1i. Approval of Minutes.1<:
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 23, 1997
Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the
Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Berquist, Councilman Engel,
Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Kate Aanenson,
Bob Generous, and Todd Hoffman
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the
agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: RECOGNITION OF VOLUNTEERS; PARK, OPEN SPACE
AND TRAIL SPECIAL ELECTION.
Mayor Mancino: The public announcement is a resolution recognizing volunteers for park open space
and trail special elections. I will read this and then we, as a City Council, I'd like to have sort of a
receiving line. To come up in front of you and thank you. Have you come up personally for doing such a
wonderful job volunteering, some of you for two years. Some of you for six months. Some of you for
five weeks, etc. But let me read the formal proclamation. Whereas, in August of 1994 the Park and
Recreation Commission recommended the City Council appoint a special task force to investigate a
special election; and Whereas, in June of 1995 the City Council appointed an eleven member park task
force; and Whereas, this park task force worked tirelessly for two years enlisting dozens of volunteers to
forward this special election to the Chanhassen electorate; Whereas, an independent campaign committee
was formed to promote the benefits of the special election; dozens of civic organizations, neighborhood
associations and individual residents hosted informational meetings discussing the contents of the special
election; and election judges invested weeks of planning and a 12 hour day at the polls to ensure the
integrity of the election. Whereas, all totaled, over 1,200 volunteer hours valued at $18,000.00 was
invested in this initiative. And Whereas, on Saturday, June 14, 1997 the residents of Chanhassen voted
on the following question: Should the City of Chanhassen be authorized to issue and sell its general
obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $4.9 million to finance the acquisition and betterment of
park, trail and open space recreational facilities? And Whereas, there were cast a total of 1849 votes of
which 1142 were in favor of the aforesaid bond issue and 707 were against the same, zero ballots were
spoiled or defective, and the bond issue in question was declared approved by a unanimous vote of the
City Council on Monday, June 16, 1997; and Whereas, the efforts of these volunteers have helped to
secure the future of parks and recreation in Chanhassen, an essential service that positively impacts
health, crime prevention, the environment, the economy and our quality of life. Now, Therefore, Be It
Resolved by the Chanhassen City Council that Monday, June 23, 1997 be proclaimed Park, Open Space,
and Trail Special Election Volunteer Day. Thank you very, very much. So Todd if you can help us,
we'll come on up and we'd love to have each volunteer come up and get a...
Todd Hoffman: As everyone comes up and you receive your mug and your handshake and then walk
right up on the front here and pose facing this way for your portrait.
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Approval of Bills.
b. City Council Minutes dated June 9, 1997
City Council Minutes dated June 16, 1997
Planning Commission Minutes dated June 4, 1997
C. Resolution #97-42 Approval of Gambling License, Chanhassen American Legion Post 580.
e. Update on Postal Service Carrier Annex.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Mancino: Is there anyone here tonight wishing to address the City Council and make a visitor
presentation? Please do so at this time. Come up to the podium. State your name and address please.
Wayne Salisbury: Thank you. Wayne Salisbury. Oak Hill Association. 7699 Nicholas Way. As the
Council members and the Mayor recall, I was here earlier for the EDA meeting regarding the money that
Mr. Johnson put forth. I'd like to take this opportunity to do a couple things. I think first on my agenda
would be a recognition of the City Council. The difficulties that we continue to experience with Mr.
Johnson at Oak Hill community. As a board member of the Association, I witnessed many meetings of
different opinions that we should be addressing the City Council. If we should go public with our
difficulties. If we should make it known. Well we've got no choice now. We've already got the
reputation now in the real estate market. As I said earlier, we've got the reputation, stay away from Oak
Hills community. That's not a speculation. That's the truth. That's the way it's resolved. So we have
no choice now but to make our anxieties and our hurt, if you will, known publicly. And this is the first,
and I'm sure there will be others that will be wanting to come to Council meetings and giving their piece.
As I said earlier during the EDA, I'm only one representing 90. Now do all 90 members or 90 owners
have difficulty? No, they do not. I'm not even going to go so far as to say a majority of them. They
probably do not. The majority don't have difficulties. But as a community, all 90 of us are affected.
Because although our home, our individual home may not be affected by the structural problems that we
have, indirectly it is. Down the road it's going to be. We've seen that. We've had people that have had
no structural damage, no difficulties whatsoever and have tried to sell their home and have been unable
to. Or have had to take a loss. I won't mention the individual's name now but I think it was two weeks
ago, they sold their house and they had to lower their house, I believe it was $500.00 at closing.
$5,000.00 at closing because of the difficulty with Johnson at Oak Hill community. $5,000.00. At
closing. Can you imagine that? I want to leave the Council with just one thought. We are not apartment
dwellers back of Byerly's on the hill. We are not tenants. We are not under a one roof. We are
individual homeowners just like you that have a single dwelling. I came from a single dwelling. I
elected to buy into a townhome being retired on a fixed income. Fortunately my wife still works. But
that's why I bought into a townhome. I bought into a hell of a mess is what I bought into. I want you
think of us as 90 homeowners. Citizens of Chanhassen. We're not apartment people. We're not tenants.
We need your support. We need the City's support. If it hadn't been for the City, and I say this very
carefully. If it hadn't been for the City we wouldn't have had this difficulty. If they had done their job,
we wouldn't have had this difficulty. Is that speculation? No. Just the way it is. Is there bitterness
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
behind this voice? There's an awful lot of bitterness. Because what do we see? What do we speculate?
What do we feel, the 90 homeowners? We feel that we're being deserted by the City of Chanhassen.
This lawsuit, the criminal lawsuit brought on to Johnson by the City has been delayed into August. We
don't know why. On one corner we hear lack of preparation, but we have a real sense that the City's
hoping that those 90 people that are a problem up on the hill will bend and permit Johnson to come in
and make the necessary repairs. Well I submit to you, if you would do that tomorrow or the next 30 days
and those problems are resolved, he still has to be liable for that criminal activity. For those code
violations. So think of us as being citizens of Chan, would you. As homeowners. We've got people
crying up there. I mean literally crying. We've got a lot of single parents up there. They don't know
what to do. I had a lady call me about 3:00 this afternoon. I wasn't going to mention this. Bless her
heart. First name is Laura. This has nothing to do with the building code violations or anything else but
this lady called me and she said Wayne, you don't know me. I don't know you but let me tell you a story.
The railing on her porch caved in. Fell off. Not even part of the code violation. If a child had been
leaning up against that railing when it went, the child would be seriously injured. So what are we faced
with? Another letter or phone call to Johnson. No, the community up there, the Association is going to
have to hire somebody to go around and not just look at these things but they're going to have to tear into
them. Make sure that we don't lose a child or an adult. That's how bad it is. We've got people that
can't even open their front doors for crying out loud. We've got cracks in walls we can put our fists in.
No exaggeration. Some of you have seen it. So think of us as being homeowners. I didn't want to say
this but think of us as being voters. We pay a lot of taxes up there. I pay $2,000.00 a year. I can't sell
my house if I wanted to. Thank you for your time.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Roger, can you give us an update or tell Wayne where we are in the
criminal case?
Roger Knutson: I don't know the exact date it's going to trial. Sometime in August. Sitting here I can't
tell you which date. There is a date established. I just don't know what it is.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. It's around the middle of August?
Roger Knutson: Sounds right but I'm not sure. If you don't know the exact date, if you just call me in
the morning I'll tell you.
Wayne Salisbury: ...exact date.
Roger Knutson: Somebody told me but I've forgotten it.
Mayor Mancino: Wayne I also know that there will be a meeting between the Board members of Oak
Hill and the law offices that will be representing the City and some of the City Council members to do an
update on what's happening in the court case. So that will be taking place and one of the lawyers from
the law firm who is handling this particular case has, as you know, has gone into surgery so it will be at
the end of this month, beginning of July. So we will have an updated meeting. Any other visitor
presentations that would like to address the City Council at this time?
3
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
PUBLIC HEARING: STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS IN THE NORTH HALF OF
SE CTION 16 (GATEWAY WEST); APPROVE FEASIBILITY REPO DATE MAY 1997;
AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS• PROJECT 97 -1.
Charles Folch: Thank you Madam Mayor, members of the Council. Tonight we have our project
engineer, Mr. Phil Gravel with Bonestroo here to provide a detailed presentation on the feasibility study
and prior to him doing that I'll pass out a new colored overlay that you can look at during the
presentation. It will help you follow along...
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Phil Gravel: Thank you Charles. Members of the Council. I think you're all pretty familiar with this
project so what I'll do is briefly review this proposed construction and the phasing of it and then I'll also
go over the costs and the proposed assessments. First of all, to get sanitary sewer to this site, we'll
connect onto an existing sanitary sewer at the east edge of, or the west edge of...development. Extend it
westerly along the Coulter Boulevard alignment, and then throughout the development. That sewer
drains to a lift station that was constructed previously and is down by the cemetery on Galpin Boulevard.
In addition, watermain will also connect at the Coulter Boulevard area on the west end of Autumn Ridge.
Follow the Coulter Boulevard alignment and then extend southward on the north/south road. Also to the
west on the east /west road and eventually it would get down to near the Wrase property where a future 2
million gallon water tower is proposed. In addition to that there is associated storm sewer improvements
and ponding improvements. That's going to be coordinated with the developers. They're going to grade
most of the storm water ponds as part of their mass grading and provide for right -of -way runoff treatment
as part of their grading plan. Then we get to the street construction. The streets will be the same thing as
Coulter Boulevard between Galpin and Audubon. That's a 36 foot face to face street with landscaping,
trees and street lighting. There will be Coulter Boulevard running east /west. The proposed north/south
street and a connection to Highway 5. Future phase could be the east/west street that would connect to
Highway 41. In addition to that there's some improvements on the state highways that would need to be
completed. The traffic signal and associated turn lanes on Highway 5 and a traffic signal on 82 "d Street.
Finally there's a sidewalk associated with the public improvement portion of this, and it's not shown on
the drawing but there'd be a sidewalk, continuing sidewalk that's already on Coulter. On the north side
of Coulter Boulevard and also on one side of the north/south street and on one side of the east /west
street. In addition the developer will privately put in a sidewalk along the north side of 82 "d Street. The
phasing of this project is somewhat contingent upon what the developers want to do and what happens to
the state highways. For the first phase, the 1997 work is pretty much set up to get this Lot 3 on line and
that would consist of extending the sanitary, the trunk sanitary sewer in westerly and southerly as
necessary and same thing with the water main. The only other thing we would do with the Phase 1 work
is part of the street construction on the north/south street. Where it goes adjacent to Lot 3. And then I
think we would also do the, there's some soil correction work that'd be necessary on Coulter Boulevard
at the far east end and that would be timely to get that done this year as well. Future phases would
include the actual construction of Coulter Boulevard. The construction of the water tower. That's what
we're calling Phase 2. Phase 3 could consist of the north/south, north of Coulter Boulevard and the
associated utilities with that. Now a fourth phase could be east/west of the road, if and when that's
constructed. And since the original report was prepared, we made a couple revisions and they're
included in the staff handout. One of the things that was done was to add a Phase 5 which only consists
of a water main loop along the south side of Lake Minnewashta. That's been in the City's
comprehensive water plan for a number of years and it's really necessary to provide another water feed to
the people on the west side of Lake Minnewashta. The timing of that is somewhat contingent upon when
additional water main would be constructed, either along Highway 5 or Highway 41 to meet this loop.
4
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
So in the handout that you got with your staff report, there's a Phase 5 that includes extending water
main from the south side of Lake Minnewashta up to Highway 41. As far as costs go. The tabled shown
here, Table 1 in your report is, this is the total project cost and it's not broken down into phases but
sanitary sewer would be roughly $272,000.00. Water main is roughly $468,000.00. The new water
tower, which is a 2 million gallon tower is about $2.4 -$2.5 million. And you can see the other streets.
That water main loop for Lake Minnewashta that I talked about is around $355,000.00. There's a little
difficult construction associated with that because of some of the wetlands and tight quarters there. That
gives a total project cost, including construction and administration and associated costs of
$5,894,000.00. Now how that breaks down, and probably what's most important to you is shown in your
report on pages 11 and 12, but there's revised ones in the handout that Charles made that shows how the
phasing and revenue from assessments can be brought into the picture. Essentially all of the project costs
are assessed to the adjacent properties with the exception of, as proposed in the report, with the exception
of Coulter Boulevard and the water tower.
Mayor Mancino: And the main in Phase 3, the water main trunk.
Phil Gravel: I was going to say, in addition there's some trunk water main and also trunk sanitary sewer
that assess the lateral benefit for those mains. Meaning if there's a pipe in the road that the property
receives lateral benefit from, which is most of this property, they're assessed an equivalent of 12 inch
watermain costs and trunk charges to pick up the over sizing cost. So I don't know if you've had a
chance to review this table. I can go through it with you if you'd like. The first phase work, which is the
work that would be done this year at a total cost of around $993,000.00. The assessments, the total
assessments from the first phase, would be more like $1.3 million. That's because we propose to assess
the entire development, their trunk area sewer and water charges and you can see that that's around
$280,000.00 for sewer and $375,000.00 for water. So in the first phase we have a positive revenue. The
second phase, when the tower and Coulter Boulevard kick in, there's not much assessment. There's a
total project cost of $3.3 million and assessments only of $82,000.00. Those would be those lateral
benefit assessments. Which results in a net negative revenue of about $3.25 million. Similarly on the
third phase, which is part of the north/south street. North of Coulter Boulevard. The project cost is
around $700,000.00. Assessments there are about $625,000.00 and the net revenue again is a negative of
about $89,000.00. The fourth phase, which is the east /west road. If that goes that would be 100%
assessable. The utilities and the improvements so that, the assessment covers the cost. And the fifth
phase, which is the Lake Minnewashta water main loop, that's 100% trunk water costs. As you will
recall, a lot you have a positive, specifically on our water assessments, we've had a positive revenue
assessment because we've been trying to build a fund to cover some of these costs, like this tower and
wells as they come on line so. In this case we end up with a negative but in the grand scheme of things
it's all supposed to even out. The only other assessment issue on this is that, other than the developer,
the Wrase property is also proposed to be assessed area charges. Trunk area charges which is on a per
unit rate. In the past with properties like that, that are all properties, owner occupied and less than 10
acres with houses, we've only assessed them one unit at the time of the assessment and deferred the rest
or assessed that in the future. With that site and sometimes.
Mayor Mancino: ...majority of the property around have to pay for the smaller piece? To pick up that.
Phil Gravel: The smaller piece ends up paying when they come on line. And what we can do with that
piece is, at the time of the assessment hearing, which would be next fall. The fall of 1998, if it's still a
large lot, one unit property, we could assess it one unit at that time. If things have changed since then,
the assessments would be more in line with what's in the report. I skipped over this rather quickly
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
because I know you're all familiar with the project and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might
have.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, any Council, any questions? Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Phil, as far as the 3.382 that's basically the city portion then, what funding sources
does that come from?
Phil Gravel: Well a lot of it can come, and Charles can help ... with the trunk water main. As I mentioned
we've had positive revenue from previous projects with that.
Councilman Senn: And how much of that's going to, I mean I know we did but isn't that.
Phil Gravel: It's not enough.
Councilman Senn: It's not enough, right?
Phil Gravel: No. There's two other ways. There will be future trunk area charges and then I believe that
the staff has considered TIF from some of the city local share. Charles?
Charles Folch: That's correct. I don't know Todd if you've got the numbers scheduled at. In fact that
was presented in your report that was brought to the Council at the last meeting in terms of the
breakdown of the TIF cost and this was an element that was identified in that TIF schedule.
Todd Gerhardt: And if you remember back in developing the TIF plan, there were certain obligations
that fell back as a general obligation of the City. We listed those out as a part of Don's report and my
report of you can't just assess everything out there so we broke out our percentages and I didn't hear
what item you were talking about.
Phil Gravel: The tower.
Todd Gerhardt: The tower.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so our fund will take care of most of that stuff and what it doesn't, then the TIF
will take care of the gap? Okay. And then the TIF will also be supplying reimbursement also to the
private parties then too.
Todd Gerhardt: Correct.
Councilman Senn: But at least under this, the way that's being shown and how this correlates with the
TIF schedule, is right now that's being shown here as assessments basically.
Todd Gerhardt: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay. What portion of the assessments are going to be paid through TIF?
Todd Gerhardt: Well the way we figured it out, depending on the developer bring in a building based on
the dollar amount per acre, they build the buildings. It should all be picked up by TIF. They should
6
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
generate enough increment over 3 years that the development should be able to pay for all it's
assessments, if we did our calculations correctly.
Councilman Senn: So the entire $2.5 would be picked up by TIF?
Todd Gerhardt: Only until building comes in. I mean they will have to pay those assessments until
building comes in. Once a building comes in, they enter into a minimum market value and we have a
private redevelopment agreement and based on a half year's worth of taxes over 3 years, we will
reimburse them their costs for those assessments. $2.00 a square foot for taxes on a commercial building,
we feel that it's going to be real close but that the development should pay for itself.
Councilman Senn: Okay. And more specifically, can you talk a little bit more about this $355,000.00 for
Lake Minnewashta. I mean how is, is that coming out of the trunk then or is that coming out of TIF or
what?
Charles Folch: It's initially proposed to be funded through TIF. Many of the areas that this particular
line would traverse are properties that are currently outside the MUSA so there's not an ability to assess
those properties at this point in time. What I would foresee happening is that, as we have done in the past
with many trunk improvement projects that were kind of out ahead of the game schedule, when those
properties do come into the MUSA in the future, and they do come on line for development, then we will
collect trunk hook -up charges for the unpaid assessments and so we'll recover the money at that point in
time.
Councilman Senn: Okay. What portion of the $3.382 is going to be paid by TIF then?
Charles Folch: I believe we're looking at most of it.
Todd Gerhardt: I'll be bringing, we have to do a plan modification to this. So I will be bringing back.
We' re anticipating all of it at this time and then get reimbursed through the hook -up charges in the
future.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions Councilman Senn?
Councilman Senn: Not at this time.
Mayor Mancino: Phil, will you explain to me just a little bit of background on the water tower and it's
being built in Phase 2. What will that do? Who will that serve and why does it need to be built Phase 2?
Give me just a little rationale behind it please.
Phil Gravel: Sure. I'll attempt that. The tower's been planned for quite some time. Since 1993 when
the City did a comp water plan. And essentially it's need is dictated by when there's enough users that
we need the storage. You know there's Well No. 7 under construction now to meet the demand and there
will be another well coming on in the next year or two in addition to meet just the current growth
demands. It doesn't, it benefits this area. It also benefits the community as a whole. It will ride on the
water system with the other towers in the system. It will provide storage to level off the peaks is what it
does.
Mayor Mancino: Can you also just explain, this is a minute question, on Phase 3 the water main and the
trunk, $112,000.00. Why that isn't being assessed back?
VA
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Phil Gravel: Oh, yes I can. This report proposed assessing all the trunk charges on the first phase,
meaning the entire site. And then future phases had some trunk main installed with them. Actually what
that line is ... common lot line that will go from the tower to one of the mains in the street.
Mayor Mancino: Oh, understand.
Phil Gravel: It doesn't really have any lateral benefit. As long as I have this up again and we're talking
water main, I neglected to mention something that we feel's kind of important. This project will also
provide an interconnection with Chaska. It's deemed an emergency interconnection because the two
systems aren't exactly on.the same elevation. The same pressures but it's something that, like the Met
Council and everyone else is encouraging it. It's a nice thing for you in case of water emergencies.
Mayor Mancino: And why? So we can pull some water from Chaska if we're going dry or something?
Charles Folch: In either case. If there'd be some sort of emergency water shortage in one community or
the other, you could be able to open that up and allow water to flow either direction in the system. For
emergency use only. It would not be a normal operating function.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. And we are tonight, our job is to go ahead with this and okay Phase 1
because that's what's going to be started so that Lot 3 can be built for this fall. So we will again look at
Phase 2, 3, 4, 5 and give the approval at the appropriate timing?
Charles Folch: That's our recommendation to Council because we've got a schedule in front of you
based on what we feel can be accomplished based on work load and also what's compatible with what
the developer's telling us their schedule is but again as we all know, things can change and maybe adjust
slightly so we would propose to come back to you with each phase as we move into them.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Phil Gravel: Well I think procedurally that the Council would, and Roger can correct me, would approve
the report as a whole and then authorize construction plans and specifications on a phasing so then the
hearing process is over with. For all phases.
Mayor Mancino: Understand. Any other questions at this time before we open it for a public hearing?
Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: So Charles, are you asking us then to basically buy off on this phasing now? Betting
on the fact that we would go ahead with for example Coulter on this schedule?
Charles Folch: That's not necessarily correct. You're basically, we'd ask that you approve the elements
of this overall project in concept but Phase 1 is what's important basically tonight to authorize the
initiation of plans and specifications that we can initiate a construction project yet this year. We would
propose to bring back to you, or come back to you for authorization to begin Phase 2. And at that time, if
there were some changes to be made in what elements would be part of that Phase 2, then you know
certainly that decision could be made. But we would hope in general that conceptually this list looks
fairly good to you tonight.
0
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So we have not, as a Council, had time to talk about Coulter and whether we are
going to continue that roadway and I think we'd need some time to have discussion around that. In fact
Phil, will you talk about that a little bit. As far as Coulter and if we're going to put a water main or we're
going to go right through the wetland, how much disruption will we be doing to the wetland just putting
in the water main and the sewer, etc.?
Phil Gravel: Generally the underground construction, you know from a permitting standpoint is a lot
easier because there's no filling involved and after one season it's not even evident that we're there.
Coulter itself doesn't have a lot of wetland impact. If you can look at the drawing there, there's only
about 100 feet on the east end that's actually a wetland that will be crossed. So the, to answer your
question in the short form, the utility construction doesn't have much of an effect. Although I did
mention that we think it would be prudent to do the soil correction on that end as a part of the first phase
and I guess I still feel that way.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Charles.
Charles Folch: One point of clarification, as Phil's trying to make in terms of saying that the utility
construction will not have a lasting, permanent disruption or permanent effect on the wetland and project
but in general the disruption that is made by constructing these utilities along that corridor will be as,
have as much of an impact or greater than constructing, actually constructing this road through the
corridor. But Phil is right in the sense that from a long term standpoint, once the utilities are in, you
backfill and compacted, you know a few years down the road you probably won't be able to tell that
there was any disruption made.
Phil Gravel: That's one other reason why we'd like to do the base work at this time too is because if
we're going to disturb the wetland anyhow, we might as well just go in there once and do that at this time
as well.
Mayor Mancino: But by putting in the utilities you're going to go in and make as wide of a swath as you
would with the road, is what I'm saying. You're going to pull out all that soil. You're going to take it.
Dump it somewhere and you're going to create a 36 foot swath anyway. Am I right in assuming that?
Phil Gravel: That's about exactly right. It's about 36 feet. Because of the depth of the sewer.
Mayor Mancino: So you have to go down 15 feet so you get your, okay. I learned that today.
Councilman Senn: And what's the cost then of doing that base work then?
Phil Gravel: Soil correction. It's about 15,000 to 20,000 yards. The developer, as we've been
discussing grading with them quite a bit. That's why we got the ponds and stuff graded. They have some
excess material. We can get it from I think it's on Lot 1. So the hauling costs and stuff would be down
but it's probably in the $40,000.00 to $50,000.00 range.
Mayor Mancino: And that's included in the cost under Phase 1?
Phil Gravel: Close.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
2
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Councilman Senn: Okay, because I didn't see it called out there. That's why I was wondering.
Phil Gravel: No, and it's not specifically spelled out, no.
Mayor Mancino: Does that still give us an option if we go ahead with Phase 1 to say no to the...?
Charles Folch: This is just basically getting a major time and construction factor out of the way for the
future if you choose.
Phil Gravel: Yeah, and it has a lot of benefit to the utility construction too to get that base properly
constructed.
Councilman Senn: Now if we hou ht of we m ade
uld � liked W
the pro l
tower sooner rather thanlater� I mean
is that, you made a comment I t g
Charles Folch: Well it's on our 1 98, it's been on our '98 schedule since we approved the plan back in,
the comp water plan back in '93. So I think if we can accomplish some sort of either agreement or move
on from there I guess. We're going to need to know probably around the first of the year or so whether
or not we've got a site on the Wrase property or whether we have to look for a site on this development.
Because in order to begin construction of that tower next summer, we need to be moving with plans this
winter.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so your comment then assumes moving that up at this point...
Charles Folch: Moving up?
Councilman Senn: Well you'd, a couple weeks ago you referenced you'd rather get going on that tower
sooner rather than later so I was wondering does that mean, if the property gets settled you'll do it in '97
or start it in '97 or it'd be '98 under either?
Charles Folch: It will probably be '98. Given where we are at this point in time, this year. You know
mid summer gone, it's going to be '98 either way.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you Phil. Are there any other questions from Council members? Thank you.
May I have a motion and a second to open this for a public hearing please.
Mason moved, Berquist seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the City
Council on this issue?
Todd Hoffman: Mayor Mancino, members of the City Council. Mike Howe, a representative of the Park
Commission was unable to be here this evening. The Park and Recreation Commission simply wants to
be on record that unless absolutely necessary, they are not in support of the Coulter extension but they're
willing to listen to the arguments for and against that connection.
Mayor Mancino: And why are they not in favor?
10
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Todd Hoffman: In favor of it? The City has worked hard to assemble 100 acres plus of open space
preserve and really the only thing that would go through it would be Coulter extension so if it can stay
out, you can simply leave the preserve without the road. It's a benefit to that land.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other, anyone else wishing to address the City Council? Seeing
none, may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. The public
hearing was closed.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, comments from Council members. Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: Well I knew it was coming up. Big numbers. The only comment that I would
make is that the, as we go along. What I'd really like to see in conjunction with the report, is the forecast
of revenue report the debt. That's not necessarily anything that the Director of Public Works or engineer
can put together but it would be nice to be able to look at it in a revenue expenditure perspective as
opposed to strictly expenditure. I have faith, you know given all the discussions that have taken place
prior to our approving the PUD, I know, I feel confident that the thing will come together. And yet the
information seems to be somewhat piecemeal and it would be nice to have it told a little bit more
concisely.
Mayor Mancino: That could be a condition.
Councilman Berquist: ...one or two documents and that's going to be the other thing that I would like to
see is that as we go on and approve the additional phases, that the budget revisions be made and the
offsetting revenue side of the column be detailed. All total, we're looking at a, if everything goes just
absolutely wonderfully, what would be the total length of phases 1 through 5? 4 to 5 years. Okay, thank
you.
Mayor Mancino: And of course we would have input into that schedule too as we go to Phase 2, 3, 4, 5
and it can be revised. We can take things out, put it in, etc. Okay. Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: I'd like to see it get started but the only reservation I have is one that Steve
mentioned which is, I'd like to see a little more detail on the revenue projections so that we don't get
overextended. That as a ... tax increment. I'd like to see the schedule faster than 4 or 5 years too but I
don't think that's for me to decide. That's all I have to say about it.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason.
Councilman Mason: Nothing.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: As far as proceeding I guess with the plans and specs, I don't have a problem with
that at all. I don't want that I guess to be taken as necessarily an endorsement as to everything that's
being suggested under it because I think there are some elements of this project that still need discussion.
11
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Mayor Mancino: The elements being one, Coulter. The extension of Coulter Drive. Number two, the
revenue side. Anything else?
Councilman Senn: Well primarily the Coulter issue I think is going to be one that is in need of some
discussion. As far as the revenue stuff goes, what I would really like to see there, I think Steve and Mark
both referred to it but I'd really like to see a schedule put together so we can see when the developer pays
the assessments over what schedule we're expecting to see those you know be reimbursed to the
developer. And also you know when the City pays their $3.8, or $3.382 from the TIF and you know
when that's going to be reimbursed from the hook -up fees. You have schedule that all out for us so we
can see when, not only when the expenses and the TIF are going in but when the repayments are going to
occur and where those repayments are going to come from.
Mayor Mancino: Good. I have just one other further comment because I would like to see those, both of
those things in the conditions so whoever makes the motion, to see the revenue and Coulter. That very
clearly, we have not decided whether to go ahead with that or not. Thirdly, I would like to have planning
and the Park and Recreation be part of that conversation so that we do get all sides looking at it. And to
look at the rationale as whole. Whether we should go ahead, just not from fiscal point of view but from a
quality of life. From traffic flow. From land use planning point of view. With that, may I please have a
motion.
Councilman Berquist: I've got one question for Todd, if you don't mind. Given the discussions of the
Park and Rec Commission regarding Coulter, was there ever any talk about the desirability of a trail that
would extend through the wetland?
Todd Hoffman: Yes. We have a concept plan on file which encircles the wetland and the 100 acres with
a trail system and then it has a bisecting trail connecting down through the center which would
experience wetland, low lying areas and so there is a trail plan which goes around it and then also
through the site.
Councilman Berquist: And that through the site layout follows Coulter or something? It does not?
Councilman Engel: It doesn't?
Todd Hoffman: No.
Councilman Engel: If we put a trail in, like you're talking about, does it need soil correction or can you
lay it as it sits?
Todd Hoffman: There needs to be some soil correction, or that's a different profile of trail through that
low lying soil. We're not talking about building it directly in the wetland but in some low lying poor
soils. If we go across the wetland, it would be a floating boardwalk type of trail condition.
Councilman Berquist: So your intent wasn't to disturb the wetland at all? Stabilization of the soils.
Kate Aanenson: Still would require a wetland alteration permit.
Councilman Berquist: It would?
Councilman Engel: Either way?
12
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Kate Aanenson: That's our opinion. Todd and I have talked...
Councilman Berquist: Well the point is that if in fact we go ahead and spend a little bit of money to
stabilize the soils, when we lay this water and sewer main, does it provide us anything, any advantage
whatsoever aside from a future road if we would ever choose?
Todd Hoffman: Not as currently conceptually planned. No, it does not. Something we've, the Council
may wish to talk about as well is on the east terminus of Coulter right now there's kind of a hammer head
and how are we going to address the west terminus? Is there going to be a second hammer head and so
you've got ends to connect? Is that a part of, I'm not sure how that's going to be addressed in the phase 1
of construction. You know on the other side, are you going to connect and make another hammer head
so all you have left is a piece in the middle, or is it just going to be a curved line? I'm not sure how it's
planned.
Councilman Berquist: Tell me what...
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, there's no street in Phase 1 so it shouldn't do it.
Phil Gravel: The north/south... I think with Phase 1 you can probably...
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Last, just a real simple question Charles is that, the go ahead with
Phase 1 this year, is that part of our planning for bonding in our capital improvement projects this year?
Charles Folch: Yes it is.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. May I have a motion please.
Councilman Berquist: Well how far down the list could we conceivably go?
Mayor Mancino: This year?
Councilman Berquist: Bonding.
Mayor Mancino: Well we're doing phase 1 in '97.
Councilman Berquist: It's conceivable that ... well of course by the end of the year, it's already 7 months
into the year. Okay.
Councilman Senn: I'll move that we accept the report and authorize preparation of plans and
specifications.
Mayor Mancino: For Phase 1.
Councilman Senn: For Phase 1 with two caveats and that is, with the understanding that future phases
will be discussed in terms of components being included and not included. And secondly, a complete
expense and revenue schedule or expense schedule with off setting revenue schedule be prepared so we
can see that by the time that plans and specs get completed.
13
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Councilman Engel: Second.
Resolution #97 -43: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded that the City Council
approve the feasibility study dated May, 1997 with amendments dated June 18, 1997 for the street
and utility improvements in the north % of Section 16 and authorize the preparation of plans and
specifications for Phase I, Project No. 97 -1 with the understanding that future phases will be
discussed in terms of components being included and not included. And secondly, a complete
expense and revenue schedule or expense schedule with off setting revenue schedule be prepared so
we can see that by the time that plans and specs get completed. As each phase is ready to be
initiated, staff would propose that the City Council authorize the preparation of plans accordingly.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
AWARD OF BIDS: BLUFF CREEK DRIVE OVERLAY PROJECT 97 -9.
Mayor Mancino: And may I say right now, under the next item on the agenda, which is unfinished
business, number 4 has been deleted because it went to the Consent Agenda. I would like to put under
number 4, because we have someone from Southwest Metro Transit, I would like to pull item that was
tabled under the Consent Agenda, (f) and at the time under unfinished business bring that up for us to
discuss. So right now, Award of Bids. Number 3. Bluff Creek Drive Overlay, Project 97 -9. Staff report
please.
Charles Folch: Thank you Madam Mayor, members of the Council. Back on Tuesday, June 3` bids
were opened for the Bluff Creek overlay project No. 97 -10. We received a total of four bids with the
high ranging from $79,400.00 down to the low bid being received from Wm. Mueller and Sons at
$64,868.00. Wm. Mueller and Sons has a proven track record with the City in the past. In fact they just
last summer completed the overlay project on Kerber Boulevard which went very successfully so we,
from a contracting standpoint would recommend them based on a reputation. It's also important to note
that this project is being funded by the Municipal State Aid construction account since Bluff Creek Drive
is a State Aid route. It's approximately 10 years since it's reconstruction and it fits right in with the
MnDot schedules for structural Overlay at age 10 so with that, staff would recommend the award of bid to
Wm. Mueller and Sons.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you very much. Any questions from Council members? Then may I have
a motion please.
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
Councilman Engel: Second.
Resolution #97 -44: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to award the bid for
Bluff Creek Drive Overlay Project No. 97 -10 to Wm. Mueller and Sons, Inc. in the amount of
$64,868.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CONSENT AGENDA: F. APPROVE RESOLUTION FOR PARTICIPATION IN LOCAL LEVY
TRANSIT OPTION FOR 1998.
Don Ashworth: This item was tabled from our last meeting. Council has asked for some additional
information as we moved through the budgetary process for both the City and to the Authority. We did
happen to meet with ... people. They have agreed to provide that information as both of us start to work
14
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
on our budgets. ...set about to be heard as part of the Truth in Taxation notices. Through a glitch in
state law they actually could have gone up to between 11% and 12% which has been the actual growth in
the tax base. The cities, the legislature intended for local governments, specifically counties and cities,
to not exceed the two factors. One is referred to as the listed price index, which is very similar to a CPI
except it's for goods and services of the city. The second would be a factor, the gross households growth
which we have been led to believe is about 3.6 %. The first about 2 points for a total of about 6 %.
Talking with the other opt out cities we felt that it'd not be in the best interest of Southwest to go along
with what the legislature kind of had forgotten to do because it would reflect badly on all of us and would
hold their increase to basically the formula that the cities are under. I'd hope to have the numbers by this
evening. I talked with Len this morning and they were not available but continue to believe that it is
about the 6% level. If we do not carry that out as a local option, it will be done at a metro level and
basically under State law, I don't know if it's a glitch again but it will go through as that 12% increase.
So you are benefiting your taxpayers if you approve this resolution.
Mayor Mancino: And we could approve it with part of the stipulation in the resolution that Southwest
Metro Transit will abide by the same laws that govern the levy limits for Chanhassen.
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So we could impose that. Is someone here from Southwest Metro? Would you
like to come forward and give us any more information or maybe field questions from us.
Len Simich: Sure I'd be happy. I am Len Simich. I'm the new Director of Southwest Metro. I think
Don covered it well.
Mayor Mancino: Congratulations.
Len Simich: Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, this kind of hit all of us by surprise, quite frankly. We
didn't know until after the session was over that this little glitch did exist. We spent a number of
meetings with the Metropolitan Council administrative staff. The other opt out communities and we
came to this agreement in terms of what was the best way to proceed and we felt by keeping more dollars
locally, keeping more dollars in the taxpayers pocket was probably the best way to go and we came up
with this as an alternative. The Met Council could have come back and said, we will levy the difference
then because by Statute they could. But they have agreed not to so we think we've kind of put together a
pretty good deal for all parties involved here. It means a little less money for us to operate but we can
live within the same limitations placed on the city. We are doing a number of things right now to tighten
our belt and making our system more effective, more efficient and we see that happening more in the
future too so. I'd be happy to answer any questions specifically about it, or the service in general.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Council members. Any questions for Len at this time? Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Len, as I was understanding this, and I guess I just want to understand it better. The
way the legislation is set up is, if we don't authorize effectively the full allowable increase, then the Met
Council's allowed to use the difference. Is that correct?
Len Simich: Correct. Mayor, Council member. That is correct. If we do not levy it locally, the Met
Council will. Another little twist is that the Met Council doesn't have the option of levying something
less than the maximum. They're required to levy the maximum so in a sense it would be more money.
15
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Councilman Senn: And there is agreement at this point that they will not do that then?
Len Simich: Yes. Again they have agreed. Kurt Johnson and Jim Solm have agreed to do that. They
feel it's an administrative decision. Not a policy decision so they have given us their confidence that
that's would happen.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
h budget is asking ue and expenditure levls wh n we review your budge hen to 6% et the
then we will deal wit g
actual level.
Len Simich: Exactly.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So to follow this whole scenario through, if we don't, if you don't use the
whole 6% further into the process they don't have another shot at it, correct?
Len Simich: The only way that they would is if the statute states we have to provide the same level of
service as the previous year. That would be the only way that they would come back in. The other little
caveat there is that the service has to be effective service. Meet performance criteria so that doesn't
mean if you have service out on the road today that is not performing well, that you're forced to keep it.
But we do have to keep that minimum level of service that we see out there on the streets today. That is
performing within the guidelines.
Councilman Senn: Okay. All right.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, very much. May I please have a
motion.
Councilman Berquist: I move to approve the resolution as detailed within the packet levying taxes for
Southwest Metro for 1998 and with the added that Exhibit A, the notice of intent to exercise local transit
tax levy as detailed.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #97 -45: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve a
resolution declaring intent to exercise local transit levy option for taxes in 1998 with Exhibit A. All
voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS FOR A FRONT
YARD VARIANCE REQUESTI 361 DEERFOOT TRAIL SCOTT WIRTH.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This item was tabled from the last City Council meeting. Only three
Council members were present and... The applicant, located in the Sunny Slope Addition. 'These lots
are zoned PUD. A majority of them are under the 15,000 square foot requirement. They also have some
flexibility under the setbacks. For instance the front yard setback is 20 feet. It has another front yard
setback because it has a double frontage lot. The applicant is requesting to put the addition of a deck...
The ordinance does allow 25 foot for encroachment. The applicant is wishing to make that a little bit
larger by encroaching another foot and a half into the setback. Staff, in reviewing this felt like there was
reasonable use of the property with the deck that does meet the setback requirement and had
recommended denial. So did the Board of Adjustments... any questions.
16
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Is the applicant here and would you like to address the City Council
please.
Scott Wirth: Good evening Mayor and City Council members.
Mayor Mancino: Can you give your name and address please.
Scott Wirth: Oh, it's Scott Wirth, 361 Deerfoot Trail, Chanhassen.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you Scott.
Scott Wirth: I'm not asking for a water tower.
Mayor Mancino: You couldn't pay for it.
Scott Wirth: True. A foot and a half variance is all I'm asking for just to make the deck a little bit more
livable. What I've found over the last six weeks that in order to get a variance granted you must have a
hardship. I feel I have two hardships with this property. First off I have an easement and it's the only
easement in the 12 home subdivision that I live in. It takes up approximately a third of the property, of
which I still pay property taxes on. Secondly, I have two front yards which I recently found out. I was
not aware of that. I always thought my back yard was my back yard but I've just been told by the City
that it's a front yard. Without the two front yard situation I would not be here today. I'd be able to build
a deck to the size that I'm wishing for. Really that's all I have to say. Again, I'm only asking for a foot
and a half just to make the deck a little bit more livable. There will be a lot less waste as far as the
lumber is concerned. I have to use the same lengths of lumber whether I have the foot and a half or not.
Are there any other questions?
Mayor Mancino: Any questions for Council members to Scott?
Councilman Berquist: The question that I have for you Scott is the Board of Adjustments, which I'm
lucky enough to be a member of. I had asked about exploration of a stairway system that allowed the
deck to be reduced to fit within the guidelines and yet not, the stairway would fit within, the deck would
fit within the guidelines and reorient the stairway in such a manner so that it wasn't right outside of the
sliding glass door. Was there any work done on your, by you exploring different stair alternatives? I see
none. I see no mention of any.
Scott Wirth: The only thing I could do is wrap around further to the west of the house and be sinking
posts through a cement platform that I have at the basement level. A patio. I really didn't wish to build
on top of that patio and be putting posts through that area and would also be increase the deck costs by
probably another $2,000.00 or $3,000.00. What I mean was building over here. I would have to come
out this way and then come down these stairs. This is what I intended to do right now.
Councilman Berquist: You were going to wrap around the west side?
Scott Wirth: Exactly.
Councilman Berquist: You'd be inside the easement.
17
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Scott Wirth: The easement runs something like this. So I would have to, I could extend the deck straight
out like this and then come back here and somewhere over in this ... come down. It's doable but it would
be a lot more expensive and I would be putting posts through a patio, which I don't wish to do and the
City Council has, or actually the variance department had stated that the two stairs are not needed. I do
have other stairs over in this area but ... door is on the southwest corner of the home and it just makes
sense to have the stairs on that end.
Councilman Berquist: I mean I understand that in a perfect world on a perfect lot that that would be the
much preferred way to go. That was something that again that I had asked about at the Board of
Adjustments. I had come up with a couple of ideas that weren't necessarily workable. I've also
wondered since then about putting a stairway within, I mean you'd still end up with reducing that 12 foot
deck area to 10 feet. Putting the stairs inside that but it would at least prevent you from walking out of
the sliding glass door right into a stairway. That's another alternative. That's the only question I have. I
don't want to take too much time.
Scott Wirth: I took some pictures of the homes in my area and I know it's another subdivision but they
are neighbors of mine. They live right across the street and their home is only 20 feet, approximately 20
feet from the street and I'm asking that my deck be 33 Meet from the street. 23 %2 feet from the property
line but 33 % from the street. And from these pictures you can see how close their homes are to the
street. It indicates that the street could never be widen. I really don't think that's a...
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for Scott? Thank you very much. Is there anyone here
tonight wishing to speak on this issue on the variance? Any neighbors? Yes Scott.
Scott Wirth: I'd like to add one more thing Nancy. I had approximately 35 neighbors sign a petition that
would allow the construction of this. They did not have any problems with it at all. And I did send that
in at one of the last.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. I don't think we do have. Scott, did you find anyone who had problems?
Scott Wirth: Not one home objected to it.
Mayor Mancino: In your neighborhood.
Scott Wirth: Not one objection.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Staff did we, do you know, did we have any calls about any neighbors being
concerned about the variance request? Do you know?
Kate Aanenson: No.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Question Scott for you. Explain to me again why you can't take the deck around the
other corner. I mean why can't you just take the deck around the corner and avoid the variance?
Mayor Mancino: Will you explain to me what you're asking. Visually. Can we take this picture?
18
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Councilman Senn: Well this picture is misleading and the reason it's misleading, if I've got it figured out
right is that, isn't it leaving something off here? I mean isn't this the sliding glass doors here? Okay, is
that. Well then, I mean I understand the issue but aren't we leaving a segment of the house off here
where the patio is? In this drawing. This one.
Scott Wirth: That drawing is just... The problem is that there's an easement over in that area...
Mayor Mancino: Excuse me, it'd be helpful because then we can get it in the Minutes Scott, etc.
Scott Wirth: The tricky part is staying out of the easement area and I'm looking at a 10 to 12 foot height
in this section. To bring stairs down from that height ... it gets very tricky in that area. Again I would
have to be putting posts through my patio and that section to stay at the same height. It could possibly be
done but it would be extremely tricky and expensive. And again I'm just asking for a foot and a half.
What I want to do is to extend it a foot and a half ...back side of the deck.
Mayor Mancino: So go ahead Councilman Senn with your question.
Councilman Senn: Put these out there. That's what we're looking at.
Kate Aanenson: ...won't be able to access that going upstairs to the patio up here.
Councilman Senn: Oh, he wants to access to that? Okay. So effectively the drawing that we have in
front of us leaves that whole segment of the house off.
Mayor Mancino: Well it's not very clear.
Councilman Senn: Okay but go over to the other corner here. Okay. That's the corner we're talking
about, correct. Match the, yeah the inner corner. Not the outer corner.
Mayor Mancino: So you walk out the patio door. There are the stairs. You can go up to the deck.
Kate Aanenson: But he doesn't want to have to do anything with the currently poured concrete patio.
Mayor Mancino: He doesn't want to have to rip it up because that will cost more money. Otherwise he
could bring the stairs in and avoid the variance.
Councilman Senn: Okay. All right.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, correct. You could bring the stairs in. There's the room there. Everything. It
would just, you would have to rip up the existing patio to do it. I mean basically.
Scott Wirth: Conceptually it's possible to be done. It would seem that I would have to have a
tremendous amount of lumber to build all the way around to this area here. And if someone...
Councilman Senn: But you could also just build stairs going up where your patio is. To the deck.
Correct?
Scott Wirth: That's what this is designed to do right now. Going down here to this landing, platform and
then down to the steps by the patio. The stairs, the door that I'm concerned about are these here. I don't
19
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
want to be walking on immediately to get into the stairs going down. Right now that section, by
following within the variance specs ... I would only have about 3 %2 feet. 3 %2 or 4 feet when I walk
outside that door before I hit the stairs going down. It's an 8 foot wide area and I have 42 inch wide
stairs going down. Plus an additional 6 inches of space in this area.
Councilman Senn: But effectively when you come out your door you've got like a 4 foot landing sitting
there.
Scott Wirth: That's right. In this area here.
Councilman Senn: Yeah.
Scott Wirth: Right.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Councilman Engel: Can you leave that up.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions from Council members at this time? If not we'll go ahead with
comments.
Councilman Berquist: I've got a couple questions for Kate.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you Scott.
Scott Wirth: Again, it's just a foot and a half. It's not a water tower. The thing is here that this property
is different than any other property in my subdivision. Of the 12 homes I'm the only home with the
easement, that I think is critical. Also, it's only 1 of 6 homes that I know of in the Chanhassen that has
two front yards. If I had a back yard, and that front yard by the way. Those two front yards were set by
the City, but I wasn't aware of it when I bought the property. If it was a rear yard I would not be here
right now. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: Well, when I first looked at this thing I was a little distressed at there being no
compromise sort of situation to put a deck on that the homeowner thought would be an asset. A 500
square foot deck had to value to him but a 580 square foot deck had value. I found that difficult to
comprehend. To a great degree I still do but having been back there a few times now and also heard
another variance request for that area and gone back there again, the questions that I have concern the
decision that constructs a subdivision with two front yards, more so than this individual application.
There are a number of areas within the city that are defined as having two front yards. Are all of those
areas consistent with the traffic patterns and the traffic loads that flow by them. In this area, the road that
flows behind it couldn't be construed as any shape, way or form as an urban roadway. I mean it's a road
that serves a half a dozen homes at the most. And to me it doesn't look like it would ever be widened or
extended. I know that this predates you but.
Kate Aanenson: Do you want me to comment on the subdivision itself?
20
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Councilman Berquist: I want you to comment on the subdivision itself and the decision at the time that
the subdivision was platted that defined the two front yard.
Kate Aanenson: This is through the Sunny Slope. When we first platted ... PUD. The area of flexibility
was in the front yard setback... also a private drive ... public street it'd have 30. We had 12,000 square
foot lots... City ordinance does allow for larger lots on... The thought that went into this one is that
there's an open space ... That's what they were all given smaller, the benefit of the open space in the
center so it was a compromise when it was...
Councilman Berquist: What did that center common area represent? What's there now and what does it
Kate Aanenson: Tennis.
Mayor Mancino: Tennis courts and then just an open play area, isn't it? Tennis court and open play
area. It's a greenway.
Councilman Berquist: And that was requested by the developer at that time? That he construct it that
way.
Kate Aanenson: Have a private open space. But you know, that's what people bought into that. That
type of a smaller lots but having a larger public.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. Does the quantity of traffic enter at all into the definition of two front
yards. Or is it simply the abutment of any road whatsoever?
Kate Aanenson: The way our ordinance reads.
Bob Generous: That's the definition.
Councilman Berquist: Any road whatsoever? As long as it's a public street.
Mayor Mancino: Can I add to your line of reasoning for a minute?
Councilman Berquist: Sure.
Mayor Mancino: And that is, since this is a PUD and it's different and it's got the public open, or the
neighborhood open space in the middle, we may want to look at the setbacks a little differently in those
areas to allow people to put amenities such as decks, etc. on it and maybe there are some setback
differences in that PUD because of that.
Kate Aanenson: Right, and that's why I say, as I indicated the front setback was already given that
flexibility for a 20 ... because you already can with the ordinance encroach 25 feet. So normally you have
a 30 front, 30 back so we're already going 20, 23 now.
Mayor Mancino: 20 and 23. But we may even want to be a little more flexible as we look at some of
these. As we put different PUD's in these neighborhoods so that people can have decks. Because I
understand the difference between a hallway and a deck, because there is a difference. Once you put
your table and chairs and you get people up on a deck, you could hardly walk by and make it enjoyable
and welcoming for people to be out there.
21
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Councilman Berquist: Where I'm coming from here is that, having been there a couple of times and
looking at what, looking at the views that they enjoy, and the properties that exist within their lines of
sight, restricting them in the size of this particular addition, this deck, and the other individual that came
in asking for a variance when in fact what they're really trying to do is improve the property. Improving
the property in a manner in which they want to and improving the property in a manner in which you
have to, or are able to are different and, in my mind. I'm really off the wall here. I'm not making a lot of
sense but I am loathe to enforce the ordinance that restricts the construction of a deck to something that is
less than desirable. I changed my tune completely from the first time I ever looked at this. Although I
would like to find some other way to do the fairway so we don't even have to talk about the goll dang
variance. Pardon me?
Scott Wirth made a comment from the audience.
Councilman Berquist: Well I don't think you'd want me out there with a hammer. So that's the extent of
any questions or comments I have right now.
Mayor Mancino: All right, any questions or comments Councilman Engel. On the variance request.
Councilman Engel: I've got to be consistent on these matters, whenever it comes to something like this.
I don't want to design any homeowner's deck or his house or his patio or anything like that. I think that
they always make the best decisions provided they don't encroach too far. And I know that's a relative
term. It's a relative term. One foot to some is 10 to 20 to others but we're sitting here looking at this and
I have a hard time visualizing a severe impact. I say let him do it the way he wants.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason.
Councilman Mason: Well I'm quite honestly wondering why we even both to have ordinances and how
people build and what they can do on a lot. Every time these come up I get told that people know what's
best for their own lot and they will do what's right. Yet we have Oak Ponds. We have all kinds of
problems and there are some of us that don't think there should be any regulations and there are some of
us that think there should be and I don't think anyone would argue that there's too much regulation in a
whole lot of things. The fact remains the Wirth's do have the capability of having a deck here without
approving this variance. I'd like to point out a couple of things in the staff report. The application was
unanimously denied by the Board on the 20` of May. Staff would like to bring to the Council's attention,
we have received a second variance within the same subdivision of the subject property. Approving this
application will create new standards for the subdivision and set the stage for the proliferation of
variances within a neighborhood. And in bold face on the next page, many of the homes in this
subdivision have decks and they all meet ordinance requirements. I have not felt there's been an attempt
to compromise. I question with this Council continuing to grant variances based on the belief that the
homeowner always knows what's best for their property. I do wonder why we have ordinances right
now. I don't, I think a deck is capable without the variance. Very capable without the variance. I'm
done.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Boy. The best way I can describe this one is I'm really torn on it. Our ordinances, in
my mind are guidelines and you know I don't hold hard and fast that this is what is absolute. It's got to
make sense. But at the same time we need to consider all the aspects. You know the PUD's already
22
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
effectively lessen the setbacks as it is. You know I can't disagree with Mike. Yes, a deck can be
constructed. In fact a substantial deck can still be constructed but what we're talking about here is the
issue of a staircase and how the staircase lines up with a door. You know 4 foot landing outside the
sliding glass door, well I mean. You know with, I don't know. Regardless, it seems to me you're not
going to put the activity in front of the door anyway. With the size of this deck, the activity's going to be
elsewhere on the deck. So I don't see a problem with the 4 foot landing. I don't see a problem with the
deck redesigned to make it fit. You know and I don't know. I think through all that and I say well yeah,
it's a doubled sided street and you know we ought to be a little more lenient but then I go back to the
PUD. I don't know. Every way I go on this one there's an either or an or that comes back with well
which way should it be. The simple reality in my mind is that there's one issue. Is there something here
that constitutes a hardship? In my mind.
Mayor Mancino: And factually is there?
Councilman Senn: Yeah. In my mind there is. But it has nothing to do with anything other than the
easement line. And I don't think, if we grant an easement here that we are setting a precedent because of
the easement line. To me, if you subscribe to the theory that the 1.6 effectively isn't going to kill the
world except, then we always have to turn around and say but what precedent do we ... or do we set. The
answer is none because I don't think we're ever going to see this again with an easement effectively
sitting where this easement sits, which in my mind would be the only reason to justify doing it. The
proximity of the easement line. Because if a person were to put a deck straight off the back of their
house, like most of us do.
Mayor Mancino: There is not going to be an easement line.
Councilman Senn: Well but there is here and it's cutting off use of part of that area effectively straight
back from the house. Even though the lot is plenty big to handle, you know effectively that deck or that
type of a structure without an easement. Okay. So going back to the easement line, and going back to
you know what the applicant would like to do, again the easement line is what's forcing us to you know
effectively depart from what we normally would look at. So I guess bottom line where it comes down to
is, I mean I think 9 /10 of everything we've been talking about and considering on this particular
variance is really kind of meaningless. I think yes, it could have been probably resolved by a little give
and take. I also, I guess I can understand the homeowner's position but I would be very comfortable, at
least in my mind, supporting a foot and a half variance predicated simply on the hardship of that
easement line being there. Because it's cutting off effectively straight out, or a straight out deck type of
approach from the back of the yard there and I don't think we're setting a precedent by doing it. And I'm
not going to get into a big argument over a foot and a half if we're not setting some kind of a precedent
that I think we have to worry about.
Mayor Mancino: Do we have any concern Kate, about the easement? How that can be used and will we
ever need it?
Kate Aanenson: It's a drainage easement...
Mayor Mancino: Any concerns that you see Charles? Okay. I'm in agreement with that. May I have a
motion please.
Councilman Berquist: I will move to approve the 1.6 foot variance for the construction of a deck as
submitted with the staff report for the Wirth's at 361 Deerfoot Trail in Chanhassen.
23
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Is there a second?
Councilman Engel: I'll second it.
Mayor Mancino: All those in favor of the motion.
Councilman Senn: Well I would like you to either change your motion or I'm not going to vote for it so.
Councilman Berquist: I'll withdraw.
Councilman Senn: I would like you to restate. I would like you to include in your motion that the
hardship here is the easement line and defining, or make that finding of fact and okay the 1.6 variance
based on that.
Councilman Berquist: I'd be happy to restate that as a motion.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Is there a second to that motion.
Councilman Engel: Second..
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve a 1.6 foot variance for the
construction of a deck at 361 Deerfoot Trail based on the hardship of the drainage easement
running through the property. All voted in favor, except Councilman Mason who opposed, and
the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Mayor Mancino: And your reason for no Michael. Or you've already given it. Thank you.
REVIEW AND A PPROVAL OF ALTERNATIVE URBAN AR EAWIDE DOCUME (AUAR)
FOR STEINER DEVELOPMENT INC. PROPOSED GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT; LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5 EAST OF HIGHWAY 41 AND
NORTH OF WEST 82 STREET. THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 1.2
MILLIONS UARE FEET OF BUILDING AREA IN A MIX OF OFFICE INDUSTRIAL
COMMERCIAL AND PARK AND OPEN SPACE USES ON APPROXIMATELY 150 ACRES.
Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, Council members. An Alternate Urban Areawide Review is a
cross between an Environmental Assessment Worksheet and an Environmental Impact Statement. What
we've done is reviewed all the environmental impacts that the proposed development would have on the
site but we've reduced the time frame on it. The many issues that you look at are habitat, woodlands,
wetlands, wells, utilities, surface water management and ... traffic and air quality, archeological and
architectural resources that the proposed development might impact. What we're requesting tonight is
that the City Council approve the Alternate Urban Areawide Review and incorporate the specific
mitigation plan contained within the development within the AUAR. We believe that this project and the
City's review process will mitigate many or most of the impacts involved and that through the requests
that we have within the mitigation plan will reduce the impacts for the things that we do not have control
of. With that staff is recommending approval and would be happy to answer any questions you would
have.
24
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Bob, can you speak to the DNR letter that you put in front of us at the meeting tonight
and give us a one minute overview of it.
Bob Generous: Basically their only real comment is on the 30 acres of wetlands. The potential impacts
that they have. As part of the wetland alteration permit that's being approved as part of the project. The
developer will be mitigating or creating additional wetlands on the site. We're taking off a little bit of
wetlands for the north/south road and we're consolidating the new wetlands into the existing wetland
complex.
Mayor Mancino: They're approximately 3 acres or 2 point something.
Bob Generous: Yeah total, it's under 3 acres and an acre, 1.8 acres through the Arboretum has created a
wetland so they have credits and then they're creating additional wetlands with the project.
Mayor Mancino: And the ones that we're mitigating are ag urban?
Bob Generous: Urban, yeah.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. That's basically it. Okay.
Bob Generous: In addition to the storm water plan we do provide water quality improvement before it
discharges into the...
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Questions, comments from Council members.
Councilman Mason: Well yes I do as a matter of fact. Reading, well being a bit of an ornithologist I, in
the memorandum you handed out to us about the swamps and the migratory song birds, which any of us
know that do appreciate that kind of thing, they are in decline. How does that stuff get mitigated? The
brush and, I forget what the term was.
Kate Aanenson: Hopefully through the acquisition of the property that was our intent to preserve that.
Bob Generous: We're preserving most of the wetland ... and upland habitat around that.
Kate Aanenson: Around the ... wetland.
Councilman Mason: Okay, okay, cool.
Mayor Mancino: Do you know that that is the biggest recreational activity that has grown in the last 2
years in the United States? Bird watching.
Councilman Mason: Well some of us have been doing it longer than that Mrs. Mancino.
Mayor Mancino: No, it is number one. It is more than biking, hiking, bird watching. Excuse me. You
can tell I just went on vacation.
Councilman Mason: And what else did we learn on our trip?
Mayor Mancino: Lots of things.
25
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Councilman Mason: Good. Okay, thanks.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you Michael. Any other questions or comments from Council members on the
report?
Councilman Berquist: Amazing amount of detail.
Mayor Mancino: I know. May I have a motion please.
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #97 -46: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve a resolution
that the AUAR be revised to incorporate the summary of issues and mitigation plan contained in
the staff report, that the revisions to the Traffic Study prepared by SRF outlined in the staff report
be incorporated into the study, and that the revised AUAR be adopted by the City. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously.
VILLAGES ON THE PONDS: REVIEW PROPOSED WETLAND RESTORATION AND
STREETSCAPE.
Mayor Mancino: Vernelle, I'm just going to ask for a couple days so I can give some comments because
I haven't had a minute to look through this.
Vernelle Clayton: Okay. So technically how do you want to handle that?
Mayor Mancino: Well I don't know. We'll talk about that as a condition that I can just off.
Councilman Senn: Well if you really want to do that then we really ought to just table it and put it off
until the next agenda rather than going through this thing.
Mayor Mancino: Well no, I want them to be able to go ahead with the process.
Vernelle Clayton: We do have a technical problem in that we have had to go through simultaneously
with the construction plans because of the need to meet St. Hubert's schedule. Is that familiar?
Sounding familiar.
Kate Aanenson: Plus we also have the agreement that we ... joint powers in the city...
Mayor Mancino: So I'm just saying can we just do a general condition that I have some time just to, a
little nit gritty looking at it. It's not big deal.
Vernelle Clayton: Fine.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Councilman Senn: You're kinder than the rest of the Council would have been Vernelle.
W
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Hey. I've been working on this project for many, many years with you guys.
Vernelle Clayton: I think then what we'd accept is a motion or approval, if you're so inclined, subject to
review of the Mayor and staff, and if necessary the developer.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Do you want to go ahead and staff report.
Bob Generous: This is the hardscape plan for the Villages on the Pond proposed project. We've been
working with the developer to create the public... envisioning out at the Villages. The City has received
grants from the Metropolitan Council through the Livable Communities Act and the regional transit
capital funds to put in or assist the developer in putting in the improvements with this project for the
paving, sidewalks, street furniture and boulevard trees, as well as trail system and part of the wetland
enhancement for the Villages pond and so we're bringing back, had the developer bring plans back to
you for approval. For review and approval.
Councilman Senn: Okay, would you elaborate on that more.
Bob Generous: On which part? The specific plan?
Councilman Senn: Well I mean, okay.
Kate Aanenson: There's the PUD framework in place. This is matching up and setting... what's
happening out there and ... that we talked about... outside parameter of the development. Specifically the
pond, lighting...
Bob Generous: Main street, Lake Drive. How the bench systems are going to set up in the landscaping.
Councilman Senn: And what portion of this is the grant taking care of then?
Bob Generous: That will show as part of the ... 6 to 8 feet for the concrete... It's all in the grant
agreement and it has those dollars are broken out, which is what we tried to bring together.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn, are you asking what we see, is the grant paying 100% of what we're
going to look at? 80 %? Is that what you're asking?
Councilman Senn: Well I had assumed when we had talked about the grant and stuff before, that the
grant was going throughout the entire project.
Bob Generous: Yes.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so I'm assuming that the grant plugs into and takes care of a portion of this as
the outer, or as a segment of that that you're now talking about, correct?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So one of the things as we go through and do this that I want to understand
effectively is you know where are we using the grant and for what.
27
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Bob Generous: The phasing plan shows you.
Councilman Senn: The phasing will show us that then. Okay.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. You understand that request Vernelle?
Vernelle Clayton: More or less.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. As we move forward we'll be more specific. Thank you.
Vernelle Clayton: Okay. What I think I'd like to have you do is interrupt me as we go through. I think it
will save your time this evening. I was told you wanted to be out of here at 8:30 and I'm always put in
this spot it seems. It's always my fault so I'm going to say very little and you're going to ask questions.
To my right is the overall landscaping plan which you all have. We'll leave that up there in case we need
to refer to it as we page through the various pages. The first section that I have breaks down the phases.
The blue is the first phase and the green is the second phase. I think you have that as well and it doesn't
show up very well. The two colors don't show up very well up there do they. This side is second phase
and this side is second phase. The rest is all first phase. First phase meaning something that we're going
to be doing this year. But I do need to caution you not to expect all of the wetlands to be completely
done and looking beautiful this year. It's a year long process that has to be burned off what the invasive
weeds have to be removed and that takes a little while before the planting can then occur and then of
course those plants have to grow before it looks like all the beautiful colors that you saw that we gave
you. So this time next year it won't be looking like the first year program at whatever it was in your, we
handed to you. But it will eventually. I want to ad lib just a little bit here too and that is I want to say to
you that we are now becoming a little concerned that the pond is a little smaller than we all envisioned
and probably will be a little disappointing to everybody once we're done. I don't think we'll be ... as to
it's size. I thin we all envisioned when we approved this project a bigger pond. Particularly a little more
visible pond from Highway 5. This I can tell you we're very pleased with the plan that these experts on
wetlands who are well respected in their field have come up with. I think that will look very nice but I
think that we need to, we all should maybe have been a little more aware of the impact of the wetlands at
the time we designed this pond and the time the pond was approved and looked at it a little more
critically as to whether in fact it really had to be that small. And with that little negative note.
Mayor Mancino: So how can we remedy that?
Vernelle Clayton: Well I think that we could have looked at a little more off site mitigation possibly. I
just don't think we probably spent enough time on it but it really, so I'm saying that to say that
sometimes I think we all need to remember that we have to take a good hard look at what seemed at the
time to be perfectly plausible under sensible rules of not only regarding wetlands but other policies to
make sure that it fits in our overall goals for the City. Speaking of then moving along to the overall goals
for the City. As we talk about how much money we're spending here and the Metropolitan Council in
fact is spending and the State through their funding limits, Councirs grant process, I would like to
formally request that the City take a good hard look at what's across the street. We're going to have
something looking very nice here but every year this side becomes, it looking worse and worse. And
soon we're going to have trees that once started out as little things this high that will now be you know,
10 -20 foot trees and suddenly they'll become viable. We don't won't be able to remove them. In the
meantime we've created a situation where a lot of property owners will have spent a lot of time cleaning
up the rest of downtown. I think we need to think about whether when we drive down this part of TH 5,
do we want to be seeing what's on the other side? Do we want to see a beautiful downtown on both
28
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
sides? Our answer is yes. We want to see a beautiful project here and I think your answer should be,
yes. We want to see the rest of the beautiful downtown on the other side. So I've been kind of harping
on this lately and so I thought I would bring it to your attention formally. I think that the HRA or the
EDA now and the City needs to get together a plan to consider what are the sight lines into the rest of
downtown and what should be done there. How can it match maybe...
Kate Aanenson: We are doing the pond. The City is initiating the pond. Applebee's and the third lot,
it's our commitment to buy that property. Move the wetland across. We are working on that.
Vernelle Clayton: Good.
Mayor Mancino: But you're talking about a beautification kind of plan more than anything on the north
side of Highway 5 to echo, reflect what's being done on the south side.
Vernelle Clayton: Exactly.
Mayor Mancino: That's a good reminder. Thank you.
Vernelle Clayton: Does anybody have any other questions? Any questions on the phasing. One of the
reasons we're doing only one side, by the way, is that we will be having buildings right up to the street
and these buildings will all have underground garages. And we just have to ... not only will these
sidewalks only be done on this side, they will only be about half the width so that we can do some
grading and so to allow us to do a little more efficient grading without using pilings and so forth to do the
construction.
Mayor Mancino: Kate, don't we have to use, or I'm sorry Bob. The money from Metropolitan Council
within so many years too? I mean doesn't it have to be used?
Vernelle Clayton: This year.
Mayor Mancino: This year, '97?
Vernelle Clayton: ...the work that relates to everything except the bus shelter which conceivably could
be used next year. There's a little overlap Mark when we go through this. There's some overlap in what
the monies are dedicated for the bus shelter construction in that there's some streetscape involved in that
and then there's also a lot of streetscape involved in the other one. So we need to divide that out so it all
adds up. What you see on the next phase then is a lot of what the funding, the grant can be used for and
this is a colored version of what you have in your packet. The overall plan that you ... fairly consistent
with the... They will be irrigated. There will be blacktop out in this area, this area, this area. There are
various patterns of the same type of pavers that will be used every ... and then a border separating these
and defining the geometric design of a darkerpaver. It looks real dark up there. We want a little warmer
looking than that. I'm going to put it down here... Does anybody have any questions on that segment
and how we will be, we have a couple of inserts on a couple of these areas... This will be the front of the
pond up here and this is where a sign, a large sign will be that we'll show you in a little bit that you also
have in your packet. This is the fountain looking at Highway 5... This is just a little insert showing how
the... This will be lighted. This is the insert. An insert showing a sort of hedge effect behind the bench.
Hedges are one of the things that we want to see a fair amount of in this project. It's part of the neo-
traditional design that we want.
W
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Are there going to be swans in the pond? I want those pink flamingoes you know all
around.
Vernelle Clayton: We thought you know interspersed yeah, we should do that. Our mission tonight is to
show you not only the streetscape... This is the western peripheral area down to where St. Hubert's picks
up. St. Hubert's has their own landscape plan. We've asked that we see it and that we have an
opportunity to coordinate it with our thinking of how that might be but we haven't seen it yet. There is
one change here that a couple trees popped up here. They will not be here, just so you know and the
reason is that a ... in front of St. Hubert's and right across the pond and we want a clear shot right through
here. We'll talk about this corner when we pull up a larger version of that. Again we have, as you know,
wetlands and ponds, or I mean ponds. Yeah, ponds and wetlands here. NURP ponds and wetlands.
Mayor Mancino: Vernelle, get back to philosophically what do you mean about not having trees? I
mean St. Hubert's is tall and big and you can't miss that massive, beautiful structure.
Vernelle Clayton: These trees are right in front of this.
Kate Aanenson: For sight of windows.
Bob Generous: Yeah. A view corridor down this boulevard.
Vernelle Clayton: Right here it would be a good time to refer to ... and this is the wetland here. There
will be an area between the, these are the retaining walls. The area between will be naturalized plantings.
A variety of other plantings at the top. The front of the first house to the north ... the retaining wall and
the top of the second house, and I missed those last time. I said that was the Anderson house. It's not.
That was down farther. I'm finally learning which is which. That's by the Sinnen house there will be
solid board fence.
Mayor Mancino: Now, is that something the neighbors had input into? They wanted a chain link fence
or.
Kate Aanenson: Also for safety.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. I know the Planning Commission kind of reviewed this question too. Okay.
Vernelle Clayton: Do you have any questions on that?
Mayor Mancino: Chain link fence doesn't go with the pavers.
Councilman Berquist: Vernelle just a, those folks were in while back and maybe this is something that
we talked about then ... that they were looking for sewer and water.
Vernelle Clayton: We're doing a lot to accommodate their needs for sewer and water... Also having to
move things that ... This is also something that will...
Councilman Mason: But where does that sit?
Kate Aanenson: Charles may know. Feasibility of...
30
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Charles Folch: Grandview? That actually has been tabled at this point in time, as I recall, and the
residents were going to discuss with the contractor for this development about contracting themselves
with the improvement project. Next they were going to come back to the Council, come back to staff
with whether or not they want to try a different avenue or whether they still would want to consider the
public petition. We're sort of waiting for them to come back to us.
Mayor Mancino: So you have not heard?
Councilman Senn: Well I don't know. I'm a little confused because I've heard from several of the
people down there, especially the people down on the end there where that's supposedly that access road
or whatever it is is supposed to go through. And you know one week I talk to them and they said that you
know that they were okay with the access road and this, that and the other thing. Now they say they're
being told that nobody wants these. That nobody wants the access road. Nobody wants anything because
as soon as they raise the issue over you know just not simply giving the easement with no consideration
at all, then everybody says they didn't want the access or the easement. I mean we need definition, it
seems to me we need definition along here before we can approve perimeter treatments and landscaping
as to what is and what isn't going to be the situation. The neighbors, or I mean at least the people
affected don't understand what it is or isn't at this point. At least what they're telling me.
Kate Aanenson: We're not doing anything. We're providing a second alternative for them to get out of
the subdivision.
Mayor Mancino: And we always have.
Charles Folch: Right. To my knowledge we haven't been contacted by any of the folks out there with
any questions or concerns for the last month, month and a half.
Kate Aanenson: It's just to give them the most flexibility into the subdivision.
Councilman Senn: So who have they been talking to?
Charles Folch: They haven't been talking to us.
Councilman Senn: Who went in and effectively graded on their property without their permission?
Vernelle Clayton: ...if I'm not speaking out of turn because they have said...
Councilman Senn: Okay, so they haven't been talking to us, they've been talking to you?
Vernelle Clayton: ...I think they've been talking to Dave Hempel.
Charles Folch: Not regarding any questions or concerns of issues. Not that we have heard.
Kate Aanenson: Not about an easement. We have talked about the retaining walls...
Councilman Senn: Well I guess I'll just you know plain and simply you've got people down here very
confused. They don't know what's going on as of a couple of days ago and they're real concerned with
what is and what isn't going to be down there.
31
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Then maybe we should have a neighborhood meeting.
Councilman Senn: And you know I have a real hard time just kind of broadly saying we're going to
approve all this perimeter stuff tonight with that big question mark existing down there. I mean that to
me is fairly significant. That's part of the perimeter.
Vernelle Clayton: ...That's already been approved. That's an engineering plan that's already been
approved by the City. We're not dealing with that. We're dealing with the landscaping.
Councilman Senn: Well Vernelle I'm going to disagree with you because what we do there is going to
affect the perimeter landscaping of those properties that border this project, okay.
Vernelle Clayton: ... St. Hubert's landscaping plan.
Mayor Mancino: Which we have not seen yet.
Vernelle Clayton: I don't think you've seen and I haven't.
Bob Generous: You've seen but not the revisions.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. But aren't we looking at the eastern side which abuts the neighborhood right
now Vernelle?
Vernelle Clayton: It basically goes down to that easement.
Mayor Mancino: Which goes down to the easement but doesn't encroach on the easement at all. Okay.
Councilman Senn: But in your staff report or recommendations, you're asking us to approve things like a
50 foot building and parking setback from the eastern property line adjacent to the residential property.
They assume you're asking that.for the entire, or at least the way this is worded, for the entire eastern
edge of the property. You're also asking us to you know looking at lighting for parking areas shall
minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the parking areas. I mean given a 50 foot proximity to
residential properties.
Bob Generous: This was in response to... The PUD required a 50 foot setback. Their plan showed a 30
foot...
Mayor Mancino: But won't we see a site plan or talk about that as far as, we've already seen St.
Hubert's. Won't we see every single lot as it abuts the eastern neighborhood?
Vernelle Clayton: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: And we'll be able to make comments then on the setback and on the lighting in the
parking lots so we're sure that it doesn't glare into the neighborhood. Are those your concerns Mark?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, and the landscaping treatments and the issue of this easement and whether
there's going to be an easement through there or not through there.
32
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Mayor Mancino: But what we're saying is, if We go ahead and give conceptual approval to this overall,
as we see the individual site plans and they abut the neighborhood, we can go in and make some
revisions, I'm assuming to those site plans, landscaping plans.
Vernelle Clayton: Well let me, yes. The answer is yes. This is not an overall landscaping plan. It's
guidelines. We ask for a couple things with respect to the lighting and so forth ... what guides the overall
development. But the developer is responsible for this ... as a part of the original PUD approval to see the
peripheral landscaping... tonight are conditions that have already been imposed upon us as part of the
PUD approval.
Councilman Senn: But you're landscaping the eastern edge of St. Hubert's parking lot and then their
landscaping plan is taking over and landscaping the rest of their property?
Vernelle Clayton: Right.
Councilman Senn: Okay. And the people who live adjacent to their parking area, or the people who live
adjacent to St. Hubert's parking area.
Mayor Mancino: On the north side of St. Hubert's church.
Councilman Senn: On the north side of St. Hubert's church, okay. They're in sync with what lighting's
going to be out there and what they're going to be looking at in relationship to lighting and pole lighting
and all that?
Vernelle Clayton: I can't answer that because we're not doing the lighting tonight. St. Hubert's is doing
the lighting.
Mayor Mancino: And so we're going to see that to approve it. Are we going to see that yet?
Councilman Senn: Okay, but we are approving the landscaping tonight.
Mayor Mancino: The perimeter. The perimeter.
Councilman Senn: Correct, which is the landscaping there. I mean I'm not trying to drive a point home
but come on. If we approve the landscaping tonight, the only way to solve the problems are going to be
in dealing with the lighting, not the landscaping.
Kate Aanenson: Let's go back to what the problem is. I'm not sure that we're ... that the City has any
control over whatever problems are out there. That's what, I don't.
Councilman Senn: Well evidently the neighbors think there's some Kate because they don't, I mean
from what they're saying, they're not comfortable with what's going to be there. That's what they're
calling and saying so I mean they're uncomfortable with something. The people on the south end,
they're very uncomfortable given the fact that somebody came in and started grading their property and
they didn't even know about it. Then there was going to be an easement. Now there's not going to be an
easement. The City was the one, they were told that wanted the easement. They don't want the
easement. The neighbors don't. They don't. They were willing to go along with it, well I'm just saying.
The access easement.
33
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Vernelle Clayton: ...the easements for this road...
Charles Folch: I'm guessing it's probably a temporary easement for the grading to match or whatever in
the grade. Obviously that got missed or forgotten.
Councilman Senn: Well somebody came out and told them that St. Hubert's or the City in relationship to
the St. Hubert's project for fire and other purposes wanted an access easement from their neighborhood
through there which could be some kind of a breakdown deal or lock gate or whatever type of thing, but
they wanted the easement, okay. Well then they said okay. Well we really don't want to do that but
we'll work with you on doing it. Well then they started working with them and say well that's fine.
We'll do it but we'd like a few things in return and everybody says no. The City doesn't want an
easement. St. Hubert's doesn't want an easement. Well I mean like I say, people don't know what's
going on so I'm just asking.
Charles Folch: ...unless it was a requirement by the Fire Marshal or Public Safety.
Bob Generous: Just to provide that as part of the PUD. The developer had to grant the neighborhood.
Kate Aanenson: But it worked the other way. So they could come out this way if there was a problem.
We never tried to acquire anything.
Mayor Mancino: It sounds like we need to do something... informational meeting, etc. Were they
notified of the meeting, do you know?
Bob Generous: Not specifically. Just in the advertisement.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. It sounds like we need to get together. Why don't you...
Vernelle Clayton: Does anybody have any questions then on, from here to here? That's essentially what
we're talking about tonight.
Mayor Mancino: No.
Vernelle Clayton: ...was the northwest corner, which is the AmericInn comer and I think you have this
in your packet too. We have a cross section that shows what you can or more to the point I guess, we
want to see what you can't see from Highway 5. And you can see from that, the berming is I think almost
too effective out there. I don't think you're seeing much in there at all. And the berming is down
through here. We've worked with staff, first of all to get it to meander instead of go straight. Secondly
to break up the berming just a little bit so it's not like running around along side it or running around on
the top of it but to make it interesting and in and out, a little undulation here with a berm here, here and
here. Then the other thing that has occurred is that we have not been able to change NSP's mind about
the height of trees that can be underneath their easement and their easement lies in here. This will be
more or less naturalized to blend in with the pond landscaping around here and becoming less and less
naturalized as you come up here. We were asked by staff to stagger these trees and to put the evergreen
trees in this area and that plan is all right with AmericInn and I should say that there is a representative
from AmericInn here this evening, Willie Anderson. I should also apologize to the rest of the people that
are patiently listening to me explain their plan. Tim O'Brien who has worked with us on the plans for the
bus shelter and the signs and Dean Olson who has created these landscaping plans.
34
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Vemelle ... I know the west side of AmericInn, that southwest corner area is
architecturally more plain than on the east side. Is there going to be additional landscaping in, not on the
perimeter but closer to the building also? I can't remember.
Vemelle Clayton: Yes there is.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Okay.
Vemelle Clayton: They've got maples along here and down. This ... haven't changed it to ... the base of
the building here... Does anyone have any questions on this corner? Then the bus shelter and the
warming house.
Mayor Mancino: Are there going to be any kind of open air concession stands around the pond?
Vemelle Clayton: I guess that would have to be the association that would have to decide what they
would want to do.
Kate Aanenson: Opening like kiosks or something.
Vemelle Clayton: Yeah, you know in the summertime that'd be great. This doesn't show up any better.
In fact it looks better up there. This is, I'll just pass this around. This is the blue that we have chosen for
the color for the sign and it's... Again I'm not going to say more about this unless you have some
questions about it. The blue that's coming around is also the blue for the sign. This was mentioned a
while ago that this was the particular location for the sign. This is the Village sign. The one that will be
at the pond. These are the, we have been permitted to have three monument signs so these would be the
monument signs. This is the cross section of the signage involved and this is a cross enlargement here of
the construction of this steel structure... Village on the Ponds sign and this... We wanted it to look a
little festive. This sign is more traditional and these will be the signs that will be the directional signs
around the project telling people what... This is also the logo for the project.
Mayor Mancino: How tall is that sign?
Vemelle Clayton: This is 20 feet. The top is 20 feet.
Kate Aanenson: ...under the PUD.
Mayor Mancino: But we also said we wanted to see the sign before we actually said yes to 20 feet.
Councilman Berquist: 20 feet?
Kate Aanenson: Well the 20 feet came from, that's what we allow for highway signs. That's a pylon
sign so we kind of used that as a point to begin.
Mayor Mancino: And this is going to have neon on the arch.
Vemelle Clayton: These are stripes of neon.
Date Aanenson: The Planning Commission spent a lot of time on whether or not they liked the sign.
35
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Vernelle Clayton: And we explained to them that we had had little lights around...
Mayor Mancino: And where is this going to go? Exactly where is this going to go?
Kate Aanenson: Behind the pond.
Mayor Mancino: So you're going to walk underneath it to get to the pond? Or through it.
Councilman Mason: Probably through it.
Councilman Berquist: This is a hanging pendant sort of a sign?
Mayor Mancino: So Vernelle, I'm having problems with the location. If people are going to want to
come down this wonderful main street and go to the pond and you might have some concession stands
around. People want to, there's some benches there and everything. There's going to be these golden
arches right in the middle?
Vernelle Clayton: No. This gives you some sense of the relationship of the sign. This is all walkway
around it and then through.
Mayor Mancino: And where is the sign? It spans.
Vernelle Clayton: These are the-two footings.
Mayor Mancino: Show me that again. Where ?.
Vernelle Clayton: Here and here with ... all around it. The pond is out here ... where it's always been.
Kate Aanenson: It's always been in the visual.
Mayor Mancino: Well, and we weren't particularly positive on where it was at the very beginning.
Councilman Berquist: I'm a little bit taken aback. I looked at the plans and the renderings and I see
somewhat of a kind of a neoclassical architectural theme on public areas. And then.
Vernelle Clayton: They just don't get it.
Mayor Mancino: I've been to a lot of neoclassical areas and.
Kate Aanenson: ...as far as the person putting it together and the Planning Commission saying when
you're trying to create something festive, how do you make it festive without to garish and how do you
Councilman Berquist: I'm sure it will be wonderful. It just was a surprise.
Kate Aanenson: Well we kind of acquiesced and said we're not experts on it either. They hired
professionals to do that. There was some concern about the neon and what that looks like and I'm not
sure the Planning Commission was... or how that would be.
36
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Well I don't have a problem with the neon. I'm just functionally, everything, walking
underneath it and I've been to a lot of places in the last two weeks with pavers and wonderful festive
public spaces.
Councilman Berquist: Did they have this type of sign?
Mayor Mancino: No. No. They didn't have this sign. You didn't need it.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and their sense of place.
Mayor Mancino: No, I understand the Highway 5 frontage. I'm just.
Vernelle Clayton: A proposal that had an arch with a sign on it spanning these two buildings. We all
kind of said no. Let's go back to where we had it out front here and keep the arches reoccur from time to
time throughout the project and they seem to be working well here. Some of the architectural elements
here, and we've been talking about it so long we've gotten used to it I guess.
Councilman Berquist: As I suppose I will.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, I'm just not at all.
Vemelle Clayton: ...articulately than I can. I think the idea of walking around...
Councilman Mason: ...but there's this anti immediately. I mean let's just.
Mayor Mancino: Hey.
Councilman Mason: Well.
Mayor Mancino: Well. Okay, go ahead... Okay, well the sign's going to take me a while but.
Kate Aanenson: Part of the problem that the Planning Commission had too is they didn't go through the
evolution to get sold on that. All we're being told on this one. We didn't get to the say the other ones
now to say okay, we've arrived at that same point.
Mayor Mancino: But we saw the original.
Kate Aanenson: This was the arch though. The original but we never got to say.
Mayor Mancino: But that still doesn't mean it's good.
Kate Aanenson: Well I'm saying I agree with you. The Planning Commission said the same thing. How
do we, how can we be sold on this when you're giving us one option. No other options to choose from.
...they went through that process.
Mayor Mancino: Maybe I'll need to be educated on those different options then to see. ...no, I
understand that as a layout artist. I mean I can understand going through the options but somebody
would have to yeah, work me through it. How you got here. Go ahead.
37
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Tim O'Brien: ...but it was an evolutionary design that tried to tie in some visual elements. A little bit of
elements in the arch design as well as the festive while trying to keep it transparent and eye catching. We
did look at a number of alternatives...
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Vernelle Clayton: Any other questions on any of this?
Mayor Mancino: Any questions from Council members? Okay.
Vernelle Clayton: Mark, I didn't really talk as I went through, as you asked, of which things are a part
of the grant. I started out saying that some of this was and what I should have said when we got to the
wetlands is a lot of that is also. As is this walkway through here. This is a sort of boardwalk. The trail
system is, there will be some benches. Some of the benches, right.
Bob Generous: Street lights.
Vernelle Clayton: Up to a certain maximum number and then we'd pay, the project pays.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to address
the Council on this issue? Comments from Council members. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: I guess I'm going to say the only thing I'm really uncomfortable with right now is the
east side. And maybe part of the problem there is the fact that we've got kind of two different people
handling the same thing. I don't know but I mean I think we need to get a handle on that and we need to
get a handle on that quickly. Because I think it's going to be real hard down the road to, how do I say,
unmarry the elements as we go between the lighting and the parking and the landscaping and everything
else, and the accesses and through there to the neighborhood.
Mayor Mancino: And your solution?
Councilman Senn: Well I guess I'm not sure what the solution is. I guess I'm a little disappointed in
what's happened so far so I think maybe the way to fix that is I'll get back to the people out there and I'll
have them contact Charles and Charles you can be the point man, how's that? So I mean at least
somebody with the City is being a point main on what's happening with those issues, unless it should be
Kate or whatever but it doesn't sound like we're being, it doesn't sound like we're managing that portion
of the project right now and it seems to me we should be. Somewhat.
Mayor Mancino: Maybe there can be some discussion at the staff meeting tomorrow deciding on who
should decide and maybe get the neighborhood together.
Charles Folch: The issue with the neighborhood, just for my clarification is related to?
Councilman Senn: Well you have different issues with different neighbors out there but I mean overall
there's just neighborhood issues like the roads going through. How are they going to go through. If
there's going to be access. Accesses or easements. What are they going to be. How are they going to be
configured. You know, who's easements are they going to be. Issues you know over effectively then
depending on what happens with all that, depending on what's going to happen with the landscaping. I
mean the one neighbor has an issue with just replacement at this point because they've lost a lot of
38
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
mature vegetation simply by somebody grading in areas that wasn't supposed to be graded that's on their
property. You know issues like that.
Charles Folch: That obviously was a mistake ... I mean all of these are things that you've already
approved and we can certainly convey that information again if it wasn't conveyed originally but I mean
it's all, you've approved the plan that everything's in place in terms of utilities and road systems and
easements that are associated with the plat and everything so we can certainly pass the information along
to whomever has a question or would like it. That's not a problem at all.
Councilman Senn: No, but I think.
Charles Folch: The issues are outstanding, they're defined. Maybe they just.
Kate Aanenson: The only thing that's still outstanding that was given back to them to try to find an
alternative...
Charles Folch: Right, if they're interested in a public improvement project, right. The ball is in their
court as to whether they want to do it themselves or.
Mayor Mancino: They need to be more proactive in giving information.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I think they just need the information on that as well as, I mean one of the
issues in relationship to that, if I understood it was possibly bringing the sewer through this access
easement. You know and then all of a sudden the access easement wasn't going to be an easement or an
access easement anymore so I don't know. Somebody's got to get their hands on that or the neighbors
are going to, I think at some point erupt or whatever but I mean they seem to be rather concerned at this
point. I can give you the names of the people who have called and stuff. That's not a problem and you
can get back to them. You know other than that, basically it seems to me what we're dealing with is
more I'm going to say concept and overview of kind of where we're at I think. There's some detail types
of concern. You know whether... again, I understand that. We are approving that. I don't know. As
significant as this stuff is, I guess I can't say right now whether I'm comfortable with doing all that or
not. Just effectively starting to see it and understand it tonight.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason.
Councilman Mason: Clearly there are issues that still need to be addressed but I certainly think that
things are on the right track.
Mayor Mancino: And what things do you think need to be addressed?
Councilman Mason: Well I'm a little confused with what all the confusion is in this one corner, quite
honestly. I don't get it. I mean they're not talking to the City. They're not asking questions apparently.
I clearly remember that discussion about if they don't want to be part of the feasibility project, and I saw
them nodding heads of that group. They were going to get together and discuss some things and there's
been nothing. Well, you know we had the discussion. Councilman Engel and I are having kind of this
ongoing discussion about rights of society and rights of individuals and you know I think along with
individual rights does come some individual responsibility so I mean I'm not, if there are issues out there,
certainly we need to address them but I think this plan, I think we're headed in the right direction. I like
what I'm seeing so far.
39
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Good. Councilman Engel,
Councilman Engel: Yeah, Mike and I like to exercise our minds between breaks here. Test each other.
Mayor Mancino: Well that's kind of scary to the rest of us.
Councilman Engel: ...we're both wrong.
Councilman Mason: Or we're both right.
Councilman Engel: We're both right.
Mayor Mancino: The rest of us will tell you're both wrong.
Councilman Engel: Well, and I mean with issues like this and the design and how we're going to
decorate using neon and what not.
Mayor Mancino: Hold on.
Councilman Engel: So I mean as I'm constantly reminded by my wife, I don't even have good enough
taste to decorate my own home, let alone set the standards for.
Mayor Mancino: It's a good thing we have some visual people on this Council.
Councilman Engel: We'll leave that to the professionals in the group like Vernelle and if it's wrong,
we'll replace it. That's the way I do it to my house.
Mayor Mancino: We'll never live together.
Councilman Berquist: Well, I'm simply going to repeat some of what Mark says. I think I'm concerned
the people that live on Grandview are going to be affected the greatest by this project and if I were living
there or if I was on Frontier Trail and not involved in city business and I had something like this coming
before me, I really wouldn't know which direction to begin to go in to try to get the questions that I had
answered. And I know how fast time goes and how fast the days go by and I truly do think that a contact
by someone at the department head level, whether it be Charles or Kate or Dave Hempel or someone can
attempt to bring them together. Maybe establish a threesome. Three of the neighbors that explain to the
rest of them what's going on and what they can and they cannot do. What's been approved and what
hasn't been approved. What they may be able to affect. What they may not be able to affect. It would
certainly be in their and the City's best interest. I mean we approve projects all the time and try as we
might, we quite often forget the people that are fundamentally affected by those projects and these folks
are fundamentally affected.
Mayor Mancino: Every day. 12 hours a day.
Councilman Berquist: So I'd like to see them apprised.
Mayor Mancino: Any other comments on what you saw landscaped, etc.?
40
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Councilman Berquist: With your expertise and with... expertise and Vernelle's expertise and her team's
expertise, there is little that I could say that would be of any value.
Mayor Mancino: Very diplomatic, okay. My few comments, and I said this at the beginning. I just saw
the plans for a little bit this afternoon, for half an hour and that's because I've been on vacation so I
would like some time to review them. I do have very big concerns. No question about the sign. Mostly
because I think that everything about Villages on the Ponds conceptually is festive. The pavers.
Everything about it. The buildings will be. The architecture. The pond. Everything about it has a
festive. I think one can overboard with being festive and I'm concerned about the sign being that way so
I would like to have a condition that I can review these. Have a few days just to review them and add
some suggestions with staff and with the applicant on this. And I also agree with the neighborhood to the
east and I will certainly, as Mayor of this city be communicator with the neighborhood and be a co -point
person with a couple department heads to meet with the neighborhood because all they want to know is
what's going on and the facts and have some input. With that may I have a motion.
Councilman Mason: Quick question first. I need to get this straight here. We approve this, if the vote
goes for approval. You get your time to go over it. I'm having a little trouble understanding what
changes you're going to be making after we've approved that.
Mayor Mancino: I'm sure I won't be making any big changes. I'll just be adding my little things to it.
Councilman Engel: Total veto power.
Mayor Mancino: You know I'm talking about you guys can we change this tree or put a tree here or.
Councilman Mason: Well that's fine but I think we need, I mean not that I think you're going to abuse
your role as Mayor or anything like that. Planner maybe but certainly, but I think we need to be careful
how we.
Mayor Mancino: Would you rather table this?
Councilman Mason: Well no. I have no need to table it tonight. I'm all set to vote for approval and
there are minor suggestions that are made, I think that's fine but I think we need to be a little careful.
Mayor Mancino: If there are any major suggestions we'll bring those back to the Council. Does that feel
comfortable?
Kate Aanenson: How about as part of the interest of check and balances that if we feel there's
significant, we'll bring it back ... at that time.
Councilman Mason: That's fine. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: You're welcome. Boy they keep me on a tight leash here, geez.
Councilman Mason: Well somebody's got to.
Mayor Mancino: With that may I have a motion please.
41
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Councilman Mason: I'll move approval of the proposed wetland restoration and streetscape, Village on
the Ponds with the caveat that Mayor, in her time and wisdom in the next few days will make only minor
suggestions and that will be the end of it.
Mayor Mancino: May I have a second please?
Councilman Berquist: Second with a modification. The only modification I would make is that I'd like
it included in the motion that contact with the neighborhood be initiated and followed up on.
Councilman Mason: I have no trouble with that.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Then may I have a second to that amendment.
Councilman Engel: Second that amendment.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Can we vote on the whole motion? No, we have to vote on the amendment.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Engel seconded an amendment to the motion to include
that contact with the neighborhood on Grandview Road be initiated and followed up on. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the Villages on the Ponds
Hardscape, Landscape, Buffer Yard, and Wetland Enhancement/Mitigation Plan prepared by
BRW, Inc., dated May 9, 1997, subject to the following conditions:
1. The overstory tree proposed at the driveway entrance across Lake Drive from Grandview Road
shall be relocated adjacent to Grandview Road.
2. The plan should note that there is a 50 foot building and parking setback from the eastern property
line adjacent to the residential properties.
3. The most southerly three flowering crabs west of AmericInn shall be replaced with Scotch Pine.
4. The flowering crabs west of AmericInn shall be staggered rather than being paired.
5. The City and developer shall acknowledge in promotional materials, press releases, reports and
publications relating to the project that this project is funded in part with a grant from the
Metropolitan Council through the Livable Communities Demonstration Account of the
Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund.
6. Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the parking area.
Rather, emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in close proximity to
buildings.
7. All site plans shall include the locations of utility boxes together with a landscaping plan providing
screening from primary views. Landscaping materials used for such screening shall be species
which can be pruned to maintain appropriate height.
El $Q
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
8. The City shall initiate contact with the neighborhood to the east regarding questions about the
project.
9. Mayor Mancino shall be given an opportunity to review the plan and provide input. If there are
any major changes, the item will be brought back in front of the City Council for review.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
B. LETTER REGARDING ISTEA FUNDING FOR HIGHWAY 212, CITY MANAGER.
Don Ashworth: Hopefully the letter is self explanatory and represents the action that Council directed
staff to take.
Mayor Mancino: Any comments from Council members?
Councilman Senn: The letter seemed very good. I'd just like to see it directed beyond just the Federal
legislators. I'd like to see it directed to the people involved in the review and the decision process from
the Department of Transportation and I'm assuming in the State because they pass the recommendations
on and I think you know also the Federal Department and that sort of thing so they know our position.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other suggestions? Move and approve. Do we need to approve this?
Don Ashworth: I don't think so. I mean it was kind of a common direction from City Council so.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you very much. Let's go back to the Consent Agenda items.
Don Ashworth: Can I take that back because in here we clearly are saying TH 101 is a priority over 212,
in case anybody came back and said the City Council actually, is this from the City Council?
Councilman Mason: With that I'll move approval of the letter regarding ISTEA funding for Highway
212.
Mayor Mancino: Second please.
Councilman Senn: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded that the City Council approve a letter
addressed to the federal and state legislators regarding ISTEA funding for Highway 212. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA CON'T.
D. APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL FUND CLOSINGS & TRANSFERS.
Don Ashworth: This item was tabled at a previous City Council meeting. A couple of items that come
out really was the funding associated with Chanhassen Estates. We did some background checks as to
how the deficit in that fund actually occurred. The bottom line was really the same. How we got there
43
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
was a little bit different and I tried to take and show what those dollars were spent for and how that
deficit existed. The second one, that was really it.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Questions from Council members. Any Council member have a question on
these transfers? Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: This is not my area of expertise obviously and I was looking at these numbers
trying to make sense of them. To me they didn't all add up. And they're all negative numbers. They're
all expenditures that are over and above. Taking $94,000.00 out of the City Hall expansion account.
Finishing off the Chan Estates sewer and water. $170,000.00 comes out of sewer and water expansion
fund. $40,000,00 comes out storm water expansion. The charging of the overage of $110,000.00 that
happened on the Nez Perce extension which closed the Beddor deal. City Hall expansion fund. The
reason I, the biggest reason I pulled it though was just because the numbers didn't seem to add up. I
really wanted a little bit of a...
Don Ashworth: If I may just real quickly. She started out, when looking at that Pam and I going through
the individual funds, we looked at it and this particular fund had a deficit of $305,000.00. So we went
back and we tried to figure out really what was occurring in here and the first time around we had
believed that this $137,000.00, which was Charles' estimate is what should have been used for sewer and
water. When you asked us to recheck, we found in the bonding resolution.
Mayor Mancino: We had under bonded.
Don Ashworth: Well no, that we had planned at the time that we sold bonds for Chan Estates, the
$170,000.00, of those project costs were to be paid from sewer and water expansion. Okay.
Mayor Mancino: So they've always been planned to come from there?
Don Ashworth: It always had been planned for that. So you take the 170 away from the 305. So if the
day that we got those proceeds we would have put 170 over there, we instead now would have ended up
with a deficit of $135,000.00. Now, how did we get the 130? What composed the $135,000.00? Well.
Councilman Berquist: Well wait a minute. Just curiously. So you transferred $170,000.00 from the
Chan Estates project to the sewer and water expansion. Last year's fund transfers, you did not do the
$137,000.00?
Don Ashworth: No. I mean you had pulled this item and had us go back and check and see where all
these things came from. That's when we went back and checked. Found that the correct number from
sewer and water expansion to pay for sewer and water improvements in Chan Estates should have been
$170,000.00.
Okay. So now that leaves us $135,000.00 to account for. This makes the assumption that the project
itself was $720,000.00 and spent $305,000.00 more than the $720 so now you're trying to account for
what? Why did that occur? Okay, so now we're down to 135. Halfway through the project, partial way
through the project it was determined that we should take and do a storm water management project and
the City Council authorized $45,000.00 to be paid from storm water management account to carry out the
construction of this pond. Subtract away that $45,000.00 and we're now down to $90,000.00 to account
for. Of the $90,000.00, $60,000.00 to $70,000.00 of that is directly related to engineering fees.
44
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Councilman Berquist: Well excuse me for a moment. Storm water expansion. We transfer $40,692.00
in there.
Don Ashworth: $40,692.00, correct.
Councilman Berquist: And yet you're using the number 45.
Don Ashworth: I sure am, aren't I. I think I just rounded it. But Charles, Pam, I mean the $40,692.
Charles Folch: It was an exact number. I can't recall exactly what, it was 40 something.
Don Ashworth: So we kept project costs associated with the construction of that pond and probably the
$40,692.00 is from those records versus my 45.
Charles Folch: It was 40 something. I can't remember exactly. I can check for sure.
Don Ashworth: Then 60- 70,000 was again associated with engineering costs. About halfway through
the thing Council made a decision at the very last minute to basically throw away the plans and
specifications and all the rest of the stuff that had gone along with actually constructing the west half of
Chan Estates neighborhood. And the last 20,000 is just because we didn't get money in here on time.
We were in a deficit financing for basically the last 2 -3 years.
Councilman Berquist: So those two numbers make up the 94?
Don Ashworth: Right.
Councilman Berquist: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions from Council members? Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Well let's see. Yeah, Steve hit most of them. I'm just trying to. Okay, and the 109
out of the City Hall expansion fund and Nez Perce extension. Is effectively then to pay those legal costs?
Is that what that is?
Don Ashworth: Legal costs and expert testimony so you had Bill Engelhardt did a lot of the design work
associated with the roadway. There was a lot of contention as to the number of trees that were being
taken out of there. We paid more than attorney fees out of that $40,692.00. Oh, I'm sorry. Wait a
minute.
Mayor Mancino: 109.
Don Ashworth: $109,811.00.
Councilman Senn: Okay, and so the Nez Perce and the Chanhassen Estates money then coming out of
the City Hall expansion, I mean that's out of that original. I mean that's not the project fund that we've
been dealing with. That's out of the original funds where you were setting aside the money.
45
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Don Ashworth: That was the total project. The project at one point in time had been considered as $2.2
million. We spent $1.2, which is what you've authorized which means we've got a balance in there of
about a million dollars.
Councilman Senn: Let's see, Nez Perce. Okay, and then the Highway 5 corridor and the Highway 101
realignments were simply, those were just transfers that were supposed to take place anyway. They just
haven't occurred yet, correct?
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: May I have a motion please.
Councilman Berquist: Wait a minute. One more question. Now from a bookkeeping point of view,
sorry but I want...
Mayor Mancino: That's fine.
Councilman Berquist: From a bookkeeping point of view and we're looking at the City Hall expansion
fund, when these two line items show up, will they be defined?
Don Ashworth: Where you see a definition of them will be in next year's audit review. These cannot get
in for this year's audit. But what you will see this next year is you will see accounts as City Hall
expansion, balance forward $2.3 million. Expanded project, well that would have been. This year you
will see the $1.2 million and you'll see a fund balance there of about, I think $900,000.00. Next year you
would see that $980 coming forward and then you'd probably see down below transfers in and out and
along with that would be the total of these two numbers, assuming that you don't do any other form of
enter.
Mayor Mancino: Have we transferred any other money out of that fund?
Don Ashworth: No, but I think it was fairly clear from one of the Council meetings that Councilmember
Senn would like to, and I think it was in the form of a motion. I don't remember. Wanted to see the
excess dollars from City Hall expansion moved up, set, put over into some other type of a fund with a
different name. Don't call it public works expansion. Don't call it fire station. Some capital account
and then don't spend any money out of it.
Mayor Mancino: I think you have the words verbatim.
Don Ashworth: And I think I cautioned Council that I would need, I can go up to what the City
Council's authorized which is the $1,230,000.00, which then right now has a balance of about
$50,000.00. So I do all those things, that account would still have a balance of about $50,000.00 and as
soon as we are totally complete with everything associated with City Hall, our intent is to come back and
say okay. You want us to now move that remaining balance over to this other account.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Can we have a motion then?
Councilman Mason: Move approval of item 1(d).
Mayor Mancino: Second please.
46
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Councilman Berquist: Second.
Resolution #97 -47: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the
Additional Fund Closings & Transfers. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed
and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
G. LETTER IN SUPPORT OF HENNEPIN COUNTY APPLICATION FOR ISTEA FUNDING
FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAY 101 FROM HIGHWAY 5 TO
CROSSTOWN HIGHWAY 62.
Mayor Mancino: Questions from Council members on the letter. Councilman Senn. Is that something
that you pulled?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I pulled that. What, let's see here. What year's ISTEA are we talking about
now? 2001 or what?
Mayor Mancino: I thought it was 2000.
Charles Folch: I believe the deadline is July 30`''. Either '99 or 2000. The fiscal years go up that year...
with actual funding of July of '98. So it's either '99 or 2000. I can't.
Mayor Mancino: Do you have any concerns with the content of the letter?
Councilman Senn: My basic problem with the letter is the whole thing at this point lacks definition, at
least in my mind as a Council person. You know we talk about that there's an application going in for,
but my question is for what? I mean I've seen absolutely no plans. No concept. No nothing on TH 101
for a lot of you know kind of little discussions around the edges but I mean we've seen nothing. We talk
about in the letter here we talk about having a neighborhood meeting. Well before we go to a
neighborhood meeting I guess as a Council person I'd at least like to see what the concepts or the plans
are that they're going to show, you know at a neighborhood meeting are. You know so I'd like them to
come and show us first and I guess I'd like to have a discussion on our end before we go have a
discussion effectively out with other people or neighborhood groups or make an application, I mean you
know you're kind of saying let's buy out from the letter to the application but the problem is is I can't tell
you what the application's for.
Don Ashworth: I don't see a problem with that. In fact I can amend the letter, I think that Eden Prairie
would appreciate their ... I don't think the group would have any problem doing that. I could amend my
letter and say exactly that. I'll first check with Carl and make sure.
Councilman Senn: Has Eden Prairie seen plans? Oh okay.
Don Ashworth: There is no such thing.
Mayor Mancino: There is not a plan.
Councilman Senn: Well I mean there's no, but if there's an application going in, there has to be some
kind of a concept plan.
EVl
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Don Ashworth: The reason I threw that in there is, in the application section, my concern was that I
wanted to make sure that everyone knew that nobody has approved that particular section. So I mean
they're going to make the application. You've got this typical section in there and I want ... to allow them
to make the application. And after using the Eden Prairie City Council ... when you get to the point where
you say absolutely not.
Charles Folch: Right. Right around October.
Mayor Mancino: Because it has to be in by June P. I mean.
Charles Folch: July 30"'..
Mayor Mancino: July W'. The application has to be.
Don Ashworth: ...determination we have up through October to say we're withdrawing our application.
We're withdrawing our support. We withdraw our support, we kill the project. All four entities have to
agree.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Well I think again, if you alter that so effectively we can see it first, and you
know we effectively go out to the neighborhoods afterwards, I think that would make some sense and the
fact that should we, how would I say it. If that could be enjoyed with the other people that have to
approve the same concept, I think that would be good. Because I think we need to reach some meetings
of the minds on that before we go out and talk to neighborhood groups. Otherwise we're going to have
different neighborhood groups getting different, how would you say it, different messages.
Don Ashworth: I went to ask Charles a question... pose my question publicly and that is, Charles, it was
my belief actually writing that letter, even though knowing that the actual... 1999 or 2000, that our ability
to get early funding for that back through the County... If we advance funded it for construction 1998...
we would be assured that we would get our money back.
Charles Folch: I believe that is correct. I believe there is a provision for advance funding as long as
there's certain criteria that are met. I believe the Fed's will allow that but I can certainly check with Jim
to at least get an idea of the time line; whether it was 1999 or 2000.
Don Ashworth: During all the discussions... believe that ... and construction in 1998. It would not be
severely impacted. Maybe we have to move off some but we don't have to wait until the year 2000... I
was trying to do was to keep this thing on an early...
Councilman Senn: No, that's fine. I think let's get together with Grube and get through that so I mean
he understands our messages and we understand his so. I just think that's important before we're
endorsing an application.
Charles Folch: Right. That's why the letter is written to kind of keep it open ended from that standpoint.
Councilman Senn: All right.
Mayor Mancino: Can I have a motion then, unless there are other Council members. Councilman Senn,
do you want to make the motion?
48
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Councilman Senn: I'll move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #97 -48: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the letter in
support of Hennepin County Application for ISTEA funding for the Reconstruction of Highway
101 from Highway 5 to Crosstown Highway 62. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
H. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO.2 TO WELL NO. 7, PROJECT 94 -3.
Councilman Berquist: I pulled it and here's why. There's no way I can vote for it. I mean I don't know
how long this well, how long has this well been in operation?
Charles Folch: Well, we've had it on line for probably 2 %, almost 3 months now.
Councilman Berquist: And now we're going, I mean this change order. Has the work been completed?
Charles Folch: No.
Councilman Berquist: Administrative only. 3 months later we're going in and making some corrections.
We have electrical devices that are in the building that are protected by many different controls. We
have a concrete block building with a concrete floor, concrete walls and a concrete roof that we
previously approved spending $2,500.00 to sprinkle. I can't approve another $2,600.00 on it. I mean I
pulled it because I don't agree with it. It's codes run wild and it's ridiculous.
Mayor Mancino: Any other concerns from Council members? Any questions? Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Charles, where's the funding coming from for the change order?
Charles Folch: I believe, in review of the numbers, we still will be under what we had estimated from a
project standpoint. From bonding we still will be within our regional funding amount for the project.
Councilman Senn: Okay, because I mean it didn't show that one way or the other. But we're still within,
we're still under budget on the change order?
Charles Folch: The only change, the project is 95% complete. 98% complete and this is the only change
order I've got on the project. On a $700,000.00 project you've got $2,000.00 change order so we're well
within the contingency we had figured.
Councilman Senn: Okay. What's our long term liability as a result of this? I mean it's one thing to say
we're going to install this equipment. Now what's it going to cost us per month to monitor it?
Charles Folch: Probably you've got some you know, minimal probably electrical costs in terms of the
computer time monitoring things like that but that's probably pretty minimal in the big scheme of things.
Councilman Senn: So we're going to monitor it ourselves effectively then?
Charles Folch: This system will be hooked up to our overall city SCADA, the telemetry system. So
basically the same controller that goes and checks the status of all our lift stations and all our wells and
49
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
such will also be making a check periodically, about every 10 minutes on the status of this supervisory
control valve to make sure, so that if it's activated, the sprinkler heads, if the temperature in the roof, the
average is a certain temperature and the sprinkler heads go off, then it will send a signal, an alarm signal
basically through the SCADA system to page one of the utility operators saying that the sprinkling
system has gone off.
Mayor Mancino: So why would we need an external building alarm system also? To wake up the
neighbors?
Charles Folch: That was an issue that was greatly debated.
Mayor Mancino: And am I a neighbor? I don't want it.
Councilman Senn: Can we undo the debate and just get rid of it?
Charles Folch: That's your decision. And I mean.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Delete the external building alarm system. I mean seriously. Why would we
need it?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, that's why I asked. I'm kind of wondering. It sounds like you were hooking
up to some kind of an alarm service.
Charles Folch: That was a concern of ours and I guess the compromise was that if we start getting false
alarms in that external alarm system, that it would probably be disconnected real quickly. We don't want
to bother the residents up there. But like I said.
Councilman Berquist: Well if you have a fire, the place will burn down. They've got to know about it.
Councilman Senn: So they can run over with their bucket right?
Mayor Mancino: Okay, may I have a motion on this please and a second.
Councilman Senn: How about move approval of the change order with the condition that the outside
alarm system be deleted.
Mayor Mancino: Second please.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #97 -49: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Change
Order No. 2 to Well No. 7, Project 94 -3 with the condition that the outside alarm system be deleted.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Berquist who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of
4to1.
Mayor Mancino: We have nothing else on the agenda tonight...
Councilman Senn: We've got the Admin Section.
50
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION DISCUSSION.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions from the Admin Section?
Councilman Senn: A few. Charles. On the Sheriff's Office thing with the weight patrol seems to be
working out real well. What's the, how would I say it. What's the probability that we'll collect what
percentage of those fines? I assume history has told us something.
Charles Folch: Yeah, I could go back and pull up like last year's. What we had assigned out in fines
and actually, what were actually levied by the judges. I'll find that information for you. It will give us a
rough representation of what we could probably expect for this year again.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so the $15,000 that we've got in revenue I mean is a great offset to the
$3,800.00 in staff time.
Charles Folch: Actually it's higher than that, isn't it? When you add the two up.
Councilman Senn: Well I was just dealing with the City portion because I assumed we didn't share in
the County portion. Or do we?
Charles Folch: Right. Okay, right.
Councilman Senn: Or do we share in the County portion?
Charles Folch: Yeah we do.
Councilman Senn: I suppose because we brought the equipment or whatever.
Charles Folch: Actually no.. These are fines levied so what they're showing is the breakdown in the
amount of tickets and fines levied with the County program which is standard every year and then the
additional amount which is the Chanhassen that we've hired above and beyond the basic hours that they
would allot to us. We've been allotted a certain amount of hours to us each year on a normal basis and
then we've hired the $3,800.00 that we spent was above and beyond that for additional patrol.
Additional enforcement. So actually the two, the $27,000.00 is what's been levied for Chanhassen. In
Chanhassen.
Councilman Senn: In fines.
Charles Folch: Right.
Councilman Senn: Okay. But the next time you put a report together, could you put it together with all
of the expenses against it though. I mean including also you know some kind of, on the equipment, that
sort of thing. I mean we want the, remember when we approved the equipment you were going to kind of
bring back to us some kind of an ongoing thing showing how the equipment was going to pay for itself.
Now I assume that equipment has a useful life and has to be replaced at a certain point and that sort of
thing so could you include that in there?
Charles Folch: Sure. Yeah we paid for that last year alone. That was like a $5,000.00 investment that.
51
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Councilman Senn: Yeah. No, I remember it was pretty good but I mean that would kind of help put it in
perspective.
Charles Folch: Sure. Yeah, I wasn't aware that this was going in the admin section. I think this came
from the Public Safety Director once he had the information here so, we'll certainly add to it to be able to
give you an idea of what we can expect to receive in revenue based on judgments.
Councilman Senn: Oops, Don left. I saw the letter in here on Kerry which was kind of nice. That she
passed her exam but now does that mean we lose her?
Mayor Mancino: No, she just. Well, that isn't how I read it but I don't know that.
Councilman Berquist: She's marketable.
Councilman Senn: Well but I mean we don't have a position as a police. I mean I assume she doesn't
want to be a community service officer anymore, right? I mean once she's licensed.
Mayor Mancino: I mean I can't answer that.
Councilman Senn: I was just curious if that's what it meant, I don't know. In our schedule on
scheduling there for July 7" we had something for Peter Olin and staff to give us a presentation. What's
that on?
Mayor Mancino: On what the Arboretum is doing. On next Monday at our work session, we'll have the
rest of July filled. in and August on some of the strategic areas that we're going to start talking about. So
that hasn't been ... those will be filled in.
Councilman Senn: Okay. And then let's see here. On the Todd Christopherson memorandum, again
Don's not here but I, the memorandum seems to be asking us to approve a change order. I mean is that
going to come in separately? I assume the change order isn't being requested to be approved as a part of
the administrative packet.
Councilman Berquist: I figured that was a contingency expense. I didn't ask him about it. I asked him
about a couple of the subs that looked like they were getting replaced. He wasn't really...
Mayor Mancino: He's coming in now. Don, Councilman Senn asked a question...
Councilman Senn: Two things Don, just real quick. Terry's thing. It was great she passed and she's a
licensed, or going to be a licensed peace officer. Now does that mean we lose her? I was just curious
how that works.
Don Ashworth: Well she has that much more of an opportunity to be employed by other departments.
Councilman Senn: Because now she can be, rather than a community service officer she can be a full
police officer or whatever.
Don Ashworth: Sure. She can take and move from $8.00 or $9.00 an hour up to $35,000.00. An hour.
52
City Council Meeting - June 23, 1997
Councilman Senn: The last thing from Todd Christopherson, he used a memo or whatever. He's asking
for a change order for changes as it relates to the budget and stuff. I assume that's, I mean is that
something that's coming in to us as a separate action or what?
Don Ashworth: No. As far as I was concerned, that was something that was needed to be done. I
haven't signed anything but I guess I was intending once he sends over the amendment, I was just going
to sign it. I can't remember the details.
Mayor Mancino: Well when it's sod, an extra, what is it? $30,000.00 worth of sod or.
Don Ashworth: I think they miscalculated the square footage associated with that. That's the way I read
it.
Mayor Mancino: It was a lot of sod.
Councilman Senn: I don't know, there was $3,800.00 in sod. $1,600.00 for something else and 205 on
the retaining wall. But the retaining wall I thought had already come in.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, the retaining wall we had already said yes to.
Councilman Berquist: And we budgeted for 15 as I recall.
Don Ashworth: I had put it in at 15. In fact the number we were looking back at that time I think was
closer to 12.5 but I think now we've lost the first bidder on that and so Todd's going back to the second
and third and so maybe my number isn't going to be all that bad. I'd still like to do it for.
Councilman Berquist: Well I was hoping that was the 15 for the retaining wall budget. 12.5 plus sod...
Don Ashworth: Well hopefully we'll achieve that too.
Mayor Mancino: And we're still within budget.
Councilman Senn: Okey doke.
Mayor Mancino: Feel comfortable with that Councilman Senn?
Councilman Senn: No, but it's immaterial. We're not being asked to approve it so.
Mayor Mancino: That's it. See you next Monday night.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was
adjourned at 9:48 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
53
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 4, 1997
Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Allyson Brooks, Alison Blackowiak, Craig Peterson, Kevin Joyce,
Bob Skubic and Ladd Conrad
MEMBERS ABSENT: LuAnn Sidney
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; and Bob Generous, Senior Planner
PUBLIC HEARING:
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW
DOCUMENTS (AUAR) FOR STEINER DEVELOPMENT, INC. PROPOSED
GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED SOUTH
OF HIGHWAY 5, EAST OF HIGHWAY 41 AND NORTH OF WEST 82 STREET.
THE MIX OF OFFICE, INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND PARK AND OPEN
SPACE USES ON APPROXIMATELY 150 ACRES.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
(There were some audio problems at the beginning of the meeting. Taping of the discussion
began at this point.)
Brooks: There's not a lot there. It doesn't look like it's a fairly major site but because it wasn't
fully evaluated it probably should be preserved and it, I was just saying to Kate, small sites like
this too are really nice to keep because if you want the school system to go out and do small
summer digs or excavations, it's not like a big site that's so significant that we want to keep it in
perpetuity, yet it makes a really nice school project for kids to get out and dig. And if it's going
to be preserved anyway on a part that's not going to be developed, let the children get something
out of it. It's a way to teach Chanhassen great history. The only thing about history, I mean we
don't really teach a lot of pre - history so that's what I'd like to see the site used for eventually.
Peterson: Okay, good. Other questions of staff?
Skubic: Yes. The parcel in the southeast section of 13 acres, the City is purchasing those.
How's that proceeding? What's the likelihood that the City will purchase those? Is that
dependent upon the referendum by any chance?
Generous: No. It looks like it's moving forward... preliminary development plan.
Skubic: You feel that's likely that will happen?
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997
Aanenson: There seems to be concurrence on the terms.
Brooks: Did the traffic study, was the traffic study altered at all by SRF? I believe when we
were first talking about the traffic study they were talking about six lanes and we had discussed
the fact that six lanes wasn't happening on TH 5 and we talked about having them change that in
the traffic study. Was that done or did they keep that in?
Generous: Well it hasn't been modified because that was, it was just a recommended
improvement. It's actually the mitigation plan, and that's a lot beyond our control. We have
done one of the mitigations...
Brooks: I guess I am concerned, and I've discussed this before about the impact of, what is it,
3113, how many trips? 31,000 trips a day and you know we talk about having them possibly or
probably when the traffic at non -peak hours but I'll tell you, last Friday I tried to get off of
Audubon Road onto TH 5 in the middle of the afternoon and I was having a hard time doing that
so I presume all the traffic was going to try to make it 494 to get out to the United States
somewhere. I don't know if you have any response to what kind of impacts or how you're
thinking of managing that.
Generous: We're promoting and encouraging that, providing alternate routes. MnDOT and
Carver County, Chaska and...
Aanenson: And we're still hoping to work with TH 41 being upgraded too. Partnership.
Brooks: You mean by adding lanes or just.
Aanenson: Widening it.
Brooks: Widening it, yeah.
Aanenson: The ultimate design. Having it lowered and widened.
Peterson: Other questions?
Conrad: Yes Mr. Chairman, real briefly. Tell me ... the site at...
Generous: You'll come off 82 Street will be the first access.
Conrad: And is that, okay. And nothing off of TH 5?
Generous: Nothing off of TH 5. The access to TH 5 would be ... once TH 5 is upgraded. Then it
becomes a question of
Conrad: And there won't be a right turn, right out of?
2
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997
Generous: No, it will be a full median opening.
Aanenson: At TH 5.
Generous: At TH 5.
Conrad: A median.
Aanenson: With a signal.
Conrad: ...As soon as there's a project on this site we have the 82" Street access. And we don't
have anything off of TH 5 or we do? Nothing.
Generous: Not in the first.
Conrad: Okay.
Generous: And the question is... Then the final access would be the right - in/right -out on TH 41
itself. On that west local street.
Conrad: Will it be a full intersection?
Generous: It will never be a full intersection.
Conrad: What is the Council's considering for Coulter extension? Cost?
Aanenson: Yeah. And what it does to the park. Transportation. Last night with Carver County
talking about transportation needs and whether or not TH 5, and if 212 never gets built, do we
have enough east /west, north/south connectors and what do we need to do.
Conrad: And what's our involvement in the decision making to extend that?
Aanenson: Well right now we're saying at a minimum we need to take the right -of -way. The
decision whether or not to build the road's a separate issue, right. But at minimum take the right -
of -way. We still have to extend the sewer and water through that property so we'll take the right -
of -way and we can look at a future date looking at the transportation needs. I mean SRF said 6
lanes. Maybe you need that other alternative to take some pressure off. We want to have that as
an option. Not eliminate it.
Generous: I believe Council wants it brought back so they can see the parks and open space view
point on it. Planning... engineering and traffic.
Conrad: Okay. And that's in their court?
Aanenson: Yes.
3
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997
Peterson: Other questions? Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the
commission? If so, please come forward.
Howard Dahlgren: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name's Howard
Dahlgren. I'm one of the partners in the development. I also have with me Fred Richter who is
from Steiner Development, who will be the developers of the land. Just a few brief words about
some of the things you had mentioned tonight with which you are concerned. One, on the
Coulter issue. We are dedicating the right -of -way for Coulter as right -of -way. If you don't ever
build it, then you've got 2 extra acres of park. But I'd suggest that you build Coulter in the sense
that I believe it's an important part of the transportation system in the sense that having a system
of parallel local thoroughfares to a highway like Trunk Highway 5 is very good policy. It allows
the local traffic to stay off of Highway 5. Operate more safely getting from one place to the other
with access at crucial points along Highway 5. That's how a highway like TH 5 will work the
best. But from a traffic standpoint, it would be good to have Coulter built. And that's why one
of the reasons it's on your major thoroughfare plan as an east/west thoroughfare, parallel to
Highway 5. And going over to our north/south road where it then can disperse either to the south
or to the north. But from a traffic standpoint, that's a good idea. The way we left it, we've
dedicated the right -of -way and it will be at the City's option whether they want to build it at
some time in the future. So either way we don't have to have it but I think in general it will make
traffic circulation better in this part of the city of Chanhassen. As far as the overall numbers, this
number 31,000 trips is a big number. That's trips in and out so it's half that number of round
trips. 31,000 is counted as a trip going in and another trip then when you go out you see. But I
can say there's two things about that. Number one is that that was based on the maximum
development at the maximum numbers so that it's very likely that there won't be that 31,000. It
will be something less. But the real solution to the overall traffic problem as far as TH 5 is
concerned, as Kate has mentioned many times and Bob, is that someday when 212 is built, and it
will get built someday. Then'there will be considerable relief on this heavy traffic on Highway
5. That will reduce the amount of traffic on TH 5. Now your traffic report makes that point but
it doesn't put a number on it. But it's true, that will happen. As far as timing, we, our plan is to
build the north/south road and connect it to Highway 5 at the time it's improved so they'll open it
up together. We think it's a waste of money to try to go up there and build something before that
on a temporary basis. The time to do it is to have them work well. Build them together and open
them up and then they should function very well for many years. It's also true that the traffic
report suggests that our development might be finished by the year 2003. That might well not be
the case. It might well take longer than that. We want to do this development carefully and well.
We're not in a fire sale situation where we have to sell land quickly. That's not our objective.
We want to sell it well so that it's developed well with good uses. It will be good for us and it
will be good for you so that's our overall objective. In terms of the report that Bob did, it was a
very well done report by the way. I, as a planning consultant in the metropolitan area for the last
40 years, I've written hundreds of reports like that and I can say this was a very good one. He did
a very, both your people did a very thorough job on this whole process and we commend them
for that. I spoke to Bob earlier, there's one little thing we'd like to, we'd suggest that you might
want to keep a little flexible. The report suggests that we might want to move the roadway, the
north/south roadway 50 to 75 feet to the west to avoid a little finger of wetlands. We'd like to
4
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997
suggest, and rather than make that decision now, to just suggest that that be kept flexible for two
reasons. One is it's a very small piece of wetlands but if you move the highway west, then the
amount of taxable land goes down and the park gets bigger. The park is already almost 50 acres
now with what the City hopes to acquire, has agreed to acquire and what we're dedicating. So
it's a very large park. So one of the objectives would be to keep the developable land as large as
possible. And this road goes, as you know, goes straight down. Maybe we can get that drawing
just to remind ourselves quickly. I'll just hold it up here if that's all right with you folks. The
moving it like 75 feet this way. There's a little tiny, a little finger of wetlands right here.
Another factor is that we have re- analyzed, we're re- analyzing, re- examining and now surveying
the entire wetlands that's affected by this development. Orr Schelen, not Orr Schelen but Schoell
and Madson have been doing that work this spring. It's nearing completion. I just spoke to Ken
Adolf today from Schoell and Madson. He says it looks like the actual amount of wetlands is
going to be decreasing and not increasing so the problems with mitigation are going to get less
rather than greater. If that's the case, then we should be able to mitigate this more successfully
than putting in a little retaining wall, which is one of the things that Bob was concerned about.
So it looks like that can be successfully solved without moving the roadway further to the west.
So that's the only comment we have on the report is if you would consider maybe recommending
that look at this moving of the road be examined in the future, after the wetlands are finally
determined and keep that flexible as to whether we move it or don't move it or how much we
move it. That we would appreciate. I think that's in all of our interest to approach it that way.
Other than that I think we don't have any problems with the recommendation and the report that
the staff has prepared. If you have any questions, we'd be happy to answer them if we can.
Peterson: Any questions of the applicant? Thank you.
Howard Dahlgren: Again, we appreciate all the time you folks have put on this project. It's been
a long time. You've looked at it many times I know and I want you to know we appreciate all the
time that you've put into it. And for the staff too. It's been, they've been very, very helpful.
Fred, did you want to add anything? Okay. Thank you very much.
Peterson: This item is open for a public hearing. May I have a motion to open it for a public
hearing and a second please?
Conrad moved, Joyce seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please come forward and state
your name and address. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close - the public hearing and a
second.
Joyce moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Before I get into the comments from the commissioners, Kate. Addressing the issue of
the wetland, is that, how can we articulate that into the recommendation? Is that?
5
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997
Aanenson: I think that's fine if we put something in there on the final wetland delineation we
can evaluate it. I think Dave's big concern was the ... and what that would do the integrity of the
road. So we'd be willing to study that. We could have some more flexible language in there that
with the wetlands have the final delineation ... look at that issue.
Peterson: We'll let Bob draft it and we'll get back to him.
Aanenson: Okay. We'll put something in there. So again, it's the retaining wall that's really
the issue and that's being created by the mitigation.
Generous: Part of...was having...
Skubic: And the mitigation would take place on the Arboretum property across TH 41?
Generous: The ... we're getting 1.8 acres of...on the Arboretum property and 1... expanding and
consolidating...
Peterson: All right, thanks. Kevin, your respective thoughts.
Joyce: No, I'm in favor of...City Council, I thought they did have some reservations about
putting Coulter Boulevard through... discussed at the last City Council meeting. And my
feeling ... who cares about the traffic. I personally think Coulter Boulevard should go through.
think it should be considered strongly for this development to make it ... but that's just my
opinion. That's what I'm...
Peterson: Bob.
Skubic: I'm in agreement. I support what staff has prepared here. What the conditions that have
been brought up this evening.
Peterson: Ladd.
Conrad: I have nothing new to add.
Peterson: Alison.
Blackowiak: I agree with staff. I do disagree with Kevin though about Coulter Boulevard. I've
got to get my bit in. I'm sorry but I just question the need for Coulter Boulevard. I understand
that it is potentially a neighborhood street or could take local traffic through to that area but by
the same token I question how much local traffic will be directed to that industrial office park. I
think it's, that the services, the support services there will primarily serve the people that work
there, and I could be wrong but that's just my gut feeling so I question the need to put Coulter
Boulevard through at this point in time but I do agree with the wisdom of acquiring the right -of-
way.
rel
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997
Peterson: Okay. Allyson.
Brooks: I don't really have any other comments except, I think I think I talked about the
archeological site. That's my big thing obviously so, but other than that I thought this study
looked good if we can preserve the archeological site, that's great and the recommendations
made by staff look fine.
Peterson: Okay. I have no further comments either. I think it was a good and thorough report.
With that, may I hear a motion and a second please.
Joyce: I'll make a motion. That the planning staff recommends AUAR be revised to incorporate
the summary issues and mitigation plan contained in the staff report. The revised AUAR be
adopted by the City and also to include in the report that the developer and site user will promote
traffic and land management strategy and also to add that after final delineation of the wetlands,
we revisit the north/south street.
Peterson: Second?
Skubic: Second.
Conrad: Discussion?
Peterson: Discussion. Good point.
Conrad: Why is Coulter Boulevard in the City Council's court? We have said we wanted it,
haven't we?
Aanenson: They're the legislative body. They ultimately make the final decision. Traffic,
engineering strongly supports it. Planning supports it. It's the same reason we have the north
side of Highway 5, that east/west connector. I think out of deference to the Park and Rec's
Commission's findings, that they wanted to...
Conrad: So basically they've got our input saying we want it.
Aanenson: Park and Rec, that's.
Conrad: Park and Rec saying no.
Aanenson: Correct. They just want to study it a little bit more, that issue.
Conrad: Okay.
Peterson: Any other discussion?
7
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997
Joyce moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the AUAR
be revised to incorporate the summary of issues and mitigation plan contained in the staff
report and that the revised AUAR be adopted by the City. Also to include that the
developer and site user will promote traffic and land management strategy and that after
final delineation of the wetlands, the Planning Commission revisit the north /south street.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
VILLAGES ON THE PONDS - REVIEW OF PROPOSED WETLAND RESTORATION
AND STREETSCAPE.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Vemelle Clayton: Thank you. My name is Vernelle Clayton. I live at 422 Santa Circle here in
Chanhassen. Oh, that's scary. I've not been here since we have that. We have a couple other
folks here with us. Tim O'Brien, who works with Mika Milo, our architect and Kathy Ryan who
is with BRW. Dean Olson whom you have all, most all met is the person in charge of this
project but he had to be out of town tonight. We also have Willy Anderson from the AmericInn
or ... and John Siebert is planning to be here, assuming he gets out of the Denver airport in time.
He deplanes here around a little while ago right. I wanted to just briefly go over what we said
our goals were with respect to the landscaping and that was that we would be selecting species
and placing them in such a way that we would reflect and enhance the overall architectural style
of the neotraditional development. We're giving special attention to the materials that were
prevalent at the time of the dominance of this thriving small town in Minnesota's first half
century. ... example that we like to use would be spirea, lilac, hydrangea and so forth. All of
which are still used in modern planting schemes but when placed appropriately will reflect
yesteryears tone. Smaller planting materials will include day lilies, geraniums, tulips, hollyhocks,
and other hardy species from gramma's garden. Larger plant species will focus on materials
naturally occurring in Chanhassen's soils and terrain as well as appropriate decorative material.
Special attention will be given to the edges of parking lots, selecting hedging material that is both
aesthetically pleasing and easily maintained as a screen at an appropriate height. And as with the
architecture that we've chosen, the project will seize upon the benefits of technological advances
in the hybridization and breeding of plant materials with their use and placement within the
landscape of the site will be reminiscent of their earlier youth. I hope that that's what will be
visible once everything is planted and I hope you'll see that it's reflected in what we're going to
be showing you. The ponds are going to be used both as decorative features and as functioning
NURP ponds. Adjacent to each wetland area is a NURP pond. We wanted to dress them up and
use them to our advantage. It's also intended that the plant material be designed so that we have
a limited amount of maintenance. We will be selecting someone who's specializes in wetland
restoration to do both the planting and to provide a maintenance program for the project. There
are some retained trees in and about the ponding area and those, as we mentioned before, will be
cleaned up and groomed so that those that are there can thrive. As you can see now they're kind
of angling in different directions and some kind of spindly. We want to clean them up and make
it so people can walk among them and it will be an added feature. With that I want to show, go
through just a few plans here and you can stop me at any point. Just so you know the scenario
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997
that I plan to use is just to show you how we plan to phase the project. Show you some color
sections. Talk about the Americinn corner. Point out two or three changes on the landscaping
plan that we would like to see from that which was submitted to you. Talk next about the bus
shelter and warming house and last about the signs. I usually save the response to the staff report
to last and talk about all the ways we want it changed but we don't have any problem with this
one. In fact we would like to add a couple, and I can distribute this so you... reference. I don't
recall if it was referenced in Bob's comments but I know it was referenced in Dean's cover letter.
The parking lot lighting we'd like to add this. Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use
of lights on pole standards in the parking area. Rather emphasis should be placed on building
lights and poles located in close proximity to buildings. The reason for that is that it will
minimize the amount of light shining into the rest of the two stories residents that will be living
above these buildings. Landscaping, we'd like to add, all site plans shall include the locations of
utility boxes together with the landscaping plan providing screening from primary views.
Landscaping materials used for such screens shall be species which can be pruned to maintain
appropriate height. In other words we don't want all these surprises. All these ugly boxes that
keep popping up. This is the phasing plan and you have one in your packet. We thought it
would be a little more clear if we color coded one. The blue is what we intend to do first. The
project won't be all built at once, as you know. This site, the hotel site and the church site are the
first two sites immediately at both ends of the project and we have to do something all the way
through. We therefore have, in working with staff have agreed that we'll put a trail all the way
through. So the blue is what we'll do first. Now I need to just say that when we get to the ponds
we'll talk a little bit about what we're doing there. Not all of the planting will be done right
away on the ponds because we have to first kill all the stuff that nobody wants to stay there and it
has to have a little period of time to totally die. But it will be undertaken as part of the first
phase. The streetscaping that we're doing is 6 feet in from curb and the rest will be as you've
seen the area shown where there will be planters and so forth so the individual site plans will
show plans for that. We plan to plant the trees up and down main street on both sides initially
because we want them all to be the same size as they grow. But we want to avoid putting in as
much as we can along here and that means we'd like to keep one full side open because there will
be so much disruption when these buildings are put in because they have underground garages
and you can't just dig straight down. You have to have a little slope. So much of this will be to
serve, and we're hoping that we can accomplish it by only coming in a little bit into this that's
already done. Partly for that reason we're having pavers all along here because pavers can be
picked up, set aside and you can dig down and you can put them back and it doesn't look like
something was done after, as it might if you had to dig up half a sidewalk. There'd be a little bit
different color. So this is all the plan that we have and why for the phasing. Does anybody have
any questions or was I clear as mud on that? Then we have some inserts that show coloring and
planting on some of the plans that you have received. Again it shows that we'll be using the
pavers in all of these mid sections. This is the pond area. This is the town square area and this is
the area down by the church. Sometimes called church plaza. It's the one that will have the
fountain. This area, or all of these are pavers in basically repeating patterns but not always the
same pattern. The area, some of the area that you see that's light here is the concrete and then
around the edges is a little bit darker and that would be a little bit of a...type. Dark pavers. This
is a sample of what we'll use for the rest of it so it's a little bit of a variation in color and placing
them sometimes herringbone. Sometimes staggered and I guess I don't have to repeat that.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997
That's all shown on your plan. We have some little bit larger blow ups of a couple areas. This is
the fountain. We'll have, it will be lit and it will be sodded and this geometrical design here of
some flowers on four quadrants. We need to have trees that are somewhat overstory but not too
bulky. For safety sake you need to be able to see the cars driving around. This is an example of
the planting area. I don't think I really need to explain all that. It's down on this corner we show
it kind of at hedge height. We want to have the look of hedges, as many projects as possible and
particularly along the edges of the parking lot. This is the, if you'll bear with me we'll take the,
the western edge and then the eastern edge and then we'll talk again. We'll come back to this
corner. The only thing I just want to point out to you on this is ... is out on the overall map...
This whole plan has been through here. Through this over the water pond. The fountain here...
Somehow or another a couple trees have been... The area along the east side. This has been a
subject of a great deal of discussion. A lot of work. A lot of engineering. And a fair amount of
communication with the neighbors. It's very dense, as you can see. It's going to be the, these are
the various levels of the retaining wall. It was decided long ago that we didn't want to have one
big blank retaining wall, although that question resurfaced a little while ago. And in- between,
because of the height and the difficulty to get in here to mow it, it will be naturalized plantings
such as grasses and so forth. Low maintenance plantings. This is the first house that you come
to as you go up Grandview, and this is the second one, just to give you some idea of how this
works.
Peterson: That ... in the upper left hand corner, is that the corner of the building too?
Vernelle Clayton: This is, yeah. This is... The only thing that is different here, I'll just point out
to you. It doesn't really matter for the ... and so forth but to solve an engineering problem that we
had, which meant if we couldn't move it, we moved it forward just a little bit. This whole thing
is moved forward just a little bit towards the parking lot in. order to avoid taking any trees out of
this 17 foot ... and that's the decision that was just made this past week. So what you see here is
going to be moved just a little bit forward. Down in this area. I'd like to talk just a little bit
about the other... maybe it won't be able to do anything... drop off dramatically right there... So
the difference then on these plans is that... You want to be able to see the project ... but this
seems to point out that from where... As people drive down Highway 5 to get to that point...
That was never the intent that... So with that, I guess I'd like to know if anybody has any
questions on...
Joyce: The patio doesn't go in, what's the chance that patio will not go in?
Vernelle Clayton: I don't think...
Joyce: NSP's giving them a hard time about that?
Vernelle Clayton: No. They're not giving them a hard time about that if they use paper. They
just don't want them permanent.
Joyce: Oh I see, okay.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997
Vernelle Clayton: ...
Brooks: Would you go over the chain link fence. What's the chain link fence for?
Vernelle Clayton: First of all every time you have ... that when you have retaining walls ... but
not everyone likes to have it solid. They like to be able to see something. In this case, where the
Anderson's are... To be perfectly honest with you, I don't know for sure where the fence is but I
think it's right in here. It's at the highest elevation...
Brooks: So the Anderson's would get a chain link fence?
Vernelle Clayton: The Anderson's will be looking at a more dense wooden fence. If they were to
come to us and say gee, we really would prefer that you put...
Blackowiak: And a chain link fence meets codes? It does, okay.
Aanenson: It's a safety issue...
Vernelle Clayton: Yeah, and with the plantings here, from this side you really won't see it.
Blackowiak: Okay. Can you talk about the emergency road? This is the first I've heard of it.
Can you point out where that is. Well I came in right at the very last meeting so I caught a
meeting but that's about it.
Vernelle Clayton: Grandview, you've all driven out there so... Little gravel road that goes up
here and it kind of winds around back ... to get the public improvements here, the public
improvements in there... A couple of things will happen. 'They'll then be able to subdivide their
properties and ... 17 foot area which will enable them to upgrade the road. They'll have ... it will
then be at their option, they will put a road back in here...
Blackowiak: So it's coming from behind the church, up the hill, is that correct?
Vernelle Clayton: Correct.
Blackowiak: So it would be a road that the residents up on Grandview will be able to use on a
regular basis? It's supposed to be gated?
Aanenson: It's emergency access.
Blackowiak: So how do the emergency vehicles get in? They'll have special keys or something?
Aanenson: We have a couple other places in the city where we have that.
Vernelle Clayton: If you don't have any other questions.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997
Joyce: No, I do have one. Maybe I could wait for...
Vernelle Clayton: ..a question I can't answer, she's here.
Joyce: Okay, well I'll present it. We talked a lot about that corner and it looks like you've got a
lot of deciduous trees but not a lot of coniferous. I'm sorry, by the American Inn. The American
Inn corner and we're talking about the view sheds from Highway 5. You see the American Inn
and not see the parking lot. Okay.
Vernelle Clayton: There are no deciduous trees that are short enough that would. I don't mean
deciduous...
Joyce: I'm talking about evergreens. There are no evergreens there, right?
Vernelle Clayton: Right.
Joyce: So what's that going to look like in the winter time?
Vernelle Clayton: It will be looking.
Joyce: We were talking, I agree with you as far as not seeing the cars. I mean you want to see
the buildings but not the cars, but what's going to happen in the winter time I guess is my
question.
Vernelle Clayton: The berming...
Joyce: Okay. Did we talk about any particular trees?
Aanenson: Jill looked at it. That was a point of discussion... Friday. I'm not sure that there's a
lot of concurrence on the screening...
Joyce: I'm just saying in the winter time. I mean you're going to have a lot of, I'm not as
concerned about the screening as do we want vegetation there or something to look at in the
winter time rather than.
Aanenson: There's going to be a lot of snow there.
Joyce: There's probably going to be a lot of snow there, right. That's what Bob said.
Aanenson: Right, but it is nice to see a little bit of variety though.
Vernelle Clayton: Yes, and I think in reality we're... There are some things that are just too
small... but we can't have it any bigger because of the wetlands...
12
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997
Joyce: Yeah you can't see, I don't think you are going to be able to see any cars. I mean it's hard
to look in there right now.
Vemelle Clayton: ...If we don't have anything else on the landscaping, although if you think of
something I'll be happy to come back to it.
Peterson: Just one last thing on landscaping. We talked early on about the trees you're putting
on the side of the road. I mean the thoroughfare with. I guess I asked staff, and you, I'm
concerned about putting trees in there now because of the building that's going on on both sides.
It's like, they're almost going to look out of place without buildings in there and the chances of
them surviving are, personal opinion obviously but I think their chance of surviving is about 100
to 1. I don't know if that's a request that we're making of them.
Generous: That is a request ... just where we have the underground parking... Putting this stuff in
place.
Peterson: I guess I voice that as a concern. I look at what Eden Prairie has done around Eden
Prairie Center Drive and planted all those trees, every winter 3 /a of them are dead.
Generous: Are they irrigated?
Peterson: No.
Generous: These will be ... not having the buildings in place.
Peterson: How large are we talking about for those?
Generous: ...
Aanenson: I understand your concern. Again, what we looked at is trying to create an
environment that having the landscaping there, this is kind of what we do with the ... say all these
things make it worth ... and also a place where residents... Show the commitment level in the
project and this is what ... show the commitment.
Peterson: What about the aspect of, as a developer or builder having to work around those things
being a negative? Is that.
Vemelle Clayton: ...they need to be overstory... The grant that we have from the...
Peterson: Thanks.
Vemelle Clayton: ...The bus shelter. Part of the project ... bus shelter and they are to be
located... coordination with Southwest Metro. ...
Brooks: Will you be able to pass that around?
13
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997
Vernelle Clayton: Sure. You want the board passed around or the colors?
Brooks: The colors. Thank you very much.
Peterson: Within a comment, it just seems a little bit simple. I don't know how much money is
allocated to that. It's almost contemporary in design versus the neotraditional feel.
Vernelle Clayton: ...Southwest Metro for safety... The warming house... black on white and I
think, didn't we say we probably would have to have... We assumed it probably was a
requirement that street signs be green. We didn't know. This shows blue but I think that's
probably emergency. Are they blue? I thought they were emergency, blue was emergency.
Well, then we'll work that out so that we're not violating any code or anything...
Joyce: Where's that going to be located?
Vernelle Clayton: This one here...
Joyce: So that's going to be right in front.
Brooks: Is the neon clear, I mean or is it colored? The white, it's just white neon?
Vernelle Clayton: Yes. The only other thing that I mentioned with respect to signs is that St.
Hubert's has asked for ... and we said gee, what a neat idea but we haven't had time to apply for it
so right in the center of town sort of right there.
Peterson: Kind of like Time Square?
Vernelle Clayton: Yeah... I'll just check but I don't think that I have anything else. Are there
any other questions?
Peterson: Any feedback from fellow commissioners? I'm sure you've got things going through
your mind.
Joyce: Just a general, and you actually covered it Vernelle but as far as the lighting goes. You
showed some lights.
Vernelle Clayton: ...something around the...
Joyce: Well actually the question I had as far as, and you actually put that condition in because I
was concerned about parking lot lighting. Is that going to be site by site where we see, obviously
we see this?
Aanenson: That's what would be the master condition. Again to make it more friendly to the
residential component.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997
Joyce: No, I mean you come down Highway 5 and you see all the other parking lots and we
obviously don't, I thought the lighting was well done on what you proposed. I think that's real
important though I guess. It'd be something I would definitely look at.
Generous: ...
Joyce: I'm sorry.
Generous: For the height limit.
Joyce: Oh good. What's our ordinance as far as candle wattage and all that? Are we going to
run into problems or talk about that or?
Aanenson: Just at the property line ... but we're taking a different approach about the interim...
Joyce: Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Do you have a public safety issue but it's just another, all
these little details that make it work. But that was a great condition that you put in.
Peterson: When did you plan the sign, when is the sign planning on going in this year?
Brooks: I noticed on the ... sign is behind the pond. So you can see it from TH 5 or you can't?
Vemelle Clayton: Hopefully you can. That was the idea...
Brooks: Yeah, I realize I'm coming in late to this project.
Peterson: Speaking of the sign, I guess if you're looking for general opinions. I love the logo. I
think it's a nice job on the logo. Personally it doesn't seem to fit with the blue arch. It just.
Vernelle Clayton: Well this blue is not right.
Peterson: Well it's not so much the blue as maybe is the, it just looks so simple in front of what
will be a very grand, you know grand main street of sorts. Do fellow commissioners have any
feelings on this sign at all?
Brooks: Well, and I know I'm coming into this project late because I haven't been on this
commission very long but what you're trying to do, my understanding is sort of a traditional
urban area. Okay, neotraditional. Right, new urbanism type thing. The sign gives me a Disney
World type flavor. I don't feel like it expresses maybe what you're trying to do and maybe I'm
just not interpreting what I see right but I just.
Joyce: Are you against the shape of the sign or?
Brooks: Maybe it's the neon.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997
Joyce: I think the shape is the right shape, don't you?
Brooks: The arch doesn't bother me. I think the, maybe it's the way the neon. The way I'm
looking at it on the plan, I just get this Disney World feel from seeing all that neon and it's not
the arch. It's not the village.
Vernelle Clayton: ...the reason for ... neon is...
Brooks: So I'm not helping matters. Is it possible to, I suppose you can't like back light it at
night or? Something a little more classy. I just, the neon over the arch, and again I don't know if
anybody else feels this way, it's still kind of carnivally to me or fairish or.
Peterson: Yeah, up- lighting would give it a more.
Vernelle Clayton: ...because we want this to be a fun place. We want it to be exciting. We
want a lot of people ... fun place. We're adding...
Brooks: You can fun and classy. I like your idea of up- lighting. Just consider it because I think
up- lighting would give it, it would still illuminate the sign but it would be just a little more classy
than stripes of neon. I don't know. It's just a thought. Just a thought.
Vernelle Clayton: ...very talented.
Peterson: From a maintenance standpoint, I'd be surprised if that neon in cold weather has a
tendency to change.
Vernelle Clayton: ...
Brooks: If it's possible I'd like to see the sign again with just sort of a different attempt at
lighting. The neon just, the neon striping is just.
Peterson: And we aren't necessarily approving the sign tonight anyway, are we?
Aanenson: Well I think we're giving them general direction that... explore further.
Vernelle Clayton: ...probably have it looked at again.
Peterson: Okay. Other comments, questions? Anything else Vernelle? Good job. It doesn't
require a public hearing but we would like to hear a motion from my fellow commissioners.
Brooks: To open this up, I'm sorry? I move to.
Peterson: I guess I have to, I'm not talking about discussion tonight, am I? I want to get out of
here. Allyson, your comments. Anything over and above what you've shared?
16
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997
Brooks: I think I've shared enough.
Peterson: Alison.
Blackowiak: I agree about the neon. I don't see neo- traditional and neon but otherwise it looks
good. On the northwest corner by the AmericInn, I understand the problem with large trees but
could we do hedges or shrubs or something like that that's already got a presence within the
entire project. I mean that might be a way to continue it and still get some color on that corner.
Other than that I have no further comments.
Peterson: Ladd.
Conrad: I can't vote on this so no comments. The only, no comments.
Peterson: Kevin. Bob. I have none further than what I've already shared also so may I hear a
motion please.
Skubic: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Village on the
Ponds hardscape, landscape, buffer yard, and wetland enhancement/mitigation plan prepared by
BRW, Inc. dated May 9, 1997, subject to conditions 1 through 5 as presented by staff with the
two additions Vemelle outlined regarding the lighting and 7 regarding the site plan.
Peterson: Is there,a second please.
Brooks: I'll second it.
Peterson: Any discussion?
Peterson moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the Village on the Pond Hardscape, Landscape, Buffer Yard, and Wetland Enhancement/
Mitigation Plan prepared by BRW, Inc., dated May 9, 1997, subject to the following
conditions:
The overstory tree proposed at the driveway entrance across Lake Drive from Grandview
Road shall be relocated adjacent to Grandview Road.
2. The plan should note that there is a 50 foot building and parking setback from the eastern
property line adjacent to the residential properties.
3. The most southerly three flowering crabs west of AmericInn shall be replaced with
Scotch Pine.
4. The flowering crabs west of AmericInn shall be staggered rather than being paired.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997
5. The City and developer shall acknowledge in promotional materials, press releases,
reports and publications relating to the project that this project is funded in part with a
grant from the Metropolitan Council through the Livable Communities Demonstration
Account of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund.
6. Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the
parking area. Rather emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in
close proximity to buildings.
7. All site plans shall include the locations of utility boxes together with the landscaping
plan providing screening from primary views. Landscaping materials used for such
screens shall be species which can be pruned to maintain appropriate height.
All voted in favor, except Conrad who abstained, and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Skubic noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 21, 1997 as presented.
OPEN DISCUSSI
Aanenson: We will have a meeting on the 18` We have a subdivision that was going to be on
tonight on TH 41 from Carlson Properties. I'm concerned about some of the grading that will be
lost and I think we've ... better plan. You also have... comprehensive plan. We had a big kick off
meeting and Allyson Brooks ... last night, we met Carver County—just to talk about
transportation. How that affects our updating of a comprehensive plan and trying to work
together to affect some changes. So that was a pretty enlightening meeting as far as we're trying
to work together so that's certainly one of the bigger components we have in our comprehensive
plan. How do we manage growth when we have a system that's at a very poor service level, as
was pointed out last night. If this was sewer we would not extend any more service. We'd
stopped. Because it's roads, people can still get past us. How do we manage that so that's going
to be a key component when we look at our...
Brooks: It was a good meeting. It was MnDOT and Met Council were very direct about not
having funding and very straight forward and there was not sort of dancing around the issue of
the fact that there's no money to build new roads. And I think Roger Gustafson was very well
spoken when he said we may end up with a plan that says level of service F is acceptable to
Carver County and that's it. That's all we can do. So it's going to be a very interesting issue for
the County comprehensive plan, not just Chanhassen's, as to how you balance the densities that
the Met Council is asking for versus the fact that there is no money for the infrastructure to
necessarily support those entities.
Aanenson: And then just so you know, for planning your calendars, the first meting in July, that
Wednesday tentatively we haven't got anything. Just block that meeting out. It's generally hard
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 1997
to get a quorum ... but we will have some items on for the second meeting in July. So the week of
the 4 th there will not be a meeting.
Peterson: Anything else? Do I hear a motion to adjourn the meeting, and a second?
Joyce moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
19
Park & Recreation Commission Minutes
June 24, 1997
A special meeting of the Chanhassen Park & Recreation Commission was called to order at
5:30 p.m. to conduct visits of referendum project sites. Locations visited included: City Center Park,
Powers Boulevard trail alignment, Galpin Boulevard trail alignment, Herman Field Park, Highway 7 trail
alignment, and Roundhouse Park.
The regular meeting of the Park & Recreation Commission was called to order in the City Council
Chambers at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Commissioners Lash, Howe, Manders, Roeser, Berg, and
Frank. Staff present: Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director; Jerry Ruegemer and Patty Dexter,
Recreation Supervisors; Jason Heath and Ann Ellwood, Facility Supervisors.
The agenda was approved as presented.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mr. Greg Lenz, 7250 Sierra Court, presented a request for the city to
provide planting material to shield his rear yard from the bituminous path abutting his property as it goes
around Kerber Pond Park. Mr. Lenz and the commission discussed his request at length. Upon
conclusion of their discussion, the commission denied Mr. Lenz's request. Similar requests have
traditionally been denied by the commission. The landowner has the option of installing landscaping on
his own initiative.
Mr. Joe Perttu, 1000 Lake Susan Hills Drive, made a request of the commission that overnight
paddleboat storage be accommodated at Lake Susan Park. The commission discussed a variety of
concerns regarding Mr. Perttu's request and tabled any action until their July meeting. The commission
requested background information, including examples of other municipalities with a similar program,
the costs involved, and an analysis of any precedent being set.
NEW BUSINESS
ESTABLISH PARK, OPEN SPACE, AND TRAIL REFERENDUM PROJECT TIME LINE:
Director Hoffman discussed with the commission the issue of project time lines for the improvements
associated with the recent successful park, open space, and trail referendum. As these project time lines
are refined, they will be reviewed with the city council and brought back to the Park & Recreation
Commission.
CHANHASSEN RECREATION CENTER 1996 ANNUAL REPORT: Recreation Supervisor Dexter
provided the commission with the first annual Chanhassen Recreation Center report. Commission
members were generally pleased with the activity level at the center. Following discussion on a variety
of points regarding the report, the commission thanked Ms. Dexter for her work.
OLD BUSINESS
APPROVE GRADING PLAN, FOREST MEADOW, OUTLOT A: The grading plan was approved
as presented with the inclusion of a small berm on the southern property line of Forest Meadow, Outlot
A. Commissioner Howe moved, Berg seconded to approve the grading plan. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Park & Recreation Commission Minutes
June 24, 1997
Page 2
PROGRAM REPORTS:
a. Fourth of July Celebration: The commission requested that a Park & Recreation Commission
table be reserved at the annual Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce Trade Fair. The commission
requested that a variety of information describing the recent referendum and other activities of
the commission be made available to the public.
b. Youth/Adult Programs
1997 Lake Ann Lifeguard Olympics: Recreation Supervisor Ruegemer presented a request
from Minnetonka Community Education to use Lake Ann Park as the host site for the 1997 Lake
Ann Lifeguard Olympics. Following a brief discussion, Commissioner Roeser moved, Berg
seconded to approve the request. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:
a. Chanhassen Recreation Center Monthly Report: Facility Supervisor Heath provided the
commission with a monthly report on the activities at the Recreation Center.
COMMISSION MEMBER REPORTS
During a discussion by commissioners, the commission made a request to forward two recommendations
to the city's Economic Development Authority. The first being that Commissioner Roeser moved,
Commissioner Berg seconded to recommend that the Economic Development Authority dedicate the
Pauly /Pony /Przymus site as a public park; that a park plan be prepared; and the site restored. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
The second motion was made by Chair Lash to recommend a trail connection be made from the
intersection of Highway 5 and Highway 101 to the pedestrian overpass and that adequate funding be
allocated to beautify the old Red -E -Mix site, including the preservation of green space, landscaping, and
appropriate signage. Commissioner Howe seconded the motion. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET
ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Commissioner Berg and seconded by Commissioner Roeser
to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Todd Hoffman
Park & Recreation Director
z �
Park & Recreation Commission Minutes
May 20,1997
A special meeting of the Chanhassen Park & Recreation Commission was held at 5:30 p.m. to
conduct site visits of the Lake Susan trail, Prairie Knoll Park, Instant Web soccer field, Park
Place cul -de -sac, Galpin Boulevard parkland (Forest Meadow Outlot A), Autumn Ridge trail,
Stone Creek Park, Creekside trail, and proposed Gateway development.
The regular meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. The following members were present:
Commissioners Lash, Howe, Manders, Roeser, Meger, Frank, and Berg. Staff present: Todd
Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director; Jerry Ruegemer and Patty Dexter, Recreation Supervisors;
Nathan Parr, Facility Supervisor.
The agenda was approved as presented.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The April 22, 1997 Park & Recreation Commission minutes
were approved as presented.
NEW BUSINESS
DETERMINE PARK, TRAIL, AND RECREATION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 48.99 ACRES INTO 54 SINGLE FAMILY
LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT, LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 ON THE EAST SIDE
OF HIGHWAY 41 SOUTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD; HIGHOVER ADDITION,
JEROME CARLSON: The staff report was presented to the commission regarding park and
trail conditions of approval. Mr. Donald Peterson representing the applicant also made a short
presentation. Following discussion of all pertaining issues, Commissioner Meger moved that the
Park & Recreation Commission recommend the following condition of approval pertaining to
parks and trails for the Highover Addition:
1. Payment of full park and trail fees per city ordinance in lieu of parkland dedication or trail
construction.
2. The identification of the power line easements as a trail corridor. Said trail to be maintained
in a turf condition.
Motion seconded by Scott. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS
ANNUAL REVIEW, LAKE ANN BATTING CAGE
FEASIBILITY REVIEW, CHANHASSEN SKATE PARK: After a discussion between Josh
Peters and the commission, action was tabled until the July meeting. At that time staff is to
present a comprehensive feasibility study on the construction of an aggressive skate park within
the City of Chanhassen.
Park & Recreation Commission Minutes
May 20, 1997
Page 2
PROGRAM REPORTS: The following program reports were given:
a. Spring Dance Recitatal
b. 4 th of July Celebration
C. Recreation Center Monthly Report
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: The following administrative reports were presented:
a. Lake Ann Park Summer Season
b. Summer Newsletter
C. Park, Open Space, and Trails Special Election
COMMISSION MEMBER REPORTS
COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET
ADJOURNMENT
Respectfully submitted,
Todd Hoffman
Park & Recreation Director