CC Minutes 2000 10 09CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 9, 2000
Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to
the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Engel,
Councilwoman Jansen, and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Scott Botcher, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Bob Generous, Sharmin A1-Jaff,
Bruce DeJong, Teresa Burgess, and Todd Hofknan
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the
agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Resolution #2000-69: Approve Election Judges and Establish Pate of'Pay for General Election.
b. Approve Consultant Service General Municipal Agreement with SHE, Approve Consultant
Services Contract for Preparation of Wellhead Protection Plan, Project 00-12.
c. White Oak Addition, Coffman Development:
1) Final Plat Approval
2) Approve Development Contract and Plans & Specifications, Project 00-10.
d. Approval of Bills.
e. Approval of Minutes:
· City Council Work Session Minutes dated September 25, 2000
· City Council Minutes dated September 25, 2000
Receive Commission Minutes:
· Planning Commission Minutes dated September 19, 2000
f. Approval of Carver County Assessing Contract.
g. Resolution #2000-70: Resolution Supporting Grant Application for MnDot Cooperative
Agreement on TH 101 Trail.
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
Authorize Real Estate Purchase Agreement, Exchanging 0.044 Acres for 0.055 Acres to
Accommodate a Driveway; David Stockdale and Jane Anderson.
Accept $4,000 Donation from the Chanhassen Legion for Underwater Diving Communication
Equipment.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Karen Conboy: My name is Karen Conboy and I live at 6383 Oxbow Bend in Chanhassen. And I came to
complain about, I receive a Summons on the watering ban. Last Saturday I got a Certified letter to my
door saying that I was not in compliance with the watering situation and I thought oh, this must be a
mistake. I'm watering every other day like I'm supposed to starting on the 15th. Well it tums out that in
the end of August there were two odd days in a row so anybody with a sprinkler system that's set for every
other day would not be in compliance if they just didn't realize that there were two odd days in a row and
watering even days. So anyway I just thought, I didn't complain but I drive around Chanhassen, there are
a million people I realize that are not in compliance that are watering during the day and what have you but
I felt like I was in shock that we felt like we were making a good faith effort and I said, you know
somebody drove around at 3:00 a.m. and they.., wrong day and I received a ticket so now I'm going to have
to go to court to fight that. I said I felt like the City of Chanhassen could have maybe sent out a letter to
everybody saying we are really taking this seriously. You know check your calendars every day to make
sure you're on the right day or you'll be ticketed. I just felt this was kind of an extreme reaction.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you very much. Teresa, do you want to respond and maybe get a hold of
Karen after the meeting also please.
Teresa Burgess: Actually Karen and I have discussed this ticket and in this case it is an odd/even
violation. We've discussed previously in work session the August 31st, September 1st. The ordinance does
not make an exception for that. It does state odd/even calendar date and this is one of those instances that it
is a sprinkler system that was set for every other day and it did go into violation in September. At this
point the ticket has been forwarded onto Carver County and as we discussed, if we do one ticket, to be fair
we would need to revoke all of the odd/even violations that were noted because otherwise how would we
know if somebody was doing because their sprinkler system was set for every other day or not. The judge
does have the authority to do that if he feels that it's appropriate. I had recommended to the council that
we re-visit our ordinance in November. That we take a couple weeks after the completion of this project
just to give us some distance and then come back and revisit our ordinance if it's still appropriate for
Chanhassen or not because we have found that a lot of people in Chanhassen do not understand the
odd/even restriction that actually goes into place May 1st and runs through September 30th of every year.
Mayor Mancino: Now just, I'm not the judge here but a fairness issue. Have there been others who have
gotten tickets and have also called and asked about the odd/even and they've had the two odd days much
like Karen? Because I want to make sure that everyone is treated the same.
Teresa Burgess: We've received several calls regarding the citations. Why did they get a citation? The
majority of the citations that were issued in September were odd/even violations. Of the first 40 tickets
issued, I would say less than 15% were other violations.
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
Mayor Mancino: That's quite a lot. Okay. Well first of all, thank you for coming and thank you for your
comments and yes, I think that we have learned as a city when we do the watering ban, and there will be
another one next spring for the same water tower needs to be maintained and painted on the outside. And
due to, and you have to take and empty the water on the inside because of condensation will not allow the
paint to cure. So we will be doing this again in the spring and I would say that we have learned a lot on
how to go about communicating and letting everyone know when that's going to happen. And we'll be
discussing that so. Thank you.
Teresa Burgess: Madam Mayor, ifI may.
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Teresa Burgess: Just for the council's information. We do plan next spring to issue a warning to all of
the individuals in Chanhassen, all of the residences, that the sprinkling restriction is going into place and
that we do intend to enforce it in the spring. So everyone will receive a warning right up front at the
beginning of the project and then hopefully we will cut back on the number of people that were surprised or
unsure of what the restrictions were.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. So you will have to go in front of the court, in front of the judge and
plead your case. Okay.
Councilman Senn: Question ifI could. Now when you do that in the spring, that's going to be the special
rules that you're talking about, right?
Teresa Burgess: As I said, in November I'll be bringing that ordinance that's the odd/even restriction.
The May 1st through September 30th back to the council for discussion. I'll schedule that for a work
session to discuss that ordinance to see if it is still appropriate for Chanhassen because what we're finding
is as we talk to residents, a larger number of them are unaware of the ordinance in the first place. And a lot
of people would be interested in watering every 3 days or making those determinations for themselves so we
need to look at whether that ordinance is doing what it's intended to and if it's still appropriate for
Chanhassen. If the council after discussion feels it still is, we'll include that in our notification in the spring
but that is cited every year in our newsletter that goes out in the spring reminding people that we do have a
standing ordinance in place from May 1st through September 30th.
Councilman Senn: All I'm trying to differentiate between is regardless of what we do on the ordinance we
will still have special rules in place in the spring because of the remaining work on the water reservoir.
Teresa Burgess: Correct, and we are again, in November-December we'll be looking at usage patterns
and we've learned a lot about our system over this time period and we'll be tailoring those restrictions
based on feedback we've gotten from residents and feedback that we've gotten from the system itself.
What works. What doesn't and hopefully we'll have something that will be less upsetting to the residents
because a lot of people have complained that the hours are very inconvenient.
Mayor Mancino: And we also may get rain next spring too.
Teresa Burgess: I hope so.
Scott Botcher: Not if we want to paint the tower. It can rain at night.
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
PUBLIC HEARING: LEVY CERTIFICATION TAX RATE INCREASE.
Bruce DeJong: Mayor Mancino and Council. What you have before you is a state mandated format that
we're required to follow to determine if our bond debt is increasing each year. It's something that was put
in place last year and this is just the second time that you've seen this type of information. The calculation
is basically to determine whether the levy has gone up due to council action. And the figures that you see
there as far as the levy certification tax rate or the adjustments for HACA and stuff like that, you probably
won't see anywhere else during the course of the budget process. Those are some numbers that generally
are hidden from view but this is something that the legislature put into place in order to make sure that
people were not confusing the tax levy increase with the tax rate staying the same.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions for staff at this point? Thank you. Bringing it back, any discussion or
may I have a motion please?
Councilwoman Jansen: Isn't it a public hearing?
Mayor Mancino: Oh it is. Thank you very much. This is a public hearing so anyone else can come up
and, is there anyone here that would like to? Seeing none, bring it back to council and any discussion on
council? Okay, then may I please have a motion?
Councilman Labatt: Are we going to wait for Councilman Senn to step back in? I notice he all of a sudden
got up and walked out.
Mayor Mancino: He probably went to the restroom. I think we can go ahead. I think we can go ahead
with the motion.
Councilman Engel: Move approval.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Resolution #2000-71: Councilman Engel moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve a
Resolution Authorizing a Levy Certification Tax Rate Increase for Taxes Collectible in 2001. All
voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who was not present at the vote, and the motion carried.
AWARD OF BIDS: LAKE ANN PARK MAINTENANCE FACILITY.
Todd Hoffman: Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. The frontage road at Lake Ann, the
extension of Coulter Boulevard, necessitated that our tin, the barn as we refer to it, be taken away and a
new building constructed at Lake Ann. This past week Engelhardt and Associates and members of city
staff opened bids for the new facility which is a 9,760 square foot, all brick construction building near the
entrance of Lake Ann. Westra Construction is the low bidder at a cost of $755,750. Eight bids were
received up to just over a million dollars. This is a bid which is on budget and in fact somewhat under
budget. We were happy with the bid resuks that day and staff recommends the City Council award the
project to Westra Construction of Chaska, Minnesota in the amount of $755,750.
Mayor Mancino: Great, thank you. Any questions for Todd? Thank you Todd.
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
Todd Hoffman: Thank you. JeffWeyandt from Engelhardt and Associates is also here if you have
questions of the engineer.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone here tonight wishing to address the council on this? Okay.
Bring it back to council. Any discussion?
Scott Botcher: As I stated in the work session, I just would reiterate the two contingencies that I would
request be placed on the approval.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And one of those has to do with a lease agreement with Waconia Hospital for the
ambulance bay that we will be building there.
Scott Botcher: It's our expectation that both contingencies will be met through council action in two
weeks. That's our goal.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Then may I please have a motion and a second?
Councilman Labatt: Move approval.
Councilman Engel: Second.
Resolution #2000-72: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Engel seconded to award the contract
to Westra Construction in the amount of $755,750. for the construction of the Lake Ann Park
maintenance building contingent on approval of the lease agreement with Waconia Hospital and the
financial paperwork. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
REQUEST FOR KENNEL PERMIT~ 7187 FAWN HILL ROAD~ KRIS COSGROVE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Sandy LaPrade
Pam Brown
Paul Olson
Leah Hawke
Robert & Kris Cosgrove
Cheryl Hissong
2351 Hunter Drive
2438 Hunter Drive
2189 Red Fox Circle
7444 Moccasin Trail
7187 Fawn Hill Road
7175 Fawn Hill Road
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, City Council members. The city has received a request for a kennel permit at
7187 Fawn Hill Road. The applicant is a Ms. Cosgrove who owns three male Sheltie Sheepdogs in a
residential neighborhood. Staff has received several complaints from neighbors regarding the permit based
on the advertisement in the Chanhassen Villager. When complaints are received from neighbors, the City
Council must then consider approval of the kennel permit. Staff has inspected Mrs. Cosgrove's kennel. It
is an unfinished basement and is maintained very neatly. Mrs. Cosgrove had been using an Invisible Fence
system and that system has not been in operation due to some construction going on around her house and
based on Mr. Treanor's statements that he has repaired the fence system, staff still believes that the
Invisible Fence system is not a proper enclosure. Based on that staff recommends approval of the kennel
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
permit for Mrs. Cosgrove at 7187 Fawn Hill Road with the condition, the applicant install a 4 foot chain
link fence around the perimeter of her back yard. The applicant I believe is here and would like to make
some statements.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. You may certainly come up please. Now, when you say 4 foot tall chain link
fence, does that mean it has to be a chain link fence?
Todd Gerhardt: Well, it's the minimum is what I'm recommending that, to secure Shelties or a smaller dog
so to properly enclose the back yard, at a minimum she should have a 4 foot chain link fence.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Mrs. Cosgrove.
Kris Cosgrove: Hi. First of all I'd like to apologize to my neighbors who have put up with a bad situation
I think and I really do mean to be sincere and say that it wasn't my intention to have the dogs be a problem
and it kind of has. And they have my sincere apologies and I think that we plan to do something about this
in the near future to make sure that people aren't bothered or otherwise hassled by this. I really did not
intend, and if I had known about this earlier I certainly would have taken some measures myself to secure
the environment.
Mayor Mancino: Could you state your name and address please.
Kris Cosgrove: Kris Cosgrove, 7187 Fawn Hill Road.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And have you met with your neighbors about their concern?
Kris Cosgrove: I haven't. The head of the neighborhood called me about a month ago and told me that the
dogs were a problem and so then I tried to make sure that the Invisible Fence was working and that the
dogs were secure. Were supposedly secure. And then I had the collar sort of upgraded so that the
frequency would be higher so they wouldn't get out of the area. But I guess this has continued to be a
problem and I want to make it, you know I don't want to have to argue with anybody. I just want to make
it right. Okay, thanks.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. I'll open this for public comment. I just would suggest that you're all
neighbors and live in the same neighborhood. That when you do come up, if you could respect that and
think about that because you're going to be neighbors for a while but if you'd like to come up and give
your comments, that would be helpful for the council to hear them. And obviously we like to see neighbors
and neighborhoods get together and iron out concerns themselves instead of doing that at a city council
meeting.
Paul Olson: And that would be my wish. I'm Paul Olson and I'm at 2189 Red Fox Circle and I'm here
just to relate a very short story regarding the dogs and certainly I wish that things could have been resolved
in a different way rather than ending up here in council chambers. But this has been a real, really more
than a nuisance problem for many, many months. I know there's been one documented case of a dog bite
and there is an additional 3, if not 4, other bites that I have heard of. We happen to live very close to the
Cosgrove's. We happen to enjoy evening walks and we personally have been harassed by the dogs on
many occasions. One particular incident that I want to bring to your attention would be when my wife and
my two small children, age 3 ½ and 8 months were walking nearby. The dogs did come onto the street.
Were very close. Very menacing. Were biting. Excuse me, not biting but barking and looked to be ready
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
to be ready for an attack. The only thing that stopped the dogs was another party coming along that
distracted them and they went onto the next party. That was upsetting enough but maybe the more
upsetting part of that episode was the reaction of Mrs. Cosgrove. She was in the garage and chose rather
than dealing with the situation, walked into the home and just left the situation alone and that was upsetting
to us. There are covenants in our neighborhood. Part of those covenants deal with fences. They need to
pass architectural control committee to be okayed. Part of those covenants also talk about limits on dogs
and it is a 2 dog limit in the neighborhood. And part of moving into that neighborhood was reviewing
covenants and agreeing to abide by those covenants. And it's something we've chosen to do as a
neighborhood and it's curious that someone would come into a neighborhood such as our's, with an
association, with 3 dogs and try and deal with the situation later.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. If you could just wait Mr. Olson and so everyone can hear me from the
neighborhood. Mr. Knutson is our City Attorney and can you talk a little bit to Mr. Olson and the
neighborhood to the difference between what we as a council and our city codes versus your association
covenants and what we can and can't do and the difference between the two. If you could take us to school
for a minute and do that please Roger.
Roger Knutson: Certainly Mayor. The City obviously can enforce it's ordinances and that's what we're
about doing tonight. The City cannot enforce private covenants. Private covenants are private contracts
between the members of the association, folks who own lots in your subdivision. We cannot enforce those.
We can enforce our ordinances. So for example, if the city grants or if they don't grant, then there's no
issue. If they were to grant a kennel permit tonight. I'm not suggesting how anyone's going to decide the
issue. That would satisfy city requirements and if they imposed, the City imposed certain requirements
such as fences or what have you, that takes care of step one. They have a second step apparently they have
to hurdle, clear. That is your covenants. So just because we, the City were to say for example you can
have 3 dogs and you have to have whatever sized fence, that would satisfy the City. They would still have
to give covenants, satisfy your covenants. And if the City's requirements bumped heads with your
covenants and they couldn't comply with the City requirements because of that, then they couldn't have a
kennel.
Paul Olson: I understand. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, great. Thank you. And excuse me, Mr. Olson? Do you have a method, a process
where people come into your association to get approval?
Paul Olson: Yes. Reviewal of documents is part of the transaction, yes.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the council?
Sandy LaPrade: Hi. My name is Sandy LaPrade and I live at 2351 Hunter Drive and if you saw any of
the paperwork you would see a letter from myself and a police report from my dog bite from this
household. I live I'd say a good block from them. I've never met them. I didn't even know they had the 3
dogs. I was walking one Sunday morning with my sister and the dog that bit me came straight from their
front porch and I could tell from a long distance, I was even on the other side of the street, I told my sister
that dog's going to bite me. And it was the fiercest looking dog I've ever seen in my life and he came
straight at me with a sick face and bit me in the leg. And all the way back to my house I had numbness and
tingling in my leg and I was very upset because I knew I was going to have a scar on my leg. But more so I
called the police because I was aware that that is what you're supposed to do because there is a protocol
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
where dogs have to have, be checked for rabies and what not. When I called the police he came over and he
said he was going to go visit with them and he went straight over to their home and no one was home. This
was 8:00 on a Sunday morning. The dog was outside with no one home and I found that somewhat
irresponsible for a dog. Later, a couple weeks down the road I had a party at my home and this is when I
mentioned the dog bite and all these people started telling me about other dog bites and I was appalled that
any dog, in any neighborhood could be allowed to bite more than once. I think the first time it's somewhat
of a shock and I can't imagine not being apologetic to someone for it. But a second time is uncalled for.
I'm very concerned for our children's safety. They have to walk to their bus stop at the next driveway.
Children have to walk past their home to get to the park. I'm very concerned when that dog came and bit
me, that would be face level to a 3 year old and I think that this family has shown to be somewhat
irresponsible in taking care of these dogs. I am concerned that if the council approves the chain link fence,
I'm quite sure that our homeowners association then will not approve it. My concern then is, do they have
the okay to keep 3 dogs or?
Mayor Mancino: Depending on what your association does. If they want to do a civil lawsuit and go
forward. I'm assuming, is that correct Roger?
Roger Knutson: Yes. There's also a limitation on the number of dogs without a kennel permit as well.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So if we would say.
Councilman Senn: Which is a city enforcement issue.
Roger Knutson: That's correct.
Sandy LaPrade: I would ask of the Cosgrove's, I don't even know you. Like I said, never met you. Well I
did leave out one thing that the dogs were very fierce to the policeman and he said he had to use self defense
for them when he entered the property. But I would ask you as neighbors to not pursue this knowing that
what is about to maybe be approved is not okay with the homeowners association. So if you indeed pursue
that, I just think that that is apt to cause an awful lot of stress for the entire community including the
homeowners association because I think you know now. I don't know if you knew before this meeting, that
chain link fences aren't allowed in Longacres.
Kris Cosgrove: What if we do a wood fence?
Sandy LaPrade: That I don't know and I think that's probably more apt to get approved. I don't know if
the city's going to approve that because I know your dogs are somewhat small and they might go under it, I
don't know.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, we'll talk about that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else? Please
come forward.
Cheryl Hissong: My name is Cheryl Hissong and I live next door to the Cosgrove's at 7175 Fawn Hill
Road. And I would like to ask that this permit not be approved. I have also been bitten by the dog and I
can say that I have visited with the Cosgrove's on 4 different occasions. The first time was when the dogs
first started breaking the fence. I knocked on the door and told them that there was a safety issue
concerning their dogs and they needed to keep them in their yard because they were in the street and that I
was afraid that one of them was going to get hurt. On a second occasion I knock on the door and told them
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
again that the dogs were outside of the fence, and that they needed to keep them in their own yard. The
third time I knocked on their door was the day that the dog came into my yard on my front sidewalk and bit
me in the leg. And that time it went too far. The dogs were in my yard and I told the Cosgrove's that then.
And then I knocked on the door one other time and told them that the dogs were breaking the fence again
and that they needed to take care of the problem. The bus stop is at my house. In my driveway. I have 3
young children of my own ranging in age from 5 to 10. I'm concerned for the safety of my children in my
own front yard because I was in my front yard when the dog came to my yard and bit me. I'm concerned
for the children, the 3 children who have to walk down the street past those dogs every morning to get to the
bus stop. Those dogs on occasion have chased my son down the street as he was walking to one of his
friend's houses. And I just, I don't think that you have acted responsibly either considering that I have
knocked on your door and told you that the dogs were outside of the fence. And after the dog bit me, you
said you would keep them in the back yard and that only lasted for about 3 days and then they were out in
the front yard again. As of last weekend, beyond the date that this application was submitted and beyond
the date where the fence company said that the fence was fixed, as of last weekend from Friday to Monday,
every time I left my yard in my car, the dogs chased me down the street outside of the fence. That tells me
that either the fence isn't working like the fence company said it was, or the dogs are still not wearing the
collars and I think that's a problem. So I would also like to ask that the kennel permit not be granted.
When we moved into the neighborhood we moved in under the assumption that the covenants would be in
place and that there were a maximum of 2 dogs allowed. I, myself own a dog. In the past I've had cats
that ended up being a health problem for my daughter and I know the pain of having to get rid of cats. Get
rid of pets that are a part of your family. But there were expectations within the neighborhood that we
would not have to contend with problems like this and so I just, I would ask that the kennel permit not be
granted.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else?
Carolyn Voelden: Hi. We live at 2188 Red Fox Circle and our back yard is the same.
Mayor Mancino: Could you state your name too please.
Carolyn Voelden: Oh I'm sorry, Carolyn Voelden and our back yard shares the same boundary with their
back yard and I guess all summer long if the dogs were out then I didn't feel like I could have Tyler playing
in the back yard for fear that he might get bit. And I just don't feel that it's right that they should keep 3
dogs in the neighborhood.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else?
Scott Washee: Hi, Scott Washee. I live in the Longacres neighborhood close to one of the entrances. Also
nice to meet you folks under these difficult circumstances. I'm also a Board member, which is difficult to
be a board member at one of these times of course but I wanted to be to make the neighborhood in
Chanhassen a good place. Several factors. We've got so much emotion and so much facts going into this
decision. Ultimately it comes down to, in my opinion, a public safety issue. And the rules of Chanhassen.
Now I understand you can't enforce our covenants, which clearly states 2 dogs and I respect that obviously
with the city. So taking it a step beyond that to your issue then, what it really comes down to is a public
safety issue and should you be granting this permit or not. You've heard several difficult instances. I'm
sure we could hear some positive instances as well. Tax paying citizens, everything else, but the reality is
you have 3 dogs that are aggressive and what the council needs to recommend in my opinion is that this
permit not be granted and enforce a fence issue and possibly re-look at the permit assuming the board,
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
Longacres Board would approve that. A fence could be approved through the architectural review
committee which they can apply for. Essentially the process is they have to apply. The architectural
review committee says yes or no. Yes you can have this fence if you make these alterations to secure the
animals. The biggest issue really is making sure that the animals are safe. According to the City they can
have 3 animals so the biggest step, at least in your court anyway is to enforce the safety issue of the
animals in my opinion. We only kennel out 2 animals in the neighborhood. If you can take that into
consideration, great. If not, at least make sure that these animals are safely confined. I know an Invisible
Fence, I've got a little puppy and that little turkey just runs right through the Invisible Fence but so much
going on and I don't know what to say other than just please take into consideration public safety when you
make your decision. I don't have any young children but I admit when I take my evening walks, I am
hesitant to walk through there. Not anybody against my neighbors but I do fear for the aggressive nature of
the dogs for my own puppy so please take that into consideration. Our neighborhood covenants as well and
do you have any questions for me?
Mayor Mancino: I really don't but I would hope Scott as a board member of your association that after we
do make a decision and after this comes in front of the board, that you do try and get the neighbors all
together again and have a wonderful neighborhood there and work through this.
Scott Washee: That's ultimately our goal.
Mayor Mancino: And work through this together.
Scott Washee: Anybody else have any questions on our process or anything that we go through? Thank
you.
Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Mrs. Cosgrove, could you come up for a minute. I just have a couple questions before
we deliberate. You have 3 dogs. Is there one that is the problem or are all 3 of them somewhat hyper and
prone to attack or is it one that you know of that you really do have a problem with one of the dogs?
Kris Cosgrove: There is one that I know of that has been a problem. Or I think is the problem. I'm not
really sure but I think it is.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And what do you feel that you can do about that because if we limit it to 2, it may
be you know still the one dog that's the problem. And that's my concern.
Kris Cosgrove: IfI make a promise to the City to build a wooden fence in my yard and get approval by the
board at my residence, that that would contain the dogs and it wouldn't be a further problem for the people
because they wouldn't be seen or heard.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Labatt: I've got a question.
Mayor Mancino: Excuse me.
Kris Cosgrove: Yes.
10
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
Councilman Labatt: When did you move into the house on Fawn Hill Road? How long ago?
Kris Cosgrove: Last December.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. Prior to that where did you live?
Kris Cosgrove: Cardinal Road in Hopkins.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. And how old are the dogs?
Kris Cosgrove: 7, 4 and 3.
Councilman Labatt: And have you had any prior problems with your dogs?
Kris Cosgrove: No.
Councilman Labatt: In those cities?
Kris Cosgrove: No.
Councilman Labatt: You're sure?
Kris Cosgrove: Yes.
Councilman Labatt: What address did you live at? On Cardinal Lane. On Cardinal Road.
Kris Cosgrove: 3643 Cardinal Road.
Councilman Labatt: Well, okay. I'll wait.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thanks. Okay, bringing this back to Council. Steve, do you want to start?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah. I called Minnetonka Police and on 8/3 of 1999, Case #99-3694, their dogs
were involved in a dog bite.
Mayor Mancino: Where?
Councilman Labatt: In the city of Minnetonka. So.
Mayor Mancino: Do you want to give some more comments on how you're feeling?
Councilman Labatt: Well, we've just been lied to... but you know, I just, I mean I'm totally against this. I
would recommend denial and 2 confirmed bites. 2 alleged bites. One by Ms. Hissong and there's another
one by the jogger that was in a letter. Public safety, boy my kids go up and down that road too into the
park and like Ms. LaPrade said, her bite was face height of a 3 year old and I don't want to be sitting here
next year having angry residents at us saying, if you only would have listened to us. So I would
recommend denial.
11
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: You know when you sit on here for 4 years, once in a while an issue comes up that
you have a little expertise in and some personal experience. I've had multiple dogs for many years. And
I've had some big dogs. I've had several Great Danes. I also have an underground fence so I know the
capabilities of those things and I know their limitations. And I love dogs, and as you can probably tell I
love animals. I'll give them every benefit of the doubt. I'll give them every chance. Danes are typically
pretty gentle but I got one who was a dominant dog and I knew it. I think anybody that's had a dog who's
even slightly a problem, at these ages 3, 4 and 7, I knew it by age 2. So I don't think they sneak up on your
and surprise you and all of a sudden nip somebody. And one time I had him out on a vacation with us and
he bit somebody. And I always feared it could happen, but I was there to generally protect against it. But
once it happened, you really don't cut them any slack because I think you know you've got a bad dog in
there. At least one of them. And I live in a neighborhood where there's just too many kids running around
and I know that Longacres neighborhood, there's a lot of kids running around. My wife couldn't handle
this dog. They're pretty big. Your dogs may be little but kids can't handle them. If it can bite adults, it
can really bite a kid and I just, that kind of thing bothered me, I'd put my dog down within one hour after
he bit that person. Because the longer you wait, the tougher it gets and you'll rationalize it away every
time. And I know that because it's tough to put a dog down when he's your's. So I don't think this is a
surprise to you. I think you know which dog it is. I wouldn't go with the kennel. You know my question
would be, why you don't muzzle them. I mean I could have muzzled my dog because it tends to disarm
them and they become, I won't say cowards but they coward around other dogs when they've got a muzzle
on because they know they've got no self defense so I would have done that at the very least. I'll be real
honest with you too, I've got a reputation as somewhat of a Neanderthal so I won't be breaking any new
ground here. If that had been my wife or one of my kids got bit, you'd have 2 dogs, I promise you that.
And we wouldn't be here. I might be here. But that's bad news moving into a neighborhood like that and
having something like that happen. It's not a good thing to, you're just, you're not going to have a fun
experience living there with that cloud hanging over you. I would advise you to step up and take care of
the problem. I think you know what it is. Fence might solve it. Maybe. If he never bolts out the front
door. If they never get over the fence when the collars get weak. If they don't barge through because
they're hard headed like my dogs did from time to time. Nothing's full proof on those fences. They're nice
because you don't have to put fences up in the neighborhood so the neighborhood tends to look nice, but the
dogs get wise to those fences too. They know when the collars are getting weak and sometimes they're just
hard headed, they'll run right through them. They aren't the answer if you've got a problem dog. So I
wouldn't be for it. I know a chain link fence doesn't cut it in that neighborhood. A 6 foot wood fence
would be a minimum and I'm serious, you'd have to have muzzles on those dogs if it was that kind of a
problem.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilwoman Jansen.
Councilwoman Jansen: I don't belabor all the points that Councilman Engel just covered very well and I
would echo. I do, again I look at this as two separate issues. We have the public safety issue as well as the
issue of the behavior of all 3 animals. One is the biting dog who has obviously demonstrated that it does
have a tendency towards being dangerous. That unfortunate individual dog needs to be handled differently
than the other 2. And the other 2 1 think having noted their behavior while I was out there would probably
benefit from being in the back yard with a wooden fence around them so they too aren't constantly in a
dither over people going by. This is such a major thoroughfare for both cars and individuals. While I was
out there the dogs were busy barking at a neighbor way across the way who was out in his back yard. So
12
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
there are also those notes on here about the complaints centered around the excessive barking, aggressive
behavior. Then we have the one known bite. So I am having a tendency to want to encourage the
Cosgrove's to address them as two separate issues. Address the aggressive, known behavior of the one
animal so that no one is put at risk. And then separately address the other two, and their situation. Their
quality of life as well as the quality of life of the neighbors around you. I look at it as a, it's both situations
would be an improvement if they were isolated from all of that activity. And the children. We're going to
have children that are going to grow up afraid of dogs and I do find that disturbing, let alone if one of them
were to end up bitten. So I am too leaning towards denying the application but wanting to further
encourage the Cosgrove's to address the situation and definitely work things out with the neighbors. Thank
you. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: I don't really want to be too repetitive. I don't feel that we should approve the kennel
permit based on public safety and irresponsible behavior. My only concern is is I would hope that the 2
remaining pets aren't the problem one, which we can't control, and also would only hope that the
responsible action would be taken to start controlling the remaining dogs. Which again we can't control.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, okay thank you. And I feel very much the same way and don't want to belabor the
point so.
Councilman Labatt: I've got a question for Roger. Do we as a council Roger have the authority to
designate that 2 dogs on the property as potentially dangerous dogs? Or is that up for a court to say?
Roger Knutson: That is up, that's for the city to decide, not a court.
Councilman Labatt: The city can decide that?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Councilman Labatt: So with the information being provided to us tonight as far as the 3 dogs being out
and chasing vehicles and, maybe just for a point of discussion as far as maybe designating the 2 remaining
dogs there as a potentially dangerous dog which would then, we could recommend that they have to muzzle
those 2 dogs?
Councilman Senn: Okay, can we isolate this more ourselves? I mean the information you have from
Minnetonka, I'm a little confused because they said they lived in Hopkins and you have it from
Minnetonka.
Councilman Labatt: Well I think Hopkins and Minnetonka, it's the same road they live on. Cardinal Road.
36.
Councilman Senn: Oh okay, so it's a border road between Hopkins and Minnetonka? Was a specific pet
identified?
Councilman Labatt: No. And that's what, I mean nobody's willing to tell us here which dog it is,
including the Cosgrove's. And that's why I'm just saying if you eliminate the one dog and designate 2
more dogs as potentially dangerous dogs and muzzle them. Because they don't know which dogs are doing
the biting.
13
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
Councilwoman Jansen: Also within the ordinance Steve it talks to confinement. Securely and confined
indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked pen or kennel. I guess I'm going to whether or not it can be an
enclosed back yard with a 6 foot fence. If that encompasses this dangerous.
Councilman Labatt: It could also be in an enclosed kennel like my neighbor behind me has. He has a 10
foot high kennel underneath his deck and it's fully enclosed to keep his dogs in.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay.
Councilman Labatt: So there's, you know.
Councilwoman Jansen: So it's an outside enclosure?
Councilman Labatt: It's a kennel but there's a common dog door I call it. The dog nuzzles open with his
nose to go in and out of the house when he wants to. But yet there's 4 sides on the fence and a roof to keep
the dog in.
Mayor Mancino: But you could also have it in a back yard, fenced in back yard also.
Councilman Labatt: Well and if the covenants say you can have a dog kennel out in the open like that. I'm
not sure what my covenants say.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, I don't know what they say either but I like isolating the two and going with the,
not going ahead and getting the kennel permit and the potentially dangerous dog in some way. Making sure
that it is in a defined area. The dogs are in a defined area and can't leave that area. And I don't know what
the covenants are. So is that something Roger that we can act on?
Roger Knutson: Mayor, it'd be our recommendation that you deal with the kennel issue and since you
really don't have on your agenda tonight the potentially dangerous dog issue, that you refer that to staff for
a report back to you promptly.
Scott Botcher: The difficulty is obviously, we don't, as Roger said in the work session, you can act as long
as you're not arbitrary and capricious and I don't know how sitting here right now we can identify, you
know you might have a dog there that's an angel. One of the two. I mean I don't know. I just don't know.
And I'm not sure right now, unless Roger has a brainstorm, how we would identify that because you're
right. The dogs aren't identified on the police reports. It could be any one of the 3. It could be the 3 of
them have done it each once. You never know.
Roger Knutson: Talking to the deputy who was involved, maybe the deputy can identify that dog. And
then we can act. We have to identify which dog.
Scott Botcher: Or maybe a bite victim could help us.
Councilwoman Jansen: Yeah I was thinking.
Councilman Senn: Could we have the dog remanded to the city facility for a determination, because we do
have, I mean I thought we take our animals all down to what is it, Paws and Claws or whatever.
14
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
Councilman Labatt: That's only on a dog bite for quarantine purposes.
Councilman Senn: But I mean, couldn't we remand all 3 dogs down there for a determination as to which
ones is the aggressive behavior?
Roger Knutson: Well it isn't just aggressive behavior. You have to meet the entire definition. It'd be very,
it'd be important to know which dog that did the biting. Dog or dogs. If we're going to make that
declaration of dangerous dog.
Mayor Mancino: Well I think you're giving direction to having staff work that through and talking with the
deputy who answered the phone call and came over and talked with them, would be worth it. And then
have it come back to council for us to review and to look at.
Roger Knutson: I think that's the best approach. You certainly can deal with the kennel permit tonight.
Mayor Mancino: And then the residents would be notified too as we discuss this further.
Roger Knutson: Right. And if you mm down the kennel permit for example, they should know they're
limited to 2 dogs so 1 would have to leave immediately.
Scott Botcher: And how long do they have to be in compliance with that ordinance?
Roger Knutson: They should be in compliance with it now.
Mayor Mancino: I mean we'd have to give them 24, 48 hours.
Roger Knutson: A reasonable period of time, yes.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Is that, does everyone feel comfortable with that? Going ahead with the
kennel recommendation and then having staff work through that. The potential dangerous dog and talking
with the deputy who answered the call, etc and coming back to us with a recommendation.
Councilwoman Jansen: And the bite victims I would think might be able to help identify which one.
Roger Knutson: Just from sitting up here I have no idea whether the dogs all look the same or whether
they're different or whatever.
Councilwoman Jansen: Close. I think you can tell them apart.
Councilman Senn: I think it's important also how we do this. So I would move that we deny the kennel
permit based upon ongoing public safety issue and the ongoing irresponsible behavior of the owners.
Roger Knutson: And direct staff to prepare Findings for your next agenda documenting that for the record.
Councilman Senn: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. May I please have a second to the motion?
15
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
Councilman Engel: Second.
Scott Botcher: Do you want to include in the motion, I'm just bringing this up so it doesn't slip through the
cracks. Some communication of compliance with the ordinance, allowing only 2 dogs. Or is that
complicating it Roger?
Roger Knutson: You can do that but the ordinance speaks for itself.
Councilman Senn: I don't think there's any question. They're being informed tonight.
Roger Knutson: If they don't comply with the ordinance they'll be cited, I assume.
Councilman Labatt: So are we going to give them 24 hours to become in compliance and see if some one
will go out there on Wednesday night and make sure they're in compliance.
Scott Botcher: I thought you'd do it on the way to the Wild game.
Councilman Senn: I don't know Roger, can we do that?
Mayor Mancino: Can we put a time in there? Is that against the ordinance or what?
Scott Botcher: I would recommend 48 hours is a reasonable amount of time.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Everyone comfortable with adding that on? Okay.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded that the City Council deny the kennel permit
request from Kris Cosgrove at 7187 Fawn Hill Road and prepare the City Attorney to prepare
Findings of Fact for denial based upon ongoing public safety issue and the ongoing irresponsible
behavior of the owners. The Cosgrove's have 48 hours to come into compliance with the ordinance.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Scott Botcher: Then following the 48 hours then, we can narrow it down to which one of the two dogs.
Mayor Mancino: Yes. And then.
Councilman Senn: Okay and then, do you want a motion for the action on.
Mayor Mancino: Yes, let's do the motion for the action on the follow-up.
Councilman Senn: Okay, and then move that the staff follow-up with a determination on what actions can
be taken one way or another in relationship to a dangerous animal situation at the residence.
Councilman Labatt: Can we specifically under Section 5.77 in the ordinance where it talks about all the
regulations, dangerous animals and confinement. Confinement outdoors and indoors and signage.
Councilman Senn: Well as I was understanding Roger earlier, he wants us to kind of refer to them so they
can come back with those recommendations and determinations.
16
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
Roger Knutson: There are potentially two avenues. There's a dangerous dog and a potentially dangerous
dog and maybe you want to leave it to us to look at the whole situation as to which is most appropriate.
Mayor Mancino: That we can do. Is there a second to the motion.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council direct staff to research
and come back with a recommendation as to a dangerous dog designation at the residence. All voted
in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Mancino: Did you have a question?
Robert Cosgrove: No, that's fine. I'm assuming that once we're down to 2 dogs, which is going to happen
by Wednesday, that.
Mayor Mancino: Staff will notify you.
Robert Cosgrove: ...those two dogs and see what they're like and that's fine.
Mayor Mancino: And they will notify you and come over and the deputy and maybe talk to some of your
neighbors also. Okay? Thank you. Thank you for coming.
REQUEST FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE BLUFF CREEK CORPORATE CENTER
PUD AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A ONE-STORY~ 67~664 SQ. FT. OFFICE/SHOWROOM
BUILDING; LOCATED AT STONE CREEK DRIVE BETWEEN TH 5 AND COULTER
BOULEVARD; BLUFF CREEK CORPORATE CENTER PHASE I, CSM CORPORATION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Mark Nordland
Suzanne Bemdt
Ross Fairbrother
2575 University Avenue, St. Paul
2575 University Avenue, St. Paul
1410 Halgren Road
Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, council members. This is a two part request. The first part is
an amendment to the design standards within the Bluff Creek Corporate Center. As part of the original
approval of the project, the City and the developer had estimated a 35 foot right-of-way taking for MnDot
with the Highway 5 right-of-way. When they finally did the acquisition they acquired an additional 40 feet.
However our design standards were based on the original assumption. So the amendment to the parking
setback would be consistent with the original concept for the layout of the parking lot on the site. The
second part of the request is to amend a building setback. However we don't believe that that portion of the
amendment is necessary. We are recommending approval of the amendment to the design standards. The
second part of the request is for site plan approval and approximately a 68,000 office/showroom/
warehouse building. We worked extensively with the developer to come up with a building design and
architectural detailing that we think will be an enhancement to that area and contribute to the visual
character of the Highway 5 corridor. Since they submitted their plans they've worked extensively with us
17
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
to revise their plans to address all of staff's concerns. Including relocating a sidewalk connection to the
city's trail system. Adding a screening element. The use of actual wood fencing on the south side of the
building to help screen the loading dock area from public views. And to work out some architectural
detailing. The design standards for Arboretum Business Park require a high quality and we believe the
applicant has met that. Staff is recommend approval of the site plan subject to the conditions in our staff
report. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Then is the applicant here and would you like to
address the council?
Mark Nordland: Madam Mayor, Council members. I'm Mark Nordland with CSM Corporation. The
address is 2575 University Avenue West in St. Paul. Once again we're very happy to be presenting
another high quality project to your group here and are anticipating approval and construction here as soon
as we can get into the ground. And as Bob mentioned, we're very happy with the cooperative effort that
we're able to achieve with the city staff and our staff together in order to incorporate all of their
suggestions as well as those made by the Planning Commission. That being said, we support all the
conditions in the recommended motions with the exception of one issue that we'd like you to take a look at.
We'd like the council to consider allowing us to construct a landscaped area along the north side of the
building in lieu of the sidewalk required in condition 7 and 8 in the staff report. We are still planning on
adding the sidewalk connection to the walking trail from the side of the parking lot. It's just been our
experience with this type of building that sidewalks that run parallel to those types of buildings with the
double row of parking, and 5 entrances along that side, really don't get used very often because almost
everybody that parks in those lots is almost immediately adjacent to the door that they're entering. And we
just feel that a landscaped area rather would benefit the property and the city more so than a sidewalk in
that area. When you compare the distances that you need to talk there, they're far less than those for
instance in a retail area where the parking lots are much larger and where there's much higher traffic. It
tends to be a very low traffic area and the longest conceivable walk to the trail connection would not be
very long. That would be the only exception to the staff report that's being discussed.
Mayor Mancino: And did you discuss this with staff? Have you discussed it with them?
Mark Nordland: We discussed with them that we had a difference of opinion. They feel a sidewalk is
beneficial.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any questions?
Scott Botcher: I have one. Steve does too I think.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah.
Scott Botcher: Is the sidewalk along the building Bob?
Bob Generous: Yes. It would follow on the north side adjacent to the parking lot.
Councilman Labatt: ... same map. Okay.
Mark Nordland: In our submission we have not shown it because that's what we submitted to get approved
and they added that as a condition to the approval.
18
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
Mayor Mancino: Okay? Thank you. Any questions at this point on the sidewalk? We'll discuss that in a
minute. Thank you. Anyone wishing to address the council on this? Seeing none, bringing this back to
council. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Do you want to talk about the sidewalk?
Bob Generous: ... use it. We want to encourage pedestrian traffic in this area separated from the parking,
vehicular use area and it will connect to our trail system that will run across Bluff Creek and connect to the
Rec Center school system as well as the Bluff Creek corridor going to the south. We want to encourage
that separation. Could it be done without the sidewalk? Yes. They provided a connection from their
parking lot to our trail. This would just be for the users on site.
Councilman Senn: Everything else looks fine with me. I'd go with staff on the sidewalk.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Councilman Labatt: ... staff on the sidewalk?
Mayor Mancino: Yeah.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: Councilwoman Jansen.
Councilwoman Jansen: I agree. I guess with the sidewalk, if we're moving people then from the north side
of the building around to the trail connection, it makes sense to move them on a sidewalk so I'm with staff
on this one.
Mayor Mancino: Any other comments?
Councilman Engel: I echo what they said on the sidewalks.
Councilman Labatt: Ditto.
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
Mayor Mancino: Hold on one second please.
Councilman Engel: Oh, you want to talk?
Mayor Mancino: Just one minute.
Councilman Senn: You didn't give me your normal hesitation.
Mayor Mancino: Bob my question is this. I just want to make sure that I've got it right because I'm
reading it two different ways on page 10. Under Planning Commission update. It's next to last paragraph.
I just want to make sure that there will not be access to Highway 5, the road will not be extended.
19
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
Bob Generous: Not within this project.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And that the church knows about it?
Bob Generous: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And they're fine with everything?
Bob Generous: There are some other issues they had.
Mayor Mancino: Are they fine with the street not going all the way to Highway 5?
Bob Generous: Yes. That wasn't their concern.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. I just wanted to make sure of that. A motion.
Councilman Senn: Move approval with staff's conditions.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve the minor
amendment to the Bluff Creek Corporate Center Design Standards changing the required parking
setback from Highway 5 to 10 feet; and also approving Site Plan #2000-11, plans prepared by Schoell
& Madsen, Inc., dated August 18, 2000, revised October 2, 2000, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration, and landscaping.
2. Site plan approval is contingent upon the final platting of the parcel into a lot and block
designation.
3. A maximum of 20 percent of the building may be used for showroom space.
4. Wall signage is only permitted on the north and south elevations of the building. A separate sign
permit shall be required for each sign.
5. Wall mounted unit lights must be directed downward so that there is no glare directed off site.
6. The developer must receive an easement from MnDot permitting them to provide landscaping
(including trees and shrubs) in depth within the TH 5 right-of-way.
7. Part of the proposed foundation landscaping on the north side of the building shall be relocated to
the east and west sides of the building to make room for the sidewalk system.
8. A sidewalk system must be installed adjacent to the building to permit the employees and
customers to walk to the building entrances without having to walk in the parking lot and to
connect this site to the larger sidewalk and trail system.
20
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
9. Bicycle racks will be required on-site.
10.
A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs,
bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can
be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance
#9-1.
11. PIV valves are required. Please indicate locations for review and approval on utility plans.
12.
Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact
curbs to be painted and exact location of ~No Parking Fire Lane Signs". Pursuant to Chanhassen
Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #06-1991, and Section 904-1, 1997 Uniform Fire
Code.
13.
The fire department sprinkler connection is required to be located adjacent to the main entrance of
the building. The fire sprinkler contractor must contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact
location.
14.
Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding premise
identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-
1992.
15.
In reviewing the preliminary utility plans, a number of hydrants have been properly located;
however, additional hydrants will be required and some of the proposed hydrants will need to be re-
located. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval of re-location and new
hydrants to be installed.
16. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
17.
The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
18. Cleanouts are required on both sanitary sewer services at intervals not to exceed 100 feet.
19. Post indicator valves are required on the fire service lines.
20.
The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible
to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
21.
The developer shall supply the City with a detailed haul route for review and approval by staff
materials imported to or exported from the site. If the material is proposed to be hauled off-site to
another location in Chanhassen, that property owner will be required to obtain an earthwork permit
from the City.
22.
The public street and utility improvements throughout the development will require detailed
construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard
specifications and detail plates. Final construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to
21
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
staff for review and City Council approval a minimum of three weeks prior to final plat
consideration. The private utilities shall also be constructed in accordance with the City's
Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and/or state plumbing codes.
23. All silt fence adjacent to a wetland, creek, or pond shall be Type III.
24.
The developer shall work with MnDot in coordinating site grading, drainage and street
improvements to be compatible with MnDot's upgrading of Trunk Highway 5 construction plans.
25.
Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements within
the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership.
26.
All areas disturbed as a result of activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-
mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
27.
The developer shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e.
Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps
of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of
approval.
28.
The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
29.
The applicant shall revise the storm sewer in the northerly parking lot to drain into the existing
storm sewer system and include an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along the pond.
30.
The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer sizing calculations for a 10 year, 24 hour storm
event prior to final plat approval.
31.
Revise the utility plan to extend the public watermain to the easterly property line for future
looping purposes. Delete the proposed 12 inch watermain stub to the north.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Mancino: The sidewalk's still there.
Councilman Engel: We like sidewalks.
Mayor Mancino: We're kind of a sidewalk community here. And could you please heat it so that in the
winter people can walk and.
REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.17 ACRE PARCEL INTO 4 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON
PROPERTY ZONED RSF~ RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY~ 6330 MURRAY HILL ROAD,
ARVIDSON'S ADDITION, MIKE ARVIDSON.
Public Present:
22
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
Nflme
Address
Ted Dorenkamp
Tom Winterer
CliffWoida
Debbie Lloyd
JoAnn Lewellen
6370 Murray Hill Road
2210 Melody Hill
6398 Murray Hill Road
7302 Laredo Drive
6340 Murray Hill Road
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. This item appeared before you on August
28th. The City Council reviewed and tabled action on this application. The main issue of concern with it
was how to access this property. There were 3 alternatives. A thru street running along the northerly
portion of the site. A private drive through the center of the property, or a cul-de-sac. Public right-of-way
cul-de-sac. City Council directed staff to do a pro's and con's analysis of the different alternatives. The
first one that you see before you is Exhibit B and this one utilizes a private driveway. I will highlight the
positives. The pro's of this alternative. It has less hard surface coverage. Less grading. It maintains
existing dwellings. Maintains the trees along the northerly property line. Those are fairly mature trees.
It's more economical to build. It's less restrictive as far as house pad layouts. It provides four
substantially larger lots and the City will not be responsible for maintaining the driveway. Exhibit C is a
public cul-de-sac and in this case we will meet the subdivision ordinance requirements. We'll be able to
provide for emergency vehicle turning movements. However, we have substantially increased the grading,
tree removal on the site as well as cost of providing the improvements. The last exhibit is Exhibit D. This
permits for a thru street. However you're taking out the trees along the north property line. These are the
mature trees that the neighborhood wanted to see saved. It does allow for the street connection, assuming
that the city can...with either Option B or C. One of the main concerns that we have is how do we provide
access as well as utilities to the property to the north. Should the City Council decide to go with a private
driveway we have an additional condition that we would like to add. We spoke to the applicant prior to the
meeting.
Mayor Mancino: And this is on Exhibit B?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: This is on Exhibit B. And it was basically add condition number 15 stating that the
applicant shall dedicate a cross access easement in favor of the property to the north. Also with condition
number 2.
Mayor Mancino: I'm sorry. Applicant shall dedicate.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Cross access.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Okay.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: In favor of the northerly property.
Mayor Mancino: Now do we need to say that it has to meet our ordinance for a private driveway. I mean
we have to be able to be able to use this easement, etc. Do we need to go into that any further?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Well what we'll do is work with the applicant when we bring it back before you for final
plat approval. We will finalize all of those issues.
23
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: And if I may regarding utilities. Condition number 2. The applicant shall be responsible
for extending sanitary sewer and water service to the development and then we would like to add, and the
property to the north.
Councilman Senn: That makes it a loop system then right?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: And that's another thing that the City Engineer and the applicant will have to work out
on the revised details. That's what we would like to see happen.
Mayor Mancino: And I'm assuming many of those trees are owned or on the property to the north. So that
if we do a looped system, they would be in those considerations and those discussions for utilities coming to
them.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: And if you have any questions, I'll be more than happy to answer them. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions? Thank you. Is the applicant here?
Mike Arvidson: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: And would you like to address the council on anything? You don't have to but you're
welcome to. And can you state your name and address please.
Mike Arvidson: Yes, I'm Mike Arvidson, the applicant. I would be amenable to allowing access to the
northerly property off of, from the west line. I would not be against that. My concern is the loop of the
sewer, water, etc. I don't think that would be necessary. I believe there is water and sewer on the westerly
side of the property coming in on the Melody Hill Road I believe. Spurred in. But there again I can go
over that with Engineering.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, and that's something that you can work out and if we need to look at it again at
final, because we certainly don't want to have it dead end because then we get a lot of rust build-up in the
water and you will build homes and you'll have residents that live in there and that aren't real happy.
Mike Arvidson: Right, I understand.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So we don't want to do that.
Mike Arvidson: So if we could connect say Murray Hill Road with Melody Hill Road, with the utilities,
that might take care of it.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, good.
24
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
Mike Arvidson: Any questions?
Mayor Mancino: Any questions for the applicant?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Councilwoman Jansen: No.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone here tonight wishing to address the council that lives in the
area?
Tom Winterer: I guess I just have one question. Oh, go ahead.
Mayor Mancino: That lives in the area.
Debbie Lloyd: I live in Chanhassen. My name's Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive and I
watched this go through the planning process and I think if we're looking at major changes like what are
suggested, this should go back to Planning Commission and make sure that all the standards are addressed
on the plat because there may be some issues here with setbacks, lot size, and other issues that may have
been overlooked. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Now everything has lot size and everything has been checked out.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Nothing has changed from the plat, no.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Nothing has changed since it's come from planning. We've reviewed it once
before, etc so the loop on the utilities won't change any of that. Okay, thank you.
Tom Winterer: My name's Tom Winterer. I live at 2210 Melody Hill which is this property right here.
And right now I access a garage on my lot from a private drive that stems directly off of the cul-de-sac on
Melody Hill side. And that's also I believe is the area that's been deeded to the City through the Golmen-
Hoff-Golmen Addition and so my private drive is now on the deeded portion to the City. It's a gravel
driveway and it's also probably what I'm believing it will be the connecting link for the utilities if they
connect to the Arvidson Addition property. So I would just like to be always brought into the loop as to
what is.
Mayor Mancino: What's going on?
Tom Winterer: Yeah. What are the proposals and what are the final solutions for the getting the utilities to
these new lots. And you know if I'm incurring expense, what could be done to, I don't know... I'm not sure
but.
Mayor Mancino: Will this have any affect on Tom's property?
Teresa Burgess: As far as cost, we would not be, unless you would volunteer to participate in the cost of
the utilities, it would be no responsibility unless you volunteered to participate. That's standard. We don't
have the ability to assess on behalf of the developer and so there's the possibility that there will be some
disruption during construction because your driveway runs on the right-of-way. If that's where it's
25
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
determined that is the best location for the utilities, there is a possibility of disruption during construction in
which case you would be involved in, at a minimum invited to a pre-construction meeting and informed as
we go along that that's what was being proposed.
Tom Winterer: But ultimately the gravel driveway would be returned to what I have today?
Teresa Burgess: It would be restored to as good or better condition as it is when the project initiates.
Tom Winterer: Very good. That's all I wanted. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thanks for coming. Anyone else?
JoAnn Lewellen: JoAnn Lewellen, 6340 Murray Hill Road and I just want to make sure that on your plats
that you get the correct address. You've been sending out notices for 6330 Murray Hill Road and we have
called a couple times so I'm putting this still back on the record that I hope that's not a reflection of any
inaccuracies or other inaccuracies in the plat. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. We caught that. Staff did and told us, so thank you. Anyone else?
Okay, discussion of council. Steve.
Councilman Labatt: No. No questions.
Mayor Mancino: Which, do you feel comfortable with B?
Councilman Labatt: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, great. Councilman Engel?
Councilman Engel: Same.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilwoman Jansen?
Councilwoman Jansen: The only question that I had, and I don't know if we need to necessarily put this in
the condition but on condition 4 where it does say if the utilities are extended along the northerly property
line. Staff had indicated in the work session that it would be extended from the westerly most terminus of
the private driveway and then go north and then go west. I guess my concern was that the utilities, as I
voiced in the work session, would be disrupting as much as if we were to put the private driveway, or the
public road through the northerly section. Will we have that diagramed when this comes back that that's
the suggested?
Teresa Burgess: When it comes back with the final plat we will determine the field location. At this time
staff did make an attempt originally to locate the proper location for it. However, it was determined that
that was really a little bit preliminary. That the developer should be looking at that again because of the
trees involved. And it was difficult to describe. What we're intending to say here with this condition, and I
don't know how to say it better, is that if a developer does what's requested on looping the watermain and
carrying through the sanitary, that in return the City agrees that if and when the northerly property connects
to those utilities, we will reimburse the developer what the City collects so they are taking on additional
expense up front but we would then in return, return anything that the City would be collecting.
26
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions?
Councilwoman Jansen: That was my only question.
Mayor Mancino: Thanks. Any other? Then may I please have a motion and a second. And with some of
the additions and changes that were made in the recommendations.
Councilman Senn: Move approval of Option B with the 15 added to make it a contingency upon a cross
access agreement. And amending number 2 to make it contingent upon the utilities, basically agreement
with staff on routing of the utilities and placement of the utilities as well as looping of the utilities. And I
think that's it.
Mayor Mancino: I'll just make a little friendly amendment, if you don't mind just to clarify that first
sentence on recommendation number 2 would read, the applicant shall be responsible for extending sanitary
sewer and water service to the development and the property to the north.
Councilman Senn: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And is there a second?
Councilwoman Jansen: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded that the City Council approves the
preliminary plat for Subdivision #00-8 for Arvidson's Addition for 4 single family lots as shown on
the plans dated Received June 30, 2000, with Option B for the roadway configuration, subject to the
following conditions:
The applicant shall be responsible for extending sanitary sewer and water service to the
development and the property to the north. Detailed construction plans and specifications in
accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates shall be
submitted to the city engineer for review and City Council approval. The applicant shall also enter
into a development contract with the City and provide the City with a financial escrow to guarantee
compliance with the conditions of approval. Staff and the applicant shall come to an agreement
regarding the routing, placement, as well as looping of the utilities.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the MWCC, Health Department and PCA
for extension of the utilities lines.
Lots 1, 2 and 3 will be subject to sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges. These charges shall
be collected per city ordinance at time of building permit issuance. If the utilities are extended
along the northern property line, the applicant shall be reimbursed for a portion of the cost of
installing the utilities when the parcel (Dorenkamp) connects to the system. Connection charges
collected by the City shall be used to reimburse the applicant their fair share of the cost in
providing utilities service to the Dorenkamp parcel.
27
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
If the utilities are not constructed within a public street right-of-way, the applicant shall dedicate a
40 foot wide utility and drainage easement centered over the utilities on the final plat.
If a public street is not constructed, the private street shall be built in accordance with the City's
private street ordinance. Cross access and maintenance agreements will be required to maintain
access. Outlot A shall be eliminated in favor of these cross access easements.
During utility and street construction, provisions shall be made to maintain at least one lane of
traffic open at all times on Murray Hill Road.
The applicant must plant 14 trees in development to meet minimum canopy coverage and
reforestation requirements. Trees must be from the City's Approved Tree List and be of minimum
sized as stated in the ordinance. Replacement plantings will be divided among the lots as follows:
Lot 1 - 4 trees, Lot 2 - two trees, Lot 3 - four trees, Lot 4 - four trees. Reforestation plan must
be submitted prior to final plat for city approval.
Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the grading limits prior to grading. Fencing shall
remain in place throughout the construction.
9. Building Department conditions:
Demolition permits must be obtained from the Inspections Division before demolishing any
structures on the property.
A final grading plan and soil report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
10.
The existing garage, shed, and barn shall be removed no later than one month after final plat
approval by the City Council. Financial guarantees shall be posted with the City to ensure
compliance with this condition.
11.
Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail
construction.
12. Fire Marshal conditions:
The new road servicing the four lots must be given a street name. Submit the proposed
street name to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and
approval.
Submit cul-de-sac radius dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
review and approval.
If any trees are to be removed, they must be either chipped or hauled off site. No burning
permits will be issued due to close proximity of neighboring houses.
13.
The proposed residential development of 2.17 net developable acres is responsible for a water
quality connection charge of $1,736. If the applicant demonstrates that ponding provided on site
28
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
meets the City's water quality goals, all or a portion of this fee may be waived. The applicant is
also responsible for a water quantity fee of $4,296.60. These fees are payable to the City at the
time of final plat recording.
14. The applicant shall dedicate a cross access easement in favor of the property to the north.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Mancino: So you guys have some work to do before it comes back to final. Thanks for coming.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF LIBRARY DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION SCOPE OF
SERVICES~ REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (SERVICES).
Public Present:
Name Address
Linda Landsman
Melissa Breckow
7329 Frontier Trail
8634 Wood Cliff circle
Scott Botcher: You have in front of you some draft specifications for the provision of design services for
the construction, ultimately for the construction of a library project here in the city of Chanhassen. If you
remember in our last work session there was discussion about using design build, modified design build,
other methodologies to facilitate construction of this building. And I wrote up some nice specs. Send them
to Roger to look at and he said gee, they really look nice but they're illegal. And I said really? Thank you.
Appreciate that.
Mayor Mancino: Has that ever stopped you before?
Scott Botcher: Just so everyone understands. The State of Minnesota has not seen fit to give municipalities
the right to utilize design build or modified design build, just themselves. And Mr. Workman did in fact
receive an e-mail from me on that issue. I'll leave it at that. Anyway, I have put together these
specifications. We talked about it during the work session. I received really no comments since they were
distributed. Roger has shared his comments with me and made those modifications. I guess I'm just
tonight, you need to request as quickly as possible these specifications so we can go ahead. Additionally, I
understand there's also, there's been some interest from individual council members about perhaps drafting
a similar scope of services for the design of, I guess design's the word, City Center Commons. The
commons area so these things can parallel track so there's an integration between the building, this building
and the property at large. And I guess I'd deal with this motion first but if you want me to do that, I guess
I'd ask that you make a motion that I begin drafting those as well. I guess that's all I have.
Mayor Mancino: Great. Any other discussion? I have a couple other things. First.
Councilman Engel: Make them fast.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, I'll make them fast and one was that we also talked about getting up to speed now,
parallel tracking not only this and the City Center Commons but a revised joint powers agreement at the
same time. The only other little nit I had about the scope of work, the selected party well. Under bullet
29
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
number 2 about leading public meetings. I would also want them to add that they will be responsible for
doing newspaper ads. Some of that media contact so that people know about the public meetings.
Councilman Labatt: So lead and publicize the series?
Mayor Mancino: Yep.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, but I thought generally we do that to make sure that it gets done. We don't
usually ask the consultant.
Scott Botcher: We may ask them to put together a panel task force.
Councilman Senn: Yeah but we'll take care of actually placing the ads and stuff because that's the way
we've.
Councilman Labatt: Well let's let them pay for it Mark.
Scott Botcher: Well if we pay for it it's cheaper.
Councilman Senn: ... charges.
Mayor Mancino: But I just don't want, I just want to make sure that that's included. Okay. Anybody
else? Mark, do you want to add any? Did you have any questions?
Councilman Senn: No, you covered what I wanted.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Linda?
Councilman Senn: I just assume this will be properly...that's all.
Scott Botcher: Oh yeah, that's our plan.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Just a minute. Yeah.
Councilwoman Jansen: I don't have any comments.
Councilman Engel: No comments.
Councilman Labatt: None.
Scott Botcher: Believe me they're already calling.
Mayor Mancino: I was sure that you guys had talked many times before tonight so come on up Melissa.
Sure.
Melissa Breckow: I just have several suggestions, recommendations and then I'll explain why. On the
first, under number (a) on page 1 where it says work with city. Could that be City and library staff in
administering the observing construction activities because of the Chanhassen and Carver County library.
30
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
Perhaps the City and the library staff can work together on that observing the construction as it moves
forward. And this is my reasoning. I was at a MLSA meeting this morning and right now they're
proposing a library over in Woodbury, in Washington County and the city's working with the library on
that and what's happened is that the architect doesn't know libraries and has proposed putting in huge,
huge, huge columns and the library's been working with them trying to talk to the architect, and the city.
You know working all together to say, is there a say that we can shrink these columns down? That the
library's don't need these huge columns in the middle of it to block the view because of the importance of
being able to see all parts of the building. And when you historically work within this kind of a setting, to
be able to have library input and I just wanted to make sure that that would happen and that that was
clarified.
Mayor Mancino: Can I just ask and clarify on that? The only thing that I want to make sure, and this is
for you and Scott to decide and come back to us, that there is one point person that the architect, the
designers talk to and that's it so that there's not going back and forth between Carver and the City so I
want to make sure of that.
Councilman Senn: But I'm confused because it says City of Chanhassen and Carver County.
Melissa Breckow: It says up above but then it doesn't articulate it down below and I just wanted to make
that a point and see if it...
Councilman Senn: Well a, b, c, and d all fall under one.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. But you made your point and just so everyone knows your intent.
Councilwoman Jansen: Good clarification.
Melissa Breckow: Then another clarification on page 3 under nature of the project. On number 1. The
total, Carver County is responsible for the furnishing, staff and collection. Just as a point of clarification if
you want to add that on.
Councilman Labatt: Staff and.
Melissa Breckow: Page.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah I got that, and collections.
Melissa Breckow: Number 3 is the library will be a branch of the Carver County Library System. And
then the sentence after that, the central processing for the system. I'm wondering if you would consider
taking that out of there at this time. The Library Board is exploring some options that they may want to
come to you with. They may not also but just taking that whole sentence off is an option for us to look at.
Councilman Labatt: The central sentence.
Melissa Breckow: Yeah. The second one about the central operation. And then I just had a question on
number 11 on page 5. It says, it is anticipated that the project team will make three presentations to the
City Council and two to the Carver County Board. Is that the Carver County Board of Commissioners or
the Carver County Library Board?
31
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
Scott Botcher: Well I anticipate the Carver County Board.
Melissa Breckow: Of who? Or Commissioners or Library?
Scott Botcher: Commissioners.
Councilman Senn: That's the other governing authority, correct?
Scott Botcher: Correct. That is the other governing authority.
Melissa Breckow: The Carver County Library Board's the other governing authority.
Scott Botcher: Well my understanding is that the Carver County, oh man maybe I'm wrong. The Carver
County Board of Commissioners generates the revenues and expends the money. The Library Board
doesn't expend the money. That's why I put them in there and if I misunderstood that, then.
Melissa Breckow: The Library Board by Statute is in charge of the budget. The allocation comes through
the County Commissioners, but then it goes out depending on the wishes of the Library Board.
Scott Botcher: Who writes the checks?
Councilman Engel: Who writes the check, that's what I want to know.
Melissa Breckow: Ultimate the one who writes the checks are over at the County. It comes through the
Library Board and then goes to the County but what we question is when those two presentations would
take place and in what part of the process? At the beginning part?
Scott Botcher: Well one of the things that we talked about, wait a minute.
Mayor Mancino: When they do the RFP.
Councilman Senn: ... city and the county, Carver County Board of Commissioners and we'll notify the
Library Board.
Scott Botcher: Part of what we're trying to do is solicit recommendations from parties who respond to this
as to what methodology they want to follow. It would be silly for us at this point to identify when in the
process, we can guess, but that's part of what we're going to hear from applicants.
Mayor Mancino: When they answer the RFP they'll say here's their process and here's when we would
make the presentations. That's what I'm assuming we'll get back from them. And then we'll be able to
review it and say you know, we really thought 3 would be fine but I think there are decisions points that we
need to make along the way that we may need more than 2 or we may need more than 3 and they'll say yes
but it will cost more.
Melissa Breckow: That's fine. I just wanted to clarify it. I just didn't understand how that was. Thank
you.
32
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Linda? Okay. Great. Then let's see, can we do this all in
one motion about going ahead with the RFP's? And the revised parallel tracking, revised joint powers
agreement and an RFP for a City Center Commons at the same time.
Councilman Senn: Move approval of consideration of the Library Design/Construction Scope of Services
as well as Design/Construction Scope of Services for the City Center Commons and that a parallel tracking
to as soon as possible resolve the, and bring back to the council a revised Joint Powers Agreement. And in
relationship to the document that's before us, strike the second sentence to be three. And that's about it,
right?
Councilman Labatt: Do you want to add staff and collections in B(1).
Scott Botcher: That's when we made branch part of 3. I'd like to review the very first recommendation
because I don't think I have it right. Can you, can someone read that back to me?
Councilwoman Jansen: The first?
Scott Botcher: Yeah. Melissa's first recommendation.
Councilman Senn: Well the first recommendation I didn't include because it already says the City of
Chanhassen and Carver County plan to construct and then it lists a, b, c, and d as cooperative under that.
So I don't really think the first one is necessary.
Scott Botcher: And I would agree with that.
Councilman Senn: And they suggested then on B(3) that we strike the second sentence and yes, I'm sorry I
missed on B(1), adding staff and collection. And then on the third suggestion, I think for now just leave it
as it is. It's us and Carver County and we'll get the meetings worked out to also include the Library Board.
Scott Botcher: I just want to make sure.
Councilman Engel: Is that the motion?
Councilman Senn: Yep.
Councilman Engel: Second.
Mayor Mancino: Discussion, yeah.
Councilman Labatt: Well, the parallel tracking is something new to me tonight here. I just want to make
sure that in no way will bog down the library process.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, because that's what parallel tracking means. We'll keep them all going.
Councilman Labatt: Well I know what it means but I know also what our action is dictated at times and
how we're a little slow on this process so, as long as it won't bog it down at all, that's fine.
33
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
Mayor Mancino: Okay. All those in favor signify, did you have a question?
Councilwoman Jansen: ... out in the meantime.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded that the City Council approve of consideration
of the Library Design/Construction Scope of Services as well as Design/Construction Scope of
Services for the City Center Commons and that a parallel tracking to as soon as possible resolve the,
and bring back to the council, a revised Joint Powers Agreement. The Request for Proposal will be
revised under item B. Nature of Project: B(1), add "staff and collections" at the end of the
paragraph; and under B(3), changing the first sentence to read, "The library will be a branch of
Carver County's library system. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Mancino: Scott, if you can final draft. Melissa will review. I'm assuming you guys are e-mailing
back and forth anyway on this.
Scott Botcher: I guess I would ask in the future if you have comments or recommendations, that you e-mail
them to me before we get to here.
Melissa Breckow: I wasn't in the office today...
Mayor Mancino: Good. Thanks a lot.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
A. ANTI-GRAFFITI ORDINANCE~ CITY MANAGER.
Scott Botcher: Any interest?
Councilman Labatt: Yes.
Councilwoman Jansen: Yes.
Councilman Labatt: They sure tag that new well house on 41.
Scott Botcher: Okay, I will put one in draft form. I did meet with Bud Olson. He requested that before we
clean this, and I should have mentioned this to Teresa, but before we go out and clean it with this new stuff
that we found that cleans really well, we should start taking pictures of it so the police people can have
pictures of it and identify the specific designs so we need to start doing that. And we can mention that
tomorrow at the staff meeting. We'll draft that.
Mayor Mancino: Can we also make sure that businesses, we get some feedback from businesses because it
really does affect them also?
Scott Botcher: Fair enough.
Mayor Mancino: That that either be at the Chamber or Government Affairs Board or whatever.
34
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
Scott Botcher: They just do us.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. We need to take no action on it?
Scott Botcher: I'll get it drafted.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you.
B. HIGHWAY 101 CORRESPONDENCE~ CITY MANAGER.
Scott Botcher: Highway 101. Any action, any discussions. We talked about it in the work session. Any
research you want done?
Councilwoman Jansen: Well I'd actually like maybe a little bit of clarification when this does end up back
with MnDot and they do own more right-of-way, what exactly can they do with this roadway when it's
back under their jurisdiction. It's my understanding of course they can't be adding lanes to it. But having
seen what happened on Powers when the County went to do the resurfacing and we suddenly had a wider
roadway than we had started out with, I'd like some clarification as to how much flexibility they have
without.
Scott Botcher: They have all the powers that they retain everywhere else in the state and if they want to
build, frankly if the State wants to build a 4 lane road, they'll do through and condemn it and they'll build a
4 lane road. Just like anywhere else in the state. They have powers of eminent domain. They have
powers..., now would they probably do that after the hubbub they've got over there? No, probably not.
But to give you an honest answer, legally they have all the discretion they have anywhere else in the state.
As far as road construction.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. I thought I understood.
Scott Botcher: The issue was, they were trying to mm it back. If they just stay away from that and they're
willing to pay for it and they're willing to go through the hassle themselves, they have a lot of authority.
Councilwoman Jansen: But I though I understood that the City does have a right to say no to a project if
they were to bring in the 4 lane and then they've got it to go to some sort of mediation or arbitration or.
Scott Botcher: That was more part of the turnback process, but I'll ask. I can ask Teresa to call over and
talk to...
Councilwoman Jansen: I thought that held true with the County too and Roger's nodding. Is that right?
Roger Knutson: The State.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay.
Roger Knutson: There was a precedence.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that we've got some sort of.
35
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
Scott Botcher: I'll just have to do some research.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, if you would. And you mentioned the safety issues as far as the signals.
That was such a big deal as we were reviewing this roadway as to what our options are and I know you
mentioned the funding.
Scott Botcher: And my gut tells me since this just really came, maybe it behooves us to take some time to
chew on it. Make some calls to DOT and really see what they have in mind, although frankly they
probably don't have much in mind at this point.
Mayor Mancino: Well we still would like them to do an upgrade of the road. I mean I think we need to
make that very clear.
Scott Botcher: I think this letter, they simply washed their hands of it. And if you're saying that you
would like me to draft a resolution communicating officially again receipt of this letter, but your intention
that you would still like them to make certain safety and.., modifications, I can have that drafted for your
approval.
Councilman Senn: Beyond that though, I mean when is your analysis going to be done, final analysis done
on the TIF districts?
Scott Botcher: In terms of, are you talking about the pooling issue?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, when can you bring before us an actual chart that basically will sit there and lay
out what access exists and what districts? What can be pooled where to solve a debt problem in the
downtown district, etc. Okay, when can we have that?
Todd Gerhardt: We have a meeting set up for next Monday.
Councilman Senn: So can we have that next council meeting or next work session before the council
meeting?
Scott Botcher: We can try to, yeah.
Councilman Senn: Okay, because to me.
Todd Gerhardt: We don't have research from the County fund where Ron will have to go back and look in.
Mayor Mancino: But if you're having it next Monday, you'd still have...
Scott Botcher: Some of that information you have. If you remember the.
Councilman Senn: No, I understand but it just wasn't finalized and you weren't sure yet on your
assumptions of what you needed to transfer where to balance the different things. And we really need your
recommendations on that because essentially we've got a ticking clock right now til 12:31 where there is
TIF money there and in that the County is now turning back control over to MnDot, okay. I'm assuming
we could make a case to transfer the agreement that we have with the County to the State as a third party,
36
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
you know as it relates to roadway improvements or use of the TIF dollars in roadway improvements and
again, not presupposing anything but if we wait until 12:31, we're not going to have a chance to discuss it.
If we get to a point now where we can be prepared to discuss it, we could at least go sit down with MnDot
and say, hey MnDot. You know if we do have some extra TIF money that's not needed to solve some of
these other problems or whatever, that we could apply some of that to some minimal level of improvements
or whatever on the roadway. We could then mm around and maybe give a little bit of it could go to Carver
and MnDot to do more.
Scott Botcher: Fair enough. We do have the meeting on Monday and we can try to, we can at least give
you a report on that meeting a week from Monday. I mean there's a lot of issues there. Philosophical. I
mean.
Councilman Senn: No, I understand but we have to know financially what's even probably possible.
Scott Botcher: Yep. Understood.
Councilwoman Jansen: There was one other sentence in this letter and I don't know if Teresa has followed
up on this. I know that she's been, as she said, calling weekly on the trail. But in the last paragraph she
notes, referring to the bike trail construction. There appears to be significant difficulty with the proposal.
But the review is not yet complete. If we could maybe get this individual to maybe be specific as to what
this significant difficulty is. That's I think the most that's been communicated other than we'll get back to
you next week to Teresa.
Councilman Senn: Teresa and I talked about that in length and Teresa said that they won't tell us anything
until all comments are in from all of the above State agencies and they send them all to us at once. It's
absolutely ridiculous.
Scott Botcher: I will communicate your request to her and she can put it on her list of questions when she
talks to them regularly.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Great. Any other questions about correspondence?
Scott Botcher: I have four things I want to pass out. One is a notice of public hearing from Carver County
to consider an ordinance to adopt the 2020 Carver County Comprehensive Plan. We have 6 of these. One
for you and 5 for you guys. We have a letter here from the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
seeking, there are 4 vacancies for elected city officials on the TAB Board. Do you guys know what the
TAB Board is? Transportation Advisory Board.
Mayor Mancino: For the Metropolitan Council?
Scott Botcher: Yep. Met Council's TAB Board so we have 1 for you and 5 for you guys. I have a public
letter here from Kennedy and Graven. Some free stuff off the web. It talks about the demolition landfill
case, which I did share with you previously. It talks about the 60 day statute. I know you're familiar with
that. And I did check on the fuel tank thing. Finally we have a letter from Scott Massey who's the attorney
for Mr. Mike Nelson. Mr. Nelson was cited and then said that oh geez, we couldn't get it out of there in 10
days but we got it out of there after the 10 day and he wants the citation to be revoked. We did send the
37
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
intern down to check. To the best of his knowledge, and he did not walk behind the building and all that.
Mr. Nelson was there and I asked John how he looked. He said not happy. I said well, you know. But he
could not see the tank anymore. So it appears as if the representation made in the letter is accurate. The
tank is gone. And Roger's recommendation, and I would tend to agree with it is that generally you do
citations and land use and zoning issues to gain compliance. Not necessarily as a punitive, economic issue.
Roger's recommended a revocation of it. I guess I didn't ask you today, how the best way to do that is.
Do we just communicate to the court we no longer wish to pursue this or how do we do this?
Roger Knutson: Just tell me.
Scott Botcher: And it's up to you if you want to do that.
Mayor Mancino: Well I actually think someone should go down and check that it absolutely is gone.
Councilman Labatt: Physically gone from the property. Not just moved behind a bush.
Scott Botcher: So we'll send a deputy or police officer, somebody down. If it is gone, do you wish to
pursue Roger's recommendation? And if so, then tell him and he'll take care of it. This is just a citation on
the fuel tank.
Todd Gerhardt: Roger, do we have the right to go on property to inspect to see if the tank is gone?
Roger Knutson: I don't think we'll have any problem gaining access. I'll look and just call his attorney
and say we need access to confirm that, and if he wants us to dismiss the ticket, I'm sure he'd be happy to
let us walk around and confirm that. That will not be an issue I'm sure.
Councilman Engel: Quick question. You refer to it in the letter allowing his neighbor to use his property in
violation of city ordinances. What's he referring to?
Scott Botcher: I don't know. The first I've seen that in any of his correspondence.
Councilman Engel: Okay, then I'll ignore it but if we can get some detail on it. You know out of fairness.
File a complaint, let's make sure we're fair to everybody.
Scott Botcher: So do you want Roger to do that?
Councilman Engel: Yes.
Councilman Senn: Yeah.
Mayor Mancino: How does everyone feel?
Scott Botcher: One is confirmed.
Mayor Mancino: You feel comfortable?
Councilwoman Jansen: Dismiss once confirmed.
38
City Council Meeting - October 9, 2000
Mayor Mancino: Okay, you've got the majority. Thank you and everyone enjoy the game tonight.
Mayor Mancino adjourned the City Council meeting at 8:15 p.m.
Submitted by Scott Botcher
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
39