason moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to designate Bandimere Park, on a
temporary basis only, i.e. this Fall, as the City's composting site. All voted
in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
74
1
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991 1
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Wing: Under Adminstrative Presentations there are some items on here
that I think are significant, major, that need discussion and though of the
Council and I would suggest that we not have a special meeting but if we could
start the next meeting at 6:30 to pick up this Administrative Section. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Sounds good to me.
Councilman Wing: Some of these I want somewhat detailed. 1
Paul Krauss: I think since a lot of those items are mine, your concern is well
taken but we have, Tom pointed out earlier, we have 5 variances on our next
meeting so we're actually looking at starting that at 6:00 and going right
through to when this starts.
Mayor Chmiel: Therein lies the problem. Let me just move on to the next item, '
item 10. Being that the Public Safety Commission's meeting is cancelled for
this month, let's just table this until the next meeting.
Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table the appointment to
the Public Safety Commission until the next meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. 1
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor, maybe staff could just try to make sure we keep the
23rd agenda as light as possible so you could pick up these items.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, that would be good. Should we or do we really want to
discuss your Council presentations as well?
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll do that next time.
Councilman Workman: I pass. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll put that onto the next meeting. The Administrative
Presentations as we've looked. What about our traffic control?
Don Ashworth: You moved that to the Admin Section.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right and that's been moved to the Admin Section. If we
keep that with a light schedule maybe we can do that at the next meeting.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, two brief things. You and I have talked quite a bit
about the sign ordinance task force and the surface water management task force.
We'd like to get moving ahead with those when we can and we've gotten some
people requesting that they be on the surface water task force and I need to get
you the names. I guess it might be helpful if the Council would indicate who'd
they would like to serve on either of those and you could decide who the
residents are going to be. We were hoping to have a first meeting with
Bonestroo by the end of this month. We can delay that but it would be useful to
get on with it.
75
1
City Council Meeting - September 9, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think we'll probably delay that until we get really to
it. That can be done very simply the next time. As long as you get people who
are willing to serve on it.
Paul Krauss: I think we need some Council rep - resentation on both.
Mayor Chmiel: Anybody that would like to volunteer their time just raise your
hand.
Councilman Mason: Surface water.
' Mayor Chmiel: Surface water and there is also for.
Councilwoman Dimler: The sign ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's the other one as well. So with that if we're going
to table this until the next meeting. I would like to have a motion for
adjounment.
1 Couricilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:20 a.m..
1 Submitted by Don' Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Hann Opheim
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 76
1
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 23, 1991
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
' COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason, Councilman Workman,
Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Wing
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Paul Krauss, Kathy Aanenson,
' Charles Folch, Todd Hoffman, and Scott Harr
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
' approve the agenda with the following changes and additions: Mayor Chmiel moved
item 11 to 4(a) and item 6 to 8(a); under Council Presentations Councilman Wing
wanted to discuss the noise ordinance; Councilman Mason wanted to discuss a note
he received from Sue Severson about the trail in southern Chanhassen;
' Councilwoman Dimler wanted to talk about the resurfacing of Dakota and Cheyenne
in Chan Estates and also an update on what's happening with the Minnewashta
Highlands development. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the
' motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
' CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve
the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
b. Resolution *91 - 88: Approve Cooperative Construction Agreement for Trunk
Highway 5 Frontage Road Improvements at Lone Cedar Lane, Project 90 -9.
c. Resolution *91 -89: Approve Plans and Specifications, Authorize Advertising
for Bids; Lake Ann Park Picnic /Recreation Shelter and Utilities.
' e. Resolution *91 -90 Approve Enrollment of Firefighters in Deferred
Compensation Program.
h. Approval of Accounts.
i. Planning Commission Minutes dated September 4, 1991
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated August 27, 1991
j. Resolution *91 -91: Approve Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City
Manager to Sign Deeds Conveying Parcels 209C, 215 and 316 to MnOot.
o. Approve Animal Control Contract.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
i
1
' V
1
1
1:
'1
1
1
1
L
1
1
1
•1
1
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
F. APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR GRADING FOR LAKE RILEY HILLS, JOHN
KLINGELHUTZ.
Councilman Mason: Just 1(f) with the development contract for grading for Lake
Riley Hills, 91 -9. I'm not clear in my mind what happens if they're allowed to
grade before the plat's approved, and that's in essence what we're being asked
to do here right? I understand there's a development contract.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, if I may. This is a little bit of unusual procedure
for us. Normally we don't allow grading to begin until the final plat's been
' approved and all of the contracts have been signed. In this case proceeding
with this development has been protracted basically because of a pretty complex
feasibility study. We're trying to work with the property owners so they can
get into the ground early next year and they asked if they could be allowed to
' do some grading early. We don't have a procedure in our ordinance specifically
that allows this and normally we'd probably recommend against it except we've
looked at this project so much and we had the grading specifically tailored so
that virtually anybody who develops this property would need to grade that
specific area and we've insisted that any of the sensitive areas or any of the
places where we still had questions on the plat, that no grading activity take
' place in those areas. So basically we're trying to work with the property owner
on this one to get into the ground a little earlier. We don't think there's
much risk. In the development contract, if for some reason, or the grading
contract, if for some reason the project doesn't proceed, we'll have the site,
' ground cover established on the site. So there is really no risk for the City.
We do have a letter of credit requirement for that.
Councilman Mason: At some point in time, regardless of what happens there,
there's going to be some sort of grading anyway right?
Paul Krauss: I really do believe so. There's really only one way to gain
' access into this property and that's pretty much the road corridor that they're
going to be grading right now.
' Councilman Mason: Okay. With that I'll move approval of item (f).
Councilman Workman: Second.
' Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Development
Contract for Grading for Lake Riley Hills, John Klingelhutz. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
' • G. APPROVE EQUIPMENT ACQUISITION OF PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE VEHICLE EXHAUST SYSTEM,
ROLL PACKER TRAILER AND FLAIL MOWER.
Councilwoman Dimler: Basically item (g) deals with the purchase for our public
works department with three items or three pieces of equipment. One having to
do with the vehicle exhaust system and the other one with a trailer for the roll
packer and the third one is for a flail mower. These basically come to a total
cost of about $10,000.00. I have no qualms with buying this but I'm just
wondering if we can put this off until Spring in the fact that a lot of this
' seems to be season related and may not be used until Spring. And the reason I'm
asking for that is because I've had residents from Chan Estates call me asking
2
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
me why Dakota and Cheyenne, and that is my Council presentation, hasn't had
their road resurfaced and those roads are in terrible shape. I think they've
called the public works department. Have not gotten a satisfactory answer as to
being told there's not enough money in the budget and so forth. I was
wondering, I would rather see the $10,000.00 go now in the fall to give those
citizens a good road and then purchase the equipment in the Spring.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The only thing I may think of at this time is whether or
not the prices on that equipment aren't better now than what they might be in
the Spring and I don't know that. Charles can you?
Charles Folch: I guess no one knows at this time what prices may be next year.
As far as just to touch briefly on each of the items. The vehicle exhaust
system is something that would be used as soon as it is installed and it's
something that probably shouldn't wait until next Spring. The roll packer
trailer is also needed at this time. We've begun about 2 weeks ago doing most
of our patching work and paving work and so therefore the roll packer trailer
and packer are being used almost everyday right now in our pavement patching
process. As far as the flail mower, these again are items that we still
probably have at least a good 2 months worth of mowing to do on our park
property and such and thus would get some use this year. Quite a bit of use
this year. ,
Councilwoman Dimler: Don't we have that mower that we bought?
Charles Folch: That's correct. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Can't we use that instead?
Charles Folch: Well these are actually attachments if you will to be used with 1
that mower to make it more versatile.
Councilwoman Dimler: Also, on the exhaust system. What are they doing now? ,
They haven't had one in the past. What are they doing now? Basically my
understanding is they just run a hose off of the muffler and run it outside.
Charles Folch: That's correct.
Councilwoman Dimler: So why can't we continue doing that until Spring? 1
Charles Folch: The only trouble is they also have to then, that requires that
they have the garage door partially opened and during the winter months it's,
you're sort of defeating the purpose of heating the garage when you've got a
door like that open.
Councilwoman Dimler: But we have been doing that in the past? '
Charles Folch: We have been doing it in the past, that's correct.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and the trailer for the roll packer. We have one, '
it just needs replacing at some time.
Charles Folch: That's correct. 1
3
II City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
II Councilwoman Dimler: It's not like we're doing completely without?
Charles Folch: No, that's correct but.
II Councilwoman Dimler: I'd just like to hear comments from others I guess.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe these are two separate issues. Looking to get the streets
II
resurfaced is one issue I think,that you're bringing up for this. Whether or
not, and I think I've had discussions with Don about that as well. We've not
been following through with the process and I wanted to see that process still
I hold. I think these may be two separate issues and I don't know if that's a
transferable portion from here to the streets. Maybe you can enlighten me.
Don Ashworth: It is two separate funding mechanisms. The equipment is paid for
by the equipment replacement fund. We have levy authority under State Statute
for that equipment but that levy authority cannot use dollars that are levied in
that fashion to pay for other operating costs or other capital costs. I need to
I reverify with Harold but I also recall that there's an OSHA problem associated
with that. That even with the door open a lot of times the exhaust, the fumes
will not leave the building and be blown away from it but actually go back in.
I The third issue is the Chan Estates neighborhood is probably one of our few
neighborhoods that has not seen any form of a public improvement since the
original subdivision. The streets in that area have been a problem for a long,
II long time and it's going to take far more than just, let's say like a sealcoat
program that we're into for a majority of our streets. The only way to really
fix those streets is to go through a public improvement process very similar to
what we did on Frontier Trail. I mean they are in, the sub base is shot. We
II did a feasibility study I would say about 5 or 6 years ago and the neighborhood
had rejected it at that point in time because of the cost. It was $4,000.00 or
$5,000.00. For your next packet I can make a copy of that previous feasibility
study together with any type of current information that we may have but I
really think that as you noted, I think they're two separate issues. You can't
use the motor vehicle dollars for this. And secondly, I think you're going to
' find that this is a much bigger problem than $10,000.00.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay but in the meantime can't we use a resurfacing
approach like we do with all the other roads because that may be used down the
I line and those poor people, I mean they're getting hit with Highway 5
construction into their entranceway and then they have a terrible road and I'd
just like to give them some temporary relief because I do think that it may be
' 2 -3 years, maybe 4 years before they get that new road. And resurfacing would
seem to take care of a lot of that temporarily.
Don Ashworth: Why don't we see what we come up with. Again, if you're going to
II spend any dollars, they should be very, very minor recognizing that again their
problem is because of contamination of the sub base of those roads. So any
money you put on top is just money that's going to go away.
II Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, and I. understand that because the same was true with
Frontier Trail but I also feel that throughout the years if we would have
resurfaced it occasionally, it may not have gotten as worn as it did.
4
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I agree with that. The position there is that we should
have some type of a procedure for having this done within the streets within the
city. A certain amount of dollar allocations put towards that so we can
eliminate those problems in having to continuously go back and assess people for
additional road service when we haven't really been maintaining properly. I
think that's something we're going to have to look at rather closely.
Don Ashworth: Again, why don't I present the reports that the Council had
looked at when that resurfacing program was established. There was a pretty
thorough analysis of the Chan Estates neighborhood at that point in time.
Councilwoman Dimler: So even if they didn't want it then they still would like ,
it resurfaced and have it be passable. I mean without big potholes and
endangering their vehicles. Also I don't know how much a resurfacing would cost
but perhaps we can find some money and instead of resurfacing like Laredo and 1
Iroquis that don't really need it as badly, maybe we can make Chan Estates a
priority.
Don Ashworth: Again, stall will address that in your next packet. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think that would be the way to go to get the information
back so we know exactly where we are and where we're going. Okay, Richard.
Councilman Wing: I wasn't going to, I hadn't'pulled this one but one passing
thought Don because you're so conservative on this. We kind of went through
cutbacks here and apparently some of the cutbacks didn't occur. Suddenly now
we're buying this equipment. My concern is we're getting into a year end
spending spree and I don't like that. Some of the departments are saying oh
look there's some dollars left. We've got to get rid of it. I hope we're not
going to get into that.
Mayor Chmiel: No, and I think some of these things that are here as indicated, 1
the vehicle exhaust system is probably a violation of OSHA. I'm not sure but it
would certainly most likely be if there's something not being taken care of on
it. ,
Councilwoman Dimler: Then we've been in violation a long time then.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and if they come back and you're still in violation, then 1
you pay a fine besides that and it might be heftier than $5,000.00 in knowing
what we go through as a company. The other, the roller packer trailer. It is a
20 year old existing trailer. I don't know how much life it has left in it.
Probably just thumpidy thumping right along but I think that some of these needs
are there as well as with that flail mower. So maybe with that someone care to
make a motion. 1
Councilman Workman: Why don't we, I think Ursula's on the right track. The
mower I don't know if we need it or not. There's 2 months left of mowing. I
think we need to readdress the mowing situation because I think we're mowing
property. They're mowing everybody's yard but mine. We're doing an awful lot
of mowing and I understand on outlots, etc.. I think if we can address that and
Mr. Mayor I'd like to bring that up sometime on a future agenda where we can
request from staff to find out what we're mowing because we're mowing where I
5
1
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
don't think we need to be mowing. But I don't know how much more asphalt we're
going to be laying. I think that's the reason for the packer correct?
Charles Folch: That's correct.
Councilman Workman: You know I guess a halfway point would be to approve what
we need to approve for the safety of the gentelmen in the public works garage
and pull the mower and the packer trailer out.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's good. That's a good compromise.
' Councilman Wing: I guess I'd like to ask Don. Is the money there? If we don't
spend it, can you explain the budget process here and if we don't spend this are
they going to spend it someplace else and are these needs that are going to hit
' us in 1992?
Don Ashworth: As I stated, the dollars come from the motor vehicle replacement
fund as with the case of park acquisition and development. Those are dollars
' collected for specific reason. They cannot be spent on something else. If the
dollars are not spent this year, the dollars are still available or are
available for whatever the Council would pick out as priorities for 1992. They
don't just go away at the end of the year.
Councilwoman Dimler: But we can purchase them in the Spring and that'd be part
I of the 1992 budget?
Mayor Chmiel: Oh yeah. Sure. We can accure interest off of the balance of the
dollars we don't spend.
Councilman Wing: I guess I'd move approval of item (g).
Mayor Chmiel: Approval•of item (g) with the vehicle exhaust system, the roller
packer trailer be acquired and to hold on the flail mower until Spring of 1992.
Is that your motion?
' Councilwoman Dimler: Could we amend that to just approve item 1 and hold off
until Spring on 2 and 3?
Councilman Wing: Rather than get into it, I will withdraw the whole thing. My
motion was the entire item (g) as presented. As requested by City Manager.
' Councilman Mason: Well, if these things are just going to come back up in the
Spring, I mean apparently there's a need for them.
Councilwoman Dimler: In the Spring.
Mayor Chmiel: For one item.
' Councilman Mason: The mower, yeah.
Councilwoman Dimler: And the packer too I think. We can get by for two months
on the roller trailer.
1
1
1 6
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
Councilman Mason: I suppose the question, then is the question do we spend the
money on this now or do we spend the money on it this Spring and if there
money's already there, isn't it kind of a coin toss. You know whether we do it
now or in the Spring. It's going to happen one way or another.
Councilwoman Dimler: We can get interest on the money. I/
Councilman Mason: No, that's true. Of course prices might almost be up 10: -15'
then too I suppose.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, but it could be a wash.
Mayor Chmiel: Ursula, would you like to make that as a motion?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. i
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? To just get the vehicle exhaust system taken
care of.
Councilwoman Dimler: Table 2 and 3 until Spring.
Councilman Workman: I'll second Ursula's motion. The idea being that simply
because the money's in the fund we have to spend it doesn't make logic and I
think we can work out those details in the budget process.
Councilman Wing: That was my point in the first place I guess. ,
Resolution #91 -92: Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve acquisition of the Vehicle Exhaust System for the Public Works Garage ,
and to table acquisition of the Roll- Packer Trailer and Flail Mower until
Spring, 1992. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Mason: Is there any way we can see what these bids come in at in the
Spring? For the heck of it.
Moor Chmiel: Sure. See what it is now as opposed to what they will be in the 1
Spring. It will be interesting.
Councilwoman Dimler: Prices may be lower. 1
Councilman Workman: I'm a bit confused why Ruffridge - Johnson had two bids for
the trailer. 1
Mayor Chmiel: I noticed that as well Tom. I thought probably there were two
different types of trailers that he was offering on that bid and yet he wasn't
the low bidder. Is that what it might have been?
Charles Folch: I believe that's the case.
K. APPROVE CONTINUATION OF PARTICIPATION IN SOUTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORCE.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor I just wasn't totally aware of where this money was
coming from specifically. What budget. How we were funding the drug task force
•
1
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
' force. That was question number one and if we did spend the $10,000.00 Scott,
what would it be of? Is this just part of doing business? What if we didn't
spend the $10,000.00, what's the negative side of not spending this money? l
11 Scott Harr: The negative side is we'd have that much less in expense of what 1
effective law enforcement in that particular . area that we've been committed to
since the project's inception in 1988. And the budget item that it's included
under Richard is the fees for service in the law enforcement budget section.
Councilman Wing: It's there now.
' Scott Harr: Correct.
Mayor Chmiel: This is something that I myself have been really a pusher on and
I didn't mean that as being funny. But I totally agree with the things that
have been done. We've eliminated a lot of problems within our community by
having these people around and picking up people who have been selling drugs.
Councilman Wing: Is this being budgeted for yearly?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Wing: This is budgeted for.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. With this kind of funding that we do plus the other
cities, we're doing very well. I might suggest possibly that at some time that
one each of the Council on given different busts have that opportunity to go
along. It would be an advantage for you just to see how we do it... It's
really rather interesting. Plus the fact that if we just save one child, for
$10,000.00 to rehabilitate is well worth it.
' Councilman Wing: Unless there's other discussion I would move (k).
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve continuation of
participation in the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force for 1992. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously.
N. APPROVE 1992 LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRACT.
' Councilman Wing: Law Enforcement Contract. We're approving a contract I
believe for 28 hours at this point.
' Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Councilman Wing: And I was a little surprised to not really have any discussion
' or input or kind of be in the loop here at all. With my background with the
Public Safety Department for 10 years, I think the 28 hours is bare bones. I
think Scott's getting the job done. I think he's doing it effectively but I
think it basically covers emergency responses, patrol, minimal patrol. And the
28 hours, in my opinion, is short unless in the 1992 budget we, as we've done in
the past, we include some additional dollars to tackle a specific and the one I
8
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991 1
brought up that I feel somewhat strongly about is traffic. Just about every
Council meeting we've had somebody here commenting on our lack of police patrol
or lack of police department and traffic complaints from one end of the city to
the other. I think there's some inherent weaknesses in the contract that we're
all familiar with. It's not a criticism of it. It's just inherent in the
contract system and one is the ability to, on a limited number of hours, pull
cars out for very, very specific duties and one of these I believe needs done is
traffic. So I'm opposed to this 28 hours unless there's some thought or
consideration, whether it passes or not, at least consideration given to some
additional funding to buy a car specifically to tackle the traffic issue in the
city. I don't think this 28 hours will adequately address our growth in traffic
and the number of traffic complaints.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe I can bring something up on that. You're probably right
with the speed problems that are within the community because I've heard a lot
of them. A lot of citizens call me in regard to that and specifically we have
done some of those checks. We will in the very hopefully near future have that
radar digital equipment on board which will start giving reminders to people as
to the speeds they are traveling within the city. That will be, a check will be
coming from outside for this and hopefully, maybe with that we can also have our
maybe CSO's utilizing this on their vehicles inbetween times that they're doing
things. Other things and what they're supposed to be doing and may have this
awareness within the community in all locations, not just one. Because I think
that's what has to be done. I'm not a great one for issuing tickets. In fact
just today I had someone tap me on the shoulder and he was a waiter in a
restaurant and he said, I want you to know I just got a ticket in your fair
city. I said, were you going a tad fast and he says, well just a little bit. I
reached over for my radio and he said I'm going downhill on Kerber Blvd.. He 11 says I was going 40 -mph he says there and then all of a sudden there was a
policeman going the other direction and I obtain the speeds of 50 mph. He says
of course I got a ticket.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Don Ashworth: If I may. The contract is written in such a fashion as to
provide on a daily basis the 28 hours. The contract also allows for the
purchase of additional hours. I am aware of Councilman Wing's request for the
additional patrol but I saw that as falling into the special patrol services,
that can be purchased from the Sheriff's Department on an hourly basis. So that
concern has not been reflected in the fact that it really is being addressed in
this contract. It will be up to the Council as we go through the 1992 budget
process to determine whether or not we're going to be able to purchase an
additional $5,000.00 worth of special hourly services or $10,000.00 or $2,000.00
or none.
Mayor Chmiel: Right, and I was eventually going to get to that. I was trying
to get a lead in to what I was going to say. But it can be done, that's right. 1
Any other discussions.
Councilman Wing: Thank you very much. I move approval.
9
1
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
Councilman Mason: Second.
' Councilman Wing: With the knowledge that I'm going to be coming back.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the 1992 Law
Enforcement Contract. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None
AWARD OF BIOS: TRUNK HIGHWAY 5 FRONTAGE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AT LONE CEDAR LANE,
PROJECT 90 -9.
' Charles Folch: On September 17th bids were received and opened for this
. project. The City received 5 bids with the low bid being submitted by S.M.
Hentges & Sons of Shakopee, Minnesota at $69,442.50. This bid is approximately
10% lower than the engineer's estimate. It is therefore recommended that
Project 90 -9 be awarded to S.M. Hentges & Sons in a contract amount of
- $69,442.50 contingent upon receiving concurrence from the State of Minnesota on
the bid.
Mayor Chmiel: We've used these people in the past haven't we?
Charles Folch: That's correct.
Mayor Chmiel: They do have a track record with us?
Charles Folch: That's correct. I believe they worked on the Lake Lucy Road
project.'
Mayor Chmiel: And everything was done to our satisfaction on that?
Charles Folch: That's correct.
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? If hearing none, can I have a motion?
Councilwoman Dimler: I move approval of the award of bids for TH 5 frontage
road improvement at Lone Cedar Lane, Project 90 -9.
' Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilwoman Dimler: Be awarded to Hentges & Sons in the amount of $69,442.50.
Resolution $91 -93: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded that
Project 90 -9 be awarded to S.M. Hentges & Sons in a contract amount of -
$69,442.50 contingent upon receiving concurrence from the State of Minnesota on
the bid. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
REZONING OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT TO
' RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, FIRST READING.
Paul Krauss: This item was originally requested by the Planning Commission some
' 2 to 3 years ago. It stemmed from their belief that many of the newer
subdivisions in the city's rural area are zoned A2 agricultural right now rather
' 10
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
than rural residential. This is particularly true south of TH 5. Many of these
subdivisions were created around 1986 -87 prior to a change in city ordinances
that lowered gross densities to 1 unit per 10 acres. Most of these subdivisions
are suburban rather than rural in nature and the Planning Commission believed
that the rural residential designation is better able to protect these
neighborhoods and the property values that the residence in them have.
Permitted uses in both the A2 and rural residential districts are identical.
Accessory agricultural buildings are allowed in the A2 but not in the rural
residential. Rural residential does allow horse stables but only under
conditional use permits which of course would require a public hearing and
Council approval. I think there may be a little bit of misunderstanding about
that. I know horses are a sensitive item here and that the keeping of horses is
allowed equally in both districts. It's the creation of a stable for a horse in
the RR district that does require additional approval. The major difference in
allowable uses is that the A2 allows as interim uses bed and breakfast
establishments, mobile homes, gravel mining, wholesale nurseries, electrical
substations, golf driving ranges. The rural residential does not. Staff
originally received many calls in favor of this proposal, and this goes back
several months ago, from some of the larger subdivisions. However a lot of
concern was raised at the Planning Commission after the Planning Commission
elected to add the West 96th Street neighborhood to this request. That was not
in the original staff recommendation. The West 96th Street neighborhood is an
older, more established area that is more rural in character than for example '
Timberwood or Lake Riley. The individuals who spoke objected to restrictions on
their use of their homesteads that they believe are contained within the rural
residential district. Staff has also received similar concerns regarding the
Country Hills area along Lyman. They're similar in many respects the way that
neighborhood is set out to the West 96th Street area. We're carrying forward
the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the rezoning request.
However, after reviewing the issues we find that the effect of the rezoning is
not really as dramatic as is being portrayed but we also don't believe the
benefit here outweighs overruling the concerns of the neighbors and we're not
really going to be asking you to do that although we are carrying forward the
Planning Commission request. While we are recommending approval, we note that
both West 96th Street and Country Hills could probably be deleted without
serious impact on the intent of the Planning Commission's recommendation as we
understood it which really pertained to the more suburban of those subdivisions.
Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Paul. Is there anyone wishing to address this specific . 1
item? As to what Paul has indicated that we possibly delete Country Hills and
96th Street.
Councilman Workman: Can I say something quickly? ,
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor I know and I'm not going to take away anybody's
thunder in the audience. I know it was a very well orchestrated letter writing
campaign and I think the point has been really made and we've gone through an
awful lot of these Minutes. In talking to you Don and the rest of some of the
members of the City Council, it appears as though, with Paul's recommendation,
11 ,
II City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
I that in fact we can keep most everybody happy in this situation. I don't know
if we have a shortcut for those folks tonight or not
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I guess the other question I might have Paul, before I
have the residents come up. The ones that are listed here, have they
specifically come in and asked that this be adopted for their specific areas?
Paul Krauss: No Mayor. This originated with a Planning Commission request'to
rezone the property so it's not locally based. It's coming from the Commission.
I Mayor Chmiel: I did get one other call regarding Riley Lake Meadows of a
concern with that as well. That being agricultural presently. That was brought
up by Dick Vogel who called me who has developed those specific properties. He
II in his covenant has coverages of those concerns that's going to protect them
from but his concern still is the horses and having horses within that specific
area.
I Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I spoke to Mr. Vogel about that several weeks ago and I
do understand that there's some covenants involved on that subdivision.
However, I point out that covenants are private contractual arrangements. We
' don't know about them unless we're told and we don't enforce them so to the
extent that there's a benefit to be gleened by the RR district, we're not
certain whether or not that same benefit applies with the covenants.
I Councilwoman Dimler: Before we get started too I do have Great Plains Golf
Estates was later omitted by the Planning Commission. Are you putting it back
in here?
II Paul Krauss: No. No, Councilwoman Dimler if you look on, I think it's page 5.
The 10 subdivisions that are remaining there.
II Councilwoman Dimler: Oh, that's the list you've got. Okay, I'm looking at the
front.
•
II Paul Krauss: Great Plains Estates subdivision was deleted not because of the
type of development that was in there but more due to the fact that it really
isn't platted yet and I believe as soon as it is platted, there's going to be a
' desire to have it rezoned.
Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you.
II Mayor Chmiel: At this time if anyone would like to step forward. It looks like
some of the concerns here you may be able to save yourself some words if you
don't wish to get up. It looks like we're looking at Country Hills and West
II 96th Street as a removal from this.
Councilwoman Dimler: Also the Jeurissen Addition?
II Paul Krauss: That's the same, yes. That's also West 96th.
Councilman Wing: Can I clarify that? Would would be excepted? West 96th.
12
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991 1
•
Mayor Chmiel: West 96th, Jeurissen Addition, Country Hills and the only one
that's in question is Riley Lake Meadows.
Councilwoman Dimler: But before we do that, could I ask if the main concern is
about the horses and the barns, if we made in the RR, if we made horses and
r barns to be a permitted use. That means they wouldn't have to come in for a
conditional use permit, then would that alleviate all the problems and we could
go ahead and include them and protect them from other things? 1
Paul Krauss: Councilwoman Dimler, I'm not certain that that alleviates all the
problems but it probably addresses a lot of the problems we've heard voiced. 11 The primary concern that we've heard, and I don't want to put words in the
mouths of the folks sitting here but seems to be related to the horses and
although the RR does allow you to keep horses, what we hear is you can't really
have a horse without a barn.
Mayor Chmiel: And the barn is the issue of not being able to construct that in
a rural residential without a conditional use permit. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Well, if we made it a permitted use then they wouldn't
need a conditional use permit.
Mayor Chmiel: But yet it falls under two separate categories as agricultural as
well a rural residential. Each have a separate classification contained within
and if you move one to the other and you're alleviating that and still I don't
see the basic need unless Paul.
Paul Krauss: Again, you can go either way on that. Either eliminating those
areas but I think Councilwoman Dimler's suggestion is reasonable in terms of the
ordinance. You could add as a permitted accessory use horse barns and that way
nobody has to ask the City Planning Department or the Planning Commission or
Council for approval to build one. They just need a building permit. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Plus they would have to go through a public process where
a neighbor could object. It'd be kind of like grandfathering them in. ,
Paul Krauss: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? '
Councilwoman Dimler: That's a possibility.
Mayor Chmiel: You don't need building permits for ag buildings.
Paul Krauss: If I could, permitted accessory uses in the A2 district right now
include private stables. You could add that as a permitted accessory use in the
rural residential.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Okay, with that I'll still throw it open then because it ,
seems like it's getting a little muddled here. Please come forward and state
your name and address.
1
13
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
Wes Dunsmore: Wes Dunsmore, West 96th Street. First thing, I don't know if
' it's clear or not. The Jeurissen Addition is the two houses on the end of the
street. It's not way off so everybody understands that. At the Planning
Commission meeting I submitted a petition from the neighbors down there that are
11 against changing this. I didn't have everybody's name on it. I didn't get
everybody at the time but I've got them all here tonight and that four rows is
our neighborhood down there.
I Mayor Chmiel: I've also received and as well as the Council received letters
from everyone.
II Wes Dunsmore: I guess, I know what the City's after and you have to have rules
and regulations in new neighborhoods, I understand that. But this neighborhood
is 30 years old. It's already developed. We're not going to be able to put
' things in that they're trying to restrict. It's fully developed so I don't know
why we need these restrictions on here. They're developing to the east of us
and to the west of us. They're putting in houses worth 3 times as much as ours.
We're not hampering anybody. People are building and they're moving in so they
like our neighborhood as it is. I see no need. I don't know why we were put on
there. Originally I think there was 9 neighborhoods on there and somebody from
the Planning Commission put our street on. We were even aware of it for the
I first meeting but I guess I don't know why they want to put them on now. Our
biggest concern is not just horses. I mean that's fine and there are some of us
with horses there and we like it. We've got barns and we'd be grandfathered in
' whether you change this or not. The big concern is down the road if I sell my
place, what good is 2 1/2 acres with a nice 40 x 63 polebarn if the guy who buys
it from me cannot have horses. I don't think he's going to want to mow 2 acres
of grass. And some of these people have that land. They've got 4 or 5 acres.
' A lot of it's swampland and you can't build who don't have horses but they're
looking at the resale of that down the road. 10 years from now, 5 years from
now the next guy comes in and he's going to want a little open land. Maybe for
I wildlife or whatever and they're putting a restriction on us and to me it's
almost a hardship. The people down the road, that may be somebody's retirement
money. They have bought out here and I hear people say well, we can't stop
progress. Well we're not. They're building all around us yet. All we're
' saying is if you want to put restrictions on this neighborhood to stop the
development, that should have been done 30 years ago when it started new. Now
you're shutting the barn door after the horse is already out. That doesn't make
I a lot of sense to me. I guess I just want to express everybody's view on that
here as far as I'm concerned and that's why all these people are here. We've
got a nice neighborhood. No complaints on anything or anybody. I don't know
I why we'd want to change it so we're asking you to delete the West 96th and the
Jeurissen Addition. Thank you.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can I ask you a question. Would the permitted accessory
I use of horse and barns and so forth, anything related to horses, would that
address your concerns and then still, the reason I'm looking at it is because
certainly it's a developed neighborhood. Yes, I agree with that. Also, it is a
I known fact that not all of you will be living there forever and as the, you move
out and new people come in, they may feel differently about the electrical
substation and that type of thing.
1
' 14
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
Wes Dunsmore: They're talking commercial, if I read that right in there.
commercial electrical substation. They're talking cemeteries. Wholesale
things. Those can never go in there.
Councilwoman Dimler: But I mean the A2 allows certain things to be put up that
are not allowed in the RR. They may not want that so if the only issue is
horses, I'd like to know that because then what I'm proposing to do would take
care of that.
Wes Dunsmore: Its a big issue but I can't speak for some of the people on 1
there who do not have horses right now. I can't see some of those mineral
extractions, cemeteries. Right now the way it stands as agricultural, according
to you guys, I could put a cemetery in my place. I don't think anybody up here
would let me do that right now.
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't know that we could stop you. 1
Wes Dunsmore: I think you'd find a way of stopping that.
Roger Knutson: It's listed as a conditional use? 1
Councilwoman Dimler: No.
Roger Knutson: Permitted use?
Councilwoman Dimler: Permitted use. We could stop them. 1
Roger Knutson: No.
Wes Dunsmore: Well I think my neighbors probably there would be enough smoke 1
laid around there that I don't think it would go through people.
Mayor Chmiel: They may bury someone else. 1
Wes Dunsmore: Yeah, exactly.
Councilman Wing: Along that same line of questioning, being you're kind of 1
representing West 96th Street. What if your neighbor under the agricultural
zoning goes ahead and really expands his horse operation. Puts up a building
that you genuinely don't like that's maybe offensive to you visually and maybe
is going to devalue your property just by it's presence and numbers of horses
and so on. This RR might give you an opportunity to say boy, I don't like that.
Maybe we shouldn't allow that. Maybe that is getting excessive. 1
Wes Dunsmore: I don't think so. I had to come up here. I had to get a permit
and I had to have inspections, meet setbacks and everything for my polebarn.
Some are restricted so it had to meet Code already.
Councilman Wing: Would that be the case Paul? There are still those controls
on what could go in? 1
Paul Krauss: No. I mean yes there was a building permit that's required and
for the building permit you make sure that the building's structurally sound and
15 1
1
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
doesn't fall down and meets the setbacks. But it doesn't get at the issue of
1 should there be an agricultural operation with 40 horses or whatever the number
is. That's not something the building inspectors look at.
Wes Dunsmore: But there is city restrictions right now. Only x number of
horses per acre or whatever so nobody can move in on that small amount with
20 -30 head of horses. And if they did, I could care less. I like them. Thank
1 you.
Councilman Mason: I think it's pretty clear.
' Mayor Chmiel: Maybe there are still some more that want to come forward. I
think that probably. Pardon me.
Resident: I say there's more of us that will get up there and talk if you're
pushing for it to go but if you're going with us, we'll get it over with.
Councilman Workman: I'm sorry Paul, I don't see where it says that a cemetery
is a permitted use in the A2.
Paul Krauss: It's a conditional use.
1 Councilman Workman: I don't see that either.
' Paul Krauss: It's on page 1205. It's use number 4.
Councilman Workman: Oh, okay. It kind of got blended in there. A commercial
communication transmission tower would need setbacks.
Paul Krauss: Yes it does but we did have one put up last year.
1 Councilman Workman: Didn't that have necessary setbacks pertaining to height?
Paul Krauss: Yes.
Councilman Workman: And that was a bigger lot. Would any of these lots sustain
those setbacks?
1 Paul Krauss: It could. I mean the setback for a commercial communications
tower is the height of the tower.
1 Councilman Workman: From what?
Paul Krauss: From the property line.
1 Councilman Workman: But these are all, at least West 96th Street, these are all
very thin.
II Paul Krauss: Yeah, I don't know the exact, whether one would fit there but the
tower that was approved was 140 feet high so you would need a lot that's 280
feet across to locate that.
Resident: Our lots are 150 feet wide. Somebody can buy two of them.
1 16
1
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
Councilman Mason: That's kind of the issue there. They're all developed.
Resident: We've all bought a large lot. Everybody likes to have a hobby or
something...if someone wants to do something, I kind of agree with that. That's
why we bought it because everybody likes to have the room and stuff...You know
. what's going on. We all don't have horses but I would as soon it be left the
way it is now.
Councilman Workman: Your's is a rare neighborhood I would say then because we
normally don't find that kind of cooperation. It's good to see.
Matt Dill: My name is Matt Dill. I live at 9610 Meadow Lark in Riley Lake
Meadows. We have horses and we would like to be able to keep to have that
priviledge and that is most of the problem I would have with this rezoning. I
see any restriction, you're going to get a benefit and a restriction placed on
you and like Dick, it sounds like he talked to you. You know we have covenants.
I'm not worried about a communications tower in my neighborhood. I can't put a
flagpole over 10 feet in my yard according to the covenants. An out building is
limited to 850 square feet and it has to match the house so I'm not really
worried about any of those kinds of things so I guess I wouldn't want to have a
restriction because I don't think I'd be getting a benefit on the balance. And
I'd also like to say the neighborhood is only a few years old. We were the
first ones to move in less than 3 years ago and we didn't hear any of this
coming then so I think it's kind of a short time. It's not like the city has
moved into it in that length of time. That's everything I have to say. Thank
you for your time. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Appreciate it. Anyone else? If not yes sir.
Mel Tensin: My name is Mel Tensin on West 96th Street. I like the 1
opportunity, I've met some neighbors I haven't seen before. Were the newest
member of the neighborhood. We moved in in February. We have been in Minnesota
for two years. It took us over a year and a half to find a place we wanted to
purchase. West 96th Street, the reason is exactly the way it is. At present we
bought the property and I have an extremely large polebarn to the neighbor to
the west of me and if there was any restriction that I wouldn't be able to put
up a building of the same or close to it, I'd be a very unhappy camper. Seeing
this one right next to me and me being restricted so I don't like the
grandfathering in. I'd like this whole motion just to be denied for the West
96th Street. We need your help in a lot of things and we appreciate it. This
just happens to be one we don't need.
Mayor Chmiel: If there are no further, oh one more. 1
•
Dick Vogel: I'm Dick Vogel and as Matt Dill said, this is.a fairly new
development and in the covenants horses were permitted but not for commercial
use. Not a commercial stable and some of the lots have been sold. They all got
a covenants when they purchased the lot and maybe someone would want to have
horses there that hasn't built yet. I'm just saying I think 2 1/2 acres should
permit horses. They knew it when they bought the lot I guess that horses could
go in there and that's all I wanted to say.
11
17 '
•
1
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. With that I'd like to make a motion. That City
Council approve the rezoning 91 -9 for property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to
Rural Residential District for the following subdivisions:
' 1. Timberwood Estates
2. Sun Ridge Addition
3. Pioneer Hills
4. Lake Riley Woods North
' S. Oeerbrook
6. Hesse Farms
and that's it.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: There's a motion on the floor with a second. Discussion.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can we make this the first and second reading?
Mayor Chmiel: I would just as soon leave it as a first reading. There may be
some other.
II Councilman Workman: Can I ask a question? And I'll just take one neighborhood
out of here randomly. Timberwood. Why aren't the Timberwood people here? Why
don't they have a problem with this? Because there's no barns there. I know
1 that some of those lots in the covenants are allowed horses.
Paul Krauss: First of all if we can clarify this. Horses are allowed in either
district. I mean there's no question of that. You're a rural residential lot.
You can go put up your fence and have your horses. The only difference is in a
rural residential lot, if you want to build a stable for your horses, that's got
' to get approval and we have to tell the neighbors about it. That's the only
difference. Horses are allowed. As to why Timberwood didn't object, I don't
know. I mean we notified everybody in every subdivision that was lifted in your
report. The West 96th Street neighborhood wasn't initially, notified because
I they weren't initially in there. When the Planning Commission did want that
neighborhood included, we asked them to hold off taking action. Then we
notified everybody on 96th Street. So we did get a number of calls and again
you don't keep tracks of calls you get but I know Kate got some and I got some
of people who were saying, after they wanted it explained to them, but they said
that sounds fine. So I can't represent the cross section of opinion in
Timberwood because I don't honestly know but I've got to believe at this point
it's not for lack of knowledge. They certainly know about it.
Mayor Chmiel: And that's why I'd just as soon keep this with the first reading.
II Resident: Could I ask just one thing?
I Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Resident: I thought Paul said in our rural residential we could have a horse.
When you came in for a permit for a building is where the problem is. Is that
correct Paul?
18
1
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
Paul Krauss: That's correct.
Resident: Well with a horse in Minnesota you do need a shelter for them. 1
I mean I think they go together. The winter for sure and I don't know what...so
I don't think you should keep those. If you're going to have horses, you've got
to have a shelter.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to approve the first reading of
Rezoning 191 -9 for property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to Rural Residential
District for the following subdivisions:
1. Timberwood Estates
2. Sun Ridge Addition
3. Pioneer Hills
4. Lake Riley Woods North
5. Deerbrook
6. Hesse Farms
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1
Mayor Chmiel: This will be the first reading. We will have another reading on
what specific date? Two weeks from today. What's the date on that Paul?
Paul Krauss: The 14th.
Mayor Chmiel: The 14th of October. 1
Resident: Is 96th Street eliminated from this now?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. We eliminated Country Hills. We eliminated Riley Lake 1
Meadows. We eliminated West 96th Street area and Jeurissen Addition.
Residents: Thank you. 1
APPROVE OFF -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE. SEVEN FORTY -ONE CROSSING. PASS BY
LIQUORS II, DOUGLAS PASS AND ROD PANKONEN. 1
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, it's a little unusual for the Planning Department to
become involved in liquor license requests. Typically it's handled as an
administrative item with Public Safety doing the police checks. Our involvement
in this is a little bit of a backdoor type of thing. Our ordinance is a little
fuzzy on this type of issue. Liquor stores are specifically allowed in the CBD
district and the BH district. They're not specifically allowed in the
neighborhood business district which the Seven Forty -One center is.' Normally
when an item isn't specifically listed in one district but it is in another, you
assume it was intention and it's not allowed. However, in this case the
neighborhood business district has an item called neighborhood retail business.
It doesn't say what it is but it says that that's allowed and when I first heard
of this, I felt that a small square footage liquor store probably fit that
definition. In discussions with the City Attorney we felt that we had several
options in clarifying this. The first being put through an amendment to
actually add it as a permitted use in the neighborhood business district.
That's fairly lengthy and I'm not sure you want to change the ordinance for a
19 '
1
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
single g e use. Another possibility was take it before the Board of Adjustments and
have them clarify the issue. That's one of their purposes. The third option
that was suggested by the City Attorney, which I supported was that the City
Council has a good bit of latitude on whether or not you want to approve a
liquor license. I wanted to make you aware of this situation and if you choose
11 to approve this, you would have made the determination at the same time or the
interpretation at this time that a small scale liquor store is allowed as a
neighborhood business. I would also point out too that although there was a
conditional use permit several years ago with SuperAmerica and theie 3.2 liquor
license was denied on that. I believe it was denied in large part, from the
record anyway, in that there was concern whether a convenience store could
adquately manage the sale of liquor and the problems that would ensue if they
couldn't. Since that time, and again this is a professionally managed store
that passed through the Police checks and everything else. Since that time
we've approved a full liquor license for that PJ's restaurant that ultimately
was not built but that was certainly I think that was 11,000 square feet. It
was quite a large establishment. There's also been an approval for the Chinese
Restaurant that's in there and they've been operating there for quite a while
without any problems. So to make a long story short, we didn't see any real
problem with it and we would support your interpreting the ordinance to allow
this size liquor store as a neighborhood business. With that I guess I'd pass
it back to Don to talk about the liquor license itself because that's not
something we're involved in.
Don Ashworth: Staff did review the applicant and under ordinance they, staff is
recommending approval of the license.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there something you'd like to say?
Doug Pass: My name is Doug Pass. I'm one of the owners of, we own Pass By
Liquor in Chaska which is just up the road. Our credentials, you know they had
background checks on the police in Chaska. I'm married. I have a wife and two
kids. I quit my regular job for this job. We take it very seriously. We work
with the police in Chaska. We plan on doing the same with the police in
Chanhassen. I can't have the store closed because I'm selling to minors,
' because I'm doing things under the table, because I'm doing things I can't do
because it is my living. I worked 15 1/2 years at my old job. I'm not a person
that just decides I want to open a liquor store today and I'll be gone tomorrow.
That's not my intention here. My partner has lived in this area for the past 3
I years. He's the reason that we are out here. Because of the growth of the
area. He's lived in it and seen it and it's just a business opportunity for us.
We did our homework in the Chaska store and now we feel we did our homework in
' the Chanhassen store.. This is a growing community. The projections for the
years to come as far as the number of people that would support a small
business, the growth looks phenomenal and we would just like to jump on that I
' guess. We don't want to be millionaires. We don't want to be greedy but
there's a chance for me to work for myself instead of working for the guy I did
downtown for 15 years getting by. That's why we want to do it so if you have
any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer them for you.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you.
Doug Pass: Thank you.
20
i
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? Let's start on this side. Ursula.
Councilwoman Dimler: Oh, thank you. Isn't that wonderful. I guess that after
reading through this, the first two approaches didn't make much sense to me so I
would agree with the third approach and that is that the Council interpret as
was recommended by staff. This liberal interpretation of the ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Richard. 1
Councilman Wing: Is that all?
Councilwoman Dimler: That's it. 1
Councilman Wing: I agree with Ursula in the interpretation. I just remember
this shopping center was hotly contested from the beginning from the
neighborhood and I think the surrounding neighborhood is relatively conservative
neighborhood and they're concerned about what is in there and the businesses and
I'm not convinced that this is an appropriate use for the shopping center nor in
the best interest of the shopping center or the neighborhood and my concern
rests with the fact that there's a Shorewood Liquor store immediately across the
street. I see a price war occurring. I see ad campaigns. I see that suddenly
for these two liquor stores to survive, start to dominate that corner. So I
guess I would tend to interpret that this maybe is not what we want on that
corner. Not the type of business we want on that corner. I don't think we need
to have two of them in close proximity and I'm interested in what the local
neighbors would'say that would be the primary users of this corner. If they
suppport it or if in fact were upset about it. I'm not so sure I wouldn't like
to see this tabled until -a neighbor could go out to the immediate neighborhood
advising them of this intended useage and possibly some neighborhood input. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Tom.
Councilman Workman: Their request was printed in the paper and those people 1
being quite astute out there I'm sure were aware of it. I guess I'm not going
to concern myself with a liquor store that's in Shorewood. I'm not exactly sure
Doug where is Pass By Liquors in Chaska?
Doug Pass: It's called Jonathan Mall. It's at TH 41 and Pioneer Trail.
Councilman Workman: I still separate that from Chaska so sorry about that. 11
I guess the center, maybe Doug got a good deal on it. The center hasn't been
hopping and popping real well. I don't know that we need to worry about that
either. It's a piece of retail space that has moved along slowly. They've
obviously got a traffic generator here and Doug and Rod, the idea of the center
is to bring in traffic so that other businesses founder. Or not flounder but
rather prosper. The old center that I used to be in had the MGM and there's an
awful lot of traffic there not that, I don't know. Maybe there was traffic for
me there. Maybe there wasn't. It probably wasn't bad but that's the idea and
the concept behind, we're trying to run that kind of a business and liquor
stores are seen as favorable because they do generate an awful lot of traffic.
I guess my feeling being that if there's no problems from public safety in
generating this kind of a thing, I don't know how this would affect the
neighborhood. I guess just knowing, if somebody has a problem perhaps with the
21 1
1
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
sale of alcohol in that neighborhood, I'm not sure how that can affect, how that
' really will affect their.
Councilwoman Dimler: They already have the one in Shorewood apparently. 1
II Mayor Chmiel: Let Tom finish.
Councilman Workman: If there's a price war, then I'm sure Mike Mason will be up
I there. So I'm looking at it as another business and hopefully a viable business
that the neighbors up there will frequent when they buy their bottle wine for
Christmas.
1 Councilman Mason: I don't think I'd better say anything after that. One
wonders about more liquor stores. We've had some problems with under aged sales
in the past in Chan and I see that as the biggest problem. You certainly talk
II like you'll do your best to avoid that from happening and I think I share some
of Councilman Wing's concerns. I think I also hear what Tom says about getting
more business in the area and helping that center out. I guess I would agree
' with Councilwoman Dimler.
Councilwoman Dimler: I just have a question to Paul then. Is it required that
we send out notices to the neighbors as Richard was mentioning for a particular
II type of a use. I didn't think it was.
Paul Krauss: No Councilwoman Dimler. There's no planning request here.
' There's no conditional use permit or anything else which there was on the PJ's.
We did have a lot of comment on that and that was favorable but no, there is no
requirement to do that and under our liquor licensing regulations, there is no
requirement for that either. So it didn't trip anything on my side. It didn't
II
trip anything on the other side. One neighbor is aware of it, in fact called me
today to raise some concerns with it. I'm not sure whether she read it through
the paper or not but there was one of the people that was active I believe back
1 when. But again no. No notice.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess my concern is I'm asking what authority does the
City have to stop a business if we don't have a really good reason? Legitimate
reason.
Mayor Chmiel: Under our zoning, what are liquor stores permitted in?
1 Paul Krauss: The CBD and the BH.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. But in this specific area, this is considered to be, it's
not normally considered to be a permitted use within this area and if it doesn't
spell it out, you run into a bit of a problem. How can we correct that ? -
' Paul Krauss: I suppose you can be, ask for a more explicit definition of what
neighborhood retail really is. Specifically as to liquor stores, it's kind of
tough to define something as broad as retail. They keep inventing new things to
1 sell in stores and it's tough to write an ordinance that limits you from doing
whatever is new. Otherwise you wouldn't have any video stores. But you could
for example ask us to come back with something that specifically allows
1
1 22
1
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991 1
neighborhood scale liquor in that district which might be under 3,000 square
feet or 4,000 square feet. Whatever the appropriate number is.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I would rather be a little more consistent than to just
sort of shoot from the hip as we're doing now in making it a permitted use. I
think I'd like to see something come back from staff with this and sort of
clarify those kinds of things because if situations come up again, at least they
can be addressed. Yes Don. 1
Don Ashworth: We had some of these same questions hypothetic with the strip
over by the Chan Estates area. That again is neighborhood business. It does
become a question, even with the Dominoes. I mean are they city wide or are
they serving that neighborhood? I think that the definition that we came up
with and potentially should have in our ordinance firmed up as you're stating
was if the store is say a smaller store. 2,000 -3,000 square feet, it's in all
likelihood serving that neighborhood. Whereas you get into a typical MGM,
10,000- 15,000, even 20,000 square feet, you're in all likelihood serving a much
larger. Paul is correct in that the licensing procedure, I've seen in some
communities where they do notify a neighborhood for on -sale liquor. I've not
seen any hearing requirements associated with an off -sale. And again in this
particular neighborhood we did see two on -sale licenses that have been issued
but again I should note to the Council that the neighborhood was not notified
and if you do end up tabling, you may wish to take and see staff make that
notification.
Alex Wagner: I'm Alex Wagner. I live in Willow View Cove. I've not direct
interest in this particular outlet but I do find it quite surprising to hear
that there's no requirement for notice for a liquor outlet to the residents in
the community. I would strongly urge the Council to consider making any type of
alcohol beverage outlet a conditional use such that there's a clear opportunity
for public comment. In the light of the extent to which problems that we have
are associated with alcohol as well as other drugs, we shouldn't treat it
lightly. I would like to see it be a conditional use item that requires some
public input before a new liquor license is issued in any case. In any
particular case. Thank you. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I think with that specific shopping center we've gone
through an awful lot of discussions with them in making sure that what was
addressed within their specific area, with what was going in was discussed
rather openly. Hopefully by this specific position that we may take this
evening, and at least I'm looking at tabling this because I want to be
consistent with what we're doing within the city, I would much rather delay this
for 2 weeks and come back with a conclusion. But to be restrictive enough to go
through the process of having a conditional use for an establishment as such and
I agree with the position you're saying. It's a drug per se but there are also
some people that can eliminate that as being a drug by just having a drink or a
glass of wine and so on. So with that I see a gentleman here who'd like to say
something. Just please state your name and address.
Clem Springer: My name is Clem Springer. I'm the manager for Seven Forty -One.
I didn't come here with this particular in mind but I thought this was going to
go throughout without any concerns tonight. I'd like to say that we feel that
the liquor store in the center would be a good addition to the center to help
23 1
1
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
generate the mix that we need in that center to have a retail mix and a reason
I for coming there. I think it's very complimentary to the video store, the pizza
place. I think those kinds of businesses are very much looking forward to this
business opening there. As you've been aware, that center has had it's tough
times. We've been, this last 6 months we've had an increase in interest in
there and we feel that the liquor store will help us with the leasing of the
rest of the spaces in there. And for those reasons I'd like you to give it
favorable consideration. I want to also point out that I manage a center up in
II a north surburban community and we were going to put a liquor store of 2,500
square feet in that center and the City Council said they didn't want anything
less than 4,000 because it didn't generate enough in taxes so I think you can
' get two perspectives on that kind of a situation. Personally as a former City
Planner and so forth, I certainly think that you're treading on some treacherous
waters to start getting in to making decisions on zoning based upon the size of
a business and dictating to a business what size they ought to be in order to be
1 successful because I think sometimes it's very difficult to do that. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Richard.
II Councilman Wing: I'd just like to relate back to it. I think Don you're not
going to be able to help me with this but in 1981 or 1982, and I think it was in
. conjunction with the gambling ordinance that the Public Safety Commission wrote
at that time and recommended. On public record with the Council the Public
Safety Commission, which was fairly well rounded at that time in terms of police
support. Our report to the Council suggested, and this is along with Mike's
II comment about the question of more liquor stores being in the best interest of
the City and that's maybe my major concern here. Not the business aspects of it
nor is tax an issue here. The gentleman spoke about the drug issues. More
.1 liquor stores. The point here, at that time Public Safety Commission presented
to the Council it's opinion that liquor, liquor stores, the bars at that time
was, not Filly's but the one before it. The Bronco. They all tended, and then
gambling, were all found to have negative impact on a city overall. Not so much
II as taxes but as far as it's social, human services. They almost all had a
negative impact on public safety in that they all took special attention. So we
at that time I think suggested lightly in approving any of those issues
I because they tend to have a negative impact on the City. It causes the police
department fights, drunken driving, etc. and the bars. We've got a record of
that so that would be my only concern here. I think the only reason I brought
I this up originally, my comments really were said better by Mike. My concern is
more liquor stores and the negative impact that element, you know that's a bad
choice of words. I'm sure this is a very legitimate business and Tom has got
some excellent points. I don't want to misstate myself here. I'll just leave
it at that. I think Public Safety Commission said be cautious about these types
of businesses and tread lightly and go slowly because I think they can have a
negative impact. This one may not and I won't suggest that.
II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, your off sale and on sale I think, which was pointed out
before, probably could have.
II Councilman Wing: Yes, more so. No question.
Mayor Chmiel: And with this, I'm not sure you're going to have quite as much.
1 24
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991 1
Councilman Workman: Don I know that as in the past years on the Council, you
know whether or not to expand for the Dinner Theatre, that one hour from
midnight to 1:00. That special provision and we really thought about that very
carefully. And so we're not taking that lightly and it's not always a good
place to defend a liquor store okay. But I've had an awful lot of people say to
me, where do adults, where are they able to hang out in this town: They've
either got Filly's or the Dinner Theatre. Pauly's will be gone and so where is _
an area that we can go. You know we're shooting down that aspect of our town.
The Bronco was a little bit before my time but I know and have heard all the
stories. But as I mentioned to Mike, I don't want to get into the defending or
promoting the use of alcohol okay. But liquor stores are a part of the State,
City, the nation. That seems to me we're starting to tread on an issue that's
much higher than our own. Not that we couldn't try to handle that issue. On
another hand, if let's say I do not want any more drug stores in town that say
promote the use of birth control say because of my religion. I just don't think
we should have any more drug stores in town. Well a drug store is a use that
would we not have another one out there and here and there where we start to
limit them. If we're going to start to deviate, you know we wouldn't have any
convenience stores in town that sell cigarettes. But we can't do that so when
we start to getting selective about how we're going to decide which stores can
and can't be in here because of what we are perceiving as potentially a problem
and I'm not exactly sure where that problem is, that starts to worry me because
like the drug store issue. There's a lot of things on the racks of a drug store
that hey, that's kind of questionable.
Alex Wagner: Just a very brief comment in response. I think alcohol is
different. It's not like a drug store. It's not like another grocery store.
It's not like another car repair shop. It's different and we have a long
history in this country and in the last 40 years since prohibition with very
clear responsibility for the regulation of the sales of alcoholic beverages that
rest with the State and with each locality and I would urge you to take that
responsibility seriously. You have the right to look very closely at the kind
of community that we're going to have 15 or 20 years from now and whether we
have a liquor store on every corner or whether we're only going to have one in
the city, we need to think that through for the long term impact on the
community. Thank you.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor if I could maybe address that. What I'm hearing
is that I'm not taking this seriously. Okay? That offends me because I am.
I'm simply not going to get into the game of deciding who's going to be in
business and who's not in this specific market. Talk about the one across the
street or the one here. I'm not going to decide who's competition is who's
competition. Condoms, IUD's, you name it on a drug store. There's a whole
social issue we could get into. The whole thing and people could get into that.
That's just one narrow view and that's a view, same thing for a liquor store.
So I'm just, I don't, I guess I'm not taking kindly to somebody saying I'm not
taking this seriously because I am.
Alex Wagner: I did not mean to imply that at all. All I'm saying is that I ,
take it seriously and I would urge the whole Council to think about each
individual outlet in the context of this larger issue. I'm sorry if I offended
you. I in my way meant to imply that you were not taking the issue seriously. I
was just urging the Council to think about the broader issues from alcohol.
25 1
•
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
Councilwoman Dimier: But that's not the issue.
II Councilman Mason: It could be the issue.
Councilwoman Dimier: Next Council meeting please. 1
Councilman Mason: Point well taken. I think there comes a point, being in
education that it's kind of funny, sitting up here and truly having to look at
II the City in a more global aspect if you mill. I agree with what you're saying.
What I need to juggle that with is, at what point is it an educator and I
consider parents to be perhaps the best educators of all. At what point is it
II their responsibility to take on that issue? Just the fact that this Council or
Maplewood or Brooklyn Park or whatever says no to a liquor store is not going to
stop a 13 year old or a 25 year old or an 80 year old from drinking. It could
make it more difficult for them but if they want to get drunk and drive drunk,
they're going to do it unless somebody takes over for them and I certainly don't
think we can do that here. Now I don't know where that fits in with you because
I share some of those same concerns. I mean let's face it. Alcohol is the
II biggest drug problem in this country. If I'm not mistaken, all the other
narcotics combined pale in comparison. I'm not sure interpretting this to allow
an off sale liquor store is going to address that issue.
II Doug Pass: If I could say something real quick and I think it has to do with
the question of individuals really. I don't know if you're familiar with the
' gentleman but his name is Dave Chasers. He owns Chasers in downtown Chaska. I
met the gentleman for the first time rougly a month ago. He and hiw wife came
in and introduced themselves to me. Welcomed us to the City. Said he knew that
it was inevitable there was going to be another liquor store and that's called 1
I America. We also were told that genetleman that owns the Shorewood or as the
City Manager, because as you know, Shorewood is a municipal liquor store. So
you would not have me going to Shorewood because Shorewood will not allow it
because the profits made go into the City coffers. They actually called the
City of Chanhassen and talked to Karen and voice their displeasure of the fact
that I was even coming here tonight to apply for a license. We left it stand at
that but we were called a day later by Liquor Control and that is, the guy is on
II
border line illegal because as is stated, since my partner and I own the store
in Chaska, we cannot get together with any other liquor store to make deals.
I've heard advertising, etc., etc.. You can't do it. It's against the law.
' The fact that we will own two liquor stores if you pass this in two different
cities just gives us the opportunity to buy at somewhat the same advantage as
the MGM's and they have that advantage. That is the reason why we're doing
.' this. Dave Chaser patted me on the back. Wished me the best and told me, open
that one down at the other mall. It's America. On the other extent, I haven't
talked to the gentleman but he's talked to everyone else and I'm surprised if he
hasn't called someone on the Council and voice his displeasure. Shorewood does
I: a $1,300,000.00 a year. What my partner and I look at is that is a large piece
of pie. And if some of that pie can be ours, it's America. I realize I have
people in my own family, including my mother that has told me with the liquor
I problem in this country how do you feel. I can't be everybody's conscience. I
have a living. I have to make a living but yet I'm not going to sell to minors.
I mean people come into my store. I've been told I look young. People come
into my store and they look 30 years old. I've people that are older than I am
and I mean it's simple. I've worked with the police and I plan on working with
1 26
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
the police and I can't do it any other way. But like I said, I can't be
everyone's conscience and you hit it on the head. Some people will drive. Some
people will drink and drive. It puts more pressure on the police. I mean it's
something we all deal with and I don't like the fact that the policemen have to
do the job that my liquor, you know that my establishment's selling liquor. It
is a problem in this country. Education is the major point.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I'd just like to, a quick one. 1
Councilman Mason: What do you see as the ramifications in how we interpret this
for the rest of the City for small liquor stores if you will? I mean what will
prevent them from popping up all over? 1
Paul Krauss: Nothing. If we're directed to bring back to you some sort of
criteria that you let this one go and you want to amend the ordinance that says
neighborhood scale liquor stores are under 3,000 square feet or whatever you get
into, we do have one or two other neighborhood business centers. In the future
we may have a couple more and it's not inconceiveable that you'll get additional
requests. It's not my job or I can't philosophize as to whether or not that's
appropriate. I do recall on several instances though where I've had people
selling pizza telling me that we shouldn't open up another pizza store because
you can only have so many pizza's in town. It's not something I deal with. 1
Councilman Workman: That's my point you know. Insurance agents. If you've got
one you've got too many. Attorneys. Let's limit the attorneys. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I'd like to make a motion that we table this until we are
consistent with what we're looking at. Staff come back as to the discussion
that we had previously and bring that back to us and see where we can go with
that.
Councilman Wing: Second. 1
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can we just add in there that we notify the neighbors ,
since we're concerned because it is a business neighborhood and we didn't do
that.
Paul Krauss: At this point, if we have the time, we can do that. Now are you
looking for us then to bring back an ordinance that we might propose?
Mayor Chmiel: I would like to see something in an ordinance so we don't have to f
go helter skelter and jump around from where we're at. I'm not very comfortable
moving from this particular position because if it's not a permitted use, it's 11 not a permitted use within that district and I think if it could be, then fine.
Let's amend it and get it in there.
Paul Krauss: Okay, we could certainly do that but you wouldn't be in a position
to act on that for several months because it would have to be advertised.
Councilman Mason: So can we act on this one and then look for a rewording of
the ordinance?
27 1
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
II
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, you could. I would rather not see that done. I would
II rather see us go through our normal process as to having it so we can refer to
others that are coming in with this and saying that we were consistent with the
first to the finish.
II Councilman Wing: As part of this process Don of tabling and this ordinance
coming back, would it be reasonable just for my interest, to have the City
Manager write a brief paragraph why we're not muni. The advantages and
II disadvantages of going muncipal liquor store.
Mayor Chmiel: That's because we already have a couple stores in the community
' now.
Councilman Wing: If Shorewood's doing a million three.
II Don Ashworth: I can respond to that. You had to make the election back in the
60's and we didn't make that election.
II Councilman Wing: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: So with that we have a motion on the floor with a second to table
I so we're consistent with what we have going.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table the off -sale intoxicating
liquor license for Pass By Liquors II at Seven Forty -One Crossing until staff
II can bring back an ordinance dealing with the issue of liquor stores in the
Business Neighborhood District. Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Wing and Councilwoman
Dimler voted in favor. Councilman Workman was silent and Councilman Mason voted
I in opposition. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, would you like to give a clarification or for what you've
I already said?
Councilman Mason: Just for what I said. I'm worried about leaving these people
in the lurch right now.
II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I don't want to put them in a lurch but I think if
we're going to be consistent, that's the way we should be. And not just sort of
shoot from the hip and say yes, it's a permitted use and take that position.
Councilman Workman: Mayor I know, and I was silent on my vote. I guess the
thing that I'm wondering about is what kind of response are we expecting back
II
from the neighborhood? It appears as though we go to the neighborhood every
time something wants to move into this mall and we can't continue to have.that
as a part of the approval process for whatever food is cooking out of whatever.
II I guess that in relationship to Mike's concern. I'm concerned about that.
Councilman Mason: I am too.
II Councilwoman Dimler: I think if I could clarify, my understanding was that
we're going to look at changing the ordinance to allow that in the 8N. If we do
that it's going to take some time but we thought while, to inform the neighbors
I was not to get their approval. Sort of make that a condition of approval but to
II 28
II
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991 1
get their feelings on it while we have the time. That wasn't the primary
purpose of tabling however.
Paul Krauss: Could I clarify too? We can bring back to you on the 14th a
proposed ordinance amendment that deals with this. We could also notify the
neighbors. We could also bring back, if you'd like, an ordinance amendment that
would require regular notification with liquor licenses which is not now the
case. On October 14th though you'll have those draft ordinances in hand. You
won't be in a position to act on those so if you wanted to proceed with this
request on October 14th, you would still have to do it before the ordinance has
come through because that's going to take another 60 days. So that will put it
off until probably the first of the year at that point.
Mayor Chmiel: Why are you saying 60 days?
Paul Krauss: We've got to publish legal notice in the paper.
Mayor Chmiel: 10 days prior before the public hearing. '
Paul Krauss: Which is held at the Planning Commission and that's 30 days.
Mayor Chmiel: We can circumvent Planning Commission can we not? 1
Paul Krauss: I'm not aware that you can circumvent the Public Hearing
requirements. Now maybe there's a way and Roger stepped out but maybe there's a
way you can hold the public hearing here and just enact it then but I'm not
positive of that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Would you check with Roger, as he's running through the
halls. I think he's got a book in hand, strictly known as his Bible. And if I
talk a little longer he'll, welcome. We have a question. Phrase your question.
Paul Krauss: I indicated to the Council that we could bring them back draft
ordinance amendments that would define what's an allowable neighborhood liquor
establishment, also possibly changing the standards so notice might be required
for the liquor license itself but that the Council would not be in a position to
act on that on October 14th. The Mayor asked if there's a way we can legally
notice the ordinance, which I think we might be able to make, that's the 10 days
but hold the public hearing here rather than at the Planning Commission?
Roger Knutson: It's got to go to the Planning Commission.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. That was the question I had.
Roger Knutson: You could also hold a public hearing but it's got to go to the ,
Planning Commission.
Councilman Workman: Mayor, can you maybe make it clear to me what we're doing
with this particular applicant then?
Mayor Chmiel: Presently? Right now?
Councilman Workman: Correct.
29 ,
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: He's standing in a band sort of now.
II Councilman Workman: Well, are we saying to him that he might have to wait until
the ordinance is passed?
II Mayor Chmiel: From what they've said, I was trying to see if there was some way
we could rush that a little bit more. But there's no way we can circumvent the
Planning Commission for them to hold the first hearing, public hearing before it
II comes back to Council with their recommendation.
Councilman Workman: I guess I would see that as being somewhat unfair to this
' applicant and it's kind of, I don't know. I heard it tonight. The barn door
and some cows and I think the cows are out of the barn here. I guess as a
member of the affirmative on the last vote I guess I'd like to propose another
1 motion.
Mayor Chmiel: You have the right to so do that.
II Councilman Workman: I do that now.
Mayor Chmiel: With rescinding provided you get the majority of the other
1 members.
Councilman Workman: Do we need a vote to make another?
1 Councilwoman Dimler: Before we do that, could I ask Roger a question?
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
II Councilwoman Dimler: If we write an ordinance after the applicant has come in,
are they grandfathered in any way or does that ordinance apply to them?
1 Roger Knutson: If they're in business.
Councilwoman Dimler: If they are in business but not in our city. How does
II that get interpreted?
Roger Knutson: If they start a new business before you change the ordinance,
1 they are grandfathered in.
Councilwoman Dimler: A business in our city?
II Roger Knutson: In that facility, yes.
Councilman Workman: What's the procedure to bring up another?
1 Roger Knutson: A motion to reconsider.
' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it would be a motion to reconsider it.
Councilman Workman: So moved.
1
1 30
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
Councilman Wing: Then what's going to be the point of this ordinance? To allow
liquor stores. Curtail liquor stores. Ban liquor stores. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Make them as part of the ordinance requirement, whether it's a
permitted use or not a permitted use.
Councilman Workman: In which districts?
Paul Krauss: Neighborhood Business District. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Although when we have one already after the fact, then the
ordinance will pass right? I mean will that not set a precedent for that
ordinance then?
Paul Krauss: I suppose it does. I guess I go back to our original
recommendation to you that we didn't think, and this is our opinion again
because there's nothing to judge but we didn't think that a, and I forget the
square footage here. I think it's something on the order of 2,400 square feet,
size store is excessive for what is viewed as a neighborhood type business. It
was our proposal to you that you, if you choose, interpret the ordinance in that
way. If you come after the fact and have an ordinance that says the cutoff is
3,000 square feet, you haven't caused any problems. If you reject the ordinance
entirely, then conceiveably, I mean this one's already in but then you can
conceiveably not do it again. You have a lot of latitude and again I defer to
Roger on this but you have a lot of latitude on granting liquor licenses.
Councilman Wing: Why would we care about the size and why would we want to
encourage a 4,000 foot store?
Roger Knutson: In a neighborhood business area, you don't want to bring in
traffic from all over. the Midwest because it's supposed to be a neighborhood.
So you want a smaller facility as opposed to.
Councilman Workman: Well I have a motiom to reconsider.
Mayor Chmiel: And it was seconded. '
Councilman Mason: Yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? j
Councilwoman Dimler: It takes 4/5 right? That will take 4/5 vote? 1
Mayor Chmiel: It takes a 4/5 vote for reconsidering, yes.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to reconsider the previously
made motion to table the liquor license request by Pass By Liquors II. All
voted in favor except Councilman Wing who opposed and the motion carried with a
vote of 4 to 1. '
Councilman Wing: I supported the tabling just to give my mind a chance to study
this and think it out a little more. I'm not saying no to the applicant nor to
the liquor store.
31 1
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
Councilman Workman: Well I guess I'd make that alternative motion.
Mayor Chmiel: We have a 4/5 majority, 4 to 1.
Councilman Workman: I guess, and I don't want to circumvent the neighborhood
input. What I'm trying to get at here is, and I guess I ultimately wouldn't be
opposed to maybe carrying this to October 14th if we had to. I don't know what
Doug's time line is. Probably fairly quickly, because I don't want to
II circumvent the input of the neighborhood. I just don't want to have to have him
go through a full ordinance process when he's come here and that's where we're
shutting the door when the cows are already out of the barn. Which I don't
think is fair and so I guess my motion would be to approve this and then direct
staff to check into the ordinance and we can go through that process in the next
2 or 3 months.
II Mayor Chmiel: I understand the position of trying to get this business moving.
But I sort of feel like just what you're saying. We're opening the gates and
allowing this to go through but then we'll put a restriction on anyone else who
comes in when we should be consistent, as I said before in the first place.
Start it now and I don't want to delay his timeframe but yet if we do it
properly, that's the way I feel it should go. That's just my position.
II Councilman Workman: I just feel that for this gentleman's business plans, it is
too late for us to do something.
II Mayor Chmiel: Well that could very well be but this is the first time this has
come before us as well.
I Councilman Wing: That's not our problem. Our's is the overview of the global
situation. Mr. Mayor, I don't disagree with anything that's been said and 1
whether this passes or not, you know I'm neutral enough but the original
discussion was sort of the overview of the liquor store, overview of the
' neighborhood liquor store and impact, social concerns and I don't think we've
really discussed that enough to make a decision. That's why I really supported
the tabling. Just enough to clear our minds and as far as I'm concerned, it
I could come back and I would probably tend to support this based on Tom's
comments but not until I've had a chance to let the air clear here a little bit.
Right now I feel under pressure or impulsive to do something. I don't think
' it's necessary. I don't think it's, the City have a little rest period on this
one.
Councilman Workman: I guess I'd feel the same if we had more than one liquor
l store in town. We have one liquor store in town. 28 square mile city with
12,000 population and at least 3 major highway corridors going through it. I
don't think they're on top of each other at this stage.
II Mayor Chmiel: No, I don't disagree with that either. But I guess I'm just
sticking to my guns as I have with being consistent with it. That's the only
' reason.
Councilwoman Dimler: At this point I guess I'll second Tom's motion.
1 32
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There's a motion on the floor with a second. Any other
discussions?
Councilman Mason: And that motion is to approve this?
Mayor Chmiel: To approve the off -sale intoxicating liquor license for Seven
Forty One Crossing, Pass By Liquors II as the motion and with additional studies
to be done as Tom has indicated, for staff to review. Does everyone understand?
Councilman Workman: Can I ask one more question?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. 1
Councilman Workman: When do you plan to open, and keep in mind that your being
maybe in the neighborhood's good graces might help your business. 1
Doug Pass: We wanted to open no later than November 1st. Only reason being
that we have a lease signed on the contingency that we get approval of a liquor 11 license. We have financing at the Bank of Chanhassen contingent on the fact
that we get a license from the City. We've got everything tied together. The
only reason we want to open no later than November 1st is due to, in our
business it's a cycle business. We have the holidy season coming up. If we '
don't open before the holiday season, there is no point in opening at all until
May of next year. But then I have to start all over again as far as my
financing, my lease. My lease expires. What I have signed. The lease expires.
Expires period if I am not granted the liquor license. I have heard some
concerns from up there that you're saying a precedence or what not. I do know
that the Council has to realize that my liquor license is up before you each
year so that if I'm not a model tenant as far as the liquor industry is
concerned, then I don't receive a license from you and I'm not grandfathered in
anything.
Mayor Chmiel: Your integrity to me is not in question and the operation of the
facility.
Doug Pass: I realize that but I mean the facility itself, if it doesn't meet '
I'm sure the City, I mean each year you review my license. If the City can come
back and I'm sure the City Attorney can tell you that. If there's a reason why
I should not be given that license the second year, I'm not grandfathered in
anything. Is that correct?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Doug Pass: I mean then it's all done.
Mayor Chmiel: That wasn't my point at all. 1
Doug Pass: I understand that but the way you explained it to me now, with the
table and the way the time goes back, for me to open the store, it won't happen. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll call the question.
33 1
' City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to approve the off -sale
intoxicating liquor license application of Douglas Pass and Rod Pankonen to
operate a liquor store in the Seven Forty -One Crossing strip mall at Highways 7
and 41 contingent upon the following items and to direct staff to prepare an
ordinance dealing with liquor stores in the Business Neighborhood District.
•
- A $3,000.00 Bond.
- Liquor Liability Insurance Certificate; and
- $200.00 License fee.
' Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Mason voted in favor of
the motion. Mayor Chmiel and Councilman Wing were opposed. The motion carried
with a vote of 3 to 2.
Councilman Wing: May I just state why on this one? I don't oppose the business
and I don't oppose the applicant. I don't even really oppose the use of the
shopping center for this. However, I do feel the City needs a little more
' overview and a little more clarification of this situation. That's all.
Councilwoman Dimler: And we are going to get that with the second part of that.
Mayor Chmiel: The motion passes 3 to 2-with the review as you will do.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, may I make a suggestion? I defer to Scott a little bit
on this too. I can certainly give you a land use standpoint of the liquor store
issue. You have neighborhood business that's a zoning district. How big should
it be. I can probably give you some information on that. But it sounds as
though the Council wants to get into somewhat of the philosophical issues about
liquor and it's affect on the community as a whole. The Planning Commission's
not really well equipped to deal with that kind of a subject and maybe that's
' something that, I don't know Scott if the Public Safety Commission might want to
discuss. We can certainly deal with the hard numbers but the philosophical
issue, I can't do justice to that.
' Councilman Wing: I agree. I'd like to address the Public Safety Commission.
Scott have that on the agenda.
' Clem Springer: Mr. Mayor. It seems that there are a few voids in your zoning
ordinance I think when it comes to this 8N neighborhood. I know that just about
every time we come up with a new tenant we have to call Paul and ask him whether
it's a permitted use or not and the liquor store was one example but we've had
' others. I kind of feel like and I'm a little disturbed by some of the
discussion tonight about deciding that it's a neighborhood business based upon
how big the store is and how big a draw it is. One possibility we have is
there's been a medical clinic that's been talking about coming there. The type
of medicine that they'd be practicing is a narrow field. They obviously are
going to have to draw from a 15 or 20 mile radius to succeed. We have a
' podiatrist who we've signed a lease with. Obviously his draw has to be more
than neighborhood to be successful. So I think if that's the criteria you're
going to start using on a neighborhood use, and when you allow a center to go in
that's of the size it is with the spaces that are in there of 3,500 square feet
' to 5,000 square feet on the end caps, I'd like to have a little further
34
•
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
definition before we get down the road with other tenants and then hear a
discussion about the size of store is too big to be a neighborhood type center. '
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think we're concerned with the podiatrist coming in or
who you may have coming in. It's the issue of where we're going with our
particular ordinance as it reads presently. In my opinion that was not a
permitted use within that particular facility and that's the position that
I took. Therefore, if it's a permitted use within what the requirements are as
conditioned within the 8N district, then that's a permitted use and you
shouldn't have any problem having a tenant.
Clem Springer: That's my problem is if you look at the 8N use, and I may be
wrong on this Paul but it has about 10 or 15 specific uses in there and then it
talks about other retail uses. There's always a question, well what are these
other retail uses? The fact that it's not specific like it is in your other
zoning with the highway use, it sometimes make it sound to us like it's not
allowed because it's not mentioned in one and it's mentioned in the other. So I
think that might be something you'd want to clarify, it would be helpful. Thank
you for your action tonight. ,
Paul Krauss: And if I could Mr. Mayor, I have had a number of conversations
with Mr. Springer and a lot of times the answer's been no. And again, I don't
recall exactly what the requests were. Sometimes I think it may have been
before Clem was involved but one was a fast food. That was inappropriate there.
I think one was a muffler shop. But the only place in the ordinance where it
specifically addresses neighborhood orientation is towards retail and that's the
question that was before you tonight. Fortunately I think one of the things
that is listed as a permitted use is professional offices and there is no
clientele implication. It just says professional offices so podiatrist could
have somebody coming in from South Dakota. It really doesn't matter.
Councilman Wing: Paul, just a question for Paul. On this business going in,
are the ordinance in place that's going to preclude stacking beer cases with
sale signs out in front and plaques in the windows that say sale? Is this
business in it's competition going to get out of hand with outside displays and
window displays? 1
Paul Krauss: That's a good point Councilman Wing. As I recall there was a
fairly stiff sign package with this shopping center. You may want to add a
condition though that insures that they maintain, that the only signage allowed
is the signage that is consistent with the shopping center. I don't know that
there's a specific prohibition against the things that you mentioned. ,
Councilman Wing: Well there is for SuperAmerica.
Doug Pass: There is. Excuse me. In the Liquor By -Laws, you cannot display any 1
liquor outside your liquor establishment. We cannot stack beer cases outside
the store. We cannot sell anything but liquor in that establishment. That
includes we can't have potato chips. We can't have any food items. I have, on '
the side I have a little hobby that's a firewood business. I cannot stack
firewood across the entire front and sell it. It's against the law. The window
use is as far as I can advertise. I believe your ordinances are the same on
signs as they are in Chaska. If you'll ever drive by our mall there, we do not ,
35
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
still have a sign up that advertises that we are even in that mall. It is
' against the City ordinance of Chaska. We have to come to the City to ask to put
a sign up on the road which you have to do here in Chanhassen and that sign
cannot blink. It can just sit on the road with an arrow and we can put on it,
II Pass By II now open. We have to go to you for that and I believe the ordinance
is the same for 10 days at one time twice a year. That's all that we can put up
on the road as far as signs go. That's it. If you've seen the Statutes from
the Minnesota Liquor Control, it's this thick. I've had some guys come in and
they laughed at me because I read it. I marked down the things that I had
problems with. We cannot advertise. We can never put a price in the paper. We
can't have a price war. I can't say Pass By Liquor II, Beer $9.99. All you can '
' drink. That's against the law. We can't do that. We can have signs in our
windows.
Councilman Wing: Paul, I'd like to verify this. The other businesses that have
one in, you've specified how any signs would in fact be allowed and what they
can and cannot have. I haven't seen that for this. Why not?
' Paul Krauss: Well there's a sign covenant package for the shopping center.
Each tenant is allocated a sign band. The free standing temporary sign that was
mentioned is something that's allowed by the City. It's allocated to the
' shopping center so the period of time that it's allocated, it's allocated to the
shopping center. How the tenants divy it up is their problem. The only
question in my mind, and I don't remember the sign covenants exactly. Whether
or not...sign being painted up inside the window. I don't know that that's
prohibited by the sign package.
Councilman Wing: Okay, thank you.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's move right along. We moved item 6 to 8(a) and I
believe there may be a motion.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. I move that we amend the agenda to move item 6 into
the next place here in the fact that those parents that wanted to be here are
now here.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I'll second that.
' Councilwoman Dimler moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to amend the agenda to move
item 6 to this point in the agenda. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' CITY CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING THE SALE OF CIGARETTES, FIRST READING.
Scott Harr: I was approached by several Council people requesting that we
consider the amendment that's before you to further tighten up restrictions and
' regulations of tobacco sales. This ordinance was drafted through the City
Attorney's office to regulate self service sales. Sale of tobacco products by
minors and to re- emphasize the restrictions to whom tobacco products are sold
' with administrative remedy regarding suspension to be handled by the City
Manager.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Yes sir.
36
1
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
Alex Wagner: I'm Alex Wagner from 7130 Willow View Cove. I'm also an Associate 1
Professor. of Epidemiology at the School of Public Health at the University of
Minnesota, Twin Cities and I've been working in the alcohol, tobacco and drug
field for about 12 years doing research and teaching. I would like to commend
the Council and the staff for the development of this ordinance. I think it's
very timely. It addresses a pressing problem in our community and in our larger
community. Not just in Chanhassen and tobacco is a critical problem. "It's a
very high risk factor. Early use of tobacco is a very high risk factor for use
of other substances like alcohol or illegal drugs. If we can get young people
to survive to age 20 without using cigarettes, they have virtually no chance of
ever becoming addicted to cigarettes. Young people are primary market for the
industry's that are marketing these products because their customers are dying
off at a regular rate. Over a third of everybody that purchases cigarettes dies
from cigarettes and I think this ordinance is very timely. It's another issue
where any one ordinance like this, any one change in the policy and the way that
we regulate these things in our community is not the answer but it's one thing
that we can do to make it slightly more difficult for people to become addicted
to cigarettes and it will have some marginal effect in attenuating and reducing
this problem. I commend the Council and the Mayor and the staff for the
development of this ordinance and urge it's passing and would only suggest that
you might consider why exclude carton sales from this ordinance. Thank you very
much.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? ,
Mary Sauser: My name is Mary Sauser. I live at 3721 Upton. I'm a nurse at
Park Nicollet Medical Center and we're involved in several research projects,
one of which is a smoking sensation program and I'd just like to share with you
a few things that we have learned along the way. While smoking is dangerous at
any age, it is especially hazardous to start early in life. The younger a
person is when they start to smoke, the greater the risk of eventually dying of
a smoking related disease. Smokers who start before age 15 suffer from cancer
rates 19 times higher than non - smokers. The final report of the National
Commission on drug free schools underscores the urgency for meaningful action
now to curb tobacco use among the nation's youth. Tobacco and alcohol are the
most widely used drugs among young people today, even though their purchase is
illegal. Existing laws restricting sale of tobacco products are rarely
enforced. Each day more than 3,000 children and adolescents start smoking and
consume nearly 1 billion packs of cigarettes a year. Of the 3,000 adolescents
who start smoking each day, 23 of these children will be murdered during their
lifetime. 30 will die in traffic accidents. 750 will be killed by a smoking
related disease. In her 1990 report on the health consequences of smoking, U.S.
Surgeon General Antonia Rebella called smoking a self destructive behavior and
the ultimate consequences of smoking are the most grim. If current smoking 11 rates continue, then 5 million of the children now living in the United States
will die by the year 2020 of a disease caused by smoking.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? 1
Margie Karjalahti: Hi, I'm Margie Karjalahti. I live at 7413 Frontier Trail.
Two years ago the City of Chanhassen, along with Chaska, Carver and East Union
and Victoria adopted a set of 8 community values and the purpose for this was to
focus on how we can help our young people grow with good character and become a
37 ,
i
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
better city. When I thought about this ordinance I was delighted because if we
' can keep kids from trying tobacco, whether it's cigarettes or chew or whatever,
until they're at least 18 when it's legal, they have a much better chance of
making that decision from an adult perspective. And to put the products behind
' the counter seems only to be a process for helping them to practice citizenship,
which is obeying the laws and responsibility which is what we're trying to build
in them. That they can make responsible decisions. So I really commend you for
doing this and I would love to see all tobacco products put behind the counter.
In fact I have changed gas stations simply because this one station I go to has
no tobacco out where children can just reach it and touch it and kind of walk by
and pick it up on their own. And I appreciate that it's not so accessible to
' kids. So I hope you pass the ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Margie.
' John Carlson: I'm John Carlson. I reside at 902 Penamint Court and I too would
like to speak in favor of this proposal. I'm the Vice President for Development
for the Cancer Society of Minnesota Division. The American Cancer Society is a
' member of the Smoke Free Class of 2000 as is the American Heart Association and
the American Lung Association and all of these organizations are supportive of
this type of local proposal. The Smoke Free Class of 2000 is involved in trying
' to work with our youngsters who are going to be the graduating class of 2000.
To have that class be the first totally smoke free class in our society and also
to work with all classes to follow. I would speak on a personal note. Going
into Brooke's, you know you can go in and see the 3 candy bars for $1.00 and
then right next to it you can see the Camel's you know and they look like candy.
You can see the Camel's there and they're right there and it's, I think runs
counter to the message that we're trying to give to our young people. It gives
' the message, implied message that this is like candy and it's very convenient
and it's got a kid's image to it and that really works against the effort that
we're trying to go after with our young people. One important thing to keep in
' mind is that cigarettes do have a warning label on them. That's been long
debated by our Federal Government and that's been in place for quite some time
now and I guess something that has a warning label that is hazardous to our
health and has been proven to be hazardous to our health should be treated a
' little more judiciously in terms of where it's located in our establishment and
I'd just as soon not have them next to the candy bars. I applaud you for this
initiative.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
' Therese Berquist: Hello. My name is Therese Berquist and my address is 7207
Frontier Trail. I also am very happy to be associated with the city at this
time. Very proud to hear what is taking place. Feel very confident that the
ordinance will be passed and I see it as a positive step in keeping cigarettes
' out of the hands of minors. When I first heard about the amendment, I wanted to
be involved in some way and so my choice was to involve other people. In my
everyday life I know of so many people who have concerns regarding tobacco use.
' Minors and adults. For minors and adults and I would just like to say that I'm
very happy to see so many people voicing their concern so I took probably about
an hour and a half and the people that I've run into in the last couple of days
and had them sign a petition. I don't mean to apologize for it but I do want to
emphasize that it's just a very, of all the people I spoke to, there wasn't
' 38
1
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
anyone who did not want to take part in this action of amending the tobacco
sales ordinance. The other point I'd like to make is that in speaking with one
of the signers, she was telling me about her brother who owns a convenience
{ store in St. Paul who just was audited and found that he lost, she tried to
contact him regarding the figure. It was an enormous amount of money in stolen
cigarettes which something I felt comfortable bringing this issue before the
Council and supporting it knowing that it could be beneficial to our convenience
stores, gas stations, whatever. Who do I make the presentation to?
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Mark Fornier: My name is Mark Fornier. I live on 507 Highland Drive which
I suppose to put a little perspective on it is right behind the sort of jungle
garden that Councilman Don Ashworth has. We - often get melons and things from
him. It's kind of a pleasant experience. '
Councilman Wing: Are you registering a complaint?
Mark Fornier: Not at all. They're very wonderful. It's not huge in quantity. ,
I am the President of Student Council at Chaska High School. I'm also a class
officer. I am on the Executive Board of the Hennepin District Student Council.
I get relatively good grades. I plan to go onto a good college to graduate
school. I'm guess what you would call a good kid. But about 5 years ago I did
something that most of my friends and most of the people I know did at one time
or another and that is shoplifting. For one summer we kind of went through this 11 phase where you discover that it's kind of easy to pick up things and you don't
have to pay for them. That's kind of a nice deal and I find after talking to
friends and you kind of chuckle about things in your past, you find that a lot
of them did that same thing and I think that whether the numbers or the figures
that we get from stores and from things like that, actually show it. There is a
definite problem there. There is a definite situation. The shoplifting does
occur at some point in many people's lives and I think an ordinance like this
helps circumvent that problem that people have. In many other situations with
movies, with cassette tapes, with knives, with other material that is easily
shoplifted, there are many measures to circumvent the shoplifting of those
materials. When I heard from Mrs. Dimler about this ordinance, I went and I
announced to the school over the PA system and we had sort of a petition we got
together. I didn't bring that with me but I managed to talk to a lot of people
about that and there was support throughout our school for this ordinance among
those smokers and non - smokers. In particular a young man named Bruce Russo who
has smoked very heavily for several years, he's strongly in support of this
because he wishes that when he was younger it wasn't so accessible. It wasn't
so easy to sustain a habit and I think that's the whole idea of an ordinance
like this. It's something that makes a moral statement and it does have a
strong physical effect. Whether the numbers may show it or not and I think it's
something important that this Council needs to do. I'm also involved in debate '
school and we look at policy making and when we look at a policy and we see that
there's many potential benefits and there is no significant disadvantage, only
logistical problems. Only problems of putting together the thing, there really
is no reason but to do anything but to adopt it. And I think logistics
shouldn't be any issue there that stops this ordinance. I think it's a very
good ordinance and I think the youth of this area and of Chaska and surrounding
areas that I represent in our high schol certainly support this. Thank you.
39
1
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
II
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
II Jeannie Wygum: My name is Jeannie Wygum. I'm President of the Association for
Non - Smokers and you've heard it better from the student than you could ever hear
it from me so I'm not going to add anything to that. I am going to share some
II pieces of paper with you which you may want to use in your discussion. The only
thing I would add is that there are just some new statistics that came out from
the Federal government that show the smoking rates for white teenagers is now
II 41.2% which is very frightening to me. -
Councilwoman Dimler: Jeannie, before you leave could I ask you a question?
II Would you address, I want to use your expertise to address the point that was
made here about including cartons as well in the self service.
Jeannie Wygum: I think it's a good idea. I talked with the people from Target
II stores about wanting them to put their cigarettes behind the counter, particular
their individual packs and it was the security person and he thought that was a
real funny thing. I said why do you think that's so amusing and he said, do you
1 realize how long it takes a good shoplifter to get into a carton of cigarettes?
I said give me a clue and he said, oh less than a second. He said it's just
quicker than a wink to get into a carton. My hunch is that it's adults who are
stealing cartons and that it's kids that are stealing individual packs. But I
l don't have a lot of statistics on that. That's a sense. When I presented that
to the security guy from Target, he did not disagree with that. I think it's a
good idea to put cartons behind the counter. I think it's a little harder for
I stores to do it. It's going to take more space for them. I don't know, for
individual stores that may be a problem but it's a good idea.
I Councilman Wing: Same question to this gentleman. You recommended that. Why?
Alex Wagner: Well even if youth don't take the whole carton, they take a pack
out of the carton. It's the exact same issue that we're dealing with with the
1 individual packs. If the principle is that an addictive drug like this, that we
don't want to have it out on display for young people to see and to easily
shoplift. Having cartons in a grocery store in an area that is not that closely
I watched which is relatively easy to pick up a carton, take it to another place
or take a pack out of a carton in that particular place and a pack of cigarettes
easily fits in your pocket. It's an easy thing to shoplift, as you've heard
from the others.
II
Councilwoman Dimler: So you're saying they're not shoplifting the whole carton,
they're just taking packs out of it and putting it back? Putting the rest back?
II Alex Wagner: I have no imperical evidence. I've not studied this specifically
but this is antidotal evidence.
II Margie Karjalahti: I was shopping in Cooper's in Chaska one day and happened,
they had a free standing carton thing in like the middle of the store and I
watched two young men that were clearly under age take a carton from there and I
II stood and watched them and they got red in the face. I'm sure that their
intention was to just walk off with it so I think, there's an example.
II Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? We'll bring it back to Council. Tom.
II 40
II
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
Councilman Workman: Well Alex, you and I get to agree on everything. We
probably agree on most things anyway. I want to thank everybody for coming 1
tonight. Mark, you kind of remind me of me when I was a youth. I'll leave
everybody's imagination there. I was a good kid too darn it. These kinds of
issues have not only pragmatic concerns but emotional ones too and I won't bore
everyone with the story about my mom who's buried on a hill in Chaska at the
ripe old age of 53 from a lung disease caused directly by cigarettes. But I
will emphasize again that the industry does create Tom Workman's and Mike
Mason's and Richard Wing's and Ursula Dimler's and Mayor Chmiel's who I think
are going to pass this ordinance tonight because they know how that industry
affects our communities. And we'll get to the alcohol issue later. But it is
enlightening Mark to see the youth, who do have a handle on these kind of
situations. I grew up and went to school at Chaska High School in what I will
call the ugliest decade in the world, the 1970's. Ugly hair. Ugly clothes.
Ugly attitudes. A lot of drinking. A lot of smoking. A lot of different
things. I'm lucky to have survived, unless you're a 60's kid I guess. We need
to do this and I'm hopeful that we can make this both first and second reading
due to the logistics of the experts that I think are in the room tonight for
perhaps not being able to make it the next meeting. I do want to see the
cartons behind the counter. I'm appalled when I walk into Cub and Target and
see the wall. Have you ever seen the wall? We need to get this passed because
it's simply,a problem that's gone on too long. The retailers, I know they're
not here tonight, for what reason I'm not sure. St. Paul recently passed a
convenience store, the convenience stores in St. Paul must have two clerks after
midnight. They fought that. Now as you may have found out tonight from our
discussions with the gentleman who had the liquor store, I hold high esteem for
people who have the guts to go into business for themselves. Get up and work
their own business so there's a fragile balance there when you start tampering
with a business. I think St. Paul's doing it properly. Shoreview I think is
attempting to do the same thing. You cannot have one clerk on after such and
such an hour because these people are getting shot and taken advantage of. The
Grocer's Association is fighting that. They would fight this. I'm not sure
where they are. But it comes down to dollars for them and it does not come down
to dollars for us. I think the people who' do smoke are going to continue to be
able to smoke. As I emphasized with the vending ordinance, it's not my interest
to keep people or attempt to keep people from smoking who have the habit because
it's very, very difficult to do so. And again I reference my mother but I hope
we can pass this all tonight with the first and second reading. And again I
want to say thanks to everybody who came and I'll pass it on. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Richard.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I think this probably could have been approved on
the Consent Agenda tonight. I don't think it really even needed public comment
perhaps, although I like Tom and Mike really appreciate the comments and people
showing up and having concern and just your presence tonight. Plus being
everybody got a chance at the podium and Tom said his word, I just returned from
Seoul, Korea. 13 hours and 23 minutes from Seoul to Los Angeles and 3 of those
hours I had to spend middle of the night, dead tired in the smoking section of a
747. Mostly Asians on board. The only reason I use the word Asians is they
smoke a lot and I just, I got off that airplane so furious. I was just besides
myself. I thought of this ordinance the whole time. Anyway, I got that off my
chest. I feel better now. I just want to make a comment. I agree with the
41 1
11
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
cartons. I want to see the cartons gone. We've heard about the horrors of
cigarettes. The problems with cigarettes. The health related and we're really
moving fast to clean them out, but I'm feeling uncomfortable tonight because
cigarettes didn't break up my family and they didn't break up my parents and
they didn't kill my friend. We're moving fast to clean out cigarettes but yet
' we're kind of casual with the alcohol tonight and I'm still upset about that
because that alcohol has killed my friends and cost my friends their career and
broke up my family in my early days and I just look at Edina who has one
municipal liquor store. Just one. They've kept the bars out. I wonder why
Edina's been so restrictive on it. They've got some reason why and I wonder why
we're not more restrictive so I'd like to see the same group come back and
address the alcohol problem frankly and do as good a job as you did on the
cigarettes. I support this totally and I'm real pleased...
Councilwoman Dimier: Thank you Richard. That's a wonderful note and it really
does help me too because I have mixed feelings about the alcohol as well and
I do take that issue just as seriously. I am also pro business though and to me
that's really a struggle but in the case with the alcohol I guess I drew the
line because that is that gentleman's whole business whereas with the
convenience stores and the tobacco products, they have so many other products
that they sell and they can stay in business and certainly we might put a dent
into their cigarette sales but the adults will still be able to get a hold of
them for whom it is legal. But my main concern is here with this is an issue
for the youth that they do not get a hold of it. If we want to tackle the adult
problem, that's another thing and that's not what I want to go into right now.
And again with the liquor again I was making the assumption that the gentleman
said he was going to obey the law and not sell to minors and I think our Public
Safety does a good job on checking on them so I feel reasonably assured that,
' although I'm sure there's some slippage, that we are controlling that alcohol
and I would like to take this one step further from the vending machines and
control the tobacco access to you here and I think that I would also go along
with the cartons, although it will cause an inconvenience. I know of no adult
11 smoker that has ever said that they would oppose access to youth, even though
it's more inconvenient for them to have some access perhaps. They all told me
that they wished they had never started and that they could stop so I apologize
for the increased inconvenience to the adult smokers but I don't think that
they're going to object.
' Mayor Chmiel: Mike.
Councilman Mason: I would like to see the cigarette cartons also put behind the
self. There's been some interesting discussion here tonight on alcohol and
cigarettes and I, I mean this in all seriousness. These discussions tonight, I
know this sounds pretty hoky but it's true. Have made me (a), proud to be a
member of the City Council. The openness that we've seen here tonight. And
II (b), proud to be a resident of Chan. And I usually don't say stuff like that
but this stuff that's come out tonight I really think has been very informative
all the way around. That's kind of piggybacking on what you said.
II Councilman Wing: Have we shamed you prior?
Councilman Mason: No, no.
1
' 42
1
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
Councilwoman Dimler: It's kind of what he meant though.
Councilman Mason: No. Yeah, I would like to see cartons included in this also.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. ...rather than prolong it, accept what Tom was
talking about the ugly 60's. Back in my days.
Councilman Mason: He said ugly 70's.
Mayor Chmiel: But as I said back in my days of course, drugs were not as
prevalent. Smoking was. Unfortunately I didn't start until my later years in
life and finally quit but I guess I am also supporting this particular position
and feel that keeping this away from children under the ages of reason to do
what they'd like is really the way to go. I feel rather strongly with it. I've
even tried doing the same things in making specific incentives for a couple of
my own kids and finally got them to quit but, one I'm still working on. I think
it is. It's a good thing. It's a very healthy thing for them as well and I'll
call the question. Can I. have a motion?
Councilman Mason: First and second reading?
Mayor Chmiel: I would suggest we go through the two readings on this in the
event that there are some of the business people who would like to come back in
here and I don't know how they could really stand there and say it would hurt
them. They may have problems in finding locations for them but I'm sure they'll
find those locations. So I'd like a motion. '
} Councilwoman Dimler: I would move the City Code amendment regarding the sale of
cigarettes, first reading only although I wish I could do the second reading. ,
Councilman Workman: Make a motion to do so.
Councilman Wing: It's going to pass anyway. t
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, first and second reading.
Councilman Workman: Would we need to pass a separate, an initial ordinance or
amendment to our rules before we did that?
Roger Knutson: That's the way you've normally done it in the past. The By -laws 1
state if you want to waive the second reading, that'd be a separate motion.
Councilwoman Dimler: Does that take a 4/5? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I would like to say that I know that we're all for this
but I think we do owe a certain amount of time for the businesses in this
community to come back and discuss this rather than railroading it through by
going right now.
Councilman Wing: Don, I'm going to support you and that won't give us the 4/5. 1
I agree.
1
43
1
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
Councilman Workman: I agree. We may have caught them off guard. I'm a little
surprised. I would like everybody in here who eloquently helped us out tonight
to be aware that October 14th we will probably be doing this again and if you
could make it and attend, it may be a different room at that time.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so at that point then I'll go back to the original
motion for the first reading only.
1 Councilman Mason: Second.
Scott Harr: Councilman Workman, did you want to include any changes in cartons?
Councilman Workman: Well, would we have to delete the part on self- servicing
merchandise?
11 Roger Knutson: If you wanted to do it, I would suggest definition of self -
servicing merchandise be amended to read, self- servicing merchandising means a
method of displaying tobacco products that the public has access to without the
intervention of employee.
Councilwoman Dimler: Fine, with that reading.
Mayor Chmiel: With that incorporated into it. Will the second accept that
amendment to it? Who had the second?
Councilman Workman: I did.
Councilman Wing: Did you?
Councilman Workman: I don't think I did.
' Mayor Chmiel: Michael did.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you accept that?
Councilman Mason: Sure. Absolutely.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the first
reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 10 of the Chanhassen City Code by
adding provisions regulating the sale of tobacco products with an amendment in
the definition of "Self - service Merchandise" to read: Self- Service Merchandise
means a method of displaying tobacco products that the public has access to
without the intervention of an employee. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
II REZONING OF 90 ACRES ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TO CREATE 10 INDUSTRIAL LOTS; LOCATED SOUTH OF THE CHICAGO,
MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD AND EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD, RYAN
CONSTRUCTION.
Kate Aanenson: I'm going to take this in two phases. First will be the
conceptual review and then the rest PUD. The site plan is currently used
II agriculturally. Soy bean fields cover most the site. The farmed area consists
44
i
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
of 67.6 acres of the 94 developable area. There are 12 lots proposed for this
farmed area and two outlots. Outlot A which is approximately 14.3 acres and
Outlot B which is approximately 7.8 acres. According to the National Wetland
Inventory Map, there is a marginal wetland located on approximately where Lot 6
is proposed and staff is coordinating a necessary review with the Army Corps of
Engineers and staff will also require that a wetland alteration permit be
processed for this site. In addition staff has requested that an Environmental
Assessment be done for the entire site. We realize this is an industrial park
and that tip -up panels and the like are going to be used. However, we want to
insure that there's significant architectural standards that will be employed to
maintain this as a high quality project. The applicant has indicated that the
higher quality, high profile buildings be located along Audubon Road and these
buildings will probably be a higher percentage of office type uses. We will
also be asking that they develop PUD documents stating that these standards be
applied. On Lot 12, the only lot that we know for sure what will be developed
is a U.S. Weather Service. They've indicated that they will be locating this
site in the year 1993 or 1994. We believe that this is a really good use for
this site based on the fact that they'll probably need between 10 and 12 acres
of property and that the building itself is very small in scale. Approximately
15,000 square feet so it provides a really nice buffer for those residential
properties on the other side of Audubon Road. As far as street access, access
to the 11 lots will be along the extension of Lake Drive West. This street will
be a long cul -de -sac approximately 1,700 feet long. Lots 2, 3, and 4 will be
accessed off an additional cul -de -sac and they're requesting that Lot 1 have
direct access off of Audubon Road. The engineering department has concerns over
this and we are requesting that this be included as part of a traffic study.
Whether or not it would be appropriate to put additional access onto Audubon
Road. The landscaping and tree preservation. The western portion of the site
contains some unique vegetative features. These features include the Bluff
Creek floodplain and a large stand of mature trees which are approximately 6
acres in size. The applicants are planning to leave the existing mature stand
of trees. As currently planned, the city would take title to Outlot A and
permanently protect this area. The applicants are also proposing to alter the
floodplain of Bluff Creek to build a storm water retention pond. Let me put
that one up there. See where that's shaded there. Where they're proposing to
alter the floodplain there. As far as the grading, we already touched on
altering the floodplain but that would require approval from the DNR, the
Watershed District and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. As far as
utilities, the City, the provision of water seems okay. They will do a looped
system to maintain internal water pressure. The sewer's the big question.
Originally I proposed to come off of a line off Audubon Road and we determined
that that road doesn't go anywhere at this time and under the recently approved
comprehensive plan, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission approved the
-placement of a lift station in the vicinity of Lyman Blvd. in which this entire
site could drain by gravity and then utilizing forcemains, pump the sewage back
uphill into the Lake Ann Interceptor. At this time the consultant working with
Bonestroo, Rosene and Anderlik, the City's engineering consultants on this
matter, exploring appropriate methods of how to serve this area. So the main
concern we'd have is how this area would be serviced and so we'd ask them that
they petition the city to do a feasibility study on the specifics of how this
would be addressed for sewage. Park and Recreation. The applicants have
developed a looped trail system around the entire site. The applicants are
proposing to dedicate Outlot A and the trail system in lieu of park and 1
45
1
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
dedication fees. The applicants are working with the Park and Recreation
1 Commission on this matter. They will be meeting again I believe in the next
week.
II Todd Hoffman: Tomorrow night.
Kate Aanenson: Tomorrow night. They have met with them once and they're working
I out the agreements of how that will come about. That's basically the conceptual
aspects of it. If you want me to move into the PUD. If you wanted to discuss
any questions on the conceptual.
II Mayor Chmiel: Why don't we just save them all until we get through.
Kate Aanenson: Okay, I'll go ahead with the rezoning.
II Todd Hoffman: I have one, to speak on the park fees. It is stated in the
report as it is in the applicant's dialogue that they would like to dedicate
II Outlot A in lieu of parkland dedication. It should be noted that staff is not
recommending that we accept that and that will be discussed tomorrow evening.
Kate Aanenson: Okay, as far as the rezoning. As stated previously, there's 94
I acres that's currently zoned A2, Agricultural Estate and they're requesting to
go to PUD -OI, Planned Unit Development Office Industrial. What I'd like to do
is kind of go through the intent of the PUD zone and show you how they're
I meeting the intent of that. The PUD is encouraged to, for the preservation of
desireable site characteristics including open space and protection of sensitive
environmental features. In this proposed development the applicant intends to
save the existing stand of mature trees along Bluff Creek located in Outlot A.
I In addition, the Comprehensive Land Use Map identifies this creek corridor as
open space. As far as more efficient and effective use of land, the shape of
this property prohibits design flexibility that one can find with a flat, square
' piece of property. It's got the railroad tracks along the northern side so it
kind of landlocks how you could develop the internal road system. If this was
to develop separately as individual parcels, many of these design considerations
I would not be included. These include signage, uniform streets and parking lot
lighting, compatible architectural and building materials. The coordination of
the site development will also improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of
public improvements. For example the project large enough to help facilitate a
1 solution providing sewer service to the new MUSA line. Also the development of
single comprehensive drainage system to maximize the effectiveness of nutrient
removal. As far as the high quality design, the applicants are proposing to
' submit individual building plans for each development lot and the City will
utilize it's normal site plan review for each approved PUD development to make
sure they meet the guidelines that we've established. As far as sensitive
development transitional areas, again we kind of stated that the site is
II
bordered by Audubon Road and the comprehensive land use plan calls for a 50 foot
buffer strip for additional buffering from the subdivisions to the east. In
addition the comprehensive plan calls for a 100 foot buffer along the southern
II property line. Let me show you that on the landscaping plan here.
Councilman Mason: That was 50 foot?
1
' 46
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991 1
Kate Aanenson: Yes. That was when we did the comprehensive plan we put those
development standards in. So that would help buffer those Lake Susan Hills on
the other side of Audubon Road. They did have some concerns because they did
not have a fence along their subdivision. Parks and open space. The site plan _
shows a looped trail system around the perimeter of the site terminating at the
northern and southern property lines along Audubon Road. Plus the preservation
along Bluff Creek. Energy conservation may puruse use of the railroad spurs on
Lots 2, 4, 6 and 7. The main access to the site, excuse me. Use of traffic
management and design techniques. The main access to the site is off of Audubon
Road. This design is a collector street by the City's comprehensive plan and
last year it was upgraded. The traffic improvements such as turn lane may be
warranted to support the additional traffic in the area. So in summary staff
feels that the request is reasonable and we believe it results in a high quality
development that's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and ordinance
standards and the goals of creating a project that's sensitive to the
surroundings. And again I stated that we are working with them in doing an
environmental assessment which will provide much more information. At the last
Planning Commission meeting on September 4th the Planning Commission unanimously
voted to recommend approval. Again there was at the public hearing some
concerns over truck traffic in the area. I guess the main concern came up
through McGlynn's as far as parking on the road and staff has worked to resolve
that specific problem. And again there was a concern with the landscaping.
Additional landscaping. We talked about that. Lake Susan Hills and we will be
addressing that when we do the additional buffering along that western edge. So
staff does recommend approval of the PUD concept plan for the Chanhassen
Business Center subject to the conditions of the report.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anything you'd like to say at this time?
Kent Carlson: I won't take much of your time. Thank you. My name is Kent
Carlson. I'm with Ryan Construction Company. We've worked with your staff over
the past few months to develop these plans and we're real excited about the
opportunity to come to town and develop this property. We see it as a great
opportunity for the community as well as ourselves to bring new businesses into
town and employment, hopefully add some new residents to your community. We'll
welcome your comments or take your questions. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll start with Richard.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, Council. There's no point in sitting here as a
rebel of one and I only say that because back in the Plan I thought the
arguments for running industrial south of the tracks were kind of lame. I
didn't agree with them in the first place and I oppose this with residential
across the street and residential south intermingling industrial at this point,
but it's moot at this point. So just two comments I would make regarding the
project. I think it's a good project. A positive development. I would support
Todd in taking the fees. I'd like to see the'land utilized in this particular
development as much as possible. Is that your intent? Your suggest was fees
would not be taken in lieu of the land? ,
Todd Hoffman: No. The land, the outlot is dedicated as part of the PUD. In my
belief this development would not be feasible as a PUD without that outlot being
dedicated as part of that as stated in staff's report so what in essence would
47
1
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
happen is we would give them two benefits for that one outlot. So it is my
1 recommendation, and I feel it will be the recommendation of the Park and
Recreation Commission, to then accept full park fees as part of this
development. To go ahead and use those park fees to meet the needs of the
employees who will then, and their families who will be working and living in
this area.
Councilman Wing: Okay, I agree with that. The other thing I had is there's
1 just one angle that just doesn't ring of .Paul Krauss and that's under the
setbacks. I think that Paul has consistently pushed for lessening impact and
greater barriers. The 50 foot setback, as I look at these plans and the lots
I along Audubon Road, I find really unacceptable. I think there's a neighborhood
across the street, heavy residential in this area and that even though they're
going to be quality office sites, I think the setbacks from the road should be
II significantly more. Even at a 100 foot level I'm wondering about this.
Paul Krauss: If I could address this Councilman Wing. When the Planning
Commission got into the issue of buffering, what they established and it's an
1 ordinance now. What they established was 50 foot buffer yard along public
rights -of -way and 100 foot on internal property line. It also explicitly says
the setback is then measured from that buffer yard so that pushes everything 100
I feet back. Much of the exposure along Audubon is taken up by the Weather
station, assuming that goes forward and that's going to be mostly open space.
So if you're one of the homes across the street, and I'll grant you those homes
across the street, 20/20 hindsight are closer than one would prefer. But what
1 those homes have is they have their 30 foot rear yard setback. Then you have an
80 foot right -of -way. Then you have a 50 foot buffer yard and then you have a
50 foot setback. Plus it starts to...and that buffer yard has to be intensively
1 landscaped so I'm pretty comfortable that we can do a pretty good job with that.
Councilman Wing: Intensively landscaped? I can take you literally on that.
I'd like to see these buildings along that stretch of road to be conducive with
that housing area. Look like up on, big company up on Wayzata.
Kate Aanenson: Carlson?
1 Councilman Wing: Cargill.
1 Paul Krauss: Oh well.
Councilman Wing: I realize that's extreme but I'm just saying it can, I think
' that I want this area from Audubon Road buffered seriously.
Paul Krauss: We do have every expectation that we will buffer it highly. The
applicants also looking, it's in the PUD to have the higher profile office
1 primarily oriented uses, the higher quality buildings along Audubon on the
higher ground. And I think everybody's working toward that goal. We're working
with a site that really doesn't offer a whole lot to start with. I mean it's a
' soy bean field.
Mayor Chmiel: ...that portion of it and sitting in on the Planning Commission
and listening to discussion there. The people that were there really had some
II concerns but they knew that it was eventually going to be developed and the way
' 48
1
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
Ryan is going to develop this particular piece of property, I think...
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess my main concerns were similiar to Richards. My
first question was, is this consistent with our Comprehensive Plan and you
answered that. I guess I was a little bit surprised. I am surprised that the
Timberwood and other neighborhoods aren't here this evening. I really expected
this to be a long issue but maybe that was all addressed at the Planning
Commission and I'm not aware of that.
Paul Krauss: Councilwoman Dimler, much of Timberwood was beyond the 500 foot
notice. Now realizing that we've had a lot of contact with them and believing
we had a commitment to keeping them informed, I did notify them of the Planning
Commission meeting. We didn't get any representation from Timberwood. I found
that surprising too. But they knew about it.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, but taking that into account then and the process as • II
has moved along through the Planning Commission, I like the staff
recommendations. I am concerned about a few proposals here that I don't think
have been addressed such as the storm water basin. The relocation of the
wetland and the complexity of providing the utilities and having a feasibility
study on that. Also the concerns about TH 5 and the Audubon Road intersection
and then again, and I think Mark did address some of the concerns. Safety
concerns about having another long cul -de -sac and I understand that you would
have preferred the looping but that's not a possibility here so. But is my
understanding correct in the fact that we cannot go ahead and approve this PUD
until these concerns have been addressed?
Paul Krauss: Yes, exactly. You're not being asked to approve it. This is a
•
conceptual review. You're being asked to give your comments and move this along
if you so choose and give direction to us and the applicant so when they do come
back in, we'll have everything brought up to your standards and our standards.
Councilwoman Dimler: My overall comment then would be that I would rather see 1
it be a PUD where we have some control or a little bit more control than to have
these sites individually developed and not have the continuity.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Mike.
Councilman Mason: My two concerns, my basic concerns are the landscaping along
Audubon there. And I think as the city moves further west, I see Audubon Road
and TH 5 being an issue. Anything going on with that?
Paul Krauss: The City Engineer has been in some meetings recently with MnDot 1
and working with them to get the next phase of TH 5 scheduled. I'd defer to
Charles on that.
Councilman Mason: What's going on with that, do you know Charles?
Charles Folch: As of the week before last, we received approval from MnDot on
the cooperative agreement for that segment of the overall improvement project.
The next step is to develop the consultant agreement between the City of
Chanhassen and Barton - Aschmann to actually prepare the plans and specifications
for that portion of the work. That phase, if you will, will take place within 1
49
1
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
the next 2 to 3 weeks and that also has to go through MnDot approval. Once
' that's reached then it's appoximately a 15 month design process before
construction would begin.
Councilman Mason: What else did you say Ursula? You said something I agreed
with.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well, let me repeat it.
Councilman Mason: No. Nuts. If I think of it, I'll come back to it. The PUD
thing. Yeah, I agree. I really like the city and staff being able to work with
the whole package instead of separate pieces. I think it's great. That's it.
Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Tom.
' Councilman Workman: Let's get it done. Come on in. That's my comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Amen. I guess I feel pretty much like that. I did sit in on
this earlier. We also originally sat down and talked about this as to some of
the things which we're expecting to see within the city. I think Ryan is taking
that position to take care of those concerns as well as some of the neighbors
concerns within that area. Ryan is a well known developer and I think they're
looking to have something put in our community that's going to be a benefit not
only for us but for them. For a quick referral to say this is what can be done
' in your community. I sort of like that position at this time. So with that, I
think the stand of trees off in that area and I think a lot of that has been
addressed with the lift station and the feasibility. Park and Rec's final
' decision on Outlot A or the fee per se. I think this is something that all can
fall into place. So with that I would like to have a motion for rezoning of
those 90 acres zoned A2, Agricultural Estate District to PUD, Planned Unit
Development to create 10 industrial lots located south of the Chicago, Milwaukee
St. Paul Pacific Railroad and east of Audubon Road.
Councilman Workman: So moved.
' Councilman Mason: Second.
' Mayor Chmiel: Discussion.
Councilman Wing: Just a real quick comment Paul on parking lots. Having been
to that seminar, I'm not sure as I look at the blueprint on page 1, Lot 1.
' Attractive building facia shouldn't be on the road with the parking lot on the
west side. I think I would prefer to see the parking lot not visible from the
road. I'd prefer to have the building.
Mayor Chmiel: Parking behind?
' Councilman Wing: Yeah. The building on the road with the parking on the other
side. On Audubon Road.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's probably a very optional thing but depending upon
total spaces required for that 3 acres would be the dictating whether or not
1 50
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991 1
those spaces could be. I agree with you if they can be adjusted accordingly and
the building placed on that lot, then it could be done as such but if you look
also at some of these others, they're all over.
Councilwoman Dimler: I would like someone to put my mind at ease. Like I said, 1
1 I didn't think we were going to approve the PUD today. Now the motion is to
approve it. How do we then address the remaining unresolved issues?
Paul Krauss: You're acting on a concept tonight. You'll have this back before
you over the next few months. Affirmative approval and I would expect that most
of those issues would be resolved...conditions at that time. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but once we pass it then the neighborhood, if they
have any opposition will not, they won't have another recourse or they won't
have another recourse.
Paul Krauss: Right. The concept approval is not binding.
Mayor Chmiel: There's nothing that's putting you into that position. '
Paul Krauss: Also, when this comes back in front of the Planning Commission,
there will be the formal public hearing and we'll notify again.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. So at that time they can say we didn't want the PUD
and we can reconsider? 1
Paul Krauss: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. ,
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve PUD Concept Plan
for the Chanhassen Business Center subject to the following conditions:
1. Prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the project to be reviewed
with formal PUD request. '
2. Petition the City to undertake a feasibility study on providing services to
the site.
3. Prepare a formal PUD submittal responding to issues raised in this report,
as well as those raised at Planning Commission and City Council meetings,
while working with staff on the plan development. ,
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER TRAFFIC CONTROL REQUEST, NO PARKING ON YUMA ROAD AND WOODHILL DRIVE. .,
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. This item was presented
before you at the last Council meeting. However, following review of the
Minutes, staff is unclear as to whether or not action was taken on this item.
Therefore it is brought back to you tonight for clarification. As you may
already know, these segments of Woodhill Drive and Yuma Road are one way streets
with an average width of approximately 17 feet. Staff has recently become aware
51 1
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
that vehicle parking on both sides of these road segments is frequently
occurring. At the very least this parking situation presents a potential access
problem. Particular for larger emergency response vehicles. In addition staff
has recently received an anonymous complaint on the accessibility of these roads
' with the two sided parking. This item has since been reviewed by the, and
approved by the Public Safety Commission and in addition notices were sent out
to all the affected property owners for the last Council meeting. However,
staff did not receive any responses either for or against this issue. Therefore
' it is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution restricting parking
on the north side of Woodhill Drive between Nez Perce and Yuma and along the
east side of Yuma Road between Woodhill Drive and Ponderosa.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any discussion? Mike.
' Councilman Mason: It being my neighborhood, the parking on Woodhill really is
an issue. People are, it's a very steep hill and no one really, very rarely do
people park on Woodhill. The issue is Yuma. By parking on the east side, it's
impossible to get around the corner down there. I've had neighbors talk to me
' about it, this, that and the other thing. I talked with everyone on Yuma and on
Woodhill. They are 100; in agreement. The Yuma Road issue, some of my
neighbors questioned whether we needed no parking on Woodhill. If we did, they
' all wanted it switched to the other side simply because there are some empty
lots that won't be built on on that side and people can park on that side
without tearing up people's lawns. As it sits now, the only way you can park is
' on people's lawns because that's where the homes are on Woodhill.
Mayor Chmiel: You're saying just vice versa of what's proposed?
Councilman Mason: Yeah, leave Yuma the way it is and switch the north side/
south side on Woodhill.
Councilman Workman: It wouldn't have been published as north or south side
would it have?
Councilman Mason: Yeah, it was published that way. We got a map saying.
' Councilman Workman: It was published as north side? I mean not here. In the
paper. It wasn't published.
' Charles Folch: Not in the paper.
Councilman Workman It was just put as Woodhill so we wouldn't have a problem?
Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: No. And if he's had discussion with the neighbors and they
agreed with that, I don't see any problem.
Councilman Mason: So if we can restrict parking on the south side of Woodhill
as opposed to the north side, I'd move approval.
Councilman Workman: Second.
' 52
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, it's been moved with a second. Discussion. The only
concern I have. Public Safety, when they reviewed this. Do they have any
concerns? _I don't recall that there were.
Scott Harr: It was unanimous to support engineering's recommendation. I've
been down there with both Councilman Mason and Charles and Yuma's not passable
with parking on both sides. It has to be restricted and Woodhill's caused us
problems as well so the Commission are very much in support of it. '
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Charles, you see no problem?
Charles Folch: I see no problem. 1
Resolution #91 -94: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to adopt
a resolution restricting parking on the south side of Woodhill Drive between Nez
Perce and Yuma and along the east side of Yuma Road between Woodhill Drive and
Ponderosa. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CREATE A BLUFF LINE PRESERVATION SECTION OF THE '
CITY CODE, FIRST READING.
Paul Krauss: This ordinance is a long time coming. We originally got involved '
in the bluff line for a couple of reasons. We've been having problems with
unregulated development causing destruction of the bluff line. Some of you have
been out with me or my staff and we've looked at...and are aware that there's
some severe erosion problem occurring on the bluff line largely due to human
tinkering. Either because we changed the drainage or somebody built too close
or whatever but this bluff line is extremely sensitive. It's a few inches of
clay over a lot of sugar sand and there's a lot of subsurface water. All you've
got to do is mess with it once and it starts to collapse. We also had a. couple
of gentlemen who grew up in this area and became amateur naturalist, speak
glowingly of the Bluff Creek valley and some of us went on a tour of that this
spring and really agreed with them that there's a very precious natural resource
down there that's in a pristine state. There's a lot of flora fauna that
doesn't exist anyplace else and there's a desire to protect that. Lastly I
think, and this came across at the Planning Commission during the Comp Plan that
the Minnesota River Valley is itself a very important natural environmental
resource, not only for our residents but for Minnesotans and that there's a
desire to make sure that it retains it's beauty. Retains it's environmental
qualities. With that in mind staff at the Planning Commission's recommendation
started working on an ordinance in conjunction with the DNR and the Watershed
District, the Soil Conservation Service and the Board of Soil and Water
Resources and there's probably a couple of acronyms I don't remember anymore.
But we tried to put together a bluff line protection ordinance that was
sensitive to the fact that a lot of the bluff line is already developed so
basically grandfathering in a lot of the people there. Bringing it into effect
with as little hardship as possible. It was also sensitive to preserving the
bluff line. Making sure that development that occurs up there is not as
destructive as it's been in the past and hopefully we can avoid some of the
problems. Essentially the ordinance creates an official map of the bluff line
that's based on topographic contours. This blue line composite print over here
is our representation of the official map. Now if this is adopted by you we'll
of course make it look a lot cleaner than this. It will be in a reproduceable
53 '
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
' form but it basically defines the bluff line as where a percent of grade starts
and ends. The ordinance also provides that structures must be located at least
30 feet back from the bluff line. That's top and bottom. We've had, you know
normally you think the bluff line, the most destructive intrusions have been on
the top. I think those of you who have traveled down 169 and seen like the mini
storage building that we have over there, can see how destructive you can be
working from the bottom up. I think it's clear that we need to protect both
I sorts of things from happening again. If there's an existing building on the
lot, of course this takes place in 90% of the lots in Hesse Farm which are
already built on. The existing setback is reduced to the existing setback of
' the house or 5 feet, whichever is larger and there's language in there that
basically doesn't, it doesn't make existing homes non - conforming. It basically
says they're permanently okay. So there's never any question of if it burns
down or falls off the cliff or whatever that they'll be able to put it back.
' We're not tinkering with anybody's home value. We were very careful about that.
The cutting of trees on the bluff line is prohibited. Clear cutting of trees.
The ordinance does allow staff to work with an individual so that they can cut
some view corridors. People move up there for the view. I think we all agreed
that it would be inappropriate to say absolutely no cutting at all. You can
live on the bluff but you can't see the valley. That there's some desire to
allow the view to occur but not clear cutting so there would be selective
' cutting. Lastly, normally we allow grading permits. We only require grading
permits is you're moving more than 50 yards of dirt. I can't emphasize how
sensitive this thing is. We've just seen time and time again where people
' really didn't know there was any kind of an issue. They built a house too
close. They put gutters on their house and changed the drainage. Any kind of
minor thing like that. Once this starts to go, it really goes. I think
' Councilwoman Oimler was with us on the trip and when you're walking through the
valley there, you can just see where some of the houses were up on top and you
see sheer cliffs, 90 -120 feet high where they've just gone. It's just exposed
the sand. To some extent that's natural and it's tough to know what man did and
' what nature did but a lot of it has been induced. A lot of times you'll see the
house on top that caused it. So what we're proposing to do is to lower the trip
level for grading permit down to 10 yards. That will allow us to go out there
' and work with the property owner to make sure that the most sensitive grading
possible is done. That we're not focusing water over any particular point.
That we're promoting the sheet drainage. The Planning Commission reviewed this
' over a number of meetings and we did send out notice to everybody in the bluff
district. The first meeting of the Planning Commission was very well attended.
We got a lot, when we explained it to a lot of people on the phone, a lot of
them came away basically supporting it. There was one gentleman who did have a
' site that's unbuilt on in Hesse Farms who was concerned that this ordinance
would result in the fact that he couldn't build his house where he wanted to.
The Planning Commission had a continuance. They met out at the site and walked
' down to the spot on this lot where the gentleman wanted to build his home. They
concluded that this was a perfect example of where a home should not be located.
That this is exactly what the bluff line ordinance is designed to prohibit. Now
there is a building site on this lot. It isn't where the gentleman wanted it
but it's back up on the hill where the other homes are located. This is
basically out on a pennisula. It dropped away on three sides. Beautiful spot.
I don't blame him for trying but you basically have to level this, it's a hill.
' A knoll on a pennisula that you basically have to flatten the whole thing and
cut down all the trees around it to make it work. Plus you wind up sticking a
' 54
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
big house in front of two other people who are already there so there were a lot
of issues with that. The Planning Commission came back feeling very comfortable
with the ordinance. They unanimously recommended that it be approved. We're
recommending that you approve the first reading to the ordinance and to the
official map. One related item that you may want to consider too, and Todd and
I have had several discussions about this in the past. The bluff line ordinance
goes a long way to physically protecting this thing. It doesn't acquire
property. It doesn't gain access. It doesn't allow for any kind of public
management or allowing the Arboretum to come in and work with these areas or
whatever. There's a long standing desire, it's in the Comprehensive Plan,, to
protect a corridor along Bluff Creek. Now that doesn't necessarily mean public
ownership but it may mean acquisition of easements. There's also a related
desire to get some sort of a recreational trail down through there. That's a
long standing issue. I don't know how that would be resolved. The area through
Hesse Farms, you know we're talking about an area that's literally 100 feet, 150
feet in some cases, away from the house. Below the house. But this is
something that if the Council wishes to see pursued, they would probably need to
work with the Park'Board on that. There's a large area that we may be able to
get through dedication but that's only when the golf course is subdivided. That
was slated for a couple years ago but that's since lapsed and under the current
zoning, it's not likely to occur for quite a while. With that again we are
recommending approval of the ordinance and the official map.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Paul. I think that what he's saying has a lot of
validity to it. Even going out and looking at a couple of other homes that
people had built where they're having areas just absolutely wash away and real
concerns as to how to protect that particular piece of property with some of
these proposals that are in here will alleviate a lot of those given concerns.
I think it's a well thought out preservation ordinance and I know the Planning
Commission has done an awful lot of work with it. And when Paul talks about
that one individual, that's just the way it is too. It's not the best place to
put it where he wanted to put it in the first place and I think that individual
understood that once we discussed it. So with that, Richard.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, based on your comments and the tremendous amount of
time and expert witnesses that have gone into this, I'd like to start it out by
moving to approve the first reading of the zoning ordinance amendment to create
a bluff line protection ordinance.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Discussion. 1
Councilman Mason: Only comment. I would love to see a path. Not a trail but a
path and some sort of access in there. I was on that and it just knocked my
socks off doing that hike through there. It was like I was not in the State. I
was in the north woods somewhere and I don't think there should be an asphalt
path. I don't think there should be a major trail but I think it would be
fantastic to have some kind of limited access there. I think you folks have ,
done a fine job on this. I think it's neat.
1
55
1
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the first reading
of the Bluff Line Preservation Ordinance and the Official Bluff Line Map. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTIONS REGARDING
LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS, FIRST READING.
I Kate Aanenson: The idea of the landscaping ordinance has been discussed with
the Planning Commission since February and generally found that while the
existing ordinance contained a lot of good elements, there were portions of it
that were inappropriate or difficult to administer. So the first step the
' Planning Commission did was put together some goals and the ordinance format.
What I'd like to do is just summarize some of the major problems that they found
with the ordinance. Also included the existing ordinance standards are
contained in several portions of the zoning ordinance and presented in a manner
that are confusing and difficult to interpret and understand. No landscaping of
any sort is required under the current subdivision ordinance, thus in instances
where subdivisions may for example be located at a collector street, the city
was not in a position to require landscaping or screening. It was unclear as to
whether the goals and intent of the ordinance and what they were. For example
we talked about screening for heating and ventilating and air conditioning
' equipment or trash storage but it would not address truck loading and other
areas. The existing ordinance contains a standard where there be 1 tree for
every 40 linear feet. We feel that this is kind of outdated methodology to use
for applying trees so the new ordinance takes a completely different approach by
establishing a ratio landscaping cost to the project value cost. And then
finally there has been a good deal of discussion that the existing requirement
' of 1 tree per lot for single family residences is too low and concern that that
should be increased to 3 trees. I think the Planning Commission probably spent
a lot of their time on this issue alone. So through a series of several
meetings the Planning Commission put together this draft for your perusal
' tonight. The main concern again is a list of tree species and the Planning
Commission recommended that 3 trees be required with each building lot. These
trees would be selected from two lists and they came up with like what they
considered a high value list and those being deciduous trees and then one list
of conifer trees. One tree would be picked from each and then the third tree
you could pick from either list. We sent the list to the DNR and they felt that
our existing tree species was appropriate but in addition we looked at the
University of Minnesota Agricultural and Natural Resource Extension Services and
that information was provided by Councilman Wing. So we provided the list for
you of deciduous and evergreen trees. This list is really based on what we've
' collected from those sources I mentioned. It's for thought or we're not saying
it's inclusive or exclusive. We really want your comments on that. In addition
the ordinance itself, maybe you can pass this around. Roger made a couple
comments on that. The first page of the ordinance we're missing a section and
' I'll pass it around. The language. The first statement that's crossed out
needs to be left in where it states that the City Council of the City of
Chanhassen. That needs to be left in all ordinances. Then in addition there
needs to be a section heading on that and that's coming around to you right now.
So what we did is we broke it out into the sections as we mentioned. There
wasn't one for subdivisions so we put that in and I think it reads a lot easier.
Unless you want to specifically go through it, that's all I have.
' 56
1
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Let's start with Tom. 1
Councilman Workman: The guy who doesn't want this? Explain to me there in the
very first page, (b). This article does not apply to single family detached
residences in the A -1, A -2, okay never mind.
t
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we're just talking about.
Councilman Workman: I was drifting and I thought it meant one thing and it 1
means another. We are talking about requiring 3 trees for a new development.
I guess I have a real problem with that. I guess I'm just going to leave it to
general comments right now for the first reading here. I think we're going over
board just a little bit. I think it's going to start to effect people's ability
to, I don't know.
Kate Aanenson: Can I clarify that? It's saying if there are 2, up to 2 trees
that are existing on the site may qualify so.
Councilman Workman: Well we're building a lot of houses in bean fields. 1
Kate Aanenson: Right, where a lot of them don't have any trees.
Councilman Workman: And not to be anti tree but it just seems to me that we're
getting kind of, maybe not over zealous but just zealous. I want to see this
move along. I'm going to save a lot of my comments for later. I just want to
make sure everyone understood that's how I felt.
Councilman Wing: Like the Bluff Creek ordinance, I sat and listened to Planning
Commission night after night on this and I think it's a real clean -up. The one
issue that's a little new is the 3 trees. I think some of us agreed with that.
Perhaps the comments won't later on but as far as agricultural book talks about
what trees do for us. What it does for the value of your property and your lot.
The value of your land. And to take a bean field that our ancestors ripped out
the oaks and maples and expect them to put 3 trees back when they're going to
pave most of it anyway, to me is the most, it's such a token back to the
environment it's hardly worth discussion. I mean I'd like a half dozen trees.
Three was, it's going to cost nobody a thing. The developer can choose to
donate them if he's really environmentally, or if not it's going to go on a 20,
25, 30 year mortgage at an additional $200.00 over 30 years. The tree issue's a
big issue to me obviously. I think we owe it to the community to start putting
a little bit back. Into the bean fields. That's all. Other than that, and the
other thing I wanted to comment on is the University is coming up with a formal
.list of trees that they would recommend the City limit to and it's similar to
the one we have. I like the ordinance really well. Even without the trees I
think the ordinance is really excellent. The trees happen to be a sore point to
me.
Councilman Workman: Well I guess when you go in for a building permit there's a
$750.00 ding on there if you don't put the tree in.
Paul Krauss: Yes.
57
11
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
Councilman Workman: Now if you don't put 3 trees in there it's not just $200.00
1 on a mortgage. It's up to $2,250.00 on a mortgage. My concern isn't that. I'm
contemplating building a home on a lot that has not got one single tree on it 1
right now. Am I going to leave it that way? Not in a million years. Okay? An
I going to have more than 3 trees on that lot? You bet you. Do I want to
decide which trees they are? Do I want to decide where they go? That's the
crux.
Councilman Wing: But that's old talk. I think we tried to clarify before. You
can pick which trees you want and you can put them where you want and you have a
year to do it. We're just saying before you get occupancy.
Councilman Workman: In all situations? Are you guaranteeing that in all
situations?
11 Councilman Wing: I don't think we're impinging on the owner's right to
landscape and select his trees, are we Paul?
Paul Krauss: Well a couple things. As to cost. We do reserve $750.00 now.
$500.00 of that is for seed or sod of the disturbed areas of the lot. There's 1
tree requirement now and we figure the tree equates to about $250.00. So this
requirement would add another $500.00 into the escrow if they didn't do that.
So you're up to $1,250.00.
Councilman Mason: If they don't do it?
Paul Krauss: Well, a lot of homes don't have that done at the time they receive
the Certificate of Occupancy. So that is an increase. There's no question
there's a cost. Now as far as what tree you pick and we propose the tree list
' here based on information Councilman Wing gave to us from the Arboretum. They
evaluated trees. They gave them actually a numerical value based on suitability
11 to Minnesota. It's ability to survive and a couple other things. It gets a
little complex here but the Planning Commission went with 1 high value tree
minimum, deciduous. And there's a lot of them to pick from. 1 any other
deciduous tree and 1 conifer. Of all those I think 1 has to be in the front
' yard. The idea to get some landscaping along the street so you can pick from
virtually any tree, any quality tree that will survive in Minnesota and apart
from the fact that it's got to be in your front yard, 1 of them has to be there,
' you can elect to put it anyplace.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess total of $1,250.00 in the next 30 years is insignificant
but yet initially as people look at it when they first go in, it's a chunk for
them to chew off. Size wise is a concern of mine too. What caliper are we
talking? Some of the trees that are in here, the one that I know a little bit
about is just the Marshall Ash and I'd like to see that as only seedless because
they can be a very dirty tree for that individual. Maybe those will differ from
the University as well or from the Arboretum. But some of those trees that are
contained in here to me are not one that I call a weed, Silver Maple.
' Councilman Wing: The University intended to exclude that one Don because of
it's growth and the likelihood of disease.
1
' 58
•
1
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Because that one to me is just not a tree that
should even be planted. Although I like maples and I have a couple of them in
my yard but that one I'd never put in. There's a few others in here that still
need some discussion but I can see where it could cause a problem within the
building portion for some people. Nonetheless, if to me I think is something
that is needed to a point but also in the 'same token there's a lot of people
that just automatically put in a tree once they get into a home. I started out
with 5 trees on my lot and I think I've got about 57 trees on it now. I guess
I'm just looking from people, trees -as I mentioned once before, trees are man's
best friend really. It shades the house in the summertime and it opens it up to
the sun in the winter once it loses all it's leaves so there's a lot of good
things that they can produce and affects the house and cost of operating for air
conditioning or even heating. So consequently 3 trees seem like a bunch but I'd
like to see us, anybody can pick up a tree. A bare root and plant it and say
this is it. Does that count? 1
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, we've gone with the minimum, same standard we use
elsewhere which is a 2 1/2 inch minimum and 6 foot height for a conifer.
Mayor Chmiel: Other than that...one other comment. You have to have some sort
of landscaping on those lots because it does give a definite aesthetic appeal,
plus doing something, cleaning the air for us as well. So with that I'll,
Ursula?
Councilwoman Dimler: I just want to clarify that we're talking only about new
development and not existing neighborhoods. Is that correct?
Paul Krauss: That's quite accurate. Our only mechanism for applying this is as
a condition to a development contract. So any lots platted prior to the ,
adoption of this, we can't enforce that.
Councilwoman Dimler: My question is, are we keeping some people out of
Chanhassen because of these requirements? In fact I know when we built our
home, we could not have afforded the extra money, even as a financial guarantee
to put it in in the future. Maybe we ought to take a look at that and leave
some space there for them to get that done. I hate to keep people out just
because, you know when you first guy your home you want a roof over your head
and you worry about your yard a year and a half later. The other thing is on
making the tree removal and so forth. That again only applies to the new
neighborhoods or wouldn't that seem feasible to apply to old neighborhoods as
well?
Paul Krauss: There's really, I could be wrong but my recollection is there's
nothing that would restrict a homeowner from doing virtually whatever on their
lots. Now one of the things we're going to be probably doing in the future is
something that we did on Lundgren for the first time. Is where you have
significant stands of trees, actually put a permanent easement around it and
that way nobody can come to us in the future and say I've got to have this
house. I've got to have it on this lot and it's got to be in your easement.
You're going to know that ahead of time and try to get the house on the lot
where it's supposed to be.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you know any other cities that have done this? 1
59
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
1
Paul Krauss: Councilwoman Dimler, I haven't done a survey. I mean I know a lot
' of cities require the 1 and the sod and seed. I did a survey, I think I gave
the information to the Council about 2 years ago about that because we had
always had that in the subdivision code if you recall. It's been in there for
years but it was never enforced and it wasn't written into development contracts
' and we finally said, well if we're going to do it, either throw it out or let us
do it. Tell us to do it. We've been enforcing it quite seriously since, well
about 14 -15 months now. 3 trees, I don't know. As to what it does for cost, if
' you're building a $250,000.00 house, the increment isn't that big. If you're
building a $90,000.00, it's proportionately bigger.
' Councilman Workman: What if you're building a mobile home?
Paul Krauss: Then you've got to be in Victoria. So you know the Metro
Council's periodically talked about cities. In fact Jack Kemp at HUD just did
' this about regulations. Raising the cost of housing and limiting people's
choices or keeping them out of the market. I think it's valid to a point. I
don't know how to address that specifically. As far as, whatever number you
' choose, I do know that the only way for us to administer it effectively is to do
what we're doing now which is to say up front thou shalt do this and we'll
escrow for it. You'll know ahead of time what it is. It's in a development
contract. It's filed with the property. We try to be flexible. You have
' houses that are built in the winter, as Tom's house looks like it's going to be.
Obviously we don't say you can't move in until the trees go in. We give them
the better part of a year to comply but again, whatever you select, we have to.
Councilwoman Dimler: Have the right concer. Plus I'm also thinking that on the
one end we're talking here about affordable housing and on the other end we're
making it so expensive to move in. I hate to see us lose a competitive edge to
other communities.
Councilman Wing: You know on the cost of these trees, the ones I've looked at.
I just bought a specimen from Bachman's. I think it was $350.00 delivered for a
2 1/2 inch, slightly bigger. I'm suspecting that the wholesale value that these
people buy the trees at, the developer will buy wholesale trees. I think we're
' talking $100.00- $150.00 maximum on these trees. Remember, one is going to be
from the select list, if we were to approve that, which is, going to maple, oak.
That's more expensive than the seedless ash is going to be or some of the others
in the secondary list.
Councilwoman Dimler: But the developer's going to pass the cost onto the
consumer. There's no doubt about that.
' Paul Krauss: Well, and it depends on the developer too. We have developers
like Joe Miller Homes that give the homeowner a package. When you contract for
your house, I think they give you coupons to go redeem them at a nursery, for
your seed and sod and for your tree. And what we've done in those cases is
we've said fine. I mean there's a cash value here. We're not going to double
dip and take an escrow on top of that. In that case the developer is doing it
' up front. We've heard a lot of other stories though where we make the
developer, we make the builder sign a notice when they take the building permit
out saying that this is going to happen and of course they always say I never
signed that when the Certificate of Occupancy and then they try right along to
' 60
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
pass the cost along at the 11th hour to the buyer who knew nothing about it.
And occasionally it gets sticky. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Right. That's what I'm trying to get at there.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike. ,
Councilman Mason: Just about everything's been covered. I was curious as to
how the information will get disseminated but I think that's being addressed. '
In the scope of things, I mean remembering this used to be the Big Woods and all
that, I think of the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of trees that have
probably been cut down in Chanhassen alone just to put up some homes. I think 3
trees is a small price to pay. However Ursula, we need to take into
consideration what you're saying also, and I'm not quite sure how to grapple
with that one yet but I think it's a good ordinance but I want to look into that
some more too. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Perhaps before the second reading you can...
Paul Krauss: We can do a survey if you'd like.
Councilman Wing: I've got one concern on the issue I think needs to be
addressed and rewritten. On page 10, on 18 -61 on this tree. The number of
trees. I think the way it's written is ambiguous and I think also Council
should understand that the list that exists in this ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: What paragraph is it?
Councilman Wing: It's on page 10. Section 2 to 18- 61(a). Required landscaping
residential subdivision. The tree list I think has to be set aside for now
because I think the list is being very professionally done by the University
with a lot of factors involved. With a lot of recommendations for each one and
a lot of variety. But specifically under (a), each lot shall be provided with a
minimal of 3 trees. One must be from list.1, which is the select list. One may
be from list 2, because they may choose to have 2 select trees or 2 maples or
whatever but the second list gives them a variety. And then thirdly, 1 may be
from list 3 which is the coniferous. In my yard I don't want a pine tree. I
don't want to have to mow around it so I would come to you and say I want
that... I'd like to see that coniferous tree an option. It's a list. You may
put one in but it's not force so 1 must be from a select, which is a maple and
an oak, a birch, whatever decide for the select list. Second list, the Green
Ash and so forth and then the third one may be a coniferous tree. The only
other issue I would bring up, and I'd like to see that rewritten as such because
that's a list that Planning requested. The second is the issue of where to
place the trees, and Tom's maybe got lots of real strong feelings on this
because he's going to be building a house but in the Comp Plan and in the front
of this ordinance it talks about creating a boulevard effect and using trees to
create this Minneapolis boulevard shaded street effect. By only asking 1 in the
front yard, you're limiting that. If we were to require 2 in the front yard,
even though they may be set back. They may be on the corner of the house. Still
their overall shading and effect is going to be to shade and engulf that street
a little bit and I'm not so sure you wouldn't want to just consider, and that
may be infringing way beyond what our right is but. '
61 '
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think it could be because of the fact that you put trees
in to shade the house, not so much boulevard.
Councilman Wing: Okay. I will withdraw that then. }
Councilman Mason: I don't know about having a conifer being an option. I like
pine trees.
Councilman Wing: Well the issue to me is the number of trees. Where they go
I'm addable on and what they are I'm addable on. As long as one of them is a
maple.
Councilwoman Dimler: I like the way we're putting our own preferences in here.
I Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? If hearing'none, can we have a
motion?
Councilman Wing: I would like to move approval of the first reading of the
' landscape ordinance. That's all I have to say.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the first reading
of an ordinance amending Chapter 18 and Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code
regarding Landscaping and Tree Preservation Requirements. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously. I
' ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 10 OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING GAMBLING, FIRST
READING.
' Mayor Chmiel: Who would like to do this?
Scott Harr: Other than authorizing the Statutorily required premises permit,
Chanhassen has had virtually no control over charitable gambling operations
within our city. The iussue arose several months ago when the Council directed
me to develop an ordinance to keep charitable gambling operations more closely
tied to the city as well as keeping the proceeds closer to home by benefitting
the welfare of our residents to a certain degree. Such organizations as the
Chaska Lion's and the Chanhassen Legion, both of whom have been very generous
with their proceeds to the city and beneficiaries within the city in the past,
have been kept apprised of the developing drafts over the last several months
and the Public Safety Commission has also reviewed the efforts and support the
concept. The draft that you have before you is basically the final draft,
' although several last minute changes were developed after the packet was put
together last week. The goal of the ordinance is to allow the City to maintain
control over the charitable gambling operations that are being run on a more
' consistent basis within the city rather than the infrequent fund raising events
such as Rotary, Bingo or church related events. If it meets with Councilwoman
Dimler's approval I'll note the few changes that were brought up at the last
minute on Friday. Ursula, is that alright? I'd like to recommend the ordinance
with these changes. To change Section 10- 152(a) to include the final sentence.
' 62
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
That an organization may designate that money be used internally by the city for
a specific city use as long as the purpose is a lawful purpose. Change Section
10- 152(c) to eliminate the previous paragraph that you have before you because
upon review State Statute and IRS regulations deal with funds that are obtained
by such organizations and replace it with the sentence that an organization that 11 conducts gambling on fewer than 5 days in a calendar year would be exempt from
the requirements of this Section. Again that's so that organization such as
St. Hubert's or the Chan Rotary Club could operate their occasional fund raising
Bingo, etc. without unnecessary restrictions. And change Section 10- 153(a) and
(b) to include the words, upon request so that organizations only need to submit
data to the City when we need that information so that duplication of effort is
avoided since most of the information would already need to be filed with the
State. I'll add that there was discussion about what organizations could be
contributed to and Roger and I worked on the draft so that donations could be
made to organizations that are not only based within the city but provide
services within the city. For example, the Carver County Sheriff's Department.
The, help me with the title Ursula. The South Valley Women's League.
Councilwoman Dimler: The Southern Valley Alliance for Battered Women. 1
Scott Harr: Those organizations.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any other comments? '
Councilwoman Dimler: While we're on that subject, I guess I still have a
concern that I'm not quite sure how we're including them and how in the future
it could be interpretted that they shouldn't be included and the fact that
they're in Scott County and not contiguous with the City of Chanhassen. They're
in Belle Plains, their headquarters are. '
Councilman Workman: That would defeat that...intent.
Councilwoman Dimler: See I'm still not clear that we're allowing that donation '
to that organization then.
Scott Harr: Section 10- 152(b) states that each organization conducting lawful '
gambling within the city must expend 75% of it's net profits derived from lawful
gambling on lawful purposes conducted or located within the city and in
consulting with the City Attorney, it's our belief that that clause would permit
a donation to an organization such as that, albeit based in Belle Plain. Our
concern is if we include contiguous counties, we're literally expanding that to
Ramsey County because it's contiguous to Hennepin which we're partially in.
_ Councilwoman Dimler: But we're talking about counties that are contiguous to
Carver. That would not include Ramsey.
Scott Harr: But a portion of Chanhassen is in Hennepin County. Ramsey County
is contiguous.
Councilwoman Dimler: That little property there has caused us so much trouble. '
Roger Knutson: ...if they provide services to people in the city of Chanhassen.
63 '
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
Councilwoman Dimler: They do.
Roger Knutson: And other contiguous communities, then they may qualify.
Councilwoman Dimler: On lawful purposes are you saying?
Scott Harr: Yes. Because we use them as a direct referral for our residents
through the Sheriff's office. We'd have no problem with including an
' organization like that.
Roger Knutson: The key is you have to have 75% of the proceeds in Chanhassen or
' in contiguous communities...
Councilman Wing: Why would we want to give anything to Chaska? It's somewhat
flippant but why not keep it in the city? I don't understand that.
Scott Harr: That's a very good question and the reason it was drafted as it was
is actually not so we could give there but because.
Mayor Chmiel: They're giving to us.
Scott Harr: The Chaska Lion's have been so generous to us, we did not want to
exclude them. That came about as a direct result of discussions here as well as
my contacts with the Chaska Lion's.
' Councilman Workman: Well and Chaska has a similar ordinance that pretty much
restricts where that has to stay in the town. They have that and that's kind of
what really brought this up. And then the problem we had with the Bowl. We're
going to ship it out to somewhere else. That's where Ursula you may have a
problem because John was maybe going to start a bowling as a letter sport in
High School thing or something and it was going to go somewhere else. I thought
' there was a concern about our ability to be able to direct where those funds go.
That's where.
Don Ashworth: There was a third problem that it dealt with. An organization
' that was, they were doing this on behalf of a well known group or need like
Cancer or whatever. But their track record was also such that they would maybe
give 2% or 3% of the total money that they collected. All the rest of it would
' be a management fee which is really a scam.
Roger Knutson: You also realize, getting back to what..., when the City gets
it's...the City can donate that money to that shelter even though they're not
' contiguous. They could be in South Dakota or South America.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and we are also talking about only 75% so that
' leaves 25% for the organization to use in discretionary purposes. Which is
another thing that I wanted to bring up. I'm wondering now at this point, you
may have heard about the woman who sat on the billboard in White Bear Lake to
I raise money for the Viet Nam Veterans Memorial. This would severely curtail the
ability of the American Legion or Veterans Club who exist for that purpose, to
limit their amount that they could have given to her. It could have been a very
small amount and I'm asking now if 75% is maybe too high and maybe we should be
at 50 %. To leave them only 25% discretionary may be curtailing their ability.
' 64
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: It was up to a dollar amount.
Councilwoman Dimler: Huh?
Mayor Chmiel: What is the total dollar amount you're using to come up with your
percentages?
Councilwoman Dimler: Well that's going to differ each year so we don't know
but.
Mayor Chmiel: It could be very insignificant as far as total dollars.
Councilwoman Dimler: Or like I said, they may want to donate to a cause such as
something that's in Washington D.C. and we would prohibit that completely except
for the 25%. '
Roger Knutson: And then your 10 on top of it.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, if the City decides. It's unlikely though I think 1
that we'd be giving to the firemen and I'm sure that the 10% would stay within
the city for city purposes. Chuck, did you want to address them? He's worked
on this ordinance.
Chuch Dimler: Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers. Chuck Dimler, 7203 Kiowa Circle.
I'm here really in the capacity to serve the American Legion. I've not been
directly involved with the charitable gambling at the Legion but at a general
membership meeting I believe oh probably last spring I was asked to follow the
issue and to speak on their behalf and I've had a couple of occasions to meet
with some of the Legion members, and particularly the gambling manager and a
former gambling manager and a club employee and a bookkeeper. I have visited
with Scott Harr and Councilwoman Dimler as well. You know a couple of things.
Let me just say on the onset a couple of things. One, and you may all be aware
of this but to my knowledge the Legion did not ask for the ordinance or look for
any ordinance changes and something that I noted here tonight that I've been
thinking about and I know to address Councilman Wing's comment about why are we
giving any money to Chaska. I guess we always want to put this back into
perspective but hopefully it's the Legion that's directing their monies, and I'm
not sure who's monies they are. I suppose they're the monies of those persons
who choose to purchase pulltabs. I have yet to buy my first pulitab. But
nevertheless I think the Legion has taken on the responsibility, and there are
numbers of them I think as you live within the Statute and the Charitable
Gambling Control Commission of the State of Minnesota. And I understood in
visiting with the Public Safety Director, Mr. Harr that, and he shared with me
some of the things that were mentioned tonight, why the City was looking for
this ordinance. So I come here kind of interestingly enough because I think the
old adage is always true that regulations protect the regulated and so probably
the more you regulate this the more you protect the Legion since we already have
Charitable Gambling Control but I try to think of it tonight in terms of other
organizations as well so as you direct this ordinance tonight, we really can't
forecast what might happen in the future. What other organization might be
looking for a charitable gambling operation to raise some monies. And that
might be the Lion's Club or it might be another organization that wants to use
it. It could be, hopefully not the Rotary Don but it could be any organization
65 '
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
that chose to use charitable gambling to raise some monies and good legitimate
' organizations. And so I thought about that too and the Legion person that
I spoke with and Scott and I discussed this as well, were not very comfortable
with that 75 in the context that it has to be expended within the local
municipality. I mean we went back, or I went back with some members and took 3
years and at the Legion we had expended not only within the community. We had
expended almost all of our monies, more than 75% within the community. We would
fall within this at the present time. That was not the problem and I think 34%
11 over the 3 years that we had gone back was really spent within Chanhasen to
Chanhassen city or quasi public organizations of the City of Chanhassen, i.e.
the park or maybe the school and library and the school patrol and those kinds
of things. But nevertheless, what if the Legion suddenly wanted to take on, as
Ursula referred to, maybe they wanted a one time expenditure and then all of a
sudden everybody has had this in motion and then all of a sudden we find some
ordinance back here that says no, you can't do that? Or maybe the Lion's Club
' decides that they want to erradicate AIDS or something as we did with Rotary.
We spent hundreds of millions of dollars to erradicate Polio internationally and
maybe that happens suddenly and then all of a sudden the Lion's Club has a
' restriction in Chanhassen that they can't participate. So I think, I'm not
sure. I just think that 75% may be high and I don't know, do we need 75% to do
what we're trying to do with this ordinance? I'm not certain that we need 75%
' to do that. Maybe 50% would be do that and then still leave some latitude for
expenditures outside of the local units. I know there may be instances when an
organization is wanting to do something very, with a real good cause and yet
they'd be restricted so it's something to think about. I think the other
points I think we've pretty well covered and they seem to address the issue and
do what the purpose of the ordinance was created for. And certainly I think in
some cases serve as I said to actually probably benefit the Legion, who I speak
for here tonight.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Roger, does State law indicate requirements established for this
Y g � q
at all?
'
•
Roger Knutson: No.
' Mayor Chmiel: Nothing?
Councilwoman Dimier: The percentages?
Roger Knutson: The only percentages, 75% isn't. 10% is. You can go less than
10% taking yourself but you can't go more.
Councilman Wing: Gambling proceeds have to be used for charitable purposes
right?
' Roger Knutson: Yes.
Councilman Wing: But they're allowed to put on a roof or new furnance. They
' can internally maintain some of those funds. What percentage of the funds can
they maintain internally? What percentage has to go out to a charitable
organization under State law?
Roger Knutson: Virtually all of it.
' 66
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991 1
Chuck Dimler: 100%. 1
Councilman Wing: Then the Legion being a charitable organization can obtain
some funds?
Roger Knutson: There are several pages of regulations. For example they can't
use those funds in their building fund. They can't do that. They can do
thinks like paying their cost of operation. Paying their gambling manager.
Things like that. Paying...but generally speaking, it all has to go to a
non - profit organization...
Councilman Wing: We've had an ordinance in Section 349, Gambling. '
Roger Knutson: You have nothing right now.
Councilman Wing: Okay, other than State law.
Roger Knutson: Yeah.
Councilman Wing: We didn't add to that? State law then allows us to be more
restrictive which we're doing.
Roger Knutson: More prohibitive.
Councilman Wing: More prohibitive. And so up to this point then the Legion has 11 had, they just have to spend it on charitable functions. We've had no rules, no
percentages. They've pretty much been free to do what they wanted and it's been
very generous to Chanhassen up to this point. Do you have a percentage
recommendation that you're comfortable with?
Chuck Dimler: Councilman Wing and others, I think for our, I have to speak for
myself now I guess because I don't have that. Again I'm saying that we didn't, ,
if you asked us to put a number in there, we'd say fine we'll live with the 10%
to be expended to the City of Chanhassen and I said that even before with some
reservation because if you set a ceiling, all of a sudden or a floor, all of a
sudden that becomes the ceiling and hopefully we wouldn't go from 34% to 10%
because now we put a 10% minimum on. Do you hear that? The other 75'x, we'd
rather have that non - existent if we had a choice. We'd just strike paragraph
(b) because it serves us no purpose so we'd rather have the freedom I presume
anytime that, and we have an executive board at the Legion that makes, hears
requests for contributions and then they will approve certain limits and beyond
certain limits they'll bring before the general membership for approval to
dispense those proceeds but we do have to, we have to expend all the proceeds.
As the Council pointed out, we were able to deduct certain operating expenses.
Purportedly only those expenses that pertain to the gambling and then the more
general underlying rule I think for State Statute is that all of the, any
purpose for which you use the funds in order to be legitimate has to benefit the
community at large if you will. In other words, we can't take and say we're
going to do it. We're going to correct say everyone that say has some disease
or something as long as they're a member of the Legion. We cannot do that. If
it benefits only Legionaires, it's not a legitimate contribution so has to be
for the community at large. And that community though could be, we may want to
give some money to a relief fund if there's an earthquake in another continent.
67 ,
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
1
Councilman Workman: The Legion is clearly not the problem. It hasn't been the
' problem in this whole situation. We did have situations where Chaska Lion's
were having problems with an outfit that was running a gambling operation,
pulltabs and they were either taking the funds and going to place them elsewhere
or telling the Chaska Lion's where they're supposed to use them which I
' understood at that time by law they could not. Am 1 correct Don? f
Don Ashworth: I think that was their own By -laws. Prohibited them from doing
' it.
Councilman Workman: Okay. And so clearly the Legion hasn't been the problem. I
don't know how we get around the other part of it. I think we need something.
Some assurances. It's difficult to restrict those who are not, don't need to be
restricted when there are some who need to be. I guess that's called even
handedness at the expense of others but the Legion I wouldn't say has been any
kind of a problem in this whole thing. In fact they've done an awful lot of
good things. But how do we restrict everybody else?
Chuck Dimler: And maybe to address Councilman Wing's question, maybe if that,
and I'm feeling that's what the ordinance would do. That to prevent somebody
from coming in that's running a, if it's a scam or maybe that's too strong a
word but maybe that's what it is if they're trying to, as Mr. Ashworth said, if
' they're trying to only give a couple percentage of the profit and use the rest
for administrative and operating costs. And so the wording here is to do that.
I don't know, maybe 50% would do that as well. That's something to think about.
' Maybe 50% would preclude those persons as well and then you have, because there
are some operating costs and I suppose if they had to come in and pay a lease or
whatever they have to do, there are other taxes and so on as well.
Roger Knutson: It's 75% of net profit. It's not of gross.
Chuck Dimler: Yeah, I realize that but some of the questions that came up and
' I don't fully, I didn't fully fill out the report to understand this but I know
the bookkeeper had some concern about that, and we shared a little about that.
There are some accumulated, if you don't dispense it at the end of the period
' it's taxed and so on and the question was, was that coming before or after that
75 %. Well, it makes a little difference if it comes before or after and I
suppose if we were at 5O% rather than 75%, it wouldn't get that close to.
' Mayor Chmiel: Chuck, not knowing how this thing works fully, would it be to an
advantage for us to pass it as is presently and see how it does work. Of
course, ordinances can always come back and be reviewed by Council to make
changes just to make sure. Not just to accommodate the Legion but to make sure
that we're - doing this properly as well.
' Chuck Dimler: That could be done either way. I mean you could, either way
you're saying to do it as it's amended with the suggestions made and see how it
does work. i don't know who that leaves the responsibility on. What happens
then if an organization comes in and, i.e. Alliance Club. Are they going to be,
' it's going to be their responsibility then to come and say we need an ordinance
change if we're trying to, say we're trying to erradicate some problem?
' 68
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Well, if they have a proper way of putting those dollars
somewhere else, then I think that's something that can be looked at to make sure
that that's being done properly as well.
Councilman Wing: I think we're going to permit gambling. We're offering a
priviledge. A right that we have a right to say no to altogether. I think we
have a right to keep the money in the city and control it. I would be very
happy Don with a 40/10 which gives a total of 50. I mean it kind of gets moot
at some point. Maybe 75 is high. To move this along to appease some of the
opposition, I would be willing to. I guess I'm kind of looking at you. The 75%
I'm comfortable with but I'd be very happy to compromise.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think that can be something that can still be discussed
and brought up again. I think they could probably possibly persuade us to say
this is what we see and chose what those basically are and from there the
Council can look at it. Review it and then come up with a conclusion.
Scott Harr: Mr. Mayor, I should add too that I think as Councilman Wing said,
obviously the Legion isn't the problem and that's right. The City Manager, the
City Attorney, myself, the Public Safety Commission drafted this with a careful
eye on the Legion and their generosity so it wouldn't infringe upon that. So
it's really, and of course that's why they've been kept apprised of this from
the get go.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah and I think you spelled it out. It's not the Legion. We
have to be careful with what else is coming in and that's our only concern
because as you say, the Legion has been generous and they have done an
exceptional job within the city. There's no question but I think in adopting as
to what you really sort of pull together, is something that we could look at and
try it on for size and see what it really is. And if something can be different
than what we've discussed, then we can make those kinds of changes with whatever
they feel is necessary and approve that point. ,
Chuck Dimler: I understand that.
Mayor•Chmie1: whether that be Legion or whatever other organization that might ,
be.
Chuck Dimler: I understand that Mr. Mayor but a caveat to that though is still
that we'd hate to be what could happen, and I know that goes with most volunteer
organizations. You know suddenly we find out after the fact that we violated
the ordinance and that's not comfortable. That's why if we start out with a
. 50%. If we're going to start and try something, if we try at a lesser percent
and from our perspective it's easier to go the other way whereas from maybe
you'd rather start at the 75 and come back to the 50.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, you can always come down but it's hard to go back up.
Councilwoman Dimler: We're not going to go higher than 75%? '
Mayor Chmiel: No. That's what I'm saying.
69 '
•
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Well the you're at the top. It's hard to come
down.
Mayor Chmiel: It's easy to come down.
1 Chuck Dimler: I'm not sure because.
Mayor Chmiel: If we start at 50 and raise it to 75, it would be rather more
1 difficult.
Chuck Dimler: The situation may arise when there's a whole bunch of different
players see.
Councilwoman Dimler: And there will be after a year.
1 Chuck Dimler: Everywhere and so it's hard to say. I understand that. That's
why I still. I understand that you folks have to make the decision but I'll
plead the case for the lesser amount.
Councilman Workman: But you're saying that the Legion is already really doing
everything that's in this ordinance anyway.
Chuck Dimler: Well there are a few things in here that they are not that we did
not have a problem with such as the investigations for the applicant and so on
' and I'm sure we're comfortable with that. The only thing that, and as I shared
with you. We were expending 34% to direct city organizations and then a bigger
percentage than even 75 %. I can't say that with certainty now. I'd have to
think about that. I did not at the time, at the time that I did that we weren't
' looking at the 75 %. We were looking at the 10% but we were expending 34% of
city public and then a greater percentage was going to activities within the
city or county. But I think we do have, I can understand where an organization
i such'as Legionaires may want to take on a project. Like we have several, as we
have an aging population we have many homes. There's an American Legion Home in
Michigan. A large home and we have right in Minnesota. We have homes in
St. Cloud and Hastings and Minneapolis that may run into problems. Maybe the
legislature suddenly isn't going to fund them or something like that and so
the Legion then decides we're going to take this on and take care of our aging
comrades. And so we have a great plan and then all of a sudden we've done this
' and somebody says hey, remember you gave 50% of your funds to the aging
Legionaires in Hastings and St. Cloud and Minneapolis and all of a sudden, hey
we violated the law, ordinance in Minnesota. Then the press writes about it.
Scott Harr: Because, again the ordinance was drafted with the Legion, among
others in mind, I don't want to risk offending the Legion. Frankly I wasn't
aware that the percentage was an issue. I don't think we talked about that
' Friday so I've not had a chance to look at the percentage. I was going under
the assumption that all was okay. I'd like to recommend that this be tabled so
that I could consult with the gambling chairs of the Legion, the Chaska Lion's
' to see if they, what alternative they might suggest. What Roger and I and the
City Manager came up with the 7.5% because that was in line with the goal set
forth when we were charged with developing this ordinance to maintain more local
control. But I'd be happy to go back and talk with the gambling managers of the
organizations in town to get more input.
1 70
1
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Or we could keep this as a first reading and you can do that
checking as well over the next 2 weeks and we could sit back and have Council at
least think of the percentage that they may think would be more appropriate than
what's existing. Being this is the first reading.
� Scott Harr: Because I think everything else we're in full agreement.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion passing the first reading 11 of the ordinance amending Chapter 10 of the Chanhassen City Code by adding
Article 5, Regulating Lawful Gambling as is. I agree there will probably be
room for change at the second reading.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that's something that we should think about.
Councilman Mason: Second. '
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded to accept the first reading. Any
other discussions?
Councilwoman Dimler: As amended.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. As amended. Amen. 1
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve an Ordinance
amending Chapter 10 of the Chanhassen City Code by adding Article 5, Regulating
Lawful Gambling as amended by the Public Safety Director. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me make a suggestion. Because of all the first readings that
we had, keep all these first readings for the second reading because it would be
much simpler for us not to have staff reproduce everything one more time. Right?
Let's save a tree. 1
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel: Richard, noise ordinance. 1
Councilman Wing: It's my understanding.
Mayor Chmiel: In 10 words or less.
Councilman Wing: I'll keep it to 1 minute or less. It's my understanding that
Mr. Harr approached the Council some time ago regarding a noise ordinance and
that there was, I think we all felt, as I remember, that there was a need and we
recommended he pursue a noise ordinance for presentation to the Council. In the
meanwhile the one he wrote I thought was very fair, basic and simple. Didn't
make any waves. It got to Public Safety and apparently got waylaid and
criticized. I think, and that's what I'm looking for Council support. I
believe we directed Scott to proceed with the noise ordinance which would 1
instruct the Public Safety Commission to support Scott in creating that
ordinance. Get it back to City Council. I guess I'm recommending once again
Scott be recommended to proceed with the noise ordinance for clarification to
Council and we'll make the decision whether to go ahead or not.
71 1
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
Councilman Workman: Public Safety?
Councilman Wing: They waylaid it and I don't think that was their position to
do so. They should have supported Scott in that endeavor.
Councilman Mason: I concur completely.
Scott Harr: Yeah, a little history there. Because of several unusual
situations this summer, I wanted to see if the council was supportive of looking
at it. I looked at it. There was a lot of discussion at the Commission level
but the ordinance is drafted and ready to bring back and I'd be happy to do
that.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Mike.
Councilman Mason: I got a letter about Chanhassen putting a trail where the
abandoned railroad tracks are in the southern part of the city. I understand
' from Councilman Workman that Hennepin County owns that.
Mayor Chmiel: I understand they do.
' Councilman Mason: Okay, and that they're.
Mayor Chmiel: As a corridor for light rail.
' Councilman Mason: Yeah, and they are planning on doing something with that as a
trail? Does anyone know?
' Councilman Workman: It was my understanding that Eden Prairie in conjunction
with some of those was planning something.
Don Ashworth: Todd?
Todd Hoffman: We're taking a.look at that segment. The Hennepin County
' Regional Railroad Authority owns that. They'll allow the City to use it as an
interim use as a trail. ..brought to the Park and Rec Commission in April and
will be presented tomorrow evening again for consideration for potential funding
in 1992. The surface, the aggregate material is about $15,000.00 cost but
there's other...that go along with that. There's also accessibility issues...
Councilman Mason: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Ursula.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I have already spoken to the resurfacing thing.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes you have. Chan Estates.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I would like to see that addressed at the next Council
meeting. How much it would cost and which fund the money would come from. And
again let's make Chan Estates a priority rather than Laredo Circle and Iroquis
and some of these roads that are in better repair.
� J
72
1
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991 1
Councilman Workman: I don't know where we're going with that one in there but
the comments that I've gotten are don't, we don't want new curb and gutter. We
don't want.
Councilwoman Dimler: No, no, no. I'm just talking about resurfacing.
Councilman Workman: But that's kind of the Minnewashta thing and it was my
understanding that that neighborhood was kind of high on the list as far as
getting major roadwork done. Not just overlaying it and so I hope, I don't know
if the neighborhood's thinking or talking to you. I've talked to a few of them
and they said don't curb and gutter and put new sewer in.
Councilwoman Dimler: No, just resurface.
Councilman Workman: I know but that's the Minnewashta issue again. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes it is but again, going back to the Frontier Trail.
The neighborhood there feels that if the road had been resurfaced periodically
throughout it's lifespan, would it have gotten to the point where it got and
needed that extensive of repair.
Mayor Chmiel: I would like to see us develop a plan for each of the areas for
resurfacing and come up with that and probably have that for one of our next
Council meetings.
Charles Folch: Just to address on that lightly. We are working on finalizing 1
the preliminary draft for the pavement management program which should be
presented to you within the next few Council meetings here. Preliminary
indications for that Chan Estates area is that those roads rank real high as far
as in need of road improvements. It's my anticipation that the recommendation
from the report will be that reconstruction is warranted as more of a viable and
economical, long term economical solution rather than overlaying or sealcoating
or something like that because of the poor condition they're in.
Councilwoman Dimler: But again it may be 3 or 4 years down the line and in the
meantime they've got this horrible condition to live with. You know I just,
I mean we're resurfacing Iroquis. Come on. What's wrong with Iroquis? You
know what I'm saying? We're resurfacing Laredo Circle. What's wrong with
Laredo Circle? We're resurfacing some roads anyway and that must be in the
ongoing maintenance type of thing and yet these roads aren't benefitting from it
and we want to do a major reconstruction when the residents may indeed not want
that but they want regular maintenance. 1
Councilman Workman: Can I piggyback on that just very quickly? And...to the
Mayor and City Manager that what we need then is not only a management program
but we need a list and a very well publicized list of those roads, like
Minnewashta then Lyman Blvd. then Chan Estates that are going to need to have
this done so that nobody is shocked and surprised when this all comes or when
they move in that they know because I tell you, I'm getting weak knees getting
kicked in them everytime this comes up in the assessment part. So if we can put
every road for the next 25 years that's going to probably need this because we
do it rather systematically anyway. Frontier Trail then Minnewashta then Lyman
then Chan Estates then people have a 5 year window of opportunity to get out of
73
1
City Council Meeting - September 23, 1991
there. Sell it or, do you know what I mean but as long as it's well publicized,
I think we'll save engineering staff some headaches. It would save future
Council some concerns but as long as it's well publicized, then people say, we
can say hey you knew about this.
Councilwoman Dimler: But Tom you're not talking about resurfacing. You're
talking about major reconstruction.
Councilman Workman: Well surfacing can have a list and then restructuring would
be a list because sooner or later you can't just resurface. But that's what
I think we need.
Councilman Wing: Let's not drop that. I think that's a significant issue.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we're going to have that coming to us.
Councilwoman Dimler: Then on the second issue, I guess the reason I brought
this up here on the Minnewashta Highlands was because it was a Visitor's
Presentation several weeks ago and I'm just wondering what has been done. I did
get that letter today from Johnson and Wood and we've been talking about it a
little bit here. But could we basically have an update from staff or legal
counsel.
Charles Folch: If I might add just briefly. Today Mr. Borchardt I believe it
' is, his attorney, Mr. Engelhardt and Dave Hempel met out at the site. They
discussed the situation and Mr. Engelhardt is preparing a letter of
understanding from the discussions today and it's my understanding that they got
the situation pretty well resolved.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: And I will accept a motion for adjournment.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m..
' Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
1 74
1
CHANHASSEN SENIOR COMMISSION _,..
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 20, 1991
- Chairwoman Montgomery called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Barbara Montgomery, Betty Bragg, Selda Heinlein, Jane
Kubitz and Bernice Billison
MEMBERS ABSENT: Emma St. John and Sherol Howard
11 STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I
and Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Montgomery: We'll start with the approval of the agenda. Does anyone want
to make any changes in the order?
Billison: I approve the agenda as written.
' Montgomery: Okay. It will stand as written.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Heinlein.: The only correction I have is on page 11 Marion Stultz is
spelled wrong. It should be Stultz, not Stoltz.
Jane Kubitz made a correction that wasn't picked up on the tape.
Heinlein moved, Kubitz seconded to approve the Minutes of the Senior
Commission as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VOLUNTEERS: SCHOOL DISTRICT 112 - PRESENTATION MS. LOIS FISKNESS,
VOLUNTEER COORDINATOR..
' Montgomery: We are very happy this morning to welcome Lois Fiskness. 'She
is with District 112 and she's the Volunteer .Coordinator and she has some
things she'd like to ask us and tell us about.
Lois Fiskness: Good morning. I'm Lois Fiskness with District 112. I am
' the person who is employed by the District to work with volunteers within
the District. Both parent volunteers and non- parent volunteers like
yourselves who may no longer have children within our public schools. Here
this morning to invite you to participate in our schools. I heard a rumor
' that some of you were looking for some very worthwhile activities to do for
volunteerism and if that isn't a true rumor, let's start it now. Maybe
we'll build some interest. But definitely our public schools do have a
need for volunteers. We have an elementary building very close to where
many of you live. Some of you are probably even within walking distance of
that building. We have a variety of types of things available for
volunteers within our schools. Some of you might like to work with
children. Small groups of children. We need volunteers. Senior leaders
are especially welcomed within each of our classrooms. For seniors to come
in and share reading with children, both your reading to them and share
time as they read with you. Perhaps doing some small group activities or
flash cards with math or numbers or this type of thing. You've never alone
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Senior Commission Meeting
' September 20, 1991 - Page 2
with the children. A classroom teacher is always there and we need
volunteers especially in the lower grades. Kindergarten, Grades 1, 2 and
3. Working with small groups of children so I'd invite any of you who have
an interest in working directly with children, we have a need for you. A
senior volunteer is a very valuable person within our community. You have
so much to contribute to these children. Many of you perhaps do not want
to work directly with children, we have opportunities for you too. We
always have needs to put together mailings and assemble materials and do
various types of clerical things that can assist us so I just invite any of
you who maybe have an interest in volunteerism within our public schools or
maybe know someone else who has the interest in a very worthwhile volunteer
activity to give me a call. I have a brochure with me this morning. The
blue outer portion of it is put together by ARP, Association of Retired
People and then I have a brochure which I put together through the school
' district on the inside and both of them just happen to have my name and
phone number on them so if you have an interest in volunterism within our
public schools, we definitely have a need for you. So I'll share those
1 with you. I have lots more. I didn't have any idea how many to bring this
morning so I just brought a small number but do you have questions or any
information that I can help connect you with as far as volunteering within
our schools?
' Montgomery: Can you tell me how long a period of time?
' Lois Fiskness: This is very, very flexible. This is something that you
would arrange with the individual classroom teacher. If you give me a
call, I know of some very specific things that need to be done within the
• classrooms. I'll try to connect you with that teacher. You can go in and
introduce yourself and say I'm a volunteer who'd like to work with this
group of children or whatever the activity is. And with the teacher you
would arrange your schedule. Maybe only have a half hour once a week.
' Maybe only want to come in once a month. Maybe you have a longer block of
time. It's very much flexible as to what the amount of time is that you
have to share. Now the individual classroom teacher might say I really
need you at about 10:30 because that's when that particular group is
reading or something or I really need you at 2:00 in the afternoon because
that's when we're doing art and you'll come up with some agreement as to
what's a good timeframe for you. What will work for you so it's very
' flexible. We don't have an expectation that you're going to be committing
yourselves for days or hours but yet many of our senior volunteers, we have
several volunteers, about 10 of them that come into our Chaska Elementary
building and they come in once a week for about an hour during the months
of October and the early part of November. While the weather is still
good. While driving is still relatively easy. Then they come back again
and commit about 10 weeks of time during the last part of March and early
part of April. These people come in and they read with children so that's
been a very effective program. We call it Reading is Ageless at Chaska
Elementary. I know that Chan Elementary has a program called Book Nook
' where each week there is a period of time where someone comes in and reads
to the children and they try to get a variety of people to come in. Some
senior citizens. Some men. Some people with other, perhaps people who are
' visible within the community. A policeman or the Sheriff or the Mayor or
someone of this sort, come in and read to them. And then also a corps of
volunteers of parents who are there consistently. So the Book Nook program
Senior Commission Meeting
II
September 20, 1991 - Page 3
II
has been a real fun one for both the volunteers, parent volunteers and
seniors such as yourself. It's a non - threatening environment to go in and 1
read with children and there the teachers provide you with materials that
fits their curriculum and has something available. Working with small
groups of children, typically it's the younger grades that need the
additional time and help and those are the children that are so very
II
spontaneous and have a fun time working with you. Some of our classrooms
also would like to adopt a grandparent and have a person continuously
throughout the year who they might be able to write letters to as a
language experience for them. And then you would write them a letter back
Maybe plan a special event with them and you would be at their parties or
their event. Maybe they would invite you to come in and do some sort of a
project or a cooking activity or share a skill or talent with them so we d�
have classrooms who would like to adopt a grandparent. That's a fun
program too. So I just thank you and I hope that some of you do have an
interest.
II
Montgomery: I have another question for you. If somebody does not drive,
is there transportation available or would they take Dial -a -Ride? 1
Lois Fiskness: Dial -a -Ride would basically be the transportation and
within our school district Dial- -a --Ride does serve Chaska, Jonathan
Elementary and here at Chan Elementary so that would be.
II
Montgomery: And what is your phone number?
Lois Fiskness: I'm with Community Ed. I'm at 368 -3682 and I do have it o
my brochure. So I thank you.
Montgomery: Thank you very much for coming. 1
Kubitz: May I take an extra one? I'm going to give it to a neighbor who il
is not a senior but she has no children. I think she used to be a school
teacher.
Lois Fiskness: That would be super. 1
Kubitz: She's well versed in birds and things like that.
Lois Fiskness: Oh we would love to have her. We also are looking for II
people who have various kinds of resource information. Maybe a skill. A
talent. Maybe a trip you've taken. Maybe a collection that you have, lik
this person. Maybe she has an interest in birds or science or birds nest.
It's amazing what people keep in their basements and the kinds of things
that people have. And I do have teachers who connect with me and say can
you provide me with someone who knows how to make lace because I'd like toll
have this demonstrated with our colonial unit around Thanksgiving time or
all sorts of special requests that can enhance our curriculum. I'm going
to be providing Sharmin also with a stack of the brochures for the seniors"
booth at the Oktoberfest. If you don't get one today, there will be a
bunch there. Thank you.
1
1
1 t
Senior Commission Meeting
September 20, 1991 - Page 4
CREATE A VOLUNTEER SUBCOMMITTEE.
Montgomery: That brings us to the matter of the volunteer subcommittee. It
seems to me we seem to have a lot of assignments and sometimes we don't
have enough time at the meetings to get through a lot of things. I thought
that this might be a good time to see what you think about appointing a
subcommittee to deal with volunteer matters. Any of you?
Bragg: Well I'll be on that subcommittee if you'd like. I'll volunteer
for that
Montgomery: How about Emma? Do you think she would?
Bragg: I think she would. Emma can't be here today.
Montgomery: I guess what we need is a motion that we the Chairman appoint
a committee. Subcommittee.
Bragg: Madame Chairman, I move that we create a subcommittee to deal with
volunteerism within the school and in the community.
' Billison: I second the motion.
Bragg moved, Billison seconded that the Senior Commission create a
' Volunteer Subcommittee to deal with volunteerism within the school district
and in the community to be appointed by Chairwoman Montgomery. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
' Montgomery: In that case then I may as well just appoint you right now and
maybe Betty you'd like to chair the committee and Bernice.
' Billison: Yes.
Montgomery: And also Emma, we'll check with her. Thank you. Also I have
a task for you right off the bat and that is I believe at the last
meeting, as I read the Minutes, the Mayor was asking for some help in
creating a list of possible volunteer jobs. Perhaps you'd like to work on
that and bring it to the next meeting.
' Bragg: I started one today real rough.
Montgomery: And I think you might want to get a lot of help from the rest
of the Commission on that too in getting a really good list.
Krauss: It might also be useful too to have them meet and sit down which
' each of the city department heads and get an idea, kinds of tasks where
volunteer labor can be a lot of assistance. I know our parks folks
probably have a lot, as was mentioned. Our public safety folks probably do
1 too. So I think we can work with you on it.
Montgomery: Where would we contact?
Krauss: I'll start it up.
Senior Commission Meeting
September 20, 1991 -- Page 5
Bragg: I started a list, just category and I put down Parks and Rec. 4H
and Scouts. Schools. Library and then community such as friendly visitor�
and senior center and that sort of thing and I understand you have some
news for us.
Montgomery: Well it's coming up. 1
Bragg: Okay.
Montgomery: I think too we need some specific jobs mentioned.
Bragg: Yes. I think when you do assign a job you have to have a brief
description of the job. It could be just, I put down since the Mayor
talked about somebody going, visiting the parks. I called it trouble
shooter. That was one word but that probably wouldn't sell. If somebody
was interested, they wouldn't like the idea that there's trouble involved.
Montgomery: Well maybe you put it nicely.
Bragg: But you know, it's the title you give the job too that makes it
more enticing instead of just, if you call it a host or hostess someplace
it sounds better than wiping off tables.
Montgomery: Well I know you've had a lot of experience in that and we
appreciate your help in that.
PRESENTATION BY SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES.
Ben Withhart: Good morning. I'm Ben Withhart, Executive Director of
Senior Community Services. I apologize for missing the last meeting. Or
not the last meeting but the one before. I had the wrong date written on
my calendar. I didn't realize the mistake until JoAnn called me and
wondered where I was at. We have put together, we've talked with Paul and,
Sharmin about some possible services for Chanhassen and following up that
discussion we put together a proposal which you have in front of you today
that gives a breakout of many different kinds and levels of services that I
could be made available and some of the costs for those. Let me walk you
through this if I could. By backing up just a moment I'd like to give a
brief overview of who we are and why we're here. Senior Community Service"
was founded by United Way and some municipal officials back in the early
50's. 1950 exactly and incorporated in 1951, to bring human services to
the suburbs. We started in those days, we had a different name. Many of
you may remember. It was called the Suburban Recreation Association and
dealt primarily with youth services. We have evolved over the years and
are now serving only the elderly. I think it's reflection of the changes
in the suburbs. There are now more older people in the suburbs than in thil
city of Minneapolis and in many of the older suburbs, the first rings.
Hopkins and some of the other places, the density if you will or the
percentages of population of older people is actually denser in the suburb
than it is in Minneapolis. So you not only have more people over the age
of 65 in the suburbs, we now have a denser population in some of those
suburbs. We also have more people over the age of 85 so it's not just
folks who built houses here after the war growing old. There are others
here as well. A lot of out migration as housing becomes available. Peopl
Senior Commission Meeting
September 20, 1991 - Page 6
move into the suburbs. It's a phenomena that's happening not only in
Minneapolis and St. Paul but in major metropolitan areas across the country
in varying suburbs so I think your work is very timely. It's very
important because you're on the cutting edge of the change that is
happening to society. The fastest growing group in our population are the
elders right now and as my generation nears retirement, and that will be in
15 years, 20 years, the baby boomers, we're going to see growth in the
' retirement community like we've never seen before. Now that sounds like a
ways out there but I think we can all reflect on the last 20 years and they
go by pretty quickly. Especially as we plan for this sort of thing.
Senior Community Services has continued it's role as a partner with local
municipalities and we operate all of our programs jointly using United Way
funding and funding from a local city to help pay for the services. We
currently operate 5 major divisions or programs and 1 put those in the
' beginning of the proposal. We are a voluntary, non - profit organization.
That means that we believe in and utilize volunteers. In 1990 we
recognized over 1,100 volunteers. Most of those were retirees themselves.
We used them to drive vans and deliver meals and just teach classes. Do
' all kinds of activities. It's hard to describe everything they're doing.
Of the 5 major programs the first one, and these aren't in a ranked order
but are the senior centers program and I think you're probably most
' familiar with that. The City of Chanhassen does partially support the
South Shore Center which has Chanhassen in it's service area and probably
serves more Chanhassen seniors than any other senior program than I'm aware
of at this time. Although it's not located in the city, it's intended to
serve a large geographic area. We also have and manage the Minnetonka
Senior Center for the city of Minnetonka and I believe there are also some
Chanhassen people who participate at that center. Neither of those centers
have residency requirements and people can kind of go wherever their
friends go and where they feel comfortable. Then you can see from the
list, the other 4 centers that we operate. The second program that we run
is called Senior Groups Program and this is a program that's composed of
groups much like your own, the Chanhassen Senior Club I think it's called
that meets here in town. We work with 24 of those groups. In fact I know
we organized and started the group in Eden Prairie but I don't know if we
did the one in Chanhassen. But these were primarily organized in the late
50's and 60's and we're at this point in time not organizing community
groups any longer. We find that they tend to have a limited membership and
it's hard to provide the breadth of services through a senior grup. They
tend to like to focus in on one topic and be a social organization and
that's very fine and they do a good job at that but they're a little more
' limited than a senior center can be as far as offering transportation and
meals and education and volunteer opportunities and all of that. What we
found is where we have a center like in Minnetonka, the groups actually
tend to meet there and use it as their meeting place and neither one
111
supplants the other one or erases the need for the other. There's still a
need for the clubs. Where there's room they can do that. So that's our
senior groups program. The third program we operate is called Senior
Outreach. What we've tried to do. We find today that there are three
generations of retirees. Three generations within retirees. This is
something that school districts never have to worry about. They deal with
one generation at a time. As an organization we deal with three
generations. We have, and I'm sure you all in your own lives or friends
lives know sons and daughters who are retired. Taking care of mom or dad
Senior Commission Meeting II
September 20, 1991 - Page 7
!
and dealing with that. Many times it's even grandparents that when we loo
at retirement age and I talk about retirees rather than senior citizen
because there are so many definitions of when you reach senior citizenhood
It depends on who you're talking to and what membership you want to join
but let's talk about actual numbers. In Minnesota today the average
retirement age for a man is a little over 55 years of age. It's about 55.11
months or something like that - So if we look at people 55 and older as 11 '
being retired, then we can really look at three generations in that time
period. We have one of the highest populations of people over the age of
100 concentration in Minnesota so we do have a long life span. The Senior II
Outreach Program is targeted at the frailer part of the population. Senior
Centers are really for people who are able to get out and get going. That
are very active and involved in the community and it really gives them a
way to pull together and continue that focus. Continue their education an
socialization or volunteer opportunities and that kind of thing. Senior
Outreach Program is one that really is working with people who without somll
help from their families and from the Senior Outreach Program may end up i
a nursing home. What the Outreach program can do is come in and meet with
them. Meet with their families. Find out what they need and then really
bring in those services. It may be a volunteer friendly visitor. Might b�
a home delivered meal. Might be a homemaker. Whatever it is. Visiting
nurse. The outreach worker goes to bat if you will for that family. For
that older person and brings those support services in. That's been a ver
effective program and one we're very pleased with. We know statistically
from some studies that have been done that we do a very good job of keeping
people out of nursing homes. Much better than the population in general II
who doesn't get any service. A fourth program we operate is called the
home program. It's household outdoor maintenance for the elderly. This is
a program that serves the South Hennepin area currently, as close as Eden
Prairie and the program uses a mix of professional staff, some part time II
help such as kids during the summer to mow lawns and do that kind of thing
and they get paid...and volunteers. And what it does is it has several
different components. It does home repair and fix up. That's where our II
professional staff comes in. We have a journeyman carpenter who will
install grab bars and do all kinds of odd jobs for people who need some
work in their home. Minor home repair. Anything real major, it doesn't d
that but it's kind of minor stuff that people can't do for themselves.
There's also a painter that does painting for people and then we use
volunteers and the Skills Bank, depending on what the individual needs.
And I guess we go with the least costly service possible for the older
person. We also do what we call outdoor maintenance and that's the snow II
removal and lawn mowing. Storm windows. That sort of thing. That program
is one I think that Paul and Adele have talked about at some length. And il
then the last program we operate and I won't spend a lot of time on this i
our employment program. The best way I can describe this is it's like a
shelter workshop only it's not shelter. Shelter means you can pay people
sub- - minimum wage. We do not do that. We think that paying sub -- minimum is 11
less than dignified. This is a program where retirees can earn some extra
money. They can work up to 20 hours a week. No more than that and it's
located in Hopkins currently and we contract with area businesses from
throughout the Twin Cities area actually to do collating and light assemblil
work and provide some employment. And that seems to be a needed kind of
activity for people, especially those who just aren't into volunteering. '
They still want the comraderie and the good feeling that you get from the
1
Senior Commission Meeting
September 20, 1991 - Page 8
workplace. We've been running that now for about 8 years and just have on
an average of about 40 seniors that are active in that program. So that
leads me, and that's a quick overview of who we are and what we do. Leads
me into the second part of the presentation and this is I guess a draft if
you will and open to discussion and 1 hope that you ask me questions as we
go here. We put together several what we call components of service that
we would, we're recommending and we say to the Commission you can pick and
choose or depending on funding and what you feel is needed in the
' community. With that let me start. The first component, we call Component
A is staffing the city's proposed senior center.. This we see working with
a newly retired and a well older adult. Proposal A would be to provide 12
11 hours of service at the center and that could take place 3 -4 hour days or
2-6 hour days. That's really depending on how you'd like to see the center
used. The cost for that is $8,400.00 a year and that covers the salary,
the fringe benefits and the supervision of that person. One of the things
' that we really bring to a community and our staff and others have liked is
that this person is not alone here at City Hall being the only person doing
what they're doing. They get to network with people at South Shore and
Minnetonka and other senior centers. They learn about new programs. They
find out solutions to issues or problems that they're getting so it's like
rather than being a teacher in a one room school house, you're part of a
team in an elementary school and you can talk to others and find out what's
going on. That's 1 think a great benefit to the staff. The position to
work with the senior commission or if you set up a subcommittee or some
other function, to work on what the program services and activities would
' be at the center. They'd also work with the Planning staff, Park and
Recreation staff, Adult Education from the school district and any of the
suitable agencies that we could contact and bring services here to the
center. We see the position being responsible for recruiting volunteers
for center services. I think for 12 hours a week, we don't see this
position being a volunteer recruiter for other organizations like the
School District or the library or other kinds of things. That's probably,
we feel that's too ambitious at 12 hours. Component A(2), which is 20
hours, does take that into account and really the difference between the 12
and the 20 is that the 20 hours allows that person to recruit and place
' volunteers, recruit volunteers from among the elderly in Chanhassen and
1 guess refer those people to other organizations. The library. The
schools. Wherever. It might be the City itself. Then a second service,
and again this is the Senior Outreach Service. This would be targeted at
the frailer and older, some people call these folks homebound. They're not
always totally homebound but many times isolated. Single people generally
' over the, we're not talking about the 60 year old here as much as maybe the
75 -85 year old person that has had some health problems. Let me state that
our Outreach workers, we are a certified agency by the State of Minnesota
and our Outreach workers are licensed. They meet all the license
' requirements of providing this kind of service so whenever you visit with
people in their homes and you counsel them on where they can get services
or help, you need to be licensed by the State of Minnesota. And we do
' that. We see the Outreach staff serving Chanhassen 4 hours a week and
within that 4 hours a week, we determine that based upon the number of
older people that are in Chanhassen. Based upon the kind of level of
service that we have in other communities given your population base. We
' think that will serve the need. As time goes on that may change as more
people, more older people move into Chanhassen or as people grow older here
1
Senior Commission Meeting ,
September 20, 1991 - Page 9
1
in Chanhassen. The cost of that is a little .over $3,300.00. That position
would do a couple things. We want again to work closely with the Senior
Commission and do a lot of information referral. When people call in and
they say, I'm frustrated. My mom needs some help. Where can I get help
and they do a lot of what we call over the phone counseling. Short term,
non - intensive counseling. If needed they can also do, and we do a lot of II
home visits where we go out and talk to the older person. Many times thos
people just don't, I don't want anybody coming in here and providng
homemaking you know. This is my house and I want it done my way and it
sometimes takes some tough love to convince a person that if they don't
accept a home delivery meal or whatever it might be, that they could end up
in a nursing home. Sometimes it's taking a little help rather than needin
a lot further on down the road. And that's what the position can do.
Again we hav a second level here with serving Chanhassen. One full day an
we see that as being able to serve more elderly residents and their family
members...talking to older people about the center and what's available
here. So any questions on any of this so far? Okay. Component C. This
is the home program. Again this is the one that does the homemaker and
household maintenance kind of work. We see this service being provided toll
the citizens of Chanhassen. We would utilize all this stuff is sort of
based out and through the senior center as we see the center as being the
focal point in the city for all the people that, they look to the center
for the answers for their services. We found that to be a great model to
use rather than having separate offices all over. Try to use the center.
The home staff would use volunteers that we would recruit from Chanhassen.
They don't have to be elderly volunteers necessarily. Many times we find II
younger volunteers. I noticed in your Minutes that there was some
discussion last time of the Paint- a -thon program. We have used some of
those kinds of corporate volunteers and actually cooperate very closely
with the Paint -a -thon whenever we can identify a home that needs that
service, we find homes for the Paint -a -thon volunteers. That's sort of a
limited program because you have to be pretty low income to qualify to get
your house painted in that program. The kinds of services that Home
provides, 1 want to be real up front about this and clear about it is, thall
there is a charge to the older person. They pay a fee for that. It's not
free. What Chanhassen will be paying for is the cost of operating that
service because it does take a lot of phone calling and a lot of, we have
somebody go out and assess the job. Make a job estimate on it. Whether
it's using volunteers or the Skills Bank workers, the paid people. Or the II staff so there is a cost of just administering the program I guess. It's
not really administration costs. It's a programming cost. The fees for
the program are determined on a sliding fee scale. We raise money
throughout the community. There is a group called Friends of Home, which '
is a non - profit organizations itself that does nothing but raise money to
subsidize the fee schedule on Home. It generally comes in $20,000.00 to
$25,000.00 a year to underwrite the cost of the fees. So if you are
wealthy and have a lot of money, I mean income wise, you may pay full
freight for the cost of programming. We find that we're at or slightly
below what you could get from some of the Handy Homemaker. I hear these
advertisements on the radio. There's some companies that do this work and
that's because we don't charge a profit. We don't have a profit margin
built into our fees so we're able to keep it going. We're bonded and
licensed and all that sort of thing. But if you're lower income, dependinll
on where you're at on the income scale, there's a buy down I guess on that
Senior Commission Meeting
September 20, 1991 - Page 10
sliding fee scale so it can be quite minimal. With that I'll conclude my
' remarks and ask if there are any questions?
Krauss: I guess I don't have a question for Ben. He and I have been
talking about this quite a bit. I would like to say though that Senior
Community Services is an established program that we're all familiar with.
11 They've been running services and are extremely professional in a cost
effective manner that our citizens use. We're all familiar with South
Shore and maybe we can go visit the Minnetonka center and... We are going
to get into a phase with the senior center here that is frankly beyond
anything that I have any experience with and Sharmin has any experience
with and we need to have professionals who know how to provide these
1 services. Who know how to organize these things on board with us to make
sure it's done well and we're getting the most bang for the buck and
getting the highest level of services for our seniors as possible. I'm
very partial to Ben's proposals here for those reasons. I really think we
' do need that kind of assisstance. Recognizing that we're new and that we
reed to get our feet wet I asked Ben to break it down so that we sort of
have a Chinese menu right now and we can pick and choose what we can afford
' and what we think meets our needs and as our needs grow, hopefully our
relationship with Senior Services can grow with it.
Ben Withhart: If there are questions about the specific services, I can
give a broad overview but I asked JoAnn Kvern, who you've met before.
JoAnn works part time at South Shore center but is primarily responsible
for administering all six centers so she knows the senior center business
I inside and out, backwards and forwards. She's also very knowledgeable
about volunteers. Whe was the former Volunteer Director for the Minnetonka
School District before she came to work for us so she knows a lot about
volunteering and all of these programs have a lot of volunteers in them.
Also with JoAnn is Adele Meta. Adele is the adminstrator for both the
Senior Outreach Program and the Home Program. She's the person in charge
of those two. She's also very knowledgeable about volunteers and both of
' those programs use volunteers. Before she came to work for us, she was
Volunteer Coordinator for the Ebenezer Society so as you can see, the
organization has a strong commitment of volunteers. In fact I was the
1 first Volunteer Coordinator for RSVP in this area. Many, many years ago.
So we do have that commitment to volunteerism and I sense that that's kind
of a direction you'd like to take and I applaud your effort.
' Heinlein: Which would appear to be the most important?
Krauss: If I could suggest a couple of them. I think the expertise in
getting a senior center focus, getting a senior center program together,
soliciting volunteers is something we really need. Also, all the programs
they run are wonderful. 1 mean there's no questions. 1 guess I'm
' particularly partial initially to the Home program just because I have a
strong suspicion we have a number of people out there who could use some
assistance.in staying in their homes and this directly serves them. Plus
it couples in very well with the Mayor's goal of having people in the
community help other people in the community. This would help to make sure
those efforts are focused. The people who need the services are going to
get them. One of the good things about that Home program too is when you
l use, I mean it's a great thing to call for volunteers and to have
volunteers call the City and say what can I do. But you need a lot of
Senior Commission Meeting ,
September 20, 1991 - Page 11
11
expertise in knowing how to do these things. For example, I'd be very
- relunctant to send somebody to somebody's home because I don't know. The
person may have volunteered but are they trustworthy or do they charge too
much? Is it going to be safe to do that? The Home program is designed to
screen the volunteers. To screen the employees and make sure that it's
done in a professional and cost effective manner. I don't know how to do
that. I think we need to hire somebody to do that.
Ben Withhart: You find you take time on the phone, not only dealing with II
the volunteer. That's several phone calls and I see some heads nodding.
Obviously you've been volunteers or worked with volunteers. And the other
side of that coin is that, in essence even though we're a non - profit
charity, it is a business kind of thing because somebody's calling in.
They've got a problem. They want their lawn mowed or perhaps the faucet's
dripping or whatever it might be and they're calling in and they want to
find out, and you need to find out from them just what the job is. Many
times you have to go out and kind of assess that before you can even send
volunteer. You need to find out just what it is. It may be too big a job
for a volunteer.
Krauss: There's also a matter of what we can afford now. I've got some
comments on that in a little bit but I've been talking with Larry Blacksta
quite a bit and we have some money, I think that you're aware that we've
been pigeon holing for feasibility studies and we haven't spent it yet.
It's money from 2 years ago and there's fewer strings on that than there is
on the money I can get now. We can actually use a portion of that to
contract with Senior Community Services to buy a package of programs for
the corning year. I've also got some desire to see some of that money go to
pay for the architects fees for the senior center itself so we can get tha
ball rolling. This is kind of occurring as we speak and I don't have the
exact numbers for either one but I think a little bit later on I'm going to
ask you to recommend to the City Council a reallocation of Block Grant
money for both of those. We'll buy as much of Senior Community Services
center programs and time as you think is worthwhile depending on how much
we can afford. Next, we don't have the ability to spend this year's Block
Grant money for the service. I think if you recall we had Larry Blackstad ll
here and he tells you about the strings that are attached. One of the
problems is you can only spend, if they give a million dollars to funnel
through Hennepin County, only 15% of that can be used for services.
Everything else has to be spent on something. A bus or furniture or
buildings, whatever. And the cap for this year has already been exceeded.
So fortunately we got some of last year's money sitting around that we can
utilize. And the next funding cycle will be I think June -July type of
thing so we can look at what we're going to do henceforth. But I think ifil
we can work something out here and juggle this money around and get
contracts signed before December 31st, Larry's telling me we should be in
pretty good shape. We don't have to spend the money before December 31st.,
We just have to have it under contract.
Ben Withhart: Paul, if I could add just one thing. I would say it sounds"
like from information, maybe I'm jumping ahead here but if the center does
become a real space, the room in this building, I really think that you
should consider some staff time there. You can staff a room like that wit"
volunteers but our experience has been when we try to do that, what happen.
Senior Commission Meeting
September 20, 1991 -- Page 12
1
is it's hard to avoid a click taking over the space and then you don't get
1 everybody served. This way with a staff person you have somebody who's
neutral so to speak and it keeps the door open for everybody within, all
citizens in Chanhassen are able to use the space and that person does bring
some expertise and they're going to work with the Park and Recreation
' people to bring in activities. That kind of activity and hopefully some
adult education things from the school district. We work closely with the
University and other places. Other agencies mainly. Health serving
' agencies that do screening. Health screening and that kind of thing. So
that's really a field of expertise that you get.
' Krauss: I would agree with that very strongly. Again I see us getting
part time assistance. Part time basis someone in the center. At least
initially and with a lot of volunteer assistance. Now Todd Hoffman's here
from our Recreation Department. Todd has also been working on some of the
1 programming reeds and there's going to be a lot of coordination and
cooperation. Todd's got, is it programming position that you're looking to
bringing on? It's committed, well why don't you describe what you're
' committed to.
Hoffman: A program specialist person serves a wide variety of things.
' Obviously in the past they've not served the seniors group that intensively
because we haven't had the space...other services in the community. But as
this situation begins to evolve, we'll mold that person.. We'll continue to
go back for additional funding for future staff people in that area.
' Ben Withhart: The kind of difference if you will between the Senior Center
Coordinator and what the Program Rec Specialist would be doing, they do
' have a very distinctive and I think different jobs. I'll give you some
examples. At the Minnetonka Center, which is going great guns, we work
very closely. The Center staff there does not hire, recruit or place any
of the instructions that are teaching classes or leading groups and that
sort of thing. It's either done through the Community Ed Department at the
School District and /or Hopkins /Minnetonka Recreation Department. What
happens is the Senior Coordinator will meet with the program committee and
they come up with ideas and they have a suggestion box where people can put
ideas in. I'll look at those and say gee, can we try some of these and
then they meet jointly with the Recreation Department and we'll say, can
' you find us a macrame instructor? We've got some people here who might be
interested in that. We think that might go and then they'll go ahead and
find that person and schedule it and find the space and that sort of thing.
So that works out. That takes a lot of time to do that setting up. Rather
1 than reinvent the wheel and duplicate what the Rec Department's doing, the
Coordinator works with the Center side of it rather than trying to schedul
all that stuff and find those people and pay them and make sure that
they're there and all that sort of thing.
Krauss: Yeah. I guess I...cornplimentary. Especially if we have a space
1 where we'd like to keep it open as long as possible and it allows us to
juggle who's there when and just to fill in and back each other up. And
this is still obviously, we're still discussing this as we speak but I
think there's a lot of potential that it can work. It's important to have,
' when this place opens we need to have somebody there, we need to have
somebody knowledgeable helping us to organize what's there. Help to
1
Senior Commission Meeting
g
September 20, 1991 - Page 13
program the space. I guess I'm very supportive of if you give us the go
ahead of negotiating with Ben's group and getting the contract.
Bragg: I'd like to say that we made-about 6 visits to different
communities to see what their senior centers had. Each one of them had a
professional person there and there's a lot of volunteers. Somebody's 11 taking the heat and somebody's also getting the ideas. So it works both
ways.
Ben Withhart: One of my favorite people is Ward Gray who is a retiree who
was one of the first advisory committee chairs in Minnetonka back when the
were doing what you're doing right now and did not have a center yet. They
had a representative from all the various clubs in Minnetonka and a number
of people appointed by the City Council and others that sat on that group.,
And Ward had worked for years in the YMCA before he retired so I think he
understood volunteers and knew what they were all about. He made a plea
for a staff person. Some people were saying oh I think we can do it. We'v
got volunteers and he said, well that's true. We're going to use a lot of
volunteers in our center but if you think of the center being the wheel and
it's spinning around and it's making lots of progress and we're going
places, he said think of the staff being the grease on the hub. Well,
maybe the staff doesn't like to think of themselves as grease but I thought
that was pretty descriptive. It keeps it going and keeps the squeaking at il
a minimum.
Montgomery: I just think you do a wonderful service and I just think
there's been a lot of evidence of it and I think the coordination is go
great and I think that makes such a difference.
Ben Withhart: I'll put on my...hat here just for a minute because I can II
say that it's not my fault but I think credit to JoAnn and Adele and all
their staff people. Out of 140 agencies that the United Way, the
Minneapolis Greater Area funds, they not only fund us but they evaluate us
every 2 years. We go through a rather rigorous evaluation process. One o�
the toughest in the industry. Of all those organizations, we received the
very highest ranking possible. I mean we were highest of all agencies and
we got the highest ranking possible. We got all exceptional ratings on all
our programs. We were the only agency, the closest agency that came to us
only had half their programs rank that. So we feel, I think the staff here
has done a tremendous job. And the volunteers and we have a tremendous
Board of Directors. The folks listed there. Many of them are retirees. II
About half are retirees. Half come from major corporations and businesses
and civic organizations and many of them are elected officials or former
elected officials. You find that elected officials generally don't have
enough time to spend with us but once they're out of office they're a grea
asset because they know their way around and help us relate to all the
cities we work with. That's a group that helps and I guess for my boss, II
guide the organization.
Montgomery: Do any of you have any questions you'd like to ask?
Bragg: How soon would you get involved? Let's say we have a senior center
gg• Y g y
proposed and accepted and the space was there and payment was there, how
soon would you get involved? Would you plan, help with the architect? ,
1
Senior Commission Meeting
September 20, 1991 - Page 14
Ben Withhart: We've already met with the architect. And threw out a
- number of ideas actually and we would do that. There's no charge for doing
that kind of service. I've done that with several places. We ran a number
of things up the flagpole in terms of what we could do. I think you've had
some discussion and I remember the discussion about the kitchen. We went
' through it and I think you went through it with the architect and there's,
a limited kitchen means you can do some very limited things because of the
State Health Regulations. If we really want to do meals and stuff, we've
' got to talk about something that's more expensive than we really want to
get into and the...
Heinlein: In that regard, what would we be able to do? I mean what could
we do?
Ben Withhart: With the kind of limited kitchen?
' Heinlein: Yeah.
Ben Withhart: You can do coffee and bring in rolls and that sort of thing
but you can't do it catered.
Heinlein: Couldn't you have potluck or anything like that?
' Ben Withhart: actually you shouldn't. Anything that the City sponsors
shouldn't be a potluck because the Health Department can close you down. I
' know that some senior clubs do potluck and people look the other way. There
have been cases in Minnesota where if it's been a city kind of sponsored
event, that the State Health Department will come in and shut it down.
Heinlein: I'm not talking on an everyday basis but an occassional one.
Ben Withhart: It could be done by the Club. Not under the sponsorship of
the center where the Club is just using the space. That would be different
but the center itself should not organize a potluck.
Heinlein: Because I know our group does like to have one.
Ben Withhart: Yeah and I think a lot of groups do. It's just one of those
' things where you know, the City could be real embarrassed if they had the
Senior Center shut down.
Heinlein: Well from that standpoint I can see that but as'of now, we were
' talking possibly of having something like that.
Ben Withhart: I think what it limits is you're not going to have a pancake
11 breakfast. You're not going to do a number. You're not going to do a
regular meal. The meals at South Shore and Minnetonka and our other
center, well not all of them. Some of them. We do have a cook at one
center that does prepare food on site but those other centers, food is
' actuall,' catered in. It's half cooked and it's warmed to serving and
finish c=ooking at site but in order to do that you need a full commercial
kitchen and generally we're talking six digits to get that kind of stuff
in. That's an expensive item and that's what you really need to do. You
know pancake breakfast, all that stuff. You have to have a vented hood
1
1
Senior Commission Meeting
September 20, 1991 - Page 15
with a sprinkler and then it's just the regulations on there are crazy.
Three compartment stainless steel sinks. I remember when we built the
Delano Center and we went out and bought used kitchen equipment. Boy the
sink, we couldn't believe it. Stainless steel sink. We heard they were so
expensive. We bought it. Brought it back. Health Inspector came out to
inspect it and said you're one compartment short. They used to allow two
compartments. Now you have to have three compartments sinks so we had to
take it back. Then we found out how more expensive three compartment sink
are than two compartment sinks. Buy them cheap but you can't use them.
Bragg: That's where your expertise comes in. We could avoid a lot of
mistakes. 1
Heinlein: Basically what our groups does is each one, we say well each
one's going to bring in something and that's all we do. We make coffee or
something there but other than that we don't.
Ben Withhart: I think a senior club, you're talking about the club now.
Heinlein: Yeah.
Ben Withhart: The senior club could continue to do that as a club. What II
I'm saying is we wouldn't want to put it in the Park and Recreation
brochure that every fourth Thursday there's going to be a potluck at the
center for everyone in the city. I think what our intention would be, and
I assume this is what the City's intention would be, that this center be
open to everyone within the city. Every older person within the city and
not have to be a member of just one club or South Shore or whatever.
Heinlein: On an overall basis.
Ben Withhart: Yes. 1
Montgomery: Well I just really appreciate your coming and I think that's a
very, very good proposal and I think it's something.
Ben Withhart: Well we've been following your Commission's work. Paul's
been sharing some of the Minutes and things with me and I've been reading
them faithfully. That's a lot of reading on it. 1
Montgomery: We talk a lot but I think it's really exciting and I think
things are really moving along. In fact faster than we expected. I think
we really are interested in what you're proposing and we will be discussin
it later.
Ben Withhart: Some of the things we didn't put in here, but when we do go 1
into a community, that becomes more than, legally we're contracting. I
always tell my Board of Directors we contract at a loss and some of the
businessmen in that group look at me and say, how can you do that? Well w
do it because we receive funding from the United Way and we do some fund
raising and other things to help do that. But we believe that if we're in
the community, that's our community too. I mean we are Minnetonka. We ar
South Shore. We would be Chanhassen and as a consequence, then we also go
out and look for funds. We look for grants, whether it be from the State
1
Senior Commission Meeting
September 20, 1991 - Page 16
' Humanities Commission or the Metropolitan Council Title a 1 le III Funds. At some
point in time, and I'm not promising all these things but these are
1 possibilities that we've done in other communities. We have received more
16B(2) vehicles for our local communities than any other single non - profit
organization in the State of Minnesota so we've got a good track record of
1 bringing things into the community. Every time we bring a van to a
community, that's worth $25,000.00. So those are nice little gifts to
bring in and we're glad to be able to do that. We have a person on staff
' who's very talented in writing those grants.
Montgomery: Well, we're going to need all the help we can get. It's like
following one foot after another.
1 Ben Withhart: Yeah, well we feel we're a partner with the local community
in doing that. That's our mission. That's our purpose.
1 Montgomery: Well we thank you very much.
' Ben Withhart: Thank you.
VERBAL UPDATE ON SENIOR CENTER DISCUSSION WITH THE HRA_
•
1 Krauss: The reason it's verbal is because it happened in this place about
12 hours ago. As you're aware, we've been discussing the possibility of
using tax increment funds to pay for the construction of the senior center.
' It's an eligible activity and the HRA's indicated some interest in working
with us in the past. We brought them the proposal that Jack Anderson had
prepared that you saw at your last meeting. We emphasized to them and Jack
Anderson was not there last night. Basically confirmed to us that his cost
estimates are clearly on the high side. He wasn't trying to pad it but he
pretty much set everything up as a Cadillac type of option. It also
included furniture. It also includes things like a vestibule that really
' isn't needed for the Senior Center. It helps it but it's really part of
the future expansion of City Hall. So I told the Council that the cost
estimate was a $140,000.00 to $170,000.00 but, I mean the HRA, but we felt
' that if everybody sharpened their pencils and if we got it down to where we
knew that if we sought some volunteer contributions of either funds or
materials or time, plus if we're able to use some Block Grant money to
offset the cost, that we probably could lower that. To be honest the HRA
1 didn't dwell on the price so much. They asked me when I thought we could
get this going and I told them probably by the end of the summer and their
response was, why is it going to take so long. So they did authorize,
' I forget what the exact motion was. They have to amend their downtown
development plan to include this project and they directed the City Manager
to go ahead and do that. Now I've got to talk to the City Manager to see
what exactly what that means in terms of when the funds will become
11 available but basically what they did is they authorized us to go ahead and
to build the thing. One wanted us to do it before the snow flew. So I
think it's real positive. It sounded like we're over the hump and I guess
we are but now you realize...and we are going to again, what we need to do
now is I need to get in touch with Larry Blackstad and figure out how to
start juggling money. One of the things I was talking about doing, and it
1 comes up on the next item, is we're using part of our money to pay the
architect to get working and get the drawings right away because I suspect
1
1
Senior Commission Meeting
September 20, 1991 - Page 17
we won't get funds available until after the first of the year at the very
least anyway. To use Block Grant money you actually have to have a
competitive bid for the architectural services so I'll need time to get
that done. Plus what that also does I think is., I'm not clear on how I can
be involved in this. I think it's something that you might need to do butll
if you set up a non - profit group, once we have this thing on paper. Once w
have a time frame, there's going to be some need to go before the Rotary or
the Chamber of Commerce and put the clutch on all of them to help out.
Contact our local business community. I know Todd's been very successful
with his programs getting donations for recreational things in the past an
he's probably got some good advice on how to work that. But I can see us
looking to do things like finding out if there's any contracting firms in
town that would like to participate in this and provide either materials o
time. One of the other ways we're going to look potentiall, hopefully
trimming some of the costs is things like, by the way they authorized goin
the whole program with the vestibule and everything. So the vestibule is
the only part that really has a new foundation but I don't see any reason
why if our Public Safety crews have time... Construction's not going to b
an issue. The HRR's going to take care of that or the Block Grant.
Bragg: Is there a pay back to that agency? So basically they're
sponsoring us all the way then, 1
Krauss: Yes. So that's one way. You don't have to take out a loan or
anything. So that's basically what happened last night. It was kind of
exciting.
Montgomery: We were so excited we hardly said thank you. I couldn't
believe it went that fast.
Krauss: Well I think there's been a real untapped level of support for
senior services in this community. I think the City Council and the HRA
have both recognized that we do have a need to do something. In fact one
of the reasons we're here today, and I see Jay Johnson sitting there is
because Jay had are idea three years ago that there were some unserved need
out there and that's how we got to do the senior study in the first place.
We're learning more about it all the time but it's a real mom and apple pie
issue. It's a tough one to lose on.
Bragg: It's interesting that he referred to the graying of the suburbs
because we realize we're not the only ones that have these
I personally feel that money spent on the seniors, you don't have to spend
it on the police and that sort of thing. Usually we're not carrousing and ,
getting into trouble that way, Yeah,•we're in after dark.
Marion Stultz: I'm Marion Stultz and 1 talked to you over the phone. My 1
daughter just renewed her kitchen and she has a stainless steel sink that
they were going to throw out. If it hasn't been thrown away yet, would you
accept that to use in the kitchen there? 1
Krauss: We sure could look at it. I don't know what kind of.
Marion Stultz: It's a double sink in the stainless steel. It was a 1
perfectl/ good but she just wanted a colored one.
1
Senior Commission Meeting
September 20, 1991 - Page 18
Krauss: That may well fit the kind of kitcher we're looking s
Y ok�.ng at for this
facility. It may just be great.
Marion Stultz: Well I'll ask her if they still have it. If they do I'll
contact you and you can go down and look at it. They live right on Lotus
' Lake.
Krauss: And that's the kind of thing we're hoping to do because any dollar
' we save on that makes it quicker and easier to get the center built. If we
can do that, we can get better furniture for it. So I guess we'll be
proceeding. And hopefully we'll get more good news like that.
' Montgomery: Well it's just really exciting.
Marion Stultz: You know what would be nice is if we could get somebody to
' donate a piano because we could do so much. We could have sing alongs. We
could have entertainment come in and usually any entertainment that comes
in needs a piano if they're going to sing or do anything. In fact we had a
kitchen band years ago and we had to have a piano everywhere we went so
maybe we could start up another one
Montgomery: I'm hoping that people will want to help out and I think they
will.
Heinlein: Once we start building anyway.
' Marion Stultz: I know Paul convinced one of our members to go along with
it. He was very opposed to it and I talked to him yesterday and he said,
well after talking to Paul I'm going along with it now.
Krauss: I should also report that our non - profit group had received an
anonymous donation already of $50.00...
Montgomery: Well that's great. Do we have anything more?
' Krauss: Not on that. No, I guess we could roll into the next one.
DISCUSSION OF BLOCK GRANT FUNDS.
' Krauss: You know this morning I was trying to figure out exactly how much
money we had left in this fund and I couldn't lay my hand on it. I think
it's $20,000.00 or $23,000.00 of money in this Year XVI that's eligible,
that we can play around with. I can't give you the exact dollar figures
yet but I know we may have to move fast. I had to schedule this for the
City Council meeting on the 14th and to basically reapporpriate some Block
' Grant money. To take it away from the two studies that we proposed to do
and reallocate that for architects fees and for a senior community service
program. If you would, I would like to get a recommendation to authorize
me to present that to the City Council with the exact dollars amounts to be
' determined. And if you have any preferences for, depending on how much you
can buy from Senior Community Services programming, which you'd like to see
us spend it on. I would appreciate that direction.
Senior Commission Meeting
September 20, 1991 -- Page 19 ,
Heinlein: Well I'll make a recommendation that we ellow you to ask for
that.
Billison: Second.
Heinlein: But next question is, what particular one. Do any of you have
an idea?
Montgomery: I think what Paul is saying is first what we have to do is toll
request that.
Heinlein: Well that's what I meant. i
Krauss: We have to reallocate them specifically. Now to reallocate the
funds, the way I see that happening is, I have to get an idea of what the II
architectural fees are going to be on this and I really don't know. I
thought architectural fees were something like 10% of the project cost.
Heinlein: Tell them to be generous. It's poor people that are looking foil
it.
Krauss: Well under the deal they have to competitively bid so we have to II
go out to a few different firms. I'm guessing now, I mean ballpark. An
architects costs us $10,000.00 or $12,000.00 to do construction plans.
That would leave us another $10,000.00 to contract for Senior Community
Services. The way I would prioritize the Senior Community Services is whe.
we look at their proposals, I look at Option A(1) which is the 12 hours per
week. I really think that meets our needs because the $8,400.00 cost is
very reasonable. By the way, we did check with Senior Community Services
and their administrative cost for example on the Home program, it's only
15%. I think sometimes you hear about when you give to a charity they use
70a... They only use 15% of the money they get for administrative costs s�
85 cents on every dollar is turned around and invested back into senior
programs for senior needs which I think is.
Bragg: They're just a wonderful organization. As far as prioritizing,
when you contract for them, wouldn't they help you to see what our
beginning, how we should proceed because they've done so many of these?
Krauss: They feel that one of the priority things we need is to have
somebody coordinating programming with volunteers at the center and that's
Option A. I think that that's almost a given. 1
Montgomery: Well if we start with Option A, then can we add on at any time
if we have the money? ,
Krauss: I think so, yes.
Montgomery: Or we could raise the money...then we could add programs as 11
go. Do we need to prioritize that one and then see where we are.
Krauss: Well if I could, what I have preference to do is Option A there II
and then Component C, the Home services. I just think it's an excellent
fit. I mean the Mayor has a very strong push on getting volunteers to help
1
Senior Commission Meeting
September 20, 1991 - Page 20
_other people in the community.
Bragg: And you need to have that supervised.
Krauss: So to the extent that I can juggle rnoney around, those are the two
that I would see going into initially. Now in terms of other sources of
funds, that's a different question. We're going into our budget sessions
now for 1992. This is not Block Grant. This is not HRA. Where your
' property tax money goes. And last year I asked the Council to squirrel
hole just a few thousand dollars for operations and it got lost. For the
Senior Commission. We didn't get that. I didn't think it was because they
I objected to it. It just kind of got lost between.
Bragg: We weren't that visible.
Krau_.o: Well this year I was thinking of asking for something on the order
of $5,000.00 to $8,000.00 which would give you a little more flexibility to
do some of that. I don't know if they'll buy it but I think it's important
' to look to some permanent commitment of general funds for senior
activities. I mean we have a very big commitment to the recreational
programs as we have a very big commitment to the Sheriff's time and all
1 these things that the City provides. I'd like to see if we can get our
foot in the door to start some general revenue funding for senior
programming. So I'm going to give that a shot. Failing that, we get an
' additional round of Block Grant money. In April we've got our
appropriated, I think we can start receiving it in July. Last year we got
close to $40,000.00. This year is going to be the first one with our new
census and our population's doubled since the last time. Now I asked Larry
11 if that meant that our money would double too. Of course it doesn't work
that way. Because it's a complex formula whereby not only figure your
population but the percentage of the cornmunity below the poverty line and
' virtually everybody that's moved into town is fairly affuluent so the
percentage of poverty has gone down. So what Larry told me that it would
be safe to figure that it may be a little more break even...so we won't
know that until, I think I get something from them in March. Now we could
look at buying more programming. We've got to put this on a strong
footing. If you look at buying more programming from Senior Community
Services in June, or when they allocate this money, but remember only 15%
l of all money channeled through Hennepin County can be used for programs.
And last year, everyone else has to buy something. Buses. Kitchens. And
last year they had a problem that when all the requests came in, about 20%
' of the rnoney was for programs and they actually had to cut some people
back. We've had a long term commitment to funding South Shore Senior
Center. Now last year we gave them $8,000.00, which was about 20% of our
allocation. We could have a problem in the future continuing to fund South
' Shore at the same level and try to fund programming here out of the same
Block Grant dollars because that would be coming in and we'd be having 50%
of our money towards programs. We may get away with it. It depends on
' what every other city in Hennepin County does so we won't know but unless
there's some regular funding from the City Council in the general fund, I
can see we're going to bump up against the ceiling.
Heinlein: Why would we have to supply so much to South Shore if we're
going to have something here?
i
Senior Commission Meeting
September 20, 1991 - Page 21
Krauss: Well that's true Selda, you wouldn't necessarily. I guess when
we've been talking to Jo Ann over time, I guess we always said that long
term there'd be a phased, when we had an opportunity to do it here, there'
be a phasing down of South Shore's commitment because of there'd be an
increasing commitment here. Maybe that has to start next year. I guess
we'll know a little bit more after we get the city budgets done and from
what we see when we get our Block Grant allocations. Ideally in a perfect
world we'd continue to do both because we're not going to offer congregate
dining here. They will and we'll try to juggle that.
Jay Johnson: One of the biggest reasons I see for South Shore is that the
northern half of Chanhassen, some people say the forgotten side of
Chanhassen up there in the Excelsior zip code, is closer to the South
Shore. The people, think TH 7, which is South Shore and then the south half
of Chanhassen. Chanhassen's such a complex community with the lakes
splitting us up and everything. The people up on the north side of Lake II
Minnewashta just think Excelsior. The biggest example of before Paul was
here when we were talking about changing zip codes. We had a lady come in
here and say, I moved to Excelsior 7 years ago and you're not going to mov
me. But the people just don't identify with Chanhassen but they're still
our citizens and we have to provide services for them and South Shore's
doing a good job of that for the seniors on the north side of Chanhassen. II
The seniors on the south side haven't been getting that. But South Shore II
will probably continue. It's still far more convenient for people on the
north side of Lake Minnewashta to drive into Excelsior. A lot of them
don't even know how to get to downtown. My soccer program I run for the
kids and we get people from that neighborhood calling me and I say well
it's over by City Hall and they say where's City Hall. Where's downtown
Chanhassen? They've never been here. 1
Krauss: Well anyway that's, I guess all we can do now is juggle money
around that we have now. I'll go for some funding with the budget and
we'll know a whole lot more as we come into next year. Now we'll be set
for the first year if this all falls into place but you'll have to deal
with what happens later.
Heinlein: Do a lot of praying about it.
Montgomery: Well let's see, we need a couple of motions here I guess. On
that Paul requests reallocation of Year XVI isn't it Block Grant funds.
And the second one, that Paul negotiate with Community Services to pursue
the items A and C in the Community Services proposal.
Heinlein: I so move.
Billison: Second. 1
Heinlein moved, Billison seconded that the Senior Commission recommend to
reallocate the Year XVI Block Grant funds to be used for the design and II
construction of the Senior Center and the balance to be used for Senior
Community Services for their Programs A and C. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. i
1
1
Senior Commission Meeting
September 20, 1991 - Page 22
Montgomery: I thought now it's a whole different sort of thing but it
11 seemed to me that we were coming to a need for a subcommittee where the
Senior Center itself is concerned and now more than ever I think we do need
that because we're certainly going to have a lot of details. A lot of
I things coming up that we're going to need some help with. We may be able
to use additional information that the subcommittee could gather and who
knows at this point exactly what we're going to need next. I've sort of
changed. I think we have to wait a little bit before we decide what the
first task would be until we know just what's going on but I would like a.
recommendation that the Chair appoint a subcommittee to deal with the new
Senior Center. Anybody willing to move that
Heinlein: I'll make the move that we should.
Montgomery: Is there a second?
Billison: I second.
' Heinlein moved, Billison seconded that the Chair of the Senior Commission
appoint a subcommittee to deal with the new Senior Center. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Montgomery: I'll appoint Bernice as the Chair I think of the committee
with Jane Kubitz and Selda Heinlein, That's the committee and please ask
' for help from any of the other commission members or whatever. We'll sort
of have to follow our noses until we see just what the next assignment is
going to be.
l Bragg: I'd like to ask a question about these subcommittee meetings if
you'd like to have us set that up separately and then come in as a
committee.
' Montgomer Yes but anything that you decide or is done as a task will
need to be brought before the Commission and we can all discuss it and
decide what we think we need to do.
' Krauss: Could I interrupt for a second?
Montgomery: Yes.
Krauss: Barbara, we've talked to the Mayor about getting people at large,
' from the Senior Club and business and whatever to work with a group on the
senior center. Maybe this is the kernel of that group.
Montgomery: I haven't had any response from the Mayor although he wasn't
sure he knew exactly who would be appropriate to help with that...
Heinlein: What are we basically going to look for? -
' Montgomery: People in the community, and they don't have to be seniors,
who would be actively involved in starting the senior center. Who would
have an interest. Remember Cindy Reese and Dave Amundson from the bank for
instance indicated an interest. Herb and Carol Bloomberg indicated that
they would be supportive. I'm sure there are a lot of other people.
Senior Commission Meeting
September 20, 1991 - Page 23
_Krauss: We can help you with some names too. I think somebody from
Rotary. Somebody from the Chamber of Commerce. We can go back. I had a
long discussion with Oscar Anderson from the Senior Club. Maybe he'd be
appropriate or they could designate somebody or group of people.
Heinlein: How about the Lion's Club?
Montgomery: You know, whoever and I don't think it has to be a small
committee. I think we could use a lot.
Krauss: We certainly want to have any of the fraternal or business
organizations that you're going to later ask for money from. 1
Bragg: We learned that from our trip to Buffalo when they were starting
and they told us how much these people that were active in the community
took on their project and were very interested.
Montgomery: I think it's going to take a lot of thinking and a lot of
careful planning so that we can move on to the next fund raising part here
which is always a challenge. But I think we've got a wonderful start. I'
really excited about it.
Bragg: Of, by and for the seniors.
DISCUSSION BETWEEN PAUL KRAUSS, PLANNING DIRECTOR AND OSCAR ANDERSON,
CHANHASSEN SENIOR CLUB PRESIDENT.
Krauss: Initially we were going to be scheduled to go speak to the Senior
Club a couple weeks ago. I had spoken with...a couple times about that and
what I had heard from Selda and Marion was that there seemed to be a
misunderstanding I guess of who you people were and what the City was
doing. I've been to the Senior Club meetings before where we tried to
speak, and especially if it's not something they're real interested in,
they'd rather play their cards and that's fine. It's a tough environment
to have a good discussion in. So before going there I called up Oscar
Anderson, the President and said, I don't know if this would work but
rather than meeting with everybody there could you and I sit down and
discuss this and after you're comfortable with it, then we'll come to the
Senior Club. Oscar was real generous with his time and asked if he could 1
first meet with the outgoing President and get some background. He came
over here on Wednesday and we spoke for probably a couple hours. I
explained to him that there was no desire to interfere with the Senior I
Club's programs or activities in any way, shape or form. That as fax as
the Senior Commission, as I understood is concerned, the Senior Club is
performing a very important service. They should be supported and if we
can get a senior center on line and we can provide space for them that
meets their needs, we'd love to have them but that there was no obligation
to do that. If they wanted to stay in the school, that's okay too. I did
point out though that the senior center is designed for the entire
community of seniors in Chanhassen. Near as we can tell that's about 1,00
people and the Senior Club itself serves 50 or 60 very hard core card
players. They're probably the most together group in the city at this
point but what we wanted to do is have a Senior Center that offered
services above and beyond the Senior Club., We'll provide space for the
1
1
Senior Commission Meeting
September 20, 1991 - Page 24
Senior Club and then make all the other programs and services available for
the two senior club members that they could take or leave. Like anybody
else they could use them if they so wished. Oscar was very open minded
about it and he was glad that we had the discussion and I think his parting
' comment was that I sold him but how was he going to sell everybody else.
I asked him to think about setting up a subcommittee or whatever he wanted
to do. If he wanted us to come talk to the whole group or whatever.
Sharmin was telling me that the business meeting was.
' Al -gaff: The first Thursday.
Krauss: Is that a special meeting or is that also card day?
Marion Stultz: Well we play cards too but we usually have the meeting oh
' maybe a half hour after we're there. We ask everybody to stop playing
cards and that is a chore too.
Heinlein: If Merrill is there, would you stop the card playing.
Krauss: So I don't know if that's where someplace you'd want us at. I
asked Oscar to think'about it. Or to pick 5 or 6 people from both camps,
' pro and con and just sit down and discuss with them. I took Oscar into the
room and showed him what we think is going to happen down there. He was
not in a position to say yes, definitely they would come over but I think
he certainly has an open mind to it.
Marion Stultz: I think you were a very good salesperson. Because he was
real enthused yesterday when he talked to me.
Bragg: I'd like to comment that as we've been making again these visits to
different communities, we find that in quite a few of the cases the Senior
Club was one of the first groups to come in and begin to see their function
and become very enthusiastic. I noticed Bernice, I noticed your husband
was one of the Presidents.
Billison: Yes.
Bragg: Of the Senior Club in Eden Prairie?
' Billison: In Eden Prairie for 2 years.
Bragg: 5o she's kind of been through this with her family. Watching the
Senior Club spread out and taken in and become part of that whole
community. That's a great place over there in Eden Prairie.
' Billison: He sits on the Advisory Board.
Bragg: 5o we've got a lot of experience on our own commission here. How
that can work. We could ask her about it.
Marion Stultz: There's so much potential that is there. If they'd only
' use it.
Montgomery: I think they will.
1
Senior Commission Meeting
September 20, 1991 - Page 25
Marion Stultz: I think they will. It's like you say, if we have our own
place, I think we will. I have a feeling they'd just as soon have us out II
of the school anyway because we interfere with the cooks when they're
trying to clean up and the children are running back and forth and the
teachers look at us you know when they go by and say what are they doing
here. I just have that feeling that we're not as welcome as we were when
we first started there.
Montgomery: Well I think they're having a space crunch. '
Marion Stultz: I think they are too. I'm sure they are.
Montgomery: 5o I think that maybe is good timing. 1
Marion Stultz: You know we are interfering with them. They're trying to
clean up the tables and here we are standing around waiting for them to ge
our tables up and get the lunch tables down. I can see their point I
know we're in the way because we have to run to their kitchen when they're
trying to clean up. We take our lunches or the food that we bring you knoll
and we have to set down our paper plates and everything and we're running
back and forth trying to handle the meeting maybe before they go home. So
I can see that. I really,think we need our place.
Montgomery: It would give you a lot more freedom.
Marion Stultz: I'm sure and I think we'll get more members. 1
OKTOBERFEST SENIOR BOOTH.
Montgomery: I think Sharmin had a lot of things to tell us about what son"
of the plans are.
Al -Jaff: On the 28th of September we'll have our annual Oktoberfest. We 1
reserved a booth for the Senior Commission. That should give the Senior
Commission quite a bit of exposure. We will have handouts such as CART,
Dial--A -Ride. Those will be brochures. What else? How a senior citizen 11
can have access to a volunteer driver to get to places. South Shore will
be providing us with their brochures. Carver County Community Services
will be providing a list of agencies that provide services in Chanhassen. I
Fire Department is going to provide us with free smoke detectors to those
who qualify.
Bragg: The Vial of Life.
1
Al -Jaff: The Vial of Life, or actually Alert. We will be presenting the
sketches of the Senior Center. The two options A and B. I was speaking II
with .7o Ann Kvern and there will be a program in October for Home...and
conserving energy again to those who qualify so we will be presenting that
as well at the table. If you have any suggestions.
Montgomery: How about some fund raising something? Is there something we
could, I don't know. Write up something.
1
Senior Commission Meeting
September 20, 1991 - Page 26
Heinlein: Are we offering anything like free coffee or donuts or anything
like that? We're not are we? We just have a table where we're handing
out.
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Heinlein: Okay. Are you going to ask for people to man the table from our
commission?
Al -Jaff: It starts at 4 :00. I will be there the entire time but if
members of the Commission could volunteer a few hours. Yes, that would be
great. That would be wonderful.
Heinlein: Well I'll come up. Where's it going to be, wait a minute.
Krauss: It's right here.
Heinlein: From 4 :00 until?
Al -gaff: Maybe 3 or 4 hours-
, Krauss: A lot of people come when it's daylight.
Bragg: I volunteered at South Shore about 2 years ago. People stopped by
and you hand out something so it sounds like that. But you know, if a
11 person would give an hour, that's not too much.
Heinlein: Well I had figured on coming.
Montgomery: Should we just come when we can?
Bragg: Why don't you get a commitment from us.
F ,1 -Jaff: Alright. Why don't we have it from 4 :00 to 8 :00 and then, we can
have whoever wants to come and give up the time when you. We can go hours
or half hours. Whatever.
Billison: Well I'd be willing.
11 Bragg: Selda, would you come from 4 :00 to 5 :00?
' Heinlein: Yeah I could.
Billison: Okay, and I'll come from 5 :00 to 6 :00 or 5 :00 to 7 :00.
' Krauss: You'll have to excuse me. I have to go return some phone calls
before people leave.
Montgomery: Jane, do you want to have any?
Kubitz: I'll let you know.
' (There were a number of discussions going on at one time at this point..)
1
Senior Commission Meeting
September 20, 1991 - Page 27
Al--Jeff: I have a question. As far as the fund raising goes, do you have
a goal? Do you want to achieve a certain goal? Let's say we want
$1,000.00. This way we can have a chart and keep building.
Heinlein: How about a thermometer? 1
Bragg: Yeah, that's what we did at South Shore.
Montgomery: What do you think? Is that too high a figure?
Bragg: What, $10,000.00?
Montgomery: $10,000.00 or should we work for it? 1
Bragg: We can try it.
Heinlein: All we can do is try. Like that old gal did up on the board.
Bragg: Yeah, wasn't that something. 1
Heinlein: She finally got what she wanted because some factory gave her,
her company gave her the balance of the money.
Al -Jiff: Maybe we should advertise in advance that we will be having a
fund raiser. I will talk to Tom.
Montgomery: Yeah, I was going to say. Tom, boy has he done a good job for
us.
Al-Jeff: He's really committed to the seniors.
Montgomery: He really is committed and he has done a lot.
A1- -Jaff: By the way, anytime you need a light bulb changed.
Billison moved, Bragg seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor"
and the motion carried_
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
1