1r. City Council Minutes dated November 27, 1995CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 27, 1995
' Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Berquist, Councilwoman Dockendorf,
Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Charles Folch, Todd Gerhardt, Scott Harr,
Sharmin Al -Jaff
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the
agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the
following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Resolution #95 -123: Accept Sanitary Sewer and Water Improvements in Highlands on Lake St. Joe, Project
' 93 -31 A.
b. Consider Reassignment of Development Contract for Powers Place and Powers Place 2nd Addition.
c. Approval of Bills.
d. City Council Minutes dated November 13, 1995
Planning Commission Minutes dated November 1, 1995
Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated October 24, 1995
e. Condemnation of 2.35 acres of Residential Land Described as Outlot F, Creekside Addition; City of
Chanhassen vs. Heritage Development.
' g. Site Plan Amendment Request for a 9,400 sq. ft. Addition to an Office Warehouse Facility, 7600 Quattro
Drive, Microvision Corporation.
h. Resolution 495 -124: Approve MnDot Program Fee Reimbursement.
' All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
' VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: FUTURE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION PLANNING BILL BERNHJELM
COMMISSIONER
(Taping of the meeting began at this point in the discussion.)
Bill Bernhjelm: ...to our continuing amazement we do not and have not seen dramatic increases in calls for
service that would be expected normally under most policing or public safety models based on population and
service levels and so forth. One of the things that we're interested in doing is going forward in doing some
research and seeing why it is that the model that we are using now is so successful. Why it is that given our
increase in population and the increases in our businesses in the city, why is it that the call for service has not
1
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
increased as what normally we would expect it. But also understanding that it might be a short term
phenomenon and looking to the future and seeing what models of public safety service should be adopted by the
city as we move forward into the next century. We, I think are ambitious in some of our goals in what we've
discussed so far and the things that we'd like to do looking at community policing and how the aspects of
community policing can be applied here in Chanhassen. Fire Department delivery models. Emergency medical
service ... those kinds of things and how the growth pattern of the city will impact those demands and needs.
We're looking at perhaps doing a 3 to 5 year plan and perhaps a longer range plan I understand than the 15
years out. Prior to doing a lot of work however we felt strongly that because we are an advisory commission to
the Council, that we would come to the Council and explain what we felt we would like to do and what we feel
is appropriate and get at least the Council's blessing in going ahead with this staffing study or future plans,
strategic planning, whatever model you want to call it. So that's our pitch. We'd like to get involved in long
term planning. We'd like your blessing in looking at that and working with you all in planning for the future
needs of the city.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you Bill.
Bill Bernhjelm: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there any questions at this time?
Councilman Berquist: I'm a little, did you say that you were going to talk about what your discussions have
centered around or you want us to basically tell you to go ahead and discuss long term planning? I'm a little
confused.
Bill Bemhjelm: I think that's what we're looking at. We've kind of broached the idea of long term planning
and getting involved in that but before we started on a fairly involved road, we felt it to be important to at least
get the blessing before we proceeded. We wouldn't want to come in here 9 months from now or a year from
now and say this is a great report and have you all look at it and say, well thanks but...
Councilman Senn: Bill, can you give us an outline or a better idea of the particular issues or I mean maybe not
tonight but you know before we say let's go ahead or not, I think it'd be nice, at least from my perspective I
guess I'd like to see kind of an outline of the issues you hope to address and where you expect to go with them.
Bill Bemhjelm: Alright. Obviously some of the issues are the unique nature of our contract with the Sheriffs
Department and how it is that we're able to buy patrol services through them. The uniqueness makes it a little
bit difficult to predict it's future viability however and that's one of the concerns we have is how long are we
going to be able to do this. Is there a point we need to do something different or is this model something that
should be built upon and continue. That depends a lot on not only service users... service provider and how
much, how willing they are to continue to provide that service. Those are some of the things we need to look
at.
Scott Harr: Bill, if I could comment on that as well. I think the outline would really take the format of the
divisions within the department. What the commission has been talking about for several meetings is, okay we
meet month after month. We deal with some citizen traffic complaints. We hear reports from Sheriffs
Department, the Fire Department. Things are going along smoothly. What can we best do as a group to look
toward the future and one of the ideas that the commission came to at the last meeting was, how about every
other month take a look for a couple hours at different divisions. One month have a business meeting. Deal
2
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
with the routine business. Next month take a look at the community service officer program, the animal control
program together. How's that working. What can we do to improve that. A month or two later take a look at
the fire department. Really look at statistics. Say where can we go from here. Are we doing the best things
with the long range truck planning. Personnel planning. Law enforcement. How can we make the system, the
1 sheriffs office to continue to work this well. Crime prevention. Are we working to the best of the ability
there? But it's literally, at least the way the commission is looking at it now, will take a half a year because
they're looking at every, or a full year actually because every other month would be spent just looking at the
' building inspection program. Two months later fire department. Two months later, community service officer.
Animal control program. So it's just taking some time to see where we can move in the future, but because it's
going to take so much time, the commission wanted to make sure, as Bill said, in a year or so when they come
back with a report, that the response wasn't well that's nice but we didn't ask you to do this so we'll move on to
' business items.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess what you're really basically saying is, Chanhassen's growth is coming. How can we
' provide those same kinds of services we're providing now in the long run and yet continue to look at different
aspects as you had mentioned to see how we can implement those or even make them better than what we're
doing right now.
Councilman Berquist: Well I appreciate your work as a volunteer and have at it.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thanks Bill. Really appreciate it. By the way I forgot to mention too the fact that Bill
' understands a lot of these things only because he is the Police Chief in the City of Edina so to look at that and
provide those kinds of services, that does give us another idea. Thanks. But it's great for someone to provide
their time to the city in doing this. Okay, we'll move along. Before I do, is there any additional visitor
presentations? Seeing none, we'll go to our next item which is a public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING: CSM CORPORATION. SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DELL ROAD AND HIGHWAY 5:
t A. REQUEST TO VACATE AN EXISTING RIGHT -OF -WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENT ON PROPERTY
ZONED IOP.
B. PRELLYRNARY PLAT OF APPROXIMATELY 36.6 ACRES INTO 3 LOTS AND 2 OUTLOTS• S=
PLAN REVIEW OF TWO 64.000 SO. FT. BUILDINGS, WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: There are three actions being requested with this application. A subdivision, site plan review
for two office warehouse buildings, and a vacation of an abandoned public right -of -way and a utility and
drainage easement. The site is currently zoned industrial office park. It is bordered by Highway 5 to the north,
Dell Road to the east and a Lundgren Brothers residential development to the south. The site is visible directly
from Highway 5 and has full access from Lake Drive East. The subdivision request consists of subdividing 61
' acres into three lots and two outlots. Lots 1 and 2 are proposed to contain two buildings. Outlot A will be
reserved for future development. The third lot which will be labeled Lot 1, Block 2 contains an existing
building which is the DataSery building. The vacation is for an abandoned right -of -way which used to be the
old alignment for Lake Drive East. And the utility and drainage easement that's being requested for vacation is
an abandoned watermain. The site plan is for two buildings. They're L shaped mirror image of one another.
Out here on the stand we have the materials that are proposed to be used on the building. I will also pass out
computer generated images that the applicant has composed as you are going along Highway 5. As you're
' going along Highway 5 what you will be seeing. They are proposed to utilize face brick on all four corners of
both buildings, as well as areas surrounding entrances into the building. Decorative pre - colored rock face block
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
will be integrated into the walls, accented by pre -color masonry band. There are two pitched elements adorning
each building. Signage on the building is designated along the band that's colored in red. The applicant has
submitted some photos of buildings that they have already built that show some signage that they have done,
just to give you an idea of what it would look like. Parking for vehicles is located around the building. This is
not consistent with the Highway 5 requirements. However, the buildings will require a total of 246 parking
spaces. Rather than concentrating them all in one spot, the spaces were designed around the building. They're
broken by landscape islands and screened from views from Highway 5 and Dell Road, as well as Lake Drive
East by berms as well as vegetation. There's a maximum of two rows of parking at any given location. Site
landscaping is generally of high quality. There are some areas such as immediately to the south of the location
of the loading docks that we're recommending the applicant increase the number of evergreens to maximize
screening in that area. A meandering berm of 4 to 6 feet in height runs along the entire edge of the site. That
also provides screening. The applicant has been very cooperative throughout this proposal. It's a very good
design. It meets all of the requirements of the ordinance. Staff is recommending approval with conditions
outlined in the staff report. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. Is there any questions of Sharmin at this time?
Councilman Senn: Why the vacation, eliminating at this time when that's being held for future development? Is
there any chance that.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: We don't need it.
Councilman Senn: Okay, there's no chance of anything really going through there? Even to service the
development.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Not at all.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I know I'm coming in on this late and it may have been addressed. Is there an
issue with the poor soils there? Don't they have poor soils on this site or is that a little bit to the north of this?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: None that we're aware of.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: There was like a vacated.
Kate Aanenson: There was a wetland issue in the corner that we did address and it was determined there wasn't
a wetland. That was when Southwest Metro was looking at this.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. Wasn't there like a, I thought there was ... put there.
Tom Rockford: I could address that item.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: If you could please.
4
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, if you'd like to come up and just indicate your concerns. Please state your name and
who you're representing.
Tom Rockford: Yes. My name is Tom Rockford. I'm represent the developer, CSM Corporation. We have
done some soil sample work out there and there are some soil, some soils will have to be removed and fill
brought in. To the extent we've done our research we feel that we've quantify what that issue is.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, thanks. It just seems to me when we were looking at for Southwest Metro,
there was an issue.
Kate Aanenson: And there was a wetland issue...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay.
Councilman Senn: Sharmin?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Yes.
Councilman Senn: If I understand the layout of the back of the building, I mean really the parking has to be the
way it is, otherwise the loading docks would be in conflict with the parking, wouldn't they?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: That's correct.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Maybe now we could have the developer come forward and indicate if you have any
concerns in relationship to some of the things that staff has indicated within all three phases of those with the
conditions.
Tom Rockford: Thank you Mayor, members of Council. Again my name is Tom Rockford. I represent CSM
Corporation. We're the developers of the project. I thought the staff report was very self explanatory and we
are prepared to give you a lengthy, thorough presentation if need be. What I'd like to do is just give you a
couple minutes information on CSM. Who we are. We've been in the development real estate business for the
last 20 years. We're celebrating our 20th anniversary this year. We worked with DataSery on this site for about
the last 18 months or so. We've gone through a fairly... negotiation with the DataSery folks and we've been very
diligent in our pursuit of the site. We believe very strongly in the potential that the site has. Over the last 4 or
5 years CSM has been one of the few local real estate developers who's been actively developing property.
We've also pre - developed a number of sites around town, both office warehouse, office showroom, and
commercial. Some of the projects you may be familiar with, the shops at Lyndale. On 78th and Lyndale is,
we're just starting our second phase of redevelopment there. We have under construction now about 150,000
square feet of office showroom space. Very similar to the product that we envision here in Chanhassen and in
Eden Prairie. It's in the Golden Triangle industrial park there. We've also completed about 100,000 square feet
of office showroom space, again a similar product up in Brooklyn Center. Boone Avenue Business Park up
there. Our current portfolio consists of about 3 1/2 million square feet of industrial space. About 2 1/2 million
feet of commercial space and upwards of about 6,000 apartment units in the upper midwest. Basically our
philosophy is to ... own and manage on a long term basis. As I mentioned, I would like to take this opportunity
to introduce a couple other people who are with us tonight. Mark Kusnierek is the project architect with CSM.
And two people from RLK who are our engineering consultants, Steve Schwanke and Eric Johnson are here as
well. There are a couple things that we'd like to bring up at this point. There is a letter that was dated today
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
that I believe a copy has been sent along to each of you folks that we'd like to present and talk about this
evening. There is a couple things I'd like to point out at this time. If you'll note on the November 27th letter,
item number 3 asks to do a traffic report and the reason I'd like to bring this up is just to point out that all the
issues that have been addressed by staff and by the city's traffic consultant have been addressed. The other
issue has to do with, on the second page, item number 7 which is entitled the Dell Road upgrade and financing.
And what this is referring to is basically one of the conditions that was brought up at the Planning Commission
meeting on November 1st and it has to do mainly with the expanding and upgrading of Dell Road. And what
I'd like to do is try to make this a little clearer on what we're saying on this item number 7 is that the Dell Road
upgrade and financing, condition number 10 on page 16 of the staff report states that the applicant will upgrade
and extend Dell Road south of Lake Drive East to the south of city limits as well as install... to Lake Drive East
to the regional pond site. What I'd like to do is try to break those up because I think the issue that we have as
developers relates primarily to the Dell Road project and what our concern is, and what we've addressed a little
later, is that we don't have any issue with performing the work. With contracting for the work but we have had
some discussions with staff relative to how that's going to be financed and that really isn't addressed under that
item, condition number 10. And that's what we would like to have further discussions on this evening as to
how that will be financed. Then again as it relates to the storm drainage system, that's a separate issue. We
aren't looking for any financing assistance on that but it's really the Dell Road upgrade that is our main concern.
There are other issues that we've raised there but I think at this point I'd be happy to answer any questions that
you may have. If I can't answer them, I'll call on my support staff.
Mayor Chmiel: Are there any specific questions that you may have in relationship to what's been presented?
Councilman Senn: I guess I'd like to know from Kate what.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we just got this letter too. There's some ambiguity in the letter. Some issues that
obviously need clarification on. We just got this letter too. We believe number 7 is an issue for the Council to
make a decision on. It's a separate body. I don't know if that's something that the HRA needs to look at.
That's where that item should be discussed. We think our condition number 10 is clear. Number 4, as far as
the vacation, Council has to act on the vacation. That can't be done administratively so I don't know if you
want to go through these. We just got the letter. There's some other, just some minor ambiguities in some of
these issues but.
Mayor Chmiel: Well I think probably what you should do Kate is to make those clarifications as to what there
is, and maybe just go through that right now.
Kate Aanenson: Sure we can go through them one by one. Number 1, that's fine. Number 2 I believe is fine
Number 3 is fine. Number 4 I already addressed. The Council does have to act on the utility and street
vacation.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, correct.
Kate Aanenson: Again this is preliminary plat. You could do that at the time of final plat when it's on for
consent.
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
Kate Aanenson: Number 5, the storm water quantity and quality fees, I'm not sure exactly what the issue that
they're raising there is.
Tom Rockford: I think what we'd like, what we're asking for, the way that the condition is worded now I
believe that prior to the storm water fees it has to be identified in the construction plans... completed. We
believe that the fees and credits can be determined now and we would be agreeable to determining those fees
now subject to any revisions that the construction drawings might show. Certainly we would agree that they're
payable prior to the filing of the final plat. I guess the timing issue is the one that needs to be determined.
Kate Aanenson: Just so you're clear on that. The fees, the quantity and quality fees are collected as a part of
the recording of the plat. At the time of subdivision. So again that would be at the later date but we're just
saying that until actually the design is approved, we've got the final numbers, they may fluctuate and I'm not
sure what you're saying. Is that you want the opportunity, you believe that they're not going to change?
Tom Rockford: Well I think what we're stating now is we believe that the fees and /or credits can be determined
now without having the construction plans being finalized. And what we're looking to be amenable to is if the
construction plans show that there's a change in those fees and credits, that that would be, that would take place
at a later date.
Kate Aanenson: Isn't that what our condition says? They're determined at the time.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah basically I think that's what it does indicate.
Tom Rockford: I think it says that the construction plans are going to determine the fees and the credits and we
don't have the final construction plans.
Mayor Chmiel: Well until those construction plans are pulled together, I think that's when we would at least
have the knowledge. Roger?
Councilman Senn: Well if I'm understanding if that's not a problem, we can give you an estimate now but the
estimate's contingent upon the final construction plans. I think we're all saying the same thing.
Kate Aanenson: Exactly what I'm saying. Isn't that what we said our condition says?
Councilman Senn: Yes. So I think we're all in agreement there.
Kate Aanenson: It's just semantics. Right, that's what I'm saying. I think we're saying the same thing.
Councilman Senn: I think he's taking the phrasing in the thing a little too literally and that's probably, he think
it depends, he won't even get a number until the construction plans are finalized, if I'm understanding what he
says.
Tom Rockford: That's my concern.
Councilman Senn: Okay. You can get an estimate now but it will be a contingent estimate.
7
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
Kate Aanenson: Certainly and I believe Dave's given you an estimate. I believe it's in the body of the report
somewhere. I can check on that. There was an estimate at one time and it's in the report of $92,000.00 I
believe in the body of the report there's also an estimate.
Tom Rockford: Yeah, as long as we get an estimate...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Okay, number 6. That's fine. And then number 7 again, I believe that's not on the Council's
jurisdiction to discuss that issue of financing. If that's something you want to take up with the HRA.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe Todd, I know you're going to run a double duty here. But why don't you come up to
the podium if you'd like and that way you won't have to worry. I think you did address some of that at the
HRA.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, it isn't it an HRA. It is a City Council action. It's an economic development district.
CSM is asked to take a part of your 3 year special assessment land write down program. And along with that,
we have the need of finishing our half of Dell Road over there. Through discussions with Charles and the
engineering department we felt that the best way and the quickest way to get that road done is to have CSM
build the road. CSM is benefitting from the road and I think we measured that of approximately 5% and that
DataSery would also benefit from the road and we think we came up with about 15% benefit. So with that we
are looking at having CSM build the roadway and then reimbursing them through the increment from the district
for the cost of building that roadway. And they would up front the cost and at no interest to the city and then
we would reimburse them in the years 1998, 99 and 2000 the cost of that roadway to the tune of about
$140,000.00 over that 3 year period. And then deducting 20% of the increment that would go, or 15% of the
increment when DataSery would come in and build their new facility, which we're expecting to occur in the
next couple of months. And for their pro -rated share of that road. The benefits of that is that the City doesn't
have to manage the project. You don't have to sell bonds. You don't have to hire engineers. And that CSM
would have to build that road to city specifications. And that at this time next year the road will be done.
Kate Aanenson: Okay, can I give a clarification on this issue because the planning staff ...dark on that issue.
We did address it in the report so what he's asking for is clarification of how that financing mechanism is to
take place. It's not in this report. We didn't address it.
Todd Gerhardt: Right. I would hope at our next meeting I would have a private redevelopment agreement in
front of you that would call out for the 3 years worth of increment back to CSM in addition to $140,000.00 for
the cost of the roadway improvements.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And this is a preliminary and that can be pulled together at that particular time prior to
your final.
Tom Rockford: Yes. Our only concern is that the condition, the way it's written now doesn't give us the level
of satisfaction relative to financing.
Mayor Chmiel: But I think as to what Todd said would specifically cover your concerns right now
Tom Rockford: Yes it would.
G
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright, is there any other questions? If seeing none, we'll go back now to the audience
and see if there's anyone wishing to come forward. As I mentioned before this is a public hearing. This is the
time for you to base your basic concerns. Is there anyone at this particular time who would like to address their
particular issue before the Council? And if so, please come forward and state your name and address for us. If
seeing none, is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve Site Plan Review #95 -18 as shown
on the plan received October 2, 1995, subject to the following conditions:
1. The materials used to screen the trash enclosure shall be the same type of brick used on the building.
2. Signage criteria:
a. Each building shall share one monument sign. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument
standards in the sign ordinance.
b. Wall signs are permitted on no more than two street frontages as shown on the sign plan dated
November 1, 1995.
c. All signs require a separate permit.
d. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the
building.
e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials and heights.
f. No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential section south.
Signage on the west side of the building will be allowed or declined based on visibility to the
neighborhoods residents, and consistent with the city's sign ordinance.
g. Back lit individual letter signs are permitted.
h. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet in height, and logos shall not exceed 30 inches in height and
consistent with the standards for the signage.
i. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign.
j. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. One stop sign must be
posted on the driveway at the exit point of both sites. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of
lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a sign permit.
k. Signage on Building 1 shall be limited to the north and east elevations. Signage on Building 2 shall be
limited to the north and west elevations.
9
1
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
3. Screening of the truck loading area along East Lake Drive must be increased to include coniferous double
row screening the entire length of the dock area. Screening may include berms, ornamental and evergreen
trees. An extended peninsula parallel to the entryway may also be considered on the condition that it does
not impede truck access to the loading areas. The applicant must provide perimeter coniferous landscaping
in the east parking lot, along Dell Road.
4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities
as required for landscaping.
5. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. Additional fire hydrants will be required. One fire hydrant must be relocated. Contact Fire Marshal for
exact changes and modifications.
b. "No Parking Fire Lane" signage and yellow curbing must be provided. Contact Fire Marshal for exact
"Fire Lane" areas.
c. P.I_V. (Post Indicator Valves) must be installed. Show on utility plans.
d. A ten foot clear space must be provided around fire hydrants.
6. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted.
7. Meet with the Building Official as requested in his attached memo to discuss.
8. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new
developments. The building setback line and erosion control fencing shall be denoted on the final grading
and drainage plans prior to final plat approval. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and
formal approval.
9. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc -
mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
10. The applicant shall upgrade /extend Dell Road south of Lake Drive East to the south city limits as well as
install a storm drainage system from Lake Drive East to the regional pond site. All public utility and street
improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications
and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and
City Council approval. The private utilities will be inspected by the City's Building Department. The
applicant and /or builder shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits from the City.
11. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm events and
provide ponding calculations for storm water ponds in accordance with the City Surface and Storm Water
Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant
shall provide detailed pre - developed and post developed storm water calculations for 100 year storm events
and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and /or creeks.
10
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if
sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be
based on Walker's Pondnet model.
12. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver
County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers, and
Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval.
13. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right -of -way.
14. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2
feet above the 100 year high water level.
' 15. A regional water quality and water quantity pond shall be provided on site to pretreat storm water runoff
prior to discharging under Dell Road into the Eden Prairie wetland. The proposed storm water pond must
have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter, or
4:1 throughout for safety purposes. The stormwater pond shall be designed to 60% to 75% phosphorous
' removal efficiently. A landscape plan providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend into the
landscape is recommended.
16. Existing wells and /or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in accordance to City and
Minnesota Department of Health codes /regulations.
17. The proposed commercial development of 21.3 acres of which 10.23 acres are being developed shall be
responsible for a water quantity and quality connection charges in accordance with the City's Surface Water
Management Plan. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. The final water
quality and quantity connection fees will be determined based on final construction drawings.
18. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and
shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
19. The installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Lake Drive East and Dell Rod is expected in the
future. The developer shall be responsible or share the local cost participation of this signal on a percentage
basis based upon traffic generation from full development of this site in relation to the total traffic volume
of Dell Road. The traffic signals, when they meet warrants, will be installed through a city public
improvement project. The developers and /or property owners shall waive any and all procedural and
substantive objections to the special assessment, including but not limited to hearing requirements and any
claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the properties.
20. All roof top equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances.
21. The parking area for Lot 2 shall maintain a 10 foot side yard setback along the west edge of the property.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
(A tape change occurred at this point in discussion.)
11
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
Councilman Mason: ...move approval of preliminary plat to subdivide 61.6 acres into three lots and two outlots,
Chanhassen East Business Center.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve Preliminary Plat for Subdivision
#95 -18 for Chanhassen East Business Center as shown on the plat received October 2, 1995, with the following
conditions:
1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance.
2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial
security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract.
3. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc -
mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with
the City Best Management Practice Handbook. All catch basins shall be protected with silt fence or hay
bales until the parking lot is paved.
4. The applicant shall provide detailed pre - developed and post - developed stormwater calculations for a 10 year
and 100 year storm event, 24 hour duration. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin
segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized.
5. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver
County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers, and
Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval.
6. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and
ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide.
Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas.
7. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat the necessary right -of -way for the upgrade of Dell Road.
8. The site with the DataSery building shall be shown on the plat as Lot 2, Block 1.
9. The applicant shall dedicate a cross - access easement over Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Lot 2, Block 1 and Outlot
A.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: And also for the.
Councilman Mason: Move the vacation of the abandoned public right -of -way and utility and drainage
easements.
12
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
' Resolution #95 -125: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve Vacation
#95 -4 of the old alignment of Lake Drive East through Outlot A and the abandoned watermain easements
' subject to the following condition:
1. The applicant shall provide the city with a legal description of the old alignment of Lake Drive East
through Outlot A and the abandoned watermain easements per deed Doc. No. 4556054, proposed to be
' vacated.
All voted in favor and the motion carved unanimously.
' Roger Knutson: On your agenda you also have a wetland alteration permit.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that covers, yes there is.
Kate Aanenson: Actually a alteration permit was required so, it was noticed and it was determined by, we
noticed and originally...
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you.
AWARD OF BIDS: $4.5 MILLION GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS SERIES 1995C.
Don Ashworth: Al Erickson with Springsted is here this evening to go through the bid process. Bids received
and with that I'll turn it over to Al.
Al Erickson: Thank you very much Mayor, members of the Council... general obligation bonds. Springsted, on
behalf of the city took bids on that bond issue... I'm very happy to report that the City of Chanhassen received
10 bids for this issue... Most bids received was from... syndicate which was led by Raymond James and
Associates. It's a firm out of St. Petersburg, Florida. We also received a number of bids from the Chicago area
and northern Milwaukee... The low bid was for 4.647% which I think fell well under... The issue will not need
the entire amount capitalized... in order to provide the carrying costs... approximately $40,000.00 and you will be
able to put back into your construction fund ... The issue qualified for non - insurance today by MDIA Corporation.
The insurance was purchased by the low bidder. It's not something that the city received a... Also to remind
you that the Standard and Poors reaffirmed the A- rating on this issue and I'll also note that Moody's also rated
this issue. We did not request it nor are paying for it, however Moody's felt they needed to do it in order to
complete the fiduciary responsibility they had because they have rated previous city ... Moody's did increase the
city ... In conclusion I'd like to tell you that it was an outstanding sale and I feel very good and we would
recommend that you... If you have any questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Steve, do you have any questions?
Councilman Berquist: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
13
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. Just to refresh my memory. I think it's probably for Charles. What are we
spending this on again? What are the major items?
Charles Folch: One is the Coulter Boulevard /Galpin Boulevard project.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: The what?
Charles Folch: Galpin /Coulter Boulevard project.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh yeah. I keep thinking Coulter up here.
Don Ashworth: Lake Lucy Road.
Charles Folch: Lake Lucy Road Project No. 92 -12 and the first partial phase for Phase I of Lyman Boulevard.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, thanks. And this Raymond James and Associates, have you ever heard of
them? Dealt with them?
Al Erickson: Yes. They used to be part of Daine Bosworth...
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: None.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't have any either. Is there a motion?
Councilman Berquist: Move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution 495 -126: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to award the bids for the $4.5
million General Obligation Bonds, Series 1995C to Raymond James and Associates. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
DESIGNATION OF OFFICIAL DEPOSITORY FOR CITY FUNDS.
Don Ashworth: The City Council, at the beginning of this past year asked staff to prepare an RFP process so
that we could look at the official depository designation early, or in the fall. Make that designation so whoever
might be designated, that we'd be able to order checks and accounts payable checks and other types of sheets
that may be required for whomever would end up as the best RFP. We did that. In fact I think we got
approximately 100 different RFP's from around the country. We've sorted through those and I really thought, I
really thought that I had created, between Pam and I, an RFP that absolutely would guarantee that we could
compare apples to apples. As I say in my report, boy I was wrong. The two bids that we received, we
14
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
fl
provided the RFP forms to every bank within the city of Chanhassen, which currently is four. We received the
RFP back from two, Richfield and Chanhassen State Bank. In my report to the City Council I attempted to
make a comparison to the two using the numbers that they supplied and my best interpretation of that. Mr.
Mayor, maybe if you could hand one of these down. We were notified today by Richfield Bank that there were
some errors in how we interpreted their numbers and I think that Century Bank would really like to stand on
their proposal as they had submitted that, which would provide net earnings to the city, this is after payment of
fees, of $38,124.00. The bids submitted by Chanhassen State Bank produced earnings to the city of $38,604.00.
Staff, using the numbers we had available. The new information we received on Monday, put together the
tabulation that I just go through passing out which we believe to be a closer approximation of the difference in
the two proposals. That would show Chanhassen State Bank as having a better proposal by about,
approximately $1,948.00. We should also note that we used their numbers even though we felt there were
certain aspects of that that were incorrect. For example, they had not shown in certain yearly charges which
amounted to about $123.00. And what was the other one? Oh! I didn't get a chance to talk to him on this but
processing of payroll checks, or payroll changes at 8 cents per change is just not logical. The other costs have
been $8.00 so we think that there's a typo in there. But that really doesn't make any difference. I think whether
you look at the proposal as submitted by either of the two banks, Chanhassen State Bank is low. If you look at
the analysis completed by Pam using each of their own numbers, Chanhassen State Bank provides the best bid.
And I think that a number of the comments that were made by the evaluation committee, specifically Cliff
Hoffman of Deloitte and Touche, and the City Attorney, are very critical points and I think that those as well
lend staff to recommend Chanhassen State Bank. I should also note for the record that if you look through the
RFP, it is set out as a three designation and we really would hope that the city would in fact make that type of
commitment simply from the standpoint that in ordering accounts payable checks, payroll checks, we can do
that much cheaper if we order a 3 year supply. But in talking with the City Attorney you cannot bind a future
Council so therefore the most you could make the designation for is for 1996. I'm assuming the item would be
re- presented a year from today. I would repeat many of the comments made here this evening with the
recommendation that that designation continue to be kept with Chanhassen State Bank, but again we cannot bind
a future Council to that form of a decision. Finally I should note that Councilman Senn had contacted me early
and had asked to be a part of the evaluation committee. He came into City Hall on another item on, what was
it Wednesday, just as the report was going out and that's the reason I put in there, I'm assuming that
Councilman Senn would like to take and make his comments this evening. With that again staffs
recommendation is for Chanhassen State Bank.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Mark, is there anything you'd like to say at this particular time?
Councilman Senn: No, I guess not really. Roger's answered the question on a year three designation. Beyond
that I guess just one comment. These ended up very close, which was good to see and it doesn't make a lot of
sense in my mind to switch but at the same time I'd like to recognize the fact that by bidding it, our transaction
charges came down quite a bit from what they were before and we're saving quite a bit of money on transaction
charges over what we were paying before. A lot of our transactions were going now for 15 cents and 10 cents
for a transaction which was a pretty significant cut ... so I think the benefit is there in relationship to the bid
process.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, very good. Steve, do you have any comments?
Councilman Berquist: No, I do not.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
15
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Because we cannot bind a future Council, that doesn't mean we look at the whole
RFP process next year... decided on a three year rotation for this and several others. On a couple other things
like City Attorney.
Councilman Senn: Did we get a clarification on that? These rates will hold for three years then? I mean, that
was one of the questions I'd asked Pam that because if we're going to look at it that way, we need assurance
that if we're going to look at it that way, the rates need to hold for three years.
Don Ashworth: In my own mind, the RFP is pretty clear in that that is the case, but if you would like me to
take and verify that before we.
Roger Knutson: ...in the RFP, you can get out of it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone wishing to address this at this time? Seeing none, I'll come back to the
Council and ask for a motion.
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded to award the Chanhassen State Bank as the official depository for the city.
Resolution #95 -127: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to appoint Chanhassen State Bank
as the official depository for the City of Chanhassen for 1996. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Don Ashworth: Could I make one comment for the record publicly?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Don Ashworth: I would like to thank both Chanhassen State Bank and Richfield. Both of them took an
extreme amount of their own time to try to present a proposal that would be in the best interest of the city.
With Richfield they brought 5 people to the interview process. They wanted to make sure that we fully
understood their proposal. And again the same is true with Chanhassen State Bank. Both of these entities are
class acts and I'd like to thank both of them publically.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Don.
16
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
SIGN HEIGHT VARIANCE REOUEST TO ALLOW A 7 1/2 FT. HIGH ENTRY MONUMENT SIGN TO BE
' LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF LANDINGS DRIVE AND MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY
KENNETH DURR
John Rask: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Kenneth Durr, the applicant, is requesting a variance to allow a 7 1/2 foot
high entry monument sign at the intersection of Landings Drive and Minnewashta Parkway. The sign is located
on the recreational beachlot at the entrance to the subdivision. On June 13, 1994 the City Council approved the
final plat for Minnewashta Landings. Entry monuments were shown at the entrance. However, no sign details
' were provided. Therefore staff had no idea of the actual dimensions of the sign. In August of this year a sign
was erected without first obtaining permits. Staff notified the applicant that he'd either have to remove the sign
and make it conform to the ordinance or request a variance from the Council. On November 1st of '95 the
Planning Commission reviewed the variance. The Commission recommended denial of the variance and
concurred with the Findings presented in the staff report. With that staff is recommending denial of the
variance. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you John. Are there any questions of John?
Councilman Berquist: The June 13th '94, that was before the issue with the other project out there on TH 41
' where the same exact scenario occurred.
John Rask: Correct.
Councilman Berquist: So I can't really say, didn't you ask?
John Rask: No.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, anyone else?
Councilman Senn: I can't tell from the staff report, I mean why in June and August, now all of a sudden you
know a variance in November.
' John Rask: Well we gave him some time to decide on how he wanted to address the issue. I think by the time
we notified him. By the time we could get him scheduled for a public hearing, we were already into November.
I think he's probably, we noticed it about a week or two after it went up and notified him right away so it was
just a matter of scheduling the public hearing and getting the notices out.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is the applicant here this evening? Would you like to come forward and indicate your
concerns. Please state your name and your address.
Ken Durr: My name is Ken Durr. When we were planning the subdivision for Minnewashta Landings, my
belief is that I had submitted color renderings which we had prepared. I had a number of these printed, and of
the drawing but apparently it was not included in the packet. Subsequently we went ahead and followed our
' original concept and developed the sign and installed it and admittedly... an error on my part to follow up on
details and follow all the procedures. But all of the things that were going on with the development and the
Parade of Homes coming up, I think it just got overlooked and just didn't do it. Subsequently we did install the
' sign. It is in excess of 5 feet in height. The signage area however is less than the maximum allowable. The
back drop that it is attached to is in excess of 5 feet. We spent a good deal of time and expense in trying to
' 17
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
develop a sign that would do well with the area and be on a scale proper, aesthetic quality for what we... The
construction of it is on a steel framework set into concrete and then the wood is applied on brackets to the steel.
So if the sign ... it would be maintained well by the homeowners association in Minnewashta Landings and it
happens to be in excess of 5 feet in height. So I respectfully request the variance... to allow the sign...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Are there any specific questions that you may have of Mr. Dun? Steve.
Councilman Berquist: No, I don't think so.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Only an apology for not getting back to you. Last week I was out of town. I'm
sorry I didn't return your phone call. I was out of town last week so, I intended to.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: No specific questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We have to come up with a conclusion on this as to how we're going to go. I think one
of these we did do not too long ago. We double fee'd it but I don't know if that's the answer. Do it right now.
Councilman Berquist: Well my notes, at some point as we continue to approve simply because they look good
and no one objects, someone's going to conveniently forget. Not honestly forget. Is there a process in place
now where they're.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. We tried to remedy, to examine why they happened and we are making sure that it's
a condition. When a subdivision goes through, it says right on there they would have to supply the staff with
the plans and specs and require a permit. We're making sure that's a condition.
Councilman Berquist: So if in fact the situation occurs a year and a half from now or two years from now with
some development, we'll have, it won't even really be an issue. We'll be able to say, tear the darn thing down
and be gone.
Kate Aanenson: We're hoping that solves the problem.
Councilman Berquist: Hopefully that doesn't happen.
Kate Aanenson: Right. Well the other issue the Planning Commission raised too is that we are having a lot of
Parade of Homes. I mean what happens when these things are on the fast track. They're trying to get as much
visibility and.
18
City g Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
Councilman Berquist: But like Mr. Durr says, it's not as if they do not have the plans for these things. I mean
' when they develop a, when they do a preliminary plat, I'm sure they're contemplating how they're going to
market the property.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. And we did see the drawing. It's clear that we saw the drawings. He represented that
and he asked you for a variance on the gazebo which we all talked about but there was never any indication
about size, or anything at that and that's the area where we got into the gray. Yes, everyone understood that
there'd probably be a sign out there but what those dimensions would be was never specified and that's what
we're hoping to correct. Some of those measures to make sure that's understood what they can be in getting a
permit.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anything more Steve? Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I'm really torn. I mean I've given my soliloquy up here about the
competition is fine but I mean this is going to be quite an, I'm trying to figure out how to change the sign to
meet the ordinance and the way it's constructed, I don't see a viable option for us. I'm not an expert on those
things but I'm inclined to leave it. If we can have some assurances that the homeowners association will deal
with the upkeep of it. And I don't know how we can get those assurances but. Boy, I'd be awful on Board of
Adjustments and Appeals but it seems a shame to tear it down unless it could be used in another city for
another development that you're doing. I truly believe it was an honest mistake and I think it was the city's
process that's led to this mistake so I'm inclined to leave it. Or move it if it can be financially and feasibly re-
' used somewhere else.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael.
Councilman Mason: Well the Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 with one abstention to deny the variance
request and honest mistakes. Gee officer, I thought the speed limit was 30 mph. Or you know, excuse me, 45
and it was really 30. I don't doubt that it was an honest mistake but at what point, and I guess this is a
' discussion I'd like all Council to talk about a little bit here. At what point are people held accountable? Well
it's an honest mistake. So we let this one go. The next one comes in and says it's an honest mistake. Well you
know I don't think it was. I have drive by there. It looks nice and my feeling was, reading the Planning
Commission meeting Minutes is no one things it's ugly. I don't think that's the point but some steps weren't
followed here and I personally have trouble letting it go as is. Now if we can work out something where
perhaps the sign stays and something is done for the community, some sort of restitution if you will, I think
maybe that can be talked about but I'm having trouble just letting it lay as is. That's my feeling.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. When you're talking in that particular vein, as we did with one of the other developers,
we did double fee him. I don't know if it's a potential that we could move to a triple fee and the next one that
' comes in, it would be four times the fee.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well but hopefully that won't occur.
' Mayor Chmiel: Right, but I'm saying if
Councilman Mason: Yeah, and I guess I'm not even necessarily talking restitution to the city coffers. You
' know planting some trees in a park that needs trees or, I guess I'm just throwing some options out. It would be
a shame to tear the sign down. A lot of money. A lot of time has gone into it. However, we do have some
' 19
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
ordinances for some reasons and for whatever reasons they weren't followed and I'm just having, I'm not quite
sure where all this fits in.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: Well I guess I really think that the Planning Commission did their job. I mean they
interpreted the ordinances and I can't disagree with the conclusion they came up with. But really looking at the
sign that's there, I don't see a real good reason to mess with it and I think given the new procedure that's going
to be in place, that is going to I think put us in a lot firmer position of putting something in black and white
and saying, here. We gave you this and we haven't had that before. I don't know. Every one of these, it's
kind of hard to liken this to even the one we did for Lundgren Brothers because each one of these is really an
individual case. This one, I remember the discussion on the gazebo and looking at all that and I mean to me it's
more one of those things I think that got lost in the fray by everybody. Not just the applicant. I think we were
focusing more on the issue at the time as it related to the gazebo and how that related to ordinances and what
we allowed and didn't allow and I think, I don't know. Honest mistake. Is this an honest mistake? I don't
know. I don't think that's really the issue. I think it's really not worth messing with this one. I think we need
to get the procedure in place that we can point to so it doesn't happen again and I really don't think we need to
resort to some additional fee or something to accomplish that. Once the procedure's in place, our position's firm
and we don't need...
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah I think that staff has already got that procedure in place and with that, I think that I went
out and I looked at that sign and I presume everyone had that opportunity to do that and when you do look at it,
to take it down, I asked Mr. Durr the cost on that and it was approximately about $6,000.00. I see the Planning
Commission's position and I don't disagree but they also mention in parts of their minutes that there should be
some penalty fee be added and that I think probably would be to double fee that specific installation. That
being out of focus as far as size is concerned. So would there be a motion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll float a motion to approve the variance request with the stipulation that there's a
double fee.
Councilman Mason: I second that.
Councilwoman Docicendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Variance Request #95 -8 to allow a
7 1/2 foot high entry monument sign to be located at the intersection of Landings Drive and Minnewashta
Parkway with the stipulation that the applicant be charged a double fee. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW TWO MONUMENT SIGNS 761 WEST 78TH STREET
RICHFIELD BANK
John Rask: Thank you Mr. Mayor. The applicant, Richfield Bank is requesting a variance to allow a second
monument sign or what they're describing as a directional sign at the Kerber Boulevard entrance to Richfield
Bank. On April 24th of this year the City Council approved Site Plan #95 -4 for Richfield Bank and Trust...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
20
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
I
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to deny Sign Permit Variance #95 -9 based on the
findings presented in the staff report and the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance.
2. Richfield Bank has a reasonable opportunity to advertise their name and service with two wall signs and
fountain area.
3. Provisions exist in the City Code for the use of directional signs.
4. The variance is inconsistent with the purpose and findings of the sign ordinance.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A MIXED LAND USE DEVELOPMENT OF
COMMERCIAL OFFICE SINGLE AND MULTI- FAMILY ON APPROXIMATELY 66 ACRES LOCATED
SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5 BETWEEN GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD AND MARKET BOULEVARD,
VILLAGES ON THE PONDS, LOTUS REALTY SERVICES.
(Taping of the meeting began again during the staff report presentation on this item.)
Bob Generous: ...Every opportunity for pedestrian movement within the project is provided. We believe the
proximity to the downtown and through the designation of appropriate uses that this could be a supplement to
our downtown area and actually enhance the community. Staff is recommending that this project be given
conceptual approval with the direction contained in the staff report and that the applicant move forward to
address those issues that are outlined. Thank you and if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, thanks Bob. I guess I've got just a question for Kate. Some of the letters that I've
received, one specifically here indicates that we feel however that city planning staff is forcing rental housing
through by requiring it as a part of this development. Can you put some clarifications on some of that?
Kate Aanenson: Certainly. As you know the city spent a lot of time going through the Highway 5 document
and re- addressing this specific piece of property and as Bob showed you, originally it had some commercial on
it. There was concern that there was an opportunity to put a big box user on this piece of property and that was
not desirous of the city. I think once Byerly's and Target went in, we really felt like there should be hitting
another nitch in that area. So that was reguided and that comp plan is up before the Met Council for review to
go industrial for a majority of that northerly portion of property. But with the caveat that if they did come in,
there was an opportunity for up to 25% support commercial so if there was a large user in there, there could be
some support commercial with it. So when this proposal first came before the staff we had some work sessions
with the Planning Commission because at first blush we were opposed because we spent all this time coming
forward with a different plan, that we were already in review. This basically kind of put us on our head to
rethink this whole opportunity. So our first look at it said, well if we're going to get, if the developer wants
some more commercial, what's in the best interest of the city? First of all we want to have something different.
And second of all, if there is to be additional commercial on this property, which we weren't really sure that we
needed, then what is in it for the city and we felt like one of the things we needed, as Bob indicated, some more
rental type housing. And a portion of that could be affordable. We've heard all kinds of stories that we're
trying to dump a whole project on there that's low income or something like that. That's not the case at all.
21
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
There's a whole gamut of types of rental and moderate priced or affordable housing. There's all different types
of jargon words on that so I think there's a lot of fear in that. The other concern I have on this is that, in some
ways I think the developer's kind of made the city, the staff look like we're the ones forcing this. Whereas in
the fact that he's coming forward or the applicant's coming forward with a different proposal than was
recommended and we're saying, well if that's the approach you want to go, then we're trying to find what would
be in the best interest of the city. So we're trying to balance those two things. If they want additional retail,
which we had never considered there, that we want something that would be a benefit ... and we do need retail.
And the reason we felt, I mean rental. And what we felt was important about that, the rental component was
that there was an opportunity for transit on this land. Lake Drive, it makes a very nice slip on lane for the mass
transit. It's a great opportunity close to downtown, to the schools, to services. It would be a great opportunity
to provide a housing element. And there's a lot of different ways we can combine that. Whether it's on top of
the retail. Mixed in with the office component so we're saying, we're willing to look at that but if you are going
to consider more retail, we strongly support that there should, also as a component of that, look at some
housing.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Do you have any questions of Bob? Steve?
Councilman Berquist: Not at this time, no. I think I just want to hear some more.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is the applicant here? Would you please state your name and your address.
Brad Johnson: Brad Johnson. I reside at 7425 Frontier Trail and we represent the Ward family who are the
owners of the property and have been for about 100 years. Basically this evening I'd like to just address the
process that we're going through with the neighborhood and the Planning Commission and now the City Council
and give you the big picture of what we're trying to accomplish here and then Jack's going to go over the land
use plan that we have and ... slide show on what we're trying to accomplish. But let's go back to what the
process is. We're in a conceptual process and I think it's been working quite well. We have a great idea—this
particular idea was a great idea and we go to the planning staff and they don't think it's as great or we've done
something unique... But generally we'd like to see the staff report like you have now by the time we get here.
In other words ... what we're trying to accomplish rather than... trying to accomplish. The next thing I did last
summer, we've been at this for about 6 months, 7 months so far. As a matter of all ... because I knew they had
some concerns...212, Highway 101 corridor... expected that we would hear from them. So I met with the nearby
neighbors and we're set to address their issues and these will be just the neighbors along the east side and I
talked on the phone to all the people that are on the south side. And the major concern at that time that they
had was that we provide public access to the property and also that we make it possible for them to get public
22
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
I
utilities, and these are reasonable requests. And then finally, try to buffer their community which has been 2
acre or 1 acre lots, one house... We took that into consideration and put together a plan. We sent a mailing out
but our secretary forgot to send it to the other half of the community which would be, what's the subdivision...?
Audience: Brookhill.
Brad Johnson: Thank you. Brookhill and we didn't send it to ... direct response until we came to the hearing
here and we realized of course at that point that we'd made a mistake in our mailing and so therefore we went
to one Planning Commission and then had another meeting with the neighborhood and we tried to keep and
communicate... and made some adjustments in our plan based upon their concerns for this particular project.
Originally, in order to buffer the first neighborhood we had decided the best use of that was small pad rental,
for lack of anything else ... if you think of Heritage Apartments for example is on an acre and a half. 18 units so
it's a small pad in the area. And so we proposed rental but high density, we had to go to a high density zone.
Originally in our concept, before we went very far with this at all was way back even before we went to
planning was the townhouse. We had an opportunity to do some senior housing that requires high density and
the neighborhood in general was opposed to the high density concept, mainly because of the size of the
building... they had transition. A lot of legitimate reasons in the planning process so we've adjusted our plan... at
the last time we believe the neighbors are okay with is that easterly section of the property will now be, so
we're requesting at this point a townhouse type of atmosphere. In addition to that there is a lot of concern about
the traffic on East Lake Drive. Is that what it's called? And that's an issue that we'll have to deal with as we
look through and they raised the question, just because you now have a neighborhood and then you'll have that
whole area is zoned I believe all the way along here in detail so they're just concerned that... traffic over there
which is ... concern most neighborhoods have. So on our property we decided to deal with those issues. Kate
has brought up the idea and I was at your affordable housing meeting the other night, that we are concerned that
we try to figure out one, how to handle mass transit within there. This could be a winner. And then number
two, how we integrate that into the community. It's still premature to do that but we'll go back now to the
design because that's what will lead to the process. You'll see a concept now for the, probably the second time.
We were here once before just in pictures but you'll see the project as a whole initially and that's just to get
your opinion as Bob has said. Then they'll rewrite the staff report to absorb all those things that you're
concerned about. And then we have two more runs at it before we'll actually come back with the buildings and
how they perceive the whole road system will work and things like that, which is a whole different issue. Not
so much land use as now that we're using the land, what it will look like. That will take up about 6 months so
probably sometime next summer we'll probably get to a PUD possibly with preliminary plat approval, as we see
it. So this is not a real fast process. And it shouldn't be. This is, oh I'm just trying to figure out. Between $20
and $30 million development. It's probably, it won't look like that when you see the buildings ultimately
because they're not big buildings. They're mostly little buildings but the size of the development is a
combination of Byerly's, Target and Market Square and most of the downtown. It's about the same size in total
square footage. From a tax base point of view it will add about $1.7 million in taxes that it will pay when it's
accomplished. That's a little bit bigger than a Rosemount. I think Rosemount pays a million, a million two.
The last school election it would have contributed between $50,000.00 and $100,000.00 to the referendum
directly. So it's not a small project. We think it's about the right time for it and a lot of it's office, which we
don't have a lot out here. Corporate type of places and the rest is retail. So we'll go through that but that's kind
of the rationale and process and then we'll come back again. We'll try to keep with the neighbors. Obviously
when we go from concept to hard facts, there's things we're going to run into that we didn't think about, and
that's probably going to be the hardest step that we have. Harder than the one we've got so the people that are
here with us, Vernelle of course is here with us from Lotus and Jack Lynch with BRW. We brought them in
because they did plan the Highway 101 alignment so they're familiar with what's supposed to happen there.
23
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
And then ... Milo will be the project architect and he's had a lot of experience in planning communities and they'll
be going ahead and I'll be just listening to ... so Jack, do you want to go through with where we are?
Jack Lynch: We're dealing with about 65 acres. This site is a tough site to deal with for two reasons, and it's a
difficult process. The site gives us problems from two standpoints in that, as staff has indicated, you have a
guide plan and two studies that all take a look at a little different approach at this site. So your guide plan and
your vision 2002 and your Highway 5 corridor plan all have been envisioned a little bit different to handle as a
site. The site is also extremely sensitive. It has a number of, as staff has pointed out, has a number of
wetlands. It has some steep terrain and it has some mature hardwoods. From a process standpoint it's rather
difficult because quite frankly most people do not go through three steps and a PUD process. We usually
handle the preliminary and the conceptual stage together. So that in this process staff has had no site plans, no
parking lot layouts, no architectural details, no building pad details, to really get into depth then. Quite
frankly... asking is an inkle that the land uses we're proposing and the intensity we're proposing makes some
sense and if we carry through on what we say we're going to carry through on, we can come to an agreement.
The land use plan envisions about 250,000 square feet of retail and extension of the downtown. The current
downtown in Chanhassen is basically complete. The only possible extension of downtown is this parcel. So
we're proposing an extension of downtown with small buildings, highly articulated architecture. One and two
story buildings. No flat roofs. Pitched roofs. Buildings pulled up close to the frontage road system. Basically
a new concept in retailing where you could park on the street and walk in the front door of a retail store. We
understand that the frontage road is MSA standards. MSA money. The MSA standards allow for parking on
those roadways. The buildings again would be pulled up close on the street. Parking would be located in the
backs of the buildings or on the sides of the buildings. So we have on the northern portion of the property
about 250,000 square feet... The orange area includes about 200,000 square feet of office space. This is
probably the more sensitive of the site, which shows three very general... for office, located on either side of the
reconfigured TH 101. The parcels would be, since the area designated for offices is rather sensitive, it has some
steeper slopes on the southern portions of these parcels, we would have to go to basically a 2 or 3 story office
building that would require some underground parking and small pads to make sure that we don't destroy some
of the slope conditions. Also the more mature vegetation. More mature hardwoods that are located on those
slopes. And the residential component is about 7 acres and revised recommendation or net density would
require, or would propose about 16 units of a low rise, for sale product along the eastern property line. The
access would be provided off of Highway 101, and the frontage road system. We're also showing access back
into the larger residential components that are not currently served with a public access on the eastern property
line. In fact that needs two cul -de -sacs. We are trying to look at serving those areas off of one public roadway.
Currently there is heavy terrain in this area between the two cul -de -sacs. That's the reason for the two cul -de-
sacs. And the southern portion, basically open space. There is one knoll in this area for essentially... density
residential component. And then Brad's lakefront home on Lake Susan. The proposal includes a pretty
extensive open space system, hooking up the existing major wetlands in the area to an existing trail system
that's currently in place and expanding on that trail system. I think the image that Brad's going to show you
some slides on is a highly pedestrian oriented system. Again buildings located up close to the frontage road,
Lake Drive, and on street parking. The on street parking would not be required to support the retail. It's just an
additional parking that we could take advantage of With that staff would like to show a few slides. And again
three problems we have. We've studied the park. We've studied this ... your guide plan, Vision 2002 along
with ... Highway 5 corridor plans all says something different for this site. It's an extremely sensitive site with a
lot of wetlands, heavily terrained in vegetation and we are going through a rather oddball type of approval
process without asking you to comment on ... detail plans and architecture.
24
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
r
r
Councilman Berquist: Can I ask one quick questions? You've got 9.5 acres. For instance 100,000 square feet.
7.4 acres, 78,000 square foot. Is that your hard cover? What is those?
Jack Lynch: These are the square footages of building components.
Councilman Berquist: Okay, so that's your, in your mind's eye.
Jack Lynch: Right. In order of magnitude...
Councilman Berquist: It's not the hard coverage, it's the actual square footage of space.
Jack Lynch: Correct.
Councilman Berquist: Okay.
Brad Johnson: Steve, even though he said that's an oddball process, the process happens to be working so the
idea is that we provide a concept and rather than go out and design all kinds of things that don't work because
the concept is wrong, so we get the opportunity to walk through the process. It's frustrating I think at times for
everybody but it seems to be working so we'll just keep on. I thought I'd, one of the village concepts was we
have seen some changes in retail. If you read ... I think it was last week we were talking about the revival of
43rd and France and ... and places like that. Where people are trying to figure out how you get people from the
malls. The big box concept in retail because we as consumers like cheap, low prices for high valued goods and
like parking right in front of the door ... The mega mall's proven that. There they have high service, reasonable
prices, but there is sort of a resurgence of what you'd call neighborhood type of retail. And many of the retail
centers such as Market Square and the Byerly's center over there have been considered to be viable, even though
we do have some larger facilities. Certainly Byerly's is a larger facility than Target. Currently what we're
thinking about is that the market in the next 5 years will be much, in Chanhassen probably will look a little bit
like what you just saw where you have high tech office... proposed for over on Highway 5. That type of product
looks like it can be absorbed out here... Secondly it appears that the office and market has recovered... provide
an environment for people. These are not small offices. They'd be more 10,000 to 20,000 square foot tenants.
There is that... interested in moving in there. And then finally just a retail absorption level that we've sort of
realized that we've got that probably exists. In talking to some of the landlord here, it is interesting that there
are some that you'd call mini anchor tenants that are interested in coming out but those are in the 10,000 to
20,000 square foot size. That used to sound big but now the big boxes are 100,000 to 120,000 square foot size
so we have a number of tenants that have expressed interest in the under 20,000 category. We will ultimately
need some anchors over there because people aren't just going to drive over there because we've got Berquist's
Coffee Shop or something. So the image of it is, these are more the ones that you probably have seen and
probably have not seen but I'll just kind of walk you through it. This type, anybody been here? This is
downtown Excelsior. Ever since I've been here, Chanhassen has wanted to be Excelsior so... Part of Chanhassen
has wanted to be Excelsior. We had some discussions about zip codes at one time, but I can't remember that.
But basically the idea is, obviously the architecture is different but the concepts that you see here which are on
street parking, stores grouped together, that type of thing. I'm just showing you here because a lot of questions
have come up about parking on the streets. One thing that has come through is to be pedestrian friendly also is
also the same as having parking on the streets. I can't relate the two yet but it seems to be the way all these
places, and each of these are very successful retail areas. You'll see that most of them are built sometime
between the area of time, probably 1900 to 1920. Some as early as 1880. This is Excelsior again and you're
aware of where these corners are but that kind of shows you the feeling. Again the architects. A lot of two
25
1
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
story buildings. They happen to have some flat roofs but we're going to avoid that. Same kind of thing here.
It's a very viable sort of place. A lot of us have been to that movie theater. This is the parking in the rear.
Not very well organized but what happens in Excelsior is they've discovered that they could not be successful
without parking so over the years the city has been buying up parking in the rear and I didn't know that was
there for 5 years when I lived here so I never went shopping in Excelsior because I couldn't find a place to park.
But now that I know that that's there, because the streets were always busy. I'm just... but that's really true the
way it is out there. This is downtown Wayzata. There's is a little wider road but you'll notice that they've tried
to, and what's interesting. That one new building on the right hand side is an upscale retailer, but I don't know
what the name of it is. It started out as Gokey's but it's shifted but that's an example of where you've got new
retail and it works. This is a little retail. This is on the main street but they have a little bit of parking right off
of it. It has a nice look to it. Comfortable. Can you rent space in a downtown like this? This is, I was told
the other day, you've got to realize that this looks at Lake Minnetonka. I didn't show you the other side of it
which is hardly a thing that we have here but the rent in there is $24.00 a square foot and that's the highest rent
being currently collected and it's in the downtown, second story about retail. So it has worked. Okay, in other
words, you can do certain things. That's unusual though. More of that downtown. There's a restaurant called
Sunsets. I think we're still in Excelsior. I'm going to go through here. Nov this is over on Como Avenue and
most of you have been by it if you go to the State Fair. It's right by the University of Minnesota -St. Paul.
Again this is Muffaletta's. It's a little restaurant area over there but I thought I'd just take some pictures because
again this is Como Avenue. It's fairly high traffic count yet they have parking on the streets and this is a very
viable kind of community. They do have niches coming off where they're got green areas and stuff like this.
Again, I think from now on you're going to feel like you're in Bavaria because that seems to be the trend of this
architecture of the two story type architecture but I just took these. These, they've got parking. They've got
sidewalks and it's busy. You can't find a place to park. This happens to be Green Bay Road in Winnetka,
Illinois on a Saturday morning. And that's really busy. This is a little strip of parking right off that area and
again this is Saturday morning at 9:30. And so obviously something is successful. In this particular case they
have housing above that was built a long time ago but it's worked and again parking on the streets so this is
back to Como Avenue. A little bit of more of the Como Avenue area. This is a church. We were thinking that
if we put a small church into this particular area, like ... this is a church on that street. What happens with
churches is, if you put a church in, when do they need the parking? Sunday morning. So you can intermix
what would be a lot of, and ... parking the rest of the day so you can cut down on your hard surface areas by
putting churches in. This is a little townhouse project in Deerfield, Illinois. That's kind of quaint. That's why I
took these pictures. It gives you an idea of what maybe we could do and this is a very tightly done thing.
Those sell for about $300,000.00 each right now but in Minnesota we could probably build them for
$115,000.00. This is just an expensive area of town. And so that's kind of a background of what, the idea and
the vernacular. Taking this thing, you know some of those ideas and then translating them to modern day
architecture. This plan is our next step. And that's when you'll actually see what it's all about. I think the
question you have before you is that a good use. I am here to say that it appears to me that we're under
valuation as far as our commercial /retail is concerned. I noticed in the staff report they indicated about a 29%
of our total tax base is commercial and my feeling, and talking to the community is one of the reasons that the
latest referendum failed relative to the school simply is that the tax affect of having all these houses is starting
to weigh on people and it's this type of project, the type of project you saw before, which pay 3 to 5 times the
taxes per acre of development which will help bring our taxes sort of back in line probably over time. You
can't do that as a quick fix but we've got to encourage that type of development so I think somebody's always
said, why do we need to do this? Well, we either have that choice or we're going to have very high taxes where
we have to depend on Chaska to keep developing retail or commercial so the school district has money. As far
as tax is concerned. I realize that does not affect the Minnetonka School District because I've talked... question
that you have to deal with. But that's basically it. Since the process is a long process, we're sort of here to
26
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
listen tonight. We obviously have some ideas that we've been... tried to work with the neighborhood groups. Tc
my knowledge I think we're on the right track with them but there are doubters. You know developers are
developers so they're here to keep track of us and ... so that's where we are. We think we've got an interesting
project. I think the timing is correct with this because we have so much time to expand. As long as I've been
' here we've committed to a downtown area for retail. I think we've got all kinds of studies on and off Highway
5. We've tried to fit into every study that's ever done. You know you've got your Highway 5 corridor plan and
we've tried to adapt to it as we've gone through. The confusing part is this is just a concept. This is the first,
as long as I've been here, so total land use concept that anybody's presented formally, and it's been an
' interesting process. So I'm here to answer questions and I'm sure the neighbors have something to say. Any
questions of me at this time?
Mayor Chmiel: Is there any questions of Brad? I guess not
Brad Johnson: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. I'm going to open the floor to have your positions taken as to your thoughts. If
anyone would like to come forward and indicate those concerns, please so that at this time. Would you please
state your name and your address.
' Dave Kooumen: My name is Dave Kooumen. I live at 8153 Marsh Drive. I'm a new resident... Our major
concern is with the buffering along the eastern property line, which runs the length of the Brookhill
' neighborhood. This area is currently zoned single family residential. The current proposal before you right now
requests a rezoning of this to high density. We've met with Brad Johnson and Lotus Realty and we've agreed in
principle to for sale townhomes in this area, which would provide us with a buffer. We do have an issue with
' the staff requirement for the inclusion of rental housing... Staff is saying that it is critical to include rental
housing but provide no basis for the statement. Our... four years ago and it was still the same and it is still the
same today and it's still in front of the Met Council to stay that way. I am agreeable to the concept of the
townhouses. I don't want to see the three story. I don't want to see the big roofs come up above the trees. And
' I don't believe that a high density is good next to a single family. You need to graduate that down and I also
agree with the on street parking. It helps slow the traffic that's going to be coming down Lake Drive.
Eventually when the businesses come in there, they're going to be cranking down that road and unless there's
something there that they can see, and not an open road, they're going to start flying. There's a lot of kids in
our neighborhood and we already do have a problem getting out and getting over to the city. We have a bridge
now and as traffic increases we're going to have trouble even getting to that bridge so we'd like you to keep
those concerns in mind. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
' Randy Empker: I'm Randy Empker. I live at 8163 Marsh Drive in the Brookhill development and pretty much
support everything that my neighbors have said. I would like you to consider something that they've brought up
traffic problems and we've talked to Brad Johnson and Lotus Realty about Lake Drive East and that
' thoroughfare that could become retail space built in that area and I would just like you to consider some kind
of, we talked to Brad Johnson about a couple of things. Maybe putting a stop sign where Great Plains
Boulevard would presently go and stop the traffic from flowing so fast into our neighborhood.
' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? If not, we'll.
1 27
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
Brad Johnson: I just want to add one thing that has nothing so much to do with what I said. If you looked in
the paper you'll notice that it was, that we are in discussions with St. Hubert's Church as a potential of
relocation of their church and school to this site. That's just a discussion that's going on. You should be aware
of that and I told the community about it previously but I forgot to bring it up in the last meeting and I just
wanted to note that that's a part that could become a part of the overall plan and it will fit in ... under a
conditional use so it's just something that we're working on. This property is owned by two priests, a nun and a
judge and so therefore there is some interest. Mr. Ward.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: There's a joke in there somewhere you know.
Brad Johnson: So there is an interest in the Catholic Church and this point of view. It's felt that possibly the
Ward family will ... the Wards were members of St. Hubert's, can figure out how to help St. Hubert's out and in
the process they will do that so that's what we're going to do. We haven't quite figured out how to do it from a
design point of view but we're working on it.
Kate Aanenson: If I could just respond and make a clarification on some of the comments that were made. As
far as how the residential got there. Mr. Johnson came forward with that proposal based on the fact that he had
tenured an offer for a senior housing project to go on that site. It did not receive state funding so that was the
site that they had collected. Obviously because it's adjacent to existing residential but we're not saying as a staff
that that's cohere the high density has to go. We're saying there's opportunities, a myriad of opportunities based
on the slide that Brad showed you. You could put some of the rental on top of the existing commercial.
There's all kinds. We don't certainly say that's the only place it has to go. We've worked with the Planning
Commission to show some other opportunities. Maybe it's on the other side of Lake Ann. We certainly want
you to know that there's, that that's not the option that we've taken. That whole 60 acres, there's an opportunity
but we do want to make it clear that this is a significant amount of retail and our issue is, in order to get that
much retail we think they should give something back and that's... Have we demonstrated that? No. But we'd
be happy to do that as a part of this report. We've talked to you. Unfortunately it wasn't shown in this report.
Where we are as far as our rental in this community but we're way under. We're less than 10% and we really
should have a few more rentals in the city. Again we're not saying that that's the only location... And also I did
want to let you know, and it's in the report but just to clarify that, it does require, this project does trigger a
mandatory environmental assessment. Traffic is certainly one of the components we'll be looking at. It's a very
sensitive issue to the neighbors. There will be other development on Lake Drive. It's going to be a significant
factor. The Legion property and the Mortenson property are also developing so it is a concern and we
committed during the Planning Commission to not only look at this segment but what the implications are on
either side so we certainly will be looking at that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Thank you Kate. Let's go through the process to see where we're all at least
coming from. Steve.
Councilman Berquist: At first blush it looks like a, I mean it really looks like a viable alternative for a piece of
land where we all know something is going to go. You know it really makes sense to do it from a planned unit
development point of view. You can respond to different markets. We can make use of different pieces that fit.
Different parts of the puzzle that make up a community. I can certainly understand the neighbors point of view
from not wanting high density. I can certainly understand Kate's point of view from having some rental. It
seems as though the Planning Commission and the recommendations laid out therein address that by talking
about reducing the density from high to medium. All the neighbors that are here will have an opportunity, if
this goes forward, will have an opportunity for probably 3 or 4 years to follow every particular piece of land as
28
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
it comes before various commissions for approvals and you'll certainly have to make your wishes known more
than tonight or tomorrow or next month. From a resident point of view I find it hard to believe that Chanhassen
will grow to the point where we need another 250,000 square feet worth of retail. On the other hand if you
look at the projections where the people that are smarter than I am say we'll have 32,000 people by the time we
hit 2020. I suppose another 200,000 square feet is very desirous. We don't have any place at hand right now
for small office users. The accountants, attorneys, those sorts of professionals are rather limited in the spaces
that are available for them. There are no real corporate users. I mean I'm willing to look at the project on a
PUD basis. That's probably what I should have started by saying. Go ahead.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: We have dealt with other PUD's and we first do go through the concept and I
always have to struggle with not getting bogged down in the minutia. Oh, where to start. I guess I start with
my concern that we do have a lot of, still have a lot of available commercial land in our central business district
downtown here and we keep expanding out without having to deal with the vacant properties that we have here,
or the redevelopable properties. Redevelopable properties and certainly that's due to the expense. And Brad
you're probably in an excellent position to help me understand where, how you see this downtown evolving. I
mean is it going to be several more years? My concern is that, like I said, we keep going out instead of dealing
with the core.
Brad Johnson: You want me to answer that question?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes I would please.
Brad Johnson: Currently there's, this is hard to believe. We should buy a bottle of wine but tomorrow we can
possibly, they're going to pull a permit on Phase II of the Medical Arts building. I don't know if they want to...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So that would be the open lot along the...
Brad Johnson: That takes care of that piece. Then the entertainment complex comes before you probably in
January. That takes care of that parcel. Todd has been working with, I know he's got two potential purchase
agreements on the last, what I perceive to be almost the last parcel. Remember it takes us probably a year just
to get some kind of momentum on this site and so I think Vernelle did a study, which is in there, that we've
been absorbing about 100,000 square feet a year and we currently have available to us probably 18 acres, which
is almost nothing. So if we just continued on doing it, when we finish... Square. Let's say our people in
Chanhassen, if we can attract people and make use of space, we collect the taxes whether we're using it or not.
I mean that's the key element of what we're talking about. So ... and we have actually filled, I think we're down
to very little. Less than 20 acres?
Kate Aanenson: 18.
Vernelle Clayton: There are ideas for most all of those.
Brad Johnson: Yeah, I think as far as we know we have no developable sites on this side of the street that we
can go after, except for one. I think Todd you've got one spot left over there where Fuddrucker's is thinking
about.
Todd Gerhardt: Two.
29
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
Brad Johnson: That's not a lot and then across the way, you have a neighborhood retail that is going to sort of
be, there's going to have to be plans for these guys. I see that as a tough site to deal with and that includes the
Legion site. And then the rest of the zone retail is pretty mature. It's on the 212 corridor. Isn't that right?
You've got some way down.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, and that gets away from this. So my major concern was that downtown.
Brad Johnson: Yeah, we think this is a 5 year, we've actually made the mixed uses ... and we've gone to the
smaller retail users to hedge our bet, you know and we think the office, if we can pull the office off, that will
generate traffic—and we haven't even tried to market it because we don't know what we've got but I think we're
safe there. It's an absorption need. Our job is to go sell it ... that's our goal.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, thank you. I like the fact that it is multiple use because I think it needs to
be. I mean the area's so large and so unique that it does, I agree with Steve, it does need to be a PUD. In
terms of the residential aspects, I think there's probably housing products that I'm not even aware of that would
be very unique and fit in with this. I really encourage staff and the applicant to explore those, like flats on top
of a commercial building. And I don't see why we couldn't, I think in our discussions of affordable housing and
rental housing, I think we've all agreed that you put it here and there. You don't do a big block of it so I think
there's lots of opportunities and I'm really happy with that condition that we do include that and keep that. And
particularly for the rental. I mean it's a need in this community and something that we need, a product that we
need more of It kind of scares me a little bit that we're creating a second downtown because as much as we
like to think that it isn't, Highway 5 certainly is very divisive. But I know people who work at Rosemount and
don't go across Highway 5 to have lunch because it's considered too far. If they do, they take a car so this
would certainly provide, I think the retail could be supported there. Going through the conditions, let's see what
did I have issues on. My statements aren't as concise as the report was. Number 4, please define vernacular.
It's not being used in the context that I've ever used it in.
Councilman Mason: She's the lady that works with Lotus Realty.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's Vernelle.
Councilman Mason: Oh.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Number 6, definitely. Develop a strategy for affordable housing. And number 19
I want to stay in. The fact that we need to make a commitment to provide rental housing in the development
somewhere. Condition number 24, I'm not ready to make that, have that part of that. I'd still like to investigate
what we could do, excuse me. For people who don't have the report it reads, the density between the existing
residential and the proposed residential shall be medium density, i.e. 4 to 8 units per acre and not high density.
I'm not willing to back away from the fact that we potentially may have some needs to put a couple building
pads of high density in there so I'd like to strike that one but other than that, I'm happy with where it's going.
It's certainly very unique and something that I don't think many cities have encountered and it's a big project.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: Conceptually I think it's great. I think there's just, there are some very interesting
opportunities for the city of Chanhassen here. I'd like to see it continue. I agree with Colleen. I think we need
rental in this city. I have to take a certain amount of umbrage to the letter that talks about the low income,
30
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
government assisted housing will have on our home values. It amazes me when anyone, anywhere hears rental
they assume that crime will go up 100% and nobody will ever be safe anymore and my property values are
going to fall in the waste basket. I have an 89 year old aunt that rents now because she's not going to be
around much longer and she rents instead of owns. I think as a community that is an issue that we have to
address. We do need rental housing in this community and I'm glad that Kate clarified what she, the staffs
position that it doesn't necessarily, there's no particular place it needs to be in there but that we do in fact need
rental housing. I agree with that 100 %. I had to chuckle a little bit when I heard that it's a new concept in
retail to have parking in front of the stores. I grew up in a small town and that's what it was like and it's fun to
see things kind of, the pendulum swings and things evolve and we've got the marketplace and all that stuff and
we're going to try some new things. Conceptually I like it. Obviously there's a lot of work to be done and I
think everyone realizes that but let's keep going knowing that we have concerned neighbors and things need to
be buffered but let's see what happens.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: I think well, I guess to start with I think the process is working and I want to see it keep
going. I read your staff report and I see substantial differences between the staff report and the plan we have in
front of us. As subtle as they may be, you know staff throws out these ideas. Starts throwing out these ideas
and something has to give somewhere because it's not... so something's got to drop out of the middle or
whatever. Personally I think this is probably going to be one of more important, or I'm going to say pivotal
pieces of property that we have left to develop given it's location. Both in terms of it's proximity to the core
but also in it's once removal, so to speak, from the core. I think I've walked it ... walk it anymore. To me the
more and more I look at the plan, I think one of the major problems I see with the concept that's being
forwarded is there's just pure and simply too much retail. I think Lake Drive should be the natural barrier. The
barrier or whatever you want to call it and I think retail should be confined to the north side of Lake Drive. I
think the other commercial, being the office space should be confined to the west side of TH 101. I think if
you did that there'd be plenty of room with the rest of the site to go protect the natural features and also provide
a good mix of medium and higher density housing. If I look at the concept now, basically you've got 23.5 acres
in retail, 14.1 in office and about 10.9 in residential. I guess the more I played with those numbers and played
with those areas as they're defined, I guess I keep coming out more with something like 12.9 in retail, 10.1 in
office and then residential split 7.4 in higher density, 17.1 in medium density and 1.0 in single family. The east
side of that project, south of Lake Drive I think should be medium density housing and I think it should be
ownership housing and I think it should be a mix of affordable and non - affordable. I don't think it should be all
one way or the other. I think the 7.8, 7.4 acres is kind of bullseye or whatever I guess in the project and I
really see that as the real logical place to put the higher density rental housing. You've then got your industrial
park buffering through some office space over to some higher density residential to some medium density
residential to some single family residential which is the neighborhood to the east. At the same time you've got
your retail up to the north of Lake Drive and really confining some of those, I'm going to say traffic and other
problems that that would create if they stay on the north side and I think again create kind of a natural barrier to
what would be happening on the rest of the site. The one big thing I noticed in relationship to the plan is just
really not a real good delineation of the wetland... I think the wetlands are much broader than are indicated here,
at least the general impression I had from walking that so I think part of that's going to be an over crowding
effect.
Kate Aanenson: Can I just comment on what you're saying. I concur with, as a part of this PUD process and
' you're right. I understand what you're saying. I believe that with what they're showing is the ultimate
maximum density. Are we going to achieve those numbers? I don't think so because you're right. There is a
31
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
substantial amount of wetlands which is going to bring that down and those are the critical issues that we're
going to develop at the next level and try to articulate so we can go back and say, does it make sense to have
that. To doing that much grading on this piece. Should we move the pieces of the puzzle around and I guess
that's what they're looking at so they have some idea of what your feeling is and what direction they should go.
But you're right, that would be a maximum density. And some of the issues that we raised, the lower density
on the end, we believe that should probably be left all in open space. It shouldn't be developed at all. Those
two little ends so you're right when you say the staff report doesn't match that because we've kind of critiqued
our own. But there are going to be some issues raised and that's the process of the next level. Articulating
those issues so we can go back and say, that doesn't make sense for land use so again that's why there's no
standing with the conceptual because we don't have enough information to make all those critical issues. So I
agree with what you're saying. And some of these numbers are going to drop down and the development parcel
size and it may shake up all our whole thinking. We have to come back to gee, our original thinking doesn't
work based on what we found out. It's just going to be too much degregation and we have to start the process
over. But they're looking for some direction to go back and decide what to study in the next level.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. As I understand it, I mean you're asking for and they're asking for feedback and I'm
trying not to be general. I'm trying to be as specific... The other, I guess really just one other point. I can
almost I guess assume it's coming and I guess I'd like to go on record for it right now and that is that I can't see
any way I'd support the use of the TIF for the commercial on this property and removing it from the tax rolls. I
think it's really time that we let the market take over in the subsidy of the retail commercial. The market can
take care of itself now and certainly be able to look at that, I think maybe for some of the housing stuff,
especially as it would relate to the affordable, the elements of the housing but, that that would be done. For
whatever it's worth.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Now when I looked at this, the first thing that came to my mind, is this in the
best interest of the city. And then the things that I had read, a supplement to the downtown. The extension of
the downtown. In my own mind right yet, I'm not sure it's changing some of that concept of the downtown.
Of course you'll basically need it but I think we've got a lot of locations that this will be done to provide that
kind of service to the balance of the community. Parking in the street. That doesn't excite me too much. It
really doesn't. Businesses are close to that road and granted it's only a conceptual, or a lot of things that are
going to be really addressed, critical issues all are not really in front of us so we really don't know. Just a
question Brad. Have you signed an agreement with the Ward's for the option on this property?
Brad Johnson: We just represent them. We don't own it. We've been hired by them to develop it for them,
and we have an agreement.
Mayor Chmiel: You do have an agreement from them?
Brad Johnson: Oh yeah. For about 3 years. 2? 3?
Mayor Chmiel: Year and a half.
Brad Johnson: They've been at all the meetings so far. They just couldn't be here tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I do have some concerns as to some of the things that Mark has brought out so
I'm not going to reiterate on that. But I just feel that it's going to be taking away from the downtown and I do
agree with the TIF portion on this as well. That I don't see any of those dollars allocating to this particular
32
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
project. So with that I would, well the other thing I was going to mention too was the fact that with the 212
' corridor, Brad even mentioned before, there's going to be a lot of additional room for commercial and business
kinds of facilities but that is going to be sort of centered just for specifics and not quite as large as what this
concept.
Kate Aanenson: Absolutely. There will be more support. You know the city's always had the concept of
having a downtown and maintaining our commercial downtown. Is the reason why we didn't put commercial
out at TH 5 and TH 41. We wanted to keep a true downtown center. We grappled as a planning staff for
' months. Brad went to the Planning Commission just on a discussion workshop just to grapple with the same
issues. You know if it was a perfect world, the rest of the downtown would be built and then we'd be building
this. But it's a market economy, just like subdivisions. It'd be nice if all the subdivisions got built on roads that
' were already in place but we don't have control over what people are willing to sell. I mean if it was our
choice, maybe we'd like to wait for this property for a couple of years. But what our position finally came
down to, it is contiguous to downtown. If there is to be any more commercial, it would make sense to make it
' on a contiguous piece and that's where it finally came to.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
' Councilman Berquist: Generally on a PUD, you're granting conceptual and you've got a preliminary that you're
looking at?
Kate Aanenson: Which will be another public hearing, correct before the Planning Commission and it will
come back to the Council.
Councilman Berquist: So in fact, if we grant conceptual approval, what are we truly saying?
Kate Aanenson: You're giving them the marching orders to articulate the next level of development with all
these conditions. So as Brad indicated, because of the EAW they have to do, it will probably be several
months. I would guess, as he indicated, probably this summer before it goes back to the Planning Commission
They have to do a lot of work to identify all these issues. And what you're kind of doing is giving him the
marching orders of what you want him to study to come back on the next level.
Mayor Chmiel: And then if you don't like preliminary that comes back, then of course that's a decision of
Council.
Kate Aanenson: Add additional conditions at that time or whatever
Brad Johnson: Can I add one thing about... for the record. I am, one of the ... rental housing business. Currently
in the city of Chanhassen to develop a rental housing unit, it takes a subsidy of $5,000.00 per year per unit.
And therefore we have to figure out, as part of this process, how we do that. And one of your work sessions on
livable city, I'd like to have the opportunity to do that because that's why, you know when we're developers we
like to develop something and get it all done with. Rental housing was such an easy thing ... but it's a very, very
difficult thing to do. So we're willing to mix it into this particular development. That's not our problem. To
set aside 17 acres for rental housing, 10 acres for rental housing, I have no clue nor does the guy from the Met
Council. We haven't figured out how to do it. I mean it's not a financial reality ... The second thing is that any
I of the affordable housing for sale pays 5 times less taxes, 5 times less taxes than retail. We have plenty of
1 33
1
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
other places to put affordable for sale houses. I'd agree with you on affordable for rent is tougher... taxes are a
lot less so these are just issues we've got to just deal with. And we will do that...
Councilman Senn: In terms of process, you know past experience has been I'd say a lot more uniformity on
where things are going before you pass out of a concept process towards a preliminary process and I'm real
uncomfortable with kind of saying go to the next step and spend all the money and stuff associated with that
without really getting a little closer conformity in terms of where everybody sits on the conceptual part itself.
Simply because, well for one reason I don't think it's fair to have somebody go spend the money to go to that
next level of the process when I don't think there's.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah but that's their prerogative.
Councilman Senn: No, I understand that. But at the same time we have to approve on the concept to do that.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Right. Okay. Is there a motion?
Councilman Mason: Do we need a motion for this?
Mayor Chmiel: I think you do. Right Roger?
Roger Knutson: Correct, you do.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I'd vote a motion, with the understanding. In reading the conditions, adoption
of this is not included. I mean we're not.
Kate Aanenson: Well with the modifications of our conditions, such as.
Councilman Senn: Which aren't defined. See that's part of the problem.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. I mean I'm uncomfortable saying, I mean we're not saying this will be
retail. This little chunk or are we?
Kate Aanenson: In general you're giving approval of the approximate.
Mayor Chmiel: That's part of the conceptual portion, yeah.
Councilman Senn: Could I try one Colleen.
Councilman Berquist: Well this gentleman used the word inkle, unless I'm mixing up presentations earlier. A
motion definitely is more than an inkle. If you're looking for an inkle, I've got hearts.
Councilman Senn: Well if Roger's saying we're under some type of a legal thing to act on the concept plan
timewise or not?
Roger Knutson: It's a practical matter now, but you are, under our ordinance, they don't go forward to the next
step unless you give concept approval.
34
I
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
Councilman Senn: Well I mean if that needs clarification, I think in my mind our motion should be that they
continue to work with staff in terms of developing or further refining a concept plan, given the comments of
Council and stuff at this point so they can come in and do a little more discussion on.
Councilman Mason: Pre - conceptual approval?
Councilman Senn: Yeah. Pre - conceptual approval.
Brad Johnson: Can I ask?
Mayor Chmiel: No, just a minute. It's already at the Council so we'll finish discussion here first. Okay.
' Councilman Senn: I mean that's what I'd like to do as far as a motion like that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess I too an uncomfortable saying this chunk will be this. This will be that. I
think it needs to be re- worked.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Would you like to have Mark make a motion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Please.
Councilman Senn: I'd like to move then that the staff and the applicant further refine and lend better definition
to a concept plan that is more in keeping with staffs recommendations and comments that they've received from
Council tonight. And that they come back in for additional concept review at that time.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Motion on the floor with a second. Any other discussion?
' Councilman Berquist: Aren't we in fact tabling it?
' Kate Aanenson: That's what I was going to ask.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, but it's providing I think the direction everybody's looking for, which is the idea I
thought.
Councilman Berquist: I'd be in favor of tabling it, but I don't see any reason to vote on it. We're simply
tabling it and tell them to come back with something else.
' Brad Johnson: Can we just, let me tell what the response is. The next step is $200,000.00 from our point of
view. To meet some of the questions that they have to do this study of the environmental and all the stuff that
1 you guys. The reason you have this system is to give us, we write this down, as I understand this ... because it's
not a binding issue.
Mayor Chmiel: Brad, your $200,000.00 is your investment that you put into it.
Brad Johnson: No, it's the Ward's.
35
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, their's. Whoever's. But still in my position I'm not sure this is the best thing for the city
and the city comes first before a developer.
Brad Johnson: I understand that but we're coming back with a preliminary plan that you can turn down, right?
That's what we're asking. We'll come back with a far more detailed, work out a program with the staff in about
5 months because there's quite a few things we have to do. Just to get to the next step. We can't just answer
the questions that he's asking. You know wetland questions and things like that are all things that we'll do prior
to the preliminary. You've set up an ordinance that says you walk your way through it. You give concept
approval with conditions. You know that we do this, we do that and we do that and then we'll try to come back
and fit that mold. That's what we're trying to do. If we don't, we don't.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I'm going to bring it back to Council. Thank you. We have a motion on the floor with
a second. Additional discussion.
Councilman Mason: I'd like to hear the motion again.
Councilman Senn: You're going to make me repeat that again?
Kate Aanenson: I wrote it down, would you like it?
Councilman Senn: Did you write it down? Alright.
Kate Aanenson: Further refine the concept plan including the staffs recommendations. And come back with a
conceptual.
Mayor Chmiel: And still come back with conceptual.
Councilman Senn: You know let me explain my motion a little bit, maybe that would help.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I understand what you're saying.
Councilman Senn: I think there's a big disparity here between what's being proposed and what I'm hearing the
staff say in their report and what I'm hearing out of various comments of Council so I mean to me that's not
where you sit here and say, let's give it conceptual approval and go forward. I mean to me in the past when I've
seen that happen, it usually ends up down the road like well gee, I thought you liked this type of thing, or
where we were headed. You know why did you let us keep going? I think on this parcel we should make that ,
loud and clear that we think it's very important, very pivotal. We want to spend some time on it. I think
Council needs to talk about it. We haven't even had the opportunity to do that. Now we've got something in
front of us. Now I think maybe we can spend some time hashing around between ourselves before we just kind
of in public say, let's go ahead and say it's an okey dokey concept.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I agree. Okay. 1
Councilman Mason: I guess my question then, should it be tabled then as opposed to making this motion or is
that essentially the same thing? Does it make any difference?
36 1
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
Councilman Senn: It's essentially the same thing. I mean Mike I'm trying to say what I'm saying because I
think it gives everybody a clear.
Mayor Chmiel: I think there's direction that is being given here to proceed with it. By tabling, that direction
would not be there. Other than what discussion was done here and what staff has picked up from our
discussion. Okay. We have a motion on the floor with a second. Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded that the City Council direct staff and the
applicant to further refine the concept plan including the staff's recommendations and come back with a
conceptual planned unit development for the Villages on the Ponds. All voted in favor, except Councilman
Mason who abstained, and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, OUTLOT A FOREST MEADOW, JMS
COMPANIES.
' Mayor Chmiel: ...I guess maybe what we're looking at is the recommendation that Council approve the attached
real estate agreement between the City of Chanhassen and JMS Companies. Said agreement describes the sale
and purchase of Outlot A Forest Meadow in the amount of $129,220.00 at the $26,000.00 per acre.
' Don Ashworth: That's correct. Good staff report.
Councilman Senn: Since that was his first staff report and he didn't screw it up, why don't we just motion to
approve it and get on.
Todd Gerhardt: ...changes.
' Councilman Berquist: Changes for?
Councilman Senn: When I talked to Todd they really...
Roger Knutson: There were two minor, wording changes.
1 Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, I've got them. They were pretty minor...
Roger Knutson: There's two minor changes and I guarantee you you'd have to read it very carefully to find
them.
Councilman Senn: How about if we move approval with Roger's two minor changes?
Councilman Mason: Second.
' Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the attached real estate agreement between
the City of Chanhassen and JMS Companies as amended by the City Attorney. Said agreement describes the
' sale and purchase of Outlot A, Forest Meadow in the amount of $129,220.00 ($26,000.00 /acre). All voted in
favor and the motion carved unanimously.
' 37
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
CONSENT AGENDA:
ESTABLISHMENT OF LAKE ANN PARK PARKING FEE SECTION 14 -59 OF CHANHASSEN CITY
CODE.
Councilman Senn: I pulled good old Lake Ann parking fees I guess for two reasons. One was, and I was
hoping Todd was going to be here because I'd really like to understand the total reversal of the Park
Commission from a unanimous vote one way to now a unanimous vote the other way, and that wasn't reflected
anywhere in the Minutes, at least that I got. At least as far as any detail discussion goes.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: What item are you talking about?
Kate Aanenson: Lake Ann.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh, I'm on 10(a). I'm sorry.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess part of their thoughts were on that is the fact that they did agree with Council, after
they once thought about it and knowing that costs are going to continue to go up and escalate, with the
maintenance of the park. That those costs somehow be picked up because of all the other cuts that we're taking
from the State and also Fed's and they'll continue to keep coming down and keep pouring back down to the
cities. So I guess maybe that was part of their decision making.
Councilman Senn: Well, I know we went to the abbreviated Minutes but it was a real handicap to understand
the issue.
Councilman Berquist: I was there. If you want to hear my take on it.
Councilman Senn: Well of course I know what side you're coming from but go ahead.
Councilman Berquist: Well, alright then the heck with you. I was there for something else but I ended up
talking about this, since I was the one that instigated them re- looking at it. And frankly there was very little
discussion. There was very, I mean the impression I got is that at some point the horse must have been beaten
to death already because there was no new dialogue about what can we do. How can we do things differently.
So either that happened or they simply made it easy on themselves. I have to believe it was the former as
opposed to the later. That was it in a nutshell.
Councilman Senn: I mean that's just weird because I mean the previous motion they passed on saying to get rid
of them was very detailed. Had all kinds of discussion in the Minutes and they justified their own position ten
times over so I guess I was really at a loss as to what was causing the change. I just, I mean I don't think
there's just a black and a white here. I mean I don't think there's either you charge fees or you don't charge
fees. I think there's a lot of middle ground to look at and I was kind of hoping they would look at some of the
middle ground and say, well maybe we don't have to charge residents but there's other ways to charge fees to
get the same revenue off the park. I don't know. I mean they know that better as a park commission than we
do but it seems to me there was absolutely none of them.
Councilman Berquist: Well I made a short dissertation on my feeling on user fees and I obviously just
snowballed them.
T
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
Councilman Senn: Which there should be user fees on all city parks.
Councilman Berquist: I just made, yeah that's pretty much it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion?
Councilman Mason: I will move approval of establishment of Lake Ann Park parking fees, Section 14 -59 of
' Chanhassen City Code.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Berquist: Well I'll second but I want to...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, second with discussion. Go ahead
Councilman Berquist: Discussion. I still am not, I mean obviously this was just a, let's go back to the way it
was and that's... I don't know what the alternatives are. I tried to think of a couple as I read the report very
quickly. I didn't come up with any that I really liked but there has got to be another method by which to do
this. And the wheel does not have to be reinvented. I think Todd or someone can simply do some research
into how these sorts of things are handled on a municipal basis in some other municipalities. Someone has got
to have come up with a viable system of generating user fees through the park system that works. I don't know
who.
Councilman Senn: I think there's other options Steve, that's what I said before when we had this last time.
' Councilman Berquist: Well that's what I thought I was doing.
Councilman Senn: Well but I think they got lost. I mean we talked a little bit before even about some of the
other ones and I really thought that that would kind of.
Councilman Berquist: I'll tell you what. We talked about parking meters. Now that's not viable in my opinion.
Councilman Senn: No. Yeah, parking was, charging for parking was one of the other basis to do it but I mean
there was other basis with group fees and user fees as it related to certain facilities. I mean there were all kinds
of things bantered about when we talked about it.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I think everything's been beaten to death to be honest. I mean you've got to
look at Lake Ann as a very unique insofar as it is a regional draw and yet it's a city park and so I don't know if
' we can look at apples to apples comparison with other parks in the city and with other municipalities but you
know this issue comes up annually and it is discussed annually and I think a lot of the alternatives have been
considered and a better way has not been found.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, there is a motion on the floor with a second.
Resolution #95 -128: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to establish the Lake Ann Park
Parking Fees, Section 14 -59 of the Chanhassen City Code per staffs recommendations. All voted in favor,
except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carved with a vote of 4 to 1.
39
1
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
GALPIN BOULEVARD /COULTER BOULEVARD /TH 5 INTERSECTION INWROVEMENTS PROJECT NO.
93 -26A.
Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of Council. Providing information. No action is really
necessary on this item. I put it on here to allow the opportunity for discussion. If there were additional
questions or if we didn't provide enough information or the type of information that was desired. So again no
action is necessary but I'm certainly able to take any questions you may have regarding the issue.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Are there any specific questions in relationship to the concerns that you had
Steve?
Councilman Berquist: Just thanks for working it up, number one. I know it was a lot of work that went into
this. And the primary reason for my asking for it be worked up was so that we could try and establish some
consistent method of providing summary for these types of items. I guess my biggest question concerns exactly
that. Can we use this, I don't care about time sheets. I don't care about the rest of the minutia but this sort of a
summary, feasibility, plan and spec estimate, contract award and how the final costs are affected. Big picture
sorts of things rather than approve this, which is what I've seen and that gets my goat. 60 grand to approve this
and—that's my comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anyone else? If none, we've got that one. Motion for adjournment.
Councilman Senn: Don, question quickly... What's the deal with that, or Don or Don, one of you. What's the
deal with this new cable thing? That everybody's getting in the mail.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Everybody?
Councilman Senn: Well those who have cable. They're changing.
Mayor Chmiel: They're putting the additional.
Councilman Senn: Easiest way to say this now is before in your rate, repairs of the cable wire was part of what
you paid for and they took care of it. More or less you didn't have to pay for a service call if they came out.
Okay. Nov they are saying that the rules have changed and they are now going to charge you at $19.53 an
hour for service calls, but if you sign up now you can sign up for $.89 per month kind of like on a Minnegasco,
save yourself money type of thing but the thing I don't understand is, then why isn't there an adjustment in the
monthly cable rates, you know and why aren't we dealing, or I mean have we dealt with or should we be
dealing with this? I mean we're supposedly the cable commission or have representation on it, how do these
things just kind of keep happening and go out in the mail and that's kind of just the way it goes. It seems like
we have very little to do with running the cable system.
Don Ashworth: I have not seen that one so I will check with both Triax and our...
Councilman Senn
Well I got two or three of them stated all different ways.
40
City Council Meeting - November 27, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: That was only for inside. If there's something on the outside, that's their problem. You don't
have to pay for that.
Councilman Senn: Right, no.
Mayor Chmiel: But if it's something within your own home, then you have to.
Councilman Mason: Ma Bell did the same thing.
Councilman Senn: Which previously you didn't have to pay for though. But when Ma Bell's change came
through with the deregulation and all that, there was also a change in the fee structure. Okay. There's no
' change in the fee structure here. Why doesn't that surprise me but.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe you can check into that.
' Don Ashworth: I will.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Benjuist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
' 41
1