2f. Minutes ' CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 22, 1991
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. . The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
I
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason, Councilman Workman,
Councilman Wing and Councilwoman Dimler arrived late, (during item 5).
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Paul Krauss, Todd
Hoffman, Charles Folch, and Scott Harr
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
' approve the agenda with the following additions under Council Presentations:
Mayor Chmiel wanted to discuss his meeting with the Metropolitan Council
regarding the Comprehensive Plan; and Councilman Workman wanted to discuss
' Personnel Review Board and related matters and Southwest Corridor Transportation
Coalition. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE MONTH OF MAY AS "OLDER AMERICANS MONTH".
' Mayor Chmiel: We have two public announcements this evening. One is the
proclamation declaring the month of May as Older Americans Month. I'd just like
to read that proclamation. This being a resolution proclaiming the month of May
' as Older Americans Month. Whereas, older citizens have utilized their lifetime
observations and experiences to shape the course of our society; and Whereas,
older Minnesotans are a valuable resource to themselves and their communities
contributing over 70 million hours of volunteer service each year, and Whereas,
' older citizens have experienced more explosive social change in their lifetimes
than any preceding generation; and Whereas, these older Minnesotans are the
"architects of society" with their contributions as innovative and varied as the
' institutions and individuals themselves. Now Therefore, I Donald J. Chmiel,
Mayor of the City of Chanhassen do hereby proclaim the month of May, 1991 to be
Older Americans Month and call upon all citizens of Chanhassen to recognize the
importance of strengthening bonds between all ages to create a bright vision for
the future. Can I get a motion for the acceptance of this resolution?
Councilman Mason: So moved.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Workman: Second.
Resolution #91-31: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve a Proclamation declaring the month of May, 1991 as "Older Americans
' Month". All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
1 1
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: I'd really like that resolution, I'd like to see a few more
I things incorporated in there but I'm going to settle for what's there right now.
I'd like to see a little more participation probably by our senior citizens,
provided they have some of their free time. We have many. experienced people
within our community that I'd like to see become involved within the city. I'd
like to see that happen. Paul?
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the Senior Commission intended to have some
U representation here tonight . They had some commitments that came up at the last
moment , the two people that were going to come but they did want to convey their
appreciation for the proclamation and for the Council's support in programs that
I they are now looking at taking over. They intend to be equally active in the
future. They asked me to convey that as well.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
' PROCLAMATION DECLARING MAY 5-11 1991 AS "VICTIMS OF PORNOGRAPHY WEEK".
II Mayor Chmiel: This is something I felt rather strongly to have here. I'm going
to read that as well. It's a resolution proclaiming, as I said, the week of May
5-11, 1991 as Victims of Pornography Week. Whereas, the laughter of children is
' the most precious sound in life; and Whereas, there's something more distressful
than an abused child whose pain circumvents laughter; and Whereas, the memories
of childhood are cherished for a lifetime; and Whereas, the experiences of
I childhood influence an adult 's emotional, sexual and physical behavior; and
Whereas, the attitudes children carry into adulthood are passed on to yet
another generation; and Whereas, people who exploit and abuse children rob them
of pleasant childhood memories; and Whereas, studies show a high correlation
I between the addition to pornography and child molestation and other crimes; and
Whereas, victims of pornography have suffered the loss of everything innocent
and precious; and Whereas, the California State legislature has proclaimed
I Victims of Pornography Week as an annual statewide event; and Whereas, citizens
against pornography, legislators, law enforcement, parents, educators, mental
health experts, social service agencies, civic leaders, youth and religious
organizations are united in their concern for victims of pornography; and
I Whereas, we wish to express compassion for all victims of pornography regardless
of their age; and Whereas, we desire to know as a city filled with happy
childhood memories; Now Therefore, I, Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor of Chanhassen
Ihereby proclaim May 5-11, 1991 as Victims of Pornography Week in the City of
Chanhassen and urge all citizens to show compassion for the victims of
pornography and assist in efforts to keep childhood memories happy. Can I 'have
' a motion?
Councilman Workman: So moved.
ICouncilman Wing: Second.
Resolution #91-32: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to
' approve a Proclamation declaring the week of May 5-11, 1991 as "Victims
of Pornography Week". All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
•
j
2 j
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991 '
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve
the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
b. - Approve Plans and Specifications for Construction of Well No. 6 and Related
Watermains and Appurtenances; Authorize Advertising for Bids, Project 91-1.
e. Accept Plans and Specifications, Authorize Advertisement for Bids, Herman
Field Park.
f. Approval of Accounts.
g. City Council Minutes dated April 8, 1991
Planning Commission Minutes dated April 3, 1991
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated March 26, 1991 '
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated April 9, 1991
h. Approve Purchase Agreement in the amount of $30,890.00 for land in Carver
County, Chanhassen, Minnesota legally described as Outlot A, Chanhassen
Lakes Business Park Sixth Addition for Lutheran Church of the Living Christ .
i. Resolution $91-33: Release Temporary Easement for Drainage Purposes, Lot '
11, Block 1, Sunset View Addition.
k. Resolution #91-34: Approve State Aid Roadway Designations. '
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
J. 1990 CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION CHARGES AND ATTRIBUTABLE COST ALLOCATION.
Don Ashworth: Would you like me to review that item? '
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like you to cut this. My concern was the next to the last
paragraph on the second page but I'll let you address that. '
Don Ashworth: Both of the items were considered as a part of the 1991 budgetary
process. The first one, administrative charge for the administrative trust fund
is a charge that we put back against all of the open construction and capital
project funds. It amounts to approximately 4% as a recognition that in most of
those cases the administration, meaning maintaining the financial books on those
projects will occur by the City for the next, anywhere from 8 to 15 years. So
each time we do an assessment against a particular project, there's a group of
property owners that are involved with that assessment, we maintain the books on
that project again for the next 15 year period of time. This is a charge that
has been in place for at least 15 years that I'm aware of. The amount of money
that's being transfered to that fund is slightly higher this year than previous
years. I believe it's about $280,000.00. In previous years it's been about
$220,000.00-$230,000.00. The administrative trust fund does account for all of
the major expenditure items where we really don't have a direct property tax _
levy. For example, any time that we do studies, the city funding for 212, TH 5,
TH 7 corridor, etc. all those types of things came out of that particular fund.
The other part of the item recognizes that as a part of the 1991 budgetary
3
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
process, we saw a significant deficient. A position that we did not want to
' have follow us into this year. So we had a problem to correct in 1990 and also
in 1991. The attributable to concept was presented in the 1991 budget as a
means by which specific work that was completed by the Planning Department and
' Engineering, by Finance Department associated with each of the projects that
we're carrying out, could in fact be funded. So that the general fund wasn't
picking up the whole share on those. The amounts that are shown here are taken
directly out of the 1991 budget . So each item as it relates to finance,
' planning, etc. are in the 1991 budget. So if you look at the budget under
finance you'd see that attributable to $24,200.00. Unfortunately, the other
side of the entry really isn't shown. So in other words, the operating budget
for the City under Gafid outlines all of your operating expenses but it doesn't
have what would be the opposite entry which would be the aggregate charge back
to all of the construction and capital project accounts. So this item really
normally would have gone as a part of our year end transfer from 2 weeks ago but
' it was delayed. We had the auditors going through these and it just didn't work
for 2 weeks ago. They're presented this evening.
' Mayor Chmiel: Clarified? Normally, as Don said, it's carried under Admin
section. I think in being consistent with what we're doing, we try to bring
everything out on the table. Okay. I'd make a motion to accept item (j). 1990
' Construction Administration Charges and Attributable Cost Allocation.
Councilman Workman: Second.
' Resolution p91-35: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to accept
the 1990 Construction Administration Charges and Attributable Cost Allocation.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
' Rosemary Pauly Mingo: My name is Rosemary Pauly Mingo and I live at 7601 Great
Plains Blvd. . Previously I made a written request that some street in
Chanhassen be named after my forefathers and nothing was done. This was in 1988
and I again made a request in November of 1990. I think if everyone saw the
'
villager last week they probably were given a background of when my ancestors
came in 1953 and my grandfather was the first white child born in Chanhassen
Township. I have a suggestion. I don't know if it would be workable or not but
in view of the fact that the Great Plains Blvd. is now shut off by, it doesn't
cut through by where the Old Village Hall now is located, I thought it would be
appropriate if they would rename Great Plains Blvd. from 78th Street going
' north. It 's only a few blocks. I live on that street and my mother and father
live next door to me for 30 years and my brother lived on the other side of me
for 34 years and his son David now lives in that house so we do have three
people, or three families that are on that part of Great Plains Blvd. . The only
' ones it would really affect much for address changes would be just a few homes
because the apartments have post office addresses. Of course the church would
be the only large entity that would be affected by name change. I don't know
how important that would be to them either. I do have copies of those letters
that I had mailed last fall and I do have the thing I got up today, sort of a
supplemental thing to that letter. Now I don't know if you wish to have those
or not.
1 !
4
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, if we could please.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, if I could while she hands those out. It's kind ,
of a coincidence because in relationship to item 3(k), approve State Aid Roadway
designations, Charles and I were talking about roads and new roads. I talked to
him and I said, you know Charles kind of being new and getting up to speed here
and I said you know, and I still have your letter somewhere but I forgot your
last name currently. That you were a Pauly and that you had, talk of this is a
coincidence isn't it? And that we start thinking about , as these new roads are
developed, that we think about a road that we might name Paulys Place or
something and so we did that . In fact we kind of found one and Charles is going
to kind of do some research to find out maybe where the old homestead was and
where it might be appropriate. But we were thinking more along the lines of a
new road and not maybe just a two block segment.
Rosemary Pauly Mingo: The old homestead would be what was named Lyman Blvd. . '
That was the original Pauly homestead and now it's built up of course. I don't
know what it's called now.
Councilman Workman: But I guess I suggested it wouldn't have maybe any
relationship to the old homestead. The road that would extend between .Galpin
and TN 41. Now that doesn't necessarily have, it would have a large road and a
widely used road but it may not have any relevance to the old homestead. I
don't know how that would go with changing addresses and changing the name of
the road.
Mayor Chmiel: It becomes rather cumbersome for a lot of people when that does
happen, as I'm sure you're aware. It's changing their driver licenses not only _
to the post office but to every credit card they also have and with the church,
it may also cause an additional problem. And I'm not sure if there is but there
could be. I think what we have to look at is, if we can, have a separate street
newly named would be probably the way for us to go.
Rosemary Pauly Mingo: Okay. Well thank you for your time.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you for coming in. Is there anyone else who would like to
address the Council?
PUBLIC HEARING: HEARING AS A RESULT OF ILLEGAL BEER SALES TO MINORS BROOKS
SUPERETTE.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess our major concern is that we did address a few of the
others last week. For some reason you didn't get notifications. Something
happened.
Dennis Carlson: Could I just explain that sir? '
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Dennis Carlson: I received a call, I can't remember. I think it was a Thursday '
after the Council meeting and I was very concerned. I was taken totally by
surprise. If I might, I've got an envelope. Here's a mailing, a wrong zip code
and it was delayed and we received it at the store on 4-9. If I might just give I
5
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
that to you. Brooks Food Mart , we are very concerned about our activity in the
city and what we do in the city. It was definitely not our intention to not be
at the Council meeting. Had I been aware of it, I would have been present so
I hope that explains or tries to because I was very surprised when I got the
phone call.
Mayor Chmiel: I appreciate that and I can see where that did have an incorrect
zip. I guess the questions that we had asked 2 weeks ago at the Council was we
know of course what had happened and you had some discussions with the County as
well as the attorney. The position I think we're taking in looking at is how
can we correct the situation that occurred in the future, because the Council is
very concerned about drugs themselves within the city and we term some of that
as drugs. We're very watchful over that aspect of it. So maybe if you could
just tell us how you could conceiveably eliminate problems of this happening,
and I know that checking ID's is a problem. Old persons like myself, I know
you'd probably have a problem asking me for a drivers license because I look so
young. Not to make light of it but I'm just saying, those are the situations
that I know do happen so maybe you could just explain to us what you'd do in the
future.
Dennis Carlson: In the future, we've had meetings at the store. I've had
meetings with my supervisors. It is a very critical issue and we are very, very
' concerned in all of our stores about the possible sales of alcohol to minors. I
wish I could say it never happened and when in fact it did. We deal with some
part time help and I don't know if the person on duty that evening was not
trained properly or what it might be. It may fall back on our responsibility.
We didn't do the proper training. Since that incident did happen, we have put a
new manager in the store who I think is considerably stronger than the person we
' had at the time of the incident. Works better with her employees. Is better on
training and I think has a better understanding of the legal issue. The
possible ramifications and the problems that it could create for us as a
company. And also for the City. But her instructions have been and to my area
' supervisor and so on that all employees are advised that if any doubt of any
person is under 25 years or younger, that they are to be carded. At that point,
if they have any problems and we have had problems where somebody will say I
don't have it or they start to hassle our employees, that they are supposed to
contact the police department. I think it's that serious. As part of our
hiring practice, we cover the sale or the laws for the sale of beer to minors.
Employees are made very well aware that it can result in their termination if
' they violate that in any way and also there can be prosecution or charges
against them. We are very, very concerned about it. We hope we can work with
the City in any way possible and if you have any ideas for us, I'd be more than
happy to listen. To try to implement any new policies, procedures, or anything
that some of the other companies that have this problem may have come up with at
the last Council meeting. One thing I would appreciate, in the future if there
11 are mailings, if there is someway possible that corporate headquarters could be
copied on any mailing in the future. I didn't, like I say, I think this could
eliminate a lot of problems and I really feel badly about that. But that's one
of my suggestions also. That if there is a policy concern or whatever, that
' corporate headquarters of various companies be notified also.
Mayor Chmiel: Good position and I think we should probably do that. From just
what you're saying and I believe sincerely that's what you really mean and
6
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
II
hopefully you'll make all your employees aware as to what restrictions are
within the city and the ramifications of those. We thank you for coming in here I
although the Council may have some other questions that they may have.
Dennis Carlson: I know there was one question in the statement on a hearing
I
with the Safety Commission once a year, or whatever it might be to address
concerns. When I received the letter they had some items that might be covered.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I
Dennis Carlson: And I would be very much in favor of that. I think anytime we
can bring it out into the open. Other people can bring problems they're having
to the table. Whatever it might be. I would be very happy to participate in
II
something like that .
' Mayor Chmiel: Appreciate that too. I
Don Ashworth: The corporate' address you referred to, is that any of those that
were shown on the City Attorney's letter to you? I
Dennis Carlson: Yes. The Retail Foods of Minnesota I believe was on there.
5720 Smetana Drive. Minnetonka. That is the Corporate. '
Don Ashworth: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussions? Anyone else? I
Councilman Wing: I didn't catch your name Don.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you kindly state your name again? I
Dennis Carlson: Oh, it's Dennis Carlson. I'm Director of Operations for Brooks
Food Markets.
II
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. If no other discussions, can I have a motion to close
that public hearing?
II
Dennis Carlson: Thank you very much.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public hearing. t
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussions?
Councilman Workman: In relation to all of this, I've been rekindling my
feelings on the sale of cigarettes to minors issue. While it's not relevant to
maybe this particular issue tonight, I did witness what I thought to be a very
young person purchasing cigarettes at that store. The person wasn't asked. I
didn't know the circumstances. I didn't raise questions. I just observed it as II I observed the same thing in Kenny's. Since we were kind of battling the .
cigarette minor issue and where they could be displayed, it almost appears as
though it 's gotten worse. I'm reminded because Brooks is here tonight but
Brooks is probably, and they know they were the last time, they were one of the
II
7
II
II
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
stores that really heavily displays tobacco products in a wide area in front of
1 their cash registers. It's getting wider than I think when we had earlier
discussions with most of these stores had kind of agreed that they would try to
keep it in a little bit and keep an eye on it. So seeing that coupled with what
' I thought to maybe be questionable sales, I'm wondering if there isn't something
that maybe we can rekindle maybe with Scott Harr again. I think we had an
incident where somebody sent a minor into the Brooks store and then somebody was
planting and playing games and I wasn't going to be playing games. This is
serious business and I wasn't going to stop somebody and put an employee on the
hot spot here but it's definitely getting broad and wide again. The SA on TH 7
used to have so many signs about checking the identifications of young looking
' smokers. Those signs have all slowly come down. They're not there anymore so I
don't know if that changes their policy of asking but I'd like to not think that
it wasn't something they just did the week or the month that we put the pressue
' on them. It 's something that they were going to be.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. I think that's a very valid point Tom and I think
everybody was supportive of that, at least the previous Council. Previous two
Council members. I think what you should probably do is bring this up on
another agenda if you'd like to address that.
' Councilman Workman: It just starts to appear as though you're wasting a lot of
hot air on a topic and well, it kind of goes up and then it comes down and
everybody forgets about it. It really, you feel a little futile or even
IIdisregarded. Maybe next time we need to put teeth in this.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. That 's something I think we can address at that
particular time.
Councilman Wing: Rather than on an agenda Don, I'd prefer just to have Scott
Harr advised. He's here tonight and he's heard that and I know that Scott will
' react aggressively on that issue. Perhaps a report back.
Mayor Chmiel: Next item on our agenda is item number 5 which is West 79th
Street . Oh, I think we maybe better. Very good Roger. I'm moving a little too
quickly. I think we'd better have an approval of the issuance of the license or
that will be inoperable. Can I have a motion for the approval of the license
for Brooks Superette?
' Councilman Wing: I'll move that approval at this time.
' Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the 1991/92 liquor
license for Brooks Superette. All voted in favor and the motion carried
' unanimously.
i
i
8
1 -
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
WEST 79TH STREET FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR IMPROVEMENTS EAST OF TH 101 PROJECT 91-8:
A. PUBLIC HEARING.
B. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
Present: '
Name Address
Scott Harri Van Doren-Hazard-Stallings
William Madden 1004 Red Rain Circle, Lexington, Kentucky
Director of Development Valvoline
Bob Mikulak Valvoline
Brad Johnson 7425 Frontier Trail
Charles Folch: The en J ro 'ect consultant engineer, Scott Harri of Van Doren-
Hazard-Stallings
P 9
is here tonight to give a brief presentation on that
feasibility report. If you'd like, Scott could initiate with that presentations
if you want .
Mayor Chmiel: Yes I would.
Scott Harri: Good evening Mr. Mayor, Council. I'm Scott Harri. I think what
I'd like to do is start with the feasibility study for West 79th Street. The
impetus for that was your approval of the site plan for Valvoline Rapid Oil
Change center on what would be the future Lot 2 of the Gateway First Addition.
I'd like to start with perhaps the executive summary from our report and to
state that the project is feasible from an engineering perspective. Secondly,
the project is proposed to be financed and assessed into benefitting properties
in the Gateway First Addition. That the entire. . .street that's under
consideration here. Thirdly, that the estimated assessments in the Gateway
First Addition are as follows: For Lot 1, Block 1 would $13,911.11. Lot 2,
Block 1 which is developing the Rapid Oil site, would be $39,822.44. And Lot 3,
Block 1 was $21,619.45. And if I've done my right arithmetic, that would lead
me to item number 4 which is the total estimated project cost of $75,353.00 so
the entire project would be funded with assessments. And then fifth would be
one of the caveats of the project would be the development dependent upon storm
sewer improvements to occur in a timely fashion to open their business towards
the end of June, 1991. . .and the phasing and the timing and scheduling of this
project which I will conclude tonight, should make that feasible so they will
have that storm sewer connection available to them. As a. . .introduction to West
79th Street project exists as approximately a 300 foot cul-de-sac street. The
intersection with State Highway 101 is a T intersection. It lies just south of
the railroad tracks and TH 5 is in this location. Amoco station, car wash and
the Hanus repair facility over in this location. West 79th Street is built 26
foot wide face to face. Therein lies the problem. Normal standards for
commercial streets would be a 36 foot wide street. The other deficiency I just
mentioned was the storm sewer. . .ability to Lot 2 in this direction. This
portion of the street, or what I call the westerly 60 feet or so was built and
upgraded in conjunction when TH 101 was widenedoto 4 lanes. This remaining
easterly portion of approximately 275 feet has been severely distressed due to
the large number of heavy commercial vehicles that have used this site and the
9
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
street over the years and just due to natural aging cost. . .freeze/thaw cycles
' and the like. The proposed improvements to the street would include in the
shaded area right there a widening of the street from this curb line on the
south side up to this location to make the pavement width be 36 feet wide
' consistent with the City's commercial standards for a street. And in
conjunction with this, we proposed milling approximately 1 1/2 inches off of the
surface of the existing street and then overlaying it all at one time. And this
should renew that surface and put it back into a like new condition. In
conjunction with the street improvements, at 36 feet wide we propose in this
thing to have 3 lanes of traffic. The shaded area would become the dedicated
right turn lane only which would funnel traffic more on to TH 101. The center
' lane which again would be about 12 feet wide. . .left turn lane and direct traffic
southbound onto TH 101 and then the southerly lane right here would be providing
all the incoming traffic for the street and possibly if the street were to be
' extended in the future. As I mentioned earlier also storm sewer was the other
main component of the proposed improvement. We would be proposing a gravity
system connecting starting here at the existing facilities in TH 101 and there
would be a gravity line consisting of 18 inch diameter reinforced concrete.
There'd be two catch basins in the street to collect runoff and the stub coming
from this system over to the property line where the Rapid Oil facility could
connect to that and collect their runoff from on their site. Street lighting is
' also proposed in conjunction with the project. Currently there is one street
light that exists in this location. This proposal would entail replacing this
with the standard street light that the City now has on this segment of West
II 79th going west of TH 101 here and it would also propose another standard here
and one down over here which would be in close proximity to the two entrances
that come to get some good intersection lighting when we anticipate there may be
some fairly high volume traffic there during the evening hours during the winter
time. The standard proposed would be 30 foot tapered steel poles with the south
weatherly very similar to what we have in the city now. The lamps would be 250
watt high pressure sodium and mounted in the rectangular fixture. Landscaping
is also proposed in conjunction with the project. The landscaping theme on the
south side will fit mostly with that landscaping proposed by the Rapid Oil
development . We've seen a preliminary. . .plan and we haven't called out a real
legend if you will for the type of landscaping that would be done but we would
design improvements in this location and improvements on Lot 1 that would be
consistent with what is being proposed by the Rapid Oil development. The north
side landscaping theme would fit more with the keeping of a future walkway that
has been envisioned to occur on the north side of the road and perhaps extend
further east at some point in the future. That would entail a series of low
high berms with evergreens and deciduous trees that would help screen this
portion of the boulevard and the street from the railroad right-of-way over
here. Do you have any questions on the proposed improvements at this point?
Okay, I can jump into the financing again is being proposed on the basis of
assessment on a front foot basis. In looking at the proposed improvements out
here, we felt that all properties started from this location here over in this
direction. All benefitted equally from the roadway improvements so as part of
the $75,000.00 total estimated project cost, approximately $56,791.00 was
' attributable to the roadway improvements. And based on the amount of front
footage here, we had proposed an assessment rate for the street improvements to _
be $177.39. The storm sewer system and the assessment for that was a little bit
' different . Lot 1 doesn't really benefit from the storm sewer improvements and
based on a calculation of the amount of flow at the time of the improvements, it
10
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
was determined that 80% of the cost of the storm sewer was justified from the
runoff created from Lot 2. The other 20% from property on Lot 3 over here. And
so using this 80/20 split and based on the total storm sewer costs, that we'd be
looking at $18,562,00. We'd be looking at $105.48 per front foot assessment
rate for storm sewer here and $36.77 for front foot on this lot. Again, from
the executive summary that I showed you would result, when you add up and
multiple all these out , to those proposed assessments that we have for you.
Then the last item for my presentation would be the project schedule. And if it
is your pleasure, 2 weeks ago you received the feasibility study and ordered
this public hearing tonight. We are at that public hearing and if it's your
pleasure, we would like you to order preparation of the plans and specifications
and in so doing so, we would be looking at a bid opening on May 14th and '
awarding the project on the 20th of May, the second meeting in May. And we
would anticipate beginning construction approximately 10 days later with an
interim completion schedule of June 21st for the storm sewer which would allow
the Rapid Oil people to be completely up and running by at least their initially
projected end of June completion and then the City could follow with completion
of landscaping and street paving in the following 3 weeks or so so that you
could have a project in both the the Rapid Oil project and the street project
come to a conclusion and be acceptable. So any questions anybody would have?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I'd like you to go over those first figures that you put _
up there.
Scott Harri: Okay. These figures right here?
Mayor Chmiel: Right .
Scott Harri: Okay. Again, each one of these figures is comprised of two 1
variable assessment rates. For Lot 1, and you have in your packet the report
that was prepared. Lot 1 has a front footage of 78.4 feet and would be proposed
to be assessed at $177.39 per front foot . That extension in multiplication
would result in the $13,911.11. Then for Lot 2, their assessment would be based
on a combination of both the roadway front foot cost and the storm sewer front
foot cost as well as Lot 3. To get to that, the roadway cost again because each
property benefitted equally, was $177.00. Then you add the $105.48 per front
foot times 140 front feet that they have and then we arrive at the figure of
$39,822.44. Correspondingly, Lot 3 would have the standard $177.39 front foot
cost plus $36.77 for storm sewer. Those two numbers together times 100.95 feet i
would then result in an assessment of $21,619.00.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. We're open for public comment. Is there anyone
wishing to address this at this particular time? Please state your name and
your address.
William Madden: My name is William Madden. I live at 1004 Red Rain Circle in
Lexington, Kentucky. I'm Director of Development for Valvoline Instant Oil
Change. Some of the questions I have this evening. I'm interested in the
program being presented this evening. Is it being presented in finalized format
to be approved as is in it's presentation tonight?
Mayor Chmiel: As we're looking at it right now with the few things that we have
to have motions on in order to order the project and then authorize preparation
11 I
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
of plans and specs. Yes, I would say so.
' William Madden: Okay. May I return later if questions occur?
' Mayor Chmiel: Certainly. Any other discussions on this?
Brad Johnson: Another question? Brad Johnson, 7425 Frontier Trail. Our
interest of course is that we're the developer. I might also mention that this
is the first knowledge, within the last 2 weeks that Valvoline, at the Kentucky
level, has been aware of the extent of the assessments that are going to be made
against the property. Naturally because they were just made. I think the
' question that I would have, as a procedural one, is that at what period are
these assessments actually set? Number one. Are they set today? Later? Or
are we just authorizing the project?
Don Ashworth: Typically the years; you're talking about the years it 's going to
be assessed over?
Brad Johnson: The amount of.
Gerhardt : Final dollar costs.
' Don Ashworth: Oh, the final dollar amount? That can only occur at the time of
the assessment hearing which would be after the project is complete. The
' problem with waiting until that period of time is, if we do the project at this
point, somebody's going to have to pay for it. We've laid out a methodology for
how we feel that should be paid for. If any landowner does not feel that that's
correct , now is the time to say that a different methodology should exist.
' Brad Johnson: And does that have to follow some guideline laid down by the
State for this type of project?
Don Ashworth: Well typically the method that was outlined by the engineer is
the normal process. I think all of the roadway improvements have followed a
front foot basis. Everything within the downtown area. Similarly the storm
sewer assessment. We're using the same policy here that we did for all other
parcels downtown.
Brad Johnson: Is it possible that the storm sewer might, who's the engineer
around here? The storm sewer might in fact benefit the Hanus property or not?
' Scott Harri: They do and that's why we're proposing a portion of the Hanus from
that storm sewer system. . .
Brad Johnson: Because right now we have no on site drainage up there.
Scott Harri: That is correct.
' Brad Johnson: Is it possible that that could be changed? I mean just
technically or negotiated so more of it could be assessed against the Hanus
property at a later period?
12
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
Scott Harri: Well right now, as we were saying, the assessment is as Mr.
Ashworth explained. Right now. . .the formula of this 80/20 was based on the
amount of runoff generated from each site and based on the. . . We don't
anticipate more runoff coming down into that system in the future and therefore
we think the drainage area and the improvements are. . .as they are right now.
They will accommodate the future development.
Brad Johnson: On the Hanus property? 11 Scott Harri: Well, looking at the property that's developed right now. On the
portion that is developed, it has the storm sewers that are in place right now
or being proposed. . .
Brad Johnson: What I'm fishing for is it possible to assess more to the Hanus
building? Based upon storm sewer, or lack of there.
Charles Folch: Based upon existing conditions, we can only justify, as Scott
had mentioned, the 80/20 percentage share of contributing runoff. I believe
most of the southern portion of that Hanus property then ends up draining off to
the TH 5 ditch so most of that runoff is going to a different system. If we had
a plan before us showing some future improvement which would change the existing
condition significantly, that's something we would definitely take that into
consideration but at this time we don't have any of that information.
Brad Johnson: Well at the time the actual assessment is done, could you change
this then? That 's what I'm trying to figure out.
Charles Folch: That's a good question. I guess Roger, maybe you could answer
that . '
Roger Knutson: Final assessments are not adopted until the final assessment
hearing. This gives you a good indication of what they're going to do but you
don't adopt the assessment roll tonight if that's your question.
Brad Johnson: Okay thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Brad, maybe just a second. It appears to me as though you've not
seen these figures per se.
Brad Johnson: I've seen the figures. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Oh you have?
Brad Johnson: Valvoline is just becoming aware of them.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess maybe what I'm looking is if there's some real
concerns by you. Maybe what we should wind up doing is tabling this for 2 weeks
and let some of the issues be discussed with staff and let staff come up with
some conclusions on this. I know you've made a nice short trip from Kentucky
but, it's a good place to come to Minnesota.
William Madden: Oh yeah. I lived here for several years so. Mr. Mayor, I
appreciate your recommendation and I have to concur. I think it's a prudent
13
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
approach at this point. We just this evening received a letter of explanation
I from Mr. Ashworth helping us to understand the HRA agreements. We have
resubmitted development agreements to the City in a red line format and I don't
believe we've received final response back from the City there. At this
juncture, I really cannot be comfortable making a recommendation to our
organization for the type of a tax structure that we're talking about without a
better handle on exactly what it's going to cost us and what the benefits are.
So I appreciate your recommendation. I think it would be the right approach.
Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Any discussion Council?
' Councilman Workman: I'm not so sure I understand. Is it the spreading out of
the assessment that's concerning you or is it the assessments themselves have
surprised you?
William Madden: Well there's a number of features to the agreements at this
juncture that we are not comfortable with. The allocation, which I believe is
' what you're referring to as an assessment. The allocation of the cost to the
lots. Allocations or property tax assessments, which play very heavily in that .
Those are all undefined features to us right now as to how they've been arrived.
A tax assessment that far exceeds any of our other properties including those
most recently opened in the last 60 days. So it 's a little bit of a problem for
us to have a grasp of how we're arriving at what we're doing and the long term
effect on us. Particularly in signing agreements that are based on State
I , Statutes. I think we have to have a better understanding there before we are
fully committed to that. And again, Mr. Ashworth has been very helpful in
sending us a lengthy explanation that, by his words though, is subject to final -
review by the City Attorney or the County Attorney. I don't remember which now
so I think we need to see that document in it's final format as well to have a
full picture of this program.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good.
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we table.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second to table for 2 weeks and have it brought back
with discussion of staff and the conclusions reached to everyone's satisfaction?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table authorizing
' preparation of plans and specifications for Project $91-8, West 79th Street
improvements east of TH 101, for two weeks. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
AWARD OF BIDS: SOUTH LOTUS LAKE BOAT ACCESS GRADING, DRAINAGE AND LANDSCAPING
' IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 90-18.
Todd Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Mayor and City Council members. South Lotus Lake -
access improvement project was initiated as an engineering project to correct
grading and drainage concerns. The damage to the site occurred, which requires
14
i
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
the correction, as part of the heavy rains experienced shortly after the
finishing of the original access project. Consideration to landscaping is also
being given on the site to bring the existing landscaping that is there up to
the specific standards which we desire in today's developments. Bids for the
project were opened last Tuesday and range from $41,885.00 to $32,611.00. The
seven bids show a variable of plus or minus $9,000.00. As noted, the low bid is
higher than the estimate. However, recognizing the competitive bids in this
project, it is felt that the low bid is fair for the city. The additional
$6,000.00 does however require funding and as noted by the City Manager, it
would be paid for with the remaining funds in the original access budget thus
closing that out . The original access budget, as it was constructed, had a
remaining balance of $6,200.00 and some odd dollars. The additional $6,000.00
II
or the discrepancy then could be paid from that difference. The other funding
sources for this project include Environmental Trust Fund which is $24,000.00, a
Soil Conservation Grant which was administered and collected by the Engineering
Department of $5,177.00, and then Park Acquisition and Development up to
$8,000.00 out of that specific fund. As such, the approval of the low bid of
$32,611.00 to Kusske Construction Inc. of Chaska is recommended. Just a side
note, we did hear from Kusske that they were bidding a number of projects and
had sharpened their pencil on this one. They were bidding a number of projects
this spring and were not being too successful so it is my opinion that their bid
is competitive and represents a good bid for the City.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Any discussions or any questions?
Councilman Workman: Well, "Uh oh, here comes the pea and shell trick. " • I
Mayor Chmiel: Quote unquote.
Councilman Workman: Notice the City Manager said I almost hate writing a report '
like this. He didn't say he hated it. He just said he almost hated it. Didn't
we have changing of the rock, didn't we have this down about $20,000.00?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Workman: So we're about $12,000.00 off of what we wanted? '
Councilman Wing: Well the Mayor saved us $7,000.00. $6,200.00 so that's around
$13,000.00 overage. I want to thank you for saving the amount they spent. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, thank you. I certainly appreciate it . I think we probably
saved $1,000.00 but that's about it.
Councilman Workman: Am I correct in that? Didn't we get it down to about
$20,000.00?
Mayor Chmiel: Pretty close to that . 11
Councilman Workman: We're a full third off. Well, we're 50% high.
Mayor Chmiel: We have two things we can do. Wg can reject all bids or accept -
the bid that's here.
15
i
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
' Todd Hoffman: Engineer's estimate was $26,444.00. We have a difference of
$6,100.00 and again, the seven bids that came in, I mean these people were
hungry for work. The nature of this project is somewhat unusual. The
engineer's estimate was based on unit costs for the standard job. This is not a
standard type of application. It's a small job. It's unique. It has a number
of different things. The contractor still has to bring all their equipment in
to perform each little segment of this project. Thus they incur cost doing
that. So the project came in $6,000.00 over the estimate. However, the boat
landing access area has never been up to par. It has not looked like we wanted
it to. The seed has never grown properly. The drainage has not worked
properly. It 's my opinion that this job needs to be done in some shape, manner
or form. We brought it to the Council. It was reduced by the Mayor and Council
by $7,000.00. I think we've got it down to the bare bones and to get the access
again, up to snuff, we're recommending approval of that low bid.
' Don Ashworth: If I may.
' Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead Don.
Don Ashworth: I'm sorry.
II Councilwoman Dimler: Maybe you were going to answer it but I just wanted to
know, it sounds to me that it was never done right. Is there still some
liability on the original developer of the project that we could go after?
Todd Hoffman: I'm not so certain it was never done right but a large amount of
damage occurred from that 7-12 inch rain, whatever it was, shortly after the
' project was finished.
Mayor Chmiel: Two in the same year.
' Councilwoman Dimler: But wasn't it constructed to handle such a 100 year storm?
Todd Hoffman: Of that magnitude, I'm not sure if the original construction was
intended to handle that type of storm. Ideally it did not.
Scott Harri: I'd be glad to answer your question.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Would you answer that please?
Scott Harri: The storm was rated as 500 year or 1,000 year or some unrealistic
' number like that and the pond systems that are employed here in the city are
designed to handle and accommodate the storage and runoff from a 100 year storm
event. What compounds matters slightly was that there was a slightly larger
' drainage area that flows and had flowed in through this ponding system that was
originally portrayed on initial developments for the residential component that
adjoined the park over here. So the two events kind of compounded and they all
hit at one time and it would be fairly rare to even find that being a problem
today with say a normal 100 year event occurring. We wouldn't find the kind of
gully washing but with a severe event, you know once every 1,000 years or
something would lead to this. I didn't want to have Todd struggle with an
engineering matter like that because he does a good job in the Park and Rec.
' 16
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Can you tell me, who was awarded the bid the first
time? Who did the project?
Scott Harri: It was one of the bidders.
Councilwoman Dimler: One of the ones that rebid?
Scott Harri: It was Hartman Excavating. They were the third high bidder at
$34,800.00. But a word of explanation to this project, we tend to estimate
projects based on historical cost data that are bid not only in this city but in
surrounding communities. Because the scope of the work was so small and finite
in so many areas, the mobilization cost of bringing men and equipment and
materials back and forth to the project got disproportionately high to the
actual work that had to be done. And on this project, typically what we do is
we say, what the unit price is normally found for curb and gutter is about $5.00
a lineal foot . So we say because of the mobilization it's going to be $10.00.
Well this ended up being $15.00 so there is, it's kind of a guessing game once
the project becomes so small. Plus most of the work is maintenance work and we
needed the contractor to protect existing boat users, park users, the existing
infrastructure. The streets, the drives and the storm sewers that normally
wouldn't be there to protect if this were a new project. So he's got to take
more care. It's going to be slower. It's going to be a delicate remodeling job
like you would in your home or a building. So these costs tend to be higher
unfortunately but again, in analyzing the bids, the bids were, especially the
low three bidders were really tightly grouped. These are good bids for the
City. The estimate was just a little off and I would take the responsibility
for that .
Don Ashworth: To respond to Councilman Workman's question. The original '
estimate, was that $32,000.00 or is it the current $26,000.00? Where did we cut
the $7,000.00 off? My recollection is it was higher like $32,000.00 and
this brought it down to $26,000.00. '
Scott Harri: That is correct. The $26,000.00 does reflect the reduced and
amended number that we had worked out by changing some of the materials and the
approach.
Mayor Chmiel: Had they looked at the changing of those materials in the cost of
the bid that they submitted? Did that include what was suggested at that time?
Scott Harri: No it didn't. But what they bid was only the reduced or the
different material. They didn't actually have a chance to look at the, say the
first approach that we had recommended or proposed.
Mayor Chmiel: At the higher cost? '
Scott Harri: Exactly. Intuitively, there may be not too much difference
between like a boulder wall versus the concrete wall. Just due to the amount of
labor that's going to be involved now in getting this to fit in here. i
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Unfortunately I know that there's a
need within that particular area for having this done. If we don't really move
on this and we do get some additional heavy rains, we could be facing additional
17 ,
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
I
dollars. Although I'm not very happy with the existing bids coming in as high
as they are, I think we're in a position to move ahead and make sure this is
done.
Councilman Workman: So moved.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution $91-36: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to award
the bid for the South Lotus Lake Boat Access Improvement Project to Kusske
Construction, Inc. in the amount of $32,611.00. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
' AWARD OF BIDS: EMERGENCY REPAIRS TO LIFT STATION NO. 1.
' Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. As I eluded to in the staff
report, in recent years we've had numerous problems with the existing lift
station and it seems that the repair time, effort and associated costs to
1 maintain this lift station have been steadily increasing through the years.
Many of these problems are directly related to the existing pumping system set
up. The existing lift station operates via communication line which regulates
the operation of this lift station to restrict it at times when the much larger
lift station downstream is pumping. Unfortunately, we had a problem with the
communication line and both pumps were operating at the same time which caused
an increase in back pressure and we lost one of the pumps in Lift Station No.
' 1. So right now we're only down to one functional pump at this lift station and
if this pump should fail, we have the potential for a sewage back-up and
potential discharge into Lotus Lake. Now the problems with this lift station
have been known for quite some time. In fact, this repair work was scheduled
' for, or tentatively scheduled for the 1992 budget year. However, given the
current situation, now seems to be the appropriate time to make these necessary
repairs. As I also mentioned in the report, this type of work would qualify as
an emergency purchase which would allow us to save time in performing the workby
not having to go through the formal bidding process. Quotes have been acquired
from a few contractors which are included in your packets. The low bid for
' performing the or installing the new well and all the underground piping was
F.F. Jedlicki at $14,792.00. Waldor Pump quoted $24,659.00 to furnish the two
new 20 horsepower pumps and install all mechanical and electrical work. In an
effort to enhance this timing process and also control costs on this repair
' work, I would propose that staff could inspect and administrate this contract.
Now the next question comes to as far as funding this type of work. What I
would propose is to do a funding shift if you will between this program and the
' 1991 sewer rehab program. Currently the sewer rehab program is falling slightly
behind schedule due to it's trying to be coordinated with the pavement
management program. What I would propose doing is shifting $40,000.00 from the
' sewer rehab program this year to fund this repair work and then in '92, that
$40,000.00 that was proposed and scheduled for the '92 year could be reallocated
back to the sewer rehab program. Kind of a shift if you will that would be
returned in the next fiscal year. Due to the timing of this problem and again
' the potential impacts if this situation is not rectified soon, I would recommend
that the bids be awarded to F.F. Jedlicki to install the new well and all the
underground work and Waldor Pump to supply the pumps, install them and do all
18
r •
I
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
the electrical and mechanical work and that this repair work be noted as an
emergency repair situation. I
Mayor Chmiel: Very good Charles. I sort of agree with what you're saying here.
If that pump should fail, there's potential for some of that maintenance sewer
back up. We either fix it now and take care of the situation or we pay that to
the MPC for a fine that we'd wind up having by the City. I think we're going to
need a resolution on this particular proposal. The other thing I'd like is, I
want to see all of our city employees and staff thinking smart in ways that we
can save money. In this particular case we would save it if we did have the
discharge problem and cost the city a lot of dollars. I think that's what we
have to continually try to do and come up with some of these project cost
savings that we can. Any other discussion? Mike.
Councilman Mason: Yeah. A quick question on the note from Jedlicki talking
about saving us a lot of money. 4 foot manhole with a new top. I'll plead
ignorance. What is Jedlicki talking about here with this.
Mayor Chmiel: The 4 foot manhole? ,
Councilman Mason: Yeah. The 4 foot manhole with the new top. Put the other
submerssible in the steel can. 1
Charles Folch: Actually Jerry Boucher, the Utility Superintendent met with
Frank out on the site to investigate this possible option but both concluded,
after further investigation that this is not an option.
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, I move approval of emergency repairs to upgrade
Lift Station No. 1, PW 055a.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution $91-37: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to I
award the bids for emergency repairs to Lift Station No. 1 to F.F. Jedlicki in
the amount of $14,792.00 for the wet well and underground piping work and to
Waldor Pump Company in the amount of $24,659.00 to perform the lift station
mechanical and electrical work. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
LAKE ANN PARK PICNIC/RECREATION SHELTER, REVIEW CONCEPT PLAN/1991 BUDGET
AMENDMENT.
Mayor Chmiel: Just a quick second. In my packet I notice I have item number 7 ,
but that was deleted. Is that correct?
Don Ashworth: That's correct.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Todd, sorry about that .
Todd Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Mayor. This item represents one of two items on
tonight's agenda which have a long history in the city. The other being Herman
Field Park. It is the hopes that the plans may now pay off. This plan being in
the conceptual stage for the shelter for about the past 10 years, or 8 years.
19 1
1
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
Herman Field for approximately 10 years, and that the City will be able to enjoy
' the subsequent benefits of this shelter. My involvement with the project,
although somewhat brief, has been in depth in nature. The Park and Recreation
Commission has methodically refined and reviewed the plans as they've gone along
' the past 3 or 4 years and in more detail here in the past 3 or 4 months trying
to refine this plan for presentation to the City Council at this initial level.
The plans that you have before you was prepared for the City by Van Doren-
Hazard-Stallings, our planning/architectural/engineering firm which the City
uses for the most part in the city park projects. Scott Harri is here tonight
and will be giving a presentation on design and architectural features of the
proposed shelter following my comments. In short, this park development project
' requires the expenditure of a significant amount of dollars. The expense is not
foolish or exorbinate however. The construction of the park building, it really
fits into the picture of a developing, well rounded park system which the city
' is currently attempting to develop here in Chanhassen. It provides balance as
we strive towards the goal of a fully developed, quality park system. I welcome
the Council's comments at this time. Again, it 's an initial presentation to the
City Council on this item. The Park and Recreation Commission have reviewed it
' approximately 3 times within 1991. You notice their comments in your packets
over those months. And again, I'll accept any of your questions at this time or
if you'd like to go directly into a more detailed presentation on architectural
' design, considerations on this particular park shelter?
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Maybe what we'd do is just have Scott give us a brief
overview of what we're looking at. I think many of the Council have sat in on
Park and Rec as well as this was presented. I'm glad that you bring up that
first one Scott . I just have one real concern. I like the building in itself.
I like the way it 's designed but more specifically, on that side view
' perspective as you're showing, with that openness up on the second floor.
Somehow I have some real concerns with liability. It's open. Kids are going to
be up there. Whether dropping balloons filled with water or bottles or
' whatever, and I'm thinking of some of the things we used to do as kids. I see
that openness and I like that but is there something that we can look at to
somehow eliminate some of those concerns for even kids trying to jump off there?
' Scott Harri: I can jump in and say that two options that we looked at that
addressed that issue that were brought up numerous times by numerous people
through the review process at the Park and Rec was to put some type of a balcony
' feature on the front of this thing. Here we show a planter out here. That's
not our recommended option at this point just due to perhaps some of the
maintenance issues regarding the vegetation out there. What we would be
' proposing is a, oops! There you go. Some type of stone masonry, metal, wood
type of sloping thing. This area would be about, protrude about 4 feet out.
Cantilever out over the people underneath. Would be a low maintenance thing but
aesthetically pleasing when you look back from the lake towards the structure
' and it wouldn't allow somebody, now again these are really railings. . .malls and
other locations so the security liability, somebody would have to intentionally
have to climb over to want to hurt themselves. But again, people who are
standing here at the food service, at the rental window, just standing
underneath out of the rain, wouldn't be subject to somebody looking straight
down and dive bombing them: But that doesn't prevent somebody from lobbing
' something out either I guess. I mean I was a kid too so I think I did those
things. Part of this presentation, if I could footnote upon this thing, is all
20
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
the comments that were made at Park and Rec which are included in this packet ,
we've taken note of these things and these plans somewhat address those but a
' lot of those are details about they'd like to have an electrical outlet here and
one there. The stage we're at with this plan is a conceptual planning stage and
if you're familiar with kind of the stages of a project, the next stage would be
design and development where a lot of materials and size and color and shape and
logos and stuff would be brought in together and then working drawings -would be
prepared after that approval. And in each step down the line, a new cost
estimate would be prepared to insure that we're going to stay along what would
be arrived at as a final budget. To start with, the structure that you're
seeing here is entirely masonry or concrete. The exterior finish would be stone
or masonry. Possibly similar to the Lake Susan shelter as far as the stone.
The roofing material proposed would be a thick heavy asphalt shingle. Not wood
like down here at Lake Susan. This is a high quality Timberline type of
shingle. Inside the roof materials would be made out of wood. There's a large
beam that runs full length from this dominant chimney structure on this end to
the facility over here. Again, the picnic shelter's located at the north end of
the park. There was a steep bank in the hill and we're going to tuck this
building into that hill so access would be on grade at the south end. This is
again south. This is the lake on the north end and it would provide for a walk
out at the lower level in this location. Access to the lower level would be via
walkways around the exterior of the building due to cost and space saving
features of not having stairwells inside the shelter. What I'd like to do is
show you the floorplan. Talk about some of the highlights. I'll start with the
upper level. At this location over here we started looking at a fireplace. The
fireplace left due to practical vandalism issues about people starting fires,
how do we get firewood here, how do we manage storing of it and selling it to
people. Who's going to burn a fire sort of thing. What this area right now is
is we are going to provide power, water for people to cook on. There's some
shelves and cabinets in here and you can bring in your crockpots and other
things like this. There will be a hot plate there. You can actually do some
heating and cooking right in this area. It will be protected, when it's not
being rented, by a fold down steel kind of a wall I guess, if you will. And
this would be likewise, these would be fold out tables that would also have
power and water brought to them in case there were two small groups that wanted
to use the shelter. This area right here would support with a picnic table
layout, a comfortable 50 people as far as the occupancy. This again is this
sloped area out in front that would view the lake to the north in this location
and the access and circulation would be via two walks that would approach it
from either side. The lower level, which again this is the north towards the
lake in this fashion right here, would consist of a mens and womens restroom
facilities on the back half. A large storage area in this location. First Aid
and the lifeguard's room and a rental food service counter and window in this
location. The restroom facilities contain overlarge stalls to permit and so
they function like changing rooms. You can bring your son or daughter and
change clothes right in there. Also, all the materials in the restrooms are
made from masonry material except for the water closest and other things so when
clean up is required, take a hose and you can flush down walls and floors and
maintenance would be a very easy thing to accomplish. There will be also low
height facilities, sinks and water closets for younger aged children to access
so that doesn't require a parent to always have. to run in and help out in this
location. The food service right now is being contemplated as all packaged
goods. Anything from cans to candy bars. Things that come someplace that
21
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
they're already containerized. The requirements of the FDA and other sanitation
requirements would greatly increase the cost of finish materials and sanitation
' provisions for the employees but that is still an option that we would be open
to get some feedback from you on. The rental area right here for paddles,
boats, life jackets, etc. would be adjoining the food service window to allow
' some efficiency of employee staffing perhaps both windows. We don't see a large
demand at the rental window so this person can occasionally come over and take
care of the need. So we see some employee efficiency. The storage area would
' be available for the storage of the rental equipment , food service equipment and
also any and all janitorial supplies that would be required for the functioning
of the picnic shelter. The first aid and lifeguard room would contain a small
storage area and bed or a cot so somebody would lay down. Say your child got a
' little queezy or sick or needed just to lay down for a while, it's a place where
they can bring somebody. They can put them in here and wait for an ambulance to
come or something like this. Very spartan and we have a little window that the
person working in here can also look through there and perhaps make some
observations if somebody's left in there unattended. ' Generally that's it in a
nutshell. There's a lot of things and I guess we're here to kind of gather some
of your feedback.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Any discussion?
' Councilman Mason: Any thought given to changing tables for diapers in the mens
and the womens restrooms?
- Todd Hoffman: It was discussed. The intent was then to enable people to carry
' out those activities on the wooden benches which would be inside the stalls
rather than the Kolar Bear pull down type. It serves basically the same type of
function.
Scott Harri: This area right here is where the benches would be. Good
question.
' Todd Hoffman: Little people were given a lot of consideration.
Councilman Wing: Where did we wind up on the telephones? What was decided on •
telephones? Some communication.
Todd Hoffman: The site for a telephone?
' Councilman Wing: No. The need at Lake Ann specifically, with this building in
particular.
' Todd Hoffman: For this building, the window was installed between the First Aid
and rental for the installation of one common phone which then could be used by
an employee in the food service rental area and/or the lifeguards so that would
just be one phone for employee/lifeguard use and then there would be a pay
public phone on the outside of the building. You know any time you add an
additional line, you just get that additional monthly billing.
Councilman Wing: Sitting through the earlier meetings and then reading the
Minutes from the joint one, there's words of budget and aesthetics and they
' don't necessarily match. But then they used words such as pry bar, sledge
22
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991 '
hammers, which is a real concern to me. We've lost a major light standard out
there. It 's vulnerable to vandalism. I guess the only thing I have not heard
addressed in real detail is the issue of being a public building in an isolated
area and the issue of vandalism, I guess Scott's not here. I wanted to ask him
about that. Is this going to necessitate us hiring summer park patrol to guard
this building? It's got to be pretty much vandal proof which is going to cost
some in the aesthetics and is the vandalism issue being addressed on this
adequately? Even the terms of wooden benches. I mean there's nothing between
disaster and the vandal except permanent cement fixtures which is not aesthetic.
Todd Hoffman: Correct. The main factor in how to address that would be the
lockable doors which are included in this proposal. So you're correct. The
exterior has got to be made somewhat armor clad so people in there after hours,
evening hours, it 's not that enticing. It 's not that inviting. You can't do
much damage to a steel door or a brick or stone surface. But you're correct and
then you have to take a look at the access points and just how easy would it be
to get inside there with a pry bar. With a sledge hammer. Those type of
things.
Councilman Wing: The overhead area then, am I looking at, I might have missed
the specifics. There are windows up above? It's an open area or a glassed area
overlooking the lake? '
Todd Hoffman: Open area.
Councilman Wing: Okay. With metal sheets that come down? 1
Todd Hoffman: The upstairs area would be open to the lake and then the
availability of either putting a closed gate system at the two walkin entrances '
at the upper level. If it was deemed necessary to go ahead and gate that upper
area off just so somebody couldn't get into the actual picnic area, we could
make that option available.
Councilman Wing: So the front looking at the lake on the upper level, would be
open year round?
Todd Hoffman: Correct. And that upper area is going to be a concrete floor
with block stone walls. The wood beam structure across the ceiling and then the
one corner where you have your electrical outlets, food serving area which then
would be protected by the pull down doors. They'd be steel clad doors.
Councilman Workman: Well I like the utility improvements coming out to the
park, although that doesn't guarantee that we'll have lights on any other fields
too soon. Our efforts in that area, having Susan. No, Susan's not lit.
Todd Hoffman: Susan is not lit. '
Councilman Workman: It's about time NSP got out there.
Mayor Chmiel: We light up your life. • I
Councilman Workman: I'm not sure what the hold up there is with that.
Unfortunatley for this project, it's come on a Council night when the pea and
23 '
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
shell game has been seen 3 times already and I just, you know I get so darn mad
because we've got $90,000.00 to move ahead with this but we've got people
screaming just to finish their little neighborhood parks and that frustrates me
a whole lot. Necessity versus what people might think looks a little bit
extravagent . So I've got a real, real problem with doing that and it just seems
' if we really want to have the money for something, we've got it but we kind of
take our time and do things, and this isn't just Park and Rec. This is all
areas and then that's got me real frustrated. I don't know. We've got a ways
' to go with this. We're just reviewing this. We're not making a decision
tonight are we? Or are we on the $90,000.00?
' Todd Hoffman: A decision to move forward with, we've come quite a ways in the
conceptualation planning. If you want to take a look at some hard cost figures,
at the next Council meeting we can have that opportunity. You're response back,
in the back of my mind, 3 or 4 months ago I recall a comment you made somewhat
frustrated by these neighborhood parks. We need to get going on these projects.
Get these neighborhood parks in. Have these people in the new areas of
Chanhassen have an opportunity for some recreation and I wholeheartedly concur
' with that . It 's been in the back of my mind ever since that time. I can only
say that in my personal commitment to the department, moving forward in a timely
fashion is one reason these projects are now coming before you. We're working
' off of a 1991 budget which was proposed and created during a somewhat shakey
time in the department . Moving ahead into future years, I will personally have
a better grasp on where we need to put some money. Which neighborhoods need
some attention. Which neighborhoods we need to get into the meeting process.
The public hearing process and hear their needs and their desires and take a
look at and seriously address those. We have an annual budget , capital
improvement program which we work off of. It's fairly lean but then you have
this budget reserve which is built up in park acquisition and development and is
' built up mainly because of the big industries which have come into town and put
in their big dollars in the park acquisition and development. Coupled with all
' the single family home development that you have going on in the city and so
that the money is there. We need to we start the wheels turning with a motion
to get these parks brought on line in these new neighborhoods. It takes 3 to 5
years to take a neighborhood park from a piece of raw land to even something
which resembles a neighborhood park.
Councilman Workman: Maybe we need to stop building neighborhoods, right Paul?
' I don't know. I guess I'm anxious to hear what everybody else thinks. We seem
to be about 30: off on almost everything tonight here.
Mayor Chmiel: Who'd like to? Mike.
' Councilman Mason: Well, as a frequent user of Lake Ann, my wife -and I have
commented frequently on the smell of the chem toys as Mr. Workman chooses to
' call them. It 's used a lot. We like going there and I think a lot of people,
not only in Chanhassen but, well I know. Teaching in Eden Prairie, I've seen a
lot of my kids at Lake Ann Beach and I think it's a great idea. Clearly you
' guys have put a lot of thought into it and I think what Tom is saying is true
about the smaller neighborhood parks. We certainly need to get going on that
but how much more expensive will it be if we put it off that much longer? I
think it's time to move ahead on it. I'd like to use it.
24
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991 ,
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I just would like a clarification here. I agree
with everything that's been said but what does that $90,000.00 get us so far and
what are the costs likely to be? Did I read $200,000.00 or something like that?
Todd Hoffman: To take a look at the building itself as a separate entity, we're
approaching the $200,000.00 figure all inclusive. Including the building,
engineering fees, landscaping, those types of- concerns aroung that area. The
$100,000.00 which would be funded out of sewer and water expansion funds to
actually bring the water from TH 5 which is stubbed in underneath the highway
anticipating this type of future expansion. Bringing electrical from the front
of the park to TH 5. Not only running it down the ballfields, the 6 ball
diamonds. Up past the current building which is there and then down to the site
and then as well. . .
Councilwoman Dimler: So that includes all that? Now what does the $90,000.00
get us? Is that what we're doing tonight is approving you to go ahead for the
$90,000.00 only?
Todd Hoffman: The current budget , the 1991 Capital Improvement Program only
included $110,000.00 of that $200,000.00 so this $90,000.00 is Council's
approval to add that $90,000.00 onto the $110,000.00 to get us up to a realistic
figure to go ahead and bid this. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Oh, and then you can go ahead with the total project?
Todd Hoffman: Correct. I
Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay? Richard.
Councilman Wing: No, I just missed what , I'm not physically responsible. The
$90,000.00 was coming from where? Excuse me Todd.
Todd Hoffman: Park acquisition and development fund.
Councilman Wing: I agree with Tom. You know it's kind of a little frustrating
for me and of course I come from the opposite extreme. I don't think I've ever
been in Lake Ann. Not seriously so but my area out where I am says, you've got
to be kidding. We're still looking for a park off of Minnewashta Parkway and
there's not any money for our development. We're looking at a building that's
more expensive than my house out on the lake out there. I couldn't sell my
house and the lot for what we want for this one park building. And I won't say
that as criticism but it just shocked me.
Councilwoman Dimler: It is shocking. '
Councilman Wing: Other than it is a major public improvement. In terms of
numbers of people, there's no question that this is handling the main, probably
more people in this one park than all the other parks combined. I don't know
but I'm suggesting that's probably true. I can't address the money issues. I'm
just a little stunned I guess.
25
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Todd? I'm sorry.
' Councilman Wing: Nothing Don. It was irrelevant .
' Mayor Chmiel: What is total square footage of that building?
Todd Hoffman: Lower level 1,600 and upper level 1,600.
Mayor Chmiel: 3,200 square feet. What does that break down to costs of that
building excluding utilities? I don't have a calculator. Oh, I do too have a
calculator here. $62.00 per square foot. What does it cost to construct a
home? Anybody have any ideas? Per square foot.
Todd Gerhardt: $50.00 to $55.00.
• Scott Harri: Well, it could cost $100.00 too.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I realize 'that but we're not putting anything, the
' necessities that we have within a home. I'm trying to make a comparable
comparison.
Todd Hoffman: That was Todd's house.
Todd Gerhardt : That 's a cheap one.
I - Councilwoman Dimler: One with all the basics though right?
Councilman Mason: I'm not sure we can be comparing a home to a park structure
' like this.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, you can if we're looking at total square footage. Within a
' home you do a little more dressing as far as the walls. Here we have a lot of
openness.
' Councilman Mason: Yeah but there's also the vandalism issue that's being
addressed here. I mean there's so many, the useage.
Councilman Workman: Rock is more expensive than sheetrock? Did you know that?
Councilman Wing: But a steel sliding door isn't more expensive than Anderson
casements with gas. And also, somebody just mentioned in the background,
$100,000.00 of city money to run public utilities to that building.
Mayor Chmiel: No, that's true. Of course everything's. . .and that's a large
cost. That's a realistic figure that I see.
' Councilman Workman: And one of the biggest, and I hang around there a little
with softball, is where can I get a drink of water out here.
' Mayor Chmiel: The lake is awful clear. But no, that's true. There are a lot
of those questions.
Councilman Workman: I've gotten that a lot.
26
}
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: We do have a drinking fountain out there. All you've got to do
is find it. But no, I guess there's a lot of people that use that beach on a
constant basis and of course I never really went down and asked exactly who's
who and what's where but many times during the summer I do walk down there and
it's filled. And you hear the kids having a lot of fun with their screaming and
know there's a well supervised area to watch out for them as well. There needs
to be some kind of a facility within that beach area. I'm not too keen on
spending dollars, no more than anyone else here but I think there's a certain
amount of things that we have to provide for the use of the people within the
city. True, it's not going to meet all of them. Not all the needs that
everybody wants but I think there's going to be a lot of things that are going
to be used by the parents and the kids that utilize that park. Sometimes I'd II
like to take a total count of what's used within that facility by numbers and I
think it 'd probably work out rather well. More specifically, when we have even
just the 4th of July. That place is absolutely packed and it's really neat to
see that people utilize those facilities. They take care of it which is even
better yet . So I guess my question is, being where it's at, they're looking for
that concept plan for the budget amendment. And even though we're not approving
this as yet , they're looking for some direction from Council. ,
Councilwoman Dimler: Can I just ask one more question Todd? If we didn't use
it for this, where would that $90,000.00 be used for? Is there another
priority?
Don Ashworth: If I may. It kind of fits in with what I had wanted to bring
out . The Park Acquisition and Development Fund has a very healthy, undesignated
reserve and we knew that coming into 1991. The Council's catching me a little
short from the standpoint that it sounds as though there's a question, should we
allocate this amount for this project when we have other needs that you wanted
to complete some of the neighborhood parks. When we came into 1991, and being
Todd is new in his position, one of the concerns that I had was insuring that we
really didn't over burden Todd, especially recognizing that in terms of park
development area, that was probably one of the weaker experience areas for him.
So we picked out the South Lotus Lake project , Lake Susan, Lake Ann shelter,
Herman Field and felt that those four projects would be kind of a test of fire
for him. But that 's not to say that we don't have the dollars to potentially
look to some of our other neighborhoods. I mean you're not giving up completion
of some of the other neighborhood programs in lieu of let's say the Lake Ann
project . I again, recognizing that this is going to be a pretty full year for
Todd, would like to see him get through this year and then maybe add some of
these neighborhood projects next year. But I mean we're not giving up some of
those projects to do the Lake Ann shelter.
Todd Hoffman: And that's not to say either that we're not aggressive on some of
those neighborhood parks this year. Sunset Ridge, a new park down in Lake Susan
Hills West with initial development. Final grading, seeding, installation of
play area, ballfield. That will take place this year. Herman Field Park, we
will obtain potential access to that 11 acre neighborhood park which that
neighborhood has looked for over the years as well. So we're by no means
ignoring neighborhood parks for this project. This is a separate project built
in a community park for the entire community.
27
1
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
' Councilman Workman: But we could address those ose h parks sooner with that money?
I'm not saying we're taking the place of them. We could address those sooner.
Is the park in Chanhassen Hills done down there?
Todd Hoffman: Chanhassen Hills has been final graded, seeded. The grass is
' coming up nicely. They just fertilized today. The ballfield area is graded
off. The ballfield backstop and that type of thing is not there but the play
area is available. The play equipment has been installed and sand volleyball
court has been installed. The sand surface, the poles are yet to be installed.
The area for the eventual tennis court is graded off.
Councilman Workman: I've got to make one final comment, and this is a little
' off the track but down in Chanhassen Hills, I don't know where we're getting
some of this design for these neighborhood parks. They've got a little parking
lot out there for about 2 cars sitting out in the middle here and it just looks
ridiculous. I don't know if it's supposed to be a combination basketball court/
parking lot or botchy ball court or what it is and where are those botchy ball
courts by the way anyway? But it looks ridiculous. Here we've got a little
strip across from people's home that looks ridiculous I think. But anyway, I
' just wanted to make that point because if we want the money badly enough, we can
always find it and maybe we should have been doing that to address some of these
other problems because I know we've had a lot of parks that have, I don't know
if Curry Farms done?
Todd Hoffman: Curry Farms has got an additional $10,000.00 this year to expand
their play area, install bituminous walkway. •
Councilman Workman: They've got a parking lot there too don't they?
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
Mayor Chmiel: It should be a walking area for everybody. Be a little more
' environmentally conscience and walk rather than using cars.
Councilman Mason: It's a neighborhood park.
Councilwoman Oimler: Save us some money too.
Councilman Wing: To go back to election day, I promised myself to think long
' term. I'm glad that somebody had the insight to think long term at Carver Park.
I mean I was dumbfounded when I heard what they were doing and what it was going
to cost but thank goodness someone had the insight. It bothers me that this
building is larger than my home and it costs more and a drinking fountain for
$100,000.00 bothers me. Long term, thinking down the road, it almost starts to
make, we've got to make some decisions. My comment, even starting to speak
' Don, I wish we had some public input here tonight. I wish the public was
looking at these numbers and that they were publicized and that the public was
here to address their desires for Lake Ann and the dollars that it's going to
cost . I'm almost frighten to make the decision as a Councilmember with these
' kinds of dollars for a building for the park. I just wish the public or the
newspaper, the media.
28
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: There's nothing stopping us from doing that to request that we be
provided input from the citizens within the community.
Councilman Wing: I guess I support this because there, excuse me.
Mayor Chmiel: No, go ahead and finish what you're saying.
Councilman Wing: Thinking long term support this financially and the dollars
and looking at my own area and what they'd like to see done. I'm really nervous
about supporting this as a Councilmember because the dollars are so extensive
without a little further public input. And I'll support this all the way and do
what I can for you and Don, whatever decision you choose to make but I'd sure
feel more comfortable if we had some media coverage and some public input prior
to making the final decision here.
Mayor Chmiel: We can do that . There's no question. The news media's here and
I can hopefully try to get some free advertising. No. Hopefully to have some
kind of an article indicating as to having, maybe we could even have this within
a 2 week period. Have it come back and just see the feelings of the general
public as to what it is. And then of course you're going to have pros and cons
to the issue. Those that use it against those who don't. Why spend this
additional amount of dollars. I think we always have to look at it from our
standpoint , being on Council. We have to provide the kinds of services that are
basically needed within the community. Whether it be shopping for grocery
stores or providing totlots and areas of need by different locations. And so I
think that we are sort of charged with that. We have to make the best judgment
decision as to what that need is. I too, like you, am not too keen on the total
amount of dollars but I do see the need for the people going down to that
facility and having something. The other turn of the coin, as you mentioned
about the drinking fountain, the $100,000.00, that also is another good
deterrent for an environmental concern by having the facilities in the mens and
womens area. ,
Councilman Wing: I agree.
Mayor Chmiel: And that alleviates a lot of concern too for what goes, possibly '
either behind the trees or in the lake.
Councilman Wing: I think that's the greatest need Don. I agree. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Not only that but we have different functions during times of the
year which many clubs would use that facility as well. I'm sure there would be
many picnics that could utilize that facility. The upper portion of which will
be given out for families and family use. There's a lot of things that can be
used but I guess I'm not opposed to at least listening to what people have to
say and invite them into our next Council meeting, if that's the wish of the
Council.
Don Ashworth: You may want to set the public comments for the second meeting ,
in May simply recognizing Tom could not get any, I'm guessing, could not get
something into this week's edition. It would mean he's kind of submitting it to
himself this Friday which would come out then for the following Thursday. '
29
IICity Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Oh, he's a wizard. He can do that. Right Tom?
IIDon Ashworth: Almost two weeks from now and then people writing in. So again, ,
you may want the second meeting in May may be a little more reasonable.
IIMayor Chmiel: Okay. Let me ask another question. How far does this throw off
what we're looking for?
IITodd Hoffman: If you want to address the time line at all. Otherwise,
obviously this construction is going to start mid-late summer. We'd like to
wind things up, wrap things up end of October. That type of thing and have the
IIstructure basically completed and ready to go to do the final fittings in 1992.
Mayor Chmiel: So I guess I don't see any real problem with delaying this. Any
II whatsoever and I think possibly, as what Don has indicated, to be able to pull
that together and see what input we can get.
Todd Hoffman: Sure.
IICouncilman Workman: So we're going to look at it in 2 weeks?
IIDon Ashworth: Again, the second meeting in May.which would be about.
Councilman Workman: The third week.
IIDon Ashworth: The third week, yes. The third Monday.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, which would be the 20th of May. Okay? Again, I don't _
II think any action is really required at this time. Thank you. Let us just move
right along. •
I ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 20-263 REGARDING PORTABLE CHEMICAL TOILETS
ON RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS.
I Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. The Planning Commission got
involved in this issue last fall when they received a request for a variance, as
I recall, to locate a chemical toilet on a beachlot. At the present time our
ordinance specifically excludes this type of use on a beachlot and staff
I investigated this and we had concluded originally that we would recommend denial
of that given the fact that we're familiar with some problems that had occurred.
The item came up to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission
I indicated that they were receptive to this but wanted to make sure that if it
were to be allowed, that it be sensitive to the fact that beachlots are
oftentimes, well they are in residential neighborhoods. They're oftentimes
close to other homes and they wanted to make sure that the environmental and
IIneighborhood impacts, if these were to be allowed, would be considered. The
Planning Commission reviewed a couple of drafts of an ordinance. The most .
recent one was prepared in cooperation with Chairman Emmings who indicated that
I he would be willing to work on this. The Commission ultimately recommended
approval of this ordinance and it was scheduled to be heard by you I believe 2
or 4 weeks ago. The City Attorney indicated that upon reading the final draft ,
I he had some questions in a couple of areas and asked for an opportunity to
correct what he felt needed to be addressed. It was a somewhat minor point in
30
II
II
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991 1
terms of ordinance but it was an issue that the Planning Commission talked about
quite a bit and that was, how the neighbors should be brought into this
discussion. And the current ordinance has been corrected to eliminate the I
guess obligation that was formally in there that the beachlot proponent have the
homeowner's sign off on something. So in other words, the original draft would
have given them the right to approve or deny it and that right really resides in
the City Council. These are conditional use permits so if you have an existing
beachlot or if you're proposing a new beachlot, or a new toilet on a beachlot,
it has to go through the CUP procedure during which we notify everybody within
500 feet and everybody has the opportunity to speak at a public hearing. The
current ordinance requires a 75 foot setback from the lake. The chemical toilet
would be available for use from Memorial Day to Labor Day. It must be anchored
securely to the ground because the one incident that we're aware of involved
vandals tipping these things over and polluting the beach. We think the
anchoring gets away from that. It's got to be screneed, not only from the lake '
but also from adjoining properties. It has to be servied weekly to hopefully
get at the odor or cleanliness problems and there's an annual license required.
Now these things would not require annual CUP review. You get your conditional
use permit once and the way it's set up is that the Planning staff would handle
this as an annual license. As long as we confirm that the commission's approval
had been violated and that we hadn't received any complains or anything else
about it , then we would just process the license renewal. If there were
problems, we would bring it back through the Planning Commission and City
Council. With that we are now comfortable with this ordinance and we are
recommending it 's approval. '
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you. Any discussion? Ursula.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. I think it's been discussed enough and I recommend '
approval. I move Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-263, Recreational
Beachlots regarding Portable Chemical Toilets.
Councilman Wing: Being they exist and I think this is going to give us much
greater control, in fact may discourage some, I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Tom. ,
Councilman Workman: We're a little hasty here tonight I would say.
Councilwoman Dimler: We've discussed it enough Tom.
Councilman Workman: Well, we're going to discuss it some more. I think the
intent of this, of the homeowners associations and everybody else, they have a
strong case. I can think of a lot of reasons why you should have them. I've
come to the conclusion that we're either, on this issue we're either 5 years
ahead of our time or we're 25 behind and I think we're 25 behind on this. If
you're just talking about the use and why they're needed, and then go ahead. I
think the issue is chem toy, chemical toilets' design. I think they're ugly.
They're a degradation of the beachlots, of the beaches, of everything else for
sight, smell. You name the sense, except when you need to use one, they're
fantastic. I don't know what the solution is to that but I think this, and
maybe they're there and maybe we need to force their elimination but this to me
seems like a step back into something prehistoric. All under the guise of
31 ,
1
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
convenience. And I don't think the decisions that we've made on Council the
' past years, tree ordinances, how things look, environment, water, you name it, I
don't think this fits in that. And again, I season that with well if you're
sitting down there and you've got to cross Minnewashta Parkway to get to it and
you're a quarter of a mile away from home, you have very few options when Mother
Nature calls. But I think this is, so what I'm saying is, I don't think it has
been worked out. I don't think the aesthetics or how it 's all going to -happen
or how we should allow it to happen, has been worked out sufficiently for me to
say yes to this. And so I'm going to vote against it until we can figure that
out.
' Mayor Chmiel: I think you're going to look at another design Tom?
Councilman Workman: I don't know. They're built cheap and ready to go. When
we allow them in every one of our parks, we're saying great. We've voting for
that design.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think we're going to see a difference in design,
unfortunately.
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't think it's up to the City Council to design
chemical toilets. I mean we're going to buy or get what's out there in the
market and when the market improves, we'll get the better ones. Maybe we can
stipulate that.
II Councilman Workman: I'm not saying we're going to design the toilets.
Councilwoman Dimler: No, but .
' Councilman Workman: I'm just saying, the units they have is made of, I don't
know plastic. They smell. For every thing that's bad about them, there's one
good thing about them and I don't think it balances at all. I think we lose a
' lot more than we gain. That's all I'm saying.
Mayor Chmiel: Well yeah, and I understand that. I think with the maintenance
' that they do on them, more frequently, eliminates the odor problem. I've been
out on job sites and unfortunately I've found that to be true. If that is
consistent with cleaning. Secondly, if you tip those over, they're self-
contained. Runoff is very unlikely.
Councilman Workman: I've seen one tipped over.
Mayor Chmiel: Then it's probably not the newer design. The newer designs had
that taken care of. I'm not saying that we shouldn't fasten them. They have to
be fastened because kids are going to be kids. Unfortunately. Mike, you were
' going to say something?
Councilman Mason: I was just going to ask. Is it as, you've just mentioned
' that the new ones are designed so that if they're tipped, they don't spill. Is
it written anywhere in here that that has to be those kind of chemical toilets?
Krauss: No it isn't. We're going on the presumption that it has to be anchored
so it shouldn't tip in the first place but we have been told that the new ones
32
I
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
have I guess some sort of a sump in it so when it tips over it basically catches
itself.
Councilman Mason: I guess I'd like to see something like that in there because
saying it's anchored so it won't tip over, you get a number of senior high
students or whatever that decide otherwise. I mean I guess I'd want to know how
they're going to be anchored before I'd be comfortable.
Councilwoman Dimler: So, excuse me. Paul, are you saying that they're already 1
designing them better now?
Paul Krauss: That's what we've heard. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Can we stipulate that we get the newer designs then?
Paul Krauss: From what I understand that that's the new technology, I would 1
assume that we could probably demand that, yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Let 's do that. 1
Councilman Wing: What about the screening Paul? That was a big issue. How
tight are you going to be on the screening?
Paul Krauss: Well that's really left up to the analysis of the Planning
Commission themselves. It was viewed as one of those situations where it's
almost impossible to say what screening is going to work in what way but the
object, the way this ordinance addresses it is it says that this may be
unsuitable if it can't be adequately screened and you're going to have to make
that determination. The beachlot in question here I think is only 50 feet wide.
The one that brought this up. That maybe a very tough one to work on. Now it
may be fine but because it may be so narrow, it needs more intensive efforts to
do it . But that's grounds to deny it. If it's not effective, that's grounds to
reject it.
Councilman Wing: The Planning Commission discussed the tipping issue at length.
In much more detail than we did. I wound up feeling it really was not an issue
at this point , considering the screening and so, it does affect that
neighborhood in particular. They have to police it. Call the motion Mr. Mayor?
Councilwoman Dimler: Call the question?
Mayor Chmiel: Any further? '
Councilman Mason: I just, if I could just make one quick comment on that. I
basically agree with everything Tom is saying. I don't like them. However, I
live in Carver Beach and I do spend some time also down at Lotus Lake there and
there is a chemical toilet there. And when you have a 5 year old that needs to
go to the bathroom and you live a half mile away, it creates some problems. I
was talking with my wife about this one and I kind of thought she'd say, I don't
think we should have them and her comment was, well great. Now kids won't go i,.p
the lake or behind a tree so I don't know. I disagree with how Councilman
Workman's going to vote on this but I agree wholeheartedly with his philosophy,
which may not help much but I. . .
33
I
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
Councilwoman Dimler: I agree with that too. I think here the practicality to
' me outweighs the aesthetics.
Councilman Workman: If you live a half a mile away from one of these things,
you haven't got a problem. If you live next to it, or if you're driving by,
you're looking at it or anything else, then you've got a problem. So it's the
people, and I've lived near this. Near these situations.
' Councilman Mason: The one on Carver Beach, you can't see from the road. I mean
it is well screened and that's.
' Councilman Workman: Yeah, well Carver Beach is well screened.
Councilman Mason: Well that's true. I mean even going down Carver Beach Road
' there it 's set back in. There's a barricade around it and you really don't know
it's there unless you're using it.
Mayor Chmiel: We have one in' Greenwood Shores Park as well.
' Councilman Wing: Is that City?
' Mayor Chmiel: Yes. City park. And that one is pretty well screened too. In
fact , sometimes you can't even see it.
Councilman Workman: I'm just saying, we've got a situation, and we may as well
not even have this ordinance because apparently they're up anyway. So this is
just another ordinance following.
' Paul Krauss: I should say part of the problem too in the Planning Commission
reviewing this was the fact that the City does it in our own parks in similar
situations yet we prohibit private parties from doing it on a common
recreational beachlot.
Councilman Workman: Well, I think those are a little different that we invite
people to go there en masse and you expect that .
Paul Krauss: And ideally we maintain it well.
Mayor Chmiel: Being there no further discussion, I'll call the question.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve Zoning Ordinance
I Amendment #90-9 for regulating portable chemical toilets as a conditional use
permit on recreational beachlots as shown in Attachment $1 with the addition
that only spill proof models will be allowed. All voted in favor except
Councilman Workman who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
1
I
34
1
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991 '
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: ,
SET SPECIAL MEETING DATES:
A. TH 5 CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN I
B. CITY COUNCIL GOALS.
Don Ashworth: I must apologize to the Council. When I put this packet out ,
I anticipated having the goals that we had looked at from our Saturday meeting
several weeks ago, ready for distribution. I do not . I can tell you that I
would have those ready for any type of a first , I'll call it a first work
session when we're going to take a look at the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor. So
let 's assume we pick out whatever the date is, I'll ensure that you have those
before that date. Hopefully we can discuss them a little bit , maybe even at
that time. We talked originally about like a Saturday morning for that TH 5
corridor. Saturdays are becoming more and more precious I think for all of us.
I'm wondering if an early evening might work just as well. 5:00-6:00.
Councilwoman Dimler: It's got to be light out. 1
Don Ashworth: Well, it really doesn't get dark.
Mayor Chmiel: It stays light until 8:00 or a little after.
Don Ashworth: That way we wouldn't take that much time and get a jump on the
thing.
Mayor Chmiel: I think an evening would probably be appropos as opposed to the
weekend. Weekends are few and far between. Do you have a problem Tom?
Councilman Workman: No. Evenings are always very busy for me. Weekends are
less.
Don Ashworth: Any one more so than another? Like Tuesdays or Wednesdays?
Councilman Workman: Well Monday thru Thursday. Friday?
Councilwoman Dimler: Friday night's fine.
Councilman Workman: Why don't we pick out a date.
Mayor Chmiel: Do it on a Friday? That's fine with me. That doesn't create a
problem.
Councilwoman Dimler: Richard, has a comment. '
Councilman Wing: I didn't know if you were on goals. If the TH 5 Corridor,
what 's the word I want?
Councilman Mason: Task force?
Councilman Wing: Well task force I don't want either. We're not at that point. II
Just kind of the preliminary thinking. I think it involved the head of urban
35
I
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
I
design center at the University who said he would come out and join the Council,
Planning Commission, staff and just take a bus and go up and down TH 5 and talk
and discuss and share but it would have to be a Saturday morning and it would
have to be, I think the first three Saturday mornings in June that he was
available next . I tried to reach him today and he didn't get back to me.
' Mayor Chmiel: I think that can work too.
Don Ashworth: How about if I work with Councilman Wing in finding out which of
those and then potentially putting it back on for all the Council.
' Mayor Chmiel: Yep. Either the 8th, 15th or the 22nd.
Councilman Mason: I'd like the 8th if at all possible because I'm going to be
out of town.
Mayor Chmiel: June 8th.
Councilman Wing: And I'll work with the City Manager and be certain that the
Council is contacted. We'll try to work that out even if it got pushed ahead or
behind a little bit.
Don Ashworth: Then the Council's desire would be in doing this, to invite
Planning Commission and HRA members as well?
' Mayor Chmiel: As well, yeah. And I think if we try to get something going,
that it be early in the morning. 8:00?
' Councilman Wing: I think that 's what he was suggesting.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Trunk Highway 5 corridor master plan.
Don Ashworth: Those really are tied together.
Mayor Chmiel: We're all going to go with that? 'Okay, City Council goals and
that you've already discussed. Okay. Let's move on as we're going with Council
Presentations. I just wanted to, I'm going to let Don do it. We met today with
Met Council. Let me see if his ideas and my ideas, we haven't discussed this.
' See if his ideas were the same as what mine are. Don.
Don Ashworth: We're reaching a critical juncture as it deals with the Metro
Council review of our Comprehensive Plan. We had, the Mayor and myself, had met
with, and Councilman Workman had met with our new Metro Council representative
Bonnie Featerstone here about 2 weeks ago. That led to hopefully a secondary
meeting today with the new Chair of Metro Council, Mary Anderson. Don had
worked diligently to get that meeting established and the primary purpose was
simply, we've got kind of a new playing field here. We had felt that we had
tried to keep the previous chair, Mr. Keefe up to date as to what we were doing
I as well as Marcy Waritz sat in on all of the meetings as our Comp Plan had been
developed in the past 2 year period of time. Again, final review of that
document will occur probably within the next 30 days. The statements that we
made to Mary were to the effect that as it stands, we've gotten mixed emotions
from their staff so we're looking at, most of the statements we have received
36
I
I
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
have been very favorable so we're anticipating a favorable staff report .
However, we do have certain members of their staff, Mike Munson more
specifically who has not liked the population forecasts or even the job
forecast . He admits that his model is not correct. It needs to be updated and
it would be at least a one year period of time before he's able to do that . We
had two messages that we had tried to carry in. One was if, we'd like to know
which of these two scenarios it's going to be. Will we have a favorable type of
a response or will in fact someone like a Mr. Munson be the overriding force.
Two, if that later case does occur, then we would like to be treated similar to
other communities who have faced the same type of problem. I mean there have
been other communities who's forecasts have not been in accordance with Metro
Council's. Woodbury's, Oakdale's, Savage. In each of those instances, Metro
Council went ahead and processed their application in spite of the fact that
their population forecasts didn't match. Again, if that occurs, we'd simply
like to be treated in a similar fashion. I thought that Mary was very cordial.
Bonnie was there. I thought that she understood our point. Time will tell.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I think they were both supportive of the information
that we provided them plus also offering comments on how we felt Met Council
should assist City's themselves in giving them some, again innovative ideas as
to how they should do things a little differently than they're presently doing.
As you well know, Governor Carlson has charged the Chair of the Metropolitan
Council, Mary Anderson to come up with some solutions to problems within cities
and one of the points I think we did point out was how we do do things
differently than most cities with specifically having the Sheriff do our
policing rather than having our own police force. By saving dollars from that
standpoint . Bringing in the dog situation with all the other cities that we do
the enforcing for. These are things that they had not really heard too much of.
Other things that we've done on a basis with our water. Runoff and showing the
environmental concerns that we basically have as well. So we pointed out a lot
of good things that the City of Chanhassen has done the last few years. With
that I'm sure she was impressed and she, I think will be very positive in. . .
little bit about it and I think that's where they're going to come from with
that recommendation. If it isn't,. I'l be rather surprised but I've been
surprised before. But I think it was well worthwhile to sit down and discuss
the things that we've done. So that's about the extent of what I wanted to say
on that. Tom. Personnel Review Board.
Councilman Workman: Well, on our Saturday morning meeting I brought this up in
a specific situation and I don't think anything's happened yet.
Don Ashworth: We apologize for that. I've asked Todd to take and poll the two
Councilmenibers who sit on that so we can establish a date and get on with it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll find something coming quickly? Okay. How about your
public coalition?
Councilman Workman: You mean my Southwest Corridor Transportation?
Mayor Chmiel: Yep.
Councilman Workman: Are they requesting a contribution there? Is there a II
contribution request coming from them?
37
I
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: It 's got to be a $10,000.00 request or something?
Don Ashworth: I would anticipate so. I just put a note over.
Councilman Workman: In the Admin Packet there were some -other letters but I
didn't see one from them and I didn't know.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, that 's coming.
' Councilman Workman: So we don't have anything yet but we will?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I think that was mentioned at the meeting previous to the
one where we met with the Commissioner of Transportation.
Councilman Workman: I don't remember that.
' Mayor Chmiel: I think Ursula was at that. Okay.
' Councilman Wing: One other item on presentations?
Mayor Chmiel: Pardon me?
' Councilman Wing: Item (b) under Council Presentations? The City Manager was
going to collate that Saturday morning meeting of goals and discussions. We
were going to set a date for a brief Council review of those issues. I under
I . the City Manager hasn't done that but I think we still need a meeting date for
that specific issue which is independent of TH 5. Did that meeting get set? I
might have been talking.
Don Ashworth: No. Originally I had anticipated that we might discuss it as we
did the corridor issue but we're not putting that out to June. That may not be
' acceptable as far as that length of time. One of the things the Mayor and I had
talked about earlier today was potentially doing that type of thing in advance
of a regular City Council meeting. Potentially 2 weeks, well our first meeting
in May. If we potentially started that at 6:30 or 6:00, if that would be
' acceptable to the City Council?
Councilman Wing: Just so you order enough pizza this time.
Mayor Chmiel: And make sure you get Dick those anchovies.
Don Ashworth: 6:00? Do you want to do it at 6:00?
' Mayor Chmiel: Why don't we do it at 6:00. It will probably take that much time
to go through that.
Don Ashworth: The first regular meeting in May, which would be the 6th.
1
38
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
ADMINISTRATION PRESENTATIONS_
A. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL DETERMINATION REGARDING ISSUE SURROUNDING SURFACE
WATER UTILITY BILLING, PLANNING DIRECTOR.
Paul Krauss: First I should say that the billing program and the program
itself, the surface water utility program is going quite well to date. ' We've
gone through a full billing cycle and I should point out that out of over 5,000
bills, we got approximately 30 that had complaints attached to them or issues
being raised. We've tried to keep you abreast of those and I think in about
every administration packet over the last month you've seen responses that we've
gotten out to people on some. Some of them quite frankly are kind of tough to
respond to but we try. Also we're to the point right now where we have sent out
requests for qualifications. We've got them back from 16 firms interested in
working with us. Charles and I have not had a chance yet to go through those
but we really need to do that in the next week or so. What we'd like to do then
is then pare it down to 5 firms to be finalists and prepare RFP's which we'll
have the task force comprised of City Council and Planning Commissioners to work
with staff in doing the interviews. So we're moving forward on that. Now this
is a question that I'm bringing to you tonight that's been raised with the last
billing we did. The last quarterly billing which involved the rural area. As
you can recall, the earlier proposals for the assessment, or storm water
assessment in the agricultural area was originally proposed to be a per acre
basis and I think there was going to be a charge or a credit given for those who
had soil conservation service policies or something along those lines. There
were concerns raised regarding the inequity that this might cause in terms of '
cost of production as I recall relative to farmland in Chanhassen and farmland
elsewhere. So the Council came up with a compromise proposal that said that
farmland would be assessed the same, one unit charge per parcel that we're doing
for basically a single family home. So if you have a single family home on a
15,000 square foot lot, you're paying $3.22 every 3 months. And if you have a
farm with 40 acres, you're paying the same $3.22. The problem that's come about
is the ordinance, as it's set up right now, talks about an agricultural lot as
being 40 acres. Now we have not really been doing exactly what it says we
should be doing on this. Unlike commercial/industrial property where we
actually. . .and found out the exact acreage and did the billing on the exact
acreage, with the farm property, instead of figuring out how many 40 acre
parcels they had, we have just been using the tax identification numbers. And
what's happened in a couple of instances where, for example the Degler farm has
two, had two tax parcels. Each was I believe 40 acre or larger. Now since they
had two tax parcels, they were given two statements. They've since gone down to
the county to combine them into one parcel to avoid that so now they're only
going to get one statement. However, if you read the ordinance the way it's
supposed to be applied, they should still get two statements in effect because
it's on a 40 acre basis and there's been several instances like that. The
Erhart's have 3 statements I believe. Sometimes we find little remnant pieces
that have no clear purpose that are stranded on the wrong side of the street and
we find this in ag districts, residential districts and everything else and
we've always tried to use a little common sense and say those are not useable ,
lots so we're not going to charge anybody for that. But this question was
raised by enough individuals that we wanted to-bring it to you tonight to give"
us some guidance as to how you wanted us to proceed and think possibly we could
clear up what is a question in the ordinance. I think there's basically two
39
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
alternatives for the agricultural area billing that should be considered. The
' • first is a method that we've been using which is to apply the charges on a tax
parcel basis. For each tax parcel, legitimate parcel or developable tax parcel
in that area, you would be assessed one unit . I've gone into what the few
problems that we've had with that but the second alternative is to take the time
' to actually compute the area of every agricultural lot and then for every 40
acres that you have or percentage of that above 40 acres, you would get one
unit. Now I don't think the amount of money we're talking about here is a whole
' heck of a lot . When the problem was established we were looking at $300.00 a
quarter from all the ag land in the City and I haven't been able to figure out
if there's a significant difference if we figure it one way or the other. My
' guess is it's probably going to balance out. We'll go whichever way you'd like
us to go on this but we should point out though that that second alternative
where we have to preliminer the lots raises an equity question in the rural
residential area which is often an agricultural use as well as having a house on
' it. A case in point is you might have a lot in Lake Luch Highlands or Sunridge
Court that 's 2 1/2 or 3 acres. You're getting one unit of assessment on that or
one unit of storm water assessment. On the other hand, if you're Prince or
' Jerome Carlson, you're also getting one unit because that's basically your
homestead. If we were to do exactly what the ordinance says right now, we
should be telling Jerome Carlson he should be getting 33 units or whatever it
is, which seems excessive. So I guess in the interest of equity. we'd like to
go back to the way we've already set this up which is in those districts we're
going to do it on a one tax parcel, one fee basis. We realize that for some
owners that causes a little bit of complexity and difficulty but I think it's
' probably the most fair way we can think of doing it. And if you agree with
that , or whichever one you agree to, we think the ordinance should be fixed so
that it's clear on that point .
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Appreciate that Paul. I see where if we confirm that
billing for that agricultural zoned parcel fee be based on that one unit for
each according tax parcel, maybe the City Attorney should review the ordinance
' and if necessary, propose language changes needed to really clarify this point .
I thought some of the intent is what we had said before.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I remember that.
Mayor Chmiel: It was, go ahead.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess you know being that I think I represent the only
agricultural business here.
' Mayor Chmiel: That's why I thought I'd let you talk. Even though it's not in
town, but the corn is.
' Councilwoman Dimler: We do know about agriculture and you know, it is still my
feeling and I'd like us to consider. Go back to the years when Chanhassen was
mostly farmland. Our lakes were clean. And that makes me think that it's not
' farming that's the problem. It's development. It's impervious surface that
causes the runoff. Now unfortunately farmers have to have a lot of land in
order to run their business and they should not be penalized for having to have
a lot of land to make their living. We can't survive on 40 acres you know. The
' average farm nowadays is, I would say 300 to 400 acres so I don't think it's
40
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
fair to keep penalizing the "farmer because he has the most land, which he needs
for his business in order to pay for all these things. And this isn't the only
utility that they get hit up for. They get hit up for acres for a lot of things
and they pay a large share because they have so many acres on a lot of things.
So it isn't necessarily the amount here that the farmers are upset about either.
It's the principle of the thing. That the next thing that comes along, they
again will, they'll use this as a model and say okay, we're going to hit the
farmers. And unfortunately they get hit hard every time because they have the
land. And again, I don't think it's the ground that soaks it up that's causing
the problem. I think it's the ground that has a lot of impervious surface so I
think it 's development that 's causing a majority of the problem. I think that
that 's why we treat them equally as one parcel no matter how much land they
have.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I agree to a certain point, although I can pick one out
specifically on Lake Riley. Lake Riley Addition. Particular area that has a
lot of storm parcel runoff that comes directly off onto that lands and has
caused problems.
Councilwoman Dimler: They're right on the lake.
Mayor Chmiel: For the residences in and adjacent to the lake and adjacent to
that open farmland too. And it has caused a lot of given problems for some of
those residential people. I'm not disputing the fact that agriculture is not
doing it's job properly and the absorption is going and percolation is good but
once the percolation gets to that point where saturation is there, it's got to
go somewhere.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, no doubt there is some runoff but again, why charge '
them triple what we're charging other people because they're not contributing
triple, in my estimation, they're not contributing triple what the other
development is contributing. So that was the original purpose why we wanted to.
treat them as the single family lot, or just like we do the single family.
Paul Krauss: A couple things. That we've tried to do and that's why we applied
it on a tax parcel basis but then you do have instances where you have the '
Deglers or the Erharts who own multiple parcels. Then we have to say, are those
parcels contiguous to one another or are they all over town? It really, you
start making a lot of subjective judgments so I think we can administer it
either way but it 's really, either it's tax parcels or it's per 40 acres.
Councilwoman Dimler: In the Erhart 's case I think they came out the same either
way.
Paul Krauss: I think they do.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. If they have a section line with the center line as such
that divides it off, those are put into separate parcels and that's what
happened. That's what happens I think in Tim's case. - '
Paul Krauss: I think you can combine parcels across section lines but then
you've got to get into, are they financed differently and all that. In terms of
the agricultural contribution to the problem too, there's been a lot of research
41
1
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
on that recently which sort of disputes what seems like common sense. Actually,
' oddly enough the Metro Council has been putting out data that would indicate
that single family development, the densities that we develop here which are
very low, actually produce a lot less runoff than the ag land does. I think
' you're right. Historically when this was all farmed it didn't used to.
Councilwoman Dimler: Lakes were clean then so I' ask myself why.
' Paul Krauss: And I think it has to do with the last 30 years, the use of
chemical fertilizer which is a relatively new phenomenon. That stuff just winds
up down in our lakes and down in our rivers and nobody wants to apply too much
' of it because it 's a waste of money. But the worst , I serve on the Minnesota
River Task Force for water quality and the worst problems they're finding are
like Bevins Creek and the creeks upstream that service or flow through only the
agricultural areas. So I think it's a problem we all share and we all have to
recognize that and I thought the approach that you originally adopted pretty
much did that .
1 Councilwoman Dimler: And again, speaking for the Erhart's here, in their case
they're paying triple what most of us are paying.
' Mayor Chmiel: I think they have four parcels.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, plus they have, actually they help the city in it's
' management because they have retention poinds that they maintain on their
property. So they're doing that at their own expense plus we're billing them
three times what the other people get billed. So are we making adjustments for
people that actually help us?
' Paul Krauss: Well when you think though that they have 100 acres, they have 300
times the amount of land that a single family homeowner has and is paying the
' exact same amount . There is some balance there.
Councilwoman Dimler: But it's not developed land. You know it's the same.
' Paul Krauss: But in terms of the, well it goes back to the runoff that's
generated by it and all. I don't know. I don't know what the ideal answer is.
Clearly somebody's going to fall into the cracks. If we do it by tax parcel,
' the Erhart 's are getting at least 3 statements. If we do it by 40 acres, which
we haven't done to this date, I think they get the same if not more.
' Councilman Wing: When you say triple, am I misreading this? Triple would be
$9.66? I'm paying $3.22.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, per quarter.
Councilman Wing: Would you guys like to chip in and just?
' Councilwoman Dimler: It's not the amount. It's not the amount. It's the
principle.
Councilman Wing: I thought you were trying to fill Al Klingelhutz' shoes.
42
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991 '
Councilman Mason: I'm taking into consideration, I mean clearly Ursual does
represent the agricultural sector of the city. However, I think the point
that 's being made here is you've got a lot of 15,000 square feet as opposed to
somebody who owns 120 acres. Now whether you're putting chemicals in the soil
or not , my understanding of this program is, it's based on the amount of land
the water is running off of. Some people own 1 acre, some people own 120 acres.
Some people own a third of an acre. I'm not, if we're talking in terms of
fairness here, is it fair that someone that has 15,000 square feet is paying
$3.22 where someone with 120 acres is paying $3.22? You know, what you're
saying is true too you know.
Councilwoman Dimler: It's that development. In my feeling, development '
contributes the majority.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? ,
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. Are we doing every single family according to the
amount of land they have? In other words, we're charging them, if they have 3/4
of an acre, you're charging them more than half.
Paul Krauss: No. No, we're not . That's what we're doing on multi-family and
on commercial and on industrial. That's a per acre charge and that's where the
significant difference in dollars comes in. Where you have, you know Rosemount
has a very large amount of hard surface and that 's directly taken into a
formula. The formula got twisted a little bit to recognize the sensitivity that
you have to agriculture to kind of come up with a different standard there and
for the rural residential because again, if we applied it strictly. If we
strictly interpretted the ordinance, Jerome Carlson would be getting $99.00 -
every three months and that didn't seem equitable either.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. What you're looking for, that specific direction? Would
someone like to make a recommendation?
Councilman Workman: I think it's gotten a little ridiculous. I don't know what
the easiest thing to do is. When somebody splits their acreage for mortgage
purposes, etc. and it's simply a technicality, I don't know why they're getting
a bill. It doesn't seem to quite make sense. You can go both ways. The $9.00
for the 120 acres or $3.00 and whatever I'm paying for whatever I've got. It's
getting almost laughable. I thought it was laughable in the beginning in that ,
and there's converging philosophies here. Again, Good God, the rain falls and I
have to pay for it. That theory and then there's the development and
ex-councilmembers talking about cows in diapers and everything else. '
•
Councilman Mason: You said ex-councilmembers didn't you?
Councilman Workman: Soon to be ex, former Council. I don't know. I guess I I
would lean more towards if you had 40 over here and 40 over across town, two
statements. If you've 81 acres all in one and you had to split it off and do
something, I don't know. I think that's stretching it a little bit to give them
3 statements. But I don't quite agree with you Ursula, as I stated before that
the farmers.
43
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
Councilwoman Dimler: I understand that but when you go farming you'll
' understand.
Councilman Workman: We need chemical toilets on these .farms. . .but really I
think we're talking about peanuts here. I don't know. The farmer's is a lost
' breed in this town and we're not the only pressure they're getting. There's no
doubt about that .
Councilwoman Dimler: You would like to continue to eat wouldn't you?
Councilman Workman: Well this isn't McLeod County. This is Carver County and
' so you know.
Councilwoman Dimler: I was just saying, we should take care of our farmers.
' Councilman Workman: Well, the farmers will take care of themselves. I think
we're managing waters in development areas pretty well. There's something,
again this is one of those issues where there's so much kind of wrong with I
think the whole situation that I don't have any idea what to do.
Councilwoman Dimler: But again, we've already, I think there was 100 or so
' complaints in the first three months because I was checking with it so it's not
sitting well with a lot of residents apparently. Not just the farmers.
Paul Krauss: I've got to get an exact count Ursula but we're thinking it's in
IIthe realm of 30-40 complaints tops.
Councilman Mason: Out of how many?
Paul Krauss: Out of about 5,000. And of those, I'd say most of them came in
the last round where for the first time ever folks who are not on city water and
' sewer got a bill from the city and really kind of reacted to that.
Councilman Workman: And Tim Erhart is not against this program.
' Mayor Chmiel: He's just looking at trying to understand how we come up with our
figures.
' Councilman Workman: He's not against the storm water utility.
Mayor Chmiel: No. He's in favor of that. There's no question. As many people
' are because environmentally we're taking the right position on it. We're going
to cause a lot less problems as time exists and we're starting early so
therefore we're getting a better jump on it, as most other cities haven't even
touched this.
' Councilman Workman: Can we move to table this until May 6th?
' Councilwoman Dimler: We can't act on it anyway can we?
Paul Krauss: I guess what we would like to do is get your direction on which
way you're leaning and we could bring back an ordinance change.
44
I
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Why don't we have the City Attorney review that and come up with
some kind of conclusion. Then we can look at it at that particular time. Okay?
I don't want to give him too much work but please finish it in 10 minutes.
Roger Knutson: It's already done. I
Mayor Chmiel: He's got it done. . .That's good. So maybe what we should do is
just table this until we get that information back and move from there.
Councilwoman Dimler: Great . Thank you.
B. FEASIBILITY STUDY TO PREPARE SEWER AND WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR NEW MUSA
AREA, PLANNING DIRECTOR.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, call this optimism on our part but .
Mayor Chmiel: You have to ,be optimistic.
Paul Krauss: We've already gotten some very serious inquiries by large '
developers who want to be putting together projects in the new MUSA area. One
of those individuals is here tonight, Terry Forbord from Lundgren Construction.
I think you've met Terry before at other meetings on the Comprehensive Plan and
his letter that was handed out to you tonight. Some of you were also aware too
that we have been talking, at a preliminary level with a large, verl well known
industrial office developer who's looking seriously at two or three major
projects. I have at least two of those within the new MUSA area. One of the
things we're confronted with in working this area out there is we know where the
Metro Interceptor is but we don't know much else on how to serve it. The
Comprehensive Plan has some real sketchy ideas about putting a major lift
station down in Bluff Creek and Lyman Blvd. and then lifting this sewage up
through Audubon and down new Lake Drive into the Metro Interceptor and that's
fine and good as well as it goes. We haven't had an opportunity to take it
beyond that . People are coming to us now with serious questions. Well, where
do you want us to hook into water?, What improvements are going to be made or
need to be made to service this development? And this is a question that we
need to get out in front of. We really need to determine where these
improvements are going to go and not be reactive where we may look at 100 acre
development and based upon what the developer is telling us, it may work very
well for them to serve this project but we may not have the ability to serve a
property down the street which doesn't do us any good in the long term. Don and
I and Charles have had several conversations about this and we felt the best way
to address it was for us to undertake a comprehensive sewer and water plan which
will lay out the locations of city sewer and watermain and other facilities.
Lift stations. Do we need anymore wells? Do we need a reservoir? Whatever we
need. So that we have a framework to build upon and then we can use that
information to feed into stuff that Terry might be doing and he can work off of
that. We took the liberty of going out and calling up 6 consultants to give us
proposals on doing the work. We wanted to come to you with, time is something
of the essence. I won't tell you that it's imperative that this be done right
away but it really is important that we do this fairly soon. As soon as, we
have people who are serious enough that they wbuld actually want to start,
they've actually started to work with us before the MUSA line's officially
moved. So we'd like to be in a position to give them as much direction as
45
I
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
possible so that we can e
g t these projects underway through the Planning
Commission, through the City Council this summer. Out of the six proposals we
received, we received a pretty high range I suppose of costs. It ranged from an
upper end of $30,000.00 for this study from TKOA down to $8,876.00, which I
thought was a pretty precise number for Bonestroo. Bonestroo is a firm that 's
working with us right now. We've been using them in Gary Warren's absence to
help us with sanitary sewer issues relative to the Comprehensive Plan. 'They've
also worked out in this area. They represented MWCC when the Lake Ann
Interceptor was put in. I understand they're also working with Chaska on
t-heir's so they have some familiarity with the area and I think that that
probably led to their ability to give us a lower cost on that. There were two
firms that we thought were pretty close and it was Bonestroo and Short-Elliott-
Hendrickson. SEH was a little more pricey and some of the work that Charles
felt should be done in terms of computer modeling for a water system was options
in the SEH where Bonestroo had indicated they would be doing that. Based upon
' that, it's our recommendation that we enter into a contract with Bonestroo to
undertake this study and we'll put the provision on there that we not, that we
will follow the Metro Council review of our plan. If there's a serious hang-up,
you know we won't be spending a whole lot of money until v:e figure out which way
' they're going. But we would recommend that Bonestroo be awarded the contract
for doing that . The City Manager has assured us that there is some funding
available for this I understand in the Administrative Trust. What we'd like to
' do is be in a position to recoup this expense by putting it against when a
project , when we actually do a project, as part of the feasibility for that.
And again our recommendation is to go with Bonestroo.
I " Mayor Chmiel: I would like to make that recommendation. That we do contract
with Bonestroo. He's also lower dollars and I'm aware as to the workings of
Bonestroo through different associations I've had within our company and they're
' very well liked by other cities and that 's the dealings I've had through other
cities and they're very congenial. They get things across. They work very
closely with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. I feel that they're a
reputable kind of company for an engineering firm to have for the city and I
would make that recommendation.
' Councilman Workman: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It 's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
' Councilman Mason: My only comment is once again I think that the staff that
works in this city is doing everything they can to keep ahead of things and this
kind of stuff just insures, helps insure the future of Chanhassen. I think it's
' great that people like you guys are thinking up stuff like this. I really do.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to appoint the firm of Bonestroo
to prepare a feasibility study for a Sewer and Water Comprehensive Plan for the
new MUSA .area. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
C. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE, CITY MANAGER.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe I could just throw something, in on that. I've been
reviewing this and for the League of Minnesota Cities it's going to be in
Rochester. I've been reviewing what they call coming together and holding on
46
11
I
City Council Meeting - April 22, 1991
common ground and I've looked at their agenda. I am considering, I'm not
considering. I'm going to go to this and I'm looking at possibly Wednesday and
Thursday and Friday. Although Tuesday evening they have a special kick off
event but they have some of that starts with the conference planning, committee
meetings at 3:30 and that moves right on through that evening. I think I'm
going to kind of forego that special kick off event that they have. Although it
would be sort of fun but I'm looking at mine -for Wednesday and Thursday and
there are several different sessions that really are good sessions that I see.
I'd like to make a point of going to most of those that I can. I think if the
balance of the Council is in the position, that they would so choose to go, that
we sort of split up some of those respective conferences that they have so we
get as much as we can out of it. Don, did you have anything more to add to
that?
Don Ashworth: No. I was planning on just generally polling Council members to 11 see what type of interest there would be. I agree. In a lot of ways it's good
to kind of be as a group. Not only in housing but also in attending some of
those sessions and getting 'back together. You attend a particular one and
somebody else goes to another one. Evening events, both the Wednesday and
Thursday are well attended. It is a real opportunity to meet other council
members throughout the state of Minnesota. Kind of learn what some of their
problems are and in fact I think a lot of the informal sessions, you can learn,
gain as much knowledge at as some of your formal sessions. If you wanted to do -
what I would call kind of a mini program, you might want to consider coming down
Wednesday afternoon. Consider staying Wednesday night . Potentially Thursday
evening and returning Friday morning. That would be kind of a longer program
but a very nice one. Otherwise you might consider the Thursday afternoon and
late Friday morning type of thing.
Councilman Workman: I thought Governor Lamb was going to be there. Ex-Governor
Lamb. I don't see it on here.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. 1
Councilman Workman: I believe that's the week of the U.S. Open.
Mayor Chmiel: Yep it is.
Councilman Workman: I'm going to be selling. . .Can I get back to you Don on
maybe the mini something or other?
Don Ashworth: Sure. How about if I have Karen contact each one of you maybe
individually. By then you can have a chance to take a look at this. Again,
this is well attended by spouses as well. There's usually lots of things going
on for them as well.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
( City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim I
47
I