1e. City Council Minutes June 10, 1996.1
[1
1
C
�I
le,
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 10, 1996
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman Berquist,
Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Kate Aanenson, Sharmin Al-
Jaff, Scott Harr, John Rask, and Todd Hoffman
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the
agenda with the following changes: Councilman Mason wanted to discuss transfer of funds under Council
Presentations, Councilwoman Dockendorf wanted to move item 8, Southwest Metro Transit, items (a) and (b) to
item 1(1) under the Consent Agenda, and Councilman Senn asked that item 13, Halla negotiations, be moved to
the end under an Executive Session. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Mayor Chmiel: Is there an approval for the consent agenda?
Councilman Berquist: I'd like to talk about 0) briefly.
Councilman Senn: I'd like to pull (d).
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. We'll move that to 15. No, we'll make the executive session 15(a) and we'll have the
other as 15.
Councilman Senn: On (d) we should do that fairly quickly. I don't know if Scott, I think Scott had someplace
else he had to be tonight so if you wanted to do that right away, it would probably go fairly quickly.
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
Councilman Senn: With (d) I was going to suggest that for the moment was that we basically table it and ask
staff to look at the prospects of undertaking a lease negotiation on that antenna. I mean we basically have a
contract to be paid regular market rates at and we get the increases every year and stuff for it and it seems to
me that under a normal situation or commercial situation, this is a lease agreement and let's say we don't even
have forever and ever a contract for the services. I mean we are paying for these services now effectively
through our contract so it's not like a lifetime exchange or anything like that. So I thought we could just look at
the prospects of a lease situation that would survive the contract and /or at least offset part of the contract costs
in the meantime since we're paying for it anyway.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah I guess maybe I wouldn't feel too badly if it was anyone else but I think the kind of
repoire that we've had with the Sheriffs Department probably would behoove us to continue with that and
possibly not look at a lease. Any other discussions?
Councilman Mason: I concur with you Don. I think that relationships that Chanhassen, City of Chanhassen and
the Carver County Sheriffs Department has is, everything that's done, that Carver does for us and vice versa is
J
0
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
not necessarily paid for with money but I think it is paid for by good will between the two. And I, considering
that, the antenna's there anyway. I don't know why we would need to even discuss the lease agreement at this
time.
,
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen, did you have anything?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I concur with Mike.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Steve.
'
Councilman Berquist: Well I understand what Mark's saying but on the other hand, I think what goes around
comes around. You start nickeling and diming people and pretty soon you have a tendency, relationships have a
tendency to go sour so I don't really have a problem with letting them putting it up and there's no charge.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
'
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Don Ashworth: The contract that we have with Carver County is specific in that all costs associated with
having officers in Chanhassen is a cost we pay. So as I saw this item, let's assume they would make some type
of payment. It would be back in next year's contract.
,
Councilman Berquist: So if they went out in the private market and found a building to erect an antenna and
had to pay for the installation and operation of that, or the lease of that space, those costs would be passed onto
us?
Don Ashworth: Unless for some reason, which I am not aware of at this point in time, if that was being used
by somebody else but as I understand it, that is solely a, what is it a repeat or relay signal so that their signal
,
from dispatch hits that and bounces back and ... in the community. That's the only purpose for the thing. It
would not benefit New Germany or Watertown or whomever else.
Councilman Berquist: Well even if it did. It's still not prudent to nickel and dime organizations.
Mayor Chmiel: Right, I agree. So with that one I will ask for a motion when I review the balance of these and
if someone would make that before I make that motion. Steve, is your's going to take very long?
'
Councilman Berquist: Couple minutes is probably it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Do you want it to stay there or move that back to 15?
'
Councilman Berquist: No, we can do it now. Scott, you don't have anything else tonight do you?
Scott Harr: Pardon me? Nothing else on the agenda. I just need to get over to the Fire Station.
u
I City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
' Councilman Berquist: Okay. As everyone knows, everyone here knows, item 0) is to accept a donation from
the Pillsbury Company Foundation and I certainly don't have any problem whatsoever being appreciative of
' donations to public safety issues. On the other hand, the items that have been selected by the Public Safety
Department I wonder about the wisdom of purchase. The robotic vehicle that they're advocating we buy costs
in excess of $6,000.00 and we currently own one through the Fire Department. Well, I don't think that thing
gets a lot of miles on it and the shell can be purchased, the chassis, the shell that goes over the chassis can be
' purchased separately so it can become either a fire department robotic vehicle or a police department robotic
vehicle. And given the limited resources that we're always contending with, I would advocate that we find a,
explore finding a better use for that money. It just seems to me that having two of the same device, that sit in a
' warehouse for a vast majority of the time is not wise expenditure.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: What it's use?
Councilman Berquist: It's an educational tool.
Mayor Chmiel: They take it into schools for kids. When Mark Littfin, our Fire Marshal, goes to each of the
' schools and that specific one is quite popular with the kids and they get to understand a lot more on that as
well.
' Councilman Berquist: So I brought it up. I mean I'm certainly not going to shoot it down all on my own but
the reason I pulled it is because it seems as though there may be better uses for that money. Now Pillsbury in
their letter making the offer hasn't specifically stated that it's for that use. They do expect some detail and
narrative on how it's going to be utilized but to the best of my interpretation of this, they don't specifically
require the purchase of the robotic car. I understand the fact that the Fire Department is in possession of the
one that's there and there may be some jurisdictional disputes between Fire and Crime Prevention but I think
that those can be alleviated. Even if the $6,000.00 that's earmarked for this were to be split. $3,000.00 to buy
' half of it from the fire department and $3,000.00 to be used for some other purchase. I mean that money can be
stretched in my way of looking at it. So I bring it up for consideration.
1
Councilman Mason: I'd like to hear what Scott has to say about it.
Scott Harr: The Pillsbury Foundation has, as their specific purpose that they approached us on and they did
approach us, was for youth prevention programs. They asked us for some input. We went and made two
suggestions based on Beth Hoiseth's evaluation of the schools in the community. Either the trading card
program, which will permit the officers to have an item to give to children of photos and crime prevention
information on it, or the robotic police car, and that we told them, we were suggesting because the Fire
Department, as the Mayor said, has received such positive responses from it. And as I told Councilman
Berquist this afternoon, the reason that we specifically suggested this to the Foundation Board was because it
could be used in addition to the Fire Department's unit. We took it, in fact we took the Fire Department's truck
over to the Foundation Board and worked with the Foundation for 45 minutes one morning and we talked about
using it together or making sure we'd have the programs available that have the Fire Department somewhere in
town with their robot and we could have the police unit elsewhere. And it is true, the Fire Department did pay
for their's many years ago with their fund raising account so we see it as two separate programming items and
this isn't just a carte blanche contribution from Pillsbury. They specifically, that's what they picked that figure
for.
Councilman Mason: Was for the car?
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996 1
Scott Harr: Correct. And these are all issues that we discussed with Pillsbury because they asked the same '
thing. Can we just buy a separate body? And they thought our suggestion was appropriate.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Is there that much overlap with educational programming? ,
Scott Han: The big numbers there are. The open houses. Fire prevention week, inhere we get the most kids. ,
We use them together.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Did Beth suggest any other items...?
Scott Harr: No. Those two. One or the other and they generously offered both. '
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well it would be a shame to look a gift horse in the mouth... so I'd suggest we '
accept it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion?
Councilman Mason: I would agree with Colleen. Pillsbury approached Public Safety. They were the
suggestions for education that Public Safety came up with and if Pillsbury is willing to donate the money for
that, I think that's very nice of them. I think we should go ahead with it. '
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I would also agree. There's different times that these two could be possibly used and it
does get two separate types of meanings, even if you could get additional money for the top of it and I don't '
know if that was even available.
Councilman Berquist: That question I specifically asked and Beth did not know the answer to it. Scott
informed me later on that yes it was. I honestly do not know if they, when Pillsbury was approached and the ,
question was asked whether you were aware that the other body was available or not.
Scott Harr: She wasn't at that meeting with the Board. I
Councilman Berquist: Okay. I'm not going to vote no on it. Obviously. But I guess I brought my concerns to
the floor. I
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, that's fine. So with that, I will request the consent agenda be approved item a, b, c, d, e,
f. Let me scratch d and we'll come back to that. e, f, g, h, i and k and 1.
Councilman Mason: I move approval.
Mayor Chmiel: We'll come back to those two. Okay what, in conjunction with that motion would someone
also accept item (d).
Councilman Mason: Yeah, that's fine.
Councilman Senn: You can just include it with the bunch... 1
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We'll put (d) and (j) back into it so all of them that are here, including item (1) that was
added too. Motion's been made with a second.
' Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda
items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
' a. Approve MCES Grant/Loan Application for Infiltration /Inflow Reduction Funding.
b. Approve Plans and Specifications for 1996 Street Sealcoating Program; Authorize Advertising for Bids,
' Project No. 96 -11.
c. Ordinance Amending Chapter 14 of City Code Concerning Park Rules, Allowing Police K -9 Dogs in City
Parks, First Reading.
d. Approve Utilization Agreement with the Carver County Sheriffs Department to Install a Radio Antenna on
Top of the Main Fire Station.
' e. Resolution #96 -47: Set Bond Sale Date for 1996 Capital Projects.
' f. Approve Temporary On -Sale Non - Intoxicating Liquor License for the Chanhassen Rotary Club, Fourth of
July Celebration.
g. Approval of Bills.
h. Board of Review Minutes dated May 20, 1996
City Council Minutes dated May 20, 1996
Planning Commission Minutes dated May 15, 1996
Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated May 21, 1996
i. Accept Donation of Play Equipment from Pam Pallanson.
j. Accept Donation of $8,500.00 from Pillsbury to Purchase Radio Controlled Crime Prevention Robotic
Police Car.
k. Approve Appraisal on Quick Take Properties, Lake Riley Utilities/Lyman Boulevard Projects.
' 1. Southwest Metro Transit:
a. Resolution #96 -48: Resolution of Intent to Participate in the New (STA) Levy Process for Transit.
' b. Resolution of Tax Levy Amount to be Certified to the Metropolitan Council and Minnesota Department
of Revenue.
' c. Minor Modifications to the Joint Powers Agreement Between SMTC and Member Cities.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
5
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996 1
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Ed Doyle: My name is Ed Doyle. I'm a Manager of Westin Sports and Marine over at the Seven and Forty- ,
One Center. And we had a request that was before you last meeting. Due to a lack of understanding on my
part, we failed to be here. And I just wanted to address a couple issues. We apologize for that ... that that was
okay for us not to be here. I would just, we received a citation today for some boats. We are making a hard '
effort to keep things out so I would ask for some clarification. I don't think I understood what was expected of
us. We had a boat out back that we were washing... interpretations were and if that's the way it is, then I would
ask that you look at it again and do some clarification. Perhaps ... at least keep some boats there during the day.
We've been working very hard at, we got the boats out of there right away as per the request at the time, which '
being as it was Memorial weekend ... but we did because that was what we were supposed to do. We were trying
to do... But anyway we regret that there's been bad feelings created by us and I would like to go forward and if
you folks would be willing to look at some changes... some boats at least during the day. Obviously it's very '
difficult for us ... without any boats out in the parking lot. And I talked with ... John Rask. And only... there's
frequently boats in that parking lot that we have nothing to do with. They're either going to the liquor store and
picking up liquor, beer or whatever before they go to the lake or sometimes there's boats sitting out there parked '
for hours and we don't have a clue what they're there for. They don't have anything to do with us. That's not to
say that we haven't frequently had a bunch of boats out in front. We sure do. But we have had...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The procedure that we have to go through, all of those who were voting in the positive
on that particular evening, any one of those people could make that recommendation to review this again. But
'
it would be up to the Council, or any person on the Council that would like to make that change. And if there's
no desire to make that change, and it stands basically as it was voted on two weeks ago. Or three. Time goes
by quickly.
'
Ed Doyle: Okay, so what's.
Mayor Chmiel: So the procedure would be, is to find out if any of the Council would like to make that
recommendation to re -hear the proposal.
Councilman Berquist: Well one of the, some of the last remarks that I made were relative to exactly this. What
happens if they come in say, well they're going to get their act together and live by whatever limitations we
choose to put on it. Would Council be amenable to looking at granting the conditional use permit.
,
Ed Doyle: If I could interject a little bit. This spring was just, you know it was not a typical spring and where
normally we would have done, the boats would have came and went and would have gone through there in
March... This year the ice and the weather, we had to squeeze it all into a three week period and so it did get
out of hand from the standpoint, we had a lot of boats out there which wasn't something we liked any better to
do because we didn't have the money... And so it's not something that would normally be the situation. In most
years. Most years we're able to space things out and move them along. We also have obtained facilities down
in the Shakopee area where we can keep more things down there. But if we don't have any boats out front,
'
we're not in business at all and also it's just a matter of people coming and going. I'm not sure about the ... as
customers bring their boats to us, if we're going to be in violation when they drop their boat off. Given my
understanding of the conversations that I had today with John Rask, that if I have a boat sitting there, we're in
violation... so I would just, we want to work with you... I've still got to do something.
n
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
Councilman Berquist: I've got to ask you a couple of questions Mr. Doyle. This went through the Planning
Commission process. The landlord made a presentation at the Planning Commission. You weren't in evidence.
That was two weeks prior. I mean there was correspondence that took place far prior to that. And then there
was two weeks worth of wait prior, between Planning Commission and the Council meeting. My first question
to the landlord, to Mrs. Mitchell, Ms. Mitchell was where are you? And she said that she had urged you to be
here.
Ed Doyle: Unfortunately I don't have a good response to that. I was at the store working and could have just
as easily been here at 9:00 at night. I was at the store doing paperwork. I was under the impression that ... my
boss was here and due to something that came up he wasn't.
Councilman Berquist: Why isn't your boss here now?
Ed Doyle: Because I told him I was going. I'm not a public speaker but I think do a better job...
Councilman Berquist: You haven't had an opportunity to read the Minutes of the last meeting as to what was
discussed?
Ed Doyle: Not in detail, no. I read your letter that came from John Rask saying to get the boats out. But no, I
have not read the Minutes...
Councilman Berquist: The last question I've got, you talk about being in violation any time there's a boat
outside. It's very specific on the plat of when the ... was done for you. It says in big black letters, no outside
storage permitted.
Ed Doyle: Okay, that's before my time so I haven't read that. I wasn't aware of that. That doesn't change it
but, so ... are you willing to take another look at it?
Mayor Chmiel: What was the, it was 5 to zip if I remember correctly.
Councilman Berquist: Or was it Colleen wasn't here.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Four then. It would be in the Minutes.
Councilman Senn: I have a question if I could. I think you kind of answered the second part of Steve's
question there related to the meetings but you know this isn't a new issue. This is not a new issue just this year.
There's been a lot of correspondence sent out to your organization as it relates to this issue, which is relatively,
at least what I've seen... ignored. Three weeks now after we denied it, it's nice somebody comes in the door and
says let's try to work it out but I mean that seems to kind of fly in the face of 2 -3 years of just kind of ignoring
us and now all of a sudden you want to talk about it because we've denied it. Whereas with the previous 2 -3
years you've just kind of ignored the warnings and the letters and correspondence and everything going back
and forth from the city.
Kate Aanenson: Can I just make one, he was cited today. John went out there and he got, we finally cited him.
This has been ongoing so that's part of the reason why he's here. We did issue a citation to him.
Ed Doyle: We were cited...
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996 1
Councilman Senn: I understand that but you've also gotten letters and correspondence going back to, you know
several years on this issue.
Ed Doyle: One is that I have not been with the company that long... it wasn't under my responsibility and I '
finally said well, it is now. I have to, I don't have a very good response to you as to why it hasn't been. I just
don't have, I don't know the answer why ... my boss has not responded... I'm in a position where, I run a business '
that I'm trying to make successful and without outside use at some time during the day, I'm not going to be able
to do it here. That's the long and the short of it. I don't have a good answer why nobody responded in the past.
That was not in my responsibilities. I wish we had. I certainly do.
Councilman Senn: So you're an employee of the owner?
Ed Doyle: That's correct.
Councilman Senn: You're the manager of this particular store?
Ed Doyle: That's correct. '
Councilman Senn: How long have you been a manager?
Ed Doyle: Since February of last year.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone who would like to make that recommendation that it be heard again? If '
seeing none, I guess that's the way it is. We thank you for coming in.
Councilman Berquist: Hang on one second. Nobody else has spoken so I'd like to speak up. I am not going to
make a recommendation that we review it based on your attending this. I appreciate your taking your time to
come down here and do it as a representative of the owner. But it's not your feet that get held to the fire in the
event that things don't go well. If in fact the owner of the premise intends to comply with any restrictions that
we choose to put on it, I would really rather that he be the one standing in your place. If he's agreeable to that,
I would encourage him to attend the next meeting. If not, then not.
Roger Knutson: Mayor? ,
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Roger.
Roger Knutson: To just point out procedural. A motion to reconsider must be brought up at the next meeting '
for an action to reconsider so the motion to reconsider is to be made, it has to be made at this meeting. If it is
not made at this meeting, he has to start the process over again. I should point out what a motion to reconsider
means. That puts you back to the position you were in immediately before voting on the issue. It is not a '
decision as to on the merits of that issue.
Councilman Berquist: What delay is incurred by the process starting over again? None that I can see.
Nothing that's appreciable.
Roger Knutson: No. I mean they have to have a hearing before the Planning Commission.
w �
I
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
Councilman Berquist: Well then I guess my statement stands.
Ed Doyle: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Ed Doyle: Who do I talk to then about, in the city as far as when we're moving boats in and out so that I don't
continue to incur the wrath of the city?
Kate Aanenson: The ordinance right now says you can have no outdoor storage.
Ed Doyle: I guess my question is what is that?
Kate Aanenson: No boats to be stored.
Ed Doyle: I mean if I have a boat hooked to a truck as it's coming in and out of the building... It's not a
situation where... Push boats out and we have trucks ... we've been trying to keep them out of there as much as
we can but.
Kate Aanenson: There's only two boats to be stored inside, and there's more than that on the premise today so I
guess John's interpretation...
Ed Doyle: Okay. Thank you for your time.
Mayor Chmiel: You bet
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ON -SALE BEER AND WINE LICENSE 800 WEST 78TH STREET
BYERLY'S.
Mayor Chmiel: The neat item on the agenda is the public hearing and I'd like to open this public hearing for a
request for on -sale beer and wine license, 800 West 78th Street, Byerly's. Don.
Don Ashworth: The application has been made by Byerly's. We went through the background checks and all
their information is required to be submitted for that type of an application. And staff has found everything to
be meeting our requirements. We're recommending approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address this at this time? Seeing
none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Councilman Berquist: So moved.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Councilman Betquist moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion on item number 2?
L•�
n
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996 r
Councilman Senn: I just had one question. The list on the notification is a very short list including eight '
names. I thought our notification requirement was you know a considerable distance from the building which to
me would take in all the residential area to the north of that and I guess I'm at a loss as to quite know the '
public process is working here. So just a question.
Don Ashworth: I can't answer that question. What I would like to do, if at all possible, would be to see if this '
item. You did ask if there was any public comments, correct?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, and no one has answered anything to that particular question.
Councilman Senn: ...public here when they weren't notified. I mean that's the only point I'm trying to make. ,
Don Ashworth: Well what I would ask is that the Council move this, or table action on this until later in the
agenda and then I would then make a call to Karen Engelhardt to see if I can find out the answer to that
question.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Is there a motion to table? '
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a question as well. I'm surprised that the applicant isn't here because I had
a couple of questions for them. It seems to me. '
Rick Walleen: Excuse me, I'm with Byerly's.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh, okay. If I could ask you a question. I haven't been in your restaurant for '
probably 2 or 3 months. I know that you've changed the look and everything of it. It seems to me, didn't it go
through a major?
Rick Walleen: No, there has never been changes.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh really? Well it seems to me that a beer and wine license is incongruent with I
the style that they're trying to...
Rick Walleen: We have a lot of guests who would like to have a glass of wine... We have a nice liquor store... '
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. That's my question I had. Curious more than anything else.
Mayor Chmiel: Just from another standpoint. In discussion with these total numbers that are on here. The '
eight people. Did you and Karen have any discussions with regards to those residential areas?
Rick Walleen: No. It never came up. '
Councilman Mason: It's 500 feet isn't it?
Councilman Senn: That's... certified with the County so I mean I just... '
Don Ashworth: Well if the Council would table this item to later in the agenda and I'll see if I can get an
answer to that question.
10 1
J
1
1
�I
r
r�
y
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll move to table it to item 7.5 or later. How about 12.5?
Mayor Chmiel: Well we can go anywhere inbetween. It would be 12(a).
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to table the request for on -sale beer and wine
license for Byerly's to item 12(a) on the agenda. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED TRANSFER OF CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM TO A RESTRUCTURED
TRIAX MIDWEST ASSOCIATES, L.P.
Mayor Chmiel opened the public hearing.
Don Ashworth: Yes. Brian Grogan is present, I think. I talked to him late in the afternoon and anyway. We
have received a request from Triax to transfer their franchise. It's really as a part of a merger. It would appear
as though that Triax has survived as the name of the company coming out of this merger. The documentation
associated with the proposed transfer is about 250 pages so I did not include a copy of that. Brian again is in
the process of carrying out a detailed review of those documents to prepare a recommendation to the City
Council. And so again, there are a number of legal requirements included and actually calling for this public
hearing this evening. That had to be done within the 30 days after they had given us notice. And the actual
hearing itself has to be held I believe within 30 days of this evening. So we are recommending that the hearing
be held open and that this item appear back on the City Council, the first Council meeting in July which I
believe is July 8th. And again if anyone in the audience has questions, what I would propose is to write those
down. Submit those to Brian and make sure we have the responses by July 8th. Similarly should the City
Council have questions, we would ensure that those are answered on July 8th.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is the applicant here this evening? If not seeing the applicant, is there any other
discussion in regard to this? Is there anyone objecting to this proposal? Seeing none, can we close the public
hearing?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I thought we were going to continue it.
Mayor Chmiel: Do you want to close it or leave it open?
Don Ashworth: Leave it open.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion that we carry this through as Don has indicated to July 8th meeting?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll move that.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table the public hearing for the proposed
transfer of cable television system to a restructured Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. to the July 8, 1996 City
Council meeting. All voted in favorand the motion carried.
11
u
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996 1
AWARD OF BIDS: CITY HALL EXPANSION.
Don Ashworth: Todd Christopherson is present to go through the list of bids that were received and his
recommendation.
'
Todd Christopherson: Good evening Mayor, members of the Council. I've got a packet ... which everybody
should have in the packet tonight and if you recall, about 3 weeks ago we met and we awarded the steel
'
contract. I had given a list of what we had at the time indicated as the apparent low bidder in each of the other
categories and in the report that you have tonight, I've listed in four of those categories where we have changed
the apparent low bidder, and the reason why we have changed that. And I think that those were all pretty self
,
explanatory. You'll recall we got the bids on Wednesday and we had to have that initial report to the City the
next morning so... We did look closely at the steel contract at that time and just quickly added the rest of the...
And as a result of our analysis since then we've found more that we would recommend the actual changing
contractors on. And what we'd like to ask the Council tonight is to award those contracts as they are listed with
,
one exception being number 22, which is actually a very small contract relative to ... that's the toilet
compartments and accessories. While we were doing that... As far as where we're at on the overall project,
when we make those adjustments to the bidders. The budget or cost estimate that was presented in January,
'
after the building size, the size of the addition had increased, that particular budget, when you pull the line items
out from that budget for the actual construction items... construction and renovation of the existing building on
the site and not taking into account the other parts of the project that were... architectural fees and those sorts of
things. The estimate at that time in, in January was $905,000.00 for those items. And we added up those bids,
'
where we're at tonight, for all those items, we're at $905,000.00. We still have a $60,000.00 contingency for
investment budget ... move forward in the construction so we feel pretty good about the numbers and contractors
that we've got set. We have already got the steel shop drawings in and everything reviewed by the architect and
,
engineers so things are moving ahead as planned. We hope to have a pre- construction meeting later this week
and start in doing the actual...and about a week after that we should actually be... We'd like to recommend that,
unless you have any questions... that you award those contracts. And I did make two notes in my ... that I would
'
like to have the award subject to. One is that the award be subject to a final negotiation and review with the
contractors of post bid addendum which is due out on Wednesday. Several minor items that are coming out
from the architect ... as a result of the final permitting process and as a result of staff input on the project. Most
of these items are very minor. They won't affect the cost of the project a great deal. Some will actually lose
'
slightly but we would like to have the awards be subject to that final negotiation so that we would have a
situation where... negotiate those changes... And the other is a minor technicality. There should have been a line
in the specification limiting the amount of mark -up that a contractor can put on a change ... and that item is
I item
missing so we'd like to add that to the award so we can put that in the contract. Are there any questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Let me ask, is there anyone in the audience that has any concerns with this
'
at this time? Okay. Alright, we'll go through Council and see if there's any concerns or not. Steve.
Councilman Berquist: I don't have any real concerns with it. The only thought that I had, you note regarding '
the steel erection, the bid was less than $10,000.00 so therefore we don't have a performance and payment bond.
The names in this sub list are familiar to me. What percent of the, tell me the criteria in the public sector for
performance on payment bonds.
Todd Christopherson: Over $10,000.00 they're required. '
Councilman Berquist: Are they required by law? I
12 1
I City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
Todd Christopherson: Yes. I guess where L..the City Attorney's not here, we could ask him if there's some
leeway on that but my experience...
' Councilman Berquist: So on a million dollar project it would cost yourself $35,000.00 with this group of
subcontractors that are very stable? I mean that's.
' Todd Christopherson: The percentage varies in each category, and varies with each contractor... from 3/4 of a
percent up to 3% to 4% in some cases. It might be closer to $20,000.00 or $25,000.00.
' Councilman Berquist: Okay. Well maybe we'll ask Roger.
Roger Knutson: The answer is no.
' Councilman Berquist: I asked Todd about the criteria for performance in payment bonds in public sector work.
And he said that the Minnesota Statute is that any contract amount over $10,000.00 be required to have those
bonds.
' Roger Knutson: Yes.
' Councilman Berquist: And there's no, that is flat? Cast in concrete?
Roger Knutson: For any public work.
' Councilman Berquist: For any public work. Okay. Thank you. So much for that idea.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm so glad we have a construction manager to dig through all of this. So the
$905,000.00, plus the $60,000.00 contingency, plus how much in architect and engineer fees? The whole ball
' of wax.
Todd Christopherson: The last time the budget was adjusted... back in January ... we got that $905,000.00. There
was a $50,000.00 line item for improvements...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I thought that was part of the carpeting.
Todd Christopherson: We had an alternate bid to re- carpet this...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And that's not part of the 900?
Todd Christopherson: It's not included in that 905... There are general condition items and the current fees and
the SAC and WAC type fees. Utilities... There are fees, architect, engineer, costs of printing plans. All of those
sorts of things. Our fees. Soil test surveys. Those things are added to the $1 10,000.00. There's a line item of
' $40,000.00 for furniture, fixtures and equipment, and a contingency of $60,000.00. If you add those all up, you
should... roughly $1,220,000.00.
I Councilwoman Dockendorf: Thank you.
1 13
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael.
Councilman Mason: No questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: Todd, which of the items that you just went through effectively go into the 885?
Todd Christopherson: The 885?
Councilman Senn: Yeah. So we're comparing apples to apples.
Todd Christopherson: Okay. The items that, the 885.
Councilman Senn: You had a new construction cost, I think it was what, 554 or 224.
Todd Christopherson: Right.
Councilman Senn: Is that correct?
Todd Christopherson: That's right.
Councilman Senn: Okay, and then you had a renovation construction cost of 120.
Todd Christopherson: That's right.
Councilman Senn: Okay. You had elevator of 50.
Todd Christopherson: Right.
Councilman Senn: Okay. And you had site work of $160,800.00. And you had general conditions of
$63,000.00.
Todd Christopherson: That is not added into this comparison of bids versus budget.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so that's not in there. Okay. Now that totals $785,024.00 where we're at so I guess
what I'm trying to figure out is where do the rest of the items come from.
Todd Christopherson: The 554, the 120, 50 for the elevator... additional renovation in that area...
Councilman Senn: I've got the 50 already in for the elevator.
Todd Christopherson: Site improvements 135 plus 19 plus 68 so that's your 168. And...
Councilman Senn: Okay. And then in the contract, irrigation is zeroed out. Is that zeroed out because it's
included in another subgrade or what?
14
11
F 11
d
1
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
Todd Christopherson: It's zeroed out because we didn't take bids on it at this time. Right at the last minute...
information on what the existing system was and what we wanted to do with it as far as adding onto it. And
that's the notation from the city staff that they were actually going to go out and salvage some of the heads in
the area that we were tearing out. So rather than try to get that information... It's still building in the budget...
Mayor Chmiel: Anything else?
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion to accept the City Hall expansion as indicated by memo and the
additional items that Todd had indicated?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would move that we accept the low bidders in all categories except 22.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded.
Councilman Senn: Just discussion. Is that with those stipulations, that he wanted the stipulation that.
Mayor Chmiel: As I said, what he had indicated.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the award of bids for the City Hall
expansion as stipulated by Todd Christopherson, and to the low bidders in all categories except item 22. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
AWARD OF BIDS: KERBER BOULEVARD MILL AND OVERLAY PROJECT 96 -5.
Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. On Friday, May 31st, bids were received and
opened for the Kerber Boulevard resurfacing project. A total of five bids were received. The low bid was
received from William Mueller and Sons at a total bid of $114,975.00. This low bid received is significantly
lower than our previous engineer's estimate. However, review of the bids it was determined that the significant
difference in bid items was the cost of the, unit cost for the bituminous. Staff was somewhat conservative with
our estimates for the bituminous cost due to ... the size of the project was large enough to entice very favorable
bids but as it turns out, they have come in very low and we are encouraged about that. ...William Mueller and
Sons has performed a number of projects for the city over the years in the past. They've got a good track record
and we would continue to recommend them for this project accordingly.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Charles. Let me just ask you one question. With all the moisture that we've
had and the seepage that is coming back out of the streets, will this correct that situation?
Charles Folch: Actually our city street maintenance crews will be going out to do all the preparatory work such
as some of the crack filling and patching and things like that. In addition there are a couple areas being defined
that ,ve want to go out and put some drain tile in before the overlay occurs to try and take care of that
subsurface drainage problem.
15
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Thank you. Is there any question by Council? Steve,
Councilman Berquist: The only question I've got Charles is, the preliminary project cost estimate was 149
Was that what was included in the '96 budget estimate back in '95?
Charles Folch: Actually it was, correct. With it being split 50/50 with State Aid.
Councilman Berquist: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike.
Councilman Mason: None.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a motion?
Councilman Berquist: I will move approving the acceptance of the bid from Mueller and Sons for a total bid of
$114,975.00 to resurface Kerber Boulevard, Project No. 96 -5 SAP 194- 101 -05.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #96 -49: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the Kerber Boulevard
Resurfacing Project No. 96 -5, S.A.P. 194- 101 -09 be awarded to Wm. Mueller & Sons at a total bid of
$114,975.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONTINUATION OF BYERLYS REQUEST FOR ON -SALE BEER AND WINE LICENSE.
Mayor Chmiel: Don, did you come up with any conclusions with Byerly's?
Don Ashworth: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Yes. I don't know what list we took the owners off of but it's quite
obvious that Dean Johnson had split that property and sold those lots and they are within the 500 feet. I have
explained that to the representative of Byerly's and told him there's no way we can take action on this item
tonight. We'll work with them in the morning to try to come up with a new list and I would hope that we'd
bring this item back in 2 weeks but I'm not sure about that. I don't know what the notification timeframe is.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, very good. It's still, we're within the 7 to 10 days.
16
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
' Don Ashworth: I'm not sure what the time requirements are. If there's anyone in the audience. For anyone in
the audience that is here for the Byerly's item, if you could contact City Hall tomorrow we could tell you when
' this item will reappear on a City Council agenda. I would hope that it would be for our next meeting, which
should be the 24th.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright, good. Thank you.
' The public hearing for the request by Byerly's for an on -sale beer and wine license was continued until the next
available City Council agenda.
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1, MAPLEWOOD INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS• 3531
MAPLEWOOD CIRCLE, ARUNDEL ADDITION.
' Public Present:
Name Address
' Bill Modell 3521 Maplewood Circle
Steve Arundel Applicant
Sharmin AI -Jaff: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Members of the City Council. This item appeared before you on
May 20th. We really don't have anything to add at this point. Staff report remains the same and if you have
any questions for us, we're here to answer them. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Hopefully everyone has had the opportunity to review the letter that we
requested from our attorney and is the applicant here this evening? Okay, good. Is there any other discussion
for this?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I'd like to add my two cents since I thought I was going to be the deciding
' vote. I read the Minutes and I frankly failed to see what the hububaloo was about. I went out and took a look
at the property Friday or Saturday and I can appreciate that it would affect the neighborhood somewhat.
Nobody likes change. But the lot appears to be bigger, and is bigger, than the balance of the neighborhood and
adding an additional home is going to have some effect but I don't think it will change the tenure of the
' neighborhood. And from the staff report it appears that none of the other lots would be able to subdivide, or
one or two maybe in there so I guess unless anyone has any other comments, I would move approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. A motion has been made. Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Yes there is.
' Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Discussion.
Councilman Berquist: Well my discussion is going to touch on the impact that this will have from a city wide
point of view. More than a local point of view. Legally we don't have any grounds from which to block this
subdivision, and that's fine. I went out there again today and looked at it and the addition of one house is not
going to seriously affect the neighborhood. It does in my opinion change the, I used this same word last week,
or Iwo weeks ago. The flavor of the neighborhood insofar as that the people that own homes out there, bought
17
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996 1
While
,
homes in my opinion, because they liked the large lot. And to go ahead and permit the subdivision.
permitted, may not necessarily be in the best interest of the neighbors. Not specific to this neighborhood but
perhaps more generally to the city at large. If you'll remember the subdivision of a lot that we approved down
on Great Plains Boulevard. It was a long narrow lot that was completely different in the way it was structured
'
from this. We're looking at another one later on today on Horseshoe Curve. It is completely different in it's
effect on the neighborhood than this is. This one is permitted. Given the legal status I will acquiesce to the
,
project going forward. ...to work on an ordinance amendment that would provide us some teeth in deciding as
'
to whether or not to permit subdivision such as this as they come occurring in the future. This one's going to
happen. There's no doubt in my mind and that's fine. We've seen enough of these come along and currently as
'
long as it falls within the minimum lot requirements, we have no grounds on which to deny. It doesn't matter if
the entire neighborhood comes up here in arms, with arms raised high. We have no reason to deny. It's a hole
in the ordinance that needs to be repaired. Currently we're handcuffed. So if this serves no other purpose, it
'
serve that purpose.
'
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So you would suggest the Planning Commission start a process of taking a look at
this specific issue?
'
Councilman Berquist: I would suggest that the Planning Commission work on whatever staff puts together to
plug the hole. Because this is, as land becomes much more valuable in Chanhassen, this is just the tip of the
ice berg, if you will. We've seen a half a dozen of them within the past year and a half. We have this one
tonight. We have another one tonight. I suspect that there are a few more in the hopper and that's the way it is.
'
Kate Aanenson: It is scheduled for the Planning Commission.
,
Councilman Berquist: Is it scheduled for the Planning Commission? Good. So that's the end of my discussion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike.
Councilman Mason: No comment.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: Well I have a question and I don't know if it's Kate or Roger but can, I understand that we
have to approve this. Can put conditions on it?
,
you
Mayor Chmiel: If it's in conformance with all the relations of the ordinance.
how
'
Roger Knutson: You can attach reasonable conditions I think. Depending on what they are and they relate
to the issue. You often conditions to plat approval.
Councilman Senn: I mean in this instance you're taking large lot areas and dividing them. They're still pretty
'
good sized lots. One example is one of the neighbor's already putting up a huge garage that effectively is going
to be a business, not a home. You know so what I was looking for is, can we stick a restriction on here that no
home, or you know to operate a business as it relates to this kind of division?
'
Mayor Chmiel: Many businesses within the community that are operating out of homes, so how can you
distinguish that from somebody else? I
18 1
1
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
Roger Knutson: Before answering that, can we ask the applicant? I assume you wouldn't have any problem
with that, would you?
Mayor Chmiel: Would you come up to the mic please. Just state your name.
Steve Arundel: Steve Arundel.
Roger Knutson: Again, there'd be no home occupation within the garage or?
Steve Arundel: I was under the impression that was already an ordinance... none whatsoever.
Roger Knutson: Since the applicant has no problem with it, then I have no problem with it.
Councilman Senn: I guess I'd like to suggest that as a change in the motion to include that stipulation.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: You mean any kind of home business? You don't mean necessarily, are you
concerned with outdoor structures?
Councilman Senn: I'm concerned with business use basically. I mean that's already happening up there as it
relates to other parcels. The business use is starting to look larger than the residential uses.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Sure, I'd accept that condition.
Mayor Chmiel: If I don't remember correctly, there's an existing, as you mentioned about this new tall garage
coming up. Which is supporting his business for buying, restoring and also selling used cars. It's another
person up in that specific area.
Steve Arundel: That person's here tonight. Right here if you want to talk with him.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, right. We have everybody else or anybody else within that particular area. I can't see
why that condition can even be you know required. But at least that's my position.
Councilman Senn: Well mine just puts the breaks on that basically rather than allows it... I think it's ultimately
going to really change the character of the area, more than a subdivision is, if it came.
Mayor Chmiel: I think it's sort of a moot point with him indicating that he does not have an}' concerns with
that.
Councilman Senn: Well but I mean, he's not going to, I mean he may not be living there. He may not be the
one who's operating or functioning there or whatever. Or even if he is, that could be short term.
Councilman Berquist: That's simply a caveat tied to the motion. I don't have a problem with it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone else that's concerned with this particular project? Yes, would you like
to come up and state your name and your address please.
I
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996 1
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Thanks Bill. Okay. Any other discussion? If not, I'll call the question. Is there a '
motion for this proposal?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I already moved. Mike seconded it.
Councilman Senn: It's been moved, seconded and amended so far.
Councilwoman Dockendotf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision '
496 -7, Arundel Addition for two single family lots as shown on the plans dated April 3, 1996, prepared by
Coffin & Gronberg, Inc., subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on the site. The '
landscaping plan shall include trees to be planted. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of the trees
showing grading limits prior to grading.
20 1
'
Bill Modell: I'm Bill Modell. My wife and Danielle and I live at 3521 Maplewood Circle. Apparently I've
missed a lot of information here. I have a newborn at home so I wasn't able to make the last meeting, which I
would have liked to do. Apparently there's talk about me running a business out of my house and that's just
purely not true. What I do for a living is property management. I own and manage apartment buildings in
'
Anoka and Minneapolis, so my work is miles from home. Me running a business out of my house is purely,
must be hearsay. I guess the way I look at it, I met, I came into the City Hall months ago to pick up a copy of
this Planning Commission, staff report and I happened to run into the applicant and the person who lives in the
house now and the way they made it sound to me is, you know they asked my concerns about it and I expressed
my concerns. And the way they stated it to me is like, you have these concerns but you know Bill, it could be
construed as you're running a business out of your house. If you have a problem with what we're doing. We'll
have a problem with what you're doing and to me that's like a threat and honestly I'm not running a business out
of my house, and I would challenge any of the City Council or anybody to come over and see what I do on a
day to day basis. Now this garage I'm building, I have a snowmobile, lawn tractor, boat, a bunch of stuff and it
all sits out in the yard and I don't want that out there. It's been out there since I've lived there, 3 years and I'm
building a structure to store it inside. And you know, I have a hobby. I work on cars. I work on my own cars
but I don't do it as a business and I don't have any intent and I guess if I was of that character, I wouldn't be so
opposed to this subdivision. I want privacy in my back yard and you know I just, I don't know. Like I said, I
missed a lot of that last meeting. I wish I could have been here. It just threw me when I just heard this. My
heart's racing because it upsets me because it's not true so. My concerns were listed in the staff report. My
wife's concerns. I think the other neighbors concerns. Unfortunately they're not here. They thought they were
'
at a dead end at the Planning Commission meeting and I'm opposed to this subdivision but if it has to go
through, if it's legal. That's fine but I don't want to point fingers at people and have fingers pointed at me
because I just don't understand it. I don't believe that that's right. You know, I can't believe it.
Mayor Chmiel: According to the city's code and the ordinances, there's nothing that we basically can do to stop
this. It's a legitimate kind of thing to do but I'm glad that you gave the clarification as to what you're doing at
your house. Because the other information I received was a little bit different and it's indicated here so I thank
you for making that clarification.
Bill Modell: Thank you for listening. If you have any other further questions you can call me under the phone
'
book or anything. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Thanks Bill. Okay. Any other discussion? If not, I'll call the question. Is there a '
motion for this proposal?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I already moved. Mike seconded it.
Councilman Senn: It's been moved, seconded and amended so far.
Councilwoman Dockendotf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision '
496 -7, Arundel Addition for two single family lots as shown on the plans dated April 3, 1996, prepared by
Coffin & Gronberg, Inc., subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on the site. The '
landscaping plan shall include trees to be planted. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of the trees
showing grading limits prior to grading.
20 1
0
C
I
1
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
2. The proposed development of 0.63 developable acres shall be responsible for water quality and quantity
connection charge of $1,751.00. These fees are payable to the city prior to the city filing the final plat.
Credits may be applied to this fee for dedication of additional drainage easements for ponding needs on Lot
2, Block 1.
3. The applicant shall report to the city engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and
shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the city engineer.
4. The application will be responsible for all street restoration and storm sewer modifications that result in
providing the driveway to Lot 2. The applicant shall escrow with the city $2,500.00 in the form of a letter
of credit or cash escrow to guarantee street restoration and storm sever maintenance. The applicant shall
dedicate on the final plat a drainage and utility easement along the easterly 20 feet of Lots 1 and 2 and
along the southerly 20 feet of Lot 2. The driveway shall be shifted westerly as far as possible per the staff's
approval.
5. Individual grading, drainage, tree preservation and erosion control plans will be required for each lot at the
time of building permit application for the city to review and approve.
6. Construction of the sewer and water system for Lot 2 shall adhere to plumbing code Section 4715.243. Lot
2 will require an ejector system to serve the house with sanitary sewer.
7. An emergency overflow swale shall be constructed adjacent to the driveway of Lot 2 to maintain drainage
from Maplewood Circle.
8. Lot 2 shall be subject to a hook -up fee in accordance with city codes. The connection fee will be waived
assuming the applicant extends sewer and water from Maplewood Circle to the property line.
9. Cross access or driveway easement and maintenance agreement shall be prepared and recorded with the
final plat to guarantee ingress and egress through Lot 1.
10. The applicant shall work with city staff in negotiating an additional drainage easement on Lot 2 for future
storm water pond.
11. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. Comply with Chanhassen Dire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 29 -1992 Premise identification
(copy enclosed).
12. Park and Recreation conditions:
a. Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of land, in accordance with City Code.
13. The existing shed on proposed Lot 2 shall be removed prior to the recording of the plat. A demolition
permit will be required.
14. The applicant must plant two trees on the new lot to meet ordinance requirements, and place the trees in a
way to maximize screening to the properties to the east.
21
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996 1
15. The applicant must attempt to locate home in between the 30" ash and silver maple. Tree preservation
fencing must be installed prior to grading. Fencing must be installed at the grading perimeters.
16. The applicant cannot run a business on the premises.
All voted in favor and the motion carved,
PINEWOOD CIRCLE DRAINAGE UPDATE, FILE NO. SWMP -19UU.
Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Based on a request from Mr. Larson at the last
'
meeting, City Council directed staff to further investigate the drainage situation and develop some options to
remedy the problem at 8141 Pinewood Circle. The history review of the city files regarding this matter, it's
quite clear that this drainage problem has been an ongoing situation for a number of years and it's basically
comprised of two fold in nature. First there is the presence of a high water table and ground water springs in
'
and around the area. Secondly, as the flat grade of which the lot contains from the front to back which is
derived from the home style which is a walkout and also the elevation that the home has been constructed at.
Needless to say, the poor surface drainage in and around the foundation is also probably exacerbating the wet
subsurface conditions around the structure. A couple of years ago the homeowner has taken initiative to try and
construct a rear yard pond to eliminate or lower some of the subsurface water problems. However it appears not
to have been very effective to date. In any case, staff has looked at the matter in further detail and has derived
three options for consideration. The first option is Alternative A, which is based in part on a future storm sewer
'
improvement identified in the Surface Water Management Plan. However this storm sewer system is not
deemed as necessary until such time that Timberwood would decide to urbanize and further subdividing which
would provide for additional increase in runoff. Building a portion of the storm sewer now, up to Mr. Larson's
property is an estimated cost of approximately $50,000.00. It would involve the acquisition of both permanent
and temporary easements. Alternative B is another option involving storm sewer extension. This time from the
adjacent Minger Addition. With this option we would need to acquire some side lot drainage easements from
two currently developed lots in the Minger Addition. There would be a couple of significant trees that would be
lost in the construction of this storm sewer and the long term benefit to the area would be limited due to the
existing elevation and size of that storm sewer system. The cost of this option is estimated to be about
$20,000.00. Alternative C involves constructing a ditch from Timberwood Drive back to the west, up to the
southeast corner of the property line of Mr. Larson's property. The ditch would be approximately 3 to 4 feet
deep and again permanent temporary easements would be needed. Estimated cost is approximately $20,000.00.
At this time it's pretty clear that there are some significant dollars that would be associated with each of these
alternatives. It should also be clear that any of these alternatives, it'd only be providing a conduit basically to
carry the drainage from Mr. Larson's property. It still would be up to Mr. Larson to somehow develop a system
to be able to get both a surface and subsurface drainage down to that southeast corner of his property, which
would then be conveyed by the potential public system. Under each of these alternatives there's no guarantee
that the water table in the area would be lowered significantly to alleviate problems around the foundation. At
this point staff has looked back on other projects and we don't have, or haven't had any other projects similar to
this in the past for which we can use some previous example or establish policy to determine cost, potential cost
'
participation of taking on such a project. If the Council so desires for staff to continue pursuing this matter, it
would be our recommendation that we hold a neighborhood meeting with the adjacent and affected property
owners on all of these options and discussed these options in further detail and also discussed potential cost
'
participation with the project.
22 1
1
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is Mr. Larson here this evening? Would you like to come forward please.
see that you have one in hand so you know exactly what Charles is basically saying. I think probably the way
that some of these things should be done is to go through the neighborhood and have that public hearing
portion, eventually at one given time. But it's not going to correct your given problem immediately either so I
guess with that Charles, as you mentioned in Alternative B, there's also going to be many trees lost within that
area.
Charles Folch: Probably 2 or 3 but they're very significant trees. We would probably hear a great objection
from those two adjacent property owners in taking on that option.
Richard Larson: I've got a question about that. Why couldn't you go between Lots 3 and 4? ...there are no
trees between those two lots.
Charles Folch: Basically where it's proposed to go now is where there's an existing structure that we can tie
directly into it. In going down another low we would actually have to cut back into the street. Cut the existing
storm sewer line. Construct a manhole over the top. Now you're going to start adding, you're going to multiple
the cost of doing something like that but that's why we did it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay,
Richard Larson: Can I ask another question? When you were out, did you take a look at, there was no culvert
under my driveway. Do you know what that is? ...questions.
Charles Folch: Sure, sure. And I remember that point that you had raised in the last meeting and it looked to
me that, where your property sits, that basically it's kind of at that fulcrum or break point where it goes along
either side lot line and our feeling is well, number one. If you go out low enough, a ditch along your front
driveway there to be able to construct a culvert, it's our fear that you would probably end up having bird baths
in your front yard and it probably wouldn't help your drainage because most of it, it's going either down either
your west or your east or west side lot lines right now. It didn't look like there was a whole lot to plow across
the front to direct it either way so you'd probably end up with a bird bath would in my judgment.
Richard Larson: ...water.
Charles Folch: Potentially, right. Because there's very little fall and if you dug out that current area now to
create an area to lower the elevation to be able to put in a culvert, you're probably lower than what it is in the
adjacent area there and you'll probably end up with a pool of water on either side of that culvert.
Richard Larson: The reason I ask that is that water goes on one side of the property and right in the back yards
close to, there's a drainage swale on one side of the property line... There is a Swale on one side of the property
between my house and the next one. There is no swale on the other side. That's where a lot of the water
comes into...
Charles Folch: That's on the east side?
Richard Larson: East side. There's a Swale. It does tend to carry the water better.
Charles Folch: The trouble is getting it from the west side of the driveway I think to the east side.
23
1�
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996 1
Richard Larson: Correct. That's my question with the culvert. I
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think, if I may interject. I know that Dave has been out there several times,
Dave Hempel, and I'm surprised he's not here this evening but it might, before we make any decisions on what
the ultimate solution is, it might be a good idea to have you, Charles and Dave and Richard and your consultant
figure out a final solution because you know that you've got some work to do on your property itself to deal '
with the modeled soil and the water table. And the city, in my estimation, has some responsibility that if you
get the water drawn away to the southeast corner, we should have a system to taking it further but there doesn't
seem to have been a lot of discussion between all parties involved to figure out what the best solution is. And
then I'd like to see it come back to Council for us to decide what the city's part is. Does that make sense, or do
you think we've accomplished that Charles?
Charles Folch: Boy, I'm not sure. I mean certainly we can do that. I'm not sure what other options are
available other than, the main thing is, if I'm understanding Mr. Larson correctly is, the major problem is he
needs to be able to get, he'd like to get the drainage to his back lot line and then, but he needs the city to have
some sort of conveyance system that once he gets it there, it can be readily taken from the property.
Richard Larson: To use your phrase, there'd be a bird bath back in the corner.
Charles Folch: Right.
Richard Larson: If we piped it up there, which is what our building person... there's not enough, they'd like...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well one of the things I heard today from Dave was, the potential of simply '
bringing a lot of fill and creating a lookout instead of a walkout lot and that would deflect a lot of the water
from the foundation. Now is that hairbrained or does that make sense?
Charles Folch: Well, that would certainly, I mean if you did something like that, you'd certainly increase your
opportunity to increase the grade from the foundation a certain distance away. It would help probably within a
50 foot radius I would guess of the home or better but continuing on the rest of the way out the lot, it's still
pretty flat but at least it would probably help out with the foundation situation. But again it's.
Richard Larson: Not a very good solution. It's a walkout. It sounds hairbrained, I'm sorry. Another builder
recommended that too and I think the reason Dave came up with that idea was because that builder was there
that day and they kicked around that solution. It doesn't make sense because, to take a walkout and turn it into.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah but Richard, have you had guarantees from your consultant that any kind of '
drain tile system, I mean if the city could carry it away, would solve the foundation problems?
Richard Larson: Yes. I haven't seen it in writing but he's assured me that if the city can convey it away, there's '
drain tile from the house to that corner, it will solve it. Talk is cheap too ... and he's sort of gotten kind of
nervous about it because the city's not really ... so he's sort of backing off his interest in the project a little bit...
What do you propose is the next step... Have a neighborhood meeting?
Mayor Chmiel: Well I think as Charles had within his conclusion, as he says, if it's the City Council's desire to
see this matter resolved as a public improvement project, staff recommends that a neighborhood meeting and
24 ,
L
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
' public hearing be held to discuss the alternatives and potential special assessment necessary to complete the
work.
' Richard Larson: ...I thought when you kept saying about moving the water off of my property. We just happen
to be the low point in the neighborhood. We carry about 20 acres of water into our property so it's not really
our house. It sounds like it's benefitting us. No. I'm sorry. We are taking it on the chin for the neighborhood
and it's, to my mind... Could I construct a dam to keep the water out of my yard? You know to block it? I
mean am I legally within my rights to do that? Probably not. So therefore why is it on my shoulders to take
the bulk of the neighborhood water. Therefore I'd like to hear, as a worthy change, kind of mindset here, that
' it's a neighborhood problem and treat it thusly as kind of a public improvement.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Damming of any of the water I would assume Roger is.
Roger Knutson: Not advised.
Richard Larson: I'm maybe trying to be dramatic here but you see what I'm saying? That I have no power to
keep the water out of my yard so. I just was maybe dumb enough to buy the property... That's why we're here
to appeal because to me it's a public issue. It's not just solving my problems.
' Councilman Berquist: Did you go back and look at the original development plans?
Charles Folch: I did not personally but staff did, yes.
' Councilman Berquist Is the site constructed within the plans?
Charles Folch: I believe it is constructed within the margins or allowable tolerances for the area. Typically
' when a lot is constructed, the houses can be raised or lowered within two feet of the existing grade or grades
that have been provided with the developments.
' Councilman Berquist: Yeah, if in fact his lot serves as the gathering point for 20 acres of water, and all the
topography, perhaps the grade maps of the land showed everything draining to that site, I would suspect that if
in fact the site was designed by a civil engineer, that there would have been some provisions for taking that
water away from the site, if in fact the goal was to have a buildable lot there. So that goes to my original
question 3 weeks ago. Is the lot a buildable lot, number one. And number two, was the development plans
followed? Were the development plans followed? And the reason, the bigger reason I bring this up is because
there's currently a house on site being erected by the original developer, as I remember. I could be wrong.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: You're incorrect.
Councilman Berquist: I'm incorrect. Did he sell the lot?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah.
' Councilman Berquist: So he's out of there?
Richard Larson: ... is it being constructed right now?
25
u
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
Councilman Berquist: I guess not. There was one... I
Councilwoman Dockendorf: He was thinking of the outlot. 1
Richard Larson: Where they're building that house?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. '
Richard Larson: The one that doesn't look like they should be building on it?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. '
Richard Larson: That one. I
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well you know, the other one that's being built closer to Galpin, you notice how
that one sits very high and that's because of the springs as well so you know the entire neighborhood has spring
problems and part of the question is, I mean this home was built in '89 which '88, which was a drought and I
would assume when your builder did soil borings they found modeled soil but they probably didn't discover the
water table were quite a bit down and that could ... as well.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any other discussions from Council? Mike? '
Councilman Mason: No. I
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: No.
,
Mayor Chmiel: Alright.
Richard Larson: ...cost. It says...
'
Charles Folch: I guess it would depend on which option we would pursue. I think if it was favored to look at
a storm sewer option, let's say Alternative A, that it's providing more of an area benefit, albeit earlier in
advanced if you will of when we normally would have probably constructed something like this, and there'd be
a similar policy to whether it'd be constructed now or constructed in the future. That it's providing drainage for
the area... properties within that zone would be defined as benefitting from the project and would be considered '
for a special assessment.
Mayor Chmiel: Did you look at any cost factors in regard to this?
Charles Folch: Well, again this is kind of a unique situation. We're trying to see if we can find any previous
history or previous precedence but normally what you see when we have reconstruction projects before you, or
public improvement projects. Brand new ones associated with road projects and such, we typically assess 50% '
and the city picks up the other 50% of storm drainage improvements. And that, I guess we can decide at some
future point in time whether that's an applicable policy to attach with an improvement with this situation or not.
26 1
I City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
' Richard Larson: I guess my original question is, who pays for that 50 %? The entire... saying if Option A is
used.
' Charles Folch: Not necessarily the entire development but properties that contribute to that specific sub
drainage or sub watershed area that is served by whatever type of facility is put in. The problem with
constructing a ditch is, it's not a long term solution to the problem. At some point in time there's going to be a
' storm sewer constructed and that ditch will be flooded in.
Roger Knutson: Mayor?
' Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Roger Knutson: To just point out the obvious... situation but just talking about special assessments in general.
' Obviously you can only assess someone for a project that causes their market value of their property to increase
by at least the amount of the special assessment. That's if their contributing water is a good reason why they
should pay, but it isn't necessarily a test...
' Richard Larson: So you're saying the rates today... that there's no assessment?
' Roger Knutson: No, I'm just saying if we assess someone's property, we have to be able to prove that the
market value of that property increases by at least the amount of the assessment.
Mayor Chmiel: In other words there's benefit derived by that particular parcel.
' Roger Knutson: So obviously there's an issue...
' (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Mayor Chmiel: I'm sure that can be done. And that would be item number A that Charles has indicated. Is
that right Charles?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Or any of those.
' Mayor Chmiel: I was just thinking that in Alternative B that ... and either A or C. But the other one is just
the minor collection of putting a band -aid on.
' Councilman Senn: Do you want to talk to the neighborhood about it and...
Mayor Chmiel: Well I think that's what has to be done. Go through the process on there. And come back with
a ... so would there be a motion to accept Alternative A or C. Let's put it this way.
Councilman Senn: We're accepting...
Mayor Chmiel: Well to get a direction that's going to be given, one way or the other.
Councilman Senn: I think we were jumping ahead there.
27
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996 1
Mayor Chmiel: Well we have to make a policy... t
Councilman Senn: Do we have enough information to make a policy? I mean it seems to me this...
neighborhood put together a solution that everybody ... and agrees to and then present it back to us and then we
have to decide whether we want to go ahead and do the public improvements on it or not. Wouldn't that be?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But it's not going to make sense to have a neighborhood meeting unless you... '
something about dollars.
Councilman Senn: But it's not our dollars is what I'm trying to say. If it's a public improvement project, we '
should be involved in that decision? Are they willing spend $50,000.00 or are they willing to spend $20,000.00
to solve it? I mean it seems to me you may as well find that out right up front. It doesn't do us any good to sit
here and say it's going to be this and they say we don't want to spend the money. I mean unless you're ... city ,
writing out a check for this and I don't necessarily see that.
Mayor Chmiel: Well depending if the city followed through with the developers plans.
Councilman Senn: That's part of the information we don't have.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a recommendation by Council? To go ahead and meet with the residents of that I
specific area and come up with a conclusion.
Councilman Senn: Talk about the alternatives.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I'd like to see the city facilitate a neighborhood meeting to discuss all of the
issues and...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. With that as a motion, is there a second? '
Councilman Senn: Sure. '
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to direct staff to conduct a neighbothood
meeting to discuss the alternatives for the Pinewood Circle drainage problem. All voted in favor, except ,
Councilman Berquist who was not present to vote, and the motion carried.
PRELIlVIINARY PLAT OF LOT 51, PLEASANT VIEW AND A PORTION OF VACATED ROOK PLACE
RIGHT -OF -WAY (1.08 ACRES) INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 19,478 SO. FT. AND 27,659 SO. FT., '
AND A VARIANCE TO THE RIGHT -OF -WAY WIDTH REQUIREMENT; 6630 HORSESHOE CURVE,
ROOK PLACE, MICHAEL LYNCH
Sharmin Al -Jaff: This site is bordered by Horseshoe Curve on the east and west, and a single family home to '
the north and to the south. This is a very simple subdivision. The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 1.08
acre parcel into two single family homes. One of the main issue here is ... public right -of -way width. Currently
Horseshoe Curve has a right -of -way of 30 feet. This is a subdivision that was created in 1910 so it definitely '
pre -dates the ordinance and all the requirements. They went before the Planning Commission and requested that
additional 10 feet. The Planning Commission felt that there is an established width throughout the
neighborhood and they recommended that it be maintained. It was a condition of approval at the time and they
28 1
�
1
1
Il
L�
1
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
changed that. That was condition number 1. After the meeting, we spoke to the engineering department and
they requested that we put that condition back in the staff report and request that the Council approve it.
Therefore you'll see two sets of conditions. One from Planning Commission and the other one from staff. The
second issue relates to an existing garage. This existing garage will be located on the newly created lot. Staff
recommended that the garage be removed since accessory structures are not permitted alone on a parcel. The
Planning Commission recommended that that structures remains until such time when the new garage is built.
We don't have a problem with that. However, we added some language that requires the applicant to escrow
cash in case the work is not done. The city would be able to go in and complete the work. Also we put in a
deadline on when the structure would be removed and that's 30 days after the new garage has been built and
completed. Again, it's a very simple subdivision. We are recommending approval with conditions listed under
staff recommendations. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. Mr. Lynch.
Mike Lynch: Mike Lynch, 6630 Horseshoe Curve. This is one of these evolutionary problems... where there are
existing lots in neighborhoods... Staff and I worked ... and the concern of my neighbors is of course back... flavor
of the neighborhood, the character of the neighborhood. The practicality of the neighborhood from the
standpoint of privacy and so forth, not be breached so ... but that's what we need to discuss tonight. The
operative language from the staff report is that streets in this area are very old and substandard. As compared to
a new subdivision in width I'm sure. Road care... serviceability, access by fire or water workers that come daily
to our lift stations. There's no problem as far as that's concerned. Certainly nobody in the neighborhood has
ever come to City Hall and said, hey guys come out and widen our road. We don't have that inclination in the
neighborhood. The second operative language is, in the future these streets will be upgraded. I think maybe
there's going to be a problem if that is pursued. The only potential, technical reason I heard that might require
an upgrade would be storm sewer, although the ... there are no problems of that nature. My lot is the last in the
neighborhood that is potentially available for subdivision so basically if the existing right -of -ways aren't
changed, we still have our ... 30 foot width. Why should we not do this? Pleasant View is a road from nowhere
to noplace. There's no reason for thru traffic. That's one reason why you move there. Most of us, and you
recognize names like Cunningham, Hanson, Conrad ... we've lived there since long before Don got gray hairs. As
staff noted ... all the easements now are 15 feet. This dates from the turn of the century when it was originally
platted and I was amazed to find out that the road is not where it's platted, by the way. It's migrated since
1910. Nobody seemed to notice. ...and these are really mature trees so through the length of the ... if you were
to go with a 10 foot, you'd lose about 50 mature trees. We're talking 12 inch and above. I think City Council
is 8 inch and above. The grades are steep. This is ... these red marks are grades that are in excess of 30% and
have ... and if you widen the road, that's got to come from somewhere and someone's going to wind up with a tall
wall there. The existing hedges now, the neighborhood ... and that's the green marks. I have lilacs and some of
my hedges that have 12 inch bases and that's the major feature of the neighborhood as far as ... both visual and
also... The existing garages. There's 11 garages. Some that have been put in as recently as 2 or 3 years ago
that are between 5 and 20 feet from the road. These little squares that are numbered, that's the number of feet
from the side of the existing road so for those of you who have eyes like mine, this is 15, 15, 20, 20, 20, 8, 8,
8, 10, 5, and 5. It's my understanding that if such an easement was exercised, that ... so you don't have a flat lot
where you can just pick the garage up and move it over and set it back down. Won't work. There are existing
retaining walls now that are modern and up to snuff where the purple marks are and of course those would
come out. Can I answer any questions?
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Mike. Any questions of the applicant?
29
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996 1
30 1
'
Councilman Berquist: So you're contesting the, I mean I don't have any problem with leaving the 30 foot street
in. The city... department was saying that trying to reconstruct the road within that 30 foot right -of -way and
maintaining a 30 foot roadway would be difficult.
'
Charles Folch: Or even probably... constructed at the current width without a widening just for equipment to
move around. What they'd need to do is be on private property and we need an easement. We don't have
adequate right -of -way.
'
Mike Lynch: ...don't understand because that road was constructed and all the easements were run down the
middle. This is a major ... and the present 30 foot easement was perfectly sufficient for that. I mean we didn't
'
lose our hedges. We didn't lose our trees. We didn't have ... so why is it different now?
Charles Folch: The road is a rural section. If it's ever upgraded to an urban with curb and gutter and storm
sewer, it's going to go on the outside and that's where you run into problems.
,
Councilman Berquist: I mean practically I can't, I have a very difficult time swallowing the concept of turning
that into an urban street. I mean unless something catastrophic happen that wiped out everything there. What's
'
the likelihood of that ever, I mean why would, from a practical point of view would we even wish to impose
that on the neighborhood?
Charles Folch: Who knows at a future point in time when the road condition gets to a point where maybe the
'
neighborhood would like to see something done with it, either re- surfaced or reconstructed or whatever, those
may be options they'd consider at that point in time for future Council, future staff. The benefits in terms of
having an urban section versus rural probably isn't that much of a benefit. Maybe these property owners and the
,
type of neighborhood they're saying they have but in terms of life of the road, having concrete curb and gutter
actually does increase the life of the road by being able to get the drainage off the roadway and have it
conveyed along the edge of the roadway and the storm sewer systems and things like that. Again, that may not
,
be a consideration or benefit to the property owners out there but I guess at this point, what staff is saying who
knows what the future holds at some point in time down the future. It's been our policy, in similar situations
with other lots... where we've got additional right -of -way at this time, in case there is future right -of -way because
if we don't get it now, and you need it in the future, determine in the future that you need it, you buy it in the
,
future. You pay for it. So that's all we've been doing here is just continuing with consistency with the policy
that we have.
Councilman Berquist: ...it's up to us whether we choose to take them?
Charles Folch: Well what I'm saying is, if we don't take it now and we need it later, we buy it later.
Councilman Berquist: I guess I don't have a problem with that. I drove down there today and I, if I lived in
that neighborhood and someone came in and told me they were upgrading the street to an urban street, or even
redoing it with 30 foot and putting curb and gutter in, I'd raise as much Cain as I possible could. I would like it
'
at all and I don't, I mean it's a simple subdivision. Asking for the additional 10 feet I think is unnecessary,
although I understand the concerns for the future. I just can't see it happening.
Mike Lynch: Can I make it clear to you that that ... right -of -way has no bearing on the subdivision.
30 1
I City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
' Councilman Berquist: No, I understand that. I have a couple other questions that I had written out. One
concerns the requiring of escrow of demolition costs for the existing garage. You know it occurred to me that
' there's enough of an impetus to have the garage torn down by the lack of a building permit being issued until
the garage has been removed. Again, that's something else I don't see the reason behind. And then from a
question of curiosity, what would happen if you wanted to come in and use that garage, the existing garage with
the dormers as a garage for the new residence?
Mike Lynch: The condition's too bad.
' Councilman Berquist: Okay. So it's a question of the structural integrity of that particular garage. And that
decision was made for demolition based upon the condition of the garage?
' Kate Aanenson: The ordinance requires them to not have an accessory structure without a permanent structure.
Councilman Berquist: So if someone comes in here and they want to subdivide a lot and they have a perfectly
good garage sitting on site, they'd have to dismantle it only to put it back together?
' Kate Aanenson: ...but we don't want to encourage somebody to use it as a dwelling...
Councilman Berquist: The way the report was written, it seemed as if it was a just the way it is. There's no
mention of the condition of the structure whatsoever.
Kate Aanenson: ...if someone leased it and used it as boat storage...
Councilman Berquist: Okay. That's the extent of my questions.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I think the right -of -way should just be grandfathered in for the rest of the
' neighborhood... I too thought the escrow of the demolition was a little, I don't know. A little too insofar as ... I
don't know, do you have a problem with an escrow?
Mike Lynch: In light of all the other changes that were made and the give and take, I wasn't going to say
' anything about it. I can afford it. It's a nuisance. But you know, if this is the way it needs to be done, alright.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess that's the extent of my comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: I guess my only bone of contention was whether we go along with staff recommendation
' for the additional 10 feet. I personally don't see ... that would turn into an urban road but I think Charles does
make a compelling argument. If 30 or 40 or 50 or 60 years from now something happens and you don't have
that 10 feet, there could be a whole lot more hassle than if we had that 10 feet now.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
31
I
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996 1
Councilman Senn: I wish the road could stay the way it is. Charles, I understand your point. I mean our
action on taking this to 40 feet doesn't have anything to do with ... one way or the other. I mean that's the simple
reality... some time in the future should it ever become necessary. ,
Charles Folch: Or just be aware of that. That if we don't get it now...
Councilman Senn: My question on the escrow is why are you tying, when you're saying the old garage can stay '
up for 30 days or whatever after the other one. I mean you're saying you don't want the... effectively until after
the garage issues are resolved? ...by tying it to the building permit?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct. '
Mike Lynch: Can I respond? Legally, according to the statutes, before this actually gets platted out and
transferred, the building should be out. So what we asked staff was, we've got a lot of storage in there and we
would like, when we get the lot sold. Get some money. Build a new garage up on top of the hill. Move all
the stuff up there. If there's some way we can work this out, and they said yeah ... tie it into the building permit,
though you can't get a building permit... '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess the only thing that sort of is a real bone of contention, I think everybody is in
agreement that Horseshoe Curve, that that 10 feet of additional right -of -way should be struck, and we would just ,
renumber those all the way down. Rather than 8, you would go to 7.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Or just take the Planning Commission number 1 and... ,
Mayor Chmiel: You can do that too. Sure.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Then we have it in writing. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I really don't have any questions in regard to this. It seems perfectly clear. The
other, that was one of the other discussions. I kept reading this myself. The only reason that you're saying, not t
that the proposal being ... the city would then have those dollars in hand. Do we pay any interest on it? I'm
trying to look at ... but if that's the particular case, I don't think Mike you have any real problems with that either.
So if we started it here, you're going to start it with every other one that comes along so I would think that that
probably should stay. I know Mike will take care of it, as far as I'm concerned.
Councilman Senn: Maybe Mike will take care of it but we can't count on.
Mayor Chmiel: Everybody in the entire city saying they will.
Councilman Seim: You can't count on us being here tomorrow... '
Mayor Chmiel: So with that, I would ask for a motion.
Councilman Senn: I will move approval with the reduction, to the 30 feet... language and leaving the rest the
way it is.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second?
32 1
Ci
LJ
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the pmliminary plat for Rook Place
Subdivision #96 -9, as shown on the plans dated April 13, 1995, subject to the following conditions:
1. The right -of -way for Horseshoe Curve shall conform with the neighborhood.
2. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan will be required for Lot 1, Block 1, at
time of building permit application.
3. The applicant shall be responsible for Surface Water Management Fees accordingly to local ordinances.
Currently the single family rate is $2,780.00 per acre. These fees are due at time of final plat recording.
4. Full park and trail fees be paid in accordance with City Ordinances.
5. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the edge of all grading limits near trees before grading can
begin. Applicant will submit to the city proposed tree fencing locations.
6. The applicant must submit tree preservation plans or new canopy coverage calculations taking into account
the additional loss of at least six trees. Reforestation may be required.
7. The existing garage does not have to be removed until after construction of the new garage. The shed
setbacks must also be brought into compliance prior to recording of the plat. The applicant shall escrow the
cost of removing the garage with the City. Should the applicant fail to do the work, the City will remove
it. The garage must be removed within 30 days after the new garage has been built. Also, no building
permits will be issued for the new lot unless the garage has been removed.
8. Building Official conditions:
a. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard
designations and indicate the lowest level floor, entry level floor and garage floor elevations. This
should be done prior to final plat approval.
b. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading or construction on the property.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Berquist who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Mayor Chmiel: And I think I know your reasons.
Councilman Berquist: I just don't like. I think the escrow just complicates it and it's unnecessary.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we can look at that and get it done in another way. Is there any possibility of that
Kate?
Kate Aanenson: We said if you want to take it off there..
Sharmin Al -Jaff: We have no problem with that.
33
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996 1
Kate Aanenson: We just want to make sure the garage gets torn down. I
Councilman Senn: I understand but how much are we talking about? To demo that garage can't be more than a I
couple thousand dollars.
Councilman Berquist: I'm sure it's not but that's the point. ...you've got to make a deposit. You've got to track
it. You've got to write the check. You've got to refund it. I mean it's a logistical can of worms that doesn't I
necessarily have to be done.
Councilman Senn: We should change our procedure in ordinance then. I
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and that's something I think we can look at. Let's move on to item number 10.
METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION REQUEST FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 1, RICE LAKE MANOR INTO 2 ,
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS 8591 TIGUA CIRCLE RICE LAKE MANOR ESTATES, BARRY MCKEE.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: This site is located southwest of Rice Marsh Lake and west of Tigua Lane. This is a metes '
and bounds subdivision. The applicant is requesting to subdivide 7.05 acres into two single family parcels.
Parcel A will be available for future construction. Parcel B contains a single family home. The new home will
be serviced via a private driveway, which is going to be shared with an existing home as well as the ,
neighboring property to the north. Both parcels meet all the minimum requirements of the ordinance. Staff is
recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you.
(Due to the poor quality of the taping, the following discussion was not picked up on tape. The Council
discussed the condition relative to the fence which is to be brought into compliance and moved onto the subject
property, and asking for legal clarification from the City Attorney. After discussion the following motion was
made.)
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the Metes and Bounds Subdivision #96 -8,
Rice Lake Manor Estates, as shown on the plans dated Received April 12, 1996, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Tree preservation fencing must be installed around the perimeter of the building site, 20 feet from the '
proposed pad, before grading or excavation begins. No trees will be permitted to be removed except those
within the building pad and 20 feet from the pad. Also, one tree will be required in front yard setback area.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit on Parcel A, a detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree ,
removal plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.
3. The applicant shall dedicate to the City drainage easements over all wetlands and drainage ditches. The '
drainage easements shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide.
4. The applicant shall be responsible for Surface Water Management fees pursuant to City ordinance.
5. Extension of sewer and water service to the new lot will require a permit from the City's building
department.
34 1
1
I
J
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
6. The new lot will be subject to sanitary server and water hook -up charges pursuant to City ordinance.
7. The private driveway should be upgraded to meet City ordinance. Cross - access easements shall be
conveyed to benefitting properties.
8. Full park and trail fees be paid in accordance with city ordinance.
9. The applicant shall remove all structures that encroach onto the city property located east of the subject site.
10. The neighbor's fence located north of the subject property which encroaches onto Parcel A must be brought
into compliance with City Code.
11. Building Official conditions:
a. Determine construction period for structure at the northwest corner of the property and work with
Inspections Division staff to obtain permits and inspections, if any are required.
b. Remove the stricture on the east side of the dwelling, or obtain a permit to alter the structure to meet
building and zoning code requirements.
12. All structures shall maintain a 150 foot setback from the Ordinary High Water mark of Rice Marsh Lake.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUEST FOR A 10,000 SQ. Fr. RETAIL FACILFFY ON 1.06 ACRES; AND
VARIANCE TO THE PARKING LOT SETBACK REOURZEMENTS• 501 WEST 78TH STREET HIWAY 5
CENTRE, ROMAN ROOS, MIKE RAMSEY.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: The applicant is requesting a site plan review approval for the construction of a retail
building, 10,000 square feet. It is proposed to be occupied by a bagel shop, a coffee shop, optometrist,
Dominoes Pizza and a sporting goods store. The site is zoned Highway Business, bordered by West 79th Street
to the north, Highway 5 to the south, Holiday service station and Great Plains Boulevard to the east and
Chanhassen Inn to the west. The site is visible directly from Highway 5 and gains access from West 79th
Street. The site plan for the retail building was designed to meet all of the Highway 5 standards. It will
enhance the image of Highway 5. The applicant is proposing to utilize rock face block with brick accents along
the base of the building and columns. There's also going to be stucco used on the building. The applicant will
go into detail as far as the... they also have samples with them. There is one unusual situation with this site, and
that concerns the hard surface coverage. The ordinance, as far as the maximum coverage of 65% hard surface.
This parcel which has been highlighted... originally to be part of the main parcel. The city purchased this piece...
Without this the hard surface coverage is 80 %. I have been working with the applicant and one of the solutions
is to lease back this parcel to the applicant. What we would gain out of this is landscaping on a parcel that is...
and the applicant would be able to reach the hard surface coverage. Meet the requirements of the ordinance...
so there's a benefit for both sides. The second issue pertains to a variance for the parking lot. Our ordinance
requires all parking lots to maintain a 25 foot setback. The applicant is showing a 12 foot setback. We were
hoping that this variance would be eliminated. However, the only way the applicant could do this was by
reducing the size of the building and, in his words if he does that, the project does not become feasible. We
looked at the neighboring property to see if any of them had the 25 feet setback and noticed that the majority of
35
LJ
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996 1
says the applicant shall try to integrate the Highway 5 Centre parking lot with the motel parking lot.
36 1
1
them don't meet that requirement. We haven't advertised this variance. We were hoping that it would be
eliminated. If the City Council feels that this is something that they can support, then what we will do is
publish this variance. Bring it to the Planning Commission and then before you for official voting on it.
Overall we believe it is a good project. We are recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff
'
report. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any questions at this time?
'
Councilman Senn asked questions relative to the leasing of the public land to the applicant. Staff felt they were
benefitting by receiving landscaping on a parcel the city could retain control over.
,
Roman Roos made his presentation on the site plan.
Mayor Chmiel: Any from Council? Steve.
,
questions
Councilman Berquist: Not of Roman. I have a question... Roman, in the business that I'm in, Roman and I
have done business together in the past. As part of that I've been providing some preliminary numbers... my
'
question concerns conflict.
Roger Knutson: Conflict as in doing the HVAC on the project?
,
Councilman Berquist: Well, if it's successful, yes.
Roger Knutson: And you have had discussions...?
,
Councilman Berquist: I have had discussions with him.
,
Roger Knutson: My recommendation is that would be a conflict.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
t
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Could you point out where the trash enclosures are. I'm sorry.
Roman Roos: ...the trash enclosures are on the north, first of all I'll turn it around. Up in the northeast corner
'
and it's built into the building so you have a gated trash enclosure. It will look like a normal wall of the
building. It's difficult to explain except the elevations, you look at these elevations. This is, actually it's an
eleven foot gate entrance ... and at the present time that's going to be, we... We might look at cedar or something
,
similar to the roof of the building. I think once they get that building up and see the building, I'll be able to
give you a cleaner answer.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: For some reason I think it's close to the patio and that wasn't making any sense to
,
me.
Roman Roos: No.
'
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. Sharmin, I don't understand the purpose of condition number 19. Where it
says the applicant shall try to integrate the Highway 5 Centre parking lot with the motel parking lot.
36 1
I City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
' Sharmin Al -Jaff: They need to redo the parking lot on the Chanhassen Inn and there might be a change in
elevation so that's where they need to integrate it off of.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: One final question, probably a little difficult to answer but you're requesting a
variance for more room and looking at kind of fudging on the hard surface coverage. I'm wondering if, in your
estimation, our ordinances are just unworkable to make a piece of property marketable? Or what's the issue?
Roman Roos: In regard to...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That and the additional hard surface. I mean you're getting the most building and
parking lot you can. And more.
' Roman Roos: What we're trying to do. The economics are always ... a lot of different locations of the building,
like nearer to Highway 5. Tried to isolate the hotel from the center by putting the ... actually on the north side of
the building. In regards to this 15,000, 10,000, 8,000 square foot, it was very difficult so we take ... north /south.
The rest just would not work. I couldn't get a building of a reasonable size on there ... but I still could not get a
' building economically sized on that site. So there was a lot of trial and error basically to get this site, 10,000
square feet. But then when I talk about the economics, the rent ... and you have to be, you're going to be in that
marketplace regardless of land costs in Chanhassen. The land cost here is ... and so taking that into consideration
' and looking at the size of the building and looking at the ... it would take for a retail building... we ended up with
a 10,000 square foot building. That's as big as I could get it. To reduce it down, that is always a problem and
now you start going up with ... my rent will start climbing and my intent was to keep some... There's no easy
answer is what I'm saying.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Are the issues unique to this piece of property or would you find that?
' Roman Roos: You will find that on all the property. Well the problem is contiguous to this property. Both of
them have the same problems. Both of them are ... by the Highway Business zoning. But by CBD zoning within
the city of Chanhassen, there is no problems. So we just happen to be on the south side of the ... and being on
' the south side, we're on Highway Business. Therefore a different zone and setback applies.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. Now I understand it. I don't have any further comments.
' Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: No. Everything's, it looks to me like everything's been taken care of. With the exception
' of how we deal with the item number 16, which I guess at this point I would assume that we will go along with
that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark,
Councilman Senn: I don't have a problem with the variance. I'm still a little hung up over the extra land deal.
Todd, what kind of a lease situation are you looking at there?
I Todd Gerhardt: It doesn't need to be a lease. It could be an easement. Whatever, we talked about easement or
a lease. We could do a lease where you grant him coverage for 99 years at $1.00 or something. Or it can be
' just.
1 37
i ,'
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996 1
Councilman Senn: Well I guess my point is, if we're going to do that, why don't we simply sell him the '
property on some kind of an installment sale and put it back on the tax rolls, and then put deed restrictions in
the sale to him to control what happens on the property? I mean that makes them legitimately making their '
hard surface coverage requirements and landscaping requirements. It puts the property back on the tax rolls, and
you know it means we make money off taxes and stuff and, but gives us control of the property as it relates to
the deed restrictions. I mean to me that makes more sense than another lease at 99 years for $1.00 which is just ,
going to.
Todd Gerhardt: That's not going to impact the value of that property by putting it back on the tax rolls. You're
not going to get any more giving him that piece of land or not. I mean his value is going to be based on those ,
leases.
Councilman Senn: You generally you've got commercial property at that square foot but you know, doesn't it '
accomplish the same thing? Give you the controls you want but keeps us out of the middle.
Todd Gerhardt: I don't know if it gives you the control. I think you lose control if he has ownership of it.
Councilman Senn: Not if you have the deed restrictions telling him what happens on it. '
Todd Gerhardt: You have the ultimate right of ever putting an entry monument sign on there and landscaping?
Councilman Senn: Sure, it could be put in the deed restriction.
Todd Gerhardt: I don't think you're going to gain on the value of the land for tax purposes. And are you just ,
giving it to him?
Councilman Senn: No. I mean to me you're going to gain something over time on the taxes. You know $1.00 '
a year lease for 99 years, I'm sorry. We make nothing, okay. I think under the scenario I'm talking about, at
least we make some money from a tax standpoint. It will be greater than $1.00.
Todd Gerhardt: I don't know if this project, I mean it's up to the City Council on what you want to do. If you
want to go that route.
Councilman Senn: Well, what's your guy's preference? '
Roman Roos: I think, you mind if I speak for you. I think right now, as Todd says, I don't know that 11,000
square foot will have a major impact on the assessed market value of this project. Based on it being a new ,
project. I think from the standpoint, for the convenience for the owner, to own the property would... The only
purpose for this Mark is to take a site, which was the same size as the Prairie House in terms of hard surface
coverage, and actually duplicate it as though we're non - conforming by today's standards, we were not... But if '
the Council would see fit for the HRA to deed the property to the owner ... but again, not because it's a gift but it
solves our problem. It solves the hard surface problem in the city and we plan on maintaining that property...
major patio. We are going to provide landscaping on this... At least you know it's going to be maintained. As
far as the City having access to it to put a sign up, that's easily covered. I don't think that's the problem. But
for us to buy that site from the City, with those kind of numbers. The project is tight enough as it is right
now. I mean I can't, I come back to my conversation with Councilwoman Colleen. It's a very difficult project
to work the numbers and make it work. So I don't know if we can incur more debt to make that work. I
38
I City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
t Councilman Senn: What have you got on the installment sale if it goes back...
' Roman Roos: Well we've got...
Councilman Senn: I don't know. I mean you guys should sit down and negotiate that out. I mean I don't
know. I'm just saying, what you're saying is you don't need any additional upfront expense versus.
' Roman Roos: No.
' Councilman Mason: Maybe before that discussion goes any further we should see how the rest of the Council
feels about it. I mean if it's in the majority, fine. But if it's not, let's move on.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Steve. What's your feeling?
Councilman Berquist: Well, quite honestly, a number of months, a couple of months ago I had broached the
subject of that land going back on the tax rolls to Roman after a Planning Commission meeting. It was my, it
' was something that I said during the Planning Commission meeting and I brought it to him. I'd like, on one
hand I understand Todd's desire to maintain control of it. On the other hand, what could possibly go there?
Could be built into any deed structure. I don't necessarily see the need for the City of Chanhassen, through the
HRA to continue to own that parcel, as long as future contingencies can be handled. I would like to see it as
taxable land. Yeah, that's the extent of mine.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: But if the taxes are negligible, I mean I guess the question is, what price can we
put on control of that property. I mean we purchased it for a reason.
' Councilman Berquist: The reasons can be addressed within it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I don't see any reason why we can't move this project and discuss that at a
later date.
Councilman Mason: If it's a discussion at a later date, that's fine. I would like to move the project. I guess if
we're serious about getting an assessor involved and spending all that money up front, I would certainly want to
know how much it would cost to do that. What taxes we would get out of that and how long it would take to,
before we started turning a profit on the deal. If in fact what Todd is saying is true. Is that the taxes on that
are negligible. I think that's throwing good money after bad.
Councilman Berquist: Well to be quite frank.
' Mayor Chmiel: Well, Michael still has the floor.
Councilman Mason: No, I'm done.
Councilman Berquist: To be quite frank, I had broached this subject with Todd Gerhardt quite some time ago
and I'm surprised that the questions of, at least the guesstimates of anticipated revenues and ... aren't able to be
' addressed.
39
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Let's get the answers when we hear the variance
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think that, I really sort of agree with Mike to a certain point but I just don't know
what the dollar difference is going to be, if there is any. So would there be a motion to either table or move
ahead with the project until those things are all pulled together so the information can be provided back to
Council.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would move approval of the project with the understanding that we still need to
discuss the variance and we should also discuss whether the land will be either sold or leased.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Site Plan Review 496 -4 as shown
on the site plan dated April 12, 1996, with the stipulation that the variance be discussed at a separate time along
with the issue of leasing or selling of the city's property, and subject to the following conditions:
1. The materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on the building.
2. Signage criteria:
a. All businesses shall share one monument sign. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument
standards in the sign ordinance.
b. Wall signs are permitted on no more than 2 street frontages. The total of each wall mounted sign
display areas shall not exceed 24 square feet.
c. All signs require a separate permit.
d. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the
building.
e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials and heights.
f. Back -lit individual letter signs are permitted.
g. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet in height.
h. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign.
i. One pylon sign is permitted. The area of the sign may not exceed 64 square feet and a height of 16
feet.
.O
1
Ll
1
11
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
j. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. One stop sign must be
posted on each driveway at the exit points of the site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of
lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a sign permit.
3. Screening of the parking lot and the south elevation must be increased. Screening may include berms,
ornamental, and evergreen trees. A minimum of four to six trees will be planted along the south side of the
patio area.
4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities
as required for landscaping.
5. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 04 -1991 (Fire Department Notes
to be included on site plans), copy enclosed.
b. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 07 -1991 (Pre-Fire plan), copy
enclosed.
c. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 29 -1992, (Premise Identification),
copy enclosed.
d. Comply with Inspection Division Installation Policy No. 34 -1993, (Water service installation for
commercial and industrial buildings), copy enclosed.
e. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 36 -1994, (Combination domestic
fire sprinlder supply line), copy enclosed.
f. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 40 -1995, (Fire Sprinkler system),
copy enclosed.
g. Install and indicate on plan a post indicator valve (P.I.V.) on the water service line. Location must be
approved by the Fire Marshal.
6. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted.
7. Relocate the two required accessible parking spaces along the center of the building. Relocate the
accessible curb cut to one side of the planting area shown on the west side of the building as discussed in
the attached Building Official memo.
8. All roof top equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances.
9. The applicant shall supply the city with detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 year storm event.
Depending on these calculations, additional storm sewers may be warranted.
10. The grading and utility plan shall incorporate erosion control measures throughout the site.
41
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996 1
11. Utility installation will require permits through the city's building department. Gate valves will be required t
on the water line to isolate the motel from the proposed building.
12. Cross - access easements should be required for joint use of the parking lot /drive aisle. '
13. Approval of this site plan is contingent upon the City HRA approving the lease of the land located east of ,
the subject site.
14. The hard surface coverage of the site may not exceed 65 %.
15. The patio area may be moved to the east of the subject property and onto the city property pending '
approval of the HRA. The applicant shall supply the staff and City Council with a detailed landscape plan
of the patio area. t
16. The parking lot must maintain a 25 foot setback along the north and south, unless the applicant applies for
a variance. The city will issue the building permit for the applicant to start work on the project, contingent
upon the City Council approving the variance no later than 30 days following building permit issuance.
17. The applicant shall try to integrate the Hiway 5 Centre parking lot with the motel parking lot.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Berquist who abstained, and the motion carried. '
APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR COULTER BOULEVARD PHASE H; AUTHORIZE
ADVERTISING FOR BIDS, PROJECT NO. 93 -2613.
,
Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Tonight we have the project engineer, Mr. Phil
Gravel with Bonestroo here with us to give you a presentation of the overall project primarily elements. I
should also like to point out that we do have at least one of the petitioning property owners who petitioned for
this development with us here tonight and may wish to speak or answer any questions you may have also. With
that I guess I'll turn the podium over to Phil Gravel
Phil Gravel: Thank you Charles and good evening everyone. I'm assuming that most of you are familiar with
this project from the presentation at the time of the feasibility report so I'll just go over briefly what the project
involves at this time. A few things have changed since the time we did the feasibility report. What the project
'
includes now is the extension of Coulter Boulevard from it's existing end, near the elementary school, eastward
towards it's existing end near Pillsbury. Originally we had also proposed at the feasibility report time, to
construct Stone Creek Drive from it's existing end and the Heritage development northward up to Highway 5.
'
That work has been eliminated from the project you have tonight by two ways. The area of Stone Creek Drive
south of Coulter Boulevard is being completed privately by the developer, Heritage Development, as part of
their multiple development there. And the area of Stone Creek Drive north of Coulter Boulevard and south of
Highway 5, is just being delayed. It will be completed later, or could be completed later as a Phase II part of
'
this project, and that was delayed because the development, or the developers have not finalized their plans for
that area, and as such we couldn't get any grading plans and an alignment for that. The other major thing that's
included with this project, besides Coulter Boulevard, is the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and watermains.
The big thing is the trunk. An 18 inch trunk sanitary sewer to be extended up northward to the north side of
Highway 5 and that will allow this area north of the future frontage road. One other important part of this
project is, what I have shown here is the trail from the school and it's... drawings towards Pillsbury. The existing '
42 1
I City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
sidewalk will be extended along the north side of Coulter. The big feature is an underpass that will be
constructed near the east branch of Coulter Boulevard, and that trail will eventually extend all the way down
Bluff Creek as part of the city wide regional trail system. This brings up a point that I want to bring up or
point out is that Pillsbury has made the comment that they would prefer to see the sidewalk go on the west and
south side of their building and it wasn't a directive or anything. It was just a comment they had and again we
got it again yesterday from them as far as ... issues. Also shown on this drawing is the tree planting that will be
' involved. One other thing you might be interested in is the extent of the wetland mitigation required for this.
Part of the project involves crossing an extensive wetland just east of the existing element school and we've
been working with Phillip from staff on a wetland mitigation project which actually has a unique benefit in that
' part of the mitigation will be an ecosystem that we hope the elementary school will be able to use as somewhat
of a learning. One other thing I brought along with that you might you interested in is how that arched
underpass will look and that's not part of this project. That's a separate project that is going to be let under a
' separate contract because it's got MnDot and federal funding. Hopefully we'll have that one for you either at
your next meeting or the meeting after that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And that's where Phil?
' Phil Gravel: It's at the, I can show you on the... drawing. It's at what we call the east branch of Bluff Creek, so
it's closer to the Pillsbury site and the elementary school site. Initially when they ... we wanted it on the west
' branch of Bluff Creek, which was closer to school but there's not enough clearance there because of grades
and ... it has to go here.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: And we've applied for an ISTEA grant?
Phil Gravel: We've got an ISTEA grant on that one. That's $300,000.00. What we're doing now is going
through all the other hurdles. The permitting and the plan review which takes a lot longer. That's why that...
' As I mentioned before, the original project was over $2 million in the feasibility report and since that time a
number of things have been taken off. This project that we're asking be approved tonight is about $1.7 million.
In the future there will be another $450,000.00 project. That's that part of Bluff Creek Drive north of Coulter.
' The pedestrian underpass is another $440,000.00. And then as part of Stone Creek Drive south of Coulter, but
originally in the feasibility report and that's not going to be ... $250,000.00. And also shown here is a schedule
we'd like to take bids around July 8th and begin construction as soon as possible. One other thing I wanted to
mention is that, as part of another city project, the Powers project, there's additional fill being generated by that
' project and we'd like to use that fill on this project and a problem we're having and I think we'll be able to work
around it with staff is that, that fill is available now and this project won't be under construction for a few
weeks so what we'd like to do is either stockpile it on site somewhere or have the Powers Boulevard contractor
complete a little of the grading for this project and waste his material at that time. And that's still being
discussed and we're meeting with some of the parties on that on Thursday, right? That's all I have for tonight,
unless anyone has any questions.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Steve.
Councilman Berquist: No sir. Other than your schedule seems awfully aggressive.
' Mayor Chmiel: Get it done before winter. Colleen.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: No questions.
' 43
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996 1
Mayor Chmiel: Mike. ,
Councilman Mason: None. '
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: No, nothing.
,
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion?
Councilman Mason: I move approval for plans and specs for Coulter Boulevard Phase II, authorize advertising
for bids, Project No. 93 -26B.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
'
Resolution 496 -50: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the plans and
specifications dated June 10, 1996 for the Coulter Boulevard Sheet and Utility Improvement Project No. 93 -26B
'
and authorize to advertise for project bids. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
'
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael, under 13. Transfer of funds.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, a question and a couple of comments. This end result of transferring of funds and
,
how we changed it and how it was put into the contingency. I hear from time to time rumors that legislature is
going to do to city surplus funds what they had done to school district surplus funds, which is essentially take
them away from us. School districts have lost all kinds of money because of that. Having surplus funds is,well
t
we can't do it anymore in the schools. I guess my question is, by having this contingency fund or by putting
that money into an unspecified fund, how does that open us up to any kind of action in the future? If it stays
that way. That's my question. One of my comments is in regards to those transfer of funds were from a 1994
budget, is that right Don?
Don Ashworth: Yeah. It'd be '94. '
Councilman Mason: I question that anyone, well I'm speaking for myself but I certainly don't know what my, a
small portion or any portion of my home budget looked like in 1994, let alone a budget this size. And I guess
my third comment deals more with decorum than it does with anything else. I, from time to time lean on my ,
experiences in the classroom and I have two rules in my classroom and one is to be nice and one is to be
courteous. And I think we, as a council need to set that example for everyone in the city, be it staff, be it
community members, whatever, and I don't think we are in a position to not be nice or to not be courteous or to
be badgering either before or after or during staff meetings. And I know we get heated at times and I think
there's a big difference between being upset about an issue as opposed to be nice or being courteous. That's all
I have to say on that, although I certainly would like a discussion or some kind of answer or something about if
we've opened ourselves up to anything by doing what we did.
Mayor Chmiel: Don.
1
44 1
L
J
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
Don Ashworth: That's a point that I really did not consider during the discussion of this item from two weeks
ago. And that is that the State legislature has been considering for the last two sessions, again putting cities into
that same funding scenario as with school districts and the primary issue is well, why should cities be treated
different or better than our school districts. There is a good chance that if the legislature would go through the
same process that they did with schools, that dollars that potentially were left in the general fund could very
easily find their way to St. Paul the same way that funds left many of our school districts 5 to 6 years ago.
Best advice from Deloitte is, establish some type of a capital account and call it a very generic name. You don't
have to have it for a specific purpose but basically don't just leave idle dollars in the general fund. And I failed
to bring out that point when we discussed this and I apologize to Council for that.
Councilman Berquist: Let me ask you a question regarding that. The funds left the school district primarily,
and I'm naive in this regard so bear with me but I think the funds left the school district because the State was
the dispersal agency for the funds. It was very easy for them not to disperse. On the other hand, how much of
our funding comes through the State of Minnesota treasury?
Don Ashworth: One million dollars.
Councilman Berquist: A million dollars does come directly to us via the State?
Don Ashworth: They've already established the formula. What they would do, total amount of ... being paid to
the city. Amount needed for fund balance. Fill that in. Actual amount the city has so you can come up with a
difference and then that is subtracted from your adding. So they're saying, okay 33% is a reasonable balance.
Therefore the city has $200,000.00 more than that. So take a million, minus the $200,000.00 so the amount we
would get then in HACKA for 1997 would be $800,000.00.
Councilman Berquist: So Mike brings up a point that I tried a little bit to address in my last question. Excuse
me for fumbling around here but I want to see how I worded it. And you, it was just a matter of you didn't
have enough time to think about the answer is what I'm guessing.
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. Is there any good reason to make those transfer to the Council contingency fund
or not to put those transfers to the Council contingency fund?
Mayor Chmiel: Well so often times those things do come up and to have all the answers at the particular time
gets to be rather difficult. And I can understand Don's position from time to time. It's awful hard to grab
everything off the top of your head and that's why I certainly would appreciate it if there are real concerns with
whatever there is, to have some discussions with them prior to the Council meeting. And I don't want to find us
in difficulties if that's the particular case. Because that's not the city's and it's not my position. We have to
come fiscally responsible for everything that we're doing and with all the cuts that have been coming through
and have come through, don't think that there's not going to be another one. We're trying to grab every dollar
they can and at the same time we'd better hold onto every dollar that we have.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: If I could just interject my experience with Southwest Metro when our funding
was coming through the Met Council. We were not allowed to have any budget carry over. Any budget carry
over was taken away so you couldn't plan, you couldn't do any planning. You couldn't budget for, even if you
put it in a budget for future capital expenses, it was taken away. With the legislation that we approved this
45
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996 1
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Who did do the second? I think it was.
evening, we are levying those dollars and getting our control... capital planning. I realize that's a completely side
issue ... have we created the action at the last Council meeting, did we direct you to create a contingency fund or
'
what did we do?
'
Don Ashworth: Correct. And I guess what I've been grappling with in my own mind, and Councilman Mason
'
had called me. We talked about this issue and at that point in time I, by that point in time I had gone home
that evening and thought about all the responses and what not and I just thought to myself, wow. Why didn't I
'
consider what's been happening over at the State Capital. And then the other part of me was saying, well the
action was really contingency. That was the direction but could I construe that to mean that the real intent was
just don't label it as public works expansion, which I think was the primary motivation of Councilman Senn and
'
I thought that maybe I had the authority to do some poetic type of things in terms of just putting that into a
generic capital account would maybe meet the same intent that Councilman Senn had. But wasn't really worded
the way he worded it.
Councilman Senn: I think regardless of trying to liken the school district or Southwest to the city or whatever,
or even guess what the legislature will do, it would seem what Deloitte is suggesting as it relates to a special
capital account, I don't see a problem with that at all. I mean whether it's Council contingency or Council
control capital accounts, it's the same thing. So I don't see any problem with that at all. It's not earmarked and
it's not set for a specific project.
Don Ashworth: So I can then, am I hearing the majority of the City Council members feel that way. In other
words, that I should make sure that the dollars are preserved by establishing a generic capital account that does
not have the label, public works expansion and gives you the authority to potentially use those dollars for what
you deem to be your priorities and still meet the guidelines for what Deloitte has since advised me that I should
'
have told you on that night.
Councilman Senn: Maybe to make it clean, why don't I just amend the motion that I made in the first place and
'
that is to amend the motion to allow the establishment of a special capital account, Council controls to be set up
outside of the general fund, for future consideration. And I can't remember, who was the second on that?
Don Ashworth: That would meet the recommendations of Deloitte.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Who did do the second? I think it was.
Councilman Mason: It was me.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, Michael you did. You're right.
'
Councilman Mason: Sounds good.
Mayor Chmiel: With all considerations given with the approval of the individual who made the motion, Mark
'
Senn and his second, that what was stated here this evening be carried through in regard to the...
Don Ashworth: Does that require a vote?
'
Mayor Chmiel: No, I would call for a motion on that.
46 1
L
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
Councilman Senn: Well I made the motion. He seconded.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I meant call the question.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to amend the previous motion regarding Transfer of
Funds to the establishment of a special capital account, Council controls to be set up outside of the general
fund, for future consideration. All voted in favor and the motion carved.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
A. UPDATE ON METROPOLITAN GROWTH OPTIONS, PLANNING DIRECTOR.
Kate Aanenson: ...before the Metropolitan Council and it affects certainly impacts Chanhassen significantly
because we have half the city outside the MUSA line. The Metropolitan Council is considering three different
growth options, and they're making that decision here within the next 30 days. I just wanted to give you an
idea of what those options are, the implications for Chanhassen and the direction that the planning staff is
looking at. The first option is to concentrate development. As shown on this map you can see that, in this area
here is outside the MUSA. IIere's Chanhassen now, which is inside the MUSA. With this proposal we would
not be allowed future expansion so basically what, in order to grow, the intent is that you would intensify your
development in that area that you already have. How do we accomplish that? Certainly we'd have to look at
our lot size and those sort of issues so certainly we didn't support this option. We believe that we're running
out of land and we wouldn't support that option based on our zoning recommendations. Even applying the
housing goals which we will be looking at, we certainly think that we can make that in the concentrated. It
doesn't make much sense. The next option was the growth center. Chanhassen and Chaska was picked at,
selected to be a growth center. The reason being is, the way these came about is they looked at where job
creation and they're trying to tie job creation with housing so it's really a linkage. One of the concerns that we
had with this is back when Metropolitan Council was updating our blueprint was that we, one of the systems
they wanted to put in the blueprint was housing, which we had always been opposed to. But with this
recommendation, certainly housing really becomes kind of a back door approach to getting housing as a system.
So what they decided is those areas that are in the growth center, such as Chanhassen, Chaska area which does
have a large concentration of new job growth, they would allow you expansion but there'd certainly be some
criteria on that. And some of the criteria would be, they're looking at a housing mix and what they're saying is
really what they'd like to see is in excess of 8 plus units an acre and really they'd like to see 15 to 20 would be
the preferred. So certainly we think, it's really loose as to what they're looking at. How that would be tied in
so you would only bring in land if you designated that some sort of ratio to get to those balances so we'd
certainly have a lot of concerns on what that would mean to Chanhassen. And then the third option would be
kind of the established growth. Looking at, again bringing this area in on a petition basis, and we certainly
think that's the way to go. Just continue the way it is. There's several communities that are in right now for
land use amendments. MUSA line amendments. Met Council's holding on those right now until they can make
some decisions about the MUSA line. I have given you information from the Builders Association. They did a
study on what they see as the ultimate growth area. What that should be. They studied... along the fringe.
Obviously Chanhassen was one of the studies they looked at. They saw just increasing the MUSA out to the
ultimate year 2020, which they believe will fit the housing demand. If you remember when Mike Monson came
back in April to talk about growth projection. There is a certain amount of housing that we need to
accommodate, and so what the builders did is looked at, based on densities, wetlands, they said if you build this
ulti -MUSA. I guess we don't have a problem with that per se. There's certain things that we want to make sure
that we have a chance to address. You know our Bluff Creek study. Some of these other issues that we're
47
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996 '
48 1
looking at. I guess the biggest factor that we look at as far as the MUSA line is the city has to provide
services. There's only so much bonding capacity that we can do anyways so whether we bring it in or not, all
in or not, we can only provide service to so much. We have limited bonding capacity in order to do that. Also,
not everybody that's in the MUSA is motivated to develop so whether, if there's a lot of land in the MUSA
'
doesn't mean everybody there wants to develop. We have estate property holders that aren't necessarily want to
develop, such as Prince that are sitting on significant. Eckankar. They're sitting on a significant amount of land
that really aren't motivated to develop so that may play into factors that we want to bring in. So we are
'
working with the Southwest Coalition in putting together kind of a position paper. I just wanted to let you
know so we will be supporting the kind of the status quo, and if you had any comments or concerns that you
wanted us to relay back, we'd like to hear those.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Kate, I sat in on a meeting a couple weeks ago at the County and we were talking as the
responsibility that the County Board as to direction of growth within the County. And they too are in the
position of saying that they would direct those proposals anywhere outside and not taking farmland, back to
Chaska and Chanhassen. I think this is the same kind of thing that we'd be looking at.
Kate Aanenson: Right. Well and Carver County has been recognized as a leader as far as farmland
'
preservation. Maintaining the large lot density because some of the other counties that are having a lot of
sprawl, don't have the large lot requirements. Maybe 2 1/2 acre, 5 acre lots and they're getting a lot of those
large lot subdivisions which can create some sprawl. So I guess that's part of the issue. You want to make sure
'
you have enough land that it's being concentrated in the areas that can provide services. And again we want to
make sure we've got the appropriate planning done in place before, but we'd have to petition anyways so. As
just kind of a segway into that, at the next City Council meeting I'll be presenting you with our, how we're
going to meet the Livable Communities Act. Our action plan. So we'll be sharing that with you and it kind of
'
ties directly into some of these what we'll be looking at for future areas too.
Roger Knutson: Mayor?
'
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
'
Roger Knutson: Just to comment. It was about 2 months ago now, since the land Use Coalition had a meeting,
a morning meeting devoted to this subject where these three options were discussed. And there were a lot of
people from the Metropolitan Council staff there. And the conclusion, they asked everyone to vote on these
three options up to the third. Just for you information, everyone there, with a couple exceptions, voted for the
channeled growth. The growth, what did they call it now?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: The growth centers.
,
Roger Knutson: Growth centers. They keep changing the name.
Councilman Berquist: This is after listening to them do a dissertation on.
t
Roger Knutson: No, they gave some short dissertations. One of the problems I have with it personally is, I
don't have a clue what channeled growth is and when they were pressed for it, I don't think they do either.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I agree.
48 1
I City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
I Councilman Senn: Yeah we're in a bit of a catch -22 because they put no definition to it.
Roger Knutson: How can you say you're against channel growth.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, when you don't even know how it's defined.
' Roger Knutson: What is it?
Councilman Senn: But the other popular theory of it, or not theory out there but I mean some people think
' there's going to be a stampede of basically communities which are desperate and need the development to jump
onto the growth, general growth option because it's going to give them the first foot in the circle so to speak.
And the other, how would I say, the race to that is caused a little bit by the fact that people are worried that
' once that race is done, there will be enough done through the general growth option that everything else will be
shut off. Petitions will basically be ignored for many years to come so I mean it's something we just have to
really watch ... but it's far from unfolded.
7
C
Roger Knutson: I'm going to one of their seminars tomorrow and the presentation ... where they define these
things.
Councilman Berquist: Well there's a presentation on Wednesday the 19th at the Rec Center. What?
Kate Aanenson: Actually that was very well attended. There was probably 60 people there and again, a lot of
questions were specifically asked, if you look in the growth options report that they prepared, again they're tying
it into a traffic zone so they take the density of job creation and say based on that, within this ring area then
there should be a certain amount of density. And again they're pushing IS to 15 to 20 units an acre. Well, that
has huge impacts on what we're trying to do. Especially it flies in the fact of what we're trying to do with our
Bluff Creek study. We certainly support having appropriately zoned, higher density areas but we want a little
bit more control. How they relate to our topography and our natural features so that's some of the concerns that
we view with that.
Roger Knutson: Kate also put her finger on, they're really trying to make housing a ... system.
Councilman Berquist: I have one other question concerning a sentence on the back of the memo. Third
paragraph on the second page. Third line from the bottom. It says because housing was at one time being
considered as a system by the Met Council, city staff is...
Kate Aanenson: Okay, right now. Oh, I'm sorry. Of concern. A word's left off. The city's concern with the
linkage of job creation and housing. The word's off in the center.
Roger Knutson: I would suggest that if, although it has not been defined, if housing were in a metro system,
potentially what that means is they're in control of your zoning ordinance.
Kate Aanenson: Yep, exactly.
Councilman Senn: Say that again?
.•
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996 1
Roger Knutson: They're in control of your zoning ordinance. I mean if housing is a metro system, depending
on how they flush out what that means, it could mean anything from the fact, they're going to set maximum lot
sizes. Street widths. They can, under that guise, anything in the zoning, in your subdivision ordinance is up to '
their discretion as to whether it can be approved or not.
Councilman Berquist: What's the board based definition of system? '
Kate Aanenson: Well if you look at housing systems.
Roger Knutson: That's what ... is all about. '
Councilman Senn: ...definition with any other system they currently control.
Roger Knutson: ...when you mix, 25% have to be in this price bracket. 25% in this item bracket and t
something else. How are you going to achieve that? Well let's see. Let's say, half your lots have to be under
10,000 square feet. For example. Or 8,000. Whatever. '
Kate Aanenson: Well ultimately, probably what would happen, if you did something like that is we wouldn't
see any more single family detached in order to make the numbers. I mean ultimately I think that's what would
happen. We wouldn't see any more. Because we put in our housing goals a balance that we're trying to get '
towards and this is from the 1991 Comp Plan. We put in 66% single family detached. Well, the number
they're looking at are significantly less than that. It's closer to the 50 %. 40% so to tip the balance back, we'd
have to do so much more of the other so we just wouldn't even approve... '
Mayor Chmiel: Isn't that one of our discussions that we had within the time that we made that proposal back to
them?
Kate Aanenson: Right, but we're comfortable with what we had in the original Comp Plan but I'm saying, with
the growth centers would stop any more single family because to get the margins up there right.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions of Kate?
SET WORK SESSION DATEN, STRATEGIC PLAN, CITY MANAGER '
Don Ashworth: Work session dates. We did have a chance to meet with, I met with our city staff, Mr.
Brimeyer. We feel that he has given us the model by which we can look at the remaining priorities and literally
be our own facilitator, at least over the next group of strategic plan meetings. We're looking, what we would
recommend the City Council look at June 17th and July 15th as both strategic plan session dates. And if the
City Council would agree with the June 17th, I would have that be an approved meeting and, I mean the early
part of that I would have Dave MacGillivrary present to go through the upcoming bonding so he'd take the first
10 -15 minutes while basically the rest of us had something to eat. And then move right into the strategic plan
session.
Mayor Chmiel: What time? 6:00? ,
Don Ashworth: Earlier the better for staff but it's up to City Council.
50 1
1
L
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen, how is your time frame? I know Mike is free now.
Councilman Senn: Before we go to dates, I mean I'm not comfortable with just jumping onto Brimeyer to do
that. I mean.
Don Ashworth: Well one of the problems that we have is that early on we set kind of like these two dates and
I think we expanded it then to three. And that was fine with him. It worked into his schedule but he knew that
starting in the June time frame that he had literally every night booked out through fall. So I mean let's assume,
the Council here would make a decision, let's go back and have him do those sessions during the summer. I
know he would tell me, he already has told me, that he could not pick the process back up for us until fall.
Councilman Senn: Can't do anything between now and fall?
Don Ashworth: That's more or less what he said to me, yes. But you know if you want to have one session,
I'm sure there's no problem. We can work out one session type of thing.
Mayor Chmiel: How much are those sessions going to cost us, beyond what we've already paid?
Don Ashworth: I don't know.
Councilman Berquist: It's $475.00. The original deal was $1,800.00 and we've cut him a check for $2,275.00
so I'm assuming it was about a $475.00 bill.
Don Ashworth: And again, Councilman Berquist did ask me that question late this afternoon and I told him I
would respond but I didn't have an answer off the top of my head.
Councilman Berquist: I say we give it a shot and see if we can do it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I do too. The only issue I think we need a facilitator for, there's obviously a
problem between Council and staff and that kind of communication issues, which was one of the big issues that
came out of it and I think we need a professional facilitator. But I think we can deal with that later.
Councilman Mason: Well that's a different issue than what Brimeyer is doing too.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. And he wouldn't...
Councilman Berquist: So the 17th at?
Don Ashworth: 5:30? 6:00?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: The later the better obviously for me.
Councilman Berquist: 4:00?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. If we could do it 6:30, that would be better. Or 6:00.
51
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
Councilman Senn: That gets tough for me. Well it depends on how late you're going to go. I assume, how
long a session are you going to run?
Mayor Chmiel: Well we've been going what, 3 hours?
Don Ashworth: It would be nice if we could finish by 9:00.
Mayor Chmiel: If you start at 6:30, can you get it done by 9:00?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Why don't we start at 6:00?
Mayor Chmiel: Oh I like that one. Let's move it to 6:00.
Don Ashworth: And what about July 15th?
Mayor Chmiel: Aren't we going to be at the Rec Center?
Don Ashworth: I'll have to put a notice out. Let's see, we have a large enough group though that we should
meet the new criteria that they've set up so yeah. Let's plan on the Rec Center.
Councilman Berquist: New criteria that who has set up?
Councilman Senn: Didn't you read your Admin packet?
Mayor Chmiel: It's in the Admin Section.
Councilman Senn: There's a bunch of free renters that have been abusing their privileges, including us.
Councilman Berquist: Say again?
Councilman Senn: There are a bunch of free renters that have been abusing the privilege by having a lot of
small meetings at the Rec Center.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and July 15th.
Don Ashworth: That's what staff is recommending but.
Councilman Mason: I will not be at that one but I will be at the June 17th.
Don Ashworth: Okay. And then, I don't know this evening, I should make the Council aware that we are
starting to update the 5 year capital budgets so that's going to be filling in some of the slots and we do need to
fill in the calendar as it would deal with the adopted budgetary schedule Council came out with about a year
ago. Then if Council members do have other work sessions, maybe it's not time this evening but if you would
let me know what you think would be other good work session items.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Item d.
60
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
D. PLANNING CONEMSSION VACANCY, PLANNING DIRECTOR
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. To let you know that Don Mehl informed me that he will be resigning from the
Planning Commission on June 30th and as you recall, when you made the appointments back in June I raised
the question about the possible alternate. And I read back through the Minutes and I believe what you said is
that you wanted to re- interview. But it was a little bit ambiguous so I just wanted to make sure that's what you
want me to do. Or re- advertise. I believe there was four people that applied. I'm just looking for some
clarification on what you would like me to do.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think that was right.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: We had good candidates.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Senn: We had four left, right?
' Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilman Berquist: We had four left? I remember the one gentleman.
Councilman Senn: I'm trying to remember. There's one who has been around for a while and I think three
relatively new residents.
' Councilman Berquist: Well I wouldn't have any problem appointing the gentleman that's named in the Minutes
if he's agreeable to serving.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Neither would I. Let's expedite this.
Councilman Berquist: It's been too dang close since the last group of interviews. When was that? March?
Councilman Senn: Wasn't even that long ago was it?
' Kate Aanenson: March. March 25th. I put the Minutes in. March 25th.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that wouldn't be too bad an idea.
' Kate Aanenson: So is it okay then if I call him to see if he's still interested?
Mayor Chmiel: Yep. See if he's still living here. Okay, Roger. Do we adjourn at this time and go into an
' executive session?
Roger Knutson: Yes, if that's your desire.
Mayor Chmiel: By all the rules that there is for this, that means nobody but Council members and staff can be
present.
1
53
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1996
Roger Knutson: That's correct.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, you can go home anytime.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to adjoum the meeting. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
An executive session of the City Council was held at this point to discuss the Halla negotiations.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
54