CC Minutes 1994 01 10CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 10, 1994
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Senn, Councilman Iviason and Councilwoman
Dockendorf. Councilman Wing arrived prior to item 3 on the agenda,
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Todd Hoffman, Paul IG-auss, Kate
Aaneason, Sharmin AI-Jaff, Charles Folch and Steve Kirchman
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the
agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
PRESENTATION OF MAPLE LEAF AWARD TO CRAIG BLECHTA. PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMISSION.
Mayor Chmieh I'd like to make a presentation to Craig. It's my pleasure this evening to award Craig Blechta
with the Maple Leaf Award in recognition of 6 years he has served on the Public Safety Commission. During
this time Craig has served as Assistant Chair and also Chairman of the Commission. Craig has been involved
with significant events that the Public Safety Commission has addressed including the development of the animal
control contract program and the police contract system. Both of which have received national attention. In
addition to devoting at least one night each month for the past 6 years to Public Safety Commission meetings,
Craig continues to serve on the Chanhassen Fire Department, all of which exemplify why we are pleased to
present him with the Maple Leaf Award. And I'd like to give you this Craig. As it indicates here, the City of
Chanhassen Maple Leaf Award presented to Craig Blechta, Chanhassen Public Safety .Commission 1989 through
1993. In recognition of dedicated public service to the city of Chanhassen from the City of Chanhassen Council.
I congratulate you. Thank you.
Craig Blechta: Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor, members of the Council and ladies and gentlemen. I'm very
honored to accept this award tonight. The last 6 years that I've served on the Public Safety Commission have
been very gratifying to me. This time that I've spent has taught me to really appreciate the complexities of
managing a public safety department. The time served has also brought about a respect for the many fine people
that I've had an opportunity to work with. People such as Mayor Chmiel, Don Ashworth, the members and staff
of the Public Safety Commission and the Public Safety Department. I'd be remised ff I did not thank two other
people in particular. First is a good friend that could not be here tonight. I'm sorry. I have the deepest respect
for ScoU Hart. Scott is a man who has given a lot of himself to provide the very best Public Safety Department
that a community could hope for. Thank you Scott. Second is my wife Patty who is with me tonight Without
her understanding and support I would no~ be standing in front of you tonight. Thank you once again for the
great honor. It's really appreciated Don.
PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION, BARBARA MONTGOMERY. SENIOR
COMMISSION.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Craig. I have another presentation to make this evening. Barbara Montgomery,
would you come forward please. Barbara Montgomery joined the Senior Needs Task Force in lune of 1990.
She volunteered for the project hoping to use her social service .~kill.~ developed during her professional career.
She was heavily involved in the project which set the stage for the city's future efforts in meeting the needs of
our mature resiclgnts. Thgy had anotl~r word h~r~ and ! didn't like it In ~anuary of 1991 Barbara was
appointed by the City Council to the newly created Chanhassen Senior Commission. She was elected as it's first
Chairperson and served in that position for 2 years. In '93 she relinquished her role as Chair but continued to
serve as a commissioner, Also in 1993 she was awarded for being the Senior Citizen of the Year by the
Chanhassen Chamber, which is a great award for you. She is tenacious in following through on senior issues.
Her dedication and commitment tins been insmamentaI in the Senior Commission achieving goals such as
consm~ction of the Senior Center, improving public transit for seniors and establishing Senior Linkage Line
which is an informational and referral program. Although she is leaving the commission, we are certain that the
community will continue to benefit from her efforts. I know we already have. Thank you Barbara. And I'd
like to present tiffs award also to you as a Certificate of Appreciation. Be it hereby ordained that the Chanhassen
City Council has officially acted to recognize Barbara Montgomery for the dedication and public service offered
to the citizens of our community as Chanhassen Senior Citizen Commission. Further that the City Council has
hereby placed into the official Minutes this recognition as a lasting expression of the gratitude of this city fat the
service you provided,
Barbara Montgomery: Thank you. I guess I should really say something, although I'll be quick. I really have a
lot to thank all of you for. I think it's been a wonderful city to be involved with. I'm so pleased to be part of a
community that really cares about it's senior population. And if you each add 10 years, et maybe 15 years to
your current age and that of your parents, you know the bell tolls for all of us. It's not just for me. Or for the
seniors. We're hying the ground work and you axe now for what's going to be happening not very far down the
road. And I think it's wonderful what you've been doing. I don't know of a community that's been more
supportive and I thank you very, very much. And I thank especially Sharmin Al-Jaff and Paul Krauss. They '
have been just, I don't know to put it but they have worked very hard and overcome a lot of obstacles for us.
And I think all of us seniors are very grateful. Thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: It's always a fun thing to do to combine these kinds of recognitions to our citizens who have
really gone far beyond their responsibilities to a community and it's neat to have these kinds of People here.
Thank you,
ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS:
Don Ashworth: Thank you. Would you like me to go through all of them?
Mayor Chmiel: Right~
Don Ashworth: Okay. Rules of Procedure. The documents under which the City Council transacts it's business.
The rules are primarily the same as the City Council operated under this past year. Minor change was made as
it dealt with the consent agenda basically establishing the procedure that the Council's currently following.
Official newspaper. We did have two requests, Minnesota Sun as well as the Villager. However, the City
Attorney has taken the position that State law requires that a city designate the paper. If you have a newspaper
in your city, you must make that designation. Accordingly, we're recommending the Villager. Official
Depository. We've received a request from Kevin McShane to continue having Chanhassen State Bank operate
as the depository for the City. We're again making that recommendation. We noted in the recommendation that
the City attempts to obtain the best earnings as poss~le for our investment portfolio and accordingly, there are
various fa'ms that are used as a part of actual investment transactions. We're also requesting that we add an
additional name onto the required signature list, just given the size of our city and how we continue to grow. As
to City Attorney, we're recommending that Campbell, Knutson, Scott and Fuchs continue to be appointed in that
area. I might make a side note that I have really appreciated the work that Roger's office has done for our city,
They are very timely in their responses. They give very sound advice. I have yet to see us lose a ease in court.
They continue to win every one of those, and I think they continue to be very cost effective for us. Again,
Campbell, Knutson, Scott is being recommended. Bond consultant In a similar fashion I feel that Springsted
2
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
has done a very good job for the city. You're aware of the fact that they had recommended several issues this
past year for refunding. That was a savings of approximately $500,000.00. This year, in February, another 30
days, you'll be seeing another group of refundings and that will be a similar $500,000.00 savings. They continue
to work the account very well. Acting Mayor. Staff makes no recommendation. This is an item that the
Council needs to discuss and make the decision on. We~l Inspector. The Mayor is officially the weed inspector
under State law. Typically {he Council has acted to select Deputy Weed Inspector, Bob Zydowsky. He
continues to be willing to serve in that capacity. Fire Chief. The Fire Department made a reccnnmendation or
held elections and they're recommending that Jim McMabon be appointed for a new 2 year tenn. And finally
Health Officer. We have been using Dr. MeColhm. We continue to wui:~ that recommendation... However I
should note that we have not been able to catch up with Dave and so we do not have his agreement that he
would serve in that capacity. We'd recommend that the Council make that appointment but with the
understanding that he conf'uTa that. City Auditors. This is the second of a three year conWaet with Deloitte.
They a very, very fine firm but if we were going to consider a change, this would probably be the time to do it.
And I think that it's reasonable policy to take proposals on this type of thing every so often and this might be a
good time to do that. You may want to table it. Have it part of a work session. You may want to, however the
Council wishes to handle that item but again this might be a good time to look at fresh proposal process, and
potentially Deloitte would come to the top of the surface again but again it might be a good time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Don. We have what the rules of procedures are and all of the balance of the
others. One that we have as Acting Mayor. I would like to nominate Mike Mason as Acting Mayor for this
coming year. In ad_dition to the City Auditor, I've had some discussions with Don. There seems to be some
concerns of our ex~tihg auditor but I thought possibly that we should sit down and discuss this with them prior
to coming to a decision as to who we're going to have and see if we can get some of those things corrected and
as he said, Deloitte and Touche have done an exceptional job for us. But I would like to get that opportunity to
sit down with him and with them and come up with a conclusion to make sure that they follow through a little
differently than what was transpired in the last year. Only because it does put us behind and it puts them behind
and it causes some problems. So with that, I would like to table the auditors until we l~ve a discussion and
come back, if we have to, with a whole host of new auditors. So with that I'd like a motion. I'd make that
motion to go through the process as he's indicated. The organizational items with the two exceptions, that
having Mike Mason as Acting Mayor and to table the City Auditors at this particular lime. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I will second the nomination for Mike as Acting Mayor. On the City Auditors, I'm
not sure that I want to, I mean from what I've heard and seen in the past, this is an ongoing problem with
Deloitte. So I'm willing to table it but first let's have a discussion among ourselves and with city staff before
we take it to them.
Mayor Chmiel: That's my positiom
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. And I just have another comment on the official pater. I have no problems
staying with the Villager. I just know in thc past year we have had a comment from at least one citizen who
said they did not receive it. I think they lived on Kings Road, so just a heads up for Dean to make sure that
everyone in the city gets it. Thanks. Otherwise, I second your nomination. O~ your motion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn: I have just a comment. Given the amount of work that it takes to really go ffa'ough each one
of these things when you are going to review them, I think it'd really be beneficial if we set up some type of
3
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
rotation that allowed us to, like if we're going to look at the auditors and m-examine that this year, let's look at
the bond consultant, the city attorney, let's put them on a rotation because I mean it's not fair to say to staff, you
should relook at these in depth and that's why we use the multi year contracts. But a lot of our multi year
contracts are kind of starting to run together in terms of in sync which means they're going to be forced to
review them all at once and it seems it would make a lot more sense to set a rotation up where we kind of look
at one each year and if there are any issues, deal with them and look at, you know look mc~e specifically at
getting our fees and bids and that sort of thing in relationship to them.
Mayor Chmiel: I feel comfortable with that. I don't have any problem.
Councilman Mason: That's a good idea.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Call the question.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the following organizational items:
a. Resolution g94-01: Rules of Procedures as presented,
b. Official Newspaper - Villager.
c. Official Depository - Chanhassen Bank and Resolution g94.02 approving a Hold Harmless Agreement.
d. City Attorney - Campbell, Knutson, Scou and Fuchs
e. Bond Consultant - Springsted.
f. Acting Mayor - Councilman Mike Mason
g. Weed Inspector - Mayor Chmiel and Deputy Weed Inspector - Bob Zydowsky
h. Fire Chief - Jim McMahon for a 2 year term.
i. Health Officer - Dr. Mccollum with his consent.
j. City Auditors - Tabled for discussing at a City Council work session.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Resolution g9443: Accept Sanitary Sewer and Water Improvements in Lake Susan Hills West 9th
Addition, Project No. 93-5.
b. Resolution #94-04: Accept Stxeet Improv6ments in IthiLien Addition, Project 92-13.
d. Resolution g94-05: Accept Street Improvements in The Summit at Near Mountain, Project 92-4.
h. Approve Master Joint Powers Agreement, ChaskaA2arver County/Chanhassen, Carver County Road
Construction.
j. Resolution g94-06: Resolution Authorizing Increase in Heating Permit Fees.
1. City Council Minutes dated December 13, 1993
Planning Commission Minutes dated I~ember 1, 1993 and December 4, 1993
4
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
n. Resolution g94-07: Approve Joint Resolution with Carver County Requesting MnDot to Comicler Speed
Revisions to County Roads in Chantmssen along Ketber Boulevard and TH 101.
AH voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: We'll move the items of consent onto item 7(A). There is on this for PaUly's, and I'll just back
up one moment, ff there's any discussion in regard to that, which is item (m). If not, we're going to carry that
over to item 7(a) which is at the end of the agenda unless you'd like to address that at this time. Russ, do you
have anything?
Don Ashworth: Maybe I was mistak~,.n.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. So it will stand as corrected.
VISITOR PRESENTATION. None.
APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS FOR A 75 FOOT
WETLAND SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE LOCATION OF A SEPTIC SYSTEM. SOUTH. EAST
AND WEST OF LAKE MINNEWASHTA AND NORTH OF HIGHWAY $, JEFF PAPKE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Cal Haskins
Dr. C. Gustafson
Jeff Papke
9480 County Road 43
1195 Duckwood Terrace
6180 Cardinal Drive South, Shorewood
Sharmin Al-Jaff: This is a peninsula located south, east and west of Lake Minnewashta. The applicant is
requesting a 75 foot setback variance to locate a septic system 75 feet from the edge of a wetland, or the high
water mark of a wetland. The ordinance, our city ordinances require a 150 foot setback. This is a lot of record.
We do have some concerns with it with a parcel such as the type of soils that are on the site. The soils, the only
survey that we looked at were, that was available to us was the Carver County soil survey and it showed us that
the soils weren't suitable for a septic system. However, ff and when the applicant puts in a septic system, it
would have to be designed to meet all of the standards. It would be looked at by Steve Kirehman, the Building
Official and unless they meet those standards, it won't be permitted to be located on this site. Earlier today the
Mayor had some questions in regards to hooking up to sewer and water. There are, and the cost of hooking up
to sewer and water. The hook-up would cost approximately $30,000.00 to $35,000.00 for an on site lift station.
A typical residential single family would be assessed $8,000.00 for sewer and water so if we take sewer alone
that's $4,000.00. The cost...is quite substantial. This variance is for a setback from the edge of [he wetland
only. It's not for the design of the system. Staff is recommending approval for the setback from [he edge of the
wetland. If there are any specific questions regarding the septic system, Steve Kirchman is available to answer
quesfons that you might have. We are recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report.
Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. Is Mr. Papke here? Would you like to say something at this time? One
of the questions that I have is ff this does get approved, are you in agreement with the conditions that are
contained within the recommendation?
5
City Council Meeting - January I0, 1994
Jeff Papke: Yes I am. Just to I guess give you a little more information here. I'm now the owner of record.
I'm currently in a purchase agreement with the owner and it would be our intent to build on that properly in like
a 3 year time frame. And one of the conditions of the purchase agreement is that the property be able to obtain
a building permit so that's the reason why we're going through these actions. Our initial request was that the, or
discussions were that the property itself will be reclassified because that's the only piece of property on that lake
that's classified as wetland. When the survey was done and the classifications were established, the maps were
incorrect and they showed the property to be about 3 or 4 feet below where it actually is and I think reality,
when the wetland designations was given, it was because the maps were incorrect. It looked like it was lower
than it actually is. If you surveyed the prope~ it shows hardwood trees and certainly when we've done borings
for the septic proposal, the modeling is at an acceptable level which means that over...water has risen above the
necessary levels. Now I guess to clarify...some of the tests that were done, and the proposal was not for your
normal septic system. It is for a mound system which the initial look at from the engineer was, I think he
approved it and he thought it looked okay as far as a mound system. I think in general when the sewer was put
in that runs along the west side of the lake, ff the intent was to make a connection onto that pm'eel, a lot of
record, it certainly would have or could have been designed to nm close at that point in time. I think it's about
an 1,800 foot run and I know I've looked at some of the costs involved this far and I know Sharmin has too
ancL..$35,000.00 to $65,000.00 for sewer and water, which really creates a hardship for the property given the
distance from sewer and a connection would have to be made across a Class 3 wetland in order to do that.
Again, I'm in agreement with the provisions and the caveats are included as part of the variance request.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else wanting to address this at this time? ff not, I'll bring it
back to Council. In reviewing some of the analysis that were done, I was looking at Steve Kirehman's memo. I
feel we're sort of putting a can before the horse but at the same token, u'ying to buy the property is a problem in
itseff if they can't get a condition on it as they're looking for. It seems to me that some of the...point of looking
at the borings that were there was done as he's indicated in his first memo, was suitable for an on site sewage
U'eatment system. He's indicating that that site is very marginzl and moving it 10 foot in any direction could
render it unsuitable. And I guess I'm thinking about our County Road 17 with the existing soils, although the
County had built a highway over some soils that were not conducive to the road and even though it did stand up.
I'm trying to make a comparison is what I'm doing. I still have some concerns with the borings one side or the
other and to have some additional borings from where the proposal is being looked at. And I feel more
comfortable because I'm not sure as to what the balance of that site basically is. I look at it from a construction
aspect and with unsuitable soils, there can be all kinds of given problems with a home going on that particular
soil, on those soils. And I wouldn't want to see a house list one side to the other. I'm not sure as to what kind
of foundations are even going to be going in. And I know that we're looking at just strictly that 75 foot wetland
setback but it all hinges on a few other things so I guess I'd like to just throw it back to Council. Richard, do
you have something?
Councilman Wing: When Highway 5 goes to 4 lanes, here we have another driveway going right into the new
highway. Why is that? Aren't we thinking service roads or what's going to happen to this house when we go to
4 lanes? In the near future.
Charles Folch: At this point Highway 5 is only programmed to a 4 lane out to TH 41. MnDot really has no
indication as far as timing and such from there on after. Conceivably at some point in the future, it is possible
that that segment could be a 4 lane. In terms of a controlled access...for a frontage road, I guess that really
hasn't been studied at this point in time. I know we do have a similar situation just west of here on Lone Cedar
where we kind of created a little frontage road to serve a couple lots there to help gain direct frontage off TH 5
and that was directly related to their request. It was them more wanting to get off direct access onto TH 5. But
6
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
that issue really hasn't been valued in terms of this parcel.
Councilman Wing: It would appear to me that to have that driveway coming out onto a very narrow 2 lane, 55
mph road in the middle of nowhere is going to demand turn lanes. I can't even comprehend allowing a
driveway to go into that position even ff though there's good sight lines either direction. But to suddenly have
cars pulling in and out of that driveway and then slowing down onto, the traffic on Highway 5, doesn't seem to
be in the city's best interest or anybody elses... I guess Mr. Mayor and Council, my frustration is this property
has known to exist for many, many, many years and the Arboretum's argued it and We've argued and discussed
it and the Park and Rec should have never allowed this to happen. It should have been purchased by the .
Arboretum, ourselves. It should have gone into a passive park. We didn't do it. Now it's owned by someone
else. It's up here for development and I don't think we have a right to say no, because we chose not to buy it.
We chose not to take it into our own park system and do what we knew was right in the first place, and we
knew we didn't want it developed. It was the first firing in the Highway 5 corridor that was discussed and then
how many times has the Arboretum discussed that parcel and they haven't done anything so I guess I'm not
about to say, with one exception. I don't think you should put the access onto Highway 5 and if we do, I think
that should be dealt with before we approve this. I don't think we should be having cars n~t-iqg turns into a
driveway right in the middle of a freeway stretch there. So the proPOSal itserf, I don't feel we have any right to
say no to because we've already let this go by. But that access is another issue. I think that has to be dealt
with, as much as the Mayor's concerns about the building and soils so, those two issues I have before I would
approve this. I'd like to see both those answered and clarified before I would approve this. Beyond that, they
have a right to develop it. We chose not to.
Mayor Ch~niel: Okay, thank you. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I have a couple questions and someone stop me ff I'm incorrect. Our"
ordinance is 150 feet but we can go above and beyond probably what the rest of the State requires? In terms of,
statewise it's generally 75 feet.? ..
Sharmin Al-Jaff: That's correct.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. And a couple questions about a mound system, which I have in my back
yard and I know that we had good soil borings and both of our sites were good in terms of the soil borings and
it sdLl cost us $9,000.00 to put in and I'm wondering about the financial hardship that you're getting yourseff in
for Mr. Papke. You know $30,000.00 to $35,000.00 for city sewer and water, whether it goes in or not, I think
you're going to face those same costs. Now if we, if a mound system does go in, Steve and this is directed
mostly towards you. From what I understand, I mean if you put up a big enough hill of sand, it can percolate
through and by the time it gets down to ground level, the water's basically clean.
Steve Kirchman: That's correct.
Councilwoman Doekendorf: Okay. So ff you want a big hill in your back yard, I don't know. I'm not trying to
protect you from yourseff but I'm saying there are going to be huge costs involved here and I know that from
personal experience. I guess I would be comfortable seeing a few more soil borings as well to make sure there
· are acceptable sites because they were real marginal. You know, how do you measure an inch of modeled soil,
etc and I hadn't even thought of what Richard brought up but that's a good point. That's all I have to say right
now.
7
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: I think this is going to be one of those things that does come back to us one step at a time.
I understand, I think I understand why staff is recommend the variance and I think I understand why Board of
Adjustment and Appeals denied it tmanimously. Under the circumstances I, at this point in time and I think for
this variance, I agree with what Richard is saying. I don't think Council has a fight to say no. I do think as
more variances come along the line, the building permit for example, and I know you're aware of that. You
know, and I admire Mr. Papke's patience because I suspect this will take a number of years to figure out one
way or the other. I have some personal feelings about buildability on that lot but that's not the issue fight here.
I see the issue as fight now just being this and because there is the hardship there, I guess, well I don't guess. I
think Council should in fact approve this one. But I think it as one step at a time.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Mark.
Councilman Senn: I guess on this I haven't really changed my mind from where I sat tm it as it rehtes to Board
of Adjustments and Appeals. We had a couple meetings on it to talk about iL Looked at it very hard. From
my standpoint I just cannot justify in my own mind saying yes because I think we should say no and I think the
no is because there's no way we should allow a septic system at this elevation within 75 feet of the lake. We.
have enough problems with our lakes and in terms of the stuff going into them fight now. We don't have good
grades on any of them that I'm aware of and this situation only aggravates that. I think this propea'ty should be
allowed to develop but I think it should be allowed to develop at the fight time. The right time is when sewer
and water is available to the site and I think that also comes back and deals with a lot of the issues over access
and that sort of thing because really the point, that's all going to be resolved and sewer and water's going to go
in is you know when the roadway probably expands. And I think this is premature and we're being _a.~ked to
approve on a variance and I just can't again justify, at least in my mind, a variance for that type of situation.
Mayor Chmiel: True. And this will come back each year ff he's looking at 3 years down the road. He'll have
to come back to Council 3 different times too for that to become valid. Mike.
Councilman Mason: Question Steve on mound systems. I'm only mildly familiar with them because in the
northern part of the State on the lakes you can't have outhouses anymore and lots and this that and they're all
going to mound systems up there. And there are some fight essentially on the lake and the State apparently says
that's no problem. The mound systems are going to work. Do you have that much faith, do you have as much
faith as the State does in them?
Steve Kirchman: If they're properly installed and they've been in use for 20-25 years in this state and other
states and if they're properly installed, properly maintained, they'll work as well as any other on site sewage
treatment and as well as, ff not better than any municipal sewage treatment.
Councilman Senn: According to present thought. You know and that gets to be the real musing part here
because I went through this up north and we were required to move the system or put in a closed system and we
could have put it in closer to the lake ff we had put in a closed system. Well now the State says, closed
systems, which they were saying at that time were the cat's meow, are the worst thing in the world. And you
keep looking at this and again it's proximity to the lake and I just, who's going to guarantee that the residues
aren't going to end up in the lake and I just have a real hard time with that.
Mayor Chmiel: Richard.
8
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
Councilman Wing: Well I guess one thing Mark has said does trouble me is, when the entire lake and the entire
city on the lakes has gone to sewer, a me~xo sewer system, why would we want to grant a variance to put in a
septic system? I mean if this maybe could fit in on it's existing land but to have to even go further to grant
variance, I think you've got a good point. We're bending thc rules for something we don't want in the first
place.
Councilman Mason: Well I guess I don't see granting a variance, in a hardship case, as a matter of bending the
rules. I see what you're saying but there's a special set of circumstances here unlike anything else on the lake.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? If hearing none, I would entertain a motion to also include as
item 14 some additional soils borings of the recommendations for the conditions as such.
Councilman Wing: And I would like to add number 15 would be a rather thoa-ough study of the highway and
access that that lot may create in that location. There's no shoulders there. There's no tuna off whatsoever.
You have to turn in a traffic lane. I don't think that's appropriate.
Mayor Chmicl: We just recently corrected a location there by putting in a service road because of a car being
hit so that does have some.
Councilman Mason: Yeah I wonder Dick. I think that that's something that has to be looked at. I wonder if
that should be tacked onto this one. Just bemuse they're separate issues. I don't know.
Councilman Wing: Yeah, I don't know how to handle that. I would yield to whatever Council feels.
Councilman Senn: The question is, where else can it be tacked on9.
Councilman Mason: Well I don't know. I don't know. I'm just throwing it ont.
Mayor Chmiel: I think too though, potting it down as a separate additional item, it should be looked at and that
way it's going to be covered.
Councilman Wing: But the soil borings don't relate to that septic system. They relate to the building so that's
really a separate issue also.
Councilman Senn: Did I understand yottr's to be a motion Don?
Mayor Chrniel: No. I just added one item to that. For additional discussion. Roger.
Roger Knutson: Just for a point of clarification. If this is granted, staff and myself have to implement it. When
you say look at the access, the highway access issue. I'm not sure. Do they have the variance and you want
staff to look at the highway access issue, and what ff we find the highway access is bad or good or indifferent?
Do they still get to have the variance9.
Councilman Mason: Well I guess that's why I made that comment earlier. This is dealing with the mound
system. They still have to get building permits. They still have to do this. They still have to do that.
Councilman Senn: But none of those other things require them to come back. When they get a permit they do.
To get a building permit they do. They don't have to come hack to Council to have conditions attached and...
9
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: If they comply with all conditions they don't have to come back, that's right.
Councilman Senn: I mean that's not a condition that could be tacked on at ~t point if that's a legitimate
Roger Knutson: I'm just trying to understand what you want done. Do you want staff to look into the access
issue independent of this? Just look into it and see ff a design solution should be, or somelhing should be done
there?
Charles Folch: In terms of access, really the jurisdictional authority on granting whether it would be acceptable
or not is MnDot. I guess ff the applicant is able to grant, or get a permit grant from MnDot on their trunk
highway, I'm sure ff MnI~t is concerned about it, they probably attach some conditions in tea'ms of lanes.
Acceleration lanes. Deceleration lanes. Things like that. But ff they were able to acquire a Ire'mit from MnDot,
I mean that pretty well addresses the access issue from that standpoint, They're the jurisdictional authority on
that trunk highway.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. But on either of those for acceleration or deceleration. That would be MnDot's
responsibility. Who's cost is, who gets the cost from that particular acceleration lane?
Charles Folch: I believe the applicant for the access.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Wing: The other option would be to table this until we have that infeannafion and the soil borings
completed as requested.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: I'd be more comfortable with that.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: I think it's worth, there are enough outstanding question for me that I would also
like it tabled so we could look into those two issues.
Steve Kirchman: Could I have another point of clarification Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
Steve Kirchman: On the soil borings, were you concerned about soil borings for the septic site or for the
structure?
Mayor Chmiel: I'm concerned for the septic as well
Steve Kirchman: Normally, before we approve the site, we do get additional borings and ff borings are suitable,
then they get a permit.
Mayor Chrniel: Okay, but I want to make sure those borings are taken and that's why I'm putting it as an
additional condition.
10
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
Councilman Senn: And by tabling it, are you asking..,come back to us?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess that's a good clarification Steve because I mean if the additional borings
are going to be done in order to build, to get the permit to build, then I don't have any concerns about the
permit. Or excuse me, the variance, ff those additional borings are a concern whether it's. buildable or not.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess my concerns with those, even though you take additional borings, you want some in and
adjacent to what's there. What my concern is so that the additional, ffany additional pollutant comes from that
mound in itself, it's going to be going directly into the lake. From an environmental aspect, that's my concern.
So I want to make sure there's soil borings taken within a 10 foot interval on either side of that, just to make
Stile.
Councilman Senn: Well this may die but I'm going to move.
Mayor Chmiel: Just a minute. Before you move, the applicant would like to say something. Would you like to
come up to the podium?
Jeff Papke: Just a quick point of clarification. I know when Sharmin showed the plat before, there are two sites
that are required as part of that...and I didn't know if everyone was clear on that. And the initial borings that we
did were with a different layout of the property and Steve was there and did wimess those. He did relay those
out a little differently to provide a better access when we knew where our house would go and his comment was,
before we would approve anything we'd have to retest those areas. Actually before the permit could be issued,
it'd require retesting the soils. And in terms of the structure and borings for that, that would be our intent and
that's one of the provisions...is that there would be soil borings done as far as the slxucture is and we're in
agreement with that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So let me understand. The borings that were done aren't any good anyway?
Jeff Papke: No, they were okay.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, I'm saying but you've changed your footprint so.
Jeff Papke: Actually one of them is in the existing 50 x 100 foot area and the back-up site we moved slightly
and we would have to have that one tested. Before a pexmit would be granted.
Mayor Chmiel: Who do you have do your soil borings?
Jeff Papke: Ron Hill.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Mason: Well I think the access issue is out of our hands, isn't it?
Mayor Chmiel: It's MnDot's responsibility, that's correct.
Councilman Mason: And it sounds to me, Don with what's just been said about that, are you okay with
additional borings that Mr. Papke's planning on making?
11
City Council M~ting - January 10, 1994
Mayor Chrniel: Yes. As long as they're going to cover some of the areas that are concerned, my concerns are.
Just like again going back to County Road 17. Took some borings and all of a sudden-started digging and there
were the problems. -.
Councilman Mason: I will move approval of Variance Request g93-9 for 75 foot wetland setback for the
location of a septic system with the conditions as stated in the report. Including the Building Official
recommendations which do talk about the two borings on each site sewage. Sewage treatment site.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second? Without a second, I think it's going to die. Is there another motion?
Councilman Senn: I'd like to move that we uphold the Board of Adjustxnents and Appeals decision to deny the
variance on the basis that the property should be developed when sewer and water becomes available to it. And
that we should stick to our policy and not allow a septic system within this close distance to the lake.
Councilman Wing: I'm going to second that Mx. Mayor and that second is, with these other issues in my mind
also. It's not a clear cut building site and I'm going to go along with Mark on that,
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Some discussion. Roger. Where does that put the City? In what position by making
that recommendation.
Roger Knutson: It would be a decision. When you deny anything like this, I think our past policy has been to
direct myself to prepare Findings of Fact, You need a record of...so the motion would be to direct me to prepare
Findings deny it. I'm not telling you how to vote but that's.
Councilman Senn: So amended.
Mayor Chmiel: I would suggest that we do that only from a standpoint in the event that the applicant or the
property owner were to come back at the City with a suit, this would give us some substantial backing as far as
that's concerned. We have a motion on the floor with a second. Any other discussion?
Councilman Mason: This is a lot of record isn't it?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Mason: And in the past if we tell somebody that a lot of record isn't bulldable, bow's the city
culpable?
Roger Knutson: The purpose in granting a variance is to grant a deviation from standards when if you do not
grant that deviation it deprives them all reasonable use of the property. That's what a variance is all about. If
you deny someone all reasonable use of their property, indefinitely, you could have a taking. When can you
deny someone all reasonable use of their property? I could spend hours trying to simplify this point but in a
nutshell, if you can demonstrate that the proposed use will cause a demonstmtable pollution to the lake, for
example could cause...harm, then you have a basis for denying the variance. The courts look very carefully at
any decision that says you can't use your property. Very carefully.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
12
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994 -
Councilman Senn: Again I don't, and Michael again. I guess I want to just clarify my motion. I'm not saying
they shouldn't use their property. I think they should be able to use it, but there's a fight time to be able to use
it. And I'm going to liken it to a lot of other discussions we've had out on Highway 5. In terms of land use
and other things that are happening. There's a fight time for it and there's a wrong time for it. The MUSA line
governs when the fight time is and a wrong time is in a lot of things. I think a variance is the same type of a
tool. Can it basically say this is a fight time or a wrong time?
:
Roger Knutson: ...to a certain extent yes, I would agree with you. You don't necessarily have a fight tn
develop the property today. At least that's my. You can postpone that for a reasonable length of time. Not
forever and not indefinitely. But for a reasonable length of time. When I send out the Findings to you, ff that
passes, I will feel more comfortable explaining this in some detail in a letter to you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and with that motion and with a second, are you both acceptable to the Findings of Fact?
Okay. I will call the motion and the motion is seconded.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to direct the City Attorney to prepare Findings of
Fact denying the Variance Request ~D3-9 to locate a septic system 75 feet from the edge of a wetland.
Councilman Senn and Councilwoman Dockendorf voted in favor. Councilman Mason voted in
opposition. Mayor Chmiel and Councilman Wing were silent. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1,
Mayor Chmiel: It's been called as a motion with two ayes and three abstentions which indicate as an aye vote.
Councilman Mason: No. I misunderstood Don.
OUL
Let's repeat that again.
Or let's go over that again. I blanked
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. We have a motion on the floor with a second. The question was called. All those in
favor say aye. :
Councilman Senn and Councilwoman Dockendorf said aye,
Councilman Mason stated nay.
Councilman Wing: I suppose it's too late for any discussion.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes it is.
Councilman Wing: If not, I'll abstain.
Mayor ChmieI: It's not the easiest thing here as far as I'm concerned. With the one no and two ayes and two
quiet votes indicate that those are ayes.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I think it's really important that my silence really is with concern. I really
support Mark's position but I think Mike had some very valid points. I think the Council brought up valid
points. The further movement on this issue is really going to get scrutiny. It's a very awkward piece of
property all around and that we're having a variance for the septic system fight on the lake and access to the
road and the soils.
13
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: And I think by the vote it's indicating that to the proposed pexson going to build on there for a
single family residence. So there's a lot of considerations that are going to be looked at and continued to looked
at and hopefully the building department is going to follow through with that. Okay, that motion is passed and
we'll move onto the next agenda item.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM
RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY AND CONCEPTUAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 26 SINGLE FAMILY ZERO LOT LINE UNITS ON 13.47
ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 7 BETWEEN WASHTA BAY ROAD AND
ARBOR DRIVE+ SPINNAKER WHARF, BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Joe & Sue Fiedler
Jim & Jo Ginther
Joe & Eileen Boyer
Joleen & Rob Roy
Lee Clark
Tom Metz
Mary Jo Moore
John Blumentritt
Bob Boyer
3121 Dartmouth Drive
3131 Dartmouth Drive
3630 Virginia Avenue, Deephaven
3110 Dartmouth Drive
603 Lake Street, FLxcelsior
3201 Dartmouth Drive
3231 Dartmouth Drive
Boyer Building Corporation
Boyer Building Corporation
Kate Aanenson: The Boyer Corporation is requesting to rezone 13A7 acres of property for approximately 26
zero lot line or clustered single family developments. In order to make this project occur two things are going to
have to occur. Rezoning and a Comp Plan Amendment. Currently the way the ordinance reads, in order to
allow for a cluster of this type of development, the Comp Plan amendment is required because the ordinance
requires...single family, the RSF zone the smallest lot size would be 11,000 square feet. Only the medium
density area are cluster developments allowed. So again...a Comp Plan amendment would be requlrext Staff
was reluctant to...medium density at this point. We felt it would be more...to do a Comp Plan amendment. But
in doing that you open up the application on the 5,000 square foot lots, which was a concern that the Planning
Commission had, which we'll get into later. If I could briefly walk through the project...bordered on the north
by Highway 7. It's kind of..xoad topography and it has this unusual dredged channel that comes up through the
property. Instead of having signdieant...through a private street. The development itself, the 26 homes that I
mentioned would probably be similar ~r may be slightly larger than the existing homes that are there. They
range, entirely completely finished up to 3,000 square feet. Again...the type of homes that are found...There are
two wetlands on the site. One an ag urban that runs along the existing channel and the other is a natural
wetland. There are some poor soils in the area around the channel, which again this is just concept that we
would need further study on to define whether or not those...The original plan showed a connection, and this is a
concern of the neighborhood. The connection of Dartmouth Drive over to Washta Bay Road. In looking at that
with the staff and the topography, going across the channel and the degregation of the site, we felt that it'd
probably be better to leave the existing access off of the Arbor/Dartmouth Drive which again is a concern of the
neighbors going out. There was another issue that the staff investigated that wasn't acceptable to the applicant
and that was using the existing older home on the site. Just off of Dartmouth Drive. It does have direct access
14
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
onto Highway 7. We looked at possibly putting a cul-de-sac on the end of fids and bringing that street up. This
wasn't desirable for the applicant since he stated that these two homeowners would then be double fxonted,
although this would be a cul-de-sac and this street would tie up into Shorewood. Make that a T intersection, that
would be desirable but the developer is reluctant and has stated that those two homes, that was not desirable for
them. The other issue on this was, that was a lot of concern with the neighb~s was the beachlot The applicant
was asking for, again this is a PUD. It opens up what the number of boats they were looking for. One dock
slip per unit which would be 26. Staff looked at this a couple different ways. One being ff this was developed
in the Iraditional single family and you could get maybe 6 lots on the lakeshore and each could have 3 boats,
that would give you a fixed number. And if you look at the beachlo~ ordinance and said if you had a beachlot,
you could have a maximum of 3 docks, 3 per dock, that would allow you 9. Originally staff had recommended
12 but in rethinking it, we feel that based on the fact that we've gone through that hearing process and the
number of boats, that 9 may be more appropriate. The streets, as I mentioned, would be private internally. The
engineering department is recommending that there be a cul-de-sac in this area here to allow for maintenance of
our streets. The other issue as far as parks and recreation, they recommended taking full park and Wail fees in
lieu of park dedication. With that, staff would recommend approval of the rezoning and the Comp Plan
amendment. Just to update you that with the Planning Commission, they spent a lot of time discussing this and
really were reluctant to come up with a consensus. They passed it onto you without any final determination.
One of their major issues is, a lot of the time that we spent to come up with what the smallest lot size would be
in RSF, we came with the 11,000 square feet. In the past they've even turned some of those down and they
were really reluctant to apply this city wide going down to a 5,000 square foot lots. So basically they didn't
make a recommendation. They wanted to get some more feedback fxom you to see if this is the direction you
really wanted to go with the lot smaller lots in the residential single family zone. As I stated, the only way to
make this project happen would be rezone the property to medium density and the staff felt that was
inappropriate at this time because...With that we recommend, or the staff had recommended approval with the
conditions. But then the Planning Commission just deferred it to you...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you Kate. Just one quick question that I had. By wuklng this 'a PUD, what is the
city really getting from this?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Echo, echo.
Councilman Wing: Be specific.
Kate Aanenson: Specifically? All the units are pulled to the interior. You do have units that to the...will be
adjacent to Highway 7. If you pull those away. There is a storm water problem of storm water that's running
from Shorewood into this area that's going directly into the lake which will be resolved with a nutrient pond
picking this up. Preservation of the natural shoreline. We'd recommend clustering on one...preservation of that
natural wetland. So all the units would be pulled away from that existing shoreline. They wouldn't have direct
access onto that and just the preservation of the channel with all the development on the other side of that also.
Mayor Chmieh Okay. Richard?
Councilman Wing: Is it to Council already?
Mayor Chmiel: Well no. I thought you wanted to say something. You started to move and I thought you
wanted to.
15
.City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
Councilman Wing: Well no.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe I misinterpreted the move.
Councilman Wing: I've just got other questions of staff but I don't flfink it's appropriate now.
Mayor Chmiel: Fine. Okay, at this time we'll have the developer go through their proposal so we can see what
you're really bringing forth to the Council If you'd just introduce yourself please.
John Blumentritt: Thank you. To the members of the Chanhasse City Council. Good evening. My name is
John Blumentritt. I am a member of the Boyer Building Corporation design team. I want to thank Kate for a
nice job of the introductory summary. I think that she has touched upon a lot of the basics that we understand
are going to be detail issues that need to be resolved. I'd like to walk us through this Spinnaker Wharf project
and I'd like to do that by, just for a moment digressing and giving the City Council a brief planning history.
About 9 months ago the Boyer Building Corporation office staff got together to discuss what possibilities existed
for the site. We knew that the property was zoned single family residential but we weren't quite sold that this
was the ideal family site. We looked at the existing property to the west. We found single family housing. We
looked to the east and similar family housing. We looked to the south and of course Lake Minnewashta which
has a beautiful view and what else could we ask for. But it was to the north that created the problem and that
being Highway 7. I'm not sure what your opinion might be but to us...road has a traffic count of between 17
and 19,000 cars per day and children simply don't ~ We decided to look at other housing options where
there was single family around. Out of all the options, what is it that we want to do. Do we want to build low
income housing? Certainly some of the zoning laws encourage some of that Do we want to build elderly rental
housing? Kitty comer across from this property we saw one other applicant going before the City of Shorewood.
Still...but we wanted to look at it as being. Did we want to build family? Did we want to build empty nesters?
Did we want to build retirement? Did we want to build elderly? What was it that we ac_~_mlly wanted to build?
Now as you c'an see we chose the empty nester market for a great deal of reasons but let us be more specific.
A, it uses the land most effectively. B, the clustering offers...in security as the home buyers, the empty nester
home buyers... C, through establishing an association the grounds and the buildings would be commonly
maintained. Now we recognize in the staff report, that through the staff reIxn't, that many agencies need to make
many decisions before we are even able to break ground and indeed this City Council will hear two more
planning, or will see two more planning stages with hopefully all of these agencies delivering a lot of decisions
before you grant your final decision. We made a mistake at the Planning Commission level. We allowed a lot
of unresolved details to interfere with what the true purpose of why we were here. Yes, there's going to be
discussions about traffic. Yes, there's going to be discussions about what is the lakeshore and not lakeshore.
Yes, there's going to be discussions about boat dockage. Yes, there's going to be discussions about wetlands
and other issues. But these are demil~ to the overall reason of why we are here. This is a concept. An idea. A
vision ff you will. And what we need from you tonight is what do you think of it? You know is this is a good
idea to pursue...get rid of it. Do you care about the growing or the graying of the American people, be, cause this
is indeed what we're trying to pursue. DO we care about providing a house for mom and dad or grandma and
grandpa? And having that integrate with the neighborhood or be segregated from a neighborhood. I think these
are viable issues. I recognize and they're probably difficult issues. We recognize that. We really do. But
again, you'd have to, we have to have your consent tm this concept level in order to move on to expending a
tremendous amount of time with ground referral agencies ltmt won't be involved in this. Ceminly a whomping
sum of money as far as the Boyer Building Corporation is concerned. And a lot of the details will be brought
up tonight will be viable issues at some point but we think that if the Council does not accept the concept plan,
how could these issues, or...So I urge you. Hear the concerns of the neighbors, because a lot of these concerns
16
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
are viable issues. I think they're completely legitimate. But I also urge you to hear the voices, to hear the
voices of the silent people that are not able to be represented. Those that are going to occupy these homes and
we want this decision based on...I appreciate your time. Thank you so much.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyoue else wishing to ~_t~-ess this issue at this time? If anyone wishes to
address, please come forward, State your name and your address and I would like to limit the discussion to at
least 5 minutes per person if I could.
Tom Merz: I think the developer has done, my name is Tom Metz and do you have that map that you could put
back up? I live at 3201 Dartmouth Drive. Let's just talk about that. Let's look at that rn~p. I live at 3201
Dartmouth Drive, which is the housing area to the west. And in that housing area it's approximately 13 acres
and I think there's 10-11, there's 13 homes. 10 to 11 homes. You look at this 13 acre site and they're talt4ug
about 27 homes. If you look at the housing area to the east, and you look at the density. My concern is that we
get txeated, because we came out and bought this home, bought this area and we had a zoning. What you're
doing is you're impacting what I feel is you're taking the impact of this concentrated density and you're nmning
it out Dartmouth Drive and down Arbor Lane and you're impacting what we say is a very passive lifestyle. So
whether you're going to rezone, I guess perhaps maybe you should take those 3 or 4 lots along Dartmouth Drive
and we can sell that and put 12 condominiums if you're talking about rezoning it. We should have the rezoning
that goes into our, that's, I don't want that. My main concern is number one, the amount of uaff~ that you'd be
impacting onto our area. And my other main concern is the lake and if you talk, would you put that other map
back up? When you look at that area, that represents about 800 feet of lakeshore and ff you go to the area to the
west, all the way out to Naegele's Point, you'll probably see less than 7 docks and maybe 7 or 8 boats, ff you
take the area east and you go towards, back in that canal again, you're going to see probably 6 to 7 docks and 6
or 7 boats and what I would ask is that yon put the same restrictions on this area. If we have a home along the
lakeshore, that should be a designated home with a designated dock. When we talk about one dock and 3 boats,
we as lakeshore owners do not live under those conditions. We have one dock and one boat. We cannot bring
two of our buddies out there and put boats at our dock. $o my concern again is that you take and treat that area
under the same conditions that you are lreating the rest of us who live along the lake. My .... positive if there's
anybody who should develop this, it should be the Boyer's. They're good people and they're good developers.
If you can find a way to contain that area so that you're not impacting what we call our neighborhood, then I
have no further...thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Tom. Is there anyone else?
Jim Ginther. My name is Jim Ginther and I'm speaking for my wife $o and myseff who live at 3131 Dartmouth
Drive. We're residents of Sterling Estates and our house is about 3 doors from the proposed entrance to this
new subdivision. And we also are familiar with the Boyers and I concur with Tom that we know that they're
very responsible people and they're qu~ity developers, so that's not our concern is the developers themselves.
In fact, when we moved into this area over 20 years ago, they lived across the street and the boys who are now
developers, were young kids growing up In that household. So we're very familiar with the family and have no
concerns in that area. But specifically we do have three concerns. One is changing the zoning from low density
single family homes to zero lot line type development. Two, the singular access to the lrroject via Dartmouth
Drive. And three, the proposed 26 boat dock slip that is in the proposal to be out in front of this development.
I think it goes without saying that with a single family development on the west, which is Sterling Estates, and
another single family development on the east, to put a high density development right smack in the middle of
that is going to dramatically change the character of the north shore of Lake Minnewashta. I think it would be a
completely different kind of neighborhood with that type of development. Now the same developer who
17
City Council Mceting - January I0, 1994
developed Sterling Estates 20 years ago and who at that point in time we recognized we had single family
zoning to the east of us, is now proposing to change the zoning to fit the needs at this particular time and the
zoning that was established was well in place and that's the zoning that we knew about when we made the
investment. Bought our lot. Developed the homes and maintain expensive homes in that area. So we believe to
change the character of the entire north shore at this time would really have a very severe negative impact on
the...and the investments and many of us have lived there now for over 9.0 years and plan to live there for many
more. I guess the question we would have to ask is why has zoning regulations, is simply all that has to happen
is every time a developer decides to come along and change a piece of property, the people who have invested
mound that property no longer have the protection that the zoning was there and intended to be in the first place.
Secondly, we're very concerned about the congestion that this particular type of a project would bring to
specifically Sterling Estates as it's approved. Or as it's proposed. And the addition of 52 ears coming in and
out of that neighborhood through one access street, making multiple trips in and out of the division daily with
one access we believe would have a very definite negative impact on the residents of Arbor and Dartmouth
Drive. Currently there's often a 2 or 3 minute delay in exiting onto Arbor Drive, from Arbor Drive onto
Highway 7. Another 50 cars is going to create truly an intolerable delay to get onto what is already a very busy
and dangerous highway. In mm, exiting from Highway 7 onto Arbor is already a very dangerous left hand turn
against traffic on an uphill basis to get into Arbor Drive. Now what we're ~alklng about is bringing 50 more
cars a day to make that left hand turn and face that oncoming traffic going uphill. It's a dangerous area now.
It's been already pointed out to the City of Chanhassen. This is going to create, we believe, a very, very serious
safety hazard. One more item on safety that I think is very important~ There are no sidewalks in Sterling
Estates. None. Consequently the people who live there, the residents, their guests, the children who live in that
area, all use the streets, and specifically Dartmouth Drive and Arbor Drive for foo~ traffic. Now what we're
talking about is an increased amount of highway car access onto those same thru streets which are also our
sidewalks. And we think that again all the density onto one access is going to present an extreme safety hazard
that is a very real one. The only workable and reasonable solution that we can see, ff this development or a
similar one would go in, would be to have a second access on the eastern border of the property, which by the
way happens to have a lot also owned by another member of the Boyer family, that could possibly then allow
access out to Washta Bay Road and then give two accesses onto Highway 7 and we believe to be a very
workable solution to ail this congestion coming out of one access or ingress and egress. The other possible
suggestion could be some form of a frontage road along Highway 7 that 'would relieve the congestion coming out
Arbor, into Arbor Drive. Finally our third concern is the excessive amount of boats contemplated and I'm
pleased to hear that your staff is suggesting the smaller number because we concur that what has been proposed
is really doing mirrors with the unique particular piece of lakeshore that happens to have a man made lot~ Or
excuse me. A man made channel coming off of Minnewashta Lake up into this particular piece of property.
Normally this would be about a 600 feet piece of lakeshore land. The DNR apparently has labeled it 1,900 feet
because they're taking a shallow, narrow channel and measuring all that lakeshore on that channel. It's
unbuildable. It isn't lakeshore. It's been designated already as wetland and to call that channel lakeshore is an
absolute farce. It's using mirrors and it just so happens to be there and getting that designation allows the
developer to leverage something for concentrated lakeshore boats that just doesn't fit any other development on
Lake Minnewashta anywhere. Consequently we think that a workable solution ff something like this were going
in or single family homes, ought to be limited ta those homes that are truly on the I_a~e, be eligible for lakeshore,
as other lake homes are. Those that are off the lake would have to be subject to the same regulations that other
off lakeshore owners have been throughout Lake Minnewashta and which is consistent with the development
totally around the lake. $o we think that a workable solution could be... whatever development goes in here to
the same regulations that apply to a legitimate ruling of what is truly lakeshore and whatever would come off of
that channel, whatever body of water that represents would be limited to something in the form of canoes,
rowboats, or some form of small boat that might be accessed up into the piece of property. But to be considered
18
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
lakeshore is just totally unrealistic. Finally, we've been residents there for over 20 years, as some other people
have represented here this evening. We all have a very sincere interest in maintaining the integrity of Lake
Minnewashta. We think it's a special resource for Chanhassen. I think it's truly the reqxmsibility of this body,
the DNR, the County and whatever other bodies are involved, to maintain a resource that you have in this city
that is in the best interest of all of us residents and certainly no one has a greater interest in maintaining their
resource than those of us that spend our lives there and plan to continue there. Thank you for your time.
appreciate your interest.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
lee Boyer: I'm Joe Boyer. I own the pmperty...and we lived in, I developed Sterling Estates...Anyhow, this
land is valuable land according to your lax assessor, as of last Monday...what they consider swampland...in
Carver County. And there's nothing wrong with this land he says. Anyhow, if you consider that unbuildable
land, I'd like to have a letter to present to the tax office. Someone called this a la'istine ama..Well, it all was a
pristine area at one time. AH these lots, aH our members here, aH our neighbors...very pristine land at one time.
Now every one of those lots, every one of those owners have improved their lots with dredging, filling back with
sand. I know because it was all hauled across my land. And I understand their concerns and I appreciate their
comments but everything they're afraid of here are some of the things that they've done themselves. There used
to be, when we lived over there, there was probably every weekend where the shores were washed by skiers
being pulled at 240 horse...the ski boats and stuff like that. And I'm sure that's part of their concern. But as far
as the people who are going to live there, they're going to be probably retirees ilke me. We can ill afford an
upscale place and we're going to wonder who in the devil said we can't have a boat. We will each own, with
26 homes, we will each own 15,1300 square feet of land. On gross area it's 15,000 square feet of land. Now we
don't really claim to be a part of Sterling Estates. We don't want to be a part of Sterling Estates. But when we
develop that area with your City Engineer...engineer. 1966. Arehie Carter. And the reason that little road
extension goes down between the Bob Roy's, over that land, is because Archie was planning for future
development in there. And so that's already established. And let's see. Like I said, ali the existing lots have'
been dredged and sand hauled in and chemicals applied to kill the weeds and then they all have 3 boats. Plus a
rowboat to get up to the swimming dock, plus canoe for the kids to play with. Snowmobiles and part of the
trouble here are the accesses that have been granted to the existing residents. So they only use one or two boats.
I live in Deephaven. I have dockage. I don't use it. I don't even put a boat on it. So if I don't do that next
year I'll lose it but the boat dockage shouldn't be a problem. AH we're asking for is one boat per resident. And
if you say 35, 50% of the people MIl use that privilege, it won't be any more than what you're talking about
now. But what we have to have are some amenities. We have to have something to sell. We can't go in and
build $300,000.00 houses and offer nothing. You can't use the lake. The neighbors don't like you using their
lake. Well it's not their lake. And these people will be as responsible as we are. I think our concerns are
similar to the people who are complaining. We want to leave the lake in a little better condition than what it
was. That's what I did in Sterling Estates...When we first moved in over there, the lake smelled like the
Excelsior sewer ponds over there. Same thing. Everybody was pumping their sewers into my propexty and it
went down into the lake. And so Archie Carter and Bill $choell from Schoell and Madsen decided that that lake
access should be a swaled area with a vegetated swaled area. With the small trees and brush or anything planted
on it but-..wanted to blacktop it so we blacktopped it. Then later on, after we moved away, somebody
complained and they went underground. A culvert put in there. We went to the city and got stuck for putting
an underground culvert in there. Now you brought the water up to the toad, and you have the stale fermenting
water in that culvert which every time it rains more and more water comes down and pollutes the lake. I don't
know who talked the city into that one became $choell and Madsen and Archie Carter were absolutely dead set
against that one. Then you !alk about a trail system. Where are you going with the uail system? Where does
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
the trail system hook into anything? Where is there another trail system? There's no trail system down along
the lakeshore. You can't traverse in front of other people's lake. shore down there because they'd be in big
trouble. But these same people train their dogs on my property, right? And the snowmobile tracks is
tremendous...to put a house on that property, the way it is now with snowmobiles going by every 2 minutes. We
don't need that kind of a trail system. But our lakeshore, like somebody said here, is pristine...The only reason
it is muddy over where in Sterling Estates was before we bought the IXOperty, Mrs. Bodell was them for quite a
few years. And during World War 1t, with her austerity program, she brought in steers and talking to the
caretaker, he said that on the warm days that those earle were down in the water and they just ruin the beaches.
Well they never did recover you know and so it's realIy what these people had, if they wanted a nice area, they
had to do some work on it. And our area, now it hasn't any traffic on it and the..~ce sandy lakeshore. And
whether we have docks on there or not, I suppose doesn't really matter. If we had docks on the channel, it'd be
fine. In talking to the assessor's office last Monday, they contend that's all lakeshore and I know I'm being
assessed for it because my taxes on that property, last year were $11,800.00. My taxes this year are a little
less...so I know we have to do something. I can't afford to pay taxes on lax)petty that's unbuildable. Or that we
can't get a permit on. And the assessor's office considers it valuable property. Let's see, what else? I think
that's about it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you Joe.
Joe Boyer: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Mary Jo Moore: Good evening. I'm Mary Jo Moore, 3231 Dartmouth Drive. I'm a resident of Minnewashta
Shores which is adjacent to the west of Sterling Estates and I just wanted to add my objection to the changing of
the zoning for this area. I think it probably is a buildable lot~ It's a beautiful piece of property. I would like to
keep it at the same density that it is zoned for currently and also restrict the boatage. Lake Minnewashta, as
I've been here before you many times, is just getting over crowded with boats as are all of our lakes and I want
to protect that natural resource. Plus the traffic and I'm just adding my opinion to Mr. Ginther and the others.
Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Joe Fiedler: My name is Joe Fiedler. I live at 3121 Dartmouth Drive. I've been there 18 years. When we turn .-
off of Highway 7 onto Arbor, Arbor Road goes directly into my front yard so this traffic is going to be a big
deal for me...The thing that I like about our lake and we go out there to drive around, there's just beautiful
single family homes just the way we thought it was going to stay. I don't like the idea of always looking up
there...high density housing. So I'm not for the project period. I don't think it should be, that the zoning should
change at all.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Joe. Anyone else?
Bob Boyer: My name is Bob Boyer and I'm representing the developer,..I really do appreciate the concerns of
the neighborhood. Their concerns are important to us, as well as to you. What you've heard is probably not
uncommon. There's usually a certain amount of opposition to any development, particularly at this stage. I
think what we want to do is, by way of reiteration of what John said, was note the concerns of the citizens. The
people living in the area, and we do have some areas of agreement I think obviously on this development. But
20
City Cotmeil Meeting - January 10, I994
keeping our eyes on our objective tonight, which is to request that the City Council would consider a rezoning of
this area. The reason we're asking for that is simply that if we can all put ourselves hack 20-30 years ago when
a lot of these zoning issues were addressed, we were addressing a different type of demographic group of people.
The post war era. We were concerned about growing families and at the time, most all desirable zoning areas
were zoned single family residential simply because that was the hoo~.~ing type of demand That's what people
were buying and that's what cities were providing. Today we're dealing with a slightly different demographic
group. We're dealing with a growing, aging population. And these people, by the thousands, by the millions,
are requesting that the cities that they raised their families in, cities like Chanhassen, provide alternative housing
types such as what we're providing here. We're not ~_,king for additional density. The property already is
zoned for half acre lots. What we're proposing is 1.9 units per acre which is slightly less than what it's zoned
for. We're not asking for additional density. We're rex~nfiguring the housing so as to take advantage of the
unique topographical features of the site. The site does have a lot of wetlands making it a difficult site to build
on. But yet it's got a lot of natural beauty as well and I think by cluster building we can meet needs, the
security needs of the people in the ama, of the people that will be living here, as well as maintaining the
integrity of the lakeshore and a lot of the natural beauty. We've done this before. I think we've
got some photographs of the development in Shorewood. We've also recently done some work with. It's turned
out beautiful and I recommend all of you to go over and take a look at it again... Certainly the traffic issue is
something we want to address. The dockage is cenainiy something we want to address. And there are a number
of other issues the planning staff has brought up that we do want to talk about. But tonight what we're asking -
you to do is just simply say is this a viable housing type. Does the City of Chanhassen want to consider this
type of housing in that particular area.
Rob Roy: My name is Rob Roy. I live at 3110 Dartmouth Drive and I'm probably one of the most impacted by
the development because I'm fight at the month of it. I understand that the Boyers have built single family
homes on half acre lots and as far as the density issue, one way or the other, I like this program because of the
value of the homes that can be both close to Highway 7 and close to the lake. I'm fine with that. And I've also
seen their wo& and by the way I'm also related to them. One of the things that, there's a number of issues that
concern me but it's my understanding that this is not the lime to talk about the boating or the traffic and so
forth, correct? Or is this the time to voice our concerns about this now?
Mayor Chmiel: Whatever your concerns basically are, it should be expressed at this time.
Rob Roy: So there won't be another meeting or?. Well, I'll take the time to do it then. Can I have a map
please of the site plan? The three major areas of pollution into Lake Minnewashta. I hear all of my neighbors
talk about it but they've never bothered addressing iL No, I need the other one first. There's an open storm
sewer thai Joe ~ked about that dumps a lot of pollution into Lake Minnewashta. It's down on our outlot that
we met about some time ago and I raise it again. This will be the fourth time I've brought this up. That the
City, I don't know hasn't addressed it. Doesn't want to address it or if there's more problems asst~iated than I
have been told. There's also another drainage area which the Boyers are addressing, and now I need that site
plan. Yeah. With the pond here and that's going to take cam of those, pan of the problem over in Shorewood.
The other pan is located down in this area here. And these two are the City's, and the Boyers are addressing
this one. What I would like to see in this development, and it's been discussed before but there's also a chanc~
for the city to do something fight and stop talking about taking care of the lake and doing something about it. Is
putting in a road this way and building another settling pond here so figs area totally will be filtered, rather than
what we currently have right now. It would solve two issues. One that's son of mine is of course the Waffle
and you'd have access out to Washta Bay Road. You'd also settle this pollution problem that's coming over,
again it's from across Highway 7 and building a sediment pond. And I think the city should participate in that.
21
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
These are existing, I think the city ought to clean up it's act in our neighborhood, which is the drainage that's in
the outlot area. As far as my neighbors feel, my neighbors talk about a pristine and t_~ing care of the lake as
long as, and that issue was never addressed and it should be. So here's a chance to clean up 3 areas. Well, two
in this one development. If the city would take another access because the land is available from Washta Bay
Road into this development When you talk about lakeshore I'm reminded of when we were here for our outlot
and the statement was made to me by Councilmember Wing and as he stated...when you have the proper amount
of lakeshore, which it has been designated by the DN1L to be legal and fully developable. If you meet the
requirements as you did, as you mentioned Richard, you have the legal requirements, you're allowed the boat
dockage. I don't have a problem with boat dockage. They talk about the pollution and so fa'th with the boats,
I'd just like to see people quit using chemical fertilizers on their lawn and dump more sand on their beach and
so forth and start, instead of talking the talk, walking the walk. Again, as far as the rezoning is concerned, I'd
like to see it rezoned this way because I think we're going to get a higher quality of development in there on the
dollar basis and on the off...towards Highway 7 there will be a better value than ff there was single family
homes. I also look at the traffic issue from single family homes, ff we have families in there, and the Boyer's
are allowed to develop 26 home sites, of single family homes, then I see teenagers and children. I see a lot
more traffic than I do with this development. If you haven't seen the plan. There's one master bedroom
upstairs and one bedroom downstairs for guests. 3,000 square feet. So when I look at this development, to me
this is more attractive. Especially the traffic area that I'm located in. And one of the council suggested was to
block off or planning to block off Arbor and to make another access right along my property line. Well then I'll
be bounded by three sides of highway, or road, and I find that very unacceptable. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Anyone else?
John Blumentritt: For the purpose of the City Council knowing why we are pursuing the rezoning, can I request
either from Kate or Paul to explain what the current Comp Plan allows and doesn't allow. Just as a refresher
and also for the purpose of the neighborhood also to understand why we are rezoning this property.
Mayor Chmiel: Kate, would you like to do that?
Kate Aanenson: Currently this property is zoned residential single family. The way the PUD ordinance allows
now, the smallest lot you could go would be 11,000 square feet and again you'd have to average it to 15...The
only way a 5,000 square foot lot would be allowed would be under the medium density so we'd have to zone for
a higher density. As I indicated earlier, staff would be reluctant to do just a straight board rezoning. If this
project was dropped and someone else picked it up. We felt that it would probably be more...ff we'd go ahead
and make a Comp Plan amendment allowing elust'ering in the low density development. So that's what the
issues, part of this rezoning, Comp Plan amendment
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
Nancy Mancino: So that would be city wide?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Nancy Mancino: That would be anyplace that there is residential single family right now that would after this, if
he works through half that thing in those areas, you could do 5,0007 With an average of 15,0007
Tom Merz: Could you re-explain that I didn't get what she was, could you re-explain that? How you're
22
City Council Meeting - Jarluary 10, 199~
taking this piece of property and allowing 27, you're allowing 5,000, you're allowing a home for 5,000 square
feet. Is that what you said?
Kate Aanenson: We're allowing the clustering. Yeah, the overall density is still, as we indicated in the staff
report, the overall density is similar to if it was developed as regular 15,000 square foot lots. It meets that
criteria. If it was developed as 15,000 square foot lots based on the usable net density, raking out roads and
wetlands, they could get 26 units. What we've said here is, instead of spreading those out over 26, 15,000
square foot lots, we're clustering those units. PuUing more common space and allowing 5,000 square foot lots.
26-5,000 square foot lots and the rest would be common space under the PUD.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Excuse me Mr. Mayor. And would that defacto be saying for all other PUD's, as
Nancy pointed out, that we would be changing our ordinance to a minimum of $,000 as opposed to 11,000.
Mayor Chmiel: That's just about close. Yes.
Paul Krauss: The average, the 15,000 square foot average is still there so you're not all of a sudden going to see
20 homes on an acre.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: No, we're just allowing more flexibility with our PUD ordinance.
Kate Aanenson: The density's still there. They're just clustering it.
Paul Krauss: One of the problems is the building style itserf. Single family detached townhomes if you would,
are kind of a newer phenomenum and aren't really dealt with very well in the ordinance. See if these units were
stuck together and had common walls, we would know how to handle it and...more specific. But because they
broke them apart, it becomes a ~ee standing single family home and it's treated as a single family, a standard
single family homesite. And clearly that's the problem in this development.
Councilman Wing: One other question I'd have, as long as you have the floor is, the last few that have come
through here, we've been really adamant and you've really supported not having cul-de-sacs. Or the cul-de-sacs
being restricted or multiple access into these areas. And this one, it's not even mentioned. It seems like ff
there's adequate room here to map a road and have an access into this area.
Paul Krauss: When we first started working with the Boyers, they had sketched a larger development with a
thru road to the east. We preferred the thru road connection. The problem is it crosses an extensive wetland to
get there and the folks where it would land on the east side are none too excited about that either.
Councilman Mason: Excuse me, it's an ag urban wetland right?
Kate Aanenson: For...correet.
Councilman Mason: Where you're talking about putting the wad through is an ag urban wetland right?
Paul Krauss: Right. That was the earlier plan. Now it turned out given where the wetlands, where we believe
the wetlands to be located, you wouldn't get as many units, nearly as many units on that side. Although there is
23
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
some buildable ground on that side. There's a question of dead heading a road. You know if there are no units
in this...how do you get the road connection through here? Plus, this woman I believe-and this person testified at
the public hearing at the Planning Commission that they were not too excited about that proposal. Now, the
Boyers came back with a considerably smaller development that only had the one leg. We still would prefer a
thru sl:,eet but it doesn't seem all that re. ali~tic. A, to figure out a way across the wetland. B, to support it
financially. And C...without any development on that side of the wetland.
Councilman Wing: Do you know the history of that channel? I've been there since 1952 and all our
recollection is of the in-laws and the grandparents is that it was dredged illegally and was supposed to have been
filled back in. It's a man made channel It's starting to fill in. It's becoming non-navigable if you will I think
the Boyers are talking 1,900 feet of shoreline and you're ~qlking about putting this number of houses on a closed
channel like that that goes to the lake, if we want to discuss pollution issues. Every one of those houses, ff
they're going to use any type of fertilizer or whatever, we're really adding. But that's a separate issue with that
channel. I guess ff they want to count it as lakeshore, then I'd just as soon see them use it for boats and docks
because it's not navigable. It's filled with milt'oil. Getting worse and filling in and it's going to be non-existent
and they don't have the option now or in the future to ever dredge it, improve it or do anything with it. So if
they want to count it as lakeshore, then I want to use it. Let's call it lakeshore and let's build it and let's put the
docks and boats on that. I mean they're counting it as lakeshore but they want to get the boats and docks out
onto the main lake. Does that seem a reasonable argument?
Paul Krauss: Well, staffs position was somewhat in the middle. I mean we recognized that it was artificial.
We asked the DNR for a read on it and while they acknowledged it was dredged, they're declaring it as part of
the lake, Kate's recommendation did not include that area towards their allocated dockage.
Kate Aanenson: In addition, the DNR is saying that they would consider it natural shoreline and they haven't
used it in their calculations either so.
Councilman Wing: It's just, the area is so dominated by milfoil and inf'fltrated by milfoil that I'm just concerned
about the use of the lake. The dockage. Boat access and all. I mean for power boats, it's inaccessible this past
summer. It's not going to get any better. I don't want to be approving .this and suddenly have these people say
what are you going to do about the milfoil, because we're not going to do nothing about the milfoil.
Paul Krauss: In the channel or?
Councilman Wing: The channel and the entire lakeshore is infestated heavily and it's not treatable. It's not
going to be treated. The City's not going to do anything with it. I want to make sure that that issue's on the
table too that they're building right into a milfoil farm and it's kind of tough luck. We're all living with the
same problem. But that's just another side issue. I just was curious about the history of that channel and how
we were looking at that.
Paul Krauss: We don't honestly know when it was put in. It's just always been there.
Councilman Wing: I was there and I can't remember.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions of staff?.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: I have a question just before I forget. Paul, do we have any, where are the, our
24
City Council Meeting - 1anuary 10, 199~ ~
swamp funds or our project's priority list? The ones that Mr. Roy addressed. Are they on our list anywhere?
Paul Krauss: Well actually yeah. We identified those. We've identified this major flowage underneath
Highway 7 down into here. It's on our priority list. As for the other ones, I'm not sure if they are. It's a
problem that I think our staff is aware of. We have not allocated project dollars to this area yet. Traditionally,
when we have an opportunity to try to piggy back on a development, I think this one is a case where we had
that possibility. '.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: Okay, thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions of staff?.
Councilman Senn: I guess I'd like to hear your response Paul to, you know I heard the statement ro_~ a couple
times now regarding by clustering we're creating open space. You know, where are we creating open space?
Paul Krauss: Well I think you'd be looking at that design in perspective, you'll see that large portions of the site
are being untouched. Now, and that includes both sides of, there is buildable ground on the east side that is
being left open. There's buildable ground up by Highway 7 that's being left open.
Councilman Senn: So you're saying thai that strip along the east side is buildable ground?
Paul Krauss: Portions of it, there is buildable ground on there, yes.
Councilman Senn: You can put a su~et in there and put houses in?
Paul Krauss: It's an ag urban wetland. You can build a portion on it and excavate another portion. It's
theoretically possible. I don't know that it's financially realistic but it's theoretically possible.
Councilman Senn: Without filling in the channel? Huh.
Councilman Mason: How wide is that strip? Do you know off hand?
Paul Krauss: On the east side? ·
Councilman Mason Yeah. I'm sure it says somewhere.
Councilman Senn: I couldn't find it.
Kate Aanenson: 120 feet.
Councilman Senn: I20 feet. How could you fit it in? I mean I don't understand that. How can you fit it in
with setbacks and stuff?
Kate Aanenson: ..~t private drive and ff it's a private drive, you only need 30 feet of right-of-way.
Councilman Mason: Yeah. Because it is ag urban, a lot of that can be filled in.
25
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
Councilman Senn: I can see why 'everybody on the east side's happy and everybody on the west side's not
happy.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Ma.son: I think some very interesting questions have been raised with this. Alternative housing.
Zoning issues 30 years ago as opposed to now. A side bar, every, before I really get going on this, every PUD
always has a blurb on affordable housing and we have yet to have a PUD come through that addresses the issue
of affordable housing and I'm not going to argue that this is the spot for affordable housing but, and I haven't,
how many times do we have to go through this with PUD's. I don't personally see what the city is getting on a
PUD on this. I don't know what this will look like when it's done from Highway 5. Excuse me, from Highway
7 or from the lake or from Dartmouth or for Arbor. I do know what I felt when my view of Minnetonka was
completely obliterated by all those townhomes that went in fight in downtown Excelsior. Now I know this is not
as massive but, 5,000 square feet? I think as a Council we really need to talk long and hard about that. I don't
deny that perhaps there should be some zoning changes in this city. I think the people that live around this area
have some compelling arguments about whether this is the particular spot that should be rezoued t~ not. So
maybe we need to talk about that.
Mayor ChmieI: Okay. I'd like to get some comments back from Council.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I'll go. I'll keep it short and sweet. I mean the purpose of this is concept
approval and in concept I don't like it. I don't think it's a good transition from the neighborhood. I certainly
am open to the study of alternative housing. I think it's a very appropriate and very needed. I just don't think it
fits into this neighborhood, and just for Planning Commission and staff's and the rest of Council's future
considerations, I think we need to look at the minimum square footage on a PUD, And I'm not adverse to
bringing it down to 5,000 to fit in this type of housing. But that's a separate issue. For this piece of property I
don't think this is an appropriate use.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael.
Councilman Mason: Well, I raised some of my concerns and I guess fight now I'm inclined to agree with
Colleen about whether this is appropriate use for this site o~ not. Before I reject it out of hand, I guess I'd be
curious to know what it would look like as an RSF. I'm struggling with the transition here between Sterling
Estates and everything around it and this. It looks really nice. I'm not rejecting the development but I'm
agreeing I think with Colleen here about the transition in that whole neighborhood.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: I like the type of housing that's being suggested but I have to agree, I don't like it on this
site. Basically I spent a long time...out there and looking at it and it, I just can't, oh I don't know, through any
picture in my imagination make it fit. The real problem I see is that regardless of what the history is in the
channel, it seems to me the channel is what's gumming it up. And the reason I think it's gumming it up is if
you could do reasonable transitions between both of the existing neighborhoods and what you're mggesting here,
it may be more viable. But with that channel there, in whatever form it's there and I don't see how that's really
a comparable, given the fact that I don't think the site really fits. The concept in terms of the housing. The
only way to change my mind is to adequate buffer it and ff you can adequate buffer it to the one side but I don't
see any way you can adequately buffer it to the west at all. So I just have a real hard time with this fitting in
26
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
Mayor Ciuniel: Okay. R/chard.
Councilman Wing: Well living out there I concur with the neighbors. I think when you think of Boyers you
think of qnnlity and they go hand and hand, so from that standpoint I'm really comfortable. I don't believe that
Joe would come in here, put in low income affordable housing in this particular piece of property. Like he
stated, it's a very valuable piece of property. $o right now I guess I'd like to see that RSF standard subdivision
with the q~a~ity work that Boyer does and I think we'd wind up with something pretty presentable-there. If I
was to approve it tonight, first of all homes that you see suggesting, I've looked at over in $horewood and
they're very impressive. They caught my eye jogging down the Waek and I said, ooh, what's that going on and
walked up there and I found them to be these old people homes. What did he call them7
John Blumentritt: Empty nesters.
Councilman Mason: That other thing I don't think is what you call them.
Councilman Wing: No it's not. Well I'd like to live in one. So we've got the quality there. Frankly the
clustering I can accept. If we're gaining some environmental issues here. But one thing that I think is the
greatest gift we could give the city in this project is to drop out Arbor Drive, which offsets from Seaman, which
you can't make a left turn in which has always been a nuisance. Drop out Arbor into a small cul-de-sac that
affects almost nobody and then T this development and Dartmouth into an intersection. A T intersection with
Seaman Drive so at someday a light could go in there or access to u'mt highway could be pwvided with turn
lanes and so on and so forth. So that really concerns me. So to approve this tonight would be, I would accept
the quality. I think I could buy the clustering but with the roads going in, there'd be less homes and maybe this
thing would be a little less obtrusive per numbering. And also the boat issue. I don't want to go back to 1981.
That ordinance was put in there to say you're not going to come in with 13 acres and just put in all the homes
you want and then tie them to the lake and everybody get~ a boat. We've discussed that. It's no longer an
issue. It's a dead issue. $o we don't have to discuss 26 boats unless they want to come in and develop all this
1,900 feet of lakeshore. Then the docks and the boats are entitled to go on that channel. I don't have any
problem with that. If they want to try and use that channel. But in a standard subdivision, we get 6, 7, 8 lots on
that 800 feet, we know that we're going to have one dock per lot or shared and we also know it's going to be
going through very heavy swampland areas into a very mucky bottom and it basically is unusable. And two
wrongs don't make a fight. I believe, I think Sterling Estates has been abusive in the p~t in f'filing in and
dredging and so on and so forth but that's the way it was in the 60's and 70's. But it's the 90's and two wrongs
don't make a fight and that isn't going to happen here. That option isn't available. They can't dredge it. They
can't mitigate the shoreline so we don't have to discuss that. If Sterling Estates was wrong and Joe Boyer did it
right or wrong, the neighbors that came in did it right or wrong, but that won't happen again. We know have
rules and regulations and we're now thinking visionary and it's the 90's. So let's not back track what people did
in the past. So I'm comfortable with the standard subdivision right now. And before I would look at this
conceptually, although I really do favor it, I think Joe will do an excellent job here with this partic,lar idea.
Even going down to the 5,000 and I'm not shutting it out but I'd like to see what this road connection would
look like. How we could do it and what a standard subdivision RSF would look like before we approve this
conceptually. A standard subdivision RSF may look worse than this and we may say, well this is the way to go.
We don't have to approve it conceptually. This is what we'd like to see done here. So I don't have the answers
in the road issue. I don't have the answers in what this would look like as a standard subdivision. And if I
could just digress mildly on that, express my concern about that is when we approved this townhome above
27
City Council Meeting - Sanuary 10, 1994
Byerly's, or this new townhome going in, I honestly and truly thought that what we looked at and the pictures
we were shown, that that was sort of in line with the Village Apartments up on the top of the hill and then going
north. I'm dumbfounded to see that the picture I was shown is nothing like I thought and those are being built
fight down into the hill. Right into the city and I don't have enough information to address the conceptual issue
fight now. I want to emphasize my enthusiasm for Joe Boyex and these homes. Go look at them. They're first
class. And if they're going to cluster them and it's going to protect Highway 7 and the lake, I think it's going to
fit in. But I want to know more about the road and I want to know more about a standard subdivision first.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess from just looking at this and changing that zoning from low density RSF to zero
lot line, than PUD medium density, I have some real concerns because we're going to be establishing precedent
and with that, that means that that's going to be the name of the game. I'm not for that game fight now.
There's no sense to going into reiteration as to what has been said hack and forth here because it's, many of the
feelings that I still have and I do, in looking at the overall picture of it, and with what staff has recommended,
putting that to even a 9 boat slip dock I strongly would support that and not any different than that. So with that
I would now call for a motion to support, deny or whatever position you'd like to take. But I do want to
establish one thing. That we would be having a precedent for the approval as to what they're proposing for the
comprehensive plan amendment. ,
Councilman Senn: I'm confused. Do we pass a motion on a concept review?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Correct Roger?
Roger Knutson: Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: You have to. You have to have a vote in order to move it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would move that we deny the concept for the Planned Unit Development to
rezone 13.47 acres of property zoned RSF to PUD.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, again my suggestion I made before. We should have Findings so when you deny this,
if you're going to deny it, so I'd recommend that the motion be to prepare Findings...
Councilwoman Dockendoff: So moved.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Senn: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: h's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Michael.
Councilman Mason: Yeah. I want to hack track a little bit to what Richard was saying. I'm fight now inclined
to vote with the motion but I think there are some issues that are unresolved here. So I would hope that ff it
does get turned down now, we as Council could direct staff and the Boyers to look at what our concerns are.
And see ff they can come back with some sort of compromise. Is that kind of what.
Mayor Chmiel: Roger, what's the lime period of that once it, ff it's a comprehensive plan or the amendment
would be.
28
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
Roger Knutson: If the motion on the floor passes, and you wanted to take another look, it would have to go
back through the process. Go to the Planning Commission, in front of the public hearing and then back here.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. But is there not a period of time that this is established?
_-
Roger Knutson: Where you'd have to act on a comprehensive plan amendment or re, zoning? No, there isn't.
Councilman Mason: ~ We're at the discussion phase fight now fight? So if this motion doesn't pass, and there
was a motion to table, I'm thinking out loud here.
Councilman Senn: I guess that's what I was coming back to. I mean, and maybe that's where I'm uneasy with
it. It seems to me that we really would like to see some alternatives and a lot more information. If we're being
told to act on this tonight, which is probably a bad way I asked my question before, I'm going to vote no on it.
Okay? If we can go forward and say see some more plans on some subdivisions or standard subdivisions. More
standard subdivisions. As well as some of the alternatives and see some of the questions answered. I mean to
me that's the way to go fight now.
Roger Knutson: If you want to keep this, ff you want to see more information and more variations and iterations
of this, or compare it what a single family would be, if you want to keep it say alive for now, then I'd
recommend the tabling rather than denial. Unless you want them to go back to the beginning and start all over
again with a new application and new public hearings.
Councilman Senn: And tabling doesn't set any clock in motion or time in motion that forces us to turn around
and take some kind of an action?
Roger Knutson: Because this is not a plat, where you have that time clock running.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Roger Knutson: On a rezoning and Comp Plan, there is none.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. At this time we have a motion on the floor.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd like to withdraw my motion because I guess I do want to see the lesser or two
evils. I would like to see what an RSF development would look like.
Mayor Chmieh Okay, and with the mofionee mating that xemark, with the second automatically dead.
Councilman Wing: Then I'd make a motion to table this and the table specifically directs staff to review the
options of a standard subdivision. Assuming quality homes will go in. We can make a map up to show the
maximum we could do to this property and destroy it. 75 feet on the highway. I don't believe Boyers have ever
done that and ever will so I'd like to see a realistic standard subdivision proposal addressed.
Kate Aanenson: Can we ask the applicant ff they're willing, if they're interested in doing that before we pass
that? ...maybe they just want the denial. I don't know.
John Blumentfitt: I think that's our preference. We don't want to deny this and just have this lag on forever
29
City Council Meeting - Sanuary 10, 1994
and ever. This is one concept. One avenue that we had selectecL If there is a multipl!city of avenues and one
that you want us to review with the staff, then please table this. We'll review this to the staff. We'll work this
out with the staff and come back with something that you visnally then can see the altmmatives and then come to
your decision.
Councilman Wing: Yeah, my motion to table is not to kill the cluster, because I'm not so sure I don't support
that. But I do want to see the options of a standard subdivision. I would like to see Seaman and Dartmouth T'd
and how the roads might work. City roads going through there. What else do we have?
Councilman Senn: Well I'd like to see something that straightens this out more and gives better buffering to the
neighborhood to the west. And negating use of that road system which I think you've already kind of a~ked.
Councilman Wing: I think we've all said pretty clear that this boat issue simply isn't going to be addressed.
We're not bringing the 1981 ordinance back and I think that ff that's the case, I'm going to support a standard
subdivision and put in all the lots you want on the lake and then put in your boats at the docks but it's going to
be less than 26 and I'm really, I support the neighbors on that issue. I think that's justifiable.
Councilman Senn: Well to me the boat issue is a non-issue until you decide what the heck...going to be.
Councilman Mason: So the motion is on the table?
Mayor Chmiel: A motion is on the table to table.
Councilman Mason: I will second that.
Mayor Chmiel: There is a second to table with the additional information that we're looking for to receiving at
whatever the next presentation comes through.
Councilman Mason: If I could. I also, tkis is a tough one because this is obviously a class act. I share the
Mayor's concern about, if it was just this area that would be 5,000 square feet, I think I could say well yeah.
But if we're going to open up this city wide, that's a whole other issue too so I'm glad we're choosing.
Mayor Chmiel: It's something we have m address.
Councilman Mason: I'm glad we're choosing to table this and certainly not deny tonight and let's see what we
can work out.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I think Mike's concerns were reflected by the Planning Commission meeting.
That it's probably the number one concern in this case.
Councilman Senn: I didn't see anything in there though that addressed how we deal with that.
Mayor Chmiel: No, they didn't.
Councilman Senn: I mean did that mean that we create a new section in our zoning ordinance?
Mayor Chmiel: That's the point that's my concern.
30
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
Paul Krauss: We were just discussing that. I mean there's a possibility of modifying some of the language in
the PUD ordinance that's quite specific.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. But all these modifications that we keep putting into, we're lowering the standards and I
don't like lowering the standards period.
Councilman Mason: Well are we lowering them or changing them?
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's the point.
Councilman Mason: Right. Well I throw that out too and I'm not disagreeing with you on that.
Councilman Wing: But if I was to bring back my 22,000 square foot lot with an 11,000 PUD with a net lot of
18,000 and any options you want, we're still going to get to that density issue. Then after we get to the
density...
Councilman Mason: No, no. Affordable.
Mayor Chmiel: By the way, we're going to have some meetings coming up. Maybe you'd like to.
Councilman Mason: I would like to be a part of those, very definitely. Please keep my informed.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Motion's on the floor with a second to table. Call the question.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table the Comprehensive Plan Amendmel~t to
change the land use designation from Residential Low Density to Residential Medium Density and
Conceptual PUD for 26 single family zero lot line units on 13.47 acres for additional information. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDERATION OF THE AMOUNT REQUEST FOR SITE RESTORATION FUND FOR THE
MOON VALLEY GRAVEL OPERATION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Jerry Rypkin
Tommy Geekel
150 Flying Cloud Drive
Attorney for Moon Valley
Roger Knutson: At least most of the Council's been intimately involved in this obligation for a number of years.
I won't go through it's history. I believe you are fanailiar with it. The Judge has remanded Moon Valley issue
to the City Council to make a finding on one issue and that is, what is the appropriate amount for a restoration
fund. To help guarantee that the site will be restored to a reasonable slopes when this area is mined out. You
have calculations in your background materials based upon the history of how much aggregate has been moved
in the past. And how much money it will cost to complete the restoration and a suggestion that based upon all
those considerations, 20 cents per cubic yant go into that fund relxoactive to the date when the ordinance was
31
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
effective would be appropriate. YOu will note that 20 cents a cubic yard will not by any stretch of the
imagination come close to providing the $2 million, in all likelihood anyway, that will be necessary to restore the
site.,..of the restoration fund, the primary funds anyway of the restoration fund, will be to m~l~o, sure there's at
least enough incentive to the owner, whoever that is at the time, not to walk away from that site and leave it a
mess... The financial incentive is the money on deposit that in all likelihood there will be enough money,
enough incentive so the site will be fixed up. And yet the mount will not be so onerous as to prevent the
operator from operating. Based on those considerations as laid out in the report in front of you, we'd
recommend you adopt the Findings that are prepared and that you approve the 20 cents per cubic yard. I'll stand
for any questions you have. I know the applicant and their attorney is here and I'm sure they'd like to make a
comment.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you Roger. Does the attorney for Moon Valley or whoever is represented care to
address us at this time?
Tommy Geekel: Good evening Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Tommy Gleekel. I'm a
principle with the firm of Siegel, Brill, Oreupner & Duff-y who's represented Moon Valley Aggregate flu'oughout
the entire litigation and Mr. Knutson referred to. I have a few quick comments. One I, although I was initially
involved in the litigation, I've not been involved for quite some time. Due to some scheduling problems we
couldn't get over, Mr. BrilL who's been dealing with Mr. Knutson and Mr. Scott, the City Attorneys, was not
able to come this evening. I do have the basic knowledge of the operation and what I believe to be the basic
issues and the intent behind the City's request. First I want to address the basic assumptions, and I think Mr.
Knutson referred to those, or at least the city's concern being some financial or some incentive for Moon Valley
to not walk away from the property. We used this quite a bit and I think Mr. Knutson has probably heard this
argument but we stand by it...permanent representation in Moon Valley and other gravel operators within the
metro area. I think that quite some time ago, probably before my time there were many or a few gravel
operations and there still are a few. Maple Grove in which the property's were leased and not owner operated,
in which those operators walked away from the project because they had no contractual obligations to the
landlords, nor the incentive to maintain the property, (a) to mine it responsibly so they could develop it, and Co),
to maintain the value of the property because their entire interest was to exu'act various minerals from the
property. Here the propen-y's owner operated. Another example of that is one Mr. Knutson as well is familiar
with is in the city of Apple Valley in which a client of our's is in the process of moving it's mining operations
in Apple Valley and is currently developing gravel operations that have been mined for quite some time for
lucrative residential developments. I bring that up because I think that's a basic assumption to be made when
thinking about what type of value to put on it or what basis the city is determining to have this incentive. The
incentive is the value of the property and in an owner operated property it would be ludicrous to believe that a
property owner would walk away from a valuable piece of property that could be developed such as the one in
the Moon Valley property. Specifically, I didn't do this,,.but Jerry Rypkin who's with Moon Valley Aggregate
made several phone c_a!l~ to various operators within the metro area and in Elk River, Shakopee, Maple C-rove,
Lakeville, Empire Township, Inver Grove, Burnsville, to name a few, to discuss with them what their, either was
there a restoration fund or a bond fund that they was imposed by the governmental authority or governing
authority and in those there were either none or the amount was less than this 20 cents per acre. I think there's
only one where there's an actual, or two where there was actual amounts and that was $5,000.00 totally for an
operation. That's just to give an idea. Granted that the city can base it's assumptions on what it specifically that
it sees are the facts with it's city but that's an idea. Generally I believe this may be your only existing operating
pit of this kind. Permanent or in a sense interim use pit within the city. The issue comes down to economics, as
most things often do. Here, 20 cents per cubic yard is excessive in that it basically takes the competitive edge
off my client's operation. Moon Valley is an operation which competes with various other operations in the
32
City Council Meeting - 1anuary 10, 1994
Carver County, Western Hennepin County area. Dakota County. However, this operation is able to compete and
provide reasonable clay and other sand and aggregate materials and compete with the economics the way it is
today. An example of that would be recently Moon Valley Aggregate had a bid for I think a bridge job that was
only 7 cents, or his closeat competitor was 7 cents higher than he was and he was able to get the job. That's
just an example. With the 20 cents added to that, and the margins are very small and competition is excessively
fierce, the margins __acl_rl_~ to that, I think competing with other operators that don't have this fund, it basically
takes the competitive edge off the operation. Prices, just to give you an idea of range, from 50 cents a cubic
yard for clay to $1.50 a cubic yard for good sand. So 20 cents a cubic yard goes for almost 45% of the actual
figure for clay to a smaller'for good sand. But it is a significant figure per cubic yard that's being sold, and
that's how the minerals are sold. What was done, from my understanding as Mr. Brill had stated to me is that
we had, this had gone to Judge Kanning in the Scott County, or Carver County court system. It's gone back and
forth and back and forth. It came to you as the Judge asked for a recommendation or a motion from the city. If
it's not agreed upon by us, I'm sure that we'll end up but that's really not relevant for today's discussions. We
have, what I have been given the authority to do, and I guess, and I understand it's either been forwarded to Mr.
Krauss and Mr. Scott and/or Mr. Knutson, is to suggest a kind of a stepped up procedure. Stepped up figme for
putting the dollars into this fund. And that is from 1994 to 1995, 5 cents per cubic yard. 1996 to 97, 10 cents
per cubic yard. '98 to the year 2002, 15 cents per cubic yard. And in the year 2003 to the closure of the
operation, 20 cents per cubic yard which is the 20 cents that you am, that has been recommended by staff this
evening. We are here to request that that be the motion or that be the resolution that's approved by the City
Council this evening. For the reasons stated about competition and again the margins are very small and this
will affect Moon Valley's operation. And to keep in mind the basic idea of why, the basic idea of where the
value is and the incentive to restore the property is the value of the property itself because this is an owner
operator. It's not leased property and the value to Mr. Zwiers, the principle of Moon Valley is to .develop the
property once it's been mined himself. Thank you for your time.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Roger Knutson: Concerning the issue of the competitive edge. On August 30th Judge Kanning issued an
Order that stated, within 60 days of the filing of this Order, Moon Valley will provide the City and the Court
with the information necessary to determine a restoration ftmd amount which is not unduly burdensome to Moon
Valley. That information was never supplied. According to Mr. Hempel's calcul~ions, you're looking at a
restoration cost of some $2 million. A substantial cost. The 20 cents proposed by staff would raise, based upon
past excavation activities, roughly $27,000.00 a year. Yon can see that's a small part of the actual cost of what
restoration would be.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Any questions by Council? ff hearing none, can I have a motion?
Councilman Senn: Why, a question ff I could.
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
Councilman Senn: I don't have any history of this one way or the other but why axe we at 20 cents when
you're sitting here saying that it won't cover the cost?
Roger Knutson: It's a low figure. We didn't want to be overly burdensome. At $I,00 a yard, could the
operator make a living at it? I don't know but I have some doubts. At 20 cents I think he certainly could. It's
33
City Council Mee~g. January I0, 1994
enough to give him an incentive but not enough to be burdensome, as suggested. And that number was
discussed with Judge Karming.
Councilman Wing: Well I do have the history on this and I'll just, at least for discussion, move staff
recommendation establishing a restoration fund in the amount of 20 cents per cubic yard, reucactive to January
1, 1991.
Roger Knutson: That would be, Councilmember, could you move adoption of the Findings of Fa~t u ~t forth
in your packet? That had the 20 cents in it.
Councilman Wing: If your comments show on the ret. oM, I would so move.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second?
Councilman Masom Second.
Mayor Chmieh Moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Councilman Wing: Well I'm just, having sat through this for how many years now and had the battle go on
with this group and we've tried to be fair and reasonable and I guess reading through the facts that we have in
our packet, the Judge has sat down with you and their attorneys and said here's what's reasonable and fair and
give...and I think you've presented what the Judge has agreed and their attorney in fact has somewhat agreed
here.
Roger Knuts~n: The Judge has not agreed on the 20 cents. It was discussed with him. That number...the Judge
has not found' it to be, the Judge wants your input before malting a decision.
Councilman Wing: Okay. And I don't know if I can say the 20 cents is the right number. That's where we
have to fall back on staff I think.
Mayor Chmiel: Well I think from what staff ha~ looked at, and what Dave has gone through, I feel quite
comfortable with it. Plus the fact that when we requested the information be provided to us, this has been going
on for so long it's getting ridiculous and I know they did not provide the information to us as we had requested.
And I just think it's time for us to move on and I think I will. 13o ahead Michael.
Councilman Mason: Just real quickly. For whatever mason they chose to have no input in what that charge
should be, which I think is, well that was their decision and I certainly, I supported staff down the line on
whatever's gone her~. I see no reason not to sttptx~ staff on this now.
Councilman Senn: What are we trying, cr I guess what I'm trying to get is what are we trying to accomplish as
a city as it relates to mining? I mean get it done more rapidly and be done with it? Manage the amount that's
going out?
Roger Knutson: No. What we're trying to do is have a situation that is under control that is not causing erosion
problems, safety problems, and when you're t'mished we have a site that can have another end use and we don't
have a scar on the earth forever. ! mean there's stcann water problems...issues is quite extensive and I believe
we're down to this one item.
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
Councilman Senn: Are those lessened by the way you manage the removal or are those problems inherent in the
operation and there's no way you're going to resolve them until the operation is done?
Roger Knutson: Some of the problems are...on the table with this issue. A lot of the operati~ problems can
be solved by proper management, proper ~nnn water control, what have you and those have been dealt with.
But this issue is the final grade. Final slopes.
Councilman Senn: There are pr6per systems or whatever in place now in terms of managing?
Roger Knutson: It's not everything we would like, that's fOr certain but what we have to realize is this is not a
new pit and when the Council, a couple years ago, is,sued a permit, said here's the conditions, it took them to
fact that it was an existing non-conforming use. If you'd like a full briefing on it, maybe the best I would
suggest would be after the meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think that's right. Okay, so with the discussion we've had, I'll call the question.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adopt the Findings of Fact establishing a
restoration fund in the amount of $.20 per cubic yard retroactive to January 1, 1991, to be used to insure
the restoration of the Moon Valley gravel pit. AH voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR TH S SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD (AUDUBON ROAD TO
GALPIN BOULEVARD) AND TRUNK UTILITIES, PROJECT 93-32.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I'll fly to be brief with this. Basically what you have in
your packet is the feasibility study for a rather large capital improvement project proposed through the area
between Galpin Blvd and Audubon Road south of Trunk Highway 5. It involves...through Audubon Road...
reconstruction of the portion of Galpin Blvd from Timbenvood Drive north to Trunk Highway 5. It does involve
the extension of trunk sewer and water main improvements to that general area...is about 200 acres of land
that's...At this point the staff recommendation is to fonually receive the feasibility study...
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Charles. Any questions?
Councilwoman Dockendoff: Yes. The report addresses assessments.
here.
I'm just wondering who gets assessed
Councilman Mason: Timberwood gets it all don't they?
Charles Folch: ...the actual assessment numbers are being, still being worked on at this point in time. We hope
to have those to you within the next week or so and would be adding an attachment to the document.at the
public heating. The property's in general would be for assessment at this time that are identified are the school
site property, city owned property, Highway 5 Partnership which lies east of the school site, the...MeGlynn
site...and also land owned by Heritage Development...
Councilwoman Dockendoff: Great, thanks. And a related issue. The semaphore at Oalpin. I thought that that
was going in a couple weeks ago.
Charles Folch: Ac_njally a couple weeks ago, a couple council meetings we discussed in November the Council
35
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
did authorize a petition, joint petition with Carver County requesting Mafl3ot to proceed with doing
an...implementafion of a temporary signal at that location. The problem with the...som~time early '95. By the
time we get the signal in but' that...get it in by late summer or early fall of this year.
Councilman Wing: What are the chances at Audubon and TH 5, is there a light scheduled there also?
Charles Folch: Not at this time. But it is likely that that could occur sometime in the next 3 years.
Mayor Chmiel: But I think you're right Charles. I thought they were going W take those signals that we had on
78th and Great Plains and move those from that location.
charles Folch: Yeah, actually we...and they got them back.
Mayor Chmiel: Well I didn't think we were going to let them get them back
Charles Folch: I looked into, with their signal operation department to see if there was a mechanism or a way to
be able to hang onto those to fast track them down to Galpin and there really wasn't a way...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn: Move to receive.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Resolution g944)8: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to receive the feasibility study
for Trunk Highway $ south frontage road, (from Galpin Boulevard to McGlynn Drive) and Galpin
Boulevard (CSAH 19) from Trunk Highway S to Timberwood Drive, and area trunk utilities, Project No.
93-32 and call for a public hearing at their regular meeting on Monday, February 14, 1994. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CONSENT AGENDA:
G. SET SPECIAL MEETING DATE, CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: Don't we have to set some dates here? 1 mean I don't see us moving.
Mayor Chrniel: Well I think that's what we have to do tonight. Everybody pull out their calendars.
Councilman Mason: Before we pull out calendars Mr. Mayor, in the past they've been supplied by a certain
Mayor who's just.
Mayor Chmiel: Haven't they gotten here? I'll let you use mine.
Councilman Mason: I'll take notes.
36
City Council Meeting - January I0, 1994 "
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Don Ashworth: Somewhere in the packet we do have a listing of all of your meeting dates.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh do we?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, there was one. · '
Councilman Mason: There were no dates down anywhere are there? "
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, they're here somewhere.
Councilman Senn: There was a full schedule of all the meetings.
Councilman Mason: Oh, oh, those. Yeah. I thought you were talking about the special meetings.
Mayor Chmiel: Oh no, no, no. And I ~ that's what we have to schedule inbetween. Those respective
meetings that we have.
Councilman Senn: I'd like to renew my suggestion that we w_ak~. Monday night City Council night and simply
s~art having two work sessions a month and two regular meetings a month until we get caught up and get this
stuff done.
Councilman Wing: There will always be something to do. Make it a motion so I can second it.
Councilman Senn: I did.
Councilman Wing: Second. It's a rare Council that doesn't do it now in a big city.
Mayor Chmiel: We're not big city yet.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Axe we big?
Councilman Wing: You bet we are. We're getting really big. Some major issues.
Mayor Chmiel: We're only at 15,000.
Councilman Mason:
Monday?
Councilman Wing: I could fill up every single one easily on issues that.
I'll agree to that with the, I mean are you saying that we absolutely have to meet every off
Councilman Senn: Well what I was thinking Mike was, at least until we get the stuff done and get furtber
notice, I don't know inherent in that to me is that ff there's a list of issues, I mean I've got Don's list which I
think is Don's list and I think there's others. I mean you could probably ask the five people sitting here and
you'll get other lists and it seems to me the next step to this is let's all put the issues on the table. If that be a
37
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
list of 25, then let's prioritize it so we can start going through and knocking off 1 to 25. Now that's not to say
that in the midst of knocking off 1 to 25, 10 more number one's aren't going to pop up. I don't know. But I
mean at least at that point we have some kind of an order and process that's in place to get going and address
some of this.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: I'd be willing to do that. I just don't want to show up on a Monday night and say,
well guys what do we talk about tonight. I mean I want an agenda.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I think we're going to have to, and I don't disagree because many Council's are going
through that same process. The size that we are is dictating more and more attention be given to the things that
we're not addressing as we should be. And I think that going through the process of having it on every other
Monday is I would say very, something we should follow through with. Making sure that we do have things on
that agenda that are going to be meaningful and eliminating given problems. Rather than just discuss and table.
Table. Table.
Councitman Wing: I'd like the agenda to be Council driven. Not staff driven.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. Like I say, establish the list of priorities and let's get it out.
Don Ashworth: Well you've got to tell me what you want.
Councilman Senn: Don, we can use yotrr list as a basis and each one of us should give you our list and we
should put them all together at the f~t meeting and we should sit down and look at it.
Mayor Chmiel: Now, what I would like to suggest. A time frame and I think it's something that we should
have with a good 2 hour discussion.
Councilman Mason: I would like to have some time parameters. And I would.
Mayor Chmiel: 7:00 to 9:00? 5:00 to 7:00? However you'd like it.
Councilman Senn: How about 5:30 to 7:30?
Councilman Wing: Well 5:30 to 7:00 and then if we spill over. We know we have to be here at 7:30 but 5:00
to 7:00 is enough time to get some...
Councilman Senn: I'd really love to set a 7:30 blow up time.
Councilman Wing: What's that?
Mayor Chmiel: That's it,
Councilman Senn: Yeah, that's it. We're done at 7:30.
Councilman Mason: Well we're not, are you talking about doing this on Council night?
Mayor ChmieI: No.
38
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
Councilman Mason: He is I think.
Mayor Chmiel: No, we're t~lklng about doing it on off Council night.
Councilman Wing: I won't be here because I can't quit the lire Department.
could make it until 7:00. At 7:00 1 have to head over.
Councilman Senn: A lot of times we'll be done.
don't go past that.
Councilman Mason: We will not go past 7:30.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Don Ashworth: You're going to have holidays in thexe so...
Councilman Senn: We can't meet on the holidays is my understanding.
Councilman Mason: And we clearly can't meet on the 31st.
Councilman Senn: Why not, we're meeting tonight and it's mine. '
Mayor Chmiel: With all those...you're going into February. Okay, starting.
Don Ashworth: We could get at the 31st depending on the agenda.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah Don, you don't need to be here.
Don Ashworth: For all of them.
Councilman Wing: Why not on Council night from 5:30 to 7:00?
Councilman Senn: That makes a long night.
Councilman Mason: When we get these to midnight shots, I can't be here 6 I/2 hours.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Not only that, you end up discussing that night's agenda.
Councilman Mason: And that's a good point. I don't want to be doing that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. S o as we're looking fight now.
I've got pension involved, I
The only thing Dick is let's put a 7:30 blow up on it so we
Councilman Senn: So we'll all get our list to Don and then our first meeting will be to address the list of
priorities.
Don Ashworth: And again, if the Council wanted to get together on the 31st, I mean Todd can be with you on
39
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
that evening.
Mayor Chmiel:
Don Ashworth:
Councilman Senn: ...between now and the 31st don't we?
Yeah, that's a big day if I remember right. 21 years or 227
Oh yeah. Would the Council be available to do that on the 31st?
No. Not unless you moved it.
Don Ashworth: Interview candidates?
Councilwoman Dockendoff: On the 17th?
Councilman Mason: Can't make that.
Councilman Wing: Well that's another issue here. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to spend my time
interviewing, after I sit in these commissions and listen to them go through these interview process. Make your
recommendations and d there's some problem with the Council, then we can interfere but I'm not sitting through
an interview process. I'm too busy.
Councilman Senn: Well can't we do that on the 31st?
Councilman Mason: That is a comment that Don had raised also that I think might be worth a couple minutes.
I mean I guess I agree with Richard. I have enough faith in the commissions and the people that mn our
commissions that ff we have the opportunity of maybe tulldng to the top 3 or whatever. But I don't need.
Mayor Chmiel: That's what's recommended.
Councilman Mason: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Rather than 15 minutes, I think that's a little too long. I think you can do it in 10, and at least
that's what we did at Public Safety.
Councilman Senn: But can't we do that the 31st without Don? We don't need Don there to interview the
candidates, do we? And that meeting, couldn't we do that and set the priorities al that meeting basically and
then we've got kind of our game plan laid out for the next month.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me put it this way. Rather than look at the top 3, ff there's only 2 candidates or 3
candidates out of 5 and they make a recommendation of 1, I think that's what we should do the interview on too.
Councilman Mason: I won't agree with that.
Mayor Chmiel: Why?
Councilman Senn: Because if you only have 2 candidates, I'd like to see both candidates rather than the
recommendation of only one.
City Council Meeting. January 10, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah but why?
Councilman Senn: Because I'd like to see what's available myself. We're supposed to appoint, you know we're
supposed to basically appoint them. I think we should see. If there's more than 3, let's see 3. If there's less
than 3, I think we should see them. I don't think we should ever be put in a position where we're forced to pick
one. That's just my opinion.
Mayor ChmieI: Well, yeah that depends on what the rest of Council feels.
Paul Krauss: ...you might want to take some time to hy out some parameters. I know every year it's.
Mayor Chmiel: It's different, you're fight.
Don Ashworth: I think we have a number of candidates for every one of the commissions though don't we?
So I mean they're likely not going to have a commission that just has 2 candidates, this time around.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, no. Not this time .... We had more than that. I think there was 3. You had 5. For
what?
Paul Krauss: Well the Board of Adjustments only has...we've had the same 3 people for years.
Councilman Mason: You ended up with 5 for Planning?
Mayor Chmiel: How many did you have?
Paul Krauss: We had 5 or 6, yeah? Now Jeff Farmakes I think technically is your fourth candidate but Jeff can
be re-appointed. You also, do you want to re-interview your existing?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: The existing candidates that have been on the commission?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes I would.
Councilman Senn: I would say ff we run into a situation as Paul has described with the Board of Zoning
Adjustments and you have two applicants and they're the only two applicants and they're the two people on
there, we should just waive the interviews. I mean if you only have two and you know who the two are, what's
the deal right? But if you have other people, than I think it's only fair to _mll~ to them and to compare them.
Councilman Wing: When I was on Public Safety and we had some enthusiasm for that commission back then,
we looked at demographics. Personalities. Professional versus hymen and frankly we didn't need the Council's
help or want it. We tried to get a balanced commission. Now all of a sudden you get a politic issue with the
Council and suddenly we're not meeting the needs of the commission. I think those people know where they're,
of course the theory goes the other way and I don't deny that. But I'll stay out of this because I probably will
be out of town for those meetings.
Mayor Chmiel: Oh you'll be on time. You'll be here.
41
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
Councilman Senn: Not if he's flying that airline.
Councilman Mason: Well the process that we've had where we talk with the top 3 and then make the decision
based on one, I'm happy with. I don't want to get, I have no intention of getting involved in interviewing 10
people. That's where I'm at.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah.
Don Ashworth: So I've got notes, you want to do it off Mondays. 5:30 to 7:00. Blow up of 7:30. Want to do
interviews on the 31st. You want to interview the top 3. You'd like to set it closer to 10 minutes and you want
to take and look at prioritizing the future agendas.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to make a suggestion that we do it upstairs in the alrium rather than here. You sit
where we're at looking down at them.
Councilman Wing: Let's get serious about what's for dinner then.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: I'm not a vegetarian.
Councilman Wing: Could you fly in some seafood?
Councilman Mason: But you know, Dick you made a comment before about it being Council driven. And you
know we went round and round and kind of said I think it has to be driven by both. You know I think you're
right but then I think that also gives us the responsibility of saying Don, I want to talk about this. I want this on
the agenda. You know. 1 mean it's easy for us to say Council driven but if we're not doing anything to drive it.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: So on the 31st, come with your list.
Mayor Chmiel: Well and I think too Don, you should prepare a list as to what you see are the needs as well.
Councilman Senn: I'd like to get our list to him before the meeting so he can take it and come in with a whole
list at the meeting that we can look at and prioritize.
Don Ashworth: Since your fn'st one is going to be with the candidates, wouldn't you like to maybe start a little
early or schedule them for 6:00? I mean some way so you can eat and you're not eating in front of them.
Mayor Chmiel: Let's try to keep that down to a 10 minute interview rather than 15.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: And start them at 6:00.
DOn Ashworth: Maybe that would be a good idea to do the prioriti:,ation first.
Councilman Wing: I'll be out of town that meeting.
Councilman Mason: So they'll be at 6:00 then? That sounds good.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. We've got that. We'll get that pulled together so we know what our calendar is. I
42
City Council Meeting - 1anuary 10, 1994
need a motion to, well we're not pulling it together yet so we won't have to have a motion for that one at this
particular time. Do you want us to table that one until you get this pulled together?
Don Ashworth: Yep.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, can I have a motion to table?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwo~s~ Dockendorf seconded to table setting special meeting dates
until after the January 31, 1994 work session. All voted in favor and the motion carried un~nlmoIL41y.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF A LOAN APPLICATION TO THE
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL'S RIGHT-OF.WAY ACOUISITION LOAN FUND (RALF)~ AND
AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN THE HIGHWAY 212 CORRIDOR WITH
PROCEEDS FROM THIS LOAN. ..
Councilman Senn: Paul, question. If I'm reading this correctly, we have to up front all the costs, or am I not
reading this correctly'/
Paul Krauss: No, you're reading it correctly. Now I asked Bob to follow up on this. I was involved with this
action a couple years ago. When this first came out and that was the understanding at that time. I had Bob
check on that... In fact in the past, I've had a few inquiries over the last 2 or 3 years about this and I go well,
we're willing to do it but... What I've found though is that Chaska and Eden Prairie have beem..and winding up
getting a lot of...
Councilman Senn: Well good for them. MnDot or what?
Paul Krauss: Well, something functional with this. That's what the program .. .that' s what you do. I mean "
unless you act in advance of MnDot so you can resolve...problems that the potential of having a highway inflicts
on a property owner. I mean they've been talking about this road for 37 years and it casts a pale of what you
can do with the land. The one that we have in question here has come up once before. It's one that we'd like
to get resolved for a couple reasons. First of all we do, I think we gave you a copy of what Chaska did with the
comprehensive analysis...
Councilman Senn: Let me shorten this because I'm not trying to lengthen it out. I have no problems with the
program. I have no problems with what you're suggesting to do. What I have problems with is we're sitting
here ad nausea trying to figure out you know geez, now we're $33,000.00 short or $40,000.00 short and we're
sitting here looking all over the place for how we come up with money and then this comes in and you're saying
we're going to basically pay MnDot and come probably damn close to $30,000.00 in up front cost to do this.
To me that doesn't make sense.
Paul Krauss: Well these costs are reimbursable.
Councilman Senn: I understand that but that's 5-10 years down the road.
Mayor Chmiel: No, no, no.
Paul Krauss: It's reimbursable immediately, ff we close on the deal, which is through...
43
City Council M~ting - Jantmry 10, 199,4
Councilman Senn: I thought it S~dd when the projects goes in hem.
Paul Krauss: Well if it does, that's misleading. What happens is, we pay the appraisal and ff they drop it at that
point, they walk away, we may be stuck with the bill. But ff they go ahead and we pick up the land through the
RALF fund, we can stick that appraisal cost into the acquisition cost and rebated that from the Metro Council
immediately.
Councilman Senn: So this is wrong? Because this says we don't get it until the State buys the land from the
city.
Paul Krauss: No. My understanding is we get it right away.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. You feel that?
Paul Krauss: If you want to put that as a condition, that would be.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I yeah.
Councilman Mason: We probably should make that a condition.
Councilman Senn: Let's make it a condition and then I'm happy.
Paul Krauss: But you do understand that there is an element of risk.
Councilman Senn: I understand the elements of risk. Move it with that.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution g94-09: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Resolution
authorizing the submittal of a loan application to the Metropolitan Council's right-of, way acquisition loan
fund (RALF), and authorizing the purchase of property in the Highway 212 corridor with proceeds from
this loan, with the condition that the City be reimbursed immediately by the Metropolitan Council. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
K. APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS.
Councilman Senn: It's late, Why don't you just move this separately and I'm going to vote no because there's
a number of items in here.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Accounts Payable as
presented. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote
of 4to 1.
M. APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION, PAULY'S BAR LIQUOR LICENSE TRANSFER
REOUEST.
Councilman Senn: I don't know whether it m_a~¢s any difference or not but under Findings of Fact I assume
you want all true statements and number 7. Under the City Vision 2002 goals, I wasn't aware that we had any
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
goals under 2002 yet. We're still in the midst of the process to develop the goals I thought And you're basing
a premise on that. For whatever it's worth.
Roger Knutson: I've not seen the 2002 goal statements. I received that from staff as something that a
councilmember stated. I have no personal knowledge of the subject.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: I think you're right Mark.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I think that's just a cxa-~-ection. That's all I'm looking for there. I assume you didn't
want something that they could turn around and say we're wrong.
Roger Knutson: I'd suggest if you want to approve these, delete number 7.
Councilman Senn: Delete number 7.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Or couldn't we say under proposed Vision 20027
Roger Knutson: If that's accurate.
Councilman Senn: And I still don't like the one year extension but that's al_right.
Councilman Wing: But let's adopt the vision. I think the HRA has clearly made that statement in the past.
Mayor Chmiel: Of what those goals basically are.
Councilman Senn: They are in existence.
Roger Knutson: You're just deleting paragraph 7.
Todd Gerhardt: He has until May.
Councilman Mason: I'll move approval of item 2(m) with deleting number 7 under Facts and Findings.
Maybr Chmiel: Okay, is there a second?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Sure.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to adopt the Findings of Fact and
Decision, deleting condition 7, for Pauly's Bar Liquor License Transfer Request. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously.
Don Ashworth: Pauly has not contacted us regarding extending that lease.
Councilman Senn: Oh, surprise. At market rate?
Don Ashworth: At any rate.
45
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
O. ESTABLISH 1994 PARK AND TRAIL DEDICATION FEES.
Councilman Senn: I thought we had m!ked a little bit about making an item on one of our work sessions
looking at the issue of whether we wanted to maintain the standard that's basically the basis for this whole thing.
And it just seems to me that where we are, kind of setting it in place for '94 and where we should be is kind of
looking at the standard and saying is it a standard we want to maintain?
Councilwoman Dockendoff: The standard being so much per so much?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, the 1 acre of land for every 75 persons. We said we were going to ?_aJk about ~at and
see ff it was something we should really look at changing. I know we've been busy on 100 other things Ihat we
haven't but
Mayor Chmiel: Do you want to touch that one Todd?
Todd Hoffman: The one thing I can say about the standard is that in every case hhat I've been involved with,
our standard of 1 acre per 75 people has resulted in the city acquiring less land than if you would take a straight
10%. Council could...
Councilman Senn: No, I understand. But when we looked at really adjusting the standard. Saying it's not
realistic for us to look at funding a program that basically says we're going to buy an acre of land for every 75
people. Or get an acre of land for every 75 people. I mean in some cases we have city wide parks. I don't
know if you call them broader scale parks that can suffice the need, we don't necessarily need to accommodate
all of those smaller parks. As this current ratio would suggest.
Roger Knutsoh: If I could jump in a second. I don't know if it suggests that. I don't know whether it's the
proper number but most of the time you get cash equivalent and you can take the cash dedication from lots...
subdivision and then buy one big park, ff that's what you want. This does not say you have to buy your lots in
little totlots. I don't know whether you can debate whether 1 per 75 is, that's your discretion. The reason, just
so you understand the reason. The reason we start there is because you have to relate the dedication
requirements, the need generated by the development.
Councilman Senn: Well the way we've been using tiffs is a subdivision comes in and we start pounding the
houses and we say, you know there's x houses here. We need to set aside acreage in that area to create a park
and that's, I don't have problems with what you're saying but what you're saying and what we're practicing are
two different things.
Roger Knutson: Yeah, you certainly, you have the discretion obviously to have a little toflot in every
subdivision. Or you can have no toflots and one huge manu~oth park someplace or whatever.
Mayor Chmiel: And those dollars can be consolidated into one to acquire that park is what Roger is saying.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So that's an overall issue. Okay, I'll just put that on my list.
Roger Knutson: I'll suggest that the 1 per 75 is a national standard that is widely accepted, not by everyone of
course but by a national standard.
~ 46
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
Councilman Senn: Okay. Then basically on the fees the question is, why ate we increasing, or I guess, I
thought what you were doing made some sense and then all of a sudden it didn't make sense. We're increasing
basically the single family by 50%. We're increasing the commercial industrial by 50% but we're raising the
multi family aparunents by far less than 50%. In fact it's, well not far less but I mean by less than 50%. Why
are we not just maintaining a par or equity going through if you're saying? .
Todd Hoffman: Yeah, I think it's closer to about 40%.
Councilman Senn: Well, about $800.00 would be the right number if you're looking at 50% on the multi-
family rather than $750.00.
Todd Hoffman: Essentially that's because we had it a little high the last go around in the multi-family...It's not
a big discrepancy the way I saw it but I did notice that as well.
Councilman Senn: Does it mo_ire any sense on a commercial industrial to tie it more to employment base than to
acreage?
Todd Hoffman: Some cities do that, sure.
Councilman Senn: That's the primary cause for use or heavier use.
Mayor Chmiel: But I think we have to look at it from the standpoint of however it's going to best facilitate the
city. Whether it be numbers of employees or going through our process.
Roger Knutson: Mayor? Again I don't want to prolong this but under the Statute, there's a StatutoP] formula
that you have to follow that says in any subdivision you can require the dedication or a reasonable portion of the
property or the cash equivalent. So that's the Statutory...you have to deal with.
Councilman Senn: Or the cash equivalent. So you're saying that these cash equivalents axe equal to the dollar
or the value of that portion of the property it would take otherwise?
Roger Knutson: I didn't. Todd.
Todd Hoffman: That's what we try to reach. That's our goal.
Councilman Senn: And these reflect that you think?
Todd Hoffman: They reflect it much closer than any other cities in the metropolitan area and that's a problem
which I've been discussing with other direcWrs.
Councilman Senn: I mean how could you combine commercial and industrial under that premise. I mean that
totally baffles me. Commercial's the most expensive. Industrial's the least expensive.
Todd Hoffman: You really can't and I know that in the report that commercial is probably 4 times as much as
industrial. Todd Gerhardt and I have discussed that prior to malting the report. It comes back to your point
which you made that you maybe should tie it to employment and your industrial users simply...
47
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
Councilman Senn: You're just saying you're short of money. I'm trying to come up _with ways to give you
more money.
Roger Knu~son: I'm suggesting, I don't know how you would tie one into that equation. The reason the
portions of the property are cash equivalent
Councilman Senn:. Yeah, I understand. If that's your premise then, yeah.
Roger Knutson: That's the legislature's premise.
Councilman Senn: How do the other cities do it that fie it to employment?
Roger Knutson: They don't that I know of. If they do, they're doing it improperly.
Todd Hoffman: The city has tied it directly to land values in the past as well. 4 or 5 years ago it was 10% of
the sale price of the property and then McDonalds bought a parking lot for something of a million dollars and
we wanted to charge them 10% to the parking and then that didn't fly either so it's been tested.
Councilman Senn: Okay, Well it's late. I'll move that to a discussion item for later. I'll move approval with
the change in multi-family to $790.00.
Councilman Wing: Welt, I'll second that but $790.00. I also want to make a comment on this.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess my question might be, I don't think we're going to deter any builders from building.
Does anybody feel there should be any alternative kinds of cost established in here other than up some or down
some?
Councilman Senn: Well I guess what I was trying to get at at the beginning is rather than set this tonight, I'd
really like to see us have a session to discuss that and look at the issues we've talked about.
Councilman Wing: The big picture.
Councilman Senn: Instances and then set this if we can wait. Now ff you're forced that you have to act on this
tonight, that's a different story. Do you need this tonight7
Todd Hoffman: I'll sign permits tomorrow under the new fee.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: Otherwise they stay at last year's.
Councilman Senn: Can we set these are temporary7
Todd Hoffman: Sum.
Councilman Wing: We can approve this and then after oar work session,
Mayor Chmiel: Well yeah, we can put them as temporary.
48
City Council Meeting. January 10, 1994
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I'd just like people to know our intent and our intent is this is kind of temporary stuff
yet and.
Mayor Chmiel: And they could go higher.
Councilman Wing: But I want to address that before we talk about it. We have a motion and a second and I'd
like, when you're ready, I'd just like a quick.discussion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, discussion.
Councilman Wing: There's some powerful words in here and-you don't have, you didn't have the money to go
out and buy that little parcel out on Lake Minnewashta. No one wants to address it. You don't have money to
go out and get the parkl_and. We're looking at $30,000.00 an acre of property in Chanhassen and we're below
that and I think when we, I'm not encouraged, I don't want to encourage people to come into Chanhas~n.
Maybe it's going to get more cosily to move into this town. Now it's filling up. The density's inor~asing.
Traffic's increasing. I'm not coming down here unless you do someflfing with those stop lights. I mean not to
use that as an excuse to hit you here but the town's growing. It's developing. We're either going to go for
parklands, parks, and keep things up now or we're never going to do it. $o his recommendation of $25,000.00 I
think is pretty generous. Pretty conservative as far as I'm concerned and I have no qualms about telling my kids
if you're coming into Chan or myself, if I ever build or change houses, that you're going to start paying for
some open land and parks in this city ff you want to come into Chanhassen. So the $25,000.00 is not an
unreasonable number to me and I would, my only interest. My only interest here is to approve the $25,000.00
which ups your's a little bit but that $25,000.00 is still below our acreage currently and it's going to accelerate
rapidly to a...so I'm opposed to this whole thing unless we go with the $25,000.00. That's why I'm so excited
about your $790.00. At least it says something that we're, let's start bumping the park fees up for the future of
the city and we're talking long term visionary. Long term visionary and there's going to be no parklands
available uuless we get them now.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Then it's a vicious cycle I mean.
Councilman Wing: It's not coming out of taxes. It's just a cost that you're going to pay to come into
Chanhassen. If you don't like it, go to Victoria but as soon as the demand's here, they're going to fill this city
up right to the brim. It doesn't matter if we triple that fee. They're going to come in and pay it when it
becomes feasible to be here and it's in demand.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And it's all passed onto the home owner.
Councilman Wing: Yes ma'am. Yes ma'am.
Mayor Chmiel: That's where it boils down to, exactly.
Councilman Wing: You can exclude it from affordable housing but other than thaL
Councilman Senn: Then you get into a wonderful m'gument about what existing paid under theft scenarios
versus future people and then.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
49
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I look at it as, I'd be happy to go along with the...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is that acceptable to the motionee and the second?
Councilman Wing: Well we're going to $790.00 right?
Councilman Senn: $790.00. I mean other than that we were going with this.
Don Ashworth: Temporary fees and you want it as a work session. Okay, got it.
Resolution g94-10: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to establish the 1994 park and
trail dedication fees as presented by staff amending the multi.family rate to $790.00. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously.
Todd Hoffman: Clarification. Do you want the one-third collected up front? The ordinance change.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Senn: We passed what you wanted otherwise.
Mayor Chmiel: One-third the cost of park dedication fees.
Councilman Senn: And you didn't even have to say anything.
P. APPROVE GRANT APPLICATION, MULTI-CITY/SCHOOL DISTRICT COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENT.
Councilman Senn: Hey Don, what you're looking at here between the school districts and the city and the one
stop service and stuff to me makes wonderful sense and it's like full speed ahead and that's kind of what you
addressed in the cover memo here but then I go back into here and it seems like we're also approving the study
of public safety. And that again, I mean it still really bothers me. I mean it seems like there's two...
Don Ashworth: I'm sure of this rec side and I haven't paid a whole lot of attention on the public safety side, If.
the Council wants to knock us out of that side, fine. That doesn't bother me. I've got more than enough to do
on the rec side.
Councilman Senn: Yeah I, you know, I'm just going to restate an earlier problem. I have real problems
comparing ourselves to the other member cities as it relates to the public safety functions and just think it's a big
waste of staff time and everybody else's time to enter that into this as it's being suggested. On the rec hand I
couldn't agree with it more. I mean it really makes some sense.
Don Ashworth: One of the reasons I see us in this thing is, I really believe that we provide services at a very
reasonable cost at whatever you want to look at. And if as a part of that we can help document it so somebody
comes in and says, you bunch of idiots you know. You're not prodding this as police costs. I can pull this
thing out and say no, no. We had an outside study done and we really are providing this at least cost.
Councilman Wing: The last time this came up we discussed it you defended it and when it was all done I said, I
50
City Conncil Meeting - January 10, 1994
think we agreed. At least the majority that this was in our benefit.
Councilman Senn: It wasn't just detail.~ and outlines.
Councilman Wing: You defended it to the point where I was comfortable. I don't remember how you voted.
Councilman Senn: Well I thought at the time that them was no definition to it. They were going to look at the
services to be studied and stuff and.
Councilman Mason: Does anyone, how does Scott feel about this? Does anybody know?
Councilman Senn: I mean I know the...animal contxol but to me, rather than waste our lime...
CThere were a couple different conversations going on at the same time at this poinL)
Don Ashworth: ff there is part of it that faces with the commission, then I would bring it back to the
commission.
Mayor Chmieh Yeah, that's what I was discussing with Don. If there's anything dealing with the Public Safety
aspect of it, and there's something that he needs help, to go to the Public Safety Commission so we're not side
stepping one of the commissions with this. Okay. Alright, we have a motion on the floor with a second.
Councilman Wing: To delete this?
Mayor Chmiel: To delete that part of it. And just accept the.
Councilman Mason: Well how does Scott feel about this public safety thing? Do you know?
Mayor Chmiel: Well basically this is being supported by the Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council
paid for this portion of it. So in other words, we'd have somebody from them come in and do the study in
itself. It wouldn't cost us anything.
Councilman Senn:
Councilman Wing:
good.
Mayor Chmiel: And that could be very well true too.
Councilman Senn: Well I mean if you're more comfortable, I'll withdraw my motion and let's table it and hear
from Scott. I don't care.
Mayor Chmieh Okay, when do we have to have an answer on this Don?
.._all of our staff resources to go into it.
But it does inventory who we are, where we are and what we're doing. We may look really
Don Ashworth: Today.
Councilman Senn: Always.
51
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Last week.
Councilman Wing: What does the City Manager recommend?
Don Ashworth: I don't think that it's that time consuming for us. The public safety side of it, I don't get that
excited about. But on the other side, there may be a positive aspect of documenting really what our costs are
per capita and some of those other type of things,
Mayor ChmieI: We get to know as well.
Don Ashworth: I don't know.
Councilman Mason: Well it's not like we're getting tied into anything is it?
Don Ashworth: No.
Councilman Senn: No, but it could re-open some issues relating to public safety and this, that and the other
thing.
Councilman Mason: Well I'll just make one quick comment and then, I don't know if there's a motion or not
but it seems to me,
Mayor Chmiel: Well Mark withdrew his.
Councilman Senn: I said I'd withdraw it ff we could table it and we can hear back from Scott But that doesn't
sound like that's possible,
Councilman Wing: I think this is between the City Manager more than Scott Don recommends it,
Don Ashworth: I don't think Scott would have a, I don't think he'll have a problem. He hasn't said anything to
me to date and I've given him copies of stuff so.
Councilman Mason: Well I think it's okay to know, for the left hand and the right hand to know what they're
doing. I don't have any trouble including Public Safety. I mean I hear what you're saying but it doesn't look to
me like we're going to lose anything by taking part in ~he public safety side.
Mayor Chmiel: True.
Councilman Senn: But the study also says that they're going to go ahead and suggest strategies to forming a
government cooperation.
Councilman Mason: Well fine. That's good, I mean if a strategy.
Councilman Senn: It benefits a lot of 1 mile square towns if you ask me.
Councilman Mason: Well but we don't know that and I think to shut that off before we know that is doing a
disservice. Personally.
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
Councilman Wing: We don't have to do a thing.
Mayor Chiniel: Right. We can drop it.
Councilman Wing: Public safety, we are in the driver's seat.
Councilman Mason: Sure we are.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There's a motion on the floor. There wasn't a second as yet.
would need a motion.
Councilman Mason: I'll make a motion to approve grant application for a multi-city/school district COOl~xative
agreement.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second?
Councilman Wing: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the Grant Application for a multi.
city/school district cooperative agreement as pr~ented. Ali vottd in favor, except Councilman Senn who
opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Q. AUTHORIZE MODIFICATION TO TAX INCREMENT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN.
Councilman Senn: This is tax increment dollars to build a parking lot, trail and landscaping around the Hanus
facility and old Apple Valley Red-E-Mix site. Query. Why is the city doing that?
Don Ashworth: So you can't see the site from Highway 5.
Councilman Senn: But why are we doing that when we already have an agreement in place for a party to buy it
back from us at a set price which brings us no benefit for doing these improvements?
Don Ashworth: I'd have to go back and research the agreement but my understanding was that we would buy
the site for x. We added $20,000.00 or whatever we anticipated. 1007 For the parking improvements and Kurt
could buy it back for the inflated price.
Councilman Senn: But we've already gone over that level I though[ I thought we already did the parking
improvements?
Todd Gerhardt: No we haven't. That's this parking lot improvement right here. We let a bid, awarded a
bicL..this past November...
Don A~hworth: They were rejected the first time. Awarded the second.
Councilman Senn: The question is, then basically anything we put into that property we get back through the
agreements on the price?
So that would then die.
53
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
Don Ashworth: That was the intent but I, you know.
Todd Gerhardt: It's going to be close, The rents...on the building are $25,000.00 and that's...going to get, We
collect rents and own the building right now. We're collecting rents on that.
Councilman Senn: That doesn't enter into the repayment on the $i00,000.007
Don Ashworth: No. That's a totally separate.
Councilman Senn: What I'm saying is...reflects the cost of our improvements. Is that a fair statement?
Don Ashworth: Right.
Todd Gerhardt: No. I mean...
Mayor Chmiel: Two different answers.
Todd Gerhardt: We're going to put more into it than we're ultimately getting back.
Mayor Chmiel: How much more?
Todd Gerhardt: I'm trying to remember what the bids were on it but some of the land that we are going to
retain. I mean we are landscaping haft of the berm out there is HRA owned land.
Councilman Senn: Well I'd like to move we table this until we have that answer.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Don Ashworth: Doesn't this affect some of the timing as far as the hearing? That means the hearing and
everything gets pushed back, Can we delete out the item regarding the Apple Valley Red-E-Mix thing?
Todd Gerhardt: All you're doing under this is you're calling for the public heating. You're not approving any
of these conditions, I will get your answer for this. I mean all you're doing is calling for the public hearing.
And at that public hearing I will have that answer, or even sooner ff you want it.
Councilman Senn: Alrighty,
Mayor Chmiel: Do you want to move that?
Councilman Senn: Sure.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution g93-11: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to authorize modification to
Tax Increment Redevelopment Plan, All voted in favor and the motion carried uoan|mollsly.
R. REOUEST TO REALLOCATE THE 1994 CONTINGENCY FUND ($33,000.00) TO FUND
REDUCED REVENUES.
54
City Council Meeting - January I0, 1994
Councilman Senn: I wanted to pull this one for a study session rather than some kind of hurried decision.
Consent agenda or Council meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I guess it really doesn't have to be moved imm~ia__!¢ly anyway does it?
Don Ashworth: No. The further you get into the year, the harder it is to find places to cut.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. And that's very Irue and I agree with tirol Can we have that as a priority item to. be
addressed number uno?
Don Ashworth: Sure. Are you saying the 31st?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
..
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Why didn't we see this coming? I mean it's only been 3 weeks.
Councilman Senn: We..~ contingency and one week later it's gone two times over.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, can I have a motion to table 2(r)?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I will.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Sure. :
Councilwoman Doekendort' moved, Cotmeilmun Mason seconded to table the request to re~lloe~te the 1994
contingency I'und to I'und reduced revenues to ,, Council work ~sion. All voted i~ favor md the motion
carried unanimously.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, is there any Council presentations7
Mayor ChmieI: No.
Councilman Wing: Would the Mayor just allow a brief comment? Very brief comment.
Mayor Chmiel: Very brief comment. You w~re
Councilman Wing: That's me and I have no right to.
Mayor Chmiel: You're fight. Why don't you bring it up at the next meeting.
Councilman Wing: Because it pertains to what we did tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't want to talk about it. Okay, go aheM.
Councilman Senn: I move to adjourn.
55
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Move to adjourn. No, go ahead.
Councilman Wing: Nothing, just the newspaper. I'm really disturbed that we't~ continuing with them. I pick
that paper up and I get nothing. The only way we can communicate with the community is through that
newspaper and when I get home, I pick up the weekly news and I see Chanhassen Council did...and in other
action Council did .... I go to Victoria. Council. I keep track of what's happening here and in other cities. He
picks one or two items. Gets fi'ont page and then there's some, here somebody goes to France and is sitting on
some monument and that's front page story and there's nothing about the City Council or our action or what the
city's doing. We're not getting covered and I don't llke the paper and I don't want to continue with the
Villager.
Mayor Chmiel: I can tell you that was in the other paper. About what was happening in France.
Councilman Wing: Okay, I agree. When I come home from out of town I get the weekly news to find out
what's going on in town. The Villager has been no help to me whatsoever in keeping...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I agree.
Councilman Mason: Maybe the publisher should be ~olked to.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe that's what we'll have to do. Can I have a motion to adjourn?
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
56