CC 2008 05 12
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 2008
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mayor Furlong, Councilman Litsey, Councilwoman
Ernst, Councilwoman Tjornhom, and Councilman McDonald
STAFF PRESENT:
Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, and Terry
Jeffrey
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Debbie Anderson 7605 Laredo Drive
Richard A. Wrase 405 Cimarron Lane
Larry J. Anderson 400 Cimarron Circle
Brady Busselman 3201 Brunswick Ave So, St. Louis Park
Max Heitzmann 601 Marquette Ave So, Minneapolis
David Remington 7611 Laredo Drive
Dave Rice 7440 Longview Circle
Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Max Romaraggi 17090 Bain Bridge Drive
Mark Lundgren Carver County
Dennis Hill 7613 Laredo Drive
Gayle Degler 541 Pineview Court
Ann Kleve 7307 Laredo Drive
Rebecca Wurm 2345 Fawn Hill Court
Bryan Wutzke 2280 Melody Hill Road
Deb Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Chris Guerrera 3642 Elmwood Place, Minnetonka
Laurie Engelen Carver County
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you everyone. Thank you for joining us this evening and
those watching at home. We’re glad that you did. At this time I would ask if there are any
changes or modifications from members of the City Council with regard to our agenda. If not,
without objection we’ll proceed with the agenda as distributed. First item on our agenda are the
consent agenda items.
Councilman Litsey: Actually I, excuse me for interrupting you but I did have one item I wanted
added if appropriate, and I don’t know where we would add that but, I sent an email last week to
City Manager Todd Gerhardt expressing concern over the movement afoot at the State level to
put restrictions on local budgets. Since time is of the essence and the State Legislature right now
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
is discussing the budget, I’d like to see this council take a position opposing the State putting
such restrictions on local government. So I don’t know if we could put it under 4B, or I can
discuss it under council presentations.
Mayor Furlong: Let’s do that.
Councilman Litsey: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Let’s do that. Okay.
Councilman Litsey: Nothing further.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Then, without any additional comments there we’ll move forward with
our agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Mayor Furlong: Staff did ask that we add one item to the agenda here regarding a name change,
is that correct Mr. Gerhardt?
Todd Gerhardt: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Can you explain this?
Todd Gerhardt: It’s the Crossroads development contract. Kraus Anderson retail office
development down off of Lyman and 101. In the development contract I think it was Kraus
Anderson, LLC and they’re changing it to Kraus Anderson Incorporated, so just a minor change.
City Attorney requested that change so. Just a minor change.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Without objection we’ll add that as item 1(h). Okay. Is there any
desired members of the council or others present in the audience or council chambers here to
separately discuss any of the items 1 (a) through (h)? No? Seeing none then, is there a motion to
adopt items 1(a) through (h).
Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that the City Council approve
the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated April 28, 2008
-City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated April 28, 2008
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated April 15, 2008
b. Lyman Boulevard Improvement Project 06-03: Approve Plans & Specifications, Phase I.
2
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Resolution #2008- :
c. TH 312 Project 03-09: Adopt Resolution in Support of
Improvements to US Highway 212 from County Road 147 to Norwood-Young America.
d. Chanhassen West Business Park, Project 05-15: Accept Streets and Utilities.
e. Downtown Decorative Lights & Signals: Approve Quote for Painting.
f. Award of Bid, Storage Area Network.
g. Approve Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes, Chanhassen Gateway.
h. Approve a Name Change in the Chanhassen Crossroads Addition Development Contract
from Kraus Anderson, LLC to Kraus Anderson, Incorporated.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS.
None.
PUBLIC HEARING: 2008 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 08-01:
A. ASSESSMENT HEARING.
B. ACCEPT BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT.
Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. Tonight I’d like to just briefly review
with you the scope of the project. Laredo Drive area improvement projects. There’s been a
couple changes since the last time we visited on this project at the public hearing earlier this year
and so I’d like to talk about that a little bit and just kind of review again some of the additions
actually and some of the changes that were, that are proposed for this project. We are, we would
like to hold an assessment hearing tonight to, on the project so any public testimony should be
received from the project, for the project tonight, and property owners should be reminded that if
they wish to object to the assessment that is proposed, they must file a written objection with the
City, either prior to or during the actual public hearing. Objections after the public hearing are
invalid so. With that agenda, just briefly I’d like to run through is just a project overview.
Construction, scope of the project. Financing summary. Assessment methodology which has
significantly changed since the last, since the public hearing that we are proposing and the
project schedule and then I’d like to hold the assessment hearing after that. If there’s any
questions in the meantime, obviously please feel free to offer those to me so. The project
th
overview, again it’s the Laredo Drive improvements. Laredo Drive is just north of 78 Street in
downtown here, and there are several side streets associated that are proposed to be included in
this project as well. The construction limits are shown here, on this drawing. The streets again
are all of Laredo Drive. Laredo Lane, which is a cul-de-sac shown here. Longview Circle.
Cimarron Circle. We’ve got Highland Drive that’s shown here just to the west of Laredo Drive,
th
and then all of Laredo Drive from 78 Street up to the north cul-de-sac. Included in the project
are utilities and obviously the street is going to be replaced. No sidewalk addition is included in
the project, or trail improvements are included in the project. And no street lighting
improvements are also included in the project at this time so. Some of the feedback that we did
3
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
receive from the property owners we’ve tried to include in this project as well. For instance the
intersection of Laredo Drive and Laredo Lane. We had some comments about poor sight
distances. Issues getting out of that intersection with the traffic coming from the north and the
south so, with a consultant’s help we tried to improve that intersection as best as we can to
increase the sight distance there. We were planning to remove some boulevard trees there to try
to help that situation but the main emphasis at that intersection was to straighten out the road a
little bit, as much as we can. Laredo Drive. And then also increase the curvature of Laredo Lane
to try to get better sight distances, especially to the south. The watermain in this area is mainly
cast iron. It’s old cast iron, which has been giving the city problems of late. Watermain breaks.
Gate valves popping. Breaking, so we’re proposing to replace all the watermain in the
construction limits at this time. Sanitary sewer system is old. Most of the area is old clay tile.
We’ve had some issues with that system as well so we’re proposing to replace about 1,000 linear
feet of sanitary sewer in the project area. In conjunction with that, numerous sewer services to
the property line or the right-of-way line will be replaced as well. Another concern that we’ve
heard from the property owners was the amount of ground water in this area and the amount of
standing water on the roads when the sump pumps are discharging onto the road. In the
feasibility study we had included about 2,000 linear feet of drain tile throughout the project area.
The construction plans now include 9,000 linear feet of drain tile, which incorporates most of the
cul-de-sacs and main line on Laredo Drive so. The importance of the drain tile again is to pick
up and for the property owners to hook up to the drain tile to discharge of their sump pump water
into that line. It also helps reduce the amount of ground water around the street, thus improving
the structural character of the road itself. So there’s a number of benefits for including drain tile
in the project at this time as well. The road itself is planned to be put back more or less to the
same width. 28 feet wide for most of the cul-de-sacs that’s currently exist. A little bit wider for
Laredo Drive north of Saratoga and 36feet wide south of Saratoga. All the roads are proposed to
be curbed and guttered as well. One addition that we included since the public hearing was a
pond improvement on Kerber Park. In Kerber Park Pond. And this pond shown here is the
proposed pond. It would treat a sizeable area along Laredo Drive and associated streets that
drain into this sub-watershed. Also included would be some infiltration areas along the existing
trail that runs along here, and there is also some ponding areas as well, but a lot of those ponding
areas along the trail are proposed to be wet areas or would be able to dissipate their water in a
short amount of time so, no significant standing water along the trail is anticipated. So that’s one
change.
Mayor Furlong: Can you back up a little bit.
Paul Oehme: Yep, you bet.
Mayor Furlong: You said that was a change. This has basically been added since earlier this
year when we were looking for, I mean as part of one of the outgrowths of the early public
hearings as I recall was storm water management. How can we look for ways to do that. Is that
correct?
Paul Oehme: That’s correct. Yeah, I mean this is something a little bit, it’s been new, I mean
we’ve been working on it for the last maybe 2 months I think but we’ve talked about it at the
public hearing and show, identified where it was and the importance of it. And this is basically
4
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
the fruition of it. We had neighborhood meetings. Talking to neighbors about the
improvements. We also talked to the Park Board about it as well so it is, this is I guess this is
something that’s, was, it’s more detailed now I guess and final design.
Mayor Furlong: And this is going to pick up current storm water that effectively is right now
sheet draining somehow and working it’s way where? To Rice Lake?
Paul Oehme: Right. Yep. It’s, all this, all the surface water in this area eventually would end up
in Lotus Lake. And the system right now currently that drains this area goes down Iroquois and
that system has been known to be at capacity a lot of times and has, we identified some problem
areas downstream from that. The importance of this improvement would alleviate a lot of,
hopefully alleviate a lot of the concerns downstream. The improvements downstream of
Iroquois might not need to be as big now because of these improvements. This project also
helps, we feel the lake water quality of Lotus Lake. It helps the detention time. Does not direct
water into the lake as quickly so we’d anticipate you know the high water mark not to be as great
because we are diverting the water here and into Kerber Park Pond so it does have time to.
Mayor Furlong: So it’s going to slow it.
Paul Oehme: Slow it down.
Mayor Furlong: Rate of flow. Eventually it’s going to work it’s way into Lotus Lake but after it
goes through the swales and the rain garden system and the ponding system into Kerber and then
on through.
Paul Oehme: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: And the fact that we’re putting the pond prior to Kerber, that tells me that we’re
not necessarily just transferring problems over to another wetland. Another body of water.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, we’re trying to, we’re going to be treating. That’s what the pond’s for is to
try to pre-treat that water as best as we can before it discharges into the wetland, yeah. And then
eventually into the lake so. Water quality definitely is an important factor in this decision.
Mayor Furlong: Mayor and council, just a couple other points. Paul mentioned we did hold I
think two hearings at the Park and Rec Commission. Park and Rec Commission, this is our trail
access to Kerber Pond so they wanted to see some of the changes. We notified the affected
property owners in the area to get their input. I think Terry did a good job of presenting the
proposed changes to the residents and the Park and Rec Commission. And also presented this to
the watershed district to look at some joint funding. I think they’re still considering it but I think
due to some financial commitments they’ve already made, they don’t know if they can put it in
for this year so we’ll let you know down the line where that commitment comes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
5
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Paul Oehme: Okay? Now I’d like to just talk briefly about the assessment methodology and the
changes that are being proposed. As you recall, the staff had originally in the feasibility study
had included both the residential and non-residential properties in one assessment methodology
just to have a consistent assessment practice for this project. Based upon the concerns that we’ve
heard from the property owners, we are proposing a different assessment methodology than was
in the feasibility study, and that was proposed at, or was presented at the public hearing. This
drawing kind of shows what is being proposed. What is taking place now is everything in orange
here is more or less the residential areas of the project. And everything south in the yellow is
associated with the, more the commercial or non-residential areas of the project so what in
essence we did is split the project in two. Considered the north half as one project and the south
area as another project. And we took costs and looked at the cost for what it would, the cost
associated with the street project for the area north here in the orange and calculated the
assessments for the residential properties just on the cost of these streets here so the residential
property or the residential assessments are not based on any cost associated with anything south
of Saratoga. Okay. That’s, do you understand that? So we looked at those costs for the
residential area. Again north of Saratoga. Came up with, you know got the bids from the
contractor and applied our assessment practice of assessing 40% of the cost back to the
benefiting property owners and came up with assessment per unit, per lot using those
calculations so it’s very straight forward for the residential assessment calculations. So once we
had those assessments calculated for the residential up in this area, there are, what is it, 7 or 8
properties down on Laredo Drive here that are also residential but are you know more in the non-
residential part of the project. So what we did is we used the assessment cost per lot for these
lots and applied it to these lots down here. So every, all the single family residential area
proposed to have the same assessments based upon the assessment calculation for the streets in
the residential area here. Not associated with the Laredo Drive portion of the project down here.
And the over sizing cost. So if there’s any questions there. I just want to make sure everybody
understands that change. So the non-residential, or non-residential or more the commercial
section of the project has a totally separate assessment calculation. We applied the same
assessment methodology that we did with the, in the feasibility study. Looking at front footages
and what not and calculated the cost associated with this street, Laredo Drive south of Saratoga
and applied it back to the commercial properties. The over sizing costs from a 31 foot wide
roadway to a 36 foot wide roadway, the City has proposed to pick up that cost for the over sizing
so. So I think you know staff has tried to address that concern as best as we can to try to separate
out the commercial, non-residential piece from the residential piece so.
Councilman Litsey: How much does this methodology deviate from what we’ve done in the
past? It looks like we’re taking one and applying one standard to one and then we’re applying a
different standard to the other. Have we had projects like this where we’ve mixed a lot of
commercial with residential?
Paul Oehme: Yeah. When we did, when we overlaid the downtown streets in 2004 I believe,
there was residential and commercial properties associated with that mill and overlay. And we
looked at similar, I won’t say it’s exactly the same but it was a similar assessment methodology
that we did with the Laredo Drive project here south of Saratoga so.
6
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Councilman Litsey: So if we had done that before, why didn’t we have something different
before? Why did we come up with a different methodology originally?
Paul Oehme: Well, I guess it wasn’t, I mean, the first assessment methodology that we used, I
think it was a little bit, it was, we looked at the square area of the properties here, which was
similar to what we did in 2004. It was, there was, in this project there was a bigger component
of residential in this project than there was in the other one, and to tie the two together you know,
it was a lot. I guess it’s pretty difficult to come up with a consistent methodology for these types
of areas where you have these mixed uses. So that was the struggle I guess. It was to come up
with an assessment methodology that takes into consideration the consultation report that we
received from our consultant, and look at a consistent methodology of how to apply assessments
over, you know over this type of a project area so it’s a lot more difficult I guess to say, to come
up with a consistent methodology that works than just going into a residential area and applying
a per lot assessment. A lot, the calculation that we did with an overlay.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. I would add to Paul’s comments you know, we had to
go with the previous methodology because the appraisal that came in didn’t justify increasing
that dollar amount against the commercial. And until we got the bids in, it allowed us to look at
a different methodology.
Councilman Litsey: I guess I’m just concerned that we’re a little bit across the board here.
We’re not, you maybe settle on something that makes sense. I think this new methodology is
probably easier to follow and I don’t necessarily have a problem with it. It’s just I’m concerned
that we’re deviating from some past practices and let’s get consistent perhaps when we have the
mix of commercial and residential. The other question I had is now much additional cost then
does this add to the overall city tax base in terms of what the city’s picking up on the project?
It’s not because of the construction, or the bids coming in lower so we’re okay there?
Paul Oehme: Right, yeah I mean we always assess the practice is to assess at 40% of the project
back to the benefiting property owners. So that dollar amount, the 60% the city pays doesn’t
change. We do pay again for the over sizing cost, which we have applied in past practices. We
have been consistent there as well.
Councilman Litsey: Okay. Thank you.
Councilman McDonald: Could I ask just one question?
Paul Oehme: Yeah.
Councilman McDonald: If you go back to that map for a second. As I understand then, we have
two separate projects and the lower half below Saratoga came up with one figure and you did an
assessment based upon that. The residential is another figure so the two really don’t depend
upon one another any more, is that correct?
Paul Oehme: That’s correct.
7
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Councilman McDonald: So as far as the properties in the lower half, whatever we did there as
far as any assessments is not going to affect the upper half of the project and vice versa.
Paul Oehme: Right. If we for instance decreased the assessment cost for the apartment complex,
I mean the assessment for the residential piece would not increase. I mean there’s no.
Councilman McDonald: Okay. But there is now a separation.
Paul Oehme: Right, separation. Right.
Councilman McDonald: Okay. Thank you.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council. I just want to clarify. You still have one project. The Laredo
project as we identify it. We have two separate methodologies of assessments. One for the
residential and one for the commercial. Just to clear that for the record.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And we’re not using different formulas to come up with the dollar
amounts, correct?
Todd Gerhardt: We are using a different formula to determine commercial versus the resident.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right, but not from the previous formulas we were using.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, it’s, if I can. It is still consistent.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: With our practice of assessing 40% of the street project to the benefiting
property owners.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right.
Mayor Furlong: It’s a question within that 40%, how is that fairly allocated.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right. Right. And we’re not deviating from that at all?
Todd Gerhardt: No.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: From previous assessments that we’ve done. Residential versus
commercial.
Todd Gerhardt: We’re staying within our practice of the 40%.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Okay?
8
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Paul Oehme: Okay. So assessable properties, we do have 80 residential single family properties
on this, in this project area. Six non-residential properties, and again they’re completely
separated in terms of how those assessments are calculated in the project areas. And again,
proposing to assess 40% of the street improvements back to the benefiting property owners and
we talked again about that methodology. The assessments themselves are proposed over a 10
year period at 6% interest and if we take into account the utility costs and sewer, water, storm
sewer and the street costs that the city is paying for, the total percentage that the city’s paying is
79% of the total project cost so I just want to make sure you’re aware of that. Funding for the
project is shown here. The total project cost. Just a little bit over $2.8 million and as Todd
Gerhardt has indicated, we are working with the watershed district and the Kerber Park Pond
improvements and hopefully we can get a partner there to try to pay for some of those costs as
well. So and then the schedule, if we forward, is again start the project in late May. We do have
a, we’d like to try to get going on the project as soon as we can. And the construction
completion, try to have the majority of the streets paved, except for the wear course by the end of
August here, before school starts so. With that, if there’s any questions.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Are there any concerns from the businesses that are being affected as
far as traffic goes? Accessing their businesses and you know, how much time will it take to.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, we, we have not heard anything from the businesses. We do try to have the
access open on a daily basis and we try to give the property owners as much lead time as we can,
48 hours, 24 hours before you know we’re going to be putting a, stick a pipe in front of their
driveway where they won’t be able to have access for half a day or something like that so, we try
to work with the property owners as best as we can. A lot of the property owners do have
secondary accesses to their sites so we’re going to try to work with them as best as we can to
facilitate those accesses and try to keep them open. Get access for people.
Mayor Furlong: And then the residents throughout the project, same type of notification?
Paul Oehme: Yep, absolutely.
Mayor Furlong: Hot lines.
Paul Oehme: Yep. We’re going to have a hot line. I think I already sent out a hot line number
to the property owners. Phones. Before the project gets going we’re going to try to get a
newsletter out letting the property owners where the contractor’s going to start and what type of
work’s going to happen, and then periodically we’ll get notice out as well. On water shut downs
and temporary water interruptions and make sure everybody knows about those. You know
we’re going to try to do it again you know 24 hours ahead of time. Maybe 12 hours ahead of
time so try to give them as much warning as we can so. And then access to their property.
We’re going to try to maintain access to their driveways. Get their vehicles in, on their driveway
as much as we can. You know again when we’re putting pipe in front of somebody’s house,
obviously that’s going to be an issue to try to get access, full access but we’re going to try to let
the people know when those interruptions are going to be and try to give as much forewarning as
we can. When the concrete curb and gutter is poured, we try to have the property owners stay
9
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
off of that for at least 3 days before, so the concrete can cure. So there’d be a short time in there
that we’d prefer that the property owners park along the side streets, or we’ll have a designated
area for them to park. And then the mail boxes too, there is going to have to be a central
location. We don’t know that yet. We’ve got to work with a post office. Have a central location
where the mail boxes will have to be moved temporarily put up and then re-installed after the
project is complete. So we definitely have to work with the post office on that and then working
with the property owners on that notification as well so.
Councilwoman Ernst: Paul I may have missed this but how are you going to be communicating
with the neighborhood? Because communication’s going to be crucial with this project.
Paul Oehme: Right, absolutely. Yep.
Councilwoman Ernst: And I’m just wondering how you’re going to.
Paul Oehme: There’s going to be, there’s going to be, or actually when the project gets going
there’s going to be allocated 3 inspectors to the project so there will be that type of
communication. We’re going to get a newsletter out, like I talked about right before the
contractor gets out there to let them know where they’re going to start and what’s going to take
place. There’s going to be a hot line. We’re going to have a phone number available to the
property owners and we’re going to try to leave a daily message on that answering machine
letting them know where the contractor’s going to be you know that day, the next day and the
following week. Try to give them some head’s up on that. And then it will be notifications
handed out for water shut down’s and temporary water services interruptions, those type of
things and then just knocking on people’s doors too. Saying hey, you know we’re going to be
working in front of your house today. Those type of things so there’s going to be, you know
that’s the key to these projects is try to get as much communication out and let them know
what’s taking place when.
Councilman Litsey: Paul, will you be putting anything on the web site too to track it or is that
not a good way to do it or?
Paul Oehme: From just practices, it seems like the best communications is verbal and hand
written communications when people get home. And then the hot lines too. I think that’s the
easiest way that our inspectors are able to get the word out to people and so they can just, instead
of checking email. All they have to do is call the, a specific number.
Councilman McDonald: On this project did you envision certain areas being shut down? And
what I’m concerned about is the post office because it’s the only one in town, and the fire station
next door. The post office does have two entrances so it may not be as big a problem but as I
recall the fire station empties out directly onto Laredo. Any impairment there?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, we’ve already talked to the fire department about that. There’s some sewer
that we’re proposing to replace in front of the fire station so there’s some big impacts there. You
know once we’re, I think what we’re going to do is when that work is taking place and there’s
going to be limited access in and out of the fire station, a lot of those vehicles might have to be
10
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
removed and parked someplace else for a couple days. So I mean that’s what we’re anticipating.
We still need to work with the fire department on those issues but obviously when we want to get
those vehicles access as much as we can.
Councilman McDonald: Okay, thank you.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council, the key thing. If you have an issue anytime during the
construction process, they can always call city hall and we have direct contact with the inspectors
and the consulting engineer so, and the contractor, so you know if you have any hesitation, just
call city hall and we’ll help you through it.
Paul Oehme: I’ve got to remind everybody though, it’s a dirty process and you know the
contractor’s aren’t perfect so we’re going to do our best to try to get the word out and try to get
access and try to keep the property owners informed as we can but you know with the weather
conditions changing and those things get, things can get muddy too so I just you know ask for
patience a little bit once in a while too but if there’s a problem out there just please let us know
and we’re going to try to do our best to rectify the situation.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Oehme, in terms of the scheduling and completion time. We’ve got a few
things. One, biggest issue is getting in and out as quickly as we can. I mean this is going to be a
disruption for everybody that lives or works and commutes to that area so in terms of making the
construction period as short as possible. We also have some other constraints because of it’s
location. What’s the, what’s your best expectation in terms of completion by the middle part of
August, or certainly by Labor Day.
Paul Oehme: Yeah. I mean that’s a big concern for us as well too. Obviously we’ve got a
school that’s there along Laredo Drive that we need to have access before Labor Day. We do
th
have a 4 of July parade that we need to make accommodations for too. We don’t want to rip up
a portion of Laredo Drive that we’ll have a staging area there and people parking in that area
th
during the parade too so we want to try to keep that area off limits until after the 4 of July, so
we do have a lot of constraints there. You know we’re anticipating starting on, if the project
goes through, on the north end of the project. Try to get as much of the streets done north of say
th
Cimarron, in that area, in May-June. That timeframe. After the 4 of July hopefully we can get
th
into the southern half of the project area down off of Chan View and 76 Street and that area and
try to work on those areas as quickly as we can and then try to meet in the middle someplace so.
Mayor Furlong: We’ve got a big dig.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, exactly. So you know we have not met with the, we have a pre-construction
meeting tentatively scheduled right now. We have not met with the contractor and found out
where his timing is on the project yet but we are anticipating him to get going on it as quickly as
we can, and we just need to find out from him how many crews he’s going to put at this project
right now and urging him to get it done as quick as we can. A lot of the things that are kind of
out of our control though, as maybe you’re aware Mayor, like the Koehnen project is moving of
small utilities. Gas and electric and underground phone. Those type of things did slow us down
last year a lot. Another thing, but one thing we do have going for us on this project versus the
11
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Koehnen project, we don’t have deep sewer replacements as you did Koehnen. That was 30 feet
deep sewer that just bogged the whole project down and limited the access. Here it’s only about
12 feet deep I think is our lowest sewer so hopefully that, those installations will go a lot quicker
but there’s a lot of things that are out of our control. Weather. You know moving a private
utilities. Those type of things. Contractor scheduling you know that we’ll do our best with to try
to get the project completed as soon as we can.
Mayor Furlong: And another question I had, you mentioned that the Koehnen/Yosemite
reconstruction project, we’ve had some other ones. Have we learned some things along the way
to anticipate some of the problems we had there so we can try to avoid those same problems
here?
Paul Oehme: Yep, absolutely.
Mayor Furlong: I mean going forward with future reconstruction projects.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, we try to notify the private utility companies as much as we can. We’ve
mailed out several notices and say this project’s coming. You know we’ve given as much notice
as we can to try to get these going. Communication we found between the private utility
company and the contractor is essential to let them talk and make sure they’re aware of what
each other is doing and making sure that that’s coordinated well. We did implement that hot line
last year in the Koehnen area, in the Koehnen project area. That was one thing that we did add
on the Koehnen project that we didn’t at the beginning project so we…
Mayor Furlong: How do you think that worked?
Paul Oehme: I think it worked fine. I mean I think we did get some good responses by it and I
think for the most part I think property owners are appreciative of trying to get the word out. It’s
a lot more cost effective than handing out newsletters every other day so.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions at this time for staff?
Councilman McDonald: I guess the only other question I would ask is, have we set hours of
when the construction’s going to be taking place and will we extend that based upon the project
schedules or particular weekends or anything such as that?
Paul Oehme: Yes. We, our standard construction is from 7:00 to 6:00 during the week and then
9:00 to 5:00 during the Saturdays so that’s all we’re allowing the contractor to do at this time,
depending upon you know where they are in the project and what’s going on and who would be
impacted. You know we would look at extending those time periods if we think it’s appropriate.
But I hate to deviate from that right now because it, we know it does impact property owners
when they get home from work and noise and construction equipment running around later in the
evening so we want to be mindful of that right now, but if we need to we’ll definitely take a look
at increasing those working hours in the future.
Councilman McDonald: Okay, thank you.
12
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Mayor Furlong: Okay, any other questions at this time? Okay. Very good. Are we ready then
to go to the public hearing?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, I’m fine.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. So at this time, without objection, we’ll open the public
hearing and invite interested parties to come up. What I’d like to do as we did at the previous
public hearing just to have a little bit of order to it is have people come up by the street that they
live on, so if there are particular issues with that road, we can deal with them all at once rather
than make it a little bit more efficient. So at this point, let’s go ahead and start with Laredo
Drive itself and invite any interested parties, residents or other interested parties to come forward
and address the council on this issue. If there are questions, staff will try to answer those as they
come along so that we make sure we address those as well. Anybody?
Charles Littfin: Good evening.
Mayor Furlong: Good evening.
Charles Littfin: Mr. Mayor, City Council. My name is Charles Littfin. I live at 7609 Laredo
Drive. Right across from the elementary school. You’ve probably seen me before. One thing I
did get straighten out, I told you all that Laredo Drive was a commercial road. That they
changed. Didn’t help me at all. I’m still being assessed the same amount on a commercial road.
Now they’re going to widen it so it can get even busier. I’m being assessed the same as residents
that live further north, but I’m not on a residential road. That I don’t understand. Businesses I
don’t believe are paying their fair share either. I know the post office is paying a little over
$4,000 and I’m paying almost 6. I don’t understand that either, and they generate probably the
most traffic on this road. Special assessments like this I think are basically wrong. There isn’t a
person out there that I’ve talked to that says there’s anything good about them, other than a way
for the city to come up with money that they don’t have to fix roads. I’ve talked to the assessor’s
office. This will not benefit my property one bit. My home assessment has actually gone down.
My property value’s gone down, and they say this will not affect it at all. It will not go up. And
state law says special assessments by law are supposed to provide a financial benefit to the
homeowner that is roughly equal to the cost of fee they pay. 6 grand is not going to go up on my
property value. I’ve talked with the county attorney. Is there anything we can do? Nothing you
can do other than hire a lawyer and fight it, you know. And I don’t want to do that. I can’t
afford that, so I’m basically pleading to you as a homeowner that you’ve got to find a different
way to find money to do these projects. Moundsview did it, you know. They put a tax right on
every household in the town. $100 a year. It’s the only fair way to do it. And Laredo Drive is a
perfect example of why that should happen. Because that is a community road. Park and rec
isn’t even kicking in anything. And a lot of the traffic is on park and rec property. Softball.
Soccer. Everything. So I’m saying, look at the whole thing. Don’t vote on it tonight and just
throw it in and say you know it’s a done deal or whatever. You need to look at everything.
Look at the whole way assessments are being done. There’s a lot of little issues that we haven’t
had resolved. You know the wetland for one. That’s not being assessed. North of the school
property. There’s a fire hydrant in the middle of it. The property owner isn’t being assessed for
13
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
that property, you know. I just think you need to step back and look and see if you can find
another way to make money and do these projects because next year you’re going to have
another street project and you’re going to have the same battle over and over again. You know
we all pay taxes. These road projects should be in what we pay ever year. Not special
assessments. And the way the economy is nowadays, 6 grand for me, that’s a hit you know. I’m
just like a fixed income senior citizen. My budget isn’t going up. I’m not making any more
money. I’m still raising kids, so this really hurts and I’m sure there’s a lot of other people in the
same shoes as me. So all I’m just saying is take a look. Think about the people. Businesses
seem to be getting you know the shake on this deal and I don’t understand that because the
people are what vote all you people up here. You’re supposed to be looking out for us. But I’ll
tell ya, from my point of view, I’m not seeing that. Thank you very much for letting me speak.
Mayor Furlong: Anyone else from Laredo Drive?
Janet Paulsen: Good evening. My name is Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I just
want to clear up one thing with the assessment system. As I understood Paul to say the entire
north half of the project is paid for, is divvied up between the 75 people who live on that area
and then that amount is also applied to the 5 homes that are on the southern part of Laredo.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, that’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Just, excuse me. Just for clarification Mrs. Paulsen. The, as I understand it, the
project cost north of Saratoga is that cost for the streets is allocated 60% that the city property tax
have paid for, which goes across the way, and the 40% assessment portion is being allocated.
Not the entire street project, so I don’t know if.
Janet Paulsen: I stand corrected.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Yeah, it’s not the entire street project. It’s the following practice it’s the
40% assessed is being divided similar to how we’ve done it in the past.
Janet Paulsen: Well I’m wondering why you didn’t throw us all into the mix of the northern part
instead of applying what the 75 homes are paying and then taking that and putting that money,
getting the money also from the people on the southern part. Why aren’t we all in the residential
mix?
Paul Oehme: If I can refer back to the map real quick maybe. All the residential properties are
in the mix. I mean they’re all assessed the same amount. If that’s what you’re referring to. In
this area, and then we applied the same assessment amount to the properties down here along
Laredo too, so all the property owners are paying the same assessment amount.
Janet Paulsen: Well we’d all pay $400 less if we were all in the same mix.
Mayor Furlong: Is your question if the project cost north of Saratoga was divided by not only
the properties north of Saratoga but also the residential property south of Saratoga?
14
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Janet Paulsen: Right. Because commercial’s commercial and residential’s residential.
Mayor Furlong: I’m just going to respond quickly, if Mr. Littfin doesn’t like being assessed
across the street from, the street that goes in front of his house, I think there’d be a challenge on
whether they’re benefiting from the street to the north.
Janet Paulsen: No, I think he should be applied to residential. He is a residential lot.
Councilman McDonald: He is being applied on a residential.
Mayor Furlong: And he is receiving the same residential.
Janet Paulsen: But he’s not in the mix that we’re all in in the northern part. Why?
Paul Oehme: Well again, we looked at the portion of, Saratoga south as being separated
completely from the majority of the residential property areas north of Saratoga. You know we
felt that was the cleanest way of separating more the business area from the residential area.
Janet Paulsen: Well I disagree. Thank you.
Councilman Litsey: Did the amount stay the same between the two methodologies pretty much
for the residential?
Paul Oehme: We did look at applying the same methodology that we did in the feasibility study
versus what we’re doing here, and it’s about $190 less using this methodology. But the reason
for that, if you look at the double frontage lots here, there’s several double frontage lots here that
are not being assessed any more and are associated with the area south of here, so I think that’s
the component that skewed it a little bit more to the costing the commercial properties more than
the residential. Decreased it.
Councilman Litsey: But what I hear you saying is they’re saying, it’s basically the same.
Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah they are.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, I mean.
Councilman Litsey: Either way you.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, if we would have broke it up you know up here, it would, the cost would be
a little bit different as well too. It all depends upon what, how much double frontage or non-
assessment properties are associated with each area.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And not to, I just one thing before we go onto the next person. I
think we need to really talk about how we’re assessing residential and commercial. What the
differences are so we all are on the same page with that because I’m, from what I’m hearing so
far is that residents are feeling like businesses aren’t being assessed enough, and that they’re
15
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
being assessed too much. You know there’s not a balance or our methodology isn’t right, and so
I would like you to at least explain to me how we come up with the figures we come up with,
with commercial versus residential. At some point.
Deb Lloyd: Deb Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. What I think Jan was trying to say when she was up
here was you took the, what I understand, you took the total project cost for the residential,
correct Paul?
Paul Oehme: Yes.
Deb Lloyd: The darker yellow, the gold.
Paul Oehme: Yep.
Deb Lloyd: You took that total project cost, right?
Paul Oehme: Correct.
Deb Lloyd: Okay. And then you figured out what it was per lot and then you took that
calculation and you applied it to the residential lots that are across the street from the school.
Paul Oehme: Correct. These lots down here that are proposed to be assessed.
Deb Lloyd: Okay. Why wouldn’t you take the total cost and divide it by the number of lots?
The figure would have been $400 less.
Paul Oehme: Oh I see what you mean. Okay. So these property owners out here are not in this
area so it’d be, I don’t know, it’d be a more of a skewed assessment methodology because they
wouldn’t, these, this front footage here, these property owners are not, or the street in front of
these properties are not included in the assessment calculation up here so, it would be like you
know, more front footage. I mean the residential area would actually be associated with the cost
to build that section of street.
Todd Gerhardt: You’re missing 800 feet of frontage, not included up there. So you know if you
were to double side Laredo, put 4 on each and extend it down, you have to include the cost also.
You can’t just divide the total number. You’ve got to add that front footage.
Deb Lloyd: So you’re taking the income you’re deriving from the assessments from the
residents across the street from the school and applying it to the yellow. You are using it to
support the cost of the yellow.
Paul Oehme: Right. Well we would have had to, if we would have used your methodology,
include you know half the street width here to get a true representation of the cost for the street
associated with the frontage here, and we thought that would just be a little bit more confusing to
take out that section of street there and put it up in the residential street section and take, and then
basically take it out of the commercial street section so we wanted to try to make it as clear as
16
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
possible that you know the street south of Saratoga is one project area and the street north of
there is another project area, and the assessments associated with each of those are completely
separate.
Deb Lloyd: Well I think Charlie’s really over paying then. Also the street, the residential
portions of the street are per your memo Paul, 28 feet wide. But are we not paying for a 31 foot
roadway in the gold…
Paul Oehme: No. You’re paying for the cost to reconstruct the street that’s 28 feet wide, where
it’s proposed to be 28 feet wide, and the property owners, the benefiting property owners are
paying for a street that’s 31 feet wide that is going to be built 31 feet wide.
Deb Lloyd: But the 31 foot wide section runs from Saratoga to Frontier Trail, correct?
Paul Oehme: Correct.
Deb Lloyd: So we are paying for the 31 foot wide section for those portions, it’s all rolled into
the cost of the 28.
Paul Oehme: Again it’s a residential street section. We have done this on other projects. We
just try to match back in the street width that’s currently out there as best as we can. We want to
be consistent though. And base the calculations on that.
Deb Lloyd: But I just wanted to clarify where we’re at with all of this.
Paul Oehme: Sure.
Deb Lloyd: Okay, and despite the fact that the gold section is a separate section and the yellow
section is a separate section, I’m still extremely concerned about this wetland. Was it
delineated?
Paul Oehme: No, it was not.
Deb Lloyd: And it was supposed to be delineated before this meeting. Weather conditions were
such before that the wetland could not be delineated. But weather conditions have been
favorable to delineating that wetland. That wetland is truly not a wetland per the National
th
Wetlands Inventory Surface Water Management Plan dated August 28, 2006. It is a marsh and
it’s a marsh similar to another property up the street, and I do have a little map, just to show you.
This all gets so convoluted and it’s so complex but I just want to show you this. Oh shoot, I have
too many papers. There’s a parcel, there’s another property on Sierra Court that actually has the
same classification and it was the picture.
Mayor Furlong: Do you want it over the glossy picture there?
Kate Aanenson: Yep.
17
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Deb Lloyd: Oh, this isn’t going to work very well.
Mayor Furlong: Kate, can you grab those out of her way please? Thank you.
Todd Gerhardt: You can just lay it on top of that picture too and we’ll zoom in on it.
Kate Aanenson: You’ve got it upside down. Put it the other way now.
Councilman Litsey: Just rotate the picture on there. There you go.
Deb Lloyd: I’m blind. I need my glasses for up there but I don’t need them for down here. So
this is the, anyway this is the wetland area that supposedly is a pond. So you know this shows up
as a pond on some of your documents. This area, it’s the same kind of marsh as this area and
there’s many more and there’s a residential home on there. It’s not a true wetland. So I just kind
of, in looking over the overview of the program priorities and projects for the city, it doesn’t
show up there anywhere so you know what’s going on? Why do you want to take away half the
cross hairs that should be associated with the street? These are the kinds of questions that I don’t
understand at all. What’s going on? What plans do you have for that lot? What aren’t you
telling us? I mean the county says the estimated market value is basically $196,000 an acre there
and that home with the same type of wetland has a property value of $156,000 per acre.
Commercial versus residential. Same kind of equation. So why are they getting such a benefit
on the street? So I have a lot more questions but I know my time is up so thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Well Ms. Lloyd just brought up the question, Councilwoman
Tjornhom brought up the question before about how the assessments are calculated on the
commercial properties versus residential properties. Maybe you could try to explain that because
it seems to be an ongoing question here. How these are being calculated. And then I guess at the
end, what effect that methodology has in terms of one property owner’s assessment.
Paul Oehme: Sure. Okay. Maybe just address the wetland issue real quickly so I don’t forget
about it.
Mayor Furlong: No, that’s fine.
Paul Oehme: The appraisal that we completed did take into account the wetland for that project
and basically discounted the assessable area about 50% as I recall, based upon the benefit to that
property so we were just following what was recommended in our consultation report for that
property. And I just want to make clear that if that whole area, property was assessed 100% of
the, if there was no wetland on that property, 100% of it would be assessed for that project. It
would have no effect on the residential assessment amount under this scenario so if, again if it
was assessed with no wetland, you know that apartment complex would have a higher
assessment theoretically, and the property owners, the other 5 commercial properties would have
a decrease in assessments because there’s that 40% number that we’re using there and it’s not
going to get any higher. It’s not going to get any lower. That’s the number that we’re required
to use so.
18
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Councilman Litsey: So you’re saying in this methodology, that would have no impact on the
residential assessments.
Paul Oehme: Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Councilman Litsey: You just separate it out and it’s a different parcel that we’re looking at.
Paul Oehme: Exactly. If the wetland was more or if it was less, would just have impacts on the
commercial properties and their proposed assessment valuation.
Councilman Litsey: So maybe, hopefully that issue’s clear then.
Paul Oehme: So I just want to get back to the mayor’s point about clarifying the assessment
calculations for the non-residential properties and we did look at again breaking out the, breaking
out the cost for that street, Laredo Drive, with a non-residential properties. We looked at the
over sizing cost for increasing the width from 31 foot wide roadway to a 35 foot wide roadway
and then some, we did add in additional pavement section as well for that. That total came to
just over $90,000. That’s 100% the city cost. Okay. And out of the, or out of the 31 foot wide
roadway section, road that’s proposed to be assessed, you know we looked at the cost for that
section of street. Calculated the 40% number from those unit costs for the street improvement
project, and looked at the front footage. We calculated the front footage and came up with a, let
me step back a little bit. Once we calculated the 40% assessment amount for the non-residential
properties, we looked at converting that into a front footage basis. So on the non-residential,
Laredo Drive section of roadway, there’s say 1,700 linear feet of front footage there. Converted
that to a front footage unit price which came out to be just about $80 a linear foot and then took
that associated number and came up with an equivalent front footage cost. So that’s how we
distributed the assessment, the 40% assessment amount over the commercial properties.
Mayor Furlong: So as I heard you then, from a residential standpoint it’s a per lot regardless of
whether the lot has a front footage maybe on the outside of a curve or the inside of a curve or
around a cul-de-sac or something, it’s per lot.
Paul Oehme: Right.
Mayor Furlong: But for the commercial it’s the amount by the front footage, so it’s more of an
area or length.
Paul Oehme: It’s more the length.
Mayor Furlong: It’s a length measurement.
Paul Oehme: Right.
Mayor Furlong: And also per lot.
19
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Paul Oehme: Exactly. And it’s only associated with the front footage on Laredo Drive. There’s
several access points for these commercial, non-residential properties. We did not take that into
consideration.
Mayor Furlong: So if the property such as the bank down at the end bordered, their property
actually borders 3 streets. You’re just, I think that’s one of the calculations that the appraisal, the
consultant report got into, was looking at the property has benefit from multiple public streets.
Not just this single public street.
Paul Oehme: Exactly.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Councilwoman Tjornhom, does that answer your question? Does that
clarify it for you or do you have additional follow-up questions?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I just want to make sure everyone in the room understands or
understood what was said I guess, so that we can all move forward on the same page and talk
about things in a manner where we all understand where we’re going I guess.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So I under, I mean I’m fine. I just want to make sure everybody is.
Mayor Furlong: Very good. Thank you. We’re still on Laredo Drive. Is there anyone else from
Laredo that would like to speak this evening?
Debbie Anderson: Hi.
Mayor Furlong: Good evening.
Debbie Anderson: I’m Debbie Anderson, 7605 Laredo Drive. I just have one comment and a
couple questions. My comment is regarding the previous conversation that we had about the
commercial properties and if they are reassessed at a rate that will affect the residential
assessment. And while that on one hand makes me happy. On the other hand it doesn’t seem
right. I mean even though it will affect the residential assessment, it doesn’t seem, I mean that
doesn’t make it right. In other words, if they’re being reassessed at a lower rate, it seems like
they’re not paying their share or something. I’m specifically talking about the wetland issue.
Does that make sense? Do you understand my comment?
Paul Oehme: Not exactly but I just want to make clear they’re not being assessed at a lower rate
than the residential component. I mean they’re two separate projects. Two separate construction
areas so they’re just being assessed for their section of street in front of their property.
Debbie Anderson: Okay, so maybe I should put it differently. If in our, in my opinion they’re
not being assessed enough because of that wetland issue. Your point was that we don’t have to
worry about it as residents because we’re not having to pay more because of that, but that still
doesn’t make it right if it’s not right. Do you follow? Okay. Just a comment.
20
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry Mr. Gerhardt, go ahead.
Todd Gerhardt: I just want to make a point that we broke it into two projects. You’ve got the
residential and the commercial, and you know we determined kind of a size for the wetland when
we did the appraisal and so say it’s bigger and then you know they’re going to see their
assessment go up. Then that means the bank or somebody else might see a slight decrease. But
it’s not going to affect the residential portion.
Debbie Anderson: Okay, so the commercial.
Todd Gerhardt: Just the commercial.
Debbie Anderson: Properties are being affected by assessments of other commercial properties.
Paul Oehme: Absolutely.
Todd Gerhardt: Correct. Not the residential. Does everybody kind of understand that?
Councilman Litsey: Yeah, it wouldn’t change the city’s portion either so as a taxpayer paying
that general part, it wouldn’t affect that either.
Debbie Anderson: Okay. So that was actually one of my questions. Where was it coming from
then this?
Todd Gerhardt: So instead of spending I don’t know how much on a delineation is going to be to
determine exactly how big that wetland is, you know the commercial people, we’ve done that
appraisal and that appraisal justified how much we could assess back, because it really gets back
down to benefit with everybody and what we can justify. And some of them that you see at a
th
lower amount may have got assessed for West 78 Street or may have got assessed for Chan
View so you’re only seeing potentially half or a third of what their overall cost for road benefit
th
may be in this project because we got them with mill and overlay on West 78 Street when that
was done. You’re going to get them on Chan View and also Market Boulevard.
Debbie Anderson: Okay. And then let’s see, another question I had was. The resolving
assessment fund. It’s my understanding that that is the source from which the 60% of the city
that’s paying, the 60% that’s being paid by the city, that’s the source of those funds. Is that
correct?
Paul Oehme: That’s correct.
Debbie Anderson: Okay. So where’s that come from?
Todd Gerhardt: Revolving assessment fund was created through revenues we derived from land
sales in the downtown redevelopment. There’s levy dollars that go in there, and then the council
21
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
may transfer dollars into that fund at the end of the year if there’s any excess taxes left over.
Those are the three primary sources.
Debbie Anderson: Okay. And then, which reminded me of this question and that is, how did the
6% interest rate, what was the methodology, how come we came up with the 6% interest rate
we’re paying for this tax assessment over 10 years?
Todd Gerhardt: Well typically what we can sell bonds for and then we add, is it?
Paul Oehme: Between, or about 2%.
Todd Gerhardt: 2% to that. So if we can sell bonds around 4%, we add a 2% to that for
administration of the assessment roll. Each year we have to certify down to the County. We
have to do auditing of each of those accounts so a portion of audit expense is associated with that
and just record keeping.
Debbie Anderson: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anyone else from Laredo Drive? This evening. How about
Laredo Lane? Oh, I’m sorry.
David Remington: I did want to make a comment please.
Mayor Furlong: Sure.
David Remington: My name’s David Remington. I live at 7611 Laredo and I do want to say it
looks like there’s been some effort spent to at least take a look at the notion that some portions of
the street have a dramatically different use from the rest of the portion of the street and I do
commend that. It just, it seems like an awful lot of money right now. I don’t want to write a
$6,000 check this year. I don’t know, does anybody else on the council want to write another
$6,000 check? Probably not. I just think that the special assessments, and as I read about them
and about what’s going on in the state and the country, I really think that they’re essentially an
example of the many taxing the few and fundamentally unfair. So I don’t know if you know as
Mr. Littfin said, maybe some other way to fund roads in general. Is you know, I’ve been told
this project is absolutely necessary. Is it absolutely necessary? Is the timing good? I just urge
the council to individually think about that and think about the impact of the cost and the
timeliness of the project before you’re ready to vote. That’s all I ask. Thanks.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else from Laredo Drive then? Didn’t mean to
jump off too quickly. Laredo Lane. Anyone here this evening from Laredo Lane? How about
Longview? Oh, did I miss somebody? Longview? Good evening sir.
Dave Rice: My name is Dave Rice. I live at 7440 Longview Circle and Terry, we’ve had our
discussions. Todd. I live in a, right behind Longview Circle there’s the Kerber Pond project
that’s going in, so I’m not only getting it from the front. I’m getting it from the rear this
year…but the project in the back is going to be part of, and Terry’s done a good job of working
22
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
with the residents on that. My question here is fairly simple. As far as the discharge on the
streets. I mean you’re giving the residents an opportunity to tap in to the drain sewer, or tile.
Paul Oehme: Drain tile.
Dave Rice: Drain tile, and I strongly recommend that you enforce that with these residents. I
mean you’re putting in a good project. Now let’s just take it to that level and encourage that they
do hook up so hopefully we can enforce that. And secondly this lady talked about the bonding.
It seems like 6%, you’re asking people to come up with a fairly good amount of money. $6,000.
And then it’s like, residents are feeling like they’re getting stabbed and then you’re turning the
knife by telling them that they have to pay, or borrow the money for 6%. You know if
something could be done where in 5 years, maybe a 5 year plan here. If you paid it off in 5
years, it’s interest free. Do something. I mean you can take your dog to the vet and have surgery
and get free money for a year. If you pay it back in a year, or if you pay it off in a year. So I
think that would be a good practice that you work with the citizens. It’s not only that you ask to,
want them to pick up a pretty good amount. You know $6,000 or 40%, but show some gesture
of offering a package of where you pay it off in a certain amount of time and not have the
interest on that. It just kind of adds insult to injury there so that’s all I got. Thank you.
Councilwoman Ernst: Is there by chance a way we could do that to borrow, basically let them
borrow the money at no interest? I mean I realize that we have had our methodology that we’ve
worked from in the past, and I’m just curious if there’s a different way to do that, and I don’t
know that I expect an answer on this tonight but if there’s a different way if they wanted to
borrow that money. Can they, is there a way that they could borrow it with no interest?
Mayor Furlong: Well what is the current policy now in terms of funding the assessment? We’ve
got some mechanisms in place but currently if they can pay it off by a certain period of time.
Paul Oehme: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Or, which is when?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, well in the notice that goes out, it’s 60 days after, if the project is approved
tonight, 60 days after the hearing typically. You know the finance department has laxed on that
in the past and they give them up to the time they have to file at the County, which is beginning
of November.
Mayor Furlong: That’s when.
Paul Oehme: Yep.
Mayor Furlong: Effectively finance it, it’s going to be financed on their property tax statement.
Paul Oehme: Exactly. That’s when it has to get certified at the county to get ready to put on the
property taxes on the following year, so at that point in time it’s kind of out of our hands in terms
of what the interest is.
23
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Mayor Furlong: And what is the, we also have some policies in place to allow people in certain
circumstances, whether they’re disabled or I meet certain criteria to basically defer that
assessment without the finance charge of the 6%. Is that correct?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, that’s correct and we implemented that last year in the Koehnen project and
we’ve got a couple forms here too. It’s an application for assessment deferral and there’s certain
criteria’s that a property owner would have to make. Show a hardship to have that assessment
deferred. For a period of time. So that is offered by the City.
Councilman Litsey: I mean last year on the project that went in front of my house, I believe it
was 6% and interest has dropped since then. Is there any kind of built in mechanism where we
take that into account, or do we not?
Paul Oehme: Correct me if I’m wrong Todd but I think once it’s at the county, I think we don’t
have any say in terms of what that assessment amount is after that point.
Councilman Litsey: No, I guess I didn’t explain it right. I’m okay with where our project is
done and that’s what I’m going to pay but, now we have a new project and if interest rates have
dropped and we’re loaning out money, if it’s at a lesser rate, do we have anything in place to take
a look at that because I think that is a good point.
Paul Oehme: Absolutely. And we did have a, our bonding company look at that issue this year
again and they drafted a letter to us and they’re still recommending you know about a 6%
interest rate based upon what we can borrow for the assessment amount.
Councilman Litsey: Okay, so they did at least review it and take a look at that and we, okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council. If we were to sell bonds now for this project you would
probably get a rate somewhere between 4.75, 4.95. It may have gone down a little bit after this
last rate change and so you know, you add 1% to that and you’re darn close to the 6% on 4.95. It
could be slightly lower. It’s really up to you. We’ve done this 3 times and we have added the
1%. You know it’s policies can change. It’s up to you as a City Council but we followed that
practice with 3 other projects so.
Councilman Litsey: And actually in essence if we were going to basically subsidize the interest
rate, then we’d be taking that out of the general levy.
Todd Gerhardt: True, correct.
Councilwoman Ernst: I’m sorry Bryan, we’d take it out of what?
Mayor Furlong: It’d be coming out of the fund.
24
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Councilman Litsey: Which is primarily out of the levy so we could buy that interest rate down
but then you’re just spreading it amongst the entire tax base basically is what you’re doing. So
it’s kind of a philosophical, yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Litsey: I suspect when businesses do that they build that into their overhead
probably too. You know they may give an interest free for a year but they’re recouping that
someway. Probably.
Councilwoman Ernst: I’ve got another question. Paul can you tell me, is it common practice
among other communities where they have a project like this, they’re assessing the neighborhood
with residential and you assess the businesses once and then we go back and re-assess them. Is
this standard practice where they’re not paying the same as the neighborhood is? It is?
Todd Gerhardt: What you want to really key on is that appraisal work that’s done for you, and
again I get back to saying the benefit that can be derived to that business or to that residential.
And again, let’s use the post office example. They front on 3 streets. They front on Market.
They front on Chan View and they front on Laredo. You’re seeing one street assessment, you
know. You could assess them for Chan View, which would be another $4,000. You could
assess them again for Market, which would be another $4,000. So they’re really paying $12,000
if you look at it from an overall project if you did Market, Chan View and Laredo all as one
project. So you’re really in that scenario only today looking at a third of what the post office
would be paying.
Councilwoman Ernst: And my question, excuse me, my question was more, is this the way other
communities do it? Do they typically do it the same way we’re doing it Roger?
Roger Knutson: Mayor, members of the council. I’m not sure there is, there’s such a thing as
typical but I would say in my experience in quite a few communities, the commercial rate and
the residential rate is usually different. Not always I suppose but the vast majority of time it’s
calculated on a different basis.
Councilwoman Ernst: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions at this point?
Councilman McDonald: Well as I understand it, the commercial rate is based upon, it’s a
footage calculation. As to how much footage fronts versus the residential which is just a lot in
and of itself, no matter what the footage. So a business that would have a longer footage is going
to pay more because the theory being they benefit more by having that access to that street. Post
office as an example, if you do Chan View is going to pay a lot more than they are currently just
because that frontage is more. So over time, at least for a commercial, it’s going to average out.
I mean they will pay their fair share for maintaining streets within the community.
25
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Todd Gerhardt: And I preface that by, depending on what the benefit back to that property is in
the appraisal report. You know it depends on the type of business and definitely how much front
footage they have. But depending on even in the community they’re in, it derives back to that
and what values are associated with that commercial area and that business.
Councilman Litsey: Didn’t we talk about before if we applied the residential methodology to
commercial, they would actually, it would change right? I mean actually commercial pays more
proportionately than the residential methodology.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, they would.
Roger Knutson: Just point out that one of the reasons it’s typical to do a commercial on a front
foot basis rather than a lot basis because there’s such tremendous differences in lot sizes. I mean
I can have a small hardware store or I could have an office distribution, or a warehouse
distribution center and it’s really difficult to say they should be treated the same. Whereas single
family home, there’s just differences in lot sizes but not to the same extent there are with
commercial.
Councilman McDonald: If I could move to one other thing. On the money issue, about the
city’s charging let’s say 6%. Are there any other funds available where basically we’re issuing a
grant to people at no interest. Do we have access to anything such as that within either state
funding or additional funding that we might have, or that the homeowner might have access to?
Todd Gerhardt: The only thing that’s out there is the, under special conditions. Paul, I think you
mentioned it. Can you highlight that again? I think, deferred.
Paul Oehme: Deferred. Yep, deferred assessment application that we have here so if you,
property owner shows hardship for financial reasons or for whatever reason, medical reasons, we
take all that into consideration and there’s a set application that would be filled out and then the
finance department would go through that and see if that property owner would qualify for that
deferral so. But in terms of any state dollars, federal dollars for assessments, I’m not aware of
any funds that are available. Grant monies that are available to help out individual property
owners from a different agency standpoint.
Councilman Litsey: I mean the only thing we’ve talked about, and we haven’t really gone to this
level yet is having a private financing take this over too. I mean you could have, we get out of it
all together right?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, and the property owners have that option.
Councilman Litsey: And they can do that on their own anyway.
Paul Oehme: Home equity loan or some other type of financing.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Let’s keep moving along then. We’re still on Longview. Anyone on
Longview hasn’t spoken yet that would like to? How about Highland Drive? Anyone from
26
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Highland? Cimarron Circle. Anyone from Cimarron that would like to speak? No? Then I
think then if my list is correct we’ve gone through all the streets so again at this point I would
just ask if there’s a last call for anyone else. Any interested party that would like to speak during
the public hearing this evening.
David Remington: Yeah, may I ask one more question?
Mayor Furlong: Please come to the microphone.
David Remington: One of the things that I keep hearing, and it would be interesting to see if
there’s a methodology to calculate this. It sounds to me like the assessment amount is based on
the cost of the project, correct?
Paul Oehme: It was based upon the bids, the contractor.
David Remington: The bids received.
Paul Oehme: Exactly.
David Remington: But we talk about the benefit to the property owners. Is there any
mechanism, any sort of methodology that you have to calculation the benefit that a property
derives or is it the fundamental assumption that the cost is the benefit?
Paul Oehme: No. I mean we go through an analysis even before the project gets underway and
we hire an appraiser to go in to these neighborhoods, commercial, and look at the residential
property owners and look at pre-reconstruction areas and then post. And what they do, they go
into neighborhoods that have had streets redone, similar to what’s being proposed, and they look
at resale values pre and post the street being improved so that’s the consultation report that we
received and that’s how we derive our benefit and substantiate the cost associated with the
assessments.
David Remington: Are those recommendations and estimates available to us?
Paul Oehme: Absolutely, yeah.
Mayor Furlong: What was the, explain the results of that appraisal for the residential property
owners.
Paul Oehme: I have those here.
Mayor Furlong: Did it change from the draft?
Paul Oehme: No. It’s pretty much the same so I mean.
Mayor Furlong: I’ll defer to the gentleman with the cheaters over here. You know I put myself
in that boat too.
27
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Paul Oehme: Right, so I mean exactly. That’s.
Mayor Furlong: The appraisal came back and said based upon other projects around the Twin
Cities area, similar projects as well as nearby, that the expected benefit for this project per
residential property was $7,000 to $8,000. Was the expected benefit. And so, and the proposed
assessment here is.
Paul Oehme: $5,900.
Mayor Furlong: 59? 58-59? So that was.
David Remington: Okay. I don’t know if I agree with the numbers but the study was done.
Mayor Furlong: Absolutely.
Paul Oehme: It’s right here and you’re more than welcome to review it.
David Remington: Okay. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Debbie Anderson: Can I ask another question?
Mayor Furlong: Please come forward Ms. Anderson.
Debbie Anderson: Okay. I apologize in advance if this sounds ridiculous.
Mayor Furlong: If you could re-state your name for the record.
Debbie Anderson: Debbie Anderson, 7605 Laredo Drive.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Debbie Anderson: I’m just going to piggy back onto that conversation. My property is for sale.
I bought it 6 years ago and I don’t expect to get, because of the real estate market. Not because
of anything the City of Chanhassen is doing or that I’m doing. I don’t expect to make, even sell
it for probably what I bought it for 6 years ago, and that’s not what we expect when we make an
investment in real estate obviously but that’s just the way it is. So I guess the reason I’m
standing here is, it’s the last chance that I could say anything to you in terms of the timing, and
we’re talking about how it’s going to increase the value of our properties but no. Probably not
for another 2 or 3 years, if we’re talking real world. Selling your house. Not only am I having to
ask like $20,000. Well, I had my house on the market 2 years ago. It was appraised for I think it
was 245, which was a fair price. It wasn’t, I probably would have taken an offer quite honestly
but it was fair. I listed it a couple weeks ago for 224. And most home buyers expect not only to,
for you to pay their closing costs but they expect you to pay any pending tax assessments.
28
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Obviously this is not your problem. This is my problem. I don’t have to say yes. Whatever, but
the point is, is the real estate market is so bad right now, if we could just maybe fill in those pot
holes and wait for the real estate market to turn around to really make the improvements that are
needed but if anybody wants to sell their house, it’s just the worst timing ever. So again, I
apologize if that’s ridiculous but.
Mayor Furlong: Appreciate the comments. Anyone.
Councilman McDonald: Can I ask a question about that? If we were to just fill in the potholes,
what are we accomplishing? I mean do we just, is the problem there and it just gets worst or.
Paul Oehme: Every year we’re out there filling pot holes and keeping it together. You know if
the city does not start replacing streets, you know a lot of the streets are just going to keep
deteriorating, deteriorating and we’re just going to be out there filling pot holes all summer long
and I don’t know. That’s a policy issue that the city should, has to decide upon. You know what
level of pavement you know, type of quality do we want in our community so it’s more of a
philosophical…
Councilman McDonald: Okay. Beyond the pavement there’s also a water problem in this area
and pot holes are not going to address any of that so if we just let that ride, what does that do? I
mean how bad a situation do we have now? And by not fixing it, does it get worst?
Paul Oehme: Oh absolutely. I mean the sewer systems are deteriorating and there’s only so
much you can do from a standpoint and time where you don’t actually dig up the street and
replace those older sanitary sewer lines you know. We’ve got cracked pipes that are out there
that are failing and eventually it’s clay pipe. It’s going to collapse and then you’re going to have
a failure so, those are the type of things that we obviously want to avoid at all cost. You know
watermain breaks are a different issue. It’s a quality of life. You know these things happen
when you’d least expect them or at least want them to do Murphy’s Law that says it’s going to
happen on New Year’s Eve so. A lot of times they do so it’s something that we try to do the best
we can with maintaining the system as it is but there comes a point in time where a lot of this
infrastructure should be looked at and replaced. Storm sewer again. There’s different standards
out there now for water quality and we want to address some of this ground water issue that we
have in this area and try to improve the situation out there for people, sump pumps that discharge
in a location that benefits everybody instead of running down the street and sitting on the street
and icing up the streets so there’s, it’s how do we want to have our streets maintained. I mean
what level of quality of life do we want for these streets and for these neighborhoods?
Councilman Litsey: I mean one of the silver linings in this, if there is one I guess is that bids are
coming in favorable. I know on my street project last year I was pleased that, you know I didn’t
want to pay that either but at least it came in less than what was anticipated and that was a good
thing.
Paul Oehme: Yep, absolutely and that’s, you know right now is a good market right now. The
housing market is down. Maybe the resale value obviously is a detriment but when
neighborhoods, or developments aren’t being built, contractors are looking for work. They’re
29
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
not obviously working on new developments so they’re hungry and we do get better bids in this
type of a market for these type of projects so. You know down the road, if and when the housing
market comes back, you know contractors may not be as hungry. If gas prices stay where they
are right now, you know they’re definitely going to drive up the cost of these type of
improvements so.
Councilwoman Ernst: Jerry, I want to thank you for asking that question because I was
wondering the same thing myself. I will say that the majority of the people that I have talked to
in that neighborhood feel that the project does need to go forward. It’s just addressing their
concerns, which I think that Paul you’ve done an excellent job of working with the neighborhood
and addressing those concerns and answering their questions. So I just want to, I just felt I had
to say that because for the most part I have heard that they do want to go forward with the
project. Depending on how their concerns were addressed.
Councilman Litsey: That came through loud and clear at the last public hearing. Mayor
Furlong, you asked people to state that for the record and I think at least everyone’s in agreement
it needs to be done.
Councilwoman Ernst: Right.
Councilman Litsey: And we really can’t wait or shouldn’t wait I guess if we’re going to do due
diligence so.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Well and I guess one thing I want to make clear as expressed
earlier this evening, that if someone wishes to object to the proposed assessment, they need to
make sure that it’s in writing and it’s delivered here to Mr. Gerhardt or Mr. Knutson here before
we close the public hearing, which if nobody’s going to be speaking, we’re going to be closing
the public hearing in just a minute so. Any other follow up questions at this point for staff or
based upon the public hearing? Okay. If not then, is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Councilwoman Ernst: So moved.
Councilman McDonald: I’ll second.
Mayor Furlong: Motion’s been made and seconded by Councilman McDonald. Any discussion
on closing the public hearing? Seeing none.
Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman McDonald seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The public
hearing was closed.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you everyone. We appreciate your comments and participation
throughout this process. At this time I will, we have a couple matters before us this evening.
The consideration of the assessment roll as well as whether or not we move forward with
accepting the bids and awarding the contract so at this point, anything else for staff? At this
time. If you can make sure you know what resolution we’re going to consider here in a minute.
30
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
The thoughts and comments from members of the council. We had some questions and thoughts
here but thoughts from the council regarding the overall project, practice and such. Councilman
Litsey.
Councilman Litsey: I can certainly start. As was already stated, as I think everyone pretty much
at least is in agreement that we need to move forward with this project and I don’t think that
delaying would be our doing due diligence to what we need to do here tonight. The
methodology for assessments, you know that’s where we’re at as a city. We certainly I suppose
could take a look at how we do that in the future. That’s not going to change anything for the
people here tonight but I wouldn’t mind taking a look at it. I’ve had some questions myself
about how we pay for roads but again that’s not something that we’re going to be able to decide
tonight or help out with if that’s your preference. I think the city staff has done really a good job
of getting all the issues to the surface. Trying to deal with the best they can. I think this new
approach does make it a little clearer on how you’re being assessed and for what. Little cleaner.
A little easier, like I said, to follow so I’m in favor of that and I know it’s a lot of money to ask
people to put up but I think it needs to be done and as I read through our information here too,
and correct me if I’m wrong but I think the city overall, if you include the utilities, is picking up
close to 80% of the project so again, that doesn’t help that some of it’s coming out of your
pocketbook, I understand that but also understand that the city is putting up nearly 80% of the
cost and that’s from the entire tax base so with that I guess I would be in favor of moving
forward tonight.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other thoughts and comments, Councilwoman Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: I echo Councilman Litsey’s comments. I do think that, well first off I
want to say thank you all for coming so forward and expressing your views and opinions and
your concerns because the worst thing that could have happened is that you could have expressed
your concerns and, could not have expressed your concerns and they never got addressed and
then there would be, there would probably be harder feelings than what I heard tonight. I know
that Paul has addressed some of your concerns and that the poor access and the straightening of
the road, the watermain improvements, sewer improvements, these are just to name a few and
again as Paul had mentioned, there is that, did you call it a finance committee that they could
form or there is.
Paul Oehme: Assessment deferral form.
Councilwoman Ernst: Assessment deferral form. But then you also mentioned something about
they could form a, I thought you had mentioned something about a committee that they could
form or, okay. I guess I misunderstood. Sorry. But there are some other options and based on
everything that I’ve heard and the concerns that have been addressed, I too would support this
project. But I do think that we need to look at other options as Councilman Litsey said, for our
methodology and how we do road assessments.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
31
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, I just want to address one thing first. I think Ms. Anderson, I
don’t think your comments were silly. I think they were heartfelt and I feel your pain for what
you’re going through right now and so once again thank you for coming and I think your
questions and the responses we got from the audience and staff kind of helped everybody learn
more and kind of feel more comfortable hopefully with what’s going on. These are probably
some of the worst meetings we have here at city hall. These assessments hearings for road
projects. It’s kind of a necessary evil unfortunately. If you drive around our town, we have
pretty good roads. If you go to some other towns, you’re dodging potholes and cracks constantly
and so the reason we do have those roads though is because of meetings like this. Because we
have a plan. We have designated streets and areas that we maintain and no one is extinct or there
is no exception. Councilman Litsey, you lived through it last year. Mayor Furlong will
hopefully live through it, right?
Mayor Furlong: I’ve had it twice.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay, twice. Twice, okay. And I’m sure you know it will come
knocking on my door too at some point. Not that it makes it easier to write that check but it is an
investment. It’s an investment in your neighborhood. It’s an investment in our town and so I too
will be supporting this project.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman McDonald.
Councilman McDonald: This was actually I guess the first thing I got thrown into and one thing
I tried to make sure was at least due process was followed. Questions were answered. I did
carry messages back and forth between homeowners and city staff to try to explain and
understand what was going on. As a result of some of those meetings we do have changes that
have taken place. I realize that it’s not the changes everybody wanted but again, as everyone has
said, we do need to make an investment in streets and infrastructure. Everyone has always told
me it needs to be fixed, and it’s not just the roads. It’s the water problems too. We need to do
something about all of this. Unfortunately we don’t have a general fund that just goes out and
does this. Maybe that’s something we ought to look at. A lot of other cities such as I believe
Eagan would have charged 100% of the cost. There’s been a number of issues. Every city does
it differently. This is probably one of the more fairer approaches of all the cities around. Again
this is very difficult to I guess vote for because I do know the circumstances of a lot of people. I
do deal on a daily basis with home mortgages and foreclosures and I realize the problems that
everyone is in but again, the timing couldn’t have been worst. The golden lining in the cloud is
that it’s also worst for the contractors so the city is getting a good price. I think we would be
negligent in our duty to the residents of this city if we did not follow through on this project. So
because of all of that I too would support it and vote for it. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I was talking to some people last week about the process that
District 112 is going through right now trying to draw boundary lines for the new high school.
Adding a new high school and there’s a lot of emotions tied up in that and what I’ve tried to
explain was the, recognizing the benefit of the public process. Sometimes it can seem clunky.
Sometimes it can seem unfair but in terms of reaching the best result possible I think it is the best
means by which to get there and I think this is another project here where we’ve gone through a
32
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
very open public process, and that’s benefited I think everyone involved. I think the changes that
were made to the assessment policy, while being consistent with our past practices, also take into
account some of the unique aspects of this project area. And earlier when we heard from some
of you, as well as some of your neighbors that aren’t here this evening, we heard that that had to
be looked at and we did look at it and we had staff look at it and they came back with what I
believe is a better policy. We can go around about whether we should assess, pay taxes. We
have had that discussion before. We can certainly have it again. And while the state statute
limits the amount of the assessment to the benefit being received. I’ve always thought too of the
corollary that in fairness to all the taxpayers if benefit is being received, it’s not necessarily fair
for the taxpayers to pay for the benefit to a private property owner. But that’s the give and take
and that’s why I think to Councilman McDonald’s comments there are some cities that do 100%
property taxes to pay for street projects. In that case residents that might live in a development
where there are only private streets, where they’re going to have to pay 100% for their private
streets but also be paying property taxes to pay for all the public streets. There are others that
require 100% assessment for any street project and I think that is unfair because these are public
streets. There should be some balance. There should be some blend and over the years this
practice that we have had seems to, at least so far, hold up to test of time. Held up through a
number of different projects. A number of different neighborhoods. A number of different
projects where there are mixtures in terms of nature of the road and the properties along the road.
As I said at the last time we had a public hearing, the first criteria I look to is if there is a need for
the project because if there isn’t a need for the project, all this other effort is really just a waste of
time and over the years that has been my starting point. I think there clearly is a need. I think as
Councilman Litsey mentioned, everyone that spoke at the earlier public hearing I believe to a
person said yes, there is a need to do this. The question was how do we fairly fund it. So I don’t
think the question of the need and the timing of it, it is something that we identify objectively in
terms of the projects across the city are identified using pavement management system, which is
an objective measure of quality and condition of the street. We also consider the utilities and
other aspects here that are going to be improved so not only is this a street project. It’s a utility
project. Water and sewer. It’s also storm water improvement, and that’s the other thing that we
touched on briefly but this neighborhood is in an area where it was developed prior to the
existence of our current storm water management policies and we have an opportunity here with
this project to take a slice out and redirect that water away from an area that’s a problem right
now and gets to Lotus Lake too quickly and in too dirty of a form and turn around, divert it and
slow the rate down and improve the quality of the water before eventually it gets there. When
we have opportunities to do that in a cost effective and efficient manner, we should do that and
this project gives us that opportunity again so is there a need? Yes, I think there is a need. Is the
scope appropriate and are we doing all we can in terms of some of those areas? Yes, I think we
are so then it gets down to funding. And I think as I addressed a little bit earlier, I think that is, it
may not be perfect. It may not be what everybody would agree to but I think overall it is fair and
what, in terms of the calculations that were presented this evening, I believe are fair and in a
sense take into some of the benefit of some of the differences. That $7,000-$8,000 that was
included in some of the appraisal report was derived initially from a percent of the property value
that resulted in an average of 7 to 8 and so even if the values have come down a little bit, the
assessment is down and that’s a direct result of what the costs are to the project. Also I think
with our policy, rather than just going ahead with whatever the consultant says should be the
value received, if there are savings on, from the bids, those are passed along to the benefiting
33
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
property owners as well so just as the city is benefiting from our share of the street project
coming in lower than what it might be if market conditions were different, so too are the property
owners so. I think the process here has allowed all of us, members of the council, staff, and
certainly the residents and property owners to really test and bed out, is everybody completely
satisfied that every question has been answered. I think all the pertinent ones have. I think all
the material questions have been addressed and I believe the end results here is a fair process in
terms of the funding. The need is there. I think the scope is well laid out and I think we should
move forward on this this evening. Any additional thoughts or comments from anyone? No? If
not we have a couple issues before us this evening, is that correct Mr. Oehme? We have a
resolution to adopt the assessment roll I believe and also to adopt one that would accept the bids
and award the contract.
Paul Oehme: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Paul Oehme: Do you want me to review the bids that came in Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Furlong: Certainly.
Paul Oehme: Okay. Real quick, staff did receive 8 bids for the project. We opened bids
th
Thursday, April 10 at 2:00 and the low bidder for the project was S.M. Hentges & Sons.
They’ve worked in the city in the past. They worked on the Koehnen project last year. The 101
gap project a couple years ago and also other projects here in the city so, and their work has been
satisfactory so we would recommend awarding the project to S. M. Hentges for the 2008 project.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. We raised some questions about the project’s scope in working
with the contractor earlier this evening so I’m assuming you’ll take all those.
Paul Oehme: Yep, absolutely.
Roger Knutson: Did that include bid alternate 3?
Paul Oehme: Yeah and that also includes alternate 3. Our recommendation would be to, there’s
3 alternates in the bid. One was for exchanging a pipe material with high density polyethylene
pipe. We’re not recommending awarding that alternate. And then alternate is the one that we
are recommending which includes both the Kerber Park Pond improvement, the pond itself and
then the infiltration basins along the trail as well. Those dollar amounts are identified in your
packet so we would recommend, recommending that you go ahead with awarding the project
with the base bid and alternate 3 to S.M. Hentges and Sons.
Mayor Furlong: Does the resolution in 2B include approval of the bid alternate #3? Does the
resolution reach agreement consistent with staff’s recommendation?
Paul Oehme: Yes.
34
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Councilman Litsey: It does say plus alternate number 3.
Paul Oehme: Yes, plus alternate number 3. Whereas.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. I just wanted to make sure the resolution, the resolution speaks to a total
dollar amount and that dollar amount includes the base plus alternate 3?
Paul Oehme: Plus alternate 3, correct.
Mayor Furlong: So that’s how that number came about?
Paul Oehme: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: So if you mention the dollar amount we’re good on that right? Total.
Roger Knutson: I think just to be clear. In the resolution you could say, mention up in the
whereas, add alternate 3 just to make it clear.
Paul Oehme: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Where do you want to add that? Right after the first whereas?
Roger Knutson: Or you could say, you could add a second whereas to say with a total base bid
of $2,442,000 and change including alternate 3.
Mayor Furlong: And to be clear, excluding alternates 1 and 2.
Roger Knutson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Everybody comfortable with those modifications to the resolution under
2B? Any questions on that? Clarification? Then there was one, was there Mr. Gerhardt?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, we have one date change in the resolution adopting the assessment roll
st
under Now Therefore, item number 2. It reads December 31, 2008. It should read December
st
31, 2009.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any questions on that? Alright. Any other questions or comments? If
not then we have.
Todd Gerhardt: You can do it as one motion.
Mayor Furlong: One motion to adopt the resolution as amended in both items, in item 2A and
2B. Would that be correct? Okay. Anyone wishing to make that motion?
35
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I will if you say the first part again. I was looking for the second
part.
Mayor Furlong: No, that’s fine. Go ahead.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I make a motion, do we have to make a motion to accept the roll?
The assessment roll too?
Roger Knutson: To adopt the assessment resolution. That contains the roll, yes.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Okay, so let me go back to that.
Mayor Furlong: This is 1A.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Thank you. Where is it on 1A?
Mayor Furlong: That is the resolution for 2A. For item 2A.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Where’s the language?
Mayor Furlong: Which language? This is the language for 2B.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: To the wording, language for?
Mayor Furlong: It’s just the one date change that’s marked on there. From 2008 to 2009.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. So I’d like to make a motion that we adopt the assessment roll
for the 2008 street improvement project #08-01.
Roger Knutson: Correcting the one date from December 31, 2008 to December 31, 2009.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Correct. Correcting the date from December 31, 2008 to December
31, 2009. And I would like to also then make the motion that we award the contract for the 2008
street improvement project to S.M. Hentges and Sons, Incorporated with the total bid of
$2,442,134.20, including alternate number 3 and excluding alternates number 1 and 2. Sorry,
I’m reading.
Todd Gerhardt: Sorry. Don’t want to hurry you.
Mayor Furlong: We’ll just keep talking in your ear.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay so. Thank you. That motion would be to adopt the resolutions. Is that
sufficient?
36
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Would anybody like to second that?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Somebody better.
Councilman Litsey: I’ll second that. After all that work.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any discussion on the motion? We’ve had a lot of discussion but
any additional discussion? Thoughts? No?
Councilman McDonald: I would just like to say thank you to Mr. Gerhardt and also to Mr.
Oehme. I think they’ve been very receptive as far as being willing to relook at the process. You
have made changes from the original proposal and for that, thank you for your flexibility.
Councilman Litsey: Absolutely, yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Well said.
Todd Gerhardt: And Kimley-Horn and Associates, the consulting engineer, they do a great job
with these projects and have had a lot of experience in the community. Work well with Paul so
thank them also. They’ve done a great job.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other thoughts or comments? If not, a motion’s been made
and seconded.
Resolution #2008-34: Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that
the City Council approve the resolution adopting the 2008 Street Improvement Project
assessment roll amended to change December 31, 2008 to December 31, 2009. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Resolution #2008-35: Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that
the City Council approve the resolution accepting the bid and awarding the contract to
S.M. Hentges and Sons, Inc. in the amount of $2,442,134.20, base bid plus Alternate No. 3
for the 2008 Street Improvements-Laredo Drive Area, excluding Alternate No. 1 and No. 2.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Seeing the time here, let’s take a quick recess. I mean very quick because we
have some people waiting for some other items so let’s make it 2 or 3 minutes if we could
subject to the call of the chair. Thank you.
There was a short recess at this point in the meeting.
Mayor Furlong: Just talking to city staff. Our next item relates to a public hearing associated
with the potential vacation of a drainage and utility easement. That’s item A under 3A. B is a
site plan review. What we’re going to do is flip the order a little bit, without objection. Do the
37
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
site plan first because that will give the background for why we’re considering the vacation to
begin with and make a little bit more sense so with that let’s go to item 3B and we’ll follow that
up with item 3A. Staff report please.
PUBLIC HEARING: WALGREENS/RETAIL BUILDING: LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 41 AND
HIGHWAY 7 (2499 HIGHWAY 7), APPLICANT: ANXON, INC.:
A. PUBLIC HEARING ON VACATION OF DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT.
B. SITE PLAN REVIEW AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH
VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO RETAIL BUILDINGS.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. The item we’re bringing for you
tonight actually has three components to it. Two site plans and a conditional use. The subject
property, Seven Forty One Crossing is located at the intersection of Highway 7 and 41. Lot 1 is
there’s an existing building that will be removed and replaced with a Walgreens. Lot 2 is where
there will be a conditional use for an additional building and restructuring of the existing center
that’s there. So as I mentioned, demolishing the existing building is the first one. The existing
building is if you were to go out to the center today, we’re providing additional parking next to
the Walgreen’s building itself and then providing access for a drive thru. So the shaded areas are
the improvements to the parking lot itself. The entire parking lot will be refurbished but this is
kind of working through the circulation of the site itself. There is the Super America which is on
a separate lot. It’s not included in this project itself.
Councilman Litsey: Can I ask, so there’s not going to be any.
Kate Aanenson: There’s not going to be any changes, correct.
Councilman Litsey: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Again the revisions would be, this would be the Walgreen’s and then
showing you the circulation for the drive thru window. This would be pretty similar to the one
that’s currently downtown. The Walgreen’s with the drive thru and I’ll go through the
differences in a moment. And then this would be the new building being placed on the site. A
little over 4,000 square feet. And then what I did want to mention, this was brought up at the
Planning Commission meeting. Connections to the neighborhood. The neighborhood did want,
some of the planning commissioners thought it might be interesting to try to connect this. It’s
very steep to take this trail down. There is an existing trail right now that cuts out onto 41. What
we’re making a condition of is that there be a sidewalk. They’re proposing a trail along this
segment here. And then trying to get back down into the center. There is a trail existing here but
trying to make this connection. It’s a little bit more circuitous. There is a retaining wall behind
this building to try to get a sidewalk along that but again to give entrance way into that to make it
pedestrian. As you recall, this is one of the properties here. The Reed’s orchard piece that we
did recommend changing the zoning to on single family. A little bit more problematic to get
access to. One of the things we did look at in rezoning that is potentially providing access
between this center and then, and it seems problematic based on the grades. That we’ll probably
38
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
still have to come from the south, Mr. Gowan’s property. Or just a right-in/right-out at this time.
We did mention at the time of the rezoning request that maybe these could be connected but that
seems a little unlikely but we did investigate it with this project because we’re looking at
whether or not the parking on this edge of the building made sense in order to provide access, but
because of the grades we just don’t think that will work. So this is the entire site plan with the
landscaping. The Walgreen’s being just short of 15,000 square feet. It does have parking which
does meet ordinance closer than the building because it does provide a buffer. Again the drive
thru window over here. The existing retail center. Additional parking and then the other 4,500
square foot retail, and I’ll go through the architecture on those in just a minute. The Walgreen’s
itself, while it has the same color material and the overall design, it looks different because the
colors are kind of in families or groups, and I just want to switch here to the color palette itself
that they’re using. I got the wrong one up there.
Todd Gerhardt: Wrong one.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. I’ve got the Carver County colors up there. Thank you. That’s my
building. That’s my building. That’s her project. Thank you. So actually it’s the same colors
that are on the downtown one and you can see the bricks. So the bottom base of the building
would be the cut face block, which is again exactly what we have in the downtown building.
Again the blend is a little bit different. And then the yellow brick, and then the gray. And I’ll
switch back to the laptop here. So this would be the yellow. Then the beige and then the cut
block on the bottom and then the red brick. Again they’re integrated more and I’ll show you that
on a couple of slides in a minute. So we’ve got the cupola. Kind of the architectural feature here
again mimicking, that’s kind of their landmark over their front door with the medicinal look on
the front. Again similar to what we have downtown. The rest of those windows are spanrow.
The back of the building does not have windows. That faces into the slope. There was a
neighborhood meeting provided by Walgreen’s, prior to the Planning Commission meeting
th
which did have a public hearing on April 15 and nobody spoke to that. To any of those issues
on that. Again it has the same gooseneck lighting that’s similar to the one in downtown. The
one thing that is different, which we’ll spend a little bit of time on is the outdoor recycling,
storage area and then the delivery area, which is a little bit different than the downtown. They do
collect bins for moving of product and so those are stored outside and then the recycling is
outside. This is what the doors would look like. They’re actually louvered doors, and that’s a
little bit different than what we have downtown so this would be the trash and recycling. I’d like
to compliment Sharmeen Al-Jaff who worked on this project. It came in a lot different and she
really pushed it to be a lot similar to the one we have downtown. Again our expectations for the
architecture and this storage area was significantly larger and she worked hard because the one
downtown interior to work to, because it is in the back corner of the site. To blend it into the
site. So this one here is the one that’s downtown. Again you don’t have the outdoor, and it
really didn’t work in the downtown based on the sight lines. Whereas this one, because it’s in
that back corner, did seem to work. There is a condition in the staff report regarding the size of
this garage door and that, I did make a note of that. It is condition number 7 on page 25, just.
We believe that can be narrower. They are a little bit smaller and that’s one of the things we’ve
asked them to look at. But again you can see the colors on the existing brick so there is those
same yellow. Reds, so there is those same hues and the cut face block on the bottom. Before I
go on, any questions on the Walgreen’s then? Those in particular. Okay. So then we have the
39
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
other building that’s up against Highway 41. It is built into the slope and that building again will
have the same colors. While this doesn’t look like brick, it’s the exact same colors that I showed
you on the Walgreen’s building. Again the red’s, yellow’s, brown’s. And it also has the cut face
block. Again as I made clear, the Walgreen’s downtown has the spanrow windows, except for
the front entry, and this too will have some of that.
Councilman Litsey: Has there been a designated use for that yet?
Kate Aanenson: No. No. They do have a side patio, and that showed up on the landscaping and
that. This would be the side closest to the Super America. When you come off of 41.
Councilman Litsey: Yeah.
Kate Aanenson: So this would be an outside patio. It doesn’t have the street frontage and all
that but that’s what will be in that area. Again you’ve got the retaining wall behind the site, and
I’ll show you how this building ties into the existing center in a minute, and some of the
architectural features. Sharmeen spent a lot of time looking at this. Looking at the balance
between working with the architects. The balance between the building height. The look. So it
will have a sign band on top, and I’ll show you how that compares to what before the sign band
was actually underneath this architectural element and looking at, if you compare it to some of
our other buildings that are closer, or are sitting below street grade and putting the roof. One
example would be Edina Realty building, which we did try to put a sloped roof on because that
was our goal downtown, which seems a little top heavy. Because this is a little bit lower, we
went with this feature to kind of lighten that up and the fact that the existing center didn’t have
that so we tried to mimic some other features. And I’ll show you how the architecture came to
be. So this is looking from Highway 7. This would be the peak for the Walgreen’s. Then
there’s this existing feature right here that they mimic so this right now has kind of a maroon
color on it and the band, and I’ll show you a little bit more detail on that. And this is a little bit
twist on it but this is the other out building and then there’s another peak structure on the back
corner over here. So it’s got the awnings. Some of those other architecture features that we say
made up the pitch element so that was our interpretation of that. So the other nice thing about
these two buildings is we’re actually getting a face lift to the existing center, which we’re pretty
excited about. Improving not only the surface quality but also the structure itself. So you can
see right now there is on the existing building. The signs are below. With the new architectural
element going across, the new sign band will be moved up which I think is easier to read because
it’s hard to see right now but the Subway’s actually underneath that sign band so that will be
nicer. This you can see. This will be the new, have the spanrow windows tied into the front so
that will mimic then the Walgreen’s and all those will look the same and then we’ll also have the
same color on the top so that again that all ties in together so. And this will also be colored so
they match so that really looks unifying treatment throughout the site. So again you can see the
Pet Clips underneath, and now the new sign band again will be on top so again kind of lightening
that with the new treatment. And these poles will be that same cut face block that was on the
material sample. One of the other conditions we had is the sign is 8 foot. We only allow 5 foot.
That’s what’s currently out there. That is also a condition in your staff report. And I’ll identify
that page number. Page number 23. That they have to comply with the 5 foot sign ordinance.
Unless there’s questions on the grading plan or other issues like that, I’d be happy to answer any
40
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
questions that you have. There are conditions of approval. I didn’t speak to the conditional use
but the conditional use, we do allow more than one building on the lot through a conditional use
so this retail building, this is a separate lot. This building is the second building on that outlot. It
does require a conditional use. The findings for the conditional use are in the staff report and we
are recommending approval of that. I didn’t mention but there is a retaining, there is a storm
water pond to the south where all this water is being directed to this existing pond so that’s
where the storm water is heading. So again we believe it’s a well conceived project and we are
recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report. And there is a variance, or
vacation of utility easement for this project to go forward which we can discuss now too if you’d
like. You want to go with that?
Mayor Furlong: Let’s go ahead. If we’re ready, you can talk about that too.
Paul Oehme: For this project, the lot line between Lots 1 and 2 are shifting to accommodate the
proposed Walgreen’s and there’s currently a drainage and utility easement and the edge of Lots 1
and 2 is shown up here in green. That is no longer required for this development. There’s no
public utilities in the easement. So therefore no drainage and utility easement is required at this
time so. In order to vacate an easement a public hearing would be required so at this time I
would ask if there are no questions on that vacation and request that public hearing be opened as
well.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for Mr. Oehme? Did I read the report correctly that
we’re not replacing this drainage easement over the new lot line?
Paul Oehme: That’s correct. It’s an interior lot line. There’s no public water or sewer
associated with this site that’s going to be extended. We don’t own or maintain it. It’s
underneath a private parking lot so we don’t have any reason for replacing the drainage or utility
easement.
Mayor Furlong: You mean from a drainage standpoint, to the extent that these properties are at
some point owned by two separate parties?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, exactly. The parking lot, the storm water system is owned by the owner of
the facility. We don’t own storm water catch basins on the site, nor do we maintain them.
That’s a privately held system.
Mayor Furlong: Is the pond a public pond?
Paul Oehme: That pond is public, correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: And that we already have control of.
Mayor Furlong: And we have access to that.
41
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Paul Oehme: That’s an outlot and we do have access.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. That’s the trail that we can.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Any questions regarding anything that we’re heard to this point?
We will open the public hearing in a moment on the vacation but any questions for staff on the
site plan presentation?
Councilman Litsey: Two real quick questions. One is on that smaller building, what’s that
going to look like from Highway 41? Are they going to have, you know air conditioning units
and stuff on top of the roof that would be visible?
Kate Aanenson: No. Thank you for bringing that up. I meant to mention that. There’s parapet
walls, 2 to 4 feet on all the buildings. We did discuss with the architect that on, let’s see I’ll go
to this slide. That those parapet walls again, you’re dropping down pretty significantly coming
off of 41. That those air conditioning units, HVAC be placed as much to this side so you
wouldn’t see any of that and we do have a couple little buildings that are in that situation above
the grade and so we’ve communicated with that and that’s reviewed when the plans come in, as
close to 41. And again, the parapet is about 2 to 4 feet in height so they should not be seen.
Councilman Litsey: Okay. The other thing isn’t really related to this but, well it’s related but
not directly. Is the traffic issue. Now I don’t know if there’s ever been discussions with MnDot
or whatever but, and I’m not advocating certainly another signal light there but it’s already can
be difficult to get across there and this will add to that traffic. Has that been looked at?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, we continue to talk to MnDot about that access and actually the school
access too.
Councilman Litsey: Yeah.
Paul Oehme: The middle school access and trying to gain a signal or some sort of a controlled
intersection at each of those, each one of those intersections. But at this time none of those,
neither of those accesses meet any warrants on MnDot’s criteria for a signal. We’ll still continue
to monitor and discuss that issue with MnDot to see if something can be warranted in the future
to make that improvement because we do feel that there’s a safety concern out there. Especially
on 41.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah I think we looked at too, I know Paul has driven it with MnDot, as has
Sharmeen to look at the potential when Mr. Gowan develops. Making that intersection at the
junior high, which would give a break in some of this but.
Councilman Litsey: Which would slow it down.
Kate Aanenson: Right. And the one on 7 is a right-in/right-out only. It’s not a full access,
you’re right.
42
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Councilman Litsey: Yeah. That’s good you thought it through so that’s fine. Thanks.
Mayor Furlong: To follow up on that, the property to the south of this property, so that was one
of the properties that we were looking at rezoning and obviously that’s not a factor here but for
access and what I heard you say is that given topography in the area, access is probably not
appropriate.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: From this property. To the property to the south with the pending change in
zoning. I hate to ask this at this point in the comprehensive plan but is that something that, does
it still make sense to go forward with that other property.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Or is that something we can talk about. I don’t want to bring it up...
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think that’s very appropriate. We did give it maybe a medium density
for an office you know, and again that would depend on how you know the traffic works and
timeliness but for right now in the short run this property could only have right-in/right-out
unless it was residential. You know we could still try, you know ultimately have a stub street to
the south when that property.
Mayor Furlong: Which would provide full access to the grade school?
Kate Aanenson: Right, exactly.
Mayor Furlong: So there’s some…
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and we did drive around, as we do on all these properties, to kind of
assess the situation. It just appeared way too steep to try to make that work.
Mayor Furlong: So the bottom line is there’s no reason that we should try to preserve some of
that for access.
Kate Aanenson: Right, that was our original.
Mayor Furlong: With this site plan with the property to the south.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Other questions at this point for staff?
Councilwoman Ernst: Kate can you tell me for the trash enclosure for, well actually for the
loading area. Has there been any discussion about what we’ve done to control the noise?
43
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Kate Aanenson: We do have hours for pick-up and we believe if you look at the slope that’s on,
it’s a heavily wooded area on this side and the houses are set back quite a ways. I think that was
one of the issues that we looked at reducing the size of that. It was originally 25. I think it was
even bigger than that. The length of that, so we worked hard, or Sharmeen did to try to reduce
that, for the noise factor. We do manage that through complaints. If there are complaints
regarding too early a trash pick-up but it should be the normal business hours.
Councilwoman Ernst: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions for staff at this time? If not then let’s go ahead and
open up the public hearing with regards to the vacation of the public, of the drainage and utility
easement. No one on that? Without objection we’ll close the public hearing then on that matter.
There was a gentleman who wanted to make some comment on the overall project so sir, if you
wanted to do that now, this would be the appropriate time. Please state your name and address
for the record please.
Brian Wutzke: Certainly. Brian Wutzke, 2280 Melody Hill Road. Just outside the 500 foot
perimeter of this property to the lower right corner of the hill. I look down on the property from
our house. Just a general comment. I think it’s a nice project. Giving the neighborhood a face
lift there. One thing I would not like to see that would make it a perfect project is any form of
LED or lighted sign that would flash and blink, kind of like you see in Las Vegas. And some of
the surrounding.
Mayor Furlong: You want to leave those in Vegas?
Brian Wutzke: Yeah, exactly. What happens in Vegas, stays there so. I’d like to see this project
carried out as it’s in the plans short of having that LED sign.
Mayor Furlong: Well that, the sign was raised by staff with regard to the size of it. Maybe if
you could point out the location of that. Is that a monument sign?
Kate Aanenson: Sure. There’s a monument sign. It’d be up in this area right here, but just for
the record too, as of right now there isn’t any signs facing the neighborhood. That’s our city
code and we wouldn’t permit any in the future and so if it’s a lit sign, it’s not allowed to face the
street. So there wouldn’t be signs in the back.
Mayor Furlong: There would or would not on the new?
Kate Aanenson: There would not be on the backs of these buildings either so they wouldn’t be
facing, whether they’re neon or not, they wouldn’t be lit facing you.
Brian Wutzke: Okay, thanks for the remark. Appreciate that. Those were my concerns so.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so if that addresses your concerns, you’re all set then?
44
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Brian Wutzke: Well, I guess irregardless of what side it’s on, I would like to stay away from the
LED type signs and keep the neighborhood looking nice. Thanks.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thanks.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, just for clarification. They are proposing an LED in the location that
Kate showed you.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. This one here, right. Which is similar to what they have downtown but I
don’t think you can see it from a residential area. Yeah.
Todd Gerhardt: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Is that, as long as they meet the conditions in the staff report.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Those conditions.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. 5 feet high.
Mayor Furlong: Smaller and meeting the area as well, the size of the logo, then that meets our
current sign ordinance.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright.
Kate Aanenson: It is a neighborhood business district which has a more restrictive sign criteria
than the general business so the one downtown is larger.
Mayor Furlong: Gotch ya.
Kate Aanenson: I believe.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Any other, anyone else that wishes to provide public comment
here? No? Alright, thank you. Any follow up questions for staff? Comments or questions.
Comments or thoughts.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah I think, my only comment is I think it’s a pretty quiet council
on this project because it’s already a working commercial space. You know we’ve all been there
and we know how it works and I think Walgreen’s has definitely been an asset to downtown
Chanhassen and I’m assuming it will be also on Highway 7 so I really have no comments
regarding it except I approve of it.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Any other comments? Thoughts?
45
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Councilman Litsey: No, I think it’s an improvement over what’s there definitely. It will help
clean that up quite a bit and as long as the Happy Gardens stays.
Kate Aanenson: Happy Gardens is staying.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Happy Gardens II.
Councilman Litsey: Happy Gardens II. For the buffet. No.
Mayor Furlong: For your friends.
Councilman Litsey: For my friends.
Roger Knutson: You going to make that a condition?
Councilman Litsey: Well if I can.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Any other thoughts or comments? Fairly straight forward. I
think to Councilwoman Tjornhom’s comments, it’s a moderate expansion. There’s one new
building. There will be two new buildings but one will be replacing another one so it will be, it
isn’t a significant increase. And the gentleman’s concerns about the sign I think were answered
and fortunately our ordinances are already in place to deal with those issues so with that, if
there’s any other comments or thoughts. We have a couple of motions before us this evening.
The first is the approval of the motion to approve a resolution vacating the easement that is found
on the first page of item 2, excuse me, 3A, or page 137 in the electronic packet. And then the
second motion, without objection I think we can take these both together. The second motion I
believe is found on page 168 electronically or page 20 of the staff report for item B. Are you on
top of it this time?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’ve got it.
Mayor Furlong: I’m trying to help organize. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’d love to make a motion again. I’d like to make a motion that the
City Council approve a resolution vacating 10 feet of drainage and utility easement between Lots
1 and Lot 2, Block 1, Seven Forty One Crossing.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, Without objection then, let’s go ahead with the second motion then.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. I’ve got to find it.
Mayor Furlong: 168.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: 168. Here I am. I’d like to make a motion the City Council approve
a two site plan consisting of a 14,490 square foot retail building containing a pharmacy with a
46
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
drive thru and a 4,500 square foot retail building and upgrade the façade of an existing strip mall,
Planning Case 08-05 for Seven Forty One Crossing as shown on plans dated Received March 17,
2008, revised May 1, 2008, and including the attached Findings of Fact and recommendations,
subject to the following conditions, now some of these conditions have been X’d out so do I still
count them in?
Kate Aanenson: As shown. I’d just say as shown on the staff report. There’s one other motion
and that’s for the conditional use with Findings of Fact, which is just like 5 more pages forward.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. So what is the language you want me to use for this then?
Mayor Furlong: I think conditions as.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: As staff.
Kate Aanenson: As shown. As stated in the staff report.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: As stated in the staff report. Okay based upon the conditions as
stated in the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: And that would include conditions specific to the individual sites. Correct?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. And then there’s one more motion you said?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and that’s on the conditional use.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And then I’d like to make a motion the City Council approve the
conditional use permit 08-05 to allow two buildings on a single lot, and including the attached
Findings of Fact and recommendation, with the following condition 1.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman McDonald: I’ll second it.
Mayor Furlong: You get the easy part.
Councilman McDonald: I know.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Motion’s been made and seconded. Any discussion?
Resolution #2008-36: Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman McDonald seconded
that the City Council approve a resolution vacating ten (10) feet of drainage and utility
easement between Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 1, Seven Forty One Crossing. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
47
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council
approves the two site plans consisting of a 14,490 square-foot retail building containing a
pharmacy with a drive-thru and a 4,500 square-foot retail building and upgrade the façade
of an existing strip mall, Planning Case 08-05, for Seven and Forty One Crossing as shown
in plans dated received March 17, 2008, revised May 1, 2008, and including the attached
Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to the following conditions:
Conditions common to both site plans:
1.All site improvements, including the building pad for the future retail building and
remodeling of the existing strip mall, must be constructed concurrently.
2. If importing or exporting of material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant
will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes.
3.Work with staff to develop additional treatment of stormwater for this site.
4.Revise the drainage calculations. The drainage calculations state an assumption of off-site
runoff without information as to how the assumption was made. E4 is shown in the rational
method calculations but is not shown on the drainage maps. Darken drainage boundaries so
that the map is easier to follow. Also, the pond south of this site has an additional inlet and
outlet that are not shown on the plan The pre-development runoff rates must be maintained
post-development for a 2-, 10-, and 100-year storm event.
5.All of the utilities within the boundary should be privately owned and maintained. These
utilities must be covered by a cross-access agreement.
6.Determine actual elevations of existing utilities. The ductile iron watermain must be poly
wrapped.
7.Each new building is subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. Lot 1, Block 1,
Seven Forty One Crossing will get credit for three trunk sewer and water charges. The 2008
trunk hookup charge is $1,769 per unit for sanitary sewer and $4,799 per unit for watermain.
Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the
time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units
assigned by the Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance.
8.All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant must also notify the
City after installation of the erosion control and 48 hours prior to the commencement of
grading. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the
MPCA and the Dept. of Health.
9.The construction details shown on the plan must be updated to the 2008 City of Chanhassen
Specifications.
48
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
10.The applicant shall submit a set of “as-built” plans signed by a professional engineer upon
completion of the construction of the site.
11.Fire Marshal Conditions:
a)A PIV (Post Indicator Valve) is not required.
b)As building plans are submitted I will review and comment on them as necessary.
“No Parking FireLane”
c)Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for location of signs and
Per MSFC Sec. 503.3
curbing to be painted yellow.
d)A 3-foot clear space shall be maintained around the circumference of fire hydrants except
Per MSFC Sec. 508.5.5
as otherwise required or approved. .
e)Posts, fences, vehicles, growth, trash, storage, and other materials shall not be placed or
kept near fire hydrants, fire department inlet connections or fire protection control valves
in a manner that would prevent such equipment or fire hydrants from being immediately
discernible. The fire department shall not be deterred or hindered from gaining
Per MSFC Sec. 508.5.4
immediate access to fire protection equipment or fire hydrants.
12.Building Official Conditions:
a)The buildings are required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems.
b)Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State
of Minnesota.
c)Retaining walls over four high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit
must be obtained prior to construction.
d)Of the 234 parking spaces proposed a minimum of seven must be handicap accessible
with two of the seven “van-accessible”.
e)Detailed occupancy related requirements will be addressed when complete building plans
are submitted.
f)The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
13.The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary
financial securities as required for landscaping.
14.The minimum depth of all recessed walls is four inches.
15.Rooftop equipment and mechanical equipment are not shown on the plans. All equipment
must be screened from views.
16.Approval of the site plan is contingent upon approval of the vacation, conditional use permit
and administrative subdivision.
17.All monument signs may not exceed 24 square feet in area and 5 feet in height. The logo may
not occupy more than 15% of the sign area.
18. Wall-mounted signs shall meet ordinance requirements
49
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
19.Sufficient lighting shall be provided to illuminate all areas of the parking lot to provide
adequate levels of safety. The ordinance requires no more than 0.5 foot candle at the
property line. Light fixtures and site lighting plans shall meet ordinance requirements.
20.Environmental Resource Specialist Conditions:
a.Applicant shall increase landscape plantings to meet minimum requirements. A
revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the City prior toissuance of a building
permit.
b.All landscape islands shall have a minimum inside width of 10 feet.At least one
additional landscaped island or peninsula is needed in the parking lot.
c.Approval of clearing limits along the west property line must be given by the city
before any trees are removed.
d.Existing trees on the west property line shall be removed only within the proposed
grading limits. No proposed landscape material will be allowed to be planted within
the existing wooded area unless approved by the City. Planting locations must be
field located.
21.Water Resource Coordinator Conditions:
a.A rainwater garden shownin the northwest corner of the propertyshall include the
following design parameters: The Erosion Control/SWPPP Plan and Landscape Plan
s:
shall be modified per this the followingrequirement
1.Underdrain shall be installed and connected to the proposed stormwater
conveyance system;
2.Engineered soils shall be incorporated into the raingarden per the 2005
Minnesota Stormwater Manual unless soil borings are provided for this area
indicating appropriate soils for infiltration already exist;
3.Deep rooted plants shall be used in the raingarden;
4.The feature shall drain within 48 hours and shall not exceed 18 inches of
inundation;
5.The raingarden area shall be protected so as to preclude the operation of heavy
equipment in the area.
b.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies and comply with their conditions of approval.
22.
The proposed trail in MnDOT right-of-way will require a limited use permit (LUP) from
Also, the
MnDOT. This permit must be secured by the developer prior to construction.
applicant shall provide a pedestrian connection from the trail to the interior of the
development.
23.Upgrade of the building façade of the existing strip mall shall occur prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy of either of the new buildings.
Conditions specific to individual sites:
50
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Retail Building (Walgreens) with an area of 14,490 square feet located on Lot 1, Block 1:
1.Remove the multiple tenant building to be demolished prior to commencement of grading.
2.The grading plan needs to be revised Normal water level of the existing pond should be
shown on the plan. Existing contour information should be shown 100’ north of the site.
Show emergency overflows on the plan. A benchmark shall be added to the grading plan.
Keep a minimum 2% slope in the grass areas, 1% in the pavement areas, and .5% along the
curb lines.
3.The applicant shall provide the City the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of
credit or cash escrow in the amount of $12,000.00 to guarantee the installation of the
stormwater treatment, erosion control, and seeding.
4.Revise the plans to reflect a maximum hard surface coverage of 65%.
5.The overhead door along the south elevation shall be redesigned to reflect a door design
th
similar to those located on the north elevation of the Walgreens building located on West 79
Street.
6.The applicant shall revise the plans to reflect the reduction in the size of the trash enclosure
from 50 feet to 19 feet in width.
Retail Building with an area of 4,500 square feet located on Lot 2, Block 1:
1.The grading plan needs to be revised. Normal water level of the existing pond should be
shown on the plan. Show emergency overflows on the plan. A benchmark shall be added to
the grading plan. Keep a minimum 2% slope in the grass areas, 1% in the pavement areas,
and .5% along the curb lines.
2.The retaining wall located east of the future retail building shall be constructed at the time of
the construction of the building. This will help minimize the size of the retaining wall if a
smaller building than proposed is constructed. Building permits are required for all retaining
walls four feet tall or higher and must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the
State of Minnesota.
3.The applicant shall provide the City the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of
credit or cash escrow in the amount of $4,000.00 to guarantee the installation of the
stormwater treatment, erosion control, and seeding.
4.Approval of the site plan is contingent upon approval of Conditional Use Permit 05-05.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
51
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council
approves Conditional Use Permit 08-05, to allow two buildings on a single lot, and
including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, with the following condition:
1. Approval of the conditional use permit is contingent upon approval of the vacation, site
plan and administrative subdivision.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
CARVER COUNTY SERVICE CENTER, LOCATED AT 7808 KERBER BOULEVARD,
APPLICANT, CARVER COUNTY: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A
13,260 SQUARE FOOT, TWO STORY OFFICE BUILDING.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The Carver County service center is located 7808 Kerber
Boulevard. It’s kind of kitty corner to where we are now. Just south of the bank and north of,
actually east of Target and then north of office industrial park. Access will be off of Kerber
Boulevard and then also there’s a drive that’s currently being used by Target that’s for their
unloading, so this is an active street on Pica. The Planning Commission did hear this project and
th
hold a public hearing on April 15 and they did recommend approval of it. The site is well
situated in the fact that it’s in the core of downtown. Easy access for people that want to connect
to other services so we’re excited about the location and the way the architecture lays out and the
views between City Hall and this building itself, and the views that they’ve created match up I
think really well. The building itself as it’s laid out, the site plan has access from Kerber
circulating around through. They will have a drive thru window and then coming back out onto
Pica, and again the circulation works well on that. We don’t believe there will be conflict. This
is people mostly exiting the bank on that site. The layout of the site again. A plaza out front
which is just north of the building. In this area right here. Landscaping is really a nice feature
for those people that are waiting to do business or just want to enjoy kind of the, what we have
out here in front of city hall. It’s very, very nice. It meets all the conditions of the city ordinance
itself. The orientation. It does provide for two complete stories of offices and then all the
HVAC will actually be in the downstairs of this building, so it’s a little bit different. Then some
of the other buildings that we see that put it on the roof. The material itself, let’s switch to that.
You saw it a second ago, the colors. The brick, and I’m not sure if I’ve got that on. Here. There
we go. So we’ve got the brick and then the yellow and the green stucco with the metal clad
windows and the metal framing around that and then the retaining wall’s a little bit different
color, and I’ll switch to that in this building elevation. So again we think the architecture itself is
very, very nice. Highly articulated. A lot of windows kind of reflecting the office look with the
two stories. The massing in the three colors. Again as I mentioned, it has two complete stories.
The first story will comprise of the Carver County services and then right now there’s a potential
for the lease space. And then on the lower level would be all the HVAC equipment on the lower
level. Providing for an elevation so again, it’s a very nice building. Especially the way it’s laid
out and the orientation we thought made a lot of sense for the view perspective too. And the
overall site circulation works very well too. So with that we are recommending approval of the
site plan with the conditions in the, I think Bob did an excellent job in working with the architect
and the Carver County to work through the issues there. The Planning Commission didn’t have
a lot of concerns on the project either. So with that we are recommending approval of the
52
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
project with the conditions in the staff report and I’d be happy to answer any questions that you
have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: One of my questions, and I can’t tell on the map so excuse me if
they’re already there but are there trails or are there paths to get to the service center?
Kate Aanenson: There is sidewalk.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Let’s see if it shows up on the, there’s sidewalk right here.
Todd Gerhardt: Sidewalk on the library side.
Mayor Furlong: But how about southwest of the site, to your question?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right.
Councilman Litsey: At the bank? Is that on the bank side? No?
Kate Aanenson: Isn’t there a sidewalk here? Yes. This is a sidewalk here. Right between the
park strip and the boulevard.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a sidewalk up along the bank too along Kerber as well?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. Yes. It goes all the way up, yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. So there’s a clear path then.
Kate Aanenson: Yes. Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this point?
Kate Aanenson: And then I don’t know if I, the trash enclosures. We talked about that before. I
just wanted to mention that that, there is that same discussion of how you make that fit in with
the building. There’s always a balance when you get a highly articulated building and then
you’ve got a different use to the back, you know. For the Walgreen’s they were able to push it to
the side and kind of make it an appendix but this one has visibility all the way around so it was a
little bit of a challenge but we worked hard and they challenged and struggled with it but I think
we’ve got it in a great spot where it provides some potential to do some additional parking to
work around that so we think it’s in the right spot. Again you can back up the trucks to get into
that spot right there to make that work.
53
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And Kate, can you show me again where the drive thru is?
Kate Aanenson: Yep. You would come through here and then you would pull over. There’s an
additional kind of cut away lane right here so you would, so then it provides for circulation past
the drive thru. So this is your drive thru window right here.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So is it set up for, like how many stacking for cars?
Kate Aanenson: Probably 3-4. Yeah, yeah.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And what’s the estimated, is there an estimated time?
Kate Aanenson: No, I think you might want to ask someone from the county what they
anticipate for you know, there’s going to be services that I’m assuming that you’re going to post
those that would be more convenient to go through a window to get and some that you may have
to come in. I don’t know. Someone, Steve if you want to address that. What you’re
anticipating.
Steve Taylor: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Steve Taylor with Carver
County. Really it’s Mark Lundgren is the expert, and Laura Engelen but what we’re looking at
here are tabs. Really tabs only. They only take a couple of minutes to get so the intent of the
drive thru is for quick transactions taking place. Otherwise you’re going to start wrapping
around the building here so the goal is to have essentially just tabs, and there’ll be some signage
to that effect.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I was just going to ask that question.
Steve Taylor: We’ll get the PR campaign going here as well to help educate people.
Mayor Furlong: Good. As long as you’re there, why don’t you go ahead, unless there are any
other questions at this point for staff. Do we have a presentation from the applicant?
Steve Taylor: Yeah, that’d be great. Could I ask Commissioner Degler maybe to speak.
Mayor Furlong: Sure. Absolutely.
Gayle Degler: Yeah, council members, mayor and staff. I am Gayle Degler and I am the county
commissioner. The reason I’m here, I represent this district for one thing and, but besides that
I’m really excited that this project is taking place. Not only because I’m the county
commissioners, but because I live in the city of Chanhassen. We’ve needed this service for a
long time. The county has worked hard to find a project that we wanted to move forward with to
provide the service for the people of Chanhassen, and that’s why I’d like to thank you as a
council for working hard and supporting this project, and especially thanking Todd and Kate
working hard with Steve Taylor and Mark Lundgren on this project. This is a project, like I said,
that we’ve needed for quite a while. When it gets down to the nuts and bolts I’m not even going
54
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
to try to comment on that but what I would like to do is invite you to the ground breaking next
th
Tuesday. 2:00. That’ll be May 20, 2:00. Next Tuesday. I can’t guarantee you what the
weather is going to be like on Tuesday, but if you know anything about me, I’ve been itching to
get my hands in the dirt for quite a while and I guarantee one way or another I’m going to be
working in dirt next Tuesday so with that I’ll turn it back to Steve.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Councilman Litsey: Thanks.
Steve Taylor: This has been a project that since I started working for the county in June of 2005
that has been somewhat of a struggle in part because we’ve looked at so many different sites.
We’ve looked at so many building configurations, which is all good. Which is all part of a
process here because we wanted to make sure that we had the right size building. Providing the
right services at the right location so we were fortunate to find this piece of ground. The staff
has been great to work with. That’s for sure. I mean there’s been a lot of give and take here in
the process and I think the drawings indicate to you that we really have a great facility for the
residents of Chanhassen and Carver County. There are quite a few unique customer service
elements to this building. We mentioned the drive thru. We also have a children’s area for those
people waiting to transact business. We have a software application called Cuematic and that
software will allow more efficient customer service to take place. And we’re also going to have
in place here, and you kind of showed it a little bit with the floor plan, but we’re going to have a
greeter actually greet people when they first come in and ask them what is, what is the business
that they’re looking at transacting here and pointing them in the right direction. Giving them the
right forms to fill out. So all of this ties into customer service that we’re expecting to achieve
here so. We are looking at leasing the second level to the school district. We don’t have a
formal agreement. We have a verbal agreement at this point but I don’t see there being any
issues there so.
Mayor Furlong: Good. Very good. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant at this point?
Comments? Okay, very good. Bring it back to council for thoughts and comments. Mr.
McDonald?
Councilman McDonald: Well you know I think this is something that’s long overdue for this
area and I really welcome it and thank the county for putting things together to bring it to our
community. It will be well used and I think greatly appreciated so thank you very much.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I guess I should have asked one of the questions. Is the county
guaranteeing friendly service workers?
Mayor Furlong: Are there any other kind?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I don’t know.
Todd Gerhardt: They have a greeter.
55
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Councilwoman Tjornhom: They have a greeter. That’s a good thing. Happy one hopefully.
No, you know we as a council, the time we’re addressing is how to always feed our downtown
and give our merchants you know, people to come in and feed their businesses and keep our
downtown strong and I think this is just one more tool we will have. We have a library. We
have a post office, and now a service center which obviously is something that we’ve all needed
and has been lacking for a while so it’s exciting for our town and I look forward to doing my
transactions there with friendly workers.
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: I like the looks of the building and I agree, it’s a service that I’m certainly
looking forward to having in this city as an added benefit and good job.
Councilman Litsey: Well pretty much everything’s been said other than I appreciate the
opportunity to vote on this but a lot of work went into this prior to my getting on the council and
I think that’s where the recognition really deserving of but I appreciate it coming forward now
and staff’s work and the county’s work on this. This looks wonderful and this is just going to be
a great asset for our community. Ties in like we said with the other services that we provide in
the community. It kind of tops it off so thanks for coming forward with a quality project.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I think that was a lot of good comments and there has been a lot of
work. At the county level. At the city level over the years and Steve, you’ll be able to check this
one off your list. There’s a few more items on that list, as I’ve been told but we’ll get this one
off and I think to Mark and Laurie and others at the county, I know that they’ve spent a lot of
time and they’ve been looking at finding a way to expand the county’s customer service out to
residents and there’s been a desire for a while to have this here. Commissioner Degler
mentioned that. There’s been a need. This is going to be a great addition to Chanhassen. It’s
going to be a great addition to our downtown area. Bring more trips downtown from within the
city and without and it’s at a great location. I mean this is going to be a great project. It’s been a
long time coming but the wait will be worth it because I think this will be something everybody
will be proud of so thank you for everybody that put in all their time and effort. That goes here
at the city as well as the county level. A lot of people will benefit from your efforts so for them,
thank you very much. We might get this motion passed. Did you want to?
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, I just wanted to make one point. You know I’ll give you a little behind
the scenes action here. Mark, Laurie, Steve, Kate and I all jumped in a van and I don’t know
how many sites we looked at and then on the phone, I don’t know how many times we had
conversations, how about this site or how about that site. There definitely, they know every site
that’s available in Chanhassen and probably could open up their own real estate office and
explain each so they definitely did their due diligence and I think this is just a great project that
you got a partnership with the county and the school district potentially leasing the space and the
school district I know is very excited about the location. They wanted to be downtown. It really
helps them with their needs so it’s great to see another joint partnership between the school
district and the county so good job.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Anything else? If not, is there a motion?
56
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Last one. I’ll make a motion.
Councilman Litsey: Are you? Okay, I was going to.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: That the City Council approve Planning Case 08-09 for site plan
approval for a 13,260 square-foot, two-story office building, dated March 14, 2008 subject to the
following conditions 1 through 14.
Councilman McDonald: I’ll second.
Roger Knutson: And adoption of the findings.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And adoption of the findings.
Todd Gerhardt: I thought we’d get through the whole year without saying that.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Litsey would have remembered that part.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I know…
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Motion’s been made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council
approve Planning Case #08-09 for Site Plan Approval for a 13,260 square-foot, two-story
office building, plans prepared by Bentz/Thompson/Rietow, Inc., dated March 14, 2008
(stamped received March 31, 2008), subject to the following conditions:
1.Wood chip mulch area will be extended in the northwest corner of the site. The proposed
turf area under the tree in the corner peninsula will be removed. If desired, a single strip of
sod may be placed along the curb line of the peninsula.
2.The building is required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems.
3.Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
4.Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit
must be obtained prior to construction.
5.One (1) “van-accessible” parking space is required.
6.Additional window area shall be installed in the break room in the southeast corner of the
building.
7.Signage shall be permitted on two building elevations only.
57
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
8.Staff recommends that the curb line north of the drive-thru be shifted to the east to provide
for additional vehicle stacking.
9.Staff recommends that manhole 4A be shifted into the curb line and replaced with a catch
basin to capture additional runoff from the parking lot.
10.The developer’s contractor must contact the Engineering Department a minimum of two
business days prior to connecting to the public storm sewer.
11.An encroachment agreement is required for the retaining walls.
12.The developer must ensure that the “no build easements” noted on the Certificate of Survey
will allow for the construction of parking lots and retaining walls.
13.City trunk sanitary sewer and water hook-up fees and the MCES SAC fee are due with the
building permit. The 2008 rates are $4,799/unit for City water, $1,769/unit for City sanitary
sewer and $1,900/unit for the MCES SAC. These fees are based on the number of SAC units
as determined by Met Council.
14.The Certificate of Survey must be signed.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Litsey you had a council presentation.
Councilman Litsey: I did. I mean I had communicated this last week I know with City Manager
Gerhardt about my concern over what’s going on in the legislature in terms of their negotiations
right now over the budget and time is of the essence so I guess I assumed this was going to be on
the agenda but I guess I shouldn’t make assumptions. I should have verified it.
Todd Gerhardt: I’m sorry.
Councilman Litsey: I just wanted to have some dialogue on this I guess to see if it was
appropriate at least or how people on the council felt about going on the record against the
proposal right now by the Governor and some of the members of the legislature that would put a
state imposed cap on local property taxes. I guess my basis for saying that, and this is what went
out in my email to some of our representatives. City councils are elected to make decisions
about local budgets and meeting community needs. It is inappropriate for the State to undermine
local decision making and accountability through the imposition of, or by imposing levy limits or
proposals such as the Taxpayers Bill of Rights. The State should not obstruct the principle of
representative democracy that allows city councils to formulate local budgets. I think as a matter
of principle it’s not a political issue. It’s just a matter of principle we should strongly oppose
state restrictions on local budgets. That was my prepared email that I sent out. Just a couple
58
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
other comments. Again I think we, as an elected body should have the ability to do what we
think is in the best interest of our constituents and community and that the State should not
meddle in that so I would like us to at least symbolically send a message to the State that that’s
inappropriate and that we should have that, we were elected to make those kind of decisions.
The other thing that troubles me is there’s a lot of mandates that come down too and they get
passed down to the lowest level of government and that’s us. And if we don’t have the ability to
perhaps position ourselves financially for that, it can make some tough choices and we
compromise some public safety issues and some other things so I just wanted to open the
dialogue on that. I know it’s late.
Mayor Furlong: I don’t know how much dialogue we’re going to get after 10:00. Any other
thoughts or comments on this?
Councilman McDonald: Well I guess in principle I would agree with what you say as far as
government but then on the other hand I look at this and one of the concerns I have as a property
owner, I don’t want to see property taxes going out of control either so it’s, what’s the balance
here and that’s where I guess at this point I’m not sure I know enough about this because again, I
have two conflicting interests in all of this and I think that it is also our duty as again, at the
lowest level of government to protect people’s property interest. The taxes and those things. I
just don’t know if this is a good deal or bad deal or if the governor and the legislature’s just
purely playing politics at this point hoping that someone will blink. So I guess I would say, I
don’t know enough to say whether I would be in favor or opposed to what Councilman Litsey
has proposed tonight. I would like to see further dialogue. I will say that because it does impact
us and as we saw tonight, we have a number of issues coming up as to how do we fund projects
so I think overall it is something we should pursue but I’m not sure if I’m ready to tell the
legislature and the governor what they should be doing just yet.
Councilman Litsey: Well but on the other hand they’re telling us what to do and we were elected
independent of them and the State, I guess it boils down, do you want the State making the
decision on the local basis or do you want local government making their own decision? People
have much better access to local government than they do going to the State Capitol and if they
have an objection against the property taxes that have been levied, they can certainly walk down
here much easier or drive down here than go to the Capitol to voice those objections. And every
2 years they have the right to vote whether they want us here or not or whether we made the right
decisions or not but to tie our hands on what we think is best for our community, I think that’s
inappropriate. I don’t think the State, talk about big government imposing restrictions on people.
Well they’re doing the same thing on local governments unfairly.
Councilman McDonald: Fundamentally I do not disagree with you. It’s just as I’ve said, I really
and truly do not know enough about this and because you know, being a property owner I think
something needs to be done with property taxes. I just don’t know is this the step in the right
direction? What does this do to cities? I agree. Property taxes should remain the domain of
local government because again you’re right. Access to government starts at that level. It is
much easier for residents to come before us than it is for them to trip down to St. Paul and do
things. I would just like some more information before I could support this one way or the other.
I’m perfectly willing if you want to put it on the agenda for next time.
59
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Councilman Litsey: Yeah.
Councilman McDonald: By then staff can give us something or someone can educate me a little
bit more. I’d be happy to.
Councilman Litsey: The problem is, the vote’s going to be taken before our next meeting. I
mean unless they go into special session so that’s why kind of time’s of the essence. I’m not
trying to, and it’s just a symbolic vote. It isn’t going to, obviously they can still do whatever
they want.
Roger Knutson: They’re not going to do what we say?
Councilman Litsey: Well you never know. And quite honestly this council has done a stellar job
of keeping property taxes under control I mean and that’s a good, I mean this body is a good
example of how local control does work and does exercise fiscal restraint and I think each
community should have the right to choose that through their representatives.
Councilman McDonald: Well I’ll yield to anyone else in the group.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: You know and this just I mean, obviously I haven’t had time to really
think about it Bryan so I can logically say something.
Councilman Litsey: No, that’s fine. I understand.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And it’s 10:00 so I’ll just sound like an idiot I guess but you know
for me.
Mayor Furlong: That’s okay, we’re recording it.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Nothing new. Nothing new for me for Councilwoman Tjornhom.
But the fact of the matter is I agree with you Bryan, in principle. You know my first reaction to
that is you know what. If you can control us and you agree with the same thing where you’re not
going to raise taxes anymore, you know you control your budget. The fact of the matter is I
don’t believe they should be dabbling in our back yard and telling us what to do. You know I
think we already have a good system for that and that’s called elections. If residents in their
towns don’t like what their city council is doing, they can find someone else you know and so I
agree with you in principle. I mean I don’t know if I want to get political like that. I know if
that’s, if I feel comfortable doing that. I think the League of Minnesota Cities probably you
know is a good resource for me at least to learn more about what’s happening. What their stance
is on it. I have a feeling they’re probably hopefully representing us the way they should. And so
Bryan, I agree with you. I just don’t, this is new to me tonight and so I just don’t know exactly
enough about it and what I personally want to do about it so. But thank you for being our
cheerleader on this issue, because it’s important to all of us.
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Ernst, thoughts?
60
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Councilwoman Ernst: I concur. I don’t want government in our lives. Less government the
better, but I certainly wasn’t prepared to vote on this tonight because I don’t, I feel the same way.
I don’t have enough information to make, to really vote intelligently on that tonight.
Councilman Litsey: Well and I don’t even know if a vote’s an appropriate action even. It don’t,
it would be more just kind of a symbolic thing I guess than anything else but I guess by talking
about it we brought it to the forefront and obviously hopefully our representatives are listening.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: But I think we’re all on the same page.
Councilman Litsey: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: And also I guess to follow up on some of their comments, I know you had
copied me on the email you had sent to Representative Hoppe and Senator Ortman and I’ve
talked to them on this issue as well. Our thoughts concur.
Councilman Litsey: Right.
Mayor Furlong: You know I’ve talked to them on a number of issues throughout the session on
things that I know affect us as a city and I think that you know, they’re receptive to that. I agree.
I don’t know the details on this.
Councilman Litsey: Right.
Mayor Furlong: I’m seeing what I’m reading in the paper, and no offense to the reporters here,
you can’t always believe what you read in the paper. So you really just don’t, I don’t know what
the scope is. I know that from my own experience and you’ve raised it from our history here, it
was in 2003 that this city lost over $300,000 in state aid.
Councilman Litsey: State aid.
Mayor Furlong: So it wasn’t just, that was after an approved budget was in place. You know we
dealt with it. We accommodated it like we always do and you know, we adjusted the budget
appropriately. I think the other thing in addition to what you know, if the levy limits, if it goes
through and becomes policy and we’re constrained in terms of what we can raise in property
taxes. I think the other factor we have to consider is we receive a lot of mandates from St. Paul
by statute on things that we can and cannot do. And sometimes it’s a lot of things of things that
we have to do and the ones that I’m thinking of, and we won’t go through a, what was that report
that we just did. The N4, the.
Todd Gerhardt: Storm water management.
Mayor Furlong: Storm water management and we were 1 of 30 cities I mean we had to spend
taxpayer dollars on that. I mean that was another mandate that came down from them so, so I
don’t think this is good public policy to, for the State to provide limits on cities. Nor do I think
61
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
it’s good public policy for them to mandate us to spend money a certain way. The fact is, they
do it all the time and this is you know, one of many issues that is going on down at St. Paul right
now and I think there are a lot of, you know call it a poor public policy issue. I think we’d
probably all agree on that but I think there may be a lot of other poor public policies as well that
have occurred or have occurred over time so I think given lack of details and such. I think our
sentiments are with you from a philosophical standpoint. I just don’t know, this is one of many
and it’s an issue of details and such as that but to Councilwoman Tjornhom’s point, you know
you contacting Senator Ortman or Representative Hoppe, that’s the method through the
representative government that we have and.
Councilman Litsey: Right.
Mayor Furlong: I’ve expressed our opinions as well because my sense was we’d have exactly
this conversation philosophically you know, not what we believe should happen but at the same
time we really don’t have the details and the details could be moving so fast there right now.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. Mayor, council members. I got Bryan’s email on I think it was Thursday
when I received it. I think it came out Wednesday night.
Councilman Litsey: I think I sent it out Wednesday sometime and I didn’t want to violate any
open meeting thing so I just sent it to Todd and one other, the mayor.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. And the council packet had already gone out and so I said I would bring
it up at the Monday’s council meeting and I just want to assure you that we’re members of the
League of Minnesota Cities. We’re members of Metro Cities and they come up with their annual
legislative issues like we do and in there they oppose levy limits. And I can tell you that they’re
over there in St. Paul every day, you know talking to the governor’s staff and the governor if
they have the opportunity saying the cities are against levy limits. So we have a voice over there
and I think it’s great that Bryan sent you know a letter to our representatives. Both Senator
Ortman and Representative Hoppe to kind of express his feelings on that, and I think it’s good
that we’re having the discussion also and so you know, it’s not going to go on deaf ears, I can tell
you that. And Metro Cities and the League are working on our behalf and support everybody
here’s decision not to impose levy limits. But talking with Roger also, we have no idea what the
Bill’s going to be. It could be 2010 you know and it could be a variety of different things that
finally shake out at the last minute. I mean nobody may even have a chance to see it. It may get
slipped on the Omnibus Tax Bill or Budget Bill and so you know, and Representative Hoppe and
Senator Ortman might have a say in it at the last minute but that’s about it.
Councilman Litsey: If it’s like last year, they’ll see it after the fact.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah.
Councilman Litsey: Unfortunately the way it works. No you know, I mean there’s a
miscommunication and that’s fine in terms of how.
Todd Gerhardt: Sorry.
62
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Councilman Litsey: No that’s, I’ll take some responsibility for that too. I just, just having the
dialogue is fine. People I understand if you haven’t had a chance to see what I communicated
and so I thought maybe you had and so we’ll just leave it at this.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And Bryan I’ll probably send a letter to Representative Hoppe and
Senator Ortman expressing my opinions on it also so thank you for giving me that idea. That
will be helpful.
Councilman Litsey: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: And I can put a copy of Bryan’s in the next admin section and so the rest of you
can see it and the press can have access to it and the public record.
Councilman McDonald: I guess the thing is, do you feel at least this city is doing something?
You know staff is part of the Minnesota League of Cities and they’re working actively to I think
at least from the standpoint of yeah, you can put limits upon cities. They’re trying to attack that
portion of it so I think at least the philosophical portion of it, we all agree upon they are going
toward that. And again it’s just my feeling, they’re playing politics. You know they’re doing it
with the central corridor and I’ll give you this, you do that and I’ll back off of this so that’s why I
guess I feel that I don’t know what’s going on but I do agree that they really should not be
placing limits upon cities.
Councilman Litsey: No, again with people not really having had a chance to really look at it that
closely so I appreciate the comments tonight. I think that will suffice and I’m fine leaving it with
that because, well unless they go into a session or you know, continue the session which
hopefully they’ll get their work done and won’t. This will be a moot point perhaps. You know
not moot in the sense that we still need to stay on top of it but at least hopefully things will be
decided relatively soon so thanks for the discussion.
Councilwoman Ernst: So Todd, when will we be getting that correspondence because I would
like to contact our senator and representative…
Todd Gerhardt: Well I can email it to your tomorrow, and send it over to Forrest too..
Councilwoman Ernst: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Can we just include it in the and amend it to our correspondence packet here in
this council packet as long as the press receives a copy? Is that sufficient?
Councilman Litsey: That might work better.
Mayor Furlong: Okay? So that would be the format…an amendment to this evening’s
correspondence packet.
Todd Gerhardt: Okay.
63
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Mayor Furlong: Okay? I mean and.
Councilwoman Ernst: And certainly I would like to address it with them before they go into.
Mayor Furlong: And as we said, this is one of many issues. There be other ones we want to
address with them too because, on all sides of the, to Councilman McDonald’s statement. There
are a lot of things being on the table and others could have effect on Chanhassen, our residents
and our city operations as well so there’s a lot out there. Any other council presentations?
Thoughts or comments? Mr. Gerhardt? Oh, did you have something else?
Councilman Litsey: No, I was just kidding. I’ll be quiet now.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Todd Gerhardt: Just a couple of quick things. Arbor Day was held last weekend. Or two weeks
ago, and big success. We finally had a sunny day for it. I think every year it’s pretty much
rained on Jill’s parade there and but we sold 250 trees. Gave away 100 seedlings, evergreen
seedlings. Cleaned up 12 parks throughout Chanhassen. Bruce the Bug Guy was a big hit and
they had story telling. I think they were reading books and just had a great time. It was a great
family event and hats off to Jill and the Environmental Commission and everybody that
volunteered. They just did a great job.
Mayor Furlong: The mayor held a scorpion.
Todd Gerhardt: Oh!
Mayor Furlong: But I drew the limit on the tarantula.
Todd Gerhardt: Not a spider guy.
Mayor Furlong: Not a spider guy. I’d be happy to hold a rabbit but.
Councilman Litsey: Above and beyond.
Todd Gerhardt: And then as of May 1 water restrictions, the odd/even system is in place so I just
wanted to make a public announcement about that. So just to hope everybody follows along. I
mean the rains we’ve been getting but it’s been nice but we will be enforcing the odd/even
watering restrictions this summer.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt?
Councilman McDonald: I have a question. This is just so I can stay out of trouble. On the
opening for the new service center, is there any restrictions about you know if there are a number
of us that want to go, do we need to coordinate this?
64
City Council Meeting - May 12, 2008
Todd Gerhardt: We’ll post it.
Mayor Furlong: Post it as an open meeting.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. As a meeting. Do that 3 days prior to meet state statute so we’ll get that
posted.
Mayor Furlong: And to that point, if there are other types of gatherings or events that we get
invited to, that you think you’re going to, just out of habit let Mr. Gerhardt know so that if a
couple of us call to let him know, he can just post it automatically so the sooner we think we’re
going to be someplace, just let him know so that way we don’t have to call each other to find out
if we’re going but he’ll be able to track it in an appropriate and post it if needed, if that makes
sense.
Councilman McDonald: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Give him a quick email or phone call would suffice. That works for you?
Todd Gerhardt: Yep. And I try to do it whenever I think there’s going to be a group getting
together so, but give me a heads up if you’re going to do it. That’s great too.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION.
None.
Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The City
Council meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
65