1m. City Council Minutes Dated October 23, 19951
L
s
r
u
/ZW-I/
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 23, 1995
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Berquist, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman Mason,
and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Bob Generous, Charles Folch, Scott Harr,
Todd Gerhardt, and Sharmin Al -Jaff
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the agenda
as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT: PRESENTATION OF MAPLE LEAF AWARD. MARK LITIM. SR.
Mayor Chmiel: I would like to ask Mr. Mark Littfin to come forward please. Mark I know that through the
years in Chanhassen, as well as Chaska ... being in Chanhassen, family, friends and everyone that I can see here,
the friends that you've brought this evening. It really is going to give be great pleasure to present this to you.
But just to let you know a little bit about Mark himself and what he really has done. Mark jointed the Senior
Commission back in 1993. He was also a valuable addition who worked diligently in making differences in
lives of the elderly of our community. He dedicated himself to investigate the needs of seniors and finding
solutions for them. He also managed to bring humor, and I always liked that humor, and wit into the normally
dry commission meetings and he'd always take those ... put them in there and turn it very nicely. He and his
wife, Marietta attend most of the senior functions and in particular he managed the senior chorale group, the
Chandelairs... However he also promised that once his health permits him, he will rejoins us and resume his
activities. We intend to really hold you to that too. Many seniors have told me that knowing and working with
Mark has made a real difference in their lives. So with that I would like to give you the Maple Leaf Award and
it reads, The City of Chanhassen Maple Leaf Award Presented to Mark Littfin, Sr., Senior Commission member
1993 to 1995. In recognition of outstanding service to the community. The Chanhassen City Council, signed
by myself and the balance of Council. Mark, thank you very much.
Mark Littfin, Sr.: Thank you sir. Thank you. May I say something?
Mayor Chmiel: You bet.
Mark Littfin, Sr.: This reminds me of the Nobel Peace awards, although I think I value this more because I
know there's a letter somewhere that says the check is in the mail. My plentiful experience in Chanhassen is
not all that great. We moved here in 1960 and the following year and two years after that, I chose to run for
City Council when Gene Coulter ran for Mayor. Gene won, I lost. I lost by 7 votes. I have made the big
political mistake of choosing to run against the most popular man in Carver County, Emil Pauly and you don't
run against Emil Pauly and win. Especially when you're new to the town. I am grateful for the opportunity to
serve on the Senior Commission. I've enjoyed working with wonderful, wonderful seniors who are carrying on.
I'm sorry that I am forced to curtail my activities. You see I picked up a new papoose today to help with the
treatments. We are in a fourth week of radiation and chemotherapy for cancer. We have hope and we're going
to give this a fight right to the end. Thank you all very, very much.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
d. Final Plat Approval of 52 acres into 6 outlots and right -of -way for Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley Drive
East, Rottlund Companies, North Bay Addition.
e. Resolution #95 -109: Approve Resolution Establishing Fees for Temporary Sales.
g. Approval of Bills.
h. City Council Minutes dated October 9, 1995
Planning Commission Minutes dated October 4, 1995
i. Accept donations to the Fire Department from Pillsbury.
k. Set Work session Date, Fall Bonding, 1995.
All voted in favor and the motion carved unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: Being that Mr. Halla is not here yet.
Kate Aanenson: He's here now.
Mayor Chmiel: Oh, okay. I'd like to give an update or have staff give an update on that development
requirements.
1(B). HALLA GREAT PLAINS ESTATES. DON HALLA.
Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Discussions occurred today between the
applicant and staff regarding some of the present conditions of the development contract and the discussions
have resulted in five of the changes and /or corrections to items in the set of conditions, Section 8 of the
development contract. Each of you should have received tonight a revised copy which does show the corrected
items. I'll briefly go through those. On page SP -4, condition number D(4) shall have the addition of the
sentence, that conditions shall read, show a secondary mound on Lot 10, Block 1 as approved on 5/26/95 or
have a Carver County licensed ISTS site evaluator proposed a new secondary ISTS site for this lot. On the
following page, SP -5, condition number I. The sentence shall read, the proposed drainage and utility easement
over Outlot A shall be extended 20 feet beyond the 908 contour. Moving down to item J. The second sentence
shall be added which will read, the lowest floor elevation on Lot 15, Block 1 shall be one foot above the 100
year flood elevation. Moving down to condition K. An addition to the end of the last sentence. The last
sentence shall read, however, when Lot 10, Block 1 subdivides, the two ponds shall be consolidated into one
and the other one eliminated. And the following changes on page SP -7. Condition X which the second
sentence of condition X(1) shall be deleted. Again, those changes... discussion between staff and the applicant as
of today.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The applicant did call me today. I'm not sure if he called the balance of Council,
asking that this item be pulled from the agenda and so that further discussions can be done with staff. And Mr.
Halla, are you here this evening to indicate any more of those specific concerns?
Don Halla: Yes I am here.
2
1
1
0
1
1
r
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come to the microphone for a brief period of time. Just make your points.
Don Halla: Good evening Mayor, ladies and gentlemen of the Council. We were here before and basically I
thought that we had had final approval of our plot design... We also received this development contract which
took place approximately the first of August. We have gone through and reviewed the various items on that
development contract. We had worked out the ... and difficulties and some of the misunderstandings and
corrections with staff. But there was one thing that happened and that was that part of staff had given us some
misleading information with regards to outlots. That information would be that at any time we could come back
and ask them to be made into lots. Another part of staff said no, that's not true. You have to do it now or
never. That is why we're back here on that. We did find septic sites that did work on those lots. They have
been approved by the city. By the city staff that those lots were in fact buildable lots. But the problem really
occurs is that, in this new development which contract was given to us ... 5:30 p.m. Wednesday night and was not
able to contact staff until this morning. ...many changes in there that were not part of the development contract
that was given to us before or the plans that were given. We had made one change ourselves in this new plan
and that was, and I called staff, Dave Hempel prior to doing it. Got his permission. When they surveyed the
plot it came to the point that the road was going to go through was taking out 35 foot trees. Approximately 5
or 7 of them. And that by moving the road where it entered onto Highway 101, approximately 30 -35 feet to
south, that were able to save those stand of trees. That was the change that we suggested at that point. We also
have a, back in 1990 when entered into an agreement with the city whereby we gave the city an easement for
future Highway 101 and for parks. And part of giving that easement the language was put into it that we would
be able to continue to basically plant trees, grow trees. That the easement property was, and discussions with
the city have not really put the easement into language as such so the easements would be part of the
developments where it would ... be used for berming and for general landscaping purposes for development.
Otherwise what happens is we have on each side for now and into the foreseeable future, a no man's land which
is approximately 160 feet wide with about a 30 foot road going down the center lane. We had proposed as a
sensible use for part of that land in this last go around here that tennis courts be put in on the easement. Those
tennis courts would be removed at the time that a road was determined to go across the deep ravine on Highway
101. But in the meantime it would be an appropriate use for that property. We also have existing prior to and
after the granting of the easement for the road and for the pathway, trailway, our signs. Our signs that are
located... In the plans that you approved last time we showed a sign easement prior to these signs. They were
approved as such. Staff is now asking that these signs be moved. It was part of the discussion that took place
in 1989 and 1990 that those signs would in fact be able to remain. This is something that's new and just came
up on Wednesday night. We also have a very deep ravine and in the nursery business we have excess soil that
has to be dealt with and we have trenches and so forth that we compost and that type of thing. And in our deep
ravine we have for the last 30 some years filled this area with our excess soil. There's been no complaints
about this. We have worked with the Fire Department in burning brush and so forth and what has been a
reasonable method... We had all along said that we wanted to continue to do this. Again in the approved
documents and plans and so forth we showed it as a composting ravine that you approved last time and it was
approved as such. Now we are being ... that we cannot fill that ravine and continue what we've been doing for
the last 35 years. We want this development to be a number one class development. We're looking at homes
and lots that will run in the range from $400,000.00 to $750,000.00. We're looking at a development that will
bring revenue to the city for the schools and taxes, city, state, county and so forth of approximately $3 1/2 to $4
million per year. ...plat redevelopment. Part of it by working with Charles Cudd Development. We have
developed it in such a way that the nursery will be an asset to the property, not a negative, and that's been our
intention. So we have these various problems that we're dealing with right now. I think I've enumerated most
of them. I'm sure I've forgotten a few. There are changes now that were not changes, or that were ... last time
we received approval from the Council. We would prefer to see the approval remain as it was in the past. Not
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
with the changes. We feel that because we had the city give us incorrect information on the two lots which
were made into outlots, which I have data from the city here showing that they were buildable lots and that they
were approved, that that is a reasonable change. If there's a desire on the city's part not to move the road 35
feet to the south to save these trees, that's fine with us. We'll go through the trees. All along we've been trying
to do things that would make aesthetically beautiful, attractive, and so on and we thought that was also a
condition that the city wanted. The rest of the problems that are enumerated in here that need to be dealt with
can be dealt with quite easily. We feel that we have shown in the plans that were approved last time... property
that is not usable for anything else at this time. It's not usable because it will be... Small thing. We have been
parking on it. We have been growing trees on it. We would like to continue to do so. That is also in this last
go around here... being able to do that and that is right adjacent and across the street from our entrance to our
property. With that I guess I would like to ask whether Mark, do you have anything that you'd like to present
or things I didn't cover? I do have copies if you'd like to see the proposed development contract. I do have
copies. I would be happy to give you your thoughts and so forth about the signage that's going to be held.
Actually we're going to have this as three separate amenities. One consisting the northwest portion of the
property, one on the east side, and one south because that's the way the property divides up. Another thing in
the ordinance that says that you can have only one monument. In our particular case it would appear that we
really need four because we have three separate developments and three separate, or four separates entrances on
the plan. I think it would be correct that we tie them together. If you'd like I can give you copies of this just
for your perusal.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I'm not sure, are all the dimensions on there as well?
Don Halla: This is just talking about the concepts. The roads.
Mayor Chmiel: Oh, strictly concept.
Don Halla: It's just strictly concept of what's being thought to be done. Groves. The beauty of arboretum
living is the thought pattern of what we are going to develop there. Develop it into different neighborhoods.
One is Lily Fields, because we have day lilies as the main and we're going to have day lilies planted up and
down the street for more attractiveness in there. Wood Ridge which is up on the north end on the west side and
the other one was going to called Arbor Ridge for the east side ... and then Halla Nursery being in the center.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Are there any specific questions by Council? Steve.
Councilman Berquist: I'm almost reluctant to open this session. I find it difficult to follow everything that's
gone down up until now. A month ago you were before us, we had approved a final plat a couple of months
prior to that and you were before us wondering whether or not it would be feasible to change the water
treatment ponds from the normal 6 foot depth to 12 foot. And also to abandon the second short roadway that
led to any future development to the south. That was the extent of the modifications of the final plat at that
point. Now I'm not quite certain how it has evolved from those two items into all of this. I'm not really sure
that I want to get into it at this point.
Don Halla: Those items, if I may address that. Those items that we kind of appeared that were going to be met
with negative resistance so we dropped them. It didn't appear that that was something that we thought Council
wanted to see. That was my reading of the Council that night... I had scheduled it for coming in and discussing
it at the next Council meeting but at that point it was set up to be a visitor presentation so it seemed like that
was fruitless. So we didn't get any real positive or negative... but that's the way I took it so I dropped those two
4
1
1
G
C
1
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
items. As far as the two lots in that area there, that was being all handled through the city and city staff... I
made the mistake... That's the only reason why we're back here today. Anything else, I don't know why we're
back here other than those two lots. These other things, as far as moving the road, that was something that it
appeared after the land was surveyed, that these trees were going down and it was sensible to try and save the
trees. Again, if that's not what is desired, they can go down because of the entrance at the highest spot on the
highway and it does save the trees by the new change on the ... but again, we're willing to go back to the other
one. We don't want any changes from that standpoint if nobody else does.
Mayor Chmiel: Before I go to you Colleen. if staff has any input on this at this particular time? Maybe more
for background.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: The plat was approved on June 26th of this year. However, the plat was contingent upon
construction plans and development contract approval by the City Council. Without those plans, we don't have
all the final details of what the Council is approving. There are some issues that came about as we started
reviewing the final construction plans and that's why the conditions of approval were amended to reflect those
issues and changes. Furthermore, the fact that Mr. Halla pointed out that there were two outlots that were
changed into lots and that's why this is before you today. There are other reasons why this is before you. It's
because of the construction plans that need to be approved by the City Council that this item is before you
today. As far as the street alignment that Mr. Halla pointed out. That is, it's a true statement that Mr. Halla
checked with Dave Hempel regarding the realignment of the street. However, moving the street impacted a
number of septic sites. That's why staff is opposed to this realignment. The dumping in the ravine, that is not a
permitted use and if it has continued up to this date then it has been done illegally. Some of the changes that
Mr. Halla pointed out and Charles Folch went through, staff is agreeable to those changes. We are
recommending that the City Council adopt those changes. However, the other changes that Mr. Halla went
through as far as the street signs, the street alignment, the right -of -way easement and structures within the right -
of -way easement, as far as dumping in the ravine, the parking and farming easements, we're recommending that
staffs recommendations be adopted. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I'm going to endeavor to be diplomatic here and sometimes that's a challenge
for me. This piece of land has been in development stages for many, many years and been given lots of
extensions and every step of the way it's been an excruciating process for all parties involved. I don't know
why but it has been and in the last year we've really dealt with the current plans for development and that
pattern has continued and again, I don't know why but it seems like it's been brought to Council every single
time and I guess Council trusts staff to take care of a lot of what I consider are details. You know moving
roads just a little bit. Landscaping within easements. Signs on easements. Ordinances like dumping in ravines
and to be perfectly honest, it's very frustrating that it keeps coming before Council every step of the way.
Beyond that frustration I guess at this point I am going to trust that staff has looked through every one of your
considerations and given them good thought and are recommending conditions of approval that not only meet
with our ordinances but are in the best interest of the city as a whole.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Michael.
Councilman Mason: As far as I'm concerned, Colleen said it all.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
1 1
J
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
Councilman Senn: I guess I'm a little like Steve. I'm a little confused at this point. Why do we need to deal
with the outlots now?
Kate Aanenson: If you recall back in September we gave you a letter because we approved it back in June
We keep extending this. We keep buying more time and there keeps being little changes. Little changes.
Negotiations. Things change.
Councilman Senn: But that was in terms of the plat approval.
Kate Aanenson: There's two proposed for the plat approval. There's the construction plans that have specified
how the road, all that. What we look at as far as the plat is square footage of the lots and making sure they
have appropriate drainfield sites. Now when Dave looks at it, he looks at the engineering components. We
approved one and now we're buying more time because we're trying to tweak the other and we're trying to put
the two together. That's why we came back in September and said to you, we want a drop dead date on this to
make sure that we get some closure on this. So we gave them until October 13th to come in with the plans.
4:00 October 13th the plans come in and they were different than the original plans, as Sharmin indicated. So
in those areas that there was concurrence, we agreed. And those areas that we still feel strong enough they're
not in compliance with the ordinance, we still differ and that's where we're at. We hurriedly worked to get, Mr.
Halla was out of town. We hurriedly worked to get him a copy of our recommendations on Wednesday. The
reason he wasn't able to talk to us was because he was out of town. He told us he'd be unavailable. But we
worked diligently to try to get it out on time and there is areas that, as Colleen pointed out, that we feel strongly
about and those areas that we felt were agreeable to make changes, and made sense, we modified as shown in
the staff report that we presented tonight. Charles went through it.
Councilman Senn: So when we gave kind of the ultimatum in terms of the timing, I thought that related to the
overall plat and the plat still showed the outlots as a future issue.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: The outlot as far as the lots that would be built in?
Councilman Senn: Well the outlot, there were going to, when we approved the final plat I thought there were a
couple outlots on it.
Kate Aanenson: Yes there are.
Councilman Senn: Okay,
Sharmin Al -Jaff: They didn't have adequate septic sites. At least we didn't have proof that they had adequate
septic sites on them.
Kate Aanenson: What you have to remember is that this is operating under rules back in 1987. So what we
said is, what gets platted now is the only thing that can be platted until such time MUSA is available. Okay
That's what we've locked in. So what he's trying to accomplish now is pick up a couple more lots. Okay.
What we're saying is because those rules are in place, we're dealing with the rules in '87, okay whats ever
platted today, you wait. That's it until MUSA becomes available. Okay?
Councilman Senn: Okay, so you're applying it back to the '87 rule on holding? Okay. I see.
1
r
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions?
Councilman Berquist: I just have one comment. I can appreciate your frustration, believe me and I think that
when this finally gets resolved, you guys will probably, the staff will probably be the most relieved group. I
don't think Mr. Halla will be nearly as relieved as the staff will be.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Don Halla: I do have copies of what was the proposed development contract that—has my notes on. These are
the things that were all worked out with the city. This was dated August 2nd. And basically.
Mayor Chmiel: What year is that?
Don Halla: Of this year.
Kate Aanenson: Again, the plans changed. That's the whole issue.
Don Halla: ...changes to that...
Mayor Chmiel: Anything else? I think as we look at this, staff has gone through a lot of deliberation with
these plans and have come up with a recommendation to Council that the Council approves the final plat for
Halla's Great Plains Addition as shown on plans dated October 13, 1995 and subject to those specific number of
conditions that are contained within and number up to 36. Is there any other concerns by Council?
Councilman Berquist: Do any of the conditions address the signage?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Berquist: That Mr. Halla referred to.
Mayor Chmiel: That would be 30, item (e).
Don Halla: If I might comment. The things that I brought up tonight were all brought up by staff to bring
them to Council and that they're having to write the change and that we should bring them up to Council for
their changes on there. Staff was unwilling to make any changes...
Mayor Chmiel: Why don't we leave that up to staff to come up with those specifics and I'm not sure whether
it's Council responsibility to really sit down and review those specifics. And that's why we do have staff to do
this. ...particular one Steve?
Councilman Berquist: Are you willing to live with that one Don?
Don Halla: What?
Councilman Berquist: I mean it is evident that when the land is platted, and there's housing that that land is
developed, those signs will be off, they'll be off your land. They'll be off of Halla Nursery's property. They'll
be someone else's signs.
7
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
Don Halla: That's why when we showed them on the plans which have been approved, we showed them as
sign easements...
Councilman Berquist: Are you willing to live with losing those signs?
Don Halla: Not really.
Councilman Berquist: Yes or no?
Don Halla: I think the answer, at least from this standpoint, at this moment is no.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. What was the other item that you had?
Don Halla: The item... tennis court from future right -of -way for Highway 101. We thought that was a good
amenity. Neighborhood amenity that ... that it would be removed at such a time Highway 101 was improved, if
ever. It is off of the existing TH 101...
Councilman Senn: Kate, just a question. How many issues changes in effect in relationship to the final plat?
Any changes that are being made there are being...?
Kate Aanenson: Correct, we modified the final plat.
Councilman Senn: It's been modified mainly because the construction might be modified...
Kate Aanenson: Absolutely. Absolutely.
Don Halla: I would like the engineer, if he could...
Roger Anderson: State the conditions of the question?
Councilman Senn: What I was asking Kate was in relationship to the final plat. Any changes we are now
making in relationship to what we approved in the final plat, I was asking her if those changes were being
necessitated by the conditions being changed or caused by the construction drawings and their effect on the final
plat.
Roger Anderson: The road relocation was required because of a field survey and the field evaluation that
determined that the trees would be salvageable with that minor change.
Councilman Senn: It sounds to me like that's a non - issue. I mean staff's considered the tree issue and they're
saying the other issue is more important... trees out.
Roger Anderson: The tennis court does not affect the final plat. The parking requirements does not.
Kate Aanenson: But the question was were those shown on the final plat.
Councilman Senn: Yeah.
8
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
Kate Aanenson: No. They are changes that we did not see, I mean they're alleging that we did. We didn't.
That's why we raise them now and it was our opinion that they were never shown before and that's why we're
saying they're changes.
Councilman Senn: So the tennis courts were not shown on the final plat we approved?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Neither were the, neither was the parking easement there?
Roger Anderson: But by State law it cannot be shown on a final plat. Only drainage and utility easements and
wetlands can be shown on the final plat document. These easements would have to be prepared by, in
document form of the signage cannot be done on the plat itself as recorded.
Councilman Senn: I'm sorry, that's where I'm getting real confused. I mean you guys get up and say these
things were previously approved on the final plat and now I'm hearing they aren't on the final plat. They can't
be on the final plat so I mean, I'm sorry. I'm not following.
Roger Anderson: The plat and construction documents have to be worked together.
Councilman Senn: What construction documents? At the point of final plat we had no construction documents.
Kate Aanenson: That's our point.
Don Halla: This is the document that was submitted to the city. This 9 page document was submitted to the
city back prior to the final plat readings and so forth and on these drawings, they were all on there and this was
part of what we thought was being approved by the city and all of this, as far as, certainly not the tennis courts
but the signs were on here. The ravine was on here. That type of thing was all on here and it is on the ones
that—city. They're still on there. There's been no changes from that standpoint. They were on the landscape
plans that were submitted at that time also. And the road of course that's ... your discretion on that. You know
there may be a creative way of solving that problem that we weren't able to do in the 5 hours that we were
approximately on the phone today trying to solve ... about 9 people on conference calls.
Kate Aanenson: But you've had 3 months. You've had since June to get this resolved. We gave final plat
approval in June.
Don Halla: As far as our resolving anything, as far as the road, we asked staff permission. That was okay.
Dave Hempel said yes, it was okay to move it. We then put it on our drawing. If he had said no, we wouldn't
have done it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I guess it's not going to be an argument back and forth and I think what I'm going to do
is bring the question back to Council. I've read what the recommendations were. If you're not in agreement
with those recommendations, I agree with Colleen as to what she has indicated. This has been going on and on
and on. And I think a motion would be in order to either accept what we have here or to bring it back to
Council in two weeks with the finalization. If it isn't brought back finalized as to such, I will myself make a
recommendation that we den }' the plat.
9
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would be happy that the Council approve the final plat for Halla Great Plains
Addition as shown on the plans dated October 13th and subject to the following conditions as amended this
evening. And can I at the same time approve the development contract and construction plans and
specifications?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Then I will do so.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been seconded. Any other discussion? If hearing none, I'll call the question.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the final plat dated October 13,
1995 for Halla Great Plains Estates with the 36 conditions outlined by staff, and to approve the Development
Contract and the Construction Plans and Specifications for Project No. 95 -13 as amended by the City Engineer.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
1(A). APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR GALPIN BOULEVARD /COULTER BOULEVARD
RECONSTRUCTION. PROJECT NO. 93 -26A.
Councilman Berquist: Charles. In the past I've asked that when there would be change orders submitted, that
the total picture be able to be looked at. Rather than just having a bulk amount of the change order with no
reflection as to what the original budget really was. What the original construction contract was and we'd look
at the entire picture and I understand that we're approving a change order up to $1,066,000.00 but I have no
idea what the original budgets were or how they're affected by the change order. So that's the biggest reason
that I pulled this. The other couple of items, I find that there's some totals that are wrong. It's only a, it's not a
whole lot of dollars but it is some dollars. And then the other item I wanted to know, were the options
considered and what options were rejected before choosing to spend $63,000.00 to build that additional 9,000
square feet of bituminous trail. On the west side of Galpin.
Charles Folch: Okay. The first part of your question regarding... original contract amount is on page 3 of the
change order... I apologize in terms of detail how this is being handled... As I pointed out in my staff report,
approximately 13,000 ... will be refunded to the city ... The items regarding the change to the trail work. Basically
all the trail work and about 25% of the retaining walls are eligible for State Aid reimbursement, which we will
apply for. So approximately a little better than 25 % ... State Aid funds. The signage change will be a local cost
basically. At this point the project is substantially completed. We have one change order again totally
$67,000.00. In terms of the original project, we did more favorably in terms of items for State Aid
reimbursement than what we estimated a year ago at this time. Basically this year some changes were made to
what was State Aid eligible items. So actually on this project here we received approximately $120,000.00
more than we anticipated when we actually approved the feasibility study for the project so inherently the
original budget...
Councilman Berquist: Would it then be possible for you to use this as a model to show me a recap right on
down the line as to the proposed, the original original budget, contract amount, change orders. I mean we
10
L
C
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
talked about this in the past. How it would be nice, rather than see just the amounts, to see the proposed
budgets and to see how it all interacted and how it all washes out at the end and since this one ended up to the
good, could we use this as a model for future?
Charles Folch: Sure.
Councilman Berquist: I guess I'm going to ask that you work something out on a spread sheet or something and
give it to me so we can talk about how it's put together to provide us with more information rather than just the
bulk numbers. Please. Was there any discussion, and I'm sure when you guys realized that the people in
Trotters Ridge, the kids in Trotters Ridge had no way to get to Bluff Creek Elementary short of crossing Galpin,
you scratched your heads and say how do we get them there. What options are there? What options did you
come up with?
Charles Folch: Well as I understand it, the couple options that were considered were, there is a trail link
basically on the west side of Galpin near the Timberwood intersection which actually heads that trailhead will
be constructed to head northwest. Eventually tie into the future extension of Coulter Boulevard to the west side
of Galpin. We could have actually made the kids make that long circuitous route back to the Galpin
intersection but it didn't make a whole lot of sense. The only other option would be to request that the School
District provide a crossing guard down at the Timberwood intersection which is where the trail then would stop
and bring in another change order. However again we felt that motorists probably wouldn't be expecting a
crossing at that location. It's a T intersection ... identifiable with the school necessarily... and we felt that this wa
probably a more viable option. In addition, as we did get into final alignment and grading construction, with
curb and gutter being set out there, it did become quite clear that our attempts or our previous commitments to
those three residents on the west side of Galpin to preserve the three existing trees that they had from a
screening standpoint, that we really weren't going to leave them... boulevard area so we were looking at the fact
that we probably were going to have build some small wall anyway. Probably half the size of what's out there
now, even without the trail, just so these people could maintain the front boulevard areas. And given that fact
and given the benefit of getting them up to Coulter and whether it would be a ... crossing guard at a defined
intersection...
Councilman Berquist: You didn't consider a ped bridge?
Charles Folch: The... funding cycle wasn't available.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I had wanted to pull this item as well, and my concern was, we cut that hill down
10 feet and we spent a lot of money on specking out what a project's going to cost and it would seem to me
that this could have been foreseen even without the trail. That we would have needed a retaining wall and the
bulk of this $62,000.00 is for the building of a retaining wall. I mean who's responsibility is that to spec out?
Do we do that internally or does Bonestroo do that?
Charles Folch: The plans are designed by our consultant. We do review them. One of the down sides of
putting something in ahead of time is when you take it out you have an unhappy contractor when he's got work
11
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
that he bid, and assumed he was going to be doing this, and now you're taking it away because you really didn't
need to do what we thought we did. That's the down side.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well yeah. The other down side is we get multiple change orders.
Charles Folch: But you're correct. If we would have saw this upfront at the time the plans were prepared, the
cost would have probably been...
Councilman Senn: I had this one too Charles. Just a couple quick ones. All these improvements are now
complete though, correct?
Charles Folch: Substantially complete. The wear course and bituminous will be placed next summer. And the
landscaping will also be put in next spring. What's left of the landscaping but basically the project is
substantially completed. There's no surprises left in the job.
Councilman Senn: So is this the final change order?
Charles Folch: I would anticipate that there should be no more changes.
Councilman Senn: Okay why didn't, I'm just curious in this part, like Steve's question, overall concern in terms
of just the layout. Was there a project contingency on this? If not, why? I mean generally on a project like
this we have a project contingency.
Charles Folch: Well we can go back to the feasibility study. Well actually we can go back to the time the
plans were prepared and look at what the cost estimates were at that point in time. Typically we have a
contingency built in at the time of the feasibility study ... you have projects where you design. Typically when
we get to the final plan stage, and we have an estimate at that time, we typically feel very comfortable with that
and... unless we're uncomfortable with what the soil conditions or things like that might be out on the job.
Normally we feel very good when we have the final plans done as to what we can expect for project costs.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? Steve.
Councilman Berquist: The total for, part C of the change order, I think the addition is wrong. However the
City doesn't benefit from it. I'm trying to recap what actually took place. I'm pretty sure that's, I'm right and
their addition is wrong.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a motion for this?
Councilman Berquist: I'll move approval.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Resolution 495 -110: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve Change
Omer No. 1 for Galpin Boulevanl/Coulter Boulevard Reconstruction Project No. 93 -26A. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously.
12
' City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
' 1(F). APPROVE RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FEES FOR ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT
AMENDMENTS.
' Councilman Senn: On (f), basically the information we have in our packet I think is partially complete. Most
cities do charge a fee for, which I think is good that we start doing that, especially on changes of this type
' which I think are, I think we can define as somewhat a special interest type changes but in addition some of the
cities that are mentioned here also charge a deposit of $1,000.00 which staff time is then deducted from in doing
that so the $100.00 effectively is the administrative fee of processing the application and the $1,000.00 is then
put in place to pay for the staff time effectively to accomplish the amendment. And I know what the City of
' Eden Prairie uses and I had it in front of me but I can't remember the other city that was mentioned in there that
does too but I talked to Kate about that and she doesn't have any problem with it and I think we should go with
the fee but I also would like to see us initiate the deposit into the, the same approach. That way somebody's
going to have to be real serious about what they want to do and effectively it's got to really mean something
that they're doing rather than being anything that maybe somewhat frivolous. I think $100.00 isn't going to stop
anything from being frivolous so. And plus that does allow us to recover the true cost of our time, which is
what we're trying to do I think in what was written up here.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So you want to table it for those modifications?
' Councilman Senn: Either that way or just make the motion with the modification in, either way. I don't care.
Councilman Berquist: The City of Eden Prairie does it that way?
' Councilman Senn: Yeah.
Councilman Berquist: The information here just shows a flat $200.00 fee for the City of Eden Prairie.
' Councilman Senn: Yeah, but they have a $1,000.00 on top of that. For guide planning, for example, they do
the same thing. They have a $500.00 for a guide plan amendment. $1,000.00 deposit and then from the point
' you make the application they deduct any staff time even against the guide plan amendment from the $1,000.00.
Councilman Berquist: Well this doesn't include any guide plan amendments. It's only if you want to.
' Councilman Senn: All this was dealing with was this one issue. I think it's an issue we should look at for the
other one but since we're acting on this one tonight I thought we should incorporate it or at least look at it.
' Mayor Chmiel: Well I think we can adopt basically what we have and then review that and if there is a
consensus that it appears to be the best way to go, then we could put in a change to that resolution and request
an additional amendment to it.
' Councilman Senn: That seems like a lot of paperwork. I'd rather just table it and do it one way or the other.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. That's fine with me too.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. I'd like to table it and let us find out what is practiced in other cities.
' Kate Aanenson: Sure. I don't think we asked the question far enough, as Mark indicated.
' 13
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a motion to table?
Councilman Senn: Motion to table.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to table approving a resolution establishing fees
for Zoning Oidinance Text Amendments. All voted in favor and the motion carved unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: That will come back to us in two weeks? Good.
1(J). APPROVE PAYMENT TO BARTON - ASCHMAN FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES ON ARBORETUM
BOULEVARD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. PROJECT 93 -26A.
Councilman Berquist: In just looking through the Barton- Aschman, where we had this question two weeks ago
regarding $66,000.00 and 60 of it was earmarked school and now what you're in essence saying is that we pay
Barton - Aschman or we're going to pay Barton - Aschman $60,000.00 and change for field site supervision? Did
that guy live there or what?
Charles Folch: Actually pretty much with that type of job, with the coordination of Trunk Highway 5
intersection improvements and they had an inspector out there ... it was not Barton - Aschman. It was actually
their sub - consultant Bonestroo that provided the inspections for the job.
Councilman Berquist: So on a per hour basis it amounts to 60 some thousand dollars.
Charles Folch: Typically when you look at normal project processes, you can expect to pay, depending on the
level of detail and design of a project in terms of relative complexity, on ... projects you can expect to pay
anywhere from 8% to 12 % -13% for design fees and then an additional 4% to 8% for inspection... based on the
overall project or overall design costs.
Councilman Berquist: So what does this represent percentage wise?
Charles Folch: Well that was again a million dollar job...
Councilman Senn: At this point how much more is it?
Charles Folch: It's pretty well done. Most of that, this is billing basically for two months... then we're billing
for the job. And there will be probably an additional time. I would say in the neighborhood of maybe
$5,000.00 to $7,000.00 to finish up the job. Final inspections. Maybe not even that much... punch list and
things like that... So it will probably end up somewhere around 7% of the overall...
Councilman Berquist: Do they submit to you a detail invoice as to time on the job?
Charles Folch: Yes.
Councilman Berquist: Would you mind forwarding a copy of that to me as well?
14
' City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
Charles Folch: You bet.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, would you like to move that one Steve?
Councilman Berquist: Move approval.
' Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
' Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve payment to Batton- Aschman for
consultant services on Arboretum Boulevanl Environmental Assessment, Project 93 -26A. All voted in favor
' and the motion carried unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
' UPDATE ON TRUCK PARKING AND PROJECT STATUS, PILLSBURY.
Rex Lowrence: I am Rex Lowrence. I'm the engineering manager at the Chanhassen plant out there.
Unfortunately Ric Moore couldn't be here today but I believe you should all have in your possession a memo
stating the update of the current project, and especially in regards to keeping the trucks off of Audubon Road
where ... able to complete that. The main portion of that which is extending the employee parking lot. We're
' currently, the schedule is currently set for November 3rd is when we're targeting to be complete with that and
then we can actually start parking cars in there with lighting completion and some of the details, striping and
that kind of stuff done on November 10th. So currently we're, we don't see any reason that we won't be able to
make that, even with the weather today we may miss a few of these exact dates by 1 or 2 days but the overall
' completion we're targeting for on or around November 3rd. As far as the construction on the rest of the project,
it's still going ahead very well on schedule... maybe a few days delay but in the overall schedule we had dates
for weather planned in there anyway so we weren't counting on beautiful days every single day anyway. We are
in the beautiful State of Minnesota. That's pretty much the update and we I'm here for any questions. If you
have any questions on...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, are there any questions from Council?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. I'd just like to comment, if you could pass on to Ric, under the consent
agenda we did accept a donation for the Fire Department from Pillsbury which was appreciated.
Rex Lowrance: Okay,...thank you.
I Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks much.
1 15
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE III. URBAN/RURAL
SERVICE DISTRICT. CHANGING THE BENEFIT RATIO FROM 75% TO 90% FOR PARCELS IN THE
RURAL SERVICE DISTRICT. FINAL READING.
Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order.
Public Present:
Name Address
Jim Dingel
9351 Foxford Road
Marion Michel
8941 Audubon Road
Douglas Bergeson
9201 Audubon Road
Jeffrey C. Fox
Lyman & CR 17
Sharon Gatto
9631 Foxford Road
Dave Wondra
9590 Foxford Road
Tom Jessen
9570 Foxford Road
Duane Holt
9511 Foxford Road
Mark Lundgren
Carver County
Laurie Engelen
Carver County
Sheryl Bartholow
1161 Homestead Lane
Gayle & Lois Degler
1630 Lyman Blvd.
Mrs. Dean Degler
9111 Audubon Road
Kirstin, Brandon, Lizzie, Hillary,
and Zachary Heniak 280 Eastwood Court
Bob & Susan McCargon
9450 Foxford Road
Daniel Whalen
9650 Foxford Road
Al Klingelhutz
8600 Great Plains Blvd.
Albert Dorweiler
1565 Bluff, Chaska
Don Ashworth: Thank you Mr. Mayor. What we have before us tonight is really an opportunity to review the
existing ordinance that created two taxing districts, the urban rate and the rural rate approximately 30 years ago.
There's no question in my mind that 30 years ago there was a real necessity to look at a differential in the rates
between the rural area and the urban area. There's no question that most farms in Chanhassen 30 years ago did
not have a neighborhood park. We didn't sweep their streets. They required very little patrol activity, etc.
However, there's been a lot of changes that have occurred in the last 30 years. Specifically one of the areas is
the way in which agricultural property is taxed and between ag rate and green acres, items such as that, I quite
truthfully think that what was looked at 30 years ago is at the current point in time the very minor portion of
what benefits agricultural property. Specifically Al Klingelhutz, his property is worth about $450,000.00
according to the assessor's office. That produces a total tax of about $1,400.00. Whether we choose the 75% or
90 %, the actual amount of benefit to Al would be $22.00. I don't think that our $22.00 is the biggest issue
again to Al. I think that, and he is present and he will speak for himself. Another example in terms of what
the State has done and how that benefits some of our farming communities, the Degler properties where Mr.
Degler's property is taxed, his tax for his parent's home are $1,500.00 and $2,700.00. The difference between
the 75% versus 90% represents $24.00 and $44.00 respectively. I went through an analysis of the type of
parcels that we have in the rural area and I provided a list to the City Council so the Council has not only the
list as it would apply for 1995 but also the list for '96. Out of that you had 112 parcels. 24 were developed in
1994 -95, which means they are no longer eligible for consideration as part of the rural district. That leaves you
16
C
0
I I
F jJ
C
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
with about 88. The number of parcels that are owned by tax exempt entities, the City, the County, the Federal
government, churches, are also 24 bringing you down to 64 parcels. The number of parcels where the
difference between the 75% versus 90% is less than $30.00 to $40.00 is 33 parcels. So and then of that
remaining, 13 of those properties are owned by developers. So that means that the properties that truly are
benefitting from the current rural /urban designation are 18 parcels. Included in those 18 parcels are 3 parcels
owned by Prince, 1 by Gedney, 1 by Mills Fleet Farm, 1, well a couple of them by individuals who are not
farming but they enjoy the rural area living so they have very nice homes on larger estate type properties.
Those are, it's those 18 parcels which does not include Al, does not include Mr. Degler, who would really
benefit if we would leave this ordinance in place. I say that changes have occurred in 30 years and the original
philosophy, the original thought of trying to provide a benefit to people who are truly farming, is no longer in
this ordinance. I think that the ordinance needs to be amended. It needs to be very clear that the only parcels
that do benefit from this lower ratio are truly farming properties. Properties that are being tilled. Cropped.
Dairy farming should be allowed. An issue that I think the Council should tackle in trying to make that
determination is those properties where they have growing ranges. We have a number of the parcels in the 18
are growing ranges. I consider those businesses but really farming is also a business. Dairy farming is a
business. So staff would recommend that, and in fact if we would delete out the 18 properties that were not
really intended as a part of this original ordinance. That aren't being farmed. There's no farming purpose
associated with them. I think that you'd get down to, well you would produce enough dollars to actually insure
that the true farming communities in fact could stay at that 75% ratio, or go back to the 75% ratio. I would
strongly recommend that the City Council instruct staff to redraft the ordinance so as to include solely farm
properties. Properties again that are being cropped, dairy farm operations, and again there's an issue on this
growing ranges, and again if we would do that, I would say that you could very easily modify the rate for 1996
to 75 %. As it deals with the rate and that may end up being discussed here tonight, I do not consider that an
error occurred in previous years. I am not sure what year it was discussed with the City Council but I am
confident that the decision had been made as to the 90 %. If anyone was in this room and felt that part of my
presentation reflected badly on the Auditor's office, I truly apologize for that. The auditor has been very good
to work with. Mark is here this evening and I would like to see the record straight in that I am sure that his
office was given the 90% figure from the City of Chanhassen. But again, on most of these parcels, 90% of
them, are not what was originally considered when this ordinance was put through. This ordinance was not put
through to help developers, to help businesses, to help people like Mills Fleet Farm, Prince, etc, etc, and again
staff would strongly recommend that you instruct staff to modify this ordinance to reflect what was the intent of
the city 30 years ago. Oh, there should be an additional condition there and that is that you own the property
for at least 3 years. Potentially something like, it's got to be a minimum of 50 acres in size. That's the staff
report.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Don. As I mentioned before, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing
to address this? Please come forward and state your name and your address please.
Jeff Fox: My name is Jeff Fox. I own 40 acres on the intersection of Lyman and County Road 17 and Don,
you talked about all the small... for this 40 acres of land is $1,800.00 annually. My tax is based on 1995 taxable
market value of $25... That equals out to less than 72% of the taxes paid for the yearly rent. Based on the
estimated market value ... 21% higher than my estimated taxes would be $3,446.00, equally 52% of my taxes
being paid by rent. Had I known ... City of Chanhassen changed from 75% to 90% of value, I would not have
wasted my money investing in farmland. Please reconsider to change the ordinance and refund myself and other
farmers the overpaid percent of the taxes that was unjustly charged to us over previous years with interest. It
seems unfair that about 9 years ago the city was forced into, it seems unfair that about 9 years ago that the City
dropped this and other surrounding farmland values by increasing residential building lot from 2 1/2 acres to 10
17
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
acre. I had considered selling this 40 acres and since MnDot proposed the right-of-way—the only buyer would
be MnDot. Based on an appraisal done by MnDot where 10 acre minimums for building, our land values are
less than 30% of the realistic market value. The way taxes are increasing and based on MnDot's offer to the
surrounding farmers, I had no choice but to request a future zoning change within this use. My plans for this
particular parcel is under review. I'm looking forward to your review of the immediate surrounding area... stated
by the Council back in March of 1989 for a 5 year ... Thank you for your time.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Sharon Gatto: Mayor and Council. I'm Sharon Gatto. I live at 9631 Foxford Road. I'm a little confused.
When I called the Tax Assessor to ask what we would be discussing tonight, they said that rural property would
be anyone with a well and a septic. So 2 1/2 acre parcels would not be included in this, is that correct?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Sharon Gatto: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Gayle Degler: I'm Gayle Degler, 1630 Lyman Boulevard, and my mother and my wife. We're the last dairy
farmers in Chanhassen. At the last meeting I questioned the legality of this and obviously since it's been
mentioned, a refund was due, I think it's pretty obvious what has been done has been grossly illegal. I guess
I'm not exactly, we know now it didn't come from the County. I'm not exactly concerned as to who made the
mistake, who took it upon themselves to make the change from 75% up to 90 %. I think the Council should be
asking themselves the question, who did that without Council approval. I think that we obviously are due a
refund but more than that I would urge the Council not to correct a mistake by now making it legal. It was put
in the, it was made an ordinance years ago. We were grandfathered in in order to basically get the vote to
incorporate into the city. At that time the township was out there. The city wanted to incorporate the township
and they needed a certain percentage of the vote and that was one of the promises made to get the township to
incorporate into the city. And now obviously it's a political thing to do to change it because there aren't very
many votes left out there. But I urge you not to correct the mistake by making it legal. By cutting it off at 40
acres, I can understand your reasoning for that but you can have a viable dairy operation with less than 40 acres.
If you're going to have staff look at that and look at individual parcels, I would urge that it not only just be
staff. I would like a few members of the public at large and I would volunteer to be one of those public
members to look at changing the ordinance and I would urge the Council not to make the change tonight but
look into it. Study it a little further. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Gayle. Anyone else?
Tom Jessen: Hi. My name is Tom Jessen. I live at 9570 Foxford Road. When I first read this article in the
Villager, I thought there was a potential that it affected me. If it doesn't, what I'd also like to do is voice my
opinion of the way that this is obviously been handled. Earlier you were talking to Mr. Halla about respecting
ordinances. If there was an ordinance on the books, where these gentlemen not paying taxes, it seems real clear
that they ought to get to a refund and you not treat them this way. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
18
' City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
' Al Klingelhutz: Honorable Mayor, City Council members. I'm Al Klingelhutz. I live at 8600 Great Plains
Boulevard. Seeing my name was mentioned a few times earlier, I have a few things to say myself. I think the,
and Gayle brought it up. I was very involved in the merger of the township and the village of Chanhassen...
township had 3,500 people at the time and the village had I think a population of 220. So in order to get...
satisfied, the farm group which was quite extensive at that time, was a good share of that population... The
' township had a very low motivation and the city's motivation was about 2 112 times as high at the time. And in
order to get the votes from the rural area, the City, the township officers then ... and the village officials agreed
that this ordinance would take affect if the new City Council that was elected would take care of it. The new
City Council was elected with Mayor ... and myself and other people that ... agree to this and at that time I believe
it was August or October of 1967 that the ordinance took effect. I guess my biggest concern was the fact that, I
know the City published it in the Villager newspaper in the small print section but I picked up a copy of the
Lakeshore News the following week after the first reading, the headlines were, Chanhassen Council discusses
tax rates and what they were discussing that night was the rural service taxing district. It wasn't until last week
that our official paper had anything... about the legal notice saying that the ordinance was going to be passed. I
don't know if somebody's sleeping at the paper or what took place but it kind of bothers me that a paper not
affiliated too much with Chanhassen would pick this information up before our own local paper would. It really
' did surprise me when I found out that since 1985 or '90 I believe it was, that without a change in the ordinance,
that the rural service district was taxed at a higher rate than what the ordinance said. It started out with 85 %.
In 1990 -91 and then in '92 and '93 to '95, it's gone up to 90 % ... change in the ordinance. I guess I'd like to
correct Don a little bit in what he says about my low taxes. Sure I'm in green acres. My valuation is at
$450,000.00 but if I ever sell that land, I'll pay back taxes on that $450,000.00. It won't under a green acres
taxes. That's something else that should ... and like Gayle said, there's quite a few entities in the county, in the
' city that have smaller tracts. All the land—are fully agricultural. All that's grown on them is crops and maybe
some of them even have some livestock but I think Don said 50 acres. I think that's too big. I like Gayle's idea
that if we could sit down and have the sociable meeting with maybe part of the administration, maybe a couple
members of the City Council and a couple of us out in the rural area, that this problem could be solved without
the alienation. I guess one thing we're going to have to be real careful of, and I know when we passed this
ordinance, we went all through the city and looked at all the parcels 10 acres or less. And we eliminated a lot
of them. But we were taken to court, to tax court and several of those when we got through with tax court, had
' to be put back on the agricultural rate. So there's one thing we've got to take a look at, so if we do pass an
ordinance, that that's... thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Al. Anyone else?
Dave Wondra: My name is Dave Wondra. I live at 9590 Foxford Road and I actually thought that this earlier
affected me. It really doesn't but there's something I want to comment on because I think the earlier discussion
went to great lengths to point out that the dollar amount was very minimal. It didn't affect very many people
and then the unstated portion of that was, well it's not a big deal so let's just erase it and let's just clean this up.
My point is, it does matter. Not to many people but to some people. I don't farm but others do and it affects
them and they were also here a long time before the rest of us were so I think we have to make sure that we
watch out for their interests as well.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Is there a motion?
' Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
' 19
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Hey, you got skipped Steve. I guess I'm confused Don as to why we can't find
documentation. I mean the City Council must have passed the change in the ordinance and that would be on
record.
Don Ashworth: I don't find anything but I sincerely believe that through budget work sessions, whatever, that
the item was discussed. That somewhere along we said, we've set the rural rate at the same as it was last year,
you know and it gets back into an issue of, you know Al said '89 -90. From work that Laurie and Mark have
done at the auditor's office, it appears as though that was the time frame.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But if it were an ordinance change, it would have had to gone through a City
Council so I guess my point is that I'm all for cleaning up the current ordinance and to getting it back to the
original intent and I would certainly appreciate the help of Mr. Klingelhutz and Mr. Degler, if they would like
to help staff in looking at all the parcels which would be appropriate, and you know by deleting a lot of the
parcels we can keep those specific farming parcels at 75% rate, or change it back to the 75% rate. So the issue
to me really becomes can we document that the City Council made that ordinance change and unless we can, I
think there's a real strong case for refunding the money, you know. Just because someone has paid taxes and
accepted what they were doesn't, if that's not what they should have been charged then, I don't know.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Don Ashworth: I think what ... was the fact that all of your tax levies are by resolution. Utilities, are all by
resolution. I guess to literally find this and where it had shown the 75% is just totally opposite any other type
of taxing procedures that you typically go through.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Would there have been an ordinance change though? The rate?
Don Ashworth: But you see normally, nothing else, no other ordinance that you have has a rate in it and
dealing with it in ordinance format.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But this one does.
Don Ashworth: Yeah, but you see this goes back 30 years and I think that's one of the biggest problems.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So you think what happened is, in '89 -90, during the course of some budget
discussion.
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: The decision was made. Well, if in fact that was the procedure for how it was
done, I have a problems with how that was done. I mean this affects a number of people and for Council to
make a fiat decision like that without a public hearing, you know. And you know I'm cognizant of the fact that
going back and figuring out all these small dollars and who the parties are is going to be time consuming but I
don't know. I'm done.
20
u
I
1
w
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Senn: Well, I like the idea of some of the concerned people, Al and Gayle and staff and maybe
some Council people, sitting down and working this out. I agree with Al. I think that's very doable and I
would guess it would be pretty amenable. I'm concerned. I don't understand where we went from 75 to 90. I
understand Don how it could have just happened. I mean I'm, I can envision that happening in some meeting.
don't recall it. That certainly doesn't mean a whole lot. But I do agree with Colleen that if we made, if in fact,
if in fact Council made, or whoever made a tax change like that without notification, I agree. I think whether,
regardless of the dollar amount. I certainly think a case can be made for some sort of reimbursement to the
affected party. Something, it doesn't quite fit I guess is what I'm saying.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: Well from my perspective I think we should just simply get it, getting it fixed and cleaned
up. I'm glad I'm pulled it off the consent agenda in the first place and raised the issues. Unless it can be
documented, which I think if it could be it would have been by now, I think we ought to, well and not only
documented. I'm going to say documented that the changes made with proper public process, then I think we
really ought to get at calculating refunds and get them out. Beyond that, I'm in complete agreement with Al and
Gayle that we should set up a little study group to go through it, just as I asked that first night to effectively
understand what properties were impacted specifically and how so those people can be notified as well as some
discussion and ultimately I'd like to see this, you know effectively cleaned up and a new ordinance put in place
for the ones which we use the farmers rate at 75 %, if in fact it is being used for true farming purposes. I don't
think that's going to hurt or bother the city from the numbers ... one way or the other.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Steve.
Councilman Berquist: Mr. Klingelhutz mentioned when the ordinance was originally passed it was done in
order to get votes to incorporate the rural folks into the village or into the township. But you know that wasn't
the reasoning behind the ordinance. The reasoning behind the ordinance was to attempt to differentiate between
the benefits between the city livers and the rural livers. The benefit was not, or the goal was not to generate
votes. The goal was to differentiate between. I can just about envision what happened in 1989 or 1990.
Someone at some, at the staff level said well you know we've got 75% we're taxing the rural district at 75% of
value. Look at all the benefits they're receiving. They're no longer receiving 75% of the benefits of the people
that are living in the city. They're getting police patrol. They're getting this. They're getting that. They're
getting the other thing and there was an arbitrary decision made at that time to go from 75% to 85% and they
made the decision based on what they thought was pretty logical, pretty explainable reasons. The fact that it
never got incorporated into the ordinance was simply an oversight. There was no malicious intent. There was
no goal to over tax and not tell anyone about it. It was simply an administrative oversight, I believe. And the
85% rate went on for 2 years I believe and at that point then the same discussion took place and someone again
made the arbitrary decision to go to 90 %. Again, that was not malicious or done in order to over tax or to
penalize the rural district. That was simply done, you know what they considered to be good judgment and the
benefits that were being received by the rural district. I like the idea of getting together and trying to put
something together. Right now I'd be in favor of abolishing the district completely and working to refund the
people that have been over taxed since 1990, because of the error in not amending the ordinance. I don't know
though that that's realistic because with some of the other properties that are involved, Klingelhutz' and Degler's
notwithstanding, I think maybe there are some good reasons for differences. Having said that, I'm perfectly
21
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
willing to be one of the council members that would be on that commission so I could be convinced that there
is a viable difference between rural and urban at this point in the game.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Audience: Could I just ask a question of clarity. We keep talking about rural but then farmers get brought into
this. Is the original law states farming, farming properties or rural properties on septics and wells?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, strictly agricultural. It has nothing to do with the septic systems or anything of that
nature.
Councilman Senn: The 2 1/2 acre and 10 acre designations, that's more ... MUSA line and the Met Council...
Mayor Chmiel: So that's not part of your concern at this time. Okay. Don?
Don Ashworth: I agree totally with Councilman Berquist's comments. A lot of discussion here as to potential
on rebates or abatements. State Statute is very specific that if there are errors associated with the taxation
process, misshowing of value, tax rate, whatever it happens to be, that the process is defined under Statute as to
what that, how that is to occur. And again I do see our County Auditor, Mark Lundgren is present. I was
wondering Mark if you would try to explain what that process is, or if you'd like me to.
Mark Lundgren: I can speak briefly to it and, I do not have a Statute book with me but maybe Roger would be
familiar with that. Our office handles the abatement procedures for the County. The standard procedure would
be if you feel that you have been mistaxed or inappropriately taxed or unfairly taxed, that you can apply for that
abatement procedure and it is then taken into effect in our office and the abatement is for the most part
delivered. I believe, and I did not read the Statutes before I came but the only one that will receive interest on
is a tax court case. So on a standard case like this, with the abatement procedure, I do not believe that there
would be interest involved in that. I wouldn't want to be quoted on that until I get an opportunity to pull out
the Statute book because the tax laws are quite intricate, as you are somewhat aware of. Statute does take
current year and back two. So that would give us obviously '95 as the current year and back two prior years.
From what I could recall in the office of this, '92, Laurie do you have that in front of you? Was it 75% or
89 %? 90%
Laurie Engelen: On Table 1991 was taxed at 75°/x...1992 is when it changed to 85 %.
Mark Lundgren: To 85% and then the next three years, '93, '94 and '95 at your 90 %. So of those, they would
be able to recover the three at 90 %. The 85% of the one year would be one year removed from the abatement
process. I am not sure legally is the city or the application if you so choose to go about this, can be a blanket
abatement situation or whether those individuals would have to come and file at the County for that abatement
procedure but that is the answer that we can certainly get either Roger to research that for you. We'd be glad to
have the County Attorney research that. And that in a nutshell I believe is your abatement process with Carver
County.
Don Ashworth: Thank you Mark.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks. Okay. We, I think are basically all in agreement to where we're at right now.
Yeah Mark.
22
k
1
1
1
u
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
Councilman Senn: Let me just try something here. It seems to me the first thing we should do is move to table
it.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's going to be my recommendation.
Councilman Senn: Two fold beyond that is, I'd like to still go back to my request of September when this
originally came up and I would still like to see a specific itemization of the properties involved and the amount
of dollars involved in terms of each property. Okay? I think the issue here is one of what is fair. Not
necessarily what State law says as it relates to abatements. I think that's something we should look at. More or
less, how has it affected whom. I know the abatement process can govern if you look purely at the abatement
process but there's also other laws that prohibit the city from acting outside of their own ordinances so I mean
you can debate that all year long but, and then at the same time I think we should set up the study group to take
a look at the need, or lack of need, for the continuation of an urban service district and if it is continued, under
what circumstances or under what definitions it should continue. And then again have a full understanding of
what that means or does not mean, both economically in terms of the city and to the individual property owners
so those people have the correct information in front of them and a means to process and I'm going to say to
evaluate it and comment back to us in relationship to let's say a public process to make that change. And if
that's acceptable I guess I'd like to make that a motion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There's a motion on the floor, if everybody understands.
Councilman Berquist: I thought you were going to make it a little more succinct
Councilman Senn: Okay. One, table. Okay. Two, set up study group. Okay. Three, effectively put together
a specific list of properties involved, the people involved and dollar amounts involved so the Council can come
back and look at that and decide what's fair to do in relationship to dealing with the past.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess that's the entirety of the 112 parcels that they indicated.
Councilman Senn: Yeah I've heard, I mean since September came up I've heard anywhere from 150 some
parcels now to 121 and narrow it down to whatever. I think that's all immaterial. Let's take every parcel that's
been in the urban service district from that date and let's do it.
Councilman Berquist: Second that motion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, motion on the floor with a second. Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to table amending the City Code, Chapter 2, Article
III, Urban/Rural Service District, Changing the rate from 75% to 90% for parcels in the rural service district and
to direct staff to set up a study group and compile a list of the properties involved and the dollar amounts
involved. All voted in favor and the motion carved unanimously.
23
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
PUBLIC HEARING: CONTINUATION OF ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR GALPIN BOULEVARD/
COULTER BOULEVARD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. 93 -26A.
Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order.
Don Ashworth: We had gone through the proposed assessment roll at the last meeting, really consisting of two
parcels. One owned by the City and the other by the School District. I had requested that the item be tabled to
allow me to go back and verify that administrative costs had been included and also to insure that the School
District was fully knowledgeable as to what we were doing, etc. The numbers as presented are correct and
we're recommending approval of the roll as previously presented.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anyone wishing to address this issue? Seeing none, can I have a motion to close public
hearing?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carved. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Any questions Council?
Councilman Berquist: Move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Motion on the floor with a second for approval.
Resolution #95 -111: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adopt the assessment roll
dated September 25, 1995 for Trunk Highway 5 South Frontage Road (Coulter Boulevard) and Tnmk Utility
Improvement Project No. 93 -26A with an interest rate and term of 7 1/2% and 5 years respectively. All voted
in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark you wanted to say something?
Mark Lundgren: Yeah, just one quick minute please and I didn't get my hand up either high enough or fast
enough. We do have a little of time, and Don has talked about this but we are somewhat under the gun. The
Truth in Taxation Notices that are going to go out, that you'll be receiving will be based on the 90% rate. Now
the time inbetween the Truth in Taxation Notices and then your tax statement which is going to come in the
spring to you, I am unclear what I need from you in the very near future or at least inbetween that process is the
percentage to use in calculating the pay '96 so that if you're familiar with the Truth in Taxation Process.
They're going to receive one now based on 90% and that is the way the tax statements would follow in the pay
'96 if that were the case. So it is imperative that I ask Council, and we've always had cooperation from Don, to
turn the fire up and at least decision making wise for pay '96 tax statements so that those can go out in a timely
fashion and also under a situation which you are familiar and clear and comfortable with and maybe by then
your new ordinance would be in effect. But I just wanted to make sure that we all were aware of that time line
so we're not dealing with another year at what some people may deem an inappropriate percentage. And Don,
you and I can certainly communicate on a time line necessary for that tomorrow or the next day.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
24
I City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
I PUBLIC HEARING: CERTIFICATION OF DELINOUENT UTILITY ACCOUNTS.
Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order.
Don Ashworth: The City typically goes through a certification of delinquent utility accounts each year. City
Council has a listing of those. The name of owner and the amount of the delinquency. This process allows the
city to certify those amounts onto the following year's property taxes for again collection in 1996 and a
reimbursement to the city of those amounts that are due the city. Approval of the certification list, which again
each owner on there did receive notification of not only this hearing but the amount that would be certified
against their property. That's the staff report.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone wishing to address the Council at this particular time? If seeing
none, is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carved. The public hearing was closed.
' Mayor Chmiel: Is there also a motion to approve.
Councilman Berquist: I move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
' Resolution 095 -112: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adopt the Ceitification of
delinquent utility bills as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
' AWARD OF BIDS: TWO FIRE TRUCKS.
Scott Harr: Mayor Chmiel, members of the Council. Good evening. I am before you tonight to recommend
that the contract for the two fire trucks, as outlined in the packet, be awarded to the low bidder, Toyne Fire
Apparatus. Rather than repeat the information set forth in your Council packets, I do have the Fire Chief Jim
McMahon and First Assistant Chief Bob Moore to be here tonight. They are to answer any specific questions
you might still have. As the City Manager advised you in the comments he added to my memo, the purchase of
' these trucks will be within budget and as a result of thoughtful planning by the Fire Department as to the future
of this community and it's fire protection, these two trucks will take the place of the three that had been planned
for two years ago, effectively saving us over $300,000.00 in today's money. This recommendation meets the
needs of the Fire Department to maintain proper equipment to meet fire protection needs in a city growing as
quickly as our's, and the need of the Council to make sure that this is done so in a fiscally responsible manner.
I'm pleased to recommend that the bid from Toyne Fire Apparatus be accepted.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Scott. Is there any questions? Mike? Is there a motion?
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
Councilman Berquist: Wait a minute.
' Councilman Senn: Oh, have you got a question'?
25
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
Councilman Berquist: I wanted to know the difference between these two bids.
Mayor Chmiel: Ask your question.
Councilman Berquist: You get one bid for $620,000.00 and one bid for $580,000.00.
Scott Harr: You're talking the difference between the Toyne and the...?
Councilman Berquist: I'm talking about, right. Are you guys talking different chassis or what? I'm just
curious. I mean it's a $50,000.00.
Jim McMahon: Identical chassis. Identical specifications. The thing you have to consider is these are all
custom built ... and obviously that being the case, it's not like buying a truck or a car ... amount of materials they
purchase or labor. There are many factors involved. And this being a bid process, and obviously companies
being in business for a profit, they take their best educated guess to make... We were well satisfied with what
we saw. We looked at ... see if there was a vast difference in quality... That being the case, our recommendation
was to go with...
Councilman Berquist: I was just struck by the large, I mean that's $41,000.00. It's a $41,000.00 difference in
price. Significant number. It just struck me as being a big difference.
Jim McMahon: One thing to consider is that the bids were sent out to 5 companies. 3 of them chose to not
even to bid. For what reason I don't know.
Councilman Berquist: You didn't ask them?
Jim McMahon: Their comment was ... their truck would be considerably higher priced than the other folks that
were bidding and they weren't going to waste their time.
Councilman Senn: Kind of like Dial -a- Lawyer and Campbell Knutson.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions?
Councilman Mason: No questions but a comment. I talked with Scott earlier today about this and I do think
this speaks very highly of all the people involved. Knowing how much I suspect some people like doing what
they do, it would have been fun to have three trucks instead of two. But really, my hat is off to all you people
that put in the time for this and came up with what I look is a real good deal for the city, and for you folks as
well.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, there's a motion on the floor with a second.
Resolution #95 -113: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to accept the bid from Toyne Fire
Apparatus for the pumper tanker and pumper as set forth in the September 7, 1995 proposal. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously.
1
1
I
1
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT UPDATE. HOUSING GOALS AGREEMENT.
Mayor Chmiel: Kate and I did have some discussions this afternoon and I think Kate has some good news for
us. I should say this morning. Kate.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. I'd like to introduce two members of the Met Council staff that are with us
tonight, Don Bluhm and Bob Paddock. Maybe I can ask them to come forward. They're here available to
answer questions. They're the representatives of Section 8. I did include in your packet the Sector 8 so you get
an idea of the communities that we're being compared against. As I mentioned in the report, if you took a
summary of the different sectors that they're comparing us with and averaged those, those are kind of the
benchmarks that we'll be measured against. As I indicated a couple of weeks ago when I brought this originally
to the Council, I believe it's in our best interest to participate in the Livable Communities Act based on the fact
that we will be having to go back and ask for MUSA expansion and in addition any other financial
consideration that would have the jurisdiction of the Met Council or the legislature, including ISTEA dollars.
Federal Highway dollars. Certainly this would be used in measuring whether or not we're participating and
consideration of whether or not we would get those funds so we certainly, staffs of the opinion that it's in our
best interest to participate. In order to look at what were realistic goals we first had to go back and measure
where we've been and what we're doing to try and get an idea. First of all, what the Met Council has rejected
as far as population households. See if that number seemed realistic and then step back and say what have been
the development trends and how far from these marks are we. So what we've done is, Bob and I spent a lot of
time pulling these numbers together and looking at, on Table 2 we went through and looked at the last four
years and looked at the development and densities and number of units per acre and those are broken down into
two components. The low density and then the medium or high density or the multi family, if you put it on this
chart. Just to give you an idea of where we've been averaging as far as density, and again we're requesting that
we be considered net density and when comparing us to other communities, we do have a significant amount of
wetlands which does affect our ability to, our lot yield so we're asking for consideration on the net density,
which is what we looked at in the MUSA expansion. If you look at what we're averaging under a net density
for single family is 2.05 units an acre. Under multi - family it's 6.25. As far as where the benchmarks under
density, where that hurts us is when we've approved projects for certain density, and again the Planning
Commission's raised this issue several times when we approve a project underneath that density. Where do we
pick up that extra density and put it somewhere else? We've lost that density basically because it's difficult to
go back to another neighborhood and say, gee we took it from here and now we're going to impose it on this
neighborhood. So one of the things that we'll be looking at is, under this act is, maybe pushing those to the
upper limits of the density. Back tracking to what we're requesting to do tonight is look at some of these
factors that we've put out and give us some feedback whether or not you think these goals are realistic. What
the Met Council is requesting is that by November 15th we adopt a resolution saying we're going to support that
and then by December 15th we have to put our goals together. What I'm requesting is that you consider the
goals and the resolution at the same time because if there's not concurrence on the goals, then I don't think we
should put the resolution forward so I'm hoping between now and the next Council meeting that we can get
some concurrence. The other thing I mentioned in here is that the city does have to put in a certain, a dollar
amount for the Affordable Housing Act. That would be $50,000.00. But in talking with the staff from Met
Council, we have participated really at that level and beyond already with our senior housing project, and the
fact that the HRA is underwriting those costs so we're already getting credit for that so we do not have to
allocate any additional dollars. We just need to demonstrate to them the amount that we are providing for that
project. So that's good news. Okay, just to show you where we're going then, as far as density. The three
factors that we're being measured against is density, life cycle and affordability. So density under the low
family, we're confident we can meet the goals. Again the issue on the density for multi- family was really an
27
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
issue of the fact that we have been approving projects underneath. Most recently North Bay which was guided
for 12 units an acre and that came in around 5 unit an acre so we've lost that opportunity for those number of
units. Although the staff supported it because it was a zero lot line, affordable project. We did lose that
opportunity to provide some other types of, other units. Again if you look at that, in order to get the numbers
closer to the range that they're recommending we'd actually have to be producing, or approving projects in
excess of our minimum requirements.
Councilman Berquist: North Bay. The zero lot line affordable project? What was the sell prices in there?
Kate Aanenson: Really they're over $120. $125 is kind of what they're looking at. That was one of the
directions you gave staff. Look to provide some of those units to be affordable and that's what we're working
on. That was a direction that you gave also.
Councilman Berquist: Okay, sorry.
Kate Aanenson: That's alright. So what we're seeing in order to get closer to those averages, because right now
we're at 6. Our number's a little bit different than the Met Council because we've kind of thrown in our own
factoring. What we're saying is that we need to push a few, like the senior housing project for example. That
one, actually the senior housing project was actually 30 units an acre. We did the density shift on the PUD so
there are opportunities to push the averages up and try to get them better but what we're saying is that we're
going to have increase. We don't have a lot of high density in the city. We have a lot of medium density and
those areas we do have an opportunity under a PUD to approve density bonuses so that may be one opportunity.
As far as life cycle goals. Again, this is kind of a cyclical thing. We believe that as far as what the Met
Council is recommending, the 25/75, we just don't believe that that's an opportunity that we'll be able to meet.
Based on where we are right now, we're quite a ways from that goal and we don't believe that based on
development trends that we could get more than 80/20 percent on the mix. Actually the Met Council
benchmark was even up as high as 33 %. I think this is an area that we're going to have to be the most creative
in. If you look at in terms of what that actually means in units. For every 8 units of owner /occupied, we have
to be looking at 2 units of rental. Again there are those opportunities but this is again for the next 15 years to
look down the road. We have been approving a lot more attached, owner /occupied but there haven't been that
many rentals but we are approving different types of mix. As far as rental units, again we believe some of that
goes beyond the scope of the city's ability to do some of that stuff. We have done the senior housing project
and we certainly hope to be working with Carver County in doing some more projects and looking at the
Southwest Metro and transit facilities and providing some of those sort of opportunities. We believe there's
some creative options that we can do there. But again, we believe that even at a 20/80% mix, it's going to take
some creativity on the city's part to reach that goal, and that again is underneath the benchmark that Met
Council's given us but I'm trying to give a goal that I believe is more realistic. Their direction to the staff, or to
the city is that you're supposed to be turning the course of the shift. Certainly we can't, we may not be able
to ... but certainly our objective is to work in that direction. Multi- family, life cycle. Non - traditional. Again,
we're believe that we're moving in the right direction on that one because we have approved a lot of projects.
The comprehensive plan, we put in 34 %. We believe that still is easily accomplishable. If you look at the
project that we've been approving, most recently the chart I had up earlier, we've approved a lot of attached,
owner occupied projects and we certainly believe that that 34% is a good goal. Again, we had that in the comp
plan and there's a lot of different types of products within that range. I think again that's certainly doable. The
affordability. For owner occupied that's $115,000.00 and for rental, originally they were giving us a number of
$500.00 a month but now they're looking at $625.00 a month for this sector. Just to give you an idea, when we
approved the senior housing project we had 65 units. Of those, 37 are under $625.00 a month so there's 37
P
1
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
units there that would be affordable. What's happening there, because we haven't approved that many projects,
we're actually kind of moving away from some of these numbers. It's going to be cyclical as development
occurs. We'll be moving further from some of the numbers. Right now, the last couple years because interest
rates dropped, we actually approved a lot of houses on the upper end and projects such as Mission Hills on the
lower end have actually, well they're sold really fast. We haven't done as many of those type of units so again
we believe that's cyclical and we are seeing a lot more of the multi - family. What we did, based on the GIS
system that we have, we were able to go through and break down all the different types of land uses and give
you an idea of where we're going. We calculate right now we're at about 32% on the low density so we're got a
ways to go to get more of the higher end. Again, that's an opportunity that we need to explore doing some
density transfers and the like. So in summary the goals that they're recommending and that we're putting in
place, under the ownership, the 115, while we've been approving a lot of the different types of single family, not
a lot of those are affordable. Just as we talked about North Bay. While that's a different type of product, it's
not necessarily affordable and we've had problems such as when we first came in with Oak Hills, Oak Pond. If
you remember the second component was rental. They were having problems financing it, and after they started
selling really fast, they originally came in at $75,000.00 a unit and they started selling really fast. Well to and
behold what happened is, the price went up and they actually changed the product a little more because the
market was such so actually we lost an opportunity there because the prices escalated pretty fast and now that
space that they did, that space in the north is actually in excess of probably $125 to $160. Some of those units
so we lost that... That's going to be a hard one. I put 50% there. Again, the benchmark was 60 to try to get
ownership. Again, that's 50% of the next units that we're looking at. Again the rental, we're at the mark right
now but we're away from that mark again because we haven't approved as many units. And the life cycle again
we believe that's accomplishable again. We put that on our 1991 comprehensive plan. We still believe that's a
good number, that 34 %. Again the owner renter mix, that's another tough one as far as whether or not that's, we
certainly are confident that 75/25 is not within our power right now. We hope, again working creatively with
some of our's as we did the Heritage Park and working with Carver County, HRA, our own HRA to try to
develop some of those opportunities. And again the density of the single family is not really an issue but the
multi - family we're going to have to increase some of the again upper end to try to increase the average. That
would be my recommendation. I'm just looking for your input. Again, what I'd like to do is come back. Get
some input from you and come back with a resolution and if these goals are acceptable with modifications, have
that prepared for you for the next time. And I'd be happy to take questions or for the staff from the Met
Council.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Very good Kate, thank you. That was good news on coming up with that $50,000.00
that we wouldn't have to budget. Sounds good for at least that 1997. Steve.
Councilman Berquist: Does these mandates do anything for us? The market's hot. We've got however many
pieces of property that are current zoned, or comp planned IOP. Does this do anything for it as far as?
Kate Aanenson: It brings up an interesting question that we may have to get Roger to come in on but if
somebody's underneath the density and we say it's inconsistent with our comp plan or our goals in our comp
plan, do we say well we're going to deny it based on the fact you're not meeting our housing goals? That's
what they're asking us to consider.
' Councilman Berquist: One facet.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
29
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
Councilman Berquist: I don't understand what you're grinning like...
Councilman Senn: Be careful what you call one facet on a political process.
Councilman Berquist: I'm too dumb to understand this. I just want to know if it gives us leeway in
maintaining our commercial /industrial percentages. It gives us another little bit of arm twisting ability. Okay
Mayor Chmiel: Any other? Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I'd love the opportunity to opine about my feeling of this Livable
Communities Act but that's not the purpose... I guess my frustration, in addition to it being a big fat stick, is the
fact that we have limited control over these factors. A lot of it is market driven. Kate, you and your staff know
more about this and if you say these are achievable, with some creativity, then I guess we have to go with that.
Kate Aanenson: Well I'd be perfectly honest to say. I'm trying to set them realistic. Are we going to achieve
them all? No. I don't believe so. But I'm trying to show good faith that I think these are realistic. I'm not
going to accept the benchmark that they give because we can't achieve them, and there's some areas we're not
going to make but what they're directing us to do is show good faith. The next component of this would be in
by June of '96. We have to come back with implementation. Of how we're going to accomplish these goals
and we've given you some suggestions in the report. Maybe we go back and revisit the PUD. Maybe we go
back and look at some of the densities and those are medium or high and look at those. - Working with the
HRA. We've give you a list of things that we believe we can implement but are we going to meet all of them?
I don't think so but I think they're realistic and we're certainly going to try to aim for those goals and that's what
they're asking us to do. To try and aim for those goals.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: You did mention some possibilities, some creativity with Southwest Metro. I think
that clearly needs to be investigated. That is the three member community's land in Eden Prairie and if we will
be developing, where we can house...
Kate Aanenson: And that's an existing opportunity. That's a good point Colleen and that's another opportunity
we can do too, is clustering. Chaska offered to give us their trailer park but. That's another opportunity that we
can do and I'm glad you brought that up. Is to cluster with other community's projects because there are other
communities that are going to have a hard time. Shorewood and the like. They're going to have a hard time
trying to do some of these but they do have the opportunity and we are allowed to do some of those creative
kind of things.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is that it Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: Well, along with Colleen, I might opine anyway even though you didn't. I feel a little bit
like we're being mandated to do some things and of course not being given a penny to do it. And I basically
have a lot of problem with that. But I guess I also kind of see the handwriting on the wall. I've been talking
30
0
r
L
n
1 71
V
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
affordable housing for a long time and I'm told well, it's market driven and it can't happen. And I guess part of
me then says well, here comes that big stick and now we're going to do something about it. So maybe that will
all work. I don't know. I wonder about some of the other questions about well, what Kate just said. Well what
are we going to tell the developer? I mean if we turn them down for those kinds of reasons, what's going to
happen Roger?
Roger Knutson: I've been doing this for a lot of years. I've seen a lot of plats turned down and people leverage
and say you've got to take out a lot or two or you've got to reduce density. This would be an interesting
situation where someone comes in and you'd say, you get those lots smaller, you add units or you're out of here.
Councilman Mason: Maybe it's time for that, I don't know.
Roger Knutson: But the answer is, I think we can write ordinances. I think we can write ordinances to
encourage people, and in some cases mandate what we want.
Councilman Mason: Right, understood.
Roger Knutson: Under the current ordinances if someone came in here, you know met the rules and wanted to
build a $300,000.00 house, you can't say I'm sorry. You've got to keep ... make it more affordable. Our current
ordinance... ordinance is now wouldn't allow you to do that.
Councilman Mason: I don't know. I'm done for now.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: First I'd really like to applaud you know Kate in terms of what she's dealing with here and
what she's trying to put together. You know what you really have in front of you on that last page there is
really some numbers that I think Kate's already described in those numbers which would acceptable to the Met
Council and the benchmarks that they've set. I think as the City of Chanhassen we have to be real cautious here
because I think if you look at those numbers for 5 minutes you can tell very quickly that they are goals we
cannot possibly meet. We cannot possibly meet 50% affordable housing you know in single family ownership
at this point. I mean it's just not possible if you consider the amount of single family ownership we already have
developed what's left and what would have to happen there to do it. It can't happen. I think we have to be very
cautious here in the sense that this is all real nice and relatively flowery right now, as it relates to develop these
nice goals and oh, don't worry about the goals and stuff but we also have to remember that these mandates
come from the legislature and there are some very strong voices in the legislature who've already advocated the
heavy stick approach versus the, let's call it the volunteer approach, which is what the current process is being
called. The problem is, if we set a goal we can't meet, I can pretty well lay odds that several years down the
road somebody's going to use that as an excuse as to why the stick should be used rather than the volunteer
approach. I know several communities have asked for this and if this Council's willing to go along with that
approach, at least in terms of what's on that last page there in terms of setting goals we can't reach but would be
acceptable to the Met Council, I suggest we also get it in writing that those goals are not hard and firm and that
we cannot be penalized later for not meeting them even though we make our best efforts to meet them. I'd
rather have that up front than depend on it coming down the road when I doubt it would. As far as the
affordable housing goes in Chanhassen, I'd really like to see us, as a Council, set up specifically a work session
to deal only with affordable housing. Nothing else on the agenda. This issue is going to be very critical to this
city in the next 15 to 20 years. One way or the other. Either in a positive way or a negative way. I mean I've
31
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
had lengthy conversations with people in the field about this, including Curt Johnson who heads the Met
Council, and you know in Chanhassen's case, I think it's really unfair to, you know if you go to that matrix
there and compare Chanhassen to those other cities. I mean look it. 99% of the other cities on that list are
older, fully developed suburbs with substantially older housing stocks who are in redevelopment and rehab mode
rather than new development modes. One or two may come remotely close to where we are at this given point
in time and I think that's really an unfair comparison. That type of, I'm going to say data and statistics is what
has fueled this argument in the legislature all along and I think somewhat erroneously but I hate to see the good
guys at this side, which I'll try to describe the Met Council as, is adding fuel to that fire on that issue. But from
our perspective, and I've talked to, like I say, Curt Johnson about this and from Chanhassen's standpoint, I mean
we do need to produce affordable housing. The problem is I think there's only two ways it's going to happen.
Okay. One is going to be some broad form of government subsidy through programs similar to TIF or
otherwise. You know to actually get government involvement in doing it and right now under the current TIF
guidelines, which would probably be the only program that would be remotely close to doing it, that all sunsets
and goes away in a few years. So that's not a practical solution without change. The other is that we abolish
MUSA lines. Because unless you abolish the MUSA line, and in effect create an over supply of land in this
marketplace, land prices in this town are going to continue to prohibit this type of development regardless of
what you do. And I don't think Curt disagrees with that. In fact I think he said he agreed with it. And that's
an issue I think use really need to go on record on and I think it's an issue we need to look at very strongly
because I think that's going to, from an overall standpoint, have more to do with us, or at least our potential of
meeting these goals on any type of a I'm going to say near term basis because like I say, if we don't get it on a
near term basis, I mean it's never going to happen but again I think we have to get realistic and not look at a
number like 50% and come up with something that is realistic and more or less have our eyes open doing it and
that's why I think it'd really... how would I say, it demands the time I think to really spend some in depth time
discussing it and coming up with what we really look at as a city position and in a timely manner to respond to
it. The Met Council staff is basing it again, they're basing... legislature to get back with some information which
I think they want by next session effectively is what it comes down to. So you know, that's kind of where it's
at.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. That's exactly right and I agree with you Mark. I've had discussions with Kate today
and I was using the same things that you're just basically saying. With the usage of the Twin Cities and the
first rank suburbs that falls right into their realm but in the city of Chanhassen, not that we're any different but
basically we are because the land costs have escalated and everything has gone way out of the benchmark for
us. So I think that really what you've indicated is very true. I think that's something that we have to really look
at and come up with some conclusions. I first was intended as a great big stick to use that by legislature but it
didn't really achieve it but it's coming back much softer, but it's still trying to meet some goals that may not be
attainable, as you've indicated. So I see that as we go through this, I think we're going to have to really come
up with some clear numbers.
Kate Aanenson: Can I get some clarification from the staff members here from Met Council, because I believe
that some other communities have asked for similar letters about the ... they have something to that effect and we
can certainly put that in your next packet. Maybe they'd like to comment on that.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I wouldn't want to put ourselves to be penalized so that if in the event that the
expansion within the community...
Kate Aanenson: Absolutely, and other communities, as I mentioned.
32
u
I
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: ...hold back with the MUSA line change, and that concerns me as well.
Kate Aanenson: Right. And the other communities have raised that same issue and they can certainly comment
to that.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up to that mic please?
Don Bluhm: Again I'm Don Bluhm with the Metropolitan Council staff. We've been dealing, Bob and I with
the communities in the Carver, Scott County area. We've talked with about 8 areas and several of the
communities are apprehensive in what would happen if we establish goals. We do everything we can in our
power to get things done but yet the market doesn't, or the market doesn't allow us to do this. The information
we've got, or the direction we've got and the answers to the community and we can't get that ... if you put
together an action plan. That action plan establishes a lot of things that Kate's already talked about as far as
what the city can do or would intend to do, is permit this type of development. And it doesn't come. That then
the Council is going to hold the community liable for any, you know for missing goals that weren't attainable
because the marketplace wasn't there. I can't say what the legislature's going to do next time through or even
years down the road. We've heard that comment here tonight and we don't know. The goals that we want...
We'd like communities to get somewhere between the, in this case the city's index of 37% on affordable and the
60 which is the benchmark. We want to show the process. The city's goal of approaching the benchmarks that
are out here. The 50, somewhat inbetween. The city can take a look at what's realistic. If 50's not realistic,
what is realistic? 45? Is there a difference between 4 1/2 out of every 10 and 5 out of every 10? How is it
being affordable? That's something for you to look at. I really don't know staff wise as to what type it is but
you still have to, I think working with Kate we've seen a real hard working staff person here going to the goals
and objectives and almost working at some sort of an implementation plan or action plan... Most communities
have gone as far as what we have seen at this point. Yet we've got 4 communities out of the 8 that we're
dealing with that have already accepted the idea that they're going to be involved... communities have gotten
goals already established. The other two we're meeting within this next week. I think it's something to be
looked at. It's something to be taken seriously. I think that's being done here. I think staffs doing everything
they can to come up with something that looks realistic, and if the Council's willing to give you a letter
indicating in that letter that if you've these goals, you establish the action plans to reach these goals and do
everything you can within your action plan, and because the market doesn't come to the city, the Council's not
going to hold the city liable and we can speak for the Met Council but we can't...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any questions?
Councilman Berquist: The four communities, you just mentioned four of the communities have adopted. Who?
Don Bluhm: We've got the city of Waconia. City of Chaska. Savage and Prior Lake have accepted the
proposal right now. We're meeting tonight with the city of Chanhassen. We're meeting with the city of
Shakopee tomorrow. We're getting with Belle Plaine and was there anyone else? That's it. That would be the
meetings that we're dealing with. My understanding is about, of the communities that 105 that are served by the
Metropolitan facilities, that approximately 25 % -30% have accepted so far and the program is intended that
November the 15th is the dates most council meetings are being established... for final action just before the
November 15th date. But everybody's going to ... and Bob and I are representatives to your Council.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you.
33
11
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
Councilman Senn: If I could just add a little comment, and Steve helped... understand it. The four communities
that he just mentioned. It's a beautiful example of the MUSA situation. I mean Chaska is a community which
has it's own sewer system and has developed freely from the MUSA line. Look at, I mean they don't have any
problem meeting whoever's criteria at this point so those were easy to come at. And you know Waconia. I
mean that's the situation that's been created here and now the ones being caught in the middle effectively are the
outer tier suburbs effectively governed by MUSA and I don't think any of them, Kate tell me if I'm wrong, are
in a different situation than we are right now as it relates to the same issue. Any of the outer ring ones with
potential...
Kate Aanenson: Well we're obviously in that precarious situation when you have the MUSA expansion, that
carrot and the stick means a lot more. Certainly when you compare us to Chaska, Waconia, they've got
different housing stock. A little bit older community. What we've even seen here too is a lot of these
communities are trying to establish their older base, affordable. Keep them rehab so they're in good shape. Our
tax base, I mean our residential in the downtown actually is escalating pretty fast because of the commercial
development and it's now foreseen as a very desirable... Yeah, we do have a little bit different set of problems.
Don Bluhm: Every community I think is a little bit different. The city of Prior Lake has got the Wilds where
they're putting up 450 new homes that are very expensive... another development in the future and they're same
question was similar to your's. Well, what happens if we continue to build the Wilds and don't get the more
affordable housing, and it's pretty much the same thing. They've got to come up with an action plan. They can
have the Wilds but can they come up with an area where they can see same affordable housing as well and
they're ... 60% affordable for a goal. So you know it is something that each community has to look and feel
themselves out of course as to what they're... goals are going and how much land they've got.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you.
Brad Johnson: Mr. Mayor, could I just add something, or is that improper?
Mayor Chmiel: Right at this time, yeah we still haven't come to any conclusions. But Kate, with what we have
here now, do you feel fairly comfortable with all the goals that are indicated? I think there's some concerns as
to some of those percentages yet.
Kate Aanenson: Right. Again, a lot of it goes in the second part which is what Mark was talking about is that
action plan. What are we going to do to accomplish that, and that's why I think, I'm more comfortable getting a
letter from the Met Council that says, if we put the action plan in place and they approve it and we're moving in
that direction and there's forces outside the city that prevents us from getting to that goal, then it's through no
fault of our own because we, through good faith, made the changes to make this happen and if they don't, then
the fault falls somewhere else. Those issues beyond the city's.
Councilman Senn: Don I think this Council should have at a rudimentary understanding of that action plan
before we accept the goals and that's why I really think that work session is important so we all kind of
understand that. We buy off on it and realize that that action plan effectively that's going to follow rather than
precede the goals, at least is going to form a basis for what we're going to come to and I think we've got time to
do that.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. Yeah, I agree with what Mark's saying and that's why we tried to put some of the action
plan in there at the end of our, we tried to give you some idea of the direction we're going because that's why
34
' City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
' we were having a hard time and as staff has indicated, we've probably put a lot more work than other
communities but we're in a little bit different situation. We kind of wanted to give you an idea what the
' development concepts so you kind of can grasp it. It's a hard thing to get your arms around. Where are we
going. What does all this mean? Again, are we going to approve 5,000 more households in the next 15 years?
I kind of doubt it. Again we have a lot of large pieces that are out of development. One being Eckankar.
' That's got some high density on that and it probably won't be developed. I mean those kinds of opportunities
we've lost. They've got to put that somewhere else. But just to keep in mind the timeframe again, by
November 15th, if we are going to participate, we at least have to do the resolution and at that time I think with
the resolution we put that together with a letter. That would be my recommendation. A letter from the Met
' Council saying that you know, that we won't be held accountable to the goals and then we have until December
15th to actually put together these goals so that, before then we'd have to have the work session. And actually
specifically put together the specific action plan. These are just the goals by December. Then the action plan
' we actually have another 6 months to go through and maybe we have to do some ordinance amendments and
that's something I think we need to involve the Planning Commission and the HRA and some other groups to
talk about specifically the implementation. ...what things we need to do to take a closer look to review the goals.
I certainly don't want to put goals in here that someone's going to say, who are they kidding.
Mayor Chmiel: No...with the amount of taxes on properties. Do we ever take that into consideration into this
as well?
' Kate Aanenson: The taxes on? Well again, what we did is we looked at what the existing land uses were and
that's how they came up with the numbers too. We tried to break out what the existing land uses are and what
we need to do to get to there and so we haven't recommended any land use changes yet. I think that goes back
to what Steve's question was. How does this impact the industrial and the mix of uses right now and we're not
recommending that, although that may be something that we might consider.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So what we're going to do is set up a work session on this and try to come up with a
date so we can be consistent with the time scheduling as to what we have here, and I don't think there's any
action that really has to be required this evening.
' Kate Aanenson: No. But just so you're aware. We'll have the resolution. We do have to have that in place by
the, on the next agenda and then we won't adopt any goals at that.
' Councilman Senn: Just a suggestion, and maybe even Don and Bob would want to participate in that. I mean.
Mayor Chmiel: It's an open meeting.
Councilman Senn: I wish they would. I mean I think it'd be a big help if we all kind of walked through this
together.
' Don Bluhm: We appreciate the opportunity to...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Thank you. I'd like to entertain about a 5 minute recess.
CONCEPTUAL AND PRELINIINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 12.34 ACRES
FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD): PRELEVENARY
' PLAT OF OUTLOT A. AUTUMN RIDGE ADDITION CREATING 94 LOTS AND 1 OUTLOT, AND SITE
' 35
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
PLAN APPROVAL FOR A RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF TWO
4 -UNIT. TWO-3 UNIT. ONE-6 UNIT AND NINE-8 UNIT STRUCTURES. AUTUMN RIDGE 2ND
ADDITION.
Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council members. This project is located in the southwest quadrant of
Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. Staff has been working extensively with the developer to come up with a
site design that we believe meets the intent and the requirements of the city as part of it's planned unit
development. This project is actually the second phase of the development of the Autumn Ridge site. Earlier
this year the southern half of the group of 46 townhouse units located west of the new school site and the rec
center site and it would provide some housing opportunities for well the life cycle housing that we were talking
about in the Livable Communities Act. Now the density in this proposal is 7.6 units per acre which is near the
top of the permitted densities within the medium densities which is 4 to 8 units per acre. The applicant has
provided us some information on the estimated valuation for the properties and some of them are within the
affordable housing range. They're starting at $100,000.00 and going up to $130,000.00 for the 8 unit structure.
As I said, staff has been working extensively with the developer. Their original proposal had a looped road
system that went up adjacent to the Highway 5 corridor. It marks the unit around the structure and basically
flatten the site. There was a I believe a 3 or 4 foot elevation change after grading when they were done
grading, the mass grading the site. Part of their new proposal, or their revised proposal and the one that's before
you tonight, staff has requested, had the applicant revise the layout of some of the buildings to provide a step
down as you move from east to west on the property site. Each of the base floor elevations are 2 feet lower as
you march across the property so on the north side so you'll see a staggered roof line and building. We were
also able to open up the northern part of the site so they could provide some berming for screening for the
residences from the Highway 5 for when the Highway 5 is expanded in the future. We've also been able
through the inclusion of single loaded, single entry units to pull the grading, the extent of the grading away
from the wetlands on the west side. Additionally the applicant has a site before you and structure in the
northeast corner of the site that permits them to preserve additional trees that will act as screening for this site.
The applicant has provided some material samples. They're proposing the use of three different colors. They
are blue, cedar and tan for the building siding. One of the conditions is that they develop a plan to assure that
they will in fact use these colors. It could be type of unit or it could be location and we'll allow them that
flexibility to develop that. Additionally they will have a unified theme for the roof that's just a one color, a
weathered color and they will also be able to provide some different architectural detailing for like window
treatments, half moons, square thrown in, what have you and that will all be part of the development plan. We
believe that their proposal does meet the intent of the planning unit development and we're recommending that
the City Council approve the conceptual and preliminary planned unit development for this project subject to
conditions contained in the staff report. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Councilwoman Dockendorf:
Bob Generous: I believe in
Councilwoman Dockendorf:
Bob Generous: Right.
Councilwoman Dockendorf:
Are there any questions? Colleen.
Are we saving all of the large trees in the northeast corner?
ost of them. There are some that are down the hill that are.
But further down.
Next to Highway 5.
36
C
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
Bob Generous: Also, their revised plan saves at least 2 of the trees on the west side.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: How does this, what's the word I want to use. How will this look next to what's
already been developed there? Or already been approved I should say. Are these similar type units? Would
they have similar architectural features or is it a completely different look?
Bob Generous: I believe they're fairly similar. There's more larger units in this one. The first development had
only 4 unit structures. They were all single loaded. And so this will, it will be compatible. I think
architecturally it will be very similar.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I noticed we've got, oh never mind. I thought we had a couple stub streets but we
don't. In understanding the density transfer for the PUD, I guess I don't see the boundaries. I'm having trouble
figuring out where we're getting the open space. Is that in the wetland area?
Bob Generous: Yes
Councilwoman Dockendorf: On the western part of the site? Could you outline the boundaries of the property
please.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh that entire.
Bob Generous: The total property.
Bob Generous: The density transfer took the southern half essentially. This is upland area.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right.
Bob Generous: So we've transferred that to the south half. And then on the north half there are no density
transfers required. They're within the guidelines establishing the comprehensive plan.
Kate Aanenson: As you recall though, the City is requiring that the remaining O'Shaughnessy property be
passive open park on that property. And so instead of allowing development to occur on a previous phase, we
took that density and put it on, again you still had lower density. It was guided for lower and as Bob indicated,
that they're doing a little bit different product because of the less density and a little bit more expensive. Take
opportunities of walkouts out to that wetland.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't have any other questions at this time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anyone else? If not, is the developer here this evening? Would you like to make your
presentation? Are you in agreement with some of the conditions that staff has carried forth?
Derrick Passe: My name is Derrick Passe. I'm with Passe Engineering and I've worked with the ... I also
previously worked with Good Value Homes on this Autumn Ridge 1st Addition. The type of units that are
being proposed are compatible with each other. Beyond the single loaded units which we are proposing in the
2nd Addition are one of the same units that are found in the Ist Addition. Make it more amenable rather than
bringing the completely different building type... I do have a rendering of both buildings which they have very
similar architectural styles and will work very well side by side ... The main cost differential between the single
37
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
loaded units and the condominium units is that the single loaded units are all walkout units which have
basements... will be on grade units. ...answer any questions regarding this development. Robert Koppe from
Scenic Development is also here tonight to answer any questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. You look anxious Mark. You're on deck.
Councilman Senn: Looks fine to me.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike?
Councilman Mason: Looks fine.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: We've had indications that some of these will meet the $115,000.00 benchmark.
Do we have any idea how many?
Bob Generous: I don't know, Mr. Koppe?
Robert Koppe: What was the question?
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come over to the microphone. The question was, how many of these homes
will meet the benchmark of the $115,000.00.
Robert Koppe: Well, it would be in the 8 units here. The 8 units. The units that are more of the same ones... I
mean that's a basic. That's an estimate. We haven't...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And how many 8 unit structures are there?
Bob Generous: There's 9 of them.
Derrick Passe: 82 of the units are the condominium. In the condominium building.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. So realistically maybe half of those might meet that goal?
Kate Aanenson: We'd certainly like to make that a goal. To try to make, accomplish that and whatever we can
do to make that happen before it becomes final plat. That's why, as you can see this is in bold where it's an
addition where we're trying to now, ask those kinds of questions and work the direction to see what we can do
to make...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Steve.
38
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
u
0
C
0
Councilman Berquist: No. I don't really have any questions. I think it's a very viable project on that piece of
land fronting Highway 5. I move approval.
Councilman Senn: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: According to staff recommendations. And a second.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve Conceptual and Preliminary Planned Unit
Development to rezone 12.34 from Agricultural Estate, A2 to Planned Unit Development, PUD (first reading);
preliminary plat of Outlot A, Autumn Ridge Addition creating 94 lots and one outlot for Autumn Ridge 2nd
Addition; and site plan approval for a residential medium density development consisting of 1 two unit, 2 three
unit, 2 four unit structures, 1 six unit structure and 9 eight unit strictures subject to the plans dated June 21,
1995, revised September 21, 1995, and the following conditions:
1. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP,
NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and
safely operated by fire fighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9 -1. Fire hydrant placement shall
be subject to review by the Fire Marshal.
2. Must comply with Premises Identification - Policy #29 -1992. Copy attached. Additional address numbers
must be installed at entrance of driveways to multi - dwelling units. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
details.
3. On the main looped road there must be posted on one side "No Parking" signs. Signs must be installed
with 75 foot intervals. Submit drawing to Fire Marshal for approval.
4. There are fire hydrants shown on the plan that will need relocating. There are also additional hydrants that
must be added. These changes will be addressed and shown on the utility plan.
5. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat
approval.
6. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard
designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat
approval.
7. Obtain demolition permits for the existing structures on site. This should be done prior to any grading on
the property.
8. Adjust property lines to permit openings and projections in exterior walls or confirm that no openings or
projections are planned. This must be done before preliminary plat approval.
9. Full park dedication fees shall be collected per city ordinance.
10. Trail fees for Autumn Ridge 2nd Addition, and retroactively for Autumn Ridge 1st Addition be waived in
consideration of trail construction. This trail construction shall be completed per city specifications within
an alignment approved by the city.
39
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
11. Revise the landscaping plan to provide a more equitable distribution of trees and provide additional
groupings of evergreens along the northern project boundary to prepare for the possible future removal of
the evergreens with the widening of Highway 5. Conifer trees shall average seven feet with a minimum
height of sir feet.
12. Detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 year and 100 year storm events along with ponding calculations
based on Walker's PONDNET methodology along with pre and post runoff conditions shall be submitted to
city staff for review and approval prior to final plat consideration.
13. The applicant will be responsible for the appropriate water quantity connection fees based on the City's
Surface Water Management Plan. Staff has calculated that the proposed development would be responsible
for a water quantity fee of $36,592.50 assuming 12.3 acres of developable land.
14. The wetlands and wetland buffers shall be delineated on the grading and drainage plans. The buffer strip
for Wetland A shall be 18 to 38 feet wide with an average width of 28 feet. 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.
15. The developer shall construct and 8 foot wide asphalt trail per city specifications within a 20 foot wide trail
easement. This construction shall be completed in conjunction with street construction. Final alignment of
this trail shall be staked by the developer and approved by the Parks and Recreation Director and City
Engineer. The legal description of the trail easement shall be prepared by the applicant after the trail
location has been determined in the field.
16. The applicant may commence site grading after final plat approval and the applicant entering into the
Planning Unit Development Agreement and supplying the city with a financial security to guarantee site
grading, erosion control and site restoration.
17. A condition shall be placed in the PUD/Development Contract notifying residences that Coulter Boulevard
will be extended in the future.
18. The applicant shall be responsible for the installation of street lights along the private streets. The applicant
and city staff shall work together to prepare a street lighting plan to be incorporated into the street
construction plans.
19. The applicant will be required to enter into a PUD /development contract with the city and provide the
necessary financial security and administration fees to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval
20. The applicant shall design and construct the street and utility improvements in accordance to the city's latest
edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the
public improvements shall be submitted to city staff for review and approval.
21. The applicant shall provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by the City and shall be filed
at the County with the final plat documents.
22. The applicant shall provide "as- built" locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads or other
documentation acceptable to the Building Official.
40
D
' City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
' 23. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all necessary permits from the regulatory agencies such as the
MPCA, Health Department, Watershed District, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, MnDot, and Carver
' County Highway Department. The applicant shall also get the necessary permits from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to make sure that
with the upgrading of Highway 5 does not exceed the noise standards established by those agencies.
' 24. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction.
The applicant will comply with the City Engineer's direction as far as abandonment or relocation of the
drain tile.
' 25. The applicant shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type III erosion control fencing will be required around the
wetlands. The site may also require additional erosion control fence on the slopes and /or temporary
sediment basin.
26. Drainage and conservation easements shall be dedicated over all wetland areas within the subdivision
including outlots. Wetland mitigation measures shall be developed and subject to approval by the city. The
mitigation measures shall be completed in conjunction with the site grading and restoration.
27. The final plat shall be contingent upon MnDot's State Aid office approving the street alignment for the
east /west frontage road. Construction plans shall be revised accordingly as a result of the State Aid review
process.
' 28. The private streets /driveways shall be constructed in accordance with the city's private driveway ordinance
for low and /or medium density zoning. Private driveways shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide (face to
face).
' 29. The applicant shall provide a plan that assures that the variations is siding colors are in fact implemented.
' 30. The applicant shall provide dispersed guest parking spaces within the project.
31. The applicant shall provide an impervious surface computation.
' 32. A native seed mix be considered or required where the storm water pond is created.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
I APPOINTMENTS:
' A. PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION.
Mayor Chmiel: We've had the opportunity to sit down and review the applicants. Is there any specific motions
in regard to the Park and Recreation Commission?
' 41
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
Councilman Berquist: Ali yes. Do you want to discuss or do you just want to go?
Mayor Chmiel: No, I think we had some discussions.
Councilman Berquist: I will move that, as far as Park and Rec goes, both candidates would make excellent Park
and Rec commissioners. However, at this time I'm going to move that Frank W. Scott, Jr. be named for
approval to the Park and Rec Commission.
Councilman Mason: And I would be happy to second that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, there's a motion on the floor with a second. Is there any discussion?
Councilman Senn: Just a quick one I guess. I was double scheduled again so I didn't get a chance to interview
them both so, I sense that otherwise that's a consensus?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So I'd be happy to go with that too. The only comment I would like to make though
is, I would like staff to either take it upon themselves or go back to the Park Commission for next time around
to make sure that they do conform with our policy as it relates to forwarding commissioners names, which they
did not this time.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to appoint Frank W. Scott, Jr. to the Paris and
Recreation Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carved unanimously.
B. SENIOR COMMISSION.
Mayor Chmiel: We have Dale Geving for that particular position.
Councilman Mason: I'll move approval of Dale Geving to the Senior Commission.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I'll second it. Any discussion?
Councilman Mason moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to appoint Dale Geving to the Senior Commission. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
C. SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would be happy to move that we appoint Randy Herman.
Councilman Senn: Second.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to appoint Randy Herman to the Southwest
Metro Transit Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CITY HALL EXPANSION.
42
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
Todd Christopherson: Good evening Mr. Mayor and members of Council. I want to apologize for getting this
information to you right now instead of beforehand but some of it was just faxed to me at 5:00 this afternoon so
I'm trying to be as current as I can here. After we met last Monday, the direction that we took was two fold.
Try and look at the costs that you've estimated for the expansion and see if we can pare it down to a reasonable
figure that we felt comfortable with and that will be a little bit lower than what we were looking at before.
Then also to take a hard look at the fees and the proposal that we are dealing with for the architectural services.
In terms of the building cost estimates, we went back through what we had done previously and... submitted here
tonight the revised cost estimate for the addition. It's about $80,000.00 less than what we looked at last
Monday. I want to say a couple things about that. First of all we're comfortable that that building can be done
for that cost, but at those numbers we don't really have any flexibility in terms of things that typically may
come out during the design process. Things that we haven't talked about with the different departments... Some
of the things that will happen during the design development and final design stage that typically come up in the
project. There may be a request to add something that wasn't thought of and maybe something we hadn't
anticipated in terms of soil conditions. Those types of things. And I just want to be careful that if we go with
a number like that, that's been pared down, that we don't have a lot of flexibility there in terms of making
adjustments as we go through our design process. In terms of the architectural proposals. I talked with KKE,
who has done all of the schematic... associated with the project and asked them to submit a fee proposal. I told
them that we were also asking other firms to do the same. I did speak with another firm... anyone who's
interested in seeing the rest of these proposals, we can get copies of that. The two, we did get a price from
them and we got a price from KKE. The KKE proposal was $44,300.00. The Klondike Development proposal
was initially phoned in to me at $47,500.00 this morning and then faxed a follow -up at $48,000.00 this
afternoon and that's why you might notice on m} cover letter... discrepancy. So based on the fact that we have a
history with KKE. They're very familiar with the project. They've been ... very well qualified... based on the
history that we have and to keep the project moving ... I'd recommend that we move ahead with KKE. The other
item I wanted to mention, and I pointed that out in the letter here is if you are going to move ahead and we
talked about this... I think it's really important at this time to do that as soon as we can. The schedule that I've
attached the additional... 10 weeks of design, which is rather aggressive. It can be done and KKE has committed
to meeting that schedule but the amount of meetings that we have to have with staff to determine the layout and
the needs and such, it is fairly aggressive to get the plans ... and everything done in a 10 week period. The
reason I think that's important is because historically we've followed, we've put the project out for bids in
January or February, there's usually a substantial savings over what you'll see for the same set of plans that
might be bid out in May or June. There's just a lot more people that have not lined up work for the spring and
they're a little more hungry at that time and we want to take advantage of that. I would like to point that out
again that if we are going to move ahead with the project, it'd be ... to do that. So I wanted to be brief here. I
guess I don't want to belabor this ... answer any questions about the process ... or schedule.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Steve, any questions?
Councilman Berquist: I'm not sure.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I'll just move on.
Councilman Berquist: Wait a minute. Yeah, I'm sure about one question. The engineering and electrical and
structural, mechanical architect or the consultant that KKE is using versus the other firm. Do you know who
they are?
Todd Christopherson: I don't know who they're planning to use...
43
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
Councilman Berquist: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, I haven't any.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: I have none.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: I guess the only thing I guess I want to understand for sure is in KKE's proposal, or I guess
first of all I'd like to make a comment that it's nice to see that KKE's number came down from $60,000.00 to
$44,000.00. That's why you have to put some competition into it. Secondly, I guess I'd like to make sure that
in relationship to their proposal or their letter here that this pricing is not based on a construction budget. We
do not have a construction budget yet at this point and that's a process we have yet to go through so I mean, I'm
assuming that that can be clarified because they've made that kind of stick out right in the report that they're
saying this assumes this level of construction schedule. So I want to make sure that it doesn't send that. That it
assumes nothing.
Todd Christopherson: That's a good point. We would want to have architectural contract bids based on a fixed
fee, not on a percentage of the construction costs. I think that's important. Beyond that, I think what they're
trying to do is spell out that it's based on that two story addition of 9,800 feet.
Councilman Senn: I agree. That's where they should be stopping though. They should not be getting into
dollars.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? I don't have any questions on this. I'm just happy to see that
we're saving a few dollars.
Councilman Senn: I have a question for Don Ashworth if I could. Basically tonight then if we authorize
preparation of plans and specs, just to understand process at this point, KKE will be hired and they will go at
basically producing plans and specifications in conjunction with the Council reviewing that and creating a
budget along the way.
Don Ashworth: The next thing would be to enter into a contract with KKE for the design services and again
get them started. The first thing they will be responsible to do is to come back with a concept plan that would
basically show how public safety wing could be expanded. And I would guess at that point in time, realize all
of the numbers that Todd had been using are just mine where I've shown of block. There is no plan from KKE
as to how that wing might be laid out. So I would see them, then after we have a specific plan, then Todd can
redo his budget information and then move into plans and specs. Correct?
Todd Christopherson: Exactly. Through the whole process of finalizing and design, we'll keep our pricing
current so we're not going to be sitting here waiting until we get bids to know where we're at.
44
C
0
11
C
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
Councilman Senn: No. I just want to make sure, like we talked about in the work session, that we're not
consigning to a budget. That we are budgeting to a design. Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? If hearing none, as to what Don Ashworth had said, would there
be a motion?
Councilman Berquist: I move approval that we authorize entering into a contract with KKE for the amount
stated on the proposal submitted by Amcon to develop a concept plan for a public safety wing.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Yes there is.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Don Ashworth: May I make a quick comment?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Don Ashworth: Council's previously asked me how much the design phase costs, what that was and I think I've
been consistently saying $32,000.00. The only payment that has occurred is $16,000.00. There is still monies
that are due KKE for that initial effort but have neither been billed nor paid by the city. I will, I am working to
reduce it off of that $32,000.00 figure because I do not believe that they carried it to that full level but I just
want the council to be aware that there is another payment that will be processed for KKE and again, the total,
the only thing we've paid them is 16. What we originally anticipated paying was 32, which means we owe
them 16. I am going to drive that down from that 16 figure to something lower. I'm hoping to be in the 22 -25
bracket so.
Councilman Senn: But this will be a fixed price contract.
Don Ashworth: Yes, this will be a fixed price contract but it is over and above that initial first phase contract.
Councilman Senn: Okay, and the only other thing I just wanted to mention is I noticed the other firm attached
in the exhibit their rates on the reimbursibles and I think we should have the same thing from KKE, rather than
just having them just.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Can I have a motion to adjourn?
Roger Knutson: The motion was seconded and Don asked the question and you didn't vote.
Mayor Chmiel: Oh, I'm moving too quick.
Councilman Bemuist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to authorize entering into a contract with KIKE to
develop a concept plan for a public safety wing for the amount stated on the proposal submitted by Amcon. All
voted in favor and the motion carved unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, is there a motion for adjournment?
45
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1995
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the '
motion canied. The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
46