CC Minutes 1998 04 13CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 13, 1998
Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the
Flag.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Berquist, Councilman Mason, Councilman Senn,
and Councilman Engel
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Anita Benson, Charles Folch, Todd
Gerhardt, Steve Kirchman, and Jerry Ruegemer
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the
agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 25TM AS ARBOR
DAY.
Mayor Mancino: I do have something to read proclaiming April 25th as Arbor Day. Whereas, in 1872 J.
Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture that a special day be set aside for the
planting of trees; and that Whereas, this holiday called Arbor Day was first observed with the planting of
more than a million trees in Nebraska; and Whereas, Arbor Day is now observed throughout the nation and
the world; and Whereas, trees can reduce the erosion of our precious topsoil by wind and water, cut heating
and cooling costs, moderate the temperature, clean the air, produce oxygen and provide habitat for wildlife;
and Whereas, trees are a renewable resource giving us paper, wood for our homes, fuel for our fires and
countless other wood products; and Whereas, trees in our city increase property values, enhance the
economic vitality of business areas and beautify our community; and Whereas, trees are a course of joy and
spiritual renewal; and Whereas, Chanhassen has been recognized as a Tree City USA by the National
Arbor Day Foundation and desires to continue it's tree planting ways. Now, Therefore, I, Nancy K.
Mancino, Mayor of the City of Chanhassen do hereby proclaim Saturday, April 25, 1998 as Arbor Day in
the City of Chanhassen. I urge all citizens to support efforts to care for our trees and woodlands and to
support our city's community forestry program; and further I urge all citizens to plant trees to gladden the
hearts and promote the well being of present and future generations. Thank you. And I'd just like to say
that on Saturday, April 25th for the celebration of Arbor Day in our community, from 9:00 to 11:00 will be
adopt a park and there will be the clean up of the neighborhood community park by community groups,
Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, etc. all throughout the city. And then from 11:00 to noon there will be a thank
you luncheon for the clean-up groups at City Hall. And then from noon to 3:00 at City Hall there will be
all sorts of presentations. There will be master gardeners. There will be wildlife rehabilitation and release
demonstration. The Chanhassen Public Safety will be here. There will be fire engines for the kids to look
at. There will be bird house sales. There will potted evergreen sales and seedling give aways. So please
come and join us on Saturday, April 25th. And I hope Saturday, April 25th is as nice a weekend as we had
this last weekend. Next item is the Consent Agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the
following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
Approve Plans & Specifications; Authorize Advertising for Bids, Pleasant View Road Maintenance
Overlay Project 98-5.
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
d. Resolution #98-27: Approve Feasibility Report; Authorize Preparation of Plans & Specifications
for Lake Lucy Road, Project 98-1.
e. Resolution #98-28: Accept Streets & Storm Drainage Improvements in The Woods at Longacres
3rd Addition, Project 96-2.
f. Approve Ordinance Amending City Code Section 18-57(g)(1) Concerning Driveways on Collector
Streets.
i. Award of Bids for the 1998 Sealcoat Project 98-3.
k. Approval of Bills.
1. City Council Minutes dated March 23, 1998
Planning Commission Minutes dated April 1, 1998
m. Approval of One Day Beer License, May 16 & 17, Chanhassen Lions Club.
n. 2.2 Acres, Villages on the Pond.
o. Amendment to Chapter 10, Division 3 of City Code Concerning Residency of Liquor Establishment
Managers, First Reading.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
G. RECEIVE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND COST ESTIMATE; CITY CENTER
PARK AND BANDIMERE PARK; AUTHORIZE BIDDING.
Mayor Mancino: Mark, you pulled that and your concern is?
Councilman Senn: I pulled it because my concern is, I would rather, how do you say this. Then not
having it before us which would be an analysis of the number of people in our community using the
different types of facilities versus the number we have and also the number we are now going to produce
under these new projects and not having a firm handle on that. I'd rather have us wait to get that
information and do our finding from there rather than to approve this to go forward with bids at this point
based on information could require them to be redone later.
Mayor Mancino: Any discussion from any other council member? Councilman Mason?
Councilman Mason: Well yeah. My concern is if we delay this any longer, at what point is this process
going to be stalled. I think Park & Rec did their homework prior to this discussion and while as Mark may
be right, we don't have specifics, I think we have more than enough to go on to award the bids.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, Councilman Engel.
Councilman Mason: Or to authorize the bidding, excuse me.
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Councilman Engel: Yeah, I'm ready to go ahead.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: I am also ready to act.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. I feel also comfortable and ready to act. I know that Brauer and Associates did
say to us that if we had some changes, once it's gone out to bid we could...those and I also feel that
Councilman Senn's request for seeing, kind of taking an overall inventory of the athletic fields that we have
and the groups and how many we have in each group using them is a good thing to review so I would like
to see that. Council reviewing it, first going through the Park & Rec Commission. With that, may I have a
motion please.
Councilman Mason: Move approval of item l(g).
Mayor Mancino: Second please.
Councilman Berquist: Second.
Resolution #98-29: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to receive
Construction Documents and Cost Estimate; City Center Park and Bandimere Park; Authorize
Bidding. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a
vote of 4 to 1.
J. APPROVE PARKING & CROSS EASEMENTS~ COLONIAL CENTER.
Councilman Senn: Looking at the request and studying the request and also looking at the history on this, it
seems to me that it would be much more appropriate or much more in the city's interest to not grant these
parking and cross easements so as to encourage or facilitate the owner to exercise their option and take the
property, purchase the property back essentially, and then have it under private ownership and also private
maintenance. Again, attached to the building. The circumstances under which it was taken in the first
place I don't believe any longer exist, or the purpose for it, particularly looking at the agreements when it
was taken if it was truly to, how would I say, it'd be in our interest to do this on a long term basis. We
wouldn't have an option in it effectively where the other parties could take it back any time they want to so
anyway. It just seems to make the most sense at this point to get it back in private ownership and attached
to this building as it should be.
Mayor Mancino: So you would direct staff to talk with the owners of Colonial Square to see if they would
want to take it back?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, take their option and go back. But I don't think we should, it seems to me if we
approve the parking and cross easements, we're taking any reason away for anyone to ever want to take it
back, which basically means it would remain a city owned parking lot as well as one which is maintained
and etc, by the city.
Mayor Mancino: Vernelle, do you have anything to say on this or you'd like to address the Council. Give
you name and address.
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Vernelle Clayton: Maybe just to clarify. Just so you know, there already are cross parking easements on
that property for the benefit of Ridgeview II. Oh, I. So you'd be giving back that's not been encumbered
by an easement and I don't think that was contemplated by the owners when they conveyed it to the city. I
guess I would also question whether, and maybe Roger would know this. I don't, I haven't looked into it.
The parcel that would be reconveyed I don't think is all of the property across the front. So we would still
need the same kind of park, if that's the case, then this property would also need the same kind of cross
parking and access and parking as Ridgeview II has on whatever would not be reconveyed.
Roger Knutson: Todd had a diagram upstairs of what was encumbered by it. I don't recall the exact
location of the lines.
Mayor Mancino: Kate, can you bring that down and maybe we can all look at it for a minute and Vernelle,
maybe something different than you know what you thought or we thought that we should look at it and if
we need to table this and make sure of the locations of it.
Vemelle Clayton: We've been waiting for 2 weeks now for this meeting so we can close on the property.
So that wouldn't be terribly exciting to some tenants that are anxious to move in.
Mayor Mancino: Sure. Sure, I understand.
Councilman Berquist: Vemelle you said that there's already cross easements for Ridgeview I?
Vemelle Clayton: I imagine it's for Ridgeview II as well. I'm not real clear. I don't recall but I know
there's one for Ridgeview I that was put on after the City acquired the property.
Councilman Berquist: And the title company is throwing a roadblock in the way because of?
Vernelle Clayton: Because there's no assurance that there is parking available to that building.
Conceivably Ridgeview II, I could, the owners could say okay everybody has to park over here now so if
there's parking available for customers. The parking lot could be just filled up with other people's cars and
there'd be no place to park. People don't do that but it could happen. And lenders who always look at
what's the worse case, what happens if I am now owner, don't like that.
Mayor Mancino: So Todd, could you go over what's encumbered and what isn't because, can you kind of
orient us for a minute.
Todd Gerhardt: ...the parking lot for this area. I got this from the engineering department. What you have
is the clock tower is located in this area here. This is West 78th Street... Phase I of the Medical Arts
Building and then after that... Right now what was owned by the Colonial Center, that area highlighted in
green, in this area.., and then we acquired this parcel from...
Mayor Mancino: And let me ask you, the Medical Arts building. Both of them. They will, they can access
off West 78th here?
Todd Gerhardt: They have three locations they can access. They can get it off of here. There's an access
point here. There's another one down by the Riviera. And then...
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Mayor Mancino: So that does not cross the Colonial Square parking lot? That's in from of the Colonial
Square. So that's a separate access. Now, does the Medical Arts building have enough parking stalls
behind them to facilitate a building that size according to our ordinance? Do we know that yet?
Todd Gerhardt: ... all the parking that they need is accommodated from this...
Mayor Mancino: Okay, so they don't need any parking on the Colonial Square parking lot as we see it. As
you've drawn it. Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: We have room for an expansion in this location.., parking stalls here are not utilized.
These parking stalls are not utilized and...
Mayor Mancino: And they could be so if they have, if they need excess parking they can get it there. They
don't need to go through Colonial Square's parking in front of there. Okay.
Vernelle Clayton: As a practical matter they use Colonial Square's parking a lot though for access because
you can't...I think that was the reason for this. Because of the no, you can't cross. It's right in, right out
only. Okay, thank you. Thank you. So the question is, comments.
Councilman Berquist: Do we want to keep it or do we want to give it back?
Mayor Mancino: Well, do we want to keep it or do we want to give it back. Part of it is, they're taking it
back also so again I think that that's something that staff would have to ask them if they would want to do
that. What are your thoughts at this point? Do we want to keep it as a city? What we're doing...
Councilman Berquist: Looking at it from a practical point of view, the parking lot that is currently behind,
that currently serves Ridgeview I. Does that strictly serve Ridgeview I or does that also serve the
apartments behind it? So there's no reason...
Vernelle Clayton: It's my understanding that it does not serve the apartments behind it. I think there has
been some misunderstanding with respect to these parking lots on the part of a lot of us. We all thought
they were city owned and everybody could park there, whether they went to the Dinner Theater or not.
Apparently that's not quite true. The other thing with respect to taking this back. This would be your time
to limit the property owner's right to take it back and I don't think that would be met with any objection.
Because I think it's rather, it was sort of a written in thing at the last minute apparently by prior owners
and you'd have a disagreement currently as to whether or not the City was maintaining it properly or not.
Councilman Berquist: If I was the building owner, I can't imagine a reason.., that I would not want this...
Mayor Mancino: Well if you didn't like the way the city was maintaining it, you would want to take it
back and maintain it yourself too.
Vemelle Clayton: No, it's the city's responsibility to maintain it and that's kind of been a free ride for the
present owners. They're charged for snow plowing but it's probably less than a private contractor would
charge.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Do any other council members have any comments?
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Councilman Engel: I like to see the city removed from as many arrangements they have as possible. This
is no exception.
Councilman Mason: How does this impact other parking arrangements in the city?
Don Ashworth: I really can't, Todd had brought up this issue of, the larger maintenance activity at a
cheaper price. You know it's kind of, I guess I would agree with Vemelle, as a single owner down there,
they're probably going to be paying more for snow plowing or sweeping or whatever else, than what we
currently do as a private contract because we own two blocks. Just in economy of scale type of thing.
Otherwise I see no impact whatsoever on them. This is the only contract where it's a one way provision
where they can tell us they want it back. I think in the other ones there's actually a provision to go...
would go back to the Riviera. But I thought that that one was at our discretion.
Todd Gerhardt: I don't remember that language in there.
Councilman Mason: Well, if it's the only one of it's kind, I don't know that it makes any difference then.
Mayor Mancino: Kind of an anomaly.
Councilman Senn: Well I guess not that much really over what was said before but I think really the
ultimate way we are looking at this is there a public purpose to the city in owning it. At least at looking at
that I can't see.., or why we'd be involved in owning it or maintaining it.
Mayor Mancino: I think historically the HRA felt there was a public purpose but that has.., so with that
may I have a motion please.
Councilman Senn: I would move that we do not approve the parking and cross easement agreements as
being requested and that staff contact the property owners and encourage them to exercise their option to
regain ownership of the parcel.
Councilman Engel: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to not approve the parking and cross easement
agreements for Colonial Center as being requested and that staff contact the property owners and
encourage them to exercise their option to regain ownership of the parcel. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Mayor Mancino: Vernelle, did you have a question?
Vernelle Clayton: I mentioned when I first stood up that that's not the only, first of all Roger we need to be
sure that this is the property. I'm not 100% convinced that this is exactly the same as the legal description.
Roger Knutson: I've not checked it out, I don't know.
Vernelle Clayton: The other thing is, what do we do then about driving through here to get out to this exit?
Mayor Mancino: Well first let's see if they want to take it back and then we'll have to figure out.
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Councilman Senn:
Vernelle Clayton:
Councilman Senn:
Vernelle Clayton:
I'm sorry, I didn't see where you were pointing.
This is one of the main entrances into this area.
Right, which so far you're not into the Colonial Grove. Or into Colonial Square.
This is the parking, we've now got parking in front of part of the building that's over in
here so if you're not going to give an easement over all the, but rather you're going to return part of it, then
we have to have an easement over the rest of it.
Councilman Senn: That easement stays intact. We're not talking about doing anything with that.
Vemelle Clayton: We don't have an easement over this.
Councilman Senn: Yes you do.
Vemelle Clayton: No we don't.
Todd Gerhardt: Colonial Center doesn't. That's property we owned.
Councilman Senn: Colonial Center doesn't but I mean the Medical Arts does, correct?
Vernelle Clayton: Yes, but I'm talking we now in my mind.
Mayor Mancino: But Vernelle is saying they still want an access agreement to come in off of 78th.
Vernelle Clayton: Yes, and to get to the parking stalls in front of the building. In fact to park in them.
Councilman Senn: That'd be something I think that would be a separate request.
Mayor Mancino: I think that's fine.
Vernelle Clayton: Well that's what we requested. That's what you're talking about. Access property for
the whole thing. The ability to get to and from the building and to park...
Kate Aanenson: You've got access of Great Plains too.
Vernelle Clayton: Yeah, you have access off Great Plains for the parking lot. You don't need the access
that goes directly onto 78th.
Vemelle Clayton: Well... or are we trespassing then?
Mayor Mancino: No, I understand. We have no reason not to give you access off 78th. Absolutely. I
mean we're not trying to restrict their access off 78th at all, whatsoever.
Kate Aanenson: But as a general rule we require cross access agreements. That's standard what you
have.
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Mayor Mancino: Then I understand your question. Because I don't have any concern with giving them
access off 78th, which Medical Arts and everyone else has. I think that's fine and that should be then part
ofthe motion. Okay.
Councilman Senn: Based on the existing encumbered parcel.
Roger Knutson: Give them a cross access easement across the parcel the city owns in fee. Not the
Colonial part.
Councilman Senn: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: Is that, have we answered your question Vernelle? We'll have to ask Roger. How do
we, do we do a second motion Roger?
Roger Knutson: Yes, that would be since the one you have.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. May I have a second motion to add that please.
Councilman Senn: I would move that we instruct staff to negotiate and provide for the owners of Colonial
Square a cross access and parking agreement for the City owned parcel which is located to the west of the
Colonial Square parcel as well as Colonial Square parking lot, but not to include the Colonial Square
parcel.
Mayor Mancino: I'll second that.
Councilman Senn moved, Mayor Mancino seconded to instruct staff to negotiate and provide for the
owners of Colonial Square a cross access and parking agreement for the City owned parcel which is
located to the west of the Colonial Square parcel as well as Colonial Square parking lot, but not to
include the Colonial Square parcel. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Roger Knutson: Just a point of clarification. Do you want this to come back to you? The document. Or
just prepare the document and have it signed up.
Mayor Mancino: Only if there's anything that changes about it.
Roger Knutson: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: I mean if some of those lines aren't correct, etc. Yeah, if anything, if any of the lines
aren't the ones that we've seen, bring it back please. Thank you for bringing that up Vernelle.
Don Ashworth: If I may have a clarification on the last item. I had a short discussion with the City
Attorney and he informs me that typically when we do a sale of property, there's a notification process that
go into the newspaper and inform people that this is going to be formally sold. In this case, this is solely a
reconveyance under the terms of that other agreement. In a similar fashion, staff permitted to prepare that
reconveyance document, have it signed by the Mayor and myself before bringing it back, or without
bringing it back to you. Or do you want to see it? Do you want to approve it before it's done?
Councilman Senn: Clear up a question. What do you mean by reconveyance?
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Roger Knutson: Give them back the property. They have an option now to take.
Councilman Senn: Not on this parcel though.
Roger Knutson: On the parking lot in front of.
Mayor Mancino: Colonial Square.
Councilman Senn: Oh, okay. So you're not talking about the cross access area anymore. You're talking
about the parking lot area.
Don Ashworth: Just the area that they originally conveyed to us for $1.00.
Councilman Senn: And I forget, what were, is that what the terms of the original deal were? That they
convey it us for a dollar?
Roger Knutson: They can get it back.., in their discretion that we're not properly maintaining it and we
have an obligation to give it back to them.
Councilman Senn: For a dollar I assume?
Mayor Mancino: So would the Council like to see that come back or not?
Councilman Senn: I'm just saying, what is the agreement?
Roger Knutson: Free.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Less than a dollar.
Mayor Mancino: Well again, if anything changes about it. If the lines change, it will come back anyway.
Councilman Mason: If it's as is, I don't need to see it again.
VISITOR PRESNTATIONS: None.
APPROVE TRUNK HIGHWAY 7 ACCESS CLOSURE~ PU0671.
Public Present:
Name Address
Linda Janson
Dave Headla
Andy Brisley
Paul Kachelmyer
240 Eastwood Court
6870 Minnewashta Parkway
2811 North Manor Road.
MnDot
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Mayor Mancino: Before we begin this, how many people are here tonight on Highway 7? On hearing
Highway 7. Why don't you move a little forward. Anybody else here for Highway 7? I was going to say,
you here again? I think we've gone over Highway 7. Anyway. Staff report please. Nice to see you Paul.
Welcome.
Anita Benson: Mayor Mancino, members of the Council. On March 23, 1998 staff presented a detailed
proposal that was representative of input received from staff and City Council regarding the closures on
Trunk Highway 7. This final proposal represented an estimated investment by MnDot of $800,000.00 and
city public works department, in-house work effort value of approximately $5,000.00. Staff believes that
the final proposal will improve safety throughout the corridor of Trunk Highway 7 within the city of
Chanhassen. Further staff believes that given the limited transportation funding available, this final
proposal represents a maximum in safety improvements with any available funding parameters. Based on
MnDot's current capital improvement program, this project may be the only opportunity to make these
types of improvements during the next 20 years. With that staff recommends approval of the proposal
outlined in the staff report dated March 12, 1998 and at this point I would like to allow Mr. Paul
Kachelmyer to once again add his comments.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Please come forward.
Paul Kachelmyer: Hello again. I'll make my comments really, really brief. Again we've got a project
proposed to work on 8 miles of Highway 7 from Highway 41 out to St. Bonifacius and the purpose of our
project is to try to do safety improvements along that stretch of road to reduce the number of people who
have been getting killed.., out there which is high. What we're proposing now in Chanhassen has been very
much scaled back from what we were initially proposing. As far as access reductions go, we're down to
proposing the closure of two city streets, Cypress and Fir Tree Avenue, and restriction at Oriole to right-in
and right-out. We pretty much figure this is the absolute minimum that we can propose as far as safety
goes. And we've increased the amount of work that we're proposing in the city up to approximately
$800,000.00, as was mentioned, including adding left mm lanes at Leslee Curve and Pipewood Curve. I
pretty much last meeting it was brought up, well what if the City Council doesn't approve this concept and
MnDot would be then forced into doing what access restrictions we could without City Council approval
which would almost certainly result in a lot more unhappy city of Chanhassen residents. So I guess I'm
asking for approval of the plan and I'll be happy to answer any questions you have.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. I will open this for the public for a minute. I have a couple questions for you. I
drive TH 7 every single day. I'm not, twice a day obviously. I don't quite go out that far but I'm on TH 7
constantly. Two things that I saw at 41 and 7 that are suggestions. Number one is that, and I think this
has been brought up the last time. I know I wasn't at the last public hearing but the first one. Is if the right
lane doesn't end, it's the left lane that ends. So if that sign could be changed so it is true. You know at
Oriole where the left lane actually does stop so you can mm left. Secondly, you said that night, which I
thought was really good, that there's so much going on at that intersection of 7 and 41, and one of the
unnecessary or questions that I'm asking you to think about is also there's a huge sign that says right past
the intersection where you're trying to get in the left lane to turn left onto Oriole going south. There's a
huge sign that says how far St. Boni is. How far etc. If that could be moved also, because again it just is
one more thing that you're looking and it's a huge sign. I mean I think it's about a 4 x 8 or bigger than that
and if that could be more west where there isn't a lot of other things going on, I think that would be helpful
for traffic because there's so much going on at the intersection.
10
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Paul Kachelmyer: That's a real good suggestion. Nobody's ever brought that up. Yeah, that's similar to
like when speed limit signs are placed in an area where people are busy looking at other things, they don't
see speed limit signs. That's a real good idea. I'm sure we could do that. You're first.
Mayor Mancino: I'm cheap so you can hire me on an hourly basis.
Paul Kachelmyer: Your first comment about the left mm lane and the right. I'm not sure I understood that
completely. Could you say that again?
Mayor Mancino: Well, as you're going west on Highway 7 and you go through that 7 intersection. 7 and
41. The right lane does not end, although the sign says the right lane does not end, to make one, everyone
get into the left lane and that is the lane that ends. So just travel it again but as you're going, as you're in
the right lane or that northern lane, you know it continues. It necks down a little bit but it definitely
continues. It is the left lane, you get cut off by the cars that are still going west. It absolutely, the sign
screws you up.
Paul Kachelmyer: The right lane is supposed to end.
Mayor Mancino: But it doesn't.
Paul Kachelmyer: If that isn't clear to drivers, I'll ask our signing people to take another look at that.
Mayor Mancino: And you can have a focus group and we'll all come out. You don't even have to pay for
honorarium but you can take 10 or 15 of us that are in, that drive this all the time and it is not the right lane
that ends. So who's ever thinking it through needs to really talk to drivers because that's not what we
think. Okay.
Paul Kachelmyer: Okay. I'll definitely have that looked into.
Mayor Mancino: So those two things. The other thing that I noticed, the last thing that again these are
again somewhat bandaids about it. But because I read the Minutes. They were great. You're not Andy.
Okay Andy, thank you. Andy made a lot of good points that I read and again, because I travel Highway 7
every day, you know it's 50 mph. I had a Volvo truck behind me going 70 and when you get to the new,
the whole intersection that MnDot did at Christmas Lake Road. You've got now a flashing sign that says a
light is coming up. There's no view shed. I mean you can't see the semaphore area. That also happens on
TH 41 to some degree. You have to, you're again making a curve so there almost should be something that
kind of slows you down because all of a sudden you get to 41 and 7 and there's a light. There's not a
straight shot so that you know that you're approaching that intersection.
Paul Kachelmyer: For somebody who's headed north on 41 ?
Mayor Mancino: For someone who's headed west on 7.
Paul Kachelmyer: West on 7. That they don't see the intersection clearly enough.
Mayor Mancino: So there could be a reduction, I mean because you should not be going 50 mph through
that intersection. Or I don't think you should be going 50 mph through that intersection. You don't at the
Christmas Lake one. I think they, the speed limit there is 40 or 45.
11
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Paul Kachelmyer: Yeah, but unfortunately that's because the mess that there is in Excelsior.
Mayor Mancino: I know, because you've got the left mm going up over the bridge and everything else.
Paul Kachelmyer: When the Excelsior interchange gets reconstructed in a couple years, the speed limit will
go up to 50 on that stretch of road also.
Mayor Mancino: And then won't we do it around right prior to the, so that you know, well you do know
you have a semaphore there because we've got the flashing lights now.
Paul Kachelmyer: One thing about speeds, you know you mentioned somebody going 70. Yeah, there's
always speeders on the highways. On the stretch of road between 41 and St. Bonifacius, there's very little
traffic enforcement right now because it's extremely hard for police to pull anyone over. There's only sort
stretches where there's any paved shoulder. There's some stretches where there's no shoulder at all and
there's other stretches where there's gravel shoulder and you don't want to pull off the road when you're
doing 50 mph. And so when we have, after the project is done and there's 10 foot wide paved shoulders,
it'd be very easy for police to enforce the speed limit out there and my guess is that they will more than they
do now without even being asked because it will be easier.
Mayor Mancino: Good. Well I also did find on Oriole, turning south onto Oriole and turning from Oriole I
did it 4 or 5 times at 4:00 and 4:15 and I've done it early in the morning. If it's light outside I feel very
safe, even though the incline isn't right. The grade is scary if it's snowy and if it's dark. If it's light, it's
not half as unsafe going, turning out of Oriole going west on TH 7. So I didn't again, when it's light at
4:00 in the afternoon, it's not bad. When it's dark it's something else. Any other comments or questions
for Paul?
Councilman Berquist: The only comment I have, before we listen to what the folks have to say.., in your
inventory you don't have a single sign that says right lane ends about a quarter mile?
Paul Kachelmyer: The left lane isn't intended to end. The left lane is supposed to go through and the right
lane's supposed to end.
Councilman Engel: But the right lane ends.
Mayor Mancino: But really, you do need to have a focus group on that, to how people really read it... if
you think it's the other way. Go ahead, Councilman Senn.
Councilman Mason: Well I beg to differ but. Oh no, I mean to Nancy. Not with you. You're right.
Councilman Senn: Paul, a question for you. One of the other things I'm trying to understand. I mean I
was going back to the notes and picked up on your comment that you said the speed was actually going to
probably be increased through that area.
Paul Kachelmyer: Through the Excelsior area.
Councilman Senn: Right. Which will effectively increase through the Excelsior area out then.
12
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Mayor Mancino: No, it already goes, it's already up to 50.
Councilman Senn: It will be a continuation of the 50 mph speed limit then.
Paul Kachelmyer: Yeah, there's 50 mph speed limits on either side of the Excelsior area.
Councilman Senn: Right. But I'm just curious, why. I mean why will the State do that when they haven't
put 50 mph speed limit on the portion of 7 that for years has been built for it and now they want to increase
it on a portion that it probably shouldn't be that even in the first place.
Paul Kachelmyer: Which?
Councilman Senn: Well Highway 7 all the way out is 45 mph. Why all of a sudden when you get out to
here you're going to increase it to 50.
Paul Kachelmyer: No, it's 50 mph. It's 45 in the Excelsior area, unless I'm wrong.
Councilman Mason: That's from 494 out it's 50.
Councilman Senn: From 494 out.
Councilman Mason: Well from 169, it's 50 mph.
Councilman Senn: No.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, sure it is.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah it is.
Paul Kachelmyer: Yeah, it's 50 mph.
Mayor Mancino: When you get past Christmas Lake and that area it's 50. You know 101.
Councilman Senn: Hopkins Crossroad, Shady Oak Road. I mean I agree with you west of Shady Oak
Road but I thought between Shady Oak Road, 73 going up through Hopkins there through, up to 169, it's
all 45 mph.
Paul Kachelmyer: I'm not sure about that stretch. From 494 going west it's 50.
Mayor Mancino: All through Minnetonka they're just limited access. I mean there's not a lot of access
except for.
Paul Kachelmyer: Our next project after we're done with this 8 miles is the stretch from 494 headed east.
Councilman Senn: Well but that's limited access already anyway though.
Paul Kachelmyer: Oh yeah.
13
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Councilman Senn: But what I'm trying to get at is, I mean why did they do it at 45 there and do it 50 out
here because it's 45 in. I mean going into Sam's Club it's 45 mph all the way through St. Louis Park.
Paul Kachelmyer: I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with that area so I can't say.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Thank you. And if a resident or someone else has a question, we'll
direct it your way. Thanks Paul. Yes, your mm. Please come up. State your name and address.
Andy Brisley: My name is Andy Brisley, 2811 North Manor Road in Excelsior. How you doing guys?
Nice to see you again.
Mayor Mancino: We're going to miss you, you know the next Council meeting.
Andy Brisley: Well maybe. We've been here twice now and in both instances there's been many
statements made in opposition to MnDot's plan. Not only just for closing Washta Bay Road but the entire
plan as it stands, and our position basically hasn't changed. We don't get it. And as a matter of fact, the
longer it goes on, I guess more reasons we can think of why you shouldn't approve it. I guess as a side
statement here, the first two times the Council chambers were full. After the statement last meeting that
MnDot can basically do what they want to do, really depressed a lot of people and kind of made it seem
like why even bother anymore. I'll get back to the point. The plan was developed under the guise of
increased safety on Highway 7, but by MnDot's own admission during these meetings, it falls woefully
short of that plan. It doesn't address the real issue of poor highway design. Yet if you guys vote to
approve this, you're going to force us, the residents, and you guys later on to accept the financial burden of
maintaining other streets and increasing our risk of accidents on the roads that are going to be traveled
further. This plan basically does not do anything to reduce the current .00004% chance that there's going
to be an accident and that's based on 6 million cars, over 6 million cars a year and 2 or 3 accidents a year.
This just doesn't do it. A good example of a burden, if this plan goes through as stated, school buses,
garbage trucks, delivery trucks, are now going to have to make U tums either on Oriole Avenue or down on
West 64th Street and okay, you let the kids off the school buses. I drove a school bus. I know what kids
are like when they get off school buses. They're not going to pay attention. They want to run around.
Then you're going to ask a school bus driver to try and make a U turn or back up and do some of these
maneuvers that are risky at best when there isn't kids around. And there's two or three daycares right in
that area where you're asking them to perform this turn. We suggested lower cost alternatives such as
reduction in speed limits and I think we did a good job of coming up with some facts that basically state
that if you lower the speed limit, the difference between the speed limit of 55 to 40, you have an 800%
chance, less chance of being involved in an accident. MnDot says, we're not going to do it. There's really
not a good reason why other than this is a trunk highway and we just won't do that. MnDot came back
with a proposal that will say, they'll leave Washta Bay entrance open, but now it seems like they're
demanding that you close the intersection of North Manor Road and Washta Bay. Well that doesn't make
sense. That's not MnDot's call but it seems like it's being held, the way the statement's read, it's being
held like as a, if you want this improvement you have to close those, that intersection. We live in an
neighborhood and believe it or not, people that aren't here, it's a real tight neighborhood and to take that
away just, it doesn't make sense. It doesn't add any value to anybody and just increases our burden.
During the discussion, we talk about the public works advise the Council that MnDot can turn access
points into right turn out. Right turn in and right turn out. It owns Highway 7 and that the only impact
that you guys have is basically on full access closures. And after hearing this, and he stated it again today,
Mr. Kachelmyer said that that's exactly what they'd do and so if you guys don't approve it, then that's
exactly what they'll do I guess so kind of take their bow and go home. During the meeting, last meeting,
14
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Councilman Mason applauded the way in which the Chanhassen public works and MnDot have worked
together and you urged us to look at the overall picture, and I can't agree with you more. I agree with you
100% but this plan does nothing to better our area. It does nothing to increase the safety of the people that
are going down Highway 7 and again that .00004% chance. You know if MnDot's method of working
together is to do whatever they want, regardless of what you guys say, then I guess let them do that. After
last meeting, and again in the spirit of trying to work together, I approached Mr. Kachelmyer at the end of
the meeting and offered to sit down and try to come up with some feasible plans. I was flat out rejected. I
have many people. His response to me was that I'm working in reality. That the Chanhassen Public
Works Department has turned down land acquisitions for a different section of the highway, and I believe
that's in reference to the Leslee Curve area. Why would the Chanhassen Public Works Department
approve anything else for this? My offer was to sit with Mr. Kachelmyer and come up with some sort of
alternative that could work for all us. There was many people there. They're not here tonight and he and I
can go back and forth about what was said and what wasn't said and I don't know how good that is. What
good that will do. But to be blown off without consideration, it's a pretty strong statement of what's going
on. Or what we appear, what appears to us to be going on. We still have different options you know. Mr.
Kachelmyer said that the City of Shorewood is working to redesign the intersection of 7 and 41. Can't
Chanhassen and Shorewood work together and see if they can come up with a viable alternative? If you
use the resources of Chanhassen, MnDot and Shorewood, is that an option? Another option would be, I
may be stepping on some sore toes here but the finance extension of the Coulter Boulevard access. I mean
you've got something on one side of the town that nobody seems to want, and you've got something on the
other side of the town that people are screaming for to fix an area. You've got money allocated for it over
here but you don't have money allocated for it over there.
Mayor Mancino: It's not quite that easy.
Andy Brisley: I believe that it's not that easy.
Mayor Mancino: We wish it were. Believe me.
Andy Brisley: And I believe that it's not quite that easy but from the appearance of the citizens.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, the Coulter Boulevard is using Municipal State Aid which we cannot use on
Highway 7 so it's a whole different funding source Andy but you should bring it up and ask.
Andy Brisley: Cross that one off. Never mind, okay.
Councilman Senn: And partially assessed by the way.
Councilman Mason: It was a good move though.
Andy Brisley: I tried, come on. And basically again, what it gets down to is when this started, this room
was full and people that they could, that you guys would listen. And it kind of gets down to this. A few of
you have expressed your discomfort with the solution as it's outlined and you continually ask what would
happen if you approve no and Mr. Kachelmyer said what's going to happen. And that's what MnDot will
do, but I can tell you from a constituent point of view, if you vote to approve MnDot's plan, your vote
basically tells us that what we said doesn't matter. That the efforts that we put into this don't matter. It
also says that you're really not being fiscally responsible because this money is not doing anything. It truly
isn't doing anything and to improve a .00004% chance, why would we do that? If you vote for no
15
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
approval, you can tell us that you're hearing us and that we can make a difference and that you care about
the safety of the citizens of Chanhassen. I guess the bottom line, it's your choice. You guys get to vote but
over 98% of the people that have come up here have asked you to vote no for this. And this issue shouldn't
be a vote to get inadequate projects into the year 2000's MnDot budget. You know the plan doesn't make
sense. By MnDot's own admission it's inadequate to increase the area. It doesn't address the real need of
poor highway design. Does this plan enhance the overall well being of the citizens? And is this plan
fiscally responsible and does it solve the real issue and the answer to all of these is no. What we thought all
along is MnDot has failed to show that closing these access points will make a difference and again, does
not seem willing to listen, hear or consider other points of view or alternatives. If MnDot is truly interested
in achieving a safer area, then they'll work with us. They will work on exploring other alternatives and
working with City of Shorewood and City of Chanhassen. Again, I guess I'd just like to tell you, we don't
think it's a fiscally responsible plan and it's up to you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to address the City
Council on this issue? Sure, just a minute because I have a couple questions too. Anita, we have already
approved part of this plan, correct? At the first we approved the closing of Cypress.
Anita Benson: Cypress and Fir Tree. I don't know that the Council was fully aware of what they were
doing. I think if you ask Council members they maybe aren't clear on what they did approve but Fir Tree
and Cypress closures were closed and that's Minnewashta Heights neighborhood.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, because I remember approving that and the two that were open was, this area with
Oriole and Washta Bay and Sandpiper, and then you were working on the details for Leslee Curve. Is that
how other councilmembers remember it? That's how I remember it, but I wasn't at the last meeting. Sure,
the first meeting where we had our 3 or 4 hour public hearing, we did approve the closing of Fir Tree and
Cypress.
Councilman Senn: Two streets, correct.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah. And what we did not approve yet, so we went ahead and approved that. What we
did not approve yet was the final plans for Leslee Curve and then the eastern area we were concerned about
Oriole and closing both Oriole or just having it right in/right out and Washta Bay. So that is when, so we
still have to approve the east and west end.
Anita Benson: That's correct.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And it sounds to me as if the east end is the one where there's more concern than
the west end. The east end now being Oriole because Washta Bay is open.
Andy Brisley: Well sort of open.
Mayor Mancino: But I have a question about that in just a second. I just want to make sure everybody
knows what we're doing. Paul, I have a couple questions and other council members may too if you don't
mind coming back up and answering them. We're keeping Washta Bay open. We are...Washta Bay and
close off the connection of North Manor Road to that intersection. Now my question is, are we closing off,
what's your rationale for closing off the North Manor Road. Can't this go either way? Isn't it just as, now
they can go to either Sandpiper or Washta Bay.
16
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Paul Kachelmyer: There's a couple of houses on North Manor Road and North Manor Road intersects
Washta Bay, just like 20 feet away from Highway 7. I could be wrong, that might be 30 feet but it's right
up there. And when there's a multitude of traffic movements going on right off of where people are coming
on and off the highway at fairly high rate of speeds, there's a high potential for accidents. Throughout this
whole project we've proposed that any intersections that remain with a connection to Highway 7 be made
into these safe intersections where there's right mm lanes, left mm lanes and good sight distances and good
level.., cars to accelerate off of.
Mayor Mancino: So I'm just going to get very practical here. So you're telling when people are going east
on TH 7 and they mm south or right onto Washta Bay and then make that quick left, that that is what you
see as a safety concern?
Paul Kachelmyer: Yes. Yeah, the people turning east, you know headed east on TH 7, swerving into
Washta Bay Road, will be crossing right in front of other cars that are coming up to TH 7. And also, when
there's cars up at TH 7 and the car would want to make that movement onto North Manor Road, they
would stop blocking essentially the intersections so that anybody else could come in behind them.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, for you and I suppose for staff too, this is the first time that I've heard of
Shorewood and MnDot working on 41 and 7. IfI can have a little bit of information about what's
happening at that intersection. Is there a plan being designed? What's happening?
Paul Kachelmyer: Yeah, the City of Shorewood and MnDot are working together with the City of
Shorewood, going to actually do the construction this year where they'll be lining up, the intersection that
goes north off of Highway 7 there into the shopping center, and onto the frontage road.
Mayor Mancino: With potholes all over it.
Paul Kachelmyer: Potholes all over it. It does not line up with Highway 41 across the road. Such that
when somebody comes out of the shopping center or the frontage road, and actually wants to go south on
Highway 41, the person who is sitting over on Highway 41 and wants to go north or turn, thinks that the
person.
Mayor Mancino: Going right towards them.
Paul Kachelmyer: Yeah, they're going right towards them. They think that that person over on the
Shorewood side is actually wanting to make a left turn. And there have been a number of accidents where
these cars, you know so we're going to line up the intersection so that it's straight. So that cars, when they
want to go straight it will be obvious to the person on the other side of the road that they want to go
straight. There will be a left turn lane put in for people who want to turn left and go east from that
shopping center area, to go left.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, that makes sense.
Paul Kachelmyer: The intersection as it comes into the shopping center. Once you get off of the highway
and you've gone 75 feet or so, it's kind of like one big open area and people who want to go on the frontage
road, or people who want to come out of like four different aisles of this shopping center are all kind of in
the same place and that's going to be dramatically reduced so that it won't be... multitude of conflicts of
traffic movement there. It's off of the highway but, you know it's close enough to the highway. When
17
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
accidents happen right off of the highway, they end up having kind of a snowball effect out onto the
highway. So we're working with the City of Shorewood and we encouraged the City of Shorewood to take
over that project because they're dealing with their frontage road and private property owner of the
shopping center, and they can work out things probably a lot faster and a lot better than we can and they
agreed with us so they're doing the project.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Paul at this point?
Councilman Berquist: Is it possible as we go through the process for us to... basis?
Paul Kachelmyer: Well yes and no. What we ended up working out with the city staff is kind of a package
deal. Our willingness to spend another $150,000.00 or so out at Leslee Curve and Pipewood is based on
the concept that the whole stretch of road will have a certain amount of improvements made to it. And if
that can't be done, then we'd reluctant to spend money out there by Pipewood and Leslee.
Councilman Berquist: Are you able to make a decision? If for instance we took a, are you able to be able
to, are you able to discern whether or not...
Paul Kachelmyer: I would be able to say relatively clearly whether or not that'd be the case.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions for Paul at this time?
Paul Kachelmyer: I do have just one statement from Mr. Brisley that I really do want to respond to
because it was a remark on my character. I absolutely, completely did not refuse to meet with Mr. Brisley.
I have in fact spoke with Mr. Brisley and his wife on the phone several times. I've sent them information
they've requested. I have not refused to talk to anybody regarding this project. I've spoken with at least 50
or more Chanhassen residents, many of them at length about this project. So I've been back there over and
over and over again, just because I have tried to make sure that anybody who has a concern or an issue
does have an opportunity to make that issue known. That's all.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, comments from councilmembers. Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: ... I have the luxury and the privilege of working with an organization like the
Minnesota Department of Transportation, I feel to some degree that I'm being held hostage. On the other
hand they have a huge purview so I can appreciate... The fact that they can pretty much do what they
want, however...two segments and perhaps talk about other segments and then you can give us a feel for
how that is reviewed is encouraging. Any victory, I mean I think if we arbitrarily voted to refuse the
project in it's entirety, I think that would be a very hollow victory. There are safety issues in the
community there that are very poignant and regardless of the percentage that your map tells you, the
likelihood of an accident is, the facts probably if you examine them close enough, state otherwise. That
major accidents, life threatening accidents, personal injury accidents could happen at any time and the
percentages really would have no bearing on it. MnDot is much better at designing roads and determining
safety than you or I ever could, ever would dream of being. I understand, I appreciate where you're
coming from, don't misunderstand. I also want to bring up... your testimony has been, during the initial
times of the meetings there were a number of people from the neighborhoods that were largely in favor of
the proposals. Perhaps not in entirety but in their large, largely they were in approval of their ideas.
Something's going to happen along Highway 7 that's going to affect a lot of people that live on the
Chanhassen and the Shorewood side and it's in the Council's best interest and MnDot's best interest to
18
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
minimize it and yet try and assure that there's as much safety as possible. That's the extent of my
comments.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: It's a tough one Mr. Brisley I know because there's really no good answer here unless
you reconstruct the entire road the way everybody would want it but if you look at their long range plan,
it's simply not in the, it's not going to happen. When I look at 20 years, 20 years is even arbitrary. It may
be longer than that and I think we live in an age of declining public resources and I think that's as it should
be and it will be worse and worse. So when we get a chance to have a minor victory, like we have in some
of the negotiations we've had here, I feel compelled as a councilman to take that because it's better than
flatly rejecting it as Steve said, and getting the plan as MnDot wants to put it in place with perhaps nothing
that we would like to salvage. It's a small victory, if one at all. But to do nothing puts you nowhere.
You're going to get something and I think you've got, we, sitting up here have got to do the best we can for
all of Chanhassen. I know it's not very good for some of the people up there. It's good for those who are
going to get a cul-de-sac but it's not very good for those who are going to get increased traffic on their
front street, I realize that. But it's harder to sit here and take the hollow victory, as Steve calls it, and I
agree that's probably what it is. So sometimes you vote on things you don't really feel that good about.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason.
Councilman Mason: Well, I think a couple things are being done wrong here. I'm hearing words like
minor victories. Hollow victories and that makes it sound like people, like we're pitted against each other
in World Wide Wrestling or some silly thing like that. And I think there's a basic problem when 2 or 3 or 4
or 5 groups get together and say well, I need a victory here. I take an issue with that. And Mr. Brisley, I
was with you, you know agree or disagree I was with you on everything you said until you came to the
point about we're not listening. And what I hear out of that is, ifa council or ifa person disagrees with
somebody, they're not listening. That doesn't entitle people to honest differences of opinion. And I, you
know I don't know if that's what you meant or not but one of the problems with sitting up here is, I get
told, we get told over and over again we're not listening. We never get told that if we vote the way
somebody wants us to vote. It's never heard that way and so I think that's, call me nit picky but I do think
everyone up here listens. Other than that I'll stand on what I said last time. Is this the best thing for
everybody? No, I don't think it is. I do think we're definitely shooting ourselves in the foot if we thumb
our noses at this proposal. I think, and I said it before and I'll say it again. I think MnDot is doing more
than they typically would do in a situation here and I think our staff came up with some good solutions to
some problems. Is it perfect? No it's not but I think it's something that needs to be done.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Funny, I can't disagree with anything with anybody. Well I guess first thing I'd like to
do is really, I'm going to say from our context, applaud city staff because when I look at the way we
started off this thing and what was proposed, you know kind of then on a take it or leave it basis, and where
staff has taken it as far as, well I'm going to say, obtaining a new set of circumstances, be it through
negotiations or through whatever, I think the residents of Chanhassen have benefited from where we are
now versus then. I think that's to their credit. As Mike said though, I think we're a long ways from, or
you didn't say a long ways but we're far from a perfect solution. You know as I've said all along in this
process, I really believe that MnDot's plan here is both unrealistic and under funded. The net effect of that
unfortunately I think is coming through in, at least in my mind, creating a lot of disruption which I really
19
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
don't believe is all necessary. I truly believe that if you took elements of everything here, like installation
of turn lanes and some new elements like transitioning the lanes to the east of 41 versus the west of 41, and
some changes in speed limits, I think you'd solve a lot more of what I thought the underlying premise of
this whole thing was up front with less disruption. And I know that's all relative but it seems to me it
behooves us to I guess worry about the disruption more than anybody else because if we don't, no one else
is going to. I would like to see an action, you know as we go through this, I think Steve had mentioned it
too but I had down that I would also like to see an action on a closure by closure basis on this deal if we're
going to proceed forward with authorizing it.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Well what we'll do is, we'll go on the west side and act on that closure and I very
much am in favor of the new layout for Leslee Curve and how that has been redrawn and what you've
looked at and so with that I'd like to make a motion to go ahead with the Leslee Curve, the new left lanes
and the right lanes, etc. Everything that's going on at Leslee Curve and can I have a second to that.
Councilman Senn: Second.
Mayor Mancino moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the safety improvements presented
by MnDot and staff at Leslee Curve and Trunk Highway 7. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Mayor Mancino: So that takes us from Leslee all the way up through Arbor. Now let's go to Washta Bay
Road. I think we did listen. Staff and MnDot to open up Washta Bay Road and I think it's very important
to the public safety in that area to have that second full access. Paul, you still haven't convinced me yet
that Noah Manor Road needs to be shut off. I mean just because again that's another circulation route in
that neighborhood that I thinks awfully important and I also think that the neighborhood is probably not
that many homes that's probably pretty self policing about how they line up on that road. So you haven't
quite convinced me and I don't know other councilmembers that that road really has to, Noah Manor Bay
has to be stopped at Washta Bay Road. I'm not quite convinced of that. I don't know how other
councilmembers feel but I'm glad it's remaining open. First of all I'm glad the intersection is remaining
open.
Councilman Berquist: I don't see it's going to reduce the traffic count... Again, it is a road...being a
problem. More than that I don't see it being MnDot's problem if it is a problem...
Mayor Mancino: ...talk to that or make a motion on Washta Bay Road?
Councilman Mason: Charles wants to say something.
Mayor Mancino: Oh, sorry Charles. I'm not looking at you. Very sorry. Charles.
Charles Folch: Just one point to make you aware of, consideration either one way or the other. In keeping
it open will involve some additional work because as we mentioned at the last meeting I think in more
detail, one of the things that we'd like to do is improve the grade of the landing and so raise it up, so in
doing so we would make, understand we will also probably have to go on Noah Manor Road and raise that
elevation back too. It involves some more work on the city's part in order to keep that open so just
something to understand clearly with keeping it open. There is some more work involved to do that.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Paul.
20
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Paul Kachelmyer: Our objection to where the connection is with Washta Bay Road and North Manor
Road, is that it's do dog gone close to the intersection that we do anticipate that there'd be traffic conflicts
right there. This is somewhat similar to why we're willing to spend a lot of money over in Shorewood at
41. For them to fix up their intersection that's actually 100 feet or so back from the signalized intersection.
When there's erratic traffic movements going on right near an access with the highway, we see that that
tends to lead to increased accidents right there at the highway. With the Highway 41 shopping center, we
don't see that that's something that they can't have. We just want it to be made more orderly. With the
North Manor Road intersection there, if the City were able to move North Manor Road back from the
intersection by like say 75 feet, then that would eliminate the conflicting traffic movements that would be
happening right at the intersection.
Mayor Mancino: But are they having problems there right now? I mean are there accidents? It's open
right now. I mean is there.
Charles Folch: We've never received any complaints but we've documented...
Mayor Mancino: But I mean are we having?
Paul Kachelmyer: Yeah, there are 1 or 2 accidents a year at that intersection but right now that intersection
has got several contributing factors to accidents happening there. There's the intersection across the street
that's off set by about 50 feet by Pleasant Avenue in Shorewood.
Audience: Which is being closed.
Paul Kachelmyer: Which is being closed. North Manor Road has a, does come up to Highway 7 at a
slight angle and it is at a steep grade. And there's, I'm getting these names mixed up. Washta Bay Road
comes up at a steep angle. And North Manor Road does connect right there close. Highways with their
high rate of speed just presents so much potential for accidents to happen and it just does not take much to
contribute to having an accident happen. And you know we are looking at probably not being back here for
at least 20 years and this is definitely something that is just a very poor engineering design. Built I'm sure
when the traffic volume on the highway was less than half of what it is now. If the city were willing to
move that back, then it'd become a safer intersection, just like Shorewood's doing over at their shopping
center.
Councilman Berquist: The shopping center intersection is, you've got hundreds, if not thousands of cars
going through...than you do at the two road intersections that we're talking about.
Paul Kachelmyer: Oh you're absolutely right. The potential there for accidents is much greater and there's
a tremendous number of accidents at the.
Councilman Berquist: The examples that you use...Number one is the number of vehicles at the other
intersection. Second of all, you cite the intersections that you offset from the one that's across from
Washta Bay Road. The two examples that you use are one, significantly different and one factor that as
you say affects Washta Bay Road is being eliminated. Is that closure enough to jeopardize the deal?
Paul Kachelmyer: I haven't finished talking about the rest of the project yet. You're right. The accident
potential for there is much less than say where we're extremely concerned about which is Oriole. And
21
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
you're also right, it is a city street. It's not a state highway but it connects to the state highway. You know
another way to look at it is, there's so little traffic on it that does it need to be there?
Councilman Berquist: Well, we could certainly.., into that.
Paul Kachelmyer: Yeah. I guess what we proposed all along is improving the intersections with the
highway such that they're really safe intersections and having North Manor Road connect to Washta Bay
Road where it does, reduces it incrementally.
Councilman Berquist: Now everything that's being proposed here is an extraordinary compromise on
MnDot's part in terms of ultimate safety roadways. Would you not agree with that?
Paul Kachelmyer: Yeah, we've scaled back our proposal to what we feel is bare bones. Now North Manor
Road, it maybe could stay open and if there's an accident there, then you could choose to close them. A lot
of highway projects, as I mentioned several meetings back, a lot of highway projects come about because
there have been accidents. There have been people killed and we get people saying you know how many
people have to be injured or killed before we do something. Here's one where I see a potential problem.
We'd like to eliminate it before somebody does get injured or killed there.
Councilman Berquist: Are you talking high speed stuff now? Given the fact that the roadway.., is going to
change, are you concerned with the high speed impact at that particularly intersection on North Manor,
Washta Bay and TH 7?
Paul Kachelmyer: No. I think that the accidents that would occur at North Manor would be of the more
minor nature, and possibly involve injuries. Not likely that somebody would get killed. One reason for
trying to avoid accidents like that close to the intersection is everybody does it. You know when you drive
by someplace where an accident's happened, everybody looks. And that ends up definitely causing
accidents out on the highway. You know here it's not likely that there would be a lot of accidents at this
location, at North Manor Road and Washta Bay Road. I think the highway and the city streets would be
safer if it were closed but you know if that's what you would seek, that that stays open, we might be able to
live with that.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Councilman Mason: Maybe you can answer this, maybe you won't. And obviously this is hypothetical
because I'm not really, to be honest with you, quite sure where this is going right now. If we vote to make
Oriole right in and right out, we're going to bargain out in the open here. Will you live with North Manor
Road the way it is or not? I mean let's just cut to the chase here. You know let's, and but while you think
about that, if this discussion was based on tornado sirens, it would be a totally different thing and we would
be, we would well no. No, no, no. No, no, I wouldn't either because I have some feelings about that as
well but the fact remains, you know we're talking .... now wait a minute. No, now wait a minute. Let me
finish here. There's not been one death in Chanhassen related to tornado sirens but that has not stopped the
way, and I'm not speaking for anybody here, but that's not stopped the way some people feel about
whether we should have tornado sirens in this city. There's not been one death on that area on Highway 7
but should we cease to stop thinking about safety because nobody's hammering on it? Well no, I don't
think we should. So at any rate, now. Getting back to what I said because I want to move off of this.
Mayor Mancino: But there have been accidents on Highway 7.
22
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Councilman Mason: Oh I agree. I'm in favor of the whole plan but apparently nobody else in this table is
and I want to move off of center and move on with it to tell you the truth so, what do you think of that?
What if Oriole is right in and right out...
Mayor Mancino: I'm going to make a motion. Here's.
Paul Kachelmyer: I would say we could definitely live with it, especially if the City would be willing to
possibly try to move it a little bit further south. The City is going to be in there doing pavement work this
year.
Councilman Mason: For Manor?
Paul Kachelmyer: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: Or we could monitor it and see what, the problem that it is.
Councilman Senn: I would move that we accept the recommendation on the improvements as it is with the
exception of not closing off North Manor Road and with post judgment on that at this time.
Mayor Mancino: That's exactly, I would second that. I would second that.
Councilman Senn: In that motion assume that prudent people will take prudent measures to.
Mayor Mancino: I agree with that and I would like us to keep tabs on it as a city and see if we are having
any problems there and seriously have public safety keep records on that. I second that.
Councilman Senn moved, Mayor Mancino seconded to approve the safety improvements proposed by
MnDot and staff keeping Washta Bay Road open, with the exception of not closing North Manor
Road. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Mancino: Well, that's the whole east end.
Councilman Senn: Wait, wait, wait now. I'm sorry, back up.
Mayor Mancino: I thought that included Oriole.
Councilman Senn: No. No, no, no. I'm sorry, in my mind it didn't at all.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Councilman Senn: If you want to talk about Oriole, then let's throw that in.
Councilman Mason: I'll move Oriole as planned in the MnDot report.
Mayor Mancino: I second that.
Councilman Mason: I'd also like to call a question.
23
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Councilman Mason moved, Mayor Mancino seconded to approve the safety improvements proposed
by MnDot and staff at Oriole Road and Highway 7. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn and
Councilman Berquist who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Mayor Mancino: Motion carries 3 to 2 and Oriole has right in, right out.
ON-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWAL~ CHANHASEN BOWL~ 581 WEST
78TM STREET.
Don Ashworth: Actually Roger had written the report. Roger, would you present this one?
Roger Knutson: It's short enough so I think I can read it over again. Mayor, members of the Council. I
wrote you a short letter just updating what we had told you about a year ago. Essentially since they're in
bankruptcy you cannot deny the license renewal for non-payment of back taxes. I'll point out one
difference between this year and last year. At this juncture last year they were substantially behind in taxes
for a period of several years. Now their only delinquent payment is second half of '97.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Any questions from councilmembers?
Councilman Senn: I have no questions but comments.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions first for our esteemed attorney? Okay. Okay, comments. Councilman
Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: Well if I'm reading this right and figuring out Bob's verbiage on... surprised at the
infrequency with which we are called to deal with activities, that's the only comments that I have. I mean
the way I look at it, it looks like once a month was it.
Councilman Mason: There's 365 days.
Mayor Mancino: ...
Councilman Senn: Well yeah I mean, I have to apologize. I tried to catch Scott this morning. He called
me back. I was tied up in this thing. We never hooked up and I really wanted to have a lengthy discussion
with him on this. I don't know. I guess it depends on where your standards are. I mean if you want to
make this a pure numerical exercise, 3 out of every 4 weeks we're there.
Councilman Berquist: Once.
Councilman Senn: 3 out of every 4 weeks we're there once. Now if that's the standard. Now if that's the
standard you thinks good for Chanhassen, I'm sorry I don't think it's a standard I like for Chanhassen.
Now beyond that, what am I comparing it to is in my mind the real question. And how does this compare
to other facilities who effectively serve liquor and how does that put it in light in relationship to the, is it an
operation we want to continue and grant a license to in this city or not? And without the information
tonight it, in my mind makes it very difficult to act on this, but I guess, I mean I'm not criticizing anyone.
There are circumstances that couldn't be helped today in relationship to the.., everything that has happened
there so I don't know. Again, purely numerical I don't like what I see as a standard but you know, who
24
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
knows if I knew what happened at the other establishments, it might change my mind one way or the other
but I would much rather look at that issue as it relates to the other establishments before making a decision
on it.
Mayor Mancino: ... comparison to base it on. Secondly, do we have.., again this kind of activity. At a
certain point do we say no liquor license and should we have some sort of policy or guidelines that says
after.., certain related calls then this establishment and can we do that? Roger, can we legally say that, and
there's some guidelines for this.
Councilman Engel: Do you want to or do we want to have more flexibility?
Roger Knutson: You have substantial discretion in establishing guidelines but I'd just caution you if it
were on calls, the result would be, might not be less incidents. It might just be less calls because if the
folks, and I'm just speculating. If you just told the bartenders or the people that work there, don't call, I
don't care what's happening. Drag the body next door. I think you have to look at the nature of the calls
and how they relate to a liquor activity. Certainly you look at calls if they were things like open after
hours. Serving to minors. Routine gambling. Prostitution on the premises. Those are the sort of things
that most cities look more carefully at. It says there's something wrong there because the people aren't
managing their business appropriately.
Mayor Mancino: What would the Council like to do on this?
Councilman Berquist: Well I would move that we approve the liquor license...
Councilman Mason: I would second that.
Councilman Engel: I'd actually like to wait and see the comparisons to other businesses while you do a
numerical. These numbers are fine but I've got nothing to compare them to.
Councilman Berquist: ... but there are businesses that, you know like it as we may or may not, there are
businesses that are allowed to be open and do business in this country and I look at what's being, what's
going on there on a yearly basis, I do not see anything extraordinary given the type of business and the
clientele. That clientele has every right to be able to do what they do. Go there and have a drink and dance
and whatever else they may be involved in this that's legal. This limited number of, very limited number in
my opinion, of illegal activity. I looked at it and according to the notes it's...I do not see as being
extraordinary.
Mayor Mancino:...I mean that's what it says so thank you for clarifying it for me so, with that there is a
motion and a second.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the on-sale intoxicating liquor
license renewal for Chanhassen Bowl at 581 West 78th Street. All voted in favor, except Councilman
Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO REPLAT 4.84 ACRES, OUTLOT D,
CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER INTO TWO LOTS; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW TWO BUILDINGS ON A SINGLE LOT; AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 16,174
25
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
SQ. FT. AND 23~070 SQ. FT. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING WITH OUTDOOR
STORAGE; EDEN TRACE CORPORATION.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. As you indicated, the applicant is asking for a couple requests. One, to plat a
lot from an outlot status into two lots and then also to get site plan approval. The site plan here is shown,
shows the two buildings and that has outdoor storage. I'll go through the architecture in a minute. This is
part of the Chan Business Park, which does have a PUD. The plan as proposed is consistent with the
PUD. It is bordered by Audubon Road. Because it is industrial it does have a greater setback. The
residences in the area would be across the street on the other side of Audubon. The Weather Service would
be on the, this side of the property.
Mayor Mancino: Where is the Weather Service?
Kate Aanenson: On this side of the property so they're not...then this property would be a future lot,
comer lot on Lake Drive and Audubon Road. That last lot there. So it is consistent with the application.
The Planning Commission did review this and recommended approval and along with that, with the
architecture. There is an outdoor storage area... The outdoor storage area would be fenced, is of similar
material and it does also have windows so it really doesn't look like a storage yard. Our ordinance does
allow outdoor storage but does require that it be completely screened and we believe this is a very
admirable job of the outdoor storage in the fact that it is consistent with the building. It does have the
ability in the future to be added to a building so it could be adapted to make one of the buildings larger on
the site. One of the concerns that was addressed was additional landscaping on Audubon to provide a
better buffer and that has been accomplished so with that staff is recommending approval of the final plat
of the outlot and approval of the site plan. There's also a development contract to approve.
Mayor Mancino: Quick question. If the outdoor storage area, is that area where they could roof it and?
Impervious surface, are we still under the impervious?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. We're okay, yes. Actually we balanced that over the entire site because the
Weather Service actually used minimal, there is some extra impervious on that. One of the other things I
didn't mention also was the rooftop equipment. The Weather Service does sit down lower, so from
Audubon Road this does have parapet walls so you shouldn't be able to see the rooftop equipment.
Mayor Mancino: And the building height is 18 feet and the wall height is... ?
Kate Aanenson: I believe that's correct.
Councilman Berquist: ... outdoor storage.., being constructed of?
Kate Aanenson: Similar material.
Councilman Berquist: Block.
Kate Aanenson: It's the exact same. This cut face block with the integrated colors. Yeah I can maybe let
the applicant explain that but it's very nice. It will have a steel gate also.
Councilman Berquist: ...wooden sticks.
26
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Mayor Mancino: Okay, any other questions?
Councilman Senn: Kate, what's the underlying zoning there?
Kate Aanenson: It's PUD but the underlying would be anything that's not specifically called out in the
PUD which we've adapted here showing you would be the industrial lOP standards.
Councilman Senn: But the outside storage doesn't require a conditional use then?
Kate Aanenson: No. What the standards say is, what it says it just has to be completely screened.
Councilman Senn: But is that because of the PUD then?
Kate Aanenson: I believe that's in our current ordinance also.
Councilman Senn: Because I thought lOP it did.
Mayor Mancino: I'm sorry, what was your question?
Kate Aanenson: Outdoor storage.
Councilman Senn: Outdoor storage as a conditional use under lOP I thought.
Mayor Mancino: ... right here and I have...
Kate Aanenson: I can find it real fast.
Councilman Senn: You were going to act like you knew where it was. Go to lOP, that's where it is.
Mayor Mancino: No. No, I'm looking under conditional use.
Councilman Senn: No, but it's under 1OP. I can tell you that.
Mayor Mancino: We'll go ahead so that we, did you have any other questions?
Councilman Senn: In terms of the, okay so then as far as the uses go here then, the uses have to conform to
the underlying lOP, right? Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Or the PUD we called specifically, like we allowed one church in there so we did call out,
in a percentage and then we did an EAW on this so it is, we have a percentage broken down on page 6.
Office manufacturing, warehouse so it does meet those standards.
Councilman Senn: But specific use wise though it still falls under the 1OP.
Kate Aanenson: No. That was why we did a PUD to call out specifically the percentages. The mix we
wanted in there. Anything that's not called out in the PUD would fall underneath. We don't mention
parking ratios in there. We just would go, we rely back on the underlying PUD for office standards, excuse
me, the underlying zoning 1OP.
27
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Mayor Mancino: If it's not called out in the PUD. But if it is called out in the PUD, it's that precedent.
Okay, with that.
Councilman Senn: I'd like to hear the answer to the question if we could before we do something.
Kate Aanenson: Outdoor storage is a conditional use in the 1OP. In the 1OP.
Councilman Berquist: How did we, how was it decided that that would have an 8 foot fence?
Kate Aanenson: It's 12. It's 12.
Councilman Berquist: It's 12 foot? Is that addressed in, I'm asking for...
Kate Aanenson: Yes it is. It's in here. Sharmin put it in here. The findings of what the screening will be
and that it can be part of the building.
Councilman Berquist: It's 12 feet within the ordinance?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. And the intent was that it could be enclosed in the future. That's why we...the 12
feet. If someone's lease... Well the reason why we did it, it could have been one building but we felt
because it really, it looks like a building. We didn't have a problem with it. A concrete block wall with
windows in it will give you that interpretation.
Mayor Mancino: But nothing can be piled up higher than the 12 feet.
Kate Aanenson: Exactly.
Councilman Senn: It cannot be visible.
Kate Aanenson: It cannot be visible. It has to be completely screened within that so it would have to be
lower than that, correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay. What's the use or what's the outdoor storage going to be?
Kate Aanenson: I'll let the applicant, whether or not he's willing to divulge that, but let me just go back to
where the storage is...
Mayor Mancino: Well we just want to make sure that.
Kate Aanenson: The way it's sitting on the property, from Audubon Road, to where it's sitting, it will be
completely screened and Lake Drive, that you won't be able to see down there but that was one of our
concerns.
Mayor Mancino: We just want to make sure obviously that, not the current user but in future years, again
it's tied to the land so that nobody else can come in and make things higher than the wall... Is the applicant,
would you like to come forward?
28
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Councilman Senn: One quick question. Now, do we need...
Kate Aanenson: Actually when we put that in the plans, no. Can I tell you where we addressed that under
page 4 under findings. The proposed use of light industrial are consistent with the parameters established
in the PUD. As to outdoor storage section... PUD landscaping and screening, storage of outdoor materials
is prohibited unless it's been approved under the site plan. So as part of the site plan we are recommending
that based on the material, base of the height, that we think it works in the system and ultimately it's the
developer's desire to probably enclose that space so it's kind of, we think it's a good use of that facility.
Councilman Senn: I understand that but what happens in the future when.., another user and somebody
decides to exceed the 12 foot in terms of visibility? What are you going to do about it?
Kate Aanenson: Then we'd cite him for being in violation of the PUD.
Councilman Senn: With what? I mean you don't have a CUP. Nothing to revoke. I mean what do you
do? Go back and say we revoke your site plan?
Kate Aanenson: Violation. It's a violation of the city ordinance.
Councilman Senn: So you just deal with it as a misdemeanor...
Mayor Mancino: Thank you Roger for that. Is the applicant here and would the applicant like to address
the City Council?
Mark Undestad: My name's Mark Undestad with Eden Trace .... worked through a lot of stuff on here to
come up with a design that we think screens off loading area. Keeps things tucked away in there with the
height. The wall which is put up higher. We are working with two separate clients in there. One deals in
telephone cabling. They have some reels that stand 6 feet high and they don't stack those so this is how tall
that would be. Also we're dealing with another company that deals in granite and marble. Those are 8 feet
high so we've taken their screen to 12 feet. Looking again, that based on any elevations around there, that
if anybody's driving down Audubon, coming up from the other direction, 4 to 8 feet and their wall's at 12
feet, nobody's going to see anything down inside there. And the landscaping, we've increased landscaping
there. That's about it. We've put some character to the footprint there to try to make it look nice and not
look like anything other than...
Councilman Berquist: Is that.., underground storage going to be asphalt? Or not underground storage,
outdoor storage.
Mark Undestad: We're looking at... Class V overlay.., which one of them goes in there. Because one of
them.
Mayor Mancino: They're going to put marble and granite.
Councilman Berquist: You're using marble and granite? ... you're going all the way down with footings?
Mark Undestad: Right. Yeah, we're hoping to expand the buildings in there and just enclose those...
29
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Mayor Mancino: ... kind of like a dome or something... Any other questions for Mark at this time? Any
questions? Thank you very much. May I have a motion?
Councilman Berquist: Move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Site Plan #98-3 for Eden
Trace Corporation as shown on the plans dated received February 13, 1998, subject to the following
conditions:
All driveway access points onto Lake Drive West shall incorporate the City's industrial driveway
apron (Detail Plate No. 5207). The developer shall be responsible for relocating any conflicting
street lights along Lake Drive West.
Rock construction entrances shall be maintained by the applicant until all parking lots are paved with
a bituminous surface. In addition, all catch basin inlets shall be protected with silt fence, rock filter
dikes, or hay bales as well.
The bituminous trail along Audubon Road shall be restored in kind within seven days after utility
extension commences.
All drive aisles shall be revised to meet the City Code requirements (21-1101 and 20-1118).
Driveway radiuses onto Lake Drive West shall be increased to 20 foot radii.
The storm sewer system proposed for the easterly driveway shall be extended to the lot line for future
extension and use by Lot 1.
Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges shall be applied to the building permit. Charges shall be
based upon the number of SAC units determined by the Metropolitan Council Environmental
Services. The applicant shall provide the City with a financial guarantee in the amount of $2,500 to
guarantee boulevard restoration as a result of the two driveway access points. The applicant shall
report to the City Engineer the location or any draintiles found during construction and shall relocate
or abandon the draintiles as directed by the City Engineer.
The contractor and/or developer shall contact the City's Engineering Department for inspection of
the driveway apron and curb/street restoration prior to pouring the concrete. A 24 hour notice is
required to schedule an inspection.
All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest editions of the City's
Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and/or State Plumbing Codes. Detailed utility plans and
specifications shall be submitted in conjunction with the final plat approval for staff review and
approval. The private utilities will be inspected by the City's Building Department. The developer
and/or builder shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits from the City.
Applicant shall revise landscaping plan to include 24 understory trees and 24 shrubs, as required by
buffer yard ordinance, near the western edge of the parking lot along Audubon Road.
30
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
10.
11.
Site plan review approval of this application is contingent upon final plat approval and recording of
Chanhassen Business Center 4th Addition by the City.
Fire Marshal conditions:
a. Please relocate the fire hydrant which sits in front of the parking stall just outside of the fenced in
area on the northwest side of the property. Please relocate fire hydrant to the curb off the
northwest comer of the fenced in area. MN Uniform Fire Code 1991 Section 10.403.
b. Please relocate the fire hydrant which sits in front of parking staff on the southeast comer of
Building B. Please relocate hydrant over to the northeast in order to provide access for the fire
department. MN Uniform Code 1991 Section 10.403.
c. Please provide a fire lane. Call fire marshal for exact location. Chanhassen Fire
Department/Fire Prevention Policy #6-1991.
d. The post indicator valves will need to be provided with tamper protection. Chanhassen Fire
Department/Fire Prevention Policy #40-1995.
e. Fire department must witness flushing of underground mains which come in the building for fire
suppression systems. Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #40-1995.
f. Please refer to the enclosed fire prevention policies for all requirements from the city of
Chanhassen in regards to this project.
g. Chanhassen Fire Department policy on fire alarm systems; Policy #1-1990.
h. Chanhassen Fire Department Policy on exterior light and horn over Fire Department Sprinkler
Connection; Policy #2-1990.
i. Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding site plans; Policy #4-1991.
j. Chanhassen Fire Department Policy requirements for fire lane signage; Policy #6-1991.
k. Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding pre-plans; Policy #7-1991.
1. Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification; Policy #29-1992.
m. Water Service Installation Policy for Commercial and Industrial Buildings; Policy #34-1993
Chanhassen Fire Department Policy Maximum Allowed Size of Domestic Water Service on a
Combination Domestic Fire Sprinkler Supply Line; Policy #36-1994.
n. Chanhassen Fire Department of Fire Sprinkler Systems; Policy #40-1995.
o. Chanhassen Fire Department Policy on Labeling of Fire Rated Walls; Policy #44-1997.
31
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
12. Please contact Fire Marshal for exact size and location for installation of a lock box on the side of
the building for fire department access. MN Uniform Fire Code 1991 Section 10.302.
13. The applicant shall enter into a site development contract with the city and provide the necessary
financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval.
14.
All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood
screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks etc. are to be fully screened by
compatible materials. As an alternative, the applicant can use factory applied panels on the exterior
to the equipment that would blend in with the building materials.
15.
All freestanding signs shall be limited to monument signs. The sign shall not exceed eighty (80)
square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The sign treatment is an
element of the architecture and thus should reflect with the quality of the development. A common
theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. Each
property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. The
monument sign must maintain a ten foot setback from the property line. The signs should be
consistent in color, size, and material throughout the development. The applicant should submit a
sign package for staff review. A separate permit is required for all signage on site.
16.
Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development. A
decorative, show box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole shall
be used throughout the development area for area lighting. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light
level for site lighting shall be no more than ½ foot candle at the property line. This does not apply to
street lighting. Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-ways shall
be used in the private areas. Wall pack units may be used provided no direct glare is directed off-site
and no more than ½ foot candle of light is at the property line.
17. Park fees shall be paid in accordance with city ordinance requirements.
Also to approve Preliminary Plat for Subdivision #98-3 to replat Outlot D into two lots, Chanhassen
Business Center Fourth Addition as shown on the plans dated Received February 13, 1998, subject to
the following conditions:
1. Final plat shall be named Chanhassen Business Center 4th Addition.
The developer shall dedicate to the City a 20-foot wide trail easement over the existing trail
adjacent to the Audubon Road and a 20-foot drainage and utility easement over the proposed storm
sewer extension to Lot 1.
The developer shall enter into an amendment to the development contract for Chanhassen Business
Center and provide the City with the necessary security and pay the associated final plat fees.
The developer shall be responsible for extending sewer and water service to the development.
Sanitary sewer service shall be extended from Audubon Road for Lot 2 and Lake Drive West for
Lot 1. Open cutting of Lake Drive West shall be prohibited. The developer will also be
responsible for extending storm sewer service to Lot 1 from Lake Drive West. All utility
32
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
improvements shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and
Detail Plates and/or State Plumbing Codes.
The developer shall prepare a grading, drainage, and erosion control plan for both lots for review
and approval by the City.
The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations and drainage maps for a 10- and
100-year storm event, 24-hour duration for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final
plat approval.
The developer shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e.
Watershed District, and comply with their conditions of approval.
8. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way.
The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any draintiles found during
construction and relocate or abandoned the draintiles as directed by the City Engineer.
10.
If importing or exporting of earthwork material is necessary, a haul route and traffic control plan
shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to construction commencing.
11.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and
disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket and sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All city boulevards disturbed as
a result of construction shall be re-sodded.
12.
The proposed Industrial development of 1.8 net developable acres is responsible for a water quantity fee
of $7,848. This fee is due payable to the City phor to the City filing the final plat.
13. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The development standards will remain the same as previously approved with the PUD.
a. Intent
The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD light industrial/office park. The use of the PUD zone is to
allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All
utilities are required to be placed underground. Each lot proposed for development shall proceed through
site plan review based on the development standards outlined below.
b. Permitted Uses
The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to light industrial, warehousing, and office as defined
below. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to the whether or not a
use meets the definition, the City Council shall make that interpretation.
Light Industrial. The manufacturing, compounding, processing, assembling, packaging, or testing of
goods or equipment or research activities entirely within an enclosed structure, with no outside storage.
33
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
There shall be negligible impact upon the surrounding environment by noise, vibration, smoke, dust or
pollutants.
2. Warehousing. Means the commercial storage efmerchandise and personal property.
3. Office. Professional and business office, non-retail activity.
c. Setbacks
In the PUD standards, there is the requirement for landscape buffering in addition to building and parking
setbacks. The landscape buffer on Audubon Road is 50 feet, south of Lake Drive and tOO feet along the
southern property line. The PUD zone requires a building to be setback 50 feet from the required
landscape buffer and public right-of-ways. There is no minimum requirement for setbacks on interior lot
lines.
The following setbacks shall apply:
Building Parking
Audubon Road Buffer & Setback 50' plus 50' 50' plus 10'
South Property Line & Setback tOO" plus 50' tOO' plus t0'
Front & Rear ROW on Lake Drive 25' 15'
Interior Side Lot Line t0' t0'
Railroad Right of Way 30' 30'
Audubon Road south of Lake Drive t 00' t 00'
d. Development Standards Tabulation Box
Chanhassen Business Center Fourth Addition (Outlet D)
Chanhassen Business Center Fourth Addition (Outlet D)
Lot # Lot Size - Acres Building Sq. Ft. Building Coverage Impervious
t 4.5 57,000 29% 60%
2 4.0 44,000 25% 60%
Subtotal 8.5 t 0 t, 000 avg. 27 % avg. 60 %
The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 70% for office and industrial uses. The proposed
development meets this standard with an average of 56% hard surface coverage.
Building Square Footage Breakdown
Office 20% 120,700 sq. ft.
34
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Manufacturing 25% 150,875 sq. ft.
Warehouse 54.09% 326,425 sq. ft.
Church 0.91% 5,500 sq. ft.
Total 100% 603,500 sq. ft.
eo
4.
5.
6.
10.
f.
1.
Building Materials and Design
The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and
site design. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building.
All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be used. Color shall be
introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block.
Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity.
Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face.
Concrete may be poured in place, filt-up or pre-cast, and shall be finished in stone, textured or coated.
Metal siding will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials or curtain
wall on office components or, as trim or as HVAC screen.
All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure.
All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen
fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be fully screened by compatible
materials.
The use of large unadorned, prestressed concrete panels and concrete block shall be prohibited.
Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate and/or other patterning.
All walls shall be given added architectural interest through building design or appropriate
landscaping.
Space for recycling shall be provided in the interior of all principal structures for all developments
in the Business Center.
Site Landscaping and Screening
All buffer landscaping, including boulevard landscaping, included in Phase I area to be installed
when the grading of the phase is completed. This may well result in landscaping being required
ahead of individual site plan approvals but we believe the buffer yard and plantings, in particular,
need to be established immediately. In addition, to adhere to the higher quality of development as
spelled out in the PUD zone, all loading areas shall be screened. Each lot for development shall
submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process.
35
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with
plantings and/or lawn material.
Storage of material outdoors is prohibited unless it has been approved under site plan review. All
approved outdoor storage must be screened with masonry fences and/or landscaping.
The master landscape plan for the CBC PUD shall be the design guide for all of the specific site
landscape developments. Each lot must present a landscape plan for approval with the site plan
review process.
Undulating or angular berms 3' to 4' in height, south of Lake Drive along Audubon Road shall be sodded
or seeded at the conclusion of Phase I grading and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping
may be installed incrementally, but it shall be required where it is deemed necessary to screen any
proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded.
Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing wall may be required where deemed
appropriate.
g. Signage
All freestanding signs be limited to monument signs. The sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square
feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The sign treatment is an
element of the architecture and thus should reflect with the quality of the development. The signs
should be consistent in color, size, and material throughout the development. The applicant should
submit a sign package for staff review.
Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. All
signs require a separate permit.
The signage will have consistency throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at
the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout.
4. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights.
h. Lighting
Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development. The
applicant's proposal is consistent with the lighting standards for the PUD ordinance. The plans do not
provide for street lighting. As with previous industrial parks/roadways, the City has required the
developer to install street lights throughout the street system. The street lights should be designed
consistent with the existing lighting along Audubon Road.
A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square omamental pole shall
be used throughout the development area for area lighting.
Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-ways shall be used in the
private areas.
36
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
4. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the
property line. This does not apply to street lighting."
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CENTEX HOMES, LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD BETWEEN GALPIN
BOULEVARD AND BRIARWOOD COURT, WOODRIDGE HEIGHTS 3m~ ADDITION:
A. REQUEST FOR VACATION OF EXISTING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS
DUE TO THE REPLAT.
B. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT TO REPLAT FOUR LOTS INTO FIVE LOTS.
C. AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT.
Mayor Mancino: Kate, can we do this all as one motion?
Kate Aanenson: Yes, I believe so.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Go ahead.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. It's hard to see but I've got the original...the original four lots that are now
being converted to five.., the Ryan home. The lots are being reconfigured and going from four to add the
fifth additional lot. In order to accomplish that, you have to vacate the utility easements that were in place
and then also add this lot to, amending the development contract to add this lot to those same standards.
The other map I have up here indicates the landscaping. What was previously.., the subdivision as
proposed will be able to meet the buffer standards and the landscaping requirements that are required for
the subdivision. The Planning Commission did review this on March 18th and unanimously recommended
approval. With that staff also is recommending approval and if you'd have any questions, I would be
happy to answer them.
Mayor Mancino: Where did Roger go? Any questions for staff at this point? Okay. This was originally,
well anyway.
Kate Aanenson: The history's in here. The original subdivision. I can give that to you. It was 35 lots that
was approved on March 10, 1997.
Mayor Mancino: After extensive negotiations on that.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. With the development, right. To get to the 35 lots and two outlots which were
the wetlands .... you are adding a lot.
Councilman Berquist: ... other lot being added.
Kate Aanenson: What they're doing is taking a portion of the existing Ryan home and reconfiguring those
lots because that was an oversized lot so all the, those lot lines along Audubon are being, excuse me
Galpin, are being shifted.
Councilman Berquist: ... do we get only one additional park and trail?
37
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Kate Aanenson: Correct. You're only creating one new lot.
Councilman Senn: Kate, I'm just real curious. And Todd it's hard to pick up, it's hard to pick up from
what I read so maybe you can enlighten me but this went through so much detailed discussion, negotiations,
etc when it went through the first time and now it's kind of coming back through again and it appears that
kind of like a staff and a Planning Commission standpoint, there's just really no concern with it. And that
wasn't my feeling the whole first time we spent, what two years on this thing or whatever it was so what's,
what's different now versus.
Kate Aanenson: I wouldn't say there isn't any concern. Staff, this was a very tough subdivision as far as
the slopes and preservation and the road location but the fact of the matter is, and I'm sorry Roger's not in
the room, is that this lot does meet the standards of the ordinance. I would be compelled to find a reason
that it doesn't. I mean yes we tried to get to 35 but it's guided residential single family whereas anybody
else that has an oversized lot, even though they're an existing subdivision, that any date, even if this wasn't
the developer. Let's say this lot was sold and you had some other homeowners and they all agreed to shift
the lot lines, they would still have the right to come forward and ask for that.
Councilman Senn: Well I understand that except I thought when we did this deal in the first place, we kind
of outlined that it was the deal and it was going to stay the deal. I mean I understand what you're saying
by the ordinance allows, by the sheer fact that it meets the minimum lot sizes but I thought in the initial
approval of this that everything was approved effectively right down to the nitty gritty per item type of
thing and said that's going to be the deal.
Kate Aanenson: Well I wish we could say things never change but you know.
Councilman Senn: Well this isn't a matter of change. The development's not even completed so I don't
view it as change.
Kate Aanenson: Yes, but in deference to this applicant, he is the one that has worked through that deal, the
35. The 35 lots.
Mayor Mancino: But he also knew when he bought it... people get upset with us is... for changing things on
them and don't want us to come back and change ordinances or change anything else. Then what we
negotiated is...
Kate Aanenson: Could we just pause a second. Could someone get Roger please. Thank you.
Councilman Senn: Okay, take a deep breath Roger. There's a question. Question or, do you want me to
repeat my question or do you want to?
Kate Aanenson: I can phrase it. This is the existing Woodridge Subdivision that was negotiated to get the
35 lots. There was a lot of history to it. Centex has since bought the property and has come in and
requesting a change, increase the number of lots. You know staff informed the applicant that this was a
contentious subdivision to get the 35 lots but they certainly had a right to go through the process. The
concern that the Council has is that they worked hard to get to what they thought was a number and the
applicant's already requesting a change for an additional lot. The lot does meet all the standards of the
subdivision regulation. So their question is, well I'll let them ask the question.
38
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Councilman Senn: Well my question was, when we approved this in the first place we approved it very
specifically as to the number of lots and everything else. It's kind of like a deal's a deal. Everybody knew
what the deal was. Everybody bought whatever based on the deal so why are we back here under the
whatever, you know simply because you know I mean yeah grant we have an overall ordinance that says
you need to meet a minimum lot size. I understand that things are in conflict but it seems to me the thing
that supercedes is effectively what we put on paper and said this is what we're agreeing to.
Roger Knutson: That was a preliminary plat, is that correct?
Kate Aanenson: No, this has been final platted.
Roger Knutson: It's a replat then?
Kate Aanenson: Right. It's a replat. It's zoned RSF and it meets the standards of the replat.
Roger Knutson: Anyone has the right to request approval of a plat and if it meets all your ordinance
requirements, that's the issue. Their design requirements. You have a certain amount of discretion you
know in replats but if it meets all the ordinance requirements, they have the right to apply to change it.
Mayor Mancino: So anytime we've gone ahead and finalized the plat on a subdivision, they can come back
in and redo it?
Roger Knutson: They can ask, certainly. Now it doesn't happen very often because usually when you get
a final plat and they put up the escrows and the letters of credit and whatever, they start building
immediately because they don't want that money to sit there. And homes get built and it's locked in...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Dan Blake: ... interest to purchase that property and investigated a lot of alternatives, including remodeling
the home and decided that it would have been very difficult to remodel the home to make it fit in with the
neighborhood very well. And then looked at the parcel and realized that there was adequate space to build
the homes that we're building without adding any really negative impact. The lots were oversized to begin
with because of the way they were laid out and there's enough room to meet the standards so we would ask
that you would approve this as it stands and I would certainly be available for any questions.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions at this time? Thank you.
Councilman Senn: I've got another one for staff if I could. Kate wasn't it, I'm going on poor memory here
but in the original plan that we effectively approved and already include the subdivision of the Ryan parcel?
Kate Aanenson: Yes, it was a lot in the subdivision. Their homestead was left an oversized lot as a lot. It
was replatted, correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay, and what's being requested here is to simply take what was a single lot and split
it into.
Kate Aanenson: Correct, it's a replat. You're taking what was four lots along Galpin and you're now
creating five so you're splitting those parcels.
39
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Mayor Mancino: So we're creating two parcels.
Kate Aanenson: Actually if you look on this, they're taking from all of them. They're just kind of
reconfiguring all of them. It's hard to see.., but if you look on the plat that was included in your packet, the
existing lines are shown, the old lot lines.
Councilman Senn: Right, which was approved as a single lot at that point as four lots.
Kate Aanenson: There were four lots there. Now we're doing, adding another one. But in accomplishing
that you're also reconfiguring those lot lines.
Councilman Senn: I understand.
Mayor Mancino: ... additional runoff and...
Kate Aanenson: All that was looked at, yes. Certainly, and that was the thing that we looked at
immediately was the tree issue and the landscaping but all that was addressed. It still, it drains towards the
street and catches the inner drain system.
Mayor Mancino: And all the arborvitae that were planted there in a row are going to be saved?
Kate Aanenson: Right. I showed you that, the ones along Galpin in the green, yes. There will be some
removed but then again they have to do a replacement which we specified in the.
Mayor Mancino: Can we get any color in that development besides gray?
Dan Blake: We can get any colors that our buyers want to put on a house.
Councilman Engel: And that the Mayor approves.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, any other questions?
Councilman Mason: It all seems pretty reasonable to me.
Councilman Engel: Fine by me.
Mayor Mancino: Can I have a motion please?
Councilman Berquist: I'll move approval of 5a, b and c as detailed in the staff report.
Councilman Mason: I will second that.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Resolution #98-30 Addendum
B to the development contract for Woodridge Heights 2na Addition conditioned upon the developer
paying the City administration fees in the amount of $1,048.33; to approve the preliminary plat for
Woodridge Heights 3ra Addition and the vacation of the existing drainage and utility easements
encompassing Lots 13-16, Block 3, Woodridge Heights Addition, subject to the following conditions:
40
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
The well and septic system abandonment for Lots 3 and 4 shall be coordinated with the City's
Building Inspection Division.
Typical water and sewer hook-up fees will be applicable and collected at time of building permit
issuance.
A revised as-built grading and utility plan and tie cards that reflect correct lot numbers and plat name
shall be supplied to the City upon completion of the utility extension to Lot 3.
The applicant shall be required to enter into an addendum to the development contract with the City
for Woodridge Heights 3rd Addition. The applicant shall also be responsible for standard plat
recording fees in accordance with City ordinance.
All disturbed areas as a result of grading shall be topsoiled, seeded and mulched within two weeks
after grading is completed.
The developer will be responsible for the extension of a one-inch water service and six-inch sanitary
sewer service from Briarwood Court to the lot. Utility installation shall be in accordance with the
City of Chanhassen 1998 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. This work is to be inspected by
the City's Engineering Department. Utility extension to Lot 3 shall occur prior to the final lift of
asphalt pavement being installed in Briarwood Court. All street restoration shall be completed with 7
days after construction commences on the utility service. One lane of traffic shall be maintained at
all times. The contractor shall be responsible for providing traffic control.
7. No direct lot access shall be permitted on to Galpin Boulevard or Lake Lucy Road.
8. The drain tile located at the rear of existing Lot 16 shall be relocated to accommodate the new lots.
The addition lot will be required to have one deciduous tree planted in the front yard setback area
corresponding with the landscape plan for the other homes on Briarwood Court.
10. The proposed plat shall pay an additional park and trail fee for the additional one lot. Parks and trail
fees for the 3rd Addition shall be paid at the rate in effect at the time of building permit application.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed and Mayor Mancino who abstained. The
motion carried.
REQUEST TO COMMENCE DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS~ SEMINARY PROPERTY~ 1350
FLYING CLOUD DRIVE.
Steve Kirchman: Mayor, Council. The current owner, Emerald Properties purchased the property
November of '96. There are no city utilities to the site. It is zoned A2. The seminary building was
extensively damaged by fire in November of '97. A letter was sent to the property owner on November 25,
'97 requiring demolition of the seminary building. Two houses on the property, the underground structure
on the east end of the property and the barm on the south side of Flying Cloud Drive. Demolition permit
was issued on January 9th of '98 for the barm and associated buildings. On January 23rd '98 for the
seminary building. Upon final inspection, two demolition permits have been approved. Those demolition
41
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
permits did not include the buildings that we're now discussing. Another letter was sent to the owner on
March 10, 1998 requiring the demolition of the remaining structures referenced in the November 25th letter
as well as one additional building. The time allotted to apply for a demolition permit expired on March 27.
Chanhassen City Code requires failure of the written orders to be reported to the City Council for your
action. Staff continues to recommend demolition of the buildings for the following reasons: Neither house
has a functioning septic system. The septic system for each dwelling has been determined to be failing.
The systems are located 15'-20' south of the seminary fen which includes a DNR protected trout stream.
One septic system discharged directly into the stream The other discharged into a rusted fuel oil tank and
then into saturated soil. The point of discharge from the tank was about 20' south of the creek. Both
dwellings are vacant. One house was vacated in February of' 96. The other was vacated April of '97 so
they've been vacant for over a year. A large dwelling has been extensively vandalized. Vandals have
circumvented all of the owners attempts to secure the building. Fires have been started in the remaining
buildings, windows have all been broken, walls have been spray painted, and the interiors have been
extensively damaged. Number 4, all four structures included in your March 10, 1998 demolition order are
hazardous buildings. Minnesota Statutes define a hazardous building as, "any building or property, which
because of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, physical damage, unsanitary condition, or abandonment,
constitutes a fire hazard or a hazard to public safety or health. Previous tenants, number 5. Previous
tenants and/or owners made extensive alterations to both dwellings without permits. These alterations
include installation of an HVAC system, installation of electrical services, structural alterations and
alterations to the plumbing. To our knowledge none of this work meets the code and we have examined
quite a bit of the work that was done. All of the observed work does represents serious life and health
hazards were those buildings to be occupied. The current owners have made no attempts to rehabilitate any
of the structures. Staff recommends the Council adopt a resolution with the following conditions. Number
one, the owner of the subject property is directed to obtain for a demolition permit by April 27, 1998 for
the buildings and structures marked A, B, C, and D on the attached site plan. Building E on the Site Plan
does not need to be demolished. It is currently being used. The owner is directed to demolish the buildings
and structures marked A, B, C, and D on the Site Plan, and complete site restoration by June 1, 1998. If
the owner of the subject property fails to timely obtain a demolition permit or complete demolition and site
restoration, the City Building Official is directed to commence abatement procedures under Minn. Stat.
463.15. I talked to the, one of the owners today and he told me they would not be able to be here tonight
and they did give me some additional information. They told me that they had talked to the Fire Marshal
and the Fire Department is interested in using the buildings for training purposes, and I confirmed that with
the Fire Marshal. Based on that, the Fire Marshal did request that we change the date in item number 2 to
August 1, 1998 to give them time to do their training in the building. And staff would concur with that on
the condition that they do secure the buildings when they complete their weekly training or however often
they do it. That's about it.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you very much. Questions for Steve at this point?
Councilman Berquist: I do have some questions. I'm just surprised, when did the conversations with the
Fire Marshal take place? Recently?
Steve Kirchman: It's my understanding it took place like Friday or Thursday. I was gone from Tuesday to
Friday of last week so I'm not sure when. I just talked to Mark today. We have been in contact with Mark
and Greg during this whole process so it didn't occur before this report went out to the packet.
Councilman Berquist: Sometime after they got the certified though?
42
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Steve Kirchman: I would say after they got our copy of this report.
Councilman Berquist: And the old seminary building is down and filled in and all that?
Steve Kirchman: That's correct.
Councilman Berquist: Do you really think, there's nobody living in the houses except for the one. Is there
a tenant down in the one?
Steve Kirchman: No. They're both empty.
Councilman Berquist: It seems like there's a, you mentioned August 1st is what he's advocating. It seems
like a long time for a lot to occur.
Steve Kirchman: It does.
Councilman Berquist: There's personal injuries. There's all sorts of things that could occur down there by
June 1st much less August 1st. Is there any...agreement to this? Can't we do something by June lSt? As far
as training goes. Does it take that long to put it together.
Steve Kirchman: Well you certainly can. I mean you could certainly stick by the June 1 date and the fire
department will simply have to try and do their training prior to that time and if they can't, then the
procedure is.
Councilman Berquist: Or maybe, I'm sorry. Perhaps accept that as a condition, a method by which we
can resolve this but just urge the fire department.
Councilman Senn: I'd like to back up before we pursue that line too far. If the fire department does the
burn though, I mean what assurances do you have. I mean there's a lot of conditions beyond that involving
expense that are going to have to be incurred. I mean what guarantees do you have that those are going to
be done? Or are we going to do a controlled bum and just end up with three piles of rubble or whatever
instead?
Steve Kirchman: Well we really don't have any except that we will continue to insist that he get a
demolition permit by this date and he has to complete the demolition permit so the fact that the fire
department's burning it down is just one way of demolishing the building. It's a less expensive way for the
property owner to get the building's demolished. He still will have to demolish the foundations and restore
the site within the time limits that you impose on him. If he fails to do that, then we have to start
procedures wherein the city takes him to court or does the work ourselves and assesses it to him through
Minnesota Statutes. So the requirement for the demolition permit still remains. Just using a different way
to demolish it.
Councilman Senn: No one of the council has ever accused me of being a tree hugger so I'm treading on
thin ground here but, one of the things, I do know this site fairly well and one of the things that popped into
mind instantly when you said controlled burn was most of those structures are surrounded by very mature,
very nice trees. Now in demolition those trees aren't going to be bothered under a controlled circumstance.
Under a controlled burn I don't know how you would ever save those. And I mean I'm talking about 100
43
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
year type old oaks and stuff like that down there. Now again I'd have to, I haven't done instantaneous
surveys but I have walked that site a number of times.
Mayor Mancino: Well you can tell from the pictures.
Councilman Senn: And I'm recollecting, like I say, quite a number of large, mature trees in very close
proximity to those structures so that also seems to me is an issue we need to at least look at before we
would just jump into a discussion or issue on a bum situation because how would I say, if there was a plan
for redevelopment here and we had an overall contact of where things were going, you know there might be
a different way to look at it but you know this is outside the MUSA. There's no plans, no development in
mind. You know what you see is what you're going to get. I hate to wipe out all the mature trees without
even a plan of what's going in there and what we're getting for it or whatever so that was just a concern,
like I say that kind of popped in when you brought that up.
Steve Kirchman: Well I hear your concerns and as I said, I just had a chance to talk to Mark Littfin, the
Fire Marshal briefly today and I guess I'm not familiar with the fire burning practices enough to say how
controlled they are but I think I certainly need to point that out to him. What the concerns are with the trees
and of course he knows the concerns with the nearby creek.
Councilman Senn: What if we gave you authority effectively, as you're asking for tonight, to proceed and
allow you the option of using the fire so long as you get the fire marshal and get our arborist together to
make sure.
Mayor Mancino: Jill. That's Jill.
Councilman Senn: Get Jill together so as to assure that we aren't going to, how would I say.
Councilman Engel: Damage the.
Councilman Senn: Well I mean maybe, I mean I'm not trying to draw a fine line here. I mean if you're
going to damage one or something like that but I mean, I remember fairly significant numbers, and again
I'm just going by poor memory at this point but you know if it's something that can be controlled and done
within reason, you know that's fine but if you're talking about a major tree loss and damage to those very
old trees, then I think then if you want to do the burn or somebody really wants to make an issue on that,
we should talk, come back and talk about it further. Does that make sense to people?
Mayor Mancino: Yeah. I mean I think if Jill goes and does a report, kind of an inventory and some of the
majestic oaks that are down there, maples are kept, I think there is some landscaping around from your
pictures, some of the houses that could go but I think you're right. They're significant trees.
Steve Kirchman: Well, as I told Councilman Berquist, I feel certain that the owner didn't contact Mark
until late last week and I don't know how extensive Mark's look see was out there. I agree, it'd be a good
idea to get Jill out and if she says it's not feasible to burn, then we say demolition it some other way.
Councilman Senn: I feel more comfortable with that. Now is it just the houses we're talking about?
Steve Kirchman: Actually it's, we're talking about four structures on the property.
44
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Councilman Senn: Okay, so you're talking about the back ones, commercial structures effectively, at least
as they've been used as warehouses and stuff?
Steve Kirchman: Well, on your site plan it's, the building to your left noted is demolitioned. That was the
big seminary. Building noted A, that's the big house. The building noted E is the garage that's got the new
red roof on it. The red metal roof. That can remain. They are using that. It's rented out. It's a secure,
sound building. B, C, D and E. B is an old out building that's slated to be demolished. C is the small
house and D is what appears to be an old root cellar, and that's slated to be demolished also. As a matter
of fact, talking to the owner today, he didn't even know the root cellar was there, although it's about 12 feet
wide by 20 to 30 feet long.
Councilman Berquist: And those two across the street, isn't there a corn crib and a barn or something like
that?
Steve Kirchman: There was a silo there and a barn and corn crib I think attached to the barn.
Councilman Senn: Okay, effectively E, the brick building kind of back and back, is the one that's going to
remain then?
Steve Kirchman: That's correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay, then I understand.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions?
Councilman Berquist: What about the time frame?
Councilman Senn: Well let me try, I would move that we go ahead and authorize staff to proceed as per
the recommendations with the caveat that if staff, along with our silly, not silly. Jill, the city. I was trying
to say Jill, and city at the same time. It didn't work. Sorry about that. That the City Forester, Jill, how's
that?... And Steve's department and the fire department make a determination that the controlled burn
form of demolition can be used without, what would you say, a high loss of mature trees and stuff. That
they're authorized to consider that as an alternative. If there is going to be a severe loss of trees, then it
needs to come back to Council for approval. And that all of this work should occur on or before, how
about July lSt?
Mayor Mancino: Let's go for that. Let's try that.
Steve Kirchman: What date did you say?
Councilman Senn: July 1st.
Mayor Mancino: I'll second that.
Resolution #98-31: Councilman Senn moved, Mayor Mancino seconded that the City Council adopt
a resolution with the following conditions:
45
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
The owner of the subject property is directed to obtain for a demolition permit by April 27, 1998 for
the buildings and structures marked A, B, C, and D on the attached site plan. Building E on the Site
Plan does not need to be demolished.
The owner is directed to demolish the buildings and structures marked A, B, C, and D on the Site
Plan, and complete site restoration by July 1, 1998.
If the owner of the subject property fails to timely obtain a demolition permit or complete demolition
and site restoration, the City Building Official is directed to commence abatement procedures under
Minn. Stat. 463.15 et seq.
The City Forester, Building Official and Fire Marshall shall determine if a controlled bum is an
acceptable form of demolition that will not cause a high loss of mature trees. If it is determined that
a controlled bum will not work, this item needs to come back to City Council for approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVE PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS FOR 1.5 MG WATER TOWER PROJECT 97-1-1;
AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS.
Charles Folch: Thank you. It's good to see we finally get to the most exciting item on the agenda tonight.
Councilman Senn: Well it is, but let's wait and get to that.
Charles Folch: We've included in the staff report, four of the plan sheets for your observation and the
information. They're probably the most meaningful, in layman's terms as to what's going to propose to be
happening out there. Again, Site C is the preferred location which we are working off of. We're currently
in a process of securing a written purchase agreement based on a letter of understanding for the acquisition
of Site C and resale of a portion of the former Wrase property. Construction to the site, or construction
access to the site will be via the existing driveway through the Wrase property and provisions will be
included, are included in the specs for proper maintenance of that so that we do not impede or if you will,
or adversely affect the renters that are currently in the older house. Along with the tower elevation itself,
we certainly want to probably indicate who's tower it is so we're going to put City of Chanhassen on that.
We are proposing to face the logos due south so that people coming up 41 will know they're now in
Chanhassen. On the north side of the tower we would propose to only put the maple leaf emblem if you
will, so it would not have the lettering on the north, east or west sides of the tower. One other good piece of
news in terms of size, for people who are concerned about the size and impact visually of this thing, based
on recent updates through the comprehensive sewer and water policy plan, it looks like we can reduce the
volume capacity of this structure from 2 million gallons, which was originally proposed, down to a million
and a half so that knocks off about oh, 16-17 feet off of the diameter of the tank so visually that will make.
Councilman Berquist: Nothing off the height, just the diameter.
Charles Folch: Nothing off the height. We have to work off the height based on an established working
pressure but diameter, girth if you will, is what's reduced. We're intending on including and still may
include, if you will, provisions for adding civil defense systems with this project if you will. Right now we
haven't been able to obtain information from public safety as to what exactly they're looking for so we may
not, if we don't.., we'll likely, if the Council desires, this item can be added as a change order to the project
46
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
at a later date. And it's looking at this point in time that that's what may happen if the Council so chooses.
As we get into this process we'll need to connect this tower to our existing system so we'll be coming back
to you probably later on this summer with another related project which will actually install the trunk water
from the existing trunk mains in the Arboretum Business Park to the tower. It makes more sense to let as a
separate contract because the folks who do the tower kind of work really don't do the underground piping
type of work so it makes more sense to let a separate contract and not pay the holding costs of a prime
contractor for that. Other than that, everything looks like we've presented a construction schedule for you
there, a project schedule and we hope to have the construction begin sometime in early June and have it
completed by, substantially completed by July 15th of next year and have it on line in the system. So with
that staff would recommend approval of the plans prepared by Bonestroo dated April 8, 1998 and authorize
advertising for project bids.
Mayor Mancino: I would just like to add to this that, in our ongoing concern and effort always to work
with the Arboretum, which are, I'm just delighted is in our city. World class arboretum. That Peter Olin,
the Director called us and asked Anita and Charles to come over to say, you know are we going to see this
water tower from the Arboretum? Is it going to be in our view shed? He was concerned so the three of us
went over. We met with Peter and we sat in different locations. We went down the 3 mile drive to see
again some view sheds and where we're going to be looking and the Arboretum even had a helicopter come
over and, to take a look at whether they'll see the water tower because they were obviously concerned. And
I just wanted to let you know that it won't be in their view shed and I think that they were real pleased...
side of the Arboretum and I'll make a plug for the Arboretum. It's very, very...and they have a huge
prairie opening that looks east towards Chanhassen and it has a red barn, etc. That was a main concern
that Peter had and that it won't at all be in there so, I'd like to thank staff for spending the time and going
over and meeting with Peter twice on that. Any questions? I think there are a few on the letter that is going
to Mr. Dahlgren.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. Is that part of this approval?
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, I think that we should discuss that now. Councilman Senn?
Councilman Senn: Okay. As far as what I read in the staff report here that, at least in my mind is really
contrary to what we had settled on as far as how we were going to approach the sale of that property.
What we had agreed to do was for now convey the 100 feet at the same rate that we purchased it at plus the
prorate portion of the soft costs and all that. And stick the caveats and conditions on it in relationship to
the access and all that stuff that went with it but beyond that we had set a time line essentially of really
targeting trying to get that sale done in the next 6 months and a year on the outside. As far as getting that
property transferred over and out of the city. Now that's, you know that's what's in my notes from that
meeting, which I then took and redid the Minutes which we haven't had time to get back to but so, I'm
confused I guess.
Don Ashworth: Question?
Mayor Mancino: Can I just add to that before you answer Don, and that is my recollection is fairly much
the same. I mean the gist of it was, you know why don't we get it sold and etc, right away. I mean we all
talked about doing it soon rather than later. I don't remember 6 months but I remember doing it as quickly
as possible and not holding onto it. Let's, you know get it developed. Let's get it working for us and
everything else because we think it's a pretty attractive piece of property. So the 5 year out seemed to be
pretty long. The other thing that I think would be wise to add onto it, is that you know we make them the
47
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
offer, whether it's a year, year and a half or something, and then if they don't respond in 90 days, we have
a right to put it on the open market or something but we need to know if they want to purchase it or not,
fairly quickly so that we can do whatever we need to do. I do remember the soft costs also being part of
that. Is that saying the same thing?
Councilman Senn: Well here's what I had in my notes from that night, which I transformed into the
Minutes which we were going to come back and review but staff was given the direction to make every
effort to complete the entire transaction now and if it could not be then, any agreement beyond the 100 foot
section much return to Council for approval. I'm sorry, I skipped a section here. Staff was given the
direction to make every effort to complete the entire transaction now. If it could not be completed now, and
would go beyond 6 months, beyond the 100 section must return to Council for approval. With what we
talked about.
Don Ashworth: Well my first question was to Mark. This 6 to 12 months, is that dealing with the 100 feet
because we have absolutely no problem ensuring that that conveyance occur within 6 months. My only
question concern is with our ability to move both of those houses, recognizing that one of them I could keep
for, potentially keep for historic preservation purposes probably as a part of the park site. And it would be
much, much easier if that home were moved internally rather than having to take it out to 41 and 5. And
then we are going to have to pay relocation costs and if during the course of the next year we could
basically see that the guy was moving out or for whatever reason, that that was lessened, but if we move
ahead in your time frame, you can be assured that you will.., location to that existing tenant. So my 1 to 5
was solely trying to protect the City. I mean.., letter says, you need to purchase the property. Then you
have 90 days to... and if you don't, then it returns to this City Council. But if the work efforts necessary to
take and move those two homes and they choose a relocation process goes more than a year, two years, we
still have the.., after two years.
Mayor Mancino: Don, I don't understand why does relocation take so long? ... don't you just say here's
the money and go and relocate? Obviously you don't. I'm sorry. Help me a little bit on that. I mean
what's kind of the process with relocation?
Councilman Senn: And if you could even more basically, why did we purchase the property with a tenant
in it and why.
Mayor Mancino: Well, we've already done that I mean.
Councilman Senn: Well I know but I'm just curious. Why did we purchase the property with a tenant in
it?
Mayor Mancino: Because he wouldn't move off. No, I'm kidding.
Todd Gerhardt: Well it doesn't matter. I mean even if we bought the property without the tenant, when we
considered this as an alternative site, how many years ago?
Charles Folch: Well it goes back to '93.
Todd Gerhardt: '93 and would have been the time you would have had to pay relocation then, depending
on who the tenant was at that time. It's just a threat, even a discussion of buying the property, you have to
pay relocation. And as soon as we went in there and bought the thing, you know, that's for sure you have
48
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
to pay for it but back when you designated this site as a potential, that person could claim that they had to
move out because you were going to buy it and have to pay relocation.
Mayor Mancino: So what does, and tell me a little bit about the process of relocation.
Todd Gerhardt: Relocation is that you've got to find a similar home in a similar area at a similar rent. And
if you don't have one at a similar rent, then you have to pay a rent differential.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. I mean is it open ended as far as timing? Like if we were to go to them and say,
you know can we put a cap on it, 6 months or are we legally unable to do that?
Todd Gerhardt: No, you can put more pressure on them, evict them and you know it just puts more
pressure on them to try to find a new home. You're displacing them you know. And they're aware that
they have to, that the clock's ticking. You know it's unsure of what the City Council wants to do with the
site. And I told them, you know we don't know. You could be there one month. You could be there a
year. You know depending on whether we continue to rent it out and own it and things like that.
Mayor Mancino: You're really waiting for us to make a decision on when we would like to see the renter
gone, and we have not given them any sort of timing whatsoever? We've just let them know that we're
going to be doing something. So I guess that's a decision we have to make. When we want to do it, very
specifically, and secondly, the interpretative center, we have not really as a council talked about that as far
as, you know what moving costs would be, etc, to move it so maybe all that information we'd like to get.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, I mean that's going to be the most time consuming. You know taking bids from
moving people you know and wherever you move it you've got to put down a foundation and then trying to
find sewer and water to hook up and you know, that whole gamut. Furnace and.
Mayor Mancino: Well and we really even haven't talked about whether that's one, the right thing to do and
how to use it too. The purpose of it.
Todd Gerhardt: And do you want to move both houses you know is the question? And then finding a lot
to put them on and I mean it goes on and on. I mean one year is not enough time to try to.
Councilman Senn: Well depending on the decision we make on what we're going to do with the structures,
which is a discussion we need to undertake. How long do you have to pay the differential?
Todd Gerhardt: It's 18 months.
Councilman Senn: 18 months now of current rent sells for would be certainly lower than 18 months 5
years from now.
Todd Gerhardt: Unless they find another house at the rent that they're charging. I think it's $750.00 so
you know, right now they have kids in the school district and everything else so you know to move them on
out you know is a little difficult.
Don Ashworth: The other part of my recommendation was that you're absolutely right. The City Council
needs to talk about whether or not you want to use that as an interpretative center and all of the options that
go along with that. And the Wrase house, do you want to dispose of that? I mean should it just be an
49
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
outright sale or do you want to consider.., estimates? They're probably all good work session candidates
but we've filled up work sessions here for the next 3 to 4 months. I mean we could go almost a year before
we, you as a group have made some of those basic decisions that will then put Todd and I back to work in
terms of following through with whatever lead you give us. Now if you're ready to make those kind of
decisions tonight, then that's fine. Then I think the one year is just fine. But I didn't, in looking that whole
thing over, I just didn't see how this Council could be looking at all of the different options for both of
those buildings, make a decision and give us reasonable time to effectuate them in one year.
Councilman Senn: Are we, in the meantime are we responsible for maintaining those houses? Or is the
tenants?
Todd Gerhardt: Right now the tenant is paying all the expenses with the older home. The newer one, or
closer to TH 41, Dave has gone in there and basically shut down all the utilities. We will be responsible
for taxes on those.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so there's nobody in the one house and it's shut down?
Todd Gerhardt: Yes.
Councilman Senn: And the older one, they are responsible for maintenance?
Todd Gerhardt: Yes. They paid for the snowplowing and.
Councilman Senn: Maintenance to the structure and plumbing repairs and all that. They do all that?
Todd Gerhardt: Right. I guess I paid for salt. For the water softener because Mr. Wrase paid for the salt
for the water softener so.
Councilman Senn: Now as far as the relocation costs, as far as other costs that we may have to deal with
as it relates to these structures, or moving them or not moving them depending on whatever decision we
come to, those costs could be built into and recaptured to the sale of the property, correct?
Todd Gerhardt: Oh I don't think so.
Mayor Mancino: Not the way it's written right now.
Councilman Berquist: Say that again? What did you ask?
Councilman Senn: Well you see the thing that's bothering me about this is you have a piece of land that we
bought to put a water tower on. Now it's public purpose. You know now we're trading offa 100 foot
section you know effectively for the piece of land to put the water tower on. Fine. That is still public
purpose in that. Now, I'm sorry but I really fail to see the public purpose in selling the balance of the
parcel at a cut rate, which we're effectively doing on the first part, without recovering any of our costs
going into this thing, which are going to be precipitated by turning around and selling it to a private party.
So I mean it seems to me the rest of the deal ought to kind of be pulled back in and either renegotiated with
the existing party, or we ought to hold onto it and effectively go sell it to another party that we can recover
our costs on because otherwise how do we justify what we're doing.
50
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Mayor Mancino: How do we justify what we're doing? Well, if we keep it as an interpretative center, and
we move it, then I would say trying to get those costs, those moving costs I would not pass onto the next
owner because that's for us to decide whether we want to do that or not. I mean we could just as soon burn
down the house and not have any costs.
Councilman Senn: But Nancy, I don't want to be argumentative but we sold the property right now as a
commercial use. But the park property would buy it as a commercial use and know the cost of demolition
in relationship to that so if we're going to move the house, that's saving them effectively the cost of
demolition or site preparation which is a normal cost for commercial construction.
Mayor Mancino: Then we'd have to compare the two.
Councilman Senn: Well that's what I'm just saying but I'm just saying don't.
Mayor Mancino: I got it. I got it. I'm wondering about HUD on the one house. You know if they would
want to move it and put it somewhere. You know.., about that later.
Todd Gerhardt: You know, finding a location. You know finding a nice empty lot...
Mayor Mancino: ...talk about.
Councilman Senn: Across the street from you. That corner's open isn't it?
Todd Gerhardt: He'll never sell that for that.
Don Ashworth: In response to Mark's question, the reason that Steiners never reached an agreement with
Wrase, you've got two houses there and Wrase considered those both of value. The property north of it,
south of it, east of it was all vacant land. Why in the world would you take and buy a piece that has just an
underlying value of the land and then also pay for the price of those houses? I mean you're not going to get
a buyer coming in there that's going to be willing to pay that full amount.
Councilman Senn: Well Don I'm not disagreeing with the first part of what you said. I mean in terms of
the need and how we did it, but I also know that as soon as that, and as that business park develops, that
land becomes more and more valuable. Commercial use, much more valuable even than some of the
property they're now selling for effectively more than you're even offering to sell this for, okay. They're
selling you know, and to me it seems, it behooves us to effectively take advantage of that and recover our
costs. Otherwise why are we doing it? Because we've already done the tradeoff on the water tower.
Mayor Mancino: Mike.
Councilman Mason: Maybe it's because of the hour but can we go ahead and do this with the water
tower and revisit this other issue?
Councilman Engel: The 1 to 5 years?
Mayor Mancino: Now wait, wait, wait, wait. Stop a minute. I'm not sure it is. Isn't this a bundled thing?
Howard's... The south 100 feet is tied to...
51
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Councilman Senn: Then let's approve that only.
Mayor Mancino: Then why don't we approve that part of it.
Councilman Mason: Fine. That's fine. Then let's do that and these are issues that are going to take a
while to decide so let's.
Mayor Mancino: Good comment Mike. I'll let you make the motion.
Councilman Berquist: ... had a question on...
Mayor Mancino: Oh, I do too.
Councilman Berquist: It will only be 10-15 minutes.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, but that's not yours I'm worried about.
Mayor Mancino: I had a few things to talk about.
Councilman Senn: Let's keep track of who asked the longer questions.
Councilman Berquist: ... we're going from 2 million to a million and a half. I want to know how much less
we're looking at...we've been talking about usages. All the surrounding municipalities talk about
increased usages and I've read stuff about how the aquifer is losing however many millions of gallons a day
and I'm curious as to whether or not that additional half a million gallon capacity is really worth...
Charles Folch: We believe it is because we're at a time point here where okay, your comp plans, your
projected forecasts are all estimates based on trends and things like that. We do have another tower in your
overall comp plan that will need to go in somewhere south of Lyman somewhere, sometime probably 7 to
10 years from now. At that point in time the City's probably going to be that much closer to ultimate
development and we'll be able to look at the trends at that point in time and make another decision as to
what the size should be. That one right now is scheduled to be a million and a half. We've got the ability
there to go to 2 million on that one if need be so we have a fallback there but why, our thought was, why
spend it now if we don't need it ultimately so we're taking the conservative approach. We can always add
it later if that's what the development trends show up 7 to 10 years from now.
Councilman Berquist: ... difference was guesstimated on?
Charles Folch: Right now I think we estimate a savings about $300,000.00 to $400,000.00 to downsize it.
Councilman Berquist: ... additional set of drawings?
Charles Folch: Well yeah. It wouldn't be that complicated to do another set of drawings but.
Councilman Berquist: Why am I second guessing you? Okay, never mind.
Mayor Mancino: ... one of the things that I like about the water tower, I mean I'm not sure water towers...
to my thinking. The one on Powers has our logo, the maple leaf and I think it's nice. It's kind of discreet
52
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
and yet it says Chanhassen. You know just the maple leaf and I would ask, I don't know how other
Council members feel, putting the maple leaf on this would be good enough for me. Especially when we
just changed the lettering style of Chanhassen from the old to the new and we may do that again in the
future. So I think a good maple leaf would be enough for me.
Councilman Senn: Well you know Target paid millions to put their name on Target Center, we could make
some pretty big bucks letting somebody hang their name on the water tower you know. We could probably
get enough money to pay for the sirens just off of that one move alone but...
Charles Folch: In terms of lettering, if you do want the lettering, we would use the current style. When the
thing is needed to be repainted, probably 8 to 10 years down the road, if the letterhead changed again, we
could also go to that.
(There were a number of different conversations going on at the same time at this point.)
Councilman Senn: If the Mayor's... I'll personally investigate the option of advertising on it and what we
could possibly make on that and bring it back to Council.
Mayor Mancino: ...the one on Powers... Okay, did you get everything?
Charles Folch: I think you need to make a motion.
Mayor Mancino: Oh, Mr. Berquist could you wait until we make a motion? Mr. Mason, could you make a
motion?
Councilman Mason: Sure. I'll move to approve plans and specs for a 1.5 mg water tower and authorize
advertising for bids, Project 97-1-1.
Councilman Engel: Second.
Councilman Senn: And.
Councilman Mason: And I apparently will just have the maple leaf on it, even though I kind of like.
Councilman Senn: Oh no, don't go that far yet.
Councilman Mason: But no, I'm done.
Councilman Senn: No, no, but stick the letter in that, the understanding with.
Councilman Mason: Oh, I'm sorry. And the 100 feet letter goes in there too.
Councilman Senn: So it's only the 100 feet that we're dealing with at this point.
Mayor Mancino: I second that.
Resolution #98-32: Councilman Mason moved, Mayor Mancino seconded to approve the plans and
specifications for the 1.5 MG elevated water reservoir dated April 8, 1998 and authorize
53
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
advertisement for bids for City Project No. 97-1-1, including the letter regarding the 100 feet. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Mancino: Mr. Gerhardt?
Todd Gerhardt: ...price?
Councilman Senn: For what, the advertising?
Todd Gerhardt: No. The 100 feet.
Don Ashworth: That's just a trade, right?
Councilman Senn: No. No, no.
Charles Folch: We're getting cheaper land.
Mayor Mancino: The cost we paid plus soft costs at a portion.
Councilman Senn: That's what we already agreed to is my understanding on the 100 feet.
Don Ashworth: There was a dollar amount in your letter.
Mayor Mancino: No, it wasn't the relocation. It was the attorneys fees and that was it and they were
pretty minimal. We've talked about this?
Don Ashworth: There was a price in your letter, wasn't there?
Charles Folch: No, I just said the price that the City acquired, paid to acquire the property. But in the
developers mind, I think they were thinking the purchase price per square foot which is $2.78.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I thought there was a price that you already figured out.
Charles Folch: But that didn't include the.
Councilman Senn: Soft costs. So it was $2.78 plus the soft costs which I thought we figured was going to
bring it in maybe around $3.00 a foot or something.
Charles Folch: I have no idea what.
Councilman Berquist: ...the letter it says $3.78 a foot.
Councilman Senn: $2.78.
Councilman Berquist: $3.78.
Mayor Mancino: We're back to l(h) which is Councilman Senn pulled.
54
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
H. APPROVAL OF PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT~ WELSH COMPANIES.
Mayor Mancino: You pulled this for what question?
Councilman Senn: I pulled this for one question, and that is, given that area where it is, given Chanhassen
where it is, why do we need to do another TIF deal?
Mayor Mancino: To fund a trail on 101.
Councilman Senn: We get that either way. This is an outgoing expense. Not an incoming expense. Or
incoming revenue. I mean if the development occurs, you're going to have the increase in taxes anyway
and you're going to have the revenue. Okay, what this is is an authorization effectively to mm around and
create a TIF deal which means you're effectively subsidizing the development and construction of the
building. That's what you're authorizing by this. You're going to get the taxes either way.
Mayor Mancino: Todd, and have they come forward and asked for this?
Todd Gerhardt: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: Or is it just part of.
Todd Gerhardt: They requested assistance as part of their package.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: And the DataServ people basically paid for the road assessments up front in this, is why
it's all land write down. So the price per square foot, what they paid for, was for those road improvements.
And back when this thing all went through as a legal battle and they contested the assessments. They lost.
They had to pay and you know our program's in place to assist to pay for as public improvements. The
same program, the same type of assistance that you gave to CSM and the Press.
Councilman Senn: But there are no public improvements.
Todd Gerhardt: Public improvements, they were pro-rated for Dell. There were some for Dell but Lake
Drive was assessed against CSM parcel and the DataServ and what they ended up doing is paying all those
assessments up front as a part of the legal action. And so for how DataServ was to get reimbursed was to
sell that land and in the sale price of that land, to reimburse themselves for those assessments that they
paid.
Councilman Senn: Well I understand that but we're providing pure land write down to this party.
Todd Gerhardt: Correct. Because the assessments were pre-paid by the DataServ people.
Mayor Mancino: That's one way to look at it, yeah...
Councilman Senn: Well I understand but again, the assessments are in. The land's been sold for a price.
Why do we need to write the land down to get the project to go forward?
55
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Todd Gerhardt: Well potentially the project might not go forward if they don't get the TIF.
Don Ashworth: What I don't understand is why you'd want to treat one business, they're all part of a tax
increment district. Why would you treat one different? You only have 1 ½ years of increment. 3 years of
50% increment. 1 ½ years of full increment.
Councilman Mason: Other businesses in the area got the same deal, right?
Todd Gerhardt: Right.
Don Ashworth: It was maybe called something else and it was explained for a different reason but it comes
down to the same bottom line.
Mayor Mancino: It's still special assessments.
Don Ashworth: Well it's still tax increment.
Councilman Berquist: But market's change. I mean that's part of the reason for creating the district.
Councilman Senn: The concept I'm trying to get at, and maybe I'm losing it in the translation is, come on.
I've been saying this for years. We've subsidized a lot of things to get things going. Now anyone would be
hard pressed at this point to say that Chanhassen hasn't become of age so to speak, okay? I'm going to
compare us to Woodbury, okay. Woodbury is a very similar situation to us right now, okay. And they
aren't going out and doing TIF to do it. People are coming to their door and doing the development
anyway. There's no TIF involved in doing it. Okay. Why do we feel we have to keep offering TIF and
why do we feel we have to in this case give away $600,000.00 to get something to occur that will occur
anyway in the marketplace? Maybe that's just personal opinion but I'm sorry, it's my personal opinion.
And the reason it will occur is, (a) we have limited amount of spaces for it to occur yet. And we've already
subsidized to develop the facilities and the support services and everything else that go along with it that
make this an attractive place to develop and do business. Somewhere along the line we have to start
drawing the line. Now where's that going to be?
Mayor Mancino: Well and that's my question to ask Todd. What are other communities, you said
Woodbury. I have no idea.., how that's happening.
Councilman Senn: Well I can tell you two friends of mine just built buildings in Woodbury and neither one
of them got TIF to do it so, and they did it anyway. And same market conditions as here.
Todd Gerhardt: Well, we don't have the infrastructure that Woodbury's got.
Mayor Mancino: We don't have what?
Todd Gerhardt: 494. 94. 694.
Mayor Mancino: You mean we don't have 2127
Todd Gerhardt: We don't have a four lane road. We've got a bunch of two lanes.
56
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Councilman Senn: Well then that's all the reason maybe why we should slow it down rather than
encourage it to speed up, I don't know.
Councilman Berquist: Well we could tear that out and say this is the last available TI parcel that is east of
our downtown area and therefore...
Todd Gerhardt: You had one site plan for this development and it didn't move ahead because economics.
I don't know. You know we approved assistance for another building on this site, three buildings for this
site, and they didn't move ahead. It took 2 to 3 years, 2 years to find another person to finally come in and
bring in a project that the Planning Commission and City Council liked. And this land's been vacant for 25
years.
Councilman Berquist: Would this deal be coming in if CSM hadn't built those buildings? ... previously in
sight of development.
Todd Gerhardt: I don't know.
Councilman Berquist: I don't either.
Don Ashworth: Remember the primary project that we're kind of, trying to put money away for is 101 and
at this point in time we don't know if we're going to end up building the trail ourselves or part of the
roadway and I totally disagree with Mark's comment that if it goes on the tax rolls, then we've got that
money available.
Councilman Senn: No, no. I didn't say that Don. What I said was, if we don't give it to them, that
$600,000.00's going to go into the district and be available for what we want to use it for versus giving it
back to them. So it's a net gain to us of $600,000.00, okay? Nothing to do with going, the district's there.
There's nothing, no argument about it going back on the tax roll. Okay, we've already done that so why
not now steer the money where we can best use it for public purpose.., subsidizing the development again?
Don Ashworth: ...things either may be eligible for or the number of years or the amount. The last, the
previous 3-4 years. Now you can take your district and at 3 years at 50% so it's literally cut it in half. I
think that there needs to be some sort of incentive, you know so maybe you start 2 years instead of 3. I
don't know.
Mayor Mancino: ... I know that the TIF legislation has changed so much...
Todd Gerhardt: Well I think we're peaking now too. The economy has never been so good, you know.
You're seeing a boom. I think we're going to push close to a half million square feet of industrial this year.
And if this project goes in. But you've got to look at what your competition is too. Chaska's still got a few
parcels. We lost another building to them because their deal could be better over in their community.
Shakopee continues to provide TIF and we lose people to them. Lakeville's getting into the game now.
They've called and Waconia's out of land right now for industrial. I think they did their last one. We lost
2 or 3 businesses to Waconia because of land prices and the things that they're doing out there. Eden
Prairie does a little bit of TIF, but again they've got the infrastructure where 494, people will be there and
want to be there. Anywhere inside that 494, you know they'll pay what the going price is just to be there.
So you know this spot is kind of nice because you're not too far from 494 but you know there's a
substantial amount of soil correction that needs to be done out there. Berms need to be built. We try to
57
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
make sure that it's a quality project and they understand that they're getting TIF back so we hope we're
getting trade offs in quality building materials for that you know. And you know they did pay, I believe it
was close to $800,000.00 for their portion of Lake Drive, ifI remember right. So you know it's one where
you don't give the assistance to this group, CSM has received it and you know, the market for trying to
lease out that space, you're going to have to make up that difference by $190,000.00 and the only way you
can do it is through leasing. And so you're going to have one guy there with higher leases compared to the
other projects on the other side that got subsidized and they have Highway 5 frontage.
Councilman Senn: That's right but that same argument then means that we need to keep TIF going forever
to keep things equal.
Mayor Mancino: ... the city and again with the new legislation.
Todd Gerhardt: It's a decision you have to make and you know Liv Homeland called me. She wants TIF
you know. You've got Redmond's are in. They're looking for assistance. You gave it over to the Steiner
development. There's a lot of public improvement, a lot of projects over there that you know need
assistance you know. It's your call. We're just trying to help these businesses offset some of those public
improvements.
Mayor Mancino: Well and we're trying to get businesses now in here, if they're going to come, for the tax
base, etc. There's no question about that.
Councilman Senn: Well we're going to have an increasing demand put on us too for effective use of TIF
for housing districts or affordable housing type of uses too which we've never had before so I mean, you
know what do you start, I mean you've got to draw a line somewhere on the commercial and the industrial
and saying we've done enough. The market's going to sustain it. Now let's concentrate our efforts in areas
where we don't have adequate support like affordable housing and instead we just kind of keep going and
going and going.
Mayor Mancino: Well and more importantly, our businesses are asking us, because they're not doing it.
Our businesses are asking us to provide more affordable housing. They're the ones, the second...
Don Ashworth: Well another question is, where do you have more land? I mean we've already kind of
made decisions as to what the policies are going to be for the Hennepin County district, the.., district, the
McGlynn district and now the Steiner district. What's kind of left?
Councilman Senn: Well Don, just because we made an overall policy doesn't mean we can't change it and
say we aren't going to provide subsidy back to the businesses anymore. I mean that's still to our benefit
within the district. If you have to keep the district going to get the district paid off or whatever, you're
going to just simply pay it off faster and get it back on the tax rolls because the money's coming to us
rather than into somebody's pocket for land write down, infrastructure improvements or whatever. And to
me there's nothing wrong with that concept. I mean you can't undo the fact that the districts are there but
let's accelerate getting out of there versus elongate them.
Mayor Mancino: Anyone else? Comments.
Councilman Berquist: ... document and I had two questions. First of all, if we look at minimum valuation
on... given those two factors, it would seem to me as part of the negotiating process, I've got a building...
58
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
to get from that building to my building. I think $35.00 a foot, you talk about... I think that's a low
number.., see it negotiated differently.
Don Ashworth: We've done the cost associated with the soil corrections and what not. Now you've done
your calculations, you tiT to stay on the low end on those. Those become the minimum assessment portion.
If, when the assessor comes in there and if they're $70.00 a square foot, their held to... reimbursed at the
lower cost.
Councilman Berquist: No, I understand that but if the market goes to hell in a hand basket.., all of a
sudden they've got...
Todd Gerhardt: That's why I tit to keep the values low on what values were when we had bad times. You
know you don't want to bootstrap him to a high value you know, and when he's sitting there with an empty
building and paying you know large dollar amounts. We come in with a minimum market value that both
parties feel is attainable, but the county assessors office does not look at a minimum market value. They
can go higher than that market value. I mean you get to capture the excess increment but you still get paid
on whatever available increment that we captured, or calculated in that redevelopment agreement. He will
only receive $590,000.00. If he produces $250,000.00 a year in increment, he only gets the $196 a year.
Don Ashworth: On the other side of the coin.
Councilman Berquist: Hold on here. Hold on. Part of the development proposal on the back page I don't
know that that's right. That new minimum market value is your constant number all throughout...
Todd Gerhardt: It cannot go any lower than that. It can go higher.
Councilman Berquist: So if it goes higher, so that's his incentive?
Todd Gerhardt: No. The incentive will go higher but we get to keep that extra. He gets paid, there's a
note in here you see on page D-1. $196,678. That's the promissory note for each building.
Councilman Berquist: E 1 ?
Todd Gerhardt: D as in dog. That's the maximum dollar amount he will receive from us. The limited
revenue tax increment note.
Mayor Mancino: Where are you, what paragraph?
Todd Gerhardt: The very top.
Mayor Mancino: Oh, 196. On an annual basis.
Todd Gerhardt: No, that's the three year total of payments. If you go back to D-4 payment schedule. The
32779. If you add all those up, it should come to the $196,678. That's the maximum dollar amount he
will receive over those three years.
Councilman Senn: But at the same time, for the life of the district then.
59
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Todd Gerhardt: That value will stay there for the life of the district.
Councilman Senn: The minimum will.
Todd Gerhardt: The minimum will.
Councilman Senn: So even if it costs him $45.00 a square foot to build the building, and you put him on a
minimum of 35, okay so the next time it's...they can go in and deal and get it reduced to 35 because you've
agreed to that as a minimum value?
Todd Gerhardt: The minimum will stay constant. It cannot go below the minimum until I think this district
collapses in 2005.
Don Ashworth: I have no idea.
Todd Gerhardt: 2005.
Councilman Senn: And you view that as a positive? The 35.
Councilman Berquist: I'm having a hard time grasping this.
Councilman Senn: Right now to build an industrial building like anything that's being built over in that
area is minimally $45.00 a square foot finished.
Todd Gerhardt: I believe that the County Assessor will put it on at $45.00.
Councilman Senn: Why would we have a minimum value of 35 then?
Todd Gerhardt: Because that means we're going to make less payments to them.
Councilman Senn: But it seems to me we're making less payments on a minimum timeframe of 3 years and
you're taking it in the shorts if the market ever goes down because the value's going to dip way back down
to 35.
Mayor Mancino: But when the market is good, as it is right now, you're going to make even more, right?
Councilman Senn: Well no, no. Well.
Mayor Mancino: Say it one more time.
Todd Gerhardt: Okay, you've got a minimum market value. Say he's going to pay $130,000.00 a year on
a $35.00 a square foot building. We know it's going to be $45.00. That increased 45 will put an extra
$20,000.00 in taxes on it so we will capture that extra $20,000.00 that he will not get until he lowers that
value, until the county decides that it should be at 35.
Mayor Mancino: ...
Todd Gerhardt: Payments back to him.
60
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Mayor Mancino: Payments back to him. So the payments back to him are only tied to the 35? They can't
go any higher. So the difference...
Councilman Senn: We're paying him $60,000.00 less than over three years is what you're saying. And
what you're saying that's doing is buying, you're just doing that in the short term. Okay and if5 years
from now there's a down swing in the market to 35, we're going to, and if the last 3 years we're going to
lose the same amount of money. Because it's going to go back to 35 on appeal versus 45.
Todd Gerhardt: If that's the market, you can't do anything about the market. I mean we locked it into the
minimum.
Councilman Senn: Well except their ability to appeal is locked by the minimum valuation, correct? Don't
they sign an agreement saying they can't appeal below that?
Todd Gerhardt: Can't go any lower. And that's to give him that flexibility. I mean he should get what the
market is out there because he's got to try to find tenants and compete with everybody else too.
Councilman Senn: Well in something like this, can't we start doing our deals maybe a little bit different
where we pay them based on the 35 a foot but make them sign an agreement based on a minimum assessed
value of 45 a foot? More or less assume the growth in 3 years or something so we don't end up having to
go back to a base that's lower than where we started?
Todd Gerhardt: Well I think we do that already. If the County Assessor's doing his job, you know he's
valuing that building on what it would sell for today.
Councilman Senn: Well wait now. I mean a few months ago you were before us complaining that all he
has to do is pick up the phone and call Orlin and when the market's not that good, and down go the values.
Todd Gerhardt: Well that's true. I'm just saying if the County Assessor's doing his job.
Councilman Senn: Well. It seems to me we ought to be protecting ourselves.
Todd Gerhardt: Well I think we are when we...
Councilman Senn: Well I know they're two separate issues...
Todd Gerhardt: I don't think you can have two different minimums.
Councilman Senn: No, you can one minimum and one basis on which they are subsidized though. Subsidy
doesn't have to equate out to minimum values. They don't have to be tied together.
Don Ashworth: It just becomes a question of how do you establish a formula so you treat each one
consistently and you know what that is. I mean you don't want us out there negotiating you know without
any guidelines whatsoever. I mean that's...
Todd Gerhardt: ... locked in to the higher values, that'd be unfair to your business community where
you've got this guy at $45.00 a square foot when you know the market's at 35 and you're saying well.
61
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
You know economy's bad so you're going to be stuck at the higher value. Is that fair to the business?
Where we can fluctuate and say, we can go higher when the market's good. I think he should have the
flexibility of coming down when the market's bad too. That's what I hear from the guys...
Mayor Mancino: Well what you want us to do is to approve the private development agreement. I think
the bigger question to staff that Councilman Senn is asking is do we want to continue with TIF and...
continue with TIF in the districts that we set up and... Do we have some time limits Todd?
Todd Gerhardt: We have to have it approved before he pulls a building permit. You know we've already
physically get more than the foundation in...
Don Ashworth: But staff has been negotiating these deals and at least up until tonight, this particular deal
based on what we thought was your policy. I mean if you'd like to change, I think you should reasonably
continue it through this one and then set up whatever work sessions you want to that says, we're going to
quit this at the end of this year. We're going to reduce how much assistance we're going to provide. You
know that should be a whole separate work session that deals with any future deal.
Councilman Mason: I agree and with that I will move approval of item 1 (h) and I would also with that
approval, and I'm not quite sure how to word this so you don't get too terribly burdened but I think some
interesting questions and some interesting points have been raised tonight and in the future I think we do
need to look at how we make use of TIF and if it's time for us to stop using it or not, I don't know but I
would like your folks opinions on that in some sort of report form of whatever.
Todd Gerhardt: Well this is the last building. These are the last buildings with the exception of the outlot
that sits over on, next to the Press. This is the last parcel in the district. I mean for this side. You still
have the philosophy to deal with you know .... piece, the Redmond piece and that so this is the last parcel.
Councilman Mason: Well I did move approval of item 1 (h).
Councilman Engel: I'll second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the Private Redevelopment
Agreement with Welsh Companies, and direct staff to bring back the item regarding TIF assistance
in the future at a work session for further discussion. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn
and Mayor Mancino who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Mayor Mancino: Well I will certainly put it down but as we go into our strategic planning process, let's
make sure that that is an item of discussion. TIF district... Overall philosophy.
Councilman Mason: Overall philosophy and district by district, yeah. I think that's a good idea.
Mayor Mancino: ... so let's make sure that that's on there because I think it's.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I mean Todd raised some interesting points because we are already in a circle
that it's very difficult to get out of because, I mean how do you justify telling one landowner or one
building owner that they have to charge higher rents than one across the street because we chose to do it in
the first place. And unfortunately that's part of the vicious circle with TIF.
62
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Mayor Mancino: And that's why it's going to be very important Todd for you to come on some of those
when we get into this, and I think the devil is in the details on some of this. That you're going to have to
give us some information about where we are in different districts and what's gone on before and rents and
be up to date on everything so we can have a real good view of what's happening in the market. And also
for some other cities that are going through this and are at the same growth age that we are and what's
going on.
Todd Gerhardt: Well you approved another building tonight which requested TIF. The two buildings that
you approved tonight. I'll be back before you with another private redevelopment agreement for that parcel
and then you've got, I think there's two more applications for the Chan Business Center, or the Arboretum
Business Center. Arboretum Park. The Steiner one, there's two buildings coming in on that one too that
the owner has called me interested in TIF on those two too.
Mayor Mancino: Didn't we already approve it? For Arboretum?
Todd Gerhardt: Well yeah. I mean you approved all these areas.
Councilman Senn: We approved the district. You didn't approve the individual ones. Let me ask you a
silly question. If you take all the districts that's been created at this point, and say we just leave the policy
to one of those districts, okay. What new districts are there that we could cut off and say no more TIF? Or
not districts, what developments could you pull outside of that and say, we aren't doing any more new TIF
districts?
Todd Gerhardt: Well, I'll tell you the people that have called me that want you to create new districts is
Liv Homeland, where you approved the Lutheran Church. You've got the Heritage development across the
way. You've got the Redmond piece which is between Audubon and.
Mayor Mancino: Down south.
Todd Gerhardt: And you know they've got a million dollar road they've got to build and they've got a lot
of wetlands out there so you've got 52 acres. Of the 52 acres, I think there's only 40 acres that's really
developable. You've got the Madson piece over off of Lyman which is directly across from the Holasek
Nursery. And then you've got the one that we had the townhouse and industrial use across from Stone
Creek. They asked for TIF.
Councilman Senn: Would it be fair to say that all the ones that we haven't created TIF districts for are
imminently coming in to ask for them?
Todd Gerhardt: Well, we have created them wherever there has been an industrial park so.
Councilman Senn: No, but I'm just saying, all the places you just mentioned, you said they've already
called and asked for them. So to me that's pretty imminent, more or less. They're going to be in soon.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. Well you've got people that have infrastructure out there. You've got Arboretum
Business Park. You know you're competing against people, it's funny. The people who want to build
these $2.7 million buildings, they come in in 6 months and they want to be up you know. And you know if
you don't have your infrastructure in place, they're not going to wait for you. You know as soon as Steiner
63
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
built roads, he got phone calls. You know they said this guy's serious. You've got to put the infrastructure
in before a guy that has $3 million to spend on a building.
Councilman Senn: Well I just think it's something we need to get at sooner rather than later.
Mayor Mancino: Well I agree with that and I think more importantly I'd like to change our focus to
affordable housing. I mean if you ask.., see how it works, I would like to see it go towards affordable
housing. Because I think it's extremely needed there.
Todd Gerhardt: We're going to have a big task with Brad's development over here. That one is going to
need some special attention and a district's going to have to be created there to figure out how to make that
affordable.
Councilman Senn: I thought we already said we weren't going to do that.
Todd Gerhardt: We weren't?
Mayor Mancino: Well it was green acres. I thought we did green acres.
Todd Gerhardt: Well now we're looking at doing a different TIF district that would exempt green acres.
Councilman Senn: Don't get too far in that discussion without talking to Council.
Councilman Berquist: I thought that was part of the legislation.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I thought that was decided a long time ago by the legislature and the Council.
Mayor Mancino: No, no, good. I'm glad you're letting us know everything. So any questions in the
Admin Section.
ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION DISCUSSION:
Councilman Senn: What is Eastern County... Collaborative? What is it?
Mayor Mancino: Oh it's a community.., some money for school projects... I think I told you about that
about 2 months ago... Admin Section. Any questions? Or any discussion?
Councilman Berquist: Only that I talked to staff about the environmental.., wait another two weeks
before...
Mayor Mancino: I think we have to. Because it was not on the agenda tonight.
Councilman Senn: I thought we had another interview or something.., because I thought that was what we
were waiting for.
Councilman Mason: No, the opening is there.
Councilman Senn: And we did confirm that it's a 9 member commission instead of our normal 7?
64
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Councilman Mason: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: Yes. But I think you had some questions as far as you know, what...
Councilman Senn: Well that answers it to know that I know it's 9. But I also want to reiterate that when
we made it 9, we said we were going to make it smaller by attrition throughout and we aren't following
through on that.
Mayor Mancino: Well we did ask...
Councilman Senn: I used to say that too when I used to work for a 21 member planning commission.
Mayor Mancino: ... I think that will be another discussion. Strategic planning sessions have been set for
Tuesday, May 5th.
Councilman Senn: Are these etched now in whatever?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Don Ashworth: Well Mark has a problem. I got confirmation from everyone, including Brimeyer. Got
confirmation tonight from Mike and Mark has a problem with the first two. The 5th and the 21st.
Councilman Senn: These are May?
Mayor Mancino: Yes. I don't think there's any, there's no other time to do it though.
Councilman Engel: The second one, the third one was clean.
Councilman Senn: What time were we going for?
Councilman Berquist: ... change your schedule so you can make the first two?
Councilman Engel: Me?
Councilman Berquist: Yeah.
Councilman Engel: No, I'm committed on those first two. The third one's open.
Councilman Berquist: Well you committed when you were elected.
Councilman Engel: Yeah, I'm not going to debate it with you though but I wasn't committed on these
dates.
Mayor Mancino: ... other dates that we can...
Councilman Berquist: So the 5th and what's the second one?
65
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Mayor Mancino: 21st.
Councilman Senn: What time, I'm sorry I didn't hear it?
Mayor Mancino: 5:30 is it?
Councilman Senn: How early can you start?
Mayor Mancino: I can start at 5:00.
Councilman Senn: I'll start even earlier than that if people want to but I think Mike's.
Councilman Mason: 5:00 would be about as early as I can, well I could arguably get here at 5:00.
Councilman Senn: Should we start at 5:00?
Mayor Mancino: Okay, on the 5th and the 21st. Now, the other question.., is that once the summer starts,
would it be... are you open to that starting...
Councilman Mason: For what now?
Mayor Mancino: ...
Councilman Mason: Sure.
Mayor Mancino: Would that work for you?
Councilman Mason: Sure.
Mayor Mancino: Steve, does that work for you?
Councilman Berquist: Sure.
Mayor Mancino: I know for me it does...mornings that you can take off at all?
Councilman Engel: I never planned on taking mornings off.
Mayor Mancino: One morning.
Councilman Engel: Yeah I can do it. I mean I can do that.
Councilman Mason: Now, if we're going to start throwing days. I mean yeah, we need to be careful what
days we start throwing around because I don't know what my summer schedule is yet. You know I mean
but.
Councilman Engel: If you can get them..I'll block them off.
Councilman Senn: Right now we're set through May and we need to get June and July settled.
66
City Council Meeting - April 13, 1998
Mayor Mancino: So here's what we're doing.
Councilman Mason: I'm not quite sure where you're at here right now.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, here's where we're at. We're having a hard time doing the...do a morning for 4
hours...
Councilman Senn: She asked me ifI was willing to take a half day to do it and I said fine. I'd rather do it
then because it's actually easier for me to do that then evenings.
Councilman Mason: Well assuming I'm in town, absolutely.
Mayor Mancino: So can you look at your schedule for June.
Councilman Mason: Now are we talking for strategic planning here? Okay. Okay.
Councilman Senn: No, only strategic planning for any of these meetings we're talking about, correct?
Councilman Mason: Okay... yeah, I will check because there are some dates I'm going to be. Well I can
tell you June 11 or 12 to 15 I'm going to be out of town. And then I think the last 3 or 4 days in June I'm
going to be out of town like from the 29th...
Councilman Engel: So only talking strategic planning. We're not talking about work session.
Mayor Mancino: No. We're just talking about strategic planning...
Mayor Mancino adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
67