Loading...
1983 02 07 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 7, 1983 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order with the following members present: Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. Craig Mertz, Russ Larson, Bill Monk, Scott Martin, Don Ashworth, and Bob Waibel were present. Jim Thompson, Planning Commission, was also present. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the agenda with the following additions: discussion of Council goals and objectives of Commissions, status report on Cable TV, and update on the Old Instant Web Building. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. JAYCEE RUN: A representative from the Chanhassen Jaycees explained that the Jaycee's are planning an 11.2 mile run for May 21st. The run is proposed to begin and end on West 78th Street. Mayor Hamilton referred this to the Public Safety Commission for their review. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved to approve the consent agenda pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: 1. RESOLUTION #83-02, Set Public Hearing Date for 201 Program. March 7. 2. Approve Engineering Contract with Maier Stewart and Associates for 201 Program. 3. RESOLUTION #83-03, Approving and Accepting Indemnity Agreement for Sanitary Sewer Easement, Lot 4, Block 5, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. MINUTES: Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the January 10, 1983, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Amend the January 17, 1983, Council minutes by changing the last sentence at the end of the first paragraph under SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION, 530 WEST 79TH STREET, CHANHASSEN VIDEO: Councilwoman Swenson suggested that the developer present planned signage for the building at the time of his presentation to the Planning Commission. (Amended March 21, 1983) Councilman Horn moved to approve the January 17, 1983, Council minutes as amended. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Mayor Hamilton moved to note the December 15, 1982, Planning Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Mayor Hamilton moved to note the January 12, 1983, Planning Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Council Meeting February 7, 1983 -2- Councilman Geving moved to note the January 26, 1983, Planning Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Mayor Hamilton moved to note the February 1, 1983, Park and Recreation Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Mayor Hamilton moved to note the January 4, 1983, Environmental Protection Committee minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Mayor Hamilton moved to note the January 26, 1983, Public Safety Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. CARVER BEACH PARK, REVIEW BOAT MOORING, BOAT STORAGE, AND BOAT DOCK POLICIES: The Council had asked to review this item. The question arose after citizen questions as to boat storage, dockage, and boat mooring in the Carver Beach area. Staff has reviewed the files and found that the City has not permitted boat dockage or storage on City property. Council members reviewed a letter from Phyll is Pope. The Park and Recreation Commission has reviewed the issue and the Council has received their impute Mayor Hamilton - It was reviewed by the Park and Recreation Commission and we did receive their imput and the City Attorney has done research on this particular item. He has gone back to prior to this being city owned property and going through the turn over of that property to the City and searching for any agreements that might have been made at that time. It seems to me it's one of those issues that can be black and white and it can be something else. There is the possibility there is room for some alternatives here, however, I feel that this city property shouldn't be treated any differently than any other city property. You have got some property that's on a lake, it's owned by the City, there is a park to be used by the public, there is a path that the public can use on that property and the property extends over a boat access. What it boils down to is that there are no ancillary uses to the residents of Carver Beach or to any other residents of the community. It really wouldn't be any different if I owned a boat and put it on the lake and tied it up to a tree or pulled it up on the beach in Carver Beach it would be the same thing. Consequently by allowing the residents in Carver Beach to use city park property to dock their boats for their personal use, we would then have to allow any other resident of the city, if they wanted to use a city park space, we would have to allow them to put their boat there also. I have to agree with the City Manager's recommendation that there not be any boats or docks or floating docks or anything allowed to be pulled up on the shore, to be tied to a tree or to be moored Qvernight or to be left on city property at any time. Councilman Geving - Did we get any other imput on the public meeting notice. Were there any letters submitted other than Phyllis Pope's? I I I I I I Council Meeting February 7, 1983 -3- Roger Byrne - I have a letter from Bill Moreno. He couldn't make it tonight so he sent a letter. Councilwoman Watson - I live It blocks from a city park too and I know if it were possible a lot of persons in my neighborhood would love to leave their boats down there. I think that it could present a problem when it became known that one city park allowed this. I think we would suddenly find ourselves with boats at Lake Ann Park and any place else. Councilwoman Swenson - Just exactly how far does the public property go? Mike Lynch - We had that researched on the commission and it runs from from the southern edge of Carver Beach, north to the boat landing. Just north of the boat landing is the lift station and we were just told recently that the strip that runs north of that to where it becomes woods is also city property. We didn't know that originally. Councilman Horn - I have one question in the November 1968 memorandum from Russell Larson saying that the attitude was that the residents supported the conveyance provided some assurance could be given that the so-called park strip bordering the lake would not be used for unlimited public access, is that something that once it's deeded over that could be part of the stipulation? Russell Larson - In my discussions with the board of the Carver Beach Association at that time there was no request for that stipulation to be placed on any usage down there other than the general concept that the city has the right at any time to regulate its park land. Councilman Horn - So there are no pre-existing conditions. Harrison Winters - Mr. Larson was there when we turned over our property to Chanhassen and the stipulation was that we wouldn't have to pay taxes on it anymore. When we turned it over we were three years behind and we were going to make a park out of it but they were going to make it exclusive for Carver Beach. He will tell you all about it. We were going to turn it into a park but it would be public, we realized that, but they were going to keep it a low profile so we were going to keep it for Carver Beach only. Mr. Larson will tell you all about it. Mayor Hamilton - I think it probably about as low a profile as it can get with no parking allowed within blocks of it. Glen Grenier - I think there are certain geographical limitations on that area, the fact that there is no parking, the fact that just about all access has to be on foot, that this lends itself to a situation where excessive or overuse of that property is not going to be a problem and I cringe a little bit at the use of the statement, private use of public property and I think that perhaps it1s only becomes really private when that is exclusive use of public property. It can only be truly public use when the public is invited to have a town picnic perhaps put on by the town. What is occurring in Carver Beach is not exclusive use of public property. It is not exclusive use at all, it is perhaps a little bit questionable as to whose jurisdiction is completely covering all the issues and I don't profess to know that, I would like the Council to speak to that in fact where is the Council Meeting February 7, 1983 -4- jurisdiction of the City of Chanhassen relative to the shoreline. This, I I guess, gets into the question of mooring. Geographical limitations prevent the excessive and overuse of that land and that it is not being exclusively used as private property. Harrison Winters - Before we turned the property over to you I had a dock and they raised so much cain about that I got rid of it. At the time we were definitely going to get use of this property exclusive for Carver Beach only, what happened to that? If we weren1t going to get any benefit from it, why should we turn it over to you? Mayor Hamilton - You are not paying taxes on that property. Harrison Winters - But if we can't lock our boats there we might as well take it back and when Carver Beach was established that park property was exclusive for Carver Beach residents and it was never to be sold. Legally I don't think you folks have a right to it now. If you don't want to live up to the agreement you did when we turned it over to you I think we should get it back. Mayor Hamilton - The city has lived up to every written agreement that exists. Verbal agreements, who knows what was made. You have one idea and Russ has another idea. None of us were privy to that at the time. Russell Larson - To give you a little history of it, the park properties were conveyed by a family named Smadbeck who were the developers of the I Carver Beach plat. It was conveyed by the Smadbeck's to the then Carver Beach Association and in the deed of that conveyance states as follows: "That it will at all times keep and maintain and improve the parks above mentioned and the roads and drives for the benefit and use of the residents and inhabitants of Carver Beach and for the benefits of the general publicll and that is the language I used in the deed. Don Ashworth - I think there is a question on the mooring aspect, mooring is only allowed in association with a lot that you own. The city owns that property and you can not moor a boat off that in terms of any DNR regulations any more than to pull a boat actually on shore. Mayor Hamilton - Just last fall the inventory that the city took, there were four fishing boats, three canoes, two sailboats, two pontoons, one paddleboat and one floating raft. One of the boats, by the way, was tied to a tree by a chain and the chain had worked its way through the bark so now we wi 11 have a dead tree there. Councilman Geving - I have a question of Russ in the last condition of this Carver Beach park memorandum. Russell Larson - If the association had failed to comply with the conditions as setforth in the deed, that Smadbeck or his heirs could then come back and in a court of law set the deed aside for failure on the park of the association to comply with the conditions and recover the land. I Mike Lynch - The Park and Recreation Commission is basically interested in their trail. There were a number of suggestions what should be done. We just want to be sure that the trail is not jeopardized. We loosely use the I I J Council Meeting February 7, 1983 -5- word mooring sometimes. Generally what we are talking about is storage overnight. Anybody can pull up their boat on any park property during the day but it's got to be out of there at night. So when we talk about mooring you are talking about overnight storage. There were a couple complaints about some shrubbery being removed, the only thing we realty found offensive when we all went over there and personally reviewed it, was the washout at what's called the old mini-beach and that's basically road grading and I would like to get it into the record and maybe ask Don to see about when they top dress in the spring if they can dress away from that area because the walking path is now interrupted at that point. We are going to get a culvert in there in case it redevelopes. That's the only drainage problem that we have. Councilman Horn - The DNR has changed their way of doing things. In the past it was legal for anyone to moor a boat that kept it away from the shoreline unless an ordinance specifically prohibiting that was in effect, I am not aware that we have an ordinance that specifically prohibits that. If that's the case, then I believe anybody can moor on a buoy away from the shoreland. Don Ashworth - My comment was in relation to the ordinance that you had in front of you and passed and has not been approved by the State but I would hope that it would be shortly. Councilwoman Swenson - I noticed that in the Manager's recommendation regarding access which we are not discussing tonight but the suggestion that I have might be that at such time it should be determined to establish a committee of this nature where perhaps this subject proposed by Mrs. Pope can be picked up by them and the resolution of these people with their particular boats can be resolved at the same time. It would seem to me since they have contributed their land to the City as a park that if in fact a committee is established and a regulation is established for some sort of use there that their application should be considered in conjunction with that. They may not have dockage in front of their house but they should perhaps have at least the option of making application for it in a place that mayor may not be established. Phyllis Pope - I just wanted to say that I didn't think that ruled out canoe racks. I would like that to be considered because I think that people should be encouraged to use things like this in a way that's going to be detrimental to others, nonpolluting, not noise polluting, not damaging and other cities do regulate canoe racks and boat dockage. I think it's something that really should be looked into not just for Lotus Lake but other lakes as well. Bob Amick - What kind of precipitated this issue? Why it's being brought up now? It's has existed for a number of years and why now? Mayor Hamilton - Maybe because you have people around now that are more concerned than they were ten or twenty years ago. Bob Amick - I think the concept of canoe storage rack has been broached to the Council before. I seem to remember writing a letter in 1980/1981 originally that mentioned that as something that the residents would not be opposed to. It wasn't actively pursued. Council Meeting February 7, 1983 -6- Mayor Hamilton - I don't recall seeing a leter but I think it is a good idea and I think the Park and Recreation Commission should look at it and make a recommendation. Councilwoman Swenson - I would just like to clarify that statement that I made before, I made reference to Mrs. Pope's letter. I would like to mention that I was referring to canoes and canoe racks which is what her letter pertains to. Mayor Hamilton - It's a blanket policy that you have got City property that really isn't to be used for docking or mooring of boats as has been the practice in the past several years. That's totally uncontrolled by the City. If a canoe rack, for instance, were to be put on the beach and people allowed to keep canoes there, it would be by permit. I Councilman Geving - I think what you are seeing on Lotus Lake is a proliferation of density. You have got a lot more homes now than you ever had. You are going to have a lot more when Derrick comes in and I think the fact that it's called Long Lake or it was at one time, it's a long narrow lake, it can It take much more traffic and I think what the Lotus Lake Estates people did with their canoe racks was very good. I think they have gotten around the issue. They are able to enjoy the lake. I much prefer it over motor boats on that lake at this time. If it gets any worse it might even be patrolled. Jim Thompson - I would just like to mention that in the packet that I I received, back in 1974 Mr. Roger Byrne was reprimanded for putting his boat on city property so it has been apparently a practice that has been commented on in the past. Mayor Hamilton - A motion would be in order to recommend that no dockage, boat storage or boat mooring shall occur on public property. Don Ashworth - What you are doing is establishing a policy with regards the use or-that property. If you would like it in resolution form or in a motion form but basically it is an instruction back to city staff that the property there should be enforced in terms of usage. You are talking about a policy in terms of the usage of city property as you might establish a policy for the usage of Lake Ann. It could be changed on a yearly basis. It does not need to be in an ordinance form. Councilwoman Swenson - By making a specific and positive statement, is this going to affect any future action that we might wish to take? Don Ashworth - You are making a motion in the form of a policy for the use of city property. Councilwoman Swenson - Can we amend it? Don Ashworth - Yes. Mayor Hamilton moved to allow no dockage, no storage or mooring on any public property. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. I I I I Council Meeting February 7, 1983 -7- FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD, AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 6730 LOTUS TRAIL: Mr. Stan Cronister is seeking approval of an 8.75 foot side yard setback variance, a 13 foot front yard setback variance and a two foot accessory structure setback variance to complete construction of an unfinished detached garage. The Building Inspector has inspected the present structure and found that the existing walls are deteriorating and in a collapsing condition. He feels that completion of the garage construction will benefit the structure as well as the property. The City Engineer has reviewed the property from a drainage and utility standpoint and found that the construction poses no problems to the city. The applicant has submitted two roof plans, one showing a pitched roof and one a flat roof. The City Planner has reviewed the property and found there is no other location on the property for a detached garage due to the steep slopes. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals reviewed the property and recommended approval of the request with the conditions that gutters be placed on the southern side of the garage. The neighbors to the south expressed concern about a preference for a flat roof since they felt a pitched roof may have a tendency to potentially obstruct their view of the lake. Councilman Geving asked Mr. Cronister if he would be willing to submit a letter recognizing that there is a drainage problem in the area. Mr. Cronister stated he would admit to a drainage problem and that it is his responsibility to put a garage in correctly. Councilman Geving moved to approve the variances requested for front yard, side yard and accessory structure setback for Stan Cronister at 6730 Lotus Trail with the conditions as suggested tonight: 1. Installing gutters on the south side of the garage. 2. Mr. Cronister will furnish to the city a letter acknowledging that there is a drainage problem on that piece of property. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. GRADING PERMIT REQUEST, 10151 GREAT PLAINS BLVD., ROY TEICH: Mayor Hamilton - It seems as though we have a resident, Mr. Teich, who thinks the laws apply to everybody else except him. Letters have been sent over the years to you from MPCA and the City of Chanhassen and almost virtually everyone of them have gone unheeded and unanswered. I think that's very disgusting. The MPCA, over the years, has outlined several steps that Mr. Teich should have taken in dealing with this matter. After about five reprimands he finally did put up a sign saying IINo Dumpingll and put up a gate. It seems as how we, in the City of Chanhassen, have felt that this problem is severe enough so that something ought to be done about it and because the MPCA doesn't seem to want to prosecute Mr. Teich like they ought to, it looks like the onus is on us to do something with this particular problem. The MPCA apparently feels that there is no hazardous waste in any of the barrels or in any of the material that has been dumped there. Councilwoman Swenson - They went out and opened them up? Mayor Hamilton - They have inspected the property so many times. Craig Mertz - They have made at least six to seven, probably more than that, inspections over the years and the most recent letter that we Council Meeting February 7, 1983 -8- received on that specific point stated that they have no evidence that there is any toxic substance in this landfill. Mayor Hamilton - Bill gave us a report on what he felt ought to be done I there and by allowing a grading permit. A grading permit, Bill, you are suggesting be allowed simply so that clean fill can be put in and this thing can be covered and finished once and for all. Bill Monk - My recommendation basically is to reduce the scope of the grading-plan that has been submitted just to try and seal up the situation as it exists right now. That's the most realistic approach that the city can take and to attempt to stop further erosion which was the original reason given for starting the filling in the first place. It's a bad situation. We have to deal with it. Mayor Hamilton - It's too bad that Mr. Teich can't be made to take everything that's in there out. Councilman Geving - It would take him years to do this. He is asking for a fill permit to put in 14,550 cubic yards, how much would that actually fill? Bill Monk - One cross-section shows that the dump would be leveled out and extended for some distance and the amount of fill to be put in there would be quite extensive. If he was just to seal up the edges around the sides and the dump where it exists right now, you would be talking about 1/4th to 1/3rd of that amount would be necessary. Councilman Geving - This is a real long, long gully. I see in this one I picture here it's got half a dozen cars in the bottom of it. Bill Monk - One specific site is in question. The site is accessed by a gravel road half way off of Lakota Lane. It is that one site that is in question and the grading plan is submitted for that. The other sites are additional places where debris has been dumped that will have to be taken care of some time in the future but they are not specifically addressed tonight. Councilman Geving - I have the impression that the Teich's are not intending to use 14,500 yards of fill but of more construction materials. Is that correct? Bill Monk - Yes, it's called solid waste and as I understand it, it is to be demolition material that was originally approved by the PCA in a letter in 1980 or 1981 but later correspondence from the PCA has basically said that clean fill and earthen material should be used. Councilman Geving - Is there any relationship between the timing of this fill permit and the possibility of building a home in there? I wanted to raise that question because of the location of the Dypwick property obviously and that has to be close to that gully. I am surprised that someone would build to look at a dump. I Councilwoman Swenson - According to this blueprint, if I am reading this correctly, the fill area is right in the Dypwick property. I I I Council Meeting February 7, 1983 -9- Craig Mertz - Part of it is. Councilwoman Swenson - I guess what really upsets me about this is that half of this city has been making trips to St. Paul. We have been having meetings. The Metropolitan Council is involved, everybody in the state is involved on solid landfill waste and here is a man right in the middle of our own community who has to all appearances willfully gone around and established his own solid waste dump. It appears to me as just flagrant disregard for the community or the welfare or the health of other people. We have a letter from Mr. Halla. He is obviously disturbed. It is affecting him. I am just appalled. Mayor Hamilton - The MPCA has said twice in their letters that clean earthen material is to be used to cover up and he comes back with a plan to dump more trash on top of it to use that for cover. Councilwoman Watson - I just have a tremendous concern with covering this up. I suspect that covering this up that it will be our children some day who realize that perhaps what was dumped there was, though the PCA didn't think there was anything serious there, it will be our children who will some day deal with the problem that we create by covering this up and pretending that it doesn't exist. It should be cleaned up now rather than be a problem for someone else twenty years from now. Councilman Horn - I can somewhat understand how this whole thing started from the background that I have. We used to have old sand pits that used to be become the dumping grounds back in South Dakota and that's how these things progressed years ago. As far as car bodies,' they are used for fill in certain areas. They even dump them in lakes to form reefs for fish. I guess I am concerned, too, that there might be some hazardous deposits in there just because they were there and nobody knew they caused a problem years ago that they were put there. There are a lot of areas like this around and it's really tough to go after all of them at this point. Hopefully, we can take the recommendation from the Pollution Control Agency in looking at these things and they determining that there isn1t something hazardous in them. I don't know what are experts are in this case. I have really concerns about this type of thing because I don't think people know enough about them but as far as any malicious intent, I think this practice was started years ago and people used it to fill in waterways and I agree that when technology catches up and you find out what harm can be caused you start to change your way of doing things but to try to go back and undue all the things that were done over the years is quite difficult. Councilman Geving - I think you are right. I think nearly every farm has a ditch or gully where they have thrown cans or bottles for years and years and years and we understand that because it1s their property and they are miles from nowhere. I think that's an entirely different problem. Here you have got a fellow who has actually contracted for this fill to be brought in. It isn't his own waste. Councilwoman Swenson - You know there is a public well in Eden Prairie thatls southeast of this area. I wish there were some way we could find out certainly what's in those drums. It just frightens me. People come from allover the city to this well to fill up with water. I am just upset. Council Meeting February 7, 1983 -10- Councilman Horn - There is one recommendation that Mr. Halla made and that was the city do test drills. It would seem like that would be something we should at least investiage especially if we are considering just covering everything up. Bill Monk - I did a little checking into that. In a landfill about the only thing you can do is sink a test hole down into the subsurface water to see if it becomes contaminated but anything other than taking a backhoe in there and dig down and check, you are just not going to sink random boring holes and bring the stuff back up to the surface for testing. It just can not be done. David Halla - I think one item that we have to address here very seriously and that the Council should be made aware of, this contamination that's in there nobody knows what's got in there. I am sure that Mr. Teich and Mr. Ingram who are party of the so called pollution, do not know exactly what is in there. I don't think either one of them would be willing to take an oath and guarantee that there are not any PCB1s or other carcinogens that could be burried in there. I think the Council should address this issue. In recent years we have all been made aware of what PCB1s are and carcinogens. They do not stay in one place. They move. They proliferate through the ground. Once that get's into the ground water there is no stopping of it. An example of it is St. Louis Park, the old creosote plant. Look at the number of wells that are closed down allover that area. People who exposed themselves to cancer acting drugs who never even knew the place existed. I have a large number of employees that work for me in the summer time. They all drink that water. I drink that water out of my own well that's less than 400 feet from this dump site. I didn't ask for that. I was perfectly content to be out there in the country and not have any pollution. Mr. Ingram, who is a large excavating contractor and first of all I don't want you people to feel sorry for him, he has the heavy equipment to clean up his own act. He put the stuff in there. He has got the equipment, let him clean it out at his expense. The only way this is going to be corrected is to get the stuff removed and haul it to a sanitary landfill. I ask the Council this question, why did Mr. Ingram put that stuff in there in the first place? Because he got by doing it for nothing. He didn't have to haul it to a sanitary landfill and pay for it. The point on this is that there is 15 to 20 homes in the area. Once the aquifer's get contaminated, you have got the Shakopee vein, the City of Shako pee takes their water out of it, you have got the Jordan vein, the Jordan vein is already contaminated north of us by the St. Louis Park contamination. So here we have got in our own back yard two people who went ahead and did this without permission, who did it illegally, who did it against the will of the PCA and all the reports that they made for them to clean up their act have been blatantly ignored and continued on. The City Council and the City of Chanhassen also has a legal exposure. It is up to you people now to make the decision what you want to do. Do you want to condone what has been going on and allow him just to merely cover up and camouflage what he has already put in there or do you want to make them people responsible and clean up their act and protect the citizens of the City and protect the water wells, the aquifers that can be contaminated. I don't know what's in there but there are pictures here that show evidence of what's in there. There have been barrels that have been in there that have been looked at but how is the PCA, they didn't go in there and dig that stuff out to see what's concealed underneath, now obviously if I I I I I I Council Meeting February 7, 1983 -11- you were going to hide something you are going to do a good job of hiding it and I am sure you are not going to leave that barrel with a carcinogens or PCB's or whatever else is in there, sticking up. You are going to get it covered up real quick. How are you going to determine that? You people have asked Mr. Teich to cooperate in the past, you have asked him to give you a tour of his property. Mr. Teich has not done this. Why? Also, you talked about having test holes put in there to determine what was in there, that should be done again. That hasn't been done. Why? What are you going to do with it? It is up to you to make the decision. You have got a moral obligation. You have got a legal exposure here and I think you have to address it and you have to remember that if we don It clean up our acts now we have only got one earth to live on. Earl Ingram - I am the one that hauled the stuff in that dump down there and all it was was tree stumps and trees and pollution was there six, seven times during the day and I even met them out there and any other stuff that was put there, they allowed us 30% demolition. What is demolition? It's wood, it was made from trees and they said that's the only thing that was a binder. Every farmer is allowed to stop his erosion and that is what Roy is doing. I recaptured about 30 to 40 feet of his land already by this. We are not going to jeopardize that dump by putting any chemicals in there. I know better than that. Councilwoman Swenson - Do these barrels constitute demolition? Earl Ingram - I never hauled a barrel in the dump. Only tree stumps and trees which I was entitled to and 30% demolition. Councilwoman Swenson - Where did the barrels come from? Roy Teich - I the only ones that I know of are two 55 gallon drums that have holes completely around them that I used for spraying weeds, a two wheeled sprayer and the summer before last some neighbor kids or whatever gave this thing a push where I store machinery and it winds up down at the bottom. Those are the only two barrels that I am aware of. I never went down to recover them because they were empty. Earl Ingram - Roy has got a letter in his pocket here where this guy threw some poison in the dump and killed some of his cattle. Roy Teich - This goes back to 1968 and we keep cattle in this area and by golly two of them died and I couldn't come up with a reason. I called the veterinary to see what caused it and he suggested that we take one of them to the university and they found it to contain a poison and our family several barrels that Halla Nursery at that time was using that dump like many people in the neighborhood and we found these barrels with their name on and we went to the weed inspector and they determined that these did contain that poison. The Halla's were cooperative in that they notified their insurance to pay for our cattle but it also ended my association with letting them put anything else in that ravine. Maybe we have all got a responsibility and maybe me more than others. I don't deny that it's there. My intent was to halt the erosion from the day that I bought that farm. I saw those ditches get much deeper in a matter of five years so a car body or whatever to halt that erosion and it did that. There is probably bodies down there that are covered. Council Meeting February 7, 1983 -12- Councilwoman Swenson - How long have you been filling in this valley? Roy Teich - Since 1950. Councilwoman Swenson - It's really unreasonable to assume that there is any possible way that we could go down and find out what is there. Councilman Geving - I can see in this one picture here, I can count five barrels. I guess the problem is that we may have several sites here and more than one hauler or dumper. While I can see a lot of apparantly debris that may have been hauled in by Mr. Ingram from construction sites or whatever, where is the rest of the stuff coming from? Do you allow other than Mr. Ingram to dump in this gully? Earl Ingram - We have got the gate locked up. Councilman Geving - Where do these refrigerators and stoves and that kind of stuff come from? Roy Teich - That's individuals coming in there. Councilman Geving - How do they get in there? Roy Teich - They by-pass the gate and drive through the plowed field. Councilman Geving - This had to be an accumulation over a long time by many people. Mayor Hamilton - It is the responsibility of the owner if you have a dump and you have a ravine that you want to stop the erosion, certainly the responsibility is yours to keep other people from dumping trash in there such as is evidenced by the pictures. Councilman Geving - Have you stopped people from coming in there now? Roy Teich - Absolutely. Councilman Geving - I guess what we need from you is an absolute statement that you hare not going to let anybody ever in there again. Roy Teich - That's one thing I would like to clarify is I have never charged anybody. Councilman Geving - What I am saying is that you have allowed this to happen over a long long period, since 1950. Roy Teich - I would like to explain, whether it has any merit, things look different now than they did 30 years or 20 years and I don't want to bring individuals in but I just think of an example of a tornado going through our area and taking down Al Klingelhutz· barn and in the process of going over there to help him clean this up you find all this debris. Councilman Geving - We have got a fill permit that you have asked us for, what are you intending to put in this gully? I I II I I I I Council Meeting February 7, 1983 -13- Earl Ingram - All we are hauling in there is tree stumps and trees and we were told to put dirt and demolition. If you don It want demolition, just tell us. We worked with the pollution, whatever they tell us we can put in there, that's all we put in there. Why should we jeopardize ourselves? Mayor Hamilton - You are going to work with the City now. I would make a motion that the City Council approve a modified grading permit that; 1. Allows for filling only as necessary to completely cover the existing debris and produce slopes in the immediate areas that could be stabilized to SCS standards. 2. That only clean earthen materials such as branches, tree stumps, and clean dirt by used as was stated in the 11/1982 letter from MPCA. 3. That Mr. Teich cease all fill operations of any kind on all areas of hi s property. 4. Mr. Teich come before the Council within 60 to 90 days with a plan for handling the correction of these additional sites. 5. Mr. Teich post a bond to guarantee completion of this job in an amount determined by the City Engineer. 6. That this job be completed prior to the end of 1983. 7. That signs be erected signifying that there is no dumping allowed. 8. That the gates be expanded to keep out any outsiders from dumping. 9. This to be checked by the City Engineer and Building Inspector on a monthly basis while this whole process is taking place. Councilman Geving - I will second the motion. John Lynch - My question is, what is the Council's comfort level with respect to building on a piece of property, all the borings that were talked about before maybe have been attempted by other state agencies but what is your comfort level with respect to going in there and digging down to what was the original top soil layer that was eroding in 1950 or whenever it started just to ascertain that maybe there was, you the city, has made some reasonable effort to make sure that there is nothing in that, that is potentially or significantly hazardous to future generations. Mr. Halla's point just from the moral standpoint, I recognize that maybe it's economically not feasible to go in there and pull everything out but the satisfaction for the city's standpoint within certain standards, going back 20 years, you go back in and take 10 feet out every 30 feet and go down to where that soil was those many years ago, maybe there is some satisfaction in that. David Halla - We did dump some chemicals that got down and killed his cattle. Now, if any of the Council members know where our property is, those chemicals came out of an insecticide tank that we use to spray our evergreens. We drained the tank on our property and it ran into the culvert and ran through the culvert under the highway into Mr. Teich's property and his cattle drank out of the water and they died. We did not throw those barrels on his property. Those barrels are still on my property being stored. If he says those barrels were thrown on his property, that's a lie. That is just an example to show you what chemicals can do. What guarantees have you got years down the road if something is in there? Mr. Ingram says he didn't put anything in there but Mr. Teich doesn't know how a lot of that stuff got onto his property so he says he doesn't know who it got on his property, how can either one of them Council Meeting February 7, 1983 - 14- say that there mayor may not be something on there. I think this gentleman's statement that some effort should be made to check what is in there rather than just cover it up and conceal it because, remember if you conceal it, it's not going to stay put. I Mayor Hamilton - What is the City IS liability. Craig Mertz - I suppose if someones well did turn out to be poisoned that we would be sued. Bill Monk - Some of the washouts that are there now are in excess of 50 feet deep. I have no idea what it looked like in 1950 but in some areas just to be down now to what would have been the soil level would be extremely difficult. If you had to dig it with a backhoe I can imagine the size hole but an attempt could be made and I think if the Council wishes to go that route that basically some proof may be necessary that contamination does actually occur before a site could be ordered to be completely cleaned up. I still don't think that borings is going to achieve anything. It may actually mean digging them up with a backhoe. Councilwoman Swenson - This has been going on since 1950 and certainly any contamination that's gone in there has already penetrated the soil. Mr. Teich, the concern is not only for anything downstream or going into the Shakopee or Jordan vein, we are finding that potential contamination can go up through almost all the way into Lotus Lake from a landfill along Lyman Blvd. Your well is just a susceptible to this type of thing as is mine which is not to far from yours. I would assume that you are as I concerned about this as all of the rest of us are. Isn't there something that we can work out to satisfy all of us that there is in fact nothing there that is going to cause future harm to people. Roy Teich - The things that I see that bring the most concern to you people here are things that have been deposited there prior to 1970 and if I didn't know of a concern to my well that's been brought out to all of our attention more in the last few years. Mayor Hamilton - Mr. Teich what is your suggested solution to cleaning up this problem so that all of us are satisfied with the clean up so that we can be satisfied that there are no barrels in there that we are not aware of that perhaps you are not aware of. Roy Teich - It was brought out before that I didn't cooperate with an inspection. I can't believe that. I tried to cooperate two days after I received citations. I would guess to maybe get anything that's questionable to the bottom of this thing and let it be covered naturally but there again, understanding your people, maybe a practical inspection of some kind that these barrels do not contain PCB's. If there is barrels that were put in there 20 or so years ago that are already covered up I sure wouldn't have any suggestion as to how to inspect those. Earl Ingram - You could really take a test in the ground down below for I a rain going through it. If there were any chemicals down there they would have the ground on the flat down at the bottom of the hole would be saturated with it so you could tell right there. All I can say is I know what I hauled in there. I hauled in tree stumps and trees and I did haul in 30% demolition but if you don't want demolition we wonlt haul I I I Council Meeting February 7, 1983 - 1 5- demolition. We were authorized 30%. it will just wash out again. If you put just plain dirt in there Henry Sosin - Just a point of information, I don't know much about the history of this but to my knowledge now demolition which includes cement, electrical wiring, paint which is now considered a toxic substance. It's not clean fill. It is not something that you would want to cover up. Possibly one solution that I might offer, if there are lots of material in there that is biodegradable that obviously you won't have to remove that, but if an on-site inspection would reveal demolition paint, drums or whatever it may be, rather than clean the whole site maybe if you selectively cleaned before its graded and filled. Mayor Hamilton - Council members have any more questions? We added a tenth item to the motion. 10. The City Engineer attempt to take some soil borings to determine if there is potential possibility of the barrels or any other toxic materials in the site. Councilman Geving - I think I would feel much more comfortable if he does go into that site, that the barrels should be removed before any fill goes in. All the barrels that are visible that are obvious when you look at the pictures should be removed immediately. Bill Monk - One thing that the Council should be aware of is that the pictures were taken over a two year period. You can no longer see barrels. John Lynch - One suggestion, reasonableness should be considered. Having the gentleman post a bond and not know what the bond would cost or how it could be funded, it seems to me to alleviate my potential liability as a taxpayer and the City's own liability, from a monitary standpoint it may be found 20 or 30 years down the road or it may never be found that there is any particular problem with this land but a bond running in perpetuity to at least help off-set, if there is something wrong and something is found the greatest share of the damage is going to have been done but you can bet your bottom dollar that the public outcry is going to demand regardless of whether or not it is practical or feasible that that landfill be excavated and everything be removed. Mayor Hamilton - That was item number five in the motion. I am not sure you could find a bond big enough to cover that if you were contaminating the aquifers. Georgette Sosin - It seems to me that we have an opportunity where this gentleman really has the equipment where he can take care of some of this himself. Since they have the heavy duty machinery they could clean up some of this debris before it's filled. Councilwoman Swenson - Is there a state body other than the EPA to whom we could appeal for advice on this matter. Craig Mertz - The body that is charged with enforcing the landfill rules is the PCA. The solution that the PCA wishes to have put into the file is to close the operation, clean fill over the slopes, stabilize the slopes and see that no one else gets in there. Council Minutes, February 7,1983 - 1 6- Mayor Hamilton - Perhaps another item could be added: 11. That all materials other than branches, stumps or clean dirt be removed at Mr. Teich's expense. Councilman Geving - 1111 second the amended motion. I Mayor Hamilton - Is there further discussion. motion signify by saying aye. Councilwoman Swenson - Aye. Counci lman Horn - Aye. Mayor Hamilton - Aye. Councilman Geving - Aye. Mayor Hamilton - Opposed? Councilwoman Watson opposed. If not, all in favor of the Craig Mertz - The City Attorney will work with Bill to get this permit written up and we will be dismissing the criminal action but without prejudice so it could be reinstituted if there is a compliance problem. Councilwoman Swenson - Or if there is contamination in the soils. DYPWICK SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE REQUEST, STATUS REPORT: Craig Mertz discussed the court decision regarding the issuance of building permits in the unsewered areas of the City. Councilwoman Swenson moved to endorse Option #C in the City Attorney's report of January 25, 1983. To take steps to revise the zoning controls I in the unsewered areas by adopting a one year moratorium on residential construction in unsewered areas, adopt stricter requirements for on-site septic systems, and adopt new language more explicitly prohibiting metes and bounds subdivisions. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Mayor Hamilton moved to authorize the City Attorney to settle the Koenke matter and the Dypwick matter on the basis of the stipulation approving the issuance of a building permit, provided that the proposed construction is UBC construction and meets the setback requirements. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. DERRICK LAND DEVELOPMENT, STATUS REPORT: Mayor Hamilton - I think all of you have had an opportunity to read the development contract. This has been updated several times. The latest was in October when Russ, Don, and I met with Dave Sellergren who represents Derrick Land Company and we changed quite a bit of the verbage and we were actually in basic agreement with the entire contract except for dockage. So what I would like to do tonight is to get concurrance with the Council that the contract as it reads, with the exception of the dockage, satisfies everybody. We still need to work out with Derrick I along with Sellergren, the dockage. We are not in agreement at this time and we are searching for other alternatives to suggest. Councilwoman Watson - Has that escrow account been paid? I I I Council Meeting February 7, 1983 -17- Mayor Hamilton - No. Councilman Geving - Quite frankly, the confidential memo that I received February 3rd, good work Russ. My personal position is that I think we ought to proceed with the proposal as you three have laid it out, except for the dockage. I think there are times when there is need for negotiation and I think the other side has given up a lot. We have not compromised our position, I don't think, in any of this negotiation and it's down now to one last issue and if it's the difference between five and three docks, I am willing to let Tom, Don, and Russ negotiate. I think all the other issues are very much monitary in nature and if we go to trial we would probably lose two or three of the things that we have already gained that they are willing to give us. I am very much in favor of you guys continuing to work and see if you can It settle. As long as we are talking about the 68 units, that's a must. As long as you are talking about park charge credits, I think that's a must. We need that money for the account. The trail easement, I donlt care too much about the width of it but I do care about the placement of it and it's down to those five versus three docks. Councilwoman Watson - Will you take basically this and go to them and discuss that and do I assume that then by February 14th you will have discussed this and worked something out? They would have paid their escrow and they will appear on February 14th or have you given up that idea that we are not going to consider it until the escrow amount is paid? Mayor Hamilton - As soon as we agree on the dockage they will pay the escrow account. Russell Larson - As you will not from the attachments to my report we did consider three different proposals. None of which has been submitted. John Lynch - Is the City pursuing Derrick with respect to resolution of the issue, I am curious why? Why not let them proceed at their pace. Mayor Hamilton - I guess probably because discretion is the better part of valor I suppose. There is a solution to this some place and it's been dragging on for years and years. It is costing the City dollars. Staff has used up time daily almost working on the thing. It would be to our benefit. John Lynch - It sounds from what we can hear out here like they are almost succeeding in wearing us down. I can appreciate that. Mayor Hamilton - I would rather not end up in court. We are not on real stable ground on all issues and if we can avoid spending $20,000 or more of city taxpayers money to try and defend this whole case in court, it would probably be to everybodies benefit to not do that. Georgette Sosin - I preceive this as the City getting blackmailed into something that Derrick has wanted for a very long time and that is lake rights and I would feel that it would be a great discredit to the community to capitulate because of being worn down and because of wanting to get the matter over with because although it doesn't sound like very much, we are talking about three docks versus five, I would like to Council Meeting February 7, 1983 -18- remind you that he is meaning to have the right to put five boats at each one of those docks and put it in an area which is totally wrong for any kind of boats or docks. We have all sorts of information that we can contribute to the City that you haven't gotten yet. We have plenty of information that would stand up very strongly in court and I for one would welcome to battle the kind of company that Derrick has been with the kind of very strong environmental backing that we have. The Fish and Wildlife Service are behind us 100%. The University is behind us. We have a rebuttle to the environmental study that he has and we have additional testimony from Greg Mann who is a wetlands consultant who says that anything more than three docks would be very detrimental to the lake so I would be appalled to feel that you would be willing to negotiate in order to terminate this matter, something that's extremely valuable to all of us. Councilman Geving - My comments are based strictly on realistic economical viewpoint from the City and the taxpayers of this City. We have fought this battle over 2~ years, maybe longer. I perceive now that the negotiating team has won most of the major points. We have not capitu- lated. We have not arbitrarily given up anything. We are down now to the point where we have the trail. We are going to get the park charges which I have always wanted. We are still going to get 68 units that I have always wanted and we are down now to the case of three versus five docks and if that means saving the taxpayers of this City $10,000 or $20,000, I am willing to go for it. I am not giving in one point. I am looking at it from a very realistic viewpoint and one, which I am sure, many of my constituents will support. Henry Sosin - I don't know what your agreement is so I don't really know what-yGu-think you gained or won but as I understand it the major concerns of the people who live near the Derrick project were first of all 1) housing density, which has not been reduced. Councilman Gevin~ - We have reduced it. We are down to 48 lots. They could come in for far more than 48. We have beaten that issue. They started out with many more than 48. We won on the cul-de-sac too. Henry Sosin - His initial plans were that, as I understood it, that none of the lakeshore was to be disturbed in the first place. They were going to have an outlot situation but in the midst of things that somehow got switched around and instead of that protection of the shoreline there are now 11 lots that go to the shoreline. In the long run, from my point of view and I don1t know you are talking about 68 well taxes or something? I I Councilman Gevin~ - We are talking about off-line lots. We are not professionals. We have to hire City Attorney's who are professionals. They are in court every day on matters such as this. They win some and they lose some. This City wins far more than they lose. We have to hire City Attorney's and City Engineer's. The City Manager gives us lots of staff input. We have received a lot of that staff input and the I word from them is to negotiate at this point. I don't think we have lost one thing. Georgette Sosin - You have lost the whole wetlands. I I I Council Meeting February 7, 1983 -19- Councilman Geving - We have not lost anything. Don Ashworth - The City Council selected various options. All of the points regarding how that developed during the last six months has been a long process in putting into writing exactly what each of those sections would state. We have had difficulty with Mr. Derrick on basically getting his agreement to what the conditions the City Council did put in. We are not negotiating away from those. The contract that is back in front of the Council is that exact wordage as set out by the Council in the form of conditions. Mr. Derrick feels a potential impasse He has now submitted to the City his contract as he sees the wordage that should go in there. What I am recommending to this City Council is to put back that contract as we have written it that outlines the conditions as approved by this City Council so that we can at least show potentially in court that this is the contract that we are offering. Not the contract that he is offering. There is a question tonight in terms of dockage. We are not proposing a specific solution tonight. What Tom is saying is that by next week, I am not sure it can be completed by then, we will have something back to the City Council. I don't know if there will be a negotiated position on the dockage. I can't tell you that tonight but every other section in that contract is exactly as approved by this City Council and as you listened to. Jim Thompson - If Mr. Derrick is able to get dockage, doesn't that effectively negate the water surface usage act that we have worked on for five years or more? Mayor Hamilton - It's been approved by the Council but not by the State. Councilman Horn - I have done a lot of work on looking at what happened on Lotus Lake Estates. I think the City was a little overly optimistic on what we could accomplish on that site because since then I think the thing that has surfaced is the riparian rights that property owners have along the lakeshore and I think if anything has changed, that's the thing that1s come to surface in this. You can negotiate to a point and try to get as much as you can but when it comes right down to what the court looks at they look at riparian rights. That's a very difficult thing to fight. That's exactly what we got into trouble on the Lotus Lake Estates thing because it came down to riparian rights and at that point that's when the City had the opportunity to buy that land and could have done that and they could have bought that strip of land along Lotus Lake here, too. That's what it gets down to, the City either buys that property or the homeowner or the developer gets to develop that property and the City can It afford to buy all that property. Jim Thompson - In other words, what I said was, the water surface act really is negated because we can It restrict a person, if we allow Derrick to do it then any person that comes in, in a new development along a lake and unless the City buys that property, can effectively put dockage out. Councilman Horn - By individual lots they can. The thing that the ordinance can control are these beach lot, association kinds of things by regulating to the fact that only the shoreline lots can have the riparian rights you are taking away this 80 and 100 type property owners that would use the dock. Council Meeting February 7, 1983 -20- ~Tho~pson - Is Mr. Derrick applying for docks for the other lots? Mayor Hamilton - His last position was he wants five docks. Georgette Sosin - I have three things that I want to address. Number 1, you are speaking of riparian rights and I think that confuses everybody because that's a whole other argument talking about Lotus Lake Estates. I don't think that is a very good argument to bring in here for Derrick. Secondly, I think we were talking about Derrick, it was clear to me from what Mr. Larson had said that this is a planned unit development and that those are not individual lots that are sold privately. So that those people that you call now with riparian rights are actually part of a planned unit development and the Council has every right to state how that land is used so you have legal grounds to make recommendations and decisions about the limitation or the use of that land whether it's on the lake or not. The third point that I would like to make and I hope I don't offend anybody by saying this, but I do think that sometimes when we are ill we get more than one opinion from a doctor and I would suggest very strongly that the City get another legal opinion besides, not to take anything away from Mr. Larson, but because I think it's a highly volatile issue in which we have spent much time, much money, much emotion, much study, and I think it would be worthwhile to have another outside individual come and tell us whether indeed we have a case that we may lose or whether we actually have very damn good grounds to stand on. Henry Sosin - I remember a few of these meetings that I have attended and one of them about approximately six months or a year ago, the City Council voted, as I remember, unanimously to provide no dockage in this area and at that time, I think Mr. Larson was here, and said you had every legal right to make that kind of requirement. Russell Larson - Henry, I refer you to the exact transcript of a meeting of April 26, 1982, and I think that is what you make reference to. We can furnish you with one and that outlines exactly what I advised the Council. That contains my advice to the Council concerning the dockage is s ue. Mayor Hamilton - Are there any further questions? If not, we will continue to negotiate with Derrick. 1983 LIQUOR LICENSE FEES AND AMEND LIQUOR ORDINANCE: Kallestad, and Bill McRostie were present. The City that the Council increase liquor license fees (those by state law) by 10%. Harry Pauly, Don Manager recommended which are not fixed I I RESOLUTION #83-04: Councilman Geving moved the adoption of a resolution increasing the liquor license fees by 5%, except those regulated under state law. Resolution seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. Mayor Hamilton and Councilwoman Watson voted no. Motion carried. Mayor Hamilton moved to place on first reading ordinance amendments 2-1 I and 34-E. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. I I I Council Meeting February 7, 1983 -21- PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT: Councilman Horn moved to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and appoint Tom Merz to the Planning Commission. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. Councilman Geving voted no. Motion carried. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS APPOINTMENT: Councilman Horn moved to appoint Susan Albee as a regular member of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and Mike Thomspon as the alternate. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. HEART MONTH PROCLAMATION: Mayor Hamilton proclaimed February as Heart Month in the City of Chanhassen. JOINT MEETING WITH EDEN PRAIRIE AND CHASKA COUNCIL'S: On February 22 the Chanhassen Council will host a joint meeting to discuss Highways 212 and 5 . JOINT MEETING WITH HRA: The Council will meet with HRA members on February 17th. COUNCIL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR COMMISSION MEMBERS: Mayor Hamilton will talk with commission members about their involvement in the community and how the council and commission's can work together to get things done. This meeting will be held February 14th. Councilman Geving moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Don Ashworth City Manager