CC 2003 09 22CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 22, 2003
Mayor Furlong called the work session meeting to order at 5:45 p.m.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Ayotte, Councilman Peterson
and Councilman Lundquist
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Justin Miller, Bob Generous, Roger Knutson, Teresa
Burgess, Matt Saam and Todd Hoffman
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Judy Siegel
Ken Wencl
Mildred & Wilbur Aydt
Steve Lillehaug
Jerry & Janet Paulsen
Shelley Murphy
411 Highland Drive
8412 Great Plains Boulevard
515 Del Rio Drive
Planning Commission
7305 Laredo Drive
6870 Redwing Lane
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte
approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City
recommendations:
seconded to
Manager's
Approval of Minutes:
- City Council Work Session Minutes dated September 8, 2003
- City Council Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated September 8, 2003
- City Council Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated September 15, 2003
Receive Commission Minutes:
- Planning Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated September 2, 2003
- Park and Recreation Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated August 26, 2003
Approval of Extending a Previously Approved Variance to Encroach~nent and Bluff
Setback Requirements, Scott Broin, 3840 Lone Cedar Lane.
Resolution #2003-80: Amended Resolution 97-09 and Vacating a Sanitary Sewer
Easement over Lot 13 and a Portion of Lots 14 and 16, Auditor's Subdivision No. 2.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
l(a). APPROVAL OF TEMPORARY LIFTING OF NO PARKING ON LAKE LUCY
ROAD.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, my concern was more around, well two things. The hours of
operation during week nights with the Kendall's put on quite a good show. However, at that time
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
of night my concern was that there would be some distractions in the neighborhood and as well,
didn't see any comments in the staff report about, comments specifically from the sheriff's office
to look and make sure that they were comfortable with everything that's out there and to see that
they're comfortable with that. It's kind of in a bad spot on there. That they're in favor of that as
well.
Teresa Burgess: I apologize, I was next door with the neighborhood that's up for the public
hearing.
Mayor Furlong: Two issues that were raised. One, the hours of operation requested on the
application which Monday through Thursday and until 11:00 p.m., all times starting at dusk.
Friday, Saturday and Sunday til midnight was the question.
Councilman Lundquist: Yep.
Teresa Burgess: Under this application they are, we are only considering the temporary lifting of
no parking. We lift the parking for the entire 7 days a week, 24 hours because otherwise it would
require us to go out and cover the signs back up to be able to ticket. The other option would be to
have special signs put up that would allow parking at other times. The operation would be
governed by the existing ordinances in place and the noise ordinance requires a permit, which I
believe has been issued, and Sergeant Olson can better answer the hours of operation of that
permit. The light ordinance that is in place does not allow nuisance light after 11:00 p.m. so it
would be determined whether it was nuisance or not would be whether they could continue to
operate after 11:00. We are only concerned with parking this evening.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Sergeant Olson, any comments on the parking there along that
particular intersection?
Sgt. Jim Olson: This display has been going on for quite a few years. Teresa and I went out and
took a look at it. Had some ideas to sit down and maybe go over with the Kendall's with, and I
think that's something that we're going to be doing over the next 2 weeks, is sitting down with
the Kendall's and talking about some other ideas.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Good enough.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions or discussion on the item? If not is there a motion?
Councihnan Lundquist: Motion to approve item l(a).
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Any discussion? Hearing none we'll proceed with the vote.
Resolution g2003-81: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to
approve the temporary lifting of no parking on Lake Lucy Road. All voted in favor, except
Councilman Ayotte who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1.
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS.
Susan McAllister: Susan McAllister. My address is 2930 West 78th Street. I didn't realize I was
going to be standing here but I do have an issue that has come to my mind quite often and that is
the intersection of West 78~ Street and Galpin Boulevard. I believe that definitely has to be a lit
intersection. There's so many cars coming every possible way you can imagine. I mean
sometimes there's like 6 or 8 cars doing different things at the same time and I don't know what
can be done, but that's a real concern for me. Seeing that my last 3 years of my life have been
nothing but car accidents, I just feel it needs some attention. And I don't know what you can do
about it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Well we can certainly ask staff to look into it. Come back with some
suggestions on what can be done.
Susan McAllister: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Okay? Thank you. Thank you, are there any other visitor presentations? We do
have tonight with us Connie Hargest from Center Point Energy. Connie, if you'd like to come
forward.
Connie Hargest: Thank you Mayor Furlong, City Council members. My name is Connie Hargest
and I don't know if the clerk needs the address. It's 800 LaSalle Avenue, Minneapolis. I'm here
for one of the more fun things that I do as part of my job and that's to deliver a check to the city.
This is a partnership grant. Community partnership grant program that we instituted this year.
It's a pilot program and what we've asked is that all of the cities that we serve have the ability to
apply for this particular grant. Todd Hoffman, in your parks department, your parks director, saw
that we had this available and he applied for the grant and there are some trees evidently that are
needed for your central park project and we have agreed to help you purchase some of those trees.
We're very pleased tonight to be able to present this check to the City in the amount of $2,160.
Mayor Furlong: Great, thank you. From a formality standpoint, I understand we need a motion
to accept the check. Is there such a motion?
Councilman Lundquist: So moved.
Mayor Furlong: And a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Any discussion? I'll just say thank you very much as part of the discussion.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to accept a check in the
amount of $2,160 from Center Point Energy to purchase trees in the new City Center Park.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: We're still on visitor presentations if there's anyone else that would like to come
forward at this time, this would be their opportunity. Very good. With that we'll close visitor
presentations and move on.
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Good evening. With my packet I have included the office area report for the
month of August. The citation list for the month of August. There was also an update that Beth
Hoiseth put out and also a bi-monthly update that Beth put out. I'll go over the numbers briefly
with the, in the area report for the month. Our total calls for service were up by 190 for the
month. Year to date for the calls for service we're up by 1,366 also. We've had 8,186 calls for
service this year already. For the month, the increase attributed to higher traffic details. Up from
22 to 48. Our traffic stops were up by 81. Citations were 230 for the month and that compares to
183 for last year, and just from a citation standpoint, we're already up over the total that were
written all of last year. Last year we wrote 1,543 for the entire year and this year we're at 1,606
already through the month of August. Burglaries for the month were up by 8 compared to last
year from 2 to 10, and burglaries unfortunately were also up for the year from 27 to 47. On the
good side, damage to property was down for the month from 33 to 28. Theft was down for the
month from 48 to 38, and motor assists were up from 19 to 52 and I don't have a real good reason
for why those went up so much. I don't know. More people's cars breaking down for the month
there. I don't have a good handle on that. Any questions at all from the monthly number
standpoint?
Councilman Ayotte: Is there a way Sergeant Olson that now that we've been collecting data, and
! know you have a year to date that shows the months, but some analysis. Can we have an
outside set of eyes take a look and see what are the trends. Formulate recommendations to deal
with the unknowns and to also in that report can we also get an idea of the success, you folks do
the arresting but in terms of conviction so that we get an idea of the results of the arrests. So
that's one question. Another question I have, we're seeing an awful lot of juvenile drinking. We
know in Carver County that we have a big problem with not only underage drinking but driving
while under the influence and I would really wonder if we could get some sort of analysis with
respect to that chronic problem.
Sgt. Jim Olson: What type of analysis are you thinking of sir? Let's say the drinking problem.
Councilman Ayotte: Cradle to grave. We have a number of arrests. There should be some
number of convictions associated with that. The number of convictions that we get as a result of
those numbers of arrests, good, bad and from there a recommendation of what can be done to deal
with the issues so when we look at public safety we should not be looking at public safety simply
from the standpoint of being able to do a lot of arrests. We ought to see how we can stop the
problem and the problem has not been stopped as far as drinking goes in Carver County.
Sgt. Jim Olson: No, it has not.
Councilman Ayotte: So, what we want to do is figure out and analyze what the problem is and
come to some resolution. How to fix the problem.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Let me sit down with our records people and let me see what kind of reports I
can run and then from there sit down and take a look at it. With any number of programs, I don't
know if we're going to be able to fix or solve the juvenile drinking problem but let's take a look
and see if we can reduce it and lower it somewhat.
Councilman Ayotte: Have a target and see if we can shoot at the target and leave it.
4
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
Sgt. Jim Olson: Let me, I'll see what I can come up with on that. And I'll get back to you next
council session with that or do you want something before that? Maybe in my report for the next.
Councilman Ayotte: I'd rather work to standard rather than time line so let's not hold you to a
time line. Let's hold you to a standard.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Okay. Okay, thank you sir. Any other questions at all from a numbers
standpoint? No? Okay. One thing that we had 2 weekends ago, we had a problem with some
thefts from vehicles that occurred around the city and most of those were, or happened through a
window being smashed and valuables being stolen out of the car. These were vehicles that were
in residential areas, where they would go to the people's houses, break a window and take things
that were inside of the car. I would highly recommend for people to remove their valuables from
their cars, even when it's parked in the driveway and that would help with a lot of this. People
are missing everything from expensive camera systems to laptop computers, CD's and all these
items were visible from outside of the car. If people can remove those valuables from inside the
car, and I would also highly recommend if people even put their cars in the garage, if that's a
possibility and that's an option. That would certainly help with a lot of that. Also, even with the
windows being smashed into residential areas, and this being at night when people are home, we
did not receive any phone calls at all with people hearing anything, and I know that this time, a
lot of people are starting to close their windows and it's getting cool out at night. But if people
hear anything I would encourage them to give us a call. Call 911. That's something that
certainly is applicable for 911 and give us a call and we'll see what we can come up with with
that but I highly encourage people to call 911 if they hear anything. Another thing that we had
this past week was theft to mail from mailboxes where people going through mailboxes in a
couple areas of the city. Some of that mail was actually even found in Eden Prairie. Along with
the theft from vehicles, you know I would highly recommend that people not put their mail in
their mailbox for the mailman to pick up. When people put mail in their mailboxes, they lift that
little red flag up and tell the mailman that they've got mail there, and that's a target for other
people also. Other people know that the mail's in the mailbox and that goes hand in hand with
our identity theft problem that we've had. People take that mail and take the checks from the
mail and they can get your checking account number, your bank routing number, name, driver's
license, phone number, everything off of that check. There's software that's available that you
can buy at a retail store to be able to make up their own checks and they have all that information
available to them and all of a sudden they're writing checks, and until you get a bank statement or
bank overdraft notices, you'll never know that this was done. So I'd encourage people to mail
their mail in a post office mailbox or take it straight to the post office. This is something that
we're certainly looking at. Also if you see somebody by a mailbox, neighbor's mailbox, your
own mailbox or whatever, that you know is not the mailman, again give us a call and let us take a
look at that and we would certainly appreciate that. Crime Prevention Specialist Beth Hoiseth
this past Friday had a Senior Safety Seminar that she did and she actually went over identity theft
in that and talked about that with the seniors. Identity theft is certainly a problem not only
locally, or statewide but even nationwide. Identity theft is a problem and it's something that law
enforcement all over the country is trying to get a handle on so, but one thing that you can do is
keep your mail out of your mailbox and mail it at a post office mailbox so. Anything else for the
law enforcement, for sheriff's office at all?
Councilman Ayotte: One more thing. I happen to talk to one of the victims of identity theft.
This particular individual had thousands of dollars put at risk and had stated at one point
willingness to share their story. I was wondering if it's at all possible that you could see whether
or not that's doable and maybe work in concert with the Villager to get a little bit more personal
attention to that. I know some of the victims may have a willingness to share their plights so that
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
we maybe we can get these folks to stop putting the flags up on the mailboxes. It's still a big
problem.
Sgt. Jim Olson: People don't realize the expense that they have to go through to try to, you know
maybe the bank will pick up some of the charges if you file some of that, but there's still a huge
expense in your credit history and there's so many things that get affected by this that ! think
that's a good idea. I'll talk to Melissa from the Villager about that. Anything else for us at all?
Mayor Furlong: I don't think so. Thank you very much Sergeant. Appreciate all your efforts.
Chief John Wolff: Mayor, council members. For the fire department, since last month, our
staffing's at 42. We have 4 on leave. That leaves us 38 available. We anticipate a need to hire
for the next fiscal year and we'll start some work to that effect to bring some new folks on for
next year. Haven't done that in 3 years and that's typically an annual activity for us. We've kind
of had a moratorium on that for expense reasons, but we're now getting to the point where I think
we need to initiate that practice again. Through September 15s~ we're up 27 percent on call
volume at 611. Last year we ended the year at 699. And this time last year at 481 so call activity
is up. It's up relative to last year which was a down year but it's also up relative to any year. 10
percent higher than any prior year. Late October, we anticipate that the new radio tower that
we're using our water tower for will be available for the 800 megahertz system which is the new
radio system we have in the county. We anticipate that this will, while the system's working very
well, this will have a positive impact on the efficiency of the system and our ability to use it deep
inside some of our larger structures in town. So we're looking forward to that. It's been a good
partnership between the City of Chanhassen, Carver County Communications and the Metro
Radio Board in terms of kind of coming up with the resources to pull that one off, and everybody
benefits. Not only Chanhassen but the rest of Carver County so there's a real positive there. Fire
Prevention Week is October 4th through 11~h. We'll culminate the week with open house on
October 12th, which is a Sunday from 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. and we have a whole host of events for
that afternoon. A number of activities during the week will include visiting with a lot of the
schools in town and targeting certain age groups for certain kinds of fire prevention, fire ed
programs. Look forward to that every year. Get approximately 25 members from the department
to volunteer their own personal time to teach the kids during the week so it's a real positive event
for the city. Our training program this past month, we've done a lot of work with basic skills, fire
fighting skills. Working with our extrication tools for car accidents. These are things that we do
on an ongoing basis to just maintain skill level. We've also worked with hazardous materials
training for our specialists and we've begun our WMD awareness training. We did a class on
explosives and sort of identifying the kinds of destruction that you see from an explosive event,
and also what to look for relative if you think you're in a situation where there might be an
explosive that caused the fire or the damage to kind of keep an eye out for secondary devices, that
sort of stuff so that's the kind of training that a lot of public safety organizations are taking
advantage of. The government actually has grants and programs that they've put together and we
applied for a grant and received some money to put this training on for our members and some of
the area fire departments. Our citizen fund raiser will be shortly going out to all the residents.
We put on a little raffle. There's a number of gifts and financial awards for people that win the
raffle. They don't need to be present. We do the drawing on open house Sunday. Last year we
used the money to purchase a new boat. A new rescue boat and motor and it was a real worth
fund raiser. Somewhere in the neighborhood of $21,000 and we spent most of that on the boat.
Part of that money was also spent on a thermal imaging device which allows the fire fighters to
go inside a smoky environment so we anticipate continuing that program this year too. And then
finally your packet includes some customer comment cards, survey data. We send these out to
everybody that receives services from us and we probably see maybe 25 percent back. I think
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
this is the most recent sampling or quarter sampling for your, just for your viewing. What I want
to implement next year is where we're going to start rolling this data up and tracking it so that we
can maybe measure it relative to how the performance is going over time. I'll take any questions
or comments from council.
Mayor Furlong: Questions for the Chief.
Councilman Peterson: In the surveys that you did get back, I couldn't see anything in there that
was really negative, but do you see anything in there that you'd like to improve on from a general
perspective?
Chief John Wolff: The survey cards are interesting. I've been looking at them you know, over 5
years now and it occasionally will target something like gee, the attire of the individuals, because
we asked that question. Question of response time, appearance of the personnel, professional
mannerism, first aid skills, and follow through at the end. Occasionally you'll get a comment
about appearance and because we're paid on call, we sometimes we're up at 3:00 in the morning.
We don't have our hair all done up for the responders but, so I sort of take into consideration
what time, and was it a day call. Was it a night call. Other things that we do keep an eye on
though are response time, professional mannerism. If there's an issue, a pattern around
professional mannerism or response time then we try to investigate that and just see if there's
something we can do to maybe improve those areas. But if you have suggestions or thoughts
around maybe other things that we could ask or should ask, we'd be open to that and we'd look
forward to your input too.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other questions? Chief, with regard to the number of calls. 25 percent
higher you mentioned that it was low last year. Is it typically volatile from year to year?
Chief John Wolff: No it's really not. It's been pretty consistent up until last year which we had a
drop, and quite frankly we don't know why, but metro, actually statewide, even like Minneapolis
fire went from 40,00 to like 32,000 calls and everybody's back up this year. Really gosh, we just
really don't know why because it's one block of calls if you start striating them by type of call or
what have you. So it's just the volume is up, which is typically this growing community has seen
now since I've been on the department 18 years, it's gone up 5 to 10 to 15 percent a year with an
average around 8 to 10 percent. And we are on that track. We're back on that track. We dropped
off last year.
Mayor Furlong: And that was my question. Even though it looks like a tremendous increase
from one year to the next, we're back on the trend line.
Chief John Wolff: Really back on the trend line and from a budget perspective we've been
planning for in terms of, trying to put in the cost allocation next year. Not to try to trend it off of
last year's budget but really to trend it off of the trend line.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Very good, thank you. Any other questions? Very good, thank you very
much.
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ON-SALE BEER & WINE LICENSE, FRANKIE'S
PIZZA, PASTA & RIBS, 7850 MARKET BOULEVARD, THOMAS O'MEARA (NEW
OWNER).
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
Justin Miller: Mayor, Council. Frankie's Pizza, Pasta & Ribs is changing ownership and with
that requires a renewal or a new application for a liquor license. There has been a background
check on the new owner, Mr. Thomas O'Meara. The background check came back clean. Public
hearing notices were sent to all property owners within 500 feet. We did not receive any negative
comments. Staff is recommending approval and would recommend that you open up the public
hearing.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there any question for staff at this time? If not we will open the
public hearing. This is an opportunity for people to come forward and speak on this issue. And
this is the public hearing for the on-sale beer and wine license for Frankie's of Chanhassen. If
there's nobody that wants to come forward, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to
council for discussion. Bring it back. Is there any discussion on the matter?
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on the motion made. Hearing none we'll proceed with the vote.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the request for an
on-sale beer and wine license for Frankie's Chanhassen, Inc., dba Frankie's Pizza, Pasta &
Ribs at 7850 Market Boulevard contingent upon receipt of the license fee and the liquor
liability insurance. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4
to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING: LAHAYE ADDITION, 7551 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD,
ERNEST PIVAC:
Ao
Co
VACATION OF A PORTIAON OF SANTA FE TRAIL.
APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 1.56 ACRES
INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES.
APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT & PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS,
PROJECT 03-07.
Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Council members. As you stated there's a public hearing
required as part of this due to the vacation of a portion of Santa Fe Trail. It's a paper street in the
community. Right now it ends just east of Great Plains Boulevard. It's a very steep slope from
Great Plains Boulevard down to Frontier Trail so the city would never develop it. We are
recommending approval of the vacation of the right-of-way and retention of a utility easement so
that a sanitary sewer line can be run down the hill. Again we won't need that for a public right-
of-way purposes and so we're vacating it. The second part of the request is a subdivision review,
preliminary and final plat approval with a variance for a double fronting lot. This is a 1 1/2,
approximately i V2 acre site. Previously there was an existing house on the northern part of the
property. That house has been demolished. That site was accessed via an existing private street
which serves this property as well as one house in the back and another one over here. Previously
the house in front was accessed off of this driveway, but they have eliminated that access point.
The new lot is to the south of the existing, or the previously home site. It fronts on Santa Fe
Trail, the vacated portion, and Frontier Trail. Again this is a very steep site so the city was trying
to look at preventing removal of the trees and creating a steep driveway situation, so accessing off
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
of Great Plains Boulevard made a lot of sense. However, because it had two frontages it required
a variance...frontage on one public street unless it's a collector or arterial. Staff is recommending
approval of the subdivision with the variance as well as approval of the development contract and
plans and specifications for the utility improvement. With that I'd be happy to answer any
questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Are there questions for staff? The issue with the public, or excuse
me the private street and it's width, that was a question raised I think at the Planning Commission
as well as other times. Could you address that a little bit please.
Bob Generous: Yes. The existing or the previous house site on that was, they access via an
existing private street. They're not changing that condition. There will be one house on this
property accessing it. The applicant has agreed to make some improvements to that but they
don't really need that as part of the subdivision. For instance if they had come in just for a
building permit to demolish the old house and build a new one there, there would be no
requirement to upgrade that road. However we are trying to preserve everyone's rights and so
we're making sure that the easements are all in place as part of this subdivision process.
Additionally there's two oak trees at the beginning of that private street area, and that constrains
the width of any pavement that may be in there and so we're saying let's keep that condition now
and in the future someone re-subdivides at the end, then we'll re-look at that issue. But right now
there's no real change because the new lot will access directly off of the public street.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess that was a point of clarification. The new south lot will actually
access off a public street as opposed to the private?
Bob Generous: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Other questions?
Councilman Peterson: So if the other lot does subdivide down the road, we'll have another
opportunity to review the width of the road at that time?
Bob Generous: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, very good. Any other questions for staff at this time? if not this is a
public hearing, and so at this point we'll open it up for public hearing. If people would like to
come forward and raise issues to the council.
Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. I handed out a copy of page 6 of the report and
we highlighted a couple items there. The first item under the heading street says the applicant is
proposing to upgrade the private street to meet current city standards. In fact the city is not
requiring that they meet that 20 foot width of a private street because it does funnel down through
those two trees. It's therefore about 12 feet wide right now, and we're suggesting that a variance,
in fact would be required because they don't meet that 20 foot requirement and is there an
implication that they aren't going to meet the 7 ton load requirement also on that private street
where it funnels through there. So that was our suggestion that, realizing that they don't have to
cut down those trees, it is in fact accessing 3 lots with the potential of the fourth before long and
private streets are kind of a unique animal in the city here. Thank you.
Councilman Peterson: So Jerry what do you recommend? Just variances is the only thing that
you're recommending from your perspective?
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
Jerry Paulsen: Well we suggested that a variance would have to be requested by the developer,
yes. Because it doesn't meet the 20 foot, and perhaps not meet the 7 ton requirement either.
Mayor Furlong: Is there, I guess a question would be, does this process require a variance
application at this point?
Roger Knutson: Mayor in my judgment it doesn't. You have an existing private street. If you
were coming in for a new private street, and that would narrow it down to 12 feet yes you would.
But this is an existing street. Just like I assume there are many, maybe I shouldn't, I would
assume there are many public streets out there that don't meet current standards. I assume that's
the case, and when someone comes in for a building permit or something, we don't require them
to redo their, we don't redo the public street. The same rules would apply here.
Teresa Burgess: Mr. Mayor, if I could clarify just so there's no confusion on the part of the
public. The public hearing is regarding the street vacation and so I would encourage you to
remind people if they have a comment on that, we do need that information.
Mayor Furlong: Certainly, thank you. And I also realize that I omitted giving the applicant an
opportunity to speak this evening, if that was a desire so we could certainly hear that at this time
as well or.
Ernest Pivec. Not necessary at this time.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. We'll try to organize our thoughts. So right now we are, have
a public hearing with regard to the vacation of the street. We slipped into a couple other issues as
a part of the staff report but is there any other discussion with regard to the vacation issue, from a
public hearing standpoint? This would be the opportunity to come forward. If there is none we'll
close the public hearing with regard to the vacation issue. Probably address these one at a time
would be appropriate from a motion standpoint. Is there any discussion at the council level with
regard to the vacation of the Santa Fe Trail? If there's none, is there a motion to approve the, can
we have a motion? What page are we on for that?
Bob Generous: Page 11.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Lundquist.
Councihnan Lundquist: I move that the City Council approves the vacation of 2003-1 for the
partial vacation of Santa Fe Trail as shown in the drawing attached with conditions 1 through 3.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we'll proceed with the
vote.
Resolution #2003-82: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the
City Council approves Vacation #2003-1 for the partial vacation of Santa Fe Trail as shown
on the attachment, with the following conditions:
10
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
1. The applicant shall provide the city with the legal description of the vacated right-of-way.
The applicant shall dedicate a 30 foot wide drainage and utility easement, centered on the
sanitary sewer line.
3. Approval of the vacation is contingent upon approval of Subdivision #03-3.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: As long as we're talking about this issue, we'll move on to the next item which
is the consideration of the preliminary and final plat. Is there an additional staff report at this
time? Or did we slip into it earlier?
Bob Generous: ! slipped into it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any comments from the applicant at this time on the preliminary and
final plat? Very good. And I think the issue that was raised during the public hearing spoke to
this a little bit too so, any discussion from the council's standpoint?
Councilman Peterson: I think Roger had a good perspective and I can't argue with that. Not that
I would ever argue with Roger but.
Councilman Lundquist: Or not in public.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, very good. Moving along then, if there is no other discussion, is there a
motion?
Councilman Ayotte: The city I think a motion for the City Council to approve the preliminary
and final plat for Subdivision #03-3 for LaHaye Addition for 2 lots and a variance to allow a
double frontage lot as shown on the plans received August 29, 2003, subject to conditions 1
through 12. No, 23.
Mayor Furlong: 23. Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we'll proceed with the vote.
Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council
approves the preliminary and final plat for Subdivision ~O3-3 for LaHaye Addition for 2
lots and a variance to allow a double frontage lot as shown on the plans dated received
August 29, 2003, subject to the following conditions:
1. Install sod in all of the pavement removal areas.
If grading material will need to be imported or exported to construct the lots and street,
the applicant and/or the contractor must supply the City Engineer with a detailed haul
route for review and approval prior to site grading.
11
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
10.
tl.
12.
The new turnaround on Great Plains Boulevard shall be constructed to current city design
standards with 28 foot wide pavement, B-618 curb and gutter and concrete driveway
aprons.
A minimum 30 foot wide drainage and utility easement is required over the public
sanitary sewer line in the vacated road area.
Any grading or utility work outside of the property limits or right-of-way will require a
temporary easement.
Revise the grading plan as follows:
Add a benchmark and legend to the plan. The legend should define all of the
different line types, easements, silt fence, etc.
Show all existing and proposed easements on the plans.
Add tree preservation fencing around any and all trees to be saved.
Show the existing storm sewer and culverts under the existing driveways.
Revise the utility plan as follows:
no
Add a legend to the plan.
Label the existing size and type of pipe for both the sanitary and watermains.
Show the existing storm sewer and culverts under the existing driveways.
The water service for Lot 2 will be coordinated with the City.
The proposed private street upgrades shall include a 20 foot wide pavement, built to a 7
ton design, and a 30 foot wide private easement dedicated to the benefiting property
owners. In order to save the two existing oak trees on each side of the private street, the
street width may be narrowed in this area. The developer shall provide inspection reports
for the private street to the City.
Detailed street construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest
edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates will be required for review and
approval by the City Council at the time of final plat consideration. Since the street
improvements will become owned and maintained by the City, the applicant must enter
into a development contract with the City and provide financial security in the form of a
letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee construction of the public improvements.
Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including but not
limited to Watershed District, MPCA, etc.
The site will be subject to one sanitary sewer and water connection charge for the new lot.
The 2003 connection charges for both sanitary sewer and water are $4,513. The property
is also subject to sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges for the new lot. The 2003
trunk utility hook-up charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit
for water. The 2003 SAC charge is $1,275 per unit. These charges are collected prior to
the building permit issuance.
Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any
construction.
12
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
13. Building official conditions:
Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division
before building permits will be issued.
Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
Retaining walls over 4 feet high require a permit and must be designed by an
engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota.
t4. Fire Marshal conditions:
An address monument sign shall be installed at the common driveway entrance
where they split. Plans must be submitted to the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
review and approval. Also, if the address numbers installed on the houses are not
visible from the common driveway, additional numbers will be required at the
driveway entrances. These requirements are pursuant to Chanhassen Fire
Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed.
15.
Storm water calculations should be submitted to demonstrate that the proposed
subdivision maintains existing runoff rates and volumes.
16.
Impervious surfaces should be minimized to the greatest extent possible due to the lack of
storm water infrastructure. This includes the construction of Alternate A (Hammerhead
Turnaround) instead of Alternate B (Complete Circle).
17. The bluff impact zone and bluff setback should be shown and labeled on the grading plan.
18.
Based on the proposed developed area of 1.57 acres, the water quality fees associated
with this project are estimated at $1,490 and the water quantity fees associated with this
project are estimated at $3,686. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are
dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time the
estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the city at the time of final plat recording is
$5,176.
19.
Approval of the subdivision is contingent upon the City Council approving the vacation
of the right-of-way.
20.
Full park and trail fees will be collected in lieu of land dedication for the newly created
lot in the amount of $2,400.
21. Access to Lot 2 shall be prohibited off of Frontier Trail.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Next item is the approval of the development contract and plans and
specifications, Project 03-07 with the LaHaye Addition. Is there any additional staff report?
Teresa Burgess: No, it's simply the agreement incorporating all of the previously discussed
items.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any discussion on this? Hearing none is there a motion?
13
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve development contract and construction plans and
specifications for LaHaye Addition, Project 03-07.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we'll proceed with the
vote.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the construction
plans and specifications for LaHaye Addition, Project No. 03-07 dated September 11, 2003,
prepared by Gronberg & Associates, Inc. and the development contract dated September
22, 2003 be approved conditioned upon the following:
The applicant shall enter into the development contract and supply the City with a cash
escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $54,109.00 and pay an administration fee of
$9,517.OO.
The applicant's engineer shall work with city staff in revising the construction plans to
meet city standards.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING: APPROVE FEASIBILITY STUDY;
PREPARATION OF PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE
STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT No. 04-01.
AUTHORIZE THE
2004 RESIDENTIAL
Public Present:
Name Address
Doug Rasmussen
Kathy Blettner
Mildred & Wilbur Aydt
Fred Lambert
David Hans
Matt Johnson
Jim & Marianne Moline
Brian McCarthy
David Miller
Carroll Hanna
Ron Mielke
B. Clayton
Julia Pims
Roberta & Tom Brunberg
Steve Rosas
Gordy Nagel.
Nancy Weibel
Tom Lentz
Rich Engelhardt
415 Santa Fe Trail
509 Del Rio Drive
515 Del Rio Drive
618 Santa Fe Circle
406 Santa Fe Circle
424 Santa Fe Circle
507 Del Rio Drive
513 Del Rio Drive
420 Santa Fe Circle
400 Santa Fe Trail
405 Santa Fe Trail
405 Santa Fe Circle
408 Santa Fe Circle
402 Santa Fe Circle
7520 Frontier Trail
514 Del Rio Drive
416 Santa Fe Circle
404 Santa Fe Circle
403 Santa Fe Trail
14
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
Teresa Burgess: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor and council, I'll give a real brief discussion
on pavement management and you can ask me questions if you have any. The City of
Chanhassen has a computerized pavement management system which ranks and prioritizes all of
the streets in the city for repairs and rehabilitation and what is called reconstruction. This
neighborhood is proposed for reconstruction which includes replacement of sewer and water and
full construction of new road. I have grouped the items, the sections of road into what are similar
projects and I'd encourage the council to call each of those neighborhoods individually and I'll
give a brief staff report on each of those neighborhoods. With council's permission the first
section would be Kiowa, Iroquois and Huron. Those streets, as you see in this box right here, are
proposed to receive sanitary sewer spot repairs. There are approximately 23 locations that will
require us to dig down to the sanitary sewer and repair the joints, which includes relaying of those
joints and then to patch that area. That will buy the city approximately 5 to 7 years until this
section of road will need to be fully reconstructed. The reason we are able to do that and
recommending it is because the streets as a whole is in fairly good condition. We have not had a
significant number of watermain breaks and the street is holding up very well and has been
recently overlayed. We will eventually need to do a full depth reconstruction but not at this time.
The properties are not proposed to be assessed because the work that is being done is considered
a maintenance issue and is not considered to improve the property values and therefore according
to 429 is not assessable. If there's any questions I'd be happy to answer those, otherwise I'll
move for the public hearing.
Mayor Furlong: Are there any questions at this time for this section? Okay. Why don't we open
up the public hearing and as recommended we'll address these in different segments. This would
be the Kiowa, Iroquois and Huron Drives. If anyone is interested in coming forward, please state
your name and address and address the council at this time. Seeing none, why don't we move on
then with the next segment which is the Santa Trail and Del Rio.
Teresa Burgess: Mayor and council. Santa Fe Trail and Del Rio. The city is recommending
improvements to this section of Del Rio, if we could go to the map. This section of Del Rio
Drive. This section that is further to the north was constructed later and is in much better
condition then this piece right here, and this piece of Santa Fe Trail. This section of watermain
and sanitary sewer was installed in Santa Fe Trail in 1967 and in Del Rio in 1969. Due to the
condition of the pipe it is the city's recommendation that both sewer and watermain be replaced.
In addition there is existing storm sewer. Existing storm sewer's inadequate for today's needs. It
was adequate at the time it was installed, however due to intensification of development in the
area and changes in standards, it no longer meets the needs of the city, And so improvements are
necessary for that. The city, in keeping with the assessment practice as it is currently in place is
proposing 40 percent assessment of the watermain and sanitary sewer, 40 percent of assessment
for the existing replacement of storm sewer, new additional storm sewer in keeping with the
assessment practice would be assessed 100 percent. In keeping with city standards there is no
existing sidewalk in this area. City standards, if this was a new development would require a
sidewalk. Staff has included it for the purposes of cost estimating. However, as we go through
the design process we would ask the neighborhood to determine whether a sidewalk is
appropriate or not. Sidewalk would be assessed 100 percent to the neighborhood. Finally the
pavement in the area, the current pavement condition index for Santa Fe Trail is 56, and 70 for
Del Rio Drive. The city typically recommends full depth reconstruction when we enter a level of
40 to 60 pavement condition index. However in this case, given the condition of the utilities, a
full depth reconstruction is necessary to address that. If there's no questions I will sit down.
Mayor Furlong: Questions for staff. Councilman Ayotte.
15
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
Councilman Ayotte: With regard to the PVC, the introduction of PVC. On either side of the
PVC, if we were to do this, is there going to be cast iron piping on either side of the PVC?
Teresa Burgess: Yes there will.
Councilman Ayotte: And that acidal material, does that cause a problem?
Teresa Burgess: We have it in other locations in the city and have not experienced problems.
Other cities have also done this and not had problems. There is a coupling at the location and it
does have to be designed to accommodate the joining of the two types of pipes.
Councilman Ayotte: So we do take measures for the diametric process and all that business, but
is there any risk to do that? I'm sorry, thank you Craig. Any risk?
Teresa Burgess: There's always risk. None that I could quantify.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay, that's fair. In your view or in the consultant's view, the amount of
degradation we're saying under the watermain, that we can anticipate that there is degradation.
Do we have a sense as to how bad? Is there a way of gauging that? Has there been any
validation to the study to gauge how bad off we are?
Teresa Burgess: The study is actually based on our experience in the field. We paid Bonestroo to
review the televised tapes of the sanitary sewer. We ran a small camera through there. And we
also had them review the watermain breaks and talk with our utility crew about the watermain.
Based on the experience of the water crew, the pipe is in significant trouble. It is experiencing
degradation due to the acidic soils. It is eating the pipe literally. This project, we have had some
watermain breaks in this area. Not a significant number. However it is our opinion that the
watermain does need to be replaced due to experiencing in the two circles which we'll be talking
about later. And that this is the same age and the same type of pipe.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Now, we talked about the clay having an adverse affect on the pipe,
and we've had discussions about water in the past. Is the clay the prime problem or is the
condition of our water? It's the clay.
Phil Gravel: It's the clay.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Storm sewer. The catch basins. Is there anything that we could do
with respect to accelerated preventive maintenance to help offset the need to deal with the catch
basins?
Teresa Burgess: There are not enough existing catch basins.
Councilman Ayotte: So it's a question of putting more.
Teresa Burgess: It's a question of quantity, but it's also a question of when this neighborhood
was developed, the idea of pre-treatment before entering the lake was not an issue. Storm water
was routinely dropped straight into wetlands and lakes, and that is no longer acceptable as a
standard for storm water treatment.
Councilman Ayotte: In regard to the street management program that we have, is this condition
because we're looking at taking care of this issue, the worst that we have?
16
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
Teresa Burgess: This is the best bang for the buck. It's not necessarily the worst street in town,
but it's the best return on our dollar.
Councilman Ayotte: Could you give me a little more.
Teresa Burgess: We certainly have streets in town that are at a worst condition than these. If you
were to drive in the Carver Beach neighborhood, I'm sure you could find one very quickly.
Being the oldest neighborhood in town. However, those streets do not have the utility issues that
these do. They also have other issues, including right-of-way issues that would make it
economically difficult to address those streets, so in those cases it is better for us to continue to
patch versus this one where we can correct the problem and you have people with a decent road
and good watermain and reliable sanitary sewer.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay. One last question. The numbers that you gave us is associated with
this packet right here, this handout?
Teresa Burgess: The assessments, yes.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay.
Teresa Burgess: Those I believe, one of the council members had asked what the monthly impact
would be to property owners, and that was the intent was to answer that question.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions? At this time. Very good. This is a public hearing so residents
or others that would like to speak on Santa Fe Trail, Del Rio please approach.
Tom Brunberg: Tom Brunberg. I live at 402 Santa Fe Circle.
Mayor Furlong: Sir. Tom. We're going to pick up Santa Fe Circle in a few minutes.
Tom Brunberg: No, this is Santa Fe Trail.
Mayor Furlong: Oh, you're on Santa Fe Trail?
Tom Brunberg: I'm on this project.
Mayor Furlong: Right, we're going to try to take it by streets. We're going to talk about the
circles in just a minute and try to bring people up a little more orderly that way, if you could.
Thank you. So if we could have residents on Santa Fe Trail and Del Rio that want to speak to it.
You might be the next one up anyway. Apologize. I want to make sure we get everybody.
Please come forward at this time please.
David Miller: I'm on Santa Fe Circle but I want to give these gentlemen, let you know what
we're figuring and it's not a happy sight, or a happy...
Mayor Furlong: Sir, if you could state your name and address.
17
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
David Miller: David Miller, 420 Santa Fe Circle. These amortizations that we got printed up and
the problem we have is, $15,000 to do this to be put to each homeowner in that area is an awful
clunk on everybody at this time. It's not fair I don't think. Now maybe I'm you know speaking
for myself but there's a lot of hard working people in our neighborhood. There's some elderly
people. There's some people that have lost their jobs and have cut their jobs back, and this is
even over an 8 year period is $207 a month. Over a 10 year period, it's $175 a month. And over
15 years it is $134 a month. Total each cost to each person at the end is $19,908 if you take on an
8 year term to pay this off, this sewer and water you want us to pay for. On a 10 year time it is a
grand total of $21,109, and if you go 15 years, which I think a lot of these people in this area will
probably be saved or will be moving or gone but they'll still, this will be responsible to their
property, would be $24,291. Now in another subdivision earlier in Chanhassen's career, and I
think before the council. Was it called Chan Hills?
Teresa Burgess: Chan Estates.
David Miller: Chan Estates. The sewer and water was paid for by the city. Wasn't assessed to
the homeowners. This is steep gentlemen. Steep. I mean in your terms you can look at this, I
mean this could be hardship. There's a bond issue coming for schools. There's other taxes
coming. This could double everybody's taxes in this area. In a heartbeat. I mean double it. And
I think at this time, I know we probably need this, but what is fair and what is really ramming it to
the homeowners. There's 33, or 32 of us. And I'm not saying anything against the council but
there's got to be, I think, there has to be some compassion with some of these people and we have
to think maybe can we work it another way or can the city do what they did in Chan Estates and
pay for the sewer and water and let us pay the other assessment or whatever it has to be. But if
you look at this, it's shocking really to anybody right now, and I'm just, you know I'm unhappy
with it, but I would like you gentlemen to take a long, hard look at this and maybe we can work
something out. But right now it's a shock to everybody.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, very good. Thank you. You know what I'll ask, since we've got 32
properties here and the differences, they're all proposed to be assessed by the same amount and
the projects are, I mean we've got two cul-de-sac's off the road. Why don't you, if there's any
more staff report with regard to the circles, let's do that and then we'll just open it up so that we
can avoid some of the confusion here. I don't think they're that different.
Teresa Burgess: Certainly. I think the only thing to clarify on the circles is, first of all the circles
are in much worst condition. The two circles are both referred to as Santa Fe Circle, although on
the plat it is referred to as Laramie and so you will notice it referred to as both in the staff report.
We have tried to use both names so there's no confusion. One of the issues that was brought up
as part of the feasibility study was the idea of putting in what's called a rain garden, which is a
depressed area that would hold water for a short period of time and drain away. It does provide
some treatment. There are some significant issues to a center of the island of the circle rain
garden, specifically the fire department has expressed some concerns about their accessing the
area. It would impact parking and also it is an issue for maintenance and who would maintain
those and keep those up. They are in the feasibility study for further consideration. The city is
proposing to pay for those 100 percent if they are installed, but until those questions are
answered, the decision whether or not to put them in cannot be made. The other main issue that
takes place in the circles is that the current PCI's in the circle, pavement condition index for the
eastern circle is 52, and for the western circle is 40, so as you can see we're well within that 40 to
60 range for reconstruction of the circles. They also have significant watermain and sanitary
sewer issues. Anyone who has been out there would not question that the streets are in need of
repair and that the storm sewer work in these circles, if necessary. They're in one circle that is
18
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
much worst than the other. You'd have significant drainage issues that would be corrected by
this project. So with that I'll answer any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? if I can follow up with a question based on the previous
gentleman. He indicated that for the Chan Estate project that the City picked up sewer and water,
is that correct? On the sewer and water improvements.
Teresa Burgess: Would you like me to address that right now?
Mayor Furlong: Please, because the question was raised.
Teresa Burgess: If the council would refer to their correspondence packet. There is a memo
dated September 17th from myself to Todd Gerhardt. And if you look to the second page of that
me mo.
Councilman Ayotte: How far back is it Teresa'?
Teresa Burgess: It's the first memo. So when you open it up you're going to see it right there.
The second page it summarizes what was done on Chanhassen Estates and I apologize, storm
drainage did also include pond work but there was water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, and
pavement reconstruction, and what was assessed to the neighborhood, you'll see it in the table
there. Zero percent of water. Zero percent of sanitary sewer. 29.5 percent of the storm sewer
and 35.9 percent of the street. There were also, what throws those numbers to be a little odd is
that there was what was called a driveway credit given to some of these parcels and we were not
able to determine from the records or from recollections of anyone that was on staff at the time
that this project was done, what that driveway credit was intended for. We had some supposition
but we could not come to a clear understanding. That adjusts those percentages to funny numbers
that you see there. Also in that packet is that table that we had talked at the last work session of
what other communities are doing with assessments, and you'll notice that many of those
communities have chosen not to assess sewer and water. Some have, but the majority have
chosen not to and have built it into their water and sewer rates. As long as we're on the issue, the
numbers that the gentleman talked about, I believe those are using the 6.5 percent that we have
used traditionally. Given what interest rates are doing, you'll see, you should have seen in front
of you when you sat down a table. That was done this afternoon with what our financial
consultant is recommending for assessment rates, percentages given an 8, 10 and a 12 year bond
and so it is lower. It is still a substantial dollar amount but it is lower than what he discussed.
Mayor Furlong: While we're looking at past projects and assessment policies. This project here
of Chan Estates included improvements, repairs similar to what are being proposed for this
neighborhood, is that correct?
Teresa Burgess: Yes they were.
Mayor Furlong: Have we had any other projects of similar, in terms of the replacement of
utilities, storm water and streets since '957
Teresa Burgess: No. That was the last, in fact prior to the 2001 project that was the last project
we had done, and that was because our assessment practice was 100 percent assessment. We
implemented the 2001 practice to give staff direction. In '95 what was done, as it was proposed
as 100 percent assessment and the neighborhood dealt directly with council to adjust those. To
19
City Council Meeting - September 22, 20(i)3
negotiate those assessment rates before the project, or actually after the project was completed.
So the council then had to come up with the money at the end of the project.
Mayor Furlong: And so the current policy.
Teresa Burgess: Practice.
Mayor Furlong: Practice that you described earlier, we have not had a project similar to this with
that practice in place?
Teresa Burgess: No we have not.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is the only one in 2002 projects? Was there one or two projects that were
included?
Teresa Burgess: We did two projects in construction 2002.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And they were both subject to the same?
Teresa Burgess: Those were both done under this assessment practice and they were both
rehabilitation projects with mill and overlay, no utility work. No substantial utilities.
Mayor Furlong: And Pheasant Hills was one. Which was the other?
Teresa Burgess: The other was an MSA project on Audubon, Lake Drive East and West.
Mayor Furlong: That's right .... this is the residential project which would be similar to Pheasant
Hills, okay.
Teresa Burgess: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions at this time before we continue with the public
hearing? With that, Tom please come back. Thank you for your patience. And be happy to
listen to you.
Tom Brunberg: I'll correct, I'm 402 Laramie Circle, but my post office address is Santa Fe
Circle. I'm going to limit my comments to the sidewalk issue. And I'm sure others will talk
about the cost. It is rather high. lt's interesting for me to discover that the city has a practice of
sidewalks and offers the opportunity if you may to our neighborhood, when the neighborhood
didn't have sidewalks originally and presumably the lots weren't necessarily set back to allow for
a sidewalk in the first place. I think a sidewalk offers the neighborhood an opportunity to create
safety for our children. It offers an opportunity to clear the streets for safety officers. It offers an
opportunity to clear the streets for fire. It makes it a better access. Unfortunately at the same
time it may actually speed the street up and so as we have, if we have a new street, as proposed, it
would certainly increase the amount of traffic. At this point in time Santa Fe Trail is used for a
cut off from the neighborhoods that are north and westerly from us so that they don't have to go
through all the city stop lights. They can, they don't have to go past the school district. They can
come down Santa Fe Trail and angle up. Catch 78th Street and head out of town, so we're a little
concerned about the traffic flow that will result from the new street. I don't know if the streets
will be widened. I don't know what the sidewalk will be and I'm sympathetic to those
homeowners that have a proposal for a sidewalk for fear that they will lose trees, shrubs, etc. So
20
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
as to how the sidewalk is place, how the street is placed is the street, I think the city has 5 feet or
something on each side of the street. Do you shift the streets so you lose 2 lA feet on each side to
accommodate a 5 foot sidewalk or something like that? I raise those questions and so I find it
interesting practice that council would propose sidewalks and allow an area, a neighborhood to
make the decision for it would appear to me that it would fracture sidewalks in a neighborhood.
If our neighborhood opposed this and another neighborhood nearby said yes, we'd have a
sidewalk part way to Laramie Circle and we'd have a sidewalk, no sidewalk to Laramie Circle. I
find that inconsistent with what maybe the city fathers really should have, and so it seems to me
we should develop a consistent practice when we redevelop streets and water and sewer in the
neighborhood. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward as part of the public hearing?
Gordy Nagel: My name's Gordy Nagel. I live at 514 Del Rio Drive and this is probably more of
a question to staff than to anyone but when I looked at the proposal there were 33 lots and when I
looked at the assessment it's divided by 32. I don't know what the difference is.
Mayor Furlong: Who's the one?
Teresa Burgess: I believe what you saw, did you look at the staff report on the web site?
Gordy Nagel: Correct.
Teresa Burgess: That was the draft and the assessment roll is based on the final draft. The
consultant had included a parcel that did not have a driveway onto the project and city practice is
to determine a parcel to be assessable if it's driveway or street address is onto the street that is
being done. The parcel in question that is being left off of the assessment is on the corner of Del
Rio and Santa Fe, and it's driveway comes onto the portion of Del Rio that is not being redone.
They will be assessed when that piece of Del Rio is done in the future.
Gordy Nagel: Okay, thank you.
Nancy Weibel: Hi. My name is Nancy Weibel. I live at 416 Santa Fe Circle. First of all I would
like to read a letter from my neighbor who is out of town. She lives on 414 Santa Fe Trail. She
writes, I will be unable to attend the September 22, 2003 public meeting because I will be out of
town. I have looked over the feasibility report and agree we need new water and sewer
replacement, and new streets to be paved for at a reasonable price. However I am highly opposed
to a sidewalk that will take up homeowner's property on Santa Fe Trail at an additional expense
we cannot afford as our taxes keep going up every year. I live at 414 Santa Fe Trail. I am retired
and a widow. At the present time I am able to live in my home and keep it up but with this new
burden, many of my neighbors along with myself find this way out of line financially for our
community. In other words, we simply can't afford it. I'd like the council to take into
consideration these are bad economic times and if you put a practice in place, and I think that is
what you are trying to do, is that you can't, there's such a difference in price from Chan View
Estates and to this one. I think they have to take into consideration the cost. As far as for the
sidewalks, like Tom said that there should be a practice for all the neighborhoods so it's uniform.
The sidewalk we are paying for and I'm not so sure we need a sidewalk on one side of the street
either. I think the way it is will probably slow traffic down more than by putting a sidewalk in,
and I don't think the kids are going to go on the sidewalk you know, and I don't think the traffic
is as heavy as, and I'm out there a lot and I don't think it's that heavy. I just think that we need to
look at a way to keep the cost down on this. Thank you.
21
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
Tom Lentz: My name's Tom Lentz. I'm at 404 Santa Fe Circle. I'm one of the two original
homeowners that live in this neighborhood. So I've lived with the street and the conditions of
water drainage since '68 when I moved in. '69. '68. '69. And when the neighborhood was
originally built, storm sewers weren't really required and the contractor put in a culvert that ran
down into the gully and just drained into a natural stream that used to flow down behind our
place. And so the whole neighborhood, even up to West 76th Street, comes down the hill and
drains down in front of my house. Anytime there's a rain and I end up with a sandbar on the
street and originally the culvert could not handle the water. If we had a heavy rain it was running
between the houses and washing out our back yards. The city fixed that by putting two more
culverts or catch basins, so I have 3 catch basins right at my driveway. So I really support and
have been waiting for a resolution to this problem and there are streets I think are a lot worst
conditions than the city engineer even says they are. I think it's mostly, at least our cul-de-sac is
mostly all patch over the years. The streets were laid on just basically graded clay. I don't think
there's any foundation under them. They heave. They frost. They crack. They come into fix it
and a year later they're all cracked up again. So I strongly support that we get this, get our streets
finally fixed and fixed right, up to current standards, and it would be great. Now an overall thing
though. One of the problems I have with this policy of trying to maintain infrastructure, not just
in our neighborhood, in the whole city is the fact that it's got to be needed on old neighborhoods
and then it tends to be a neighborhood that tends to be a financial hardship on a lot of folks that
are in there. But I think the city has a little bit been negligent in maintaining the infrastructures
on some of these neighborhoods. They wait until it's pretty much at a deplorable condition. Our
watermain breaks probably once a year and it's in the winter time and then it's very costly. I
can't imagine what it costs the city to repair that watermain, i think there's what, 8 breaks cited
in the report.
Teresa Burgess: There are 8 breaks, correct.
Tom Lentz: Yeah. I can't imagine what the total bill of those 8 repairs have been over 10 years.
And in my front yard, right on the edge of the curbing I have a green oasis. I believe the
watermain's leaking. The rest of the lawns are brown. I've got a little green grass.
Mayor Furlong: You haven't been watering on odd calendar days?
Tom Lentz: It's only right at the edge of the street. I don't know why. I told the city about it a
couple years ago. I don't know if anything was done. So, but that's it. You know whatever the,
somehow you've got to figure out how to do the assessments so you can make these
reconstruction programs affordable. In the end we're all going through our, whether it's 60/40,
24/75, whatever it is or who pays what, in the end we're all going to pay for it as a city and a
community as we go through and redo the city as time goes on. So that's all I've got to say.
Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you.
Dave Hans: Hi. My name is Dave Hans. I live at 406 Santa Fe Circle. Right next to Mr. Lentz.
I have a couple of issues I'd like to share with all of you. First of all I agree wholeheartedly with
what Mr. Miller is saying as far as the exorbitant amount of assessment that we're being forced,
and I do think that forced to pick up because I see kind of a combination pork barreling is not the
word but it's the one that comes to mind when I see that we're being forced to take it all or none.
When you're looking at streets, that can be optional, but when you're looking at sewer and water,
that's a necessity. But yet both are being put in the same package. So I feel there's a little bit of
manipulation going on there. Leveraging one issue to the detriment of the neighborhood in terms
22
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
of how much it's going to cost us. On another issue regarding the sidewalk. First of all I'd like
to point out very clearly that the sidewalk is only 5 percent of the total cost. And everyone here
has their own interest, and mine is for the safety of my daughter. Her name is Grace. She's 5
years old and right now she takes the bus to kindergarten every morning, but next year, for the
next 6 years she'll be walking down Santa Fe Trail, over to Del Rio, and over to Laredo and if we
follow through on this street, it will be on a street that has been new and improved, upgraded.
Right now it kind of rolls and there's dips. Make that street flat and I can pretty much guess what
that kind of effect is going to have on the traffic. It's going to increase the volume of traffic for
reasons that Mr. Lentz pointed out is that we are a throughway but we are going to become every
more so should the street be improved. But also the speed. There's going to be a number of kids
in our neighborhood who are going to be walking down to the elementary school in the next few
years, as there have been in the past. And we've managed in the past, but as I said, if we're going
to upgrade that road, then I think we should look at the bigger picture. I guess what I'd like to
say is that if we can accommodate a new and improved road, which is likely to result in higher
volume and higher speed of traffic, then I think our priorities are truly misplaced if we can't
accommodate the safety of our children. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anyone else?
Mel Gibbs: I'm Mel Gibbs, 405 Santa Fe Trail. I have a concern for the kids too in the
neighborhood. I guess I feel that there are maybe some other ways to address that issue. Traffic
control. I see people coming by my house speeding and I don't know what the solution could be.
Maybe by just speed bumps aren't an option but maybe more police patrolling. Slow them down,
but I would lose possibly 5-6 feet of my front yard. Maybe necessitate putting in a retaining wall.
My neighbors would lose a couple beautiful maple trees. 1 would lose a tough birch. So I think
you know I sympathize with the safety issue but I still think we can handle that in other ways.
Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Matt Johnson: Hi, I'm Matt Johnson on 424 Santa Fe Circle. I just wanted to come up and make
sure that I second some of these people's opinions. I have a driveway, one of two that faces
Santa Fe Trail. Understand the safety concerns as well but am concerned about my trees
primarily in the front yard. They've been there much longer I hope than I have but that would
certainly be a concern, and overall with regard to the cost involved in the project, I think what
you're being asked here is really just to look and consider the alternatives as it comes to
maintenance. Sharing the cost with the city or what not. I think i want to walk out of here
making sure that this is not a done deal by any means but that it's open for future discussion and
that's all I've got. Thanks.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Councilman Ayotte: Who's this?
Vernelle Clayton: You're in trouble now. You think I'm tough when it's not my own money.
I'm Vemelle Clayton and I live at 422 Santa Fe Circle and gee, there were so many more of you
that were talking. We had a pre-meeting at 6:30. I don't know what happened to your voices but
I'll say what I'm going to say and I do encourage you to talk. These guys do want to hear from
you so. First of all also I do want to thank particularly Teresa for making the room available so
we could all get together earlier and also for the information that you shared with me so that I
could share it with the rest of the folks so we could better understand this because obviously it's
23
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
kind of a shock. The $15,000 number is kind of a shock. And it's a little bit more than that. It's
about, it amounts to 100 percent increase in our property taxes. And so I just would like to also
reiterate what others have said to some extent and talk about the policy which I understand you
like to call the practice and the precedence. The policy I think perhaps when it was put in place,
the 40/60, it was not necessarily uppermost in everyone's minds that we'd be talking about
applying it to a wholesale replacement of sewer and water and the streets. I happen to have a
project that followed a couple of occasions all the discussions about Lake Lucy Road so I heard
more than frankly I wanted to about Lake Lucy Road, but it was really then the discussion really
was about the road. It wasn't about the sewer and the water, so maybe it was, I'm not saying it
was overlooked but I think there might be room for an opportunity to relook at the policy,
particularly keeping in mind the precedence that has been set at Chan Estates where it was not
assessed to the owners. I also would like to point out that because we'd like to get at, kind of a
combination of ways that if you decide that the project should go forward and that's your call. If
it should go forward, a variety of ways that maybe the cost and the burden to those of us that live
there will not be quite so great. And at the same time setting a standard that will avoid you
having rooms full like this every time you move down the street to all of our older streets to get
them redone. I think that it's possible that the reference to new being assessed at 100 percent, at
least in my mind when it was discussed earlier meant new infrastructure. I'm a developer for
example. I come along. I divide my parcel into four lots and I'm assessed 100 percent, but it
doesn't go to me. I pass it onto the land cost and the homeowners instead of having to pay for it
over 8, 10, whatever number of years we decide here. Pay for it through their 30 year mortgages
so it's palatable in those cases but in the shorter term, we're being asked to pay for something
over precedence has been 8 years. That's only part of the life of the improvements that we're
making, which is probably not quite an equitable situation. So it seems that anything new that is
part of the reconstruction should also be at the standard if you concede to keep it at 46, at least it
should be at the standard rate. That seems to follow, particularly with respect to curbs in my
reading of it, relatively extensive survey that was done of other cities, and I think it might be
worthwhile if you really want to get into this, go back to them and ask the question a little bit
differently because it seemed from my reading that many of them considered curbs, even though
the question was asked separately, they considered curbs to be part of street construction. In that
case then also of the 24 cities that responded, 4 didn't ask the question for one reason or another.
16 did not assess at all and 4 did, and I believe that they did not, those that did not assess, were
not assessed for the curbs as well, but that's just a little more confusing. As for the dollar amount
then, if they could be a policy which would guide this council and future councils where any
dollar amount say over $5,000 would be amortized over a longer period of time to keep the
monthly costs down. That might be an issue that could be adjusted for inflation. And using the 3
ideas that I just presented I did a calculation and I can share it, I think I might accidentally made
enough copies so I can distribute it. I did calculate it, and this is based on, I know there's a
difference of opinion to some extent with respect to the sidewalk but based on our discussion that
we had earlier, it's probably about 80, well I don't want to say, but there's an awful lot of people
that don't want sidewalks. So for this example I took out the sidewalk. I took out the sanitary
sewer. [ took out the watermain, and I then amortized it over, which leaves an amount then
divided by the 32 landowners of $8,900 which is a whole lot of money too. And so I don't want
you to think you know, I have talked to all these people and they're all willing to pay $8,900. I'm
just trying to give you something that will help to understand how changes could make things
different. So that would be $8,900 and then I did a schedule of 8, 10, and 15 years at 6 and 5
percent, and that would then range from the highest would be $i 16 a month over 8 years at 6
percent and the lowest would be $70 a month at 15 years at 5 percent so that's kind of the way it
was scaled, and I'll give you a copy of this. And that still, $100 a month is still a 50 percent
increase in property so it's kind of like, you know if something awful is going to happen to you,
it's only half as bad, you're kind of happy. I don't know. | don't mean to be saying that so
24
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
anyhow, so obviously and more help would be welcome I guess and with that I will hand these
out for you and if you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you Vernelle.
Nicole Renny: Nicole Renny, 412 Santa Fe Trail. Circle. My address is the road anyway. I've
lived in my house for like 7 years and I moved in because it's a small, quaint neighborhood. No
sidewalks. Less traffic because there weren't sidewalks. My front window is only 20 feet from
the road so if you take 5 feet to put a sidewalk, you might as well put a bunch of chairs there and
people can look right into our front window. On the other side though my neighbors who spoke,
they'd have to cut down all their trees, put in retaining walls and so in a sense, and I know it
would be our side of the road because there aren't any driveways on our side, so it's give and
take. And I know we can talk about the money and we all know the last two years have been
difficult. Holy buckets, this is hard.
Mayor Furlong: You're doing just fine.
Nicole Renny: Got really supportive neighbors. But 1 know a lot of my neighbors have lost their
jobs in the last 2 years. Sorry.
Mayor Furlong: Take your time.
Nicole Renny: Okay. I mean our neighborhood's pretty close. We have a very good cul-de-sac
and when I moved into my neighborhood, all my neighbors came in and welcomed me and I was
really young because I was young and 24 years old when I bought my house. I live in a great
community and our neighborhood but the financial burden is outstanding. A neighbor's been out
of work for a year and he has 2 kids in college and I can't even imagine what $15,000 would do
to him. Let alone my family, we own our own business and we've had to take out loans just to
get through these last 2 years and then add another loan on top of that would be a hardship and we
can't even move because of those costs will still get passed onto us once we sold our house so
there's nowhere to go so if you want to move out of this, you still have that financial hardship for
the next 15 years. The woman who's not here is my neighbor also who is widowed, and I'm a
physical therapist and I want her to remain in her house because I know the pride that she feels in
keeping in her house. If she has to move out to go into a senior community, that loses her quality
of her life because she still can't maintain her house. I mean that's just the quality of life. Our
roads are horrible. I call the city every single year to have them fix my road because we have a
sprinkler system. The only one in my neighborhood and l'm very proud of it but every time I
water I get a puddle in front of my house and then people go driving by and that excess water
comes up into my yard. And every year I have to fix it. I go and market myself, saying this is
where the puddle is and they never fix it, and the burden of that, that's where the breakdown
comes down. We have a sump pump. It goes off every 13 minutes from April through June
because there's a stream that goes underneath our house. You want to know why we have
trouble. There's a spring underneath all of our houses. My neighbor's sump pump goes off all
the time and it goes right down our circle, so the problem I think a lot of us are having a hard time
understanding is the cost. Is reconstruction, therefore we have to pay for it but it's not our fault
that we're on clay. And that the water drainage sucks and so therefore we have to pay for it. I
think that's what a lot of us are struggling with is that we understand these changes have to be
done, because we're having issues but we don't understand why it's getting put on us when we
can't afford it. We have this beautiful new library and no offense, and there are a lot, my
neighbors are school teachers and no offense to this, I would have rather had, not had a library
and help pay for our road because I can't use the library because it's not open long enough hours
25
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
because we don't have the money to keep the library open long enough. But because you guys
have the money, you make the hours shorter. We don't have that opportunity because it's our
roads and our sewer system. So again I know I harping on and I apologize for crying but it's very
emotional and I think you're going to have a lot of angry people and hardship families if this goes
ahead and we have to take the burden, if it does go down to $8,000. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Rick Engelhardt: My name is Rick Engelhardt. 1 live at 403 Santa Fe Trail. We just moved into
the neighborhood a little over a year ago. We were living in Bloomington at the time and why we
were looking for homes out here in the Chanhassen area, we looked around a lot in this area and
we looked out in some of the newer complexes, the new developments. Then we happened to
come across the home where we're living now and when we saw this home, this is where we
knew we wanted to live. It's an old town style neighborhood. Mature trees. Mature homes.
Mature streets. Like the neighbors say, one of the neighbors said, it's like going back to the 50's
and that's what we really enjoyed and we've been embraced by this neighborhood and we love
living here. And we don't want to move, and we're not going to move but to get hit $15,000, it's
a pretty big hit in the pocket book. I'm looking at this assessment practice and I see it's broken
down 60 percent city, 40 percent assessed to the neighborhood. It says 60 percent paid by the
city. City's share may be MSA, which I'm not sure what that is. General fund TIF, federal or
state grants. And then it says 40 percent assessed abutting property owners. Gee there's nothing
underneath there to help us out. So it's a big economic burden. And with all due respect to my
neighbor Dave and Tom, I'm not in favor of sidewalks. I really don't think that's going to do us
any good. I think in a sense sidewalks can cause traffic to move a little bit quicker because they
feel it is safer if they feel the kids are on the sidewalks and I'm not sure how many kids use
sidewalks. And if you're looking in the winter time when the streets get plowed, where does the
snow go? On the sidewalks. The sidewalks don't get plowed, the kids ain't going to use them
anyway. So that's all I have to say, thanks.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Carroll Hanna: My name is Carroll Hanna. I live at 400 Santa Fe Trail. That's right when you
come down Great Plains Boulevard you'll drive into my driveway if you don't take a left or right
turn. But anyhow, Nicole, very fine remarks. I'm in the process of attempting to sell my house at
this time and I've been informed by my realtor that when I sell it I have to put, if this is a pending
proposition, I have to put I 1/2 times the amount of the assessment into escrow and then
afterwards, if it stays where it's at, in other words where it's proposed, I get my 1/2 times back.
But I would then have to pay the $15,500, if it's left as it is. I'm gone. I have no use of that. i
won't be able to use that property unless I drive down the street once in a while and say golly I
wish I was back here or I'm glad I'm out of here, you know. So anyhow, but I do see that it's a
hardship on a lot of people in the neighborhood, and I do believe that you should reconsider the
practice. You say it isn't a policy. It's a practice, so it evidently is not you know in concrete but
you can do the same that you did, or as the other council did, whoever did it, over in the Estates.
And let the new road is required, then assess that but pay for the remainder of the project by the
city. Okay? Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Betty Jorgenson: I'm Betty Jorgenson. I'm 401 Santa Fe Trail so I'm the corner lot so my
concern in all of this is when it's all said and done and whether we get this bill or not, and get our
sidewalks or don't get our sidewalks, when it gets done and then you're going to hit me on Great
26
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
Plains. And I'm thinking that road's got to get done too so I'm just wondering, you know when
this is all said and done, who's going to pay my kid's college because...you know I'll pay you,
you pay me, okay .... I want to thank everyone who stood up and talked for us because in the
meeting before hand we were encouraged to. I just agree to disagree with what was said and I
think that's why more people aren't coming up so thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I guess do you want to address the question about do corner lots get
assessed twice?
Teresa Burgess: The city has chosen not to assess comer lots twice. Some cities do, some don't.
What we use for the determining factor is the side the driveway comes out so unless you have a
double driveway on the two separate streets, you do not get assessed for both streets. Just the one
your driveway's on. And I'm sure there's several people now contemplating taking that second
driveway out right now.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you.
Cathy Blettner: My name is Cathy Blettner. I live at 509 Del Rio Drive. It's right on the
intersection of Santa Fe and Del Rio, and of course I was shocked to see the amount and I have a
single income and I can't afford to stay in my house if I have to pay $200 more a month. As far
as the sidewalks go, I'm opposed to those. I would probably lose at least 4 trees if it came down
my side and as far as the safety issue goes, I've raised kids there and I have 7 grandchildren. 5 of
them are old enough to be outside and spend a lot of time with me, and ! think the safety issue is
the speed of the traffic. We have a stop sign at the end of Santa Fe, but as they come through on
Del Rio on the curve, especially in the afternoon when the kids are coming home from school, the
traffic comes through there so fast I think we could benefit in safety by a 3 way stop more than a
sidewalk because the kids will be crossing back and forth and going to their destinations anyway.
So I don't really feel we need the sidewalks and I appeal to you to do what you can to keep the
cost down so we can stay in our homes. Thanks.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak?
Bonn Clayton: Bonn Clayton, Santa Fe Circle. 422. That's the west circle. ! have heard many
of the things that have been said here tonight. They really very well put comments and I just
wanted to emphasize the message I think that everybody's already been giving you, and that is
that it's too much. Too costly. You can amortize it more. You can pay for the sewer and the
water. You can pay for the whole thing, or we can do it a different way, but to me and I've been
saying this that people for a couple weeks, it comes down to the water because it seems like
there's an urgent problem in the water pipes. And that's kind of been causing this thing to be
done right now. At least that's the way it looks to me. And I appreciate Bob's comments
because if there's something to be done with the water pipes other than simply removing
everything and doing the streets over and the sanitary, or both of the sewers, if there's some way
of taking care of that water pipe and correcting a few of the sewers, maybe that would be a lot
cheaper and maybe then the streets wouldn't have to be completely redone costing $8,000 for
each of us. Maybe they could just be ground down a half an inch and built up another inch. I'm
not an expert in this area so I don't know all the alternatives but I'd like to know more of the
alternatives. Could there not be a way of simply getting something in there to change the ph
balance around those pipes? Again, I'm not an expert but I think that something that should be
looked into in that area. In those areas. Trying to solve the problems of the pipes, the water
pipes. To maybe take the pressure off of this project now. Thank you.
27
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Teresa Burgess: Mr. Mayor, if I could just address that while we wait for the next individual.
The purpose of a feasibility study is to look at exactly what he just brought up. Is there an
alternative? What's the best way to do that? And Bonestroo is here tonight and can talk a little
bit about what they considered on this so Phil.
Phil Gravel: Thanks Teresa. As Teresa mentioned, as part of the review we did look at other
alternatives for that area. As an example that's how the Huron-Iroquois area, the
recommendation is just to do the spot repairs. On the Santa Fe area with the consensus being that
the entire watermain is in an inrepairable state, the decision is that the only way to take care of
that problem is to replace it all and when you get into replacing it all and the damage that would
do to the street, then the next step is while reconstructing the street entirely is the next solution. If
there was no utility problem, if the watermain was in fine shape and the sewer was in fine shape,
we would still not recommend just a mill and overlay or something else. A temporary solution
for that street surface. I think someone mentioned earlier that there's just no base there for that
street now so if that street's going to be improved, the reconstruction method is the most prudent
thing at this time.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there anybody else that wishes to address the council on this
matter as part of the public hearing? No? Okay, last chance. We'll close the public hearing then
and bring it back to council. I want to thank everybody that came up this evening and spoke. I
realize full well how difficult that can be and so thank you very much because we do very much
appreciate direct comments on issues such as this. We'll bring it back to council for discussion.
Councilman Peterson: I think what we accomplished we wanted to with the public hearing.
Certainly we heard that the legitimate passion that our residents face. A couple of them
mentioned that they understand our challenge in that, whether the individual homeowners have to
pay for it or the citizens at large, one of the two have to. 1 mean it's, we can't pull the money out
of someplace we don't have and that has been historically the challenge that we as council people
have faced is how to maintain, what's reasonable? Is how to maintain what's reasonable. Is
$15,000 reasonable? Is $3,000 reasonable and that's, I haven't made a decision. I've heard some
things tonight that certainly will make me think long and hard about how we should do it.
Whether 60/40 is right. Whether or not that same ratio should be onto the sewer and water. I
don't know. I can't tell you tonight. I know that what I'd like to do is to get that number smaller
somehow and whether there are creative ways to get that done, I don't think we're going to
decide that tonight. But be assured that my drive and my passion is to figure out a way to
creatively get that smaller too, but realizing that the $15,000 is a real number. We can't
necessarily, and as our consultants have said, we can't really lower that number. Potentially with
removing the sidewalk will help a little bit but the city still has to pay for that. So then the
question again, the $64,000 question is, does the whole community pay for that neighborhood or
do the individuals pay for that neighborhood and that's really the crux of it, that I think we're
going to have to sort through in the coming weeks. It doesn't have to be tonight and hopefully
you weren't expecting to get a decision tonight so. Other comments?
Councilman Ayotte: Well I've got a couple.
Mayor Furlong: You promised Bob, at the work session tonight you were done.
Councilman Ayotte: Politician. I will not approve, I will not vote for this project. I'll vote
against it and, but it's for different reasons. We have school referendum. We have library
28
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
referendum. We have a water treatment issue where we have to address distribution. Whether or
not we're in compliance and capacity. So if you're concerned about your street, I want you to be
concerned about your water. So that's my viewpoint. I think we have to get an aggregate impact
on the residents so I'm worried about the collective impact, one. Two, I want to state that this
council, you know I've had kind of an up and down seat here as a councilman with previous
council and this council. This council has done everything it can to keep taxes down, or
negligible, and all five us have worked very hard to that end. I feel real good about that particular
outcome so when you say double the taxes, keep in mind that it would have been a lot worst if us
didn't work towards that end so, but I do appreciate the comments that we have to take a look at
the collective holistic impact of what we have to go out of pocket, because you really don't care if
it's a tax or an assessment or a referendum, it's dollars out of pocket and I want to have a better
feel before I go forward with any other expenditure. So $15,000 is too much at either $200 a
month or $135 a month. Because I don't know the other costs that are going to be hitting you in
the pocket. Until I know those other costs I don't feel good about that. Saying that, 1 think the
city engineer has done an outstanding job of life cycle management. We have to do that. We
have to gradually address the replacement of our streets. We can't do it, if someone said that we
neglected it before, infrastructure was neglected, I believe that. I think that's absolutely true. So
we do not collectively focus on our life cycle management program, not simply for streets but for
the entire infrastructure we're going to have a problem so this councilman wants to look at
dealing with that particular issue. I think Vernelle Clayton, excellent point. Let's not look at an
assessment across the board but we may have to look at wholesale replacement, vis a vis other
mechanisms to adhere to an assessment program. That's my view anyways. Council does not
propose a sidewalk. I don't know who said that but the council does not propose a sidewalk.
This councilman, and I think there's a few others up here that might think along that line. We
want to look at a criteria for the introduction of sidewalks, and talking towards public safety is an
element of it, but it's not a total view of it so I think also we have to take a look at a criteria to
figure out whether or not we have to introduce sidewalks. The last comment here that I want to
make is, somebody said we're in economic hard times. If we were on the east coast we would be
at war, okay. Let's put things in perspective. We are concerned about the money, the taxes and
so forth, but we're not just in economic hard times. We're at war. So there's some other issues
too that we have to face so with those comments I just want to re-state that I'm not comfortable
with this package as it stands right now because I think we have to do a little bit more homework.
Thank you Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Lundquist: My comments are going to be similar to the previous two council
members. I would, as we talked at our work session I think a couple weeks ago, all of us were
pretty uncomfortable with that $15,000 number. That was the number that we published because
we felt like that was going to be the worst case scenario I guess, and but I seconded the opinions
that that $15,000 number I think is much too high and we've got, we will find a way to bring that
down. However, these projects do I believe need to get done for a lot of different reasons and
among the responsibilities that we have up here as a council is also to provide that infrastructure
for the residents now. So we need to get these done. We need to also find a way to get them
done that it doesn't create such a hardship, so I would also second everyone's comments for
everyone coming up and making your opinions known because that is the feedback that we need
and anybody thinks that city politics doesn't affect your pocketbook, never had their streets
redone I guess so. Anyway, we have a considerable challenge ahead of us to figure out what's
fair and equitable in these and still get these projects done.
29
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Having read through the information, the feasibility study, listening
to everyone this evening, and you know the issues that i see. One with regard to just the scope of
work and the need for the work. I guess I heard tonight and the residents were fairly consistent
along with this staff and the consultant that this work needs to be done. It's got to be done. It
isn't an issue of the streets are fine, why are you doing this now. It's quite the opposite. We had
people here tonight asking, you know this should have been done a while ago. The issue that
came up tonight at the public hearing that was open for discussion, was with regard to the
sidewalks and I concur with Councilman Ayotte. We were discussing that earlier this evening as
part of the code review. When should sidewalks, when is it appropriate for sidewalks to be in
place and when are they not necessary? We haven't had that discussion yet. I think that's
something here as, you know it's proposed as part of this project. Whether or not it goes forward
or not, I think we need to determine that. The one thing I didn't hear mentioned that I picked up
out of the packet, and it was mentioned tonight were the rain gardens in the cul-de-sacs. I think
from a cost standpoint as well as, and probably more importantly here we heard a lot about public
safety tonight. There's some concern with regard to the size of those. What they might be and
whether there'd be sufficient access for fire equipment. So those are, but those are not major
issues with regard to the scope of the project. The scope of the project includes replacement of
the water and sewer lines, which people are saying needs to be done. To get down there, you
know and I think the best thing that I heard tonight on whether that needed to be done was the
fact that the city was originally looking to do that in that other area just south of this. The
Iroquois, Huron roads and the consultant determined, no. That was not cost effective to have to
do that at this time. That a repair could be done there most cost effectively than, because the
situation was such that it could support that. This neighborhood's not the case. The big issue
here is how do we pay for it? It's got to be paid for, as Councilman Peterson said. $15,000 is too
much. We've got to find a way to get that down. That clearly becomes a burden so the question
is how do we do that. I don't know that we have the information. We've had a lot of ideas
thrown at us tonight which I think is very helpful. That's something that we're going to have to
determine over the coming weeks on how we do that, but we can't not repair our roads and our
sewer and our water lines because of the cost. Because the cost is not going to go down. My
neighborhood, I live in the Pheasant Hills neighborhood. This was the neighborhood that was
part of the mill and overlay last summer that was the project. We were assessed the 40 percent.
The cost associated with that was about a factor of 10 less than what's being proposed here
tonight. It was about $1,700-$1,800. That didn't involve the utilities and it didn't involve the
sewer and it didn't involve the complete replacement of the street. It didn't involve the complete
upgrade of the gutters. Neighborhood wasn't as old but it's, the work was still done and the cost
was shared so I can fully, I can appreciate, fully appreciate the situation of the residents here this
evening. Being confronted with this letter and proposed assessment, i think we need to find a
way, I think we need to re-look at our practice on how we develop assessments, but I also think
we need to move forward on these projects, continuing to delay or push them off a year.
Unfortunately there's a capacity issue and if we miss a year of street projects, it's gone. My
understanding is we don't have the capacity to double up the following year so we have to move
forward when work needs to be done. The big question is how we're going to pay for it. And
like so many things over the coming weeks and months as we work through the budget, that's
going to be a question asked time and again, but clearly this is a, Councilman Ayotte mentioned,
this is not a council that's looking to raise taxes and the cost of living in Chanhassen. Quite the
contrary and I think we will do what we can, and as much as we can to do that. Where that's
going to end up, I don't know. But it's got to be less in my opinion than the $15,000 proposed
for the current practice. So I'm opening it up to the comments or questions.
Councilman Ayotte: I had a question.
30
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
Mayor Furlong: Certainly.
Councilman Ayotte: With the water treatment discussions we've been having, and how we want
to deal with the capacity issue, there was also some discussion on the distribution. Is it a stretch
to address the water, the sewer and water here in that discussion in some of the ways we were
talking about covering those costs for water treatment?
Teresa Burgess: Certainly as we discussed rate increases for sewer and water to address potential
improvements to the water system, what is being proposed this evening, even just our 60 percent
share will have an impact on our sewer and water rates because our current rates do not take that
into account. As I explained to council last council meeting during the work session, we will
have to adjust our water rates to account for these improvements, but we need to do these projects
and we're anticipating doing that rate study probably after most of the rest of the general fund
budget has been discussed, so either late October or early November.
Mayor Furlong: And for clarification, on the city share. We talk about the city kind of as one
entity which the city is but in terms of source of funds, the street, the city's portion for the street
generally comes from property taxes or perhaps other sources. Not in this neighborhood, but in
other neighborhoods because of the types of streets, the more commercial streets, is that right?
Teresa Burgess: This project is proposed to have it's city share come from actually three funds.
One is the general fund, which is property taxes. One is the sewer and water utility fund to pay
for sewer and water.
Mayor Furlong: And that's not taxes.
Teresa Burgess: That's not taxes. That's our utility rates. What you pay into for your usage.
Mayor Furlong: Right, for water and sewer quarterly bills.
Teresa Burgess: Right, and those were the ones that we're talking about needing to be adjusted.
We are in the process of doing that rate study. And then the third fund that is being tapped for
this project is the storm water utility fund and that, if you look at your utility bill, there is a flat
fee on that every month for storm water improvements in the city and this is one of those places
where we are proposing to use those funds.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you.
Councilman Lundquist: Clarifying question?
Mayor Furlong: Absolutely.
Councilman Lundquist: If we go forward with what staff is asking for requested action to hold a
public hearing and authorize the preparation. What's the timeframe Teresa on the project? Is this
a next spring-summer project?
Teresa Burgess: Construction is proposed to be probably late May, early June.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And when do those, when do the assessments and all of that stuff
have to all be worked out and taken care as part of that process?
31
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
Teresa Burgess: There's a difference between have to and suggested. Staff strongly recommends
that council make that determination before award of contract to the, for this project which would
be May-June of next year. Because that way council knows how it's going to pay for this. Or at
least has determined how much it has to come up with. Technically you do not have to decide the
assessment rate until you get ready to certify it to the county, which would be by the end of 2004.
But the problem with doing that is you may end up having to come up with money that you were
not anticipating.
Councilman Lundquist: So the shortest timeframe would be like March timeframe?
Teresa Burgess: Correct. It would be a good time to have it decided by.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Teresa Burgess: And just for the property owners understanding, the property, if we certify it, it
wilt go on their property taxes in January of 2005.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Peterson: I would probably augment that a little bit by saying it's probably more
prudent if we're able to make a decision pre-2004 budget so that's.
Councilman Lundquist: Agreed. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't like, you know next week.
Mayor Furlong: Roger question. When does a assessment, there was a comment made tonight
about a pending assessment versus an actual, or versus 1 guess a non-pending assessment. How
does that work?
Roger Knutson: It's a very interesting question actually and |'11 try to give you a simple answer
but there really isn't one. The term is not statutorily defined. It varies from place to place as to
what it means. Typically people consider an assessment pending as soon as you order the project.
Some people would move that to as soon as they get notice of the public hearing that you're
considering ordering the project but typically it's the date you ordered the project, which is if you
ordered it tonight to proceed, if you were to vote yes, that would by most people's, would
consider that a pending assessment as of tonight. Just so we're clear, and for everyone in the
audience. This is really a two step process. This is the public improvement hearing. Subsequent
to this there's a special assessment hearing.
Audience: Are we notified?
Roger Knutson: Definitely.
Teresa Burgess: And that notice will not only include the date of the hearing but the exact
amount of the assessment as proposed to the council at that time.
Audience: When will that be done?
Teresa Burgess: When that assessment hearing is set,
Mayor Furlong: But didn't you say typically that's either at award of the bids or.
32
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
Teresa Burgess: The city has traditionally, wait I shouldn't say traditionally. The city has since I
have been here.
Mayor Furlong: Practiced.
Teresa Burgess: Done the assessment
assessment hearing is set by the council.
are prepared to hold that.
hearings prior to award of contract. However, the
It's called by the council. They will decide when they
Roger Knutson: Mayor, just one last thing just so we're all clear on this. To order the project, to
pass this motion requires 4 favorable votes.
Councilman Lundquist: That's a super majority?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Councilman Ayotte: Then I'm going to need some more discussion.
Councilman Peterson: Again Bob, this isn't about the assessment, it's about the project itself.
Councilman Ayotte: I understand but the problem that I have is not knowing other pieces of
information, because irrespective of what the assessment shows, what comes up, I'm still
uncomfortable about not knowing about water treatment. I still have that problem.
Mayor Furlong: And when you say water treatment, just for clarification.
Councilman Ayotte: Well, we're going to be getting an action plan from Teresa and I'm not sure
when but we had talked about that, and i'm not comfortable in knowing whether or not what we
proposed for water treatment, what comes out of that action plan would have an impact on this
and other activities in the city. I'm not certain of that. Can you talk to me towards that? If we
had an action plan for water treatment, we have 3 issues of capacity, distribution, compliance. Is
there a possibility that the way we deal with water treatment would have an effect on this plan?
Teresa Burgess: No.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay.
Teresa Burgess: This project is, the only impact on this project that water treatment would have
is financial. How we pay for treatment, how we pay for this. We only have one checkbook. We
have multiple funds but that's the only impact on this project.
Councilman Ayotte: If we give an approval for this project, and we are unable to come to
resolution with respect to the assessment, are we hog tied with the project?
Teresa Burgess: No. All you will be out is the consultant fees.
Councilman Peterson: Because all we're doing now tonight is plans and specs so it's.
Councilman Ayotte: Can we when we do go forward with this thing, can we challenge whoever
does the plans and specs to do in concert with that, the plans and specs, an aggressive cost
reduction effort and seeing what can be done?
33
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
Teresa Burgess: That is something that I expect of all my consultants as I work with them to
bring that forward.
Councilman Ayotte: But I'm saying with regard to maybe even fixing a target bogey for
reduction.
Teresa Burgess: It would be hard to set a target of a percentage or a dollar amount. I think really
the intention is to think outside the box. To look for any alternative, any cost savings that can be
brought to bear on this project, but when you set a target you may make technical compromises
that you really shouldn't simply to meet the target.
Councilman Ayotte: Can we include a target?
Teresa Burgess: You have that option? I would recommend against it.
Councilman Ayotte: Alright, because I would expect the contractor then to affix a risk associated
with the target bogey. Could one do that?
Phil Gravel: Construction contractor might. I don't think a design step would do that.
Councilman Ayotte: Can we in conjunction with the design effort get input from potential
contractors for a target bogey'?
Teresa Burgess: Roger, I think you need to answer that from a legal standpoint.
Roger Knutson: I don't know that there's a legal answer to it. You can ask, you certainly can ask
a potential contractor. You don't know who the contractor is but you can go out and talk to
contractors, l'm not in the design business but.
Phil Gravel: ! think that'd be a doable thing. It's not uncommon for us to ask for the
construction contractors to review design at a partial design step for their input and we do get cost
saving advice at that time. In fact on this one I know one thing we're going to want to talk to
people about is how to keep the temporary water service going during the construction so that's
just one example of how we can get input on those things.
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Excuse me, just for clarification Councilman Ayotte when you talk about cost
reduction, are you talking about having the design engineer work with contractors to say you
maybe design it this way but if you design it a different way we can reduce the cost?
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: To work in a collaborative effort.
Councilman Ayotte: A collaborative effort with the intent of trying to reduce the cost to a certain
level that is more aftbrdable than $15,000 freaking dollars. I'm just unbelievable.
Mayor Furlong: I guess the question I'd have with regard to the cost estimates at this point, how
would, is there a way to characterize them in terms of conservative, aggressive?
34
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
Phil Gravel: Conservative.
Mayor Furlong: Which, when you say conservative, does that mean that it's, there's a greater
likelihood they would come in lower or higher?
Teresa Burgess: If I could answer that real quick. If you would think of these assessment rolls,
these preliminary assessment rolls like you do preliminary levy. It cannot go up but it can go
down. And so as we prepare these we do try to be very conservative because if the project comes
in higher than estimated, the city has to bear that additional cost and cannot increase those
assessments unless we go back and start over again.
Mayor Furlong: Is the search for potential cost reduction, cost reduction effort in terms of
working with the construction contractors and such like that, is that part of the preparing the
plans and specifications? i mean we've done in terms of the preliminary design, have we don't
what is typically normal and can be done to come up with the best estimates at this point in time?
Phil Gravel: For this point in time we've done the most accurate estimates we can. If you move
onto the design phase, then I think you could have some more accurate information and do some
of those things like work with staff and talk to other professionals about ways to reduce costs.
Mayor Furlong: Anybody's thoughts.
Councilman Peterson: I like the idea of citing what cost saving measures are potentially there or
were undertaken as we get to the final specs. I'm not necessarily in agreement with Bob setting a
target, but I would like to see graphically, or in some form of writing what were the aggressive
steps that we did to reduce the potential costs. And I think Phil you're saying you can do that so.
Councilman Ayotte: One other thing. If we could in tandem or in parallel with going forward
with the plans and specs, is to work Bruce harder in coming up with a means of amortizing the
cost over either a longer period of time or coming up with a creative means of improving the
affordability.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah I would agree. I think how it's funded is the issue that I heard tonight as
of everyone's concern. Do we need to go forward with this? I also think I heard yes, we do. We
need to go forward with the project. How are we going to fund it'? I think we can be working
both those paths at the same time, and as diligently as we're asking the designer and the
contractor to reduce the total cost, obviously the less the total cost, the less it costs for residents in
the city regardless of how that cost is allocated. But I see us working both those prongs at the
same time.
Teresa Burgess: And Mr. Mayor if I could, Bruce did discuss with me today that he and Todd
Gerhardt had been doing some brainstorming last week on how these could be funded in the
future and addressing those issues. And I believe you'll be hearing more as we go through the
budget discussions as we talk about specifically the engineering budget in October. And you'll
be hearing more as we move forward to see where council is willing to go. He had some unique
ideas.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. is there any other discussion?
35
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
Councilman Ayotte: I know you don't like the idea of target bogey, or Craig doesn't but because
of what Vernelle put together, I mean we have a reference that could be at least an identified
target. Just as a start point. Certainly isn't a lock in but from my understanding she's the
smartest person in the room so if we don't put a line out there, we don't have the ability to reach
so I'm not saying it's just a target.
Councilman Peterson: What Vernelle presented was a cost to homeowners. We're not talking
about that. We're talking about the cost of the total project Bob so I think that Vernelle's number
is irrelevant to the project cost.
Councilman Ayotte: If we're going to get my vote, we're going to have somehow a target for the
consultant to work towards and collectively they can take the $8,900 bucks and multiple it times
some number to get the total but I want a target because I think if we have a target, we stretch.
We get a reference point. Or if it isn't a target, give me something else and then you're going to
talk me into voting but otherwise I'm not doing it. I want to have some mechanism to work
towards a reduction in the cost of the package as the consultant goes forward. Some sort of line
drawn.
Councilman Lundquist: I would say you're going to get your reduction, as we heard from the
conservative estimates now going forward. We should all expect that those costs are going to be
in that range or lower. And it's awful early in the game to be telling them that they've got to
reduce their estimates...
Councilman Ayotte: I didn't say that. I said target. Would this be unreasonable to work
towards? Did you see this?
Teresa Burgess: I believe what Vernelle has is what I have in front of me also. The $8,900. That
is assuming the city take on 100 percent of the cost of the sewer and water. That is not, that's
cutting the project cost almost in half. To do that there is not a way to reduce the cost of doing
the same type of project. You're talking about cutting the size of the project.
Councilman Ayotte: Then what do we do about, how do we create a target? Somebody tell me
how we create a target so that we have a mark in the sand to work towards?
Roger Knutson: Mayor. You could more easily talk about a target for special assessments, and
you could have a target there and say your target is, and I won't presume to say a number or
special assessments is.
Councilman Peterson: I don't think that's his point.
Roger Knutson: Cost is a separate issue.
Councilman Ayotte: I'm trying to get something for the consultant to work towards because to
put parameters on it.
Councilman Lundquist: Looking for a total project cost or what are you looking for?
Councilman Ayotte: I'm looking for a mechanism to help the consultant realize that if it's going
to be working towards a design that he has to consider a series of options to reduce cost.
36
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
Councilman Peterson: What about the opportunity of not having a target but just listing, and
making it part of the plans and specs, that they need to develop five different and distinct cost
saving opportunities to be listed as part of the plans and specs?
Councilman Ayotte: A series of options. Why don't we just make it more general, say series of
options. I'd be comfortable with that.
Councilman Peterson: Cost saving options.
Mayor Furlong: Cost saving options.
Councilman Ayotte: Alright, so that we see a number of ways to go then. Okay.
Phil Gravel: ...decreasing the assessment part of that option?
Councilman Ayotte: Decreasing assessments?
Councilman Peterson: Two different discussions.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, we're dealing with the project tonight so but I understand we heard a lot
about the assessment so that is a concern up here for us as well. Indirectly. With that, is there
additional discussion or somebody want to try a motion?
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor l'd move that we approve the feasibility study and authorize
the preparation of plans and specs for 2004 residential street and utility improvement project
number 04-01 with the amendment to the, in addition we would like to see five separate and
distinct cost saving options for commencing the project.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion? Hearing none we'll proceed to the vote.
Resolution #2003-083: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that
the City Council approve the feasibility study, authorize the preparation of plans and
specifications for the 2004 Residential Street and Utility Improvement Project No. 04-01
including five separate and distinct cost saving options for commencing the project. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING: APPROVE FEASIBILITY STUDY; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION
OF PLANS AND SPECIFCATIONS FOR THE 2004 MSA STREET IMPROFVEMENTS,
PROJECT 04-02.
Public Present:
Name Address
Jason Sprague SEH/2578 Aldine, Roseville
Aaron Ditzler SEH/10901 Red Circle Drive, Suite
Minnetonka
200,
37
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
John M. Smith
Ross & Mary Jo Kamerud
Jack Thien
1072 Meadow Street, Cologne
413 Santa Fe Trail
7570 Canyon Curve
Teresa Burgess: Thank you Mr. Mayor and council. I was just anxious to get onto this one. It's
another project we're doing yet this year. This project is considered a rehabilitation project.
Again an even briefer version of pavement management. Our pavement management system
prioritizes the streets and it has chosen these as the MSA streets. We do municipal state aid,
MSA project every 2 years. That's approximately how long it takes us to accrue the financial
means to be able to do these projects. That money does come from the State and when you look
at the assessment practice it does list MSA funds as an available funding source. This year we
are proposing to do Market Boulevard, between State Highway 5 and West 78th Street. West 78th
Street from Market Boulevard to where it turns up onto Highway 101 or Great Plains Boulevard.
West 79th Street from Market Boulevard to Great Plains Boulevard. West 79~ Street and West
79th Street cul-de-sac are not currently MSA routes. We will be applying to MnDot to see if we
can get those to be, this one is eligible. This one is not. To see if we can get this stretch of road
onto the MSA system. If we can, then it's staffs opinion that this is an appropriate project. If we
cannot, it is staff's opinion this project should be postponed a couple of years and be packaged
with one of our residential street projects for financial reasons. We do not have enough in the
budget in the coming year allocated for, including this without the MSA money. And then Great
Plains Boulevard from Highway 5 to West 78th Street. The projects that are proposed are semi
dissimilar and so I have grouped them by street. The first section is Market Boulevard. The
existing surface is showing some deterioration and so the consultant has recommended that we
mill the entire width and rebuild the crown and repave I V2 inches of asphalt back onto the
existing. We will do crack repair throughout the entire area and any traffic signal loops which are
at the intersections of Highway 5 and West 78th Street will need to be removed and replaced at the
same time that this project is done because they will be damaged by the milling operations. That
is similar to what is being done on Great Plains Boulevard and also West 78th Street. West 79th
Street I would prefer to come back and give a separate staff report on that one because it is a little
bit different. If there's any questions I'd be happy to answer those.
Mayor Furlong: Questions for staff. Okay. Why don't we go ahead and open the public hearing
and given the uniqueness of West 79th Street we'll go ahead and hear from people interested in
commenting on Market Boulevard, between Highway 5 and West 78th, Great Plains Boulevard
between Highway 5 and West 78th and West 78th between Market Boulevard and Great Plains.
So at this point the public hearing is open, if anybody would like to come forward and comment.
Okay, seeing none why don't we go onto West 79th Street. Staff report.
Teresa Burgess: Thank you Mr. Mayor. West 79th Street, as I mentioned, is not on the MSA
system and the consultant did look at it separately specifically for that reason. The section of
road does have an area of failure that is in the area of where the existing culvert is, and it appears
that the culvert has heaves possibly due to the placement of the culvert when it was originally
installed. That area will need to be removed and reconstructed. Other than this area around the
culvert section, the street is in very good condition. We are proposing to include it in this project
for two reasons. One, that culvert needs to be replaced and will improve the street. And two,
because by combining it with the surrounding area project we do have a cost saving of scale.
There is the potential that we will delay this, as I said, if it is not eligible for MSA. We can't get
that funding. We do not have enough in the budget to be able to do both this project and the
residential street project and those are in obviously much more dire condition. If there's any
questions I'd be happy to answer those.
38
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
Mayor Furlong: Questions for staff. One question with regard to the failure around the storm
sewer, if we don't proceed with this road, what do we do with that? Do we just leave it or what is
there a repair option?
Teresa Burgess: Staff would continue to patch around it. We would live with the existing
condition until the road is redone.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And we would get the, this is the second of my one question. We'll get
the approval of the, whether it would be included in the MSA, designated MSA road prior to
awarding the contract?
Teresa Burgess: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Those are my questions. Any other questions? Very
good. We will continue the public hearing at this point. If anyone wishes to speak regarding
West 79~ Street, please come forward.
Councilman Peterson: What a difference half a mile makes.
Mayor Furlong: Very good. If there is nobody that wants to speak on this project. If there is
anybody that wants to speak on this project please come forward. Otherwise we will close the
public hearing. Final call. With that we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to council
for comments. Discussion.
Councilman Peterson: I'd recommend we move ahead with it with the same caveats we did with
the prior plans and specs. Looking for five separate and distinct options to lower the dollar
amount.
Mayor Furlong: Other comments or discussion. Councilman Ayotte?
Councilman Ayotte: Sounds great.
Councilman Lundquist: Agree.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, fully agree. We should be asking for those on all our projects but
specifically when the dollars reach this amount so with that, if there's no other discussion, is there
a motion?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah i would move that we approve the feasibility study and authorize the
preparation of plans and specifications for 2004 MSA street improvement project number 04-02
with the additional caveat that we look for five separate and distinct options for saving dollars as
we commence the project.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Second has been made. Is there any discussion? Hearing none we'll proceed
with the vote.
39
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
Resolution #2003-84: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to
approve the feasibility study, authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for the
2004 MSA Street Improvements Project No. 04-02 including five separate and distinct cost
saving options for commencing the project. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO CREATE 2 LOTS ON 5.13 ACRES, SITE PLAN
REVIEW FOR A 3 STORY 89-UNIT HOTEL ON 3.01 ACRES WITH VARIANCES FOR
SIGNAGE AND DESIGN STANDARDS; SE CORNER OF TH 5 AND CENTURY
BOULEVARD; STEINER CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., AND STEVE SLOWEY,
HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS.
Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, council members. There's three parts to this review. The
first part, the project is located at the southeast corner of Highway 5 and Century Boulevard. It's
within the Arboretum Business Park. The first part of this project involves a subdivision of a 5
acre parcel into 2 pieces. One's approximately 2 acres. The second is approximately 3 acres.
Access for the property is off of Century Boulevard. Currently there's a full median opening. As
part of the Planning Commission discussion they recommended that this median be closed and
that a right-in/right-out be provided for this development. Staff believes that we should hold this
development to the same standard that we did to the development to the west of Century
Boulevard which includes the U.S. Bank, Kinder Care and the Helsene Building which is, if
problems become apparent at the intersection, that the City has the ability to close it and assess
the properties to any improvements to that. Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision
based on the conditions in the staff report with the modification on page 12 to go to the original
recommended conditions of approval. The building itself, the applicant is requesting site plan
approval for a 3 story brick Holiday Inn Express building. It's very attractive architecturally.
However they do need a variance for the amount of window openings on their north elevation.
Their standard practice is to have 23 percent window openings. They pushed it to get up to 35
percent but the city standard is that they have 50 percent ordinance. We believe based on the
function of the building that it is appropriate to grant the variance from this requirement and are
recommending approval of the site plan with the variance for the fenestration. Thirdly they're
proposing that a variance for signage. Currently ordinance permits signage only on street
frontages which is the north elevation of the building. They'd like to continue that treatment on
the west elevation. They did request a variance from the sign ordinance. The Planning
Commission recommended approval and based on the criteria that they presented staff would
concur with that recommendation. We're therefore recommending approval of the plans as
submitted. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: Bob, the variance, or the deviation in the windows. The other hotels that
are in town, the other two hotels that we have, what, do you have any idea what their window
coverage is?
Bob Generous: No, 1 didn't make those calculations. I would believe that they don't meet the 50
percent though.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. No other questions.
4O
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff at this time? if there's none, is the applicant here or
representative from the applicant? Would you like to address the council for any reason? Talk
about this proposal.
Phillip Bloom: Certainly. My name is Philip Bloom. I'm President of Steiner Construction
Services and I'm also representing the owner. The owner lives in Yankton, South Dakota and
couldn't be here this evening. And so I'm here representing him as well. The hope is to get
council approval and the goal was to try and break ground yet either late fall or this winter for
opening next summer. Some of the questions have been asked as far as the restaurant pad next
door. Right now that's just starting a marketing effort right now. We don't know what's going
there as of yet. Just have to wait and see in that regard. The only issue that really came up at the
Planning Commission meeting was the turn lane from the median going in and there is a
development agreement with U.S. Bank, the Helsene Center, and Kinder Care in that regard that
that be open and that was a deal breaker for U.S. Bank a year ago if you recall when that got built.
If that would have got closed off they would have passed and went somewhere else so if that did
get closed off that would be a big deal to the developers on the west. There's also another bank
looking at going in on the other side as well that will be here probably real soon in the next few
months with that, and that's an issue with them as well. So other than that, we're excited about
the project. It's very cool and anxious to get going on it. So I'm happy to answer any questions
you may have.
Mayor Furlong: Any questions? Okay, very good, thank you. We do have a representative from
the Planning Commission here. Commissioner Lillehaug. Would you like to address the council
and summarize the Planning Commission's issues'?
Steve Lillehaug: My name is Steve Lillehaug. I live at 7571 Walnut Curve and I'm a Planning
Commissioner. We were in general support of this application. The items that we did discuss
was sidewalks, internal circulation but I think we were comfortable with the direction the
applicant and the staff was heading in that. As the applicant indicated, I think our one main point
of focus was the full access issue on Century Boulevard. This has been in front of the City
Council, I think this is probably the third time for that full access and the Planning Commission at
previous times did recommend restricting that to a right-in and right-out only. And we hold true
to that recommendation. And to elaborate on it a little, my personal opinion is that closing that
access would be better to do it now rather than later. If it's warranted at this time, and our
opinion is that it is strictly for safety issues. Current practices wouldn't allow a full access right
at the beginning of a dual left turn lane. You see it around other cities. Eden Prairie has a few.
They're not ideal and most cities would try to close them down if they weren't existing
conditions. Take it, this is an existing condition but it's a new existing condition and so I think it
was the Planning Commission's opinion as a whole that it's better to close these now rather than
later. There was a traffic analysis done at the time U.S. Bank went in there. There's
recommendations in the traffic analysis. A few of the recommendations weren't addressed
properly that did discuss...implemented so a portion of the traffic analysis is addressed and then a
portion isn't. So I guess if you have any questions of me I'll be happy to answer them.
Mayor Furlong: Steve I don't know if this is for you or for staff with regard to the right-in/right-
out. With regard to the existing property owners, U.S. Bank has been mentioned and others.
How is their development agreement written? Was it written similar to the language that we saw
in the packet under condition 12 that's been struck out?
Bob Generous: That was approved as part of their subdivision.
41
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
Mayor Furlong: Alright. And I guess maybe here's a question. Is the commission
recommending that we close that meeting entirely or just for this property not allow, because
there's a left turn allowed into this property and left turn allowed from northbound Century going
into the other existing properties right now.
Steve Lillehaug: I think holding true to the previous recommendations would be to allow both
right-in/right-out only for each site.
Mayor Furlong: For both sites so.
Steve Lillehaug: Right, it would be closing the median. And then if I could play devil's advocate
because I do want to make you aware. If this access were closed you'd have to realize that to get
to the Holiday Inn Express it would be going down to the next intersection and taking a U-turn,
so do keep that in mind. That's not an ideal situation either so if, in my mind it's a better
situation then allowing a full access there.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Teresa Burgess: And if I could council, just to give you a little bit of history on how we ended up
with this intersection. I would agree if this had not been forced upon us, that we probably would
not have gone this way. Century Boulevard was nearly complete at the time that the developer
approached us about the full access. We told the developer that if they could produce a, if they
brought to us a traffic analysis by a qualified firm showing that the access would be an acceptable
condition, we would allow it. They did that. We did not request them to update the study but
there were many of the recommendations we could not implement without significant cost to both
the city and the developer because the street had already been put in place, We did implement the
changes that we were able to do. We did talk about it but never updated the study and in hind
sight we probably should have. The condition that is in there, if you do not choose to close the
median for this property, we really do need that condition because without it we cannot assess the
cost of the closure because the way the assessment laws read we have to be able to show benefit
to the properties and most people would claim that closing their full access is going to reduce
their property value instead of increase.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other questions for staff or follow-up questions at all.
Councilman Lundquist: Teresa, it would seem to be maybe the thing to do, or an alternative
would be left turn lanes there. Obviously with that median and everything in there, is there room
as Century Boulevard is now to put two left turns lane or a common left turn, anything like that?
Teresa Burgess: It's my opinion that it would be an unsafe condition to do it without moving the
outside curbs.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, any other questions? If not we'll bring it to council for discussion and
comment.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I think it's a well thought out project, i like it. Let's build it
as fast as we can. With regard to the right-in/right-out, you know I can empathize and understand
where the Planning Commission is coming from on the recommendation. However, right now we
don't have a problem and I think that we, it may be, you know and unfortunately it may be years
42
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
before we do have a potential problem but we will have a problem the minute we put in that,
when we block it. We are going to have the U-turn problem. So I would bias on the point of
delaying our potential problem. Not saying that we're going to but safe to assume that we
probably will sometime. Then let's address it then perhaps when we have a different solution or
alternative. I don't know what that would be but I'd rather deal with that then than now.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments or points of discussion.
Councilman Lundquist: I would second Mr. Peterson's comments.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Anything Councilman Ayotte? No? I think it's a wonderful
project. I think it's going to be a good asset to the city and it's something I'd like to be able to
continue to service the rest of the new development that's going on out in that area and the
residents in that area. With regard to the right-in/right-out, I fully appreciate the fact that if we
don't follow the commission's recommendation right now we're perpetuating what is projected to
be a problem. That being said, what I like about the language that was proposed by staff is two
things. One, it provides if the property owner sees that it becomes a problem, there's that
opportunity there to close it off. And two, the conditions by which the city would have the option
to close it off as I understand it are quantifiable and given traffic conditions, numbers of
accidents, those types of things. So it's not necessarily at the discretion of the city but if it
becomes the problem that it's projected to be, the city would have the authority to do it. Property
owners are on notice. I think the other factor is we have other existing property owners that have
that same condition as proposed by staff. Deviating from that or changing that now when those
conditions don't exist I think is a problem. In a sense we're kind of locked in here. We know
that there's going to be a problem at some point in the future. The issue which was brought up is
if you close it off you're creating a problem further down. U-turn. Then it's just a question of
how the people avoid a U-turn, How do they physically get to these properties? So my thought is
that while it's not a great situation to be in, continuing with the practice and the quantifiable
condition is probably the best way to go at this point. So, but overall i think it's a great project
and is going to be a good asset to the city as I mentioned so. With that I'll ask for any additional
discussion or a motion if someone's so inclined.
Councilman Lundquist: Move that the City Council approve preliminary plat, Subdivision
#2003-13 shown on plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen dated received August t, 2003 and
dated 7/01/03 respectively based on the findings in the attached Findings of Fact and
recommendations and subject to conditions 1 through 24 with the original staff recommended
condition number 12.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion? Hearing none we'll proceed with the vote.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council
approves the preliminary plat Subdivision #2003-13, shown on plans prepared by Schoell &
Madsen, Inc., dated received August 1, 2003, and dated 7/01/03 respectively, based on the
findings in the attached findings of fact and recommendations and subject to the following
conditions:
43
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
o
°
o
o
10.
11.
The development of the individual lots must comply with the Arboretum Business Park
Development Design Standards.
The developer shall be responsible for planning, engineering, and constructing the
"wetland trail". The city shall compensate the developer full costs of trail construction
plus a 10% design and construction management fee.
Full trail fees shall be collected pursuant to city ordinance for all lots in the Arboretum
Business Park 6th Addition.
If the trail alignment is within property not owned by the City, then the developer shall
dedicate a 20 foot wide trail easement centered on the trail alignment.
Vacate the permanent roadway, drainage and utility easement on the southwest comer of
the parcel and dedicate the public right-of-way, drainage and utility easement with the
plat.
Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the
City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction
plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will
also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the
necessary security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation
of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Before building permit
issuance, permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including
but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, MnDot, etc.
A private storm sewer easement against Lot I must be obtained from the owners and
recorded before the building permit issuance.
The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer, water, and street
improvements. The remaining assessment due payable to the City is $137,272.40. This
remaining balance may be re-spread against the newly platted lots on a per area basis. In
addition, the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the
new lots. The 2003 trunk hookup charges are $1440 for sanitary sewer and $1876 for
watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against
the parcel at the time of the building permit issuance.
The proposed sanitary sewer and watermains in the main drive aisle will be considered
public utility lines since they will serve more than one lot. A minimum 35 foot wide
public utility easement will be required over the public sewer and watermain. The end of
the public sewer and watermain shall be at the property line between Lot 1 and Lot 2.
Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's
Type III erosion control fence, which is a heavy duty silt fence be used for the area
adjacent to the existing wetland just south of the site. In addition, erosion control
blankets will be required on the steep slopes on the site.
The main drive aisle through the site will be a private street since it serves multiple lots.
As such, the road must be a minimum of 26 feet wide, built to a 9 ton design and enclosed
within a 40 foot wide private easement. A cross access easement must be obtained and
44
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
recorded before building permit issuance. The developer must submit testing reports
verifying that the driveway is built to a 9 ton design.
The full access driveway onto Century Boulevard will be allowed; however, should the
driveway cease to operate in a safe manner in the opinion of the property owner, or if any
of the following conditions are met, the property owner shall be assessed 100% of the
costs incurred to correct the conditions in a fashion acceptable to the City of Chanhassen:
Level of Service "F" at the intersection during peak AM and PM times.
Level of Service "D" or below at the intersection during non peak times.
Significant accidents that are attributed to the configuration of the intersection
occur that indicate a mutually recognized safety concern at the intersection.
Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of
Minnesota must sign all plans.
Storm water calculations should be submitted to ensure the downstream storm water
infrastructure is sized adequately for the proposed development.
Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing and proposed storm
water infrastructure.
Private easement for the shared storm sewer must be obtained and recorded against the
lots before building permit issuance.
Erosion Control Note #4 should include straw mulch (MnDot Type I mulch) application
with seed for stabilization.
Category 3 (straw or wood fiber) blanket should be applied following seeding in the
proposed swale in the northeast corner of the site.
The silt fence used should be heavy-duty machine sliced silt fence, metal T-posts with 4
to 6 foot spacing. Existing vegetation should be conserved as much as practicable while
installing and during construction.
The silt fence end in the southwest corner of the site should be angled up slope to inhibit
water from flowing around the silt fence.
Inlet control is needed following installation of inlet structures. Inlet control methods will
be varied before and after pavement of the parking lots. Before pavement, inlet protection
could consist of heavy-duty mono-mono silt fence with 4 foot spacing of metal T-posts
andl" rock around silt fence material. After paving of parking lots, mulch socks, sand
bags or rock and wire could be used as temporary inlet control.
Based on the proposed developed area of 5,13 acres, the total SWMP fee, due payable to
the City at the time of final plat recording is $51,772.
The owner/operator of the proposed development must apply for and receive the NPDES
permit prior to beginning construction activities.
45
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
24.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain a permit from Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek
Watershed District and comply with their conditions of approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Is there an additional motion?
Councilman Lundquist: Move that the City Council approves Site Plan #2003-8, plans prepared
by Schoell & Madsen and Lightowler Johnson Associates dated August Ist, received August 1st,
dated 7/1 and revised 8/25 with a 15 percent variance from the 50 percent fenestration
requirement to permit 35 percent fenestration on the northern building elevation on Lot 2, Block
1, Arboretum Business Park 6th Addition based on the findings in the attached findings of fact and
recommendations subject to conditions 1 through 26.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we'll proceed with the
vote.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council
approves Site Plan ~2003-8, plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen, Inc. and Lightowler
Johnson Associates, Inc. dated received August 1, 2003, and dated 7/1/03 and revised
8/25/03 respectively, with a 15 percent variance from the 50 percent fenestration
requirement to permit 35 percent fenestration on the northern building elevation on Lot 2,
Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 6th Addition based on the findings in the attached
findings of fact and recommendation and subject to the following conditions:
The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the
stipulated.
2. The developer shall record the final plat for Arboretum Business Park 6th Addition.
The developer shall plant 13 overstory trees in and around the parking lot to meet
minimum requirements.
At least three grouping of overstory trees, with a minimum of three trees each, shall be
located along the south curb line.
The slope located along the southern and eastern property lines shall be left natural. The
applicant will be allowed to mow along the parking lot and trail if necessary.
6. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted for city review and approval.
Two landscape peninsulas shall be added, one in the northern parking lot and one in the
southern parking lot.
8, The developer shall install site furnishing including benches, bicycle racks, and tables.
46
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
The internal sidewalk system shall be constructed to bring pedestrians from the public
trails on the west and south sides into the site.
All signs shall require a separate sign permit.
Show the driveway dimensions on the site plan to read 26 feet in width and the access
corner radius.
Storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review before City Council
approval.
Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots. The
2003 trunk hookup charges are $1,440 for sanitary sewer and $1,876 for watermain.
Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at
the time of the building permit issuance.
On the grading plan:
no
Co
Add storm sewer schedule.
Add silt fence around proposed storm sewer line from MH1 to the existing
manhole.
Revise the erosion control fence from Type II to Type III per city plate 5300.
Show all proposed 2' contours.
Show the pedestrian ramps at both sides of the access off Century Boulevard.
Show all existing and proposed easements.
Revise the flat elevation in the northeast portion of the parking lot.
Revise the side slope to 3:1 maximum along the north side of Lot 2.
On the utility plan:
o
Show the public drainage and utility easement.
Show the existing and proposed storm manholes rim elevations.
Show the water and sanitary sewer services size, type and class.
Relocate Sanitary MH3 to the property line between Lot 1 and Lot 2 where the
public sewer line must end.
All of the public watermain will be PVC C-900 pipe. Revise where necessary.
Add all applicable City of Chanhassen latest detail plates.
Show Century Boulevard existing street lights.
Seed and mulch or sod the site within two weeks of grading. If dirt is required to be
brought into or out of the site, provide a haul route for review and approval.
Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through
the City's Building Department.
Concrete driveway apron, per city detail plate 5207 is required at the proposed access
point to the site.
The building must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler system.
47
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
22.
The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the
State of Minnesota.
23. Five accessible parking spaces must be provided.
24.
Accessible guest rooms and accessibility to recreation features must be provided in
accordance with Minnesota State Building Code, Chapter 1341.
25.
The building owner and/or their representative should meet with the Inspections Division
to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
26.
The plans were reviewed for general building code compliance only. A detailed plan
review cannot be done until complete plans are provided.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Lundquist: Move that the City Council approve a sign variance to permit signage on
the western building elevation based on the findings in the attached findings of fact and
recommendation.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion? Hearing none, proceed with the vote.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council
approves a sign variance to permit signage on the western building elevation based on the
findings in the attached findings of fact and recommendation. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS.
Mayor Furlong: With that we're completed with the new business items on our agenda so we'll
move to council presentations.
Councilman Ayotte: Just very, very quickly. I had a meeting with some of the residents at Lake
Susan Association forward to our city planner, a white paper and the specifics on it and I would
ask that that be made public to the other council so that we could possibly take a look forward to
resolution to the Lake Susan problem. That's all I have.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Any other council presentations?
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. None.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Mayor Furlong seconded to adjourn the City Council
meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council adjourned at 9:45
p.m.
48
City Council Meeting - September 22, 2003
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
49