1g App CC Minutes 1/10/00
%
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCll.
REGULAR MEETING
.JANUARY 10, 2000
Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Senn, Councilman Engel, and
Councilwoman Jansen
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt
STAFF PRESENT: Roger Knutson, Scott Botcher, Todd Gerhardt. Anita Benson, and Sharmin AI-Jaff.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the agenda as
presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Mancino: I don't think there are any public announcements. Scott, are there any announcements about
Y2K and how the City Hall is working and doing well and making that New Year's Eve leap for us.
Scott Botcher: Oh I guess we're feeling good, looking good. Doing fine.
Mayor Mancino: So everybody's going to get their water and sewer bills.
Scott Botcher: Yeah, we've got Leap Year coming up. No, Mr. Rice did a great job and I know I received some
correspondence from some of the councilmembers and he worked very hard and we did not have any glitches at
all, except for some that were upgrades being scheduled for after the first of the year. They weren't really
glitches. They were just known issues to postpone because they were not a priority. But we had no other'
difficulties.
Mayor Mancino: Great, thank you.
ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS:
Mayor Mancino: Let's discuss these as a council just all of the, (a) through (g) and then take, do one motion.
The first on it is Rules of Procedure and we do have a memo ftom our City Manager suggesting that we pass
Roberts Rules of Order and Roberts Parliamentary Law. That we also pass the Rules of Procedure which is in
the memo and they name, or have about ten values here and these Rules of Procedure that he is suggesting that
we use is, number one, to respect ourselves. Number two, to do your best at all times. Respect others. Treat
others in a way that you want to be treated. Be a good listener. Use nice manners. Share with others. Take
turns. Respect property. Be honest. Work as a team. Have fun and it is okay to make mistakes but we should
also try and fix them. Any discussion on those? Okay.
Scott Botcher: I think if you want to have Roberts Rules of Order serve as your guide book, you should direct
us to draft an ordinance to incorporate that into the code. You should also give us some direction on whether or
not you still want to maintain two readings on ordinances. That's fine. Roger has spoken the pros and cons of
that But if you want to do that you probably ought to just codify it and be done with it. So that would require, I
CitY Council Meeting - January 10, 2000
guess 1 would recommend that you just direct us to draft an ordinance and then that ordinance will be passed at a
future date. In two weeks or something like that.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Scott Botcher: Can you waive the second reading on requiring two readings?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And the official newspaper, any discussion on? Chanhassen Villager. And City
Attorney. The Knutson, Mr. Knutson. And the Acting Mayor, Councilman Mark Senn.. Weed Inspector, the
Maýor with the Jackie Glaser as the Deputy Weed Inspector. The Fire Chiefbeing John Wolff who was re-
elected and the Health Officer, Dave McCollum. May I have a motion please? Unless there's any other
discussion. .
Councilman Engel: No discussion, move approval.
Mayor Mancino: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Jansen: Second.
Councilman Senn: Could we do a clarification on (a) though that it is directing staff then to prepare an
ordinance and bring it back at a future meeting.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And one reading of the ordinance, to make that change.
Councilman Engel: Yes.
Councilman Eugel moved, Councilwoman .Jansen seconded to approve the following organizational
items:
2. Ruies of Procedure. Directing staff to prepare an ordinance adopting Roberts Rules of Order and to
change the ordinance so that adoption of ordinances takes just one reading instead of two.
b. Official.Newspaper. Chanhassen Villager
Co City Attorney. Campbell-Knutson Law Firm.
II. Acting Mayor. Councilman Mark Senn
e. Weed Inspector.' Mayor Nancy Mancino, Weed Inspector and Jackie Glaser, Deputy Weed Inspector.
f. Fire'Chief. John Wolff
g. HealthOfficer. ùr. Dave McCollum
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Jausen'moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Approve Request for Public Gathering Permit for a Water"ski, Wake-Board, and Knee-Board Tournament
on Lake Susan, June 3 & 4, 2000, International Novice Tour (INT).
b. Approve Temporary Beer License, February Festival, Chanhassen Lions Club.
2
~
City Council Meeting - January 10,2000
d. Resolution #2000-01: Accept Utility Improvements in Springfield 7th Addition - Project No. 99-18.
e. Resolution #2000- 02: Accept Utility Improvements in The Woods at Longacres 5th and 6th Additions -
Project Nos. 99-15 and 99-16.
f. Resolution #2000-03: Accept Street and Storm Drainage Improvements in Springfield 2nd, 3'd, and 4th
Additions, Project Nos. 97-20, 98-7 and 98-6.
g. Resolution #2000-04: Receive Feasibility Study; Set Public Hearing Date for Grandview Road Area
Utility Improvement - Project No. 97-11.
h. Resolution #2000-05: Approve Temporary Permits to Construct for TH 5!West 78th Street Improvement
Project No. 97-6 amended to add Parcel215A.
1. Approval of Bills.
J. Approval of Minutes:
- City Council Work Session Minutes dated December 13, 1999
- City Council Minutes dated December 13, 1999
Receive Commission Minutes:
- Planning Commission Minutes dated December I, 1999
k. Resolution #2000-06: Approve Resolution Establishing Procedures Relating to Compliance with
Reimbursement Bond Regulations Under the Internal Revenue Code.
I. Resolution #2000-07: Approve Resolution Designating Signers on City Bank Accounts.
m. Resolution #2000-08: Approve Resolution Modifying Personnel Policy Regarding Comp Time for
Exempt Employees.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW A 16.680 SOUARE FOOT CLASSROOM AND A 2.000 SOUARE
FOOT LIBRARY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BillLDING AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 30
FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK. CHAPEL IDLL ACADEMY.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Dan Blake
Steve Barnett
Dan Plowman
Kathy & Larry Schroeder
Sherry & Bob Ayotte
306 West 78th Street
8709 Chanhassen Hills
6490 White Dove Drive
7720 Frontier Trail
6213 Cascade Pass
3
o'''>City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000
Sharmin AI-Jaff: Just a brief background ofthe application. In June of 1998 the City Council approved an
application for temporary classrooms. It was an Interim Use Permit format and as a condition of approval was
that one year after the Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for the modular classrooms, the applicant for
Chapel Hill Academy needed to submit a complete site plan application. And five years after Certificate of
Occupancy the modular units would need to be removed or when the expansion has taken place, whichever
comes first. So the site plan is before the City Council. The applicant is requesting a site plan review
application approval for the construction of a 16,680 square foot classroom units and a 2,000 square foot library
addition. And a 5 foot ftont yard setback variance to allow the addition to be located 30 feet ftom public right-
of-way. This is the first phase of a 77,260 square foot expansion. This addition is proposed to be located, Phase
I, located to the south ofthe site and facing West 78th Street. The site contains an existing church, temporary
modular classroom buildings, two houses, two garages and a playground. There has been numerous studies
done on this site and this area of the city. It is within the area that is referred to as Old Town. It is within the
2002 Vision for the city so again there has been a lot of concepts and studies done in this area. The existing
building was built in phases and as each phase was constructed, a different building material was introduced to
this site. That was one of the challenges that we had to deal with as we started working on this expansion.
Materials that you can find on the existing building include brick, wood, fluted block, and glass block. The goal
of the expansion was to give the building a new image, improve the appearance and build an addition that blends
in with the area. The applicant prepared a master plan to reflect the ultimate expansion and the final appearance
of the building and site layout. The overall plan is proposed to be completed in three phases. It is possible for
this project to take 5 or 10 years but at this present time the intent is to complete the classrooms over the next 2
years. The proposed addition is proposed to utility rock face block and I can pass these around for the City
Council to look at. The colors include same shades of red brick that can be found on the existing building.
Specifically on the base of the western elevation of the existing building. The color combination will blend in
with the existing building. Especially when the area located west of the site is, this is the area we're talking
about. Right now this area is mainly glass. Therefore it will blend in.
Councilman Senn: Just a point of, these are the rock face block, right?
Sharmin Al-Jaff: Correct. That is the material that the applicant is proposing to utilize.
. Councilman Senn: These are?
Sharmin AI-Jaff: These are. What you're holding.
Councilman Seun: Okay, so these are the rock face block.
Sharmin AI-Jaff: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay, and this is basically the roof color and the flashing color.
Sharmin AI-Jaff: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay, and what's this?
Sharmin Al-Jaff: Nothing. Decoration for. One of the issues regarding the materials that we need to bring up
deals with the size of the block. This is an established area of Chanhassen. The applicant is proposing to use
block that is 8 x 16 inches, and this is the size of an 8 x 16 inch block. Typically you'll find those on
warehouses. This is the size of a typical brick that you might find in the surrounding area. The church across
4
City Council Meeting - January 10,2000
the street utilW:s this size brick. What we're suggesting to the applicant is rnaybe they can utilize what we call a
utility size brick. It is pretty much the height of a siding that you might find within that neighborhood. It is also
twice the size of a brick that you would find in that neighborhood as well.
;,): ,',
Councilwoman Jansen: Do you know what the actual dimensions are of your jumbo, your utility brick?
Sharmin Al.J;¡ffi Yes.. They are, wi1h'1bemortaritwouldbe4 ÍIlCheS'DY 12 inches.
Councilwoman JBDSeIl: That one's 4 by 12?
Sharmin AI-Jaff: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: I think that's one of, that's on condition 19.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, thank you.
Sharmin Al-Jaff: So this is the only issue that we really have with the materials on the building. The size, it
needs to be a smoother face. It needs to be compatible with the surrounding areas. Entrances into the building
are well defined. There is a projecting pitched element on them. Another issue that required quite a bit of
discussion deals with the gymnasium. Overall this building is a one-story building. It is in a residential
neighborhood. As you get to the gymnasium portion, you're goinglo a two story box basically and there isn't
any other word to describe it. What we agreed upon was to locate it, locate the gym to the northwest corner of
the site. This area is 8 feet lower than the existing residences to the north. There will be quite a bit of
vegetation. There are some mature trees in this area and that will create that building. As far as location on the
site, it is probably the best location for a gymnasium. One of the questions that was raised at the Planning
Commission meeting was the parking. To date there are 132 parking spaces. With this plan the building will
pretty much double in size, yet they will lose half of their existing parking. Remember that this site used to be
used as a church. Now it is a school. We calculated the number of.parking spaces that they would need with
their ultimate expansion and as per figures that were provided by the applicant they would need 72 parking
spaces. They = providing ß4-parlringspaces. So they have more 1han they need as far as parking. One issue
that might become a problem would be special activities. If there were concerts, then there are parking spaces,
public parking spaces around that area that the school could utilize. Fina\ issue we'd like to touch upon deals
with the setback variance. The ordinance requires a 35 foot ftont yard setback. This site is located within an
established neighborhood with buildings that maintain substantially reduced setbacks. We wanted to reinforce
and reflect the setback of the existing building and reinforce the established character of the neighborhood. The
setback would be 30 feet ftom West 78th Street. 32 feet ftom Frontier Trail. There isn't a hardship. We're not
going to try and justify one. It's purely an aesthetic reason. And with that staff is recommending approval with
conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much Sharmin. A couple questions that I have, and if other council members
have questions. Could you go over our review tonight is on the addition of Phase I, but you want us to also
review the em:ire lénd of site plan and give general comments to it?
Sharmin AI-Jaff: Yes, please.
Mayor Mancino: Could you review with us the Planning Commission's general review of it? What, did they
have any concerns? Again, not just on Phase I but of the master plan. So that we don't need to be redundant if
the Planning Commission has already given some.
5
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000
Sharmin AI-1JIff: They liked Phase I. They liked how close it's going to be to West 78th. It will provide a
pleasant, which is something that they have been looking at, and wanting to see with this application. Parking
was an issue in their mind. They couldn't understand, well they questioned the reason why they are doubling
the size of the building and reducing the parking in halfand I explained that earlier. The size of the brick was
extremely important to them. They unanimously agreed that this is a large size block that does not belong in the
residential nci~ TIley iBdK:ated &it it is prefem:d. However, this is a compromise that will blend in
well within 1hat neighbmhood. 'M1Iin1y lIntaff mentioned earlier, it is the same width as the siding. They were
extremely concerned with the elevation facing the residential area. As far as future phases go. As well as the
gymnasium. They lII.anted to see mare n:lief and more aœhitectural features on the elevations facing the
residential neighborhood.
Mayor Mancino: So they weren't so concerned with location and what was going on there, but they just wanted
more architectural interest on that north elevation and on the gym? Is that, I don't want to put words in your
mouth.
Sharmin AI-Jaff: That's an accurate statement. They thought overall the layout of the site plan was very good.
Commissioner Conrad raised the question of the location of the music room and when the kids practiced they
might disturb the neighbors, but the neighbors that were at the meeting thought it amusing.
Mayor Mancino: Wait until they practice and they're out of tune. Just kidding. Okay. I just want to make sure
that we understand their concerns.
Sharmin AI-Jaff: One ofthe things that the applicant did a good job with was they tried to leave the area that
faces Frontier Trail neighborhood in it's present condition to the extent possible. There's minimum tree
removal in that area. One of the original thoughts we had was to push the building in this direction towards
Great Plains Boulevard. Basically that will result in screening in the parking. However, they would be short of
parking and would need to locate some in the area facing Frontier Trail and we didn't think that would be a
good option. Planning Commission agreed that the current layout is the best.
Mayor Mancino: fikay, 1hank you. 151he applicant here and would you like to address the council? I'm sorry.
Excuse me Dan. . Were'theremy other questions for staff at this point? From council members.
Councilwoman Jansen: Not right now. I can wait with mine.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Dan.
,
f
I
Dan Blake: Thank you Mayor Mancino and Council members. My name is Dan Blake with Chapel Hill
Academy. I also brought with me a couple other parents who happen to be on the Board of Directors and city of
Chanhassen residents bere tonight. If you have any questions regarding our school in general, we'll be glad to
try to address those and obviously specifics of this plan when we get to it. Chapel Hill Academy is a non-
denominational Christian $Chool that has been operating for I think 28 years now in the southwest metro area.
We moved to Chanhassen a couple of years ago in the old St. Hubert's school and church building. We
currently have 323 students in kindergarten through 81bgrade. 53 of those students are Chanhassen residents so
we're general1yÇbanhassen, Chaska, Eden1'rairie, Minnetonka kind of areas where our students come ftom.
We are planning abuilding tø aœommoda&e 450 students, and that w.oold equate to two classes per grade ftom
kindergarten through 8th grade. .I'm going to review Û'om our perspective this whole master site plan and then
I've got two issues.that I'd like to focus in on, Obviously you're all, well it's reasonable to assume that you're
all familiar with the location of this site on the east end of downtown. What we are proposing, minor correction
to the staff comment as far asthe building size. The property is about 4 y, acres. We're proposing a total
6
^City Council Meeting ~ January 16,.2000
expansion that gets the total building Ix> about that 77,000 square foot number. It's roughly 38,000 square feet
now and we're ('LIming close to doubling it to 77,OOOio.tal square feet. I think you all have a picture like this. I
like this better lhaJ¡,tbe.sitcplan..I don.'t know ifitWOJks good on the overhead. How far can we zoom in on
that? l'djust fiR toTeVÌewtbc _;mr;g buildiDg;'Ibis.is!he c=Psting classroom building that was actually built
ftrst on this property_ Iñe chureh addition generally sits down in this end. Our plan is for a classroom wing,
one story addmœ a10ng West78th SJreet. A gym IonâIdmg fronted by a one story locker room, office area. And
administrative addition in front of the existing churcè building and some expanded and reconfigured classrooms
along the backside. When this R\IISIa'plan is completed, neartyevery bit of the old building will be covered up
or rebuilt. This area 15 the area tbatmostrel'IllH«;; iD:it'sexisting condition with the existing roof but the outside
walls are proposed 10 be recOll6tructcd to matchtheeJlÏl;1ing building. As Sharmin mentioned, we have not
identified exactly what QUI' time ftame i1; to make an1iús happen... the modular classroom buildings. The gym
is somewhat substandard and we'd lilœto see that i_ved and that's why a new gym addition is desired. I'd
like to point out some of tbe, how we envision the site plan in this master building working is that facing
diagonal across the street from the old, I don't know what you'd call it. The Village Square and Town Hall and
the Dinner Theater, we've got what will be our kind of a main entrance. Highlighted with a peaked roof,
canopy. We've got a secondary classroom entrance into the classroom wing. We've got an activity entrance
into the gym building. Included in this master site plan in our mind but nothing that you're reviewing today is
our desire eventually to acquire the rest of the properties on that block for additional open space. We designed a
pian that fit on the land we {)WO, but have been working with the neighbors to acquire on a longer term basis
some of those additional propertiestbat would eventually expand the open space on the propertY for just recess
and you know when we talk about transition to the residentia1,.Jit some point space will be quite a bit of the
transition. The ftrst of the two issues that I want to 1alk about is clarification on the master plan versus Phase l.
When we submitted this application it was my intent that it was for the master plan and Phase I. And really all
. .the phases. There are some details in the phasing thatmade it difficult for staff to review it and we, our answer
to that was that we weren't prepared to tell you exactly how each phase was going to work You talked a little
bit some general comments. I guess I need as specific as .we can be because this plan is what we'll now go to
with contractors and architects to figure out costs and figure out how we can go about building it. You know
some of the details.are potentially minor and not cost issues but if they're much more than that, it is a significant
issue so as much direction 00 tbe.overa11 plan as we can get, and if that's difficult, I guess I would ask what
additional information 00 weneedand-l'd rather eDend this process if we had to to get clarity on what's
acceptable and not acœptable on those future phases, -&:cond item, and appears to be the issue of the day is the
. exterior materials. The existing facility, as Shannin mentioned, I counted seven different materials, including
wood siding. Including glass block. Translucent glass panels. Painted metal panels and two different types of
brick on that building. One of the criteria laid for us in the ordinance would be to be consistent or compatible
with the existing building. I don't know how you do that when there's so much variety other than it's all kind
of a dated, dark brown color. That's the only thing that's a little bit consistent. We have proposed two different
colors plus accent of rock face block on this building. And architectural detailing in the form of some roof
elements and some columns that stick out. Things like that. Those architectural details I guess where I attempt
to comply. with what we understood t{) be the city's vision for their Highway 5 corridor and pitched roof
elements and things like that. Serves very little function for us but something that we showed in an effort to
comply with what we believed to ùethe regulations.. The property is zoned office institutional. It's zoned, this
is a school is.an JIllowed use in that mning. The zoning district is not specific with regard to material types or
, anything like that. It does require mudd1tional se1hack adjacent to residential and I believe that would be the
attempt in the zoning ordinance to deal with the transition issue is a greater setback adjacent to residential than
. office institutional against another type of use. TßepNPCrty is also within the highway corridor overlay district
which I believe all ofdowntowD Gbanhassen is. My.tmderstanding is that the standard in the code that we're
expected to comply with, JIDd I'm goingto read itand you '.ve probably all read it but, is the creation of
functional and harmonious design for structures and ßÏte features with special attention to the following:
.materials, textures, colors and details of construe non as an expression of the design concept and the
7
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000
compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses. The word I pull out of all that is
compatibility. Obviously a very subjective term because it's different than consistent. The surrounding
materials range ftom very old, detailed brick work in the old church building. There's also a garage on that
church property that has siding. The old Town Hall has siding. The Medical Arts buildings to the west had rock
face block at the base and siding above. The existing Kenny's strip mall center, whatever you call that has some
brick but mostly siding. The Country Clean building has siding. As you get to the south, excuse me, northwest
part of the site we get into the residential and there's an apartment building. That's a stucco building with a
brick on the corners. At the north edge we hav~ three single family properties that are all wood siding. Most of
the siding in this area is 8 inch siding and not the, maybe the more charming, smaller lap siding. As you go
around to the east, again the entire single family neighborhood is primarily siding. Some stucco houses. Some
have brick or stone trim accents on the houses. The highway AC I or Highway Corridor District speaks about
high quality design. Things like that. It also states that specifically that major exterior surfaces of all walls shall
be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally textured concrete, cast in place or pre-cast panels, decorative
block, or approved equivalent. The code then goes on to say the following may not be used in any visible
exterior application and provides a list of materials that are not allowed. It specifically does not not allow a
decorative block. Or rock face block or any other term for block and materials of those sizes. Why do we care?
Well it's mostly because of cost. We are a parent run, volunteer, primarily based organization. Like most of
those kinds of organizations, certainly don't have any extra money to deal with. We're trying to provide a
quality education at as reasonable price as possible and cost is a big issue. And I think one of the things that
we're able to instill in our students is that, while the facility isn't totally unimportant, it's not the most important
thing, or not even close. We spent many years in a building over in Eden Prairie that at first glance people
might have said, well this is barely suitable for a school. How does it work? Yet I don't think the students ever
noticed that they were in a building like that. And I don't, also don't fault the city for wanting to see as good
looking of a product as they can in their downtown or any area of town. But I would ask that the city consider
very seriously what the ordinances say and how we comply or don't comply and not just what the city would
like to see down there. If the city would like to see something more than we're required to build, and can figure
out a way to help us do that, well we'd love to do that. We have no problem with any kind of upgrades, but we
need to be fiscally responsible to our people. One of the biggest issues in the cost of a block construction versus
a brick construction is how the building gets built. A block constructed building is basically laid up blocks with
decorative face on the outside and a finished face on the inside. And you've got an integral masonry wall.
Typically one single wall construction. If you build, if you put brick on a building, you build a wall either out or
wood or metal with sheathing or masonry, and you lay up a brick wall next to that. And you basically are
building a double wall. In the case of a taller wall like a gym, you'd build a block wall and you'd build a brick
wall attached to it so it's not just the difference of attaching a big square versus a little square. It's building one
wall versus two walls. I'd also like you to consider seriously that there, to my knowledge, is no neighborhood
opposition to the block type of material. I believe that the Schroeders are here today and may, if given the
opportunity, speak. They've told me that they're not opposed to the block material. Actually Mr. Schroeder
said well that's really what's next to our house right now. The back half of that building is an 8 x 16 block. It's
fluted. It breaks up that size a bit but that's what's there, rough face block. The city has approved rock face
block all over the place. Certainly this site is unique but every site in Chanhassen is unique for one reason or
another. I prepared a handout. I don't know if you have it. I don't want to read through it but if you all tell me
you have at least have this sheet that talks about, gives some examples of existing materials. I'm going to focus
on a couple. To me the most obvious is the CSM office warehouse that's under construction right now. That
building is between 24, it's about 24 feet high, 27 feet high at the corners, 100% rock face block. It's adjacent
to single family. Fairly high priced single family. Happens to be across the city line but I don't think the city
would ignore those people just because it's across a city line. There is berming inbetween. There's about 70
feet to the property line and berming between the parking lot and the property line. The berming shields the
lower third of the building roughly, but standing on the ground most people can see the upper two-thirds. I'm
sure ftom their deck or second floor building window they can see just about all of that building. And they're
8
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000
comparable distances to residential as we are. The town square, Oasis Market center, the rear of that building is
25 feet or less I would guess ftom the property linem 5ing1e family homes. There they put up a fence and some
bushes or some old bushes that existed for a long time as thebuffer so to speak but that's an uncolored rock face
block base with some siding at the top. The St. Hubert·sgym, comparable size to wall heights as we'd be
building for our gym. Those are pre-cast concrete panels wi1h 16 inch squares. They're also right next to single
family. The same kiDd-of disbmce as we are. So I think the City needs to treat us the way they've looked at
other applk.J>tioos j¡¡ die past. We believe that we meet the standards called out for in the ordinance. This is
clearly not a PUD and therefore additional negotiatious on these kind of items is maybe less appropriate than it
might be under a PUD ~jt,,~tjon. The staff did reOOt.........d a 4 inch by 12 inch brick alternative. I guess I think
that that's kind of the normal size brick used in most;buildings these days other than a single family house with
brick trim and a fireplace in the inside and the wall right behind you there. But that jumbo brick is pretty
common place and I don't think if you looked at the Byerly's center you'd ever say oh that's where that really
big brick. Those kind of buildings typically have that size brick and again that's spelled out on that little
handout. Some of the areas around town. I guess I'd like to summarize by saying, I think it's unfair and a bit
punitive to~k Chapel Hill Academy to establish a trend or a set of standards for that end of the redevelopment
of that end of downtown. At our expense at least and that's a burden that we're not sure we can handle. Given
all that, you know we ask for your approval as submitted tonight and if not, we would ask for the opportunity to
re-Iook at this with some other alternative material such as siding, which clearly would be the most similar and
compatible but I don't think is really what makes the most sense. And the second alternative would be some
kind of a stucco exterior, which is also quite common in the city and could reasonably be considered compatible
with some of the adjacent uses. We have stucco buildings onaeouple of sides of us. Given that long and
winded spiel, I'm open for any questions. I hope you'lI look at this as fairly as you can.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions for Dan?
Councilwoman Jansen: Mayor, I do have one if! cOl1ld. Dan, when you were speaking to the Planning
Commission within the Minutes, going again over building materials. At one point you had proposed an
alternative that you could potentially look at as far as.doing the big blocks along the lower portions of the
building and alternating that with the srna11er blocks then above. Is that something that you're still open to
looking at as far as an altermrtive1
Dan Blake: Certainly if you told me that, if that or aU brick, "8bsolutely. That wouldn't be our preference but I
think that the gym wall is the highest concern for us because of the way that construction works there. It's also
quite a bit back ftom the main street. A couple of scenarios that I could think about that would work, if we want
the rock face block band along the bottom, the dark red all the way around, and then the one story building with
a brick material and the two story building, part of the building that half of it's shielded, is with all block, I think
a scenario like that would, I guess to me that's a reasonable compromise. I have trouble quantifying the cost of
that I think from a construction standpoint. A scenario like that makes sense so would we consider it? Yes. It's
not again our first choice. What we proposed is our fm;t choice but sometimes you...
Mayor Mancino: Sometimes you don't get that.
Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: So you weulò look at:other altet'll8ÛYes. 'I'm concerned more about you. Not the materials
tonight but what you said at the very first, your first point. And that is about the master plan. The master site
plan. That really has me concerned right now because.the Planning Commission did not go into any sort of real
look at the master site plan and I'm just wondering.ifthis should go back to them because when I read here, and
I'll just read you a couple comments that Ladd Conrad made aòout the gymnasium and Matt Burton made about
9
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000
not feeling comfortable with the north elevation, etc so what I would hate to have us do is to go ahead here and
give a few general comments as a council, and then when you come in to bring in your site plan for another
phase, let's say it's the gym and they're going to want windows added and they're going to want articulation
against that north elevation. That concerns me because that goes right to your bottom line. So I'm, my
inclination, and talking about it with council but you also need to tell Dan is that, you know reading the Minutes,
the Planning Commission did not really take a real good look at the site plan. And in fact said they didn't feel
comfortable with it, the master site plan, especially that north elevation. So I don't want you being ed in the
wrong direction and then coming back and you know having all these changes. So I'm wondering, what's your
feeling first?
Dan Blake: Well I think to some degree you're absolutely correct. That the Planning Commission.
Mayor Mancino: There are very few comments.
Dan Blake: They looked at it. Certainly when we talk about things like parking, which obviously is a master
plan issue. And they did make some comments like I'm uncomfortable with, or I'm comfortable with the sides I
can see but I'm uncomfortable with the back side. And if you look at, you know what's in your packet, this kind
of elevation, it's very difficult to tell what that building's going to look like. There's a lot of relief that you can
see on this little three dimensional rendering that you can't tell on that picture.
Mayor Mancino: So what I'm asking is, if you bring in those site plans and they say we want you to add
windows, like I know Ladd was talking about the windows on Bluff Creek Elementary that are higher there.
They were also talking about, I mean Matt Burton says I'm not very high on the other parts that aren't before us
tonight. So you know I read comments like that and again, we don't want to mislead you.
Dan Blake: Well, as much as I never want to delay anything, timing is not the most critical item to us right now.
We were hoping to get a building under construction this spring/summer. It all depends on our financing.
Whether we will or not anyway. You know when they make those kind of comments, and at the Planning
Commission meeting there's not a lot oftime, sometimes there's not a lot of interaction. The Planning
Commission is just discussing things. You know I guess I would ask the follow-up question. Well what kind of
additional architectural detailing do you expect on a back side that's up against mostly trees and who are we
trying to protect? If my neighbors don't care, you know that it looks any better than what we're showing, does
the city really care and things like that? So.
Mayor Mancino: Well, obviously neighbors move and we as you know have to think oflong term and we have
to think about the community and the neighbors that are here now or are going to move, etc. So Scott, do you
have anything?
Scott Botcher: I agree with the Mayor. I think there's some concerns ftom the members of the Planning
Commission as to the long term plan and you know I'd hate for it to come back and kick you in the rear, quite
honestly. And so would you.
Dan Blake: Right.
Scott Botcher: I mean you've got a financial plan you're trying to put together. And I think what you said is
probably very true. I mean you're more financially driven than calendar driven. The thing that I would say, and
Sharmin has heard this many times, and it's premature but I'll say it now so I can say that I said it. Especially in
a residential neighborhood, and that is an attractive drive there ftom, well I believe it to be, ftom 101 to the
clock, you know towards the Dinner Theater. We need to make sure that we ratch it up instead of set our
10
,
,
\
City Council Mœting -JanwB)dO,2000
standards to what's there. I respecttbe economics of it but you know we want to constantly work to raise the
bar, and unfortunately that does involve everybody, including the schooL But I guess to get back to my point, I
don't want to see JIIlY HVAC as l~:ve by~,Ijustnotiœd on the t'CIIdering there and on this stuff here, there's
DOne of that ~'.' ''''I] ';.;1.audIbow1llli:'æ:aiittle-pœmature·butwhœ-you're doing your calculations and
you're doing your p1.onnÜ1g. have a pampetroof. Have them hidden. Have 1hem somewhere. Keep that in the
back of your head.
Dan Blake: For1hen:coni, /bat's whatwe're showing on our onestoJ)' building is, I don't know what that top
height is. IS tUtor fibu",liUu¡;. Sowe'reshowing a parapet all1he way around it as opposed to a specific roof
top screening.
Scott Botcher: Again, because that's the kind of stuff that's really simple and it's pretty basic for any city and if
you guys haven't planned for it,that can be another economic hit.
Mayor Mancino: Dan, do you think you could give more specifics to the planning department to bring it in front
ofthe Planning Commission in some of those areas where they felt uncomfortable, etc? Can there be some more
specifics that you can deal with? And have this go back'in ftont of them as a real master site plan review. And
they can review at that time materials and maybe you can show them aln:matives to those materials also.
Dan Blake: I can do that. I'm willing to do that. However, I don't think we would show them, I think the
specifics are there. It may be hard to visualize on a plan view elevation, or a elevation view what those
elevations looktike. We feh it was a need to dress up1heside you.see fiummain street. I guess I don't think
adding some oftbese decerativeroofs and things like that on the back sides of the building, you know it's not a
service drive kind of back of the building lik.eyour Oasis Market center. It's just windows and a couple
emergency doors and probably some sidewalk connections. We do have a service drive back there to get to just
a back side of the building but it's not like Blooding dock.
Mayor Mancino: Dao,I don'tJmow whalall their concerns are and that's what I'm trying to say.
Dan Blake: I tlndersIand..
Mayor Mancino: That I don't want to assume tbey're just thinking of one or two things, when we don't know as
a council. And again, we're just trying to be proactive so that you don't come in front of them on each site plan
and say, now wait a minute. And they can come backto the minutes and say but we told you we didn't feel
comfortable about it. Any suggestion ftom council members?
Dan Blake: Okay. We're willing to do that.
Mayor Mancino: Do you feel comfortable with that direction?
Dan Blake: WeU {-think, 19ueøs.l can agme that it's a good way1D bringit back in ftont of the Planning
Commission andfurthe!- discuss1hat Í5SUe..' I think that1he me of the brick took up the entire discussion and
therefore it didn't, there was no focus on 1hoseother ißSUes. Maybe now that you've had that discussion, now
we can talk about what is1he issue of the back side and what exactly would they expect to see on any other
. elevation. That's fine.
Mayor Mancino:AndA r......1
II
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000
Councilman Senn: I think that really makes sense. One of the very difficult parts of looking at this is when you
start trying to compare what you're approving with the first addition with the whole, it's very, very difficult.
Whether it be landscaping and trees. Whether it be building materials. Whether it be hard surface coverage. I
mean all those issues. I mean a lot of them really aren't spelled out here as to where we are and where we end
up. So it's real difficult to sit here within creating I'm going to sayan endless number of surprises...
Mayor Mancino: Councilwoman Jansen.
Councilwoman Jansen: It does seem like the prudent thing to do and I know that they did speak to a
considerable number of issues that more so addressed the master plan, just in general to give you a feel for it but
realizing that you really do need the specifics. If it is windows, work that through with them and so forth. So I
certainly appreciate your patience with the thought of needing to go back through the system but I do think it
might be best.
Mayor Mancino: And I also think at that time you can address some of the materials in more detail with them.
rfthere are other suggestions that you have. Okay. Councilman Engel, anything? Okay, thank you.
Sharmin AI-Jaff: We need an extension on the time line to process this application.
Mayor Mancino: Dan, could we have an extension?
Dan Blake: Hereby grant you whatever it takes.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thank you very much and thanks for everyone who came tonight. And so it will
go back and be reviewed by the Planning Commission in a little more detail for the master plan. Appreciate
that. Roger, do we need to do anything more formally? As a council.
Roger Knutson: Not on that other than postponing, you'd be postponing or tabling action.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So we need a motion to table?
Roger Knutson: Yeah, I think a motion to table and refer it back to the Planning Commission would be in order.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, may I please have a motion.
Councilwoman Jansen: Motion to table and move it back to the Planning Commission.
Mayor Mancino: Is there a second?
Councilman Senn: Second.
Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Senn seconded to table the site plan review to allow a 16,680
square foot classroom and a 2,000 square foot library addition to an existing building and a variance to
allow a 30 foot front yard setback for Chapel Hill Academy and to review the item back to the Planning
Commission for master site plan review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN TO ALLOW A FREE STANDING, 105 FOOT
MONOPOLE TOWER WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY FOR US WEST
WIRELESS TO BE LOCATED ON A CHURCH SITE.
12
City Council Meeting- January la, 2000
Public Present:
Name
Adda-ess
Steven Mangold
Pat Conlin
Mike Reyer
Eugene Sigal
Mike Dalton
Pete Keller
426 No. Fairview, St. Paul
416 No. Fairview, St. Paul
426 No. Fairview, St. Paul
426 No. Fairview, St. Paul
4153 Hallgren Lane
6760 Country Oaks Road
Sharmin AI-Jaff: Thank you. Madam Mayor, members ofthe City Council. First thing I would like to do if!
may is outline the ordinances that govern this application. The ordinance states that in residentially zoned
districts the maximum height of a tower may not exceed 80 feet. Whenever there are multiple users on a tower
within a residential district, then we have an exception and that exception basically states that the limitation of
the height may be increased by 25 feet. The third section that governs this application deals with locations of
towers within residentially zoned districts and it specifically points out that it may be placed on church sites
when camouflaged as an architectural feature such as... the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit and a
site plan approval for the construciion of a 105 foot cross designed monopole communication tower. The tower
is proposed to be situation south of Holy Cross Lutheran Church. This is the church site. It is proposed to be
located south of the church site and west of Highway 7. The actual pole height is 93 feet and is proposed to
have two 6 foot tall tubes. These tubes will be vertically stacked and inside them the antennas will be located.
The overall height of the tube again is 105 feet. When we looked at this site we looked at the surrounding area
and the setbacks of the residentiaUy zoned units in this area. What you see highlighted in green is existing
vegetation. It's a natural buffer. This is the proposed location of the tower. The setback is proposed to be 105
feet ftom the neighborhood to the south; and it exceeds 380 feet from the neighborhood to the east. Our first,
there isn't any buffer within.this area. It's really wide open. When we looked at this site overall, we thought the
best location would be immediately behind the church. What happens as you go behind the church is the grades
begin to drop substantially. Two things that the ordinance highlights. Number one, you cannot have a structure
between a main building and a right-of-way. So that would have required a variance. Second of all, as you
move the tower down the hill you're going to need a height variance. So that's two variances that you would
need to grant for this application. And what this location would have done would have been to screen the base
of the tower. With the proposed plans they're not proposing to remove any of the existing vegetation. And they
are proposing a landscape plan. Staff is recommending that the trees be 10 feet in height at a minimum at the
time of installation. You can't screen a structure such as that with landscaping. It's just not doable so with that
staff is recommending approval of this application with conditions outlined in the report. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Any questions for staff at this point from councilmembers?
Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Sharmin.'While the tower is basically being proposed to be built to accommodate two users.
Sharmin AI-Jaff: Yep.
Councilman Senn: Essentially what's there right now with the application is one user?
Sharmin AI-Jaff: Correct. And if there was a second user, we would do that administratively.
13
"~ €ityCouncin~""-Jamwy 10,2000 ;
~
Mayor Mancino: That's it? Okay.
.CouncilwomanJausen: I have ODe Maym:. .
f"',
- .
.
Mayor Mancino: ~
-
~
Councilwomaalansen: 'The buffer aIoot* east side by the residential homes that you referred to as there
really isn't a buffer. From wbat I coúldtdl; the landscaping appears to be a part of the single family
construction. Was 1hI:rea ~=tt ~ churoll1o provide a buffer along that segment of their propertY
when they buiIt11:&n'tJœøw:Wbat the1iining_èetween the two projects.
o'
Mayor Mancino: I think the church is older.
Sharmin AI-Jaff: Yes. I know the church is at least 20 years old. There is very little information, plans. Very
few plans in the file because I did some research on that site.
-
Councilwoman Jansen: Would it be unreatistic at this point for us to go back and review that buffer that is
supposed to exist.,between the church propertY and the residential to see if it does meet code? As we're going to
be adding the structure to thatproperty.
Sharmin AI-Jaff: May I refer this questiOR to Roger please.
Mayor Mancino: Roger, question.
,
. Roger Knutson: First, let me answer in two parts. As to what the ordinances looked like 20 years ago, I can
only speculate but it WOtlIdn't surprise me'1rt aUiftbere were no buffer requirements in this situation 20 years
ago. But that's speculation on mypart. If you think it's appropriate to plant some trees for a screening, I don't
know how it would screen but if you fiod.that it wouJd screen, I suppose you could require them just to do some
plantings. Some additional plantings and} don't know whether that makes sense or not.
. Councilwoman ..........·Staffis n:cot111DfDding'ital1Ound the actual base of the tower but just looking at the lack
of the buffer in between'tbe1wo1'roperties, itjustwou1d seem to make sense to have something along that
border there and we just don't build that way any longer but I didn't know when the church actually went in.
Roger Knutson: If it was 20 years ago, in all probability there was no such requirement 20 years ago.
Mayor Mancino: In fact I think our buffet' yard ordinance was just done 4 or 5 years ago actually.
Councilwoman Jansen: Ak'ight. Thanks.
Mayor Mancinø: Is thatnght Councilmaa Sel1l1~On the buffer yard ordinance.
Councilman Senn: Yeah.
..
r.
Mayor Mancinø: -4 <)r"5 yean; 1i'gO.
CouncilwomanJansen: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Is-the applicant here and would you like to address the council?
14
City Council Meeting - January 10,2000
Steve Mangold: Good evening Mayor and Council. My name is Steve Mangold. I'm the Regional Real Estate
Manager for the US West Wireless. Our address is 426 North Fairview, St. Paul. I want to thank you for the
opportunity to talk to you tonight. Weare here to request approval of our revised site plan and our conditional
use permit. This is an interesting case that we have here. We have been working for a number of months with
not only the city but also with the community to devise a way to put this project forward and I believe that
through the various discussions and changes in our site plan and negotiations, I believe that we've come up with
something that is appealing to the city and to the business and to the community. At least I hope so. Our last
meeting with the City Council we were dealing with two variances as staff has indicated. The one variance was
for the placement of the pole in between the right-of-way and the church. And the other variance was that we
didn't quite comply with Section 20-IS06 of the ordinance. As you will see we have corrected through our
revised site plan both of those and now we are going forward on our application without regard to the variances.
I am here with our lead RF engineer to answer any questions that you may have, and again we are requesting
that you consider this application and approve it as it is. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for Steve from councilmembers? No? Okay. Thank you. Not at
this time. But you do have your engineering here? Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone here tonight, neighbor,
etc, that would like to come up and address the council? If you have a few words. We certainly have read the
Minutes so is there anyone here tonight wanting to address the council on this issue? Please state your name and
address.
Pete Keller: Sure, thank you. Appreciate your time. My name's Pete Keller and I live at 6760 Country Oaks
Road. I live directly to the east. We're right here.. .buffered field. In addition I'm a stay at home dad. I'm
home all the time so I'll be afforded this view every daylight hour of every day so we're more than concerned. I
appreciate that you've read the Minutes and there is an exceptional, of great detail that I'd like to add except the
Planning Commission has very carefully looked at the application. Denied it on October 20th. Looked at the
variance application and denied that as well. There's a lot of issues that are involved. I didn't see them all
addressed in Sharmin' s report but some of them have been addressed previously and I hope that within the past
two Planning Commission meetings that you've had a chance to look at all of that information. About the only
thing that is new is the cost. And as we were, as some of us were thinking about what, is it reasonable to look at
this piece of property and see a 10S foot tower, which is about 3 times taller than the trees that are there. And
we all pretty much agreed that it wasn't. Would it be reasonable to look at a church property and see a cross? I
think for a very small, old church like this it wouldn't be something that you would expect to see on that piece of
property but it might not be unreasonable. When I initially heard the cross idea I thought that that might be an
interesting way of solving the problem. However, what I see in the diagram and some of the specifics and the
dimensions and all, I don't really see, I mean without a doubt it's a cross but I don't think that it is something
that would be reasonably recognized as a religious cross. What I think it's going to look like is a tower with two
hangers sticking on it for the next, third, fourth and fifth user that are going to get things to hang on and just be
exceptionally decadent in the backyard. Which made me think of how do you decide what really is a cross or
not so I looked around in our home and drew a couple crosses that are to scale. This is one that I bought at a
Christian store this weekend and here's it's dimensions. This is one that our family made as a Sunday School
project, and that's, there's it's dimensions to scale. And these are the dimensions of the cross that they're
proposing. Considerably different. About the only thing that I can come up with as I looked at these, because
they all did, and the other one that I did draw is this one. This third one. This is a cross, and or course I did not
climb the roof at Holy Cross Church. I did go over and have a pretty good look at the one that they have
mounted on the cupola to get it's approximate dimensions. About the only thing that they all have in common is
this top portion. This top portion is usually about a third. If you take this vertical piece and divide it up into
thirds, it's usually about one third down and one third up and one third out. About. Sometimes it's a quarter.
And this is SO% of the vertical. It varies quite a bit. The one that they're proposing tonight isn't going to look
IS
City Council Meeting - January 10,2000
anything like that at all. ...kind of tacky. There are definitely other things that can be done. As lots of the
testimony previously is in the Planning Commission meetings and in the narratives and all, they keep looking at
this site as being the only site in the area that they can work on. However, they've also testified that they have
service right now. They are offering and selling service in the area. They've also testified that there are other
pieces of property that could work. While they wouldn't work as optimally as this site, they could work. What
this site is is they feel is the optimal site. What the only other research that I've been able to come up with on
the situation is that while it may be optimal for their radio ftequency technical terms and mumbo jumbo of that
sort, none of us are really experts in that. We need to, if we're going to honestly look at it, I think, and believe it
and base, make a precedent setting decision on it, we really need to get some outside expert independent
opinion. Before we sort of take their kind of their slanted view on it. But I very much appreciate your time.
I've done a fair amount of research on this and. . . stuff will be helpful, I'd be happy to share it or answer any
questions.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions?
Councilwoman Jansen: No, thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Pete, you realize that our job tonight is just to make sure that they do meet the ordinance and
that's about what we can do.
Pete Keller:. I do.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else?
Mike Dalton: Good evening. My name is Mike Dalton. I live at 41S3 Hallgren Lane. Luckily enough I live
right here. So the 10S foot pole, I've kind of come to accept the fact that in one way, shape or form this ominous
piece of metal is going to end up somewhere within sight line of my home that I've lived in a very short amount
of time but I think some of the talk that I've heard earlier that I got to hear from the gentleman trying to expand
his school or what, you know there's a real concern among the council to make sure that things are up to
standard and then that the integrity of the area is not compromised. And I guess the only solution that I can see
to this thing is, I don't understand, with the exception of having to grant two variances, why it has to be so close
to that tree line. And not only does it worry me if the thing were to blow down and hit my house, but more
importantly I would see a better idea, out by the church has a sign there. Why couldn't it go out towards the
front of the building, not interrupting anything that they have for future expansion. But to incorporate it more
and shift the burden on the church and US West rather than the neighborhood, why doesn't the back into the
neighborhood. Whether it's my house or Peter's house isn't the issue. The issue should be that if it's the church
who's benefiting ftom the cross and US West, and if they need their tower, then so be it. If it's going to go
there, then so be it but let's find a location that's suitable and this may be too late and I'mjust venting but to
back it into the corner is really no different than the proposal that came across this council months ago, other
than they've attached a 10 foot horizontal pole. So in a way I don't know that we've gained any ground and we
may have passed up some variances but it's really the same project that was in ftont of you several months ago.
So I guess I would look for somebody to interrupt this process and say you know, is it feasible to shift this thing
forward and is there a burden on anybody else, which I don't think that there is. The church wants to expand
and whether or not that's even feasible I would doubt. But I would just look to or ask that somebody look at this
and try to shift this thing closer to the road and make it a part of, if somebody comes driving down Highway 7,
that they see that it is a church and incorporate it that way so obviously I don't want it in my, I don't want it
where it's supposed to be or where their proposal is, but if it is going to go there, I would just look to being
somewhat reasonable. Look to move it further away from the neighborhood. I guess if I were trying to develop
this thing, that's what I would try to do is to minimize the burden on anybody. And by backing it into the
16
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000.
homes on this road, whether it's my house or any of my neighbors, I don't know meets those objectives. And if
US West wants to work with the commllll.Ùy, wants to have a little opposition to this deal, then I would guess
that they would look to do whatever they could. This looks to me like we're back to square one other than
we've called it something different so it'a"jnyourf13nds and you people are the experts at it but that's what I
think so I appreciate your time.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you Mike. l1hink I'll wait to see if anyone else has questions and then maybe Sharmin,
or US, or Steve could go over some of the other locations that you've looked at. Because it's gone in ftont of
Planning Commission twice and this is the-firsttime it's been at City Council. Anyone else? Could you go, take
just a few minutes and let us know the o....1øcati.ons that you have looked at through the Planning Commission.
Sharmin AI-Jaff: US West has always requested this specific location. Same as what is being proposed right
now. It was staffs recommendation that they push the tower behind the church. And that was one of staffs
recommendations at the time. Again, it will require a variance.
Mayor Mancino: And how much would the variance be Sharmin? Do you remember?
-.
Sharmin AI-Jaff: We calculated approximately a drop of5 feet so that would require an additionalS foot
variance. Now visually you're not going to notice that because it's dropping down. Therefore the base is going
into the ground and if you're standing here; visually.it's going to appear at the same height, whether it's located
here or there.
Mayor Mancino: You just won't see the portion of the pole?
Sharmin Al-Jaff: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So would require about a 5 foot variance, so it would be, are you saying it would be
instead of 105 it would be IIO?
Sharmin AI-hff: Al'l'lU""lI.ately.
~,-.:
-
Mayor Mancino: Okay. 5 feet more. And right now it's 105. That means it would go to 110. But our
ordinance only allows it to go to 105. The 80 feet plus the 25 feet.
Sharmin Al-Jaff: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. In a manner of speaking, okay. Thank you. Bring this back to council for discussion.
Councilman Senn, are you ready?
Councilman Senn; Sure. The, I don't know, I kind oflooked at basically two different elements of this. One
was basically 1he height issue with the variance. I have a little bit of a hard time with subscribing to a variance
with one user. You know, we don't have an.application in front of us with two users on it. What guarantees are
there that we're effectively solving anything by increasing the height and there's nothing in the deal, at least that
I can find, that forces that action effectively_ Yoo know so 1 somewhat kind of view it as a situation where you
need a certain height so you get.tbat heighttftat way by saying there's the ability to put a second user on it. So I
don't know, I have a little trouble with that part of it. But I guess that's really kind of immaterial because in
reading the ordinance, you know in my mind this plain and simply doesn't meet our ordinance requirements.
We were very clear when we made this ordinance.up. We were very clear on intent and we were very clear on
17
City Council Meeting- Januily 10,.2000'
handling this typeufsituatiOllulIld this doesn't meet it so I can't really see you know proceeding with it or giving
a conditional use pcmIit for it to proceed.
.....'.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, and'wbatpart-of1he ordinance doesn't it meet?
...,
Councilman s-r:. W.ell,sœnnincan read it again if she wants to. Essentially the ordinance as it was written is
very specific about howiÙilupposedm~asically be an architectural element. I don't consider what is being
proposed to be an architect1B1 element. It is also to be incorporated into bell towers, steeples. I don't see,
especially when it's encasediBtwe1'esidential areas, I don't see either of those conditions existing here. I would
propose to deuylhcapp1i"-",ndletoor attorney draft the findings of fact for denial.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. CooncilWOOlaD Jansen.
Councilwoman Jansen: I would echo what Councilman Sennjust said about not meeting our zoning ordinance,
and very specifically what I don't grasp is how this is camouflaged. Specifically our ordinance requires that it
be camouflaged as an architectural feature. And when I think of an architectural feature I think of something
that someone actually tøoksome time to,apply some creativity to. And if this church building could hold the
weight of this structure, teclmically in my mind it would meet that criteria of being an architectural feature if
you could pick it up attdputitonthe building. That it literally looks as if someone designed it to be a part of the
existing architecture that's on the site. And by no means would I ever foresee someone having designed this as
an attractive feature 00 that building, It's simply a huge pole that's being used for telecommunications with, put
a cross arm on it. And because it has a 90 degree angle we're calling it a cross feature so I'm having a great deal
of trouble conceptually having this meet the zoning ordinance. And then when I read through the conditional
uses, and the different points thatit needs to meet, you can certainly justify parts and pieces but, and again I
would follow Senn in wanting someone else to draft this, but I don't think that it's in keeping with this
neighborhood. Point number 4 talks about will it be disturbing to the existing or planned neighboring uses.
Well, of course it wilLbe. Is it designed and constructed to be compatible in appearance with the existing or
intended chaw:tec·Dftbe geDeral vicinity? I don't think so. But there we're getting into my translation of the
different points, but it'-s certainly what's.being echoed out of the neighborhood. Looking at the site, and I've
walked it. And evel)'Ol1t! knows that I4Vill give about just about anything to save a tree, but if you walk the
propertY and you go in the dircctionofHighway 7. So if you head west and north into the trees that they're
trying to preserve, it's shrubs. It''8·1argetrees that have fallen over, and it's definitely an area where I wouldn't
be first of all looking for maximum preservation. Ifby moving this pole farther to the north and farther to the
west we can, if we have to put it in looking like this, if we can move it farther ftom the neighborhood and into
that area, impacting, there aren't even very large trees. Again, it's mostly shrubs. I question the location and
whether we have actually placed this in the optimum position to meet what we're saying the conditional use
permit should meet, as far as not impacting the neighborhood. And I guess, those are my comments but mainly
going back to the zoning OPiin"nr... and again it's our ordinance ftom what I gather, that's taking this ftom 80
feet to 25 feet. That we are suggesting that this needs to be a two user tower. And maybe because this isn't the
type of location 1hat is enûœ1y.:ompatible with the surrounding area, I don't know what kind of guidelines we
can use to say this is only a lIIIC.user site., ..It will only be an 80 foot pole because we can't accommodate meeting
the conditional use permit guideline. Someone would have to address that. But it does seem like we have put
the 25 feet onto thi!òpole bJ:æquiring that second user position.
-
Mayor Mancino: And.just so I, Ofo1lJaybe Sharmin wants to answer the rationale behind that was if there was
another company,telecø_nications.company that needed a PCS site, that we didn't have more poles in that
area. We had less. So themtention was to reduce the amount of antennas needed so that there can only be one
versus going to another pole in the sameœighborhood, etc. So that was the rationale.
18
i
t
City Council Meeting - January 10,2000
Scott Botcher: Let me ask a question though.
Councilman Senn: How do you do that there?
Scott Botcher: US West, ifthey were by themselves, would they want 10S? They want a 10S foot pole anyway,
right? So the idea is that they want to have a co-locate so they can get the height high enough to meet their own
needs. Is that correct?
Sharmin AI-Jaff: That's correct.
Councilman Senn: So even if there is a co-Iocater in the future, you still can end up with more poles. It doesn't
make any difference.
Mayor Mancino: Well no. No. If there is one in the area, they have to co-locate.
Councilman Senn: But it only accommodates two people.
Scott Botcher: But the issue that US West is using the co-locate clause in the ordinance to get IOS foot pole
when there actually isn't a co-locate partner right now. Is that correct?
Sharmin AI-Jaff: Correct.
Scott Botcher: I'll defer to staff on this one but it appears to me that US West is using the co-locate clause in the
ordinance to get a pole of sufficient height to meet their requirements when in fact there is no co-locate party on
the horizon, and may not ever be one.
Councilman Senn: So we are requiring them to allow co-location on their pole as a condition of going up to the
IOS feet.
Scott Botcher: But we don't need to allow them to go to 10S feet until the co-locate opportunity presents itself.
Councilwoman Jansen: So for now we could stay at 80 because there's only one?
Scott Botcher: Well if that was the only issue, yeah.
Mayor Mancino: Can you add a second antenna at any time? Can you add a second locate?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: The extra 2S feet, you can add that later?
Roger Knutson: No. It won't work for them, I'm sorry. I misunderstood you.
Councilman Engel: Can you run two on an 80 foot tower?
Roger Knutson: According to them it won't work. That won't satisfy their needs.
Mayor Mancino: So you could co-locate on an 80 foot tower though?
19
City Council Meeting...; ~"="Y 10, 2ØOO ~.-
Scott Botcher: So sh1Jot, yout:aru::o-Joc:au, on a 20 foot tower. It's just whether or not it's going to work.
Mayor Mancino: Cooncilmaa.&ge.l. -.
..
.t.
Councilman.Enge1: I'm ~ at this.1ricátte and when I've got the three applicable regulations here in the
staff report. 'As1'ar as ....mn.llhg-:, it_doesn't make it. I mean there's camouflaged involved there. It's just a
big, tall pole. If it sits œ tcp of a church with any kind of elevation to it, and can be supported a slightly lower
height, then I could go for the camouflage «ipulation but this doesn't seem to make that guideline based on the
pictures I'm sceing.' Sojust basedGII'1hat alone, the height is really another circumstance as well but it just
doesn't makc:itftom a ~ge.&Imdpoint at all so I'm not liking it too much.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. I don't needlo,1'm not really adding anything new. I do have concerns with Section
20-IS06 of the ordinance about church ßites'and camouflages and architectural feature. And again, this is a
monopole. It's the same monopole that was introduced at the first Planning Commission meeting and just has
the cross bars added to make it a cross so I have some concerns with that too.
Scott Botcher: Can I take a shot at?
Mayor Mancino: Yon bet.
Scott Botcher: What the heck, I'm in the batters box. Couple things. What is the diameter of the monopole
versus the diameter ofthecmss pole? Is the diameter of the cross been increased to support the cross member
on the top?
Sharmin Al-Jaff: You mean ftom tIte previous application? Not to my knowledge. I believe that it's still the
same.
Scott Botcher: Ouy. One of .the issues that I think is out there, and there's a couple and I'll get back to Linda's
question about the OIÙinance in a bit. RF and as you guys at least know I've had the fun of going to the
appellate court on iliis«te, _;we bmwtheTelecom Act really, really well. And the telecommunications
industry hau \1t:I'y nice lobby. They make many contributions. But the reality is that the federal government,
the Telecommunications AcHo some·extent doesn't necessarily care what your local ordinances say. There's a
balancing act there. And you know aesthetics are certainly part of the puzzle, but the federal government is also
not going to let you use aesthetics as the sole determining factor and I guess I want to just caution you as we go
into this that the applicant does have certain legal opportunities before it that the federal government has granted
it. Not that I disagree with anything=ybody said but I think I owe it to everyone to say that. Secondly though,
RF engineers are sort of like engineers who build streets. They want it to be perfect. They want it to be exact.
And I guess I just question, bl:causeJhere il;technology out there, and this is one of the things that really bugs
me, and it's not US West because Ioon't know these guys so I don't have anything against these guys. They're
always serving the communitythey're'Ín aod somehow they're always around highways. They're not serving
Chanhassen with 1his. They'D: sert1iug Highway 7, and that's cool. That's great, but don't come and tell me
you're serving1irecityofOwlbassen. 'lbatbeing said, there is technology out there, because I looked at it last
year, and m~ I should 'go bec::k and find'it: That the mini cells. The hub cells. If you go to, and if you go to
Milwaukee,1!rive 1-94 and Highway 83. Two big four lanes. It crosses in Delafield, Wisconsin. There's a huge
bowl there. It'ß a kettle marÎ!Ie topøgœphy. There's a big bowl there. We stuck little cells with Ameritech and
Cell One through a pattel1l thaHhei!' RF engineer said had gaps in it. It wasn't perfect. Now Ithink Pete said
geez, you getservice no",", Is.there reaUy a «np? That's always a fair question. Is it as nice as the RF engineers
and the companies would like? No. Theyprobably get complaints for dropped calls and they are trying to
respond to their eustomers,.and they· should. But there are other technologies available besides just sticking up a
20
City Council Meeting - January 10,2000
\
t
big pole and covering everything between Tonka Bay and what is it, Minnetrista? Something like that. That I
don't know if we've looked at. And I mean in my own personal experience I've hid these things in flag poles at
Burger King. And then the next one was a flag pole at Target. Which wasn't that far away but you know it was
Interstate 94. It wasn't Highway 7. And we just worked out way from one end of the bowl to the other and back
and forth. Those technologies are there and I don't know if they were looked at. But you know, it certainly is,
to some extent easier for the company just to do this. I tend to agree. I don't consider it an architectural feature.
I think they're using the ordinance and the co-location thing just to get a pole high enough for their own use and
we may never see, and I think that's what Mark said. We may never see a second user. Probably will just given
the competition but we may not. They're going to own the pole. They may not be able to reach a suitable lease
arrangement with Company ABC to the satisfaction of both parties and just say too bad, so sad, we couldn't do a
deal. And those are just some concerns that I have.
Roger Knutson: Without opening up the whole seminar on Telecommunications Act and the zoning laws. Just
to briefly over cap a couple things. First, they initially, I shouldn't say initially. At one point they had an
application for a variance before the city because they weren't going to be an architectural feature. And a
suggestion was made to try to make it architectural feature and I believe the suggestion was, how about a cross?
Because of that we just felt that a variance was not needed if they complied with that requirement, ordinance
requirement. If they do not comply with that ordinance requirement, which they can of course apply for a
variance or continue their variance application forward to get a variance from that requirement. And so then
you'd be facing a situation, are they entitled to a variance. So just because the one issue is decided, the other
one wouldn't be, i.e. do they get a variance or not ftom that requirement. And second, just so we understand the
Telecommunications Act. Just a little bit, and I know I'll be very brief on this. Regardless of what your
ordinances say, your ordinances are trumped by the Telecommunications Act if the denial of this location
prevents, has the affect of prohibiting wireless service. Creating substantial gaps I'll say. If that is the case,
then regardless of what your zoning ordinance says, your zoning ordinance has to make way for the
Telecommunications Act and you're required to approve it. So the question becomes, is there that gap? Do they
need this? Is there a less intrusive way of accomplishing that? The City has not hired a radio engineer. We've
discussed that initially and that's rather expensive and the decision was made not to do that, which I thought was
appropriate. But that's where we're at.
Scott Botcher: Did we receive the RF engineer's analysis? I don't see it in here but, where they went to the
different sites. They referenced conflicts at the fire station and all these different sites and.
Sharmin AI-Jaff: Correct.. .memo.
Scott Botcher: But I don't see the study.
Sharmin Al-Jaff: No. We don't have a study.
Mayor Mancino: And they also said, when you also put in the application you said that you needed ISO foot
monopole. That that would give you optimum coverage and all ofa sudden it's down to 105. So Steve, do you
want to respond to a couple of the questions about alternative technology, etc and move the mic around to you.
Steve Mangold: I think that, I am the Real Estate Manager. I don't know if I am the best person to talk about
the new technology. Eugene Sigal is here from our office. He is the lead RF engineer. But before we get into
that, and we certainly can get into that if you wish. This tower siting issue is not an easy issue. Tonight we have
five different meetings going on throughout the Twin Cities. You mayor may not realize it but there's over 130
jurisdictions just within the Twin Cities. Now the reality is that US West and the telecommunications carriers
do not write the ordinances. The cities write the ordinances. The city is what's putting up the game plan here.
21
City Council Meeting - Jauuæy 10.2000
And the city also through the ordinances is basically stating that if we comply with the ordinances, then a
conditional ~ permit should be granted. We are not asking for any variances tonight. We can go down the list,
we can go down.the ordinances sad we can show that we are complying with every instance of the ordinance.
We're talking:abeutco-.Jœation.· 1be ordinance says design to accommodate a co-Iocater. We don't have
another co-Iocataright now, but it's not to say that it won't happen. And I think that the Mayor correctly
pointed out'1!mt1he reason wRY'YOU have put this in is to eliminate additional towers in the vicinity of this search
area. We have tbe·ißsuewith the tower design. We did talk with the church. We did have a structural engineer
look at the church and see-if we couk! build something to that church that would accommodate the height that
we need, and I think in )'I!ØI' packet you will see that there is a letter ftom Dale Thorn, our engineer, structural
engineer statiag that itjust:âsn:t li:asible. It's not structurally feasible considering the height and weight ofthe
additional bdhower.Now- again. yoo look at Section 20-1506, Section 2(a), it says church sites are approved
when it's camouflaged as an 3fooiíectural feature such as steeples or bell towers. I mean this to us when we read
this, we're saying that we're reading that this is indicating examples. It doesn't say architectural features being
steeples or bell towers. We didn't write the ordinance. We're just trying to comply with it. We have worked
with staff now for approximately eight months on this issue. We have met the setback requirements. We've
worked with the staff as far as moving the site around the parcel a number of different times as to how it would
fit best with the·community. We have complied with every section of this ordinance. We are not looking for
any variance. This is the ordinance that you, that the city wrote and we're just complying with it and we are
requesting approval of this.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you very.much. Thanks Steve. Any other discussion ftom council members? Then
may I have a motion please.
Scott Botcher: So does US Wi:Stimve an interest in considering other technology? Just for the record.
Steve Mangold: Yes, I think that I will refer this question to Eugene Sigal, our RF engineer.
Councilman Engel: Does the fire station out there have a flag pole? Is there anything else out there with one?
Eugene Sigal: My name:Îs Eugene Sigal and I'm the lead RF engineer for US West Wireless in the Twin Cities
and I will be happy to address1lny questions that you may have regarding the RF engineering questions or
problems.
Mayor Mancino: Okay Eugene, Scott had a question about alternative technologies. If you've looked at those.
Eugene Sigal: It's very difficult,ifnot impossible for me to give you an evaluation ofa different technology
that a different company in a different city is using without knowing who they are, what they do and what kind
of a system they have and what objectives they have for the system. To the extent a to whether US West has a
different technologies, by all means we look at the latest technology that is available to us. In fact, the examples
of the sites in this case and other cases as well, US West Wireless makes as great of an attempt as we can to
minimize the visual.impllCt.m our sites. As an example, the kind of a design being proposed, even with the
initial monopDle, instead-øfproposing an array of antennas at the top of the pole, a proposal we made was for a
slender design so there are no protruding antennas ftom the pole. We're using what is called.. .polarization
antennas to accomplish that. The other example of the latest technology is for the base of equipment that we
use, as large as itmay seem to those who have not seen the equipment used by some of the other carriers, in our
case our equipment is fall·smaller ttIan some of the other installations that some of you mayor may have not
seen. As an example fOl:cellular.,oompanies to install sites, they actually have to build a building to house all of
their electronics. Whereas in the case of US West, we house all of our equipment in an outdoor cabinet. So
with that said I can assure you that if we can use the latest technology, we will do that.
22
f_
I
,
.. "Üty Council Meeting ~ January 10,2000
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you verym¡¡chEugene. Okay, Steve we're going to bring this back to council
now.
Steve Mangold: Yes Mayor and cOUDCil members. I would like to just point out one thing and this is relevant to
what that last question was. I wouJd likI:: to bring a couple pictures to the Mayor if I could.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Steve Mangold: .1 think that this wiU'PICttYwe11point out the degree that US West has gone in developing
technology 11m will show a more adwncedsiting for these antennas. What this photograph is here is it's a
photograph of a tower in Chanhassen that was permitted through a conditional use permit process in a residential
area. As you can see, if you compare this particular tower to the tower that we have, you will see a considerable
difference and an extreme advance in technology of design. I think that that's a good indication of how US
West has tried to do the best that they can to promote a more aesthetically appealing design, and again I wanted
to, I do want to point out that this is in Chanhassen and is in a residential area. And it was approved through a
conditional use permit.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you very much.
Scott Botcher: I guess my question is though, because it wasn't really answered. This technology is still stuff
that's up in tbe air.. And it's just pretty simple. It's just up in the air. There are technologies and you can go to
the AP A Journal, and this is not beating on Sharmin but where they attach them to bridges. They attach them to
flag poles. They attach them to all sÒltS.of stuff. I'm assuming then that you guys didn't consider any of that
technology for this site. You just considered, regardless if it' s this one or monopole or a cross, you considered a
tower.
Steve Mangol~ There was no existing verticality in the area that we were looking which means if there was
nothing existing to attach these to. US West has about 300 sites in the Twin Cities. And out of those 300 sites I
believe that we have about 85 monopoles and about 215 of the locations are located on something like
monopoles.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Bringing it back to council, may I have a motion please.
Councilman Senn: I'll make the motion to rnove denial of this application as submitted to authorize the
conditional use permit to allow a free standing cross design monopole tower to be located on a church and site
plan to construct a 105 tan monopole tower wireless communication facility for US West Wireless. And that
Findings of FacL .
Mayor Mancino: Okay, is there a secoDd'l
Councilwoman Jansen: Second.
Conncilman SenD IDeved, COIII1chomsn Jansen seconded that the City Council deny Conditional Use
. Permit #99-3 sad Site Plan to Cqll '..d a 105 foot tall "cross designed" monopole tower wireless
communicatioll. facility for US WestWkeless and direct the City Attorney's office to prepare Findings of
Fact for deniaL AU voted in favonwd the motion carried unanimously.
23
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000
CONSIDER MomFYING THE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT WITH LAKE SUSAN APARTMENT
HOMES IN vn~:M:ESONTaEPONDS.. THE SHELARD GROUP.
Public Preseat:
Name
. AddreIs
Barbara Jacoby
Wayne Holtrneier
Jim Jacoby
Jim Amundson
Sherry & Bob Ayotte
Lynne Wyffels
ShelWert
Veffielle Clayton
Peter Coyle
8516 Great Plains Blvd.
8506 Great Plains Blvd.
8410 Great Plains Blvd.
8500 Great Plains Blvd.
6213 Cascade Pass
11455 Viking Drive
11455 Viking Drive
422 Santa Fe Drive
7900 Xerxes
Scott Botcher: You have in your packet a memo, and I won't read it to you because you guys can all read.
Summarizing some of the options that you have, and as was said at the work session, there are probably an
infinite number of options as you put this deal together. Just to give a little bit of a background information.
The city staff, Shel and the AUSMAR group has worked extremely diligently over the summer to secure
additional funding to make affordable go. And I know we have been to several meetings at Met Council and at
one of the rneetings where we left and I know Todd was at the same meeting I was, we all left there. We being
sort of the City of Chanhassen side, and the developer and AUSMAR left the table all thinking we had one thing
in mind, and Met Council for whatever reason when they approved the second blast of funding, either had a
different understanding or changed their understanding. And instead of being partially at the 30% level and then
the balance at the 50% level, which is what my notes say and what Todd's notes say and maybe Shel and
Lynne's notes say. Theytumedaroundæld said no. All 33 units need to be at the 30% income level. The
Section 8 level. That was 1101 acceptabJe to the appliC3tU.· Candidly was not acceptable to the staff. We do not
believe it would be:M:~'l'Ifthe'C(ftll\cil~'thci£1'Osition~ cOlroCntrations of30% and all the other
things that we had ta1ked:about.. So today we have yet to execute any documents accepting the money and
probably will not. That being the case, Mr. Wert has asked to be on the agenda this evening and is requesting
that the affordability component of his approval be removed. And since I was able to fix the copier upstairs,
which has nothing to do with the Telecommunications Act.
Mayor Mancino: Nor Y2K.
I·
Scott Botcher: Nor Y2K. If you turn to page SP-5, sub item V as in Victor. 20% of the housing units shall
meet the criteria established for affordability, blah, blah, blah; t.lah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. This is in
the draft developmcntœntract'betweenthe City {If Chanhassen and the Shelard Group, which Roger drew and
I'm sure he drew this up in consultation with their attorneys. It is this component that the Shelard Group is
seeking this evcningtot!ave~. TßihatmdI~fted a memo dared January 5, 2000 and as I said I'm not
going to read itctø,you.. Butibat.ìs.tbercquestthis evming. Additionally you should have received today, either
by fax or bJind de1iwred, a copy"Dfllmemo 'fiomn the attorney fmtbe AUSMAR Group indicating their
responses to the memo and to the <1ifferent options indicaU!d therein. Beyond that Roger and I stand ready to
take questions.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any questions for Scott at this time?
24
City Council Meeting - January 10,2000
Councilwoman Jansen: I have a question, and I realize that this is really going back to our conversation on
Villages on the Pond but I would like to make sure that we're all clear on exactly where we stand once we do
take affordable off this side of the project. In the '97 grant agreement with the Met Council it very specifically
spelled out that the development would contain 168 owner occupied units, 50% of which will be affordable. It
then goes on to say that the site will contain, or the project will contain 154 rental units, 35% that will be
affordable. And in a conversation that we had last week on the Villages project, the question came up as to on
the east side of 10 I, is there any additional ftee standing housing development planned. Otherwise, of the 160
remaining units, if we're just looking at what the total is supposed to be, I'm assuming ftom what I've seen of
the project, that the entire project is about to become rental. Because I don't see within the Villages plan where
that ownership is designated. It was originally designated for this property as condominiums and now it will be
apartments, and it was designated as apartments on the other side within the total concept plan, so I wondered if
you had a chance to take a look at that. And if we will even be able to meet the ownership part of that
agreement because the whole TIF issue came up with the green acres. Or are we already altering that
agreement?
Mayor Mancino: But that agreement is not part of the design standards that we have between the City and
AUSMAR and it is not part of the PUD development agreement that we also have with AUSMAR. That may be
with the Met Council but that is not in the.
Councilwoman Jansen: It's stated here, as indicated in the development contract for the project, the project will
contain 168 owner occupied units.
Mayor Mancino: And where in the development contract?
Councilwoman Jansen: I pulled the statement.
Mayor Mancino: Well, in the development contract that I have it says, SP-7, the developer shall work with the
City to accomplish city goals for housing including the provision of affordable housing. 35% of the housing,
rental housing and 50% of the ownership housing shall meet the criteria established for affordability by the
Metropolitan Council. I don't have anything else in here, the development, the overall development contract
that I have in front of me that has those numbers.
Councilwoman Jansen: Well you just aid the 50% of the owner occupied, correct?
Mayor Mancino: But it doesn't say how many. Ifthere are owner occupied, it doesn't say how many units had
to be owner occupied. You see what I'm saying? It doesn't say in here, in the.
Councilwoman Jansen: So you're saying that whatever Met Council used to draft our grant agreement that we
signed, they used the wrong numbers?
Mayor Mancino: I don't know who used wrong numbers. I'mjust saying that I can't find that language in the
PUD development contract, nor could I find it, because I looked for it too. Nor could I find it in the
development design standards. It does say this on the development design standards. It says residential.
Residential units shall be provided as upper level units above the office commercial uses within the village core
and as stand alone units. A minimum of 50% of the residential units shall be rental units. Of the rental units,
the City has adopted a goal of 35% of the units meeting the Metropolitan Council's affordable criteria. For the
ownership housing, and it doesn't say how many again, the City has adopted the goal of 50% of the units
meeting the Metropolitan Council's affordable criteria. But again in both of these documents. ..how many had
to be rental and how many had to be ownership.
25
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000
.. Co1ll1C11man Engel: It seems to be talking to percentages all the time.
Mayor Mancino: So you know, and I don't know if that's something that Roger you have looked through. Just
trying to answer Linda, because I looked for that too.
Roger Knutson: In the POD Mayor, I agree with, I found the same thing you found. The POD does not have
numbers on the number of units that will be rental and the number of units that will be owner occupied. The
grant agreement with Met Council does.
Scott Botcher: The documents indicate different relationships.
Mayor Mancino: I know.
Scott Botcher: And that's the goofy part. And it's been the goofy part to me ftom the beginning. Is that we
have two different standards of performance for two different relationships. My opinion, and I don't have the
number to put after my name. The Bar number. But I think that, you know the PUD agreement with the
developer is softer, is my term. More flexible, than the City's agreement with Met Council. And when the
documents were executed, there are two different standards, two different levels of performance for two
different relationships. The City's on, to my opinion, is on a stiffer hook in it's relationship with Met Council
than the applicant may be in the PUD agreement with the City.
Roger Knutson: I would agree with that. I'll just point out that the applicant did sign off on the grant
agreement. He agreed to be bound by it essentially. But looking at it strictly ftom a zoning perspective, and the
requirements in the PUD, those numbers aren't there. The percentages are there but not the numbers. The 168.
Councilman Engel: Are you talking about the POD or are you talking about the agreement with the grant
agreement?
Roger Knutson: The grant agreement had the numbers in it. The hard numbers. 168 and 154. The PUD
doesn't have those numbers.
Councilwoman Jansen: So I guess where we're back to is then in our agreement to the Met Council, is it even
achievable then at this point for us to meet owner occupied units within this project because ftom what I
understand the residential units above the commercial buildings would be rental.
Mayor Mancino: They could come in as condominiums, couldn't they?
Roger Knutson: Certainly.
Councilwoman Jansen: What makes those more buildable than this having been condominiums?
~
Mayor Mancino: I don't know.
Councilman Senn: We can't second guess that.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, we can't second guess that now.
26
City Council Meeting - January 10,2000
Roger Knutson: I believe in talking to staff, it is possible. Maybe oot in the real world but possible to build all
these units required by the sub-grant agreement, or the grant agreement, in other locations in Villages on the
Pond. It is in tbooIy GaRbe done. There are enough.units still to be built. I mean any unit that can be rented can
be owner occupied. You can do a condo. Whetbm'fhat's practical or not is the question.
Councilwoman~' So.at this point then, by BOW moving forward with this particular project being rental,
we are iness=nmvsay.ing1haton the other side it will be owner occupied or we will not meet our grant
agreement with the Met Council. I mean this action is suing to cause a reaction on the other side. Just so we're
all going forward with the same understanding that_we need to look at achieving the owner occupied units,
if we have now achieved the rental units within tI1c afilrdability.
Roger Knutson: Correct. Or I'll just say the obvious. Go to the Met Council and say we want out.
Mayor Mancino: Well, I mean there is in the agreement with the Met Council it says, under 4.03 it says
amendments and it does say the Council and the grantee may amend this agreement by mutual agreement.
Amendments, changes or modifications of this agreement shall be effective only on the execution of the written
amendments. I mean we can go back and ask for an amendment also. And of course the council has to agree
with that so.
Councilman Engel: Just to be clear Roger, when we were reading the PUD agreement and the grant agreement,
what I heard was that of the overhead, above the retail space, those units, the only requirement I heard was that
50% had to be rental. It doesn't again speak to owner. So again, they could be 100% rental.
Councilwoman Jansen: Within the Met Council agreement itis very specific.
Councilman Engel: What is that one? We've got a lot of...
Mayor Mancino: That's the one that says exactly how many.
Councilwotrnm Jansen: . The '!me that hasl1S on the hook. It says that 50% of the owner occupied will be
affordable and of the 154 rental, it would be 35%. So our agreement right now is 84 units of affordable
ownership and 54 affordable rental.
Roger Knutson: I would just point out, I'm not disagreeing with anything that was said. Just to add. AUSMAR
is also bound by that agreement and has agreed to defend and hold us harmless the consequences of not abiding
by it. So they're also on the hook in that agreement.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: And that is one of the reasons probably for yom option of a letter of credit.
Scott Botcher: Yeah, to the extent that they have the financial ability to perform, and we don't know if they will
once, and if we ever get it there.
Councilwoman Jansen: So as we take this action tonight, if we take the action we're being asked to, we're then
anticipating that as we nwve forward with AUSMAR·on· the other side of the balance of the residential, that we
will be seeing 168 owner occupied with 50% of those being affordable. Are we anticipating that we would be
picking up any ofthe rental now? Are we adding to the number of units in order, and I guess where I'm going
with that question is wanting to know what we're agreeing to tonight. Because if we're looking at having 50%
27
< City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000
affordable, and I realize that members of the council consider this one big project, but any time we've had a
major road cutting through an area, whether it's Highway 5. We even looked at Lake Drive as dividing
neighborhood ftom commercial. In my mind once you put 101 through and you put these apartments on one
side, they're ftee standing. No one's really going to look at that and say oh well, that's part of Villages. We
would be putting either 50% affordable next to the residents who are living next to the east side, and they turned
out in droves originally to move apartments away ftom where they were. But it would be 50% affordable on
that side. If we're going to go above that to try to make up for the affordable that we're giving up on this side, I
have a ,problem with that. Because we are giving it up on this side and I don't see adding to the burden or
adding to the intensification on the other side of the property. I would simply want to hold that to the 50%
agreed to of the owner occupied units. But that's just my opinion< I don't know if we're looking at increasing
. the number of housing units on the other side to make up for the rental. Because you'd also then need to
increase the number of residential units if you're looking to then also make up for the balance of what we're
losing on this side.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other questions at this time? Is the applicant here and would you like to come in
front of the council?
Lynne Wyffels: Thank you. My name is Lynne Wyffels. I represent the Shelard Group along with Shel Wert
and as Scott mentioned we are here tonight to request a modification to the development contract. I don't need
to spend a lot of time talking about the history of how many times we've been here and the things that we've
requested. We all know that. But I would like to reiterate that we've all spent a tremendous amount of time
working with staff, the council. We've worked with the Met Council, the MHFA. We've looked at a lot of
different options to try to make this project work. We've always been willing to provide an affordable
component. That was the City's goal. We understood that when we came in here and we were willing to work
with that. Unfortunately, with the I guess last go around that we had with the Met Council and the MHFA, our
expectations and their expectations were different. I think what they want and the reasons they were willing to
provide money, we weren't willing to adhere to those hooks or standards that they were going to attach to it. To
at that point in time we put together a memo to Scott requesting that the development contract be modified. The
memo that Scott put together with the four options, I'd like to say that Options 2, 3, and 4 really are any options
that we'd be willing to consider. Option 2 is the providing of the tax increment financing, the differential
between the affordable and the market rents, the $1,353,000 I believe the number is. If that's the direction the
council would like to go, we're prepared to go back in front of the EDA and ask for that request. As it relate to
Option 3, allowing us to go forward and do this market rate, we said from day one we'd be willing to do this as a
market rate unit. What we're concerned about with Option 3 is any contingencies or attachments that might
adhere to us or might be attached to our project because that again is more delays and it makes it difficult. We'd
like to see the council act separately. If they've got issues with AUSMAR or the other side, we appreciate that
and we understand that but we would like to move forward tonight with our approval on market rate or Option 3
and hopefully get this approved and more forward. Tabling this for us is like killing the project. We're that far
behind. We have obligations and people who have made obligations to us that they're getting to the point that
they're not going to be able to hold those obligations so that's increased cost. Both in terms of financing. In
terms of construction. Everything so we're really getting down to the wire here. Our risk is getting greater and
greater every day that this goes on. So again we'd like to request that you make a decision tonight and move
forward. And with that if you have any questions.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions for Lynne?
Councilwoman Jansen: I don't know if my question Scott would be for Lynne or yourself but as far as the
numbers that we discussed this afternoon, and the difference that we found in the second page of the numbers.
28
City Council Meeting - January 10,2000
Lynne Wyffels: There is a difference and we did find that too and we talked a little bit about that initially. And
I guess our feelings, our thoughts on that are, that differential, if we were to do all 33 units Section 8, and I think
it was decided early on that that was not an option for us at all. That's not something that we want to do. I
don't think it's something that the City wants to do. So even though it's showing a greater differential, that's
not an option for us.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. So you then wouldn't have worked down the numbers as to what the total TIF
request would end up being rather than the $2.6 million versus the $1.3 million.
Lynne Wyffels: Yeah, our request would be for the $1.3 million. You know we'd be willing to provide the 20%
of the units at 50% of median income and we would be looking for the differential between those market and
affordable rents, the $1.3 million.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Scott and I also had the conversation this afternoon that council had really
voiced also, a hesitation about the number of Section 8 housing units that were being requested by Met Council
so I echo your concern. More so I wanted the other members to at least know what the real numbers were that
we were looking at, because it was significantly different. If you go to the last page of Lynne's memo, under the
all Section 833, if you get down to that bottom line. The total affordable rents. It only increases, and this is
where I didn't work it beyond this point. I just pointed out the difference. It only increases by $12,000
annually. I say only but it's not a significant of number as was thought, so if you go over to the annual rent
differential, it would be 108,360, not the 219,744. I didn't recalculate anything beyond that point because again
it would be introducing 33 Section 8 units into the apartments but for the members who are interested in that
affordable component, it only seemed fair that you be aware of the real numbers.
Mayor Mancino: What a decrease.
Councilwoman Jansen: It's a huge decrease.
Mayor Mancino: From 219 to 108.
Councilwoman Jansen: Correct. It only goes up 12,000. To get to the 33 all Section 8 units. To maintain the
affordability. And everybody knows what my feeling is on using TIF but I thought you should at least be aware
of the real numbers.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Lynne? Okay, thanks. Anyone in the audience
have any comments? Okay, bringing this back to council. Who would like to start the discussion?
Councilwoman Jansen: I've been doing all the talking.
Councilman Engel: Alright I will. I've looked at the numbers. I wasn't excited earlier about the amount of
units we were going to get for the amount ofTIF we would have to provide, and I haven't changed my opinion
on that at all, so I think Option 4 looks like the one that we're left with that. Or some sort of a mixture of Option
3. I'd like to talk about that that Lynne just referred to now. You don't want to mix any requirements of
AUSMAR in with Shel's project. And to be honest, the concerns I have, I don't think I saw in the report at all.
My concerns are just the aesthetics of the place are starting to get a little shabby on the south. I'm referring to
the main pond and the roads. I would like to see the roads quality brought up a little bit. I think they need a
second lift of asphalt and I think that pond could use cleaning up just south ofTH 5, the main one on the north
side. But that's not, again it doesn't affect you guys. I realize that. But we've got a real three way circus going
here and those are my only concerns. I'm in favor of 3 or 4 and I don't have a real opinion on the amount of
29
~ity Council Meeting - January 10, 2000
money for letter of credit right now. If someone could justify that, I'd be willing to listen to it but I don't have
any preconceived notions that.it should be one amount or another. But I am concerned about the aesthetics
down there. Making it difficult to market the rest of the property. I'll stop there for now.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn. Or Councilwoman Jansen.
Councilman Senn: I would favDr Option 3.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And can you give a little bit of, any discussion about Option 3.
Councilman Senn: No. I mean I've already talked to Scott in length about the issues of the letter of credit and
performance bond and I think those are points well taken so. Given the history of the project I think the
agreement should have to keep those in the foreftont.
Councilman Engel: What's the amount we're talking about there again? 700?
Scott Botcher: Well that's just what I put. I mean you could make it...
Councilwoman Jansen: The amount ofthe grant.
Mayor Mancino: The grant is approximately 697.
Councilman Senn: So what were the outer parameters. on the...
Scott Botcher: Well there are two grants. One is 505 and the other one is 190.
Councilman Engel: 199.
Scott Botcher: And you know there can be an argument made that the 190 is for transportation and the 505 is
for something else. You cou1dmake that...505. Certainly the AUSMAR Group would argue that it should be
zero.
Councilman Senn: And what were the outer parameters on the remaining street and utility work?
Scott Botcher: I don't know that number. You mean to fix up what Mark talked about?
Councilman Senn: Yeah.
Scott Botcher: I don't know1hat.
Mayor Mancino: So how do we come to conclusion on a performance bond if no one knows the number? How
do you, talk a little bit about the performance bond.
Scott Botcher: I think you cmneceive an engineer's estimate on it in pretty short order.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. I mean what we could pass tonight would be consistent with.. .
Scott Botcher: .. .number is.
30
I
,
¡
l::
City Council Meeting - January 10,2000
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I think what we could pass tonight could be consistent with an engineer's estimate of
what those costs would be and then that could be done administratively.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Linda.
Councilwoman Jansen: I agree with Councilman Senn, and then also would want to see as Option 3 the
condition that Scott mentioned later into memo of the Minnesota Crime Free Multi-Housing Program. Also
made a part of this project. However, whether that's adding it to the development contract or however we
execute that, I think would be real positive.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. I tend to agree. I won't go into it at length but I do, excuse me. Yes Shel.
Shel Wert: Of course you know that I don't agree with item 3 and I'm just sitting here thinking and I don't
really understand how item 3 can work here tonight because one of the conditions, the only condition left that
we're talking about taking out of this project is the condition of the affordable housing. And so the request is to
take the affordable housing out of it and that is one of the conditions is to agree with the council relative to the
affordable housing aspect of the project. Now we agree with whatever you want to do. If you want affordable
housing, you can have it. If you don't want affordable housing, you can have it. But where does it say in our
agreement, and under those conditions that we're going to, that you've got the, I don't want to call it the right
but that you can take this condition and then add a condition to it. That somebody else do something else. I
think it's unfair.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Roger Knutson: Mayor. At the possibility of being called dead wrong, let me try to summarize where we're at
and I'm just trying to summarize it. Not to change anything.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Roger Knutson: We have signed an agreement with the Metropolitan Council and AUSMAR is a guarantor on
that. That has certain requirements for affordable housing. The concern is that if this phase of the development
goes forward without meeting those requirements, that the terms of the grant agreements with the Metropolitan
Council cannot be met. And if they cannot be met the Metropolitan Council may not be forgiving, or it may be
forgiving. If they are forgiving, so be it. Ifthey are not forgiving, someone's going to have to pony up because
the requirements were not met and we don't want that to be the taxpayers of the City ofChanhassen. So, if they
want to go forward and we don't think they can meet the requirements, or it isn't apparent that they can meet the
requirements, if they're not done on this addition. It's not apparent that they can meet them on the other ones so
there's a great risk by going forward without it here, that the grant agreement will not be met. What's required
of it.
Mayor Mancino: Understand.
Roger Knutson: And so you're saying, post letters of credit to guarantee that the grant agreement requirements
will be met. Or that the Metropolitan Council will release in whole or in part the requirements ftom the grant
agreement so there is no possibility of someone coming back and biting the City of Chanhassen.
Mayor Mancino: Only at that time when the Metropolitan Council does release us, if we aren't able to meet it,
then we can release the letter of credit.
31
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000
Roger Knutson: Sure. So if the Metropolitan Council comes forward and says, we understand the situation or
whatever they say, and you are now released ftom these requirements, or what you are proposing to do or have
done satisfies, is good enough. Satisfied the requirements, then we no longer need the letter of credit and they
can go back to the developer and be released. Is my understanding correct?
Mayor Mancino: Yes, and thank you for clarifying that. Okay.
Shel Wert: Just a final point would be that in order to accomplish what you want to accomplish it's possible to
possibly look at number 4 and add something. I mean you have a lot of different ways to get back at AUSMAR.
Let's be ftank. I mean you don't really need to strangle this project in order to keep AUSMAR'S attention.
You have a myriad of ways that you can cause to happen what happens on the other side. The way it goes
through all the rest of the planning stages and all of that. You have many ways to do that. I'm suggesting that
you take that effort, rather than according to the letter that you got this afternoon which we received a copy also.
Number 3 is not going to happen. So it's in essence voting for number I.
Roger Knutson: I would also suggest another possibility.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you Shel.
Roger Knutson: If they don't want to provide a letter of credit that would accomplish the same thing. Go
forward to the Metropolitan Council tomorrow morning, or whenever. Get the release then you wouldn't need
to post the letters of credit because that condition has been taken, our concern would have been taken care of.
So there's no need to give us a letter of credit and the condition can still come out of the contract if Metropolitan
Council releases those...
Mayor Mancino: Well then we would not be making a decision tonight. We would be tabling it until we go to
the Metropolitan Council and get their release.
Councilman Engel: Or we could make it conditional.
Councilman Senn: You could put that as part of the condition.
Roger Knutson: You can do I or 2. Satisfy the condition. Get a release from the condition.
Mayor Mancino: Got it.
Roger Knutson: Or the letter of credit to guarantee if we don't get paid.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Councilman Senn: Let me, maybe I should try.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, you should try. The only other thing I want to say is that Ijust absolutely want to make
sure that it's very clear in my point of view on the affordability that has been put in this PUD contract. The 35%
of the rental and the 50% of ownership stay in place. That you keep it there. That this is part of the whole
philosophy of Villages on the Pond, and it was the main reason that we received the grants ftom the
Metropolitan Council was the affordability component. So I just want to make clear of that.
32
City Council Meeting~JanuarylO, 2000
\
~.
Councilman Senn: I think it's important to follow on that and say though Mayor that effectively neither a letter
of credit nor relaxing the rules have to change the City's position on that.
Mayor Mancino: No.
Councilman Senn: Okay. That just simply relates to the grant funds which is a liability we need to protect the
taxpayers ftom, is the easiest way to put that.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you for making that clear. Appreciate it.
Councilman Senn: Let me try my hand at a motion here, and Roger feel ftee to help me out. Would make a
motion to grant the applicant's request and remove the provision in the Village on the Pond 6th Addition PUD
development contract relating to the requirement for affordability provision.
Roger Knutson: That's paragraph, you'd be eliminating paragraph 9(v). Vas in Victor.
Councilman Senn: 9(v) as in Victor.
Roger Knutson: On the draft development.
Mayor Mancino: On SP-5.
Councilman Senn: And substitute in it's place that there is a contingent condition upon AUSMAR providing.
Roger Knutson: I wouldn't say AUSMAR. I'd say anyone. We don't care who it comes from.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Against or let's see. So conditioned upon providing a $700,000 letter of credit as
surety for the indemnify. obligation in the Villages on the Pond PUD in the development agreement.
Councilman Engel: Or.
Councilman Senn: Or relaxing by the Metropolitan Council of it's.
Roger Knutson: Grant requirements.
Councilman Senn: Grant requirements relating to the $700,000.
Roger Knutson: That would be a finding by the Metropolitan Council either releasing or saying whatever
satisfies it. That they've already accomplished the goals.
Councilman Senn: Correct.·And secondly that, should I say AUSMAR here or that somebody provide a
performance bond to complete public improvements and utility work as required, private/public improvements
and utility work as provided for in the Village on the Ponds PUD and development agreement. And that this
project be submit to and shall incorporate the Minnesota Crime Free Housing Program. And one more and then
stop me here if you don't think this one should be in there. And that this action no way relaxes overall
affordable provisions for the entire Village on the Ponds project PUD development agreement. From the city's
perspective.
Roger Knutson: That's fine. Just editorializing that what you're saying is that is not before us tonight.
33
City Counci 'Meeting-1aDwIry 10,!.OOO
Councilman Senn: Correct. It's just ac1arification as part of the motion.
Roger Knutson: Sõ,rigbt."YOU'caà't deat withj]¡¡¡t tonight.
. Scott Botcher: Y5.akoIIhink.Roger.need to~k and receive permission ftom the developer to do work on the
private streets with Jheperfo1maood!løt1tl5hould you get to that point. I don't know how you would write that
up. But those'me private streets. ~dbri'tjustñave the ability to go onto their private property.
I.
Roger Knutson: 1àe&veløpment ooatraøt would address that.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Councilman Senn: End of motion.
Mayor Mancino: Is there a second to the motion?
Councilman Engel: Second.
Mayor Mancino: .{)kay, all those in favor.
Roger Knutson: Mayor.
Mayor Mancino: Oh okay, Peter.
Peter Coyle: Members of the council and Mayor Mancino, Peter Coyle representing AUSMAR, 7900 Xerxes
Avenue South, ßloomington,Minnesota. I wanted to make sure that I heard the motion accurately.
CouncilmembcrSenn included a number øÍ-.
Roger Knutson:I'Il.try to summarize it.
Mayor Mancino: We'fldo lawyer to lawyer:.
Roger Knutson: Whatever the record of the motion is is, I can't amend it.
Peter Coyle: Well Ie! me try what I've got=d then if I'm off track, someone correct me.
,.
Roger Knutson: What theOOUDcil hasdonc is saying they will release or agree to delete paragraph 9(v) of the
development contmct for Villages on the Pond 6'" Addition conditioned on the following: (a). A letter of credit
in the amount of $700,000 be posœdto guarantee the indemnity provisions in the draft agreements. Or, in lieu
of that, an agreementftom the~f.;h"l"'li1Bn Council stating, releasing the City ftom the affordable housing
components of1ltœlegnmt agrK..Mft!¡ or ftnding that what is done to date satisfies those requirements.
Providing an additionalletter.of credit to ~e completion of the uncompleted items in the Villages of the
Pond, I don't 1møw which additiærtbat would be. The second lift of asphalt and the utilities in the Pond in an
amount determined by~ City Engineer 3Iuucasonable amount. To guarantee completion of that work.
Another provision, we haveilhe-authørity to go ÌÐ. and complete the work and draw down on the letter of credit if
the work is not done. And second. Not second. Whatever the number, next number is. That a provision be put
in for a Crime FrecHDusing.
h
!~:
I
"
I
34
City Council Meeting~ January' 1 0, 2000
Mayor Mancino: And1hen clarifying 1he PUD, the affordable housing.
Roger Knutson: We'.renal addressing, amending or addressing the issue of the requirement in the PUD on
housing requiremel1ts. The basicPU&1s not bcfure us. We can't amend that tonight. Just acknowledging that.
Peter Coyle: Madam Mayor, might I inquire just with one question?
Mayor Mancino: Yes you may.
Peter Coyle: I knoWyau're prepared:.Note aod I don't want to delay the proceedings, and in the event that
either the $700,000 LC Dr 1he Met Cnmcil waiver is not provided, what comes next?
Roger Knutson: The development contract does not get amended.
Peter Coyle: And then the project fails. Is that what I'm understanding.
Roger Knutson: I don't know if it will fail. We're not, other decisions. The development contract does not get
amended. That provision stays in.
Scott Botcher: Do we need a date certain for the completion of the improvements in the Villages on the Ponds?
Roger Knutson: You mean the second lift of asphalt?
Scott Botcher: So we can say that we have the performance bond or letter of credit or some other surety but I
think generally you need to have a date certain by which you expect performance before you move to draw
down that.
Councilman Senn: I'd say. by the end.of the next construction season.
Roger Knutson: I usually pick November 1 ", November I, 2000.
Mayor Mancino: Okay: I can't remember. That has been seconded.
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman EDgeI seconded that the City Council modify the Development
Contract with Lake Susan Apartment Homes in Villages on the Ponds 61h Addition by deleting item 9(v)
on SP-5 contingent on the following conditions:
I. A letter of credit in the amount of$700,OOO be posted to guarantee the indemnity provisions in the draft
agreements. Or, in lieu of that, an agreement ftom the Metropolitan Council stating, releasing the City
from the affORlable housing cOll1pOnents of those grant agreements or finding that what is done to date
satisfies those ~rements.
. 2. Providing an additional letlet' ofi:redit to guarantee completion of the uncompleted items in the Villages
of the Pond, Le. the second lift of asphalt and the utilities in the Pond in an amount determined by our City
Engineer asa reasonable amount 10 guarantee completion of that work. If the work is not completed by
November I, 2000, the City has the authority to go in and complete the work and draw down on the letter
of credit.
35
City Council Meeting - January 10,2000
3. The ~ shan comply with the Minnesota Crime Free Multi-Housing Program.
,
All voted in favor. ex~ Councilwoman Jansen wIlD opposed, and" the motion carried with a vote of 3 to
2.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Scott Botcher: I just have a couple quick ones, is that okay?
Mayor Mancino: You bet.
Scott Botcher: Couple things here, if I can find them. You received Anita's minutes at the work session. You
received Kate's building permit and housing data. It looks like this. That little chart on it. Okay, great. I
received today in themail.CelebratingPublicService.Itis a League of Minnesota Cities deal. It will be on
Thursday, February 3'" ftom I :00 p.m. and it runs through about 6:00 p.m. with a reception, cookies and coffee
and all that. Did you guys, if you guys didn't get this, ask me for it. I guess it's first come, first serve on the
tickets because it's a limited seating. They limit seating to about 200 to 300 Minnesota cities because I guess
it's tight. Deadline's January 21". If you want to do that, that's great.
Mayor Mancino: Anybody here tonight know if they want to go on February 3"'?
Councilman Senn: What is it again?
Scott Botcher: We're celebrating public service Mark.
Mayor Mancino: GuingdoWn to1he 1egislature '!IÌIèJ'I.istening and meeting with your legislators.
Scott Botcher: You get to press the flesh.
Councilman Senn: Oh this is a feely goody deal.
Scott Botcher: Touchy, feeling Mark. Okay, but you get cookies with it. No chili.
Councilman Senn: Sorry, I have to work.
Scott Botcher: Finally we received, I received.
Councilman S=: I bave two lives. A public service fife and a work life unfortunately.
Scott Botcher: eampbeltKnutson. City ofChanhassen v. John Bernard Pryzmus. He apparently has agreed to
remove the StûIf-4ì<}ffi his prêperty.::l"ßaFs 41 and, or Galpin. Sorry. So he has a date certain where he has to
have it off and he's got our next court date if he doesn't. IthinU assume that ifhe does, they're going to drop
the charges and whatever so if you need....
Mayor Mancino: Swings.
36
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000
Councilwoman Jansen: That's Swings? Okay.
Mayor Mancino: Where they had the auction.
Scott Botcher: Thank you very much.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, going to correspondence. Just to follow up to what Scott said. In the paper on Sunday
on January 18th from noon to I :30 at the Radisson Plaza Hotel, put on by the Center of American Experiment is
a debate with Ted Mondale, Chair ofthe Metropolitan Council and Steven Hayward on sprawl. So it should be
an interesting debate, and actually Steven Hayward wrote a very long piece in the American Experiment
Magazine, someone told me so anyway. Again, that's noon to 1:30 on January 18th at the Radisson Plaza Hotel.
Scott Botcher: I do have one other thing that I forgot. Mark Littfin, Littfin sent me an e-mail today. If you or
any of the Council get done early tonight you are more than welcome to watch a live burn training at the two
houses by the new water tower. We'll be there ftom 7:30 til about 9:30 or 10:00. That's on 41, right?
Councilman Senn: Oh, both those houses are being burned?
Councilman Engel: They're going to burn them? I thought they were moving.
Councilman Senn: But both houses are both being burnt?
Scott Botcher: Partially. No, practice. They're just setting them in rooms and then they go and put them out.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, but the houses are going to be ruined.
Scott Botcher: I just read the memo.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, should we go to correspondence?
Councilman Senn: Then they go back later for a total burn?
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION.
Mayor Mancino: First let's go over correspondence and then let's go back to the 101 neighborhood meeting.
Okay. Anything in the correspondence? I had a couple questions.
Councilman Senn: I already asked the one on insurance so I'm good.
Mayor Mancino: My question was on the, it was interesting again this Metropolitan Council Awards Affordable
Housing Grants for Multi-family Rental Housing. And it says Chanhassen family housing. Who applied for
this? I mean we didn't as a city did we?
Councilman Senn: Oh no, remember approved that guy to go in and apply for a loan some time ago.
Mayor Mancino: Jim Deanovic?
Councilwoman Jansen: Yes.
37
'City Council Meeting...... January 10, 2000
Councilman Senn: Isthat his name?
Scott Botcher: Yeah.
Councilwoman Jansen: It's for his project.
Councilman Senn: But it was a different guy's name I thought.
Scott Botcher: Well he might have a corporate name but, yeah. As we continue to push people, when they
come in and they say the TIF word and we say go find other people's money first. He has gone and done this.
Now Met Council, and when I saw Tom last he said of course you realize that all this is contingent. He goes
absolutely. It's not like any pre-commitrnent or anything else. They are trying, I guess they're being as
sophisticated as possible in trying to actually come, when they come into us saying, see we have this money and
we can apply this and so that's fine.
Councilman Senn: And just so you don't forget, there was a second one that we approved too to go in and apply
to the superfund or whatever that was for that project closer down to Galpin there. That the guy came in on and
said that.
Mayor Mancino: We never approved any.
Councilman Senn: Yes we did.
Mayor Mancino: No.
Councilman Senn: Yes we did. I can tell you we did.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Councilman Senn: We approved a deal to let him go so he could go apply to the superfund for affordable
housing.
Scott Botcher: Candidly I don't know where we have any right to approve anyone going. I mean I think what
they ask you for is just a letter that you know that it's going on. And most the letters that I've done, I think I did
this Deanovic one. Yes, we're aware of it. We haven't agreed to any densities. We haven't agreed to any site
plans but if they want to go for the money, go for it is about what it says. And that's as far as it goes.
Councilman Senn: Well except the application process requires municipal, kind of requires that municipal okey
dokeyor whatever it was.
Scott Botcher: Yeab, to the extent that that is.
Councilman Senn: Yeah.
.e
Scott Botcher: But I don't remember it coming to the council. But it may have.
Mayor Mancino: NG. 'We did not vote on the Deanovic one.
38
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2000
Councilman Senn: No, but the other one we did.
Mayor Mancino: A couple other things in correspondence. I thought it was really interesting ftom Brian
Grogan. Do we need to write a letter, and how do the other council members feel about the comments on open
access? Scott, is that something that you could write on our behalf and how do council members feel in the
open access for ISP?
Scott Botcher: I mean these guys, I would never pay them to do that. I mean Moss and Barnett or any other
firm.
Mayor Mancino: No, I'm just saying us.
Scott Botcher: Yeah, if you want to write to the FCC or anybody, we can do that. Just you guys decide that you
want to do it, and we'll write it.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah. I don't think anything needs to go through Brian.
Scott Botcher: But it's good information.
Mayor Mancino: Yep. That that's going on. Any other questions or comments?
Scott Botcher: You also had the AOL thing today. $166 billion, they want to buy Time Warner. And it's all
funny money. It's all stock.
Roger Knutson: Incredible.
Councilman Engel: Yeah, I saw that.
Scott Botcher: AOL.
Councilman Senn: Boy, Ted's really in trouble with his divorce now.
Scott Botcher: They're just getting some space.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, tell me on Saturday morning on the 101 neighborhood meeting. Saturday morning, this
coming Saturday morning is the 101 neighborhood meeting. Would we like that posted?
Scott Botcher: If three of you are going to be there, it's easy to post. But if three of you are there, it'd better be
posted.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, why don't we go ahead and post it just to be covered.
Scott Botcher: Just forward the e-mail and I'll pick it up.
Councilman Senn: Well I mean it's my neighborhood, I'm going to be there so. I'm the only one who gets to
vote. You guys can't vote so. Because I paid my dues.
Mayor Mancino: Well let's just be covered and be posted...
39
City Council Meeting ~January HJ, 2000
Councilwoman Jansen: I'm a¡;sUlDing though that since it is a neighborhood meeting and the engineers will be
there, that if we are present we're more so there for listening rather than interaction at this point.
Scott Botcher: I wouId1:a14::11:14g1'ee ~1hat:It's ftot,aec:c.ssarily the council's forum. You let the, I mean
there's a balance 11lhenyou slartgoing to neigbborttoodmeetings. You've got to be careful that you're not
having like an aØ'site =itmceting. ftnow)'UU post itaod all but I think in fairness to people who expect
council meetings to occur on Mondays here in this room, we need to be careful about that.
Councilwoman· Jansen: Andif_'remaking œmments ina neighborhood meeting, they're not being recorded
as minutes so 1hcyœuld'belllÛQøQ51ml:d or, ldort'tlœow that we want to be committing ourselves to things.
Scott Botcher: Certainly YOUaf'e always able to commeut to your constituents. It's a cautionary note. Just you
know, I guess it's a fair question. If you post it and you have a quorum, do you have to have minutes of it. I
guess if it's an open meeting, you're probably supposed to.
Roger Knutson: Basic minutes that there was a meeting and here's the topic of discussion. And any motions
which wouldn't take ph1ce.
Councilman Senn: So you'd Better bring somebody with yon to take minutes.
Mayor Mancino: It's the person who pays the bills. That's you.
Councilman Senn: No. That's the neighbors responsibility so.
Scott Botcher: I don't ever expect you guys to go and say nothing because you're going to be asked questions.
You're the public figures but.
Councilwoman Jansen: But then we also in this instance change the nature of the meeting. It's now the
neighbors trying tG pump us bour opinioos becomes the fDcus instead of Anita's intention of being the one is
conducting the meeting.
Mayor MancinG: Bv""<e thèy....iI1 talk1D us, tq IITdless of whether we go there and say we won't talk. The
comments will be made, even if it's kind of, yon know not even asking a question. It may even you know just be
making statements to make sure that we've heard it.
Councilwoman Jansen: I guess that's my hesitation in going.
Mayor Mancino: Going.
Councilwoman Jansen: Is actually chanjpng the nature<>fthe intention Anita had for the meeting.
Mayor Mancino: McetiDg. Hltink that's very wise.
Councilwoman Jansen: And-a<ùat we had s~bout. I would just as soon not be there.
V~
Mayor Mancino: Well, I mean I.
Councilwoman Jansen; But I think we almost need to make that statement as a group now that they seemed to
have invited us as a group.that we've made.
40
City Council Meeting - January 10,2000
Mayor Mancino: Or else if somebody goes, and somebody doesn't go then they'll feel.
Scott Botcher: And youœn œrta.inIy just come up with a consensual written statement where Anita could even
read it and say on behalf.oftbc cOUDCiJ I'd like to read this statement. And you don't count because obviously
you're going to have your neìghbodlood hat on but just say everything you said I think is very true. Believe me,
you're going to have more than enough opportunity to talk to these people.
Mayor Mancino: And I agree with that too. In fact talking to another Mayor, she also said the same thing. That
once a council person goes 1Dtbeseneighborhood meetings, that it kind of changes the atmosphere so I would
suggest that we have Anita talk on, say that on all our behalf. Mark Engel, do you feel comfortable with that?
Not going? I feel comfortable. Linda? And we'll let you go. Thank you, that's what we'd like to do.
Mayor Mancino adjourned the City Council meeting at 9:15 p.m.
Submitted by Scott Botcher
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
41