CC Minutes 1998 05 11CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 11, 1998
Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the
Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Senn, Councilman Mason,
Councilman Engel, and Councilman Berquist
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Scott Harr, Todd Hoffman,
Sharmin A1-Jaff, Bob Generous, Charles Folch, Anita Benson, and Phillip Elkin
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the
agenda amended as follows: Item 4, Board of Equalization and Review will hold the public hearing and
then take public comment on item 5, the Coulter Boulevard plans and specifications, and then go back for
final action on the Board of Equalization and Review. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
PROCLAMATION DECLARING NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK.
Mayor Mancino: I have a couple public announcements to read. One is a proclamation establishing May
17th through May 23rd, 1998 as National Public Works Week. Whereas, public works services provided in
our community are an integral part of our citizens' everyday lives, and Whereas, the support of an
understanding and informed citizenry is vital to the efficient operation of public works systems and
programs such as water, sewers, streets and highways, public buildings, solid waste collection and snow
removal; and Whereas, the health, safety and comfort of this community greatly depends on these facilities
and services; and Whereas, the quality and effectiveness of these facilities, as well as their planning, design
and construction is vitally dependent upon the efforts and skills of public works officials; and Whereas, the
efficiency of the qualified and dedicated personnel who staff public works departments is materially
influenced by the people's attitudes and understanding of the importance of the work they perform. Now
Therefore, I, Nancy K. Mancino, Mayor of the city of Chanhassen do hereby proclaim the week of May 17
through May 23, 1998 as National Public Works Week in the City of Chanhassen and I call upon all
citizens and civic organizations to acquaint themselves with the problems involved in providing our public
works and to recognize the contributions which public work officials make every day to our health, safety,
comfort and quality of life.
PROCLAMATION DECLARING NATIONAL AQUATICS WEEK.
Mayor Mancino: This proclamation, public announcement is for those of all ages. Is a proclamation
declaring National Aquatics Week of May 17th through May 24th, 1998. Whereas, individual and
organized forms of recreation and the creative use of free time are vital to the happy lives of our citizens;
and park and recreation programs through the City of Chanhassen encompass a mukitude of activities that
can result in personal accomplishment, self-satisfaction and family unity for all citizens, regardless of their
background, ability level or age; and Whereas, citizens of Chanhassen should recognize the vital role that
swimming and aquatic related activities relate to good physical and mental health and enhance the quality
of life for all people; and Whereas, the City of Chanhassen is extremely proud of the swimming facilities
and aquatic programs of this community and their contribution to providing all ages a healthy place to
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
recreate, a place to learn and grow, to learn to swim, build self esteem, confidence, and sense of self worth
which contributes significantly to the quality of life in our community. Now, Therefore, I, Nancy Mancino,
Mayor of the City of Chanhassen do hereby proclaim the week of May 17-24, 1998 as National Aquatics
Week and urge all of those in the City of Chanhassen to support and promote this observance. And by the
way, Lake Ann beach will be open on June 6th, this summer and will provide a lifeguard staff each and
every day through August 23rd. And American Red Cross swimming lessons will start at Lake Ann beach
on June 22nd. Thank you.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Arboretum Business Park 2nd Addition, Located at the Northwest Comer of Century Boulevard and
Coulter Boulevard; Steiner Developer:
2) Site Plan Review for Two Office/Industrial/Warehouse Buildings up to 113,600 sq. ft.
b. Approve Addendum B to Development Contract/PUD Agreement for Arboretum Business Park,
Project 98-10.
h. Approval of Bills.
i. City Council Minutes dated April 27, 1998
Planning Commission Minutes dated April 15, 1998
j. Cable TV Franchise Renewal, Triax (First Reading).
k. Approve Contract Amendment, H.R. Green Company.
m. Amendment to Landscaping Plan, U.S. Postal Service Annex Site.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
A.~. ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 2N~ ADDITION, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF CENTRUY BOULEVARD AND COULTER BOULEVARD, STEINER
DEVELOPMENT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Final Plat for Arboretum
Business Park 2nd Addition as presented. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who abstained,
and the motion carried.
G.~. APPROVE RESOLUTION SUPPORTING ACQUISITION OF REMAINING RIGHT-OF-
WAY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAY 212, SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR
TRANSPORTATION COALITION.
Councilman Senn: 1 (g), I was contacted just before tonight's meeting.., like to talk to us...
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Would you like to come forward please.
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Bob Smithburg: Madam Mayor and Council members. My name is Bob Smithburg and I live at 8657
Chanhassen Hills Drive North. The 212 resolution before you gives us the opportunity to rethink the
construction of Highway 212. First of all there is no funding. ISTEA money has not been appropriated for
construction and in all probability will not appropriated in the future. MnDOT does not have plans to
finish Highway 212 beyond the current 3 year project within the next 20 years. State wide our roads and
bridges are in disrepair so I highly doubt that monies for the construction of a 12 mile stretch of a highway
costing 200 plus million dollars. The proposed toll road was overwhelmingly rejected by Minnesotans.
Considering the millions of dollars that were wasted to... this option, it's unlikely to be tried again. In the
1998 legislative session, House File 2422, co-authored by a Minnesota House Rep, would have authorized
bonds and appropriation of money for the construction of Highway 212. But it died in committee. Lastly,
hiking the gas tax is still unpopular in the Minnesota House. So where is the money? There is no money?
If we can't afford to maintain our roads, how do we afford to build new roads? And let's state the facts. A
plan that was envisioned 40 years ago is no longer possible. The concept of a farm to market road has
outlived it's practicability. Excuse me, practicality. More roads funneling into existing roads will not
solve congestion. The residents do not want the roads. The environment does not want the roads. And
even a limited access super highway, if we could afford it, would not solve congestion indefinitely. You
build it and they will come. So... land and use the corridor in a way that enhances our communities. If we
must build a road, make it a parkway with trees and boulevards. But ideally the corridor should be used as
a park reserve. Once again there is no money for roads but there is money from that... For example,
federal and state money was appropriated for the Hiawatha light rail corridor. This is the direction in
which we need to go. This is the future. Long term congestion can only be solved through mass transit.
And we do have a light rail corridor within our community. Rather than beat a dead horse and whine about
212, let's move into the future and promote this superior means of transportation. In conclusion, I urge
you to consider the trends of the future. We are moving away from concrete corridors and long commutes
and toward working in one's community. Home based businesses, networks and the internet. Let's
promote light rail as our rush hour solution and preserve our land for a more noble purpose. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you Bob. I have a question for you. What are we doing as far as commuter rail?
I know that you keep on this so well versus light rail here in our.
Bob Smithburg: I know some of the representatives from the area did a trip, I think it was to Chicago and
I'm not sure what other city. I know Chicago for sure to experiment with it... experimented with it already
and all of a sudden realized that this was really a viable means of transportation. And when they had, the
State had done a study I think of four communities or something or four corridors where, 4 or 5 were
allocated to study, money for studies and I think we were able to procure some monies for...
Mayor Mancino: For the commuter rail, not the light rail?
Bob Smithburg: Right. To study it. Right. And I think at one point they said it would take 800 cars off
of our road... I mean it's a pretty good start so.
Mayor Mancino: And are you going to keep staying up and knowledgeable about the commuter rail part
too?
Bob Smithburg: Hopefully, yeah.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Appreciate it. May I have a motion please?
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Don Ashworth: Would you like additional comments on this item?
Mayor Mancino: Would anyone else like to comment?
Don Ashworth: Well I meant as far as in response to come of the points. The resolution before you has
been advocated by the Southwest Transit group. It represents something from Eden Prairie, Chaska. It
recognizes that there's vast amounts of land within Chanhassen designated for the 212 corridor that
currently are sitting in the rural service area. And the value of those at this point in time is significantly
less than what it will be when those areas are brought into the urban service area. Which is very likely to
occur within the next 5 years, if not less. The resolution is really saying hey, this is the time to make sure
that we acquire these lands. A decision is not being made as to the roadway itself. When the roadway
might be built. Should it better be used for a parkway. Should it better be used for natural whatever. It
simply is a recognition that we believe that there are dollars available to be able to acquire these lands and
ensure that a public body at some point in time in the future will have the opportunity to make those kind of
decisions and it just seems to be kind of a prudent thing to do at this point in time. Again, this is just a
resolution urging that somebody over there consider that if we act at this point in time and ensure that the
lands are put away, that somebody can make that decision. If we kill this, you're not giving the
opportunity for the parkway that Bob was referring to or even for the open space.
Mayor Mancino: For light rail, etc.
Don Ashworth: Or light rail or whatever else.
Councilman Berquist: Before anybody makes a motion I just want to, I want to mention that I agree with
Mr. Smithburg in that light rail and mass transit has got to be in our future. I don't necessarily agree
though that the corridor, the proper corridor is already in place. I thought about pulling this thing and
whether or not I should vote for it and I came to the conclusion that I believe the acquisition of the balance
of the right-of-way is to Chanhassen's best long term interest, fully realizing the disposition of what, of that
corridor and what happens in that corridor will be a decision for future governing bodies.
Mayor Mancino: And just a side bar to that, I think that we are finding as a state that it is becoming
cheaper or maybe cheaper to build light rail than active roadways so Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: I'd like to just make the motion to approve the resolution supporting the acquisition for
the remaining right-of-way for the construction of, right-of-way of the Highway 212 corridor. And I
would like all references in the resolution relating to 212 Highway and 212 projects into 212 corridor.
Mayor Mancino: So keep the options open. Any discussion on that? Second please?
Councilman Berquist: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve a resolution supporting
acquisition of remaining right-of-way for the construction of Highway 212 as presented. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
PUBLIC HEARING: WHEATSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP; LOCATED SOUTH OF
HIGHWAY 5 AND EAST OF MARKET BOULEVARD:
A. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT TO REPLAT A PORTION OF OUTLOTS D & E~
Bo
VILLAGES ON THE PONDS INTO LOT 1, BLOCK 1, VILLAGES ON THE PONDS 3m~
ADDITION.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN 8~281 SQ. FT. HOULIHAN'S RESTAURANT.
APPROVE ADDENDUM B TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT/PUD AGREEMENT FOR
Do
VILLAGES ON THE PONDS~ PROJECT 98-11.
PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR AN ON-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR
LICENSE FOR HOULIHAN'S RESTAURANT.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: ... The applicant is proposing to replat Outlot D and a portion of Outlot E into Lot 1,
Block 1 to prepare the site for development. The replat is a straight forward action. The applicant is also
requesting a site plan approval for a 7,443 square foot Houlihan Restaurant on 1.6 acres. The site is
currently zoned Planned Unit Development. It is bordered by Highway 5 to the north, Americlnn Motel to
the west and.., to the south. The building is attractive and fits in with the image envisioned for Villages on
the Pond. Main materials on the building include brick, as well as stucco in some areas. I'm not going to
discuss the architecture in detail because the applicant will be presenting that portion immediately after
staff presentation. Parking is supposed to be an extension of the existing parking lot that you see east of
Americlnn. Landscape islands with trees and bushes are proposed. One element that deals with the
landscaping, as part of the overall approved landscape plans for Villages on the Pond, there is a row of
trees that as proposed today would completely screen the porch area that's proposed on this building and
would block views of the pond. The applicant is proposing to shift those trees to the north to allow them to
screen the parking lot as they were intended so staff is recommending of that. There's a 4 foot high berm
that screens the parking lot from Highway 5. Overall we believe it's a good plan and we are recommending
approval of this application. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Are there any questions for staff at this point? Is the applicant here and
would you like to address the City Council? There you go.
Mark Clarey: My name is Mark Clarey. I'm the Vice President of Construction for the applicant,
Wheatstone Restaurant Group. If you don't mind I've got some little tablets that might make it easier for
you to follow along.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Thank you all for being very patient with this agenda tonight. You're
going to have to last a few hours longer though. We actually put you first on the agenda so everyone would
know about the Houlihan's that's coming into Chanhassen.
Mark Clarey: Well that's good to hear certainly. Basically... Section 2 there are some photographs of the
current prototype of the Houlihan's that was done over in Eagan. We're been working quite closely with
staff here at the City to make some improvements due to their recommendations and I won't go into those
in detail. The architect is here as well as the civil designer that we have for the project and some of the
landscaping issues. We've made numerous changes to the exterior of the building to try to give it the effect
of a four sided structure that the city staff has asked for us to take into consideration. And we feel it's all
come off quite well. We're quite excited about coming forward with the project. The Americlnn could
certainly use it and we think it will help kick off the rest of the Pond property development. If you have
any questions for me, I'd be glad to answer them but basically the building is as Sharmin was discussing.
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
The first photograph in your section is the typical entrance and this would be the side of the building here
that would directly face the parking lot structure... And the other, the second photograph is the existing
side of the building where the coolers are and I'm going to let the architect get into a little more detail on
that. This is a major side of the building that we've modified to enhance the side of the building.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, great. Is there, I just have one quick question on our overall plan. Is there a drop
off place in the front so that people can really be dropped off instead of park right in the front entrance
area?
Mark Clarey: The drop off is basically right here at the front door if you want to use it. Along this portion
right here but as far as a direct pull in area with a... no, there is not.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, but there is no parking right there?
Mark Clarey: No, there is no parking. The parking starts along the handicap area here and proceeds out
into the rest of the parking lot area.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Howell, would you like to come up please.
Truman Howell: Good evening. My name is Truman Howell, Truman Howell Architects from Wayzata
and I will bring these elevations around... The materials that you see in front of you are the materials
that...
Alan Kretman: My name is Alan Kretman. I'm with HKS Associates and Madam Mayor and.., around
the porch area there, again tying our development in but adding just another touch.., other types of material
that will augment and again.., against that side of the structure and really create something we feel is very
attractive. Very complimentary. Less openings.., little bit more display of plant material where the
building facades... But overall we feel that this would be a great enhancement to the city and it will blend
well with the landscape.., on the Ponds.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. My only comment would be that the landscaping on, that faces the
south, which faces you know the pond promenade street, that that be not the small size that we usually say
yes to in landscaping but a little bit bigger. Not you know a 2 gallon or 1 gallon pot but something a little
bigger so that it doesn't take 10 years until it's good but maybe a couple. Can those be enhanced a little
bit?
Alan Kretman: What you're talking about is on this edge of the building right in here and what we're
proposing here is to start with a 6 foot high evergreen tree. The... which is another power shrub is
probably about 5 feet in height so we want something with some size right away.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. That's all I want to communicate, thank you.
Alan Kretman: Very good.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions for the architect, the landscape architect at this time? Okay. Very
nice. Anyone else? That's it? Okay. This is a public hearing...anyone wishing to address the Council on
this Houlihan site plan. Okay, thank you. Sharmin, would you like us to do all at once?
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Sure. There are two separate sets of conditions. One for the site plan and the other set
for the subdivision. Madam Mayor, I failed to mention that there is a condition that we are adding to the
conditions of approval under the subdivision on page 25. The condition should read, at this point the City
has not formally accepted the utility improvements in this phase of Villages on the Pond. The utilities have
been installed and tested but not formally accepted, therefore prior to issuance of a building permit or the
city signing the final plat, the developer of Villages on the Ponds must receive formal acceptance from the
City.
Mayor Mancino: And would you like us to add that to the preliminary?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Subdivision.
Mayor Mancino: With the 2(a)(b)?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: That is 2(a).
Councilman Mason: Do we need to close the hearing?
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, we need to close the public hearing. But the other portion that you haven't talked
about Sharmin is the request for an on-sale intoxicating liquor license.
Don Ashworth: Well actually Karen wrote that section but we felt that it was desirable to take and have all
items associated, or all parts of this as one item. The applicant has made a request to have, to be able to
serve liquor within the facility and they meet all code requirements. They'll be required to submit the same
insurance, etc and so it is being presented and approval is being recommended.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any discussion on that? Any discussion or public hearing on that? Okay, then
may I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to close the public hearing. The public
hearing was closed.
Mayor Mancino: Comments. Any comments from anyone or do you want to go ahead with a motion?
Councilman Senn: There's just one issue I guess I'd like to briefly touch on. I have no problems with
Houlihan's and the items before us in terms of approval but inherent in that approval is that we are being
asked effectively to transfer more retail square footage from Sector 1 to Sector 2. Now when we originally
laid out this project and designed it, we did not want Highway 5 to simply be where all the retail space was,
etc. Okay. We're being asked effectively as part of this action to now to agree to transfer 11,524 square
feet of retail and recognize or realize there is going to be an additional 6,870 square feet transferred asked
for later if the hotel ever expands.
Mayor Mancino: Say that last part again. I'm sorry.
Councilman Senn: We are being asked to now transfer 11,524 square feet from Sector 1 to Sector 2. We
are also being kind of put on notice and said that if the hotel expansion ever proceeds, we will need to
transfer another 6,870 square feet then for a total of roughly around 18,000 some odd square feet of
additional retail being transferred from Sector 1 to Sector 2. Which is contrary to what it set up to do.
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Mayor Mancino: And you see that as an overall problem?
Councilman Senn: Well I guess at this point, I mean the hotel expansion in my mind is an open issue, okay
which will be acted upon later. I have no problem with Houlihan's but at the same time, in that I
understand or hear that the other restaurant project is dead, I don't really want it just to be inherent in our
action that we're transferring the full amount of the square footage. I think we should transfer the amount
of square footage necessary to do Houlihan's minus the Famous Dave's project which is now dead, and
readdress that issue as it relates to further development in Sector 2. If I'm making myself clear.
Mayor Mancino: Yes. You are making yourself clear. Does anyone have any questions? Because I think
it's so important to keep Houlihan's next to the motel.
Councilman Senn: I agree 100%.
Mayor Mancino: So compatible and the use is right.
Councilman Senn: ... mm around and leave the cards open effectively on the other restaurant site if it's not
proceeded as it was originally approved.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Vernelle, do you want to speak to this?
Councilman Senn: I have no problems with the...if that's what you're asking. I mean that's fine. I mean
we don't need to get into a discussion.
Vernelle Clayton: As we work through these, we and staff always sit down to review exactly where we are
in the square footage and how much retail is here and there. The overall goal, as you know we can't go up
in the overall project. Up meaning we can't go from office to retail but we can go retail to office basically,
and thereby increase the overall square footage. There's a certain amount of retail in the whole project.
Certain amount of office. Certain amount of residential. Every time a project goes through, we analyze
that. Compare it what we have left to do for the whole project and all of this so far fits. I don't think that
it makes any difference to the project if this is added and Famous Dave's stays. Famous Dave's site is still
approved as a site. Someone can come in. We fortunately planned a generic building and there may very
well be a restaurant that comes into that building. It would be best for the project that that were to happen.
So I don't think there's any advantage to the project and I think that's what we're talking about here is
what's best for the project. I don't think there's any advantage in the project and maybe a disadvantage in
saying okay, we'll add this square footage for Houlihan's but take it away from Famous Dave's. It only
confuses the issue. We have it all reallocated currently.
Mayor Mancino: But we were also trying to be very specific as to where retail went in the whole PUD.
Vemelle Clayton: Definitely. And currently it's in the core and in the building that you've already
approved. When we're talking retail, actually the restaurants fall in that category as far as absorption of
the use. For retail, meaning people coming in and buying things. In retail a large, or a portion of Building
#4, the building right next to it in the core area. That all fits.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Sharmin.
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Sharmin A1-Jaff: One addition I wanted to make. Famous Dave's has not formally withdrawn their
application so as far as the City goes, there is still an approved site plan.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. For a restaurant on that site.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct.
Councilman Senn: And all I'm saying is, if it's Famous Dave's, I understand, that's a done deal. Realize
tonight effectively that you are making that expansion in the retail square footage and I understand you talk
about overall project but to date all there is is retail development on the project. Okay, and it's all going on
Highway 5 which is contrary to what we approved and what our concept was. So if we're going to change
that, we need to do it consciously and you need to keep control of it and the only way to do that is to do as I
suggested. Again, if Famous Dave's doesn't proceed.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions or more discussion on that?
Councilman Berquist: Well yeah. I've got, Mark said we've increased.., by how much?
Councilman Senn: 11,524 square feet.
Councilman Berquist: And that's.., how much retail did we approve in the project to begin with?
Councilman Senn: Well it's approved by sectors. Okay, and you have to go by sectors so there's...
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Four sectors.
Councilman Senn: Four sectors, that's what I thought. That's a complicated answer. Essentially the
sectors were set up and the square footage allocations were set up by the.., deliberately to make sure that
effectively.., what we were trying to achieve and what was effectively being proposed.
Mayor Mancino: I don't have any problem with.., if Famous Dave's doesn't go through...
Councilman Senn: I think we need to just make that notice so to speak as a part of our approval. Rather
than inherently approving.
Mayor Mancino: I agree. Mike, any comments?
Councilman Mason: No.
Mayor Mancino: Mark?
Councilman Engel: No. I think he lays out a pretty good case.
Mayor Mancino: Steve.
Councilman Berquist: No. I'm good with it.
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Mayor Mancino: No, I don't. My only other concern was the sign color that the Planning Commission
also had some concerns about and that being a little, a deeper red than, I haven't seen a PMS color or
anything...
Mark Clarey: Excuse me Mayor, would you say that again?
Mayor Mancino: I said my only concern was the color of the Houlihan's signage maybe being a little
deeper red than the bright engine, fire engine. May I have a motion please?
Councilman Senn: I'll move approval of, you say we can do all this at once?
Mayor Mancino: Roger, can we do all this at once?
Roger Knutson: Certainly.
Councilman Senn: Okay, I'll move approval of, Wheatstone Restaurant Group located south of Highway 5
and east of Market Boulevard, A. Preliminary and Final Plat. B. Site Plan Review. C. Approval of
Amendment B to Development Contract/PUD Agreement. And D. Public hearing on a, or not approve a
public hearing but approval of the on-sale intoxicating liquor license approval for Houlihan's restaurant
with the caveat that there is not an inherent approval on additional square footage as discussed and that
issue will resurface if a different use materializes at the Famous Dave's, where the other restaurant's at.
Mayor Mancino: I'd also like to add point 8 on A. An additional staff condition.
Councilman Senn: Oh on page 25, yeah. I'm sorry, I thought Sharmin had added that.
Mayor Mancino: Is there a second to the motion?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the following items for
Wheatstone Restaurant Group, located south of Highway 5 and east of Market Boulevard:
Approve Site Plan #98-5 for a 7,443 square foot Houlihan's Restaurant as shown on plans dated
April 6, 1998 with the caveat regarding retail square footage as discussed by Council, subject to the
following conditions:
Should the need to construct the parking space (shown as proof of parking along the north portion
of the site) present itself, the applicant will be responsible for realigning the existing trail.
The applicant shall increase the number of overstory trees, by at least two, planted near or in the
parking lot to make up the difference between required minimum parking lot landscaping and
proposed landscaping.
The applicant shall consider relocating Japanese tree lilacs to afford views of decorative element
flower bed from both restaurant and boulevard.
10
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Aeration tubes must be installed in islands and peninsulas less than 10 feet wide. The applicant
must provide plans and insurance of success if alternatives are requested.
The comprehensive landscape plan shall be amended to reflect the shifting of the trees along the
northeast lot line as shown on the landscape plan submitted by the applicant.
A separate sign permit must be submitted for all site signage, except for traffic control signage.
The applicant shall submit detailed sign plans reflecting a individual backlit letters and method of
lighting.
Site plan approval shall be conditioned upon the developer of The Villages on the Ponds recording
the final plat and all pertinent documents for the PUD with Carver County. Financial guarantees
must be submitted to the City to guarantee all public utility improvements and landscaping. Also,
the applicant shall enter into a Site Plan Agreement with the City and provide financial security
pertaining to specific improvements on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds Third Addition.
No building permits will be issued until the final plat of Villages on the Ponds Third Addition has
been recorded.
9. Building Official conditions:
Revise accessible parking to meet code requirements.
Meet with the Inspections Division plan reviewer for a Commercial Building Permit
Requirements Checklist as soon as possible after site plan approval
10. Fire Marshal Conditions:
Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policies which must be reviewed and
followed during the course of the project. The Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire
Prevention Division Policies (of which copies are attached to the staff report) include:
Policy #01-1990
Policy #02-1990
Policy #04-1991
Policy #06-1991
Policy #07-1991
Policy #29-1992
Policy #34-1993
Policy #36-1994
Policy #40-1995
Policy #44-1997
11. All rooftop equipment must be screened in accordance with the PUD ordinance.
12.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and
disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
11
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
13.
The sanitary sewer and water lines and storm sewer on the site will be privately owned and
maintained by the property owner and not the City. The contractor will be responsible for
obtaining the appropriate sewer, water, and plumbing permits from the City's building
Department.
14.
Mylar as-built construction plans of the utility improvements will be required by the City upon
completion of the site improvements.
15.
The final set of construction plans shall include a four way stop at the intersection of Pond Drive
and Pond Promenade.
16.
Open cutting the street to extend a 6" diameter sanitary sewer service from the existing manhole
may be permitted. The street shall be restored in kind prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy.
17. Responsibility for paving Pond Promenade shall be resolved prior to issuance of a building permit.
And approve Preliminary and Final Plat for Subdivision 98-5 to replat Outlot D and a portion of
Outlot E into Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds Third Addition, as shown on plans dated April 6,
1998, subject to the following conditions:
Provide cross access easements and maintenance agreements for utilities and parking facilities to be
shared between the subject site and the Americlnn Motel site.
The applicant shall enter into an addendum to the development contract/PUD agreement for Villages
on the Ponds.
The applicant shall pay the City administration fees for review and recording of the final plat
documents.
The proposed commercial development of 1.37 net developable acres is responsible for a water
quantity fee of $5,974.00. This fee is due payable to the City prior to the City signing the final plat.
Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds Third Addition is subject to full park and trail fees per city
ordinance. One third of these fees will be paid prior to recording the final plat. The remaining two
thirds shall be paid at the time the building permit is granted.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and
disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
The sanitary sewer and water lines and storm sewer on the site will be privately owned and
maintained by the property owner and not the city. The contractor will be responsible for obtaining
the appropriate sewer, water, and plumbing permits from the City's building department.
At this point the City has not formally accepted the utility improvements in this phase of Villages on
the Ponds. The utilities have been installed and tested but not formally accepted, therefore prior to
12
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
issuance of a building permit or the City signing the final plat, the developer of Villages on the Ponds
must receive formal acceptance from the City.
The City Council approve Addendum B to the development Contract for Villages on the Ponds
conditioned upon the developer supplying the City with administration and recording fees in the
amount of $9,259.00, and approval of the on-sale liquor license for Wheatstone Restaurant, Inc., dba
Houlihan's Restaurant & Bar, contingent upon the following:
1. Submittal of a $5,000.00 bond effective until May 1, 1999.
2. Submittal of liquor liability insurance effective until May 1, 1999.
3. Payment of license fee.
All voted in favor of all the previous items and the motion carried.
CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES FOR SIREN PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Greg Webber
Molly Koivumaki
Leslie Michel
Scott Gerber
Tim Turnbull
Bob Bergmann
Leah Hawke
Steve & Mary Labatt
Michael O'Kelly
Karen Keinsing
Stacey Hurrell
Brenda Knight
John Esch
Becky Eddy
Jennifer Freij
Anita Graves
Ron Holt
Jim Sloss
Debra Benkovich
Connie Mooreq
Ursula Dimler
Nancy Birch
Mary Rafferty
991 Saddlebrook Trail
City of Eden Prairie
City of Chanhassen
Carver County
Hennepin County
Carver County Sheriff's Department
7444 Moccasin Trail
7457 Bent Bow Trail
635 Carver Beach Road
8090 Hidden Court
7460 Bent Bow Trail
2555 Longacres Drive
7444 Moccasin Trail
7433 Bent Bow Trail
2435 Hunter Drive
780 Preakness Lane
447 Hunter Drive, Watertown
9360 Kiowa Trail
2362 Fawn Hill Court
7330 Moccasin Trail
7203 Kiowa Circle
1050 Lake Susan Hills Drive
7454 Bent Bow Trail
Mayor Mancino: I do have a public statement to read prior to the staff report. I'll wait until everybody
gets situated. We have a number of guests here tonight who are here because of their interest in outdoor
13
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
warning sirens. I'd like to take a minute to clear up some confusion. The City of Chanhassen is not
against warning sirens. The Public Safety Commission, including me have already voted to support the
purchase and installation of sirens for our community, but I feel it is important for everyone to understand
the historical reasons why Chanhassen currently has only one central siren. I'd like us to see this debate as
a good idea whose time has come rather than see it as an issue where there are winners and losers. The
subject of adding sirens has come up frequently over the years. Not very many years ago Chanhassen was
still rural and it was financially impractical to install sirens in those sparsely populated areas. The first
siren was installed in the 60's and it was federally funded. As our population began to grow we were told
that alternative technologies would come on like which would serve the purpose. Chanhassen was to have
been funded, a funded test site for this technology. The promise has never materialized. Last year the
installation of more sirens was on the first draft of our annual budget. This budget draft was nearly one
million dollars over budget so the sirens as well as many other excellent programs were deleted in order to
keep our city spending in line with our revenues to maintain a balanced budget and to create a reserve for
unforeseen emergencies. A lot of time and creative thought has gone into trying to address this opportunity.
One of the things we will be discussing tonight is using a portion of the city's operating reserve to fund a
siren installation program so with that I'd like to have a staff report please.
Scott Harr: Mayor Mancino. Members of the Council. Mr. Ashworth. Members of the Public Safety
Commission present tonight and representatives of the various emergency response agencies that serve our
community. I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to request that the City of Chanhassen complete it's
warning triad by acquiring warning sirens to cover the entire city. I'd like to also thank the community
members that have taken time from their very busy schedules to be with us tonight. I appreciate that. In
the decade that I've been with Chanhassen Public Safety, in the 20 years that I have been involved in the
police, fire and rescue fields, I've never experienced a subject that's drawn so much public interest
pertaining to public safety. Nor have I ever felt as strongly about an opportunity or our responsibility as I
do about this. And I know that my passion for this issue has been apparent. As Public Safety Director for
this growing city, I'm charged with not only responding to emergencies, but even more importantly
preventing them and mitigating the loss of property and life. Last Wednesday I attended a debriefing of the
St. Peter area tornado disaster at our monthly Emergency Managers Association. Each and every area
representative began his or her comments with a phrase, I never thought an event of this magnitude would
ever hit our community but it did. We proactively police our crime prevention and public safety education
program rivals that of any community. We provide building and fire code inspections. We have
neighborhood watch and operation identification. We sell bicycle helmets and provide award winning fire
prevention education to every single child in this community. We continually strive to help keep people
safe. The only component of our city's overall emergency management plan that I've never been
completely comfortable with is our warning delivery system. The Mayor stated the history accurately.
Permit to once again briefly go over this. When I was hired here 10 years ago I was concerned there was
only the one siren downtown. Our population was in fact only about 3,500 then. And that same siren
remains atop the fire station here. As the city has approached the 20,000 mark we've continued to assess
what the best way to warn our community is. Well a decade ago the emergency management professionals
foresaw outdoor warning sirens becoming less important, we re-evaluated this. Perhaps the best example
of the importance they continue to play is that Hennepin County's goal is to have 100% siren coverage, as
is the case with every community surrounding us. As a member of the Metropolitan Emergency
Management Association and the Association of Minnesota Emergency Managers, I can assure you that
sirens remain a very viable component of any community's warning system. This is not to say that outdoor
warning sirens are the one and only way to warn people. I spoke to the warning triad which is comprised
of people taking responsibility of keeping an eye toward changing weather conditions and utilizing
television and am/fm weather broadcasts as well as having access to weather alert radios. We know from
14
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
experience that outdoor sirens fill in the missing piece. Sirens will alert people that are out of doors. Then
we know that they will continue to alert some people that are inside as well. People have continued to
relate to me that during storms they leave a window open so they can hear sirens. I shared with the Public
Safety Commission at last month's meeting my personal experience last summer, at 2:31 in the morning,
which I recall because I bolted upright in bed looking at the clock being awakened by my neighborhood
siren in a new home with the air conditioner going. We will be able to alert some people inside. Sirens are
not obsolete. They remain an integral part of the warning component of the community's emergency
management plan and they need to be a better part of ours. I can't be ambivalent about this issue. I
strongly believe in the need for better siren coverage in Chanhassen. I have a professional, even ethical
responsibility to tell you that we need these sirens now. While our Fire Chief, John Wolf is out of town on
business tonight, he did ask that I share his support of sirens in the community as well. I'm recommending
the type of siren that will best meet our needs. These units mn on alternating current with battery back-up,
should power be interrupted during a storm. They're radio activated so that we don't have to worry about
the telephone lines being blown down during a storm. The type of siren I have spec'ed is less expensive to
acquire and maintain and is the type most frequently purchased in our area. Best of all our entire city can
be covered. There's been some confusion over the number of sirens being recommended. At one point we
thought it might be cheaper to just cover the parks, but this would require 13 sirens and although smaller in
decibel rating, the cost would be the same. So with fewer but louder sirens we can cover all of
Chanhassen. We had initially looked at 8 sirens including replacing the existing one at the fire station but
in reviewing this with experts it was determined that 9 sirens will leave no area uncovered. And on the map
here I've shown the locations as well as the one existing one downtown. I'm recommending that one
existing siren, now over two decades old and purchased from a manufacturer that's since gone out of
business, be replaced with a modem siren. However we'll be able to use the existing pole and radio control
units saving several thousand dollars. Also that unit will cost less because it's just an AC unit because it's
hooked up to the fire department's emergency generator. There will be some trade-in on that old siren unit
as well. Finally to have the ability to activate the sirens even if the Sheriff's Department dispatch center
has been rendered incapable of doing so, I'm including a mobile encoder to be installed in one of our fire
tracks. Our system would then be complete. I'm asking that you consider making this complete investment
now. All aspects of this project will only increase in cost and it would be great to have the entire system
installed as a unit and know that the entire city wide system can be capable of being activated and is up and
running at once. As I've explained in my memo to you, maintenance and operating costs are minimal. The
only issue that I can predict will be that some people may not like the selection of installation points. I
believe that most, and probably all can be put in parks or on city property. At this point I don't believe we
will need to put sirens in anyone's back yards. We will be sensitive to the concerns of residents and in mm
ask them to understand that these sirens are indeed for the greater good of the community. I've asked
several people to join us tonight should you have any other questions. Tim Tumbull with Hennepin County
Emergency Management. Scott Gerber is the Emergency Management Director for Carver County.
Molly Koivumaki is the Emergency Management Director with the City of Eden Prairie. I'd like to begin
by thanking them publicly for their invaluable input during this process. I know they'll be happy to answer
any questions. With that I hope I've provided you with enough information that you need to make a
decision regarding my recommendation that the total siren package be acquired now. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. I think we'll wait, Scott I have a few questions but I think we'll
wait until the public hearing is done. Although this isn't a public hearing but I certainly will allow people
to speak so at that point, if council members don't mind waiting to ask questions. Then I will open it up for
the public to speak. I hope that if you could keep your comments kind of condensed and if someone else
has already said what you want to say, please know that we will have listened to them and so we don't have
15
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
everybody in the audience getting up. But anyone wishing now to address the City Council on the siren
issue may.
Don Ashworth: Mayor? I had thought that you had wanted me to briefly go through my
recommendation.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Don Ashworth: Okay. I would like to congratulate the City Council during this past fall's budgetary
process. We did establish a contingency fund, approximately $120,000.00 to be able to ensure that as
things came up during the course of the year, that we'd be able to respond to those. As you may recall
program very important to the community in surfacing after adoption of the budget did come back to City
Council and that consumed $20,000.00 of that $120,000.00 reserve. Since the St. Peter's issue and I
think probably even before that I've received calls from virtually every councilmember saying that they
would like to see this issue revisited and to see what we could do but also ask that any form of
recommendation I provide be one that tries to represent fiscal responsibility on the part of the city. In my
review of the request from the Public Safety Commission, again realizing that we're only into
approximately 25% of the year, 33% of the year, I looked at that and felt that if we were to take
$80,000.00 out of contingency, that we could immediately provide coverage at least for 5 sirens out of the
total 9 that's being recommended. In my review of the circles as they've been provided by Public Safety
says that between 80% and 90% of our existing residents and businesses could be covered by that level. If
you were looking at it from the standpoint of the smaller circles as they presented, which means you're
inside and you're going to need to be warned inside. If you could look at it from a perspective of outside,
those circles become much larger. That does not take away from the ability of the City Council to once
again look at this issue in the fall as we move into next year's budget and be in a position to potentially
allocate additional dollars for additional sirens in the November-December timeframe. Literally being able
to bid those and have the installation of those occur before next spring. You cannot say that you're beyond
the tornado season but typically in Minnesota we probably are right now, recognizing again the time
required for installation. The recommendation on purchasing of the 5 realizes that we will then have in
contingency about $20,000.00, which is a desperately low number if you think again that we're only 33%
through the year and we literally are consuming 80% of our reserves. Or contingency. My
recommendation would say that if the City Council were to approve the phased construction of these sirens,
that this item be returned to the Public Safety Commission to make a determination as to which sirens will
be located. I think that that could be done in a fashion that would not change the installation date.., makes
a determination, I would say in a public hearing type of a sense, as to which of those five sirens would be
initially installed. That is my recommendation. I think it's a recommendation which is again fiscally
responsible.
Mayor Mancino: ... rest of the year?
Don Ashworth: Not really.
Mayor Mancino: I'd like to open this up for the public. Thank you Don. Anyone wishing to address the
Council.
Leah Hawke: I'll try and be brief. Mayor, City Council members. Thank you for the opportunity to
present here tonight. As some of you may already know, my name is Leah Hawke. I've been a
Chanhassen resident for about 18 months and I'm co-chair of the Chanhassen Citizens for Sirens. I'm here
16
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
to speak on behalf of many of those in the Chanhassen community who agree that we must install a city
wide siren warning system immediately. Just to give you a little bit of history, until a few weeks ago I had
no idea that Chanhassen had no effective siren system. I'd lived in a city that had then and assumed they
were a part of any city's public safety system. When I learned about the lack of sirens I asked myself three
questions. Why don't we have them? Why didn't I know? And was I alone in my misconceptions? As
you know I decided to take my questions to City Hall. My thanks to Mayor Nancy Mancino and Public
Safety Director Scott Harr for personally meeting with me to discuss the various questions and concerns I
had. Through my meeting with Nancy and Scott I learned a great deal about Chanhassen's siren saga.
Both the Mayor and the Public Safety Director have detailed this so I won't be repetitive. What I would
like to reiterate however is that it is my understanding that a couple of years ago, partly in recognition of
the significant population growth Chanhassen was experiencing, both Scott Harr, our Public Safety
Director, and our Public Safety Commission decided we had to stop waiting for new technology and take
immediate action to enhance our outdoor warning system for the better protection of all residents.
Accordingly for the past two years they have unanimously recommended to the City Council that a city
wide siren system be installed in parks. Their request to fund sirens has been denied on both occasions. In
my search for answers as to why that funding had been denied I spoke to many of you and other officials.
To summarize, I heard four reasons why the City Council had previously denied the funding request. One,
the City Council had not heard from a cross section of the community that this was an important issue that
needed to be addressed. Two. Residents were well educated on the fact that no effective outdoor warning
system existed and were knowingly taking their personal safety into their own hands. Three. City Council
members needed reassurance that sirens were in fact the best way to go. And four. The City Council
wanted to ensure they were responding to demands to be fiscally responsible. I'd like to take a few brief
minutes to address each of these concerns so you can be reassured that when you vote tonight to fund sirens
you're making a decision your constituents want you to make. On the first issue of not hearing from the
community, I'm assuming that at this point in time we can at least agree that we are hearing from the
community and we continue to hear from the community. Certainly the people we have contacted, and
those who have contacted us have expressed concern. Sometimes disbelief that no system existed and we
have received overwhelming support to pursue the immediate installation of sirens. Support which I
believe has been evidenced not only by telephone calls but also by the many e-mails we have received. I
understand city councilmembers have also been receiving many of those same calls and e-mails. Based on
my conversations, I believe the message the community is sending to this City Council is clear and that is,
you must approve funding for the installation of sirens. Sure, some people are concerned about placement
and some about costs. However, when we explained the proposed system will most likely be in part and the
cost is only $140,000.00, the consensus is just to stop wasting time and get this done. Bottom line, this is
an issue that residents from all across Chanhassen have communicated must be addressed by this city
council. And when I say all neighborhoods, I mean just that. I want all city councilmembers to note that we
even received calls of support from residents covered by the one siren we have. They believe all residents
should be afforded coverage, not just the select few. Also important to note is that not one person we
contacted or who contacted us, opposed sirens. So why haven't you heard from these siren supporters in
the past? Well this leads quite nicely into the argument that we don't need sirens because residents are
educated about what to do in the event of severe weather. That they understand they must watch the
weather, listen to the radio or television. That they know an adequate siren system just doesn't exist for
this city. Mayor, City Council members, if you're of this belief, I am here to burst your bubble. I would
respectfully disagree that we have an educated public on this issue. Over half of those we have contacted,
or who have contacted us, had no idea they were on their own when it came to severe weather. Many of
those who were aware told us they were only aware because they had questioned why they hadn't heard
sirens go off during a storm, or had questioned why they had not heard the first Wednesday of the month
afternoon testing that so many of them had become used to hearing when they lived in other cities.
17
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Residents expressed concern that for months and for some even years, they had incorrectly assumed a siren
system existed. Mayor I think you received some of the same e-mails that we received. I'd just like to give
you three examples. Mayor. I've been a Chanhassen resident for 5 years but I wasn't aware that we only
had one siren for the entire city. I find this totally unacceptable. Mayor. Like many others I saw the news
cast last night regarding Chanhassen's appalling inadequacy of weather warning sirens. As a resident of 5
years, this is the first time I've heard of this. Finally.
Mayor Mancino: Did they write anybody else besides me?
Leah Hawke: Pardon me? No, we unfortunately gave just your e-mail out. Thank you for taking the time
and effort to get involved in this. We've lived here for 7 years and I've always wondered why I never heard
the testing of sirens on Wednesday. Now I know why. By not being educated, these people were putting
themselves and their families at risk. Further, I couldn't find much in the way of articles or pamphlets
educating people new to this city about our lack of an outdoor warning system. Bottom line, the education
being done, whatever that is, just isn't working and none of us are here tonight arguing we don't have some
responsibility for our own safety. Of course we do. Of course we must all watch weather, listen to the
radio or television. However, we are here to tell you that we believe sirens can save lives and that they are
a key component of any effective outdoor warning system. They are something people instinctively listen
for and can respond to and frankly we should have them. Can a more effective education process work
going forward? I would argue not. We're going way too quickly to make sure everyone understands what
we do and don't have when it comes to the basics. And as we are seeing this time around, people are
making assumptions about sirens. Any amount of education will make it hard to overcome people's
expectations. Further, how do we envision educating visitors to our great city? Should we warn them to
carry weather alert radios when they visit the beautiful trails, parks and lakes that we have spent so much
to create and maintain? We are residents and visitors alike, a warning system that is consistent with the
approach other cities have taken. A system they know and can instinctively respond to. As to whether or
not sirens or some other warning device should be used. I personally am not experienced enough to make
that judgment call. That is where I call in our city experts. The Director of Public Safety and the Public
Safety Commission. I defer to the homework they have done looking into warning systems. They've done
the research. They've conducted the surveys and they've done the cost comparisons. They've made their
recommendation and as a reminder it was just last month that for the third time in a row the Public Safety
Commission recommended the City Council approve the immediate funding for city wide siren system. Not
a phase in approach but an entire city wide system. Please note, all members of the commission, including
you Mayor Mancino, approved the recommendation. This leads us to the last concern regarding sirens and
that is that they haven't been budgeted for. That this city is under pressure to hold the line on spending.
Don't get me wrong. I, for one, don't believe taxes should be raised and we all recognize the tough job you
have in balancing competing demands. However, many of us believe we may need to reconsider where we
have been spending our money. Many residents we have spoken to said they assumed we have basic safety
issues covered and that their demands for fiscal responsibility have more to do with luxury items like new
trails, new trees, new bridges. No one we have spoken to argued against the need to allocate money to a
basic safety item like sirens. In part, I think the recent tornadoes just south of us have increased awareness
of how important an outdoor warning system actually is. It reinforced the fact that sirens can save lives
and can give residents much needed time to get to safety. On the effectiveness of sirens, let me take a
moment to read a very telling e-mail I received from a resident in the Lake Susan neighborhood. Mayor. I
am writing to you in regards to the siren issue in Chanhassen. I have lived in Chanhassen for almost 9
years and have always been disturbed by the fact that there is only one siren for our city. You might
wonder why after all this time I want to change that. My reason is that on March 29th my hometown was
struck by a tornado. I would like to share some stories from my friends and family in St. Peter. A friend's
18
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
14 year old son was home alone when the tornado hit. Luckily he knew to go to the basement when he
heard the storm sirens. Their home was damaged to the point that it is uninhabitable, but their son was
safe. My friend was 10 miles away when the storm hit their home. There was no indication that the
weather was going to mm severe when he left home. I believe sirens saved this child from being injured.
Other friends were having dinner in a restaurant when the tornado hit St. Peter. All of the customers were
taken into the walk in refrigerator and freezer. They were all safe enough even though this building was
severely damaged and the building next to it condemned. My sister lives between St. Peter and LeSeure.
She was watching TV via satellite dish which does not pick up local emergency broadcasts when she heard
the sirens and went to the basement for safety. The people of St. Peter have endless stories of how the
sirens saved their lives. Many buildings were damaged and some even flattened by the tornado but the
people were safe thanks to sirens and people knowing about what to do when they hear them. It is my
understanding that the only death that occurred was between the cities of Mankato and St. Peter. There are
no sirens in these rural areas. The community of St. Peter has been able to keep their spirits high because
in addition to grieving over the loss of objects, they are not grieving over the loss of lives. Mayor, after
visiting the community of St. Peter I fear that had that tornado hit Chanhassen, the death toll would be very
high. I encourage you to support the addition of sirens to our community. If you are not yet convinced, I
urge you to contact the Mayor of St. Peter. Ask him how he feels about having sirens in his community. It
would also be very beneficial for you to visit St. Peter and see for yourself the destruction that people in St.
Peter survived because they had the time to get to safety. Finally, do we have the money to fund sirens?
Well, I would argue that it appears due to your fiscally responsible management of last year's budgets, we
do have money available to more than cover unanticipated needs such as sirens. As I'm sure this Council is
aware, for fiscal year 1997 we had a $459,000.00 budget surplus. It is our understanding that
$149,000.00 of that amount went to cover first half budget. First half year budget requirements. And
$45,000.00 for new City Hall accounting system. We understand the remaining $265,000.00 is in the
general facilities fund. This budget surplus is more than enough to provide a siren system for the better
protection of all residents. We don't need to dip into any contingency fund. We have the money available
from the surplus of 1997. To conclude. I've heard the reasons why sirens have not been approved to date
and maybe those arguments were compelling in the past. However, I think this community has changed.
Certainly expectations appear to be changing. You are hearing now from your constituents that they both
expect and want a city wide siren system. I would urge you to listen to what you are hearing and act
accordingly. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Council at this point? And we'll go on for another 5
or 10 minutes and then close it.
Anita Graves: I'll be brief. My name is Anita Graves and I have lived at 780 Preakness Lane for the past
7 years. And you might ask why a resident who's lived in Chanhassen for 7 years didn't know the
community only had one siren. Like Leah, I thought that I was alone in my misconception. After talking
with many residents about this issue however, I found out that I wasn't the only one who was woefully
uninformed about this situation. Although we as residents do our best to keep up on local issues, we don't
always hear about everything that's important. And everyone that I talked to about the lack of sirens in
Chanhassen thought that it was important. All of us who are at this meeting tonight, either speaking or
attending, represent many other Chanhassen residents who share this call for action. We represent all the
neighborhoods in Chanhassen. We represent long time residents and we represent newcomers. We
represent a common set of expectations. We expect that the City Council will make wise choices about
how to spend our tax dollars. We expect that safety will be a first priority when making those budget
decisions. We expect that our safety commission will bring appropriate issues to the table and that they
19
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
will be heard. And we expect that the City Council will take immediate action to equip Chanhassen with
the appropriate warning sirens. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Can we keep clapping down so that we get both sides to, thank you.
Everyone feels comfortable talking, thank you.
Linda Jansen: Mayor, councilmen, city staff. Mine's a little different. I'm Linda Jansen, 240 Eastwood
Court and when I say I didn't know we only had one siren in the city of Chanhassen, it's a little different
slant on it. We always hear sirens so I don't know if the study has been done to check and see where
citizens can and can't hear them, as far as.
Mayor Mancino: Where do you live Linda? Can you show us on the?
Linda Jansen: We're just a little to the west of the city line.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So you must hear them from Eden Prairie or something, okay.
Linda Jansen: And Councilman Berquist had asked me if I was conscience of the siren that is off to the
east of us. Most of the storms have moved in from the west of us. I don't know what we're hearing but I
anticipate by the time that one goes off, I'm in the basement. So I'm not sure what we're hearing.
Mayor Mancino: But you do hear one?
Linda Jansen: But we do definitely hear a siren. We have a relatively soundproof home so even with the
windows closed we have heard them. So as far as priorities as to where they're located. I don't know if
that helps as far as realizing that there must be some areas where there is some overlap from the different,
other sirens around. But my question had been in regards to the weather alert radios and we have been
trying to purchase one for our own home realizing that we're not necessarily covered at night. And that
we've been remiss ourselves. They've just not been available anywhere within the metro area of course
since the whole situation happened down in St. Peters. I was wondering if the city would be able to have a
program available to the citizens to make them available through the city if it's you know, on a reduced
cost program or however you could handle that but make them available.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. I'm not sure we want to get into the retailing business but we'll talk about that.
Linda Jansen: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Council? Do we have another person?
Dave Headla: Mayor, Council. What I've got to say I think is... mother and apple pie.
Mayor Mancino: David, could you give your name and address please.
Dave Headla: Oh I'm sorry, Dave Headla. 6870 Minnewashta Parkway. I believe there should be some
tornado sirens. In the industrial area, the business area, I think it's wise and appropriate. In the bedroom
community, I think each community should have the right to vote themselves if they could go ahead and, if
we should go ahead and have a siren. Now to say as based on about 1965 when the tornadoes came
through here, I don't think there was many people here today. I saw one who just walked in who
20
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
remembered that. But being this age gives me some advantage on what happens. Now I was coming home
from work and was coming through Chanhassen, listening to the radio when the first warnings came across.
I went home. My wife had the kids in the house already. We called our neighbor who didn't have a
basement. We got them downstairs and I stayed up and watched TV and I watched a tornado to the west of
us. And all of that excitement, and it took maybe an hour and a half. Now during that time, Scott would
the tornado sirens be, keep going that whole time? You know it was a continuous thing. We had tornadoes
to the west and then to the east. Do they blow continuous?
Scott Harr: ... comment on how long they're activated for?
Tim Turnbull: Generally when the Weather Service issues a message to the county warning point, the
county warning point then activates a siren. They're usually activated for a period of time of around 5
minutes straight. That warning may be, or that activation may be repeated based on recommendations
from the National Weather Service.
Mayor Mancino: And are there usually two signals? One for toxic and one for high winds and tornadoes?
It's all the same?
Tim Tumbull: Right.
Mayor Mancino: So how do you know?
Tim Turnbull: Well I think you know, general education.
Mayor Mancino: I mean what do we do?
Tim Turnbull: ...that people are looking at in our profession are is when you hear that siren and if you
have any intrepidation about what the issue would be, you might want to turn on your radio or your
television or something like that. If you hear the siren and you see the tornado, usually we try to leave out
that part about the watching the television. So there's kind of an educational piece to that. The sirens are
used, the outdoor warning sirens are used for more than just severe weather but it's their primary concern
or their primary use. They're also used for things like hazardous material notifications and again you could
have a nice day and the siren goes off and you're wondering why, you probably should turn on one of the
local radio or television stations and get the information.
Mayor Mancino: Isn't somebody using them for no parking during snow removal or something too?
Tim Turnbull: There is an experiment going on in the city of St. Paul for in the winter when the snow
emergency situation exists. This is only in one portion of one community in St. Paul where they're trying
this and to the best of my knowledge, because last winter wasn't so bad, they haven't come to any real
conclusion on it yet. By the way the Metropolitan Emergency Managers Association strongly recommends
against that practice.
Mayor Mancino: I was just going to ask you that. Diplomatically. Thank you.
Dave Headla: Okay, to get on. I think at that time TV and radio did an excellent job of informing everyone
from here up to Roseville. We knew something was happening. We had to stay alert. Shortly after that
we started thinking about what happens if it goes on, we get a storm at night. Tornado or whatever, high
21
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
winds and as soon as these weather alerts came out, we got one and we live by it. During the day, we're
not concerned about tornadoes. We've learned to take care of ourselves rather than rely on Big Brother
looking after us. And by the way, this has turned out very helpful for me in three different times to read
that weather and you read it in advance. Not when it's on your, it's like hypothermia. You don't learn how
to treat it, you learn how to avoid it. I think that's what you've got to do with tornadoes. I think each
community should have the opportunity to vote if we want any siren near us or not. I think, oh on personal
safety. I think we've got to learn to, there should be an education on that. We are much better on that
because we need that, if we're out in a boat and we aren't always going to be where the sirens. We can be
on a trail someplace. We've got to learn to read that weather. And I also would like to, if we're going to
go ahead and spend that money, I'd like to see that money go to Scott Harr and let him try to save some
lives in accidents on Highway 5. I think that'd be a much more effective way to save our citizens. Thank
you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Council?
Michael O'Kelly: My name is Michael O'Kelly. I live at 685 Carver Beach Road and I've been before a
few of you before. Meeting with you in chambers I would say when I applied for the Public Safety
Commission position that was open. And as at that time, the thing that brought me before you and before
the Public Safety Commission and now before you again was my main concern at that time were the sirens,
or the lack of sirens which I happened to find out after being a 10 year resident last year that we only had
one. It's always been my position that the safety of the citizenry of any federal, state and local government
should be the primary concern of that federal, state and local government. The acquisition of land for a
212 corridor I don't think should be put as a priority over the acquisitions of the sirens. Phasing in sirens
over a period. It's been my experience before that yeah, we may put in 5 this year but when are the other 4
going to come in? Are they going to come in the next year. 4 or 5 years on down the road. This issue to
me has been a primary concern because I've been in a situation where I've been through a tornado. I've
seen the destructive effects of a tornado firsthand by being it in myself. I say that safety of our citizenry in
Chanhassen should be of your number one priority. Number one concern and I would say that the
immediate implementation of the siren system within Chanhassen should also be a number one concern for
this council and that a vote of yes to do that right today would be, it would make me happy I guess. And a
lot of other people. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Anyone else? Okay, I'll close this part of the
meeting. Thank you. Coming back to Council members. Comments. Any questions that you have? I
have a couple general ones Scott and then I'll take comments from councilmembers. First of all. And
anyone on your team can answer. The tornado season is end about when? Normal. I know everything,
anomaly will happen, etc but when is the general ending of tornado season in our area?
Scott Harr: Molly, would you like to respond?
Molly Koivumaki: Thank you Madam Mayor. Tornado season is generally from April, although this year
we saw that it got a little head start on us, but we look from April until about October. So that is the
ending point.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So it does go through October? Why do I think of the end of June. It doesn't
happen in July and August much.
22
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Molly Koivumaki: Actually they do and I think it was in 1995 we had a series of 5 or 6 tornadoes in the
month of October so it definitely goes that long.
Mayor Mancino: So do they start up again or do they.., happen in July and August?
Molly Koivumaki: They sure do.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Boy, that's new. New information for me. About how long, tell me about, I
know we have to go out for bids and get things installed, etc. How long approximately will that take from
beginning to end?
Scott Harr: Legally we can request bids in 10 days, correct Roger? And several suppliers that I have
spoken with thought that they could respond as soon as 45 days from the award of bid to have the
equipment here.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So help me do this, 45 days.
Councilman Mason: 55 days. Right?
Mayor Mancino: Couple months, thank you. And there are things called payment plans that you can tell
us a little about.
Scott Harr: Sure. They have different plans and leasing plans and different purchase plans.
Mayor Mancino: And I suppose that this is after you get 3 or 4 bids. I mean we may see circles a little
differently than what they are tonight?
Scott Harr: The sirens that I'm recommending, these are, they indicate the radius of the type of siren that
would give us the greatest coverage for the least number of units. We've had one supplier provide us with
a map and one installer provide us with more specific locations so they could be fine tuned a bit further.
This map has the installation, actually it worked out great because it covers all of the city, taking advantage
of neighbor.., including what Ms. Jansen said. That's definitely the Eden Prairie siren she's hearing. And
we're able to cover everything and installing them in parks and city property so it really works swell.
Mayor Mancino: And who decides when the sirens go off? I mean what are the qualifying procedures that
have to happen. Are we going to be hearing, you know.., sirens or etc? And I'm kind of concerned about
that because as Scott said earlier, these are going to be a high decibel siren so the closer you live to that,
you may not want it going off willy nilly so I just want to know what are the, when will they go off?
Scott Gerber: Madam Mayor and councilmembers. Currently those sirens would be tested the first
Wednesday of every month at 1:00. That would be one time that they would be activated. The other times
for activation for severe weather would be under current criteria that's used really on a statewide basis.
That criteria is a tornado warning issued by the National Weather Service. Once that warning is received
by the communications center, they would then activate those sirens. In addition to that, if there were a
severe weather or a severe thunder storm warning, with winds in excess of 70 to 75 mph that was being
reported from our spotters, which includes our fire departments, law enforcement, individuals from
throughout the county, then those sirens would then be activated as well. So there is, we try to use clear
cut criteria when to try to activate those.
23
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions at this time?
Councilman Berquist: I've got a few. Regarding the weather alert radios. Is there anyone who can speak
to the availability of them? When this whole thing started I called a couple of retailers and was told that
they were out of them and that they were getting more in on Sunday and they expected them to be gone in
very short order. And that there weren't any others in the city.
Scott Harr: There certainly, the tornadic activity this year certainly put a run of them. There's no question
about it and we've been checking from time to time. In the Shakopee area where Bob Zydowsky lives, he's
number 225 on the waiting list. Just to respond to Ms. Jansen's question about whether the City could sell
weather alert radios. I'm very proud of the fact that some four years ago we did do that very thing as an
interim action and we very aggressively advertised, sold it at the public safety... Put an ad in the paper, a
flyer. Put notices on the billing notices. Did a number of newspaper articles and we sold 300, which was
good but our goal was to have weather alert radios in every home, business, organization and so 300,
especially when many of those were people buying several for gifts or for friends and families because it
was a fantastic deal, told us something. People just weren't responding to our effort to cover everything
and that's one of the reasons we've looked at sirens again. I've not checked stores recently. I don't know
if any of the three of you can comment on that.
Councilman Berquist: If Bob is number 225, when is that? Right around Christmas? Or we don't know?
Scott Harr: No.
Councilman Berquist: So if everybody in this room tried to get one, they'd be well into next season before
they could even get... ?
Mayor Mancino: Good entrepreneurial business.
Scott Harr: And Molly, who I should add is the past President last year of the Metro Emergency Managers
Association just commented that the entire nation is experiencing the shortage.
Councilman Berquist: Molly, I've got a question for you regarding the number of dangerous weather
systems that we've seen. It seems as though this year we've seen an inordinately high number. Has that
been true in the recent past 2 or 3 years back or is this all somewhat attributable to E1 Nino?...
Molly Koivumaki: That's probably more a question that could be better answered by the National Weather
Service but I can tell you that this was the earliest we've seen such violent activity weather wise that I can
recall and we can attribute that I think, a lot of people are anyways, attributing that to E1 Nino and to a
destruction of weather patterns across the country, if not the northern hemisphere but.
Councilman Berquist: So last year, the year before...
Molly Koivumaki: As far as numbers?
Councilman Berquist: Number of tornadoes, and again it's not that big a deal at this point for this
discussion. I'll just go on. The circles that you've got there Scott. You talk about, you talk about three
components to the communities safety, the personal awareness, weather alert radios which we've already
24
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
discerned are virtually unavailable, and then sirens. Outdoor warning sirens. Now you call them outdoor
warning sirens not because they're outdoors, but because they're used to warn folks that are outdoors. Are
those coverage circles indicate coverages that will occur strictly outdoors or can, if you limit the goals to
outdoor warnings, do those circles expand dramatically? A little bit?
Scott Harr: These are the effective radius for outdoor warning so that people that are out of doors will be
hearing those. We just know that the closer they are to the siren spots, that people will inevitably hear
them. Also, as I mentioned in my presentation, we know from people telling us that many people will keep
windows or doors slightly ajar to be able to hear outdoor warning or people report to us that when they see
the weather getting worse, they'll walk out or check to see if they can hear it. This is the effect of outdoor
radius though.
Scott Gerber: Councilman Berquist ifI can add. That's put on a tower about 50 to 55 feet in height and
that's, with the goal that that outer edge of those rings to reach a decibel level of 70 decibels and that's to
meet the guidelines that we try to meet.
Councilman Berquist: 70 decibels?
Scott Gerber: At the outer ring of that circle, correct.
Councilman Senn: What's the radius?
Scott Gerber: About 4,200 feet.
Mayor Mancino: It's a mile. Well on a 127 decibel, isn't it a mile radius from the siren?
Scott Gerber: I guess I don't know exactly whether it's a mile. I know that what we've used is about
4,200 feet as the length of coverage from the center of the siren outward.
Councilman Berquist: And the last question that I've got, and then I'll let someone else speak. We have,
as everyone knows, in talking to Ms. Jansen, they've got a siren within a quarter mile of their home.
Perhaps a third of a mile of their home that's in Hennepin County. There are many other areas within the
community that are served by Shorewood, Victoria, Chaska, Eden Prairie. Is there ever any, or do
communities cooperate in this regard?
Mayor Mancino: Or should they?
Councilman Berquist: And if they don't, why not?
Scott Harr: Tim, maybe from Hennepin County... you could comment.
Tim Turnbull: Well, we hope they cooperate. I mean that certainly would be our goal. One of the things
that we have had many discussions on with folks in Eden Prairie, and Scott down here in Chanhassen, is
the fact that we would like to have some way of doing as much warning as possible, or at least through the
spotter system getting people down into this area of your community so they can spot a tornado coming so
that they can warn the Hennepin County warning point so that they can set the sirens off in Hennepin
County, because you don't have any. Or you only have one. But that's what we're looking for. If you
have a spotter system, and a lot of the outdoor warning activity is really based on amateur radio and spotter
25
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
systems, in order to call the county warning points, in this case it would be Scott, so that they can activate
the outdoor warning system. That's where a lot of the weather information has come to us in the past. In
the most recent time, probably within the last 18 months because of the tremendous technical change in the
National Weather Service, they have a much more sophisticated radar there than they've ever had before.
We're getting more information and they're much more comfortable now in activating the outdoor warning
system based on the fact of what they can see with their radar. In the past they haven't been as willing to
do that and they've actually wanted to have a spotter see a tornado and we've got some criteria about it
touching down and some things like that but I think now with the technology at the National Weather
Service, we've kind of enhanced the warning capability but the component of that of course is the outdoor
warning system is activated and that the message goes out to the radio and television folks so that people
can understand more clearly and with detail what the information is. I hope that answers your question.
Councilman Berquist: Not really.
Tim Turnbull: Okay, give me another shot at it.
Councilman Berquist: Do you want me to rephrase it?
Tim Turnbull: Yeah, why don't you.
Councilman Berquist: We have sirens that are very close to our borders that if I were to draw circles
around their coverage areas that would lap into Chanhassen by a large amount. And we have Shorewood.
We have Chaska. We've got Victoria. We have Eden Prairie. Probably a couple of others. Shakopee and
what have you. Is there any method by which communities cooperate?
Scott Harr: Again if I may. I neglected to mention but we do have drawn in with the red the neighboring
siren coverage into Chanhassen. And I think if I could just add to Tim. Ideally it would be great if every
community got together and planned this. Good planning dictates to put just enough sirens in to cover our
own city because with all due respect, Eden Prairie should be looking at covering themselves. Hennepin
County. Victoria, Chaska. We looked at this by having a very large group meeting last summer with
everyone here and representatives from the other jurisdictions to see if there were any spots that were going
up that we could share. But if we put one siren on the border, then we'd only half as much coverage for
our city because we'd be covering half of the adjacent city. So I don't know what the ideal plan would be
to share in this area because again good planning would cover our area, not lead into others.
Tim Turnbull: Scott what I was really trying to say is that there is a communication and that there is an
attempt to work cooperatively together in this area. But you have to remember that the responsibility in
your county to activate the warning system is at this point with your county warning point. They make the
decision in Chanhassen and Hennepin County, the Hennepin County Sheriff's office makes the decision in
that county based on the recommendations from the National Weather Service. Now the county, you can't
see it on this map but the county is divided up into warning zones and each of the counties in the Twin
Cities metropolitan area are divided into warning zones and the National Weather Service makes a
recommendation on which zones in which to activate the sirens. The people who are at the county warning
points that activate the sirens, they make a decision based on the information that they get from the
National Weather Service and they may do exactly what that recommendation is or they may make a
decision that's broader than just the activation that's made by the National Weather Service and that's why
there's somebody in your county warning plan and in our county warning plan that is considered to be the
warning officer that signs off on that plan and says that they'll take that responsibility.
26
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Mayor Mancino: ... sirens?
Tim Turnbull: No, a zone, there are four zones in Hennepin County. There are 44 communities in
Hennepin County so one of the zones covers many communities.
Scott Gerber: I can add for Carver that that's by city. We would set sirens off by city. Typically severe
weather comes between 3:30 and 8:00 p.m. is the most common time during that time that Molly talked
about from April to October. It typically comes from the southwest and moves to the northeast but it
certainly can come from other sides of that, but in the years that I've been in my role with Carver County,
it has come from the southwest moving to the northeast and typically we then set our siren systems off from
those communities that are on our southwestern borders and progress that to the eastern part of our
community. Trying to do that as effectively and coordinatively as we can.
Mayor Mancino:...
Scott Gerber: Correct. That's correct.
Mayor Mancino: ...
Tim Tumbull: We can be. We have that capability, or we have the capability of setting offany of the
individual, over 200 sirens that we have. Any of the communities. In other words we could set all the
sirens off just in Minnetonka for example if we wanted to, or we set them off with a zone. Generally
speaking when we get a recommendation from the Weather Service, it's by zone in Hennepin County.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions?
Councilman Engel: Two points of clarification I want. First is the dollars in the budget accounts that Ms.
Hawke referred to. Don, can you help on that? You had, she referred to a general versus contingency.
Mayor Mancino: Excuse me. This is for our city manager.
Don Ashworth: The numbers she has are correct and generally the description she provided were correct.
That is $49,000.00 as it dealt with that first half thing. And the $45,000.00 but that was for the entire
accounting system. It wasn't just, it wasn't City Hall. I mean we need to put out utility bills, etc. Capital
projects, or the capital facilities fund, as we were going through the audit report and as you heard from the
auditors, you have a number of funds that have deficits and what has continuously been recommended is
that those dollars be put into that fund until such time as virtually all of the capital project activities are
completed and you're assured that you're in a position to be able to fund all of those. So where you have
not, on previous instances Nez Perce example. That was a $30,000.00 expense. It was a capital project.
It took 3-4 years before the total amount of that became identified. Chan Estates. $120,000.00. Bluff
Creek, $170. I would contend that those dollars, as the Council put those into that capital facilities fund.
Mayor Mancino: Stay there.
Don Ashworth: Yes. And it was a recommendation again back through the auditors office that was made
on good accounting principles. On the other side of the coin, the Council said you know stuff will happen
this next year. Can we establish a contingency fund and so therefore all of my comments were based on
27
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
typical accounting procedures in typical fashions in which you might make these kinds of fund, meet these
type of funding requests. As it deals with, is there assurance that next year's budget or the following will
in fact pick up let's say the remaining 5? I can't sit here and assure anyone in the audience that that would
happen. But I would hope that they would be back during that budgetary timeframe pushing to take and
have those remaining sirens installed.
Councilman Engel: Follow up to that, that was my second question. Where is the location of these five
alternates? I haven't seen that yet. Is it in the packet? I didn't see it.
Mayor Mancino: They're right there. There's a total of nine.
Councilman Engel: Yeah, but we're talking about five in Don's memo. About 5 to cover 90% whereas it
would take 9 to cover 100%.
Mayor Mancino: So he's talking about doing 5 this year and 4 next year.
Councilman Engel: Of the same locations?
Don Ashworth: Well, I would take a slightly different position. Scott, in terms of the size of those. I mean
I regularly hear Excelsior's siren and I can assure you that that's much larger area than what's shown
there. But my recommendation was really one of sending it back to the Public Safety Commission. They
work with the citizens and manufacturers and make a decision and move ahead.
Councilman Engel: Okay. That's all I wanted to hear.
Councilman Mason: I do have one question for somebody. For tornado averages. Are the three greatest
months May, June and July or June, July and August? For tornadoes.
Tim Turnbull: June, July and August.
Councilman Mason: Okay, thank you. And would I also be correct in saying that those three months are
significantly more tornado prone than the windows on the other side? On average.
Tim Turnbull: I think that that would be correct. However.
Councilman Senn: Nothing's average in Minnesota.
Councilman Mason: No, I understand that but typically June, July and August are the biggees and then
there's a fairly significant drop off, and I understand all of that. Okay.
Tim Turnbull: Typically in March what we're doing is filling sand bags and trying to prevent rivers from
over flowing.
Councilman Mason: Right. Understood. It might be snowing instead of tornadoes this October. We can
hope.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Then let's hear comments. Councilman Senn.
28
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Councilman Senn: Comments huh.
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: One, overall sirens. And two, year or two years. Five years.
Councilman Senn: Overall I guess I'm going to, the easiest way for me to say it is I have a lot of mixed
feelings about sirens. Especially such a large system that in my mind may kind of evoke a tendency where
people start viewing it as kind of a coverall or save all. Sirens overall dependability I think is at best
limited. Technology that we have brought to us through TV, radio and weather alert radios, are far more
advanced than sirens. And above all.., the fact that I think the most important issue of all is the need for
personal awareness. We can't lose sight of that. I really, I guess I've read everything that's been sent to
me. I've even read some stuff that wasn't sent to me. I've listened to a number of people on both sides of
the issue and I have heard equally from numbers of people who don't feel we should spend the money as
people who do feel we should get the sirens. A number of people that I've heard from as well as even
presentations tonight, like to evoke what I'm going to say the image of the St. Peter which is you know
something that's fairly recent and is something that's very clear I think in everybody's you know minds at
this point. St. Peter's image to me, I'm going to say is all too real because, more so probably than most
people here I was affected by property and in operating business that was a predominant or dominant
business in St. Peter by the tornado. And as unpopular as it may be, I'd like to I guess take a minute to
evoke some other images that I've had to deal with in relationship with St. Peter. When the sirens went off
in St. Peter about a half hour before the tornadoes hit, literally hundreds of people flocked out of our
theater. To their cars and took off. Much against the advice of our manager and management staff who
encouraged they stay in a pretty safe place. I think that was a terrible reaction evoked by sirens. One of
the things I can't help to think about, and I still honestly don't know to this day whether that 6 year old kid
sucked out of the car and killed left my theater or not, and believe me I've thought about it. And that, to
me are issues that you also have to conjure into the discussion as it relates to sirens and it's not just simply
a siren, the answer all type of issue. I believe that limited sirens are a part of an overall solution. Or let's
say an overall system. But I think that system is predominantly supported by other things other than sirens.
Predominantly supported by television, radio, weather alert radios, more or less technology and above all
personal awareness. I can't say tonight that I've reached a conclusion that we should simply jump in and
develop an overall city wide system of sirens. Where I'm sitting right now is I would prefer, or maybe even
suggest an approach that I think needs to, you know to address several things. One is fiscal constraint.
Another is basically the safety and safety through taking an action rather than taking no action. This year I
would like to see us dedicate I'm going to say some or limited resources for sirens but given everything I've
seen and heard at this point, I have a tendency to want to almost do that more on the basis of making sirens
available up to say a maximum of, and there's no magic in these numbers but I mean up to a magic number
at least in this case of say 3 or so and basically put it on kind of like a first request, first receive type of
basis. And then draw our circles and make sure we are not effectively creating overlap or duplications by
them. I guess one of the things I'd like to see is kind of where that all goes because I'm not sure where it's
going to go. I believe that several added sirens in Chanhassen given the.., and I'd like to see the city take a
more active role or maybe do a better job of investigating ways of either evoking better technology or
getting better technology to people to meet the overall need. Excepting of course personal awareness which
we can do to a limited extent. But that's essentially where I'm sitting on it right now and those are my
comments.
29
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Mayor Mancino: When you say limited sirens, you do believe in sirens.., what do you mean? Do you
mean so they don't overlap or?
Councilman Senn: Limited in which sense? I mean I believe in sirens as a very limited response to the
need.
Mayor Mancino: And should they be used in the whole city?
Councilman Senn: I believe at this point we should proceed with some sirens on a very limited basis.
Okay. But I'm saying I think that overall need, at least as far as the immediate need that I see, may be a
few sirens.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason. Thank you.
Councilman Mason: Well I have some thoughts too, although first of all I do have to say that, and my
tongue is firmly in cheek on this. That asking emergency management about whether tornado sirens is a
good idea is a little bit like asking a teacher whether they think reading is a good idea. I'm a teacher so I
can say that. And I think the same can be said for the Public Safety Commission recommending
installation of sirens. As a teacher I've been advocating smaller class size for quite some time and not a
whole lot of people are listening to that either so, that's the humor part folks. Now I'll get serious. I want
to talk about sirens. I also want to talk about something else. First I'll talk about sirens, range of sirens
and coverage. What I don't understand about that map is that I have, I know a number of people that do
not live in that green circle that do not live near those red circles but hear sirens. Now okay, it's wind. It's
this. It's that, the other thing. I'm willing to accept all of that. I think we're fooling ourselves if people are
believing that those circles are what's happening with sirens. I live outside that green circle. I have heard a
siren a whole bunch of times in the city of Chanhassen so we need to come, before we start installing sirens
or approving sirens, we need to come to grips with this coverage issue. I am not an advocate of sirens and
I'll tell you why. I was involved in the '65 tornadoes. It was not here. I knew they were coming, and good
grief I was a lot younger than Mr. Headla was at the time, and I'm still younger than he is. But I knew
they were coming. The tornadoes that went through Minneapolis, I believe it was '83 or '84, did
significant damage to my property, property around it. Cars were smashed. For some reason sirens didn't
go off. Every time I have heard a siren I have yet to see a tornado. That's not to say that they're bad. I
just think we're fooling ourselves a little bit if we're saying that this is the end all, and I know the group out
there isn't saying that but I worry about false sense of security when people go ah, sirens. Now I don't
have to worry. That's just not the case. In terms of it being community based. I am sure that there are
members from all over the city of Chanhassen that are supporting you. I don't doubt that for a minute. I
also believe you sent out 4,000 flyers, and in that, I believe the flyer suggested that if you believe in this
you should call your council people and the numbers were listed. I received 10 calls. 8 of them were for it.
2 of them were against. So is it a community wide issue? Absolutely. Is 100% of the community behind
you? That I know is not true. Is 50%? 80%? 20%? I don't know. So before this gets to come up as an
issue of the community is knocking down the doors to get sirens, I'm not convinced of that. Do we need
better, more sirens in the city of Chanhassen? When I moved here there were 8,000. 6,000. There are
now 17,000. Do we need sirens? Quite possibly. Quite possibly. I also know that anything we do now,
by my reckoning, the absolute earliest we can get any sirens in here is the 11th of July and I think that's
optimistic. I think that has to be figured into this. Am I willing to look into phasing in sirens? Absolutely.
I do think it would be fiscally irresponsible at this point to spend down our contingency budget to
essentially absolutely nothing. That's my feeling. The last thing I would like to say here maybe has to do
30
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
with sirens, maybe it doesn't. I got wind of this, I heard about this when I got a call saying that the media
has been alerted to the fact that we have no sirens in this community. There's going to be a meeting and
it's going to be on TV. That disturbs me and I will tell you why. As a member of this community, as an
elected member of this community, as a resident of Chanhassen, whatever you want to call it, I encourage
people to go to the source first and that if that doesn't work, then you need to take more action. I feel as
though the political process in this country is in many ways in pretty dire straits and I think politicians as
well as non politicians need to take responsibility for that. Had this come up before visitor presentation and
Council said we don't care, I would have hoped you would have taken more action. I wish that the process
that this was going through would have been different quite honestly.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: Well as an individual taxpayer I was originally against this expenditure, like many
others in the budget and we were over budget during that process. Even against the wishes of my own
household, so I was a little unpopular even in certain areas close to home you could say. Since the events
of the last few weeks and a lot of the neighborhood input I've gotten really on this issue. I am ready to
overrule myself.
Mayor Mancino: You mean they won't let you come home?
Councilman Engel: Well it goes beyond my own home now so I am.
Councilman Mason: They're keeping you out of the neighborhood?
Councilman Engel: It's not quite that bad yet but I'm ready to overrule myself on that and I would support
the siren acquisition now. Even though I don't have it down here, I have to speak for the people who
effectively elected me so that's where I'm at on it.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: Well I've got lots of notes and I'm not, I'm going to speak as much from the
Minutes because I want to be able to read this and remember what I said and what I was thinking at the
time. And for anybody else that wants to listen. The first thing I want to say is that in all honesty I think
we as a Council were remiss, and the Council that preceded this as well, of which I was a part of. That we
are remiss in our budget discussions in not requesting the Public Safety Department to provide us
alternates. When the budget amounts were put to us, it was an all or nothing sort of a deal. And we never
asked to provide us some alternatives. To provide us some options. So for that I accept responsibility and
wish we had done that. The other thing I want to mention is that, in the spirit of cooperation, you know
government, local government is evolving and I know that's probably a bit of a buzz word, buzz phrase,
but I ask about cooperation for a purpose. There are circles up there that allow duplicate coverage to be
anticipated if we put all those sirens in. I don't think duplicate coverage is what we as a community really
want. We share schools. We share libraries. We share many things with our neighbors and as the sirens
installation develops, I would like us to look at where in our adjoining communities there are maybe gaps in
their coverage so that if in fact in our southwest quadrant where we're covered by Chaska, we don't need
coverage because the sirens are going to be energized by city from Carver County. Storms move to the
northeast from the southwest. We're going to be covered down there but if there's another area in Eden
Prairie or Shorewood or Victoria or I don't know where, that they could use coverage that we could
provide, again in the spirit of cooperation I think the onus is on us to explore that. I don't want to
31
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
arbitrarily dip into the contingency fund and saturate the community of Chanhassen with sirens. I prefer a
phased in program. Originally when I heard about this, I thought it was much ado about little. And I
looked at self protection, self awareness as being the primary method by which to protect ourselves. I
remember being in the 1965 tornado. I was a very young child.
Mayor Mancino: I wasn't born yet.
Councilman Berquist: ... where I lived, I lived in Minnetonka. I do not remember hearing the sirens. I do
remember going down in the basement and I remember walking outside to watch what was going on.
Councilman Mason: That's what most of us did.
Councilman Berquist: But much ado about little was my initial reaction but then the weather systems hit
St. Peter and the southern part of Minnesota. And then shortly thereafter the terrible tragedies down in the
southern part of the United States and I really started to examine where I was at with these sirens and I
began to look at it much like a card game. We have one ace. We've got one siren and nature's got the
whole deck. It's just a matter of time before we're dealt a pretty bad deck and do I want to, could it be this
summer? Yeah. Could it be next summer? Absolutely. Do I want to be here if it happens and the sirens
aren't in? I don't think I do. So I look at this as a chance, as a time to redeal the cards and just decrease
our risk. And I do look at them as outdoor warning sirens. I look at them as a component in the overall
system and the other thing I'm grateful for is that the awareness, if I can be grateful for what happened in
other parts of the United States. The awareness that those storm systems generated to the fact that we do
not have a system. In a matter of speaking it protects us until we're implemented. So for that I'm grateful.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. I'm going to less philosophical than those who come before me. I do think
that we should, as a community, have sirens. Outdoor warning sirens. No ands, ifs or buts. We are a
community that is becoming more outdoor. We have just passed a referendum that will include a new
community park down in the southern area, Bandimere. We are adding to our City Center Park. We are
adding 6.75 miles of trails. We are upgrading our neighborhood parks. People are out everywhere. So I
think it is important for the sirens to be out there and to be effective in our community. They are only one
part but I think that they are a significant part. Whether it is an adult or a child and I say that meaning no
difference in adult or your child that's out there. And I see us being more and more focused outdoors as a
community. As we look at our Bluff Creek corridor, etc, you just see people out all the time now and so I
think it's pretty important to have sirens. I would like to see them, and I'll again be more specific, in our
city, city wide in the next couple years. That means this year and next year. And so I just conceptually
give that to Don, who is our City Manager and is, for 25 years been looking at our funds and have him tell
us what is the best way to implement that to make sure that we keep our budget balanced. That we keep a
reserve that we need and I would also like to add to Steve's request that we do look at it regionally. That
we make sure that we are acting with our other neighbors and I can tell you that we do in so many other
areas that I would think we do for sirens. I mean I get together with the Mayor of Chaska and Eden
Prairie. We discuss boundary issues all the time. And I have also gotten together with the Mayor of
Victoria and the Mayor of Excelsior and Shorewood so I would hope that we continue that as we look at
the coverage. I would like us to go through the rigor with the suppliers that we are getting bids from and
have them look at the circles and see if there's another way of doing it so that we don't overlap quite as
much. And I don't know, I leave that to the professionals but I do want you to go through that rigor and
come back to us with how we can work together as neighboring communities. So with that may I have a
motion.
32
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Councilman Berquist: I would move that we authorize the Public Safety Director, in conjunction with the
City Manager, to explore, through use of the suppliers, coverage of the city of Chanhassen with outdoor
warning sirens to be implemented, I want to say in a timely fashion but I feel like I need to put more teeth
into it than that. Over the course of two construction seasons.
Mayor Mancino: Including this one?
Councilman Berquist: Including this one. Using contingency funds that are available in a dollar amount,
and I'm going to leave that open ended at this time. Present the City Council with a series of options and
alternative plans upon which we can make a decision by the next work session if that's possible. I would
suspect that that may be.
Don Ashworth: I would think so. The biggest question is the availability of the supplier. I'd like to hear
Scott's comments.
Scott Harr: I don't, I'm not sure what you're asking.
Councilman Berquist: Really?
Scott Harr: Explore with manufacturer ways to implement coverage.
Councilman Berquist: Let me put it a little simpler. Talk with your manufacturers, the experts on the size
and come up with some alternatives, some plans of phase in, of coverage options and cost alternatives by
the next work session.
Councilman Senn: If I'm hearing you right, to implement an entire city wide system over two years.
Councilman Berquist: With the intent being to implement an entire city wide system over the course of two
years.
Mayor Mancino: Second?
Councilman Engel: Second.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Engel seconded that the City Council authorize the Public
Safety Director, in conjunction with the City Manager, to explore with the manufacturers,
implementing city wide coverage of the city of Chanhassen with outdoor warning sirens over the
course of this construction season and next construction season, using contingency funds that are
available in a dollar amount which is open ended at this time. Present the City Council with a series
of options and alternative plans upon which a decision can be made at the next work session. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
FINAL ACTION, BOARD OF REVIEW AND EQUALIZATION.
Mayor Mancino: We said that we were splitting this into two sections. The first section that we will hear
people that have applied and are here tonight and would like to talk to us and make your appeal to us and
we will take action on those. Then we will go ahead to approve plans and specifications for Coulter
33
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Boulevard, which I know won't take very long. And then we'll come back and do the second half of the
Board of Review and Equalization after that.
Councilman Senn: In your timeframe I'm not sure of that. You said 15 minutes on the last one and it ended
up being an hour.
Mayor Mancino: With that, anyone wishing to address us. Board of Review and Equalization, final
action. We now have, as you remember from the last meeting if you were here, we didn't have any
information on your appeal. We have that now so if you could not only give us your name, but your PID
number, that would be helpful and give us just a few minutes to get up to find your records and have that in
front of us as you speak because we have gone through these and made our own notes about them. So
again, anyone wishing to come up now and address the City Council, just give us your name, your PID
number and give us a minute to get up your records. Thank you. And then we'll make a motion after
everyone gets up.
Councilman Senn: Let's act on each one as they get up to speak.
Mayor Mancino: That's a good idea. I think we'll vote on each one as you get up. That's a good idea.
Keith Gunderson: Madam Mayor, Council. I've got some paperwork here.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Keith Gunderson: My name's Keith Gunderson. Address is 6660 Lotus Trail. Excuse me, I've got to get
closer. I can't see anymore.
Mayor Mancino: And you are number 23 on our list. Just thought I'd tell you so councilmembers.
Keith Gunderson: Okay, PID number is R25.1600620. Okay when the assessor walked through our house
it was only 2 x 4 construction interior, 2 x 4 construction interior walls. No bathrooms. No kitchens. No
deck. No driveway. In fact it wasn't lived in. We never were informed that the tax assessment for 1998
was based on a partial tax at $161,700.00. In 1997, previous year taxes, our taxes were $44,000.00. I
figured with the $10,000.00 in the foundation work, $25,000.00 in building materials for a total of
$79,000.00, which I feel they should have been for 1998. I would like to know the procedure or what, who
to talk to to reduce our current assessments also of $222,600.00. Also talk to somebody about 1998 taxes.
Comparable property in the immediate areas are 6680 Lotus Trail at $189,800. That's up 4.5%. 6640
Lotus Trail at $67,800.00 is up 2%. This house would easily sell for $125,000.00. 6600 Lotus Trail is
$175,700. This is up 10% because of an addition and over sized double garage that was just added. His
house is all but new at 3,588 square feet is bigger than our home. The address is Lotus Trail but the road
is grown over with grass and the actual driveway comes off of Mohawk to the new garage. They actually
have lakeshore in front of them with no road. 6728 Lotus Trail is $181,900. Up 10%. Because of the sale
last year. This house was purchased at $238,000.00 and additional land was purchased also. At over
2,500 square feet, why is this property only assessed at $181,9007 This property has more land than we
do. 6940 Lotus Trail. $175,600. It's up 8% because of many improvements. The house is on an asphalt
road and a comer lot. It is also for sale at this time for $235,000.00. 6699 Mohawk Drive is $162,100.
Up again 2%. This house is only one house away from us. 850 Western Drive, $172,900. Up 10%
because this is a new home last year. This is just up the hill from ours. 429 Pleasant View Road at
$295,000.00 and 6695 Horseshoe Curve, $185,400. Up 6%. These are lakeshore lots on Lake Lotus.
34
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Northeast end of the lake. It seems we have been assessed as if we were lakeshore property. The
comparable homes in the Lake Susan Hills area. These homes are adjacent to Lake Susan. 930 Lake
Susan Hills Drive, 3,950 square feet. Assessed at $271,000. It's up 3%. 751 Lake Susan Hills Drive,
3,634 square feet. $212,500. Up 3%. 761 Lake Susan Hills Drive. 3,681 square feet. $216,300. Up
3%. 880 Lake Susan Hills Drive. 4,146 square feet at $258,200. Is up 3%. 1010 Lake Susan Hills Drive.
3,720 square feet. $217,200. Is up 3%. 1030 Lake Susan Hills Drive. 3,746 square feet at $221,700. Is
up 3%. 940 Lake Susan Hills Drive at 3,085 square feet. $239,000.00 is up 3%. This last home is now
for sale for $345,000.00 and I've got pictures in the back. Apex A and the listing for the real estate. All
these homes are much bigger than ours and are adjacent to Lake Susan. They were all built in 1995 and
were partially assessed at $35,000.00 and in 1996 reassessed at 3% less than 1999 appraisals. So for 3
years there have basically been no increases. On the lake side they have an asphalt walking path and they
have a finished asphalt road in front in addition, the entire area has street lights, concrete curbs, and
sidewalks. This is a finished community and homes are selling for in excess of $350,000.00. All the
homes checked on Lake Susan Hills Drive have not increased in three years. With a first year partial tax in
1995 of $35,000.00. My question that I raise here is, why our house partially assessed at so high, at
$161,700.00 in 1998 and 38% more at $222,600.00 for 1999. When all these homes in Lake Susan Hills
stayed the same for three tax years. 1996, 1997, and 1998 and then only a 3% increase in 1999. I have
comparable prices from the Greenwood Shores and Utica Lane areas because the assessors talked about the
view we have. From what I understand the view is part of the formula. I would like to know the dollar
value that has been put on this view because in Greenwood Shores, on Tecumseh Lane overlooking Lake
Ann and Lake Lucy I have found these prices. 6980 Tecumseh Lane. $129,900.00 with 0% increase.
6986 Tecumseh Lane at $128,100. 2% increase. 6990 Tecumseh Lane. $183,500. This is a new home.
Again no increase. 6996 Tecumseh Lane, $162,800.00 at 1.3% increase .... 50 Utica Lane. $107,800.
Less than 1% increase. 7146 Utica Lane. $108,000.00. 1.3% increase. 7140 Utica Lane. $111,200.
1.8% increase. We believe the assessed value on our home should be reduced because this is an old
neighborhood with old homes, old roads. Lotus Trail is a gravel road and very dusty. My driveway enters
from Mohawk and goes up the drainageway which they recently named Violet, which you can't get up in
the wintertime if it snows. On the park side, we put up with a public dock, public canoe rack, public picnic
table. An unmaintained shoreline with noxious weeds and dandelions that look very bad. Because the
shoreline is not maintained, people walk by with their dogs defecating in our front of our home. We also
have a pump station 100 feet away that is constantly being worked on and is very noisy. Later this year
we're supposed to be getting a holding pond, it will be next to this pump station and for a better word, it
will be a sump. We do not have lakeshore rights. We do not have asphalt roads. We do not have concrete
curbs or sidewalks and we do not have street lights. It seems we are being assessed if we had all these in
our area. In closing I'd like to say I think we're being assessed like we own lakeshore and we do not. And
why is Carver Beach area being targeted by the assessor? I base this fact that the Board of Review
complaints from the immediate area are 39% of the households. We have been to two meetings so far.
Talked to the assessors several times and still don't understand the formula or how they get an individual
assessment. I think the formula should be revised to something people can understand. The comparable
home prices we have listed in this letter are not selectively picked. We did not discriminate in the selection
of the home values and we did not find any homes assessed to 80% of the value of our home like the
assessors say they are trying to get to. We are not asking for any special treatment. Just treat us like
everyone else, especially like the homes in Lake Susan Hill Drive with the low parcel tax and three years
with no increase. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Steve.
35
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Councilman Berquist: Mr. Gunderson, you mentioned before that you were being assessed at $222,600.
The assessor is recommending that it be dropped to $215,600 according to our documentation. You're
aware of that?
Keith Gunderson: Yes.
Councilman Berquist: And in your opinion is that a reasonable figure for what the value of your house is?
Keith Gunderson. No. No I do not.
Councilman Berquist: Without getting into a long explanation, if you would put it on the market, what
would do you feel that house is worth? Given where it's at and the, what you've got into it and what not.
Keith Gunderson: Well I contracted this home and I built it at $125,000 into it as far as what I built it for.
But this is not what I'm trying to get at. What I'm trying to get at through these comparables here is how
far off the assessments are from other homes.
Councilman Berquist: I'm not disputing that. I'm not arguing. I think this is all extremely good
information and you've done an tremendous amount of work and I certainly am grateful for that. The
information that is here is certainly going to allow us to ask, allow me to ask some good questions of the
assessors to find out exactly how they come up with some of these numbers. Because quite honestly I went
through all 112 and I did basically similar to what you've done. Figured out increases and looked for
anomalies and what you're saying is that there's an inherent unfairness in the process. Boy, that's not
news to me I'm afraid. I understand that. What I can deal with now is what your value is and what you're
being assessed at. That's the reason for my question.
Keith Gunderson: And it was, as far as what I'd put the house on for the market right now?
Councilman Berquist: If the State of Minnesota said we're trying to assess that between 85% and 100% of
market value, what's your estimated market value? In your own mind.
Keith Gunderson: I'd have to go with the house in the area. I know my next door neighbor's was bought
about 4 years ago at $165,000. My being a new home I would imagine it's going to be obviously a little bit
more than that because we're the same square footage. So you could probably add a good $20,000.00 to
that for sure.
Councilman Berquist: You feel $185 is a fairly accurate representation?
Keith Gunderson: I think in the years to come, I think that would be a fair market value but what I want to
talk to somebody is about my '98 taxes because again like I say, the house wasn't even lived in for a partial
year and I was not, there is nothing on this, on the back sheet here. I think everybody's got this back sheet
but this is my taxes that I will pay for '98.
Councilman Berquist: You pay ~98's assessed value '97.
Keith Gunderson: Right. There's nothing in here that said.
36
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Councilman Senn: Wait, wait, wait. Whoops, that's wrong. No, no. What you're talking about here is
the valuation on the property January 1, 1998.
Councilman Berquist: But he's talking what he's paying this year.
Councilman Senn: I understand that but you've got to keep, all we're dealing with tonight if your value
January 1, 1998 for taxes payable in 1999.
Keith Gunderson: Okay, and I also want to talk to somebody about '98.
Councilman Senn: You need to talk to the assessor about that. This council can do nothing about that.
Keith Gunderson: Okay, that's the answer then.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Ann, can we ask you some questions? Are you going to sit forward or? It
would be helpful. Did you get the sheet that Mr. Gunderson handed out?
Keith Gunderson: No.
Mayor Mancino: Oh, could you give?
Keith Gunderson: I'd like to get that back. It's the last one that I have.
Ann Wyse: Do you want me to just comment, is that it?
Mayor Mancino: Yeah. I mean I know that you have just received this and haven't been able to review it
at all.
Ann Wyse: Well basically what we do is every 4 years we reappraise a neighborhood. This year I did
Carver Beach.
Mayor Mancino: So the whole area?
Ann Wyse: The whole, all of Carver Beach so when I do that then some properties may go up 2%, as he
said. Some may go up 10%. Some may go up 20%. I'm trying to equalize values. That was what I've
tried to do. This is a new house. It's quite large. I can't remember the exact square feet... One story
walkout basement, vaulted ceiling. The basement is virtually all finished. The land value I have at
$40,000. Which I think is reasonable for it's location. So that's why some properties went up more than
others along his street. And the areas that they don't reappraise.., and then we determine trending factor
that we need for the whole neighborhood. So in that area of Lake Susan Hills, you know they would have
all gone up 3% because that's what our sales showed we needed to increase the values. And the new
construction value was based on a visit by, actually it was by Craig right at the beginning of last year. And
we do a percent complete and estimate you know a partial value. So this year it was the full value and that
was the new construction value that you saw.., between last year's value and the value that I felt it was
worth this year. Fully complete.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions? Don, do you have any recommendations?
37
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Don Ashworth: Well, I congratulate the owner for going through such detail work. I think he's got a
number of comparisons in there that should be looked at very extensively. Unfortunately the process
started you know a month and a half ago. I think if this could have been presented to the assessor's office a
month and a half ago, we might have even a different recommendation or the Council would have had the
opportunity to go through each of these sheets themselves. I don't, you know maybe you think you might
be able to get through it but if we have others like this, and this one, I would recommend that you pass this
on to the County Board along with the detail work that he has completed and you ask the County Board to
review the statistics that he has presented and to make an adjustment depending on how they view the thing.
I just, you might be here for the rest of the night just on this one parcel and you've got 112 of them to do.
Councilman Senn: Well I don't particularly like that approach because I went around and looked at every
112 of them and did my research on them so I guess I think the Council should be prepared to do something
if they want to do something.
Don Ashworth: And I surely, I'm just saying if you're going to be basing your, whatever you do on the
information he handed out this evening, I think you're going to have a difficult time doing that.
Councilman Senn: Well I would move a valuation of $186,600.00 on this one.
Councilman Mason: Based on?
Councilman Senn: Based on comparables in the area as well as comparables throughout the city that have
also been looked at. Comparisons with appraisals that have been furnished by like houses, etc.
Councilman Berquist: I'll second.
Mayor Mancino: Is that a motion?
Councilman Senn: It was.
Mayor Mancino: $186,600. Okay.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to set the Estimated Market Value for
Keith Gunderson, 6660 Lotus Trail, PID# 25.1600620 at $186,600.00. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Mayor Mancino: We'll pass this onto the County Commissioners and then they will review it. Anyone else
wishing to address the City Council?
Carolyn Barinsky: Good evening. I'm Carolyn Barinsky, 8731 Audubon Road. My PID number is
25.0220500. At your past meeting my husband, Doug Barinsky would have addressed you and I believe
you received a letter from him also. He is unable to be here tonight so I am speaking. What we are
concerned about is the proposal to remove our green acres. We own 11 acres on Audubon Road. One of
the four Chaska brick houses on that road. The assessor's office is questioning our status for green acres.
Under green acres, the statute of green acres we do meet what they require as far as acreage and
agricultural income. We do meet the state statute. The assessor's office has said that our primary purpose
is residential. I have a house on my property and it was built in 1890 and somebody has lived in it since it
was built and if I go out to western Carver County and find farms with 200 acres, they most likely are
38
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
living on that land too. And so yes, for one acre that my house is on it is my home. I do live there. But I
question whether the other 10 acres is primary residential. If you went out there now and saw the corn and
beans coming up, you could argue with them that I'm not living on their land. It's the corn and the beans.
And if you look at the deer that are coming up and nibbling those bean sprouts that are coming through and
the pheasants that are working at the corn seeds, I'm not living on that land. I'm living in a house with one
acre. So that is my concern that I still do farm that land. I still do use it in the same purpose that it was
used in 1890. I still do use it in the same purpose that we used it in 1987 when we bought the property and
the county didn't question our green acres at that point. They are questioning it now. My question is,
where does the comparison from Chanhassen in green acres to western Carver County in green acres. Are
we being discriminated against because of eastern Carver County. My other question is, as my green acres
are removed, it's very evident that my taxes will increase. My old historic house I love very dearly but it is
not what I would call conducive to paying high taxes on. That would come to paying those kind of taxes in
removal of my green acres. So removing the green acres is in effect forcing eventually for development of
that 11 acres which we really do not care to do. We also question whether the assessor has the right to
determine whether they can interpret the law to remove my green acres when in reality I do meet the
requirements in the green acres.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. I don't have any questions. Does anyone have any questions for Carolyn?
Councilman Berquist: No, not for Carolyn.
Mayor Mancino: Thanks. Craig, are you the one that reviewed this? Then let me just ask a couple
questions. The classification is changing from homestead agricultural to?
Ann Wyse: Residential homestead.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. That agricultural to residential homestead. Thank you. A couple questions I've
got. The change has just taken place that your deciding is going to take place. Why is it? I mean all these
years you've seen it as agricultural homestead and they haven't changed anything. If they haven't changed
anything, why are you seeing it differently?
Ann Wyse: Well periodically we review agricultural properties and I also, this was the year that I reviewed
that area also. Reappraised the whole area, but the interpretation of the law changes, the court cases. Now
I included you know the summary of the court cases and I think that although they are still farming the
land, the court cases show that you have to have substantial use and it has to be 10 acres of tillable land
you know predominantly agricultural. That's my understanding here. It's land that's, there are
approximately 6 acres that are tilled and there's pasture land and then the buildings are probably on, well
it's over 1 acre. The house is, it's the original farmhouse but it has been remodeled and it has an addition
on it. But the basic thing is the amount of agricultural land in an area that is, granted there's a lot of
pressure for development and.., force them to develop, that would be too bad. I agree but the law does state
that you know the protection of green acres and the agricultural class is for farmland. Really to protect
farmers who are farming their land...
Mayor Mancino: But the requirements haven't changed as far as 10 acres, right? That's always been that
way since 1987. I mean that's not a new interpretation or new addition to the law, correct?
Ann Wyse: Correct, yeah. But the court cases.
39
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And on other land which is, I know where I live on the comer of Galpin and TH 5
is agricultural, the classification and nobody's tilling that land. It's not used for agricultural purposes and
yet it still has an agricultural classification and I know you've got.., changed your mind a few years ago.
So I'm trying to get comparables. I can't understand what you're keeping as agricultural and what you're
changing to residential because I'm going around and I'm seeing other land which is classified agricultural
but it's not being farmed.
Ann Wyse: ... farmed. If they're large acreage tracts.
Mayor Mancino: It's approximately 10 to 13 acres that's up for sale right now.
AnnWyse: 10 acres?
Mayor Mancino: 13.
Orlin Shafer: The classification issue is an annual thing and we do review those parcels. Most often when
we review them in the quartile process. However there are times when we will review all small tracts in a
jurisdiction, or several jurisdictions. Now this year it happened to be in that quartile process. Normally we
use the criteria of the statute which calls for a meaningful agricultural pursuit. One that would further the
needs and the benefits of agricultural and the economy as such in the state. Now agricultural plays a
relatively very small part in the scheme of things on this parcel, like it does on many other parcels. And a
law was written in the last session, not the special session but the regular session that provided for
agricultural class to be given a split class. Residential and agricultural in which we could take small tracts.
If they had contiguous 10 acres of agricultural land, or used for agricultural purposes and classify that as
agricultural. Take the home and the site area and classify that as residential. Now the green acres is a
subchapter to the agricultural classification. In order to get green acre classification you first must have
agricultural. That's right. And the statement that you made Mayor about parcels of ground not being
utilized, simply lying there vacant, I really don't know of any in Chanhassen that are that way. There
might very well be. We try to check them annually to see that they are being utilized.
Mayor Mancino: This one's never been. In the last.
Orlin Shafer: Was it part of a larger farm operation at one point? I can't address it if I don't know which
parcel it is.
Mayor Mancino: Well I'm just, I have some concerns for the capriciousness of the judgment of what is
agricultural and what is homestead land.., seeming to be very subjective to me.
Orlin Shafer: What we sometimes do and I think you and I had this chat privately. When we see enormous
economic pressure being brought on these small parcels, the benefit to the homeowner or the property
owner is to move these from agricultural to residential in such a fashion so that the property will not
continue to carry an extremely high market value which is an agricultural value. Running somewhere in
excess of $30,000.00 an acre. Or in that neighborhood. And on their own volition then subdivide it or
choose to sell it and have a payback of the tax difference which can be sizeable. When you're looking at a
green acres value of $1,500.00 to $2,500.00 an acre and market value of $25,000.00 to $30,000.00 an
acre. So we tend to try to move that without a payback. Move the green acres class and move the value
down to a 3 to a 5 year period. To something that represents a large residential tract. Not looking at the
possibility ofmega lots on that large residential tract but simply how that individual owner is using that
40
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
tract at that point in time as residential. We know that many tracts can be further subdivided. We know
that they could make many lots off their excess land and they could make many dollars.
Mayor Mancino: It also forces that. Any other questions?
Councilman Senn: I would like to move that the local Board of Review leave this property classified as
homestead ag and that a market value be established at $250,900.00 and that the assessor determine the
green acres value of the property and furnish that to the homeowner. That is based on this Council's as
well as all previous Council's determination that it is in our best interest and we want to make our best
effort to maintain agricultural property so long as the existing owners want to and wish to maintain those
agricultural homesteads for agricultural use and is also based on again resulting land sales and values in the
area in relationship to this particular piece of property.
Councilman Berquist: Second.
Mayor Mancino: I just have one question. Is this Council already looked at and agreeing to, with...
Councilman Senn: Yes.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to set the Estimated Market Value for Doug
and Carolyn Barinsky, PID# 25.0220500 at $250,900.00 and that the assessor determine the green
acres value of the property and furnish that to the homeowner. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Mayor Mancino: When will that go to the County?
Don Ashworth: I don't know. Orlin should know.
Mayor Mancino: Orlin, when will this go in front of the County?
Orlin Shafer: Go in front of the commissioners?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Orlin Shafer: It won't.
Mayor Mancino: Sure, they review.
Orlin Shafer: Not unless the individual property owner brings it to the County.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And when is that regardless?
Orlin Shafer: June 19th.
Mayor Mancino: June 19th? Okay.
Orlin Shafer: June 18th.
41
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Mayor Mancino: June 18th, thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Council?
Gayle Degler: My name is Gayle Degler and along with my wife and I'm also representing my parents,
Dean and Lois Degler. As I mentioned at the last meeting, what our concern has to do with is the estimated
market value that has been placed upon the properties. As you can see, what I've tried to point out here is
what the estimated market value was in 1998 and how they increased this for my folks 296% and for
myself and my wife they increased it 228%. When we first received the notice from the county, my wife
and I went in to talk to the assessor and we visited with Ann. She was very good in giving us some helpful
information and I asked you know where does this increase in estimated market value come from and she
explained how Chanhassen has experienced tremendous growth and development and I of course
acknowledged that and I said, what's that have to do with our property. And she said well, what you can
do with your property is subdivide it into 2 1/2 acre lots. At that time I said I don't think that's feasible. I
don't think Chanhassen allows for 2 1/2 acre lots but she assured me that that way we could maximize the
value of our property. Well, I went home and made a phone call to the City Hall and tried to get a hold of
Kate but she was busy at the time so I talked to the Assistant City Planner, Bob Generous and he informed
me, as I already figured, that Chanhassen, you could only subdivide 1 per 10. And as we talked further he
acknowledged that Chanhassen would rather not take this undeveloped land and subdivide it into 1 per 10
because of the comprehensive plan. It's outside the MUSA line at this point. And as we continued the
conversation, I said has anybody else called and talked about this development and he said yeah, within the
last hour he had received a call from the courthouse and Ann had just before me called and tried, or talked
to Bob as far as what were the rules and the laws in Chanhassen and Bob of course informed her what our
regulations were. So my point number one is, I think the original estimated market value for 1999 was
based on some false information. I think the assessor at that time thought that we could subdivide this into
2 1/2 acre lots. So putting the two together, between my folks and myself, we could have subdivided into 59
lots where in actuality 1 per 10, we can only get 14 lots. After the...I think it was last Monday when we
had the meeting, the Council had said that the assessor should relook at this and talk to us. Well we
returned her call and we went down and visited with her and I asked what are some comparables. Are there
any land on the market that compares with this? You know where did you get these figures and she gave
me a list of about 5 different properties and I want to go through them and basically.., a couple other
properties she mentioned were... Lyman Boulevard that Lundgren Brothers purchased. Obviously
Lundgren Brothers are developing this property just west of Lake Riley. It's also in the MUSA line. It's
also you know obviously has city services and I don't feel because of that reason that those two properties
are comparable to ours because obviously ours lies outside the MUSA line and the City does not project the
MUSA line to move for another 5 to 8 years. Two other parcels that she mentioned. One was valued at
$13,000.00 and the other was valued at about $67,000.00 per acre. They both lie in the MUSA line.
They're both within the right-of-way of 212 and the purchasers of those property is the City of
Chanhassen. So there again I don't think those two parcels were comparable to our piece. I think you have
obviously a couple different options. The one option is to stick with the estimated value that the assessor
assigned to these parcels but I think what that does is encouraging us to develop these parcels to maximize
their value according to her plan which is subdividing it into 1 per 10 and I think if we would come in with
a plan to subdivide these in 1 per 10, what it would do is throw out your comprehensive plan for the future
for when the MUSA line does move, you're going to throw a big wrench in that. Obviously these parcels
have some residential planned for it. Some city parks planned for it and also come commercial and also
industrial property planned for this and if we put 14 houses on that property now, in 5 to 8 years when the
MUSA line might be moved, it's going to be real difficult for your comprehensive plan to fit in. So rather I
would encourage you to make a strong statement and say, try to keep this open parcel as open land until the
MUSA line does move and then it would show the estimated market value at it's true value. If you have
any questions, I'd be happy.
42
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Mayor Mancino: Any questions for Gayle?
Ann Wyse: ... at that value because I thought you could develop at 2 ½ you know.
Gayle Degler: AT the first meeting that was the only reason you gave my wife and myself.
Ann Wyse: Okay. But that wasn't a reason that I valued it at that. The reason I valued it at that, at
$10,000.00 an acre is because we are by law supposed to value land at market. And this again was in a
reappraisal area. An area I looked at the land value of the surrounding area and it is my understanding,
after talking to the people, the staff at the City of Chanhassen, that if they wanted to buy this land, I mean
they've been trying to buy land in that area and they can't get it for $10,000.00 an acre. The owners want
something more. Much more so I mean I'm by law am supposed to value at market value. Now the green
acres law allows Mr. Degler and other farmers to continue farming because they pay taxes on their green
acre value which is based on a price of agricultural land in areas outside of the metro area so it's actual
agricultural value. That's just to allow.., farming in a metropolitan area where there is pressure from other
you know forces for future development. I mean somebody would buy that for speculation knowing that
down the road maybe, from what I understand is the year 2005 approximately, whenever this would be.
Mayor Mancino: ... we haven't decided that.
Ann Wyse: And the MUSA line and so then that land of course would be worth a lot of money. One point,
I lived in Medina and there was a farmer there, a dairy farmer who owned, I mean they made their living
farming and their land is now Baker Park and they sold their land and bought two beautiful farms in
Glencoe. That's just one example of what can happen. I don't, you know I'm not advocating that to you
but I'm just saying that is one example of what can happen in an area where there is pressure. But by law I
am supposed to assess at market value and I think $10,000.00 is a reasonable value for that land.
Gayle Degler: A comment as to why the city can't buy some property. I think some people would rather, I
don't care what the price is, they'd rather not see a trail go right through their front yard. I mean sure,
$10,000.00 sounds like a lot of money but if you want the trail there, then maybe you'll sell. Somebody
else might not want the trail there no matter what the price is so I don't think that's a very real reasonable
argument. Obviously we are protected by the green acres for our taxes at this point. The City is not going
to be gain or lose any taxes on this estimated market value. But like the assessor mentioned, the payback at
the end, when we do finally sell, is a tremendous price. If the estimated market value gets so high
compared to the green acres and that's why it's very important for me to keep that estimated market value
down. At this point, like I say, it's not costing the city anything. It's not gaining the city anything by
raising it at this point. In the future obviously when the land is better utilized, better is kind of a, you know
depending upon how you look at it.
Councilman Mason: Different utilization, right. Then obviously the market value will be there and
obviously the taxes will correspond to it but at this point the market value is, in my point of view, way out
of line.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any discussion from Council? Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: I would move that we, the local Board of Review establish the value on parcel 11 of
$487,000.00 and parcel 12 of $503,500.00. No comments or problems with the green acres valuation.
43
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
And in doing so, we are in keeping with trying to encourage the ongoing agricultural use on the property.
However we are over a period of time, I know the next several years, going to effectively have to move
towards equalizing the value mark to where they are appropriate. No doubt that the current value is low.
In my mind there's no doubt that the assessor's value is on the outside so I'm looking at a phased approach.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, is there a second?
Councilman Berquist: Can you explain to me how you got those numbers?
Councilman Engel: Yeah, give me that too.
Councilman Senn: Basically looking at effectively.
Mayor Mancino: What's the value.., per acre?
Councilman Senn: Effectively the per acre. Let's see, one I had it at, I hope I didn't get my, let's see here.
It was using about $7,000.00 per acre ifI remember right. It's right around there. That was assuming
again outside the MUSA line. Long term in terms of being brought into the MUSA line and again an
equalization that needs to start occurring. I mean that is a pretty substantial increase if you look at the
current values at $248.
Councilman Berquist: I don't disagree with that. I want to know the methodology before I.
Mayor Mancino: And you're aware that parcels outside the MUSA line in this area who we have contacted
in buying open space from our park referendum.
Councilman Senn: Are asking higher amounts, correct.
Mayor Mancino: $32,000.00 an acre.
Councilman Senn: Whether you're going to pay it, I guess that's a separate decision. That doesn't
necessarily mean that's the true value of the property.
Mayor Mancino: And have you seen appraisals that have been done on those properties?
Councilman Senn: Appraisals in the area. But again, I don't want to not underlying the other issue here.
Mayor Mancino: But green acres still stays there.
Councilman Senn: I know it does but at the same time there's a catch-22 in this. The catch-22 is if you
escalate the land values, under the market value too rapidly, too quickly and leave the green acres value
alone, you're still going to force the sale of the property and take out agricultural use. Because they cannot
afford to hit effectively caused by the green acres equation is going back to 3 years upon sale. So what I'm
saying is if you do it too quickly, too rapidly you're going to put them in a position where they have no
choice but to sell the property right now and take it out of agricultural use.
Orlin Shafer: So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that because we're driving the estimated
market value up, it's going to cause the property owner that is on green acres a problem.
44
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Councilman Senn: Yes. It will.
Orlin Shafer: In what way? Sorry, I didn't understand that.
Councilman Senn: Under green acres, okay. At the point he was under green acres is the point he sells the
property, you go back 3 years.
Orlin Shafer: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay. If we escalate that value too quickly, and too high, it's going to tell that person,
if he wants to be able to even afford to make those payments he'd better sell now and take it out of
agricultural use. Because he will not be able to afford to make up the difference later. It's that simple.
Orlin Shafer: I beg to differ with that. We have a property east of TH 41 in the City of Chanhassen that
was sold and we had it valued at $7,500.00 and acre I believe and they sold it for $20,000.00. And they
turned around and bought another farm for $2,500.00 an acre.
Councilman Senn: Orlin, I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying.
Orlin Shafer: No, what I'm saying is, if you sell the property for what we're projecting for, he dam well
can afford to pay the back taxes that you have enjoyed at the expense of all the other taxpayers in the
community.
Councilman Senn: The point is, we are not at this point trying to encourage the change in use or the sale of
the property.
Orlin Shafer: This value will not do that. They're protected by the green acres. They're paying tax on
$106,600.00 in land value. That's what he'll be paying tax on until we change that low land value. And
that is not being done in the foreseeable future because we must base that low land value on an area out in
Meeker County, McLeod County and Renville County. So that is ag land out there. That's not ag land
here in Chanhassen. That $106,000.00 is not really a realistic figure at all. It's a benefit that a true farmer
gets under the green acre statute and that's what I alluded to before. The green acre statute is made to keep
farmers like Gayle in business. That's what it's there for. The penalties he pays is the three year payback
that he enjoys for low taxes for as long as he wants to hang on.
Councilman Senn: I understand but let me just pose the question back to you, okay. You don't feel that
effectively tripling his penalty all at once here in one year, okay, is not going to send him a message nor
almost tell him he'd better sell now because his penalties only going to not only triple this year but maybe
even triple next year and he's going to get to a point that he can't afford that penalty regardless of what he
sells the property at. I mean you're not talking about.
Orlin Shafer: ...no, I realize that but either is he. He very knows it. He stated it himself. That it's a
realistic number when he comes to sell. He's not intending to sell.
Councilman Senn: And we're not trying to encourage him to sell, that's...
45
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Orlin Shafer: We do this across the county. It's not just Mr. Degler. We've done this on all parcels.
When it's time to reconstruct the ag value schedule, we do it. And that's been a bone of contention
between the city and us for a long period of time. Your previous council for the most part wanted that land
value set at $15,000.00 an acre and we resisted that for a very long period of time and we ended up setting
it at $7,500.00 and I think that's a figure you just used. Now it is set at $10,000.00. Even though it's
outside the MUSA line. We have $7,500.00 inside the MUSA line and we were showing that that's not an
viable number because they're selling it for $20,000.00. We set the value at a third and let those people,
the neighbors then in the neighborhoods pick up the rest of the balance of the taxes? I don't know. I don't
care what you set the numbers at... quite frankly.
Councilman Senn: No, I understand but let me start drawing some comparisons.
Orlin Shafer: But I see only one person speaking here for his ag land value but we've got another 18,000
residents in this community that have to pay taxes. So before you start giving just one person, or one entity
a lot of breaks, you should probably consider all the rest of the community.
Councilman Senn: No, but I've looked at some of the others okay, and let me draw some comparisons and
I'm just curious what you think about these comparisons okay. Lets take a property that's not ag, okay.
Let's take a property that's also outside the MUSA line and has substantial acreage to it. Okay. Which
you have valued at $96,500.00 total value. Which has far more natural features to it and better natural
features which would enhance it's value.
Orlin Shafer: Which property are you speaking of?
Councilman Senn: Number 14 which is basically the seminary fen property. Now how can you value that
property at $96,500.?
Orlin Shafer: They paid more than that for the property.
Councilman Senn: But that's immaterial. Okay. How can you value that property on that basis, outside
the MUSA line, you know. It has commercial access, okay. On top of having commercial access it has
natural features that Mr. Degler's property will never see. Okay. And you want to escalate Mr. Degler's
property to $10,000.00 per acre yet you're valuing this one at a fraction.
Orlin Shafer: I think what happened here if you have a value that's set and we don't increase values at
these meetings, although you could if you wanted to. But we don't.
Councilman Senn: Well I've got a note on that one to consider it.
Orlin Shafer: What happened is they lost the buildings. They lost the buildings so we subtracted the
building value.
Councilman Senn: But all we're talking about in this case is land value too is Mr. Degler. I mean what he
has there has no value other than the land.
Orlin Shafer: That's true.
46
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Ann Wyse: This land is in an area of Chanhassen that's probably one of the last areas that will be in the
MUSA, and that affects the value.
Councilman Senn: I understand that but you're splitting hairs and we don't know that decision. Right now
2005 versus 2010 and that could change any week.
Ann Wyse: And there are springs on that property that are protected so that the development possibilities
are very limited.
Councilman Senn: Oh, I understand that but they also enhance the value of the property. People pay a lot
more money to get.
Orlin Shafer: They do. Depending on the use that you want, you're right Councilman Senn. That's
correct.
Councilman Senn: That's not the only example but if you look at other ones through here you find the
same discrepancies which means why should we be taking this one leaps and bounds in one year and not
taking the others in leaps and bounds in the same year?
Orlin Shafer: There are other properties out here that went through this same thing that aren't here. Aren't
in this listing at all. I mean Mr. Degler is not the only farmer we have in Chanhassen and he's not the only
one outside the MUSA line. So they're not all represented in this little packet that we handed out.
Gayle Degler: Could I comment on why some of them aren't up? Because I can list about 5 of them that
have 212 right-of-way going through and they were valued at half of my value supposedly because that was
a detriment.., knows that the City paid $67,000.00 an acres for right-of-way land. How is that a detriment
to a piece of property?
Orlin Shafer: I did not value those farms. I don't know who did.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, let's bring this back into Council. Thank you. Okay, there is a motion on the
floor to, would you please repeat it Councilman Senn and then it is for specifically.
Councilman Senn: Okay, my motion was on parcel 11, to leave the green acres value where it is with the
adjusted regular market value at $487,000.00. On parcel 12 it was to leave green acres value where it is
and to adjust the overall market value at $503,500.00.
Mayor Mancino: And I just have one more question. What has...take the land value on 12 from
$132,000.00 to $560,000.00 versus the 800?
Councilman Senn: No. Let me clarify that. It takes the existing value on 11 from $248,200.00 to
$487,000.00 and it takes the existing value on 12 of $392,900.00 to $503,500.00. The green acres value
on 11 is $106,600.00 and green acres value on 12 is $132,200.00 which are both the basis for how they're
taxed.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, is there a second?
Councilman Engel: I'll second it.
47
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to set the Estimated Market Value for Dean &
Lois Degler, PID# 25.0220800 at $487,000.00 with a green acres value at $106,600.00. And also to
set the Estimated Market Value for Gayle Degler, PID# 25.0221400 at $503,500.00 with a green
acres value at $132,200.00. Councilman Senn and Councilman Engel voted in favor. Mayor
Mancino and Councilman Berquist voted in opposition. Councilman Mason abstained. The motion
failed.
Councilman Berquist: ... can't understand the methodology, I can't .... Conceptually I understand what
he's doing but I need to understand...
Mayor Mancino: So is that a 3 to 2 vote?
Councilman Mason: I didn't vote. I abstained.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, so it's a 2 to 2 vote. Roger...
Roger Knutson: You need a simple majority but you don't have it.
Mayor Mancino: So it stays as is and.
Councilman Senn: Well, or somebody else forwards another motion.
Councilman Berquist: Well I, no. I really don't. I mean this is an area that I'm far from being an expert
on and your penalty with regards to green acres, I understand I think what Mark is saying. On the other
hand over the course of 3 years, if in fact after 3 years the property was fully assessed and 3 years from
then the landowner chose to sell, what we did in stating the land values would have no bearing on that, is
that correct? Am I thinking of this conceptually correct?
Orlin Shafer: Yes. If he held the property another 3 years, if you stepped it in as Mark is suggesting. At
the end of 3 years what the property owner basically is responsible for is to pay the difference in taxes of
what the green acres value was that he actually paid taxes on and the estimated market value of what he
could have paid taxes on. So the payback is for a 3 year period. It's current year and two previous years.
So if he holds it 5 years, then we will be at market if we step it up in three stages. So he'll have a three
year payback of a high value. Whichever way it works out. It really doesn't make any difference to us.
What we were trying to do is equalize those values and maintain a semblance between the process.
Councilman Senn: So am I. I don't disagree. I am too.
Councilman Berquist: And I'm trying to think of this in a broader perspective than just the Degler's. If I
look at it carefully, perhaps the Degler's and a couple of others would be the only landowners in
Chanhassen that would be affected but I don't honestly know that to be absolutely certain.
Ann Wyse: ...
Councilman Berquist: Right. I understand that.
Mayor Mancino: The motion doesn't pass. Anyone else wishing to come in front of the Council?
48
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Councilman Senn: So there's no new motions then?
Mayor Mancino: No.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Could I just ask one other question before we leave the green acres issue,
because it's going to surface again? Because I would like us all to understand it better. On parcel 73,
which is also a green acres parcel. Okay. We're jumping, the assessor's suggesting that we change the
regular market value from $355,200.00 up to $1,023,200.00. Okay. But yeah, okay. And in addition to
that, so green acres value is going from last year's green acre value of 84 5 to a new green acres value of
54 6.
Ann Wyse: Do you want me to answer that?
Councilman Senn: Yeah. That's what I'm trying to get, that I want them to understand the question so,
okay?
Ann Wyse: Well in reviewing that parcel we, we start with our mapper. We've got a pretty good idea of
how much wetlands were involved. How many acres and how many tillable then. The green acres value is
based on tillable land so I recommended adjusting the value, the green acre value down because we had
estimated tillable land too high. However, I still feel that the market value...
Mayor Mancino: You still feel that what?
Ann Wyse: Pardon?
Mayor Mancino: But you still feel that what? The market value.
Ann Wyse: The market value at $15,000.00 an acre.
Councilman Senn: Even though those wetlands aren't developable?
Ann Wyse: Pardon?
Councilman Senn: Even though those same wetlands are not developable.
Ann Wyse: Right. There's a lot of that enhances the property. Right across, you have a map there and it
shows the Meadows at Longacres right above that and there's a lot of wetlands in that and that is...
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Jay Dolejsi: My name is Jay Dolejsi. I live at 6961 Chaparral Lane and I think you already turned to the
right page because I think you were talking about my property.
Councilman Senn: I didn't know that was you, sorry.
Jay Dolejsi: What my concern is that...
49
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Mayor Mancino: Excuse me. Could you get some help or lay it on the table so we can... The camera's
right up above you. Up on the ceiling there.
Jay Dolejsi: ...that was being used as a...home.
Mayor Mancino: Would you also give us some context to where the property is, you know like major
highways?
Jay Dolejsi: Oh. My property is, this is Highway 5 right here. And this is the Mid American Baptist
Group Home.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And to the west of you is TH 41. So we're between Galpin and TH 41...
Councilman Senn: Noah of TH 5.
Jay Dolejsi: Parcel number's R25.4530490. And here's the property that recently sold.
Mayor Mancino: The red stuff?
Jay Dolejsi: No. The part below here. That's been referred to as the Zimmerman property. And I think
that was probably the closest comparable in that it wasn't immediately in the MUSA line but will be served
shortly. I'm in the '95 study area and I guess I had no.
Mayor Mancino: What's your property guided for? Is it multi-family?
Jay Dolejsi: I believe so.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So it does meet the different... 27 acres of it is upland, buildable. Out of the 60
acres, is that correct?...
Jay Dolejsi: But the question of service to this property has never been answered. The other issue is that
along with the large wetlands, which are shown in red, the parcels of land that are left at such an irregular
shape that they will have minimal use. Further to the south there's going to be that frontage road going
through there. It also will divide the property and leave it an irregular shape. Along the east there's a
power line easement with a high tension power lines. Then some of the land is actually being used by
Highway 5.
Mayor Mancino: And they're paying you for all of that.
Jay Dolejsi: Pardon me?
Mayor Mancino: And they're going to pay you for all of that. When they upgrade the road. Their right-
of-way that they will take.
Jay Dolejsi: Well yeah, we'll work something out but still the point is, this is a real irregular shape and it is
more difficult to develop it and get the kind of usage they like out of it. My overall, the buildable land is
less than the total amount and for that reason I think it's quite a bit less than what it is being valued at
today.
50
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Councilman Berquist: That Gateway building, that is not part of this parcel? That's a completely separate
piece, is that correct?
Jay Dolejsi: That's correct.
Mayor Mancino: Can you just outline with me the...
Jay Dolejsi: It's in the black line.
Mayor Mancino: Well when you came up with... Any questions of Mr. Dolejsi at this time?
Councilman Berquist: I've got a question of the assessor. I'm sorry Mr. Dolejsi, I don't have a question
for you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. We'll ask the assessor. Any questions for the assessor? Steve?
Councilman Berquist: Okay, you've arrived at a $15,000.00 valuation on this parcel. $15,000.00 for the
entire 68 acres. I don't know what it is if you pull out. I'm comparing $15,000.00 an acre. Simplistically
I'm comparing $15,000.00 an acre to, that' s adjacent to Highway 5 zoned medium density, carrying a
valuation of $15,000.00 an acre adjacent to Highway 5 guided medium density to a valuation of... parcel
that we just looked at, the Degler piece. It's not planned, I don't know what it's comp planned for but.
Mayor Mancino: 2005.
Councilman Berquist: 2005 and they don't even get sewer and water.., value of 2/3 of the amount of land
that is medium...
Ann Wyse: This land, it's my understanding it isn't in the MUSA right now, correct? It's going to be in
within a couple years .... within the MUSA because there is a down time. And the wetlands, I mean I think
you understand where the wetlands have a density per acre, correct? For certain zoned area like 4 per acre.
If you concentrate that density on the zone that can be built on and the wetlands that.., amenities to the
property. So the fact that I put $15,000.00 on all the land and part of it is wetland.
Councilman Berquist: Compromise. That was your compromise?
Orlin Shafer: What Ann is stating basically is that a buyer would buy this. This is an outlot left over from
the Meadows at Longacres. And when a buyer buys a tract, he buys the whole thing. He buys the
wetlands, the woods, the unusable with the useable. In this case Ann would project that you would pay
$15,000.00 an acre for the whole tract. Now if we wanted to say let's value only the useable land, then
you back off and you look at the 46 acres and you raise that value to something like $25,000.00 an acre.
Across the road to the south there's land selling over $2.00 a square foot which makes $80,000.00 an acre.
None of it makes any sense when you look at a piece of ag land sitting in something else that's being
developed. It doesn't. You can put the numbers almost anywhere you want.
Councilman Senn: Well except the numbers you get by looking at medium density residential versus
industrial are very different or versus commercial or high density.
51
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Orlin Shafer: Part of the problem that we face Mark is that we're supposed to assess for what's there. Not
for what you can do with it.
Councilman Senn: No, but the guiding's there. The guiding of the property is there. It's a given. It's a
known. You don't consider that?
Orlin Shafer: At the moment it's being used for agricultural use. Yeah, we consider what would somebody
do with this property. Would they approach the Board and ask for a variance? Would they ask for the
zoning to be changed? All those things can happen. It's not locked down. Like it is just north where
they've already subdivided and already built the homes. There's a lot of unknowns on the property. That's
all.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, comments .... make the motion. This is a huge jump in one year but I do believe
that this is a right land value from what's being sold. It will be in the MUSA line, I mean it will be in the
MUSA in the next year or two and it seems appropriate to me. Is there a second to the motion? Is there
another motion?
Councilman Berquist: If we look at what's available as far as the building land, unless I'm misreading
here, it's 47 acres.
Mayor Mancino: 47 acres.
Councilman Berquist: I multiple 48.5 times $30,000.00 an acre and I come up with $1.4 million.
Mayor Mancino: So do you want to see it higher?
Councilman Berquist: Well I'm looking for some consistency here.
Councilman Senn: You're not going to find it anywhere in this. Believe me. I've done the analysis in and
out.
Mayor Mancino: I did the same thing.
Councilman Senn: Looked at this statistically and evaluated it every way you can look at it and there's no
consistency anywhere.
Mayor Mancino: So is there a motion?
Councilman Senn: Ann, that's not a negative. I mean...
Councilman Engel: I'll second.
Councilman Senn: What did you do?
Councilman Engel: I seconded the Mayor's motion.
Mayor Mancino: To stay with the assessed value from the assessor's.
52
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Mayor Mancino moved, Councilman Engel seconded to leave the Estimated Market Value at
$1,023,200.00 per the County Assessor's recommendation. Mayor Mancino and Councilman Engel
voted in favor. Councilman Senn and Councilman Berquist voted in opposition. Councilman Mason
abstained. The motion failed.
Mayor Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Council?
Councilman Senn: So it stays the same, right?
Mayor Mancino: Yes. It stays the same.
Councilman Senn: Is that how it works? It stays basically at what the assessor has recommended if we
can't make a decision? Is that the way this works?
Roger Knutson: You're not recommending any changes. Any deviations.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Council? Okay.
Roger Knutson: Mayor? It's my mm to jump in for one. No, pass it back to Don.
Don Ashworth: Sorry. I know... I did want to note though that we do have the Hennepin County Assessor
with us. I don't know if we have any additional property owners from Hennepin County that have spoken
or wish to speak. Must not have. They didn't stand up. Anyway, the Hennepin County Assessor did
review the one parcel for Frank and Marilyn Beddor. This is again a parcel they have in the business park
in Hennepin County. They have agreed to a reduction in value for that particular property. The amount of
the adjustment was, previously they had it at $375,000.00. Suggested it move to $350,000.00. A
$25,000.00 reduction.
Councilman Senn: Give us the referendum number, will you Don, just to get through here.
Don Ashworth: Okay, I don't know.
Councilman Engel: The first two.
Don Ashworth: 071162234...
Thomas Scherer: It was not in your original packet. That's a sheet that I laid up there.
Councilman Senn: Oh, okay. So it's not in here. That's why I wasn't expecting...
Don Ashworth: Anyway, Mr. Smith in representing Mr. Beddor has agreed that the new value is fair. I
would recommend that the City Council at this time act to approve the valuations for Hennepin County
including the reduction in the market value for the Beddor property from $375 to $350 and that way allow
the Hennepin County Assessor basically to leave the meeting this evening.
Councilman Senn: And this is the only parcel in Hennepin County?
53
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Don Ashworth: This is the only parcel where we had a protest request. They did meet with them. They
did make a reduction and again Mr. Smith, speaking for Mr. Beddor, agreed to the reduction that they
made.
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
Mayor Mancino: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Mayor Mancino seconded to reduce the Estimated Market Value for Frank
and Marilyn Beddor for parcel number 071162234 from $375,000.00 to $350,000.00. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR COULTER BOULEVARD; AUTHORIZE
ADVERTISING FOR BIDS, PROJECT 97-1B-2 (FORMERLY 97-1-3).
Public Present:
Name Address
Dave Headla
Bob Egelston
Sue Overvold
Linda & Bill Jansen
Fred Richter
Vernelle Clayton
Mike Leonard
6870 Minnewashta Parkway
1018 Stone Creek Drive
8249 Stone Creek Drive
240 Eastwood Court
Steiner Development
422 Santa Fe Circle
8129 Stone Creek Drive
Anita Benson: Mayor Mancino, members of the Council. The project consultant engineer has prepared the
project plans and specifications for the Coulter Boulevard extension project authorized by the City Council
at their regular meeting on February 9, 1998. Based on staff input, based on input staff received from
Council, there will be a trail on the south side of the roadway only with street lighting, shoebox type with
150 watt luminars spaced at 350 feet on the south side of the trail. The boulevard trees will be a mixture of
deciduous, coniferous and ornamental trees, with the seeding mix being a dry prairie mix on the upland
slopes and a wetland mix directly adjacent to the wetlands. The estimated construction cost for this project
are in line with the feasibility report for Project 97-1. With a project cost of $790,000.00 for the street
construction based on approval of plans and specifications, an authorization to bid the project this evening.
Construction is anticipated to begin on July 6th of this year with bituminous base paving complete by
October 2nd of this year and final project completion anticipated by July 1 of '99. The transportation
analysis related to this proposed improvement project has confirmed the findings of previous local
comprehensive transportation studies which have concluded that this road is a vital element of the city's
local transportation system. The ramifications of not building this road are significant. However, for those
not well versed in the transportation field, the magnitude of the resulting problems for this community may
be difficult to comprehend. Approval of the plans and specifications for the Coulter Boulevard extension
project #97-1B-2 dated May 11, 1998 and authorization to advertise for bids is recommended. However,
in recoginition of concerns that have been raised regarding the compatibility of the roadway with the Bluff
Creek management plan, we have with us tonight Mr. Ismael Martinez. He was the project manager for
both the city storm water management plan and the Bluff Creek management plan. He's here to address
54
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
those concerns along with Sherry Busse who is both an ecologist and landscape architect and I would like
to pass the floor to Ismael at this point in time.
Ismael Martinez: Good evening.
Mayor Mancino: Good evening. Nice to see you again.
Ismael Martinez: I understand this issue has some transportation considerations and some ecological
considerations that need to be... I'm here hopefully to bring a little bit more light and help you with
the.., and also I'm here to kind of deliver good news and bad news. The good news and the bad news
applies from the ecological standpoint and also unfortunately, or fortunately, whatever way you want to
look at it, also from the transportation end.., so what I'm going to do here is just.., some of the facts that we
found out during the preparation of the storm water management plan and then later on doing the
preparation of the natural resources management plan for the Bluff Creek. And all these lines.., please
bear with me and I'm going to try to explain what kind of a plan this is. This is a copy of the Figure 1...
what we have here is the Highway 5 corridor.., one thing that was identified is that these... What I'd like to
show you here, this one gives a... is what we are calling here is the western or the west end of the... The
Bluff Creek itself really.., as to the location of the Coulter crossing of the Galpin Boulevard is... As part of
the natural resources, or excuse me, the storm water management plan we identified.., plus part of the
natural, the storm water management plan is part of the natural resources management plan. One of the
goals was for to identify and prioritize what is important to the city of Chanhassen and what needs to be...
In the case of the natural resources management plan for the Bluff Creek, one of the main priorities was the
Bluff Creek itself. These were... Figure 3 of the storm sewer layout of the storm water management plan
and what I'm going to show here roughly is the boundary for this watershed .... this area eventually
reaches the lower wetland and any runoff that occurs in this upper portion reaches... Notice here as part of
the storm water layout, the.., so what we identify here,, a start of the storm water management plan is the
wetland.., significant of drainage area in the upstream that would allow for a significant...
Mayor Mancino: The northern part.
Ismael Martinez: The northern part, that's right. And... channelized wetland. So as part of the natural
resources for either Bluff Creek management plan and we looked at the consideration. We considered the
characteristics of that particular wetland and what I have here is now is again the lower wetland and the
upper wetland and the boundaries of the Bluff Creek watershed. The primary environmental corridor and
the secondary environmental corridor. And what I would like to tell you is that at the beginning when we
were trying to determine what should be the boundaries of the environmental corridor originally, we cut
those boundaries right just above the lower wetland. The reasoning behind.., upstream wetland, like I said
before has a limited.., to achieve a good quality, good wetland quality it would be a little hard because the
natural conditions of that wetland from the environmental perspective and the environmental perspective of
this .... So part of the approach that we, go ahead.
Mayor Mancino: But we put it down as a high priority to restore. The northern one. You're going to get
to that.
Ismael Martinez: I'm getting just to that. So what we did as far as the Bluff Creek...was identify areas
that we could utilize to protect downstream improvements. So in this particular case the... This land was
identified as a future area, future... So then based on that, we identified at least one wetland as a potential
to be restored to be... a more benefit to the.., and what we did at the time was to change the boundary of the
55
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Bluff Creek environmental corridor to the upper portion of the wetland .... Highway 5 corridor was so
close, then we moved the boundary to Highway 5. What I'm trying to say is that they, based on those
conditions, the fact that these wetlands could be utilized for.., park function, and was included in the
corridor. Then eventually we looked also at the uplands that are located just north of Highway 5 and then
we...that would be another way to have some, an activity there, even though the Highway 5... So when we
look at what could be done as part of the improvements here, we identified the wetland, this particular
wetland, there was a... much better condition. When I say at the beginning that I had good news and bad
news is because the good news I say for the park department is for the ecological point of view, is that you
have a... lot better than what it looked like... The bad news from that perspective is that you have a limited
technology and this particular wetland is located in the upstream portions of the Bluff Creek and in this
particular.., was identified as the type of wetland that could be utilized to protect the downstream so we
start to create a high quality wetland. It would be hard because what we're trying to do is to conserve or to
protect the downstream characteristics. Then from the transportation point of view, the good news is, well
due to the characteristics of the wetland in the area over there, there is some design that could be done
along the road design that could integrate this and minimize the way they impacted the road. The bad news
is that the creation of that road definitely is going to affect the.., of the wetland south but overall those were
our findings.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Ismael Martinez: So now I've got Sherry Busse with me who is a landscape architect with an ecology
specialty who can talk about this more, about some of the things that can be done to the road, if that is the
decision, to make it more friendly to the...
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions?
Sherry Busse: I'll try to go through this fairly quickly. I'll just give you some thoughts on what might be
done to if you all decide that you do want to build the road through this area, in-between these two
wetlands. This is the main wetland that Ismael was talking about. That northern wetland up closest to
Highway 5. This is the proposed roadway. This is that larger sort of wetland complex below it. In terms
of ecological value, the.., values in this area are associated with the hardwood swamp which is sort of the
central portion of that northern wetland. It has a high species diversity. It's a fairly unusual type of
wetland in this particular area and therefore it helps to support some things that might not have habitat
elsewhere. This is the best quality stuff remaining here. The wetland areas on either side, which actually
extend somewhat further, are very degraded by agricultural means. They were farm fields. They were
graded. They have a very minimal diversity and they're mostly reed canary grass and... Real low value
wetlands. The other thing that's of good value is the potential connection across the road which animals
can use to get back and forth.., a very high value wetland down in this area. So we tried to think about
what are the things we could enhance here. The things that you could build on to help make this a little
better. Part of our suggestion, if the road is built, is to really do some good restoration in these areas on
either side of the hardwood swamp. This area can be pretty much protected as it is. This area might just
become a wet prairie. It's really not, won't become an open water wetland because of the ecologic
limitations that Ismael mentioned but you can do a wet prairie restoration here and emergent marsh
restoration on this side through burning. Through planting other kinds of species. It would take a few
years but it would really improve this wetland and by making a whole complex of habitat, several kinds of
wetlands located next to each other, you really maximize the habitat value and allow for a lot of species
that need more than one type of wetland. Another improvement that you could do is to plant a very strong
buffer of native trees and shrubs along the road. Something that would help to keep this area of the
56
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
wetland a little bit more of a refuge. This area is probably going to be somewhat impacted by Highway
5... but a nice strong buffer here would help to keep this area a little bit more protected for the refuge place.
Another thing that you could do is to work a little bit with the storm water pond... Modify the shapes a
little bit of those.., and do some good plantings of native material that can help make these more into a sort
of wetland. Closely tied to these wetlands and to examine another kind of habitat in that area. To provide
the publid some kind of duck habitat and some of the other.., waterfowl habitat. So that's what kind a first
stage look. Some fairly easy things that you could do... establish the road. If you went a step further and
thought a little bit more about the sort of park idea, the next step that you could take to make some more
restoration. There's some kind of mound areas, some upland areas right around in here that could really be
restored to prairie or to a little bit of an oaks.., adding some nice upland restoration close to the wetland
restoration and that meadow would really enhance that habitat. Particularly for some kinds of bird species.
And you would start to get back to what some of the original vegetation of the.., was. We went back to
some old aerial photos today and tried to decide what the area might have been. Some good guesses are
probably that there was wet prairie in a large part of this area. The uplands were probably some prairie
and oak savannas and that there were some other kinds of marsh in this area also. Some other things you
might thing about is some trails that would go through that area once it's a restoration area... Another
important piece, and this is something you could actually do as the road was established, is make some
passageways underneath the road for small mammals. For amphibians. For birds so that they do have a
possibility to move under this road and to do it in several locations along the road. I know some of that's
planned and it's an important thing to do if the road is built.., connection. Finally an important piece that
could be done, if you wanted to, is to try to meander this creek a little bit. Right now it's just, it doesn't
slow down very much. It doesn't have much for interesting habitat along it. If we meander this a little bit,
make it a little bit more like a sort of prairie creek that has little marshy areas along it. Different speeds in
the water. It might really help to make this a better connection and the whole sort of complex that you
come up with, a better habitat area.., part of redoing that space.
Councilman Berquist: Given the predator/prey relationship of animals, I just don't, I asked this question
before when we were talking about putting a tunnel underneath Highway 5 for animals. And I don't
remember the answer but the tunnel is there. Do the animals use the access under, you know you go
through a tunnel. I mean I still, at 46 years old, I go into a tunnel and I feel a little.., if I'm an animal.
Councilman Mason: For what it's worth, in Canada, in I believe British Columbia, they built some super
highway that you can 80 bazillion miles an hour on and they do have a series of tunnels underneath it that
caribou migrate through and they are used and I don't think wolves are sitting there playing blackjack
waiting for the caribou to come. But they are used.
Sherry Busse: And especially if you do multiple ones. You know if you only put one here.., for instance
they've been done in Florida for the panthers. They've been done, a lot in Europe for.
Councilman Berquist: For a baseball team.
Sherry Busse: Yeah, it sounds like it doesn't it. But they have been done and the studies have shown that
they're successful. Typically they have to be big enough that the animal can see daylight on the other side.
If they can't, they.., when there are multiple ones rather than... In terms of the technology, what people
joke about ecology now and how to help animals.., it's one remedy that people have used that has shown
some success.
57
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Ismael Martinez: One quick comment is just that you'll be amazed with nature and wildlife. We just
finished a natural corridor in the city of Rochester where a nature interpretative purposes. Kind of similar
to this, and we just had finished the grading and the planting of most of the trees and like 2 days later we
had already a beaver taking the trees down. Already up and get some protection for the trees... There are
some things that Sherry mentioned.., depending on the type of wildlife that you are trying to direct, different
ways to do this. In some cases to do some.., and for small mammals. The tendency is to follow the stream
and the wet areas around the perimeters and that's how.., designed properly they find their way. Still, you
will find a lot of dead raccoons...
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Before we go on...
Councilman Engel: I'll be in Omaha Wednesday.
Councilman Mason: I can't, sorry.
Mayor Mancino: You can't...
Councilman Senn: Well if I had to rearrange some stuff, I could do it but I'd have to rearrange some stuff.
Councilman Mason: I'm committed.
Councilman Senn: Got any other alternatives other than Wednesday?
Mayor Mancino: Roger, if you could find Don, that would be helpful...
Roger Knutson: Here's Don.
Mayor Mancino: Oh Don, Wednesday afternoon at 4:00 doesn't work. What else?
Councilman Mason: If it didn't go past, well. I can't say no but it would be, I couldn't stay 2 hours.
Couldn't do it. On Wednesday. Hour tops.
Councilman Senn: Would Tuesday or Thursday be better?
Councilman Mason: No. It's a bad week. Although tomorrow wouldn't be bad.
Don Ashworth: Well we do have a request to take l(f) yet tonight.
Councilman Senn: Tomorrow much more than Wednesday, and he said Tuesday's better for him.
Mayor Mancino: Tuesday. Tuesday. A poll...
Don Ashworth: I think that that was a problem for Orlin. Tuesday, could you do the Tuesday? I had a
problem but.
Orlin Shafer: Tuesday I cannot. That's, I've got a full slate. I've had it for weeks and I've already
delayed those twice. Wednesday was my first option. Thursday is really very crowded but if we would
58
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
keep it down to like a couple hours, I could do it Thursday. But it would have to be sometime around 4:30
and go till 6:30.
Don Ashworth: Well I'm sure it won't take that long.
Councilman Mason: I have to check on Thursday.
Orlin Shafer: The other option would be Friday afternoon anytime. Down to the 9:00.
Mayor Mancino: Friday afternoon at 3:007 Michael, when do you?
Councilman Mason: I'm going to be out of town.
Mayor Mancino: Can you check...
Councilman Mason: Thursday? At what time?
Councilman Senn: Whatever time you can start. As early as you can start.
Don Ashworth: Well and again, Todd would like to get his items taken care of because he doesn't think
that those are going to be too controversial. The trail. So I think to really get at what's left on the agenda
done probably in an hour, hour and a half. To get like 3 people for either Wednesday afternoon or
Thursday afternoon.
Councilman Mason: I mean you've got 3 people for either one of those days.
Don Ashworth: Why don't we go ahead and pick out Thursday and then see how it works out for Mike.
Councilman Mason: Well, Wednesday will work. I know Wednesday will be better for me than Thursday.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Councilman Mason: We've already got 3 and I'll see what I can do on Wednesday.
Mayor Mancino: And Mark, you were okay for Wednesday? So that's it, we'll see you Wednesday at
4:00.
Orlin Shafer: 4:00 on Wednesday, alright.
Councilman Senn: So this is the last one we're doing tonight?
Don Ashworth: No. Mr. Klingelhutz would like to take and address the Council in regards to this permit
for Lake Susan and you would Todd, you would like to see items, what are they 6 and 7 or 7 and 8?
Todd Hoffman: 7 and 8.
Don Ashworth: 7 and 8.
59
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Mayor Mancino: ... I'd like to do that.
Councilman Senn: So we'll just do, we'll do 6 after this and that's it.
Councilman Engel: Sounds good.
Mayor Mancino: No. We'll do l(f).
Don Ashworth: I'm sorry, I misspoke. It is number 6.
Councilman Senn: We're going to do 5 and 6.
Mayor Mancino: Then we will do Wednesday at 4:00, continuation of the final action of Board of Review.
We'll do the trail project, 7 and 8, 9, 10 and l(f). Thank you. And please continue. I think you were
calling.
Charles Folch: We can open it up to the general public if you like.
Mayor Mancino: Oh, okay. Then I'd like to open this up for general comments from the public. Conrad,
please come up. State your name. Address.
Conrad Fiskness: I'm Conrad Fiskness. I reside at 8033 Cheyenne Avenue in Chanhassen but I'm also
here representing the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek watershed district and I'm the sole resident of
Chanhassen and Carver County on that Board. Members of the public came to our meeting this past
Wednesday to discuss the Coulter extension. We had not officially seen anything on this project up to this
point in time. However the Board did ask if I could come and pass along one concern that the Board had
and that is the primary concern of the Bluff Creek corridor study which this has been petitioned by the City
of Chanhassen. We are in the process of developing the feasibility study and simply the concern of the
Board was that they would ask that the City would hopefully not do anything that would jeopardize the, a
positive outcome of that feasibility study which I would really assume that you would not want to do
because if you did do that and the feasibility study didn't prove positive or if the project didn't get ordered,
then the city has to pay for it so that's, no doubt it's in your best interest and you will want to see that come
to a conclusion but the Board did wish me to pass along their interest in seeing that feasibility study...
Mayor Mancino: Conrad, I'm assuming you're talking about the feasibility study for.
Conrad Fiskness: For the whole Bluff Creek corridor project.
Mayor Mancino: Well as I'm looking at it.
Conrad Fiskness: And that has been petitioned by the City and we are in the process of performing our
requirement now where we have to come up with the feasibility study which will then, the next step after
that will be the public hearing. And we are trying to be on target so that that can all be completed very
close to the end of this calendar year.
Mayor Mancino: I'm assuming anything you've heard tonight is not going to impact the feasibility study.
60
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Conrad Fiskness: I haven't heard that, no. But then a couple of other items, as long as I'm here. As we
have not officially met, I had done some informal investigating with our staff. A little bit of discussion and
just to pass on a couple of comments. It would appear that much of this has to do with a council decision
as to balancing the need for transportation versus the desire for that amenity that could be developed there.
And that's a council decision and that's obviously what you do to earn that high pay that you get. If you
choose to go ahead with the road, the watershed district and through our review process and the permit
process, you know we will work with the city to ensure that the hydraulics are sound and that we will do
that irrespective of which decision that you make. We also, just on an informal basis, realize and it's been
said already here tonight that the proximity to Highway 5 and that is a major barrier to the remaining
portion of the upper part of that watershed. With this road being within one quarter mile, or probably it's
less than that. I'm not sure what the distance is but I would think it's in about that range. Would not, in
our opinion, sound the death nail for that project by any means. And as we've heard tonight, there was
even some consideration that maybe with that area of the road would even be the upper portion. Which we
again, we don't see, informally again, I'm not really speaking officially for the Board but that would appear
to be our assessment at this point and obviously we will, if you go ahead with the road we will work with
the city to ensure that the proper erosion control measures are in place and are taken care of. Now if you
decide to not put in the road, as we have looked at it, we are aware that there has been some work done
putting in the utilities. That restoration could be done if you chose to do that and it could be effectively
done. We can also, will visualize that there would be an amenity that could be developed there and we
would be in a position to, through this petition process, the basic water management project, be in a
position to help the City develop what could be a good amenity. And we again would ensure, help ensure
that the hydraulics of the area are sound. If you decide that you want a road and a wetland, and whatever
goes with it, in both worlds.
Mayor Mancino: Will you build the road?
Conrad Fiskness: No, we can't do that. But there's just a coupled of thoughts and it's, you spent some
time discussing it already and there could be some combination of that done and a little bit of the work that
we have investigated shows that, and they talked about box culverts and some limitations and that kind of
thing. We have been informed of that, or come across that limitation. There is, and we've asked about the
possibility of a bridge, which is a rather high cost alternative and probably is not feasible we are told.
From a cost standpoint. There is an alternative that we would throw out, granted that the design has
probably been done and I don't want to complicate any engineer's life around here, but there is another
thought and that is an idea what's called a segmented arch. And that, if animals are somewhat reluctant,
and maybe certain species at least, to go into a narrow area, a segmented arch and maybe this road doesn't
allow for enough height above the ground because the smallest arch is 24 foot and requires a rise of 8 feet
and maybe there isn't 8 feet there. But it would provide a width of about 24 feet and including some you
know as the arch comes up, there'd be some more animals move along the side, and larger in the center.
And I've got a little bit of an article here, a couple pages that I'll share with the staff and it's a thought that
we had that might have some merit. It's not nearly the cost of a bridge but it's not as cheap as a box
culvert either so it falls in-between. So in conclusion, which ever way the council chooses to go on this, we
see that we can work with the city and we will work to help develop the Bluff Creek corridor plan in
whatever way the city finds it necessary to go. We will work to ensure that the hydraulics of the area are
proper and again I wish to reiterate that the resources and the staff of the district are available to the city
for consultation at any time and encourage you, as things come up, to hit us up early and we can try to
provide input whenever desired.
Mayor Mancino: Can we, do you do any funding of segmented arches? Is that something you can include?
61
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Conrad Fiskness: Those of people who sat through the presentations, a water resource related activity, and
this thing can be funded 100%. An amenity can be funded at 50% and land acquisition at 25% through this
basic water management project. So that's the parameter.
Mayor Mancino: With a total max of $400,000.00.
Conrad Fiskness: Whatever gets ordered by, whatever comes out of, whatever is applied for. Whatever is
approved after the public hearing. Whatever dollars that is involved. There is no dollar limitation on that.
But you, but it's assessed to the residents of the watershed district so it's no free lunch. It is a mechanism
though that funds it. As an example, as I mentioned before, the Purgatory Creek recreation area there
behind the Flagship, that's $3.1 million so they're, you know. And that one is soon going to be paid off.
So there is the potential. And I'll leave this with the engineers and thank you very much.
Charles Folch: Just to comment on the segment culvert proposal. As you all are well aware, just east of
Bluff Creek we put in a nice pedestrian underpass there which both pedestrians and hopefully even the
larger animals make use of. And this is something we certainly going into this, look for consideration of
doing a very similar thing. Unfortunately you don't have the height ability. You don't have a deep creek,
defined creek to be able to put in a structure like this. In order to do something like this you'd have to raise
the grade probably 12, just to cover an 8 foot high culvert like that, you'd probably have to raise the grade
12 feet which means now you're going to impact the wetlands with fill slopes, probably 24 feet wider than
what you are with the road right now just to raise the grade and do your filling and everything like that. So
in this case here really, you don't have the height unfortunately to be able to do something like that. We
wish we could because it'd be nice but I think we could do the smaller of what we proposed with the
smaller type culverts which will allow the mammals, smaller mammals and things like that to go through
but.
Mayor Mancino: How tall are those?
Charles Folch: Well we're looking at probably 24, 36 inch type crossings there but you're not going to be
able to, from a height standpoint, have the 8 or 10 foot culvert. I wish we had the grade but we don't have
that through there unfortunately.
Mayor Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Council?
Linda Jansen: If I can clear the blur. Linda Jansen, 240 Eastwood Court. Mayor, councilmen, city staff.
I started taking notes on some of the things that were just being said and I guess where I'm left on any of
that is that the Bluff Creek watershed plan has a beautiful vision of how this property would look by simply
stopping the drainage out of the property. That you just raise the water level, burn out the reed canary
grass, and you end up with the native reseeding itself. I don't know how complicated a restoration we
really need to get into. What we're understanding from individuals looking at this property, is that what
was native will return once the native condition is returned to the property. Now I'm by no means an
expert, but those are the things that we're hearing and what we would like to do is have that happen, or
have that addressed with you. That we get it back to the native, not the everything that we have to add to
make it wonderful. So I'm going to stay with what I came to say and I don't know that we need all of the
complicated. I mean we're looking at the watershed plan and it says $25,000.00 to restore this. It's part of
what is being petitioned to the watershed district. It's part of the 100% that they would cover and from
speaking with Phillip Elkin, it's just basically eliminating the drainage from off of the property and raising
62
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
the water level. It sounded pretty simple to us anyway. So I'm going to start with, thanking staff for one.
For the last 9 weeks I have been asking questions. Looking for information. They could not have been
more cooperative and professional, and I say that to the entire city staff that put up with my many phone
calls and my looking to educate myself on all of the information, so appreciated. Having now familiarized
myself more thoroughly with the Highway 5 corridor land use design study, I would like to present a couple
of issues that struck me as noteworthy to our current decision making process. Clearly the Bluff Creek
watershed natural resources management plan, which is kind of hard to say this late at night, was created
using the same concepts and values previously established in the Highway 5 study, as was the intention.
Thus making the two studies and the city's comprehensive plan compatible if properly implemented to
reach their shared end goal. The preservation of the important natural features that still exist in
Chanhassen. That excerpt from the Highway 5 plan. In the case of the O'Shaughnessy property in the
Arboretum Business Park, the end goal being the viability of the developed portion of the site without
destruction of the integrity of the watershed and passive park reserve. We understand the concern of the
council's part that you are changing the commitment the city made to the business park developer if
Coulter Boulevard is not constructed. We maintain that the earlier Highway 5 study did not accurately
represent the environment significance of this property for proper planning and land use evaluation. In
fact, in the Highway 5 study the wetlands delineation was understated, and an environmental impact study
was not completed. Therefore the facts of this development have changed due to details found in the
studies and topographical analysis done for the watershed plan. We further maintain that it is justifiable
for the council to stop construction of this boulevard to protect the natural resources of this parkland that
were unidentified or under valued during the planning process. The significance of this site was
overlooked. The same consideration should apply here that were given to Lake Ann community park,
which is located diametrically opposite of this park and to the east. The northern access boulevard was
placed along Highway 5, thus causing the least amount of disruption to the park and to the people using it.
I was surprised to read in the Highway 5 corridor study different goals and policies for the two boulevards.
And it also provides for changes being made to the plan based upon introduction of new information. For
instance, access boulevards. Goal. The northern boulevard should be designed as the main street of
Chanhassen, as it will be a continuous street from Highway 101 west through downtown Chanhassen to
Highway 41. That MnDOT may participate in developing the northern access boulevard which will run
between Powers Boulevard and Highway 41. This road was included in the Federal Environmental
Assessment, along with Highway 5. The location of the south frontage road or Coulter Boulevard has been
driven by development proposals and it's construction would be completed as development occurs. Policy.
The plan should identify open spaces to be preserved by public ownership or through developer
contributions. These should include areas having scenic and environmental importance such as major
stands of trees, view corridors, wetlands and water courses. Policy. The Highway 5 plan should generally
support land use decisions and policies detailed in the city comprehensive plan. When deviations from the
plan are proposed, they should be based upon the following determinations. That new information has
become available since the comprehensive plan was approved that supports re-examination of the plan. Or
that alignment of the access boulevard and potential impacts of our Highway 5 plan elements offer new
opportunities for, opportunities or constraints that were not previously considered. Looking at these
guidelines, what we're suggesting is that a very important piece of new information that supports the re-
evaluation of the southern boulevard plan is the significance of the primary corridor as noted in the
watershed plan and the existence of a more extensive wetland complex than was noted in the Highway 5
corridor study. In fact, it was the environmental study done for the Steiner development, which was an
AUAR, was the first indication that the environmental features had not been properly planned for. That
study found that there was a more extensive wetland complex than had originally been mapped on the west
side of this property. This led to the city acquiring additional property for the park complex because it
wasn't developable. Tons of sand had to be trucked in to fill in springs that were within the remaining
63
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
construction site. What restrictions would have been made if an environmental impact study, that had been
used instead of the less restrictive alternative urban area wide review. We don't necessarily know what else
was there. Had an environmental impact study been done on the O'Shaughnessy property, what other
discoveries would have been made that would have affected the decision to place the utilities and the road
where they are now. The engineering department had the very best of intentions when they changed the
location of the road to cause the least amount of disturbance to the perceived wetland on the property. But
we never consulted outside experts. The conservation organizations and experts that I've contacted have
suggested that the property would have been less disturbed in total had the access road remained next to the
already existing roadway, instead of both park parcels being affected by traffic and noise, we would instead
buffer the majority of the park by leaving it as one complex instead of two. Park users walking or biking
would not have to parallel traffic or cross a roadway. Habitat would be less disturbed and more wildlife
diversity would remain for our enjoyment. The councilmembers spoke about a, the councilmembers I
spoke to about an environmental study thought one had probably been done. I would like to suggest that if
it is decided that a roadway is needed, that we make the right decision on location and construction. That
we need to stop and have the property properly evaluated by the environmental quality board. We are still
faced at this point with dispelling the misconception presented that this roadway will have little, if any
effect on the habitat or the wildlife still there. We're suggesting that it's the Bluff Creek watershed
environmental plan done by the city in... plans to run a collector road through this property are counter to
this community's goal of preserving and protecting our natural resources. The same goal noted in the two
studies that we're considering. The comprehensive plan and the $5 million parks open space and trails
referendum. They're all compatible. There is one more issue that we all seem to be agreeing on and we're
not coming back and acting upon it. Mr. Dahlgren, the engineering department, have said the business
park's trucks don't need or won't use this access boulevard. Those of us who are opposed to the roadway
are especially concerned about the truck traffic. Why then, if trucks are going to be using, aren't going to
be using this boulevard, are we spending more money and building something larger than is actually
needed. If it's because the method that we have chosen to finance it, then shouldn't we be changing
financing options? By definition from the location this is a ;;parkway". It's going through a community
park as it's now been designated. Wasn't originally. Mr. Dahlgren had proposed that we look at
Minneapolis as a good example of a community that has made their parks more accessible to the
community through the use of the parkway system. So let's do that. Minneapolis parkways don't allow
truck traffic. They have 25 mph speed limits with the proposal being considered to make them slower.
They're 24 feet wide. There's a proposal being considered to make them 20 feet wide and put faster bike
lanes along the side of them. Additional changes being proposed are to quote, discourage commuters,
reserving the parkways for people who want to travel at a leisurely pace through landscaped vistas. What
we're proposing is if we need a road, why don't we consider building a road that meets our needs instead of
building a road that meets the requirements for the financing source? This doesn't have to be a state aid
roadway. To conclude, just because one city project has more momentum than the other shouldn't mean
that our future plans are compromised. The momentum's behind the Highway 5 study. We're trying to
complete that. But the Bluff Creek watershed plan is coming on board with our comprehensive plan. It is
our future. We believe that we are all working towards the same end goal. With the community
authorizing the expenditure of 5 million in referendum dollars to help achieve that goal. The parkland is an
important and valuable asset to our community, worthy of being given an opportunity to be appreciated
before we decide to make a permanent and irreversible change to it's character. The only compelling
reason given to construct the roadway now was to avoid conflict with the Autumn Ridge residents. If we
accomplished anything with our research and information sharing, I hope we have at least provided the
council with justification to stop the process on this project to allow time for re-evaluation of all of the
facts. An important part of that evaluation we do feel is the environmental impact statement for the
property. If the city does decide to construct a roadway on this property, we would request that you do so
64
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
only after requesting and reviewing the recommendations of that study. An EAW must be requested before
bidding process begins and EAW is usually requested in the planning phase and must be requested before
the bids are approved. We're recommending that that study be used in order to have it impartially
reviewed. We have all kinds of experts that would love to just come out here and for one tell you what a
beautiful job you've done with this Bluff Creek watershed plan. I can't tell you all of the compliments that
have been paid to this city for that plan. The view and the vision, everyone has just flipped over it. They
just think it's wonderful and I think you should know that. It was fun talking to these different
conservation groups and hearing the compliments that were paid to the city. So thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you .... what would an EAW give us that we don't have now, etc? Can you sort
of...
Phillip Elkin: I believe the information gathered for the AUAR is all that is, you know we did go ahead and
decide to do an EAW and we've already have the information. The EAW looks at the road project. The
minimum for a required EAW is one mile of roadway. It falls far short of that right now. Basically
applying to this project, the questions that are going to be asked or the areas to look at are the wetlands and
the wildlife habitat. And both of those issues were addressed in the AUAR for this section of roadway.
They were included in the AUAR done for the Arboretum Business Park. So we have all the information
here.
Mayor Mancino: So the review process a little longer for an EAW versus an AUAR? I want to say it has
something to do with the time in the review process.
Phillip Elkin: I'm not sure how long the AUAR is but they still go to public hearings. It ultimately comes
back to the council's decision. It's not, you order an EAW or an Environmental Impact Statement and
you're not going to get a memo from an agency that says don't, you cannot build this road. It still comes
back to the decision maker. It gives, right. It just, right. And I think from what Bonestroo has gathered
with the Bluff Creek plan, the AUAR, the Highway 5 study, the park study, we have all that information
right here. There's nothing new we're going to find out by ordering an EAW.
Mayor Mancino: Anyone else wishing, thank you very much. To speak to the Council at this last hour.
Boy. I'm too old for this.
Howard Dahlgren: Members of the Council... staff. If I could just review briefly with you some of the
things that have happened in the past so we have a clear understanding... If I may begin, in looking first,
can we get focused in please. This is a drawing that shows our land as we had initially investigated the
property when we first began the development process. You'll notice that we had a small area of wetlands
that was shown on the city's wetlands inventory. We also had an additional 30 acres over here which the
drawing doesn't quite show. We had purchased a total of 178 acres. And in the process of developing this
land in the early stages we decided to sell this 30 acres to the Arboretum. They wanted it badly. We
wanted them to have it and we came up with an agreement. We sold it to them at a very reasonable price.
In fact we made a major cash contribution to help with the purchase. And so we too are interested in the
environment. You know we've been working with the environment for 40 years and you know we're with
these people. We understand what you're trying to do. And we have done much of it and we have tried
here to do and handle the environment very carefully and sensitively and do as fine a job as we possibly
can. Working for cooperatively with the staff and the planning commission and the council. So from there
we took a look at the transportation situation. This drawing represents the thoroughfare plan that was
adopted by the city at the time. Our property is shown outlined here in yellow and you'll notice that they
65
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
show a major thoroughfare which is Coulter Avenue, coming over to a north/south street which is in our
ultimate plan as Century Avenue. And there's also of course an east/west thoroughfare along Highway 5
which is this line on this map. Now this map has a great deal of legal significance. Every city has the right
and the responsibility to develop such a map showing where the major thoroughfares are going to be.
Every developer has the responsibility to conform to it. We have to by law. And we have done so. But to
take a piece of it away after the development has been approved and we've started can be a disaster
because we have 31,000 vehicles planned to come in and out of this development area when it's completed.
And to handle those sensitively and carefully and intelligently, we need additional access rather than to
Highway 5. To take it away can be a extremely serious situation. Here for instance is a letter. I'm afraid
you can't read that can you? I was hoping by enlarging it that you could but this is from MnDOT. Right
after they learned at the July 8, 1997, they learned that Coulter Boulevard may not have a continuous
connection. MnDOT strongly encourages the city to commit to extending Coulter Boulevard. We expect
that the proposed Gateway Business Park will generate high levels of traffic. Expecting that one access to
Trunk Highway 5 will handle all of the development, local access is not reasonable. And so it's MnDOT's
statement that it's a serious consideration to eliminate a piece of this thoroughfare system that was
designated on your plan. We, in the early stages of the game set up a plan which carried Coulter through in
this fashion, connected to Highway 5 and came down to 82nd Street. This was the original park that we
proposed to dedicate to the city. And it consisted of 32 acres of land which we were going to dedicate
entirely. It included all of the high wooded area in the southeast comer that you have now acquired for
park. That's part of the park system today. This plan also suggested that you can make a larger park by
acquiring some of the O'Shaughnessy property back in those days. Do you know that when we first came
to the city wit our first plan, about 7 years ago, the first reaction from the park people was, we don't want
a park. We want the money. It was only later that they decided they wanted to have the park. And what
really happened, what made the park more desirable was when we did a careful analysis of the wetland
which was this study. Which was done by the Peterson Environmental Consulting Group. This is the
results. You wound up with 30 acres of wetlands, which we didn't know was there. And so that's what
changed everything. So as of that time the city came up with a plan...they desired to have this park layout.
And this was then the Bible. The objective of the city and one that we ultimately helped carried out. It
shows Coulter going through the park. There's Parcel A, B, C and D. The line between the
O' Shaughnessy property and ours is right here. This of course has become Autumn Ridge. This land was
dedicated and we dedicated all of this land, plus 10 acres of land that the city purchased. So in effect
between the two property acre owners we were able to make this possible. But a part of that plan of course
was the construction of this roadway. Every dealings that we've had with the city for the last 7 years,
every document that was approved. Every document that went out for a public hearing. The AUARW, all
of that was included with Coulter Road. And so it's been a part of this process all the way along and to
suddenly pull it away at this stage is a disaster for us. And it could lead us into some very great
difficulties. At one point we decided that in view of the extreme difficulties in developing this land, that we
should make the land residential and we proposed that to the city. And the council, planning commission
and council at work sessions we had with both bodies, decided that we'd really like to have the land
industrial and the question was, what can we do to help you make it industrial. So we made a list of 11
things that we thought were important so that we could work together to achieve this objective and this list
is right here. The first one, I'm just going to go through two of them. The first one was to have a full
intersection with full access at Highway 5. Without that we felt we simply couldn't make it fly. No one
could. So that was granted because MnDOT had been planning for that all along as a matter of fact. The
second one was the city to pay the full cost of putting a road through the park and a prorata share of the
north/south road. Well, in the end we paid for all of the north/south road. That's on the MSA system too
but you don't have to spend any MSA funds there because we are paying for the entire road. The city is
not paying for any of that. And that's okay. We've decided we would accept that. But what the city, it
66
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
was determined, and the city agreed back in those days. Before we started the new process of putting it
back to industrial use as the city wanted, that they would build Coulter Road through the park. But that
isn't actually what happened. What really happened was we were asked to grade the land. So we spent
$67,000.00 grading Coulter for you. It was a gift. We felt it was important that the roadway be graded so
that you could bring the utilities in. So it was good for you and it was good for us. It was good for
everybody. But we spent a lot of money building that road and so now if you're not going to build it, we've
lost a lot of money for no purpose. We've also lost a lot of money for no purpose. We've also lost the
right-of-way. We dedicated 2 acres of right-of-way. If you take that right-of-way and put it back into a
park, we want our money back. It's not fair that you take 2 acres of right-of-way supposedly for a road
that's been on the plans, was a part of all the planning documents and then suddenly say we're building a
parkway. That's not fair to us. It's not fair to anybody in this kind of a situation. We went through the
due process of course. I won't go through all these but we did some very elaborate work. This is an
analysis of the soils for instance that was done with a great deal of detail. Here's a final analysis of the
wetlands. And again you can see that all those wetlands that were found out and surveyed in the field, and
during the environmental review process, are designated here. And all of them are accounted for and
handled in the development as we ultimately did it. This is the plan that we came up with. And this is the
plan that was approved. This provided for a couple of sites here that the City had the option of buying so
we sold the City about 10 acres of land for $200,000.00. All the rest of the land we dedicated and this
$200,000.00 is paid without interest over 5 years and the money comes from tax increment. So in effect
it's not going to cost the taxpayers anything. The tax increment money from our development pays for that
parkland ultimately. So now you have this beautiful, vast park and furthermore we have already dedicated,
the requirement is for us to dedicate the land as the final plats are approved. Our first final plat covered
only a portion of the land. We've only platted one lot to start and that was this lot right here. But at that
time we dedicated all these major rights-of-way, including Coulter, plus we dedicated all the parks. We
would not have done that if we had any indication that the city wasn't going to build Coulter, because it's
extremely important to us. This drawing shows Coulter of course. This is Century Avenue and this is
Coulter. And this was of course as I said, we built it through our land and cost us the $67,000.00. I'm
going to skip some of these drawings just in the interest of saving time. Here's a memo that you, all the
council received from the city manager and from the engineer. And I just want to show you the one that I
think is most important and that's the summary that was done by the city manager I thought was extremely
well done. IfI can find that one. This one is the manager's comment and I'm sorry you can't see it but I'll
just read it. I think this covers the situation extremely well. And it's titled manager's comments. He says
tonight's action, if approved, would have the effect of killing the Coulter extension project. The primary
reason for stopping this project would be environmental. However, I would argue that the reason it should
go through is that the entire community could enjoy the 100 acres that the city was successful in preserving
for all of us into the future. Coulter to the east of Galpin crosses a branch of Bluff Creek. I see no harm
that was created to the environment through this construction. Similarly Kerber Boulevard crosses the
drainage from Kerber Pond all the way over to County Road 17. I enjoy this natural area every minute I
drive that section of the roadway. I find that it has not inhibited the number of owls, geese, waterfowls, etc
that make up this 100 acre habitat. It has not disrupted the ability of raccoons, deer, etc from passing from
the Kerber Pond area all the way over to County Road 17. And ultimately back to Lake Susan. To say
that the city has not been sensitive to our environment would be totally wrong. To say that the city has
taken every opportunity to protect as many of our natural amenities as possible while still providing the
opportunity for us all to enjoy them would be correct. I would urge the Council to move forward with the
bidding process. And that sums it up extremely well. I've taken some pictures of what we have here and I
suppose most of you have been down to the site and I won't show you all the pictures but of course the
crucial one, the picture as you see as it exists as it goes through Autumn Ridge. This is looking easterly
back through, for Autumn Ridge on the left and the right. And of course this road is built to the Minnesota
67
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
State Aid standards. I understand it was built and paid for by the developer and it's there. No housing
fronts on it but it goes through the property. Designed to serve this important function as a service road to
Trunk Highway 5. Here's what it looks like today of course. That's the barrier where the road stops and
this is where the land vacant on the O'Shaughnessy property and on our property where it's been already
graded and ready to go. I want to show you one other thing that relates to this entire situation and that is a
drawing here that I have showing how our site in Chanhassen relates to our chief competitor which actually
is in the city of Shakopee. This is 494 as it goes around the Twin Cities area. This is Highway 5 going out
to our site. It's a distance of 8 miles. But in the process you go through 8 stop signs. This is the roadway
to Shakopee. It also is 8 miles but it's a primary highway versus this is a minor arterial. And so this is
what we find is our major competition. Recently the Seagate looking for a 30 acre site moved to Shakopee.
They looked at our site as well but the inhibiting factor was really the traffic on Highway 5. And I mention
that to you because it's important in a sense that if we're going to be in partnership of trying to develop a
fine industrial park that you people want, then we have to do everything we can to make it work. And I can
tell you that the biggest factor we have working against us today is the traffic on Highway 5. So if you cut
out this piece of the thoroughfare system, that provides for another access to our industrial business park
where we have 31,000 cars projected for the future, it's going to have a major.., impact on our ability to do
this. And this of course, you know it's your industrial park. Within a few years the land will be sold.
We'll be gone. But you will be here and the citizens of Chanhassen and so you are the ones that should be
looking out to make this as successful and workable as possible. I contend, and I know many of you know
that putting a roadway through a park doesn't necessarily destroy it. It opens it up. It also makes it
possible to police it. Another thing they do in Minneapolis when they do a new park, and we've done
several for them in Minneapolis over the last 30 years. They always make it a point to have a roadway all
the way around the park. That's so they can police it properly. We lived by Lake of the Isles for 37 years
and one of the reasons our kids walked around that lake safely all the time, a 3 ½ mile trip, is that all that
traffic is going around watching our children. In the case of this park, that will happen as well. You can
say traffic is bad but it isn't necessarily bad. There are people in those cars. They enjoy that park view.
Just as the manager pointed out, using the roadways that you already have. So for the purpose of the
people who are going to live and occupy this industrial business area, many of whom will be Chanhassen
citizens, having this roadway for access will be convenient and enjoyable and workable. And all the
documentation that was necessary has been done. All these legal documents are there. And so it's been
done. It's been done legally. The studies have been done. They've been reviewed by all the agencies,
including the EQB. That's all been accomplished. And to pull it away now, leaves us in a very severe
economic situation for us. It would leave us no alternative but to seek.., in the courts. We have no option
other than that. We shouldn't want to do that. It's important that we have what's necessary to make this
successful and we don't want to have to fight about it for the future. In those kind of cases everybody
loses. So we would urge you folks to make the right decision. To build the road as planned and as
documented in all these review processes that have gone on and reviewed by all these public agencies. It's
important that we build and build it now. Thank you very much.
Debra Kind: My name is Debra Kind. I live at 2351 Lukewood Drive in Chanhassen, which is in the Oaks
neighborhood just south of Timberwood. I'm going to try and break a record here for speed. I have four
points. Well actually I might sneak a fifth one in there but let's go with four for now that I'd like to make.
The first one is regarding school traffic. My daughter will be a walker to Bluff Creek Elementary school
and I'm concerned about the number of heavy trucks and speeding cars that go by the cross section of
Galpin and Coulter. Currently 18 wheel trucks and cars use Galpin as a shortcut to by-pass TH 41 and
I'm not making this up. I know it because I followed them. I wasn't sure where they were going because
there's no businesses along Galpin and when we moved there we thought hey, this is going to be great.
This is all residential. Galpin's just serving a residential area and we were very surprised how many 18
68
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
wheel trucks are going by there. In fact I talked with Charles on the phone about it. He probably doesn't
remember. It was about 6 months ago and I've talked with the Sheriff's department about the heavy truck
use and the speeds on Galpin. On a 45 mph is what's posted and it's rarely, rarely observed. This one
mile section of Galpin south of TH 5 was funded by MSA funds and that is why trucks are on that road.
Trucks are not on the other side of Galpin because they're not allowed there. Let's see, I'm concerned.
Very nervous I'm sorry. I'm concerned that with the addition of Century Boulevard signal on Highway 5
that there will be even more incentive to take the Galpin shortcut right past the school. And I feel that
whether Coulter is extended or not, that a four way stop sign. Not a signal. Not expensive, just stop signs,
with crosswalks should be placed at the intersection of Galpin and Coulter. That would discourage that
shortcut traffic on Galpin and Coulter and would create a safer place for the school field trip groups to
cross Galpin. Right now there's no way for field trips to get across that street. It's too dangerous. We've
got to figure out a way for, to access those trails. My second point is regarding trucks on Coulter. City
staff has said that truckers are not going to want to use a 35, or 30 mph frontage road. I strongly disagree
with that. Based on my Galpin experience I feel that if trucks are allowed to use a road, they will use a
road and if it's a shortcut, they will definitely use the road. The Coulter extension is a shortcut but because
it bypasses the light at Century, and since Coulter is MSA funded, there will be no weight limits on that
road so heavy trucks will be on that road. I am sure of it. I'm not an expert but I've lived there. I know
what they'll do. I've heard comments that Coulter is needed as an alternate route for cars going to the
business park. If it's good for cars, truckers will take it too so there will be these trucks going right
through that parkland. My third point is regarding MSA funding. I believe that the carrot of MSA money
is clouding the big picture and there's one key question that I would ask councilmembers. If Coulter
extension wasn't free, would the city be building that road? And would it be a 9 ton roadway through that
park? I don't think so. And my fourth point, I'm moving right along. Regarding downtown business
access. The Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce wrote a letter to councilmembers and the mayor stating
that Coulter extension would allow business park employees and residents to access downtown Chanhassen
without using Highway 5. And while the business people, employees would be able to do that, I would like
to know how any Chanhassen resident would use the extension to do that because there's no neighborhoods
back there. That extension of the road strictly will be serving the business park. There's no greater good
being served by that. There's no residents that would benefit from the road being extended at all .... and
trucks shooting down Galpin Boulevard. They will not be able to use that road if it doesn't go through. So
I just wanted to make it clear that there is no greater community good. It is serving the business park only
and that's a fine decision to make too but don't pretend that there's a greater community good to it. And
the developer stated in the past that the business park does not need that Coulter extension. And I
remember reading an article saying that when he was paying for it he said he didn't need to build it. But
now all of a sudden because it's free, that it's necessary. And it's not going to benefit any residents. And
one other point, I'm going to sneak a fifth one in here because I went so fast. Is that in the paper I saw that
the City has invested $150,000.00 so far on this project. I was shocked at that number. I thought it was
$38,000.00. $150,000.00 just, I would like some clarification about that. That was like the last thing in
the article in the paper. And in conclusion I would like you to consider placing a four way stop sign at the
intersection of Coulter and Galpin and would like you table any plans to extend Coulter Boulevard. Thank
you.
Mayor Mancino: Todd, what about that $150,000.00 figure. I don't read the paper so.
Charles Folch: Yeah, I believe I was quoted. That quote was the figure that I estimated as to what had
been committed to the road to date. That consists of basically the design and preparation of the plans and
specs as the council authorized back in February. That also includes soil corrective work that was done as
a part of the phase I utility project because it was more cost effective to do it then than to come back with
69
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
this project so that in total with the engineering and construction costs of all there is about 80 some
thousand dollars. And then as Howard mentioned, the developer has another $67,000.00 expended on their
behalf, side of the ledger to grade and do some of the work on their half so in total, right. There's
approximately $150,000.00 invested into the project. About 80 some thousand, $88,000 of the City and
about 60 some thousand from the developer.
Mayor Mancino: And the developer would have done that to do utilities anyway?
Charles Folch: Not necessarily. If the road was not proposed to go through there, and correct me if I'm
wrong Howard, but they probably would not have expended the soil corrective work with their project.
Howard Dahlgren: The answer is that we wouldn't have spent, we wouldn't have anything. We graded the
road to enhance the city's ability to put the utilities through. So we spent $67,000.00 grading the road
first and then the utilities came through.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, so it was for the utilities. It wasn't for the building of the road.
Howard Dahlgren: No, no. It was so that you could build a road but that also enhanced the.
Mayor Mancino: But we didn't authorize.
Howard Dahlgren: It enhanced the ability of the city to put in the utilities because now you had the proper
grade to work from you see. That's what we did. By the way, one other point I should mention with
respect to.
Mayor Mancino: No, no, wait. I want to stop here for a second. The City Council did not authorize
$67,000.00 to be used to grade the road.
Howard Dahlgren: We were asked to grade the road and we did so. And we spent $67,000.00 doing it. I
wanted to point out that the State of Minnesota has put the stop sign semaphores back into the design on
Highway 5. That's been accomplished. Isn't that right? That was a problem before but that's been done.
Michael Leonard: Good evening. It's almost good morning. My name is Michael Leonard and I reside at
8129 Stone Creek Drive. I am a little horse from having a cold. I am in the Creekside development and
out my front door I look out at everything that's been talked about here tonight. And out my back deck I
look at a million dollar bridge that was built with matching money so if we don't think that some free
money that's used in our community is okay and other free money isn't, I'll point that out to you. Basically
I am here tonight just to clarify a few things. I received a letter, as I'm sure a lot of people did, and I know
what letter I'm sure everyone knows what I'm referring to. About a petition for this. And so I just
basically wrote something basically in response to some of the issues that were raised about that letter.
And basically it said thank you for your recent letter outlining some of the issues regarding the extension of
Coulter Boulevard. As a resident of the Creekside development I feel I can offer some assistance in this
issue. I have two children that attend Bluff Creek Elementary. Fall under the designation as walkers and
they are still on a bus route due to a late opening of Coulter Boulevard due to said bridge. But they do not
ride the bus at this time. They either walk or are driven to latchkey daycare services at the school. First let
me say that I'm in agreement with you for the need for parks, open space, conservation of wildlife. I'd be
willing to bet that even my meager commitment of time and money of conservation causes, quite a few of
you in this committee here tonight would be able to match. So you know where I'm coming from. I am
70
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
very familiar with this area all my life. My mother grew up in this area and for the last 13 years I've been
fortunate to call this area my home. I however are in favor of the Coulter extension. If anything we sorely
lack decent roads and eliminating corridors for these roads only puts more strain and risk on our already
taxed arterial roads. By the way, a deer hit on Highway 5 or one hit on the new Coulter Boulevard
extension by a car or truck is just as dead. Okay. I would guess I would have to say I question the
advisability of having a natural open space or a corridor across this Highway 5 would not be in our best
interest. I would say the car safety problems of car/deer accidents alone far outweigh the potential for
accidents with trucks and people, cars and people. I see no difference in the cars that cross Galpin
Boulevard and their speed limit. In fact I see them driving slower on our residential streets than I see quite
a few of the residents driving. If anyone wants to check that out, why don't you come out some morning.
We can however move a wetland and we have to live with the fact that all roads originally go through open
space. Even the one that goes by many of yours front door. Someone asked me one time ifI knew what the
difference was between a developer and an environmentalist. A long pause and he said the environmentalist
already has his house in the woods. I am confident that the residents of Stone Creek development, the one
just south of us on Stone Creek Drive, are overjoyed that the current segment of Coulter Boulevard is open.
We now normally don't drive out of our way 2 miles to go through their residential neighborhood to access
Highway 5. And neither do the people coming to build new houses in our development. They now access
Coulter Boulevard. And they drive right by Bluff Creek Elementary. They can access Bluff Creek school
by the nice trail that goes running through my back yard. It goes underneath Coulter Boulevard and they
can walk to school if they so choose. Thank you for your concern about my children's safety, but I am
more concerned about them having to deal with Highway 5 with me getting to town now and when they
start to drive in the future. I wish they would have other options. It has been my observation that the
bending to public concern over roads gives us inferior results, and I'll point out crosstown commons and
the residential and commercial businesses along Lyndale Avenue as one example. In reviewing the
enclosed map, the map that I was given, it's interesting to note that much was made of the right-in and
right-out on Highway 41 and nothing is discussed concerning the connection with 82nd Street and
subsequently Highway 41. I went and looked at it. It looks like we're going to have a real nice area there
and we have many different ways to go out of the Coulter Boulevard extension. Going south onto TH 41.
Back off onto Lyman. Wherever you want to go. And as far as MnDOT's estimates of traffic delays
along Highway 5, trust me. Whatever they are, they're woefully underestimated. I would seriously doubt
that any trucker, and we've discussed this before, would opt to drive a half mile on Coulter Boulevard at 30
mph when he could drive 200 yards and access Highway 5 or Highway 41. We live right now with
Pillsbury down the street from us and they don't access our road, but I hear that the trucks aren't maybe
allowed to go down our street. But I assume that was built for truck traffic. I'm not sure. I would suspect
the commission's dream of building a nature center would itself bring roads, buildings, parking lots and
therefore some destruction of habitat to the area in question. I fail to see the difference as far as wildlife is
concerned. Wildlife do just fine without us looking at them. Rod Franks stated in the Villager article
February 26, 1998, I quote. You will be dividing up a minimum parcel into two parcels, neither of which
will be large enough to sustain wildlife. If 40 acres and 65 acres are not large enough to sustain wildlife,
with 100 foot right-of-way through it, I would bet there would be several DNR, Ducks Unlimited,
Pheasants Forever representatives would sorely disagree with this assessment. On the heel of the letter I
received another letter of a proposed trail that would connect Stone Creek park and the Oaks development.
The park board apparently tabled this project due to the opposition by neighboring residents. Apparently
this is approved by last year's referendum. It would seem that the park board isn't as committed to all of
it's projects with equal zeal. And I just in conclusion to saying that when I first moved into the area,
moved into our development, been there about a year and a half, and I moved there with full knowledge that
Coulter Boulevard was going to be built. I moved in with the full knowledge I was going to have a trail in
my back yard, although I'm not gung ho about that. That we were going to have commercial development
71
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
on the other side of Bluff Creek from us. And I would hope in the city's wisdom that in their development
that this all will be something that I eventually will be able to look out one day and say that they did a right
job. Thank you very much.
Earl Milbrath: Promise my comments will be no more than 2 minutes. My name's Earl Milbrath. I live in
Minneapolis. I started construction on my house in Walnut Grove last week. Will be a resident of
Chanhassen by September. I'm speaking on behalf of the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce. The Board
made two significant points in reviewing both sides of this very difficult issue. One, that transportation and
the completion of the lateral routes in Chanhassen was extremely critical to the future growth of the
business community downtown and critical to the growth and support of residents in general. And two,
that in terms of economic development, that we really believe that commitments need to be made. Yes,
circumstances can change in which it is imperative that one changes course. We do not see that it's
imperative that the course be changed here. We're so far down the line in terms of that development, and in
terms of the commitment that has been made in good faith by a significant developer, that if that is not
honored, that sends a message to the business community generally and to future developers that is
extremely environment in which to operate. We really understand and believe that that is not going to
happen and we thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Vemelle Clayton: My name is Vemelle Clayton and I live here in Chanhassen. I'm wearing about three
hats tonight and I'll let you, to save time I'll let you figure out which hat I'm wearing when I say.
Mayor Mancino: No, to save time just tell us which hat every time you...
Vemelle Clayton: I have lived in Chanhassen for 35 years. I have been working with developers and as a
developer for about 10. And I've been working on the retail committee for the Chamber for about 4. I
spend an inordinate amount of time it seems on the later two. With the, Earl I think forgot to tell you that
he's Chairman of the Chamber this year and so he's speaking for all of us and so I won't speak for the
entire Chamber but I will speak for the retail committee. We do spend a lot of time trying to put focus on
downtown Chanhassen. We spend it, whether we're working on parades or whether we're working on
garage sales. All of this is to put the emphasis on downtown Chanhassen. You all and lots of people have
in other ways put emphasis on downtown Chanhassen. We have been striving and we have been up to now
very successful in having a downtown. This downtown is here only because investors, developers,
merchants, took the risk of coming here before they knew that for sure that they could make a living. There
have been some that haven't made a living because they didn't have enough of a nest egg to withstand the
time when we didn't have the people so if they'd be here to succeed when they do. A lot of people have
invested. You just approved a restaurant tonight. Those folks just built a hotel. They're investing on the
come. They're not investing on what we have now. One of the things that's coming is an industrial park
out west and other developments. One of the things that they're relying on is ease to get to downtown.
Every time we talk about plans in Chanhassen, since their comp plan was approved in 1990, we have
always talked about having a collector, they're not collector. A service road on the north side and on the
south side of Highway 5. It's becoming more and more important that we stick to that. I've been in many
discussions where it has not been an alternative. Period. We were sticking with the service road. They
were gospel. We have requested people to pay for them. They have made their decisions on whether
they're going to invest in Chanhassen or not based on whether or not they pay for those service roads. I got
off the track a little bit with respect to the retail because I launch into the relying on the plan. What I was
saying with respect to the retail is that we need to do everything we can to make it as easy for the
72
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
downtown to survive. It's more than parades. It's people buying product. That's what it's all about.
Getting the people here. There's a lot of competition. There is competition is Chaska, Waconia, soon
Victoria. Lots of competition for the dollars and we have to make it easy. These people, 30,000 people,
it's not about the trucks ladies and gentlemen. It's about the people that work in that office building having
more than one place to go for lunch. Chaska or Chanhassen. Where are they going to go? The place that
it's the easiest to get to. If it's easier to get to Chaska, they'll go to Chaska. And it's a lot harder to
change, a lot harder to break habits than to help them create them. It's got to be easy to get to Chanhassen.
Not only from that development but from every other thing that we do. The other thing is commitments and
it's embarrassing to me to have to be here tonight frankly, because I don't like to have to defend the fact
that Chanhassen from time to time is looked on as someone that you can't, a city that developers can't
depend on. We are tonight considering, here because we have taken it upon ourselves to consider more or
less pulling out the rug from under these developers that have invested much more than the city would be
wasting in that project. There is a very fine developer that chose not to develop because he couldn't afford,
he felt his project could not afford to put in this road. The road we're talking about. The one leading right
up to it perhaps. How is he going to feel tomorrow when he, if he were to learn oops. The Council decided
they weren't going to put it in after all. We make commitments to people and I think we ought to keep it.
There is a time when we ought to stick to a decision that a prior council made and a recommendation that
staff made. We all knew this was a decision. The environmentalists knew it was a decision. New people
that moved into the area knew it was a decision. And I think it's time to stick with it.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Bright tie.
Mike Mullins: I'm Mike Mullins, 2547 Bridal Creek Trail. Last year I was the Chair of the Parks and
Open Space and Trails Referendum Committee. I think that's the full title. I'm a seasoned businessmen
and entrepreneur so sometimes I hear distinction between people who like the environment and people who
are business people, and I am a business person who likes the environment. Have any of you ever made an
investment in a company stock using the best information that you have at the time? Have any of you ever
experienced a stock's price declining in the face of new information that's been released by the company? I
can tell you about one today. Have any of you ever held that stock in the face of that new information at a
loss stubbornly holding onto the original premise for buying it, and then finding out as we found out tonight
that you actually bought it at a higher price. Well in my business there are times to prudently factor in new
information and reconsider holding that position. And I think this is one of those times. We rely on the
council's citizens. We rely on the council to defend and secure our corporate interest in the face of
business interest and the face of staff agendas. And we do have a well educated populace that knows very
well the value of open space and trails. As you know over 60% of voters last year agreed to raise their
taxes to acquire open space and to hold onto what we have. From that campaign we learned that 64% of
Chanhassen actually use our community parks just like the community park that we're talking about
establishing tonight. Without really trying frankly we have 185 citizens petitions signed who are opposed
to building the Coulter Road extension at all. This road will cause permanent damage to this community
park. It will remove a gem from the Bluff Creek watershed, leaving the whole split with each part
diminished. I would encourage you to withhold the authorization to let bids this evening until a full public
environmental impact assessment can be conducted by a disinterested third party. If necessary agreeable
by all parties who have an interest in this. I just had one aside. I happen to attend a meeting on April 6th
where Earl and Vernelle were, as was Todd and Linda. Several other people. Mr. Dahlgren told the
Chamber Board, I made a note. It was 7:31 a.m. that Monday morning. That the development did not need
the Coulter extension. And I seem to have heard a different message tonight. I guess it's kind of late at
night but I'm not following the push me, pull me thing here. And then first we heard $38,000.00 for the
road and now we hear it's $80 and $67 on top of that. So I'm having a little credibility problem frankly
73
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
about the environmental assessments that have been done that are supposedly completed here. Final
comment. If you've ever driven down 41 to Chaska, back and forth up that hill where it goes 30, I don't
personally consider that an easier drive to drive 6 miles to Chaska than 2 miles on TH 5 to Chanhassen for
lunch myself. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Council tonight?
Rod Franks: I wasn't going to say anything today but you can tell I'm still in lawn mowing clothes and I
certainly didn't expect to be here this morning. I mean last night. Rod Franks, 8694 Mary Jane Circle. I
just had to get up because I didn't know that I was going to become famous and be quoted in the paper and
then quoted again at council meeting. But you were all here at the Council when I made my remarks
indicating, as was confirmed by the consultant who prepared the report for the parks commission, that the
100 acre parcel is a significant parcel in and of itself. Able to maintain it's habitat. By creating the
roadway you actually fragment that parcel into approximately a 70 acre parcel and a 30 acre parcel, each
of which parcel has diminished ability to maintain it's habitat contents. But that's neither here nor there. I
guess since I'm up here, the one thing that I would say is, now I've only been in Chanhassen about 8 years
and when we moved here you had to go to Minnetonka or Eden Prairie to go to a grocery store. And we
bought pumpkins that first Halloween where Target sits and there were cows across the street. Well all
that's gone now and we also can shop at Byerly's too without leaving our town. That's nice. But we came
here because of what this community offered as far as it's character. And this is where we, my wife and I,
decided to make our family because of that community. Now we knew that this was going to develop out.
We knew that there'd be development pressure. In fact we expected it. What we didn't expect is that the
city would act in such a way as to remove those last pieces of character that will remind us of what we are
as a city now and into the future. I mean these parcels like this, I think it's the largest, one of the largest if
not the largest open space that is available to us at 100 acres. Is that what we want to do as a city? To me
it's not necessarily the ecological issue or the traffic issue or the roadway issue. It's more of a city issue.
What's our vision? Where do we want to be? What's the statement that we want to make? What do we
want to leave for our children that's a lasting imprint of our city? Those are going away. I listened to the
Board of Adjustments today and about the green acres land and the undeveloped land and the extension of
the MUSA line. That's all coming. That's all going to be gone. That will all be developed out someday.
What's going to be left? We have an opportunity here to just not do anything and to have it. We don't
have to buy it anymore. It's been bought. We do have to maybe do a little restoration but as was
indicated, that might be a little bit easier job than even I had anticipated. So I guess that's the question that
I would like you all to consider as a resident here. As a resident who's decided to raise my family here.
What's the vision? And are we ready to make that decision now? Thanks.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else... ? Let's bring it back to Council. Roger, I have a question for
you about AUAR versus an EAW. At this point we've done an AUAR, which includes this portion of the
road. The eastern portion of Coulter Boulevard from Century over to Galpin. Can the City, I mean are
there any parameters about the city asking now for an EAW? Environmental Impact Statement.
Roger Knutson: The short answer is no but let me comment just a little bit further. The AUAR process,
and frankly I'm not all that familiar with it because it's not used all that often. The EAW process is used
very often. The EAW process is simpler than the AUAR process. The AUAR process is a hybrid between
an EAW, which is a relatively short process and an ElS which is a very complicated process. It's a hybrid
between those two. It's greater than an EAW but not as full blown as an ElS. So it's a hybrid process.
Once the AUAR has gone through the steps, and it gets reviewed by the agencies. It gets reviewed by the
EQB. All the agencies that would review an EAW had to review the AUAR. But once that has been done,
74
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
that ends the environmental process unless something is changed. For example, if the AUAR was based on
an assumption that you were going to build X and you build something, somebody comes in that's very
different than X. You were considering building residential as an example and you decided to build
industrial and that could have different environmental impacts, then you could require an EAW. But as
long as the assumptions on which the AUAR have not changed, then that's the end of the process. The
environmental review process.
Mayor Mancino: Phillip, I'm assuming none of those assumptions have changed. Do you know right off
the bat?
Phillip Elkin: No. Nothing's changed.
Mayor Mancino: None of the assumptions as far as guided land use or wetland delineation and.
Roger Knutson: The assumptions being what.., how are you going to develop the project.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So that answers that. Yes Linda.
Linda Jansen: We're not assuming one was done for the...
Mayor Mancino: It was done. It was done for this leg of the road.
Linda Jansen: I was told it was not.
Mayor Mancino: Well you have five heads saying yes.
Linda Jansen: I guess I'm confused because I did try to establish that before we went down.., and Kate
even spoke to the fact that it has not been done and I spoke to Phillip who said it had not been done because
none was triggered. The AUAR was on the Steiner property.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, just a minute.
Phillip Elkin: Yeah, I did not know that the AUAR done on the center, I just found that out tonight, did
include the entire extension of Coulter Drive. I didn't, it was not part of the Highway 5 study. The EAW
done on Highway 5 extension in the northern half and it was not done on the south half. I did not know it
was included in the Steiner development, AUAR so.
Mayor Mancino: But it was.
Phillip Elkin: But it was.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilmembers. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Two eggs over easy, hash browns. Orange juice.
Mayor Mancino: Coffee. Caffeine.
75
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Councilman Senn: I'm long past that stage. To me this is one of those wonderful times that the issue is not
whether we like the road or dislike the road. It's one of those wonderful times that we're long past that
issue. Through numerous previous city actions, councils, commissions, etc. In my mind whether we like it
or not, we've been committed to it for a long time and I don't know how you change that commitment. I
think if anything, material or let's say good comes out of this process which we've visited here in the last
30 days, is more an issue of the need for let's say the sensitivity in which, and the way in which we treat the
construction of the roadway to at least minimize it's impact on the area. The other thing I suppose you
could look back at in hindsight is to say there's got to be a lot better way process way to do all this so you
don't end up in this situation, but I'm not sure that's ever going to change. In a way we've all been kind of
kidding ourselves the last couple of months, it's been many more months than that that the road's been in
place. Rightfully or wrongfully.
Mayor Mancino: Well I think it came up again and we didn't know if we would have to pay for it and...
MSA fund.
Councilman Senn: But again that's all immaterial because again the roadway was in before even that.
You know, I mean if you want to talk about that. If you want to hold somebody responsible for it. If you
want to get at that issue, well then I mean you can get at those issues but the reality is that it's there. It's
done. You know now it needs the finishing touches. I think the reality is the commitments were made.
Again, whether the process was in error or certain, you know certain city actions were in error, whatever.
Again, I mean you can talk about all those issues you want to but again, you have to deal with those as
separate issues. Not an issue of whether you like or dislike the road or whether the road is or isn't going to
go ahead at this point. So I'm done.
Mayor Mancino: Michael.
Councilman Mason: Oh I could talk a long time on this but I'm not going to. I see this whole deal as one
of balance. I think the City of Chanhassen has done an incredibly good job of balancing development with
natural resources. In fact I would put what this city has done against anything I've seen in certainly metro
wide. I agree that we made a commitment to this road. I think it's a good balance. I think we need that
collector on the south side of TH 5. I was on the Highway 5 task force committee that talked about that. I
don't think we have a bad piece of stock here.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: Yeah, I'm kind of inclined to agree with Mark initially that you know when I took this
job I knew there were going to be nights like this where no matter what I decided, I was going to be a bad
guy for somebody's side of the equation and this is certainly one of them. I think the road goes through at
the point where it's going to create the least impact there. If it was going right to the heart of the northern
or southern portion of those wetland halves, that would be I think a bad thing. I think where it goes
through, with the addition of the trails for biking and walking, are going to open it up for more use of the
area for more people. It's far away from the neighborhoods to the south and we're not doing any draining
or dredging and developing of the area to put a road through there. There were commitments made to
businesses and as someone who uses the Coulter Boulevard to get to the Bluff Creek Elementary and the
Community Center a lot from where I live, it is very nice to have. I can just tell you that from everyone I
know who lives south of TH 5 and uses that thing. So I think it's the right thing to do and it's the best way
to do it and make everybody just a little bit less than happy so I think it's got to be done.
76
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: I've been dreading this. It's 12:20. I've been dreading this for the better part of
two weeks. There's issues...this decision making process for me and I've told everyone that I've talked to
on the telephone that I am firmly on the fence and so far tonight in listening to everyone talk, I've hoped
back and forth many times. Trying to justify in my own mind the reasons for saying yes or for saying no.
For every pro there's a con and vice versa. It's absolutely an amazing thing. However, there's one note
that I go back to that hits me in my heart and that's what, it's something Vernelle said. And my note
simply says Vernelle's conclusion is valid. And that means a lot to me. There are many times when I
thought about this road from the standpoint that we as a community, 20 years from now, if it's built will
never know what we could have had if the wetland was completely intact. I went out there and I stood in
the middle of that road twice. The last time was, I don't remember when it was, Thursday or Friday.
There was a Cat pushing some dirt around and I stood there and listened to the hawks and looked at the
deer tracks jumping down and this is a very emotional decision. This is difficult. And yet I looked across
there and I envisioned cars going into the business park and I envisioned, and I could hear the traffic on
Highway 5. The roar of traffic on Highway 5 at 10:30 in the morning. And I could sit there and see it both
ways. Thinking about what do we do if we don't do it? Well, how's it going to be if we do do it? It's
almost 12:30. I'm going to shut up. The net result of all this deliberation is that in my mind there was a
commitment made. The re-examination of the process, the re-examination of the roadway is something I'm
not sorry that we've undertaken. The additional work that we've caused for people, engineering staff and
what have you, I'm not sorry about one bit. I respect very deeply the Park and Rec Commission's
recommendation not to do it. I really appreciate everyone's efforts to try and sway this body one way or
the other. Knowing full well that their intentions were pure. I'm going to vote in favor of the road
however.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, I'll be the last one here tonight. I can echo what Councilman Berquist has just
said. I have been on the Highway 5 task force, which put the road there. And we have again a pure motive
to put it there for transportation. We did it at the smallest point where it goes through the wetland. We
took all that into account. I have chaired the referendum committee so I know how important a whole
intact wetland is for us to keep it the 100 acres. It would be wonderful not to divide it. And I must say, ifI
had all the information I had tonight, and looking where development has taken us, I may not.., meaning
that I think the Arboretum Business Park will survive very well with a full access off TH 5, Th 41 and 82nd
Street. There's no question to me. That it will do well. Every other business park in our community has 2
to 3 access points and really for it's own industrial park.., direct access onto Highway 5. You know right
in the middle, full access so I think that we have done, as a Council, which was their number one request, I
think that, and I'm losing my voice here. It's getting so late. I think that we have cared how that business
park and the vitality of it stays. And I do think that Autumn Ridge, as a multi-family affordable housing
area, will do well without the, I can see amenities even greater than they would have a passive park right
there near them instead of a roadway cutting through them. So I also think that they would do fine.
However, I too have a deep concern about making a commitment so many years ago and keeping that up
throughout the years coming through this late hour. So I will also vote for the road but I do want to say
that as a commission, and this has been brought up quite a few times tonight. That we make sure that we
keep our vision intact about how important our natural amenities are to our city. And that as we go
through and as we write ordinances for our Bluff Creek and our primary and secondary zone, that we keep
that vision foremost and we make decisions based on that. And I do want to thank I guess both sides for
being so tenacious and so honest about forcing us to see both sides and having to balance it. Because it's
going to make us better as a community and that's all I have to say. A motion please, and I can't talk.
77
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Councilman Berquist: Howard asked about the signalization of TH 5 and you said yes. Well that has been
absolutely...
Anita Benson: Yes they are, MnDOT has confirmed that there will be signals at Century and at Audubon
Road. We will of course be funding our portion of it.
Councilman Mason: I will.
Mayor Mancino: Can I just add that I would like to make sure, as Coulter Boulevard goes through, that
there is some safety I think Deb Kind brought it up. Not only on Galpin and Coulter Boulevard on the east
side but also Creekside of Coulter. Where those two intersect, I am concerned about the truck traffic
wanting to go past the school east. And maybe putting some stop signs in there and making sure that it
doesn't get, the speed doesn't get up and, because obviously we want the truck traffic to get out to TH 5
and go down TH 5.
Charles Folch: Right, and one thing as that industrial park east of the school will develop, that's one thing
we'll continue to monitor is what the traffic patterns are out there and if there are any problems that are
developing and then we'll come back to you with recommendations as to what that means.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, I'd like to be not only monitor it but be proactive.
Councilman Mason: I move approval for plans and specs for Coulter Boulevard and authorize advertising
for bids, Project 97-1B-2.
Councilman Engel: Second.
Resolution #98-44: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the plans and
specifications for the Coulter Boulevard extension, Project No. 97-1B-2 dated May 11, 1998, and
authorize advertisement for bids. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Mancino: The motion carries. Can I have a motion to table this meeting until Wednesday. Is that
what I do?
Councilman Mason: I think Al.
Mayor Mancino: No, recess.
Councilman Mason: No, but wait.
Councilman Engel: We've got one more item.
Councilman Mason: We promised Al.
Mayor Mancino: Oh, I'm sorry Al.
REQUEST FOR A PUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT TO CONDUCT A CHARITY WATER
SKIING EVENT ON JUNE 11 AT LAKE SUSAN PARK~ MIDWEST WATER SPORTS~ WADE
BEMMELS.
78
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Don Ashworth: I apologize to A1 Klingelhutz. We've had several requests like this over the past years.
Lake Minnewashta's continued to take and be on. We put that onto consent. We had Lake Susan last
year. We had basically no one attending. So again going with consent. We published this item as a
consent item and then found out afterwards that A1 had a group that basically in opposition and we were
then forced to put it onto the regular agenda and again I apologize. We should have had the thing up higher
in the agenda. But A1 again did ask to speak. Jerry did take and give me some, the applicant could not be
here but that's the information in regards to the applicant's request.
Councilman Senn: This is not the same applicant as the other one. This is a second one, correct?
A1 Klingelhutz: Part of my knowledge it is a second one. There's one supposed to be held in May and the
other one on the 11th of June. When this came out, and there was a notice to all the residents on Lake
Susan and immediately being, they knew I was involved before. You probably know who they called. I
should have listened to Don earlier. I was a little angry that I would have to stay up this late as it was, and
that was about quarter to 11:00 1 think and I said well I'd like to do it tonight because I've got something
else going on Wednesday. But I'm sorry now that I didn't listen to his advice and he was right. It's 12:30.
This concerns a tournament at Lake Susan. The people on Lake Susan have been very fair about letting
things happen down there and there was no objection when they put up a public park on Lake Susan. A
public approach on Lake Susan. No objection when they put the dock on Lake Susan. Normally you get a
lot of, not in my back yard stuff similar to what you heard tonight. But when this came out, the one
tournament was enough. Two was too much. And it isn't only the day of this tournament that affects the
lake. There's three different days people are out there setting the balls or balloons or whatever they use to
get the slalom course going. And speed boats were out there. The skiers were out there practicing for the
tournament. And a lake of 95 acres with the power of some of these boats that they bring out there, it
creates a wake that really, you wouldn't have soil erosion barrier on the lake with rocks and things. I've
got a small portion of my 6 acre lot on the lake that I haven't got that on and actually it won't take long and
some of my big trees along the lakeshore will be in the lake because of the wake coming in and tearing up
the soil and putting it in the lake. We just spent somewhere around $40,000.00 or $50,000.00 on Lake
Susan. We didn't spend it. The City didn't spend it but the DNR was good enough to try and fix that lake
up to bring it back to some useful purposes. They seined the carp out. The seined the bullheads out. They
didn't get all the bullheads yet because I was out there today and caught 12 of them. I probably would
have caught 24 if they hadn't have done.., but it is a concern. I put my pontoon and kind of moved along
the north side of the lake along where the path is. And you see the sod coming out, standing up here.
Underneath the sod there's a big gouge like this. How many more years before the path's gone? That's
one of the reasons that the neighbors are concerned. I have a petition here from most of them. Some of
them are out of town. Couple of the ladies went out and got these names and I'd like to hand it to you right
now and you can take a look at it. They're all residents of Lake Susan. I did only make one copy...but I
would urge that the Council could deny this second permit. It's somebody from out of town that wants to
put it on. It isn't a resident of Chanhassen and I think our lakes, I know they're all public and it isn't our
lake or it isn't my lake. It's everybody's lake but I think the residents of the city should have some
preference on what goes on on a piece of property on a lake that small. How come they have to come to
Chanhassen to get this done? Because every other community turns them down. We let one come in last
year. So another one wants to come in this year. Next year we'll probably have a third one wanting to
come in if we don't say no now. So this is something that I think we should take care of right now. Thank
you.
Mayor Mancino: Al, do you know who... ?
79
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
A1 Klingelhutz: Oh, one thing else I was going to say. You know we made some big decisions when the
township and the city merged here and put in a lot of sewer lines and water lines and new streets. A lot of
people were against it but I'm still here.
Mayor Mancino: And it's 12:30 at night.
A1 Klingelhutz: I want to say this to you because, sometimes you guys have to make a decision and I'm
sure glad you made a good one tonight.
Mayor Mancino: Thanks. Hey Al, do you know who Family Hope Services is? That's what the donation
goes to. Is that, or Todd do you know who Family Hope Services is? Is it an organization in Chanhassen?
A1 Klingelhutz: No. They're from Burnsville as far as I understand. My wife did try to check them out
with some charity. Some people that talk about charities and they never heard of them before. So we
couldn't tell you how much percentage of the take they get from this tournament would go to a charity.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Senn: Move denial.
Mayor Mancino: Anyone else wishing to speak on this tonight? I just wanted to make sure. Any
comments from anyone? Todd, any thoughts from the Park and Rec? I mean the policy.
Todd Hoffman: We don't advocate for it or against them. We simply carry out policy as they come to our
attention.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, Councilman Mason, your thoughts?
Councilman Mason: I have no thoughts on this. There is a motion on the floor.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Is there a second?
Councilman Berquist: I'll second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to deny the request for a public gathering
permit to conduct a charity water skiing event on June 11, 1998 at Lake Susan Park. All voted in
favor, except Mayor Mancino who abstained, and the motion carried.
Roger Knutson: We should state our reasons in case anyone asks us why. You're turning it down, what's
our basis for turning it down?
Councilman Engel: How about limiting it to one event per year?
Councilman Mason: Possible damage to the.
Roger Knutson: The lake is too small.
80
City Council Meeting - May 11, 1998
Councilman Mason: Possible damage to the lake. Erosion.
Councilman Senn: Noise.
Councilman Berquist: Damage lake.
Councilman Mason: Size of the lake.
Mayor Mancino: And we are recessing until Wednesday at 4:00.
Mayor Mancino recessed the meeting at 12:35 a.m. until Wednesday, May 13, 1998 at 4:00 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
81