1l. City Council Minutes dated July 24, 1995C
1
1
L
/,I,
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 24, 1995
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Berquist, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman Mason,
and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Kate Aanenson, and Bob
Generous
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the
agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the following
Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. The Oaks at Minnewashta, North of Kings Road and West of Minnewashta Parkway, Harstad Companies:
1) Final Plat Approval.
2) Approval of Development Contract and Construction Plans & Specifications.
C. Extension of Preliminary Plat Approval for Olivewood Addition.
e. Amendment to Chapter 18 of City Code Regarding Platting Procedures, Date Required and Design
Standards; and Amendment to Chapter 20 Regarding Definitions; Identification of Arterial and Collector
Streets; Standards for Sales Trailers; Wetland Protection and Shoreland Regulations; Supplemental
Regulations and the following Zoning Districts of PUD, A2, RSF, R8, BN- Neighborhood Business, BH-
Highway & Business and IOP, Industrial Office; Second and Final Reading; and Approval of Summary
Ordinance for Publication Purposes.
f. Resolution #95 -74: Approve Plans & Specifications and Authorize Advertising for Bids for Lyman
Boulevard Surcharge Contract, Project 93- 3213-1.
h. Resolution #95 -75: Accept Utility Improvements in Stone Creek 5th Addition, Project No. 95 -16.
i. Resolution #95 -76: 1996 Southwest Metro Drug Task Force, Approve Cash Match and Resolution.
j. Resolution #95 -77: Approve Resolution for Safe & Sober Grant Participation.
k. Approve City Code Amendment Concerning Horses, Final Reading.
1. Letter Supporting a County -Wide Levy for 1996 Prosecution Costs.
n. City Council Minutes dated July 10, 1995
Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated June 27, 1995
All voted in favor and the motion carved unanimously.
1
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel: The first one on the agenda is Senator Ed Oliver. Senator Oliver is going to provide us some
information in regards to the last 1995 session and provide us with all his words of wisdom.
Senator Ed Oliver: Good evening Mr. Mayor and thank you for your invitation to appear here and good
evening Councilmen and Councilwoman Dockendorf. How long would you like me to spend? I'm at your
pleasure, be it long or short.
Mayor Chmiel: Well we can, I think would 10 -15 minutes be enough?
Senator Ed Oliver: That would be fine and I would certainly be happy to answer questions... 10 or 12 minutes
and then... Well, the 1995 session is over, and the press called it a do nothing session, which was rather
interesting because we did spend 140 days in regular session. We adjourned on May 22nd at 12:00 midnight
and the Governor called us back into special session at 11:55 a.m., 9 hours later so we all got home and slept
for about 4 hours and came back for the special session. The reason for the special session was because we
failed to pass ... the bonding bill that we had before us and the K thru 12 education funding bill. So this
legislature, the 1995 legislature actually introduced 2,700 bills onto the docket during the 1995 session. And at
the end, 270 bills were passed into law and another 3 were added during the special session for a total of 273.
The Governor vetoed 13 bills and line item 7. So that's sort of a summary about what we did during 1995.
This was the odd year session. The long session. We were there for 5 months and so what we do in the odd
year session is deal with the budget and that was a hot and contentious issue all the way through to the end of
the special session. The budget that was finally adopted, the totals and when the total budget about $29 1/2
billion. Total spending by the State of Minnesota in fiscal year 1996 and 1997. Now included in that $29 1/2
billion is $6 1/2 billion from the Federal government and this is the item which is much talked about and which
has not been decided in Washington as to whether those federal funds will be available in the same amount or
in the same manner or will they be block granted or not and so on and so forth. The Governor has put us on
alert that he may call us back into special session in October - November to deal with whatever problems that the
Federal government can create through it's allocation of federal funds to our State. The $29 1/2 billion is total.
The other budget that we pay more, closer attention to, the State legislature, is the General Fund budget. On
that one the Governor early in January proposed that we would be spending about $17.9 billion and it ended up
at the conclusion of the session that we had a general fund budget for the next biennium of about $18.2 billion.
Nov just, and I'm just trying to give you a little overview here. The $18.2 billion comes from primarily the
income tax, which is about 43% of the budget comes from our individual income tax. Another 30% comes
from our State sales tax. Another 6% comes from corporate taxes and that makes up about 80% of the budget.
And then there's a bunch of other miscellaneous things that happen. So we did get the budget accomplished.
There were some very significant things in the budget. As you know the prime has been on everybody's mind
and particularly over the last few years, and Minnesota committed themselves to not only fighting crime but also
to providing space, prisons and jails to incarcerate persons who are coming in and out of the Courts in greater
numbers. And so that's so the crime or corrections budget will increase 21% in the next biennium over the
previous biennium. And that's one of the largest increases we have. The other one we talk about and should be
very wary about because it's one of the biggest things we have is the health and human services budget, and that
funds all of the social programs that are executed by counties and cities get just a little bit and that budget will
increase over the next biennium 15% over the last one. So those are the two great big items ... as it turned out,
we had a 8% increase and everybody's going to happy about... The other thing that we did for the first time was
to define what the cost of government was to the citizens of the State of Minnesota and we did this by creating
what we call the price of government. And the price of government is simply to take the total State taxes and
2
I �
1
I
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
the total local taxes and figure out what percentage that is of State personal income and that currently runs about
18 1/4 %, state and local taxes versus personal income. And the Governor proposed and the legislature slowly
approved that we drop this down 17.8% in 1999. The Governor also was instrumental in looking at the federal
funding and saying that he wanted more money put away for problems with federal funds or with shortages or
shortfalls should they develop in the State. He was able to save and retain his $350 million reserve fund and at
one time the majority party in the legislature wanted to spend that and take it down to nothing in it's no tax
increase proposition. Now that did not prevail. Then the Governor went a step further and said he wanted
another $200 million additional to meet the federal problem, if and when it occurs this fall or early next year.
He was successful in doing that so we're coming into this biennium with $550 million in reserve, which is part
of that in a cash flow account. And so we look very, very good. In the special session we passed the K thru
12 appropriations bill and that was one of the few times that you had seen bipartisanship work at the legislature
and why the K -12 bill was not adopted during the regular session was simply that the House of Representatives
and the Senate simply could not, would not agree and so they let it go right up to the end and there was no
appropriation. The bipartisanship occurred when it became apparent to everybody, including the Governor, that
we'd better get our act in order and get at least that piece of legislation done which was so important and so for
the first time, the minority leaders in the House and the Senate and the majority leaders in the House and the
Senate sat in on that conference committee all the time it was going on during the special session. In addition
to that, the Governor had representatives at the table in that particular conference committee. And so actually
the bipartisan way ... they finally agreed and we have a bill and I am told by people in the education business
who know far more than I do, that it's really a pretty good one. So we did that. We passed the, as a general...
we passed a significant workers compensation reform act. That was bipartisan but that was by a coalition which
was put together and held together and produced the first workers comp reform that we've had for many, many
years. As I say, it was a bipartisan coalition. We also did a fairly good welfare reform bill, although that's
been kicked back and forth and it was almost went under with abortion politics but nevertheless we did pass a
welfare reform bill. Another significant part of our session. People often ask me what were the best things and
the worst things that happened during the legislature and it seems to me in this legislature, that we in fact did
have fewer bills than we usually have and so members had a lot more time in committees to debate and to find
out about the issues and I think that we had a better informed legislature that knew more about what they were
doing as far as bills were concerned. Probably another one of the good things was the fact that, well I've got to
go further back. The bad things were first of all the abortion issue. No matter how you feel about it, came to
the legislature on two or three instances and just created absolute chaos and people with firm positions that they
wouldn't talk. All the outsiders descended upon us from all sides on this issue ... and the whole process just sort
of stopped and that's a really difficult thing to deal with. And so that was a very difficult item. The other one
was when we met in our only joint session during the session and we were electing regents to the University of
Minnesota and I really believe that the regents selection process has to be changed because it is so politicized
between the two parties that that's all we ended up with was a fight between the two parties as to which
candidate was going to win. It had nothing to do with qualifications. As a matter of fact, the person then from
the selection committee that ranked number one, was not selected to the Board of Regents. And from the city's
standpoint, I sent you a list of items that were considered by the Senate. The Metropolitan Local Government
Committee. I thought you might find that of interest and I also sent you a list of those items that were passed
by the Metropolitan Local Government Committee. The two that were probably most important to the cities in
m}' district was one bill that did not pass, and that was Representative Myron Orfield's Fiscal Housing
Disparities Bill in which he proposed to take taxes from communities with higher valued homes and redistribute
that to communities with lower valued homes. We did pass the so called Metropolitan Livable Communities
Act which deals with actually several subjects but one of them is affordable housing and it's relationship to the
cities and to the Met Council and also included in that bill was the pollution clean -up. An item that dealt with
the mega mall and the City of Bloomington and statewide Minnesota State Housing Finance Committee and
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
their commitment to affordable housing... That passed. I'm sure that you followed that and I think it's a bill in
which cities, if they voluntary either enter into the program to receive some extra dollars or they stay out of the
program if they wish to and there is no compulsion. So I'd be ready Mr. Mayor, to answer any questions any of
the persons might have.
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. I just have one of two things as well. I thought maybe you'd just touch on the
Chanhassen playground equipment purchase procedures that were authorized, which went through the House and
also Senate. And the second being, and this is food for thought in relationship back to the cities and all
communities, cities, counties and townships, having to pay yet that 6 %, 6 1/2% tax. Is there any consideration
or any thought been given to making a change in that bill? And I realize by doing that, it would cut back a
certain amount of dollars for the State. But I think it's a direct hinderance back to our property taxpayers within
our communities as well when we have to do that one more time.
Senator Ed Oliver: Just let me handle those backwards, if I may. We did not succeed in getting rid of that tax
that is imposed upon cities. However, I sit on the Tax Committee and I will tell you that there were many,
many individual proposals, some which passed and most which failed, in which cities individually came in and
said that they wanted to do a certain thing and they want ... and a little politics got into play there and certain
members got some projects approved who had a lot of power around the place, but generally speaking it was a
handful. But we did have many requests. We're going to have to, because of the revenue shortage that we
have, really get into a major tax reform and have as a part of this, but I'm in agreement with you that I believe
that that should be repealed and the city should not be paying that tax and /or the county. On the Chanhassen
issue, that was rather interesting. One of your city staff people came over and said that when you buy
playground equipment, it's not simply the cheapest bid that determines what you want to do but it's rather the
total package of what you buy and so in fact you may end up that the package of playground equipment and the
installation of the thing, although it costs, may cost a higher price from one vendor to the other, that that more
closely meets the needs of the city and the city plans for that particular playground. That initially was very hard
to sell to the Metropolitan Local Government Committee. They said that the cardinal rule was that you had to
accept the low bid and that that was probably appropriate for the municipalities and county government. But
then to get it through we put it on an experiment basis and so what we've got is a little pilot project going out
here in Chanhassen and we tried it in another city and also to spread it out a little bit, and made that grant to
the city of Chanhassen on the provision that the city would report back in 2 years on how they had done with
this new authority and then we could look at it...
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Are there any other questions? Steve.
Councilman Berquist: When are we going to, you said major tax reform.
Senator Ed Oliver: I said major tax reform. We saw an inkling at the close of the session, Senator Steve
Novak brought, not a total package but one that affected K thru 12 education, which is a big part of our budget,
and the revision there, that was brought in the closing days. Also a couple of other bills which had some major
ramifications were brought in the last days and this is sort of testing the water stuff I think for the 1996 session.
I believe that we will see some major tax bills advance. The only thing that I'm concerned about is whether
those will be enacted is in fact that '96 is an election year for both Senate and House and anybody that changes
the tax structure is going to offend somebody. And generally speaking... don't like to offend people during
election years. So I think what's going to happen is we're going to have a lot of discussion. We will consider
some proposals but we will not enact them. As a matter of fact, I am preparing a tax bill which would deal
with all the range of taxes, and primarily aimed at making changes in our property taxes. But I know...
4
I City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
Councilman Berquist: One more quick one please. You said the crime and correction budget had gone up 21%
' over the previous biennium?
Senator Ed Oliver: That is correct.
Councilman Berquist: And the social welfare budget was up 15 %?
Senator Ed Oliver: 15 %, yes.
' Councilman Berquist: And that sounds like a phenomenal, it is obviously a phenomenal increase. Anything,
any projections on where this is going to, how long this is going to continue?
' Senator Ed Oliver: Yes. The Governor has put out a long range paper to the planning agency... fiscal crisis by
the year 2005 unless we take some dramatic and drastic actions within the State and two of the most pressing
items is corrections and crime, which just simply from a demographic sense. But the age of the people involved
' in criminal activity is expanding. That particular group... that we're going to have more people incarcerated.
Councilman Berquist: Getting older as well as younger?
' Senator Ed Oliver: Pardon me?
Councilman Berquist: Getting older and younger?
' Senator Ed Oliver: No. It's basically from 14 to 28 I think is the.
Councilman Berquist: Oh, the numbers in that age group.
Senator Ed Oliver: The numbers in that age group are expanding. In the health and human services budget,
that thing just ... and that will almost bankrupt the State all by itself and that is all of our welfare programs and
' all of our medicaid and medical assistance payments and that just continues to grow like crazy. Leading the
pack in that is not welfare as you commonly think of it but the primary, one of the big drivers in it is the cost
of nursing homes for elderly people and we're just likening it for all citizens, the State steps into the Medicaid
program and picks up the nursing home cost and that has just grown very, very rapidly.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen?
t Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, just ironically Steve we had the same question about those two budgets. In
absolute dollars, what is the relationship between those two?
Senator Ed Oliver: The health and human services budget is up around $6 billion, so that's big money.
Corrections is much smaller and I'd have to go back to my book there to tell you that but I think we're talking
about less than $50 mil.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: And is it taking into consideration that there is a relationship between those two
items?
5
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
Senator Ed Oliver: I would say not, no. There's not a relationship per se between those items. That's not a
feeling of the legislature. Are you talking about prevention or?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah.
Senator Ed Oliver: Or is crime emanating from person of lower income? Yes it is so there's that link. But that
is most certainly true.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: My other question was, what are your projections for transit funding over the next
several years in terms of State Highway 5, TH 101, 212. We're obviously in quite a tight situation.
Senator Ed Oliver: Well I think we're not ready to increase the gas tax. After all the rhetoric about ... and so
forth, but I'm not so sure that that's going to enough to satisfy the things that are really needed in terms of
highways. And big increases... and the federal's have their own problems. Their budget cutting and of course
they supply... so it's going to be a very...
Mayor Chmiel: Mike.
Councilman Mason: First of all I'd like to say Senator, I think you represent this part of the Twin Cities very
well.
Senator Ed Oliver: Thank you.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, I mean that. I don't know that now's the time or the place. I'm a teacher and I
know a number of educators that are uncomfortable with the K -12 funding so I think, and I don't think now is
the debate for that but I do hope that, you know I hear these figures getting thrown at crime and correction and
I wonder sometimes, it is that constant argument about do we build more jails or do we work more at the
problem at the grass roots. I just hope that the legislature continues to grapple with that issue.
Senator Ed Oliver: And I think we are and I appreciate your remarks. I'm an advocate for K thru 12 education
and I certainly advocate responsible in all other parts of our government. I'm an advocate for local government,
much more so than many of my colleagues and I think that local governments should, have to retain the powers
to do what it does, which I think it does best for the citizens rather than ... I'm a businessman and so I guess I
also consider the economic environment and jobs are a very, very important part of what we do...
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Mark. Okay. I certainly appreciate you coming out and providing us with some of
the information and hopefully we'll look forward to getting some of these things pulled together without too
much problems. Taxing recipients of our cities more and more.
Senator Ed Oliver: Okay. Well thank you very much. You'll also be receiving, each of you an invitation this
week to attend a briefing at the State Capitol next Thursday at 1:00 p.m. and the purpose of that is to hear the
preliminary report on our State fiscal condition and where it's going and as you may or may not remember or
know, it will be a preliminary to the John Brandall, Vin Weber Report to the Governor on what steps should be
taken to assure that the... Minnesota is in order and you'll be receiving that invitation in a day or two. Thank
you very much.
I
C'
L
C
0
u
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Second. Dave MacGillvrary from Springsted. Maybe if you could just give
a little intro as to the concerns that we've had.
Dave MacGillvrary: Good evening members of the Council. I'd like to address the city's general obligation
credit rating situation. By both the factual situation regarding what we've just gone through as well as where
are we now and where are we going. Also at the request of the city, I met with two of the members of the
Council, Mark and Steve. If there's anything in that conversation that you'd like to go over, you may. If there's
anything you'd like to address... meeting at about 11:00 this morning. The city just concluded a rating process
with Moody's Investors Service. The result of that was a AB1 rating, which is a non - investment rating. It's the
first rating below investment rating. I'm going to put all this in perspective. In February of 1995, a few months
ago, the city went through a similar process. It received a BAA rating, which is an investment rating. There
was considerable time spent with that process. At that time ... and a key reason for the situations both in
February and now was the investment situation. And although we're not the investment advisor of the city, we
can take investment situations and bring into context what's going on with the credit rating and that's really the
focus... Moody's gave us initial position relative to the ... We formally protested that on behalf of the city
basically for the following reasons. First, well let me back up. We protested it because, (a) we didn't think it
was correct. (b), even more so, we didn't think it was consistent with what they had been telling us all along
and what has happened in the city since February, 1995. Specifically as it relates to the investments in
February, spent a great deal of time documenting... weeks. Linda Ebrim, who is Moody's ... analyst and worked
out both the credit rating situation and an approach to dealing with the investments. The investments approach
is two faced. One, develop a management plan on how to invest investments... what the city was doing.
Addressing their concerns. And second, specify the exact amount of loss involved in terms of how... cumulative
loss was for all the investments. We now proceed 60 -90 days later. We're going through this situation now.
The city had basically improved in both of those areas. They implemented a plan. They've gone beyond that in
the following areas. They isolated the loss to those specific investments where it was most concentrated. It
provided a 3 year liquidity... Staff developed a 3 year proforma showing no liquidity concerns. In fact that
liquidity program showed that if the city lost all of it's principals in their 3 or 4 investments, where most the
loss was concentrated, it would still... There'd still be a multi - million dollar liquidity situation. And third, the
city segregated those investments to funds that will probably... So first they implemented a plan and went way
beyond the plan. And secondly, the facts regarding the investments themselves. They improved significantly
and the amount of loss has shrunk by a fairly significant amount. This was documented by, it went to a third
party. It went to Deloitte. It went to the city's CPA firm. They documented... February of '95. That loss there
had significantly lessened. The city had regained a portion of the loss... So we thought first substantively, the
facts were such that on investments, which... talking, had significantly improved from February of '95. In terms
of process, one can make a lot of conjecture as to what's going on with any of these. Our biggest problem with
Moody's is that we spent literally weeks with one analyst in February. Bringing her up to speed in
understanding everything. 60 days later we've got a different analyst. We requested from Moody's that they
give us back Linda Ebrim, the person we spent weeks with 4 months before, and they rejected that request and
stayed with this Steve Verang and we thought that there was significant problems with that. So we protested
the ... and they've advised us now it's a BA1 rating. That was the formal process within Moody's... There's one
other step in terms of where we have been. Based on that, we didn't think it was correct. We didn't think it
was consistent with what they had told us in February. We advised the city to take an additional step and that
was to go to Standards and Poors, which is the other National Rating Agency and see what they thought. And
see if they confirmed what their issue with the Moody's situation. I'm just giving you what their process is.
They had three different... which is the same as Moody's. We need an indicator rating, which costs you no
money. If you move beyond indicator rating, then you go to acquire an opinion, which does cost you money
and then you go to a specific issue so the credit opinion... We didn't think that if, the indicator should give you
7
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
a good idea and avoid spending any additional money ... As part of the indicator rating, we provided S & P with
the city's financial statements. Their budget. General information regarding the city, which most of it is
contained in the last official statement from February of '95... They have come back in writing and said that on
an indicator basis, they believe the city has an investment grade credit rating situation. Over the phone they
told me what they think the rating category is but I think, until they go to the next rigorous step, I don't want to
give you a credit rating fueling some expectations until it's done. I will say what they told me over the phone is
significantly higher than the Moody's situation. You can certainly... fairly higher than the Moody's situation.
We're advising the city to proceed with the S & P process through the credit opinion stage. We expect a
marketed different result than occurred with Moody's. In terms of the Standards and Poors, I said there's two
major credit rating agencies within the nation, Moody's and S & P, and in talking with Steve and Mark this
morning, I stated that S & P predominantly historically has been along the coast with a certain amount of
jurisdictions ... in the middle of the United States and Moody's has been predominantly in mid - America and
somewhat on the coasts. In the immediate Twin Cities, examples of people with Standard and Poor's rating are
the cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul, Minnetonka, Eagan, Fridley, Chaska. ...issues with just a S & P rating.
There's no market down side. You're not losing anything by going with S & P in terms of perception of market.
So we think it's a very viable alternative. We think both in investments and other areas...we think Moody's has
some policies that are not in the best interest of our clients and we think you can get a better resolution of these
situations by going with S & P. Where we've done this in the past and we think that you can expect a
significantly different result... Standard and Poors. ...questions or go over anything that Steve and Mark may
have.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Maybe before we do that, I asked Don, I had heard about Chaska dropping Moody's and
asked him why so I asked Don to make a phone call over to the City of Chaska and find out about that and
maybe Don you can relate that to the balance of Council.
Don Ashworth: Well, before I do, again we had met earlier today. During that discussion one of the things that
I had mentioned to both Councilmen Senn as well as Berquist, was the fact that during the discussions with
Moody's I was having a real difficult time getting them to understand certain facts about the city, specifically
like special assessments. They're considering just debt is debt which isn't really true. Special assessment debt is
back to an individual property. If there's any form of default, the city's special assessment comes into play in
advance of any equity that the owner may have put in. It comes in advance of the mortgage. So if there were a
forced sale of that, let's say $150,000.00 home, we would be the first ones to receive the $3,000.00 or $4,000.00
or $5,000.00 assessment. And again Moody's was having, was not, at least in my mind, comprehending what
we were trying to assess. But when I called Chaska today, they had mentioned to me about 5 years ago they
were in a large expansion mode as far as public improvement projects. They were doing about $10 million in
public improvement projects. They'd been rated as A by Moody's and they were going through the same issue
and Moody's just couldn't really understand what they were saying in regards to special assessments and
dropped them to a BAAL The following year they went through the similar type of process and Moody's
dropped them again to BAA. It was at that point that they made a decision to move over to Standard and
Poors. Standard and Poors rated them back with the A rating. Really where they were and quite truthfully took
a lot more time to actually understanding what it was the city was trying to do and what Minnesota laws were
and how those affected the potential bond holders and I find it quite ironic that we're almost in an identical
situation. Quite truthfully I think that you're going to see potentially an identical result. I think that Standard
and Poors will come back and basically reinstate that A position. Potentially BAAL
Mayor Chmiel: Are there any additional questions which you might have? Steve?
' City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
Councilman Berquist: No, I don't have any more questions at this point.
' Mayor Chmiel: Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd like to put in a nutshell my understanding of what happened. In February our
' financial situation was bad. Or you know we suffered some setbacks and we got an investment grade rating. A
couple months later they want to re- evaluate us. Our financial situation is much better. We took several steps
to make it better and they give us a worse rating so obviously it's not us that has changed for the worse, it's
' their process. Or do you think it's the person or, I mean you know we've bantered about the fact that they've
had some losses in California and they didn't want to get stung by the Orange County situation.
Dave MacGillvrary: We think on the facts, which is your financial situation, you are better off today than what
' we were telling them in February and we demonstrated that... National CPA firm and they will document it. We
had Deloitte call and talk with Moody's directly and we sent them reports. They documented everything and
that financial situation relative to investments is better today than it was in February. And they chose to ignore
' that. You kind of get into the conjecture what's motivating them so that's why I separate that from facts. ...had
discussions. I think what was not said, what we kept coming back to on the phone with them was, so you're
bottom line is you want cities, you know Chanhassen as well as other cities, to have these type of investments
' just to get rid of them. Sell them, whether it makes any sense financially or not, and they wouldn't. They say,
we don't give investment advice. We just know these are highly volatile. We don't like volatility, and figure it
out. So that's I think that... in terms of the unsaid message and what was part of it. In some ways I want to add,
and ... there are situations relative to investments, other things we've covered in the past... regardless of who's
' rating. We think in this situation that the facts are better today than they were before. Moody's is trying to
send a message to cities that they don't want to see them having these types of investments. It may not, from
the city's perspective... but after that, credit rating is one financial... and you may, it may be in your best interest
' to sell or not sell all the investments based on other situations. Public credit rating was one motivation but... I
did talk to the two Councilmen about, if we do have Standard and Poors, I think ... S & P comes back with an
improved ... you may want to bring them into town. Have them sit down. I'm sure they want to have some
' issues that they'll want to address and...
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Mike.
Councilman Mason: I guess the question I would have, in the future if we do choose to go with Standard and
Poor, how do potential investors look at Moody's saying BAI and Standard and Poors saying?
' Dave MacGillvrary: There'd be some transition and I eluded the example this morning. The City of
Minnetonka has a AAA Moody's. AA Standard and Poors and they... They sent a very clear message to
Standard and Poors, that I was involved with about 45 days ago, that we will not retain the S & P rating in this
case unless there's some parity. I would say, I mean our advice would be to drop the Moody's if the S & P is
' that much of a differential. I think on, they have the immediate transaction of what's going to happen with this
housing issue ... My estimate now would be that the interest rate on that would be some blended amount
inbetween those. I think over time, such as the Chaska situation... not too long a period of time you're going to
' let the Moody's rating lapse. Investors are only going to look at what the S & P rating is, and that in fact is
what's going on in Chaska at this point in time. I don't know what the magic date is. It's not going to take 5
years to ... but after that point they...
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
n
E
1�1,
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
Councilman Senn: Most of the questions I think were answered in our meeting today. I think there's a number
of answers... questions yet to be answered and I've asked Mr. MacGillvrary and Mr. Ashworth to research a
number of questions and give me a report or get that information back to us on those issues...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I think the reason that there were two council people there, so we didn't go
against the open meeting law. You're only allowed two council people at a specific session. You can't have 3,
4, or 5. Just 2 so that's the reason we had 2 councilmen at that particular work session. Okay, with that we'll
move right along and we'll move into new business.
SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 4.500 SO. FT. RESTAURANT ON 1.38 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD,
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. LOT 1. BLOCK 1. CHANHASSEN RETAIL 3RD ADDITION. PERKINS
FAMILY RESTAURANT. GUY PAYNE.
Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers. This application was originally approved last October
when the site plan for Perkins was approved as a part of the Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition. As part of that
approval the applicant had proposed a mansard style roof. This year when they came back for their building
permit they wanted to change the building elevation significantly and we required that they go back to the site
plan review process because Council was pretty certain of what type of building they wanted so they provided
us with a building that had a parapet roof with a sloped roof element on the north and west elevations. This
first, this original resubmittal was found unacceptable by staff and really acquired the applicant to come back
with a revised drawing that would incorporate the requirements of the Highway 5 corridor. This, the applicant
did provide additional architectural detailing through the use of columns that helped break up the building
facade and including the use of a pitched roof element around the entire building. These two elevations, the
north and south elevation. The south one was viewed from Highway 5. In addition they improved the elevation
from the east and to the Target by incorporating the pitched roof on that. Based on these revisions and the
revised landscaping plan, which incorporated additional trees on the west and southwest corner of the site, plus
foundation plantings around the building, staff is recommending approval of the site plan. We do have two
revisions to the motion in here. One would be to delete, and John Shaw from the first sentence of the motion
because the revised plans were drawn by RLK and Associates. And second would be the change the site plan
date from May 8th to July 14, 1995. In addition, the applicant in the revised plans has met all the conditions of
condition 8 of the staff report so we'd recommend deleting that item also. If you have any questions, I'd be
happy to answer them.
Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions you have of Bob? I guess not. At this time, is a representative for
Perkins here?
Guy Payne: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come forward and probably show some of the changes that have been made,
and if you could just introduce yourself with your name and your address please.
Guy Payne: My name is Guy Payne. I'm the Manager of Architectural Services for Perkins. We're presenting
our 4,500 square foot building. It's a beige building with tan synthetic stucco with the green standing seam
metal roof. And the awnings, the yellow awning with the stripe and it has ... ceramic tile in the, at the entries for
accent. We went along with the suggestion of adding the metal roof on the two sides which I think we'll agree
aesthetically adds to the building as well as adding to the architectural detail around the corners as suggested in
the Planning Commission so, we're pretty much in agreement with what was recommended. We've been
10
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
working on this for about 2 years and we're looking forward to getting started on this soon and getting the store
1 open.
Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions that anyone may have of Mr. Payne?
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: The awnings aren't back lit, are they?
Guy Payne: No. They would have been but the Planning Commission didn't like that so we're eliminating that.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: And this is more a question for Kate. The flag, I mean they typically have a huge
flag and I know that we have standards on that. Is it smaller?
' Kate Aanenson: Correct. It can't exceed 100 square feet.
Bob Generous: In this we're making a condition of 80 square feet.
' Kate Aanenson: That was the original. We...
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: And of course is that lit 24 hours a day? The flag?
Guy Payne: Probably the store won't be open 24 hours a day. We've kind of gotten away from that, but it will
be lit during store hours.
' Councilman Mason: I'd like to tie in with that.
' Kate Aanenson: Sure, we can put that in there.
Councilman Mason: Well no. Yeah, I mean if that's standard practice but I'm a little curious as to why you
' need 30 foot high lights.
Guy Payne: Excuse me.
' Councilman Mason: All the light poles are 30 feet high, right?
Guy Payne: It's your standard light for, most parking lot lighting. That's pretty typical everywhere in the
' country.
Councilman Mason: Well we're not typical.
' Guy Payne: Well I realize that. .A think in order to get a good light dispersement, you need about 30 feet high.
Without some light, we have to increase the number of light poles.
Kate Aanenson: That's what the difference is. You could less. You could have more poles and less height or
you can have fewer poles and greater height. He's accomplishing the light by putting in, making it higher.
Guy Payne: The more you raise the height of your lights, the better dispersement ... but once you pull it down, it
' really limits.
I 11
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
Councilman Mason: Yeah, I guess I'm concerned then about the affect from distances. Because with the higher
lights, does that create more light pollution then or not?
Kate Aanenson: I t still can't exceed the 1/2 foot candle at the property line. That's still city ordinance so you
have to verify that on the site plan. They're not doing that with this lighting plan.
Mayor Chmiel: You can get a certain amount of reflective bounce from those. If they're contained with prisms
in there, you can get directional so it can be contained within site.
Guy Payne: And we're using the high pressure sodium, which is the same thing Target has which is on the
lights. We don't... lighting. The Planning Commission requested to use high pressure sodium so we're matching
the same lighting...
Mayor Chmiel: I think the perfect example of a little more height of poles would be on Crosstown where the
Highway Department has that right there, where those are very tall poles with x number of lights. If they didn't
use that, they would have had to put more poles in and this way, in their particular case, it's one of the safety
factors. By going up higher, they can eliminate... Okay. Any other questions? If hearing none, is there a
motion?
Councilman Berquist: I move approval.
Councilman Senn: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded with the suggested changes that Bob had made within the
recommendation.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve Site Plan H94 -6 prepared by RLK
Associates dated July 14, 1995, and subject to the following conditions:
1. The sidewalk shall be relocated to access the service drive where the stop sign is located to provide safe
crossing movements for pedestrians.
2. The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the erosion control on the site until the site has been
fully revegetated.
3. Developer shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary agency permits associated with the development
of this site including, but not limited to watershed district, PCA, MWCC, Health Department.
4. All internal streets and drives within the overall development are considered private and shall be
maintained as such.
5. The developers shall enter into a site development contract with the City and provide the necessary
financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval.
6. Construction access to the parcel shall be from the existing Target driveway and not West 78th Street or
Powers Boulevard. The applicant and /or contractor shall install and maintain a gravel construction
entrance until the access driveway is paved with a bituminous surface.
12
1
r�
1�
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
7. Trash enclosures shall be architecturally compatible with and of the same materials as the principal
structure. Trash enclosures shall also be vegetatively screened from all right -of -ways.
8. The applicant is permitted wall signs on only two walls per building up to a maximum of 15% of the
wall area. Only one pylon sign is permitted for the three lots. Each parcel may have an individual
monument sign on their lot. The applicant shall incorporate individual dimensioned letters within the
development. Monument and pylon signs shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. No
backlit awnings shall be permitted. No brightly colored striping or bands shall be permitted.
9. The maximum size of the flag shall be limited to 80 square feet. In addition, the flag pole location shall
comply with sign placement limitations.
10. One additional "No Parking -Fire Lane" sign must be placed on the north side of the building. In
addition, where "No Parking -Fire Lane" signs are installed, curbing must be painted yellow. This should
be indicated on the overall site plan. Also, a 10 foot clear space must be maintained around all fire
hydrants.
11. The applicant must provide for a roof access stair complying with MSBC 1300.4500. This revision to the
plans must be made before issuing building permits.
12. The applicant shall provide a five foot wide concrete sidewalk from the sidewalk on Powers Boulevard to
the northwest corner of the parking lots.
All voted in favor and the motion carved unanimously.
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20 OF CITY CODE CONCERNING LANDSCAPING. CREATING A
TRANSITION ZONE. FIRST READING.,
Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council members. This ordinance resulted from a few development
proposals that came before the City late last year and early this year. The question was how do you transition
between different uses. Staff did some initial investigation in the American Planning Association and found out
that there is no real transition zoning. There's the standard things that you can use in planning such as greater
depth between buildings or stepping down intensities or densities of use. But there's nothing specific on that.
However, we were able to find significant amounts of literature and ordinances on buffering the screening
requirements inbetween different cities. So we began to put together an ordinance after direction of the
Planning Commission that would address the screening between the different uses. Staffs goal, and I believe
the Planning Commission's goal with the ordinance was to develop an ordinance that was comprehensive in that
it would cover all possible differences between uses. Or different uses that would conceivably be adjacent to
each other. In order to do this we were directed to more the views of the comprehensive plan, which had land
use guides in place rather than our zoning because there are instances where we will have property guided for a
higher intensity of use where the current zoning on it would be agricultural. A second thing we were looking
at is to provide buffering on both sides of the property line, if you will, between the different intensities of uses
because we found out that a lot of times when like residential development comes in adjacent to a higher
intensity of use, they don't put anything there and all the landscaping is required the new intensity of use and so
there's almost an extra exaction required of that development as opposed to other developments. Now also in
this ordinance we tried to make something that was easily understandable by developers and so we tried to set
up a form that they could look at and know exactly what, at a minimum the city would require for buffering.
13
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
And finally we want to level the development field for one development standards for cities that they have some
understanding of what the city would require when we specified that there be screening or buffering between
uses. What we would accept at a minimum for that screening. The ordinances provides a matrix, it specifies
the land use. The proposed development across the top of the matrix and the adjacent land on the bottom.
When a developer came in they would look at the top and go down that column to look at the adjacent land use
and that would determine the minimum landscaping requirement. Based on the code, an alpha code they would
be able to look further in the ordinance where there are examples of what was specified by, for instance a buffer
yard B. Within each of the buffer yards there's a required planting units per 100 linear feet of buffer area, and
this would specify the number of canopy trees which are more significant overstory trees. The number of
understory trees which are more the... buffering and then an additional evergreen or conifer designation for the
higher intensities of uses. We brought this before the Planning Commission many times under discussion basis
to try to work out the ordinance. We also requested input from the Builders Association of the Twin Cities and
we mailed this ordinance out to developers in the community and members of the Tree Board. From this we
found out there was a discussion and we believe there are some deficiencies within the ordinance. The first one
is that we don't adequately address significant natural features. That in and of themselves could act as buffering,
such as wetlands located adjacent to a property or significant slopes that are on the perimeter of a property and
staff would like to be able to go back and look at that issue and make some corrections. Secondly we are
concerned that the upper levels of landscaping requirements, the levels A to H may be excessive. We've heard
that they're excessive from both the development community and also from members of the Arboretum, who did
review the ordinance and they thought that was a little heavy on that end. Thirdly, we'd like to clarify the
matrix and just put in a little table across the top. The letters on the top are for the proposed development and
the symbols on the side are for the adjacent land use. I think that makes it a little easier, rather than using the
footnotes. Finally, while the Planning Commission did recommend approval of this ordinance. However, they
did it with a request that the Council look at three specific items. The first one was should the buffer yard be
included between low density and low density residential development. In this instance between a single family
detached development and a twin home development that may be adjacent to it. The second one, are the costs
associated with this ordinance justified based on the possible benefits. And the third one, they wanted to know
whether or not this was understandable by you all. Staff does support the boulevard planting requirements
because currently we're finding out that we're having a difficult time coming to agreement with developers on
what is acceptable. We've got an over and under on a lot of them and we believe that this would be a good
guide for us to go forward with. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thanks Bob. Are there any specific questions from the Council at this time?
Councilman Berquist: I've got a couple. ...working on this an awful long time. I've got a couple of comments.
I was happy to see this list of goals and really the proposed ordinance, it looked like the majority of the goals
have been achieved except for a couple of items that I considered. Item 3, standards should be understandable,
which I believe that they are in the ordinance. However, I don't necessarily agree that in this case yet they are
reasonable or easily implementable. I think there's some overkill on a few of these. Number 7. The ordinance
should provide a minimum standards, and some of them, the one that struck me. I'm looking at, you look at
buffer yard H. Well that's between commercial and industrial... so obviously that's going to be the greatest
distance and the most heavily planted. But B struck me as an example of one that is, there was a bit of overkill
in comparing it to what kind of mix that you have. Wherever B was on the matrix. So I had a couple of
concerns as to whether or not the ordinance really provided minimums. In a lot of instances it doesn't look like
it could do much more. The comparisons between what the new ordinance would require versus what has
previously been approved. All the examples seem to either require a much greater number of plants or shrubs
14
1
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
and it just seems like overkill. I understand the reason behind this. Everytime someone comes before us, you
have to re- invent the wheel, is that correct?
Kate Aanenson: That was part of the issues in what was driving this. Was to make sure that there was a level
playing field and that's consistency and as Bob indicated, there is concurrence, even our reviewing this, that the
upper ends may be excessive.
Councilman Berquist: I think that's true. I understand the need for the clarification and in the present format, I
don't think I could vote for it. I'd like it to be revised to be somewhat more modest.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen. Do you have any questions?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Comments. I think we all know that it needs some work and we know which
direction it needs work in but I'm going back to what precipitated it and Planning Commission and Council,
there were several plats that came through and there were large numbers of neighbors in here but those instances
where residential versus residential and that's what precipitated this entire discussion. My opinion is, there
should be no buffer requirements between residential neighborhoods. I don't care whether they're R8 and rural.
I think you just divide neighborhoods that way. And I think a lot of that does get taken care of through the
process of negotiation of the site plan. So when Planning Commission asked for direction as to whether, which
path this kind of ordinance, low density versus low density, my opinion is absolutely not. But that being the
background, I think we did come up with a good ordinance in terms of heading in the right direction with
arterial streets and industrial buffering. My question, or my concern is an item, Section 3(2)(d) where we say
the erection and maintenance of all required structures shall be the responsibility of the higher intensity use. I'm
not entirely sure that that's completely fair. If you have a piece of property that is zoned RSF, and right next
door is IOP, the question becomes who should pay for the buffering. Who goes in first or who's going to
benefit from the buffering? Or is it always the higher intensity use? So I think that needs further discussion, in
m}'. And I would assume that this is just, as with all ordinances, developments that are already in will be
grandfathered. We wouldn't go back and make them change or add more. I think we've learned that we do
need a little more muscle or negotiating power with an ordinance but as you have stated, this goes a little too
far. And we do need to take into consideration the vegetation. I think it's great that we sent it out to a number
of parties for their input. I didn't know we took this to the Arboretum. That's a good idea. I don't know how
we reach the people who come here at the podium and complain. How do we get their opinion? I'm up for any
ideas but I think that we need their input as well.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: I basically concur with just about everything Colleen said. I have a real strong opinion
about whether we should be buffering residential areas from residential areas. It seems to me that at some point
the owner of a house, if he doesn't like his neighbor or she doesn't like their neighbor, they put up trees along
their property line and I don't think that a whole neighborhood needs to bear that burden. I agree with the
boulevard planting. I think that, I definitely think this is on the right track. I like the arterial, the industrial,
like Colleen said. And I think where certain, clearly where, if the Arboretum says it's excessive, it probably is
and I think we need to take a look at that. You know reading through, of course like everyone else up here, has
been following this and I, you know I read some of these Minutes of the Planning Commission and you know
this stuff about people that are paying $300,000.00 for a home don't want to look at this small house next to
them. Well boy, I really have a problem with comments like that and I'm not going to call to task who said
them and this, that and the other thing but I, boy that's maximum elitism to me and I just, I don't think that's
15
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
what Chanhassen is about. I mean lord knows homes are expensive enough in this city. But I think this is on
the right track. I think we do need to take a look at where it's excessive and I think Colleen raises a real good
point. Who pays? Who is? I mean clearly the industrial use could care less, for the most part I would guess,
if an area is buffered but if they're brunting the cost. I think we need to have some discussion about that. As I
was reading through the purpose and intent, I'm a little curious as to why enhancing Public Safety is in there.
For some reason that just struck me. How is that, and I dare say Scott would probably say, what do you mean,
more trees? Criminals can lurk behind those trees. But I'm just curious as to why that's in there at some other
point. And it is also says, to improve the aesthetics and compatibility of uses. Well, some of these aren't
compatible and that's why we're buffering. So I think, in my opinion that would help clear it up. If
compatibility wasn't in there. I think aesthetics, absolutely. But that's me. But it is on the right track but yeah,
I feel, and I know Ladd Conrad on the Planning Commission I think shared that same concern about whether we
should be buffering residential areas from residential areas and I've already stated my opinion on that. But it's, I
think we're on the right track but I think what I'm hearing is there's still some more work to be done. I'm done.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark.
Councilman Senn: I thought about this one quite a bit. Talked to Kate a little bit too about it. You know I
share a lot of the concerns I already heard as it relates to why is this before us because I mean really the only
complaints we've had on this is effectively single family detached residential to effectively anything else... where
it's at. I don't care whether it's other residential or anything else. We've gotten into kind of I think in a little bit
of a vicious circle here of, like we were here first. And I don't think this is something that we can just simply
put off and say that well, you know geez, you were here first. I guess you were the fortunate and everybody
else should take the responsibility to pay and that sort of thing. As I said, I'm having a real hard time really
looking at the broadness of this and dealing with it in that context because all of a sudden I mean it just, to me
it starts seeming overly complicated, and I mean I really underline that. And overly regulated and really gets
the city I think overly involved in a situation... very often a win /win situation. It's generally going to be a
lose /lose situation. And the more I thought through that it just seemed to me that maybe what we needed here
was not more government regulation but maybe taking a different approach. The current system that's there, I
think is somewhat governed by the marketplace. I know that's going to be a hard, that's going to be a difficult
concept to explain and I think what we need to do is we need to look at fixing it rather than revamping it. The
current single family development or single family detached development, one way or another on any buffer lot
discounts those lots. Pure and simple. I've always viewed that myself as positive because it takes people who
say like that community, like that neighborhood, like that specific area and gives them an opportunity they
wouldn't have because they may not be able to in effect afford that full price interior lot or you know, a special
lot or bigger lot or there's lots of ways to look at... So you have in effect these perimeter lots that border other
uses but they're discounted and they're generally fairly deeply discounted. And I think that brings a certain
diversity and I think that's good. I think the place that we've lost track, or place we've made the mistake is we
haven't assured that's being documented because what happens to us is 5 years later everybody's in front of us
saying, oh. I never knew that or somebody told me something different or you know, but he said he can't tell
us now, went onto another community and he's not here anymore. But lots of excuses to it but nothing really to
hang our hats on. Which then ... And the more I thought about it, it seemed to me if this is a real problem we
were trying to fix, what we really need to do was face the fact that those were in effect transitional lots and they
were discounted. Nov what we need to do is to document that fact so nobody forgets. Now the reason those
lots are discounted is quite simple. They recognize the fact that whoever purchases those lots is probably going
to have to put in more landscaping than normal, if that's their desire, but again that's their freedom of choice. It
also recognizes the fact that they may be looking out their window at something a little bit different than
another single family detached house. But again, that's their choice when they buy that and that's their choice
16
n
I I
1
II
L'
0
1
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
when they take that discount to take that lot. So why not simply set up a mechanism when these plats are
brought in and stuff, to in effect document those transitional lots in a deed, or on a plat, or in some form that
makes it a permanent part of a record so the argument never comes. I mean all it really does effectively is
document what is there and it seems to me we solve the problem. I mean maybe it's overly.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: In theory.
Councilman Senn: Well, I understand that. Maybe it's overly simplistic but where we run into the problem and
where we sit up here gnawing our teeth together is trying to sort through information we have no ability to sort
through because we can't, none of us were there when those conversations occurred. Or knew who's telling
which side of the story is right or whatever. You know I look at what's in here and it's just, you know. I think
that this ordinance, if we go ahead with it, is going to create more questions, more problems as we go down the
road than it's going to solve. I think we're going to have a lot of real problems over who is going to pay and
who's not going to pay. What level are they going to pay and how do you start putting ... on those types of
decisions. I think we're going to have to, again I think we're intervening to a level here I don't think we need to
intervene. And in looking at it, I look at it more in a sense of well, maybe the other's worth trying first. If
nothing else, if the transition doesn't work, than ... easier solution. I don't know. That's basically where I'm at. I
wish I had a better way to explain it. I wish I had an even better solution but I'm sorry, I don't like the one we
have here with the ordinance. I think given the initial impression, I think a lot of good work has gone into it
but I think the direction is there. I'd really like to see us go back and really look more specifically at the
problem rather than the global change to a non - problem in the sense that we're globally trying to change a
whole bunch of things here that there hasn't been a problem.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess, as you indicated, fixing it rather than revamping it. There seems to have been
some given problems that we've had at Council over the past year or better, with concerns of people and some
of those go back to maybe some residential areas. I think that what has been pulled together is not bad. I think
there's a certain amount of direction to provide clarity once those situations occur. I think on some of the things
that we see, such as the streetscape and the natural features and some of those, I think those really have to get
refined. More clarity put into it. And I think that's something we're going to have to look at. But before we
come to that conclusion, I know we have some people in the audience who have come this evening, maybe to
express their opinions and I'd like to open that up at this particular time for anyone who would like to come
forward. If you would, just please state your name and your address and who you're representing.
Dan Herbst: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, city staff. My name is Dan Herbst. I live at
7640 Crimson Bay Road in Chanhassen. I'm here as a resident of Chanhassen and as a chairperson of a local
and metro public policy committee, which was established basically to work as a positive resource with you in
the future. With County governments and with the Metropolitan Council. Our members presently consist of
home builders, developers, subcontractors and in the future we're going to be adding consumer groups and with
some of your concerns to come in and speak on their behalf because the consumer is the one that ultimately
pays for what we do and the decisions you make at this table. We are very fortunate to have had, to have hired
a director for our committee, or Karen Christopherson is here this evening ... Mary Zwieg is also here this
evening but our basic purpose is to be a resource to you and to help you go through this specific process. We
understand what you go through because we do the same thing every night. You are highly pressured all the
time by small special groups that may be looking out for their own interest, and some are valid. Some is not.
In most cases they are narrowly focused and they're not looking at the general interest of the city and what you
are trying to achieve and what your staff is trying to achieve in general. So we've sympathize with what you're
doing here every time... occurred to you on Galpin Boulevard. A situation like that. We have looked at the
17
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
ordinance. We've been very, felt very positive that both Kate and Bob came to us with this thing and gave us a
chance to comment. We thank you for that. But we think the ordinance has many undesirable features that
we'd like to have you take a look at. One of them we've already talked about. It is buffering between similar
uses, which we think is probably not the purpose of a buffer ordinance. Between a single family townhouse or
a duplex or a similar area like that. I don't think that's the purpose of a buffering ordinance. Bob also talked
about... pointed out that there are many situations where you have a ravine, where you have a wetland, where
you're going to create a NURP pond. Where you have situations like that where to buffer an area like that
would not even work. It'd take away from what you're trying to achieve. But your ordinance, as it's drafted
today, would require you to buffer around the entire perimeter. You may also have a wooded area that backs up
to your property line, or to your neighbor's property line that may be heavily wooded and this ordinance would
require you to buffer that woods. I don't think that's the intent of this ordinance. I think there's a tendency to
wall in neighborhoods with this type of ordinance. You're almost, without exception, whether it's single family
here or multiple or commercial or industrial, I don't think you want to fly over this town in a few years and
have it look like Ireland where they put up all those spike fences and you're going to have all these little fences
around everything to keep so and so's sheep from so and so and the Protestants from the Catholics or whatever
you're trying to do here but, you know I'm making a joke out of this but you are creating kind of a spike fence
ordinance here so to speak. I want you to take a good, hard look at that. I think if someone's on a limited
budget and wants to follow this ordinance to a T, you're going to have single family and single family ... all start
looking alike and I don't think that's the purpose of the ordinance. I think you're taking some creativity out of
what happens now. As Councilman Senn talked about the marketplace and what happens to the type of market
that we're trying to create. I have two other members of our committee that's here with us tonight. Daniel Hunt
from Daniel Development. I'd like you to listen to his concerns about cost and also Hans Hagen from Hans
Hagen Homes. Then I'd also like to make myself available to answer any questions you have, so...
Mayor Chmiel: Good,
Dan Hunt: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Dan Hunt. I live at 4150 Colfax Avenue So in
Minneapolis.
Mayor Chmiel: You need to, if you'd like to just move that mic up.
Dan Hunt: Everything in this ordinance, I worked out this... We did some analysis of the cost associated with
the different buffers. This is buffer yard F, between the low density residential, office industrial. Both the least
expensive option and the most expensive option. As you can see for 100 feet, it's a significant amount of
money and it has a great impact on the affordability of lots. As was said up here, and you'll see an example
later, there are lots in developments that are affectionately known as dog lots. They're not as nice as the rest of
the lots. They may be much nicer than lots in another development or another city, but they're not as nice as
the lots in that particular development. The price of the land a developer pays for the entire land somehow
reflects those lots and the price of those lots when they're sold, the fact that they're lower than the rest of the
development is reflected in that and they do provide an opportunity for people to put more money in their
house, rather than their lot. That's a good portion, if you drive like down 35W in Minneapolis, many people
have more house than they could afford anyone else because they're buying a lot that is cheaper, and that's an
important part of the marketplace. This is buffer yard H. This is between an office industrial land and a low
density residential. As you can see the numbers here are even greater for 100 feet. The most expensive option
which someone would have to take, if they didn't have a lot of land to work with, is $20,000.00 for 100 feet.
That's an astronomical amount of money to put into the buffer. To put into landscaping for a lot of that size
anyway. This paragraph is an example and it's parenthetically a 20 acre office industrial park, 660 feet by 1,320
18
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
feet, -surrounded on 3 sides by low density residential and having 1,320 feet of frontage on a collector arterial
road. The buffer budget ranges from $340,000.00 to $564,000.00 under this ordinance. It equates to $.40 to
$.65 per square foot. Now there's very few instances where you're going to have just a pure industrial park next
to a residential but let's say you have an office park and so the land's a little more valuable for the office
development and they're paying $4.00 a square foot. That's a 10% increase in price for the land for that
development, based on anywhere else. It was encouraging to hear a couple of comments from the Council that
residential land next to each other really doesn't need to be buffered. But I would make the point that even
other uses, don't necessarily need to be buffered. In this example homeowners who live next to undeveloped
land, let's say it's industrial. They buy their home. They accept the cost, the cost of that home reflects the
adjacent zoning. To come back and require the industrial user to buffer their land is unjustly rewarding the
homeowner, because when they came in, as was stated earlier, they knew what the zoning was. If they didn't
know what the zoning was, certainly the adjacent landowners... maybe the developer or the builder, the agents.
They may have called the city and gotten the wrong information but the adjacent landowner is not responsible.
...Number two. I grew up in Indiana. That's how they spelled things. If someone comes in wants to purchase a
home next to an adjacent parcel that has been developed with higher density, or intensity use, is stripped of the
opportunity to make that important economic decision. Basically the decision is, how much money they want to
put in their home and they may come into a development, as I stated earlier, and say, yeah. It's not the best lot
in the world and the view's not the greatest but the school system is great. The city is great. We can put
$5,000.00- $10,000.00 more into our house. The ordinance and the buffering requires, takes that decision away
from people and to me that is not the route that you want to go. Just in conclusion I would, some of the things
said here, that the market has always taken care of those concerns. You just need to show people when they
buy a lot, somehow in the purchase agreement, that they know what is around them and what can potentially
happen. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks.
Councilman Mason: Can I make two comments now, or do you want me to wait?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. No, go ahead.
Councilman Mason: Has staff had any time to look at the figures that were just presented here? I'm curious to
know whether you folks think those are realistic or not.
Bob Generous: We've had that range, yeah.
Councilman Mason: Okay. Okay. I think the second point, or the last point Mr. Hunt made, I think therein
lies one of the problems. Certainly we have time and time again had, and I'm certainly accusing, not accusing
anyone here, but how many people come in and say, well we were told this and it's in reality that. So you
know, it's easy for you to say that, I mean that is one of the problems clearly and I'm sure staff, and I'm inclined
' to share that argument would say well, this is one way we can put some of that grief to rest. So that, you know
this is a very complex problem here so I think we all need to be real aware of that.
' Hans Hagen: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council and the staff. Thanks for the opportunity of giving our
viewpoint on the proposed ordinance. I guess in looking at this, the first thing I looked at was saying, what is
the problem. And in redesigning the problem it sounds to me as if there has been some complaint on the part
' of citizens saying, I don't like what's next door. Otherwise they wouldn't ask for a buffer. And then the
question is, why don't they like what's next door. And were they responsible for knowing it. And if they knew
1 19
�1
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
it, do they really have a right to complain. Because it all goes back to Councilperson Senn's comment that the
market kind of lets all of this go through. To bring this back down to a more practical issue. Our company
developed Stone Creek, and I don't know if all of you are familiar with Stone Creek or not. That has been very
successful. We've almost doubled what we thought we were going to do in terms of sales and one of the first
things we wrestled with, after we got our first plan turned down, which have been fortunate at the time, was
how to deal with the Galpin Road, and that's what you're dealing with tonight. You're talking about how do we
buffer against something that we perceive as to be unattractive. And as developers we wrestle with that because
either we discount a lot, in which case we get less revenue, or we improve the lot. And that's what you're
talking about in terms of buffering. So we looked at this area and we decided that we could put a pond up front
and we could also, so along Galpin Road we've put in a very large pond and then we put the trail, which was
requested by staff, and we also added some lights and significant landscaping. Now what we did was add an
asset, not only just for those lots because those lots could have been perceived as the least attractive lots in the
neighborhood and now they are some of the most attractive lots. They are premium lots that we charge for and
we are also able to add an asset to every other lot in the community. That's innovation. I don't know how you
can put that into regulation. If you let the free market respond to it, they will do varying degrees of jobs and if
we do a lousy job next time we come around, I'm sure you'll be a little tougher on us. And if we do a very
good job, you'll probably let us try with our innovative techniques... good job. But if we had had this ordinance
in place, I'd venture to say that it may not have turned into Stone Creek. I'm sure it would have been delved
out at some point but this development is adjacent to an industrial property, and to I believe, is that a collector.
Have I got the right classification of Galpin Road. And we're next to a railroad tracks. Yet we have let the
market determine if they like it. There are 37 lots that would have been affected and while it's hard to believe
the numbers that arrive up here, could it be that big of an impact. The impact on Stone Creek, if we would
have put buffers in, it would have affected 37 lots. If in effect we would have lost a percentage of those lots, it
would be easy to say, and we could document this, that it might be as high as a half million dollars of cost
because as soon as you put a buffer in, all of a sudden you still have to meet the minimum square foot in the
ordinance. And you still have to meet the front yard setback and all of a sudden that pushes a lot further away
and then might squeeze a number of lots out of the center of the development. So everytime's there an action,
there's an equal and other reaction and I think what it does is close in. The problem is when you add
ordinances like this, and I appreciate what the staff is trying to do. They're trying to improve your city, but it
doesn't always work when you take a broad brush and paint it across everything. You may end up with doing
disservice. Not only on an economic basis, but on a result basis because now you have to consider, you do
have to consider wetlands. You have to consider where you put ponds. You have to consider the landscaping.
You have to consider the forest and you have to consider elevation. So that there may be situations where you
want more of a buffer than is provided in the ordinance, and you lose that right when you categorize them and
say that's what it will be. Or you may not need one and why waste the land. Because if you have elevation
change or trees or whatever it changes, so there are some things that we still have to go back and use our mind
for to come up with the best results and I think that, I've heard comments of the Council which is very
encouraging. This is one more regulation that may end up backfiring and unquestionably it's going to cost a lot
of money and I would say that it's probably in the neighborhood of 15% so that you're talking about, a
developed lot costs these days around $3.00 a square foot. You could 15% very quickly to this ordinance, and
that may not be too bad if it was going to get better results. But it well could get substantially poorer results.
You're getting lots of little matrixes when you put in wetlands and you put in forests and you put in setbacks
and you add all these matrixes until finally you can't get the best job, although that's... thanks very much. If I
can answer any questions, I'd be happy to.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Is there anyone else?
20
C I I
1
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
Gene Ernst: Mr. Mayor and Council, staff. My name is Gene Ernst. I'm a landscape architect. I office in
Chaska, Minnesota. Basically representing myself after I saw this new proposed ordnance. It was passed onto
me by one of our client's, Lundgren Bros who wanted me to look at it. I do want to commend the city for
making an effort... improving some of the standards but I know if this particular ordinance is passed, as written,
as a landscape architect working for developers, I'm going to have to implement these requirements. And
looking at the requirements as they are outlined, and then trying to lay it out physically back to a plan, there are
many cases and it's been addressed and people talked about it. I think many of the things that I was going to
talk about have already been mentioned, but physically to put this plant material in some of these cases on the
drawing, would be against what we consider good... practices. We've gone through different analysis and
actually taken the trees. Initially to plant the trees as specified, because they're smaller but when we design
these plans, we think of mature trees. In many cases we could not pack, in many cases and I have some
examples, we could not get them on those pieces of property. There's just so many plants... pretty much
impossible. So I think you've talked about that tonight in excess and I don't know what the response has been
from other developers but that was primarily what I was going to speak to tonight. More of a physical.
Actually trying to get those plants onto a drawing to bring them to the city for approval. And we would
probably be back here saying, we do not recommend in most, in many of these cases, planting plant material
that dense because in time it'd sort of probably kill itself out. Then you are not going to have a buffer because
where it's all touching and underneath there's not going to be any growth. It's all going to be above and you're
going to ... so I appreciate having an opportunity to at least state that simple little issue. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Okay, anyone else? If not, we'll bring it back to Council one more time. I
think a lot of good points have been brought up in regard to this. Being that I think we have you know, gone
through the process of looking at this and I suggested probably before to look through some of this and maybe
to eliminate some of those given problems as each of these people have brought up. I think we should go back
into the ordinance to see if it can be addressed in a lot of these things that we've done. As I mentioned before,
the streetscape and the natural features and things of that particular nature. But that of course is where I think
maybe we should go with it. I'll throw it back and get an opinion of Council.
Councilman Berquist: Well I'm fine with looking at anything. I'm not married to this thing one way or another.
I'm amazed at how much I learned just by listening. That's probably the extent of my comments.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I really appreciated particularly Mr. Hagen's comments. I hadn't thought of
it in those respects. I still think the ordinance does have merit. It needs work but I think the underlying reason,
underlying purpose does have merit. Particularly when you deal with buffering streets. I think that benefits not
only the homeowners but every resident that drives the road. So just to reiterate, it needs some changes
obviously and it should be looked at in terms of residential industrial and residential and streetscape.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: I'm done.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark.
Councilman Senn: Nothing new.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Okay I guess you probably have direction to come back with something, and also to
keep the people who are here aware and copies of those sent back to them so they know exactly where we're
21
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
coming from. I appreciate your comments and coming in and sometimes that I agree that we try to overkill.
Maybe we can still address this and make it into an ordinance that will be acceptable. Not only to you but to
the city and address our concerns that we have coming before us. So thank you for coming in. Kate?
Kate Aanenson: Do we need a motion to table this then? It's an ordinance amendment.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, yeah. I think probably we should table it.
Roger Knutson: You don't want to consider this the first reading?
Kate Aanenson: That's what I guess I'm asking. You don't want to consider this a first reading?
Mayor Chmiel: No, that's the other point, right?
Roger Knutson: It looks like a lot of work's been done so the best thing to do is just a motion to table it and
bring it back and have another draft. Then the next draft will be back to the first reading.
Councilman Mason: So moved.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councihvoman Dockendorf seconded to table the amendment to Chapter 20 of City
Code Concerning Landscaping, Creating a Transition Zone. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CHANGE ORDER REOUEST FOR COUNTY ROAD 17 WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT. SOUTH OF
LAKE SUSAN.
Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Hopefully this item's still fresh in everyone's
memory. The award of contract for this project was brought before you at the last Council meeting on July
10th. At that time staff indicated that the low bid was significantly higher than expected. In an effort to make
this very much needed project a reality, staff developed some resources program whereby the contract could be
reduced in scope and some of that work could be done by city park maintenance forces to help bring the overall
project cost down to within our budget limitations. As a result, a reduced scope contract was awarded to Jay
Brothers Incorporated at the July 10th meeting. During discussions with Jay Brothers over the past two weeks,
it became apparent that there's two primary factors with their significantly high bid of $15.60 a cubic yard for
the excavation. The first was having the contractor be responsible for disposing, disposal and trucking of the
material to a site that they would have to locate. And number two, they were a little uncertain as to the
conditions of the soil out there to be muck, in terms of being able to access it with equipment and having to
take any special measures with a backhoe and drag them in such to do the work. So as such they basically
covered themselves and provided a high bid. During these past two weeks, as a result, staff has again looked
for ways to try and deal with this issue. We've actually come up with a couple of disposal, fill sites if you will,
that the material can be taken to. In addition, Jay Brothers has been able to do some test digging out on the site
last week and feel more comfortable with the material that is out there, that they need to work with. And as a
result, they've proposed and submitted a proposal back to the city to actually complete the original scope of
work at a reduced bid price for the muck excavation, which is more than 50% lower than their original bid.
The bid now, or the price now is $7.40 a cubic yard, which is basically a reduction of $30,000.00 over the
original low bid. Staff and the park maintenance staff have talked about this a little bit and based on our
22
1 City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
discussions, it was unanimously agreed that this was more of a reasonable price and given this price, and given
' the other work tasks and time constraints that the park maintenance personnel need to accomplish this year, it
didn't really seem to be that big of an advantage now with this better price, for them to do this work on a city
force account. So as a result, staffs before you tonight with this change order No. 1 to this contract for the
referenced wetland restoration and trail construction project with Jay Brothers Incorporated. The change order
' would amount to an increase of $29,304.00 to the contract, yielding a revised overall contract of $137,838.60
for Project 93 -29.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Does anyone have any questions? Steve?
Councilman Berquist: Did we table this last week?
Charles Folch: Actually we, no we approved the reduced scope.
Councilman Berquist: Based on the city engineering and the muck excavation.
' Charles Folch: That's correct.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. And I asked at that time what they were going to be, what we were going to be
taking them away from and you didn't know. Then we also guessed at $5.00 to $6.00 a cubic yard and now
we're down from $15.00 to $7.40, even though we've only hauling it about 3 miles. So you refer, you say the
total amount of the bid award would then be approximately $138,000.00, which is still about $28,000.00 less
' than the original bid. But it's still about $15,000.00 more than the original estimate.
Charles Folch: About $8,000.00 more. The original estimate was $130,000.00.
' Councilman Berquist: $130,000.00? And now there's another 400, another 500 yards to be removed.
Charles Folch: Right. That was some of the additional trail work to be done.
Councilman Berquist. Okay. I'm done with questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Don't we have some kind of mechanism to determine our internal costs for a
' project like this so they can compare it?
Charles Folch: We could do, we don't have it readily. I mean we have the internal mechanisms to be able to
put those numbers together. In talking with the park maintenance staff, just rough ballpark estimates, they
thought that the equipment rental that we would need in terms of the trucking that we would have to contract
out, plus or minus a week of days, anywhere from 5 to 7 days of total work days devoted to doing this. Their
time, our equipment usage, they thought that relatively the cost was probably somewhere in the 25 plus or
minus range. $25,000.00 for them to do it. The down side again, as Steve brought up was a good point at the
last Council meeting is, this then takes them away for a good week, week and a half away from their regular
schedule and that kind of puts things in a crunch for them but again, they were willing to do it to make this
project happen. But now with a little bit better bid price, they feel well, that fits more, we can work within the
budget with that and it makes more sense to contract it out.
23
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Mike
Councilman Mason: I don't know. This is, I understand where they're coming from. They've all got lots of
stuff to do but that's a hunk of money difference. But I guess let's hear what other, I have nothing more to say
right now.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark.
Councilman Senn: ...in terms of the, where are you going to take the $8,000.00 from? I thought we were
already on a real tight budget there.
Charles Folch: Actually Diane's reviewed the SWMP budget. There is the available dollars in that budget for
that. I think originally they earmarked a larger amount than what the engineers, at the budget time last year
they earmarked a larger amount than what the engineer's estimate doing the preliminary design this spring has
developed. Cost of $130,000.00 so evidentally there's money there to cover the additional $8,000.00.
Councilman Mason: Do you know Charles if that money that will cover this is then going to affect some other
projects?
Charles Folch: I don't believe so. In fact to be perfectly honest, I think originally due to staff feeling the
importance of getting the work done, the initial thought was to just go ahead and award the original contract at
that higher amount and just move monies over within SWMP but then you have the other option of using the
city force came up. It doesn't appear to me in my discussions with Diane that it's going to have any impact on
the overall program for the SWMP this year on other projects that need to be done.
Councilman Senn: I guess I'd really like to be assured of that because I remember when we went through that
SWMP budget, we were talking about a lot of work that had to be done, especially in terms of some of the
drainage things and lakes and everything else. I thought there wasn't any more money to do anything.
Charles Folch: Like I said, I don't know the exact figure that she had budgeted for this project but I believe it
was higher than the $130,000.00 engineer's estimate that came out this spring. And that's not uncommon when
you're preparing budgets. You typically, until you actually do some preliminary plans, you have to guesstimate
at budget time and typically, let's be honest, we all try to be conservative but the last thing we want to do is
come to you and tell you, well the engineer's estimate is higher than what we budgeted for. We'd rather err on
the other side than have to deal with it that way so.
Kate Aanenson: We did put money in for storm water improvement projects, specific in a separate, under the
storm water budget, yes. And this was included in that.
Councilman Berquist: Can I ask one more related question or do you want to speak?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Go ahead.
Councilman Berquist: The demucking that occurred down at the end of West 78th Street was done at $4.25 a
yard. By an outside party and disposed of on their property and I know, I'm arguing probably about $4,000.00
or $5,000.00 so if it seems like...
24
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
Charles Folch: I'm sorry, which location is that?
Councilman Berquist: The one on West 78th for the holding pond down there. The road extension through to
Lake Ann. That piece that they found bad dirt on. As I recall, there were two bids on this project. There was
one for $216,000.00 and there's one for $179 or $172 so there's a fairly bid discrepancy between the two
bidders. The cost of hauling the stuff away was like $15.40 a yard, or whatever it was. Now we're at $7.40 a
yard and we're disposing of it on city land, less than 3 miles away. It seems as if we're paying a premium with
$2.50 a yard to have this done. I think it should be done by Jay Brothers. I'm just quibbling about the price.
Charles Folch: Actually on the West 78th Street pond deal, that material stayed on site. There were no
trucking costs. That's why we did have the $4.00 price. $4.00 something price on that project was because the
materials stayed on site. There was no trucking hauling out.
Mayor Chmiel: And I think oftentimes when we go out for this, we always look to see that the bids come in
sometimes lower than what the estimates are. Often times bids are different and they all fluctuate in price from
time to time so those additional dollars may be justified. I'm not sure. I don't know that for sure but I would
think that the project is still moving with the costs that they've tried to save, through having our own forces do
some things and I think that the particular project should probably move ahead and get that accomplished. So is
there a motion?
Councilman Mason: I will move approval of the change order for wetland restoration and trail construction
Powers Boulevard reconstruction project No. 93 -29 and Yuma Drive Lotus Ravine water quality project SWMP
12 -A.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
' Councilman Berquist: I'll second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the change order to have Jay Bros. Inc.
perform the excavation of 3,500 yards rather than the Park Department for the Wetland Restoration and Trail
Construction along Powers Boulevard and the Yuma Drive /Lotus Ravine Water Quality Project located near the
northwest arm of Lotus Lake. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
' CITY ATTORNEYS OPINION REGARDING HRA APPOINTMENT.,
Roger Knutson: Mayor, members of the Council. Pursuant to your request we prepared a little report
explaining what the rules are on HRA appointments. It's self explanatory. I'll answer your questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Steve. Do you have any questions?
' Councilman Berquist: Ali no. I don't have an} questions. I understood it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I thought it was pretty straight forward as to what our options are.
1 25
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Yep. No question. Michael.
Councilman Mason: No questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark.
Councilman Senn: No questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. What's Council direction? Where do you want to go with this? I think the portion
was for reappointment of myself onto the HRA and with that, discussions have come back in looking at whether
or not City Council should become the HRA and there's a lot of things that Roger has pointed out in his letter.
I guess I'm as amenable to whatever direction you feel you may want to go.
Councilman Berquist: Well if I were to motion, I would motion that we put it out, that we advertise the
vacancy and ask for a second.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So you prefer the route of having one councilmember as the representation as
opposed to having the Council?
Councilman Berquist: At this moment, yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Could I ask your reasoning for that.
Councilman Berquist: Well some of the reasons are such that I would rather not, I really don't want to get into
specifics as far as the current make -up of the HRA. I will say however that I think the city works best by
having the most intelligent and bright people involved on all different levels. Not that you don't meet that
definition. You certainly do. But I know how many boards you are on and how full your plate is and I simply
think that the HRA would be better served if we were to find a different candidate. I stress however, that...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Is there any difference in the powers and control of a port authority or an EDA
compared to an HRA?
Roger Knutson: Yes. Again port authorities take special legislation. You can't just decide you want to be a
port authority. In other words, you have to go to St. Paul... They have certain conditions... that the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority does not have. I can't give you a check list of what they are but for the most
part ... port authority in St. Paul for example over by...
Mayor Chmiel: Who also had a lot of problems.
Roger Knutson: And the EDA's as well had a few additional.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So it's more expansive?
' City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
Roger Knutson: Yeah. It's not a great deal. Sometimes, when they've traditionally been established and when
someone has an idea for a project and they look at the Statute, you can't quite do that under the HRA authority.
They switch around... additional authority...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I'm going to be real frank here. I have some problems with the current
make -up of the HRA. However, I don't feel necessarily that I'm better qualified so I have some reservations
' about the Council being the HRA. While... there's a lot of merit to the argument that if it were my responsibility
or the Council's responsibility to have these decisions, that we would take the time and effort to understand the
issues because we would be held accountable. Now at least personally that's how I feel. So I'm not certain
how...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael.
' Councilman Mason: Well, three things. Number one it says, according to Roger's opinion here. By State
Statute commissioners are appointed by the Mayor with the approval of City Council so I don't see how we can
advertise for another position. Number two. Steve, you made the comment you don't want to get into the, and
I don't remember it exactly but you made some sort of comment about not wanting to get into something at this
time.
Councilman Berquist: Well let me just. I agree with, Colleen put it much more tactfully than I could have.
Councilman Mason: Okay. Okay, that clears that up, thanks. I guess m} other point is, on that is you know, I
may have some concerns about who's on Planning Commission. I may have some concerns on who's on City
' Council. I may have some concerns about who's doing what. I have a little trouble with this body no saying
that we get to essentially hand pick who we want to do what, and I don't think that's the intent of what I'm
hearing so far, but I think that's out there. Any time there's a committee, any time there's a commission, I'm
not always pleased with who's on that committee or commission. The other side of that point is, I don't think I
should be. I think if I'm in total agreement with what everybody is doing on Council or on the Planning
Commission or on a committee at work or whatever, I think there's some problems. I don't know if that, I think
that applies to this situation.
Councilman Berquist: May I ask? Earlier in the year there were two openings on the Planning Commission.
Both of the members who's terms were up were intending on continuing or they re -upped and we interviewed.
There would be no reason for us to have done that if I'm buying into this line of thought. We shouldn't have
advertised the vacancies were available. Or should we have interviewed the candidates that did come in and put
their names down.
Councilman Mason: No I guess, I don't think that's what I said. I think there are guidelines that our
ordinances, we follow for Planning Commission. For Park and Rec. This, by State Statute, apparently this is a
whole different ball game and I'm just, I'm going, my first comment, I mean it says right here. Commissioners
are appointed by the Mayor with the approval of City Council, according to Statute blah, blah, blah.
Councilman Berquist: That's true.
' Councilman Mason: I just, well.
1 27
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Anything else?
Councilman Mason: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark.
Councilman Senn: I don't see anything new...
Mayor Chmiel: What I'm basically reading here is that, from the way people are looking, seeing two people
sort of leaning towards having Council as HRA. One having an additional member of the constituency of the
city to be placed on HRA. So we're going all in different directions. I think what we have to do is sort of try
to pull it back together to either put another member on or put an ad in the paper requesting anyone who would
like to be appointed to HRA. And there again comes another little thing of whether or not I would entertain
that person again as well back to Council. So this thing could go on and on and on and on. So I'm looking for
us to get off of dead center. Come up with a conclusion.
Councilman Mason: Were you able, Don Ashworth, were you able to find out how many?
Don Ashworth: That's, I was talking with Roger about. I tried the League, AMA. You have to file a report
with the State on all your tax increment districts but to the best of my knowledge, there's nothing in any of that
reporting stuff that shows the make -up when we do those reports. I think the only way you could do it would
be just to start a poll of every city. Say what do you do.
Roger Knutson: Just to point out... You're supposed to file the names of your commissioners when they assume
office with the State. One year we did it and we got a phone call.
Mayor Chmiel: What are you doing?
Roger Knutson: What are you doing. No one's ever done this before.
Todd Gerhardt: We apologized and won't do it again.
Mayor Chmiel: So. We're back to square one. I think we either have uniformity or come up with a conclusion
or if you want to sit and think about it another two more weeks. The HRA doesn't meet and they can still go in
but it's getting to the point of this is the third meeting that we have gone through to come up with a conclusion
and I think a conclusion should be made.
Don Ashworth: We're still trying to figure out how you determine the compensation. I was thinking about
going back to Holmes and Graven and getting the number of cities. Like Roger said, you're going to get
response from maybe 10 cities. What is that in comparison to the whole metro area.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, that's only one little piece that would influence a decision anyways so.
Well, I guess from my point of view I'm not willing to leave it the way it is. So I really lean towards making
Council the EDA, but I would find acceptable Steve's proposal. However, that doesn't do anything.
Councilman Berquist: So you're advocating formulating an EDA, which would oversee the HRA or take the
place of?
28
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Take over.
' Mayor Chmiel: Takes the place of it.
Councilman Senn: As I understand what you're saying, that's stronger?
' Mayor Chmiel: No. By Statute, before we go to the EDA, with the existing districts that we have with TIF.
' Roger Knutson: You have a stack of paper and a lot of work. It's a lot of money.
Councilman Senn: As I understand your memo, I mean basically if the existing commissioners resign basically,
the Council can just effectively become it. If they won't resign, then you're forced into taking the route to
' create an EDA, correct?
Roger Knutson: If you want to accomplish that ... yes. I would certainly recommend to you, because it's far less
expensive. If you want to go in that direction, is to do, ask for resignations before you start the EDA. You can
do it but it's...
Mayor Chmiel: When you say expense, what are you looking at?
Roger Knutson: I've created one EDA myself. That was several years ago. $5,000.00. I'm just guessing.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Berquist: Well I certainly don't want to spend that kind of money. I'm not, especially, and I have
' every reason to believe that the State of Minnesota will create some need for a HRA board beyond the year in
which it's now intended to expire.
Councilman Senn: Not HRA, TIF you mean.
Councilman Berquist: TIF. I hear what you're saying Colleen as far as you don't want to, you'd just as soon
put it to bed but it's not nearly as simple as I'd hoped it would be.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's right.
' Councilman Mason: You know, I still I think of the editorial about HRA. The last, I believe it was last week.
Which I'm not surprisingly happen to concur with, which is why I bring it up. But I still, in my mind, I am
asking myself what, I'm trying to figure out why some of the members on this Council feel the need to also be
HRA. I know the comment will be because of the money involved. It seems to me, as I recall some projects
that HRA, I mean don't we ultimately have approval of those finances anyway? By and large. There are
projects we could have pulled.
Mayor Chmiel: There are some, yeah.
Councilman Mason: I don't know. It seems to me that's an awful lot. You talk about plates being full earlier,
and I'm just, I think it's too much of a consolidation of power maybe. Maybe that's my big problem with what
' I'm hearing here. I don't like it.
1 29
F ,
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
Roger Knutson: Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Roger.
Roger Knutson: I'll point out, maybe it's obvious to everyone. What will happen if you can't agree, no motion
can pass, is the last vote. The commissioners hold office until a successor has been named. The current office
holder remains until replaced. So if you do nothing, the Mayor...
Mayor Chmiel: And I think too, considering how full my particular plate is, I probably have more time than
any respective Councilmember on this particular Council. That's part of the reasons why I have been as
involved in the city as I have in the last 7 years. When we went to the two member Council on our HRA, they
wanted some representation. They had all 5 members before. Constituencies of the city. And at that time they
felt that we would at least have a little more input into the specific projects that were going through. At the
same time, each Council member also has an opportunity to come to each of those HRA meetings and offer
their opinions. Some have been there, some have not. And I think that we, as part of that body representing
the balance of Council, I think we have watched those dollars and watched them very closely, just as we have
done when it comes to budgeting for the city. And so I guess where we're at is with that right now. Unless
there is a motion, it stands as Roger has mentioned. So we can go one of three ways. About the only way it's
going to go is by someone making that motion and going in with a different direction.
Councilman Senn: From my perspective, I don't have a big problem with Steve's approach... But that approach
effectively requires, if I'm hearing it right Don, a consensus and that consensus isn't there so it seems to me then
that diffuses the number of options and then there's only the option is the Council becoming the HRA or isn't
the Council going to be the HRA. So if that's where it sits now, I'll move we be the HRA and see what
happens from there.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There is a motion on the floor.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: And seconded. I'll call the question.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded that the City Council become the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority. All voted in favor, except Mayor Chmiel and Councilman Mason, and the motion
carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Comments. I seconded it and voted before I took into consideration the financial
But it's too late.
Mayor Chmiel: No, the financial is with the EDA. Not with the HRA.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. But if the Council is the HRA.
Don Ashworth: Point of clarification. As I understood the motion, it's really to ask the existing HRA members
who are not on the Council, if they would resign. Correct?
Councilman Berquist: Yeah.
I City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
Councilman Senn: A is better than B and B is...
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Alright. Well let's bring it back if we have to go to B.
Councilman Berquist: Yes.
Councilman Mason: I'm curious to know if any of the three people that just voted in the affirmative on this
motion have talked with any members on the HRA. Expressed displeasure. Said this is what I think you should
' be doing. This is what you're not doing. If you haven't talked with any of those people, and you're pulling this
now, I personally think we've hit a new low here in the City of Chanhassen. And I really would like to know
whether anyone's talked to anybody or not. I personally have not received a phone call from any Council
member or had a discussion with Council members about HRA.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I guess that's the same.
Councilman Berquist: Well I have spoken to one member of the board outside of Council members about
exactly this.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess where it's at now is to get back to the HRA members and ask them if they
would resign. They are not forced to resign. They can still be retained as commissioners until their term
expires.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Don Ashworth: I would prefer to see that letter over the attorney's signature. My work relationship with both
groups...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright. Everybody agree to that. Okay. Let's move on.
M. APPROVAL OF BILLS.
Councilman Senn: I've got (o) here. Can I take (o) first?
Mayor Chmiel: No. Let's take (m) and go in succession. Well I don't know. Maybe there's something on
there that I didn't agree with so I pulled this, so you can go ahead and make a motion and I'll vote against it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to know which ones were those?
Councilman Senn: It's here somewhere. I've got notes somewhere. It's buried in somewhere here.
Mayor Chmiel: Can't fine it?
' 31
City Council Meeting - July 24, 1995
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Bills as presented. All voted in
favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carved with a vote of 4 to 1.
O. APPROVE 1995 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) SUBRECIPIENT
AGREEMENT.
Councilman Senn: In the contract it references Exhibit 1 being attached, which defines the programs and things
we're going to spend the money on but it's not, I mean there isn't an Exhibit 1 attached that says that. Now we
changed. I mean I know we did one thing and the rules changed. Were these done just as a point of
clarification? I thought that should be attached to the contract here and we should know what that is if we're in
effect passing on the contract.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. It's the $50,000.00 that we awarded for the senior center. What we programmed it for
was stove and that has not changed. We did amend it. Originally we were looking at the park and we ran into
problems with the park structure. We went back and amended it and put all $50,000.00 towards the senior
center. If sometime in the future we decide that that's not the appropriate place to spend it, or if something else
comes up, there are procedures in here that you hold another public hearing to amend and reallocate those
dollars.
Councilman Senn: But that's where it sits right now?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. That's where it sits right now.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion on that?
Councilman Senn: Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Berquist: Second.
Resolution #95 -78: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the 1995 Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Subrecipient Agreement. All voted in favor and the motion carved.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheirn
UPA