1h. City council Minutes Date May 20, 19960
-7
I
P
i
J
1
1
I
i
r
CHANHASSEN CrrY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 20 1"6
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:50 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Berquist, Councilman Mason and Councilman
Senn
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilwoman Dockendorf
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Charles Folch, Todd Gerhardt, Sharmin Al -Jeff, John Rask,
and Todd Hoffman
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the agenda
as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: PROCLAMATION DECLARING MAY 19 -25 AS NATIONAL PUBLIC
WORKS WEER
Mayor Chmiel: I'll read that and it says, Whereas, public works services provided in our community are an
integral part of our citizens' everyday lives, and Whereas, the support of an understanding and informed
citizenry is vital to the efficient operation of public works systems and programs such as water, sewer, streets,
and highways, public buildings and snow removal, and Whereas, the health and safety and comfort of this
community greatly depends on these facilities and services; and Whereas, the quality and effectiveness of these
facilities as well as their planning, design and construction is vitally dependent upon the efforts and skill of
public works officials; and Whereas, the efficiency of the qualified and dedicated personnel who staff public
works departments is materially influenced by the people's attitude and understanding of the importance of the
work they perform; Now Therefore, I, Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor of the City of Chanhassen do proclaim the
week of May 19 through May 25, 1996 as National Public Works Week in the City of Chanhassen, and call
upon all citizens and civic organizations to acquaint themselves with the issues involved in providing our public
works and to recognize the contribution which public works officials make every day to our health, safety,
comfort and quality of life. Given under my hand and seal of the City of Chanhassen this 20th day of May,
1996. Is there a motion?
Councilman Berquist: Move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #9641: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Proclamation
establishing May 19 -25, 1995 as National Public Wodo Week All voted in favor and the motion carried.
AGENDA:
IL APPROVE EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR LUNDGREN BROTHERSIROGER
DOLEJSI PROPERTY: LOCATED SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND WEST OF LAKE R11".
Sharmin Al -Jeff: Mr. Mayor, would you kindly pull item 1(b).
Mayor Chmiel: Item 1(b)?
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct.
Mayor Chmiel: Well pull that from the agenda. 1(b) is removed from the agenda.
Councilman Berquist: Removed completely?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: No. I just need to add something to it.
Mayor Cbmiel: Oh, you want to keep it on but you want to add something to it yourself?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Please.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Will that take very long Sharmin?
Sharmin Al -Jeff: No, one minute.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, why don't you give it to us right now.
Sharmin Al -Jeff: Okay. The applicant is requesting a one year extension. As part of the extension for the plat,
staff added condition number 32. Basically stating that if there are any new ordinances adopted within the next
year, the applicant would have to abide by it. We received a letter from the applicant requesting that this
condition be deleted so we just want to be on record stating that we have received the letter from the applicant
and we are recommending that this condition remain as part of the preliminary plat approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And the applicant is aware of that?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Berquist: We're reserving the right to re- evaluate, and we're not necessarily going to make a point
to implement any ordinance changes. We'll decide at the time of the.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: We're not aware at this time if there are any ordinance changes but if there were any, that
they would have to abide by them.
Councilman Senn: We've always had that.
Councilman Mason: That's a standard clause.
Councilman Berquist: So it's not a negotiating point from your point of view?
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Okay. I'd like approval for l(a), item I and 2.
Ion Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
P?
t
1
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Don Ashworth: You do have a person wishing to speak.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes sir. Would you please come forward up to the mic and state your name and your concern
and your address.
John Knoblauch: My name is John Knoblauch. I live at 16921 Weston Bay Road, Eden Prairie. I'm 1(a) on
the consent agenda and I'm a little confused because I didn't get this until Friday so I didn't have a chance to
talk to staff. I have a concern on one of the items so I don't know if you could pull it from the agenda.
Councilman Senn: I'll pull 1(a) then.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We'll pull 1(a). Okay then is there approval for item c, d, f, g, i, and j?
Councilman Mason: Is 1(b) in that consent also now?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. And with (b) as we have.
Councilman Mason: I'll move approval of those items.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Berquist I'll second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Benluist seconded to approve the following consent agenda items
pursuant to the City Managers recommendations:
b_ Approve Extension of Preliminary Plat Approval for Lundgren Brothers/Roger Dolejsi Property, Located
south of Lyman Boulevard and West of Lake Riley.
c. Resolution #96 -42: Resolution Approving Joint Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County for 1997-
1999.
d. Resolution #96 -43: Approve Plans & Specifications for Kerber Boulevard Milling and Overlay; Authorize
Advertising for Bids, Project No. 96 -5.
f. City Council Minutes dated May 6, 1996
Planning Commission Minutes dated May 1, 1996
g. Call for Public Hearing on Proposed Transfer of Cable Television System, Triax Midwest Association.
i. Consider Approval of Private Redevelopment Agreement, Technical Industrial Sales II.
J. Approval of Wetland Certificates, Trotters Ridge.
All voted in favor and the motion canied.
3
■
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
11 KNOB HILL, JOHN KNOBLAUCH, FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND APPROVE DEVELOPMENT '
CONTRACT AND PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS, LAND USE REVIEW FILE NO. 95 -40.
Mayor Chmiel: Rather than have you sit here the rest of the evening. I usually move these to the back of the
agenda so I'm going to give you that opportunity to come forward now at this time, John, and indicate those
concerns that you had regarding your particular project.
John Knoblauch: Thank you Mr. Mayor. In my development contract, one of the items that was submitted,
after engineering worked on the rear ... area or the holding pond in my development, an issue came up whether
there was going to be a wetland permit to be filled.
Mayor Chmiel: What page is that on?
John Knoblauch: It's number 19 on page 14. Alteration permit for the wetland prior to filling the existing
wetland. The lot right across us right now ... on that permit I'm concerned because it's very unclear to me
because my engineers have told me that the new State wetland laws, they say we can fill 1,000 square yards of
wetlands, yet we're going through this permit application and it was put in here that we lose a buildable lot in
the event that the alteration permit is not approved. And if the alteration permit is not approved, I'm probably
going to either reconfigure our development to make it work or find out more about the new State law that
allows me to fill the proper area out of there so.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Maybe I can put it back to staff in regards to this. Sharmin.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: We have not yet adopted the new ordinance that has been approved by the State so I believe
that is where, until we amend our ordinances we have to go by what we have in our city code.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. When is any consideration given as to doing that as far as the code is concerned9
Making the changes with what the State has indicated. I know that we can make it more stringent but we can't
make it less stringent than what the State indicates so.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: We intend to go with what the State is proposing.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Are you knowledgeable as to what those requirements are at this time?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: No. No, I'm not.
Roger Knutson: Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, Roger.
Roger Knutson: In many respects all we've done is, and I haven't examined this particular issue. I didn't know
it was an issue. We've adopted by reference the State law as amended. So perhaps, and I don't know the
answer to this. We have said the ... rule is 400 square feet period. I don't know that we have So this may or
may not be an issue. Maybe the State will ... It's 2,000 square feet for certain types of wetlands and I don't know
what types of wetlands you have. So maybe you're entitled to the exemption, maybe you're not. What this
says, I would read this. If you don't need a wetland alteration permit, or you meet the exemption requirements
under the code then and State law, this will have no effect on you.
4
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Could we then have staff work that out with the proposal?
Roger Knutson: I think that's fine.
Councilman Senn: What if I just move approval based on staff working that one out between them and the
applicant and complying with the State, if that's a better situation.
Roger Knutson: Hopefully there's no issue at all. If there is, they could bring it back to you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion for item 1(a), items 1 and 2.
Councilman Senn: I did.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Final Plat for Knob Hill per staffs
mcommmendations with an amendment to condition 19, that the applicant and staff work together on the wetland
alteration permit and complying with the State law. Also to approve the Development Contract and
Construction Plans and Specifications for Knob Hill, Project No. 96 -10 as presented. All voted in favor and the
nation carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Steve, your bills.
Councilman Berquist: Let's do it last.
Mayor Chmiel: We're going to put that as item number, right before Administration Presentations. Okay, then
that's (e) and (h).
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Richard Larson: Do you want me to repeat my name and address?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, would you please.
Richard Larson: Richard Larson, 8141 Pinewood Circle. And what I presented to you was a letter I got from
the city in response to my latest request for a visit, along with the letter that I sent back to ... came out to visit
my property and a copy of a letter from a contractor that I've consulted with so just to kind of give a quick
recap. We've lived in the property since 1989 and what we do, we've experienced quite a drainage problem.
We've had the city out 2 or 3 times and asked to view and look at the drainage situation. Basically look at the
end of the cul -de -sac in an area probably was filled in by the previous man who was up here. My guess is the
lot was filled in. Basically a swamp. We built that pond to take up some of the drainage problems but that
solved nothing. We spent approximately $2,500.00 to improve the property and the property seems to only get
worse. We've noticed cracks in our foundation... get water coming into that house year round. We have a sump
pump that runs basically every 10 minutes, 365 days a year. In addition we've had two decks that have tipped
out of the footing. Two of the footings have come up probably 2 or 3 feet so it's quite a wet situation.
Basically to sum up what's transpired then is we hired a consulting engineering and I've given a copy to ... and
the Surface Water Committee. Copy of the engineers report that was a result of last year when we noticed
5
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
getting water inside the house and all over the floor so it's gotten worse over the years in spite of our best
efforts to fix it. And so as a result of that the consulting engineers report, we hired a couple contractors to look
and give us various estimates, one of which is in your packet of materials. This latest contractor fellow, who
we trust because he's given us a whole bunch of reasons why our previous attempts failed. Of course hindsight
is always 20/20. It's easy for him to step in and say... But basically he said he could not guarantee fixing our
deck unless we solved the drainage problem of the yard and that requires city involvement because our lot is
basically, it has about, we live on a 2 1/2 acre - 3 acre lot that has about a foot of pitch from our house to the
back comer, which I'm becoming a novice expert at this subject because I've studied it... We have water collect
from the neighborhood because we're at the end of this cul -de -sac. We get the water that's sitting. Another
thing we just noticed, we have got no culvert in our driveway so the water just spills into both sides of our yard
and tends to like to sit in our back yard. So with no pitch to the yard, the city needs to build some drainage
swales and have catch basins installed four feet underground basically in order to have enough pitch to take the
eater out of our back yard. Basically a holding area for the development. There's nowhere for the water to
go... pipes in the ground to try and drain our lot that's going to go nowhere because it's 4 feet underground. A
drain won't work basically so we have requested the city ... and they responded with, in my mind, kind of luke
warm response and so I'm appealing to the Council because we've tried several times over the years to be
patient and the city has said well yeah, we'll do something about that you know, and there are some drainage
swales here. You see them on the side and all that kind of thing and yet our back -up is worst and our property
is falling apart. So anyway, Philip had said that they discussed the problem with the city Public Works Director
and he's authorized to get a cost estimate and maybe we have time this fall. I'm appealing to you, our house is
getting destroyed quicker and quicker and the cracks, major cracks in the foundation now that, I think there's
water pressure under the house. Pretty soon we're going to have our house foundation totally blown apart that's
why we're stepping up our appeal to the city and coming before you to see if you can (a), authorize the study to
definitely take place. And (b), to see that the repairs are done this year. And they've been on the planning, I
guess from reading from this letter that they had some plans to deal with the storm water site for I don't know
when. It's the first news I've heard of that so I am ... making this appeal to you to accelerate that to definitely fix
it this year. That's my presentation so. What can I expect from the Council as far as help?
Mayor Chmiel: Well I'm not quite sure. Charles, do you have any knowledge in regard to this?
Richard Larson: Are you Charles Folch?
Charles Folch: I sure am, yes.
Richard Larson: Did you get a copy of my letter?
Charles Folch: Which letter is that?
Richard Larson: Well I sent in a copy and...
Charles Folch: Okay, that could be in today's mail. With regards to work that's on a schedule or program.
We've been aware that there's a number of problems, drainage problems in Timberwood over the years. That's
some of the down side of having a rural subdivision where you don't have storm sewer systems and things like
that in place so we've tried to where we can, accommodate the situation and try to find some cost effective ways
of dealing with them. This particular issue certainly needs, we need to take a look at and develop some sort of
cost estimate to find out exactly how much it's going to involve to cure at least the surface drainage problem.
It's in not way going to cure any type of sub- surface problem but we need to at least establish you know what's
T
t
t
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
that cost going to be and then review the storm water management budget program which was adopted in 1996
and see if there's dollars available to bring that information back to you to be able to make a decision as to
whether you'd like to proceed with that at this point in time or not. So that would be the next step at this point
is determine a detailed cost estimate. And make a review of the approved 1996 budget for storm water
management.
Mayor Chmiel: How long might that take?
Charles Folch: I'm guessing probably just a couple weeks to put the information together.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I can sort of have sympathies for him in regard to that. I've had a situation occur, not
in my house now but one that I owned previously and I had a fishing hole out in the back yard because all the
water came in there. The existing Swale that was there previously was filled in and the city had finally come
and taken care of the situation. And I'm sure we'll look at this to come up with a conclusion. I just don't want
you swimming in your basement because that's not too much fun. So maybe within this, does 2 weeks sound
reasonable to you?
Richard Larson: Oh very.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good.
Councilman Berquist: Can I ask a couple questions?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Councilman Berquist: Is this an issue of a swale filling up with silt?
Richard Larson: The swales are on the map and I've ... the city out and they said well they're on the map,
therefore they're there. They're filled in. And in carrying some of the water way that comes down, comes down
the cul -de -sac.
Councilman Berquist: So then ... in place?
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Richard Larson: But if you go up there and take a look at it, and Philip ... and Dave Hempel have been out there
and you can't deny that there's no pitch. There's no ... swale. There's no drain. I mean, besides which we're ... at
one end there's a swale on one side of our house. The south side. But there's plenty of water that comes in on
the north side and there's no swale because that's our yard. I mean the city doesn't have a swale through my
back yard, and I'm not sure that you want one.
Councilman Berquist: How long have you lived there?
Richard Larson: What's that?
Councilman Berquist: How long have you lived there?
7
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Richard Larson: Since '89.
Councilman Berquist: And this has been a problem that's been getting progressively worse since '89?
Richard Larson: When we first moved in, '88 or so was a drought and it was somewhat dry the first year or
two that we were there. Then starting in '91, the problems began when the rain started picking up. That's when
we first did some excavating to try and keep the water away from our house.
Councilman Berquist: Was there any evidence of water damage prior to?
Richard Larson: Don't know.
Councilman Berquist: No way of knowing.
Richard Larson: ...prior to '91 when we first...
Mrs. Larson: Well the first time it rained, we noticed there was just water all over towards the back yard. We
had an engineer come out within, about a year after we lived there, and he noticed that our basement was wet.
At that point there were no cracks in the foundation... Our whole driveway has sank down and he said ... this
land, they never should have built here. He said you're going to have to do your driveway again. It was kind
of an iffy report and so we put all kinds of drain tile... That didn't work. We put a pond in. That didn't work
so I mean...
Councilman Berquist: Who did the engineering on Timberwood?
Charles Folch: That was back in the mid 80's. I'd have to go back and look at the plat.
Don Ashworth: Well that was all private though.
Charles Folch: Right, but it was the developer's engineer, I'm not sure.
Councilman Berquist: Right. We did the storm water, I'm curious to know. Whether this thing worked from
day one or whether it's continuously been a problem and how the engineering firm would consider addressing it.
Insofar as they designed it.
Richard Larson: Too is that there's no culvert under our driveway. The drainage swale is such that on the north
side of our house, it's definitely a part of the plan to have a swale. But there's no way for the water to get over
there because there's no culvert under our driveway. We're still curious why that was never done ... so it spilled
into our back yard... I don't think anybody's really looked at that per se...
Councilman Berquist: Okay, and my question concerns one of whether was there something on the original
engineering for Timberwood that didn't take place or was there something that wasn't supposed to take place
that took place that changed the way everything worked and that's why developers pay engineers the big bucks.
To figure out how this stuff works and you know the old saying.
Mayor Chmiel: No, better not.
8
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Councilman Berquist: Yeah I won't.
Charles Folch: I think part of the problem's been exacerbated by the relatively flat grades because even if you
do have some fall, over time you can get siltation that occurs and it's just going to make the situation worse and
worse over time.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Don Ashworth: I'm aware that, on part of that plat area I have literally seen water percolating out of the ground
in various areas there. And so there's like an artisan well. I wouldn't doubt it at all that sub - surface issues are
going to come into play on this.
Richard Larson: ...if you believe the stories our neighbor behind us has a spring in the basement literally. It
comes up through the cement, and I don't know, I haven't seen it. You're absolutely right.
Don Ashworth: The area I'm talking about is just on the back side of the cemetery.
Richard Larson: Yeah, that's where we live.
Don Ashworth: Up on the hill.
Mrs. Larson: That's us.
Don Ashworth: That's your house?
Richard Larson: We see water in the spring, the water comes up through the cracks in the cul -de -sac. I can't
figure that out. After a day of thawing, you see water coming up through the cracks... There's something not
working in the development and we were kind of ignorant enough to buy a house at the bottom of a cul -de -sac.
We didn't know better. We're sort of paying for either the lack of planning or the lack of ... I don't know what it
is.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, let's take a look at it.
Richard Larson:
So do I follow up with him?
Mayor Chmiel:
With Charles.
Richard Larson:
Okay, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel:
Thanks much.
AWARD OF BIDS: CITY HALL EXPANSION PROJECT.
Don Ashworth:
Todd Christopherson is here to report bid openings and the results of those.
9
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Todd Christopherson: Thank you Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. What I handed out tonight
unfortunately was not able to get into your packet... That is a summary of the bids, of all of the bids that were
opened in any case, and the low bid in each of the 4 or 5 bid categories that we had designated in the bid form.
As well as the low bid in two categories... was not listed. What we've shown, there were 85 bids taken. We
opened the bids here at City Hall last week on Wednesday. Myself, another person from our staff and Karen
Engelhardt received the bids and opened them at 1:00. Wednesday night we attempted to review all of the bids
to make sure ... were we were on the bottom line and Thursday morning we put together the two page fax which
is in your packet. That went to Don, and the attempt there, our intent was to one, report to the Council the bids
received were very close to what the budget was, our cost estimate and with that item known then two, is to
recommend to the Council that we proceed with the bid on the structural steel item because of the long lead
time which we are anticipating on that item. That being done tonight, we're assuming that that is done tonight.
What we will then do is continue to put together all of the bid items into a formal report which will be in your
Council meeting, which will give you an opportunity to look at all of the bids and make a decision at that time
to proceed with that. We didn't feel comfortable trying to rush all of that into your packet Thursday and come
before you tonight without giving you an opportunity to look at it, and us a better opportunity to thoroughly
review those. So with that being said, I would like to point out one thing. The information that was in your
packet, it does say the total of bids received on May 15th, there's a number there that's $878,188.00. And if
you look at the information I handed out tonight, at the bottom of that it says $874,634.00, and there are a
couple of line items on that list I handed out tonight that were not exactly what we had plugged into our spread
sheet Thursday morning when we faxed that out. And that is part of just not having had the time to read
through each bid to make sure all of the bid lines were there and those types of things. So we had to make a
couple of minor assumptions on some very small items in order to get that out. Since then we've done some
further confirmation and so the $874,634.00 number that I handed out tonight is what we feel will be presented
at the next Council meeting when we review, and ask you to accept the... We were very pleased with the
bidding. The numbers. We hoped to have more bids. We would have liked to have seen over 100 bids on a
project of this size. Fortunately the bids that we did get were very close to the budget. At the last Council
meeting I had indicated there were a couple of items that we were concerned about. The electrical service was
one and some additional piling and reinforcing of that existing west wall which had not been anticipated when
we did the cost estimate. However I do want to point out that the cost for those items are reflected in that
analysis that I did. The electrical bid does include the upgrading of electrical service and the cost of the piling
in there. Taken out of that budget so we do have an allowance in there to deal with that item
Mayor Chmiel: So basically we came out much better than what we even anticipated. And you said the
electrical doesn't include the additional that you were discussing previously?
Todd Christopherson: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. That there might be more dollars. Okay. I don't think we're going to be required to do
any action on this this evening because you will be coming before us in 2 weeks with the balance...
Todd Gerhardt: Order the steel.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we can.
Todd Christopherson: We are asking the Council to accept the structural steel bid which would give us the
authorization to award the...
10
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Councilman Berquist: I'll move approval that we award the structural and deck steel contract to Thurnbeck
Steel Fabricators in the amount of $27,998.00. Is that still the right number?
Councilman Mason: Yes it is and I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Resolution #96 -44: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to award the structural and deck
steel contract for the expansion of City Hall to Thumbeck Steel Fabricators in the amount of $27,998.00. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Todd Christopherson: Thank you. We'll be back on, I think it's June 3rd...
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Good job. I'm glad to see they're hungry.
Todd Christopherson: It always helps.
AWARD OF BIDS: WELL NO. 7. PROJECT NO. 94 -3.
Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Due to the scheduling of the bids, we weren't
able to provide the information of the bid results in your packets. Tonight I have the results... from Friday's bid
opening for the project. We have a total of five bidders on the project and the low bidder was Richmar
Construction Incorporated at $384,829.00. The report also provides information on the original engineers
estimate, which was set at $364,000.00 as the plans were approved. There's a couple addendums that we had to
add to the project plans through the review process. The first one of which involved making some
modifications to the master controller, which is a telemetry system, which was installed back in 1990. Basically
this change allowed for additional capacity to add more wells and more lift stations to our system. It's kind of
analogous to a computer, memory on the computer. When you are adding programs to it, eventually you run
out of memory and you need to add some more memory. That's basically what we're doing here is adding some
more card slots if you will, to add more, add this well to the system and be able to monitor it under our
telemetry system. The second part of the Addendum No. 1 was also modifying some controls to Well No. 7
which allow automatic control of Well No. 3. This is something we talked about at the plan approval time
which involves allowing us to eliminate the booster station at the intersection of Galpin and Lake Lucy Road,
which has been so problematic and in the future, if that was to stay in place, it's replacement cost would be over
$100,000.00 so we'll be able to basically eliminate one problem system with the additional control at Well No.
7. And then Addendum No. 2 came out to provide the additional sprinkling system which was required by
building codes through that review process, and so that change was made. On page 1 at the bottom it shows the
revised engineer's estimate to the project. Low bid received is some $7,000.00 above the revised engineers
estimate but we've reviewed the bids received. We believe they are a competitive bid. In fact the two low
bidders were only $1,000.00 apart in terms of the portion of the bid which dealt strictly with the well house and
the internal mechanicals and plumbing associated with that. The only difference was in their site work cost.
But with this low bid the staff still believes that we will come in under our original budget of $700,000.00 for
the Well No. 7 and therefore staff would recommend that we award this bid to Richmar Construction
accordingly.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Charles. Have we used Richmar Construction before?
11
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Charles Folch: The City has not but our consulting engineer has worked with them I believe on four other
projects in years past and has had no complaints or problems with them and provides good references with
them.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, great. Steve, do you have any questions?
Councilman Berquist: Yeah, a couple of questions. Number one regarding the sprinkler system. How many
pump houses do we have without sprinklers?
Charles Folch: The last two that have gone in have had to have sprinkling. The one we added in 1991, Well
No. 6 was required to be sprinklered also.
Councilman Berquist: So are we putting in a dry system insofar as it's up in the attic?
Charles Folch: The one, Well No. 6 did not have the pitched roof. It had a flat roof so it didn't have an attic
space so it wasn't required to be, we didn't have to deal with that issue. And this one here, because of the
pitched roof and the attic space, we're required to have the additional sprinkling in the attic.
Councilman Berquist: Any reasoning?
Don Ashworth: Fire code.
Councilman Berquist: Phil, what's the reasoning?
Phil Gravel: It's the State Fire Code.
Councilman Berquist: State Fire Code that we sprinkle the attic of a.
Charles Folch: Combustible material.
Phil Gravel: With a concrete roof.
Councilman Berquist: That's absolutely asinine.
Councilman Senn: What part of the State?
Charles Folch: It's the materials in the attic are considered combustible. Part of the interpretation of the Fire
Code is it has to be sprinkled.
Councilman Berquist: Part of the interpretation of the Fire Code is it has to be sprinkled?
Charles Folch: I said, the interpretation of the sprinkling code requires combustible material to be sprinkled.
Councilman Berquist: Does it specifically unattended sites? I mean there's office buildings with combustible
materials in their attics that are not sprinkled.
Charles Folch: Okay, I'm not familiar enough with the fire code to be able to.
12
I
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Councilman Berquist: I think it's ludicrous. That's personal opinion regarding the state of our codes. We cost
ourselves millions of dollars by being absolutely ridiculous. The second question, Alternate No. 1 was quoted
' $20,000.00 by Richmar Construction. Does that mean that their, if low bid then becomes 404 with the
alternate?
Charles Folch: No. That would only, if we run into a situation this summer where we need to install a
' temporary pump due to water supply problems, we will come back to you with a change order request and the
change order would be this amount of money. We just wanted to get a price up front. What it would be if we
needed to operate under a temporary situation, rather than go to them later on while they're under contract and
' being at their mercy, we wanted to get a price up front. So this is not part of the bid. It's only to be
implemented should we need to, and would come back as a contract amendment, basically a change order which
you would have for consideration of approval. So it's not added to the contract at this time.
' Councilman Berquist: Okay. So that was bid as an alternate.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions Steve?
' Councilman Berquist: No.
' Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: I had none.
' Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: Pretty much the same as Steve but I still don't have an answer on the fire sprinkling. I
' mean we're still building new commercial buildings without fire sprinklers in them. I mean are we being
required to put sprinklers in this building, which is at best remote right?
' Phil Gravel: The main reason the sprinkler gets brought up is because of the State Code on chlorine. So that's
usually what triggers the.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so that's a different issue. It's tied to the chemical use then?
Phil Gravel: Right, and once they start reviewing it for the chemical issue, the attic space always comes up too.
I think it's all brought about because of the chlorine.
Councilman Berquist: Do you think it is? I mean it makes sense.
' Phil Gravel: Yeah, that's when it gets the building inspector's attention. And once... We've run across this a few
times.
Councilman Senn: You have? That just amazes me. The other thing is if it actually goes off, you're going to
' trash all your equipment, right?
Phil Gravel: That's a big concern.
' 13
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Charles Folch: Playing the devil's advocate is, the last time we've been rained on with these sprinklers here, it
hasn't happened so I mean it's a similar type situation. I mean your odds in terms of odds of the sprinkler
system going off, we have yet to have a time in this building when we've had our sprinkler system go off or
malfunction. You can build in protections into that.
Councilman Senn: No, I understand that Charles but here you've got occupancy loads. You've got public, I
mean you've got lots of different issues. I mean here you're talking about a remote well house that's close to
nothing. Isn't going to hurt anybody even if it burns down. In fact you'd probably salvage more equipment that
way than if the sprinklers went off.
Councilman Berquist: And every piece of equipment in there is over loaded. You know on overload so once it
overheats it shuts off. But the chlorine makes sense.
Charles Folch: As one ... you know this building will be considered in the future for that stand -by gas generation
and it's easier to put the sprinkling system now probably than have to go back and retrofit. Whether we do it
now or argue the point whether it's needed now. It would definitely be needed in the future when we put the
gas generation system into the building.
Councilman Senn: Again, the solution makes no sense with the cost because if you're into gas generation, the
last thing you want to do is dump water on it.
Charles Folch: They're required though.
Councilman Berquist: Let me ask one more silly question before we leave the subject. Phil, you worked on
this. It's your livelihood. You work with these for many, many municipalities I'm assuming. Out of all the
well houses that are being constructed this year, how many are going to sprinkled?
Phil Gravel: Over half.
Councilman Berquist: Over half. But roughly, somewhere between 50% and 60% of them. The other 40% rely
on the grace of god.
Phil Gravel: The smaller cities don't have the amount of chlorine... cylinders and then the...
Councilman Berquist: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion on the.
Councilman Mason: I will move award of bids for Well No. 7, Project No. 94 -3 to Richmar Construction in the
amount of $384,829.00.
Councilman Berquist: I'll second it.
Resolution #96 -45: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to awanl the bids for Well No.
7, Project No. 94 -3 to Richmar Construction in the amount of $384,829.00. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
14
1
1
1
t
1
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
REOUEST FOR ON -SALE INTOXICATING LIOUOR LICENSE, HIGH TIMBER LODGE AND MEETING
ROOMS. 575 WEST 78TH STREET. KDF CORPORATION.
Don Ashworth: The City Council considered this at their last Council meeting and requested that the attorney
or somebody at staff meet with the owner and see whether or not we could come up with some suggested
conditions that might allow them to operate but to more or less allow, or assure that this would operate more as
a lounge than a public bar. The City Attorney did meet with the applicant. The various suggestions that they
both agreed to, and I think it's fair to say that if the Council wishes to adopt those as conditions, that that would
be acceptable to the candidate. Or to the hotel. You also have a letter in there from them. I felt compelled to
make additional comments that I was aware of as it dealt with typical businesses where they're running an
ancillary type of business along with their primary business. And I guess I've seen both in the case of the
Chanhassen Dinner Theater and the hotel itself where they are very protective of their primary business. And if
I can virtually guarantee you that if they have guests in that lounge area and if members of the public in any
way become disruptive, their first responsibility is to that guest. I just do not believe that this is going to in any
way operate as a bar. A bar that might have other problems going along with it. Staff is recommending
approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anything in addition that Mr. Schackman may want to say at this
time?
Al Schackman: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council.' I'm not here to belabor the point. I'd like to
make one comment on the correspondence in the submittal to all of you. And that is again to reinforce the
aspect of the intoxicating beverages. The liquor license is only an integral part of an overall scheme of
operation. It becomes a necessary part of operating a conference center, meeting rooms at the facility. The
letter that I submitted I trust meets those things that concern you. We again respectfully request your approval.
Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any discussion? Steve. Oh, first of all on those particular items that were
indicated by our Attorney, you are amendable to those?
AI Schackman: I believe I have them all in my letter Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, yes. I just wanted to get your verbal statement in regards to that.
Al Schackman: Yeah, we stand by our letter and this becomes an official part of the proceedings.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Steve.
Councilman Berquist: Yes. The first thing that I was struck with when I read the letter from Roger was the
opening time of noon. The second thing that I was swept by was in going through the letter from National
Lodging to Roger, there's a sentence in here that says accessibility to the public is necessary to help insure
economic viability of the property. And then one of the other areas of the letters, there's reference to the fact
that the vast majority of the intoxicating beverage service will be to serve the clients of the motel. I have no
doubt that the intent of the applicant is to put together a top quality lounge and will operate it as such. I'm
reluctant, I'm really reluctant to go back on a precedent that a previous Council sat and allow on -sale liquor in a
facility where there is no food accessibility. And I'm really torn between approving it and denying it based on
that. The internal struggle that I'm having is to bring precedent. I don't doubt that, I have no fear that the bar
15
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
will ever become like the Bronco. The Bronco Bar. None whatsoever. I mean on the other hand, the precedent
of opening an on -sale without any food service leaves me a little bit cold and I'm wrestling with that, even as
we sit here and speak. What, Mr. Schackman, explain to me the noon. I suspect you and Roger had some
discussions about what would be an agreeable operating opening hour and somehow or another noon was
arrived at. I'd like to hear the rationale for that.
Al Schackman: Actually we have absolutely no belief that our needs for our service is going to occur before
noon. We do believe, in looking at the potential clientele. Corporations that may come for a morning meeting
or Board meeting and then may adjourn and spend the afternoon at Hazeltine and it would be nice to be able to,
if they chose to wind up their meeting in the lounge and make available to themselves another service that's
there, we want to be able to provide that. Our attempt here is to ... to attempt to satisfy the needs of our
customers to every extent that we can. We think noon does that.
Councilman Berquist: Do you think 4:00 does that?
Al Schackman: Beg your pardon?
Councilman Berquist: Do you think 4:00 p.m. serves that purpose as well?
Al Schackman: I think it would limit us. Very honestly I do.
Councilman Berquist: Okay.
Councilman Mason: ...liquor license that was turned down, you're talking about the one that was in Market
Square, right?
Councilman Berquist: Any reference I made to any other liquor, no. I'm not referencing that at all I was
simply referencing a previous Council and the way I understand it, there has been direction given by City
Council prior to my becoming a council person that fairly, I mean they pretty much stipulated that there would
be no liquor establishments without food within the city of Chanhassen.
Councilman Mason: Okay. Okay. We don't have an ordinance that says that, do we?
Don Ashworth: No. And I'm not aware of any Council that had ever stated that. I don't think Pony's was liked
that much but...
Councilman Mason: Yeah. I guess my comment to that would be, you know I can, as a Council member I can
say whatever I want to now but Councils in the future, if it's not in ordinance, and even if it is an ordinance,
can change it. If they choose to of course. In terms of precedent, you know I wrestled with that one too and I
frequently, I've made no, I've not hidden the fact that I don't like variances because I think they are frequently
precedent setting. And most every time I've said that someone on Council has said, and believe it or not, I'm
starting to listen to that. That no, a variance is not precedent setting because you take each one individually.
And quite honestly, that is how I'm looking at this issue. I am not in favor of 38 lounges popping up in the city
of Chanhassen, and nor would I while I'm on Council, approve anything like that at all. I see this quite
honestly as a legitimate request by Country Suites to improve their business operation. The fact that I believe
11% of their seating is at a bar and the rest of it is around the fireplace or around tables, sounds pretty cozy to
me to tell you the truth and I don't, I quite honestly don't know that I'd ever frequent the place but this certainly
16
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
is a, in my view, a different spin than opening up Lyle's No, I can't say that one because I think it's still in
existence but some liquor lounge where there's going to be hundreds of people or dozens of people coming in
off the street and raising all kind of cain. That's how I'm looking at this one. I saw the plans. It looks awfully
nice to me and I certainly, if another deal like this would come in, I scrutinize it very carefully. I think that
Country Suites and Mr. Schackman has done their homework on this and am I in favor of lots of things like this
occurring in the city? No. But I think Country Suites has proved themselves to be an extremely good and
beneficial resident in the city of Chanhassen and I see this as a way to further that. That's where I'm coming
from on this.
Al Schackman: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Al Schackman: If I may make one further comment. I may not in answering Mr. Berquist's question, I may
have not given the right example but let's assume we have a morning wedding on Saturday with another
reception, you know. I can't foreclose on that. That's part of the business that we're looking to satisfy and it's
part of the business that we intend to benefit from and I cannot see myself limiting to the extent that I would
have to turn that business away and send them someplace else because we could not handle their reception. So
it's those kind of things that dictate. In all probability, but you know I can't guarantee it. In all probability our
opening hours will be something other than noon. What I'm looking for is the flexibility to have to have those.
My guess is we aren't going to have enough patronage to open at noon every day. Our hotel guests are
probably going to be arriving at 3:00, 4:00 or 5:00 and maybe then we will. And that precisely is the way we
function in Fargo, White Bear Lake, etc.
Councilman Berquist: Thank you.
' Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: I guess first of all just comments on the proposal. I, likewise have the noon issue circled.
' Especially without food, that just seemed like an earl}' timeframe. Likewise had the economic vitality one
circled. Then I'll just go to general comments I guess. To me, Country Suites to me has always been a hotel.
You know it's operated very successfully and Country Suites has now expanded into a larger hotel. You know
and now it's expanded again and added some meeting rooms and so now you can, now I view it as a hotel and
meeting rooms. It still remains a limited service hotel. It has no restaurant. Or food service attached to it.
The more and more I thought about this, it seems to me that this is being wrapped effectively in a package
which says we have to have this liquor license so we can adequately service our meeting and convention
business. To me that can be done without opening a public lounge. Quite frankly. And I have no problems in
supporting a liquor license on the basis that it would be tied to the meeting and conference center and the
events, etc attached there but I just can't see past all the other connections with, or all the other issues connected
' with effectively just an open bar or lounge with no food service. I don't think we need them and I think there's
ample opportunities for that to already exist within a very short distance of the hotel.
' Al Schackman: May I respond?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
0
1 17
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Al Schackman: I appreciate what Mr. Senn is saying. Typically we're accustomed to seeing liquor service
being connected with a food operation. That's one question. The other question is should this be public. I don't
know how to service my hotel guests without it being a public place. I can't associate... checking into my hotel
for some function that would allow me to serve... without being a public place. So from that standpoint, we feel
it's essential. Number two, in terms of liquor being associated with food. I too have looked at your local
ordinance and there's no such requirement there. I guess the economic fact of life is that the graveyard, the
economic graveyard is full of a lot of failed food operations where the market does not dictate. We intend to
service the food requirement by catering functions. Building our business doing so. Servicing our customer
base and being economically viable. That's the whole guts of the issue. So with that, that's my ... response to
Councilman Senn. Any further questions, I'm certainly here to answer them.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. I guess I've looked at this long and hard and I've talked to several people in the
community asking their opinion as to what their thoughts might be. And unbelievably I got nothing but, why
not? It would be good. It would be good for me to go there if I want to just sit down in something that's
comfortable and have a drink, and maybe eat something downtown afterwards. But I guess I feel more or less
as Mike has said, and I can appreciate the concerns that we have now. And I don't know if my going to the
hotel aspect of it, which this is, would be the only other way that something could come in. In addition would
come in by stating that this be done within hotels. Roger, do you have any?
Roger Knutson: Adjacent to a hotel.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, adjacent to hotels, or part of the structure. So I guess that's really where I'm coming
from and I don't want to reiterate the things that Michael has said. But I would ask for a motion, and I think
that some of the, before I move that I think the business may not open until noon. No public dancing. Dancing
at catered or private events would be allowed. No neon signs, No window signs. The use of the word lounge,
not bar on any signs and there would not be any room service from this facility as well. And if there is
violations to those specific things, you always have the opportunity to deny.
Councilman Mason: I will move approval for request for on -sale intoxicating liquor license, High Timber
Lounge and Meeting Rooms at 575 West 78th Street, KDF Corporation.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second?
Councilman Berquist: I'll second with discussion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, there's a second. Discussion.
Councilman Berquist: I've had similar conversations and contrary to your positive... mine have been positive as
well as some negative and questioning the wisdom of allowing it. Having said that though, there are times
when uses that are permitted within the ordinances of any governmental structure need to be looked at and then
there's the old trust issue and I have every reason to believe that the High Timber Lounge will be a quality run
operation. From a philosophical perspective I have a difficult time with it, from a legalistic perspective though
I'll support it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, call the question.
Councilman Senn: Question, if I could Mayor.
18
I
11
L'
I
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Senn: What happened to the stipulation on not allowing liquor to be taken from the lounge to the
hotel? It's been deleted.
Mayor Chmiel: Roger. Can you?
Roger Knutson: Yeah, I didn't know anything was deleted. I didn't know about a discussion on that issue but I
would say this. You are licensing a specific premise. You can't take it out of...
Don Ashworth: If you want it added as a condition, you should feel free to.
Roger Knutson: They can't bring this into the hotel. We're not licensing the hotel. We're licensing...
Councilman Mason: Maybe we could ask for some sort of nice notice or something so the customers know it's
not, the liquor's not allowed out of there.
Al Schackman: I can assure you that that would take place. And we made the comment before, and that is that
we intend to operate within the parameters of law. We certainly will not serve room service and they certainly,
we'll do everything conceivably possible to discourage... But we cannot control somebody who goes down to the
off sale liquor store and wants to take a bottle to the room you know so there may be an area where somebody's
going to be drinking in the room and may cause kind of a problem. That may or may not be a result of what
we have done. And maybe I'm not making my point clearly enough. This whole liquor service is a part of the
overall operation and we're not going to lose the benefit of the conference room and the banquet facilities, the
wedding receptions, the meeting rooms, the full service to our corporate clients by jeopardizing it by some... of
operation.
Roger Knutson: I think it'd be just fine to add, liquor may not leave the licensed premises.
Mayor Chmiel: Or a sign indicating as well within.
Councilman Mason: I would like that to be included in my motion.
' Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to appmve the request for on -sale intoxicating liquor
license for High Timber Lodge and Meeting Rooms at 575 West 78th Street with the conditions established
between the City Attorney and High Timber Lodge, with an additional condition stating that liquor may not
' leave the licensed premise. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried
with a vote of 3 to 1.
AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE TEMPORARY OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF BOATS;
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAYS 7 AND 41, SEVEN -FORTY -ONE
CROSSING CENTER, WESTIN SPORTS. PBK INVESTMENTS. INC.,
John Rask: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. The applicants are requesting an interim use
permit to allow the outdoor display of boats. The applicants have identified three areas along the east property
line in which these boats would be displayed. Total number of boats is not provided. However, upon review of
' the plan submitted by the applicant, it appears that approximately 10 to 14 boats could be on display at an}'
19
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
given time. As proposed, the boats would be located in existing parking stalls. On May 1st of this year the
Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the application. The Commission, by unanimous vote
recommended denial of the interim use permit. The Commission was concerned with the aesthetics and the
impacts that the boat sales would have on adjoining businesses and those businesses in the center. In addition,
the Commission was concerned about the past history of the parcel and some of the promises made to the
neighbors concerning a neighborhood oriented retail versus a more intense commercial development project at
that site. Staff is recommending denial of the interim use permit as outdoor display of boats is inconsistent with
the intent and other permitted uses in that district. In the BN district. The city created the BN district to
accommodate neighborhood oriented retail services and retail. These services and retail establishments were
intended to meet the daily needs of residents. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may
have at this time.
Mayor Chmiel: Just one quick one John. In regard to parking spaces within that center. What was the total
numbers of parking spaces and how would that affect those parking spaces?
John Rask: You know when the center was developed, there was an additional area that was set aside for a
separate building on that same lot. So when the parking lot went in, they did overbuild the parking lot. I have
212 stalls were provided. However, if you look at the square footage of the existing retail center, only 130
would be needed under today's ordinances. Therefore they have about 80 more stalls currently, and those were
again provided to accommodate any future expansion.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Steve.
Councilman Berquist: No, not at this time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike,
Councilman Mason: Not at this time.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: Have you looked, I didn't see anything in here that addressed it but have you looked at the
issue of the screening an area in the rear portion of the building to allow display or whatever?
John Rask: To the, in the back side where the service entrances are?
Councilman Senn: Yes.
John Rask: Not really. That's been an area that's been part of the problem with the location of some of the
existing boats as it prevents free ingress and egress for delivery trucks. That sort of thing. That's been a
problem out there that we've actually received complaints on from some of the tenants out there. There's only a
limited amount of area back there to begin with and you need to maintain obviously for public safety vehicles
and fire trucks. The back side of that building has also been a point of controversy with some of the neighbors
who live to the south there who have complained in the past about other things. It is somewhat screened
because there is a berm that was provided and landscaping that is now grown up. I think that if the applicant
was to have boats visible to the traveling public, using either Highway 7 or TH 41, I think that was the intent of
asking for the display more than just storage. It was more of a display type issue with them.
20
■
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Councilman Senn: The second issue, did you look at, if in fact this person wants to stay on site and conduct
that type of an expanded business, did you look at the option of basically letting him go over and creating a
facility which was built to accommodate on the remaining outlot?
John Rask: The only way that would be possible would be if the property was rezoned. Boat sales are not a
permitted use or conditional use in the BN district. The only place they're allowed are the BG district and the
Business Highway District. They fit in the same category as auto sales. So I guess that was more of a concern
to us because it did open it up to expanding the retail uses. Once the property's rezoned, if the boat sales say
left in 5 years, the property would still have that zoning and it could be a bar /restaurant. You know sporting
goods store. I don't know. It'd just be a wider range of uses to fit in there besides than what is currently
allowed at that BH district.
Councilman Senn: So you couldn't... then require as a conditional use for that use?
John Rask: No, you'd have to rezone it to, you've got to give it a zoning district that would allow that type of
use. Then you could, I guess you could make boat sales a conditional use in the BN district in that ordinance.
Councilman Senn: Would that, you said if you were in a situation basically to force it into an existing center
and make it work or go create that alternative, what would be preferable on the staffs side? I'm not saying
either one is necessarily preferable. I'm just saying given those two options only.
John Rask: If you look at what's currently in place with the interim use, we're saying it doesn't meet the intent
but at least they're dealing with it on kind of a site specific basis. If you change the district, well then you have
other, I think the only other area is the Legion site. There's that site behind there so if you change the district
to say, boat sales as a conditional use in that district, you do open up those other properties to that use. So if
you work within the existing parameters set forth in the zoning ordinance, you know you could just deal with it
as an interim use, site specific to that particular property.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is the applicant here this evening? Would you?
Doug Pass: Excuse me Mayor.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Doug Pass: I'm one of the tenants at the building.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We'll have the applicant and then we'll have anyone else after that.
Diane Mitchell: Good evening. I represent PBK Investments, 7 & 41 Crossings Center and I guess I'll start by
saying that what we would like to achieve is to make things work for all of the tenants. I think that our tenant,
Westin Marine has some specific needs and we would like to do that. Give parameters that would also work
with other tenants. But I'll back up by describing some background about the Westin Marine tenant. They
began leasing the space November of '92. The location of that center, the primary reason it was chosen was
because of it's close proximity to lakes in the surrounding areas and it would stand to reason that there would be
high recreational interest and needs in the area with people living on or near the lakes. Their intent has been to
serve the community, but in both boat sales and boat accessory sales. They have been selling boats at that
location from the time that they began leasing. It has always been very clear that they would be selling boats in
21
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
that location. The original plans, their build -out included a huge overhead garage to the back of the building
that was to allow boats to get in and out. So the boat sales have always happened. I don't think the tenants
would have leased a 4,000 square foot space for accessories only. The size of the space that they leased was to
accommodate having boats displayed indoors. What they have found is that having a boat outside, it usually
assists their boat sales. It helps their business, and outdoor display is very typical of that type of business that
has that type of recreational equipment. Boating equipment. And they basically don't feel that they can survive
at the center in an accessory only capacity, or without being able to have the ability to have some kind of
visibility outside. Although in the information that we submitted, there were several areas that we felt were
acceptable. We weren't looking to have those entire areas set aside for boat use. We were hoping for the city
to recommend of those areas which they think, you know think would work out best and also determining
guidelines of the number of boats. Personally, from our perspective, what we would like to see is for them to
be allowed to have two boats outside. In order to help them with their needs. If Westin Marine should feel that
they need to relocate because of their business not being able to continue, it will create just a little under 4,000
square feet, 3,930 square feet of vacant space in addition to the present 2,000 square foot vacancy, we're now at
about 23% of the entire building being vacant. Personally I feel ... for other tenants in many areas. You're going
to lessen the traffic to the center. It's going to hurt the influence of the center having a large vacant area on
your ... and ultimately it will allow less dollars for improvements and to continue to enhance the center in upkeep
and amenities that we would try to contribute. The vacancies will also affect the value of the property and then
in turn affect the taxes paid to the community. We would like to consider allowing some type of display on a
trial basis. Limiting it to two boats in a location on the parking lot that you know meets recommendations by
the city. It is a commercial building. I understand you know the zoning. They always have been selling boats.
We're at the intersection of two highways but we do have a large SuperAmerica in front of the center. That
hurts visibility for all of the tenants. We're set down on the east end, with Highway 41 kind of set down. We
have a berm. Having a boat or two could create some interest and attention. It could draw attention to the
center which could generate traffic and help out the tenants. I don't feel that having two boats displayed would
affect any of the near -by residents. The front parking lot is not visible to the surrounding neighborhood and the
size of the parking lot, as I think we've mentioned, is more than adequate to allow for an area of parking spaces
in relation to the size of the building. We're following those guidelines. So to work together. You know to
come to terms somehow. If we could do that. Limiting the number of boats the location. I'm hoping that then
we can do it in a way that our other tenants will not be disrupted. That will be for their benefit. The current
customers that Westin Marine services will be happy because they can continue to have their recreational needs
provided. And as a landlord we will be able to continue to upgrade the appearance... for our tenants, customers
and neighbors. So I believe that trying to help our business to stay in the community could be in everyone's
best interest and if we work together, you know we don't have any specific steadfast place that we want the
boats to be or the number of boats that they could. You know two would be fine. I know that there have been
times where they have had many more boats than that and I know that there have been times when they've been
in locations that have created problems and that's what we're trying to get away from. At times that I see it
myself, it's brought to my attention. We immediately call the tenant and advise that they are going to have to
make changes. That they can't have a boat in an area that disrupts deliveries or other parking. So by
establishing the criteria that they may have a boat in a specific location and then only that ... may be a way that
we can ... so that's our ultimate goal.
Mayor Chmiel; Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address this proposal?
Doug Pass: My name is Doug Pass and I'm the owner of Pass by Liquor. I'm located right next door to
Westin. I live at 2108 ... Road in Chaska. The address there is 2413 Seven and Forty -One. What I'd like to
address is just the fact when Westin first went in there, Diane was not working for the landlord at the time and
22
■
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
the whole reason for that back door was to have an access to get boats in and out of the inside of that facility. I
am sure you gentlemen have what was in the report, the overlay of what Westin gave you. If you were to go to
that facility right now, I'd find it really hard to believe that you could even get at or find any accessories,
because they aren't there. The place is packed to the walls with boats. So far in the last couple months we've
had as many as 22 boats outside. Today, this morning when I was out there, there are 17 boats out in that
parking mall. The ordinance is zero and she is coming to you telling you that you're going to set some
guidelines and these people are going to follow it. It's not going to happen. I've been in that facility since
1991. The issue, the problems I've had with my landlord are my problems. What we're looking at here are
ordinance violations and there have been many. In 1992, I don't know what started it but at the time, oh I'm
sorry. In 1995 and January 5th I called the landlord to request, because Westin had been closed for about a
month and he had pulled all of his retail goods out of there and at the time I called him and I wanted to know
that was the lease being violated because that facility was closed for at least a month. And it continued to stay
closed for another month, which to me is not retail. It's still, he left the boats inside and then the pattern that he
had, the landlord told me. He agreed that the lease was being violated and he also, I asked him. I said you
know that boats are not considered retail and he agreed with me again. And yet it stayed and things continued
and then in late April I contacted John and I set in motion the complaints I've had because of the boats started
appearing outside. As Diane said, I want to work within the system but the system is that no boats are allowed
outside and this guy just started violating the ordinances He didn't come to you to ask to see if he could do it.
He just start slapping boats outside. Now since I've been in business since '91, I've had 37 months of increased
sales. Since the boats have appeared in that parking lot, I have had the last 14 months of negative sales.
They're strangling me. And the reason they're strangling me is, what they have questioned, and I will show.
My delivery trucks actually pull along side the building. Get out and pound on Westin's doors so they'll move
their boats so the semi's can unload my beer. I am now having my distributors call me and tell me if there is
not access to that mall, I'm not going to get any more beer deliveries, and I don't blame them. Those guys are
paid to deliver beer and I cannot get beer in my facility. I have had on occasion, John will lay this out for you.
Starting since April of '95 I have been working closely with John and I call him up on a periodic basis and say
John, we've got 10 boats outside. John, we've got 12 boats outside. John, they're in my sight lines. They're
where my customers park. My customers now, as a joke, come up to me. They call the place a boat junkyard.
I don't know that you people realize but where they're asking for a temporary license, two of those boats are
permanent. They were picked up off a semi with a crane and set in those stalls out there. They can't go
anywhere. The count of boats that I counted storing, I don't know if you realized. Six of them are used.
They're taking boats in on trade -in's. When John mentioned a used car lot. We've got a used boat lot out there.
They're bringing boats in. Taking them out. Doing whatever. In the back of the facility they are having oil
changes. They are changing batteries. At any one time I've seen six batteries piled against the walls back there.
What if those batteries exploded? What if the oil gets dumped down in? These guys, I've gone out. I've talked
to them. They're doing what the boss tells them to do as far as let's get this boat facility, you know let's keep it
running and that's exactly what they're doing at my expense. And she, and Diane maintains that they've tried to
work with me. I've worked with John and half of the times that I call John, I immediately call Diane to say
I'm in contact with the city. My truck drivers are complaining. You know I have no access. My manager, if I
could bring her down here today, she's working my store. That's why I'm down here. They've blocked her in
up to half an hour at night with the boat, and she can't get out. I mean it's unbelievable. If you bear with me
for one second. Well actually we can do this. Would this be easier? The overlay is up on the board. If you'll
see what I've done. The overlay that's up on the board. What's in pink is where all the boats have been at one
time in that mall out there. I heard today that she'd be happy to have two boats out there. Even if you put the
boats out there, I can't believe that you could make them put those boats in any spots because you've already
seen. They've got them all over. Along the one side of the building, which I consider as the fire lane, they
have boats there almost all the time. At the back of the store they have boats there almost all the time. At
23
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
some times there's been as many as, where she says trailer only on the back that's, the green spots are what she
maintains is where they would like an idea where the boats would go. Okay. You can see with the pink. Pink
is where the boats have actually been. And if you look at that from my point of view, those are all my sight
lines. Where all those boats are is where my customers would park if they had to. When someone comes to
look at a boat, what we have is two different businesses here. In liquor, when someone comes in, your typical
beer customer, which is 70% of my sales, buys the same thing every other day. Every third day, but when he
does buy it, he pulls up or wants to pull up to my front door. He comes in. He's in there 30 seconds. He's out
again and he's gone. When you purchase a boat, you're in there for 30 minutes. 45 minutes. Where do they
park? You can see on the overlays there. There's no spot for them to park except the four spots directly in
front of my store. They've parked in there for 30 to 45 minutes. My customers have to park way out wherever
and they've got to walk in. It's killing me. I mean it's absolutely killing my business. If you want a
comparison, the Byerly's downtown or the Byerly's in downtown Chanhassen. They have a beautiful store.
Great store. Their prices are as good as anyone in town but they don't sell a lot of beer. Why? Because you
can't pull up to the door and grab a 12 pack. It's just the way, the nature of the liquor biz. And so we've got
two different situations here and my situation is, boats just do not belong in that mall. The other issues I've
brought up, John will maintain. They're running motors inside the facility. They did it on 8:00, May 11th.
They were running you know outboard motors inside. Number one, that's a health hazard. Number two, if
those fumes are being sucked across to my exhaust, do I have that in my store? I mean these guys are out of
control. And you know, I mean I've been working with John since April of '95 and I don't hold the city at fault
here at what's going on. What I hold fault is Westin for not working within the system, which there definitely
is one. And with PBK. As far as I've called them repeatedly. Told them my demands. Not demands, told
them my request. I need access to my facility. In 14 months I've paid them over $30,000.00 for the right not
to have access to my front or back door. It'd ridiculous and yet you know, John if you would. Could you read
how many times I've called and how many letters have been sent and yet, I just want to make sure that it's all
down on the report. Diane was here on May 1st and said that there were no tenants that have been
complaining. I've been complaining since April of 1995. To John and to PBK. And 14 months later, here we
are and the only thing that scares me tonight is that there's a chance that you guys could say, we need more
study. And if we do more study, if they ... this guy's in the prime of the boat season. I'm in the prime of my
beer business. And they just don't match and the guy that's been losing out the whole time is me. I've got no
access to the back or front of my store. So I guess what I'm asking today is that this be denied but also, if it is
denied, I've got to have those boats removed and it's got to be as soon as possible. Can you read those John?
John Rask: Certainly. The Council has received the copies of my letters in the packet. Copied them on back
in March so they're aware of the issues that I have sent the notices to them. So they are aware that it has been
an ongoing problem.
Doug Pass: I guess also, just to, oh I'm sorry.
John Rask: That's fine, go ahead.
Doug Pass: The boats that are out there today, I counted them up. They're taking up 47 parking spots and if
youll notice the 47 parking spots are directly in front of my store. Right down the sight lines. In all fairness to
Diane, and PBK, on the graphs that I gave you. Her and I, we did have a discussion in February and I said I
wouldn't have a problem with some boats out in that mall if the boats were where I put yellow there, and then I
circled it, which are out on those center islands, which are up top right here. But you can see right here. And
if she took 2 spots, but as you can see now by their track record, that's not going to happen. If you give them
24
I
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
two boats, it could be 4 tomorrow because right now the ordinance says zero, yet there's 17 out in the mall. If
you have any questions for me, otherwise thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Okay.
' Diane Mitchell: Can I speak again?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
' Diane Mitchell. The differences that Doug has is precisely why I would like to have some specifics. I think
that in this center, while we've been waiting to go through this process, Westin has been trying to acquire a
warehouse space where he can be putting his merchandise and I believe that that has just been accomplished
' where he can store some of his excess. The areas, you know as Doug had said, you know if there could be two
spots where a boat could go, that's great. I think that then he could continue to operate. Otherwise I'm sure the
whole operation will just be moved and you know to work with the tenants, you know Doug if you need a sign
in front of your place that says liquor parking only, fine. Then we'll those spots can be your spots. But I don't
' see where pushing his out is going to help you either, but I would like for us to have guidelines that we would
have to follow and ... that way.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address this? If not, we'll bring it back to
Council. Steve. Give us your insights.
' Councilman Berquist: Diane, what's your last name?
Diane Mitchell: Mitchell.
' Councilman Berquist: Mitchell. Ms. Mitchell. Where's your tenant?
Diane Mitchell: Westin Marine.
Councilman Berquist: Where? I mean I was at the Planning Commission meeting and he wasn't, they were not
in attendance. They're not here. I mean where do they stand in all of this?
' Diane Mitchell: Well, for some reason I think that they feel that representation, that we are the primary, that is
if the permit is granted, it is to the landlord and not necessarily to them. It is to the ... and that it is our position
to come.
' Councilman Berquist: Have you made them aware that they're wrong?
' Diane Mitchell: Well, you know I guess I encouraged them to be here. That's all I can do.
Councilman Berquist: You encouraged them to be here and they didn't see fit to be here. The ideas that you've
bandied about as far as limiting their boat storage obviously, I mean to me, if I'm in a position such as they're in
' and someone is threatening to severely affect my business by limiting my ability to display my product, but
there's an option open to me, I'm going to do my darnest to live within what the supposed guidelines may
become. And in that regard what I would do, would be to clean up the lot. Since the Planning Commission
' meeting of two weeks ago I've been to that site four times, the last day was Saturday and the gentleman that
' 25
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
owns Pass By Liquors is a little bit remiss insofar as that his pink area doesn't go over to the third row of stalls,
which there were boat trailers parked in that area on Saturday morning. And as I drove into the lot I was being
followed by someone who was on their way to another tenant and it was very congested. Very inconvenient. A
real pain in the tail. I would think if I was a tenant in that position, I would begin to make some efforts to
make the thing look presentable knowing full well that people that are going to affect my business are going to
be visiting the site, looking at how the operation is being run and I'm amazed that they're not here. I can only
conclude that they really don't give a rat.
Diane Mitchell: Well, I don't know if you can assume that or not. If that's the reasoning, I don't know because
they aren't here to tell us what their reasoning was.
Councilman Berquist: In the event that, well maybe let me back up. When I listened to this through Planning
Commission I was loathe to make a decision that would put, in essence put someone out of business and I
thought geez, there's got to some way of working this thing out. Telling that they can use the further east strip
of parking. Telling this them. Telling them that. But given the fact that they've done nothing but expand and
make it look worse, I have every reason to believe that if we were to limit it to two boats, it would simply go,
they wouldn't pay any attention to it. John I suspect that your letters to them, I suspect you started by lettering
Westin Sports and not PBK.
John Rask: That's correct.
Councilman Berquist: Did you ever get any sort of response from them or did they completely ignore you?
John Rask: I did obtain compliance on two occasions but obviously in both they re- appeared.
Councilman Berquist: Compliance was zero boats?
John Rask: Yes.
Councilman Mason: For how long?
John Rask: Maybe a month in June and then in August, they were removed again. And then I believe they
were, and I don't know. I'm not out there enough to know but I think they were on and off but then they were
pretty much gone until February of this year. At that time I sent a notice indicating that this matter would be
referred to the City Attorney's office for prosecution. It was at that point that we discussed various options.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. I understand the economics.
Diane Mitchell: Right. I mean can it be done in a way where they're just given a very short term and if they
comply, they're fined or then they lose their right or I mean something. Anything to try to make it work to be
able to keep them, because they will be leaving otherwise...
Councilman Berquist: Well, that may be. I've got two more questions here. You talk about us, the City
Council making a stipulation that they're limiting to a certain amount of footage. How do you propose that that
be policed? And do you have an on -site building manager or are you located in St. Louis Park?
Diane Mitchell. We don't have an on -site manager.
26
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
' Councilman Berquist: So any time that there's a complaint, you get a phone call or you're visiting the site once
a week or once every month, or something like that. So the policing would be up to your other tenants and
' then it would be up to the—okay, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike.
Councilman Mason: Well, I think Steve's analogy about wanting to, if they want to get something, it seems to
me they have to give something. I'd like to regale you with a 15 minute story about how I deal with third
graders and one kid that comes in that's missed one assignment out of 100 and is almost in tears because they're
' going to get in trouble as opposed to the kid who missed 50 assignments out of 100. Needless to say the I out
of 100 doesn't get in trouble and the one that's missed 50 does. I see absolutely no reason at all to grant this
use permit. It's been, there's been nothing but grief there. Mark just told me there were 16 boats there this
weekend. That's what Doug is saying. We've asked them time and time again and you know it is, it's kind of
like the bad kid that does well for 2 or 3 days and then as soon as the teacher isn't paying any attention, starts
screwing up again. I don't see any point at all in granting the interim use permit. I mean I can clearly see how
it's hurting Pass By Liquor and they, quite honestly Westin Sports appears to not give a rip about the business
' of Pass By Liquor. I guess I'm a little surprised that they'd be wanted as a tenant in that building in the first
place, if that's how Westin Sports is dealing with all the other tenants in the building. I'm done.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Mark.
Councilman Senn: John, these are the same people that were operating out of the Mai Tai, weren't they for a
' while? After the Mai Tai, it turned over to a boat business?
John Rask: That I'm not sure of.
Councilman Senn: They were in there a short time and then left?
John Rask: Okay.
' Councilman Senn: I don't know. I go by this site a lot I guess because it's, I should say it's adjacent to
Minnetonka Middle School and Freeman Park. It's been kind of interesting to watch it. I remember back when
' there was one boat there. And then I remember when there was two and then I remember when there was three
and it just kept building and building and every once in a while I'd run into Kate or John and just ask them
what was happening out there. Essentially ) know, if these were people who had tried to live with the rules
or were coming with a new situation, I guess my first thought would be to try to work with them and create
' some way to display a boat or two as a berm or you know some way to do it to make it tasteful and nice and
make it work but this one's been just kind of a blatant disregard for any rules from day one. Which everybody
understood the rules, including the landlord and you know, the way now is not to build the business to 16 or 17
' or whatever boats it is now and then come in and ask for permission to do it. So I can't establish really any
level of trust I guess in a relationship that way figuring that if we, at this point go back to 2, it seems to me all
of a sudden that's a license for what, 28 then? On the math we're using so far. So I don't know, from that basis
I can't see in any shape, or in any way supporting the interim use. I really tried to think through if there was a
better way to do this or better way to solve the business's problem but I don't know. The more I've watched it,
and I love Steve's comment because it's the same comment I was going to have. I've kind of driven by there
fairly consistently here over the last couple of weeks since I knew it was an issue and it's just gone from bad to
' 27
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
worst. It hasn't even shown signs of getting better or even smaller so I can't help but think that no matter what
we do, if we cut any slack, it's just going to get worse so no support here I guess.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think everybody has said about what my concerns were. And I was really amazed to
see as many boats on location as there were because I remember when that particular facility went in, and I
believe at the time they knew the requirements of the city as far as the ordinances. And I can see where if
Doug is having those kinds of problems as he's indicated, not only with his customers but with getting things
delivered. The thing blocked up back there that's not supposed to, number one. Number two, it could create a
fire hazard or a problem of getting in to do any kind of fire fighting that may be required, so that's a violation
in itself. I guess I'm leaning towards denying that. However I do have concerns with the business as well.
Concerns of keeping that operable. But it doesn't appear as though they really tried to stick with what the
regulations were for that specific area. And not following the ordinances of the city and I think the building
owners have a certain amount of responsibility with that as well with their other tenants and their other
customers so, with that I would entertain a motion.
Roger Knutson: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Roger.
Roger Knutson: Could I suggest on the way the motion could be worded. That you adopt the Findings in the
planning report of May 1 as part of your reasons for your denial.
Councilman Mason: I would move City Council denies Interim Use Permit 996 -1 based on findings presented
by staff in the staff report as well as the findings from the May 1st Planning Commission.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. One other thing with that Michael. Would there be something in regard to those
existing boats as to when they should leave the site?
Councilman Mason: Well I yesterday would be appropriate, quite honestly. That may not be real, I understand
that's not realistic but on the other hand, I think those boats, what's feasible? A week?
Councilman Senn: No, couple days.
Councilman Mason: Couple days? Well okay, I'll be generous and give them until Friday.
Councilman Berquist: Have they signed a lease for storage on an off site?
Diane Mitchell: They were working on that and what he said to me today was that he hoped that, obviously
that this would go through and that he be given some time so that he would be able to get the boats into a
warehouse space... I'm not sure of the exact, if he has it available today, tomorrow, in a week. I don't know the
exact...
Councilman Mason: I guess I would like my motion to include that the boats are gone by Friday and if
somebody from Westin Sports needs to discuss that with staff. No, I would like the boats off there by Friday. I
think enough's enough. That's my motion.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Is there a second?
28
I
n
0
7
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Councilman Senn: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion.
Councilman Berquist: Insofar as the tenant is looking for remote sites for storage of the boats, and insofar as if
he's successful, from a practical point of view. If we could insure that the owners of Westin Sports would
comply with boundaries for boat storage in the future, predicated on them finding some other storage. Other off
site storage, would the Council be amendable to perhaps granting a conditional use at some point in the future?
Or do we want to say.
Councilman Mason: For boat storage in that area?
Councilman Berquist: For boat display in keeping with Ms. Mitchell's outline and in keeping with Doug Pass'
notations as to what areas would be okay by them for boat storage.
Councilman Senn: Steve, the part that bothers me about that is that they've had ample opportunity to do it and
the landlord has had ample opportunity to enforce their lease and at least limit the amount of storage. Nobody's
limited anything.
Councilman Berquist: I understand but is there any reason, is there a reason to be arbitrary?
Councilman Senn: That's not being arbitrary. To me to have something arbitrary, that's a response to
effectively something they've been doing over almost two years now.
John Rask: Over a year.
' Councilman Mason: You know Steve, I guess my comment on that is, at this point no. But if something comes
up in the future, I'm certainly open to talking about it but I think as it stands now, they've obviously shown
absolutely no willingness whatsoever to live by city ordinance. Live by code. Help out existing tenants. I
' think they need, I mean if there's some good faith on their part, I would certainly consider that. I mean I'm not
going to say yes or no but we have yet to see anything.
Councilman Berquist: I understand that.
Councilman Mason: You know, so.
L I
Councilman Berquist: I understand that but I don't want to, I'm always.
Councilman Mason: I won't slam the, okay I won't slam the door. It's shut for right now as far as I'm
concerned but it's not locked. How's that?
Mayor Chmiel: Plus the fact, even if that were to occur, the boat storage within that lot is not permissible.
Councilman Berquist: I understand that but the business being within the lot and the confines within which the
boat display could probably be workable, where was I going with this? I don't want the landlord to have to
evict a tenant for non - compliance. I understand the economics of the center. I understand the economics of
what's going on here. If in fact it's feasible that the tenant shows good faith in getting the boats off the lot and
29
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
is able to develop some off site storage, and is able to show a good faith effort to comply with some fairly
stringent restrictions that we would put on displays, I think we would be spiteful if we didn't at least entertain it.
And our job is not to be spiteful.
Mayor Chmiel: True. As long as it's in conformance with what the ordinances are.
Councilman Berquist: That's true. And also within the variances allowed.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. But with this there are no variances to what's on the books right now. We
would have to do some changes of that.
Councilman Berquist: No. All we'd be doing is issuing a conditional use permit.
Mayor Chmiel: Does that specifically conditional use permits John?
John Rask: Well, it is. It's an interim use in that district. The reason I didn't put all this, the past history of
what happened out there and the violations that occurred is trying to focus on the fact that it's not consistent
with what's there in the zoning district now. It's not consistent to what the district was created for and it's for
those reasons where the staff has recommended denial of it and I think I heard the motion where you referenced
the staff report and I was assuming you were adopting those same reasons. So if something can be worked out.
You know we felt that 2 would be too many in this instance and that it wasn't consistent with the district and
anything short of rezoning the property wasn't acceptable. And rezoning we didn't seem to think was acceptable
either so.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We have a motion on the floor with a second. Any other discussion?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to deny the Interim Use Permit #96 -1, and that all boats
be removed from the premises by Friday, May 24, 1996, based on the findings presented in the staff report, and
more specifically, the Council finds the following:
1. Outdoor display of boats for sale is not a permitted use in the BN district.
2. A boat dealership is inconsistent with the intent of the BN zoning district.
3. Boat sales are not an appropriate interim use at this location based on the purpose and intent of interim uses
as stated in the zoning ordinance.
4. Outdoor display of boats for sale is inconsistent with other uses in the BN zoning district.
5. The proposed use is aesthetically incompatible with adjoining land uses consisting of the neighborhood
oriented retail center and residential developments.
All voted in favor and the motion carried
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE LOT 5. BLOCK 1. MAPLEWOOD INTO 2 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS, 3531 MAPLEWOOD CIRCLE. ARUNDEL ADDITION.
30
t
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. There's a correction on this application.
The applicant had requested this be a preliminary plat only. And the staff report indicates that but the agenda
reflects preliminary and final. The site is located south of Maplewood Circle. Briefly, just to give you a
background on this subdivision. In 1964, Maplewood Subdivision was approved. It consisted of 8 lots. Lot 5
had an area of 1.3 acres. It is the largest parcel within this subdivision. This is an established neighborhood.
All of the parcels have homes on them. The applicant is requesting to subdivide this lot into two single family
lots. There's an existing single family home on this site. Lot 2 is proposed for future development of a single
family home. It will be accessed off of Maplewood Circle, off of the cul -de -sac via a cross access easement.
One of the issues that came up at the Planning Commission meeting was in regard to privacy and specifically by
the neighbor to the east. Our ordinances do not address this issue. However, what we had recommended was
the driveway be pushed as far as possible to the west and keep it as far as can be from the property line to the
east of this site. Another suggestion that we made was to push the single family home house pad as far as
possible to the west. This will increase the setback from the property to the east. It will also save an existing
32 inch silver maple tree. We are recommending approval of this application with conditions outlined in the
staff report. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. Any questions of Sharmin? Steve.
Councilman Berquist: Not right now.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike.
Councilman Mason: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is the applicant here this evening?
Gerry Wenkus: Good evening. My name is Gerry Wenkus. I live at 3531 Maplewood Circle. I'm here tonight
representing Steve Arundel. I guess what we wanted to mention was, as we looked, Sharmin had mentioned
that staff was recommending. We do want to work with the city to get the necessary drainage easements that
they requested. We'd also like to address the concerns of the adjacent property owner and install a minimum of
two additional trees along the lot line to help screen in addition to the city would require. And then also we'd
like to locate the driveway equal distance from both houses to minimize the impact of the driveway to the
neighbors house. Or to both houses really. I guess that's about it. If you have any questions, I'm here to
answer those for you. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: As far as the other conditions that are contained in there, we have approximately 14 or is there
15 Sharmin? As I looked at those two, we had two 14's.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: 15 conditions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thanks. Okay. Is there anyone wishing to address anything specific on this issue that's
before us? Okay. If not, Steve.
31
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Councilman Berquist: I had a hard time with this one. This one tastes, smells, feels completely different than
the one that we did down on Great Plains Boulevard back in March. This one disturbs an existing
neighborhood that was platted as large lots. It is a large lot. It does have drainage problems. But it smells bad
to me. I've got to ask Gerry, what's driving this?
Gerry Wenkus: Basically Mr. Arundel purchased the property.
Councilman Berquist: The entire parcel?
Gerry Wenkus: Pardon?
Councilman Berquist: The entire parcel?
Gerry Wenkus: The entire parcel, that's correct.
Councilman Berquist: Is this your home?
Gerry Wenkus: That's where I'm living currently, yes. And moving to put in another single family home on the
other property. I'm in that business. I'm in the contracting business.
Councilman Berquist: And the intent when the property was purchased was to subdivide and gain a little equity
immediately.
Gerry Wenkus: That's correct.
Councilman Berquist: In essence.
Gerry Wenkus: When I bought the property originally, 17 years ago, I was told it could be subdivided.
Unfortunately I didn't check with the city at that time but it didn't comply then. It does comply now with the
current ordinances.
Steve Arundel: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Steve Arundel: I'm Mr. Arundel.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up to the microphone so we can pick that up. That's okay.
Steve Arundel: I'm Steve Arundel and I'm the owner of the property and I guess it's the original Maplewood
Circle development. There's been a lot of development in the lots behind. I'm not sure what the name of the
street is but it's the development, do you know what the name of that is?
Gerry Wenkus: It'd be Mr. Durr's property.
Councilman Berquist: Oh Ironwood is the property that is directly behind that.
32
I City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Steve Arundel: Right. And the lot, you know if it's on the street... there's a giant piece of property with a house
that's right up on the street so being that there's been a lot of development around there, it would seem that the
' placement of another house in that area wouldn't be inconsistent with the further development of the whole area.
I can imagine if there's one street and everybody has a back yard full of woods and everything else but this
huge piece of land, I think 1.3 acres, has a small house sitting right up against the street and then this huge back
' yard with nothing in it but a bunch of pine trees circling the area. It seems that it wasn't going to affect any of
the neighbors and it was consistent with all the other development... even directly behind it. That's my point.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you.
' Councilman Berquist: Sharmin there was, again this is one of the items that was at the Planning Commission
meeting that I was at. There was a gentleman that had lived in the house to the east that had expressed some
concerns about sight lines and I know that the applicant had sent in a letter that talked about moving the home
further to the western point. And planting some additional coniferous trees to hide it. Did that owner respond
to that in any manner?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: It was a discussion that we had with the applicant. We made the recommendation that they
approach the homeowner.
' Councilman Berquist: I'm somewhat surprised that they're not here. That the people that were at the Planning
Commission meeting and were adamant in their feelings about this, are not here to voice their's. Voice their
opinions tonight.
' Sharmin Al -Jaff: They were made aware of this meeting and they're always encouraged to appear before the
City Council.
' Councilman Berquist: Okay. What's that?
Councilman Senn: Oh. My understanding from one of them was that based on what the Planning Commission
' action was, it wasn't a question of if. I mean it fait du complete so it was kind of why.
Councilman Berquist: The way I see it, we opened a very complex issue by permitting this within an area that
'
was platted in 1964. Granted it's large lot. Granted it meets the ordinances as they currently stand. I'm
reluctant to make, I'm reluctant to approve this sort of thing on a piecemeal basis when I perceive that it affects
the neighbors. And the neighbors all bought, or at least I don't want to put words in their mouths but I would
suspect that one of the reasons that they all bought was because of the attractiveness of large lots. Secluded
nature. The privacy. The room to run if you will of the large lot and we begin to change the flavor of the
neighborhood in a very dramatic way by permitting this to happen. Particularly on a cul -de -sac. I'll end it there
for now.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike.
Gerry Wenkus: May I address that particular issue?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Restate your name so we get this.
' 33
0
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996 1
Gerry Wenkus: I'd just like to mention that it is the largest parcel in there and each of the two lots would be '
2/3 of an acre and that's about the size of the smallest lot that's in there currently. This particular lot is kind of
at the end of the housing. The house pad if you will won't be very visible from the street necessarily with the '
trees that will be screening it ... so we felt there was going to be minimal impact by this and we've addressed,
tried to address all the concerns of the neighbors as well as the city planners to make sure that we were... we
certainly feel we've accomplished that. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Michael. '
Councilman Mason: This is one that I can't get right either. In terms of what it will do to that neighborhood. '
Boy, I don't know. I'm on the fence on this one right now. I guess I'd like to hear what everyone else has to
say.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: I guess I could say I'm not on the fence. I've gone out and looked at it and I just don't see
any way that it works. I think the neighbors have every right in the world to stress the opinions as well as
concerns that they did at the Planning Commission. I just, you know you can't downplay the impact of this on
the neighborhood. I don't think you can downplay the impact of it probably on property values and other
things. And I don't think, you know I don't, I look at it and try to make it make sense and I can't say that it
makes sense. I have a hard time with it or supporting it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is everyone is saying that they have concerns with the people within the particular area
where this is being proposed, and I just want you to know that the property owner too has the right to develop
his parcel as long as it's consistent with the city's ordinances. And it's quite evident that everything is as such.
I think that's something we have to look at before we come up with a solution to it. I know that I've had this
same specific thing that happened to us with the house being built directly in back of us, which was all one lot
and that got subdivided as well. And I figured he had the right to do it. He bought it. He purchased it and he
had all the rights in the world to put that structure up, even though it did block my visibility of what I wanted
to see. Two lakes and a few other things. But I don't know. There is sort of mixed emotions with this but I
still think that that property owner does have a right to draw up plans, even though there are some problems as
each is indicated in regard to maybe that topography of that site.
Councilman Berquist: Well to me, if every homeowner on that circle, every homeowner within that particular
development came in here and wanted to do the same thing, at the same time, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Because that would all mean that they were in agreement with what needed to be done and they all wanted to
gain a little instant equity. That's not the situation. We're on the end of a cul -de -sac. That cul -de -sac was
designed to serve 5 lots. Now all of a sudden we're opening up and putting a sixth one on there. Yes, it's
within ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: Well yeah, but when you look at both parcels as they have been, that consisted of what, an acre
and 1/3 totally, and once they divide that into two equal portions of that, it's still 2/3 of an acre lot.
Councilman Berquist: I understand this.
Mayor Chmiel: So there's nothing that's being built directly upon the adjacent residents as well.
34
- 1
I
' City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Councilman Berquist: That is true.
' Mayor Chmiel: So it's still, from where I see it. Roger, from a legality aspect, is there any way that we can
deny this proposal? If it's consistent with all the ordinances.
Roger Knutson: If it complies with all ordinances, complies with the comprehensive plan, no. If you're
satisfied that it complies with all standards in your ordinances, you don't have much basis to turn it down, if you
find that to be the case.
' Councilman Berquist: What about the rights and the concerns of the adjoining homeowners that bought large
lots and again for the same thing I reiterated before. We're changing the complexion of the neighborhood.
Granted perhaps not with one but perhaps with two. Perhaps with three so looking at it from the one instance.
Again, if we had 8 people, or 6 people in here wanting to do this same thing, all in agreement, I would have no
problem. But where one individual looking for instant equity to try and change the flavor of the neighborhood.
Granted it's within his rights from an ordinance point of view.
' Councilman Senn: Well I guess I'm not sure of that. I guess what I'd like Roger to do is look at that issue and
research if there are findings of fact, given what I'm hearing.
Roger Knutson: Councilmember, in response to what you said. What you pointed out I think may be why
there's a defect in our ordinance. The standards, they comply with all the ordinances and I have not researched
that so I'm not able to make judgment on that. But if that is the case, you have limited discretion.
' Councilman Senn: Maybe we should table it tonight and ask Roger to research both of those issues.
Mayor Chmiel: You had your hand up.
Steve Arundel: ...my residence is in Eden Prairie and I live on a cul -de -sac also and when I moved there in
1987 I was the only house up there and for several years I had 2 or 3 vacant lots around me that were my
' playground for the kids and you know where I put the leaves and everything else and as the houses gradually
were built around there, it certainly was less desirable than not having them but I can understand that there
would be lots built there. And I heard that there's going to be an impact on the neighborhood and I'm trying to
change the flavor of the neighborhood and I'm not sure I specifically understand. If the ordinance allows for
this to happen, why there is an opinion that we're trying to change anything. The houses would only be visible
by one other house, of all the other five lots. And as you mentioned in the issue of the boat, that these people
were so concerned about it, why didn't they come tonight and voice their concern. It seems to me like the
' Council is taking up the cause for the people that didn't bother to come out here tonight even though there's no
legal recourse. We've done our homework with staff and they've given us the green light. I can understand... for
some instant equity but when you look at this situation and because the size of lots, thought that it would be
' consistent with the size of the other lots.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks. Mark, you were saying.
Councilman Senn: It seems like many of the answers to these questions as supposition at best at this point, so I
guess I like the idea of tabling it and having Roger research the issue of whether this does meet all the
ordinance provisions, intents, etc. and go from there.
' 35
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Roger Knutson: Sharmin, do we have time on this?
Sharmin Al -Jaffa The application was submitted on March 15th so we still have another, more than two months.
Roger Knutson: I'll report back, I'll get you a letter before you next meeting then.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Let me see if there's a second to the table.
Councilman Berquist: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay Motion's on the floor with a second.
Councilman Mason: Discussion. If that's the direction of Council, and that's fine. I'll certainly vote to table for
now but I think a point is very well made.. .,Arundel, I'm sorry.
Steve Arundel: Arundel.
Councilman Mason: Sorry. I think Mr. Arundel does make a very valid point that adding, his point is well
taken and I think our City Attorney's point is well taken that if this fits our legal parameters, if anything it's a
flaw in the ordinance and I don't think we can hold Mr. Arundel culpable for a flaw in the ordinance. If that's
the direction we want to take. Then I think we need to revisit the ordinance but I believe the term is, is it ipso
or deport facto? I mean we can't, I mean if this in fact is his right to do that, and all the rules are being
followed, whether I like it or not, I think that needs to be taken into account too but at this point I'll certainly
vote to table and take a look at what comes next.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have a motion on the floor with a second to table
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to table the preliminary plat to Subdivision Lot 5,
Block 1, Maplewood into two single family lots, 3531 Maplewood Circle, Arundel Addition. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
APPOINTMENT TO HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, Council members. Under State Statute the Mayor has the authority to appoint
members to the HRA with the concurrence of the City Council. With that, staff had direction from the Mayor
to appoint a new HRA member. Commissioner Robbins' term is up and he has informed me that he would like
to be reappointed to the HRA. With that, staff looks for direction.
Mayor Chmiel: Charlie does a good job as far as I'm concerned on the HRA, and I feel that he's quite capable
of asking questions and getting those questions also answered. So I would make a motion that we reappoint
Charlie Robbins for another 5 year term to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Is there a second? Not
hearing a second, my recommendation then would be to table this item to our next meeting and discuss it at that
particular time. Is there a second to table?
Councilman Mason: I'll second that. I think this may be a better discussion with the full Council
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, there's a motion on the floor with a second.
36
I
f-]
0
I
0
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table the appointment to the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority until the next Council meeting. Mayor Chmiel and Councilman Mason voted in
favor. Councilman Berquist and Councilman Senn opposed. The motion tied with a vote of 2 to 2.
Mayor Chmiel: It's a dead heat, 2 to 2 and we'll discuss it, we'll still discuss it next Council meeting because
we're not going to get it resolved...
Councilman Berquist: You don't want to advertise?
Mayor Chmiel: Normally we can. In this particular position, I think it would be maybe a waste of time. If
you have a member of the HRA who is doing a job as he is right now. That is quite satisfactory.
Councilman Berquist: That's not what I heard by the motion.
Mayor Chmiel: Pardon?
Councilman Berquist: There wasn't a second to the motion so there's obviously some disagreement.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's dead. We need one more Council member so this can come up.
Councilman Berquist: But you made a motion that he be approved.
Mayor Chmiel: No, that was taken off. There was not a second.
Councilman Berquist: I understand.
Mayor Chmiel: So I made the other motion.
Councilman Berquist: So there goes your support.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm not concerned about the support. I'm concerned about the way...
Councilman Berquist: Well that's the reason for my talking about advertising. You don't want to advertise the
position?
Mayor Cbmiel: You shouldn't say I wouldn't. Let's put it this way. I'd be flexible in advertising.
Councilman Berquist: Alright. So do we want to or do we want to not?
Mayor Chmiel: Well, let's ask the question. Your opinion?
Councilman Berquist: I think that, like any other commission, we should advertise for it. I think we're short
sighted if we don't.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael.
37
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Councilman Mason: I agree with, it certainly is, under State Statute the Mayor does have the authority to, and
so ultimately I do think it's the Mayor's call. I don't have any trouble with advertising.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: I'd like to, I guess I'd like to see the advertisement because that way it confirms our policy
effectively on ... commission in terms of vacancies and on that basis I'd be happy to support of tabling in which
we would agree to advertise.
Councilman Berquist: With no mention made within the advertisement of the existing commissioner re-
applying.
Councilman Senn: That's in our policy too.
Councilman Mason: I guess I think that's only fair. I mean ... HRA, when my tenure is up I would expect that if
in fact I asked to be re- appointed that, I would expect that it would be posted. If someone else, I'll go toe to
toe. I mean that's fine. I don't have trouble with that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There's a motion on the floor to advertise and we're at a point of no votes so we'll carry
this through to the next City Council meeting.
Councilman Senn: Maybe to clarify Mayor. I'll make the motion to table it on the basis that we advertise and
then after the advertisement is done...
Todd Gerhardt: You don't have to make any motion at all.
Mayor Chmiel: No. This I think is more for information.
Don Ashworth: I think that they'd like to see a motion to get into the record the advertisement portion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There's a motion. Is there a second?
Councilman Berquist: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to table the appointment to the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority and direct staff to advertise the position in the newspaper. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Don Ashworth: Point of clarification. Isn't there a timing thing? I mean don't we give people 10 days to
apply? I mean if you turned the thing into the newspaper today, there's no way we would comply with some of
these other. I guess my point is, you want us to comply with the rules for advertising as it would apply to other
commissions so if that means it cannot go on the 10th because of 10 days, this, that, it goes to the 24th.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: You've got two weeks You've got two Thursdays.
38
D
L
0
0
n
1
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Don Ashworth: I just needed to clarify.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, you've got it. Alright.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1(E). APPROVAL OF BILLS.
Councilman Berquist: Mine was (e). In here is an invoice from RSP Architects and we are being billed
$340.00 to review accessibility review for new daycare. In the Chan Rec Center.
Don Ashworth: No. No. At issue is that, the new accessibility code that was put in by the State is very
difficult to fully understand.
Councilman Mason: Why isn't that a surprise?
Don Ashworth: What this really means, and the State, if you go back to the State and ask them issues, they
will refer you back to this same firm. It's the same firm that.
Councilman Berquist: RSP?
Don Ashworth: Right. This is the same firm that helped us with sidewalk issues. We're not proposing to use
them all the time but for example the interpretation under State Code, which is that the daycare, which is totally
a separate operation. Not part of the Rec Center. Just happens that the bill happened to show working on those
two independent items. A question by the inspectors because a clear interpretation says that the daycare has to
have 17 handicap restrooms inside of the daycare facility. It's absurd. Nobody possible could take and, well 17
stalls would have to be handicap accessible, which I don't think was an intent of the code but that's the way it's
written. An interpretation was asked by our inspectors to review the site plan for this particular daycare. The
second issue.
Councilman Senn: But to answer Steve's question, it wasn't the community center?
Don Ashworth: No.
Councilman Senn: It was Children's World.
Councilman Berquist: Oh! This is Children's World.
Councilman Senn: Right.
Councilman Berquist: And this can be billed back to Children's World through the development agreement?
Councilman Senn: I asked that question too. No.
Don Ashworth: Typically the issues.
Councilman Berquist: Issues of ADA are.
39
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Councilman Senn: It's existing fees on inspection from what Steve told me today.
Don Ashworth: Correct. Correct. And again, as soon as we ... interpretation on some of these issues, we have
no intent to continuously use this firm.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. And then plus we needed them to do some interpretation of City Hall expansion?
Don Ashworth: Right.
Councilman Berquist: How many toilets do we need here?
Don Ashworth: I don't know what the...
Councilman Berquist: What did I say earlier about codes? Good lord.
Councilman Senn: What Steve told me earlier was, is that these two were almost kind of case examples for him
and his staff to get educated in this area so they ran through these as case examples and brought in the outside
consultants. They normally will not be doing that. They're now up to speed on it, so they'll be making the
interpretation themselves. There may be an occasion once in a while where they get into a whole new area that
they don't know how to interpret where they may bring a consultant back in again. That's the answer I got.
Councilman Berquist: And then a check for 13 grand to this Campbell, Knutson, Scott and Fuchs. Who are
they?
Councilman Senn: Expensive lawyers obviously.
Councilman Berquist: What have we paid your... firm so far this year?
Roger Knutson: I don't know. I can find out for you but I don't know.
Councilman Mason: I bet it's within budget though.
Don Ashworth: Realize, extensive condemnations on Lyman and TH 101, Galpin.
Councilman Berquist. Okay, I just had to give him grief. I'd be curious to know where we are relative to
budgetthough?
Don Ashworth: Within, you're going to be within budget. At issue is total expense as, let's say it would apply
back to the Lyman project. So when we're billed, I mean when they do work on the condemnation associated
with that public improvement project, that part of the bill goes to that particular project.
Councilman Senn: Do you want the breakdown Steve?
Councilman Berquist: No, not really. What are all these off duty officers? What do we do that we need all
these off duty officers, just out of curiosity? I think there was three different checks for off duty officers in this
past month.
40
I
�J
I
0
I li
I
0
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Don Ashworth: I had a party at the house. I don't know. I would have to check on that one.
Councilman Berquist: And then the other.
Councilman Senn: We furnish off duty police to the school events and stuff like that don't we and then they
get paid through us and reimbursed or whatever.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, festivals and things like that.
Councilman Berquist: Yeah, but I was trying to think what we had had. We haven't had anything since Feb
Fest except for the...
Councilman Senn: Well like Minnetonka Middle School's had some things I think and...
Councilman Berquist: We wouldn't have needed anybody there... Hoisington - Koegler Group. We paid them
$1,500.00 for miscellaneous park plan. Are they still, is that dinking around on the front area?
Don Ashworth: No, I'm sure not but I don't know what.
Todd Gerhardt: That's Todd's park plan. Todd Hoffman's park plan.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. Alright, let's see what else I highlighted here. I apologize for not having gotten
to you earlier today Don but I was doing something much more important.
Mayor Chmiel: He was staying off his phone as well. The availability was there.
Councilman Berquist: I bet he was. This $11,000.00... that's the fee to refinance.
Don Ashworth: I'm sorry.
Councilman Berquist: The $11,104.00 to Springsted is the fee that we were charged to refinance. Tell me
again how many thousands we saved doing that?
Todd Gerhardt: Hundreds.
Councilman Berquist: $200,000.00 or something?
Don Ashworth: I recall $220,000.00 or $270,000.00. And that savings, he had already netted out his expense,
publication expenses and all of those so that.
Councilman Berquist: So a true savings of 200 grand, plus.
Don Ashworth: Let's say it was 270 and the cost of issuing were 30 and then the overall savings were 300.
The net savings were 270.
Councilman Berquist: Alright. That was all I had. Did you ever find anything out on my fertilizer question?
41
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Todd Gerhardt: It's in the Administrative Packet.
Councilman Berquist: Was it? I'd better read it. Thank you. I'll move approval of (e).
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the bills as presented. All voted in favor
and the motion carved.
1(11). APPROVAL OF YEAR END CLOSINGS AND TRANSFERS.
Councilman Senn: On (h). Let's see here. Everything on the top of the page effectively under Debt Service
Transfers is fine by me. When you get to the lower part of the page, I guess I have some concerns and would
prefer a different approach. Effectively what we're doing is we're taking a bunch of excess funds and
transferring them to another fund effectively earmarking them. I guess if we're going to do that I'd like to see
that done with the Council's discretion on priorities and where possibly some of those funds should be directed
rather than have them just directed there. One particular item of concern is there is a $160,000.00 transfer from
the City Hall expansion project to the Capital Project Administration account for the purchase of office
equipment and furniture. That's $100,000.00 over the budget that I have. At least as it relates to City Hall
where the total budget for furniture, fixtures and equipment was $60,000.00. So I wondered why we were
transferring $160,000.00 for that purpose but the, I also had some real questions about several hundred thousand
dollars in here being transferred to a public works expansion project for the expansion of public works, which is
an issue this Council hasn't even dealt with and all of a sudden here we are transferring a bunch of money into
it again, like it was transferred before into the City Hall expansion project with no real decision or conscience
decision that we were going to be proceeding with that or if it was a top priority or a priority at this point
which deserved the funds. So I guess I'd like to kind of table this and have such a separate discussion and talk
about those priorities and stuff that I'm assuming people wouldn't be prepared to do tonight. If you want to pass
the upper part of the list as far as the debt service transfers, because those are necessary to debt service
requirements, I wouldn't have a problem with that but, and tabling the rest.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah Don.
Don Ashworth: I'm looking back on my list from Pam. Public works expansion was in the 1995 budget. It
was shown as part of that. So was the vehicle maintenance items. The top two there, the 55 and 400. I made
the assumption, making a transfer over, you're not giving staff the specific authority to purchase, let's say
furnishings or equipment. Understand that's a broader issue than just let's say desks or chairs. I mean you're
talking about telephone system, adding the additional telephones but more importantly the telephone capacity.
The $160,000.00 was really a guesstimate on my part but we made those funds available so that at a future date,
just as we did with the Rec Center. I'm trying to think of the other item but Todd and Todd had put together a
specific listing of the things that we actually were looking to purchasing and came back to you. But we already
had in place literally the dollars and a potential source of those dollars to be able to actually be able to fund that
equipment. You're correct. The top part of the list.
42
I
' City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
' Councilman Senn: Wait, before you leave that point. I still don't understand that because here's our City Hall
budget and it has telephones and it has furniture and it has window treatments. It has all furniture fixtures and
equipment going into expansion project of City Hall at $60,000.00.
Don Ashworth: I was thinking $50,000.00 but that was directly associated with the construction and with every,
as with any of these projects we have not put the furnishings as a part of that. There's no sense to be paying
architectural fees or construction manager fees or those type of expenses. You've handled those as a separate
item. If you want to delete for tonight's discussion the $160,000.00 that's shown under City Hall expansion and
the $90,000.00 that is shown directly below that, that's fine. We can provide the justification and have the
' Council consider that as a part of future discussions. The public works expansion, $100,000.00. Again was in
the budget as was the top two items there.
' Councilman Senn: In what budget was that?
Don Ashworth: The 19, she wrote in here 1995, but as far as I'm concerned, I believe it's in 1996.
' Councilman Senn: I didn't see any such thing in the 1996 budget.
Councilman Berquist: What was that supposed to accomplish?
' Don Ashworth: What was that supposed to accomplish? Our ability to take and carry out the expansion of that
facility starting, so the Council could actually start looking at alternatives for carrying out that expansion in '97
' with the intent that hopefully construction could be started late '97, early 1998. This gets back into the
discussion that Harold Brose had with the City Council the night we visited out there. Some of the problem
areas that he was having. Our inability to keep equipment inside. And it keeps in tone with the intent that
each year, if we can take and drive some dollars and be able to put those over into a special fund, and this was
' a portion I will agree with Mark on, in that we have established those kinds of funds and again the ability to
transfer dollars over so that within some reasonable period of time, that you could actually carry out those
expansions without putting an undue burden on your operating budget without having to burden the taxpayers
' with another referendum. We are in the process of closing out the audit for 1995. Oh, and from that standpoint
I think that Pam is correct. These are 1995 budget items because she is closing out the 1995 audit year. We
really jeopardize or harm, I want that audit report to be as clean as possible. Many of these transfers, well
again, historic trust fund, the HRA, McGlynn, they're all right out of the budget document itself. We do not
make those. Each one of those general funds will not maintain the position that it properly should maintain
because we've counted on that revenues as a part of the 1995 revenue. All the items below that, the fund
closings are taking the dollars. We've completed the project. Lake Ann irrigation. It received it's money,
' original money from Park Acquisition and Development. Todd came before the Council and said here's a
project. The Park Commission's approved this. They've approved spending the money out of park acquisition
and development. We've put the money over into a separate project. We've kept track of all the revenues and
' all the expense so we can show you at any one point in time how the project is coming about. At this point in
time the project is done. The money should now be transferred back over to Park Acquisition and
Development. The parent fund or the fund that gave the money originally. And that's the case with literally
every one of those on that bottom portion and if we do not end up approving those, such things as 1983
' Advanced TI is going to end up with deficits in there. It will show up in the audit report. They won't, funds
won't be closed that should have been closed. Again, if the Council wishes to delete the transfers as it would
deal with City Hall expansion and Public Works expansion, that does not hurt me from an audit standpoint.
' Every other item on that sheet hurts me.
' 43
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Councilman Mason: Don are you saying that on these, I want to make sure I've got this right. That on these
fund closings, that bond group there, every one of those are items that are done. They've been paid for,
whatever, and this is money, I believe in your words, this is money that is going back to the parent fund?
Don Ashworth: In some ways, yes. But take something like the fire station improvements. When...
improvements from before, we put the dollars over there. The project is done. The dollars are no longer
needed as a part of that project. Mark would be correct in saying yes. Now you're moving those over to Public
Works and kind of designating them over there. I'd say he is correct but I don't want to take and move into
1996 and have the Fire Department believe that there's $31,000.00 that they haven't spent and maybe they
should just go ahead and spend. So I really want to get it out of there. The most logical place to put it would
be into some other expansion project that you're looking to in the future. And that's why I did it to the public
works one. But generally, generally the statement you just made, the money's, wherever the money's originally
came from, the project is done. It's going back to them with the one exception of that City Hall or the fire
station.
Councilman Senn: That's the only exception in the lower, in the very bottom list?
Don Ashworth: I believe so. I don't see anything else in there.
Councilman Senn: So the 1988 G.O. TID Series 1 bonds came out of Hanus property in the first place as did
the 1989B TID bonds? That's not my understanding.
Don Ashworth: That particular bond issue is, the last payment basically occurred in 1980, or this year. 1995.
Audit year 1995. And projects that were in the same bond issue that have a deficit position. So when you look
at, you get bonding in and it's for a particular purpose and probably it carried out 5 or 6 projects. When you
get to the point where literally all five of those projects are ready to close out, if one of those has a plus
position and another has a minus, what you can do is transfer between similar projects that all derive their
funding from a singular source. And that's what that accomplishes, which I still think is answering Mike's
question affirmatively.
Councilman Senn: I don't know. I mean I took these and I looked through the budget you know as far as
under operating transfers of $55,000.00 and $400,000.00. You know those are traceable through the budget.
The CDBG one is traceable through the budget. The three you mentioned there under historic trust, Hra and
McGlynn are all traceable through the budget. Nothing else in here, in the bottom list nor relating to the public
works expansion or the City Hall project and stuff were traceable to the budget. At least as far as I could find.
So to there I'd love somebody to show them to me and I guess I'd like to talk about them before we just kind
of.
Don Ashworth: They're not traceable. The very bottom section I did not try to portray as being in the budget.
My statement there was, it's either returning the dollars to the parent fund or closing out a current deficit which
I'd just as soon not see in the audit report associated with a project that's done and when you have dollars
available that came basically through that same issue, that could be used to insure that that does not end up
being printed as a deficit. I mean you do not want to take and end the year with Teton, Lilac Lane showing
$20,680.00. I mean the comment that we're going to get back from the auditors are, why in the world does the
City have all of these open funds? The projects are done and you've got deficits and no way to basically show
how they're paid for. I'm showing how they're going to be paid for. That's my recommendation.
44
I
I
' City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Councilman Senn: So you're saying, okay. Well that's what I'm trying to understand. You're saying the
amount then. Let's take the bottom section there okay. You're transferring the money from the fire station to
the public works expansion fund to cover a deficit?
Don Ashworth: No. In that particular...
' Councilman Senn: ...$50,000.00 if we don't transfer this money?
Don Ashworth: No, it would be a deficit of $70,000.00.
Councilman Senn: And I thought we were making money off the Hanus building.
Don Ashworth: I think, Todd has left, I think in the long range I think you will.
Councilman Senn: No, I was told two years ago Don that we were making money off the Hanus building. I
' mean if that situation's changed, it'd be nice to know but that's.
Don Ashworth: I think it's kind of an interpretation as to making money. You know I.
' Councilman Senn: Cash flowing was the term that was used.
Don Ashworth: Yeah. I think that's a perfectly true statement.
' Councilman Senn: Okay, so why do we need to transfer $50,000.00 to cover a $70,000.00 deficit then?
Don Ashworth: That deficit has been on the books for quite a period of time and what I'm trying to do is
' somehow basically get rid of it. I mean it's an item, I supposed I could go directly back to HRA with, but it
just didn't seem to make that much sense. You've got the other two that were HRA funded. Positive balances.
Why not use those positive balances on dollars that was generated by the HRA to reduce another deficit that the
' HRA has. I guess that just seems logical to me.
Councilman Senn: Well, why don't we pull out the 160, the 90, the $100,000.00 and the $31,435.59 then and
' talk about those separately.
Don Ashworth: Okay. Can I make a suggestion then that the $31,435.00 be placed into capital project
administration? Nothing can be spent out of there unless you approve a specific budget for that.
' Councilman Senn: No, I understand that but later we get a staff report saying the money's already budgeted and
sitting there. It's kind of like pre - determining if we're going to spend it and you know, now it's sitting there and
' it's going to be spent for that purpose.
Don Ashworth: Well one of my concerns of kind of opening the books and kind of advertising to the fire
department that they have $31,000.00 left.
Councilman Senn: Well, take the 160, 90, 100 out and put the 31 in that account. That's fine but it's not
earmarked for anything and let's still leave it part of our discussion.
' 45
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Don Ashworth: Or you could put it over into general fund and what that would do is just increase the balance
in general fund but I would take the same argument. Gee whiz, now I know that there's an extra 31 in general.
I'm going to come running back to you and say, hey guys. Let's go hurry up and spend it.
Councilman Berquist: You're trying to put money in various little accounts that will accrue after time and you
can say well now I can accomplish this and I can accomplish that. That's all well and good. It'd be nice to
know what your priorities were so we could see if we agreed.
Don Ashworth: This listing pretty well shows, what this listing does is, it does put you into a position to be
able to fund the improvements that Harold Brose was telling you about when you visited the public works.
There's no question that this listing places a priority on public works.
Councilman Senn: And Harold told us about the expansion that he'd like to see. This Council's had no
discussion of it or taken any action on it. Or set it as any priority.
Don Ashworth: And again, I know your position in that when I come back to you and say okay, we now have
put aside let's say $550,000.00 that you're going to take and say, well it's pre - determined but I mean, until I
come back and say we really need this. You know here are the reasons we need this and you approve that, I
can't touch a penny of that. Until you say yes, we want to spend this for this purpose, I can't just start a public
works expansion. I will not deny you the fact that I will have created a fund that has $550,000.00 in it that is
marked public works expansion and that I'll use that as a justification for why we should move ahead. I'll plead
guilty to that.
Councilman Senn: Don, I understand that but we didn't even have the discussion with Harold on this until the
1996 budget preparation. You'd already transferred $100,000.00 to public works expansion in 1994. It's the
same year end transfers. You know I mean this, and I can go back to the previous years. It's been building just
like the City Hall expansion project's been building for years.
Don Ashworth: 1993 as well. I wouldn't doubt that at all.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, that's right. And I'm sorry, it'd be nice to know what the priorities are and the
Council, it'd be nice to be involved in setting those priorities and maybe there is another use for those funds
right now that means maybe not setting them aside for the next 5, 6, 7 years for something that may be a public
works expansion. That's a discussion that should occur.
Councilman Berquist: Now that I understand this, which is probably a can of worms that you may wish I didn't
understand. Nov that we understand this, how can we do what we need to do in order to keep the auditor's
happy and yet also not appear to be squirreling away money in pet accounts? Those are my words.
Don Ashworth: Okay, I realize that.
Councilman Berquist: How can we do this, how can we approve this and yet continue discussion at a later
date? How can we diffuse the potential concern of the auditors insofar as that the have a lot of open accounts
that have no business being open. A lot of fund transfers that need to be transferred. And yet have some input
into where this stuff goes.
46
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Councilman Senn: In the 1996 budget process we set up a City Council contingency, capital contingency fund.
Some money was supposed to be transferred in, in terms of the budget process for later consideration.
' Councilman Berquist: Say that again? It was a City Council.
' Councilman Senn: It was City Council contingency fund that we created in the budget process. I assume it has
been created. It was asked to be created when we went through the budget process and there were some funds
that were designated as contingency, which we said rather than earmark them in a department to be spent, take
them out and put them in a contingency and we can talk about how they actually get spent later. That to me
would be a logical place for this 160, 90, 100 and $31,000.00 to go for Council discussion.
Councilman Berquist: I've got to ask one question of you Mike and you Don. Were you aware that for
instance this fire station, whatever EXP is, slash improvement to the public works expansion. Were you aware
that that was $31,000.00 that was simply being, I know Don objects to the word squirreled away but for lack of
a better word. Better phrase. Squirreled away into an account that vas, that's been growing and is now up to
' over half a million dollars. Were you?
Councilman Mason: No.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. And yourself.
Mayor Chmiel: No.
' Councilman Berquist: Okay, thank you. Appreciate your honesties.
Don Ashworth: May I ask though, is any member of the City Council aware of where the dollars came from
' for let's say all of the furnishings out at the elementary? It is in the budget. It was approved. We did take and
go through that.
Councilman Senn: Yeah and I can trace back through the budget exactly where the funds came from.
Councilman Berquist: I don't want you to think that I'm on your case about this, although I know it sounds like
it. But I'm surprised that out of the four of us, he's the only one that had any idea of what this stuff, what these
things truly meant and that the money was going into an account. The other three of us, and I suspect four,
didn't know. If nothing else, educate us. Teach us. That's all I'm saying.
' Don Ashworth: And I have improperly done that because in the budget it does show transfers out and
underneath there it does say public works expansion and the amount specifically quoted here is shown right
there. Now albeit the budget is composed of 280 sheets and there's 100 detailed items per sheet. I've done a
' poor job.
Councilman Senn: Well I'll move 1(h), because we don't need to keep belaboring this. I'll move 1(h) with the
changes of taking 160, the 90, the 100 and the $31,435.59 and placing them in the Council contingency fund
that was created during 1996 budget project and effectuate the remaining transfers.
Councilman Mason: Does that satisfy audit needs?
' 47
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Councilman Mason: I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There's a motion on the floor with a second. And give me those, 160, 90, 100,000.
What was the last one?
Councilman Senn: $31,435.59.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. That's for the fire station. Alright.
Councilman Berquist: Discussion?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Berquist: Quickly. Is there a good reason Don not to do that?
Don Ashworth: Not to?
Councilman Berquist: Is there a good reason not to put, to make those transfers to the Council contingency
fund, or whatever that may be?
Don Ashworth: Mark uses that term and I think it comes from.
Councilman Berquist: Well whatever it is.
Don Ashworth: Where it is right now, the other one he was previously talking about, this is just wrapped into
the overall—within the general fund. This will sit in there in a similar fashion. Actually you'll get some good
accolades from the auditors in terms of their being pleased that the general fund reserve is up dramatically over
previous years and they're going to like to see you move up into those kind of categories. But if you turn right
around and say to them, do we really need to maintain that level of reserves, I'm sure they'll say well, the city's
policy of 50% of property taxes plus local government aids is a pretty conservative position. But anyway.
Councilman Berquist: Is there a logistical reason not to do this?
Don Ashworth: No. No, it doesn't hurt anything.
Councilman Berquist: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have a motion on the floor with a second.
Resolution #96 -46: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Year End Closings
and Transfers with the following changes: under 1995 Operating Transfers, $160,000.00 from City Hall
Expansion to Capital Project Administration; $90,000.00 from General Fund to Public Works Expansion; and
$100,000.00 from SewerfWater Expansion to Public Works Expansion; and Under Fund Closings, $31,435.59
from Public Works Expansion to Fire Station Exp /Improv., that these items be placed in the Council
contingency fund that was created during 1996 budget project All voted in favor and the motion carried.
48
I
' City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Councilman Mason: Comment?
' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, go ahead.
Councilman Mason: No, I did not know that the administration of Chanhassen was working on finding money
' for public works expansion. Do I think we need public works expansion or improvement? Yes I do. I
sometimes get the feeling on this Council that people are some, I sometimes think people want to be educated
and I think sometimes people are looking for trouble. And I'm not, quite honestly I appreciate you asking that
question.
' Councilman Berquist: What question?
Councilman Mason: About whether I was aware of that or not. And I think there's a real big difference
between education and looking for difficulties.
Councilman Senn: Well as I said Michael when I started the thing out, the purpose for asking is to get a
discussion going with the Council so it sets the priorities and makes those decisions. Those are not independent
decisions involving over half a million dollars just in this case, it should be made independently by the City
Manager without a discussion with the City Council. Period.
' Councilman Mason: Like I said, there's a difference between education and trying to find out things.
' Councilman Senn: I've been asking it for four years.
Councilman Mason: And looking for trouble.
' Councilman Berquist: Then there's also differences in presentation.
Councilman Mason: That's, you certainly are correct on that.
' Mayor Chmiel: We'll move on. We have item number 7, even though it's number 8.
' ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: UPDATE ON METROPOLITAN GROWTH OPTIONS, PLANNING
DIRECTOR
Don Ashworth: With Kate being ill.
' Mayor Chmiel: I think everybody should have the opportunity to at least have read this and come up with the
general idea as to what's going to take place. I don't like some of the things they're saying in here with lower
' density and I don't think, as I see, this is the Builders Association of the Twin Cities and I can see where it's
good for them but I'm not sure it's going to be good for the city. Because of some of their recommendations...
Don Ashworth: Would you like to have this be as just carried forward or are you saying that you're
' knowledgeable and Kate doesn't really need to make a future presentation?
Mayor Chmiel: No, I think we should probably have her come back with that future presentation to see if
we're in agreement.
' 49
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Councilman Mason: I would like to hear what Kate has to say.
Councilman Berquist: I would too.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion for adjournment?
Councilman Berquist: I'll move adjournment. Oh wait a minute. I'm sorry. I know you're just antsy to get out
of here but I've got two questions that... I understand that, I think it's the Church of the Living Christ that's over
here...? I understand they're looking at trying to build another building. Trying to sell that site.
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Councilman Berquist. And they have an option I believe on some of the... property?
Don Ashworth: That's alleged as one of the spots, yes.
Councilman Berquist: But they have not, apparently they're spending money on drawings. I mean this is
coming from a parishioner who may be somewhat out of the loop but I mean I would certainly hope that if we
have a non - profit coming in to take that kind of land, that we would have some sense of what they do ... prior to
them spending all kinds of money on engineering and what not. The other question regarding that, I asked
them, I said you guys just built that building 4 -5 years ago. Back in 1989 I think it was. Apparently the issue
was one of parking. That road is now a State Aid road and as such parking along that road cannot, they cannot
park along that road? This is what I'm hearing. I don't know. I'm simply reporting what I hear because we're
taking another 15 acres off the tax rolls. It scares me. If that's a State Aid road and they can't park along it,
there's got to be something that we can do to entice them to perhaps stay where they are or move onto a site
that's a little less, that will affect us a little bit less from a tax point of view. But you don't know anything
about it? I mean is that in essence... they have an option on ... property.
Don Ashworth: She, I believe had mentioned that during a meeting that we had with them.
Councilman Berquist: Contingent on City Council approval of the concept of the community center?
Don Ashworth: No. They alleged another user may have a contingency of the community center. A private
user. But not the church. And I know that Kate has expressed concerns in that area as far as the same points
that you're bringing up, as to the loss of industrial park property. We should really be doing another work
session here and I'm proposing that potentially on the 10th I will have identified a number of issues that we can
look to for a work session. I think I've talked with Councilman Senn and Councilman Berquist on a couple of
items that they wanted maybe some update tonight. I did distribute a number of materials, by the way, that
deals with the issues that you had questioned me on. And it really would appear as though that the 17th is
going to be a much, we'll have answers to more of those questions on that date. And so on the 10th I'm hoping
to ask you to set a work session for the 17th.
Councilman Berquist: So we don't know anything about this church?
Don Ashworth: No.
50
1
1]
1
City Council Meeting - May 20, 1996
Councilman Berquist: The last question. The fir trees, and this is, I don't know why I involve myself in this.
In driving by Bluff Creek today, there's a whole string of pines that are completely, if you could flock them rust
colored they'd be perfect.
Todd Gerhardt: Todd has said 90% of the plantings out there are dead.
Councilman Berquist: Really.
Councilman Senn: They're all covered by a one year guarantee.
Todd Gerhardt: I don't think we paid them, we've got a lot of retainage on landscaping.
Councilman Berquist: That's going to be done, good. When? Any idea?
Todd Gerhardt: That's the question we keep asking. Because you've got a deadline I think of June 20th. You
don't plant after June 20th.
Councilman Berquist: Who's the landscape...?
Todd Gerhardt: Minnesota Valley...
Mayor Ctuniel moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:08 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
51