CC Minutes 1994 09 12CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 12, 1994
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Senn, Councilman Mason, Councilwoman
Dockendorf, and Councilman Wing
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Sharmin Al-Jaff, Bob Generous, Todd Gerhardt, Todd
Hoffman, and Charles Folch
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the agenda
with the following additions under Council Presentations: Councilman Wing wanted to discuss "Landforms, do
we know what we're doing?", and Councilman Mason wanted to discuss the resident update letter #8 from OSM
and choice of trees on the Ixee list. Mayor Chmiel added under Public Announcements an item concerning
"Constitution Week". All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
MAYORS'S PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING "CITIES WEEK", SEPTEMBER 25 TO OCTOBER 2,
1994.
Mayor Chmiel: Whereas the State of Minnesota as declared September 24th thru October 2nd as Cities Week
with the theme "Where you Come Home". Whereas it is our cities that provide the opportunity for us to work,
shop and live, and Whereas, it is our cities which provide the environment to maintain the value of our homes
and businesses by providing parks and leisure, time services for all age groups, and by protecting our lakes,
preserving our natural heritage of wetlands and mature trees, and Whereas it is our cities which provide the basic
but essential services for citizens for example, police, paramedic, fire, sewer, water, streets, open spaces, etc.
Now Therefore, It is with extreme prime that I hereby declare the City of Chanhassen join our sister cities in
proclaiming September 24th to October 2nd as Cities Week. Can I have a motion for the proclamation?
Councilman Wing: I'll move that proclamation.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Resolution 094.87: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the
Mayor's Proclamation recognizing "Cities Week" for September 25 to October 2, 1994. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: The second proclamation that we have is also a Mayor's Proclamation regarding Constitution
Week which is from the 17th of September to the 23rd of 1994. And this proclamation reads, we the people did
ordain and establish for a constitution for the United States of America to secure the blessings of liberty for
.ourselves and our posterity and whereas, it is important that all citizens fully understand the provisions,
principals, and meaning of the Constitution so they can support, preserve and defend it against encroachment,
and Whereas, the President and the Congress of the United States has designated September 17th as Citizenship
Day and the week of September 17 thru the 23rd as Constitution Week, and Whereas the people of the City of
Chanhassen do enjoy the blessings of liberty, the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, Equal Protection of the Law
under the Constitution and the Freedoms derived from it. Now Therefore I, Donald J. Chrniel, a Mayor of the
City of Chanhassen do hereby proclaim September 17th as Citizenship Day and the week of September 17th
through the 23rd as Constitution Week and invite every citizen and institution to join in the National
commemoration. Can I have a motion7
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So moved.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution ~94-87A: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the
Mayor's Proclamation recognizing September 17, 1994 as Citizenship Day and the week of September 17-
23, 1994 as Constitution Week. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Items f, g, m, o, and r were pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion purposes. Items m and r were
discussed and then included in the motion to approve.
Charles Folch: This item is in regards to the approval of plans and specs for Stage I of the trunk watermain
improvement project for Lyman Blvd in the Lake Riley area. What has resulted as of late with discussions with
one of the development parties, Mission Hills to be specific, in an effort to try and accommodate their time
schedules yet this fall, they have offered their ability to construct the utilities improvements that we had
proposed within their subdivision under their contract to advance the schedule which...and it appears that this...
And the costs of the improvements that they would be credited against them...assessments against the property.
In short, what this results in is there's a slight modification...so that's my change...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. With that clarification.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well Mr. Mayor, may I suggest that we take care of item (m) as well. We have a
representative from Southwest here.
Mayor Chmiel: I was just going to mention that. Thank you. Okay. Richard. Regarding the, oh let me first
make a motion to approve item (r).
Councilman Mason: Along with the others already mentioned?
Mayor Chmiel: No. No, not yet. Until we get this other clarified, then we'll come back to that for the final
motion.
Councilman Wing: Speaking of (m).
Mayor chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Wing: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Richard, regarding (m).
Councilman Wing: I have no problem with going along with the Joint Powers Agreement again, although this
year I'd like, rather than simply to business as normal, as part of this agreement and us assigning this agreement,
I'd like to see some very positive statements and aggressive effort put into. light rail. I think to be part of this
and be running buses back and forth is an easy way out and anybody traveling to and from the city know that
it's becoming grid locked and it's time to start getting serious. And there may not be a solution of this but by
signing this joint powers agreement, part of that agreement should state the city's desire to pursue that on a
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
much more aggressive and visible level. And I'd like to see that reported back to us on a regular basis as part
of this agreement as to what the status of light rail is and what their intent of this Southwest Melxo Transit is.
Mayor Chmiel: If I could just interject something. Maybe Don could clarify that for me. I think the
responsibility for light mil basically falls under the jurisdiction of the counties. The counties have that authority
to pursue those aspects of it so I think it falls more into the county's lap than I do believe that it falls back into
the city's lap.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: And they have been working this for 5-6 years that I'm aware of.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And speaking as a member of Southwest Metro Commission, we are looking into it
and it becomes an absolute maze of governmental bureaucracy to look into it but it is something we are
pursuing.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. So with that, would you also like to.
Councilman Wing: Move approval.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded, okay. Now I would ask for an approval of the balance of the consent
agenda.
Councilman Wing: Items as stated and moved as such.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items
pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, City Code Section 20-1181(b)(4) Regarding Interior Landscaping for
Vehicular Use Areas, Final Reading.
b. Tax Forfeited Lands, Approve Pamels to be Retained by the City including:
2. PID g25-1600310 - Harlan Koehnen, Lots 485 to 489, Carver Beach
3. PID #25-1600410 - Roland K. Carpenter, Lots 564 to 568, Carver Beach
6. PID g25-1600790 - Gladys L. Warren, Lots 909 & 910, Carver Beach
12. PID'#25-1602290 - W.S. Tema, Lots 3127 to 3131, Carver Beach
13. PID #25-1620240 - Boeck-Kevitt Partnership, Outlot B, Carver Beach Estates
15. PID #25-1820730 - Robert H. Mason, Inc., Outlot A, Chanhassen Estates 2nd Addition
16. PID #25-2000960 - Carl Luxem & Roger Schroeder, Outlot A, Chaparral
3
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
d. _Resolution g94-88: Receive Assessment Report for Upper Bluff Creek Phase IIA, Set Public Hearing Date,
Project 91-17B-1.
e. Resolution g94.89: Accept Utility Improvements in Bluff Creek 5th Addition, Project 94-10.
h. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 13 of City Code Concerning Weeds and Grass.
i. Resolution g94.90: Legislative Salaries, Adopt Small City Average.
j. Approval of Accounts.
ko
City Council Minutes dated August 22, 1994
Planning Commission Minutes dated August 17, 1994
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated July 26, 1994
1. Resolution g94-91: Award of Bids, Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus.
m. Approval of Restated Joint Powers Agreement for Southwest Metro Transit.
n. Approve Temporary Beer License, Septemberfest, Chanhassen Lions.
p. Extension of Preliminary Plat Approval, Tower Heights.
q. Resolution g94-92: Approve Non-Encroachment Agreement with MnDot for Federally Funded Highway
Improvement Projects 93-25.
r. Resolution g94-93: Approve Plans and Specifications for Stage I Improvement (Trunk Watermain) of
Lyman Boulevard/Lake Riley Area Utility Improvement Project 93-32.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR WEST 78TH STREET AND DOWNTOWN
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 92-3.
Charles Folch: Thank you Mayor, members of the Council. I'm pleased to indicate that this project...has been a
large project and...to a close. It's a very improvement to the downtown. Tonight is the assessment hearing for
the improvements that have been installed for the project. To date we've only received one letter...B.C. Burdick.
A copy of that letter is included in your packet but no other letters of objections have been received by staff.
Tonight we have the project engineer, Jim Dvorak with Strgar, Roscoe and Fausch to give a brief presentation
and basic rundown if you will of how the final numbers shook out with the project and the assessments for the
project portion. So with that I'll turn it over to Jim.
Jim Dvorak: Thank you Charles. As was previously stated, this is the assessment hearing for city project 92-3
of West 78th and Powers Boulevard improvements. Very briefly then, included in the Council packet and the
same table on the overhead on the screen here are the proposed assessments and project costs. We broke the
4
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
project out into 3 basic components at the front end and we've broken the assessments out in a very similar
fashion. The first column, with a heading of Powers Boulevard. In the middle we have West 78th, west of
Kerber. That would be a new alignment between Byerly's and Target. Then we have West 78th Street east of
Kerber. Under Powers Boulevard then you have nonassessable on the left left hand column and assessable on
the right. There is a small portion of that total project that is proposed to be assessed. That is some of the
storm sewer improvements and then the mm lane improvements into the Oak Ponds development. Storm sewer
being midway down on the storm heading and then the mm lane improvements on the roadway, which is the last
grouping. And then in the middle of the same handout here is West 78th west of Kerber. That is where the
bulk of the assessments are proposed to be levied. With that portion of the project. We have sanitary sewer at
the top. Total of about $61,000.00. This point. And then we have watermain total costs of about $59,000.00.
Storm sewer, $102,400.00. Signals, $140,000.00 and streets, 598,000.00. Like I said before, that is the bulk of
the assessment. Then west of, or east of Kerber on West 78th Street to the previously improved downtown area
or the old downtown area. None of those costs are proposed to be assessed at this time. I guess that's all I
have. I'll be happy to answer any questions that any of the Councilmembers have on this or anyone in the
audience.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. As I mentioned before, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to
address this item at this time? If seeing none, is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there any specific questions that we have in regards to this project? Richard?
Councilman Wing: No sir.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: None.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: Negative.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Looks like you did your homework. Nice to see. Can I have a motion?
Councilman Mason: So moved to adopt the assessment roll for West 78th Street and Downtown Improvement
Project 92-3.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
5
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion?
Resolution g94-94: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to adopt the
assessment roll for West 78th Street and Downtown Improvement Project 92.3 dated August 22, 1994.
voted in favor and the motion carried.
All
PUBLIC HEARING: ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR JOHNSON/DOLEJSI TRUNK UTILITY
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 92-5.
Public Present:
Name Address
Dean Simpson
David Weathers
7185 Hazeltine Blvd.
7235 Hazeltine Blvd.
Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I do have copies of two letters that I'll pass
out for the record tonight. One is a positive letter and one is a negative letter. The fa'st letter is from Lundgren
Bros basically stating that they are in concurrence with the assessments that have been proposed...development.
The second letter is a letter of objection from Mr. Michael Gorra regarding the assessments to his, proposed
assessments to his property. Tonight the project engineer from Bonestroo, Mr. Phil Gravel is here tonight to
again give a brief presentation on the elements of the project costs. How they were arrived at and accordingly...
With that I'll turn it over to Phil Gravel.
Phil Gravel: Thanks Charles. This is Project 92-5. As you recall this project was initiated a year ago to
facilitate a couple of developments in the area, The Lundgren Bros areas and the Rottlund Homes, Brett
Davidson area. One of the projects.,.brought sanitary sewer westward from the Lake Ann Interceptor out
towards Highway 41 towards the Meadows at Longaeres property and also extended watermain through the
Meadows site to Highway 41 and also along Galpin Boulevard to Well No. 3 and through Brett Davidson's
development for future expansion to the east. The overhead I have here shows the different assessments areas
for the watermain and for the submmk sanitary sewer. Project costs of the project, the total project cost was a
little over $1.1 million. The total assessments for the project are a little over $1.8 million. The positive revenue
there comes from the watermain assessments, ff you remember this is one of those projects where the majority
of the assessments are the trunk area assessments that we've been using. In this case the trunk area water
assessment has a positive balance. The funding for that positive balance will go towards future projects like the
Well at Powers and...there are other watermain improvements necessary in the area and future water tower in the
area. That's why there's a positive balance. The rates for this project are, in this area there's a special subtrunk
sanitary sewer assessment of $541.00 per residential equivalent unit. That is down quite a bit from what we
estimated in our preliminary report and that was initially $659.00. The other assessments are the trunk
watermain area assessment. They're at $1,275.00 per equivalent unit. And some of the developments, Lundgren
Bros, Davidson and Rottlunds were also charged lateral benefit assessments for watermain and sanitary sewer to
run through their developments. As Charles mentioned...their two objections at this time, or one is an objection
and another is a matter of asking to clarify, and Mr. Dolejsi is here this evening. There's an issue with who are
the exact land owners for some of the ouflots and it's...The assessment roll you have this evening lists the
owners as they were recorded at the County, that we got from the county, and what we'll do is, Jean and Charles
City Counci/Meeting - September 12, 1994
and I will check before the assessment roll is recorded, check with the County again after Landgren and Dolejsi
have had a chance to get that clarified and make those corrections as to who the exact owners for each outlot is.
And the other of course is the Gorra property which Charles handed out a letter with Michael's... If you
remember correctly, when we did the hearing for this before, we went through a couple iterations on proposed
assessments and one thing that we did was decided that those people that weren't looking for or weren't directly
benefitting from it would be...delayed until some future time and at this time we'd assess them 1 unit per 10
acres. And that's what we've done with Mr. Gorm's property. He's property 18 on my map here. It does have
a watermain benefit, trunk watermaln benefit. The property deserves to be assessed the trunk area watermain
charge at this time although he is one of those that is being deferred at the rate of 1 unit per 10 acres until such
time as he develops. So we think it's appropriate to leave the assessment in the roll despite of his...I'll be happy
to answer any questions anyone might have.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone wishing to address this particular project at this time? Okay,
thanks.
Dave Weathers: I have some questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Certainly. Would you like to come forward to the podium and just state your name and your
address and the question that you have.
Dave Weathers: My name is Dave Weathers. I live at 7235 Hazeltine Blvd. I am right on the edge of the
Lundgren development. I'm on one side and I guess I don't quite understand the assessments. When they will
be applied or how long they will be deferred. Our particular property has been considered a total of 9 units.
And the total assessments listed there are $1,800.00. $541.00 for sublrunk sanitary sewer and $1,275.00 for
trunk watermain. What does that really mean? Does that mean that I am...
Phil Gravel: That's essentially what it means in your case. When the city has an infrastructure for trunk
watermain and sanitary sewer that lays out in the basic...servicing the entire city and for quite a few properties
that does not necessarily entail going directly through that property but it goes nearby the property and it's
oversized to serve them and that's the situation in your case.
Dave Weathers: Okay. Then the property will be responsible for future subtmnk sewer hook-up charges of
approximately $4,328.00 and future trunk watermain hook-up charges of approximately $10,200.00.
Phil Gravel: Again that's a...the city has been using for people in your situation that are smaller acred lots and...
going around them and aren't necessarily developing at this time. They will assess you for 1 unit at this time,
The equivalent to your home and that is...at such time as you would choose to develop or sell at the time you
were to develop, that you would be responsible for an additional...
Dave Weathers: Okay, if I for example were to split my property in half and develop it at 2 units, am I assessed
the full amount indicated here?
Phil Gravel: It would be more likely...full amount.
Dave Weathers: So as soon as I decide to develop...
Phil Gravel: Which is the same as what anyone else...
7
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Dave Weathers: So as soon as I develop, I have to pay for the full thing. And that is still in this assessment.
That does not cover any cost for actually hooking up to the service..,
Phil Gravel: No. I believe in your case, and Charles can correct me if I'm wrong. As part of the Lundgren
Bros development at the Meadows, there are...to services your property through that development so the utilities
are extended. Or made available for you...and you would still have to bring that into your property.
Dave Weathers: That means I would bring them up to my property and then they charge me from the end of my
property...
Phil Gravel: You would have to go as far as...
Dave Weathers: And that, these other charges into here is lateral sanitary sewer.
Phil Gravel: That is...to this project. Like in your case...
Dave Weathers: Can you tell me at all what we're talking to hook up to this?
Phil Gravel: Not right here I can't. The charges that are shown on your notice will be the basic charges and
there would be whatever additional costs are necessary for bringing in your internal utilities.
Dave Weathers: Is there any way I can find that out?
Phil Gravel: Hire an engineer.
Dave Weathers: Is that a private.
Mayor Chmiel: I think what you're trying to come to a conclusion was how many additional charges would you
have from the city or are you looking, from the city in itself? I think that's your question basically.
Dave Weathers: Yeah, because I assume for the most part that the city is looking to...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I've gone through the same process where I've had a septic system and I've had to put
in city sewer as a requirement and that is the normal cost, depending upon the mn and this was done 15-16 years
ago. That cost me somewhere in the neighborhood of about $3,000.00.
Dave Weathers: Say again.
Mayor Chmiel: About $3,000.00 for myself. And even probably add 10% for each year that's gone by maybe.
Maybe not. But I think what you're looking at is what your costs would be and that's too hard to tell because
presently where your home is located or you plan on building a home, that would be decided upon to tap that
line that goes out in front of your property and from that point your charges would incurred for making that
connection.
Dave Weathers: If water's mn by, let me just...water and sewer are running by my property, will I be required
to hook up to them?
City Council Meeting -.September 12, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: You're not required to hook up to the water at this time, is that correct Don?
Don Ashworth: That's correct.
Mayor Chmiel: But if the sewer does go tltrough that particular area, depending upon and I assume you're on a
septic fight now.
Dave Weathers: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Then you would be probably required and what's the timeframe? Maybe Charles, you
can clarify that.
Charles Folch: If the lateral sewer is available and a reasonable distance, which we consider 150 feet of the
property, you have one year. One calendar year to hook up.
Mayor Chmiel: ff it's beyond that then it's utilizing your own system until that fails.
Dave Weathers: So if the lateral passes within 150 feet of the sewer line, you're required to hook up in a year?
Don Ashworth: That's correct.
Dave Weathers: My property is approximately 400 feet by...I can see myself incurring a rather significant
charge to hook up to that sewer...
Charles Folch: And maybe the best way to explain it is to kind of step back and say, again. To provide the
utilities to a property there's really three separate types of costs. There's the tnmk cost. There's the lateral cost
and there's a service cost.
Mayor Chmiel: When you use those explanations, maybe sometimes people don't understand that. Could you
clarify each of those? Whether it connects to the house from the existing main.
Charles Folch: Sure. What this project is provided us with is the lrunk line is the larger artefiai lines, if you
will that supplies the downstream capacity for the defined service area and that's what your currently proposed to
be assessed for is the benefit to have those trunk lines put in. Now the lateral lines, which is the line that will
be extended from the Lundgren development into your property, would be a separate cost. That basically, any
time you have a development like say for example Lundgren's development to the south. The streets that come
off of their main...or off the main line. Their required in their costs to put in those lateral lines which run in
front of the houses then and then there's a cost to connect, which is a service cost to connect when the lateral
line has been basically been near the curb line and extended into the property and make a connection to the
home. So you have three separate, basically three separate cost entities there and what you're being proposed
for assessment tonight is just strictly the trunk assessments. And ff you choose to subdivide your property in the
future, such as the Lundgren or Rottlund or whoever would develop the property, you would typically incur the
cost of providing all lateral service and roadway through your property and making the service connections also.
You're just getting tonight one of the three charges.
Councilman Wing: Can I get in on your discussion? Because I just want to ask a question along with you here.
Whenever it's convenient.
City Council Meeting - September 12, 199~
Mayor Chmiel: Ask it now Richard.
Councilman Wing: I want to just clarify for Mr. Weathers and for myself again, the position tonight then on the
council is we don't want to force development, If someone has a nice parcel of land such as yourself and
suddenly, I've been kind of smiting at you because welcome to progress and it's really frustrating. You've got x
units. You could be assessed what, a total of 9 here I think. So you take whatever numbers we've got times 9
and the total assessment could be several thousands, many thousands of dollars. You're only going to be
assessed one unit, which is really generous. I mean that's nice. You know he's got 100 acres. One house. You
only get one unit. But there's a fallacy here in that the clock keeps ticking and that never is really brought out.
So he may only be paying x dollars for one unit but there's an interest charge isn't there someplace coming in
here? Where does that interest charge come in? Where do I get lost ont his?
Charles Folch: With utilities, we're deferring the assessments to a future hook-up charge. Then they're
basically deferred without interest and what happens is, basically at the time the subdivision would occur, they
would pay that current year's hook-up charge and typically we adjust that each year for construction costs
against the inflation rate.
Councilman Wing: Okay, so in the case of Mr. Weathers, this assessment is just a one time issue and the clock
isn't ticking on these others then? Okay. That's what I wanted to clarify.
Mayor Chmiel: Also Charles, maybe you should mention the fact too that with the assessments of some of these
being rather extensive, that there are a period of years that this can also be paid for with an interest on it.
Charles Folch: That's true. On your statement there it does provide a term...I believe on this project the term
would be...and 7 1/2%.
Dave Weathers: Correct, I'm aware of that. Another question I have is, how did they come up with, in my case
I'm assessed for sewer and water and some of the properties that are even adjacent to mine are only being
assessed for sewer. How do they...
Phil Gravel: I can answer that question. In your case the watermain, the city's trunk, and that's the larger type
watermain, that is going to go in to service your property and I think the property you're questioning to your
neighbor's property which is the property we call property number 1 there. In that case their trunk watermain
has not yet been installed and will be installed in the future along Highway 41 and when that goes in, they will
be assessed at that time.
Dave Weathers: Why would I not be a candidate for that?
Phil Gravel: Because you will have paid now. You only pay once.
Dave Weathers: But I didn't have the option basically...
Phil Gravel: Because your property will be serviced at this time. His property can't. The watermain wasn't
extended as far north as his property so he couldn't service his.
Dave Weathers: It's not within 150 feet is what you're saying?
10
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Phil Gravel: Correct.
Dave Weathers: I'm concerned a little bit that I don't know all the charges. I know...I have concern about the
future though and what the total costs will be...I will be assessed for it...
Phil Gravel: I'm not sure in your case we're saying that you'd be required to hook up.
Dave Weathers: You're saying ff it passes within 150 feet of my property, I'll be required in a year.
Charles Folch: ...correct.
Dave Weathers: ...otherwise I won't be assessed for it here.
Councilman Senn: Charles, okay. If he's within 150 feet okay, and if his lot's 400 feet and his house is on the
other side of the lot, you mean to say that he could be required to go 550 to 650 feet to get sewer to his house?
Charles Folch: Not at this time, no.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so help me out there because I'm hearing him ask the question because his house is on
the other side of the lot from where the sewer is and yet I hear we have a rule that says he has to hook up
because the 150 feet is based on his property line, not where his house is. If I'm hearing you right.
Charles Folch: Really the 150 feet typically applies to a lateral. This is really a trunk unit. If it's within a
certain distance of his property but his house, as you say is way on the north end so reasonably he's not within
that 150 feet area that warrants a physical connection to the sewer so. So we're dealing with a trunk here rather
than a lateral.
Councilman Wing: And his lateral was.
Councilman Senn: So there won't be a lateral going close enough to his.
Charles Folch: He will have to build a lateral in the future if he decides to subdivide.
Councilman Senn: At that point, yeah. Does that make sense? So more or less you won't be required to hook
up now.
Phil Gravel: And as far as the future assessments go towards this, there's really no way for us to quantify those
numbers until some idea as to what we_give you an idea of what that is.
Dave Weathers: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Dave. Is there anyone else?
Dean Simpson: My name is Dean Simpson. I live at 7185 Hazeltine and a lot of my questions I think...
answered by Mr. Weathers but I think I heard something here that pertains to my property. I think I'm Parcel
No. 1 that you referred to and as it stands right now, I cannot hook up to sewer and water from the trunk lines
that are in the Lundgren development, is that right? The ones that I would be able to be hook up to would be
the ones that potentially be...is that what you said?
11
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Phil Gravel: That's not exactly what I said. Your sewer service is going to have to come from that area through
Mr. Weathers property. Your water service could either come from...from Highway 41.
Dean Simpson: I guess I have a different...through his property from the Lundgren. I think I had the same
question. How much that was going to cost me. If it came through Highway 41, what's the projection there?
How long would that...
Phil Gravel: I would say that the watermain will be extended up Highway 41 within the next 4 or 5 years.
Dean Simpson: Okay, that's all I have.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Dean. Anyone else? Seeing none, Richard. Do you have any queslions?
Councilman Wing: No, I just got my confusion on that interest squared away.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: No, I haven't.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. If I can have a motion for the assessment hearing.
Councilman Mason: Don't we need to close the public hearing?
Mayor Chmiel; No, it's not a public hearing. Yes it is too, yeah. Yes. Let's close the public hearing.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I have a motion? Discussion.
Councilman Mason: Can we, I mean is it prudent for us to move on this before we know exactly who owns
what? On the outlots:
Phil Gravel: That's a matter that the County can clarify. Neither Mr, Dolejsi nor Lundgren Bros have any
question as to the...and before we certify the roll with the County, we can ask them to recheck who the property
owners are.
Councilman Mason: Okay.
12
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Councilman Senn: What ff it's somebody else?
Phil Gravel: It's either Mr. Dolejsi or Lundgren Bros.
Councilman Senn: Oh, okay. One or the oth~r.
Phil Gravel: Right now it's listing both of them.
Mayor Chmiel: Charles, just a quick question. Oh I'm sorry Mike.
Councilman Mason: That's alright.
Mayor Chmiel: If these parcels that are shown are not sold, or ever developed, is the assessment that's put on
existing now is all that's required to be paid.
Charles Folch: Correct. Although typically with an assessment, ff the assessment is not recovered within a 30
year period, basically it dissolves and goes away. With the hook-up charge in the future, 50 years from now
they decided to subdivide, they'd pay the hook-up charge 50 years from now.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Can I have a motion?
Councilman Wing: I'll move the assessment roll Project 92-5.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
/
Resolution g94-95: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adopt the assessment roll
for the Johnson/Dolejsi Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 92-5 dated September 6, 1994 and the
term and rate to be set at eight (8) years and 7 1/2% interest. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CITY ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE TO JOSEPH SCOTY'S PRESENTATION TO THE COUNCIL ON
AUGUST 8, 1994.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, my letter dated August 16, 1994, which you have in your packet, laid out the
possibilities and I really have nothing to add to that. Unless you have questions.
Mayor Chmiel: No. The only other thing that I've done is, as you've indicated here. Refer the matter to
County Attorney or appoint a private attorney. I guess I feel that I would like to keep this within the county.
And I've had some discussions with the County Attorney who has indicated that he would be willing to take this
under advisement and to come up with a conclusion. And all we would have to do is provide him all the
information that we have that was given by Joe and have them come up with their conclusions. But that's at
Council's pleasure as well. So I'd like to find out what your opinion might be regarding that. Richard?
Councilman Wing: Well I'll just support, as I said originally, support your position. I have nothing more to
say. We've chosen to clear this up and I think we should continue that mute. That was your statement.
13
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Right, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: I guess I don't have a preference as to whether the County Attorney or private
attorney investigates it. I just want to clear it up and clear Mark's name.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, Michael.
Councilman Mason: My only concern with going with the county attorney as opposed to a private attorney is if
this gets construed as any way as some kind of cover-up because we are keeping it within the county. I mean
assuming, I'm not making any comments one way or the other on what's transpired but I guess I do, I do have a
concern about that and I guess I think that's worth some discussion.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I wasn't looking at it from that aspect by referring it to the County Attorney. I just
thought that everything is done within the city, within the county and I just thought that that would be reviewed
within that part of it. And it doesn't matter to me either or other than the fact that I just discussed it with him.
Didn't say we would but asked him the question whether or not he would even accept it. But I guess that's
where I'm coming from. And if you felt that the Council wanted to go the opposite direction, I'd move in that
direction as well.
Councilman Wing: He's got a good point.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Let me ask direction. Would you like us to go to this Jack Clinton from the city of
Cottage Grove, as that attorney? To do that investigation.
Councilman Mason: That's my personal preference. Just knowing how I think somebody completely on the
outside may be a little more objective one way or the other.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I don't have any problem with that. Richard.
Councilman Wing: So be it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Then we'll have that done by the Cottage Grove City Attorney and as you've indicated
in here, he's undertaken similar investigations in the past as well.
Roger Knutson: That's correct.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The other point that I was really looking at was the cost aspect. The county wouldn't
charge us any money whereas.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: They wouldn't?
Mayor ChmieI: No. Putting it out in another direction there is a cost involved. That was the only other thing.
Councilman Mason: I understand that Don and I, obviously I share that concern too. I guess I think there's,
hopefully there's no other issue involved here. But I guess I think that, I mean we're talking about some pretty
important issues that I think we need to hold an extremely high standard to. And I personally would feel more
comfortable if it was a completely independent, but I'm not going to.
14
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Councilman Wing: I'll go with Mike's suggestion then.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Was there a second for that request?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: All those in favor. Go ahead.
Councilman Mason: ShouM we set any kind of cost limit on this? I mean.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that Roger would probably come up with a fairly reasonable cost to look at this.
discussion or maybe we could find out what it would be.
Roger Knutson: I've not spoken to him about that issue. I would hate to guess what someone else is going to
charge for anything because we don't know but I would guess in the neighborhood of $1,000.00 to $2,000.00.
That may be very high. I don't know.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's a non-issue to me.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, I'll stay with that.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to appoint Jack CHnton, the Cottage
Grove City Attorney to invest the matter regarding Councilman Senn. All voted in favor, except
Councilman Senn who did not vote, and the motion carried.
AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE IN THE BF, BUSINESS
FRINGE DISTRICT, 10500 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, ADMIRAL WASTE MANAGEMENT.
Sharmin AI-Jaff: This item appeared before you on August 22, 1994. The applicant is requesting an interim use
permit to store commercial dumpsters on property zoned Fringe Business. One of the reasons that the City
Council felt uncomfortable with it was the language in condition number 5. You wanted that language to spell
out the fact that only dumpsters will be permitted on the site for storage. Also while speaking to the Mayor this
morning, he requested that we add the language stating no motorized vehicles be permitted to be stored on this
site. We are recommending approval of this application. We have gone through all the conditions. We feel that
the language is much stricter now and we are recommending approval. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Shannin. Is there anyone wishing to address this? Please just state your name and
your address and who you're representing.
Bill Grdfith: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mayor and Councilmembers, my name is Bill Griffith representing
Admiral Waste. 1500 Norwest Financial Center in Bloomington. I'll be brief. This matter has had 5 public
hearings and we'd like to help you move it along and get the applicant out there building their fence. We agree
with staff's clarifications of the conditions of approval on the last page. Believe it's helpful to provide that
clarification and would simply ask the City Council to look at the significant investment that the landowners
made in the property in terms of purchasing the property. Going through a very involved city process in 1988.
Again in 1989 and again this year with having very limited use of their property. When that's balanced with the
proposed use for construction containers, empty construction containers screened we believe in the winter and
15
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
summer months. I think they're virtually invisible now and I think in the winter will be as well with the
screening. We'd like to just balance that, consider that the, I think the conditions for the term to be terminated
with the expansion of the MUSA is appropriate because until that happens nothing significant is likely to happen
on this property and so this is an interim use of property which would be terminated at that time or 10 years.
And we think that's appropriate again given the limited uses of the property and the fact that this use is probably
the most appropriate type of interim use because it proposes very little improvement to the property. In other
cities they've grappled with interim uses that actually involve significant construction. Airport parking lots for
instance or even a shopping center has been termed an interim use in some cities. This particular interim use
could be removed within a matter of 30 to 60 days should the property be more valuable for some higher and
better use. So we think this is an appropriate use if adequately screened. As we said last time, the topography
lends itself to screening from the north and we've provided significant screening to the highway. So with that
I'd turn it back to Council and ask you to move this along tonight and we'll get going. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Is there any questions from the Council? One of the other things that I mentioned to
Sharmin. I would like to change that length of term to not exceed 5 years rather than 10. 10 years seem to be
an awful long time and I would feel rather strongly in putting that on a 5 year. I keep looking at those 140
dumpsters. I know that at one time when we first originally started with that storage there, I think they wound
up with 50 of the dumpsters and Sharmin went out there to do the count and came up with that 50. The next
time she went back out there were 58. In the first place these were not to be on site at that particular time. And
140 dumpsters to me looks like a lot of soldiers standing in a row and a lot of that from the people who live in
and adjacent to that site are going to be peering down at, looking down into it. I don't feel too comfortable with
those 140 dumpsters. They're presenting storing those existing dumpsters either somewhere or in the process of
purchasing and I guess I just don't understand or try to even comprehend why they want to do a lot of the
storage within that particular area other than having them all in one place. I know there's a need for those
dumpsters as the construction season goes because they can put out a dumpster and somebody can keep it almost
all year depending upon how many dumps that they have to make with it. And it becomes a good money
making situation, which they're entitled to as well. But I do feel the total numbers is a rather hefty number. As
to moving it back to, I would just as soon try to keep those at the 58 dumpsters that are existing now. That's
my position. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Well on item number 1. I'm in concurrence with the Mayor that we don't, the City is
moving, changing, developing rapidly and because this area down there isn't really well designed, configured, we
really haven't tried to create a standard for it yet. I don't want to get caught in something that's going to be in
our way. And I agree that the 10 years, with the growth we're having and the changes that are occurring, is
excessive. I don't want to be committed to the 10 years and I can accept the 5 years. That just happens to be
the number I wrote down for no reason other than it's less than 10. Number one, assuming that we would go
with 5 years, even with 10, 1 1/2 foot trees don't, aren't significant to me in terms of any screening and I would
rather delete the number of trees considerably and just get larger trees. So whatever number goes in there, I
would just like them to all be large trees. Minimum of 6 feet and then delete, in fairness, delete whatever
number you choose to but I'd like to see number 1, 1 1/2 foot be deleted and ail trees be a minimum of 6 feet.
The number to be decided by Sharmin or staff, only because she's very conscientious and I don't need to see it
again. Item number 2. I don't see any reason for anybody in a residential area or residential contact to be going
to 9:00 p.m. on Saturday. I got a call on Saturday for a project out my house where at 8:00 the machinery was
cranking away and it was really abusive. And not that that's going to occur down here. It's going to be limited
in and out but still, regardless. The hours should be a normal work day on Saturday. So I would change the
Saturday hours. I concur with no work on Sundays and/or holidays. Weekday of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. On
16
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Saturdays, it would be 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. maximum. Work on Sundays. Holidays is deleted. I understand
the problem with stating holidays. Christmas is a holiday.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Your standard 6.
Councilman Wing: Standard 6?
Councilman Mason: That's changing rapidly folks.
Councilman Wing: That's right
Councilman Mason: Like it or not, it is and I would suspect that's why it was deleted.
Councilman Wing: Well I understand that. Thanksgiving and Christmas. I'm going to move on. I'll let
someone else fight on that one. Outdoor speaker system. So on and so forth. On number dumpsters. I sat
down there, I heard the neighbors loud and clear and I do like that this is, this sits down in the BF District. It's
integral and part of it. And it is below the bluff of the railroad tracks there and I do see it relatively well
screened from the neighbors for now, considering this is an interim use. It's simply not going to be the future so
short term if this is going to go on, I see other uses that I'd just like better. So the number of dumpsters starts
to make it one big project. I agree. 140 seems very excessive to me. I'll pass that on to Council. And the 5
years term on number 7. Those are the comments.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Alright, I'll take my stab at it. Number 1, realizing that these trees are in front of a
fence. The trees are not the screening themselves. They're just decorations to the fence so I don't have any
problems with the 1 1/2 feet. The hours I agree with Richard, 9:00 to 6:00. We need to define holidays. I say
do the standard 6 that it is now. 5 is a good addition. No motorized vehicles stored. And the length. I think a
review in 5 years is prudent. That doesn't mean we're going to take it away in 5 years but it gives us a deadline
to re-examine it. That's it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: Pretty much everything has been covered. I agree with the work hours. I understand why
holidays has been deleted and I know precious few people that are going to drive macks on those major holidays
anyway so deleting that doesn't bother me at all. I like the change in time. As long as we're talking about
fences, I'll sit on the fence on that one. 1 1/2 I mean, were there not a fence there, I'd agree with Dick
completely. With what you're saying Colleen, I guess it seems to me they already have some trees planted that
are a lime shorter, if I'm not mistaken, and with the fence there. The dumpster thing, I guess I'll go whichever
way Council wants to on that. That is a quantum leap from 50 to 140. On the other side of that is, we all use
them. So I don't have a strong feeling one way other than that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark.
Councilman Senn: I have the same hours changed. Holidays. I guess I didn't have a big problem with.
Number of dumpsters, I had 50 written down but that was because that's what I thought the original approval
was. I don't know, 10 years. I didn't have a big problem with it because it seems to me we've got a pretty
constant review built in and if they do anything that violates this, we go in and...anyway. Plus we're asking
them to make a fairly substantial investment to do that. One point that I had asked I think last time be included
17
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
that I still haven't seen included and I would like to see included is no stacking of the dumpsters, I don't want
to see us get in a situation where just because they want to use the space for something else or whatever that we
end up with a couple of dumpsters stacked up way over the fence. And that's limited basically to the...and that
was about it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Mason: Don, what number were you looking for the dumpsters?
Mayor Chmiel: Well I was still looking at that 58 that's existing right now.
Bill Griffith: Mr. Mayor, could I address the Council again?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Bill Griffith: Since there seems to be some sentiment on the Council both for a higher number and for a lower
number. Could we suggest something inbetween because it does represent some investment in the ~openy. As
my client, the applicant suggested to me that at 50 dumpsters it doesn't really make a lot of sense to start
building a fence so if we could look at something as kind of a compromise inbetween the number 50 and 140, I
think that would be very helpful. And we did agree with staff that the objective here is to screen all the
dumpsters, whether it's 58 or 90 or 140 and to the extent we can't screen dumpsters, we can't store them there.
So that is really their objective here. It's not, and all those dumpsters could be removed whether it's 58 or 140
in a matter of 30 or 60 days so if some higher use comes along, we can remove them rather rapidly. We'll have
all the dumpsters screened.
Councilman Mason: Could I throw something out? 10~ dumpsters and if they end up needing more and if there
are no problems, we certainly could consider more at that time. ,
Mayor Chmiel: I guess that could be a potential although that's, if you look at what's existing now and just
double it again. That's one lot of dumpsters. Hopefully if their business is good, you won't see much of
anything. That's another aspect of it, depending upon what their basic needs or their clients needs are. They
can be off the site as well. I'm sure they wouldn't even want to store 50 dumpsters there if they didn't have to.
I think that's what they're looking at too. Well I would ask Richard, what would be your position?
Councilman Wing: On the number?
Mayor Chmiel: On the number. Dancing around.
Councilman Wing: Mike started it. No, you started it. You two guys decide.
Councilman Mason: That's pretty much midpoint between 60 and 140.
Councilman Wing: That's fine. I'm happy with that and with that restriction I would ask that we curtail the
number of dinky trees we've got to put in. On 42 little teeny trees to me hardly justifies it.
Councilman Mason: Well 10% of them have to be over 6 feet.
18
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Councilman Wing: ff they're putting in a fence and this is an interim use and we're limiting it to 5 years, I
don't expect them to put in 42 trees, and that's a rare statement for me. Just a thought.
Councilman Mason: No, good point. Good point.
Mayor Chmiel: What they're looking for is just softening the effect.
Councilman Wing: Do these frees already exist?
Bill Griffith: Yes. The 42 1 1/2 foot trees are already...previously purchased to basically break up the effect of
the wall.
Councilman Wing: That's fine. That's a dead issue then.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Can I take a stab at a motion?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would move that we approve the interim use permit with a change to item 2.
Change the work hours from 9:00 to 6:00 on Monday thru.
Councilman Mason: No. We're going to leave it 7:00 to 6:00 Monday thru Friday, and 9:00 to 6:00 on
Saturday.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Thank you.
Councilman Mason: You're welcome.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No work on Sunday or the six standard holidays. Sharmin you can figure those
out. Number of dumpsters shall be limited to 100. There will be no motorized vehicles on the site and no
stacking of dumpsters. And the length of term, that is changed to 5 years. I think that's it.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn: Yeah I guess, Michael I understand where you're coming from as far as the compromise
goes but you know jumping this thing up to 100 just really bothers me because all it's going to tell to people to
do is, if you need this type of a situation, go do it fLrst because ff it's there and in place, don't worry. It doesn't
make any difference. They're going to have to give it to you.
Councilman Mason: Why is that saying that?
Councilman Senn: Well I mean, you know you had a deal here where nothing was allowed. There was 50 there
and then they put 8 more on there after supposedly it was locked in at 50 and still no right really to even be
doing it and now they're in asking for 140 after the fact. I mean to me that tells me, well let's go do it fu'st and
worry about getting permission to do it later.
19
City Council Meeting - September t2, 1994
Councilman Mason: Well, I think you need to take issues like that one at a time. It sounds to me like they've
been showing a willingness to work with staff on this and work stuff out here. I certainly am not going to deny
what you say but I, so I'm not quite sure what you're looking for then. Is this a punishment thing then or where
are you at with that? I mean if they're demonstrating a need for it and we're granting an interim use.
Councilman Senn: I don't think it's punishment to say stick with the original deal. Unless I'm
misunderstanding it but I thought that's what we had before.
Mayor Chmiel: That basically is, yeah.
Councilman Senn: So I don't view that as punishment. I think the neighbors have every right in the world to be
concerned about what they're going to be overlooking here.
Councilman Mason: Well but if all the dumpsters are going to be screened, what is the difference between
whether it's 50 or 100 or 70 or 20? I mean the issue here is to have the dumpsters screened and if all, I guess
where I'm coming from is if all the dumpsters are screened, I don't care whether it's 50 or 70 or 100. If they're
not screened, then it's an issue and we're going to get it back and it will be dealt with.
Mayor Chmiel: Well I think if the dumpsters could be brought closer to the fence, it would probably do a better
screening but as you go there, the topography of that land goes up and you can see them fi:om any direction that
you're coming from.
Councilman Senn: The screening's a little bit of a misnomer. The screening we're talking about here is driving
by. It's not going to be screened from up above where the people who live, you know that were in here. Yes
the ones right by the fence will be but you start spreading 140 dumpsters out, you're going to see a lot of them.
Councilman Wing: Well even if we go 58, they could still spread them anywhere they wanted to. There's a
specific area down there and it's all a conf'med area. It's a limited area and I'm not encouraging, although I
don't disagree with Mark but we need to get this thing moving and to be productive for them. I'm happy
because we're curtailing the permit. The interim use length. And hopefully we're going to have some standards
for this comer that the community's going to like.
Councilman Mason: It is an interim use.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, it is. Okay. Any other discussion? You're set with that specific motion with the second a
to 100 dumpsters on site and the other items with the trees and 9:00 to 6:00 on Saturday and a 5 year interim
permit and what was the other. One more thing.
Councilman Wing: No stacking.
Mayor Chmiel: And no stacking. Okay. Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Interim Use Permit g94-I
as shown on the plans dated August 3, 1994 and subject to the following conditions:
2O
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
A final landscaping plan shall be approved by staff. This plan shall include a site diagram showing the
maximum number and location of dumpster and made part of the conditions of approval. The fence shall be
6 feet in height, not to exceed 8 feet with 42 trees of varying height from I 1/2 feet to 6 feet. Minimum of
10% of the trees shall be 6 feet height at the time of planting. The landscaping shall be planted prior to
October 22, 1994.
2. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a_.m. to 6:00
p.m. on Saturday. Work on Sundays and the 6 standard holidays, as determined by staff, is not permitted.
3. There shall be no outdoor speaker system.
4. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
The number of dumpsters shall be limited to a number that can be adequately screened, not to exceed 100
dumpsters. The screen shall be designed to provide effective visual barrier during all seasons. Only empty
dumpsters may be stored on the site. This interim use permit shall apply specifically to the storage of empty
dumpsters owned by Admiral Waste. No expansion of the site, unspecified uses, or ancillary uses shall be
allowed unless a separate interim use permit is granted by the City Council. There will also be no
motorized vehicles stored on the site or stacking of dumpsters.
6. There shall be a yearly review of this site to ensure compliance.
The length of the term shall not exceed 5 years. The use shall be terminated within one year of inclusion of
the site within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area or if conditions of approval have been violated,
whichever comes first. The applicant may request an extension for the interim use permit prior to it's
expiration.
8. The applicant shall replace any of the new trees that die within two years.
All voted in favor, except Mayor Chmiel and Councilman Senn who opposed. The motion carried with a
vote of 3 to 2,
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 92~3 ACRES INTO 36 RURAL SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND
ONE OUTLOT, HALLA'S GREAT PLAINS GOLF ESTATES, LOCATED SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD
14 (PIONEER TRAIL) AND WEST AND EAST OF HIGHWAY 101, DON HALLA.
Public Present:
Name Address
Randy & Don Hallo
Sharon Gatto
Dale & Peggy Gunderson
Claire and Anne M. Vogel
B. L. Janssen
6601 Mohawk Trail, Edma
9631 Foxford Road
945 Creekwood
815 Creekwood
500 Lyman
21
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Mr. Mayor, members of City Council. At your last meeting you tabled this item and directed
staff to give a legal opinion on whether Flalla's Great Plains Golf Estates plat had to maintain the 2 1/2 acre
minimum as was approved in 1987. Or if they could average them over all the lot area of 2 1/2 acre. The City
Attorney concluded that the applicant should proceed with the 1987 plat which requires 2 1/2 acre minimum lot
area and we hope that this answers the question. Thank you.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, could I just make one addition comment?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Roger.
Roger Knutson: To explain what I have not done. I have not tried to make any judgment as to whether the
1987 preliminary plat was a good idea or a bad idea. I have not made any judgment as to whether changes in
that preliminary plat could make it better or make it worse because that was not the issue I was addressed. In
1987 or 1988 as a result of a...from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. You went in that area to a
density requirement of 1 per 10. At that time certain landowners asked to have their preliminary plats approved
and be given a substantial length of time to bring those in for final platting. That's what happened in '87 and
'88. So because of that special provision that he was granted in '88, he is now able to bring in a 2 1/2 acre plat
without regards to the current requirements regarding density. So Mr. Halla has really, in my judgment, three
choices. First, he can pursue and finalize what was started in 1987, in the configuration that was approved in
'87. You can drop that and go to the current standards or he cannot plat. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I was putting down what you just got through saying. Alright. Don, do you have
anything to say in regards to just what the City Attorney has just said?
Don Halla: Thank you. Don Halla. Thank you for the opportunity members of Council to address you briefly
here. Roger, my big question is, I understand...the city has changed it's requirements for rural lots to be
anywhere from a third of an acre or larger. So if the ordinance within the city hadn't changed, would that not
affect our program on our site when we were granted 37 lots? Definitely it was based on 2 1/2 acres at that
time but now the city ordinance has changed in the meantime. Instead it has to be 1/3 of an acre with also the
requirement that...septic sites on site. In this latest one, that's why...We originally asked to do smaller ones...
changed it on staff's request_.
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead Roger.
Roger Knutson: In '87 or '88 the City Council, ff you will for lack of a better term, grandfathered in that
preliminary plat and said you can do this plat if you bring it back within 5 years. Even though the rules are
changing. So they gave you that right. If you don't choose to follow up on that right, and you are under the
current rules, the current rules are smaller lots but the density is i per 10.
Don Halla: ...somebody asked the question, why were we requested by the city to bring in a lot closer density
if that wasn't m~e? And why were we asked then, when that was density was requested to be larger...than we
brought back another one that the city has asked...Why were we put through spending all these thousands of
dollars in these particular...when I went in and asked, what would you as the city planner, for Paul Krauss, what
would you like us to do? What would you like to see in this program and I was requested to bring in all
clustered home sites on the west side of Highway 101. 9 months that sat in the city offices until it was
requested that we bring it back and make them all a minimum of 1 acre. The minimum acreage we came back
with was 1 1/2 acres. I guess I don't understand why I should have been put through all these different design
22
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
changes if we then go back to a...that says no, you have to do 1987. Everything we have done in the last year
and a half has been at the city's request.
Roger Knutson: Is that a question? Paul Krauss was obviously Irying to bring forth the best plat he thought for
the area. That's what planners do. It's not the question put to me. The question put to me was not, I'm not
competent to answer the question. What is the best plat? I don't decide, nor am I competent to decide. Is a 1
acre better or 15,000 square feet better or 2 1/2 acres. That's not my job. I was asked a specific question about
grandfather fights. I gave my best judgment. I think it's unfortunate you've been put that. But I was just asked
my judgment as to what your grandfather rights are and that's my judgment.
Don Halla: Is it tree that Council has the ability to make a different decision than going with the 2 1/2 acres if
they so choose? They do not necessarily have to follow that...
Roger Knutson: The Council makes the decision.
Don Halla: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Okay. Richard, do you have any specific questions?
Councilman Wing: Sharmin the last I saw was the lot sizes mn from 1.64, is that the right number, up to 4
acres. And the net average was 2.5 in this plat.
Sharmin AI-Jaff: Correct. However, that included the area of the nursery. The nursery area was averaged...
Councilman Wing: And I talked to Don last night. Because I went back to my notes. I noted that I thought we
had pretty much stated that the nursery wasn't part of this plat and that it had to be platted without the nursery.
That's what my thoughts and my understanding was way back when. So I guess I wouldn't have any problem
with the compromise but it would be deleting the nursery portion of it for now. Because that's not part of the
plat. It's a separate business.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: If we delete the nursery, the applicant will be permitted a maximum of 32 lots. To average 2
1/2 acre for each one.
Councilman Wing: Okay, and the total number here was 35. Okay, well I guess that's the only question I've
got then is, if you're, staff is comfortable with this averaging, it would be, I guess I would see what planning
and everybody else that I've heard discussing this and that the nursery is an included part of it so the lot sizes, if
we delete the 32 and then the adjustment of the net average. But I thought that's where I wound up last time.
That's all I've got.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I'll be quite honest, How do I say this diplomatically. I just as soon not see
any property in the city develop. That's where I'm coming from. Just as a basis. But I see the Halla's have
been put through the ringer and invested a lot of money and time into the various iterations of plats. I guess -
there are four choices here. We could hold him to the '87 plat. They could do the 1 per 10 acre. They could
just sit on it for a while. Or we could hold them to the 2 1/2 acre average minimum and come through with a
decent development. And I'm not sure where to go right now. I'll pass.
23
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael.
Councilman Mason: Oh sure.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: Sorry.
Councilman Mason: That's alright. I think on the face of it I certainly hear what the City Attorney said and this
may be a situation of regardless of whether it's right or wrong, that's the way it is because this has been going
on for 7 years. I did have a rather amenable chat with Mr. Halla yesterday about all of this and I understand
that at some point there was an interim plan produced by the Halla's that talked about 1 acre lot sizes. And on
the fact of it gee, that sounds kind of interesting to me. But then, and it still does and maybe that's worth some
chatting about but then that definitely flies against everything else that's going on in that area and if we were to
do that for them, I suspect anyone else that wanted to develop them would say the same thing and I wonder if
we would then have rampant development at that end of the city or not. I don't know. I don't know if that's
worth talking about or not. I really don't. I think this is a real tough one. I think at some point, and I don't
know if tonight's the night or not. We've been kind of banding about how big lots should be in the city of
Chanhassen. Maybe this is one of those issues. Again, I really don't know. But I think this interim plan has
the potential to be an interesting one with this 1 acre lot size but then that does fly in the face of any other kind
of development that is or isn't available in that area. I don't know ff we want to discuss that or talk about that
or not.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: Are you talking about 1 acre with an average of 2.5?
Councilman Mason: No. No, no. I understand that there was an interim plan.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: May I?
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
Sharmin AI-Jaff: This was the plan that was submitted. It had two lots that averaged approximately 1 acm but
when you take both sides, what the applicant would have done would be to plat this side and outlot the westerly
side and what would happen then is you would have an average density of 2 1/2 acres. He would not be
permitted to plat the outlot until such time when sewer and water is out there available. It was always made
clear to the applicant that the only way he would be permitted to proceed with this plat is if he could
demonstrate that them is a septic site, acceptable septic site on each and every single one of those parcels. And
we went through and analyzed this site and it was determined that this plat could not proceed. And it's mainly
because of, that was one of the main issues.
Councilman Wing: I don't have a big problem with this other than the 32 to 35. What's the ramifications of the
nursery being included or not included? The nursery portion, and the issue here is 32 versus 35 lots. What do
we care whether the nursery is platted now or not? What's the ramifications of including that or not including
that?
Sharmin Al-Jaff: It's just mainly the density.
Councilman Wing: Right, you can't achieve the 2.5 without it.
24
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Right. And you can't make it into an outlet because there's existing buildings on it.
Councilman Wing: Okay. And if that's the case, pretty cut and dry then on that issue. Okay. I don't have, I'm
really cutting in on Mark here. Excuse me. I was starting on his questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Mark, do you have anything more?
Councilman Senn: So you're saying staff's evaluation of the interim plan is it's not possible because they can't
possibly or technically provide the septic systems.
Sharmin Al-la/f: They won't work. And we have a staff report specifying that. Staff put together...
Don Halla: What was discussed at that time, to give you a little picture and I don't want to confuse you but
what was discussed...we've been looking at a process of... (Most of what Don Halla was saying could not be
heard on the tape.)
Don Ashworth: I totally agree with the concept and it is highly feasible type of thing. Probably almost the best
way to go. The only problem with it is it would never be approved by Metro Council. It's an expansion... You
have to go through the whole MUSA expansion process and what I fried to relay to Don is that we have two
areas right now that are currently under study and I doubt very much that we're going to get a designation on
those two parcels within the next 10 years and to consider that they would allow the expansion into Mr. Halla's
property, it's just not feasible, ff he'd like to take and pursue that with them, you know fine because I think it is
a good solution. But I just, it's not going to occur in the foreseeable future that they will allow an expansion of
that system, however it was designed.
Councilman Senn: So with eliminating that one, it only goes to one that gets... Having that answer I guess what
I'd like to do is, I was a little intrigued by that ultimate proposal because I mean that area there that is fairly
well segregated where you could pick up acre lots and provide a little different style of housing than we could in
the rest of the area without really affecting the area plus at the same time you've got the area over to the east
that you could still require pretty much larger lots to conform with the area over there so that's why I was
mainly asking where we could go with that. But it sounds like absolutely nowhere. As far as the proposal that I
guess then we have before us, I have no problem with staff's recommendation from before with a couple
alterations and that was that I thought item 35 should be deleted. I see that as really being something that's
going to create more controversy than it solves. And that was about it.
Councilman Wing: This is your current recommendation. The Planning Commission's.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But we're not moving on this this evening.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, no.
Sharmin AI-Jaff: You wanted clarification from the .City Attorney's office and the clarification was that the 2
1/2 acre per lot. However the City Attorney stated that you have three choices. Finalize the '87 plat or have 1
unit per 10 acres... However, we would recommend that the nursery would not be included in the overall density.
Councilman Wing: This is where I thought we wound up. And this is what I thought Planning found to be
reasonable. This held to the 2.5.
25
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Sharmin AI-Jaff: Correct.
Councilman Wing: And I was comfortable with this. I didn't have any problem with this. I wanted to ask Don
where he stood on this one because this is where I had wound up and this is what I thought we were going to
recommend.
Don Hallax I've been aware of this although I kind of question if you leave the nursery as an outlot, which it is
at this point, then I guess it makes sense if you require it be plotted and then why isn't the acreage of the
nursery averaged into it. It's still only...and then that acreage becomes part of the average. If we don't leave it
an outlot...
Mayor Chmiel: The terminology of the outlot purely and specifically indicates that there cannot be any buildings
on that outlot where those buildings are on that particular piece of property.
Don Hall~c It's presently an outlot. Why would it change because that's what it is presently?
Sharmin Al-Jarl: It shouldn't have been an outlot.
Don Halla: It's recorded as an outlot right now.
Mayor Chmiel: Recorded as an outlot?
Don Halla: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: On the existing plat that you have.
Don Hallax Correct.
Councilman Senn: Outlot A. The whole thing.
Sharmin AI-Jaff: It shouldn't have been and now we have a chance to correct that mistake.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't know how they could have done that in the fa'st place but so be it. Okay. Is
there anything more Mark?
Councilman Senn: No. Just to clarify. I guess though I mean, this is the proposal we have in front of us.
Okay, one way or the other. What I've heard Roger say is, is that we can pass this if we want to.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: But we have a legal basis not to.
Councilman Senn: And we have a legal basis not to. Okay, but this is the proposal in fxont of us tonight you
know and my comments were directed, in fact it was to that.
Councilman Wing: And what was your position Mark?
26
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Councilman Senn: I have no problems with where staff's recommendation is on this except I don't like 35. I
don't think it's going to solve anything...problem.
Sharmin AI-Jaff: We're not going to vote on the plat today. The only thing we're going to look at is whether...
2 1/2 acres or if each parcel should maintain a minimum acreage of...that he goes one way or the other, then
that's what we would proceed with.
Councilman Senn: So we're not expected.
Sharmin Al-laff: You're not acting on the plat at all.
Councilman Senn: On the preliminary plat.
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: You're just giving us direction.
Councilman Wing: Each parcel should maintain a 2.5 independently, correct?
Councilman Mason: We're deciding that.
Councilman Wing: Okay. That's where I thought we were.
Councilman Mason: I am very comfortable with the overall average being 2.5. I think we need to look at the
big picture and if one lot's less, one lot's more, I think that gives more flexibility to the development. I think it
attends to the topography better. I think if you go, if you maintain everything has to be 2 1/2 acres, then I think
lines just get drawn regardless of where they are. So I'm in favor of, with everything else being said and done,
I'm in favor of the averaging.
Councilman Senn: Now are you looking for, you know I agree with the averaging but are you also looking for,
is that averaging with or without the nursery thing? I mean is that something we have to resolve or can we just
leave it the way it is?
Mayor Chmiel: Roger.
Roger Knutson: Yes sir.
Mayor Chmiel: The question is, in coming up with this, with the averaging, the existing part that is the
commercial aspect of it, of their business, can that be included in with that? Is that your question?
Councilman Senn: Yeah. Well maybe I should ask staff a question first. Does the current plat meet the 2 1/2
without the nursery included?
Sharmin AI-Jaff: No.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So it has to be redone?
27
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Sharmin AI-Jaff: Correct.
Councilman Senn: So with the nursery included it does meet the 2 1/2 standard?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct.
Councilman Wing: With 35 lots.
Councilman Senn: With 35 lots and the smallest lot is? Just under 2 acres, correct?
Sharmin AI-Jaff: Correct. It was def'mitely more than an acre.
Don I4_alla: 1.5.
Councilman Wing: And if you exclude the nursery, to maintain that density we'd go to 32 lots.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: It still means that he goes with the configuration of 11.45 acres for the nursery.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Is everyone understanding what we're doing?
Councilman Mason: Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. I just want to make sure. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Can you represent Planning on this?
Matt Ledvina: I'm Matt Ledvina with the Planning Commission. I did not receive a whole packet so I didn't
really have a good opportunity to review this prior to tonight so, and we reviewed it I think about 2 weeks ago
so I might be...specific questions but, from City Council questions but.
Councilman Wing: Where'd your group wind up here?
Matt Ledvina: Pardon.
Councilman Wing: Did your group wind up holding to the 2.5 density?
Matt Ledvina: We didn't really look at that per se. I think we were looking at it from a perspective of what
made sense in terms of where the roads were. That the general layout of the site. I don't believe we were
looking at it specifically from a given number in terms of density. That's my recollection of how we approached
it.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: Did you recommend approval?
Matt Ledvina: Yes we did. Subject to the conditions and we added additional items as well,
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks.
28
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Mr. Mayor, may I add?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Sharmin AI-Jaff: Commissioner Mancino recommended that the applicant maintain 2 1/2 acres per lot. There
was some confusion. I did contact her before she left and asked her exactly what she meant by the 2 1/2 acre.
Whether it was averaging or ff it was specifically per lot and she said it was specifically per lot.
Councilman Mason: What was her rationale?
Sharmin AI-Jaff: That the surrounding area had 2 1/2 acres per lot and would have maintained that overall.
Councilman Mason: Sure. I think you could argue just as effectively that that is being maintained overall by
averaging. I mean that's tit for tat perhaps.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And my position remains the same as it was at our last meeting. 2.5 minimum.
We've allowed them a grandfathering status. This area is zoned 1 for every l0 acres, ff they want to proceed
with the 2.5, then let's go with the '87 plat.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? If not, I would then entertain a motion.
Councilman Mason: I don't think we're looking for a motion tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: Well no. Basically to whether or not we approve the plat. Whether you go to the averaging of
2.5 or if you go the 35 lots as opposed to 32 lots which would equal the 2.5 acres. Strictly. Or the averaging
aspects of it.
Councilman Senn: Okay, well I'll move that we go with the 2.5 averaging including the nursery property and
the reason I'm going to say that is, you know we can sit up here and get involved in nth degrees of design and I
don't think that's appropriate. I think the applicant has come in with a responsible plan. Gone out and looked at
about every square foot of this town. It makes sense if it's topography. I mean I don't know. I can fred very
little wrong with it and I see nice big lots. You know every way you look at it it seems to me it meets most
every standard that we'd ever look to have it meet and I just can't see why we keep dragging this out. So I
guess that would be my motion.
Councilman Mason: I'll second that motion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, moved and seconded. Any other discussion? We're talking roughly the averaging of the
total acreage to 2 1/2.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the City Council would consider a 2 1/2 acre
average for the overall density, including the nursery property, for Halla's Great Plains Golf Estates
preliminary plat. Mayor Chmiei, Councilman Senn and Councilman Mason voted in favor.
Councilwoman Dockendorf opposed the motion. Councilman Wing abstained. The motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Do you want to clarify on your reason?
29
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Councilman Wing: Well, yes I'll state my.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I'm saying no for the masons I stated prior.
Councilman Wing: And I'm just stating, because I don't support this. On the other hand I don't disagree with
Mark's position. I'm sort of in the middle. I'd like to maintain our density in the 2.5 or go by our existing
rules. I don't like changing things and we're certainly in the middle here and it kind of leaves us nowhere on
the next one so.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah but I think there's one point that's made is because of what's existing with that
topography, this blends in and I think that's our decision portion for that part of it. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I mean as we've talked about numerous times amongst ourselves, we're
looking for a balance of different types of neighborhoods and residential areas in our community and granted, 2
1/2 acres is a large lot. However, our 1 in 10 are going to disappear eventually and if we can get 1 in 10 on this
piece of land, I would be more content. And I realize that's a pretty hard nosed position but that's how I feel.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Very good. Thanks.
AMENDMENT TO THE BF, FRINGE BUSINESS SECTION OF CITY CODE BY ADDING
ADDITIONAL PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES, FINAL READING.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: This item was tabled from your August 22nd meeting. Some Council members felt that some
of the uses such as the motor fuel station without car washes and cold storage and warehousing are not...in
nature and should not be permitted in the BF district. Staff did propose an amendment to the conditional uses
taking out the motor fuel stations without car washes and the cold storage and warehousing. If the City Council
approves this amendment, we are going to create two non-conforming uses. Legal non-conforming uses. This
would be the Sorenson Cold Storage Warehouse and the Progress Valley Mini-Storage. Now when this was...
just recently, they would be non-conforming. They would not be permitted to expand if in the future they should
discontinue the use for a length of one year, then the use would be permitted. And with that we are
recommending approval of the...
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I guess what you're saying is, by eliminating those two, then they become non-
conforming uses. Okay. Is there anyone wishing to address this at this time? Seeing none, Richard. I think
this is really what we basically have asked staff to come back with.
Councilman Wing: Yeah, I just didn't before now, I don't know why we're deleting some of these. I'd much
rather have a SuperAmerica station without no outdoor storage providing service down there than a used car lot
and we're allowing some rather interesting truck trailer, auto, sporting goods and boat sales and rental. Talk
about screening. Talk about neighbors. And we have no standards really to necessarily control them. Cold
storage and warehousing. They already exist. I just don't know why we're deleting them. I'm more worded
about standards down them than I am deleting so I guess I don't agree with this.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well we're allowing the cold storage and warehouse to continue. Truck trailer, all
of that is already an existing use as well. And why did we decide to delete number 17
3O
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Councilman Senn: Could I try to answer that because I think we were fairly deliberate in the discussion and
what it really comes down to is if you look at 2, 3 and 5, none of them require intensive capital improvements to
the property. Okay. If you look at 1 and 4, in both cases they require substantial capital improvements to the
property which make those uses longer term in nature and in definition than the other uses. The other uses are
interim uses because they effectively can be operated with little or no capital improvements. And that's really
the whole basis that we're going leaving our options open now to come back and relook at that area and see
what we want to do but not backing ourselves into a comer at the same time because one of my fears, like with
warehousing was, when you leave this open, I mean before we get a chance to address it, like what happens to
us so often in the past, we could end up putting half a dozen warehouses up down there and what are you going
to do about it. They're going to be there forever. I mean you build a building, geez. They're not going to sit
there and look to demo it in 10 years just because we want to do something different.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That helps, thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, but under the same, and I don't disagree with what you're saying but under the same
conditions, such as track trailer, auto, sporting goods or boat-sales or rental, they can also put up a building and
of course that building can be re-used for other things if they'd so choose to move out of it. But with the others,
and I think it stands pretty much hue, that once it goes in, it's going to remain as what it is.
Councilman Wing: What are utility services? Can you clarify that?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Isn't that like a water building or something?
Councilman Wing: Public utilities? Utility services.
Sharmin Al-Jaff: That would be like...building.
Mayor Chmiel: Switching station or whatever else.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't have any problem with the conditional uses.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Senn: Don, I agree with your point On 2. I thought...when we talked about it at the time but it just
seems to me, and I know maybe this is a poor assumption. I wish there was a way to kind of assure that it
would be something that would worked out but you kind of just assume that the operation that's going to go
down there as it would relate to those type of uses would not be one who's building an effectively, a brand
spanking new building or putting that kind of investment into it. But I know the question is how far can you
carry this in terms of it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Can I have a motion?
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
31
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the final reading of the City
Code Amendment to the BF, Fringe Business District by adding additional permitted, conditional and
interim uses. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
SHADOW RIDGE, 1420 AND 1430 LAKE LUCY ROAD (HARVEY/O'BRIEN):
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND FINAL READING OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE
PROPERTY FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR) TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF).
B__ APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AND PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, PROJECT 94-15.
Bob Generous: This item generally would be reviewed on the consent agenda. However, after meeting at the...
preliminary approval, you requested that it come back to assure that the developer showed...proposed
development. Staff has worked with the applicant throughout this process and he has been agreeable to
everything that we've suggested or recommended. We believe he does show the sensitivity and are
recommending that the final plat be approved. There are two, one change that I'd like to make on the conditions
of approval and in the development contract. Condition number 1 in the condition of approval that they provide
a 30 foot right-of-way easement at this time on Outlot A. We're requesting that this item be deleted since it's an
outlot status, when that comes in to be platted and we need the right-of-way, we'll pick it up at that time. And
the second thing, they have an easement agreement with the property owner to the east...so that would be delete
item 1 in the subdivision recommendations and item number 8(a), which is the same condition in the special
conditions of approval within the development contract.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is the applicant here?
Bill Coffman: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Bill Coffman. I'm with Coffman
Development, 5151 Edina Industrial Boulevard. As you're aware, we've been working...staff on trying to be as
sensitive to this site as feasibly possible as it relates to topography, wetlands and tree preservation. I do feel that
we have one heck of a nice little project going here. We're anxious to get going on it so at this point we agree
with all of staff's conditions for approval. I'll be available to answer any questions you may have at this time
and with me tonight I have Jerry Backman with Schoell and Madsen who is the consulting engineer on the
project. Oh and at this point, as Bob just mentioned, to protect the wetlands I already have installed some Type
III and Type I erosion control measures as specified in the grading plan which have been inspected by Bob just
the other day and I do believe he was quite impressed with the adequacy of the erosion control measures to
protect the wetlands. One thing I want to point out. This will be a subdivision of homes in the $300-
$450,000.00 price range so it behooves me to not only protect the wetlands and protect the trees, but also protect
the natural topographic features in order to get this level of housing so there is a method behind my madness in
being sensitive to the site. Enough of the sales pitch. If you have any more questions, I'll be available to
answer them.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Any questions? Richard.
Councilman Wing: No sir.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Condition 14 showing the type of house pads. Have we received those?
32
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Bob Generous: Yes we have. There was just one correction with the...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, I don't have any other questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
They showed full basements...
Councilman Mason: No. None.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Mark.
Councilman Senn: No, none either. Unless you do, I move approval.
Councilman Wing: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't have any either. Okay, I'd like to work this in two different ones. Giving the final plat
approval and final reading of the ordinance rezoning the property from rural residential to residential single
family RSF.
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
Councilman Wing: Second.
Councilman Senn: With those changes.
Mayor Chmiel: With the changes as indicated with item 1 and 8.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve Subdivision g94.4 and Rezoning 94-2
rezoning the property from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Single Family Residential, consistent with the
City's Comprehensive Plan, preliminary plat approval creating 17 lots and one outlot on 15.99 acres of
land, approve a 10 foot side setback variance from the 20 foot side setback requirement for flag lots for
Lots 5, 9, and 10, Block 1, and grant a variance of 10 feet from the 30 foot front setback requirement for
Lots 3 through 16, Block 1 to permit a twenty foot front setback, and a $ foot front setback variance from
the 30 foot setback requirement for Lot 2, Block I to permit a 25 foot setback, subject to the following
conditions:
The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity fee of $20,247 assuming 10.2 acres of
developable land. This fee has not included the weflancls on site or Outlot A. The applicant shall supply
the City with a letter of credit to cover the SWMP fees until the SWMP fees are finalized by the City
Council. ff there are any modifications to the fees, the developer will be charged accordingly.
2. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of all drain tiles found during construction.
Drain tile shall be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer.
3. The existing home on Lot 1, Block 1 will be required to connect to city water once the well on the property
fails.
33
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
4. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with
city and/or state codes.
The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial
security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements and compliance of the conditions of
approval.
All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's
Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility construction plans and specifications
shall be submitted to staff for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with f'mal plat
consideration.
7. The applicant shall apply for an obtain the necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Department
of Health, MPCA and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval.
Upon completion of site grading, all disturbed areas shall be restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-
fiber blanket within two weeks of completing the site grading unless the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All erosion control measures shall be in accordance to the City's
Best Management Practice Handbook.
9. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the city the utility and street improvements within the
public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership.
10. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The
city will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per
sign.
11. Pay park and trail fees as specified by city ordinance.
12. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around all fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes,
NSP, NW Bell, cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and
safely operated.
13. Revise the grading plan to show the type of house pads, using the City's standard house designations, and
lowest floor and garage elevations.
14. In conjunction with submittal of a building permit application for Lot 17, Block 1, the applicant shall submit
detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan subject to the Watershed District's approval prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
15.
Site grading may commence on the project in accordance to the approved plans after the applicant has
executed the development conWact for Shadow Ridge and provided the city with the necessary adminislration
fees, security deposit and Watershed approval.
16. The storm basin located on Lots 11, 12, 14, 15 and 17, Block 1 shall be designed at either 4:1 slopes overall
or 10:1 slopes for the fa-st 10 feet below the normal water level and 3:1 slopes thereafter.
34
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
17. Outlet A will not be subdividable or buildable until Yosemite Road is upgraded to the city's urban standard,
municipal sanitary sewer and water is extended adjacent to the parcel, and wetland setback and buffer area
issues are resolved.
18. A copy of the Woodland Management Plan shall be provided to every lot purchaser. The Woodland
Management Plan shall be complied within the development of the site and the individual lots.
19. A 25 foot front setback is allowed on Lot 2, Block 1 and a 20 foot front setback is granted on Lots 3
through 16, Block 1 to move the building pads away from the top of the slope and to preserve trees. The
applicant shall incorporate retaining walls and custom grading to assure that slopes and ire, es are minimally
impacted. Staff encourages the developer to incorporate bluff protection guidelines in the development.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Item (b). Approve Development Contract and plans and specifications, Project 94-15.
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the constructions plans and specifications
dated August 5, 1994, prepared by Schoell & Madson, Inc. and the Development Contract dated
September 12, 1994 be approved conditioned upon the following:
1. The applicant enter into the Development Contract and supply the city with a cash escrow or letter of credit
in the amount of $264,800 and pay an admirdstrafion fee of $14,643.
2. The applicant's engineer shall work with city staff in revising the c0nstmction plans to meet city standards.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT NO. 92-5 TO FILL APPROXIMATELY 1.55 ACRES OF 3
WETLANDS AS A RESULT OF THE RECONSTRUCTION OF COUNTY ROAD 17 BETWEEN TH 5
AND LYMAN BOULEVARD; REPLACEMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 1.55 ACRES OF WETLAND
WILL BE CREATED AND ADDITIONAL MITIGATION WILL INCLUDE THE RESTORATION OF A
DEGRADED WETLAND.
Todd Hoffman: Thank you Mayor, members of the Council. Filling in for Diane Desotelle. The reason for my
filling in would be that outside of the road right-of-way any filling and then mitigation of wetlands would take
place in the park...project. I have been involved both with Diane and the planning department... Briefly,
background. On May 18th of 1992 a wetland alteration permit application was presented to the City Council for
the reconstruction of County Road 17, Powers Boulevard. At that time the road project was denied by Council.
Thus the wetland alteration permit was not carded through. The City and the County have now entered into a
cooperative agreement to reconstruct County Road 17 because the road does not current meet state standards. As
a result of that roadway reconfiguration and expansion, 3 out of 4 bordering wetlands will be partially impacted
at tho rates of I acre, .15 acre and .4 acre for a total of 1.55 acres. To mitigate that, or in order to maximize
mitigation for both this project and for future projects, there will be 3 acres of newly created wetlands and
35
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
approximately 25 acres of restored wetlands, which will then, those credits will be banked for future projects.
Any specific questions in this regard I'll be happy to answer those. Charles and members of the planning staff
will be able to assist you. The Planning Commission did approve this on August 17, 1994...staff
recommendations. If you would like me to go through the specifics on the map, I will do that. If not, you have
the recommendations for you to consider.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Todd. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Makes sense to me.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: What do you have under the map?
Todd Hoffman: Nothing under it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh, I thought I saw drawings underneath it.
Councilman Wing: We want to see what's under there.
Todd Hoffman: City Hall expansion. To orient yourself, this intersection is Lyman Blvd and Powers so the
areas of filling will take place along this linear strip in this location and then two other locations north. What's
real exciting about this is what is being done to go ahead and mitigate that. The wetland which exists as far as
vegetation wetland which exists in this area will be improved through the excavation of approximately 3 acres in
this location making this portion of that wetland under water. A beaver recently dammed the drainage ditch
which mn into Lake Susan and this did create open water but it also flooded out the trail alignment and those
types of things so by excavating this out...still maintain that open water. We can still have the trail. This will
all be controlled by a dike system at this location. What the dike will do is back the water up into this
excavated pond and then also fill the 2 to 3 acres of wetland to a higher level than it currently is today so we're
actually going in reverse for once. We're actually creating a wetland rather than...
Councilman Wing: Where'd the beaver go?
Todd Hoffman: He moved to the other creek.
Councilman Mason: He didn't go to beaver heaven yet?
Councilman Senn: He was given relocation benefits.
Todd Hoffman: He moved to the inlet of Lake Susan so the pond you see right in front of Empak is now about
a foot higher. Maybe he's dammed that up so...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Does anyone have any questions? Can I have a motion?
Councilman Senn: So moved.
Councilman Wing: I'll second, yes indeed.
36
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. That was by Mike?
Councilman Mason: No, I believe by Mark f'u-st.
Mayor Chmiel: And who hit the second? Richard. I knew I heard your voice...
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the request for a Wetland Alteration
Permit g92-5 subject to the following conditions:
1. The replacement plan includes restoration to the existing Wetland A.
2. The design and construction specifications must be approved by the City before the project commences.
A wetland bank be established for the City and the County ff the wetland restoration creates more than the
required mitigation. Wetland banking credits cannot be deposited in the bank for a period of 6 months for
public value credits and one year for newly created wetland credits in order to prove that the mitigation was
successfully completed.
4. According to the WCA, the project cannot commence until 30 days after the City's decision has been
distributed to the parties notified of the application.
The County will monitor the replacement and restoration for a period of five (5) years as required by the
WCA. Monitoring forms will be completed and submitted to the City at the end of each growing season
with descriptions of the site vegetation, wetland types, and ground photos.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
SET 1994 TRUTH IN TAXATION MEETINGS AND RECOGNIZE MAXIMUM LEVY (SET
ADMINISTRATIVELY).
Don Ashworth: This item is composed of about three separate items. The setting of the math in taxation
hearing dates and establishing work sessions for the proposed budget and then finally acknowledging what it is
that staff is recommending for the taxation levels. Maybe it would help if we could stop after each kind of
section and maybe deal with that. As typical, the State of Minnesota has come up with all kinds of rules and
regulations as it deals with the troth in taxation hearing dates. There's 3 that need to be recognized. First is the
truth in taxation hearing date. That's your original hearing date where you're taking comments from the public
as to what they have to say about the budget. When I say optimum I really meant optional truth in taxation hear
date. And these, the dates I've shown, November 29, 30, December 3, which is a Saturday which is also
National League of Cities conference, are really the only 3 dates that haven't been taken by somebody else if
you exclude Fridays and Sundays. Then the next one that you have to pick is the continuation date. Now you
don't actually have to take and have that meeting. If you get everything done at the troth in taxation meeting,
you do not need to take and have the continued troth in taxation meeting, But you must set it at this time just
by chance that you don't get everything done at that truth in taxation meeting. Finally, you need to set what is
referred to as a subsequent meeting and it's that subsequent meeting where you would actually adopt the levy.
There's some additional rules as it applies to the number of days that must occur between the troth in taxation
hearing date and the continued hearing date but I guess we'll go through those as I hear from the Council as to,
are any of these dates acceptable?
37
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: What choice do we have?
Councilman Senn: Can I ask a question though? I thought when we did this Mickey Mouse last year we
decided we were going to set these earlier so we didn't do it again this year. I think we ended up with this same
time crunch last year in picking dates that were almost impossible for everybody to work around with the
holidays and everything else.
Don Ashworth: But see everybody else gets to choose ahead of you.
Councilman Senn: Why? Why can't we just choose earlier?
Don Ashworth: Oh, because under State law schools and counties take preference over you.
Councilman Senn: Oh, they get first pick?
Don Ashworth: They get fin'st pick.
Councilman Senn: Why don't we send them back a letter saying there's no dates we can meet then.
Don Ashworth: Then we're sent these notices. I think I included a copy from Carver County and Hennepin that
says, here are the dates that these other folks chose. You need to pick something other than these dates. It's not
our choice.
Mayor Chmiel: Tuesday, November 29th right after the Council meeting on November 28th or the 30th. Or
December 3rd, Saturday morning.
Councilman Wing: Do we get time and a half?.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Wing: Yes or no?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, you get time and a half because you just sit there. .-
Councilman Mason: Of course 1 1/2 times nothing is still nothing.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm fine with the 29th.
Councilman Mason: 29th works better for me.
Mayor Chmiel:
Don Ashworth:
Mayor Chmiel:
Councilwoman Dockendorf:
29th. What time? 7:30?
That's fine. 7:00 or 7:30.
Why don't we go 7:00.
That's frae.
38
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Councilman Wing: This is November 29th,
Councilman Senn: Why don't we just move the Council meeting to that night and do it all at once? Since the
28th's Hanukkah anyway.
Don Ashworth: City Council could do that. As far as I know you can.
Mayor Chmiel: Well ff you think when you see these agendas that there's sometimes too much, that could be
the case, especially going through that night and trying to get some of the other things accomplished. I'd say
we're better off to shoot for the 29th.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, that could take an hour or so. Or it could even go longer than that
Mayor Chmiel: You might have 500 people here.
Don Ashworth: Or 2.
Mayor Chmiel: Or 1.
Don Ashworth: Well if that's the case then, really any of the three dates would work. The continuation date
again, that's probably one that we won't hold but we've got to select it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Why don't we put it on December 7th because that's a good time to sink anything.
DOn Ashworth: Also 7:00 p.m.
Mayor Chmiel: Why don't we figure that at 7:00 p.m.
Don Ashworth: Then the subsequent meeting, I'm recommending that that be a part of your regular City
Council meeting. Hopefully we would have gotten through what I'll call all the flack portions in the two
meetings before that. But that's up to Council. You can select any date for that
Councilman Mason: Well that's what we've done in the past and it's worked awfully well.
Councilman Senn: ...are we meeting the 10th of October which is Columbus Day? I mean that's our normal
meeting night Has that been left alone?
DOn Ashworth: AS far as I know.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, it's not a legal holiday.
Councilman Senn: You guys don't get it anymore.
Councilman Mason: I've never had it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Are you planning on celebrating Mark?
39
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Councilman Senn:
Mayor Chmiel:
Don Ashworth:
Mayor Chmiel:
Don Ashworth:
Mayor Chmiel:
No, but I figured some people might be off here.
Okay, what was it for that last one now?
Oh subsequent...December 12th.
We'd have to set an earlier time because that's also Council meeting on December. 12th.
I envision having it just as part of the regular part of the agenda,
Okay, sounds gotxl. Then as to work session dates, City Council doesn't have to do those at
this point in time but we've included in the administrative section kind of a listing of what we had considered as
potential work dates. Normal work session dates. The original listing you had from a couple weeks ago showed
October 31st as a work session. That happens to be Halloween so we're assuming that your meeting with the
Planning, Engineering would occur on some date other than October 31st.
Councilman Wing: Not at my age.
Don Ashworth: The two of us though have a conflict.
Councilman Mason: Some of us do.
DOn Ashworth: So let's see. We're proposing October 17th. Is that alright for a f'trst work session?
Mayor Chmiel: October 17th, sounds good.
DOn Ashworth: November 7th.
Mayor Chmiel: Don't go too quick here.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: Early and plenty of food. Happy Gardens.
Mayor Chmiel: What time on October 7th.
Don Ashworth: Well October 17th. And I would propose that as a pizza thing so 5:30-6:00.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Happy Gardens.
DOn Ashworth: Happy Gardens.
Mayor Chmiel: Where are we going to meet?
Don Ashworth: Probably the courtyard. What would you prefer, 5:30-6:00?
Councilwoman Dockendoff: 5:30.
40
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Councilman Wing: Don, could we establish the menus fa-st and then pick the dates second? I agree with Mike,
I think it's inappropriate to have Happy Gardens that night. Pizza seems, I mean this is our f~t work session.
October 17th at 5:30. Okay, and then November 6th.
Mayor Chmiel: November what was the other work session?
Don Ashworth: Well I jumped to number 7 which is, we're recommending as November 7th and that also
would be 5:30 and how about your, do you want to pick eats.
Councilman Mason: Some of as have the potential to be awfully busy that evening Mr. Ashworth.
Councilman Wing: What is it?
Councilman Mason: The day before the general election. I mean I don't know. Maybe that shouldn't be an
issue but.
Councilman Wing: Well move it up a little bit.
Don Ashworth: Or move it hack.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: How about the 9th.
Councilman Mason: You know at that point...I don't care. The 7th is fine.
Mayor Chmiel: Let's go the 7th.
Don Ashworth: Then, is there a night somewhere between October 17th and November 7th or would you like to
see me have the department heads, so I could re-orient this and put planning up into the first session and
engineering into the second.
Councilman Wing: We don't have enough time to do that. It's always a fiasco.
Don Ashworth: Paul's gone.
Councilman Wing: But Todd is still here.
Don Ashworth: Alright, would you like to pick a date somewhere between? How about somewhere around
October 31st? November 1st or 2nd.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: The fa-st is fine.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, let's go November 1. 5:30?
Don Ashworth: 5:30 and you've got, anybody want to select a menu on that one?
Councilman Mason: I'm guessing you won't say Happy Garden again.
41
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Don Ashworth: Okay, the third item is, Council really doesn't need to act on unless you are totally in
disagreement with what staff has presented. What I did is I find this becomes a very difficult process because
1/3 of our revenues still aren't known. The expenses. I have not seen depamnental requests as far as what
we're looking at. I know that the fire department is putting a big push on in terms of fke equipment that they're
using for several years. Again, I haven't seen our equipment listing back from the other departments but if this
were put into the notice, the most you should really see is approximate 1% to 2% increase in general property
taxes as a result of literally adopting this. And I know the Mayor, I'm anticipating that he'll continue to take
and say Don, we've got to get this so it's 0 but I really am this year looking to putting in a dedicated 2%
revenue for fire department equipment replacement.
Councilman Wing: Don, it says in here see attached schedule prepared by the fire department for equipment
needs and it's not in here.
Don Ashworth: I know it. I was kicking myself afterwards that I didn't get that in there. I could run upstairs
and make a copy of it but anyway, what the fire department has done is they've given me a listing of all of their
equipment and what we're going to be looking at, at least a recommendation back to them as far as replacing
that equipment or refurbishing it during the next 10 year period of time. The total bill on that comes up to $2
million so if somehow or another we were able to put away approximately $200,000.00 per year, we could
reasonably assure that we could replace equipment as it started to, well refurbish or replace more equipment.
Many of the items are earlier year items, so in other words I think we've got what, two tankers in there Dick
that need replacement. Or at least more major wofl~ in what I'I1 call the next 3 year period of time.
Councilman Wing: Well yeah, the city has never faced up to this schedule before and we've got 1970 trucks
that simply are going off the road. Pure and simple and I don't care where the money comes from, those trucks
are going.
Don Ashworth: The last time we funded a truck out of what I'll call the general fund, was in 1986, All
equipment replacement for the fire department since that time such as the aerial ladder truck, was actually put as
a referendum item. It was such a big ticket item. $600,000-$700,000 but anyway, that's kind of the push that
we'll, that I'll be making as a part of some of this budget work session thing. Again, I really think if we simply
use the numbers here at least for truth in taxation purposes. So in other words, when you get the truth in
taxation notice, unless you had seen a valuation increase, the most that you should see as far as the city portion
increase would be 1% to 2% if this schedule here is approved. And again, the City Council would have the right
during the notice hearings to cut back on the proposed levy. So after we meet with the department heads you
feel as though there's certain areas where we can carry out cuts, the Council's free to do that. However, if
during the budgetary process it's determined that the senior citizens come in and they've got some type of a
request that none of us have been anticipating on September 12th of 1994, we have absolutely no way to
increase the levy to accommodate that request from the senior citizens, from the fire department, from public
works, from wherever it comes from. So I think that the budget that I've prepared or the level that we again
have set administratively, is a level that you reasonably can work within and if the seniors come before you and
they need whatever, that we'll be able to fund it. That we can handle the fire department type of request. Again
it doesn't require action by the Council but if you wanted me to go walk through a little further in terms of why
we had set certain levies like special revenue, $180,000.00 or the equipment. The equipment's a response I just
gave but again realize that those numbers, in all likelihood change significantly between now and when you
finally adopt a budget. Again you don't need to take an action unless you want to take one to I guess I'd call
counter the position that's being presented by staff.
42
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Well I think we're probably a little too early to move on something like that right now until we.
Don Ashworth: And this does provide a means by which the City Council, if you get questions or calls you
know you can say, staff had to set that under State law. That's the amount that will go in the notices but we
have not seen any budget requests and up until that point in time we don't know what we're going to be able to
cut and what we're not going to be able to cut.
Councilman Senn: I'm just curious, why do we do it that way? I mean do we every year do we find ourselves
in the situation where we have to send out the maximum allowable levy?
Don Ashworth: Well we couM have set it. ff you wanted me to do that I would have set it 10% higher than
what I did set it at. I mean I set it at approximately a no property tax increase level and I think I'm still giving
you some flexibility in working through the budget process. But if I really wanted just to set it, we could have
set it at 20% higher or 30%.
Councilman Senn: What's the maximum allowed?
Don Ashworth: There isn't any. When you got your notice at home you could have been seeing where the city
portion was doubling. But then I think if you do that type of thing, then every Council member's phone is
ringing and everybody's saying, well this is absurd. You can't adopt something like this and then you'd come
back and say, well they just did that staff wise. Don't worry, we'll cut it in half. You know. I mean why play
those games.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and we're not playing games so ! guess I don't disagree. Okay. Everybody set with
that? Alright. We'll move on to, are you done now with all of your's.
Don Ashworth: Yep.
Resolution g94.96: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adopt the proposed
maximum property tax levy in an amount of $4,310,000.00 and set the Truth in Taxation dates for
November 29, 1994, continuation date for December 7, 1994 and the subsequent meeting for December 12,
1994. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel We'll move on to item number 11. Council Presentation. I just want to go over this
establishment of a Centennial Committee. As everybody is well aware of the fact that, and if you aren't, we're
going to become 100 years old in 1996 and that's coming up very soon as well. Too quick. But anyway,
having the cities proclamation as we have on this agenda gave me the opportunity to poll councilmembers in
advance preparing this centennial proclamation that I would be doing for September 26th, upcoming council
meeting of this year. Specifically I'd like to be able to announce that we'll be establishing a centennial
committee and invite members of the public to submit their names to councilmembers, myself or City Hall if
they wish to serve. Again I'd like to achieve a consensus of the City Council that this is the way we should be
proceeding for our centennial celebration versus simply assigning the work task to the Park Commission or some
other group. I'd really like to see our centennial celebration be a year long celebration encompassing various
activities from the beginning of the year and throughout the year and I guess with that I'd like to find out you
know basically what your thoughts are. And in order to really accomplish this we have to have a massive
43
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
volunteer kind of help to go through. I think we can plan big. If we have to cut back, fine. We may have to
cut back but I'd like to see something done for that one full year of '97. Richard.
Councilman Wing: As long as I don't have to wear a beard, I'm up for it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Wing: Well that happened last time...Frontier Days we had to go to jeans and beards. No more of
that. I think it's a great idea.
Mayor Chmiel: No, no. We don't need that. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess as long as I don't have to wear a diaper.
Mayor Chmiel: You know how to work those diapers too now.
Councilman Wing: By the way, the year long is a great idea but I'd like to see a real centralized big event at
some point here. Is that what you're thinking?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Like 4th of July maybe.
Councilman Mason: Whenever the date that we became whenever.
Councilman Senn: What is the date?
Mayor Chmiel: The actual date of the incorporation of this city was, oh boy. I forgot exactly.
Councilman Mason: It was about a I00 years ago though I understand.
Mayor Chmiel: Just pretty close.
Councilman Mason: I think it's a great idea. I'd like to see somebody undertake writing a history of the city.
Mayor Chmiel: We're going to be going through that.
Councilman Mason: I know there's a, and I don't know the name and I can get it. A woman did it in Eden
Prairie and it's pretty remarkable. It's pretty interesting reading, and I'm sure the one in Chanhassen would be
more interesting so that would be fun. I think it's a great idea.
Mayor Chmiel: ...the actual date.
Don Ashworth: 1 think that there's probably more than one date because I. think it's registered with both the
County and the State, right? I know that...when I had seen, I can't remember which of the two certifications but
that was right around July.
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Make it with July 4th.
Mayor Chmiel: Oh, we could really have a fun time. We'll start a little earlier. Okay. So we'll move ahead
with that and hopefully if everyone's going to be tuned to this within the city, and I can't imagine anybody
sitting and watching council meetings but we need your help. Alright. Richard. You had.
Councilman Wing: Yes Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I've been repeatedly watching these come before
us and it all started to really bother me when one of our windows that the University of Minnesota pointed out
repeatedly went to what I'll call block houses. The word appalling has been used and a major landform within
our city was wiped out in one swoop and replaced with, and none of us saw it coming. At least I didn't so I
continue to read these and then I see the school go in and the rolling landscape disappeared before my eyes and
then Ken Dun' comes out to Lake Minnewashta, which I approved readily. All the houses built along the ridge
line, well the ridge line is gone. It's now a flat parcel of land and everybody's sitting there saying, what
happened? Who approved that? Well I did. Why did I approve it? We just approved this tonight. Can
anybody tell me exactly what the grading plan's going to be? Are they leveling this? Is it all staying the same?
There's two different lines here. One's what's there and one's what's proposed so this one happens to be pretty
good. This one maintains landforms. Another one's coming up that we approved that absolutely sickens me.
I'm just upset. It's too late. And I didn't understand it enough to react back then but Lundgren Bros bought a
piece of property on the western end of the city at Lake St. Joe and that is one of the most pristine,
environmentally sensitive areas in the city minus the bluff area. And you look out across Lake St. Joe and
there's a hill and the world disappears and then it goes into some vegetation. And what we approved is the
decimation of that hill. It's gone. It doesn't matter. It's already final plat. Well, so my point I'm trying to
make here is, we're giving away the store. We're approving things we really don't understand on the grading
issue. I think we need to talk a slope ordinance. I'm not saying we want to be overly restrictive but I think we
need to understand what we're doing. But more important from this time on, ! want to recommend to Council
and staff that we start asking for what the ordinance says we can have. I want sketches, models. I want
elevations. I want grading plans. As a layman I want to be able to sit here and see exactly what we're
approving. I don't want messed up lines on some $3.00 blueprint. I want to see what's happening to those hills
and that terrain and our environment. I don't want to give away the store anymore and we have to start, within
reason, and Mark can maybe define this better than I can, within reason. Develop our remaining property in a
reasonable fashion and not allow it to be just graded fiat anymore. I think there's certainly a lot of give and take
here and there's a lot of gray areas but I want to know what I'm giving away from now on and that means
everybody's got to start showing me exactly where the land's being moved. Another one coming up is the Ryun
property. Those enormous hills overlooking the entire city, I'm not so sure I want to see that hill dumped down
into the valley. I may not be able to control it but at least I want to know what I'm giving away. Not give it
away and then say, what in the devil did we do. So this is really troubling me greatly. This city is so unique
and I don't want to see development just come in and pave the thing and that's happening. So if we're going to
pave it, if we're going to level it, I want to do it knowingly. And if we don't want to do it, then I want to be
able to address what we would like to do. And it may, that's enough. I got my point across. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike.
Councilman Mason: Two quick things. Orr-Scherlen-Mayer and Associates have been doing the reconstruction
and utility improvements for Chan Estates. This is their eighth resident update letter and I quite honestly think it
speaks to OSM and I think it speaks to the city of Chanhassen for how well we are trying to communicate with
the community when things like this take place. I hope this gets passed on to OSM. They've been doing this
consistently and I'm glad to see that. The second thing I brought up was with trees. My brother happened to be
45
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
over the other night. He's done a lot of work with nature conservancy in Sierra Club. He saw the letter, the
community letter which he thought was really good but he kind of started choking when he saw hackberry on the
list. And I think we should look into it. According to Sierra Club, hackberry is a very invasive tree and it does
have a tendency to take over and if staff finds out that that's the same, I'd like to see that deleted from the list.
That's it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you.
Councilman Wing: Boy that one was discussed at length. Edina's planting almost nothing but hackberry right
now because of it's sturdiness and it's...
Councilman Mason: It's very sturdy but it's also very invasive.
Councilman Wing: I'm all for you. Good for you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Let's go to the Administrative Presentations.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
A. NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES CONFERENCE, DECEMBER 1-4, 1994, POLL COUNCIL FOR
REGISTRATION, CITY MANAGER.
Don Ashworth: National League of Cities is December 1st through the 4th. It's here in Minneapolis. I was
wondering how many, are there any Councilmembers who would like to take and be registered for thaff If so,
I'd get a hold of you later as far as working out registration but is anyone thinking about going at this point in
time and being registered?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Don Ashworth: So I should be planning on registering the entire council.
Councilman Mason: There are some things on education and working with the schools and city government and
I, being a teacher, I feel kind of a responsibility to check some of that stuff out so.
DOn Ashworth: I'm assuming we don't need the housing forms.
B. SENIOR HOUSING/CITY HALL EXPANSION, SET NEXT WORK SESSION DATE, CITY
MANAGER.
DOn Ashworth:
Mayor Chmiel:
Senior housing and the City Hall expansion.
How come we combined them?
Councilman Senn: I was going to say the same thing. How come they're combined? We've got to uncombine
them. Let's finish senior housing f'n'st.
Don Ashworth: Is that what the Council would prefer to do?
46
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think we have to deal with them both. Probably not the same night though.
Councilman Senn: No, no. I'm not saying we don't have to deal with them but we've already started the
process on senior housing. I'd like to get it done and finish it.
Don Ashworth: WouM you like to set a next date? We're done with those items that you sent back to us. You
said work out a purchase agreement with the owner. We'd bring back a pefforma specific to Chanhassen.
Those have been completed and I'd like to bring back a sample construction management agreement and just see
what you think about that.
CouncUman Mason: How long do you see that taking?
Don Ashworth: I don't think it will be that long. I think we could get that done in an hour, hour and a half.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd also like to see us make sure that we notify the residents in that area informing them as to
what's being proposed so they're well aware.
Don Ashworth: You want them to attend the work session?
Mayor Chmiel: Fine. I don't care. But I'd just like to see some notice given to those people. Because we had
a lot of discussion from them in regard to the proposal that went in just recently.
Don Ashworth: Then we probably will have seniors who will probably attend. We probably shouldn't set it
then as a meal type of thing. I think that got a little.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's tacky.
Councilman Senn: Well unless you invite them for dinner.
Councilman Wing: I don't want to delay the City Hall expansion. I think we need to meet and talk about that.
And maybe that isn't necessarily really...
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think we have to set something to just look at it and see what it is and what amounts
we might even have to get into just from our standpoint.
DOn Ashworth: Did the council have an opportunity to look at my comments in regards to KKE and their
process of doing space analysis things and that type of process could really provide you with some information.
I don't want to come into a work session and I don't have anything to show you. I think showing these model
type of things that's, we shouldn't be doing that. I think the space need analysis makes a whole lot more sense.
Councilman Mason: Well it sounds like a good fLrst step.
Councilman Senn: I think the space needs analysis makes sense but I'd also like to see an analysis of the use of
the existing space along with it. In other words I don't want to see you come in and say, here's the needs
analysis in terms of where we're going. I'd like him to re-examine how the space is used now and can it be
used more efficiently or what should go, what should come, etc. Where are the things that logically should go
so it can come versus in construction, etc.
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Don Ashworth: As I understand their proposal, that's exactly what they would propose doing but I guess we'll
have to wait and see whether or not specifically, I think it's meeting what you're saying. I hope I'm hearing
what you're saying.
Councilman Wing: Don, I'd request that you separate these two out and let's meet with senior housing as
quickly as we can. I'm willing to give up whatever time is necessary on that for an evening meeting, assuming
it's going to take an hour and a half. But on the City Hall expansion, ff I could make a suggestion and my
preference would be we simply, if we have a consensus on the Council, we turn Don Ashworth loose to begin
pursuing this in earnest and start gathering the information and the studies and the plans and ideas and set a
work date for us to get going on this but I agree. All I need to do is say I think we need this. I support this
and why don't you get going on it and I don't need to argue this out anymore. I mean there's no reason to meet
unless we have some ideas and thoughts. So if there was a motion to be made, it would be that we meet senior
housing promptly. Separate City Hall expansion with the support of Council to move ahead on that proposal.
Or give me a better word that you're comfortable with. Not proposal but City Hall.
Mayor Chmiel: Expansion.
Councilman Senn: Well Dick, if you're looking at me, I'm not comfortable with basically saying let's go ahead
with studying the City Hall expansion. I would like to study both the City Hall expansion and the possibility or
more effectively utilizing the existing City Hall.
Councilman Wing: Well I agree, yeah.
Councilman Senn: So if we do not need an expansion.
Councilman Mason: Aren't I hearing that's what this group would be doing?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think we're all saying the same thing.
Mayor Chmiel: We have to look at the needs no matter.
DOn Ashworth: Did you want to select a date for senior housing?
Councilman Senn: On the senior housing, we kind of left it quick there, ff you're going to bring a draft
construction management agreement, I'd also like you to bring in a draft RFP for those services.
DOn Ashworth: Okay.
Councilman Senn: As well as probably ongoing management which is going to be part of it.
Don Ashworth: Okay. I can do all three.
Councilman Wing: That's possible this early?
Councilman Senn: Yeah. If we're ready to put together a management agreement, we should be...who can do it.
48
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Don Ashworth: I think we'd be ready as early as next Monday if the City Council wanted to do that.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: Fine with me.
Don Ashworth:
Mayor Chmiel:
DOn Ashworth:
The 19th.
We're not here? Oh that's right, we are gone.
Okay, we'll have to come up with another date.
How about, what's the 26th? That's a regular Council.
Do we have anything, did we already
do October 3rd?
Councilman Mason: No, how about the 3rd of October and we'll just be here every Monday that month. What
the heck.
DOn Ashworth: We didn't pick that for a budget work session date did we?
Councilman Mason: No we did not.
Mayor Chmiel: Let's try to have it a little earlier because sometimes if you're going to have seniors here, they
like to get home before it gets too dark.
Don Ashworth: So are you saying 5:30-6:00?
Councilman Wing: You know, if we could make it 5:30, it might save me being thrown off the fire department.
That means a dinner situation though.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: Not necessarily. Skip dinner, jUst starve.
Mayor Chmiel: Where are we going to have that?
DOn Ashworth: I think we'll have to meet here.
Mayor Chmiel: Hey, I got a better idea. Will they have that facility, will they be using their facility that night?
Don Ashworth: Would you like to put it in there?
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to go over into their area just for a change.
Councilman Wing: Don, why don't we just have one of those cold cut plates with coffee. Then we can just
have a snack and coffee and that's really simple. Keep it real basic.
Councilman Senn: What you could do is let the seniors prepare it. They love to do that. They really do. Just
let them plan something.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's move along here going back to the Consent Agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA:
49
City Council Meeting - September 12, t994
(F). CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MODIFICATION OF THE PLAN FOR TAX
INCREMENT DISTRICT NO. 24, AND (O). SET 1994 BOND SALE DATE.
Councilman Senn: I have to I guess kind of look at (f) and (o) collectively because they effectively deal with
the same thing. I have to say I don't like the idea of setting the public hearing for Monday, September 26th.
That night on this issue and at the same time receiving the final bids the day of September 26th, which
effectively is in receipt of the sale of the bonds. I mean it kind of seems like we're holding the public hearing
after we're selling the bonds. Unless, and I'm sure there's probably some very good reason, last minute again
but it just seems to me we ought to hold the public hearing and then you ought to have the sale bond ordered or
the bids for the bond sale ordered after the public hearing is done and Council has had a chance to consider it.
Don Ashworth: The City Council should be aware of the fact that we did hold a public hearing and we did
announce what the costs would be for the road and for the community center. That was nearly one year ago.
The bond approving attorney, and so the plan amendment was actually made. But his interpretation is, you held
those hearings but now when you're going to actually sell the bonds, you've got to take and call for a second
hearing that says we've already told everybody what it's going to cost, now we're doing the hearing that would
actually say we're selling the bonds. And we could make sure that that public hearing occurred in advance of
the bond sale. But Mark would be correct, they would be on the same date. The way to avoid that would be to
take and have the hearing on the 26th and then the sale on the 10th. But we've kind of geared everything up for
the sale on the 26th. MacGillivrey thinks we've got a good window in the market and putting it off for another
2 weeks, I mean if we had never gone through a hearing and if we had never told people how much each of
these things were going to cost. ff we wouldn't have been, have given them literally a one year period of time
to protest it, then I could fully agree with what Mark is saying. But again, we did do all those hearings.
Councilman Senn: I thought the hearing we did last time related to the sale of the '93 bonds. And then we had
an estimated budget for some of the rest of the stuff.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't recall that~ I don't think that's fight.
Don Ashworth: When we did the last plan amendment we had to include in there the description of what it was
we were doing, which was the two items. The frontage road and the community center, and we had to put a
cost associated with each. And wasn't that nearly a year ago?
Todd Gerhardt: The last amendment that...was one year ago in October. You modified the plan. At that time
we made the decision to go ahead with the acquisition of the land for the school. Included in there were $1
million for road improvements. $2.3 million for recreational facilities and at that time you also amended your
budget to include $680,000.00 for the Audubon Road project, which we sold bonds. That was the only
amendment that you made for bond... Also in there was land acquisition...
Councilman Senn: Okay, so that left out the $2 million in project costs then. Because what you've got here
now totals $6 million.
Todd Gerhardt: With the plan that we'll be coming back to you will be an amendment to this plan to include an
additional $2 million for that portion of the frontage road that will be assessed against benefitting properties.
So...decision will occur but it will be dollars that potentially could be picked up if they took advantage of our tax
increment by...
50
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Councilman Senn: Okay, so I mean it's assessed back but they turn around and are given basically through the
TIF. Okay but the total project costs now related to the new school is $6 million then. And that's even
counting all of your Audubon stuff.
Todd Gerhardt: The new cost associated with the school, the recreational facilities, the construction of...the shell
of the building is $2.3 million. The road costs, frontage road costs back against the school project is...and then
you've got land acquisition of roughly $600,000.00.
Councilman Senn: And then you've got the $2 million in costs that's going to be assessed back and you have
the $700,000.00 of land acquisition in the first place. Yeah, 680 or.
Todd Gerhardt: And yes you've got $2 million but it's not really, the rest of the road isn't associated with the
school. It's associated, we were pefitoned by Chan Business Center to extend that road...so it's really a petition
from them to extend that road. Those are not costs associated with the school property. First phase road
construction begins at the school and that's approximately a million dollars. The second phase...about $2
million...
Councilman Senn: We're paying the entire million of the road over by the school? The school's not
participating in that?
Todd Gerhardt: It's a shared.
Councilman Senn: According to this budget they're not.
Don Ashworth: Correct. We're picking up the assessments associated with both the park property and the school
property...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other questions?
Councilman Senn: No. Again, I don't have a problem calling for the public hearing but I'd like the public
hearing to be separate from the bond sale date.
Mayor Chmiel: Well if everything is geared accordingly and it still, as Don indicated, everything has been held
properly, I don't see that really as a problem.
Councilman Senn: Well if it was held properly, why is another public hearing required?
Don Ashworth: If the Council will remember, I mean typically the bond sale item is a 5 or 10 minute item,
except if the Council has questions of MacGillivrey and what not but I mean typically he just reads the bids that
were received. If Council wanted to just have the regular meeting on September 26th and then have a special
meeting that would deal only with the bond sale let's say at 4:30 or 5:00 or whenever we could get 3
conncilmembers together, it would be a 5 minute item. It'd be very similar to our canvasing voting polling.
Councilman Senn: Well if it doesn't concern anybody else, it's kind of silly to keep talking about it so if it's
just me, you guys go ahead and do it.
51
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: I guess if he feels that it's a comfortable time on the market to make the application for those
bonds, rather than delay it another 2 more weeks and have an increase on that, I guess I'm all for proceeding
with it now. Okay, would you like to move that?
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I will. I'll move that. Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Is that both (f) and (o) Don?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I imagine that's part of the other parc
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution g94-97: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Mason seconded to call for the public hearing on
September 26, 1994 for the Modification of the Plan for Tax Increment District No. 2-1. All voted in
favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Resolution g94-98: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Mason seconded to set the 1994 Bond Sale Date
for September 26, 1994. Ail voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried
with a vote of 4 to 1.
G. RATE REGULATION, CABLE TV, ORDER ROLL-BACK OF RATES.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Todd, this is for you. I don't have cable so I don't understand different rates but ff
they take off this Encore, they get a $4.00 reduction and will they, what happens if they take off Encore? I
mean is there any additional services that they would not.
Don Ashworth: They would just lose Encore. At issue though is, and Councilman Senn had called me earlier
today kind of asking a similar question. That is, will our citizens even know about it and I think we maybe
should take and get an article in the newspaper that makes them aware that if you decide to do something in
terms of we effectively receive rate regulations and reduction in rates and a roll-back and then go through this, if
you currently have Encore, if you would now drop that, you can get a $4.00 reduction in your monthly rates.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's why I pulled it.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that was something at one time when they were doing that and you are probably aware of
the fact that I asked them to no longer canvas the city because of the fact, the way they were selling it was not
the proper way of doing it. And they did stop that. Okay, would you like to move that?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I'd move approval reflecting that Dean do publish something to that effect.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution g94-99: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the rate
regulations for Cable TV, ordering the roll back of rates and that the Villager publish an article to that
effect notifying the public. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
52
City Council Meeting - September 12, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Can I have a motion for adjournment?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to adjourn the meeting.
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:27 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
All vol~d in favor and the
53