CC Minutes 1999 07 12CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 12, 1999
Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to
the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Engel,
Councilwoman Jansen, and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Scott Botcher, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Anita Benson, and Todd Gerhardt
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve the
agenda amended as follows: Item l(i), Approve Year 2000 West Hennepin Community Services Contract,
Adaptive Recreation Services for People with Disabilities being deleted and number 9, Consider Approval
of Revised Grading and Drainage Plan for Springfield 5th Addition being deleted.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve the
following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
Update on Y2K Assessment for Public Works; Authorize Preparation of Specifications for Needed
Repairs.
Resolution/t99-58: Award of Bid for Lake Drive West Street & Utility Improvements, Project 98-
16.
Approve Clarification to Development Contract for Family of Christ Lutheran Church Addition,
Project 99-9 amended to include the sidewalk on the west side that was prescribed.
d. Approval of Bills.
Approval of Minutes:
City Council Work Session Minutes dated June 28, 1999
City Council Minutes dated June 28, 1999 as amended on page 17 to include "Senior" Assisted
Living in the motion.
Receive Commission Minutes:
Planning Commission Minutes dated June 16, 1999
f. Approve Naming Three City Parks.
Resolution/t99-59: Approve Resolution Adding a New Member to the Southwest Mutual Aid
Association.
h. Lynmore Addition, Dave Moore:
1) Final Plat Approval and Second Reading of a City Code Amendment Rezoning the Property.
2) Approve Development Contract and Construction Plans & Specifications, Project 99-10.
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999
Consider Assignment of a Security Interest in Development Contract for Chanhassen Lakes Business
Park 7th Addition, Project 99-11 amended to change item 2 to read, the City acknowledges that the
rights of the Developer in the Development Contract has been collaterally assigned to the Bank and
the Bank holds the security interest in the Development Contract. And deleting item number 4 in the
same document.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Kevin Finger: My name's Kevin Finger and I own property at 9201 Great Plains Boulevard. You know
where that is? You know where Bandimere Park is, you know where my property is. My parents live there
now and that's my interest in the property. I come to the City Council because I need help more than I
don't get from Park and Rec. You see when Bandimere Park was first dreamed of, when the property was
bought, one thing that was always stated. Always, from the very beginning was those two homes right
along the north side of Bandimere Park would be buffered. They would have a berm and there would be
vegetation. They would be heavily buffered from the park. When it got down to dollars and cents, the
berm left but heavy vegetation. Extra buffering was on the final diagrams that was approved by everyone.
When it was all done last summer, trees planted, I called Todd and I said I don't see extra vegetation. I
don't see additional buffering. I was told that ran out of money. Okay.
Mayor Mancino: We get told that a lot.
Kevin Finger: Well, my question is who made the decision on trees being planted elsewhere and not an
additional buffer, because there weren't always trees shown everywhere but there was always additional
buffer on the houses. Now I know that this only affects two homes and Chanhassen has many, many
residents but many, many residents are going to be using that park at the expense of my parents and at the
expense of two new residents to Chan here, Mark and Sherry... I really seriously believe that the council
and the park and rec needs to follow through with, this isn't something that at the last minute was decided.
From the very beginning, if you go back to the initial plans that was there. A couple other things. There
has been a lot of silt runoff. I don't blame the contractor. They did a lot of the silt fencing and that stuff
but you can't stop everything. Underneath our culvert that goes underneath our driveway is now half full
of dirt. And it goes out into the yard. That's a nuisance and hopefully will be corrected. I haven't heard
anything from anyone. It's my understanding that's on a checklist for the developer. Or for the contractor
before he's done so I hope that that will also be done. The other thing that bothers me is when the plans for
the park was approved, there was never any indication of a siren pole. Now I believe those sirens are very
important. When I lived there we couldn't hear a siren and that's great. But that pole could have been at
the other end of the park. Not 150 feet from a home. Now I know there are some sirens 150 feet from
homes elsewhere but you just didn't put up the pole right next to someone's home. Someone's built closer.
Those are three issues that I have that I just don't get anywhere with and hopefully maybe something can
be worked out somehow.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Well obviously this is the first time we've heard it so what we'll do is
take a couple weeks and we'll have Scott Botcher, our city manager check on these and get back to you.
So we'll do that but those are, I'm glad you came and brought those up to us and understand your concern.
Kevin Finger: Thank you.
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the council?
PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT~ LOT 2~ BLOCK
1~ OAKWOOD ESTATES 2m~ ADDITION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Tom Schrupp
Donald Schultz
8990 Quinn Road
4 Square Building
Anita Benson: Staff has received an application to vacate an existing drainage and utility easement which
intersects Lot 1, or Lot 2, Block 10akwood Estates 2nd Addition. The request is to relocate the easement
outside the buildable area of the lot. On the overhead that would be the yellow area is the 20 foot easement
proposed to be vacated and the darker area on the overhead shows the new easement that's proposed to be
dedicated, which is a 10 foot wide easement. The existing easement was dedicated with the final plat of
Oakwood Estates at no cost to the city. The relocating the easement, it is within a tree conservation
easement area but it will not impact any trees. Since staff has not received any objections to the vacation
request from other utility companies or residents at this point, it is recommended the council approve the
vacation of the 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement contingent upon the applicant dedicating to the
city at no charge the new 10 foot wide drainage and utility easement as shown on the survey which is on the
overhead.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions for staff at this time?
Councilwoman Jansen: I have one. While they're doing it, I realize we said it's not a significant amount of
grading but when they come in to get the permits for this, will we be designating that they put the tree
protection fencing around the existing trees that are in that area?
Anita Benson: The tree protection fencing would go across the entire conservation easement area. So yes.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, thanks.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, and this is a public hearing. Are you done Councilwoman Jansen? Thank you.
This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here tonight wishing to address the council on this issue?
Seeing none, any discussion or may I have a motion from council.
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
Councilman Engel: Second.
Scott Botcher: I would ask one thing. I recommended in the memo that we charge all of our costs back to
the applicant. If you want to do that, you may want to make that clear in your motion.
Councilman Senn: Okay, move approval as per the staff report and recommendation on the charge back of
costs.
Councilman Engel: Second.
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999
Resolution #99-60: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the vacation of
the 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement located on Lot 2, Block 1, Oakwood Estates 2na
Addition as shown on the attached Certificate of Survey prepared by Demars-Gabriel, dated June 15,
1999 conditioned upon the applicant dedicating to the City at no charge the new 10 foot wide
drainage and utility easements as proposed on said Certificate of Survey and that all costs be charged
back to the applicant. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: ASSIGNMENT OF CABLE TV FRANCHISE FROM TRIAX
CABLEVISION TO MEDIACOM~ LLC.
Scott Botcher: Well Nancy pretty much summed it up. The cable company does have an offer to be
purchased. As part of the federal legislation we have an opportunity to hold a public hearing to gather
public comment regarding the possible transfer of the franchise agreement granted by the City of
Chanhassen. Beyond that I guess there's probably not much to add. My expectation this evening is that
the public hearing will be held. The Assistant City Manager and I will be taking notes as we are in the
process of finalizing with our attorney the report to be given to the council and in all probability considered
two weeks from tonight for consideration of the transfer. There are time lines in the federal law that will
require us to move ahead. Can't dally on this but that's what we're doing. And I was told that there was a
gentleman from Triax who was going to be coming. Is that okay. So I've requested someone from Triax
be here this evening so the company can hear any comments made by the public.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Would you like to come up and just introduce yourself so people know who
you are.
Mark Trefrey: First of all thank you. My name is Mark Trefrey. I am the General Business Manager for
our region which includes the state of Minnesota, Iowa, and also Wisconsin. Triax Cablevision has been
managing properties in these three states for a good number of years. Well back into the 80's and we are in
a process of having our properties purchased by a company called Mediacom and we are in the process of
transferring all of our franchise at this time and it gives us a very good opportunity, not only to sit down
and talk about what we have coming up for this transfer but also give us an opportunity to listen to our
customers and/or council people on the issues we have. So I'm prepared to answer any questions that
anyone may have pertaining to the transfer, but also am interested in any comments or any issues that we
as a company need to address as far as our cable service.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Then I'll ask for people to come up and if they have any comments.
And if they have questions, then I'll ask you to come up and answer their questions. Thank you. So we
have.
Vernelle Clayton: I was here on another issue but I feel compelled to follow through with a campaign
promise. I have to tell you that when I was going door to door last year, I probably got as many comments
about Triax Cablevision as I did taxes. And I assured them that if elected I would see what I could do
about the service. If my neighbor knew that this was an issue tonight, I'm sure she'd be here. I can't tell
you, there's an awful lot of frustration out there. As a developer we ran into problems on follow-up. Lack
of attention to detail. Didn't come out and pick up their old cable. And so I think it's worth letting the
public really know what you're discussing.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Are there any specifics Vernelle that you would like to? Is it in
outages? Is it in?
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999
Vernelle Clayton: Inattentive, lack of responsiveness to issues. Yes, there were outages. I don't recall
what the situation was with my neighbor but it was waiting and waiting for people, someone to come and
give her the service she had subscribed to. Not coming when they were supposed to come. Charging, she
got up and said okay, forget it. Charged her for it anyway. Couldn't get it off the bill. Things like that.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Bob Smithsburg: Bob Smithsburg, 8657 Chanhassen Hills Drive North. This is an unexpected surprise.
If I had my choice for another company, you would be gone. It's the lousiest service I've ever encountered.
So I don't have any choice. You know they're my only provider. The power is out continually, or the
outage I guess you could say, my service. I can't get any response because their offices of course are in
Tulsa I think it is. And locally they won't respond. So I guess if you were my employer, I'd fire you.
Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Bob, can I ask you a question? Is it you know, you just don't get it at all? I mean you
don't get access at all or your fuzzy pictures or nothing?
Bob Smithsburg: ... all the time. I think was it the World Series. I'm not a big sports fan but I think it
was the deciding game and we had our cable outage was out for about a week. It's pathetic.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. I'll let you respond. If we have anybody else. You can respond en
masse if you'd like.
Matt Noah: Matt Noah, 980 Lake Susan Hills Drive. And I didn't come to discuss this particular issue
but since it's being discussed let me put my two cents in. One of the things that's nice about cable TV is
the TV part but the other part that's coming that's really exciting is the high speed internet access which to
some people is actually more important and maybe even more enjoyable than the TV service. One thing I
don't know, and since you're here perhaps answering questions, I'd like to know when cable data modem
service is going to be available because US West is certainly not giving us high speed access over their
copper lines, and no wireless is coming in so if Triax can do it, all I'd say let's go get them. But if there's
another franchisee out there that's listening, I mean that's one thing that we would desperately need. And it
actually helps increase the value of homes in the community here. High speed access. So, that's my two
cents and if you're game for answering that one, I'd love to hear the answer for high speed access over
cable.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anybody else that didn't plan to say anything about this but you're
here. Mark, you want to answer a few of the questions.
Mark Trefrey: First of all I appreciate the comments. It isn't until we hear from our customers that we
find out what our issues are, and we hear from them everyday. First of all I'm going to speak to this in two
phases. One, Triax as a company. And two, for the possibility of a new operator called Mediacom. Triax
as a company made an attempt to merge with the company I worked for Intermedia because the reality of
the cable industry is that you have to operate a large area and a good number of subscribers to get into the
business that, for example is being referred to as high speed internet. Triax as a company is actually
moving out of the cable business because really the business is going to be run by people with enough
capital infrastructure to bring the future of telecommunications, which is not only cable but high speed
internet and also what will eventually probably be telephone service. Mediacom as a company last year,
which is in 20 states in the country, had one of the most aggressive upgrade programs of any of the cable
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999
operators in the country. And it's impressive what they plan to do with this area. But in terms of Triax
itself, first of all as you all may know we have a contractual agreement with the area here and the City of
Chanhassen to rebuild this cable system. The frustrations you're hearing in part is due that we are
operating on an old cable system. Actually our customer service center by the way is in Waseca,
Minnesota. That's where we answer all of our customer service calls and also any issues on cable or
problems customers have. But we are upgrading this cable system to a fiber backboned, 750 plan. The
750 is megahertz term that says the system will be capable of well over 100 channels, but more importantly
than the number of channels, between now and the end of the year eventually are going to have an upgraded
service that is not only just capable of more channels but also improved picture quality and also reliability.
It will be much easier for our technical staff to make repairs. We're introducing fiber and that's Triax's
doing at this time. We think that service will be greatly improved. We have a process in the cities here, in
our properties around Lake Minnetonka that started in Wayzata which we've already done the upgrade, and
we will be going to Mound and then after Mound we're actually in Waconia now and will be going to
Chanhassen. I think you're going to see an improved service. As far as our customer service, one of the
issues that since I've been there since last fall we've been trying to address was, to make sure that our
customer service staff was number one, answering the phone. But number two is that we're trying to
follow up with additional staff for this area. The council may have been introduced to two particular
people. First of all we have a manager in this area that we never had which he started in the first of the
year. His name is Rick Finch. He couldn't be here tonight. He actually lives in Chanhassen and Rick has
been a manager in Triax for a while and some of his sentiments have not been too much unlike yours with
some of our service issues. He actually is the manager for your area here and upon getting here has made a
number of significant improvements. But the other person is, we have a person named Theresa Sunde who
is our metro communications and customer relations person and you may have been introduced to Theresa.
Maybe as customers or as a council but she literally takes every call that hits our office with a major
problem and tries to deal with it personally in this metro area. No matter how many staff you have, you
have to have a cable system that is viable and upgraded and that's what you're going to have come the end
of this year and Triax has a commitment to you to deliver that and that's going to make a significant
difference in the level of your reception and ongoing service. Just to speak real quickly to modems. Triax
as a company just is in the process of doing it's first modem test in Waseca. We're working in Hutchinson
and Eveleth. When this system is upgraded is when we'll be able to bring additional services like high
speed internet. It's a fantastic service and it's a big part of the cable future. Mediacom, the person who is
looking to take over these properties, has wide spread internet via both telephone and also high speed data
in a number of it's systems and it has an aggressive upgrade plan in the next two years to deliver not only a
system of delivering high speed internet but also telephone and other services beyond.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any questions from councilmembers?
Scott Botcher: So you will be starting in Chanhassen after Waseca and after Mound?
Mark Trefrey: Right now they're in Waconia. They're in Waconia right now. And starting to do some of
the fiber connections and we will be starting, and I just got an update in the Chanhassen area, actually with
crews probably in the early part of August. All of our preparations are, the equipment to do it. The vast
amount of cable to upgrade this community is in place and there's a process that will bring, I'm pretty sure
it's after Waconia that we'll be in Chanhassen.
Mayor Mancino: I thought C came before W.
Councilman Engel: When do you expect it completed?
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999
Mark Trefrey: Well we're supposed to be done by the end of this year, and as you all know we've got a
time line with winter so our biggest issue is that we need to get all of our underground work done before it
freezes. And it's certainly our anticipation to meet that deadline and get our system done hopefully by the
end of this year. Now as they're going it, certain sections of the community are going to benefit. There's a
certain tie over. It's not all tied over at one time so as we're going through the community, you will benefit
as you're tied over onto the new system.
Mayor Mancino: And no more outages.
Mark Trefrey: Well I will say this, that outages are a reality, and especially on this system that is this old.
The whole reason we're going to go through this process is to limit the number of outages but during the
construction season, and when we construct a new upgrade, we will have a number of outages. We'll try to
limit them as best we can but it's inevitable that we are going to have some interruption of service. One of
the things we try to do is we send out a package of information in advance of the process. When it starts.
Beginning of the process. We use our local access service to try to update people on where we are and
where we're going so we'll try to handle it as best we can so we are going to have some stretch of
interrupted service but they try to keep it in a local area. But it's all for hopefully the benefit into the
future.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks for coming tonight.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THREE 3-STORY 54
UNIT APARTMENT BUILDINGS 062 UNITS) ON 9.94 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PUD-
MIXED USE; LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 101 AT MAIN STREET IN
VILLAGES ON THE POND~ CHANHASSEN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT~ THE SHELARD
GROUP; COUNCILMAN LABATT AND COUNCILWOMAN JANSEN.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Lori & Mark Jesberg
Milton Bathke
Matthew Noah
Wayne & Kathy Holtmeier
Walter E. & Marion Paulson
Shirley Robinson
Mary Jane Klingelhutz
Barbara Jacoby
Lynn Wyffels
Vernelle Clayton
Bob Smithsburg
8407 Great Plains Blvd.
8404 Great Plains Blvd.
980 Lake Susan Hills Drive
8524 Great Plains Blvd.
8528 Great Plains Blvd.
8502 Great Plains Blvd.
8600 Great Plains Blvd.
8516 Great Plains Blvd.
11455 Viking Drive, Eden Prairie
422 Santa Fe Circle
8657 Chanhassen Hills Drive North
Mayor Mancino: May I have a motion on this?
Councilman Labatt: I motion to the City Council at our August 9th meeting if possible reconsider approval
of Site Plan #99-9 for a three building apartment development within the Villages on the Ponds, Outlot J,
Villages on the Ponds. And that the council instruct the staff to review the following issues and explore the
possibility of alternatives for resolution and those being, preservation of the creek area south of the
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999
pedestrian trail. Look at the location and size of the NURP pond. The need of a traffic study prior to
proceeding with this development to verify that it is not premature. Preservation of the natural topography
of the site as much is practical by adhering to the original building footprint and original approved grading
plan. Provision of senior housing needs and requirement to fulfill the city's grant agreement with the
Metropolitan Council.
Mayor Mancino: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Jansen: Second.
Mayor Mancino: Discussion. Discussion from councilmembers on this before we take a vote on it.
Councilman Labatt: I'll start it real quick here and if anybody else wants to comment but I'm bringing
this up because issues have been brought to my attention, actually before by some residents down in
Mission Hills and on the lake about this and after the fact that more concerns were brought up about the
pedestrian trail. The area south of the trail and the need for a traffic study. The pedestrian path.
Environmental concerns were brought up about the amount of trees being loss on the property and the
allocation of the NURP pond. Councilwoman Jansen had brought up some issues that night and asked that
we tabled it and in hindsight it may have been a good thing to do but, it was approved and now I'm looking
to reconsider this. It is by no way an attempt to kill the project. I just want to look at these five things that
I've talked about and have staff work with the developer and get them answered.
Mayor Mancino: Any other discussion? Councilwoman Jansen.
Councilwoman Jansen: I would want to start by echoing what Councilman Labatt just said and that's that
it's not that it's looking at our disapproving the project, and I do think I said that two weeks ago. It's an
excellent project and I'm not suggesting that we go back and we try to change any of the original
agreements. In fact now after reviewing some of the terms of those previous negotiations with Villages on
the Ponds, I'm more concerned that we might be altering the agreement with the original motion. In the
discussion that we had two weeks ago it was Councilman Senn and Mr. Knutson who spoke of the previous
concessions that had been negotiated with Villages on the Ponds and our inability to really affect or change
any of the project due to those existing agreements, which caught my attention and I certainly appreciated
that notation being made because I did go back because we hadn't really reviewed the background that had
affected this particular project. We were looking at it singularly. I went back and refreshed myself on
what some of those agreements had been, and some of those negotiations. And as Councilman Senn had
indicated, the projects are really very interrelated. There were a lot of negotiations going on at the time that
the Villages on the Ponds PUD was being drafted. We were at the same time looking at the St. Hubert's
property. All of that happened over a couple of years as far as really reaching that final PUD and it was a
tremendous amount of effort on both staff and council's part as far as putting that agreement together, and
I can certainly appreciate it. That was finalized three years ago, and I didn't realize how long it had been
going backwards that that got done. What caught my attention as I went through the original negotiations
and agreements is that several of the concerns that each one of us spoke to two weeks ago, and some of the
concerns that were raised by the residents, were addressed in the original agreements. They were key issues
that were definitely spoken to and there were trade offs that were arranged in order to address some of
those concerns between the different pieces of the property within the agreement. The spirit of the original
agreement is really well documented if you go back through all of the rezoning agreements, the PUD, the
wetland alteration permit and the final plat review for the entire project. This particular piece of property
had some very specific conditions and considerations that were discussed and made it unique to what some
of the overall points were that were made for the project. So there were some that were very specific to just
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999
this piece of property. And they termed within the documents as trade-offs with the developer for ~leniency
of ordinances applied to other areas of the Villages on the Ponds development". So I guess not to belabor it
but tonight in wanting to maybe better justify and warrant the reconsider, it seems that I don't know, maybe
everyone has a fantastic memory for all of the detail that was in all of those documents from 3 years ago,
but what I'm hoping we might be able to conclude is that rather than moving forward on one piece of this
very intricate puzzle, if we can take a work session and walk through what all of the agreement terms are.
What the trade-offs were and what we would need to realize and be aware of is that any variance that we
intentionally or unintentionally put into place with this agreement that we have right now affect the rest of
the parcels because there were those sorts of trade-offs. If we do this, then we do this. So if we go forward
with the motion that we have currently, I would still encourage us to sit down rather quickly and review all
of the current agreements that we have just now been approving and realizing that when we did the cycle
shop, when we did the swim school, none of these specific trade-offs related to those properties so they
didn't come up. There was no affect. Those all fell under all of the general guidelines that had been
applied through the mass grading on the north side. But some of those trade-offs then for those properties
exist on this parcel. And again, one of the examples of how closely interrelated these pieces are is that it's
noted within the reports that there's a limited amount of impervious surface space available to
accommodate any additional wetland mitigation, and it refers to site plans would have to be revised to
accommodate any additional mitigation needs created by alterations to the original site plans. Now I'm not
implying that we're impacting wetlands here that weren't already planned for. I'm going to the context in
that statement that the impervious surface is that delicately balanced between all of the pieces so if we
affect something here that wasn't originally planned for, we're now looking at having to go back and
maybe do our balancing act before we've had an opportunity to sit down and very consciously make that
decision. And I don't know maybe everyone else, go ahead.
Mayor Mancino: No, go ahead.
Councilwoman Jansen: Maybe everyone else is tuned enough to what those original agreements are to be
able to do that balancing act. We didn't discuss it so I certainly wasn't aware of it. I did pull some of
those documents if anyone wants to just take a look at it tonight as far as determining if there is any
justification that would be warranted, but again I'd want to emphasize that what we're reviewing is in total.
It's not an objection to the conceptual plan for this property but does it, have we truly evaluated our
options as a council to those other policies as to where we're going with Villages on the Pond. I don't
know that we've, I know we haven't discussed it. We haven't had conversations as this council since we're
just together since January, on that project so I would encourage again for us to sit down as a council
rather soon and go through those things. But I was hoping that we might be able to get as little delay to the
developer as possible but at least enable ourselves to sit down and just go through this while we can still
make those very conscience decisions.
Mayor Mancino: Okay thank you. Any other council person? Kate, if you would talk a little bit about
your staff has taken a lot of time to go over the entire PUD and look at the averaging and the ordinances. I
mean that's what you have spent.
Kate Aanenson: ... PUD. We did different sectors and we did make another variance that Mark's well
aware of with Famous Dave's. We had to switch some sector to commercial. We had additional
commercial. We are keeping a running balance. There were some conditions put on that to add additional.
Famous Dave's went away but Ruby Tuesdays is coming in. They will still need that same number of
sector balancing. It's not any different than the PUD with the balancing we keep track of as far as the
EAW that was put in place for Chan Business Center where we said there will be so much industrial. So
much office. So much warehousing. And you know the Weather Service had a significant amount of open
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999
space so that's kind of carrying the rest of those pieces down there. I think what may be helpful for us to,
when we're showing you similar what we've done on Chan Business Center, if we give you a printout of
where we are. Kind of a running checklist so you can see. We are doing that internally.
Mayor Mancino: Because that's your responsibility.
Kate Aanenson: We have to be consistent with that and I think that'd be helpful certainly to show you that
so internally we are tracking. Again, pointed out when Famous Dave's came in there was a glitch and we
had to make some changes. You agreed to change that sectoring so there is a balance, a check and balance
as far as...
Mayor Mancino: So you're doing that as every site plan comes in, you're doing that review which is under
the overall PUD contract and what we have set up which was set up in '96? '97? ~967
Kate Aanenson: Yes. There are a couple things we're tracking. Not only the type of things, each a
different sector but then there's also impervious.
Mayor Mancino: Impervious surface. Densities, yeah. And all that.
Kate Aanenson: ... housing units that can go there. That sort of thing, correct.
Mayor Mancino: Sure, that were very, very specific. Okay.
Councilwoman Jansen: If I might add to that, and I realize that some of those things were very set. In
conversations with Mr. Knutson today on just clarifying where all of the guidelines do come from, not all of
the agreement per se. I mean there were a lot of conversations, there was a lot of negotiation, numerous of
the fine points and the trade-offs that were discussed didn't get document into the PUD. So if we're
tracking off of that, we're not necessarily applying all of the spirit of the agreement and all of the trade-offs
that were discussed. As a for instance to be very specific, the area south of the city trail was specifically
spoken to in the original conversations about that being preserved. It was noted in the wetlands permit. It
was not noted within the PUD and the city went to extra steps when development was threatening the east
side of 101 south of the trail. The city stepped up and purchased that piece of property to preserve it and
make sure that it stayed open space because that was the spirit of what the city was trying to accomplish.
The piece of property now on the west side of 101 is the other half of what the conservation conversation
was about. It was preserving the open space along the creek area from all of the direction that was given to
us about how significant a resource that was to the point of not putting wetland mitigation in that area, but
instead preserving the woodlands in order to also act as a water buffer going into the creek. Going into
Rice Marsh Lake and eventually down to Lake Riley. It was identified as a very significant issue.
Kate Aanenson: That's not a true statement.
Mayor Mancino: Not in the EAW. There's a tennis court there.
Kate Aanenson: ... we always envisioned on there.
Councilwoman Jansen: It was shown in the right-of-way. It was shown where 10 l's existing right now.
It's where it was placed.
10
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999
Kate Aanenson: ... but in the text and the discussion that went on there, we envisioned that pond to be
larger in the document. I don't want to mislead anybody but that was talked about as a ponding area.
Councilwoman Jansen: It was shown as a ponding area, but there was very specific wordage about not
impacting near that creek area or the cover.
Kate Aanenson: ...there to be a pond there to handle the size that was necessary for development.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, I did go back and look through the EAW and some of the things. I was only on the
Planning Commission at that time but I looked back in some of the records that I had that showed the storm
pond there on the south of the trail and just a little north of the creek and a tennis court and etc. Roger, can
you add any insight legally? I mean this is a site plan and what are, I know that there was some discussion
at the last meeting on this. Okay, long discussion on this.
Roger Knutson: As I advised the council last time, and my advice is really about the same. In a site plan
review it's in a sense a checklist review, not a policy making act and you take out the controlling, official
controls. And see do they meet the standards in those official controls. You read, here's the PUD. Here's
the X to ZZ requirements. Have they met, if they apply, or is there a conflict? And if you can point out
that in the PUD as a way of example that it's a conflict with term ZZ, then you have a basis for turning
down the site plan. Or if it's in some other ordinance that applies, you can say oh look at this ordinance. It
doesn't meet this requirement. You can turn it down. If you can't find that sort of thing, you really don't
have a legal basis for turning it down.
Mayor Mancino: Any other discussion from Councilman Engel or Senn?
Councilman Engel: I know this predates Councilpersons Labatt and Jansen but it also predates my own
term as well as yours Mayor and it is very complex. There's too many issues. I think to keep going back
and retooling what staff spent literally years on with these developers, I'm not of a mind to reopen this.
You've got to go along with the professionals we have on staff working with the people to put this together.
So I'm not in favor of reopening.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn, any comments?
Councilman Senn: Well on many of the issues being raised, which I view as I'm going to say more of the
regulatory or ordinance or contract type of issues. I think staff has done a good job of basically addressing
those issues. Our staff is hardly known as being what you'd call a pro development staff, and if anything I
think they look at these things every which way and backwards and forward to make sure the way they are.
Three years ago when we did this agreement, it was a very, very lengthy process. It was a lengthy process
leading up to it and a number of us fought very hard to make sure that there were a number of controls,
restrictions, framework put in place that had to be adhered to all along the way. I mean I'm confident that
that was all incorporated in and that staff you know had constantly I think monitors that. You know again
that's something at least in my own case that I've... a number of times from the process of additional site
plans coming in and Kate referencing the same occasion, that sort of thing. And the other issues that I hear
are more related to affordable housing and housing for seniors. That sort of thing. I share that concern
overall with the community and also share the importance of those issues. Unfortunately that's not the
project we have in front of us. In my mind it's neither an affordable project nor a senior project. I mean
it's effectively a market place project and that's who's tied up the land and that's who's brought it before
us so I mean those are issues I think we definitely need to deal with. But as far as site plan approval goes, I
mean that's not something we can deal with as it relates to the site plan approval on this particular project
11
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999
so given both sides of those things, having reviewed it, I just can't see any legal basis for us to basically
reconsider elements or try to change the elements of a deal that's already there in place. At the same
though, as I stated last meeting, is that not to be short sighted, this is not the place to impact specific... The
site plan review allows us very little leeway. But there are other considerations coming up before the EDA
and City Council that council and EDA have a lot more leeway over .... requested the city for subsidy on
this project. If that's the place that we want to impact that legally, and within the context of the rules we
have to work with, then that's where it should be discussed and looked at and negotiated. But this is not the
time nor the place nor the action for us to do that so I would not likewise favor reconsideration.
Mayor Mancino: Tell me back in '96 etc when I know that the council wanted to see, I mean part of it was
making sure that we had some affordable housing. Was here any discussion, and I'm jogging your memory
here, about senior housing in this location at all or was it more just the discussion was around affordable
housing?
Councilman Senn: Well I mean, how would I say this? You know this thing was always kind of like a
living, breathing thing. I mean when you talk about '96, that's when it culminated an agreement. I'm not
sure that was negotiated, at least by my memory, for at least 2 years before that. The original concept we
had for Villages on the Ponds is totally different than what you see there now. There was no church. You
know when the church element became part of the deal and many members of the community came in and
encouraged us to make it part of the deal and alter the project, and to make a number of let's say trade-ofFs
as a result of that. I mean we listened to them and we did that but that's part of what also resulted in that
eventual '96 agreement. And you know essentially at that point since that was a pretty significant
alteration.., land area and everything else, that's also when we tighten up a whole bunch of specific issues.
Like we didn't want big box retail and we didn't want this to become more strip commercial centers and we
wanted affordable housing and we wanted a combination or a mix of housing with the retail and housing
and the office but probably to me the one area in this whole thing that was always the most clear cut and
the most easy to understand and..., or I'm going to say was never really changed much is the area we're
talking about here. It has always been programmed to be fairly high density housing.
Mayor Mancino: There was an office building.
Councilman Senn: Along with office.
Councilwoman Jansen: And medium density.
Councilman Senn: Well my words were chosen poorly here. I mean basically the density.., not low
density type of housing in combination with the office and/or more one way than the other but I mean
essentially that's, the only sad part I see in this is when I envisioned what we did back then as far as
Villages on the Ponds... is it all had a fairly significant impact of affordable housing part. And I'm just
saying at the time that was a big issue for me as well as some of the people on the council but you know
again, there's a place we deal with that issue is where we talk about going on in this process with the EDA
and council as it relates to that issue, not over a site plan review.
Mayor Mancino: Any other comments? We have a motion and a second so let us vote.
Councilwoman Jansen: If I might, I thought maybe you were going to make comment. But and again. Not
to belabor it but in following up on the comments that were just made, if we are thinking that we've got this
thing buttoned up and we've got the tight controls over it, if anything I learned today in my conversation
with Mr. Knutson is if it isn't in the PUD, it's not buttoned up. And that document on this project does not
12
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999
address the trade-offs so in trying to encourage us to just review it, I just wanted to make sure that we
were going in with our eyes open and if all of you feel comfortable, then obviously we do that. I would just
like to encourage us to very quickly schedule to sit down to go through the Villages on the Ponds project
and determine where we are or where we aren't compared to where we think we are. Since we haven't
discussed it and maybe staff is feeling very confident that they've got the numbers so we should be able to
come around and talk about this rather quickly and rather soon and then we will know where we are or
aren't if we need to address anything based upon this.
Mayor Mancino: I'm assuming Kate you feel very comfortable or you wouldn't have passed it onto us and
made a recommendation. Okay.
Kate Aanenson: The original proposal had two apartments and office building. We had 57 units to those
two apartment buildings and office buildings. We always said...
Councilwoman Jansen: And I guess again that's where I'm not sure where you're going back to as far as
the beginning but the beginning on the project, this was guided as owner occupied condominiums and when
the neighborhood turned out against the high occupancy apartments and Mr. Labatt lived in the area at the
time, where St. Hubert's is now was going to be very high density, affordable housing and those neighbors
turned out in droves and it moved off of that property. It was also designated that there would be a senior
housing facility, and I'm not meaning to belabor the points. Again I realize that it was two years worth of
going.
Kate Aanenson: The PUD spells out, we would like to achieve so much rental and so much owner
occupied.
Councilwoman Jansen: It does spell that out.
Kate Aanenson: It doesn't say which...
Councilwoman Jansen: And that's where I think it would behoove us to... and we're doing housing over
commercial on the other side of the road. Are those going to be owner occupied units?
Kate Aanenson: That's where I go back to talking about a site plan issue versus another type of.
Councilwoman Jansen: Right and again, that's where I'm going to trade-offs.
Mayor Mancino: I think obviously the rest, but Linda I think that the rest of the council feels comfortable
with the rental being on, or at least the two council members feel comfortable and from what you did last
week with the rental being on the west side of 101.
Councilman Engel: The two issues, why don't you like him speak to it.
Councilman Senn: I think the, aside from the reconsideration, which we're going to vote on here instead
of, I think there's one good point being made here and that is that we should schedule kind of a session to
get the people who aren't up to speed, up to speed. They should be up to speed on Villages on the Ponds.
It's not a project that's going to end tomorrow or with the advent of this site plan going forward. It's going
to be with us for years yet. The second element of that is that if, you know once everybody is up to speed
on it and stuff, I think you know then if there's things that we want to look at and look at doing differently
or if there's anything that impacts the site, then as I said before, the place we negotiate that is where we
13
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999
negotiate. This is not a negotiable part of the deal.
elements when they're asking us for money. Okay.
that basis.
We can approve the site plan and still renegotiate
So put it realistically, we're.., and move forward on
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel. Did you have a few comments?
Councilman Engel: Nothing to add. I said mine.
Mayor Mancino: Okay a motion is on the floor. There's a second.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to reconsider the request for site plan
approval for three 3 story 54 unit apartment buildings (162 units) on 9.94 acres of property zoned
PUD-Mixed Use, located on the west side of Highway 101 at Main Street in Villages on the Pond,
Chanhassen Housing Development, The Shelard Group. Councilwoman Jansen and Councilman
Labatt voted in favor of reconsideration. Mayor Mancino, Councilman Senn and Councilman Engel
voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3.
Mayor Mancino: This will continue and will not be up for reconsideration and the City Manager and I will
meet and talk about when to put this on a work session agenda. In fact I'm not quite sure when our next
work session is. So we can do that but we will, Councilwoman Jansen, put it on a work session agenda.
Councilwoman Jansen: Would you mind mentioning the EDA date?
Mayor Mancino: The EDA date is July 29th, is that right? Thursday. Thursday, July 29th at what time?
Scott Botcher: 7:00. Ah no. 6:30 or 7:00.
Mayor Mancino: Usually 6:30. Again Thursday night, July 29th at 6:30 and they're here in the council
chambers. So that will be the EDA meeting with who's comprised of the city council and two members at
large that will be here tonight and we will be discussing the financing of the affordable housing for these
units.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 44,692 SQ. FT. TWO STORY TEMPERATURE CONTROL
STORAGE BUILDING AND A 40 FT. SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING AT THE ESTABLISHED 30 FT. SETBACK ON 3.84
ACRES; LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TH 5 AND PARK DRIVE;
MINNESOTA MINI-STORAGE.
Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, Council members .... approximately a 45,000 square foot
building. It's a two story building located at the southwest comer of Park Drive and Highway 5. Currently
it's a one level mini-storage and they're going to tear down a portion of the building at the comer and
replace it with the temperature controlled building. The proposed location of the building is at the
established setback of the existing structure there. On the northeast comer they are stepping the building
away from the right-of-way to maintain the appropriate setback. There's approximately a 5 1/3 foot
parapet at the top of the building for the screening of the rooftop mechanical equipment. The building
architecture consists of a base of rock face block and then the primary building material of exterior
insulating finishing system. The colors are tan. They do have burgundy accents within the building. Staff
believes that this will be a welcome improvement to the industrial park there and we are recommending
14
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999
approval of the site plan subject to the conditions of our staff report. With that I'd be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much Bob. Any questions from Council members to staff? And is the
applicant here? And would you like to address the council?
Todd Jones: Good evening. My name is Todd Jones. I'm with Minnesota Mini-Storage, the applicant.
601 Carlson Parkway, Minnetonka. I'd like to thank you very much for reviewing this exciting
redevelopment project tonight. I have nothing more to add but I'm available to answer any questions that
you may have, thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions at this point?
Scott Botcher: I have one for Kate. And I brought this up and I don't remember what it said in the
minutes. I communicated to the Planning Commission about the issue of signage on Highway 5. And
basically what you told me was that, what is here before us is allowed under code. I would just again state
publicly that when planning commission, as we talked about at our joint meeting, talks about issues of
signage as one of the things on the list, that this is a classic example. We've got a monument sign. We've
got a big facing sign on Highway 5 and if we're going to improve the aesthetics of our community, and this
building is a drastic improvement, consider whether or not we really need to have two signs in that close
proximity to each other. Now understanding that it's nice to have a sign if you're a businessman and that,
but whether or not as a community we want to have that long term. I'm just sort of sending the flag up and
for whatever it's worth.
Kate Aanenson: The Planning Commission did address the panel signs. They felt that they could be
improved. Actually... first submitted so as long as they were not...
Mayor Mancino: And we are not approving the signage tonight. That that still has to go through, correct?
Kate Aanenson: Well if you're agreeing to this site plan you've basically kind of acquiesced.
Scott Botcher: That's one of...
Kate Aanenson: Right, they come back for a separate permit.
Scott Botcher: What kind of response have you had to that issue? I mean it's been brought up, which I
didn't know, I'd be interested.
Todd Jones: Well we do have an existing monument sign there and also some building mounted sign and
our intent was certainly, along with everything else we're doing on the corridor to upgrade, we felt that we
were doing that. We do have kind of a corporate standard. Although we're local, we have multiple
locations and there is kind of an identity to our storage centers. And appreciate the comments on the sign.
We'll do what we can to enhance the appearance and I'm more than happy to go through the sign submittal
process as outlined by your code.
Scott Botcher: So Kate we have the opportunity, because this is probably the first signage one that we've
had. We have the opportunity to improve the building but not the signage?
15
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999
Kate Aanenson: It requires a separate permit in the fact that we would review it but it is consistent with the
ordinance.
Scott Botcher: What aesthetic component do we have on?
Kate Aanenson: We have an ordinance. We redid that a number of years ago.
Scott Botcher: This is sort of a self education process here, I recognize that but I guess if there's a way to
approve the, because the building is outstanding. Really is. And deal with the signage at a different date.
Kate Aanenson: Well if it was a conditional use or a variance and then we could attach conditions to
mitigate that. At this point it is a, yeah there's a variance on the setback. If you want to make a, tie to
that.
Scott Botcher: See I mean, not that I don't trust you but I've done this enough years and Kate and I have
talked many times. I've heard a lot of people say oh we'll make it better and there you go. And I'm sure
that you will. The building looks fine. I guess I'd be interested in seeing what it was. And I don't want to
hold it up at this time. I think we should approve it.
Kate Aanenson: Unless you approve the sign and ask that, the building and ask that the sign be brought
back.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, I mean that's what we can do. We can go ahead and approve this building and ask
that the sign be brought back and as you heard the comments in the planning commission too, because they
were pretty specific. To come back with a sign package to us to approve.
Todd Jones: ...total separate submittal and we understand that and we are going to do that.
Mayor Mancino: Should that be a condition we should make tonight in our motion?
Bob Generous: Sure.
Mayor Mancino: That kind of a condition. Will the color of the new buildings be approximately the same
as what the colors right now on the building. Are you painting the whole, everything?
Todd Jones: We will not be at this time repainting the balance of the facility. Aesthetic questions I guess
I'd like to pass onto our architect, Paul Strother with Cluts O'Brien, Strother Architects. Paul selected the
colors and he'd be more than happy to answer those.
Mayor Mancino: Okay great. Thank you. You're also the owners of the one on Highway 7 and Vine Hill,
correct?
Todd Jones: Yes we are.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, and you just went through a repainting and a reroofing and adding the second
story at that.
Todd Jones: That was actually a new facility. It was expansion of the existing facility that's a block away,
yes.
16
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999
Paul Strother: Good evening. I'm Paul Strother, Cluts, O'Brien, Strother Architects. I brought in addition
to the rendering that you have there, some elevation sketches that might more clearly show the colors.
What we're proposing is a rock face block base on the new building that's essentially the same color as the
precast that is along Highway 5. Above that is an EFIS, synthetic stucco system that's a tan color. One
tone lighter and with an accent of white and then the parapet flashings are the burgundy color which are in
place on the existing building. We're looking at the feasibility of other treatments on the existing building
that currently our proposal is to do the new building in that fashion.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you Paul. Any questions for Paul at this point from anyone? No? Thank
you.
Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Any comments from Council? Comments on the building? Any changes?
Councilwoman Jansen: I had one question actually that I missed asking earlier. In the MnDOT letter their
second bullet point. The proposed exit only access onto Park Drive is in a poor location and is too close to
the Trunk Highway 5/Park Drive intersection. If the access is necessary, MnDOT suggests restricting the
exit as a right only. Did I see that in the conditions? Were we addressing that?
Kate Aanenson: It's the driveway coming through. After you drop off for the storage.
Todd Jones: I haven't seen that condition. I know that we have reviewed that condition specifically with
your city engineer and she's very comfortable with it.
Kate Aanenson: The driveway's going to remain where it is. When you go in. The other one is the
driveway where you come through and Todd can speak to the number or the volume but it's so nominal we
felt it really wasn't important. Maybe you can speak to the volume of traffic.
Todd Jones: And I always like, when I talk about these stores and I always like to talk about traffic
because they're basically, it's very, very little and of all commercial uses, probably generates or does
generate the lowest traffic of any other commercial use. I have a little traffic study to make my case. We
did a little snapshot of two separate weeks. One in March and one in April, getting the bottom line for a
whole week, we had 117 trips. That was in the March study. In the April study there's 131. The new
access, which actually goes through the proposed building, is actually kind of an amenity. This allows a
majority of the access and activity that's on this building now would be internal. In other words if you're a
customer of oar's and you're in this new building. You drive your vehicle in the building. You're on the
second level, you'll use the elevator to get your things up to the second level. When you're done, you exit
only straight out the building .... activity is in the interior.
Councilwoman Jansen: Just for what's the building, okay.
Todd Jones: In the winter it's warm, in the summer it's cool and again it's interior so from viewing from
driving by, so on and so forth, you don't see the moving vans and all those sorts of things... Average trips,
what's key these days often times if the peak times. With our proposed development that peak traffic will
increase ½ car in the p.m. peak time and 1 car in the a.m. so traffic is very low. I hope that minimizes the
impact.
17
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999
Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate that.
Anita Benson: If I could just add to that Linda. With the Trunk Highway 5 reconstruction project
proposed to begin next year, this intersection will be limited to a right-in/right-out only. It will not be a full
access with Highway 5 so that really helps to eliminate concerns. As for the traffic volumes will be
significantly less.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: But we love trying to turn west there and taking our lives into our hands every time we,
well any other questions?
Councilwoman Jansen: That does it for me.
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, motion please.
Councilman Senn: I'll move approval of the site plan and also approval of the setback variance. Making
the setback variance contingent upon the signage plan being brought in to be approved by a separate action.
Mayor Mancino: So you're adding a condition that it be a separate action by the council?
Councilman Senn: Separate action by council as a condition, yeah. Of the setback variance.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, good. Thanks. A second please.
Councilwoman Jansen: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve Site Plan #99-12 for a 44,692
square foot two story temperature controlled storage building and a 40 foot setback variance from
the Highway Corridor District building setback contingent upon the sign plan being approved as a
separate action, to permit the construction of the new building at the established 30 foot setback as
shown on the plans prepared by Cluts, O'Brien, Strother Architects, dated May 14, 1999, subject to
the following conditions:
The applicant shall be responsible for relocation of existing street lights and street wiring. All street
light wiring shall be installed with conduit.
The applicant shall escrow with the City $4,000 to guarantee curb replacement and boulevard
restoration. Contract the City Engineering Department prior to pouring industrial driveway aprons
for inspection. A minimum of 24 hour notice is required.
The plans shall be revised to expand the driveway radii in the existing driveway to Park Road to 20
foot radiuses versus the 15 as proposed. In addition, traffic control signage shall be added for the
new driveway access.
4. Retaining walls in excess of four feet in height will require a building permit.
18
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999
A rock construction entrance shall be shown on the plans and maintained until the parking lot and
drive aisles are paved with bituminous.
Relocation of the fire hydrant requires a permit and inspection from the City's Utility and/or Building
Department. A 48 hour advance notice is required by the City to mm on/off water service. Contact
the City Utility Department to schedule water mm off/on.
The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security
to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
8. Separate sign permits are required for each sign.
9. Ground mounted wall wash lighting shall be deleted.
10. A permit must be obtained to demolish the existing storage building.
11. The building is required to be accessible and must be provided with an elevator.
12. The west and south walls of the building are required to be one-hour fire-resistive construction
because of their proximity to assumed property lines at thirteen and sixteen feet away respectively.
13. A one hour fire resistive occupancy separation will be required between the S3 parking area and the
S 1 storage area.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 69~990 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON 4.53 ACRES
ZONED PUD; LOCATED SOUTH OF WATER TOWER PLACE~ EAST OF TH 41~
ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK~ BUILDING III~ STEINER DEVELOPMENT.
Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, council members. The applicant is requesting approval for
approximately a 60,000 square foot office/warehouse building. This project is located north of the City's
new water tower, east of All About Lights, and west of the Heartland Building in the Arboretum Business
Park on Water Tower Place. This development, or this building acts as a transition within the
development. From the more office showroom space and office space that will be seen in the perimeter of
this site and the office warehouse buildings in the middle. We've tried to bring elements of the various
buildings together. It has a 5 foot projection in the entrance details and on the inside of that the applicant
has agreed to provide a 3 foot recess to create an additional detail when you drive by that and we've
attached as part of the package to you the details on that so we'll have a little alcove at the entrances and
then the rest of the building will project out from that. It's just before the minutes. And so there are some
architectural things that they can do such as including recessed lights in the top of it to help highlight the
opening. We believe this ties it in with both the All About Lights building to the west and the development
in the Heartland Building. As an additional architectural feature they are including a masonry brick for
the first 8 feet of the entrances. The majority of the building is tilt up concrete panels. Tan in color.
Mayor Mancino: Is it the same pattern as the other buildings?
Bob Generous: Yes it is.
19
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Bob Generous: And a parapet to screen the rooftop equipment. Staff is recommending approval of the site
plan subject to the conditions in the staff report.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Any questions for staff?
Councilwoman Jansen: No.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. The client would like to present to the City Council. I know you have materials
tonight and some other things that the Planning Commission asked you to bring. Fred.
Fred Richter: Thank you Mayor, council members. I'm Fred Richter with Steiner Development. With me
tonight is Jeff Barrons on our architectural staff. I'll just kind of go quickly reinforcing some of the
comments from staff. Kind of highlighting the architectural features. Going to the plan, as you're aware
this is an interior lot and images from it are really from a distance. This is Water Tower Place. The
service docks are totally blocked by the All About Lights building towards the west, towards 41. The
sketch or rendering seen here is from this angle here and the materials will be these entrance elements...
Recessed in here... This building is similar to office warehouse to out other buildings as the cast concrete.
We have upgraded and added brick to the entrances. Worked with staff to create architectural elements
which give it it's interest from a distance. This building will be mainly viewed from quite a distance.
Otherwise...building for the industrial development. Looking quickly at the materials, this is the material
board here. It shows the color palette of the precast panels. The darker is the element over the entrance.
This is the brick at the base of the entrance which is the base color on the panels to the side of the entrance
which is the main color of the building. This also is the primary color of the back which is very close to the
All About Lights building. We have an accent reveals and the window... We do have an actual precast
sample. It just shows...but this is the precast that's laid down in the forms so it gets a very smooth finish
and then the insulation in that is to the back side. There's a double row of reveals throughout the building
that get different colors by some shade and shadow so this is an abstract in the sense that it's not the total
width. With that.., overview of what we're proposing.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any questions at this point from anyone?
Councilwoman Jansen: I don't know if mine would be a staff question or a developer question so Madam
Mayor, if you would direct it. As I drove by the site, and I was trying to get a feel for how the building's
going to sit compared to the All About Lights. Is that the name of the store? That building in front of it. I
was trying to get a feel for the elevation of this building sitting behind it because the pad, as it is right now
and it says it's limited grading, it would make it appear as if this building might peak up over the existing
building next to 41, and I guess that's my first question is, is this going to be taller?
Mayor Mancino: Than the All About Lights building.
Councilwoman Jansen: Than the All About Lights, to where that back side of the building is going to be
visible from 41, because I of course was reading the concerns of some of the planning commissioners about
how visible that might be.
Mayor Mancino: They were very concerned. Fred, can you answer that and Bob can.
20
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999
Fred Richter: I can address that. To the best of my knowledge, the issues, I'll say they won't be noticed.
Two ways. First of all All About Lights is longer so it will be blocked in a horizontal sense. Our buildings
are the same height. Ours is off, and Bob you can help me out on this. I don't know if we're 4 feet higher
or our pad is higher so you're correct. What will work to the benefit of blocking our building, anyone in a
car, their eye level is below the parapet of the All About Lights building so that parapet will block any view
you know going back. What I'm saying is, you know I don't mean to do it with my hand motions but what
I'm saying is, if you're low, your eye level is low in the automobile and you have a parapet between you
and a higher object, that parapet will block the higher object behind it and they're relatively the same
height. So I believe it would be totally blocked out. In the horizontal sense, this is the comer here. Here's
the back side of the All About Lights.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, very good. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Comfortable with that? Okay. Any others? I have some concerns about architectural
but I'll talk that in my comment time. As far as getting a diversity of architecture in this PUD. Comparing
it to other PUD's.
Councilman Senn: Go ahead.
Mayor Mancino: Other questions? I'll do it during my comment time, thank you. Any other questions?
Councilman Labatt: I just want to see the colors .... the planning commission has not seen the colors?
Mayor Mancino: No, they have not seen the materials.
Kate Aanenson: They saw the colors, just not the samples.
Mayor Mancino: Well they probably saw the colors from the rendering which.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, I just want to see how close that was. There's no one from the planning
commission...
Mayor Mancino: Who's that planning commissioner who's supposed to be here tonight. No, just kidding.
Okay, no questions? Any comments? Then I'll give a couple. Waiting for me, thank you. When we did
this PUD and talked a lot about what was going to go into the PUD, we talked about the high quality of an
industrial park that we wanted to see. I keep, the All About Lights building has some textures. Some
different things going on it. I feel that this third building is going to be very much like the other two, using
the same materials and it just all looks the same to me. So I have a concern about yes, the entry is a little
different but everything else about it is the same. So I have a hard time going forward with the
architecture of this building. I would like to see some diversity in the PUD in the buildings. I went around
and looked at some of our other business parks to say, am I asking something or talking about something
that is obviously subjective but is it not what we're asking other PUD's that we have in our community to
have architecturally. And so I went to the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, etc and within those there is a
diversity of architecture. There is a diversity of materials. There is a diversity obviously of color. There is
I would say an aesthetic feeling to the office part of the warehouse that goes beyond what we've seen here.
So I have a problem going ahead and approving this building because of that. Anyway, any other
comments?
21
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999
Councilwoman Jansen: I would echo what you just spoke to and I guess I'm concerned that the Planning
Commission is typically yeah, where that would occur. And can we at this point enable them to be able to
go back and work on this project or does it, is it something that's still, if we were to, and I don't know if
you're going this direction. If you were to table, does it still come back to us and not them?
Mayor Mancino: I think that that would be our decision. Kate, do you have some thoughts on that? You
know I don't know how other council members feel about that. I think the Planning Commission sounded a
little concerned too.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, let me just speak to that in a broader sense. In this project particularly he's got the
main developer, Steiner Koppelman who's doing majority of the buildings so there's, but this discussion
has come up before. It's come up on CSM on Dell Road where we've got the campus look which was
discussed. They're going four additional buildings to the back, which are going to look similar because
that's the look they're going for and I think you've got that with Mr. Undestad's development too. There's
a similar look to those. Now in Chan Business Center we do have some diversity in there because we have
a lot of different builders going in. We tried hard in this PUD, and they're aware of it when Kwik Trip
came in, it's brick on the perimeter. We said all perimeter buildings are going to be a higher quality
because we kind of acquiesced and said in the interior where we know these are large, predominantly tilt
up. Again you've got Steiner doing the majority of those, which reflects some of their look and I would
agree. I mean we struggled, Bob spent a lot of time just trying to figure out how we can make this look
different. Is it enough? I think that's where you're struggling. Just by changing entrances, is that enough?
That's the same discussion we held with C SM on the comer of Dell Road. If you remember we were
looking at the entrance treatments there.
Mayor Mancino: But they did go back and change them.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah but they're predominantly very similar. The Planning Commission's looking at the
four new ones back, which was the Welsh property and they, same thing. They're four mirrors and what
they're trying to do is just tweak the entrances. And it's a tough issue because they wanted kind of a
corporate look. This is where you are. You're in this area. I think that's a discussion point that we can
talk about the Planning Commission but I think they've kind of felt like it reflects the developer. That's
their look. Kind of a thumb print.
Mayor Mancino: And the corporate identity and the architectural style.
Kate Aanenson: Well no. That's the identity of the campus. That's where you are. It's a sense of place
that you're in that area. That development.
Mayor Mancino: Is that what we want conceptually from a PUD? I mean I thought one of the things that
we all talked about was having diversity of architectural styles in the PUD.
Kate Aanenson: I would agree.
Mayor Mancino: So who's leading who?
Fred Richter: ... I just wanted to say, I appreciate this debate and I think Kate summed up our position
probably quite well and I'll just reiterate. First off, we entered into a PUD we do have an understanding
the interior lots basically were our %ffice industrial lots". Those are the lots on the... I think as a building
owner we feel, and I know my partners feel very strongly, I don't know what the correct... I think we had
22
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999
good input from the staff where we have tweaked.., good effort in that. Had some good conceptualism.
When you look at the entrances. The arch next to the water tower and a few other things and the fact that
it's higher up... We've added in the recess, extra material. EFIS and stucco and I think we've made some
good adjustments. The other thing that drives industrial, and it's very different...town center, within the
retail, office, smaller buildings... These buildings are driven by pure economics. They're large buildings.
They're large buildings dictated by the market... They then have to be enclosed... It's kind of the nature.
We're very proud of the aesthetics .... a lot of landscaping that is going in initially.
Mayor Mancino: No, your landscaping is good.
Fred Richter: I think in the long run.., given the context that it is office industrial...
Mayor Mancino: But you're also saying that the perimeter buildings will have a different architectural feel
and look and materials.
Fred Richter: We're aware of that and...
Mayor Mancino: Any other comments? Then let's go for a motion.
Councilman Senn: I think, I kind of wanted to give everybody else kind of a chance to say what they
wanted to say but you know as I've often said in the past, I mean I'd still really love us to go back and just
look at the overall materials issue as it relates to our requirements and uniformity you know city wide in
terms of what we should be doing or would like to see as it relates to materials because in my mind that still
has a lot to do with what kind of quality we're going to dictate in relationship to projects. We have not
done that. I really don't like being in a situation of playing design critique or taking the architects work.
I'd much rather give them the framework up front and let them go from there. They see the intent of the
framework. The thing you know you have to go back on this one and you have to again kind of look at
what the ground rules are and the ground rules they're making and I know it's hard to perceive at this point
but again it comes back to the issue of everything that hasn't been built, which I think is fairly well
addressed. The... is also a message I think consistently is that every one of these buildings has come
through that the developer has kind of heard the message loud and clear that that issue is going to be of,
critiqued much more heavily on the perimeter building. And I think that's what we can't lose sight of
again is that was again the ground rules that we set. But again I'd still really like to see an overall change
to the ground rules as it relates to the city on a city wide perspective but I don't think it's fair to kind of go
back and do it in the middle of the road in the case of this. I mean even if we can't have great impact
downtown for example, in relationship to what's already built there, we could certainly have impact when
it's developed again. And in fact we do have another redevelopment proposal coming in front of us. That's
on downtown and again I think we just really lack.., good framework of quality materials.
Mayor Mancino: That will be on the work session with Village on the Ponds. We'll talk about materials
and any other comments? Councilwoman Jansen.
Councilwoman Jansen: Actually I don't other than having heard the comments as to what is directly in the
PUD. It would be helpful to have a copy of the PUD so, I can't really speak to whether or not this is. I
have to follow your lead that you're saying that it does meet it so.
Councilman Senn: Well please don't follow my lead. I think the lead to follow is...they're the ones telling
us and I believe them you know.
23
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999
Councilwoman Jansen: No, exactly. And the developer spoke to interior buildings versus exterior.
Councilman Senn: Well that's a discussion I remember very vividly from when we approved this thing but
again as far as the particulars go...
Councilwoman Jansen: I'm just saying I can't speak to those.
Councilman Senn: Kate and Bob to say that they are or not.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, may I have a motion?
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approves Site Plan #99-
13 for a 59,990 sq. ft. office warehouse building (Building lid as shown on the plans prepared by
Steiner Development, Inc., dated May 14, 1999, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide a $2,500 security to
guarantee boulevard and curb restoration.
2. The development must comply with the Development Design Standards for Arboretum Business Park.
3. The applicant shall provide areas for bicycle parking and storage on site.
4. Increase plantings for parking lot in order to meet ordinance requirements. Placement of required trees
shall first be considered on the north side of the lot, then landscape islands, and finally in other areas on
site.
5. Revise plant schedule and landscape plan to specify mislabeled trees at entrance of site and along south
property line.
6. The applicant shall submit revised landscape plan including the above revisions.
7. Each landscape peninsula must have one shade tree. Landscape peninsulas less than 10 feet in width
must have aeration tubing installed.
8. The developer shall add two landscape peninsulas to the easterly parking lot.
9. The developer shall pay full trail fees pursuant to city ordinance.
10. Detailed storm drainage calculations including drainage area maps for each catch basin shall be
submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. The storm sewer calculations shall be for a
10-year, 24-hour storm event. The calculations and drainage map shall be submitted prior to issuance
of a building permit.
11. The site plan shall be modified to incorporate sidewalk out to Water Tower Place following the drive
aisle in the northwest comer of the site. In addition, the proposed sidewalk along the north side of the
24
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999
building shall be extended northerly adjacent to the parking stall in the northwest comer of the site to
provide continuity between the sidewalk for Water Tower Place and the proposed building.
12. The plans shall revise the turning radius of the drive aisle out to Water Tower Place to a minimum of a
25-foot radii. In addition, if necessary, change the catch basin grate in Water Tower Place to a drive-
over type pursuant to City staff.
13. The applicant and/or contractor applying for the building permit shall be responsible for the additional
sanitary sewer and water hookup charges over and above what was assessed. The number of sewer
and water hookup charges are based on the number of SAC units determined by Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services. The 1999 hookup charges for sanitary sewer and water are $1,252 and
$1,632, respectively per unit.
14. Revise plans to include rock construction entrance."
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Scott Botcher: Madam Mayor, we have one issue that we need to take care of because of, housekeeping
item. We have three gentlemen in the audience that wish to speak briefly for the record on the cable issue.
One of the difficulties that we did, and I'm not sure why staff did this. The public hearing notice says 7:00.
We were so quick tonight that we were in and out before 7:00 and they would like an opportunity and I
think consulting with our attorney, that would be appropriate to do at this point. No sense making them
wait.
REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ASSIGNMENT OF CABLE TV FRANCHISE FROM
TRIAX CABLEVISION TO MEDIACOM, LLC.
Mayor Mancino: Please come forward. State your name and address. This will be in our minutes. On
public record.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to reopen the public hearing.
Councilman Senn: And at this point, point of clarification in doing so, we have taken no action on this or
will we be tonight. This was just basically to get input.
Dick Janus: I'm Dick Janus. I reside at 503 Island Drive in Chanhassen. I've been a Chanhassen resident
for about 23 years and also would point out that I'm a sales representative working out of my home so I
think somewhat of an authority. In 23 years this is my first council meeting.
Mayor Mancino: Welcome, welcome.
Dick Janus: But I do pick it up on the tube the council meetings which I'm interested in. I've never
complained about garbage service, snow removal, city streets, retail, I think is great. Now I work for J.C.
Penny's for 28 years and our motto at J.C. Penny's was customer service was number one. And I tell you
folks tonight that Triax Cable is the most disgusting example of customer service I have ever seen in my
life. Now it's ironic that it comes up tonight. This week the cable has been out more than it's been
functional in the last 3 days. Now I think we'd all agree when something's storm related, there's a
legitimate excuse. All I'm asking is two things that be taken into consideration. Ask your subscribers that
pay for Triax if they're getting the value for their dollar. I will bet you that 80% of them will send back
25
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999
their review and it won't be a pleasant site. Number two, I would request from them this simple thing.
How many times have you had interruption of service and for how long and what was the cause of this
interruption? There's no doubt in my mind that the quality of the council that we have, if you look at these
facts, there's no way you're going to renew their license. A year ago I got trigger to the country western
awards and so I called in to complain. Ironically it went to Iowa, and the other gentleman in Iowa that
answered the phone representing Triax said, oh I know what you're talking about. We thought that we'd
be kicked out of that community long ago because of the quality of service we're providing. We don't
accept this in garbage or anything else. But because it's entertainment I guess we don't think it's a crucial
service but I know to a lot of senior citizens or whatever that stay over to our motel, when they don't have
TV, they're shut down. So I would just ask you to look at that, thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much.
Ellis Thomas: Okay my name is Ellis Thomas. I live at 406 West 76th Street here in Chanhassen. I'm a
32 year member of this community. I came here prepared to address three issues and possibly make a
comment at the end of these issues. One of those happened to be with frequency of outages and it's pretty
well addressed at the moment so. The second one I guess dealt with the reporting, inconsistencies,
problems, whatever you want to say to it. The third one dealt with the possible rebate or credit for poor
service. And then I have a comment I'd like to make. I think the gentleman just made my comment for me
too. The frequency of outages, for those of you, you live right in Chanhassen proper. I can't address
what's happening outside of Chanhassen proper but within this area for the last several years has really
been atrocious. And as the gentleman before me pointed out, it's quite interesting that the service we
received this past week or so was probably one of the worst I've had in all the years we've had this and it's
just before this hearing. Addresses relicensure. And it's sort of, I don't know if those folks what their
management problem is but I know to me that's sort of like thumbing their nose at it. Is there a monopoly
involved with these people where they know they're not going to leave? Therefore they can do whatever
they wish. The frequency of outages is terrible. We're not talking about five minutes so someone can
make a test. We're not talking about half an hour so that somebody can replace some equipment. We're
talking about 2, 3, 4, 5 hours. And then what's interesting is at 5:00 your TV comes back on. And there's
been times when maybe the TV's been out at night and you'll call in and they'll say gee, we don't put our
technicians out at night. We'll get at it in the morning. Now for those folks that maybe working during the
day and depend on some television for entertainment to relax at night, they're out. For the homebound,
they're out. As the gentleman pointed out earlier, and I didn't even think of that. But the hotel business
that advertises HBO, you know come stay with us. What are they going to do? So the service that we're
receiving is terrible. On a scale of 1 to 10, it's a minus 50. It's really bad and somebody's got to get the
message to these people. Somebody has to do that. Reporting problems has been very irritating. Past
couple of years it was just really bad. I mean you'd call up and all you'd get was a busy signal. That
apparently has been addressed and at least now you can get in a little bit. The other night I got in. And I
asked the gal, I said what's happening. We were out of cable for a good day. She says well, we've got
technicians on it. I said well what's the problem? Well I don't know They don't call in and tell us. I'm
saying wow. I said somebody in your organization has to know what's happening. Somebody. Well let
me see. A few minutes later I get the supervisor of dispatch. He says can I help you and I said yes.
What's going on with cable? Well we've got technicians on it. What's going on? Well I don't know until
they call in. Lord have mercy. Right? Nobody knows what's happening. So the reporting is bad. I would
suggest that somewhere in your contract if you so renew it with these people, they'll at least provide some
communications to their customers telling people what's going on. Somebody in that company has to know
what's happening I think. Not too sure. I think. I understand that in the present contract there is to be no
compensation to customers, no credits given unless there is a 24 hour outage. Anyone with any sense at all
can figure out these folks are going to fix the problem within 24 hours. What I suggest is that maybe there
26
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999
be some rebate or credit given for frequency of outages. And I'd be willing to bet there wouldn't be so
many frequencies. There wouldn't be as many outages. We can say 30 minutes. Let's face it. They've
got to fix their equipment. They've got to put a new piece in line. I'm by trade, I'm a retired school teacher
myself but I used to be in electronics. And I know that you've got to take a piece of equipment out and put
another piece in and you might interrupt the services at one time. So there's those times. It would be nice
though that it would be scheduled times. If you're going to have a repair and it's a preventative
maintenance repair, schedule it. And let people know this is going to happen. They have Channel 42, they
show you what's going to be coming on for that day and they have the little advertisements up there. Why
don't they put it on at that time and say hey folks, be ready at 2:00 at such and such a time. We're going to
have a one hour outage because we have to replace some equipment. We're upgrading. Oh that's another
thing. The latest thing that they tell me now when I call in is we're upgrading. We're going to make life
better for you. We're going to fiber optics or some fool thing like that and boy you're going to get all these
channels. My wife said yeah sure and watch the charges go up. You know. I'm not impressed with their
management. And I'm really disappointed if we as a community allow them to continue on. If you renew a
contract with those people, boy spell it out and I'd truly, truly recommend that you put in frequency of
outages and there will be an automatic credit and I'll tell you someone that will monitor these outages. My
wife. Boy she's got them right down on a piece of paper. She knows every one. When it went out. Went
out, went on. She even wrote me a set of notes. But I fooled her. I remembered them all. But anyhow I
want you people to take this serious. Now just out of curiosity, you all live in Chan proper I assume?
Mayor Mancino: We have to. We have to.
Ellis Thomas: Well I don't know this. When I say Chan proper I'm thinking this area like Western Hills,
Sunrise Hills, Chan Estates. I know some of your folks live out in Lake Riley, that sort of area. To me
that's out. I live in the inner city. I live next to the water tower okay. But anyhow I know that we really
get it rough in that area. We've had some terrible, terrible service. Just horrible. And maybe I've sort of
jumped into my comments as I've been talking. Well my comments basically dealt with what I said. Take
a good hard look at these people. Take it serious. And as the gentleman said before, that spoke before me,
he said any other industry that provided the service they did would be out of business. Thank god for
competition. Unfortunately we don't have any here do we. I don't think. The comment was made earlier,
it would take a load of dynamite to blow these people out of our community or something like that. Well I
tell you what, I don't know what it takes. I've almost come back to the point here I'm going to go back to
my old antenna on top of my roof. But you know part of my comment was, I guess it comes back to my
wife. My wife... We get trapped into this thing. There are channels that we really like and we won't have
them with the good old rabbit ears anymore. So they've got us. You know they've got us.
Mayor Mancino: Satellite.
Ellis Thomas: You know the problem with that?
Mayor Mancino: What.
Ellis Thomas: With the satellite you only got that one TV. Now if you want to pay for a selected on
another TV, you've got to have another mixer so that's an extra charge. I thought of satellite. Oh I've
been here. I called up so it's you know, if you were to have a representation of all the people that were
dissatisfied with Triax Cable, you would have to have your meeting outside in that open lot someplace.
The three of us, I guess we've got nothing to do tonight. But anyway I really, really encourage you to think
hard about it. Talk about it. Don't let these folks get away with another series of bad service. And ask
them to bring History Channel in would you. Thank you.
27
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: No, you've got to get up and say something. Oh something.
Ellis Thomas: Just to get your picture on TV... That was the reason I stayed up there as long as I did.
Mayor Mancino: You won't break the picture tube. Thank you.
Ellis Thomas: Thank you for letting us talk by the way.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you for coming. Okay, going back to the agenda.
CONSIDER REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO CONSTRUCTION HOURS FOR COUNTY
ROAD 17 OVERLAY PROJECT FROM SANTA VERA DRIVE TO NORTHERN CITY LIMITS
(CARVER COUNTY PROJECT).
Mayor Mancino: May I have a motion please.
Councilman Senn: Move approval.
Mayor Mancino: Unless there's some discussion. A second.
Councilman Engel: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded that the City Council grant William Mueller &
Sons extended construction hours from 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday for the
overlay project on County Road 17 (Powers Boulevard) from Santa Vera Drive to the north city
limits. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
A. FUND SELECTION~ $300~000 TRANSFER INTO 1998 TRAIL PROJECT CITY MANAGER.
Scott Botcher: You guys know as much about this as I do and I asked Todd to come tonight to give a little
history on this. I talked to Mark on Friday I think it was and basically what Mark said I think is probably
accurate. It appears to me that you guys just need to decide what to do with this 300 grand. I don't know,
Todd is it any more complicated than that?
Todd Gerhardt: You have two choices of where to get the revenue out of to pay for the overages.
Councilman Senn: Actually three.
Todd Gerhardt: Well three .... third is an option.
Mayor Mancino: Let's bond for it. Excuse me.
28
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999
Todd Gerhardt: If tonight have an open discussion regarding amongst yourselves and then ask for a motion
on which of the two or three that you'd like to select and then we can make those transfers.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Who'd like to open the discussion?
Councilwoman Jansen: Can I ask a procedural question? And I'm not that familiar with how the
referendum was worded so anybody with the history. If the referendum was passed with specific amounts
budgeted for parks, trails, and open space, don't we have to spend it that way? Or legally can we
reallocate open space dollars to pay for trails?
Mayor Mancino: Well probably, oh go ahead.
Roger Knutson: ... referendum was one amount authorizing you to spend X dollars for those three items
and didn't allocate it in the ballot language. Am I correct?
Mayor Mancino: I don't think it did in the ballot language but there was no, but it was very, very specific
with the brochure that went out, how much each segment we were going to use on everything. So it's kind
of a principle, ethical I think decision. Moral decision for us to make. Along with, yeah. It did.
Councilman Senn: The brochure also said the 101 trail would be built at the same time so.
Mayor Mancino: Anyway, let's go forward. I would like to suggest that we take it out of 410, the park
and trail development fund because that's what we're using it for. Trail development.
Councilman Senn: Good, can I ask you a question?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Councilman Senn: How does that affect the 410 fund in relationship to all the other actions we took with
410 for the year? And where does it leave us sit in relationship to a reserve and going forward and how
does that fit in relationship to our five year capital program which ties into 410 also?
Mayor Mancino: Well this was a recommendation from the Park and Rec Commission. I am very certain
that they looked at that and looked at the CIP because this was a recommendation, if you will remember
Councilman Senn, that they made I think about a year ago to us and came so they were quite comfortable
with taking it from this fund. In fact have been planning that way for the last year so.
Councilman Senn: But that was before we allocated everything this year that we took out of at budget
time into 410.
Mayor Mancino: No it wasn't. Because it was shown in their 1998 budget having, that it would come out
of the reserves, the 410.
Councilman Senn: Except the argument coming out of there has been ever since we took...
Mayor Mancino: So where would you suggest, then where would you suggest we take it from?
Councilman Senn: I don't, to be honest with you, I don't know where we'd take it from, okay. But I mean
to me if somebody's asking me to impact funds to the tune of 30% or whatever and whatever I guess, to me
29
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999
I want to see and have all the information around those funds and how they impact the fund and how it
impacts you know planned programs for the next 5 years and all that sort of thing. And maybe, I mean I
don't know. In relationship to parks and rec, the minutes we get and stuff, I saw no information about that
or discussion of that.
Mayor Mancino: There was. I mean I don't have it with me but there was discussion of it coming out of
the 410. It is for again.
Councilman Senn: There is no discussion saying how it impacted 410. Nor was there any information
presented which basically addressed the ongoing issues that relates to 410. Now again I'm going to invite
you to go back to what we took the actions we took as it relates to 410 and made a policy decision that we
wanted to take some money out of 410. All we've gotten every since.., not enough money left to do other
things that we wanted to do out of 410. I'm saying give us the whole picture. That's all I'm saying. So if
we get the whole picture, then we can make a conscientious decision and.., in this case there is or isn't
there. In this case there is or isn't there. I don't see anything unreasonable about that.
Councilwoman Jansen: May I ask a dumb question? Going back to the whole budget time, this money is
spent, correct? So if we were to just get this taken care of and we were to decide later on that we needed
another $300,000 in this fund, haven't we had that discussion about you know you could move money into
this fund if down the road it needed it, i.e. because the commission was concerned that we were pulling
money out for something other than trail and park development so I think that's why they were comfortable
with this. But just, I guess I thought this was more of a housekeeping sort of a issue. That we just take
care of it.
Councilman Senn: Well, I'll be honest with you. I didn't look at it that way, especially in relationship to
the other thing you were talking about which is what happens with this $700,000 contingency we've got.
And if it's that important to leave the acquisition fund alone, and if there are good rationale or program for
the next five years in terms of what's going to happen to 410, what I motioned to Todd three funds, I mean
that is the third fund we have. Yet we're not even looking at it or considering it in relationship to this
request when maybe we should be. I don't know the answer to that and maybe if you all have the
information in front of you to evaluate that, go ahead. I'm just saying I haven't seen it so I'm just not
comfortable with it.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. I feel comfortable going ahead and taking it out of 410 because I know that there
was discussion at the Park and Rec Commission and that is what they suggested. The trails have been
completed because they did have open public hearings and people were very concerned that we wouldn't be
able to finish the trail projects that were in the brochure so they stepped up to the plate and said we know
we have this money in reserve and it's very important to finish what we had in the referendum. So that's
our top priority with 410. To make sure that we take this money out and finish the trail project because it's
not fair to go ahead and pass a referendum and say we're going to do it and not do it. And I think that that
was the kind of moral decision that they made. So I would like to, my motion is that we take the $300,000
out of the 410, Park and Trail Acquisition and Development Fund and if at some point the Park and Rec
Commission feels that they need to transfer some money into it from some other source, that we can do that
but for right now the motion is to take the $300,000 out of the 410. Their fund.
Councilman Labatt: I'll second it.
30
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999
Resolution #99-61: Mayor Mancino moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the $300,000 transfer
into the 1998 Trail Project be taken from Fund 410, Park & Trail Acquisition and Development. All
voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
B. SEPTIC SYSTEM ON MANDAN CIRCLE~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This item is really for your edification. Mr. Becker who lives at 10291
Mandan Circle was notified of a failing septic system. This area is outside the MUSA and will be the last
area brought in in the year 2020. The problem is bigger than himself. I've included the topography in that
area. He's unable to provide or locate another acceptable drain field site so in trying to be proactive, we
think it's prudent to go down there and meet with some of the other neighbors because they're in a similar
situation based on the fact that the homes were all built in the same timeframe. The reason why I bring this
for you tonight is we will be holding a neighborhood meeting out there. Randy Duepner... and myself and
just find out if we need to test other systems and what solutions we can bring forward. It may end up being
a collective system. Some of the neighbors have gotten together and talked about going across the street.
I've given you the addresses. Maybe going to the east on Mandan. There's some relatively flat area there
and do a collective system. But in doing that we're going to have to come back with some cost alternatives
and just like we do on Dogwood, we provide some maintenance so there may be some assessment or cost
incurred by the city. But before we do any of that, of course we bring it back but we just wanted to let you
know that we're moving forward and trying to solve what we think is probably a bigger problem. And we
may have a few of these areas. We are required now by law to be testing systems every three years so there
may be some of these other areas that we won't be down providing service for a number of years so it's
kind of a first test case, but this one we have been made aware of. So other ones may be coming so this is
really just for your information. If you had any concerns that you'd like us to be aware of before we meet,
I guess I'd like to hear those.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions? Good idea. Great. Thank you.
Scott Botcher: I have one other that I added today. I'll just pass this down. This is the press release
announcing Bruce DeJong as Finance Director for the City of Chanhassen effective August 2, 1999. We
got him on staff just in time so you can get us both birthday presents. He's currently Assistant Finance
Director for the City of Minnetonka. He's been there for about 11 years. He went to St. Cloud but he is
educable and he lives in Minnetonka. He's married. Listens to his wife as all good husbands do and has a
14 month old daughter. So you can have a copy. This was faxed to the media this morning.
Mayor Mancino: With a picture?
Scott Botcher: Actually Karen took his photo for the newsletter which will be, but I don't think the press
will get one.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions, comments on Admin Section?
I think we should do a resolution on the stadium, only that we're not in Hennepin County. I thought that
was great of Excelsior City Council.
Councilman Senn: We are in Hennepin County.
Mayor Mancino: Only a little, little bit. Good, and we will schedule a work session sometime in August
for Village on the Pond and talk about materials and etc.
31
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1999
Scott Botcher: ... Kate can make it but I think that should be okay.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thanks. Good night.
Scott Botcher: Do you have to make a motion for closed session? Executive Session. Take about four
minutes. This actually is on the agenda and since I put it off last time because it was breakfast time or
something. This will take about 3 minutes do we need a motion to go into closed session. Executive
Session pursuant to what'd you say?
Councilman Senn: Move that we go into executive session.
Scott Botcher: Because of the prospects of pending litigation.
Roger Knutson: We've been threatened with litigation. We're going to close for an attorney/client
discussion and advice.
Mayor Mancino: And we're also closing the meeting.
Scott Botcher: You close it to the outside world.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. You're not adjourning the meeting. You're going into the executive session as
per my motion.
The City Council closed the public portion of the meeting to convene in executive session to discuss
the contract status of the County Road 17 upgrade (TH 5 to Lyman Boulevard), Project 93-29.
Submitted by Scott Botcher
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
32