2e. City Council Minutes dated September 25, 1995CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 25, 1995
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL 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, Sharmin Al-
Jaff, Dave Hempel, Steve Kirchman, Scott Harr and Todd Hoffman
APPROVAL OF AGENDA; Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the
agenda with the following additions: Kate Aanenson had a Planning Commission update under Administrative
Presentations and Councilwoman Dockendorf wanted to discuss parking on Audubon Road under Council
Presentations. All voted in favor of the amended agenda and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS; None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
b. Resolution #95 -94: Approve Development Contract and Construction Plans & Specifications for
Chanhassen Business Center 3rd Addition, Project No. 95 -17.
c. Resolution #95 -95: Accept Street Improvements in Minger Addition, Project No. 94 -13.
d. Resolution 995 -96: Accept Utility Improvements on Mission Hills Lane and Court, Mission Hills, Project
93 -23.
h. Approval of Bills.
i. City Council Minutes dated September 11, 1995
Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated August 22, 1995
j. Resolution 995 -97: Resolution Approving a Special Law Authorizing Certain Bid Specifications for
Playground Equipment on an Experimental Basis.
k. Approve Loan Agreement Between the Metropolitan Council and City Re: Protective Acquisition of
' Highway Right -of -way (RALF).
1. Approval of 1996 Police Contract.
m. Resolution 495 -98: Approve Change Order No. 2 for Water Supply Well No. 7, Project 94 -3.
All voted in favor and the motion carded unanimously.
(Items 1(e) and 1(g) were moved to item I I (b) on the agenda.)
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
HALLAS GREAT PLAINS GOLF ESTATES, DON HALLA.
Don Halla: ...development of Halla's Nursery into a subdivision. Final approval is supposed to occur next ... on
the revisions that have taken place. This subdivision we anticipate will ... $15 million in new homes to the tax
rolls in the City of Chanhassen. Due to the requirements by the city, and the cost of lot development, it appears
that homes have to be built ... $400,000.00 to $750,000.00 range. ...basically afford the land and the cost of
development. One of the problems that has come up that we have not been able to solve with staff, we've come
to what we consider and what the developer is ... Charles Cudd...primary developer or primary builder in this
development. Some of you may be familiar with the quality of homes he's built. As such we have one road
which, actually two roads which are called stub roads. I don't know where, at this point in time, but I've heard
a future... possible future development that could be placed to the south. We understand and agree that one of
these stub roads would probably be necessary. It is not serving 4 homes on this site. Before any additional
homes could be serviced it would take sewer and water in this area, which from what our discussions are with
the city, with the neighbors to the north and the neighbors to the east, it's unlikely that this is going to be
something that is going to occur possibly in the next 20 to 30 years. Charles Cudd and his staff feels that it's
very negative to the development to have two of these stub roads. They can understand possibly one. They
don't feel that ... but they feel possibly one would be reasonable. Staff has concluded that there would need to be
1,700 feet, what I see in your report, of road ... in this area in order to do more lots. I would guess that if this
happens, it would have to be a circle road. It could not be just a road that went off into one, end one way and
one the other way. It'd have to be a circle in order to be that long. And in fact for further development out
there, because of the ravine, it would have to require the widening of the lots that are there now. On this
drawing basically the, I'll hold the edge of the ravine. The edge of the ravine comes like this. Way back into
here. Comes right in through this area and back in and around to here. Development that we're doing to the
north is this way. There is this road that comes in right through here. What the proposal is basically, staff
wants us to use for a road here and another road approximately right here. We feel that adding, when we add a
road that comes through and goes out and meets this road up here, that one additional road will be plenty
sufficient to supply this road. We have not been able to agree on this. If you look at the distance that's in here,
I have not measured it but I would guess that it's somewhere around 250 to 300 feet before you start going
down into a ravine. Since this was taken, there is a house sitting right in here. There is a house sitting at this
point. There is a house here and this other house is over in this area. No future subdivision can take place
until sewer and water occur. Since this is coming up for basic, maybe I should leave it up there. Basic final
agreement supposedly on the consent agenda at the next Council meeting, we would really like to solve this
problem ahead of time and what we feel is a reasonable and fair manner for everybody involved. We know that
as a developer this is costing us approximately $10,000.00 to $15,000.00 per stub road, just for those stub roads
which nobody is really going to use and would not serve the development at all. And only possibly will serve
some development 20 to 30 years down the line. Taking that into consideration, I guess I would rather take this
kind of step by step than go on. I have four points that I would like to go in on different subjects but I think
we might be better off taking one subject at a time.
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Councilman Berquist: Questions? The final plat was approved on the 21st of June of this year. You had, you
were in agreement with the two stub roads at that point?
Don Halla: We never were in agreement of the two stub roads.
Councilman Berquist: You acquiesced.
2
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Don Halla: We acquiesced to the two stub roads. Because we were just told, no way you're going to get this
through if you don't put two stub roads ... that's why we acquiesced.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. May I involve staff at this point?
' Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Go ahead.
Councilman Berquist: What's the rationale for the two stub roads to serve the four?
' Kate Aanenson: I'd like to turn it over to Dave Hempel and let him address the road issue.
Dave Hempel: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. We're requesting the two stub streets to
' provide continuity over to a neighborhood, future development... Just one access point. You have a very long
dead end cul -de -sac, possibly 1,700 feet long. The existing road that's out there today is not a public city street.
It's a private road which may be subject to closure at some point back out onto TH 101 should the State deem
t that we have adequate access with this new plat. Therefore we were providing alternative access to the
neighborhood to the south with the stub street. The original plat that was approved back in June provided
spacing between the two streets. With the recent modifications to the plat has necessitated moving one of the
streets further to the east, thus making them very close together. We still feel though that future access points
' to the south is a valid concern and should...
Councilman Berquist: So you'd be looking at two roads less than, or right almost exactly 200 feet. Two stub
roads at 500 feet from each other.
Dave Hempel: That's correct.
' Councilman Berquist: And ) really think that that's a benefit`?
Dave Hempel: It would provide a looped access to the neighborhood to the south. With the existing road that's
' in place out there now. Right now it's a barely gravel driveway.
Councilman Berquist: What liabilities are created if there's one road?
Dave Hempel: Potential of road closure. Blockage whatever. Fire access in the future...
Councilman Berquist: Okay. Anybody else?
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen?
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a couple of questions. The existing gravel road right there, you're saying
that that would be cut off from TH 101?
' Dave Hempel: Currently the private drive... potentially could be eliminated.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Could we make it, I mean do we have the authority to make that a requirement of
anything that would develop to the south? That it would have a secondary access off of TH 101? In addition
' to Hibiscus Trail.
1 '
1
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Dave Hempel: I'm not sure who all has the easement rights to that driveway... rights in the future. I'd defer to
Roger. Maybe he could recall what would be entailed in that.
Roger Knutson: If I'm understanding, you ask the question, what would be entailed in making this private
driveway a public street?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: We would have to condemn it.
Roger Knutson: You'd have to acquire the ownership interest. Whoever has ownership interest in that
driveway, that would be any rights to it, you'd have to acquire that or have to be given to them.
Mayor Chmiel: Who basically, yeah. Who basically owns that segment? Do you own that?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, do you know Don?
Don Halla: We have supposedly the, what shall we say. There's other people that are using the easement.
There's always been a question of who really has the right to the easement. As part of the purchase of our
property the easement was given to us. Exclusively. We gave it back. One of them back through City Council
action. Basically it was required for the first time we built. Since that the other homes have not asked
permission to use the road. We haven't tried to shut them off from doing that. But there's a question whether
they even legally have an easement.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And right now there are only two homes accessed off of Columbine Trail? These
other squares are separate sites?
Don Halla: There's four homes. One at the very end. Graffunder that shows on the drawing here and then two
new ones that permits were pulled in the last year and put in and this area was subdivided, and there's two lots
in here, and two houses.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. I'm talking about the proposed one. These are just two on either side of
the stub street right now?
Don Halla: There's only one house to the west.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And one to the east. Okay, so if you're saying if we eliminated this stub street,
they would just access it directly off of the main boulevard. Your driveway.
Don Halla: Well if you eliminated both of them, otherwise the access would be from the future off of the left
of one to the east. Then they would access off of there in the future.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess what I'm getting at, are you asking Columbine Trail to be deleted
altogether?
Don Halla: Yes.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And those two lots would access off of your main boulevard?
4
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Don Halla: Correct.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't have any other questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike.
' Councilman Mason: Not at this time.
' Mayor Chmiel: Alright, Mark.
Councilman Senn: Not at this time.
' Mayor Chmiel: Don, when you mentioned the fact that at no time was there any blockage. I sort of remember
that there was a blockage on that particular street not too long ago and if I remember correctly, from reading a
report that I saw, that our public safety department had to go out there to make some removal.
Don Halla: I disagree with that statement. I don't think there's ever been blockage out there. I think there has
been a great deal of animosity between Mr. Graffunder and my brother David Halla, who's in Texas and maybe
will never return. His house is up for sale I think. And there's definitely difficulties there. There has been no
' difficulty questioning your problem that I'm aware of regarding myself and any of the neighbors.
Mayor Chmiel: Well but I didn't remember the names but I do remember the circumstance which was 6 -8
' months ago. Somewhere in that particular neighborhood of time. Maybe even a year. Time goes quickly when
you're having fun.
' Don Halla: The only thing that has come up in that length of time is we had some vehicles parked on our
property. Not an easement at all. And there was a question there whether the}' could be parked. A ticket was
issued to my son who didn't have any ownership of the company. Didn't have any ownership in the vehicle and
so forth. The Judge found in favor of my son and against the city at that particular time. Other than that there
' has not been any difficulty that I'm aware of.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thanks for clarifying that. I guess I don't have any questions at this particular time
either. This is going to be on our agenda for October.
Kate Aanenson: Let me just make a clarification. As you indicated, Steve pointed out at the beginning, we
' already approved the plat.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Kate Aanenson: The only thing you're coming back was for the plans and specs of development contract. He's
asking now for you to revisit those issues. Some of the issues of the original, so you've already approved the
plat and that was the issue at the last time it came forward. It sounds like he has a couple other issues but one
' concern I had is, there was a public process before when we looked at it and some of the other people had input
as to where these streets would be located. Right now they don't have that opportunity to respond to that issue.
Of the street location and their potential future development so I would just raise that as a concern.
F1,
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Well we can't take any action on this today anyway so if this were to come back, it
would then have to be re- advertised for that hearing, is that correct Roger?
Roger Knutson: To address the question, first of all I'll ask a question. On the preliminary plat when it was
approved, were these two stub streets shown?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. And it was given final plat approval with the two stub streets shown.
Roger Knutson: So then I'd have to think this through. You might need another hearing before the Planning
Commission because you're amending your approved preliminary plat.
Don Halla: I think that the record shows this occurred between Planning approval and the second portion of it.
Kate Aanenson: It was a recommend.
Don Halla: It wasn't on the original. It came afterwards.
Roger Knutson: Take a look at that issue. You might need another hearing before the Planning Commission...
We'll look and see how material it is.
Mayor Chmiel: And to see if any consideration should be really given at that particular time. We will let staff
get back to you with a decision because there's no action that can be done this evening under visitor
presentation, as I indicated before. Maybe Council could get back to staff and indicate their basic concerns of
whatever it might be and that way Kate could get back to Mr. Halla and let him know that particular position.
And whether it might even proceed before that back to the Planning Commission for the public hearing and then
back to Council. What does the time frame on this project?
Don Halla: We would actually like, Charles Cudd would like to start right away.
Kate Aanenson: Well that's been our issue. I mean they have 5 years to plat it. We keep extending. There's
constant revisions to it. That's why we brought this issue up last time. We've given the preliminary plat, as he
indicated back in June and we're still trying to resolve issues. It's one of our concerns.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So maybe if Council could get back to staff and indicate their concerns as to the
direction that they're going and that way they'd be able to indicate to Mr. Halla what can be done. Is that a
proper procedure Roger?
Roger Knutson: Councilmembers can obviously let staff know what their thoughts are on any subject.
Councilman Senn: Point of clarification. We approved final plat in June, not preliminary.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So when you said it has to be revisited by the Planning Commission to alter a
preliminary plat, you mean final plat?
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Roger Knutson: Preliminary. The Planning Commission, by Statute wouldn't even have to see a final plat.
Final plat's don't require public hearings. Preliminary plats do.
Councilman Senn: If we amend the final plat, does it require one?
Roger Knutson: If there's a substantative deviation from the preliminary plat that's been approved, yes. A
public hearing process is required for preliminary but not final so if you change what you preliminarily
approved in a substantative way, then you have to have another hearing. You could... preliminary and final
together.
Don Halla: Secondary concern is ponds. Since March of 1995 we were told that we needed to increase the size
of the pond to handle 100 year drainage. Just basically, not quite but increase the ponds by 90 %...
' approximately 10,000 to 12,000 additional yards of soil excavated in order to allow for a 100 year rain. It's at
this point, based upon my being on the land and knowing that there will be additional water runoff and so forth,
I feel that there is going to be a lot of stagnant water to these ponds because they're now so huge that the
' amount of rain it would take to refill them to cause runoff and circulation is going to be quite great. I checked
with the engineer tonight just to verify my feelings and... stagnant. We had requested that we be able to dig
them deeper to solve this problem by going down to 12 feet. Put fish in it. Let it become something that
would keep it working. Be able to hold fish but they don't freeze out and so on. Flat areas are big enough to
do this. The square footage for all requirements of the city, as far as what they need for removal of
phosphorous and that type of thing, because of the 100 year is on the slopes. - Continuing the slope down to a
deeper point... We would like to, I looked at the pond down here on Market Boulevard and TH 5 and even
' today there's a great deal of algae that's down around the edges and so forth and that has an aerator. We would
like to see that either of these ponds, because the }' have been created in such a large size, have an aerator put in
by the city. Or dig them deep enough so that they would in fact withstand cold... As I understand it, there's a 6
foot depth that water, the city is worried about the water stratifying and so forth. I also understand that this is
not a problem if we go deeper because the yardage or square footage of area that's required to be treated is
already there above the 6 foot depth. So going deeper in the center would not affect that percolation. And be
' able to allow for this natural process to take place...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. As I see with the concerns by staff, regarding the liability standpoint, give me a little bit
more on that would you Dave. Or maybe Roger.
Dave Hempel: The storm water pond is designed for water quality or quantity purposes. The design of a water
quality pond has an average depth of 3 to 4 feet of water, maximum of 6 foot to do a water quality job. We're
not objecting if Mr. Halla would like to dig another pond somewhere else on the property and make it a fishing
r population but I don't see maintenance activities and so forth... fish probably wouldn't live anyway. The other
item as far as the algae bloom, all ponds, that happens in all ponds and many lakes during the summer ... I guess
an aeration system may improve it but they're mainly an aesthetics standpoint, similar to ... pond down here...
purely from an aesthetic standpoint. We do periodically treat them for the algae bloom...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Steve.
Councilman Berquist: Are we in fact designing for 100 year rains?
Dave Hempel: The requirement for the development is to maintain the pre - development runoff rate with
' subdivisions to not cause flooding downstream. And so with the trees and the streets, impervious surface and
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
the rooftops and so forth, the development's required to provide on -site ponding to maintain the pre - development
runoff rate does require a larger pond on the site.
Councilman Berquist: Wasn't the preliminary plat, didn't the preliminary plat show ponds that were
substantially smaller in size?
Dave Hempel: From a water quality standpoint, yes.
Councilman Berquist: So the quantity of the runoff dictated the increase in sizing?
Dave Hempel: That's right... substantial volume of water that will be on the site will remain the same as the
earlier preliminary plat approval. We required additional volume of water...
Councilman Berquist: So how much percentage wise have the ponds increased from preliminary to final?
Dave Hempel: From a surface area standpoint, it should not have increased at all. The drainage easement...
required for a 100 year event probably would have doubled the size. It does not eliminate any buildable lots. It
does not impact the septic sites.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. I'm familiar with the storm water ponds in an area where I spend a lot of time
and that particular pond has elevations that are controlled to the point where, I mean right now you can walk
down there and there is no growth. No algae growth whatsoever on that pond. How would one go about doing
that? It's not aerated.
Dave Hempel: Just having a volume of water going through the ponding system, a lot of Chanhassen has a lot
of ground water migration... tile, sump pump discharge from the homes keeps the amount of volume with the
ponding areas, keeps revitalizing the water. During the August- September, late September when we have a dry
spell, warm temperatures will create the algae bloom.
Councilman Berquist: What would happen, and I'll shut up in a minute. What happens if, and I'm not a
hydrologist. I don't understand much of this. What happens if the pond depth increases, can the pond size
decrease? I think you've answered that again. Please answer it again. Or if you answered it before, please
answer it again.
Dave Hempel: If I understood the question.
Councilman Berquist: If Mr. Halla were to say I want to make these 12 foot deep ponds. Would the size of the
pond then, the surface area of the pond diminish? I'm not sure that would do anything for us.
Dave Hempel: Not necessarily because you still need the bounce of the pond to control that 100 year flood
elevation...
Councilman Berquist: 100 year flood elevation.
Dave Hempel: 6 inch rainfall in a 24 hour period.
Councilman Berquist: A 6 inch rainfall in a 24 hour period is considered a 100 year rain?
i
1
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Councilwoman Dockendorf: It did that in '88 or '87.
Councilman Senn: It's more than that I'll tell you.
Councilman Berquist: That's the definition of a 100 year rain? That's ridiculous. We get that often.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions?
Councilman Berquist: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike.
Councilman Mason: One quick question. This storm water issue. Staff hasn't changed anything since final plat
approval, right? Yes? No?
Dave Hempel: I don't believe so. It was a requirement of the final plat approval.
Councilman Mason: Right, right. Alright.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Mason: If I may just, if this will save some time I'd be happy to say it right now. I don't see any
reason, I mean this final plat has been approved since June and it's how many months later. I'll go on record as
telling staff this right now. I guess at this point I don't see any, reason to change the final plat.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Good. Thank you Mike. Thanks Don. That will.
Don Halla: I have others I'd like to go over, if I may please.
Mayor Chmiel: Pardon me.
Don Halla: I have two other items that I'd like to go over.
Mayor Chmiel: 15 minutes was almost gone. We have an awful lot to go. What are the two additional items
that your concerns are.
Don Halla: As of 5 days ago it became a question in my mind whether we were going to be allowed to stay in
business on the site that we've been on since 1960 basically with our total operation since 1972. That's when it
was brought to my attention that by becoming a lot, legally we're only allowed one building. And we have 5
0
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
buildings right now. We're non - conforming. Earlier this spring, in March we were trying to work out an
agreement because we were given really incorrect information as far as we're concerned as to our building a new
building. We were told if we built an agricultural building on agricultural land for agricultural purposes, we
didn't need a building permit. We asked the city to send us the regulations. They did. We interacted with
those regulations. After we got the building built, we were told well this doesn't look like an agricultural
building to us ... garden center. And so now we've been trying to work out and come out to some conclusions as
to what is a reasonable method of solving and we feel that we're really dealing with a moving target. Every
time we get close to an agreement, then it changes the rules. What was on our original agreement back in
March is entirely different than when we sat down and went over the final plans here about a week ago. In
talking to Elliot Knetsch, the City Attorney, it was discussed that we would in fact, we don't conform to
anything. If we do a subdivision or even become a lot we don't conform. If we're an outlot we don't conform.
We always wanted to stay an outlot. We didn't want to be a lot. We were told we had to be a lot because you
couldn't have buildings on outlots. So you have to be a lot. As a matter of fact it was a metes and bounds and
so that... legal in metes and bounds. But we're creating ourselves into an illegal status according to the
city's rules and regulations, which was brought to me 5 days ago. It really concerns me about going through
with the subdivision if I'm going to be put out of business. In March I was told we could build greenhouses
and so forth with no problem... plans. We presented it. The plan was presented. As of 5 days ago, we were
told no, you can't do any greenhouses on there without special permission. Then we had a decision whether we
would allow it or not. We are a landscape nursery. We are a garden center. We have been that since early
1960 probably 2. We have been selling to the retail public on 100 acres since 1962... I'm definitely concerned
about my status of being able to continue in the business that I've been in and I have a son in and would like to
stay in and keep it working as such. With these changes that were just brought up to me 5 days ago ... I guess
it's some direction that I need from, would like to hear from the city whether we're going to be allowed to stay
in business because I certainly don't want to do something that's putting myself out of business, which I didn't
know it could happen until 5 days ago. And which we always asked to be an outlot. We didn't want to be a
lot. We were told we had to be a lot and then being told that we can't have all the buildings that we have.
We're non - conforming. Since then we have a restroom system that's been working since 1972. No problems.
People have looked at it. There doesn't appear to be an}' problems. We're told... bathrooms now to handicapped
accessible and put in, our septic system doesn't meet with the new criteria for the city. We've got to destroy it.
Build a new septic berms and if we're a lot. If we're not a lot, we don't have to. If we are a lot, then we have
to. We're kind of in this catch -22 of what's happening.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, Don. I don't think we, as a Council can come up with any conclusions in regard to
what's been brought up to you. This is the first time I've heard of it and I'm sure the balance of Council has not
heard of anything either. So this is something that we would have to look at, but I don't think there's anything
that we can do in regards to that because of the lack of knowledge that we have to even look at to find out what
the information was or how all this was pulled together. So with that, I think we're just going to have to wait
and see and get some of that information maybe back from staff and then proceed with that and maybe we can
get back to you on that. Good. Thank you very much. Okay we're going to move along to item number, oh.
Excuse me. Is there anyone else wishing a visitor presentation? If not, we'll move on to item number 2.
10
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
PUBLIC HEARING: ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR CHANHASSEN ESTATES 1ST AND 3RD
ADDITIONS STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. 93 -10.,
Public Present:
Name
Conrad B. Fiskness
Ron Pilgrim
Earla Kraus
Tom Kotsonas
Anne & Walter Thompson
Address
8033 Cheyenne Avenue
8026 Dakota Avenue
8008 Cheyenne Avenue
8001 Cheyenne Avenue
8000 Dakota Avenue
Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Tonight we have the project engineer, Mr.
Dave Mitchell from OSM here tonight to give you a run down on the project numbers accordingly, but first I'd
like to discuss with Council a couple of pieces of information. Today we received an assessment appeal from
Mr. Tom Kotsonas at 8001 Cheyenne Avenue, for the record. And we also have some updated assessments
rolls which are more current than what you have in your packets from last week. We have a couple changes
related to driveway repair... With that, I'll bring these forward.
Dave Mitchell: Thanks Charles. Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I'm pleased to be before you -again
tonight to discuss this project. First of all just briefly. The streets that were reconstructed are highlighted in
green. They include Dakota Avenue, Dakota Circle, Cheyenne Avenue and Cheyenne Spur and Cheyenne
Circle. The area bound by this line, and then the outside plat lines. It involves the area being assessed or
proposed to be assessed. Includes Chanhassen 1st Addition and there was a lot split over here that was actually
called Chanhassen 3rd Addition. That is the project area. As your staff report states, and as many of you may
recall. About a year and a half ago we went through actually coming to Council for plans and specs approval
for this entire area which included Chanhassen 2nd Addition also. Council will recall that this project was
scaled back at that time to the area that was highlighted. The final project costs are shown on this overhead. It
includes the street portion of the project. The total construction of approximately $352,000.00. Engineering and
administrative $126 so the total project costs of $478,500.00. Likewise storm sewer improvements, total project
costs of $206,400.00. Sanitary sewer improvements of $56,400.00. Watermain improvements of $136,900.00
and the pond excavation down on Rice Marsh Lake of $40,700.00 for a total project cost of $918,800.00, plus
or minus. Project funding. Again we start with the total project costs of $918,775.00. Total assessments
proposed are $132,585.00. Surface water management plan fund would contribute $40,692.00 towards the pond
excavation. And funds required from the city's general fund are $645,500.00. The next slide that I have is a
comparison between what was presented in March of 1994, when the project was brought to Council for plan
approval. Again briefly just for the comparison and these numbers include the 2nd addition of the project. So
you will see a distinct difference between two columns for the construction project. Total project costs when
the 2nd Addition was included was $1.9 million. The construction cost associated with the first and third
additions was $918,776.00 as shown on the previous page. At the time of plan acceptance we were proposing
an assessment of $3,000.00 for single family dwellings. These other two are non - applicable. They were
applicable to the 2nd Addition. We were showing a storm sewer assessment for single family dwelling of
$1,200.00. At this point some of the houses along Cheyenne drain to the back or to the east so we were
reducing their storm sewer assessment by 50 %. Again the bottom line is not applicable to this particular portion
of the project. The financing, again to reiterate what we had at the beginning was assessments generated of
$505,500.00 and now we're showing $252,000.00 against realizing that the project has been scaled back by
11
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
approximately 50 %. Similarly general funds at the time of plan acceptance of March of '94 were not proposing
any funding source... the surface water management fund. As Charles indicated, Charles faxed me a copy of the
letter from Tom Kotsonas appealing his assessments. Some of his concerns presented in the letter include, item
I and 2 that are stating that he had existing systems. Therefore it does not show benefit, which is a matter of
opinion as far as staff and myself are concerned. Item number 3 is in regards to the driveway credit that was
provided for each of the properties. A little bit of history on that driveway credit. We were approached,
actually at the beginning of construction of this project by residents who were concerned with the existing
condition of their driveway and also the matching that would take place with the city's contractor. Matching
into their existing driveway. A number of residents, in fact 13 to be exact, chose to have their driveways done
by an independent contractor. At that time, actually prior to them entering into a contract with an independent
contractor it was offered to them, which was discussed with staff, a credit of 70 cents per square foot for
driveways that the city would have replaced as a credit to their assessment. That and some compensation or
being compensation for the fact that the city is not doing the driveway and that they were paying for it. That
was offered about a month prior to actual construction of curb and gutter and driveway replacements. ...one of
the resident letters that was sent out. As I stated, 13 individuals opted to install their complete driveways.
Therefore I show a credit on the assessment roll that we've been provided tonight to those individuals. One
other petition, or the reason that Charles handed this out is I received a call from Ron Pilgrim last week
contending the area that was replaced, or would have been replaced by the city. We had an inspector go out
there and look at that site and in fact did increase his credit by approximately $31.00. Conrad Fiskness
presented a petition tonight stating that his driveway replacement has been a little bit more due to some
excavations that took place in front of his yard. I believe we're looking at again there about $30.00 so I have
no problem with the ... his assessment at that point. Otherwise that really completes my presentation. At this
point we'll offer answers from questions...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: When we sent out the original quotes, did that include the 2nd phase as well? I
mean I'm trying to find out why our finals are coming in higher than our quote. Did we achieve some
economies of scale when it was a larger project?
Dave Mitchell: That is one reason that our assessments that we're showing are a little bit higher. The other
reason is that we ran into some, putting in some more trees that were not anticipated as a part of the feasibility
report. We did install. I believe in the feasibility report we were not showing the removal or replacement of a
very minimal amount of trees and we did replace about 30 -40 trees out there so.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And that was a result of just on site and you saw that it was necessary.
Dave Mitchell: Right.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Was that in negotiations with the neighbors as well?
Dave Mitchell: We worked with the neighbors with tree removal and tree replacement. A number of the trees
were requested to be removed by the residents after the construction was begun. We went through and tagged
trees that definitely had to be removed and then entertained requests from residents to have additional trees
removed that they felt were unsightly or damaged. And those trees were replaced.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's all for questions right now.
12
I City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael, do you have any? Mark?
I Councilman Senn: Are there any costs coming into, that will go into, how do I say this? Are there any costs
going into Phase I for Phase II?
Dave Mitchell: There's a portion of the storm sewer that was installed that does serve a portion of Erie Avenue
and some of the lots on that area. So there will be additional benefit at that time when that street is
reconstructed. There are no proposed assessments at this point for those areas.
Mayor Chmiel: Charles.
Charles Folch: Basically the long and the short is, there are some additional costs associated with it but those
costs were subtracted out of the dollar amounts that we figured for assessments for this project so basically we'll
proceed and carry those costs until some future time for the 2nd Addition. So the people being assessed tonight
are not paying an additional amount for additional storm sewer that benefits the 2nd Addition. I also want to
point out that there was a slight increase in the sewer assessments from that presented in the feasibility. What
happened is from some of the meetings that we had, informational neighborhood meetings at the feasibility time,
we had a number of, great number of residents that indicated that they had some problems with the drainage of
their yards regarding sump pumps and things like that and asked the city if we would consider putting in drain
' the underneath the curb. So we looked into that. At the time we prepared plans and presented the plans to the
Council, we didn't show that the project was going to include drain tile underneath the curb and that was some
additional cost to the storm sewer. Basically what we've done is taken a policy for the drain tile now that it
' benefits the rule of 50 %. It benefits the storm drainage system 50 %. And according to city's policy, we only
have 50% of storm sewer. Basically... assessment 25% of the drain tile cost.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Steve, do you have any questions?
Councilman Berquist: Yeah, I've got a couple. I've got one comment. Three years ago I sat, three years ago I
went through this. I live on Frontier Trail and I can remember feeling very frustrated at getting assessed for
over $4,000.00 for the same sort of stuff and one of the frustrations that I had was the timeliness of the notice.
I think it's Tom Kotsonas that refers to the meeting notice having been mailed out and received on Thursday for
a meeting tonight. Very short. That's pretty short notice and it happened in our case too. It seems as if there
would be a greater window given for people to get here.
Dave Mitchell: There was Councilman Berquist. The initial notices went out on Friday the 16th of September.
The notice that Mr. Kotsonas is referring to was a second notice that was sent to his address as well as the other
' 12 addresses that we received driveway credits. The driveway credits were forgotten, to make it simple. On the
initial notice so the notices were out according to our State Statute...
Councilman Berquist: Alright, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I don't have any questions at this particular time. What I'd like to do is open
this back up. We have had three respective individuals who have indicated their concerns in writing. Is there
anyone else? As I mentioned before, this is a public hearing. Would you please step forward. State your
name, your address and the concern that you have.
13
L
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Earla Kraus: My name's Earla Kraus and my address is 8008 Cheyenne. The concerns that I have, when the
original assessment was proposed, I could see where doing the whole job would bring down the cost a little bit
but when they showed each individual, how much they would get assessed for their house, the second addition
was still lower than what we're at now. And of course we were assessed... proposed was assessed a lot lower.
Another thing that I wanted to bring to your attention is I recall, and ... that the sewer and water was supposed to
be taken care of by the city.
Mayor Chmiel: Charles.
Charles Folch: That's correct. The cost associated with the reconstruction of the watermain and sewer on the
project are not included in the assessment cost. And also to point out the reason why the feasibility showed that
the subdivision had a lower assessment rate by about $250.00 was taking into consideration that the 2nd
Addition has existing curb and gutter and that was a $250.00 credit for having existing curb and gutter. The 1st
Addition did not have concrete curb and gutter. That was the difference between the two additions.
Earla Kraus: That's not considered part of the storm sewer?
Charles Folch: No. That was considered part of the road costs.
Earla Kraus: And as far as the notice goes, yeah. I do have to say too that if it was sent on a Friday, the 16th
it still didn't reach the residents by Monday or Tuesday. People make their plans well before a week is up. I
do have a letter from me and a letter from my neighbor, who asked me to deliver it because he could not be
here tonight. And that's pretty much about it. Oh, one more thing. I have a, I was unaware of getting charged
a percentage rate for this assessment over a period of time. Nothing was said prior to receiving this notice.
And I don't find it, I've talked with a few people in other cities and I find it has been done before but it's more
uncommon to be charged an interest on the proposed assessments.
Mayor Chmiel: Charles.
Charles Folch: Basically all the property owners proposed for assessment tonight, in the notice that was sent
out indicated basically two options for payment. Once the assessment is levied they have basically a 30 day
window to pay all or part of that assessment up front. However, if there is a remaining balance at the end of 30
days, that remaining amount gets certified to the County and is collected through the property tax collection
process. If there is a remaining amount, it's been the city's policy, it's pretty typical for most municipalities to...
special assessment type projects would have a period of time that if the property owner does not want or has the
ability to pay the assessment up front, that they have some sort of financing option that they can take advantage
of and that's basically what's being offered here again, as typical with all assessment type projects. There's a
payback period that they can make use of and there's an associated interest rate based on bonding that basically
the bond was sold at for the project, which is...
Mayor Chmiel: I'll take those, thank you. Is there anyone else? Yes. Would you please come forward.
Walter Thompson: Yes, my name is Walter Thompson. My address is 8000 Dakota Avenue which we are
owners of the lot on the corner of Dakota and Erie. We have a couple concerns tonight about this assessment.
Number one is, Dakota Avenue has been completed in front of our house. We are wondering tonight if when
you do redo Erie Avenue, if we're not going to be assessed again a second time around. That's one of our
concerns that we've got. Concern number two is of course the 7 1/2% interest, which this assessment will be
14
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
filed onto our bank mortgage and I feel tonight that we're being penalized. We're paying a finance charge
already on our mortgage and now we're going to be paying additional finance charges on this assessment and I
can't go along with it. And that's why I, both my wife and I are here tonight wondering why.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Charles.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
' Mayor Chmiel: Don.
Don Ashworth: The City sold bonds to carry out this construction. Those were sold right after the first of the
year. The amount of the interest that we're showing is really similar to the interest rate that we're paying on the
' bonds that were sold again to do this project. I don't know of any reason that it should change the mortgage. I
do realize that it is going to change the total amount paid but you know, I don't understand anything with the
mortgage so.
Mayor Chmiel: Charles.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, to answer Mr. Thompson's question regarding the future assessments. I certainly
r understand his concern. There are a couple of different ways a project like this can be assessed. The
methodology that has been taken from day one of the project was to do a one unit assessment for the property
and being that the Thompson property would be assessed with the first addition improvements, they would not
see a future assessment on the side street...
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
t Ron Pilgrim: My name is Ron Pilgrim. I live at 8026 Dakota. I would just like to clarify that some of the
reasons mentioned for the increased cost. Number one being the down sizing of the traffic. The people being
charged for the down sizing, including myself and the rest of the neighbors. I'm not sure that's completely fair.
We played no decision in the down sizing of this project. That decision was made I would say between the
residents and the other neighborhood and also the decision by this Council not to include that as a part of the
contract. And now that cost is being passed on to the existing neighbors where the project was completed.
Secondly Mr. Hempel mentioned that part of the other increased cost was the tree cost. But if I remember
correctly, the last proposal, the plan proposal called for removing over 100 trees in the two neighborhoods and
approximately 50 some from our neighborhood. In reality there was only about 13 trees removed and I'm not
sure exactly how many trees were replaced but to my way of thinking, there's fewer trees than what the original
proposal called for so I wanted to clarify those two points. If that's part of the reason for the increased cost, I'm
not so sure that we should be bearing that increased cost. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Charles, can you address that specific, those two questions.
Charles Folch: The concern for additional costs from down sizing the project. Boy, that's a tough thing to
really define. I mean it's how much, I mean in terms of how much down sizing of the project... accurately
defined. Sure, a project twice this size there might be some economy of scale advantages. We did feel that th
bids received were fairly reasonable prices ... with a project of this nature. So if there is some additional costs,
it's not... In terms of tree removal, what was actually removed compared to what was shown or proposed
' initially, I guess I'd have to refer back to...
' 15
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
Dave Mitchell: What I was referring to was in regards to showing no tree removal with the feasibility stage.
At the time the plans were accepted we were showing a lot more trees being removed than what were actually
removed. At the point of plan acceptance we chose not to adjust the proposed assessments at that point for the
street. We did adjust it for the storm sewer in light of the addition of the drain tile. But at that point we did
not adjust the proposed assessments for the tree removal and replacements proposed as part of the project so I
guess to reiterate what I was stating was that the feasibility report we had not shown any tree proposal. Once
we started preparing detailed plans and specs, the trees were obviously...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Earla Kraus: May I...
Mayor Chmiel: If I could and then I'll come back to you. We'll get anyone else that may have some concerns.
Yes ma'am.
Anne Thompson: I'm Anne Thompson. I live ... Dakota. Not to beat a dead horse on the tree issue but that was
under much discussion throughout the whole project... My understanding at the end of this project is that we
have the option, if we felt the trees were not going to survive, to have them removed. We were told that the
trees would be replaced 2 for 1. Well, we have 6 trees on our lot that originally were all going to be removed
and we certainly don't have room for 12 trees on our lot so we ended up having one removed. When the trees
came to be planted, we never had a choice where they were planted. They were put in two other places than we
ever had trees before so you know, I think if there were fewer trees done, then there should probably be some
adjustment for the tree costs. Because it started out I believe at something like 17 trees for the neighborhood
and then moved up to maybe 200 trees and then back off to now 50 or 60 so I think there's a lot of controversy
over what this was and what our true cost is. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else?
Earla Kraus: One thing, can you clarify about the storm sewer. You're saying that it's built into the road?
Okay. But the storm sewer is not part of what you guys, what the city was going to handle.
Dave Mitchell: What we basically did was, I think you were referring to the drain tile cost.
Earla Kraus: No. In the original assessment and all the meetings we went to I remember it being stated that the
city would take care of the storm and sewer storm because basically it was their responsibility ... the trees and
whatever else. But now you're telling me that that is imbedded into the $3,000.00.
Mayor Chmiel: I think if you understand the question.
Charles Folch: What we basically had shown all the way along the feasibility stage, and then again at the plans
and specification ... and what we're showing here tonight is the underground utilities referring to sewer and
water ... the city was proposing to replace and do some repairs to it and such. The city's utility replacement fund
was going to take care of those costs... for sanitary sewer. The cost for the watermain replacement were not
going to be assessed to the property owners. I think where the confusion comes in is the reference to sewer, or
sanitary versus storm. Typically on all new construction projects we're adding additional storm drainage facility
16
I City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
and catch basins, piping and things like that to take care of existing problems or to improve the drainage in a
neighborhood. It's been the city's policy to assess 50% of the cost for the storm sewer improvements and the
other 50% of the city picks up that cost and that's what we've shown here ... exact same thing we did with
Frontier Trail, Mr. Berquist's previous assessment also.
Earla Kraus: Okay. And to address the benefits, I'd like that clarified too. If and when the 2nd Addition has
their roads repaired, and we do have access to the storm sewer and you said there would be some benefits back
to the people that are paying out for that storm sewer now. Is that what you ... or no?
Charles Folch: What we were describing was basically these two neighborhoods essentially all drain down to
one point and at that point we've, or we've done some improvements to that ... and so there's benefit not only to
the 1st Addition but also for the 2nd Addition and what we're saying at this point in time, those downstream
costs, additional costs that have really ... that amount of dollar has been taken out of storm sewer dollars that
we're basically figuring for assessments. So in a sense the city's just going to basically hold that cost. If and
when the 2nd Addition is ever improved, there will be some additional storm sewer, catch basin improvements
in that addition that we did show in the other plans and specs that were prepared and they will be assessed... for
those improvements. So I guess the long and short of it is, the 1st Addition is not paying any of the previous
storm sewer costs or anything that benefits the 2nd Addition.
Earla Kraus: ...50% plus whatever you're... Then up on the south end of Cheyenne it is, south of Cheyenne
Spur. Okay, there are several residents there that did not have ... to their storm sewer or replacement or...
Charles Folch: I think Dave will put up an overhead...
Dave Mitchell: I didn't think I'd need one at this point but I think we can clarify a couple of the questions right
to start with. These lots along Cheyenne Avenue, basically up to I believe this lot here, actually drain to the
t east and therefore are not using the storm sewer system that was installed. Therefore, and actually this was
from the point of the feasibility report, we showed a credit to those lots. Well I won't call it a credit. I'll say a
reduced assessment to those lots for the fact that for example this lot drains entirely to the street ... storm sewer
system. This lot does not. Therefore we felt that this lot should not be over burdened by the assessments when
their drainage actually is not continuing to the storm sewer system. The other situation that we've got is these
lots along Erie, and really through this entire area, and that can either drain down to Dakota or drain out to Erie
and around to Dakota from the intersection. These lots were taking into account in figuring the assessment.
What Charles is saying is the city is actually picking up these assessments until which point that this project is
done and therefore the 1st Addition is not being penalized for the storm sewer system being installed to serve
these individuals.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else? If not, can I have a motion to close the public hearing
' Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carved. The public hearing was closed.
' Mayor Chmiel: Steve, do you have any specific questions that you may have?
Councilman Berquist: I'm not certain that I have an} specific questions. I have a couple of observations. The
last overhead that you showed, and the point that Ms. Kraus made with those folks having roughly a half
assessment for the storm sewer. I mean the \vay I interpret that is when you folks went through this process,
1 17
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
one of your overriding criteria was to be as fair as you could possibly be. Would that be a, maybe I'm putting
words in your mouth but I know you don't relish coming up here and saying yep, you owe us 4 grand.
Dave Mitchell: You're very correct and I don't mind you putting those words into my mouth but that's true.
Charles and I spent many hours trying to make this as fair as possible to everyone and as equitable as possible
for everyone.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. The only other comment I've got is that when we did this on Frontier Trail I had
some real problems with it. I thought well what the heck. I've got a perfectly good road here. I don't need a
new road. I don't need a new storm sewer. It's not going to be of any benefit to me. But I think that anyone
that travels the Twin Cities area and goes into mature areas, mature neighborhoods realizes that there's a
deterioration of the infrastructure that takes place and some areas are left to deteriorate and others are, there's
preventative work done to keep other areas from deteriorating and I don't know of anyone in the room that
would prefer to live in an area where the infrastructure is deteriorated to the point where they're swerving down
the road to miss potholes on a regular basis and doing that sort of thing. So although I can commiserate with
$4,000.00 or $4,200.00 or $3,500 being put on, put against your deed. While I can commiserate with that, I can
also understand the need for a city to implement those kinds of changes. With that I'll pass.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well you've stated very well the, what we're trying to achieve and also I think
Chan Estates was getting to the point where you were swerving potholes so I know we went through a long
brouhaha with deciding whether this project, to do both phases or both neighborhoods and I don't think there
was any question that this neighborhood needed being done but beyond that, these hearings are never fun. I
think this whole project has gone a lot better. I know everyone has their individual concerns with this project
and the communication that was between the neighbors and the contractor and the city I thought went very well.
To address the interest on the assessment. I guess that's pretty much standard operating procedure, if you think
about the...cost of money that the city is putting out. If we didn't charge an interest rate, then we'd really be
subsidizing some people's assessments and I would assume that that's pretty, like I said, standard operating
procedure in most cities to recover that cost, which is roughly attributable to the interest rate that we were
charged on the bonds. So beyond the tweaking of the driveway credits, I'm pretty comfortable with the rest of
the assessment roll.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: Colleen and Steve I think said it all. Anything I'd say would just be compounding what
they said.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: Nothing additional.
Mayor Chmiel: And I think exactly what they did say covers it. It's not the easiest thing for us to sit back here
to make these assessments come out. I know and I can understand that because when I went through the same
process of where I live, we had our assessments as well and I probably wasn't very happy at the time but I did
wind up having to pay those. With these assessments, it is at 7 1/2% with 8 years respectively. You can carry
it that particular period of time. I thought maybe it might run a little bit more but 8 years is basically what it
18
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
came out with and I think it's a good time. With a few concerns that have been mentioned, and one specifically
' of Mr. Fiskness, with that amount. Was that correct in what you had said?
Dave Mitchell: I don't have Mr. Fiskness' letter right in front of me but I believe he was asking for credits of
about $155.00. $154.00.
Mayor Chmiel: No.
(There was discussion between Mr. Fiskness from the audience and Dave Mitchell regarding the amount of the
driveway credit.)
Dave Mitchell: Which gives us the credit of $155.00 compared to the $139.00 that we had, which is $16.00.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright. So with that, any other letters that you have and any concerns, is there a
motion to accept?
Councilman Berquist: I'll move acceptance of the assessments as detailed on the latest sheet that was given to
us by, is this the motion?
Mayor Chmiel: Yep.
Councilman Berquist: I recommend that we adopt the assessment roll dated, is this one dated the 15th?
Charles Folch: Date this one basically the 25th.
Councilman Berquist: Dated 25 September, 1995 for the reconstruction and storm drainage improvements
associated with the overall Chanhassen Estates 1st and 3rd Additions, Improvement Project No. 93 -10 and that
the assessment rate and term be established at 7 1/2% and 8 years respectively.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Would that also include the one adjustment that had been mentioned previously to be also
included in that motion? Would the motionee accept that and the second?
Councilman Berquist: I certainly would.
t Councilman Mason: Yes indeed.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion?
Resolution 495 -99. Councilman BeMuist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adopt the assessment roll
dated September 25, 1995, as amended by staff, for the reconstruction and storm drainage improvements
associated with the overall Chanhassen Estates 1st and 3rd Additions, Improvement Project No. 93 -10 and that
the assessment rite and term be established at 7 1/2% and 8 years respectively. All voted in favor and the
motion carved unanimously.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
' 19
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don.
Don Ashworth: I think to bring out one last point and that is, you noted that you had that assessed, and I think
that assessment was $6,000.00 or $7,000.00 back 10, higher?
Mayor Chmiel: Raise it.
Don Ashworth: And one of the reasons was that the assessment level at that point in time was like 70 % -80%
assessed. 20% to 30% is public. The same level's existed when we did the entire north service area which is
the whole Minnewashta area. Carver Beach, etc. The last few projects we've gotten into, Frontier Trail, the
Chan Estates, we've shifted that very significantly and this project I think is probably 33% assessed. 66% paid
by city. We simply cannot afford to continue at that level for projects into the future. I think that we've
reached good agreement with the neighborhood but I thought I should make them aware of the fact that, I don't
think that we'll see future assessment levels being able to stay at a subsidy level that's that high. And again I
realize $4,000.00 is a lot of money but the city is also putting a lot of money into this project so, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Okay, we'll move on to item number 3.
PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE. CHAPTER 2. ARTICLE III. URBAN /RURAL
SERVICE DISTRICT, CHANGING THE BENEFIT RATIO FROM 75% TO 90% FOR PARCELS IN THE
RURAL TO URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT.
Don Ashworth: This year I kind of inherited the administration for this particular ordinance and I recognize that
in doing that that any changes to the ordinance need to go back to the City Council. One of the changes, most
of the ordinance stays just exactly as it is as it deals with who qualifies. So if you plat, if you subdivide,
rezoning, utilities become available, etc, etc, that just automatically disqualifies you from the rural service
district. I should back up a little bit and say that the rural service district was created in 1967 as a promise
from the Council at that point in time to those folks who are living in the rural area, primarily farming, that they
would see a discounted rate associated with their taxes maybe similar to what it had been as a township and
before again the township did merge with the city. And that rural urban designation has been in effect ever
since 1967. Again the qualifications are not changed in the new aspersion. What is changed is the percent that
those properties would be taxed at and the ordinance back at least 5 years ago had called out that 75 %. Quite
truthfully, that was at a time when we were going through codification and so it's really difficult for me to tell
if, that could very well be the same ordinance copied in exactly the same fashion from 1967. Anyway, for the
last 5 years the actual rate that has been charged to parcels in the rural service area has been 90 %. So by
establishing that rate you are not really changing the taxing rate that has existed in effect for the last 5 years.
At least 5 years, if not maybe more. Again, the city attorney did recommend that this hearing be held and that
this would be the first reading of this ordinance. Second reading would occur hypothetically 2 weeks from now.
By that point in time I will have the list back from the County which will show the detailed parcels that had
been removed from this year's listing. But again that was carried out by Bob Generous and I'm sure that he
informs me that he solely followed the guidelines of the ordinance in terms of those parcels that in fact had
platted. Approval of first reading of the ordinance as attached in your packet is recommended.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing. I'd like to open that public hearing. Is there
anyone wishing to address this at this specific time? Okay, is there a motion to close the public hearing?
20
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor
and the motion carved. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Steve, do you have any questions in regard to the proposal of changing the benefit ratio?
Councilman Berquist: No. I just want one comment to Roger. Or question to Roger. Your desire to have this
done with the public, and the fact that it's been 90% for at least 5 years doesn't preclude doing, having a public
hearing on this thing?
Roger Knutson: To update your ordinance, you're required to have a public hearing.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. So we've been acting on the ordinance as if it is 90 %, although the ordinance has
said 75% for the past at least the past 5 years?
Roger Knutson: That's correct.
Don Ashworth: And I don't know, I talked to Lori at the Auditor's office. I had her go back and research and
she said that for, in her going back for the last 5 years it has been 90% every year for the last 5. I don't know
when it was changed from 75.
Councilman Berquist: That's Lori at the auditor's office?
Don Ashworth: Yes. That's correct. Auditor's office.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: (knock, knock) Huh? I read this twice. I still don't get it. I will vote for first
reading and in 2 weeks time, until our neat meeting I promise I will either have a discussion with Don or figure
' it out.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael.
Councilman Mason: No comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: Have notices been sent out to all the affected parties?
Don Ashworth: No. Again it's simply a qualification versus a non - qualification. If you brought in a plat or
otherwise changed the usage of your property, according to the ordinance, it technically becomes changed. So
no, we did not. If you would like to take and, the only problem I would have with sending out a notice would
be, the year in which Timberwood changed from Agricultural to Residential, during that year hypothetically
Colleen would have been receiving a notice saying your property previously was classified as rural. We are
now moving it to urban. Be aware that a proposed hearing is coming up and the taxes that you will have to pay
will be increased. I'm sure that she would be in saying well I don't like this. I want this lower rate. My point
there is the notices are going to be going out not to the person who had owned the farm, but to the new
' property owners who now are purchasing their lots and whatever, in all likelihood weren't anticipating being
21
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
taxed at a rural tax rate. But that's a Council decision. If you want me to do that. The letter's not going to go
out to Betty O'Shaughnessy who owned most of the stuff along Highway 5 before it was changed into the
Weather Service, etc. The notice is going to be going to the Weather Service, and to each of those new
property owners that owns Lots 1 through 10 in the Chan Business Park. And you're inviting them to come in
to discuss why they shouldn't be handled under an ordinance that's very clear that says once you become platted
you no longer qualify for that rural rate.
Councilman Senn: Well but previously it said 75 %. Now we're saying 90 %.
Mayor Chmiel: But for the last 5 years though.
Councilman Senn: I understand in practice in the last 5 years somebody has screwed up and set it out at 30 or
whatever. I don't know what the explanation is. Nobody's offered one. But I mean to me, I don't know. It
seems kind of funny. I mean we're talking about changing an ordinance. We call this a public hearing. And
what public are we notifying and what action are we taking that's affecting who and we're giving nobody notice
of it.
Councilman Mason: Well, there is notice in the paper.
Mayor Chmiel: That's exactly right.
Councilman Senn: Well, but that's not normally the way it works. If there's something directly affecting
property owners, we send a notice to the property owner.
Don Ashworth: But to the ones who continue to qualify or to the ones who have changed the qualifications.
They no longer are rural. They now are urban.
Councilman Senn: Well let's say they're urban. I mean do we oxve them a credit between 90% and 75% for the
last 5 years because we erroneously billed them? I mean geez...
Don Ashworth: I don't know how to further respond.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Yeah, and I don't think there should be a response given for that right now. It's a
question.
Councilman Senn: Well, it's a question I'd love to hear the answer to.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. But under that particular position, we have gone through the first reading and Roger,
would this be necessary to close public hearing for this respective one if we're going to keep it open for the
second reading? I don't think so.
Roger Knutson: You can...
Mayor Chmiel: Can you? You can still re -open for the public to respond? Okay.
Roger Knutson: It's been your practice if anyone shows up and wants to speak. The second reading will be on
Consent. If anyone shows up, you normally would take it off Consent and listen to whatever they have to say.
22
I City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I would think I would prefer keeping the public hearing open
Councilwoman Dockendorf: We already closed it.
Mayor Chmiel: Did we really? I move too fast. I didn't note that we close it off. Okay, we did. We've
already closed that portion of the public hearing so what we should do is to have a motion to have the first
reading approved. Is there a motion?
Councilman Senn: I'd like to move that we table it. Because I'd like to table it until we have an answer back to
MY questions and better understand whether there is or isn't a need to notify affected property owners.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Mike? Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well yeah, I mean that's kind of a circular discussion. Who do we notify? The
current property owners or the...
r Councilman Senn: Maybe the ones we've been misbilling for 5 years, I don't know Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I don't think it's going to harm anything by tabling it. I'll second his motion.
Give me some time to understand it anyway.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. There's a motion on the floor to table and a second. Any other discussion?
Councilman Berquist: Well, I'm curious as to what happens if we simply acknowledge the fact that the first
reading is over and proceed with the questions at hand to be answered? I mean why table something? What
good is it going to do us to table this thing? Does it come up, it comes up again at next Council.
Councilman Senn: It comes up again.
Councilman Berquist: The last sentence on the cover letter by Donald says, it says that the list of property
owners will be available when the second reading is considered. Hopefully it will be available a couple of days
prior to that, although I am concerned, I am curious about this 75 -90 question that you bring up.
Councilman Semi: Well then you have no time to notify people. I mean that's my concern. That's why I'd
rather leave first reading unacted on in case we have to send a notice out.
Councilman Berquist: When you speak of mailing out to individuals, everything, parliamentary procedure
dictates that it be published. That's adequate notification. Anyone that's in that district should be astute enough
to be reading the newspaper. They know they're under that kind of a classification. I mean we go about
notifying everybody of ever} little thing, nothing ever gets accomplished. I would debate the need to
individually notify them. I don't know how large this list is. How large is the list?
Don Ashworth: Bob's not here. Can you remember? I'd say 20.
Kate Aanenson: 20 to 25, if I remember right.
Don Ashworth: Computer pages with probably what, 20 to 25 names on each one?
1 23
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Councilman Berquist: 20 to 25 computer pages with 20 to 25 names on each one?
Don Ashworth: Right.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So we're talking 400.
Don Ashworth: 400 -500. That sounds high.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe in addition to that, maybe we can have the newspaper carry an article on it to make
people aware of that particular fact and to go through that process of sending.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, we talk about publishing in the newspaper but I mean come on. Well I don't know.
Maybe you understood it but I still don't understand it ... 5 word publication that's in the newspaper.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well let's put a notice in the newspaper as opposed to just general notices. You
know, buy a box.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We have a motion on the floor presently to table. All those in favor?
k Councilwoman Dockendorf: I withdraw m} second.
Mayor Chmiel: It fails. Let's go to making our first reading as a motion with having an additional ad in the
newspaper for next Council meeting.
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Mayor Chmiel: I would motion that. Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the first reading of an amendment to the City
Code, Chapter 2, Article III, Ud)an/Rural Semice District, changing the benefit ratio from 75% to 90% for
parcels in the Rural and Urban Semice District. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and
the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
AWARD OF BIDS: ICE HOCKEY /INLINE SKATING RINK IMPROVEMENTS. CHANHASSEN
RECREATION CENTER AND NORTH LOTUS LAKE PARK CITY PROJECT RA -492.
Todd Gerhardt: Thank you Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council. This item is before you tonight and
the award of bids for the ice hockey /inline skating rink improvements for the North Lotus Lake Park and Chan
Rec Center. The City Council authorized bids for this project at your September 11, 1995 meeting. With that
City Council raised two questions regarding the proposed project. I think Todd Hoffman has done a good job
of addressing those concerns. Staff has received two bids for the project. Finley Brothers Inc. with a base bid
of $128,080.00 and a bid Alternative No. 1 for the Rec Center in the bid amount of $149,295.00. A second bid
was received from Hardrives Inc. at a base bid of $147,070.00, using a bid alternative bid of $182,965.00. It is
the staffs recommendation that the City Council award City Project RA492, Ice Hockey and Inline Skating Rink
Improvements at North Lotus Lake to Finley Brothers with a base bid of $128,080.00 and award Bid Alternative
24
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
s No. I for the Chan Rec Center to Finley Brothers in the amount of $149,295.00. Money for the bid alternative
No. 1 is to be paid out of excess tax increment from the McGlynn District, which is within the authority of the
r City Council. It should also be noted that the reason that the boards were not included in the original bid
package was that staff was hoping to put the boards in with the city employees. But based on the amount of
work that the city employees have taken on this summer and this fall, they were not able to complete the project
and have it completed with the scheduled opening of the ice... With that staff makes that recommendation.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Todd. Is there any specific questions, and I'll start with you Steve.
Councilman Berquist: Well the, yeah. I know where the North Lotus is coming from. The Chan Rec Center is
coming from the McGlynn District. That was the, you researched it this afternoon and figured out that the city
was, I mean we originally figured that our employees were going to put those things up?
Todd Gerhardt: I talked to Todd and he was hoping that Dale and his crew could accomplish putting in the
boards for the Rec Center and North Lotus Lake. However, their work load has gotten...
Councilman Berquist: And North Lotus?
Todd Gerhardt: I'm pretty sure. Well for sure the Rec Center.
Councilman Berquist: Yes. Out of the $128 and the $149,000.00, how much -of that is actually material?
Ballpark. It doesn't have to be exact. _
Todd Gerhardt: The itemized bid is included in the package.
Councilman Berquist: I guess when I talk about materials, I'm not including the.
Todd Gerhardt: I can tell you what it is for the labor though.
Mayor Chmiel: Hockey board assembly, that's on.
Councilman Senn: You have $52,000.00 there on hockey board assembly. You've got $26,000.00 on lighting...
It looks like the majority of what we're acting on is materials.
Councilman Berquist: I didn't even look at that. Okay. So the $150,000.00 that's going in the Rec Center
' really isn't a surprise, as you and I, as I had thought this afternoon. Or is it?
Todd Gerhardt: It was. I mean we were hoping that city crews could accomplish the work and it just did not
fit the schedule. To think that we forgot about it or anything like that is not a true statement. There's concrete
bituminous base at the time that we presented the $70,000.00 that was included for the Rec Center. Just Todd
and I and Don could not just accept the concrete as specified by HGA. HGA would not guarantee the concrete
and we Nveren't going to spend $71,000.00 of the city's money to put in a concrete base with no guarantees that
that base was going to stay. And with that we did not recommend approval of their alternative. Thus we come
back and look at a phase here for bituminous. A big chunk of that is bituminous base so... So it shouldn't be a
surprise that Nve're back asking for the boards and bituminous base because originally you saw a concrete inline
skating base with no guarantee and staff not having the comfort level at that time recommending to you to
approve that. So Nve did not recommend approval of the concrete inline base as part of the original package.
25
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. I don't have any comments on either of the recommendations.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mike.
Councilman Mason: I'm in agreement with the recommendation also. I had a rather lengthy chat with Todd
Hoffman on the phone today and my, and he knows I'm going to be saying this so it's not like I'm shooting
barbs at Todd tonight or anything like that, but I think there were some things missing in this staff report that,
you know I wasn't aware. I had forgotten I guess that staff was going to do it and then couldn't and that's why
this is up and I think had we had some reminders like that, it would have made this a little more palatable but
we certainly, it'd be kind of a shame to have lights and a warming house and no boards. I mean yeah, I'm in
complete agreement with both of these.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: I had a lengthy talk with Todd too today and I guess I have to admit I still don't understand
The original project budget out there included the rinks and everything. The only issue that we had yet to
resolve was where we going to asphalt in or were we going to put concrete in. But you know from day one in
that project budget out there, and in that project we had the rinks and the boards and everything else in there,
okay. Now, last Council.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I make a clarification on the boards and the fact that they were considered but city staff
was going to put those in and do that themselves.
Councilman Senn: Well I understand that but we still have to buy the boards and that was in the budget. The
only issue is installation of it. I mean most of this $150,000.00 is materials, not labor. In terms of you know
what I'm seeing in your bid breakdowns at least. You know the last Council session, I mean when this came in,
you know we said here's, we need $150,000.00 to finish the job we started, kind of unanticipated. You know
I'm sorry, it seems to me that something's wrong there because it was anticipated in the first place. We were
always going to have rinks out there with boards and stuff in them from day one. Nov are we $150,000.00
short and we're trying to figure out how to come up with it? What did we spend the $150 on? I'm just, I'm
going to go back and renew this same request I made at last Council meeting and over a month and a half ago.
I mean I'd really like to see a breakdown on this project in terms of the project budget. What's been spent and
what hasn't been spent. What's been spent out of the $100,000.00 contingency that we had and exactly where
we sit. You know now it's being termed as excess tax increment money out of the McGlynn District. Outside
of this budget totally so now effectively but it's actually we're raising this project budget $150,000.00 over what
we originally approved. And still don't have a good explanation of why so I don't know. I'm still very
confused.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I've had discussions with both Todds and sat down to discuss this also with Don. I also
received a call, and I'm in agreement with where they're coming from right now. I also received a call from the
Chaska Hockey Association who would also utilize this facility and it's also been extended to the Minnetonka
Hockey Association for utilization of that rink as well. So we have adjacent cities who would also use it as
well so they're not going to hopefully be standing there open for anything other than playing some good hockey.
There's a lot of community driven portion too that wants and would like to see this in and I think I'm in
26
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
agreement with them on that particular part of it too. So with that I would call a question in regard to this and I
would like to have it a motion in regard to the recommendation as shown in the staff report. Is there a motion?
Councilman Mason: Yes. I would move approval of City Project RA -492, Ice Hockey/Inline Skating Rink
Improvements, North Lotus Lake to Finley Brothers, base bid in the amount of $128,080.00. Also make a
motion to approve award of bid Alternate No. 1, Chanhassen Rec Center to Finley Brothers Inc. in the amount
of $149,295.00.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would second it. I'd just like to add that I don't want to get lost in the fact that
we have requested a summary of the change orders that have gone on out there.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm glad you mentioned that because... Okay. Moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn: You know I'm just, I mean I don't think any of us disagree that the project needs to go
ahead. You know and again, it's not an issue really of whether it goes ahead. We already approved a long time
ago that we were going to put the rinks out there and stuff. I don't think any of us have a problem with
awarding the bids. The bids are set but I still don't think we have an answer to the question that we asked last
time and a month and a half ago in terms of the financing and where it's paid for and how it should be paid for.
And I don't see how we can make a conscious decision on that element of it tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: Well I don't know if I agree fully with what you're saying. I think that staff has specifically
indicated as to where those dollars are going to come from and it is within the purview of the Council to move
ahead on that McGlynn District. And I guess I just see that as being so with that I'll call the question.
Resolution 095 -100: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to award the bid for City
Project RA -492, Ice Hockey and Inline Skating Rink Improvements, North Lotus Lake to Finley Brothers, Inc.
with a base bid in the amount of 5128,080.00. Also awarding the bids for Bid Alternative No. 1, Chanhassen
Recreation Center to Finley Brothers, Inc. in the amount of 5149,295.00. All voted in favor, except Councilman
Senn who opposed, and the motion carved with a vote of 4 to 1.
Councilman Berquist: I do want to concur with what Mark said. Every so often it comes up where we're
asking for details on these, and even at the last Council meeting I was not here but in reading the Minutes that
this was all discussed and again it was brought out and the Council ... and nothing's forth coming.
Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, if I could take that one. I have asked from the architect. I have asked from the
construction manager for the project. All the change orders to date and as Todd specified in his memo to the
Council that we are waiting for the information back from them. When we get that we will present it to the
City Council. John Gockel is preparing a summary of items to conclude the project and it hasn't been
completed and we're not privy to all the change orders that the School District made in the past 3 months and
we're awaiting that. So until we get that from him ... twice with him and twice with the architects.
Councilman Berquist: So all the change orders that are relative to the community center must be recapped by
him? They cannot be recapped by you?
27
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Todd Gerhardt: The detailed information of specific dollar amounts are under the control of the architect and
the construction manager. It's one of the frustrations with the project as being a second party to the contractor.
They don't share all the detailed information: We ask and continue to ask.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's move to unfinished business.
ANNUAL REVIEW OF LAKE ANN PARK PARKING PERMITS. SECTION 14 -59 OF CITY CODE.
Mayor Chmiel: I think there was discussion at the last specific meeting and you weren't at the last meeting and
I'm sure you've had.
Councilman Berquist: Believe me I was thinking of you.
Mayor Chmiel: I bet you were. Driving back. But with the review that you've had with it. Rather than go
through the whole combined discussion, do you have any specific questions?
Councilman Berquist: Well I have some specific comments. I wish Todd were here. What I'd like to do, rather
than simply approve what we have done in the past, which is I think what would happen if I had to make a
motion right now, it would be a 3 to 2 vote. I would really like to challenge the Park and Rec Commission to
come up with some other method by which to collect fees that's more equitable and more easily managed.
There's got to be a way besides just saying well we're going to do this or we're not going do this. That
seems kind of bogus to me. We need to have user fees for areas or for services that are provided within the city
and I believe that Lake Ann is a premiere park and that there should be user fees attached to it. If in fact the
majority of the user fees can be garnered from non - residents, baseball teams, softball teams, that sort of thing,
and we can conceivable do away with resident fees, great. On the other hand, if the revenue stream cannot be
maintained by doing that, then I'm in favor of leaving it in a similar fashion but I believe that there's another
method by which to charge the, to make the revenue stream come out. And I just don't think the Park and Rec
Commission has given it any thought. They haven't been charged with giving it any thought and I would
charge them with trying.
Councilman Mason: Make a motion.
Mayor Chmiel: Why don't you do that.
Councilman Berquist: I will move to ask the Park and Rec Commission to give it some thought and come back
to us within a 60 day time period with a equitable resident /non- resident method of raising revenues from Lake
Ann and /or the rest of the parks within the community.
Councilman Mason: It's a good motion. I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: There's a motion on the floor with a second. Any discussion? And I think I agree with that
part of it because of the fact, as I mentioned the last time. The amount of dollars that are available, or will be
available in the years to come will be pulled away from it as we continually go through. Each community that I
see, just alone in having swimming pools and swimming beaches, are being charged. Just to go in and go
swimming. Maintenance for the upkeep of that beach as well as lifeguards and everything else as well. So I
guess that's one of my reasons for more or less sticking to looking at a way of deriving those funds. Once those
funds are gone, they're gone. No way you're going to pick it up and I think it's a good motion that you made.
28
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
s Councilwoman Dockendorf: Could I make one comment? Just to give some direction to the Park and Rec
Commission. My issue with the fees at all is the annoyance of pulling up to the gate and not realizing that
t there is a fee. So if we can do away with the expense of the gate attendant. Do away with that unexpectedness
of the fee, somehow maybe get those revenues with user fees. Maybe just through the teams utilizing the fields.
I think we're spending too much money on the gate attendant and creating an annoyance at the same time that
it's not work it. So I guess the charge is to find out a different method of collecting those fees.
Councilman Berquist: To that issue, the gate attendant provides some small modicum of security and the
security issue is going to do nothing but escalate and the costs associated with that are going to do nothing but
escalate so you've got to maintain some presence.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, you've got a 16 year old kid out there at the gate who is so far removed
from what's going on further in the park, a modicum of security is exactly what it is.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, I've even seen that happen Colleen where people will come up to the gate attendant and
told them a given problem. All he does is use the phone and dial 911 and we have our officer there to take
care of the situation.
Councilman Mason: Well I think a couple of issues have been raised. I mean we do, and we talked about it
two weeks ago. I think we need to look at the security angle and I think Steve raises some very good points as
well.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There's a motion on the floor with a second.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to direct the Paric and Recreation Commission to
review the Lake Ann Parit paridng permit fees within a 60 day time period looldng for an equitable
msident /non - resident method of raising revenues from Lake Ann and/or the rest of the paths within the
community. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
' PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.22 ACRE PARCEL INTO 4 LOTS, 6660 POWERS.
BOULEVARD. GOLDEN GLOW ACRES, JAMES RAVIS..
Public Present:
Name Address
James Ravis 6660 Powers Boulevard
Jeremy Steiner Suite 400 Norwest, Minneapolis
Russ Kohman 6730 Powers Boulevard
Bill Infanger 6740 Powers Boulevard
Larry Kerber 6420 Powers Boulevard
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. The site is located west of Powers Boulevard,
approximately 500 feet south of the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Powers Boulevard. The applicant is
proposing to subdivide 2.2 acres into 4 single family lots. The property is zoned Residential Single Family.
The average lot size is 23,304 square feet with a resulting net density of 1.87 units per acre. Access to the
subdivision is proposed to be provided via a private street which will serve all four lots. One of the main issues
1 29
t
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
of concern is access to the site. Back in September of '91 in conjunction with the Lundgren Brothers
Development of Willow Ridge, which lies directly to the west of this site, access and utility service to the site
was explored. Utilities were extended to the west line of the subject property. However, the extension of a cul-
de -sac was a different issue. A different matter. A cul -de -sac from Lundgren's Willow Ridge would have
involved losing a lot of trees and by the time the cul -de -sac was extended to the Ravis property, there was very
little property left to be developed. Staff has recently explored different options to see how this property could
be developed as well as the surrounding parcels. By surrounding parcels we're looking at the 7 parcels located
within this block. As mentioned, staff recently explored alternatives to look at how this area could possibly
develop. Five alternatives were prepared. Staff met with the residents regarding the alternative development
proposal on March 9th of '95. The general consensus was that there wasn't one alternative that could be
completed agreed upon by all affected parcels. Staff recommended that Option E as a viable option in
developing the neighborhood, including the Ravis parcel and basically this option would construct a public
right -of -way that would serve the Ravis property as well as the properties within the block. Some of the parcels
will have to gain access via a private drive, such as the Murphy's parcel off of Lake Lucy Road and a portion of
the Kerber parcel again off of Lake Lucy Road. This alternative provides the most flexibility for the other
adjacent parcels to subdivide as well. The private driveway proposal as submitted by Mr. Ravis limits access to
only the Ravis parcel and no future access to adjoining parcels. Staff believes that this area can and should be
developed under a different alternative which includes a public street. Therefore at this time staff is
recommending that the subdivision proposal be denied due to premature street access to development. Should
the City Council decide to approve this application as submitted by Mr. Ravis, we have a set of conditions that
we have prepared for you and we would recommend that you would adopt those recommendations. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. Council have any questions of Sharmin at this time?
Councilman Senn: I have one. How was E settled on versus effectively A which takes all of the traffic via a
public street up to Lake Lucy Road, which seems like more the way it should be?
Dave Hempel: Councilmember Senn, maybe I can address that one since I put together the five alternatives.
Option A before you has the street centered... center of the parcel to service all of the adjacent properties. What
that alignment did was eliminate the stand of oak trees at the center, or the middle of the property against the
low lying Nvet area... probably more devastating to the property...
Councilman Senn: And B and C the same answer?
Dave Hempel: Very similar, yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay?
Councilman Senn: So your conclusion is that most of these properties have to be served off of Powers?
Dave Hempel: The majority of the properties should be serviced off of Powers, that's correct.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is the applicant here this evening?
Jeremy Steiner: Yes Mr. Mayor. I'm the applicant's attorney.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Would you like to address.
01
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Jeremy Steiner: Mr. Ravis is here tonight as well. My name is Jerry Steiner. I'm Mr. Ravis' attorney. I guess
before speaking to the merits of the plat I'd like to address a point that came up with staff today. Since the
Planning Commission recommended denial in March, we've had extensive discussions with staff in an attempt to
resolve the staff and Planning Commission's concerns with the preliminary plat. ...that are outlined in the staff
report. I should say that Mr. Ravis has basically agreed to accept all but one of the conditions in the staff
report. We have gotten hung up on that last condition and have been unable to resolve that with staff. We've
been working on that as recently as last week, which was last Thursday. Last Thursday we received the most
recent copy of the staff report and that issue is still unresolved. We feel we really haven't had sufficient time to
continue to explore a possible resolution with staff. We were prepared to proceed and then this morning Mr.
Ravis did have some discussions with Councilmember Senn about the preliminary plat and about the final
unresolved issue and Councilmember Senn felt that there'd be some merit in setting up one more meeting with
staff with the Councilmember in an attempt to facilitate matters. We are more than willing to accommodate that
request at any time any member of the Council and staff is willing to meet with us. We're certainly willing to
talk about trying to resolve that final issue. I in fact contacted staff to request a postponement of tonight's
meeting and was initially told that we could continue the matter to the November 13th Council hearing. I was
contacted later in the day by staff and was told that Dave Hempel, he had spoken with yourself Mr. Mayor and
the City Manager and that they didn't want to grant the postponement until November. So I guess I'd like to
deal with the issue of postponement first before getting to the merits. I will acknowledge that we are pretty
much at loggerhead with staff on the final issue which involves the proposed cul- de- sac... provide access to some
of the surrounding parcels but it's certainly conceivable that issue will get resolved with further discussion. I
know that Mr. Ravis and myself, just as much as Council, would prefer to have these matters negotiated and
something... with staff worked out outside of the public hearing. We're certainly willing to give it another effort.
That's up to the Council whether or not we'll be given the opportunity to do so ... whether it's appropriate to
continue the matter...
Mayor Chmiel: Good. My reasoning for that is that to just have one individual Council member indicate that
this be tabled, should come before the entirety of the Council for the entirety of the Council to come up with a
decision. And if that's the choosing this evening, I have no objections to it.
' Jeremy Steiner: We certainly don't have a problem with that process. We're put in an awkward position of
telling one Councilmember no, we don't want to go...
Mayor Chmiel: I understand.
Jeremy Steiner: You know. We just want to have...
Mayor Chmiel: I just want to put a clarifier on why I took the position that I did. Is there any specific
questions that any Councilmembers may have of the applicant? Steve. In regards to maybe that one issue or.
Councilman Berquist: I just want a clarification on this deal here. The meeting with, did you advocate that
they table it? I mean you didn't say we're going to table it. You said call...
Councilman Senn: No, Mr. Ravis called me and told me he was uncomfortable with proceeding on it at this
point so I suggested that he withdraw the item and stuff and do that because, okay. That's basically what that
was.
1 31
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
James Ravis: We worked very hard with staff to try to resolve... Councilmember Senn advised me that this is
not the place to negotiate. So we've been trying to ... continue the process so we can bring something to Council
something that everybody can agree to.
Jeremy Steiner: I should say, we really have made a good deal of progress. There's is one difficult issue which
still needs to be resolved...
James Ravis: Which given, you know what happens in the Council meetings, I think that was a good
recommendation on the Councilmember's part.
Councilman Berquist: Well I think an important point is that it's perfectly within your rights to, I think, to call
and ask that something be pulled from an agenda.
James Ravis: And we did that.
Councilman Berquist: And I understand you did and I'm not certain at what point the decision was made that
that request not be honored.
Don Ashworth: If I can respond to that. I wouldn't have had a problem deleting the item had we been
informed that they wanted that deleted before it was advertised. One of the concerns that I had was, is how
many people from the public are we going to have coming into this meeting who may want to take and provide
some testimony on this item because it was published and people were told that it would occur this evening.
And that was the primary reason that I stated that they should be making their request at this meeting. The
entire Council makes a decision to table or not table. You make a decision. Do you want to have those people
who have come in to potentially testify on this item. Do you want to allow them to speak this evening or are
you just going to tell them to go away?
James Ravis: You know we've been trying to work this issue for several months. The problem is that until it's
down in writing, we can't tell what, where everybody's at. And we can talk a lot and until it's in writing, we
don't know where everybody's at. I just received the last staff report on Thursday. I travel a lot. It takes a lot
of time to get a hold of people. People aren't available so I just barely talked to Councilman Senn at 4:00 as he
was going out the door. I was not able to get with Jerry until this morning and I was out of town until 4:00
today. It makes it pretty difficult to try to arrive at a solution when you get the information at the last hour and
that's why we asked for a postponement.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. What I'd like to do this evening is if there are some residents in and adjacent. Michael
Councilman Mason: Maybe if I'm seeing this wrong. I have a concern here and it doesn't deal with what's
going on here at all but I'm hearing that one council person suggested tabling something, which certainly is fine
but then I read on the staff report on page 11 and 12, and I quote. Staff met with Mr. Ravis and
Councilmember Senn on Friday, August 18, 1995 to further discuss concerns Mr. Ravis had with staffs
conditions of approval. Councilmember Senn directed staff to consult with the City Attorney on ways in which
the Ravis' could be reimbursed for construction of a private driveway if the adjacent parcels request to subdivide
and propose to use the private driveway. I read this, and I hear this and I'm not sure, I quite honestly have lost
a handle on what's going on here. These kinds of things, I personally don't think should be recommended by
one Council person without everyone having a chance to discuss it. And I'm certainly am not holding, you
know that, do you understand?
32
I City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
I
James Ravis: I can understand...
Jeremy Steiner: We can certainly direct staff to notify all members of Council if there are going to be any
future meetings on this item. In fact like I said, we're happy to...
Councilman Mason: Right. No, I understand that. I'm just concerned about what I see is happening outside of
Council chambers that I don't think is appropriate.
Councilman Berquist: Well I disagree...
Councilman Senn: Well I guess I don't really view it as...
Mayor Chmiel: Hold it. Hold it. Let me just cut this off right now. I think whether it's right or wrong or not,
let's get on with what we're looking at right now. We have people here who may want to discuss as to what the
proposed project is and I'd like to at least get their opinions from them as to what their feelings might be. So
with that I would like to ask anyone who is here this evening who.
James Ravis: If we're not going to get the proposed postponement.
1 Mayor Chmiel: We could possibly do it right afterwards too. Postpone it to carry it over. But I'd like to get the
input.
Jeremy Steiner: ...to address the merits of the preliminary plat. If Council's going to proceed to take action on
it.
James Ravis: Right. If we're going to proceed to take action, we want the opportunity to present the merits of
the case.
Mayor Chmiel: Certainly.
Councilman Senn: Well, I want to get one thing straight. When you called me you said you want to withdraw
this item. It has nothing to do with the tabling action tonight. Do you wish to withdraw this item from
consideration tonight?
James Ravis: Yes. I asked for a postponement.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So I don't know what the issue is over tabling one way or the other.
James Ravis: I requested the postponement because you know, what Councilman Senn said to me was, do not
try to negotiate in the Council meeting. That's not the right place to do it. The right place to do it is with the
staff out of the Council meeting and that was his recommendation. I think that was a valid one and I asked to
have it postponed because of that.
Mayor Chmiel: Well do not negotiate, that's something in itself but I think Council has the final word over staff
so that may not be true. But what I'd like to do is ask those people to come forward and if there's anyone who
has any real concerns regarding this project, please come up and state your name and your address and the
concerns that you have.
33
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Russ Kohman: My name is Russ Kohman. I live at 6730 Powers Boulevard and I've got the adjoining property
to his property. And the pine trees that, well one of the reasons why I bought the land was the big pine trees
they've got up there. And if you put your road in there, these pine trees are going to come down. He's worried
about a weeping willow that's on my property. I take 3 cuts with my lawn mower and that's a 32 inch cut lawn
mower because it even hits the tree. And pine trees, I can't even go around without going on his land and I'll
lose those pine trees if you put the road in because it's going to be well within a 5 foot lot line that he'll be
cutting in with the bank. And that's one of the reasons why I bought the land. I don't plan on selling it ... I've
got no inkling of selling it ... and somebody's left my telephone number to somebody and they called Friday
night. And it's a private number. Not even listed and somehow they got it. Now I've had telephone calls from
other people, other things and they say it's through your voting deal that they've gotten the number. It's an
unlisted number and just because I come to these voting deals and put my number down, doesn't mean it's right
to have it be given out to just anybody.
Councilman Mason: Who called you Russ?
Russ Kohman: Some neighbor. I don't know who it was. He called about my dog barking at night and my
dog was in the house that night. My dog was in the house Friday night. It's a neighbor back down that's got a
kennel in the back of his place. I don't know what his name is. I don't like getting telephone calls in the
middle of the night. Especially when you've got to get up at 4:00 in the morning.
Councilman Berquist: So in terms of the proposal to develop the land behind you.
Russ Kohman: I don't like that corner lot. I never wanted a corner lot to begin with and he cuts into the partial
and wants to put part of the road in, it's going to kill all the trees. And these trees are up there 60 feet in the
air. It's going to cost him a lot because I don't want to take them down. I didn't want him to take them down
to begin with.
Councilman Berquist: They're on his property are they?
Russ Kohman: They're on my property.
Councilman Berquist: They're on your property? Okay.
Russ Kohman: But they're well within 5 feet. That's it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Russ. Is there anyone else?
Bill Infanger: I'm Bill Infanger from 6740 Powers. I've written to Council on this issue... My concern is not so
much Mr. Ravis' development. If Mr. Ravis wants to develop, that's fine. I'm concerned that I won't be able to
do the same thing in the future. And I am very much interested myself in pursuing development in the future or
in selling the property. But I can't do that under the proposal as I understand it. And that is my main... I really
would like to work out a compromise if the compromise includes provisions so that we have access to the
development without incurring enormous expense. And that's really my principle objection. I understand that,
or my understanding is that, as has been suggested, that I have... development. Thank you.
Councilman Berquist: Question. Have you and Mr. Ravis ever spoken about this?
34
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
BillInfanger: No.
Councilman Berquist: Never been discussed? Does Option E, as prepared by the city, address. And you
haven't either? You've never spoken with the gentleman? Does Option E as presented by the City provide your
back lot with some access that's developable?
Bill Infanger: I think that if a compromise can be worked out, if there's going to be some discussions with the
city regarding a compromise, I'd like to be part of those discussions because I am interested in working out an
amicable settlement. I don't want to win. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Anyone else?
Larry Kerber: My name is Larry Kerber. I own the parcel at 6600 Powers. I guess my first question, are we
here to decide, is this going to be decided tonight or is this going to be tabled? Are we just taking comments
now? I lost track to be very honest.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm asking to get comments from the residents that are here this evening because.
1 Larry Kerber: Okay. So it may or may not be decided tonight?
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Larry Kerber: Okay. The problem I have with this, you notice where the road goes in. Anything concerned
with this road bothers me. I have no problem with him developing with a private driveway. That's fine. Keep
his development on his side of the property. That's where it belongs. But where they're proposing that road, if
you'll notice, 90% of that road is on my property. That takes out over a half acre of my land to benefit two
neighbors behind me and Ravis to the south. With that road approximately 180 trees are going with mine to
save 18 of his. If the trees are an issue, it multiples 100 times when you put the road on my property. Like I
said, I have no problem with him developing. It's just his development, I've got to back up a bit. I guess when
' Sharmin spoke, she talked about conditions and I'd like to know what those conditions are if it's passed with a
private driveway because I think some of those are going to affect me. Are we going to get the conditions here
tonight or?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Mayor? I did give you a copy of the staff report. I left it outside for you two weeks ago.
Larry Kerber: Okay, but the condition numbers have changed since then?
Sharmin AI -Jaff: There are two conditions that have been added to that staff report and I will share it with you
later. After you're done speaking.
Larry Kerber: How do I know what they are right now? I think the biggest condition, correct me if I'm wrong.
You wanted, you were asking if it passed with a private driveway, you were asking for a future turn around like
right -of -way on his lots coming from my property. So that part really bothers me. If he needs a road in that
property, let's do it right now. Don't put part of his development costs on me later, which will cause me to turn
my whole parcel around and lose all the trees. If a road is merited, let's take it right now. He's the developer.
Step up, takes his cost. That's part of developing. This parcel was never the size it was. It's been added to
r over the years. What'd you start with Jim, an acre? Acre and a half? And then bought out the back of the
1 35
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
neighbors. It just sounds like to me he created his problem. I'm willing to work with him but I just don't want
to take a lot of money out of my pocket to solve problems that he created. But I think that's all. Not knowing
what the conditions are, the other conditions on there. My big concern is that future turn around which has got
a big effect on me. What that will do to my property. It's now all taking Powers Boulevard but the road will
turn those four lots around and the existing house. The existing house will then have to be revamped to take
the new street. Either that or... It will mean tearing down the existing garage also. If any buildings have to be
torn down for a road, let then Mr. Ravis do it. He's the developer. Not me.
Councilman Berquist: Correct me if I'm wrong. In looking at the Options A through E and looking at how
they impact Ravis' land and your land. It would appear to me that your maximum return is going to come from
utilizing Option E. Have you analyzed it like that?
Larry Kerber: I've never analyzed it because I am not in favor of it. I don't, my property was set up. I have
existing sewer and water assessments. I paid my assessments. I have 7 stubs. I paid by road assessments. I
never planned on putting a road in. My property was set up with the stubs to be developed to Powers
Boulevard and now with the reassessment of Lake Lucy, with another driveway on Lake Lucy Road. I have no
interest in a road.
Councilman Berquist: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Larry, what's the total lots as it shows on Option E? Are your specific lots. Sharmin could
you just show that entirely?
Larry Kerber: It would be Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
Mayor Chmiel: Got it. She just drew a line around it.
Larry Kerber: Oh, I'm sorry. Those would be my lots and we've got some preliminary. Dave ran some costs
on the road. Preliminary costs but his costs are only requesting doing a road with usable base the way it is.
Right now there's probably 200 feet of that road. ...there's no material on site available to re -base that road. It
would all have to be tracked in. It would turn all the drainage around on five of the lots. The lots, instead of
walkouts would now become tuck under or daylight front situations. Reversing the drainage from Powers
Boulevard back now would go around the back of the house to the front. It just, it does not accommodate the
lay of my land now grade wise. My whole property would have to be regraded. Not only the road part. And
the biggest concern I have is all the trees it would take out. It will virtually eliminate two- thirds of the trees on
that property.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks.
Larry Kerber: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Okay, I'll bring it back to Council. I think what we could look for is a couple
things. One, let the neighbors also meet with Mr. Ravis to maybe try to come up with a conclusion and meet
also with staff and more or less take it from there because it looks like there's some properties in addition to
that, if it were to go through the way that the proposal Mr. Ravis would be land locking some of those people
and I think that's a concern staff is looking at. So with that, Steve.
36
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Councilman Berquist: I'm going to move to table.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I've got a motion first on the floor with a table as he brought out. Is there a second?
Councilman Senn: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Discussion. Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: We can certainly table it. I'm not sure that when we go into further negotiations
that my decision will not be that this is very premature. It seems to me that, I mean it's a tough issue because
you've got lots of land owners here. But it doesn't seem to me that, it seems like all of the neighbors have been
working through the city or working with each other indirectly and there are lots of opposing interests here and
I think it would benefit everyone to have a joint meeting about it. Although even then I'm not certain that it
would be resolved because you all have different interests. I guess I have nothing more to say about it.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mike.
Councilman Mason: Tabling sounds like a good idea.
i Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: I want to understand one thing from staff, okay. As far as what Mr. Ravis is proposing, as
' it relates to the private driveway, that scenario as it looks like here pretty much satisfies most of the concerns
we've heard from the neighbors. It does not eat up Mr. Kerber's land. In fact it doesn't impact Mr. Kerber's
land at all.
i Kate Aanenson: Except that Mr. Kerber's intent is to have direct facing lots onto Powers Boulevard, which is
an unacceptable situation with the County so we're trying to improve his situation.
' Councilman Senn: No, no but I'm saying. That has to do with when Mr. Kerber's lot develops.
Kate Aanenson: But it's our job to look at the future and to say how can this property be developed. We don't
want to tie Mr. Kerber's hands in the future of not being able to get access onto Powers so we have to look
ahead and say which is the best way. And that's why we're here because we're kind of at an impasse. We have
a lot of competing interests here and we're trying to have you help us give direction as to which way we should
' go.
Councilman Senn: But you have to negotiate that out with Mr. Kerber at the point that he wants to develop his
' property.
Kate Aanenson: We've tried. We've had a series and series of meetings and that's why we asked that it come
before you and you help us give some direction. This has been going on for quite a while and we're kind of at
an impasse and we're kind of looking for you to give us some more direction, which way you're leaning on this.
Councilman Senn: Okay. But as far as Mr. Ravis's proposal goes, okay. It does not impact Mr. Kerber's
property. I'm just talking about the private driveway now. That's all I'm talking about.
1 37
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Kate Aanenson: What do you mean impact?
Councilman Senn: Well he's not, Mr. Kerber was concerned, he got up and said that the private driveway was
fine with him. His problem is with the road and the amount of his land that the road eats up. Okay? And the
neighbor to the south got up and said we just want access off of that private driveway if we develop our
property or do whatever and he's got in his private driveway, he's got the cul -de -sac or whatever in there to do
that so those properties can access.
Kate Aanenson: No. That's not a true statement.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So that's not in there?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's what Option E allows.
Councilman Senn: Well Option E has to do with the roads. We don't have a picture here of what Mr.
Kate Aanenson: Infanger's.
Councilman Senn: We do not have a picture here of what you had up on the overhead.
Dave Hempel: Councilmember Senn. The difficulty staff had with the Ravis proposal xvas it limits future
subdivision of the Kohman and Infanger parcels due to the city ordinance allows 4 homes on a private
driveway.
Councilman Senn: So it creates a variance situation? For the private driveway.
Dave Hempel: True.
Councilman Senn: By giving them access.
Jeremy Steiner: Mayor Chmiel, there's one point I should make that's a critical piece of information. It's very
apparent that Mr. Ravis is simply caught in the middle between competing interests, literally and figuratively.
Mr. Kohman and Mr. Infanger are his neighbors to the south. Mr. Kerber's his neighbor to the north. They'd
like to see this develop in very different ways. What Mr. Ravis is prepared to do, and what we have indicated
he would agree to do, is dedicate the 60 foot cul -de -sac laid out about where it's shown on here. That would be
the terminus of the road coming down from the north. If Mr. Kerber's property developed according to Option
E, he would simply dedicate that with his plat. He wouldn't put in the street improvements now. It would just
be there if that's the way it develops'in the future. That touches Mr. Kohman's property, I believe it is on the
north side so if he needs access to get out to the north to Powers Boulevard... that would be available to that
public street. We're not saying that we want to put it in that way. In fact Mr. Ravis would prefer to do it as
proposed with just a private driveway and no cul -de -sac dedication. He's prepared to dedicate the cul -de -sac and
then it's up to his neighbors to sort out what happens in the future. He's agreed to a compromise that will
address both of their interests. The problem is, and the thing we're trying to get resolved with staff is the fact
that that will then, if that street goes in in the future, resolve these four lots that Mr. Ravis is developing and
paying for the street and other improvements twice. We're trying to work out a compromise. So I feel we
should point out that we have offered to do something that does strike a balance between these competing
38
' City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
interests and what happens in the future is up to the neighbors but. That could be next year. It could be 20
years. It could be never. Nobody can predict the future and we certainly have some very ... interests here.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
' Roger Knutson: Mayor, just to respond.
Larry Kerber: Can I respond to that?
' Mayor Chmiel: Just a second. I have the attorney.
Roger Knutson: What we've been talking about, just to bring the council up to date is, normally when you
have a development contract you have, say if you're going to build that, you waive all your rights to object to
the assessments. We've said that this time was a compromise, we wouldn't require that. We would just special
assess the project and if you benefit you benefit. You pay. If you don't, you don't.
James Ravis: Well it strikes me we're doing the thing we were trying to avoid which is negotiating something
at the Council meeting...
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Kate Aanenson: We just uncomfortable at staff that that wasn't our obligation to waive that. We felt that was
' the prerogative of the Council to do that and that's why we were uncomfortable doing it. We that's a
decision that should be made at the Council level. We're not going to vary from that and that's something that
the legislative body should make a decision.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright, we do have that motion on the floor with a second to table. And I would like
to call that question. Is there a time limitation on this yet?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it was tonight so.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. But they were willing to withdraw from that portion of it.
Kate Aanenson: Give us a line of extension, sure.
' Jeremy Steiner: November 13th I believe is...
Councilman Mason: If I could. You know I think one thing we're also looking at here is I understand that
there are essentially competing interests here and of course one group wants to do what's best for them. Would
compromise or whatever. Another group wants to do what's best and another group wants to do what's best.
But city staff is charged with doing what's best for the public and what's best for the city of Chanhassen and I'm
kind of getting the feeling that there in lies the rub here because I understand what might be best for one group,
is not best for the other but the city has to come up with the plan that while as it may not benefit everybody
100 %, it has to be something that the city can live with. And if I'm not, that's what I see with the issue of the
private drives and some of the other issues here. So I hope, well we just have to keep that in mind.
1 39
l
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think if the applicant is making the motion of withdrawing, do we even have to table
Roger?
Roger Knutson: Yes. They're not withdrawing their application. Any applicant has the right to withdraw their
application. That means there's nothing for you to act upon. What they're really requesting is not to withdraw
but table. Postponement of your decision.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Motion's on the floor.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table the preliminary plat to subdivide a 2.22 acre
parcel into 4 lots for Golden Glow Acres until November 13, 1995 City Council meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously.
Larry Kerber: I have a question. What's going to change between now and then?
Mayor Chmiel: We don't know Larry. If I knew, I wish I could tell you.
Roger Knutson: If they knew that, they wouldn't need to table it.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 4.600 SOUARE FOOT CAR WASH BUILDING. LOCATED SOUTH OF
HIGHWAY 5 ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LAKE DRIVE EAST. AMCON CORPORATION.
Sharmin Al -Taff: The applicant is proposing to construct a car wash facility. The site is located between Lake
Drive East and Highway 5. The area of the car wash building is 4,600 square feet. The site is located in a
highway business district and has access from Lake Drive East via a private driveway. The building will be
constructed of decorative structural brick accented by a natural rock face concrete that will have one service bay
and a pitched roof with dormers. And these are samples of the materials that will be used on the building, as
well as a rendering. All services for the facility will take place inside the building with the exception of
vacuuming the inside of the vehicles and staging area for the customers who wish to dry their cars. Parking for
vehicles is located on the south side of the structure away from Highway 5. Stacking lanes will be screened by
landscaping from views off of Lake Drive East and residences south of Lake Drive. It's a very simple site plan
application. Staff is recommending approval with conditions outlined in the report. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. Is the applicant here this evening? Would you like to come forward and
please state your name and your address and who you're representing.
Dale: Mr. Mayor and Council members. I'm Dale ... from Amcon Corporation. I'm the project manager... want to
say that we've worked closely with staff to try and propose what was a nice project and compatible with the
neighbors...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Thank you. Do you have an} problems with any of the conditions that are
contained within the staff report?
Dale: No I don't. We were at the Planning Commission 2 weeks ago and we're willing to comply with all of
the recommendations.
40
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Is there anyone liking to address this at this time? If not, we'll move back
to Council. Steve. Do you have any?
Councilman Berquist: No sir, I do not.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: All the poplars are going? You have to take out all of those poplar trees?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Yes.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. But we're replacing them with much better quality, etc.?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Yes.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do we know what the hours will be? Will we be ... or anything like that?
Dan Smith: I can answer that.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come forward to the microphone please. We can't pick that up.
Dan Smith: My name is Dan Smith. I'm ... 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and that's about what...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: 7 days a week?
Dan Smith: No. That's Monday through Friday. Saturday it would be 8:00 to 5:00 and on Sunday, 10:00 to
4:00.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike.
Councilman Mason: Planning Commission approved it unanimously. Nobody from the neighborhood
complained. Staff thinks it's good. I'm certainly not going to throw a wrench into it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark.
Councilman Senn: How do those hours compare to the hours we approved for the other ones? Weren't there
hours attached to?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, they were conditional uses so we did restrict the hours. This is a permitted use.
41
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Councilman Senn: I understand but I'm just saying, how do they compare? Because we restricted those but this
is closer to the neighborhood than those are so how does it compare to the deal we struck with the
neighborhood on the hours?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: I believe they are very comparable. Emission Control Station has Monday off but more
extended hours. I don't recall Abra and Goodyear's hours.
Councilman Senn: Well I guess my only point is, that's kind of the deal we struck with the neighborhood at the
time. Shouldn't we stick a condition in keeping the hours the same as the ones we took with the neighborhood
on the other two buildings? Just to be consistent.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But is that our purview given this is a permitted use?
Councilman Senn: I don't know. That's why I'm asking. I don't know. I'm asking.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess that's our position was that this was a permitted use and as a conditional
use to mitigate the impact, we did restrict the hours. I guess Roger stepped out of the room.
Councilman Senn: I understand. I'm just a little uncomfortable with it because we went through that whole
ballyhoo with the neighborhood and that's their understanding that these are the hours.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Any other questions?
Councilman Senn: Let's see here. In the write up you reference no outside storage of vehicles but it's not
included as a condition. I'd like that added as a condition since it was mentioned in the write up that it was
supposed to be a condition. And let's see.
Councilman Berquist: I've got one while you're looking. What's your normal staffing? How many people will
you have on site?
Dan Smith: 10 to 15 people.
Dale: No.
Dan Smith: As far as employees you mean?
Councilman Berquist: Yes. At any given time.
Dan Smith: It ranges from summer to winter because of the dramatic increase in business in the winter and that
would be reduced quite a bit so ... 7 people. It just depends on the business.
Councilman Berquist: Peak periods will be 10 to 15?
Dan Smith: Not even that many...
Councilman Berquist: Okay, thank you.
42
' City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Councilman Senn: Where I was having trouble kind of figuring out, where will the vacuums be located then?
' Sharmin Al -Jaff: In this area.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So closest to Lake Drive East?
' Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct. However you will have landscaping as well as a pond to separate Lake Drive from
where the vacuums are located.
' Councilman Senn: Okay, so I mean you're pretty comfortable that the sound has been dealt with because a lot
of car washes are trying to incorporating those within, because that's the noisiest part of the whole operation.
' Sharmin Al -Jaff: We really looked into that. We examined it.
Councilman Senn: Okay. I just didn't see it referenced in here so that's why I was asking. Okay. Alrighty.
' That was it.
Mayor Chmiel: Just for curiosity, Sharmin how much water is used in each one of those?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: The same question came up at the Planning Commission meeting.
Dan Smith: I can answer that one. We use less water than one individual at their home would use with a water
' hose per car.
Councilman Mason: Really?
Dan Smith: Yes. I had ... a study has been taken. They usually let their water just run while they're washing
and it's dramatically less.
' Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks. Is there a motion?
Councilman Berquist: I move approval.
' Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Site Plan Review #95 -12 as shown on the
plan dated Received August 8, 1995, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide alternate mix of evergreen species in the landscaping plan, no more than 1/3 of
' the trees may be from any one species. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed cost estimate
to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to
building permit issuance.
' 2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Provide a detailed sign plan
for staff review prior to the City Council meeting. The car wash shall utilize the existing monument sign
' facing Highway 5.
' 43
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
3. The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities
as required.
4. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal Memo.
5. Concurrent with the building permit, a lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted.
6. No parking or stacking is allowed in fire lanes, drive aisles, access drives or public rights -of -way.
7. Reduce the car wash exit driveway width from 36 feet down to 24 feet and consider removing one of the
stacking lanes or bypass lane.
8. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the city for constructing a driveway and
landscaping over the City's drainage and utilities easement prior to issuance of a building permit.
9. The areas proposed to be stabilized with erosion control blanket shall be sodded instead.
10. Construction access to the site shall be limited to the existing driveway /street and not Lake Drive East. A
rock filter construction entrance shall be used and maintained until the driveways have been paved with a
bituminous surface.
11. The applicant shall be responsible for adjusting and cleaning all existing utilities that are impacted or
disturbed in conjunction with this site construction. The applicant shall perform an inspection of the
existing utility lines on site to ensure that they are clean and operational prior to commencing the site work.
12. Park and trail fees will be paid at time of building permit application.
13. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles.
All voted in favor and the motion carved unanimously.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TWO BUILDINGS ON THE SAME LOT. SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR
A 1.255 SO. FT. DRIVE THRU CAR WASH. 335 WEST 79TH STREET. GARY BROWN.
Kate Aanenson: This is located on West 79th. It does have exposure off of Highway 5 so we did look at the
architectural design of the building. There was two proposals that went to the Planning Commission. The staff
did support the pitched roof and the Planning Commission did recommend it that way. This is the exposure that
would be facing Highway 5, and again as pointed out in the staff report, signage would not be allowed on that
because it doesn't have frontage. The actual signage would be facing West 79th. One of the other issues that
was brought up is the circulation patterns. This is the one that was recommended as part of the revised when it
went to City Council. Excuse me, when it went to Planning Commission. Since that time it has been revised,
which is included in your packet which we believe is a superior circulation pattern for the project. To just
update you on the staff report, there is a couple of minor clarifications on the conditions of approval. Under
recommendation, on page 8. We have the site plans that are dated. They should say June 29th and revised site
plan, which would reflect the change recommended by the Planning Commission dated September 21st, 1995.
That also includes the grading, drainage, and erosion control. This revision eliminates the need for condition
number 2 so you can completely eliminate that condition and that would be the circulation patterns. We believe
44
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
this is a superior design. Again, it is in the Highway 5 corridor and we believe this design does match it.
Here's the color of the roof materials. This green. It would be the roof color material. So we are
' recommending approval with the conditions outlined in the staff report, with those modifications.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Kate. Any questions of Kate? Okay, seeing none. Would the applicant come
' forward? Please state your name and your address.
Gary Brown: My name is Gary Brown. I operate Brown's Amoco...
Mayor Chmiel: Is there any concerns on the conditions that staff has pulled together that you may have?
Gary Brown: No. It really looks wonderful.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. If it looks wonderful, we'll take that. Thank you. Is there questions?
Councilman Berquist: Yeah, I apologize Gary. I didn't spend a lot of time looking at this but a couple of
questions do come to mind. The existing self service is a flat roof, isn't it?
' Gary Brown: Yes it is.
Councilman Berquist: Are you going to do anything to tie those two together? And maybe it addressed this in
the report, I haven't.
Kate Aanenson: Here's the picture. He did come in with two alternatives when it went to the Planning
Commission. One kind of leaving the existing flat roof but we felt because it is visible from Highway 5 and it
is in the corridor, that we needed to upgrade that. So the revised one, which you'll see from Highway 5 which I
indicated earlier, this one right here. Gives that pitched roof element.
Councilman Berquist: So you are going to address the other building as well at the same time?
' Gary Brown: No I am not.
' Kate Aanenson: It blends into that pitched element.
Councilman Berquist: Oh, that's what you're saying?
' Kate Aanenson: Right.
Councilman Berquist: I see. Boy, I don't know about that.
' Councilman Mason: I'm still going to be able to wash a car by hand? Alright. Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Any more? That's it?
Councilman Berquist: That was all.
' Mayor Chmiel: Colleen?
1 45
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, I have no questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike.
Councilman Mason: None.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: Nope.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I don't have any either.
Kate Aanenson: Do you want to know how many gallons? I know that.
Councilman Mason: Okay, how many?
Kate Aanenson: 30. He told us last time.
Councilman Berquist: I wonder what the odds are of any other municipality getting two car washes in the same
meeting.
Councilman Mason: You know, and I saw that in the Planning Commission Minutes too. Boy, both of these
coming at the same time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Mason: We will have the cleanest cars.
Mayor Chmiel: Cleanest cars in the city of Chanhassen, including all the suburbs around.
Councilman Berquist: The Mayor did want me to ask one question. He wants to know what this is going to
cost.
Gar) Brown: I really think a range from like $3.50 to like $6.50.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's alright. That's not bad. Okay, is there a motion on the floor?
Councilman Mason: Move approval of conditional use permit for multiple buildings, two on the same lot and
site plan approval for 1,255 square foot drive through car wash.
Mayor Chmiel: And following conditions.
Councilman Mason: And conditions stated in the staff report.
Kate Aanenson: With modifications.
Councilman Mason: With the amendments. Modifications.
46
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit #95 -3 to
allow two principle buildings on one lot, and Site Plan 495 -13 prepared by Peter Curtis Architects dated June
29, 1995, and site plan prepared by William R. Engelhardt Associates dated August, 1995 and stamped Received
Aug. 25, 1995, and revised site plan dated September 21, 1995, for a 1,255 square foot drive through car wash
on property zoned Highway Business district subject to the following conditions:
1. Erosion control fence shall be installed prior to any site grading along the southerly property line and
' maintained until all disturbed areas have been revegetated or paved.
2. The applicant shall utilize the existing 6 inch water lead from West 79th Street versus tapping the existing 8
inch water main in West 79th Street.
3. The applicant shall be responsible for relocation of any landscaping materials along West 79th Street in
conflict with the site improvements.
4. The applicant shall apply for separate sign permits for any signage on site except for traffic circulation sign.
Signage shall comply with the city's sign ordinance.
5. The applicant shall use alternate building elevations, sheet A2 Alternate, prepared by Peter Curtis, stamped
Received Aug 25, 1995.
6. Two of the red maples shall be relocated to the western side of the property.
7. The developer shall enter into a site development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial
' security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
' FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR OUTLOT A. CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER SECOND ADDITION,
INTO 4 LOTS, SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 35,000 SO. FT. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING (CONTROL
PRODUCTS): LOT 1. BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS 3RD ADDITION; LOCATED NORTH OF
' LAKE DRIVE WEST AND WEST OF AUDUBON ROAD, EDEN TRACE.,
Sharmin Al -Taff: The applicant is proposing a 35,000 square foot office /warehouse building to be located on
Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center Third Addition. There's a potential for expansion on the site. An
additional 35,000 square feet located on the east and west portions of the proposed building. The building is
situated parallel to Lake Drive West. Access is gained off of Lake Drive West. Parking is located to the south
of the proposed building. Direct views of the docks, which are located to the northwest of the building, will be
' screened by the building itself—evergreens in this area. These are the loading docks. Additional landscaping
will be required to screen the docks from view off of the residential area located north of the subject site. The
applicant is proposing the use of rock face block. The materials are right down there. This is a planned unit
' development. The PUD requires that all walls be given added architectural interest through building design and
47
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
landscape. The applicant is proposing horizontal bands varying in width to accentuate the building. The overall
design is of a high quality providing variation and detail on the facade of the building. As mentioned earlier,
access to this site will be provided via Lake Drive West. The applicant is providing one curb cut onto the site.
Staff is recommending a second curb cut be provided. This will provide for a better circulation rather than
pulling in all the way and then having to back out with no second access point onto Lake Drive. As part of this
application, there's a plat approval. The preliminary plat for Chanhassen Business Center was approved on
January 13, 1992. As part of this application, Outlot A is proposed to be, Outlot A is what's highlighted in red.
It's proposed to be subdivided into four lots. The subject building is proposed to be constructed on Lot 1, Block
1. This subdivision is consistent with the preliminary plat and staff is recommending approval of it. The
proposed development meets all of the guidelines established by the Planned Unit Development. Staff is
recommending approval of the site plan and subdivision with conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. Are there any questions that anyone may have of Sharmin at this time?
Councilman Berquist: The second curb cut is agreeable to the applicant, as one of the conditions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is the applicant here? Wish to say anything in regards to the proposed project.
Mark Undestad: I'm Mark Undestad from Eden Trace. We kind of had fun designing this guy out there with
staff ...agree with all of the recommendations. We want to put in the project now.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Steve. Any questions?
Councilman Berquist: Well I sat through the Planning Commission meeting portion of this so I'm, I listened to
what few questions they had and they were very complimentary of the developer's work to get the thing to the
point it is. It's a very attractive building. It looks like it will really benefit the city. I don't have anything more
to add to it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I spent so much time looking at the building itself I didn't ask the question,
what do you do? What kind of business.
Jan Berghoff: I'd like to answer that. My name is Jan Berghoff and I'm with Control Products. I'm one of the
owners. Our company manufactures electronics. We manufacture electronic controls for heating. Indicators.
Temperature indicators.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So like your competitors would be a Rosemount or a Honeywell? Temperature
control systems?
Jan Berghoff: Somewhat with Honeywell.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Alright, thanks. And how many employees do you expect?
Jan Berghoff: We have approximately I'll say 90 to 95 right now. We expect probably 100 -150.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Are you aware of the problems that we're having out here staffing?
i;
I City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Jan Berghoff: Yes we are.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. Thought I'd give you a heads up.
Mayor Chmiel: You've got to move a lot of people. Michael.
Councilman Mason: No comment. Looks good.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: No. No problem.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I don't have any real concerns. The only question that I have Sharmin is
somewhere in here within the staff report I saw that there might be an additional expansion at some time.
Parking facilities would accommodate that totally?
' Sharmin Al -Jaff: They are showing future parking. And that would be in this area.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Alright. Because I thought I read something about 35% addition. Okay, with that I'll
' bring it back to Council and ask for a motion.
Councilman Senn: I'll move approval.
' Councilman Mason: Second.
' Mayor Chmiel: Move approval with the recommendations in the staff report. And a second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Site Plan #95-16 for Control Products as
shown on the plans dated Received August 21, 1995, and subject to the following conditions:
1. The pavement sections in the parking and loading dock area should be designed and constructed in
accordance with recommendations from a professional soils engineer.
2. The applicant shall add at least one curb cut midway through the parcel to improve traffic circulation. All
driveway access points shall incorporate the City's industrial driveway detail (Standard Plate No. 5207).
' 3. No building permits shall be issued or site grading commence until after the development contract and final
plat of Chanhassen Business Center 3rd Addition has been approved and recorded.
' 4. Temporary access to the site prior to the street being constructed (Lake Drive West) may be permitted as
long as the city Fire Marshal's concerns and conditions are fully met.
5. The applicant's engineer shall submit detailed storm drainage calculations for a 10 year storm event to the
city for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. The storm sewer discharge points shall
be revised and redesigned to convey runoff westerly to the existing storm sewer system along the west
property line. No additional discharge points will be permitted into the storm ponding area.
' 49
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
6. Erosion control measures such as rock construction entrances and protection around all catch basins shall be
employed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook until the parking lots are
paved.
7. The applicant should also consider a sidewalk access and street lighting in the parking areas.
8. Sod shall be placed in the following areas instead of seed:
- The area labeled "Seed Area" just west of the building shall be sodded between the two parking lots.
The future parking lot area in the northwest corner of the site may be seeded with the exception of a 10
foot wide area immediately adjacent to the curb of the proposed parking area.
- A 10 foot wide strip of sod shall be placed along the easterly side of the building.
- The area labeled "See Area" on the easterly side of the property shall be sodded from the fact of the
building to the east property line out towards Lake Drive West.
- The City's boulevard along Lake Drive West shall be sodded.
9. Landscaping along the west property line within the City's drainage and utility easement shall be minimal
The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the city for placement of landscaping
plantings within the City's easement.
10. The applicant shall petition the city to vacate the existing drainage and utility easement on the parcel.
11. Fire marshal conditions:
a. Submit technical data to Fire marshal which spells out processes, product commodity manufactured and
warehoused. This is used to determine fire sprinkler design density.
b. Add one fire hydrant on the east corner of the building. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact
location.
c. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy 904 -1991. Copy enclosed. "Notes on site plan."
d. Comply with Chanhassen Dire Department Policy #07 -1991. - "Pre -Fire Plan." Copy enclosed.
e. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #29 -1991 - "Premise Identification ". Copy enclosed.
f. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy 436 -1994 - "Combination Fire Sprinkler/Domestic
Supply Pipe." Copy enclosed.
g. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy 940 -1995 - "Fire Sprinkler Systems." Copy enclosed.
12. The applicant shall enter into a site development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial
security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval.
50
' City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
13. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen
fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc. are to be fully screened by compatible
' materials. As an alternative, the applicant can use factory applied panels on the exterior to the equipment
that would blend in with the building materials.
14. All free standing signs shall be limited to monument signs. The sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square
feet in sigh display area nor be greater that eight (8) feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the
architecture and thus should reflect with the quality of the development. A common theme will be
introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. Each property shall be
allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. The monument sign must
maintain a ten foot setback from the property line. The signs should be consistent in color, size and
material throughout the development. The applicant should submit a sign package for staff review. A
separate permit is required for all signage on site.
15. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development. A
decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole shall be
used throughout the development area for area lighting. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for
site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 foot candle at the property line. This does not apply to street
lighting. Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right -of -ways shall be used in
the private areas. Wall pack units may be used provided no direct glare is directed off site and no more
than 1/2 foot candle of light is at the property line.
16. Park fees shall be paid in accordance with city ordinance requirements.
17. The landscaping ordinance requires 27 boulevard trees (9 provided) and 31 vehicular use area (18 provided).
Trees must be provided around the pond to screen the docking area from views north of the railroad tracks
(Creekside Addition). The landscape plan must be revised to provide required changes. A landscape screen
consisting of a mix of evergreens and deciduous trees shall be incorporated.
' 18. Site plan review approval of this application is contingent upon final plat approval of Chanhassen Business
Center 3rd Addition by the City Council.
' and also to approve final plat for Subdivision #95 -17 to replat Outlot A into 4 lots, Chanhassen Business Center
Third Addition, as shorn on the plans dated Received September 19, 1995, subject to the following conditions:
1. All areas disturbed during site development shall be immediately restored with seed and disc mulch, sod or
wood fiber blanket within 2 weeks of site grading. Unless the city's Best Management Practices Handbook
planting date dictates otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod
or seed and wood fiber blanket. In any case, all disturbed areas must be restored before November 15,
1995.
2. The developer shall construct the utility and street improvements in accordance with the latest edition of the
' city's Standards and Specifications and prepare final plans and specifications for city review and formal
approval by the City Council in conjunction with the final plat approval process.
3. The developer shall obtain all the necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Army Corps of
Engineers, MWCC, MN Dept of Health and comply with all conditions of the permits.
1 51
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
4. The installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Trunk Highway 5 and Audubon Road is expected in
the next few years. The developer shall be responsible or share the local cost participation of this signal on
a percentage basis based upon traffic generation from full development of this site in relation to the total
traffic volume of Audubon Road. Security to guarantee payment for the developer's share of this traffic
signal for the entire development (Phases I and II) will be required.
5. Park fees shall be paid consistent with city ordinance. Trail fees shall be credited in consideration of future
trail construction. Surety /letter of credit for the future trail shall be placed as a condition in the
development contract for the Third Addition.
6. A building permit for Lot 1, Block 1 may be issued once the final plat has been received. No other
building permits will be issued in the plat until sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer have been
installed, tested, and accepted by the city and the streets needed for access have been paved with a
bituminous surface.
7. The drainage and utility easement on Lot 1, Block 1 must be vacated prior to building permit issuance.
8. A berm, 6 to 8 feet high and landscaping shall be incorporated into the plans on the south side of Lots 3
and 4, Block 1 to provide screening between Bluff Creek Estates and Chanhassen Business Center Third
Addition.
9. Development Standards: The development standards will remain the same as previously approved with the
PUD.
a. Intent
The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD light industrial /office park. The use of the PUD zone is to
allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal.
All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each lot proposed for development shall proceed
through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below.
b. Permitted Uses
The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to light industrial, warehousing, and office as defined
below. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not
a use meets the definition, the City Council shall make that interpretation.
Licht Industrial. The manufacturing, compounding, processing, assembling, packaging or
testing of goods or equipment or research activities entirely within an enclosed structure, with
no outside storage. There shall be negligible impact upon the surrounding environment by
noise, vibration, smoke, dust or pollutants.
2. Warehousing. Means the commercial storage of merchandise and personal property.
3. Office. Professional and business office, non - retail activity.
52
t
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
c. Setbacks
In the PUD standards, there is the requirement for landscape buffering in addition to building and
parking setbacks. The landscape buffer on Audubon Road is 50 feet, south of Lake Drive and 100 feet
along the southern property line. The PUD zone requires a building to be setback 50 feet from the
required landscape buffer and public right -of -ways. There is no minimum requirement for setbacks on
interior lot lines.
The following setbacks shall apply:
Audubon Road Buffer & Setback
South property Line & Setback
Front & Rear ROW on Lake Drive
Interior Side Lot Line
Railroad Right of Way
Audubon Road north of Lake Drive
d. Development Standards Tabulation Boa
Chanhassen Business Center Third Addition (Outlot A)
Building
50' plus 50'
100' plus 50'
25'
10'
30'
50'
Parkin
50' plus 10'
100' plus 10'
15'
10'
30'
20'
Lot 4
Lot Size - Acres
Building Sq. Ft.
Building
Impervious
Coverage
1
12.1
66,000
12.5%
32.5%
2
6.14
69,000
26%
67%
3
5.47
75,000
31%
79%
4
5.39
75,000
31%
78%
Road
2.82
Subtotal
31.90
283,000
Avg. 22.6
Avg. 58.5
The PUD standard
for hard surface coverage is 70% for
office and industrial uses. The proposed development
meets this standard
with an average
of 58.5% hard surface
coverage.
53
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Building Square Footage Breakdown
Office 20%
Manufacturing 25%
120,700 sq. ft.
150,875 sq. ft.
Warehouse 54.09% 326,425 sq. ft.
Church 0.91% 5,500 sq. ft.
Total 100% 603,500 sq. ft.
e. Building Materials and Design
1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site
design. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building.
2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be used. Color shall be
introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block.
3. Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity.
4. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face.
5. Concrete may be poured in place, tilt -up or pre -cast and shall be finished in stone, textured or coated.
6. Metal siding will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials or curtain
wall on office components or as trim or as HVAC screen.
7. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure.
8. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen
fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc. are to be fully screened by compatible
materials.
9. The use of large unadorned, prestressed concrete panels and concrete block shall be prohibited.
Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and /or other patterning. All
walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate landscaping.
10. Space for recycling shall be provided in the interior of all principle structures for all developments in
the Business Center.
f. Site Landscaping and Screening.
1. All buffer landscaping, including boulevard landscaping, included in Phase I area to be installed when
the grading of the phase is completed. This may well result in landscaping being required ahead of
individual site plan approvals but we believe the buffer yard and plantings, in particular, need to be
established immediately. In addition, to adhere to the higher quality of development as spelled out in
54
I City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
the PUD zone, all loading areas shall be screened. Each lot for development shall submit a separate
landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process.
' 2. All open spaces and non - parking lot surfaces shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings
and /or lawn material.
3. Storage of material outdoors is prohibited unless it has been approved under site plan review. All
approved outdoor storage must be screened with masonry fences and /or landscaping.
' 4. Undulating or angular berms 3' to 4' in height, south of Lake Drive along Audubon Road shall be
sodded or seeded at the conclusion of Phase I grading and utility construction. The required buffer
landscaping may be installed incrementally, but it shall be required where it is deemed necessary to
' screen any proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded.
5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right -of -ways. Wing wall may be required where deemed
appropriate.
g. Signage
' 1. All freestanding signs be limited to monument signs. The sign shall not exceed eight (80) square feet
in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the
architecture and thus should reflect with the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent
in color, size, and material throughout the development. The applicant should submit a sign package
for staff review.
2. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. All
signs require a separate permit.
3. The signage will have consistency throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at
' the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout.
4. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials and heights.
h. Lighting
1. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development. The
applicant's proposal is consistent with the lighting standards for the PUD ordinance. The plans do not
provide for street lighting. As with previous industrial parks /roadways, the city has required the
developer to install street lights throughout the street system. The street lights should be designed
consistent with the existing lighting along Audubon Road.
2. A decorative show box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole shall
be used throughout the development area for area lighting.
3. Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right -of -ways shall be used in the
private areas.
55
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
4. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the
property line. This does not apply to street lighting.
All voted in favor and the motion carved unanimously.
CITY HALL EXPANSION.
Don Ashworth: I think the Council has been grappling for quite a period of time in terms of City Hall
expansion. A lot of that dealing with a number of questions as to really the front portion of the building. This
all really comes at a similar point in time that it just seemed like every time I was turning around, seeing certain
costs increase and secondarily, the tax base continuing to dwindle, at least as it dealt with tax increment district,
to the point that I sincerely do not believe that as we're talking this evening that the $1 million that had
originally been programmed as tax increment dollars to purchase the properties in front of City Hall and to turn
that into a park like setting and to pay for parking lot construction is really there. In talking with Councilman
Berquist before the last Council meeting, I had mentioned, he had requested that this item be tabled and I said
that that was fine and went through some of the same points I'm bringing up right now and I got kind of a kick
out of Steve had said, Don are you getting a little shell shocked here? And I said, you're absolutely right, I am.
The million eight is in the bank and there's no real question about that as it would deal with being able to
construct an addition onto City Hall. I would firmly recommend. Oh, and then the construction manager's
recommendation to not split this thing. If you're going to do one year and then do the following year do the
next addition._ I think that those comments were absolutely correct but I think that you get a different answer if
you honestly can say that you can go 3 to 5 year period before you might do that addition to the front. And I
guess what I'm saying to the Council is, I really think that we can get by that 3 to 5 year period of time. We
don't do anything really for the library and I distributed a copy of the letter I received from them. I don't know
if you got a chance to read that but I really do need to do something with City Hall ... little bit of your own mind
thinking about the plan as we had it. And again, you can move all these people around in different
configurations but if the new wing were public safety, which is very logical simply because of the emergency
vehicle access. Taking engineering and putting them into the space currently occupied by public safety so the
engineering tech and all the drafting thing would go in the current area the building has. Then you start moving
down the offices and those hypothetically would be Charles, Dave, Diane, Jill, right on down the line. And the
area vacated then by engineering would, could make expansion necessary for finance. It could also then, the
office areas that would be vacated could easily work for Kate, Bob, Sharmin and I think that the one function
that really gets pinched out of that whole process is the whole duplicating, copying, you know those kinds of
things. With 3 to 5 years, the space that we'd be allocating for let's say new inspectors. You know right now
let's assume it's 100 square feet per person. Okay, the new area, we're being more liberal in there so maybe it's
200 square feet and so in 5 years what's going to happen is it's going to go back down to 100 again. Areas
where you would have a singular office will move back into a double office and if I hear Council members
correctly, well maybe that's the way it should be. And I really think that we should charge the construction
manager with the duty of resubmitting a budget that take and show allocation of dollars for the park setting.
For the parking lot construction. You wouldn't have to do as much as you would with the other one but you'd
still need to do something on top. And with building the public safety addition. I would also like to see in that
process the two projects really be divorced. I really think that the park project should not be intertwined with
City Hall construction. I think that that should not happen. Secondarily, I think that the attorney should be
charged with the responsibility to make sure that it's clear that this is a loan, you might say, from the city and
that should dollars become available within the tax increment district. Because as quickly as we saw values
decrease, there's a hypothetical that business values might see an increase before the year 2000. That could very
quickly change all of those projections around. The long and the short of it is that I would recommend that we
56
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
charge again the construction manager with the responsibility of resubmitting the budget for the architect. For
showing the tentative plans for how the existing City Hall could be renovated and the new addition be laid out.
And then finally, that the attorney be directed to insure that should these dollars become back available, that the
city itself can in fact recoup those dollars from the HRA for the park like setting and the parking lot
construction.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any questions?
' Councilman Berquist: Where does it stand right now with the old bank building and the acquisition of that
building a park and land?
Don Ashworth: We continue to take and have the, we have agreed that we would make x number of spaces
available to the bank. Prepared a plan for how part of the additional parking could occur into the front.
Councilman Berquist: This is assuming that the addition goes ahead as planned at some point in the future.
' But where does that deal sit right now?
Don Ashworth: Money wise it's done. As far as being able to show them how they could have interim parking
spaces, that's done. Those exhibits are there. Their current hang -up is that somehow or another that this City
f Council would pass an ordinance that would somehow or another prohibit them from being able to park on the
spaces that we have designated as shared parking spaces. And I just don't understand that as a concern.
' Councilman Berquist: So because of that hang up, the transfer of title and the funds has not taken place?
Don Ashworth: Correct. The latest offer that I've had from the bank, and I'm real tempted to tell Gary Hooks,
just go ahead and draft it. Let's get it back up to City Council. We'd put a penalty in there of $500,000.00
should the City Council adopt an ordinance that would prohibit public parking within the downtown area. I
mean it's virtually impossible that you're going to take and tell every business in downtown Chanhassen that
they can no longer park a car.
Councilman Berquist: What have you got? A bank attorney justifying his job or what.
Don Ashworth: I don't know. But they seem now to be comfortable that says, you know if you pass an
ordinance that would basically take away the ability for the Dinner Theatre to park any cars downtown. Any
other business to park an} cars downtown, you would have to pay them $500,000.00 and I'm tempted just to
take and say, fine. Put that in there because that's a silly thought process on their part.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. When it gets resolved, as it xvill, is it $667, is that the right number?
' Don Ashworth: That's the combined number of the two parcels that are owned by Chanhassen State Bank plus
an estimate on my part. The number is right at $500,000.00 and 454, 464 for the two bank parcels and an
estimate on my part for the property retained by Mr. Mithune, which is Lot 3. It could be Lot I but anyway,
' it's one of the three lots that were acquired. The most westerly of the three lots is still owned by Mr. Mithune.
Councilman Berquist: So you say 667 is your guesstimate for that?
Don Ashworth: Correct.
57
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Councilman Berquist: Commissioners have awarded, or it's been negotiated at $450 or $460,000.00 deal for the
two lots that preceded, including the building. Preceded to the east.
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. And when that deal is done, those monies come from?
Don Ashworth: They were originally programmed to come out of tax increment and I am suggesting that we
use the dollars that we have accumulated for City Hall expansion to pay for the land acquisition. Pay for the
parking lot construction and carry out the reduced building construction program which would be primarily just
the public safety wing, plus remodeling the existing City Hall.
Councilman Berquist: Once the agreement is inked, how long before we have, it has to be, how long before the
funds have to be transferred? I mean how far out can we put a closing on something like that?
Don Ashworth: I've been working under the premise that the Council would like to see this done as soon as
possible. So I've not explored the possibility of saying okay, let's arrive at a number but not actually close for 2
years. That has not been explored. I could explore that. Even with, if we would have had the funds available
to do the addition in the front, we would not have gone onto their property with that addition. The parking lot
construction would modify some of their existing parking but as far as a building physically going onto the old
bank property or the other lot that they owned, it would not.
Councilman Berquist: So what you're suggesting, maybe I'll just shut up and ... go on for a minute here.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, we've been at this for over a year and I guess my initial reaction to this was,
it's pretty darn scary that we come down to the wire and we find we don't have the money. And what if we
would have approved this and put it out for bid like the original time line had called for and then discovered
this so, and we've you know honestly wasted some time and money in putting out those initial plans with the
anticipation that we would have the dollars so I'm wondering where we missed the boat here. I know that the
assessments had come in less than we had expected but it's just a concern that I guess on future things we really
do have to have the money in the bank. And you know, thank goodness you've discovered it. Now we can do
some phasing but I don't know.
Mayor Chmiel: Anything else? Mike?
Councilman Mason: Well, yeah a lot's been said over this. Now I hear that nothing's going to change in the
library for the next 8 years. Or how many years?
Don Ashworth: 3 to 5.
Councilman Mason: And obviously I did read that memo from the library and obviously they're stomping for
their turf and I don't blame them. The fact remains, that's not a very good library and we're such a growing
community. I've been in there, as I'm sure man}' of us have, with children getting stuff done and that place is,
it's, I don't consider that an acceptable library and so now we're going to put the, I'm, disgusted isn't the right
word and obviously if the don't have the money we don't have the money but. So every other library and every
other facility like that is moving ahead and I quite honestly feel like our library is moving behind and I really
have a problem with that. But I guess I don't know what to do about it either. I mean, I'd like at some point
58
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
w for this Council to have some discussion on that I guess. I mean I think it's terrible that that library is going to
be that way for the neat 3 to 5 years. I really do. I see the technological advances and you know with libraries
' in my school district and the Minnetonka School District and Chanhassen School District and we're just, this
city just isn't keeping pace at all with what's out there for kids and adults to use.
Don Ashworth: Potentially there is, I'm sorry. You wanted to continue down the Council or can I interject?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I'd like to. Any more Mike?
Councilman Mason: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark.
Councilman Senn: Well I'd say no additional questions.
' Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? If I may. Understand that we have, we've taken on a lot of projects. HRA has
taken on a lot of projects over the past years. As a part of that their scheduled debt going out past 2000, and
it's pretty, it's known. Similarly the revenue stream, well we tried to take a more conservative position in that
we really don't put anything into the books until we know that physically a structure is on it's way up and
' therefore the taxes. But if the revenues were to change by 4 %, the million dollars would reappear. Or turning
it the other way, the loss of 4% loses a million dollars_
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: 4% of the assessed value?
Don Ashworth: 4% of the, your captured is approximately $5 million per year. You take 4% times that is
' $200,000.00 and look at collections then for '96, '97, '98, '99, 2000, you've got a million dollars. Now maybe
another alternative here is an additional meeting which Todd has been in the process of trying to arrange with
the assessor himself in trying to determine what is happening with some of these values and are some of these
assumptions too conservative if he's aware of something that's on the books. What I did was is I obtained from
' them the values that will be going on for 1996. What is the tax capacity values for 1996? That figure on a tax
capacity basis was approximately $200,000.00 less than what we had been estimating to be coming on line in
'96. And it is that figure that generated the necessity for me to come back and say, based on what values he is
' telling me will go on in 1996, and I would assume years thereafter, we just lost another million dollars. And
yeah, it is kind of a scary position because again we thought we had pretty good numbers as far as what values
should be going on in '96 versus what they in fact were certifying back to us. And as you're aware, I just got
those numbers, well that was really for the last. I got the tax increment numbers at the same time that I had
gotten the truth in taxation numbers which was what, approximately two weeks ago? But if you would like to
once again table this item and Todd and I can again meet with Orlin, that's a possibility as well.
Councilman Senn: Well Don, what assumptions are we using that's Orlin's under cutting that much? I mean all
the properties in the TIF district have signed an assessment agreement or most of them have relating to a
minimum, I mean agreed minimum assessed value but are we being overly aggressive in relationship to how we
feel that's going to grow over the minimum, or what?
Don Ashworth: Well it should grow over the minimum with some of the sales that we've seen in the
downtown, etc, but on the, Todd had brought back, I had asked him for a group that we had anticipated there
would be some movement on and the only change that he made was, he increased the land values but turned
1 59
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
right around and decreased the building values. So the net effect was absolutely zero. And I don't know if
that's going to continue into the future. Have you had any additional discussions with Orlin or his office?
Todd Gerhardt: The thing that really impacts Chanhassen is some of the older buildings in Chaska, which these
people bought them with tax abatement and used their $30.00 or $22.00 square foot for an old building in
Chaska and they think that's comparable in Chanhassen. I mean you've got land differences, industrial as they
approach what is the DataSery piece that allows $3.00 to $2.50 a square foot and you go over into where the
Weather Service is and you're talking $1.90 to $1.70 a square foot. You get into Chaska, you're talking free
land. And so it's tough.
Don Ashworth: But the one that drove us down this year, the reason we didn't achieve that 96 was because of
the settlement on Prince's. They took, right at $200,000.00 was the drop on that sucker.
Todd Gerhardt: It was more than that in valuation. It was almost a million.
Don Ashworth: Yeah, but coming back into a tax capacity figure.
Todd Gerhardt: Right...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So I guess my question is, do we have a snowball's chance of you know where of
negotiating this with Orlin?
Don Ashworth: I guess the biggest issue is, see I really felt that we were at the bottom from a year ago and
then especially with land sales, the only way things would go would be up and that our projections, if anything,
were conservative. But if you'd like to table this item and let me go back and meet with Orlin again and try to
find out what he knows that maybe I don't, you know about what things are still coming up.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well if he does change the assessment of it, aren't we still banking on dollars that
are not in the bank?
Don Ashworth: Correct. I mean until you physically obtain them, you're still kind of going on the future. You
can get into some scary things and that is, legislature potentially talking about shifting the cost of schools over
to the State and less on the property tax. Now you've got a big time scare.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I guess I would move that we go ahead with the recommendation of phasing
the project. Directing the attorney to draft an agreement...
Mayor Chmiel: Draft a loan agreement as indicated in the report.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Councilman Berquist: I'm sorry, give me the motion one more time.
Mayor Chmiel: Basically what is said on the back.
.1
' City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Councilwoman Dockendorf: We're saying let's go ahead with the public safety wing, or let's get Todd.
' Councilman Berquist: ...public safety wing? Get Todd involved and get...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. And then also ancillary to that is having the City Attorney draft an
' agreement that if HRA dollars do become available, that the money that we do spend on the park acquisition out
in front would be reimbursed by the HRA.
Councilman Berquist: So spend the entire $1.8 million...? That's the motion? Or work towards spending the
entire cushion?
Councilman Mason: That's not the intent, is it?
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. No. You go ahead with the.
' Mayor Chmiel: It's basically spending the dollars that are already in place. Being able to acquire those dollars
by drafting an agreement by the attorney to, a loan agreement to insure the city is repaid if the $1 million in tax
increment funds do become available in the next 3 to 5 years. That's your intent?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There's a motion on the floor with, and is there a second?
' Councilman Mason: I'm sorry but maybe it's the hour of the night but I guess I need a clarification now. The
motion is to go ahead with number one, to divorce out the projects here. Number two, get plans and specs for
public safety expansion only. Okay, now where does this tie in with spending $1.8 million come in here? I
' mean I'm assuming public safety expansion is not going to cause $1.8 million.
Don Ashworth: No. But you're reallocating the dollars that you do have to cover the dollars that you thought
) might have, meaning the tax increment dollars and you're getting to draft some type of a document that
says, we're hoping to get those dollars back and be able to use those for City Hall expansion some time in the
future.
Councilman Senn: Well, if you want to divorce these two things, why don't we divorce them? Why don't we
vote on the public safety expansion and why don't we vote separately on whether we want to go ahead with the
land acquisition and improvements out in front of City Hall? Then you've divorced the project.
Don Ashworth: That's fine, you can do that.
' Councilman Mason: Well that's, I guess I kind of thought that's what we were doing.
Councilman Senn: Well that's what I though too but that's not where it's going.
Councilman Berquist: And that's why I began to question the time frame from which we operated the
condemnation proceedings against that land and building. Maybe that doesn't even enter into the equation.
61
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Don Ashworth: The only thing I'd be concerned about there, going back to the bank and saying gee, we'd like
you to take and wait for a year or two years. The appraisal that they conducted and the appraisal we conducted
were both completed in 1993 and showed a price of $20,000.00 difference between the two of them. I've never
seen two appraisals because the other person's appraisal is always way inflated.
Mayor Chmiel: Would there be any tax break for them to go, as you mentioned?
Don Ashworth: Well their position, one of the last meetings Kevin had said something to the effect that, you
know looking at some of these land sale prices, I mean the numbers that we've got on the table here are really
ridiculous. We should both be getting new appraisals and I said hey, we've been at this too long. You can't do
that to us at this point. In fact I'm kind of tied in. I kind of led him to believe that these dollars can't be
increased. I mean we've negotiated this thing in full faith and I'd, boy I'd sure hate to start over on that thing.
Councilman Berquist: No, I don't want to do that.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't either.
Councilman Berquist: But somehow or another I don't want to, I'd rather not have to commit the entire $1.8
million. Everyone's ideas to divorce the issues is all well and good. Do public safety. I don't have any
problem with getting into that process. But I think fiscal responsibility dictates that we try to hold onto that
other $900,000.00 as long as possible in case something else unforeseen, which things have a way of happening,
comes to the floor. But I don't want to have to re -open negotiations against that property either. There must be
another avenue.
Councilman Senn: I mean how do you handle it, I mean effectively you're telling us the money that was
supposed to be available to do that's no longer available.
Don Ashworth: That's correct.
Councilman Senn: So, how would you normally handle that?
Councilman Berquist: Put it in next year's budget.
Councilman Senn: Well you put off the expense usually, I don't know. But is there a vehicle by which to do
that but lock in the price with an option or whatever but not act on implementing it or whatever.
Don Ashworth: The way I look at this, it's going to be 900. My guess, and again Todd has to rework the
numbers and I told him his construction management fee thing was off. That he had to relook at that whole
thing. But I sincerely think that you're going to come in with $800,000.00- $900,000.00 for the building
expansion. You're going to have to do some parking lot expansion for that north side. You're going to have to
do remodeling for existing City Hall.
Councilman Senn: How many square feet's the public safety wing?
Councilman Berquist: 1,600. 40 x 40 roughly. More than that?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it was more than that.
62
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Councilman Berquist: Well rather than sit here and do this all night, do you want to make a motion to go ahead
' with that and then?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. I'll revise my motion to go ahead with the expenditure for the public safety
wing period.
Councilman Senn: Well just a question. Before you were saying, go ahead with the motion to investigate
going ahead with it. Getting new costs and budgets and stuff back. I mean I'm real uncomfortable approving
the $900,000.00 budget when we haven't seen any kind of a budget.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. We need a revision of what it's going to cost.
' Councilman Senn: So in concept.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: We are instructing Todd Christopherson.
' Mayor Chmiel: If it's within the budget of what we feel is there, to then proceed, is that what you're?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No. I'm saying, I want Todd Christopherson to go back and do an estimate of
what the expansion will cost and bring it back to us.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is that?
' Councilman Berquist: Second.
' Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Do you want to say something Mike?
Councilman Mason: Well I do but I don't know if it's.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think it's the next topic.
Councilman Mason: Okay.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to authorize the architect to move ahead with
preliminary design layout for the new public safety wing and that the construction manager prepare a new
t budget estimate. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Berquist: Now how many square feet is the public safety wing?
' Councilman Senn: We'll find out when the budget comes back and before ,ve approve it. How's that?
Councilman Mason: There you go. Now is the next question now then.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Out front.
63
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Councilman Mason: I mean how are we going to recapture that money or how are we going to finish that deal
because I agree with what you're saying Don and what Steve said. No. We certainly shouldn't reopen those
negotiations.
Don Ashworth: My suggestion is to literally reallocate the monies that we had solely for City Hall expansion
and to reallocate those partially for the land acquisition and partially for the public safety expansion and then
have Roger draft an agreement that insures that if those dollars do flow back, that we can recapture them. Any
monies that we have put up to take and create, to purchase the lands in front and to build parking lots, that we
can recapture those dollars to use for a future addition or whatever else you would choose to do.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, I have a question. Is that Roger, in your opinion, is that feasible? I mean
do we just have to draft an agreement? I mean is that real kosher? If someone challenges it.
Roger Knutson: I've not looked at it. This is the first time I've heard about it. I'll report back to you but, if it
isn't kosher, I'll certainly tell you that. On paper it looks fine.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh okay. At first glance it looks reasonable.
Councilman Senn: So what you're suggesting is effectively the city advances the funds for that work. There's a
repayment or a loan set -up that should the money materialize in HRA, that that money then reimburses the city's
general fund effectively for those and then the Council from there can decide how, if or whatever it wants to do
with those funds?
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Councilman Senn: But you're saying go ahead now and spend the general fund money we have now to do that?
Don Ashworth: Correct.
Councilman Mason: Now spend the money for the land acquisition and parking facilities and nothing else at
this point.
Councilman Senn: Well that's not what the recommendation says.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And you expect that to total $900,000.00?
Don Ashworth: I don't know. Why don't we wait until we see what kind of. $900,000.00, it would be a good
number as it dealt with land acquisition and parking, yeah. I don't know how much the expansion and
remodeling existing City Hall will be. I guess I'd like to see all of those budgets come back to you.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well then I don't want to move on anything until we do.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, why don't you bring it back so we know exactly where that's at and what the costs are
going to be.
Councilman Senn: And what we're going to get for the cost.
E
I City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Don Ashworth: We are doing a work session next Monday night. I don't think this is going to be a real long
item. If Todd could have it done, we might be able to, and I could also show you the public works facility that
' is also in need of expansion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Let us move on. There's no other action we have to take. Let's move on to item 11.
' COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS;
CHASKA SCHOOL DISTRICT, NOVEMBER 7 LEVY REFERENDUM, CITY MANAGER,
' Don Ashworth: I hope the discussion under I I(a) is not going to, well you didn't end up acting so it doesn't, I
' don't have to worry.
Councilman Senn: Don I'm sorry, before you leave. What's on, just as a refresher, what's on next Monday?
' Don Ashworth: Administration and public works. Okay, Chaska School District has announced they're going to
take and do their referendum on November 7th. I have, we had a meeting with, they call it Community Leaders
types of thing and the total levy that they're looking to is like $2 million. Cost on a $120,000.00 house is
$ 137.00 or something like that. What they're interested in knowing is whether or not Chanhassen would be
' willing to pay back tax increment dollars that are generated because of their referendum. What I stated to them
is that in the existing projections, because of the last referendum, we do show in there a payment, an excess
levy payment of approximately $500,000.00 per year. And that continues to be in this same run, the same data
processing sheets that I was talking about with our loss of the $1 million for City Hall. It's all one district. The
proposed referendum, as I see it, would put them back up to where they should have been to be able to receive
the $500,000.00 that's currently in those projections. My position is if the referendum passes and that the city
' would be willing to insure that dollars generated as a result of referendums, the previous one plus the current
one, that are generated because of those referendums, should reasonably be passed back to the school district. I
told them that I would be talking about this with the City Council on Monday night and we've got another
meeting set up for Wednesday to further talk about this. What they'd like to be able to do is be able to tell
voters that yes, they have worked with both Chaska and Chanhassen and that a portion of these referendum
dollars will actually be coming from the two tax increment districts of the two cities and therefore will reduce
the cost to the taxpayer.
Councilman Berquist: Run that by me one more time.
Don Ashworth: Let's use an example. Right now we collect roughly 150% is taken. How's a better way.
' Okay, let's just do dollars. We collect $5 million per year between the tax increment districts. As a result of
the referendum, taxes are increased by 10 %. That means the amount of dollars that will be flowing back to the
tax increment district will go up $500,000.00. The previous agreement was, and we did make a payment for
' this year of $500,000.00. But what I stated to them is that whole thing was based on the total tax rate and what
they have not kept pace with the projections that they had made as a part of the $50 million initial referendum
to build the schools. So if they propose this referendum and it does pass, they in fact will put themselves back
to the position of insuring that they can get that $500,000.00 from us. If it fails, we really need to reassess that
' whole thing because they are not really generating, and therefore not really providing the total dollars to us that
they had estimated from the last referendum. I know it's the later part that.
65
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Councilman Senn: No, it gets so convoluted, that's what bothers me. I don't know. We've already heavily
subsidized the school district and the building and the land purchase and everything else. It just, if those are
dollars that are going to come to us through TIF that we can use for the overall benefit of the entire city of
Chanhassen, to me that makes more sense then funneling them off to part of Chanhassen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But the referendum, I mean I see it as giving to Caesar what is Caesar. I mean the
referendum is passing in order to fund the school. Just because we have property that will be taxes will be
increased as a result of that, I guess it should go back to the school district.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Does anybody have any other questions? If not.
Councilman Berquist: I'm always amazed, I mean I knew that this was coming two years ago when we did the
bond issue for the schools but then again I'm always amazed when they say, you know we build these things.
We just don't have any money to open them.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, but you know that's part of how it has to be done.
Councilman Berquist: You mean from a psychological point of view?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh yeah. Nickel and dime you two years later. Yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we have our two items that we have, Mark you had item (e).
CONSENT AGENDA:
E. AUTHORIZE ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT WITH BARTON - ASCHMAN FOR
ARBORETUM BOULEVARD. PROJECT NO. 90 -17A.
Councilman Senn: If I'm understanding what's written here, or I guess if I take it on the face of what's written
here. You're saying that we're going to submit in effect an application for funding in the State's cycle which
runs July 1, '96 to June 30th '97. Correct?
Charles Folch: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay. You're also saying that we would be able to let a contract start construction in the
spring, which is the spring of '97, correct?
Mayor Chmiel: '96.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So we're going to receive this and be able to begin construction before we even enter
the funding cycle from the State where we get the money?
Charles Folch: Actually what happens is the State will commit the projects to that funding cycle. They'll... in
February of '96 but they won't actually allocate the money out until after July 1st. So we could let a contract
and begin construction... This is the same thing we basically did with the Galpin signal project on Trunk
Highway 5. We actually selected the contractor and they begin construction and then during the month of July
we started receiving checks back...
•.
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Councilman Senn: And we run no risk of the legislature cutting that off?
Charles Folch: Well when they commit the dollars, basically the program is funded. They're committing the
project... It's an account that's funded. I don't see how legislature would take special dollars from that project...
Councilman Senn: Well just by affecting MnDot's funding for '96 -97. I mean they don't do that until this
coming year. After February.
Charles Folch: Well, they've got an interesting calendar year for their fiscal deals but basically like for this, for
the '96 to '97 calendar year, they know they have $4 1/2 million already set aside for that program. It's there.
It's already funded. In fact they run a year behind with the revenue they bring in for the gas taxes and things
like that. So the money's already there. It's just the}' won't start releasing it until after July 1st because their
new fiscal year begins.
Councilman Semi: So the theory is here is if we spend the $60 grand now. Up front it on the engineering, that
we'll be able to start construction effectively as soon as February as we can.
Charles Folch: Well, as soon as road restrictions go off so it'd probably be the first part of May is what will
happen ... if we wait, the MnDot time schedule, we won't get this project done next year. It will get started late
summer and it won't get done.
Councilman Senn: So if we wait for MnDot's approval, February 1, you don't think it can be engineered by
May 1 then?
Charles Folch: No. Absolutely not. We'll be 4 months behind...
t Councilman Senn: Okay. And where's the $60 grand going to come from in the meantime?
Charles Folch: Well, at this point we probably would fund it with capital projects I would guess.
' Don Ashworth: At the end of this year, we'll establish a fund at the end of this year. It will actually show a
deficit balance of whatever the engineering fees are. But by the end of '96, it will be reimbursed.
Councilman Berquist: Was that $60,000.00 part of this design proposal that was originally part of the 320 back
in 1990?
' Charles Folch: 320, that was for Trunk Highway 5.
Councilman Senn: So this $60 grand is in addition to that?
' Charles Folch: Right.
' Councilman Senn: And we've spent the whole $300 and some thousand already?
Charles Folch: No, actually plans for Trunk Highway 5 are only about 55 % -60% complete. They've actually
stopped at this point in time because they don't want to go any further without actually having the dollars
' funded for that project. So the full $320 hasn't been spent... previous Trunk Highway 5 design contract.
' 67
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Councilman Senn: Is all the work that was done on this segment though, previously part of that?
Charles Folch: In terms of the corridor study and such?
Councilman Senn: Yeah. I mean if you take the segment from Powers basically over to Lake Ann, I mean
there's been a lot of work done just on that segment.
Charles Folch: Well from a conceptual corridor planning standpoint, yes. But it's not the information you need
for a real detailed design to award an improvement project.
Councilman Senn: I thought it had all pretty well been designed out with the intersection improvement that was
done down there with the alignment and everything to the church property and all of that. So that was never
done?
Charles Folch: No. In conceptual. Nothing with detail where you're actually going out and doing surveys
and ... pavement design. All that type of stuff associated with detailed plans. It was not done to that level.
Councilman Senn: And EAW was just for that segment or was for?
Charles Folch: EAW's for the whole corridor.
Councilman Senn: For the whole corridor, okay. Alright.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, do you want to move that?
Councilman Senn: Sure.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to authorize engineering services contract with Barton -
Aschman for Ad)oreturn Boulevard, Project No. 90 -17A. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
G. AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE TO ALLOW FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT AND REVIEW OF
TEMPORARY OUTDOOR SALES EVENTS. SECOND AND FINAL READING. INCLUDING
SUMMARY ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION PURPOSES.
Councilman Berquist: The sign ordinance? I wasn't here when this thing went through it's first reading. I just
wanted to verify that we're not becoming too restrictive in what we allow our retail sector to do. I know there's
some thoughts amongst the city staff I think, give them an inch and they'll take a mile and I'm not in agreement
with that. I think the retail area in this, the retail sector in this town is very sophisticated. They're not going to
shoot themselves in the foot by overdoing sidewalk sales and those sorts of things and I really wonder about
whether, how much we need to regulate this type of stuff. Some of the notes that I had, I wanted to know
whether there were any other types of businesses, types of sales that should be included or what were removed?
What types of sales were rejected... during the development of this ordinance? Why so restrictive on other types
of sidewalk sales, was another note I made.
M61.
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: I think the entirety of the community were acceptable to what's here
Councilman Berquist: What happened at the public hearing? I didn't, was there any
Kate Aanenson: Can I just take a minute to address those comments? This was put together by the staff. This
' ordinance in conjunction with the Chamber and staff had proposed one earlier that was rejected by the Council.
We felt it was bureaucratic to have to get an interim use permit or a conditional use permit in order to do
Christmas Trees sale. We felt that there could be administrative procedure. If you approve the criteria under
which that could happen, that we could handle that in- house. So we had approved one, or recommended an
ordinance which the Council had rejected at that time. This came back through the Chamber. We said if you
want to pursue it, we'd recommend that you do that. So they went to the Planning Commission and the
Planning Commission, who originally supported the other document, still embraced it. Made modifications. So
this document does have the backing of the Chamber. The staff worked to get it codified with the attorney's
office and that's the recommendation. It is limited but we believe that this meets their needs and gives the
control that we have on the city. Again, we feel it's streamline the process and it does allow for some of those
sort of things. Controlling. So we don't have a lot of things that are now called outdoor display. It's really
intended to be festive and just a sales, lot of promotional kind of things and so again the Chamber supported it.
Councilman Berquist: They did?
Kate Aanenson: And the}' were here at the last meeting, yeah.
' Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Berquist: Did they speak to the issue?
' Councilman Mason: They said they were all for it. They were in complete agreement.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to move it?
Councilman Berquist: Anybody else got any questions? Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second?
Councilman Senn: I have one.
' Mayor Chmiel: He moved it. Is there a second?
Councilman Berquist: I withdraw. Go ahead Mark.
' Councilman Senn: Basically with this action then, what we'll do is, depending on the type of classification
okay, like if it's produce it will be they're eligible for up to 60 days.
' Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Christmas trees, eligible up to 60 days. Whatever, okay. If it's food items or whatever, it's
t eligible for up to 45 days or whatever.
' 69
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995 '
Kate Aanenson: No. I
Councilman Senn: I think it was three 15's if I remember right, wasn't it for the temporary food or whatever? '
Kate Aanenson: Right, right. Each different use had different criteria.
Councilman Senn: Okay. But these types of uses then will be in addition to the uses we already allow like 30 '
days under or whatever for the temporary signage and stuff like that.
Kate Aanenson: I guess it could be used for additional signage but I guess we believe that if someone's going '
to do Christmas tree sales or if Festival's going to have a weekend.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Pumpkin fest. '
Kate Aanenson: Pumpkin sales or something like that, I guess we'll have to gauge this and come back, if we
believe it's a problem. But yeah, there could be additional signage where people might try to use this as a way, '
in an attempt to get more signage. I don't believe that that will happen.
Councilman Senn: But if they do, you've got a mechanism built into this to.
Kate Aanenson: And if we don't, we'll come up with one if it's a problem, certainly. Yeah, I can see where
some people might try to use outdoor display as a temporary promotion but I think since the Chamber ... and they
want to keep it, they hopefully will police themselves. '
Councilman Senn: We have people now that do outdoor display every day of the year.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Kate, do you want to talk about the Planning Commission.
Councilman Berquist: Wait a minute, I'm going to move approval on it.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the second and final reading of the
amendment to the City Code to allow for an Administrative Permit and Review of Temporary Outdoor Sales
Events, including the summary ordinance for publication purposes. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: Kate. ■
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. Just an update
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Now wait a minute. You skipped me. Arboretum Boulevard. It's a problem.
Solve it. You know I talked to. '
Councilman Senn: I thought it was solved. But I drove down there and there were trucks all over the place.
70 1
' City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Exactly. I've talked to Kate. I've talked to Dave Hempel. I've talked to Scott
Harr. I've talked to the plant manager out there and to be honest I was disappointed with his response. His
' basic response was, well approve our expansion and the problem will be solved. Well.
Councilman Mason: Was that a threat?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, it wasn't given in that tone.
' Mayor Chmiel: Eight more trucks can go back into that particular unloading facility, they'd be more off the
street...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I guess I want a message from the Council to say, solve it. We're tired of it.
' We've given you numerous deadlines. Yes, you're a valuable member of the community but we've got a real
problem here and I would like a joint letter from the Council to that effect. For what it's worth.
' Councilman Berquist: So what expansion are they referring to?
Kate Aanenson: We did approve one administratively. They are going forward with another large expansion
which provides mostly additional docking space so they can get the trucks out of there but there's still, they
could internally resolve that issue. It just takes someone policing them to get the trucks to move around.
Councilman Berquist: Can we police them with, I mean those truck drivers if they're sitting there and they
realize that they're going to get a $100.00 ticket for sitting there, they're not going to want to sit there. I mean
and that's your point?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I don't want to put up no parking signs. I mean I don't want to really tick
them off but I'm getting to that point.
Councilman Berquist: Well there's been one accident. I went by there the other day and one of the guys was
out there using the road for a facility.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, that's the complaints we've had.
Councilman Berquist: I mean it's ridiculous. I went by there the other day and I thought they were making
progress because they were only parked on one side of the street.
' Councilman Senn: Well they come in at night and they sleep there and they're still there in the morning.
Councilman Berquist: I understand they need to do that but if there's other places to do it.
Kate Aanenson: There is on site. It's certainly a condition of approval.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I guess let me revise what I said. You know, let's give them until next
Monday to solve it. Otherwise no parking signs go up. I know Don you want to have discussions with them
but you know the}' said it'd be solved by September 1. They just haven't.
71
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1995
Mayor Chmiel: I know. But I think that would be rather harsh to do that because you don't know how it's
going to affect their business by putting no parking signs there. But I think we have to take the position that
we do want those trucks off that street.
Councilman Senn: Charles, how come you're not jumping up and down? Usually when someone says no
parking signs, you jump up and down and say no, no, no, no.
Councilman Mason: He's trying to stay awake.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have one more item. Kate. Quickly
Kate Aanenson: Planning Commission update. When we went through the last selection of Planning
Commissioners, I had recommended that you select an alternate based on the fact that we thought someone may
be leaving the Planning Commission. The person I thought was leaving won't be leaving but somebody else has
resigned. I've been unable to touch base with him but he has spoken to the Planning Commission and that's
Ron Nutting and he told the Planning Commission Chairman that for personal reasons he wants to resign. I did
speak to the alternate who you had selected. That would be Don Nell and he is willing to serve so if it's okay
with you, then we'd go ahead and put him on.
Councilman Berquist: How long has Ron Nutting been on?
Mayor Chmiel: Almost 2 years.
Councilman Berquist: He was the Vice Chair, was he not?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Chmiel: With that, that's it?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion for adjournment?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The meeting was adjoumed at 11:35 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
72