1f. City Council Minutes January 8, 1996.CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 8, 1996
MIA'
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 Senn, Councilman
Mason and Councilman Berquist
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Charles Folch, Todd Hoffman, Scott Harr
and Todd Gerhardt
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the agenda as
presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS:
Mayor Chmiel: What I'm going to do is ask Don to go through all these organizational items, such as the rules
of procedure and all the way down to the city auditor, so Don with that, if would you go through the process.
Don Ashworth: You might note in advance that I'll skip item (e) which is Acting Mayor. I'll make the
assumption that Council is going to want to address that one. The City Council does adopt the Rules of
Procedure. Those have been in effect for many years ... has existed from this past year. I did not find any
specific changes that I would recommend. The City Council's already adopted meeting schedule dates. That
portion is complete. The official newspaper. I have received a letter from the Chanhassen Villager requesting
designation as the official newspaper for the city. We're recommending that designation. The City Attorney.
It's the recommendation of this office that the firm Campbell, Knutson, Scott and Fuchs be reappointed as City
Attorney. Bond consultant. Staff would recommend reappointing Springsted to the bond consultant for the city.
Again I'm skipping Acting Mayor. Weed Inspector. Under State law the Mayor is actually the Weed Inspector.
We would recommend that the Assistant Public Safety Director, Bob Zydowsky continue to be appointed as the
Deputy Weed Inspector. Fire Chief. The Fire Department did take a vote and are recommending Jim McMahon
be appointed to a two year term as Fire Chief. And both Mr. McMahon and Dick Wing ran unopposed. The
Health Officer. Dr. McCollum has served in that capacity for many years and has expressed a willingness to
continue in that position. He's been in that position since 1981 and would be willing to serve again in 1996.
City Auditors. The Council's already ... Deloitte and Touche for audit year 1995 so staff would like you to go
through an RFP process this fall, bringing back potentially three firms for the City Council to review. And
again I think we'll talk about that as the year goes on. That's represents the entire list Mr. Mayor. I guess I'd
turn this item back to you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Don. Are there any specific questions on the items that Don has covered?
Mark?
Councilman Senn: On (b), maybe Dean could answer this or whatever but I see a rate schedule in here. Is that
the same rate schedule as last year or are we getting an increase in rate?
Mayor Chmiel: Don, do you know?
Don Ashworth: I see Dean is shaking his head. He's not sure.
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: You're 50% less.
Councilman Senn: Nobody here knew today either so I just wondered if maybe he knew.
Don Ashworth: I think I know where the file is upstairs. If before the end of the, if Council wanted to act on
this item, I'm sure by before the meeting is over, I'll be able to tell you what the difference was.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, that would be fine. Any other questions?
Councilman Senn: The second one was on (d). I thought the Council had previously discussed about also
going out on that for 1996 in terms of looking at that.
Don Ashworth: You're correct. From a year ago we kind of set 1995 for the designation for auditors with '96
as the timeframe to look for bond consultant. '97 for City Attorney. In light of the fact that Deloitte was
maintained this past year, I made the assumption that each of the other two would be kicked back one additional
year. I think, we could do both this year. I was very skeptical in trying to do all three, especially last year.
But this year, we could hypothetically do two.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Before we go along with that, let me just ask opinions of the balance of Council.
Mike?
Councilman Mason: I'm okay with the reappointing for this year.
Mayor Chmiel: With the position that this should be looked at in 1997. Is that what you're saying?
Councilman Mason: Yeah. With the kickback for the year, yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would concur. We're going in 3 year cycles. Let's keep it in sync.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Steve.
Councilman Berquist: I think I also would concur.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, and I do as well. I think your question is well qualified in asking that. I think that it's
a little late to start in January and we should do this much sooner than now to start looking and putting out
some RFP's for that. Is there any other question that you have?
Councilman Senn: Well I assume what we're talking about here is, we will look at this is '96 for then '97.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Councilman Senn: Not look at it in '97 for '98 appointment.
Mayor Chmiel: No.
2
1
r
r
0
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996
' Councilman Senn: Okay. Then I think we're saying y y ng the same thing then at this point.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Berquist: So we're going to do two RFP's come fall?
' Councilman Senn: In '96.
' Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Councilman Senn: Right, okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? Alright, let's address the Acting Mayor. The Rules of Procedure,
Section 1.04 require the City Council to name an Acting Mayor during the disability or absence of the Mayor.
There are no state or local laws governing designation. Nomination may occur by any member of the Council
' or by the Mayor. A 3/5 majority vote is required and this is solely a Council decision. In lieu of what we have
here I would like to make a motion that I would make in having Colleen Dockendorf as Acting Mayor. Would
there be a second?
' Councilman Mason: Yes there would be. Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Motion with a second. Okay, any other discussions?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: What's your vacation schedule this year?
Mayor Chmiel: I don't have any.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: We won't see you in March will we?
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, with that as a motion, I'll call the question.
Mayor Cluniel moved, Councilman Mason seconded to appoint Councilwoman Dockendorf as Acting Mayor for
' 1996. All voted in favor and the motion carved unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: And can I also have an approval of the other items of the organizational items for Rules of
' Procedures.
Councilman Mason: So moved.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Councilman Senn: I'd just like an amendment on (b). That that come back if there are rate changes.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
3
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996
Resolution #96 -01: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the
Organizational Items as presented by the City Manager, with an amendment to item (b), Official Newspaper. I
That this item be brought back if the rate schedule has changed from the previous year. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously.
CONSENT AGENDA: 1
Mayor Chmiel: Is there any concerns with the Consent Agenda, other than the one that I have brought forth,
which is item 2(n), with some clarifications and maybe I can have Roger just make that clarification before we '
proceed.
Roger Knutson: Right. There's one change and I gave you a red line copy of that change... We're simply '
changing the legal description and would ask you combine that.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items
pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: '
a. Resolution #96 -02: Accept Utility Improvements, The Meadows at Longacres 2nd Addition, Project 95 -10.
b. Resolution #96 -03: Authorize Release of Temporary Construction Easement on DataSery Property /CSM; '
Vacation File No 95 -4.
c. Resolution #96 -04: Accept Street Improvements in Stone Creek 1st and 4th Additions, Project Nos. 92 -9 '
and 94 -2.
e. Approve Assessment Waiver for Minnewashta Parkway Assessment to Lot 10, Block 2, Red Cedar Point, '
Lake Minnewashta, Project 90 -15.
i. Set Date for Board of Equalization and Review, April 15 and May 6. '
j. Accept Donations from Chanhassen American Legion Club.
k. City Council Minutes dated December 11, 1995 ,
Planning Commission Minutes dated December 6, 1995
Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated December 12, 1995
1. Approval of Bills.
n. Administrative Lot Split and Approval of Development Contract for Lot 1, Block 2, Ches Mar Trails, Craig
Swaggert as amended by Roger Knutson, City Attorney. ,
o. Approval Contractual Services Contract, Diane Desotelle.
p. Approve Payment for Quick Take of Easements Associated with the Lyman Boulevard/Lake Riley Area '
Utility Project 93 -32B.
All voted in favor and the motion carved unanimously. '
I
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone in the audience with concerns over any of the consent agenda items at this
particular time?
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, we do have tonight our consultant engineer on item 2(d), which is the water tower
item. I guess staff would respectfully ask the Council to consider that item now since we have the consultant
here.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. That's the one that Mark has. Mark. Do you want to ask your questions on that
specific one.
D. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR MURRAY HILL WATER
TOWER REPAINTING, PROJECT NO. 95 -3
Councilman Senn: Charles, I don't know if it's a question for you or the consultant one way or the other but as
I read through this, it appears we now are going to have to absorb a fairly substantial cost, a lot of which seems
to be I'm going to say predicated on the long period of time in which we have waited to act. I'm just curious,
why is that?
Charles Folch: Well, back in early 1990 the Murry Hill Tower was scheduled for repainting, both the interior
and exterior. And at that time the laws allowed for basically open sandblasting of the structure without any type
of containment system. As I recall from the previous City Engineer, the project only proceeded to conduct
doing the interior work because the neighborhood residents were concerned about paint chips and that type of
problem with the exterior with using the previous methods that were allowed so that portion of the work was
basically dropped from the project. And then in 1991 the rules started, new laws regarding lead based paint
started becoming into effect and we were sort of in a transition period to see what regulations were going to
require us to do to take on this type of project. And as it turned out, put this back on the schedule with some
of the other competing projects in the utility expansion fund and such. This was our, if you will, earliest
opportunistic time to get back in and try to attempt the project. We typically set up 5 year CIP's for our utility
expansion fund so once, if something gets delayed, it doesn't necessarily go onto the next year if there's other
priority work that's already previously scheduled.
Councilman Senn: Why, as I understand this now, we're going to delay it another year?
Charles Folch: Well actually we will, it's staff's intent to prepare the plans and specs this spring and bid the
contract out for probably a fall letting. We expect sometime by mid to late summer we will have the Well No.
7 on line, which will provide the additional supply which staff feels is needed to provide the adequate security
for the period of time that the tower is going to be down.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so 7 will be on line this year?
Charles Folch: Right. And that was part of the problem with trying to get, we did budget the work for '95 but
as I mentioned in the staff report, there was some complications in the timing of the completion of Well No. 7
so this work didn't actually get scheduled during 1995.
Councilman Senn: Okay. I guess I couldn't tell from this whether it was going to be completed during '95 or
not.
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996 '
Mayor Chmiel: Unfortunately. I
Charles Folch: Well, and I can tell you this with the new towers and the structures that we will build in the
future, they will be coated with a non -lead based paint so we hopefully won't, we definitely won't have that type '
of abatement problem long term in the future of the new structures.
Councilman Senn: Move approval then.
Councilman Mason: Second. '
Resolution #96 -05: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to authorize AEC to prepare the ,
plans and specifications for Murray Hill Water Tower Repainting, Project No. 95 -3. All voted in favor and the
motion carved unanimously.
G. APPROVE 1996 PROSECUTION CONTRACT. '
Councilman Berquist: The only, the questions I had concern the conversation that took place in the middle of
1994. Mike Fahey came before us and had talked about the need of adding staff and hiring another attorney ,
and there was going to be a surcharge and other things were talked about in order to offset his ... costs. Now all
of a sudden, through the consent agenda, we're just approving a prosecution contract which I believe is identical
to what it was last year. What's changed? He was here saying that the number of prosecutions was up and the '
costs were up and this and that.
Councilman Senn: The county levied for it. The County levied for it, didn't they?
Mayor Chmiel: Just a minute. Hold it. Let Don make that explanation. Thank you. ,
Don Ashworth: The City Council requested that we approach the Carver County Board and ask that they '
approve those costs as a part of their review of the coming, of his budget and the County Board did just exactly
that. Our position was that the County Board is in a much better position to make a determination as to
whether or not he is properly staffed or not. '
I
'
Charles Folch: No, we attempt then, from what I understand, there's a very small market of contractors that
P �'
perform this kind of work and there's almost like a 6 month lead time for conducting the work because that's
how busy they are. When you bid a project out, we'll bid it out probably this spring with the full intentions of
'
allowing the contract to be completed in the fall because they're pretty well booked out from what I understand,
at this point in time for spring projects.
Councilman Senn: So it's basically the new regs that are pushing the cost way up? About 1 1/2 times the
'
normal or whatever.
Charles Folch: Yeah.
,
Councilman Senn: So that's something we're going to hit on everyone from now on?
'
Charles Folch: Absolutely.
Mayor Chmiel: Unfortunately. I
Charles Folch: Well, and I can tell you this with the new towers and the structures that we will build in the
future, they will be coated with a non -lead based paint so we hopefully won't, we definitely won't have that type '
of abatement problem long term in the future of the new structures.
Councilman Senn: Move approval then.
Councilman Mason: Second. '
Resolution #96 -05: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to authorize AEC to prepare the ,
plans and specifications for Murray Hill Water Tower Repainting, Project No. 95 -3. All voted in favor and the
motion carved unanimously.
G. APPROVE 1996 PROSECUTION CONTRACT. '
Councilman Berquist: The only, the questions I had concern the conversation that took place in the middle of
1994. Mike Fahey came before us and had talked about the need of adding staff and hiring another attorney ,
and there was going to be a surcharge and other things were talked about in order to offset his ... costs. Now all
of a sudden, through the consent agenda, we're just approving a prosecution contract which I believe is identical
to what it was last year. What's changed? He was here saying that the number of prosecutions was up and the '
costs were up and this and that.
Councilman Senn: The county levied for it. The County levied for it, didn't they?
Mayor Chmiel: Just a minute. Hold it. Let Don make that explanation. Thank you. ,
Don Ashworth: The City Council requested that we approach the Carver County Board and ask that they '
approve those costs as a part of their review of the coming, of his budget and the County Board did just exactly
that. Our position was that the County Board is in a much better position to make a determination as to
whether or not he is properly staffed or not. '
I
I City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996
Councilman Berquist: Okay. And that was about
q y October and November, something like that.
' Don Ashworth: Correct.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. Move approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second?
' Councilman Mason: Yep.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the 1996 Prosecution Contract as
presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
' M. ESTABLISH 1996 PARK AND TRAIL FEES.
' Councilman Berquist: Is Todd here?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Right there.
Councilman Berquist: The question that I had written down on my notes was significantly different than the
question that comes about via this letter that's on our desk. The question that I had when I left the message on
your voice mail was one of in true cost per acres, cost per acre and in your memo, $45,000.00 an acre for
commercial property I believe is developed land. Is that right? Commercial developed land. I'm just trying
to gauge where the.
' Todd Hoffman: A couple bucks a square foot or buck and a half a square foot so it'd be about $60,000.00 to
$80,000.00 developed.
Councilman Berquist: $60,000.00 to $80,000.00 an acre...
' Todd Hoffman: $45,000.00 raw, yeah.
Councilman Berquist: Was it $27,500.00 for?
Todd Hoffman: Residential.
' Councilman Berquist: That seemed cheap to me when I was reading this, given the Heritage development and
given some of the other stuff that's going down.
' Todd Hoffman: It's a median. I mean there's certainly other, you've got $50,000.00 an acre up in Lake Lucy
and the parks which we've acquired by Minnewashta Boulevard site and the Galpin Boulevard site were
$30,000.00 an acre. When you start taking a look at some of the larger tracts and those are still, they'll pull that
' down and moderate that price a little bit.
Councilman Berquist: And then the, you made mention in the memo regarding, it seems to be in, that's pretty
' much the level that the rest of the communities in the area are at. About $100.00 a lot.
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996 '
Todd Hoffman: We're at we've even with Eagan, Eden Prairie, Plymouth. Victoria's now raised their's to '
g Y
$1,200.00 a lot so with the aggressive growth communities where the high demand for property has raised the
prices, these fees have continued to increase to keep pace with that cost of doing business. '
Councilman Berquist: So $1,100.00 is how much of an increase over last year?
Todd Hoffman: $200.00. '
Councilman Berquist: And that's in keeping with the rest of the area? '
Todd Hoffman: Yeah we were flat. We had no increase from '94 to '95.
Councilman Berquist: So with trails and what not, we're at how much roughly? I
Todd Hoffman: With trails you'd be at $1,100.00 plus $367.00 and $1,467.00.
Councilman Berquist: $1,467.00 a lot for park and trails. Okay. Alright. Well. '
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a question, if you don't mind. '
Mayor Chmiel: Sure, go ahead.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do we use the same criteria? I mean do other communities follow the same I
method of setting flat rates for residential, commercial, industrial?
Todd Hoffman: Each community uses a little bit. All of them use the same based of about 10% of the land ,
value. If you run our numbers, we're typically less than that because we base it off of need. So we're saying,
the amount of people you bring to the community by your development, you need to provide the parks and open
space for those folks. And the city has a standard in the comprehensive plan of 1 acre per 75. That's a known '
standard when folks come here to do business. So if you work through our equation and then work through say
the city of Eagan where they use a percentage based on density, we're typically a little bit less. But we feel,
just taking a straight 10% doesn't meet the intent.
Roger Knutson: ...make a comment? '
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, go ahead.
,
Roger Knutson: ...We do it different in some ways because we do it right.
Mayor Chmiel: Oh I like that one.
,
Councilman Senn: That's a matter of opinion Roger.
Roger Knutson: You are supposed to base your park requirements on demand.
'
Councilman Senn: Yeah, not value.
'
8
'
1
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996
Roger Knutson: We follow, required by the Statute and we follow what's required by the Constitution. We
don't just take a number out of the hat and say, we...
Councilman Senn: Well but our system is still value based though so I mean I don't understand your argument.
I mean I've brought this up every year for the last three years and it continues to be value based. It shouldn't
be.
Roger Knutson: Well what we do is we say we need 1 acre for 75 people. Then we've shown how many
dwellings we get per acre and then we determine average land values. Then if you're going to pay cash, you
walk through the formula. You end up paying your proportionate share to provide 1 acre per 75 people based
upon the value of your land.
11'
1
Councilman Senn: As far as residential goes. Yeah, I understand where the argument ends residentially but
give me the same justification now on industrial and commercial.
Roger Knutson: That's more of an estimate.
Councilman Senn: It's not more of an estimate. It's purely value based, which it's not supposed to be.
Roger Knutson: We could debate it. You can talk about that at length. That's the best thing we could do I
think for commercial investment.
Councilman Berquist: We're still at 22% increase and it was 9, let me belabor this a bit. It was $900.00 last
year. It was $900.00 in '94 as well.
Todd Hoffman: '94 -95. And now it's $1,1.00 for park.
Councilman Senn: It's gone up every year though.
Councilman Berquist: 22% in one, in '94, '95, '96, whatever.
Councilman Senn: No.
Councilman Berquist: From $900.00 to $1,100.00 is $200.00.
Councilman Senn: When they're saying '94 -95, they're talking about from one year. The '94 -95 year. Not '94
and '95.
Councilman Berquist: So then '96 -'97 is going to be $1,100.00, which is 22% more than '94 -95?
Councilman Senn: Correct. Because it's gone up every year.
Councilman Berquist: Enormous increase reflective of our increase in land values. Strictly?
Councilman Senn: Strictly value based. That's been my problem with it every year.
0'
L 17
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996 1
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well ou look at I mean 27.50 for an acre of land buildable land. That's pretty
'
Y P Y
low in my estimation. I mean considering what land has been selling for out here. '
Councilman Senn: Based on 27.5 on residential land values though.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Steve, do you have any other questions? I
Councilman Berquist: I don't know. I obviously can beat the thing until tomorrow and nothing's going to
change. I guess I'll move approval based on the staffs recommendation that we go from $200.00 to $1,100.00. '
Or from $900.00 to $1,100.00 and that's reflective of increased land values within the City of Chanhassen.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. I
Resolution #95 -06: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to establish the $1996
Patio and Trails Fees per the staffs recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. '
Q RETROACTIVE APPROVAL OF CHANHASSEN'S OPPOSITION TO "SMALL SYSTEM RATE
RELIEF" FOR TRIAX CABLEVISION.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. You have Q. Is that going to take very long? I've had discussions with Don this '
afternoon in regards to this and I think he's probably got all the answers he needs with it. We had discussions
with the attorney that handles this for the city as well. ,
Councilman Senn: I guess the only, I mean I understand what we're doing and there's a good reason and good
need for doing it. I'm just wondering if we're really going far enough because we still don't have answers back '
on a couple other issues from during the year that the cable company's made changes on that we kind of asked
for answers on. At least to date I don't have any answers on them.
Mayor Chmiel: What were those? I
Councilman Senn: Well the most recent one was that deal where they changed the, what part of the system they
would repair service and they took part of the system out of automatic service and you're now going to be '
charged for it and instituted a new monthly fee that you could pay in lieu of being billed on a per time basis but
there was absolutely no, you know no consideration in terms of a rate change as a result of that change in
service. And we asked that question, or at least I asked that we ask that question and we still haven't gotten a
response back. I just thought maybe this thing should be a little broader and there was one also earlier in the '
year. The change they made. I can't remember precisely what it was. I didn't get a chance to pull out my
notes on this. I'm going to say back earlier in the year there was another one we sent them a question, or we
were going to ask a question on. So if we're going to comment, it just seems to me we should comment on all '
of it instead of just the one issue.
Mayor Chmiel: Well this entity filed, if I remember, rather quickly. 1
10 1
I City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996
' Don Ashworth: We had to file before the end
of the year.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Don Ashworth: And I do apologize to the Council. I do recall the question coming up and I don't know if I
just simply did not write it down or forgot or whatever, but...
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we can get that answer back. I think in filing, what we had to do, in lieu of them going
' by smaller kinds of companies of 15,000 or less, their contention basically boils down to that because they're
only at 15,400 and some, that they should still be qualified to be under the smaller portion established by the
federal government and I don't care if it's 15,001. 15,000 is the breaking point. If it's 1 over, they don't get that
opportunity to file that increase of almost up to 120 %. Where that figure came from I don't know but it came
' within. So we did have discussions with the attorney and it has been filed requesting that it not be granted for
the small system rate relief and hopefully it goes through.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: What are the odds, do we know?
Mayor Chmiel: Well I think that if we look at what we're looking at, we're at 15,465. Potentially every year
there's about 1,000 increase so next year it's going to be 16.4 something. I think as Gragon has indicated, that
he felt that we probably are in a right area to make that...
Don Ashworth: Protests are also being made by the other groups. Lake Minnetonka has similarly filed
representing the 15 cities that are a part of that group. And I believe one of the other two, there's Victoria and
Watertown.
Mayor Chmiel: Loretta, Waconia, Mound and Maple Plain.
Don Ashworth: On the other side of the coin, Congress is considering a change to the small system. If that
would go through, it would be defined as 50,000.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? If not, would you like to make a motion?
Councilman Senn: Alright. Move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
' Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Retroactive Approval of Chanhassen's
Opposition to "Small System Rate Relief" for Triax Cablevision. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Patrick Lynch: My name is Patrick Lynch. I reside at 910... Chanhassen. I just want to bring the issue ... I think
the main part of the problem that I'm going to mention here is being left out. I just want that heard. We've got
an ongoing neighborhood dispute about snowmobiles in our neighborhood. In the back of our property, on the
' north side of our property there's a rather elongated 2 acre pond. It's located just to the east of Powers
Boulevard as you drive by between... Currently the dispute is whether or not snowmobiles can operate on that
11
1
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I
Patrick Lynch: Well, that's what I understood the issue is and I think that's—but my position is coming from a
point of public safety. I'm not trying to rag on my neighbors... their right to recreation and anything else. Being '
12 '
,
particular property. It s my understanding ...lot of visitation with Scott Harr and a little bit talked with Todd
Hoffman, that the issue right now I think is somewhere between the City Attorney and State DNR or somebody
to determine not who's got jurisdiction and who can allow machines to operate on this particular property. I
take the position that machines can... simply for the reason of my own safety. I'm not some crotchety old man
trying to rag on some kids trying to have some fun on their snowmobiles in this particular area. I've lived in
my residence now, this will be the fourth year. For 4 years I've been rather quiet and patient with the
'
snowmobile issue but here's what's happened in 4 years. Our property's been crossed by snowmobiles. There
have been bushes that have been run over. I have physically been run off the trail between my house and the
neighbor's house on two occasions by snowmobiles as close as 1 and 2 feet away from me. The one guy was
going fast enough to become airborne in a little 10 yard hill that separates my house from the neighbor's house.
'
The neighbors have had their trees and bushes run over by snowmobiles. The neighbor has a fence...
Snowmobiles continue to operate ... even though they've been asked not to. And also the area of the pond, which
is basically surrounded completely by private property with the exception of a small section of public property...
'
One day when my dog and I are standing in this particular location and a snowmobile is coming across the park
and they pull within 10 feet of me and they're going, you know please get out of the way so we can come by.
We're just standing there. I'm standing there with my leashed dog. The situation of where it is right now I feel
goes beyond whether or not they can legally operate on the pond. I think the issue is the ... concern about safety
'
and what's happening there. The fact that they can be there or not doesn't excuse them operating safely when
they're in that area. If they're going from one end of the town to the other ... I want to feel comfortable if I go
down to that pond and shovel ... we don't have to be concerned about that snowmobile coming through. I think
snowmobiles operating in the park or on the city trails obviously we don't want that and... presently is not good
enough ... I think as John Q. Public, as Councilmembers and everybody else, we have an obligation to provide a
safe environment. You know a week ago last Wednesday when I reported a more recent incident and we had 5
'
or 6 snowmobiles cruising up and down this area, as they left and 20 minutes later approach, it's 4:30. It's
rather dark. There's a young child sliding down the same very hill that the machines are going up and down.
They're coming down the left side of Powers Boulevard. They're making a 90 degree turn into that pond area
and that's the exact area where the children is going on their sled. It's just an accident waiting to happen. I'm
,
not here to try to resolve this issue.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we can Pat. I don't know if we can resolve it but I think our attorney is aware as to
'
what legalities are there and maybe I can ask him to address your specific questions at this time. If that's alright
with you. Unless there, okay. Roger.
Roger Knutson: Mayor. I've discussed this issue with the Public Safety Director, Scott Harr and the ... that I was
asked to look at is whether this is in fact public waters. If it's public waters, then it's not, it's controlled by the
DNR... We're in a reduced role. We can't limit access to public waters. Preliminary indication is from the
Attorney General's office and from our own..., that it is not public waters, and I understand... access to that. But
'
Scott was going to get me some maps and some other information so we could get a definitive decision on that.
That's just a preliminary look at it says it's not public waters... If you look at the definition of public waters,
you'd understand why it isn't black and white all the time. In this case it probably is black and white but we'll
get a definitive answer as soon as we get some additional information and that should happen this week.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I
Patrick Lynch: Well, that's what I understood the issue is and I think that's—but my position is coming from a
point of public safety. I'm not trying to rag on my neighbors... their right to recreation and anything else. Being '
12 '
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996
basically almost h sicall run over three times gives me a little
P Y Y > g personal interest in what's happening here so I
just hope that you understand that.
Mayor Chmiel: No, we do. Yes. And I think what we'll have to do is, once that opinion's formed, Roger or
Scott will get back to you and inform you as to what your basic rights are. And as far as posting concerns, it's
really not up to the city to post that to indicate no snowmobiling allowed.
Roger Knutson: If it's not public waters, then it's private property. I know nothing about the ownership of the
' land back there. If it's private property, the owners of private property...
Patrick Lynch: There's 26, there's 13 single families in 13 twinhomes back there and then part of the area is
owned by the city...
' Roger Knutson: I believe you have an easement. Storm water easement.
' Patrick Lynch: It has a storm easement around it. So it appears to be a combination of both public and private.
The question was... whether or not they can be there or not be there doesn't eliminate the fact that when they are
there...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you much Pat. Is there anyone else wishing to make a visitor presentation? If
not, we'll move right along.
PUBLIC HEARING: APPROVE FEASIBILITY REPORT ON POWERS BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS
(TH 5 TO LYMAN BOULEVARD); AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
AUTHORIZE EASEMENT ACQUISITION PROJECT 93 -29
' Public Present:
1
F
Name Address
Bill Weckman
Carver County Gov't Center
Tom Mills
871 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Steve & Annette Elison
820 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Vaughn Cardashian
8615 Flamingo Drive
John & Brenda Hill
1360 Oak Side Circle
Arnold Rossari
8800 Powers Blvd.
Julius Smith
7600 France Avenue So., Mpls.
Andrews K. Olson
8290 West Lake Court
Don Raymond
8304 Suffolk Drive
Bill Handke
8320 Suffolk Drive
Lynn Eckhoff
Empak
Gary & Barb Teirsen
817 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Mark Steingas
4200 Mount Curve
Pam Lohman
6221 Near Mountain Blvd.
Dan Dauffenbach
1380 Oak Side Circle
Brent Miller
1200 Lyman Blvd.
George Bizek
8750 Powers Blvd.
13
J
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996 1
1
Name Address
Don Patton 7600 Parklawn, 55435
'
Fred Kamps 771 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Mayor Chmiel opened the public hearing.
Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Tonight we have the project engineer, Mr. Jon
Horn here to provide a detailed presentation of the feasibility report and with that, I'd ask that we turn the
podium over to Mr. Jon Horn.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Jon.
Jon Horn: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. The project I'm presenting before you tonight, the County
Road 17 Improvements on Powers Boulevard is very similar to the project we previously presented to you last
year about this time in January of 1995. I guess what I'd like to do tonight is give you a brief overview of the
project improvements cost and schedule. Talk a little bit about financing and trying to identify some of the
differences between this year's project and the project that was done, or was brought to the Council last year.
I've got some overheads so if I can move over here. The project includes the reconstruction of County Road 17,
from Highway 5 on the north end, south down to Lyman Boulevard. The existing roadway is a two lane rural
section. It is proposed to be widened to a 4 lane roadway urban section with concrete curb and gutter and storm
sewer. The existing roadway is on the western portion of the roadway, therefore most of the widening is going
to occur to the east. This is a description of the proposed roadway section. The proposed roadway section
'
includes two 14 foot drive lanes in either direction, along with the center median. Center median varies in
width from about 6 to 20 feet. 8 foot wide recreational trails are included along each side of the roadway. The
existing right -of -way at present is 150 feet. It's proposed that the improvements be constructed within the
existing right -of -way with the exception of some temporary construction easements necessary along the roadway
'
to do some of the grading work. The proposed roadway design, this is Highway 5 on the north end. Lyman
Boulevard on the south side. The proposed roadway design includes a full access intersection at Park Road,
Lake Drive, future Lake Drive West, the two Lake Susan Hills entrances, and then it includes a right -in, right -
'
out access for Hillside Oaks residents in this area and in this area. Because of the spacing adjacent to Lyman
Boulevard, it was determined that full access could not be provided and that access would have to be limited to
right -in, right -out. This exhibit shows the trails along either side of the road. It's kind of hard to see. Trails
would connect into an existing underpass at the present just south of Riley Creek in this location so the trails
would tie into that to provide access to either side of the roadway for the trail users. Storm drainage
improvements associated with the project are pretty much broke up into 4 segments. The northerly segment,
Highway 5 to about Lake Drive would drain into an existing storm water detention pond south of Lake Drive.
,
The next section southerly would drain to treatment ponds and eventually to Riley Creek. This segment in here
would drain to some existing storm sewer pipes in place that discharge to a wetland east of the Lake Susan Hills
development. And the southern system will discharge into a detention pond that will be constructed as a part of
'
this project in this location and will be discharged with a wetland, again east of Lake Susan Hills. Watermain
improvements include the extension of an existing 18 inch watermain along the south side of the project area.
The watermain currently ends about this location. As a part of this project we will extend it south to Lyman
Boulevard to provide future service to the residences in this area. Sanitary sewer will also be installed in this
area to provide future service to these properties. Because of the topography, gravity sanitary sewer is not a
possibility but the facilities will be put in to allow a future lift station to provide service to those properties.
Lighting is proposed along the project. It is proposed that lighting be installed at about 300 foot intervals on
'
14 '
Ll
I City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996
each side of the roadway or staggered at 150. The previous presentation of the r
gg p p project last year included more
intense lighting levels but after reviewing the project costs and talking with the County and some of the
residents in the area concerning lighting levels, that spacing has been increased. So it's not quite as intense
along the roadway alignment. The project will include some landscaping enhancements to improve the
aesthetics of the project area. Last year we presented two possible alternatives. Alternative A and Alternative
B. Alternative A was kind of the bare bones alternative. Alternative B was something a little more extensive to
provide a little more screening for private properties along the roadway. The project as proposed tonight
includes Alternative B which adds a little bit more screening along some of the residential areas. At the
' neighborhood meeting we had last year, that was a concern of some of the residents that there is screening out
there so we've added some of that into the project design. Some of the work that was included as a part of last
year's project has been completed. We undertook a project this summer to do some of the wetland mitigation
and trail work. That work is pretty much done. In addition to that work that was deleted, some additional work
has been added to the project. Staff has asked that we add a concrete sidewalk along the north side of Park
Road from County Road 17 to Audubon Road to the west. That's now included as a part of the project. City
staff and county staff have requested that the project be built under traffic. There was some concern about
shutting the thing off to thru traffic and the need to get thru traffic through the project area. The project as it's
currently proposed would be staged to allow thru traffic to remain all during the project construction. Some of
the other additional work that was added to the project. The sanitary sewer that I previously referred to is not
included as a part of last year's project but after further review with staff of the need to provide sanitary sewer
service to those properties in the Hillside Oaks area, the trunk facilities have been added into this project.
Estimated project costs, based upon the improvements included in the report are broken out by the various
improvements with a total project construction cost estimated at about $3.4 million. In addition to the
' construction costs, it is proposed to have some easement acquisition costs for some of the temporary easements
that are required along the roadway. There's also an indirect cost allocation of about a million dollars that is
included for engineering, planning, legal, administrative type services. That's estimated at about 30% based
upon previous similar projects. It's really going to be dependent upon how the project works out. My
understanding is the Council had some previous questions about what's in that 30 %. Roughly 16% is
geotechnical design engineering and construction engineering services. There's probably about a 3% allocation
for county and city staff administrative time. There's a legal component that's estimated about 1% and then
there's a fiscal bonding cost. Capitalized interest estimated at about 10 %. That's how we came up with the
30 %. And again that's based upon previous similar projects. The project is proposed to be funded through
primarily two sources. One being the assessment to benefitting properties and the second being the cooperative
agreement between the city and the county for roadway sections of CR 17. Assessments are really proposed in
two areas. The total assessment amount is about $1.4 million with the remaining $3 million coming from the
city /county agreement. Assessments are proposed to the commercial properties along the north side of the
' project area. Properties in this area are proposed to be assessed for roadway and utility improvements. In
addition to those assessments, trunk area assessments for sanitary sewer and watermain are proposed to the
Hillside Oaks area on the south end of the project. This is the area that didn't have trunk facilities that we're
putting in as a part of this project. It would be an area charge only for getting the trunk facilities to them. It
' would not be the actual connection charge. That would be assessed at which time they connect into the
facilities. The feasibility study for the project was presented to the Council on December 11th. It's being a
public hearing tonight on January 8th. If the Council elects to proceed, the proposed schedule would be the
completion of plans for submittal to State Aid. It is a State Aid project so it will be required to be submitted to
MnDot for review and approval. The intent is to do that late this month, early next month. Have the city and
county approve plans in late February. Have a bid opening in late March. Award contract in early April and
our intent is to get an early construction start. It is a fairly large project and we want to get underway as soon
' as possible to allow as much of the project to get completed in 1996 as possible. There will be some carry over
' 15
�j
1
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996 ,
Charles Folch: Actually we're putting in the trunk facility at this point in time so they're receiving the area
charge. In the future, when they so desire to make connection, a lateral line will have to be brought up for both
sewer and water to service the homes. So there will be a lateral cost at that time.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So it's not a mandatory hook -up?
Charles Folch: No, not at this time.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's when their system fails or whatever. Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Doesn't that go against the Met Council as far as their SAC charges are concerned? That we ,
are required to put in your septic or remove your septic system but the water was optional.
Charles Folch: When, the way our ordinance is written and it's consistent with the Met Council requirements.
When you do have the lateral sewer and water available to a property you have typically one year to hook up to ,
the sewer and then the requirement is, when the well fails, either the pump or the stand pipe, accordingly then
the connection has to be made to the water, lateral water line.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: How many homes are affected by this right -in /right -out? We've got like 4 on
Oakside Circle.
Jon Horn: There's 8 homes total. ,
16 1
into '97. Right now we're currently working out what the schedule would be but our intent is to try to et most
g Y g g
of the work done this year in 1996. So I guess with that, that's kind of a general summary of the project. I'm
certainly open to questions or any comments that you may have.
Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions that you have of Don at this particular time, before I open it up to the
public? Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I have a question. This assessment roll B. This is just for the individual
homeowners?
Jon Horn: Right.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So about 24 -25 for each homeowner.
Jon Horn: Right, that's the area assessment.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So they're not paying any of the road improvement costs.
r
Jon Horn: Right. Roadway improvements will be financed through the city and county.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. And to actually get hooked up to, water's going to be mandatory? Sewer's
going to be optional? Is that it?
'
Jon Horn: Is that your understanding Charles?
Charles Folch: Actually we're putting in the trunk facility at this point in time so they're receiving the area
charge. In the future, when they so desire to make connection, a lateral line will have to be brought up for both
sewer and water to service the homes. So there will be a lateral cost at that time.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So it's not a mandatory hook -up?
Charles Folch: No, not at this time.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's when their system fails or whatever. Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Doesn't that go against the Met Council as far as their SAC charges are concerned? That we ,
are required to put in your septic or remove your septic system but the water was optional.
Charles Folch: When, the way our ordinance is written and it's consistent with the Met Council requirements.
When you do have the lateral sewer and water available to a property you have typically one year to hook up to ,
the sewer and then the requirement is, when the well fails, either the pump or the stand pipe, accordingly then
the connection has to be made to the water, lateral water line.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: How many homes are affected by this right -in /right -out? We've got like 4 on
Oakside Circle.
Jon Horn: There's 8 homes total. ,
16 1
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996
Councilwoman Dockendorf: 8 homes total. And when are we completing Lyman? My concern is, if a person
lives in one of those homes and wants to go north, how do they get there? Can they do a U'y up at Lyman or
what are their options?
Charles Folch: At this point, if they are coming out, they can go just south to where we have full access to
Oakside Circle, right?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, that's right - in/right -out.
' Jon Horn: That's right -in /right -out. They'd have to go down to Lyman.
Charles Folch: Okay. Well they'd have the option of either, they could go east at that point and go up TH 101
if they would like. If they prefer, rather than making, it's probably more safe than making U turn down at
Lyman.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, but if they're just coming into town or you know. When will Lyman be
completed?
' Charles Folch: At this point the County is looking at attempting that project possibly in the '97 calendar. It's
the next one right behind Powers so they intend to finish up Galpin next year. Begin the 17 project and
complete that fully by '97 and hopefully start late '97 on the Lyman project and complete that one by the end of
'98. So a lot will be happening out there.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. That's going to be a tough connection for these people then. The
maintenance in the median, you said the median varies between 6 and 18 feet. Who's responsible for, if it's not
concrete, which I assume the 6 foot is.
Jon Horn: Yes. The intent for the narrow median ... 6 to 8 feet would be concrete. The remainder would be
grass.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And who would be responsible for that maintenance? That'd be city or county?
' Charles Folch: That is county right -of -way, although at this point discussions haven't occurred to that detail.
I'm not certain as to whether or not they have equipment that mows those areas. But if they didn't, I would
foresee that the county may want to contract the city to potentially do that work. But it is, it falls within county
' right -of -way so initially it will be their responsibility.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And Jon I missed your, you talked about a concrete sidewalk between Powers and
Audubon. Where are you talking about?
Jon Horn: On Park Road on the north side.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh on Park Road. Okay. Those are all my questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anyone else? If not, as I mentioned before this is a public hearing. Is there anyone
' wishing to address this proposal? Would you please come forward and state your name and your address and
what your concerns might be?
17
F
L
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996 '
Tim Dempsey: M name's Tim Dempsey. I reside at 2301 Lukewood Drive. M concern in regards to the ,
Y Y g
project that has been on Galpin. A concern anyway. I'd like to know, I see this project is very similar and the
County is going to be awarding this contract. I'd like to know how I might make a formal complaint against the
current contractor so they do, when the consideration for when this award is made. This contractor was also
told that passage was to remain open and yet for weeks on end, the only way to get back and forth was if you
had a 4 wheel drive. And sometimes you couldn't even do that so I think this contractor was blatant in
disregarding this important rule and I want to make sure this is considered when this award comes up so if the
low ball contractor doesn't get the award because of price. And not only myself but many people that tried to
live in my area or work in my area or get services... were really put out by this contractor's lack of filling the ,
demand. I really don't know how to even address it so I'm just asking what's the proper channels.
Mayor Chmiel: I think basically if you were just to write a letter to the city, you can address it to me if you'd
like. We will then take your concern and make sure that that kind of situation doesn't occur basically again. '
And I think there's some truth in what you're saying because I've had a lot of discussions from other people and
a couple phone calls. We have had other projects that have gone through that were a little smoother. We had
one on Minnewashta Parkway which was not really called Minnewashta Parkway. It was called Muddywashta
Parkway but we can't control the weather, which does present a problem. Maybe Charles can address that too.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, thank you. I believe, if I'm speaking correctly for Mr. Dempsey, you are referring ,
to the project which entailed from Timberwood Drive south to Lyman. I believe it was not the north project
which the city had undertaken, although it was the same contractor for both. The city contract was the north
project and the county was administering the south project, which you've... problems. And I guess I'm not
certain what took place on that contract, and maybe Bill, Bill Weckman from the County is here to possibly '
address that issue but I know that project did have some problems with soils and a late construction start, which
was hampered by fall weather. I'm not sure if you want to expand upon that Bill at all but it was the same
contractor that performed both projects, both for the city and the county and they did evidently, they didn't
have too many problems on the city contract but they did have some problems with the fall contract on the
south end.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And if I could speak to that, since I trucked through it too. Even more so than the
problems with the late start and the poor soils, I think their frustration was the lack of response when there were
problems. And I think by law we're obligated to go with the low bidder but we have to check the references
and I think if you have a letter on file objecting to it. ,
Tim Dempsey: Well I ... One was Lukewood south. My driveway was turned into a city street. The contractor
who was working that, Minger also ran into a lot of weather but he always made the effort and he went to extra ,
efforts to make it open. Whereas this contractor really showed no concern whatsoever. Abandoned the site for
weeks. Didn't even try to make it...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I agree. ,
Mayor Chmiel: ...would you like to come forward and just address that. The only reason I say that is it won't
be picked up on the mic.
Bill Weckman: I'm Bill Weckman ... concern with the Galpin Road project... Not only the weather. The
weather... get ready to dry out, it rains again. It's real difficult project just because of the weather. And we did ,
have some problems with the contractor, getting him to respond. Work things out and then of course we got
18 1
1 City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996
' into a situation where ... road open and the reason... And hopefully we
P p y think we're through that. We dust have to
go through—sorry it occurred. The construction is an inconvenience, especially when you get into weather like
' that...
Mayor Chmiel: A little bit stronger verbiage in the agreement as such to clarify some of these.
' Bill Weckman: So that... As far as the other project...
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thanks Bill. Is there anyone else? Yes, Mr. Jules.
Jules Smith: My name is Jules Smith and I represent Instant Webb, Victory Envelope, United Mailing, and the
owners of Lot 2, Block 3. And I think this is probably about the third time ... so I'm getting to feel I kind of
know something about it. I really just have two questions. One is, are the companies still eligible under your
program for special assessment reduction? And if so, I'd just like to know if this continues to be true as it was
under the other when this property was considered previously. And the second question is, we would like to,
particularly in this regard to Instant Webb, conduct a survey. Get a surveyor out there and get some elevations
and while the plan, as it exists the soil takes the existing circumstances. We're really wondering whether we
could improve our site. Now I realize that's not a city expense but in cooperation with the city, I guess I'm
asking is everything set in concrete so you know the manholes 2 feet or something, which we're certainly
willing to pay for, but it might save us a significant amount of money and it increases our drainage possibilities
and that sort of thing, we hope that, we would request that we can work with the engineer and see if we can
work something out. That's essentially where we are. I realize that's not the city's problem but on the other
hand, with a very simple adjustment, perhaps. I don't know this. We don't know this until we can complete a
survey. If we could work together on that, it would probably save... significant amount of money so those are
my questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Go ahead Don.
Don Ashworth: To respond to Mr. Smith's question. I think we should all realize that this project is quite old.
I think the first time when you were up here was 6 years ago. In the HRA's redevelopment plan does call for
special assessment reduction to those businesses and development in the business park. Accordingly credits
were developed for both the Instant Webb site as well as Victory Envelope and the Press. We've gone through
' those calculations ... are sufficient to pay the costs associated with the assessments for those three companies.
The other parcels out there where that is not true, where they have not built, so until such time that they would
build, they'd be looking... costs. In regards to the second question. I'm sure that we will work with Instant
Webb. I'm aware of the issue, this was brought up a year ago or two years ago, and I'll make the same
comment tonight that I did at that point in time. It's too early in the project to tell you that the grades will work
or won't work.
Jules Smith: Yeah, yeah. I understand that and I realize it's not definitive but after we get some information,
we can start right away an elevation guy out there on our land to see whether we're blowing smoke or...
something that we can work together on ... We need the information anyway. Thank you.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone else?
Andrew Olson: I'm Andrew Olson, 8290 West Lake Court and I'm surprised by seeing something on here that
there's no verbal or written objection to the project... before brought up why we're spending... $3 million for that
19
L
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996 1
20 '
1
short section of road and now we're at $4 1/2 million for a road from TH 5 and nothing, no 4 lane proposed
north of there. I'm not hearing it tied into anything south of there. We're spending an awful lot of money on a
very short piece and they're planning on the bonding, is one of the issues that came up, and taking part of the
'
city's parkland and another one of their holding ponds and that temporary pond that's going to be just for the
townhouse project and then it'd be developed later. And now it's going to be a permanent pond and ... bigger and
now we'll take out some trees and keep expanding everything down there and losing parkland and a particular
nice piece of environment down there that acts as a buffer the way it is and... anybody remove the existing
'
things that are there. I'd also like to know what is proposed to the south and how much ... comes up, what's
going to be done to the north of TH 5. I'd like to know why we're spending that much money on such a small
piece.
Mayor Chmiel: Do you want to address that now or when we get done?
Don Ashworth: Should we come back on that one? I mean 212, that will be a major connection with 212.
'
There will be a segment that will be built from Lyman to new 212. Now the estimated cost of that I recall is
$500,000.00. Slightly more.
Charles Folch: Boy, I can't recall either and I'm not sure if Bill, do you recall?
Bill Weckman: I think it's $700,000.00.
Charles Folch: The cost to extend future 17 from Lyman down to 212. Then eventually down Pioneer Trail. I
would guess it's about the same length as this segment. It will involve a bridge structure with 212. 212 will
actually pass over this road. There will be an interchange there so, but some of those costs, Don may be close
with his numbers because some of the cost involved in the interchange of that section will actually be
constructed under MnDot contract.
Don Ashworth: The roadway is not really an isolation. That is a mayor connection to Chaska. County 17 south
of Lyman was completed this last year. Similar upgrade as far as total width. Lyman remains this kind of as
one piece between what work was done a year ago and this particular job. And again overall that is a major
collector. I do not believe that there are any projected plans to upgrade CR 17 north of 78th Street. North of
it's current terminus.
Bill Weckman: And that's correct. There is nothing in our 5 year program right now... project at this point
'
north of what has been completed north of... This project goes way back as far as when this road was originally
built in early 1980's, Lyman in the late 70's. The transportation plan that was completed by the County in the
mid -70's identified... connection with 212 and that... interchange for the future 212 south of Lyman.
Andrew Olson: When will that be?
Bill Weckman: That's schedule of course is very dependent upon the funding. That portion of road that is
'
under the proposal... dependent upon acceptance of that proposal.
Andrew Olson: It's going to be another 20 years in other words before 212 ever gets done?
,
Mayor Chmiel: We've only waited 50 years now so maybe another 20 won't hurt. You're probably right. It
depends.
20 '
1
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996
' Bill Weckman: The State
program, existing funding ... beginning of 212 is like 20 years, 18 to 20 years ... funding
' is the same as today and that's why there were... alternative funding. And the total proposal came under it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else?
' Gary Tyson: Hi. My name is Gary Tyson. I live in 817 Lake Susan Hills Drive. I've just been taking notes
here. I hope I can get them all across. First of all, when we do a project in anything, they never remember
much how long it took as how well it was done, and that I think has got to be the goal. How well you can put
' something together. I heard somebody say that the road would be done when the funding was approved. Well,
funding is generally approved when there is a very determined need for a road. Planning on taking a road like
Powers Boulevard and converting it into a 4 lane road kind of like ... to me seems a little bit fast. It's hard for
people to kind of grasp that, especially with trouble that can arise in an area that already has been troubled
' some. And the fact of always having to take the low bidder, you really need time to compare the bids. Low
bidders usually, they kind of maybe did it kind of quick and might have missed some very important items.
Now those are all just things I want to bring up. One other thing, since it was going to be bid early on and
' finished in the fall, I think that we as a group here, somebody should be able to come up with those elevations.
I'm concerned about it because I don't know if the road's going up or down and there is a hill there and I don't
know how this is going to be and that would eliminate my concern because I would know for a fact that the
' roadway will stay above the same or go up 2 feet or go down so that's an important thing. That's really
everything that I took down and I think those are very worth while things to think about. The quality of what is
done. Not that you talked about it last year ... I think that might be an intelligent thing to do. And if we talked
about it a lot this year because most people in this room, that is why they're here. So that's really what I
' wanted to bring up.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. We'll make sure we address those specifics on the balance. Yes sir. You
were.
John Hill: My name's John Hill. I live at 1360 Oakside Circle. I recently moved to Chanhassen and I bought
the house in September and didn't really know anything about this until I got the letter. I am failing to really
understand why there was a need to turn a 4 lane road where the businesses stop at Empak and the rest is
residential. And what I could see when we were buying the house, most of it was slated to be parkland on the
back of us and the east side of us. So I'm curious as to ... what was the real need for a road there...
i Mayor Chmiel: Charles.
' Charles Folch: Well I think Bill eluded to that issue. Going back to the transportation studies that were done
with the Eastern Carver County study and looking at, analyzing the long term transportation needs of this region
based on both existing collector and trunk facilities and future proposed trunk and collector facilities. Combined
that with the projected future land use and growth of the region, and what type of traffic services will be needed
' to best service the community. That all goes into the, went into the regional study and one of the
recommendation coming from that study for an upgrade to this road segment was the current section that you're
seeing being proposed tonight.
John Hill: So this...into the city plan... I mean Highway 41 has been needing to have a 4 lane road for years.
' Charles Folch: And that will, you will see TH 41 be upgraded to 4 lane also sometime in the not too distant
future. In fact, in going back to 1990. Back in 1990 Highway 5 from CR 17 to TH 41, which is still 2 lane,
21
LI
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996 1
22 1
t
that was actually supposed to begin construction the fall of '93 and would have been completed at this point in
time. Unfortunately some funding constraints and some problems downtown that we cannot control certainly
have affected that schedule. We're hopeful that with some federal ISTEA funding, that potentially that we can
'
get that project back on track for maybe a '98 -'99 construction schedule. So you're going to see over the next 5
to 10 years these major trunk highways which should have been improved to 4 lane some time ago, they will
get done. I think you can view this as the city and the county being very proactive for the future in terms of
this. And this road segment and also the other major county road segments such as Lyman and Galpin and
'
such.
John Hill: I have another question about, I live on Oakside Circle and ... our access is not very well... You just
kind of blew by that. How can we get to town? You know, we have to south and go down to TH 101 to get
into Chan?
Charles Folch: Do you want to address the design parameters that restricting allowing that access to be a full
median cut at that location? Or maybe Jon.
Jon Horn: The area you're referring to is the Hillside Oaks area here and here. If you look at the overall
,
roadway design, we've got intersections spacing at about equal intervals along the roadway. The concern is with
these improvements so close to Lyman Boulevard, that you would end up with a number of full access
intersections. The need for turn lanes and really not enough space to provide the turn lanes of this whole
access. That causes a lot of safety concerns. That's why those two accesses have been limited to right- in/right-
out. Lyman Boulevard here and Lake Susan Hills Drive here, and it's just really not enough room inbetween
there to squeeze a full access in that's necessary.
,
Resident: How much land do you propose to take from the west side, by Oakside Circle?
Jon Horn: In this area?
'
Resident: Yes. Right there.
Jon Horn: All the improvements will be within the existing right -of -way so we're not encroaching onto private
property. The road that's out there now is built on the west side so as far as the roadway widening, there will
be some widening to the west and then the trail will go through but most of the widening's occurring to the east
side.
A question was asked from the audience which was not picked up by the tape.
'
Jon Horn: Right. The access for the Hillside Oaks area... there will be a separate access.
John Hill: So we'll have to go south.
Jon Horn: Right. The access to Chan will either be south to TH 101, south to Audubon, or the U turn, would
be the three options.
John Hill: Alright. Well I guess the only thing I'd like to say is that I am...
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Is there anyone else? Yes.
22 1
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, I guess I would like to point out that
Y � g p I think as we get into detailed design here
with the plans pending approval in the City Council, I would like to sit down with Roger and Bill again and
talk about the access to Oakside Circle. See if there's a way that we can make that work and provide a better
access situation to downtown. And that's something we can look at doing with the detailed plans.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. I'd like to see that come. Is there anyone else?
Pam Lohman: Hi, I'm Pam Lohman. I reside at 6221 Near Mountain Boulevard. I'm here representing Ed Paul
' who owns the 5 acre industrial site on the west side of the road immediately south of the railroad. I guess
primarily we're looking at what is, what's the benefits that the ... creating a new 4 lane when it already exists in
that commercial area. And once that property's developed, if the company would be able to go for assessment
reductions as well? And I guess the third thing is, is there would be a median break at the old Lake Drive so
' that traffic has, can go north without having to go...
Don Ashworth: I think Jon will have to address that last question. The first part, the commercial industrial
' properties do benefit from ... roadway improvements such as this. That's the reason for the assessment. Second
part was, as it would deal with the development of property. One of the problems, the HRA's program for
assessment reduction is available to the commercial industrial properties... Instant Webb, United Mailing, Victory
' Envelope all were built, credits established. The problem with the Paul property is that currently is vacant and I
find it difficult to believe that they're going to be able to complete construction during the timeframe that the
HRA's district... exist. I think that could be a problem but we'd be more than willing to work with him. As it
deals with your third question, as to whether or not a break could be created at ... first of all I don't think that for
' their particular property, that's where they want to be accessed. I would think they'd want the access...
Charles Folch: Actually, I'm trying to find the plans here. I believe in working with Roger, basically the
County has jurisdiction in terms of permitted new access locations and I believe our preliminary layout calls for
that access to immediately across from Lake Drive so we can create basically a cross intersection if you will
immediately south of the tracks. Or actually it's some 600 -700 feet south of the tracks. But certainly as I, and I
spoke with Mr. Paul's about this issue about 2 weeks ago over the phone and indicated to him that certainly if
he wanted to discuss the matter in terms of location or preferred location with the Carver County Engineer, that
would be probably appropriate since the permitting process would have to go through the county.
' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Yes ma'am.
Barb Tyson: Hi. I'm Barb Tyson. I live at 817 Lake Susan Hills Drive. I just wanted to ask a question as to
who I would contact then. Our property butts up to Powers Boulevard. There's a large berm back there and
would that be lowered at all? Because right now it's just fine and would be very concerned that that would be
dropped down when it's a shield against the noise and everything from the roadway right now, and... so I'm
concerned as to what will occur in that particular spot and who could I find that information out from.
' Mayor Chmiel: I think Charles would have that or the County.
' Charles Folch: Sure. What I could do is look up that information and get back to you.
Barb Tyson: Okay.
1 23
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996 '
Charles Folch: We can get together after the item here outside and I'll get your telephone number and we can '
make contact.
Barb Tyson: The other question I have, is the snowmobile trail going to be eliminated then? i
Charles Folch: That would be a county controlled issue being that the trail currently exists and if it was to '
continue, it would be within the county right -of -way. I'm not sure if there's been any talk or discussion about
the snowmobile trail issue.
Bill Weckman: That particular issue hasn't been discussed yet. Right -of -way is... '
Barb Tyson: I was just wondering how wide that would be and what impact that would have.
Bill Weckman: That's something... the trail is... t
Barb Tyson: Another question I have is, in your feasibility study, how much do you think a walking trail would ,
be used on a highway that's traveled at 50 mph? Has that been discussed or brought up much?
Charles Folch: The trail will actually be in the boulevard area. It will be off of the road if you will, probably
some during, anywhere from 8 to 12 feet behind the concrete and gutter. It allows a pedestrian and bicyclists '
and things like that to be able to.
Barb Tyson: Okay, so it is far enough away? ,
Charles Folch: Absolutely.
Barb Tyson: Okay, thank you. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Yes.
'
Dan Dauffenbach: I'm Dan Dauffenbach and I live at 1380 Oakside Circle. From the first design that I saw,
this plan has changed to the point where I'm not in favor of it at all. This right turn in and right turn out at
Oakside Circle is unacceptable. You've got families in that development with small children and you know you
make a lot of trips to town, even on the same night with basketball practices and shopping and so forth. That's
'
something needs to be done about that and that's a necessity for those families. The other thing that changed
from the first design was sanitary sewer and the watermain hook -up. I don't really see the need to spend that
kind of money to run it from Lake Susan Hills for 4 to 5 families. Lyman Boulevard is turning into a 4 land
and 212 turning into a 4 lane, you're not going to see additional homes or developments built to where you can
eventually hook -up to this line for future road. That line will stop there and to run it for 4 to 5, 6 families, I
don't see the justification or the cost. The other thing I wanted to ask was, is this going to be designated a
parkway. Where I'm going with this is, I've been out there for 6 years and I've watched that road become a
'
racetrack and I don't ever see a Carver County cop pull anybody over on that road and it's dangerous. I just
think you're going to turn this thing into a 494. I think you're encouraging all the traffic on Chaska and the
Jonathan industrial park to use this road to turn into a 4 lane. They're using it now but they're going to use it
extensively because it's a quick way for them to get towards Minneapolis rather than get out onto TH 41. And
this road is busy now. It's going to be a freeway if it's 4 lane and I think you need to put a speed limit out
there and enforce it at 45 because the 55 is now 65 and 75 and I'm surprised no one's gotten killed on this
'
24 1
1 City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996
stretch of road ullin out onto it from
p g Lake Susan or Oakside Circle because cars do not stop and no one is out
' there when traffic radar detectors to get a system going where people know they've' got to slow down.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Dan. Anyone else?
' Don Raymond: My name is Don Raymond. I'm a new resident of Chanhassen. I live at the Jasper
Townhomes at 8304 Suffolk and I would like to echo the concerns of my neighbors that Powers Boulevard is
just like a freeway. Right adjacent to our home I've seen two spin outs of snowmobilers, and snowmobilers are
' going faster than the cars and so I'm opposed to this generally on the grounds that it is a raceway now and I
think it will worse.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Yes.
Brenda Hill: I'm Brenda Hill and I reside at 1360 Oakside Circle. I also want to echo what some of the other
people are saying. First of all having no access to my home there is very crucial for me because I work south
' of there. I work in Shakopee so when I come home I would have to go all the way into Chan and come down.
Is that what you want me to do? You want me to drive all the way on TH 101, come on Highway 5 and then
come back down Powers Boulevard because I no longer will have an access to my house. That's what it would
' entail. And also for my husband, because he would come home that same way. So I totally object to that, not
having access to my house. Second of all, I think you had talked before about this. If it's feasible to have until,
in case Highway 212 comes in, in 20 years. I mean if we're going to build something now just to have it for in
20 years maybe 212 ... and that's not a sure thing at all that that's coming anyway. So I totally object to this.
' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, yes sir.
' Bill Handke: Bill Handke. Another resident of the Prairie Creek Townhouse Association. I was just
wondering, are they planning on any kind of noise reduction? Any kind of noise abatement type stuff that
would, if the road is going to be extended to the east, we already have snowmobiles about 15 -20 feet from the
house. We're going to have 18 wheelers probably 25 feet from the house, so is there going to be any kind of
' noise abatement and is there going to be any kind of street reduction on the highway along...?
Charles Folch: In terms of noise and perhaps Jon can address this in more detail than I can but an EA was
' done on this project and one of the elements of the EA is doing an evaluation of both existing noise levels
during daytime and nighttime and also projected noise levels with the, once the road is opened up to traffic.
Jon, do you have any other information potential noise abatement issues from the EA study?
' Jon Hom: Probably the biggest thing we'll do with the noise abatement—noise analysis...
Charles Folch: In terms of the speed issue, it's my understanding that the road as an urban section would be
' posted at 45 mph? Down from it's current 55 mph speed. Is that correct Bill?
Bill Weckman: That's the intent. The road is being designed to a 45 mph road. Of course when you get into
' the speed limit you get into the speed zone study that's required through the Department of Transportation... It's
our feeling that with the urbanization, with the landscaping and such ... of course we're watching that very
carefully to see what's...
25
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996 '
Mayor Chmiel: And I think Bill through the residential areas we have there I think some special consideration '
should be given to the 45 mph. You've done it in Chaska on CR 17, although it's not widened. They've gone
to 3, 2 lane and 3 lane. And some other 4 lane portion that you have there so I think that same consideration ,
should be given to Chanhassen with that as well.
Bill Weckman: The county's initial intent to post a 45 or 50 but we'll more than likely we'll have to go through ,
the speed zone study. Really the main criteria there is about 85% of the traffic that travels so in essence a car
going through that area...
Mayor Chmiel: Well if you lower the speed limits, the less sound... problems that you have with projection of ,
noise flowing out from that roadway.
Bill Weckman: The speed issue is something that... designed. It was fairly, we can put up a sign that says 45 ,
mph ... have no problem with that. Our intent is so it is being designed as a 45 mph roadway so we'll try to
maintain that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? '
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don. '
Don Ashworth: If I could. It has been... audience, it has been our experience that a 4 lane road as to additional '
traffic... whatever, the issue is really that the residents are there and the number of neighborhoods that you have
feeding into County 17. Our general experience has been one in which moving into a 4 lane design actually
improves the safety associated with the neighborhood. A good example is Kerber Boulevard. Mike, as you're '
going home, you maybe didn't know it as it used to exist.
Councilman Mason: Oh no, I knew it then.
Don Ashworth: If you drove down that 2 lane roadway and would try to pull to the right to turn into your
particular... street, you had to look in the mirror behind you and say, is this guy behind me going to kill me?
They experience a lot of that on CR 17 right now, and again from a safety standpoint, whether it be Kerber or '
Audubon, Lake Lucy, all of those were put to a standard to actually improve safety along the roadway. And we
do have some design problems associated with CR 17. There have been 3 deaths because of design problems.
So I guess the neighbors shouldn't look at it as though, well if they build a 4 lane, you know people will come '
type of thing. I think they're already there. What they should be really thinking about is the safety of
themselves and their own neighbors.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. 1
Bill Handke: ...saying to you is you want to go to a 2 lane with turn lane down the middle. A modified 3
lanes. It might eliminate the 4 lanes. It needs upgrading but why so much? '
Don Ashworth: Suicide lanes nationally have just not worked. There's been more accidents associated with the
suicide lane design than anything else. You're coming up with the safest design possible with this median
26 1
I City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996
' situation. You would not have had the oun it
y g girl that crossed across the roadway had this road been in place
from 4 to 5 years ago.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. If seeing none, I'd like a motion to close the public hearing.
' Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carved. The public hearing was closed.
' Mayor Chmiel: Steve. Anything sir?
Councilman Berquist: Well, when we looked at this last year we thought that, we all talked about the same
concerns. We talked about speed. We talked about the number of vehicles. We talked about the access. We
' talked about privacy and the right of the adjoining homeowners to quiet enjoyment of their properties. We
talked about safety. And I certainly can understand all of those concerns. In 1986 when I moved to
Chanhassen, there was absolutely nothing except for a few farmsteads and a couple of scattered homes between
' Highway 5 and Lyman Boulevard. In that 10 years I think that entire southern tier has developed residentially.
However much before 1986 the county planners knew that there was going to be a tremendous need for
increased infrastructure and they began the planning process to increase that road for exactly the issues that I
' just touched on. The road's going to, the road will change and it's going to be a 4 lane. The accesses and the
berms and the different parts of the roadway that affect everybody here. We'll all still have input into how they
are finally constructed. But the fact of the matter is the road, I'm going to motion later on that we approve to
go ahead with plans and specifications and get this thing bid out so that we can get it under construction. That
' doesn't mean go away and don't come back because your input is definitely needed.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Colleen.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: I just have two concerns going forward and certainly not a halt to the project but
when we do go with more detailed plans and specs we should look at access for those two right -in's and right -
out's to make a little more sense. A little more access for them. And I'm always concerned over whether we
can get it done before the weather hits so let's be timely. I think in the long run it will be a lot safer. The
bikes and the pedestrians will be kept well off the road and we'll have some stop signs which are, or excuse me,
stop lights which will hopefully mitigate the speed and if it continues to be a problem, we've been very effective
on putting additional control on Lake Lucy Road to teach people what the speed limit is.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mike.
' Councilman Mason: I agree with both comments. I think the right -in and right -out, if I was somebody that had
to deal with that, boy. Yeah Charles, I like your comment about needing to relook that. I really hope
something can come out of that because that just doesn't, that doesn't make any sense to me at all. I think
' Councilman Berquist historical's perspective is right on. I've been riding a bike out in this neck of the woods
for well, 16 -17 years and that long ago the other side of that bridge on Powers Boulevard, I'd see maybe 2 cars
on my bike. I won't ride my bike on that road anymore. It's just too dangerous and it's got to change and 3
' lanes isn't the answer and I think we're just fooling ourselves if we say, well you know maybe 212 won't come
for 20 years but that road definitely needs to be improved to be safer and Don Ashworth, your comments about
Kerber Boulevard are right on. I've been around long enough to know what it was like when it was a narrow 2
lane and it's a lot less scary now than it was.
1 27
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996 ,
Y>
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike. Mark. I
Y
Councilman Senn: I guess first more of a question of Don Ashworth. Can you explain the credit situation to I
me on the assessments that you referenced?
Don Ashworth: Yes. The three companies that we were, that I had mentioned, United Mailing, Victory
Envelope and Instant Webb, had questioned the HRA as to whether or not that special assessment policy would
'
apply to them. The HRA's response was yes and so they took 3 years worth of increment and literally banked
that anticipating that this project would literally be, would have been built in the late 70's, early, well actually
though this is about 6 -7 years ago. So I think you had just come onto the Council, right Don?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Don Ashworth: So anyway those credits go back to that point in time. I recall that Don and I had met with
Jerome Carlson back in the early or late 1980's, early 90's and that's it.
Councilman Senn: So you're saying those credits go back 6 or 7 years to the late 80's. Now in that 6 year
'
period, has there been new construction? Or I mean were any of those companies built at that point?
Don Ashworth: Yes.
'
Councilman Senn: I mean they were all built and in existence before that, weren't they?
'
Don Ashworth: Instant Webb was the first one to go out there and that went in around, I think 1980. The other
two are newer. It was actually the, it was the construction of the other two which had prompted Jerome to
come in and ask for a meeting to see whether or not his businesses, if they would locate and be treated in a
similar fashion to other businesses within the business park. We told him at that point in time that they would
'
be and that there would be future assessments coming up associated with County 17. The original schedule had
that roadway tied in with the Highway improvements. We were actually ahead of Highway 5 getting out to that
intersection. So the original design had 17 as a temporary section, much the way we've done it at Galpin so
'
Galpin we've finished that roadway except let's say the first 300 feet south of TH 5 is a temporary section
waiting for Highway 5 to get out there. And that was proposed the same way at that point in time. Now the
State got ahead of us and now we're coming back in and actually our costs are going to be increasing.
'
Councilman Senn: Okay. Well I mean all of those companies existed before 6 -7 years ago. I mean when they
were built and that district was in place, I mean was there other TIF incentives involved in what they did at that
time?
'
Don Ashworth: Well that was really one of Jerome's concerns because he was building those businesses there
and he didn't feel as though he was being treated fairly and I could say well this is a county roadway and as we
'
got into it with the county, it became obvious that the county was only going to be paying for a portion of the
roadway and that's where the special assessments came back in and that's where the special assessments came
back in and that's where Jerome became happier in feeling that he was being treated similar to some other
businesses. So that's how we kind of left that.
,
Councilman Senn: Well I mean I understand that but I'm just saying, did he get any previous TIF subsidy? I
28 '
7
I City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996
' Don Ashworth: No.
Councilman Senn: I mean our policy is you can use 3 years towards that now. Did he previously get a subsidy
already relating to the TIF in that district in his original construction and are we now giving him an additional 3
years tacked on on credit as a results of this?
Don Ashworth: There was no credits associated with those three parcels. There was no land write downs. No
whatever. You could make the contention that since the city purchased his existing facility within the
downtown area, that in fact you have provided an indirect subsidy. I would argue we appraise the property, we
paid him the fair value for the property. I think we were fairly fortunate because it was really through the
proceeds, the money he got from selling the property downtown, that he started four businesses. He was
paying, over here he was paying $97,000.00 a year in taxes. He built four, took the money from there and built
four businesses, The Press, Instant Webb, United Mailing and Victory Envelope. Those are now over a million,
that's over a million square feet and he pays more than a million dollars per year in taxes.
' Councilman Senn: But to answer the question, there was no previous TIF subsidy then? Into any of those.
Don Ashworth: No.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Alright.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, anything else Mark?
Councilman Senn: No.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I'm not going to reiterate what some of the Council has said already. I think
you do have to look at those two respective areas for those right -in's and right- out's. I'd also like to know that
in regard to the street lighting improvements, we had indicated that the estimated construction cost be about
' $250,000.00. You're saying you're eliminating some of that Bill for, by eliminating x number of street lighting.
Are we going to eliminate half of that amount to the $250,000.00 or Charles, can you address that one?
Charles Folch: I believe the 250 represents the current estimate for the reduced scope of lighting.
Mayor Chmiel: With reduced scope, yeah. How many fixtures are we talking about?
' Jon Horn: The original cost is $325 for the road design so I guess that kind of gives you an idea of...
Mayor Chmiel: Do you remember how many fixtures there are?
' Jon Horn: The original design approved about 162. The revised plan includes...
Charles Folch: It was probably 75% of that. It was a 25% reduction.
Jon Horn: 70. So closer to about 170.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'd like to get some of those figures on that yet. Also the landscaping improvements,
we're looking at $125,000.00. Is that correct?
29
I I
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996 1
Jon Horn: That's correct.
Mayor Chmiel: We will, I think I've got that book somewhere at home. It's been so old it's creating dust
probably by now but I'd maybe like to get that clarification on it too. I become a little concerned with the total
amount of plantings that we had once before down our main street and I just want to make sure that we're not
going to be over using additional landscaping on this particular project. '
Charles Folch: At this point what we'll present to you, either during the interim, prepare a preliminary
landscape plan that we could submit to the Council for review based on what the amount forecasts at this point '
in time and if you deem that's too much or too little, we can make adjustments to that before the final plans.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Yeah, I'd like to see that. Regarding the patrol on that, on County Road 17. I live on
the north segment of County Road 17. 1 know that I have seen the patrol, sheriffs department even issuing
tickets on the south side of CR 17 so I know that they are there. In fact they often times will be sitting right
underneath the bridge as they're coming from the south going north. Proceeding to Highway 5. So there has
been some concerns and some speed checks that have gone on in that specific area. But I think we will do a '
little upgrading on that again and have that looked at once more. Other than that, I guess I don't have any other
comments. I would like to entertain a motion and there's once in the last paragraph of the front page for
feasibility report. Is there a motion for that?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd move that the Council approve the supplemental feasibility report dated
11/30/95 for Powers Boulevard reconstruction from Trunk Highway 5 south to Lyman Boulevard, City Project
File No. 93 -29 and authorize preparation of project plans and specs and authorize easement acquisition and '
quick -take easements.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Is there a second? '
Councilman Berquist: I'll second.
Resolution #95 -07: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the ,
supplemental feasibility report dated November 30, 1995 for the Powers Boulevard reconstruction from Trunk
Highway 5 south to Lyman Boulevard (Carver County Project), City Project File No. 93 -29, authorize the
preparation of project plans and specifications, and authorize easement acquisition and quick-take of easements
needed for the project. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a
vote of 4 to 1.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to give your clarification as to why no?
Councilman Senn: Well I think last time we talked about this I did most of that but I guess it would make
sense to reiterate it a little bit. I just, I'm having a real hard time with this project simply in terms of it's timing. '
It's use of $3 million of city bonding proceeds at this point in time. In terms of that, this section being that
level of priority which necessitates it going forward at this point in time versus a number of other priorities we
have or needs we have to use that same bonding capacity. I think it's a good project. I don't think the project '
is ill conceived but I think it's timing is and I think it's priority is at this point.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you for coming. Appreciate you being here this evening and providing your I
input.
30 1
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996
F
AWARD OF BIDS: WELL NO. 3 REPAIRS, PROJECT 94 -3 -3
' Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Last Wednesday at 10:00 a.m. bids were
received and opened for the repair to Well No. 3 Project No. 94 -3 -3. A total of four bids were received for
the project with the low bid being submitted by Municipal Builders Incorporated at $88,748.00 with the revised
engineer's estimate at $100,000.00. As I indicated in my staff report, we did, this work was budgeted with the
'95 710 fund, sewer and water expansion. As we got into the design of the project, it became apparent that
there was an opportunity here to possibly save some long term cost dollars with the sewer, utility infrastructure,
' specifically regarding the Lake Lucy Road booster station. As I've indicated, by changing the type of pump
drive system that we had here, we would be able to eliminate a much more expensive and problematic booster
station and staff, we made a review of the remaining funds to carry over from the '95 710 fund and there are
' available dollars in that fund to be able to earmark to cover the additional expense to provide the variable speed
drive system for this improvement project, which staff and the project consultant engineer deemed to be a long
term cost effective alternative for the city in this operation. So with that, references have been made in terms of
background check on Municipal Builders. With their performance and work in other municipalities in the metro
' area and our reference check was found to be favorable from the other municipalities. So it would be staffs
recommendation that they, Municipal Builders Inc. be awarded the contract at $88,748.00 and that the additional
dollars required for this amount be carried forward from the sewer and water expansion fund 710 account.
' Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions?
Councilman Senn: Yeah ... you're not going to proceed with any of the alternates then?
Charles Folch: At this time we're not sure. We won't know until we get into the work. But what we wanted to
do was actually tie the contractor down in case these end up being like a change order in the future, we would
' come back to you and ask that the work be done but then we have a bid. We have a price already locked in.
It's not like they can come back later on and have the contract and now they basically have us in terms of a
change order cost. We've got a defined cost up front so we believe that if we do need to exercise the change
order for these alternatives, that we've got the best price available to do the work.
Councilman Senn: So these are like pre- negotiated change orders then?
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Which well is this? Is this the one on Galpin?
Charles Folch: Well 3. This is the one on Galpin, about a mile of TH 5.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right in front of the star formerly known as Prince?
Charles Folch: Correct.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: I just want to know what well I'm talking about.
Mayor Chmiel: It's the gate house.
31
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996
Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's his gate house. Right. What was, maybe I missed it in here but what had we
originally budgeted for this project?
Charles Folch: $50,000.00.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: $50,000.00 so we're coming in.
Charles Folch: Yeah, there's additional costs of about approximately $25,000.00 for the variable speed drive.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So about $30,000.00 more? Okay. I guess I, you know I saw this in the other
item we talked about with the repainting issue that we discussed earlier and again we're seeing some
unexpended dollars. I mean let's be honest, is this a float or?
Charles Folch: Actually these, what that comes from is the subledger in the 710 expansion fund which is repair
and maintenance utilities. We have to budget a certain amount for anticipated watermain breaks, sewer breaks,
things like that during the year which are totally unexpected but we try to base a reasonable judgment on past
history on what we need to allocate. Last, '95 was a fairly good year. We had abnormally low numbers of
watermain breaks and sewer problems so there were additional dollars remaining and that's strictly where the
dollars are coming from.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Any other questions? If not, is there a motion?
Councilman Senn: Move.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #96 -08: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the contract for repairs to City
Water Supply Well No. 3, Project No. 94 -3 -3 be awarded to Municipal Builders at a total base bid of
$88,740.00 and be it further approved that the appropriate dollars remaining in the 1995 Sewer and Water
Utility Fund No. 710 be earmarked and carried forward to complete this project during the 1996 calendar year.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL TO PLAT OUTLOT C, TEN4BERWOOD ESTATES INTO ONE LOT, LOT 1,
BLOCK 1, TIMBERWOOD ESTATES 2ND ADDITION, WALLACE OTTO AND KIMBERLY HARTUNG-
STROUTH.
Public Present:
Name Address
Curt Olson 2260 Timberwood Drive
Bruce Johnson
Kim Hartung - Strouth
Marty Schutrop
Wallace & Maxine Otto
Brian Klingelhutz
205 Oakwood Ridge
1128 Karth Lake Drive, Arden Hills, MN
16301 Baywood Lane, Eden Prairie
400 So. Oak Street, Waconia
8860 C.R. 10 E., Waconia
32
1
it
5
G
I City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996
Kate Aanenson: Thank ou. As y ou recall
y y ,you tabled this item on December 11th to get some more
' information. Work with the homeowners association. The original lot ... was proposed in close proximity to the
existing neighbor. The applicant's had worked to redesign that lot and shifted the home. The concern that the
staff would have, they did move the home approximately 80 feet from the neighboring property. This side here.
The concern that the staff had is that it does require additional fill. We believe that we should give some sort
of range, a maximum of 60 foot separation which still provides 80 feet between the homes and they've also
shifted the home which does provide another visual break so they're not looking at the same amount of massing.
As long as there is concurrence with that condition, which we believe there is, which we've added as condition
number 9. That it have a minimum 60 foot setback. If that condition wasn't in there then they would fall back
to the underlying setbacks so it appears that there is concurrence on that condition. With that, staff is
recommending approval with the 9 conditions in the staff report.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And that is a larger setback than what was existing.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
i Mayor Chmiel: It appears as though they're trying to work this out. Is the existing or adjacent property owner
here this evening? Have you seen that particular proposal?
' Curt Olson: Yeah. I'm Curt Olson. I'm the adjacent property owner. Yeah. We've seen this proposal. We
worked together to get to this point and I guess my understanding of where we're at is that we're 80 foot off the
property line. I hadn't heard any suggestions about going back to the 60. 1 thought we had pretty much worked
1 out that 80 foot. That puts 100 feet between my house and this house and it worked real well considering how
much space there is on the total piece of property.
Mayor Chmiel: Even though they own the property and they can put that house anywhere they'd like to, I think
they probably can move to a certain point.
Curt Olson: Yeah, from the city standpoint but... association so what we've got here is very workable.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Is there any questions of Council?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Just one. Curt, my understanding is that the 60 feet is just to give some bend. If
the applicant has shown the housing pad at 80 feet, why is staff recommending 60 feet?
Kate Aanenson: Well, as we stated in the staff report, you're bringing in additional fill because you're adjacent
to a wetland, which we believe may ultimately degregate part of the wetland. So you're also raising the house,
increasing some of the visibility also. Also we're concerned about the storm drainage. That it should flow
toward the street. We're concern that they'll change the ultimate drainage plan and we think it's best not to
' bring in that much fill. Maybe it ends up being, maybe when they've, we've asked as a part of that they'll have
to bring in the detailed grading and drainage plans. What we're stating, maybe it will work at 80 feet and it's
mutually acceptable but if it doesn't, we want the flexibility of the 60 feet to be consistent with the grading
' plans. I guess we just want that flexibility because they haven't submitted the details yet.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. In other words what you're saying too is this change from one to the other, by going to
a greater, you're raising that house in more height than what you had...
33
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996
Kate Aanenson: Right, and bring in fill, correct. I certainly hope that they're operating in good faith to try and
keep it and maximize the distance but what we're saying is, the staff would like to make sure that we're not
creating additional problems so we'd like to have the 60 but we certainly understand the objective is to try to
keep as far apart as possible.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Are there any specific questions? Seeing none, is there a motion?
Councilman Senn: I'll move the thing at 80 feet but I guess rather than have it just happen administratively, I'm
going to say if this... below 70 feet, I'd like to see it come back to Council.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Good idea.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. I'll second it.
Councilman Berquist: So we're going to change item 9 to read, 70 feet minimum setback?
Councilman Senn: We're approving 80 feet and giving staff the deviation of 10 feet and if it's going to go over
10 feet, then it should come back to Council.
Kate Aanenson: Can I have clarification? I've got the same question Steve does. Are you talking about
separation between the homes or are you talking about the property line because we've recommended 60 feet
from the property line which results in 80 feet. I just want to make sure we're.
Councilman Senn: No, 80 feet from the property line.
Kate Aanenson: So it is changing the recommendation.
Councilman Senn: 80 from the property line with a drop back of 10 feet to 70 and if it's going to be any more
than that, then.
Mayor Chmiel: They'd like to bring it back to Council.
Kate Aanenson: Any less than that?
Mayor Chmiel: And he won't know that until you go through the grading...
Councilman Senn: So you've got 10 feet administrative deviation basically is what I'm saying.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions?
Councilman Berquist: Well, I want to discuss this.
Kate Aanenson: So you want them to go with the original 80 feet that they showed on the plan I guess is what
you're saying?
34
J I
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah why d
y y on t you put that up there again Kate.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think we give them a 10 foot leeway.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. I thought that was what we were doing.
Kate Aanenson: So this shows, this is showing 80 feet. So they have to go at this point. They're locking into
that plan specifically.
' Councilman Senn: No. We said 80 feet and you have a deviation of 10 feet, more or less. Administratively
you can back that off to 70 feet. If you're going to back it off any more than that, then I'd like to see it come
back to Council. So rather than giving you the 20 feet you want, we're giving you 10. And if it's more than
' that, then we're saying let's not handle it administratively. Let's give the people a chance to restate...
Kate Aanenson: Okay.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is everybody clear?
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the final plat of Outlot C
(Subdivision #86 -27) into Lot 1, Block 1, Timbenvood Estates 2nd Addition, subject to the plans Received
November 27, 1995, and the following conditions:
1. The proposed alternate ISTS site shall be shown outside the required setbacks prior to recording the final
plat.
2. Both ISTS sites should be roped and signed in accordance with City Policy #10 -1991.
3. Detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plans shall be submitted to the City at the time of building
permit application.
4. The proposed single - family residential development of 3.71 developable acres shall be responsible for water
quantity and quality connection charges of $2,968.00. These fees will be due at the time of final plat
recording.
5. Full park and trail fees shall be paid at the time of building permit approval in the amount in force at the
time of building permit application.
6. Access shall be provided via Timberwood Drive only. Access onto Coulter Boulevard shall be prohibited.
7. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance.
8. The wetland edge must be included on the plat.
' 9. The future home shall be located in a manner consistent with the proposed house pad as shown on the
survey submitted by Demars & Gabriel stamped Received January 8, 1996. A eighty (80) foot setback from
' the west property line shall be maintained for all principal and accessory structures.
35
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996 ,
All voted in favor and the motion carved unanimously.
y
Councilman Berquist: Now we're going to have to go through a review board.
Councilman Senn: No Steve, I think for the neighbor's the point would be pretty significant and I think you
ought to treat it that way. That's all I'm saying.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And as I said before, we created the hardship.
Mayor Chmiel: That blends in with everything. Okay, let's move on. '
DEMPSEY ADDITION, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF GALPIN BOULEVARD JUST SOUTH OF
LUKEWOOD DRIVE, TIMOTHY DEMPSEY:
A. REQUEST TO REZONE 222,580 SO. FT. OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO
RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY; AND PRELEVIINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL INTO 7
LOTS; AND A 20 FT. FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE.
B. APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS,
PROJECT NO. 96 -2.
Public Present:
Name Address
Tim & Vicki Dempsey 2301 Lukewood Drive
Bob Beyer 721 Harriet So, Richfield
Peter Knaeble 6001 Glenwood Avenue, Minneapolis
Kate Aanenson: Just for location purposes. This property is located south of Highway 5 on Galpin, just south
'
of Timberwood. Recently approved the Minger subdivision to the east. This would be the property right here.
Mr. Dempsey's property. With the approval of the Minger subdivision, Lukewood Drive was put in and an
easement on Brentwood Circle. What needs to take place on the circle now is completion of the full street
right -of -way. There will be 7 lots. Staff and the Planning Commission recommended variances on the front
'
yard in order to preserve trees. What we found in the past under the tree preservation is that it's very difficult
to save trees in the front yard based on the fact the driveways and sewer and water lateral connections so we
believe the best option is to try to preserve some of the younger trees in the rear of the homes and in doing that,
pulling the homes forward. It was questioned by the Planning Commission whether or not it would make sense
to do a variance on this lot in just consistency with the other lots in the subdivision that were pulled forward.
The staff did recommend that that variance also be granted for that lot.
Mayor Chmiel: Excuse me. In regards to the total amount of trees that you just mentioned. How many trees
are we talking within that 20 foot variance?
'
Kate Aanenson: I'd have to go back and refer to page 8 on the tree preservation. There is a significant amount
of trees in this subdivision, specifically down in this area here. Again, some of the more significant trees do fall
in the home placement and by pulling them forward, there is some good quality trees to the rear. I know what
'
36 1
1 City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996
the concern is as far as it but we don't believe with that being a cul -de -sac that the, and not a thru street, if there
was parking on the street, that that would be an issue. There is also, yeah that is a` concern. There's also a trail
easement that would tie into the park as a part of Stone Creek that gives access down there to that area. I
understand what your concern is. I guess we were concerned about preserving the trees and with the wetland,
we believe that's the best way to do it. So this subdivision also includes the rezoning. It's currently A2 and
preliminary and final plat. Again the streets are all in except for the circle, which needs to be developed. There
is that easement right there for those existing homes but it would have to be developed to the full width. With
that we are recommending approval of the subdivision.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is the developer here? Is there any concerns that you have to what staff has indicated in
the report?
Peter Knaeble: No. Mr. Mayor, members of City Council. My name is Peter Knaeble, civil engineer... designer
of the project. Here with me also is the developers, Tim and Vicki Dempsey who also live on the property and
live on the existing house on the property... We estimate about 10 to 12...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Thank you. Are there any questions in regard to this? Steve.
Councilman Berquist: No, not really. No, I don't have any.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well in looking at the lay of the land, I just don't see how Lot 7 is going to work
with that steep drop off. How much fill do you anticipate having to put in?
Peter Knaeble: At the back ... about 4 feet.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Is that all?
Peter Knaeble: Yes.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And my other concern is that all of the trees unfortunately are right abutting
Lukewood Drive so we're going to, correct me if I'm wrong but aren't we going to lose a majority of those trees
on Lot 5, 6 and 7?
Peter Knaeble: The trees that show up on the grading plan... within the house pad areas themselves. We're
assuming they're going to come out as a part of the house construction. There is about 7 trees on Lot 5 that
will be inventoried. They're going to tried to ... tree preservation. Some of them are going to be saved. We're
showing...
Kate Aanenson: Maybe I could comment on that too Colleen. That raises a point that we looked at. You're
right, there's some significant trees there. There's a 32 inch and a 34 inch oak and the problem we've had in the
' past is we've taken exorbitant measures to try to save those in the front yard and that's generally where the
trusses get dropped or someone comes in with their load. So we found it's best, and Jill's perspective on this
was, maybe to give the variance. Push that forward and try to save some of the nicer quality oaks that may
have a better chance of survival without construction damage to the rear and again there's about 6 significant
oaks to the back of the homes that we believe have a better survival chance.
' 37
Ij
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. But Lots 6 and 7 are going to be bare to the Galpin.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Because I mean even the scrub trees, they all happen to be right abutting
Lukewood.
Kate Aanenson: You're right.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I got lost in the canopy numbers. If we do forego saving those two 26 inch oaks,
what is our canopy coverage?
Kate Aanenson: They're allowed, the allowable is 55 and they're coming in, they will have a 54% so there's a
small replacement percentage.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And that includes losing those two big ones?
Kate Aanenson: Yes, correct.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. I just have a suggestion for the neighborhood identification monuments.
Something small and tasteful please.
Tim Dempsey: Actually there's already one there.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Are you going to use the oak?
Tim Dempsey: Yeah, we're not proposing an additional monument.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh good.
Tim Dempsey: ...sits on our property and we allowed that to happen so...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So there's really no need for a condition 15.
Kate Aanenson: Right, but we're just making sure. We're putting everybody on notice that we are putting that
condition in every time.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's right. Okay. And just be cognizant of condition number 14 please.
Peter Knaeble: Again, the 7 lots that we show, a similar ghost plat was platted for ... Minger Addition... Pat
Minger came through with his project 2 years ago and at that time we showed a...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike? Mark?
38
F
U
1 City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996
'— Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Steve?
Councilman Berquist: No.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I don't have any either. Is there, let's take this separately for the rezoning and take the
preliminary and final plat last.
Councilman Mason: Move approval of rezoning of 5.1 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate district
to RSF, Residential Single Family.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve Rezoning #95 -3 of 5.1 acres of
property zoned A -2 to RSF for Dempsey Addition as shown on the plans received November 6, 1995 and
subject to the following conditions:
' 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract containing all of the conditions of approval for this
project and shall submit all required financial guarantees. The development contract shall be recorded
against the property.
2. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #95 -21.
All voted in favor and the motion carded unanimously.
Councilman Mason: And move preliminary and final plat to subdivide 5. 1 acres into 7 single family lots,
Dempsey Addition.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the preliminary and final plat for
Dempsey Addition (Subdivision #95 -27) for 7 single family lots with a 10 foot variance to allow a 20 foot front
yard setback as shown in the plans received November 6, 1995 and December 15, 1995 with the following
conditions:
1. Tree preservation conditions:
a. All tree fencing as drawn shall be installed prior to any grading or excavation.
b. Fencing shall be extended to property lines between Lot 3 and 4 as well as across the rear yard of Lot
6.
c. All significant trees must be shown on the building permit surveys.
d. All trees in front yards of Lot 1, 3 and 5, Block 1 shall be protected by tree fencing. The fencing shall
be placed, at a minimum, at least 15 feet from the trunk.
e. The two 26 inch oaks in the northeastern corner of Lot 7 are not recommended for preservation.
' 39
1
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996 1
f. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation
easement. The applicant shall provide the city with a legal description of these easements.
2. Building Department conditions: I
b. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property.
3.
Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of land as required by city ordinances.
4.
The existing out buildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with
'
City and /or State codes.
5.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc -
mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
6.
The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial
security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract.
7.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed
'
District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions
of approval.
8.
Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The
City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20.00
per sign.
9.
The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2
feet above the 100 year high water level.
10.
The proposed single family residential development of 4.2 developable acres is responsible for a water
quality connection charge of $3,360.00 and a water quantity fee of $8,316.00. These fees are payable to the
City prior to the City filing the final plat.
11. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and
shall re- locate or abandon the drain tiles as directed by the City Engineer.
12. The existing residence on Lot 4 shall be connected to City sewer and the septic system properly abandoned
prior to final plat being received. '
13. The streets and storm drainage system shall be constructed in accordance to the City's rural street and utility
standards. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for review and formal approval '
by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The plans shall be designed in accordance with
the latest edition of the City's standard specifications and detail plates. Final plat approval is contingent
upon approval of the construction plans by the Chanhassen City Council.
40 1
I City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996
14. Individual radin drainage, tree reservation an
g g, g p d erosion control plans will be required for each lot at the
time of building permit application for the city to review and approve.
15. Neighborhood identification monument signs require a separate permit.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Does that include the variances? Front yard variances.
Kate Aanenson: And the plans and specs.
Mayor Chmiel: Oh, the 20 foot front yard variance. That's right.
Councilman Mason: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: And the plans and specs.
Councilman Mason: Do we need to do 7(b) also?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Councilman Mason: Move approval of development contract and construction plans and specifications for
Dempsey Addition, Project #{96 -1.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. 2.
Councilman Mason: Well mine says 1. Alright, 2.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, Charles.
Charles Folch: Excuse me Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I do have one item of clarification with
regards to the development contract for that project. A copy of that revision was passed around to you tonight.
You have page GC -8, which is from our general conditions section item (f). And under the building permit
section and as highlighted there, we'd like to amend that general condition to include, there are currently, it
would be 4 lots with this plat which would be located adjacent to an existing hard surface and also have utility
I services which were previously constructed with the Minger Addition so these lots would meet the requirements
for allowing a building permit to be constructed.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Would you just read that clarification.
Charles Folch: Under Section (f), under building permits. The last sentence should continue on as, except those
lots adjacent to Lukewood Drive, specifically Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 1.
1 41
1
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996 1
Mayor Chmiel: And 7? 1
Charles Folch: I'm sorry. 4, 5, 6 and 7, Block 1 where the streets and utilities have already been constructed
and approved.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. With that clarification contained within the proposed contract. Okay. I guess
that's all we have, right? Anything else?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the construction plans and
specifications for Dempsey Addition dated December 12, 1995, revised December 29, 1995, prepared by Tema
Engineering, Inc. and the development contract dated January 8, 1996, amended to include and addition under
Section (f), building permits, the last sentence should continue on as, except those lots adjacent to Lukewood
Drive, specifically Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7 Block 1 where the streets and utilities have already been constructed and
approved, and with the following condition:
1. The applicant enter into the Development Contract and supply the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit
in the amount of $57,800.00 and pay an administration fee of $16,695.00.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
UPDATE REPORT, PARK TASK FORCE.
Todd Hoffman: Thank you Mayor Chmiel, members of the City Council. I don't believe Jay is here tonight but
Nancy's in the audience and Nancy is a task force member so if you'd like to ask questions of either Nancy or I
following my report, please do so. The task force was appointed, Park or Open Trail Task Force, whatever
you'd like to call it, back on June 12th and 26th of 1995. The Chanhassen City Council appointed those
members. Regular meetings were held throughout the summer, concluding in the fall with the conclusion that
the referendum or a vote of any kind would not be held in 1995. So the group essentially broke for a number
of house items taking care of some land acquisition, correspondence with the land owners, some appraisals and
then the holidays and where the group is focused today would be the Presidential primary of 1996. There is
'
some legislation that would have authorized moving that date, that voting date to a June timeframe. That did
not pass or was not enacted so the Presidential primary is September 10th and currently the task force is ready
to take up work again in 1996 and focus on that date, if that be the Council's pleasure. The recommendations
which were presented to the Council back on August 14th still stand today, and then prior to moving on, the
Councilperson Berquist and others. The preliminary task force meeting which you, meeting date which you
have which was updated January 3rd lists January 11th, this Thursday as a meeting date and there will be no
meeting on January 11th, this coming Thursday. The first meeting of the new year for 1996 would be January
25th, and that would be a 7:00 p.m. meeting, upstairs in the courtyard conference room. So I have reported that
the task force is ready to get underway again for 1996. Their focus is open space acquisition, trail development
and then the development of Bandimere Community Park, which was acquired in 1990 through an earlier
referendum which has remained undeveloped to date but as the pressure for additional ballfields within this
community continues to mount, and that is the next location for development. The next piece of property which
the city maintains as park and open space, which is suitable for ballfield development.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Any specific questions? Okay.
Councilman Senn: Not a question but a comment.
42 1
I City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
Councilman Senn: I told Todd I wanted an update on this and one of the main reasons that I had asked that
was, I kind of heard the rumor kind of being banted about that they were looking at having this at the time of
either the primary or the general election in the fall of '96. I think if we really want this thing to pass and want
' a major effort to go do that, I think that's a real mistake. I think the primary issue of both that primary and that
election are going to be taxes and spending and it seems to me that from a local standpoint, this issue could
very easily get caught up in that general debate rather than standing on it's own merits. And given the fact that
we do want this to happen in '96, I think it should happen free standing and be judged on it's own merits or
demerits rather than go up or down because of a fairly significant national debate which will be looming at that
time. And I think that's something the Council should really give some consideration to and make some
decisions on I think at this time because I think we're running out of time to make it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, don't you think though that number one, the cost of the special election is
exorbitant? And my other concern is that if we wait 2 years for when we have another election, first of all land
prices are going to be higher and second of all we won't have the voter turn out because it's not a presidential
election. So I think regardless of when we do the referendum, taxes are going to be an issue. We see that with
every school referendum so I'm not sure we're ever going to get away from that argument. I don't know. It's
something to discuss. That's my initial take on it.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I guess you hit the nail right on the head and that would have been my concerns as
well. Whether or not you have it at the general election or have it at another time, still the issue's still going to
be there. People are still going to address that, one way or the other. And I don't think significant insignificant
either would make any difference from one to the other. Plus the additional costs that would be born by the
city and each of the districts and what would that cost us Don? Roughly to run a special election?
Councilwoman Dockendorf. 10 to 12,000 I thought was the number that we used to talk about.
Don Ashworth: Yeah, that's a pretty good estimate.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I just don't see spending those kinds of dollars in addition.
Councilman Berquist: I wasn't at the last task force meeting where this was decided and I haven't really spoken
to anyone about it since the change was made but I would like to know some of the rationale behind it. Todd?
As far as the decision as to that sort of a date specifically because we, when we originally began this process
the goal was to have it at an off time so to speak.
Todd Hoffman: The task force has been made aware of the additional costs. Even though they seem, it seems
like an investment, which it is. $20,000.00 to hold a special election. If you're holding a referendum for $5
million it's, percentagewise it's a small investment. So and debates go on both sides and you'll have members in
that task force that say you darn well bet. Put it on a presidential election or presidential primary. If the people
are going to come out and vote, let them vote the way they want. And then you have the other side of the
' fence who argues well, no. We want this to be a clean issue. Something separate than a presidential election so
let's keep it separate so it is a debate and rightfully, it can be debated here at the City Council level for direction
to the task force.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike, what's your feeling?
1 43
1
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996 1
Councilman Mason: To be honest I have real mixed emotions on that. On the one hand holdin g separate arate I
P
think probably, I would agree with Mark that I think then it may have a better chance of passing. But the
additional cost is an issue. Of course Todd says, and rightfully so, that's a pretty small percentage. I think
there is something to be said for having it at the same time and that whether I like it or not, being a member of
City Council, having it at the same time I think would put the issue to rest. I think anyone who knows me
knows that I'm obviously for a referendum and would vote for it. But if that's not the will of the public of '
Chanhassen, I don't know. So I guess what I'm saying is, I'm riding the fence on that. I don't normally do that
but I am on this one.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen. Do you have anything more?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't have anything more. I'm not certain I want it decided tonight. I'm so
fogged.
Councilman Mason: That's maybe more of a point for me right now too.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: Maybe I'm operating under a faulty premise but my understanding of referendums is that if
you have a referendum during an election and people vote and they do not vote on the referendum, it's counted
as a no vote. So unless that's changed, okay and I'm going to point a few facts out to you. Last time we had a
presidential election in this town, we had the largest voter turnout ever but 60% of the people went in and voted
for the presidential candidate and left the booths and never even touched the local ballot mark. Now if that
happens again, this referendum doesn't stand a prayer okay, because.
Mayor Chmiel: He's just clarifying your statement that you said it was a yes or no and they didn't vote on it, it
would be a no vote?
Councilman Senn: That's my understanding.
Mayor Chmiel: No. That isn't what I...
Councilman Senn: Well Roger's shaking his head yes. That was always my understanding. Unless that's
changed.
Roger Knutson: It's been so long since I've had one at a special election. I can run upstairs and get a quick
answer.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Let's not decide it tonight please.
Mayor Chmiel: No, but I guess...
Councilman Senn: Well we don't have to decide a yes or a no but I think we do need to discuss it and figure it
out.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Absolutely.
44 1
'I
V
I City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996
Councilman Senn: If that's not true then that may impact a decision but Im just saying, I think we should
know what those issues are and...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Absolutely.
Mayor Chmiel; My understanding would be just the opposite so, okay. Why don't we, do you want to table
this?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's just an update.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, there's no action.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, let's talk about it at another time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we're not going to take any action on it. Is that alright with you Steve?
Councilman Berquist: Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: We'll move on then to item 8.5.
CONSIDER RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT 1996 LEGISLATIVE
INITIATIVE.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess you've got that one Kate.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I'd just like to turn it over to Diane. I don't want to steal any thunder in her
presentation.
Diane Harberts: That's alright, I was turned it over to Colleen. Good evening, I'm Diane Harberts. I am
Executive Director, as you know, of Southwest Metro Transit Commission and I am here tonight to ask the
Councilpersons here about the resolution that's presented in your packet and I'll ask Colleen and the
Commissioners of Southwest Metro if you wanted to make some overview remarks and staff, I'm just here to
answer any of the technical questions as well as if I could just briefly introduce Brad ... with Firststar. He's part
of our team and Firststar Financial Services team has been hired by Southwest Metro... to help you guide in our
organization and how we can operate more efficiently and to insure that we can continue to meet the growing
and diverse transit needs that exist in Chanhassen and some of other metro communities. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd love to. Just to give everyone a little history and background, for people who
aren't familiar with the organization. Southwest Metro is what's called a replacement service or more of a
vernacular is opt out. In 1986, or in 1985, and previous years, our three communities Chanhassen, Chaska and
Eden Prairie were served by the MTC as it was called. It's now called the MCTO. At that point we had maybe
one bus running in and out of Eden Prairie. Chaska and Chanhassen didn't have any service is my
understanding. The legislature created a provision where suburban communities could opt out of that system
and our three communities chose to do so. Over that time, I don't know how many buses we have running in
and out of our communities now.
Diane Harberts: 35.
' 45
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996 1
Diane Harberts: Formally the Council, this has not been before the Council. Next week it will be before the
Eden Prairie City Council and the following week the Chaska but we have spoken with the staff and city
managers and also individual Council members and they are supporting of this concept. It's just a matter of
formality, we believe. This is being supported by Southwest Metro Transit Commission. There is a resolution
of support that was offered in the ... at our last meeting in November and as you know, Southwest Metro's
composed of the elected and appointed officials from each of the communities so we do feel that we do
anticipate support from our business community.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Specifically Bob Roepke and Patricia Pitcock.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I guess my only concern was that if one of those didn't go along, I didn't want to carry
the ball here.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. I don't think there should be any...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Mark.
46 '
I
Councilwoman Dockendorf: 35 daily, ut the point is we've developed and become a bus service on u
Y P on P P
ourselves. However we're still governed by what used to be the regional transit board which is now been folded
into the Metropolitan Council. Unfortunately what we've experienced, how the funding works is that we raise
property taxes within our communities. Southwest Metro is supposed to use 90% of those funds raised for our
operations and 10% goes to regional service, i.e. it's taken out of our pocket and redistributed. We've had
continual problems I think from the start in getting even our 90% back to run our service. I think everyone's
familiar with what's been happening with the MTC, and I'm not just talking about the strike but in terms of the
MTC serving the core cities of Minneapolis -St. Paul and really running into a lot of budget problems. I think
they're $40 million in the hole. And we are certainly seen as a source for increased revenue. Over the last
several years it's been a real battle trying to get the funds that are by statute legally our's. In addition, we also
petitioned the Council for capital funds and to be honest we are absolutely lowest on the totem pole in terms of
receiving any capital funds, and we expend a considerable portion of our budget, both lobbying to get the statute
more clarified in terms of how we get our 90 %, and also just battling Met Council to get reimbursements. So
what this legislative proposal does is, to a greater extent opt out our communities. Insofar as the funding
jurisdiction and capabilities are transferred directly to our three member communities as opposed to pulling
through the Met Council. We are the only opt out that is currently in a position to do this. Mostly because we
were one of the first that was created and we've come along in terms of, we have some of our own ... on the
'
roads so we have a fleet. Now we've also done some very innovative things with reverse commuting. That is
taking people from the inner cities and bringing them out to jobs which has been very important for our
business community. As Steve, you know the concern over the lack of qualified workers that we have in this
area. So again, this proposal is for us to completely opt out and it's a demonstration project giving us 6 years to
really prove ourselves. There are benefits to both sides. Governor Carlson is certainly in favor of localizing
this kind of service. We have gotten support, and in fact I wish Jules were still here so he could speak to it as
well. We've gotten support from the Met Council because they get some benefits as well. They don't have to
run Metro Mobility out here, which is highly expensive to them. Southwest Metro certainly will see a great
deal of cost savings. And we are hoping to push it through the legislature this year. So that's in a very big
nutshell, is what it is.
Mayor Chmiel: Just one question, and I can't see why they wouldn't. What position has the city of Eden
Prairie and Chaska taken it thus far?
Diane Harberts: Formally the Council, this has not been before the Council. Next week it will be before the
Eden Prairie City Council and the following week the Chaska but we have spoken with the staff and city
managers and also individual Council members and they are supporting of this concept. It's just a matter of
formality, we believe. This is being supported by Southwest Metro Transit Commission. There is a resolution
of support that was offered in the ... at our last meeting in November and as you know, Southwest Metro's
composed of the elected and appointed officials from each of the communities so we do feel that we do
anticipate support from our business community.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Specifically Bob Roepke and Patricia Pitcock.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I guess my only concern was that if one of those didn't go along, I didn't want to carry
the ball here.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. I don't think there should be any...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Mark.
46 '
I
: I City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996
Councilman Senn: If we gain our own taxing authority as is being proposed here, does that mean we'll quit
' being taxed by the other side on it?
Diane Harberts: Well essentially yes. Basically with the 90% currently that is available to us, what the bill
proposes is that our communities then has the authority to levy 88 %. The remaining 12% then would be levied
by the region so it's a wash. If there's no additional taxes but when our bill, what our ... proposes is that a
significant amount of cost ... in our first year we have an additional 6 buses and we're participating under this
project, we could realize almost a million dollars in savings.
Councilman Senn: But this is a redistribution then of existing levy rather than creation of a new levy.
Diane Harberts: Right. Exactly Mark.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Seeing none, is there a motion?
Councilman Senn: Move.
Councilman Mason: Second.
' Resolution #96 -09: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the resolution in support
of Southwest Metro Transit 1996 Legislative Initiative. All voted in favor and the motion carved unanimously.
i COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
SNOWMOBILE SPEED LIMITS ON LAKES.
Mayor Chmiel: Scott Harr was going to be here but Don, do you have this one?
Don Ashworth: Councilman Senn had contacted me earlier asking that this item be placed on the agenda and I
abided by that request.
Councilman Senn: I've talked to Scott since and basically what's happening is, or at least I don't know if
anybody else is but I've gotten a number of complaints now about the speed limits out on the lakes and the
safety issues concerning them, especially I guess with a couple snowmobiles that ended up in somebody's yard
as a result of not being able to stop. And the 50 mph speed limit, you know I don't. I mean I've talked with
Scott. It's ... being ignored and it's also not enforced so I'm not sure what the solution is but I think we need to
come up with some kind of solution. If it's not enforced, the lower speed limit I don't think is going to make
any difference. I'm not quite sure what to do about it. I was hoping Scott would be here and we could have a
discussion on it but.
Mayor Chmiel: Some of these new machines can go as fast as 100 mph..
1
Councilman Senn: Faster.
Mayor Chmiel: 120 to be exact. And I have watched those going across Lake Ann like my goodness, look at
that star. It's really moving across that ice. It's a meteorite. But I guess there are some concerns in relationship
to those respective speeds. I would like to maybe have more discussion on this and bring in the snowmobile
47
City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996 1
club as well to get at least some feel back a little bit more. I don't ride them anymore, and I guess I would like
to get a little bit more input in regards to this. Not just exclude those particular people but I think State Statute
is 50 mph, as you've indicated and of course we can make a change within but the enforcement is a problem.
And the only enforcement you have are the people within the snowmobile club itself talking to the people.
They can't provide citations. And the Sheriffs department and DNR are the only other two that can do
something about it and I'm sure that they can't provide watchful eyes 7 days a week, 8 hours a day for this kind
of usage.
Councilman Senn: Well but some eyes are better than none. I think the feeling is now, the trails themselves
are confining and I think there's some limitations on the speed limits simply because of obstacles that exist
within the trail system but you get to the lakes and there are no obstacles. I guess I don't share that opinion
because I think there are obstacles on the lake, especially when my kids skate out there and a whole bunch of
other things but and fish houses all over the place, etc but I think it's gotten out of hand and I think we have to
come up with a way to enforce it. I mean I'm not sure the issue is really changing the speed limit. I think the
issue may be starting to find a way to enforce it and insist on some enforcement.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe what we can do is have this for one of our work sessions and also bring in.
Kate Aanenson: May I make a suggestion?
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
Kate Aanenson: Maybe you could turn this over to the Public Safety Commission to come back with some
recommendations.
Mayor Chmiel: Well yeah, that's what I was sort of leaning to with having the snowmobile club involved.
That's where it would and could go.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Unfortunately it's the snowmobile club that are the ones that.
Councilman Senn: They're not the offenders...
Mayor Chmiel: But maybe specifically we can go through that and make specific regulations in relationship to
the lakes in itself. So with that maybe we could have this run back to the Public Safety Commission. Have
them review it and have them come back with a recommendation. Would that be to everyone's suiting?
Councilman Mason: Yep.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. That's what we'll do. Don, make sure that they get that.
Don Ashworth: I will do that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Do you have any administrative presentations?
Don Ashworth: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Is there a motion for adjournment?
48 1
t
1 City Council Meeting - January 8, 1996
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Be uist seconded to ad'oum the meeting. All voted in favor and the
ril J g
motion carried. The meeting was adjoumed at 10:15 p.m.
' Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
7
r
49
1